{"title":"普希金对鲍迈斯特的《形而上学》写过评论吗?","authors":"E. Abdullaev","doi":"10.31425/0042-8795-2024-3-39-59","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article deals with the problem of the authorship attribution of the anonymous review published in Literaturnaya Gazeta on 2 March 1830 in response to a revised edition of the Russian translation of F. C. Baumeister’s Metaphysics [Institutiones Metaphysicae]. The hypothesis that names the author as A. Delvig (V. Vinogradov, S. Kibalnik) is criticized for its lack of proof. The scholar argues in favour of Pushkin’s authorship. The review is considered in the context of Pushkin’s ‘indirect polemic’ with the book’s translator Y. Tolmachev, a prominent figure of the Russian national education system in the 1810s–1820s. Pushkin’s possible authorship is revealed in the stylistic features of the review as well as parallels between the poet’s own works (A Scene from ‘Faust’ [Stsena iz Fausta], Mozart and Salieri [Motsart i Salieri], and the so-called ‘Objections to Küchelbecker’s articles published in Mnemozina’ [‘Vozrazheniya na statyi Kyukhelbekera v Mnemozine’]) and selected paragraphs from Baumeister’s Metaphysics. Nearly all those texts relate to the period of Pushkin’s exile to his Mikhaylovskoe estate, when the poet had the opportunity to familiarize himself with Baumeister’s book.","PeriodicalId":52245,"journal":{"name":"Voprosy Literatury","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Did Pushkin write a review of Baumeister’s Metaphysics?\",\"authors\":\"E. Abdullaev\",\"doi\":\"10.31425/0042-8795-2024-3-39-59\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article deals with the problem of the authorship attribution of the anonymous review published in Literaturnaya Gazeta on 2 March 1830 in response to a revised edition of the Russian translation of F. C. Baumeister’s Metaphysics [Institutiones Metaphysicae]. The hypothesis that names the author as A. Delvig (V. Vinogradov, S. Kibalnik) is criticized for its lack of proof. The scholar argues in favour of Pushkin’s authorship. The review is considered in the context of Pushkin’s ‘indirect polemic’ with the book’s translator Y. Tolmachev, a prominent figure of the Russian national education system in the 1810s–1820s. Pushkin’s possible authorship is revealed in the stylistic features of the review as well as parallels between the poet’s own works (A Scene from ‘Faust’ [Stsena iz Fausta], Mozart and Salieri [Motsart i Salieri], and the so-called ‘Objections to Küchelbecker’s articles published in Mnemozina’ [‘Vozrazheniya na statyi Kyukhelbekera v Mnemozine’]) and selected paragraphs from Baumeister’s Metaphysics. Nearly all those texts relate to the period of Pushkin’s exile to his Mikhaylovskoe estate, when the poet had the opportunity to familiarize himself with Baumeister’s book.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52245,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Voprosy Literatury\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Voprosy Literatury\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31425/0042-8795-2024-3-39-59\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Voprosy Literatury","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31425/0042-8795-2024-3-39-59","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
文章论述了 1830 年 3 月 2 日发表在《Literaturnaya Gazeta》上的匿名评论的作者归属问题,该评论是对 F. C. Baumeister 的《形而上学》[Institutiones Metaphysicae]俄译文修订版的回应。将作者命名为 A. Delvig(V. Vinogradov,S. Kibalnik)的假设因缺乏证据而受到批评。该学者主张作者为普希金。该评论是在普希金与该书译者亚-托尔马乔夫(Y. Tolmachev)的 "间接论战 "背景下进行考量的,托尔马乔夫是 1810-1820 年代俄罗斯国民教育体系中的杰出人物。这篇评论的风格特征以及诗人自己的作品(《浮士德》场景、《莫扎特与萨列里》、《反对库切尔贝克在姆内莫津发表的文章》)与鲍迈斯特的《形而上学》选段之间的相似之处揭示了普希金可能是该书的作者。几乎所有这些文本都与普希金被流放到米哈伊洛夫斯科庄园期间有关,当时诗人有机会熟悉鲍迈斯特的书。
Did Pushkin write a review of Baumeister’s Metaphysics?
The article deals with the problem of the authorship attribution of the anonymous review published in Literaturnaya Gazeta on 2 March 1830 in response to a revised edition of the Russian translation of F. C. Baumeister’s Metaphysics [Institutiones Metaphysicae]. The hypothesis that names the author as A. Delvig (V. Vinogradov, S. Kibalnik) is criticized for its lack of proof. The scholar argues in favour of Pushkin’s authorship. The review is considered in the context of Pushkin’s ‘indirect polemic’ with the book’s translator Y. Tolmachev, a prominent figure of the Russian national education system in the 1810s–1820s. Pushkin’s possible authorship is revealed in the stylistic features of the review as well as parallels between the poet’s own works (A Scene from ‘Faust’ [Stsena iz Fausta], Mozart and Salieri [Motsart i Salieri], and the so-called ‘Objections to Küchelbecker’s articles published in Mnemozina’ [‘Vozrazheniya na statyi Kyukhelbekera v Mnemozine’]) and selected paragraphs from Baumeister’s Metaphysics. Nearly all those texts relate to the period of Pushkin’s exile to his Mikhaylovskoe estate, when the poet had the opportunity to familiarize himself with Baumeister’s book.