Slot: 28B-2 Dec.
28, 10:15 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.
Panel: Russian Literature and Music
Chair: Molly Thomasy, University of
Wisconsin-Madison
Title: Revisionist Interpretations of Tatiana’s
Letter in Music and Literature
Author: Tania Gordeev, Willamette University
A part of the lasting impact of Pushkin’s
Eugene Onegin stems
from its significant influence upon Russian literature, music and culture in
its wake. Of the many things that have been taken from the novel-in-verse and
reworked, Tatiana’s letter has been a particularly fertile theme. This paper
will present two revisionist interpretations of her love letter from both music
and literature. Most attention will be paid to Tatiana’s letter-aria in
Tchaikovsky’s fifth opera, Eugene Onegin (1878).
As I will argue, the letter-aria is a
sensitive reproduction of the “original” letter, which the readers of Pushkin
never see as it is possessively hoarded by the narrator. To support this claim,
a close reading of the letter-aria in comparison to the letter-in-verse will be
presented that keeps in mind Boris Gasparov’s insight into one of the major
differences between the novel and the opera: the former’s “evasiveness” versus
the latter’s “directness” (Gasparov 2005: 84). Additionally, the influence of
Tchaikovsky’s own personal letters upon his creation of the letter-aria will be
considered. Although much has been made of the strange coincidence that
Tchaikovsky began receiving unsolicited letters from Antonina Miliukova while
working on this central part of his opera, it is my contention that his unique
letters-is-all relationship with Nadezhda von Meck had a much more profound
impact upon his understanding of the letter-aria as a letter. By examining
Tchaikovsky’s first intimate exchange with von Meck, which took place around
the same time he was working on the letter-aria, I will underscore some of the
important parallels that can be drawn between his actual correspondence with von
Meck and Tatiana’s letter-aria.
In conclusion, my paper will
turn briefly to one literary reworking of Tatiana’s letter: Vera’s farewell
letter to Pechorin in Lermontov’s “Princess Mary” (1840). An authentic voice
lodged into an insincere journal, Vera’s letter to Pechorin constitutes a
crucial component of the text that disarms the unsuspecting Pechorin and
enhances the reader’s understanding of him. In addition to exploring the
letter’s impact in the story, I will consider the ways in which Vera’s letter
resonates more distinctly with Tatiana’s monologue to Onegin, as Vera bears
greater resemblance to the mature and married Pushkinian heroine.
Each work to be examined
presents a distinct but equally robust reworking of the Tatiana letter.
References
Emerson, Caryl. “Tchaikovsky’s Tatiana.” Tchaikovksy
and his World. Ed.
Leslie Kerney. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1998.
Gasparov, Boris. “Eugene Onegin in the Age of Realism.” Five Operas
and a Symphony. Word and Music in Russian Culture. New Haven: Yale UP, 2005.
Hasty, Olga Peters. Pushkin's Tatiana. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1999
Poznansky, Alexander. “Two Women.” Tchaikovsky.
The Quest for the Inner Man.
New York: Schirmer Books, 1991. 195-214.
Tchaikovsky, P. I. Perepiska s N. F.
von Mekk, III, 1882-1890.
Moskva: Akademiia, 1934.
Zhekulin, Nicholas G. "Evgenii
Onegin: The Art of
Adaptation, Novel to Opera." Revue Canadienne des Slavistes (Juin-Septembre 1987): 279-91.
Title: Terrible Moments: Tchaikovsky, Kuprin,
and Narrative
Author: Janneke van de Stadt, Williams College
Alexander Kuprin’s story “The Terrible
Moment” (“Strashnaia minuta”) was written in 1895, twenty years after Peter
Tchaikovsky composed an art song by the same name. It was, and still is, one of the composer’s most beloved
romances, for which he wrote both the music and the text. In his story, Kuprin engages with
Tchaikovsky’s piece not only as a highly regarded and popular cultural
artifact, but also as a narrative in its own right.
This essay
proposes to examine the two “Terrible Moments” intertextual relationship within
the framework of Kuprin’s tale.
Much as Leo Tolstoy did with Beethoven’s famous sonata, by giving his
own narrative the name of Tchaikovsky’s musical one, Kuprin means to establish
a dialogue between them. As he
allows the two works alternately to speak, question, answer, and contradict one
another, the author poses questions regarding the common ground shared by
different narrative forms and also probes the relationship between art and
life.
Title: “Konstantin has just killed himself”:
Chekhov and Wagner
Author: Galina Rylkova, University of Florida
In this paper I attempt to reevaluate
Treplev’s death by showing why it was unavoidable and how it might have brought
a sense of closure to the fictional world of Chekhov’s Seagull. So far, critics have interpreted
Treplev’s death as a manifestation of the utter despair he finds himself in in
Act IV. Although I agree that Treplev’s
death was inevitable, I see it not as a culmination of his misfortunes but
rather as a Wagnerian-Schopenhauerian willed death that brings eternal
happiness and bliss with it. Whether he actually reached his eternal happiness
is beside the point – what is important is that only by taking his own life did
Treplev stand a chance of winning Nina back. I propose to view Treplev as a
Russian version of Wagnerian Tristan even though the evidence of Chekhov’s
involvement with this particular opera and with Wagner in general is very
circumstantial. Interestingly,
Wagner’s name was mentioned in one of the first reviews of The Seagull. “Kugel [in 1896] shrewdly compared
Chekhov’s use of recurrent images and phrases, Leitmotive, to Wagner’s,” Donald
Rayfield wrote in his celebrated biography. However, this insight has not been
developed to any extent either by Chekhov’s contemporaries or by subsequent
generations of critics. In my paper I offer a more engaged reading of Chekhov
through the prism of Wagner’s opera.
As is known,
upon hearing the news of Isolde’s arrival, Tristan tore off his bandages and
let himself bleed to death. As Linda and Michael Hutcheon show in their
inspired reading of the opera, Tristan willed his death. He wanted to die, for
that was the only means of achieving bliss with Isolde. Prior to that, they
both wronged each other several times, mainly because of pressures that arose
from their understanding of duty and honor. As the opera progresses, it becomes
increasingly difficult for them to put each other first unless they give up
everything including life. Not unlike glory-driven Tristan, Treplev had
previously denied Nina any right to interfere with his writing. Despite his
love for Nina, Treplev was equally preoccupied with his rivalry with Trigorin
and his own mother, just as Tristan had his allegiance split between King Marke
and Isolde. Like Tristan, Treplev hangs onto his life to welcome Nina back to
his house. Like Tristan, Treplev changes. He tears up his manuscripts and
commits suicide.
In his “On the
Death of Igor Stravinsky” Vladimir Il′in brought Chekhov and Wagner together
when he struggled to define artistic genius. He states that Wagner was not a
talented man in the generally accepted sense of this word. He claims that
Wagner had a bad ear for music and could not play any musical instruments well,
and yet, he was a genius. To support this allegation, Il′in refers his readers
to Chekhov’s The Seagull.
“Creative genius may have nothing or little to do with what is conventionally
called “talent” or ability,” Il′in writes. “Let me note in passing here that
Chekhov’s uncanny insight in The Seagull has revealed to us this terrifying tragedy that has only
one resolution: either suicide or
a superhuman, one might say “Beethovenesque,” i.e., heroic and all-out effort
in confronting single-handedly the blind and cruel Fate in order to fell it,
grab it by the throat, kneel on its chest, and kill it as you would kill a
murderer… Beethoven succeeded in doing that and so did Wagner.” Undoubtedly,
the key to our interpretation of Treplev lies in our understanding of the
correlation between artistic talent and the choices that artists make in order
to realize it. In The Seagull
the choice is made clear – one either “looses one’s individuation” and buries
oneself as a writer (like Treplev) or consigns oneself to loneliness (like
Trigorin).