Поэтические трансформации азиатского мифа

Abstract

There arе two points of view оп the relationship between Russia and Asia. Оnе is to see Asia as intimidating and the other, as аn alternative to Western culture.

Solov'ev views Asia ап oppressive power in the Christianity-centered world outlook in the former viewpoint. Не considers Asia as а power of barbarism and evil, and Asian elements of Russia as the punishment of Christ. Gurnilev, who regards Western Europe as аn evil, selfish third party and includes Russia in Asia, insists оп Asian Russia in the latter viewpoint. Gumilev, though he favors Asian Russia, unlike SoIov'ev who directly criticizes Asian barbarism, still cannot be exempted from profaning other lands from а Russia-centered angle. This leads to discover Solov' evian elements of racial discrimination in Gurnilev.

Brodsky, оn the other hand, looks upon Asia as whatever oppresses liberal-democracy and individual liberty, i.e. а metaphor of collectivism. Не, at the same time, emphasizes the similarity between Russia and Asia. His dual viewpoint саn bе understood as а new interpretation of the "myth of Asia", the sublated form of SoIov' ev' s viewpoint that fears and excludes Asia and Gumilev's that professes Eurasianism.