Slot: 28B–4 Dec. 28, 10:15 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.
Panel: International Vladimir Nabokov Society
Chair: Julian Connolly, University of Virginia
Title: Fedorov's Resurrection of the Dead in
Nabokov's “Mechtal ia o tebe…,” and Solovyov's Death Into Life in “Blizko,
daleko, ne zdes′ i ne tam…”: Comparative Analysis of Two Poems
Author: Gennady Denisenko, University of Virginia
…И ныне, наяву, ты, легкая, пришла,
И вспоминаю суеверно,
Как те глубокие созвучья – зеркала
Тебя
предсказывали верно.
This paper is a continuation of a
comparative investigation of Nabokov and Solovyov’s art. Although Solovyov
formally never finished his work on aesthetics, its principles clearly derive
from his ethics and metaphysics. Also recognized as a distinguished poet,
Solovyov harmoniously introduces his philosophical ideas of Beauty into his
poems. Particularly, in his “Blizko, daleko,
ne zdes′ i ne tam” he reinvents
the spatial image tam as
a demonstration of his Uni-totality’s super-consciousness. The poem’s narrator
submits himself unconditionally to the beautiful Goddess, the messenger of tam
that stays “there” - in the
metaphysical plane. In other words, Solovyov denies the possibility of heaven
on Earth. The restoration of Beauty is expected as a result of an artist’s
theurgic act of faith that leads him into the absorption by the beautiful being
that a “human eye has not seen, and a human ear has not heard.”
Neither
does Nabokov believe in earthly paradise. His two world model also presupposes
an upper level of consciousness whose sparkles can be grasped by a lucky hero.
His poem “Mechtal ia o tebe” resembles Solovyov’s “Blizko…” in style and
tonality. The narrator also meets a female that he has been dreaming about, and
he experiences changes in the quality of his “I.” However, there are certain
elements that allow us to put the poems into Nikolai Fyodorov’s plan of
resurrection of the dead that is different from Solovyov’s ultimate
metaphysical transcendence.
First
of all, Nabokov’s art often includes the resurrection of earthly environment
that follows a narrator into his hereafter. Contrary to Solovyov’s estrangement
from his “I” in a religious trance, Nabokov’s narrator preserves his
personality when controlled by his “I.”
In the last stanza his ability to control his “I” is weakened. Instead
of submission he just accepts what has come. He was “dreaming” and was
“sensing” (chuial) a woman’s image in “delightful and clear
poetry.” Thus, Nabokov places his metaphysical plane into “mirrors” of poetry’s
“deep assonances” that were “foretelling” the image “correctly.” “Light” as an
epithet of the woman that comes “in reality” (naiavu) makes us doubt her
appearance in flesh. The poem was written on July 6, 1921 after Nabokov had
seen Valentina Shulgina last time in Summer 1917. There is no evidence of any
female appearing in Nabokov’s life at “that time” (nyne). Do the “long years of
life” change the “reality” of the last stanza? Does it describe life after the
narrator’s death? Is he a subject of Fyodorov’s resurrection?
Title: Nabokov’s Dialogue with Chekhov: Ladies
with and without Dogs
Author: Kirsten Rutsala, University of Oklahoma
Although Nabokov's admiration for
Chekhov's work is well-documented, relatively little critical attention has
been paid to the connections between the two writers' works. Simon Karlinsky
and Maxim Shrayer are among the few who have explored these links in detail.
This paper concentrates on two of Nabokov’s stories as part of his larger
dialogue with Chekhov. "The Reunion" and "That in Aleppo Once. .
." carry thematic, narrative, and structural echoes of "The Lady with
the Little Dog" in particular. In analyzing "The Reunion" in
conjunction with Chekhov’s story, I focus on the theme of deception in both
stories, particularly the notion of secret, double lives. The analysis also
includes an examination of the stories’ structural similarities, including the
continual overturning of both characters’ and readers’ expectations. The
expected endings do not occur in either story, and the ultimate conclusions are
open-ended and ambiguous.
While "The
Reunion" is a relatively straightforward story, "That in Aleppo Once.
. . " is considerably more complex. Nabokov deliberately complicates
matters by creating both an unreliable narrator and a second character (the
narrator’s wife) who invents stories about her experiences. Thus Nabokov takes
Chekhov’s ambiguity a step further: not only is the future of the characters
uncertain, the past is as well. The Chekhovian subtext appears throughout the
story, beginning with a direct reference to Chekhov early in the story. As we
progress through the narrative, however, it turns out that the story is a
reversal or subversion of Chekhovian details and devices, including parodic references
to the relationship between Gurov and Anna Sergeyevna, and the appearance of
"a solemn but pleasant old doctor" who is a multi-layered allusion to
both Chekhov’s characters and Chekhov himself.
Perhaps most
striking are the authors’ respective treatments of their heroines. While
Chekhov creates a character in Anna Sergeyevna who at first appears to be a
literary type and then transforms her into a complex individual, Nabokov
reverses this course. The narrator’s wife continually evades his and the
reader’s understanding; the more we seem to learn about her, the less we really
know. Finally, the narrator declares that his wife never existed at all, that
she is simply "a phantom" who exists only on the page. From a
metaliterary angle, of course, this is entirely accurate, since she is a
fictional character. Thus Nabokov’s story simultaneously pays tribute to
Chekhov and lays bare the mechanics of storytelling, narrative decisions, and
the creative process itself.
Title: Khodasevich’s Legacy in Nabokov’s
Biographical Studies and in Scholarship on Onegin
Author: Anastasia Lakhtikova, Washington
University in St. Louis
This paper situates the origins of
Vladimir Nabokov’s method of commentary on Eugene Onegin in debates on biography in the European
Russian diaspora, thereby placing the innovative aspects of his method in the
context of an intellectual debate disrupted by history and emigration. Because Commentary
is not usually
considered in terms of biographical genres and because Nabokov’s Onegin was published twenty-five years after
Nabokov’s emigration to the United States, critics do not consider the diaspora
as a possible intellectual source for Nabokov’s method of commentary.
Vladislav
Khodasevich especially influenced and reinforced Nabokov’s ideas about writing
on Pushkin, as can be shown by a comparative analysis of such issues as
biography and its limitations, the role of the critic-biographer, and the
creative process as a fulcrum of critical and biographical inquiry in Khodasevich’s
and Nabokov’s texts. Particularly significant here is Khodasevich’s Poeticheskoe
Khoziaistvo Pushkina, an
early example of what could be viewed as a poststructuralist textual analysis,
a study of the creative process, and by extension, a biography of a creative
mind. In essence Poeticheskoe Khoziaistvo represents the rudimentary methodology and provides a
rubric for Nabokov’s Commentary.
This paper
traces the metamorphoses of the biographical genres from Khodasevich’s
resistance to hagiography to his fragmented representation of the poet’s mind
in a biographical context; from Nabokov’s distrust of documented witness and
rejection of the search for “human” aspects of a writer’s life to study and
imitation of a writer’s style, and through style, to a reconstitution of the
dynamics of a writer’s mind—the latter being the foundation of Nabokov’s method
of translation and commentary on Onegin.
References
Khodasevich, Vladislav. Poeticheskoe
Khoziaistvo Pushkina. Leningrad:
Mysl’, 1924.
Nabokov, Vladimir, trans. Eugene
Onegin: A Novel in Verse.
By Aleksander Pushkin, 4 vols. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1975.
Title: “J’en sais d’immortelles qui sont de purs
sanglots”: Alfred de Musset in Nabokov’s Eulogy of Khodasevich
Author: Stanislav A. Shvabrin, University of
California, Los Angeles
This paper will be concerned with a
single phrase in Vladimir Nabokov’s pivotal intimation of his vision of the
disparity between the artist’s lofty calling and the exigencies of his mundane
existence – the essay “On Khodasevich” (1939; 1973). Delivered in a manner that
is rich in implicit evocations of poets akin to both the author and the subject
of his eulogy (see Strong Opinions.
NY: Vintage, 1973: 224), it is at once a paradoxical affirmation of the vitality
of the tradition to which Nabokov and Khodasevich both belong and a polemic
with their adversaries (“a few poets of the émigré generation… still on their
way up” [ibid.: 225]).
Nabokov’s stance
to the problem of human suffering in its relation to artistic creation is of
particular importance here, as is the means by which the writer chooses to
articulate his position. In my paper I shall seek to prove that the phrase
“purs sanglots” (“even the most purs sanglots require a perfect knowledge of
prosody, language, verbal equipoise,” ibid.: 225) constitutes a reference to a
text that played a significant role in the artistic self-determination of
Vladimir Nabokov – “La Nuit de Mai” by Alfred de Musset (1835).
The phrase “purs sanglots” (“pure sobs” – or “rydanii chistyi zvon” in Nabokov’s own poetic transposition of 1927) alludes not only to the original text by Musset, but also to Nabokov’s Russian version of “La Nuit de Mai”, both components of an elusive, mercurial unity that is the writer’s life-long dialogue with Musset. I will pursue the implications deriving from the attribution of the phrase in question to the French poem of 1835 and its Russian version of 1927.