The generic originality of Iurii Tynianov's representation of Pushkin in the novels 'Pushkin' and 'The Gannibals'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is the first extensive study devoted to the generic originality of Iurii Tynianov’s representation of Pushkin in his two historical novels, Pushkin (1935-1943) and the abandoned The Gannibals (1932). Chapter 1 contextualises Tynianov’s contribution to the current debates on the novel’s demise, ‘large’ form and the worthy protagonist. The conditions giving rise to contemporary interest in the genres of biography and the historical novel are delineated and the critical issues surrounding these are examined; Tynianov’s concern to secularise the rigid monolith of an all but sanctified ‘state-sponsored Pushkin’ and the difficulties of the task are also reviewed. Chapter 2 shifts the examination of Pushkin as a historical novel to its study within the generic framework of the Bildungs, Erziehungs and Künstlerromane with their particular problematics which allowed Tynianov to grapple with a cluster of moral, philosophical and educational issues, and to explore the formative influences on the protagonist’s identity as a poet. Chapter 3 explores the concept of history underlying Tynianov’s interpretation of the characters and events and the historiographical practices he employed in his analyses of the factors that shaped Pushkin’s own historical thinking. Chapter 4 investigates Tynianov’s scepticism about Abram Gannibal’s and A. Pushkin’s mythopoeia which reveals itself in Tynianov’s subversively ironical and playful use of myth in both novels. The Conclusion assesses Tynianov’s contribution to the 20th century fictional Pushkiniana and reflects on his innovative transgeneric historical novel which broke the normative restrictions of the genre, elevated it to the level of ‘serious’ literature and made it conducive to stylistic experimentation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".