Pushkin and the Pushkin Myth in Contemporary Russian Literary Studies

Full Text

Introduction

Pushkin’s works, “captured” in the associative field of ideas about his personality and era, are one of the fundamental components of Russian national culture, Russian self-awareness. The “myth-creation” (M.V. Zagidullina’s term) of Pushkin, which began during his lifetime, continues to this day in the forms of manifestation of both mass consciousness (anecdotes, jokes, online micropoetry, the blogosphere) and individual responses (literary works, comics, animated and feature films). Preserving the basic oppositions “mine – ours”, “poet – crowd”, “poet – power”, “eternal – temporary”, “sacred (ideal) – profane (imperfect)”, the Pushkin myth of the late 20th – early 21st centuries, both in its individual and mass forms, strives to overcome its limits, to look at itself from the outside, to find a new emotional and phenomenological closeness with Pushkin – a man with a unique personality, the author of classic texts of Russian literature, a poet-genius who became a symbol of profound humanity and spiritual subtlety of Russian culture.

The intention to go beyond the myth, to go away from the established common or academic (scholarly) judgment about Pushkin’s work is characteristic of modern Russian literary criticism, too. Based on the influential idea, repeatedly confirmed by the results of research both in past and present, it is impossible not to respond to Pushkin and that Russian literature is developing along the paths largely laid by him, Pushkinists in Russia correlate, in general, with four directions of the ‘Pushkin problematic field’. These directions are united by a demand and a possibility to treat ‘Pushkin things’ in this or that new perspective – and this makes it possible to discover something that has until now eluded the gaze of the researcher.

Current Research Areas in Russian Pushkin Studies

The following areas can be highlighted as the main directions of modern Russian Pushkin studies.

1. The poetics and problems of Pushkin’s work in the context of tradition and era, including figurative and stylistic features of speech and literary genres.
2. The poetics of Russian literature in the context of responses to Pushkin’s personality and work.
3. The Pushkin myth (including its creative comprehension and deconstruction) as a way of identification and self-identification in popular culture and the individual author’s picture of the world.
4. The “other” Pushkin: his perception in other national cultures, including filmography, musical forms of reception of his work, academic discourse.

The significance of the highlighted aspects for modern Russian humanities is confirmed by topics of the papers presented for discussion in recent years – first of all, at the traditional for Pushkin scholars conference Boldinskiye Chteniya (Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod) and at the relatively new conference, proven to be successful – Reception of the Personality and Work of A.S. Pushkin in Russian and World Culture (19th – 21st Centuries) (Linguistics University of Nizhny Novgorod). New observations and significant results in relation to the first of the highlighted aspects were presented, in particular, in papers by L.A. Karpushkina – on the parody of Shakespeare’s ekphrasis in Count Nulin (Boldinskiye Chteniya, 2024), by M.Yu. Elepova – on the literary and autobiographical contexts and allusions of Pushkin’s translations from Andre Chenier (Reception of the Personality and Work of A.S. Pushkin in Russian and World Culture (19th – 21st Centuries), 2025), by N.A. Karpov – on the semantic inconsistency of Pushkin’s Monument, associated with the orientation of the artistic word on complexly organized figurative and symbolic aspects of meanings (Reception of the Personality and Work of A.S. Pushkin in Russian and World Culture (19th – 21st Centuries), 2023).

Discussion of individual stylistic features of Pushkin’s word, which began (like the Pushkin myth) during the poet’s lifetime, has undoubtedly not been exhausted and can be proceeded with the perspective of new questions raised and new answers given. In particular, the question of interaction in Pushkin’s verse of different style components, resulting in both proseization of poetry and the poeticization of prose (including that of life and of everyday routine) in his work, remains significant. Based on the material of unpublished Pushkin’s addresses, this ‘Lotmanian’ and at the same time ‘Bakhtinian’ and ‘Vinogradovian’ question (from the perspective of everyday vocabulary’s involvement into poetic discourse) is covered in the article by E.N. Grigorieva and V.T. Zolotukhin, presented in this issue of the journal.

No less relevant for modern literary criticism are questions from the sphere of comparative literature studies – concerning ways in which borrowed motifs, images, ideological and thematic patterns are redesigned in Pushkin’s work. In particular, the question of polemics with Byron, which Pushkin covertly incorporates into his poem The Bronze Horseman, requires in-depth study. Indeed, Byron’s ‘Venetian text’^[1] in its four most significant forms of realization: the fourth song of Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage (1818), Ode on Venice (1818), the comic poem Beppo (1817), and especially the tragedy Marino Faliero, Doge of Venice (1820), is of undoubted importance for Pushkin’s poem.

Of no small importance for reflection on the nature of the interaction between Pushkin’s Bronze Horseman and Byron’s ‘Venetian text’ is the fact that the images of St. Petersburg and Venice were potentially correlated in the consciousness of Pushkin’s epoch – that is, in the ideas of those who made up the poet’s circle of friends. This correlation was directly manifested several decades later: in particular, in the ‘Venetian’ poems by P.A. Vyazemsky of the 1850–1860s. However, already in A Walk to the Academy of Arts (1814) by K.N. Batyushkov, to which Pushkin vividly responded in the Introduction to The Bronze Horseman (Dzhanumov, 2020), the theme of creativity and beauty, reflections on the masterpieces of ancient and European culture, on the charm of the St. Petersburg landscape and the prospects for the development of Russian culture paved way for a stable association between St. Petersburg and Venice.

In the Introduction of Pushkin’s poem, the ‘Venetian veil’ covers, as it were, the image of St. Petersburg, while new features and meanings shine through it. The main details of this veil-halo are: “golden skies” and “transparent twilight” of St. Petersburg nights^[2] (cf.: “nights of golden Italy” – Eugene Onegin^[3]; “golden Venice” – Near the places where golden Venice reigns…^[4]; “the shine of transparent clouds” – A Venetian Night^[5]); the poet’s solitary creative vigil at night (cf.: “When I am in my room / Writing, reading without a lamp”^[6] – “Alone, a night oarsman, steering a gondola, / … / Sings of Rinaldo, Godfred, Erminia…”^[7] – Near the places where golden Venice reigns…); “the glitter, noise and talk of balls”, “a bachelor’s feast” (cf.: “lush amusements”, “night feast” in A Venetian Night^[8]). The implicit comparison of Petersburg to Venice in this part of the poem is based, first of all, on the literary image of the Italian city that was created by Byron in Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, IV and partly in Beppo. At the same time, there is a significant distance between the “golden skies” of the St. Petersburg white nights – an image in which the symbolism of divine election is tightly fused with the realism of the reproduced detail, on the one hand, and “golden Venice,” on the other, just as there is between the autobiographical author, depicted reading and writing in solitude in his room, on the one hand, and the conventionally literary image of a gondolier singing in the night, on the other.

The final lines of the Introduction, as well as the main part of The Bronze Horseman, refer to another ‘Venetian’ work by Byron – the tragedy Marino Faliero (cf.: I. Kogan wrote about the reception of Marino Faliero in another work by Pushkin^[9]). The culmination of this tragedy’s conflict is the hero’s prediction of the fall of Venice – a prediction-curse, close in its style and intonation to the Old Testament prophecies, mixed with denunciation of the crimes of those in power before God, with a destructive invocation of the Supreme Retribution. With this intonation, Pushkin contrasts his creative appeal addressed to the city: “Be beautiful, city of Peter, and stand / Unshakably like Russia…”^[10]. The appeal, made in a utopian-poetic vein (Markovich, 2023, p. 133), is aimed at “summoning” a prosperous future for the city and the entire state embodied in its image by the power of the poetic-prophetic word. The poet’s accompanying clarifying wish: “May the conquered elements be at peace with you…” again refers to Byron’s lines^[11]. In it, the periphrasis calling Venice “a ruler of the waters and their powers” (Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, IV^[12]) is recreated into a formula of a prophetic and poetic wish supporting the idea of no absolute dominance of the city over the elements (as in Byron), but of dominance based on reconciliation. The context of Marino Faliero, fastening the Introduction and the main part of Pushkin’s poem, illuminates its philosophy of history.

References to Byron’s tragedy, realized thoughout the plot and imagery of The Bronze Horseman (images of lions, the image of an equestrian statue and its mystical connection with the city and the hero; the motif of the loss of reason by a rebellious proud man; the theme of kinship, intertwined with the themes of power and history, etc.), actualize in Pushkin’s poem that ideological and thematic complex of Byron’s ‘Venetian text’, which was most fully embodied in his Ode to Venice and which colored his other artistic statements about the “sea Cybele” in meditative and elegiac tones. The multifaceted image of this city in works by the English poet contains, among other things, signs of the inglorious withering of a powerful state – a free republic that turned into a mighty empire, and then started gradually declining and, finally, completely lost its historical face (Kelsall, 2024). Through references to Byron’s Venetian text, Pushkin contrasts this general understanding of history as repeated unsuccessful attempts of humanity to create a blessed empire with both a prophetic and poetic call for a prosperous future for St. Petersburg and Russia, and a profound understanding of the unstable foundations not of empires in general, but of “post-Petrine statehood”, in which the scope of political development and cultural construction coexists with the “cutting off of family ties” and the belittling of man (Virolainen, 1999, pp. 208, 213).

The second of the identified areas of study of Pushkin and the Pushkin myth includes the results of the research presented in A.V. Kulagin’s paper focused on the literary fate of Pushkin’s Demons and the reception of this masterpiece in Vysotsky’s song Open doors... (Reception of the Personality and Work of A.S. Pushkin in Russian and World Culture (19th – 21st Centuries), 2023), as well as in a paper by I.I. Tsvik concerning Pushkin’s tradition in M. Tsvetaeva’s and A. Akhmatova’s works (Boldinskiye Chteniya, 2024), and by N.N. Podosokorsky – in a paper devoted to A.S. Pushkin’s works as a source for the story of General Ivolgin in F.M. Dostoevsky’s novel The Idiot (Reception of the Personality and Work of A.S. Pushkin in Russian and World Culture (19th – 21st Centuries), 2025).

Two articles in this issue are related to this very direction of modern Pushkin studies: on L.N. Tolstoy’s response to Pushkin’s works in the aspect of people’s war (A.I. Ivanitsky’s and K.A. Nagina’s article), and on the role of a quotation from Pushkin’s short tragedy The Stone Guest in F.M. Dostoevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov (O.N. Turysheva’s article). Being one of the directions of contemporary Russian Pushkin studies, scholar’s dialogue about responses to the personality and work of A.S. Pushkin in “post-Pushkin” Russian literature seems to have no visible boundaries. It can be stated with certainty that not only classical Russian literature of the 19th century still preserves unrecognized traces of the direct or indirect influence of Pushkin’s work, but also the poetry of A. Blok, O. Mandelstam, M. Kuzmin, N. Gumilyov, D. Samoilov, A. Kushner, A. Galich, B. Okudzhava, V. Vysotsky (the sequence of names to be mentioned here is above our scope), as well as the poetry of our contemporaries: M. Vatutina, I. Karaulov, A. Dolgareva, E. Zaslavskaya.

In particular, the question of distinct Russian ‘method’ of developing the myth of Don Juan, set forth in Pushkin’s Stone Guest, deserves close attention. It is quite well-known that Pushkin starts from the traditionally (by his epoch) comic treatment of the Don Juan plot and, developing the high, tragic principle inherent in the myth and highlighted in Mozart’s opera, comes to the problem of struggle between the eternal and the temporary, as well as between the higher reality and ordinary facts, and not only in the large space of culture, society, and history, but inside the man (Koroleva, 2025).

However, post-Pushkin images of Don Juan in the Russian literature of the 19–20th centuries are much less studied. Meanwhile, the Pushkin line in developing the myth was followed in the second half of the 19th century by A.K. Tolstoy in his famous dramatic poem Don Juan. At the beginning of the 20th century, Don Juan became the subject of lyrical and philosophical reflections on man in symbolist and post-symbolist poetry (in lyrics by K. Balmont, V. Bryusov, Z. Gippius, N. Gumilev, A. Blok, M. Tsvetaeva). In these works, in general, the Pushkin line of Don Juan is also manifested. Thus, the central theme of Bryusov’s poem is not love affairs and sexual conquests, but love as an ecstatic state of the soul, which is capable of leading it through contact with women’s souls (“new worlds”) to the “holy depth” – Eternity^[13]. In N. Gumilyov’s sonnet Don Juan the hero is divided between the instinct of eternal striving, movement, victory, reflection on the future – and rare insights (“suddenly I will come to my senses”), revealing the emptiness and false “wholesomeness” of his being^[14].

In the Soviet period of Russian literature’s development, the ontological and tragic depth of Pushkin’s image of Don Juan is preserved not in drama (S. Aleshin’s comedy Then in Seville (1948), L. Zhukhovitsky’s play The Last Woman of Seigneur Juan (1981)), but in poetry. In particular, the poem-farce Old Don Juan by D. Samoilov (1976) and the poem Don Juan by V. Sosnora (1979) should be analyzed from this point of view. The texts are united by the image of a hero whose major features, synthesizing traits of diverse heroes (existential, romantic, symbolist, avant-garde), are obviously correlated with the author’s position. For both Sosnora and Samoilov, Don Juan is a heroic projection of themselves – the reflection that stands for courage, and decisiveness, and the noble character retreating neither before death nor before a curse, searching for the truth and meaning.

The third of the identified areas of modern Pushkin studies correlates with the observations that were presented in papers of G.L. Gumennaya – on the images of monuments to Pushkin in Boris Sadovskoy’s poetry (Reception of the Personality and Work of A.S. Pushkin in Russian and World Culture (19th – 21st Centuries), 2023), I.S. Yukhnova – on the strategies of biographical narration biographical novels about Pushkin by V.P. Avenarius (the same conference), Yu.E. Pavelieva – on the “Pushkin line” in Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s work (Reception of the Personality and Work of A.S. Pushkin in Russian and World Culture (19th – 21st Centuries), 2024), A.G. Kovalenko – on references to Pushkin in the poetry and prose of Russian postmodernism (Reception of the Personality and Work of A.S. Pushkin in Russian and World Culture (19th – 21st Centuries), 2025). This aspect is treated in three articles of this issue: on the Pushkin myth in literary manifestos of the 1920s (A.Yu. Ovcharenko, E.A. Shaprinskaya), on the role of references to Pushkin in humorous texts of the Satirikonists (N.A. Karpov) and on the forms and meaning of the ‘Pushkin text’ in mature works of A. Galich (M.A. Alexandrova).

In comparison with the role of the Pushkin myth in Russian culture, the fact of particular attention of English critics to the ‘Pushkin myth of Dostoevsky’ seems noteworthy. As early as 1916, in works of J. M. Merry (one of the most authoritative English literary critics of that time), the intention of self-identification (in relations with Pushkin) was highlighted in Dostoevsky’s “Pushkin Speech”. In Murry’s preface to the book Dostoyevski. Pages from the Journal of an Author, it was suggested to see in Pushkin the central figure of Russian literature and the alter ego of the writer (Murry, 1916). The preface consistently and convincingly states that the Pushkin Speech is, first and foremost, a monologue of the great writer about himself, his innermost aspirations, his faith in Russia and in the miracle of mankind’s rebirth.

The fourth of the identified aspects of Russian Pushkin studies today is touched upon in this issue in A.V. Yampolskaya’s article about the Italian translations of Pushkin’s works, presented in the Anthology of Russian Poetry (Antologia Della Poesia Russa), edited by S. Garzonio and G. Carpi (2004)^[15]. The significance of contemporary studies focused on the problem of cross-cultural reception of A.S. Pushkin’s personality and work is eloquently evidenced by papers presented at recent ‘Pushkin conferences’ by I.A. Tarasova, R. Božić, and others. It seems necessary to outline the aspects that arouse scholars’ lively interest.

First of all, these are studies of translations from Pushkin in different epochs and into different languages, including studies of such issues as the role of personal experience and concepts (including translation paradigms) in translation interpretations, the influence of common views of Pushkin and Russian literature on the selected translation options, fundamental differences in the systems of versification and in the language systems, the choice of translators and editors (this is especially true for anthologies), divergence of national conceptual spheres and  ideological and aesthetic features of the epoch that are brought into the text of a translation. These issues have been tackled recently, in particular, in papers by A.V. Kafanova – on Turgenev’s translations of Pushkin’s works into French (Boldinskiye Chteniya of different years, including 2024) and by A.I. Tarasova – on Milorad Pavić as a translator of A.S. Pushkin and the editor-in-chief of his collected works in Serbian (Reception of the Personality and Work of A.S. Pushkin in Russian and World Culture (19th – 21st Centuries), 2024).

The problem of Pushkin’s influence on foreign literatures remains relevant. Despite the limited (in comparison with the influence of Dostoevsky’s work) measure of this influence, there are cases of direct reception and adaptation of Pushkin’s poetry and prose, especially of his Captain’s Daughter and Eugene Onegin, and many of them, as significant products of a cross-cultural dialogue, deserve scholars’ attention. An example of this kind is the novel in verse by Clémentine Beauvais Songe à la douceur (2016). The methods of recreating the plot, images and poetics of Eugene Onegin in it were conceptually described in a paper by M.I. Nikola (Reception of the Personality and Work of A.S. Pushkin in Russian and World Culture (19th – 21st Centuries), 2024). In V.E. Ugryumov’s paper (Boldinskiye Сhteniya, 2024), an equally significant product of intercultural dialogue with Pushkin was analyzed, that is the play by the English playwright P. Schaffer Amadeus (1979).

Of particular interest to modern humanities is the issue of interpreting Pushkin’s work in literature studies abroad. In particular, the issue of penetration of the imagological myth of Russia into foreign Pushkin studies has not been thoroughly researched. The grounds for posing this question are set out in my papers (conferences 2024–2025) devoted to the Anglo-American literary criticism of the first half of the 20th century. They argued that a particular ethnocultural interpretation of A.S. Pushkin’s works and of Russian literature of the 19th century, in general, which was developed by M. Baring in the 1910s, became a productive model for Anglo-American Pushkin studies. At the basis of this model we can find a link between realism (as a mental attitude towards “closeness to nature and fact”, softened by “universal humanity”) and such features of the Russian national character as common sense, matter-of-factness, adaptability, mercy (Koroleva, 2024). Having received ‘approval’ of D.S. Mirsky, this interpretation influenced the concept of Pushkin’s work in works of such prominent literary scholars and critics as Yanko Lavrin, John Bayley and Anthony Briggs.

The ethnocultural interpretation predetermined the penetration of the imagological myth of Russia into Anglo-American Pushkin studies of the 20th century: its influence, in particular, is reflected in such interpretations of The Bronze Horseman, that contained suppositions concerning the despotic nature of power in Russia, the inclination of the Russian people to violence (E. Wilson), as well as the reverence of Russians for energetic tyrants (J. Bayley) and Pushkin’s choice between Russian autocracy and Western democracy (A. Briggs).

Another way of mythologizing academic discourse, in my observations, is associated with the method of new historicism. The ‘new historicist’ approach, with an emphasis on studying the author’s political views, is especially noticeable in contemporary English-language articles devoted to the polemics between Pushkin’s Poltava and Byron’s Mazeppa. Thus, in the article Poltava at 300: Re-reading Byron’s Mazeppa and Pushkin’s Poltava in the Post-Soviet Era, a lecturer in Russian literature and comparative studies at the University of Bristol, argues that Pushkin’s primary purpose in Poltava was to parody Byron’s Mazeppa (Doak, 2010, p. 88). The researcher’s main conclusion is that Byron’s Mazeppa is, although not a more historically accurate image, then at least less dangerous than Pushkin’s hero. His courageous, stoically calm acceptance of defeat, while his will encourages him to continue moving, to live, is recommended by the author of the article as a model to follow for any modern reader, especially Russian and Ukrainian.

In a similar way, the problem of Pushkin’s polemics with Byron in Poltava is also treated in another modern English-language article – The literary portrayals of Ivan Mazepa in Byron’s Mazeppa and Pushkin’s Poltava. A comparative analysis (2023) by Tatyana Krol, a lecturer at Dublin City University. Noting that Pushkin knew Byron’s poem very well and used it as a reference, the researcher suggests that the Russian poet intended to “challenge the Great Romantic” (Krol, 2023, p. 12). According to T. Krol, the basis for this challenge was Pushkin’s disagreement with Byron’s political views. Accordingly, the image of Mazepa, which is central to both the poets, is interpreted as a way to defend their political positions. By the end of the article, the author comes to the conclusion that love between Mazepa and Maria is for Pushkin only a point of departure for Pushkin’s portrayal of Hetman as a villain, while the body of the poet’s indignation is aimed at Mazepa’s treachery of the Russian Tsar (Krol, 2023, pp. 12, 17). She also states that Pushkin reshaped Mazepa into a villain figure in line with his imperialist beliefs (Ibid., p. 21).

In these articles, Pushkin’s poem, as well as Byron’s one, is examined in the aspect of the author’s political views; attention is aimed at identifying the ideological plan of the artistic works as their deep meaningful structure, capable of struggling with public opinion and shaping it. Ultimately, from observing some discrepancies between Pushkin’s poem and historical reality, these works invariably move towards identifying the poet’s non-existent “colonialist”, “imperialist” beliefs.

Conclusion

To summarize what has been argued in the article, it can be stated that the topics and content of the papers presented at “Pushkin” international conferences in recent years provide a solid basis for identifying four areas of research in contemporary Russian Pushkin studies: poetics and problems of Pushkin’s work in the context of tradition and epoch; poetics of Russian literature in the context of perception of Pushkin’s personality and work; the Pushkin myth (including its creative understanding and deconstruction); and the perception of the poet’s personality and work in other national cultures.

The areas (or lines), highlighted here as the major ones in contemporary Russian Pushkin studies, as well as their individual aspects (with a focus on comparative and receptive issues), characterized as insufficiently researched, is not a complete description of the entire palette of questions in Pushkin studies of recent years. However, they give an objective concept of ​​ the landscape of “Pushkin problem field” as it exists in contemporary literature studies. The diversity of this landscape, the obvious continuity in relation to the rich tradition of Russian literary criticism, in general, and on Pushkin’s work, in particular, as well as the depth and originality of the research view, of which we can judge from the articles presented in this issue, testify to both the inexhaustibility of the dialogue between Russian and world cultures and the poet, and the endless prospects for discoveries on the paths of Pushkin studies.

 

 

^{1 See: Mednis, N.E. (1999). Venice in Russian Literature. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University. (In Russ.)}

^{2 Pushkin, A.S. (1977). The Bronze Horseman. In A.S. Pushkin, Complete Collected Works (Vol. 4: Poems. Fairy-Tales, p. 275). Leningrad: Nauka (In Russ.). All quotations from Pushkin here and elsewhere are provided translation by author – S.K.}

^{3 Pushkin, A.S. (1978). Eugene Onegin. In A.S. Pushkin, Complete Collected Works (Vol. 5: Eugene Onegin. Dramatic Works, p. 25). Leningrad: Nauka. (In Russ.)}

^{4 Pushkin, A.S. (1977). Near the places where golden Venice reigns… In A.S. Pushkin, Complete Collected Works (Vol. 3: Poems, 1827–1836, p. 24). Leningrad: Nauka. (In Russ.)}

^{5 Kozlov, I. (1948). A Venetian Night. In I. Kozlov, Poems (p. 51). Moscow: Sovetsky Pisatel Publ. (In Russ.)}

^{6 Pushkin, A.S. (1977). The Bronze Horseman. In A.S. Pushkin, Complete Collected Works (Vol. 4: Poems. Fairy-Tales, p. 275). Leningrad: Nauka (In Russ.)}

^{7 Pushkin, A.S. (1977). Near the places where golden Venice reigns… In A.S. Pushkin, Complete Collected Works (Vol. 3: Poems, 1827–1836, p. 24). Leningrad: Nauka. (In Russ.)}

^{8 Kozlov, I. (1948). A Venetian Night. In I. Kozlov, Poems (p. 52). Moscow: Sovetsky Pisatel Publ. (In Russ.)}

^{9 Kogan, I. (2008). The Secret of Pushkin’s Venetian Poem. Saint Petersburg: COSTA Publ. (In Russ.)}

^{10 Pushkin, A.S. (1977). The Bronze Horseman. In A.S. Pushkin. Complete Collected Works (Vol. 4: Poems. Fairy-Tales, p. 275). Leningrad: Nauka (In Russ.)}

^{11 Ibid.}

^{12 Byron, Lord. (2008). Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage. In Lord Byron, J.J. McGann (Ed.), The Major Works (p. 149). Oxford University Press.}

^{13 Bryusov, V. (1955). Don Juan (Vol. 1, p. 101). Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya Literatura Publ. (In Russ.)}

^{14 Gumilyov, N.S. (1998). Don Juan (Vol. 1, p. 272). Moscow: Voskresenie Publ. (In Russ.)}

^{15 Garzonio, C.S., & Carpi, G. (2004). Antologia della Poesia Russa. Roma: La Repubblica.}

About the authors

Svetlana B. Koroleva

Linguistics University of Nizhny Novgorod

Author for correspondence.
Email: svetlakor0808@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7587-9027
SPIN-code: 8621-0051

PhD in Philology, Professor at the Department of Roman and German Languages, Translation, Foreign Literature and Intercultural Communication, Head of the Research Laboratory оf Basic and Applied Aspects of Cultural Identification

31a Minina St, Nizhny Novgorod, 603155, Russian Federation

References

Supplementary files