The paper reviews the narrative poem Az’’ by S. Petrov (1911–1988), known in his lifetime as a translator of poetry. Published over forty years after its creation, Az’’ is the longest and arguably most important work in Petrov’s poetic legacy. Its vocabulary features nearly all lexical and stylistic registers of the Russian language in existence at the time of the poem’s writing, as well as numerous poetic neologisms. In terms of genre attribution, Az’’ can be defined as a philosophical mystery play. Its protagonist, referred to as Az” [the name of the first letter in Early Cyrillic alphabet that also means the personal pronoun ‘I’], perceives and con- templates the world and interacts with other characters, including seven various alter egos and the Muse. The events constituting the plot of the poem are complex and nuanced, with all the characters trying to elicit and explore Az’’s true identity (i. e., the essence of the human self). However, instead of portraying an autobiographical ego, the poem focuses on a generalized self: its deep examination of ‘I’ deliberately avoids selfishness or egocentricity. The human self is not homogenous: its various facets can conflict with each other, and books may constitute some of its crucial components.

The article is concerned with collections of poetry authored by contemporary female poets A. Karimova, K. Aksyonova, and V. Zabortseva. The scholars argue that the poets employ the codes of three cultural and historical eras of Russia’s development: the late Soviet period with its idea of cosmism (Karimova); the 1990s, marked by the collapse of earlier cosmos (Aksyonova); and the 2020s, during which an era of civil unrest was supplanted by a time of development based on classical Russian cultural forms and mounting progress. The scholars trace manifestations of the typical features of a given period in literary poetics and world perception by the lyric heroines, while noting different uses of similar images and concepts by the three poets. The article also details the critical reception of the I-heroines’ lyric poetry in comparison to other poets of the same generation.

The article sets out to summarize the values and principles at the core of the creative world of four major poets active since the 1970s: J. Brodsky, A. Kushner, Y. Rein, and O. Chukhontsev. To that end, the study examines the so-called ‘author’s myths’ of these poets, which epitomize their artistic worlds. In his analysis of poetry, V. Kozlov uses a genre approach. Therefore, a key revolution of Brodsky’s poetics and worldview is linked to his “breaking away from the elegy and into the ode,” Kushner’s lyric poetry appears to contain an idyllic element, while Rein and Chukhontsev develop the elegiac tradition — the difference, according to Kozlov, is that Rein specializes in ‘urban’ elegy, and Chukhontsev — in its ‘historical’ counterpart. The scholar especially considers the category of time and its utmost relevance for all four poets. Kozlov suggests that the common characteristics of the four selected poets reveal them as neotraditionalists and, at the same time, help clarify the neotraditionalist poetics that typified Russian poetry in the 20th century.

The study analyzes the writer’s questionnaire by a few renowned modern Russian writers, critics, and philologists: Anatoly Korolyov (Moscow), Aleksandr Melikhov (St. Petersburg), Sergey Nosov (St. Petersburg), Aleksandr Snegiryov (Moscow), Igor Smirnov (Baden-Baden), and Sergey Fokin (St. Petersburg). The questionnaire draws on the ‘psychopathographical text’ of 19th–21st centuries’ Russian literature which serves as a backdrop for respondents’ own literary work or research. As can be expected, very diverse in their form and contents, the responses confirm that, having revised traditional Russian literary psychopathography, 21st-century Russian literature proves to be an accurate indicator of social sentiment and a helpful guide for escaping modernity’s many dead-ends. The foreword summarizes the role of mental illness in the life of several Russian writers of the 19th and 20th centuries and the treatment of the topic of madness in various genres and by different movements of Russian literature.

The article starts with a typical figure for the Russian émigré life in Paris between the two wars — a taxi driver, a hero in G. Gazdanov’s novel Night Roads [Nochnie dorogi]. The protagonist reveals an unusual perceptiveness and existential experience. The study of the driving profession goes on to include A. Borshchagovsky’s short story Three Poplars in Shabolovka [Tri topolya na Shabolovke], as well as its film adaptation by T. Lioznova. This leads the authors to the conclusion about the taxi driver as a representation of the existential hero in 20th-century Russian prose.

The study begins with a dispute between M. Gorky and A. Bogdanov about the latter’s now lost short story Death [Smert]. The author verifies the story’s attribution and supports the hypothesis that it served as the first draft of the utopian Celebration of Immortality [Prazdnik bessmertiya], a story that anticipates the present-day debate on transhumanism. An unconditional maxim of Bogdanov’s philosophy — that an individual loses him/herself in a group — is evoked in the story with a tragic undertone. The scholar traces apocalyptical and suicidal motifs in Gorky’s and Bogdanov’s prose and identifies the differences in the writers’ treatment of these issues. L. Borisova suggests that the idea of an individual grows in prominence in Gorky’s and Bogdanov’s works alike. From the viewpoint of God-building, Gorky argues for achievement of physical, and therefore personal, immortality as the ultimate goal and reward for any human being. Bogdanov accepts the possibility of immortality but warns that it will cause the demise of the personality. The study points to the differences in the perception of N. Fyodorov’s Philosophy of the Common Cause [Filosofiya obshchego dela] and Bergson’s metaphysics of immortality by Gorky and members of the Vperyod Socialist sub-faction.

The study tackles an exciting and timely topic: retelling of classical literary texts as a genre particularly popular among writers of young adult fiction. In her analysis of K. Te’s novel What Marvels There [Tam chudesa] (2024), M. Markova considers devices used by contemporary writers of a retold story, inspired in this case by A. Pushkin’s Ruslan and Lyudmila. The article traces the influence of Pushkin’s poetics on the novelist and analyzes its transformation (‘retelling’ and ‘telling anew,’ including through plot twists typical of young adult literature) in Te’s novel. The study also explores the relevance of Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso, one of the sources of Pushkin’s original poem, for understanding the nature of retelling as a genre. The author seeks to establish how Pushkin’s reimagining of the Italian poem and successful ‘localization’ of its chronotope influenced subsequent emergence of a new genre of Slavic fantasy.

The article is devoted to cultural reception of classical English literature in the contemporary Australian novel. Till the mid-20th century, Australian literature was mainly developing within the framework of the British literary tradition. Contemporary Australian literature, however, is rapidly developing as postcolonial literature in constant dialogue with British literature, but clearly with its own perspective on the colonial history of the continent. Being one of the leading figures of the Victorian age, Dickens and his works are often mentioned and referred to in contemporary Australian fiction. In the article, three novels of leading Australian authors (Jack Maggs by P. Carey, Wanting by R. Flanagan, and The Dickens Boy by T. Keneally) in which Dickens is one of the characters are analyzed. The novels under discussion differ in their genre parameters, but they all follow the writer’s biography. They are written from a postcolonial perspective: Britain’s imperial policy is criticized, while Dickens is viewed as a typical representative of the British Empire.

Rozova interviews stage director A. Galimov, whose first production prompted a detailed conversation about A. Chekhov’s and A. Vampilov’s poetics. What does the play Duck Hunting [Utinaya okhota] have in common with The Cherry Orchard [Vishnyoviy sad] and The Seagull [Chayka]? Are there parallels between Zilov and Treplev? What are unique features of Chekhov’s and Vampilov’s dialogues? All these questions are raised and discussed in a lively exchange that also concerns the challenges and potential of modern theatre. Galimov emphasizes the importance of the poetics of pause and incidental music in a play: both help reveal the inner state of the characters and their intuitive ability to ‘read’ each other. The interview discusses Galimov’s productions in the Vakhtangov Theatre as well as his freelance projects and offers a look at Chekhov’s and Vampilov’s plays as living material for the stage.

The article is devoted to B. Eikhenbaum’s earliest prose works, namely, three short stories he published in the Russkaya Molva newspaper in 1913 that have until now evaded scholarly attention. Upon his graduation from the university in 1912, Eikhenbaum begins his collaboration with the periodical Russkaya Molva, chronicling contemporary literary process with his reviews and articles on Russian literature and theatre as well as European art. In her brief characteristic of the newspaper, E. Orlova notes that, while familiar to Russian philologists, the newspaper was largely dismissed by scholars until the new millennium. Its obscurity resulted from a character assassination by Lenin, who branded it as ‘bourgeois’ and ‘nationalistic.’ The short stories printed in Russkaya Molva marked Eikhenbaum’s transition from a chronicler of the literary process to its participant. Of the three stories, one can be described as a lyric miniature, while the two others share genre similarities with a sketch or a vignette. Eikhenbaum’s signature irony equally permeates his prose and critical essays, foreshadowing his novella Along Bridges and Avenues. From an Autobiography [Po mostam i prospektam. Iz avtobiografii].

The review analyzes A Russian Amarcord [Russkiy Amarkord], a book of interviews with E. Solonovich (now recently dead) published in celebration of the poet and translator’s ninetieth birthday. The topics brought up in the interviews are considered in a broad context of the Soviet and post-Soviet eras as well as the book publishing and writing projects that appealed to Solonovich in his professional capacity. Among the most important and recurrent themes discussed by Solonovich and his younger colleague, journalist and critic M. Vizel, are the problem of translation, Soviet realia in the context of teaching and practising translation, and the cultural dialogue between Italy and Russia. A significant portion of the book is devoted to Solonovich’s professional beginnings as a translator during the anti-cosmopolitan campaign, Russo-Italian literary connec- tions, typical everyday life in the Soviet era, translation projects initiated by publishers during the Khrushchev thaw and perestroika, Solonovich’s colleagues and friends in Italy, and the continuity of the translation tradition in imperial Russia and the Soviet Union.

The review is concerned with a study of allusion in British detective fiction written between the wars. J. Bloomfield’s hypothesis is that, facing a crisis in the perception of the Bible and Shakespearian output, this historical period adopted detective fiction as a ‘deciphering’ genre, a remedy for the crisis and a means to decode elusive meanings. The monograph focuses on Dorothy L. Sayers’ novels. On the one hand, they epitomize the literary-centric detective fiction of the Golden Age, replete with a complex meta-literary play, allusions to Shakespeare and Holy Scripture, and countless quotes interspersing characters’ speech. On the other hand, Sayers’ novels have in turn set a canon for later writers of detective fiction, whose playing with her texts has become no less a defining and hierarchy-setting genre characteristic than Biblical and Shakespearian allusions.

This review examines V. Shdursky’s monograph which synthesizes research on Aldanov’s engagement with his literary predecessors, from Nilus of Sora to Chekhov. The author contends that classical literature was of fundamental importance to Aldanov as an émigré; rather than dissociating from his heritage in favour of a localized European tradition, Aldanov sought to maintain ties with the foundational texts of the metropole. The study explores his perception of authors traditionally linked to his work, specifically Tolstoy and Dostoevsky; while his stance toward the former is largely apologetic, he remains axiologically unconvinced by the latter. By contrast, his commentary on 18th- and 19th-century figures is more sporadic, reflecting a largely emblematic view of their personas and works. Although the monograph’s composite nature assembled from previously published articles results in occasional repetitive passages, Shadursky’s work represents a substantial contribution to the field of Russian émigré studies.

The review considers Nina Malygina’s monograph on Andrey Platonov’s oeuvre in the context of Russian literature. More than just a natural-born talent or a genius hermit, Platonov emerges as an inheritor of the classical tradition (especially F. Dostoevsky) as well as a participant of the early Soviet literary ex- perimentations. The influence of Russian Symbolists on Platonov’s writing is another scholarly hypothesis examined in the book. Malygina also studies the novelist’s interactions with A. Voronsky. The scholar demonstrates an innovative approach to Platonov studies in the chapter “Platonov in the context of literary avant-garde.” She establishes parallels and responses be- tween Platonov’s and Khlebnikov’s texts. She also uncovers more subtle references to Mayakovsky and Yesenin. In addition, Malygina successfully disproves the idea that Platonov rejected Mandelstam’s poetry. The final chapter of the study contains an unexpected twist related to V. Shalamov.

The author of the monograph is Vladimir Kozlov, a renowned literary critic specializing in the history of Russia’s contemporary and most recent poetry and editor of the literary critical journal Prosōdia since 2014. Some of the material included in the book was previously published by Kozlov in Prosōdia. The monograph combines studies, critical articles, and essays written in the last few years on the social-cultural problems of Russian poetry in the early third millennium. The collection is characterized by a broad coverage of diverse contemporary poetic phenomena, the author’s dedication to identifying and problematizing poetic trends that may otherwise pass unnoticed by a mass readership, and its tendency towards comprehensive and theoretically cohesive delivery. While recognizing the publication’s undeniable value, the reviewer finds fault with several of Kozlov’s ideas, as potentially promising as they are conceptually controversial (especially the entire discourse on the concept of ‘neo-traditionalism’ in contemporary Russian poetry).