The article discusses A. Chekhov’s mission-stating short story ‘The Man in a Case’ [‘Chelovek v futlyare’]. According to the scholar, while copious literature has been written on ‘The Man in a Case,’ it mostly examines the story’s ideological content, which limits the appreciation of the work’s true value. Zholkovsky analyzes the story’s constituents, considering various intertextual, contextual, and causative elements and leitmotifs. He notes, for example, that Chekhov’s short story has endowed Russian vocabulary with at least four firstclass memes unhindered by verbal exoticism: ‘a man in a case,’ ‘I hope it won't lead to anything,’ ‘marriage is a serious step,’ and ‘to bury people like that [Belikov] is a great pleasure.’ These, argues the scholar, introduce the principal leitmotifs of the short story and owe their longevity in the reader’s memory not only to their direct meaning (cited in the order of appearance, they summarize the plot), but also to the fact that the carefully chosen language incorporates them into a holistic narrative. It is with this holistic tapestry of words that Zholkovsky’s study is ultimately concerned.

Published in 1846, and as such the writer’s second independent work, Dostoevsky’s novella The Double [Dvoynik] is among his oeuvre whose profound ideological (and often artistic) value has been downplayed or denied completely. The article sets out to address the persistent problem of The Double in contemporary studies of literature and propose a possible solution. Ryabchinsky argues that Dostoevsky explores the topic of a doppelgänger with deliberate reference to Gogol and Hofmann as an established and recognizable cultural code. However, instead of merely reproducing the code, the writer enriches it with new meanings essential for Dostoevsky’s intention, which is to follow the progress and to clear up the personality of an ‘underground man,’ whom he views as an embodiment of depravity. Ryabchinsky suggests that Mr Golyadkin’s character foreshadows the later Dostoevsky’s ‘underground’ types like Svidrigaylov, Ivan Karamazov, and others.

The article discusses the work of Anna Chukhlebova, a young prose writer, shortlisted nominee for the 2022 Lyceum award. In focus of this study are her collection of short stories An Easy Way to Quit Satanism [Lyogkiy sposob zavyazat s satanizmom] (2022) and the novel Widow [Vdovushka] (2024). Efremova describes Chukhlebova’s achievement as a definitive summary of the ‘new thirty-year-olds’ prose and the entire metamodernist poetics: her subjects include a gothic novel without vampire clichés; the apocryphal Mother of God’s walk through torment in the world deprived of any belief in mothers of god; rural magic; a contemporary urban romance; and Russian existentialism. In addition, the critic lists such distinguishing features of Chukhlebova’s prose as its carnivalesque quality, mock psychologism, deliberate avoidance of typification, and colourfully pleonastic language characteristic of Southern Russia. The critic argues that the young writer abhors discrimination guided by societal norms — anything that enforces generalization and pigeonholing of individuals. Chukhlebova’s primary concern as a writer is to discover the hero’s true self, their living soul, and reveal it to the reader.

The article is devoted to the prose of E. Manoylo, a prominent author from the ranks of the ‘new thirty-year-olds’ (millennials). Manoylo instantly captivated readers with her first novel, Father is Looking to the West [Otets smotrit na Zapad] (2022), whose female protagonist suffers unfair treatment in the extremely patriarchal world of a rural settlement near the border with Kazakhstan. Also analyzing Manoylo’s other novel, The Wind Sweeps Away Dead Leaves [Veter unosit myortvie listya] (2024), the critic finds that, while an organic extension of the millennials’ prose, the author’s writing remains unique in its treatment of subjects and ingenious plot twists. For instance, the first novel explores the topic of domestic abuse, which looms large in Manoylo’s works, in the context of a Kazakh village, thus introducing a clash with a traditional culture into the conversation about this relevant problem, while the second novel is evocative of the notorious case of the Khachaturyan sisters. According to Antonova, Manoylo’s novels are structured as classical stories of a modern-day emancipated Scheherazade aimed at the archetypal Shahryar, a dead but still relevant model of patriarchal culture.

The article offers a systematized overview of the aesthetic principles of new poetry, described as neoclassical by the London-based contributors of the magazine The New Age in their articles and books in the early 1910s. As key points for the systematization, the critic chooses the authors’ determination to contrast new poetry with 19th-c. aesthetic dogmas (Romanticism) and their fascination with political conservatism under the influence of L’Action Française, whose Bergson-inspired ideas of the purpose of creative work and the term for the new poetic phenomenon The New Age authors borrowed. The article studies the following sources to glean ideas about new Classicism: T. E. Hulme’s magazine publications and lectures, E. Pound’s articles and The Spirit of Romance (1910), J. M. Kennedy’s English Literature, 1880–1905 (1912), and comments by A. R. Orage and F. S. Flint. Rather than a distinct ideological or artistic phenomenon, ‘new Classicism’ is perceived as a ‘new classical spirit,’ the zeitgeist that stimulated modernist poetry in the 1910s.

Y. Lotman’s In the School of Poetic Word: Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol [V shkole poeticheskogo slova: Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol] was published by the Moscow-based ‘Prosveshchenie’ publishers in 1988. By the 1980s, Lotman had already authored several monographs: those featured his research of culture, biographies, and verse, but were missing a dedicated study of the historical-literary process. Lotman first contemplated a book on that subject as early as the second half of the 1960s. In the 1970s–1980s, the scholar enjoyed productive collaboration with the Leningrad branch of ‘Prosveshchenie,’ having three of his books printed there: Analysis of Poetic Text [Analiz poeticheskogo teksta] (1972), A. S. Pushkin. A Writer’s Biography [A. S. Pushkin. Biografiya pisatelya] (1981), and A. S. Pushkin’s Novel Eugene Onegin. A Commentary [Roman A. S. Pushkina ‘Evgeny Onegin.’ Kommentariy] (1983). All three were meant for use in an academic setting. A new such book (with the subtitle ‘a teacher’s book’) was published by ‘Prosveshchenie’ in Moscow in 1988. The article demonstrates that, with the book’s publication, the scholar’s plans for a literary-historical monograph from twenty years before finally came to fruition.

The article reproduces, and comments on, a hitherto unknown internal review penned by M. Gasparov in response to D. Maksimov’s second volume of V. Bryusov’s collected works that was ready for publication in 1987. The reviewer not only critiques certain aspects of the book’s structure and contents but suggests a serious conceptual revision of the entire collection. The fact that the manuscript contains D. Maksimov’s marginalia, turns the document into a form of a dialogue between the two scholars. Presented in the article is effectively an abridged version of Gasparov’s and Maksimov’s scholarly ‘correspondence.’ The main bone of contention was that Maksimov strove to demonstrate Bryusov’s development, i. e., the evolution of his creative thought. By contrast, Gasparov wished to emphasize the fact that Bryusov functioned in two equally important capacities: as a poet and creator as well as a theoretician of versification. Gasparov, therefore, insisted that the poet’s legacy should be represented in connection with his theoretical experimentations with form. Maksimov rejected Gasparov’s suggestions detailed in the review, which nonetheless remains of interest for the study of the two approaches to textual criticism.

A hitherto unknown short story by the foremost Russian modernist poet Vladislav Khodasevich was discovered in the Astrakhan-published newspaper Volga (No. 5 dated 11 February 1908). The story was never printed elsewhere, nor can it be found in the author’s later collections or editions of complete works. In his scholarly foreword, A. Bik-Bulatov, who made the discovery, explains that the short story ‘Death’ [‘Smert’] belongs in the earliest period of Khodasevich’s literary endeavours and provides a valuable insight into the early stages of his poetic journey. The story is also interesting because it mentions place names in the environs of Bologoe, a town of some significance in Khodasevich’s biography, and represents a rare example of the poet’s artistic interpretation of the area. ‘Death’ belongs to the stratum of Russian literature devoted to rustic carnival mysteries. Prof. A. Skvortsov hypothesizes that the short story is a covert parody of L. Andreev’s prose, and defines its genre as a poem in prose.

The article draws on the author’s speech notes and comments prepared for the first reprint of M. Osorgin’s Essays on Modern Italy [Ocherki sovremennoy Italii]. Osorgin’s book discusses Italian literature by giving an overview of D’Annunzio’s and Pascoli’s poetry, Fogazzaro’s prose, Benelli’s plays, and Marinetti’s and Palazzeschi’s Futurist writings. Osorgin’s method included reliance on an authoritative source combined with a personal study of the works, which was meant to produce a well-founded judgement. Through Osorgin’s book, Russian readers discovered many Italian authors. However, he often succumbed to subjectivity caused by his belief in the social responsibilities of literature. Following remarks on illiteracy and the subjugation of schools and libraries by the Catholic Church elsewhere in the book, Osorgin proceeds to chastise authors for failing to adequately address the plight of ordinary people. Consequently, he finds writings in a dialect, e. g., Belli’s and Pascarella’s works, to be truly national literature. The treatment of Italian literature in Essays owes its angle to Osorgin’s adherence to Herzen’s and Bakunin’s ideals.

The review concerns a study devoted to one of the most mysterious episodes in the history of Russian literature — the burnt second and the unwritten third volumes of Nikolay Gogol’s Dead Souls [Myortvie dushi]. Upon studying memoirs and archived materials, E. Dmitrieva employs her as ever meticulous research and characteristically engaging narration to reconstruct various aspects of the story: from the first idea of the sequel to the burning of the manuscript and the sensational discovery of an early draft of the first five chapters from part two some six months upon the author’s demise in a turn of events fit for a detective story. Dmitrieva elaborates on the destiny of the manuscript and the book’s genesis, poetics, and hermeneutics, as well as mystifications around, and parodies/stylizations of, Dead Souls. The study clearly demonstrates the scholar’s profound knowledge of Gogol’s oeuvre and mastery of relevant critical literature and memoirs, combined with her ability to relate that knowledge in a succinct form, uncover the hidden, and captivate the reader with her perceptive hypotheses and compellingly argued interpretations.

In focus of Maria Nesterenko’s book is the destiny of a writing woman in the history of literature. With the example of the once celebrated poet Anna Bunina, the critic seeks to explain the workings of literary oblivion. From a dispute about language that involves the warring factions of archaists and innovators, the book proceeds to reflections about the woman’s role in a national culture. The scholar ponders the legitimacy of professional writing by women. Anna Bunina’s literary career emerged at the crossing of two opposing traditions: while formally an adherent of Shishkov’s, the poet herself emphasized her affinity with Karamzin’s movement in the book of collected verse The Inexperienced Muse [Neopytnaya muza]. Literary critics of the early 19th c. would repeatedly stress Bunina’s connection to the archaists in blunt ignorance of her clearly stated creed in The Inexperienced Muse. Nesterenko demonstrates how this biographical fact began to define Bunina’s literary reputation and ultimately drove her into obscurity.

The book is a collection of S. Semyonova’s scholarly papers on A. Platonov from various years. Her studies cover an extensive corpus of the writer’s oeuvre — from novels to plays to short stories. At the core of Semyonova’s method is a fusion of literary criticism and philosophy; she chooses Russian cosmism as the ideological standpoint for interpreting Platonov’s texts. The scholar is particularly concerned with N. Fyodorov’s legacy and his ‘idea of life,’ which, she argues, defines Platonov’s worldview as well. A substantial part of the book, Semyonova’s diary is included in its appendix. The diary offers a comprehensive insight into the scholar’s view of Platonov’s work and reveals the thought process behind the studies included in the book. The appended section, therefore, serves as the logical conclusion and extension of the main part.

The review discusses Videogames and the Gothic by Ewan Kirkland. In his study, Kirkland argues that videogames naturally tend towards the Gothic and not only constitute a perfect medium for the adaptation of a Gothic narrative but also boast characteristics that ensure its enrichment and transformation. The review follows Kirkland’s theoretical exposition and his understanding of the Gothic as such, including its broad scope and inherent transmediality, which prompts the view of the Gothic and videogames as closely connected phenomena. Following the book’s structure, the reviewer proceeds from theory to case studies. Kirkland’s approach comprises three components reflecting the subjects of the studies: the narrative, iconography, and mechanics of the game. By demonstrating the practical implications of the author’s approach, the review concludes that Kirkland succeeds in proving his hypothesis.

The review examines V. Gandelsman’s approach to analyzing contemporary poetry. He proposes a method of finding unique qualities in the works of individual poets. In this sense, he is shown as an interpreter of their poems. A critic must point out the tradition, whereas an interpreter emphasizes the inimitability of each individual artistic world. Gandelsman’s method is principally aligned with A. Veselovsky’s theories, as well as with general systems theory and A. Katsenelinboigen’s predispositioning theory, in particular. Following Veselovsky’s suit, Gandelsman gives prominence to the internal nature of an image over the external aspects (such as artistic devices and the like). The process of analyzing as such is constructed on the basis of a subjective evaluation of an artistic system, which is also the foundation of predispositioning theory. Gandelsman develops his method independently from the aforementioned scholars, making his predecessors’ methods appear all the more vibrant and relevant.