N.N. Kanivetsky in Russian and Soviet Literature and Criticism

The author’s focus centers on the systematic identification and analysis of sources documenting the biographical trajectory of writer Nikolai Nikolaevich Kanivetsky (1857–1911) and the interpretation of evaluative judgments that capture the nuances of perception regarding his literary activity within the historical and cultural context of the late 19th to early 20th centuries. The application of comparative, descriptive, and biographical methods enabled the identification of cause-and-effect relationships and the evolving logic underlying the perception of N. N. Kanivetsky’s creative work and persona across distinct periods of Russian state history. The design of the study lies in contextualizing the research problem through an examination of diverse sources, including Kuban Calendars and pre-revolutionary periodicals such as the newspapers Kuban Provincial Gazette and Novoe Vremya (New Time), as well as the journal Russkoye Bogatstvo (Russian Wealth). Additionally, scholarly publications addressing literary regional studies and book printing were scrutinized. Critical reviews by Kanivetsky’s contemporaries, including Vladimir Zhukovsky and V. G. Korolenko, published in central periodicals and assessing the Kuban author’s literary output, were analyzed. Details from the biography of Soviet writer F. V. Gladkov, who spent his formative years in Yekaterinodar at Kanivetsky’s home, were examined. Emphasis is placed on the profound influence exerted by the Kanivetsky family on the development and maturation of the young Gladkov. Insights from the personal archives of Kuban historians shed light on Gladkov’s complex relationship with the authorities, clarifying the omission of certain life episodes in his autobiographical works. The scholarly-analytical work of N. F. Velengurin, which constitutes the first dedicated study of N. N. Kanivetsky’s persona within F. Gladkov’s oeuvre, was analyzed. The role of V. P. Bardadym’s research in evaluating Kanivetsky’s literary and public activities is highlighted. Additionally, the memoirs of A. Rakov about Anton Chekhov, published in Kuban shortly after the death of the great Russian writer and containing his assessment of Kanivetsky’s literary work, were characterized. The analysis of critical responses from representatives of diverse ideological currents in the public life of the Russian Empire revealed that reviewers emphasized, above all, the writer’s talent, the vivid and original language of his works, and his documentation of the Kuban dialect – a feature notably remarked upon by Anton Chekhov in Kanivetsky’s stories.