THE NOVEL CONFRONTED BY HISTORY: SHALAMOV VERSUS SOLZHENITSYN / Shalamov’s and Solzhenitsyn’s perspectives are not only related to various experiences and ethical choices: they fit into two systems of thought – binary and ternary, respectively – that arose from 19th century literature. This paper endeavours to reconstruct the literary background of each of these two authors, analysing their positions regarding modernity (accepted by Shalamov and refused by Solzhenitsyn) as well as the models to which they refer. On the one hand, Solzhenitsyn gives priority to “Romanesque” literature and, as a result, to the referential function of narration; on the other hand, Shalamov commits himself to poetic function, giving his narrative a performative dimension. Both writers, each in his own way, are searching for a single truth in the art..
Key words: literary background; referential function; poetic function; performative dimension
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
Chalamov, Varlam, Tout ou rien, traduit du russe par Christiane Loré, Lagrasse, Verdier, 1993.
Chalamov, Varlam, Correspondance avec Alexandre Soljenitsyne et Nadejda Mandelstam, traduit du russe par Francine Andreïeff, Lagrasse, Verdier, 1995.
Chreïder, Iouli, « La tentation de l’enfer » in Cahiers Chalamov n° 1 sous la direction de V. Essipov, Vologda, 1994, p. 203-217 (en russe).
Lotman, Iouri, « La littérature russe de la période classique. Remarques introductives » in Iouri Lotman et l’école sémiotique de Tartu-Moscou, Moscou, 1994, p. 380-393 (en russe). Cité d’après la version électronique http://www.fedy-diary.ru/html/102010/17102010-01c.html
Medvedev, Roy, Soljenitsyne et Sakharov, Moscou, éditions des Droits de l’Homme, 2002 (en russe).
Sirotinskaïa, Irina, Mon ami Varlam Chalamov, Moscou, Allana, 2006 (en russe).
Soljenitsyne, Alexandre, Le Chêne et le veau, traduit du russe par René Marichal, Paris, le Seuil, 1975.