{"title":"本土运动真的存在吗?(好辩的音符)","authors":"V. A. Fateev","doi":"10.31860/2712-7591-2020-3-32-62","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with ideological and aesthetic foundations of the 19th-century literary movement which was later called Pochvennichestvo (Native Soil). Some scholars have suggested that the three principal figures of this movement — Fyodor Dostoevsky, Apollon Grigoryev and Nikolay Strakhov — were so different in their views that it is more reasonable to investigate the ideas of each of them separately. V. N. Zakharov, an outstanding expert on Dostoevsky, asserted in his article “Pochvennichestvo in Russian Literature: Metaphor as a Mythologeme” (2012) that the only one who truly lived up to the Native Soil principles was Dostoevsky, who set forth the program of the new movement in the Announcement about the subscription to the journal Vremya in 1860. According to Zakharov, unlike the other, “false”, members of the movement, who were just authors of Vremya, Dostoevsky widely used the metaphor pochva (soil) as a mythologeme in this article and in his subsequent works. In fact, Zakharov shared the opinion that there was a significant difference in the views of these writers. In this case, however, the very existence of the Pochvennichestvo as a single movement can be questioned. The present article argues that the term pochva was no less frequently employed by the other leading representatives of the movement and that the use of this mythologeme is not the only indication of their adherence to it. Although Dostoevsky, Grigoryev and Strakhov had serious ideological divergences, their philosophical and aesthetic views were much closer. The Native Soil writers shared a positive attitude towards spiritual independence and a national orientation of Russian literature. All of them relied on the organic essence of life and creativity. They highly appreciated the importance of Pushkin and denied excessive theorizing, aristocratic and nihilistic tendencies. The article shows how the Native Soil principles were developed by Dostoevsky, Grigoryev and Strakhov during their collaboration in the journals Vremya and Epokha and unfolded later in the journal Zarya, edited by Strakhov, and in the journal Grazhdanin, edited by Dostoevsky, as well as in Dostoevsky’s famous Pushkin Speech","PeriodicalId":426957,"journal":{"name":"Texts and History: Journal of Philological, Historical and Cultural Texts and History Studies","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Did the Native Soil Movement Really Exist? (Polemical Notes)\",\"authors\":\"V. A. Fateev\",\"doi\":\"10.31860/2712-7591-2020-3-32-62\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article deals with ideological and aesthetic foundations of the 19th-century literary movement which was later called Pochvennichestvo (Native Soil). Some scholars have suggested that the three principal figures of this movement — Fyodor Dostoevsky, Apollon Grigoryev and Nikolay Strakhov — were so different in their views that it is more reasonable to investigate the ideas of each of them separately. V. N. Zakharov, an outstanding expert on Dostoevsky, asserted in his article “Pochvennichestvo in Russian Literature: Metaphor as a Mythologeme” (2012) that the only one who truly lived up to the Native Soil principles was Dostoevsky, who set forth the program of the new movement in the Announcement about the subscription to the journal Vremya in 1860. According to Zakharov, unlike the other, “false”, members of the movement, who were just authors of Vremya, Dostoevsky widely used the metaphor pochva (soil) as a mythologeme in this article and in his subsequent works. In fact, Zakharov shared the opinion that there was a significant difference in the views of these writers. In this case, however, the very existence of the Pochvennichestvo as a single movement can be questioned. The present article argues that the term pochva was no less frequently employed by the other leading representatives of the movement and that the use of this mythologeme is not the only indication of their adherence to it. Although Dostoevsky, Grigoryev and Strakhov had serious ideological divergences, their philosophical and aesthetic views were much closer. The Native Soil writers shared a positive attitude towards spiritual independence and a national orientation of Russian literature. All of them relied on the organic essence of life and creativity. They highly appreciated the importance of Pushkin and denied excessive theorizing, aristocratic and nihilistic tendencies. The article shows how the Native Soil principles were developed by Dostoevsky, Grigoryev and Strakhov during their collaboration in the journals Vremya and Epokha and unfolded later in the journal Zarya, edited by Strakhov, and in the journal Grazhdanin, edited by Dostoevsky, as well as in Dostoevsky’s famous Pushkin Speech\",\"PeriodicalId\":426957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Texts and History: Journal of Philological, Historical and Cultural Texts and History Studies\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Texts and History: Journal of Philological, Historical and Cultural Texts and History Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31860/2712-7591-2020-3-32-62\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Texts and History: Journal of Philological, Historical and Cultural Texts and History Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31860/2712-7591-2020-3-32-62","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文论述了19世纪文学运动的思想和美学基础,这一运动后来被称为“乡土”运动。一些学者认为,这一运动的三位主要人物——陀思妥耶夫斯基、格里戈里耶夫和斯特拉霍夫——在观点上如此不同,因此分开研究他们每个人的思想更为合理。杰出的陀思妥耶夫斯基研究专家v·n·扎哈罗夫(V. N. Zakharov)在《俄国文学中的Pochvennichestvo: Metaphor as a Mythologeme》(2012)一文中断言,真正符合本土原则的只有陀思妥耶夫斯基,他在1860年关于订阅《Vremya》杂志的公告中提出了新运动的纲领。根据Zakharov的说法,陀思妥耶夫斯基与其他“虚假”的运动成员不同,他们只是《Vremya》的作者,陀思妥耶夫斯基在这篇文章和他随后的作品中广泛使用了比喻pochva(土壤)作为神话主题。事实上,扎哈罗夫也认为这些作家的观点有很大的不同。然而,在这种情况下,Pochvennichestvo作为一个单一运动的存在是值得质疑的。本文认为,“pochva”一词同样经常被运动的其他主要代表使用,并且使用这个神话主题并不是他们坚持使用它的唯一迹象。虽然陀思妥耶夫斯基、格里戈里耶夫和斯特拉霍夫在思想上存在严重分歧,但他们的哲学观和审美观却更为接近。乡土作家们具有积极的精神独立态度和民族主义的俄国文学取向。所有这些都依赖于生命的有机本质和创造力。他们高度赞赏普希金的重要性,反对过度的理论化、贵族化和虚无主义倾向。这篇文章展示了陀思妥耶夫斯基、格里戈里耶夫和斯特拉霍夫在《Vremya》和《Epokha》杂志上的合作,以及后来在斯特拉霍夫编辑的《Zarya》杂志、陀思妥耶夫斯基编辑的《Grazhdanin》杂志和陀思妥耶夫斯基著名的《普希金演讲》中展开的“本土原则”
Did the Native Soil Movement Really Exist? (Polemical Notes)
This article deals with ideological and aesthetic foundations of the 19th-century literary movement which was later called Pochvennichestvo (Native Soil). Some scholars have suggested that the three principal figures of this movement — Fyodor Dostoevsky, Apollon Grigoryev and Nikolay Strakhov — were so different in their views that it is more reasonable to investigate the ideas of each of them separately. V. N. Zakharov, an outstanding expert on Dostoevsky, asserted in his article “Pochvennichestvo in Russian Literature: Metaphor as a Mythologeme” (2012) that the only one who truly lived up to the Native Soil principles was Dostoevsky, who set forth the program of the new movement in the Announcement about the subscription to the journal Vremya in 1860. According to Zakharov, unlike the other, “false”, members of the movement, who were just authors of Vremya, Dostoevsky widely used the metaphor pochva (soil) as a mythologeme in this article and in his subsequent works. In fact, Zakharov shared the opinion that there was a significant difference in the views of these writers. In this case, however, the very existence of the Pochvennichestvo as a single movement can be questioned. The present article argues that the term pochva was no less frequently employed by the other leading representatives of the movement and that the use of this mythologeme is not the only indication of their adherence to it. Although Dostoevsky, Grigoryev and Strakhov had serious ideological divergences, their philosophical and aesthetic views were much closer. The Native Soil writers shared a positive attitude towards spiritual independence and a national orientation of Russian literature. All of them relied on the organic essence of life and creativity. They highly appreciated the importance of Pushkin and denied excessive theorizing, aristocratic and nihilistic tendencies. The article shows how the Native Soil principles were developed by Dostoevsky, Grigoryev and Strakhov during their collaboration in the journals Vremya and Epokha and unfolded later in the journal Zarya, edited by Strakhov, and in the journal Grazhdanin, edited by Dostoevsky, as well as in Dostoevsky’s famous Pushkin Speech