Slot: 30A-1 Dec.
30, 8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
Panel: Poetics and Romanticism
Chair: Vadim Shkolnikov, Columbia University
Title: The “sinisterization” of the Term
“chuzhoj” in Griboedov’s Woe from Wit
Author: Jason Galie, Columbia University
The topic of my paper is the interaction
of the words svoj and
chuzhoj in Russian
literature and society. On the
most general level, I would like to explore how the universal feeling of
“fitting in” and “not fitting in” in a group dynamic has evolved on Russian
soil and what role language and literature have played in this evolution. I am interested in how Russians
perceive and evaluate свой
человек
(“one of us”) versus чужой человек (“a stranger, an alien, not one of
us”). In my work I focus on
certain time periods in Russian history, mostly in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. For this paper I would like to concentrate on the early
nineteenth century and Aleksandr Griboedov’s play Woe from Wit, which, I will argue, marks a
significant moment in the history of the interaction of these two words.
I will begin my
paper with background information on the words. I will show that the word чужой was not always interpreted as negatively
as it is today in Russia. I will
argue that the negative connotation arose in the eighteenth century in
connection with the rise of a new line of nobility to rival the ancient Moscow
lines that had so powerfully influenced the tsar for centuries. Certain events of the eighteenth
century, namely the adoption of Western customs and ideas, the influx of
Germans to the newly built city of St. Petersburg, the forcibly weakened state
of the Orthodox Church, and the creation of the Table of Ranks, all contributed
to a narrowing in the possible ways that the свой/чужой opposition functioned.
In moving to an
analysis of Griboedov’s drama, I will use the свой/чужой lens to examine the similarities between
the author’s own social situation and the experience of his protagonist,
Aleksandr Chatsky. Chatsky was once
свой человек in the Famusov home, but after an
extended absence (in St. Petersburg and/or the West), he returns clearly чужой.
A crucial moment in the play for my argument is the ball scene where
Chatsky is labeled insane by Sophia.
I will argue
that the fear that this “diagnosis” evokes in the characters in the play is
similar, if not identical, to the fear that had already cropped up in Moscow
society (and for Griboedov himself) over the uncertainty of who was still свой and who was not. The old Moscow nobles felt increasingly
insecure and marginalized. They, like the guests at Famusov’s ball, no longer
knew who was свой. In Woe from Wit, this insecurity causes the guests to
turn on one of their own, Chatsky.
The diagnoses чужой
and “insane” converge in this play, at the very time when society at large is
experiencing disruption. I will
argue (and support my argument with examples) that the label чужой, from this time on, begins to be
interpreted more negatively than it had before.
Title: “In the World of My Creation”: The
Production of “Real” Readers in Gogol’s Selected Passages from
Correspondence with Friends
Author: Jessika Aguilar, Columbia University
The publication of Selected Passages
from Correspondence with Friends
in January, 1847 sparked a storm of controversy that culminated in Belinsky’s
infamous Salzbrunn letter. In the
heat of the debate, however, it never occurred to anyone to question whether
the text did indeed represent actual correspondence. Nearly a century later, Vasilii Gippius would be the first
to suggest that Selected Passages
is a “purely literary work” (Gippius 139). This interpretation was not explored further until 1981,
however, when Ruth Sobel argued that the correspondence in Selected Passages
is almost entirely
fictional, being only loosely based on actual letters (Sobel 163-64). Whereas Selected Passages criticism up to that point had revolved
exclusively around the ideological content of the work, subsequent criticism
has concentrated on its form and literary qualities.
One question
that remains unanswered involves Gogol’s purposes in creating this subtle
fabrication. If Selected
Passages was not drawn
from actual correspondence, it certainly seemed designed to give that
impression and to be accepted as such by others. Rather than being a factual record of Gogol’s personal life
and relationships, however, Selected Passages enacts a re-creation of reality as Gogol
wished it to be and of the role he wished to play in it. This paper hypothesizes that Selected
Passages’ is in fact a
literary performance, one that was intended to effect change simply by means of
its execution. By reading and
accepting Gogol’s guidance, real world readers were supposed to merge with the
fictional/implied readers represented by those to whom the letters are
addressed in the book. The effect
is that the real reader recreates the relationship between Gogol and his
implied readers and in the process changes the reality outside the book to
reproduce the created reality of Selected Passages.
Within the framework of J.L. Austin’s theory of performativity,
particularly as applied by Judith Butler to the construction of gender, this
paper will consider the ways in which Gogol uses epistolary form and the
interplay of characters to create an identity and transform reality.
References
Austin J.L. How to do Things with
Words. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1962
Butler, Judith. ”Performative Acts and
Gender Constitution: an Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” Performing
Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre. Ed. Sue-Ellen Case. Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press, 1990
Gippius, Vasilii, V. Gogol. Ed and trans. Robert A. Maguire.
Durham: Duke UniversityPress, 1989
Sobel, Ruth. Gogol’s Forgotten Book:
Selected Passages and its Contemporary Readers. Washington, DC.: University Press of
America, inc., 1981.
Title: The Terminological Evolution of the
Fantastic Tale During the Nineteenth Century
Author: Jonathan Perkins, University of Kansas
In the course of the twentieth century the term
fantastic (fantastika) came to serve as a convenient literary
portemanteau for all Russian works of a “non-realistic” character, leading to the
use of the term
in reference to works
ranging from folk tales to science fiction (nauchnaia fantastika). While understandable in view of the
Russian penchant for realistic methods, this overly broad usage has greatly impoverished the vocabulary necessary to discuss the
diverse manifestations of the
supernatural in the literature of the Romantic period. This paper traces the evolution of the
term fantastic during
the nineteenth century by examining the negotiation between Russian authors and
critics as to the acceptable usage of the supernatural in literature. Using the
Russian translations of Sir Walter Scott’s articles on the use of the
supernatural in the works of E.T.A. Hoffmann and Anne Radcliffe as the point of
departure, my study suggests the emergence of a literary golden mean in which
the author neither confirms nor denies the existence of the supernatural in a work, balancing the enlightened reader’s
desire to read about the supernatural against his inherent scepticism. This golden mean, evident in works like
Alexander Pushkin’s “The Queen of Spades” and Nikolai Gogol’s “The Portrait,”
can be traced through the writings of the critics Stepan Shevyryov and
Vissarion Belinsky, as well as writers like Vladimir Odoevsky, Vladimir
Solovyov and Fyodor Dostoevsky.
This narrower conception of the fantastic, which stresses the interplay between (rather than the
opposition of) supernatural
and realistic elements, is of far greater critical precision than the current
literary portemanteau and is closer to the post-Todorovian usage of the term
that informs most literary scholarship.