Literature in Bosnia and Hercegovina till 19th Century in South Slav Context

Mr. Gajevic traced the development of literacy and literature in Bosnia and Herzegovina from the 12th to the 19th in relation to other south Slavic literatures and civilisations, studying their interrelations, links and influences. From the 12th to the 15th centuries, literature in this area developed under strong influence from the neighbouring South Slavic countries, which were directly connected with more developed foreign cultures and civilisations. The literatures of these countries had differing religious and cultural backgrounds, some developing under Byzantine and Orthodox influence and others as a part of Latin civilisation and the Catholic religion. This led to different and sometimes contradictory literary, religious and other influences on Bosnia and Herzegovina, making spiritual and religious unity for the country virtually impossible. Under the influence of the Bosnian state and church, however, there were signs of a search for compromise, leading to some mixing of the difference traditions. Following the Turkish conquest, however, three denominational communities (Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim) developed in Bosnia and Herzegovina and this became the general framework for life, including literature. This led to three separate literary traditions - Serb-Orthodox, Croat-Catholic and Bosniac-Islamic. This internal disintegration of Bosnian literature did however facilitate the process of integration of some of its denominational traditions with similar traditions in other countries. The third aspect considered in the research was the genesis and expansion of vernacular and folk literature from Bosnia and Herzegovina throughout the South Slavic areas and its contribution to the language and literature integration of four peoples - Serbs, Croats, Bosniacs and Montenegrins. Of special interest here were the aspirations of the Catholic church to establish the Bosnian language as the common South Slavic literary language for its religious and propaganda activities, and the contribution of Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic to the effort to establish the "Bosnian language" as the common literary language of the South Slavic peoples.

Marginal Man in Modern Russian Literature

This research was focused around the intersection of two discourses: that of marginality and that of ideology. Ponomarev analysed works by Alexander Zinoviev, Vladimir Maximov and Eduard Limonov - three writers representing different groups of Soviet dissidence - from the viewpoint of the concept, drawn from anthropological theory, of marginal man. Using a methodology he describes as ideological analysis, Ponomarev showed that the ideologies of both the writers and their characters are marginal, lying as they do between official Soviet and western democratic ideologies. He showed that the works and the 'creative behaviour' of the three writers did not change after 1991, when their ideas seemed victorious. Marginality is shown to be a permanent characteristic and is linked with the main ideas of the dissident movement in the USSR. On the basis of this marginality, Ponomarev identified some common traits in dissident ideas and drew up a model of dissident ideology. This general model of dissident ideology seems to be one of the special Russian variants of the marginal ideologies of intelligentsia and could be compared to the ideology of Rodon Raskolnikov, the central character in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. The discourse of ideology in the USSR in the 1970s-1980s and in 1990s Russia thus appeared as a process in which the elements of the official Soviet ideology were gradually superseded by those of the dissident ideology linked with the ideology of the underground, the Russian version of the post-modern. Marginal ideologies won and became mainstream but did not lose their basic marginal traits. Ponomarev concludes that the gap between the 'state ideology' and the dissident ideology, taken together with the special Russian version of postmodernity has shaped the current literary process in Russia, making the figure of the marginal man into the main writer type.

Russian Opera as Cultural Text (The Golden Cockerel by N.A. Rimsky-Korsakov)

This project entailed a detailed study and analysis of the literary and musical text of Rimsky-Korsakov's opera The Golden Cockerel, involving source study, philological and musical-historical analysis, etc. Goryachikh studied the process of the creation of the opera, paying particular attention to its genre, that of a character fable, which was innovative for its time. He considered both the opera's folklore sources and the influences of the 'conditional theatre' aesthetics of the early 20th century. This culture-based approach made it possible to trace the numerous sources of the plot and its literary and musical text back to professional and folk cultures of Russia and other countries. A comparative study of the vocabulary, style and poetics of the libretto and the poetic system of Pushkin's Tale of the Golden Cockerel revealed much in common between the two. Goryachikh concluded that The Golden Cockerel was intended to be a specific form of 'dialogue' between the author, the preceding cultural tradition, and that of the time when the opera was written. He proposed a new definition of The Golden Cockerel as an 'inversed opera' and studied its structure and essence, its beginnings in the 'laughing culture' and the deflection of its forms and composition in a cultural language. He identified the constructive technique of Rimsky-Korsakov's writing at each level of musical unity and noted its influence on Stravinsky and Prokoviev, also finding anticipations of musical phenomena of the 20th century. He concluded by formulating a research model of Russian classical opera as cultural text and suggested further uses for it in musicology.

The Monumental Barrows of the Period 700-1100 AD at the Russian North-West

Nicholas Petrov. The Monumental Barrows of the Period 700-11 AD in the Russian North-West The research deals with the monumental barrows erected in the Russian north-west in the period of 700-1100 AD, which Russian archaeological literature has traditionally named sopka-barrows. These sopka-barrows were analysed as original sacral and funeral structures and considered in the context of cultural processes under way in that region at the time. The position occupied by the sopka-barrows in the culture of the people who erected them was reconstructed on the basis of a synthesis of various kinds of sources - archaeological, written, folklore. The high barrows are not in fact a determining type of the sites of the so-called "culture of the sopka-barrows" in modern literature, which focuses rather on settlements near to which sopka-barrows are absent. Recent excavations have revealed the presence of "surface" burial places (cremation located on the top of the barrow repeatedly rather than only once) in the majority of the sopka-barrows. The materials only provide evidence about the sacrificial nature of the graves in the "body" of the sopka-barrows. They thus offer an embodiment of one element of the widespread views about the dead man's path to the world of the dead (mountain) which is traced in folklore texts. Special attention was paid to the question of the disappearance of the tradition of erecting sopka-barrows and to the nature of their role in the culture of the region during the period 1000-1200 AD. The functioning of the sopka-barrows as funeral monuments in the second millennium AD is also traced on the inlet inhumatios found in them.

Russian Writers and the Third Section

The Third Section was an instrument not so much of oppression as of information, propaganda and education. Under Nicholas I, the press did not represent public opinion, but rather the official point of view. It was intended to shape public opinion rather than to express it and much of the Third Section's activity focused on creating the best possible contacts with journalists and men of letters. The Third Section supervised literary activities by examining works in print and collecting information through its agents. It rewarded those authors whose work was approved by the emperor, it used writers to pursue its goals, especially in order to "direct minds", but acted as a mediator between the tsar, censors and writers, or sometimes as arbiter in conflicts between writers themselves, and it also acted as a censor. Writers, for their part, served in the Third Section, becoming its agents or consultants, delivering reports to it and writing texts commissioned by the Section. The majority of writers did not see any problems with serving or assisting the Third Section. Ideologies offering an alternative to state monarchism /in professional literature or individual liberalism/ were very weak. The only exception was a small group, mostly composed of eminent and highly educated aristocrats who possessed alternative moral and financial resources. Reitblat showed that the strong ties maintained by some journalists and writers with the Third Section were not unfortunate exceptions due to the low moral qualities of those individuals, but rather a natural phenomenon which reflected the specific nature of the Russian literary system and, more generally, of Russian society as a whole.