索洛格与现实主义的论战(f·索洛格与a·p·契诃夫)

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
V. Filicheva
{"title":"索洛格与现实主义的论战(f·索洛格与a·p·契诃夫)","authors":"V. Filicheva","doi":"10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.1.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper analyzes the statements of Fyodor Sologub (both in periodical journalism and in belles-lettres) about the works of Anton Chekhov, examined in the context of the writer's ideas about the place of his own creativity in the literary process. There is a number of allusions and references to Chekhov’s name in the texts of Sologub that had not previously attracted the attention of researchers. Though Sologub had introduced Chekhov’s works into the circle of literature that followed the Tolstoy tradition, he at the same time argued with both authors. Having called Chekhov’s story A Man in the Case in his own novel The Petty Demon , Sologub set the vector for the perception of his own works. However, he was misunderstood by contemporary critics, who only compared Sologub and Chekhov, as well as other writers of a realistic direction, in respect to the contents of their works. Meanwhile, on the pages of Sologub's prose, a debate unfolds not only with the basic postulate of the “philosophy of hope”, but also with the form of the narrative. An analysis of the story The Troubled Day , whose characters openly debate Leo Tolstoy’s ideas, is carried out in the paper. One can conclude, based on it, that Sologub actually disagrees with both Tolstoy and Chekhov at the same time, in their approaches both to the topic of death and to creative method, meaning the point of view of an omniscient narrator, the latter being more polemical in relation to Chekhov than to Tolstoy. DOI: 10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.1.11","PeriodicalId":42189,"journal":{"name":"Slovene-International Journal of Slavic Studies","volume":"37 1","pages":"322-339"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Polemics of F. Sologub with Realism (F. Sologub and A. P. Chekhov)\",\"authors\":\"V. Filicheva\",\"doi\":\"10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.1.11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper analyzes the statements of Fyodor Sologub (both in periodical journalism and in belles-lettres) about the works of Anton Chekhov, examined in the context of the writer's ideas about the place of his own creativity in the literary process. There is a number of allusions and references to Chekhov’s name in the texts of Sologub that had not previously attracted the attention of researchers. Though Sologub had introduced Chekhov’s works into the circle of literature that followed the Tolstoy tradition, he at the same time argued with both authors. Having called Chekhov’s story A Man in the Case in his own novel The Petty Demon , Sologub set the vector for the perception of his own works. However, he was misunderstood by contemporary critics, who only compared Sologub and Chekhov, as well as other writers of a realistic direction, in respect to the contents of their works. Meanwhile, on the pages of Sologub's prose, a debate unfolds not only with the basic postulate of the “philosophy of hope”, but also with the form of the narrative. An analysis of the story The Troubled Day , whose characters openly debate Leo Tolstoy’s ideas, is carried out in the paper. One can conclude, based on it, that Sologub actually disagrees with both Tolstoy and Chekhov at the same time, in their approaches both to the topic of death and to creative method, meaning the point of view of an omniscient narrator, the latter being more polemical in relation to Chekhov than to Tolstoy. DOI: 10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.1.11\",\"PeriodicalId\":42189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Slovene-International Journal of Slavic Studies\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"322-339\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Slovene-International Journal of Slavic Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.1.11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Slovene-International Journal of Slavic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.1.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了费奥多尔·索洛格对契诃夫作品的评价(包括在期刊新闻和情书中),并结合契诃夫对自己在文学创作过程中所处位置的看法进行了考察。在《索洛古卜》的文本中,有许多关于契诃夫名字的典故和引用,这些典故以前没有引起研究人员的注意。虽然索洛古布将契诃夫的作品引入了遵循托尔斯泰传统的文学圈,但他同时也与两位作者发生了争论。索洛格在自己的小说《小恶魔》中把契诃夫的故事称为“箱子里的人”,为自己的作品设定了感知向量。然而,他被同时代的评论家误解了,他们只把索洛古布和契诃夫以及其他现实主义作家的作品内容进行了比较。与此同时,在索洛古布的散文中,一场辩论不仅围绕“希望哲学”的基本假设展开,而且围绕叙事的形式展开。本文对小说《动荡的日子》中的人物公开辩论托尔斯泰的思想进行了分析。基于此,我们可以得出结论,索洛古布实际上同时不同意托尔斯泰和契诃夫的观点,既不同意他们对死亡话题的看法,也不同意他们对创作方法的看法,即一个无所不知的叙述者的观点,后者对契诃夫的看法比对托尔斯泰的看法更有争议。2305 - 6754.2020.9.1.11 DOI: 10.31168 /
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Polemics of F. Sologub with Realism (F. Sologub and A. P. Chekhov)
The paper analyzes the statements of Fyodor Sologub (both in periodical journalism and in belles-lettres) about the works of Anton Chekhov, examined in the context of the writer's ideas about the place of his own creativity in the literary process. There is a number of allusions and references to Chekhov’s name in the texts of Sologub that had not previously attracted the attention of researchers. Though Sologub had introduced Chekhov’s works into the circle of literature that followed the Tolstoy tradition, he at the same time argued with both authors. Having called Chekhov’s story A Man in the Case in his own novel The Petty Demon , Sologub set the vector for the perception of his own works. However, he was misunderstood by contemporary critics, who only compared Sologub and Chekhov, as well as other writers of a realistic direction, in respect to the contents of their works. Meanwhile, on the pages of Sologub's prose, a debate unfolds not only with the basic postulate of the “philosophy of hope”, but also with the form of the narrative. An analysis of the story The Troubled Day , whose characters openly debate Leo Tolstoy’s ideas, is carried out in the paper. One can conclude, based on it, that Sologub actually disagrees with both Tolstoy and Chekhov at the same time, in their approaches both to the topic of death and to creative method, meaning the point of view of an omniscient narrator, the latter being more polemical in relation to Chekhov than to Tolstoy. DOI: 10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.1.11
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
Slovene-International Journal of Slavic Studies
Slovene-International Journal of Slavic Studies HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
50.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal Slověne = Словѣне is a periodical focusing on the fields of the arts and humanities. In accordance with the standards of humanities periodicals aimed at the development of national philological traditions in a broad cultural and academic context, the Journal Slověne = Словѣне is multilingual but with a focus on papers in English. The Journal Slověne = Словѣне is intended for the exchange of information between Russian scholars and leading universities and research centers throughout the world and for their further professional integration into the international academic community through a shared focus on Slavic studies. The target audience of the journal is Slavic philologists and scholars in related disciplines (historians, cultural anthropologists, sociologists, specialists in comparative and religious studies, etc.) and related fields (Byzantinists, Germanists, Hebraists, Turkologists, Finno-Ugrists, etc.). The periodical has a pronounced interdisciplinary character and publishes papers from the widest linguistic, philological, and historico-cultural range: there are studies of linguistic typology, pragmalinguistics, computer and applied linguistics, etymology, onomastics, epigraphy, ethnolinguistics, dialectology, folkloristics, Biblical studies, history of science, palaeoslavistics, history of Slavic literatures, Slavs in the context of foreign languages, non-Slavic languages and dialects in the Slavic context, and historical linguistics.
×
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