The problem of the authorial commentary in contemporary Russian literature studies

This article is devoted to the problem of ambiguity of the concept of author’s comment. The root of the problem is seen in the specifics of its historical formation and in the specifics of the disciplinary development of the national sciences of literature. Therefore, the article analyzes modern variants of the disciplinary division of the sciences of literature and historical disciplinary definitions of textual criticism in the light of understanding the nature of commentary and author’s commentary. A comprehensive analysis of the interpretations of the author’s commentary is carried out, taking into account the established interdisciplinary connections that ensure their epistemic attitudes and self-determination of disciplines. Two configurations of disciplines with corresponding interpretations of the concept are established. On the one hand, it is textual criticism, understood as a historical and technical discipline, and the history of literature, united by a common empirical and analytical attitude. On the other hand, textual criticism as the establishment of the reading of a work and theoretical disciplines with a common conceptual, theoretical and hermeneutic attitude. In the first case, the author’s commentary is used with reference to the notes and the reference apparatus of the publication. In the second, to the explanatory fragments of the literary text. In this light, the analysis of domestic literary works devoted to the author’s commentary on the subject of belonging to one of the two interpretations is carried out. The current formulations of two interpretations of the author’s commentary are given. The conclusion is made about the alternativeness of these two interpretations, up to their distinction as two different concepts, as well as the conclusion about the inevitable contradiction in the study when they are mixed.