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 The article introduces archival materials, including previously unpublished sources, in particular a postcard sent by Bunin to Sedykh.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.

Russian literature of the present day has lost its statehood and no longer pretends to build its own laws of development in the historical movement. The “dictatorship of art” predicted by the formalists, intended for the total textuality of Russian culture, turned out to be a predominantly optimistic slogan that has lost its stimulating function in the context of living literary reality. The research is devoted to the problem of interaction of Russian literature and formalism. Russian literature in the works of Russian formalists was considered as an autonomously existing system structure that simulates a “different” reality, independent of social and political conditions. The movement of literature in a functional perspective determined the activities and tasks of the so-called “formal school” mainly represented by Viktor Shklovsky, Boris Eikhenbaum and Yury Tynyanov.

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.

A novel detailed analysis of a page from Chukokkala , Korney Chukovsky's handwritten miscellany with drawings by Yuri Annenkov, dated March 1923, is given. Involvement of archival sources makes up the history of the drawing creation. It turns out that Annenkov worked at the page of the miscellany and the portrait of Leo Trotsky at the same time. The analysis of the stylistic features of the drawing reconstructs the elements of the literary life of the 1920s. The study of the depicted persons clarifies the circle of friends and associates of prominent cultural figures of the first post-revolutionary decade. The article provides little-known biographical information about the characters depicted in the drawing. It specifies how Annenkov met Gorky's closest associate, the prominent public figure Albert Pinkevich. The author highlights little-known facts of friendship of A. Pinkevich, Boris Pilnyak, a Soviet writer, and the avant-garde artist Boris Shaposhnikov. The history of the creation of graphic portraits of Soviet writers made by Annenkov is considered. In conclusion, the page of the handwritten miscellany, and Chukokkala as a whole, are presented as a unique monument that captures the living passage of time.

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.

The article introduces data from the history of the trade unions movement in Saratov that demonstrates the remains of democracy in Soviet Russia during the New economic policy period. The exact numbers of attendees of literary events held by the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers — 3000 in 3 months in the town with 200 000 population — shows that the number of literature lovers exceeded that of today. Provincial literary life was self-sponsored. The article touches upon the issue of collective agreements signed by both trade unions and workers, which gave way to the development of the literary market. It reconstructs the biographical data of the earliest Saratov censor Efim B. Schulman based on the research at the Russian State Social and Political History Archive, Saratov State Archive, and Saratov State Modern History Archive. The paper demonstrates that control over literary life in Saratov was decentralized for a number of reasons; among them lack of professional competence of the censors, human resources potential, and remoteness from Moscow. One can thus testify a cultural lag between the capital and the regions. It was not until the mid-1920s that censorship was established in some districts of Saratov region. For example, a book published in Saratov in 1927 gives an uncensored judgment of Leo Trotsky, which was highly unusual for that time.

Literary historian and critic Štefan Drug (1931 – 2011) began his science career in the year 1955 at the Institute of Slovak literature, Slovak Academy of Science. Between the years 1969 and 1974 he was a lecturer of Slovak literature and culture at the Jagellonian University in Krakow. At the time of normalization he could not work in the academic enviroment for political reasons, so he found a job as an editor of the publishing house Tatran (1974 – 1989). He did not return to his scientific work until the social and political changes in 1989: he dealt with Slovak literature of the 20th century, especially the issues of literary life, at the Institute of Slovak literature, Slovak Academy of Science, between the years 1990 and 2006. At that time he helped remove the distortions in the history of Slovak literature and rehabilitate then-proscribed authors (e.g. Valentín Beniak). Despite the forced break due to the political circumstances, Štefan Drug´s lifelong literary and historical work features a continuous interest in interwar leftist avantgarde, left-wing literature of the 1920s and the 1930s, in the DAV group and the life stories and works of its most significant representatives, namely Laco Novomeský and Vladimír Clementis. The paper built on archive materials shows how Štefan Drug was confronted with the period ideological apparatus.

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 interview is a part of the yet unpublished book of interviews carried out by J. E. Bor in the year 1944 with several significant representatives of the literary life in contemporary Slovakia (J. Smrek, M. Chorváth, M. Bakoš, J. Silan). The subject of the interview with Michal Považan is the specific poetics of Slovak Surrealism, which did not mechanically adopt the elements of French Surrealism e.g. in linking its production to Slovak poetic tradition. In this context Považan draws attention to Janko Kráľ´s poetry, whose work Slovak Surrealists creatively expanded. He also expresses his opinion about the concept of Structuralist criticism, the methods of which he used in analysing the works by J.C. Hronský (Jozef Mak and Gráč the Scrivener). Považan also comments in his interview on the topics which are related to the critical reflection of the contemporary literary life.

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.