A renowned historian, Evgeny Tarle (1874–1955) was famously preoccupied with literature. His ‘eternal companions’ included Pushkin, Lermontov, Nekrasov, Dostoevsky, Saltykov-Shchedrin, and L. Tolstoy. Another notable fact is his ambiguous attitude to contemporary Russian and Western literature. Tarle was a keen reader of Pascal, Schopenhauer, Vladimir Solovyov, and Rozanov, among others. His literary and particularly epistolary legacy features a few exceptionally perceptive and brilliant characteristics of writers and philosophers, many of which are published here for the first time. Tarle maintained a wide circle of literary acquaintances. He was a close friend of the authors Tatiana Bogdanovich, Tatiana Shchepkina-Kupernik, and Evgeny Lann – recipients of his most interesting letters. Tarle was also well acquainted with several literary scholars and critics, including S. Vengerov, P. Shchegolev, A. Gornfeld, K. Chukovsky, B. Eichenbaum, Y. Oksman, and others. Conveying shrewd observations on literature, Tarle’s comments on the subject also provide insights into the scholar’s own personality and work.

Treatment of the notion ‘world literature’ is complicated by the problematic character of its components. This fact, in turn, prompts the need to challenge the approaches to the study of world literature, e. g. whether it can be defined by poetics, and if so, in what way would the latter be special? The everpersistent attempts to define world literature as a subject of a special mode of reading (D. Damrosch) or through the concept of distant reading (F. Moretti) are a clear indication of the demand for poetics as an art of reading a text, replacing the hitherto dominating cultural studies on the scholarly agenda. Both historical and comparative poetics are considered in terms of their potential applicability and development. Today, scholars are increasingly interested in the concept of historical poetics, originating in A. Veselovsky’s works. To test the application of historical poetics, the author suggests his way of reading the main plot of E. Zamyatin’s oeuvre, from the story Alatyr , which mythologizes Russian reality, to the world-famous dystopia We [ My ] in a world literary context.

Treatment of the notion ‘world literature’ is complicated by the problematic character of its components. This fact, in turn, prompts the need to challenge the approaches to the study of world literature, e. g. whether it can be defined by poetics, and if so, in what way would the latter be special? The everpersistent attempts to define world literature as a subject of a special mode of reading (D. Damrosch) or through the concept of distant reading (F. Moretti) are a clear indication of the demand for poetics as an art of reading a text, replacing the hitherto dominating cultural studies on the scholarly agenda. Both historical and comparative poetics are considered in terms of their potential applicability and development. Today, scholars are increasingly interested in the concept of historical poetics, originating in A. Veselovsky’s works. To test the application of historical poetics, the author suggests his way of reading the main plot of E. Zamyatin’s oeuvre, from the story Alatyr , which mythologizes Russian reality, to the world-famous dystopia We [ My ] in a world literary context.

The article analyzes the principles behind the dominant subject of O. Slavnikova’s books, which relies on a flexible scheme built from several recurrent motifs and examines the relationship between talent and fate, the latter understood as an unplanned course of events. Invading the character’s plans, fate forces an ordeal on its victim, often subduing them completely and toying with them capriciously. It acts through a double (often a grotesque copy of the protagonist), destined to ruin the original. In a world of reflections and distorted mirrors, a person is split up into a myriad of invariants, no longer able to distinguish the truth. Slavnikova’s novels also feature a special type of character: an unconventional (gifted/strange) person in imposed circumstances, normally deprived of freedom of choice because life seems to be guided from above, with any action requiring fate’s ‘authorization’. On the whole, the dominant plotline reveals contemporary individual fears and challenges which define the way of life in Slavnikova’s creative universe.

E. Pogorelaya discusses two contemporary books with the children theme: A. Ivanov’s Food Unit [ Pishcheblok ] and X. Buksha’s Opens In [ Otkryvayetsya vnutr ]. Both focus on the problem of children’s relationship with grown-ups, as well as coming of age and the discovery of a mature self, shown as a trial that the characters must undergo. In his novel that breaks away from the logic of classic Soviet young-adult literature, Ivanov depicts the ordeal as a fight against the vampires who have taken to frequenting a children’s summer camp and use it as their ‘food unit’, while Buksha’s collected stories are about children deprived of adult help and care. Buksha and Ivanov could not be more different: they have different stylistic methods and philosophy; their work is based on dissimilar experiences and character backgrounds. Both writers, nonetheless, maintain that only through internal maturity one can overcome existing threats to personality and family. The possibility for a person to reconcile their inner adult and child selves is the problem that Buksha and Ivanov are trying to resolve. In addition to the coming-of-age stories, their books centre on rebuilding a child’s relationship with the outside world.

One of the last interviews given by Andrey Bitov, often considered a founder of Russian Postmodernism, before his death. His books are a symbiosis of knowledge (of history, culture, and literature) and play, which is perceived as the driver of alternating meanings constantly undergoing a transformation. The idea behind the conversation was not only to clarify the questions left unanswered upon the reading of Bitov’s epic Empire in Four Dimensions [ Imperiya v chetyryokh izmereniyakh ] and other books, but also to identify the foundations of the writer’s views. In one of his last interviews, Bitov discussed his vision of Russia’s imperial identity and Russian mentality, the Soviet regime and the Soviet period, Stalin’s role in history, his attitude to the West, the Russian language, secrets of his books and his favorite authors. Bitov reminisced about his trips to the Soviet republics of Georgia and Armenia, as well as his friendship with R. Gabriadze and G. Matevosyan. The writer offered his original vision of the development of Russian literature in the 19th c. in light of his fascination with astrology.

The essay is devoted to the memory of the critic, philologist and Dostoevsky scholar Karen Stepanyan. His long-time friend T. Gevorkyan carefully reconstructs their encounters as well as episodes of Stepanyan’s personal and scholarly biography: from their first meeting as first-year philology students of Yerevan university to their city walks in Moscow in the 2000s; from Stepanyan’s early student papers and essays on theatre to his later books – To Realize and to Say: ‘Realism in the Highest Sense’ as Dostoevsky’s Creative Method [ Soznat i skazat: ‘Realizm v vysshem smysle’ kak tvorcheskiy metod F. M. Dostoevskogo ] (2005), The Visitation and Dialogue in Dostoevsky’s Novels [ Yavlenie i dialog v romanakh F. M. Dostoevskogo ] (2010), and Dostoevsky and Cervantes [ Dostoevsky i Servantes ] (2013), and to the publication of the almanac Dostoevsky and World Culture [ Dostoevsky i mirovaya kultura ]. While Gevorkyan devotes plenty of attention to Stepanyan’s scholarly legacy and carefully maps its milestones, her essay primarily serves to portray his persona, that of a close and untimely departed friend.

T. Kasatkina’s reminiscences of K. Stepanyan discuss his strategies as a researcher and a human being; she describes his principles behind launching the almanac Dostoevsky and World Culture [ Dostoevsky i mirovaya kultura ] and his priorities for research and analysis of Dostoevsky’s oeuvre. According to Kasatkina, the decision to publish the almanac was initially driven by Stepanyan’s ambition, but turned out to be an exercise in humility, recognition of the value of other scholars, and the ability to take on a supporting role. It was exactly this skill –appreciation of another person’s value (the value of their work, opinion, and line of thought) – that shows in the books of his later years, with their astonishing bibliographies, and the ability of scholarly thought to develop into a dialogue with numerous others, without losing its unique determination and consistency. Here, Kasatkina believes, lies the solution of the truly Christian problem, which often features in Dostoevsky’s works, and therefore, shows faithfulness to one’s own principles, the principles of Christian interaction with reality and scholarship.

An acquaintance of Mandelstam’s from the pre-revolutionary Koktebel
period, baron Kusov resurfaces in the poet’s life in the early 1920s. In their
detailed research of the baron’s biography, the authors mention his graduation
from the Page Corps, his brilliant career in the Chevalier Guard Regiment and
success in the highest noble circle, his knowledgeable appreciation of music and
ballet, his enthusiasm for theosophy, and a keen interest in Ancient Egypt. Based
on their detailed analysis of documented evidence and Mandelstam’s text, the
authors discover undeniable biographical and character-specifc similarities
between the baron and Parnok, the protagonist of The Egyptian Stamp
[Egipetskaya marka]. However, they still admit that Parnok is a complex character
combining the features found in a number of Mandelstam’s acquaintances.

The work touches on the popular concept of the relationship between society and the writing process, suggesting the relevance of certain ideas stemming from Karl Marx for the study of the Shakespearean legacy. Marx’s idea that creative potential shines at its best in society, and that personal freedom emerges through interconnectedness of individuals, rings new and up to date in the modern world and for Shakespearean studies in particular. Through examples taken from Shakespeare’s plays and examination
of professional organization of literary research in the form of academic journals and international associations, this paper argues that the Marxist image of society helps to consider literary creativity from a new viewpoint. Invoking the latest discoveries in the feld of Shakespeare biography and professional practices, especially his extensive collaboration with other playwrights, the article demonstrates how ideas of the two great thinkers and writers, Shakespeare and Marx, interact in the sphere of the best contemporary
literary-critical practices.

The article is concerned with the interaction between M. Aldanov and M. Gorky in Petrograd in the years 1914 to 1918, hitherto unexplored by literary historians. The author focuses on the ideological positions and philosophies of the two writers and intellectuals, both of them prominent advocates of the pro-Western movement of the Russian Silver Age thought. On quite friendly terms before the 1917 October revolution, they used to share similar views of the literary process. But on exiting from the revolutionary crucible, the two became implacable opponents in ideological as well as literary matters. Among other things, Gorky spoke derogatively of Aldanov’s historical novels. The article focuses on Gorky’s and Aldanov’s respective critical receptions of the literary legacy of the 19th-c. Russian writers. Aldanov’s veneration of Tolstoy provoked Gorky’s skeptical response. At the same time, both expressed profound dissatisfaction with F. Dostoevsky’s work, pointing out his ‘pochvennichestvo’ sympathies and the tendency to portray Russians as mentally ill.

The article is concerned with the interaction between M. Aldanov and M. Gorky in Petrograd in the years 1914 to 1918, hitherto unexplored by literary historians. The author focuses on the ideological positions and philosophies of the two writers and intellectuals, both of them prominent advocates of the pro-Western movement of the Russian Silver Age thought. On quite friendly terms before the 1917 October revolution, they used to share similar views of the literary process. But on exiting from the revolutionary crucible, the two became implacable opponents in ideological as well as literary matters. Among other things, Gorky spoke derogatively of Aldanov’s historical novels. The article focuses on Gorky’s and Aldanov’s respective critical receptions of the literary legacy of the 19th-c. Russian writers. Aldanov’s veneration of Tolstoy provoked Gorky’s skeptical response. At the same time, both expressed profound dissatisfaction with F. Dostoevsky’s work, pointing out his ‘pochvennichestvo’ sympathies and the tendency to portray Russians as mentally ill.

The article offers a new interpretation of the heroic theme in V. Sirin’s novel Glory [ Podvig ] (1932). The protagonist’s ‘deed’ was not only to show personal courage, but also to fulfil the secret and unabated desire of all Russians scattered across the world (including the author) to return to their country. Nabokov’s/Sirin’s realization of the heroic is based on the threedimensional model of existence, characteristic of mystical metaprose, where the reality of the physical world is fertilized by the author’s metaphysical epiphanies and recorded in the reality of the novel’s text. Glory’s uniqueness also stems from the fact that the character’s inner world is three-dimensional too: of all Nabokov’s characters, Martin Edelweiss is the first to gain such an experience in full. As far as the personality traits are concerned, the protagonist is a very close imitation of V. Sirin himself. Although lacking a talent for writing, Martin still shows a budding skill for prose. All in all, the narrative model creates an illusion of the character and the author blending almost completely.

The review deals with a book devoted to Petersburg poetry and its connections to the 20th-c. history. Andrey Ariev believes that profound humanity is the dominant feature of Petersburg literature. He also considers the Russian intelligentsia tradition yet another Petersburg phenomenon. Ariev specially dwells on the poetic tradition of Tsarskoye Selo. The author discusses works by Blok, Mandelstam, G. Ivanov, Adamovich, and Nabokov, focusing on the poets’ creative interaction, as well as conflicts and polemic episodes. Ariev also sketches portraits of his poetic contemporaries, D. Bobyshev, V. Sosnora, A. Kushner, and S. Stratanovsky.

The review considers A. Rudalyov’s book 4 Shots [ 4 vystrela ], devoted to the ‘new realism’, a trend in 2000s Russian literature, and more specifically, works of four ‘new realists’: Z. Prilepin, R. Senchin, S. Shargunov, and G. Sadulaev. The reviewer criticizes the author for an incomplete and biased presentation of ‘new realism’, which had been a focus of intense discussions among literary critics and scholars for over a decade. The same flaw blights the descriptions of the four chapters’ respective protagonists: Prilepin, Senchin, Shargunov, and Sadulaev. Rudalyov ended up writing a panegyric, albeit with very sparse language, mainly by repetition of flattering epithets from the press. He failed, however, to address the discussion of the ‘new realism’ by critics or supply a review of literary theoretical research on the subject. Therefore, the reviewer finds the book lacking in any historical-literary and philological value.

The review is devoted to the fourvolume collection of works by the famous Russian philologist and cultural historian B. Tarasov, incorporating an œuvre created during a 25-year long scholarly career. The architectonics of the volumes reflects the scholar’s understanding of the intellectual and cultural processes in Russia and Europe as a whole. The scholar suggests that ideas are primarily personalized, a result of a person’s lifelong experience, perception of historical events, and reflections upon reading. At the same time, as they part with their creator, ideas and images begin their independent journey in culture, enriched with new meanings and development.

Review of the collected essays Literature and the Gods (2001), based on Roberto Calasso’s Weidenfeld Lectures at Oxford. As a major theme of his studies, he examines the relation between myth and modern consciousness. Noting the interest in ancient gods, observed since the 19th c., as well as the keenness to generate a ‘new mythology’, Calasso recreates the romantic and post-romantic myth about literature, taking a close look at ‘absolute literature’. The research material was selected from poems and letters by Hölderlin and Mallarmé, Baudelaire’s polemic article Pagan School , Lautreamont’s The Songs of Maldoror , works by Schlegel and Nietzsche, and ancient Indian texts, etc. Among those who traced the progress of absolute literature Calasso names Baudelaire and Proust, Hofmannsthal and Benn, Valéry and Auden, Brodsky and Mandelstam, Tsvetaeva and Yeats, Borges and Nabokov, Calvino and Kundera. Calasso absolutely deserves the name of a master of secret knowledge, and thanks to Anna Yampolskaya the heuristic energy of his artistic and critical thought can finally be experienced in Russian.