.png)
UDC 821.161.1-1
https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.2-21.053
Moskvin Vasily P.,
Doctor of Philology, Professor
Volgograd State Socio-Pedagogical University;
Professor of the Russian Language and Methods of its Teaching
Institute of Russian Language and Literature
e-mail: vasmoskvin@yandex.ru
The dark places of O. Mandelstam’s poem “Save my speech forever…” are considered, and explanatory solutions and comments are offered for each case. The existing interpretations in the scientific literature are critically analyzed, in particular: the presence of a figurative leitmotif in the poem (the article argues for the absence of such a leitmotif); the version supported by a number of experts about the poet’s readiness to make a deal with the authorities expressed in this text (arguments are given in favor of the fact that this version is based on allegoresis that is not quite acceptable for this particular case; hypostasis of the poetic image). The functional basis of the focusing on speech obscuration, which is considered a significant characteristic of the poetics of the late Mandelstam, is clarified, and the origins of the internal form of the term Heraclitus’ metaphor introduced by the poet are revealed.
Key words: Russian poetry, Mandelstam, speech obscuration, artistic image, semantic transfer.
References
1. Mandelshtam O. Razgovor o Dante // Mandelshtam O. Soch. T. 2. Moscow, 1990. S. 214–254.
2. Nerler P. [Primechaniia k “Razgovoru o Dante”] // Mandelshtam O.E. Slovo i kultura: Stat’i. Moscow, 1987. S. 291–297.
3. M. Tullii Ciceronis De finibus bonorum et malorum libri V. Lipsiae, 1873.
4. Ronen O. Poetika O. Mandelshtama. St. Petersburg, 2002.
5. Apollodor. Mifologicheskaya biblioteka. Leningrad, 1972.
6. Dionysus Skitobrahion. <Pohod Dionisa i Afiny> // Voprosy klassicheskoш filologii. 2010. Vyp. XV. S. 556–643.
7. Anikin A.E. Innokentiy Annensky i ego otrazheniia: materialy, stat’i. Moscow, 2011.
8. Dalh V.I. Tolkovyi slovar’ zhivogo velikorusskogo iazyka: v 4 t. T. 2. Moscow, 2001.
9. Struve N. O. Mandelshtam. London, 1988.
10. Bushman I. Poeticheskoe iskusstvo Mandelshtama. Munich, 1964.
11. Δημητρίου Φαληρέως Περὶ ἑρμηνείας. Glasguae, 1743.
12. Gasparov M.L. Osip Mandelshtam. Tri ego poetiki // Gasparov M.L. O russkoi poezii: analizy, interpretacii, harakteristiki. St. Petersburg, 2001. S. 193–259.
13. Surat I.Z. Pushkin i Mandelshtam. Moscow, 2009.
14. Cvetaeva M.I. Moi otvet O. Mandelshtamu // Cvetaeva M.I. O literature i iskusstve. Moscow, 2019. S. 119–129.
15. Panova L. Ital’ianias’, ruseia. Dante i Petrarka v hudozhestvennom diskurse Serebrianogo veka ot simvolistov do Mandelshtama. Moscow, 2019.
16. Zholkovsky A.K. Sohrani moiu rech’, — i ia primu tebia, kak upriazh’: Mandelshtam i Pasternak v 1931 g. // Zvezda. 2012. No. 4. C. 226–235.
17. Stratanovsky S.G. Nacelias’ na smert’. Ob odnom stihotvorenii O. Mandelshtama // Zvezda. 1998. No. 1. S. 213–221.
18. Dobrushina N.R. Soslagatel’noe naklonenie // Materialy k Korpusnoi grammatike russkogo iazyka. Glagol. Ch. 1. St. Petersburg, 2016. S. 161–212.
19. Gregory of Tours. Kniga chudes // Pamiatniki srednevekovoi latinskoi literatury IV–VII vekov. Moscow, 1998. S. 413–426.
20. Bogdanova-Beglaryan N.V., Petrova Z.A. Seliger. Materialy po russkoi dialektologii. Slovar’. Vyp. 7. St. Petersburg, 2017.
21. Sport. Mirovye dostizheniia: entsiklopediia / red. G.Ya. Gik. Moscow, 2008.
22. Merlin V. Poeticheskaya lingvistika Mandelshtama: russkij laringal // Wiener Slawistischer Almanach. 2016. Bd. 78. S. 203–227.
23. Johannis Vorstii De Hebraismis Novi Testamenti commentarius. Francofurti, 1705.
24. Mandelshtam O. Shum vremeni // Mandelshtam O. Soch. T. 2. Moscow, 1990. S. 6–49.
25. Pomerants G. Slovo — Psiheya // Slovo i sudba: O. Mandelshtam. Moscow, 1991. S. 389–398.
26. Mandelshtam N.Ya. Vospominaniya. Kn. vtoraia. Paris, 1983.