{"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}
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.
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.