The article discusses some archaizing Russian language techniques for translating Old French texts of the 12^th–13^th centuries, namely The Song of Roland and the memoirs of Marshal of Champagne Geoffrey de Villehardouin, The Conquest of Constantinople, which recount the events of the Fourth Crusade. The author of the article relies on the concept of M. L. Gasparov, who identifies two types of translation: “approximating” (domesticating) and “distancing” (foreignizing). Archaization is seen in the article as a means of creating a “distancing” translation. The article discusses problems associated with archaizing the Russian language in translation and the ways to solve them, which were used by the author in her own translations. Difficulties with archaization arise, on the one hand, due to the fact that the specifics of the development of the Russian literary language offer us options no earlier than the end of the 18^th century, and on the other hand, the use of an outdated term may be too brightly tainted by national color, and foreignization in time may turn into domestication in space. The possibility of archaizing the language of the poetic epic in the transmission of military topics is seen, first of all, as a reliance on formulaic poetics, which distinguishes the epic text from a work of modern poetry. Russian prose does not provide this option, and the author talks about the possibility of “soft” archaization, which does not make the text too incomprehensible, but refers to outdated forms of Russian vocabulary and grammar, as well as to Russian folklore.

The article’s title quotes a phrase from a letter from Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev to the Moscow postmaster general, Alexander Yakovlevich Bulgakov, dated February 9/21, 1838. The phrase refers to Bulgakov’s daughter, Olga Alexandrovna, who upon marriage became Princess Dolgorukova. Of course, anyone with some understanding of the history of Russian vocabulary should understand that in the 19^th century, the word tualet ‘toilette’ had a different meaning than it did a century later, and that the ladies in question certainly did not meet in the ladies’ room. However, vstretit’sia v chem-libo ‘meet in something’ in the sense of “coinciding” (a clear syntactic Gallicism) is a rare construction and therefore can immediately shock the reader, causing confusion or a smile. Turgenev, however, clearly did not expect such a reaction. He simply wanted to tell his old friend that he had seen his daughter at a Parisian ball. It would seem that a translator of foreign works of the same period, interested in so-called temporal stylization and seeking to mark the distance between our time and the time of the work being translated, would do well to draw these most striking words and expressions from Russian texts. However, the purpose of this article, written from the perspective of a practical translator of French works of the first half of the 19^th century, is to warn: this paint must be used with extreme caution. Not only will a stylistically neutral text appear overly aged, but in many cases the reader will simply not understand what’s being discussed, or what a woman’s organ, a merry revelry, or a subtle accent mean. However, there are cases where it’s necessary to go against reader habits, otherwise the translator will completely distort the picture of everyday life in a bygone era. Such is the case with the translation of the French word soulier. This article discusses ways to adequately translate it and demonstrates that it shouldn’t be confused with indoor slippers, which correspond to the French word pantoufles.

The article treats Alexander Pope’s Imitations of Horace as a “libertine way” of translation, described by J. Denham and A. Cowley with regard to the French translations of the day. Attention is focused upon those characteristics of imitation as a type of literary translation which arose from its affinity with the imitatio auctores of Roman rhetoric. As imitations, Pope’s poetical texts aimed to make “the British Muse… in Roman Majesty appear” (Roscommon), to validate the national literature with the help of “quasi- ritualistic function of continually reviving learning and civilization in the canon” (M. H. McMurran). Imitations of Horace, on the one hand, effectively reproduced the Horatian poetic manner in English, and on the other hand, they moved far away from Horace to the modern world and modern taste, “relocating” Horace to “our Age and our Country.” Imitatio was inseparable from the strategy of “rivalry” (aemulatio). The article specifically addresses the strategy of “rivalry” in Pope’s Imitations. The nuances of “rivalry” are explicated using the material of The First Satire of the Second Book of Horace, Imitated, where Pope enters into a competition with Horace as a moral teacher, setting aside the cautious strategy of the mask (persona), which is slyly contrasted with the inventor of satires, Lucilius, in satires I, 4; I, 10 and II, 1. The article uses John Dryden’s Discourse Concerning the Original and Progress of Satire as a relevant context, since Dryden made extensive use of techniques characteristic of Horace’s satires.

The article presents an analysis of John Dos Passos and James Joyce translations made by Ivan Kashkin and his “First translators’ collective” in 1934–1937. Kashkin’s version of John Dos Passos’ novel The 42^nd Parallel (1936) is a re-translation of Valentin Stenich’s version (1931, 2^nd ed. 1936). When collated with Stenich’s daringly inventive and acutely modern translation that was then acknowledged as a major influence in Soviet literature, Kashkin’s version seems pointless as it levels out Dos Passos’ formal innovation, makes the text stylistically archaic, moves it away into a familiar sphere of Russian literature immune to the current Russian speech. We find an explanation for this kind of domestication in the topical Soviet context, in the important role that references to Dos Passos played in the 1932–1933 discussions of Socialist realism and formal innovation. Kashkin’s translation reflects the position voiced by officious Soviet critics calling to learn not from Dos Passos’ “formal” devices but from his “revolutionary” path. The unfinished translation of Ulysses published by Kashkin’s collective in 1935–1936 also plays out against the background of the then existing attempts to render episodes of the novel, primarily made by the same Valentin Stenich, and of major critical articles about Joyce, most importantly by Dmitry Mirsky, that stated that the English text is without parallel, practically untranslatable and requires an adequately radical translating experiment and fundamental scholarly commentary. By contrast, translations made under Kashkin’s aegis vary in method, now and then haphazardly ignore Joyce’s stylistic devices and lack a serious commentary. We see the rationale for this sloppy approach also in the topical politically charged Soviet context in which Ulysses was regarded as fundamentally opposed to socialist realism. Kashkin had dropped the translation unfinished and turned to The Dubliners (1937) also in sympathy with the changing official position: the totally disparaging assessment of Ulysses was phrased so that there it was no longer needed to be translated, while references to the novel were now used for the social destruction of Soviet writers (such was the case of Leonid Dobychin). Soviet critics declared their preference for Joyce’s earlier stories with their “warm” “Chekhovian” tone, so the new translation domesticated them accordingly. Translations made by Kashkin and his group in the 1930s can be described as an extension of the evolving politically charged Soviet attitude towards contemporary foreign writers. In fact, they present a unified whole with Soviet critical paratexts and did not aspire to offer better, more adequate, modern, influential re-translations that had the potential to outlive their time.

This article examines K. I. Chukovsky’s views on prerevolutionary translations as presented in his book High Art. The author analyzes Chukovsky’s selective approach: while he harshly criticized translators like M. A. Shishmareva, E. G. Beketova, and L. I. Umanets for their “pedestrian quality,” verbosity, and domestication, he made an exception for I. I. Vvedensky. It is well known that Vvedensky’s translations were rife with inaccuracies, contained unauthorized additions to the author’s text (including Dickens’ or Thackeray’ novels), and simply demonstrated a poor command of English. However, Chukovsky considered the conveyance of the original’s spirit and Vvedensky’s affinity with the “Gogolian” movement in Russian literature to be far more important. Vvedensky’s translation work was contrasted with that of  E. Lann’s school, being presented as more faithful to the spirit of the original. The author of the article concludes that Chukovsky’s evaluation criteria were determined not so much by the objective quality of the translation as by the ideological and cultural agenda of the era. Criticism of the “old” school of translation served to legitimize the new, Soviet school and was a means of distancing from the pre-revolutionary tradition. Thus, the article concludes that “High Art” served two divergent purposes: to legitimize the new Soviet translatorial paradigm as a cultural achievement and, simultaneously, to defend the translator’s status as a creative writer at a time when opportunities for original literary work were diminishing. This dual agenda explains the eclectic and often polemical nature of Chukovsky’s seminal work.

The article considers the problem of archaization and modernization in translations of poetic texts based on the material of French authors and literary scholars. The author examines the propositions of Henri Meschonnic and Emile Benveniste as applied to translations by Mikhail Gasparov, Efim Etkind, Igor Bulatovsky from French poets (Sainte-Beuve, Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud). This concerns the sound organization of the text in that specific tradition of written European poetry, which, when read by eye, implies the simultaneous creation of a sound mental image of what is being read. For the interpreter (reader, critic, translator), the sense of rhythm and recognition of elements of the prosodic organization of the text is accompanied by the transcoding of signs of the visual representative system (letters) into auditory images based on linguistic competencies, on knowledge of reading rules, on memory of articulatory and acoustic characteristics of sounds, on familiarity with precedent texts. Due to the inevitable replacement of the material component of the message (physis-writing) and the loss of some of the information conveyed by the form of the poem, translators are looking for alternative ways of translation. Commentary is part of the triad of writing, reading, and translation, helping to preserve that part of the cultural heritage that may be lost when changing poetic practices.

The paper deals with the lubok adaptation of Nikolai Gogol’s story Taras Bulba by Vlas Doroshevich in 1884. This type of adaptation of a Russian classics demonstrates the growth of popular literature at the end of the 19^th century. The author examines the combination of modernizing and archaizing strategies for adapting Gogol’s text for the mass reader. Doroshevich’s Taras Bulba is remarkable for its modernizing context implemented through a number of literary allusions and reminiscences from “high” Russian literature (Alexander Pushkin, Mikhail Lermontov, Nikolai Nekrasov), as well as from European literature (Shakespeare, Schiller, Goethe, Walter Scott, Mayne Reid). A stylized “scholarly” commentary is incorporated into the text by paraphrasing Gogol’s historical information about the Zaporozhian Sich. At the same time we can see archaization in the folklore type introductions and in the metric elements (which also echoes the Song of the Merchant Kalashnikov), three nested stories (which also allude to other Gogol’s works: May Night, or the Drowned Maiden, The Night Before Christmas, A Terrible Vengeance) and three “folk” songs (two of which are also clearly of “literary” origin), a fairy-tale model for the magician’s actions (a sacred pine forest, a flooding lake and a growing wall), supplemented, however, by motifs from literary fairy tales. It is significant that similar strategies were used by Daniil Mordovtsev in the novella Sagaidachnyi (1882), Mikhail Filippov in Ostap (1898), Alexander Derzhavin in his poem Three Pictures (1899), as well as the latest pastiches of Gogol at the end of the 20^th and beginning of the 21^th centuries (Multiprose by Zafar Gareev, 1992, and Stargorod by Petr Aleshkovsky, 1995).

The author of the article has undertaken a source study of D. S. Merezhkovsky’s work “Nekrasov’s Mystery” (1913) in the context of the modernization of Russian classics at the turn of the 19^th and 20^th centuries. This has been done for the purpose of clarifying ideas about the modeling of a writer’s identity in the minds of contemporaries and descendants. For the first time, the history of “Nekrasov’s Mystery” has been reconstructed from lecture and newspaper publications of its fragments to the final version as part of the study “Two Mysteries of Russian Poetry: Nekrasov and Tyutchev” (1915). The researcher used documents from archives, as well as little-known materials from pre-revolutionary periodicals. A comprehensive comparison of printed, typewritten and handwritten sources was carried out. In addition to the textual reconstruction, the problem of the lecture’s reception by contemporaries is studied. The earliest reviews by the lecture’s listeners and by critics have been analyzed and systematized. Based on the facts presented, it is argued that Merezhkovsky, maneuvering between aesthetics and politics, modernizes the personality and work of Nekrasov to solve journalistic problems, and therefore his speeches should be read in the context of other socio-political statements (and not just literary-critical, as was done previously) by the thinker of the 1910s concerning Narodism, patriotism, revolution and religion, and in the biographical perspective of his connections with Russian émigré revolutionaries.

The article examines the corpus of literary publications from the journal Turkmenovedenie (Turkmen Studies; since 1932 — For Socialist Turkmenistan) and its literary supplement, as well as relevant archival sources. The journal was published in Russian from 1927 to 1932 and was mainly focused on academic and regional studies (kraevedenie), but it regularly featured literature from Turkmenistan and programmatic articles about it. The journal’s publications, as well as archival sources, allow us to reconstruct the details of literary struggle and the formation of Turkmenistan literary groups. One of the tasks for writers was to create a new proletarian Turkmen literature, but they varied in their understanding of what it should be like. The article explains aspects related to how the journal’s authors and editors described Turkmen literature and what happened in practice. The modernization of the literary process, on the one hand, led to its structuring, and on the other, to conflicts. The texts themselves sometimes retained an “Eastern” quality in presenting Turkmen poetry, but also tended towards “European” modernization in translation. The center had a very fragmented perception of what was happening in Turkmen literary circles, and although the models had features similar to the creation of new proletarian literature in Moscow and Leningrad, local features were added to them. These features distinguished the mechanics of the Turkmen literary process and literary struggle from the central models.

The article proposes a challenging nontraditional view of the remarkable, seemingly Russian, sentence coined by the Russian linguist Lev V. Shcherba (1880–1944): Glokaia kuzdra shteko budlanula bokra i kurdiachit bokrionka. In the quite solid extant scholarly literature on this linguistic experiment initiated a century ago, researchers (including Boris A. Uspenskij, in his important 2007 book) have generally sought to follow Academician Shcherba’s own authoritative example and, therefore, repeat, confirm, refine, and/or expand the range of possible semantic interpretations of this grammatically correct but lexically “emptied out” — and thus, at first glance, completely meaningless — Russian linguistic structure. A pioneering step toward a new understanding of the famous glokaia kuzdra phenomenon was taken in 2000 by Fedor N. Dviniatin, who identified the characteristically poetic features of Shcherba’s sentence, treating it as a kind of zaum’ (trans-sense) poem, akin to those by the famous Futurist poet Velimir Khlebnikov (1885–1922). Developing Dviniatin’s insight, the author demonstrates the systematic “artisticity” of Shcherba’s act on many levels: lexical, morphological, phonetic, performative, and editorial, among others. The main constructive principle underlying this act lies, according to the author, in presenting what is basically an artistic text and performance under the guise of a linguistic, i. e. scientific, experiment — and, so far, getting away with it.

The article examines two cases of parodic reinterpretation of biblical texts through linguistic play on the negative pronoun nemo ‘nobody’, as reflected in medieval religious Latin literature. The author discusses two works from the second half of the 13^th century: Historia de Nemine, attributed to a certain learned French monk named Radulph, and Reprobatio nefandi sermonis editi per Radulphum de quodam Nemine heretico et dampnato…, written by Stephen, a monk from the Monastery of Saint George in France. Despite the common technique, the works belong to different literary genres. Thus, in Radulph’s playful sermon, as a result of  reinterpretation of the pronoun nemo as a proper name, the biblical and liturgical texts cited by the author unexpectedly acquire a new, often comical, meaning, since among the canonical characters of the Holy Scripture there appeared a certain Nemo — a mystical being equal in nature, status, and power to Jesus Christ and God the Father. Apart from Cardinal Caetani, Radulph also had other high-ranking patrons. However, the monk Stephen considers Radulph’s work a terrible heresy and a threat to the Christian faith. Stephen calls Radulph and his followers members of the “Neminian sect”, declares them heretics, and demands their public condemnation and burning at the stake. Stephen’s refutation of Radulph’s preaching is built, on the one hand, on criticism of Radulph’s playful reinterpretation of certain biblical passages, and, on the other hand, on his own interpretation of similar passages containing the pronoun nemo, taken from liturgical texts, the writings of the Church Fathers, and Classic authors. As a result, the image of Nemo acquires a sharply negative characterization in Stephen’s treatise. Thus, the language play and text interpretation underlying both treatises become not only a means of creating new, parodic theological discourse in medieval Latin literature, but also attribute to the texts — depending on their orientation — a different genre nature, allowing the latter to be classified either as a parody or as an encomium.

In the paper an intensive lexical and sound repetition, one of the stylistic devices permanently in use with Shakespeare, is considered. The device often results in a pun that stands as a manifestation of thought or feeling as yet insufficiently ripe to be fully grasped or expressed. In the history play Richard II this device has a special importance as the play comes out at the moment when Shakespeare was testing various poetic manners with an aim to renovate dramatic speech in Elizabethan drama. In Richard II one of the major styles marks a definite birth of metaphysical poetry, soon to become a trend heralded by John Donne but first introduced in Shakespeare’s play. Most vividly metaphysics is represented in Richard’s soliloquies, growing in tension through the final three acts, when the hero has to face a new situation fraught for him with a loss of personal identity which leads him to problematize his predicament. His thought, vague and stumbling, is involved in “lexical ambiguity” (Isabel de la Cruz Cabanillas) as it is in Act III, sc. 3 when, invited to meet the usurper in the lower room, Richard sets on the wordplay with the idea of being low, down and humiliated.

Fate or chance? Tragedy or melodrama? These questions are inevitable when discussing the genre of Romeo and Juliet. This article proposes a new approach to defining the play’s genre, based on Alexander Veselovsky’s concept of “countercurrent” and his definition of drama, which is fundamentally opposed to that of Aristotle and his school. The article analyzes the interaction between the characters and external forces in accordance with Veselovsky’s concept of the role of the internal element in drama. From this perspective, the unique features of Romeo and Juliet become apparent, as one of Shakespeare’s earliest plays that occupies an intermediate position between tragedy and comedy, thus giving rise to modern drama. Within the framework of the “countercurrent” concept, the “interplay” between speech and dramatic genres is also considered at the level of incorporating sonnet-like language into the play, as demonstrated in Igor Shaytanov’s innovative interpretation. The article concludes with an analysis of the two most popular film adaptations of Romeo and Juliet — Franco Zeffirelli’s (1968) and Baz Luhrmann’s (1996), made in different genres according to how each director perceived the trends of their time. While Zeffirelli seems to be a proponent of the Renaissance, Luhrmann’s screen version reveals that there are no proper acoustics for such values in modern society. 

Alfred de Musset’s theatre was created over the course of a quarter century. At first glance, it appears to be a collection of works differing in theme, length, form (prose or verse), genre (comedy, drama, dramatic poems, dramatic “proverbs”), and united solely by intonation and style. The impression of diversity and heterogeneity arises, however, only when Musset’s plays are regarded apart from each other. Considered as a whole, they reveal a continuous overlap of motifs and plot ideas. Such a motif may be a character trait or a one-sided argument; such a plot idea — jealousy induced artificially, a debate about women’s perseverance, forced marriage, etc. In this case, a metaplot does not emerge, only its individual blocks, which are not brought together into a single structure. The author also pays special attention to the scene of action, which in Musset’s theatre serves as a marker of genre vectors. The migration of motifs enhances the effect of genre boundaries blurring, manifesting itself both within each play and throughout the entire corpus including the art of implications, that add ambivalence to the definition of genre with its constant fluctuation between the poles of the tragic and the comic. As a result, Musset revives the very genre of tragicomedy, which seemed to have been buried forever by Diderot’s program and the experiments of the Romantics.

One of the most striking modernization projects in the literature of European decadence was Neo-Renaissance, which was seen as an opportunity for a profound “reassessment of values” and a tool for overcoming the cultural crisis of modernity. Similar to the Weimar classical era, the Neo-Renaissance project modernized modernity through an appeal to the forms of old culture. Along with 

this cultural epoch in their theories, the main ideologists of the Neo-Renaissance were F. Nietzsche, H. Ibsen, and in Russia — D. Merezhkovsky, all of whom saw it as an unfulfilled attempt at a great cultural synthesis, the embodiment of the ancient utopia of the “Third Kingdom”. In his search for a synthetic culture,  T. Mann also turns to the theme of the Renaissance. His first attempt at developing this topic was his early novel Gladius Dei (1901), in which the neo-Renaissance aestheticism of modern culture is criticized from the standpoint of Christian spiritualism. In his drama Fiorenza (1904) T. Mann continues his artistic exploration of Renaissance themes in light of the question of the essence of art. The question of the authenticity of art is examined using the essay “On the Erotic in Michelangelo” (1950) as an example.

The article examines the motif of the “green dog” in literature, art and urban folklore, primarily Russian. It represents one of the variations of a broader motif involving an unusual green color. The main focus is on living beings painted in a green color that is unnatural to them, as well as metaphors and idioms that feature such entities. The general meaning of this motif is unusualness or unnaturalness. In a broader semantic range, it can signify impossibility, absurdity, strangeness, mystery, unreality, infernal qualities, or decadence. Green coloration often serves to shock, to attract attention, or to distract from something more important. The plots and examples discussed in the article include Alcibiades’s green dog in Mikhail Kuzmin’s play The Death of Nero; idioms containing the phrase “green dog” in various languages; green dogs in contemporary jokes; the “green dog method” in artists’ and designers’ folklore; and the green dog as a symbol of avant-garde art. In a number of cases, the green dog acts as a metaphor for otherness, the alienation from society of a creature that is not like others. In the 21^st century, the green dog motif is increasingly found in Russian-language “grassroots” poetry and prose and is increasingly used as a brand.

The article assesses the degree of similarity between regional sets of motifs in the southwestern half of Eurasia with each other and with motifs from ancient (mostly Greek) sources. The analysis includes adventure episodes, narrative clichés and fantastic images found in mythological prose, heroic epics and fairy tales. In the Balkans, almost all motifs from ancient sources have correspondences in late folklore, but ancient correspondences make up less than a fifth of the total number of Western Eurasian motifs in the categories of tales under consideration. The rest are likely borrowings from Central Asia, the Near East — Iran — India and motifs that arose in Europe itself. The role of early traditions not reflected in written sources and located to the north of the Aegean is debatable. Slavic traditions of Eastern Europe are much closer to Western European ones than to Turkic-Mongol traditions. The process of enrichment of Western Eurasian folklore took place as population density increased, contacts between groups intensified, and genres of folklore emerged that had lost their connection with a specific ethnic basis and their focus on authenticity. In terms of the number of registered motifs, the traditions localized from the Aegean to the Eastern Baltic represent the world maximum.

“The Tale of Tsar Saltan” by A. S. Pushkin seems to follow the laws of the traditional fairy tale plot so carefully and to combine motifs so carefully that it can be — with some caution — considered an analogue of a real oral fairy tale. Overall, the plot of the tale corresponds to ATU 707, combining motifs from different variants and including some details from other oral stories and early literary sources. In this tale, the abundant triadic structures attract attention. The article suggests considering them within the framework of the tripartite (trifunctional) approach of G. Dumézil. Three marvels — a squirrel gnawing on golden nuts with emerald kernels, 33 sea knights guarding the island, and a beautiful SwanPrincess — can be understood as the embodiments of the economic, military and sovereign functions. By analogy, the same can be said about the three sisters — the Cook, the Weaver and the Tsarina (Queen). At the same time, there is a contamination with the plot of “The Judgement of Paris”, in which the hero’s choice falls on Aphrodite, the bearer of the third function. In addition, the article briefly discusses insects, birds, plants and the young as weakened carriers of references to the three Indo-European functions.

Currently, the layers of artistic reality based on technological developments and mass communication systems are rapidly expanding. Since 2021, there has been continuous growth in sales of NFT art. Based on a review of existing scientific and expert discussions, as well as an analysis of individual cases of artworks, the article examines the basic principles of NFT art at various stages (creation, acquisition, storage, distribution), studies the mechanisms of demand, analyzes the reasons for the interest of artists, collectors, and viewers in digital formats, and conducts a comparative analysis with traditional art formats. Special attention is paid to contemporary NFT art in Russia: an overview of works (2021–2023) and an analysis of key exhibition and curatorial projects are provided. The authors conclude that NFT technologies significantly expand the possibilities of agentic (proactive) action of artists. This is especially important at the current stage of societal evolution, which sociologists have proposed to call “neostructuration”, and which makes the individual agency of artists especially important not only for individual but also for collective well-being. Artworks on the Internet can be seen by millions of people. NFT art provides great opportunities for artists (self-expression, individualization, increased reach, independence from intermediaries), collectors (determination of authenticity, ownership rights; mobility of the collection; absence of costs for maintenance, restoration, transportation), and viewers (mass distribution, accessibility, ease of use, the opportunity to participate in the creation of a creative product and its distribution).

A review of: Nenarokova, M. R. (Ed.). Angliiskaia klassicheskaia literatura v mirovoi kul’ture: retseptsii, transformatsii, interpretatsii [English classical literature in world culture: receptions, transformations, interpretations]. IMLI RAN. https://doi.org/10.22455/9785-9208-0777-9. (In Russian).

A review of: Stroganov, M. V. (Ed., Intro., & Comment.). (2024). Pushkin v stikhakh sovremennikov. 1813–1837. [Pushkin in poems by his contemporaries. 1813–1837]. Tsentr knigi Rudomino. 704 p. (In Russian).

A review of: Ben’iamin, V. [= Benjamin, W.] (2026). Kniga Passazhei [The Book of Passages] (Trans. from Benjamin, W. (1982). Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 5.1: Das Passagen-Werk (R. Tiedemann, Ed.). Suhrkamp; V. Kotelevskaia, Trans. from the German, S. Fokin, Trans. from the French, R. Tideman [= Tiedemann], Ed.). Ad Marginem Press. 992 p. (In Russian).