Slot: 30C–1 Dec.
30, 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Title: Леpмонтов: незаконченное, неизданное,
недосказанное
Chair: Gary Saul Morson, Northwestern University
Title: Аpбенин без маски, или Жизнь поэта:
Lermontov’s Unknown Tribute to Pushkin
Author: Inna Caron, Ohio State University
An older husband, driven to madness by
jealousy, despite all his brilliance. A younger wife, beautiful, trustful, and
innocent, despite all the incriminating evidence. A carefree socialite,
recklessly pursuing his passions. A ruthless intrigant on a vengeful mission. A
heartless crowd, amused by the cruel game. A senseless murder in the endgame.
One significant
difference between Masquerade’s
Arbenin and his Shakespearean prototype is in the fact that this Nikolaevan
Othello did not have any exotic blood running through his veins that could be
used as a justification of his violent temper. Or did he?
Using
intertextual references, as well as biographical and epistolary data, I argue
that the character of Evgenii Aleksandrovich Arbenin, apart from exemplifying
the emerging literary genius of its creator, was also Lermontov’s attempt at a
psychological portrait of his famous older contemporary, whom he glorified
posthumously just a short while later.
Admitting that
every Russian poet, beginning with Lermontov, could not escape objectifying at
some point his or her phantomic reality of “my Pushkin,” I propose to take into
consideration that before Death of a Poet (1837) there was Masquerade (1834-1836), in which Lermontov
presented his very own, inherently dark, covertly demonic, and still living
“slave of honor.”
Title: The Lie That Tells the Truth: Lermontov’s
Shtoss Between Text
and Performance
Author: David Powelstock, Brandeis University
In spring 1841 Lermontov announced that
he would read his “new novel” Shtoss at an evening gathering. He requested that only the core salon habitués be invited,
asking that they arrive unusually early for a reading of at least four hours.
On the appointed evening, when the select audience of about thirty had
gathered, Lermontov entered with an enormous notebook, plunked it down on the
table, and began to read. After
about fifteen minutes, he stopped, and that was it. All but the first twenty pages of the notebook were blank.
The performance
of Shtoss as a hoax,
together with its uncharacteristically fantastic plot, has led some scholars to
discount its significance.
However, as one of Lermontov’s last texts, it has tempted others to read
a great deal into it. Yet one can
hardly agree with the conclusion voiced by prominent Soviet scholars that the
story represents Lermontov’s conversion to the Natural School. In places, the story,
despite its fantastic plot, describes Petersburg in the naturalistic terms of
the fiziologicheskii ocherk.
And one might see the plot as a pastiche of the Romantic fantastic. But why not
consider the “naturalistic” parts as pastiche, also?
I approach Shtoss
as a hoax with a serious
literary purpose. I examine the story’s significance by reciprocally
superimposing the “unfinished” literary text itself and the “unfinished”
behavioral text of its salon performance as dual manifestations of a single Lermontovian
characteristic: his lifelong tendency toward provoking his audiences into
rethinking their aesthetic and moral norms. I readdress the story’s (and Lermontov’s) relation to the
secondary interpretive question of the Romanticism-Naturalism-Realism debate,
connecting the piece to contemporary literary historical processes, as
Lermontov saw them. I conclude that Lermontov’s “practical joke” was indeed
practical. It used naturalistic and fantastic devices allegorically, to make a
statement about “literary interest” that was critical toward contemporary
literary practices, but far from anti-Romantic.
Title: Pechorin’s Last Journey: Literary Models
and Historical Background
Author: Ilya Vinitsky, University Of Pennsylvania
The present paper deals with a discussion
of a “Persian motif” in Mikhail Lermontov’s A Hero of Our Time (1839-1840). Why does Pechorin head to
“Persia and further on” at the end of his life (“Maksim Maksimych”)? What does
this “further on” imply? What was the cultural content of the concept “Persia”
in Russian literature of the 1830s? Were there any real prototypes for the hero
of our time’s last voyage?
To answer these
questions I consider Pechorin’s last enterprise within competing Romantic
models of the Occidental journey, within the historical and political situation
of the late 1830s, as well as within contexts of real trips by Russian
travelers to “Persia and further on” in the discussed period. I draw special
attention to the figure of a 30-year old Russian officer and Romantic wanderer
Ivan Viktorovich Vitkevich, whose adventurous life, melancholy letters, and
mysterious death in 1839 represent an interesting parallel to Pechorin’s story.
I argue that, to an extent, Pechorin not only acts, but also dies as the hero
of his time.