{"title":"陀思妥耶夫斯基,马查多·德·阿西斯和结束农奴制和奴隶制的“该做什么”","authors":"A. Pereira","doi":"10.15175/1984-2503-20168207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modernization projects in nineteenth-century Russia and Brazil coexisted with the legacies of servile work and slavery. While in Russia part of the intelligentsia reacted to the Emancipation by means of the conveying of revolutionary proposals – such as those outlined in the novel “What Is to Be Done?” by N. Chernyshevsky – in Brazil a sector of the intellectual elite became engaged in the propagation of racialist and conservative theories. In a period of redefinitions and the emergence of various future projects and perspectives appreciative of the past, two of the biggest names in literature in both countries – Machado de Assis and Dostoyevsky – formulated literary expressions on the historical contexts in which they were inserted, marked as they were by the abolition of slavery and servile work, respectively. By means of his literary and journalistic output, Dostoyevsky became involved in controversial exchanges with the intellectual left and its support for direct action, known as they were as Russian “nihilists”. Machado de Assis argued with those supporting modernization promoting exclusion, based on biologizing notions and their application to society. Both authors left criticism and literary works on the consequences of different abolitionist process.","PeriodicalId":41789,"journal":{"name":"Passagens-International Review of Political History and Legal Culture","volume":"8 1","pages":"331-354"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dostoiévski, Machado de Assis e o “Que fazer” do fim da servidão e da escravidão\",\"authors\":\"A. Pereira\",\"doi\":\"10.15175/1984-2503-20168207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Modernization projects in nineteenth-century Russia and Brazil coexisted with the legacies of servile work and slavery. While in Russia part of the intelligentsia reacted to the Emancipation by means of the conveying of revolutionary proposals – such as those outlined in the novel “What Is to Be Done?” by N. Chernyshevsky – in Brazil a sector of the intellectual elite became engaged in the propagation of racialist and conservative theories. In a period of redefinitions and the emergence of various future projects and perspectives appreciative of the past, two of the biggest names in literature in both countries – Machado de Assis and Dostoyevsky – formulated literary expressions on the historical contexts in which they were inserted, marked as they were by the abolition of slavery and servile work, respectively. By means of his literary and journalistic output, Dostoyevsky became involved in controversial exchanges with the intellectual left and its support for direct action, known as they were as Russian “nihilists”. Machado de Assis argued with those supporting modernization promoting exclusion, based on biologizing notions and their application to society. Both authors left criticism and literary works on the consequences of different abolitionist process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41789,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Passagens-International Review of Political History and Legal Culture\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"331-354\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Passagens-International Review of Political History and Legal Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15175/1984-2503-20168207\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Passagens-International Review of Political History and Legal Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15175/1984-2503-20168207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在19世纪的俄罗斯和巴西,现代化项目与奴隶劳动和奴隶制的遗留问题共存。而在俄罗斯,部分知识分子通过传达革命建议来回应解放运动——比如小说《该做什么?》——在巴西,一部分知识精英开始从事种族主义和保守理论的传播。在一个重新定义和各种未来项目和对过去的欣赏的观点出现的时期,两国文学的两位最著名的人物——马查多·德·阿西斯和陀思妥耶夫斯基——分别以奴隶制和奴役工作的废除为标志,在他们所插入的历史背景上制定了文学表达。通过他的文学和新闻作品,陀思妥耶夫斯基与左派知识分子及其对直接行动的支持进行了有争议的交流,他们被称为俄罗斯的“虚无主义者”。Machado de Assis与那些支持现代化的人争论,基于生物概念及其对社会的应用,促进了排斥。两位作家对不同废奴进程的后果都留下了批评和文学作品。
Dostoiévski, Machado de Assis e o “Que fazer” do fim da servidão e da escravidão
Modernization projects in nineteenth-century Russia and Brazil coexisted with the legacies of servile work and slavery. While in Russia part of the intelligentsia reacted to the Emancipation by means of the conveying of revolutionary proposals – such as those outlined in the novel “What Is to Be Done?” by N. Chernyshevsky – in Brazil a sector of the intellectual elite became engaged in the propagation of racialist and conservative theories. In a period of redefinitions and the emergence of various future projects and perspectives appreciative of the past, two of the biggest names in literature in both countries – Machado de Assis and Dostoyevsky – formulated literary expressions on the historical contexts in which they were inserted, marked as they were by the abolition of slavery and servile work, respectively. By means of his literary and journalistic output, Dostoyevsky became involved in controversial exchanges with the intellectual left and its support for direct action, known as they were as Russian “nihilists”. Machado de Assis argued with those supporting modernization promoting exclusion, based on biologizing notions and their application to society. Both authors left criticism and literary works on the consequences of different abolitionist process.