Evangelical Reflections on Eschatology in The Possessed: Beyond Russian Religious Philosophy and Religious Literary Studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 205-237
Author(s):  
Kyong Wan Lee
Keyword(s):  
Literary Studies ◽  
Religious Philosophy

scholarly journals Dostoevsky at the Turn of the 21st Century: Antinomies of Interpretation

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 5-47
Author(s):  
Valentina Borisova ◽  
Sergey Schaulov
Keyword(s):  
21St Century ◽  
Literary Studies ◽  
Final Conclusion ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Contemporary Culture ◽  
Religious Philosophy ◽  
Silver Age ◽  
Classical Text ◽  
Russian Literary ◽  
History Of

The aim of the proposed article is to identify the key trends and contradictions in the study and interpretation of Dostoevsky’s work at the turn of the 21st century. Dostoevsky studies are one of the most advanced and active branches of Russian literary studies, which is confirmed by a large number of regular scientific conferences, as well as by a significant number of fundamental monographs. The search for a new interpretive basis in the Christian tradition, which has revealed a number of axiological and methodological contradictions, including the inevitable choice between literary and philosophical/theological discourses, is seen as the main methodological breakthrough in contemporary Russian literary studies (and simultaneously a challenge). Three aspects of the question of the Christian basis of Dostoevsky’s work are examined: along with “dogmatic ranting” (as defined by I. A. Esaulov), reading the writer’s works in the context of the legacy of religious philosophy of the Silver Age remains relevant. We recognize the analysis and interpretation of Dostoevsky’s texts in the spirit of historical poetics as the most productive, provided that the postulate about the Christian nature of the Russian classical tradition is accepted. The methodological search of Dostoevsky’s researchers, typical for the turn of the 21st century, has found its expression in a multitude of “research subjects”: this polemic centers on the definitions of “realism in the highest sense”/“Christian realism” and a dispute around The Idiot and the image of Prince Myshkin, caused by the receptive conflict of interpreters. In addition, the article underscores the problem of the use of Bakhtin’s legacy in Dostoevsky studies: in our opinion, the key notions of his concept in literary studies “function” either in an adjusted form, or as scientific metaphors, or as an “appeal to authority”. Therefore, it seems more productive to include Bakhtin’s heritage in Dostoevsky studies as an essential fact in the history of perception of his work, rather than as a methodological basis for studying the text. It is in this aspect that the success of Russian literature in recent years is most obvious, however, the gap between scientific excellence and mass perception of Dostoevsky is also apparent. The final conclusion states that the contradictions of interpretations generated by transcending the “spectrum of adequacy” when reading a classical text have not been overcome. Dostoevsky’s work still causes controversy and methodological arguments. This means that the history of his perception remains an ongoing, living narrative. Dostoevsky still remains a subject of contemporary culture, rather than its object.

scholarly journals TURGENEV AND DOSTOEVSKY: THE MILESTONE CHANGE IN CRITICISM AND LITERARY STUDIES OF THE SILVER AGE

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 503-510
Author(s):  
G.M. Rebel
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Literary Studies ◽  
Religious Philosophy ◽  
Silver Age ◽  
Fyodor Dostoevsky ◽  
Philosophical Criticism ◽  
Literary Process ◽  
Artistic Vision ◽  
The One ◽  
The University

The article analyzes the reasons and character of historical and literary milestone change, which was fulfilled within the framework of Russian religious philosophy and literary studies of the 1920s. Literary and philosophical criticism of the Silver age made the creative works of Fyodor Dostoevsky the main subject of its interest and it predetermined the content of the literary criticism concepts of B.Engelhardt and M.Bakhtin, who influenced the following literary criticism to great extent. It brought some misrepresentation to the literary process interpretation of the second part of the 19 century, which still influences the university and school literature courses of the period. In particular the religious and philosophical studies and works of the 1910-1920s based on them broke the ideological and aesthetic connection between the creative works of Dostoevsky and Turgenev, the polemical character of Dostoevsky’s works concerning Turgenev was ignored. The article rebuilds the second half of the 19th century’s literary process logic, the consequence of Turgenev’s ideological novel and only after it, in connection with it and mainly in polemic with it - the ideological novel by Dostoevsky. The presumed comparison of the two genre modifications of the ideological novel allows to depict their common features on the one hand and on the other - the principal differences, aesthetic specificity, predetermined by the particular features of the artistic vision and strategies of Turgenev and Dostoevsky.

On the critical reception of religious literary criticism

2020 ◽  
pp. 44-50
Author(s):  
Светлана Владимировна Бурмистрова
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Russian Literature ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Critical Reception ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Literary Studies ◽  
Religious Literature ◽  
Biblical Hermeneutics ◽  
Religious Philosophy ◽  
Definition Of

В статье представлена попытка проанализировать современную критическую рецепцию религиозного подхода («богословско-догматического», «конфессионального (православного) подхода») к изучению русской словесности. Автор рассматривает вопрос о генезисе термина «религиозное литературоведение», его связи с дефиницией «религиозная философия», а также вопрос о его функционировании в современной гуманитарной науке. Выявляется преемственность религиозной филологии с философской и литературоведческой традицией рубежа XIX-XX веков. Обозначена методологическая неоднородность «религиозной филологии», в которой сосуществуют два самостоятельных подхода: «богословско-догматический» и собственно филологический подход. Рассматривается дискуссия о специфике предметного поля религиозного литературоведения и особенностях интерпретационной модели, позволяющей объективно проанализировать отечественную словесность в православном аспекте. К наиболее значимым тенденциям современной религиозной филологии можно отнести следующие: анализ литературного материала в междисциплинарном ключе, в том числе с использованием методов библейской герменевтики; смещение акцента с вопроса о степени религиозности того или иного автора на проблему функционирования религиозных кодов в художественной системе, их трансформация как на индивидуально-авторском, так и на общекультурном уровне. Анализ критических суждений о «религиозном литературоведении» представлен в формате «pro et contra» (С. Бочарова, М. Дунаева, И. Есаулова и др.). This article attempts to analyze the modern critical reception of the religious approach ("theological and dogmatic", "confessional (Orthodox) approach") to the study of Russian literature. Author considers the genesis of the term "religious literature", its relationship to the definition of "religious philosophy", as well as the question of its functioning in the modern humanitarian science. The author reveals the continuity of religious philology with philosophical and literary tradition of the late XIX-XX centuries. The author indicates the methodological heterogeneity of "religious philology", where two independent approaches coexist: theologico-dogmatic and philological ones. The author considers the debate about the specificity of the subject area of the religious literary studies and peculiarities of the interpretational model, which allows to analyze the Russian literature objectively from the Orthodox point of view. Among the most significant trends of modern religious philology are the following: analysis of literary material in an interdisciplinary way, including the use of biblical hermeneutics methods; shifting the emphasis from the question of the degree of religiosity of the author to the problem of functioning of religious codes in the artistic system, their transformation both at individual author and at general cultural level. The analysis of critical judgments on "religious literary studies" is presented in the "pro et contra" format (S. Bocharova, M. Dunayev, I. Esaulova and others).

Gilles Deleuze's Luminous Philosophy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanjo Berressem
Keyword(s):  
Projective Plane ◽  
Visual Arts ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Literary Studies ◽  
Chronological Order ◽  
Real Projective Plane ◽  
Cinema Studies ◽  
The Real

Providing a comprehensive reading of Deleuzian philosophy, Gilles Deleuze’s Luminous Philosophy argues that this philosophy’s most consistent conceptual spine and figure of thought is its inherent luminism. When Deleuze notes in Cinema 1 that ‘the plane of immanence is entirely made up of light’, he ties this philosophical luminism directly to the notion of the complementarity of the photon in its aspects of both particle and wave. Engaging, in chronological order, the whole body and range of Deleuze’s and Deleuze and Guattari’s writing, the book traces the ‘line of light’ that runs through Deleuze’s work, and it considers the implications of Deleuze’s luminism for the fields of literary studies, historical studies, the visual arts and cinema studies. It contours Deleuze’s luminism both against recent studies that promote a ‘dark Deleuze’ and against the prevalent view that Deleuzian philosophy is a philosophy of difference. Instead, it argues, it is a philosophy of the complementarity of difference and diversity, considered as two reciprocally determining fields that are, in Deleuze’s view, formally distinct but ontologically one. The book, which is the companion volume toFélix Guattari’s Schizoanalytic Ecology, argues that the ‘real projective plane’ is the ‘surface of thought’ of Deleuze’s philosophical luminism.

Context Mediated

2017 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-63
Author(s):  
Benjamin Pickford
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Ralph Waldo Emerson ◽  
Literary Text ◽  
Literary Studies ◽  
Economic Relation ◽  
Economic Agency

Benjamin Pickford, “Context Mediated: Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Political Economy of Plagiarism” (pp. 35–63) Context has long been a critical determiner of methodologies for literary studies, granting scholars the tools to make objective claims about a text’s political or economic relation to the situation of its genesis. This essay argues that Ralph Waldo Emerson anticipatively criticizes our commitment to such practices through his use of plagiarism—a literary mode that exemplifies the denial of the sovereignty of context. I focus on two core principles that underlie Emerson’s conception of literature’s civic role in Essays: Second Series (1844): first, that literature is driven by an impulse to decontextualize; second, that this means that it has a deep affinity with the deterritorializing logic of capital. Provocatively proposing Emerson as a theorist of the relation between literature and economics, I argue that Essays: Second Series shows how the literary text can negotiate its ineluctable culpability with capitalism, but this does not mean that it can presume to possess a privileged point of vantage that might deny such culpability. Given that this is precisely what much historicizing or contextualizing scholarship implies, I contend that Emerson gives us a case study in the limits of literature and criticism’s economic agency.

L.I. Strakhovsky: Between Symbolism and Acmeism (Based on Foreign Publications)

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 426-437
Author(s):  
Nikolay N. Nosov
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Influence ◽  
Cultural Influence ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Literary Studies ◽  
Usual Sense ◽  
Creative Evolution ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Library Resources ◽  
Individual Features ◽  
State Library

The article is devoted to L.I. Strakhovsky (alias Leonid Chatsky; 1898—1963), a Russian writer and poet of the first wave of emigration, and his poetry and prose reflected in foreign publications of his works in Russian. Returning to our culture the name of this author, now half-forgotten in his homeland, and introducing this name into literary studies, the article tries to reveal the thematic and stylistic diversity of L.I. Strakhovsky’s poetry and prose. The research’s object is foreign publications of L.I. Strakhovsky’s artistic works in separate books, almanacs and periodicals published in Belgium, Germany, Canada and identified through collection catalogues of leading Russian libraries (the Russian State library, the Alexander Solzhenitsyn House of Russia Abroad) and library resources that display foreign Russian-language publications by L.I. Strakhovsky. The article highlights and analyzes the main stylistic (symbolism, acmeism, “junior acmeism”) and thematic (autobiographical, English, mystical) components of L.I. Strakhovsky’s works, reveals the components’ individual features, the originality of their constancy and mutual influence. The main of these features is that L.I. Strakhovsky’s works can be stylistically periodized on the basis of the author’s increased propensity to cyclize his works though without creative evolution in the usual sense and with the stable nature of his working throughout his life. To review the publications and analyze the nature of L.I. Strakhovsky’s works, the article draws on the context of Russian and emigrant literature of his era, creatively associated with L.I. Strakhovsky and its main figures, and notes his literary and cultural influence.

The Founding Attempts of the Literary Historian. Solitudes, Singularities, Exemplarities

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 385-398
Author(s):  
Ioana Bot
Keyword(s):  
Literary History ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Literary Studies ◽  
Research School ◽  
Critical Editions

The present study reviews D. Popovici’s founding attempts in the field of literary history. It pursues his activity along four axes: critical editions of modern Romanian authors, studies in literary history, university lectures and “Studii literare” [Literary Studies], the scientific journal he founded as a professor of Cluj University. Both original and modern in his theoretic, methodologic as well as academic options, Popovici is a founder of institutions and initiator of a research school. His scientific projects are singular in their scope. Yet his critic posterity destines him to an unwarranted “singularity”. Our reflection focuses upon the exemplary elements in the scholar’s destiny.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document