Search

The article analyzes the landmark novel of Russian writer M.L. Stepnova, The Garden (2020), which has aroused the public’s and critic’s interest, continuing the “estate text” of Russian literature of the 19th–20th centuries. It is shown that the image of the garden in the work is both national (the whole tradition of the Russian “estate text”) and universal (the Bible, Voltaire, H.L. Borges, U. Eco, etc.). The key to an adequate reading of the postmodern novel with its “semantic insolubility,” narrative “nonselectio,” experiments on human identity, an invitation to the “alternative history,” etc. is an analysis of its intertextuality, generating original life-creating strategies. There are three concentric circles of intertextuality that diverge in the breadth of space-time coverage: character, author-narrative, and mythopoetic. If in character terms the protagonist of the work — the garden — directly participates in people’s lives, at the author-narrative level becomes an ideologeme, symbolizing with his death under the axes of hired workers the tragic fate of Russia at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries, then in the super-author’s mythopoetic sphere reveals the quality of practical immortality, indestructibility. The reason for the suicidal cutting down of the garden of the grown-up Princess Boryatinskaya is the excommunication of this heroine from fiction, primarily “estate,” with its powerful lifecreating potential. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the systematic analysis of the intertextual strategies of the iconic modern novel for the first time and the identification of their three-level structure. The article applies historical-literary and cultural approaches, methods of historical poetics, and structural-semiotic analysis and uses the modernist and postmodern thesaurus paradigms.

The Russian economy is operating under severe strains and limitations in foreign trade. The unevenness of economic space, regions’ openness, specialization and industrial efficiency cause differences in both economic growth and the state administration system. The article pioneers and tests a theoretical-methodological approach to assessing shock robustness of single-industry regions in the context of a harsh foreign economic environment and justifies approaches to adjusting regional development policy of the state. In the paper, shock robustness of a region’s economy is viewed as the ability to recover, continue a long-term development trend, and keep the potential for adaptation and structural changes. The research methodology consists of regional economics and management theories, and the theory of shocks. The research methods include regression analysis and time series analysis (the Hurst exponent, the Hodrick–Prescott filter). The empirical base is open data for single-industry regions. The study reveals that single-industry regions differ in shock robustness; there are regions with high susceptibility to foreign trade changes and industrial production volatility (with high foreign trade intensity – Sverdlovsk, Vologda, Chelyabinsk oblasts and Krasnoyarsk Krai) and regions with limited structural adaptation reserves (with low foreign trade intensity – Lipetsk and Murmansk oblasts) that require the adoption of problem-oriented managerial decisions. We systematize strategic avenues for single-industry regions vulnerable to external shocks, namely enhancing diversification and improving the sectoral structure of the economy and exports. The study adds to the understanding of industrial regions’ problem areas and government support measures facilitating their adaptation to instability.

Dostoevsky’s story “The Eternal Husband” (1870) is analyzed here for the first time in the light of the estate/dacha topics present in it and placed in the context of the development of the “dacha text” in 19th-century Russian literature. The dynamics of Dostoevsky’s perception of the dacha are also traced: from positive connotations in early works to negative, ironic ones in late works. It is established that while the “estate text” is present in most of the writer’s works of 1840s–1870s, the “dacha text” can be found mainly in two works of the late 1860s: the novel The Idiot (1868) and the story “The Eternal Husband.” The reason for Dostoevsky’s short–term fascination with the “dacha topos” in the post-reform era is the search for a platform for the interaction between Russian social stratums to develop a nationwide worldview and identify the new “best people,” future leaders of the country. Such a role was played in The Idiot by the dachas of Epanchins and Lebedev. In “The Eternal Husband” the dachas of Pogoreltsevs and Zakhlebinins also serves as a neutral, middle space for an equal dialogue between “people of different worlds:” Velchaninov, a prominent figure of the high society, and Trusotsky, a provincial official. However, here the sociocultural possibilities of the “dacha topos” are disappointed: now the dacha is only the focus of petty-bourgeois vulgarity and mediocrity, a sign of decrease compared to the estate. Boris Tikhomirov’s conclusions about the involution of Velchaninov’s inner world, made at the level of characterology, are confirmed by our analysis at the level of topics: the spiritual and moral degradation of the hero is accompanied by his transition from the world of “estate” values to the sphere of “dacha” interests, which corresponds to a noticeable trend in the life of the Russian educated class of the last third of the 19th century. In our opinion, this can explain Dostoevsky’s refusal to develop the “dacha topos” in the late 1860s and return to the “estate topos” in the last three novels written in the 1870s.

The formation of the “dacha myth” in Russian literature at the turn of the XX–XXI centuries is shown on the prose of Yu.V. Mamleev, primarily his novel “Wandering Time” (2000). Based on the socio-cultural evolution of the phenomenon of the dacha in the USSR, the dynamics of the “dacha topos” in Mamleev's prose is traced: in the 1960s (“Connecting Rods”, etc.) this is the final apotheosis of the Soviet neo-myth about the Russian landowner's estate as a “nest” of violence and vice; in the 1990s–2000s. (“Wings of Horror”, “Wandering Time”, “World and Laughter”, etc.) this is the birth of a new myth about the post-Soviet dacha with clear positive connotations. To understand the innovative content of the “dacha myth”, the philosophical theses of Mamleev (“Last Doctrine” and “Russian Doctrine”), as well as the essence of his “metaphysical realism” and “metaphysical patriotism” are considered. On this basis, the analysis of six dacha loci in the novel “Wandering Time” is carried out. It is concluded that Mamleev's “dacha myth” is a fundamentally new category compared to the “estate myths" of the Silver Age and the Soviet era, since it is not based on the mythologeme of “paradise on earth” and not the exposure of the “exploitative” “hell”, but the doctrine of “Eternal Russia”, which more than “paradise” and “hell” combined. According to the writer, “Eternal Russia” opens up in a unique dacha space peculiar only to Russia, simultaneously preserving the Absolute (God), opened into an incomprehensible Abyss and preserving its natural and cultural identity.

The article analyzes for the first time in the history of research on Dostoevsky the image of the Russian rural estate in the novel Crime and Punishment, in the context of the whole problematic of the book, with an emphasis on plot-compositional and semantic-semiotic aspects. The author previously clarifies the outstanding role of the rural estate as an ideal of life-settlement in the writer’s biography from childhood (Darovoye) to the end of life (the lawsuit about the Ryazan estate in the “case of the Kumanin inheritance”). The appearance of the estate of the Svidrigailovs, the structure of their life, the characters and lifestyle of both spouses are reconstructed according to the details scattered in the text of the novel. The semantics of their names is considered: Arkady and Marfa. It is shown that the name Arkady, used by Dostoevsky in three different works (“A Weak Heart”, Crime and Punishment, The Adolescent) actualizes the idyllic topos of Arcadia from ancient mythology, with which Russian landowner’s estate was traditionally associated. However, the destruction of the “culture of the estates” during the years of liberal reforms (the 1860s) strengthens the socio-critical pathos in the representation of the “estate topos” in Russian literature, which is noticeable in Crime and Punishment. The peculiarity of Dostoevsky’s “estate text” in contrast with I.S. Turgenev, I.A. Goncharov, N.A. Nekrasov, L.N. Tolstoy, etc. is that it is given an ontological dimension. On one hand, the Svidrigailov estate is a pagan topos, a place to satisfy the hedonistic needs of its owners, on the other, it is the locus of Marfa Petrovna’s spiritual growth in repentance, prayer, and posthumous convergence with the New Testament Martha, the sister of Lazarus, resurrected by Christ. In turn, Arkady Ivanovich, being by nature a good person, without the help of Christ he rejected, perishes because of the lustful passion that seized him. The concept of the estate as a pagan topos, embodied by Dostoevsky in Crime and Punishment, was understood and continued in the Silver Age by N.A. Berdyaev, G.I. Chulkov, A.N. Tolstoy, N.S. Gumilev, etc.

The article deals with the problems of studying the dacha as a special kind of artistic space in Russian literature of the 19th–21st centuries. The author of the article analyses dacha against the background of a much better studied “literary estate,” discusses and clarifies the concepts of “dacha culture,” “dacha text,” “dacha topos,” introduces into scientific circulation, shows relationship and dynamics of the terms “literary dacha,” “poetosphere of dacha,” “dacha myth.” The article lists main constitutive differences between the toposes of estate and dacha formed in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In Soviet time, due to the disappearance of the owner’s estate, a number of its functions (unity of nature and culture, storage of family and ancestral memory, etc.) passed to the dacha. Already since the 1920s, the “poetosphere of dacha” has been formed, largely due to the atmosphere of writers’ country villages (Tarusa, Peredelkino, Komarovo, etc.), which have become specific toposes of artistic creativity. In the 1960– 1980s — the period of mass dacha construction in the USSR — the “dacha culture” is enriched either by the romance of individual enterprise, or by the excitement of esoteric search. The literature of the turn of the 20th–21st centuries formed “dacha myth,” which has absorbed the antinomic connotations of the decentered worldview of modernity. For the purpose of scientific development of the phenomenon of literary dacha, the article sets the task of forming a research thesaurus as relevant to the subject of the study of the categories’ system.

In the 1920s–1940s poetics became the main aspect of the study of The Adolescent both in the USSR and in Russian emigration. Of particular importance is the work on the handwritten corpus of the novel. The review examines the publications of the surviving manuscripts and the main studies devoted to their analysis. The stages of poetics studies and textual criticism on The Adolescent are traced in chronological order. The review consists of three sections: studies on the poetics and textual studies of The Adolescent in 1920s USSR (L.P. Grossman, N.P. Antsiferov, R.V. Ivanov-Razumnik, V.L. Komarovich, M.G. Davidovich, B.M. Engelgardt, S.A. Askoldov, S.N. Durylin, M.M. Bakhtin); Russian emigration about the poetics of The Adolescent in 1920s-1940s (I.I. Lapshin, R.V. Pletnev, A.L. Bem, P.M. Bicilli, K.V. Mochulsky); studies on the poetics of The Adolescent in 1930s-1940s USSR (G.I. Chulkov, A.S. Dolinin). The main issues that occupied Soviet and emigrant scholars of the 1920s and 1940s are highlighted: the ideological and artistic continuity of the novels The Devils, The Adolescent, and The Brothers Karamazov as the development of the idea of the plan for The Life of a Great Sinner; Dostoevsky’s creative method in the novel The Adolescent; the creative history and type of the novel; plot-compositional features and narrative strategies; motives and symbols; typology and characterology of heroes, including reminiscences from Griboedov and Pushkin, artistic polemics with L.N. Tolstoy and “duality”; prototypes of characters; speech style. The chapter on the novel in the book Dostoevsky. Life and Works by the emigrant scholar K.V. Mochulsky (1947) is recognized as the pinnacle of the study of The Adolescent in the first half of the 20th century, as it absorbed practically the entire research discourse on both sides of the USSR border and gave a complete picture of its problems and poetics. At the same time, the book is free from the traces of ideological coercion that Soviet scholars experienced in the 1930s and 1940s.

The history of the perception of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel The Adolescent in the first half of the 20th century is divided into two large, qualitatively different periods: the Silver Age and the 1920s–1940s. The peculiarity of the first one is the discovery of Dostoevsky as a philosopher and religious thinker, while the second the awareness of him as an original artist. Therefore, in the first period, “ideological” and “spiritual” interpretations of The Adolescent prevailed, in the second – scientific studies of his poetics and especially of the manuscript corpus. The main areas of study of The Adolescent in the 1920s and 1940s were biography, psychoanalysis, and poetics, together with a continuous religious and philosophical understanding of the novel. The reviewed material is considered in chronological order. There is no clear distinction between Soviet and emigrant researchers, although there is a difference in the conditions in which they worked. Among the authors who wrote about The Adolescent in the 1900s and 1910s, symbolist and religious-philosophical interpretations predominate (D.S. Merezhkovsky, A.A. Blok, V.V. Rozanov, A.S. Glinka-Volzhsky, N.A. Berdyaev), judgments from the positions of naturalism, positivism, and Marxism are less common (A.I. Vvedensky, V.V. Veresaev, V.F. Pereverzev). If in the USSR of the 1920s–1940s references to The Adolescent in a religious and philosophical way are rare (N.O. Lossky), then in emigration they are quite numerous (metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky, N.A. Berdyaev, A.Z. Steinberg, E.Yu. Kuzmina-Karavaeva, N.O. Lossky). In Dostoevsky’s biographies of the 1920s–1940s, the myth of the writer’s gloomy childhood prevails, as if depicted in the plot of Arkady Dolgoruky, the hero of The Adolescent (L.P. Grossman, I.D. Ermakov, K.V. Mochulsky), but in the same years, there is confidence in the evidence of Dostoevsky’s happy childhood (O. von Schultz, G.I. Chulkov). Psychoanalysis, authoritative in the 1920s, considered the family conflict of The Adolescent in the light of the Oedipus complex and the teachings of Z. Freud on the structure of the human personality (A.A. Kashina-Evreinova, B.A. Griftsov, I.D. Ermakov, P.S. Popov).

The bibliography of literary criticism and essays (articles, reviews, literary portraits and parallels, critical and biographical essays, etc.) by Arkady Semyonovich Dolinin (1880–1968), first published here, gives an idea of the field of interest of a great Soviet literary critics before the beginning of his scholarly activity, in the first decades of the XX century. The paper traces the path of Dolinin - literary critic, his appeal to the classical (F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy, A.I. Herzen, etc.) and modern (A.P. Chekhov, B.K. Zaitsev, F. Sologub, D.S. Merezhkovsky, etc.) literature, his artistic and aesthetic preferences (from realism to modernism), and his religious and philosophical quest against the background of social and political struggle during the First World War, the Revolution and the Civil War. The paper gives an analysis of Dolinin's method: biographical and psychological approach, Critical attitude to the sociological (“pypinism”) and formal- aesthetic (“shklovskism”) methods, comments on the ideological and creative relations with S.A. Vengerov, his teacher at Petrograd University. Special attention is paid to Dolinin's intensive critical work in 1918 –1920 in the Arkhangelsk newspaper Renaissance of the North, where he chronicled Russian literary life at a historical turning point, reflecting on the works of V.V. Rozanov, L.N. Andreev, A.M. Gorky, A.M. Remizov, A.A. Blok, etc. An important achievement of Dolinin was the discovery of young, still unknown talents: L.M. Leonov, B.V. Shergin, A.V. Tufanov.

This review considers the principal subjects in the latest work by Galina Ponomareva, Director of the Dostoevsky Apartment Museum in Moscow. The review’s particular focus is on the sections concerning Dostoevsky’s Moscow childhood and the “idea of Moscow” in his works.

In contrast to passeistic and neo-mythological trends in the representation of the “estate culture” in the so-called Silver age, a number of works of that time follow another line — the one of aesthetic, civilizational, and socio-psychological critique. The latter tendency dates back to the serfdom period (A.I. Herzen, N.S. Leskov, L.N. Tolstoy, etc.). Pan-aesthetics, one of the main trends of Russian culture of the early 20th century, prompted the mentioned aesthetic critique. A number of authors questioned and rejected the idealization of the Golden age of “estate culture”, which in the Silver age claimed to be the “national ideal.” This is how the polemical image of “not a golden antique” appears in the works of I.F. Annensky, Andrey Bely, N.S. Gumilev, G.I. Chulkov, A.N. Tolstoy, etc. In addition, the structure of the “estate topos” includes civilizational critique of the “estate culture” as organic part of the Russian national-patriarchal world (A.I. Ertel, A.P. Chekhov, I.S. Shmelev, etc.). The article examined the mentioned negative connotations of the “estate topos” on the example of the story by Alexey N. Tolstoy “Mishuka Nalymov (Zavolzhye).”

The aim is to assess the susceptibility of the regional economy to shocks associated with unexpected changes in institutional rules, trading instruments, as well as accession to international organizations. The impulse response approach to the study of shocks served as a methodological basis. The authors propose and test a new methodological approach that consists in identifying regions characterized by persistent development or a potential for changing the gross regional product as a response to an external shock impulse. It also allows to determine resonant factors that affect the vulnerability, depth and scale of economic consequences. The study reveals that an external institutional shock influences the economic development of regions in various ways, which is due to a number of vulnerability factors. This leads to the formation of territories that differ in the level of susceptibility to shocks and possess the ability to maintain the trend of economic development.

On the example of the novellas by Mikhail M. Prishvin Secular Cup. The 19 th year of the 20 th century (1922) and by Nikolai Ognev [M.G. Rozanov] The Diary of Kostya Ryabtsev (1926–1927) as well as stories Ivan A. Bunin “Non-urgent Spring” (1923) and Mikhail A. Bulgakov “Khan’s fire” (1923), this essay demonstrates evolution but also mutation of the national topic under the influence of historical cataclysms. As a result, one of the most important elements of the “national axiomatics” of Russia, namely the “estate topos” that since the 18 th century and up until the beginning of the 20 th century had preserved constant features, prompted a number of new modifications in the 1920s. One of them is the so-called estate-museum. In the Secular Cup, this modification is promising and has a beneficial effect on Russian life by educating and refining the crowd. In the story by Nikolai Ognev, the landowner estate is part of the exploitative and antiscientific past, and the new Soviet life does not need its heritage. In the story “Non-urgent spring,” Bunin argues that the only true, eternal values epitomized by the estate are absolutely incompatible with the new Soviet reality; “estate culture” has irrevocably abandoned national history. In Bulgakov’s story, the image of the estate is ambiguous: on the one hand, it acknowledges the enduring value of its treasures of art and science, models of behavior and forms of being and everyday life; on the other hand, it criticizes the class egoism of the former owner of the estate. Hence, Prishvin’s estate-museum alone can be recognized as culturally promising for the forthcoming 70-year long Soviet period of Russian history that the country enters in the 1920s.

The article examines discursive features of the independent liberal-patriotic weekly Narodopravstvo (Democracy) published in 1917–1918 in Moscow and edited by the famous writer-symbolist G.I. Chulkov. The magazine (24 issues, two of them double) served as a “chronicle of the ideas and events of the Russian revolution” from the “fall of the autocracy” to the “Brest-Litovsk agreement” and united the authors of the religious-philosophical and liberal wing of the Russian intelligentsia (N.A. Berdyaev, B.K. Zaitsev, V.I. Ivanov, A.N. Tolstoy, V.F. Khodasevich, I.A. Novikov, A.M. Remizov, S.M. Soloviev, V.N. Muravyov, etc.). These authors often borrowed motifs and images from the New Testament to comprehend the catastrophic modernity. The article gives the classification and analysis of these appeals, and also concludes that in the first months of the growing October Revolution the authors of the Narodopravstvo seldom used the Biblical language. They gradually started employing its syntagmatics and motifs to reflect the formidable character of the drastically changing reality as they came to realize the significance of the changes taking place at home and abroad. The present study discovers, traces back and reflects the process when that resulted in a deeper understanding of the revolutionary reality as well as in the transition from the psychological, ideological, and purely aesthetic reactions to the experiences and insights.

The main content of the work — review and classification of the appeals to the personalities, images and ideas in Russian literature of the “Petersburg period”, which are occurred on journalistic pages of the liberal-patriotic weekly “Democracy” (1917–1918), with the exception of F.M. Dostoevsky, to whom a special article will be dedicated due to abundance of the material associated with his personality and creativity. The body of works by the contemporaries of the revolution, which were published in the weekly, will also be considered in the format of special work. A special study dedicated to the New Testament motifs and images in the integral discourse of the weekly is also planned. Thus, the present article will be the first step in the study of artistic and journalistic products of “Democracy”, the foundation for subsequent conclusions. Historical-typological, multi-disciplinary, conceptual-constantological and discursive-intertextual methods and approaches are used.

This is the first publication of a course of lectures about the life and works of F.M. Dostoevsky read in 1921–1922 in Nizhny Novgorod State University by V.L. Komarovich, an outstanding scholar and textual critic of the first half of the 20th century. The text is based on the typescript the editor of this material received in 1991 from D.S. Likhachev (1906–1999); the typescript was produced in the 1960s from handwritten notes of lectures made by T.A. Kryukova (1904–1978), a student at Nizhny Novgorod University in 1921–1922. First and foremost, the lectures are interesting because they serve as a short introduction to V.L. Komarovich’s sketch of Dostoevsky’s entire oeuvre, which the scholar had never transformed into a book. In addition, they have obvious historical and cultural value as a sample of the art of teaching in the Russian province of the early 1920s. Finally, the history of their preservation and publication attempts is linked with the lives of T.A. Kryukova and D.S. Likhachev, outstanding scholars the last century and close friends and disciples of V.L. Komarovich. Published lectures are part of the forthcoming publication of V.L. Komarovich “He’s All Aspiration”: Articles and Research on F.M. Dostoevsky.

F. M. Dostoevsky’s ideas and images imbued the entire creative work of a distinguished Silver Age writer and critic G. I. Chulkov: beginning with the article “Dostoevsky and Revolution” (1906) and ending with the book “How Dostoevsky worked” (1939). The works dedicated to Dostoevsky demonstrate the evolution of the literator’s vision of “ground” from denying it in pre-revolutionary years (that was common among the representatives of “New Christian Consciousness”) to accepting it in the 1930’s (that corresponded with the attitude of Dostoevsky, best seen in “The Brothers Karamazov” and with the religious views of Chulkov, who had been already inchurched by that time). The focus of the article is the analysis of the vision of “ground” in Chulkov’s unpublished work Dostoevsky’s Life (1935–1936), whose autograph and typewritten copies are kept in three diff erent Russian archives. In the research Chulkov’s interest to religious philosophy of the Silver Age associated with the names of D. S. Merezhkovsky, V. I. Ivanov and N. A. Berdyaev is evident. However, the concept of “ground”, based on Chulkov’s opposition to “Soviet patriotism” of the 1930s, in general, tends to have the canonical explanation.