Information about the author: 

Abstract:

In this article, drawing upon Yury Prokushev’s concept of the “two geniuses”, we examine key findings from studies on the “Pushkin and Esenin” theme over the past three decades (1995–2025). The analysis focuses on various manifestations of the “Pushkin cultural code” in shaping Esenin as a symbolic figure following in Pushkin’s footsteps within the national cultural cosmos. We outline the main stages in the development of Esenin’s “Pushkinism”. Attention is paid to signs of the influence of Pushkin on Esenin’s early works: for instance, elements from Pushkin’s “Tale of the She-Bear” are reflected in Esenin’s “The Little Swan” (“Lebedushka”), and a folkloric citation from a folk robber song in Pushkin’s works is echoed in Esenin’s narrative poem “The Ravine”. Esenin’s romantic historicism in “Pugachev” is compared to the realistic approach in Pushkin’s works on the same subject. The article emphasizes Pushkin’s special role as a guide for Esenin into the realm of the world culture. Parallels are drawn between the plot structure and the character name from Pushkin’s “The Stone Guest” and Esenin’s poem “Anna Snegina”. Other signs of Pushkin’s “Don Juanism” tradition are identified in Esenin’s cycle “Love of a Hooligan” and the poem “Perhaps It’s Late, Perhaps Too Soon...”. The concept of art in Esenin’s “The Black Man” is examined in the context of Pushkin’s “Mozartian” themes. Esenin’s poem “To Pushkin” is analyzed concerning its alignment with the genre canon of the “friendly epistle”, characteristic of Pushkin’s era, as well as Esenin’s interpretation of the classical theme of the “poetic monument” as a symbol of the immortal legacy left by a genius to humanity. Esenin’s “Stanzas” are considered in light of Pushkin’s “Stanzas”, focusing on the open acknowledgment of the state as a benevolent force and a kind of “civic oath” by the poet to the new statehood. Based on materials from “The Chronicle of the Life and Work of S.A. Esenin”, the formation of the concept of Esenin as the “second Pushkin”, “new Pushkin”, or “Pushkin of the 20th century” in the criticism of the 1920s is traced.