St. John 12:24, used by Dostoyevskij as an epigraph to his last and highly acclaimed novel BpaTbJI KapaMa30BbI (The Brothers Karamazov), served as an inspiration for Andre Gide. The title of the latter's contentious autobiography Si le grain ne meurt (If it die ... ), is part of the same biblical verse. The significance of Dostoyevskij's epigraph and Gide's title are critically examined with regard to ideologies expressed in their literary works. Analogies and contrasts are scrutinised: considerable similarities but more discrepancies are discerned. Intense crises in Dostoyevskij's life led to an upward movement, reflected in his oeuvre, reaching out toward Christ's message as revealed by St. John 12:24. On the other hand, Gide started his career imbued with the above message, but gradually he deviated from it and died an atheist. His fascination with Dostoyevskij prompted him to write a profound biography on the great Russian, containing a perceptive article on The Brothers Karamazov when this novel was still practically unknown in the West. Dostoyevskij's pre-eminence as ideological author, psychologist, philosopher and artist is highlighted while Gide is disclosed as the moralistic immoralist of his time. The thesis suggested here is that Dostoyevskij's ideology of self-abnegation in order to be regenerated into eternal life challenged Gide to reject this concept. Therein lies his paradoxical "adaptation". The purpose is to uncover the religious perceptions in Dostoyevskij's four major novels, to establish that his fictional characters, though never used as mouthpieces for the author, represent his universal philosophy and transmit the author's quest for truth to the reader, and finally to examine Gide's reaction to Dostoyevskij's influence / Classics & Modern European Languages / D. Litt. et Phil. (Russian)

St. John 12:24, used by Dostoyevskij as an epigraph to his last and highly acclaimed novel BpaTbJI KapaMa30BbI (The Brothers Karamazov), served as an inspiration for Andre Gide. The title of the latter's contentious autobiography Si le grain ne meurt (If it die ... ), is part of the same biblical verse. The significance of Dostoyevskij's epigraph and Gide's title are critically examined with regard to ideologies expressed in their literary works. Analogies and contrasts are scrutinised: considerable similarities but more discrepancies are discerned. Intense crises in Dostoyevskij's life led to an upward movement, reflected in his oeuvre, reaching out toward Christ's message as revealed by St. John 12:24. On the other hand, Gide started his career imbued with the above message, but gradually he deviated from it and died an atheist. His fascination with Dostoyevskij prompted him to write a profound biography on the great Russian, containing a perceptive article on The Brothers Karamazov when this novel was still practically unknown in the West. Dostoyevskij's pre-eminence as ideological author, psychologist, philosopher and artist is highlighted while Gide is disclosed as the moralistic immoralist of his time. The thesis suggested here is that Dostoyevskij's ideology of self-abnegation in order to be regenerated into eternal life challenged Gide to reject this concept. Therein lies his paradoxical "adaptation". The purpose is to uncover the religious perceptions in Dostoyevskij's four major novels, to establish that his fictional characters, though never used as mouthpieces for the author, represent his universal philosophy and transmit the author's quest for truth to the reader, and finally to examine Gide's reaction to Dostoyevskij's influence / Classics and Modern European Languages / D. Litt. et Phil. (Russian)

Excess, Sex & Elevation is an attempt to understand the desire for truth in the work of Emmanuel Levinas, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Fyodor Dostoevsky. Nothing is said about what truth is, but rather why it is wanted and how it is sought. Despite their different religious beliefs (Levinas a Jew, Nietzsche an atheist, Dostoevsky a Christian), the three thinkers hold remarkably similar conceptions of truth. Truth is an individual pursuit -- upwards. The self experiences a crisis of conscience upon discovering its originary excess, which is sex. The self suffers spiritually for what it is physically through the art of ascesis, turning the lust for sex into the desire for truth. And therein begins the self's elevation to the heights of truth.

No description available.

Gogol, Dostoevsky and Bely are three Russian novelists, most of whose writings are set in the city of St. Petersburg, and whose feelings for their city were a bizarre mixture of love and hatred. / This dissertation is divided into four chapters, the first of which is a survey of the attitudes held by the literary predecessors and contemporaries of Gogol, Dostoevsky and Bely toward St. Petersburg, and a discussion of the influence of the French feuilletons on the nineteenth-century Russian urban novel. The second chapter is an investigation of the overall image of the city as presented to the reader by the three writers. The predominantly tragic fate of the novelists' heroes is discussed in the third chapter. The final chapter is a study of six major recurrent themes which link the urban novels of Gogol, Dostoevsky and Bely.

In this thesis I compare the views of Joseph de Maistre and Fyodor Dostoyevsky with regard to the relation between modernity and the theologico-political problem. I integrate this comparison within the general context of the reflection concerning modernity and the theologico-political problem, as well as within the context of two Christian theological traditions, Catholic and Orthodox, on the basis of which the two authors develop their religious and political thought. In particular, I analyze the views of the two authors with regard to the origins and the defining traits of modernity. Likewise, I present their opinions concerning the consequences which are inherent in the modern project. Viewing modernity first and foremost as an attempt to build a secular world that would define itself by its opposition to what both authors regard as authentic Christianity, Maistre and Dostoyevsky emphasize the fact that, having theological origins that mark the totality of its becoming, modernity should be understood on the basis of a theologico-political reflection. Associating the modern ambition to build a secular world with the fate of the biblical Tower of Babel, both authors adopt a prophetic posture, announcing the collapse of the modern project as well as the ultimate eschatological resolution of the modern crisis. Yet, the two authors are differentiated by their interpretations of the relation between modernity and the theologico-political problem, identifying differently the theological origins of the modern crisis. In this sense, while according to Maistre modernity originates in the Protestant Reformation, for Dostoyevsky, modernity’s origins must be located in the transformations of Western Christianity that have finally lead to the latter’s separation from Eastern Orthodoxy. These differences of interpretation lead to the articulation of two different responses to the modern crisis, which are rooted in two different Christian theological traditions. Consequently, if in reaction to the modern crisis Maistre affirms the Catholic principle of authority, whose highest expression is the concept of papal infallibility, Dostoyevsky opposes to this crisis the Orthodox principle of brotherhood in Christ. The critique of modernity culminates in the thought of the two authors with an approach of the complex and troubling problem of theodicy, which, Maistre and Dostoyevsky believe, stands at the origin of the modern opposition to Christianity and its traditional institutions.

In this thesis I compare the views of Joseph de Maistre and Fyodor Dostoyevsky with regard to the relation between modernity and the theologico-political problem. I integrate this comparison within the general context of the reflection concerning modernity and the theologico-political problem, as well as within the context of two Christian theological traditions, Catholic and Orthodox, on the basis of which the two authors develop their religious and political thought. In particular, I analyze the views of the two authors with regard to the origins and the defining traits of modernity. Likewise, I present their opinions concerning the consequences which are inherent in the modern project. Viewing modernity first and foremost as an attempt to build a secular world that would define itself by its opposition to what both authors regard as authentic Christianity, Maistre and Dostoyevsky emphasize the fact that, having theological origins that mark the totality of its becoming, modernity should be understood on the basis of a theologico-political reflection. Associating the modern ambition to build a secular world with the fate of the biblical Tower of Babel, both authors adopt a prophetic posture, announcing the collapse of the modern project as well as the ultimate eschatological resolution of the modern crisis. Yet, the two authors are differentiated by their interpretations of the relation between modernity and the theologico-political problem, identifying differently the theological origins of the modern crisis. In this sense, while according to Maistre modernity originates in the Protestant Reformation, for Dostoyevsky, modernity’s origins must be located in the transformations of Western Christianity that have finally lead to the latter’s separation from Eastern Orthodoxy. These differences of interpretation lead to the articulation of two different responses to the modern crisis, which are rooted in two different Christian theological traditions. Consequently, if in reaction to the modern crisis Maistre affirms the Catholic principle of authority, whose highest expression is the concept of papal infallibility, Dostoyevsky opposes to this crisis the Orthodox principle of brotherhood in Christ. The critique of modernity culminates in the thought of the two authors with an approach of the complex and troubling problem of theodicy, which, Maistre and Dostoyevsky believe, stands at the origin of the modern opposition to Christianity and its traditional institutions.

Les romans de Dostoïevski et de Bernanos se rencontrent sur la frontière fragile de la littérature et de la métaphysique ; l’incarnation des personnages dans des espaces et des lieux que leurs cœurs troublés contaminent donne au texte son symbolisme essentiel, qui n’est ni le « paysage choisi » romantique, ni l’espace surdéterminé des réalistes. L’incarnation ne contredit pas les règles de la création romanesque, puissamment remodelées par les deux auteurs, mais les refondent dans des histoires familiales archétypales où la maison paternelle peut être le lieu d’un meurtre moral initial. Derrière les discours de personnages bavards, avides de philosophie et de psychologie (ce qui a longtemps retenu surtout l’attention de la critique), se cache la question du langage et de l’esthétique face à la vérité. Beaucoup sont des menteurs, qui ont oublié le sens du langage enraciné auquel croyait Bernanos, et les soliloqueurs de Dostoïevski se perdent dans les méandres de leurs souterrains verbaux. La question de l’esthétique est tributaire des vicissitudes d’une époque (les années 1880-1930) qui est celle du déracinement des intellectuels ; quelle est cette beauté qui « sauvera le monde » dans un univers qui n’est plus théocentré, et quelle est la légitimité du romancier à en proposer la quête, surtout si elle est spirituelle ? Malgré la présence de figures du salut qui, dans la douleur de confrontations violentes, proposent l’acceptation de l’altérité, les déracinés persistent souvent dans la voie du mensonge et préfèrent le masque démoniaque du double ou le néant de l’«à quoi bon ? » / Dostoyevsky's and Bernanos's novels meet up on the frail boundary between literature and metaphysics; the incarnation of characters in spaces and places tainted by their troubled hearts gives the text its essential symbolism, which is neither the romantic "chosen landscape" nor the realists' overdetermined space. Incarnation does not contradict the rules of fictional creation —powerfully remodeled by the two authors— but recasts them in archetypal family stories where the father's home can be the locus of an initial moral murder. Behind the words of garrulous characters, who are eager for philosophy and psychology (which long caught the critics' attention), there lies the question of language and aestheticism confronted with truth. Many of them are liars who have forgotten the meaning of the entrenched language which Bernanos cherished, and Dostoyevsky's soliloquists get lost in the rambling development of their convoluted wording. The question of aestheticism depends on the vicissitudes of a period (1880-1930) which was marked by the uprooting of intellectuals: what is this beauty which will "save the world", a world which is no longer theo-centred, and how legitimate is a novelist who proposes its quest, especially if it is a spiritual one? Despite the existence of salvation figures who, through the suffering caused by violent confrontation, propose the acceptance of otherness, the uprooted characters often choose to lie persistently and prefer the demonic mask of duality or the nothingness of the "a quoi bon", an expression of absolute indifference and disillusionment.

This thesis compares four Czech translations of the novel Thérèse Raquin by the French writer Émile Zola. The introduction is focused on the source text and its author. Then the thesis deals with the reception of Thérèse Raquin in the Czech culture and refers also to its entry on the Russian cultural scene. The second part of the thesis is focused on an analysis of the Czech translations. This analysis considers the background in which each text was produced, especially from the point of view of time, and it aims to describe not only the language aspects of each translation, but also the global approach of the translator.

Die Arbeit hat zwei Teile. Zuerst wird eine Analyse von drei großen Romanen Dostojewskijs vorgenommen: Der Idiot, Die Dämonen und Die Brüder Karamasoff. In jedem Roman werden verschiedene Themen in Betracht gezogen: die Schönheit in Der Idiot, die Liebe in Die Dämonen und das Opfer in Die Brüder Karamasoff. Durch diese Themen wird die Komplexität der dostojewskijschen religiösen Welt freigelegt. Im Werk des russischen Schriftstellers ist das religiöse Element wesentlich, wenn man die Handlung verstehen und interpretieren will. Das Drama der wichtigsten Figuren beruht immer auf einer Auseinandersetzung mit religiösen Themen. Die Religiosität ist auch das Hauptthema der Hermeneutik Guardinis in seinem Buch Religiöse Gastalten in Dostojewskijs Werk. Der zweite Teil der Doktorarbeit untersucht daher die guardinische Interpretation Dostojewskijs. Warum und wie hat der italienisch-deutsche Denker den russischen Schriftsteller gelesen? Welchen Beitrag haben die Romane Dostojewskijs dem guardinischen Denken geliefert? Welchen Beitrag leistet die Deutung Guardinis für die Kritik des dostojewskijschen Schaffens? Diese Fragen eröffnen die Grundzüge des zweiten Teils der Arbeit.:Einleitung ERSTER TEIL: DIE RELIGIÖSE WELT IN DOSTOJEWSKIJS GROSSEN ROMANEN I. Der Idiot 1. Die Figur des Fürsten Myschkin 2. Was ist das Schöne, das die Welt erlösen wird? II. Die Dämonen 1. Die Dämonen und die kluge Schlange 2. Das Böse und die Liebe III. Die Brüder Karamasoff 1. Vorwort 2. Das Weizenkorn 3. Die Empörung über das Opfer 4. Echtheit der Liebe durch das Opfer ZWEITER TEIL: ROMANO GUARDINIS INTERPRETATION VON DOSTOJEWSKIJ I. Methodologie 1. Die Einheit in der Spannung der Gegensätze 2. Die katholische Weltanschauung 3. Die guardinische Hermeneutik II. Genese und Entwicklung des Werkes über Dostojewskij 1. Guardinis Professur für katholische Weltanschauung in Berlin 2. Entwicklung des Werkes über Dostojewskij III. Romano Guardinis Interpretation von Dostojewskij 1. Vorwort 2. Glaube und Religiosität des Volkes 3. Die Religiosität am Ende der Neuzeit 4. Ein Christussymbol? IV. Die Gegensätze in Dostojewskijs Werk 1. Der Beitrag der guardinischen Methode zum Verständnis des Werkes des russischen Schriftstellers