В.С. Непомнящий, ред. «Моцарт и Салиери», трагедия Пушкина. Движения во времени 1840е-1990е. Москва: Наследие, 1997. стр. 935. ISBN: 5201132758. В преплете.
As was to be expected, the years leading to the Pushkin bicentennial resulted in an explosion of Pushkin-related publications, including numerous anthologies. Valentin Nepomniashchii’s collection presents 150 years of Russian engagement with Mozart and Salieri. The book’s 935 pages and 65 authors suggest that Nepomniashchii has chosen an encyclopedic approach to his material; unfortunately, it is that of Soviet encyclopedias. The ideological criterion for the selection of material informs and undermines the scholarly value of this publication. The sheer amount of information, however, makes it an essential volume for any Pushkin scholar.
Commentators have repeatedly characterized Pushkin's masterpiece as an exhaustive compendium: "an encyclopedia of Russian life" (Belinsky), "an encyclopedia of Russian folklore" (Grechina), "an encyclopedia of literary genres" (Stilman). In his recent study, V.A. Koshelev describes Eugene Onegin as Pushkin's attempt to create an encyclopedia of a very different order—one tht documents the "eternal law" of humanity's advance that Kliuchesvskii describeas as «то, что не проходит, как наследство, урок, неоконченный процесс» (5). Emphasizing its open, dynamic nature, Koshelev reads Onegin as a «декларация принципа своевольного созданья» (19) and focuses on Pushkin’s negotiation of the demands of the work in progress and the demands of the surrounding world. Highlighted thereby is the «принцип предельного использования всего литературного опыта современности» (15) and the «нравственный опыт» (16)—not only Pushkin’s own, but that of the entire epoch—that inform Eugene Onegin.
This fall, from September 24 to September 30, there was a conference at Mikhailovskoe on Pushkin and Shakespeare. It was sponsored by St. Petersburg University and the group Piligrim.
The conference announcement suggested various intriguing panel titles, including: “History in Literature,” “Drama: the Problem of Genre,” “Lyricism in Drama,” “The ‘Russian Shakespeare’ and ‘English Pushkin’: Problems of Translation and Reception,” “Problems in Studying and Teaching the Classics,” “Mass Culture as a Form of Commentary on Classical Texts,” “Pushkin and Shakespeare: Theatrical Interpretations.” Because of what I saw as the larger focus of the conference on issues of canon, reception theory and teaching the classics to a broader audience, I did not give part of my research on Pushkin and Shakespeare but instead wrote up notes I had made for a course I taught last year, “Shakespeare on Film.” This turned out to have been an unnecessary consideration on my part, since the other participants spoke mainly on familiar scholarly issues of close readings, philosophy of history, etc. In a sense this was disappointing because the issues of canon, of “accessibility” and indeed relevance of the classics are such burning topics in US academic discussions these days. Yet on the other hand, the fact that Russian academics, like European academics, are still deliciously research-driven, respected, and untroubled by such identity crises, was of course refreshing and encouraging.