Polemical Literature Research Articles

O KNjIŽEVNOSTI I IDEOLOGIJI BEZ MASKE: POLEMIKE RADA DRAINCA

The subject of the paper is the relationship between literature and ideology in the turbulent social and literary-historical period of the 20s and 30s of the 20th century from the aspect of literary polemics as one of the most frequent genres of contemporary journalism and through the texts of one of the most active polemicists, Radе Drainаc. We approach this topic through the broader socio-political, literary and cultural context of the period, focusing on several of the most important relations of the mentioned relationship against the background of Drainаc's literary polemics: ideological frameworks of this genre in interwar literature, literary criticism between ideology and truth, social literature, language and ideology, institutions and ideology, without neglecting the interpretation of the genre of literary polemics in Drainаc's opus and pointing out his contribution to this genre. In addition to testify- ing to the necessity, courage and vitality of polemics in the process of deconstructing and redefining literary critical, literary historical and poetic attitudes of important authors of one period, the paper confirms that Drainаc's program of poetic rebellion is consistently and deeply rooted in the prism of his perception of society.

Literary Polemic in Martial

ABSTRACT: Following the practice of Greek and Roman poets, Martial employs polemic as a means of expressing his literary views, particularly with respect to his chosen genre and his place within that genre. In order to elevate the status of epigram within the generic hierarchy, he attacks the higher forms of poetry as stale and irrelevant to real life, dismissing their apologists in highly personal and aggressive terms. He often engages in an argumentative to-and-fro with a supposed critic of his poetry or of his opinions, summarily dismissing his opponent in a typically epigrammatic put-down that brands him as vacuous, deluded or merely inept.

Light Comedy and vaudeville: specificity of the genre

The subject of this research is the light (salon, secular, noble) comedy "One's Own Family, or a Married Bride", co-authored by A. A. Shakhovsky, N. I. Khmelnitsky amd A. S. Griboyedov, as well as the vaudeville by A. S. Griboyedov and P. A. Vyazemsky "Who is a Brother, Who is Sister, or Deception after Deception". The goal lies in the analysis of similar genre models: light comedy and vaudeville – a variety of salon comedy. The key method of research is the motif-imagery analysis, which reveals a number of common a number of motifs and allowed examining the images of heroes. The comparative method is used for establishing the common and different between the indicated genre models. The novelty of this article consists in the comparison of two cognate genre models, as well as determine universals and particulars within their structure. The conclusion is drawn that vaudeville and light comedy are closely interrelated with a wide variety of genres: anecdote, fable, comic opera, interact, melodrama, and often serve as a means for conducting literary polemics. The external distinguishing characteristic of vaudeville is the presence of a verse. Despite the similarity of the fabula. it is worth noting that the light comedy rather tends towards high literary tradition; the external actable comism is reduced, and expressed through the speech manner of the heroes, witty dialogues, and aphoristic speech. The heroes are usually secular young people. The scene is also limited to secular living rooms and manor estates. Vaudeville in turn, is not restricted by the framework of secularism; its heroes can be officers, actors, servants, serfs, etc. Moreover, comism of the status of heroes is enhanced by external effects: buffoonery, multiple outfit changes, rapid and unpredictable narrative arc.

WORD-FORMING FEATURES OF CHURCH SLAVONIC IN THE UKRAINIAN WRITTEN SOURCES OF THE XVI – THE FIRST HALF OF THE XVII CENTURY

The article is devoted to the functioning of Church Slavonic nouns formed by prefix and prefix-suffix methods, based on the materials of various genres and styles of secular written sources, which were included in the canon «Dictionary of the Ukrainian language of the XVI – first half of the XVII century» and its unique Card File. The main word-forming models of Church Slavonic vocabulary with the prefixes въз- (воз-) / въс- (вос-), въ- (в-, во-), из- / ис-, пред-, пре- (прѣ-), раз- / рас-, съ- (со-), which are borrowed from the Proto-Slavic period through Old Slavic mediation into the Old Ukrainian language, are analyzed. With these prefixes, more than 120 verb Church Slavonic nouns are attested in the researched sources (25 tokens are formed by the prefix method, the rest are confix derivatives). It was learned that not all formants in the Ukrainian language of XVI – first half of XVII century equally participated in the creation of Church Slavonic nouns. The most productive word-forming types, from which abstract Church Slavonicisms were formed, were the types with prepositional elements въз- (воз-), из- / ис-, раз- / рас-, съ- (со-) and with another affix -ниє (-ніє, -нїє). A number of derivatives to denote the names of persons are certified with postpositive components –тель and -никъ. Unproductive were the confixes with the suffixes -ость, -ница, -окъ, -ище. The Church Slavonic words, which are researched, are numerically represented in the works of polemical literature and texts of business and scientific styles. A small number of derivatives are recorded in fiction (including poetry) and chronicle literature of the time under study. It has been observed that some Church Slavonic nouns, formed in a prefix or prefix-suffix way, have expanded their meanings in the Old Ukrainian language. Some of them were core components in various phrases.

Антиколыбельная песня Егора Буджалова в аспекте пародии Морхаджи Нармаева: «Ɵдгǝ цага саатулин дун» — «Буджала Егор залуд»

Introduction. So far, the genres of lullaby and poetic parody in the Kalmyk poetry of the twentieth century have not attracted much attention. Born in the late 1920s — early 1930s, the tradition was short-lived. While their genres were explicitly or implicitly marked, the works of Kalmyk poets in question were primarily oriented towards the Russian literary tradition. However, they expanded the genre paradigm of Kalmyk poetry in the intercultural dialogue. The relevance and novelty of the article is apparent, granted its focus on the two innovative works by Egor Budzhalov and Morkhadzhi Narmaev; these are single works that belong to the genres of anti-lullaby and satirical parody as part of the 1990s literary polemics of the contemporaries. This article aims to introduce these little-known poems of the two poets as representative of their contributions to the genres. Materials and methods. The sources for the study, Budzhalov’s “Ödgä tsaga saatulin dun” (“Modern Lullaby Song”, 1991) and Narmaev’s “Budzhala Egor zalud” (“To the man Egor Budzhalov”, 1991), were published in the local newspaper Khalmg ünn. The study of historical-literary milieu and realia, comparative-contrastive and hermeneutic approaches were employed to examine the poetic pieces in the context of literary, socio-political, ideological, and social processes on the eve of the country’s collapse; also, the biographical data of the poets that belong to different generations was helpful in the analysis of their ideological positions, as well as the authorial voices in the texts under study. Results. The study shows the innovative character of the poets’ efforts at creating a lullaby for adults, or an anti-lullaby song, and a satirical parody; these were to remain single samples, granted that the Kalmyk lullabies are mainly addressed to infants, and parodies are of a friendly character. Their works reflect the authors’ polar views on the realities in the 1980s and 1990s: criticism, on the one hand, and the defense of socialism, communist ideas, on the other hand. Conclusions. Budzhalov’s poem may look like a lullaby for children at first sight while, in fact, it is a lullaby for adults or rather an anti-lullaby, with the formulaic chorus baiu bai, a marker of the genre, acquiring in his piece the opposite message: wake up, do not sleep, act. Narmaev enters the dialogue with his younger contemporary, his poem also representing a synthesis of genres: a message, an open letter in verse, and a satirical parody. However, his parody is also transformed when the author parodies not so much his fellow poet’s style but the authorial implications concerning the Soviet reality. The tradition of literary polemics was not continued in Kalmyk poetry.

‘The francophone world was set ablaze’: Pan-African intellectuals, European interlocutors and the global Cold War

ABSTRACT By the mid-1930s, migration from the French colonies had brought Afro-intellectuals into the heart of political and artistic conversations in the metropoles of Europe and had created imbricated spaces of heated debate. Coming from various nations in Africa and the Americas, the interlocutors in these debates grappled with their fraught relationship to imperial centres while addressing questions specific to their diverse national contexts and racialized realities. The declarations they made and conclusions they drew were scrutinized by multiple, and at times antagonistic publics. This article chronicles a fascinating instance of such networked literary polemics: the 1955–1956 Présence Africaine ‘Debate on National Poetry’. It offers a close look at the intellectual and political underpinnings of this fraught exchange between celebrated Martinican poet-statesman Aimé Césaire and then-militant socialist Haitian poet René Depestre as a means of understanding how twentieth-century intellectual and artistic movements in Europe presented real challenges to prominent figures in the (imminently post-)colonial francophone world. Depestre’s uncomfortable positioning reflects the larger quandary facing Afro-diasporic intellectuals and artists called on to navigate identities that reflected their political commitments and the expectations of their white allies, on the one hand, and their racial identifications, on the other.

ТЕКТОЛОГО-КОДИКОЛОГИЧЕСКИЙ АНАЛИЗ ПРОИЗВЕДЕНИЯ ПОЛЕМИЧЕСКОГО ХАПАКТЕРА БЕСАРИОНА ОРБЕЛИШВИЛИ „ГРДЕМЛИ“

Polemic direction is one of the oldest and the most important branches of Georgian literature. As Christianity (other confessions as well) was fought by the opponents and to neutralize them was the aim of polemic literature. The Georgian polemic literature should theoretically overcome the offensives of foreign confessions and different branches of Christianity, specifically of Catholicism, as the number of Catholic missioners to Georgia grows in the 17th-18th century. Their diplomatic approach, which carried secret and hided propaganda of Catholicism, became dangerous for Orthodox Christianity. The purpose of polemical writing is to explain the essence of the problem on the basis of solid argumentation and to prove the presented position. The argument had to be convincing and accountable, so in such writings the phrases were measured according to strict academic quality and were based on a rich intellectual resource. Opponents of polemical writings were perceived to be not only the literary-polemicist, theologian or clergyman, but the entire state institution. At David Gareji literary center the idea of creation of specific polemic work – resisting Catholicism was developed; well-known writer Besarion Orbelishvili was charged with an important mission – to create such work. He succeeded in this and compiled the extensive work „Grdemli“. In this work he examined important disputable issues connected with the East-West Churches. Each debatable question is abolished with the citations from Holy Scripture and the writings of Church Fathers. „Grdemli“ has received wide popularity in Old Georgia.There are 12 manuscripts of “Grdemli” stored at The National Center of Manuscripts and Kutaisi and Gori at the Ethnographic museums.

“It is Sad that Lackeys Have Power...” (Unknown Letters from the Archive of B.V. Tomashevsky)

The article is devoted to the epistolary heritage of the legendary philologist of the XX century — Professor Boris Viktorovich Tomashevsky (1890—1957) and his relations with the leading scientists in the context of historical, literary, linguistic and ideological polemics mainly of the 1930s and 1950s. The paper emphasizes the contribution of the scientist to the development of world science in the era of cultural upheavals. Special attention is paid to the publications of unknown epistles to B.V. Tomashevsky by domestic and foreign philologists: I.L. Andronikov, G.O. Vinokur, D.S. Likhachev, A. A. Reformatsky, B. Unbegaun, M. Vasmer, R. O. Jakobson. The published letters describe the situation in science of that period: they show the difficulties in working on the publication of Pushkin’s “Complete Works”, reveal the polemics around controversial issues of the theory and practice of the text, express the attitude of cor-respondents to the facts of ideological pressing on science, describe the difficulties of wartime, etc. B. V. Tomashevsky’s epistolary is also considered in the context of the role of Soviet linguistic personality in creating scientific tradition. The relevance of the study is due to the use of archival mate-rials in the paradigm of the humanities to clarify poorly studied facts of the 1930s and 1950s.

A Unique Manuscript of the Shibanid Epoch from the Fund of the Center of the Written Heritage of Tajikistan

The article introduces the results of a preliminary study of the unique work, the Manaqib al-khulafa (The Virtues/Excellences of the Caliphs) compiled by Qawam ad-Din Muhammad al-Husaini alSanaujiradi al-Ziyaratgahi al-Harawi in 997/1588. This is a response to the protest message of the Shiites of Herat, who survived the siege and capture of the city by the Sunnis the Shibanid troops. The Manaqib recreates the early stages of the history of Islam before the split caused by the difference in the understanding of principles of the supreme political power (elective or hereditary) transfer and reveals the virtues of the four righteous caliphs. Fragments of the Quran and hadiths cited in the treatise present irrefutable evidence of the Sunnis superiority over Shiism. The treatise is an excellent example of polemical literature of bitter ideological struggle between two orthodoxies Sunni and Shiite and contains valuable information on the religious and political history of Eurasia in the premodern period.

The War of Words

The War of Words

How we think the Transcendent: the Dialogue between Carl Jung and Martin Buber

The relationship between metaphysics and psychology has different dimensions. An emblematic example of this relationship is the literary polemics between Martin Buber and Carl Jung about boundaries between the two areas of scientific knowledge. According to Buber, Jung allows himself to cross the border of psychology and psychiatry through metaphysical assertions, while Yung claims he doesn’t go beyond that, and all his speeches, even about transcendent objects, don’t leave the sphere of empiricism. The purpose of this article is to reconstruct this dialogue and critically analyze it in view of the possibilities of thinking of the transcendence.

(NE)SUPRANTAMASIS VYDŪNAS: BALIO SRUOGOS, JULIJONO LINDĖS-DOBILO IR VYDŪNO LITERATŪRINĖ POLEMIKA

The article seeks to emphasize peculiarity of reception of the oeuvre of Prussian Lithuanian philosopher and writer Vydūnas. The author represents analysis of the literary polemic between Lithuanian writers Balys Sruoga and Julijonas Lindė-Dobilas. This polemic arose from B. Sruoga’s sharp review written for Vydūnas’s mystery play Jūrų varpai. Subsequently Vydūnas involves himself in to polemic with B. Sruoga which developed into direct literary controversy. The article discusses not only question about intricacy of Vydūnas’s works but seeks to answer the question: why B. Sruoga rejects professional critical evaluation of the play and insistently holds an opinion that Vidūnas’s oeuvre is unacceptable for Lithuanian reader. The article also introduces how after a few years changed B. Sruoga’s attitude in respect to Vydūnas’s personality and his oeuvre.

MYKOLA DILETSKY’S “MUSICAL GRAMMAR” IN THE CONTEXT OF ENLIGHTENMENTAL TRENDS OF THE 17TH CENTURY

Western European civilization of the XVII century is marked by the active initiation of educational projects, which against the background of numerous religious conflicts contributed to the understanding and establishment of a new system of international relations. In particular, thanks to the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, Roman Catholic Christianity and the Protestant churches were equal in rights. At the same time, the national liberation war began in Ukraine under the leadership of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, and in the Moscow principality, on the initiative of Patriarch Nikon, the liturgical reform of the Orthodox rite intensified. All these changes had a religious context and were based on important socio-cultural and educational reforms – printing houses were established, where spiritual polemical literature and church books were printed, music chapels were organized, schools were opened, and so on. In Ukraine, in particular, party polyphony is spreading and universal primary music education is being established, which has contributed to raising the level of musical education of Ukrainians. At this time, talented Ukrainians study at Kyiv-Mohyla or Vilnius Academy, which was famous for its high level of education. Thus, the activity of the Ukrainian composer and theorist, author of the first national music-theoretical treatise “Musical Grammar” – Mykola Diletsky began with Vilna. He became one of a large cohort of educated Ukrainians – theologians, philosophers, writers and musicians, whose efforts were aimed at reforming the liturgical rite of the Moscow principality. For this purpose, he wrote “Grammar of Music” in Vilnius – the result of conscious pedagogical work aimed at spreading polyphonic singing to the East – through Smolensk to Moscow and St. Petersburg. As a result, M. Diletsky’s activity outside Ukraine fully corresponded to the educational tendencies of that time, however, the name of our talented compatriot is still assigned in Russian scientific circles. Therefore, the priority task of Ukrainian musicological thought continues to be the coverage of the activity and popularization of the composer's work of Mykola Diletsky, who actively worked in line with the European educational tendencies of the 17th century.

El plagio literario y sus polémicas:

En este artículo se propone el análisis de las novelas Bolivia Construcciones (2006) de Bruno Morales, pseudónimo del argentino Sergio Di Nucci, y Axolotl Roadkill (2010) de la alemana Helene Hegemann. Se trata de dos novelas que coinciden en iniciar a los autores en sus carreras literarias, en tanto escritores reconocidos, que además fueron positivamente leídas inicialmente, reconociendo su valor literario, que además resultaron innovadoras dentro de sus campos literarios nacionales por las temáticas que abordaban a través de la ficción, aunque luego, muy rápidamente, fueron desvaloradas por acusaciones de plagio. El plagio como concepto de valoración impone aquí como una variable de la lectura literaria que resulta divergente con los modos (especialmente actuales) de escritura. A través del análisis textual en relación con las acusaciones de plagio que enfrentaron y de la consideración de las polémicas literarias a su alrededor desde la sociología literaria, exploramos las implicaciones del debate, la legitimidad de la categoría de plagio como definidora de valor y la potencialidad de nociones más cercanas a los modos de la escritura ultracontemporánea, tales como la de escrituras no-creativas de Goldsmith.

The Image of the Turk in the Orthodox Polemical Literature of the Late Sixteenth – Early Seventeenth Century

The article discusses the practice of using the image of the Turk as “the Other” by Orthodox polemicists from the late 16th century till the first quarter of the 17th century. The conquest of Byzantine, the status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch and the Eastern Church under the Ottomans, the eschatological dimension of “Turkish domination” – this is an incomplete range of issues that have been the subject of debate between supporters and opponents of The Union of Brest. The reason for that was the process of remembering Byzantine roots, as a form of attribution of Orthodox identity. The legitimacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople was a matter of organizational capacity of the Ruthenian Orthodox Church in the Polish – Lithuanian Commonwealth. An important role in this was played by the eschatological picture of the world in the texts of the polemicists – the authors emphasized the exceptional role of Rus` in defending the true faith because the Ruthenian Church was persecuted and poor. Another equally important process is the construction of the “Pole-Catholic’s” hostile image through the narrative of “Turkish domination” by Orthodox polemicists. The Khotyn military campaign (1620–1621) and the restoration process of the Ruthenian Orthodox Church hierarchy forced the Orthodox hierarchs to abandon the use of the narrative of the positive experience of “Turkish domination” and to join the creation of the idea of “Cossack bastion” (the Cossacks as defenders of not only the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth but of the entire Christian faith). The model of the “Cossack bastion” lasted until the second half of the 17th century, when the Kyiv clergy was finally disappointed in the Cossacks as an anti-Muslim force due to the hetmans’ attraction to military-political alliances with the Ottoman Empire.Manuscript received 20.03.2020

Polemic and Literature Surrounding the French Wars of Religion. Edited by Jeff Kendrick and Katherine S. Maynard

The idea that ‘reading and writing are the source of […] conflict’ (p. 2) is the driving force behind this collection of essays. The Wars of Religion are shown to be a war of words; the ‘lexicon of weaponry’ (p. 1) is the subject of investigation, and its impact on warring communities of readers. Such an approach is a very welcome addition to the current interest in polemical literature in this era, coming on the heels of Tatiana Debbagi Baranova’s À coups de libelles: une culture politique au temps des guerres de religion (1562–1598) (Geneva: Droz 2012), and drawing its influence from Luc Racaut’s Hatred in Print: Catholic Polemic and Protestant Identity during the French Wars of Religion (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002). The poets and writers considered here are part of the existing canon: Pierre de Ronsard, Agrippa d’Aubigné, Joachim Du Bellay, Théodore de Bèze, Antoine de Chandieu, Marc Lescarbot, and Jean Bégat. The three essays devoted to d’Aubigné are a timely contribution to the field, given Valerie Worth’s new translation of Les Tragiques (Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2020). The collection as a whole is thoroughly modern in its approach. The ‘material turn’ is given due consideration; Amy Graves Monroe writes about the importance of paratextual battles, places of publication and title pages, reading the question of anonymity from the perspective of the internet age. Ashley Voeks examines the spatial dimension of Les Tragiques in an elegantly constructed analysis. Katherine S. Maynard introduces an international feature to the collection in her examination of Lescarbot. Other contributions are even more modish: Phillip John Usher takes us into new territory in ‘Atmoterrorism in the Humanist Anthropocene’, using Ronsard and André Thevet to explore contemporary debates on the climate crisis. The category of the ‘polemical’ is thus understood broadly, to include political, juridical, and theological texts and their paratexts, viewed from a literary perspective (p. 2). The advantage of this approach is the close attention paid to the relationship between literature and polemic, as explored in Kathleen Perry Long’s chapter. Students and scholars of the literature of this period will enjoy, and gain a great deal from, this achingly trendy collection of essays that prompt their readers to ask new questions of these established texts. Historians, however, will want to critique the notion that historical events are ‘born of narrative’ (p. 8), and may finish this collection with some questions unanswered. While Christopher M. Flood and Graves Monroe work thoroughly with scriptural sources and confessional difference, others are more removed from the religious context of the wars. Marcus Keller observes that ‘it is necessary to abstract from the religious dimension between French Catholics and Protestants’ in his reading of d’Aubigné (p. 118). Such a level of abstraction neutralizes the confessional dimension of the conflict, which is precisely where the interest lies for many historians of the period. This is not to suggest that historians won’t gain from this collection: they will; but they may find there is more work to do in terms of contextualizing the polemics under consideration here.

‘You do not love Russia YEt...’ What Nikolay Vasilievich quarrelled about with Vissarion Grigorievich

How can a teacher make seemingly anachronistic literary polemics sound interesting to a modern student? The article offers an example of making an age-old dispute about the reasons of social hardships in Russia sound relevant. In June 1847, V. Belinsky penned his embittered and passionate missive to N. Gogol, full of fierce criticism of the latter's book Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends [Vybrannye mesta iz perepiski s druziami]. Belinsky was convinced that the blame should fall on the despotic authorities and defective public and social institutions which restrict people's freedom and leave them morally debilitated; therefore, reforms must begin with an overthrow of the regime. Gogol was gazing inwards and decided that everybody had themselves to blame and should feel personally responsible. Who of the two was right? Were their opinions so irreconcilable? Gogol admitted that there was some truth in Belinsky's scolding, citing his disconnect due to living abroad, whereas Belinsky, insulted from the very first pages by what he called ‘obscurantism and bigotry,' may have overlooked or misinterpreted something, hot-tempered as he was.

The Yogi and the Scholar: Rhetorical Polemics as Literary Frames and Conceptual Framework in Tibetan Buddhist Discourse

Tibetan polemical literature is especially known and enjoyed for its harsh language and offensive comparisons, which stand in marked contrast to the philosophical and doctrinal matters that works of the genre commonly discuss. Drawing from a detailed literary analysis of a particular polemical exchange between Ju Mipam (1846–1912) and Pari Rapsel (1840–1912), this article calls for a distinction between what might be called “rhetorical polemics” and “formal argumentation,” and argues that the former is used to exercise framing functions towards the latter, in both structural and conceptual terms. With regard to conceptual considerations, polemical comparisons play an important role. Through frequent allusions to a stereotypical divide of Buddhist experts in practice-oriented yogis and logic-oriented scholars, these discourses connect to a larger narrative framework about the correct or incorrect transmission of Buddhism on the Tibetan plateau, which individual agents use to characterize their opponents. In so doing, they contribute to the further solidification and promotion of the master narrative that this framework entails.

Shanghai School (Haipai): Content of the Concept

The article is devoted to the analysis of the content of the literary concept of haipai (Shanghai school). It is pointed out that the term is actively used in modern literary studies in the Chinese language and is a basic concept for the classification of Chinese writers of the twentieth century. The question is raised about the legality of using this term for the analysis of works of art. It is noted that the literary polemic of 1933—1934 “The dispute about the Shanghai and Beijing schools” helps to clarify the meaning of the concept of “haipai”. As a result of the analysis of publications of this period, it is concluded that the term Shanghai school in modern literary practice has a different meaning than what the participants in the discussion put into it. The novelty of the research lies in the fact that for the first time in Russian the literary polemics of 1933—1934 are described in detail using primary sources. As a result of the study, it was concluded that in terms of its content, the term haipai is close to such a descriptive concept in European literary criticism as “decadence”. It sets a certain evaluative paradigm and evokes certain visual and sensory images, but it should be used with caution as a means of literary analysis.

Donkey Squared, or Who First Called Dostoevsky a Genius

The article examines the literary circumstances of F. M. Dostoevsky’s debut. They were reflected in the correspondence and memoirs, and in his contemporaries’ literary polemics. Dostoevsky was one of the few Russian writers who was awarded the title of genius by critics long before the publication of his first novel. Thus, the question of who had called him a genius emerges as relevant? For the first time this word was uttered by V. G. Belinsky, but neither he nor his associates declared Dostoevsky a genius in print. Rumors did it for them more effectively than the printed word. The rumor of “extraordinary talent” and “new genius” provoked the opponents of V. G. Belinsky: F. V. Bulgarin, O. I. Senkovsky, L. V. Brant, S. P. Shevyrev, etc. As they tried to convince readers of the mediocrity of the up-and-coming talent, they unwittingly made Dostoevsky a genius, presented his brilliance as a fact. Two years later, Belinsky abandoned his discovery of the genius of Dostoevsky, and called himself “a donkey squared”, yet the revision of the personal relationship did not affect the writer’s literary fate. The scandal and controversy over the novel The Poor Folk reinforced Dostoevsky’s fame.