Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.22455/2686-7494-2021-3-2-202-229
V. Makarova
This paper applies Speech Act Theory towards an investigation of the use and role of self-praise/positive self-assessment in the texts of three Chekhov’s plays: The Seagull, Three Sisters and The Cherry Orchard. The findings conducted with manual coding of texts for the speech acts of self-praise/positive self-assessment suggest that Chekhov employed self-praise for a number of textual and character-building functions. In particular, self-praise functions as a literary device to identify less likable characters as well as to provide a chance for more likable characters to stand up for themselves against injustice and provocation. The self-praise/positive self-assessment comes in mitigated and aggravated forms. Mitigation is mostly achieved through grammatical or phrasal means, as well as semantically through self-criticism, whereby the only form of aggravation observed in the data was other-criticism/other-derogation. Specific forms of a positive self-assessment likely unique to Chekhov’s plays are ‘linguistic brags’, i.e., contextually unjustifiable switches to French and Latin as well as ‘generational’ positive self-representation in Three Sisters. The results suggest that investigations of speeh acts in dramas could be productive for literary theory, as they shed more light on the characters development as well as the genre mastery of the playwright.
{"title":"Self-praise and Positive Self-assessment in Chekhov’s Plays","authors":"V. Makarova","doi":"10.22455/2686-7494-2021-3-2-202-229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22455/2686-7494-2021-3-2-202-229","url":null,"abstract":"This paper applies Speech Act Theory towards an investigation of the use and role of self-praise/positive self-assessment in the texts of three Chekhov’s plays: The Seagull, Three Sisters and The Cherry Orchard. The findings conducted with manual coding of texts for the speech acts of self-praise/positive self-assessment suggest that Chekhov employed self-praise for a number of textual and character-building functions. In particular, self-praise functions as a literary device to identify less likable characters as well as to provide a chance for more likable characters to stand up for themselves against injustice and provocation. The self-praise/positive self-assessment comes in mitigated and aggravated forms. Mitigation is mostly achieved through grammatical or phrasal means, as well as semantically through self-criticism, whereby the only form of aggravation observed in the data was other-criticism/other-derogation. Specific forms of a positive self-assessment likely unique to Chekhov’s plays are ‘linguistic brags’, i.e., contextually unjustifiable switches to French and Latin as well as ‘generational’ positive self-representation in Three Sisters. The results suggest that investigations of speeh acts in dramas could be productive for literary theory, as they shed more light on the characters development as well as the genre mastery of the playwright.","PeriodicalId":359000,"journal":{"name":"Two centuries of the Russian classics","volume":"248 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130274509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.22455/2686-7494-2022-4-2-214-231
A. Markov
The article continues the investigation of textological issues associated with the surviving draft translation of the comoedia palliata The Asses (Asinaria) by Plautus, made by A. N. Ostrovsky from Latin. For the translation of Plautus’ Asinaria, the edition remains a problem: arguments are offered both for and against Levée (1820) as the basic source. The article reconstructs in detail the biographical and creative context of this translation, which was supposed to be a contribution to the formation of a democratic theater. The author of the article argues that although we cannot say for sure that Levée was the main or the only source of the translation, a lot in the Russian text says about Ostrovsky’s highly likely intentional repulsion of the Levée’s conception of Roman drama. In Levée’s edition, the French parallel translation and rare commentaries should have made Plautus one of the Latin classics, while Ostrovsky emphasizes the non-classical and lowbrow moments in Plautus. This explains both the decisions in the preparation of the manuscript and a number of accents that he deliberately made in this alleged rejection of the French translation, as well as the refusal to rely on the French translation even in difficult cases and work only with the Latin original, despite the inevitable translation errors.
{"title":"Textual Criticism of Ostrovsky’s Translations from Latin. Part 2. Plautus’ The Asses and Issues of the Text Source","authors":"A. Markov","doi":"10.22455/2686-7494-2022-4-2-214-231","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22455/2686-7494-2022-4-2-214-231","url":null,"abstract":"The article continues the investigation of textological issues associated with the surviving draft translation of the comoedia palliata The Asses (Asinaria) by Plautus, made by A. N. Ostrovsky from Latin. For the translation of Plautus’ Asinaria, the edition remains a problem: arguments are offered both for and against Levée (1820) as the basic source. The article reconstructs in detail the biographical and creative context of this translation, which was supposed to be a contribution to the formation of a democratic theater. The author of the article argues that although we cannot say for sure that Levée was the main or the only source of the translation, a lot in the Russian text says about Ostrovsky’s highly likely intentional repulsion of the Levée’s conception of Roman drama. In Levée’s edition, the French parallel translation and rare commentaries should have made Plautus one of the Latin classics, while Ostrovsky emphasizes the non-classical and lowbrow moments in Plautus. This explains both the decisions in the preparation of the manuscript and a number of accents that he deliberately made in this alleged rejection of the French translation, as well as the refusal to rely on the French translation even in difficult cases and work only with the Latin original, despite the inevitable translation errors.","PeriodicalId":359000,"journal":{"name":"Two centuries of the Russian classics","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130264385","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.22455/2686-7494-2020-2-4-260-271
A. Gulin
The article is devoted to summing up the results of the international scientific conference “Russian Literature and National Sovereignty of the 18th — 19th Centuries” held at the IMLI RAS on October 13–15, 2020. The problem of the scientific forum is regarded as one of the central problems of humanitarian knowledge in Russia. The principal task of the conference is defined as the need for the first time to present in all the richness and positive content of the relationship between the Russian literary classics and the Russian sovereignty of the 18th — 19th centuries. Modern methodological approaches, responsible assimilation of facts allow us to assert that it is precisely in accordance with the national state and its ideals that Russian literature of the 18th — 19th centuries. Modern methodological approaches, responsible mastering of the facts allow asserting that this is a nation state and its ideals in accordance with which, the Russian literature of the 18th — 19th centuries reaches its prophetic sound, full contemplation of the world, aesthetic perfection. At the same time, the full-blooded development of Russian literature is in Russia during the imperial period the most important factor in the prosperity of the nation state, the purification and approval of state ideals. The article analyses the main directions of the conference, the problem-thematic range of the event, which made it possible to demonstrate the real results of research work of foreign, Moscow and Russian scientific schools, for the first time to formulate the problem of “Russian literature and statehood” as an independent and promising direction of scientific research.
{"title":"International scientific conference “Russian Literature and National Sovereignty\u0000of the 18th — 19th Centuries”: concept, results and prospects","authors":"A. Gulin","doi":"10.22455/2686-7494-2020-2-4-260-271","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22455/2686-7494-2020-2-4-260-271","url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to summing up the results of the international scientific\u0000conference “Russian Literature and National Sovereignty of the 18th — 19th Centuries” held at the IMLI RAS on October 13–15, 2020. The problem of the scientific forum is regarded as one of the central problems of humanitarian knowledge in Russia. The principal task of the conference is defined as the need for the first time to present in all the richness and positive content of the relationship between the Russian literary classics and the Russian sovereignty of the 18th — 19th centuries. Modern methodological approaches, responsible assimilation of facts allow us to assert that it is precisely in accordance with the national state and its ideals that Russian literature of the 18th — 19th centuries. Modern methodological approaches, responsible mastering of the facts allow asserting that this is a nation state and its ideals in accordance with which, the Russian literature of the 18th — 19th centuries reaches its prophetic sound, full contemplation of the world, aesthetic perfection. At the same time, the full-blooded development of Russian literature is in Russia during the imperial period the most important factor in the prosperity of the nation state, the purification and approval of\u0000state ideals. The article analyses the main directions of the conference, the problem-thematic range of the event, which made it possible to demonstrate the real results of research work of foreign, Moscow and Russian scientific schools, for the first time to formulate the problem of “Russian literature and statehood” as an independent and promising direction of scientific research.","PeriodicalId":359000,"journal":{"name":"Two centuries of the Russian classics","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124739891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.22455/2686-7494-2022-4-2-150-165
N. V. Kapustin
The focus is on the story Murder which occupies a special place in Chekhov’s work (this manifests itself at the level of the central plot line, in an emotionally expressive style unusual for the writer (murder scene), in the motif of the protagonist gaining true faith, in spatial remoteness of scenes from the “big” world, in the gloomy coloring of the narrative). At the same time, the author of the article shows that thanks to a number of features — the poetics of repetition, the unobvious commonality of the characters conflicting with each other, the difficulty of their communication, the presence of typically Chekhov themes and words, the author’s axiology — Murder organically fits into boundaries of the writer’s artistic world. As a result, dialectics of the familiar and the new arises, when the familiar, typical of other Chekhov’s works, is interwoven into a new problem, theme and plot construction.
{"title":"“Murder” as a Chekhov Story","authors":"N. V. Kapustin","doi":"10.22455/2686-7494-2022-4-2-150-165","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22455/2686-7494-2022-4-2-150-165","url":null,"abstract":"The focus is on the story Murder which occupies a special place in Chekhov’s work (this manifests itself at the level of the central plot line, in an emotionally expressive style unusual for the writer (murder scene), in the motif of the protagonist gaining true faith, in spatial remoteness of scenes from the “big” world, in the gloomy coloring of the narrative). At the same time, the author of the article shows that thanks to a number of features — the poetics of repetition, the unobvious commonality of the characters conflicting with each other, the difficulty of their communication, the presence of typically Chekhov themes and words, the author’s axiology — Murder organically fits into boundaries of the writer’s artistic world. As a result, dialectics of the familiar and the new arises, when the familiar, typical of other Chekhov’s works, is interwoven into a new problem, theme and plot construction.","PeriodicalId":359000,"journal":{"name":"Two centuries of the Russian classics","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131929473","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Two centuries of the Russian classics","authors":"","doi":"10.22455/2686-7494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22455/2686-7494","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":359000,"journal":{"name":"Two centuries of the Russian classics","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132365420","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.22455/2686-7494-2022-4-1-202-227
M. A. Mozharova, Anastasia V. Sin
The article deals with the issue of correct pronunciation of the surname of Konstantin Levin — a character from L. N. Tolstoy’s novel Anna Karenina. According to the writer’s youngest daughter A. L. Tolstaya and his great grandson I. V. Tolstoy, the author of the novel and all his family pronounced it like “Lévin.” This tradition is currently preserved in the L. N. Tolstoy State Museum in Moscow and in L. N. Tolstoy Museum-Estate ‘Yasnaya Polyana’. Apart from the spoken tradition there is also a written tradition originated from L. N. Tolstoy himself. Manuscripts of Anna Karenina attest to the fact that L. N. Tolstoy, S. A. Tolstaya and all other copyists always wrote “Levin,” letter “ё” (“yo”) being used in necessary cases. N. N. Strakhov who helped L. N. Tolstoy prepare the first separate edition of Anna Karenina (1878) wrote in the same manner. The tradition of spelling the surname of the character as “Levin” is registered in all lifetime and posthumous editions of Anna Karenina as well as in translations into foreign languages. However there is a contradiction in spelling “Lyovin” in two private letters of L. N. Tolstoy’s contemporaries (I. S. Aksakov and K. N. Leontiev), who were not in his inner circle, and a viewpoint of V. V. Nabokov claiming that L. N. Tolstoy derived the character’s surname from his own name Lyov used at home.
本文论述了托尔斯泰小说《安娜·卡列尼娜》中康斯坦丁·列文的姓氏的正确读音问题。据这位作家的小女儿a·l·托尔斯泰和他的曾孙i·v·托尔斯泰说，这部小说的作者和他所有的家人都把它读成“l横梁”。这一传统目前保存在莫斯科的托尔斯泰国家博物馆和托尔斯泰博物馆遗产“Yasnaya Polyana”。除了口头传统之外，还有一种起源于托尔斯泰本人的书面传统。《安娜·卡列尼娜》的手稿证明，l·n·托尔斯泰、s·a·托尔斯泰和所有其他抄写员总是写“列文”，在必要的情况下使用字母“×”(“哟”)。n·n·斯特拉霍夫帮助l·n·托尔斯泰准备第一版《安娜·卡列尼娜》(1878年)，他也以同样的方式写作。在《安娜·卡列尼娜》生前和死后的所有版本以及外文译本中，都有将这个角色的姓氏拼写为“Levin”的传统。然而，在与L. N.托尔斯泰同时代的人(I. S. Aksakov和K. N. Leontiev)的两封私人信件中拼写“Lyovin”存在矛盾，他们不在他的核心圈子中，V. V. Nabokov声称L. N.托尔斯泰从他自己在家里使用的名字中获得了这个角色的姓氏。
{"title":"“In Our Home Everyone Said Lévin”: on the Pronunciation of the Surname of Anna Karenina’s Character in L. N. Tolstoy’s Family","authors":"M. A. Mozharova, Anastasia V. Sin","doi":"10.22455/2686-7494-2022-4-1-202-227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22455/2686-7494-2022-4-1-202-227","url":null,"abstract":"The article deals with the issue of correct pronunciation of the surname of Konstantin Levin — a character from L. N. Tolstoy’s novel Anna Karenina. According to the writer’s youngest daughter A. L. Tolstaya and his great grandson I. V. Tolstoy, the author of the novel and all his family pronounced it like “Lévin.” This tradition is currently preserved in the L. N. Tolstoy State Museum in Moscow and in L. N. Tolstoy Museum-Estate ‘Yasnaya Polyana’. Apart from the spoken tradition there is also a written tradition originated from L. N. Tolstoy himself. Manuscripts of Anna Karenina attest to the fact that L. N. Tolstoy, S. A. Tolstaya and all other copyists always wrote “Levin,” letter “ё” (“yo”) being used in necessary cases. N. N. Strakhov who helped L. N. Tolstoy prepare the first separate edition of Anna Karenina (1878) wrote in the same manner. The tradition of spelling the surname of the character as “Levin” is registered in all lifetime and posthumous editions of Anna Karenina as well as in translations into foreign languages. However there is a contradiction in spelling “Lyovin” in two private letters of L. N. Tolstoy’s contemporaries (I. S. Aksakov and K. N. Leontiev), who were not in his inner circle, and a viewpoint of V. V. Nabokov claiming that L. N. Tolstoy derived the character’s surname from his own name Lyov used at home.","PeriodicalId":359000,"journal":{"name":"Two centuries of the Russian classics","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129234257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：