Volume 82, Nº 3 (2023)

The paper is devoted to perception in the theory of literature of the famous statement of Leo Tolstoy about “cohesion” that ensure wholeness of narrative in a novel. Tolstoy’s idea of “cohesion” has repeatedly inspired various interpretations in literary criticism (for instance, M.O. Gershenzon, V.B. Shklovsky, B.M. Eikhenbaum, T. Rainov, and others). There are two contrary positions on the interpretation of the idea of “cohesion”: M.O. Gershenzon’s intuition theory of and in the formal method of V.B. Shklovsky. In the theory of M.O. Gershenzon the “cohesion” become the foundation of the principle of slow reading and expresses the points of correlation between personal vision of author and reader. In V.B. Shklovsky’s theory the “cohesion” is a technique, an element of narration in a fairy tale, short story, novel, etc; and character subjectivity is defined by the function of narration technique. In the 1930s V. Weidlé reconsidered the development of the aesthetics of the first third of the 20th century, showing key changes in literature and art. During this period, it’s observed the disappearance of the individual from the system of views on the nature of literary work, massive influence of analytical approaches, both in literary criticism and in literature itself, fragmentation of wholeness of literary work in aesthetic perception and replicating its techniques. Researchers still often consider to the idea of “cohesion” through Shklovsky’s theory, that inevitably creates distortion in the apprehension of Tolstoy’s aesthetics.

The article discusses the situation associated with changes in the portrait of Oblomov in two canonical editions of the novel, 1859 and 1862. Along with the existing explanations for the disappearance of the “free thought” metaphor from the second edition of the portrait, which is associated with the elimination of romantic style or with the writer’s haste in preparing the 1862 edition, the article puts forward another version of the transformation of the text. It is motivated by Goncharov’s literary controversy with that line of the “physiological” direction in the literature of the middle of the 19th century, which was presented in the essays of F.V. Bulgarin. The article shows that in both early editions of the novel, the initial and 1859, there are metaphors of “sleepy mind” and “free thought”, which were presented in one of the essays included in the publication “Mosquitoes, or All sorts of things by Thaddeus Bulgarin” under title “Running Thought”. In the early version of Oblomov’s portrait, the situation described in this “physiology” is read, when the “owner” of “mind” and “thought” living in St. Petersburg only coexists with his sleepy mind, and his thought completely leaves him and travels like a “free bird” to other houses of St. Petersburg, observing the “dead kingdom” everywhere. The essay offers a naturalistic section of the city. The interest in Bulgarin on the part of Goncharov is regarded by the author of the article not as an accidental phenomenon, but is associated with the controversy of two lines of “naturalism” in the literature of the 1840s and with the ironic tactics of Goncharov’s narrative. A significant role is also played by personal motives, Goncharov’s negative attitude towards Bulgarin’s personality as a writer and critic. Goncharov in his other writings and letters of the 1830-1850s often reproduces the style of Bulgarin, and Bulgarin’s subtexts always work for him to create an ironic mode, and Goncharov’s narration itself is sustained in a polemical manner. These examples are also systematized in the article. And in general in the opinion of the author of the article, the vector of controversy with Bulgarin should also be extended to the novel “Oblomov”, work on which began in early of 1840s, in the period of commercial success of Bulgarin’s physiological enterprises. Goncharov’s attempt to eliminate Bulgarin’s “traces” in the second edition of Oblomov’s portrait, and then return to them in later editions of the novel, is considered in the article as a kind of “organic contradiction” in the writer’s poetics and publishing tactics, which probably require additional scholarly reflection.

The article attempts to characterize L.Y. Gurevich’s (1866-1940) creative persona and explain the reasons behind her refusal to continue her career as a writer and her transition to “the guild of critics.” A study of contemporary responses to the novel Ploskogorye (Flatland, 1897) suggests that their utterly arbitrary interpretation of the central idea, misinterpretation of the content and harsh criticism seemed to be painful to the young writer. The incomprehension of the critics, which could be found even in well-intentioned reviews, their contradictory remarks and focus on secondary aspects reveal, among other things, shortcomings of the methodology of criticism in general (especially in populist and Marxist criticism). Moreover, it also demonstrates male critics’ common unfriendliness towards women’s writing, which the author of the novel could not help but feel. In addition, the reviews allow us to look at the unsuccessful method of promoting the novel by the writer herself and similar ways that critics used to diminish the importance of works written by female authors. Nevertheless, various interpretations of the novel make it possible to read it from different perspectives and conclude how readers might have reacted to it.

The article attempts to clarify the literary terminology, namely, to give a clear and consistent semantic content to the term “point of view”. A brief overview of the definitions of one of the key concepts of narratology, presented both in encyclopedic and educational publications, reveals a picture of conceptual and terminological discord, in which the term is blurred and meaningless. Using examples from classical texts of Russian literature, “point of view” is considered as the most important principle of the subjective organization of narrative prose.

The article deals with the groups of lexemes associated in Arkhangelsk dialects with the concepts of family and kinship. The word-formation nest with the root of rod- (the genus) is much more significant than the nest with the basis of semja- (the family). The same lexemes may mean both specific family members and a group of relatives, in other words, they can be used in a collective meaning. The differentiation turns out to be quite weak. To denote kinship and relatives, the following terms are also used: the names of the people community (bratva, squad, artel, collective farm, population), some pronouns (my, mine, all, ours), metaphors associated with the cultural codes (due to the terminology of S.M. Tolstoy) like a vegetable code (tree, root, seed), animal code (nest), object code (house), somatic code (blood, leg, knee, vein, bone, tail) and the abstract one (side, line). Numerous examples are introduced into the scientific use for the first time.

Dostoevsky’s “Notes from the Dead House” shows the influence of Herzen not only in its ideological basis, but also in its artistic details. Its portrayal of universal insanity bears a strong resemblance to some thoughts from the psychiatric treatise of Alexander Herzen’s Dr. Krupov. In contrast to Herzen’s notions of environmental determinism, Dostoevsky sees insanity as a manifestation of one’s repressed personality. Thus, in “Notes from the Dead House” he continues his struggle with the theory of environment, which he had already begun since “The Poor People”.

The article presents an overview of the updated history and chronology of the initial stage of the author’s lexicography in Russia, based on a corpus of previously unknown archival documents, as well as some lost publications of the 19th century. It seems that the beginning of academic author’s lexicography can be traced since 1842, when Moscow academicians led by Ivan Davydov put forward the idea of the need for the participation of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in compiling dictionaries of the language of writers. In 1848 they formulated the “Rules for compiling dictionaries or indices of the classical Russian writers&8j1;, having completed the first indexes of words of the works of Lomonosov and Karamzin. It is established that the activity of the Academy of Sciences on the creation of Pushkin’s language dictionary was started in 1848; and by 1849, according to the program of Moscow academicians, the first indexes of words were compiled for the works of Gavriil Derzhavin and Vasily Zhukovsky. The project of Piotr Bilyarsky to create the dictionary of the language of Mikhail Lomonosov is described in detail and the true reasons for the failure of this large-scale project are explained. Another attempt to compile the dictionary of Lomonosov’s language, by Anton Budilovich (1871), is regarded as the first published dictionary of the writer’s language in Russia. The article presents the analysis of the significant lexicographic work conducted by Mikhail Sukhomlinov both before being elected to the Academy of Sciences (1850s) and already as a member of the Academy (1870–1880s). The paper is completed by a description of the first index in the history of Russian lexicography for literary translations – Nikolay Gnedich’s Iliad and Vasily Zhukovsky’s Odyssey (1885).