The article analyzes and compares the artistic worlds of Y. Trifonov and V. Makanin. The two had common ground, describing the life and psychology of a modern urban dweller. Originally considered Trifonov’s follower, Makanin then began to turn away from the former’s creative approach. While Trifonov concerned himself with the problem of moral choice and conformism, Makanin emphasized a person’s dependence on circumstances, as well as biological and existential realities. An adherent of psychological realism, Trifonov worked to broaden and develop its expressive means. Makanin used to draw extensively on conventionality patterns, turning to detachment and the grotesque in his depictions of human situations. Trifonov’s works dissected the crisis of Soviet ideology and accompanying moral collisions, whereas Makanin analyzed the archetypes and invariants of human existence and behavior at the times of transition to post-humanism. The author argues that the polemic between Makanin and Trifonov went on for years after the latter’s death, stimulating Makanin’s creative search.

Examining the short story French Lessons [Uroki frantsuzskogo] (1973), this article is devoted to the archaic and mythological elements in the works by V. Rasputin. Although confined to the background of his stories, they shape the structure of the narratives and play a pivotal role in the writer’s artistic universe. The study sets out to reveal the archaic constructs and mythology-inspired folk beliefs hidden behind the realistic façade. It explores selected elements of the myth and mythological identity of French Lessons. Those include constructs that enhance metaphysical depth: the belly as the fertility hub; the physical differences between the locals and the teacher, a young woman who has just moved into town, as perceived through the sound of their voices; the game that is strongly linked to a particular locus, and the character’s progress to such a locus which is not unlike a mythical journey. The author suggests that archaic constructs and demotic mythology are at the core of the harmonious consistency of V. Rasputin’s oeuvre.

The article is concerned with one of the newest trends in literary studies championed by the journal Translit. The ‘new poetics’ promulgated by the journal, as well as the underlying ‘pragmatic theory of literature’, means rejection of the aesthetic focus in writing. In its crusade against the ‘aesthetic ideology’ the journal adopts an extreme form of relativism and adheres to the theory of power struggle between elites as the key driver of social relationships. The author argues that attachment of a fetish status to writing tools (especially the most fashionable electronic ones), dismissal of ‘anthropocentricity’ in favour of ‘posthumanism’ by pragmatic theorists, and an aggressive search for ‘epistemological and political enemies’ are a cause for a major concern in the contemporary cultural crisis.

The article takes a close look at the history of centuries-long transformations of the ‘anthropomorphic’ metaphor, which likens a book to a human being. The analogy between book and man is drawn by a number of philosophical ideas, scholarly theories, and creative practices. Incidental varieties of the anthropomorphic metaphor highlight diverse semantic and functional aspects of the book’s operation in culture. It is those aspects that the author points out and examines in order to prove that the anthropomorphic metaphor plays a fundamental and dominant role in book culture. The book in a human form had its interpretation in the discourse of Soviet activism and was further developed in modern times. It is typified by all-out visualization of objects. Describing the metaphor’s evolution from the Middle Ages to the present day, the author follows the process of books becoming more human, only to draw a conclusion that the opposite is increasingly true, and has already prompted the idea that ‘flesh is paper’ and the emergence of a ‘face book’.

Gleb Shulpyakov interviewed by Igor Duardovich

In his interview conducted by the critic I. Duardovich, the poet G. Shulpyakov touches on a number of issues: from the definition of a poetic generation to individuality in poetry, and from compilation principles of a poetic anthology to literature’s ontological questions. The interview offers the poet’s insights into the processes currently unfolding in literature, as well as the intellectual, cultural life in general. The poet and critic agree on a number of topics, for example, on a preliminary summary of the decade’s literary achievements, namely, that poetry is suffering a major crisis, while prose advances to prominence. In his comparison of the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s, the poet dwells on causes and effects, and the processes at work inside the generation, which are determined by a moment in history. Why does one epoch see explosive growth and bloom, and sprout new names, journals, and artistic movements, whereas another is mute and barren — or is it merely an appearance?

The author undertakes comparative analysis of A. Chekhov’s and L. Tolstoy’s stylistic systems in order to identify similarities and differences in their respective worldviews. The article quotes Chekhov’s repeated and unequivocal dismissals of Tolstoy’s ideas about progress, science, and the nation in his letters and notebooks, and references Chekhov’s covert polemic with Tolstoy in his short stories. For the purposes of the analysis, the author considers the stories dealing with the protagonist’s death (Gusev, The Bishop [Arkhierey], and The Death of Ivan Ilyich [Smert’ Ivana Ilyicha]). The study raises the issue of artistic means corresponding to the artistic agenda, and points out the writers’ contrasting attitudes to their characters: Tolstoy’s detachment as opposed to Chekhov’s self-identification. Another focus is on the tropes used to describe the characters’ inner life: Tolstoy’s specific and bodily, or ‘pagan’, imagery versus Chekhov’s lyrical motifs. Finally, the article disproves V. Nabokov’s criticism of Chekhov using ‘any odd’ word.

The article attempts to reconstruct a wholistic view of F. Tyutchev’s historiosophical beliefs and explain their subsequently diverse interpretations. Gleaning the ‘crystals’ of Tyutchev’s worldview from across his historiosophical, journalistic, and political texts (e.g. his tractate Russia and the West [Rossiya i Zapad] and articles A Russian’s Letter [Pis’mo russkogo], Russia and Germany [Rossiya i Germaniya], Russia and the Revolution [Rossiya i Revolutsiya], and The Roman Problem [Rimsky vopros]), the researcher examines such concepts as reason, the mystery of a human being, Christian anthropology, etc., and finds how their interpretation by different scholars transformed depending on historical context. Tyutchev, by contrast, perceived historical process as inseparable from the Christian basis. B. Tarasov argues the poet’s work is founded in Christian principles and anthropological analysis and so is his logic. The author believes that the degree to which scholars and opponents of Tyutchev’s value system agree influences the authenticity of their interpretations of it.

The influence of Calvinism on Byron’s philosophy, as evidenced by his journals and epistolary legacy, as well as the leitmotif of his oeuvre, is well researched. But his unique interpretation of the Protestant ideas in specific works is largely uncovered by his scholars. Particularly interesting in this context is Byron’s mystery play Cain. The piece is a dramatization of Calvin’s idea about humanity’s predisposition to falling from grace or being saved, from the viewpoint of a man seeking knowledge who is branded with a curse. Byron’s Cain is typified by anxiety, a hungry search for knowledge, suffering, struggle, and defiance of God. This newly coined Cain entered Russian literature during the Silver Age. A keen look at the works of Nikolay Gumilyov, Ivan Bunin, and Vyacheslav Ivanov, as well as the latter’s polemic with Dmitry Merezhkovsky, reveals the emergence of the romantic Protestant character on a quest to supersede the traditional Russian understanding of the biblical story and the endemic beliefs about good and evil.

The publication consists of a supplementary article and a brief commentary to the little known translations of W. Blake’s works made by Russian poets in the early 20th century. Back in the 1900s—1910s, the Russian authors perceived Blake as a precursor to Symbolists, so e. g. V. Elsner, K. Balmont, and S. Remizova-Dovgello (A. Remizov’s wife), among others, chose to emphasize this particular quality in their translations. Almost completely abandoned in the Soviet period, these translations are reclaiming attention in the article that aims to right the historical injustice and highlight an important trend in changing interpretation of Blake’s oeuvre by Russian translators: from the pronounced Symbolist angle in the versions by the Silver Age authors to S. Marshak’s simplification. Following the article is the translation of Blake’s The Marriage of Heaven and Hell and A Song of Liberty penned by S. Remizova-Dovgello in a lofty and excessive, baroque style of the Symbolists in the early 1900s. The published poems are based on A. Remizov’s and S. Remizova-Dovgello’s holographs.

The article deals with Chinese translations and academic studies of Lermontov’s and Baratynsky’s works. It gives a detailed account of the four periods in the history of research and translations of Lermontov over the last hundred years. In the years before the People’s Republic of China, scholarly works were limited to general topics, with translators covering only his long poems, the novel A Hero of Our Time [Geroy nashego vremeni] and a small selection of lyrical works. It was not until the 1980s that interest in the poet’s legacy was truly revived: more works were translated, new studies showed a broader scope and deeper analysis, and works by foreign philologists received due attention. The author notes that, over the past decades, research has concentrated on Lermontov’s poetics, cultural and philosophical aspects of his works, with comparative analysis applied more frequently. The article also examines the available Chinese translations of Baratynsky’s poetry, describes the only Chinese monograph about the poet to date, and contemplates the prospects of Baratynsky studies in China.

The author (also the compiler and editor of the publication) comments on the most contentious issues around the preparation of the biobibliographical dictionary Russian Literary Theorists of the 20th Century [Russkie literaturovedy XXveka]. A. Kholikov discusses the acceptable implementation options for the principles listed in the foreword to the dictionary’s recently published first volume. These options can manifest themselves in different ways: firstly, as deviations from a mere record of facts in favour of presenting the evolution of individual scholar’s views (as a result, some entries are more informative, while others have a bigger analytical emphasis). Secondly, the dictionary challenges the boundaries for the evaluative aspect permissible in such academic works. Thirdly, it reconsiders the balance between the established standard of the size of an entry and the scholar’s actual contribution to literary studies, etc. The below published selection of entries represents various experimentation opportunities with regard to the type of articles, and the ways in which their material is presented and structured.

The author reconstructs the story of the life and work of the famous Russian literary historian, memoirist, and poet Dmitry E. Maksimov (1904— 1987). Influenced by B. Eichenbaum, B. Tomashevsky, and V. Vinogradov in his student years, Maksimov immerses himself in the history of Russian symbolism as early as the mid-1920s. The article takes note of this fact and covers not only his monographs about early 20th c. Russian poets, but also his publications about the Modernist journals printed in between the centuries, as well as his numerous archival research. The article next tells about Maksimov’s other scholarly pursuit since the 1930s: M. Lermontov’s legacy, which inspired the scholar’s monograph and, in turn, his doctoral thesis. Special focus is on Maksimov’s professorial tenure at Leningrad University and his Blok seminar. Finally, the article mentions his poetry and reminiscences. The article has a supplement with a detailed bibliography (in accordance with the section hierarchy envisaged for encyclopaedic editions) and formatted according to the journal’s standards.

The article is devoted to the literary and theatre critic and poetry theorist Valerian A. Chudovsky (1882—1937). The biographical part describes his origins, places of work, and mentions key moments of his personal life. The author gathers and comments on his opinions about works by A. Akhmatova, V. Bryusov, Z. Gippius, D. Merezhkovsky, etc. Instigated by Vyacheslav Ivanov’s seminars and Andrey Bely’s rhythmological discoveries, Chudovsky’s studies of poetry are described in the light of theoretical research into rhythm, meter, the correlation between iamb and trochee, and oral narration. The author explains Chudovsky’s achievements in developing the concept of ‘phonophoria’. The article stresses the affiliation of Chudovsky’s poetry studies with the 1910s Russian Acmeist aesthetics and demonstrates that they correspond to O. Mandelstam’s ideas. The journal article is supplemented with a detailed bibliography (in accordance with the section hierarchy envisaged for encyclopaedic editions) and formatted according to the journal’s standards.

Biographical facts about Vyacheslav P. Polonsky, including a record of his work in publishing, and historical research into M. Bakunin. The article offers a review of the critic’s ‘literary portraits’ of B. Pilnyak, I. Babel, and Y. Olesha: they examine each writer’s individual style. The author particularly dwells on Polonsky’s essay about V. Mayakovsky, written after the poet’s death, which mentions, among other topics, the urban ‘material’ imagery in his early works and argues that hyperbole was the main tool in Mayakovsky’s artistic method. Further in the article, the author examines the critic’s polemic with L. Grossman about the prototype of Nikolay Stavrogin from Dostoyevsky’s The Possessed [Besy]. Upon a careful study of documents and personal accounts of contemporaries, Polonsky denies that Bakunin could have been Stavrogin’s prototype. The critic’s theoretic and polemic output are targeted against the narrow, class-oriented approach to literature; he spares no effort in describing the dialectic and structural nature of the artistic form.

Devoted to Dmitry S. Merezhkovsky (1865—1941), a renowned writer, poet, critic, journalist, translator, and a social activist, the article offers an unusual interpretation of his work from the viewpoint of its value to academic literary studies. Consequently, the article focuses on his critical legacy, including numerous articles about Russian and foreign authors. Examined in detail is Merezhkovsky’s invention, the genre of literary portrait and biography, and the subsequent influence of his works about Tolstoy and Dostoevsky on the methodological works of A. Skaftymov, as well as M. Bakhtin’s concept, about the structure of critically analyzed texts (composition, imagery, time and space, details, and speech stylistics). Special importance is assigned to Merezhkovsky’s critical legacy in the development of non-classical aesthetics, open to experimentation. The journal article is supplemented with a detailed bibliography (in accordance with the section hierarchy envisaged for encyclopaedic editions) and formatted according to the journal’s standards.

The article is devoted to the tragically interrupted life and work of Anatoly D. Kamegulov, a Soviet literary critic and theorist, active from the late 1920s until mid-1930s. Filled with essential biographical facts, including his Communist Party membership and offices, studies at Leningrad State University at G. Gorbachev’s seminar, and membership in the Leningrad branch of RAPP and the Literaturny Front group, the article reconstructs Kamegulov’s scholarly career. Kamegulov embraced the principles of Marxist literary theory. He was also a co-founder of the Literaturnaya Ucheba journal, searched for new authors and corresponded with M. Gorky about all of its commercial aspects. Kamegulov criticized the theory of immediate impressions in art and the concept of the ‘living man’, which later backfired and led to him being accused of being a Menshevik. The scholar’s monographs are interspersed with elements of vulgar sociologism. They discuss the style of G. Uspensky, the writing progress of D. Furmanov, and critique the works of his mentor Gorbachev.

This review is concerned with the critical analysis of S. Shults’s monograph Gogol’s Poem in Prose ‘Dead Souls’. It offers a detailed examination of the book’s methodology, which is partially founded in the hermeneutic approach and is similar to that of D. Likhachev, M. Bakh­tin’s concept of the ‘great time’, and the principles of comparative-historical method of literary research. S. Shults’s analysis of Gogol’s world is divided into three sections. The first focuses on mythopoetics, the third discusses the philosophical dimension of Gogol’s novel. The biggest of the three, the second section reveals the semblance of the novel’s key messages, topics and plots to the world’s classical heritage. However, the reviewer finds that the ‘closer contexts’ (Radishchev, Karamzin, Zhukovsky, and Novalis) appear more convincing than the ‘remote’ ones (Quevedo, Fielding, Heidegger).

The English-language project Russian Library [Russkaya biblioteka] presents a book devoted to the life and work of Konstantin N. Batyushkov (1787—1855): a poet, writer, literary and art critic, translator, and member of the Arzamas literary society. The book is introduced and translated by Peter France (b. 1935), Professor Emeritus and Honorary Fellow of the University of Edinburgh, fellow of the British Academy and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. His idea of Batyushkov was largely shaped by the scholars Vyacheslav Koshelev and Ilya Serman. The review speaks about the author’s very thorough approach, his skillful translations of Batyushkov’s poems, letters, and prose, expertly woven into the story of the poet’s life; a broad, European, context for analysis of Batyushkov and his time, and an authentic English sound of his poems.

A review of the biography The Life of Dostoevsky [Zhizn’ Dostoesvkogo], penned by the renowned Russian and Soviet writer Georgy Chulkov (1879—1939) and prepared for publication by the Dostoevsky scholar Olga Bogdanova. Opening IMLI RAN’s very promising series Study of Literary Sources in the 20th Century [Istochnikovedenie literatury XX veka], the book sets a very high standard for any subsequent issues. The book is published eighty years after its completion, and although it hardly contributes to modern Dostoevsky studies, the publication pays tribute to Chulkov and offers insights into the history of the topic, as well as the state of pre-war Soviet literary theory. Appended to the book are reviews of Chulkov’s typed-up manuscript by B. Tomashevsky, B. Drugov, V. Kirpotin, and V. Lyubimova (Dorovatovskaya), which adds bibliographical value to this edition.

E. Saprykina’s work about Italian Romanticism is considered in terms of its operation within the principal concepts defining the aesthetics and ideology of Romanticism as such. Shaping the Italian version of Romanticism are a series of central philosophical values, treated by each author in their individual manner. Such method appears especially productive for assessment of the role that the movement played in common European culture, as well as its integrity as a cultural phenomenon. The emergence of Italian Romanticism appears ambivalent: reaction to a complete displacement of the previous centuries’ ethical and aesthetical values exists in dialectical symbiosis with productive reimagining of Classicism. The author convincingly shows that Italian Romantics successfully utilized the experience of their transalpine neighbours, developing their own aesthetics at the same time.

A result of several seminars supervised by E. Takho-Godi at IMLI RAN, the collective monograph is the first volume in the new academic series called Russian Literature and Philosophy: Ways of Interaction [Russkaya literatura i filosofiya: puti vzaimodeystviya]. The authors focus on the works by those Russian writers and philosophers who provide most vivid examples of interaction between literary and philosophical principles. Such approach is determined by the literature-centricity of Russian culture. Many of the book’s protagonists, e. g. F. Dostoevsky, A. Grigoriev, L. Tolstoy, V. Solovyov, and A. Lo­sev, were writers as well as philosophers. One of the tools suggested for philosophical interpretation of creative writing is the subject-to-subject method developed by T. Kasatkina, which relies on the dialogue between the scholar and the author as equals.