Information to Users

INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMÎ films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI University Microfiims International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North) Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9201686 Time philosophy in Derzhavin’s poetics. [Russian text] Cho, Jugwan, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1991 C opyri^t (c)1991 by Cho, Jugwan. All rights reserved. UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 TIME PHILOSOPHY IN DERZHAVIN’S POETICS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jugwan Cho, B. A., M. A. ***** The Ohio State University 1991 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Dr. Irene Masing-Delic Dr. Jerzy Krzyzanowski Adviser Department of Slavic and East Dr. Frank Silbajoris, Chairman European Languages and Literatures Copyright by Ju-Gwan Cho 1991 To my parents, my wife and son 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express deep appreciation to my adviser Dr. Frank R. Silbajoris for sharing his time, insight, and encouragement throughout the research, and to Dr. Irene Masing-Delic and Dr. Jerzy Krzyzanowski for their suggestions and comments. All were given generously. I will try to repay them through my future work. I am very grateful to Todd Armstrong, Elena Duzs, Susan Lohwater, and Alenda Hicks who gave generously of their time and energy to view my dissertaion. Gratitude is also expressed to Todd's family. Professor Hyung-Gyu Park, and Professor Sun Choi for their moral support and encouragement. Finally, I thank my family, especially my wife and son, my father, my late mother and my friend, Hyun-Kwen Yoo for their love and moral support. in VITA June 5, 1953 ........................................ Bom-Okcheon, Korea 1981 ........................................................ B.A., Korea University, Seoul, Korea 1981-1983 .............................................. M,A. Russian Linguistics and Literature, Korea University, Seoul, Korea 1984-1985 .............................................. University Fellow, Department Of Slavic Languages and Literatures, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1984-1988 .............................................. Korean Government Fellow, Ministry of Education, Republic of Korea, Seoul, Korea 1987 ........................................................ M. A., Russian Literature and Linguistics, The Ohio State University 1985-1988 .............................................. Graduate Research Associate Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, The Ohio State University 1990- ...................................................... Graduate Research Associate Resource Center For Medieval Slavic Studies, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................. iii VITA .................................................................................................................... iv TRANSLITERATION TABLE ....................................................................... vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER PAGE I. THE LINEAR FLOW OF TIME: MORTALITY.......................19 1. Death ..................................................................................... 21 2. Life ......................................................................................... 53 I I . THE PROBLEM OF IMMORTALITY IN LINEAR TIME 79 1. Art............................................................................................. 80 2. Virtue ..................................................................................... 90 3. God ........................................................................................ 98 III. TIME AS A CYCLICAL MOVEMENT ............................... 116 IV. THE MOMENT ........................................................................ 142 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 176 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................ 197 TRANSLITERATION TABLE A a A a 5 6 B b BB V V r r G S a Â D d E e E e Ë ë Yo yo X a: Zh zh 3 3 Z z H H I i â I i* *The adjectival endings -yi and -ii are K K K k rendered by -y in the English text: Jl Jl L 1 maly instead of malyi, UU M m Dostoevsky instead of Dostoevskii. HH N n 0 0 0 0 n n P P p P R r c c S s T T T t y 7 U u $ $ F f X X Kh kh S U Ts ts q q Ch ch m m Sh sh m % Shch shch H y b * 3 3 E e K) 10 Yu yu R H Yu yu vi INTRODUCTION For, what is time? Who can explain it easily and briefly? Who can grasp this, even in cogitation, so as to offer a verbal explanation of it? Yet, what do we mention, in speaking, more familiarly and knowingly than time? And we certainly understand it when we talk about it; we even understand it when we hear another person speaking about. What, then, is time? If no one asks me, I know not. St. Augustine (354-430) Am I only myself? I am but a brief moment Among other existences. Righteous God, Why did you create the world both cruel and good And give me intellect that I might understand it! Nikolai Zabolotslgr (1903-1958) So far many critics and scholars of Derzhavin's poetry have mainly been interested in a biographical, socio-historical approach or in a stylistic analysis of his work. They have placed Derzhavin into several different cat egories. As P. N. Berkov^ points out, Derzhavin has been called a classi cist, an anti-classicist, a pre-romanticist, a representative of the Baroque, and even a realist. As a transitional figure both in turning point of time and in poetical practice, he occupies an ambiguous position in the history of Russian poetry. Some critics consider Derzhavin a classicist because he accepted "the view that poetry must have a public function in the affairs of state, must be dedicated to the promotion of the ideal of virtue, and thus must be an imita tion of Nature manifest as the work of God. Most critics do not deny the elements of classicism in Derzhavin’s work. D. D. Blagoi notes the follow ing: Derzhavin's poetry... to a large and essential degree cascades from the shores of Classicism, but to an even greater degree is the most "lawless" of all our Classicistic writers of the eighteenth century.3 G. R. Gukovsky defines Derzhavin's literary characteristics and legacy by mentioning the stylistic elements he inherited from Lomonosov, Sumaro- kov, Kheraskov and his followers. Gukovsky concludes that Derzhavin was the founder of Russian pre-Romanticism as well as the heir of Russian classicism. Although I. Z. Berman agrees with Gukovsky in may aspects, he opposes Gukovsky's conclusion. He tries to distinguish Derzhavin from his predecessors. Berman says that Derzhavin's creative work represents a summation of the development of Russian poetry in the eighteenth cen tury, of its aesthetic and philosophical discoveries. Berman concludes that Derzhavin remains a man of the Enlightenment with a typical contempo rary understanding of his world. Bome critics notes that "Derzhavin took an anti-classicist position in the matter of artistic taste,' preferring the truth of personal experience to any prescriptive norms based upon the examples of antiquity. Bimilarly, Derzhavin would not accommodate his poems to the established rules of lit erary genres pertaining to language, style or to verse form. E. Brown points out Derzhavin's literary nonconformity and links him to the pre romanticism. M. G. Al'tshuller also considers Derzhavin a pre-romantic poet: The diverse, brilliant creative work of this ingenious poet — work that went through a multitude of influences and at the same time was profoundly distinctive — is not continued in the framework of a single literary trend; it in large part was contiguous to pre-Romanticism and consolidated and firmly established the pre-Romantic mood in Russian literature.^ Bome critics characterize Derzhavin as a Baroque writer because of his rich, colorful, dynamic images, the exuberant and ornamental style of his poetry. His poetry is rich in

Load more