The article sets out to analyze the relationship between the imaginary and the real in the psychological introspection of the characters in F. Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment [Prestuplenie i nakazanie] and characterize the method used by the writer to portray their inner universe as an imaginary world. The study reveals that the principal functionality of Raskolnikov’s imaginary world is determined by the fact that his inner realm embodies and objectifies a viewpoint. The character’s perspective, identified by the author at its various levels of representation, emerges as a stratum of virtual reality open to Raskolnikov through self-reflection. It is suggested that such an imaginary world is objectified and perceived by a character through their senses, even if it is not revealed to others. Depiction of a character’s inner realm with the help of the narrator’s informing position is supplemented with a demonstration of the character’s values creed apparent as an imaginary world.

The article deals with The Master of the Day of Judgement (1923), a novel by the Austrian expressionist writer Leo Perutz that has been tentatively described as a psychological murder mystery. Drawing on E. Meletinsky’s studies, specifically, his definition of neomythologism, the article considers the book’s various mythologizing techniques. Typical of modernism, such techniques as leitmotifs, allegory, and personification are used to convey the characters’ growing perception of fear as a living creature. Additional meanings are discovered in the references to such landmark works as Shakespeare’s Richard III, Büchner’s Danton’s Death, and Wagner’s cycle The Ring of the Nibelung. It is argued that the novelist uses Wagner’s method of allegory to create a mythologized image of fear, but, unlike Wagnerian images with their entirely universal meaning, Perutz’s allegory denotes the uniqueness and individuality of human mind.

The article is dedicated to the phenomenon of the latent experiment with ‘reconstruction of empathy’ in D. F. Wallace’s works. The study focuses on the psychoanalytic session represented in the short story ‘Octet’ (its vignette entitled ‘Pop Quiz 6A’), used by Wallace to highlight the phenomenon of absent or fading empathy in contemporary humanity. The method of a psychoanalytic session, successfully applied to establish the psychopathic or non-empathic inclinations of the characters in ‘Octet,’ is an essential ingredient of modern literary discourse with its revision of postmodern constants and transition to metamodern trends. The article boasts an extensive bibliography, featuring works of literary criticism, studies of empathy, neuropsychology and neurobiology, emotions, the problem of human indifference, and bibliotherapy. In the conclusion of the analysis, the author argues that Wallace pioneered the type of literature concerned with reconstruction of deconstructed values and the return of the empathic literary hero.

The article examines the prose of the Saint-Petersburg-based philologist and writer A. Astvatsaturov: in focus are its key motifs, images, and archetypes. E. Shcheglova points out that without any risk of missing an important insight into the protagonist’s psyche, a reader is free to disregard the books’ chronological order — their protagonist remains the same, be it in the inaugural People in the Nude [Lyudi v golom] (2009), or in the latest Don’t Feed or Touch the Pelicans [Ne kormite i ne trogayte pelikanov] (2019), or the two novels published in between, Skunkamera [Skunskamera] (2010) and Autumn in My Pockets [Osen v karmanakh] (2015). The image of the protagonist — a world-weary, fickle, and spoilt descendant of generations of intellectuals — becomes the principal subject of Shcheglova’s study. Her analysis of Astvatsaturov’s writings seeks to detect when the image directly corresponds to the narrator’s true self, and when it is merely a disguise. While recognizing the masterful execution of the novels, Shcheglova nevertheless remarks on their facetiousness and lack of variety — inevitable consequences of the writer’s known fondness for the genre of anekdot.

An exercise in close reading, the article explores D. Danilov’s novel Sasha, Hello! [Sasha, privet!] through critical reviews and perceptions of the novel and Danilov’s works in general. The critic considers the book in its axiological and ontological aspects as a reflection on life and death. While he found death abhorrent in his earlier works, Danilov reconsiders in 2022 and begins to perceive it as life’s successor — a ‘journey.’ His novel Sasha, Hello! serves as a philosophical bridge that spans the two concepts. The theme of death is instrumental in creating the book’s imagery and plot structure. In parallel to the philosophical quizzing about life and death, the novel portrays the modern society of ‘dead souls.’ The characters in the novel — professors, writers, and religious workers — appear prejudiced and petty-minded: people who have lost any concept of the true scale of human character. Critics have described Danilov’s novel as a humanistic dystopia. It is also possible to interpret it as a dystopia of liberalism, which robbed ‘progressive’ humanity of the notion that life and death are two legs of the same journey.

The article analyzes the motif of parody (in Bakhtin’s terms, ‘the world inside out’), which offers the key to an accurate historical-genetic interpretation of many characteristics specific to the novel as a genre. In the fourth chapter of his Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics [Problemy poetiki Dostoevskogo], Bakhtin describes carnivalesque life as one that is thrown off its usual track and somewhat resembles ‘life inside out,’ ‘the world in reverse,’ or ‘monde à l’envers.’ The same chapter contains Bakhtin’s claim that the origins of the motif go as far back as the Hellenistic and Roman traditions, and the Middle Ages and Renaissance. The article traces the genesis of the motif and its role in the 12th- and 13th-c. French romances, suggesting that, like Dostoevsky’s works, they could provide Bakhtin with examples of characteristics typical of Menippean satire. Supplementing the article are Bakhtin’s hitherto unpublished working notes on Menippean satire which were prepared for publication by N. Dolgorukova and S. Sandler.

The authors analyze N. Bonetskaya’s monograph and the two volumes of M. Bakhtin’s works she prepared for publication. In her book Bakhtin as a Philosopher [Bakhtin kak filosof ], Bonetskaya attempts a holistic reconstruction of Bakhtin’s philosophical-aesthetic and literary-critical legacy. The authors acknowledge Bonetskaya’s independent viewpoint and well-founded arguments, while also pointing to a few drawbacks in her study. The two volumes containing Bakhtin’s own works compiled and commented by Bonetskaya have distinct scholarly value. Her comments and footnotes piece together a coherent and uncontroversial system of Bakhtin’s ‘first philosophy’ and discover the way it determines Bakhtin’s writings in the 1920s and 1930s, and resurfaces in the 1960s and early 1970s. The reviewers find that Bonetskaya’s books are noteworthy milestones in modern Bakhtin studies and will provide relevant insights for subsequent analyses of Bakhtin’s legacy and preparation of new comments to his texts.

The genre of a writer’s questionnaire is dismissed as marginal by high literature. It is, however, extremely useful to a researcher when it comes to garnering a rich body of historical and literary material. The article contains the first scholarly publication of the Russian section of the ‘International survey of populism,’ printed in the Parisian monthly La Grande Revue from October 1930 to February 1931. The writers who responded to the survey came from diverse generations and strata of Russian émigré literature: M. Aldanov, I. Bunin, B. Zaytsev, N. Gorodetsky, A. Ladinsky, V. Nabokov, M. Osorgin, M. Struve, I. Surguchyov, and V. Fokht. With rare exceptions (Struve and Surguchyov), the responses demonstrate the writers’ unanimous rejection of the class-based approach in literature and loathing of the populists’ openly leftist ideology, the bias of their obsolete aesthetic programme, and, prominently, the idea of subjugating artistic individuality to any doctrines. This incident of émigré writers’ collaborating in the French press complements the history of Franco-Russian cultural ties and throws light on the way Russian authors perceived such problems as literary movements, aesthetic agenda, and social mandate.

The article introduces the publication of the three fragmented contributions to the event known in the history of literary studies as the ‘crisis’ of comparative literature. It was memorably initiated by René Wellek in his review (1953) of ‘littérature comparée’ brought out in the Sorbonne according to the principles worked out there and in the first half of the 20th c. universally adopted. Its ‘old factualism’ was rejected by Wellek, who claimed to advance a comparison with a broader cultural perspective, based on deeper analogy studies, as typology was known then. One of the standing issues in the evolution of the comparative method is a changing notion of world literature in its relation to national literatures. Special attention in the article is paid to the ideas found in Russian comparative studies that seemed productive at the time of the crisis though did not enjoy expansion when the ‘crisis’ seemed over. Thus, the name of Aleksandr Veselovsky and his historical poetics are in demand only now, when a new search for ideas in the field of comparative studies seems to be launched.

The publication contains the first Russian translation of René Wellek’s famous critical essay penned in response to J.-M. Carré’s preface to M.-F. Guyard’s Comparative Literature [La Littérature Comparée]. Wellek challenges Carré’s method, which he finds both limiting and overly inclusive. The former argues that, on the one hand, French comparatists uphold the positivist approach and are governed by neutral scientism, and on the other, ambitiously proclaim the creation of comparative cultural psychology. Wellek argues against such convergence of literary scholarship with cultural history, sociology, and psychology. As a remedy, he proposes a holistic method of studying literature that does not distinguish between general and comparative history of literature. It is also free from an obsolete stipulation that comparison can only be drawn between works of different national origins and whose historical relations are easy to verify.

Henry H. Remak established his reputation as one of the active and productive participants in the comparative literature ‘crisis’ events, and it is no wonder that his extensive contribution prefaced the summing-up issue of the Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature (1960, Vol. 9, pp. 1–28) where the discussion started five years earlier. A Jewish émigré to the USA from the fascist Germany, Remak stood in the position that provided him an opportunity to bring together the approach and ideas advanced by American and European scholars. Ready to acknowledge the former French achievement, he avoided the extremes of its ‘old factualism’ and adopted a broader cultural position supported by analogy studies. He closed his article pinpointing general tendencies and embraced among them some Russian ideas concerning translation (the Russian formalists, Zhirmunsky) and ‘transition in cyclic stages’ (Plekhanov); though not directly, but through Gleb Struve, Remak was introduced to Aleksandr Veselovsky’s poetics of plot and his ‘theory of borrowings.’ Remak closes his article in hopes of growing cooperation in comparative literature, when many new factors would be brought in to provide a multidisciplinary character to this approach.

The publication presents the first Russian translation of an extract from René Etiemble’s book Reasons of Comparative Literature, or, Comparison is Not Reason [Comparaison n’est pas raison] — an important milestone in the history of exploring the comparative method and its potential and limitations in the study of literature. In his disputes with fellow scholars M.-F. Guyard, G. Ascoli, and R. Vivier, who studied the evolution of literary genres and images of foreign cultures, which every nation forms in its own way, Etiemble formulates his idea of the tasks of comparative studies. These include analysis of temporal and spatial stretches that see factual interrelations exhibited in their fullness. The book’s most urgent appeal is for comparatists to stay focused on literature in its original meaning. Advocating a prudent balance between historical research and critical self-reflection, Etiemble recognizes the need for a system of invariants (constants, invariables) capable of extricating modern literature from chaos and confusion. In an age where the aesthetic norm is rejected, the comparative method must contribute to the creation of modern-day aesthetics.

Following decades of research and scholarship by A. Geleskul and N. Malinovskaya, the collection of Spanish folk poetry Tree of Song [Derevo pesen] was published in 2024. Poetic texts of various genres from various regions of Spain are grouped in the six sections of this bilingual compilation. The review closely examines the strategies used by Geleskul for translation of cante jondo and Extremaduran songs. The translator adapts the Spanish original to the realia of Russian verse, focusing on specific semantic emphases and overall musicality of the text. Also analyzed are Geleskul’s comments of an essayistic rather than a scholarly nature. Tree of Song is the first attempt in years at getting an insight into Spanish folklore in the Russian language, making this book invaluable for contemporary Spanish studies in Russia

The review is concerned with the unique 13-volume collection of works by the Czech writer, journalist, and translator Jiří Weil (1900–1959), published by the Prague-based Triáda press under the general editorship of Michael Špirit, professor at Charles University. A brief analysis of the five already published volumes reveals the period in Weil’s life that was closely connected with the USSR: his regular publications in the Czech left-wing press covered Soviet literary and cultural events; for two years, he was stationed in Moscow as a translator for the Comintern, eventually spending months in political exile in Central Asia. For the first time in years, the new collection features Weil’s entire journalistic output concerning Soviet reality, literature, and culture. In addition, it contains a specially commissioned scholarly commentary of Weil’s unique novel Moscow-Border [Moskva-hranice] (1937), set in 1930s’ Moscow and with foreigners as protagonists.

The collection comprises 28 papers written in the wake of the scholarly conference hosted by the University of Pannonia (Veszprém, Hungary) in 2021 in celebration of the bicentennial anniversary of Dostoevsky’s birth. The book’s objective is to accomplish a comparative study of his works and determine their influence on the worldview of the region’s literature and culture, as well as identify current and potential areas of Dostoevsky studies. Papers in the first section contain semantic and intertextual analyses of Dostoevsky’s artistic images, motifs, and ideologemes. The second section deals with the reception and interpretation of Dostoevsky’s oeuvre in Hungary. Papers in the third section examine Dostoevsky’s influence on Hungarian ideology and literature and draw parallels between works of European (F. Nietzsche, R. M. Rilke, L. Rebreanu, J. Andrzejewski, E. T. A. Hoffmann) and Hungarian (Dezső Kosztolányi, Zsigmond Móricz, and Géza Gárdonyi) literature — and Dostoevsky’s texts. The final section explores the constant exchange between Pilinszky’s poetry and Dostoevsky’s writings.

The book by the modern Iranian philosopher Amir Nasri, Skin for Skin, is devoted to the study of Dostoevsky’s novels in an interdisciplinary context. Dostoevsky’s oeuvre exercises an enormous influence on the cultural life of Iranian intellectuals. The book opens with the chapter ‘Russia against Westernism,’ which contains a history behind Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment [Prestuplenie i nakazanie]. The second chapter deals with the influence of Balzac’s novels on Dostoevsky and compares Dostoevsky’s and Pushkin’s ideas. The third chapter focuses on the characters of Crime and Punishment. Nasri emphasizes that Dostoevsky’s ‘metaphysical realism’ aligns well with existentialist ideas. The book’s title, Skin for Skin, is a reference to the Book of Job. According to the philosopher, the meaning of the expression ‘skin for skin’ is an appropriate summary of the idea behind Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment

The review discusses the first monograph to be published in Russia that studies Shalamov’s poetry in the context of the Russian Silver Age and the subsequent artistic traditions. Krotova’s book addresses the gaps in the historical and literary assessment of what is an outstanding example of 20th-c. Russian poetry. The study offers an in-depth analysis of the plot structure of Shalamov’s poetry, pinpoints the aesthetic and ethical-philosophical paradigm of his oeuvre, and examines the principal leitmotifs characterizing Shalamov’s worldview. The author traces the artistic origins of Shalamov’s poetry and explores its numerous connections with works by A. Akhmatova, O. Mandelstam, N. Gumilyov, A. Blok, and other modernist poets. Shalamov’s poetic legacy is viewed through its close correspondence to his prose and biography. A feat of scholarship, the book employs new methods of studying Shalamov’s works as well as the artistic systems of 20th-c. Russian poetry and its relations to earlier traditions