Slavica Tergestina 20 (2018/I)

A 1980s debate between Bulgarian “structuralists” and so called “impressionist critics” provides a line of demarcation between structuralists and post-structuralists while simultaneously delineating “Orphism” as the heavily controversial theoretical counterpart to the rise of Thracian studies in archeology and historiography. Since national identity turns out to be a major ideological wager of these controversies, they acquire an unforeseen relevance today.

The paper focuses on the mirror as a metaphor in the Marxist and structuralist paradigm by means of which contradictory concepts of literature in terms of its mimetic activity crystallize. The term mimetic reflection was in circulation in the Soviet Union at that time as one of the key concepts of the dogmatic Marxist-Leninist aesthetics and especially of Todor Pavlov’s theory of reflection, in which literature is seen as an authentic reflection of reality. A detachment of reflection theory can be traced in the works of Lotman and Kristeva. In their theoretical works the mirror functions as a metaphor for intertextuality, and self-reflexivity as the ability of literature to refer to its own techniques, its own process of creation and its own fictional status. Thus, the article outlines two mimetic types: authentic mimesis, represented by Pavlov’s theory, and on the other side, heterogeneous creative mimesis, developed by Lotman’s text within a text structure and Kristeva’s genotext in merging Jakobson and Bakhtin’s legacy.

Rather small in number but highly influential works of the Swiss linguist still trigger fierce controversies and heated interpretation disputes. According to some researchers, de Saussure embodies a scientific paradigm and represents what in the humanities is most systematized and scientific while to others, he is an insane scientist secretly studying old poetry in order to discover meanings encoded in poems. The article sums up a hundredyear- old reception of the Genevan’s thought in the literary studies and it explains anagrammatic poems dedicated to Saussure’s theory.

Der Beitrag befasst sich mit dem Werk Das slowenische Gesicht (Slovenski obraz) der slowenischen Autorin Brina Svit. Einleitend wird auf die Problematik der hybriden Form des Werkes hingewiesen und das Werk als eine literarische Reportage definiert. Anschließend widmet sich der Beitrag dem Hauptthema der Auswandereridentität. Die Frage der Auswandereridentität, vor allem aber deren Bewahrung, wird im Slowenischen Gesicht aus drei Perspektiven dargestellt, und zwar aus der Perspektive der Erzählerin, der argentinischen Slowenen und des polnischen Schriftstellers Witold Gombrowicz. Dem letzteren weist die Erzählerin eine wichtige Rolle zu, da er als Außenstehender dem Slowenentum nicht unmittelbar verbunden ist, dafür aber das Emigrantenschicksal mit den ausgewanderten Slowenen teilt. Sie fasst die Gedanken aus Gombrowicz’ Tagebüchern und dessen Briefwechsel zusammen und kommentiert sie, um abschließend ein polyphones Konzept von Identität hervorzuheben.

The present text treats the concept of exotopy in Bakhtin and Lacan, explicating the direction and the possible indices for comparison between post-Marxism and Psychoanalysis. The general idea is not to seek a new causative element – the unconscious in place of economics, although this problem cannot be overlooked in view of contemporary debates – but rather to trace the logic of outsidedness of truth and knowledge: the concept of desire in Eastern and Western theory constitutes an immanent (real) outside, which cannot be subsumed into Aufhebung or any higher level of unity. Both Bakhtin (1895–1975) and Lacan (1901–1981), without having met each other, belonging in one and the same generation and facing different conceptual challenges and problems, work in a condition of unique philosophical ‘likelihood’ on the subject of the human being’s ex-centricity – the secret of the human being, its innermost intimacy, is located outside itself.

The article attempts to reconstruct some of the political stakes in the conceptual and methodological debates among two groups of literary critics during the 1960ies and the 1970ies in Bulgaria: the structuralists and their opponents, the so-called “Imperssionist critics”. This debate seems to be a pertinent context for addressing the emergence of poststructuralism since it was the intellectual ferment, in which Julia Kristeva formed her conceptual background, before later becoming among the first poststructuralist critics of structuralism in France. Before, emigrating, Kristeva was part of the group of the “impressionist critics”, who were developing ways of resisting official Marxist doctrine while retaining claims for Marxists legitimacy. They were very critical of the structuralists, who also were attempting to gain legitimacy, though by aligning with Marxism as a materialist science, a stance the “impressionists” viewed as contributing to alienation.

Slavica Tergestina was founded in 1987 at the University of Trieste by scholars of the Advanced School of Modern Languages for Interpreters and Translators (SSLMIT – Scuola Superiore di Lingue Moderne per Interpreti e Traduttori). After the introductory volume published in 1987, the journal appeared regularly beginning in 1994. Since then, eighteen volumes have been published, adding up to over 250 articles written by researchers from different countries (mostly Russian, Hungarian, Croatian, Serbian and Italian Slavic scholars). The volumes were reviewed in several scientific publications in Russia, Italy, Poland, Hungary and Slovenia. Some volumes focused on a monographic topic: Наследие Ю.М. Лотмана, 1996; Славянские языки и перевод, 1997; Художественный текст и его гео-культурные стратификации, 2000; Литературоведение XXI века. Письмо – Текст – Культура, 2002, Law & Literature, 2011; The Great Story, 2012; Slavia Islamica, 2013; The Yugoslav Partisan Art, 2016. Most of the articles published so far deal with the cultural realm of the Slavic world from the perspective of modern structuralist, semiotic and cultural methodological approaches, but the Journal Slavica TerGestina remains open to other approaches and methodologies.

Nell’articolo vengono illustrati gli sviluppi più recenti nel sistema di formazione delle parole del russo contemporaneo, contestualizzandoli all’interno dell’attuale quadro sociolinguistico. Una particolare attenzione viene data a quei tratti linguistici periferici che affiorano nello standard a seguito del processo di democratizzazione della lingua, spesso veicolati dalla lingua dei mass-media, rappresentante del nuovo modello linguistico.

The development of structuralist ideas in Bulgaria coincided with the liberalization of the human and social sciences during the 1960s and the 1970s and from the start was involved in various discussions, both internal and external. The present paper focuses on the case of the literary theoretician Christo Todorov, a representative of the Bulgarian Guillaumist School, and his curious siding with Pantelei Zarev, a powerful professor in the highest ranks of the Bulgarian Communist Party and at the time a Rector of the University of Sofia, during his attack on structuralism. At the end I propose a Guillaumist interpretation of the situation in which Todorov found himself, using his own methodological instruments.

В статье предлагается критический разбор современного состояния изучения взаимосвязи языка и куль- туры в российской науке и аргумен- тируется точка зрения, состоящая в том, что научная и учебная дисци- плина, именуемая в отечественной академической традиции лингво- культурологией, может развиваться более успешно в контексте не только лингвистического, но и собствен- но культурологического знания, ориентируясь на соответствующие теоретические и методологические установки и используя понятия, тер- мины и исследовательские приемы, разработанные в науках о культуре.

В работе анализируются процессы преобразования идентичности в межвоенное время в Советской России на примере мифологизации образа Василия Ивановича Чапаева, командира дивизии в Граждан- ской войне 1917–1923 гг. В начале рассматриваются основные этапы биографии Чапаева как реальной исторической личности, а также различные оценки его деятельности в трудах ведущих историков Граж- данской войны в России. Основная часть работы посвящена проблеме мифотворчества и мифологизации личности Чапаева, с помощью чего сторонники новой власти в Советской России пытались создать своеобразный противовес образу офицера как символу имперской власти. В статье прослеживается процесс отрыва образа Чапаева от контекста политической идеологии и его трансформации в практи- чески фольклорный анекдотич- ный персонаж как свидетельство профанации коммунистической идеологии. В конце анализирует- ся литературно-художественный образ Чапаева, связанный со всеми перечисленными мифологически- ми образами, но одновременно отличающийся от них.