著者

稲掛 久雄

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究(Slavic Studies) (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.32, pp.106-126, 1985

著者

稲掛 久雄

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究 (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

no.32, pp.p106-126, 1985

著者

森田 敦子

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究 (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.54, pp.225-243, 2007

著者

森田 敦子

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究 (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

no.54, pp.225-243, 2007

---

研究ノート

著者

外川 継男

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究 (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.25, pp.149-165, 1980

著者

外川 継男

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究 (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

no.8, pp.109-144, 1964

---

意志とはある種の思維にほかならない.意志を有限なものと考えようが, 無限なものであると考えようが, 意志を働かせる何らかの原因を認めざるを得ないことにかわりはない.従って, それは自由な原因としてではなく, 制約された原因として考察さるべきである.

著者

外川 継男

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究 (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

no.6, pp.65-87, 1962

著者

外川 継男

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究 (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.8, pp.109-144, 1964

著者

金 成浩

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究 (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.43, pp.129-166, 1996

著者

金 成浩

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究 (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

no.45, pp.263-285, 1998

著者

見附 陽介

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究 (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.56, pp.63-89, 2009

---

In this paper, I examine the meaning of the concepts of "person" and "thing" in M. M. Bakhtin's theory of dialogue. Through this examination, I aim to clarify the similarities and differences between Bakhtin's and C. L. Frank's philosophy based on an ontological concept unique to traditional Russian philosophy, namely, "pan-unity" (всеединство). I begin by presenting a conceptual contrast between dialogue and reification, which play an important role in Bakhtin's seminal work Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. I demonstrate that this contrast between dialogue and reification derives from the contrast between person and thing. Dialogue, to Bakhtin, is the relationship between "I" and "Thou." We need to consider the other as "Thou" because he/she is not a thing but a person who has his/her "independence," "inner freedom," and "unfinalizability." Bakhtin says that only through dialogue can we properly deal with such characteristics of the other. If we have contact with the other without a dialogical attitude, he/she is reified as a thing that does not speak. He affirms that the main aim of his work is to elucidate the meaning of the artistic form of Dostoevsky's literary works, namely, "polyphony." According to Bakhtin, polyphony emancipates the person from such reification through a dialogical attitude. In this sense, we can infer that Bakhtin's theory of dialogue is based on the contrast between dialogue and reification, which derives from the fundamental contrast between person and thing. In addition, by comparing Bakhtin's concept of reification with A. F. Losev's, I demonstrate that Bakhtin utilized the word "reification" not in the manner of Russian Platonism, wherein it was considered as the incarnation of an "idea," but in the manner of Kantian argument, which ethically differentiated person from thing and criticized the idea of treating a person as a means. Next, I examine S. L. Frank's concepts of person and thing to compare them with Bakhtin's. Frank also developed the idea of "I" and "Thou." Moreover, like Bakhtin, he criticized the idea of treating a person as a thing. In this sense, I think that his philosophy is suitable for a comparison with Bakhtin's theory. However, there is a third category in Frank's argument, which he refers to as "We." This makes his idea of "I" and "Thou" distinct from others' idea. "We" is characterized as a primary state from which "I" and "Thou" are derived through differentiation, namely, as pan-unity. Frank ultimately places these categories in ontological unity under God. I show that in Frank's philosophy, encounter and association with the other as "Thou" is grounded in this ontological concept. On the basis of these theories, we can point out the similarities between Bakhtin's and Frank's philosophy. Both developed the idea of "I" and "Thou" on the basis of the contrast between person and thing. Moreover, it seems that Frank's definition of "We" as a "polycentric system" is similar to Bakhtin's idea of "polyphony." However, there is a decisive difference between them, namely, the ontological premise of the relationship between "I" and "Thou." As stated above, the relationship between "I" and "Thou" is ensured by the ontological concept of "We" as pan-unity in Frank's philosophy. On the other hand, the ontological premise of Bakhtin's dialogue is the idea of "outsideness" (вненаходимость). I conclude that this idea is incompatible with the idea of pan-unity. However, there seems to be a disagreement concerning the interpretation of Bakhtin's idea of outsideness. Some scholars, including me, think that there are some differences between the idea of outsideness and the idea of pan-unity. Therefore, they consider Bakhtin's philosophy to be distinct from traditional Russian philosophy. Others think that there are some similarities or connections between them. Therefore, they consider Bakhtin's philosophy to be influenced by traditional Russian philosophy. By considering the differentiation between "monological outsideness" and "polyphonic (dialogical) outsideness," which was proposed by Bakhtin, I intend to provide a solution for this seeming disagreement. Finally, on the basis of these arguments, I consider not only how Bakhtin's idea of person and thing can be appreciated in comparison with Frank's idea, but also how the idea of outsideness as the ontological premise of Bakhtin's dialogism can be appreciated in comparison with the ontological idea of pan-unity, unique to Russian philosophy.

著者

林 忠行

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究 (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.30, pp.71-94, 1982-10-28

著者

阿部 賢一

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究 (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.52, pp.99-117, 2005

---

There are many writers who write in a different language from their native one. This bilingualism is a political intention which reveals the power balance of languages; not a few writers choose a more major language over a minor one. Nikolaj Terlecký (born in Saint-Petersburg in 1903, died in Zurich in 1998) is one of the exceptions in this regard, for the reason that he made a decision to write his works not in Russian, his mother tongue, but in Czech, his acquired second language. Generally speaking, we could call him simply a "Russian émigré who wrote in the Czech language." But this is not the only reason that his name rarely appears in references to "Czech literature" or "Russian literature in exile." In this paper, the author tries to define the place of Nikolaj Terlecký within the broader context, especially by discussing his final work Curriculum vitae, published in Prague 1997. In order to understand this autobiographical text, we should also understand his whole life. The life of Terlecký was characterized by certain changes from one pole to another: dwellings, languages and nationalities. After spending his childhood in Saint-Petersburg, he settled in the Caucasus where his father served in the Russian Army. With the outbreak of the Revolution in 1917, he tried to join the White Army despite the fact that he was still 14 years old. It was not long before he had to move to Istanbul with other soldiers. In 1921, Russian refugees in Istanbul received an offer that the government of Czechoslovakia would accept them as political refugees. This financial support made it possible for Terlecký and other Russian students to move to Moravská Třebová, a germanized village in Czechoslovakia. Since the financial support for Russian refugees in the early 1920s was focused particularly on education, with the aim of sending educated Russians back to Russia, Prague was known as the "Russian Oxford"; the city where the academic élite of the Russian empire congregated. For the émigrés, there was a choice to be made: should they abandon their Russian identity and try to assimilate? Or, should they attempt once again to find a new and welcoming place of residence? Among these identity problems, Terlecký regarded Russia, his motherland, as "Atlantis," i.e. "a beautiful place, but one which has already disappeared." He tended to join Russian literary circles such as "Skit poetov" organized by Alfred Bem. Nevertheless, his first novel provoked no reaction from Russian friends; Terlecký had to seek other stimuli in Czech society. In the early 1940s, when Prague became a protectorate of the Reich, Terlecký encountered many Czech intellectuals such as M. Majerová, V. Nezval, J. Dudl, and others. These figures, influenced by Russian trends, sought a private teacher of Russian and found Terlecký to be a good one. This encounter posed Terlecký with the dual difficulties of his reception in Czech society. For example, Majerová as a representative activist was willing to translate his Russian texts to Czech, to help to find a publisher for his first work and to find a job as a translator for Z. Fierlinger, the first Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia after World War II. Unfortunately, the critics did not know how they should categorize Terlecký: he was neither a Czech writer, nor a Soviet one. At that time, it was impossible to call him a Russian writer in exile for political reasons. This is one reason why the relationship with these representatives of Czech socialist literature forced him into a tight corner. After the coup d'etat in 1948, most of his ex-friends became official representatives of Czech culture and simultaneously severed their connections with Terlecký. These circumstances left him in a very difficult position, because he was on the "black list" of Czech literature, but he did not belong to Soviet literature. His second exile to Austria and Switzerland would be interpreted as a quest for liberty or a search for his own identity, called only by his name. Since he could not assimilate into the Czech community, he was forced to find his own land. As Jan Vladislav says, Terlecký made a choice to "be a stranger in the unknown place, even though he became a stranger in the homeland where he was adopted." This reflects on his choice of language; the choice of the Czech language is connected with the ideal that Czechoslovakia as a democratic state would not eliminate the possessor of different thoughts. In the late 1940s when assimilation into the Russian community had already become chimerical, Terlecký could not continue to write any more in Russian, which to him signified merely a piece of nostalgia. On the other hand, Czech was the language of the place where he was adopted; Terlecký attempted to write in Czech and continued to do so until his final years. This is no longer a question of assimilation; however it reveals the question of identity as "an émigré," not that of ethnicity. Thus we could treat him as a denationalized writer, i.e. as a writer who transcended the categories of a particular national literature. He concludes Curriculum vitae with this passage: "as everybody has his own fate and his own fingerprints, no one will have the same fate." It would be less productive to categorize him in the so-called "literature in exile." Similarly, it would be less important to cram him into the "national" literature such as "Czech" or "Russian in exile." The importance of Nikolaj Terlecký lies elsewhere. Terlecký goes beyond such categories. His works show us the possibility of reading and that of perception. In order to compare this aspect, it would also be useful to mention an affinity with the theory of "the quest for multiplicity" which Alexis Carrel evoked in Man the Unknown. In this respect, Curriculum vitae is not a mere autobiography but a text where the writer tries to maximize his own ego, especially representing many alternatives in his life, particularly an alternative called "exile."

著者

西山 克典

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

「スラブ・ユーラシア学の構築」研究報告集

巻号頁・発行日

no.3, pp.37-57, 2004-07

著者

北見 諭

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

「スラブ・ユーラシア学の構築」研究報告集

巻号頁・発行日

no.12, pp.53-74, 2006-03

著者

岩本 和久

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラブ・ユーラシア研究報告集

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1, pp.59-71, 2008-12

---

共産圏の日常世界. 望月哲男編

著者

根村 亮

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

「スラブ・ユーラシア学の構築」研究報告集

巻号頁・発行日

no.25, pp.81-96, 2008-03

著者

倉田 有佳

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

「スラブ・ユーラシア学の構築」研究報告集

巻号頁・発行日

no.17, pp.67-80, 2006-09

著者

根村 亮

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究 (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.39, pp.181-209, 1992

著者

中嶋 毅

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究 (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.41, pp.217-244, 1994