Abstract: The subject of the study is the author's metafictional discourse, expressed in a complex of discursive elements, having a different genre and functional nature. In Matvey Komarov's novel Vanka Cain, metraleflexion is a complex that includes metalepsis, digressions, generalizations, glosses, but also elements of paratext, for example, "Forewarning" and metatext, for example, footnotes. All these elements are in a unique configuration, form a single system of the author's discourse, and reflect the general meta-ethics of the work. Therefore, analyzing them as a system, we do not separate individual elements, but two of their complexes reflecting the key opposition of the metapoetics of the work: metafictional commentary and metanarrative commentary. The first one thematizes the work of fiction and fantasy. The second focuses on the reflection of literary and rhetorical forms. In Komarov's novel, they have their own specifics, peculiar to the rhetorical consciousness, modified by the folk tradition of popular literature.  In the study, we use the teleological approach developed in Russian philology by A. Skaftym, in which the emphasis is placed on the total importance of all elements of the work. Also, following Yu. Chumakov, we include the author's notes in the text of the work. Based on postclassical German narratology, we separate the metafictional and metanarrative author's comments. The novelty of the research lies in the consideration of the author's metapoetics in the early work of Matvey Komarov. In the analytical allocation of its explicit, verbalized form by the author, in the commentary, which had not previously been the subject of research. This required a methodologically innovative combination of the perspectives of the immanent analysis of a literary work and the narratological analysis of an author's work, during which it became possible to distinguish two, metanarrative and metafictional, systems of author's judgments in the text. At the same time, due to the specifics of the subject, the identification of the features of Matvey Komarov's literary consciousness became particularly valuable research results. His conceptualization of literature as a quality of form, the rhetorical perception of fiction as a technique. And, on the contrary, relying on evidence and experience in the design of history, understanding its nature as a reflection of reality, an emblematic vision of it as a fragment having didactic value.

Abstract: The subject of this study is the history of the concept of "authorial commentary" in Russian literary criticism of the 1920s and 30s. The moment of the appearance of its actual word form, as well as its equivalent, "auto-commentary", is recorded. The key research method is historical semantics, which provides a methodological framework for combining the semantic, pragmatic analysis of the concept of "author's commentary", as well as the epistemological analysis of the associated representation system. Auxiliary methods are the epistemology of the humanities, which makes it possible to establish the essence of the literary concept. In the course of this study, a sketch of the periodization of the history of the concept of "authorial commentary" was given. The thesis was put forward that the period from 1921 to 1935 is central to its existence in literary discourse, during which the tradition of its dual use was established. This tradition is relevant to this day. An epistemological characteristic of this period was given. It shows the predominance of the psychological understanding of commentary over its understanding as the form of literary study. It was found out that in the context of the formation of textology, this concept denoted the connection of an artistic work with the non-fiction texts of the author accompanying its appearance. The equivalence of the word forms "authorial commentary" and "auto-commentary" was demonstrated, and the thesis was put forward that author's commentary was defined by literary critics of the 20s and 30s as a type of auto-criticism, and the very doctrine of auto-criticism was part of the psychology of creativity. The last was predominant and influential concept of the time due to complex relations between psychoanalysis and psychological criticism, and young soviet literature studies.