The article considers two versions of D. H. Lawrence’s essay The Theatre: the one which appeared in the English Review in September 1913 and the other one which Lawrence published in his first travel book Twilight in Italy (1916). The latter, considerably revised and expanded, contains a number of new observations and gives a more detailed account of Lawrence’s ideas.Lawrence brings to life the atmosphere inside and outside the theatre in Gargnano, presenting vividly the social structure of this small northern Italian town. He depicts the theatre as a multi-storey stage, combining the interpretation of the plays by Shakespeare, D’Annunzio and Ibsen with psychological portraits of the actors and a presentation of the spectators and their responses to the plays as distinct social groups.Lawrence’s views on the theatre are contextualised by his insights into cinema and its growing popularity.

What makes this research original is the fact that it offers a new perspective, aiming to illustrate the social situation inside and outside the theatre whichLawrenceobserved. The author uses the material that has never been published or discussed before such as the handwritten lists of box-holders in Gargnano Theatre, which was offered to Lawrence and his wife Frieda by Mr. Pietro Comboni, and the photographs of the box-panels that decorated the theatre inLawrence’s time.

The article offers a detailed account of the first tour of a Kabuki troupe in theSoviet Union, commenting on its political and cultural significance. Kabuki performers were invited to theUSSRfor primarily political reasons: establishing contact between the two governments came first, and the tour was regarded as a success for Soviet diplomacy rather than an achievement of Japanese culture. However, the political hype soon subsided and more people realized the extraordinary significance of this tour for the history of the theatre. The tour became a nation-wide event. The authors cite numerous newspaper reviews of the Kabuki plays, as well as correspondence between politicians, who had anticipated a flop, but were amazed at the reaction of Soviet audiences to this Japanese ‘exoticism’ because the tour had been mostly targeted at the Japanese community. The latter saw the tour as a sign of the Soviets’ readiness for peaceful coexistence withJapan.

After a short summary of the story behind K. Hamsun’s play In the Grip of Life [Livet i Vold], its plot and stage history in Russia, the article proceeds to tell about an unknown film script. Cinematic adaptations of Hamsun’s books have always dominated Norwegian literature, while none of his dramatic pieces have made it to the screen. However, a film script was uncovered, an adaptation of In the Grip of Life: a play specially written for a Russian theatre. The script was found in the Russian State Archive of Literature and Arts, among the documents of Evgeny Sergeevich Khokhlov. Based on the history of filmmaking and relevant filmography, Khokhlov’s film script is not just the only attempt at film adaptation of a Hamsun play, but the first ever project based on a theatrical play in Russian cinematic history. Written almost 100 years ago, the script is far from perfect in the modern understanding of filmmaking; nonetheless, it has certain merits in the eyes of contemporaries. The very attempt to interpret the play by means of a nascent artistic genre may be considered a proof of its relevance to Russian audiences at the time.

V. Kozlov, a critic specializing in contemporary poetry, discusses the major issues plaguing this branch of the literary process: such as the ‘synoptic’ quality of modern critical work, vitriolic conflicts between guilds, absence of a publication with a comprehensive overview of the current developments in poetry, etc. The author finds that the biggest problem of modern poetic criticism is that, unlike the Western school of literary criticism, it is unable to take in the big picture of all ongoing developments in modern poetry, and its every attempt to reconstruct it is guided by its subjective perceptions. He suggests that this could be ameliorated if the critics would refer to the philological school and return to universal criteria for the sake of a holistic literary process.

The article examines the prose of the US writer J. Asher, a popular author of young adult novels, who does not hesitate to bring up issues such as teenage suicides, peer relationships, social networks, etc. Considering Asher’s works in the context of contemporary young adult literature in the English language, N. Zelezinskaya singles out their defining features, such as plasticity of material, realism of descriptions and motivations, the use of multiple interwoven plotlines, experimentations with the form, elements of science fiction (e. g. characters travelling to the future), etc. Along with treatment of highly relevant and even poignant subjects, those are the reasons why Asher remains popular with teenage readers and keeps meeting their expectations with his new work.

Sergey Esenin’s tragic end is widely known and provokes disputes to this day. The official reports put it down as a suicide. The incident could be analyzed more effectively by means of an interdisciplinary approach using the latest forensic know-how. The documented circumstances of Esenin’s death, found in recorded testimonies and interviews, as well as the materials of the Russian National Esenin Committee of Writers, are examined through the author’s own classification of forensically relevant evidence of suicide. The analysis reveals that suicide remains the most probable version. Far from solving this incident for good, these conclusions may become an important forensic contribution to the history of Russian culture.

The article by S. Shindin, a scholar of O. Mandelstam, focuses on the lyrical subject of Mandelstam’s poetry inspired by Olga Hildebrandt, better known by her stage name, Arbenina. By citing Hildebrandt-Arbenina’s reminiscences about Mandelstam, notes by their contemporaries, and the poems in question, the author builds a detailed account of their relationship, from the autumn of 1920, when they first met and Mandelstam became infatuated with Olga, who was in a relationship with Gumilyov at the time, until their later encounters, described by N. Mandelstam in her memoirs. In addition to an impressive score of facts about Mandelstam’s poetic development, the author provides numerous insights into the aesthetics of the Silver Age, which engendered, in Akhmatova’s words, the ‘marvellous’ lyrical verse by Mandelstam.

The article is devoted to B. Lavrenyov’s story The Forty-First [Sorok perviy]. The author sets out to identify the prototypes of the main character, the White officer V. Govorukha-Otrok. Among these, she names a famous critic from the late 1800s, Y. Govorukha-Otrok. All previous studies of this story were limited to its general aspects, with only the works of B. Geronimus, and to some extent, E. Semyonova, N. Titova, and G. Ratmanova, touching on the subject.

The article begins by analyzing the legends around the character, including those inspired by the ‘Cannes echo’ phenomenon: the artistic response of several writers to G. Chukhray’s film adaptation of the story. Bakhova proceeds to point out a close connection of The Forty-First with Lavrenyov’s other works, e. g. Wormwood Herb [Polyn’-trava], noting the latter’s polemical stance towards the ideology of the 1920s. In the latter story, Lavrenyov chooses to pursue an unconventional parallel with the epoch of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign [Slovo o polku Igoreve]. Finally, she points out the close affinity of The Forty-First with Russian folk tales. Consequently, she concludes that Lavrenyov’s inner defiance of certain postulates of the Bolshevik revolution and its newly-established culture is hardwired in the story.

The article centres on Chekhov’s attitude to Turgenev’s prose, which has not yet received proper scholarly attention despite numerous attempts. Following the traces in Chekhov’s correspondence and literary works, we observe the gradual transformation of his opinion about the output of his closest predecessor.

His opinions about the older peer are wide-ranging and often controversial, complicating the study of his perception of Turgenev’s works. Yet many scholars see Chekhov as a direct successor of Russian literary traditions epitomized, among others, by Turgenev.

The paper attempts to show that, despite drawing on the experience of the earlier generation of Russian authors, Chekhov was an undisputed innovator. Chekhov’s poetics is typified both by having origins in Turgenev’s writing style and going beyond it. Recurrent allusions to Turgenev in Chekhov’s letters and literary works suggest that, despite artistic differences, Turgenev the artist interested Chekhov and regularly inspired his stylistic search.

The article focuses on the traces of the Crimean resort myth in Chekhov’s works produced before 1888, when he first travelled to Crimea: Live Goods [Zhivoy tovar], A Tripping Tongue [Dlinniy yazyk], Excellent People [Khoroshie lyudi], An Actor’s End [Aktyorskaya gibel], and On March. On April. On May. On June and July. On August [O marte. Ob aprele. O maye. Ob iyune i iyule. Ob avguste]. The resort myth emerges in the late 1800s, and mainly through Chekhov’s works. This agrees with the findings of the scholars M. Stroganov and S. Kurianov, who argue that holidaying in Crimea is in fact Chekhov’s ‘gift’ to Russian intelligentsia, with the writer promoting the resort. Analysis of Chekhov’s earlier short stories in particular suggests that even before his visit to the peninsula, Chekhov relied on the Crimean mythologemes of the expensive holiday, expensive resort, and Crimean landscape. Chekhov also depicts Crimea as a place of solitude, as opposed to the hustle and bustle of the metropolis.

The article infers the basis for such assumptions: they were largely instigated by the writer’s conversations with the painter I. Levitan, who enthused about the place after his own trip there, as well as the latter’s numerous studies. The article also traces the changes in Chekhov’s perception of Crimea, citing his letters written before and after his first trip to the peninsula.

This study of the translation strategies for Romeo and Juliet heavily relies on two aspects concerning the play’s genre complexity: the lyrical plot (drawing on the poetic fashions of the 1590s), and the comical carnival element, imbued with a Shakespearean London idiom. The process of the Russian adaptation of Shakespearian imagery was lengthy and fraught with difficulties, not only due to the play’s linguistic complexity, but because of differences in treatment of higher matters (here, poetry) and social and everyday realities. The paper discusses the first Russian translation of Romeo and Juliet, penned by Ivan Roskovshenko. The study focuses on discovering the ways in which the play’s Petrarchian stylistics transforms in the Russian interpretation. A detailed comparative analysis of the translation and its original suggests that I. Roskovshenko consistently replaced the rhetorical conventions of the 16th century with the patterns of contemporary Russian poetry, domesticating the Shakespearian text. The approach only paid off when the images of English Petrarchism, interspersing Romeo and Juliet, resonated with the Russian poetry of the early 1800s.

A review of the bilingual edition of the play Double Falsehood, or, The Distressed Lovers, prepared by ‘Book Centre Rudomino’. The play is supplied with three presentations: a translator’s introduction by Andrey Korchevsky, a foreword by the most renowned scholar of this highly mysterious play, Brean Hammond (he edited the play for the Arden series in 2010), and an afterword by Dmitry Ivanov, a Russian scholar of the period and translation. Is there much left of Shakespeare and Fletcher in Double Falsehood, and what exactly is it? Can one single out the earliest language stratum stemming from Cardenio? Stylistic and metric similarities aside, can one indeed recognize Shakespeare and Fletcher on the higher level of the whole work: its plot, composition, mise en scfnes, images and ideas? Does Double Falsehood preserve traces of the original composition and plotline of Cardenio? The paper is published on the eve of this extensively commented edition of Double Falsehood becoming available to Russian reading audiences and theatre practitioners.

The article is concerned with the unique ethical and aesthetic features of gothic fiction between the 18th and 19th centuries, and its representation in James Hogg’s novel The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner. Lofty ideals in the novels by A. Radcliff, M. G. Lewis, and C. Maturin often showed strong ties with moral philosophy (its concepts of benevolence, sin as the opposite of freedom, and sense and sensibility as the sources of virtue), permeating 18th-century discussions about morality along with reflections on the elevated and the picturesque. On the artistic plane of the gothic novel, these ideas create two principal oppositions, corresponding to ethical and aesthetic levels: ‘the natural and the unnatural’, and ‘freedom and non-freedom’. They are also present in Hogg’s novel, although represented in a different way. While the ‘natural/unnatural’ dichotomy is mostly a matter of changing the angle for the story’s perception (so that the reader might follow the events from the viewpoint of the pursuer rather than the pursued), though not without interesting aesthetic derivatives, the ‘freedom/non-freedom’ opposition marks a more modern aesthetical transition from the outside world to a fictional one.

At the core of this publication are letters written by E. Livshits (1902–1987), the widow of B. Livshits, to her close friends: literary critic A. Deich (1893–1972), whom she knew ever since her Kiev days, and his wife E. Deich-Malkina (1919–2014). Kept at the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art, this epistolary collection spans over 20 years, starting from 1967. Along with accounts of private circumstances, each letter contains accounts related to B. Livshits, Osip and Nadezhda Mandelstam, I. Nappelbaum, A. Shadrin, and others. At the same time, E. Livshits’ comments and descriptions of people and literary works are very lifelike and fascinating. On the whole, the reader gets a picture of the period and certain literary process, viewed by a sophisticated connoisseur rather than squinted at by an aging disenfranchised widow of an executed writer. The publication is prefaced by P. Nerler, who collected and prepared the book of letters and reminiscences of E. Livshits, to be printed by Elena Shubina Publishers (AST).

The paper reviews three works by the Kolomna-based literary historian A. Kulagin, a specialist in Russian classical and modern poetry, and a leading researcher of theory and history of songs written and performed by authors. A.Kulagin’s strategy as a scholar is to study Russian poetry as an indivisible spiritual and aesthetic system, and reveal inner connections and mutual references in works by different poets. He researches the traditional sources of Pushkin’s poetry and Pushkin motifs in poems by Brodsky, Vysotsky, Galich, Kushner, and Okudzhava. His is the first comprehensive study of the traditional context of Aleksandr Kushner’s poetry. A. Kulagin’s interpretation of songs written and performed by authors shows the genre as organically woven into the fabric of Russian poetry, with a compelling example in the book on Gennady Shpalikov. Here we have a manifestation of a typical trend in modern literary studies: transition from individual poetic legacy to solving the mystery of the poet’s personality. 

The collected articles are divided into sections Publications, Memoirs and Essays, Personalia, and Articles, although not always logically distinguished. A special focus is on M. Gasparov’s encyclopaedic entries, M. Lotman’s publications, and articles by M. Vakhtel, S. Zolyan, and T. Smolyarova. The critic points out deficiencies in A. Zholkovsky’s works. The collection completes their depiction of M. Gasparov with observations that are predominantly private, yet interesting due to the scale and unconventionality of his character. The book also features a wide selection of Gasparov’s entries for the Mandelstam Encyclopaedia, as well as his hitherto unpublished translations of Chinese poetry and reminiscences about his youth. Articles on his favorite subjects are written by like-minded philologists.

The review discusses the first volume of the biobibliographical dictionary Russian Literary Historians of the 20th Century, published by Nestor-Istoriya in 2017. Working at the Department of Literary Theory atLomonosovMoscowStateUniversity, the authors, Doctors of Philology O. Kling and A. Kholikov invited several specialists to participate in their project. The article is a critical analysis of the publication, identifying its typical characteristics, advantages and disadvantages. The review summarizes the history of the project, highlights its conceptual emphases based on the foreword to the first volume, in particular, with regard to selection criteria for the subjects (scholars), and examines the structure of a typical dictionary entry. In conclusion, the reviewer describes the dictionary’s significance for contemporary literary studies, and its contribution to solving such problems as the creation of a biographical entry about a writer, removal of bias in perception of the writer’s personality, inclusion of the historical context and then-relevant scientific paradigms to help with a more nuanced perception of the scholar.

The book by Yury Bit-Yunan and David Feldman Vasily Grossman: A Literary Biography in a Historical-Literary Context is an attempt to reconstruct the writer’s biography. Using copious evidence from archives, the authors set out to demythologize the pervading image of a non-conformist writer. They also try to reveal on whose accusations his novel was confiscated by the authorities. The reviewer examines the arguments supplied by Bit-Yunan and Feldman, and criticizes them for their invectives against earlier biographers, in particular, Semyon Lipkin.

The review deals with a monograph produced by a group of authors devoted to the interconnectedness of works by Poe, Baudelaire, and Dostoevsky. Putting names together creates a comparative plot, which encourages unconventional thinking. Poe is pictured as the central figure that influences Baudelaire’s and Dostoevsky’s artistic principles. The triple comparison offers a chance to take a new look at Poe’s literary legacy. It is suggested that Baudelaire finds his poetic voice in translating Poe’s works, and becomes an important intermediary for Dostoevsky, who reads his translations. The subtitle mentions ‘national genius’, which puts each of the three in a special spotlight, underscoring their complete independence, separation from others – their tragic solitude – in the unfolding prospect. There is an exchange of opinions between scholars from various schools and national academic traditions – a lively interaction of ideas is palpable and engaging, contributing to the book’s consistency. The dialogue-like aspect of the book is also determined by several authors dealing simultaneously with subjects, so that they become leitmotifs. The review considers each of the book’s four parts.