Studios #8

Studios #8
Publication date: April 18, 2002

receive by E-mail
print version

Kirill Ospovat

G.R. Derzhavin. Works / Intro. Art., prepared. text and notes G.N.Ionina. - St. Petersburg: Humanitarian Agency "Academic Project", 2002. (Ser. New Poet Library). ISBN 5-7331-0152-0

The volume under review is a fairly complete edition of Derzhavin's lyrics ; it “reproduces the full text of the three parts of Derzhavin’s Works, prepared and published by himself” in 1808. “Description of a celebration... in the house... of Prince Potemkin” (1791) and “a selection of Derzhavin’s most remarkable poems, created up to 1808 inclusive, but not included in his lifetime collected works” (p. 545) are printed here as appendices. . As a commentary on individual poems, Ionin cites the corresponding passages from Derzhavin’s “Explanations...”. Let’s say right away that such a (and newly verified) reissue of the corpus of Derzhavin’s lyrics compiled by the author himself is a worthy undertaking in itself and deserving of praise. However, the principle chosen by Ionin for compiling Derzhavin’s one-volume work cannot but raise questions (the introductory article, on the contrary, does not in the least deceive the expectations of the reader who is at least slightly familiar with Ionin’s scientific work).

Presenting to the reader the text of the first three parts of the collection of 1808 (their compiler sees an aesthetic intention in the composition), Ionin leaves outside the publication a significant part of the lyrical works (not to mention the dramatic ones), without which Derzhavin’s literary appearance is unimaginable. (There is no talk about the picture of the poet’s evolution, because Derzhavin himself - and Ionin after him - in the collection of 1808 places his poems out of chronological order ).

Let's start in order. The volume under review does not include Derzhavin’s first book, which has not been reprinted since the time of Grotto , “Odes translated and composed at Mount Chitalagai...” (1774), consisting of poetic and prosaic lyrical texts, partly translated from the works of the Prussian king Frederick the Great. Derzhavin did not like this early collection of his, but it contains interesting harbingers of his future poetic development and examples of truly Derzhavin style. Compare: “Filled with vanity, we rush between the past and future abyss of centuries, which run incessantly. We are always exercised by nothing, like real Tantalus of false good, immersed in an enthralling sleep, we are constantly tormented by desire and are lost in nothingness!” Among the “Chitalagai odes,” the ode “On the Death of Chief General Bibikov,” in a revised form, was included in Derzhavin’s subsequent lifetime collections (see p. 186 of this edition), and the ode “On Nobility” formed the basis of the famous poem “Nobleman” (see p. 164). It should be all the more interesting for a professional reader (for whom the New Library of the Poet is intended) to refer to this early book by Derzhavin.

Further. The poems that Derzhavin did not include in the first three parts of the 1808 collection were apparently selected by Ionin for the corresponding section of the publication under review on the basis of the smallest volume. Such a principle could not but lead to serious omissions. For example, this does not include “Epistola to I. I. Shuvalov” (1777), the importance of which for Derzhavin’s creativity is difficult to overestimate. This programmatic text, the sheer size of which (130-odd Alexandrian verses) does not allow it to be considered passable, is devoted to the most important questions for Derzhavin about the “positions” of a nobleman and a poet and their relationship to the supreme power. Bartenev also wrote that “this epistole is very remarkable for its independence of judgment and the most praise.” Derzhavin for the first time formulates here his “educational” position, which also determines the literary ideology of later masterpieces like “Felitsa” and “Vision of Murza”:

ABOUT! a pathetic demigod who wears the title in vain:
Before the throne there is nothing, on the throne there is an idol.

Forgive me for being impudent, daring to express myself like this:
Concord of verses without truth - Circe.
Divine language for praising people
Without guidance, they eat harmful incense.

The desire to reduce to a minimum the section of texts unkind to the poet himself in 1808 leads Ionin to interesting textual decisions. Thus, Grot publishes, from the manuscript, an unfinished odic fragment of Derzhavin ("Fragmentum", 1772), consisting of 6 stanzas, accompanying it with a note: “Under this title, only the first stanza of the excerpt was entered in the notebook of 1776; the remaining stanzas, together with the first, were found by us on a special sheet." Ionin (however, following Gukovsky, who published Derzhavin in the “Poet’s Library” in 1933) publishes only the first stanza, although, as can be judged from the textual notes of both publishers, there is no reason to consider the remaining five stanzas “more rough” than the first.

Carried away by the author's last wishes, the compiler does not even include in his publication Derzhavin's ode to the birth of Alexander (1777), which was considered lost, found and described in the mid-1970s. V.A. Zapadov, who prepared it for publication that never materialized.

In our claims one could see a demand to embrace the immensity, if not for one circumstance. Sacrificing the representativeness of a one-volume book in favor of the author's composition of the volumes of 1808, Ionin actually devotes about a hundred pages, occupied by Part Three, to a reprint of the text of “Anacreontic Songs” prepared by him in his time (M., 1986. [Ser. Lit. monuments]). And many of Derzhavin’s poems, which have not been republished for a hundred and fifty years, are not inferior to them in historical, literary significance and artistic value.

Probably, these hundred pages would not fit texts written after 1808 (including such masterpieces as “The Lyric Epic Hymn for the Expulsion of the French from the Fatherland,” 1812 and the ode “Christ,” 1814). The compiler explains their absence in the collection by the need for a complete publication of all the poems included by Derzhavin in the 5th part of his “Works” and mentions the hypothetical possibility of such publication in the “New Library of the Poet” (pp. 547-548). Let's wish good luck to this endeavor.

---

Anna Versilova

Yu.G. Oksman - K.I. Chukovsky: Correspondence. 1949-1969 / Preface. and comment. A.L. Grishunina. - M.: Languages ​​of Slavic culture, 2001. - 192 pp., ill. - (Studia philologica. Series minor). ISBN 5-94457-020-2

Sometimes it happens that the study of the history of literature gradually turns into the study of the history of literary criticism. The 20th century gave us wonderful scientists no less than, for example, the 19th century - brilliant authors. The Soviet government limited the activities of talented researchers as much as possible. This is how terrible fates unfolded.

The correspondence of Yu.G. Oksman and K.I. Chukovsky is both a valuable source of great importance for literary historians and literary studies, and extremely fascinating reading that can interest any, even “non-professional” reader. The correspondence lasted from 1949 to 1969, until Oksman’s death. Correspondents, who treated each other with sympathy and respect, for many years did not have the opportunity to meet and talk as often as they would like. Life, or rather Soviet reality, made its own adjustments, dictated harsh conditions, scattered people across different cities (it’s good when cities; - Oksman spent many years in the Kolyma camps). Due to difficult, sometimes tragic circumstances, a correspondence between two interesting people arose.

In July 1962, Chukovsky wrote to Oksman: “You, the only one of all writers, managed to inherit from Belinsky the desire (and ability) to criticize and review books in private correspondence (author’s italics - A.V.); and since you are one of the most gifted the readers I have met, you can imagine how (in addition to pleasure) it is beneficial (author’s italics - A.V.) for each of us to correspond with you and give you our books.” This quote wonderfully describes the entire epistolary heritage of Yu.G. Oksman.

The most important literary discoveries, assessments of new books and articles, discussions about writers and scientists - everything that, for obvious reasons, could not appear in print, was reflected, at least partially, in letters. We are thus dealing with a source that, of course, was not intended for prying eyes; the researchers hardly thought about the possibility of publishing their correspondence. Naturally, a huge number of subjects discussed by Oksman and Chukovsky are not explained in detail by the correspondents, but often go into subtext, ironic banter, hints - into a special language that is well understood by people “in the know,” but requires careful commentary for the modern reader .

And this comment makes a rather strange impression.

At the beginning of the publication under review there is a brief annotation with a clear indication: “The book is intended for everyone who is interested in Russian history, Pushkinism , research into the life and work of Belinsky, Herzen, Nekrasov, Chekhov, and Decembrist writers.” What happens? There is absolutely no comment on the references to literary disputes, debates, disagreements, even scandals and those involved in these scandals that appear on almost every page - all the realities of the rather closed research world remain a mystery to the “undiscerning reader.” The maximum information that can be gleaned from the footnotes comes down to the message that the name was a literary historian (which, in fact, is already clear); Also, as a rule, years of life are given. What, in this case, explains the irony or obvious irritation of correspondents about, for example, Ermilov or Evgeniev-Maksimov, what role these (or other) characters played in the destinies of Oksman and Chukovsky, what significance they had for their circle - all this is shrouded in darkness .

“Behind the scenes” thus turns out to be the most important for both correspondents, painfully pointed or, on the contrary, comic subjects. A striking example of this is the part of the correspondence devoted to the discussion of the academic publication of Pushkin. A clear and characteristic illustration: in a letter dated May 23, 1955, Oksman writes indignantly: “I don’t know if you have looked into the great academic Pushkin, into the volumes of lyrics. Do you know how “Noel” was printed? Take volume 2, book 1 , p.70 - and enjoy:

For joy in bed
The child burst into tears " (author's italics - A.V.).

This passage is not commented on at all. And only thirty pages later (and 5 years later, on August 16, 1960) Oksman once again returns to this story, this time doing the work of a commentator and explaining in detail: “Based on my request, the reading of the poems of “Noel” has now been corrected, which M .A. Tsyavlovsky wrote: “The child cried in bed with joy,” although the correct reading of this passage has been known for 100 years (“the child jumped”)...” One can, of course, assume that the commentator is focused exclusively on researchers who belonged to the same cultural space as Oksman and Chukovsky, on a very specific environment and, moreover, on a very specific generation. However, one cannot help but admit that now this circle is unusually narrow, and there are much more people interested in the epistolary heritage of two remarkable scientists. In addition, even having internally come to terms with the expectation of such an audience, the reader does not get rid of bewilderment: the book contains a lot of informative notes, and it is extremely difficult to determine who their addressee is. For example, the following comment is interesting: “N.V. Stankevich (1813-1840) - poet and writer; A.P. Efremov (1814-1876) - member of Stankevich’s circle” (Stankevich himself, presumably, was not a member of his circle Not a word more was said about the circle). There are many similar examples that can be given.

But a commentary is given on such quotes as “For poor Tanya // All the lots were equal...”, “I was granted the highest smile...”, “The years passed...”. A footnote about Whitman or about Vyacheslav Ivanov’s Tower brings back touching memories of a school literature anthology for the sixth grade. Strictly speaking, this kind of commentary is not much different from the index of names located at the end of the book; in fact, they duplicate each other.

Of course, the necessary, important and long-awaited edition of the letters of Oksman and Chukovsky must be read with additional material. With regard to such figures as Stankevich or Bakunin, the situation is quite easy: the astute reader can easily find more detailed information in various kinds of dictionaries and reference books . It is somewhat more difficult to understand the intricacies, intrigues and characters of the literary world (sometimes the nomenklatura-literary world). A good help in this situation is the wonderful publication of the correspondence of Yu.G. Oksman with M.K. Azadovsky (Mark Azadovsky, Yulian Oksman. Correspondence. 1944-1954. M.: "New Literary Review", 1998). The brilliant detailed commentary by K.M. Azadovsky often helps to shed light on some vague subjects mentioned in the publication under review (For example, there is an explanation of the story with almost no commentary in the new book about M.A. Lifshitz’s article about Marietta Shaginyan ). But a fundamental chronological discrepancy (Oksman’s correspondence with Azadovsky covers only the period from 1944 to 1954), unfortunately, does not make it possible to decipher all the not entirely clear plots that Oksman and Chukovsky mention.

And another important and characteristic nuance is revealed when comparing the two publications - a nuance that causes no less bewilderment than the commentary. In the preface to the correspondence between Oksman and Chukovsky, A.L. Grishunin says with obvious bitterness that “a real assessment of his (Oksman - A.V.) personality and everything he has done is yet to come...”. Meanwhile, in the preface to Oksman’s correspondence with Azadovsky, published three years earlier, K.M. Azadovsky provides an extensive bibliography of works devoted to the life and work of Yu.G. Oksman. This list consists of more than twenty items. With one stroke of the pen, a decisive literary critic nullified such important works as, for example: From the correspondence of Yu.G. Oksman / Intro. article and notes M.O. Chudakova and E.A. Toddes // Fourth Tynyanov Readings. Abstracts of reports and materials for discussion. Riga, 1988; From the correspondence of Yulian Oksman and Viktor Shklovsky / Intro. note, pub. and note A.V. Gromova // Zvezda, 1990, N 4; Bogaevskaya K.P. Return. About Yulian Grigorievich Oksman / Intro. article and notes I.D. Prokhorova // Lit. review. 1990, N 8; Chudakova M.O., Toddes E.A. Tynyanov in the memoirs of a contemporary (message) // Tynyanov collection. The first Tynianov readings. Riga, 1984; Gribanov A.B. Yu.G. Oksman in correspondence with G.P. Struve 1863 // Seventh Tynyanov Readings. Materials for discussion. Riga; M., 1995-1996; Bogaevskaya K.P. From memories // New Literary Review. 1996, N 21 - and many, many others. Apparently, these works either went unnoticed or did not at all satisfy the commentator on the letters of Oksman and Chukovsky, since he does not mention most of these articles in his work at all, complaining, however, how little attention has so far been paid to the personality of Yu .G.Oksman.

And yet, the fact of publishing the epistolary heritage of such brilliant people is a joyful event. Apparently, there is no point in waiting for the correspondence to be republished with a more detailed commentary in the near future. So the astute reader will, in all likelihood, have to deal with the difficulties himself. Using the dictionary of Russian writers.

---

Dmitry Zuev

Vladimir Nabokov. Lectures on "Don Quixote" / Trans. from English; Preface F. Bowers, G. Davenport. - M.: Publishing house "Nezavisimaya Gazeta", 2002. - 328 p. ill. - (Series "Literary Studies"). ISBN 5-86712-091-0

A new book of Nabokov’s lectures on literature, following two that have already existed in Russian for quite some time, and the “Commentary on Eugene Onegin” published a couple of years ago, complements the unique history of literature in Nabokov’s execution and once again proves that it has little in common with scientific . Nabokov's text, despite its academic status, belongs more to the genre of essays than to scientific work. All this, of course, is dictated by the specificity of Nabokov’s views on literature, which are determined by his own creative concept. A clear idea of ​​this is already given by the first two books of lectures, in which Nabokov, analyzing the work of writers, the influence of many of whom (despite constant denials) on him is well known, highlights first of all what, in his opinion, distinguishes true literature, that is what his own creativity is built on. Mention is made here of the masterly handling of the theme, its unexpected twists and incarnations, stylistic richness, and much more. This book is no exception; Nabokov is true to himself. True, perhaps, in comparison with “Lectures on Russian Literature” and “Lectures on Foreign Literature,” there is nothing new or unexpected in the current book. Nabokov again says that a work is a fruit of the author’s imagination and has nothing to do with so-called reality, that literature is a completely independent area where there is and cannot be anything brought in from the outside, it obeys its own laws that are created by the author; This is its main task, and not at all to “proclaim” anything. For Nabokov, there is only the author and his work, which embodies his hopes, dreams, dreams and fears. All this has been heard more than once in his works on literature.

The current book begins with the discussion of all the same issues (see the head of life and literature). The writer took up work, which seems to be a certain historical perspective as if it was a condition. But not for Nabokov . In his representation, literature is either good or mediocre , Historical features, if they play a role, then only a secondary one. With a modern state of things (see, for example, his reasoning that the images of nature in the literature of that time are invented idyllic pictures - the head of the "Dialogue and the landscape", from 58-61). - Not too good a novel (he did not include the book among the world masterpieces), which suffers mainly from the fact that Cervantes could not get rid of numerous common places, the banal inventions of the literature of that time. Nabokov gives a remark of the Spanish commentator Diego Clemensin, which in many ways in tune with his ideas about the novel: “With even greater mercileness, it was said (Diego Clemensin - D.Z.) , which, with the exception of fascinating conversations, Don Quixote and Sancho, magnificent illusions from which from which For the most part, the adventures of Don Quixote are added up, the novel consists of a mixture of beaten stories that have been sorely intriguing, mediocre, banal inserts, unthinkable dressings and incredible coincidences, however, thanks to the brilliant intuition of the artist Cervantes, it is possible to combine these disparate parts, give the novel about the greatest madman and Its innocent servant incentive to development and unity ” [156]. It is said, indeed, mercilessly, although all the main Nabokov "claims" are mentioned to the novel here. But Nabokov makes a discount to this "prolific hybrid", born of the "winged epic monster", the first among European novels.

The editor of the English -language version of the Nabokov book, the American professor Fratson Bauers, describes in detail in the preface, which was Nabokov manuscripts. First, Nabokov wrote a detailed summary of the whole novel, and then on its basis created several lecture options, each time rewriting everything again, adding pieces of existing options. The rod on which the Nabokov analysis is held is a thematic analysis of the work. Nabokov rewritten lectures depending on what topics he saw at one time or another the most important. So, at first he wrote a text in which the main attention was paid to the topic of victories and defeats, but then he redid everything according to the expanded idea of ​​the thematic structure of the novel, while adding individual pages from previous options, including from the original summary, which he called the "narrative And the commentary ”(these excerpts were to serve as illustrations for his observations). In the final version of the lectures, there are many inserts that are quite easily isolated, for example, the pages of the "narrative and commentary" are printed on a typewriter, while the rest of the text is handwritten. In addition to the sheets connected together with lectures, in the folder (and each lecture is stored in a separate folder) sheets with incoherent comments or pieces of text are found. In addition, Nabokov, who always strictly observed the timing of classes, included separate passages in the brackets, which he could lower in case of lack of time.

Obviously, to reduce all this in the final text intended for printing was not easy. Fratson Baurs, preparing a book for the publication, decided to give the material the unity, create the most complete version of the lectures ("the editor's task came to an attempt to present the most complete interpretation of" Don Quixote "by Nabokov with his comments extending beyond the conditional, connecting his frames of six lecture hours" [ 12]). Perhaps this desire played a cruel joke with him. He decided to restore in the initial version the manuscript of the "narrative and commentary", which consisted of separate pages included in various lectures, and the magpie that remained not in business. At the same time, he did not duplicate excerpts in the lectures and in the "narrative and comments", leaving them only in the last section and thereby wanting to give him an additional, illustrative function in relation to the lectures themselves. The step is at least controversial. Then he excluded all the brackets from the Nabokov text. The material placed in the section "The narrative and commentary" often did not have logical connections, due to the fact that he was taken from different parts of the text, and the author had to insert several of his paragraphs to give him harmony (!). In addition, he allowed himself to produce in some places a contextual expansion of quotes, and in some places to insert one or two at his own whim, "for the pleasure of the reader." Needless to say, these fragments are not indicated in any way, even in a comment that is generally not clear for what purpose in the book. It contains anything, including individual Nabokov fragments (the place in the text of Bauers, apparently, did not find it). As a result, the editor created the book "For the pleasure of the reader", out of good motives, giving the text "integrity", but at the same time acting with him unforgivably free.

The fact that Nabokov, who considered himself a useless speaker, wrote out all lectures in detail and sequentially known, so that the text itself could hardly cause great difficulties. For the simplicity of perception (or possibly for the convenience of presentation), the lecture is always clearly structured; Nabokov puts a plan for himself and gradually moves to the goal. The purpose of “Lectures on Don Quixote” was repeatedly declared and boiled - no more or less - to rid this “cruel and rude old book” from all the errors that was surrounded by numerous critics (just notice how many Nabokov speaks of Cruelty "Don Quixote" - as opposed to the most common statements of critics that the book is subordinated to the funny elements). Nabokov could hardly achieve the goal, but this does not reduce the dignity of lectures. He created another critical apocrypha about “Don Quixote” - an apocrypha, in which moments of sensitive penetrations into the tissue of the novel are adjacent to the victorious processions of Nabokov in the won territory, so sometimes it seems that we are talking about himself.

bookmark
Write a review

Previous publications:
Studies #7 /21.03/
	Surat I., Bocharov p . Pushkin: a brief outline of life and creativity. | Notes of Count F.P. Tolstoy | Kuzmina-Karavaeva E.Yu. The Russian plain: poems and poems. Michestery plays. Artistic and autobiographical prose. Letters.
Studies # 6 /19.02/
	Gumilevsky L.I. Game in Love: Roman. | Francisco de Miranda. Traveling in the Russian Empire. | Andrey Bely and Alexander Blok. Correspondence. 1903 - 1919.
Studies #5 /05.02/
	Andre Shastel. Art and humanism in Florence times Lorenzo Magnificent. Essays on the art of the Renaissance and Neoplatonic Humanism | Institutes: memoirs of pupils of institutions of noble girls | G. Makarov, S.E. Makarov Flower Tatar. In search of the author of the "Quiet Don": from Mikhail Sholokhov to Fedor Kryukov
Studies #4 /21.01/
	F. Anselo . Six months in Russia. Letters to Xavier, composed in 1826. | Vl. Spop . Morphology of a fairy tale. | Pushkin and Antiquity.
Studies #3 /26.12/
	Annenkov Yu.P. (B. Temiryazev). The story of trifles / comment. A.A. Danilevsky. | Gershtein E.G. Writer's memory: articles and research of the 30-90s.

previous	to the begining	next