Search

The paper deals with the post-war period of I.A. Bunin’s life. These were years of difficult financial situation and serious health problems for the writer, which also involved additional expenses. The author examines how the Nobel Laureate tried to publish translations of his book “The Liberation of Tolstoy.” The translations significantly expanded the market and brought writers more income than publications in publishing houses of the Russian abroad. With the help of his former secretary Andrey Sedykh, Bunin wanted to undertake an English edition of the book, but he didn’t succeed. The paper reveals some previously unknown details of the complicated relationship between Bunin and Sedykh (along with the Nobel Prize period), including mutual sympathies periods (at least on the part of the author of “The Life of Arsenyev”) as well as periods of disappointment. The article introduces archival materials, including previously unpublished sources, in particular a postcard sent by Bunin to Sedykh.

The essay reconstructs the Moscow period of the literary biography of the poet and playwright Evgenii L’vovich Kumming (1899‒1980), starting with the establishment of the All-Russian Union of Poets in December 1918 until his immigration to Estonia in the Spring of 1921. The author reconstructs his participation in Moscow literary associations “The Green Atelier” (“Zelenaia masterskaia”), “The Literary Mansion” (“Literaturnyi osobniak”), “The Link” (“Zveno”) as well as the historical context of his creative activities. Literary life of those years was largely concentrated in writers’ clubs, and cafes, where numerous events were held with poetry readings, polemical discussions, etc. The essay traces in detail Kumming’s participation in such literary meetings. Kumming’s “dramatic trilogy” The Legendary Life and Worthy Death of Petrushka (1920), which appears as a vivid example of the poetic avant-garde of the post-revolutionary years, is republished in the Appendix.

The article deals with the relationship between V.G. Korolenko and M.A. Protopopov and their controversy over the heritage of N.K. Mikhailovsky. This controversy unfolded at a transitional moment in the history of “Russian Wealth,” when Korolenko became the main face of the magazine and had to establish himself as a leader. The article examines an early attempt to publish a revealing article by Protopopov about Mikhailovsky, proposed to A.S. Suvorin in 1898, in this context. The critic was refused, but later used it in an obituary about Mikhailovsky, in which, with all the objectivity, there was indifference to the memory of the deceased. Korolenko remembered how much Mikhailovsky did for the writer and objected to Protopopov from the point of view of everyday ethics. In his response, Protopopov claimed that he first criticized Mikhailovsky in 1878: this was the first critical article about Mikhailovsky from a friendly camp. He refuted accusations that for a quarter of a century he accumulated resentment against Mikhailovsky. After that, Korolenko did not continue the polemic. The article introduces into scientific circulation previously unpublished diary entries by Protopopov on the margins of his book “Literary Critical Characteristics” (1896), as well as his letter to Suvorin, revealing Protopopov’s identity.

Authors of the publication introduce a fragment of the chapter from Remizov’s manuscript “At the Evening Dawn” into scientific circulation. It was based on the original writer ‘s letters to S.P. Remisova-Dovgello and was created by Remizov during second half of the 1940s. The manuscript is a draft of the biographical prose, reflecting Remizov’s reception of to the events that occured 20 years ago from the perspective of his refugee experience. This is why many of the subjects and characteristics of contemporaries mentioned in the letters of 1927 are supplemented and modified by the writer. This type of redaction can be seen in comparison with the original text of the letters given by publishers in the Appendix. Both corpora of letters provide rich material for reconstruction of the history of Russian emigration and creative biography of Remizov. Comments to the text of the manuscript are based on rare, previously unpublished archival materials and are supplemented by new biographical data of a number of persons connected with Remizov and his wife.

The article presents a transcription of N.V. Kotrelev’s report read in 2016 and dedicated to archival materials revealing the fate of Vyach. Ivanov's first wife, Darya Mikhailovna, and their daughter Alexandra, years after the church dissolution of their marriage in 1896. Over the years, their daughter developed a mental illness. Ivanov was very distressed by descriptions of the course of the disease and accused himself of “murder” of his daughter. In an attempt to help his first wife, who lost her income, Vyach. Ivanov applied for a subsidy and organizational support to the “Literary Fund” and in a letter addressed to the chairman of the fund (F.D. Batyushkov) described in detail the tragic situation. The materials from the archives of the Literary Fund (Manuscript Department of IWL RAS), presented in the appendixes, demonstrate the history of assistance to the Vyach. Ivanov’s daughter.

The article is devoted to the history of creation of the poem “Unknown Lady,” written in by A. Blok April 1906 during the preparation for state exams at St. Petersburg University. Some parts of Vl. Piast’s memoirs and the correspondence of contemporaries reveal the first impressions of the poem in a narrow circle of friends. The article examines in detail Blok's reading of “Unknown Lady” in January 1907 at Blok's apartment with the presence of Vyach. Ivanov and his wife L.D. Zinovieva-Annibal, and the echo that the poem received in their work. The author of the article questions the version of Korney Chukovsky that this reading took place at the Ivanov’s Tower and that Chukovsky was personally present.

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.

For the first time, ten letters of the writer Elena Mikhailovna Tager (1895–1964), referring to the early, least studied years of her life, are published. Among her correspondents are S.P. Milyukov, N.A. Rubakin, Viach. Ivanov and A.A. Blok. The meaning of the letters goes beyond the limits of the biography itself: for example, the letter to Ivanov contains an unknown evidence of the famous meeting of the Religious-Philosophical Society, dedicated to the exclusion of V.V. Rozanov. Letters to Rubakin contain details of the pre-war life of the Russian student-revolutionary diaspora in Switzerland. The publication is accompanied by a detailed commentary.

The publication introduces 33 letters of the 1890s from Z.N. Gippius to the writer, poet and playwright, St. Petersburg lawyer F.A. Chervinsky. Gippius’s short romance with Chervinsky, as happened with her other heartfelt passions, provoked an intense epistolary dialogue, avoiding, however, direct expression and self-reflection of feelings. Gippius's letters are dominated by playing and light coquetry, full of hints and provocations, and the life romance itself is built by her as a tense psychological experiment. Their relationship in 1892 –1893 found reflection in the works of both participants — in Gippius's fairy tale “Time” and Chervinsky's story “Sylphide”, typical examples of modernist interrelation of literature and life. At the same time, the letters are interesting for the details of literary events reported in them, for the characteristics of a number of contemporary writers — N. Minsky, D. Merezhkovsky, A.P. Chekhov and other common acquaintances.

The paper presents selected records from Mikhail Kuzmin’s diary that deal with – directly or indirectly – Daniil Kharms and his literary associates since the first mentioning of “mystic-futurist Vvedensky” on March 16, 1924, and up to the arrest of Kharms and Vvedensky in “Gosizdat Juvenile Sector case” in December 1931. The records reveal lots of new biographical facts and aspects of literary life of the time. The publication is provided with the necessary commentary and the introductory article that recreates the background of Kuzmin’s relations with “Chinary” and later with OBERIU in the context of Leningrad culture of the late 1920s-early 1930s. A special attention is paid to the writers of “Kuzmin circle” that had personal relationships with Vvedensky and Kharms.

Memoirs of the writer Viktor Ivanovich Mozalevsky (1889–1970) are for the first time published in full and with detailed commentary. Being an unobtrusive, but active participant of literary life since the mid-1900s, Mozalevsky left vivid literary portraits of V. Bryusov, B. Sadovskoy, Yu. Slezkin, S. Auslender, E. Nagrodskaya, M. Bulgakov and many others.

Memoirs of the writer Viktor Ivanovich Mozalevsky (1889– 1970) are for the first time published in full and with detailed commentary. Being an unobtrusive, but active participant of literary life since the mid-1900s, Mozalevsky left vivid literary portraits of V. Bryusov, B. Sadovskoy, Yu. Slezkin, S. Auslender, E. Nagrodskaya, M. Bulgakov and many others.

Literary fact does not exist outside literary life, and literary life can exist only around the literary fact. Moreover, in the era of mass culture, the literary fact is in the focus of specialist's interests, and a layman prefers literary life to the literary fact and reads biography books on Pushkin instead of Pushkin’s poetry. This situation has already developed in the XIX century, even in an environment that, it would seem, should have kept the lofty spirit of the "Pushkin circle" writers and resisted everything connected with the "trade direction" in literature. As a result, literary life becomes the center of literary attention – literary fact.

The article presents the role of Zofia Nałkowska in inter-war Polish literary culture. Her activity in the structures of literary life was combined with personal commitment to promotion of young talented authors. While she maintained close bonds with the political elites of the Polish Republic, she also functioned above the ideological divisions, actively supporting authors who were opposed the state. As the only woman she was member of the Polish Academy of Literature. Her participation in the official forms of public life forced her to spend time mostly in male company. At the same time, Nałkowska’s most important relationships, both with women and men, developed in private space.