The review is devoted to a biography of Norman mailer, an American writer. The book was written by Mailer's friend and collegue John Michael Lennon.
The monograph deals with a subject that is rarely covered by Russian philologists: préciosité and the gallant tradition of 17th c. French culture. The author singles out the French and Russian approaches to interpreting preciousness, noting their differences and the fact that Russian scholars are lagging behind the French on the subject of salon literature. A. V. Golubkov rejects the principle of ‘neutrality’ towards the subject of the study, which is evident from his context-based use of psychoanalytical tools, including the term ‘frigidity’ to describe the social genesis of the gallant tradition and the habitus of préciosité. In his examination of the sources of these French cultural phenomena (‘academy’, ‘préciosité’, ‘gallantry’, and ‘salon’) the author shows their association with types of creative activity, Baroque and Classicism, and oral and written practices of salon culture, and portrays linguistic and genre-specific experiments of the précieuses. He stresses their preference of the salon literary genres over rhetorical skills, identifies elements of dialogue-based poetics, and reveals the principal indicators of a new language art.
This article was written based on the book by Ilya Ilf and Yevgeny Petrov, "One-storey America"
Human nature’s complexity and contradictoriness, accentuating the enigmatic essence of the Russian mentality, receives a unique depiction in Dostoevsky’s works. Often we read about strange specimens, whose thoughts and actions would bear typical features of Russian culture. The article sets out to examine these features: in particular, duality and a combination of mutually excluding qualities. In focus is violence committed by Dostoevsky’s characters, which inexplicably shifts from self-inflicted injuries to targeting of the outside world. The author suggests that it is caused by the character’s being torn between two conflicting urges, that eventually gives rise to duality. Thus, the character plays both roles: that of God and that of the master. These divine and sovereign characteristics can be measured through a discourse of pain, through perpetration of experimental violence.
This analysis of the relationship between the artist (genius) and places of importance in his literary career begins from the premise that a specific place may serve to trigger a creative concept and subsequently the creation of a work of art. It examines the issues of symbolic topography and geographical images of place as exemplified in Innokenty Annensky’s poetry on the basis of two poems written in Vologda but linked to the locus of Tsarskoe Selo and introduces the concept of metageography to interpret the interplay of genius and place. Inner spaces may evolve as the intersection and interplay of completely different places in a genius’s mind, giving rise to a specific literary work. In this way, Annensky’s poetry transformed the visual and aural features of the Vologda landscape into the classical geocultural images of Tsarskoe Selo. The connection between various places in writing poetry is mediated and latent and demands multiple interpretations. The simultaneity at work in the creative process is a significant element in an artist’s metageography.
The example of one of Plutarch's works shows some pecularities of the process of development of ancient Greek fiction
The article analyses the mechanisms of the making of the Shakespeare legend in the USSR during his two anniversaries (in 1939 and 1941) through unpublished material from the archives related to the celebrations. It also reconstructs the schedule of events dedicated to Shakespeare which were orchestrated by the Cabinet (Department) of Shakespeare and Western European classics and chaired by the preeminent Moscow-based scholar M. Morozov. The transcript of the government’s discussion of the anniversary and the plan for nation-wide festive events is published for the first time in the appendix to the article. The reestablishment of Classicism in the 1930s opened up an opportunity for turning Shakespeare into an emblematic figure with a powerful range of ideological and political messages suitable for that period. An ideologically updated Shakespeare was proclaimed a ‘teacher’ in ‘the fight for the new culture’ and swiftly appropriated by the Marxist-Leninist theory of the class struggle. Quotes from Shakespearean tragedies and chronicles became popular tools of totalitarian rhetoric. In this new environment, and hailed as a modern Soviet classic and citizen, Shakespeare morphed into a symbol of misappropriation of the world’s artistic legacy and exemplified the myth of the validity of Socialist culture.
The author introduces a collection of papers published as the proceedings of the Ninth Gasparov Readings, which were held in 2014 and devoted to translations of Classical and European authors by Mikhail Gasparov himself. Some of these articles analyse his legacy, while the remainder focus on problems and curious examples of translation (two of which appear in this issue). The roundtable discussion encouraged the participants to answer the following questions: Can translation be taught? How did I learn to translate? How do I teach translation?
The author seeks to destroy the myth surrounding the personality of Mikhail Katkov, one of Russia’s most prominent thinkers and journalists, who defended the Russian imperial ideology, believing it to have descended from European views to take root in the local culture. The author invokes two major figures of Russian history and culture: Peter the Great and the poet Aleksandr Pushkin. Katkov argued that Russia owed its successful integration into European history to Peter the Great, who transformed the country into a powerful empire and created an independent space for spiritual experiments. So it no longer seems accidental that Pushkin was referred to as ‘the singer of the empire and freedom’. It was for that reason that Katkov jumps to the defense of the Russian empire, fearlessly opposing the government, no less, who, he thought, had lost touch with reality. Eventually, Katkov was fighting two enemies: Russian nihilists (with Herzen in the lead), who wasted no time undermining the empire, and Russian liberals, who would stop at nothing, even welcome a foreign invasion, in order to bring down the empire (the so-called ‘Polish intrigue’). The author sets out to reconstruct the writer’s true image through his work.