Khrenov Nikolai Andreevich,
Doctor of Philosophy, Professor,
the Gerasimov Russian State
University of Cinematography
e-mail: nihrenov@mail.ru

Paradoxes of Oblivion and Revival of Ideas
in Human Science (Bakhtin and Lukacs)
(Part 2 (Ending))

Abstract. The article traces the history of aesthetic views of Mikhail Bakhtin and Georg Lukacs, the former’s ones having experienced a lack of interest followed by an explosion of scientific interest, the latter’s ones - vice versa. The author investigates reasons of such irregularity in professional attitude towards both researchers.

Keywords. Philosophy, aesthetics, literary studies, Marxism, the theory of novel, the individual and the social.
 

[30] Freudenberg O. Poetics of Plot and Genre. М.: Labirint, 1997. P. 11.
[31] Ibid. P. 12.
[32] Lukacs G. Specificity of the Aesthetic. Vol. 4. М.: Progress, 1987. P. 374.
[33] Lotman Yu.M. The Sign in the Cultural System // Lotman Yu.M. Selected Articles: 3 volumes. V. 1. Articles on Semiotics and Typology of Culture. Tallinn: Alexandra, 1992. P. 192.
[34] Derrida J. On Grammotology. М.: Ad Marginem, 2000. PС. 129.
[35] Kristeva Yu. Selected Works: The Destruction of Poetics. М.: ROSSPEN, 2004. P. 420.
[36] Eliade М. Mefisto and Androgyne. SPb.: Aleteya, 1998. P. 362.
[37] Kristeva Yu. Cit. op. P. 491.
[38] Ibid. P. 403.
[39] Khrenov N.A. The Will for the Sacred. SPb.: Aleteya, 2006.
[40] Dilthey W. Hermeneutics and the Theory of Literature // Dilthey W. Collected works: 6 volumes. Vol. 4. М.: Dom Intellektualnoy Knigi, 2001. P. 267.
[41] Bazaine J. The History of History of Art. From Vasary to Nowadays. М.: Progress, 1994. P. 129.
[42] Yakimovitch A. The Age of Staggering Creations. From the History of Art and Reflections of the 20th Century. М.: Galart, 2009.
[43] Freudenberg O. Op. cit. P. 11.
[44] Besançon A. The Forbidden Image: An Intellectual History of Iconoclasm. М.: MIK, 1999. P. 243.
[45] Merezhkovsky D.  L. Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. Eternal Companions. М.: Respublika, 1995. P. 135.
[46] Ibid. P. 135.
[47] Ibid. P. 66.
[48] Zemlyanoy S.N. A Victorious Defeat. Georg Lukács’s Unwritten Book on Dostoyevsky // Questions of Literature. . 2009. № 1. P. 15.
[49] Lukacs G. Specificity of the Aesthetic. Vol. 4. М.: Progress, 1987. P. 372.
[50] Ibid. P. 402.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Ibid. P. 457.
[53] Ibid. P. 449.
[54] Ibid. P. 450.
[55] Ibid. P. 459.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Ibid. P. 460.
[58] Lukacs G. Specificity of the Aesthetic. Vol. 1. М.: Progress, 1985. P. 135.
[59] Ibid. P. 119.
[60] Ibid. P. 125.
[61] Ibid. P. 173.
[62] Lukacs G. The Young Hegel and the Problems of Capitalist Society. М.: Nauka, 1987.
[63] Lukacs G. Specificity of the Aesthetic. Vol. 2. М.: Progress, 1986. P. 196.
[64] Lukacs G. The Theory of Novel // Literary Critic. 1935. № 2. P. 218.
[65] Lukacs G. Specificity of the Aesthetic. Vol. 1. М.: Progress, 1985. P. 28.
[66] Ibid. P. 37.
[67] Ibid. P. 38.
[68] Shklovsky V. On the Theory of Prose. M.-L.: Ardis Publishers, 1925. P. 163.
[69] Bakhtin M. Freudism. A Formal Method in Literary Studies. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Articles. Labirint, 2000. P. 187.
[70] Ibid. P. 331.