The article discusses the issue of museumification and exposure of the language, the future museum of the Russian literary language, its main subject, aims and functions. The author of the article proposes to consider the Russian literary language as an intangible object of culture, which has a certain structure, stable elements and which is a carrier of cultural memory associated with social and historical processes. The Russian literary language can be museumified, become an object of conservation, study and popularization in a museum. The Russian literary language can be preserved in the museum by creating descriptions of museum items, with the emphasis on the history of the language, organizing the work of the museum exposition, and by holding museum events. The exposition is proposed to be built on those museum items (manuscripts, typescripts, books, audio, video recordings, pictorial materials) that are in storage of the funds of the Vladimir Dahl State Literary Museum, grouped in such a way that the emphasis is on the linguistic phenomena. The article provides examples of language museums and language exhibits. Most language museums are primarily aimed at drawing the attention of visitors to the history and modern use of the language. They are built on interactive materials that allow you to communicate with the public. The Museum of the Russian Language will take into account the experience of other language museums and expositions. Unlike other museums, it will focus on the language of Russian literature as a variant of the language. The museum, relying on the study of the language of literature, will demonstrate the work of authors with the language, their participation in the development of the language. The museum will be aimed at communication with the visitor, at their interaction with the language of Russian literature.

Настоящая публикация представляет собой подборку из семи писем А.А. Кондратьева к своему учителю И.Ф. Анненскому. Они могут послужить дополнением к реконструкции взаимоотношений двух литераторов. Первое из публикуемых писем относится к 1905 г., когда Кондратьев благодарил Анненского за присланную ему книгу стихов «Тихие песни». Большая часть писем приходится на 1908-1909 гг. В это время Кондратьев и Анненский обсуждают литературные планы, современные им театральные и литературные переложения на мифологические сюжеты. Их связывает, главным образом, общее увлечение античной мифологией. Кондратьев позиционирует себя как ученик Анненского. Вместе с тем он не стал его литературным последователем, а характер творчества Кондратьева Анненскому был чужд. С точки зрения Анненского, Кондратьеву не удалось найти подходящую жанровую форму для мифологических сюжетов. Ключевые слова: И.Ф. Анненский, А.А. Кондратьев, античная мифология, русский символизм, неомифологизм, эпистолярий Информация об авторе: Кристина Витальевна Сарычева, PhD, научный сотрудник Государственного музея истории российской литературы им. В.И. Даля. Москва, Россия.

The article examines the evolution of the perception of the works of Charles Leconte de Lisle in Russian literary criticism in the late 1880s – early 1910s. The chronological framework of the study is due to the fact that in 1889 the first detailed analysis of works by Leconte de Lisle appeared and, in the 1890s, Russian symbolists paid attention to the French poet; the other chronological boundary was caused by the crisis and end of Russian symbolism in in the late 1900s and early 1910s. Using the historical comparative method, the author analyzes articles by Maria Frishmut, Dmitry Merezhkovskiy, Valery Bryusov, Innokentiy Annenskiy, fully or partially dedicated to Leconte de Lisle. The author discovers that Russian critics relied on French critical works on Leconte de Lisle: critics saw his poetry as cold, dispassionate, objective (nonpersonal), possessing the perfection of a poetic form close to sculpture and painting. While Frishmut uses the judgments of his French predecessors, relying primarily on Paul Bourget, the symbolists put works of Leconte de Lisle in the context of the genealogy of Russian symbolism. Merezhkovskiy in the 1890s leads the genealogy of the symbolists from Leconte de Lisle. Bryusov considered Leconte de Lisle a classic and a representative of a certain line in poetry characterized by a careful accomplishing of a poetic form. The author pays particular attention to the evolution of the perception of Leconte de Lisle in Annenskiy’s literary criticism. She shows that Annenskiy developed his aesthetic concepts on the basis of Leconte de Lisle’s works and infers that in the late 1890s–1900s, during the period of the formation of symbolism, Annensky formed the concept of art as a symbol based on Leconte de Lisle’s works and in the late 1900s, in the period of the crisis of symbolism and the appeal to extra-aesthetic reality, considered Leconte de Lisle in the appropriate categories, seeing his tragedy in the fact that in his work he turned away from life and always talked about death. A statue is a stable image in Annenskiy’s articles that mention Leconte de Lisle; for the critic, a statue as a perfection of form and a classic monument corresponds to all Leconte de Lisle’s works and his place in the history of literature.

The article discusses the evolution of female images in the literary and critical writings of I.A. Grinevskaya in 1890s–1900s. The analysis focuses on early works of the author, which reproduce different female types, their life and experiences. In the 1890s Grinevskaya describes recognizable situations in the home and family and women in their traditional roles. By the 1900s her attention shifts to serious social problems, which affects on her interest towards certain types of women, men and their relationships. In the play “Bab” (1903), the main characters, the prophet Bab and his follower Khuret, depart from traditional gender patterns of behavior. One of the main storylines is the women’s movement led by Khuret, which touches upon issues relevant to women at the beginning of the 20th century: women’s education, prejudice against the age, appearance and behavior of women. The play “Bab” marks the beginning of a new stage in the evolution of Grinevskaya’s creativity and worldview. In the late 1900s she herself becomes a member of the women’s movement, and the problems identified in the play will be discussed in her lectures in the 1900s.

The research is based on the concept of the historical process as a semiotic system, formulated by B.A. Uspenskii. The article aims to analyse within the framework of this concept the historical and literary works of B.M. Eikhenbaum of the 1930s 1940s, dedicated to the meeting of Lermontov and Belinsky in the prison. Some of the papers discussed here have not been previously studied. The fact that Eikhenbaum frequently referred to that episode and mentioned it in different papers let us assume that it was significant not only from the literary and historical point of view, but it also contained unique significance for the researcher. The article extends the observations made by E.A. Toddes regarding the implicit projection of contemporary events into the historical past that helped Eikhenbaum to overcome prescriptions of the Soviet ideology and literary criticism. The evolution of the history concept in papers of Eikhenbaum was analyzed and the elements of the language, resembling the contemporary epoch, were demonstrated. As a result, the author comes to the conclusion that the historic past of the Lermontov studies, carried out by Eikheinbaum, is the double coded semiotic system simultaneously, expressing the literary and historical facts, as well as following the official discourse and containing the unofficial or individual discourse regarding the contemporaneity.Key words: Eikheinbaum, Lermontov, Belinsky, formalism, Soviet literary criticism, history of literature, history, modernity, semiotic system.