SUMMARIES

Articles

Prince Vladimir in Russian Official Culture
in the beginning of the Rule of Elisabeth I

Jelena Pogosjan

According to G. Fedotov, the Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Great Prince Vladimir was an “imperial saint”. He did not play a very important role in the age of Aleksei Mikhailovich and Peter I, but from the middle of the 18^th century onwards his significance in Russian official culture grew rapidly. A turning point for this process was the beginning of the rule of Elisabeth I. In 1743–1744, however, the role of Prince Vladimir was limited only to one concept: he was the one who held the “two swords”, the high priest and the ruler at the same time. The “two swords” represented the two powers, “sacerdotium” and “regnun”. This concept was represented by a rare composition: “Prince Vladimir lies down under the tree of the Russian monarchy”. This composition first appeared in 1666, in the time of the conflict between Aleksei Mikhailovich and Nikon, and later in 1716, as a result of a disagreement between Peter I and Stefan Iavorskii. In this perspective, it was only natural for Elisabeth I to use this image to express her reluctance to re-establish the patriarchy in Russia. During this short episode of ideological discrepancies between the empress and some representatives of the Russian clergy, Vladimir was reintroduced to Russian official culture. By the end of the rule of Catherine II, he became one of the most important historical figures of Russian official culture.

Ozerov and Shakhovskoi: the story of the relations

Dmitry Ivanov

The first part of the paper describes personal relations of two dramatists before and after the premiere of Ozerov’s tragedy Polixene (1809). By tradition, Shakhovskoi is regarded as the main enemy of Ozerov — as if his backstairs brought to the failure of Polixene and forced Ozerov to give up his literary career. But our analysis of Ozerov’s letters and Shakhovskoi’s articles shows that the relations between them were amicable. The premiere of Polixene was successful, but Ozerov by himself demanded to stop the presentations after the second one. In his letters to Olenin the author of the tragedy patterned his resignation after the resignation of Racine, whose Phedre had been victimized by the envious Pradon. Ozerov’s reputation as the ‘Russian Racine’ established by the critics in the 1800s contained the main opposition ‘talented poet — envious person’, implied the presence of the enemy — ‘Russian Pradon’.

The theatre common gossip that Shakhovskoi had envied Ozerov was spread by Olenin. He was the partisan of Semenova and attempted to accuse Shakhovskoi (teacher of Valberkhova) of the delay of Polixene. But, as an actual fact, Tancrède in Gnedich’s translation was presented instead of Ozerov’s tragedy. Nevertheless in the 1810s Olenin’s accusations were developed and intensified by ‘arzamasians’ for the purpose of Shakhovskoi discredit. By that time Ozerov has been mentally ill and based on these news ‘arzamasians’ declared Shakhovskoi the ‘murderer’ of the dramatist. The most influential text in which these unfounded accusations were widely spread was the article of Viazemsky Life and writings of Ozerov (1817). By the analogy ‘Ozerov — Racine’ author hinted, that Shakhovskoi was the same persecutor of the ‘genius’ as Pradon was. This article was included in the Ozerov’s collected works down to the 1840s and Shakhovskoi’s reputation was badly tainted.

The issue of the self-censorship in the correspondence
of M. Protasova and V. Zhukovsky

Lyubov Kiseleva, Tatyana Stepanischeva

The correspondence of Zhukovsky and his step-cousins Maria Protasova and Avdotia Elagina-Kireevskaya of the so-called “Dorpat period” (1815–1823) was never observed as an integral text. It was a period of the most complicated family situation when Zhukovsky had finally to give up his hope to marry M. Protasova.

The letters of three confident friends thoroughly examine the feelings and the inner spiritual life of the correspondents and try to establish a new type of contact — the analogue of the intimate and direct contact in spite of the thousand kilometres separating them. As the authors of the article prove, they failed to achieve the goal because of the pressure of the family situation and the censorship of Masha’s mother who read all the letters written and received by her daughter. This was the first circumstance to introduce the self-censorship into the correspondence. The other and more important was the will to protect the beloved friend from the pains which the sad details of the family situation could provoke. The third and the most crucial was the understanding that the description of the inner life demands to identify the feelings and emotional experiences which they wanted to hide from themselves.

The authors of the article wanted to show that the letters of Zhukovsky and his step-cousins is a perfect example of the reflection of the nature of the correspondence and to examine the phenomenon of self-censorship which is characteristic of the poetics of Zhukovsky’s creative works.

Zhukovsky — a historian of the “great minute”

Timur Guzairov

Spending a lot of time at the court and being a witness of some crucial events in the Russian history, Zhukovsky saw his task to preserve great, but invisible to others, moments of the Russian monarchy. My article is dedicated to the analysis of the description

of Nicholas I in the poet’s prose. I divide these texts into three groups. On the one hand, the Russian emperor is represented by Zhukovsky as a powerful, victorious monarch and his reign is shown like a history of “the only great minute”. This expression which is also characteristic of the poet?s latter texts was firstly used in the description of the Decembrists? rebellion. To the second group I relate Zhukovsky`s texts in which he offers a political programme of “another minute” to his tsar — to be gracious to the Decembrists. The last group consists of Zhukovsky’s latter texts in which he emphasizes human features (like compassion) in the figure of the emperor. According to Zhukovsky, the third type of texts shows clearly to Europe what a worthy tsar the Russians have and why Russia is the only and the last stronghold of civilisation in 1848–1849.

The role of Koenig’s book in the dethronement
of Bulgarin’s myth

Tatiana Kuzovkina

For understanding the phenomenon of Bulgarin the mechanisms of his creation of his own reputation and controlling public opinion should be studied. In the 1830s Bulgarin turned his literary activity into a successful business, which was promoted by the notion, formed by Bulgarin himself in Russia and abroad, of being the chief Russian writer. “Literarische Bilder aus Russland” by G. Koenig demolished this notion. According to Koenig, the successful evolution of young Russian literature could be performed only by writers-aristocrats, who had the really good knowledge of German philosophy. Bulgarin, who was trying to ban Koenig’s book, was making politically and morally unjust accusations against the author and his supporters, called the secret police for help. Those ways of “polemics” were well known to the leading Russian writers, who took Koenig’s book as an argument in their struggle against the myth of Bulgarin. N. Gogol in his “Dead souls” artistically interpreted the phenomenon of Bulgarin and his method of struggling against Koenig’s book. The history of the

Russian prose of the second half of the 19th century cannot be presented without studying the creation and destruction of the myth of Bulgarin.

Aestheticization of Refection in Lermontov’s prose:
Pechorin and his French Counterparts

Larisa Volpert

The problem identified in the title has not yet drawn scholarly attention. Lermontov was the first in Russian literature who, in his novel A Hero of Our Time, aestheticized the thinking process of his hero and gave importance to his critical self-analysis. Pechorin’s particular attractiveness lies in his ability to think, to reflect ironically on his own behaviour, and to uncover the dark aspects of his own soul. Literary roots of such ability to scrutinize one’s own human nature can be found in the eighteenth-century European intellectual prose (Sterne, Diderot, Volraire) and in the French “analytical” novel (Chateaubriand, Senancour, Constant, A. de Musset). Adopting and adapting for his own purposes the tradition of the “analytical” novel, Lermontov raises his character’s self-analysis to the level of “reflection on reflection.” The comparative textual analysis of Pecherin’s “Diary” with the novels Renée, Oberman, Adolph, and Confessions of a Child of the Century demonstrates the specifics of Lermontov’s poetics. Unlike the protagonists of these novels, who, like Pechorin, are marked with the moral “illness of the century” (disappointment and egocentrism), Lermontov’s character is not concentrated exclusively on himself: while his French counterparts do not notice the others, he is interested in the people he meets (Maksim Maksimovich, Kazbich, Grushnitskii, smugglers, and many others). Endowed with artistic imagination and a sense of humour, Pechorin is able to watch with irony not only the others but also himself. A broad range of problems comes under his reflective view, from socio-historical questions and the specifics of national character to the characteristics of femininity and of the ethics of the “spa society.” The defining traits of Lermontov’s character (his constant striving for action, his rebellious

attitude, his rejection of everything that is phony) shape the specific forms of his self-analysis. The process of his thinking in the novel is aestheticized: his reflection is structured with the help of various stylistic devices (aphorism, maxim, paradox).

On Literary Subtexts in the Poetic Cycle “Mephisto”
by K. Sluchevsky

Lea Pild

This article is dedicated to the genre and the style characteristics of the poetic cycle “Mephisto” by Konstantin Sluchevsky (1881). This cycle belonged to the most significant Russian poetic works of the last third of the 19th century, which strongly influenced Russian Modernist poetry. The article focuses on the analysis of those characteristics of the cycle that correlate with such popular culture genres of the period, as a gipsy song (“tsyganskii romans”) and a buffoon theatre (“balagan”).

How should we describe the antiquity
in the works of Marina Tsvetaeva

Roman Voitekhovich

There are, at least, three ways to describe the antiquity in modern literature: rhetorical, philosophical, and historical. The first describes the way of transformations of antic motifs in modern texts. The second describes the revelations of fundamental structures of antiquity in other cultures. The third studies the ways of propagation of antic culture. The philosophical way is most doubtful and therefore most thoroughly examined in the article. According to the conception of G. S. Knabe, we detected the so-called “heroic norm” in Tsvetaeva’s texts. But it is not the social norm for Tsvetaeva. On the contrary, it is a kind of escapism that had two polar variants: “spartanstvo” and “homerism”. The interest in antiquity was a form of self-knowledge. That is why the scarcity of knowledge was a stimulating factor.

Ballade or pean? On one episode of Tynyanov’s “Pushkin”

Roman Leibov

The article deals with the last novel of Yu. Tynyanov — “Pushkin”. The main aim of the article is to reconstruct Tynyanov’s interpretation of the obscene ballade “Ten’ Barkova”, composed by Pushkin in his early years. Despite strong and clear allusions to Zhukovsky’s famous ballade “Vadim”, Tynyanov has not mentioned this text at all. He describes “Ten’ Barkova”, instead, as a polemics with the other (although equirithmical with both ballades) text by Zhukovsky — “Pevec vo stane russkih voinov”. This rather unexpected projection, as we try to prove, allows us to treat Pushkin’s ballade not in a usual way (as an “obscene prank”), but as a polemical stage of the creative self-determination of the young poet.

Tolstoys in M. Bulgakov’s “The Dog’s Heart”

Aleksandr Danilevsky

The article exposes the connection between the “Prechistenka street wise man”, professor Preobrazhensky, and the personality and work of Leo Tostoy, the characters of mongrel dog Sharik and “werewolf backwards” Sharikov with the personality and work of the “proletarian count” Alexei N. Tolstoy.

M. Burgakov’s idea (and he proves it using the structure of characters in his novella) was that V. Lenin was mistaken when he determined that Lev Tolstoy was “a mirror of the Russian revolution”.

According to Bulgakov, the Russian revolution is a distorted reflection in reality of the ideas of Leo Tolstoy after his spiritual crisis. The role of the adequate “mirror” for this profanation is, according to the “The Dog’s Heart’s” author, the “third Tolstoy” (I. Bunin’s expression) — Alexei Nikolaevich.

David Samoilov’s Fantastic Literary Criticism

Andrey Nemzer

In the article, D. Samoilov’s poem “Free Verse” (“In the Third Millennium”, 1973) is analyzed. The contexts of previous publications in journals and books are examined, the relations with other Samoilov’s poems, including the ones with the same title, are determined. Having revealed reminiscences both from Pushkin (“The Brass Horseman”, “The Captain’s Daughter” etc.) and other poets (Tsvetaeva, Gumilev), the author of the present article shows that in a comic form Samoilov expresses non-comic thoughts such as “the Poet and the Power”, “the Poet and the Riot”, “the Poet’s Death”. The choice of the non-classical metre, appointing the title of the text and being linked with its fantastic subject, was hinted by Pushkin’s thoughts about the future of the Russian verse. The poem appears as one of Samoilov’s poetical manifestoes and an important fragment in his version of the History of Russian Literature.

History of the Department

Bachelor Thesis Defended at the Department of Russian Literature in 1999–2005

The publication provides a list of final (BA) papers written by the students of the Department of Russian Literature at the University of Tartu in 1999–2005 under the supervision of the members of the Department. It is a continuation of the list of papers defended in 1949–1998 which was published in the third collection of “Trudy” in 1999.

Master Thesis Defended at the Department of Russian Literature
in 1992–2005

The publication provides a list of MA papers written by the students of the Department of Russian Literature at the University

of Tartu in 1992–2005 mainly under the supervision of the members of the Department.

PhD Thesis Defended at the Department of Russian Literature
in 1997–2005

The publication provides a list of PhD thesis in Russian Literature defended at the University of Tartu in 1997–2005.

In memoriam

In memory of Vladimir Nikolaevich Toporov

The obituary of V. N. Toporov (1928–2005).

In memory of Mikhail Leonovich Gasparov

The obituary of M. L. Gasparov (1935–2005).

In memory of Aleksandr Pavlovich Chudakov

The obituary of A. P. Chudakov (1938–2005).

In memory of Tamara Pavlovna Milyutina

The obituary of T. P. Milyutina (1911–2004).

In memory of Sergei Sergeyevich Averinzev

Mikhail Gasparov

The obituary of S. S. Averinzev (1937–2004).