The article proposes an intertextual reading of three novels based on a motif of passing through the wall: «La disparition d'Honore Subrac» (1910) by Guillaume Apollinaire, «A gymnast» (1929) by Youri Vladimirov and «Le passe-muraille» (1943) by Marcel Ayme. Each of these texts is analyzed through a prism of two other texts; together, they form a complex structure where the notion of influence seems to be inappropriate. Some texts of Daniil Kharms, typologically close to the novel of Vladimirov, permit to enlarge this intertextual perspective.
The early history of Russian universities is of great demand in contemporary historiography. In the last years it has been covered in numerous articles and monographs. A series of these publica- tions deal with the first decades of the most important of them, The Moscow State University. They shed light on previously hardly known aspects of its functioning, provide reference materials, trace biographies of its professors and administrators, and present collections of historical documents. Generalization and systematization of the vast body of materials in these publications allow not only to reconstruct the more detailed picture of the University’s history, but also to put new questions. In particular the question about “structures of contemporaneity” in which its professors lived. These structures are mapped in this paper in the course of reconstruction of a conflict between professor Philipp Heinrich Dilthey (1723–1781) and the University administration. The main questions are addressed to hierarchy of power relations in the University: What was the place of professors in this hierarchy? What rights and obligations they possessed? What were the reasons of their conflicts with University officials? How these conflicts developed and ended? How the powers between profes- sorial Conference, Director and Curator were allocated? And finally, in what way the interaction between the University and supreme state authorities was carried out?
Article is devoted to academic and political career of Ukrainian historian Mikhail Hrushevsky in 1910-1920 years. Since the First World War comes a break in his previous academic career, although he participated in establishment and activity of the Ukrainian National University in Kiev. This school was an alternative to 'old' mperial University, the majority of teachers who adhered to conservative ideological principles
In this article Saltykov problematizes the pragmatics and reputation of "snuff films", which depict violence toward a victim who will allegedly die a real, not cinematic death at the end of the film. Urban legends offer various rumors about films made "on special order" that record people being maltreated in real time. Saltykov discusses the genesis of these notions and the mythology of snuff film overall. He also suggests a short historical survey of the subgenre's development as it is understood by viewers (primarily those who have not seen the films, but who think of theme as representing a possible extreme). The basic hypothesis of the article lies in an explanation of the specifics of the snuff genre through the figure of the client, who in hyperbolized fashion brings about the logic of late-capitalist market relations: the product can be anything, including the human body and human life.
The paper analyzes the conception of neoeternalism proposed by Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann. This conception played an important role in the discussion about the nature of the divine eternality in the second half of the 20th century. Neoeternalism criticizes the conception of temporalism dominant at the time and largely determines vectors of further discussion of the concept. After a brief review of the context in which neoeternalism is emerged and discussion of the key points of the conception, the author seeks to determine, firstly, whether it is possible to talk about Stump and Kretzmann text ‘Eternity’ as a modern classics, and, secondly, to trace the role of reviews in the process of making it classics.
The article deals with an analysis of the concept of 1812 people’s war as created by the government and political conservatives. The government represented by A.S. Shishkov, secretary of state, and F. Rostopchin, governor of Moscow, wanted to regard the war against Napoleon as the people’s war but was at the same time afraid of possible riots. Ideologically, the consept of the people’s war was also used to justify the serfdom
This article studies the role of journal reviews in the professionalization of the humanities in Russia during the imperial period. Reviews from The Journal of the Ministry of National Education were chosen as sources, as this was the leading scholarly publication in Russia during the second half of the nineteenth century, publishing works on philology, history, philosophy, Eastern studies, and pedagogy. The author uncovers the fundamental criteria used by scholars to evaluate the work of their colleagues: objectivity in judgments, persuasiveness of critical conclusions, confirmation of original hypotheses with quotations from sources, bibliographical comprehensiveness, and so forth. The author concludes that Russian academic society of the nineteenth century saw journal reviews not as a formalized, secondary genre (as they are seen today), but as an effective mechanism for enhancing the quality of scholarly research.
The study, focusing on published and unpublished sources concerning the festivities of 50th anniversary of Ivan Krylov (1838), examines the interference of several problematic fields. The first is the evolution of self-imagining of the literary community in Russia, the institutionalization and professionalization of the Russian literature; the second – the shaping of the Russian jubilee culture set against the background of the culture of mass festivities, ceremonies and practices of commemoration; the third – the struggle of bureaucrats of the highest rank (A. Benkendorf, the chief of the III Department of the Imperial Chancellery, and S. Uvarov, the Minister of the Education), as well as groups of the writers, for the priority in inventing the idea of the first literary jubilee.
The article shows that the all but common assumption that the collection was edited by Vassili Joukovski is wrong, and gives the name of the true editor — Count Nikolai Kugushev.
A review of the 25 years of Michael Gorham's analysis and critics of the Russian political discourse from 1920s thru 2010s.