Vopros o tempe prozy do sikh por nakhodilsia vne sfery issledovatel’skikh interesov. Predstavietli marksistskogo techeniia sovetskoi filologicheskoi mysli byli zaniaty, glavnym obrazom, problemoi literaturnykh rodov, to est’ poiskom grani, kotoraia razdeliaet stikh i prozu kak formy rechi. V svoiu ochered’, strukturalisty, ravno kak i formalisty, issledovali problemu poeticheskogo iazyka, privlekaia pri etom primery, zaimstvovannye iz poezii. Temp khudozhestvennoi rechi izuchalsia lish’ kak sostavliaiushchaia kategorii stikhotvornogo ritma. V rabotakh zhe, posviashchennykh analizu ritma prozy, tekst osmyslialsia kak lishennaia dinamiki khudozhestvennaia konstruktsiia.

Iskhodia iz togo, chto ritm prozy okazyvaetsia assimilirovan “semanticheskim naznacheniem rechi” (Tynianov 1924: 42; Tynianov 1965: 70), strukturalisty razrabotali podkhod k smyslovym gorizontam teksta, iskliuchaiushchii razdelenie slovesnogo materiala na znachimyi i vtorostepennyi. “Vazhno podcherknut’, - pisal Iu.M. Lotman, - chto traditsionnye ritoricheskie figury postroeny na vnesenii v tekst dopolnitel’nykh priznakov simmetrii i uporiadochennosti, v opredelennom otnoshenii analogichnykh postroeniiu poeticheskogo teksta. Odnako, esli poeticheskii tekst podrazumevaet obiazatel’nuiu uporiadochennost’ nizshikh urovnei (prichem neuporiadochennoe ili fakul’tativno uporiadochennoe v sisteme dannogo iazyka perevoditsia v rang obiazatel’nykh i relevantnykh uporiadochennostei, v opredelennom otnoshenii analogichnykh poetroeniiu poeticheskogo teksta. Odnako, esli poeticheskii tekst podrazumevaet obiazatel’nuiu uporiadochennost’ nizshikh urovnei (prichem neuporiadochennoe ili fakul’tativno uporiadochennoe v sisteme dannogo iazyka perevoditsia v rang obiazatel’nykh i relevantnykh uporiadochennostei, a leksiko-semanticheskii uroven’ poluchaet nad’iazykovuiu uporiadochennost’ uzhe kak rezu’tat etoi pervichnoi organizatsii), to v ritoricheskom tekste kartina obratnaia: obiazatel’noi organizatsii podvergaiutsia leksiko-semanticheskii i sintaksicheskii urovni, a ritmiko-foneticheskaia uporiadochennost’ vystupaet kak iavlenie fakul’tativnoe i proizvodnoe. Odnako dlia nas vazhno podcherknut’ nekii obshchii effekt: v oboikh sluchaiakh to, chto v estestvennom iazyke predstavliaet tsepochku samostoiatel’nykh znakov, prevrashchaetsia v smyslovoe tseloe s “razmazannym” na vsem prostranstve semanticheskim soderzhaniem, t.e. tiagoteet k prevrashcheniiu v edinyi znak - nositel’ smysla. Esli tekst na estestvennom iazyke organizuetsia lineino i diskreten po svoei prirode, to ritoricheskii tekst integrirovan v smyslovom otnoshenii. Vkhodia v ritoricheskoe tseloe, otdel’nye slova ne tol’ko “sdvigaiutsia” v smyslovom otnoshenii (vsiakoe slovo v khudozhestvennom tekste - v ideale trop), no i slivaiutsia, smysly ikh integriruiutsia. Voznokaet to, chto primenitel’no k poeticheskomu tekstu, Tynianov nazyval “tesnotoi poeticheskogo [sic!] riada”” (Lotman 1992: 178-179; Lotman 1996: 65).

V predlagaemom issledovanii dokazyvaetsia, chto podkhod, razrabotannyi Iu.M. Lotmanom, predstavliaet soboi relevantnyi issledovatel’skii instrumentarii. […] Mezhdu tem, svoei glavnoi zadachei ia schitaiu korrektsiiu vzgliada strukturalistov na slovesnyi znak kak nositel’ semanticheskogo potentsiala. Smestiv focus zrenia s ritma na temp, legko obnaruzhit’, chto v proze nabliudaetsia neravnomernoe raspredelenie segmentov, obladaiushchikh - eksplitsitno - povyshennoi informativnost’iu. “The wayside murmur of this or that hidden theme” (Nabokov 1974: 11) mozhet byt’ ne rasslyshan chitatelem, esli dannyi otrezok teksta obnaruzhivaet za soboi immanentnoe uskorenie. Kolebanie zhe tempa zavisit ot distributsii predlozhenii raznoi dliny v smezhnykh segmentakh teksta - glavakh ili chastaikh.

Vynosia na zashchitu posledniuiu formulirovku, ia schitaiu neobkhodimym privesti i ves’ tot material, na osnove kotorogo sdelano dannoe zakliuchenie. Pamiatuia o tom, chto “v nashe vremia nauchnost’ - eto prezhde vsego opora ne na sub’ektivnye vpechatleniia i interpretatsii, a na ob’ektivnye konstatatsii faktov s pomoshch’iu matematicheskikh metodov” (Gasparov, Prokhorov, Skulacheva 2001: 9), ia vkliuchaiu v svoiu rabotu podschety dliny predlozhenia, poluchennye v khode analiza romana Nabokova “Podvig”.

Analiz etikh rezul’tatov pozvoliaet priiti k zakliucheniiu, chto esli pervye glavy romana nastraivaiut chitatelia na chtenie “po skladam” (Gershenzon 1926: 13; Gershenzon 1997: 181), i on dvizhetsia vsled za Martynom “medlenno i sozertsatel’no” (Gershenzon 1926: 13; Gershenzon 1997: 181), to poslednie sem’ glav predpolagaiut “neskol’ko minut skorogo, uzhe pod goru chten’ia” (Nabokov 2000, 4: 48), to li “na velosipede” (Gershenzon 1926: 13; Gershenzon 1997: 181), to li v naemnom lando, to li v “korichnevy[kh], garmonikami soedinenny[kh] vagonakh ekspressa” (Nabokov 2000, 3: 177). Ponevole “slepoi k zhivopisnym mestam, mimo kotorykh s doverchivym staraniem potrafit’” (Nabokov 2000, 3: 154) pronositsia etot ekspress, chitatel’, konechno, riskuet zametit’ bukval’no sleduiushchee: “V “Podvige” net toi tsel’nosti, glubiny, kotorye byli v “Zashchite Luzhina”. Mozhet byt’, dazhe avtor naprasno nazval svoiu knigu romanom. Napriazhennyi, uskorennyi temp Sirinskoi prozy nakhoditsia v nesootvetstvii so slishkom bol’shimi razmerami knigi, slishkom bol’shimi dlia ee neskol’ko rasplyvchatogo i blednogo siuzheta. V romane my ishchem “polifonii”, raznoobraziia vyvedennykh lits, izobrazheniia tseloi gruppy liudei, ishchem mnogoobraziia, svedennogo k edinstvu. Dlia etogo edinstva nuzhen interesnyi tsel’nyi siuzhet ili “ideia”, slovom to, chto mozhet sluzhit’ tsentrom proizvedeniia” (Tsetlin 1933: 458).

Podobnogo roda chitateliu umestno napomnit’ slova iz knigi “Nikolai Gogol”: “So, to sum up: the story goes this way: mumble, mumble, lyrical wave, mumble, lyrical wave, mumble, lyrical wave, mumble, fantastic climax, mumble, mumble, and back into the chaos from which they all had derived. At this superhigh level of art, literature is of course not concerned with pitying the underdog or cursing the upperdog. It appears to that secret depth of the human soul where the shadows of other worlds pass like the shadows of nameless and soundless ships. […]

As one or two patient readers may have gathered by now, this is really the only appeal that interests me. My purpose in jotting this notes on Gogol has, I hope, become perfectly clear. Bluntly speaking it amounts to the following; if you expect to find out something about Russia, if you are eager to know why the blistered Germans bungled their blitz, if you are interested in “ideas” and “facts” and “messages,” keep away from Gogol. The awful trouble of learning Russian in order to read him will not be repaid in your kind of hard cash. Keep away, keep away. He has nothing to tell you. Keep off the tracks. High tension. Closed for the duration. Avoid, refrain, don’t. I would like to have here a full list of all possible interdictions, vetoes and threats. Hardly necessary of course - as the wrong sort of reader will certainly never get as far as this. But I do welcome the right sort - my brothers, my doubles. My brother is playing organ. My sister is reading. She is my aunt. You will first learn the alphabet, the labials, the linguals, the dentals, the letters that buzz, the drone and the bumblebee, and the Tse-tse Fly. One of the vowels will make you say “Ugh!” You will feel mentally stiff and bruised after your first declension of personal pronouns. I see however no other way of getting to Gogol (or to any Russian writer for that matter). His work, as all great literary achievements, is a phenomenon of language and not one of ideas” (Nabokov 1944: 149-150).