Коллектив авторов - Андрей Белый: автобиографизм и биографические практики

Compared by Belyj to an enormous landslide that is both terrifying and liberating, Tolstoj is reminiscent of the onrushing Bronze Horseman (see Ljunggren M . Lev Tolstoj and «Peterburg» // Ljunggren M. Twelve Essays on Andrej Belyj’s «Peterburg». Gothenburg, 2009. P. 104–106.

Belyj A. Tragedija tvorčestva. Dostoevskij i Tolstoj. Letchworth; Hertfordshire, 1971 (reprint). S. 31–32.

See Belyj A. Meždu dvuch revoljucij / Ed. A. Lavrov. M., 1990. S. 343, 356, 361–362, where he tells how he «ran» («bežal») from the «Musaget» publishing house and for a time could think of nothing else but «running away from Moscow». He says that he and Turgeneva agreed on the absolute necessity of «running away from these hateful places» («bežat’ iz opostylevšich mest») and that Turgeneva predicted a «scandal» in connection with the fact that they were «running abroad» («my s nej “bežim” za granicu»). He notes that his entire oeuvre at this time in fact anticipated his «begstvo» and that he finally tried to shake off Moscow already on the third day of his «begstvo». An important factor in the context was that Anna Minčlova had vanished a few months before. As the person who had initiated Belyj into occultism she had spoken about needing to depart, which, under unclear circumstances, she now had done. Here as well Belyj writes retrospectively about her « begstvo » (his italics). Cf. Belyj A. Vospominanija ob A. A. Bloke / Ed. A. Lavrov. M., 1997. S. 361.

Belyj A . Egipet // Sovremennik. 1912. № 6.

Ibid. S. 190.

Here Belyj notes that the novel has a preliminary title («Lakirovannaja kareta») and, as in Dudkin’s vision, predicts interracial wars and showdowns. He says that he is listening to «the noise of time». (Letter of 2 November 1911 (Cf. Belyj – Blok. Perepiska 1903–1919 / Ed. A. Lavrov. M., 2001. S. 416). In his memoirs as well he emphasizes that he «ran away» («ubežal») after every visit to Moscow in the fall of 1911 ( Belyj A. Vospominanija ob A. A. Bloke. M., 1997. S. 997, 374).

Ibid. S. 375, where he recapitulates his and Turgeneva’s renewed attempt in early 1912 to «flee abroad at the first opportunity».

Belyj A. Vospominanija ob A. A. Bloke. M., 1997. S. 417–428.

See Gluchova E. V. «Zapiski čudaka» Andreja Belogo kak opyt «duchovnoj biografii» // Russkaja literatura konca XIX – načala XX veka v zerkale sovremennoj nauki / Sost. O. Lekmanov, V. Polonskij, pod obšč. red. V. Polonskogo. M., 2008. S. 162–179 and my article Le «Zapiski čudaka» di Andrej Belyj: un’ipotesi interpretativa // Russica Romana. 2006. Vol. XIII. P. 53–67. Belyj’s novel has been interpreted under different perspectives by other scholars, e.g. John Elsworth, who defines «Zapiski čudaka» «a diary in story form», see Elsworth J. «A Diary in Story Form»: Zapiski čudaka and some Problems of Bely’s Biography // Poetry, Prose and Public Opinion / Ed. W. Harrison, A. Pyman. Letchworth, 1984. P. 155–178.

Alexandrov V. Andrey Belyj. Kotik Letaev, The Baptised Chinaman and Notes of an Eccentric // Andrey Bely: Spirit of Symbolism / Ed. J. Malmstad. Ithaca. N. Y., 1987. P. 145–170.

Among those who analysed the text in this perspective, see Boldyreva E. M. «Kotik Letaev» Andreja Belogo kak modernistskaja versija tradicionnoj avtobiografii // Russkaja klassika. Meždu archaikoj i modernom / Nauč. red. N. Michnovec, O. Evdokimova. SPb., 2002. S. 156–160.

Nalbantian S. Aesthetic Autobiography. Handmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 1994.

For a review see Possamai D. Che cos’è il postmodernismo russo? Cinque percorsi interpretativi. Padova, 2000.

See Byčkov B. B. Russkaja teurgičeskaja èstetika. M., 2007. S. 158–167, on the «forecast of post-culture» in Rozanov; Savel’eva M. Fedor Sologub. M., 2014. S. 230–231, where the author states that the novel «The created Legend» («Tvorimaja legenda») anticipates Russian postmodernism; Roberts G. The Last Soviet Avant-garde. OBERIU – Fact, fiction, metafiction. Cambridge, 1997.

Levina-Parker M. Tema v variacijach, ili Andrej Belyj – «Serijnyj avtobiograf» // Andrej Belyj v izmenjajuščemsja mire / Sost. M. Spivak, E. Nasedkina, I. Delektorskaja. M., 2008. S. 431–438; Levina-Parker M. Andrej Belyj. Put’ k raspjatiju kak aspekt serijnogo samosočinenija // Avtobiografija. 2014. T. 3. S. 93–128. See also: Versii Ja v memuarach Andreja Belogo. S. 251–274; Gilmore L. The Limits of Autobiography. Trauma and Testimony. Ithaca and London, 2001. P. 96.

Colonna V. Autofiction & autres mythomanies littéraires. Auch, 2004.

See my article «Epopeja» Andreja Belogo. Teoretičeskie aspekty i roždenie žanra «avtofikšn» v russkoj literature // Miry Andreja Belogo / Red. sost. K. Ičin, M. Spivak. M., 2011. S. 687–697, where I explain how Belyj’s works can be interpreted through Vincent Colonna’s theories on «author’s autofiction» (see footnote nr. 11 in this article). It is possible to hypothize that some autofictional elements can be showed at a structural level (e.g. voices, paratext, inter– and metatext). On this topic see my monograph in print, Rome, 2015.

Samé E. Autofiction. Père et Fils, S. Doubrovsky, A. Robbe-Grillet, H. Guibert. Dijon, 2013.

Ibid. P. 14.

Ibid. P. 81–85.

Armengaud F. Figures politiques de l’animalité dans la Cité grecque antique // Usages politiques de l’animalité / J. L. Guichet. Paris, 2008.

Doubrovsky S. Fils. Paris, 1977.

Kohl P. Autobiography as zoegraphy: Dmitrii A. Prigov’s «Zhivite v Moskve» // Avtobiografija. 2014. Vol. 3. P. 171–183.

See the interesting essay by Arkadij Bljumbaum: Bljumbaum A. Apollon i ljaguška // Sbornik v čest’60-letija A. Lavrova. Na rubeže dvuchstoletij. / Sost. V. Bagno, Dž. Malmstad, M. Malikova. M., 2009. S. 70–85.

See, among the others, the works of Chodasevič V. Ableuchovy—Letaevy—Korobkiny // Andrej Belyj. Pro et contra / Sost. A. Lavrov. SPb., 2004. S. 732–752; Beyer Jr. T. Andrej Belyj’s «The Christened Chinaman». Resolution of the Conflict of Filial Guilt // Russian Literature. 1981. Vol. 10. P. 369–380; Muller Cooke O. Pathological patterns in Andrej Belyj’s novels: «Ableuchovs—Letaevs—Korobkins» revisited // Russian Literature and Psychoanalysis / Ed. D. Rancour-Laferriere. Amsterdam. Philadelphia, 1989. P. 263–284; Ebert Chr. «Väter und Söhne» in Andrej Belyjs Roman «Peterburg» // Zeitschrift für Slawistik. 1990. Bd. 35. Hf. 5. S. 762–771; Ljunggren M. The Father—Son Drama: Peterburg as the Key to the Works of Andrej Belyj // Toronto Slavic Quarterly. 2014. Vol. 48. P. 55–68. http://sites.utoronto.ca/tsq/48/tsq48_ljunggren.pdf (10.01.2015).

I will quote from the following edition: Belyj A. Kreščenyj kitaec. München, 1969 (reprint). When quoting from this text, I will use «BC» followed by page number.

I will quote from the following edition: Belyj A . Moskovskij čudak. München, 1968 (reprint). When quoting from this text, I will use «ME» followed by page number.

I will quote from the following edition: Belyj A . Moskva pod udarom. München, 1968 (reprint). When quoting from this text, I will use «MJ» followed by page number.

John Elsworth maintains that «The Baptized Chinaman» is the closest work to the novel series «Moscow» under a stylistic point of view. See Elsworth J. Andrey Bely: A Critical Study of the Novels. Cambridge. 1983. P. 194–195.

Elsworth suggests that the dog is a sort of a double of Korobkin. His death can be read also through the perspective of an evolution towards reincarnation. Ibid. P. 187. The transmigration of souls is evoked by the same Korobkin after Tomočka’s death (ME 96–97).

Dal’ V. Slovar’ živogo velikorusskogo jazyka: http://www.slovari.ru/search.aspx?s=0&p=3068 (10.01.2015).

Gasparini P. Est-il je? Roman autobiographique et autofiction. Paris, 2004.

Публикация выполнена при поддержке гранта Российского научного фонда № 14–18–02709 «“Вечные” сюжеты и образы в литературе и искусстве русского модернизма» (2014–2016) в ИМЛИ РАН.

См.: Записки мечтателей. 1921. № 2/3. С. 114. Здесь и далее (за исключением специально оговоренных случаев) примечания Завалишина.

Там же. С. 119–120.

Там же. С. 119.

Белый А . Стихотворения. Берлин; Пг., 1923. С. 121.

Там же. С. 137.

Там же. С. 219.

Бердяев Н. Кризис искусства. М., 1918. С. 3.

Там же. С. 5.

Там же. С. 17–18.

Станиславский К. С. Работа актера над собой. М.; Л., 1948. С. 14.

Речь идет о неоднократно издававшейся книге Ап. Григорьева «Мои литературные и нравственные скитальчества» (примеч. публикатора).

Малевич К. Бог не скинут. Искусство, церковь, фабрика. Витебск, 1922. С. 3–4.