https://interfas.univ-tlse2.fr/slavicaoccitania/961 Publications de Auteurs Galin Tihanov fr 0 https://interfas.univ-tlse2.fr/slavicaoccitania/1034 Gustave Chpet : Literary and Theatre Theory in the 1920s. In this essay I focus on Shpet's theoretical work on literature and theatre during the 1920s. Notwithstanding its significance, Gustav Shpet's intellectual career is still insufficiently researched and conceptualised, both in Russia and in the West. For that reason I begin by furnishing an outline of the main stages of his life and evolution as a thinker, along with an account of the principal areas of his work. Once the larger context of his multifaceted intellectual endeavours is established, in the latter part of the article I address in more detail Shpet's engagement with literary and theatre theory, assessing in the process the precarious balance between innovation and regression that marks his contribution. I do so by discussing in detail his involvement in the study of literature and theatre in the Moscow Linguistic Circle and at the State Academy of Artistic Sciences (GAKhN), and by posing, subsequently, the question of his position within the larger field of theoretical enquiry in the 1920s. Examining Shpet's perspective in relation to Mikhail Bakhtin's invites itself as a necessary step in answering this question. mer., 16 janv. 2019 10:31:04 +0100 dim., 11 févr. 2024 10:12:11 +0100 https://interfas.univ-tlse2.fr/slavicaoccitania/1034 https://interfas.univ-tlse2.fr/slavicaoccitania/960 Depuis une quinzaine d’années, l’intérêt des chercheurs pour le contexte historique de l’œuvre de Mikhaïl Bakhtine s’est considérablement accru. Néanmoins, il est surprenant que l’influence de Nikolaï Bakhtine sur la formation intellectuelle de Mikhaïl, en tant qu’il constitua son environnement premier et son horizon intellectuel, ne soit pas beaucoup mise en évidence. Comprendre qui était Mikhaïl Bakhtine exige que l’on s’intéresse de plus près à ses échanges – ou à l’absence d’échanges – avec Nikolaï. Dans cet article, je démontre qu’un essai de Nikolaï Bakhtine datant des années 1920 préfigure quelques-unes des préoccupations intellectuelles ultérieures de Mikhaïl, et qu’un article de Nikolaï des années 1930 comporte une objection implicite (et cependant bien perceptible) à l’idée que soutiendra Mikhaïl plus tard selon laquelle le roman est le seul vrai site du dialogue et de la polyphonie (Trad. de l’anglais par Pierre Jamet) « Misha and Kolia : Thinking the (Br)other » The last fifteen years of research on Mikhail Bakhtin have seen a remarkable growth of interest in the historical contexts of his work. Surprisingly, however, interest in Nikolai Bakhtin as Mikhail’s most immediate context and horizon of intellectual formation does not seem to be in strong evidence. Understanding who Mikhail Bakhtin was demands a closer look at his exchanges – or lack thereof – with Nikolai. In this article I demonstrate that Nikolai Bakhtin’s essays of the 1920s anticipate some of Mikhail’s later intellectual anxieties, whereas one of Nikolai’s articles of the 1930s articles presents an implicit (but nonetheless very vocal) objection to Mikhail’s later claim that the novel is the only true site of dialogue and polyphony. mar., 27 nov. 2018 16:14:41 +0100 sam., 17 avril 2021 15:52:44 +0200 https://interfas.univ-tlse2.fr/slavicaoccitania/960