{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026442307692307692, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.245, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
STENDHAL, PUSHKIN, GOGOL: TOWARDS THE METAPHYSICS OF A MONUMENT

The metaphysical motif of the monument in the works of Pushkin and Gogol is compared with Stendhal’s monument philosopheme. The article demonstrates the ideatorial and material, spiritual and tangible aspects of the motif in the works of these authors, as well as its connection with the historical element in culture and daily reality.The monuments in Pushkin’s ode and Gogol’s Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends [Vybrannie mesta iz perepiski s druziyami] is perceived by the two authors through the dichotomy of culture as opposed to civilization. It was on Russian soil that Pushkin and Gogol further developed the cultural-historical and philosophical-historical pathos of Stendhal’s observations, moving in the same romantic/post-romantic flow.The author infers that, in his Monument [Pamyatnik], Pushkin preserved and uncovered his creative self as a combination of the spiritual and the tangible. By contrast, Gogol’s late works show his attempts to evade such preservation or to use ambiguous ways to imply the existence of his morphed self. Indeed, Gogol did not ‘repeat’ Pushkin, but only in the constant inner dialogue with the poet amid history in motion.