The writer Vladimir Korolenko (1853–1921) and literary critic Igor Dedkov (1934–1994) became witnesses and active participants of Russia’s two ‘fateful’ historical upheavals: one at the beginning of the 20th c., and the other at its end. The article examines the values system of the civic stance assumed by these preeminent literary figures at the time of such opposite political U-turns. Quoted in the article are V. Korolenko’s journals and his letters to A. Lunacharsky. The article analyses I. Dedkov’s perception of Korolenko’s works as expressed in his diaries from the 1950s–1980s and journalistic pieces. The author comes to a paradoxical conclusion that while Korolenko and Dedkov represented nominally antagonistic political systems, their ultimate goals do not contradict each other. United by the ideals of narodnichestvo, Korolenko and Dedkov abhorred the changes brought about by the contemporary revolutions, which explains the heavy political charge of this paper.

The article focuses on the dispute in writing between Demian Bedny and Artyom Vesyoly: namely, on D. Bedny’s invective ‘While we were thinking…’ [‘A my-to dumali…’], published in Izvestiyain 1928, and A. Vesyoly’s response ‘My answer to the literary hero’ [‘Moy otvet literaturnomu geroyu’], circulated the same year as a letter to literary organizations and editorial offices of periodicals. Using this hitherto unpublished material, the article compares Bedny’s feuilleton with Vesyoly’s epistolary response and characterizes the two authors’ social standing and beliefs, their creative principles and fates. Elevated to the rank of ‘the great proletarian writer’, second only to M. Gorky and bestowed with numerous awards, D. Bedny was losing every trace of artistic individuality under the heavy pressure of political and moral conformism. Whereas A. Vesyoly, a rebel and romantic, rejected conformism and was determined to follow his own path of searching and daring experimentation. The dispute between the two authors about the nature of talent and the integrity of a writer was finally resolved by a ‘mediation court’; time was the ultimate arbiter.

It has become mainstream in the 21st c. for literature to shift its focus from ideology to the way of life and the person, towards a symbiotic coexistence of fiction and memoirs. The article considers several variations of the contemporary ‘literature.doc’: from autopsychological prose, with E. Limonov as its likely founder, to in-between genres originating in Facebook posts and sketches of real life. In her comparison of different invariants of modern documentary and semi-documentary literature, the author finds that, from the artistic viewpoint, autopsychological prose has a structure unlike that of a classical autobiography or classical prose. The new genre aims to establish a direct contact, through perceptions and suggestion; having said that, ‘literature.doc’ is very much devoid of any social or moral agenda. It describes objects within the author’s field of vision, but lacks in generalization and typology and misses out on alternative viewpoints differing from that of the author which enrich the work’s dimensions and dialogue quality. Development prospects of ‘literature.doc’ are concerned with the aesthetic and philosophical realization of the category of ‘the other’.

The article presents a survey of readers’ demand for books and periodicals conducted in Moscow libraries in 2018, which analyzes readers’ tastes and preferences. The most in-demand serious fiction writers include E. Vodolazkin, A. Ivanov, Z. Prilepin, A. Rubanov, D. Rubina and G. Yakhina. The author enumerates the reasons for a particular writer, book or journal to keep their top position in the readers’ ratings over a long period of time. Also described are writers’ advertising strategies, as well as the influence of television and screen adaptations on readers’ demand for new books. Noviy Mirhas long established itself as the main thick literary journal. The article also raises the issue of dwindling circulation of literary journals, and offers advice to writers, editors, publishers and librarians about promoting their products. As a separate topic, the article examines a growing demand for translated literature (published, among others, in Inostrannaya Literatura), as well as for children’s books.

In her interview with the critic and scholar A. Skvortsov, the poet I. Ermakova discusses modern poetry, its authors and processes. Starting as a conversation about the poet’s artistic evolution and mentioning her work as a translator, author of regular publications in various think journals, and her numerous poetic prizes, the interview gradually moves on to examining the contemporary poetic reality, which Ermakova describes as ‘the era of Oleg Chukhontsev’. She argues that the value of Chukhontsev’s poetry lies in its absolute precision of word choice and accurate and truthful depiction of familiar reality. In such an attempt to display the world undistorted, modern poets turn to related art forms, up to the cinematic, however few reach this level.

The interview, therefore, provides Ermakova’s assessment of the contemporary literary environment, her views on how one can join the literary process, and contemplations about the problem of the reader of modern poetry: whether they exist, and who they are.

Examining the dynamics of the imagery in Vladimir Gandelsman’s poem ‘A day in September’ [‘Den’ v sentyabre’], the article assesses the effects of metaphtonymy as the core method that creates its meaning. Metaphtonymy is defined as interaction of metaphor and metonymy, which becomes a main tool for uncovering various interpretations of a single text. Gandelsman’s poetic experiments are of special interest due to his skillful implementation of a finely nuanced psychologism by a variety of means, often uncommon, in the field of the poem’s imagery and semantics. The development of the system of images and conditionality of their dynamics reveal the ways to shape varying interpretations, all thanks to the poet’s careful and competent treatment of words. It is through the metaphtonymic shift that the reader’s attention is drawn to the interpretation that’s closest to him/her, while the use of ancillary methods of repetition and coupling within the general poetic metaphtonymy generate polysemantics. Multidimensionality in the semantic field of the text is the leading trend in the modern poetic paradigm.

Devoted to the poetry of I. Volgin’s later years, the article introduces his two latest books, Personal Data [Personalnie dannye] (2016), and Explanatory Dictionary [Tolkovyi slovar] (2019), and points out the changes in his lyrical poetry in the 2010s. The authors especially focus on Volgin’s language, which admits the latest slang but also follows classical examples, something which typifies the language of modern literature. The ‘new’ Volgin adopts the parlance of his protagonist, a product of contemporary mass media, who is at the same time endowed with certain autobiographical features of a self-reflecting hero. The result of this code-mixing is contagious: rooted in 19th c. culture, it can express both those overtones and the present mixture of seriousness and irony. Most importantly, however, it can read a man’s life like a text, and see nature within a cultural context. In Volgin’s works, these two worlds are mutually accessible, and this feature of his poetry is one of the keys to modern poetry in general.

A ‘practical’ look at Batyushkov’s poem ‘You are awake, oh Baia, from the tomb…’ [‘Ty probuzhdaeshsya, o Bayya, iz grobnitsy…’] by means of musical and vocal performance allows its further analysis with interspersing elements of synthesis. When employed jointly, a recital and analysis of a poem determine a combined plan of its examination and offer a deeper view of the poem’s structure. A vocal recital implies consecutive emergence of words in a poem, but can also activate a (largely subconscious) inner interpretation, nonlinear and with varying sequences of lines and words. While Y. Lotman’s work mainly focuses on the systems of assonances and consonances, this article deals with more sophisticated sound complexes. In a holistic poetic recital, with accentuated syllables and repetitions, one can perceive formations of separate musical parts, accompanied by something close to musical compositions. The author shows how a recital of a whole text can then help to discern separate recurrent and transforming symbolic elements. The author devised a method of ‘the inner plastic theatre’, which he employs in order to study the system of different movements within Batyushkov’s poem.

In its examination of M. Gorky’s play The Old Man [Starik] (1917) the article deals with the question of whether a person’s discretion to judge another human being conforms to Christian ethics. The article approaches the problem, first of all, in the sense of one’s understanding of the meaning of life in the context of one’s past and present, and, secondly, in relation to the events of Russian history between the revolutions of 1905 and 1917, the first year of the Bolsheviks’ dictatorship. In addition, the author draws parallels with other types of ‘old men’ in Gorky’s books. The main node of the plot is presented as a merger of three topics: the passing and purpose of a human life, the (im)possibility for a man to judge another man, and manifestation of faith. The author highlights the differences in the writer’s treatment of the Old Man from the eponymous 1909 vignette, where he is shown in the modus of personal choice, and the Old Man from the play, using the epic modus of time and fate. The author argues that the play returns the same verdict to the society as in Gorky’s Untimely Thoughts [Nesvoevremennye mysli] (1917–1918), in which he analyzes the chaos of the revolution and peoples’ abuse of discretion.

A chapter from the forthcoming biography of Cherubina de Gabriak, the paper discusses personal and artistic relationships between the three principal female poets of early 20th c. Russia. In reality, the age of female lyrical poetry began with the publication of Cherubina de Gabriak’s works in Apollonin 1909; the story influenced A. Akhmatova and M. Tsvetaeva. While Akhmatova, due to biographical circumstances, cared very little for the personality and works of de Gabriak, and ostensibly distanced herself from de Gabriak’s lyrical protagonist, Tsvetaeva, by contrast, expressed keen interest in Cherubina’s poems and even drew on her poetic subjects and imagery: e. g. in ‘On a Red Steed’ [‘Na Krasnom kone’]. On the whole, both Akhmatova and Tsvetaeva saw Cherubina as a precursor who had a good ear for the main symbols and questions of the time, but left some of those questions unanswered for others to finish the task.

The article is an excerpt from the biography of the Russian writer, historian and collector of curiosities F. Dmitriev-Mamonov, to be published by B.S.G.-Press. The fragment considers three hitherto undisclosed episodes of his life: the 1770 criminal investigation of Mamonov’s attempted poisoning by the writer and former lecturer of the Land Gentry Cadet Corps Johann Fonberg, who had worked as his personal librarian for two months; followed by problems with his mental health in the 1780s, when he began suspecting that his closest family were plotting to kill him and began to subject his serfs to harsh punishments; and, finally, his donations to Moscow University in May 1770, in February 1772 and, probably, in November 1779, which consisted of a collection of medals, copies of P. Lippert’s engraved gems, and the portrait of field marshal P. Saltykov. All three instances appear connected: the donations coincide with three major incidents in Mamonov’s life (the attempted poisoning, a bad wound sustained in Chudov monastery during the suppression of the Plague revolt, and official proceedings against him for cruel treatment of serfs), which forced him to contemplate his mortality and the need to plan for the future of his collection.

The article considers the female type of an émancipée as a marker of artistic historism in A. Pleshcheev’s socially oriented story Vocation [Prizvanie] (1860) and I. Turgenev’s multiple-level novel Fathers and Sons [Otsy i deti] (1862). The author shows the typological and individual interpretations of female emancipation by the two peers. The article reveals how the progressive aspirations of ‘the young intelligentsia’, ‘the people of the 1860s’, are debased by incidental rituals and cultural staging, as epitomized in the émancipée characters of Krzhechinskaya and Kukshina. The author argues that both works approach the ‘women’s problem’ as a relevant issue in the social and cultural context of the 1860s, and analyze manifestations of mock progressiveness in the form of alternative cultural models of behavior, very typical of the collective practices among ‘imitators’ of ‘the new social forces’. Pleshcheev and Turgenev contrast genuinely new cultural modes of behaviour with ostentatious and mocking ‘cultural staging’.

The author explores different aspects of his work on the Russian translation of Arden of Faversham, a famous play from Tudor period, first published in 1592, and written, and staged apparently several years earlier. Andrey Korchevsky argues why this textbook piece was never translated into Russian language and suggests that the anonymity of the author could play a role in its exclusion from consideration by the Soviet translation school. The context of authorship, in general, seems to be very relevant for the translation process, especially with Shakespeare being named as a ‘suspect’ for participation in the playwriting of Arden (as evinced by the works of McDonald Jackson and Marina Tarlinskaya). Korchevsky illustrates some Shakespearean allusions in Arden of Faversham, including some references to Macbeth and Two Gentlemen of Verona. Some other aspects of the translation process are discussed, including the difficulties in translating contemporary jokes, specifics of Russian pronunciation of the ‘Faversham’ toponym, and unexpected, but pronounced, feminism message of the play.

The article is devoted to the problems of ethnic-cultural perceptions in contemporary Karachay-Balkar poetry. It defines criteria for shaping an ethnic and civic self-identity. The paper discusses how cultural globalization affects the ideology of the Karachay-Balkar people. In a detailed analysis of works by N. Bayramkulov and A. Bakkuev, two poets of a younger generation, the author argues that fundamental values and stereotypes take priority in the poetic mentality of younger artists. Closely examining the themes of the poets’ works – philosophy, religion, history, society and politics – the author specially describes the way each poet deals with the nation’s artistic memory. Another focus is on the analysis of poetics. It is suggested that the young poets’ creative method is found at convergence of realism and mythopoeia. Their poetry centers around the mythical images of stone, water, mountains, and ‘taulu’ (‘a man of the mountains’).

The article tells the story of a memoir about A. Blok written by V. Verigina (1882–1974) and includes a commented version of the notes for her public report ‘Blok and Komissarzhevskaya’s Theatre’ [‘Blok i Teatr Komissarzhevskoy’], delivered on 4 December 1924. The notes add details to the reminiscences of the actress who knew Blok and friends of L. Blok and N. Volokhova. The notes also reveal the date when Verigina began working on the memoirs. Unlike her published texts, the speaker notes contain a direct reference to the poet’s traits of a ‘great man’ (according to Carlyle), and put more emphasis on Blok’s relationship with N. Volokhova, Komissarzhevskaya’s Theatre, and V. Meierhold in the years 1906–1908. The manuscript was preserved in the archive of the Soviet literary critic Evgenia Fyodorovna Knipovich (1898–1988), who belonged to Blok’s inner circle in 1918–1921, and later supervised research at the Association of Blok Studies (under the auspices of the State Academy of Artistic Studies, GAKhN) in 1923–1929, at the time when Verigina presented her report to the Association.

The monograph deals with a subject that is rarely covered by Russian philologists: préciosité and the gallant tradition of 17th c. French culture. The author singles out the French and Russian approaches to interpreting preciousness, noting their differences and the fact that Russian scholars are lagging behind the French on the subject of salon literature. A. V. Golubkov rejects the principle of ‘neutrality’ towards the subject of the study, which is evident from his context-based use of psychoanalytical tools, including the term ‘frigidity’ to describe the social genesis of the gallant tradition and the habitus of préciosité. In his examination of the sources of these French cultural phenomena (‘academy’, ‘préciosité’, ‘gallantry’, and ‘salon’) the author shows their association with types of creative activity, Baroque and Classicism, and oral and written practices of salon culture, and portrays linguistic and genre-specific experiments of the précieuses. He stresses their preference of the salon literary genres over rhetorical skills, identifies elements of dialogue-based poetics, and reveals the principal indicators of a new language art.

The review is devoted to S. Sillars’ book Shakespeare and the Visual Imagination. Sillars introduces the concept of ‘visual imagination’ and examines it through the works of Shakespeare. Other key notions for the study include copia and ethopoeia. Sillars uses them to combine analyses of different Shakespearean plays. In his examination of the playwright’s legacy Sillars employs a variety of methods, which counts as a merit rather than a flaw of this work. However, his arguments justifying a special place for As You Like It and The Winter’s Tale among Shakespeare’s oeuvre are not convincing. In his study Sillars turns to subjects well known to researchers, but also references less common works for comparison (Hypnerotomachia Poliphili ).

The book features Byron’s early poems Hours of Idleness, hitherto unpublished in Russian, as well as selected poems from 1809–1811 and 1816, and Hebrew Melodies. The book is relevant within the context of Byron’s legacy and Shengeli’s work. It is since the late 1980s that Shengeli’s previously unpublished poems have appeared in press, and we are on a path to better understanding the scope of his achievements. The book opens with Vladislav Rezvy’s excellent introduction to Shengeli’s life and work. Despite the article’s many merits, it still fails to discuss one important topic: Shengeli’s perception of Byron, the ‘comprehensive assimilation of the ideas, imagery, style and poetic techniques’ as described by A. Veselovsky in his time.

The monograph by the Canadian scholar Marilyn Orr examines George Eliot’s oeuvre from the viewpoint of theopoetics. The author analyses the writer’s novels in chronological order, paying special attention to the problem of religious influence. The search of the form in the novel Adam Bede is interpreted as a search for ways to implement the writer’s own ideas, while Felix Holt, the Radicalis shown as an attempt to create a non-religious saint; in Middlemarch, the scholar continues, Eliot concentrated on depiction of a priest’s social role in a novel; finally, in Daniel Deronda we see an emphasized prevalence of the characters’ spiritual life over accuracy and truthfulness of narration, breaking the mold of realism. Orr’s methodology opens up new ways to look at the familiar classical texts, but it is not free of certain limitations (detailed examples provided in the review).

T. Venediktova’s ‘The Bourgeois Reader’ As Literary Hero [‘Burzhuazniy chitatel’ kak literaturniy geroy] is a largely revolutionary book, documenting the shift in critics’ focus from the text to its recipient, a trend which became obvious over the past three decades. Venediktova blends her analytical methods into the social and phenomenological tradition of the humanities and calls them sociological poetics. The author contemplates the concept of ‘the bourgeois reader’, cleared of any negative connotations. A bourgeois is upwardly mobile, socially active to a great extent, highly flexible, learns fast and excels in dialogue. Venediktova notes the keen interest on the part of the bourgeois in the idea of exchange and language as a communication tool. She also remarks on the U-turn in literature, traceable since the 18th c., which marks a radical change in the purpose of fiction. While it used to rely on the established taste, aesthetical values, and rhetorical rules, its current goal is to showcase individual experiences and offer their exchange. Venediktova considers principally new strategies of the conversation with the reader, similar to those of Wordsworth, Baudelaire, E. Poe, Whitman, Balzac, Flaubert, and G. Eliot.