Entre 1922 e 1936, os poetas russos Marina Tsvetáieva e Boris Pasternak mantiveram intensa correspondência, na qual discutem suas ideias a respeito de arte, poesia, se dedicam poemas, falam sobre a vida cotidiana. Exilada, Tsvetáieva despontava como uma das principais vozes de poetas emigrados, primeiro em Praga e depois em Paris. Já Pasternak continuou nos círculos literários de Moscou. No verão de 1926, os dois poetas também trocaram cartas com Rainer Maria Rilke. Este trabalho propõe uma tradução do russo para o português das cartas entre Tsvetáieva e Pasternak desde o começo, em meados 1922, até 1926, momento da morte de Rilke. Além da tradução, esta tese discute a trajetória de ambos os poetas no sistema literário da época com base nos trabalhos de Catherine Cipiela, Olga Zaslavsky e Lazar Fleishman, entre outros, e procura contextualizar as discussões travadas e situá-las no formato epistolar. Por fim, são abordadas as questões de tradução e da linguagem de ambos, com base, entre outros, no estudo de Aurora Bernardini sobre a tradução da obra lírica de Tsvetáieva. / Between 1922 and 1936, Russian poets Marina Tsvetáieva and Boris Pasternak kept an intense correspondence exchanging ideas about art and poetry, dedicating poems to each other and discussing their everyday lives. Living in exile, first in Prague and then in Paris, Tsvetáieva emerged as one of the main voices among emigré poets, while Pasternak remained in Moscow, as a member of the literary circles of the new capital city. In the summer of 1926, both poets also exchanged letters with Rainer Maria Rilke. This thesis presents a translation from the Russian to Portuguese of the letters exchanged by Tsvetáieva and Pasternak from the beginning of their correspondence, by mid-1922, to the end of 1926, the time of Rilkes death. It discusses the trajectory of both poets in their times literary system based on the works of Catherine Cipiela, Olga Zaslavsky and Lazar Fleishman, among others , and puts in context such discussions, placing them in the frame of the epistolary format. The issues of translation and language of both poets are also addressed, based, amongst others, on the work of Aurora Bernardini about the translation of Tsvetáievas lyric works.

In 1834, Belinsky melodramatically proclaimed, “We have no literature”. He was far from alone; similar sentiments are echoed in numerous critical essays and articles of the 1820s and 30s. These dire assessments of the state of Russian literature reflect the urgent concern the question of national identity had become to intellectuals of the period in the first few decades of the nineteenth century. In the wake of its victory in the Napoleonic War, Russia had won considerable military and political power in Europe. Culturally, however, there was a palpable sense of insecurity vis-a-vis Western Europe. Critics and writers bemoaned the derivative nature of Russian literature, calling for the creation of a national literature that would reflect the unique essence of the Russian national character. The means by which a sense of Russianness or “narodnost’” could be created in literature would become a central concern and topic of debate for writers and critics of the first four decades of the nineteenth century. Folklore was thought to be one way of producing the desired narodnost’. Based on German Romantic theories of nationalism, particularly those of Herder, it was argued that the “folk poetry” of the simple people retained a pure form of the national spirit untainted by foreign influence. It was to this folk poetry that many writers turned in their attempts to create a national literature. There were attempts to create works that imitated folk ballads, songs, and fairy tales as well as incorporating folkloric elements in larger literary works. This period also saw the early efforts to collect authentic examples of folklore from among the people - Pushkin ranks among these early collectors as well as Kireevsky. The practice of introducing elements of folklore into high literature was more complicated, however, than the theory would have one believe. Rather than being the unadulterated voice of the Russian nation taken directly from the people, the “folklore” that appeared in literary texts during this period was more often than not an amalgamation of many influences from both high and low literature and both foreign and native sources. Indeed, it would probably be more productive to think of the folkloric elements of literary texts in this period as being more representations of folklore than as “authentic” folklore. In this dissertation I will examine how writers, through the figure of their various narrators, interact with the folk material of their narratives. My analysis will focus on Alexander Pushkin, Nikolai Gogol and Vladimir Dal. My emphasis will be on analyzing how narrators situate themselves in relation to the folk elements of the text and how their attitudes dramatize the various issues and problems that arise from the gentry writer’s encounter with the cultural other represented by the folk. In my exploration of folklore in Pushkin’s works, I trace the development of his relationship with folklore from one of the earliest of his works, Ruslan and Liudmila, through the middle years of his career, represented by Eugene Onegin, where he makes his most explicit statement about Russian national identity. I conclude with a consideration of his fairytales, which were written towards the end of his artistic career. Through these works, I trace the shift of Pushkin’s narrator’s stance from a position of relative distance from the folkloric elements of his narrative toward a greater sense of identification with his folkloric material. The chapter on Gogol is devoted to the first volume of his Evenings on a Farm Near Dikan’ka. My focus will be on how the figure of the author is splintered and diluted as editor Rudy Panko presents the reader with stories he heard from storytellers in his village, who in turn, heard their stories from still other storytellers, leading to series of nested storytellers. I will also examine how these various storytellers display an array of attitudes toward their folk narratives and how these relationships are enacted in the text. My final chapter is devoted to Vladimir Dahl and his First Five collection of folk tales. I will consider the significance of Dahl’s ideas about the centrality of the language of the common Russian people for the construction of a national identity and how these ideas found expression in his folk tales. As with the other chapters, my focus will be on the figure of the narrator and how his attitudes toward the folkloric elements of his tales form an image of Russian national identity. I hope to show through these explorations how the writer’s engagement with folklore contributed to the image of the Russia and the construction of Russian national identity in nineteenth century literature.

Fazil Iskander (1929- ) é um dos mais representativos escritores soviéticos remanescentes da geração do degelo. Devido ao desconhecimento deste autor no Brasil, este trabalho consiste na tradução da novela que lhe deu notoriedade, precedida por uma apresentação e comentário: Sozvezdie Kozlotura, em português, A constelação do capriuro, de 1966. Apesar de pertencer à tradição satírica russa, junto a nomes como Nikolai Gógol e Mikhail Bulgákov, a prosa de Iskander carrega as singularidades da sua origem não-russa. A sua terra natal, a Abkházia, com a sua história e costumes, além de reverberarem na obra do autor, entrecruzam-se com a cultura russo-soviética numa relação complexa que dá às suas narrativas um caráter único. Neste trabalho, foram analisados os elementos que tornam a sátira de Iskander tão inovadora. / Fazil Iskander (1929- ) is one of the most representative remaining writers of the Thaw Generation. Due to the lack of recognition of this author in Brazil, the present dissertation consists in the translation of the short-novel that has made him internationally renowned, preceded by a presentation and commentary: Sozvezdie Kozlotura from 1966, or A constelação do Capriuro in Portuguese. Though the prose of Iskander belongs to the Russian satire tradition, along with names like Nikolai Gogol and Mikhail Bulgakov, it carries the singularities of his non-Russian origin. His motherland, Abkhazia, with its proper history and customs, besides reverberating on his works, entwines itself with the Russian-soviet culture in a complex and tense relationship that gives these narratives their unique nature. In this research, it is analyzed the characteristics that make the satire of Iskander so innovative.

“Flesh Made Word” examines two seemingly incongruous Russian modernist writers to illuminate one remarkable species of aesthetic response to the violent pressures of Marxist ideology, especially as those pressures are manifest as sociolinguistic phenomena and practice. The unexpected pairing of Osip Mandel’shtam and Vladimir Nabokov is motivated by their shared debt to Henri Bergson’s materialist theories of embodied selfhood and subjectivity, language, and the metaphysics of art. Poetry, both writers insist, as it operates according to a non-linear logic of ever-open and expanding associations of sound and image, offers the only authentic grammar for a multifarious self that knows not the constructions of time, causality, and finality. This mode of self-expression, at once intimate and cryptic, clashes with the Marxist state’s effort to make the subject uniform and transparent—to “sentence” him to his prescribed collective identity in the bondage of speech, prose, and narrative, whose didactic agenda and linear momentum are encrypted with Marxism’s world-historical teleology. Mandel’shtam’s and Nabokov’s own texts, the study argues, operate primarily by poetic principles, and their literary practice in turn creatively anticipates theories of Bergson’s postmodernist heirs (Foucault, Barthes, Derrida), particularly as they draw bold political implications from Bergson’s theories to analyze the relationship of language, writing, and power. Barthes, for instance, claims that the “poetic” text—composed of a personal image-system, not a “structure of signifieds”—places the artist “outside the pact that binds the writer to society.” In exploring this conflict between manners of expression, the study offers innovative, cohesive readings of the writers’ most enigmatic and elusive works of poetic prose—Mandel’shtam’s The Egyptian Stamp and Nabokov’s Invitation to a Beheading. More specifically, it examines the ways the conflict is manifest on the bodies of the narrator-protagonists. These figures are effectively twice composed: once by the mortifying narration of the State, again as they are the subjects of their own revitalizing self-writing. The texts that the protagonists produce of themselves are figured as their very flesh transubstantiated, and as nothing other than the poetic works that we are reading. These metaphysical dimensions of the fiction make forceful statements about the power of the artistic act, and especially its potential to reclaim and restore the self in a gesture of political defiance. By establishing a distinct set of images, themes, and techniques shared by the authors, along with a conceptual framework in which to discuss them, this dissertation responds to a scholarly need, until now not substantively articulated, to place Mandel’shtam’s and Nabokov’s creative projects into dialogue. As much as it invites a parallel gaze, however, the study equally contributes daring new chapters to each author’s existing body of scholarship and opens fields of inquiry that demand continued critical attention.

Mikhail Yurevitch Liermontov (18141841) viveu em período marcado por grande comoção social, uma época de transição na vida e na sociedade Russa. Foi nesse contexto que Liérmontov escreveu a peça Mascarada, uma crítica à sociedade e aos hábitos fúteis e mesquinhos de sua época. Vsévolod Emilevitch Meyerhold (1874 1940) estreou a sua Mascarada em 25 de fevereiro de 1917 em meio a revolução que viria a derrubar a monarquia e a velha Rússia. Depois quase seis anos e ensaios e preparações, figurinos, objetos de cena e cenários criados especialmente para a peça estavam prontos para o que viria ser ao mesmo tempo o fim de uma era e o nascimento de um novo teatro. A presente dissertação se propõe a analisar Mascarada desde a sua gênese no romantismo de Liérmontov até a espetacular montagem de 1917 e seus desdobramentos no teatro. / Mikhail Yurevitch Lermontov (1814-1841) lived in a period marked by great social upheaval, a time of transition in life and in Russian society. It was within this context that Lermontov wrote the play Masquerade, a critique of society and the petty and trivial habits of his time. Vsevolod Emilevitch Meyerhold (1874-1940) premiered his Masquerade on February 25, 1917 in the midst of a revolution that would overthrow the monarchy and transform the old Russia. After almost six years of preparations and rehearsals, the costumes, props and scenery created especially for the piece were ready for what would be both the end of an era and the birth of a new kind of theatre. This dissertation aims to analyze the Masquerade from its genesis in the romanticism of Lermontov to the spectacular production of 1917 and its effect on theatre.

Esta dissertação procura entender, através da comparação entre as narrativas O Alienista (1882) e a Enfermaria nº 6 (1892); e O Espelho (1882) e Queridinha (1898), as primeiras de Machado de Assis (1839-1908) e as segundas de Tchekhov (1860-1904), como se formavam as identidades subjetiva e social na segunda metade do século XIX, na Rússia e no Brasil. Na primeira comparação, aproximamos dois textos que tratam de um assunto muito discutido naquele período, a loucura. Tentamos entender qual era o lugar do louco na nova configuração dessas duas sociedades e a conformação da loucura em identidade social. Na segunda comparação, sugerimos uma interpretação da teoria apresentada no conto O Espelho, e analisamos Queridinha, a personagem do conto homônimo de Tchekhov, empregando essa teoria / This dissertation aims to understand, through the comparison between The Alienist (1882) and Ward no. 6 (1892); and The Mirror (1882) and The Darling (1898), the first ones written by Machado de Assis (1839-1908) and the others written by Chekhov (1860-1904), how subjective and social identities were formed in the second half of the 19th century in Russia and Brazil. In the first comparison we approach the theme of madness, a much discussed topic at the time. We try to understand the place of madmen in the new configuration of both societies and the conformation of madness as social identity. In the second comparison, we suggest an interpretation for the theory presented in The mirror and analyze the protagonist of Chekhovs short story The Darling though this theory

As lacunas nos processos de comunicação entre as personagens dramáticas de Anton Tchékhov (1860-1904) apresentam-se como um traço básico e definitivo de sua poética. A análise dos processos comunicativos entre as personagens das quatro principais peças do autor - A gaivota (1896), O tio Vânia (1897), As três irmãs (1900) e O jardim das cerejeiras (1904) - elucida a criação de um novo paradigma artístico em seu sistema dramático, cujas inovações marcaram profundamente todo o teatro do século XX e exercem enorme influência até os dias de hoje. O presente trabalho apresenta um recorte das obras selecionadas em relação ao contexto russo da época, evidenciando inquietações que anunciavam transformações profundas na sociedade. Neste intuito, retoma a teoria dos gêneros literários e suas principais críticas, que realçaram a importância da relação entre os gêneros e o momento histórico em que se consolidavam; assim, adquire relevo nas análises o conceito de \"romantização\" dos gêneros proposto pelo filósofo e teórico literário russo Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975), a partir da ideia de \"supremacia\" do único gênero em devir. Com a emersão de elementos épicos e líricos na dramaturgia tchekhoviana, observa-se como o diálogo, forma do gênero dramático por excelência, motor das ações que impulsionam o avanço do enredo no sistema dramático tradicional, tem sua unidade enfraquecida, fazendo com que o drama tchekhoviano necessite da encenação para realizar-se plenamente. O \"invisível\" e o \"indizível\", aquilo que subjaz às réplicas, que está latente justamente nas lacunas dos processos comunicativos entre as personagens, torna-se vital a este novo teatro, que acolhe e conta com a imaginação de leitores/espectadores. / The gaps in the communication processes between the dramatic characters of Anton Chekhov (1869-1904) consist on a basic and definite trait of the author\'s dramatic poetics. The analysis of the communication processes of four of Chekhov\'s major plays - The seagull (1896), Uncle Vanya (1897), Three sisters (1900) and The cherry orchard (1904) - elucidate the creation of a new artistic paradigm in the author\'s dramatic system, the innovations of which deeply affected the twentieth century theatre and have exerted a major influence until today. The study approaches the selected plays firstly considering the Russian context of the period, highlighting historical transformations that were already on course. Secondly, it examines the literary genres theory, as well as the most important criticism it suffered. The concepts developed by the Russian philosopher and literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975), which took into account the relationship between the literary genres and the historical moments when they were being shaped, acquire great importance in our analysis. Specially the notion of the novel as a contemporary genre, which embraces and affects all the other genres. After clarifying this influence by identifying the presence of epic and lyric elements in Chekhov\'s plays, we observe how the dialogue, the traditional form of the dramatic genre, motor of the actions that push the plot forward, has its unit weakened. As a consequence, chekhovian drama needs staging to be fully achieved: what is not visible and cannot be reduced to words, what is latent in the gaps of communication, underlying the characters\' speeches, become vital to this new theatre, which welcomes and counts on the imagination of its audience.

This thesis is a contribution to a growing field of studies on the reception of Byzantine culture in Russia. The object of investigation is the history of the Church Slavonic translation of the Cherubika, which constitute one of the most ancient and dogmatically important functional genres of Byzantine liturgical hymns. The chronological frame of this study is the 13th–17th century. Particular attention is focused on the last change in the liturgical texts in Muscovite Russia, in the mid-17th century. This liturgical reform, which led to the famous Schism in the Russian Church, is studied as part of the cultural reforms started by Tsar Alexis Romanov (1645-1676). The most characteristic feature of Orthodoxy is the principal unity of Scripture and Tradition, which in a hermeneutical perspective means the inseparability of text and context. The semiotic and interdisciplinary approach used in this study reflects this principle. The Slavic Cherubika are interpreted in a broad cultural perspective, and Church Slavonic translations are studied in the proper theological, rhetorical and linguistic contexts. Although the 17th-century translations made in Moscow were based on late Greek and South Slavic sources, they reconstruct the original dogmatic message of the Byzantine Cherubika and are hence closer to the Tradition than earlier Slavonic translations. This study offers a new interpretation of the nature of the Schism. It is shown that the main cause of the controversy between Reformists and Old Believers lies in their different understandings of the connection between Text and Ritual. The traditional medieval interpretation of the Cherubika is influenced by certain iconographical themes, other liturgical texts and the priest’s actions during the liturgy. The transition from a liturgocentric interpretation of sacral texts to a descriptive theological interpretation was a break from the characteristic Russian form of liturgocentrism and the beginning of a new cultural era.

Disertacijoje iš literatūros sociologijos perspektyvos, remiantis Pierre’o Bourdieu ir Pascale Casanovos darbais, tiriama iki šiol nenagrinėta Lietuvos rusų literatūra sovietmečiu bei posovietmečiu. Susitelkiama į poeziją, kuri aptariamu laikotarpiu vyrauja kiekybiškai. Lietuvos rusų literatūra laikoma iš dalies savarankišku literatūros lauko segmentu, kurio ypatybės išryškėja santykiuose su nacionaliniais lietuvių ir rusų literatūros laukais bei tarptautine literatūros erdve. Segmento struktūra, raida ir ryšiai su nacionaliniais laukais atskleidžiami analizuojant individualias bei kolektyvines lauko dalyvių strategijas. Pastarųjų polinkis pabrėžti mažumos ar diasporos tapatybę aiškėja iš skirtingus lauko polius reprezentuojančių leidinių: sovietmečiu – cenzūruoto almanacho-žurnalo Literatūrinė Lietuva ir savilaidos almanacho Saviems; posovietmečiu – Lietuvos rašytojų sąjungos žurnalo Vilnius ir interneto projekto Indoeuropietiškasis diktantas. Individualios skirtingų kartų poetų strategijos, interpretuojamos kaip pralaimėjimo (Jurijus Dubasovas, Jurijus Grigorjevas, Michailas Didusenko) ir sėkmės siužetai (Jurijus Kobrinas, Georgijus Jefremovas, Lena Eltang), atskleidžia ne tik užimtas padėtis, bet ir segmento galimybių erdvės ypatumus. Sovietmečiu galimybių erdvė buvo apribota vienakrypčio literatūrinio tarpininkavimo vaidmeniu. Atgimimo laikotarpiu ir ypač atkūrus Nepriklausomybę padėčių repertuaras platėjo, tačiau istoriškai sąlygota segmento struktūra buvo nepalanki... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / This dissertation makes use of Pierre Bourdieu’s and Pascale Casanova’s theoretical work to analyse the hitherto unexplored Soviet and post-Soviet Russian literature in Lithuania through the methodological lens of the sociology of literature. The research focuses on the poetry that dominated the literary scene within the specified time frame. The Russian literature of Lithuania is examined as a partly independent segment of the literary field, whose characteristics unfold through its relationships with the national fields of Lithuanian and Russian literature as well as the global space of literature. The structure and development of this segment and its relations to the national literary fields are analysed by way of exploring the individual and collective strategies of the agents of this segment. The publications which represent the different poles in the literary field tend to emphasise the minority or diasporic identity associated with this segment: during the Soviet times – Literary Lithuania, a journal-almanach censored by the Soviet ideology and the Samisdat almanach For One’s Own; after the fall of the Soviet Union – Vinius, a journal published by the Lithuanian Writers’ Union and the online project The Indoeuropean Dictation. The individual strategies of the poets of different generations, which are interpreted as respectively stories of failure (Jurij Dubasov, Jurij Grigorjev, Mikhail Didusenko) and success (Jurij Kobrin, Georgij Jefremov, Lena Eltang) reveal not... [to full text]

This dissertation makes use of Pierre Bourdieu’s and Pascale Casanova’s theoretical work to analyse the hitherto unexplored Soviet and post-Soviet Russian literature in Lithuania through the methodological lens of the sociology of literature. The research focuses on the poetry that dominated the literary scene within the specified time frame. The Russian literature of Lithuania is examined as a partly independent segment of the literary field, whose characteristics unfold through its relationships with the national fields of Lithuanian and Russian literature as well as the global space of literature. The structure and development of this segment and its relations to the national literary fields are analysed by way of exploring the individual and collective strategies of the agents of this segment. The publications which represent the different poles in the literary field tend to emphasise the minority or diasporic identity associated with this segment: during the Soviet times – Literary Lithuania, a journal-almanach censored by the Soviet ideology and the Samisdat almanach For One’s Own; after the fall of the Soviet Union – Vinius, a journal published by the Lithuanian Writers’ Union and the online project The Indoeuropean Dictation. The individual strategies of the poets of different generations, which are interpreted as respectively stories of failure (Jurij Dubasov, Jurij Grigorjev, Mikhail Didusenko) and success (Jurij Kobrin, Georgij Jefremov, Lena Eltang) reveal not... [to full text] / Disertacijoje iš literatūros sociologijos perspektyvos, remiantis Pierre’o Bourdieu ir Pascale Casanovos darbais, tiriama iki šiol nenagrinėta Lietuvos rusų literatūra sovietmečiu bei posovietmečiu. Susitelkiama į poeziją, kuri aptariamu laikotarpiu vyrauja kiekybiškai. Lietuvos rusų literatūra laikoma iš dalies savarankišku literatūros lauko segmentu, kurio ypatybės išryškėja santykiuose su nacionaliniais lietuvių ir rusų literatūros laukais bei tarptautine literatūros erdve. Segmento struktūra, raida ir ryšiai su nacionaliniais laukais atskleidžiami analizuojant individualias bei kolektyvines lauko dalyvių strategijas. Pastarųjų polinkis pabrėžti mažumos ar diasporos tapatybę aiškėja iš skirtingus lauko polius reprezentuojančių leidinių: sovietmečiu – cenzūruoto almanacho-žurnalo Literatūrinė Lietuva ir savilaidos almanacho Saviems; posovietmečiu – Lietuvos rašytojų sąjungos žurnalo Vilnius ir interneto projekto Indoeuropietiškasis diktantas. Individualios skirtingų kartų poetų strategijos, interpretuojamos kaip pralaimėjimo (Jurijus Dubasovas, Jurijus Grigorjevas, Michailas Didusenko) ir sėkmės siužetai (Jurijus Kobrinas, Georgijus Jefremovas, Lena Eltang), atskleidžia ne tik užimtas padėtis, bet ir segmento galimybių erdvės ypatumus. Sovietmečiu galimybių erdvė buvo apribota vienakrypčio literatūrinio tarpininkavimo vaidmeniu. Atgimimo laikotarpiu ir ypač atkūrus Nepriklausomybę padėčių repertuaras platėjo, tačiau istoriškai sąlygota segmento struktūra buvo nepalanki... [toliau žr. visą tekstą]