|Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Dostoevsky in Dostoevsky. M. Bakhtin and the methodological turnaround in the 1910s–1920s
https://doi.org/10.31425/0042-8795-2023-5-83-104
Abstract
The history of Dostoevsky’s reception knows a relatively brief but extremely intense and productive period of ‘paradigm shifting:’ displacing the philosophical journalism of Rozanov, Merezhkovsky, Shestov and others in the 1910s and 1920s was literary criticism proper. The paper is concerned with this methodological turnaround in Dostoevsky studies. Inspired by V. I. Ivanov’s article ‘Dostoevsky and the novel-tragedy’ [‘Dostoevsky i roman-tragediya’] (1911), young scholars of the day (V. Komarovich, L. Grossman, B. Engelgardt, and M. Bakhtin, among others) attempted to comprehend ‘Dostoevsky in Dostoevsky,’ i. e., interpret his novels’ ‘ideology’ in terms of his poetics rather than in abstraction. The author suggests that the main problem in all Dostoevsky-centred polemics since the 1910s–1920s and to this day remains twofold: on the one hand, it is a problem of the writer’s attitude to his characters; on the other, it is a challenge of identifying the genre of Dostoevsky’s novels. Citing Bakhtin’s monograph (1929, 1963), the article sets out to disprove Ivanov’s term of ‘novel-tragedy’ in reference to the nonclassic nature of Dostoevsky’s novels.
About the Author
V. L. Makhlin
Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vitaly L. Makhlin - Candidate of Philology, Doctor of Philosophy
51/21 Nakhimovsky Av., Moscow, 117418
References
1. Adorno, T. W. (2001). Philosophy of new music. Translated by B. Skuratov. Moscow: Logos. (In Russ.)
2. Bakhtin, M. (2000). Collected works (7 vols). Vol. 2. Moscow: Russkie slovari. (In Russ.)
3. Bakhtin, M. (in disguise). (2000). Freudianism. The formal method in literary scholarship. Marxism and the philosophy of language. Articles. Moscow: Labirint. (In Russ.)
4. Bakhtin, M. (2002). Collected works (7 vols). Vol. 6. Moscow: Russkie slovari; Yazyki slavyanskoy kultury. (In Russ.)
5. Bakhtin, M. (2003). Collected works (7 vols). Vol. 1. Moscow: Russkie slovari; Yazyki slavyanskoy kultury. (In Russ.)
6. Bakhtin, M. (2012). Collected works (7 vols). Vol. 3. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kultur. (In Russ.)
7. Berdyaev, N. (1923). Dostoevsky’s worldview. Prague: YMCA-Press. (In Russ.)
8. Bocharov, S. (1999). Plots of Russian literature. Moscow: Yazyki russkoy kultury. (In Russ.)
9. Bocharov, S. (2000). A commentary to ‘The Problems of Dostoevsky’s Art’ [‘Problemy tvorchestva Dostoevskogo’] (1929). In: M. Bakhtin, Collected works (7 vols). Vol. 2. Moscow: Russkie slovari, pp. 431-543. (In Russ.)
10. Bogdanova, O. (2016). Vyacheslav Ivanov and the formation of Dostoevsky studies at the turn of the 1910s–1920s (M. Bakhtin, B. Engelgardt, V. L. Komarovich). Literaturovedcheskiy Zhurnal, 39, pp. 143-170. (In Russ.)
11. Dostoevsky, F. (1873). Something personal. In: V. Bazanov, ed., The complete works of F. Dostoevsky (30 vols). Vol. 21. Moscow: Nauka, 1980, pp. 23-31. (In Russ.)
12. Engelgardt, B. (2005). Phenomenology and theory of literature. Moscow: NLO. (In Russ.)
13. Fedotov, G. (1991). The tragedy of the intelligentsia. In: V. Boykov, ed., The fate and sins of Russia: The selected articles of G. Fedotov on the philosophy of Russian history and culture (2 vols). Vol. 1. St. Petersburg: Sofia, pp. 66-103. (In Russ.)
14. Florovsky, G. (1991). Ways of Russian theology. Vilnius: Viltis. (In Russ.)
15. Gadamer, G.-G. (1991). The relevance of the beautiful. Translated by V. Bibikhin, V. Malakhov, A. Mikhaylov et al. Moscow: Iskusstvo. (In Russ.)
16. Ivanov, V. (1995). Dostoevsky and the novel-tragedy. In: V. Ivanov, The face and facets of Russia. Moscow: Iskusstvo, pp. 266-303. (In Russ.)
17. Komarovich, V. (1925). Dostoevsky. Current issues in historical and literary studies. Leningrad: Obrazovanie. (In Russ.)
18. Komarovich, V. (2018). ‘The very soul of determination:’ Articles and studies on F. M. Dostoevsky. Moscow: IMLI RAN. (In Russ.)
19. Kuhn, T. (2001). The structure of scientific revolutions. Translated by А. Nikiforov. Moscow: AST. (In Russ.)
20. Makhlin, V. (2016). ‘Thou art:’ Dostoevsky between Vyach. Ivanov and M. Bakhtin. In: K. Isupov and A. Shishkin, eds., Vyach. Ivanov: Pro et contra. An anthology (2 vols). Vol. 2. St. Petersburg: RKhGA, pp. 50-76, 764-770. (In Russ.)
21. Nikolaev, N. (1996). M. Bakhtin in Nevel in the summer of 1919. In: L. Maksimovskaya, ed., Nevel collection: Articles, letters, memoirs. Issue 1. St. Petersburg: Akropol, pp. 96-101. (In Russ.)
22. Pereverzev, V. (1912). The works of Dostoevsky. In: V. Pereverzev, At the origins of Russian realism. Moscow: Sovremennik, 1989, pp. 455-662. (In Russ.)
23. Skaftymov, A. (1972). Thematic composition of the novel ‘The Idiot’ [‘Idiot’]. In: A. Skaftymov, Moral quest of Russian writers. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, pp. 23-87. (In Russ.)
24. Zamyatin, Y. (1999). On the current and the contemporary. In: Y. Zamyatin, I’m afraid. Moscow: Nasledie, pp. 101-112. (In Russ.)
25. Zhirmunsky, V. (1919). Religious renunciation in the history of Romanticism. Moscow: Izd. S. I. Sakharova. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Makhlin V.L. Dostoevsky in Dostoevsky. M. Bakhtin and the methodological turnaround in the 1910s–1920s. Voprosy literatury. 2023;(5):83-104. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31425/0042-8795-2023-5-83-104
Views:
201
Email this article 
