Vladimir Soloviev on Nationalism

1946 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Karpovich

The name of Vladimir Soloviev, insofar as it is familiar to the Western world, is known as that of a philosopher and religious thinker. This was, of course, the field in which he was particularly prominent. Russia can boast only a few formal philosophers (as distinguished from philosophizing novelists, poets or historians), and among those Soloviev is probably the most outstanding. Moreover, in the history of modern Russian religious thought, he occupies a central position, serving as a connecting link between the mid-nineteenth century Slavophils and such contemporary writers as Berdiaev and Bulgakov.But Soloviev's was a versatile and many-sided nature, and many other aspects of his life and activity deserve attention and study. He wrote interpretive essays on Russian poetry, some of which were landmarks in Russian literary criticism, and he was a poet himself—not a great poet, perhaps, but one with a strongly marked individual character.

Author(s):  
Ruth Coates

Chapter 2 sets out the history of the reception of deification in Russia in the long nineteenth century, drawing attention to the breadth and diversity of the theme’s manifestation, and pointing to the connections with inter-revolutionary religious thought. It examines how deification is understood variously in the spheres of monasticism, Orthodox institutions of higher education, and political culture. It identifies the novelist Fedor Dostoevsky and the philosopher Vladimir Soloviev as the most influential elite cultural expressions of the idea of deification, and the primary conduits through which Western European philosophical expressions of deification reach early twentieth-century Russian religious thought. Inspired by the anthropotheism of Feuerbach, and Stirner’s response to this, Dostoevsky brings to the fore the problem of illegitimate self-apotheosis, whilst Soloviev, in his philosophy of divine humanity, bequeaths deification to his successors both as this is understood by the church and in its iteration in German metaphysical idealism.


2021 ◽  
pp. 91-110
Author(s):  
В.С. ПУКИШ ◽  
И.С. ХУГАЕВ

В статье рассматривается роман основоположника «революционно-пролетарской словацкой литературы», «словацкого Горького» Петера Йилемницкого (1901–1949) «Компас в нас» (1937). Актуальность данного рассмотрения определяется уже тем, что в романе значительное место уделено советской (русской, киргизской) и кавказ­ской (осетинской, в хронотопе, заступающем советские рамки) теме, – и при этом произведение Йилемницкого до сих пор не было переведено на русский язык и осталось, в общем, вне поля зрения отечественного литературоведения и литературной кри­тики. Отдельные, связанные с осетинской темой, главы романа в переводе на осетин­ский язык, выполненном в свое время Хасаном Малиевым и Сафаром Хаблиевым, пу­бликовались в советское время в североосетинской периодической печати, и, поскольку одним из героев Йилемницкого выступает друг Петера Йилемницкого известный осе­тинский писатель Чермен Беджызаты (1898–1937) и действие первого плана происхо­дит именно в Южной Осетии, которую, в рамках сюжета, посещает повествователь, роман «Компас в нас» несколько раз упоминался в осетинском литературоведении. Одним из авторов данной статьи (В.С. Пукишем) роман Йилемницкого в «осетин­ской» части в последнее время переведен на русский язык с языка оригинала (редакто­ром перевода, необходимого в виду этнокультурной фактуры, выступил И.С. Хугаев); соответственно, здесь, помимо необходимой биографической и библиографической справки, вводятся в литературно-критический оборот обстоятельства творческой истории романа «Компас в нас», его основные идеи и образы, а также его оценки в словацком литературном процессе; впервые на основе оригинального текста тракту­ется архитектоника, образная система, идеология, общие изобразительные приемы и идейно-эмоциональная тенденция текста Петера Йилемницкого. The article examines the novel Kompas v nás (Compass Inside Us) by Peter Jilemnický (1901–1949), the founder of “revolutionary proletarian Slovak literature,” and “the Slovak Gorki.” The topicality of this review can be proved by the fact that the novel devotes much attention to the Soviet (Russian, Kyrgyz) and the Caucasian (Ossetian – in the space-time going beyond the Soviet period) themes – however, by now it has not been translated into Russian and thus it has remained mostly out of the eye of contemporary Russian literary criticism. At the same time, the Ossetia-related chapters of the novel translated into Ossetian by Khasan Maliev and Safar Khabliev, were published in the North Ossetian press, and due to the fact that one of the central characters of the novel is Chermen Bedzhyzaty (1898–1937), a known Ossetian writer and a friend of Peter Jilemnický, and that the foreground of the story takes place in South Ossetia visited by the narrator, Compass Inside Us has more than once been mentioned by Ossetian literary critics. One of the authors of this article (V. Pukish) recently translated the ‘Ossetian’ part of the novel from Slovak into Russian (I. Khugaev edited the translated text as required by the ehtnocultural texture); this is why, the circumstances of creative history of the novel, its main ideas and images, and the assessments given to it by Slovak literary critics are hereby introduced into the scientific discourse in addition to the required biographical and bibliographical references. Based on the original text of the novel, the authors of this article are for the first time discussing the architectonics, imagery, ideology, general representational devices, and ideological and emotional trends of the text by Peter Jilemnický.


Author(s):  
Galina V. Mikheeva ◽  

In 2021 we mark the 100th anniversary of the birth of O. D. Golubeva, a bibliologist, Doctor of Philology, whose entire working life relates to M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library. For 35 years she was the deputy director of the library for scientific work. The article recreates the biographical sketch of the scientist, reveals the significance for Russian literary criticism of her research on the publishing activities of M. Gorky and several publishing houses of the early twentieth century. Special attention is paid to the role of O. D. Golubeva in the creation of a whole series of works devoted to the history of the Library, including biographical sketches of the figures of the Imperial Public Library. The role of the scientist in the creation of the school of historical biography in the National Library of Russia is determined.


2020 ◽  
pp. 449-472
Author(s):  
Mihail A. Robinson

The article analyzes the methodological views of the academician V. N. Peretz, an outstanding Russian researcher and teacher. Refusing to follow the canons of the cultural-historical school of Russian literary criticism, in his works “From Lectures on the Methodology of the History of Russian Literature” (Kiev, 1914) and “A Brief Essay on the Methodology of the History of Russian Literature” (Petrograd, 1922) the researcher tried to find new approaches to the analysis of literary works. He believed that “the history of literature examines and studies the formal side of the works of verbal creativity, its evolution, leaving the cultural historian to study the content, the ideological side of the monuments of the past as such.” Peretz’s judgments were similar to those adopted by the followers of the OPOYAZ school (The Society for the Study of Poetic Language), and even had a certain influence on the development of formalism at the initial stage. This circumstance was noted by such researchers close to this research community as V. M. Zhirmunsky and its active members like Roman Jakobson. The relationship of Peretz’s theoretical positions with the methods of the Russian formalist school caused criticism from the followers of “Marxist” methodology in the 1920s. In the disputes between the formalists and the “Marxists”, Peretz clearly sympathized with the former believing that they were trying to “resurrect philology.” Peretz himself characterized his “Methodology” as “not Marxist” and had faint hopes for the possibility of its publication, although he continued to work on it. However, he never finished and published the extended version. His “Short Sketch” was reprinted twice abroad before being printed again in his homeland in 2010, 88 years after the first edition.


2020 ◽  
pp. 221-235
Author(s):  
A. E. Kachorovskaya

This article focuses its attention on the motive of resistance characteristic of Austrian literature of the 19th - 20th centuries, which is considered from the point of view of the historical and literary relationship with the myth of Prometheus. The history of the issue is reviewed. A selective analysis of the versions of the Promethean myth in the Austrian historical and literary context of the 19th-20th centuries, which is part of the pan-European literary and philosophical heritage, is given. The stylistic and genre originality of Austrian interpretations of the myth of Prometheus is proved on the basis of a study of a number of works. The artistic reception of the image of Prometheus in the poem by Z. Lipiner "Liberated Prometheus", little studied in Russian literary criticism is considered in the article. Attention is paid to the version of the Promethean myth in the literature of Austrian Art Nouveau (on the example of F. Kafka's little prose). The issue of conflicting trends in the development of Austrian literature of the 20th century, affecting the interaction of the motive of resistance with the Promethean myth, is investigated by the example of M. Gruber's essay. The correlation of the Austrian versions of the motive of resistance with the myth of Prometheus is proved. The results of the study confirm the significance of the Promethean myth in the Austrian reception of the 19th-20th centuries, which has more pronounced features of drama and theatricality in relation to the European context.


Author(s):  
O.M. Buranok ◽  
◽  
N.E. Erofeeva ◽  
I.B. Kazakova ◽  
O.V. Sizova ◽  
...  

The article examines the works of E. Haywood, as the author of novels, the publisher of three women's magazines that laid the groundwork for the culture of women's creativity in English literature of the XVIII century. Her name is called among the first authors of a women's novel, which is still interpreted from a gender perspective in modern science as a sociocultural phenomenon that represents the world through the eyes of women. Nevertheless, the authors of the article note the serious influence of men's literature on the work of the writer who was passionate about politics and social reforms. Special attention is paid to such genre modification of the novel as "secret histories", the predecessor of "the novel with the key". It is noted that what is new in "secret histories" is the shift in the angle of perception of the text itself, filled with facts about certain historical events and people, which were taken from various kinds of insinuations, as a rule, it had nothing to do with the real history, but attracted the reader with their variations in the relationships of the characters. Slander becomes the subject of the depiction, and its possessors represent heroes (antiheroes) through the prism of the certain moral values, including the state ones. For the first time in Russian literary criticism, the authors acquaint the reader to the "secret histories" of E. Haywood, novels “The Secret History of the Present Intrigues of the Court of Caramania”(1726), “Memories of a Certain Island Adjacent to the Kingdom of Utopia” (1725 – 26), “The Advantures of Eovaai, Princess of Ijavea; a preAdamitical History” (1736) in the context of women's prose in England in the XVIII century. The analysis of the novel “The Secret History of the Present Intrigues of the Court of Caramania” as the most vivid example of the "secret histories" by E. Haywood is offered. The material of the article will be of interest to the specialists, as well as to those who are interested in the development of the female genre of the novel in the literature of England during the Enlightenment.


2021 ◽  
pp. 181-199
Author(s):  
O. Yu. Osmukhina ◽  
A. D. Karpov ◽  
E. A. Beloglazova

The specificity of the synthesis of elements included in the historical narrative, and Christian motives, images in the novel of the largest contemporary Russian prose writer Zakhar Prilepin is comprehended in the article. The relevance of the article is due to the need to build a coherent and consistent history of the development of Russian literature over the past two decades, an important part of which is the legacy of the popular writers. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that for the first time in Russian literary criticism “Abode” is considered from the proposed perspective: its genre specificity is analyzed in a Christian context. It has been established that, despite the presence of elements of documentary, adventurous, love-psychological novels, in terms of genre, “The Abode” can be attributed to a historical novel (it depicts a turning point in Russian history through a conflict between historical figures and fictional “average” heroes, combines historical facts and fiction). At the same time, an interest in eternal moral issues, problems of life and death, conscience and duty, love and fidelity in their Christian understanding becomes a feature of Prilepin’s understanding of the historical theme. In their work, the authors of the article used comparative historical, biographical, socio-cultural methods, as well as the method of a holistic analysis of a work of art. 


2021 ◽  
pp. 164-170
Author(s):  
Natalia Ye. Nikonova ◽  

The review notes Olga Kafanova’s great contribution to the study of the history of Russian literature, and especially works by Nikolai Karamzin, and productivity of her research as evidenced by the presented monograph. The book excels in its fundamental nature, novelty and reliability of the source base (more than 500 items of the bibliography of translations by Karamzin (1783-1800) and originals discovered while studying foreign works and periodicals). The review indicates the novelty and prospects of a number of Kafanova’s observations. In 2016, the public celebrated the 250th anniversary of Karamzin’s birth. The jubilee events were held in several countries and brought together dozens of scholars. One of the particular results of these events is an observation on the need for a comprehensive understanding of the work of Karamzin as a translator at a new level. The reviewed monograph promptly fills the noted gap and, using unique material, solves the problem of popularizing and preserving the Russian literary classics. The bibliography presented in the form of an appendix contains names of more than 50 authors of English, German, and French literature, whose texts Karamzin referred to. Based on the compiled corpus, Kafanova chooses an analytical approach that consistently reflects the evolution of Karamzin’s own system of views, on the one hand, and is based on the classic examples of Russian literary criticism and translation studies, on the other. Kafanova’s genre-generic approach easily synthesizes the several dimensions of the literary, editorial and institutional activities of Karamzin as a translator; there is no criticism of the clear definitions that classify Karamzin’s work on mastering the texts of foreign authors to one type or another. Another idea in the book is connected with a fundamental approach in the science of literature, according to which the history of literary processes is considered as a series of successive trends and directions of humanitarian thought. The reviewed book tells about the nuances of the era of pre-Romanticism, about the intricacies of interpreting Stem’s “sentimental stories of a sensitive heroine”, about the “portrait” project associated with “sensitive authors” (Wieland, Gesner, Klopstock, and others), and about the peculiarities of the Enlightenment and European Antiquity in the pantheon of literature by Karamzin and his contemporaries.


2021 ◽  
pp. 156-172
Author(s):  
Elena V. Aleksandrova ◽  

The article examines typological intersections between the early works of Leo Tolstoy and the works of the 1850s of Egor Kovalevsky. The theme “Egor Kovalevsky and Leo Tolstoy” has not been studied comprehensively and systematically in Russian literary criticism. The research develops from the history of personal relationships between the writers during the Danube Campaign and the Sevastopol events to a comparative study of the writers’ works created during the Crimean Campaign. Tolstoy’s “Sevastopol in December” and in Kovalevsky’s “The Bombing of Sevastopol” reflected the similarities in the authors’ concepts, themes and images. The article justifies that the central theme developed in the writers’ oeuvre was a person and their role in history. Similarities and differences in the portrayal of the heroic events of the defense of Sevastopol by the writers are considered. Kovalevsky’s essay and Tolstoy’s first story are closely linked by one idea – the sense of civic exaltation, national identity. In describing the Russian soldier, his character, the heroism of the defenders of Sevastopol, the writers follow the “truth of life”. Kovalevsky captures the names of the direct participants in the war. With one detail or episode of the last minutes of their lives, Kovalevsky draws the reader’s attention to the “ordinary heroes” of Sevastopol, emphasizing the importance of their individual feat. Tolstoy’s heroes, on the contrary, are nameless: it is the general mood of the defenders of Sevastopol that is important for the writer. There are common features in the narrative manner of the two writers: ways of depicting heroes, accuracy and imagery of landscape sketches. A few strokes and precise details convey the state of Sevastopol. The mood associated with the state of the city is emphasized by the details of the landscape. The similarity in describing the heroes’ and the narrator’s psychology is expressed through the image of fog. The features of the authors’ creative manner and the role of the narrator are analyzed. There is an obvious difference in the creative methods of Kovalevsky and Tolstoy. Describing real details with historical accuracy, Kovalevsky paints a romantic picture with bright “strokes”. Kovalevsky uses concrete real details most often as a way to emphasize a bright feature he has noted in life, while Tolstoy seeks to show (highlight) the quality of life rather than its specific feature. The difference between Kovalevsky’s essay and Tolstoy’s story is also in the assessment of the historical event. Describing the bombing of Sevastopol as a historian, Kovalevsky does not abandon moral and political generalizations. Thus, the manner of narration and the ways of depicting heroes testify that both Tolstoy and Kovalevsky solve one problem with different artistic means – to truthfully portray the reality and the person as the “center of history”. In search of a true depiction of Sevastopol, Kovalevsky, a historian and romantic writer, moved towards realism embodied in Leo Tolstoy’s story.


Slavic Review ◽  
1971 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred Kuhn

N. A. Dobroliubov's critical essays on Goncharov, Turgenev, Ostrovsky, and Dostoevsky, written in the brief period of two years preceding his death in 1861, established a reputation and influence second only to Belinsky's in the history of Russian literary criticism. Of these essays “What Is Oblomovism?” holds particular interest. Published in the May 1859 issue of Nekrasov's Sovremennik (The Contemporary), it was Dobroliubov's first major review and possibly his best. It is a central document in the history of the conflict between the liberals of the 1840s and the radicals of the 1860s, or, in the phrasing of Turgenev's title, between “fathers and sons.”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document