so as not to ultimately degenerate into cosmopolitanism,
the panhumanity of Russian literature cannot but be immersed
again and again into its deepest folk core.
V.V. Kozhinov
Among the most pressing issues modern culture V. Kozhinov calls the problem of “the originality of our literature,” the need for discussion of which has matured in the public consciousness of the 20th century. V. Kozhinov’s ideological position in relation to Russian and Western European literature was reflected in a number of his articles in the 1960s-80s of the 20th century. Thus, in the article “And every language that exists in it will call me...” V. Kozhinov, relying on the views of Dostoevsky, develops the Russian writer’s thought about “all-humanity as the essence of our national self-consciousness and, as a consequence, the fundamental, decisive quality of Russian literature.”
V. Kozhinov confirms his idea about the spiritual priorities of Russian literature and its fundamental difference from Western, including American, in the words of Dostoevsky from “Speech on Pushkin”: “I... am not trying to equate the Russian people with Western peoples in the spheres of their economic glory or scientific. I’m just saying that the Russian soul, that the genius of the Russian people, is perhaps the most capable of all peoples to embrace the idea of all-human unity...” Noting the receptivity of Russian literature and culture in general to the literatures of other peoples, V. Kozhinov forms his ideological position as purely Orthodox and patriotic, associated with the national basis, but at the same time notes the complexity in understanding the originality and the very essence of Russian literature, which do not imply unambiguous and complete conclusions, which makes the issue open for discussion. Developing a historical view of Russian literary self-awareness, in the same article V. Kozhinov cites Belinsky’s words about Russian originality, which lies in the ability to “easily imitate” someone else’s life, for “whoever does not have his own interests, it is easy to accept others’.” In contrast to Belinsky, Chaadaev saw in the Russian consciousness and culture “a conscientious court on many litigations” and a great educational mission “to teach Europe an infinite variety of things.”
However, "all-humanity" Russian literature V. Kozhinov views it in a double sense: as a positive, “ideal” quality, and “at the same time as an unambiguously “negative” quality.” This ambiguity, according to the critic, lies, on the one hand, in the not always appropriate “versatility with which a Russian person understands other nationalities” (Belinsky), and on the other hand, in this V. Kozhinov agrees with Chaadaev’s judgments, in the absence of “ our life”, “national egoism”, citing as an example a quote from a Russian philosopher: “We belong to those nations that do not seem to be part of humanity, but exist only to give the world some important lesson”, that is, V. Kozhinov concludes, we should talk about a “universal mission” of Russia, called upon to be a “conscientious court” for Europe. Thus, V. Kozhinov, following Chaadaev and Dostoevsky, speaks of the special role of Russian culture, located between “East” and “West”, and its stay in a childish state, or “underdevelopment” (Pushkin) serves as the basis for “future bliss” ( Chaadaev), and therefore the embodiment of the ideal in the future, orientation towards the process of development of this “transcendent” ideal. V. Kozhinov calls “all-humanity” and “universality” the key qualities of Russian literature, which were formed in the process of its entire historical development, that is, “this is not some pre-given, ready-made quality, but precisely the task that determines its development, even the super task<… >, the creative will that animates her entire life...”
Turning to the understanding of this creative will, V. Kozhinov discusses the other side of the universality and versatility of Russian literature, which Chaadaev, Belinsky and Dostoevsky pointed out in their time, namely the seduction of Europe, admiration for Western culture and way of life, and to get out of this humiliating position, Russian literature needs to become world-class, that is, to make works of Russian literature “the property of wide sections of European society” (Chaadaev).
In his critical articles, V. Kozhinov forms a historical and religious concept of the development of Russian literature, inseparable from the Orthodox worldview. Russian literature, like the Russian people, Rus' as a state was formed, according to V. Kozhinov, on the basis of a religious foundation supreme authority under the influence of Orthodox Christianity, the adoption of which in the 10th century from Byzantium became an expression of the free will of the state, and thanks to which there was a union of faith and power. This principle of building the Russian state was chosen by Prince Vladimir, guided by the Byzantine idea of the omnipotence of God, the executor of whose will on earth is the emperor, an absolute monarch, which is where his title arose - authorkrator, executor of God's will on earth. Speaking about its interaction with Byzantium, which is decisive for the fate of Russia, V. Kozhinov traces cultural ties with the Orthodox empire, calling them related, when Rus' does not forcefully, but “completely voluntarily accepts Byzantine culture,” conducting a constant dialogue with it, which contributed to the emergence and development Russian culture in general, including church architecture, icon painting, literature.
V. Kozhinov traces the formation of Russian literature to the time of Metropolitan Hilarion and his “Sermon on Law and Grace,” which he writes about in the article “On the Origins of Russian Literature. The work of Hilarion and the historical reality of his time,” citing the metropolitan’s words: “The light of the moon departed when the sun rose, and so the law gave way to Grace.” Moreover, says the researcher, in the “Word...” the fundamental properties of the Russian Orthodox world and Russian culture are outlined and the paths for its further development are outlined: “... in it [in the “Tale of Law and Grace”. — L.S.] that holistic understanding of Russia and the world, man and history, truth and goodness, which much later, in the 19th-20th centuries, was embodied with the greatest power and openness in Russian classical literature and thoughts - in the works of Pushkin and Dostoevsky, Gogol and Ivan Kireevsky, Alexander Blok and Pavel Florensky, Mikhail Bulgakov and Bakhtin." Based on Hilarion’s thought that Orthodoxy is addressed to all peoples, eight centuries later Dostoevsky accepted and developed the idea of the ancient Russian writer about the worldwide responsiveness of Russian literature as Orthodox literature, i.e. inspired by God-given “spiritual fire” (Dunaev).
V. Kozhinov characterizes the essence of the Western world and its self-awareness, based on similar judgments of Hegel and Chaadaev, as a purely individualistic, subjective phenomenon, the purpose of which was “the realization of absolute truth as endless self-determination of freedom,” and “all other human tribes ... exist as if with its will”, which made it possible to talk about the contradictions and contrasts of Western and Eastern Christianity that are insurmountable to this day, which initially shaped not only the culture, but the features of the Western Catholic and Orthodox-Byzantine worldview.
The religious self-awareness of Western culture and literature goes back to the Old Testament Jewish, ancient and Catholic-Protestant doctrine of chosenness and predestination, which became the ideological basis of humanistic values based on the mixing and secularization of various religious categories, the result of which was “self-affirmed individualism” (A.F. . Losev), corresponding to the concept of “man-god”. Anthropocentrism and humanism became the blood and flesh of the Western spirit, the “Faustian soul,” as O. Spengler defined the essence of the Western personality, which “is... a force relying on itself.” This turned out to be the price for the good and likening of a seduced person to God, stated in the Old Testament: “... and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). West European literature turned out to be immersed in the process of individualistic and eudaimonic self-affirmation, the search for a universal existence for one’s “I”, and the Gospel words “what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?” (Matthew 16:26) have become relevant for Western people precisely with the thesis of “acquiring the world,” earthly treasures, as opposed to the Orthodox way of saving the soul. The Renaissance accomplished the truly titanic task of the formation of nations and “national self-awareness,” since “it was in this era that literature assimilated the specific diversity of the life of the nation and revealed the element of the people. On the other hand, it is then that literature affirms the sovereign human personality(individual)”, turns into “a thing for oneself,” - this is how V. Kozhinov characterizes the process of formation of the Western literary consciousness. It was during the Renaissance, under the powerful influence of ancient paganism, that humanistic individualism was formed, the secularization of the church was activated, which would ultimately lead to the events of the Reformation. Petrarch was the first, according to A.F. Losev, spoke about “bright antiquity, about the dark ignorance that began after Christianity became the official religion and the Roman emperors began to worship the name of Christ, and about the expected return to the forgotten ancient ideal". Based on the ancient philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, a secular worldview arises, which creates a titanic man surrounded by “aesthetically understood being” (A.F. Losev). Thus, the philosophical-rational and at the same time sensual-ecstatic character of Western consciousness and literature was determined, based, on the one hand, on the Aristotelian concept of mimesis, and on the other hand, going back to Plato’s mystical theory artistic creativity, according to which the source of creativity is obsession as special kind inspiration given to the artist by higher divine powers, and not by reason. “After all, what you say about Homer,” Socrates says to Jonah, “all this is not from art and knowledge, but from divine determination and obsession.”
The path of Russian literature, according to V. Kozhinov, was completely different, aimed at “igniting and maintaining spiritual fire in human hearts” (Dunaev). On this basis, V. Kozhinov justifies the confrontation between the two literatures: “Comparison or even direct opposition of the peculiar features of Western European and Russian life one way or another runs through all of our literature and, more broadly, public consciousness.” An important factor in comparing the two literatures for V. Kozhinov are the peculiarities of the perception and influence of Western literature on Russian. Western art has always been attractive to national culture, which resulted in worship, sometimes blind imitation, copying, etc. V. Kozhinov traces the fascination with the West as a long historical process in development national culture: “...Russians, like no one else, knew how to appreciate this Western incarnation, sometimes even going overboard, denying their own, Russian “under-incarnation” for the sake of European completeness.” However, it was precisely this “under-embodiment”, “insufficient objectification” that provided the “redundancy of spiritual energy” (Kozhinov), inherent in Russian literature, which allowed Gogol from the “beautiful distance” of Italy to hear a Russian song and see a “sparkling, wonderful, unfamiliar distance to the earth.”
Distinguishing the spiritual values of Russian and Western literature, V. Kozhinov actually characterizes a specific chronotope, within the framework of which spatio-temporal relations result in the categories “Russian world” and “European world”, which have their own key concepts: « individual and nation" for Western literature, "personality and people" for Russian culture.
“Aesthetics of being”, “aesthetics of a thing” as “organic elements of Western European aesthetics” (Kozhinov) and consciousness allow us to talk about the replacement of religious and moral ideas about man and the world with aesthetic-humanistic, anti-Christian ones, which ultimately led Western literature and its hero to “ the absolute completeness of enjoyment of the treasures on earth” (Dunaev) or to the existential experience of one’s death as deliverance from an ugly and vulgar reality. Therefore, with all the shortcomings and disorders of life in Russia, literature “remained a living impulse of man and people,” where the subject of the image was a living soul, turned to the world in a readiness to suffer and sympathize, to atone for its sins and answer for them to its contemporaries and descendants, because in Orthodox understanding “suffering is not evil for a person, sin is evil” (Novoselov).
To trace the specifics of the relationship between Rus' and the West and East, V. Kozhinov turns to the period of the emergence of Western Europe, emphasizing the aggressive nature of the barbarian Germanic tribes, who built their states on the principles of violence and suppression, which was correctly noted by Hegel, whose statement on this matter is cited by V. Kozhinov: “The Germans began by... conquering the decrepit and rotten states of civilized peoples.”
Already the first barbarian epics, created on the ruins of Roman antiquity, provided examples of heroic deeds and freedom of spirit of the new European peoples, showing “the lack of holiness and sinful hostility towards God” (Novoselov) (“The Song of Roland”, “The Song of the Nibelungs”). The history of the West, according to V. Kozhinov’s definition, “is a truly heroic exploration of the world.” However, in the heroic assertion of absolute freedom, the hero of Western literature, “satisfied with his moral state” (I. Kireevsky), does not experience repentance and, to paraphrase Dostoevsky, accepts “sin for truth.” These are the heroes of works created in the most seemingly civilized period of the development of European literature from the Renaissance to classical realism of the 19th century by such outstanding writers, like Shakespeare, Byron, Shelley, Kleist, Hoffmann, Hugo, Stendhal, Balzac, Flaubert, Dickens, Thackeray, etc. Thus, the desire for absolute, but individually understood justice pushes both Shakespeare's Hamlet and Kleist's Kohlhaas to bloody crimes. As a result of their heroic deeds, “the world perishes and the truth” of human law triumphs. Horatio calls the content of the future “story” about Hamlet’s deeds “a story of inhuman and bloody deeds, random punishments, unexpected murders, deaths, arranged out of necessity by wickedness...”. Even the ardent hater of human nature, Martin Luther, calls Michael Kohlhaas “a godless, scary person"(Kleist), although Kohlhaas is a visible result of Protestant ethics, which relieved man of all responsibility for his actions, since his nature is damaged by sin without hope of restoration and the fate of everyone is predetermined by the will of God, which gave the Protestant person more freedom of action than the Catholic believer, but at the same time it led to despair (S. Kierkegaard). The thirst for absolute freedom without reliance on God turns Westerners romantic heroes Byron, Shelley, Hölderlin into lone rebels calling for “divine equality” (Shelley, “The Rise of Islam”) through the blood of revolutionary rebellion.
Another direction of absolutization of qualities opposite to rebellion, namely good and evil of the heroes of humanist writers Hugo and Dickens, looks like a kind of predestination, as V. Kozhinov believes, they are “weighed and measured,” which, according to the critic, in Russian literature “appears as limitation , complacency, dogmatism”, and contradicts Orthodox ideas about love for one’s neighbor, self-denial, self-sacrifice without expectation of reward. Western literature, even in its desire to preach genuine moral values, absolutizes them, turning them into legally valid virtues that require material rewards and self-exaltation of a virtuous individual. This is how the Protestant idea of active, practical love for people is consolidated, expressed in the realization of the worldly (practical) purpose of Western man in combination with legal law.
But at the same time, V. Kozhinov, defining the specifics of Russian and Western literature, does not set out to deny one for the sake of the other. Both of them go through their own path of search, discovery, understanding of life and man: “Both Russia and the West had and have their own unconditional good and equally unconditional evil, their own truth and their own lies, their own beauty and their own ugliness.” The great spiritual mission of Russian literature became apparent by the end of the 19th century, which Western writers began to recognize. Dostoevsky in his “Speech on Pushkin” gave impetus to understanding the role of Russian culture on a global scale: “... the Russian soul,... the genius of the Russian people, perhaps, are most capable, of all peoples, of incorporating the idea of university among all mankind...”. One of the reasons for the new look of Western literature on Russian literature is the formulation of pressing problems and the inability to solve these problems. Because in the situation of the “death of God” (Nietzsche), Western European society stopped hearing the “call of God” (Guardini), which was also recognized by Western theologians. Having entered into an alliance with the Unconscious (starting with Jena romanticism), Western aesthetics in subsequent eras, especially in modernism and postmodernism, revalued values, which led to the dehumanization of consciousness and creativity; according to the modern philosopher Ortega y Gasset, “Western man fell ill with a pronounced disorientation, no longer knowing which stars to follow” (Ortega y Gasset).
Considering Russian literature from the position of its inconsistency with the problems of Western aesthetics, V. Kozhinov nevertheless looks for points of contact between opposite sides, turning to the Bakhtinian idea of dialogue, “in which extremely distant voices can equally participate.” The “dialogue of cultures” proposed by V. Kozhinov can serve as a way of mutual understanding as opposed to Hegel’s “monological dialectic,” which will manifest the truly “creative will” of Russian literature—“worldwide responsiveness.” V. Kozhinov repeatedly speaks about the undoubted influence of Russian literature on world literature, emphasizing precisely religious basis such a rapprochement, emanating from the conciliar, liturgical nature of Russian culture, which he writes about in the article “Unified, Integral”: “... a whole series of works on the Orthodox liturgy have been published in the West, which is placed immeasurably higher than Catholic worship.” In the article “Disadvantage or Originality?” he cites the statements of W. Woolf, a classic of English modernism, about the spirituality of Russian literature, which is clearly lacking in Western literature: “It is the soul that is one of the main characters Russian literature... Perhaps this is precisely why such a great effort is required from an Englishman... The soul is alien to him. Even antipathetic... We are souls, tortured, unfortunate souls who are busy only with talking, opening up, confessing...” It is the “conciliarity”, “collectivity” of Russian literature, as V. Kozhinov believes, citing N. Berkovsky’s statement, that is a model for Western culture, since it “is not always noticeable to him, serves as a means of self-knowledge, tells him about those sources of life, which he also has...”
Back in the 19th century, P. Merimee, who deeply studied the Russian language and literature, spoke about the need to perceive and follow the Russian literary tradition. He considers the main criterion of Russian literature to be the truth of life, which he does not find in French literature: “Your poetry seeks first of all the truth, and beauty appears later, by itself. Our poets, on the contrary, follow the opposite path - they are concerned primarily with effect, wit, brilliance, and if in addition to all this it becomes possible not to offend verisimilitude, then they will probably take this in addition.” Flaubert saw the “living soul” of Russian culture in Turgenev, calling him “my Turgenev” in his letters. He defines the impact of Turgenev’s works as “shock” and “cleansing of the brain.”
However, until now, the pathos of “all-humanity” and “nationality” has not become the spiritual core of Western literature due to its immersion in the search for its individual self-awareness and arrogant self-determination in relation to the “external world - both natural and human - as a “man-god””, which has always served as a way of justifying oneself. On this occasion, V. Kozhinov recalls the statement of I. Kireevsky, who accurately named the fundamental difference between Western man: he is always “satisfied with his moral state<…>, he is completely pure before God and people." While “a Russian person,” notes I. Kireevsky, “always vividly feels his shortcomings.” This “self-criticism” and the need for moral “lynching” are reflected in literature, also becoming its important property, going back to the Christian ideal of overcoming pride and humility. In the “self-criticism” of Russian literature, V. Kozhinov saw its ideal direction, which is not characteristic of Western critical realism, as the critic talks about in the article “Russian literature and the term “critical realism””. In his discussions about the types of realism in domestic and foreign literary traditions V. Kozhinov sets himself the task of “determining the nature of the Russian historical and literary process.” V. Kozhinov associates the critical trend in Western literature with self-determination and the stable position of the bourgeois system, hence the revealing pathos of Western critical realism, built only on criticism negative aspects bourgeois life in general, and the search for a positive ideal, without which no culture can exist, is limited to the depiction of “the private life of people” (Dickens). Recognizing the “powerful critical, denying element” in Russian classics, V. Kozhinov does not consider this criticism to be the main and defining quality of Russian literature, the path of which should be aimed at searching for a positive ideal, the need for which Dostoevsky spoke: “An ideal is also a reality, such as legal as current reality.”
The era of the 20th and early 21st centuries is represented, as Vyach puts it. Ivanov, a “critical culture”, which is characterized by “increasing alienation... the inevitable competition of one-sided truths and relative values.” Western literature at the turn of the century, while continuing to develop a mythological and mystical-otherworldly attitude to reality (Proust, Hesse, Joyce, Camus, Sartre, etc.), follows the path of Nietzschean theomachism and the affirmation of the “Faustian spirit” of universal possession (Spengler), that is, desires for world domination. Religious (Christian) consciousness is replaced by artistic aestheticism as a new religion (starting with romanticism), continuing to develop the mythological concept of art. But at the same time, the romantic concept of dual worlds becomes irrelevant in the literature of modernism, since the gravitation towards the divine absolute (the ideal world of art) will be replaced by the categories of a split, fragmented consciousness and world (the heroes of Hesse - Haller, W. Woolf - Orlando, J. Joyce - Bloom, Proust - Marcel, Sartre - Roquentin, etc.). The hero of modern modernist and postmodernist literature receives the status of a “Christian subman” - a superman (Nietzsche). He overcame in himself the feelings of guilt, compassion, shame, moral responsibility, contrasting them with the instinct of self-preservation and the spirituality of the Superego sublimated by instincts (according to Freud), which led to the awareness of “loss of soul”, “decay of the soul” in the absence of religious feelings and spiritual values . Western literature of the 20th century has embarked on the path of “dehumanization,” as noted by European and American critics themselves (O. Spengler, H. Ortega y Gasset, W. Wulff, M. Heidegger, J. Huizinga, H. Bloom, etc.) and in search of spiritual support, Western man still relies on himself, his “Self” (C. Jung), which expresses itself through artistry and different forms art, it contains, according to Nietzsche, “the highest dignity, for only as an aesthetic phenomenon are being and the world justified in eternity.” Having excluded Christian values from its worldview, Western aesthetic philosophy cultivates an “artistic” assessment of life, where there is only one “carefree and immoral God-artist” (Nietzsche), who is beyond good and evil, free from contradictions for the sake of pleasure. Christian teaching in the era of modernism and postmodernism, it is declared hostile to art, since, says Nietzsche, it is an obstacle to liberated instincts and “with its truthfulness of God, it pushes art into the realm of lies, i.e. denies, curses, condemns him." Modern Western art sees its main task in contrasting the Christian direction of “all-humanity” with the “artistic, anti-Christian” (Nietzsche) image of the “instinct of life,” that unconscious and impersonal that in aesthetic philosophy (thanks to Nietzsche) received the definition of “Dionysianism.” Speaking about modern Western, in particular American, literature in the article “Attention: US literature today. Achievements and failures of Soviet American studies" V. Kozhinov characterizes the main trends of postmodern culture, going back to the Nietzschean-Freudian physiological instincts of complete emancipation of the individual, for which "the only reality of existence is acceptable<…>these are biological and purely psychological, primarily subconscious, impulses and states...” Continuing, as V. Kozhinov believes, to follow the already “hackneyed ideas of the absurdity of existence,” Western literature remains faithful to the immoral values of bourgeois reality, primitive “affects” and myths,” since in the decanonized and desacralized postmodern consciousness, where questions of faith and morality lose their meaning, art itself becomes part of the bourgeois innovation activity providing material profit. Lack of faith and immorality, elevated to the absolute, have become the main criteria for the creative activity of modern Western writers and publicists, both postmodernists and neoconservatives (D. Updike, N. Mailer, N. Podhoretz, S. Sontag, etc.), who set their own “ progressive" creativity in the service of the American ideology of violence and universal subordination, but in reality, as V. Kozhinov argues, citing the words of the American writer P. Brooks, one of the instigators of the idea of a general "rebellion", provoke a postmodernist revolt, that same controlled chaos, "where Anarchist-minded youth will reign on the ruins of an exploded culture, morality and spiritual values now accepted in Western and eastern worlds". In this politicized-ideological struggle between the opposites of true culture, that is, built on traditional Christian values, and the “counterculture” of the avant-garde and neoconservatism, V. Kozhinov sees the main danger for the development and preservation of real literature, which calls not for an anarchic rebellion, but for a holy state of soul, what the Russian classics said, to whom the critic always appeals: “Art must be sacred. The true creation of art has something soothing and conciliatory in itself,” said Gogol.
The exercise of “creative will” in modern era in V. Kozhinov’s view is the ability of literature to “preserve and develop the unity of nationality and pan-humanity”, since, as the critic believes, “pan-humanity” is “not a purely national self-affirmation”, an elevation above other peoples and cultures, but a “national, distinctively folk” trait its basis."
Notes
1.Andreev L.G. How did the history of the second millennium end? // Foreign literature of the second millennium. 1000-2000. - M., 2001.
2.Asmus V. Plato. - M., 1975.
3.Guardini R. The collapse of the world picture of the New Age and the future // Self-awareness of culture and art of the 20th century. Western Europe and USA: Sat. articles. - M., 2000.
4.Gogol N.V. Selected passages from correspondence with friends/In the book: Reflections on the Divine Liturgy. - M., 2006.
5. Dostoevsky F.M. Full collection Op. in 30 vols. T. 21. L.: 1980. P. 75-76.
6. Dunaev M.M. Faith in the crucible of doubt. "Orthodoxy and Russian Literature." Electronic resource: http://sdruzhie-volga.ru/knigi/o_zhizni/m.m-dunaev-vera_v_gornile_somnenij.htm
7.Ivasheva V.V. Story Western European literature XIX century. - M., 1951.
8.Kozhinov V.V. About Russian national consciousness - M., 2004.
9.Kozhinov V.V. Reflections on Russian literature. - M., 1991.
10.Kozhinov V.V. Russia as civilization and culture. - M., 2012.
11.Kozhinov V.V. Sin and holiness of Russian history. - M., 2006.
12. Kleist G. Betrothal in San Domingo. Novellas - M., 2000.
13.Losev A.F. Aesthetics of the Renaissance - M., 1978.
14. Nietzsche F. The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music // Op. In 2 volumes - M., 1990. T.1. P.75.
15. Nietzsche F. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Essays. - Minsk, 2007.
16.Ortega y Gasset. Theme of our time//Self-awareness of culture and art of the 20th century. Western Europe and the USA: collection. articles. - M., 2000.
17. Flaubert G. On literature, art, writing - M., 1984.
18.Chaadaev P.Ya. Philosophical letters. Electronic resource: http://www.vehi.net/chaadaev/filpisma.html
19. Shakespeare V. Hamlet - Minsk, 1972.
20.Shelley. Selected works - M., 1998.
21. Spengler O. Decline of Europe. Volume 2 // Self-awareness of culture and art of the 20th century. Western Europe and the USA: collection. articles - M., 2000.
One of the ancient examples of a full and widespread interaction of literatures is the exchange of traditions between the Greek and Roman literatures of antiquity. The artistic values that were once borrowed were later transferred to other peoples of Europe. The heritage of antiquity formed the artistic basis of Renaissance literature. In turn, the ideas, themes and images of the Italian Renaissance influenced not only the literature of France and England, but a century later found an echo in European classicism.
In the 19th century, the formation of a complex whole concept of “world literature” began (this term was proposed by I. Goethe). With the strengthening of worldwide ideological, cultural, and economic ties, a new basis for constant and close interaction between literatures has emerged.
In the twentieth century, the interaction of literatures becomes truly global. The major literatures of the East and Latin America are actively involved in the world literary process.
The interaction of literatures is determined not by the tasteful choice of individual models for assimilation and imitation, and not by the personal predilections of individual writers for the achievements of foreign literatures. This interaction of cultures as a whole occurs on the historical basis of great national demands. Thus, the rapid spread of ideas french revolution The end of the 18th century in the literature of Great Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary and Russia at the beginning of the 19th century is explained not by the “French education” of many European writers, but by the situation of a serious social crisis, which then gripped other European countries. And the depth of perception of the ideas of the French Enlightenment and free-thinking depended on how deep this crisis was in each individual country.
The role played by Russian literature in this process of mutual enrichment is peculiar. After in the Pushkin era many heterogeneous influences from Western European literature were absorbed with extraordinary speed, from the second half of the 19th century century, Russian literature itself began to influence the course of literary development throughout the world. On the one hand, the literature of developed countries experienced the powerful influence of L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky and A. Chekhov. On the other hand, Russian literature contributed to the progress of literatures that were delayed in their development (for example, in Bulgaria), literatures of the national outskirts of Russia. The impact here was not always direct. For example, Tatar literature adopted the Russian experience earlier than many other Turkic literatures; and she was the conductor of artistic progress in the literature of Central Asia. Writers from a number of republics of the USSR (V. Bykov, Ch. Aitmatov, etc.), through translations into Russian, simultaneously exchange experiences with each other and contribute to the development of Russian literature.
In the new historical conditions, Soviet literature had a powerful influence on the artistic development of the whole world. The heroes of the best works of socialist realism served as a striking example and model for artists in many countries.
Currently, the interaction of literatures is ensured by a wide network of international creative unions, associations and permanent conferences of writers, literary critics and translators. A number of national literatures, as a result of interactions with other literatures, are developing rapidly and in short term goes through stages of growth that in more developed literatures required several centuries. The interaction of literatures also determines the rapid development of literatures among those peoples who previously had no written language at all ( Soviet literature former national outskirts). The interaction of literatures accelerates progress in the most diverse spheres of the spiritual life of mankind; it is closely connected with the logic of world processes.
Comparative literature studies the scientific study of the interaction of literatures.
Answer
Literary studies 189
INTERACTION OF RUSSIAN AND WESTERN EUROPEAN LITERATURES
END OF THE 18TH AND EARLY 19TH CENTURIES
I.N. Nikitina
The article highlights the main aspects of the literary interaction between Russian and Western European literatures at the turn of the century
18-19 centuries. The historical and literary processes that influenced the development of the aesthetics of pre-romanticism in Russian literature are considered.
Key words: Prose, drama, sentimentalism, pre-romanticism, novel, hero, image Russian literature of the 18th century developed and was enriched in wide international communication. The period of transition from classicism to romanticism was characterized by great interest in Western European literature, from which Russian writers took what was necessary and useful for the development of free artistic creativity. The quality of novelty and the depth of originality of national literature largely depended on the interaction of Russian literature with European literatures.
A major role in introducing Russian literature to world ideas, plots and images was played by the dramaturgy of W. Shakespeare, the poetry of E. Jung, D. Thomson, T. Gray, the work of L. Stern, J.-J. Russo, I.V. Goethe, I.G.
Herder, F. Schiller.
Of the English prose writers, the most popular was L. Stern, author of the novels “The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy” (1759-1762), “A Sentimental Journey through France and Italy” (1768). Stern was interested as the creator of the genre of sentimental travel, as a writer capable of broadly covering the inner world of a person, able to show the originality of his inner experiences, when the sublime and the ordinary, heroic and base, good and evil are intricately combined in a person and give vent to his passions. Stern's artistic discoveries were adopted by European literature, including Russian literature.
Stern gained the greatest popularity in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century, when “The Beauties of Stern or a collection of the best ego-pathetic stories and excellent observations on life for sensitive hearts” (M., 1801) were published and when numerous imitations of Karamzin and “Travel” appeared. Stern (Shalikov, Izmailov, etc.) and as a rebuff to the extremes of sentimentalism - the comedy of A.A. Shakhovsky “New Stern” (1805).
Karamzin was also one of the fans of the English writer. This manifested itself in his first novel, “Letters of a Russian Traveler” (1791-1792) and in the autobiographical story “A Knight of Our Time.”
German literature had a particularly strong influence on Karamzin. The poetry of Schiller, Goethe and representatives of Sturm und Drang, in originals and translations, was well known in Russia in the second half of the 18th century. German writers F.M. Klinger and J. Lenz lived and worked in Russia. Living threads stretch from German pre-Romanticism to Russian. Preferring German literature to French, Karamzin began to get acquainted with it back in Moscow, in the late 70s. thanks to the “Friendly Scientific Society” N.I. Novikova.
Karamzin learned a lot about the cultural and literary life of Europe thanks to his travels in 1789. in Germany, Switzerland, France and England. Of the German writers of that time, H.M. had a great influence on him. Wieland (“History of Agathon”) and G.E. Lessing (“Emilia Galotti”).
Pre-romantic tendencies in Karamzin’s worldview and creativity appeared in the late 80s.
As a pre-romantic, he at that time lost faith in sentimentalist concepts of world harmony and the “golden age” of humanity. In the writer’s worldview, nature turns from one that sympathizes with humanity into a fatal, sometimes creative, sometimes destructive force; man is just a toy of terrible elemental forces. The laws of society are no longer in harmonious combination with the laws of nature; they now oppose them. Karamzin tried to show all this in his story “The Island of Bornholm”, steeped in the romance of the Ossian North.
(1794). One of the essential signs of pre-romanticism is a refined sense of nature and, as a consequence, its landscape painting” in works of art. Under the influence of Rousseau, Stern, Jung, Thomson and Gray, “landscape painting” also appears in the works of Karamzin (“Letters of a Russian Traveler”, “Spring Feeling”, “To the Nightingale”, “Lily”, “Proteus, or the Disagreement of the Poet”, “ Village"). Unlike the hero of works of sentimentalism, the hero of pre-romanticism literature does not accept the order of things in life as it is. This hero is a rebel by nature, the heroic and the ordinary, the good and the evil are intricately combined in him, as in the heroes of Schiller's dramas. New hero for Russian literature was discovered in the pre-romantic poetry and prose of Karamzin 1789-1793. In the novel “Letters of a Russian Traveler”, in the stories “ Poor Lisa"", "Natalia, the Boyar's Daughter", "Bornholm Island", "Sierra Morena", "Julia" Karamzin significantly expanded the possibilities of Russian literature, turning to the disclosure of a rich spiritual life inner world a person, his “I”. By the mid-90s. Karamzin changes his ideological and artistic positions: he moves away from pre-romanticism and turns to sentimentalism.
A.N. also experiences the influence of Western European literature. Radishchev. During the investigation of him 190 Bulletin of Bryansk State University. 2016(1), the writer admitted that the creation of “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” was influenced, in addition to Herder and Raynal, by Stern in the German translation [Babkin, 1957, 167]. The images of Yorick and the Traveler are similar in their humane mood and warm sympathy for the disadvantaged; The episode of the Traveler's meeting with the blind singer at the Klin station is reminiscent of the episode of the meeting of the Traveler Yorick with the monk Lorenzo. Radishchev argues with Stern, rejects the deistic moral system of English sentimentalist writers, which is clearly manifested in the chapter from “Travel” called “Edrovo”.
The differences between Stern's and Radishchev's Travels are much greater than the similarities. They are completely different in genre. Radishchev's "Journey" is closer to satire, a political pamphlet. Stern’s laughter, which, in the words of T. Carlyle, is “sadder than tears,” did not find a response from A.N. Radishcheva.
The influence of Herder’s ideas on the literary process in Russia is absolutely obvious. Radishchev was the first to mention Herder in his “Travel from St. Petersburg to Moscow” in the chapter “Torzhok”; assessments of Russians also went back to Herder folk songs and the origins of the Russian character in the chapters “Sofia” and “Zaitsovo”, as well as opinions on the role of language in society in the chapter “Kresttsy”. The organic assimilation of Herder's ideas by Radishchev is confirmed by the entire work of the author of "Travel", in which the philosophy of history is inseparable from the theory of popular revolution. Both Derzhavin and Karamzin, who met with Herder and translated some of his works in 1802-1807, turned to Herder, but did not agree with the German thinker on everything.
Did not go unnoticed in Russia and creative activity classics of German literature Goethe and Schiller. Until 1820, Goethe was known in Russia primarily as the author of “The Sorrows of Young Werther,” a typically pre-Romantic work, translated for the first time into Russian in 1787. At the end of the 18th century
Early 19th century Werther was often remembered, this work was often quoted, he was imitated (for example, Radishchev in the chapter “Wedge” of his “Journey”, Karamzin in “Poor Liza”). Goethe's lyric poetry was also popular.
They learned about F. Schiller and his work in Russia in the second half of the 1780s. Schiller's dramas “The Robbers”, “The Fiesco Conspiracy”, “Cunning and Love”, “Mary Stuart”, “Don Carlos”, “William Tell” played a significant role in the formation of the new “romantic” theater in Russia. Along with other phenomena of pre-romanticism, everything new that Schiller’s dramaturgy brought with it was also perceived. Schiller was widely read in Russia.
The consideration of the interaction of Russian literature with European literatures can be continued further. Their influence on Russian literature is undeniable.
The article covers the main aspects of literary interaction of Russian and West European literatures at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. The historico-literary processes which influenced the development of the esthetics of Preromanticism in Russian literature are considered.
Keywords: Prose, dramatic art, Sentimentalism, Preromanticism, novel, hero, image References
1. Berkov P.N. Basic issues in the study of Russian enlightenment // The problem of Russian enlightenment in XVIII literature century. M., Leningrad, 1961. P. 26.
2. History of Russian literature: In 10 volumes. T. 4, M.-L., 1947
3. Babkin D.S. Process A.N. Radishcheva. M.-L., 1957
4. Lukov V.A. Pre-romanticism. M., 2006
6. Pashkurov A.N., Razzhivin A.I. History of Russian literature of the 18th century: Textbook. for students of higher educational institutions: at 2 o'clock - Yelabuga: Yerevan State Pedagogical University. –2010. - Part 1.
7. Makogonenko G.P. Radishchev and his time. M., 1956
– – –
The article is devoted comparative analysis structures of the initiation motive in works about the First and Second World Wars. The nuclear-peripheral motive model in the works of Erich Maria Remarque, Richard Aldington, Ernest Hemingway and Viktor Nekrasov is identified and considered. The movement of the motif from the core to the periphery and vice versa allows us to talk about the plot-forming function of the motif in the works of writers. Certain typological convergences also appear at the spatiotemporal level. Availability common features The study of different levels of text (compositional, motive-thematic and spatio-temporal) among writers of German, American, English and Russian literature allows us to draw a conclusion about the typological commonality of the motivic structures of the structures under consideration.
Key words: motive of initiation, comparative literature, military prose, composition, plot, artistic space.
The initiation motive and its role in the structure literary text reviewed by V.Ya. Propp in his book “Morphology of the Fairy Tale”. Propp argued that the structure of the plot of a fairy tale reflects the process of initiation (he turned to totemic initiations as an example). However, this motif lies not only at the heart of the tale's plot. When considering the motive structure of military prose, we identified a set of motives similar to those analyzed by Propp in his “Morphology”.
This article examines the motive of initiation in the structure of military prose1.
In the traditional sense, initiation is a rite relating to a particular stage of culture. In the psychological sense, initiation2, as M. Eliade puts it, is “an ahistorical archetypal behavior of the psyche.” In many cases, initiations are accompanied by difficult psychological and physical tests. At the end of initiation, purification rites are performed. Typically, the newly initiated receives certain insignia that highlight the social distinction between initiates and non-initiates.
Our model is based on the traditional (three-part) initiation scenario, according to which the initiate moves away from people, undergoes death-transformation, and is reborn as a different person. The material was prose about the First World War: three novels about the First World War (“All Quiet on the Western Front” by E.M. Remarque, “Death of a Hero” by R. Aldington and “A Farewell to Arms!” by E. Hemingway), as well as the story IN.
Nekrasov "V" hometown"about the Second World War.
So, the first stage, moving away from people, corresponds to the stage of growing up, or the preparatory stage.
The second is about everyday life at the front and the third is about revival. Each of the stages has own characteristics at different levels of the text: compositional, motive-thematic and spatiotemporal. Let's look at the first stage in more detail.
I. Compositional level.
It should be noted that this stage is presented in different ways in the text. Most full picture we can find growing up and education in Remarque and Aldington. Both authors describe growing up in detail central character, his spiritual world, family relationships, friends, etc. This can be explained by the task that the writers themselves set for themselves when writing their works. After all, both Remarque and Aldington did not just create a text about the First World War - they tried to discover and explain the causes of the tragedy.
Hemingway (like Nekrasov), unlike Remarque and Aldington, gives extremely scant information about the hero’s young years (childhood and adolescence). This can be interpreted as follows. If Remarque and Aldington need to show the development of the hero’s worldview - from support for government policy and war to complete denial, then Hemingway and Nekrasov had a completely different task. America neither acted as an aggressor, like the German Empire, nor was it an active participant in hostilities from the first days, like England. Therefore, Frederick Henry Hemingway is a solitary hero, he is not one of many, like Remarque’s Paul Bäumer or Aldington’s George Winterbourne. His participation in hostilities is his personal choice, which is dictated by his inner convictions. That is why it is not so important for the reader to know about his past: about the hobbies of childhood and youth, about family and friends. The main thing is to realize the trauma that the war itself caused, to understand the motives for his refusal to fight at the front and his deliberate flight from the front line.
Kerzhentsev fulfills his duty, acts as a defender of his homeland, so Nekrasov focuses on the real hero, giving only rare allusions to his past.
It is worth noting that war poetry about the Second World War has already been analyzed from the point of view of the rite of passage. The work of Remarque and Aldington was also analyzed [see: 8, 9].
Of particular interest is the article by R. Efimkina “Three initiations in “women’s” fairy tales,” which presents an interpretation of the ritual from a psychological aspect.
The portal offers readers a series of conversations about Russian literature and culture with Professor Alexander Nikolaevich Uzhankov, theorist and historian of literature and culture Ancient Rus', teacher, vice-rector of the Literary Institute. Maxim Gorky.
– Alexander Nikolaevich, you spoke about the importance of classical works of Russian literature for the development of a young person’s consciousness. Are there any classical works world literature that would help a person understand his place in life, strengthen himself morally and spiritually?
– Well, I’m not such a big specialist in foreign literature, I want to say right away. I focused my attention more on Russian literature. Most likely, precisely because I realized for myself that Russian literature is more moral than European literature. Of course, in the university course, at the philology department, we studied literature from antiquity to the present day. We were very well acquainted with the monuments of antiquity and the Middle Ages - there was in-depth study and so on, but our souls did not accept much. Yes, there is more rational there, we have more spirituality. These are two different types of crops, and we need to pay attention to this.
Russian people are more concerned not with material well-being, but with the spiritual world, that is, the salvation of the soul
The Western European type of culture is a eudaimonic type. Eudaimonia is the construction of earthly happiness, earthly well-being. Hence, in fact, the apotheosis of this is, as it were, American films with their happy ending - a happy ending, that is, he and she find each other, they receive a million, or some kind of inheritance, and finally, they acquire a 5-story house there somewhere on Cote d'Azur and so on - so they lived happily. That is, the ending of all human stories is to live safely, to strive for well-being. To some extent, Protestant culture, in fact, and religion prepare for this. Russian culture, based on Orthodoxy, is soteriological. Soteriology is the doctrine of the end of the world and the salvation of the soul. This means that a Russian person is more concerned not with material well-being, but with the spiritual world (like the writer, the ancient Russian writer), that is, the salvation of the soul. This is the basis of ancient Russian literature, and, in general, in the 19th century, as we said, works also contribute to the spiritual or moral development of the individual. This is the first. Second: let’s say, if we take, again, Western European culture, it tends, let’s say, more towards the Christmas type of culture. The main holiday in the West is the coming of Christ into the world. That is, he focuses again on the earthly. If we look Orthodox culture, Russian culture - we also love Christmas very much, but we have an Easter type of culture. Easter is more important to us. Why? Because this is precisely the resurrection in the future life. And here it is, this direction: if the Savior has risen, then we also have hope for salvation. Again, this is hope for spiritual transformation and preparation for this future - the future century, imperishable life, as Hilarion said - this is what will happen after the Last Judgment. Therefore, the main thing is not what is here, but the main thing is what will be there. And a person must approach this (why all the Russian saints were so prepared for this), this is clearly shown in the lives of the Russian saints. Therefore, when we talk about literary works, I showed the difference. That is, of course, I’m talking in general, there we can already talk about some various works, but we will see that, say, their approach will be the one I outlined. Russian literature is more important, much more important, than European literature. It is no coincidence that the 19th century of Russian literature in the world context is considered the “golden age”, because no literature in the world has given as much as Russian literature in the 19th century. But if they still knew and understood Old Russian, then, of course, the attitude would be completely different.
No literature in the world has given as much as Russian literature in the 19th century.
– It turns out that both understanding and perception of deep and hidden thoughts in Russian classics depend on worldview. At the same time, the richness and breadth of our horizons and artistic perception depend on the works we read. That is, some kind of vicious circle. Can you name a specific, small number of works that a young person who wants to acquire initial depth of perception and expand his horizons could start with? For example, it seems to me that Dostoevsky’s works are too deep in this regard; they are for adults who have experienced and thought a lot about their lives and the life experiences of other people. But for a young man...
– Well, to some extent, your question already contains the answer, the answer lies. Look, we have a difference from the Western European model of education, when the work of a writer or even one work is studied, in isolation from the work of other writers and other works, and the result is a truly one-sided perception of this work. We have always built the history of Russian literature. That is, chronologically, I don’t want to say, from simpler to more complex, no, not at all, but, let’s say, Dostoevsky came out of Pushkin, but to a greater extent even from Lermontov. This duality is also in the heroes, in the splitting of heroes, and here, undoubtedly, we need to pay attention to the heroes of Lermontov and the heroes of Dostoevsky. A very important point is that Dostoevsky knew both of them well, he knew Gogol too, you see, his work is based on the work of his predecessors. To some extent, it may be polemical towards them, this needs to be understood. Two contemporaries lived - Tolstoy and. They didn’t know each other personally, but they were well acquainted with each other’s work, and to some extent, their works were a polemic with both the worldview and the way of life of one and the other, do you understand?
Now, if we tear apart, examine, as if through a magnifying glass, or under a microscope, only one thing, then, of course, we will not see the world, so we certainly need to consider it in context. This is the first, but very important rule. Secondly, in the work of the writer himself, it is absolutely necessary to move from simpler topics to more complex ones. Start with the “basics” - where the writer started, yes, what he paid attention to, and what he came to. Even in Dostoevsky, so to speak, we look - there is “Poor People”, we look - there is “Crime and Punishment” or “The Brothers Karamazov”. Why is this pinnacle achieved, and how? What does he refuse, and what does he pay more attention to?
“The Captain's Daughter” is Pushkin’s literary and spiritual testament. Because there is that mercy that we so lack in life
Pushkin has the same plot in two works. Now, if I say this: a young man, about 18 years old, goes by mail to his destination, and when he arrives there, some young lady falls in love with him, and then there will be a duel... What is this? Some will say that this is “Eugene Onegin”, and others will say that it is “The Captain’s Daughter”. Why does he use the same plot twice, especially since the original plan for “The Captain's Daughter” was completely different? Because there were real events there, which he learned about when he traveled to the Orenburg province to collect materials about the Pugachev uprising. This means that it was very important for Pushkin to argue even with himself, because “Eugene Onegin” did not completely satisfy him. Although complex work, a wonderful work, everyone admires it, but Pushkin does not. Well, really, he exclaimed after writing it, when he read it, but then he thought about it and said no. Now, if we take the consciousness of Pushkin, try to look into this consciousness, the consciousness of an Orthodox man, can he justify himself before God with this work? Because “every gift from above is,” right? So, does he have the gift of writing and composing from God? Did he serve God with his talent in Eugene Onegin? No. Why? Because everyone there is passionate. And "The Captain's Daughter"? – And this is completely different. It is no coincidence that literary scholars say, this is Pushkin’s literary testament, this is the spiritual testament of a secular man. This means that he has already risen to this level of perception. Why? Because there is that mercy that we so lack in life. “Be merciful, like your Father in heaven.” “By the way you judge, you will be judged.” Do you understand? And look, in this work everyone loves each other. There is simply love spilled throughout the entire work. There is only one person who does not love anyone - this is Shvabrin. Why? But he’s a murderer and doesn’t believe in God—that’s all. "God is love". This is what Pushkin came to. A simple work, one hundred pages. Pushkin once wrote such things in a month. And this, meanwhile, writes almost three s. more than a year. Why? Because it was important to him. But then that’s all, everything doesn’t matter: this work has been written, Pushkin’s spiritual testament. Do you understand?
When they removed essays from school and replaced them with the Unified State Exam, children stopped thinking, and not just figuratively
Now “The Captain’s Daughter” is being thrown out of the school curriculum. "Eugene Onegin" remains, but "The Captain's Daughter" is discarded. What does this mean? Is this the half-educated Pushkin? Why did he write then? He wrote, in general, for us. Why? Because he wanted to direct us along a certain path, to give us spiritual development, do you understand? School, unfortunately, emasculates all this. When they removed essays from school and replaced them with Unified State Examinations and exams, children stopped thinking, and not only figuratively. To connect their thoughts, that is, to explain what they read, to recreate these images verbally - this is now given to them with great, great difficulty. I'm not even talking about those ridiculous questions that are asked in the Unified State Exam. Now, thank God, composition is returning to school, now they will write it, because the clip consciousness is developing in children, they cannot compose full-fledged and coherent texts now.
This is one problem, the second problem is that we are having a film adaptation. What is screen adaptation? A film adaptation is, in essence, the same reading of a work, but only by one person, the director. Why do I always tell my students: before watching this film, be sure to read the work, so that you form your own images, your attitude towards this work, so that you try to reveal the idea of this work, and then watch what they show you. This is a different reading, you compare yours with another. And then, perhaps, determine what the meaning of this work is. Maybe you can get a hint there, no doubt, but maybe vice versa. I remember the Soviet-era adaptation of Anna Karenina. There are wonderful actors there, but, let’s say, when I watched Karenin, he was played in such a way (albeit by a very talented actor), that he evoked some kind of certain, if not disgust, then, in any case, antipathy, to put it mildly. This is some kind of shuffling old man. I ask the students: how old is Karenin? What is forty-two years, old man? You see, this is already beginning to be perceived in a completely different way.
Or I ask students a question: how old was Tatyana Larina when she wrote a letter to Onegin? Because when we watch an opera or a film, we see such portly women, especially in the opera. And the answer is that Tatyana is only fourteen years old, so how does Eugene Onegin (and he is twenty-eight) look at her? Dismissively and condescendingly, for which she is grateful to him, which she herself speaks about at the end of the novel. You see, these are the very details that we don’t pay attention to, because no one, not a single audience has yet told me how old the characters are. The question is, what are you reading? It is no coincidence that the author writes out this age, and draws attention to it several times. The point is that a work of art is insidious. Why? Because it gives flow to our imagination. We build our own images, we think out many things for the writer, and, naturally, we develop certain ideas. And when you draw the attention of the same directors to this, they are surprised: how did I not notice this? Because I read it that way, because my personal perception... This is good, yes, but then you need to say that this is my perception. It wasn’t Pushkin who wrote it that way (or Lermontov, or Dostoevsky, or Tolstoy), it’s the way I see them. So that's great.
– Alexander Nikolaevich, you once touched upon the topic of the complexity and danger of contact, even within theatrical productions, contact with evil spirits when a person tries to enter into the image of an evil spirit, pretend to be it or become close to it. And these words were confirmed by the words of one of the priests who is giving us a course of lectures on the practice of pastoral ministry. He is personally familiar with examples from the lives of actors whose lives were shattered after participating in such scenes, participating in works where they assumed the role of evil spirits. Relatives died, something completely out of place and inexplicable happened from the point of view of a non-believer. Some - he said so directly - after such events in their lives, they considered it a great joy and help to be baptized. That is, people came to understand that faith and God are necessary in life, but through such difficulties. The question arises: how would you explain to yourself and to young people the danger of such advances? It would seem that this is an ordinary theatrical production, because man himself does not define himself as having departed from God and having come to Satan. At the same time, there is an unconditional influence of such roles and such experiments in a person’s life.
– You can build the history of the Russian theater, or the theater, probably, in Russia - this way, perhaps, it will be more correctly said. In the 17th century, in the second half of the 17th century, it appears. Initially, only foreigners were actors. Why? Because in Rus' theater has always been perceived as anti-church. understood this perfectly. Red Square is a temple under open air, and where now Historical Museum, Peter I planned to create a theatrical temple in which some actions were to take place. Well, instead of Peter, now they are also organizing events, essentially on Red Square, essentially in an open-air church, as it was perceived in the 17th and even at the beginning of the 18th century.
Flirting with spiritual forces is not just a game, a transformation, it is the perception in your soul of who the actor is going to play
So, what is theater? This is acting, as they said in Ancient Rus'. The author behind the guise, that is, behind the mask, hides his own face and begins to play with passions. A person in his life must get away from passions, and in the theater he must even play other people’s passions, being, perhaps, completely moral person . Naturally, passions can captivate both the actor himself, who plays the actor, and those sitting in the audience. It is no coincidence that Alexei Mikhailovich immediately went to the bathhouse after the theater to wash away, outwardly, so to speak, these sins that seemed to cover his whole body. Why? Because he saw the passions that were raging on stage and, naturally, somehow joined them. Maybe without your will, although - one wonders - why were you sitting, what were you watching, and so on. Not only he, but the entire retinue went to wash away these sins. You see, the form is correct, right? Maybe they didn’t understand the content. Why? Because I’ve already joined anyway. Then Russian troupes appeared, but, what is important (in imitation, of course, of European ones) - who acted as actors - free people or serfs? All our theaters were mostly serfs. Do you understand why? Because the landowner there, or the owner, forced them to play. If a nobleman was going to play in the theater, then he took a pseudonym so as not to discredit his surname, the honor of his noble class and noble surname. He or she played on stage under a pseudonym (in general, there were such things in the 19th century, we see examples of this). As for when a person is not just playing reincarnation, but is already flirting with spiritual forces, everything is more complicated, much more complicated. Why? Because this is not just a game, a reincarnation, but this is the perception in one’s soul of who he is going to play - Gogol perfectly showed this in the example of an unnamed artist who painted a portrait. Why? Because the artist reflects what he absorbs into his soul - it must be digested inside, he must get used to it, and then, so to speak, it spills out on the canvas. It’s the same with an actor - he must first absorb it into himself, and then throw it out on stage, because he, too, after all, an artist, will certainly let everything pass through himself. And when all this happens, when a person absorbs it, what is the danger? The fact is that he may not get rid of it. What was needed for the nameless artist? Lose your wife, lose your children, go to a monastery and atone for your sin through long fasting, prayers, and hermitage. All for just one portrait of a moneylender, right? And then he was able to transform internally, and then he was able to paint a fresco of the Nativity of Christ. The same is true for an actor who plays: again, is he flirting, is he acting, or is he really taking it into his own hands? I just also know, I am personally acquainted with some of the actors who themselves told me, and since she told me publicly, I can probably say about Natalya Varley - a Komsomol member, an athlete, a beautiful girl who played - her student role - a lady in "Vie". She says: “Even then I had no idea what I would face in my life.” She was indeed baptized later, and now she is a deeply religious person, a churchgoer, she says: “If they had told me then what would happen to me, to my destiny in the future, I would never have agreed to this role.” So there really can be a lot of such examples. This taboo topic, a person should not transgress it.
Thesis
Gromova, Olga Gennadievna
Academic degree:
Candidate of Cultural Studies
Place of thesis defense:
Kemerovo
HAC specialty code:
Speciality:
Theory and history of culture
Number of pages:
CHAPTER I THEORETICAL-METHODOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM OF INTERACTION OF LANGUAGE AND
CULTURES.
§ 1 LANGUAGE AS A MEANS OF TRANSMISSION AND ACCUMULATION OF THE CULTURE OF THE PEOPLE AND ITS NATIONAL
CHARACTER.
§ 2 CULTURAL-HISTORICAL PREREQUISITES FOR FORMATION
RUSSIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE.
CHAPTER II LINGUISTIC BORROWING AS A MEANS OF INTERACTION OF CULTURES: LINGUOCULTUROLOGICAL
ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM.
§ 1 INTERACTION OF CULTURES AS A BASIS
LINGUISTIC BORROWING.
§ 2 ORIGINAL AND BORROWED LEXICAL UNITS IN
LIGHT OF THE THEORY OF LINGUOCULTUROLOGICAL FIELD.
Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) On the topic "Interaction of Russian and Western European cultures during the formation of the Russian literary language: The end of the 17th - the first third of the 18th centuries."
Relevance of the topic. At the present stage of development of society, when the whole world is embraced by the processes of globalization and the unification of different nations and cultures, and strives for universal dialogue, the issue of mutual influence and interpenetration of language and culture is very acute. This is due to the fact that language, being a means of transmitting culture, is its “mirror”, and the abundance of linguistic borrowings characteristic of modern stage, raises serious concerns about preserving the integrity and identity of the national culture. How possible is it to preserve the stability of national languages and cultures under such conditions, and is the idea of creating some kind of universal dialogue that sums up all the achievements of civilization realistic - this is a question that concerns today not only cultural scientists and linguists, but also politicians.
In the history of Russia, a similar problem already arose during the period of Peter the Great’s attempt to Europeanize the country. There are some similarities between the processes that took place two centuries ago and modern ones. This recurrence must be due to the similarity of situations that gave rise to changes in society, among which we can highlight: firstly, the change in the political status of Russia in the 18th and 20th centuries; secondly, strengthening economic ties with foreign countries; thirdly, expanding educational and cultural contacts with foreign countries.
Naturally, these processes are not identical, since over two centuries qualitative changes. Nevertheless, on the basis of previous experience, some modern problems in cultural studies and linguistics can be solved: studying and understanding them makes it possible to predict the development of cultural contacts in modern conditions, assess the impact of cultural borrowings on the language of the recipient people, track the mechanisms of penetration of foreign culture and its impact on Russians at the mental level. In practice, with the help of such studies, the question can be resolved whether borrowing processes should be administratively regulated in order to preserve the purity of the national culture, or whether the culture reflected in the language is capable of self-regulation based on accumulated experience and cultural traditions.
In the context of globalization, questions arise about the self-identification of cultures, about how to preserve national identity and not reduce the achievements of individual cultures to a single universally leveling monoculture. The key to solving them is the study of the mental mechanisms reflected in the language of the nation, as well as the study of the nature of the formation of national character, the degree of its stability, which can be traced in linguistic transformations, since our ideas about the world around us are largely expressed by linguistic means.
Based on the fact that history tends to repeat itself, a description of the cultural and linguistic picture that emerged during the Peter the Great period will help to understand the further development of the situation in modern conditions.
Degree of development. The topic of the research required turning to the fundamental works of foreign and domestic scientists, which most fully reflect modern approaches to the study of language borrowing. The problem of foreign language borrowing, which became the object of research at the end of the 19th century, has been thoroughly studied in linguistics. Foreign borrowings were considered from the point of view of their origin, degree of development, scope of use and stylistic coloring, reasons for borrowing. U. Weinreich, B. Gavranek studied foreign language vocabulary from the standpoint of external and internal reasons for borrowing. In turn, V.V. Veselitsky, Y.K. Grot, I.I. Ogienko, devoted their works to the study of this layer of vocabulary based on the source and age of borrowing. In the same vein, focusing on the “leading influence”, E. E. Birzhakova, L. A. Voinova, L. L. Kutina worked. The areas of borrowing and their functioning in the recipient language were studied by V. V. Vinogradov and F. P. Filin. Issues of adaptation of borrowings according to phonomorphological characteristics and issues of stability were dealt with by V.V. Vinogradov, D.S. Lotte, L.P. Yakubinsky. The problems of social conditionality of borrowing were studied by R. A. Budagov, Yu. D. Desheriev, A. D. Schweitzer. The works of Yu. S. Sorokin are devoted to the problem of borrowing conditions, and the works of V. M. Aristova are devoted to the stages of the evolution of borrowing.
The problem of linguistic borrowing as a fact of culture has not been sufficiently studied in philosophy and cultural studies. However, these sciences have defined such concepts as “ national character», « modal personality", "mentality", which is associated with the identification of supra-individual national characteristics. It is from the standpoint of these concepts that borrowings from the late 17th - first third of the 18th centuries are considered. in this work. For the first time about national character, which shapes the worldview of a nation, reflected in its language, and thereby creates its unique identity, spoke the German scientist W. von Humboldt, relying on earlier studies of the “spirit of the people” by I. Herder and G. Hegel.
The followers of W. von Humboldt, the Americans E. Sapir and B. Whorf, continuing research on the relationship between language and thinking, created the theory of linguistic relativity, according to which language determines the nature of cognitive activity and shapes the worldview.
For a long time, scientists argued about whether there is a certain “ national character", uniting ethnic groups and serving as a means of their identification. At the moment, thanks to the work of ethnologists, psychologists, sociologists, cultural scientists, and linguists, it is generally accepted that there are national characteristics that represent a combination of character traits unique to a given people. This is manifested in certain norms and forms of reaction to the world around us, as well as in norms of behavior and activity.
In psychological anthropology, a great contribution to the development of this issue was made by the ideas of the American linguist, ethnologist and anthropologist R. Benedict. The theory of national character as a set of modal (statistically dominant) traits of an adult personality was developed in the works of E. Durkheim, A. Inkels, D. Levinson.
In mentality research great attention focuses on the problem of the mentality of society. This issue was dealt with by V. Wundt, G. Lebon, B. S. Gershunsky, T. G. Grushevitskaya. The mentality of society or, according to G. Le Bon’s definition, the soul of a race is “ aggregate of general psychological characteristics" In his opinion, moral and intellectual features, the totality of which expresses the soul of the people, represent a synthesis of its entire past, the inheritance of all its ancestors and the motivating reasons for its behavior. This totality forms the average type, which makes it possible to define a people. When applied to an individual, the traits that characterize the “soul” may be insufficient and sometimes incorrect; but when applied to the majority of individuals of a known people they give a fairly accurate picture.
An important layer of literature is research on the topic “ Russian national personality", which were based on the works of N. A. Berdyaev, S. N. Bulgakov, B. P. Vysheslavtsev, I. A. Ilyin, D. S. Likhachev, P. A. Sorokin, G. P. Fedotov, S. . L. Frank, “Eurasians”. The latest developments in this direction from the position of linguoculturology were carried out by N. D. Arutyunova, V. V. Vorobyov, V. A. Maslova, Yu. S. Stepanov, V. N. Telia.
Despite the fact that the problems of borrowing, cultural problems associated with borrowing, and the problem of national character are well covered in the literature, the mutual influence of linguistic borrowing and culture from the point of view of the national character of the Russian people, being a little-studied area of cultural studies, required further scientific development based on methods linguoculturology.
The problem of this study is to determine how resistant national character traits, reflected in basic linguistic constants, are to the influence of foreign borrowings at turning points in history.
The object of the study is the relationship and interaction of culture and language in the process of their historical development.
The subject of the study is linguistic borrowings from Western European languages into the Russian language in various areas of social life in Russia at the end of the 17th - first third of the 18th century from the point of view of the Russian national character.
The chronological framework of the work covers the period from the end of the 17th to the first third of the 18th century.
This is due to the fact that foreign contacts brought not only cultural, but also linguistic borrowings, which later influenced the formation of Russian literary language.
At the end of the 17th - first third of the 18th century, printed sources were mainly official documents. But at this time the first works of art, the authors of which were F. Prokopovich, V.K. Trediakovsky, book. P. A. Tolstoy, as well as the first journalistic publications (“Chimes”). Attempts were made to systematize and describe the grammatical norms of the language (V. Burtsev, M. Grek, M. Smotritsky). Therefore, we can talk about the beginning of the formation of the Russian literary language at the end of the 17th - first third of the 18th centuries.
The purpose of the study is to consider the borrowing of lexical units into the Russian language from Western European languages in the era of the beginning of the formation of the Russian literary language (late 17th - first third of the 18th centuries) from the point of view of the Russian national character, expressed in the basic linguocultures of the recipient language, determining their role in the system linguistic constants and participation in the paremiological fund and phraseological corpus of the Russian language.
Realization of this goal requires sequential solution the following main tasks:
1. identifying the basic linguistic cultures of the national culture, which are the basis for preserving the national character;
2. establishing a relationship between the character of the people and the assimilation of linguistic borrowings in the recipient language;
3. establishing the place of linguistic borrowing in the linguocultural field of the language.
Methodological basis of the study. The methodological basis of the study is a systematic approach to the consideration of humanitarian objects, the main provisions of which were developed in the fundamental works of such authors as W. von Humboldt, E. Sapir, D. S. Likhachev, P. A. Sorokin, N. D. Arutyunova, V. V. Vorobyov, Yu. S. Stepanov, V. N. Telia.
The study of linguistic borrowings from the point of view of national character required an interdisciplinary approach to the problem, which, in turn, led to the use of analytical methods developed in cultural studies, linguistics, and history.
To reconstruct the cultural and historical situation of the late 17th - early 18th centuries, a historical method is used, based on the works of V. O. Klyuchevsky, E. V. Anisimov, P. N. Berkov, V. I. Buganov, A. M. Panchenko, L. A. Chernoy.
The work uses the method of the linguoculturological field, which allows us to obtain a holistic understanding of lexical units in the totality of their linguistic and extra-linguistic content. When describing the relationship between language and culture, it was necessary to identify a linguocultureme - an inter-level unit, which is a symbiosis of the extralinguistic and linguistic content of the borrowed reality.
The work used the method of continuous sampling from etymological dictionary M. Vasmer, with the help of which a corpus of words was identified that corresponds to a given periodization. Thanks to this method, lexical units were identified that corresponded to the objectives of this study.
Using the method of analyzing dictionary definitions, the place of borrowed foreign language lexical units in linguistic and cultural fields is determined.
The scientific novelty of the study is as follows:
1. An analysis and cultural interpretation of the conceptual series was carried out: “culture”, “language”, “ national character", "mentality".
2. For the first time, the methods of linguoculturology are applied to the consideration of historical linguistic material of the Peter the Great era (borrowings from the end of the 17th - the first third of the 18th centuries).
3. Linguistic cultures that are essentially significant for the Russian national character are identified: faith, fate, community, power.
4. The analysis of linguistic borrowing was carried out from the standpoint of qualitative features of the Russian national character, such as conciliarity, the desire for freedom and independence in organic combination with the desire for a strong autocratic state, spirituality as a search for the Absolute, dual faith.
The following provisions are submitted for defense:
1. Linguocultureme as the core of the linguoculturological field has great importance in a comprehensive study of culture in connection with language, since it reflects not only linguistic, but also extra-linguistic processes, phenomena, cultural and historical features, which makes it possible to study the national character in particular and the culture of the people in general by identifying culture-specific linguocultural fields.
2. Features of Orthodox thinking of a person in the 17th - 18th centuries. are reflected in a specific attitude to socio-cultural aspects, such as power, law, society, which limited the influence of Western borrowings on the Russian language and culture as a whole.
3. Cultural systems are relatively stable: linguistic borrowings occupy a peripheral place in linguistic and cultural fields that reflect the mentality of the people, which does not lead to a significant change in the archetypes of national character.
4. Borrowings appear in the recipient language as idioms, but borrowed words are not included in the paremiological fund of the language, which indicates their limited influence on the stereotypes of national consciousness.
The theoretical significance of the study lies in the fact that it systematizes and generalizes the conceptual apparatus of linguoculturology and, thereby, cultural studies in general; demonstrates the effectiveness of the method of linguoculturological field for the study of national culture and the language that serves it; a significant contribution is made to the development of a comprehensive study of the culture of the Russian people through the use of the conceptual apparatus of history, ethnography, cultural studies, philosophy, and linguistics.
Practical significance of the study.
This work can serve as a source of regional information to expand knowledge in the process of studying the culture of Russia, as well as a guide to intercultural communication that explains the cultural characteristics of the Russian people. It is possible to use it in the practice and theory of translation for a more adequate choice of lexical units when transmitting culture-specific words. Also, the results of the study can be used in the university training course “Cultural Studies”. The study may be of interest to a wide range of humanitarian specialists.
Approbation of work. The main results of the study were presented in the form of reports and communications at scientific conferences: international (“Language and Culture”, Tomsk, 2003), all-Russian (“Language and Culture”, Tomsk, 2003). Science and education", Belovo, 2003), regional ("I Scientific Conference of Graduate Students and Applicants of KemGAKI", Kemerovo, 2002), " Methodology and methods of humanitarian and social research", Kemerovo, 2003).
The dissertation was discussed in full at the Department of Cultural Studies and Art History of KemGAKI.
Research structure: The dissertation consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, a list of references and an appendix.
Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic "Theory and History of Culture", Gromova, Olga Gennadievna
Research into the question of why, with all the abundance of borrowings that are characteristic of turning points historical periods, including those that occurred during the era of reforms carried out by Peter the Great, only a small part of them is assimilated into the language, showed the close relationship between the national character and the language of the nation. According to the definitions given by domestic and Western linguists and cultural scientists, language is an exponent of the national mentality , and, consequently, national culture as a certain vision. To date, scientists have come to the conclusion about the existence of “ national character"(or mentality), which is a unique combination of national and national characteristics characteristic only of one people, manifested as certain norms and forms of reaction to the surrounding world, as well as norms of behavior and activity. Everyday life, specific historical situations, and traditions form a certain cultural halo, thanks to which we distinguish between people’s belonging to different nations. Language manifests ethnic self-awareness, that is, a nation’s idea of itself. Despite the fact that the national character of an ethnic group is made up of the mentality of individuals, representatives of a given ethnic group, there is a certain “image of us” that is not reduced to the sum of individual consciousnesses. It is presented in literature, myths, legends, works of art, in the media and is a means of self-determination of an ethnic group. When studying the relationship and interaction of language and culture, it is proposed to identify an inter-level unit - linguocultureme (V.V. Vorobiev), which represents a unit of linguistic and extralinguistic content. Linguocultureme as the core of lingocultfolo- 1 4 8 -
logical field is of great importance in the complex study of language in connection with culture, since it reflects not only linguistic, but also extra-linguistic processes, phenomena, cultural and historical features, which makes it possible to study the national character in particular and the culture of the people in general using the method identifying culture-specific linguocultural fields. Linguoculturemes that have a general invariant meaning in a certain cultural sphere, form a linguoculturological field. A borrowed lexical unit, once in such a field, is modified in accordance with its requirements (semantics, synonymy/antonymy relations, stylistic coloring), at the same time it introduces elements of a “foreign” picture of the world. Research has shown that lexical borrowings included in the basic linguocultural field occupy a peripheral place in it (for example, fate - fortune; freedom - revolution) and are not reflected in the paremiological fund of the language, which is a reflection of the way of life, moral and ethical code , the historically accumulated experience of a given people, regardless of the age of borrowing. However, borrowings tend to be reflected in the recipient language as idioms, which indicates their rootedness both in the language and in the consciousness of the people, due to the fact that they become exponents of certain principles reotypes and cultural attitudes that have become part of the life of the people. We can say that borrowing does not destroy the archetypes of culture and only as a result of systematic unidirectional influence can it affect the character of the people. This is confirmed by the fact that borrowing, regardless of prescription, is not reflected in the proverbs and sayings of a given people, which are a kind of mirror of the fundamental way of life of the nation. Borrowed words that express concepts corresponding to the national character of the people, the basis of which is
Russian Orthodoxy as a special syncretic form of pagan beliefs and Christianity. The most important dominants of the Russian national character are: religiosity, conciliarity, worldwide responsiveness, desire for higher forms experience, polarization of the soul, which is confirmed by the analysis of data from frequency dictionaries as the most frequent words used in the Russian language. Culture is a dynamic phenomenon, but associated with a system of stereotypes (national character) of the people. Hence, borrowing is not a mechanical copying of someone else’s vocabulary. In the recipient language, the borrowed word undergoes a transformation of meaning, mixing of the hierarchy of meanings, changing shades of the meaning of the word. The most significant value orientations nations form vast semantic fields according to “ law of synonymous attraction", involving, among other things, foreign borrowings to differentiate meanings from shades of meaning. For Russian national culture, the significant constants around which linguocultural fields are formed, which also include borrowed lexical units, are the linguocultures “soul, faith, freedom, power, fate.” The fundamental difference in the “roots” of Western European and Russian cultures is and one of the main ones is religious difference - it limited the influence of Western borrowings on the Russian language and culture as a whole. In any language, including Russian, there are language constants, basic concepts, defining the originality and uniqueness of the national culture (for example, Orthodoxy, spirituality). The peculiarities of Orthodox thinking are reflected not only in the fact that all basic concepts (faith, Orthodoxy, God) have a Slavic etymology, but also in the specificity of the attitude towards socio-cultural aspects, such as power, law, society.A. Y. Gurevich considers language and religion to be the main forces that cement mentality. Therefore, the key to preserving the national mentality is
the inviolability of religious traditions and those basic linguocultures that express them. The duality and antinomy of Russian culture is manifested in the totality of the two cultures of which it, according to szpgi, consists: one - folk, natural-pagan remains practically unchanged in its moral and ethical values , the other - external - reflects scientific and technological progress, changes in the socio-political situation by replenishing the vocabulary of the language with foreign borrowings. The results of the work showed that the national character of the people, or, in other words, their cultural mental attitudes, is the guardian of both culture in in general, and to a certain extent the language of the people. In the sense that it does not allow borrowings to destroy the linguistic and cultural constants of the nation, assigning them peripheral positions in consciousness and language.
List of references for dissertation research Candidate of Cultural Studies Gromova, Olga Gennadievna, 2004
1. Alekseev A. A. On the issue of social differentiation of the Russian language of the 18th century. P. 22-44 //Language and society. Reflection of social processes in vocabulary. Interuniversity. scientific collection: Publishing house Sarat. University, 1986.
2. Alpatov M. A. Russian historical thought and Western Europe (XVIII - first half of the XIX century). M.: Nauka, 1985. - 270 p.
3. Anisimov E.V. Time of Peter’s reforms. JI.: Lenizdat, 1989. - 496 e., ill.
4. Aristova V. M. English-Russian language contacts (Anglicisms in the Russian language): Monograph. L.: Publishing house Leningr. University, 1978 - 150 p.
5. Arutyunov S. A. Peoples and cultures: development and interaction. M.: Nauka, 1989.-247 p.
6. Arutyunova N. D. Language and the world of man. 2nd ed., rev. - M.: Languages of Russian Culture, 1999. -1 - XV, 896 p.
7. Harutyunyan Yu. V. et al. Ethnosociology: Tutorial for universities / Yu. V. Arutyunyan, L. M. Drobizheva, A. A. Susokolov. M.: Aspect Press, 1998. -271 p. - (Program " Higher education»)
8. Askoldov A. S. Concept and word.//Russian literature. From the theory of literature to text structure. Anthology. Ed. prof. V. P. Neroznak. -M.: Academia, 1997. S. 267 - 279.
9. Belinsky V. G. A look at Russian literature. M.: Sovremennik, 1988. - 653 pp. - 1521 Z. Berdyaev N. A. Russian idea. The main problems of Russian thought of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. - M.: ZAO "Svarog and K", 1997. - 541 p.
10. Berdyaev N. The fate of Russia. - M.: Soviet writer, 1990. - 346 p.
11. Berkov P. M. Problems of historical development of literature. L.: Artist. liter, 1981 -495 p.
12. Bibler V. S. From scientific teaching to the logic of culture: Two philosophical introductions to the twenty-first century. - M.: Politizdat, 1990. - 413 p.
13. Birzhakova E. E., Voinova L. A., Kutina L. L. Essays on the historical lexicology of the Russian language of the 18th century. (Language contacts and borrowings). L.: Nauka, Leningrad, department, 1972. - 431 p.
14. Bitsilli P. M. Nation and language. //Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Ser. lit. and language 1992. - t. 51. - No. 5. - P. 72-84.
15. Bock F.K. The structure of society and the structure of language. // Foreign linguistics. I: Translated from English. /General ed. V. A. Zvegintsev, N. S. Chemodanova. M.: Publishing house. group "Progress", 1999. - pp. 115 - 129.
16. Bondarenko S. V. The place of foreign language vocabulary in Russian cultural space.// Culturology in theoretical and applied dimensions: Materials of scientific and practical. seminar / Ed. G. N. Minenko. Kemerovo; M., 2001. - pp. 72-76.
17. Bromshtein G.I. Anti-clerical poetry of Lomonosov. // XVIII century. Collection. Vol. 3. M.-L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1958. - P. 65 - 91.
18. Brutyan G. A. Sapir Whorf hypothesis. - Yerevan: Luys, 1968 - 66 p.
19. Buganov V.I. World of history: Russia in XVII century. M.: Young Guard, 1989-318 e., ill.
20. Budagov R. A. Philosophy of culture. -M.: Mysl, 1980 304 p.
21. Bulgakov S. N. Works on sociology and theology: In 2 volumes. T. 2. M.: Nauka, 1997. - 825 p. (Series “Sociological Heritage”).
22. Buslaev F. O. About literature: Research; Articles/ Comp., intro. Art., note. E. Afanasyeva. M.: Artist. lit., 1990. - 512 p.
23. Weinreich U. Monolingualism and multilingualism.//Foreign linguistics. III: Translated from English, German, French. /General ed. V. Yu. Rosenzweig, V. A. Zvegintseva, V. Yu. Gorodetsky. M.: Publishing house. group "Progress", 1999. - P. 7 - 43.
24. Weinreich U. Language contacts. Kyiv: Vishcha School, 1979. - 263 p.
25. Vasiliev S. A. Philosophical analysis hypotheses of linguistic relativity. -Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1974 134 p.
26. Vezhbitskaya A. Understanding cultures through keywords/ Per. from English I. D. Shmeleva. M.: Languages of Slavic culture, 2001. - 288 p. -(Language. Semiotics. Culture. Small series).
27. Vezhbitskaya A. Language. Culture. Cognition: Transl. from English Rep. ed. M. A. Krongauz, intro. Art. E. V. Paducheva. -M.: Russian dictionaries, 1997. 416 p.
28. Vereshchagin E. M., Kostomarov V. G. Language and culture: Linguistic and cultural theory of the word. M.: Russian language, 1980. -320 e., ill.
29. Veselitsky V.V. Abstract vocabulary in the Russian literary language of the 18th and early 19th centuries. - M.: Nauka, 1972. - 319 p.
30. Vinogradov V.V. Lexicology and lexicography: Izb. works. M.: Nauka, 1977.-310 p.
31. Vinogradov V.V. Essays on the history of the Russian literary language of the 17th and 19th centuries. - M.: graduate School, 1982 - 528 p.
32. Vorobyov V.V. Linguoculturology (theory and methods): Monograph. -M.: Publishing house, RUDN, 1997 331 p.
33. Wundt V. Problems of the psychology of peoples. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. - 160 p.
34. Vysheslavtsev B.P. Ethics of the transformed Eros / Intro. art., comp. and comment. V.V. Salova. M.: Republic, 1994. - 368. (Library of Ethical Thought)
35. Gavranek B. On the issue of mixing languages.//Foreign linguistics. III: Translated from English, German, French. /General ed. V. Yu. Rosenzweig, V. A. Zvegintseva, V. Yu. Gorodetsky. -M.: Publishing house. group "Progress", 1999. pp. 56 - 74.
36. Gak V. G. Comparative lexicology. (Based on the material of French and Russian languages). -M.: International relations, 1977. 264 p.
37. Galushko T. G. Dialogue of cultures as a methodological basis for intercultural communication // World of language and intercultural communication, Barnaul, 2001.-P. 56-59.
38. Hegel G. V. F. System of Sciences. 4.1. Phenomenology of spirit / Transl. G. Shpet. -SPb: Nauka, 1999.-441 p.
39. Hegel G. V. F. Works. T. 3. Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences. Part 3 Philosophy of Spirit / Trans. B. A. Fokhta. M.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Institute of Philosophy, 1956. - 371 p.
40. Georgieva T. S. History of Russian culture: history and modernity. Textbook allowance. M.: Yurayt, 1998 - 576 p.
41. Herder I. G. Selected works. M.-L.: State. art publishing house literature, 1959.-389 p.
42. Gershunsky B. S. Russia and the USA on the threshold of the third millennium: Experience of expert research of Russian and American mentalities. -M.: Flinta, 1999. 604 p.
43. Gorshkov A. I. History of the Russian literary language. M.: Higher School, 1969 - 366 p.
44. Grushevitskaya T. G., Popkov V. D., Sadokhin A. P. Fundamentals of intercultural communication: Textbook for universities / Ed. A. P. Sadokhina. M.: UNITY - DANA, 2002. - 352 p.
45. Humboldt V. von Selected works on linguistics M.: Progress, 1984 -395 p.
46. Humboldt V. von Language and philosophy of culture. M.: Progress, 1985 -449 p.
47. Gurevich A. Ya. From the history of mentality to historical synthesis. // Disputes about the main thing: Discussions about the present and future of historical science around the French school “Annals”. -M.: 1993. S. 16 - 29.
48. Guslyarov E. " Russian character" in the minds of foreigners. //Tatar world. 2002. - No. 5. - P. 11.
49. Danilevsky N. Ya. Russia and Europe. M.: Book, 1991 - 574 p.
50. Demin A. S. Russian literature second half XVII beginning of the 18th century: New artistic ideas about the world, nature, man. - M.: Nauka, 1977.-285 p.
51. Durkheim E. Individual representation and collective representation.// Sociology. Its subject, methods, purpose / Transl. from French, compilation, afterword and notes by A. B. Hoffman. M.: Kanon, 1995. -S. 208-244.
52. Zhabina E. V. Integration of borrowings in the receptor language system (towards the formulation of the problem), pp. 216 - 230// World of language and intercultural communication, Barnaul, 2001.
53. Zhivov V. M. Language and culture of Russia in the 18th century. M.: School " Languages of Russian culture", 1996. - 591 p. 58.3 Vegintsev V. A. History of linguistics in the 19th and 20th centuries. in essays and extracts. 4.1, 2- M.: Progress, 1964 - 465 p.
54. Ilyin I. A. About Orthodoxy and Catholicism. // Collected works: in 10 volumes. T. 2. Book. 1/ Comp. and comment. Yu. T. Lisitsy. M.: Russian book, 1993. - pp. 383-395.
55. Ilyin I. A. About Russia. M.: Studio "TRITE" " Russian Archive", 1991 -32 p.
56. Origins of Russian fiction. (The emergence of plot narrative genres in ancient Russian literature) / Rep. ed. Y. S. Lurie. L.: Nauka, Leningrad, department, 1970. - 594 p.
57. History of the vocabulary of the Russian literary language of the late 17th - early 19th centuries. /Ans. ed. F. P. Filin. - M.: Nauka, 1981. - 372 p.
58. History of Russian translated fiction: Ancient Rus'. XVIII century. / Ed. Yu. Levina. T. 1. Prose. St. Petersburg, 1995. - 314 p.
59. Karamzin N. M. About love for the fatherland and national pride. // Selected works: In 2 volumes. T. 2. M-JL: Publishing house “Khudozh. Lit-ra", 1964. pp. 280 - 287.
60. Klyuchevsky V. O. On Russian history: Collection./ Comp., author. preface and note. V. V. Artemov; Ed. V. I. Butanova - M.: Education, 1993 -576 p.
61. Kolesov V.V. Old Russian literary language. L.: Publishing house Leningr. Univ., 1989.-296 p.
62. Kolesov V.V. The world of man in the word of Ancient Rus'. L.: Publishing house Leningr. University, 1986. -312 p.
63. Kolshansky G.V. Objective picture of the world in knowledge and language. M.: Nauka, 1990 - 108 p.
64. Kondakov I.V. On the mentality of Russian culture // Civilizations and cultures. Vol. 1. Russia and the East: civilizational relations. M.: Institute of Oriental Studies, 1994. - 410 p.
65. Kopelev L. 3. Aliens.//Odysseus. Man in history. 1993. The image of the “other” in culture. M.: Nauka, 1994. - 336 p. - P. 8 - 18.
66. Kostomarov V. G. Language taste of the era. From observations of the speech practice of mass media. Third edition, rev. and additional St. Petersburg: “Zlatoust”, 1999.- 320 p. (Language and time. Issue 1).
67. Koshman A. L. Approaches to studying national idea in modern Western sociology.// Bulletin Mosk. Univ. Sociology and political science. -2002, No. 3.-S. 147-157.
68. Krysin L.P. Foreign words in modern Russian. M.: Nauka, 1968-208 p.
69. Krysin L.P. Russian literary language at the turn of the century. // Russian speech. - 2000. -No. 1- P. 28-40.
70. Lebon G. Psychology of crowds // Psychology of crowds - M.: Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Publishing House "KSP+", 1999. P. 15 - 254.
71. Likhachev D. S. Notes about Russian. Ed. second, additional M.: Soviet Russia, 1984. - 64 p.
72. Likhachev D.S. Conceptosphere of the Russian language.//Russian literature. From the theory of literature to text structure. Anthology. Ed. prof. V. P. Neroznak. M.: Academia, 1997. - P. 280 - 287.
73. Lomonosov M. V. Works on philology. T. 7. // Complete works. M.-L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1952.
74. Lossky N. O. Conditions of absolute good: Fundamentals of ethics; The character of the Russian people. M.: Politizdat, 1991. - 368 p. - (B-ka ethical thoughts).
75. Lotman Yu. M. Conversations about Russian culture: Life and traditions of the Russian nobility (XVIII early XIX c.) - St. Petersburg: Art - St. Petersburg, 1996. - 399 p. -5 l. ill.
76. Lotman Yu. M., Uspensky B. A. On the semiotic typology of Russian XVIII culture century. T. 4. // From the history of Russian culture: In 5 volumes. M.: School " Languages of Russian culture", 1996. - 624 p.
77. Lotte D. S. Issues of borrowing and organizing foreign language terms and term elements. -M.: Nauka, 1982. 148 p.
78. Makovsky M. M. Comparative dictionary of mythological symbolism in Indo-European languages: The image of the world and the worlds of images. M.: Humanite. ed. VLADOS center, 1996. - 416 e.: ill.
79. Martynova A. N. Wisdom and beauty./LTredisl. to Sat. “Proverbs. Sayings. Puzzles". -M.: Sovremennik, 1986.-S. 6-17.
80. MaslovaV. A. Linguoculturology: Textbook. aid for students higher textbook establishments. M.: Publishing center "Academy", 2001 - 208 p.
81. Mechkovskaya N. B. Social linguistics. M.: Nauka, 1996 - 206 p.
82. Milov L.V. Natural-climatic factor and mentality of the Russian peasantry.//Mentality and agrarian development of Russia (XIX-XX centuries) Materials of the international conference. - M.: Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN). - 1996. - P. 40 - 56.
83. Molchanov N. N. Diplomacy of Peter the Great. 3rd ed. - M.: International relations, 1990 - 448 p.
84. Mylnikov A. S. Picture of the Slavic world: a view from of Eastern Europe: Ethnogenetic legends, guesses, proto-hypotheses of the 16th and early 18th centuries. - St. Petersburg: Petersburg Oriental Studies, 2000: 2nd ed. - 320 s.
85. Nikiforov L. A. Russia in the system of European powers in the first quarter of the 17th century. // Russia during the period of reforms of Peter I: Sat. Art. / N. I. Pavlenko (chief editor), L. A. Nikiforov, M. Ya. Volkov. -M.: Nauka, 1973 383 p.
86. Nikolaev S.I. From the literary aesthetics of the Petrine era. // XVIII century. Sat. 18./ Rep. ed. N. D. Kochetkova. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1993. - pp. 218 - 230.
87. Novikova M. Marginals. // New world. 1994. - No. 1. - P. 226 - 239.
88. New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ. Kemerovo: Kemerovo, book publishing house, 1990. - 382 p.
89. Pavilionis R.I. The problem of meaning. M.: Mysl, 1983 - 286 p.
90. Panchenko A. M. Russian history and culture: Works of different years. St. Petersburg: Yuna, 1999 - 520 p.97. Panchenko A. M. Russian culture on the eve of Peter’s reforms / Rep. ed. D. S. Likhachev. L.: Nauka, Leningrad, department, 1984. -204 p.
91. Panchenko A. M. Church reform and culture of the Peter the Great era. // XVIII century: Sat. articles No. 17 St. Petersburg: Nauka, St. Petersburg department, 1991. - 304 p.
92. Paul G. Principles of the history of language. Per. with him. edited by A. A. Kholodovich. Entry Art. S. D. Katsnelson. M.: Foreign publishing house. Literary, 1960. - 500 p.
93. Portnov A. N. Language and consciousness: the main paradigms for studying the problem in the philosophy of the 19th and 20th centuries. - Ivanovo, 1994. - 367 pp. - 159101. Potebnya A. A. Word and myth. M.: Publishing house "Pravda", 1989. - 622 p.
94. Pryadko S. D. Language and culture: the cultural component of meaning in the linguistic and cultural vocabulary of the Australian variant in English: Av-toref. dis. Candidate of Philosophy Sci. M.: Moscow State University named after. M. V. Lomonosova, 1999. - 25 p.
95. Romodonovskaya E. K. About changes genre system during the transition from ancient Russian traditions to the literature of modern times. // XVIII century. Sat. 21./ Rep. ed. N. D. Kochetkova. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1999. - pp. 14 - 22.
96. Savitsky P. N. Eurasianism.// World of Russia Eurasia: Anthology/ Compiled by: L. I. Novikova, I. N. Sizemskaya. -M.: Higher School, 1995. - 339 p. - (From the history of domestic spirituality).
97. Sapir E. Selected works on linguistics and cultural studies. M.: Publishing group “Progress” “Universe”, 1993 - 655 p.
98. Sergeev S.K. Transmission of sociocultural experience (towards the formulation of the problem) // Culture and society: the emergence of a new paradigm. Abstracts of reports and messages of Vseros. scientific conf., part 1 Kemerovo, 1995. - pp. 217-221.
99. Serebryakova Yu. A. Dialogue of cultures in modern world.// Culture and society: the emergence of a new paradigm. Abstracts of reports and messages of Vseros. scientific conf. Part 1. Kemerovo, 1995. - pp. 16 - 17
100. Silnitsky G. G. Russia in search of meaning. 4.1. Russia between past and future. Smolensk, 2001. - 294 p.
101. Sitnikova D. L. Culture as a dynamic system. // Definitions of culture: Sat. works of participants of the All-Russian Seminar of Young Scientists. Tomsk: Publishing house Tom. University, 1998 - Issue. 3. - 210 p.
102. Stennik Yu. V. Polemics about national character in magazines of the 1760-1780s.// XVIII century. Sat. 22./ Rep. ed. N. D. Kochetkova. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2002.-P. 85-96.
103. Stepanov A.V. History of the Russian literary language. M.: Publishing house Mosk. University, ed. 4th, rev. and additional, 1968. - 70 p.
104. Stepanov Yu. S. Constants: Dictionary of Russian culture: Ed. 2nd, rev. and additional M.: Academic Project, 2001. - 990 p.
105. Ter-Minasova S.G. Language and intercultural communication: (Textbook) M.: Slovo / Slovo, 2000. - 624 p.
106. Tuev V.V. The phenomenon of the English club. M.: Moskovsky State University culture, 1997 - 240 pp.
107. Uspensky B. A. Selected works, volume I. Semiotics of history. Semiotics of culture, 2nd ed., rev. and additional M.: School "Languages of Russian Culture", 1996 - 608 p.
108. Ustyugov N.V., Chaev N.S. Russian Church in the 17th century. //Russian state in the 17th century. New phenomena in socio-economic, political and cultural life. Sat. Art. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1961.-S. 295-329.
109. Florovsky G.V. About non-historical peoples. (Country of Fathers and Sons) // World of Russia Eurasia. Anthology./ Comp. JI. I. Novikova, I. N. Sizemskaya. - M.: Higher School, 1995 - 339 p. - (From the history of domestic spirituality).
110. Frank S. JI. Russian worldview.// Frank S. JI. spiritual foundations of society. M.: Republic, 1992. - P. 471 - 500.
111. Khoroshkevich A. JI. From the history of Russian-German trade and cultural relations of the early 17th century. (for the publication of Tonny Fenne’s dictionary) // International relations of Russia in the 17th – 18th centuries. Economics, politics, culture. Sat. Art. - M.: Nauka, 1966. - P. 35 - 57.
112. Khotinets V. Yu. Ethnic identity. St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2000. - 240 p.
113. Black JI. A. Russian culture of the transition period from the Middle Ages to the New Age. M.: Languages of Russian culture, 1999 - 288 e., ill.
114. Chinakova JI. I. On the question of the mentality of the Russian people. //Socis. -2000.-No. 7,-S. 138-140.
115. Chuchin-Rusov A. E. Convergence of cultures. M.: ICHP "Magistr Publishing House", 1997 - 40 p.
116. Shaposhnikov V.N. Foreign words in modern Russian life. //Russian life. -1997. No. 3. - P. 38 - 42.
117. Shakhmatov A. A. Collection of articles and materials / Ed. Academician S.P. Obnorsky. M.-JL: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1947. - 474 p.
118. Schweitzer A.D. Some aspects of the problem “language and culture” in the coverage of foreign linguists and sociologists. // National language and national culture/Yu. D. Desheriev. -M.: Nauka, 1978.
119. Shpet G. G. Introduction to ethnic psychology.// Shpet G. G. Works. -M.: Pravda Publishing House, 1989. P. 143-161.
120. Shulyndin B. P. Russian mentality in scenarios of change. //Socis. 1999.-№12.-S. 50-53.
121. Yakubinsky JI. P. A few comments about vocabulary borrowing.// Selected works: Language and its functioning. M.: Nauka, 1986. -S. 59-71.
122. Bauer, Raymond; Inkels, Alex; Kluckhohn, Clyde/ How the Soviet System works. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956. P. 178.
123. Benedict R. Culture & Personality // Preceding of an Interdisciplinary & Conference Held Under Auspice of the Wiking Fund. New York, 1943. - P. 139.
124. Ihanus J. Theoretical and Methdological Problems in Studying National Character. //Dialogue & Universalism, Vol. 9, Issue 11/12,1999. P. 67 - 73.
125. Inkels A., Levenson D. J. National Character: The Study of Modal personality & Sociocultural Systems // Lindzey C., Aronson E. (eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology. Massachusetts (Calif.); London; Ontario, 1969. - v. iv. -P. 428.
126. Klukhohn, Clyde. Culture & Behavior. New York: Free Press of Glecoe, 1961.-P. 94
127. Redfield R. The Little Community: Viewpoints for the Study of a Human Whole. Uppsala & Stockholm, 1955. - P. 106.
128. Veenhoven Ruut. Are the Russians as Unhappy as They Say They Are? //Journal of Happiness Studies 2, 2001. P. Ill - 136. LIST OF ARTISTIC SOURCES
129. VN = Der Brockhause in einem Band. 6., vollständig überarbeitete undaktualisierte Aufgabe./ Red. Bearb.: Helmut Kahnt., Leipzig; Mahnheim: Brockhaus, 1994. - 1118 s.
130. BPRS = Gessen D., Stypula R. Large Polish-Russian Dictionary: In 2 volumes: Ok. 80,000 words. 3rd ed., rev. and additional -M.: Rus. lang., 1988 -794 p.
131. KS = Culturology. XX century Dictionary. - St. Petersburg: University Book, 1997.-640 p.
132. CE = Cultural Studies. XX century Encyclopedia: In 2 volumes. St. Petersburg: University Book; Aletheia LLC, 1998.
133. LES = Literary Encyclopedic Dictionary / Under general. ed. V. M. Kozhevnikova, P. A. Nikolaeva. -M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1987 752 p.
134. NRS = Rymashevskaya E. L. German-Russian dictionary. - M.: FirmaNIK", 1993. 832 p.
135. NFRS = Gak V. G., Ganshina K. A. New French-Russian dictionary: Ok. 70,000 words, 200,000 units of translation. -M.: Rus. lang., 1993 1149 p.
136. PPZ = Proverbs. Sayings. Riddles./ Comp., author's foreword. andcomment. A. N. Martynova, V. V. Mitrofanova. M.: Sovremennik, 1986. - 512 p. - (Classical library "Contemporary").
137. SZHVYA = Dal Vladimir. Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language: In 4 volumes. M.: Terra, 1994. - 800 p.
138. SIS = Modern Dictionary foreign words: OK. 20,000 words. St. Petersburg: Duet, 1994-752 p.
139. SRY = Ozhegov S.I. Dictionary of the Russian language: Ok. 57,000 words /Edited by corresponding member. USSR Academy of Sciences N. Yu. Shvedova. 18th ed., stereotype. - M.: Rus. lang., 1986. - 797 p.
140. SSAYA = Dictionary of Modern English: In 2 volumes. M: Rus. lang., 1992.
141. SYaP = Dictionary of Pushkin’s language: in 4 volumes / Rep. ed. acad. USSR Academy of Sciences V. V. Vinogradov. 2nd ed., add./ Russian Academy Sciences, Institute of Rus. language them. V. V. Vinogradova. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000.
142. FSRY = Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language: Over 4,000 dictionary entries /L. A. Voinova, V. P. Zhukov, A. I. Molotkov, A. I. Fedorov: Ed. A. I. Molotkova. 4th ed., stereotype. -M.: Rus. lang., 1986.-543 p.
143. FES = Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. M.: INFRA-M, 1999. 576 pp.
144. XP = Christianity: Encyclopedic Dictionary: In 3 volumes / Ed. count S.S. Averintsev et al. M.: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1993.
Please note the above scientific texts posted for information purposes and obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors associated with imperfect recognition algorithms.
There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.