Home Releases # 14. 2020

“STANZAS” AS А GENRE INVARIANT: A. S. PUSHKIN AND O. S. MANDELSTAM

Literary Сriticism , UDC: 821.161.1 DOI: 10.25688/2619-0656.2020.14.02

Authors

  • Kalashnikov Sergei Candidate of Philology, Docent

Annotation

Based on the precedent texts by Alexander Pushkin, “Stanzas” (“In the hope of fame and good ...”) and “To Friends”, the article reconstructs the invariant scheme of this genre variety as a model of the poet’s relationship to the authorities and his time. One of the reasons why Pushkin’s “Stanzas” and “To Friends” are perceived as a paired unity and genre invariant is that in both texts the ultimate concentration of combinatorial possibilities of interaction between the poet and the authorities is reached: “true poet + true king”, “true poet vs false king”,“ true king + false poet”, “false poet + false king”. In addition, “Stanzas” as a genre invariant presupposes not only the realization of a certain group of artistic meanings, through which the poet’s attitude to his time and authorities is expressed, but also includes an obligatory model of the corresponding public behavior, firstly, in Moscow as the center of power and, secondly, in the fundamental capacity of the main poet of the era — the God chosen singer-prophet, who has the exclusive right to legitimize or discredit the image of the ruler and the existing state order. Also, in the biographical subtext of the invariant, the motive of unfulfilled hopes and disappointment in the “new reality” was originally incorporated. A century later, Osip Mandelstam builds his relations with his time in accordance with this genre invariant in “Voronezh Stanzas” (1935) and “Savyolovo Stanzas” (1937). At a deep level, the author reproduces scenarios of Pushkin’s literary and life behavior (“miraculous” pardon after the first arrest), deliberately builds biographical analogies to them in relations with the official authorities (a hypothetical meeting with Stalin), carries out the distribution of key meanings and assessments within the framework of the original Pushkin paradigm — not only artistic, but also behavioral, which testifies to the conscious positioning of himself as Pushkin’s successor in the public, ideological and state space.

How to link insert

Kalashnikov, S. . (2020). “STANZAS” AS А GENRE INVARIANT: A. S. PUSHKIN AND O. S. MANDELSTAM Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", # 14. 2020, 21-40. https://doi.org/10.25688/2619-0656.2020.14.02
References
1. Akhmatova A. A. Sobranie sochinenij: V 6 t. T. 5: Biograficheskaya proza. Pro domo sua. Recenzii. Interv’yu. Moskva: Ellis Lak, 2001. 800 s.
2. Ezhegodnik Rukopisnogo otdela Pushkinskogo Doma na 1993 god.
3. Materialy ob O. E. Mandel’shtame / Otv. red. T. S. Czar’kova. Sankt-Peterburg: Akademicheskij proekt, 1997. 407 s.
4. Kalashnikov S. B. Metasyuzhet “poet vs gosudar, ” v “Borise Godunove” A. S. Pushkina // Izvestiya Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo
5. universiteta. Ser.: Filologicheskie nauki. 2012. No 2. S. 126–129.
6. Kalashnikov S. B. Syuzhety raspoznavaniya istinnogo i lozhnogo czarya v tvorchestve A. S. Pushkina 1824–1826 godov // Pushkinskie chteniya — 2018.
7. Khudozhestvennye strategii klassicheskoj i novoj slovesnosti: zhanr, avtor, tekst: Materialy XXIII Mezhdunar. nauch. konf. Sankt-Peterburg: LGU, 2018. S. 9–19.
8. Kushner A. S. “Eto ne literaturnyj fakt, a samoubijstvo” // Novyj mir. 2005.
9. No 7. S. 132–146 URL: https://magazines.gorky.media/novyi_mi/2005/7/etone-literaturnyj-fakt-a-samoubijstvo.html.
10. Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva A. S. Pushkina: V 4 t. T. 2. Moskva: Slovo/Slovo, 1999. 544 s.
11. Mandel’shtam N.Ya. Vospominaniya. Moskva: Soglasie, 1999. 552 s.
12. Mandel’shtam O. E. Sobranie sochinenij: V 4 t. T. 3: Stikhotvoreniya. Proza. Moskva: Art-Biznes-Centr, 1994. 527 s.
13. Mandel’shtam O. E. Sobranie sochinenij: V 4 t. T. 4: Pis’ma. Moskva: ArtBiznes-Centr, 1999. 607 s.
14. Mikhajlova N. I. O stikhotvorenii Pushkina “Stansy” (“V nadezhde slavy i dobra...”) i “Druz’yam” // Izvestiya RAN. Ser. literatury i yazyka. 2009. No 3.
15. S. 31–35.
16. Nemirovskij I. V. Tvorchestvo Pushkina i problema publichnogo povedeniya poeta. Sankt-Peterburg: Giperion, 2003. 352 s.
17. Pasternak E. B. Boris Pasternak. Biografiya URL: http://russofile.ru/articles/article_77.php.
18. Proskurin O. A. Poeziya Pushkina, ili Podvizhnyj palimpsest. Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 1999. 462 s.
19. Pushkin A. S. Sobranie sochinenij: V 10 t. T. 2. Moskva: Goslitizdat, 1959. 799 s.
20. Pushkin A. S. Sobranie sochinenij: V 10 t. T. 9. Moskva: Goslitizdat, 1962. 495 s.
21. Pyatkin S. N. Stansy kak dialog s vlast’yu: Pushkin, Esenin, Mandel’shtam // Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. Tambov: Gramota, 2014. No 8 (38): V 2 ch. Ch. I. S. 152–156.
22. Pyatkovskij A. P. Pushkin v Kremlyovskom dvorce v 1826 g. // Russkaya starina. 1880. T. 27. S. 673– 675.
23. Razgovory Pushkina: Reprint, vosproizvedenie izd. 1929 g. Moskva: Politizdat, 1991. 318 s.
24. Surat I. Z. Dva puteshestviya: Mandel’shtam i Pushkin // Ural. 2018.
25. No 7. S. 195–215 URL: https://magazines.gorky.media/ural/2018/7/dvaputeshestviya-mandelshtam-i-pushkin.html.
26. Surat I. Z. Mandel’shtam i Pushkin. Moskva: IMLI RAN, 2009. 384 s.
27. Ejdel’man N. Pushkin. Istoriya i sovremennost’ v khudozhestvennom soznanii poeta. Moskva: Sov. pisatel’, 1984. 368 s.
Download file .pdf 121.12 kb