Though there are many seminal works on early Romanticism and Thomas Moore’s poetry, their hymns remain understudied. This article focuses on the genre problem in the hymns by the Lake Poets (S.T. Coleridge, W. Wordsworth, R. Southey) and Thomas Moore, whose poetry is studied in context of English Literature and German Romanticism. The characteristics of the hymn are emotionality, associative composition, abundance of repetitions and parallelisms, archaic grammatical forms of verbs and pronouns, and the use of verb contractions. The combination of genres in hymns results in such variants as the odic hymn, the idyllic and elegiac hymn, the mythological hymn, and even the satirical hymn, with each of them evolving in its own way in the period under study. The odic hymn is represented in “Hymn before Sun-rise, in the Vale of Chamouni” (1802) by S.T. Coleridge and “Hymn. For the Boatmen, as They Approach the Rapids under the Castle of Heidelberg” (1820/1822) and “To the Laborer’s Noon-Day Hymn” (1834/1835) by W. Wordsworth. These poems have such odic features as comparisons and conditional and cause-and-effect syntactic constructions. Coleridge’s hymn going back to the psalms of praise was influenced by German Romanticism, while Wordsworth’s hymns feature religious vocabulary and quotations from the Mass. The mythological hymn comes in two versions – one with idyllic features (“Hymn to the Earth” (1799, publ.1834) by S.T. Coleridge) and the mythological hymn-fragment (“Fragment of a mythological hymn to Love” (1812) by T. Moore). The fist is the translation of Stolberg’s hymn, from which the leitmotif of the Earth as the mother and the nanny of the World is borrowed. The image of the Earth has anthropomorphic features, with the marriage of the Earth and Heaven going back to W. Blake. The myth created by T. Moore is more complex. The creation of the world begins with the marriage of Love and Psyche. Love appears as the masculine principle of the Universe, while Psyche as the feminine one. The plot goes back to the ancient myths of the world creation from the Chaos and marriage of Eros and Psyche. However, T. Moore changed the myth and transformed the heroes into a source of life. “Hymn to the Penates” (1796) by R. Southey combines the idyllic, elegiac, publicistic and hymn features proper. The idyllic features are related to the image of the Penates that turn into a force controlling human lives and the souls of the dead. The childhood memories give rise to the elegiac features. The publicistic features appear in the verses of the people who do not worship the Penates. The composition, repetitions and parallelisms in the satirical “A Hymn of Welcome after the Recess” (1813) by T. Moore go back to the hymn genre; however the main stylistic devices used are irony and metonymy. Summing up, the genre of hymn in the works by the Lake Poets and Thomas Moore undergoes significant transformations, which will be further developed in late Romanism.
尽管有许多关于早期浪漫主义和托马斯·摩尔诗歌的开创性作品，但他们的赞美诗仍未得到充分研究。本文以英国文学和德国浪漫主义为背景，对“湖诗人”(柯勒律治、华兹华斯、索塞)和托马斯·摩尔的诗歌进行体裁分析。赞美诗的特点是抒情性、联想性、大量的重复和平行、动词和代词的古老语法形式以及动词缩略形式的使用。赞美诗体裁的结合导致了诸如颂歌、田园诗和挽歌、神话赞美诗，甚至讽刺赞美诗等变体，每一种都在研究的时期以自己的方式发展。圣·圣·柯勒律治(st . Coleridge)的《日出前的赞美诗，在查穆尼谷》(1802)和《赞美诗》(hymn)都表现了这种韵律诗。《船夫，当他们接近海德堡城堡下的急流时》(1820/1822)和华兹华斯的《致工人的正午赞美诗》(1834/1835)。这些诗具有比较、条件和因果句法结构等韵律特征。柯勒律治的赞美诗可以追溯到赞美诗，受到德国浪漫主义的影响，而华兹华斯的赞美诗则以宗教词汇和弥撒中的引文为特色。这首神话赞美诗有两个版本——一个带有田园诗的特征(《献给地球的赞美诗》(1799年，1834年出版)，另一个是神话赞美诗片段(《献给爱情的神话赞美诗片段》(1812年)，作者是t·摩尔)。第一个是斯托尔伯格的赞美诗的翻译，其中借用了地球作为世界的母亲和保姆的主题。大地的形象具有拟人化的特点，大地与天堂的结合可以追溯到W.布莱克。t·摩尔创造的神话更为复杂。世界的创造始于爱和普赛克的婚姻。爱作为宇宙的男性原则出现，而普赛克作为女性原则出现。故事情节从厄洛斯和普赛克的混乱和婚姻回到了创造世界的古代神话。然而，T.摩尔改变了神话，把英雄变成了生命的源泉。苏塞的《忏忏者赞美诗》(Hymn to the Penates, 1796)恰如其分地结合了田园诗、挽歌、宣传和赞美诗的特点。田园诗般的特征与Penates的形象有关，它变成了一种控制人类生命和死者灵魂的力量。童年的记忆产生了哀歌的特征。这种公开的特征出现在那些不崇拜圣徒的人的诗中。T.摩尔1813年创作的讽刺作品《下课后欢迎赞美诗》的构图、重复和平行都回到了赞美诗的风格;然而，主要的文体手段是反讽和转喻。综上所述，湖诗人和托马斯·摩尔作品中的赞美诗体裁发生了重大转变，并将在浪漫主义晚期得到进一步发展。
{"title":"The Problem of Genre in the Hymns by the Lake Poets and Thomas Moore","authors":"Alexandra D. Zhuk","doi":"10.17223/24099554/15/1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/24099554/15/1","url":null,"abstract":"Though there are many seminal works on early Romanticism and Thomas Moore’s poetry, their hymns remain understudied. This article focuses on the genre problem in the hymns by the Lake Poets (S.T. Coleridge, W. Wordsworth, R. Southey) and Thomas Moore, whose poetry is studied in context of English Literature and German Romanticism. The characteristics of the hymn are emotionality, associative composition, abundance of repetitions and parallelisms, archaic grammatical forms of verbs and pronouns, and the use of verb contractions. The combination of genres in hymns results in such variants as the odic hymn, the idyllic and elegiac hymn, the mythological hymn, and even the satirical hymn, with each of them evolving in its own way in the period under study. The odic hymn is represented in “Hymn before Sun-rise, in the Vale of Chamouni” (1802) by S.T. Coleridge and “Hymn. For the Boatmen, as They Approach the Rapids under the Castle of Heidelberg” (1820/1822) and “To the Laborer’s Noon-Day Hymn” (1834/1835) by W. Wordsworth. These poems have such odic features as comparisons and conditional and cause-and-effect syntactic constructions. Coleridge’s hymn going back to the psalms of praise was influenced by German Romanticism, while Wordsworth’s hymns feature religious vocabulary and quotations from the Mass. The mythological hymn comes in two versions – one with idyllic features (“Hymn to the Earth” (1799, publ.1834) by S.T. Coleridge) and the mythological hymn-fragment (“Fragment of a mythological hymn to Love” (1812) by T. Moore). The fist is the translation of Stolberg’s hymn, from which the leitmotif of the Earth as the mother and the nanny of the World is borrowed. The image of the Earth has anthropomorphic features, with the marriage of the Earth and Heaven going back to W. Blake. The myth created by T. Moore is more complex. The creation of the world begins with the marriage of Love and Psyche. Love appears as the masculine principle of the Universe, while Psyche as the feminine one. The plot goes back to the ancient myths of the world creation from the Chaos and marriage of Eros and Psyche. However, T. Moore changed the myth and transformed the heroes into a source of life. “Hymn to the Penates” (1796) by R. Southey combines the idyllic, elegiac, publicistic and hymn features proper. The idyllic features are related to the image of the Penates that turn into a force controlling human lives and the souls of the dead. The childhood memories give rise to the elegiac features. The publicistic features appear in the verses of the people who do not worship the Penates. The composition, repetitions and parallelisms in the satirical “A Hymn of Welcome after the Recess” (1813) by T. Moore go back to the hymn genre; however the main stylistic devices used are irony and metonymy. Summing up, the genre of hymn in the works by the Lake Poets and Thomas Moore undergoes significant transformations, which will be further developed in late Romanism.","PeriodicalId":55932,"journal":{"name":"Imagologiya i Komparativistika-Imagology and Comparative Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67584298","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}
The article discusses the creativity of the English romantic William Blake comprehended in contemporary Russian literature and culture. These facts are quite significant, since many Russian thinkers and writers, such as Igor Garin and Merab Mamardashvili, mention Blake in their works. Blake, partly remembered as a symbolist and mystic, loomed large in the cultural universe of the Moscow mystical “Yuzhinsky” circle, members of which were, in particular, Yuri Mamleev, Yevgeny Golovin, Alexander Dugin, Yuri Stefanov. For them, Blake was an integral part of the great Tradition or ancient knowledge, lost by the civilization. Blake has been mentioned and quoted in the prose by Yuri Buida, Alexey Gryakalov, Ivan Ermakov, Ksenia Buksha, Oleg Postnov and in the poetry by Olga Kuznetsova, Maria Galina, Alla Gorbunova, Maxim Kalinin and others. Andrei Tavrov enters into a creative dialogue with the English Romanticist in his poetic cycle Lament for Blake (2018). Tavrov creatively renders Blake’s metaphysics of human physiology. The poem “Blake. Sparrow” shows an impressive fusion of Blake’s motives and lyrics. in particular, the multilevel character of the mythological world (from Ulro to Eden), conversations with Angels and traveling through the stars in “The Marriage”, the image of a sparrow and a visionary bird in general, images of insects guided through the night (“Dream”), the image of Milton like the meteorite in the heel of the narrator, the figure of Flaxman and the philosophy of creation by the word. In Tavrov’s work, Blake inhabits in a bizarre world of metaliterature, including Gogol and Derzhavin, Velasquez and Newton, Lear and Oedipus, Pan and Melchizedek. Blake, as the creator of overlapping worlds, becomes for Tavrov the key to the total poetization of the universe; where a transition is made from the hermetic principle “as above, so below” to the principle “everything in everything”. This principle turns out to be the most important for contemporary poetry. Blake’s paintings and drawings have become a part of Russian book culture: the famous engraving of the Creator God with a compass “The Ancient of Days” is often used in book graphics; the Moscow conceptualist Viktor Pivovarov, the author of samizdat, admitted that Blake inspired him with his experience in book printing. Blake’s influence can also be seen in the works of contemporary sculptor Alexander Kudryavtsev (1938–2011), namely, his ceramic fresco “The Creation of the World”. Thus, Blake, who came, among others, through the work of The DOORS and Jarmusch’s Dead Man, plays a significant role in the space of contemporary Russian literature. In these terms, the most significant of his works are “Songs” and “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell”, as well as mystical revelations of prophetic poems and his creative life of a genius unrecognized during his lifetime in general.
{"title":"William Blake in Contemporary Russian Literature and Culture","authors":"Vera V. Serdechnaia","doi":"10.17223/24099554/15/4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/24099554/15/4","url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses the creativity of the English romantic William Blake comprehended in contemporary Russian literature and culture. These facts are quite significant, since many Russian thinkers and writers, such as Igor Garin and Merab Mamardashvili, mention Blake in their works. Blake, partly remembered as a symbolist and mystic, loomed large in the cultural universe of the Moscow mystical “Yuzhinsky” circle, members of which were, in particular, Yuri Mamleev, Yevgeny Golovin, Alexander Dugin, Yuri Stefanov. For them, Blake was an integral part of the great Tradition or ancient knowledge, lost by the civilization. Blake has been mentioned and quoted in the prose by Yuri Buida, Alexey Gryakalov, Ivan Ermakov, Ksenia Buksha, Oleg Postnov and in the poetry by Olga Kuznetsova, Maria Galina, Alla Gorbunova, Maxim Kalinin and others. Andrei Tavrov enters into a creative dialogue with the English Romanticist in his poetic cycle Lament for Blake (2018). Tavrov creatively renders Blake’s metaphysics of human physiology. The poem “Blake. Sparrow” shows an impressive fusion of Blake’s motives and lyrics. in particular, the multilevel character of the mythological world (from Ulro to Eden), conversations with Angels and traveling through the stars in “The Marriage”, the image of a sparrow and a visionary bird in general, images of insects guided through the night (“Dream”), the image of Milton like the meteorite in the heel of the narrator, the figure of Flaxman and the philosophy of creation by the word. In Tavrov’s work, Blake inhabits in a bizarre world of metaliterature, including Gogol and Derzhavin, Velasquez and Newton, Lear and Oedipus, Pan and Melchizedek. Blake, as the creator of overlapping worlds, becomes for Tavrov the key to the total poetization of the universe; where a transition is made from the hermetic principle “as above, so below” to the principle “everything in everything”. This principle turns out to be the most important for contemporary poetry. Blake’s paintings and drawings have become a part of Russian book culture: the famous engraving of the Creator God with a compass “The Ancient of Days” is often used in book graphics; the Moscow conceptualist Viktor Pivovarov, the author of samizdat, admitted that Blake inspired him with his experience in book printing. Blake’s influence can also be seen in the works of contemporary sculptor Alexander Kudryavtsev (1938–2011), namely, his ceramic fresco “The Creation of the World”. Thus, Blake, who came, among others, through the work of The DOORS and Jarmusch’s Dead Man, plays a significant role in the space of contemporary Russian literature. In these terms, the most significant of his works are “Songs” and “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell”, as well as mystical revelations of prophetic poems and his creative life of a genius unrecognized during his lifetime in general.","PeriodicalId":55932,"journal":{"name":"Imagologiya i Komparativistika-Imagology and Comparative Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67584309","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}
The article deals with one of the most important unofficial imperial symbols of Russia - the Russian bayonet. For quite a long historical period, 1790-1945, the bayonet remained a metaphor for military, state, and national power. In the historical perspective, it had three main meanings: 1) the glory of the Russian Army, and then the Red Army; 2) the greatness and strength of the Russian Empire; 3) courage, determination, and the Russian man’s contempt for death. The cult of Suvorov and the myth of the Russian bayonet were formed in Russian poetry at the same time - at the end of the XVIII century, and they supported each other. Suvorov’s bayonet charge training remained relevant in the tactics and military theory of the Russian Army until the end of the 19th century. The idea of the mythical Suvorov’s “bogatyr”, a Russian soldier, was poeticized by the commander himself in The Science of Victory (1795) and was continued primarily in the patriotic poetry of the 1830s. The mythologization of the Russian bayonet in Russian poetry and battle prose reached its apotheosis in the early 1830s, at the time of Russia’s confrontation with Europe over the Polish Uprising. The literary myth of the bayonet is presented in its most complete form in Pyotr Yershov’s poem “The Russian Bayonet”. Patriotic lyrics with their collective lyrical subject and nationwide sublime pathos and the battle prose of the 1830s both played a decisive role in the creation of the myth. The hyperbolization of the Russian hero wielding the bayonet in the prose of the 1830s is usually linked with the motif of national superiority. The ideological imperial myth of the invincible and all-powerful Russian bayonet was used primarily within Russia itself. During the Crimean War, the poetical hope that the bayonet would help to win the war with the most well-armed armies in Europe was in vain. In addition, the destruction of the myth was influenced by the spread of the personal point of view in the psychological prose of Leo Tolstoy and Vsevolod Garshin. In Tolstoy’s battle prose, the war rhetoric and the valorization of war are devalued, this “demythologization” also includes an unusual description of the Russian bayonet charge. This trend continues in the prose of Garshin, who gained the experience of an ordinary volunteer soldier in the Russian-Turkish War. In the last third of the 19th century and before the beginning of the First World War, the bayonet in Russian unofficial literature became a metaphor for the repressive state apparatus. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the war, the suppressed national semantics of the bayonet was actualized again. The same thing happened at the very beginning of the Great Patriotic War when the very existence of Russians as an ethnic group was called into question. Soviet poets once again turned to the myth of the all-conquering Suvorov’s Russian bayonet.
{"title":"The Image of Russia in Beat Culture","authors":"Irina V. L’vova","doi":"10.17223/24099554/16/13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/24099554/16/13","url":null,"abstract":"The article deals with one of the most important unofficial imperial symbols of Russia - the Russian bayonet. For quite a long historical period, 1790-1945, the bayonet remained a metaphor for military, state, and national power. In the historical perspective, it had three main meanings: 1) the glory of the Russian Army, and then the Red Army; 2) the greatness and strength of the Russian Empire; 3) courage, determination, and the Russian man’s contempt for death. The cult of Suvorov and the myth of the Russian bayonet were formed in Russian poetry at the same time - at the end of the XVIII century, and they supported each other. Suvorov’s bayonet charge training remained relevant in the tactics and military theory of the Russian Army until the end of the 19th century. The idea of the mythical Suvorov’s “bogatyr”, a Russian soldier, was poeticized by the commander himself in The Science of Victory (1795) and was continued primarily in the patriotic poetry of the 1830s. The mythologization of the Russian bayonet in Russian poetry and battle prose reached its apotheosis in the early 1830s, at the time of Russia’s confrontation with Europe over the Polish Uprising. The literary myth of the bayonet is presented in its most complete form in Pyotr Yershov’s poem “The Russian Bayonet”. Patriotic lyrics with their collective lyrical subject and nationwide sublime pathos and the battle prose of the 1830s both played a decisive role in the creation of the myth. The hyperbolization of the Russian hero wielding the bayonet in the prose of the 1830s is usually linked with the motif of national superiority. The ideological imperial myth of the invincible and all-powerful Russian bayonet was used primarily within Russia itself. During the Crimean War, the poetical hope that the bayonet would help to win the war with the most well-armed armies in Europe was in vain. In addition, the destruction of the myth was influenced by the spread of the personal point of view in the psychological prose of Leo Tolstoy and Vsevolod Garshin. In Tolstoy’s battle prose, the war rhetoric and the valorization of war are devalued, this “demythologization” also includes an unusual description of the Russian bayonet charge. This trend continues in the prose of Garshin, who gained the experience of an ordinary volunteer soldier in the Russian-Turkish War. In the last third of the 19th century and before the beginning of the First World War, the bayonet in Russian unofficial literature became a metaphor for the repressive state apparatus. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the war, the suppressed national semantics of the bayonet was actualized again. The same thing happened at the very beginning of the Great Patriotic War when the very existence of Russians as an ethnic group was called into question. Soviet poets once again turned to the myth of the all-conquering Suvorov’s Russian bayonet.","PeriodicalId":55932,"journal":{"name":"Imagologiya i Komparativistika-Imagology and Comparative Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67584405","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}
In travel literature of the 19th century (P.I. Sumarokov, V.B. Bronevsky, I.M. Muraviev-Apostol, E.D. Clark, F. Dubois de Montpere, K. Omer de Gell and others), there was a legend that ancient Chersonesus was destroyed to extract building materials for the construction of Sevastopol. The objective data analysis shows that it is a literary myth that originates from the work of P.S. Pallas “Observations Made During Traveling Over Southern Provinces of the Russian State in 1793–1794” (1799–1801). The scholar argued that the “destruction” of Chersonesus was a consequence of the active construction of Sevastopol in the 1780s–1790s. In 1818, P.S. Pallas’s viepoint was supported by N.M. Karamzin, whose History of the Russian State tells (with reference to P.S. Pallas) that Chersonesus was destroyed “to take stones to construct houses in Sevastopol”. Since then, this version of the events has become a commonplace in almost any text about Chersonesus. At the same time, some European authors (E.D. Clark, K. Omer de Gell) used this “common place” as an instrument of political propaganda. It has been documented that only four objects of modest scale were built out of Chersonesus stone in 1783: a chapel, a smithy, a pier and an admiral’s house. Then, they started to produce building materials in F.F. Mekenzi’s estate and in the Inkerman quarries, which made the industrial extraction of stone in Chersonesus impractical. Why did the experience of the first city constructions entail such generalizing conclusions in P.S. Pallas’s book? The reconstruction of the historical situation allows to single out two main reasons. That time Crimea was considered a fragment of classical antiquity acquired by Russia. The remains of ancient constructions became the primary object of literary and research interests. However, the first travelers were deceived in their expectations, since in Crimea they mostly found medieval monuments erected on the site of ancient ones. Modern archaeologists know that in the 6th – 7th centuries ancient Chersonesus was completely rebuilt, which explains the scantiness of ancient traces. However, in the era of P.S. Pallas, it was easier to explain the absence of antique artifacts by the destruction caused by those who built Sevastopol. Yet there was another reason. Sevastopol quickly became the most populous city on the peninsula. This led to spontaneous development and unauthorized extraction of building materials, including the territory of Chersonesus. It was impossible to tackle the problem of protecting ancient monument at the level of local initiatives and funds. The exaggerations found in P.S. Pallas’s writing can be explained by the awareness of the spontaneous threat to the ruins of the ancient polis. A small fragment of the text written by P.S. Pallas about the destruction of Chersonesus was rather a signal of alarm calling for measures to preserve the settlement, than a strictly historical statement. This signal, relayed by many literar
在19世纪的旅行文献(P.I. Sumarokov, V.B. Bronevsky, I.M. Muraviev-Apostol, E.D. Clark, F. Dubois de Montpere, K. Omer de Gell等人)中，有一个传说，古代Chersonesus被摧毁，以提取建造塞瓦斯托波尔的建筑材料。客观资料分析表明，这是一个文学神话，起源于P.S.帕拉斯的作品“1793-1794年在俄罗斯国家南部省份旅行期间的观察”(1799-1801)。这位学者认为，切尔松苏斯的“毁灭”是18世纪80年代至90年代塞瓦斯托波尔积极建设的结果。1818年，P.S.帕拉斯的观点得到了N.M. Karamzin的支持，他的《俄罗斯国家历史》(参考P.S.帕拉斯)告诉我们，切尔松苏斯被摧毁是为了“在塞瓦斯托波尔取石头建造房屋”。从那时起，这个版本的事件已经成为一个司空见惯的几乎所有关于切逊尼索斯的文本。与此同时，一些欧洲作家(E.D. Clark, K. Omer de Gell)将这种“公共场所”作为政治宣传的工具。据记载，在1783年，只有四个中等规模的物体是用切尔松苏斯石建造的:一个小教堂，一个铁匠铺，一个码头和一个海军上将的房子。然后，他们开始在F.F. Mekenzi的庄园和Inkerman采石场生产建筑材料，这使得在Chersonesus工业开采石头变得不切实际。为什么第一个城市建设的经验会在P.S.帕拉斯的书中得出如此概括的结论?对历史形势的重建可以找出两个主要原因。当时，克里米亚被认为是俄罗斯获得的古典遗迹的一部分。古代建筑的遗迹成为文学和研究兴趣的主要对象。然而，第一批旅行者的期望被欺骗了，因为在克里米亚，他们大多发现中世纪的纪念碑建在古代纪念碑的原址上。现代考古学家知道，在6 - 7世纪，古切尔松苏斯被完全重建，这就解释了古代遗迹的稀少。然而，在帕拉斯(P.S. Pallas)时代，用建造塞瓦斯托波尔的人造成的破坏来解释没有古董更容易。然而，还有另一个原因。塞瓦斯托波尔迅速成为半岛上人口最多的城市。这导致了自发的发展和未经授权的建筑材料开采，包括切尔松苏斯的领土。要从地方的积极性和资金层面解决古迹保护问题是不可能的。P.S.帕拉斯作品中的夸张之处可以解释为，他意识到古代城邦的废墟面临着自发的威胁。P.S.帕拉斯(P.S. Pallas)写的一小段关于切逊尼索斯(Chersonesus)毁灭的文字，与其说是一个严格的历史陈述，不如说是一个警告信号，呼吁采取措施保护该定居点。这一信号通过许多文学文本传递，最终引起了必要的反应——切尔松苏斯成为历史遗产保护的对象。然而，与此同时，P.S.帕拉斯的文本变成了一个神话主题，牢牢扎根于关于切尔松奈斯和塞瓦斯托波尔历史的文学观念中。
{"title":"The Myth of the Chersonesus Destruction: An Episode of the Literary Development of Crimea","authors":"V. V. Orekhov","doi":"10.17223/24099554/15/12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/24099554/15/12","url":null,"abstract":"In travel literature of the 19th century (P.I. Sumarokov, V.B. Bronevsky, I.M. Muraviev-Apostol, E.D. Clark, F. Dubois de Montpere, K. Omer de Gell and others), there was a legend that ancient Chersonesus was destroyed to extract building materials for the construction of Sevastopol. The objective data analysis shows that it is a literary myth that originates from the work of P.S. Pallas “Observations Made During Traveling Over Southern Provinces of the Russian State in 1793–1794” (1799–1801). The scholar argued that the “destruction” of Chersonesus was a consequence of the active construction of Sevastopol in the 1780s–1790s. In 1818, P.S. Pallas’s viepoint was supported by N.M. Karamzin, whose History of the Russian State tells (with reference to P.S. Pallas) that Chersonesus was destroyed “to take stones to construct houses in Sevastopol”. Since then, this version of the events has become a commonplace in almost any text about Chersonesus. At the same time, some European authors (E.D. Clark, K. Omer de Gell) used this “common place” as an instrument of political propaganda. It has been documented that only four objects of modest scale were built out of Chersonesus stone in 1783: a chapel, a smithy, a pier and an admiral’s house. Then, they started to produce building materials in F.F. Mekenzi’s estate and in the Inkerman quarries, which made the industrial extraction of stone in Chersonesus impractical. Why did the experience of the first city constructions entail such generalizing conclusions in P.S. Pallas’s book? The reconstruction of the historical situation allows to single out two main reasons. That time Crimea was considered a fragment of classical antiquity acquired by Russia. The remains of ancient constructions became the primary object of literary and research interests. However, the first travelers were deceived in their expectations, since in Crimea they mostly found medieval monuments erected on the site of ancient ones. Modern archaeologists know that in the 6th – 7th centuries ancient Chersonesus was completely rebuilt, which explains the scantiness of ancient traces. However, in the era of P.S. Pallas, it was easier to explain the absence of antique artifacts by the destruction caused by those who built Sevastopol. Yet there was another reason. Sevastopol quickly became the most populous city on the peninsula. This led to spontaneous development and unauthorized extraction of building materials, including the territory of Chersonesus. It was impossible to tackle the problem of protecting ancient monument at the level of local initiatives and funds. The exaggerations found in P.S. Pallas’s writing can be explained by the awareness of the spontaneous threat to the ruins of the ancient polis. A small fragment of the text written by P.S. Pallas about the destruction of Chersonesus was rather a signal of alarm calling for measures to preserve the settlement, than a strictly historical statement. This signal, relayed by many literar","PeriodicalId":55932,"journal":{"name":"Imagologiya i Komparativistika-Imagology and Comparative Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67584434","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}
The article offers a new version of the concept and figurative nature of the well-known poem “The Sail” by Mikhail Lermontov. A set of subject lexemes from two articles written by Nikolay Nadezhdin based on the materials of his dissertation is considered as the source of most of the semantic signs of this text. The articles were simultaneously published in two magazines (Ateney [Athenaeus] and Vestnik Evropy [Herald of Europe]) and contain the conception of the phase development of world poetry. In the articles, Nadezhdin outlines the presence of two - classical and romantic - phases and proved that the latter expressed a crisis state of consciousness and is, in its then contemporary form, a forerunner of the transition to new forms of consciousness and the art of words. The task of these forthcoming new forms was to combine two complementary principles that structurally characterize the classical and romantic phases of poetry - oriented towards the outer and inner worlds, respectively. Nadezhdin is a recently hired professor of the language arts department of Moscow University where Lermontov also transfers. Lermontov publishes his debut poem in the same magazine as Nadezhdin, but chronologically later. Getting acquainted with the professor’s articles and his conception, Lermontov undertakes the mission of a qualitative renewal of poetic art that Nadezhdin declared. The poem “The Sail” embodies this decision of the young poet, that is why he is consistent as an author in extracting Nadezhdin’s figurative signs-concepts from the articles in addition to the initial emblematic line from Bestuzhev-Marlinsky’s poem. Thus, the reference to the famous Russian romantic acquires a motivated meaning within the framework of Nadezhdin’s general conception. The conception also explains the stanza-based division of the text into into descriptive and reflexive segments, which are analogs of of orientation towards the outer and the inner world. Lermontov demonstrates that his authorial consciousness overcomes the crisis of the romantic phase. He depicts the romantic character and his dialogue with a different, external subject objectively, in an estranged manner. As a result, the reader understands that the author, as a third consciousness, in his expression and values, is outside the framework of the designated problems of the dispute between the character and the sail, that is, between the real bearer and the actor of new poetry. Associated with this is the special position of this text in Lermontov’s transition from poetry to prose, as well as its inclusion in the famous letter of Lopukhina in September 1832. All this taken together makes it possible to speak about the need to consider the Lermontov / Nadezhdin plot as promising, although absent in Lermontov Encyclopedia.
本文对莱蒙托夫著名诗歌《帆》的概念和比喻性质进行了新的解读。Nikolay Nadezhdin根据其论文材料所写的两篇文章中的一组主语词被认为是本文大部分语义符号的来源。这些文章同时发表在两份杂志(Ateney [Athenaeus]和Vestnik Evropy [Herald of Europe])上，包含了世界诗歌发展阶段的概念。在文章中，Nadezhdin概述了古典主义和浪漫主义两个阶段的存在，并证明后者表达了一种意识的危机状态，并且在其当时的当代形式中，是向新意识形式和语言艺术过渡的先驱。这些即将到来的新形式的任务是将两个互补的原则结合起来，这两个原则在结构上代表了诗歌的古典和浪漫阶段——分别面向外部世界和内心世界。纳杰日丁最近被聘为莫斯科大学语言艺术系的教授，莱蒙托夫也在莫斯科大学转学。莱蒙托夫与纳杰日金在同一杂志上发表了他的首诗，但时间顺序晚于他。莱蒙托夫熟悉了教授的文章和他的观点，承担了纳杰日金宣布的诗歌艺术质的更新的使命。《帆》这首诗体现了这位年轻诗人的这一决定，这就是为什么他作为一个作者，除了从别斯图热夫-马林斯基的诗中最初的象征性诗句外，还从文章中提取了纳杰日金的比喻符号概念。因此，在Nadezhdin的总体概念框架内，对俄罗斯著名浪漫主义的引用获得了一种动机意义。这一概念也解释了基于节的文本划分为描述性和反思性的部分，它们类似于面向外部世界和内心世界的取向。莱蒙托夫证明了他的作家意识克服了浪漫主义阶段的危机。他以一种疏离的方式客观地描绘了浪漫主义人物以及他与另一个外部主体的对话。因此，读者明白，作为第三种意识的作者，在他的表达和价值观中，是在人物和帆之间，即新诗的真正承担者和演员之间的争论的指定问题的框架之外的。与此相关的是，这篇文章在莱蒙托夫从诗歌到散文的转变中所处的特殊地位，以及它在1832年9月著名的洛普希纳信中的地位。综上所述，我们有可能认为莱蒙托夫/纳杰日丁阴谋是有希望的，尽管在莱蒙托夫百科全书中没有。
{"title":"Mikhail Lermontov and Nikolay Nadezhdin: Creative History and Sources of the Poem “The Sail”","authors":"S. Komarov, Olga K. Lagunova","doi":"10.17223/24099554/16/7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/24099554/16/7","url":null,"abstract":"The article offers a new version of the concept and figurative nature of the well-known poem “The Sail” by Mikhail Lermontov. A set of subject lexemes from two articles written by Nikolay Nadezhdin based on the materials of his dissertation is considered as the source of most of the semantic signs of this text. The articles were simultaneously published in two magazines (Ateney [Athenaeus] and Vestnik Evropy [Herald of Europe]) and contain the conception of the phase development of world poetry. In the articles, Nadezhdin outlines the presence of two - classical and romantic - phases and proved that the latter expressed a crisis state of consciousness and is, in its then contemporary form, a forerunner of the transition to new forms of consciousness and the art of words. The task of these forthcoming new forms was to combine two complementary principles that structurally characterize the classical and romantic phases of poetry - oriented towards the outer and inner worlds, respectively. Nadezhdin is a recently hired professor of the language arts department of Moscow University where Lermontov also transfers. Lermontov publishes his debut poem in the same magazine as Nadezhdin, but chronologically later. Getting acquainted with the professor’s articles and his conception, Lermontov undertakes the mission of a qualitative renewal of poetic art that Nadezhdin declared. The poem “The Sail” embodies this decision of the young poet, that is why he is consistent as an author in extracting Nadezhdin’s figurative signs-concepts from the articles in addition to the initial emblematic line from Bestuzhev-Marlinsky’s poem. Thus, the reference to the famous Russian romantic acquires a motivated meaning within the framework of Nadezhdin’s general conception. The conception also explains the stanza-based division of the text into into descriptive and reflexive segments, which are analogs of of orientation towards the outer and the inner world. Lermontov demonstrates that his authorial consciousness overcomes the crisis of the romantic phase. He depicts the romantic character and his dialogue with a different, external subject objectively, in an estranged manner. As a result, the reader understands that the author, as a third consciousness, in his expression and values, is outside the framework of the designated problems of the dispute between the character and the sail, that is, between the real bearer and the actor of new poetry. Associated with this is the special position of this text in Lermontov’s transition from poetry to prose, as well as its inclusion in the famous letter of Lopukhina in September 1832. All this taken together makes it possible to speak about the need to consider the Lermontov / Nadezhdin plot as promising, although absent in Lermontov Encyclopedia.","PeriodicalId":55932,"journal":{"name":"Imagologiya i Komparativistika-Imagology and Comparative Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67585138","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}
The major focus of the research is the content of the “Holy Russia” concept in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s poem “On the European Events of 1854”, analyzed in the context of the writer’s creative biography, as well as in the “big” context of historic, military, and political events of 1854, and the wave of poems evolved in Russian literature in response to these events. The author argues that, by the beginning of the Crimean war in 1854, Dostoevsky acquired a new understanding of himself, the Russian people, and Russia. This new understanding had, at its core, the notion of Christ’s absolute holiness, of inner connection between a person and a person through compassionate Christian love as an undoubted value, of vibrant pulse of this love in the Russian heart. No wonder, then, that the poem “On the European Events of 1854” - written by Dostoevsky in March 1854 and devoted to the political, historic, and religious situation connected with the Crimean War - comprises significant motifs characteristic of the writer’s mature works (primarily, the motif of holiness of Russian people’s ideals) and, thus, cannot be considered simply an expression of the author’s loyalty to the tsar and those in power. Two literary contexts - of military-patriotic poetry and of Slavophile poems devoted to the Crimean War - allow distinguishing between the common topics and the author’s voice in the poem. The text has three distinct parts: the first is profoundly innovative, both in the form and content, while the second and third ones basically follow the samples of Slavophile and military-patriotic poetry, correspondingly. The peculiarity of the “Holy Russia” concept, actualized in the first part of the poem, is determined by its involvement with the image of a “little man”, on the one hand, and by the significance of the motifs of self-sacrifice, sufferings, Christian love and faith, on the other. The name “Holy Russia” corresponds here to the Russian people’s historic way of shaping the state and defending it as a truly national value; it expresses the basis of the “Russian spirit”: self-sacrifice; Orthodox notions; respect for such holy things as family and motherland, the tsar and the state; the Russian people’s belief in a sort of special connection with the Lord. The analysis of the way the name “Rus’ ” functions in Dostoevsky’s other “Crimean” poem - “On the First of July 1855” - verifies the hypothesis that the writer’s concept of “Holy Russia” was formed in his poems devoted to the Crimean War.
{"title":"“On the European Events of 1854”: Dostoevsky in a Dialogue with Contemporary Poets on “Holy Russia”","authors":"S. Koroleva","doi":"10.17223/24099554/16/12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/24099554/16/12","url":null,"abstract":"The major focus of the research is the content of the “Holy Russia” concept in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s poem “On the European Events of 1854”, analyzed in the context of the writer’s creative biography, as well as in the “big” context of historic, military, and political events of 1854, and the wave of poems evolved in Russian literature in response to these events. The author argues that, by the beginning of the Crimean war in 1854, Dostoevsky acquired a new understanding of himself, the Russian people, and Russia. This new understanding had, at its core, the notion of Christ’s absolute holiness, of inner connection between a person and a person through compassionate Christian love as an undoubted value, of vibrant pulse of this love in the Russian heart. No wonder, then, that the poem “On the European Events of 1854” - written by Dostoevsky in March 1854 and devoted to the political, historic, and religious situation connected with the Crimean War - comprises significant motifs characteristic of the writer’s mature works (primarily, the motif of holiness of Russian people’s ideals) and, thus, cannot be considered simply an expression of the author’s loyalty to the tsar and those in power. Two literary contexts - of military-patriotic poetry and of Slavophile poems devoted to the Crimean War - allow distinguishing between the common topics and the author’s voice in the poem. The text has three distinct parts: the first is profoundly innovative, both in the form and content, while the second and third ones basically follow the samples of Slavophile and military-patriotic poetry, correspondingly. The peculiarity of the “Holy Russia” concept, actualized in the first part of the poem, is determined by its involvement with the image of a “little man”, on the one hand, and by the significance of the motifs of self-sacrifice, sufferings, Christian love and faith, on the other. The name “Holy Russia” corresponds here to the Russian people’s historic way of shaping the state and defending it as a truly national value; it expresses the basis of the “Russian spirit”: self-sacrifice; Orthodox notions; respect for such holy things as family and motherland, the tsar and the state; the Russian people’s belief in a sort of special connection with the Lord. The analysis of the way the name “Rus’ ” functions in Dostoevsky’s other “Crimean” poem - “On the First of July 1855” - verifies the hypothesis that the writer’s concept of “Holy Russia” was formed in his poems devoted to the Crimean War.","PeriodicalId":55932,"journal":{"name":"Imagologiya i Komparativistika-Imagology and Comparative Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67584328","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}
The article focuses on Alexey Balabanov’s flagship film Brother 2 (2000), which is devoted to the Russian neo-imperial ambitions and traditionally perceived as a “popular” manifesto of Russian nationalism. The author proposes an approach based on the concepts of postcolonial theory and decolonial thinking (in the Tlostanian sense). Firstly, the creation of a unique author’s style by the “provincial” Balabanov (a native of Sverdlovsk) can be viewed as a contradiction to the postcolonial theory, which says that the “subaltern” (Gayatri Spivak) cannot speak in the face of the metropolis. Of course, this only takes place if we recognize the legitimacy of Alexander Etkind’s concept of a specific “internal colonization” in the Russian statehood. Secondly, the evolution of Balabanov’s hero does not imply any preferences for the Russians and constructs a single paradigm to unite Danila Bagrov - “the first real hero of the post-Soviet cinema” (Vasily Koretsky), the Englishman John Boyle from the film War, the Yakut woman Mergen from the short film River, Major Scriabin nicknamed Yakut (Fireman) ... Thus, Balavanov’s mythology of “brotherhood” is not international, yet it cannot be reduced to Russianness (Andrey Plakhov). Thirdly, the metropolis in Balabanov’s dilogy, be it “not Leningrad, but Petersburg”, the capital Moscow or the gangster Chicago, is losing its status as a stronghold of modernity. Its inviability can be seen in the empty streets of St. Petersburg and Moscow. Danila arrives in St. Petersburg from the provincial Priozersk, where life is marked by the patriarchal humanity (images of his mother, his father’s classmate). The hero epitomizes the power of the national soil. He is an epic Bogatyr who goes back to the idea of heroism. In the finale, Danila leaves his brother in Chicago, having gone through an existential experience and realized that war is not a national clash. Having killed many people, he fails to avenge the death of a friend. He longs for abstract justice, but helps a man who is unworthy of the sacrifice. Danila acquires a real friend - an American named Ben and a brother in arms - a prostitute Dasha, who unexpectedly complements the gallery of seemingly schematic female characters epitomizing all the hypostases of a woman in the logic of imperial / colonial modernity (mother / lover / reborn harlot). All this radically destroys traditional national / gender definitions. Thus, these contaminations form the original paradigm of the author’s view, which critically “explodes” the seemingly self-evident nationalist discourse of the film Brother 2 with its inherent racism, sexism, and other xenophobic features.
{"title":"(Post)colonial Nationalism or National (Post)Colonialism: 20th Anniversary of Brother 2","authors":"Evgeniy O. Tretyakov","doi":"10.17223/24099554/16/15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/24099554/16/15","url":null,"abstract":"The article focuses on Alexey Balabanov’s flagship film Brother 2 (2000), which is devoted to the Russian neo-imperial ambitions and traditionally perceived as a “popular” manifesto of Russian nationalism. The author proposes an approach based on the concepts of postcolonial theory and decolonial thinking (in the Tlostanian sense). Firstly, the creation of a unique author’s style by the “provincial” Balabanov (a native of Sverdlovsk) can be viewed as a contradiction to the postcolonial theory, which says that the “subaltern” (Gayatri Spivak) cannot speak in the face of the metropolis. Of course, this only takes place if we recognize the legitimacy of Alexander Etkind’s concept of a specific “internal colonization” in the Russian statehood. Secondly, the evolution of Balabanov’s hero does not imply any preferences for the Russians and constructs a single paradigm to unite Danila Bagrov - “the first real hero of the post-Soviet cinema” (Vasily Koretsky), the Englishman John Boyle from the film War, the Yakut woman Mergen from the short film River, Major Scriabin nicknamed Yakut (Fireman) ... Thus, Balavanov’s mythology of “brotherhood” is not international, yet it cannot be reduced to Russianness (Andrey Plakhov). Thirdly, the metropolis in Balabanov’s dilogy, be it “not Leningrad, but Petersburg”, the capital Moscow or the gangster Chicago, is losing its status as a stronghold of modernity. Its inviability can be seen in the empty streets of St. Petersburg and Moscow. Danila arrives in St. Petersburg from the provincial Priozersk, where life is marked by the patriarchal humanity (images of his mother, his father’s classmate). The hero epitomizes the power of the national soil. He is an epic Bogatyr who goes back to the idea of heroism. In the finale, Danila leaves his brother in Chicago, having gone through an existential experience and realized that war is not a national clash. Having killed many people, he fails to avenge the death of a friend. He longs for abstract justice, but helps a man who is unworthy of the sacrifice. Danila acquires a real friend - an American named Ben and a brother in arms - a prostitute Dasha, who unexpectedly complements the gallery of seemingly schematic female characters epitomizing all the hypostases of a woman in the logic of imperial / colonial modernity (mother / lover / reborn harlot). All this radically destroys traditional national / gender definitions. Thus, these contaminations form the original paradigm of the author’s view, which critically “explodes” the seemingly self-evident nationalist discourse of the film Brother 2 with its inherent racism, sexism, and other xenophobic features.","PeriodicalId":55932,"journal":{"name":"Imagologiya i Komparativistika-Imagology and Comparative Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67584898","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}
The scholars of Russian literature are very well aware of V Zhukovsky’s translation of Goethe’s “Erlkonig” (1782), published as “Lesnoy tsar’ ” (1818). However, none of the studies of Zhukovsky’s literary works mentions that Zhukovsky presumably used the English variant of the ballad by W. Scott for his translation of “Lesnoy tsar’ ”. W. Scott’s “The Erl-King” (1797) was written fifteen years after the original and almost twenty years before Zhukovsky’s translation. Thus, it can be assumed that V Zhukovsky, who was acquainted with W. Scott’s, couldn’t ignore the English translation of “Erlkonig”. If we compare V Zhukovsky’s and W. Scott’s tranlsations in terms of their closeness to the original, we can see that the former is significantly far from the original than the latter. Zhukovsky is faithful to the original in terms of the content, but he completely abandons the folklore stylistics of the original and traditionally organizes his text according to the ballad principles, which have already been developed in his original works. However, in his evolution, V. Zhukovsky follows W. Scott and draws on not only W. Scott’s early ballads but also his later narrative poems. By the moment when V. Zhukovsky starts translating Goethe’s ballad, he must have been acquainted with W. Scott’s narrative poems and other poetical pieces, which results in a difference between the original, English, and Russian translations. The closeness of Zhukovsky’s and Scott’s translation strategies can be seen not only on the level of content but also on the stylistic level. When creating “The Erl-King”, W. Scott focuses on the literary form of the ballad: even though his translation is quite close to the original, he transforms the poetical semantics and ballad form in the vein of sentimentalism, which can be also seen in his translation of Burger’s “Lenore”. The comparative analyses of the original and two translations by Zhukovsky and Scott allows making a conclusion that W. Scott’s translation of “Erlkonig” can be “interposed” between Goethe’s text, which is close to folklore ballad traditions, and Zhukovsky’s literary variant. If we take into account the undeniable fact that V. Zhukovsky looked to W. Scott’s ballads, we can say that early W. Scott’s literary pieces vector Zhukovsky’s translational creative works and play the role of a transition stage for Zhukovsky’s development as a poet and translator. It should be noted then, that later W. Scott returns to folklore variants of the ballad, while Zhukovsky remains faithful to the previously developed course to create his own philosophy of the genre.
{"title":"Three “Erl-Kings”","authors":"M. Pavlova","doi":"10.17223/24099554/16/2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/24099554/16/2","url":null,"abstract":"The scholars of Russian literature are very well aware of V Zhukovsky’s translation of Goethe’s “Erlkonig” (1782), published as “Lesnoy tsar’ ” (1818). However, none of the studies of Zhukovsky’s literary works mentions that Zhukovsky presumably used the English variant of the ballad by W. Scott for his translation of “Lesnoy tsar’ ”. W. Scott’s “The Erl-King” (1797) was written fifteen years after the original and almost twenty years before Zhukovsky’s translation. Thus, it can be assumed that V Zhukovsky, who was acquainted with W. Scott’s, couldn’t ignore the English translation of “Erlkonig”. If we compare V Zhukovsky’s and W. Scott’s tranlsations in terms of their closeness to the original, we can see that the former is significantly far from the original than the latter. Zhukovsky is faithful to the original in terms of the content, but he completely abandons the folklore stylistics of the original and traditionally organizes his text according to the ballad principles, which have already been developed in his original works. However, in his evolution, V. Zhukovsky follows W. Scott and draws on not only W. Scott’s early ballads but also his later narrative poems. By the moment when V. Zhukovsky starts translating Goethe’s ballad, he must have been acquainted with W. Scott’s narrative poems and other poetical pieces, which results in a difference between the original, English, and Russian translations. The closeness of Zhukovsky’s and Scott’s translation strategies can be seen not only on the level of content but also on the stylistic level. When creating “The Erl-King”, W. Scott focuses on the literary form of the ballad: even though his translation is quite close to the original, he transforms the poetical semantics and ballad form in the vein of sentimentalism, which can be also seen in his translation of Burger’s “Lenore”. The comparative analyses of the original and two translations by Zhukovsky and Scott allows making a conclusion that W. Scott’s translation of “Erlkonig” can be “interposed” between Goethe’s text, which is close to folklore ballad traditions, and Zhukovsky’s literary variant. If we take into account the undeniable fact that V. Zhukovsky looked to W. Scott’s ballads, we can say that early W. Scott’s literary pieces vector Zhukovsky’s translational creative works and play the role of a transition stage for Zhukovsky’s development as a poet and translator. It should be noted then, that later W. Scott returns to folklore variants of the ballad, while Zhukovsky remains faithful to the previously developed course to create his own philosophy of the genre.","PeriodicalId":55932,"journal":{"name":"Imagologiya i Komparativistika-Imagology and Comparative Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67584981","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}
The article brings forth and develops the problem of I.S. Turgenev’s consequent perception of W. Scott’s SaintRonan’s Well (1824). The author focuses, firstly, on the I.S. Turgenev’s notes on the pages of the English novel and, secondly, on the analysis of Turgenev’s Clara Militch (1883), whose artistic composition reflects Walter Scott’s motifs and images. Saint Ronan’s Well was in the area of Turgenev’s reader interest in the early 1840-s. While reading the novel, he left notes in the form of short lines on the margins and underlined separate words, using either a pencil or his nail. On the one hand, Turgenev’s notes demonstrate his reader interest to the ironic impression of the entire Saint Ronan’s Well society and its individual representatives (for example, the images of Mac Turk, Mister Winterblossom, Earl Etherington). On the other hand, Turgenev emphasizes four leading and minor characters. Paired by Turgenev, they have an antithetic mode: the comic images of Peregrine Touchwood and Meg Dods and dramatic images of Lord Etherington and John Mowbray. Turgenev is sensitive to W. Scott’s principle of depiction, based on the deep and acute contradiction between individual characters and within their feeling worlds.
{"title":"Walter Scott’s Saint Ronan’s Well in Ivan Turgenev’s Artistic Perception","authors":"Ivan O. Volkov","doi":"10.17223/24099554/16/4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/24099554/16/4","url":null,"abstract":"The article brings forth and develops the problem of I.S. Turgenev’s consequent perception of W. Scott’s SaintRonan’s Well (1824). The author focuses, firstly, on the I.S. Turgenev’s notes on the pages of the English novel and, secondly, on the analysis of Turgenev’s Clara Militch (1883), whose artistic composition reflects Walter Scott’s motifs and images. Saint Ronan’s Well was in the area of Turgenev’s reader interest in the early 1840-s. While reading the novel, he left notes in the form of short lines on the margins and underlined separate words, using either a pencil or his nail. On the one hand, Turgenev’s notes demonstrate his reader interest to the ironic impression of the entire Saint Ronan’s Well society and its individual representatives (for example, the images of Mac Turk, Mister Winterblossom, Earl Etherington). On the other hand, Turgenev emphasizes four leading and minor characters. Paired by Turgenev, they have an antithetic mode: the comic images of Peregrine Touchwood and Meg Dods and dramatic images of Lord Etherington and John Mowbray. Turgenev is sensitive to W. Scott’s principle of depiction, based on the deep and acute contradiction between individual characters and within their feeling worlds.","PeriodicalId":55932,"journal":{"name":"Imagologiya i Komparativistika-Imagology and Comparative Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67585039","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}
Most of Oscar Wilde’s works focus on the high society (including the royalty), which is portrayed as artificial, imitative, and ludic. These characteristics are epitomized in the process of collecting (artificial) rarities (The Picture of Dorian Gray, Salome, The Young King), or in the passion for performance and mystification (The Birthday of the Infanta, The Sphinx Without a Secret, The Importance of Being Ernest). As opposed to the “high society”, Wilde shows the natural (or ancient) milieu, which is firmer and healthier, but devoid of aesthetic perfection. Paradoxically, the high society represents external, corporeal, aesthetic form of life, while the natural milieu means the spiritual and ethic one. Wilde shows the aesthetic or ethic perfection as a fatal and dangerous phenomenon, since fully expressing themself in one, the person has to abandon the other. As a result, a good-looking person becomes a paragon of immorality, while a morally upstanding one looks too much ugly). Wilde is interested in the technique of the interaction between the opposites, rather than in the depiction of the absolute corporeal or moral perfection. The article aims at showing the two forms of interaction between “the civilization” and “the nature”. The positive model shows a profitable exchange: one side gives exactly as much as the other side receives (i.e. the rescued Hare for the rescued Star-Child; the peace of the Canterville Ghost for Virginia’s fortunate marriage). This is the case when the characters, who have some problems with their bodies (the transparent Ghost or the serpent-like Star-Child) gain the distinct shape, as if passing from the ancient to the modern state. In the cause of mutually beneficial exchange, the happy end (in Wilde’s terms) is possible. In the negative model, we can clearly see the imbalance between the two sides: one side gives more, but receives less, while the other becomes the figure of worship. Gradually, the influence of one of the sides grows: the “predator”, like the vampire, consumes and exhausts their “victim”. Instead of the modern exchange, the relationships between “the civilization” and “the nature” transform into the ancient ritual of the sacrifice, or idol worship (Basil, Nightingale, Jokanaan), with the members of this process returning to the ancient - formless - state.
{"title":"The Forms of the Interaction between “Civilization” and “Nature” in the Fiction by Oscar Wilde: The Exchange and the Ritual of Sacrifice","authors":"N. Kuznetsova","doi":"10.17223/24099554/16/5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17223/24099554/16/5","url":null,"abstract":"Most of Oscar Wilde’s works focus on the high society (including the royalty), which is portrayed as artificial, imitative, and ludic. These characteristics are epitomized in the process of collecting (artificial) rarities (The Picture of Dorian Gray, Salome, The Young King), or in the passion for performance and mystification (The Birthday of the Infanta, The Sphinx Without a Secret, The Importance of Being Ernest). As opposed to the “high society”, Wilde shows the natural (or ancient) milieu, which is firmer and healthier, but devoid of aesthetic perfection. Paradoxically, the high society represents external, corporeal, aesthetic form of life, while the natural milieu means the spiritual and ethic one. Wilde shows the aesthetic or ethic perfection as a fatal and dangerous phenomenon, since fully expressing themself in one, the person has to abandon the other. As a result, a good-looking person becomes a paragon of immorality, while a morally upstanding one looks too much ugly). Wilde is interested in the technique of the interaction between the opposites, rather than in the depiction of the absolute corporeal or moral perfection. The article aims at showing the two forms of interaction between “the civilization” and “the nature”. The positive model shows a profitable exchange: one side gives exactly as much as the other side receives (i.e. the rescued Hare for the rescued Star-Child; the peace of the Canterville Ghost for Virginia’s fortunate marriage). This is the case when the characters, who have some problems with their bodies (the transparent Ghost or the serpent-like Star-Child) gain the distinct shape, as if passing from the ancient to the modern state. In the cause of mutually beneficial exchange, the happy end (in Wilde’s terms) is possible. In the negative model, we can clearly see the imbalance between the two sides: one side gives more, but receives less, while the other becomes the figure of worship. Gradually, the influence of one of the sides grows: the “predator”, like the vampire, consumes and exhausts their “victim”. Instead of the modern exchange, the relationships between “the civilization” and “the nature” transform into the ancient ritual of the sacrifice, or idol worship (Basil, Nightingale, Jokanaan), with the members of this process returning to the ancient - formless - state.","PeriodicalId":55932,"journal":{"name":"Imagologiya i Komparativistika-Imagology and Comparative Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67585083","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：