Достоевский на рубеже XX–XXI веков: антиномии интерпретаций
Dostoevsky at the Turn of the 21st Century: Antinomies of Interpretation

Summary/Abstract: The aim of the proposed article is to identify the key trends and contradictions in the study and interpretation of Dostoevsky’s work at the turn of the 21st century. Dostoevsky studies are one of the most advanced and active branches of Russian literary studies, which is confirmed by a large number of regular scientific conferences, as well as by a significant number of fundamental monographs. The search for a new interpretive basis in the Christian tradition, which has revealed a number of axiological and methodological contradictions, including the inevitable choice between literary and philosophical/theological discourses, is seen as the main methodological breakthrough in contemporary Russian literary studies (and simultaneously a challenge). Three aspects of the question of the Christian basis of Dostoevsky’s work are examined: along with “dogmatic ranting” (as defined by I. A. Esaulov), reading the writer’s works in the context of the legacy of religious philosophy of the Silver Age remains relevant. We recognize the analysis and interpretation of Dostoevsky’s texts in the spirit of historical poetics as the most productive, provided that the postulate about the Christian nature of the Russian classical tradition is accepted. The methodological search of Dostoevsky’s researchers, typical for the turn of the 21st century, has found its expression in a multitude of “research subjects”: this polemic centers on the definitions of “realism in the highest sense”/“Christian realism” and a dispute around The Idiot and the image of Prince Myshkin, caused by the receptive conflict of interpreters. In addition, the article underscores the problem of the use of Bakhtin’s legacy in Dostoevsky studies: in our opinion, the key notions of his concept in literary studies “function” either in an adjusted form, or as scientific metaphors, or as an “appeal to authority”. Therefore, it seems more productive to include Bakhtin’s heritage in Dostoevsky studies as an essential fact in the history of perception of his work, rather than as a methodological basis for studying the text. It is in this aspect that the success of Russian literature in recent years is most obvious, however, the gap between scientific excellence and mass perception of Dostoevsky is also apparent. The final conclusion states that the contradictions of interpretations generated by transcending the “spectrum of adequacy” when reading a classical text have not been overcome. Dostoevsky’s work still causes controversy and methodological arguments. This means that the history of his perception remains an ongoing, living narrative. Dostoevsky still remains a subject of contemporary culture, rather than its object.

• Details
• Contents