No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Orientador: Suzi Frankl Sperber / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem / Made available in DSpace on 2018-07-14T02:50:35Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Antunes_JosePedro_M.pdf: 5859511 bytes, checksum: 9b0c298767e781e520d209c17131be2d (MD5) Previous issue date: 1989 / Resumo não impresso na obra / Abstract: Not informed. / Mestrado / Mestre em Teoria Literaria

No description available.

From the fruitful literary activity of Gorky here are four dramas, presented as a unit of creation in his last years. Since he was pulled into the political whirl of his country, and consequently proclaimed the creator of social realism, it is indispensable to find out how much the artist in Gorky regimentated himself to the power of the Soviet regime. The last four dramas - virtually his last discernible literary accomplishment - may serve such a purpose. The method used here was that of literary analysis of the individual characters and settings, proved by the direct quotations of the text. Through such a procedure an attempt was made to bring about a general conclusion: although Gorky was a cherished idol of the proletarian bolshevik society he himself deviated from its ideological and social uniformity. Instead of complete acceptance of their cause, he expressed its weaknesses through the fine subtleties of his mind. This thesis intends to reveal them as they emerge from the text itself. / Arts, Faculty of / Central Eastern Northern European Studies, Department of / Graduate

This essay constitutes an attempt to trace the development of the Quijote theme in the writings of Unamuno from 1896 to 1905. In these nine years which were crucial in the evolution of Unamuno's philosophical and religious thought, the theme of the Quijote constantly recurs in his essays. Unamuno's articles on the Quijote theme represent only, a fraction of his total production during this period but they give vivid evidence of the rapidly changing concepts of their author. Moreover, this essay seeks to establish that La Vida de Don Quijote y Sancho, completed by Unamuno as early as 1905, already contains the full gamut of his major existential ideas as they repeat themselves in almost endless variations throughout his later work. These ideas are here examined along with their rapport with the problems they raise or imply. Finally, the allegorical meaning which each major character of Cervantes' Quijote gradually assumes in Unamuno's interpretation is given detailed consideration in this essay. / Arts, Faculty of / French, Hispanic, and Italian Studies, Department of / Graduate

Maxim Gorky was born in 1868. At nine he was thrown out into the world to fend for himself. Even as a boy he protested against the ugliness of life and refused to submit to the forces of circumstance. At sixteen he found himself in an intellectual and emotional quandry. He longed to activate leaden Russia and in desperation went to the University of Kazan. Unable to finance an education, he worked as a stevedore and experienced for the first time the joy of group labour. At Kazan he became involved in the incipient Populist movement and was excited by their determination to build a new life. At twenty-one he was arrested on suspicion of revolutionary activities. His first story was published in 1892. The first edition of his collected short stories appeared in I898. The whole cycle of these early stories, written with a revolutionary purpose, revolved around the central ideal of personal liberty, exuberant strength and fierce rebellion. In this he announced a new attitude of energy and courage which won him universal acclaim. The young Marxists were quick to appreciate the revolutionary significance of Gorky's work and soon involved him actively in their movement. After I898 he was forced to live under police surveillance. His significance both as a symbol and participant in the revolutionary movement increased rapidly. By 1902 he was a close collaborator of the Social Democratic Party and an important financial power behind the movement. After the split of 1905 he showed a decided preference for the Bolsheviks. In the revolution of 1905 he played a conspicuous role as a fund raiser and propagandist for the insurgents. In I906 he went into exile. In 1907 he reached the peak of his efforts to put literature to work for the revolution with the publication of Mother. As the Bolsheviks most fertile source of funds, he rendered an invaluable service to the Social Democratic Party Congress of 1907. During this period his acquaintance with Lenin deepened into a mature friendship, and he became a tireless exponent of democracy and unity within the warring Social Democratic Party. He also wrote essays on political and social consciousness. In 1909 he helped to organize a workers' school on Capri. In 1913 he returned to Russia, where he devoted himself increasingly to educative work. In 1914 he voiced his instinctive opposition to the war and sided with the Zimmerwald Left. Gorky was gloomy about the eventual outcome of the revolution in 1917, and played the role of a spectator rather than an actor. In the spring he founded a daily newspaper in which he campaigned against Bolshevik tactics and opposed Lenin's scheme for a rigorous proletarian dictatorship. He worked for the unity of the whole Social democracy. In August he became the leader of a small political party, the United-Internationalists. Foreseeing the eclipse of culture, he opposed the Bolshevik seizure of power in October and assailed Lenin with bitter invective. In 1919 he became reconciled to the Bolshevik order and concentrated his attention on salvaging and preserving Russian cultural values. In 1922 he went abroad. In I929 he returned to the Soviet Union, where he was already applauded as its greatest moral and cultural authority. By this time he was convinced that the working class was one of the most vital forces in Russia and that the working class together with the socialist intelligentsia could and would create a new society based on justice and equality. He felt that it was his duty to contribute to the building of the U.S.S.R. and gave unflagging public support to the regime. His great prestige, bolstered by his friendship with Stalin, made a powerful force of his capacity to mould public opinion. From 1930 to 1936, he gave his attention to reorganizing Soviet Literature and wittingly or unwittingly helped to turn literature into an instrument of state policy. Gorky died in 1936. The circumstances of his death were later used as a weapon in the inner-Party struggle for power. / Arts, Faculty of / Central Eastern Northern European Studies, Department of / Graduate

Kipling's perplexed relationship with his critics -and especially with those whose opinions mattered - has no parallel in the history of letters. At every stage in his career they made him the epicentre of controversy. Friends and enemies alike misrepresented him in their biased and contradictory judgments. In the '90's the majority helped to set him up as a national idol; after 1899 they engineered his fall into disrepute. His fate at the hands of the pundits deserves to be studied in some detail. This inquiry into the state of his reputation and the aberrations of Kipling criticism between 1889 and 1914 follows the trend of the times and the shifts of critical opinion, and deals with a series of reviews published in a selected group of eight influential journals. These include the Edinburgh Review, the Quarterly, Blackwood's Magazine, the Contemporary Review, the Fortnightly Review, the Athenaeum, the Saturday Review and the Bookman. Kipling achieved early and unprecedented success. His startling presence was noted in a spate of articles and reviews in which he was recognized as a formidable new talent. Singled out by Oscar Wilde, approved by the Times, he impressed all who chose to comment on his work, even those whose findings were unfavourable. Many were gratified and enthusiastic; many temporized. The ultra-conservative confessed to grave misgivings; the liberal-radical were frankly suspicious of his views. Within a very few years the critics were responding to a supereminent Kipling, revealed as a prophet of Empire. Didactic and persuasive, he grew in stature as a public figure, unofficial laureate, spokesman for the Imperialists. Criticism became correspondingly political. The general chorus of praise reached a crescendo but voices of dissent were raised in angry protest. The liberal intellectuals were busy counteracting the evils of Kiplingism by outright condemnation of the author's prose,fiction and verse. In 1899 the Boers' declaration of war coincided with the publication of Stalky and Co., bolstering the case for the opposition and effecting an abrupt change in the critical climate. There was a sudden highly emotional revulsion. Of the eight chosen periodicals only the Athenaeum was pleased with Stalky. Of the attacks that ensued none was more savage than Robert Buchanan's article in the Contemporary Review. Those who continued to support Kipling like Walter Besant were driven to defend and to apologize. During the war and the subsequent period of recrimination, even the Tories began to give vent to their dissatisfaction. Kipling himself drew their censure by lashing out at government and opposition alike. Scathing reviews of Kim reflected the general resentment. More than ever Kipling's well-wishers were placed on the defensive. Former admirers justified their apostasy by explaining that the author's work had begun to decline with Stalky and Co. Some declared that the popular journalist had never been worthy of the attention he had received. Many lost interest and refrained further comment. In other quarters there was clear evidence of a deliberate move to ignore Kipling's claim to serious consideration. By 1905 the decline of his reputation reached its final phase. The Conservative propagandist no longer threatened the Liberals. There was less bitterness, less polemical confrontation. The reviews were often perfunctory, contemptuous, ironic or gently disparaging. Most of the critics of any standing had convinced themselves that Kipling's fame had been founded on error, that his very popularity was sufficient proof of his lack of merit, that he had never been a great writer. Among the new generation of romantics, they saw him as an anachronism, out of place and out of fashion. He must in every respect be labelled "inadmissible." Kipling was an honest but tendentious writer who met with an equally tendentious but essentially dishonest criticism. The reports of his contemporaries appear to have been seldom free from some form of special pleading. Their motivation was too often questionable and their lack of objectivity was notorious. Because they could not tolerate his popularity, his success, his unfashionable philosophy, his discredited politics, his stubborn, retrogressive Philistinism and his refusal to countenance what he called the Gods of the Market Place, the critics were led to reject Kipling's art. / Arts, Faculty of / English, Department of / Graduate