Geri Dön

Rus edebiyat eleştirisinde Dostoyevskiy

Başlık çevirisi mevcut değil.

PDF İndir

  1. Tez No: 428765
  2. Yazar: LEYLA HAFIZOĞLU
  3. Danışmanlar: PROF. DR. NİLÜFER KURUYAZICI
  4. Tez Türü: Yüksek Lisans
  5. Konular: Batı Dilleri ve Edebiyatı, Western Linguistics and Literature
  6. Anahtar Kelimeler: Belirtilmemiş.
  7. Yıl: 1998
  8. Dil: Türkçe
  9. Üniversite: İstanbul Üniversitesi
  10. Enstitü: Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
  11. Ana Bilim Dalı: Batı Dilleri ve Edebiyatları Ana Bilim Dalı
  12. Bilim Dalı: Rus Dili ve Edebiyatı Bilim Dalı
  13. Sayfa Sayısı: 105

Özet

OrpOMH“bIH XY.D;O)KeCTBeHH”bIH TaJIaHT ,lJ;ocToeBCKoro II ero BJIIDIHIIe Ha MIIpOBylO JIIneparypy npII3HamUIII II pYCCKIIe II 3apy6e:>KH“bIe nIICaTeJIII, KPllTllKH H llCCnenQBaTenll.OnHaKO TBOpqeCTBO aOCTOeBCKO[O BCTpeqanO CaM”ble pa.3JIffIIHbIe TOJIKOBaHIDI, B“bICKa3”bIBaJIO KpaHHe pa3HOpeQIIB“ble OQeHKII. O)l(eCTOqeHHa5I nOJIeMIIKa, KOTOPa5I B03HIIKaJIa no nOBOro' KIDK,11;oro npOII3Be.n;eHIDI nIIcaTeIDI npII ero :>KII3HII, He YTIIXaJIa II nOCJIe ero CMepTII, npo.n;OJI)l(arraCl> II B XX-OM BeKe II B PYCCKOH II B 3apy6e:>KHoH: KpIITIIKe II rry6JIIIQIIcTIIKe - BnJIOT”b.n;o Harnero BpeMeHII. I10JIeMIIKa cnopoB 5IBlliIJIIIC“b II nOHIIMaHHe caMoH cyrn;HocTH TBOpqeCTBa ,lJ;ocToeBcKoro, H onpe.n;eJIeHHe ero pOJm: B PYCCKOH H MHPOBOH ,TIliTepaType, II Te npo6,TIeM”bI - q)lI,TIOcouble Jlwi>u Orry6JIIIKOBHbIH: B 1846-oM roro', BCTPenm BocToplKeHlibIe llOXBaJIbl EemiHcKoro, KOTOPbI BbICOKO OlJ,emVI n HeM npaB,n;IIBoe H306pIDKeHIIe COQIIaJIbHOH: Tpare,n;IIII MCllleHKUX lllooeil. OR yBII.n;eJI B HeM BOnJIOrn;eHIIe H.n;eH .n;eMOKpaTHH H ryMaHH3Ma. I1oCJIe,n;HlIH pOMaH ,lJ;ocToeBcKoro EpambJl Kap(lJlta306bl, 3aKOH“LIeHHbIH B 1880-OM ro,n:y. I1poHIIKH)'TbIH ryMaHHCTIIqeCKIIMII II.n;e5IMII, B TO BpeM5I 6bIJI np5IMO HanpaBJIeH npOTIIB H,IJ;ell EeJIHHCKOro II era nOCJIeJI,OBaTeJIeH ,lJ;o6poJU060Ba II LQe.n;pIIHa. Kor.n;a ,llocToeBCKIIll B03BpanIJIC5I B I1eTep6ypr nocne ,Il,eC5ITl1 JJeT KaToprii H CCbIJIKll, HM5I ero ern;e 6bIJIO CB.5I3aHO C ”BarypaJI“bHoii lU1{OnQ]~i ”aCCOIumPOBaJIOC“b C TparWICCKOll CYJI,”b60H KaTOp)KIlHKa, nOCTpa.naBIllero no .neny peBOJIIOQHOHHoro KpY)J{Ka I1eTpamenCKoro. POMHII YIlUmellllble U OCKop6Jle1l1lble (1861) H 3anucKu U3 Mepmco2o OOMa (1861 - 1862) rrpo,nOJDKaTIH B rna3ax peBomoUHoHHo - ,neMoKpaTWIecK0I1 KpIITMKM1'pa,nMIJ;HH aBTopa EeOllblX Jllooeii . B 60-e rOAbl, B oc06eHHocTH C Tex rrop KaK ,II;ocTOeBCKMH COBMeCTHO C 6paToM M.M . .uocToeBcKHM Ha'llM H3.llaBaTb CHaQMa IKYPHM“BpeM~~\, 3aTeM \\311oxy”, CTaJI O“lleBM,neH xapaKTep rrO”llBeHHWIeCKoro HarrpaBneHIDI, KOTopoe OHH rrporraraH,nHpOBaJIH B 3THX II3,naHMH. 3anucKu U3 nOOnOJlbR , Eecht , j(ueCIlUK nucameJlJl , KOTOPbl ,II;ocTOeBCKMH M3,naBaTI C rrepepbIBaMH C 1873-H rro 1881-H ro,n, YKperriinH rre“llaJIbHYIO perryTaIJ;mo ero KaK rrMcaTemr, CT05Imero Ha KpaHHe rrpaBOM ~naHre PYCCKOH nHTeparypbI. ,II;ocTOeBCKMH He Mor rrO)l(aTIOBaTbC5I Ha paBHo,n:yIIIIIe K ce6e JIflTeparyP!?I II KPllTIIKll CBoero BpeMeHII. xonI C Pa360POM ero rrpoH3Be,neHHH BblcryrraJIII caMble H3BeCTHbIe KpHTHKM H nHTepaTopbI, Y ,II;ocToeBcKoro 6bInO HeMaJIO OCHOBaHHH Ha Hcxo,ne TBOp”lleCKoro rryTH KlliITBeHHO 3aBepHTb,“llTO rre-qaTHa5I nHTeparypHa5I KpHTHKa rOBopHna 0 HeM JleZKO u noeepXl-locml-lO MIIp, HapHCOBaHblH Y)I(e B lIepecmynJleuue U llaKa3aUUU H cne,n:yIOmHX pOMaHax. Ka3aJIC5I MHorHM COBpeMeHHHKOM rrIIcaTemr, a 3aTeM H rrepBblM ero H3cne,nOBaTenH 3a Py6e)l(OM HCKYccTBeHHblM H 4>aHTaCTIIQeCKMM, xapaKTepa, HapHcoBaHHble B 3THX pOMaHax HCKlliO”llHTenbHbIMH H HerrpaB,norro,no6HbIMII , KOMrr03HUIDI rrpoH3Be,neHHH - XaOTH“lleCKoH. H. K MIIxaiinOBCKMM, B H3BecTHoH CTaTbe KOToporo )l(ecmoKuii mallaum (1862) OTpIDKeHbI MHorHe H3 rro,n06HbIX He,n0pa3YMeHHH. yrrpeKaJI ,II;ocToeBcKoro B HapO”lleHHOii )l(eCTOKOCTII, II3 3a KOTOpoii OH rro,nBepraeT CBOllX repoeB, a BMeCTe C HHMH II“llIITaTemr, HeHY)IilibIM MYLIeHH5IM. TBOp”lleCKMH MeTO,n ,II;ocToeBcKoro cOBpeMeHHoH KPHTHKOH He 6bIn pa3ra,naH ,no KOHna. JIHTeparypHo - KpHTu-q:eCKHH aHaTIH3 nonaraBIllei:f OCHOBHOH uenblO XYAmKeCTBeHHoro TBopLIeCTBa C03AaHHe COnHaTIbHbIX THrrOB, 06'b5ICHeHHe“llenOBeKa BO Bcex oco6eHOCT5IX ero BHenmeH H BHYTPeHHOH )KM3HH 06meCTBeHHbIMH ycnOBH5IMH, He 06XBaTbIBaTI Bcero cBoeo6pa311e peaJIII3Ma B ”BPICIlleM CMI>ICJIe ", Ha py6e)l(e XX-oro B6Ka Hccne,nOBanlnH rrpOB03rnaCHnH ,II;ocToeBCKoro Bbl.Il:aIOIUHMC5I TII1caTeneM, rny60KHM MbIcnHTeneM H cBoe06pa3HbIM, HerrOBTOpHMbIM xy,nmKf~HKOM. I105IBHBIIIHeC5I B ero BpeM5I pa60TbI 0 ,II;ocToeBClillM ,II;. C. Mepe)KKOBCKoro, n. lliecToro , C. M. EynraKoBa, B5IQeCnaBa I1BaHoro, H. A. EepMeBa, BhlCKa3bIBaHH5I 0 HeM A. A. EnOKa H ABApe5I Eenoro CTaTIH B MCTOPMH PYCCKOH KYJIJ,ryPbT HOBbIM 3TarrOM B OCMbIcneHHHH TBOpqeCTBa ,II;ocToeBCKoro no OTHOllieHInno K 3ITOXe oenHHCKoro, ,II; 0 6p OJl1060B a , TIHcapeBa, MMXaiIJIoBcKOI'O. CIiMBorrlICTbI rrepBbIMIi 3a5IBlirrlI 0

Özet (Çeviri)

There are many interpretations about Dostoevsky in Russian literature criticism. We have classified them in our study according to the year they were published and according to their executive structures. Our aim was to examine Dostoevsky under the magnifying glass of Russian literature criticism. The study consists of five main sections. After the introduction part we determined the notion of criticism in general, then we tried to see what kind of critiques there have been made in Russian literature. The second main section comprises the life of Dostroevsky and his works of art. The life of Dostevsky and his works are tightly bound together and explain each others. In the third main section we introduced all the critiques comprising the first critique of Dostoevsky's piece of work which then drew the profound attention of the critical circles and the rest of the critiques made unit his death. In the succeeding fourth main section we assessed the new interpretations made about the writer by the symbolists at the beginning of the twentieth century. Again in the same sections the opinions of the critics were taken during the Soviet period. Moreover, also in this section, the rich Russian immigrant's literature criticism about Dostoevsky has explained the general outlines and its representatives. In the last section, the critiques having the subject of Dostoevsky have been assessed along with a brief summary of our study. The study ends up with an appendices section where the bibliography and outline have been placed. The original talent of Dostoevsky who met the profound interest of the literature circles even with his first work of art was first discovered by the founder of the contemporary Russian criticism Vissarion Bellinsky. But Bellinsky died in the years when he was writing his greatest novels, so the relations between his successors and Dostoevsky got cold. Dostoevsky's world of art, the fantastic realism of his works could not be explained sufficiently by his contemporary critics who considered one's life totally bound to the social conditions. During the seventies and eighties, not only his opponents, but everyone, like N. Strahov, who defends him, shared Dobrolyubov's opinions concerning the works of Dostoevsky. The spiritual ties of Dostoevsky who was assessed as odd, sick, and cruel talent have cut off with the readers of the generation of seventies and eighties. In the threshold of the 20th century, prior to the Russian Revolution, the symbolists have already“discovered”Dostoevsky. The spiritual revolution, realised by Dostoevsky, was mentioned in the works and essays of N. Berdyaev, D. Merejkovsky, S. Bulgakov, V. V. Rozanov, Vy. Ivanov. Nevertheless, the viewpoint of the symbolists which simplified the philosophical and ethical problems in Dostoevsky's works totally to religious, could not understand writer's system of thoughts and the originality of the Russian realistic literature in its whole sense. 1921 was an important year in the literature criticism having the subject Dostoevsky. Due to the looth anniversary of his birth, his memorandums were published which helped for the examining of the creative process of his letters and novels. Immediately after the 1917 Revolution, the Soviet critics approached the writer's works with a scientific viewpoint dependant on the flow of history and literature. In the literature criticism of thirties, and fifties, the question what is Dostoevsky's place within the Russian literatme, has changed intro whether or not he belongs to the Russian realism at all. The critics who assessed the realism as an ideology applied to arts, declared the influence of Dostoevsky upon his readers as harmful. Dostoevsky's works of art were not published in Soviet Union within this period. The campaign organised against his works, his enquires, and the bookstores, has separated Dostoevsky from the Russian literature and from the scientists who have devoted their lives to him. In the sixties, the Soviet literature science has expanded the limits of the Realistic understating. Dostoevsky's fantastic realism was examined in relationship whit the Russian realistic literature of the 19th century. After, in the seventies and the eighties, the place of Dostoevsky in the Russian realistic literature was tried to be detennined by comparison with the other Russian writers. The writer's relations with Shchedrin, Turgenev, Bellinsky, Nekrasov were examined. In the nineties, Russian began to reconstruct herself in every field. These renovations also occurred in the field of arts and literature. So, the days of banishment of Dostoevsky ended up and new interpretations were written about him, Along with all these changes, fIrst of all the works of immigrant thinker like Lev Shestov, K. Mouchulsky, Zenkovsky about Dostoevsky also reached the Russian readers. What most has influenced the critiques about Dostoevsky, undoubtedly was the contemporary aspect of his art. As it is known, the writer usually chose the subjects of his works from the newspaper's pages and from the political events influenced the day. That's why. Those who examined his art when he was a live and postmortem weren't satisfied just whit an aesthetical criticism, but have also examined the ideological problems taking an important part in his works. As Dostoevsky was a writer, he was also important as an ideological writer, as a thinker in their opinions. The main reason for the interest of the contemporary man getting greater day by day against Dostoevsky, is that the social, the spiritual, and . the ethical tension of the 20th century which was the century- of the two world wars, revolutions, technological revolutions, fmds its expression in the tension in the writer's works. Dostoevsky, who has got an extraordinary intuition concerning the states of despair of the society and the individual's life, is far from showing life as ethical, calm, and in harmony. We witness the underground powers which have got the capacity for greatest blow under the shell of the ordinariness, waiting ready to burst out every moment. The reality is not something consisted of the needs of present days. It also comprises what is still secret today but in the future will outburst. There are some people who make visible this secret, who talk about it, Just like Dostoevsky,

Benzer Tezler

  1. Tez No

    729316

    Türk edebiyatında alımlama estetiği ve Akşit Göktürk'ün inceleme ve deneme yazıları

    Reception theory in Turkish literature and Akşit Göktürk's reviews and essays

    SEDEF KENDİR

    Yüksek Lisans

    Türkçe

    Türkçe

    2022

    Türk Dili ve EdebiyatıHacettepe Üniversitesi

    Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Ana Bilim Dalı

    PROF. DR. SIDDIKA DİLEK YALÇIN ÇELİK

  2. Tez No

    581322

    Betrayal and paranoia in john le carré's espionage fiction: Tinker tailor soldier spy, our game and the constant gardener

    John le Carré'nin casus yazınında ihanet ve paranoya: Köstebek, Bizim Oyun ve Bahçıvan

    GAMZE GÜL ÖZFIRAT

    Yüksek Lisans

    İngilizce

    İngilizce

    2019

    İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatıİstanbul Üniversitesi

    İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı Ana Bilim Dalı

    DR. ÖĞR. ÜYESİ FERAH İNCESU

  3. Tez No

    17014

    Critical theory in practice: Three different readings of Doris Lessing's The Golden Notebook

    Başlık çevirisi yok

    Z.RÜÇHAN KAYALAR

    Doktora

    İngilizce

    İngilizce

    1991

    İngiliz Dili ve EdebiyatıHacettepe Üniversitesi

    PROF. DR. OYA MENTEŞE BATUM

  4. Tez No

    167381

    Reading/Unfolding architectural form: An inquary into the venice hospital project by le corbusier

    Mimari formu okumak/açımlamak: Le Carbuser'in Venedik Hastanesi projesiyle ilgili bir araştırma

    SİNEM ÇINAR

    Doktora

    İngilizce

    İngilizce

    2005

    MimarlıkOrta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi

    Mimarlık Bölümü

    DOÇ.DR. EMEL AKÖZER

  5. Tez No

    358588

    L.N. Tolstoy'un 'Savaş ve Barış' ile Y.K.Karaosmanoğlu'nun 'Sodom ve Gomore' adlı romanlarında toplum eleştirisi

    The criticism of the society in L.Tolstoy's ''War and Peace'' and Y.K. Karaosmanoglu's ''Sodom and Gomore''.

    SÜREYYA ÖMER

    Yüksek Lisans

    Türkçe

    Türkçe

    2013

    Batı Dilleri ve EdebiyatıGazi Üniversitesi

    Rus Dili ve Edebiyatı Ana Bilim Dalı

    PROF. DR. AYLA KAŞOĞLU

Geri Dön