The first study to attempt a scholarly interpretation of the well-known fact that Dostoevsky bestowed on The Idiot’s protagonist extraordinary powers of comprehension: not only can Prince Myshkin understand other characters’ utterances, but he sees through their gestures and actions, as well as motives behind those actions. The author identifies the unique features of Prince Myshkin’s hermeneutics, notably his being open to an encounter and his sense of otherness. The dialectics and limitations of Prince Myshkin’s comprehension receive special attention. The article describes the profound connection between the human face, the eyes and an understanding gaze, as it is emphasised in the novel. The comprehension problem in The Idiot is considered in the context of 20th-c. hermeneutics (H.-G. Gadamer) and Russian philosophy (Vyach. Ivanov and P. Florensky), but the author stresses the originality of Dostoevsky’s own interpretation. In addition, the article supplies arguments in favour of the thesis that, on its deep level, comprehension is related to acceptance and is not, therefore, a pure cognitive act; instead, it is a cognitive-existential gesture: we can only comprehend what we can accept.

L. Andreev’s short story Lazarus [Eleazar] deals with death. Having returned with the knowledge of Death, the resurrected Lazarus becomes a Shadow of himself, or the Shadow he experienced There. The publication of Andreev’s Lazarus in 1906 unleashed a heated polemic in the press. Critics tended to see Lazarus in a negative light. The article outlines the opinions of the authors who participated in the discussion of the concept and contents of Lazarus: Z. Gippius, M. Gorky, M. Voloshin, and A. Lunacharsky, among others. The existential dichotomy of life and death offers a key to unlock the secret of the story. The protagonist, familiar with death, refuses to divulge the mystery of the divine revelation: to the world of the living, death shall remain a mystery. Andreev’s oeuvre was always dominated by matters of life and death. Lazarus’ borderline and existential mood is exaggerated to the absurd. The writer perceives death as the sole purpose of life and its metaphysical meaning.

The article is devoted to an eschatological journey, a poetic tackling of the mystery of life and death. In her analysis of the new publications by A. Pereverzin, S. Saprykina and L. Yugay, the author discusses the diverse types of the 2020s’ ‘eschatological poetics’: the traditional Christian variant, the mythological one, which entails a journey to the underworld, and the one based in research; the latter typifies, for example, the poetics in the works by Yugay, who has a background in folklore studies. Exploring the poetics of the aforementioned poets in the context of the lyrical poetic tradition of the 20th and 21st cc., the critic discovers that modern poems on death are largely therapeutic, bringing closer the space of comforting memory — but without classical tragedy or the poignancy of the experience. That world and this world are brought together by soothing memory; it is the category of memory that determines the new poetic mysticism — with a mild flavour of a life’s tragedy offset by a promise of a continued relationship with the departed within a private or familial mythology rather than a traditional clan myth.

E. Pogorelaya’s interview of L. Yugay is built around the overlapping areas of two topics: contemporary poetry and modern philology. Poetic environment is assessed from the standpoint of a folklore scholar and a sociologist; the latest poetry — from the viewpoint of its adherence to traditional genres and ritualistic practices, etc. Among other topics, the interview discusses the unique characteristics of ‘poetic behaviour,’ taboos in modern literature, and the perception of a poetic text by an ‘outsider.’ In this regard, Yugay suggests that the recent scandals around feminist poetry emerge as a reaction to something forbidden: a statement on hitherto taboo topics is now identified as special, and its proverbial vehemence shows that desacralisation is still work in progress. Special attention is devoted to a poet’s biography; according to Yugay, it is losing its meaning as a tool for creation of an ‘artistic product,’ with the author’s biography considered separately from their oeuvre.

The interview of the critic Anna Zhuchkova with the poet, novelist and playwright Dmitry Danilov touches on a number of topics — from the prevalent trends in modern Russian literature to Danilov’s own artistic principles; from ‘new ethics’ to Christian ethics; and from personal to shared responsibility. The interview discusses Russia’s destiny, the country’s past and future, and the role of literature in the life of its people. The conversation also provides an insight into Danilov’s personality. The author of the celebrated plays A Man from Podolsk [Chelovek iz Podolska], What Were You Doing Last Night? [Chto vy delali vchera vecherom?], and Seryozha Is Really Dumb [Seryozha ochen tupoy] talks about his younger days in the USSR, a failed attempt to become a student at Moscow State University, moral principles rooted in Christian ethics, and his favourite books; pondering Russia’s current situation, he comes up with predictions.

The first publication of N. Dmitrieva’s article on Dickens and Dostoevsky. Compared to the plethora of studies devoted to Dickens’ influence on Dostoevsky, Dmitrieva’s work catches the eye as less general and more profound: something that can be described as the memory of Dickensian allusions in Dostoevsky’s novels. This is achieved through ingeniously revealed similarities and dissimilarities of the plot, characters, as well as scenes, details and portrayals that suddenly highlight the connection. Dostoevsky could see Dickens’ creations in his mind almost as if they were alive: that visual synthesis, derived from Dickens’ books, a concentration of his poetry, and an extract of his ideas — all that the genius of an artist selected, transformed and compressed down to a few lines. Artistic reformatting of plot-related material, substitution of individual scenes with generalised images of Dickens associations in Dostoevsky’s mind and how the latter projected those on Russian reality, Russian problems and his own insights and contemplations — all of this makes this study stand out in the sea of comparative analyses.

The article explores the function of Shakespeare’s words as quoted by two characters of David Copperfield — David and Micawber. Each showing excellent memory of Shakespeare’s works, the two heroes embody opposing borrowing strategies. Whereas David carefully judges if the narrated subject matches a Shakespearean quote in its semantic and expressive power and may choose to adapt or altogether reject it upon reflection, Micawber borrows from Shakespeare almost unconsciously, at the same time showing a particular weakness for the most memorable and tragic lines. This inapt quoting oſten reduces Micawber to a bombastic thespian. The characters’ dialogue with Shakespeare is, in turn, one in which Dickens, famously fond of his great predecessor, is engaged himself through his novel. It appears, therefore, that the Shakespearean field brings the author closer to his characters. The novel’s references to Shakespeare’s plays which are analysed in this article were mentioned in V. Gager’s catalogue, yet remained hitherto unexplored in the comparative context and with regard to the novel.

Hitherto untranslated into Russian, P. J. Jouve’s Hecate (1928) not only interprets myths about the mysterious Greek goddess, doing it in the guise of a love-and-crime chronicle, but also represents the author’s unique attempt to construct a work of fiction on the principle of permanent self-destruction. Y. Muratov sets out to examine the novel’s plot and structure in the first study of its kind. According to the scholar, Jouve, in full adherence to modernist laws and simultaneously experimenting with them, purposely destroys his narrative, turning the destruction into a method: just as the characters in Hecate cannot be sure who they are and try to see themselves in other people’s reflections, the reader is deprived of the means to tell who they are reading about — neither quotation marks, nor the dialogue form, nor context offer any point of reference. Interestingly, Jouve does not play with grammatical person in order to shift the viewpoint of the narration, as in ordinary narrative practice, but to dismantle classical narration and immerse it in the process of creation, luring the reader into a kind of Plato’s cave of linguistically symbolical metafiction.

The article demonstrates how Susanna Clarke utilises the principally unstable genre attributions in Piranesi to guide the reader to comprehension of the ideas at the core of contemporary European thinking: otherness, the plurality of opinion, truth as a matter of opinion, acceptance of the Self, equality in diversity, and the prerogative of heart over mind. Clarke proceeds with a successful study of human nature through the prism of ‘otherness.’ Starting off with the traditional interpretation of ‘Another’ as alien, Clarke leads the reader towards a more edgy and relevant interpretation of the problem — searching for Oneself in Another and for Another in Oneself. The relativist paradigm in the novel is realised through a polyphony of consciousnesses. Changing voices allow the reader to identify the genre and related philosophical viewpoints in order to test each of them on the novel’s events. Searching for genre-specific keys to Piranesi’s labyrinth, the reader turns to the author for help. However, Clarke chooses the form of an unreliable narrator, modelling the situation with the search for a way out of the labyrinth in real life too.

The author reflects on her personal acquaintance and pen friendship with Zoe C. Escobar (1948–2021), an American ‘one-book writer.’ Escobar’s own biography and the writing process behind Beyond Cuckoo’s Nest: The Art and Life of William ‘Sonny’ Sampson, Jr., her book on the Muscogee Creek Indian cowboy, actor and artist, are presented in the form of lively conversations between herself and the author of the article, accompanied by depictions of the private life of Native Americans in the period spanning the second half of the 20th and the early 21st cc. The article particularly focuses on the origin of the nonprofit American Indian Registry for the Performing Arts in Hollywood, founded by Escobar, who also served as its first executive director, as well as Escobar’s personal and work relationship with the actor, artist and Native Americans’ spiritual leader Will Sampson, whose most memorable role was that of Chief Bromden in M. Forman’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. The author of the article chooses the format of a case study to explore several technical aspects of the creative process and construct Z. Escobar’s and W. Sampson’s psychological portraits.

A Dovlatov scholar, G. Dobrozrakova writes about the literary work
of Dovlatov’s aunt — literary secretary of O. Forsh, journalist and editor Margarita Dovlatyan (Dovlatova) — the prototype of a character in his book Ours [ Nashi]. The scholar carefully examines M. Dovlatova’s biography, particularly dwelling on her friendships with poets and writers (O. Bergholz, M.Zoshchenko and others) and her years at the journal Kostyor and the literary organisation LITO, which united young authors like A. Bitov, V.Golyavkin, A. Kushner and other aspiring writers from Leningrad. Dobrozrakova quotes numerous documents from the 1950s–1960s, including private correspondence, in order to emphasise the role Dovlatova played in the literary setting of the ‘Thaw’ era, especially as assistant and literary secretary to Olga Forsh (Dovlatova helped Forsh with her business and private correspondence, accompanied her on trips, and assisted with the publication of her works), whose books, in turn, were an influence on Dovlatov’s prose.

Yury Dombrovsky did not leave any journals or memoirs. His life story can be gleaned from letters, criminal case files and other official records, as well as reminiscences of his friends and autobiographical prose and poetry. This publication of a previously unknown complaint is highly significant: first of all, it contains the writer’s description of his personal odyssey during the Stalin era and offers a concise yet informative summary of events spanning a long period of time (1920s–1940s) and their background; importantly, it covers his time in the labour camp, of which very little is known. With few exceptions, e.g., the extract entitled ‘From the Notes of Zybin’ from his novel The Keeper of Antiquities [ Khranitel drevnostey], Dombrovsky avoided remembering this period or writing about it. The complaint to the Prosecutor General of the USSR survived in the case file of the fourth criminal proceedings started against Dombrovsky in 1949. The complaint mentions famous personalities, writers and literary critics. The comments to the publication draw on a vast body of documents including Dombrovsky’s criminal case files.

The 8th volume of the new 23-volume complete works and correspondence of N. Gogol contains both sets of the surviving chapters of the second part of Dead Souls. In contrast to the previous scholarly edition (1935-1952), the team of Gogol scholars of the Institute of World Literature of the RAS, headed by Y. Mann, revised the approach to the source of the main text in favour of the so called ‘under text’ of the manuscript, known since 1849from its reading by the author to his friends; compared with the‘overwriting,’ it appears more comprehensive, artistically complete, and stylistically consistent. It is the first such publication that reduces conjectures to a minimum, in keeping with contemporary principles of scholarly publications. The book’s indisputable value lies in its extensive reference section, which features a detailed table of contents to ease navigation of the references, as well as a chapter on the Divine Comedy as an alleged prototype of Dead Souls.

The review discusses the collection of papers submitted for the international scholarly conference ‘Maxim Gorky: Russian ideological contexts and Italian realia,’ which took place in Italy, hosted by L’Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici in Palazzo Serra di Cassano, Naples. Articles by Russian and Italian scholars appear in two sections — ‘Maxim Gorky and Russian ideological contexts’ and ‘Maxim Gorky and Italian realia’ — and are printed in Russian and Italian. The papers are accompanied by bilingual abstracts. The volume contains an extensive supplement with excerpts from the early-20th-c. Italian periodicals concerned with Gorky and his stay in Italy. The book ends with a bilingual author bio section. The monograph is an example of high-quality book printing, with some of the papers featuring excellent illustrations. It unites Russian and Italian scholars to uncover new contemporary focuses in the studies of Maxim Gorky’s legacy.

The review deals with the new edition of Khochu rebyonka! [I Want a Baby!]— a play by LEF’s most prominent playwright Sergey Tretiakov. It is for the first time that two versions of the play — before and aſter the cuts made by censors — are published. T. Hofmann and E. Ditschek carefully examine discrepancies between the two versions of the play and the film libretto it inspired, as well as archived records of the play’s discussions that involved Meyerhold, Terentiev, and other prominent figures of early Soviet theatre. It seems that the only disadvantage ofthe book is its poor adaptation for aRussian reader; explanatory notes oſten read as if copy-pasted from the German publication. Perhaps, the most exciting part of the book is Tretiakov’s explanations of his plot and transcripts of the play’s discussions at Repertkom (the Main Repertoire Committee). As a result, the book comprising two versions of the play, the author’s comments, opinions of Tretiakov’s contemporaries and comments of modern scholars emerges as a discussion of Tretiakov’s discussion play.

This collection of readers’ letters addressed to a single author is the first such publication in Russian studies of literature. The book features various readers’ feedback on M. Sholokhov’s novels And Quiet Flows the Don [ Tikhiy Don] and Virgin Soil Upturned [Podnyataya tselina], as well as several chapters of They Fought for Their Country [ Oni srazhalis za Rodinu]. The introduction details the social background of the correspondents: industrial and agricultural workers, Red Army soldiers, teachers, and Russian émigrés. To compensate for Sholokhov’s missing responses, the book quotes his thoughts about the reader, whom he contrasted with official literary critics. The book concludes with N. Kornienko’s article arguing that in the 20th c., the reader becomes directly and meaningfully involved in the literary process. The reviewer finds that the book offers a stereoscopic view of the reader’s attitude towards these outstanding works of 20th-c. literature.

The review is concerned with two books by Alison Chapman, professor of English at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (USA). In her first book, Chapman offers a new interpretation of J. Milton’s Paradise Lost in the context of 17th-c. English legal discourse. Chapman demonstrates that precise understanding of early European law is necessary to perceive one of the poem’s key problems— that of theodicy, summarised by Milton in the very first lines as one of his major tasks— to vindicate God’s ways in the eyes of people. The monograph mentions such characteristics of historical jurisprudence as its isolation from other disciplines, the so-called legal history ghetto. It is particularly true for interaction between legal practices and religion — the two fields that exchanged nourishing energies during Milton’s day; something barely imaginable today. Chapman’s second book focuses on Milton’s political treatises, showing how Milton achieves his goals through references to Roman, common or ecclesiastical law.

I. Lunina’s monograph deals with the realisation of a triad ‘man — nature — civilisation’ in Jack London’s artistic world. Lunina employs a method that addresses the problem of the genre, describing London’s artistic world as a conglomerate of artistic worlds of his short stories, novels, and journalism. The analysis of his novels, primarily The Sea-Wolf, The Star Rover, The Iron Heel, and Martin Eden, as well as Stories of the North and Stories of the South and sketches, prompts a conversation about London’s profound understanding of the unique character of the interactions between nature, culture and civilisation, and of their power to affect the self-identification of a human being in an ever-changing environment.

A review of the third book by Erich Auerbach that has been translated into Russian. The publication differs from the original, compiled by the German culturologist M. Bormuth, The Scar of Odysseus. Horizons of World Literature [Die Narbe des Odysseus: Horizonte der Weltliteratur]. Along with the first chapter of Mimesis (‘The scar on Odysseus’ leg’), the Russian edition also contains its final chapter ‘The brown stocking.’ The essays and selected correspondence appear in Russian for the first time. Auerbach’s essays on M. Montaigne, G. Vico, Dante, Virgil, and M. Proust demonstrate the panoramic view of literature from Homer and the Bible to modernism. Fourteen letters, including those addressed to W. Benjamin, E.Panofsky, T. Mann, and M. Buber, focus on exile, a topic on which Bormuth expounds as early as in the introduction. Bormuth’s explanatory notes for each letter help readers to understand the relationship between the correspondents as well as the historical background.