Literary portraits of N. Gumilev and A. Blok as part of the myth about a Russian poet in G. Ivanov’s memoirs

Review Article
EDN: UVWRKU DOI: 10.31483/r-105938
Open Access
International academic journal «Ethnic Culture». Volume 5
Creative commons logo
Published in:
International academic journal «Ethnic Culture». Volume 5
Author:
Vera V. Koroleva 1
Work direction:
World languages and literature
Pages:
28-33
Received: 6 March 2023 / Accepted: 29 March 2023 / Published: 29 March 2023

Rating:
Article accesses:
1440
Published in:
doaj РИНЦ
1 Vladimir State University
For citation:
Koroleva V. V. (2023). Literary portraits of N. Gumilev and A. Blok as part of the myth about a Russian poet in G. Ivanov’s memoirs. Ethnic Culture, 5(1), 28-33. EDN: UVWRKU. https://doi.org/10.31483/r-105938
UDC 821.161.1.09-05(Гумилев)-94 + 821.161.1.09-05(Блок)-94

Abstract

The article deals with the problem of mythologized perception of the names of the poets of the Silver Age N. Gumilev and A. Blok in the works of G. Ivanov «Chinese Shadows» and «Petersburg Winters». The purpose of this study is to determine, based on a comparative analysis of the literary portraits of N. Gumilev and A. Blok, which are created using the contrast technique, the specifics of the myth about the Russian Poet in the memoir prose of G. Ivanov. The two poets are contrasted on the basis of a number of criteria: appearance, character, attitude to creativity, their political position, etc. In conclusion, the article concludes that N. Gumilev and A. Blok, acting as antipodes in the eyes of contemporaries, nevertheless, have similar qualities inherent in the Russian poet: love for the Motherland, dreaminess, nobility, chivalry, romantic nature, inner dualism, hatred of falsehood, lies and willingness to sacrifice for the sake of creativity. G. Ivanov, creating a literary portrait of poets, combines real features in their images with an artistic perception of their personality, thereby making their biography part of the myth of the Russian poet – prophet, for whom life, Russia and creativity are one.

References

  1. 1. Aksenova, A. (1994). Metafizika anekdota, ili Semantika lzhi. Literaturnoe obozrenie, 11, 52–60.
  2. 2. Ar'ev, A. (1994). O krasote utrat. Lirika Georgiya Ivanova, Zvezda, 11, 126–133.
  3. 3. Gal'cova, E. D. (1999). Na grani syurrealizma. Franko-russkie literaturnye vstrechi. ZHorzh Bataj, Irina Odoevceva i Georgij Ivanov. Syurrealizm i avangard, 105–126.
  4. 4. Gryakalova, N. YU. (2009). «Talant dvojnogo zren'ya». Ob odnoj vizual'noj metafore u Georgiya Ivanova. Russkaya literature, 4, 39–47.
  5. 5. Danilovich, T. V. (2000). Kul'turnyj komponent poeticheskogo tvorchestva Georgiya Ivanova: funkcii, semantika, sposoby voploshcheniya. Institut sovremennyh znanij.
  6. 6. Elagina, O. E. (2012). Proza Georgiya Ivanova : osobennosti poetiki : avtoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie uchenoj stepeni kandidata filologicheskih nauk.
  7. 7. ZHukova, A. A. (2018). A. A. Blok i N. S. Gumilev: religiozno-filosofskie osnovy tvorchestva: zhenskij ideal i ego interpretacii : avtoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie uchenoj stepeni kandidata filologicheskih nauk.
  8. 8. Zamanskaya, V. (1996). Antiteza zhizni – smerti v tvorchestve G. Ivanova: parametry, obraznoe voploshchenie, «masshtaby» ekzistencial'nogo myshleniya poeta. Russkaya literatura pervoj treti XX veka: problemy ekzistencial'nogo soznaniya, 346–380.
  9. 9. Koznova, N. N. (2015). «The Petersburg Winters» by G. Ivanov: to the problem of the genre. Pechat' i slovo Sankt-Peterburga, 64–69.
  10. 10. Maksimov, D. E. (1981). Poeziya i proza Aleksandra Bloka. Sovetskij pisatel'.
  11. 11. Nesynova, YU. V. (2007). Evolyuciya poeticheskoj sistemy G. V. Ivanova : avtoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie uchenoj stepeni kandidata filologicheskih nauk.
  12. 12. Krejd, V. P. (Ed.). (1990). Nikolaj Gumilev v vospominaniyah sovremennikov. Vsya Moskva.
  13. 13. Pavlovich, N. A. Iz vospominanij ob A. Bloke. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://gumilev.ru/biography/151.
  14. 14. Prihod'ko, I. S. (1999). A. Blok i russkij simvolizm: mifopoeticheskij aspekt. Vladimirskij gosudarstvennyj pedagogicheskij universitet.
  15. 15. Prihod'ko, I. S. (1994). Mifopoetika A. Bloka : monografiya. Vladimirskij gosudarstvennyj pedagogicheskij universitet.
  16. 16. Rogovskij, A. A. (2017). Genre modification in G. Ivanov’s memoir «Petersburg winters». RUDN Journal Of Studies In Literature And Journalism, 22(3), 443-448. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9220-2017-22-3-443-448
  17. 17. Rubins, M. (2017). Russkij Monparnas. Parizhskaya proza 1920–1930-h godov v kontekste transnacional'nogo modernizma. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie.
  18. 18. Rylova, A. E. (2006). Georgij Ivanov i russkij simvolizm : avtoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie uchenoj stepeni kandidata filologicheskih nauk. SHuya.
  19. 19. Semenova, S. G. (2004). Iznanka i lico obezbozhennogo mira (ekzistencial'noe soznanie v proze Georgiya Ivanova i Vladimira Nabokova). Metafizika russkoj literatury : v 2 tomah, 164–204.
  20. 20. Struve, P. B. Blok – Gumilev (1921). Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://gumilev.ru/biography/169/.
  21. 21. Timenchik, R. D. (1987). Innokentij Annenskij i Nikolaj Gumilev. Voprosy literatury, 2, 260–274.
  22. 22. Fedorov, V. S. (2018). Blok and Gumilev: from history of the relations of two poets. Vestnik Ul'yanovskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta, 1, 13–17.
  23. 23. Fedyakin, S. R. (2021). Georgy Ivanovs’s formation of myth. Literaturovedcheskij zhurnal, 52, 86–122. https://doi.org/10.31249/litzhur/2021.52.06
  24. 24. Filatov, A. V. (2020). Mifopoeticheskie strategii akmeistov: aksiologicheskij aspekt (N. S. Gumilev, S. M. Gorodeckij, O. E. Mandel'shtam) : avtoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie uchenoj stepeni kandidata filologicheskih nauk.
  25. 25. Hodasevich, V. F. Nekropol'. Belyj koridor. (2017). Retrieved February 20, 2023, from http://hodasevich.lit-info.ru/hodasevich/vospominaniya/nekropol/nekropol.htm

Comments(0)

When adding a comment stipulate:
  • the relevance of the published material;
  • general estimation (originality and relevance of the topic, completeness, depth, comprehensiveness of topic disclosure, consistency, coherence, evidence, structural ordering, nature and the accuracy of the examples, illustrative material, the credibility of the conclusions;
  • disadvantages, shortcomings;
  • questions and wishes to author.