«Современник» против «Москвитянина»: Литературно-критическая полемика в России первой половины 1850-х годов
The focus of this article is Nikolai Nekrasov's attempt to revive the legacy of Yevgeny Baratynsky, whose poetry - mainly due to Vissarion Belinsky's criticism - was not as higly esteemed in Nekrasov's lifetime as after Baratynsky's "rediscovery' in the early 20th century. It is also shows that Baratynsky's elegies could influence Nekrasov's poem "Kogda iz mraka zabluzhdeb'ia..." (1845), and ofeer an explanation of the reason why Nekrasov favored Baratynsky's poem "Priznanie" (1823, 1832-33).
The dissertation is devoted to one of the most pressing issues of modern literary criticism — canon formation studies. Until now, most of the scholarly investigations have focused on the anonymous sociological mechanisms of canon formation. The role of another important factor — literary criticism — has not yet been described sufficiently. By ranking writers aesthetically, the critics constructed a synchronic hierarchy that ostensibly had its summit in the person of the “head of literature” («глава литературы»). The process of competition and selection of hierarchies resulted in the emergence of the historical phenomenon understood as literary canon. The thesis explores for the first time the cultural role of Russian literary criticism of the 1830–60s in this process and in the development of the critical concept “head of literature”. Literary polemics from the period under study comprise the research material for the dissertation. This was a time when famous Russian critics V. Belinsky, A. Grigorjev and N. Chernyshevsky proclaimed writers N. Gogol A. Ostrovsky and the critic N. Dobroliubov as “heads of literature”. Since literary criticism in this way tried to guide literature and to plan its future, the concept “head of literature” is discussed as a cultural myth that was formed in the process of nation building upon the foundation of a national literature. The origins of such conception of criticism (the so called “romantische Programmatik”) go back to the ideology of German Romanticism, in particular to F. Schlegel’s ideas, the transfer of which into Russian criticism is also explored in the thesis. An exploration of the wider European context of aesthetic ideas and the historical semantics of pivotal aesthetic concepts such as “genius”, “nationality”, “artistry” has allowed to explain the sources of many of the literary polemics of the 1830–60s. The dissertation offers a new interpretation of the literary debates between Belinsky and Gogol, Belinsky and Shevyrjov (1830s), the critical discussions of A. Ostrovsky’s debut as a playwright (1850–52), and the repercussions of the early death of critic N. Dobroilubov (1861). All these polemics are regarded as a symptom of the critics’ continuous struggle for power in the literary field and for the right to construct a particular literary future. Ultimately, this interdisciplinary approach (based on the intersection of canon formation studies, history of aesthetic concepts, and the historic-functional method) gives us a new picture of the history of Russian literary criticism and literature itself, one that places them in context of the European Romantic thought.
The paper is focused on the study of reaction of italian literature critics on the publication of the Boris Pasternak's novel "Doctor Jivago". The analysys of the book ""Doctor Jivago", Pasternak, 1958, Italy" (published in Russian language in "Reka vremen", 2012, in Moscow) is given. The papers of italian writers, critics and historians of literature, who reacted immediately upon the publication of the novel (A. Moravia, I. Calvino, F.Fortini, C. Cassola, C. Salinari ecc.) are studied and analised.
In the article the patterns of the realization of emotional utterances in dialogic and monologic speech are described. The author pays special attention to the characteristic features of the speech of a speaker feeling psychic tension and to the compositional-pragmatic peculiarities of dialogic and monologic text.