«Венец любви, венец прощения…» (сборник «Мечты и звуки» как этап творчества Н. А. Некрасова)

Контекстуальное смысловое наполнение слова с исходной пейзажной семантикой отражает индивидуально-авторскую картину мира. Слово «снег» обладает богатым семантическим спектром в русской поэзии. Цель статьи – с опорой на анализ лексической структуры поэтического текста рассмотреть семантико- стилистические особенности образа снега в лирике современного поэта Татьяны Николаевой (1956–2021). За основу семантико-стилистического анализа приняты концепция художественно-образной речевой конкретизации М.Н. Кожиной и концепция лексической структуры поэтического текста Н.С. Болотновой. Характеристика текстовой синтагматики и текстовой парадигматики учитывает выразительность языковых средств, представляющих разные уровни (хотя признается роль лексического уровня как основного). Ассоциативно-вербальная сеть текста рассматривается в соотнесенности с авторским замыслом и закономерностями читательского восприятия. Каждое направление ассоциирования как контекстуальная «группировка ассоциаций по общности стратегии» (А.П. Клименко) создает особую ипостась образа. Материалом для семантико-стилистического анализа стали стихотворения первого сборника Татьяны Николаевны Николаевой «Где ты, потомок первого?..: драматургия любви» (2004). Методом сплошной выборки было выявлено 11 (из 83) стихотворений сборника, содержащих лексические репрезентанты образа снега, которые были проанализированы с учетом их контекстуальных синтагматических и парадигматических связей. Являясь не столько пейзажной деталью, сколько отражением внутреннего мира лирической героини, снег у Т. Николаевой сопровождает не только картины зимней природы, но и межсезонные состояния, а также включается в летнюю картину. В ассоциативно-смысловом развертывании образа снега, отражающем раскрытие внутреннего мира героини, выделяются три ипостаси. Они объединены принципом градации, характерным для поэтики Т. Николаевой. В доминирующем ассоциативном комплексе «снежная стихия» актуализируется интенсивность снегопада, его стихийная природа, хаотическое начало, связанное с символической темой потери пути; экспрессивно передаются темы испытанной страсти и потерянной любви. Вторая ипостась образа снега в лирике Т. Николаевой – «снежное небытие», оцепенение потери, холод утраты и пустоты. Если в первом случае различными выразительными средствами подчеркивается максимальная динамика образа, то в данной ипостаси определяющей является статика, не-жизнь. Третья ипостась образа снега – «божественный снег», приобщение к духовной вертикали, высшему свету и смыслу. Таким образом, «снежная» триада Т. Николаевой соответствует ее поэтике градации и христианскому мироощущению, в котором путь человека лежит через страсти земные и ведет к Богу. Contextual senses of a word with a landscape semantics reflect an individual world picture of the author. The word snow has a rich and diverse semantics in Russian poetry. The purpose of the article is to consider semantic and stylistic features of the image of snow in the poetry by a contemporary poet Tatiana Nikolaeva (1956–2021) based on analyzing lexical structure of a poetic text. Semantic and stylistic analysis is based on ideas of M.N. Kozhina (the concept of imaginative literary concretization) and N. S. Bolotnova (the concept of lexical structure of a poetic text). Description of textual syntagmatics and paradigmatics considers expressive means representing different levels, although the lexical level is recognized as the main one. Associative and verbal network of the text is studied in accordance with the author’s idea and the reader’s reception patterns. Each associative direction, as a contextual “group of associations with a common strategy” (A. P. Klimenko), creates a specific aspect of the image. Verses and poems of T.N. Nikolaeva’s first collection Where are you, the descendant of The First?..: The drama of love (2004) are material for semantic and stylistic analysis. The authors of the article selected 11 (from total 83) texts containing lexical representants of the image of snow, which were analyzed regarding their contextual syntagmatic and paradigmatic connections. In T. Nikolaeva’s poetry, snow is more a reflection of the heroine’s internal world than a landscape detail. Snow is not only a part of winter nature, but also of summer pictures and nature between seasons. There are three main aspects in associative and semantic development of the image of snow. They are united through the principle of gradation typical for T. Nikolaeva’s poetics. A dominating associative complex "snow element" includes the image of an intensive snowfall with chaotic nature tied to a symbolic topic of a lost way; this image also reflects expressive topics of passion and lost love. The second aspect of the image of snow is "snow nothingness", the cold of loss and emptiness. While in the first case various expressive means are emphasizing dynamic character of the image, in this case the central image is statics, absence of life. The third aspect of the image of snow is "divine snow": spiritual senses, a way to the higher light. Thus, the “snow triad” of T. Nikolaeva relates to her poetics of gradation and Christian worldview, in which a human is going through passions to God.

The Russian poet Vladislav Khodasevich (1886-1939), who spent the last seventeen years of his life in Western Europe, wrote a total of five books of verse: the first two, Molodost (Youth, 1908) and Shchastlivyi domik (The Happy Little House, 1914), are largely derivative and, by the poet's own admission, immature; the last three, Putem zerna (Grain's Way, 1920), Tiashelaia lira (The Heavy Lyre, 1922), and Evropeiskaia noch’ (European Night, 1927), form the limited body of his mature work. It is on the basis of the last three collections that Khodasevich's modest reputation has been established. It is ironic that the relative obscurity of Khodasevich's best work bears witness to the vagaries of exile about which he often wrote. Indeed, in 1922, the year Khodasevich left Russia, Valéry published Charmes, Proust died while polishing his novel, Eliot founded the journal Criterion and printed The Waste Land in its pages, and Joyce's Ulysses was released in a small Parisian edition.

I need hardly say this, but will nevertheless ask for your indulgence while I do so, that to be elected President of the MHRA is a great honour for me personally. There is a broader and much more important reason why I am gratified to have been elected. Many misfortunes have come the way of Russia in recent years, and they continue to accumulate, to the Schadenfreude of the foreign media and the discomfiture of people such as myself who are professionally and personally committed to Russia and the Russians. As a result, foreign interest in the academic study of the country has tended to diminish rather than the opposite; our society seems to worship success, even the pseudo-success of the Soviet era, in its time and after, and disdainfully loses interest when less pernicious things seem to be going wrong. In the political world, and in the academic world that reflects it more and more directly, a tendency has begun for Russia to be marginalized. Influential people increasingly seem to want to exclude Russia from Europe, and especially from its principal political articulations, which begin with the EU. The idea that Europe ends at the Vistula, which seems to have been gaining ground in the decisions of politicians and even, alas, in the mind of the general public, is for me and my fellow Russianists not simply an absurdity, but a dangerous absurdity.1 It is mainly for this reason that I am delighted to accept the earnest of Russia's being included that has been made by the MHRA through my person. I am going to talk today about Russian poetry, a subject that has preoccupied me throughout my academic career. I want to begin by identifying the idea about it that seems to me to be more widely held than any other; I shall go on to argue that this idea is misleading, in the sense that it distorts the way Russian poetry is approached, by academics in particular, and to explore what might be the principal reasons for this; I shall conclude by suggesting a change of emphasis that might perhaps improve things. I am speaking of the idea, crudely stated, that in Russia, poetry matters more than it does anywhere else. I need to qualify this formulation immediately, switch to the past tense, and say that poetry used to matter more, especially in the Soviet period, since the situation has changed in the last ten years.2 Knowledgeable people have been saying since his death, for example, that Joseph Brodsky was the last Russian Poet with a capital 'P', and that there is now a wasteland or a backwater where poetry used to be on the

SEER, Vol. 8y,No. i,January 2oog DOCUMENTS Konstantin Bal'mont's Oxford Lectures on Russian Fin de Steele Poetry: Publication, Introduction and Comments ERIC METZ In June 1897 the Russian Symbolist poet Konstantin Bal'mont was invited to Oxford University to give a series of lectures on Russian poetry. Details on Bal'mont's stay in England, and on the circum stances inwhich the lectures took place, were provided thirtyyears ago by A. G. Cross, in an article that also included the publication of the poet's wife's reminiscences of the trip.1The poet gave four talks,which took place at the Taylor Institution respectively on 4, 7, 9 and 11June 1897, and discussed the following subjects: 1) a general overview of Russian poetry in the nineteenth century; 2) Pushkin and his followers; Tiutchev; 3) Fet and Fofanov; 4) the new generation of Russian poets. The present publication presents the poet's discussion of contemporary poetry in the strict sense of the word, i.e. the second part of the third lecture (Fofanov), and the whole of the fourth lecture. The manuscript is preserved in a notebook of Bal'mont's found in the Russian State Archive of Literature and Arts, Moscow (RGALI, f. 57, op. 1, ed. khr. 68). Bal'mont's Oxford lectures were only partially published during his lifetime. On the one hand, the first lecture and the first part of the second one (i.e. without the discussion of Tiutchev), appeared in 1904, as an essay entitled 'O russkikh poetakh' ('On Russian Poets'), which was part of Bal'mont's book Gornye vershiny {Mountain Peaks).2 On the Eric Metz isAssociate Professor at the Department of Slavic and East European Studies at Ghent University (UGent) and Professor at the Higher Institute for Translators and Interpreters (University College of Antwerp). 1 A. G. Cross, 'Konstantin Bal'mont inOxford in 1897', Oxford Slavonic Papers, 12, 1979, pp. 104-16. The complete memoirs of Ekaterina Andreeva-Bal'mont appeared more recently: E. A. Andreeva-Bal'mont, Vospominaniia, Moscow, 1996. 2 K. D. Bal'mont, Gornye vershiny.Sbornik statei,Moscow, 1904, pp. 59-74. Although the footnote on the bottom of the first page says that the text consists of '[ojtryvki iz lektsii chitannykh v Taylor Institution v Oksforde, vesnoi 1897-go', the author concluded his essay ERIC METZ 79 other hand, his discussion of Tiutchev and Fet was included in the programmatic article 'Elementarnye slova o simvolicheskoi poezii' ('Elementary Words on Symbolist Poetry'), for the same book.3 The poet did not return, however, to his treatment of the contemporary state of Russian poetry. The importance of the text published below liesmainly in the fact that it can be considered to be Bal'mont's first critical account of Russian fin de siecle poetry in general and Russian Symbolism in particular. The idea of inviting the thirty-year-old Bal'mont was suggested to Professor William R. Morfill by the poet's friend, Prince Vladimir Argutinskii-Dolgorukov, who was at that time studying inOxford.4 As indicated by a letter from Bal'mont to Argutinskii-Dolgorukov, dated 14 February 1896, the invitation coincided well with his long-standing plans: 2 Continued with an extended paragraph which does not occur in the manuscript. In a programmatic tone, the paragraph first emphasizes that Russians should identify their national 'Poetic Genius' ('Poeticheskii Genii') with English poetry, rather than with poetry written in German or French. Furthermore, it focuses on 'psychological lyric poetry' ('psikhologiches kaia lirika') as the new mode of poetic diction (ibid., p. 74). Otherwise, the manuscript of the lecture ismore elaborate where Aleksei Tolstoi, Golenishchev-Kutuzov and other mi nor poets are concerned (RGALI, f. 57, op. 1, ed. khr. 68, 1. 26 and further). 3 Bal'mont, Gornye vershiny,pp. 74-95. The last article reflected, in its turn, a lecture given by Bal'mont to Russian emigres in Paris, in the spring of 1900 (compare Bal'mont's footnote on p. 74 in Gornye vershiny). It turns out, however, that a large part of this article ? namely that about Tiutchev and Fet ? had already been written for the Oxford lectures. Pages 84-92 of 'Elementarnye slova...

As befits a proper Renaissance, the revival of Russian poetry in late 19th — early 20th century was marked by an increasing interest in Greco-Roman antiquity. The vigorous and enthusiastic exploration of classical subjects, motifs and topoi, from accurate stylization to radical rethinking, emerged as an important feature of Russian modernist poetics. It is thus not surprising that the last decades have seen multiple and various investigations into classical reminiscences in Silver age poetry. The author of this polemical survey aims to draw attention to the vulnerable aspects of such research practices and to formulate a “code of conduct” for studying intertextual parallels between ancient authors and the Russian poets of the early Novecento. The paper was written in conjunction with the 25th anniversary of the methodologically important but not sufficiently well-known book by M. L. Gasparov Antichnost’ v russkoi poezii nachala XX veka (“Antiquity in the Russian Poetry of the Early 20th Century”). It examines such questions as the development and limits of knowledge about antiquity among the Russian litterati, the link between reception studies and the history of classical education, the ranking and weighing of intertextual parallels, the search for the intermediate sources, the importance of translations of ancient authors into European languages, the need to incorporate philological scholarship contemporary to the author and not the researcher, etc. The discussion is interspersed with case studies proposing new (or complementing old) interpretations of the poems by Ossip Mandel’shtam, Vladimir Shileiko, Vasilii Komarovskii et al.

Slavonic and East European Review, 98, 2, 2020 Reviews Matiash, S. A. Stikhotvornyi perenos (enjambement) v russkoi poezii (ocherki teorii i istorii). Izdatel´stvo RGPU im. A. I. Gertsena, St Petersburg, 2017. 464 pp. Tables. Bibliography. Price unknown. Enjambement, the poetic technique whereby one verse-line is made to run on into another verse-line in syntax and sense, was decisively rejected by V. K. Trediakovskii, Russia’s first verse theoretician, in his Aid (Sposob) of 1735. He called it a ‘hideous’ (merzkii) fault (pp. 6, 307) and explained that it obscured the effect of another poetic technique, rhyme. However, his warning was not heeded by his Russian contemporaries and, surprisingly, he did not observe it consistently himself. After this faltering start the use of enjambement by Russian poets has waxed and waned from the second half of the eighteenth century right up to the present day. Enjambement presents its investigator with many problems, and chief among them is the difficulty of deciding whether it occurs or not. Whereas rhyme is confined to the end of the verse-line, enjambement involves one part or parts or the whole of two or more consecutive verse-lines. How can an investigator be sure that he is right in identifying an enjambement? A measure of the difficulty of this process are the disagreements among investigators about the numbers of enjambements which they identify in a particular body of verse (pp. 13, 36). The obvious solution to this problem is to improve the definition of the enjambement, and one of Prof. Svetlana Matiash’s achievements is that she confronts this problem head on. In the first place she refers to two parameters which she terms ‘traditional’. The first defines three linguistic levels, syllabic, verse-line and stanzaic, in which cases of enjambement are found. The second outlines three ways in which the components of an enjambement can be arranged: the whole upper line precedes the first part of the lower line; the last part of the upper line is followed by the whole of the lower line; and the last part of the upper line is followed by the first part of the lower line. To these two parameters Prof. Matiash adds five new parameters. The first two of these new parameters specify the endings (masculine, feminine or dactylic) both of the upper lines and of the word-divisions in the lower lines. These two new parameters cannot help an investigator decide whether he has to do with an enjambement or not, but they enable him to refine his perception of the rhythmic features of the lines and so enhance his characterization of a particular enjambement as a rhythmic-syntactic phenomenon. The last three of Prof. Matiash’s five new parameters enable the investigator to decide whether two (or more) consecutive verse-lines contain an enjambement or not. They do this by gauging the strengths of the syntactic connections REVIEWS 357 between the components of the enjambement located in the upper lines and the components of the enjambement located in the lower lines. If these syntactic connections are strong enough, we have an undoubted enjambement. If they are not strong enough, we have simply two or more verse-lines which follow one another but which do not run into one another. As Prof. Matiash writes: ‘An enjambement arises if the vertical syntactic connections turn out to be stronger than the horizontal ones, and it does not arise if the vertical connections are less in strength or equal to the horizontal ones’ (p. 36). The key element in this process is the assessment of the relative strengths of the syntactic connections concerned. Here Prof. Matiash relies upon the list of the relative strengths of syntactic connections drawn up by the late Academician M. L. Gasparov and his collaborator T. V. Skulacheva (pp. 16–26, 31–34). These improvements in the definition of the enjambement made by Prof. Matiash allow her to trace its evolution in Russian poetry more fully and with more certainty than any previous investigator. Her observations are therefore of great interest and significance. To attempt to examine the use of enjambements in the whole corpus of Russian poetry from the end of...

Michael Wachtel. The Development of Russian Verse: Meter and its Meanings. Cambridge Studies in Russian Literature. Cambridge University Press, 1998. xii + 323 pages. Notes, Bibliography, Index.The classical notion that individual verse metres are destined for particular poetic uses is taken up and renovated in Michael Wachtel's ambitious book. As Joseph Brodsky put it in an essay on Mandelstam: Meters in themselves are kinds of for which nothing can be substituted. They cannot be replaced even by each other, let alone by free In his translation of Tristia into English iambic pentameter Brodsky demonstrated, perhaps inadvertently, that these spiritual magnitudes do not necessarily survive translation from one language to another even when metre is scrupulously reproduced.Wachtel argues that particular metres acquire indelible thematic associations that recur in subsequent uses of form. Part of what makes metres distinctive is accumulated tradition of poems that have employed them. As Wachtel points out, Russian poets have always expected their readers to hear and understand historical echoes of metrical tradition they work within. Anyone who has read widely in a poetic tradition will find these assertions unarguable, and extent to which author labours his point may reflect fact that book began life as teaching materials for a graduate seminar. Wachtel's introduction gives several astute examples, including parodies and limericks, of ways in which metres can acquire thematic reminiscences in an experienced reader's mind.In tracing semantic aura around verse metres Wachtel owes a large and generously acknowledged debt to work of Mikhail Gasparov, Kiril Taranovskii and others, although for purposes of a teaching book he has sensibly narrowed his focus to representative poems in five forms that have quite distinct profiles.Pushkin's Chernaia shal (The Black Shawl), inspired by Zhukovsky's version of Uhland's Revenge, is seen as direct source of a series of ballad-like poems in amphibrachic tetrameter couplets with masculine rhyme in which recur motifs of passionate love, betrayal, and revenge. Despite contending influences of other German ballads, Pushkin's version became canonical, and Wachtel convincingly traces its influence through Aksakov, Del'vig, Lermontov, and finds it still detectable in Akhmatova's Seroglazyi korol (Grey-eyed King), even though by this time amphibrachs have been replaced by dactyls. Not surprisingly, distinctly melodramatic original gave rise to parodies as well, which may work even better than serious poems to fix thematic associations. So pungent was original example that we find whiffs of it even in Kruchenykh's Razboinik Van'ka Kain and even more recently in Dmitri Prigov.A chapter on the blank verse lyric considers influence of Pushkin's ...vnov' ia posetil on subsequent meditations in iambic pentameter blank verse. Sidestepping question of blank verse in dramatic writing, Wachtel makes a good case that an entire tradition has arisen from Pushkin's example. No one familiar with powerful original would be surprised to learn that it has left an indelible imprint on subsequent works in form, as Wachtel demonstrates with examples from Apollon Grigoriev, Blok, Gumilev, Khodasevich and Brodsky, emigres Dovid Knut and Vera Bulich, and concluding with Akhmatova's Severnye elegii. Among persistent motifs are a return (figurative or literal) to a home or building, and a meditation on time passing and change of generations. Wachtel's perceptive and informed readings of these poems are best part of book. At certain points one wonders why he goes to such lengths to avoid word elegiac, which encapsulates handily certain features and tonalities of these blank verse lyrics, but he may be trying to avoid muddying terminological waters of a later chapter on elegiac couplet. …

The article is devoted to the analysis of the attributive structure of two poetic collections of well-known authors – «The Angel of Armenia» by Sergei Gorodetsky and «Armenia» by Osip Mandelstam. These poems occupy an important place among the works of Russian poets about Armenia, making it possible to form the perception of the history and culture of Armenia, its artistic representation in Russian poetry.
 The article sets the task of a quantitative analysis of the distribution and nature of the use of attributes of various types. Attribute types are determined by the part-of-speech filling of the syntactic position of the definition and by its position relative to the word being defined.
 In the course of the study, various statistical methods were used, which include the chi-square test, correlation coefficients, variance, Euclidean distance. 
 As a result of the analysis, data were obtained that characterize the authors' approaches to the description, similarities and differences in the distribution of various types of attributes, the degree of intensity of the description, the level of inversion of attributive structures.

The weather in Moscow is good, there's no cholera, there's also no lesbian love...Brrr! Remembering those persons of whom you write me makes me nauseous as if I'd eaten a rotten sardine. Moscow doesn't have them--and that's marvellous. --Anton Chekhov, writing to his publisher in 1895 Chekhov's barbed comment suggests the climate in which Sophia Parnok was writing, and is an added testament to to the strength and confidence with which she pursued both her personal and artistic life. Author of five volumes of poetry, and lover of Marina Tsvetaeva, Sophia Parnok was the only openly lesbian voice in Russian poetry during the Silver Age of Russian letters. Despite her unique contribution to modern Russian lyricism however, Parnok's life and work have essentially been forgotten. Parnok was not a political activist, and she had no engagement with the feminism vogueish in young Russian intellectual circles. From a young age, however, she deplored all forms of male posturing and condescension and felt alienated from what she called patriarchal virtues. Parnok's approach to her sexuality was equally forthright. Accepting lesbianism as her natural disposition, Parnok acknowledged her relationships with women, both sexual and non-sexual, to be the centre of her creative existence. Diana Burgin's extensively researched life of Parnok is deliberately woven around the poet's own account, visible in her writings. The book is divided into seven chapters, which reflect seven natural divisions in Parnok's life. This lends Burgin's work a particular poetic resonance, owing to its structural affinity with one of Parnok's last and greatest poetic achievements, the cycle of love lyrics Ursa Major. Dedicated to her last lover, Parnok refers to this cycle as a seven-star of verses, after the seven stars that make up the constellation. Parnok's poems, translated here for the first time in English, added to a wealth of biographical material, make this book a fascinating and lyrical account of an important Russian poet. Burgin's work is essential reading for students of Russian literature, lesbian history and women's studies.

Loud and Clear Kelly Cherry (bio) 1917: Stories and Poems from the Russian Revolution Boris Dralyuk, ed. Pushkin Press www.pushkinpress.com/book/1917/ 240 Pages; Print, $14.95 As a translator and as an editor, Boris Dralyuk has quickly achieved success and status. There is a reason for this: he is a superb translator and editor. I always look forward to his books, and it is an additional pleasure in this instance that the publisher is Pushkin Press, which chooses books that engage and inform. The book at hand, 1917, allows us to examine the poetry and fiction of that tumultuous year when the Bolshevik Revolution took place, unsettling a number of nearby countries. If you ever saw the movie of Pasternak’s novel Doctor Zhivago (1965), you saw images meant to represent the 1917 revolution. (This was one of the few movies better than the book on which it was based. Pasternak was a very great poet but not a great fiction writer.) Dralyuk has divided his book into two parts: poetry first, then fiction. Along the way he provides a good deal of interesting commentary, detailing the lives of poets and authors and clarifying their relationships with one another. Thus we are introduced to those writers who were writing at that time and sometimes influencing the world around them. Some of the work is translated by Dralyuk, but not all of it. This makes the book even more enjoyable, as we derive a sense of variance from the poems. At the same time, Dralyuk’s ability to find rhymes and slant rhymes in English for Russian poems is exciting, as in his translation of Mikhail Gerasimov. “Fed by the dream of Communism, I stoked the furnace with new power, intoxicated by its rhythm, I forged my iron flowers.” Gerasimov was, of course, executed. Denunciation was the name of the game, and execution the eternal winner. Two caveats: those of us who are English-speaking may find it odd that Russian poems include a plethora of exclamation marks (an American poet will go a long way to avoid an exclamation mark; it seems foolishly loud to us, but Russians had good reason to shout). Second, Russian poetry, especially that written by the Acmeists, a group of poets who got together at The Stray Dog Café in St. Petersburg, tends to slight metaphor (though there is metaphor) and emphasize direct statement. Knowing this was their aim helps us to relax into a sympathetic posture with respect to the Acmeists. Among them were Osip Mandelstam, perhaps the greatest of them all (I suggest you also read Christian Wyman’s translations of Mandelstam); Anna Akhmatova, perhaps even better known to English-speaking readers; Pasternak, whose poems dared to be lyrical; Marina Tsvetaeva, who turns up now and then in American and British novels, possibly because she committed suicide; and a good many others. They often addressed their poems to the Russian state, and in this, too, they were different from English-speaking poets. To us it may seem grandiose to speak to a nation, but that is because we can freely address anything or anyone we wish to address. And at least some American poets have indeed directed poems at our country: think of Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Allen Ginsburg. We cannot say that no English-speaking poets have addressed the Western hemisphere. The Russian poets understandably wanted to speak loudly and clearly to their nation, praising, rebuking, offering ways of improving what seemed to them to need improvement. These poems tend toward the dramatic, as if the poet might die the next day. And that was not unheard of. There were other groups of poets besides the Acmeists: Gumilyov’s Guild of Poets—Gumilyov was Akhmatova’s husband until he was executed “with sixty alleged co-conspirators”—Centrifuge (a Futurist group); New Peasants; Scythians; Imaginism. One can imagine all these poets writing feverishly in separate rooms, spied on by the press and the Cheka. When Stalin came to power, pretty much no one was safe. He launched one Great Purge after another. Sergey Esenin was a member of the New Peasants, later joining the Imaginism group. Dralyuk...

This chapter examines the perception of the Greek struggle for national independence by Russian travelers, military personnel, pilgrims, diplomats and officials, as well as the personal ties between Greeks and Russians established before, during and after the Revolution of 1821, during the formation of an independent Greek state. The author emphasizes the pro-Greek sentiment prevalent in the Russian society at the time that can be clearly seen in a number of works by Russian poets of the first half of the XIX century.

The object of this research article is the borrowed words in the poetry of a representative of unofficial literature, V. S. N. Nekrasov. The active use of borrowed words in lyrical works can be called a common poetic feature of both European and Russian poetry in the second half of the 20th century. The catastrophic events of the 20th century brought to the forefront the doubts of many authors regarding the possibilities of direct lyrical expression and prompted them to seek new forms of expressiveness. Among the Moscow conceptualists in the 1970s and 1980s, a creative practice was widespread that involved the use of Soviet visual images or verbal clichés as poetic material. This characteristic of Nekrasov's poetics, who belonged to the conceptualist circle, has already been the subject of study; however, this research proposes a different methodological approach. The methodology of this study is based on the analysis of the poet's corpus of texts from the 1960s to the 1980s, the identification of intertextual connections present in Nekrasov’s works, as well as their hermeneutic interpretation. The novelty of the research lies in the identification of several features of the functioning of borrowed speech in Nekrasov's poetry. First, it is important to note the poet's infrequent, yet noticeable, references to borrowed speech at the turn of the 1960s and 1970s, and the intensification of this technique in the 1970s and 1980s. Secondly, the distinctive traits of the author's poetics are noted, such as the preservation of a distinct voice of the lyrical subject and, consequently, the emergence of antithesis between the speech of the subject and borrowed speech in the structure of poetic works. Third, the observations made contributed to the identification of the specifics of Nekrasov's references to borrowed speech in comparison with the creative practice of D. A. Prigov. This allows for a reevaluation of the conventional approaches to analyzing Nekrasov's poetics as part of a broader poetic identity.

Topographies of Anticolonialism: The Ecopoetical Sublime in the Caucasus from Tolstoy to Mamakaev

K. F. Ryleev’s lyrics had no less an influence on the development of the lexical and stylistic system of the Russian literary language than his famous thoughts and poems. Its thematic and genre diversity, emotional richness, artistic and pictorial wealth stand out even against the background of the Golden Age of Russian poetry, which is quite representative in the above-mentioned aspects. A special study of Ryleev’s lyrics can significantly enrich linguistic stylistics and poetics, as well as introduce new data into the history of the Russian literary language. The above determines the relevance and scientific significance of this work. The main goal of the study is to show the role of Ryleev’s lyrics in the evolution of the genre and stylistic system of the Russian literary language of the Romantic era, i. e. the first quarter of the 19th century, and to identify its linguopoietic specificity. The leading methods were a cross-cutting onomasiological sample from lyrical texts, a linguostylistic analysis of the most indicative lexical units, and a systemic-semasiological interpretation of words and their groups. In some cases, the methods of historical stylistics, verse metrics, and general onomastics were used. As a result of the study, the features of the implementation of the system of lexical oppositions (stable antonyms) traditional for romantic poetics in Ryleev’s lyrics were revealed, the nature of the use of Slavicisms and high poeticisms was determined and described, the significance of Ryleev’s lyrics for establishing semantic and functional differentiation in the Russian literary language of individual words with full-voicedness and incomplete-voicedness was emphasized. An overview of anthroponyms in Ryleev’s poetic heritage was made and their artistic role was outlined, the contribution of Ryleev’s lyrics to the correction of semantic halos of some metric schemes was noted. The particular features of Ryleev’s idiostyle are revealed and illustrated: "non-established" vernacular, a tendency toward epithet tropeization, semantic enrichment of lexemes with the help of simple applications. A conclusion is made about the influence of Ryleev’s poetic creativity on the formation of the genre-stylistic system of the language of Russian literature, on the consolidation of the vocabulary of civil topics and the methods of its use.

In modern innovative Russian poetry, one of the key problems is the question of the interaction of the concepts “subject” and “space”, as well as the question of ways to rethink their semantic and functional content. As one of the variants of the compositional and stylistic analysis of the poetic text, we have proposed the concept of a subject-spatial model – a conditional image of the concepts “subject” and “space”, which serves to determine the relationship between them and the specifics of their functioning in the author’s poetics. This article discusses the models functioning in the texts of Kirill Korchagin, Galina Rymbu, Nikita Safonov and Yevgeniya Suslova, the classification of models is considered on several grounds: the number of model elements, the specifics of the relations between them and the forms of interaction. It is noted that the models functioning in the texts of the authors studied are multi-basic, each of them has a set of different parameters characterising the relationship between the elements from different points of view, which allows us to consider the specifics of the subject-spatial organisation of the text as a complex structure that reveals the semantic and stylistic features of poetics. The article concludes that the interaction of concepts is based on diffusion and interference, meanwhile the semantics of the subject and space become more complicated – the authors approach their understanding from a philosophical and pragmatic point of view. In addition, the article discusses the issue of trends in the development of subject-spatial relations in innovative Russian poetry.