Abstract

The paper presents a fragment from Vladimir Gippius’s manuscript of the early 1930s, in which he evaluates his junior literary contemporaries: Osip Mandelstam, Anna Akhmatova, Vladimir Mayakovsky. This evaluation corresponds with the opinion Gippius expressed in the 1910s: Acmeists for him are indifferent esthetes that lack strong qualities of their predecessors. Gippius evaluates negatively his literary portrait by Mandelstam, his pupil in the Tenishev School, in the autobiographic book “Shum vremeni” (“The Noise of the Time”, 1925). This fragment presents Gippius’s reaction on the correspondent chapter of Mandelstam’s book. The author cites memoirs about Gippius and his responses to works of his contemporaries, touches the issue of his literary behavior and concludes, that the reasons for Gippius's rejection of Mandelstam's memoirs were ethic, esthetic, ideological and sociocultural.

Highlights

  • The paper presents a fragment from Vladimir Gippius’s manuscript of the early 1930s, in which he evaluates his junior literary contemporaries: Osip Mandelstam, Anna Akhmatova, Vladimir Mayakovsky. This evaluation corresponds with the opinion Gippius expressed in the 1910s: Acmeists for him are indifferent esthetes that lack strong qualities of their predecessors

  • Но ближе был мне Чеховский Иванов, Как скучный путник средь недвижных скал: Там ночевала тучка золотая, Когда угрюмо стыло их чело, Там кто-то звал так явственно из рая, Куда ее навеки унесло

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Владимир Гиппиус о Мандельштаме, Ахматовой и литературных поколениях Гиппиус резко негативно воспринял свой портрет, данный ему Мандельштамом, его учеником по Тенишевскому училищу, в автобиографической книге «Шум времени» (1925). Владимир Гиппиус о Мандельштаме, Ахматовой и литературных поколениях // Литературный факт.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call