Search

This work is the first to introduce handwritten drafts of the letters of A.S. Suvorin (1834–1912), owner and publisher of the “Novoye vremya” newspaper, to D.S. Merezhkovsky. The letters, which remained in the newspaper’s archive, cover the period from 1901 to 1911 and can explain the reasons for Suvorin’s interest in the young writer. Merezhkovsky was one of the objects of his passion for talented people, which was recalled by contemporaries and which explains his relationship, in particular, with Anton Chekhov. Suvorin’s letters to Merezhkovsky express his views as a critic, publisher, and theater owner, exhibiting an awareness of circumstances, business sense, and broad knowledge. Appearing as a representative of the “old” literature, he showed a keen perception of the aspirations of the “new” one. Suvorin attempted to hold Merezhkovsky back from an ill-timed publication of his letter to “Novoye vremya” about L. Tolstoy (1901). He also made detailed comments about the drama “Paul I” and reacted sharply to Merezhkovsky’s quoting of his words in the article “Nationalism and Religion” (1911). Attempts to patronize Merezhkovsky and support his endeavors concluded in a conflict with him towards the end of Suvorin’s life. The publication of handwritten drafts of Suvorin’s letters fills certain gaps in the notions about his contacts with the Merezhkovskys. Suvorin’s correspondence also illuminates his personal features and helps to restore the details of the literary life in the first decade of the 20th century.

The diary of Z.N. Gippius dates back to the time of the Italian journey that she made in 1896 together with D.S. Merezhkovsky and A.L. Volynsky (Flekser). The trip was undertaken in order to collect material for Merezhkovsky’s “The Romance of Leonardo da Vinci” and included visits to places associated with da Vinci’s life. Starting with a tour of the village of Vinci, where Leonardo was born, the travelers reached Amboise and visited the Clos Luce castle, the last refuge of the painter. The diary entries with brief observations and characteristics of the things seen by Gippius allow us to trace (although not completely) the route of the journey, which was later reflected in Merezhkovsky’s novel as well as in Volynsky’s “Leonardo da Vinci.” At the same time these records allow us to understand the emotional component of the trip. It took place in the middle of the “crisis” in the love relationship between Gippius and Volynsky, which, however, is not directly reflected in her notes equally ironic both towards Merezhkovsky and Volynsky. In the absence of Gippius’ letters for this period the published diary becomes an important document, which (for all its laconicism) gives a general idea of the circumstances of a joint trip to Italy. Of particular interest are the numerous pencil drawings made by Gippius during the sightseeing.

The article presents little-known documents and evidences, concerning the early biography of Olga Nikolaevna Chyumina (1858 –1909) — a poet, a writer, a translator — including ego-documents. The author of the article observes the peculiarities of her relations with modernist writers and her literary position, expressed largely in opposition to modernists. Despite the fact that nowadays Chyumina is almost forgotten, at the turn of the 20th century she was a famous writer who achieved both the attention of critics and high fees. The article examines the beginning of her creative career, the relationship with the critic V.P. Burenin, the first publications dedicated to the memory of General M.D. Skobelev. The author quotes from letters stored in archives, in which Chyumina writes about herself and subjects the role and place of women in literature to reflection. Chyumina wrote from a male person before women writers of the modern era began to resort to this technique. Critics have noted this feature, at the same time in the reviews she was advised not to raise serious topics, which corresponds to the traditional attitude towards women writers. In the second book of poems, Chyumina seems to have found exactly her voice, but the rapid development of new trends pushed this figure into the background.

The article deals with the masculine personas in the poetry of female authors Z.N. Gippius and M.Ye. Levberg. The article examines possible reasons for adopting a masculine mask, and the desire to acquire subjectivity appears to be the most likely among them. This subjectivity within the frame of the masculine gender order of Modernism could be attained only through the appropriation of the male voice. The article discusses critical reception of such appropriation. The article discusses critical reception of such appropriation and establishes the influence of Gippius on Levberg’s poetry. In view of exetremely low fame of this author, the article provides her biography and introduces previously unpublished texts. The article examines principles of constructing the masculine lyrical persona by Levberg; which turns out to be the mask of a warrior, or, more specifically, of a knight (which is not tipycal for Z. Gippius). The author draws parallels with Levberg’s theatre plays. She concludes that, as is in Gippius’ case, the artistic work of Levberg is based on the transgression of the gender order with the aim of constructing her authorship and the respectable position in the aesthetic discourse. The author of the article demonstrates that the masculine persona of both female writers is not so much a “mask,” a temporary role, but a reflection of their life position, their urge to destroy the dominating gender order and to acquire aesthetic subjectivity.

The history of literary associations, including the history of any journal, is primarily the history of people's relationships with each other. In such a history, personal likes and dislikes play the most essential role. This law of personal sympathies and antipathies manifests itself very expressively in a rather short history of the journal “Severny Vestnik”, published by L.Ya. Gurevich (1891–1898). The article offers significant additions to comments to published texts on the history of the journal. A.L. Volynsky and N.K. Mikhailovsky showed equal harshness and indelicacy in their polemics, but their contemporaries almost unanimously sided with Mikhailovsky as an older and deserved writer. Volynsky acquired a reputation as an unscrupulous person and gossip begins to gather around his name. Volynsky demonstrated unacceptable immodesty towards D.S. Merezhkovsky and Z.N. Gippius and allowed himself to use of someone else's material, bordering on plagiarism. But most importantly, in the plot of the book about Leonardo da Vinci, he depicted his personal relationship with Merezhkovsky and Gippius and his interpretation of the relationship between them. In addition, he expelled Merezhkovsky from the journal “Severny Vestnik”, which closed for him the opportunity to publish his novel about Leonardo da Vinci.

The corpus of letters of D.S. Merezhkovsky and Z.N. Gippius to K.I. Chukovsky is published for the first time, which allow us to reconstruct the little-known story of the relationship between the writers-Godseekers and the critic- feuilletonist. Even in the absence of reciprocal letters, the epistolary is of great historical and literary interest, especially its first part, which documents the initial stage of Merezhkovsky’s personal communication during his first Parisian emigration with the young Chukovsky, as well as the circumstances and conditions for the emergence of their friendly interaction. The second part confirms the factual accuracy of Chukovsky's revolutionary diaries and is of great importance for the reconstruction of the biography of Merezhkovsky pre-emigration period.

The paper deals with historic and literary case related to Z.N. Gippius’s short story “Mass (Decal)”, its publication and response in press and epistolary documents. The paper presents reviews to it, among them little-known and gives the literary and cultural context of the publication. The author presents her hypothesis about Gippius’s revaluation of her short story in later period.

Among the publications of D.S. Merezhkovsky, which the author did not include in his books and collected works, is a little-known essay «The Village of Vinci», written during the author's joint travel with Z.N. Gippius and A.L. Volynsky “in the footsteps of Leonardo da Vinci” in 1896. It occupies an intermediate position between the writer's artistic texts (whose autobiographical potential is really great, but its extraction in each case requires caution) and its documentary heritage (mostly epistolary). But the main thing is that this text was never reprinted or supplied with a scientific reference apparatus. It is valuable not only from the biographical point of view (if it is compared with other ego documents, among which are memories of the trip of Merezhkovsky's satellites, significant discrepancies, inaccuracies, varying degrees of detail are detected), but also in the textual aspect, to study the creative history of the second part of the trilogy “Christ and Antichrist”. “The Village of Vinci” is printed in the first and only edition: Cosmopolis, 1897, no. 2, pp. 94–106. With the subtitle “From the travel diary” and the editorial note: “This excerpt from the diary refers to the author’s preparatory work for the future of his novel, from the life of Leonardo da Vinci. He gives the tone of the picture, which should depict the youth of this hero of the Renaissance”. The published essay and notes to it will be included in the small academic “Collected Works” by D.S. Merezhkovsky in 20 volumes.