Scientific paradigm needs to be changed every 2-3 generations

Вернуться к публикациям Архив проектов

What is contemporary “Pushkinistika”? How has this discipline been formed, what is going on in it now and what is its place in the contemporary humanitarian knowledge?

As in all specialized branches like this, there are several different schools, trends in contemporary Pushkinistika which are in contradiction with each other or, in any case, are not in quite peaceful relations. First of all, the so-called academic Pushkinistika still exists, though may be not so heartily, that traces its roots back to the beginning of the XX century and that determined or at least tried to determine study of Pushkin in the USSR. It could be called the “St. Petersburg school of Pushkinistika” inasmuch as its representatives were closely related to our city. It presumed studying the whole corpus of Pushkin’s texts with positivist methods. Whatever the numerous rivals of positivism said, it remains now and, I’m convinced, will ever remain the basis of scientific knowledge as long as the text and the whole world exist.
This school has become the most powerful in Soviet times. The matter is that academic Pushkinistika had always an editing task; it was directed at editing texts, auxiliary reference materials…

Did classical Russian textual study, in point of fact, originate from it?

Quite right. It happened so that Pushkin had left an enormous number of manuscripts. Not many writers have such great archives. We can’t certainly be sure that all Pushkin’s texts, his rough notebooks reached us, not at all. There was, for sure, something that we don’t even suspect to be, that has never been reflected in documents. But nevertheless the main achievements of classical academic Pushkinistika were, of course, in one or another way connected with studying of texts in different redactions, preparing them for publication. Its defects were also connected with this. In my view, it had a utopian and unfulfilled task - separation from the whole corpus of Pushkin’s manuscripts some amount of the so-called “definitive texts”. It often resulted in separation from the unfinished rough texts, with the help of different conjunctures, fantasies and other manipulations, rather complete and often very good poetries that Pushkin had never written though and even never kept in his mind; if he had read them, he would be in many cases very much surprised.

It reminds Pasternak when he could never precisely render Akhmatova’s verses reading them in her presence, always changing and transposing something. She said to him: “You, Boris Leonidovich, are always improving me!”

Looks very much like…
Such attention to manuscripts, rough notebooks, plans as well as their attempts to restore the creative history of verses often resulted in the fact, that editors-Pushkinists gave preference to manuscripts and handwritten variants rather than to printed texts. That happened, sometimes, for ideological reasons, sometimes – just because of somebody’s tastes (it seemed that “so” is better), but result was the same: a subjective decision was made.
I remember, how deceased Maxim Shapir, remarkable scientist, however an attitude to his theories and philological methods may be, published once an article “What “Onegin” do we read?” where he showed that Boris Victorovich Tomashevsky, the greatest textual critic, Pushkinist who was preparing “Eugene Onegin” for issue in Pushkin big academic complete works (and later in popular ten-volumes edition) had proposed in a number of cases the reading of word or verse which had never existed in any of printed variants of Eugene Onegin; neither in separately issued chapters, nor in two editions of the poem in his lifetime. Why did he do that? Shapir accused him of distorting Pushkin for ideological reasons. But in fact there were not many such cases. Shapir exaggerated the degree of Tomashevsky’s ideological servility. He wanted supposedly to embody Pushkin more liberal and progressive writer than he actually had been. The point is the research aim at priority of the manuscript played itself a negative role.
There is also Moscow Pushkinistiks, besides St. Petersburg’s one. This is fable, ideologically coloured Pushkinistika. It tries to follow the traditions of the first religious philosophers of the first half of the XX century, but as to me, it’s not interesting at all. I don’t share the ideological goals of this school, and that’s why everything they write about Pushkin seems to be unpersuasive.
Deceased professor Mikhail P. Gasparov said once that Pushkin’s inner world was as alien to us, as that of an ancient Assyrian or dog Kashtanka. Yes, on the whole, he exaggerated, certainly, like he used to do from time to time for focusing of thought. But in reality we often project on Pushkin and other writers of the past our today’s conceptions and our own values which are as transient as those of other epochs.

In essence, he reproduced the famous Lotman’s idea that for adequate understanding of Pushkin it was not enough to know everything he had known – theoretically it was possible. But it was necessary to forget everything Pushkin could not have known…

Right, it’s necessary to forget. To study Pushkin it’s necessary also to forget Semen Frank, Ivan Ilyin, Sergey Bulgakov, all his interpreters of religious kind, beginning with Vladimir Solovyov. If we study Pushkin’s religious notions, let’s content ourselves to metropolitan Philaret.
Besides these two distinctly defined schools there are also independent Pushkinists of different generations who work with various methods using certainly achievements of academic Pushkin’s study and trying to apply to Pushkin some new approaches elaborated during past 30-40 years. For example, inter-textual study – here the book “Pushkin’s poetry or A Lively palimpsest” by Oleg Proskurin should be mentioned. Some models were created by culturology (in good sense of this word, but not what is called “cultural studies”), etc.

And what is going on in Pushkinistika now? One has a sensation that Pushkin plays now an absolutely particular role not only in humanitarian knowledge of Russia, but also in Russian life as a whole. He proved to be on of the few Russian writers, on whom tsar’s point of view coincided with that of Soviet power, as well as with that of the best representatives of humanitarian intelligence – all of them called him in chorus “the first poet”. Recently it was suggested in earnest that Pushkin should be reckoned among the images of Holies, canonized. Is now Pushkinistiks such a centre – if not of the humanities, but at least of philology?

Not in the least. Points of view to Pushkin differ, they are far from coinciding. There were and are still now more than few persons interested to throw him off from the ship of contemporaneity. And Pushkin is also considered to be “the first poet” for different reasons. His closest friends did not like that Pushkin “russophiled” and smashed the West”. “You know, my dear fellow, who don’t you go at least to Lubek”, said Alexander I. Turgenev for that. “Pushin burst in laughing”, recalls Pyotr Vyazemsky. “And the laugh has disarmed him”. As for many contemporary readers, Pushkin is nice for them because of some tomfooleries that he could himself laugh at.
It is historically established that Pushkin became a central figure of Russian literature. Not at once, by the way. There were epochs when Pushkin receded into the background, but then his role in culture increased again. But this Pushkin’s position is a fact, it was created during more than one decade – and one must take it into consideration as Russian national phenomenon. There is nothing bad in it. If culture is the aggregate of a number of things, notions, conception, tastes, persuasions, norms of behaviour general for a certain group of people – the community consisting of attentive Pushkin’s readers, I should tell you, is not the worst subculture, whatever say those who want to prove that there is no any “authority’s discourse” and must not be. I belong to that subculture with great pleasure.
But Pushkinistics can’t be in the centre of philological science. First of all because it became much weaker now, both in Russia and in the whole world. After powerful Pushkinistiks of 1910-1940 years, when the above-mentioned editions have been preparing, when volumes “Pushkin and his contemporaries” have been issued, the creative energy began to exhaust and after Lotman’s and Vatsuro’s death there are no scholars, who would be so brilliant specialists in the whole Pushkin epoch and remembering the smallest scrap of Pushkin’s manuscript. There are good scientists, certainly, but not a lot. I have understood it when we were proceeding with my friends and colleagues – Osipov A.L. and David Betea to the work at 12 volumes Pushkin’s collected works, parallel to the academic one. At the beginning I suggested to publish at least that works, which had been issued in his life-time. That is to say to reproduce with photo-tipical method, after old orfography those books that were published in 1820s-1830s, that he hold himself in his hands and that were read by his contemporaries. We began with “Poems and novels” in two volumes and the first volume is already issued, although is not on sale yet.
In editions of this kind textological problems are on the back burner. We are deliberated from the incredible pressure of manuscripts layers, author’s correcting, vaguely readable rough note-books and present Pushkin’s texts in such condition which they had becoming a literary fact in his epoch.
The major task consists in providing these texts (often defected, with censorial impressments, with a number of misprints, uncaught by Pushkin or Pletnev who helped him) with possibly more complete scientific commentary. That was not possible in Soviet time. The party and government did not like for some reason the genre of commentary. They said: “Who we are publishing? Pushkinists, but not Pushkin”, and they prohibited commentaries to the academic collected works. That is why, a propos, is the paradox: on the one hand – Pushkin is the most studied writer, it’s impossible to read all the literature devoted to him during the whole life, on the other hand – we don’t have any properly commented edition, which would reflect observations of several generations of researchers.
The first issued volume was prepared by Oleg Proskurin and Nikita Okhotin. I believe, they have accomplished a scientific feat. I saw the commentaries, and in my opinion it’s a great event in philology. But it concerns only his early poems, only the first volume. As to the second volume everything is going off not so smoothly, because there is shortage of people, who could professionally prepare commentaries for the poems. And I’m terrified to think what concerns the following volumes – who will make them? Let us assume that “Boris Godunov” has been prepared by the employees of Pushkin House edited by Mariya Virolainen and with my participation. But they have been preparing the volume of Pushkin drama for edition in new academic collected works for many years, and it was rather easy for them to use their own works. And regarding the other texts? Where are young professionally prepared philologists – pushkinists, who could be engaged in this interesting, but very complicated work?
There is shortage of them not only in Russia, but in the West. We have recently put in Internet an announcement that a seminar would take place in Oxford and we would like to invite young specialists willing to take part in our edition and become commentators of the following volumes. As a result we have received only 15 applications from all over the world. Seven of applicants were invited to Oxford. How many of these seven persons will be able to help our edition – I don’t aware.

What countries were the applications sent from?

First of all, certainly, from Russia; then from Estonia and the USA.

If we began to oppose what is going on in the field of Pushkinistica in Russia and in the West – could you compare the approach of Western and Russian scientists to the Pushkin’s study, the received results?

Well, the difference is determined in many aspects by the fact that western researchers don’t have a constant access to Pushkin archives. It doesn’t mean they are not allowed, they certainly come and work there, but how much can be done during one month? Now, in fact the Pushkin’s notebooks are issued thanks to the help of Prince of Wales – it’s a remarkable edition, that facilitate considerably for researchers – independently of their residency the access to Pushkin’s rough note-books. But in general western scientists orientate less for the writer’s manuscripts than Russian ones. They use the existing texts and that’s why are more inclined to interpretation of the texts.

Are there any methodological divergences?

Certainly, there are. I don’t know precisely well the situation in German-speaking and Franco-speaking Pushkinistika, but in English-speaking world the notion “philology” is absent at all. I recommend you to have a look in “British encyclopaedia and to read a clause “philology”. It occupies only one paragraph, and it’s written there that it’s an obsolete notion dated to the XIX century, which is no longer in use. The conception about philology as science about language and literature, adopted in Russia, doesn’t exist there.

Well yes, they have a conception of general humanitarian knowledge comprising equally literature, culture, politics and journalism – that can not be studied separately.

Yes, sure.

Can anything be done with the help of such methodology?

There are some attempts of interpreting plan. For example they read through the novel “Eugene Onegin” in gentle feminist spirit. And the central personage is, certainly, Tatiana. She is not simply the central personage, but a heroine equal to the author and even superior to the author in significance, nothing to say of poor Eugene Onegin… Researches appear, reminiscent of what we called vulgar sociology and repeating the old songs of soviet literary critics in new arrangement. Practically all new is half-forgotten past, but exposed by metaphorical language of Foucault and Lacan.

You are a professor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison University. I’ve been once in your university and have seen a huge library devoted to Pushkin – the whole study where his editions, thousands of works about him, including the rare xero-copies are standing. How all this had come into being, how the tradition of Pushkin studies had arisen in your University?

All this has arisen thanks to one person – the most eminent American pushkinist Tomas Show. His works are well known in Russia, they are translated into Russian. He has composed the concordances of Pushkin’s, Batushkov’s, Baratynsky poetry, the Pushkin’s rhymes dictionary. Among his works there are a lot of special researches: about Pushkin’s orthography, his rhymes, etc. He is, unfortunately, seriously ill now. But namely he must be called the founder of American Pushkinistika and even broader - of the whole American Slavic study.
His scientific biography is the most interesting history of the individual discovery of Pushkin. It reminds me another story of another outstanding American scientist – Josef Frank, who has written the five-volume biography of Dostoevsky. Frank spent 30 years of his life for this work. In 1940s he became famous as one of the most talented young literary critics and theorists. For whatever reason Dostoevsky became necessary to him and he began reading Dostoevsky, it is clear in English. At that time he knew practically nothing about Russian literature and did not possess Russian language. Dostoevsky had stricken him to such an extent that he decided to occupy with him more profoundly and has become a specialist in Russian philology.

It’s interesting why, in your opinion, just Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, poets of the XX century are in the West on the first place among Russian writers, but not Pushkin. Pushkin is esteemed, liked and studied, but he is far to take in readers’ and researchers’ minds such a place like in Russia?

Firstly, it’s just because it’s easier and more interesting to read prose rather than poetry. Secondly, everything that is connected with stereotyped concept about Russian consciousness, Russian world vision, Russian religiosity, Russian “wideness”, singularity, if you wish – they are associated first of all with great novelists – Tolstoy, Dostoevsky who in fact have opened to the western readers what is so wrongly called “Russian soul”. Pushkin in translation sounds like a quite banal poet of a first third of the XIX century, not in the least better or worth than middle level poet existed in English, French, German literature of that time.

In other words, in translation there is no difference between Pushkin and, say, Delvig?

In translation, there is not. Why Nabokov could not translate “Eugene Onegin” in verses and instead of such an unreadable monster has created a word-by-word translation? Because he has made certain that as soon as we build a 14-lines “Onegin’s” strophe with iambic tetrameter and customary by Pushkin system of rhymes, this text in English begin to sound against one’s will such a secondary Bayron.

There is a projection related to the national cultural background, national literary memory.

Yes, and we all have to come to it in the end. Were you the smartest person in the world and genius of poetical translation, but you must lay verses of “Eugene Onegin” in iambic tetrameter! You must rhyme it exactly like in poem! And that’s it. There are very good, easy readable, rather exact English translations, but they leave the readers indifferent, this remarkable Pushkin’s easiness that we feel in Russian text disappears somewhere.
The same thing is with prose. Still Tolstoy told about Pushkin’s prose: “Somehow nakedly”. When it’s translated into another language – it turns out to be entirely naked. Just the other day I talked with wonderful translators, a married couple – Larissa Volkhonskaya and Richard Pivear, who have translated into English all Russian classical prose: Gogol, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Tchekhov, Bulgakov…many writers. And I ask them: ”What are you going to do now?” They answer: “Thinking over “Tales of Belkin”. But it’s so complicated! Texts of such complexity we have not had before” But on the other hand, look: after their style Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are much more complicated than Pushkin. Here is this Pushkin’s “simplicity”: short phrases, simple syntax, translators are facing practically insoluble tasks.

One has to translate the intonation.

Yes, right. But it’s very difficult. So then, returning to the beginnings of Pushkinistika in Madison – Tomas Show has also absolutely unexpectedly opened for himself Pushkin (his first specialty is literary critic - Anglicist, he was occupied with English literature). He read once in English the verse: “I loved you once; perhaps that love has yet…” – and it startled him, seemed to be a bit strange in thought and feeling. He decided to see how it’s in original, in Russian – and began to study Russian. As a result, he came so enthusiastic about Pushkin that he has become a specialist in Slavic philology and a founder of the chair of Slavic philology, where I’m working now.
He has also founded the Association of American specialists in Slavic philology, created one of the first American magazines in Slavic studies, begun to collect all the literature about Pushkin, and as a result a splendid Pushkin center with a wonderful library created by him is still functioning.

To what kind of Pushkinistika you refer yourself? I ask you, taking into consideration, that your new book “Pushkin and England” has been just issued, the title makes us speak about the traditions of Russian comparavistics.

Strictly speaking, it seems to me that in regard to Pushkin culture “compare” is a wrong word. Because French literature was for Pushkin his own, native as Russian. To study Pushkin without knowledge of French language, French and English literature (not even in English in original, but in French translations or versifications) is just inadmissible; this is the very context that I actually try to study. Pushkin and his educated contemporaries existed in the context that should be named multilingual.
In my book “Pushkin and England” I try to understand how Pushkin was reading English literature. It’s very difficult, that’s why I have to try to forget what I know about English literature from the books of the XX century. Let’s say, we know that till 1828 Pushkin did not know English at all. He read Bayron in French in prosaic translations. The authors of many works on the theme “Pushkin and Bayron” (this is a banal theme) read Bayron in Russian translations, made besides that in XX century. Thereby they put themselves in wittingly losing position since they work with such Bayron that could be read neither by Pushkin, nor by his contemporaries.
That’s why I try, on the one hand, to read English literature with Pushkin’s eyes, on the other hand, to look at Pushkin’s works in which the circle of his English reading was reflected.

But it’s already far not this pure comparavistics that we can see in the works of your predecessors – Zhirmunsky, Alexeev…

Certainly. They were not occupied with that. I treat Alexeev’s and Zhirmunsky’s works with much respect, but it seems to me, that great factual material collected by them comes mainly to mechanical comparisons. And I’d like exactly reveal the mechanism of how Pushkin often half-understanding perceived English literature. And quite often this half-understanding or even incomprehension proves to be more productive, more powerful. It gives to Pushkin the strongest creative impulse.
I’ll cite one small example, I’m writing about it in my book. Bayron has a drama “Sardanapal”. Pushkin has a note, where he writes that in “Sardanapal” Bayron depicted Peter I and Catherine II. I assure you, neither Bayron, nor anybody of his English-speaking or French-speaking readers have though about Peter I or Catherine II. This parallel came to mind only to Pushkin, because it was consonant with his own interests. And six years later the statue of Peter I, founder of Russian empire will come to life in Pushkin’s work and will gallop along the streets of utterly another city.
That is how Pushkin was reading. And we can talk about relations between Pushkin and Bayron, as much as we like, but the most interesting thing, as it seems to me, arises when Pushkin’s perception of foreign text turns to be inadequate but nevertheless excites his own poetical imagination.

Today students, post-graduate students, young scientists who want to concern themselves to Pushkin hear very often: “What to do there? Everything is done and studied since long”. You’ve said now about one of the ways of work – commentation of Pushkin. Is it possible to make any discovery now, say, in comprehension of Pushkin?

It’s possible to do a lot. First of all it’s necessary to clear away the obstructions in Pushkinistika formed during hundred years. Along with major achievements which will remain for centuries, an unbounded literature about Pushkin is overfilled with outmoded and simply false conceptions, stereotypes and mistakes passing through many works.
As it’s known, the scientific paradigm needs to be changed every 2-3 generation. A serious revision of the whole previous knowledge takes place during this change. It’s exactly such time in Pushkinistika now.
New interpretations, finding of new underlying themes are also, certainly, possible. But all the same, commentation, in the broadest sense, is the most important thing. For example, Pushkin Library is kept in Pushkin House. It’s described in a unique catalogue of Boris L. Modzalevsky, which is in common use, but there are omissions and inaccuracies in it. It’s clear – the scientist had to by oneself look through and describe more than one thousand books. About 95% of the catalogue information coincides with the real state, but 5% of convergences are rather significant divergence. One can find new marks, get to know what were Pushkin’s prime interests.
Far not all sources that Pushkin has used are found out. Most often they are in the library, but simply stay unopened. Books have being kept for years, decades, but nobody of scientists takes them in hand.
I’ll give you another example. Recently, I’ve been indulged in Pushkin’s mystification “The last Janne d’Ark’s relative by marriage”. Pushkin has concocted Janne d’Ark brother’s descendant under the name Dulis and his conflict with Voltair. This mystification has been much written about, but till now nobody has posed a question: wherefrom, in fact, Pushkin learned any details about Jenne d’Ark descendants?

But to pose correctly a question is the main thing in science.

Exactly. Here is a simple question that nobody has posed before in science.
Let’s take the catalogue from Pushkin library, we’ll see that there is one book in French “Process of Janne d”Ark”. Further, let’s take this very book. Its title can’t say anything about heroine’s descendants. Open the book. It’s found, that there is an appendix consisting of 10 pages “History of Ionna d’Ark’s family” where these very documents about Janne’s brothers and their offspring that Pushkin refers to are cited.
Let’s have more attentive look. It appears that only these pages are cut up in the book. Pages about the process were not cut up, but those ones about family were. And when we compare this document with what is written by Pushkin, it becomes obviously clear that Pushkin was writing abracadabra, doing it on purpose. He has mixed up heterogeneous data from different sources. In his book the Dulis’s estate is located in three provinces of France at the same time.
Having tracked how Pushkin handled the sources, we can make a conclusion about genre nature of the text. It turns out, that from the very beginning he was writing a mythical falsification, not worrying absolutely about its verisimilitude.

Let’s talk a little about your University, one of the leading in America…

Yes, it belongs to the five best among state universities. ]

What in organizing of educational and research process in Western universities you consider to be the most valuable, possible to use in Russia? You opinion is particularly interesting as your are an example of a scientist working for more than 15 years in America. I

t’s a very difficult question. I think that all of us (and especially young scientists) must study carefully the organization and structure of science and humanitarian education in the West. One is still trying to restore mechanically archaic institutions in Russia, but this attempt (one mustn’t forecast the historical situation being in it, but in this case, I believe the forecast will be faultless) is doomed to failure.
Universities need freedom in the first place. Freedom in educational programmes, in scientific researches. There is Ministry of Education in USA, but it’s responsible only for secondary school, but not for higher one.
Let’s take our University of Wiscontin-Madison – it’s the state university, money is given by our state. We’ll not concern private universities; many things there are different. Private universities in America, especially such as Harvard, Princeton, are much richer, they are the most powerful existing corporations with huge capitals. There are no conditions so far for rise of such powerful private universities in Russia.
And our University is the state one, it is not so rich, it is financed by small agricultural state, not the richest in America. Nevertheless, the huge university (40 000 students) exists and develops. In general, university has four sources of finance: the state’s budget, private donations, payment for education paid in by students (except the poorest ones). For Wisconsin this payment is not high – approximately six thousand dollars per year. It’s fully comparable with payment for education in many private and state higher educational establishments in Russia, but as to average incomes in Russia and America they are incomparable. And the fourth source is researches. Researchers are being conducted in those fields that bring in an income: physics, medicine, microbiology, etc. Chairs and laboratories make contracts with different corporations and receive big money for fulfilled work. This money goes to the common University’s money box, but it is not spent equally – the lion’s share is received by faculties on which the work have been carried out and those specialists who have taken part in these researches. However some part of it comes humanitarians’ way. That’s why, say, an average salary of the Professor with the same experience and qualification in the faculty of physics and philological faculty (I tell conditionally, they are called otherwise there) are different. And this is fairly: as to me I don’t earn for the University with my researches when I study Pushkin or Dostoevsky or Nabokov

Does Russian academic science that is, as it’s well known, detached from universities and educational process have any sense?

I believe that academic science can and must exist outside the universities too – but in very restricted quantity. It’s necessary to understand what namely must be left in academic institutes, and would be gradually connected with university education. Here, for example, is it possible to merge Pushkin House with the University? No, I think it would be incorrectly. First of all, because there is an enormous unique manuscript department and antiquity-depository that must be necessarily kept and that must exist separately. Then, for example, there is unique and very important for our culture and history sector and ancient Russian literature. The ancient Russian literature is studied in the University, but a separate chair will not be founded. As a result you’ll be not able to maintain the study of the ancient Russian literature at a proper level in the University. Students will not enroll for courses and seminars, there will be few post-graduates. But this is necessary – both studies of ancient Russian literature and, say, edition of works of Pushkin require the state support. It’s more useful to keep such research directions hors framework of the University structure. And unify gradually without hurry all the rest with higher school. Then we could have more powerful post-graduate study and spend money more reasonable using all kinds of grants. But it’s possible to conduct such reforms only horizontally without administrative meddling with the help of individual contacts between parties interested.

But, unfortunately, all grants in Russia – both state and non-state – are scanty. And what is the scientific and educational situation prognosis in Russia? What the future has in store for us?

I think that everything depends on political situation. If it changes for the better, the situation in education will also change. Not straight away and not upright, but here a distinct dependence exists.
Russia’s joining the Bologna system is, undoubtedly, a plus. It’s nice when students and instructors can freely move within the European “educational market”.
In my opinion, Russian philologists needn’t worry that possible abolition of oral examination will reduce the level of possession of the material for students. But not only texts exist! I manage easily without oral examinations, we have them only in written form. But it’s not the test; a student sets forth his knowledge in written form. Of course, it’s more difficult for a lecturer. One thing is to sit out 3-4 hours at oral exam, quite another thing – to read 30-40 works. But on the other hand a written exam reveals more clearly the student’s level and reduces considerably the degree of subjectivity in the mark.

Do you envy something the Russian professors?

Certainly, at least because their students and post-graduate students are more prepared in the field of Russian studies. It can’t be otherwise. They needn’t been explained those things, that must be explained to American students or post-graduate students. And besides that, alas, not the most talented students, in America are engaged in Slavic study and Russian philology, in particular.

читайте также Архив проектов Скандал за круглым столом, мир понарошку и чеченская карта: обзор утренней прессы Архив проектов Новость из прошлого: 17 июля 2000 года — Березовский решил уйти из Госдумы ЗАГРУЗИТЬ ЕЩЕ