Vsevolod Kochetov’s (1912–1973) novel What Do You Want Then? (1969) was perceived in the USSR and the West as a manifesto for far-right, neo-Stalinist forces. This opus was an extended lampoon of the “liberals of the sixties” — those poets and authors who, while maintaining quite conformist public behavior, strove to make the Soviet regime and Soviet literature more democratic and (in their view) contemporary. In this novel, Kochetov essentially accused the “liberals of the sixties” of being involuntary agents of the West. This article shows that Kochetov gathered information about the private lives of the “liberals of the sixties” from an unexpected source: the American reporter Patricia Blake’s articles in Encounter magazine. While working on this article, Blake met with many “liberals of the sixties” and separately with Kochetov. The poet Andrei Voznesensky has previously shown that Patricia Blake was the prototype for Portia Brown, the main negative heroine of Kochetov’s novel. This article also proposes to refine notions about the place occupied by the “roman à clef” in Soviet literature.
It sounds like this sounds like it’s possible to understand it. It is a bit of a real art response to what you’ve played. Following from that, it’s possible to mobilize it.
In the article "Context is king": John Pocock, historian of political languages" Mikhail Velizhev and Timur Atnashev interpret the basic premises of the Cambridge methodology as applied to the history of political philosophy, and discuss the interdisciplinary approach of one of its founders, John Pocock, introducing his works to the Russian intellectual context for the first time. The article covers Pocock's biography as a scholar and his methodological program, the reception of the Cambridge School in Russia and, in particular, the limits to applying this methodology in analyzing Russian political languages.
At the turn of the 20th century, the issue of urban development was one of the key problems discussed by European architects. Architects were haunted by a fear of an expanding, sinister Metropolis that would trample humanity, make life in the city unbearable, and undermine traditional values and human interactions. The need to clear out the urban space seemed to be the primary task for architecture, and along with it questions were raised about expanding historical cities and building residences for socially defenseless residents. Among the proposed solutions, the concept of «instauratio urbis» (reiteration, restoration) was articulated—a traditional notion that one should restore the cultural significance of architecture as a repository of historical experience.
This article examines the historical creation of the Blaise Pascal's "Provincial Letters, and their use of comic devices. Judging by their content, characters, and general pathos, the "Provincial Letters"are closest of all to the tradition of "Menippean satire". The two are united by the presence of the Jesuits as target, the aim to influence the doubting reader, the devices of burlesque, pun, comic scenarios and speech, and the combinations of genres and languages. In the architectonics of the "Provincial Letters", a special position is occupied by the 11th letter, the primary theme of which is the justification of the moking and ironic relationship toward delusion. Pascal points at the important position that irony and laughter occupy in the tradition of the Church. In addition, "wicked laughter" - the antidote for moral depravity - becomes the exception in the Christian " laughing world" of Pascal, which "banishes" wicked irony, exchanging it for the smile of the wiseman in the "Thoughts".
Analytic survey of the papers presented at the conference concentrated on the scholarly legacy of the prominent Russian scholar a correspondent of Boris Pastermak and an author of the Memoirs encompassing first half of the XXth century. The place of her ideas in nowadays scholarship and new researches inspired by her theoretical works.
Boris Eikhenbaum wrote the novel The Route to Immortality between 1932—1933, both marking and concluding the crisis of his Formalist biography, which had begun in the latter half of the 1920s. Were it not for the complete and utter failure of this book, Eikhenbaum’s rebranding of himself as a post-Formalist might have sent him down other paths besides those of editorial work and further absorption in his “Tolstoy project”. Tynianov managed to become an author of popular historical fiction and a screenwriter; Eikhenbaum did not. Nevertheless, an unsuccessful attempt is still an attempt, although most of what is written about Eikhenbaum avoids discussing this novel or focuses on its mechanically philological nature. Levchenko suggests that the book is also interesting in its reflection of Eikhenbaum’s unrealized ambitions as a screenwriter. His peculiar ideas about film are curious to no small degree because of their dilettantism, and can be traced back to his 1920s work in film theory; in the novel, they change in accordance with his ideas about how a screenplay should look, or visualizations of literature.
This article presents the ideological biography of the Kiev-based scientist, writer and essayist Viktor Petrov (1894—1969) and attempts a reconstruction of the continuity and interconnections of his scientific and artistic views in the 1920s and 1940s. At the center of his concern is the problem of history as a series of epochs that succeed one another outside of any progress, as well as the problems around the reconstruction of a primeval ideology of lineage (with reference to Potebnya and Dmitri Chizhevsky). Petrov’s work is particularly important and attractive in its combination of the analytic, artistic and historiosophical approaches, his biographical stylization and love for masks, as well as his strategies of intellectual survival in a post-avant-garde ideological situation.
The article is dedicated to the work of the famous Soviet Renaissance historian Leonid Batkin
What if being human is separated from humanity? How some of the most common ideas of Western democracy (equality, political power, humanism) are ex-posed and staged by non-humans? These are my questions for recent Hollywood monies like Transformers or X-man.
The article is devoted to the Russian bureaucrat’s vision of the bureaucratic empire that actually they represented in the Russian empire. On the eve of the XXth century the state service recruited the best and the most ambitious students who had different points of view – and at the same time the high qualification. It seemed that most of them were apolitical and quite indifferent to any ideology. However, at the same time they were part of the Russian society. They had the same social experience, they read the same newspapers and they shared the same views as the representatives of “intelligentsia” (mostly liberal opposition).
In the stable situation this bureaucrats were more or less betrayed to the throne. At the time of the choice of the First Russian Revolution, their decision was unpredictable. But the main problem was that the bureaucrats were against bureaucrats – in other words the bureaucratic system of Russian Empire. They were sure in it’s inefficiency and demanded the changes. This bureaucracy was quite skillful and well prepared for the administration. At the same time it was an Achilles heel of political regime in Russia. They did not associate themselves with the power though they exercised the real power everyday. Many of the bureaucrats (not all, of course) did their best to change regime though they were it’s offspring.