Evolution of Literary-Critical Method of Julius Aikhenvald and His Views on Shakespeare’s Creativity

The research problem concerns the evolution of critical views of Julius Isaevich Aikhenvald (1872—1928) in relation to his perception of William Shakespeare’s creativity. The aim of the study is to trace how changes in the critic’s personal fate and the global political situation led to his reevaluation of Shakespeare’s images. The material consists of little-known articles by the critic, published both in Russia in the 1910s-1920s and in emigration (mainly in the emigrant newspaper “Rul”). Hermeneutical, historical-cultural, and comparative methods were used for the research. It is established that in the pre-revolutionary period, Julius Aikhenvald, following his subjective immanent method of criticism, evaluates Shakespeare as a universal genius (in particular, comparing him to Leo Tolstoy). The most important characteristic becomes the universality of the playwright’s artistic attention, allowing to reflect all aspects of existence, beyond any hierarchies. In particular, Aikhenvald implicitly speaks about Shakespeare’s moral relativism. However, in the emigrant period, using Shakespeare’s images (primarily the images of Caliban and Coriolanus) to analyze the historical situation in the USSR, he comes to affirm the objectivity of good and truth as characteristics of literature and social reality.

1. Alekseev, A. A. (2014). Artistic imagery and its role for the immanent method of literary criticism of Yu. I. Aichenwald. Bulletin of the Surgut State Pedagogical University, 5 (32): 68—72. (In Russ.).

2. Alekseev, A. A. (2013). Irrationalism as the basis of the method of literary criticism of Yu. I. Aichenwald. Human capital, 11 (59): 144—147. (In Russ.).

3. Alekseev, A. A. (2000). Literary and critical essayism of Yu. I. Aichenwald “Silhouettes of Russian writers”. PhD Diss. Kolomna. 168 p. (In Russ.).

4. Alekseev, A. A. (2007). Rhythm as the basis of the suggestiveness of Yu. I. Aichenwald’s style in an essay on Boris Zaitsev. Bulletin of the Kolomna State Pedagogical Institute, 3 (4): 24—32. (In Russ.).

5. Anikst, A. A. (1963). The work of Shakespeare. Moscow: Publishing House of Fiction. 616 p. (In Russ.).

6. Azarov, Yu. A. (2022). Yuri Aichenwald: transformation of views. Bulletin of Kostroma State University, 28 (2): 135—140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34216/1998-0817-2022-28-2-135-140. (In Russ.).

7. Kochergina, I. V. (2016). Evolution of the critical method of Yu. I. Eichenwald in the emigrant period. Philological sciences. Questions of theory and practice, 12 (66) / 2: 27—30. (In Russ.).

8. Kochergina, I. V. (2019). I. S. Shmelev’s creativity of the 1920s in the assessment of Yu. I. Aichenwald (based on the materials of the emigrant press). New Russian humanitarian studies, 14: P. 70. (In Russ.).

9. Kostrigin, A. A. (2021). Ideas of psychology of creativity in literary criticism of Yu. I. Aichenwald. In: Differential psychology and psychophysiology today: abilities, education, professionalism. materials of the International Conference dedicated to the 125th anniversary of the birth of the outstanding Russian psychologist Boris Mikhailovich Teplov. Moscow: Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Education. 130—134. ISBN 978-5-6044524-6-2. (In Russ.).

10. Murzina, I. Ya. (1996). The work of Yu. I. Eichenwald in the pre-October period: features of worldview and literary criticism. Author’s abstract of PhD Diss. Chelyabinsk. 24 p. (In Russ.).

11. Ripping, M. (2003). Literary criticism of Yu. I. Eichenwald during the emigration. PhD Diss. Ivanovo. 187 p. (In Russ.).

12. Serdechnaya, V. V., Zhatkin, D. N. (2024). Problems of Russian Theatrical Reception of Shakespeare in Criticism of Yuli Eichenwald. Nauchnyi dialog, 13 (1): 256—273. https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-1-256-273 (In Russ.).

13. Smirnov, K. V. (2019). Yu. I. Eichenwald and his “Goncharov” (on the specifics of interpretation). Notes of the scientist, 5 (39): 113—117. (In Russ.).

14. Tahoe-Godi, E. A. (2022). About A. F. Losev, N. V. Samsonov, French aesthetics Sh. Lalo and literary criticism by Y. I. Eichenwalde. In: Aesthetics and hermeneutics. Collection for the 60th anniversary of the Department of Aesthetics of Moscow State University. Moscow: MAX Press LLC. 26—31. ISBN 978-5-317-06726-7. (In Russ.).

15. Tahoe-Godi, E. A. (2023). Critic about critic: Julius Aikhenvald about Apollon Grigoriev. Russian literature, 1: 32—36. DOI: 10.47639/0868-9539-2023-1-32. (In Russ.).

16. Tahoe-Godi, E. A. (2020b). Pushkin in the philosophical and aesthetic system of Yu. I. Aichenwald. Problems of historical poetics, 18 (3): 171—189. DOI: 10.15393/j9.art.2020.8223. (In Russ.).

17. Tahoe-Godi, E. A. (2022). Russia and Europe: Yuri Aichenwald on the historiosophy of F. M. Dostoevsky. Philosophical Journal, 15 (4): 123—135. DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-123-135. (In Russ.).

18. Vygotsky, L. (2000). Psychology of art. St. Petersburg: Azbuka. 416 p. ISBN 5-267-00279-8. (In Russ.).

19. Zaitsev, B. (1960). Moscow. Munich: TSOPE. 161 p. (In Russ.).

20. Zhatkin, D. N. (2024). The concept of Shakespeare’s tragedy in literary criticism Yu. Eichenwald. Problems of historical poetics, 22 (1): 209—228. DOI: 10.15393/j9.art.2024.13442. (In Russ.).

21. Zinner, E. P. (1965). Between two revolutions. In: Shakespeare and Russian culture. Moscow — Leningrad: Nauka. 734—783. (In Russ.).

22. Zuev, D. V. (2006). “Immanent criticism” by Yu. I. Eichenwald of the pre-emigrant period: the problem of the writer and the reader. Author’s abstract of PhD Diss. Moscow. 30 p. (In Russ.).