Journal archive

Abstract: The object of research of this article is the diptych by A. V. Korolev. The writer suggests trying to determine what is left in the stolen and ineptly altered story “The Lonely House in Vasilyevsky” from its brilliant author A. S. Pushkin (with reference to his earlier and later works); what the memorable plagiarist V. P. Titov (Tit Cosmocratov) had brought into it; and what in “The Devil in Love” appeared under the influence of the classics, and not only Pushkin, thanks to Korolev himself. The aim of this study is to reveal regular patterns in the system of corrections made in the “story-reconstruction” and to establish the logical meaning of the restorations made by the writer. The systemic approach, combining historical-literary, historical-functional and receptive aspects of exploration of a work of art and the procedures of contextual, intertextual and textological analysis, constitutes the methodological foundation of the work. It is proved that Korolev simplified and clarified Titov’s utterances and approached the rhythm of Pushkin’s verse, freeing speech from bookish rhetorical clichés, archaic Slavonicisms, and official terminology. The author analyzes the elegiac frame of the story, which makes the work of Korolev particularly harmonious, and reveals how the moral and intellectual status of the narrator (Pushkin) is recreated and how his trusting relationships with the reader are strengthened with the help of ironic comments and literary-critical remarks. The article demonstrates how dynamism and expressiveness of the narrative is enhanced with the help of narrative simplifications. The functions of landscape sketches are determined, the regularity of successive seasonal changes in the story is established, and the symbols of temporal images are revealed. The author concludes that while recreating mystical episodes Korolev falls under the influence of Gogol’s prose. For the same reason, the modern writer uses many more expressive utterances mentioning the devil than there are such words in the original. The author considers variants of revision of the main characters (Vera, Pavel, Bartholomew) and substantial alteration of episodic ones (Lavrentiy). Several significant plot differences are analyzed. The study allows concluding that Korolev constructs a new, “corrected” reality in “The Devil in Love” in the best traditions of simulacrum aesthetics.