|
MAIN PAGE
> Back to contents
Litera
Reference:
YANG J.
The Problem of “Nationality” in Dostoevsky's Concept of "Pochvennichestvo"
// Litera.
2023. ¹ 10.
P. 223-234.
DOI: 10.25136/2409-8698.2023.10.40840 EDN: IJDALE URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=40840
The Problem of “Nationality” in Dostoevsky's Concept of "Pochvennichestvo"
Yan JINGHONG
ORCID: 0009-0000-7340-7184
PhD in Philology
Postgraduate student, Department of History of Russian Literature, M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University
119991, Russia, Moscow region region, Moscow, Lebedeva str., 1
|
yangj@my.msu.ru
|
|
 |
|
DOI: 10.25136/2409-8698.2023.10.40840
EDN: IJDALE
Received:
26-05-2023
Published:
06-11-2023
Abstract:
This article is devoted to the study of the problem of nationality in the concept of "pochvennichestvo" by F. M. Dostoevsky. The object of the study was the writer’s views on the people and their role in the formation of culture, the subject was the category “nationality”, presented in the journalistic and artistic works of F. M. Dostoevsky. The purpose of the article is to identify the historical context in which the writer’s ideas about nationality were formed and developed, and to highlight various aspects of the problem of nationality in the works of F. M. Dostoevsky. The scientific novelty of this study lies in the fact that the author is the first to consider the problem of nationality in the aspect of Dostoevsky’s attitude to utilitarianism and the formula “the environment is stuck.” The work, along with general scientific methods of analysis, synthesis and generalization, uses descriptive, biographical and cultural-historical research methods. As a result of the scientific research, the author points out the inevitability of the emergence of pochvennichestvo in Russian social life of the second half of the 19th century and analyzes the writer’s position in the dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles, coming to the conclusion that F. M. Dostoevsky did not oppose Western, essentially material, civilization, but resolutely rejected its inevitable by-product - spiritual degeneration. The writer asserted the power inherent in Russian Orthodox culture to resist the erosion of Western culture and called on the Russian people to take upon themselves the mission of the messiah. Dostoevsky’s ideas about nationality, like his pochvenism, prove the writer’s confidence of Russian people and Russian culture. The results of the research work can be used in further study of the work of F.M. Dostoevsky, as well as in teaching the history of Russian literature at school.
Keywords:
Dostoevsky, nationality, pochvennichestvo, soil, Russian people, orthodoxy, westernism, slavophilism, russian idea, spirituality
This article is automatically translated.
You can find original text of the article here.
Introduction The term "soil science" first appeared in the journalism of F. M. Dostoevsky, who called on the progressive public to return to "their soil", to the national, national principles, to the Orthodox culture professed by the Russian people. Pochvennichestvo marked its official birth as a literary and social direction with the creation of the monthly magazine "Vremya" in 1860, in particular with the publication of the "Announcement of subscription to the magazine "Vremya" for 1861". The ideologists of soil science were F. M. Dostoevsky, M. M. Dostoevsky, A. A. Grigoriev, N. N. Strakhov. The soil scientists tried to correct the shortcomings of Slavophilism, to reconcile the contradictions between Slavophilism and Westernism, to resolve the dispute about the great difference between European civilization and the Russian national principle. Having existed for more than 20 years, this literary and social trend gradually faded after the death of F. M. Dostoevsky. Being one of the main ideological foundations of soil science, the problem of nationality in Dostoevsky's work seems extremely topical. Recently, it has increasingly become the focus of attention of researchers. The relevance of our research is determined by the need that has taken shape in science to understand the "folk soil" of Dostoevsky's work as "the great art of synthesis of multi-confessional and national-cultural traditions" [2]. The content of the study is an analysis of the concept of Dostoevsky's nationality, presented in articles, notes, letters and journalistic essays of the Writer's Diary. The research is based on descriptive, biographical and cultural-historical methods of studying literature. The use of a synthetic approach in the work makes it possible to analyze the context of the formation and development of the ideas of F. M. Dostoevsky's nationality and various aspects of the writer's coverage of this problem. In accordance with the intended purpose, the following tasks are set: to show the formation, development and evolution of F. M. Dostoevsky's ideas about the nationality; to consider the writer's views on the people and on the relationship between the intelligentsia and the people, utilitarianism and the formula "the environment is stuck". Historical context of formation and development F. M. Dostoevsky 's ideas about nationality Dostoevsky's emphasis on the problem of nationality is closely connected with his ideas of soil science, the emergence of which was historically inevitable. Russian Russian Orthodox Church On the one hand, the revolutions of 1848-1849 in European countries completely destroyed the old social structure, Slavophiles feared that revolutionary ideas would destroy the identity of Russian society, so they began to defend the role of the Russian Orthodox Church in educating the people. On the other hand, in the middle of the XIX century. the backwardness of the feudal-serf system of economy in Russia hindered the development of capitalism in the country and determined the general lag of the Russian state from the advanced powers. In the late 1850s and early 1860s, the liberation of the peasants was already perceived as inevitable, the fate of the people and their plight became the focus of public thought in Russia. In the discussion about the fate of the people, Slavophiles and Westerners focused their attention on the interpretation of the concept of "nationality" and its manifestation in art, science, culture, philosophy, history. Russian Russian Slavophiles understood the nationality as the core of culture, but they idealized the Russian antiquity and the people and to some extent deliberately ignored the inertia and shortcomings of the Russian people. According to Westerners, the value of the concept of "nationality" lies precisely in the need to expose Russia's own vices and awaken the self-consciousness of the Russian national spirit. They advocated the Europeanization of Russia and considered the enlightenment of the people their primary task. Although the soil scientists continued the traditions of the Slavophiles, they took a neutral position in the dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles. In the article "Two camps of Theorists" Dostoevsky does not decorate "rosy Russian history in the eyes of Slavophiles", but takes a pragmatic look at reality and dares to face "Russian soil, which is threatened with corroding, especially spiritual decay and degeneration of the people" [7, p. 100]. The writer asserts the power inherent in Russian history and culture to resist the erosion of Western culture, not opposing Western material civilization, science and education, but resolutely rejecting its inevitable by—product - spiritual degeneration, mainly embodied in atheism. Evolution of F. M. Dostoevsky's ideas about nationality Dostoevsky's understanding of the national and social aspects of the problem of nationality did not remain unchanged: "in the course of the writer's development, it underwent evolution and at the same time deep internal transformations" [17, p. 390]. It is generally believed that the writer experienced a "rebirth of beliefs" during the period of hard labor, where he discovered the greatness and beauty of the Russian people. However, in the book "Dostoevsky's Unfinished Journey", when analyzing the biography and some aspects of the writer's journalism, Robin Miller notes that a change in Dostoevsky occurred even before he arrived in Siberia [13, p. 24]. Indeed, F. M. Dostoevsky has always attached great importance to the problem of nationality. Starting with his debut novel "Poor People", the writer began to pay attention to the life and psychology of the lower strata of society, and then created a whole series of novels in which the reader finds a gallery of images of ordinary people from the people. The story "The Hostess", published in 1847, "marked the beginning of the literary expression of the ideas of Dostoevsky's pochvennichestvo" [6, p. 28]. For the first time, it touches upon the key problem in the writer's concept of nationality – the problem of the relationship between the intelligentsia and the people, creates the image of an "intellectual dreamer" who came into direct "contact" with the people embodied in the images of Catherine and Murin. However, the staging of Dostoevsky's death penalty, subsequent exile and hard labor seriously affected his ideas about the nationality. Living in Siberia with people from the lower class, including criminals and robbers, leads him to a deeper understanding of the essence of the Russian mentality. "In prison Dostoevsky felt himself a part of the convict brotherhood, the people. This determined his notebook fascination with folk eloquence, oral aphoristic phraseology" [9, p. 215]. Having returned to St. Petersburg, the writer still maintains regular contacts with ordinary readers, people from different walks of life. In a review of A. N. Ostrovsky's play "The Thunderstorm", F. M. Dostoevsky criticizes the prevailing opinion in the literary circle, considering "The Thunderstorm" as a criticism of dark reality, arguing that the most valuable thing in the work is "nationality" embodied in the heroine Katerina, and this is a "new word" in Russian literature [11, vol. 18, p. 44]. Thus, the problem of the people and nationality is an integral part of Dostoevsky's pochvennichestvo, it had a significant impact on his spiritual conversion and creative activity. As Dostoevsky himself emphasized in the "Diary of a Writer" (1876): "The question of the people and about looking at them, about understanding them, is now the most important question for us, in which our whole future lies" [11, vol. 22, p. 44]. Clarifying F. M. Dostoevsky's understanding of the problem of nationality will help to better understand his ideas of soil science. 1. Dostoevsky on the ideal and historical mission of the people
The "soil" that the soil workers were talking about is equivalent to the "people" in the Slavophile concept of "nationality", that is, to the whole people, except for the ruling class and the nobility, especially those peasants who have preserved the Orthodox culture intact to this day. In other words, the people are those who have preserved their "nationality". Dostoevsky noted that in the Russian language "Christianity" and "peasantry" are not only similar in pronunciation, but also have the same cultural meaning. "A Russian person knows nothing higher than Christianity, and can't imagine. He called his whole land, the whole community, the whole of Russia Christianity, "peasantry"" [11, vol. 26, p. 302]. The teaching of the Orthodox Church is the common belief of the Russian people and the basis of universally recognized moral norms and ideas about good and evil. The people can eliminate social evil through personal spiritual purification and moral improvement on the basis of Christian teaching and then build a just society in which everyone is happy. As S. A. Nizhnikov emphasizes, "the people in their historical development and current state, in the fullness of their real forces and spiritual demands, for Dostoevsky there is a "soil" outside of which productive creativity is unthinkable" [14, p. 107]. In the "Diary of a Writer" Dostoevsky mentions many times that the Russian people will definitely contribute to solving the problems facing the Slavic and European peoples, will send the voice of the Orthodox Church to humanity. The writer foresees that "the nature of our future activity should be extremely universal, that the Russian idea may be a synthesis of all those ideas that Europe develops with such tenacity, with such courage in its individual nationalities; that maybe everything hostile in these ideas will find its reconciliation and further development." in the Russian nationality" [11, vol. 18, p. 37]. The historical mission of the Russian people is to follow the spirit of Christ in order to solve the problems of human destiny. Russian Russian Dostoevsky believed in the spiritual powers of the Russian people and believed that the Russian people had the wisdom and strength to fulfill their historical mission. V. Solovyov believed that Dostoevsky's confidence in the special historical role of the Russian people was based on the fact that he saw in the people "an extraordinary ability to assimilate the spirit and ideas of foreign peoples, to transform into the spiritual essence of all nations" and "consciousness of their sinfulness" [16, p. 304]. The people in the depths of their souls wear the image of Christ and are thirsty for purification and feat. It should be noted that Dostoevsky was often criticized and is still criticized for utopianism and idealization of the people. However, placing great hopes on the people, the writer did not ignore such negative qualities of the Russian people as drunkenness, recklessness, cruelty, etc. Dostoevsky's idea of the people is formulated in conditions of close proximity to the everyday life of the peasants, in hard labor the true face of the common people is revealed to him. "These are rude, irritated and embittered people. Their hatred of the nobles exceeds all limits, and therefore they met us, the nobles, with hostility and with malicious joy about our grief. They would have eaten us if they had been given" [11, vol. 28, p. 169]. Nevertheless, Dostoevsky finds positive sides in the Russian people, in a letter to his brother Mikhail, he notes: "And in the penal servitude between robbers, at the age of four, I finally distinguished people. Would you believe it: there are deep, strong, beautiful characters, and how fun it was to find gold under the rough bark" [11, vol. 28, p. 172]. It can be said that instead of exaggerating the merits of the people and belittling their shortcomings, the writer objectively distinguishes and separates them. F. M. Dostoevsky has always been distinguished by benevolence and respect for the people. In his opinion, the defect and corruption of a part of the "soil" does not mean that the whole "soil" has deteriorated, because in general the "soil" has remained untouched, the people have preserved the spiritual basis of Orthodox culture intact. 2. Dostoevsky on the people and the intelligentsia The problem of the relationship between the people and the intelligentsia was one of the main problems in the Russian history of the Petersburg period, it was no less relevant for F. M. Dostoevsky. The reform of Peter the Great, according to the writer, "expanded the horizons of the Russian intelligentsia, through it she comprehended her future significance in the great family of all peoples." On the other hand, Peter's reform cost too much, since "it separated the intelligentsia from the people" [11, vol. 18, p. 36]. The writer notes that "Peter's reform undoubtedly tore one part of the people from another, the main one. The reform went from top to bottom, not from bottom to top. The reform did not have time to reach the lower strata of the people" [11, vol. 20, p. 14]. Russian Russian aristocracy was the only one affected by the reforms from above, but not the people, they only separated the aristocratic intellectuals from the people, without changing the traditional Russian culture. The Russian people felt only "increased exploitation, cruelty" [3] and still lived "separately, their own, special and independent life" [10, vol. 1, p. 384]. As A. A. Vasiliev points out, "the image of the soil remains incorruptible in the memory of the common people – the peasantry and merchants, since these social strata were less influenced by Western European education" [8]. F. M. Dostoevsky calls on the intelligentsia to return to the people, to the soil, in order to complete the great common cause of humanity, because only the Russian people have preserved the great Orthodox ideals. The writer considers the Europeanized Russian intelligentsia as lost souls temporarily torn from the people's soil due to the reform of Peter the Great, but the common national-cultural genes and the spiritual basis of the intelligentsia and the people determine that the intellectuals are only temporarily separated from the people, but they are destined to merge with the people and become its guides.
It is worth noting that in Dostoevsky's works there are often episodes of repentance of the intelligentsia before the people and kissing the earth. For example, in "Crime and Punishment" Raskolnikov, on the advice of Sonya, went to the square, repented before the people and kissed the earth with pleasure and happiness. In The Brothers Karamazov, Alyosha Karamazov, according to the spiritual testament of Elder Zosima, kissed the earth with tears in his eyes, hugged her and frantically swore to love her forever and ever. The word "earth" is often used as a conceptual metaphor for "the people", and "kissing the earth" shows the return of intellectuals to the "people's truth". "For Dostoevsky, the salvation of a person isolated from the world and closed to himself is possible only through communion with the people, awareness of himself as part of the one whole in God, and the necessary symbolic moment of this is repentance and atonement for the Land he defiled, as well as symbolic connection with it" [12, p. 138]. In the book "The Crowd, the Masses, Politics" M. A. Kheveshi notes that in the Russian intelligentsia a sense of "guilt before their people", a sense of repentance prevailed, and this generated a certain popular worship [18, p. 61]. Confession to the people and suffering are a necessary path for the Russian intelligentsia to self—salvation and spiritual perfection. Dostoevsky did not want to admit that the aristocracy, as the bulk of the highly educated intelligentsia, was a separate class, he believed that the whole of Russia was one class. The prerequisite for reconciliation of classes is the rebirth of the upper classes into the people "due to the loss of their class — it had to "get off", "disappear", "dissolve", "melt", according to Dostoevsky, in the all-Russian and, moreover, the world community" [15, p. 47]. F. M. Dostoevsky accepted the ideal for reality, which reflects the "tone of the theory of reconciliation of classes" [14, p. 133]. It also corresponds to the writer's utopian expectation that the intelligentsia is able not only to integrate with the people, but also to bring them the highest culture and science of the West. 3. Dostoevsky's attitude to utilitarianism and the formula "the environment is stuck" Every art, as Andrzej de Lazari shows [1, p. 135], inevitably contains signs of nationality, and the most essential strength of works of art lies in its connection with life, with reality. Dostoevsky's perception of the "peasant question" is vividly reflected in his negative attitude to artistic utilitarianism. Unlike the utilitarian aesthetic views of Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky, Dostoevsky to some extent defended the position of "art for art's sake" and called for a return to art itself. In his opinion, art should be freed from the shackles of utilitarianism, since the utilitarian expression of certain social or political ideas will damage the creative freedom of the artist. Critics should not make any political demands on art, art expresses the eternal need of the human spirit for beauty, so it is impossible to clearly define the boundaries between useful and useless, progress and backwardness in art. The most vivid illustration of the writer's views are his comments on the painting by I. E. Repin "Boatmen on the Volga". In the article "About the exhibition", F. M. Dostoevsky admits that he liked the picture very much, since the artist did not introduce any "prejudices" into the image of boatmen: "To my joy, all my fear was in vain: boatmen, real boatmen and nothing more. None of them screams from the picture to the viewer: "Look how unhappy I am and to what extent you owe the people!" And this alone can be put to the greatest merit of the artist" [11, vol. 21, p. 74]. In the question of nationality, Dostoevsky always opposed the formula "the environment is stuck." In his opinion, the existing social evil is rooted not in society, but in the person himself, and the Russian people hold the same opinion. In the people, crime is usually called misfortune, and the criminal is unhappy, there is a sense of self–blame in this name — "if we believe that we ourselves are sometimes even worse than the criminal, then we thereby admit that we are half to blame for his crime. If he has violated the law that the earth has written to him, then we ourselves are to blame for the fact that he is now standing before us. After all, if we were all better, then he would be better and wouldn't be standing in front of us now..." [11, vol. 21, p. 15]. A person should not blame the environment, the environment depends entirely on the person himself and his constant repentance and self-improvement, "after all, having become the best ourselves, we will correct the environment and make it better. After all, this is the only way to correct it" [11, vol. 21, p. 15]. On the contrary, if the spread of the doctrine of the "environment" is indulged, the soul of the people will be completely devastated, moral helplessness and psychological impotence, people will cease to believe in God, and without the restraining action of God, the moral foundation of society will be on the verge of collapse. In this sense, as Van Hyson shows, "the formula "the environment is stuck" intentionally strengthens and even to a certain extent distorts the rational spirit of Enlightenment, ignores and suppresses the humanistic caring side of Enlightenment" [5, p. 206]. In nature, the "fittest" really survive, but Darwinism does not apply at all to social and economic relations in society. Social Darwinism discovers only animal nature in man and completely ignores his spiritual world, which contradicts the spirit of Orthodoxy. The people need humanitarian care and love, because "man does not live by bread alone." Conclusion Russian Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian people, F. M. Dostoevsky does not deny the greatness of Western culture and civilization, but emphasizes the "universal humanity" of Orthodoxy and the Russian people, calls on the Russian people to take on the mission of the Messiah — not only to save the Russian people, but also to find the way to the collective happiness of mankind in the future. Dostoevsky's idea of nationality, as well as his pochvennichestvo, was formed on the basis of arguments and criticism of Westerners and Slavophiles. Russian Russian writer's views, in essence, were closer to the views of the Slavophiles and were based on the writer's faith in the Russian people and Russian culture. Dostoevsky viewed the Russian people as a divine source that intellectuals should worship in order to draw faith in God from it. In the question of nationality, Dostoevsky has always opposed artistic utilitarianism and the formula "the environment is stuck." He feared that the spread of the formula "the environment is stuck" would lead to an emptiness of the inner world of a person and a lack of faith. And tendentiousness and manipulation in the utilitarian expression of art will hinder authenticity and freedom of creativity. The conducted research helps to expand the idea of how the category of nationality in the soil of F. M. Dostoevsky is reflected in his work, rooted in the folk "soil". We see the prospects for research in a more detailed study of the problem of nationality in Dostoevsky's artistic work and its reflection in folk images. In addition, it would be interesting to introduce new facts, archival documents into scientific circulation or formulate new approaches and research methods.
References
1. Lazari, A. de. (2004). In the circle of Fyodor Dostoevsky. Pochvennichestvo. Moscow: Interbook.
2. Borisova, V.V. (1997). National and religious in the works of F.M. Dostoevsky [Electronic resource]: dissertation ... Doctor of Philology: 01/10/01 / Borisova Valentina Vasilievna. Ufa. 312 s. Retrieved from https://viewer.rsl.ru/ru/rsl01000205022
3. Bocharova, I. M., & Volkova, E. A., & Frolova, E. V. (2018). Monarchism and nationality of F. M. Dostoevsky in the "Diary of a Writer". Scientific notes of the Kursk State University, 2(46), 37–45.
4. Wan Haisong. (2016). The problem of “nationality” in the ideas of pochvenism — about the essence of Dostoevsky’s idea of “nationality”. Learning and Exploration, 9, 137–141.
5. Wan Haisong. (2017). On the Anti-Rational Roots of Dostoevsky’s Pochvennichestvo. Academic Journal Jiang Hai, 4, 204–209.
6. Wan Haisong. (2018). On the originality of the ideas of Dostoevsky's pochvennism in the Embryo and Development Periods. Foreign Literature, 1, 25–33.
7. Wan Haisong. (2018). Pochvennichestvo as the "Third Way" — Centered on Fyodor Dostoevsky. Research in Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, 3, 94–107.
8. Vasiliev, A. A. (2013). National soil in the worldview of F.M. Dostoevsky, A.A. Grigoriev and N.N. Strakhova. People and culture, 4, 16–42.
9. Vladimirtsev, V. P. (2007). Folk Dostoevsky: Dostoevsky and Russian ethnological culture: article. Essays. Sketches. The complex historical and literary studies. Irkutsk: IGU.
10. Vatsuro V. E., Gay N. K., Elizavetina G. G., Makashin S. A., & Nikolaev D. P. (Eds.). (1990). F. M. Dostoevsky in Memoirs of His Contemporaries: in 2 Vols. (Vol. 1) Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura Publ.
11. Dostoevsky, F. M. (1972–1989). Complete Works: In 30 vols. (Vols. 18, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28). Leningrad: Science.
12. Krinitsyn, A. B. (2017). Syuzhetologiya romanov F. M. Dostoevskogo. Monografiya. Moscow: Maks Press. 456 s.
13. Miller, R. F. (2022). Dostoevsky's Unfinished Journey. St. Petersburg: Academic Studies Press. Bibliorossika.
14. Nizhnikov, S. A. (2016). F. M. Dostoevsky and the “Russian Idea”. Bulletin of Kalmyk University, 1(29), 104–111.
15. Popov, V. D. (1980). Dostoevsky's Problem of the People. In G. M. Friedlander (Ed.). Dostoevsky: Materials and research, 4, 41–54). Leningrad: Science.
16. Soloviev, V. S. (1988). Three speeches in memory of Dostoevsky. In A. V. Gulygi, A. F. Loseva (Eds.). Solovyov Vl. S. Works in two volumes. Vol. 2 (pp. 289–323). Moscow: Mysli Publ.
17. Friedlander, G. M. (2001). Problems of the people and nationality in the works of Dostoevsky (From an unpublished article). In N. F. Budanova, I. D. Yakubovich (Eds.). Dostoevsky: Materials and research. Vol. 16. Anniversary collection (pp. 405–408). Saint-Petersburg: Nauka.
18. Heveshi, M. A. (2001). Crowd, masses, politics. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy Press.
First Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.
The analysis of the article submitted for review "The problem of "nationality" in the concept of Dostoevsky's soil science" allowed us to make the following significant remarks. Firstly, from the point of view of stylistics, the text of the article is more an artistic narrative than a scientific article. Secondly, the article is not structured. It lacks important components for scientific research: the purpose and objectives of the study, methodology, including methods, approaches used, etc. In a special way, the source base of the study should be noted. The bibliographic list is arranged in separate positions without a complete bibliographic description. This circumstance makes it difficult to verify the scientific papers presented in the list. In total, the list of used sources and literature contains 15 sources. We have selectively analyzed several sources. In particular, the specified source number 3 is an 1883 edition. If the authors used the original edition, then the bibliographic description in the list of references is presented quite correctly. However, the editions of 1883 are rare and are kept in separate scientific libraries of the country - in Moscow, Omsk, etc. If we are talking about a modern reissue, then the design of the bibliographic should be appropriate. For example, Biography, letters and notes from the notebook of F. M. Dostoevsky: with a portrait of F. M. Dostoevsky and appendices. - St. Petersburg: A. S. Suvorin Printing House, 1883. -332, 375, [1], 122, V, [1] p., 1 l. port.; 24 cm. (Source: https://www.prlib.ru/item/1325208 The Presidential Library named after B. N. Yeltsin). The presented list of references also includes several works by Van Hyson. Unfortunately, during the review of this article, the work number 7 could not be found in the archive of the journal "Foreign Literature" for 2018 (1). It was also not possible to find the work listed under the number 8 of this author. In the article, we believe, in general, there are not enough references to sources. The source number 10 is mainly presented in the links. Not all references correspond to the order presented in the bibliographic list (12). There are no articles by academic-level authors, but there are works by graduate students. Unfortunately, such an author's approach to determining the source base in the preparation of this article did not allow for a scientific discussion or presentation of its elements. We believe that the comments made are significant even in this volume and do not allow us to determine the article submitted for review as scientific and relevant to the journal reviewed by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation. For the level of an article proposed for publication in a journal reviewed by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation, this is an important recommendation. Meanwhile, the topic of the article itself is capable of arousing reader interest and is promising for its publication. It is recommended to finalize it.
Second Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.
The article presented for consideration "The problem of "nationality" in the concept of Dostoevsky's soil science", proposed for publication in the journal "Litera", is undoubtedly relevant, due to the author's appeal to the concept of soil science, one of the founders of which was F. M. Dostoevsky. In addition, at the moment there is a rethinking of the ideas and works of the past era. It should be noted that there is a relatively small number of studies on this topic in Russian linguistics. The article is innovative, one of the first in Russian linguistics devoted to the study of such issues. The article presents a research methodology, the choice of which is quite adequate to the goals and objectives of the work. The author turns, among other things, to various methods to confirm the hypothesis put forward. The work is more theoretical and philosophical than philological and practical. Theoretical fabrications are not illustrated by examples from literary sources. It is not clear from the text of the article what the language corpus of the study is. Structurally, the author does not specify the purpose and objectives of the study in the water part, which does not allow for a correlation between the introduction and the data presented in the conclusion. No research has been conducted in the philological sense, the work is abstract-theoretical, compilation. It should be noted that the conclusion requires strengthening, it does not fully reflect the tasks set by the author and does not contain prospects for further research in line with the stated issues. The bibliography of the article includes 12 sources, among which works are presented in both Russian and foreign languages. Unfortunately, the article does not contain references to the fundamental works of Russian researchers, such as monographs, PhD and doctoral dissertations. Typos, spelling and syntactic errors, inaccuracies in the text of the work were not found. In general, it should be noted that the article is written in a simple, understandable language for the reader. The work is innovative, representing the author's vision of solving the issue under consideration and may have a logical continuation in further research. The practical significance of the research lies in the possibility of using its results in the teaching of university courses in literary theory, as well as courses in interdisciplinary research on the relationship between language and society. The article will undoubtedly be useful to a wide range of people, philologists, undergraduates and graduate students of specialized universities. The article "The problem of "nationality" in Dostoevsky's concept of soil science" can be recommended for publication in a scientific journal after making edits, namely: 1) strengthening the conclusions correlating with the tasks, 2) description of the research methodology, 3) giving linguistic examples as illustrations of the stated postulates, 4) strengthening the introductory part of the article, setting goals and tasks, 5) the application of philological research methods.
Third Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.
The topicality and relevance of the issue raised in the reviewed article is beyond doubt. Indeed, the work of F.M. Dostoevsky implements the program of "soil science" to one degree or another. Critics of the XIX, XX and, of course, the XXI century argued about this. It is quite legitimate that "the writer [Dostoevsky] asserts the power inherent in Russian history and culture to resist the erosion of Western culture, not opposing Western material civilization, science and education, but resolutely rejecting its inevitable by–product - spiritual degeneration, mainly embodied in atheism." Prior to this, the author of the article states: "being one of the main ideological foundations of soil science, the problem of nationality in Dostoevsky's work seems extremely topical. Recently, it has increasingly become the focus of attention of researchers. The relevance of our research is determined by the need that has taken shape in science to understand the "national soil" of Dostoevsky's work as "the great art of synthesizing multi-confessional and national cultural traditions." The text of the article is informative, informative, and it is not devoid of proper analysis of the issue. F.M. Dostoevsky has always attached great importance to the problem of nationality. "Starting with the debut novel Poor People, the writer began to pay attention to the life and psychology of the lower strata of society, and then created a whole series of novels in which the reader finds a gallery of images of ordinary people from the people." The fragmentation of the article into so-called semantic links is quite justified, it is precisely this hierarchy that allows us to consider the topic holistically and achieve our goal. An explanation of the research methodology is also prescribed, and it is worth evaluating positively: "the research is based on descriptive, biographical and cultural-historical methods of studying literature. The use of a synthetic approach in the work allows us to analyze the context of the formation and development of the ideas of F. M. Dostoevsky's nationality and various aspects of the writer's coverage of this problem. In accordance with the intended purpose, the following tasks are set: to show the formation, development and evolution of F. M. Dostoevsky's ideas about nationality; to consider the writer's views on the people and on the relationship between the intelligentsia and the people, utilitarianism and the formula "the environment is stuck". The topic of the work corresponds to one of the headings of the publication, the actual requirements of the journal are met. The style of work corresponds to the scientific type itself, there are no failures at this level. In my opinion, it is advisable to develop and expand some judgments further, but in new works of a related thematic focus. For example, the "soil" that the soil scientists were talking about is equivalent to the "people" in the Slavophile concept of "nationality", that is, to the whole people, except for the ruling class and the nobility, especially those peasants who have preserved Orthodox culture intact to the present day. In other words, the people are those who have preserved their "nationality". Dostoevsky noted that in the Russian language, "Christianity" and "peasantry" are not only similar in pronunciation, but also have the same cultural meaning." Citations of critical works, references to primary sources are available, the standard of inclusions is correct. The logic of the work is supported by analytical links: for example, "the problem of the relationship between the people and the intelligentsia was one of the main problems in the Russian history of the St. Petersburg period, it was no less relevant for F. M. Dostoevsky. The reform of Peter the Great, according to the writer, "expanded the horizons of the Russian intelligentsia, through it it comprehended its future significance in the great family of all peoples." On the other hand, Peter's reform was too expensive, since "it separated the intelligentsia from the people." The work is not devoid of historical and cultural context, this makes it, as noted above, syncretism. The material can be assessed as innovative, although in some places the author's dependence on the positions already expressed is felt. Russian Russian Orthodox Church, the final block notes that "F.M. Dostoevsky does not deny the greatness of Western culture and civilization, but emphasizes the "universal humanity" of Orthodoxy and the Russian people, calls on the Russian people to take on the mission of the messiah — not only to save the Russian people, but also to find a way to the collective happiness of mankind in the future." It is not bad that in the final part the author expands / draws the perspective of studying the issue further: "the conducted research helps to expand the idea of how the category of nationality in F. M. Dostoevsky's soil is reflected in his work, rooted in the folk "soil". We see the prospects for research in a more detailed study of the problem of nationality in Dostoevsky's artistic work and its reflection in folk images. In addition, it would be interesting to introduce new facts, archival documents into scientific circulation or formulate new approaches and research methods." I think that the material can be useful when studying courses not only in philology, but also in the humanities as a whole. There were no serious discrepancies in terms of critical assessment of the issue from the author's point of view, the text is built in a productive dialogue mode. I think that it is possible to adjust the name somewhat – to add Dostoevsky's name with initials (F.M.), this will be more respectful. With that said, I would like to state: the article "The problem of "nationality" in Dostoevsky's concept of soil science" can be recommended for publication in the journal "Litera".
Link to this article
You can simply select and copy link from below text field.
|
|
