Summer School on the Russian Literature.2023.
Vol. 19. № 1-2

The cultural production of Stalinism was based on the work of a multitude of hierarchically situated institutions. The whole sphere of Soviet art was clearly divided into two nervous sections, the first of which was controlled by the Union of Soviet Writers and the second by the Committee of the Arts. This paper attempts to reveal the motives and trace the trajectory of the „cultural war“ that broke out between these departments in the 1940s. The facts of the personalisation of this institutional conflict provide material for a detailed contextual analysis. We believe that the central cause of the confrontation was the incompatibility of the aesthetic views of A. A. Fadeyev and M. B. Khrapchenko, who for a long time were in charge of the central bodies of the Stalinist cultural industry.

Keywords: institutional history of culture, culture war, art of the Stalinist era, Soviet Writers’ Union, Committee of the Arts.

Dmitry Tsyganov

„Fighting for the Right to Rule“: Towards an Institutional History of the Cultural Conflicts of the Stalinist Era (1930–1940-th.)

In autumn of 1918 the Russian symbolist poet Viacheslav Ivanov (1866–1949) was forced to recognize that the Bolshevik regime was stable and that cooperation with its cultural institutions had became inevitable for him. On 15 October 1918 Ivanov accepted a position as head of the historic-theoretical section of the Ministry of Public Enlightenment (Narkompros).
In 1919–1920 Viacheslav Ivanov also served as „editor of the literature and philology section“ in the academic division of the State Publishing House. One of his duties was to review essays submitted for publication in periodicals of the Narkompros. Thus it happened that Ivanov had to evaluate papers by three young scholars: Boris Tomashevsky’s analyses of iambs in Pushkin’s poetry, Roman Jakobson’s attack on Valerii Briusov’s „Science of Verse“ (1919) and Boris Iarkho’s essay on Latin verses of the Carolingian epoch. It was the first encounter of the symbolist poet with members of a new academic group, which was later called the formalists.
Soon after Viacheslav Ivanov wrote the survey „On the latest theoretical research in the field of the artistic word“ (1920; printed 1922), in which he reviewed the publications of three writers of the symbolist movement: Andrei Belyi’s „Aaron’s Rod — about the Word in Poetry“, „On Artistic Prose“, Valerii Briusov’s „Science of Verse“ (1919), Mikhail Gershenzon’s „Poet’s Vision“ (1919). Together with them he analyzed the famous collections of articles „Poetika“ (1919) — one of the main manifestos of the Russian formalists, containing papers by Viktor Shklovsky, Lev Iakubinskii, Evgenij Polivanov, Osip Brik and Boris Eichenbaum.
After failed attempts to leave Soviet Russia in 1920 Ivanov decided to resume after a long pause his academic career. On 19th November 1920 he was appointed a professor of classical philology at the Azerbaijan State University. In his lectures on poetics in Baku in 1922 Ivanov continued his dialogue with the formalists, who harshly criticized the linguist Aleksandr Potebnia and his students (the so-called „Kharkov School“) in their essays.
Ivanov highly appreciated the Formalists’ analyses of phonetic and syntactic structures in poetry, but he found their approaches to poetry in general too „empirical“. In his view, it was not possible to refute the main postulates of Potebnia, even if treatments by his epigones were unacceptable. Aiming to oppose the arguments of the Formalists, Ivanov revived Potebnia’s psychological theory of language by introducing the concept of „zvukoobraz“ (sound-image), by which he meant fundamental sound combinations that were initially connected with certain images. According to him the emergence of „zvukoobraz“ is the first and the most important moment in the creation of the word and of poetic works.

Keywords: Poetry and Poetics, literary Symbolism, Futurism, Modernism, Formalism, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Aleksandr Potebnia, Viacheslav Ivanov, Andrei Belyi, Valerii Briusov, Mikhail Gershenzon, Viktor Shklovsky.

Konstantin Lappo-Danilevskii

Viacheslav Ivanov in Dialogue With the School of A. A. Potebnia and Early Formalism

This is a monographic analysis of Velimir Khlebnikov’s poem, which exists in several versions and goes by the titles „The Lay of El’“ or simply „El’“. The citation index of the earliest version created in Kharkov in 1920 and titled „The Lay of El’“ is exceptionally high, and among those who have commented on the poem's were outstanding Khlebnikov scholars. However, a comprehensive academic reading of the poem is yet to be proposed, and the article aims to bridge that gap. It delves into and explores the conflict between the poem's „Cratylic“ discourse (in the sense of Gerard Genette’s monograph Mimologics: Voyage en Cratylie) and bad writing, meticulously classifying all instances of the latter. Additionally, the article tackles a theoretical problem by discussing how commentators should approach avant-garde poems like „The Lay of El’“: disregard bad writing, as has been done before, or, on the contrary, provide its comprehensive analysis. A separate section of the article is about the poem’s love discourse as a borrowing from the Silver Age.

Keywords: Velimir Khlebnikov, „The Lay of El’“, „El’“, monographic analysis of a poem, Cratylic discourse, Silver Age love discourse, intertextuality, linguistic poetics.

Lada Panova

Bad Writing Canonized: How to Reflect It in Commentaries?

The article is devoted to the study of the problems of translation and reception of V. V. Nabokov’s novel „Lolita“ in Iran in the aspect of receptive aesthetics. The article reveals the influence of social and cultural changes on the perception and interpretation of the novel „Lolita“ and the attitude of Iranian readers to this work on the basis of national, ethical, aesthetic and religious traditions in the aspect of imagology. In addition, the specifics of the transformation of the horizon of expectations of Iranian readers are analyzed in connection with the change in socio-political and cultural conditions in Iran.

Keywords: V. V. Nabokov, the novel „Lolita“, psychology of reception, Iranian reader, Reader-response criticism, horizon of expectation, imagology.

Sousan Ashtarani

Understanding and Interpretation of V. Nabokov’s Novel „Lolita“ in Iran in the Aspect of Reader-Response Criticism

In Pushkin studies, the passage „You are so frank and condescending...“ («Вы так откровенны и снисходительны...»), which is a conversation between a Russian and a Spaniard on one of the topics that interested the poet — the role of the ancient nobility and the new Russian aristocracy, was traditionally published in the text of his unfinished „secular“ story „Guests Arrived at the Dacha“ («Гости съезжались на дачу...») (1828). The passage is found in Pushkin’s „first Arzrum“ notebook among his critical notes that he prepared for the „Literary Gazette“ («Литературная газета») in January 1830 During this period, Pushkin wrote three more literary critical articles in the form of a conversation or dialogue — „<Conversation about criticism>“ («<Разговор о критике>») (1829–1830), „<Almanashnik>” (1830) and „Have you read the remark in No. <45> «Literary newspaper»...“ («Читал ли ты замечание в № <45> “Литературной газеты”...») (1830). In the late 1820s — early 1830s, the dialogue was widely used in the articles, including in reviews of Pushkin’s published works, by the aspiring critic N. I. Nadezhdin. Perhaps the publications of the latter prompted Pushkin to resort to dialogue in several of his literary-critical sketches of this time, which were never published by him.

Keywords: excerpt „You are so frank and condescending...“, A. S. Pushkin, „Guests arrived at the dacha...“, critical article, dialogue, N. I. Nadezhdin

Svetlana Fedotova

Pushkin’s excerpt „You are so frank and condescending...“ (On the problem of genre)