SEMANTICS OF SPACE AS A METAPHYSICAL CATEGORY IN RUSSIAN CLASSICAL PROSE

Authors
  • Gulchekhra Israilovna Berdikulova

    Lecturer, Department of Russian Language and Literature Karshi State University

    Author

Keywords:
metaphysical space; Russian classical prose; ontology of the artistic world; spatial semantics; chronotope; philosophy of literature; inner space of the character; symbolic topography; Russian metaphysical tradition.
Abstract

The article examines space in Russian classical prose as a metaphysical structure that determines the modes of a character’s existence and the laws of artistic reality. The analysis draws on contemporary scholarly discourse on spatiotemporal models, presented in the reports of the conference “Space and Time in Russian Literature and Philosophy”, where the chronotope is interpreted not as a compositional device but as a form of ontological experience. The focus is placed on the interaction between the real and the transcendent levels of space, manifested in the works of Gogol, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Turgenev, and Chekhov.
The methodological framework is based on the concepts of Bakhtin, Florensky, Ukhtomsky, and Losev, whose works make it possible to interpret space as a carrier of profound meanings related to anthropology, historical sensibility, and the spiritual topography of the Russian world. Spatial configurations in classical prose are interpreted as transitional zones between the visible and the hidden, between factual events and their metaphysical foundation. In Dostoevsky’s texts, space registers the tension between the human soul and the ultimate states of being; in Tolstoy, it shapes the modeling of historical time; in Turgenev, it becomes a mediator between natural and internal rhythms; in Chekhov, it transforms into a structure marked by the disintegration of meaning and experience.

References

1.Бахтин М. М. Формы времени и хронотопа в романе // Вопросы литературы и эстетики. — М.: Художественная литература, 1975. — 234–407 с.

2.Лотман Ю. М. Структура художественного текста. — М.: Искусство, 1970. — 384 с.

3.Флоренский П. А. Иконостас. — М.: Мысль, 1993. — 318 с.

4.Ухтомский А. А. Доминанта. — СПб.: Питер, 2002. — 320 с.

5.Лосев А. Ф. Диалектика мифа. — М.: Мысль, 2001. — 558 с.

6.Гаспаров М. Л. Завершение анализа художественного текста. — М.: РГГУ, 1997. — 248 с.

7.Топоров В. Н. Пространство и текст // Миф. Ритуал. Символ. Образ. — М.: Прогресс, 1995. — 624 с.

8.Аверинцев С. С. Поэтика ранневизантийской литературы. — М.: Наука, 1977. — 286 с.

9.Ханзен-Лёве А. Русский символизм. Система поэтических мотивов. — М.: Языки русской культуры, 2003. — 528 с.

10.Бочаров С. Г. О художественном мире русской классики. — М.: Языки русской культуры, 1996. — 352 с.

11.Эткинд А. М. Хлыст: секты, литература и революция. — М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 1999. — 448 с.

12.Мелетинский Е. М. Поэтика мифа. — М.: Наука, 1995. — 408 с.

13.Пятигорский А. М. О философии литературы. — М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 2001. — 312 с.

14.Левин Ю. И. Избранные труды по семиотике и истории культуры. — М.: Языки русской культуры, 1998. — 448 с.

15.Минц З. Г. Поэтика русской литературы. — М.: Прогресс-Традиция, 2001. — 432 с.

Downloads
Published
2026-06-09
Section
Articles
License
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

SEMANTICS OF SPACE AS A METAPHYSICAL CATEGORY IN RUSSIAN CLASSICAL PROSE. (2026). Eureka Journal of Language, Culture & Social Change, 2(6), 156-163. https://eurekaoa.com/index.php/3/article/view/1191