Contenu du sommaire

Russian Derivatives of the Arabic Jubbah In this short article an attempt is made to examine the importance of the Arabic word and its Egyptian variant jibbah as a source of borrowings, not only in some non-Indo-European languages but also in major language groups of Europe, such as Romance, Germanie and Slavonic, especially the last. Particular stress is laid on the main Russian words ultimately derived from the Arabic, namely šuba, zipun, župan and jubka, with much attention being devoted to their detailed etymologies and consideration of the intermediate languages by way of which the Arabic word may have entered Slavonic and specifically Russian. Some attention is also paid to the question of whether Russian šuba could itself have been an intermediary in the development of words for "raccoon" and "raccoon fur" in particular Germanic languages.

Toward the History of Russian Literature in Exile : the “Heroic Period” of Young Russian Poetry in Paris The definitive history of Russian émigré literature in France is yet to be written. Until present, ail works describing the development of Russian literature on French soil in the interwar period have followed the same methodological convention according to which Russian literature in exile was born in Berlin, while Paris did not become its capital until roughly 1925. It has been argued that, thanks to the fluidity of political demarcations and the popularity of the Soviet avant-garde among younger Russian literati in Paris between 1921 and 1924, one must exclude this chapter of artistic activity in exile from the study of Russian émigré literature. Due to this methodological approach, the literary life of Russian exiles in Paris has been implicitly treated as nonexistent until 1924. The present article argues that the Paris period of 1921-1924 was as important for the evolution of Russian émigré literature as its Berlin period, since the Paris period produced a large number of major émigré literary figures. It is impossible to comprehend the general evolution of Russian émigré literature in ail its complexity, as well as the artistic trajectories of many exiles, without taking into account this Paris period called by Dovid Knut "the heroic period of young émigré poetry."

Les' Kurbas — Creator of the Modern Ukrainian Theater Les' Kurbas born 25 February 1887 in Sambir, Galicia (Western Ukraine). An outstanding organizer and director of Ukrainian avant-garde theater, actor, and pedagogue. In 1907- 1908 he studied philosophy at the University of Vienna and also drama. Graduating from Lviv University in 1916, he worked as an actor in the troupes of the Hutsul Theater (1911- 1912) and Ruska Besida Theater (1912-1914), founded and directed the Ternopil Teatralni Vetchory Theater (1915-1916) and worked in the Sadovsky Theater in Kiev (1916-1917). After the February Revolution of 1917, Kurbas reorganized an actors' studio he had founded in 1916 into the Molodyj Theater (1917-1919) in Kiev. With the Molodyj Theater productions, which included the first production in Ukrainian of a classical Greek play, Sophocles' Œdipus Rex, Kurbas revolutionized Ukrainian theater, elevating it in style, esthetics, and repertoire from the provincial to the level of modem Western European theater. In 1922, having become convinced of its use as a powerful political instrument, he founded the Bereziľ artistic association in Kiev. It was at the Bereziľ Theater in both Kiev (1922-1926) and Kharkov (1926-1923) that Kurbas' s creative genius became most evident. There he perfected his rigorous system for the intellectual and technical training of actors. One of the basic principles of his system was that the stage image, although it is created by the actor's emotions, voice, gestures, and temperament, must be objectivized and remain separate from the actor' s frame of mind and personal experiences. With over 300 actors and staff members, 6 actors' studios, director's lab, design studio, and theater museum, the Bereziľ association became the focal point of theater in Ukraine. At Bereziľ, Kurbas broke down the old forms of Ukrainian theater and, after a long period of searching and enthusiastic experimentation with German Expressionist theater and the theories of Constructivism, succeeded in his productions of Mykola Kuliš' s play s in creating a unique Ukrainian Expressionist theater. Kurbas broke completely with traditional Ukrainian realistic, ethnographic theater to present spectacles that forced the audience to think instead of simply watching passively. This intellectualism was combined with a brilliant synthesis of rhythm, movement, and avant-garde theatrical and visual devices, including montage. Не managed to gather around himself the best actors, directors, set designers (e.g. V. Meller), and play wrights (e.g. M. Kuliš) in Ukraine. In 1933, Kurbas, his ideas, and his dynamics, innovative, and often controversial productions were condemned as nationalist, formalist, and conterrevolutionary. In October he was dismissed as the director of Bereziľ and ail of his productions were banned from the Soviet Ukrainian repertoire. Не moved to Moscow, where he was arrested in December and imprisoned on the Solovets Islands. He was shot in 1937.

Two Novels by Mutafčieva The Džem Affair and I, Anna Comnena : from History as a Hero to History as a Pretext A renown writer and historian in Bulgaria, Vera Mutafčieva became the first in 1966 to save not just the historic novel but the novel in general from the rut narrowly traced by the socialist realism and the purely descriptive narration which altogether was characteristic of the Bulgarian novel since its origins. In 1991, she was also the first to publish a valuable novel just after the change of regime in Bulgaria. In a way one could say that, from History as a hero to History as a pretext,The Džem Affair and I, Anna Comnena mark out the history of the Bulgarian novel during almost half a century, that is from 1944 to 1991. Many common points connect the two works: an omnipresent game with History, whose borders are abolished due to a continuous dialogue between past and present, the dead and the living; a polyphonic narration, a non-linear temporality and the fact that these two works obtain a particularly sharp meaning in relation to the context in which they appear. At the same time they are very different novels : with the first one, it is mainly a meditation upon History, the relationship between the individual and History, that the historian Vera Mutafčieva delivers. History is very present, in the speech of ail narrators (History even becoming a judge in its own court as staged through the work) even to the point of establishing a heroic status. In the second book, the most feminine that has yet been written in Bulgaria (a novel written by a woman, narrated by women, and whose main characters are women), it is rather a reflection on political power and the temptation that it exerts on the intellectuals, on the creation and the role of the intellectuals in a society, than a accreditation on motherhood, education, conjugal love, etc. Stretching throughout an emblematic journey, in particular that of a Bulgarian writer, these two works mark out in a certain way the trials and tribulations if not the avatars of socialist realism in Bulgaria.