Letteratura scientifica selezionata sul tema "Gumileva"

The article deals with the reception of L.N. Gumilev's views in the Russian literature of the 20th-21st centuries. The relevance of the study is due to the wide spread of Gumilev's views in the post-Soviet space and the presence of a wide creative reception of them in fiction. The article makes a conclusion about the variability of the creative reception of the views of Gumilev in historical novelism: schematic with the updating of history and the acceptance as a philosophy of history, when the author, avoids updating history, using Gumilev's concept to convey the dynamics of the historical process.

This article examines in detail the circumstances of the creation of all Gumilev’s French texts known today. The research focuses on Russian-French literary relations at the beginning of the 20th century, the chronological order of Gumilev’s Russian poems and their French versions, the textual features and particularities of the translations attributed to Gumilev and the history of their publication. Particular attention is paid to Gumilev’s desire to enter the circle of French writers, thanks to his acquaintance with René Ghil, and then to determine the perception of his work in France through his acquaintance, correspondence and subsequent cooperation with Jean Chuzeville. The article presents an analysis of the selection principle of poems, both those translated for the “Anthology” and those featured in Gumilev’s notebooks, as well as the approach to the translation of poems in verse or prose. In conclusion, possible explanations of why Nikolai Gumilev combined his (alleged) self-translations in a notebook just before his return from France to Russia are given.

Books review: Bassin M. The Gumilev Mystique: Biopolitics, Eurasianism, and the Construction of Community in Modern Russia. Cornell University Press, 2016. 400 p.; Bassin M., Pozo G. (eds). The Politics of Eurasianism: Identity, Popular Culture and Russia's Foreign Policy. Rowman & Littlefield, 2017. 384 p.; Clover Ch. Black Wind, White Snow: The Rise of Russia's New Nationalism.Yale University Press, 2017. 360 p. The review considers three works on Eurasianism, the theoretical geography of Lev Gumilev and contemporary Russian ethnonationalism. It places the reviewed works in the context of the historical ideological evolution of Eurasianism. The principal argument in all three reviewed texts is that there are three forms of Eurasian ideology: classical Eurasianism, Gumilevian Eurasianism and neo-Eurasianism. This essay argues that instead of a rank appropriation of Eurasian ideology into contemporary Russian ethnonationalist discourses, there remains a great intellectual and theoretical power in Gumilevian Eurasianism that could yet be applied to contemporary Eurasian and Russophere geographies in a more positive and empowering manner than the current misappropriated form of Russian ethnonationalist Eurasianism. While neo-Eurasianism is a misappropriation of Gumilevian Eurasianism, a revival of a new fork of neo-Gumilevian Eurasianism could diffuse the contemporary Russian misappropriation and return to a more objective and inclusive Eurasian ideology.

In his “Poetic Responses to the Death of Gumilev,” Ivan Martynov has chronicled the repercussions of Gumilev's execution by the Cheka in August 1921 in the poetry of his contemporaries. Martynov recalls those poets who remained faithful to Gumilev and marked his death with memorable poems as well as the opportunists who publicly and loudly praised his executioners. Among those who betrayed Gumilev for selfish reasons, Martynov cites such former close friends as Elizaveta Polonskaia, Mikhail Zenkevich, Larisa Reisner, and Sergei Gorodetskii. Their cynicism and cowardice were, however, more than offset by the loyalty and resourcefulness of, among others, Anna Akhmatova, Georgii Adamovich, Nikolai Otsup, Ida Nappel'baum and Irina Odoevtseva. Despite the very real danger, these poets refused to renounce Gumilev in public. Because the Soviet censor would allow no overt references to Gumilev, much less poems in commemoration of his death, his friends were able to refer to him only obliquely in the months following his execution.

Lev Gumilev, the son of the famous Russian poets Nikolai Gumilev and Anna Akhmatova, according to all the canons of history, had to remain in the shadow of his great parents. However, Lev Gumilev went down in history as a very outstanding personality, the author of the original idea of the birth and development of ethnicities, which was called the “passion” theory of ethnogenesis. This theory causes great controversy about its scientific nature to this day. Lev Gumilev developed his theory within the framework of the concept of Eurasianism. Among the wide variety of Eurasian peoples, Gumilev saw a common ethnic origin, common stereotypes of behavior that could lead to the geopolitical unity of the territory inhabited by them. At the end of the last century, primordialism in ethnology was rejected by the majority of the scientific community, and Gumilev’s ideas were criticized. However, last years the Eurasianist ideas of Lev Gumilev are experiencing a new wave of importance in connection with the strategic path of development that the Russian Federation has chosen for itself, which is progressively building the United Eurasian Community.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the Anacreontic Song by Théophile Gautier, translated by N. S. Gumilev, which is examined against the background of the Russian and global Anacreontic tradition. Imitation of Anacreon is rooted in antiquity: his figure became a symbol of light lyric poetry that glorified sensual pleasures. Anacreon’s own legacy is not as extensive as pseudo-Anacreontic poetry: this tradition is present in English, French, German, Italian and Russian literature. In the process of translating Odelette anacréontique by Théophile Gautier, Gumilev enters into intercultural and inter-traditional communication: his translation is a dialogue with both the French poet and the Anacreontic and pseudo-Anacreontic genre tradition. Despite the statements N. S. Gumilev proposed in his theoretical works on translation issues, which stated that it is necessary to rely on the original text during translation, and that deviations and loose retellings are unacceptable, in some cases he still departs from the original text, deliberately building the subtext of the poem that is absent in the original. Gumilev’s translation makes Gautier’s poem “more Anacreontic” than the original: Gumilev intensifies the motives of love, pleasure, sensual pleasure that are significant for pseudo-Anacreontics, introduces the image of wine as a symbol of love that was absent in the original. Gumilev’s translation solutions considered in the article represent a kind of editing of Gautier’s text that approximated it to the complex of motives traditionally associated with the work of Anacreon.

The views of the classic German sociologist W. Sombart regarding the social practices of luxury consumption are of undoubted scientific interest. The article, in relation to modern realities, examines the psychological types identified by Sombart that are predisposed to promoting the bourgeois way of life. Sombart's ideas regarding the ideological component of Western European capitalist entrepreneurship, revealed as a unity in the entrepreneur of the images of a conqueror, organizer and merchant, which has a mythological nature in Anglo-Saxon culture, are also being developed by modern researchers (the American anthropologist D. Graeber, for example). Comparison of Sombart's ideas with the views of M. Weber, L.N. Gumileva reveals aspect of inequality of behavioral inclinations within a nation and the inequality of expression of such inclinations between nations, which in no way contradicts modern science and ethics, since it can relate to the parameters of the distribution of types of temperament, and could also turn a material for the development of ethological studies of behavioral stereotypes, which are not enough in modern stage of science development

In this article, Mark Bassin explores Lev Gumilev's theory of ethnicity. Developing his ideas in the context of post-Stalinist debates about the relationship of society to the natural world, Gumilev maintained that theetnoswas a wholly natural, quasi-biological entity. Although this naturalism involved an important genetic dimension, Gumilev denied that ethnicity was determined by race and emphasized instead its ecological quality as an organic part of biogeocenoses or natural-landscape ecosystems. Although he remained marginalized in his day by the Soviet ethnographic establishment, his essentialist perspective is powerfully appealing for post-Soviet audiences, who find his “ecology of ethnicity” singularly useful for the purposes of ethnopolitical discourse.

L.N. Gumilev belonged to the very small group of the children of the Silver Age in Russian culture, and the fi rst three decades of his own adult life (until the early 1960s) he particularly devoted to writing poetry. The literary heritage of L.N. Gumilev’s has been preserved only fragmentarily and does not refl ect the full range of his interests – neither in subject matter, nor in genres (the prosaic works have not been basically preserved). However, the extant works make it possible to establish a direct connection between the poetic work of L.N. Gumilev and the tradition of the Silver Age, from which he drew many images and plots. The greatest infl uence on Gumilev Jr. was exerted by the works of his father, N.S. Gumilev. Moreover, in the proper scientifi c heritage of L.N. Gumilev poetry also constitutes a separate layer: these are both poetic allusions and direct quotations of poems, including those of the Silver Age. Often in his scientifi c works L.N. Gumilev embarked on an intellectual game, which, despite the outward lightness of his language, hid second and even third layers of meanings from the mass reader, like the shadows of former texts in old parchment manuscripts (palimpsests). Thus, throughout his scholar and creative life L.N. Gumilev was accompanied by the proper ‘poetic image of the historian’. This is a kind of the alter ego of the author, and in unraveling it, it is important to understand that for Gumilev the presence of science in poetry and of poetry in science was quite organic.

The thesis examines two central themes in the thought of L.N. Gumilev (1912- 92): the theory of ethnogenesis and Eurasianism. A biographic survey of Gumilev's life sets his work in a historical context. Gumilev's background, his personal interests in nomadic history, and the tragic experiences of his life emerge as important factors for understanding his thought. The three principal concepts of the theory of ethnogenesis are then examined; passionarnost', ethnos, and phases of ethnogenesis. It is argued that the theory of ethnogenesis at its core is a behaviourist concept of ethnic history. A comparison with the theories of history of Arnold Toynbee and N.Ia. Danilevskii shows that despite similarities such as a shared anti cosmopolitan view of history, there are also important differences. In particular, the distinction between social and ethnic history and the emphasis on behavioural, long-term changes distinguish Gumilev's theory from those of Toynbee and Danilevskii. Gumilev's account of Russian history focused on a distinction between Kievan Rus and Muscovite Russia, the role of the Mongols in the formation of the Russian ethnos, and the interpretation of Russian history in terms of phases of ethnogenesis. His views are dominated by a strong anti-Western bias and are not always compatible with the theory of ethnogenesis. Finally, there is a crucial distinction between Eurasianism and the theory of ethnogenesis. In his works on Russian history, Gumilev developed various aspects of Eurasianism. The theory of ethnogenesis is, however, a radical departure from Eurasian views. It should be seen as a separate theory which stresses non-voluntaristic, behaviourist motives in ethnic history.

La tesi verte principalmente su N.S. Gumilev e sul suo lavoro come critico della corrente acmeista. Il testo si può dividere, in linea generale, in due sezioni. Nella prima si approfondiscono la vita, gli studi letterari e le influenze poetiche dell'autore, il quale si rivela sia profondo conoscitore del simbolismo (nelle sue declinazioni in Germania, Francia e Russia), sia convinto teorico e caposcuola della corrente acmeista, di cui si scoprono meglio la genesi, il rapporto tra i membri e le linee guida. A tal proposito non solo si confrontano i tre manifesti programmatici dal titolo "Eredità del simbolismo e dell'acmeismo", "Il mattino dell'acmeismo", "Alcune correnti della poesia russa contemporanea" realizzati rispettivamente da Gumilev, Mandel’štam e Gorodeckij, ma ci si concentra anche sulle analogie e differenze di vedute tra i tre autori, sull'atmosfera in seno alla "Gilda dei poeti" e sul centro nevralgico della corrente rappresentato da Anna Achmatova, Gumilev e Mandel’štam. Nella seconda invece è inclusa la traduzione in italiano del testo russo "Stat'i o russkoj poezii" scritto da Gumilev, contenuto in "Pis'ma o russkoj poezii", di cui qui vengono analizzati i sette capitoli più rilevanti per comprendere i “principy” del poeta russo ("Anatomia di una poesia", "La vita del verso", "Il lettore", "Eredità del simbolismo e dell'acmeismo", "Théophile Gautier", "La poesia in Vesy") assieme ad altri articoli “minori” che si rivelano alla fine tessere essenziali pe analizzare il mosaico acmeista realizzato dall’autore. Il presente lavoro ha come obiettivo quello di sottolineare la straordinaria importanza di Gumilev nel contesto del proprio tempo e il suo impegno letterario come critico, oltre a quello di poeta e di filologo.

В работе рассматривается анималистический мир Николая Гумилева. Это связано с его личными качествами, влиянием теории Сверхчеловека, веяниями эпохи (с дегуманизацией, антропоморфизмом и др.). На конкретных примерах («Орел», «Жираф», «Охота») зоонимов, сравнений показано пристрастие Гумилева экзотическим миром животных. Особое внимание уделено птицам, в частности, лебедю. Во второй главе магистерской работы рассматриваются «лебединые циклы» К. Бальмонта и С. Есенина. Показан генезис, символика образа, лексика, особенности лирического сюжета. В выводах сопоставлен гумилевский анималистический мир с есенинским.
Magistro darbe analizuojamas animalistinis pasaulis Nikolajaus Gumiliovo poezijoje. Tai susiję su juo asmeninėmis savybėmis, Uebermench teorijos poveikiu, epochos kryptimis (degumanizacija, antropomorfizmas ir t.t.). Pateikiant konkrečius zoonimų ir palyginimų pavyzdžius („Erelis“, „Žirafas“, „Medžioklė“) parodyta Gumiliovo aistra egzotiniui gyvūnų pasauliui. Ypatingas dėmesys skiriamas paukščiams, ypač gulbei. Antroje magistro darbo dalyje analizuojami „gulbės ciklai“ K. Belmonto ir S. Jesenino poezijoje. Parodytas genezis, įvaizdžio simbolika, žodynas, lyrinio siužeto ypatybės. Išvadose palygintas Jesenino ir Gumiliovo animalistinis pasaulis.
The work reviews the analyses of animalistic motives in Gumilevs poetry. It is conserned with his personal qualities, influence of the Uebermench theory, age tendency (dehumanization, anthropomorphism and other). Gumilev‘s passion for word of exotic animals is demonstrated in particular examples („Giraffe“, „Eagle“, „Hunting“) of zoonyms, comparisons. Birds, especially swan is given a special attention. Balmond‘s and Jesenin‘s „swan cycles“ are analysed in the second chapter of master‘s work. A genesis, symbolic meaning of the aspect, vocabulary, quality of the lyrical plot are shown. Gumilev‘s and Jesenin‘s animalistic word are compared in the conclusion of master‘s work.

My thesis is a monographic work on Vsemirnaja Literatura (World literature), a publishing house active in Petrograd between 1918 and 1924. The history of this institution – which was established right after the October Revolution and based on Maxim Gorky's idea to provide the Soviet reader with new annotated editions of the classics of world literature – represents an interesting look-out from which we can observe the transition years that followed the Bolshevik takeover and preceded Lenin's death, through the Civil War, “the first wave of migration” of not aligned intellectuals, the NEP and the gradual consolidation of the Soviet state around its new centralizing institutions. Although on Vsemirnaja Literatura much has already been written, most contributions are scattered and difficult to find; moreover, studies published in the Soviet era are obviously affected by an ideological approach that makes it very difficult to conduct a historical reconstruction with the necessary objectivity, taking into account the faceted “micro-histories” intertwined within this legendary publishing house. Using the formalist terminology in which, already in the '20s, scholars took into account the phenomena that constitute the background of the creative literary process, one could say that in the history of Vsemirnaja Literatura several “series” are intertwined: literary, but also political, social and economic. The first part of this work is thus a reconstruction of the history of Vsemirnaja Literatura in the context of the first steps of Soviet publishing in general. The analysis is focused on the way the publishing house fulfilled the fundamental instances of the Bolshevik cultural policy (mass edition of classics to ensure the success of the literacy process) and also responded to Gorky's aesthetic principles promoting a sort of “revolutionary humanism” based on a socialist and internationalist version of Goethe's Weltliteratur; the analysis dwells on the composition of catalogs (which reflect Gorky's utopian plans in relation with the actually printed works) trying to highlight the excellent level of the contributors, who were all members of the Petersburg literary and academic elite (from Alexandr Blok, Nikolai Gumilyov, Mikhail Lozinsky, Korney Chukovsky, to orientalists like Sergey Ol'denburg, Ignaty Kračkovsky, Vasily Alekseev). I finally outlined the events that led Vsemirnaja Literatura from its early independent stage to the annexation to the State publisher, the Gosizdat. The second part takes into account an aspect of Vsemirnaja Literatura that goes beyond the simple publishing activity, and that involves its role as a cultural circle. Indeed, through salaries paid by Vsemirnaja Literatura two generations of scholars were able to survive and continue to do their job, despite the dire economic conditions besetting Petrograd during the Civil War and the hostile attitude of the Bolshevik authorities against them. Vsemirnaja Literatura turned soon to be a meeting point where literary evenings, conferences and banquets were organized, in which somehow survived the lively spirit of modernist cafes and cabarets. Evidence of this vivacity are both the seminars on translation and literary history that were held in Vsemirnaja Literatura’s offices, and the large body of “domestic” literature characterized by a satirical tone full of black humor, written by the staff and circulating in manuscript form during meetings and parties. I also considered in detail the journals published within Vsemirnaja Literatura between 1922 and 1924, Vostok and Sovremennyj Zapad, respectively dedicated to the “scientific” study of eastern literature and art, and to the latest news of European literature after World War I. Finally, in the third part, I considered the theoretical endeavors involving the difficult process of literary translation, as opposed to the quite free approach that was typical of the nineteenth century. Korney Chukovsky and Nikolai Gumilyov sought to develop standards that would support to the idea of unconditional fidelity to the original text, whose reproduction required a perfect knowledge of both the original and the translated language, as much as of stylistics and literary history. According to Gumilyov, a translator should have been at the same time also a writer and a critic. This system of values remained valid even later, when the Soviet Union witnessed a remarkable flowering of the so-called “translation literature” (despite the limitations set by censorship authorities). Even the experiments of collective translation conceived by Gumilyov and Mikhail Lozinsky at Vsemirnaja Literatura had a considerable following in the Soviet pedagogical institutes. Throughout the work I tried to highlight the hybrid nature of an institution that existed in a spurious period, in which the old and the new coexisted, while the boundaries between the former and the latter weren't yet clear. Indeed, in Vsemirnaja Literatura can be identified instances that were typical of pre-revolutionary Petersburg’s literary life together with the seeds of many elements that marked the Soviet “cultural field” (such as the elaboration of huge centralized plans with popular function or the experiments of collective translation and literary creation). The dissertation was carried out on the basis of several materials of the time (especially newspapers and magazines, as well as diaries and memoirs) and archive documents (administrative papers, educational programs of the affiliated workshop, translation drafts), which were found in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Part of these materials constitute the appendices at the end of the work, relative to each of the three parts: the list of volumes published under the brand of Vsemirnaja Literatura, put together on the basis of the catalogs found in the Moscow State library and in the National library of St. Petersburg; a short biographical sketch of the contributors, that allows to further emphasize their heterogeneity in age, training, ideological and aesthetic positions; the complete indexes of Sovremennyj Zapad and Vostok; a talk held by a very young Lev Lunts at the translation workshop; unpublished examples of satirical literature circulating in manuscript form among the staff of the publishing house; a small body of unpublished translations of French, German and English poetry by Nikolai Gumilyov, David Vygodsky and students of the workshop. As a whole, this work is part of the set of studies on the cultural history of the kul'turnye instituty (publishing houses, magazines, writers unions, literary criticism) in the Soviet Union. Set out by Anglo-Saxon scholars in the 70s, these kind of researches have recently witnessed a remarkable flowering in Russia, providing interesting insights for the reasoned discussion of a time that for way too long has been held hostage by ideological distortions
Il mio lavoro di tesi costituisce uno studio monografico sulla casa editrice Vsemirnaja Literatura (La letteratura mondiale), attiva a Pietrogrado tra il 1918 e il 1924. La storia di questo ente, istituito all’indomani della Rivoluzione d’Ottobre su idea di Maksim Gor’kij con lo scopo di fornire al lettore sovietico nuove edizioni commentate dei classici della letteratura mondiale, costituisce un interessante spaccato attraverso cui scrutare gli anni di transizione che seguirono la presa di potere dei bolscevichi e precedettero la morte di Lenin, passando per la guerra civile, la “prima ondata migratoria” degli intellettuali non allineati, la NEP e il progressivo consolidamento dello Stato sovietico attorno alle sue neonate istituzioni accentratrici. Su Vsemirnaja Literatura è stato scritto molto, ma i contributi a questo proposito sono sparsi e difficilmente rintracciabili; inoltre, gli studi pubblicati in epoca sovietica risentono ovviamente di un’impostazione ideologica che rende ben difficile una ricostruzione storica condotta con la necessaria oggettività, che tenga conto delle tante, sfaccettate “microstorie” intrecciate all’interno di questa leggendaria editrice. Nel racconto sulla nascita e le attività di Vsemirnaja Literatura, per usare la nota terminologia degli studiosi formalisti (che per primi, proprio negli anni ’20, iniziarono a studiare i fenomeni che fanno da sfondo allo sviluppo del processo letterario e alla creazione della letteratura vera e propria), si intrecciano più “serie”: serie letteraria, ma anche politica, sociale, economica. La prima parte di questo lavoro è una ricostruzione della storia di Vsemirnaja Literatura nel contesto dei primi passi dell’editoria sovietica: viene indagato come l’editrice gor’kiana soddisfacesse le istanze primarie della politica culturale bolscevica (edizione dei classici con tirature “di massa” per garantire la buona riuscita del processo di alfabetizzazione) e rispondesse anche ai principi estetici dello stesso Gor’kij, promotore, all’epoca, di una sorta di “umanesimo rivoluzionario” che coinvolgesse l’intero pianeta all’insegna di un recupero della Weltliteratur goethiana in chiave socialista e internazionalista; viene studiata la composizione dei cataloghi, che ben riflettevano i piani utopici di Gor’kij, in rapporto alle effettive opere stampate; si pone l’accento sul livello eccellente dei collaboratori, appartenenti all’élite letteraria e accademica pietroburghese (da Aleksandr Blok a Nikolaj Gumilev, da Michail Lozinskij a Kornej Čukovskij, per arrivare agli orientalisti Sergej Ol’denburg, Ignatij Kračkovskij, Vasilij Alekseev – proprio a Vsemirnaja Literatura, peraltro, gli studi russi di orientalistica trovarono una sede dove essere condotti in maniera sistematica). Vengono poi ripercorse le vicende che portarono Vsemirnaja Literatura, all’inizio indipendente benché sovvenzionata dal governo, ad essere annessa all’editore di Stato, il Gosizdat. Nella seconda parte viene studiato un aspetto di Vsemirnaja Literatura che esula dalla semplice stampa di libri e avvicina la casa editrice a un vero e proprio circolo culturale. Di fatto, tramite gli stipendi erogati da Vsemirnaja Literatura due generazioni di letterati ebbero modo di sopravvivere, continuando a svolgere il proprio mestiere, nonostante le disastrose condizioni economiche in cui versava Pietrogrado durante la guerra civile e l’atteggiamento ostile delle autorità bolsceviche nei loro confronti. Vsemirnaja Literatura si configurò ben presto come un luogo di ritrovo dove venivano organizzate serate letterarie, conferenze, incontri conviviali, e dove in qualche modo sopravviveva lo spirito vivace dei caffè e dei cabaret della Pietroburgo modernista. Testimonianze di questa vivacità sono costituite sia dagli “studi” destinati ai potenziali collaboratori, dove venivano tenuti seminari di traduzione e storia della letteratura, sia dall’ampio corpus di letteratura “domestica” dai toni satirici, intrisa di umorismo nero, redatta dagli stessi collaboratori, che circolava in forma manoscritta durante le riunioni del comitato di redazione e le feste. Vengono inoltre analizzate in dettaglio le riviste che uscirono presso Vsemirnaja Literatura tra il 1922 e il 1924, Vostok e Sovremennyj Zapad, dedicate rispettivamente allo studio “scientifico” della letteratura e dell’arte d’Oriente e alle ultime novità della letteratura europea del primo dopoguerra, in un’ottica cosmopolita e internazionalista. Nella terza parte, infine, vengono passati in rassegna i tentativi di teorizzazione del difficile processo di traduzione letteraria operati all’interno di Vsemirnaja Literatura, in opposizione all’approccio quanto mai libero alla traduzione tipico dell’Ottocento: a Vsemirnaja Literatura s’intendevano infatti proporre traduzioni programmaticamente nuove, supportate da una solida base teorica. Gli autori delle pagine teoriche riservate ai potenziali collaboratori di Vsemirnaja Literatura, Kornej Čukovskij e Nikolaj Gumilev, cercarono di elaborare delle norme che rendessero giustizia all’idea di una fedeltà incondizionata al testo originale, la cui riproduzione richiedeva una perfetta padronanza della lingua di partenza, ma anche di quella d’arrivo, e conoscenze quanto mai sviluppate di stilistica e storia della letteratura. Secondo Gumilev, un traduttore avrebbe dovuto essere, a un tempo, anche scrittore e critico. Questo sistema di valori rimase valido anche in seguito, quando l’Unione Sovietica conobbe una notevole fioritura della cosiddetta “letteratura di traduzione” (nonostante i paletti imposti, anche in ambito traduttivo, dalle autorità censorie). Anche gli esperimenti di traduzione collettiva ideati da Gumilev e Michail Lozinskij a Vsemirnaja Literatura ebbero un notevole seguito negli istituti pedagogici sovietici. Nel corso di tutto il lavoro si è voluto mettere in rilievo il carattere ibrido di un’istituzione che esistette in un periodo anch’esso spurio, in cui il vecchio e il nuovo coesistevano e i confini tra l’uno e l’altro non erano ancora netti. Effettivamente, in un centro come Vsemirnaja Literatura riconosciamo una serie di istanze che erano state tipiche della vita letteraria della Pietroburgo modernista pre-rivoluzionaria e, allo stesso tempo, il germe di molti elementi che segneranno il “campo culturale” sovietico (dall’elaborazione centralistica di piani colossali con funzioni soprattutto divulgative agli esperimenti di traduzione e creazione letteraria collettiva). La stesura della tesi è stata condotta sulla base di numerosi materiali d’epoca (soprattutto giornali e riviste, ma anche diari e altre pagine memorialistiche) e d’archivio (documenti amministrativi relativi alla gestione del lavoro presso l’editrice, programmi didattici dello “Studio” ad essa affiliato, traduzioni rimaste allo stato di bozza), rinvenuti a Mosca e a San Pietroburgo. Parte di questi materiali vanno a costituire la serie di appendici in coda al lavoro, relative a ciascuna delle tre parti: la lista completa dei volumi usciti con il marchio di Vsemirnaja Literatura, ricostruita con l’ausilio dei cataloghi della Biblioteche Statale di Mosca e Nazionale di San Pietroburgo; un breve profilo biografico dei collaboratori, che permette di sottolinearne ulteriormente l’eterogeneità per quanto riguarda l’età, la formazione e le posizioni estetiche e ideologiche; gli indici completi di Sovremennyj Zapad e di Vostok; una relazione tenuta, ai seminari del laboratorio per traduttori, da un giovanissimo Lev Lunc; degli esempi inediti della letteratura satirica che circolava in forma manoscritta tra i collaboratori dell’editrice; un piccolo corpus di traduzioni inedite di poesia francese, tedesca e inglese firmate da Nikolaj Gumilev, da David Vygodskij e dagli allievi dello “Studio”. Nel suo complesso, questa monografia vuole inscriversi nel solco dei numerosi studi di carattere storico-culturale sui kul’turnye instituty (case editrici, riviste, unioni di letterati, critica letteraria) dell’Unione Sovietica. Avviati in ambito anglosassone ancora negli anni ’70, negli ultimi tempi lavori di questo genere hanno conosciuto una notevole fioritura anche in Russia, fornendo spunti quanto mai stimolanti per la disamina ragionata di un’epoca rimasta troppo a lungo in ostaggio di travisamenti ideologici

The lyric poem Fra Andželiko (1912) was inspired by the vivid impressions Nikolaj Gumilëv gained during his Italian tour in the very same year. The work should be seen in its context that acts as a background for the gumilevian perception of the artistic civilization of the Italian Renaissance. Leonardo da Vinci, Raffaello, Benvenuto Cellini, Michelangelo are here awakened, described and matched to the eponymous character. This article aims to reconstruct the image of Italy, of Poetry and to depict the poet through the verses of the poem.

The article considers the influence of O. Wilde’s personality and works on N.S. Gumilev’s strategy of self-presentation, as well as on his artistic and journalistic texts. The hypothesis is put forward that the Russian poet in his youth consciously focused on Wilde’s and his characters’ behavior model, constructing the image of a dandy in an effort to compensate for his unattractive appearance. This strategy remained relevant for Gumilev until the end of his life, as indicated by the memoirs of contemporaries, who preserved the image of the poet, who wore an exotic deer dokha with a fur hat in post-revolutionary Petrograd in 1918–1921, as well as a London tailcoat. Interest in the lifestyle and manners of the Anglo-Irish writer was reinforced by Gumilev’s close attention to his work. This is evidenced by reminiscences and quotations from Wilde’s poems, critical essays, as well as his novel “The Picture of Dorian Gray” and the play “Salome”, which the novice poet uses in his letters to V.Ya. Bryusov and V. Arens, his own poems, and later in critical and literary reviews and papers. At the end of the article, it is suggested that the essay “The Decay of Lying” is one of the sources of Gumilev’s article “On Verhaeren” (1908), as well as of his fairy-tale poem “Northern Raja” (1908).

The article is devoted to the problem of continuity of Parnassianism in the oeuvre of poets of the first wave of emigration and it is based on material of an analysis of three poems by V. Khodasevich, G. Ivanov and Yu. Terapiano. The poetic controversy between Khodasevich and G. Ivanov in the early 1920s revolved around different views on the role of the poet in difficult historical times, as well as around the dispute about where art comes from, from above or from the soul of the poet. Ideas close to the views of G. Ivanov stemmed from the views of his teacher N. Gumilev, expressed in his article about Theophile Gautier. Already in the 1930s, the same ideas resonated in the work of Yu. Terapiano. He creates a cycle of poems “French Poets”. The Parnassian poet Leconte de Lisle in his poem subordinates the feelings and the world around him in difficult times when “there is no support”.