The article considers cases of narrative using of the so-called borderline states of consciousness, bifurcated between the orientation toward the external and internal reality in Russian classics (Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov). If in psychiatry this type of splitting in psychiatry can be considered as a symptom of insanity, then in classical literary discourse it is used as a narrative modification that performs a certain artistic function. In the examples considered, the borderline states narrative represents the culture of the “secluded” self-consciousness formed by romanticism in its crisis manifestations. The origin of the absurd narrative inPetersburg’s novels by Gogol that was widely spread in the literature of the twentieth century is revealed in the article.

In the present article an attempt is made to bring Novalis’ fragments into correlation with pre-romantic poetological tradition. This tradition was not rejected by Novalis, but rather was used as a material for his own theoretical constructions. A few examples demonstrate that the European poetological topoi, though variously transformed, retain significance for Novalis. Thus, Novalis turnes to the topos “poetry is a reflection of cosmic music” when he asserts the unity of the poetic meters and the rhythms of the universe. He also creates his own variation on the topos “poetry is the sum of all sciences” which has ancient roots and is often found in Renaissance “Defences of poetry”. Realization of this topos Novalis refers to the future when poetry becomes the universal form for all sciences.

In thoughts of the poet Novalis oscillates between opposite poetological poles, sometimes leaning towards the Horatian topos of the poet-sage and attributing to the poet the gift of omniscience, and sometimes varying Platonic topos of the “poet possessed by the Muses” (in Novalis’ case the poet is taken by the “great rhythm” of the universe unconsciously obeying to some cosmic laws). Finally, the idea of mimesis as a “dramatic” immersion in another personality (the idea which goes back to Plato) is translated into fragments where the genius is credited with the ability to absorb other personalities and to be simultaneously several people.

The article considers an issue of the paratext formulated by J.-M. Tomasso and G. Genette. The monograph “Thresholds” by Gerard Genette is built as a detailed analysis of each of the possible paratextual elements accompanying the text. Genette describes each of the elements through the definition of its functional, local and temporal features. He also formulates the initial postulate of the paratext unity with the text itself.

The drama, in contrast to the narrative, deals with the speech of characters themselves and the author puts his comments only in paratext (in the title, remarks, the list of characters, the nomination of characters before the replica, in the rubric division). So paratext is a semantic core of the drama and it is often in it that the basic attitudes of perception are formed.

The main issues raised in the article are the correlation of the two levels of dramaturgic text and the distinguishing constitute parts of paratext, the terminological discussions around the concept of paratext. There are a number of concepts in Russian literary criticism for denotation the paratext of a dramatic work: didaskalia, stage directions, a framework text, a subject sphere in drama, forms of authorial presence. The use of the term “paratext” instead of the others means not only a description of the formal structure of the work by dividing it into text and behind-text elements, but also the correlation of the two components, and the purpose of their impact on the recipient.

The article considers Jean Jacque Rousseau’s Social Contract as a source of Shatov’s idea of god-bearing people in Dostoevsky’s Demons. Rousseau’s treatise is juxtaposed with Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathanas manifesting the typical Enlightenment ideology that is in essence anti-Christian even though it professes outward respect for the Christian faith. The article considers the transformation of the idea of the divine right of kings in Hobbes where the people are endowed with the power to vest their sovereign with essentially divine authority. The article also considers Rousseau’s descriptions of gods as nations’ collective identities. Shatov’s theory is demonstrated to be a logical continuation of the ideas proposed in Rousseau’s Social Contract.

. The author justifies the necessity to include the category of “simultaneous coexistence” (Bakhtin) of events in eternity for the research of artistic space, this simultaneity is considered through explicit and implicit levels. Events of “simultaneous coexistence” aim to instate the reality of the event in its correlation with a vertical chronotope. An important example of such a category the author finds in oxymoron constructions, revealed in the formula “concordia discors”. This formula was described by Alain de Lille, applying to the medieval courteous novel. Through the prism of this formula, in the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” such oppositions, as “love-hate”, “high-low”, “evil-good”, “cheerful-sad”, “life-death” were revealed. The brevity of the tension between two oppositions, a brief moment coexists with relatively constant models of characters behavior. One may say that those formulas become examples of contraction of “eternity” in the moment. In conclusion the author gives an explanation, why “simultaneous coexistence” of events in eternity determines the specificity of its artistic space in a polyphonic novel. The artistic spaсe creating depends on the type of character and his desire to reach the level of a supreme reality of the vertical chronotope; the narrator plays a secondary role.

The author of the article investigates the circumstances (biographical, ideological, historical, literary, textual), according to which D.S. Merezhkovsky, who repeatedly changed the composition of the book «Eternal Companions» (based, as it is known, on the writer’s early publications), discarded and never included any part of his literary-critical and journalistic works of the 1880s-1890s (with the exception of the brochure «On the causes of decline and on new trends of modern Russian literature») in his lifetime books and collected works. For the first time, based on numerous ego documents («Autobiographical note» of the writer, his epistolary, including the archival, legacy and the memoirs of contemporaries), with the involvement of responses from reviewers of Merezhkovsky’s early articles scattered around periodicals and for the most part never republished, it is proposed to look at the texts that turned out to be ultimately on the sidelines of the author’s attention, not immanently and not within the framework of his extensive literary-critical heritage, which was repeatedly discussed by scholars, but in connection with the self-representation of the writer. As a result, the conclusion is substantiated that those «forgotten» speeches of Merezhkovsky, on the one hand, provide rich material for comparing them with the «ceremonial» self-portrait that the writer created in his lifetime publications, and on the other hand, bring to a new level the conversation about the correctness of the thesis on the “total unity of the artistic world” of Merezhkovsky beyond the context of the author’s supercyclical formations.

The article highlights some little-known facts about the controversy around the magazine “Novy Put’ ”, which served as a pretext for prohibiting the Religious-philosophical meetings. The authors of the article make an attempt of the reconstruction and historical-philological analysis of the debate, which had a great influence on the literary and philosophical life in the beginning the 20th century. An undoubted great role in that collision was played by N.A. Lukhmanova’s article “Who gave them the right?”, which was devoted to the ethical propriety of discussing the religious topics in the pages of popular publications. Largely against the author’s desire, the article was involved in a wide newspaper campaign opposing the magazine “Novy Put’ ”. Opponents skillfully used Lukhmanova’s article, interpreted it according to their goals, often paying much more attention to the writer’s personality than to her point of view. Two camps also arose around Lukhmanova: the prosecutors made traditionally characterizing women claims of the hysteria and incontinence and the defenders created an equally traditional image of an “innocent victim”. The authors bring to literature usage not only new information concerning polemics, but at the same time consider the role of women in journalism of that time, what, despite the appearance of an increasing number of women-writers in periodical, was often perceived with hostility according to then acting canons of Patriarchal society.

The article analyzes the beliefs about Moscow in the S. Krzhizhanovsky’s story in letters “The Stamp: Moscow”. Its main purpose is to study the peculiarities of Moscow’s vision, its presentation in the text in relation to the subject organization of the story. The methodological basis of the article is the theory of historical development and the complementarity of such categories as the image and concept, formulated in the works of O.M. Freudenberg. In the Krzhizhanovsky’s story, categories of the image and concept are also the subject of reflection, but there they are sharply contrasted, while at the level of poetics they turn out to be complementary. The novelty of the article is determined by the fact that “The Stamp: Moscow” has so far practically never been the subject of a special literary examination. Moreover, in the story Moscow, if it was considered, then only as a space or a character, without a detailed conceptual analysis. As a result, conclusions are drawn about the specifics of the vision and understanding of Moscow as a multidimensional, figurative and conceptual category related to the perception by the subject of telling himself and his work.