匿名评论帕西科夫的诗:阿波罗·格里戈里耶夫还是陀思妥耶夫斯基?

IF 0.3 3区 文学 0 LITERATURE, SLAVIC
Василий Лурье (Basil Lourié)
{"title":"匿名评论帕西科夫的诗:阿波罗·格里戈里耶夫还是陀思妥耶夫斯基?","authors":"Василий Лурье (Basil Lourié)","doi":"10.1016/j.ruslit.2022.08.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article reconsiders the vexed question of the authorship of the anonymous review (published in the journal <em>Vremia</em>, 1861) of the book Poems by A.S. Khomyakov. The review dealt not only with Khomyakov’s poems but also with his oeuvre as a whole, including his theological works. Inductive logic was applied to the task of resolving the text’s attribution, as a comparison of the respective likelihoods (conditional probabilities) of two alternative hypotheses: authorship by either Apollon Grigoriev or Fedor Dostoevsky. The author of the review speaks about Khomyakov’s theological brochures and tragedy Ermak with the same opinions and even almost the same wording as Grigoriev does in other texts of the same period. No similar opinions appear in texts belonging to Dostoevsky, even though Dostoevsky’s interest in Khomyakov’s journalism (but not his theology) is documented from the early 1860s. There are no grounds for speaking of any theological influence by Khomyakov on Dostoevsky in the 1860s (unlike in Dostoevsky’s last years). The conclusion by Boris F. Egorov that the author was Grigoriev is confirmed, whereas Vladimir N. Zakharov’s arguments for the authorship of Dostoevsky are disproved.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":43192,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN LITERATURE","volume":"134 ","pages":"Pages 73-95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Анонимная рецензия на Стихотворения А.С. Хомякова: Аполлон Григорьев или Ф.М. Достоевский?\",\"authors\":\"Василий Лурье (Basil Lourié)\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ruslit.2022.08.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This article reconsiders the vexed question of the authorship of the anonymous review (published in the journal <em>Vremia</em>, 1861) of the book Poems by A.S. Khomyakov. The review dealt not only with Khomyakov’s poems but also with his oeuvre as a whole, including his theological works. Inductive logic was applied to the task of resolving the text’s attribution, as a comparison of the respective likelihoods (conditional probabilities) of two alternative hypotheses: authorship by either Apollon Grigoriev or Fedor Dostoevsky. The author of the review speaks about Khomyakov’s theological brochures and tragedy Ermak with the same opinions and even almost the same wording as Grigoriev does in other texts of the same period. No similar opinions appear in texts belonging to Dostoevsky, even though Dostoevsky’s interest in Khomyakov’s journalism (but not his theology) is documented from the early 1860s. There are no grounds for speaking of any theological influence by Khomyakov on Dostoevsky in the 1860s (unlike in Dostoevsky’s last years). The conclusion by Boris F. Egorov that the author was Grigoriev is confirmed, whereas Vladimir N. Zakharov’s arguments for the authorship of Dostoevsky are disproved.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43192,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"RUSSIAN LITERATURE\",\"volume\":\"134 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 73-95\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"RUSSIAN LITERATURE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304347922000874\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE, SLAVIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RUSSIAN LITERATURE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304347922000874","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE, SLAVIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章重新考虑了一个棘手的问题,即匿名评论(发表在《Vremia》杂志,1861年)的作者是A.S.霍米亚科夫的诗集。这篇评论不仅涉及霍米亚科夫的诗歌,而且涉及他的全部作品,包括他的神学作品。归纳逻辑被应用于解决文本归属的任务,作为两个备选假设的各自可能性(条件概率)的比较:作者是Apollon Grigoriev或Fedor Dostoevsky。这篇评论的作者谈到霍米亚科夫的神学小册子和悲剧《埃尔马克》时,与格里戈里耶夫在同一时期的其他文本中的观点甚至措辞几乎相同。在陀思妥耶夫斯基的文献中没有出现类似的观点,尽管陀思妥耶夫斯基对霍米亚科夫的新闻(而不是他的神学)的兴趣从19世纪60年代早期就有记载。在19世纪60年代,没有理由说霍米雅科夫对陀思妥耶夫斯基有任何神学影响(不像陀思妥耶夫斯基的最后几年)。鲍里斯·f·叶戈罗夫关于作者是格里戈里耶夫的结论得到了证实,而弗拉基米尔·n·扎哈罗夫关于陀思妥耶夫斯基作者的论点则被反驳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Анонимная рецензия на Стихотворения А.С. Хомякова: Аполлон Григорьев или Ф.М. Достоевский?

This article reconsiders the vexed question of the authorship of the anonymous review (published in the journal Vremia, 1861) of the book Poems by A.S. Khomyakov. The review dealt not only with Khomyakov’s poems but also with his oeuvre as a whole, including his theological works. Inductive logic was applied to the task of resolving the text’s attribution, as a comparison of the respective likelihoods (conditional probabilities) of two alternative hypotheses: authorship by either Apollon Grigoriev or Fedor Dostoevsky. The author of the review speaks about Khomyakov’s theological brochures and tragedy Ermak with the same opinions and even almost the same wording as Grigoriev does in other texts of the same period. No similar opinions appear in texts belonging to Dostoevsky, even though Dostoevsky’s interest in Khomyakov’s journalism (but not his theology) is documented from the early 1860s. There are no grounds for speaking of any theological influence by Khomyakov on Dostoevsky in the 1860s (unlike in Dostoevsky’s last years). The conclusion by Boris F. Egorov that the author was Grigoriev is confirmed, whereas Vladimir N. Zakharov’s arguments for the authorship of Dostoevsky are disproved.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
RUSSIAN LITERATURE
RUSSIAN LITERATURE LITERATURE, SLAVIC-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: Russian Literature combines issues devoted to special topics of Russian literature with contributions on related subjects in Croatian, Serbian, Czech, Slovak and Polish literatures. Moreover, several issues each year contain articles on heterogeneous subjects concerning Russian Literature. All methods and viewpoints are welcomed, provided they contribute something new, original or challenging to our understanding of Russian and other Slavic literatures. Russian Literature regularly publishes special issues devoted to: • the historical avant-garde in Russian literature and in the other Slavic literatures • the development of descriptive and theoretical poetics in Russian studies and in studies of other Slavic fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信