Search

Search Results

• B. Spinoza, N.V. Gogol, J. Baudrillard: On the Debate about Theocentrism and Anthropocentrism

  13 p.

  Sergey Shults

  Views:

  232

  Interest in the problem of man, in the structure of the world and in its foundations is brought together, with all the difference, Spinoza, Gogol, Baudrillard. In the lineup of authors, three main attitudes are revealed. Spinoza: all that exists is theocentric; one must strive to comprehend God and His "extensions" (not creatures!) in the form of the world and man. Gogol: comic-romantic criticism regarding intramural irrationality with the author's aspiration for an eschatological perspective. Baudrillard: immersion in the pan-social as the only being, although it has (starting from the Renaissance) an empty foundation. According to Spinoza, man, nature, the world, in general, everything in reality is an extension of God. Not "creation"! - it is a continuation, practically an integral part of God, some "doubles", although those with less "good."  It turns out that God is not able to separate himself from what is around him, what is in the outside world and everything that is not He considers himself to be. Gogol, on the other hand, strove to portray man as really different in relation to God and at the same time capable of changing (the concept of “Dead Souls”). Isn’t the “apocalypse of our time” outlined by Baudrillard? Its unchanging Marxist-Freudian jargon is intended only to serve the immediate intention of reforming social reality. The Baudrillard concept is marked by post- and neo-romantic skepticism regarding the nature of man and society. The extra-Marxist (and non-Freudian) in Baudrillard - his bet on "reversibility", on the "gift" (in the terminology of Moos and his followers) of the "gift", ie installation on a "symbolic exchange" between communicants in all spheres of existence. Thus, Baudrillard comes to recognize the linkage "modern / postmodern" and to recognize the benefits of modernity. The transformation of “dead souls” is a path that Gogol also thought about realizing on different grounds and which opposes the complacency of Spinozist machines.

• Harms – Gogol – Dostoevsky (“Old Women” – “Vij” – “Crime and Punishment”)

  14 p.

  Sergey Shults

  Views:

  205

  In terms of historical poetics and intertextuality, parallels are drawn between "Old Woman"
  by D. Harms, "Vij" by N. Gogol and "Crime and Punishment" by F. Dostoevsky. As far as the
  three authors are concerned, their common features are revealed, together with the transformation
  of the motives of the ugly infernal old woman, which are depicted in the context of
  mythopoetics, historiosophy and social history by the three authors. Concerning the texts produced
  by their followers the term “post-text” is introduced, which is meant to include the dialogical
  connotations of literary evolution. The role of “vertex composition” (a term coined by
  V.M. Zhirmunsky) in works of Modernism/ Avant-garde is also touched upon.

• Gogol’s Vij and L.N. Tolstoy’s War and Peace in V.V. Mayakovsky’s Poem War and Peace

  Sergei Shul’ts

  Views:

  311

  Representing himself in his poem War and Peace in the form of a fictional "absolute unit" - the new Vij - Mayakovsky demonstrates the infernality of a new type, in comparison with Gogol's one. Mayakovsky's ideacontrasts with Tolstoy's pacifism and the idea of "eternal peace" (the novel War and Peace). Unlike Tolstoy, refusing to notice and recognize the real diversity in the manifestations of man and the human principle, Mayakovsky reduces all people, their thoughts and concerns to their personal ideas.

• Interferences in the Field of Literature and Philosophy: Contact Points in the Poetry of Russian and Hungarian Authors: Dukkon Ágnes: A veszélyes szépség útjain. Eszmék, témák, kapcsolatok a klasszikus orosz irodalom világában, L'Harmattan Könyvkiadó – Uránia Ismeretterjesztő Társulat, Budapest, 2021, 340. p. ISBN: 978-963-414-702-2

  Ildikó Regéczi

  Views:

  61

  The Hungarian literary scholar Ágnes Dukkon set herself a great task to complete in her new monograph by undertaking to offer a broad overview of the entire 19^th century epoch of Russian literature through monitoring the transformation and evolution of the literary motive of dangerous beauty [ужасная красота]. While focusing on the concrete correspondences between a variety of literary worlds, the study presents interpretations of works by A.S. Pushkin, M.Y. Lermontov, F.I. Tyutchev, N.V. Gogol, I.S. Turgenev, F.M. Dostoyevsky, M.Y. Saltikov-Shchedrin, N.S. Leskov, and L.N. Tolstoy. At the same time, however, the author of this monograph never fails to keep in mind the conceptual context of the artistic texts by analyzing their relationship with the topical contemporary philosophical ideas of the age. For the Hungarian readers, the chapters incorporating the conclusions of research aimed at Russian–Hungarian connections, conducted with the methodology of historical poetics, comparative literary studies, intertextuality, and biographism, are of special interest. The scholarly findings of this renowned researcher would definitely deserve to be translated in the future into an international language.