Fyodor Tyutchev

Темой статьи являются ошибки при расстановке ударений в силлабо-тонической поэзии на русском языке. Явление неправомерной экстраполяции норм современного языка на старые тексты иллюстрируется союзом или, который в языке XVIII–XIX веков мог нести ударение на последнем слоге, что оставалось доселе незамеченным, несмотря на достаточную употребимость такой акцентовки в классической поэзии. Любой стих вида или… но как всё то исчислить (четырехстопный ямб Карамзина) можно интерпретировать как содержащий метрический перебой (т. е. первая стопа – хорей вместо ямба), но обращение к поэтическому подкорпусу Национального корпуса русского языка показывает, что количество таких контекстов слишком велико, чтобы списать их все на переакцентуации. Обратный случай, при котором произведению приписываются небывалые ударения, якобы соответствующие эпохе, представлен знаменитыми метрическими экспериментами стихотворения Ф. И. Тютчева «Silentium!». Корпусные данные позволяют внести некоторую ясность: ударения, которые иногда постулируют для его «подгонки» под ровный ямб (заходя́т или даже за́ходят, разгоня́т), в русском языке невозможны и нигде больше не встречаются. Статья демонстрирует высокий потенциал корпусных технологий как для исследований истории русского стиха, так и для исследований истории русского ударения; обращается внимание на трудности, возникающие при интерпретации данных поэтического корпуса, и намечаются возможные пути их разрешения.

The monograph 'Gallo-Rossica: From the History of Russian-French Literary Connections (late 18th – early 20th centuries)' is devoted to a number of hitherto unstudied and inexhausted aspects of exchanges which took place in the interval between the appearance of the 'Letters of a Russian Traveler' by N. Karamzin and the rise of discussions in the Paris Studio Franco-Russe (1929–1931).
The book’s pivotal theme is self-identification of a writer, of a literary trend, and of national literature as a whole through reflections of the self in the Other and coming to know oneself through the External. This theme is developed on the basis of very specific historical and literary topics often concerned with the so-called ‘second-league’ authors.
How has an atheistic text from the French Revolution epoch influenced a
famous philosophical masterpiece by a Russian conservative poet? How did a Parisian translator of Polish origin ‘gallicize’ Tolstoy’s novel 'Resurrection' and why this occasion aroused the indignation of native French writers? How did a Russian symbolist and the ‘new-religious consciousness’ guru implement the program of conquering Paris literary market? How did a religious-philosophical critic’s acquaintance with a Catholic Mystery affect his conversion to radical Formalism? And why was this genre well-received in the early Soviet theater? How did a Petersburg ballet historian become a leading francophone literary critic? How and why
did French communists try to appropriate a Russian anti-Soviet writer? What exactly was pronounced about the dissimilarity of the Russian and French variants of Symbolism in Paris at the turn of the 1920s — 1930s? Finally, what pattern of literary contacts between the two countries was created by francophone writers born in the Russian empire?
The author tries to provide answers to these and other questions. Among heroes of the monograph there are Nikolay Karamzin, Sylvain Maréchal, Fyodor Tyutchev, Leo Tolstoy, Théodor de Wyzewa (T. Wyżewsky), Dmitry Merezhkovsky, Maurice Prozor, Paul Claudel, Boris Eichenbaum, André Levinson, Ivan Bunin, Maurice Donzel (Parijanine), André Fontainas, Nina Berberova, Stanislas Fumet, etc.

The monograph 'Gallo-Rossica: From the History of Russian-French Literary
Connections (late 18th – early 20th centuries)' is devoted to a number of hitherto unstudied and inexhausted aspects of exchanges which took place in the interval between the appearance of the 'Letters of a Russian Traveler' by N. Karamzin and the rise of discussions in the Paris Studio Franco-Russe (1929–1931).
The book’s pivotal theme is self-identification of a writer, of a literary trend, and of national literature as a whole through reflections of the self in the Other and coming to know oneself through the External. This theme is developed on the basis of very specific historical and literary topics often concerned with the so-called ‘second-league’ authors.
How has an atheistic text from the French Revolution epoch influenced a
famous philosophical masterpiece by a Russian conservative poet? How did a Parisian translator of Polish origin ‘gallicize’ Tolstoy’s novel 'Resurrection' and why this occasion aroused the indignation of native French writers? How did a Russian symbolist and the ‘new-religious consciousness’ guru implement the program of conquering Paris literary market? How did a religious-philosophical critic’s acquaintance with a Catholic Mystery affect his conversion to radical Formalism? And why was this genre well-received in the early Soviet theater? How did a Petersburg ballet historian become a leading francophone literary critic? How and why did French communists try to appropriate a Russian anti-Soviet writer?
What exactly was pronounced about the dissimilarity of the Russian and French variants of Symbolism in Paris at the turn of the 1920s — 1930s? Finally, what pattern of literary contacts between the two countries was created by francophone writers born in the Russian empire?
The author tries to provide answers to these and other questions. Among heroes of the monograph there are Nikolay Karamzin, Sylvain Maréchal, Fyodor Tyutchev, Leo Tolstoy, Théodor de Wyzewa (T. Wyżewsky), Dmitry Merezhkovsky, Maurice Prozor, Paul Claudel, Boris Eichenbaum, André Levinson, Ivan Bunin, Maurice Donzel (Parijanine), André Fontainas, Nina Berberova, Stanislas Fumet, etc.

Монография посвящена имагологическому исследованию феномена русского ориентализма первой половины XIX века. НА материале творчества А.С. Пушкина, М.Ю. Лермонтова, Н.В. Гоголя, Ф.М. Достоевского и др. автор раскрывает специфику художественного мышления, основанного на воображаемом разделении мира на колонизующий Запад и колонизуемый Восток. Впервые для анализа художественных текстов русской литературы применяется комплексное единство методов постколониальной критики и теории локальных текстов.
Для литературоведов, культурологов, историков, философов, а также тех, кто интересуется вопросами межкультурного взаимодействия.

The article analyzes the methodology and content related aspects of the interpretation of poetic creativity and religious experience of Fyodor Tyutchev and Rainer Maria Rilke in the articles dedicated to these poets by the Russian philosopher Semyon Ludwigovich Frank. The author demonstrates that in his analysis Frank relies on the ideas of Heinrich Rickert, Wilhelm Dilthey, Leo Tolstoy, Friedrich Schleiermacher, William James, Vyacheslav Ivanov, Rudolf Otto, and Friedrich Heiler. From the author's point of view this analysis belongs to the field of phenomenology
of religion rather than to the field of philosophical literary studies.
In that article, Frank reconstructs the basic elements of the religious life and mystical experience of the poets as they are given in their poetry, emphasizing the unique way in which mystical pantheism and Christianity are combined. The author points to the importance of the thesis defended by Frank on the possibility of an organic and consistent connection of these forms of religious life for the philosopher's own religious thought. The conclusion is made about the importance of Frank's analysis of their religious life for the understanding of their literary work: the disclosure of religious aspects in the motivation of their quests and experiments in the field of poetic language, art form, imagery, and specific ways of poetic "defamiliarization".

В статье на основе биографических сведений и анализа поэтики стихотворения «Поминки»
(перевод из Шиллера) делается вывод о том, что обращение Тютчева в 1850-х годах к
переводу (само по себе нетипическое) инспирировано двумя событиями: переводом
«Одиссеи» Жуковским и цензурным запретом Шиллера в России.

This article dwells upon Sergey Fudel’s (1900–1977) understanding of processes underlying the development of European and Russian literature in the 19th and early 20th centuries. A specific point of interest is the topic of poetic knowledge, in Fudel’s works closely associated with the concept of the «Night», a concept frequently used both by Romantic and Symbolist poets. For Fudel, poetic knowledge is also associated with the idea of true communion between people. In Fudel’s opinion, European and Russian culture demonstrates an antinomy: artists, being especially susceptible to the feeling that beauty and life itself are in some way «divine», try to reach the Absolute through art, thus relying on some kind of «natural» mysticism. These attempts inevitably fail because of the shocking confrontation with chaos, evil and death which prevail in the fallen world. The artist is thus trapped: he either has to accept that his initial hopes were a mistake or to abandon art and «nature» in favour of faith in God who is both transcendent and present in His Church. According to Fudel, poetic works representing these concepts are still of value to a Christian, because they arise from artistic premonitions of truths revealed in the Church. Art is, therefore, both necessary (as an expression of spiritual search) and «unreliable», because God’s beautiful creation often replaces, in an artist’s eyes, the Creator Himself.