| Annotation |
In the era of the global crisis of moral and ethical values, the search for new meanings in the works of literary classics – F. M. Dostoevsky and P. P. Njegosh; representatives of Russian and Serbian literatures, outstanding religious writers of the 19th century – becomes especially relevant. The scientific novelty is the fact that for the first time the issue of comparative analysis of the poetics and problems of the works by Dostoevsky and Njegosh is raised, as well as the fact that the concepts of the “Russian way” and the “Kosovo Testament” at the comparative level have not been the subject of a separate study to date. The purpose of the work is to identify the connection between the concepts of the “Russian idea” and the “Kosovo Testament”, reflected in the complex artistic worlds of Dostoevsky and Njegosh. Particular attention is paid to the problems of comparative historical literary criticism in modern conditions. An attempt is made to review Russian and foreign scientific works on comparative literary studies – when comparing ontological problems in the works of the analyzed authors. To achieve the goal, an integrated approach is used, which includes a number of classical methods – biographical, comparative, mythopoetic, and intertextual analysis. Using the biographical method, the author demonstrates how the concepts of the “Russian idea” and the “Kosovo Testament” arose and developed in the life and work of the Russian and Serbian authors. With the help of comparative analysis, the problems of faith and reason, conciliarity, and national identity that are of deep interest to both writers are revealed. By means of the mythopoetic method, the author tried to characterize the concept of the “Kosovo Testament” and display the reasons for its emergence. We make a conclusion that both writers touch upon gospel themes in their artistic testament. On the one hand, the novelist Dostoevsky focuses on the issues of redemption of sin, on the other hand, in Njegosh’s lyrics, personal destiny is intertwined with national destiny, microcosm with macrocosm, and the issues of knowledge of God and the origin of the world are touched upon. Finally, the mutual influence of Dostoevsky’s “Russian idea” and Njegosh’s “Kosovo Testament” contributes to the enrichment of national literatures and the enrichment of comparative literary discourse.
|
| References |
Sinchenko, G. Ch., Veklenko, S. V. Methodology of dissertation research (seven considerations for applicants). Scientific Bulletin of the Omsk Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, no. 2, 2006. Web. 14.09.2024. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/metodologiya-dissertatsionnogo-issledovaniya-sem-soobrazheniy-dlya-soiskateley. (In Rus.)
Frank, J. Dostoevsky: The Stir of Liberation, 1860–1865. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2020. (In Eng.)
Frank, J. Dostoevsky: The Years of Ordeal, 1850–1859. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2020. (In Eng.)
Hudspith, S. Dostoevsky and the Idea of Russianess: A New Perspective on Unity and Brotherhood. N. Y.: Routledge, 2014. (In Eng.)
Evallye, V. D. F. M. Dostoevsky in foreign scientific research of the 21st century. Dostoevsky and world culture. Philological journal, no. 2, pp. 225–240, 2023. (In Rus.)
Huijun, A. Reception of Dostoevsky’s works in Chinese translations, works of art and scientific research. Scientific dialogue, no. 11, pp. 154–176, 2020. DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2020-11-154-176. (In Rus.)
Cheng, Jia. Modern reading of F. M. Dostoevsky’s novels in China: Development of the idea “life is paradise”. Successes of the Humanities, no. 6, pp. 255–259, 2021. (In Rus.)
Van Haisun. Literary archeology of the letters of F. M. Dostoevsky. Social Sciences of China: Bulletin of Social Sciences of China, 2020. Web. 20.09.2024. https://m.thepaper.cn/baijiahao_10345207. (In Chinese)
Gen Hajin. F. M. Dostoevsky: How a free human being bears responsibility for evil. Sin’czinbao, 2020.06.12. Web. 20.09.2024. https://www.sohu.com/a/4014 81811_114988. (In Chinese)
Din Shisin, Shen Luzhu. Introduction and Commentary to F. M. Dostoevsky in Modern China and the May 4th Movement. Bulletin of Jiaying University (Philosophical and Social Sciences). Introduction and Commentary to F. M. Dostoevsky in Modern China and the May 4th Movement. Bulletin of Jiaying University (Philosophical and Social Sciences), no. 1, pp. 47–51. 2011. (In Chinese)
Maroyevich, R. Russian equivalents of the Serbian ten: Metrical constants and rhythmic dominants of the translation of Ilya Chislov’s Light of the Microcosm. October. Podgorica, no. 12, pp. 35–51, 2021. (In Serb.)
Bajovich, Y. Stojiljkovich, S., Jovanovich, M. Proverbs as a translational challenge (on the basis of Njegosh’s song Schepan mali and Russian translations). Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta, no. LIII, pp. 67–80, 2023. (In Serbian)
Bajovich, Y. Archaization as a translation procedure: Lucha Mikrokosma translated by Ilya Chislev. Kosovska Mitrovica-Belgrade: Chigoya, 2024. (In Serbian)
Rakochevich, M. Njegosh’s primordial logos. Belgrade: NNK International; 2023. (In Serbian)
Khrapchenko, M. B. Artistic creativity, reality, man “Soviet writer”, 1976. (In Rus.)
Konrad, N. I. Problems of modern comparative literary criticism. Selected works. Literature and theater. M: Nauka, 1978: 29–49. (In Rus.)
Bezhenaru, L. Comparative Literary Studies: From Deconstruction of the Old Terminological Base to the Perception of the Image of the “Other”. Nurgaliev Readings-XII: Scientific Community of Scientists of the XXI Century. Philological Sciences. 2023: 152–168. (In Rus.)
Kirpichnikov, A. I. Poems of the Lombard cycle. M: Univ. typ., 1873. XII. (In Rus.)
Miller, O. F. On the moral element in poetry based on historical data: regarding the issue of the modern direction of Russian literature. Works by Orest Miller, for the degree of master of Russian literature. SPb: In the typology of Korolev and K, 1858. (In Rus.)
Chirkovich, S. History of the Serbs. M: Ves’ mir, 2009. (In Rus.)
Robinson, L. K. Therese Albertine Louise Von Jacob. European Immigrant Women in the United States: A Biographical Dictionary. Judy Barrett Litoff. N. Y.: Taylor & Francis, 1994: 249–250. (In Eng.)
Velimirovich, N. The Tsar’s Testament. St. Petersburg. Art of Russia. 2011. (In Rus.)
Radonich, M. Essay work of Miodrag Pavlovich. Cand. sci. diss. Belgrade, 2013. (In Serbian)
Andrich, I. Njegosh and the Kosovo Covenant: 200 years since the birth of Petar II Petović Njegosh. Edited by Toholj M. Prishtina: Panorama, 2013. (In Serbian)
Skerlich, J. History of new Serbian literature. Belgrade: Prosveta, 1967. (In Serbian)
Ivanich, D. Njegosh and Ljubisha: historical and poetic studies. Podgorica: Matica srpska, Society of members in Montenegro, 2023. (In Serbian)
Gulyga, A. V. Russian idea and its creators. M: Eksmo, 2003. (In Rus.)
Gorelov, A. A. The Significance of F. M. Dostoevsky in Russian and World Philosophy. Knowledge. Understanding. Skill, no. 2, 2021. Web. 19.09.2024. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/znachenie-f-m-dostoevskogo-v-otechestvennoy-i-mirovoy-filosofii. (In Rus.)
Orlova, N. Kh. Once again about the endless timeliness of F. M. Dostoevsky. Paradigm, no. 40, pp. 31–54, 2024. (In Rus.)
Lekesh, P. To the question about the triadic nature of the work of F. M. Dostoevsky. CCS&ES, no. 3, pp. 38–46, 2022. (In Slovak)
Shaitanov, I. O. Triad of modern comparative studies: globalization – intertext – dialogue of cultures. Questions of Literature, no. 6, pp. 130–137, 2005. (In Rus.)
Frye, N. The Great Code: The Bible and Literature. N. Y.; London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982. (In Eng.)
Yu. M. Lotman and the Tartu-Moscow semiotic school. M: Gnosio, 1994. (In Rus.)
Zhirmunsky, V. M. Epic creativity of the Slavic peoples and problems of comparative study of the epic. M: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1958. (In Rus.)
Deretich, J. History of Serbian literature. Belgrade: Prosveta, 2002. (In Serbian)
Filatov, A. V. Axiology in the theory of literature: the main directions of value analysis. Siberian Philological Journal, no. 4, pp. 130–140, 2019. (In Rus.)
|
