CC BY
0
A.V. Markov, O.V. Fedunina (Moscow)
"I, YOUR «YOU»": IDENTITY STRATEGIES IN ZINAIDA
GIPPIUS'S
CORRESPONDENCE WITH VLADIMIR ZLOBIN (1916-1919)
Abstract
This article discusses the reconstitution of self-identity after the crisis of the First World War and the Revolution in ego-documents, which marks a fracture in the perception of the interlocutor. As the correspondence of Zinaida Gippius and Vladimir Zlobin demonstrates, the construction of one's identity becomes inseparable from the reconstruction of one's interlocutors' identity. An early stage of this recently fully published correspondence suggests how a complex relationship between interlocutors concerned with each other was forged. Gippius constructs her own and her interlocutor's autonomy through the use of certain speech markers. She engages Zlobin in a game where feeling, will, and the decision to change life turn out to be variables in a larger life-building project. This game is compounded by a time of deep political change, when some of Zlobin's hopes and aspirations needed adjustment. Gippius sees herself as a mentor to her interlocutor, but she also forms a special erotic tension that turns the correspondence into a novel with its dramatic and paradoxical character. The article explores the various speech means by which Gippius constructs the complex self-identity instilled in her interlocutor. The paradoxes of the correspondence are explained with the help of models of social masks: the mask implies public speech behavior, but also the topography of inner life, the construction of identity based on the topics of inner experiences. Therefore, the actions of the interlocutors are not a correction of someone else's public behavior, but a work with someone else's topics through their own, with the particularities of inner experiences and inner self-determination in a challenging era. Within the epistolary
novel, a new cartography of inner life is developed, which is incorporated into the autobiographical myths of the correspondents.
Key words
Identity; social mask; self-identification; self-determination; Russian Revolution, Zinaida Gippius.
A.B. Марков, O.B. Федунина (Москва)
«Я, ТВОЙ "ТЫ"»: СТРАТЕГИИ ИДЕНТИЧНОСТИ В ПЕРЕПИСКЕ 3. ГИППИУС С В. ЗЛОБИНЫМ (1916-1919)
|Аннотация
В статье рассматривается восстановление самоидентификации после кризиса Первой мировой войны и революции в эго-документах, знаменующее перелом в восприятии собеседника. Как показывает переписка Зинаиды Гиппиус и Владимира Злобина, конструирование своей идентичности становится неотделимо от реконструкции идентичности собеседников. Ранний этап этой недавно опубликованной полностью переписки показывает, как выстраивалось сложное взаимодействие собеседников, заинтересованных друг в друге. Гиппиус с помощью специальных речевых маркеров конструирует свою автономию и автономию собеседника. Она вовлекает Злобина в игру, где чувство, воля и решение изменить жизнь оказываются переменными более крупного жизнестро-ительного проекта. Эта игра осложнена временем глубоких политических перемен, когда некоторые надежды и чаяния Злобина нуждались в корректировке. Гиппиус видит себя наставницей собеседника, но при этом создает особое эротическое напряжение, превращающее переписку в роман со своим драматизмом и парадоксальностью. В статье исследуются различные речевые средства, с помощью которых Гиппиус создает сложную самоидентификацию, внушенную собеседнику. Парадоксы переписки объяснены с помощью моделей социальных масок: маска подразумевает публичное речевое поведение, но и топографию внутренней жизни, выстраивание идентичности исходя из топики внутренних переживаний. Поэтому действия собеседников - это не корректировка чужого публичного поведения, а работа с чужой топикой через свою собственную, с особенностями внутренних переживаний и внутреннего самоопределения в сложную эпоху. Внутри своеобразного эпистолярного романа и создается новая картография внутренней жизни, включенная в автобиографические мифы участников переписки.
[Ключевые слова
Идентичность; социальная маска; самоидентификация; самоопределение; русская революция; Зинаида Гиппиус.
Gender mask is a complex phenomenon: it is both a self-identification and a certain screen of meanings imposed on the outside world. Gender theory, partly inspired by G. Deleuze's idea of complex or topographical identity, speaks of gender identity as a mask [Воронина 2012]. But this mask refers not only to the categorization of self-perception, but also to the construction of categories for presenting oneself to others and adapting representations of others. The gender mask is in some ways a mask of seizing [Штайн 2015, 5]: it is not just put on, it also transforms communication with the other in a different way. A person not only names himself or herself in a special way, but also begins to name his or her interlocutor in a special way, builds a complex system of camouflage, in which not only his or her "I" but also the "I" of the interlocutor undergoes topological transformations. The person not only names himself or herself in a distinct way, but also
renames the other or reacts dramatically to the renaming.
The necessary precondition of the subject's narrative identity, which V.I. Tyupa formulates following Paul Ric&ur, is "a kind of tension between two poles: the pole of character identity, by which he or she is identified by the people around him or her, and the pole of personal identity, by the preservation of which he or she identifies himself or herself" [Тюпа 2016, 289]. Thus, the problem of personal identity in all its manifestations is directly related to the complex interaction of the Self and the Other in dialogical (self-)unfolding.
The change of the gender frames of reference in modernist literature can lead to new dichotomies in the portrayal of the Other, such as isolating the "shell" of the other protagonist and the "veil" of social life [Каплун 2023], or replacing the subjectivity of the portrayed protagonist with multiple crisis identities [Чечнев 2021]. The diversity of these strategies imposed on the emergence of the unreliable narrator and other figures of modernist prose requires a separate systematization.
A convincing model of Zinaida Gippius's gender mask was proposed by Oksana Shtayn [Штайн 2024, 72-75], who tentatively called it "through-the-mirror name-worshiping" (зазеркальное имяславие): the plurality of Gippius's male names is regarded as an experience of seizing an epoch in which many things are not equal to themselves, and revolutionary renaming is normalized. The sacralization of the name then is to be understood in the sense of the sacred that Georges Bataille endowed this word with - sacrifice: the pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary world, where sacrifices are constantly made in the name of historical necessity, for Gippius became the subject of special attention, requiring the search for new names for herself. The renaming of the correspondent, then, turns out to be a way of seizing, which only makes it possible to restore the initial meaning of the sacrifice, partly in accordance with Pavel Florensky's concept of "sacred renaming" [Флоренский 2006].
Vladimir Ananyevich Zlobin, a friend and future faithful assistant of Zinaida Gippius, underwent such a renaming. The acquaintance of the two writers took place in 1916 through the mediation of Nicolas Otsoup [Павлова 2021, 496]. The first three years of their intensive correspondence [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021] can be seen as an independent dramaturgy of masks, or rather, as a search for those relationships that stand the test of time, the test of emigration and other sacrificial experiences. As the publisher notes, "the correspondence of 1916-1919 serves as a kind of exposition to the whole epistolary array that binds the correspondents; it opens the first page in the history of their relations; in these years the prerequisites for a further common path were formed and all the 'Gordian knots' of the joint life in emigration were tied" [Павлова 2021, 494].
Vladimir Zlobin attended the Law Department of St. Petersburg / Petrograd University, with a subsequent transfer to the History and Philology Department, until his departure for exile in 1919. Gippius saw him as a student in need of guidance, but even more in need of her to show his seizure. "However, even now I have to admit that perhaps you have me... somehow too much. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact, take what you will, what is fit, what you can at present" [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 545]. In these words, the appeal to learn is inseparable from the call to fully realize
the seizure, the potentialities of his social and gendered mask.
Researchers have already pointed out that Gippius was creating in this correspondence a novel - from life itself, but at the same time summarizing her gender search, finding people who understood her gender identity and were able to construct her own consistent gender mask. Pavlova, the publisher of the correspondence, notes that "the epistolary romance with Zlobin, the apogee of which fell on 1918-1919, in the 'novel' biography of Gippius occupies an exceptional place, the chosen one was her last metaphysical hero-lover, and their correspondence - the completion of a vast 'erotic text', which was created by her throughout her life" [Павлова 2021, 500]. In this case, life creation was combined with a constant check whether the interlocutor had acquired the necessary masked integrity, whether the topos of mutual relations had turned the cartography of their real gender identity, which would ensure the unity of the participants of the 'novel in letters' for the rest of their lives.
As Pavlova writes: "Despite the experience of falling in love, Gippius to some extent 'directed' the composition of the created 'erotic text'; as if in this case, the epistolary dialog about love was more important to her, had more significance than the specific plot that caused it and the extra-written relationship with the hero of the epistolary novel. In Gippius's 'metaphysics of love' the erotic text was thought of as a continuous..." [Павлова 2021, 502]. Or, speaking in the terminology of the concept of sacred renaming, it is a question of the extent to which Zlobin's renaming will prove as effective as Gippius's.
Oksana Shtayn, drawing on the ideas of Gilles Deleuze and Irving Hoffman, speaks of the complex relationship between the front (topographical) and back (biographical) sides of the mask [Штайн 2015, 95]. The mask defines a person's biography, in which sacrifice becomes a constitutive event, and the application of a new name is the image of sacrifice - in this respect Shtayn speaks of tattooing as "social writing". This is the underside of the mask, one's own reflections on oneself, which in the end converge in the image of self-sacrifice and the acquisition of a new name and, in some cases, a new gender identity. Such gender writing is also a vibrant writing, in demand in times of crisis. But there is also a facial topography of relations with others, where the dialog establishes situational gender roles with their own modes of renaming, for example, the renaming of city streets can be understood as a new phase of relations with the city, new mapping. Gippius renames, as we shall see, Zlobin, creating no longer a situational but a sustained gender role, defining not only the face of his mask but also the underside of his mask. Next, we will analyze how this underside was constructed.
Zlobin was worried about the absence of his language, but at the same time he spoke of some consistency of his thought: "Actually, after your departure, I have never yet spoken in 'my language'. People understand each other worse than after the Babylonian pandemonium. Meanwhile, I have managed to think something through," writes Zlobin to Gippius on June 6, 1917 [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 5171. Thus, the construction of Zlobin's identity included both the building of a common language, common speech masks which could be shared in a situation of complete breakdown of private languages in a crisis epoch, and the construction of the underside of this speech, of thinking through to the end what is identified with a new self-
identity, a new opportunity to appear before the interlocutor and to write in response.
But how did the transition from self-identification as a pure thinker to gender self-identification within Gippius's 'mirror name-worshiping' take place? The key moment of this gender coloring was the treatise The Imaginary, written by Gippius for Zlobin in early September 1918, during her stay in Druzhnosel'ye near Gatchina, at Prince Wittgenstein's estate, the Red Dacha, when the participants in the correspondence, not separated by distance, exchanged messages, passing each other Zlobin's notebook with student notes.
In Gippius's treatise there is a normative play with the grammatical gender, which had previously been encountered in her diaries as a sign of self-reflection (see the diary entry of 1900 quoted by O. Matich: "In my thoughts, desires, and spirit, I am more of a man; in my body, I am more of a woman. But they have merged so much that I don't know anything anymore." [Matich 2005, 168], verified from the Russian original), and in poetry, the 1905 poem "You," (Ты) all built on the constant switching of grammatical gender and the creation of the image of Moon as an alluring, magnetizing bigender subject. The treatise on the metaphysics of love grammatically begins precisely in the masculine gender: "Yes, I have yet to think here. I still don't understand something here. That is, I haven't put it in the right places for me" [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 542] (Russian grammar has a gendered present tense verb). That is, gender identity is identified with the mapping of the underside, not with the public presentation of oneself, but with the act of gaining understanding, of acquiring a topos for all thoughts. But it is precisely this same inner mapping that Gippius demands of Zlobin.
She characterizes Zlobin in the third person, switching again from the feminine to the masculine in first-person speech: "With the ability to jump the fence without running - unapologetic femininity, is it not too feminine? A gentle truthfulness of people - to the point of unsightedness, to the
point of.... I would say (Russian: сказал, masculine) to tastelessness, with
that undoubted natural 'taste' which I feel very clearly" [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 544]. Here, the use of the masculine is partly due to dreams of Zlobin escaping his mother's influence and becoming the father of the family; that is, his masculine gender is seen as a mirror to dreams of Zlobin's inner life form. But as soon as Gippius immediately follows this by recalling Zlobin's love story with Mikhail Slonimsky (a participant in Vengerov's Pushkin Seminar) - she immediately reclaims her feminine gender:
"The story with S<lonimsky> amazed me so much because I had not expected it, precisely with such a thing. It convinced me that I was looking somewhat passionately, without objectivity, at only one thing in you: at your true background, at your ^offe, which in you is very benign (it is undoubted) and I myself was already imagining possible and - impossible patterns on it" [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 544]. Here the mirror of the gender marker is precisely directed at the empirical Zlobin, at his present topography and padding. The word ^offe means the durable fabric on which patterns are embroidered, metaphorically, natural presets. Here, of course, Gippius speaks as woman to woman when she discourses on the innate in Zlobin, but seeks to speak as man to man as she awaits his self-sacrifice and a new stage of life, with all the benignity on the reverse side of gender self-definition
unquestionably intact. Sacred renaming turns out to be a regulative of life stages rather than a sentimental episode of relationship.
Gender token switching can also occur within a single phrase, e.g.: "I was [already] and then, semi-consciously, this side was trying (Russian: пытался, masculine) to guess about something: I looked and said: 'what if I need to sort of die for you?' To which you wisely (really wisely) replied, 'I don't know. I don't want that. But isn't that question above you and me?' Well, yes, it was above" [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 551]. The plot can be outlined as follows: Gippius feels like a man when she reflects on the self-sacrifice that Zlobin must appreciate as a man, in his empirical givenness. On his empirical topics, Gippius constructs the underside of her mask, her reflections on her own social tasks and on sacrifice as 'his'. But at the same time, she publicly appears on the front side as a woman, because she demands from Zlobin precisely a special wisdom that stands above gender divisions.
And Zlobin answers correctly that he does not want self-sacrifice, that is, he wants to be renamed, rather sacrifice himself in a sacred renaming in order to find a new identity. In front of it Gippius dissolves, is ready to give up her name: "I will rather quietly melt, quietly disappear into space, which, of course, will not be without sadness, and even a big one, but not at all like the rude push that would have happened at the beginning of September, when you and I were both unreasonable and when you believed in my 'dreams' as much as I did" [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 551].
The rough push is dreams and intentions presented outwardly, becoming therefore the subject of the interlocutor's beliefs, whereas Gippius speaks of the need for a new topology for both of them, which she organizes in her speech by performatively constructing the gender self-determination of both: "This is the work of the moment (do not forget that both ladders are to the same place, in that they are both mine). And I, more than ever, can outwardly facilitate you in approaching this first rung" [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 551]. The context explicitly says that it is the external instructions that should lead the interlocutor to acquire the will for a new life; this will become part of the topology.
Gippius asserts the dominant position of the mentor. Zlobin's femininity is a lack of will, the letter V, without which Vladimir-Volya (Volya, diminutive of the man name Vladimir, sounds as will in Russian) is only Olya (diminutive of the woman name Olga): "You, dear Olya, lack the 'V'. Very lacking... more. And it is perhaps a finger that you have it, this 'V', you even begin with it, - and yet it is not there, you cannot see it, and you see Olya as you sometimes see only the sickle of the moon, though it is round" [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 546]. That is, the moon-sickle is feminine, and gender-switching is as inevitable as the phases of the moon. Getting into the game, Zlobin signs the letter bigenderly, as VOlya (with two capital letters in the name):
"I love you! It would be enough to write those three words instead of the whole philosophy. I love you so much that I'd be willing to become a whole heart to be eaten by you.
Dear, dear Zinochka [diminutive of the name Zinaida], good morning.
VOlya." [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 568].
That is, Zlobin constructs self-sacrifice as the only way of self-description, telling in the letter both about the troubles of life in the Civil War and
about fatal love. Gippius continues the game and writes back: "My dear girl, my dear Volya, do not be afraid of anything and believe in yourself. As I believe" [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 570]. Here she recognizes his gendered feminine identity as an accomplished phase, but renames it from V/Olya to Volya (Will in Russian), that is, a willful acquisition of internal structure instead of a constant search for self-indulgence. She interiorizes his will as his identity. We may guess, that the name Olya is also refers to the name of the heroine of Poliksena Solovyova's (Russian poetess, genderqueer, sister of philosopher Vladimir Solovyov, signed with the gender-neutral pseudonym Allegro, a word of the neuter gender in Russian) story "The Niece," which Gippius published in the journal New Way [Новый путь] and considered essential to her philosophy of love as a philosophy of the only You [Гиппиус 2018, 863].
The androgyny of the object of love, which for Gippius was Zlobin, as noted by Pavlova, fits into the erotic concept developed by Gippius, which will be reflected later, in particular, in her Arithmetic of Love (1931): "The epistolary romance with Zlobin centers on the idea of 'transfiguration' in androgynous fusion. Relying on O. Weininger's theory of sexual complementation (according to which there are always two beginnings in man: masculinity and femininity), in her messages to Zlobin, Gippius developed the idea of a corresponding inversion: an inverse or mirror correspondence in their bodies of femininity and masculinity" [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 500]. Thus, the movement goes from the quite traditional masculine position of Zlobin, expressed in his impressions of his 1917 encounter with a Women Death Battalion ("oh, how cool it will be for us", men will have to bear children [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 520]), to the manifestation of his own gender ambiguity under the influence of Gippius's concept.
It is remarkable that Zlobin guessed it all: "Saw the women's battalion of death. In your diary there are, I hope, a few short and fair phrases about it" [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 520]. Indeed, Gippius wrote in her diary about the WDB justly, but later, not on August 5, but on October 26, 1917, in connection with reports of violence against the female defenders of the Winter Palace. As Shtayn notes, for Gippius this case was one of the first steps in the Civil War chain: the vilification of the female soldiers was the destruction of the order she was trying to build [Штайн 2024, 82]. Therefore, Gippius could in no way approve of Zlobin's ironic attitude to the women's battalion and clearly began to correct his self-identification.
In Gippius's letters, the shimmering gender self-identity should direct Zlobin's love towards transformation, towards the acquisition of an inner topography of the self as a topography of constant growth: "It's been a long time since I wrote to my dear little girl (and I haven't read her in a year!). I often think about her. I watch her grow up bit by bit. However, in this little girl already sits a grown-up man, only he does not always see himself"; "my dear boy, or girl, I do not know who, but mine" (signed: I, Your 'You') [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 566]; "My dear, big girl, my clever, little boy, mine - unknown who, but someone who understands everything; my joy is that your I grows together with your love" [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 571]. "Yours-Yours," (Russian: Твоя-Твой, feminine and masculine gender by a hyphen) Gippius signs her letter to Zlobin in February 1919 [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 588]. "My gender is being transformed, will be
transformed and.... transformed. Who am I - a man or a woman? I don't
know and... all the same. That's not the point. Such questions are also not yet up to... Both man and woman, if you will. But, at any rate, not a Man, not a Woman, not a Man-child (Russian: мужеложъ, sodomite, мужело-жецъ, without the last syllable, or maybe a portmanteau word combining sodomy, lying, and manliness) or a Lesbian. It's not clear to anyone, so be it. And here's the thing: soul and body are One. This is the 'I'" (NB: English 'I' in the Russian text!), Zlobin responds, signing his letter with a nomination that is significant for both interlocutors: VOLYA [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 592]. Here all letters are capitalized, the all-unity has been achieved.
This emphasis on the uncertainty of her own gender identity and androgyny in biographical terms is manifested through the discussion of unconventional lovers in her correspondence: on Zlobin's side from his student circle Mikhail Slonimsky, Stephan Julien; Gippius mentions her relationships with Marietta Shaginyan and the German pianist Elisabeth von Overbeck (who later lived under a male name: Baron Eugen Borisowitsch Lwoff-Onйgin). O. Matich speaks about the direct connection between the peculiarities of Gippius's gender identity and the formation of her erotic concept, noting Gippius's love of male costume, appropriate pseudonyms and the obscured gender of the lyrical self in her work. Matich considers Gippius's uncertain gender identity and unconventional (virgin) marriage to be the basis of Merezhkovskys' 'erotic utopia' [Matich 2005, 164].
The most important theme related to the life-creative strategy realized in Gippius's epistolary corresponds with Vladimir Solovyov's key texts for her - the cycle of his five articles "The Meaning of Love" published in the journal Questions of Philosophy and Psychology (Вопросы философш и пси-хологш) in 1892-1893. Despite the fact that Gippius tried to emphasize the independence of her thought from Solovyov's teachings on all-unity (всеединство), this cycle substantiated the topoi essential for Gippius and many symbolists: the meaning of love is not in reproduction, but in spiritual creativity aimed at restoring universality of God's will. Adam's original androgyny is restored through love as a knowledge of the Other, which is the acquisition of syzygy, the correct coupling of thoughts and feelings about the Other that unites the two. Intellectual-sensual unity is then part of the general action of the meaning of love as creating a salvific all-unity in God without sexual and other defective divisions. In the context of the correspondence between Gippius and Zlobin under consideration, the concepts of androgyny and the indivisible inseparability of I and Thou as the Other, manifested in true love, are significant in their interrelation. The latter directly correlates with the triad formulated in the letter to Zlobin:
"1) God is 3 and one, in inseparability and immiscibility,
2) God is Love,
3) Love is threefold and one, and inseparable and immiscible.
Love is one, but in each of its Persons, in 1, in 2, in 3, it is perfect, and these Persons are inseparable, though immiscible" [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 562].
According to O.A. Blinova's formulation, "in general, Gippius's three-one task is a milestone on the way to the realization of the project to create androgynous God-humanity" [Блинова 2019, 114]. One can compare Blinova's conclusions about the construction of an androgynous lyrical
subject in Gippius's poems with the same principle projected in Gippius's letter to Zlobin of December 10, 1918 on the relationship between I and You, self-discovery of self through the Other in love: "You yourself must become transparent to yourself, but for this purpose do not look into yourself, but look into me. Let it seem incomprehensible - believe it; you will find, you will see yourself more faithfully, more truly, by looking intently into me. At yourself - through me" [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 558, n. 36]. Gippius constantly returns to this theme in her letters; in particular, on February 5, 1919, she writes: "I need to feel your change as fleshly, physically, as you feel it. Here I do not even want to believe (although I could). I already feel something sometimes, but it's not enough for me, I want to be like you" [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 574]. The motive of mutual transparency of the subjects in the correspondence between Gippius and Zlobin is examined in detail by O. Matich in the chapter "Transcending Gender" [Matich 2005, 162-170].
In the signature of Gippius's 1919 letter. "I, Your 'You'" both lines are united: the androgynous nature of the author of the letter, appearing under a masculine mask, is superimposed on the distinct designation of the two subjects of the epistolary dialog (and love relationship): I and Thou, the subject himself or herself in his or her belonging to the Other while maintaining his or her selfhood. The above-mentioned presentation of her gender in Gippius's letters from this collection also fits into the same context, not only in a direct form, but also through the construction of another's 'mask', which claims to be a renewed identity: the same Self seen and cognized through the Other.
Summarizing shortly, it should be noted once again that the early correspondence between Gippius and Zlobin reflects the complex gendered self-presentation of the participants in this epistolary novel, in the course of which the creation of the younger interlocutor's personality takes place (it is not accidental that the direct reference in Zlobin's letter to the biblical story of the creation of man: "Now I already exist. Into the clay and into the earth, from which (the Russian text uses the masculine gender instead of the correct neuter) was to be, - man - you have blown both life and death - with one breath. Whether I shall perish alone if you go away - I do not know. But I want not to die. And if I do perish, it will be as alive, not as dead," [Гиппиус, Злобин 2021, 553] - from the traditionally masculine to the androgynous, uniting the masculine and feminine, thus striving for the unity of the human and the divine. Epistolary discourse, as O. Matich notes, replaces real Eros in this model, when correspondents achieve intimacy on paper but not in life [Matich 2005, 192]. But, as we have shown, this substitution is a complex construction, going from the public mask to the underside of self-consciousness, and then back to the outside in order to build the architectonics of one's autobiographical myth [Магомедова 2008], a sacralized biographical model, which is repeatedly and diversely embodied in artistic works and ego-documents.
A full-fledged consideration of this topic, of course, requires a kind of diptych, of which in this paper we outline only the first part, related to epistolary. Let us refer here to the specificity of the Symbolist attitude to texts of life and literature noted by D.M. Magomedova [Магомедова 1996, 113], which requires the study of correspondence from a twofold point of
view: poetics proper as the internal organization of epistolary dialogue (which we have attempted to do) and the correlation between correspondence and fiction. To summarize the preliminary results, we should admit that the correspondence between Gippius and Zlobin, reflecting both biographical and metaphysical (in Solovyov sense) contexts, demonstrates the organic plasticity and mobility of the gender model noted by V.B. Zuseva-D,zkan and E.V. Kuznetsova in general in relation to the culture of Russian modernism [Зусева-Озкан 2022, 18].
ЛИТЕРАТУРА (RUSSIAN)
1. Блинова О.А. «Арифметика любви» versus «Смысл любви»: неслиянность и нераздельность мысли Зинаиды Гиппиус и Владимира Соловьева // Соловьев-ские исследования. 2019. Вып. 3 (63). С. 106-120.
2. Воронина О.А. Гендерные аспекты идентичности // Человек. 2012. № 6. С. 15-31.
3. Гиппиус З.Н. Письма З.Н. Гиппиус к П.С. Соловьевой (1901-1914) / публ. О.А. Блиновой // Литературное наследство. Т. 106: Эпистолярное наследие З.Н. Гиппиус. Кн. 1. М.: ИМЛИ РАН, 2018. С. 858-888.
4. Гиппиус З.Н., Злобин В.А. Переписка 1916-1919 гг. / публ. М.М. Павловой // Литературное наследство. Т. 106: Эпистолярное наследие З.Н. Гиппиус. Кн. 2. М.: ИМЛИ РАН, 2021. С. 493-604.
5. Зусева-Озкан В.Б., при участии Кузнецовой Е.В. Введение // Женщина модерна: гендер в русской культуре 1890-1930-х гг. М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 2022. С. 9-24.
6. Каплун М.В. Фемининно-маскулинная образность романа О. Миртова «Мертвая зыбь» // Текст. Книга. Книгоиздание. 2023. № 32. С. 5-25.
7. Магомедова Д.М. Автобиографический миф // Поэтика: словарь актуальных терминов и понятий / гл. науч. ред. Н.Д. Тамарченко. М.: Изд-во Кулагиной - Intrada, 2008. С. 10-11.
8. Магомедова Д.М. Автобиографический миф в творчестве А. Блока. М.: Мартин, 1997. 224 с.
9. Павлова М.М. Переписка З.Н. Гиппиус с В.А. Злобиным (1916-1919) [вступительная статья] // Литературное наследство. Т. 106: Эпистолярное наследие З.Н. Гиппиус. Кн. 2. М.: ИМЛИ РАН, 2021. С. 493-507.
10. Тюпа В.И. Нарративная идентичность: характер и самость // Белые чтения: к 85-летию Галины Андреевны Белой. М.: Эдитус, 2016. С. 285-296.
11. Флоренский П. А. Священное переименование. Изменение имен как внешний знак перемен в религиозном сознании [1907]. М.: Издательство храма святой мученицы Татианы, 2006. 360 с.
12. Чечнёв Я.Д. Кризис маскулинности в романе Константина Вагинова «Гарпагониана» // Conversatoria Litteraria. 2021. Т. 15. С. 133-147.
13. Штайн О.А. Зинаида Гиппиус // Штайн О.А. Женщины-философы. Мыслительницы, изменившие мир / под ред. А.В. Маркова. М.: АСТ, 2024. 256 c.
14. Штайн О.А. Маска: стратегии идентичности. СПб.: Алетейя, 2015. 178 с.
15. Matich O. Erotic Utopia. The Decadent Imagination in Russia's Fin de Srncle. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2005. 304 p.
REFERENCES (Articles from Scientific Journals)
1. Blinova O.A. "Arifmetika lyubvi" versus "Smysl lyubvi": nesliyannost' i nerazdel'nost' mysli Zinaidy Gippius i Vladimira Solov'yeva ["The Arithmetic of Love" versus "The Meaning of Love": The Inconsistency and Inseparability of the
Thoughts of Zinaida Gippius and Vladimir Solovyov"]. Solovyevskiye issledovaniya, 2019, vol. 3 (63), pp. 106-120. (In Russian).
2. Chechnev Ya.D. Krizis maskulinnosti v romane Konstantina Vaginova Garpagoniana [The Crisis of Masculinity in Konstantin Vaginov's Novel Harpagonian]. Conversatoria Litteraria, 2021, vol. 15, pp. 133-147. (In Russian).
3. Kaplun M.V. Femininno-maskulinnaya obraznost' romana O. Mirtova "Mertvaya zyb'" [Feminine-masculine Imagery of O. Mirtov's Novel "Dead Swell"] Tekst. Kniga. Knigoizdaniye, 2023, no. 32, pp. 5-25. (In Russian).
4. Voronina O.A. Gendernyye aspekty identichnosti [Gender Aspects of Identity]. Chelovek, 2012, no. 6, pp. 15-31. (In Russian).
(Articles from Proceedings and Collections of Research Papers)
5. Gippius Z.N., Zlobin V.A. (authors), Pavlova M.M. (ed.). Perepiska 19161919 gg. [Correspondence 1916-1919]. Literaturnoye nasledstvo. T. 106: Epistolyarnoye naslediye Z.N. Gippius. Kn. 2 [Literary Heritage. Epistolary Heritage of Z.N. Gippius. Book 2]. Moscow, IWL RAS Publ., 2021, pp. 493-604. (In Russian).
6. Gippius Z.N. (author), Blinova O.A. (ed.). Pis'ma Z.N. Gippius k P.S. Solov'yevoy (1901-1914) [Letters from Z.N. Gippius to P.S. Solovyova (19011914)]. Literaturnoye nasledstvo. T. 106: Epistolyarnoye naslediye Z.N. Gippius. Kn. 1 [Literary Heritage. Epistolary Heritage of Z.N. Gippius. Book 1]. Moscow, IWL RAS Publ., 2018, pp. 858-888. (In Russian).
7. Magomedova D.M. Avtobiograficheskiy mif [Autobiographical Myth]. Tamarchenko N.D. (ed.). Poetika: slovar' aktual'nykh terminov i ponyatiy [Poetics: A Dictionary of Current Terms and Concepts]. Moscow, Kulagina Publishing House -Intrada Publ., 2008, pp. 10-11. (In Russian).
8. Pavlova M.M. Perepiska Z.N. Gippius s V.A. Zlobinym (1916-1919) [Correspondence of Z.N. Gippius with V.A. Zlobin (1916-1919)] [Introductory Article]. Literaturnoye nasledstvo. T. 106: Epistolyarnoye naslediye Z.N. Gippius. Kn. 2. [Literary Heritage. Epistolary Heritage of Z.N. Gippius. Book 2]. Moscow, IWL RAS Publ., 2021, pp. 493-507. (In Russian).
9. Tyupa V.I. Narrativnaya identichnost': kharakter i samost' [Narrative Identity: Character and Self]. Belyye chteniya: k 85-letiyu Galiny Andreyevny Beloy [Belye Readings: To the 85th Anniversary of Galina Andreevna Belaya]. Moscow, Editus Publ., 2016, pp. 285-296. (In Russian).
10. Zuseva-Ozkan V.B., with the participation of Kuznetsova E.V. Vvedenie [Introduction]. Zhenshchina moderna: gender v russkoy kul'ture 1890-1930-kh gg. [Modern Woman: Gender in Russian Culture of the 1890-1930s.] Moscow, Novoye Literaturnoye Obozreniye Publ., 2022, pp. 9-24. (In Russian).
(Monographs)
11. Florensky P.A. Svyashchennoye pereimenovaniye. Izmeneniye imen kak vneshniy znak peremen v religioznom soznanii [Sacred Renaming. Changing Names as an External Sign of Change in Religious Consciousness] [1907]. Moscow, Izdatel'stvo khrama svyatoy muchenitsy Tatiany, 2006. 360 p. (In Russian).
12. Magomedova D.M. Avtobiograficheskiymifvtvorchestve A.Bloka [Autobiographical Myth in the Works of A. Blok]. Moscow, Martin Publ., 1997. 224 p. (In Russian).
13. Matich O. Erotic Utopia. The Decadent Imagination in Russia's Fin de Siucle. Madison, WI, University of Wisconsin Press, 2005. 304 p. (In English).
14. Shtayn O.A. Maska: strategii identichnosti [Mask: Strategies of Identity]. St. Petersburg, Aletheya Publ., 2015. 178 p. (In Russian).
15. Shtayn O.A. (author), Markov A.V. (ed.). Zhenshchiny-flosofy. Myslitel'nitsy, izmenivshiye mir [Women Philosophers. Thinkers who Changed the World]. Moscow, AST Publ., 2024. 256 p. (In Russian).
Alexander V. Markov,
Russian State University for the Humanities.
Doctor of Philology, Professor at the Department of Cinema and Contemporary Art.
Research interests: theory of literature and art.
E-mail: markovius@gmail.com
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6874-1073
Olga V. Fedunina,
A.M. Gorky Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Candidate of Philology, Senior Researcher, Department "Literaturnoe Nasledstvo" ("Literary Heritage").
Research interests: history of Russian literature of the 19th-21st centuries, theory of literature, poetics of epic genres.
E-mail: fille.off@gmail.com
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6874-248X
Марков Александр Викторович,
Российский государственный гуманитарный университет.
Доктор филологических наук, профессор кафедры кино и современного искусства.
Научные интересы: теория литературы и искусства.
E-mail: markovius@gmail.com
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6874-1073
Федунина Ольга Владимировна,
Институт мировой литературы имени A.M. Горького РАН.
Кандидат филологических наук, старший научный сотрудник отдела «Литературное наследство».
Научные интересы: история русской литературы XIX-XXI вв., теория литературы, поэтика эпических жанров.
E-mail: fille.off@gmail.com
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6874-248X
