ДРАМАТУРГИЧЕСКИЕ НОВАЦИИ С. ПШИБЫШЕВСКОГО И Л. АНДРЕЕВА: РЕЦЕПТИВНЫЙ АСПЕКТ
DRAMATURGIC INNOVATIONS IN S. PRZYBYSZEWSKI AND L. ANDREEV WORKS: PERCEPTION ASPECT

Summary/Abstract: The perception of Leonid Andreev as Stanisław Przybyszewski’s “double” in Russia of the beginning of the 20th century could, to a large extent, be explained by the desire to find some kind of equivalent in European literature for the innovative character of the Russian writer. The decadent Przybyszewski, being a “cult” writer of the Slavic world, fit this role perfectly. The publishing policies of the magazines Golden Fleece and The Scales, as well as the public discussions of the sexual question in literature at the turn of the century played an important role in the creation of association between these two names for the Russian reader. Both writers in their works dwelt on the philosophy of pessimism and individualism, topical for the Russian reader at the turn of the century, although the difference between Przybyszewski’s “metaphysics of genders” and Andreev’s metaphysical explorations was often ignored. Both of them turned their attention to acute contradictions of contemporary life. Depicting this life they focused on the exceptional on the verge of pathology. Multiple critics of the writers’ works saw similarity of dramaturgical practice through their choices of themes and motifs, as well as through the chosen symbolism, language, and style. One can find much in common in the playwrights’ theoretical principles: rejection of spectacularity, declaration of the “living symbol,” and in their ambition to feature the life of “the naked soul” (“psyche”) on the stage. At the same time, for both writers, the concept so essential for European modernism, is not equivalent to traditional psychologism. The writers are similar in their daring exploration of the depths of the subconscious, in the use of myths, and in the search of new synthesis on the stage – the synthesis of the epic and the dramatic. The juxtaposition, undertaken in this ar-ticle, leads to a discussion of typological similarity of the innovations in Przybyszewski’s and Andreev’s works, which were defined by the modernist paradigm. The destiny of the writers’ dramaturgical heritage has also been similar: after their phenomenal success they were forgotten for a long time, and now their literary heritage is gaining its cultural topicality again.

• Details
• Contents