Review: Pigin, A.V. & Andrianova, I.S. (Eds) (2019) Filologiya kak Prizvanie: Sbornik Statey k Yubileyu Professora Vladimira Nikolaevicha Zakharova [Philology as a Vocation: Collection of Articles to the Anniversary of Professor Vladimir Nikolaevich Zakharov]. Petrozavodsk: Petrozavodsk State Univer

Abstract

The review draws attention to a great contribution made by Professor Vladimir Zakharov to the study of the history of Russian literature, especially of Dostoevsky’s oeuvre. The longstanding and continuing research of Dostoevsky’s works made him deduce that Russian literature in whole was Christian with its particular evangelic text, Christian chronotope and general paschal, conciliar and salvational character. It is em-phasized that these pivotal concepts do not contradict the complexity (sometimes ambi-guity) of the nature of Russian literature and confirm the relevance of Pyotr Chaadaev’s call to recognize the impact of Christianity wherever and in whatever manner the hu-man thought touches upon it, even with the purpose of competing with it. The articles published in the collection prove the efficiency of Zakharov’s academic research. The articles cover various themes and attract a wide scope of materials, such as Old Russian literature and literature of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, as well as that of the Soviet period and Russian literature abroad. The review takes into consideration the originality and potential of a number of remarks made in the articles, and introduces some clarifi-cations and supplements. Special attention has been paid to the articles dedicated to Dostoevsky’s oeuvre and his relations with other authors. The review emphasizes that one must understand the difference of Dostoevsky from other writers. Thus, with regard to the use of the “poetics of paradox” by Dostoevsky and Osip Senkovsky (as stated in V.A. Koshelev’s article), it is asserted that the concept of paradox and the image of a paradoxer play a significant role in Dostoevsky’s reasoning, but not with the aim of brandishing his originality and pinpointing the comic and absurd character of objective reality. In Dostoevsky, ideas inconsistent with common notions yet comprising the truth turn out to be paradoxical. The review also draws attention to differences in the out-looks of Dostoevsky and Chekhov, thus entering into a debate with the researcher N.V. Prashcheruk regarding the spiritual kinship of the two great Russian writers. The review distinguishes the articles of V.A. Viktorovich, B.N. Tarasov, and B.N. Tikhomirov for the abundance of sources, accuracy and consistency of their key theses. The academic hypothesis stated by I.A. Esaulov about two cultural currents (European culture of Modern Times and Christian tradition) influencing the formation of Russian literature should be taken into account when creating the history of national literature that must capture the essence and character of its genesis correctly. The review states that articles on Old Russian literature (L.V. Sokolova, T.F. Volkova, A.V. Pigin) are characterized by a detailed study of the material and a broad philological background on the whole. Finally, the review states that the collection has again proved the diversity of Zakha-rov’s research interests, the potential of his ideas as well as his own beneficial role in the activity of Russian and international philological community.