Information to Users

INFORMATION TO USERS

The most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI 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.

University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9031073

Russian verse parody, 1815-1870: Literary and social functions

Gribble, Lyubomira Deyanova Parpulova, Ph.D.

The Ohio State University, 1990

UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 RUSSIAN VERSE PARODY 1815-1870 LITERARY AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University

Lyubomira Deyanova Parpulova Gribble, M.A., K.F.N.

# s|c Jjc

The Ohio State University

1990

Dissertation Committee: Approved by I.I. Masing-Delic

H. Oulanoff Adviser F.R. Silbajoris Department of Slavic and East Eu/bpean Languages and Literatures ‘ Copyright by Lyubomira Deyanova Parpulova Gribble 1990 For Charles E. and Elizabeth K. Gribble ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express deep appreciation to Dr. Frank R. Silbajoris for his guidance and insight throughout the research, and to Dr. Irene I. Masing-Delic and Dr. Hongor Oulanoff, the other members of my advisory committee, for their suggestions and comments. I am also indebted to Dr. Caryl Emerson for her kindness and assistance. I am very grateful for the love and moral support of my husband, Charles E. Gribble, and my mother-in-law, Elizabeth K. Gribble. The help of my husband in preparing the final copy is much appreciated. VITA

September 6,1946...... Born — Sliven, Bulgaria

1969...... M.A., Sofia University, Sofia, Bulgaria

1970-1972 ...... Graduate Student, Institute of Literature, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 1973 ...... Filolog-Spetsialist, Institute of Literature, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 1975 ...... K.F.N., Institute of Literature, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia

1974-1982 ...... Research Associate, Institute of Folklore, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences

1979 ...... Fulbright Lecturer, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

1982-1983 ...... Senior Research Associate, Institute of Folklore, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences

PUBLICATIONS

(Note: books 1,2,3, and articles 1-25 are under the name Lyubomira Parpulova; books 4-15 and articles 26 on by Lyubomira Parpulova-Gribble.) a) Books

1. Bulgarskite vulshebni prikazki. Vuvedenie v poetikata. Sofia: Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1978. 232pp.

2. Narodni prikazki ^ Bulgarska narodna poeziva i proza. Selection, editing, and commentary in collaboration with Dorotea Dobreva. Sofia: Bulgarski Pisatel Publishing House, 1982. 542pp.

iv 3. (co-editor; Editor-in-Chief: Petur Dinekov) Smexut vuv folklora. Sofia: Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1987. 310pp.

4-15. (4-9 and 11-15 with Charles E. Gribble, 10 with Catherine Rudin): Elementary Bulgarian 1 and 2. Intermediate Bulgarian 1 and 2. Advanced Bulgarian 1 and 2, Manual for Individualized Studies (twelve books, one student book and one teacher’s book for each of six levels). Columbus, Ohio: Center for Slavic and East European Studies, OSU, 1984-1987. 1594pp. total (= OSU Slavic Papers, No. 12,12A, 13,13A, 14,14A, 15,15A, 47, 47A, 48,48A). b) Articles and Chapters in Collective Works

1. “Za realizatsiyata na metaforata.” Literaturna misul (1973) No. 3: 62-74.

2. “Kum vuprosa za parodiyata v bulgarskata narodna proza.” Izvestiva na Etnografskiva institut i muzev. Kniga 16 (1973): 149-212.

3. “Vurkhu edin vupros ot poetikata na bulgarskite vulshebni prikazki.” Bulgarski folklor God. 1 (1975), No. 1: 37-47.

4. “Yordan Yovkov i bulgarskiyat folklor.” Literaturna misul (1975V No. 4: 28-44. 5. “Za sudurzhanieto na termina motiv vuv folkloristikata.” Bulgarski folklor God. 2 (1976), No. 4: 61-70.

6. “Prerazkazanite narodni prikazki - Forma na suvremennoto sushtestvuvane na folklora.” Bulgarski folklor God. 3 (1977), No. 2: 3-14.

7. “Variantnostta vuv folklora — sotsialni i estesticheski aspekti.” Problemi na bulgarskiva folklor. Tom 3. Folklor i obshtestvo. Ed. P. Dinekov et a l , , Sofia, Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1977: 242-251.

8. “Folklorni motivi v ‘muzikata na tsyaloto’.” In: Bulgarskata literatura i narodnoto tvorchestvo. Ed. D. Lekov. Sofia: Narodna Prosveta, 1977: 236-259.

9. “Akademik N. S. Derzhavin.” Bulgarski folklor. God. 4 (1978), No. 1: 57-60.

10. “Elin Pelin i bulgarskiyat folklor.” In: Elin Pelin. Sto godini ot rozhdenieto mu. Sofia: Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1978: 124-139.

11. “Nablyudeniya vurkhu otnoshenieto mezhdu motiva i morfologicheskata funktsiya v povestvovateiniya folklor.” Bulgarski folklor. God. 4 (1978), No. 2: 21-29.

v 12. “Prevrushtane na znakovata priroda na slovoto v khudozhestven pokhvat pri folklornata proza.” In: Slavvanska filologiva. tom 16. Sofia: Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences., 1978: 376-385.

13. “Chudesnite durveta v bulgarskite vulshebni prikazki. Opit za sistematizatsiya i izyasnenie na semantikata”. Bulgarski folklor. God. 6 (1980), No. 3: 12-24. 14. “Dvuezichieto kato kompozitsionen printsip na vulshebnata prikazka”. Problemi na bulgarskiva folklor. Tom 5. Ezik i poetika na bulgarskiva folklor. Ed. P. Dinekov et ah, Sofia., Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences7l980: 17-23.

15. “Bulgarskata sotsialisticheska kultura i folklorut.” Bulgarski folklor God. 6 (1980), No. 4: 25-34.

16. “Mitovete i dvadesetiyat vek,” preface to the book: A. Kaloyanov, Bulgarski Mitove. Sofia: Publishing House “Narodna Mladezh,” 1980: 5-12.

17. “Problems of Ballad Scholarship in Bulgaria.” 11 Arbeitstagung ueber Probleme der europaeischen Volksballade (vom 22. bis 24. August 1980 in Janina). Veranstaltet von der Kommission fuer Volksdichtung der Societe Internationale de Ethnologie et de Folklore (SIEF1. Ioannina f Greece^: Publications of Folklore Museum and Archives No. 5. University of Janina. Faculty of Philosophy. Department of Folklore, 1981, 67-77. 18. “Narodna proza.” Bulgarska narodna kultura. Ed. V. Khadzhinikolov et aL Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1981: 180-185.

19. “Bulgarian Historical Legends.” Culture and History of the Bulgarian People Their Bulgarian and American Parallels, ed. Walter W. Kolar, Duquesne University Tamburitzans Institute of Folk Arts Press, Pittsburgh, 1982: 81-92.

20. “Simvolichni obrazi v bulgarskiya folklor.” Literaturoznanie | folkloristika v chest na 70-godishninata na akademik Petur Dinekov. ed. A. Stoykov et aL Sofia: Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1983: 378-382.

21. “The ‘Polyphemus’ Type in Bulgarian and Greek Folklore,” in Kulturni i literaturni otnosheniva mezhdu bulgari i gurtsi ot sredata na XV do sredata na XIX vek. Vtori bulgaro-grutski simpozium. Ed. P. Shterev et aL, Sofia: Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1984: 172-188.

22. “The Ballad of the Immured Wife. Notes about Its Structure and Semantics.” Balkan Studies [Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies] 25.2 (1984): 425- 439.

23. “Cheshkiyat folklorist Irzhi Polivka i bulgarskata nauka.” Bulgarski folklkor Godina 14 (1988) Kniga 3: 37-40.

vi 24. “Myastoto na folklora v bulgarska kultura prez XVIII-X1X vek.” Dokladi ot I Mezhdunaroden kongres po bulgaristika. Sofia: Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1983: 160-169.

25. “Bulgarsko-ukrainski paraleli v sistemata na folklomata simvolika.” Slavvanska filologiva. Tom 18. Sofia, Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1983: 265-275. 26. “Parody in Bulgarian Epic Songs,” in Vtori mezhdunaroden konpress po bulgaristika. Dokladi. 15. Folklor. Sofia: Publishing House of The Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1988: 72-82. Reprinted in International Folklore Review 6 (1988): 67-73, with an appendix: ’’Bulgarian, Serbian, and Russian Epic Parodies,” translated by Lyubomira Parpulova-Gribble and Charles E. Gribble.

27. “Parodiyata v bulgarskite epicheski pesni,” Bulgarski folklor. Godina 13 (1987), No. 2,3-9.

28. “Toward a Reconstruction of the Relations between Folklore and Religion in the Balkans during the Middle Ages (On the Basis of the Ballad ‘The Immured Wife’),” American Contributions to the Tenth International Congress of Slavists. Volume 2: Literature, ed. Jane G. Harris. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, 1988: 319-332.

29. “Gistoriva o rossivskom matrosse Vassilii Koriotskom and the Russian Folktale,” in Lubi Slovenci (Festschrift for Rado Lencekl. ed. Tom M. S. Priestly et aL (= Slovene Studies. Volume 9. Numbers 1/2.1987): 173-180.

Plus 12 articles intended for a wider audience, published in various scholarly and literary journals and newspapers.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major field: Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iii

VITA...... iv

LIST OF FIGURES...... x

INTRODUCTION...... 1

CHAPTER

I DEFINING PARODY...... 5

1. Russian and Soviet Views on Parody ...... 5 2. Modern Western Scholars on Parody ...... 37 3. Parody as Process ...... 74 4. Literary and Social Functions ...... 77

II LITERARY FUNCTIONS AND LITERARY COMPETENCE.... 86

1. Invariant. Variants. Pattern-Producing Tendencies ...... 86 2. Literary Functions of the Original ...... 88 3. Literary Functions of the Adaptation ...... 96 4. Techniques and Codes of Adaptation ...... 103 5. The Invariant of Parody as “Interpersonal Knowledge” 117 6. The Name of the Author as a Communicative Strategy 127 III LITERARY FUNCTION AND LITERARY TRADTION...... 150

1. Distinctive Features of the Tradition of Russian Verse Parody ...... 150 2. The Historical Dynamics of the Tradition ...... 178 3. Verse Parody and Literary Process ...... 208

IV SOCIAL FUNCTION OF RUSSIAN VERSE PARODY...... 220

1. Society, Ideology, Social Institutions ...... 221 2. A Test of Social Compatibility ...... 229 3. Tactics of Agressive Competition ...... 258

CONCLUDING REMARKS...... 274

APPENDICES

A. Russian Titles of Parodies and Parodied Works in English Translation ...... 280 B. English Translations of Verse Parodies Quoted in Russian ...... 288 C. Abbreviations of Frequently Quoted titles ...... 301

LIST OF REFERENCES...... 302

ix LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES

1. Typology of Parody according to Types of Laughter

2. Typology of Parody according to Types of Original (I)

3. Typology of Parody according to Types of Original (II)

4. Patterns of Names and Pseudonyms ...... Introduction

The spontaneous response of the reader to verbal parody ranges from amuse ment and satisfaction to outrage and resentment. In many cases the same text can evoke completely opposite feelings, depending on whether the reader is an ally or a foe of the parodist. The text of the parody triggers this response regardless of the fact that the reader may not be familiar with the term “parody.” For example, the parodies of folk epic songs, ballads, and fairy tales were originally intended for and appreciated by readers who have never heard the word “parody.”

Competent readers of literature are normally familiar with both the term and the basic distinctive features of the structural invariant which is denoted by it. How ever, the act of identifying a literary text as parody is governed mainly by the princi ple “I know it when I see it,” rather than by a commonly-accepted and precise defi nition of parody. This situation does not seem to present serious problems either for the writers or for the readers of parody in general. Unfortunately, it does create ma jor difficulties for those readers who are interested not only in reading parody, but also want to study it as a literary phenomenon.

A study of the literaty and social functions of Russian verse parody (1815-

1870) cannot be undertaken without clear understanding of the concept of literary parody. Since parody is a widely-known literary fact and since the term itself has been used from the time of Classical Antiquity on, one might expect that finding a

1 2 commonly-accepted theoretical definition of it will not be a problem. As the first chapter of the present study shows, it is not necessarily so.

The variety of opinions and the numerous hazy areas in the theory of parody make it impossible to choose a definition without carefully examining all the argu ments. An additional complication arises from the fact that Russian and Soviet views on parody, which are particularly relevant for this study, are little known in the

West and have to be presented in sufficient detail. Because of these reasons, what was initially envisioned only as an introduction to the actual analysis of the Russian material became a full-sized and essential chapter of the dissertation. The investiga tion conducted in that chapter led to the conclusion that literary parody is a discrete process rather than a genre or device. This view proved to be an extremely useful foundation for the further explorations.

The material had to be limited in some way, because the study was intended not as a history of Russian verse parody, but as an analysis of its literary and social functions. The present chronological limitations were chosen because they allow one to include a portion of the material that is adequate in terms of the amount of samples, the variety of forms and functions, and the duration of the processes.

The year 1815, i.e., the year when the literary society Arzamas was founded, is taken as the lower limit. All historians of Russian literature agree that Arzamas is an extremely important milestone marking the end of the transition from Sentimen talism and Classicism to Romanticism as the dominant trend in Russian literature.

Arzamas is also the literary institution that was most important for the history of the

Russian verse parody in the nineteenth century.

The upper limit is set at 1870, because up to that year the basic literary and so cial functions of Russian verse parody have already manifested themselves. The 3 period after 1870 does not present anything new in principle. Its main distinctive feature from the point of view of the history of parody is the proliferation of paro dies directed at the poetry of Russian Symbolists. In terms of the literary and social functions of parody, the contribution of these texts consists of new specific variations of the already-established functions. Therefore, in spite of the abundance of mate rial, there is no reason to extend the upper limit beyond 1870.

Within these chronological boundaries, the material is first analyzed with re gard to the literary functions of parody. Chapter II is devoted to a synchronic inves tigation of the invariant and the structural variants and variations of Russian verse parody, while Chapter III employs the diachronic method of analysis in order to es tablish the agents and the modes of the historical dynamics of the parodic tradition. Finally, Chapter IV studies the social functions of Russian verse parody. The lack of a solid theoretical background for the investigation of the relations between litera ture and society, as well as the absence of reliable studies of individual facets of the relations between Russian verse parody and Russian social and political life during the period in question makes it very difficult to explore this topic. Consequently, at tention is devoted only to a selection of issues which could be sufficiently clarified within the framework of the present study and under the existing circumstances.

A technical, but very important problem which had to be resolved in order to convey adequately the arguments and the results of the analysis, is that of the texts of the Russian verse parodies. On one hand, the English translation inevitably loses many of the stylistic and semantic features essential for the effect of the parody. On the other hand, if left in Russian, the quotations will be accessible only for a relative ly small group of Western scholars and will exclude people who are interested in parody, but do not read Russian. The problem has been solved in the following way: 4 in the main body of the dissertation, the verse parodies are quoted in Russian and the respective English translations are provided in Appendix II.

The quotations from Russian sources which are not in verse are given only in

English translation in the main body of the dissertation. If English translations are available, an effort is made to quote from them rather than to translate directly from Russian. In these instances, the English translation has been checked against the

Russian original. The transliteration of the Cyrillic alphabet follows the standard “scholarly” sys tem generally used by American Slavists. Some items in the bibliography follow dif ferent systems, because this is the way they have appeared in print. In a couple of cases in the main text, I had to use some other system of transliteration, too, since this was the form in the printed source from which I quoted. CHAPTER I DEFINING PARODY

The noun parody appears first in Aristotle’s Poetics. However, the Greek and

Roman authors did not adhere to a single definition. They used parody and several other etymologically related words to designate various forms and devices of litera ture and rhetorics (Householder, Lelievre). During the centuries that followed the meaning of the term parody underwent a series of transformations which increased its initial ambiguity (Markiewicz, 1264).

The numerous definitions of parody are analyzed in detail in several recent studies (Weisstein, Markiewicz, Karrer, Rose, Freund, Hutcheon, Genette). There fore, the purpose of my survey is not to present the histoiy of the interpretations of the term, but rather to identify the major issues considered in the Russian and Soviet studies and compare them to the issues and solutions found in contemporary West ern sources. The survey is intended as a basis for defining the main notions of my dissertation, namely parody and its literary and social functions.

1. Russian and Soviet Views on Parody

Scholars often complain about the inconsistency and confusion which they en counter in the study of parody. Russian and Soviet scholarship is no exception in this respect. Along with sound observations and stimulating insights, there are also

5 6 cases of dogmatic one-sidedness and eclectic compromise. All this is not markedly different from the general situation, provided that one does not consider the cause of certain instances of dogmatic reasoning.*

In Russia, the first definition of parody appeared in 1821 (Ostolopov). The latest one was published in 1987 (LES). During the 166 years between the two, there were a number of studies as well as dictionary definitions of parody. Ten ma jor issues persistently appear in them. Traditionally scholars discuss parody in terms of binary oppositions, e.g., parody vs. original, literary vs. extra-literary, form vs. con tent, genre vs. device, etc. In many cases the reductive approach is carried even further by favoring just one of the two poles. For instance, the Formalists limit literary parody to parody of literary form; the proponents of the so-called Vulgar Sociologism (vuTgarnyj sociol ogism) deny “reactionary parody” any role in literary evolution, etc. The attempts to overcome the reductive approach do not have a consistent theoretical foundation and are either empirical or eclectic, or both.

The manner in which the ten issues are discussed in this survey is determined to a certain extent by the reductionism of the sources. Since the topic of the disser tation is not a comprehensive analysis of the Russian and Soviet scholarship on parody, the limited space alloted for the survey does not allow discussing some of the finer details.

Here is the list of the major issues: 1. Is parody a literary genre or a literary device? 2. Is it a construction, a structure, structural dynamics, or a structuring process? 3. What are the relations between parody, imitation, and stylization? 4. Is laughter an indispensable or an optional characteristic of parody? 5. What are the 7

kinds of parody? 6. What are the criteria for aesthetic evaluation of parody? 7. What is its pragmatic function? 8. What is the function of parody in the literary evo lution? 9. Is there a parodic tradition? 10. Where are the historical roots of parody?

1.1. Genre or device

Although the question of whether parody is a genre or a device has been ex

tensively discussed by Russian and Soviet scholars, there is no single answer to it. The majority of scholars study parody in terms of genre.^ However, they do not specify the sense in which they use the vague term genre. They also do not clarify sufficiently the relations between parody as genre, the genre as target of parody, and

the genre of the parodied work.

The solutions are of two types, i.e., simplifying ones and relatively complex

ones. The former type has three varieties. Some scholars avoid the question by ignoring the terms genre and device (LES). Others are reluctant to grant parody a genre status, arguing that it “does not have a form of its own,” because it uses the

form of the parodied genre (I§£enko 21). Still other scholars regard the statement

that parody is a genre as an axiom (Morozov PL2; Rassadin). This leads to incon

sistencies and controversy. For example, the title of Morozov’s article states that

parody is a genre, but in the text he concludes that “one must talk not of a single genre of literary parody, but of a sum total of related genres some of which meet our

definition completely, while others meet it only partially” (67).

The second type, i.e., the relatively complex solutions, is found in the works of the Russian Formalists and Baxtin. It deserves a more detailed consideration. Tyn- janov comes up with three different opinions. According to the first one (1921) 8 parody is a device. It is based on the notion that parody is a two-level construction which is kept together by the discrepancy/dislocation between the level of the origi nal and that of the parody (D&G 416). The main shortcoming of this definition is that it does not provide any means for distinguishing parody from work of art in general, because, according to the Formalists, not only parody, but also any work of art is created as a parallel and an opposition to a certain model (Sklovskij, “Iskusst- vo kak priem” 31).

The second opinion is that parody is a play with device. It appears in the same article as the first opinion, but its slant of analysis is different. Parody is not de scribed in terms of device in general, but rather in terms of one specific device, namely, that of mechanization (rnexanizaciia priema). Mechanization, Tynjanov says, is the main device of parody. He also moves from formal to functional analysis and describes the mode of operation of parody as a two-step process. First, the old device is mechanized by “repetition which does not fit properly into the composi tion of the text,” “rearranging of the parts of the text,” “ambiguity of meaning creat ed by puns,” or, finally, by “extracting the device from the context of other similar devices and attaching it to a group of completely different ones.” Second, the new material is reorganized in such a way that a new construction is produced (D&G 430).

V. Sklovskij, too, regards parody as means for renovating worn-out devices

(“Svjaz’ priemov” 51). According to TomaSevskij, the essence of parody is not the mechanization, but the laying bare of the device (mechanization is only one of the constituents of the latter). TomaSevskij also says that laying bare concerns someone else’s device (Teorija 158). This restriction, however, does not account for 9 self-parody.

The third opinion (1930) displays a shift in the level of analysis from device to genre. It surfaces in an in passim reference to parody as a genre (Mn. p. 6). Al though the term genre is not emphasized, it is clear that the latter is the notion be hind the term “literary parody”. By using the target of parody as a differential char acteristic, Tynjanov divides parody into two kinds. The first one, “literary parody”, is parody as genre. It is oriented toward literary facts (style, genre, work, author). The second one, parody as means, is oriented toward an extraliterary target (Mn. p. 8). Tynjanov introduces also the notions “parodic ianction” (parodijnaja funkcija) and “parodistic function” fparodideskaja funkcija). The former is assigned to paro dy/genre, while the latter is connected with parody/means. “Parodic element”

(parodijnost’) and “parodistic element” fparodi£nosO are used as synonyms of the two functions.

In 1960, Morozov used Tynjanov’s term “parodic element”, but interpreted it in a different sense. His “parodic element” still pertains to the structural dynamics, but its scope is broader than “literary parody.” It can exist in works which do not be long to parody/genre (PC£ 49). Morozov’s view of parodistic element (parodijnost’) is somewhere between Tynjanov’s parody/play with device and Baxtin’s “parodistic discourse” (parodijnoe slovo).

Baxtin discusses the question of parody as genre in the context of the notions

“parodistic discourse,” “parodistic style,” and “the purpose of the author.” He does not place parody/genre in a dominant position, but situates it on the same level as parody of style. The dominant element in his system is parodistic discourse:

... Parodistic discourse itself may be used in various ways by the author: the parody may be an end in itself (for example, literary parody as genre), but it may also serve to further other positive goals (Ariosto’s parodic style, for 10

example, or Pushkin’s) (Problems 194).

In the quoted sentence parody is used as a substitute for parodistic discourse.

However, the two are not really equivalent. Baxtin applies parody as an umbrella term which covers parodistic discourse, literary parody, parodic style, and the parod ic intention of the author. Parodistic discourse (parodijnoe slovo) as a term desig nates one of the kinds of represented discourse (187-200). It is a double-voiced, passive, and divergent represented discoursed

Although this resembles the Formalist notion of parody/device, it is not the same. It relates not only to form, but also to semantics and even ideology. It paro dies “another person’s style as a style” and “the superficial verbal forms”, as well as “another’s socially typical or individually characterological manner of seeing, think ing, or speaking” and “ “the deepest principles governing another’s discourse” (194).

Baxtin’s view differs from that of the Formalists also in the way he treats the is sue of the intention of the author. The Formalists discuss parody primarily in terms of device and genre, while Baxtin puts the intention of the author into the fore ground. He points out that, “... the deliberate palpability of the other’s discourse must be particularly sharp and clearly marked. Likewise, the author’s intentions must be more individualized and filled with specific content” (193). Baxtin offers a valuable insight concerning the relationship between the genre of the parodied work and the parody. “In a parody on the sonnet, we must first of all recognize a sonnet, recognize its form, its specific style, its manner of seeing, its manner of selecting from and evaluating the world — the world view of the sonnet, as it were. [...] But in any case, what results is not a sonnet, but rather the image of a sonnet” (Dialogic

51). In other words, in parody the genre of the parodied work does not appear as a 11 real, but as a represented one. The revision of the system of genres in Classical Antiquity proposed by Baxtin is of interest, too. He redistributes the genres into two classes: serious genres and genres that belong to “the realm of the serio-comical”(Problems 106). Parody is

mentioned as two subspecies, i.e., “parody on the high genres” and “parodically rein terpreted citations.” Used as “inserted genres,” they are means for producing the

“deliberate multi-styled and hetero-voiced” effect which characterizes the second class of genres (108).

Although not related to Baxtin’s idea, changes in the traditional system of genres are suggested by two other Soviet scholars. El’sberg proposes that satire and humor are considered a fourth literary genre (57-65). Markarjan offers a typology which includes “lyric poetry,” “epic works,” drama, and “satiric and humorous works.” In the latter class he lists the genre of parody (89).

The analysis of the complex approaches to the question whether parody is a device or a genre shows that there cannot be a single answer, because the opposition is too reductive. Novikov, the author of the most serious contemporary article on parody, contends that “the notion of parody as a genre is correlated with the broad er notion of parody as a device” (20). This is an attempt to reconcile the two ex tremes, but his arguments are often too vague to be useful.

The survey of the existing views leads me to the conclusion that parody inte grates a variety of infrastructures and structuring procedures. Therefore, depend ing on the slant of analysis, it can be studied as device, genre, style, parodic dis course, etc. and each of these approaches will be equally justifiable as far as one re alizes that parody is a structure and not a mechanical agglomerate. What is not 12 justifiable is the tendency to restrict parody to some of its constituents and dismiss the rest as non-parody.

1. 2. Construction, Structure, Structural Dynamics, Structuring Process

The study of parody with regard to ‘construction,’ ‘structure,’ ‘structural dy namics,’ and ‘structuring process’ is also affected by the method of analysis. Strictly speaking, none of those terms is used in the Russian and Soviet works on parody.

However, they do consider some of the issues. Before I begin the survey of the views, I will define the terms. ‘Construction’ will indicate a static configuration. I will follow Iser’s example and use the term ‘structure’ in the sense outlined by Mukarovsky:

Another basic feature of this structure is its energetic and dynamic charac ter. The energy of the structure is derived from the fact that each of the elements in the overall unity has a specific function which incorporates it into the structural whole and binds it to that whole; the dynamism of the structural whole arises out of the fact that these individual functions and their interacting relationships are subject, by virtue of their energetic char acter, to continual transformations. The structure as a whole thus finds it self in a ceaseless state of movement, in contrast to a summative whole, which is destroyed by any change (qtd. in Iser 85).

I will call ‘structural dynamics’ what Mukarovsky sees as a “ceaseless state of movement.” The term ‘structuring process’ will indicate the process of organizing certain facts into a new “structural whole.”

The Formalist notion of parody as device regards parody mainly as ‘construc tion,’ while parody/play with device touches upon ‘structural dynamics.’ Parody/gen re is connected with Tynjanov’s notion of system, which is the closest the Formalists came to the notion of structure. The parodic and parodistic function take into ac count mainly the structuring process. Such is also the case of the role of parody in 13

the process of literary evolution. Baxtin’s view of parody as a kind of represented discourse considers parody as structure, but does not cover all the aspects of it. The

idea of the “tri-level structure” of parody, advanced by Novikov (21), is influenced by Baxtin’s concept.

The sociological method later called Vulgar Sociologism was created and de veloped in active opposition to Formalism. It regards literature as directly depend ent on the class structure of society (“Vufgarnyj sociologism.” LES). Literary proc ess is seen as a case of class struggle:

Every [social] class brings forward its own style and a specific system of atti tudes (miroosfruggenija) stays behind every style. At any given moment, the conflicts between them [i.e, between the styles], although complex and dis crepant, reproduce exactly the social conflicts between the existing classes (Cejtlin 6).

Consequently, the structure of parody mirrors the social structure. The struc tural dynamics is determined by the interests of the social classes. As a direct reflec tion of the class struggle, the structuring process is studied from a utilitarian point of view. The Formalist concept is radically transformed. For the Vulgar Sociologists, the proper target of parody is not the form of the literary work, but its content. Con tent is regarded as a direct ideological statement. Parody is perceived as means of exposing the ideological faults of the original. The parodist fights against the class enemy. The structuring process is described through metaphors of physical encoun ter, e.g., “the parodist always strives to kill his opponent by that opponent’s own weapon” (Cejtlin 8).

In the 1960’s Morozov tried to reconcile Formalism and Vulgar Sociologism, but his attempt did not produce new theoretical ideas. 14

Evidently, the question of parody as construction, structure, structuring proc ess, and structural dynamics has not been adequately studied, although the Formal ists and Baxtin have certain valuable insights.

1.3. Parody, Imitation, Stylization

Compared to the previous issues, the question of the relations between paro dy, imitation, and stylization is less complicated. Contrastive analysis is the tradi

tional method of investigation, because of the fact that the three of them are double

level constructions which use a preexisting literary model. Its purpose is to identify their differential features.

Parody is often considered a kind of imitation (BSE: KLE: LES: Morozov, PL& 51, RSP 6; Rassadin 71). It is also considered a kind of stylization (Begak 54; Berkov, “Iz istorii” 233; KLE: Morozov, PL& 55; Tynjanov, D&G 416). This raises the question of the relations between imitation and stylization. The difference be tween them is viewed as quantitative rather than qualitative. Stylization is imitation focused on style. In the cases when style is interpreted in a broader sense, stylization and imitation become synonyms. In the 19th century the term “imitation” (podrazanie) was used in a special sense. It designated a creative technique as well as a liter ary work produced by it (ISdenko 12-13). At times, such imitations were called parodies (Straxov, qtd. in I3£enko 15). This was possible because the differential features of the two were underscored.

Normally, Russian and Soviet scholars do not use parody in the latter sense.

On the contrary, they try to separate parody from imitation and stylization as clearly as possible. The relation between the two levels of the construction provides one of 15 the differential features. In parody, the relation is of discrepancy/dislocation (nevjaz- ka, sme|£enie), while in stylization it is of correlation (sootvetstvie) (Tyn., D&G

416). Another differential feature is found in the structural dynamics. Parody is characterized by “functional difference and even antithetic functions” between parody and original (Mn. p. 7) while imitation displays functional similarity between the two levels.

Baxtin describes the difference in terms of the two-voiced parodic discourse.

He introduces the “owner of the voice”, i.e., what some scholars nowadays may call encoded intention, as an important constituent of the differential feature:

Here, as in stylization, the author again speaks in someone else’s discourse, but in contrast to stylization parody introduces into that discourse a seman tic intention that is directly opposed to the original one. The second voice, once having made its home in the other’s discourse, clashes hostilely with its primordial host and forces him to serve directly opposing aims. Discourse becomes an arena of battle between two voices. In parody, therefore, there cannot be that fusion of voices possible in stylization or in the narration of a narrator...; the voices are not only isolated from one another, separated by a distance, but are also hostilely opposed (Problems 193).

Other scholars describe the differential features in terms of pragmatic ethos, i.e., ruling intended effect, to use Hutcheon’s term. Unlike imitation and stylization which agree to follow the original, parody is “against” the original (Kravcov 92;

Morozov, LRP 104). It “lowers” and “discredits” (KLE) or “discredits” and “un- masks” the original (LE). Pragmatic ethos merges with ridiculing ethos in the cases when differential features are defined as “humorous and satirical stylization” which

“ridicules the original” (KLE) or as “comic imitation.” (Morozov, PL£ 55) In the latter cases scholars operate on two different planes, namely that of the structure of the work and that of the response of the reader. 16

1.4. Laughter

None of the Russian and Soviet scholars contests the connection between parody and laughter. Disagreements appear only when the question of the charac ter of the connection is raised.

The term laughter needs some clarification in order to avoid misinterpretation. Baxtin’s works made laughter (smex) a specific literary term. ‘Laughter’ is an ele ment which differs from seriousness emotionally, aesthetically, and philosophically. It supersedes humor, satire, irony, sarcasm, ridicule, scorn, as well as the various forms of its physical expression which range from loud laughter to an ironic smile or a slightly raised eyebrow.

Komizm is, as Caryl Emerson characterized it in a letter to me, a Russian term which is “more related to giggle or guffaw than to the genuine philosophically pro found laugh.” It is often used in discussions of parody and ‘laughter.’ Its literal Eng lish translations are “comedy,” “comic element,” and “comicality” (ORED), but they do not have the same degree of generalization as komizm.

In my discussion of parody, I prefer to use the term laughter for three reasons:

(1) it is a new, but already familiar literary term, (2) it has the necessary generalizing capacity, and (3) it is genetically related to the ambivalent archaic laughter (see 1. 10). At times I will use ‘laughter’ and ‘comic element’ as synonyms.

The seminal issue in the debates about the role of laughter in parody can be summarized in the question: Is laughter an indispensable or an optional characteris tic of parody?

In the 19th century this was not a major issue, although there were authors who used the term parody without implying any connection with laughter (e.g., 17

Straxov called PuSkin’s “imitations” parodies). Those cases, however, were rare and were most likely a result of German influence on the usage of the term (Markiewicz

1265). The majority of scholars and writers regarded laughter as an indispensable characteristic of parody.

Russian Formalists, mainly Tynjanov, are the ones who made the role of laugh

ter a controversial issue in the theory of parody. Once again, Tynjanov has three dif ferent opinions. View 1 is introduced in 1921 (D&G 455). It contends that the

laughter/comic element is a “coloring” (okraska) which usually accompanies parody, but is not a “coloring” of parody as such. It is supported by the argument that comic “coloring” remains, i.e., it does not necessarily vanish, when the parodic “coloring”

of the work disappears. View 2 is expressed in the same article. It states that “if

comedy can be a parody of tragedy, then tragedy can be a parody of comedy” (455).

View 3 maintains that once the comic element is destroyed, parody, too, disappears and a new form is born (“Stixovye formy” 401).

View 2 (laughter is optional) and view 3 (laughter is indispensable) contradict each other. View 1 harbors a logical flaw, namely, the fact that the comic element may remain after the parodic characteristic of the work has disappeared, does not

prove that parody can exist without laughter. In other words, it does not prove that laughter is optional. What it proves is that laughter can exist without parody. The claim that there can be parody without laughter is not supported by the argumenta tion. Consequently, this subverts the validity of view 2 as well. The only statement that remains unchallenged is view 3 which confirms the common opinion that laugh ter is an indispensable characteristic of parody. The special contribution of view 3, i.e., the role of parody in literary evolution, will be discussed in 1.8. 18

TomaSevskij supports view 3. For him laughter is not only an indispensable, but also a differential feature of parody/device. He contends that, “if, when realized, the laying bare of someone else’s device is interpreted in a comic mode, we get a parody” (Teorija 158). He also says that parody of style is created when stylization is accompanied by comic interpretation (927). There is no evidence that he shared views 1 and 2.

The positive side of view 2 is not in what it actually ascertains, but in its role as a challenge to the traditional opinion. It became the inspiration which made the question of the relations between parody and laughter a real scholarly issue. An at tentive investigator can benefit from this by realizing that the problem must not be investigated on the formal level alone, but should include also the response of the reader.

This contribution of view 2 remained unnoticed during the years that followed the eclipse of Formalism. Laughter became an issue of scholarly politics rather than of scholarly discussion. The assertion that laughter is “the principal characteristic of parody” was interpreted not only literally, but also symbolically as signaling rejection of Formalism (Berkov, “Iz istorii” 254).Likewise, IS£enko signaled preference for a revised version of Formalism when he, paraphrasing view 1, said that laughter is not a major principal feature of the genre of parody (17). In 1960, Morozov, who was accused of Formalism in 1930, wavered between views 1 and 3. He claims that laughter is not a principal generic feature of parody, but at the same time maintains that every parody anticipates at least an ironic smile (PL& 63).

The symbolic message of IsCenko’s statement is the same as that of Morozov.

No one, enemies and friendly critics alike, notices either the contradiction in 19

Tynjanov’s opinions or TomaSevskij’s loyalty to the traditional view. Today, as witnessed by KLE and LES. the traditional view is still the commonly accepted one.

As an indispensable feature, laughter is used to define parody. It is regarded as a distinctive feature in comparison with imitation and stylization. Novikov contends that parody contains a special kind of comic element, namely, one for which the op position comic vs. serious is irrelevant (21) and which questions the “self-sufficient completion of the target-work” (23). Other scholars analyze parody mainly in terms of satire (Grossman 39; Bezymenskij), or include also humor, but satire remains the most highly valued kind of laughter (ES. 1915; LE; Berkov, “Iz istorii” 254; Rassadin 70). Tynjanov names explicitly satire (Mn. p. 8), irony (“Vopros o TjutSeve” 379), light humor and joke (“Arxaisty i PuSkin” 209; “Literaturnyj fakt” 148). In general, he is against any restrictions of the kind of humor (D&G 36). The less restrictive opinions allow to build a typology of parody based on the kinds of laughter as differ ential features.

1.5. Typology. Differential Criteria.

The typology of parody utilizes four differential criteria: laughter, original, tar get and orientation, and technique.

1.5.1. Kinds of Laughter. The figure below presents the typology of parody according to the kinds of laughter as found in nine major sources. The plus signs in dicate which of the three kinds of laughter are used as differential features. The as terisk indicates that Morozov’s classification has a third entry, i.e., parodic utilization

(parodifeskoe ispol’zovanie). It appears because the kind of original is substituted for the kind of laughter as a differential criterion, which makes his typology eclectic. 20

ource laughter LfeS RASS. I§£.=*Mor. KLE=*Mor. Ostol. joke humor satire

Figure 1. Typology of Parody according to Types of Laughter

1.5.2. Original of parody. All scholars agree that the original of literary parody is a literary work. But a literary work is a complex structure and parody does not utilize all of its components at the same time. Hence, there are grounds for a typology of the features of the original selected by parody. The most widely used criterion for this typology of infraoriginals is the opposition literary vs. extraliterary. It is supplemented by two other oppositions, namely form vs. content and device vs. material. Although such oppositions are methodologically dated, they are still ap plied in the study of parody.

The founder of this tradition was Dobroljubov who divided parody into two subspecies: (1) parody “directed exclusively at the artistic flaws of the previous poets” (i.e., form) and (2) parody that criticizes writers who hinder “the new devel opments in Russian life” (i.e., content). The Formalists retained the basic opposi tion, but reversed the dominants. For them parody proper or “literary parody” is concerned only with the “literariness” of the original, namely with its form. Perepev or as it is also called “utilization of parody” (parodi£eskoe ispoTzovanie), is con cerned with the extraliterary features of the original, i.e., with its content. Many scholars use the term “literary parody” in a broader sense. They include the “utiliza tion” in the scope of parody proper, because they argue that content/material also 21 has a literary status. The two figures below show sixteen variants of the typology of parody accord ing to the kind of infraoriginal. The plus signs indicate that the feature was used to distinguish a type of parody. If a type was designated by a special term, the latter is quoted instead of the plus sign.

^ \sou rce Mor.: LRP, KLE= IscT" .=

origin aP v Dobr o PLZ, RSP =Mor. =Mor. BSE LES

lite r a r y

form + + + + + +

lite r a r y parodic. p arod ic. parodic. + pere

content + i s p o l ’zov. i s p o l 1zov.' ispol'zov. pev literary parody

Figure 2. Typology of Parody according to Types of Original (I).

In Figure 3, one must note that Berkov uses the terms in a way different from the rest of the sources. Along with the form vs. content criterion, he applies also two others, i.e., single vs. multiple and contemporary vs. old. The original of parody proper is a single contemporary work (the author is alive); the original of perepev is a single, old work (the author is deceased). 22

\s o u r c e Tyn. Krav. Gros. LE Brad. Jamp.: Mark. Berk.

origX. Mn.p, M in., Iz

in a l ^ S a t. z . i s t .

Literary l i t . sobstv. l i t . paro- par. par. par. sobstv. paro- paro-. parodi ja paro- form d ija di ja d ija s t i l j di ja parody l i t .

litera ry parodic 'is p o l' is p o l' pere pere perepev zov. pod- pere pere content zov. pev pev pev r a z . pev perepev .

Figure 3. Typology of Parody according to Types of Original (II).

1.5.3. Target and Orientation. ‘Target’ (cel’) and ‘orientation’ are used in a variety of meanings depending on the slant of analysis. I will consider only those that bear upon a typology of parody. The number of works and the number of authors serving as original of a given parody is the most formal criterion of classifying the targets. The type called syn thetic parody represents this rarely used approach (KLE). Another division based on a formal criterion is the classification of parody according to its focus on individ ual work, style, genre, or author (Mn. p. 5; Argo 66). Baxtin deals with the issue of the target of parody not in terms of the original, but in terms of the literary forms 23

produced as result of the parodic structuring act. In his interpretation ceP is both target and purpose. When parody becomes its own target/purpose, the result is

parody as genre. Parody which has a “positive” target/purpose produces a parodic

style (Problems 225).

The orientation of parody alone is not used as criterion for typology.

Tynjanov’s idea of distinguishing “orientation at” from “orientation against” the

original (Mn. p. 5) was ignored in the later studies. The simplified notion of parody

as just an “orientation against” its original became a dominant view (Kravcov 104;

Berkov, “Iz istorii” 236; Morozov, PL£ 55). Consequently, the concept of ‘orienta tion’ did not become a basis for classification. There were various attempts in the

1970s to overcome the one-sidedness of the perception of the orientation of parody

as only “orientation against” the original. The taxonomic results of them are

Novikov’s taxonomy which includes the classes of “synthesizing” and “critical” paro

dy (26), and Poljakov’s taxonomy which proposes the divisions of “manifesto” and of

“critical” parody (120). Neither of them, however, explores the full scale of possibil

ities offered by the notion of “orientation at” the original.

Target and orientation are used as taxonomic criteria also on the level of con tent/material. In this case the utilitarian function of parody is the main frame of ref erence. The target and the orientation are interpreted in terms of ideological and social structures and values. Representative for this slant of analysis is Berkov’s ty pology of parody. He combines both notions in the term target-orientation (celena- pravlennost’).

The attention is focused on social, ideological, and educational implications.

The target of parody is the work of literature regarded as a means of expression of 24

class ideology. The orientation is considered from two points of view. In terms of the original, it is always “orientation against.” In terms of social structure, it can be

“progressive” or “reactionary” depending on the class affiliation of the parody and its original. “Progressive” parody is oriented “against” “reactionaiy” original(s),

while “reactionary” parody is oriented “against” “progressive” original(s).

Berkov also uses the criterion of purpose. He distinguishes two types of paro dy: one with utilitarian (“serious”) and one with non-utilitarian (“entertaining”)

purpose. The attribute “progressive” is assigned to the former and “reactionary” to

the latter type. (236) Soviet scholars do not object to the division of parody into progressive and reactionary in general, but they do not accept the unconditional at

tribution of entertaining parody to the type of reactionary parody (Morozov, PL£ 66).

1.5.4. Parody. Travesty. Burlesque. Mock-Epic. The techniques of lowering

or elevating literary styles and plots are the differential characteristics used for de

scribing the relations between parody, travesty, burlesque, and mock-epic. The term

pastiche is not used in Russian literary taxonomy (KLE. LES). I will discuss in detail

only the entries from LES which present the most recent attempts to sort out the facts in this traditionally muddled area.^

The entry on parody says that travesty and burlesque are “the two classical types of parody (at times singled out as specific genres).” It defines travesty as “a high subject executed in low style” and burlesque as “a low subject rendered in high style.” The entry on travesty, however, contradicts this. It states that travesty is a specific genre which differs from parody, because it travesties only the plot and al most never uses the stylistic devices of the original. The article on burlesque 25

outlines a third set of relations. Burlesque is defined as a genre of parodic poetry

whose subspecies are travesty and mock-epic. Travesty is a rendition of a high sub ject in low style, while mock-epic (iroi-komigeskaja poema) is a rendition of a low

subject in high style. The article mentions that burlesque and mock-epic are terms which are used in more than one sense in Russian literary scholarship. The LES ar ticles certainly prove that this is valid also for the rest of the terms.

A typology of parody based on the techniques of contrast and exaggeration is

suggested in LE. Two types of parody are distinguished according to which one of

those techniques dominates the discrepancy between parody and original. However, the contrast/exaggeration criterion has not received either further theoretical con

sideration or practical implementation.

1. 6. Criteria for Aesthetic Evaluation

By saying that a parody is good or bad one makes a value judgment about its

aesthetic quality. In order to substantiate the aesthetic evaluation critics use various

criteria which are not values in themselves, but rather mark certain features of the work. Organized in more or less stable sets, some of those criteria become aesthetic norms.

There are two general normative tendencies. Their main differential feature is the status of the aesthetic criteria. Some regard it as an autonomous characteristic

(PuSkin; Morozov, PL&; ISgenko; Novikov), while others subordinate it to ideologi cal functions (Dobroljubov, Perepevy; LE; Berkov, “Iz istorii”; Rassadin). The two tendencies were initiated by PuSkin and Dobroljubov. PuSkin’s remark that “a good parodist is able to use all styles” (Anglija 99) is interpreted by later scholars as 26 favoring the autonomy of the aesthetic criteria. Dobroljubov, on the other hand, states that parody “does not evoke aesthetic criticism” (212) and that “the kind of parody oriented exclusively at the aesthetic flaws of the previous poets will be for gotten soon” (218). According to him, the parodist does not need poetic talent; all he needs is versification skills and the ability to grasp ideological issues (219).

Talent, as a metonymy of aesthetic value, is a differential feature between the two norms in contemporary Soviet studies, too. This identical criterion leads to op posite conclusions. I3£enko uses the above-quoted remark of PuSkin as proof that

“great poetic mastery” and “fine aesthetic taste” are the most important conditions for good parody. Rassadin, however, considers “a talent for imitation” a necessary, but not paramount condition and thus comes closer to Dobroljubov’s norm.

The dominant position of the ideological functions is the main characteristic of the latter. It requires that good parody expose the social nature of the “hostile” style

(LE) and that the parodist has a “clear” and “progressive” ideological position (Ras sadin 69). Another characteristic feature is the requirement for coordination be tween the aesthetic and ideological criteria (Rassadin 80; LE). The third character istic is the strong preference for satire as communicative strategy. The proponents of the other norm do not ignore those issues, but they do not consider them relevant for the aesthetic evaluation of parody. Some criteria characterize not the general tendencies, but rather individual norms. The relation between the aesthetic value of the original and that of parody is one cf them. Dobroljubov thinks that there cannot be a good parody if the original is an “insignificant work of an insignificant author” (212). Morozov, however, main tains that the aesthetic value of parody does not depend on the aesthetic value of its 27 original (PL& 57). Morozov, referring to Dobroljubov, lists the following criteria for good parody: short, light, entertaining, and typical (58). For him, “one of the conditions for the success of a parody” is that it is an “unexpected reinterpretation of the original” (60). On the basis of the works of Koz’ma Prutkov Rassadin claims that “one of the criteria for perfection” is the ability of a parody to exist even if the original is no longer recognized (79). His criterion is invalid for two reasons. First, it is under mined by Morozov’s observation that in Prutkov’s case the originals do not disap pear, but the perception of them changes with time, i.e., the reader no longer identi fies them with particular works, but rather with a general style. Second, it is sub verted also by the commonly accepted view that parody exists only as a pair with its original (KLE). The type of target is also used as a criterion for the aesthetic evaluation of parody. Many scholars restrict the choice of targets. The assumption is that there are supreme and timeless values which can be damaged, if parody chooses them as a target. This compromises parody by lowering its aesthetic quality. “As soon as true virtue is offended, parody is unsuccessful” (Dobroljubov 219). Various phenomena are perceived as representing this category of values, e.g., “progressive phenomena”

(Berkov), religious works and literary masterpieces (FiSer). Pupkin’s attitude to the subject is complicated. On one hand, he rejects any limitations by advocating parody of “all styles,” by parodying religious works (“Gav- riliada”), and by making Mozart the proponent of the nonrestrictive view and Sal’eri the upholder of the restrictions. On the other hand, he regrets writing some of his parodies on £ukovskij and Karamzin and disapproves of the targets of the parodies 28

of some of his friends. The two attitudes have two different frames of reference. The nonrestrictive view concerns a general aesthetic principle which does not as

sume supreme and timeless values. The restrictive one refers to the social principle

of group competition.

Morozov adopts a similar view. According to him, the simultaneous presence of competing literary schools means that there are also competing norms of aesthet

ic evaluation. Therefore, any literary work can become a target of parody and any parody may receive different aesthetic rating (PL^ 59). This is certainly a more re

alistic picture of the situation in which aesthetic evaluation is performed than Rassadin’s conviction that the norm should be “the one and only” “aesthetically per

fect style” (69). The latter is hardly a real possibility. It is rather a sign of an exceed

ingly normative poetics.

1.7. Pragmatic Function

Discussion of the pragmatic function of parody must begin with an explanation of the meaning of the word “pragmatic.” I will use it, unless otherwise specified, as meaning “pertaining to the study of events and historical phenomena with emphasis on their practical outcome” (AHD). Pragmatics as a branch of semiotics and prag matism as philosophical theory are not applied in Soviet studies on parody. Occa sional discussions of the role of the reader in the articles of Novikov and Poljakov show that semiotic pragmatics and reader-response criticism are not completely un familiar, but neither the terms are mentioned, nor the approaches are used in any systematic way. 29

What Western scholars today call pragmatic function, is traditionally discussed

in Soviet studies as “relations” or “functions” of parody in terms of literature, ideol

ogy, or social life. Parody is regarded a means of evaluation, criticism, and change.

Most often it is seen as a negative evaluation and functional equivalent of literary

and/or ideological criticism (LES; BSE: LE: Morozov, LRP 110,113; Grossman 40-

1,47; Kravcov 82,90-2). The idea that parody can be also a positive evaluation of its

original is not accepted by this group of scholars. For instance, Kravcov rejects

Argo’s statement that parody can popularize literary classics as “a misconception of

the purpose and the nature of parody” (102). Morozov advocates a broader view of the pragmatic function, i.e., that parody

can “mix laughter with admiration.” It also “activates the perception of literary works” and encourages individuals to use their own aesthetic judgment (PL& 64,70-

2). His concept of laughter does not include the possibility that laughter itself can contain admiration. According to the KLE. parody not only ridicules and discredits, but also “presents the original in a new light.” It also admits that successful parody may increase the popularity of the original.

The discussion of parody as evaluation and criticism involves a psychological perspective. It prefigures the emotional reaction of the reader. The proponents of the view of parody as negative evaluation expect that criticism be combined with ridicule and denigration. The defenders of the broader view maintain that the re sponse is not necessarily negative. For example, Tynjanov argues that if the scholars who assert that parody expresses and evokes “ridicule,” “dislike,” and “hatred” were right, then one cannot explain the cases when the parodied authors enjoy and laugh at parodies of their own works (D&G 436). 30

Ninety years before Tynjanov, PuSkin made the same point. As I have men tioned already, he associated the broader view with the free creative spirit (Mozart) and the narrow one with the limited creative ability (Sal’eri). Lately, Novikov con tends, referring to Freidenberg (1.10), that the original function of parody was af firmation, and the critical one developed later (27). Obviously, he regards this his torical hierarchy as synchronically relevant for the pragmatic effect of modern paro dy as well.

Literary, social, and political changes are the expected practical results of the pragmatic function of parody. The literary changes are considered from a dual per spective: (1) the production and (2) the reception of parody. In both cases parody has an educational as well as a didactic function. In the case of production, it func tions as a workshop where the author learns the existing devices and develops de vices of his own (Tynjanov, Mn. p. 5). Parodies of certain works or elements of the style of a given author may prove instructive and make him reconsider his artistic production (Morozov, PL£ 75). In the case of reception, parody may change the aesthetic and the ideological expectations of the reader by either acquainting him with new aesthetic and/or ideological norms or persuading him to reevaluate the ac cepted ones.

The previously-discussed view that parody serves as a weapon in the class struggle in society presumes that it is capable of generating, directly or indirectly, certain social and political changes.

The pragmatic function of parody affects not only the writer and the reader, but also the text. Because of the changes which it produces there, parody becomes a factor in the dynamics of the literary process or, to use the parlance of Russian 31

Formalism, in literary evolution.

1.8. Parody and Literary Evolution The Formalists made parody a central concept of their theory of literary histo

ry. Device is the dominant notion not only of Formalist poetics, but also of their theory of literary evolution. “If literary scholarship wants to become a science,” Ja- kobson writes, “it must recognize literary device as its only concern” (NovejSaja 11).

As a device or as a play with devices, parody is seen as the ideal structure that allows

one to unite device, literary work, and literary evolution.

According to Ejxenbaum, the association between parody and literary evolu

tion in Formalist works begins with the famous statement of Sklovskij that not only

parody, but any work of art in general is created as a parallel or an opposition to some model (Teorija 130). Tynjanov’s view that laughter is only an optional charac

teristic of parody (view 2, see 1.4) does not help clarify Sklovskij’s vagueness as to

the differential criteria between parody and the general concept of work of art, but

rather increases it. As a result, the function of parody in literary history is seen in

two different ways.

The first one regards parody as an equivalent of the process of literary evolu tion. Striedter’s observation that both Sklovskij and Tynjanov recognize “a funda mental similarity between parody and general literary evolution” (RStP 459) is abso lutely correct. The basis of this tendency is the equivalence between the double function of parody (i.e., mechanization of an old device plus reorganization of the already mechanized device in order to produce a new construction, see 1.1) and the pattern of literary evolution (usually described by the metaphor of passing an 32

inheritance from an uncle to a nephew, i.e., as a cycle of mechanization plus laying

bare of the old device). The latter is noticed by both Striedter (459) and Todorov

(Three Conceptions 141).

The second tendency regards parody not as the equivalent of the general prin

ciple of literary evolution, but as only one of its strategies. “In case the second level would dissolve into the general concept of style,” Tynjanov writes, “parody becomes one of the elements of the dialectic succession of [literary] schools” (D&G 433).

According to Ejxenbaum, “a sort of sui generis law of evolution,” is that there are

stages in the history of every genre when the serious or “high” genre undergoes transformation and emerges in comic or parodic form (O. Henry 236).

The ambiguity of the Formalist view of the function of parody in literary evolu

tion has not been resolved in favor of either one of its components. It still remains a stimulating proposition rather than a firm theoretical premise. Of the two tenden

cies, the second one, i.e., the view that parody is only one of the vehicles of literary

change, raises fewer objections. For instance, Lotman contends that parody has a

“supplementary” (podsobnaja) and not a “central” role in literary evolution (355-6).

1.9. Tradition of Parody

Aside from the study of parody as an element of literary dynamics, theoretical investigation of the parodic tradition is virtually nonexistent. The two major general surveys of the history of Russian parody (Morozov RSP; Berkov “Iz istorii”) are ori ented mainly toward a chronology of the empirical facts rather than toward a theo retical interpretation of the available material. Berkov’s attempt to attach the histo ry of parody directly to the history of the social relations is too dogmatic to be 33 successful.

The few remarks scattered in the works of other scholars refer to the parodic tradition mainly in terms of structural patterns and devices. For instance, Kravcov points out that

In parody as in any other literary genre there is a line of continuity; it creates its own, although rather unstable, boundaries. At times, the earlier parodist influences the one that comes after him: the parodist may study parody and its devices. The [process] of production of devices of parody never ends (102). Rassadin observes that parody establishes its own patterns and stereotypes, e.g., “a cliche of parody of adventure novel” which may become a target of parody

(102). This brings up the question of whether there can be a parody of parody and whether parody plays the same role as vehicle of change in its own history as it does in the history of literature in general. None of those questions is discussed in an adequate way.

1.10. Origin and History of Parody

The historical roots of parody are studied in terms of origin as well as in terms of history. Both Freidenberg (497) and Baxtin (71-2) regard this division between origin and history as a major methodological requirement of the diachronic study of parody. Another pivotal methodological point is Baxtin’s warning against “retroac tive” application of conceptions formed on the basis of post-Renaissance material to works created in Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

The studies of the historical roots of parody focus on different branches of the European literary tradition and on different periods of it. Freidenberg, Baxtin, and

Steblin-Kamenskij are interested primarily in South and West European material 34 from Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Russian data is explored by Lixadev (medie val) and Berkov (post-Renaissance).

Freidenberg studies the origin of parody as a cultural event, while Baxtin anal yses its historical significance. Parody, according to him, paved the way for a new literary and linguistic consciousness as well as for the great Renaissance novel (71). In spite of that, their views have a lot in common. The most obvious similarity is the choice of material: ancient Greek, Roman, and medieval literatures and cultures.

Moreover, they emphasize the interrelations between art, ritual, and religion, i.e., discuss parody in a broad cultural and social context. Freidenberg states that the archaic system of thought always presupposes “a second aspect,” namely “a double.” One of the aspects, the “inside,” is the domain of parody, while the unity and the identity of the two aspects was interpreted by the archaic mind as affirmation of the deity (496). This determination to see the inside and the outside, seriousness and laughter, original and parody, etc., as an integrated entity explains why in ancient cultures deceit and laughter were perceived as both destructive and benign. Parody originated in myth, ritual, and religion and only later it was extended into the field of social concerns (493). After the religious origin and the initial “sacred meaning” of parody were forgotten, its form began to serve new content (497).

Baxtin, too, believes that parody of sacred texts and rituals is rooted in ancient ritualistic parody (71). In ancient times, he contends, there was a parodic double and a laughing reflection of every type of direct discourse. In some cases, they were canonized by the tradition as much as their elevated models (53). The purpose of pre-Renaissance laughter, according to him, is not to destroy, but to revive and 35

affirm.

Steblin-Kamenskij and Lixa£ev base their studies on the methodological prem ise of the difference between pie- and post-Renaissance concepts of laughter. Steb lin-Kamenskij suggests a chronology which includes two main entries, i.e., “non-directed” (nenapravlennvj) and “directed” (napravlennvj) laughter. The former kind, he says, is chronologically earlier than the latter, which evolved from it. At the most archaic stage, there was only one, “nondirected,” kind of laughter. At the later stage the dual system replaced the monistic one. In the course of time the dual system changed so that “directed’ laughter gradually replaced the “non-directed” one as its dominant constituent. Steblin-Kamenskij thinks that Baxtin’s concept of “ambiva lent” laughter is hampered by anachronistic imposition of the dual structure upon phenomena which belong to the unitary one. However, he himself imposes the post-

Renaissance equation of parody and ridicule upon the art of Antiquity and the Mid dle Ages.

Lixa£ev’s purpose is to see whether Baxtin’s ideas work for the study of medie val Russian literature and culture. Elaborating upon Baxtin’s concept of the parodic counterparts of the serious genres, he introduces the notion of “anti-world.” It is de fined as opposed not to the “real world,” but to the “ideal world” in the same way in which the Devil is opposed not to man, but to God and the angels (24). Medieval parody is part of the “anti-world.” It is an “anti-genre.” Its target is neither the con tent of the original, nor the style or the ideology of the author, but the form as a sys tem of signs, i.e., the genres of business, church, and literary writing (14). Such parody directs laughter at itself, rather than at its original. 36

Searching for nationally specific features of medieval Russian parody, LixaSev

analyzes the interrelations between literary and folklore sources and their relations

to the national culture. He establishes two points of chronological reference. Ac

cording to him, all “basic characteristics of Old Russian laughter” are attested in the

twelfth and thirteenth century sources (30). The time of origin of this national varie ty of medieval laughter can not be specified more precisely for two main reasons: 1)

some of its characteristics came from the traditions of the pre-class society; 2) the

consolidation of national characteristics is not a one-time event, but rather a slow

and gradual process. The transition from medieval to modern laughter is dated more accurately. It occurred, according to LixaCev, in the eighteenth century (26). Berkov’s picture of the origin and history of parody differs considerably from

the ones discussed above. He associates the origin of parody with the emergence of the class structure of society. Parody was used as a weapon against the old, but still

active ideology of the previous social structure (225). Berkov does not envision any

changes in the nature or function of parody since it appeared as an art form.

In recent years, this theory of the origin of parody is less and less popular among Soviet scholars. One of its many vulnerable points is the premise that pre class society has a “wholesome,” “simple-minded,” and “uncritical” view of the world (222). Contemporary structural anthropology ( Claude Levi-Strauss in partic ular) has demonstrated that this is not true. On the contrary, the logic typical for this type of societies operates through a system of binary oppositions such as nature vs. culture, life vs. death, high vs. low, raw vs. cooked, etc. The goal of this ideologi cal activity is to resolve the sharp oppositions through series of less contrastively op posed binary sets as well as through certain mediators. 37

2. Modern Western Scholars on Parody

In order to make the survey of Russian and Soviet views and that of modern

Western scholarship more compatible, I will use as a basis for discussion the same ten issues. My comments will concern only works published in the West after 1950.

The chronological restriction does not limit the variety of opinions in any significant way, since modern studies take into account all major views on parody that have been offered from the sixteenth century on, as well as those inherited from Antiqui

t y There are two trends in modern Western scholarship which concern directly the study of Russian parody. The first one is connected with the theory of parody,

namely with the growing interest in the views of the Russian Formalists and Baxtin

(e.g., Rose, Shlonsky, Hutcheon, Markiewicz, Karrer, etc.). It is a result of both the

increasing availability of their works in translation and of the impact of Structuralism upon modern literary theory.

The second trend concerns Western Slavic studies in particular. Although

there are numerous cases of more or less extended remarks on the subject, there is

still no comprehensive study of the Soviet views on parody. Some critical remarks

are made jn passim in studies on Russian Formalism (Striedter, Steiner). Others

appear in studies of works or genres of Russian literature which require discussion of parody (e.g., Hodgson, Bethea and Davydov, Morson, Todd Letter. Monter). The most common practice in such cases is to select one or more of the already available views and after some critical analysis and modification to apply them to the case study. Cizevskij’s brief outline of the history of Russian parody, does not go beyond some remarks on taxonomy and the genre-issue. 38

2.1. Genre or Device

I will begin the survey of modern Western views with the question of whether parody is a genre or a device. There are two general attitudes toward it, namely, ei ther to ignore it and even avoid the terms genre and device (e.g., PEPP). or to ad dress it more or less directly.

The second attitude produces three groups of opinions. Group one includes the ones which view parody as a genre. There is considerable variation between the individual opinions. For instance, Riewald, who analyzes parody in terms of its func tion as criticism, concludes that “critical parody” is “a modern literary genre” (129). On the basis of the referents and the response of the reader, Dane infers that paro dy is a genre, but has no clear formal characteristics (146). Markiewicz maintains that it is “impossible to employ analytical definitions” and offers a set of “projective ones.” The set consists of “parody sensu largo.” which is a group of genres and in cludes “parody sensu stricto.” which is a genre (1271-2).

Views which regard parody as element of structural dynamics form group two.

In this case, one may speak of parody as device, although in a very broad sense. In fact, different scholars use different terms, because their ideas about the function of parody in the discourse vary. Parody is identified as “a device of comic imitation”

(Myers and Simms), “a technique” which exists also in non-verbal irony (Muecke 78), “a method” (Highet 120), “a mode of expression” (Kiremidjian 234), “the prin cipal mode of high burlesque” (Jump 51), etc.

Group three includes opinions which regard parody as a functional equivalent cf two or more of the following characteristics: genre, mode, device, technique, method, and anti-generic impulse. The difference between the views in this group 39 concerns not only the number and the kind of the characteristics, but also their ori gin and ways of interaction. The group represents the latest developments in West ern scholarship on parody.

Two factions exist inside the group. One of them comes close to the opinions in group one. It is represented by Hutcheon, who studies parody mostly in terms of genre (29,37,54,56,60). Although she also speaks of parody in terms of mode (36,

96,101), “vehicle” of satire (54), and technique of self-referentiality (85), her theory is dominated by the opinion that parody is “a complex genre in terms of both its form and its ethos” (129).

The other faction is closer to group two. It is best represented by Shlonsky who maintains that “since each parody may have a different genre for a model, in it self it is generically neutral” (797). Parody, he writes, is “anti-generic,” because it reduces the normative status of its original “to a convention or a mere device” and has “no determined characteristics of its own” (797). Frye’s table of the five literary modes is used as foundation for the conclusion that “parody, indefinite as a literary genre is nevertheless definite and confined as a literary mode” (799). Following Rus sian Formalists, Shlonsky regards “the parodic method” as a case of “laying bare the device” (800).

The most stimulating ideas, however, come from scholars whose basic premise is that genre and device are not mutually exclusive. For Weisstein, for example, parody as a mode of expression supersedes parody as genre, device, and style. He notes that the terms parody, travesty, and burlesque have been applied “to specific genres (such as parody in its original Greek meaning, travesty in French theatrical language, and burlesque on the modern American stage), while elsewhere, 40

commonly in their verbal or adverbial guise, they merely denote techniques or styles’' (803).

Genette proceeds from a similar general premise. He explores parody as both figure (23,25,158) and genre (32,34,36). He states that hypertextuality supersedes

parody, travesty, pastiche, digest, etc. His neologism “hypertextuality” denotes a re

lation which unifies text B with an anterior text A. Through it text B grafts itself

onto A in a way which is not one of commentary (11). Text B is a hypertext, i.e., a

text derived from an earlier one by means of either direct transformation (transposi

tion) or indirect transformation (imitation) (12-14). Hypertextuality is a transgeneric practice. It incorporates “minor genres” such

as parody, travesty, pastiche, etc., but it can also penetrate all the other genres (448).

Genette defines parody as a kind of minimal transformation. He regards “genre” as

a term pertaining to the study of poetics and interprets it as “a class of works” (25).

On the basis of these theoretical ideas, one infers that as a kind of hypertextuality

parody can be both “a transgeneric practice” and “a minor genre”. In Rose’s theory of parody the genre vs. device issue is replaced by that of mode vs. kind of parody. Rose does not define formally her term “parodistic mode,” but it seems that she interprets it as “structural discrepancy between the texts in the parody” (21). She differentiates between “general” and “specific” parody in terms of both form (59) and usage (17, 69). However, she does not clarify the question of how the characteristic in terms of form differs from the one in terms of usage. Her notions of general and specific parody seem to be influenced by Muecke’s concepts of general and specific irony (120-1). 41

General parody is identified in terms of form as “a meta-fictional mirror to the process of composing and receiving literary texts” (59). In terms of usage, it is

“compared with Romantics’ use of irony as both a form of heightening self reflection, and an image for a world projected by the ironist as being ruled by the laws of irony” (69). In terms of form, specific parody is “critical quotation of pre formed literary language with comic effect” (59). In terms of usage, it is not neces sarily part of general parody. “Its primary function may be satiric” and it “can serve to add further levels to the parodistic mode of the work” (69). General parody is used against the literary norm as such, while specific parody is used against a particu lar target (171).

Recently Western scholars have demonstrated a strong interest in the relation ship between parody and irony. I will discuss the issue further when I deal with the question of laughter (2.4). At this point I will consider only Booth’s observations of irony as a genre and a device in their relation to parody. “There is a sense,” he writes, “in which stable irony is in itself a literary kind,” that is, a passage or a situa tion “makes sense only if we see it as irony” (101).

This statement brings to mind Dane’s idea that parody should be defined as a genre in terms of the response of the reader. “There may be,” Booth adds, “an iron ic literary genre in a further sense: works written for the sake of irony, not works us ing irony for tragic or satiric or eulogistic ends” (101). The teleological interpreta tion of the concept of genre in this case is similar to the one which is behind Baxtin’s view that the genre of literary parody emerges when parody becomes a goal in itself

(samoceT) (1.1). 42

Also relevant are Booth’s comments about the fluctuation of irony between genre and device. “In modern times,” he says, metaphor and irony, “the two devices

that once kept their place in a classically defined order, performing metaphoric and

ironic functions in genres with larger or at least different demands, have expanded

themselves.” They have been “proclaimed genres in their own right” (177). That means that there are possibilities of changes in both the functions of a device and the norms of poetics. Weisstein mentions a similar possibility in connection with the

history of the terms parody, travesty, and burlesque. In the case of parody, the

change in the norms of the poetics leads to terminological homonymy, that is, the term parody is used to denote a device as well as a genre.

Once again, the survey of the answers to the question of whether parody is a genre or a device shows that there is no single answer. It also becomes clear that the issue is more complicated than the binary opposition genre vs. device and, therefore, there can not be a single answer.

2. 2. Construction, Structure, Structural Dynamics, Structuring Process

The structure of parody is another question which defies a single answer. It is discussed on different levels of analysis and from different methodological stand points. At the level of construction it is usually viewed as a binary opposition. How ever, its constituents are defined in different terms: form vs. content (Kiremidjian,

PEPP), res vs. signa (Dane, Karrer 52-7), parody vs. parodied text (Hutcheon), hy pertext vs. hypotext (Genette), parody vs. preformed linguistic material (Rose), parody vs. original (Shlonsky), parodic vs. original utterances (Morson), etc. The re lations between the two poles are described as those of incongruity, discrepancy 43

and/or contrast.

The discussion of these relations demands moving to the level of structural dy

namics. Recent studies focus on the variety of the actions which take place in the

structuring process. They explore the structural dynamics of parody from the point of view of textuality, intertextuality, and meta-textuality, the role of the author, the

act of communication, the act of reading, the social context, etc. There is a growing awareness on the part of the theoreticians that such “dualisms” as author & text,

reader & text, textuality & text are “not enough” and parody must be studied from

the standpoint of “the entire act of enunciation,” as well as of the acts of the produc

tion and reception of texts (Hutcheon 86).

The structural dynamics of parody is defined as incongruity in terms of both

quality (both semantic and nonsemantic) and quantity (Ikegami 16). Rose lists five kinds of discrepancies: (1) within the text quoted, (2) between the text and the new context (26), (3) between the function of the original as target of parody and as ele ment of the parodic structure, (4) between the expectations of the reader and the shock of their destruction, and (5) between the messages that must be decoded (23,

34,51). Also relevant to the study of the dynamics is the “perlocutionary effect of parody” (Hutcheon 95). On the part of the author parody is a structural act of in corporation and synthesis, while on the part of the reader it is an act of contrast and separation (96). In the case of the reader one must not forget that the author also assumes the role of reader of the original text.

Rose emphasizes that incongruity is “a significant distinguishing factor,” but not an equivalent of the structural dynamics of parody (22, 34-5, 50). Hutcheon, too, insists that parody “cannot be accounted for only in terms of difference.” because it 44

is “an integrating modeling process,” i.e., both repetition and difference, conserva

tive and transformative, a rule and a transgression, encoding and decoding, inven

tion and critique (101).

“The position of discursive authority within the text” (Hutcheon 85) is impor

tant in order to understand the integrating function of parody. The process of or ganizing the elements into a new “structural whole” is recognized as an issue, but,

compared to the study of structural dynamics, its investigation is less developed.

Widely accepted is the assumption that the new result appears after the original has been “refunctioned” through the complicated structure of parody. However, the na ture of this “refunctioning” is still obscure.

I will use Genette’s terminology in order to formulate some of the problems of

the change of function. Provided that one agrees that hypertextuality is a universal

aspect of literature and that all literary works are in a sense hypertextual to a varying degree (Genette 16), then the question is: What are the characteristics which allow

us to speak of parody as a specific form and aspect of hypertextuality?

One can also ask whether the difference that is central for the structure of parody is quantitative of qualitative. Is it a confrontation or emphasis? Does it con cern the intentions and their realization or the expectations and their frustration?

There is no need to extend the list of the questions. Modern theoreticians have not provided answers to them yet. Indeed, “the theory of parody has been hindered by the lack of a theory of production” of literature (Hutcheon 85).

The lack of a theoretical answer to the main question forces scholars to look for practical solutions. Hence, they turn to certain more specific questions. One of them is the issue of the relations between parody, imitation, and stylization. 45

2.3. Parody, Imitation, Stylization The history of the terms parody and imitation shows that at times they were used as synonyms. In modern studies, they designate two related, but nonetheless

different phenomena. Parody is frequently defined as a kind of imitation, e.g., “com

ic” (Myers and Simms), “exaggerated” (PEPP). “conscious” (Liede), “with ven geance” (Weisstein). From the standpoint of the structure of parody, however, imi

tation is regarded as a basic component of the latter (Ikegami 14; Highet 68-9;

Kiremidjian 232; Shlonsky 798; Markiewicz 1271; Rohrich 215, 221; etc.). Rose thinks that imitation functions as a technique (22). Various aspects of the text may become objects of imitation. From a linguist’s point of view, Ikegami distinguishes the following three levels of imitation: 1) linguistic (of the phonologi cal, grammatical, semantic, and lexical features of the original); 2) sub-linguistic; 3) supra-linguistic.

The relationship between imitation and stylization is a topic that is present in every study on parody. Western scholars rarely use the term “stylization.” Instead, they talk about “imitation of style,” i.e., stylization is viewed as a kind of imitation.

The term “stylization” appears mainly in texts influenced by the Formalists or Bax- tin.

In Genette’s works the term “imitation” has a special meaning. It is defined as

“a complex or indirect transformation” which “extracts the construction of a generic model from a single performance” (13). It differs from parody, which is a “simple” or “direct” transformation aimed at an individual text(s) (91). Therefore, a parody of genre is not really a parody, but a “satiric imitation” (91). 46

Lately, the relations between imitation, parody, quotation, and allusion have attracted considerable interest. In order to clarify the issue, theoreticians turn to the oppositions repetition vs. uniqueness, similarity vs. dissimilarity (difference), and simulation vs. dissimulation (change) (Hutcheon 40-3; Rose 21-2, 29). The main questions that are asked are whether every parody is a quotation and every quota tion is a parody as well as whether quotation is repetition or parody. Scholars real ize that quotation is not a case of total similarity. The similarity between the original and the quoted text is invariably accompanied by dissimilarity of function (i.e., repe tition instead of uniqueness) and context. It has become clear that quotation is not only a question of presence or absence of a text. Hence, one must also account for its degree, level, and effect of repetition, uniqueness, similarity, difference, simula tion, and change.

Quotation and allusion are kinds of imitation representing various degrees of repetition. Hutcheon distinguishes parody from quotation on the basis of the differ ence of intent (40). Her view is founded directly on Baxtin’s ideas. She proposes to distinguish parody from allusion on the basis of whether the emphasis is on differ ence or correspondence (43). This opinion is influenced directly by Ben-Porat’s ar ticle on allusion and, through it, by Tynjanov’s views about parody and stylization.

Hutcheon also points out that there are parodic quotations and parodic allusions.

She does not, however, examine how their parodic characteristic is produced.

The emphasis on difference rather than on correspondence is regarded as a distinctive feature of parody in comparison with quotation. The most important manifestation of the principle of difference on structural level is the incongruity be tween the two levels of parody. Its immediate effect upon the reader is comic, i.e., 47 some kind of laughter.

2.4. Laughter As Karrer, Hutcheon, Rohrich, and Ikegami point out, the majority of Western scholars think that laughter is an indispensable element of parody. Recently, how ever, there are a number of theoreticians who contend that it is an optional feature (Freund 1981,1-2; Ben-Porat 1979,247; Morson 111). This view is related to

Tynjanov’s theory of parody (views one and two), but the inconsistency of his state ments has escaped the attention of those scholars. The result of questioning the validity of the opinion that laughter is an obliga tory feature of parody is the increased attention to the kinds of laughter and to its function in parody. Particularly fruitful is the discussion of those issues from the point of view of the theory of communication.

The types of laughter are studied in terms of judgmental attitude rather than in terms of physical expression. The increasing awareness of the necessity of distin guishing between structural and functional levels of analysis is a major step toward adequate understanding of the role of laughter in parody. Laughter is regarded as an issue pertaining to the functional level of analysis. Scholars examine its relations with all three constituents of the act of communication, i.e., parodist, parody, and reader.

I will discuss in more detail only the views of Rose, Genette, and Hutcheon, because they represent well the latest tendencies in the field. Rose is interested in laughter with regard to the attitude of the parodist toward the parodied text. She divides the existing views into two groups. The first one includes opinions that 48 parody is an unambivaient form of comic imitation and that the parodist, motivated by contempt, intends to mock the original. The second group contains views of parody as an ambivalent form of both criticism and admiration, and of the parodist as a person, motivated by sympathy, who wants to write in the style of the original.

Rose prefers the second type of theories (28). She thinks that the sympathetic atti tude toward the original is not incompatible with the comic effect. She also insists that the latter is included in the definition of parody (21).

Genette concentrates on the text and intertextual relations. He introduces the term regime in order to mark the functional level of analysis. For him laughter is a basic criterion for distinguishing the three major kinds of regime, namely, playful

(ludic), satiric, and serious. Parody (in his interpretation of the term) belongs to regime ludic (37).. The latter is defined as a functional category which signifies a hypertextual practice of pure amusement or distractive exercise without aggressive or mocking intention (36).

Hutcheon analyzes the pragmatic ethos of parody, i.e., the possible intended responses. She contends that the ethos includes reactions ranging from scornful ridicule to reverential homage (37). She also notes that, in spite of their functional similarities (intertextual “bouncing” between complicity and distance (32)), one must not equate irony with laughter and ridicule (67). Laughter is used by Hutcheon in a sense that is different from the one in this work. For her, ambivalence of attitude and philosophical implications are associat ed with irony rather than with laughter. She tends to equate laughter with ridicule and pejorative marking, in spite of her statement that ridicule is only one of the types of laughter connected with the effect of parody. (67). One of the many cases 49

of such an equation is the following remark: “the mention of incongruity suggests an implied theory of laughter that may represent the element of ridicule sneaking in by

the back door’ (37).

Her definition of parody replaces terms like satire, comic effect, ridicule, etc.,

that are used in the more traditional definitions with the term irony (6). This, how

ever, does not really resolve the problem of laughter. It only brings up the question

of the relation between irony and laughter in parody. Developed to their logical conclusion, Hutcheon’s remarks about the ethos of verbal irony make one infer that laughter in its broad sense is an obligatory characteristic of irony and, consequently, of parody. Hutcheon herself does not make this explicit enough.^ Instead, she em phasizes the issue of ridicule and reverence as possible attitudes to the parodied text

(57).

According to Hutcheon, the pejoratively marked ethos of irony is incompatible with reverence, which is as characteristic of the effect of parody as ridicule. Many parodies “do not ridicule the backgrounded texts, but use them as standards by which to place the contemporary under scrutiny” (57). This treatment of the opposi tion ridicule vs. reverence is too reductive. It also does not explain the way in which the effect of homage is produced.

In my view, reverence and homage are compatible in cases when parody is used in an ironic way. Irony can operate on two levels. At the first one, it produces the double structure of parody and the effect of laughter which concerns the origi nal. At the second level, it specifies the attitude toward the original. It may either reinforce the effect of the primary laughter, or may divert the meaning of the pri mary irony. The latter effect may be labeled “ironic use of parody.” I prefer to 50

speak of “ironic use of parody” instead of “false” parody (Morson 114), because I am not certain that the “true” function of parody is criticism. To me, Hutcheon’s

suggestion that both criticism and homage are characteristic functions of parody is more convincing.

However, the homage conveyed by parody is never completely devoid of laughter. Under certain circumstances it may be compatible even with ridicule func tioning as an irony of second degree. Irony uses not only reverence and admiration in order to ridicule, but also laughter and invective in order to praise (e.g., one may use “great” to indicate “bad” or “wrong,” as well as “bad” to indicate “great” or

“right”). In parody, the second level of irony has a higher authority in determining the overall attitude toward the parodied text.

Frequently, the discussion of the functions of parody as criticism and homage leads to the question of whether serious parody is a possible kind of parody. In gen eral, the issue of laughter is traditionally associated with that of the typology of parody.

2.5. Typology. Differential Criteria.

Laughter, parodied text, target and orientation, and technique, the four differ ential criteria for classification of parody, are used not only in Russian and Soviet studies, but in Western works, as well.

2.5.1. Kinds of laughter. Laughter is applied widely as a differential feature.

Both scholarly traditions discuss the issue of comic vs. serious parody. It is impor tant to note that the term “serious” appears in more than one sense. Sometimes it means that the parody has no comic effect, while in other cases it indicates that the 51 parody has a didactic rather than entertaining purpose. I will discuss the cases when the term is applied in the former sense. The majority of scholars, i.e., those who see laughter as an indispensable fea ture of parody, reject “serious parody” as “logical absurdity” (Weisstein 811). There are also scholars who contend that parody has two main types: comic and serious (Freund 1981,1-2). Some of them support Tynjanov’s idea that a parody of comedy will be tragedy (Morson 111). However, there are others who criticize his theory.

For instance, Shlonsky maintains that a parody of comedy will never be tragic (799). He builds his argument on the basis of Frye’s definition of parody as a low-mimetic and ironic mode.

The kinds of laughter serve as taxonomic criteria, provided that parody is viewed as associated with more than one of them. Scholars who study parody from the point of view of satire (Highet 14,65; Muecke 78) are limited by their own slant of analysis. This view is contested by theoreticians who insist that parody is not only a form satire (Dane, Hutcheon, Genette). They suggest that “satiric parody” is just one type of parody. This trend reaches its most extreme point in Genette’s taxono my of hypertextuality where satiric parody under the name charge is listed as a class different from parody (32-8). The less extreme scholars contend that parody uses a variety of types of laughter, e.g., satire, humor, ridicule, irony, etc. This stand offers a possibility for developing a classification of parody according to the kinds of laugh ter, which, however, is not always realized (Ikegami 20-1; Hutcheon 60; Weisstein

811).

Not infrequently, the classification is founded upon mixed taxonomic criteria.

Such is the case of the one in the Princeton Encyclopaedia of Poetry and Poetics 52

which lists two kinds of parody, namely, comic and critical. The latter belongs to

“the genus of satire” and performs “the double-edged task of reform and ridicule”

(600). This classification displays two rather common flaws. On one hand, it regards satire and ridicule as synonyms rather than as different types of laughter. On the other, it mixes the criterion of laughter with that of purpose. Hence, instead of com

ic and satirical, the classes become comic and critical.

2.5.2. Original of Parody. The original, i.e., the parodied text, is another tax

onomic criterion. Western scholars use the opposition literary vs. extra-literary for

both differentiating parody from satire and for building a taxonomy of parody. In some Western works one detects the influence of the typology of Russian Formal

ists. This approach, however, evokes neither such heated argument, nor such vigor ous taxonomic activity as it does in the Soviet studies.

Shlonsky’s statement that parody deals with “strictly literary norms” and “is

foreign” to the extra-literary norms and implications of satire (797) is obviously in

fluenced by Tynjanov’s views about literary parody and parodic utilization. Echoes

of those views are discernible in Hutcheon’s distinction between parody and satire.

She maintains that parody has an intramural target (repeats another discursive text), while satire has an extramural target (deals with moral, social and other issues) (43).

Her category of “parodic satire” resembles Tynjanov’s “parodic utilization.”

Yunck’s distinction between the functions of the parodied text as a target and as a weapon is also very close to Tynjanov’s concepts of literary parody and parodic utili zation.

At the same time, there is a tendency to question the relevance of the opposi tion literary vs. extra-literary. Rose is convinced that parody concerns more than 53 literary norms (44). Hutcheon points out that in recent German criticism there is a distinctive trend to regard parody as Ideologiekritik (Karrer 1977; Rose 1979;

Freund 1977,1981). Kiremidjian dwells upon the theoretical implications of the no tion of “significant form,” i.e., the result of the fusion between form and content, for the theory of parody (235-6). The issue of literary vs. extra-literary characteristics of the original is always in terwoven with that of form and content. The latter, too, is used as a differential fea ture when the relations between parody and satire are concerned and also in the ty pology of parody. I will give only one example of each of the two applications of this criterion. Dane applies it according to its first function. Parody, he maintains, is concerned with verba = signa = expression, while satire deals with res = referents

= content (146,151). Highet uses it in its second function. He distinguishes be tween “formal parody” which is directed toward style and “material parody” which concerns content (69,70, 89).

One of the latest theoretical tendencies of Western studies is to view the form vs. content issue as methodologically dated. To use Rose’s words, the issue is no longer “useful or meaningful” (28). It is relevant only to the parody of genres and

“misleading” in the rest of the cases (36).

2.5.3. Target and Orientation. Unlike the form vs. content problem, which is slowly drifting toward the periphery, the question of the target and orientation of parody has been moved toward the center of scholarly interest. The terminology of ten lacks either unity or precision, or both, and no one has attempted to fit the find ings of the different authors into a more general picture. In spite of all these short comings, the intensive discussion has produced a number of ideas which help to 54 understand the structure and the functions of the parodic text. In fact, the purpose of those discussions is not so much to produce a taxonomy, but rather to reach a bet ter understanding of parody.

The problem is analyzed at four levels. The first one includes the notions of original, target, purpose, orientation, result, intention and/or inferred effect. The second one concerns the structural dynamics, i.e., the relations of similarity vs. dis similarity, affirmation vs. subversion, repetition vs. change of function, etc. The third level focuses upon the value judgment of the original (irony, criticism, ridicule, admi ration, homage). The fourth one investigates the emotional response (laughter, amusement, anger, seriousness, etc.). Most of the studies do not separate those lev els sufficiently, which hinders the clarity and the precision of the conclusions.

Rose provides the most comprehensive and consistent stand. Her theoretical premise is that the original and the target of parody coincide (55). The target en compasses the parodied text, as well as the encoder and the decoder who have been responsible for the canonization of the parodied text (51). The fact that parody has comic effect does not necessarily mean that it ridicules its original (33). The comic effect is broader than that of ridicule. The target of parody does not always coincide with the target of ridicule. The love for the original, on the other hand, does not preclude the desire to change and modernize (30). The target/original is subject to both destruction and change of function. The target of satire functions as a structur al element and also contributes to the overall aesthetic effect of parody (34).

Rose’s taxonomy utilizes binary oppositions. Specific vs. general parody is the main and most carefully explored one. The kind of original serves as the differential characteristic. “Specific parody” is oriented against a particular target, while 55

“general parody” is directed against the normative as such (171). The purpose of parody acts as the differential feature for the second opposition. “Counter-argu mentative” parody defends the established norms, while “dialectical parody” de stroys and assigns new functions to the old norms. The third and least studied oppo sition employs the author/reader role as a differential characteristic. It includes self parody and reader’s parody, i.e., parody produced by the interpretation of the read er alone (172). A number of the issues which Rose considers are “common stock” among modern Western scholars. The relationship between the target of parody and the target of ridicule is such an issue. According to Ikegami, the two are separate enti ties and may be used as taxonomic criteria, but he himself does not develop an actu al classification (21). Nor does he clarify also the question of whether the original always coincides with the target of parody or not. Hutcheon’s treatment of the dis tinction between “target of parody” (45), “target of irony,” and “target of ridicule”

(57) is not very clear, either. Consequently, it is hard to judge the credibility of her statement that the parodied text is not always the target of parody (50). She does not suggest that this distinction is to be used for taxonomic purposes.

It is Markiewicz who uses the kind of original and the target of ridicule for creating a classification. The general outline of his table resembles Rose’s specific and general parody, but the details vary considerably. He introduces the divisions

“parody sensu stricto” and “parody sensu largo”. The former is oriented toward a particular text and its target of ridicule coincides with the original; the latter is ori ented toward a group of genres and its target of ridicule does not coincide with the original (1269-71). 56

A relatively new concept is that of parody as “anti-genre.” Morson uses “anti genre” and “parodic genre” as synonyms. He defines “anti-genre” as “a parodic re lation between the anti-generic work and the works and traditions of another genre, the target genre” (115,201). Morson’s terminology and interpretation are similar to that of Lixadev (1.10). with the difference that Lixadev considers “anti-genre” as a category typical for medieval literature and culture, while Morson regards it as typi cal for nineteenth century literature, as well.

There are scholars, however, who reject the very notion of parody of genre.

For instance, Jump views parody as oriented only toward a particular work and au thor (3). Genette argues that one can speak of parody of genre only if it is under stood as satiric imitation. Since, according to him, parody is not imitation, but trans formation of individual texts, parody of genre is impossible (91). Such questioning of the notion “parody of genre” does not exist in Soviet scholarship.

There are partial parallels between Western and Soviet views as far as the no tion of counter-parody is concerned. In its capacity of defense of established norms, counter-parody is compatible with the idea of literaiy evolution. It comes close to the Soviet typology of parody based on the opposition progressive vs. reactionary (1.

5.3). The difference is that counter-parody is not conceived of as an expression and weapon of social and political controversies. On the other hand, there is a side to counter-parody which places it in the context of the “dialogical principle.” Both

Rose (170) and Morson (142) remark that counter-parody is a parody of parody.

The difference is that Rose regards it as simply “counter-subversive,” while Morson describes it also in terms of “a dialogue between parody and counter-parody” which fails to resolve the perplexity of “the contradictory hermeneutic directives.” He 57 suggests that such cases are regarded as a special type called meta-parody.

Rose’s distinction between counter- vs. dialectical parody uses orientation and purpose as main taxonomic criteria. So does Kiremidjian in his typology of critical vs. original parody, although he defines the individual classes in a different way. Ac cording to him, in order to reveal inherent imperfections, critical parody retains the form, but alters the content of the original. Its chief purpose is to produce a critique of a specific kind of art.

Original parody does not substitute “alien” contents. Its purpose transcends that of critique. It is oriented not toward a specific kind of art, but toward “modes of experience which are otherwise inexpressible aesthetically” (241). Kiremidjian states that the result of critical parody is a work in “parodic mode,” but he does not specify what the result of original parody is like. One may only infer that it might be similar to what Rose calls “new norm” and Baxtin labels “parodic style” (1.5.3).

A number of other classifications are based on the criterion of orientation.

Here are three samples: 1) artistic (imitates the original), critical (attempts to de stroy the original), and propagandistic parody (Liede); 2) negative and curative parody (Highet); 3) critical and playful (Jump 36).

Rose sums up the results of this taxonomic activity in the following statement,

“parodies have been differentiated by means of stylistic and practically oriented criteria as playful or frivolous, critical or agitatory, engage or propagandistic, secu larizing or blasphemous, imitative or plagiaristic, imitative or counter-imitative”

(32).

Hutcheon adds some more taxonomic brackets. From the point of view of its intent, she writes, parody has been defined as innocently reverential, ridiculing, 58 didactic, mnemonic, ironic, etc. According to her, the cause for such controversial opinions is the paradoxal essence of parody (77). She suggests that the intent of parody must not be presented in the form of taxonomic tables, but discussed in terms of a range of variations. In my opinion, an equally important reason for the existing taxonomic confu sion is the vagueness of the terms orientation, intent, target, etc. Often researchers overlook the fact that parody can be oriented in various directions. For instance, it may be oriented toward the original, as well as toward the result of the parodic activ ity. In the case of parodic activity, the result can be an artistic text or aesthetic effect on the reader. The response of the reader has psychological, ideological and practi cal sides. The last one may be called “effect of the second degree.” As a conse quence of the primary psychological and ideological effect, it affects the social and political practice of replacing and/or enhancing of literary norms, behavioral models, and ideological values.

Western theoreticians have introduced several new methodological approach es. Along with the traditional discussion of parody as criticism (Riewald), there are also studies of it as meta-fiction (Rose), a form of hypertextuality (Genette), as well as a theory of parody from the point of view of its pragmatic ethos (Hutcheon). Al though those studies have not produced a major shift in terms of taxonomy, they did help change the traditional notion of parody as invariably oriented “against” its orig inal. Recent works have proven invalid the opinion that the only purpose of parody is to discredit and destroy its original. It has been argued convincingly that, because of the fact that the targets of parody and ridicule do not necessarily coincide, the at titude toward the parodied text can be one of subversion or of homage. 59

2.5.4. Parody. Travesty. Burlesque. Mock-Epic. Orientation is the key word for understanding the techniques of lowering or elevating literary styles and plots.

They, too, are used as taxonomic criteria in order to differentiate between parody, burlesque, travesty, and mock epic (Weisstein 808; Muecke 79; Jump 3; Markiewicz

1271). Compared to that of Soviet studies, the list of Western categories is expand ed with the classes of pastiche and charge.

Some modern scholars are dissatisfied with the terms “high” and “low.” They find them conditioned by the poetics of Neo-Classicism and, therefore, methodolog ically dated (Hutcheon, Rose, Karrer). Terms such as refined vs. coarse, subtle vs. gross, noble vs. vulgar, etc., are used occasionally, but they have not replaced the traditional opposition “high” vs. “low”.

In my opinion, the latter has not only been retained, but also has changed its function. Neoclassical poetics had taken the terms from the general cultural taxo nomic system and had narrowed their meaning according to its own system. With the decline of its influence, the terms started to drift back toward the general system from which they came. In literary theory today, they are more often used in the broad cultural sense than in the specific Neoclassical one. In the theory of parody, where the ties with Neoclassicism are stronger, one must be aware of this internal homonymy of “high” and “low” and use them accordingly, instead of rejecting them as dated.

Also employed as differentiating features between parody, burlesque, travesty, etc. are criteria as kind of ridicule (refined vs. coarse), target of ridicule (parodied text vs. another object), transformation, imitation, encoded intention, etc. This ex pands the scope of the taxonomy by incorporating classes as hoax, pecoral, 60 persiflage, plagiarism, quotation, and allusion (Rose, Hutcheon).

Actually, there is no single taxonomy, but a number of them based on different and, at times, conflicting definitions. Markiewicz’s table of taxonomies presents the main contradictions in an easy-to-grasp form (1267). I will not analyze in detail the state of the recent research in this area, since it is not necessary for my purpose, but will illustrate the situation by taking mock epic as an example.

The main point of controversy is that while some theoreticians (Weisstein 811; Hutcheon 44; Highet 103-20) regard mock epic as a kind of parody, others (Riewald

125; Genette 33; Jump 3) contend that it is not. Another controversy is kindled by the question of the relation between mock and serious epics. Riewald (125),

Markiewicz (1268), and Hutcheon (44) maintain that mock epic does not criticize or ridicule the epic, but Morson states that a mock epic which does not discredit the epic can not be so labeled (1981,117).

Along with the above-mentioned general techniques, there are some specific ones which are potential taxonomic criteria. Following Quintilian, Rotermund lists several of them: total or partial caricature, substitution, addition, and subtraction

(9). Rose adds to this list exaggeration, condensation, contrast, and discrepancy

(50).

Kiremidjian mentions four techniques. Exaggeration, according to him, has four varieties depending on its quality (gross vs. subtle) and intensity (extreme vs. minimal). Another technique is called “radical change of content” (235). Two other techniques are listed as typical for critical parody. One of them is “the most com plete possible reversal of the features of the mimicked work”; the other one is “the simulation” of those features. 61

Hutcheon describes four more techniques in terms of intended effect, namely, (1) orienting or (2) disorienting the reader and (3) aggressive or (4) seductive ap

proach toward the reader (92). Although some of the specific techniques are used

occasionally for taxonomic purposes, they are more relevant for the poetics and the

aesthetic evaluation of parody.

2.6. Criteria for Aesthetic Evaluation

The aesthetic evaluation concerns the valorization of parody with regard to the

general system of literature, as well as the rating of parody in terms of its own aes thetics. At the first level, the traditional view that parody is a “parasitic,” “minor,” or

“immoral” form is by no means extinct, but there is an increasing number of scholars

who disagree with it. They contend that parody is not just a derivative form, but is

associated with a specific kind of aesthetic experience. Kiremidjian, for example, in sists that both “original” and “critical” parody have aesthetic significance of their

own (232). Genette calls the specific aesthetic experience “hyper-aesthetics”. He regards transformation (parody included) and imitation as two modes of derivation,

which characterize all practices of art of second degree or “hyper-aesthetics” (435).

At the second level of aesthetic evaluation, people use qualifications such as

good or bad, effective or ineffective, high, successful, genuine, superior, perfect, etc. For Western scholars, the status of the aesthetic criterion in the valorization of

parody is an important issue, but it does not provoke such heated arguments as it

does in Soviet studies. Some believe that parody must be judged on strictly aesthetic grounds (Rie wald 128,131; Hutcheon; Shlonsky 798; Kiremidjian 232, 234). Others maintain that 62 the function of parody as a consciousness-rising device must also be accounted for as criterion of aesthetic evaluation (Karrer; Rose; Freund).

A third group of researchers points out that the criteria for evaluating parody depend on the general norms for evaluating literature and humor (Ikegami 29;

Booth 207). The idea is not carried to the extreme, because its supporters realize that parody has certain aesthetic autonomy. For example, Ikegami believes that the dominating criterion of the aesthetic evaluation is neither that of literature, nor that of humor alone, but the way in which literature and humor are integrated into the structure of parody.

Booth draws attention to another aspect of the relativity of the aesthetic eval uation, namely, to the possibility of different evaluations and to the fact that each one of them may be “valid in its own terms” (207). He sees the reason for this in the variety of critical approaches, i.e., objective (formal), expressive, rhetorical, didactic

(ideological), and historical,which address “radically different questions.”

The most frequently discussed norms of aesthetic evaluation of parody con cern the relationship between parody and parodied work. The impact of the original upon the aesthetic value of parody is a central issue. For the proponents of the di dactic approach, parody becomes automatically a work of lesser quality, if it subverts the dignity of an original of high aesthetic merit. This norm is based on the premise that in a work of art aesthetical, ethical, and ideological values are fused in such a way that any damage inflicted on one of them affects the rest as well. Scholars who subscribe to objective approaches do not accept this norm (Hutcheon 76-9; Rose 32;

Riewald 132; Genette 435). The norm which they advocate is that the aesthetic val ue of the original does not condition directly the quality of parody. 63

Another general issue, closely related to the previous one, is the choice of orig inal. According to some, the latter is instrumental for the quality of parody. This norm is the basis of two views that actually contradict each other, namely, (1) that parody must be targeted at aesthetically inferior works and (2) that such works are not worth of the attention of the parodist, because parody is tribute to the popularity of the original. A third opinion states that “sometimes the work parodied is a laugh able, pretentious one that begs deflating; but even more often it is very successful works that inspire parodies” (Hutcheon 76). Evidently, the norm behind the last opinion is that the aesthetic quality of a work is not criterion of whether it is used as original for parody or not.

The notion of the aesthetic independence of parody from the parodied work at times leads to the contention that “superior parody” “outlives” its original (Riewald

128; PEPP 602; Hutcheon 79). As I pointed out in connection with similar asser tions in Soviet works (1.6), this notion needs additional clarification, because it con tradicts the accepted premise that in order to be identified as parody, a work must be perceived in relation to its original.

The point that needs clarification is the cause for the lasting popularity of those parodies. It may well be that they are recognized only as good pieces of comic literature, or it may be that they are still seen as parodies. In the latter case, there may be two variants. The work is identified as parody (1) because of the tradition

(this is not very different from the perception of it as simply a comic piece), or (2) because its original is not forgotten, but transformed, i.e., it is perceived as a style, instead as a particular work. For this reason, it is probably better not to rate such parodies as “superior,” but to speak of them as “flexible” or “multifunctional.” 64

Along with the general norms for good parody, there are also a number of par

ticular ones. Their lists, as one might expect, vary. Originality and creativity are fre

quently mentioned as necessary characteristics of good parody (Weisstein 811; Cud- don; Riewald 128; PEPP 601; Rose 30). Usually they are discussed in terms of their

compatibility with the imitative impulse of parody. “Perfect critical parody” in mod em sense, Riewald says, should be neither too close an imitation, nor too distant a

modulation of parodied text (128), because it is both critical and creative, parasitic

and original.

Shlonsky, however, gives a different rating of the simultaneous presence of the opposite principles. For him, they “sterilize” the ability of parody to be creative and innovative (798). The list of norms includes also some vague notions such as “the

most beautiful manner” or “the most characteristic moment” (Riewald 128). The talent of the parodist is another, fairly vague criterion, which is accounted

for in the valorization of parody. Those who believe that parody is an inferior art

form maintain that the parodist needs only a second-rate talent. Others point out

that many of the most significant authors are also masters of parody (Kiremidjian

232; PEPP 602; Cuddon). According to Hutcheon, “parody demands of the (real

and inferred) parodist much skill, critical understanding and, often, wit” (96). In

fact, this description of the talent of the parodist also lists criteria for aesthetic eval uation.

Less frequently discussed, but not neglected is the role of the reader in the aes

thetic valorization. It has been stated that he must be able to share the sophistica

tion of the author (Hutcheon 96). The act of appreciation of parody requires that he has both taste and adequate critical competence (Riewald 132). At this point, 65

the aesthetic valorization of parody becomes an issue of the pragmatics of the liter

ary process.

2. 7. Pragmatic Function

Pragmatics as a branch of semiotics enjoys considerable interest on the part of Western scholars of parody. It is combined with theory of communication (Hutche on, Rose), intertextuality/hypertextuality (Genette), rhetorics (Booth), etc. The main objectives of pragmatic analysis of parody are two: (1) a more detailed and (2) a more systematic study of the practical effect upon the reader. The former objec tive has been researched more effectively than the latter.

Hutcheon outlines the scope of the pragmatic approach as including the entire act of enunciation, i.e., as the encoder, the text, the decoder (37), as well as the his torical and the ideological contexts. The latter are broader than the act of enuncia tion itself (109). She defines the act of enunciation as a contextualized production and reception of the texts (55). In the production of the text, the reader is present in the capacity of intended response and expected semiotic competence of the decod er. It is essential to distinguish between the encoding process (production) and the actual response of the decoder (reception). Hutcheon describes the role of the au thor from three different perspectives: (1) as activity during the actual production of the text, (2) as a structural element endowed with specific intended effect, and (3) as a role to be decoded by the reader.

Rose explores the two models of communication used in parody. The first one concerns the relationship between parodist and parodied author, while the second one deals with the relationship between parodist and reader of parody (26). The 66

author of parody assumes the roles of both decoder of the original and encoder of parody. This assumption can direct the analysis toward the maze of the relations be

tween actual, intended, implied, ideal, inferred, etc. author and reader as roles in volved in the production and reception of parody. However, Rose does not under

take a detailed study of this complicated matter. She chooses a different direction and investigates the signals which help the reader identify texts as parodies (25-6).

Various types of structural discrepancy function as such signals. They are crucial at the first stage of the process of reception of the text,i.e., the identification (recogni tion), but they are also useful at the second stage, the interpretation of the message.

Most of the issues that are traditionally raised in studies of the critical and/or

evaluative functions of parody belong to the stage of interpretation. ^ The view of parody as only negative criticism is becoming less and less popular among modern theoreticians. Although the notion of parody as a “weapon” is still current, its validi ty has been limited to only one of the functions of parody (the other ones being play, vehicle for popularizing certain works or norms, homage, etc.). Lately, there is strong interest in the function of parody as meta-fiction. Paro dy is regarded as a way of sharpening the ability of the public to discriminate fact from fiction as well as good from bad literature (Rose 74). By providing a mirror to the writer’s art, meta-fictional parody criticizes naive concepts of art as a mirror to the world (73). Parodic texts serve as glosses to their referents, i.e., originals (Dane

147). Although Kiremidjian does not use the term meta-fiction, it is the same func tion of parody to which he refers when saying that parody forces the reader to be aware of form as an artifice or an artificial discipline by bringing it into relation to natural experience (233). Morson’s term “meta-parody,” however, differs 67

considerably from Rose’s idea of parody as meta-fiction. It means that a text is de

signed to exploit the dialogue between parody and counterparody, i.e., between gen

re and anti-genre (142).

As elements of the interpretation of the text, criticism and evaluation are fused with laughter as emotional reaction of the reader of parody. In his study of Victori

an laughter, Gray observes that there were parodies which did not require that the

audiences “finally think less of the objects and ideas made ridiculous,” but allowed

“not to think seriously about them at all” (162). This change from serious to non-se-

rious mode of criticism and judgement is one of the many changes connected with the pragmatic effect of parody. The pragmatic utilization of signs “always involves some kind of manipulation, as a response is to be elicited from the reader” (Iser 54). Because of the “wordly connections” of parody, i.e., because of the association of parody with satire and with the enunciative act as a whole (Hutcheon 104), the changes concern not only literary, but social and political issues as well. A number of observations of the in tended, inferred, and realized changes appear in various studies on parody. I cannot list all of them here, because of space constraints. The main issues which they con cern are the educational and didactic functions of parody.

I will, however, discuss three issues which can have serious methodological im plications. The first one is the characteristic of parody as “new vision” (McLuhan

168). It places the notion of change in the diachronic perspective of old vs. new. Its synchronic counterpart is found in Hutcheon’s view of parody as “repetition with dif ference”. Both of them are relevant for understanding the effect of parody as far as one keeps in mind that they belong to different slants of analysis. 68

The second problem, parody as performance (Hutcheon 108; Poirier 339), has not been investigated in a systematic way. However, as Poirier’s brief discussion of

self-parody shows, it has considerable heuristic possibilities. The third problem is that of the audience. The latter must not be equated with the individual reader. On the basis of Conte’s notion of “learned memory” (1974,10) and Zumthor’s continu

um memoriel (1976,320), Hutcheon concludes that “with any change in the audi

ence of art, we are likely to be able to posit a parallel change in the expectations of

those who produce parody” (89). This is, of course, only one aspect of the problem.

The rest of the aspects have not been even touched upon. The investigation of the pragmatic functions of parody follows the system of notions developed by pragmatics as a branch of semiotics. There have been very few attempts to modify this general system with regard to the specific requirements

of the study of parody. Some work in this direction is done by Kiremidjian and

Rose. According to Kiremidjian, the effect of parody combines its effect as critique and as art. This implies that parody has both para-aesthetic and aesthetic functions. Rose introduces also two, although different, types of effect: (1) “shock or hu mor from the conflict with reader expectations abcut the text parodied”; (2) change effected in the world of the reader of the parodied text” (26). The former concerns the emotional reaction of the reader, while the latter takes into account not only the emotional, but also the intellectual and practical reactions. This system does not make any provisions for the cases when the reader is at the same time a writer and the change in his world affects also the future production of literature, including parody. However, Rose does not ignore the issue. She touches upon it rather often in connection with the role of parody in the literary process (79, 82,120,125,129, 69

132-4,149,155-8,164,185-7).

2.8. Parody and Literary Process

The term ‘literary process’ is more adequate for the views of modern Western scholars than the term ‘literary evolution.’ In spite of the obvious influence of Rus sian Formalists (Hutcheon 36), many Western theoreticians maintain that literary evolution is only one of the possible forms of the literary process. As Hutcheon per suasively argues, “the forms of art change,” but they do not necessarily “evolve or get better in any way” (36). Since Rose and Hutcheon (28-9,35-6,97,99,101) have already discussed the Western views in considerable detail, I will focus only upon three selected questions about the role of parody in the literary process.

The first question is that of the range of the impact of parody on the literary process. This impact is not confined to changes in the literary texts alone. There fore, parody takes part in transformations of the discourse beyond the level of text.

Rose outlines two major functions of parody in this respect. The epistemological function changes individual works as well as the context of the literary tradition from within which the author writes. The heuristic one moves beyond the textual analysis and produces change of opinion (79). The fact that parody is a form of autoreferen- tiality does not mean that it has no ideological implications (Hutcheon 28). The second question concerns the factors which facilitate the literary process.

Both Rose (132,158) and Hutcheon (35) maintain that parody is only one of those factors. Their views represent a tendency in modern Western studies to modify the

Formalist opinion of parody as a paradigm of fiction as well as of literary evolution

(Rose 103,120,164; Hutcheon 28-9). This tendency opposes also certain 70

Structuralist and post-Structuralist views. The ambiguity of the Formalist stand and the opinion of parody as only one of the strategies of literary evolution, in particular

(1.8), have remained outside of the critical attention of Western scholars.

The third important issue is that of the relations between parody and continui ty and discontinuity as principles of literary dynamics. The opposition continuity vs. discontinuity is interpreted at times as conservative vs. progressive and/or conserva tive vs. revolutionary. Hutcheon’s remarks on the subject offer useful clarifications.

In her opinion, the Formalists emphasize too much the disruptive and destabi lizing function of parody. Parody, especially its reverential variety, is also a way of preserving continuity in discontinuity (97). Transgression of rules does not automat ically produce revolutionary change (99). The conclusion that the ideological status of parody cannot be permanently fixed and defined (99) is an important methodo logical premise which complements the notion of the relativity of the aesthetical evaluation of parody.

The study of the role of parody in the literary process leads to the issue of whether parody of parody can exist and of the role of parody in the parodic tradi tion.

2. 9. Tradition of Parody The theoretical investigation of the parodic tradition is a fairly neglected area.

Western scholars, like their Russian and Soviet colleagues, have been interested mainly in collecting empirical data and organizing it chronologically. The limited cases of theoretical analysis focus mainly on parody of parody. The most detailed, although not very lucid, considerations are offered by Rose (155-6). 71

She discusses what she calls meta-fictional parody in relation with the dialecti cal supersession of other discourses and traditions. The central question is of whether this kind of parody can supersede itself in the same way as it supersedes other texts and traditions in the process of their dialectical transformation. The an swer is that it “is always one step behind its supersession of itself,” because “the meta-fictional critique of parody may rather eventuate in the refunctioning of paro dy for fiction.” There is a principle which limits meta-criticism to subjects other than itself. Because of it, even if one distinguishes between the parodist’s use of parody and the dialectic of self-reflection as target of criticism, meta-fictional parody still can not supersede the dialectic of self-reflection.

The problem of parody is briefly discussed also by Morson during his analysis of counterparody and metaparody. Hutcheon points out that today parody has moved from being a potential paradigm of modern aesthetics to being a cliche (28). In other words, it has become a model of the prevailing norm rather than a way of creating new forms. This observation concerns, although indirectly, the issue of parody of parody. The logical, but unasked, question is whether in such situations parody can still be a “pivotal stage” (35) of the literary process and by parodying the cliche/parodic paradigm contribute to the production of new forms.

Kiremidjian identifies Jorge Luis Borges’s Pierre Menard. Autor del Quixote as a parody of “an already parodistic work,” but gives no consideration to the issue which Rose singles out as “refunctioning of parody for fiction” and which may very well be relevant in this case. He does not comment on the possibility that a parody may not be read as such when it becomes subject of another parody. Since scholars agree that parody can be read as a non-parody (most likely as a comic work), there 72

is always a possibility for parody to function as a non-parodic text. Hutcheon’s view of parody as “authorized transgression” of rules opens anoth er, not yet utilized, approach to the parody of parody. It means that in a parody

there are two sets of rules at work. One of them includes the transgressed rules,

while the other one encompasses the rules of the transgression itself. This second

set of rules represents the principle of transgression, but is not the principle itself.

There is no need to “refunction” the parody to fiction, i.e., to non-parody, in order

to make this set of rules the subject of parody. In this sense, one may assert that

there can be a parody of parody which functions as a vehicle of the dynamics of the parodic tradition.

The existing discussions of parody of parody stress the discontinuity rather

than the continuity in the tradition. A good starting point for the investigation of the

continuity is Kiremidjian’s statement about the two techniques of critical parody,

namely, (1) reversing or (2) imitating the characteristics of the original as completely

as possible (24).

There is evidence that during different periods of the history of the parodic tradition its poetics is dominated by either one or the other of those techniques. The competition between the two for the dominating role affects the dynamics of the

tradition. Kiremidjian’s statement that critical parodies which function as homage prevail at times when the established norms are “still viable” also has theoretical po tential. The empiric observation may or may not be correct, but it does raise the theoretical issue of the correlation between the status of the norms represented by the original, on one hand, and the type of the parody, on the other. The correlation undoubtedly conditions both the structure and the direction of the parodic tradition 73 at any moment of the history of the literary process.

2.10. History of Parody

Recent Western studies make a relatively small contribution to the investiga tion of the historical roots of parody in terms of both new facts and new theoretical approaches. It is true that almost all contemporary scholars turn to the etymology of the word or to the history of its usage in order to prove the legitimacy of their inter pretations of the term, but the data they use was gathered and analyzed in the early

1950s at the latest (Lelievre). The merit of the Western attitude to the issue of the historical roots is the philological, historical, and cultural precision with which the researchers handle the facts. The shortcoming of this dedication to precision is that scholars tend to confine themselves to the history of parody only. They refrain from exploring the question of origin, because it requires stepping outside of the history of literature and utilizing indirect evidence from the fields of anthropology, folklore, cultural history, etc. For this reason, the methodological issue of the difference between the origin and the history of parody has not received adequate attention. There are even cases when the question of the origin of the aesthetic phenomenon is reduced to that of the his tory of the term.

New trends in Western scholarship .on parody have appeared after the works of Baxtin and Freidenberg (1.10) became available in translation (Rose, Hutcheon).

The critical assessment of their views about the historical roots of parody concerns mostly cases of unbalanced emphasis upon certain issues. It does not probe deeper into either the precision of the empirical data, or the validity of the theoretical 74 principles and the methodological procedures. By saying this, I do not imply that those views are necessarily faulty, but want to point out that the superseding synthe sis is yet to come.

3. Parody as Process

Since there is no commonly accepted theory of parody, I have followed the practice of Slavists before me and created a platform of my own. It uses elements from more than one of the existing theories. My main premise is that parody must be studied not as a thing, but as a process. There is a core of relations of similarity and of difference which is constantly restructured in order to produce the text of parody. In terms of both the production and the reception of the text, the structur ing process passes through two main stages. The first is the act of communication in general; the second one is that of literature as a secondary modeling system (Lot- man).

The core operates by means of a dynamic system which comprises the struc tural invariant, the structural variants, and the individual texts. The invariant is con stituted of morphological functions which are defined by their action at the level of construction, structural dynamics, and pragmatics. The agent of the function is a variable which changes and thus produces the structural variants. There are three major invariant functions at the level of construction: “parodied work,” “adaptation of the parodied work in the parody,” and “parody.” This tripartite functional model of the invariant is more adequate than the commonly used dual one, i.e., original vs. parody. 75

At the level of the structural dynamics, the relations of similarity and dissimi larity are organized so as to create discrepancy between the texts of the parodied work and the parody. Consequently, difference is the dominating kind of relation. At the pragmatic level the discrepancy has more than one objective. With regard to the emotional response of the reader, the effect of the discrepancy is laughter (in the broad sense of the word). In terms of literature as a secondary modeling system, the discrepancy acts as both an integrating factor and a differential feature. It is the dominant function in the production mode, genre, device, style, etc.

As far as the act of communication is concerned, the effect of the discrepancy upon the sets of factors and functions of the Jakobsonian model (see chapter I, 4) resembles the double image effect on the TV screen. For example, the encoder keeps the identity of both the encoder of parody and the encoder of the parodied text as well as some intermediate identities such as those of an inscribed parodied poet or parodist.

The “double image” effect is accompanied by a “merger effect”. I so call the cases when a factor or function represents simultaneously its counterpart. The

“merger effect” is a permanent characteristic of some of the constituents of the communicative act and only an optional characteristic of others. Thus, while the en coder of parody is always “merged” with the decoder of the original, the encoder of parody “merges” with the decoder of parody only in the case of reader’s parody, i.e., only when the reader interprets as parody a text which has not been intended as such by the author.

In terms of identification and interpretation of parody by the reader, the invar iant acts as the dominant communicative code. The cases of metaparody (Morson) 76 are no exception from this rule. There the decoder is in doubt as to what code to apply, but that does not mean that he does not know the code for reading parody.

He is only uncertain as to whether parody is the inscribed code of communication.

The deliberately ambiguous makers of the code/invariant are the differential charac teristic of metaparody as a structural variant of parody.

Structural variants exist at a number of levels which I will not try even to list completely. They exist as structural potentials which are realized in the course of the history of parody. Therefore there will always be two lists: a list of the theoreti cally possible variants and a list of the historical variants. The size of the lists de pends on how deep into the structure of the text of parody the investigator is pre pared to probe. Even every individual text can be regarded as a structural variant at a certain level of abstraction.

In order to give some idea of the process of production of structural variants, I will point out some of the major strategies. One of them is the use of different tech niques for composing the adaptation of the original or the text of parody in general.

Another strategy is to change the ratio between the relations of similarity and differ ence (without, of course, abolishing the dominance of the latter). Other sources of variants are the types of laughter, the interrelations between the target of ridicule and the target of parody, the variety of the literary models, etc. The relocation of the focus from one to another factor or function of the speech act is still another, even more general and subtle, variant-generating procedure.

The system of variants is essential for the action of the literary and social func tions of parody. 77

4. Literary and Social Functions The term “function” is widely used in twentieth century literary scholarship, al though it is not included as a separate entity in either PEPP or KLE. It is discussed by Vachek, Ducrot and Todorov, and in LE (Funkcii jazvka). One can observe its expansion from Saussurian linguistics, through functionalist theories of language, to literary ones (Russian Formalism, Prague and French Structuralism), and, finally, to general literary terminology.

The meaning of the term is based on the lexical meaning of the word, namely,

“the natural or proper action for which a person, office, mechanism or organ is fitted or employed;” “specific occupation or role;” “activity, performance” (AHD). The modifications of the lexical meaning are usually marked by adjectives (e.g., distinc tive, delimitative, aesthetic, etc.). Different theories operate with different sets of subdivisions. In some cases an adjective or even the term “function” is used in a more or less different sense. Along with subcategories, the term includes also su- pracategories as, for instance, “the function of the ‘structure of functions’”

(Vachek).

The notion of “function of functions” is behind the reasoning about the neces sity to distinguish “between those functions that are exercised on the occasion of the communicative act and those that are linked to it of necessity” (Ducrot & Todorov

30). To the latter category belong Biihler’s expressive, appellative, and representa tive functions, as well as Jakobson’s emotive (expressive), conative (appellative), metalinguistic, poetic, referential, and phatic functions (“Linguistics and Poetics”).

In his model of verbal communication, there are also six factors (addresser, address ee, code, message, context, and contact) which correspond to the six functions. The 78

two sets are hierarchically structured and their constituents can occupy respectively the positions of dominant factor and of dominant function. Verbal art is such a vari

ant of the communicative act in which the message is the dominant factor and the

poetic function is the dominant function. Jakobson’s model is widely referred to by contemporary scholars as either a respected theoretical guideline or as an object of

criticism.

Particularly useful for the history of the term “function” is Pratt’s discussion of

“poetic function” in its relation to the concept of poetic vs. nonpoetic language

(Russian Formalists, Prague Structuralism) and Jakobson’s earlier notions of “liter ariness” and “aesthetic function” (3-37). It is actually a polemic which, as Pratt her self admits, is “one-sided” as far as it concerns Jakobson’s model, because she “holds

Jakobson to his linguistics” (29). In fact, it is narrower than that, because the alter native suggested by her is founded exclusively on the speech act theory

(Austin/Searle classification of speech acts as locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary, in particular).

Other scholars, however, consider the relations between the two approaches as complementary distribution rather than mutual exclusion (Ducrot & Todorov

342-5). A recent example of the effectiveness of Jakobson’s model as a methodolog ical approach in an applied study (Todd, Fiction) makes me think that the comple mentary distribution is a more sound critical assessment then the claim of theoretical

“bankruptcy” of Jakobson’s “linguistic assumptions.” On the other hand, Todd’s work is an excellent proof for Pratt’s general contention that “a sociologically based, use-oriented linguistics is a prerequisite toward sealing the breach between formal and sociological approaches to literature” (XIX). 79

Of special importance to the study of literary and social functions of parody is

Tynjanov’s concept of function (“Literaturnyj fakt”; “O literatumoj evoljucii”). It is

part of his concept of system. I will base my summary on Steiner’s description of the latter. Tynjanov applies the notion of system to three general levels. The infraliterary one includes the literary work seen as a structural and functional system organ

ized by a “constructive factor” (dominant) (Metapoetics. 118). The intraliterary lev el includes literature in its totality, i.e., comprises several sub-systems: genre, literary

school, and style.

Steiner remarks that Tynjanov gives no “clear-cut picture” of it (“Three Meta phors” 99), which is actually true for the other two levels as well. The extraliterary

level incorporates “the whole national culture at a given time.” Each level is regard

ed as a system of interdependent variables and the interrelations between the three are also systemic (99).

The elements of Tynjanov’s “system of systems” are linked by the “constructive

function” which consists of two other functions: the “syn-function,” which relates an

element to the elements of a given system, and the “auto-function,” which relates an

element to (a) similar elements in other works-systems and (b) other series. The auto-function potentially preconditions and the syn-function determines the actual constructive function of an element inside the work (Metapoetics 118). In Steiner’s interpretation, the syn-function works at the infraliterary level (the work-system), while the auto-function works at both the ir.tra- and the extraliterary levels. He notes that the distinction between the syn- and auto-function resembles “to some ex tent” the Saussurian opposition between syntagmatic and associative relations in language (Metapoetics 118). 80

One may add that the notion of literary evolution is also present in Tynjanov’s approach to system and function. It gives them a diachronical dimension, although the distinction between synchronic and diachronic does not receive detailed consid eration. In 1928 Tynjanov revised both his concepts and his terminology. The three levels were converted into sets of functions (the constructive function corresponded to the infraliterary level, the literary function to the intraliterary level, and the social function to the extraliterary level) (121). The first two functions were characterized also in diachronic terms: the constructive function constantly changes and evolves; the literary one changes more gradually and evolves “from epoch to epoch.” The social function was discussed in terms of its “most immediate” manifestation, name ly, the “speech function” (refievaja funkcija). Frow points out that, as a synchronic modification of Tynjanov’s premise that “the study of evolution must move from the literary system to the nearest correlated system, not the distant, though major sys tems,” the verbal (speech, redevaja) function has the potential to be an intermediary step between literary and behavioral norms (62).

In the 1930s, Tynjanov’s concept of function was developed further by the members of the Prague Linguistic Circle, especially by Jakobson and Mukarovsky.

The former advanced the idea of “literariness” as the “aesthetic function” of lan guage which turns a text into a work of literature (“The Dominant”). As was men tioned above, in 1960 he revised his ideas and replaced the aesthetic function with the poetic function of language in the act of communication, and “literature” with the more general concept of “verbal art”. This later stage of Jakobson’s views may be regarded as a development of a trend that was introduced by Tynjanov’s “speech 81 function” of literature.

The notion of the aesthetic function was explored also by Mukafovsky. He analyzed it not in terms of speech act, but rather in terms of relations between art and society. The aesthetic function, he maintains, is not a property of art alone. The point is that in art it has dominant position, while outside art it has a secondary one. Aesthetic function is not, to use Suino’s words, “a permanent or inevitable property of an event or an object, but is evoked only when it is called upon by society to serve in some capacity or other” (97).

Mukafovsky’s contention that the aesthetic function is “a living force... con stantly altering the location and direction of its course,” while the aesthetic norms, degrees, and rules are static (23), is an important methodological point.

Another important premise is the role of the public in establishing the presence of the aesthetic function which makes the latter a social phenomenon

(Suino 98). Mukafovsky explores the relation between aesthetic and extra-aesthetic value in two different contexts, namely, as (1) interaction of the aesthetic “series” with the rest of the social formation and (2) relations between those values within the work (Frow 65-6).

In spite of the fact that the views of Tynjanov, Jakobson (only part of them), and Mukafovsky belong to the 1920s and 1930s, they are still theoretically relevant.

The attitude toward them ranges from homage through revision to rejection. From the very beginning, they have been under attack from the supporters of the sociolog ical approach to literature. The “Vulgar Sociologists” (or “Vulgar Marxists” as they are also called in Western scholarship) of the past have been defeated by their own reductionism (i.e., because of their premise that there is a homological correlation 82

between mode of production, ideology, and work of art), but the sociologically in clined scholars continue the critical dialogue.

Thus, Frow is dissatisfied by what he regards as treating “an analytical fiction

[i.e., aesthetic function] as an essential property,” instead of studying the literary sys

tem as “an institutionalized set of expectational norms governing the production of new texts” (65). He believes that ideology is “the neighboring order” with which the

literary system is cognate and in which it is partially inserted (67). His concept of ideology is based on the views of Voloshinov (Marxism and the Philosophy of Lan

guage). who formulated them in 1929 as a critique of Russian Formalism. Frow’s argument has two general shortcomings: on one hand, he, too, does the

same thing for which he blames Mukafovsky, i.e., he does not show how all this

“functions;” on the other, his ideas implicitly carry the vestiges of reductionism, in

spite of the fact that he renounces it explicitly. Both shortcomings are actually

common problems of the contemporary sociology of literature. In 1978, Laurenson,

one of the dedicated supporters of this approach, remarked that “a fully satisfactory

programmatic methodology has not yet been formulated” (6). “Goldman,” she writes, “provided the most comprehensive methodology to date [...] Yet, it cannot be denied that he failed ultimately to avoid the very reductionism he abhorred” (5).

Terry Eagleton, a post-Althusserian Marxist, is regarded as the most successful

theoretician as far as avoiding vagueness and reductionism is concerned (Laurenson

10, Todd, Fiction 14-5). His system of “general ideology,” “authorial ideology’” and

“aesthetic ideology,” along with his set of concepts for text analysis are very useful for the study of the interaction between literary and social functions of parody. 83

Research on parody, theoretical and applied as well, uses the term “function” fairly frequently. I will list some of the important cases of theoretical usage, which were already discussed in the first two parts of this chapter: Tynjanov’s “evolution ary” (1.8), “parodic” and “parodistic” (1.1) functions; Rose’s notions of “refunc tioning” (based on Tynjanov) of the old material by dialectical parody (2.5.3) and parody as meta-fiction (2.7); Genette’s “functional categories” of playful, satiric, and serious regime (2.4); Hutcheon’s pragmatic functions of parody as ridicule or homage (2.4; 2.5.3), etc.

Since “literary” and “social function” are rather broad terms which can take in a variety of meanings, it is necessary to specify in what sense they are used in this work. Tne literary function will be studied not as an activity oriented toward produc ing literary forms other than parody (an aspect of it which has been investigated by the Formalists and by a number of contemporary theoreticians), but rather as a per formance aimed at producing and developing parodic models. Its action concerns both the infraliterary level (the individual text) and the intraliterary one (literature in general).

The literary function will be analyzed synchronically (as means for identifying individual texts as parodies) as well as diachronically (as a way for establishing a tra dition of parody). The contention of modern theoreticians that parody must be stud ied in terms of its historical manifestations, acknowledges the need for such investi gations.

The social function of parody will be studied with regard to the relations be tween parody and ideology. This will include analysis of the structure, production, reception and valorization of the texts, as well as their interaction with the literary 84

institutions and certain formal and informal social groups.

The aspects of the literary and social functions of parody outlined above are not a rigid and static analytical grid. They are intended only as general guidelines

for studying the process of production and reception of the texts and of their relati

ons with ideology and social practice.

NOTES

* P. Berkov, for example, considers parody a satiric genre which reflects directly the class struggle in the society. Consequently, his theory and history of parody are founded upon the documents of the Central Committee of the Commu nist party concerning ideology (1946) and the speech of A. £danov criticizing the journals Star and Leningrad (“Iz istorii” 262). From the 1930s to the end of 1950s parody was regarded as one of the genres of literary satire and was subject to the same political restrictions. According to Markarjan, “the cult of personality meant denial of any criticism, which included satire as a form of criticism.”(4) I. Eventov maintains that the main cause of the weakness of Soviet theory of satire was the Sta linist doctrine about the character of the conflicts in socialist society (230).

^ Tynjanov Mn. p.: Kravcov; Grossman; Begak; Morozov LRP, PL&; Berkov “Iz istorii”; Markarjan; Rassadin; KLE: Sarnov; etc. Some definitions use the words rod and vjd (E§. 1897; ES, 1915; LE; BSE). These words are often interpreted as synonyms of literary genre, but they can also mean “species,” “sort,” or kind,” in a broader sense.

'I J In the concise summary of Baxtin’s theory of intertextual dialogue and kinds of discourse Todorov does not discuss the relations between parody and parodic dis course (70-74). In the table of the species of the represented discourse he uses only the term parody (7). For a more detailed analysis of Baxtin’s views on parody one may see Hutcheon (8,22, 26-27,40-41,6o, 69-83,95,103,109) and Morson (107-9, 114,118-19).

^ The previous studies either regard parody, burlesque, travesty, and mock- epic as separate genres, or consider the latter three kinds of parody. For instance, Ostolopov does not regard burlesque, travesty, and mock-epic as kinds of parody. TomaSevskij considers mock-epic related to parody, but not a kind of parody (Iroi- kom. 253-54). Begak discusses only travesty (serious content rendered in comic form) and parody (comic content in serious form), and clearly views them as sepa rate genre., (53). Morozov takes a similar stand, although he examines parody and burlesque (PLZ 53-4,64). Travesty, burlesque, and mock-epic are kinds of parody according to KLE (if their effect is directed against “aristocratic” literature). ISSenko (11) and 85

Makogonenko (143) speak only of burlesque (a high subject in low style, i.e., oppo site to LES definition) and mock-epic (a low subject in high style, which according to the LES entry on parody is burlesque) as kinds of parody. Travesty and burlesque are listed as kinds of parody in BSE, while KLE remarks that “some regard bur lesque as parody.” One may assume that Tynjanov thinks of travesty as a kind of parody when he mentions the numerous parodies of the Aeneid” (D&G 436). ^ FiSer supports his view with a quotation from PuSkin, “I do not laugh when some good-for-nothing painter / besmears Raphael’s “Madonna,” / 1 do not laugh when some despicable clown / dishonors Aligieri with a parody.” Unfortunately, he overlooks the fact that this opinion belongs to the inferior artist Sal’eri. Mozart, the genius, enjoys even a parody of his own music. (He perceives the blind musician’s rendition of “Don Juan” as an unintentional parody.) This places FiSer in Sal’eri’s camp, which subverts the credibility of his view.

^ Booth points out that there are different views about the exact emotional ef fect of irony. Some scholars find irony “biting,” while others see it as essentially humorous and maintain that it is the humor which may be “biting” or “grotesque” (149). According to Muecke, the ironist laughs, because he feels free in comparison with the victim of irony which is presented as not free (227). The latter view sug gests that “biting” and “grotesque” do not cover the entire range of laughter as an emotional effect of irony. ^ According to. Verweyen, the theories of parody fall into two groups depend ing on whether they define it on the basis of its function as criticism, or of its comic nature. Hutcheon thinks that the concept of ridicule is common for both (51). CHAPTER II

LITERARY FUNCTIONS AND LITERARY COMPETENCE

This chapter investigates the relations between the literary functions of parody and the literary competence of both the author and the reader as they materialize in the Russian verse parody between 1815 and 1870. The literary function is viewed as a performance aimed at creating and developing models of literary parody. The lit erary competence is considered a prerequisite for and a result of the interaction be tween the author (encoder), the text (message), and the reader (decoder). The in vestigation uses the method of synchronic analysis. The diachronic aspects of the material are studied in the next chapter. The models of the literary parody are ana lyzed at three levels of abstraction, namely, the invariant, its main structural variants, and the variations of the latter which are called patterns.

The purpose of this is not to produce a full catalog of every pattern realized in

Russian verse parody, but rather to identify the major pattern-producing tendencies of the period.

1. Invariant. Variants. Pattern-Producing Tendencies.

The description of the invariant of parody must consider not only the structure of the text, but also the entire act of enunciation, i.e., the text, its production and its reception. Therefore, I use two coordinate axes. The horizontal one represents the

86 87 structure of the text of parody. I replace the traditional binary one with a structure which includes “ADAPTATION” as intermediary component. “Adaptation” is nei ther the modified version of the original as it appears in the text of the parody, nor the new material introduced by the parody, but rather the interaction between the two. This model is better than the binary one, because, first, it shows more ade quately the components of the invariant, and, second, because it also notes the dy namics of their relations. The model of the horizontal axis may be presented in the following way

ORIGINAL ADAPTATION (= original <-> new additions) <-> PARODY The vertical axis includes also three major components, i.e., the AUTHOR

(addresser, encoder), the PARODY (message), and the READER/LISTENER

(addressee, decoder). The rest of the components of Jakobson’s model of the act of verbal communication (context, contact, and code) function as a subsystem of the component PARODY.

The structural invariant of parody includes both axes as shown below

AUTHOR

^ context

ORIGINAL <-> ADAPTATION <-> PARODY = message

contact y code

READER

Each of the components of the invariant has functions of its own. The changes in the selection and in the hierarchy of the individual functions create the structural variants. The variations (patterns) materialize in the individual acts of production 88 and reception of parody. I will consider first the horizontal axis, then the vertical one, and, finally, the component central for both, i.e., the parody, in order to identify the major structural variants and the pattern-producing tendencies in Russian verse parody between 1815 and 1870.

2. Literary Functions of the Original. A complete literary work, a segment of it, a genre, a device, an image of the author, an image of the reader, a style, a literary school, etc., can function as variants of the component “parodied work” (“original”). The difference and the interaction between the non-parodic and parodic functions of those items have not been inves tigated theoretically.

The intensity of the parodic function “original of parody” is another question which has not been studied theoretically, but has been noted empirically as the so- called “favorite originals.” The latter mean that certain works (e.g., Bukovsky’s

“Pevec v stane russkix v o in o v ,“Zamok Smal’gol’m,”^ “Dvenadcat’ spjaS£ix dev,”^

PuSkin’s “Cernaja Sal’,”^ “Kavkazskij plennik,”^ Evgenij Onegin”** Lermontov’s

“Skazi mne, vetka Palestiny,”^ Fet’s “Sopot, robkoe dyxanie,”^ “Serenada,”^), images of poets and general style (Xvostov, Bukovskij, Pu§kin, Lermontov, Fet, Benediktov, Rozengeim), genres (odes of various types, fable, ballad, romantic poem), and literary schools (Classicism, Romanticism, Aestheticism) are frequently used as originals of parody.

The “favorite originals” display the function “original of parody” with higher intensity and make its existence more visible. This intensified variant of the function 89 may be regarded as a special subfunction which I will call “emblematic.” In this case, the specific original acts as a synecdoche (pars pro toto) of the general struc tural component.

The parodic function is a component of the structural dynamics of parody. In relation to the original, one may speak of the “function of original of parody.” The interaction between the parodic and non-parodic functions of the literary facts used as originals of parody, creates the two structural variants of the invariant function

“original of parody.” The variant, which I will call “total,” has as a final goal the total replacement of the non-parodic function of the literary fact/original of parody by the parodic one. The other one, which I will call “limited,” requires only partial re placement of the non-parodic function of the original.

In Russian verse parody, the “total” variant is used mostly in connection with the image of the poet in its function as original of parody (e.g., Count D. Xvostov, V.

Benediktov, M. Rozengeim). Another result of the action of “total” function are the images-hoaxes, i.e., non-existing poets as Novyj poet, Obliditel’nyj poet, Konrad Lili- enSvager, Apollon Kapel’kin, Major Mixail Burbonov, Koz’ma Prutkov.

The parodic image of a real poet and the image-hoax are in complementary distribution. In the case of the real poet (e.g., Xvostov), the total function of “origi nal” reduces the non-parodic function of the literary fact to a zero, in order to re place it. The parody affirms that the poet has no positive value as an author of non- parodic literature and that his value is only negative, i.e., in his function as original of parody.

In the case of the hoaxes (e.g., Koz’ma Prutkov), because there is no such poet, the non-parodic function is zero, the total function of “original” modifies itself so 90

that it imitates, as close as possible, the non-parodic function of the literary fact. It pretends, in an ironic way, that the latter function is the only one present.

The “limited” variant is associated with a greater variety of literary facts. It is more frequently used than the “total” one. There are two main sources of limita

tions: (1) the differences among the literary groups and (2) the differences within a given group. A classic example of the first type of limitations is the attitude toward

the poetry of A. Fet. For the writers gathered around the journals Contemporary

(Sovremennik) (N. Dobroljubov, I. Panaev, M. Mixajlov, A. K. Tolstoj, the

£em£uznikov brothers) and Spark (Iskra) (V. KuroCkin, D. Minaev, A. Snitkin), it definitely functioned as emblem of “original of parody,” while for the poets advocat

ing the aesthetic principle of “art for art’s sake” (Ja. Polonskij, A. Majkov, L. Mej)

Fet’s poetry never had such function.

The second type of limitations conditions the choice of and the attitude toward

the originals inside a given literary group. Thus, for the members of the literary so

ciety Arzamas, the literary images of both SiSkov and 2ukovskij had emblematic

functions. The difference being that $i§kov was an emblem of “original of ridiculing

and denigrating parody,” while 2ukovskij was an emblem of “original of humorous

and respectful parody.” The criticism, allowed by the latter kind of parody, was in

tended not to destroy, but to improve the theory and practice of the group. The Arzamasian parodies on 2ukovskij demonstrate some of the limitations of the emblematic function. For instance, according to the custom of Arzamas, every member had to adopt a name taken from 2ukovskij’s ballads. This had clear parod ic functions: men got women’s names (e.g., Bludov was called Kassandra, £ukovskij was Svetlana)), a young man like Uvarov was named The Old Woman (StaruSka). A. 91

I. Turgenev chose a name of an object (Aeolian Harp), DaSkov selected as a name the interjection “Hark!” (6u!). which was often used in the ballads (Todd, Letter

198-200). The purpose of this custom was to honor 2ukovskij by means of the double irony of the "friendly parody.”

The custom did not really include an element of criticism. The latter was present in A. PuSkin’s parody “PosluSaj, deduSka” which used as original 2ukovskij’s dialogue “Tlennost”’ (RStP 252,714). According to the memoirs of people close to the two poets, 2ukovskij himself laughed at this parody. Obviously, he did not find

PuSkin’s doubt about the merits of blank verse offending. However, he did object when the parodic activity of his fellow Arzamasians concerning him became too in tensive, because he felt that it exceeded the boundaries of friendly parody and ac quired nuances of ridicule. In other words, he insisted that the limitations of the model of “friendly” parody were observed. He wrote to Vjazemskij:

I would not wish to be always inseparable from a caricature in your mind. The habit of [making] such jokes can turn into a way of thinking.... A tender solicitousness is necessary in friendship (qtd. in Todd, Letter 109).

Autoparody presents a variation of the function of “limited” original. In it, ridicule and denigration are still excluded from the range of the intended effect, but the choice of “original” is restricted even further, i.e., to the author’s own works.

The literary scandal around K. Pavlova’s autoparody “Vezde i vsegda” (RStP 387) clearly demonstrates the limitations of the intended attitude toward the original of autoparody.

According to Pavlova, her text was intended as “a joke.” Indeed, it is a playful exploration of the limits beyond which rich and rare rhymes become a shortcoming rather than an asset to a poem. I. Panaev, however, published the text without 92

Pavlova’s permission in an article of his own which, certainly, was not intended as friendly criticism of her poetry (RStP 740). The new context and the fact that he did

not identify the text as autoparody allowed him to remove the restriction upon ridi

cule and denigration as intended effect. In her reply, Pavlova questioned the fair

ness of Panaev’s criticism in general by pointing out his unfair use of the autoparody as means of denigration.

The attitude toward the original is result of the interaction between the func

tion of “original” and that of “literary authority.” “Literary authority” is actually an

umbrella term which covers a number of variations that range from positive to nega tive. On the level of the structural variants, one may retain the dichotomy original

with positive vs. original with negative authority, but on the level of the patterns, one

must take notice of the greater possibility for variations provided by the actual range

of the “literary authority.” The strongly negative authority, as a segment of this range, performs also the function of “target of ridicule.”

There are two basic pattern-producing tendencies that are founded upon the

interaction between the functions of original of parody, literary authority, and target

of ridicule. The first one delegates the positive authority to the original, while the

second one associates the original with the negative authority and, frequently, with

the function of target of ridicule. The patterns become more complicated when the parody uses more than one original and/or by connecting the originals with various segments of the range of the literary authority (i.e., positive as well as negative).

V. KuroCkin’s parody “Cepodka i grjaznaja Seja” (PI 1: 224) presents a simple pattern produced by the first basic tendency. Its original, Griboedov’s comedy Gore ot uma. functions as positive authority. The parody honors Griboedov’s practice of 93

using literature as means of ideological debate. The position of negative authority is assigned to the new material, namely, some pieces of journalistic writing which are

used as means of introducing the ideas that are target of ridicule.

Minaev’s parody of PuSkin’s novel in verse Evgenij Onegin displays a more

complex pattern (PI 2: 376-419). It has at least two originals. One is the novel; the second one, according to Minaev himself, is the aesthetic platform of the literary

critic Pisarev (a specific brand of Realism) as presented in his article “PuSkin i Be- linskij” (PJ 2: 936).

In Minaev’s views, the original always functions as target of ridicule. He did not regard Evgenij Onegin as original of his parody, because it was not intended to be the target of ridicule. For the same reason, he did not perceive Realism in gen

eral as one of the originals, either. In order to make clear that it was only a particu lar brand of Realism that was his target of ridicule, Minaev changed the title of the parody for the second edition by inserting the modifier “false realists.” Of the three originals, only one, Pisarev’s article, functions as negative authority. The rest of them function as positive authority. This complicates the pattern even more by in troducing a hierarchy in the area of the positive authority, because Evgenij Onegin is given higher authority than the Realism of the 1850s and 1860s.

The basic pattern in which the original coincides with the negative authority is used in Feodorov’s parody “Pravila nyneSnyx molodyx poetov” (RStP 160).

Vsegda tverdi sto raz odno: “Zvon CaSi zolotoj, penistoe vino, Vostorg ljubvi, konec zelanij Est’ - sladostrast’e.” Pribav tut vosklicanij; Skazi: “Zdes’ §5ast’ja net dlja serdca i duSi!” Promolvit’ ne zabud’, Cto ty vsegda mefoaeS’. dto ty zdes’ - p’e§’ vino, tarn - sCast’a ozidaeS’ ... I vot vse pravila - beri pero - piSi!... 94

The general style and the themes presented in quotation marks show that the original of this parody is the poetics of Russian Romanticism. The fact that the va lidity of the notion of rules for poetry is not challenged, but upheld as evaluative criterion, means that Classicism is the component that functions as positive authori ty. Since the rules of Romanticism are shown as repetitive, superficial, and irration al (e.g., dreams, desires, exclamations), and, therefore, inferior from the point of view of the poetics of Classicism, the original is clearly associated with the function of negative literary authority and with that of target of ridicule.

Another group of pattern-producing tendencies concerns the act of selecting material which will function as “original of parody.” The discussion in chapter one demonstrated, that in theory, the choice is unlimited and that limitations arise only- from the literary practice. Still, criteria such as complete vs. partial work, structural models as genre, image of author, norms and values of literary school, etc., and in tensity of the intertextual relations allow me to outline three pattern-producing tendencies.

The first one concerns the criterion of complete vs. partial. One may select ei ther a complete work, or a part(s) of it as original of parody. For example, in the novel Idiot Dostoevskij uses the complete text of A. PuSkin’s poem “2il na svete rycar’ bednyj” from “Sceny iz rycar’skix vremen.” The only change is the replacement of the initials A. M. D., standing for Ave Mater Dei, with N. F. B. By this, the poem is associated with the main female protagonist of the novel Nastas’ja Filippovna Ba- raSkova, a woman of dubious virtue according to the judgement of Petersburg’s high society (Dost. Sobranie sot. 6, p. 285). If one disregards for a moment all of the pos sible readings implied by Dostoevskij in the text following the parody, the poem 95 appears as a case of lowering the original by introducing Prince MySkin and Nasta- s’ja Filippovna as “low” counterparts to the elevated figures of PuSkin’s work.

One also can, and this is the most commonly used pattern, select only part of a literary work as original. Thus, PuSkin takes only four lines from a poem by Podolin- skij for the following parody-epigram (FiSer 87):

Kogda, strojna i svetlooka, Kogda strojna i svetlooka peredo mnoj stoit ona, peredo mnoj stoit ona, ja myslju: v den’ U’i proroka ja myslju: gurija proroka ona byla razvedena. s nebes na zemlju svedena. (PuSkin “Iz al’boma A. P. Kern”) (Podolinskij Portret”)

The main device for adapting the original text is the same as the one used by

Dostoevskij, i.e., an elevated literary image is replaced by a “low” counterpart from real life (in PuSkin’s times the society did not approve of divorce in general and of divorced women in particular).

The second pattern concerns structural models such as genre, image of the au thor, ideology, aesthetic norms and values of a literary school, style, etc. The func tion of the original becomes complicated, because more than one entity acquires it.

An individual text, if any, as well as all of the above mentioned models may function as potential suboriginals. The author may, or may not signal which one of them he has intended as dominant. Very often the reader is left to make his own decision. This explains why a parody, e.g., “Pesnja” (RStP 320), is characterized as concerning the poet (Del’vig), as well as the genre and the general style (imitation of folk song and its blank verse) (721). It also explains the cases when without any particular reason some parodies of the works of a given author are listed as concerning his name and image, while others are given as “parodies of genre and style” in general

(e.g., the parodies of Fet’s works in RStP). 96

It is also possible that the parody does not use any specific text as original, but

addresses directly the genre and the style. This pattern is demonstrated by A. Pug- kin in his “Usy. Filosofideskaja oda”. The title points out to the intended original (the genre of philosophical ode), as well as to the device for adapting the latter (“lowering” of the obligatory lofty imagery by using mustache as a key image of the parody).

The third pattern concerns the intensity of the intertextual relations which can also be selected as original of parody. The over-intensified connections between the works of the classics of a given literary school and their epigones (e.g., the parodies of Benediktov as an epigone of Romanticism) is one of the possible patterns. The other one is the over-minimized connection between the texts (e.g., the parodies of the inadequate Russian translations and adaptations of Heinrich Heine’s poetry from the late 1840s to the mid-1860s).

3. Literaiy Functions of the Adaptation.

The selection of the original is the first stage of its adaptation. The text changes its function. From a piece of non-parodic literature it turns into an intend ed original of parody. The next step involves the transformation of the non-parodic text and the introduction of new material. One must distinguish between adaptation as such and the signaling of it. It is possible that a very significant alteration is marked by very few signals, but it is also possible that an excessive number of mark ers is used in cases where a much lesser amount would have sufficed.

The markers of the adaptation have two basic functions, namely, they either identify the original by referring to its unaltered state of being (markers of 97

similarity), or signal the adaptation by referring to the changes of the original and/or

the new material (markers of difference). The patterns of adaptation take into ac

count not only the extent of similarity and change, but also the intensity of the mark ers of adaptation. There are three structural variants of adaptation in terms of the markers of difference: minimally marked, classical, and maximally marked. The

numerous structural variations facilitate the gradual transition between the structur al variants.

3.1. The minimally marked adaptation does not change the text of the original

at all or changes it to a minimal extent. What changes significantly, are the intertextual relations of the original. Some of them are eliminated, others are replaced by

new connections, and still others change their intensity.

3.1.1. The structural variant of the reader’s parody, for example, does not in troduce any changes into the text of the original, but totally alters its intertextual re

lations. This variant can not be authentically documented in writing, because it re

quires that the reader occupies the positions of both author and reader of the paro

dy. It is attested only in meta-literary manner. Dobroljubov’s article “Perepevy” of fers one of the best descriptions of this structural variant found in written sources:

Three months ago, I think, “Spring Sounds,” “Spring Nights,” and “Spring Dreams” appeared at the same time in several magazines. All this was very warm, very picturesque, and very sweet, in a word, very artistic; but as we have witnessed several times in the homes of our acquaintances, the reading of these verses was accompanied by such endless bursts of laughter that would hardly accompany the reading of the Denunciatory Poet’s Perepevy (218).

This quotation shows well the five basic procedures of the adaptation. First, the text, which was not intended as a parody, is singled out, because it belongs to a poetic convention that is not acceptable for the reader. Second, its connections with 98 its primary poetic convention (e.g., the aesthetic norms and values, authorial inten tion) are disregarded. Third, the primary convention is replaced by the one which is approved by the reader. Fourth, the text is related to the norms and values of the second convention. Fifth, because of the new standards, the original text receives a negative evaluation: the reader dismisses the intention of the author of creating a piece of non-parodic literature as unfounded pretense; the discrepancy between in tention and result is perceived as comic, and the text is interpreted as parody. 3.1.2. A pattern which comes closest to the reader’s parody is found in the journal Contemporary (Sovremennik). It published poems, originally intended as pieces of serious literature, without any changes, but placed them in satirical articles with the intention to make the reader identify them as parodies (Morozov RLP 60).

The main difference between the reader’s parody and this pattern is that the initia tive for this identification comes not from the reader, but from the author of the ar ticle.

3.1.3. A third variation of the minimally marked parody is used by A. PuSkin,

N. Polevoj, I. Panaev, and Koz’ma Prutkov. The best example of it is PuSkin’s paro dy of the genre of Romantic elegy, “Kuda, kuda vy udalilis’, vesny moej zlatye dni?,” from his novel Evgenij Onegin. The poem “allows a number of interpretations - from ironic and parodic to lyric and tragic” (Lotman, Roman PuSkina 296). Since

PuSkin did not identify explicitly the text as parody, the question of his own inten tions remains open. However, there are also cases of unquestionable evidence that the authors intended certain texts as parodies, but the readers failed to recognize their intentions and identified the poems as pieces of non-parodic literature (i.e., as main-stream romantic poetry) and even set them to music (Morozov, RLP 60; 99

BuxStab, “Nekrasov” 440, Berkov, Kozma Prutkov 36). One may conclude that the possibility of ambiguous identification is a structural characteristic of the minimally-

marked parody.

The comparison between the three variations discussed above, helps us recog nize several other structural characteristics. The main similarity is that all these variations require a reader who is much more active and independent during the act of reading than the one implied by the classical and the maximally marked parody.

The fact that the first two patterns do not change the text of the original at all and that the third one changes the style of Romantic elegy only to a minimal degree means that the markers signaling the similarity with the original strongly dominate over the ones signaling the alteration. The typical kind of laughter is covert irony which explains why some scholars describe these parodies as devoid of comic effect

(M el p 6).^® 3.2. The classical adaptation requires a balance between similarity and change, as well as between their markers. The central concern of this variant is to provide a sufficient amount of markers in order to avoid misidentification. It creates reliable channels for communicating the intentions of the author to the reader. Its strategy is to offer both a recognizable original and modifying techniques with guar antied comic effect. A concise, but excellent realization of classical adaptation is PuSkin’s parody of 2ukovskij’s dialogue “Tlennost’ (Iz Gebelja)”

PosluSaj deduSka, mne kazdyj raz, Kogda vzgljanu na etot zamok Retler, Prixodit v mysl’: 5to, esli eto proza, Da i durnaja?... (RStP 252)

In the first two lines PuSkin quotes the original literally, so there can not be any doubt as to its identification. The latter is specified even further by the added line 100 and a half which focus on its poetic form. The fact that this form is characterized as prose, moreover, a bad one, shows clearly that it does not have the function of posi tive authority. At the same time, the fact that this characteristic is rendered as a question and not as an invective or a strong statement points out that the original does not belong to the extreme far of the range of negative authority. The comic ef fect is guaranteed in two ways: (1) by the contrast between the elevated style of the romantic ballad and the colloquial, nonchalant style of the added text and (2) by the fact that the added prosaic text matches exactly the pattern of the iambic blank verse (a five-foot iambic with missing obligatory masculine caesura after the second foot (Maslov 7)) characteristic of the parodied dialogue of 2ukovskij.

The guidance provided by the classical variant of adaptation does not elimi nate completely the freedom of the interpretation by the reader. In the case of “Pos- luSaj deduSka”, for instance, the reader is free to decide whether the criticism con cerns the blank verse alone, or its combination with the unauthorized place of the caesura. The reader is also free to decide as to what extent the purpose of the paro dy is to improve or to discredit its original. As the notes on this parody show, literary scholars have offered varying opinions concerning those points (Maslov; Morozov, RStP 714: Mn. p. 4241

3.3. The central concern of the maximally marked adaptation is that the im plied authorial intention controls completely the identification and the interpreta tion of the text by the reader. This is achieved by means of two main patterns: (1) by explicit directions and (2) by abundant markers of difference. Both strategies also utilize the explicit comic effect as modifying technique. 101

3.3.1. The most immediate way of giving directions is the paratext. The parodist may label the text “parody” (e.g., “VolSebnaja gitara. Parodija ‘Eolovoj arfy V. A. 2ukovskogo”’ (RStP). “Russkaja pesnja. Parodija.” (Mn. g. 234)), or instruct the reader where to place the positive and negative literary authority by direct judgmental statements in the title ( e.g.,’’Duet Feta i Rozengejma (Bessoznatel’noe likovanie i bessoznatel’noe xvalenie)” (RStP 435), “Roma L’Antica. Otryvok iz ‘Odi- ssei poslednego sumasbroda’” (486)). Such instructions may be given also in the text of the work (e.g., “Ja dolgo stojal nepodvizno” (504), “Motiv jasno-liriiSeskij” (428)).

3.3.2. The second pattern uses the markers for both structural and decorative (ornamental) purposes. The decorative use is a specific variation within the maxi mally marked adaptation. Del’vig’s parody “Na smert’ kudera Agafona” (199) is a perfect example of this pattern.

Ni ryzaja brada, ni radost’ staryx let, Ni drjaxlaja tvoja supruga, Ni koni r.e spasli ot tjazkogo neduga... I Agafona net! Potux, kak ot kopyt ogon’ vo mrake no£i, Kak rzan’e zvu&ioe ustalogo konjaL 0 nebo! so slezoj k tebe pod”emlju ofii I, brennyj, ne mogu ne voprosit’ tebja: Uzel’ ne veCno nam vozzami pravit’ mozno 1 §5astie v vine naprasno naxodit’? U’ lu5§im kuderam zit’ v mire lu£Sem dolzno, A nam s xudymi byt’! Uvy! ne budeS’ ty potrjaxivat’ vozzeju; Ne budeS’ loSadej bit’ pletiju svoeju I, usom Sevelja, po-russki ix branit’; Uze ne staneS’ ty i po vodu xodit’! Glas molodeckij ne prol’etsja, I putnik ot tebja uz ne zazmet u§ej, I pri sijan’i fonarej Uz vizg forejtora tebe ne otzovetsja, I ax! KuzminiSna skvoz’ slez ne ulybnetsja! Umolklo vse s toboj! Kuxarki slezy l’jut, Supruga, konjuxi venki iz sena v’jut, Glasja ot§ed§emu k pokoju: “Kogda ty umer, - 2ert s toboju!” 102

The original of this parody is the elegy of N. F. KoSanskij “Na smert’ grafini Ozarovskoj” (RStP 70-7). The similarities between the parody and the original are

marked very thoroughly: the same number of lines; the same metrical and rhyme

patterns, including the majority of the rhyming words of the original; similarity in the

syntactic constructions; the same main topic, i.e., death; the same narrative and emotional points in the development of the poem. However, all this is also very sys tematically and emphatically lowered.

Here are some samples of the lowering of the subject matter of the original: a

young Countess vs. an old coachman, children vs. horses, a nightingale vs. a horse; politeness vs. a whip; sitting at the piano vs. fetching water; Eros vs. a cook; Graces

vs. stable-men, a blessing (“may you rest in peace”) vs. a curse (“go to the devil”).

The changes concern not only the text, but also affect the para-textual ele ments. The text in the manuscript copy is accompanied also by a parody of a cen

sor’s permission for publication. In Mnimaja poezija (421) the note is quoted as

“D.... Permission for publication granted. Censor Apollo.” (P.... Pedatat’ pozvol- jaetsja. Cenzor Apollon). It is not clear whether the manuscript gives the first word

in this form, or gives it in full and the dots were introduced in the book, because the

word was considered unprintable. The deciphering of the dots as der’mo (dung) is

very probable. The note follows both the lowering of the original and the stylistic discrepancy between high and low style characteristic of the adaptation (i.e., Apollo

vs. dung). 103

4. Technique and Codes of Adaptation. 4.1. In the structuring process of parody, the lowering of a high subject is the

main technique of adaptation. Since it is a general comic technique, one must speci

fy that it may be considered a parodic technique only from a functional point of

view. This means that it must be connected simultaneously with the original, the new material, and the comic effect. For instance, in Vjazemskij’s epigram based on “Nadpis’ k portretu gr. Xvostova” (Tynjanov, “Arxaisty i PuSkin” 208), the lowering of the original has undeniable parodic function, because all those connections are

accounted for.

Xvostov na Pinde - solovej, Xvostov na Pinde - solovei, No tol’ko solovej-razbojnik, V Senate - istiny bljustitel, V Senate on zivoj pokojnik, V semejstve - genij-pokrovitel’, I dux nefiistij sred’ ljudej. I neznvj vsjudu drug ljudej. (Vjazemskij) (“Nadpis’ k portretu...)

The same technique is used by A. PuSkin in his epigram against Count M. Vo-

roncov, but it does not have parodic function, because the connection with a literary

original is missing.

Polu-milord, polu-kupec, Polu-mudrec, polu-nevezda, Polu-podlec, no est’ nadezda, Cto budet polnym nakonec.

In this case, it works as a general comic technique. As such, it is widely used in both Russian literature and Russian folklore. This guaranties its comic effect in parody (if not always as an actual response of the reader, at least as an easy-to- identify intended effect).

As means of adaptation, the lowering technique affects the deep structure of the text, as well as the production of ornamental details. It also supplies markers of 104

adaptation. The pattern-producing tendencies influenced by the lowering of a high original operate on the levels of the text and of the textual relations (both intra- and

intertextual ones). The context, i.e., education, politics, religion, social relations, ec

onomics, etc., can also influence those patterns, because the opposition high vs. low

invites associations with various values and norms. The communicative situation,

too, is a factor in the dynamics of the pattern-producing tendencies. The patterns

vary due to the differences in the channel of communication (e.g., oral performance vs. written text, manuscript vs. printed text), the place (e.g., public vs. private, formal vs. informal), and the audience (e.g., male vs. female, educated vs. uneducated, friends vs. enemies).

Russian verse parody (1815-70) displays a great variety of such pattern-pro

ducing tendencies. The ones that concern the levels of the text and the textual rela

tions will be described here. The analysis will explore some problems of context as well, as long as intertextuality may be regarded as a kind of context. The tendencies

related to the communicative situation and the context in a broader sense will be analyzed in the next part of this chapter (in terms of their significance for the literary

competence of the encoder and the decoder) and again in Chapter Four (in terms of

the social functions of parody).

4.2. The structural variants of adaptation contain pattern-producing tenden cies which fall into two groups. The first one characterizes the maximally marked variant and part of the variations of the classical one. Its general principle of opera tion is lowering a high subject, i.e., either the original or the new material, by means of new topics, characters, vocabulary, and style which rank low according to the val ue system of the parodist. The patterns of the second group are characteristic for 105 the minimally marked variant and some variations of the classical one. The high subject (mainly textual relations) is lowered by means of new relations rather than by new textual elements. It relies mainly on intensified repetition and/or close imita tion of the existing components.

4.2.1. The semantic codes of laughter serve as both material and markers of the patterns belonging to the first group. The codes consist of a semantic center, e.g., age, sex, parts of the body, bodily functions (eating, drinking, sexual contacts, bowel movement, etc.), food, color, social status, materials (mud, excrements, dirt, etc.), actions (falling down, tearing apart, fighting, gambling, etc.), and certain top ics, characters, stylistic levels, and lexemes which orbit it and are integrated by it.

The center includes not only the neutral denotation of the semantic invariant, but also its valorization as low and/or negative, as well as laughter as emotional connota tion.

Many of those codes (e.g., young vs. old, male vs. female, head vs. feet, human vs. animal, human vs. supernatural, white vs. black, gold vs. mud, etc.) have been part of human culture and verbal art since prehistoric times (Baxtin Rabelais). I will call them general, because every reader/listener is competent to recognize their form, value, and intended effect.

There are also other codes which I will call specialized (e.g., Classicism vs.

Romanticism, Church Slavonic vs. Russian, ladies vs. people in general as intended readers, friends vs. crowd, poet vs. clerk, poet vs. military man, battle vs. military pa rade, etc.). Although based on the general ones, the specialized codes require not only general cultural awareness, but also specialized cultural and literary compe tence in order to be interpreted adequately. 106

4.2.1. A. I will use several samples in order to demonstrate the pattern-pro

ducing tendencies and the functions of the various codes. The basic pattern requires

that either the general or the specialized codes dominate the new material which is

introduced in order to lower the high subject. The latter is represented by easily

recognizable markers. The semantics of the original conditions by contrast that of the new material.

4.2.1. A. a. Vjazemskij’s parody of the “Nadpis’ k portretu gr. D. I. Xvostova”

follows this pattern. The semantic opposition man vs. supernatural creature from

the third line of the original is used as grounds for selecting the supernatural crea

tures as a lowering code of the adaptation. The new material substitutes the nega tively marked “zivoj pokojnik” (the living dead) for the positively marked “genij-

pokrovitel’” (a guardian genius). The “solovej-razbojnik” (nightingale-robber), a

supernatural character from Russian epic songs (bvlinv). who kills men by whistling,

replaces the positive “solovej” (nightingale), i.e., a talented poet. The “negistvj dux”

(evil spirit), also known as “vrag ljudej” (enemy of people), is the negative counter

part of the positive “drug ljudej” (friend of people) in the original.

4.2.1. A. b. The next sample demonstrates the use of specialized codes in the

same basic pattern. The text parodies the style of Count D. Xvostov in particular,

and the inscription to a portrait as a genre, in general.

Se rosska Flakka zrak! Se tot, kto, kak i on, Vyspr’ bystro, kak ptic car’, nes zvuk na Gelikon. Se lik od, pritd tvorca, muz Ctitelja Svistova, Koj pole ispestril rossijska krasna slova! (RStP 293)

The lowering technique uses the aesthetic norms of the literary society Collo

quium of Lovers of the Russian Word (Beseda ljubitelej rossijskogo slova). namely, preference for Church-Slavonic lexical and syntactic features in literary language, for 107

the genres of Classicism (ode, parable, inscription to a portrait), and for references

to Classical Antiquity (the Muses, Helikon, Quintus Horatius Flaccus). The authors of this parodic inscription to a portrait, V. &ukovskij, D. Daskov, A. Voejkov and A.

Turgenev, were members of the literary society Arzamas, which did not accept the

aesthetic norms of the Colloquium. Hence, they evaluated them negatively and used them as a lowering specialized code.

It is not obligatory that the original receive negative evaluation. The function

of positive literary authority may belong to either the original, or the new material.

This means that the function of target of ridicule can also belong to the original or to the new material. In the two examples quoted above, the original functions as target

of ridicule, but in other parodies it is the new material that functions as target of

ridicule (e.g., A. Nekrasov’s “Spi, postrel, poka bezvrednyj” (Nekrasov, 1948,1:20) or P. Kaverin’s “Ne za Ljudmiloju Ruslan” (RStP 306)).

4.2.1. B. The basic pattern may be changed in order to produce more com

plex structures in two ways. The first one is direct and more obvious. The technique

of lowering of a high subject uses both types of semantic codes in the same text. I

will not explore all variations that exist in Russian verse parody (1815-70), since the

structuring principle remains the same, although the overall effect of the individual parodies may vary.

4.2.1. B. a. In order to illustrate the ways in which this complicated pattern works on the level of the individual text, it will be sufficient to analyze only one sam ple, namely, “Devica gastronomka” (RStP 186). The subtitle of the parody, “ro mans.” implies that the structure and the style of this genre function as original of the parody. 108

The note about the melody of the French song that may be used with the text

and the quotation in French “Je vous aime tant” (I love you so much) have a double

function. On one hand, they serve as markers of similarity to the original, on the other, they intensify the contrast between the original and the new material by

changing the opposition medium-high Russian vs. low Russian to French (which ranked higher than Russian) vs. low Russian. The latter opposition is certainly a specialized semantic code.

To the specialized codes belongs also the opposition between the high style of

the classical ode and the low subject of praise — a bull in the second half of the fourth stanza

Gorox, §2avel’, redis, Spinat, Morkov’s tureckimi bobami, Kapustu, sparzu, kress-salat - Vse, vse sCitaju pustjakami. Cerkasskij byk! Tebja poju, V tebe zrju mira soversenstvo! Ty uslazdaeS zizn’ moju! I myslit’ o tebe - blazenstvo!

The general code, which dominates the structuring process in this text, is based

on the semantic opposition romantic love vs. love for food (gluttony). The pseudo

nym of the author, i.e., Agrafena Ljudoedova, integrates the specialized and the general codes. The first name (Agrafena) is a low-class Russian name and belongs

to the specialized code of high French vs. low Russian. The family name Ljudoedova

(Cannibal) refers to the general code centered around the opposition human being vs. a beast of prey. It unites the love for men with the love for food in an absurd way and thus produces an explicit comic effect.

4.2.1. B. b. The other way of modifying the basic pattern is less direct. It in verts the lowering of the high subject in an ironic manner by introducing more than 109

one set of norms and values. The actual valorization takes place at the level of the deep semantics and opposes the one at the surface level of the text. This kind of

elaborate adaptation is used in the following parody

Ja ne rozden v al’bomy dam Pisat’ v lirifteskom pripadke, Mogu knutami epigramm Li§ biftevat’ ljudej za vzjatki; No esli b znal ja ftto i vy Do lixoimstva often’ padki, Togda b, ne sluSaja molvy, Vas obliftal by ja za vzjatki.

The surface opposition here is that of lyrics in ladies albums vs. satire of social vice. The first member of it, i.e., album lyrics, is evaluated negatively through both the refusal to write this type of poetry and the expression “lyric seizure” which char acterizes the album lyrics as a product of a sick mind (lowering by means of the gen eral code of health vs. sickness). This establishes an intertextual relation between this text and other parodies of album lyrics such as N. Polevoj’s “Stixotvornyj pustocvet, ili Popurry, sostavlennoe iz rifm i bessmyslicy” (RStP 350) and “Piitifteskaja igruSka” (173). The intertextual associations are encouraged by the fact that the text is included in a cycle entitled “Al’bom svetskoj damy, sostavlennyj iz proizvedenij russkix poetov” (430).

If the pattern of this parody were the basic one, then the satire of social vice were to be evaluated positively. However, the actual pattern ironically inverts this structure. The contrast between the style of high satire (e.g., knutami epigramm

(with the whips of the epigrams), biftevat’ (to whip), obliftat’ (castigate)) and triviality of the subject (do lixoimstva often’ padki (very much susceptible to corruption), vzjatki (bribes)) signals complications. 110

It marks discrepancy between the pledged and the real intensity, scope, and importance of the satire. The system of values at the level of the deep semantics is

specified through the intertextual connection with the Russian verse parodies of the

late 1850s and early 1860s whose target of ridicule is the civic poetry inspired by the

so-called liberal’noe obli&tel’stvo (liberal denouncement). This type of poetry was

criticized for timidly avoiding the important issues and attacking the minor ones with exaggerated satirical zeal (e.g., N. Dobroljubov’s “V Al’bom poborniku vzjatok”

(RStP 545), “Uli£ennyj mzdoimec” (547), D. Minaev’s “Poslednyj duet” (550)).

The specialized code of high vs. low satire existed already in the 1840s. In the 1850s the pair of contrasted images of Juvenal vs. a clerk was a familiar signifier of

this code. It is used, for example, in the following widely-known epigram by N. §5er-

bina which criticizes the works of I. Panaev, “Merciless Juvenal [critic] of the calico

shirt-fronts [petty clerks]” (Kolenkorovvx maniSek bespoSSadnvj Juvenal. Tunima- nov 3).

Obviously, in spite of the negative evaluation, the album lyrics are not the real target of denigration and ridicule of this parody. They are only a device used by the

ironic lowering technique, while the real target is the pseudo-civic poetry and its

claims of aesthetic superiority.

4.2.2. The other major group of pattern-producing tendencies is the one as

sociated primarily with the minimally-marked adaptation. Four distinctive features unite those tendencies into a separate group: (1) it uses specialized codes rather than general ones as markers of difference; (2) its dominant structuring principle is the response of the reader; (3) the markers of difference and similarity are not pro duced by the text alone, but by the relations between text and context; (4) the I l l dominating kind of laughter is irony. Since the system of norms and values according to which the codes are valor ized as high or low belongs entirely to what Lotman calls “aesthetics of opposition”

(estetika protivopostavlenija). it is necessary to discuss briefly the latter notion.

Lotman defines it both directly and by means of contrasting it with its counterpart, the “aesthetics of identity” (estetika tozdestva). The direct definition states that the

“aesthetics of opposition” is present in the case of “systems, whose code is unknown to the audience before the beginning of the act of aesthetic perception begins” (The structure. 292).

The writer is expected to offer an original solution of the creative problems. His solution must be better than the ones that are already familiar to the reader.

The ultimate high value of this aesthetics is the creative act that is free of any rules.

Since such an act is theoretically and practically impossible, literary practice makes the demolition of the systems of already familiar rules its highest priority, while liter ary theory claims that this means rejection of any structural rules in general.

Conversely, the “aesthetics of identity”, requires that facts of life, when depict ed by means of art, are identified completely with models (cliches) which are already familiar to the reader (290). Its highest value is the familiar model as part of a sys tem of “rules.” The logical assumption is that the model (cliche) is the lowest aes thetic value of the “aesthetics of opposition” which characterizes post-Renaissance art.

Not all of Lotman’s views about the two types of aesthetics are equally convinc ing, but the idea of the attitude toward the model as a distinctive feature of both the pre-Renaissance and the post-Renaissance art is a point well made. It is especially 112 useful for the analysis of the semantic codes applied in a minimally-marked adapta tion.

The lowest value of the post-Renaissance art is the cliche (familiar rule, ster eotype). The codes are organized by the oppositions original vs. trivial, creation vs. imitation, poetry vs. versification, genuine vs. artificial, honesty vs. hypocrisy, poet vs. epigone, etc. The first members of these oppositions are valorized as high and the second ones — as low.

4.2.2. A. The reader’s parody is the basic pattern of minimally marked adap tation. The judgement of the reader as to whether a certain feature is original or trivial overrides the intention of the author. During the act of reading, the decoder/reader becomes encoder/author of the parody by projecting the unchanged text into a new context.

4.2.2. A. a. There are two modifications of this pattern. The first one involves a reader who reads in solitude. He is familiar with the aesthetics of contrast. At the moment in which he stops reading a piece of non-parodic literature as such, and be gins to read it as parody, the process of projection is activated. A case of such read ing is documented in I. Turgenev’s review of the almanac Poeti£eskie eskizy. He quotes the following quatrain from Ja. Poznjakov’s poem “Slyxali 1’ vy?” Slyxali 1’ vy, £to solovej, Kotoryj du§u mne vozvysil - On ne poet sredi vetvej - On pel - i v to ze vremja mvslil?

Turgenev had disregarded the intention of the author that the poem is to be read as a non-parodic piece and read it as a parody. “The verses...,” he remarks,

“are not only not bad, but they are, in a sense, splendid, magnificent verses. Humor really gushes in them . . . ” (qtd. in RStP 52). 113

4.2.2. A. b. The second modification involves a situation in which a compe tent reader reads to a group of people. If the listeners are as good as the reader in detecting the cliches, he does need any additional signals in order to convey his in terpretation. The fact that such a text has been chosen for public reading marks his attitude toward it and serves as both a signal and a reason for interpreting the act of public reading as an act of production of a parody. If the reader wants to convey his interpretation less ambiguously, he adds some facial expressions, modulations of his voice, gestures, etc. in order to indicate that a change of context is required. Such non-verbal signals belong to the semantic codes of acting. I will not discuss the non verbal signals in more detail, because there is no sufficient information about the manner in which this kind of reading was performed between 1815 and 1879.

Both modifications of the basic pattern of reader’s parody are produced only through the interaction between text, context, and reader during the act of commu nication. The written sources can not convey the actual pattern. It can be attested only through descriptive texts similar to the observations of Dobroljubov already quoted.

4.2.2. B. The transfer of the reader’s parody into written format changes sig nificantly the basic pattern. The written text has to provide an inscribed communi cative situation, i.e., to include the reader and his interpretation of the text. One of the ways of doing this is to include the editor as an inscribed reader and use the type of publication and/or the editorial notes as new context. Another way of achieving the same result is to use a literary critic as inscribed reader and his writings as con text. Still another way is to accompany the text with a set of biographical or pseudo- biographical notes about its author. The set also introduces some inscribed readers. 114

In the written format, the reader’s verse parody must be associated with

another text (in verse or not) which is to secure the parodic reading of the insuffi

ciently marked parody. In Russian verse parody, the minimally marked adaptation

is frequently combined with texts which signal very clearly that a reading as a parody is expected from the decoder. The final effect in such cases is the same as that of

the maximally marked variety, but the means of achieving it are different.

Three main patterns are used for combining the minimally marked parody with the text which provides the inscribed communicative situation. The inscribed reader is the differential feature. The first pattern presents the inscribed reader as an editor of a periodical. Notes from the editor, letters to the editor, section of the periodical in which the text is published are the forms that render the inscribed communicative situation.

4.2. B. a. This pattern is used in N. Polevoj’s parody “A. T. X-vu.” The poem is published in the section “Smes’” (Miscellany) of Polevoj’s newspaper Moskovskij telegraf (Moscow Telegraph). It is preceded by a note from the editor who quotes a letter by the (alleged) anonymous author which accompanied the poem. The note provides directions for identifying the poem as a parody by playing ironically with the difference in value between “imitation” as a genre of Russian poetry of the peri od, “imitation” as activity of epigones, and “imitation” as structural component of the parodic adaptation.

The alleged author asks the editor, “Who do I imitate - guess by yourself and tell me honestly: is it possible for me to continue and are my poems of the same val ue as the poems of this kind that are published in almanacs and journals?” The edi tor “does not dare solve the questions” and “leaves it to the public to decide” (RStP 115

733). Thus, in 1829 the irony signaled the contemporary reader who did not know that the real author of the parody was also both the editor and the “anonymous au

thor,” that the poem could not be read as a non-parodic piece of literature.

4.2.2. B. b. An example of the second pattern, i.e., the one that uses the liter

ary critic as an inscribed reader, is Nekrasov’s parody of Benediktov’s poem “Ote-

destvu i vragam ego.” In his critical article “Zametki o zurnalax,” Nekrasov quotes two stanzas of the poem:

Ja ljublju tebja vo vsem... V pirogax, v uxe sterljazej, V russkoj skazke, v russkoj pljaske, V s£ax, v gusinom potroxe, V krike, v svistke jamSCika, V njane, v lykovnike, v ka§e I v xmel’noj s prisjadkoj trjaske I v baran’ej trebuxe... KazaCka i trepaka.

However, Nekrasov immediately tells the reader that he himself has written the last four lines. “Isn’t it true,” he says, “that they are very appropriate here, they are kind of necessary here? To express one’s love for his fatherland through his/her love for [the folk dance] trepak or for njanja and botvin’ja (both are, by the way, ex cellent dishes)... Such patriotism has been long since marked by the name kvas- noj” (RStP 770).

The culinary code in the parodic stanza serves as a link between the theme of drinking “xniel’naja pljaska” (drunken shaking) in the original and “kvasr.oj patriot ism” in the critical article. This expression was coined probably by N. Polevoj’s and publicized in the Moscow Telegraph (Orlov 33). It is an ironic reference to the kind of patriotism promoted by the government and opposed by many Russian intellec tuals who regarded it as primitive and bureaucratic. Kvas. an item dating back to the pre-Petrine Russian cuisine, was considered “a national and common people’s drink” (Lotman, Roman PuSkina 205). In the expression and in the parody, it serves 116 as lowering general code when associated with the high subject of patriotism.

In this case the real author of the parody inscribes himself with both the reader and the literary critic. He also discloses not only the original of his parody, but also its target of ridicule. Thus, although minimally marked within the verse parody, the text is maximally marked by means of its relations with the inscribed communicative situation.

4.2.2. B. c. The third pattern presents the reader as a character either in a bi ographical sketch about the inscribed author or in some genre of fiction (e.g., a tale

(Panaev Opvt o xlvSSax. Velikosvetskij xlvSS.). a novel (Mixajlov Kamelija). a play (Luna i stixi). Very often the inscribed reader is introduced as a fictional character in the so-called fel’eton (feuilleton). Fel’eton is a narrative genre which offered top ical comments on current political social and cultural events in Russia in a more or less fictionalized form with intended comic effect.

This pattern provides opportunities for fairly complex hierarchical structures.

It is designed to present varying interpretations of the parody. Their main structur ing principle is the interplay between the literal and ironic meaning of the text which surrounds the verse parody. The interplay involves the roles of the implied, the in scribed, and the historical reader. The literary competence of the reader is a major issue that conditions those structures.

The analysis of both the lowering technique and the semantic codes shows that the investigator must explore their relations with the social and cultural norms and values. The roles of the author and the reader which are essential for understanding such major structural components as the attitude toward the original, the target of ridicule, the process of adaptation, and the comic effect, also require an analytical 117 perspective that will allow to study the text in its extratextual relations. Such per spective is the act of enunciation. In terms of the structure of the parody, this means to focus the investigation upon the vertical axis of the original.

5. The Invariant of Parody as “Interpersonal Knowledge”

The notion of literary competence has the advantage of being a meeting point between the structure of the text, the literary and social values that exist outside the work of literature, and the act of enunciation, i.e., of production and reception of the text. Literary competence, like many of the concepts of contemporary theory of lit erature, has not become a main-stream literary term yet. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify in what sense it will be used in this study.

In general, I will follow Jonathan Culler’s definition of it as “interpersonal knowledge” of (1) the conventions of literary discourse, and (2) of the institutions of literature. The literary competence, Culler says, is indifferent to the distinction be tween reading and writing. He also suggests that writing is viewed as an act of criti cal reading (“Prolegomena” 49,50,53). The latter proposition is too general to be a useful guideline. It notes only one, not even the most essential, function of writing.

Therefore, I will not regard it as a basic feature of literary competence.

I will supplement Culler’s ideas with Hans-Robert Jauss’ notion of “horizon of expectations” (Erwartungshorizont) and Wolfgang Iser’s “repertoire of the text” and

“repertoire of the reader.” The horizon of expectations accounts for both the pro duction and the reception of the text, as well as for the historical continuity of its re ception. According to Jauss, it is a set of cultural, ethical, and literary (generic, sty listic, and thematic) expectations of the readers at the moment in which a given 118 literary work was created and appeared before the reading public (“Literary history” 14).

In the process of writing, the author takes into consideration the previous ex perience of the readers, i.e., their present expectations. He may choose between sat isfying, criticizing, and frustrating those expectations, but he cannot ignore them completely. Since readers from different historical periods have different horizons of expectations, there is always some difference between the reception of a given work at the time of its first appearance and in later times. The changes in the reader’s horizon of expectations are result of the development of both the literary and the cultural, political, and social norms and values.

Susan Suleiman suggests a valid revision of Jauss’ view of the reading public.

Even in the distant past and in a single society, she argues, there was no such thing as a single homogeneous reading public. There always were and are various hori zons of expectations co-existing in any one society and one must account for the

“multiplication” of the horizons of expectation at any given moment (Introduction

37).

Iser defines his term “repertoire of the text” as “the familiar territory within the text” which consists of references to the earlier works, the social and historical norms, and the entire culture from which the text emerges (The Act of Reading 68- 69). The references are not just reproductive, they are also depragmatized and set in a new context, i.e., they are not simply imitative, but are also functional (79).

The function of the repertoire is two-fold: it reshapes the familiar schemata in order to form a background for the process of communication and, on the other hand, it provides a general framework within which the message (meaning) of the 119 text can be organized (81). The overlapping between the repertoire of the sender

(the text) and the recipient (the reader) is an essential precondition of the process of communication (83).

Iser does not specify further the meaning of his term “repertoire of the reader,” nor does he give any consideration to the notion of “repertoire of the writ er,” which is a theoretically possible counterpart of the “repertoire of the reader” if one perceives the act of communication in terms of the trinary structure established by Jakobson. The phenomenological perspective of the study restricts Iser’s analysis to the interaction between text and reader. It also allows him to regard the text, not the author, as sender of the message. Such a model of communication is, in my view, an abridged variant of the structural invariant which consists of author (sender), message (text), and reader (recipient).

Contemporary theorists do not restrict the notion of literary competence to

“literature as such” in the sense in which Russian Formalists conceived the autono my of literature or to intertextuality as purely formal relations between literary texts alone. Literary competence also includes cultural, political, and social norms and values, and their modifications in the course of history.

Both Jauss and Iser want to avoid the reductionism of Lucien Goldman’s mod el which posits a direct homology between the dynamics of economic structures and artistic norms and values. It is true that Goldman later attempted to improve this model by introducing the intermediary component of the “values that are defended by no social group” and “are implicit in all members of the society owing to the latter’s economic organization (Pour une sociologie 43). However, this does not really remove the reductionism of the model. 120

Jauss and Iser explore the process of mediation in greater detail. In order to

penetrate into the complicated issues, they use sets of notions such as horizon of

reader’s expectations, response to it on the part of the author, and degree of realiza

tion of both in the acts of encoding and decoding of the text; modifications of the

text initiated by the dynamics of the repertoire; etc.

The role of the reader provides another approach to the invariant of parody in

relation to the act of enunciation. It is interwoven with the question of literary com petence by means of the horizon of expectations and the repertoire of the text. In

the course of the last two decades, the role of the reader has been studied very in tensively. The accomplishments appear not as a single and generally accepted theo

ry, but rather as an understanding that no single theory can provide all the answers.

(Suleiman, Introduction 45). Today, scholars have at their disposal a score of terms specifying various aspects of the role of the reader: “implied,” “inscribed,” “encod ed,” “intended,” “fictitious,” “ideal,” “hypothetical,” “actual,” “real,” “historical,”

“contemporary,” “informed,” “superreader,” etc.

The abundance of terms demonstrates two things. On one hand, one can see that many important issues have been recognized and dealt with. On the other hand, however, it shows that both the terms and the notions are still far from defi nite. For example, Culler’s “ideal (or super) reader” (“Prolegomena” 53) does not coincide with either Iser’s “ideal reader” (27), or Riffaterre’s “superreader” (Essais

30). Along with the terminological homonymy, there are also cases of terminological synonymy such as Iser’s “hypothetical reader,” which is used with two different meanings, i.e., a constant extrapolated from the social and historical knowledge of a given time and a construct based upon the reader’s role in the text (28). Evidently, 121

in order to use the achievements of the reader response criticism, one has to specify the sense in which he/she uses the terms.

The implied reader is a notion which is fundamental for the reader-response

theory. I will use the term as defined by Iser, namely, as a signifier for the role of the

reader as it emerges from the interplay of the textual perspectives of the narrator,

the characters, and the plot, and mediates between them (33). As a construct, it is in

no way to be identified with the real reader as an individual. It anticipates the

presence of a recipient, but does not necessarily define him/her. In other words, it does not predetermine the reader’s character or historical situation (34). The implied reader embodies all the predispositions necessary for a literary

work to exercise its effect. The latter are laid down not by the outside reality, but by

the text itself (34). “No matter who or what he may be,” Iser writes, “the real reader

is always offered a particular role to play, and it is this role that constitutes the con

cept of the implied reader. There are two basic interrelated aspects to this concept:

the reader’s role as a textual structure, and the reader’s role as a structured act” (34). The vital function of the implied reader is to link all historical and individual

actualizations of the text and make them accessible to analysis (38).

Although less vigorously studied than the implied reader, the “implied author”

is also a term used by contemporary literary theory (rhetorical criticism). According to Wayne Booth, it signifies the real author’s “second self’ (The Rhetoric of Fiction

138). It is the implied author who is responsible for every aspect of the work, and all the norms and values which determine the meaning of the text are attributed to him.

It is a construct created in the act of production of the text in order to be recon structed in the act of reception. 122

This characteristic of the implied author shows many parallels with the notion of the implied reader. Therefore, the two may be regarded as counterparts involved

in the opposition implied author vs. implied reader. As such, they connect the struc ture of the text with the act of its enunciation.

This also brings up the question of whether it is possible to speak of an “im

plied text.” If one can consider a text in terms of its role as a literary text, then it

should be possible to analyze it also in terms of “real,” “hypothetical,” “inscribed,”

“intended,” “encoded,” etc. text. Although the question has not been stated exactly

in these terms, some of the problems have already been noticed and studied: the in clusion of small literary genres (a song, a poem, a letter) into large ones (a large

poem, a novel, a play); the framing of the text as a diary, a manuscript, a story by an

inscribed author; the comments of the encoder concerning the literary conventions

of the text; the Formalist notion of “literariness,” i.e., the literary function of the text, etc.

The pair implied author vs. implied reader also entails the possibility of a ser

ies of other oppositions. Both pairs, the hypothetical author vs. the hypothetical

reader and the real author vs. the real reader, are based upon the more general op

position hypothetical vs. real. The hypothetical author and reader are respective projections of all possible actualizations of the text. The real ones refer to the actual

human beings and/or their documented reactions. The real author and reader are not variants of the hypothetical ones; they are the verification of certain hypothetical actualizations.

The inscribed author and the inscribed reader form another distinctive pair.

They come in two varieties which are in fact different degrees of generalization. The 123 more general one can be called “intended” author or reader. It represents an atti tude toward the text which is intended to be judged as correct or incorrect. The more specific variety can be called “fictional.” It is a device for presenting an atti tude as embodied in a fictional character who participates in the plot of the work.

The fact that both the role of the author and the role of the reader are encod ed in the text and later decoded from it allows one to distinguish between encoded author and encoded reader as well as between decoded author and decoded reader.

The time of the production of the literary work is the main criterion for anoth er set of oppositions, i.e., the contemporary author vs. the contemporary reader and the historical author vs. the historical reader. “Contemporary” means that both the real author and the real reader live at the time of production of the literary work; “historical” means that the author and the reader live in a period that follows the act of production of a given text. Introduced into the text in the role of inscribed author or reader respectively, the members of this set become constituents of the implied author and reader.

The “informed” author and the “informed” reader form another pair which re fers to both the real and the implied author and reader. Culler justifies the concept of the informed reader by the fact that reading can be regarded as a cultural prac tice which displays interpersonal literary competence. The latter allows one to eval uate one interpretation as superior to another (“Prolegomena” 53). Consequently, there must be an interpersonal level of competence that acts as a norm and makes it possible to identify a reader as sufficiently or insufficiently informed. If one assumes that writing is a cultural practice which involves interpersonal literary competence, then one may infer that there is such a role as “informed” author, as well. 124

In the same article Culler mentions “a skilled and perceptive reader” (52). Al

though he does not really elaborate upon these modifiers to the extent of turning

them into specific terms, he certainly notes a very relevant question, i.e., that of the ability of the reader to use his/her literary competence with various degrees of effi ciency. The same question is valid in regard to the author. It involves the ability of

the author to use his/her literary competence with various degrees of efficiency in

the process of production of the text.

I will mark this function of the author and the reader by the term “sensitive.”

It signifies that an author or a reader is not only informed, but also responsive to the stimulation of the literary text, able to register subtle variations or changes of mode,

and susceptible to the attitudes and feelings of, respectively, the encoder and the de

coder.

This theoretical background offers an effective approach to the relations be

tween literary function and literary competence in Russian verse parody (1815-70).

At the level of the invariant of parody, the investigation must deal with the

categories of implied author, implied reader, and implied text. The implied author

is in fact a trinary structure which consists of (1) the implied author of the parodied

text (parodied author), (2) the implied author of the parody (parodist), and (3) an implied reader who is at the same time the implied author of the parody (author/reader).

The constituents are hierarchically ordered. The dominant position is occu pied by the author of the parody. The retention of the author of the parodied text as a recognizable role is the distinctive feature of the construction. Its presence in the structural invariant creates the double-voiced effect of parody noted by Baxtin. The 125

implied author of the parodied work functions as an inscribed author as well. He

always plays the role of an intended author. The attitude toward him is always dif

ferent from (usually in contrast to) that toward the implied parodist. Through this the intended parodied author is invariably connected with the intended comic effect

of the parody. The role of the fictional author is not permanently associated with

the structural invariant. It is present only as a possible structural variation. The implied reader is a complex structure, too. It involves the implied reader of the parodied work, the implied reader of the parody, and the implied reader/im

plied author of parody. This latter component serves as a mediator between the two structural units and assures the meta-literary function of parody. The implied read

er of parody dominates the structure. The implied reader/author is its distinctive

feature, because he is always an intended reader from the point of view of the paro

dy, but not an intended reader from the point of view of the parodied work. The in

terpretation which he provides does not belong to the interpretations anticipated by the author of the parodied work; he does not belong to the horizon of the reader’s

expectations, if the work is to be read as a non-parodic piece, either. The legitimate

status of what could have been an illegitimate interpretation contributes to the com

ic effect as anticipated reaction of the implied reader of parody.

The text of the parody, too, is a hierarchical structure which involves more than one component. It is dominated by the implied text of the parody. The other

components are the implied original, i.e., the elements of the parodied work used in

the process of adaptation, and the implied new material introduced by the parody.

The implied original anticipates and evokes an attitude which is not part of the hori zon of expectations of the work as a non-parodic piece of literature. In addition, the 126 original always performs the role of an inscribed text. It is invariably inscribed in the parodic text in the form of quotation of certain elements of the parodied work.

The new material involves new textual units and/or new attitudes toward the paro died work.

The text of the parody is produced through the interaction of two levels of parallelism and discrepancy. The first one is intratextual. It concerns the quoted text from the parodied work and the new material within the text of the parody. The second one is supratextual. It involves the text of the entire parody and its context.

Because of the latter level, i.e., by changing the context, a parodied work, without any textual changes or additions, can acquire the function of parody. Both levels in clude laughter as anticipated and realized response of the reader, i.e., as part of the repertoire of implied parody.

The structural variants modify the relations between the constituents of the in variant listed above. The requirement that the structural variant ought to be always compatible with the invariant limits the range of the possible changes. Within those limitations, the alterations may affect the intensity of the relations, the types of con nections between the functions and the factors, and the distribution of the function of authority, to name but a few of the potential variables. Because of the large number of variables, the structural variants are also rather numerous. A full inven tory of them is not feasible at this point, because it will divert the investigation away from the subject of this study.

Instead, I will analyze one specific topic which will demonstrate the dynamics of the modifications on the level of structural variants as well as on that of patterns.

This topic is the name of the author as a meeting point between the structure of the 127

text and the act of enunciation.

6. The Name of the Author as a Communicative Strategy

The name of the author is part of the interpersonal knowledge necessary for

selecting an effective encoding strategy on the part of the parodist. It is also a mode

of decoding on the part of the reader. It assigns the roles of the implied parodist

and the implied parodied author. The name of the author is a key to the interpreta

tion of the text, because it encodes the intended distribution of positive and negative

authority. The repertoire of the text and the horizon of reader’s expectations in clude the various patterns through which the name of the author becomes part of the text and the paratext of the verse parody.

In order to identify the patterns used in Russian verse parody (1815-70), I need

a set of coordinates. A figure is hardly the best way of visualizing such a multi

dimensional system, but it is the only one available for a written study. The figure that I present on the next page shows the constituents of the set and some of the ma jor relations between them. It includes three interconnected planes: that of inter pretation of the text, that of the dynamics of the patterns, and that of the roles of the parodist and the parodied author. The discussion of the relations between the con stituents is intended as a way of minimalizing the shortcomings of this simplified graphic presentation.

I will begin the search for patterns from the real name of the author and will proceed along the series real name — pseudonym — anonym. Then, I will explore the relations of this horizontal axis to the parodist and to the parodied author. The investigation will deal also with the characteristics of constant and transformation. Interpretation: Literal vs. Ironic T3 •rl •C PLJ is P 'a •H JJ 4J O tl) CO CO O U 3 to B ai to o CO j Figure 4: Patterns of Names and Pseudonyms and of Names 4: Patterns Figure (esn hypot i l a tic e th o p y h name l a e r (person) l a e r (esn hypot i l a tic e th o p y h (person) l a e r noe decoded encoded noe decoded encoded n oe hn n zero one than more one n oe hn n zero one than more one one ns bed e ib r sc in d e ib r sc in , — , , mple ural e) le o r l a r tu c u r t s ( lied p im mple ural e) le o r l a r tu c u r t s ( lied p im ubr names f o number ts is d o r a p f o number ubr names f o number

pseudonym oe hn one than more ... anonym zero

tJ-J •H 5 P •H •H •H Q Q JJ ■u JJ V >% c CO CO o CO cu c CO tO CO u co e o p. > 01 > tO >

As far as the issue of interpretation is concerned, I will determine the patterns in re lation to the literal, not the ironic mode of interpretation of the parody.

The basic pattern (BP) encodes the real parodist (RA) by his/her real name

(RN). It appears in A. PuSkin’s parody of 2ukovskij’s ballad “Dvenadcat’ spjaSdix dev” in “Ruslan and Ljudmila”. It may be rendered by the formula RA = RN.

“Basic,” however, does not mean “most frequent.” In fact, the most popular pattern is a transformation of the basic one. It encodes the real parodist (RA) by a pen name (PN). One finds it in N. Kurodkin’s practice to sign his parodies by the pseudonym Spasopreobrazenskij, in N. Polevoj’s practice to use the pseudonym No- vyj zivopisec, in G. 2ulev’s pseudonym Skorbnyj poet, etc. The formula of this de rivative pattern (D l) is RA = PN.

Another transformation derived pattern (D2) encodes the parodist by a zero name (ZN). Initials as (N, X, Y, or Z), punctuation marks (?,!), and morphological elements (-bov) are functional equivalents of the zero name. The formula in this case is FA = ZN.

The number of the names and of the authors is relevant only in regard to pseudonyms. The basic pattern (NBP) in this case is the one which encodes one real parodist by one pseudonym. The formula is IRA = 1PN. It has two modifications.

The first one (dl) is a derivative pattern that encodes one real parodist by several

(1+) pseudonyms. For example, D. Minaev used the pseudonyms Literaturnoe

Domino, Obliditel’nyj poet, Major Mixail Burbonov, Junker Zvonkobrjuxov. The formula is IRA = 1+PN. The second derivative pattern (d2) encodes several (1+) parodists by one pseudonym. For example, both I. Panaev and N. Nekrasov used the pseudonym Novyj p o e t.^ The formula in this case is 1+RA = 1PN. In patterns 130 dl and d2 the pen name does not really mark the real author. The meaning encod ed in the pseudonym creates an inscribed hypothetical author. The point will be dis cussed in more detail in connection with the semantics of the pseudonyms.

Next, I will move to the parodied author (PA). The rest of the coordinates will remain the same. There are two different sets of patterns. One of them (SI) in cludes the patterns developed by the parodied work in its non-parodic function. This set is directly connected with the original and only through it SI becomes part of the parody. In the process of adaptation the non-parodic set changes. Thus, compared to the non-parodic literature of the same period, Russian verse parody uses the zero-name variant much more often. The reason for this is that the func tions of the name of the parodied author are transferred to the quotations from his work selected as the original of the parody. For example, “Gljazu kak bezumnvj na gemuju gar” (I am looking at the black shawl like a madman) is a quotation from

Pugkin. It makes the reader infer the name of the parodied author without mention ing it explicitly.

The system as a whole, however, does not exclude the possibility of signifying the parodied author by pseudonyms (e.g., “Baron Brambeus. Ballada” (RStP 286)) or real names (e.g., “Duet Feta i Rozengeima” (435)).

The other set (S2) includes patterns associated directly with the parody. They use only pseudonyms which have never been used by the parodied author himself

(PPN). For instance, in the parody “Sojuz poetov” the parodist encodes A. Del’vig as Surkov (Marmot), V. Kjuxel’beker as Tevtonov (Teuton), and E. Baratynskij as

Barabinskij (RStP 163,689). 131

One must take into consideration the ironic modification of S2 which produces

two more derivative patterns. One of them combines the basic pattern of encoding

the real author by his/her real name (RA = RN) with the pattern of encoding the

real author of the work used as the original by his/her real name. The formula is

S2(PA = RN). Then, the ironic mode (II) substitutes the real name of the real parodied author for the real name of the real parodist. This ironic transformation

conveys the message that the real parodied author is not a true poet, but rather an unintentional parodist. The resulting formula is I1S2[RA = (PA = RN)].

A good example of this pattern is D. Minaev’s cycle of parodies “Al’bom svet-

skoj damy, sostavlennyj iz proizvedenij russkix poetov” (RStP 430-34). Minaev signs

the parodies by the real names of the parodied poets A. Majkov, J. Polonskij, F.

TjutCev, etc. There one finds also a variation of this pattern (IlaS2) which is rarely used in Russian verse parody, namely, the parodist signs the parody with the real

pen name of the real author, e.g., Minaev signs his parody of I. Mozajskij with the

pseudonym Djadja Paxom which is the real pen name of Mozajskij.

The other ironic modification (12) takes as its model the pattern of encoding

the real parodist by a pen name(Dl) and combines it with the pattern of encoding

the real parodied author by an ironic pseudonym given to him by a parodist (S2).

For instance, N. Polevoj signs his own parodies of P. A. Vjazemskij’s poems by the parodic pen name Sol’e-Andreev which was created as an ironic signifier of the name of the parodied poet (RStP 324,326,331). The formula of this pattern is 12

S2[RA = (PA = PPN)].

The correlation between the number of the real authors and the number of the pseudonyms is relevant for the patterns of the ironic mode, as well. The 132

counterparts of the normal patterns are produced by ironic inversion of the basic model which encodes one author by one pen-name (BP), e.g., N. Polevoj uses the

pseudonym Gamletov to encode E. Baratynskij. The ironic inversion of the deriva

tive patterns encodes (1) several poets by one pen name (e.g., Polevoj’s use ofBez-

myslin for both A. PuSkin and N. Jazykov) and (2) one poet by several pseudonyms

(e.g., Polevoj’s use of the pseudonyms I. Pustocvetov, F. DemiSillerov, Bezmyslin,

Bessmyslov, and Obezjanin to encode PuSkin). The respective formulae are: (1)

I2S2 [IRA = (1+PA = 1PPN) and (2) I2S2[1RA = (1PA = 1+PPN)]. There are both social and literary reasons for this extensive use of pseudonyms in Russian verse parody. If used in parody, the names of real individuals could trig ger social and/or legal repercussions for the author, because the act might be inter

preted as intended personal ridicule and denigration. Thus, in the 18th century Em

press Catherine II strongly discouraged satires mentioning the names of real people

(“satira na lico”). The pseudonym, as a name that has not been associated with an

individual by governmental and/or religious authority, became a way of avoiding the real names, while still using names as signifiers of the inscribed author. In the 19th

century, the social rules gradually became less strict and it was possible to use real names of real people in parody. The pseudonyms, however, did not disappear. On the contrary, they flourished.

This literary development is conditioned by the semantic and structural ambi guity of the pseudonym. Due to it, the inscribed author, either a parodist or a paro died one, has a double frame of reference: a real person and a structural role. In addition, since the inscribed author is always an intended author, the pseudonym is invariably connected with the issue of literary competence. On one hand, in order to 133

foresee and to encode the intended effect, the competence of the parodist must in clude adequate information about the horizon of expectations of the reader and of

his facilities for interpreting the pseudonym. On the other hand, in order to recog

nize, decode, and adequately interpret the pseudonym, the repertoire of the reader

must store knowledge of the basic patterns and transformational strategies.

Since the 1815-70 period of Russian literature was dominated by the “aesthet

ics of opposition,” the parodist was expected to use patterns which are recognizable,

but do not have the effect of a stereotype. This encouraged an intensive quest for

differences in terms of pseudonyms and produced an abundance of patterns. Varie ty was achieved through exploiting the relations between the different roles of the author, by utilizing the resources of intertextuality, by the variety of the semantic

codes used as a lowering device, and by playing with literal and ironic modes of en

coding and decoding. The pseudonyms involve: (1) the interaction between the

names and the roles of the parodist and the parodied author; (2) the patterns of en

coding and decoding; (3) the intended and inferred attitude of the parodist toward

the parodied work and the parody in general.

As a mediator between the structural levels, the pseudonym is more efficient

than the real name. The pseudonym may be used as a miniature model of the paro-

dy(s) with which it is associated. It can be a capsule which gives quick access to the

act of enunciation of parody: it signifies the roles of the author, provides directions

as to the intended mode of interpretation of the text and to the distribution of liter

ary authority between the parodist and the parodied author, and serves as a lowering device of the adaptation. It often shares the semantic codes and structuring proce dures of the lowering technique applied in the main text of the parody. 134

The frequent use of pseudonyms and their role as mediators between the text and the act of enunciation makes it necessary to investigate their structure and se mantics in greater detail, i.e., to pay special attention to the relations between the real names and the pseudonyms.^

Compared to real names of real authors, pseudonyms are functionally and se mantically ambiguous. They, too, signify the relation of the real author to the var ious aspects of the role of the implied author, but they do not directly disclose the real name. They may hide it completely, or may only complicate the identification.

By attaching a “fake” name to a real author, pseudonyms also blur the boundaries between the real and the hypothetical author. Semantically, they usually carry in formation not only about the real author, but also about encoded intention on the part of the parodist.

Pseudonyms appear in the form of real names (e.g., Koz’ma Prutkov, S. K. Konfetin), or as descriptive characteristics (e.g.. £itel’ Vasil’evskogo ostrova (Resi- dent of the Vasilevskyj Island), Novootkrvtyj poet (Newly-Discovered Poet). The at titude toward the encoded author which they invariably elicit ranges from general mockery, through literary criticism, to personal offense and ridicule.

The mockery may be presented in an ironic (e.g., Mstislav Elejkin (M. Blessed- Balm), S. K. Konfetin (S. K. Candy)) or in a non-ironic mode (Agrafena Ljudoedova

(A. Cannibal), A. Seledkin (A. Herring)). The meta-literary references of the liter ary criticism may be stated directly (e.g., Podrazaev (Imitation), Noviznin (Novelty)) or indirectly (e.g., K. Evripidin (i.e., related to the Greek dramatist Euripides), Erast

Blagonravov (i.e., a reference to the practice of Russian Classicism of using the name Erast for signifying virtuous literary characters)). The attitude of personal 135 offence and ridicule is directed only at the parodied author. The literary criticism is associated with either blunt (e.g., Bezmvslin (Thoughtless), Obezjanin (Son of a

Monkey)), or ironic (Sanrim-Sanrezonov (Rhymeless-Thoughtless), Jakov Xam (J. Lout)) offensive remarks.

Before I proceed to discuss the semantics of pseudonyms, it is necessary to re construct some features of the literary competence of the informed Russian writers and readers between 1815 and 1870. This will clarify the use of offensive personal remarks as means of literary criticism. The literary competence of the period recog nized sincerity and honesty as the highest values of poetry. The role of the implied author was identified with the poet. The literary norm “sincerity and honesty” de manded that the biography of the real poet follow as closely as possible the image of the poet as inferred from his poetry and outlined by the relevant literary convention. This meant that a mistake in personal behavior could be considered a literary fault 1 ^ as well.

Because this norm is founded upon a wrong assumption, and because literary practice never completely coincides with literary theory, the norm permits various interpretations. For instance, Minaev believes that the union between the real biog raphy and the image of the poet ought to be dominated by the former component. He notes the discrepancy between Fet’s behavior, political, and social views, as in ferred from his sketches “Iz derevni,” and his intended image of a refined lyric poet, as inferred from his poetry. On the grounds of his interpretation of the norm, Mi naev regards the discrepancy as proof that Fet’s poetry is insufficiently sincere and honest. Consequently, the judgement Minaev’s parodies are to elicit is that Fet’s works are not valuable poetry (e.g., “Davno li, bezumnyj i prazdnyj,” “Xolod, 136 grjaznye selenija,” “Kogda naplyv protivnyx mne idej” (RStP431.510,508)).

A more explicit variant of the same argument is presented by means of the verse parodies and the biographic information about the poet Junker Zvonkobrjux- ov in Minaev’s article “Lirideskoe xudosodie.” In the article “’’O stixotvorenijax

Tjutdeva,” Fet maintains that “only a person who will jump head down from the fourth floor to the street, may call himself a poet” (RStP 786). The message of this metaphoric statement is that the image of the poet must dominate the biography of the real author. In order to discredit this view, which opposes his own interpretation of the norm, Minaev realizes Fet’s metaphor. He invents Junker Zvonkobrjuxov, who, while in a hospital because of “temporary insanity,” had written a number of poems, jumped down from the third floor, and died (RStP 786). Zvonkobrjuxov’s insanity is an indirect, but rather overt negative comment about Fet as a person and a poet.

The accusation of insanity is also the semantic center of the ironic pseudonym

Afrikan &eltodomov by which N. Gred and F. Bulgarin denoted A. PuSkin. The fam ily name 2eltodomov (of the Yellow House) was intended to be interpreted by the contemporary reader as derived from the euphemism “zeltyj dom” (the Yellow

House), which meant “insane asylum.” Unlike Minaev’s argument, in this case no real literary issues are associated with the personal offense and ridicule. The pseu donym is just an insulting statement ironically disguised as this particular type of lit erary criticism. At this point, I will end the reconstruction of the norms of literary evaluation and will return to the semantics of the pseudonyms. The function of the latter as a lowering device sets out two main questions, namely, that of the high subject and 137 that of the lowering semantic code. The high subject is always the name of the au thor (parodist or parodied one). The codes vary considerably.

The main difference concerns the affiliation of the codes. One group of pat terns uses codes associated with (a) the real name of the author or (b) with his biog raphy. Thus, the semantic opposition immaculate vs. damaged is the basis for the transformation of N. Loman’s name into the pseudonym Gnut-Loman (Bent-Bro ken). The procedure involves the homonymy between the real family name Loman

(probably non-Russian by origin) and the the short form of the passive participle of the Russian verb lomat’. i.e., loman. V. KuroCkin’s pseudonyms Pr. Preobrazenskij

(of The Transfiguration) and Spasopreobrazenskij (of the Savior’s Transfiguration) refer to the name of the church near which the parodist lived. A combination of both kinds of reference is used in Nikolaj SCerbina’s pseudonym Nikolaki Omega.

The proper name is a transformation of the real name of the author by means of the Greek suffix -aki. Both the suffix and the name of the Greek letter Omega used as a family name are allusions to the Greek maternal ancestors of the poet. Another group of patterns utilizes codes conditioned by the text of the parody.

For instance, Agrafena Lvudoedova (A. Cannibal) follows the semantic codes of the text of the parody which are organized by the opposition love for man vs. love for food.

Usually, the structures are complicated by intertextual reference to (1) other parodic patterns, (2) non-parodic literary texts, (3) literary conventions and (4) gen eral cultural norms. For example, there is a large number of family names-pseudonyms created by combining the suffix in with roots which carry literal or ironic ref erence intended to lower the authority of the author (e.g., Talantin, Koljaskin, 138

Kartofelin, Konfetin, PiSCalin, Bezmyslin, SkuSalkin, Seledkin, Fialkin, Evripidin,

Elejkin, Obezjanin, Noviznin). Along with their immediate semantics, such names

elicit association with the whole group, i.e., with the parodic pattern, as well as with the broader function of the pattern as lowering devices in Russian comic literature

(e.g., A. Griboedov’s Molgalin (Silence) from the comedy Gore ot uma. D.

Fonvizin’s Skotinin (Animal) from the comedy Nedorosl’. etc.).

A distinctive semantic pattern is produced by descriptive pseudonyms referring

to the image of the poet in an ironic way. The irony is decipherable in relation to some literary convention. Thus, Novvj poet (New Poet) is an ironic reference to the cliches of the epigones of Romanticism in contrast to the high value of “difference” and “uniqueness” in the literary convention of Romanticism. Similar ironic refer ence, in relation to the thematic cliche of sorrow and that of social and political criti cism, modifies respectively the literal meaning of the pseudonyms Skorbnvj poet

(Sorrowful Poet) and ObliCiternvj poet (Denouncing Poet). From the point of view of the informed historical reader, the semantics of these pseudonyms includes also their connection with a specific parodic pattern represented by the series Novvj

(New), Novootkrvtyj (Newly Discovered), Skorbnvi (Sorrowful), Obligitel’nvj (De nouncing).

An example of a particularly complex pattern is Dobroljubov’s pseudonym Ja- kov Xam. It is ironically inscribed as a real name of a real Austrian poet. In fact, the poet is fictitious and the name is an anagram of the real name of the real Slavo phile poet A. Xomjakov. Along with the lowering effect of the partition, inversion, and reorganizing of the real family name (Xomjakov — Xamjakov — Xam-jakov — jakov-xam -- Jakov Xam), there is also the lowering effect of the homonymy 139 between the Austrian family name and the Russian noun xam (lout).

In addition to the literary criticism and personal ridicule of the parodied poet conveyed by the pseudonym, its semantics is further expanded by its involvement into an inscribed communicative situation. Xam’s works (i.e., Dobroljubov’s paro dies) are allegedly translated by another poet, Konrad LilienSvager.

LilienSvager is a pseudonym deciphered as an ironic reference M. Rozengejm, another of Dobroljubov’s emblematic parodied real poets. According to Morozov,

LilienSvager (= Lilien (lillies) + Schwager (son-in-law)) is a parodic transformation, also in German, of the German components of Rozengejm (= Rosen (roses) + Oheim (uncle)) (RStP 68). However, Heim (house, home) seems to be the more likely etymology of the second part of the pseudonym. It may be interpreted as ref erence to relation not by blood, but by marriage (house = family, lineage).

On the surface, the inscribed communicative situation conveys the message that this is valuable poetry which is worth translating. However, on a deeper level it ironically inverts the message by means of the homonymy Xam = xam (lout) which signifies that this kind of poetry has no positive authority.

The opposition Russian vs. German (& Austrian) is also included into the se- miosis (i.e., act of production of meaning). Once again the pun Xam = xam is in strumental for the ironic reinterpretation. According to the literary and the general cultural repertoire of the time, German (& Austrian) is a semantically ambiguous modifier. It could be interpreted as either European, cultured, sophisticated, or as alien, bureaucratic, and stupid. The parody exploits this ambiguity and uses the pun to signal that it is to be resolved in favor of the second series of meanings. 140

Still another way of expanding the semantics of the pseudonym is through as sociation with real individuals and/or with fictional characters. One group of pat

terns involves a direct connection with real people. In this case the name, the text,

or the context of the verse parody provide clues by which the author directs the con

temporary reader, or at least a certain group of contemporary readers, toward iden tifying the real person.

For example, the ironic pseudonym Sol’e-Andreev assigned to Prince Petr

AndreeviC Vjazemskij by N. Polevoj (RStF 324,326, 331, 729) contains three differ

ent keys: (1) Andreev as reference to the real patronymic of the real parodied poet,

(2) the hyphenated form is an allusion to the aristocratic title of the real poet (the

cultural norm of the time associated hyphenated names with aristocrats or highly

placed nobility); (3) Sol’e as signal of the intertextual connection between Vja-

zemskij’s poetry and Epicurean and Anacreontic motifs in the works of the French poet Guillaume de Chaulieu (1636-1720).

The fictional character, when used in these patterns, mediates between the

pseudonym and the real man. The role of the hypothetical author is the basis for in

scribing the author as a fictional character in the plot. A classical example of this

kind of pattern is the poet Fialkin in Saxovskoj’s comedy Urok koketkam. It is well

documented that the informed contemporary reader interpreted Fialkin as a carica

ture of 2ukovskij. The same pattern is used in E. Rostopdina’s comedy Vozvrat

Cackogo. There, the poet Elejkin is intended as a caricature of X o m j a k o v . ^

Once established in Russian verse parody, this pattern developed modifica tions which further increased the significance of the hypothetical author at the ex pense of the real one. Thus, Nekrasov’s story “OCerki literaturnoj zizni” involves a 141 poet named Svistov who is described as unintentional parodist. The character has no connection to the real poet Count Xvostov for whom this parodic pseudonym was created. The name refers only to the meaning “parodied poet” associated with the pseudonym Svistov through the parodies of the members of Arzamas.

There are also borderline cases where the name is no longer intended as a pa rodic pseudonym associated with a real poet. Instead, it is reference to some social group characterized by a specific attitude toward literature and writing. The pattern is founded upon intertextual reference between the characters of different literary works. Such echoes appear in Nekrasov’s story “Novoizobretennaja privilegirovannaja kraska” (1850) and Panaev’s tale “Velikosvetskij xly§£” (1854). The parallels include the connection with the social category xlySC (fop, social lion) (i.e.,

Nekrasov’s protagonist is named Leonard XlySdev and Panaev’s Baron Sdelkalov is an epitome of a xlvgg). the fact that both characters are described as dilettante poets and unintentional parodists, and the fact that in both cases their poems are parodies targeted at the epigones of Romanticism and produced by means of minimally marked adaptation.

The author inscribed as a character of the plot entails the presence of an in scribed reader. Victor Lange advances the idea that the inscribed reader can be used for providing a built-in interpretive system within the literary work, i.e., it can be used as a specific communicative strategy. In fact, it is probably more appropri ate to talk about an inscribed act of enunciation, because the reader cannot exist without the text he/she reads and the text always carries along, if not the real, then at least the implied author. 142

In regard to parody, the inscribed act of enunciation is distinguished by the ob

ligatory presence of a parody that is intended as an autonomous piece of literature.

Otherwise, the components of the inscribed act of communication may vary and may

interact in a variety of ways. For instance, it is not always the case that the inscribed

poet is presented as an unintentional parodist. In Dostoevskij’s novel Idiot. Aglaja EpanCina is clearly an intentional parodist. The real author of the inscribed parody

may or may not coincide with the author of the work in which the parody appears. Saxovskoj and Rostopdina are the real authors of both the entire comedy and the in

scribed parodies, but it is Koz’ma Prutkov who is the author of the parody “Osada

Pamby” inscribed in Dostoevskij’s novel Selo Stepandikovo (6: 589-91). In the same

way, the author of the large work may be inscribed as a reader/listener in the epi

sode (e.g., Selo Stepandikovol. or may not (e.g., Urok koketkam).

The functions of the inscribed act of enunciation concern both the interpreta tion of the inscribed parody and that of the characters involved in the episode. Ul

timately, this affects the entire large literary unit.^ However, they do not end there.

By providing specific interpretations and judging their validity, the inscribed com

municative situation not only directs the interpretation of the particular text, but

also instructs the real reader about the various possible ways of interpreting texts in

general and parody in particular. As an interpretative strategy, the inscribed com municative act contributes to the general literary competence of the reader.

I will discuss several examples in order to illustrate these points. The simplest type of inscribed act of enunciation provides only one interpretation and elicits the reader’s approval of it. Such is the case of Urok koketkam where the Countess evaluates Fialkin’s poetry as “nonsense” (vzdor) and the implied author is of the 143 same opinion. Still focused on the final evaluation rather than on the process of in terpretation, Panaev’s “ Velikosvetskij xlySC” introduces also the roles of the in formed and the insufficiently informed reader/listener which make the pattern more complex. The opinion of the audience is divided between the insufficiently informed

“ladies” who find SiSelkalov’s poems “graceful” and “exciting,” and the informed readers (the poet Ivan Aleksei£, his friends, and the inscribed author of the tale) who evaluate the poems as “banal petty verses” (poSlve stiSonki) (Panaev 126,133).

The inscribed communicative act in Selo Stepanflkovo is extremely complex.

It involves the roles of the informed, inadequately informed, and minimally informed reader, those of the sensitive, inadequately sensitive, and insensitive reader, the criteria of sincerity and honesty with their literary implications. It also involves a character who is a phony writer (Foma FomiC Opiskin), a literary image-hoax who is taken as a real author (Koz’ma Prutkov), and an inscribed author of the tale (the character Sergej Aleksandrovid). The episode shares with the rest of the tale the opposition between the Romantic image of the poet-prophet and the personality of the mediocre and insincere Opiskin. Consequently, there is the opposition between the Romantic notion of the readers as the chosen few able to understand the poet- prophet and the inadequately informed, inadequately sensitive or even minimally in formed and completely insensitive admirers of Opiskin.

The parody “Osada Pamby,” written by Aleksej Tolstoj and Aleksej 2em£uznikov under the pseudonym Koz’ma Prutkov, is targeted at the Spanish motifs and forms cultivated by Romantic poetry. Several pages are devoted to the interpreta tion of the parody by one of the characters and to the reactions of the rest of the lis teners to it. The reactions not only expose and correct a number of the faults in the 144 interpretation, but also introduce in concise form other interpretations of the text.

The possibilities of the inscribed communicative situation in terms of commu nicative strategy are duly appreciated by the Russian parodists. They use numerous modifications of it in literary works, as well as in pieces of literary criticism and in genres on the border between fiction and expository prose such as feuilletons.

A specific way of inscribing communicative situations in relation to verse paro dy is the series of parodic biographies, autobiographies, letters, notes of the editor, historical and literary commentaries, obituaries, portraits, etc. The distinctive fea ture of this approach is that there is no literary work which contains the inscribed situation. The system into which this communicative situation is inscribed is the reader’s horizon of expectations in regard to literature, literary criticism, literary scholarship, and the institutions of literature such as literary journals, publishing, lit erary archives, etc.

* * *

The preceding analysis of Russian verse parody (1815-70) allows us to charac terize parody as a point of convergence between the horizontal (structure) and the vertical (enunciation) axes of its invariant. The close look at the workings of the var ious patterns has shown that the process of construction, deconstruction, and recon struction never stops. Even if a state of balance is achieved on certain levels, there are always other levels on which the texts are unbalanced and keep moving.

In view of this, one question immediately comes to mind: can the notion of parody as process explain the parodies, i.e., the centuries-long tradition of perceiv ing parody in terms of individual literary works? The apparent controversy between 145

“process” and “unit” is no longer a problem if the process is identified as a discrete one.

I will illustrate my point by a comparison which, although rather reductive in terms of the actual complexity of the process, is nevertheless helpful for explaining the nature of the discrete process. One may visualize its dynamics as similar to that of an escalator which moves by constantly unfolding and folding itself in a series of individual steps. The individual parodies are like those steps. They emerge at the points of discreteness (1) when the encoding of the invariant by means of a set of variants and patterns produces a specific text, and (2) when the process of decoding, having started from an individual text and having proceeded through the patterns and the variants, ties up the reader’s interpretation with the invariant of parody.

The analysis of the empiric material proves that the identification of the paro died work cannot be the main condition for identifying a text as a parody. Since the notion “parodied work” cannot exist outside of the notion “invariant of parody,” the reader must have the latter as part of his repertoire and horizon of expectations in order to perform the actual recognition.

Thus, the communicative situation inscribed in Selo Stepanfikovo demon strates that, if a person (Rostanev) does not associate his interpretation with the in variant of parody, the text intended by the encoder as a parody may not be decoded as such, but as a piece of comic literature in general. On the other hand, reader’s parody, as documented by Dobroljubov and Turgenev, shows that a non-parodic text does not have to be encoded into a different work in order to be interpreted as a parody. It may become a parody simply because the reader chooses to organize his/her reading on the basis of the invariant of parody. 146

Finally, the parody which uses minimally marked adaptation intentionally en codes either possibility, i.e., to be decoded in regard to the invariant of parody, or to that of the parodied work. The examples show that it is not the recognition of the encoded parodied work that is instrumental for the identification of the parody, be cause there may not be one prior to the act of reading. It is the involvement of the entire invariant which is the crux of the interpretation of a text as a parody. The relations between the process of adaptation of the parodied work, and the parody as a result of this process also need some clarification. The adaptation is pertinent to both the encoding and the decoding of the invariant, but it is not identi cal with the point at which the encoding or the decoding is completed. It is the state of motion of the unbalanced components oriented toward a state of temporary bal ance.

The dominant literary function of parody is to accomplish a successful act of encoding of the invariant into an individual text with regard to a successful act of de coding. The numerous structural variants and patterns are the means for the effec tive actualization of this dominant function. Once materialized in literary practice, they become interpersonal knowledge. Consequently, as part of the repertoire of the reader and of the horizon of his/her expectations the patterns work also as communicative strategies signaling that a text should be interpreted as a parody. One must remember that many of the patterns and the techniques used by parody are not exclusively parodic. They are employed in many other areas of liter ature, as well. What gives us the right to consider them as part of the repertoire of parody is their connection with its invariant. If the connection is missing, or fails to actualize, the patterns and techniques are no longer parodic and return to the 147

general pool of literary devices. This point was made during the discussion of the

lowering semantic codes of Russian verse parody, but now its validity may be ex

panded over a broader selection of patterns.

Not all of the theoretically possible variants and patterns are present in the

repertoire of a specific national literature at a given time. Some of them may even never materialize. The ones that are present may have different status from the point of view of the history of the parody, namely, completely outdated, trivial

(cliche), well-established and currently used, newly-introduced, rediscovered, retro-

style, etc. Usually, it is not only an individual pattern, but a specific combination of patterns and variants that is perceived in those terms. The synchronic analysis of

Russian verse parody made it clear that the patterns and pattern-producing tenden

cies concern both the structure and the semantics of the text. Hence, one must not

regard them as purely formal units.

The historically conditioned dynamics of the structural variants and patterns of

parody is part of the general question of the parodic tradition. The latter can be

properly investigated by means of the diachronic method of analysis and will be the

subject of Chapter Three.

Notes 1 A. Morozov remarks that K. BatjuSkov’s parody “Pevec v Besede slavjano- rossov” is the beginning of a “tradition” of parodying £ukovskij’s poem. He sup ports his statement by listing the following texts: V. MasloviC “Pevec vo stane epikurejcev,” and A. Pisarev “Pevec na bivakax u podoSvy Parnasa” (SRStP 711). A. Izmailov’s “E§£e parodija” (714) may be added to this list.

2 The ballad is actually a translation of “The Eve of St. John” by Walter Scott. 2ukovskij’s rendition was parodied by A. Del’vig (“Do rassveta podnjavSis’,” RStP 252,715), A. Izmajlov (“Russkaja ballada,” 253,716), K. Baxturm (“Baron Brambe- us. Ballada.” 286,719), and M. Lermontov and V. Annenkova (“Ballada Jugel’skij baron,” RLP 207). 148

^ This “verse tale in two ballads” is parodied by PuSkin in “Ruslan and Ljud- mila” (Song IV), by V. ProtaSinskij (“Dvenadcat’ spjaSCix butoSnikov. PouCitel’naja ballada,” RStP 717), and by M. Dmitriev (“Dvenadcat’ sonnyx stat’ej,” 718).

^ See “Gljazu kak bezumnyj na belyj sultan” (RStP 309), P. Butkov’s “Gljazu kak bezumnyj na carskij ukaz” (Mn. g. 384). A parody by B. Almazov is mentioned in Mnimaja poezija” (442), but the text is not included in any of the anthologies.

^ V. 2irmunskii speaks of three works which may be considered as parodies of “Kavkazskij plennik, i.e., “Moskovskij plennik” by F. Solov’ev, “Kalmyckijjplennik. Otryvok iz romantiCeskoj poemy” by N. StankeviC and N. Mel’gunov, and “Ljucifer- ov prazdnik. Romanti£eskaja karikatura” by M. Dmitriev. He remarks that the first one was regarded by contemporary readers not as a parody of the devices used by PuSkin and his imitators, but rather as a comic travesty (253-255). The third work uses only individual motifs from PuSkin’s poem. Two other poems, N. Polevoj’s “Otryvok is poemy ‘Kurbskij’,” (RStP 730) and the anonymous “Otryvok iz poemy” (RLP 221), are also targeted not at the entire poem, but at individual features of it.

^ Polevoj’s parody (see Note 5) also refers to Evgenij Onegin. In fact, most of the parodies concerning this “novel in verse” use only small parts of it. Thus, “Otry vok iz poemy Ivan Alekseevii, ili novyj Evgenij Onegin” (RStP 724) uses as original the first chapter, N. Polevoj’s “Vot serdca gorestnyx zamet” deals with the introduc tion “PosvjaSdenie P. A. Pletnevu” (724), A. Martinov’s parody refers to the last stanza of Chapter 7 (45). D. Minaev’s parody Evgenij Onegin. Roman v stixax... in its final form, which it reached after a series of alterations and additions, covers up to Chapter 7 (PI 2:935).

^ This poem is parodied by V. KuroCkin (“RazmySlenie Andreja Ivanovida Krona nad vetkoj kukel’vana” (PI 1:744) and by an anonymous author under the ti tle “Knut” (“Skazi mne, dvigatel’ narodnyj”). The latter is presented in Mnimaja poezija as a parodic utilization of PuSkin s work (380). The wrong attribution of the original is probably caused by the fact that a parody “Knut,” whose author is I. Turgenev (“Remjanyj knut, nebezuxannyj”), does refer to a poem by PuSkin, i.e., “Cvetok zasoxSij, bezuxannyj.”

® A. Morozov points out that this poem has been used many times as an origi nal of parody (RStP 785). He does not give any list, but it was not hard to find four such parodies in RStP alone: D. Minaev “Topot, radostnoe rzan’e” (507), and “Xo- lod, grjaznye selen’ja” (510), N. Dobroljubov “Pervaja ljubov” (404), and N. Vorms “Vesennie melodii (Podrazanie Fetu)” (514). ^ This poem is used as the original of three parodies by D. Minaev, i.e., “Mo- tiv jasno-liriSeskij” (RStP 428), “Serenada. Podrazanie Fetu” (505), and “Solnce sprjatalos’ v tumane” (510).

In the introduction to Mnimaja poezija Tynjanov states that “it is exactly the kind of parody written by the most important Russian parodists, N. Polevoj and I. Panaev, which belongs to the class of non-comic parody (6). 149

H As V. BuxStab proves in “Nekrasov v stixax ‘Novogo poeta’,” the pen name Novyj poet was used not only by I. Panaev, but also by N. Nekrasov. 19 Pseudonyms are traditionally regarded as functional anonyms. There are studies exploring the history, morphology, and semantics of Russian pseudonyms, but very little attention is paid to the structure and function of the pseudonym as a specific literary device (KLE. LE. Masanov, Dmitriev).

1 *2 Lotman discusses the connection between the biography of the writer and the evaluation of his literary achievements in his article “Literatumaja biografija...” (112,118 -119).

^ It is not clear what criteria Soviet scholars use in order to identify a name of a character as a pseudonym or not. For example, the name Ordynin belongs to a character from A. Vel’tman’s tale Priezzij iz uezda: the character alludes to the real poet Benediktov by means of both biographic facts and originals of the parodies as signed to him (RStP 737,765). The pattern used in the case of Ordynin is the same as the one used for names as Fialkin and Elejkin, i.e., those are parodic pseudonyms assigned to fictional characters referring to real poets. However, Fialkin and Elejkin are listed as pseudonyms, while Ordynin is not (RStP 832, Mn. g. 448).

1 5 For more details concerning this function of inscribed parody one may see Donald Fiene’s article. CHAPTER III

LITERARY FUNCTION AND LITERARY TRADITION

In terms of historical dynamics, the dominant literary function of parody is to integrate the individual acts of enunciation into a tradition. The tradition of parody includes both the texts and the awareness of their succession in time as a reason for the interaction between the individual works as well as between the acts of their pro duction and reception. The interaction develops in either one of the two temporal directions, namely, early phenomena condition the enunciation of the ones that fol low and, conversely, late phenomena modify the perception of the preceding ones.

The purpose of the diachronic study of Russian verse parody (1815-1870) in this chapter is to determine the major strategies by which the integrating literary function of parody produces this historically and culturally specific tradition.

The investigation will develop through three stages. First, cross sections of the material will be examined in order to determine the distinctive features of the con cept of literary tradition in general and of the parodic tradition as part of it. Second, these features will be used to specify the main factors in the historical dynamics of the tradition of parody. The central point of interest will be the compatibility be tween the tradition-building function and the role of parody as an agent of change within its own tradition. Third, the functions of parody within its own tradition will be compared with and contrasted to its functions within the literary process at large.

150 151

1. Distinctive Features of the Tradition of

Russian Verse Parody (1815-70) The distinctive features of the tradition of Russian verse parody concern var ious structural levels. The key word here is “tradition.” Some of its characteristics define the concept of “tradition” in regard to repetition, cliche, and similarity, others help distinguish tradition from synchronic multiplication and typological analogs, and still others contribute to the identity of the tradition by marking the differences between trends within the tradition itself and between its chronological stages. Frequently the term “tradition” is interpreted in a reductive way, namely, simi larity and repetition are overemphasized at the expense of difference and change, which are also essential components of “tradition.” In this study, “tradition” is de fined as a meeting point of three main differential features: (1) it is a case of serial repetition; (2) it extends over a considerable period of time (years, decades, cen turies); (3) it includes similarity as a dominant and change as a necessary, but not dominant, constituent.

Tradition is a case of serial repetition. Simple repetition involves only a pair of constituents, namely, a “repeated unit” and its “double.” It changes only the first component which is no longer unique, but doubled. The basic difference between simple and serial repetition is that serial one changes both the repeated and the re peating items. It does not double the repeated item but multiplies it through a series of “repeating units.” Therefore, it multiplies the repeating units too.

For example, A. PuSkin’s “Oda Xvostovu” (RStP 168) is a constituent of a se rial repetition, namely, of the subtradition of Russian parody of the ode. It repeats the model of the first parody of the ode, as well as the models of the parodies of this 152 genre which preceded PuSkin’s work (e.g., the parodies by A. Sumarokov, N. Niko- lev, S. Marin, P. Semenov, I. Dmitriev, A. Naximov, earlier parodies of the ode by

PuSkin himself, etc.). In turn, it, too, is repeated by parodies of the ode in the 1860s.

The feature which distinguishes “tradition” from “similarity” in general and

“cliche” in particular is the requirement that similarity dominates over difference, but is contained within certain limitations. The boundaries are set by means of a large variety of literary, social, and psychological factors. Although they cannot be determined with absolute precision, the horizon of reader’s expectations neverthe less provides approximate norms that allow one to detect the cases in which similari ty transgresses the limits.

Deviations from the norm are evaluated in terms of the “aesthetics of opposi tion” that has dominated Russian poetry since the eighteenth century. If the ratio between similarity and difference is disrupted by overextension of the former com ponent, the reader identifies the repetition as a cliche. Such instances are evaluated negatively and the serial repetition is eventually terminated, i.e., the particular trend within the tradition becomes unproductive. If the reader feels that the necessary ra tio has been preserved, the repetition is identified as limited transformation and re ceives positive evaluation. The serial repetition is sustained and the tradition or the trend remain productive. From the point of view of parody, the original and the target of ridicule are the major distinctive features which determine whether a case of serial repetition be longs to a productive or to an unproductive trend. If the reader feels that both con stituents just repeat familiar models and are irrelevant to the contemporary literary situation, he evaluates the text as aesthetically unproductive and loses interest in it. 153

However, if at least one of the constituents is relevant to the contemporary situation, it provides an opportunity for changing the function and the interpretation of the other one. The transformation, if realized, assures the aesthetic productivity of the individual text as well as of the trend which it represents.

The failure to realize that the original does not necessarily coincide with the target of ridicule, and that they may have different functions as factors of similarity and change, is the reason for the incorrect prognoses about the productive trends in

Russian parody in the 1850s and 1860s. In 1854, a reviewer for the literary magazine

Pantheon (Panteon) criticized Prutkov’s “Spor gre£eskix filosofov o prekrasnom” and some other parodies published in the magazine Contemporary (the division

“Literaturnyj EralaS’”) on the following grounds:

. . . We definitely do not see where in our literature the originals of this caricature are: tell us, have you read in the last thirty years any “Conversa tions of Wise Men” or “Conversations about Grace, Beauty” ... In all these parodies (the best in “EralaS”’) there is no goal, no contemporary issues, no life. If one could write them, then we might expect soon parodies of Lomonosov’s odes,... Xeraskov’s [heroic epic] Rossiada... (qtd. in Berkov Prutkov. 82).

In 1860, although starting from rather different theoretical premises, N. Do- broljubov arrived at similar conclusions. His opinion, summarized in contemporary terms, is that aesthetically productive parodies must choose as their originals (= tar gets of ridicule) only works and phenomena that are relevant to the contemporary literary and social situation (217-8). The example of an old work which cannot be used as an original in a productive trend of parody given by him is V. Bukovsky’s poem “Pevec v stane russkix voinov.” The example of an unproductive literary tendency that should not be used any more as an original is the school of Russian Aestheticism, also known as “Pure Art.” (The critic from Pantheon most likely did 154 not share this last conviction, since the magazine favored the “Pure Art” school). Literary practice of the time proves the predictions of both critics incorrect.

The largest group of parodies written in the 1860s uses works of the “Pure Art” school (i.e., poems by A. Fet, Ja. Polonskij, A. Majkov, L. Mej, N. Sfierbina, V. Kre stovskij, K. SluCevskij, etc.) as originals. The second largest group uses old works such as verse by V. 2ukovskij, A. Griboedov, A. PuSkin, E. Baratynskij, M. Lermon tov, V. Benediktov, and even by the eighteenth century poets M. Lomonosov and G. Derzavin.

It is Tynjanov who first noticed the difference in the functions of the original of parody and of its target of ridicule and its role in terms of avoiding the danger of cliche in the parodic tradition. In his analysis of “Oda Xvostovu,” he demonstrates the importance of the distinction between the original of parody and target of ridi cule for the adequate understanding of the productive and unproductive trends (“Arxaisty i PuSkin” 206-18). He shows that while the original of PuSkin’s parody is the genre of solemn (torzestvennaja) ode as practiced in the eighteenth century by

Lomonosov and V. Petrov and in the nineteenth century by Count Xvostov, I. Dmi triev, and V. Kjuxel’beker, the target of ridicule is not the genre itself, but the at tempts of Kjuxel’beker and K. Ryleev to reestablish the poetics of the eighteenth- century Russian ode in the 1820s.

Tynjanov convincingly demonstrates that it is the target of ridicule that intro duces the contemporary literary concerns and provides necessary element of differ ence. The old works used as originals are no longer targets of ridicule as they were in the parodies of Sumarokov, for instance. Instead, they acquire the function of a lowering semantic code used in order to ridicule the new target. 155

The possibility of updating the target of ridicule and the consequent change in the functions of the old works/originals ensures the productivity of the parodic trend.

Due to that transformation, PuSkin’s parody is not just an addition to an aesthetically obsolete line, but opens a new perspective and thus maintains the productivity of the trend.

Historical and genetic continuity are the basic distinctive features which differ entiate tradition from both synchronic multiplication and typological, i.e., non-genetic, analogs. No one has clearly determined the boundary between synchronic multi plication and tradition. The available literary scholarship shows that if the repetition lasts for less than a year, it is not regarded as tradition. For how long beyond a year the repetition must continue in order to be considered a tradition remains a ques tion to which one finds no answer.

Similar lack of clarity exists in connection with the issue of genetic continuity.

For instance, there are no distinct theoretical criteria to guide the researcher when he faces the task of determining the borderline between a case of genetic continuity and one of typological analogy if the texts display repetition only on the level of structural patterns. Fortunately, Russian verse parody (1815-70) provides other clues such as textual or thematic repetition and various bits of contextual evidence which allow one to solve this problem empirically.

The third distinctive feature of tradition is its internal structure. Serial repeti tion over an extended period of time concerns various facets of the repeated item.

There can be serial repetition of originals and/or targets of ridicule, such as literary school (e.g., Romanticism), author (e.g., Fet), genre (e.g., fable), individual work

(e.g., Evgenij Onegin), poetic device (e.g., emphasis on alliteration, assonance and 156

internal rhyme as in “banty, franly, aksel’banty / i almaz gorjaSdix glaz,” RStP 415),

stylistic feature (complicated syntactic inversion “Obil’nyj vozzigal bessmertnym

fimiam,” RStP 160), etc. There may be a tradition in the interrelations and evalua

tions of certain semantic oppositions. There may also be a tradition in the kind of laughter which is intended as a response to the parody. Because of all that, the tradition of parody is a complex structure which in

cludes a number of subtraditions. I will refer to them as “subtraditions” or “trends”

in the cases where their relations with the more general tradition are a relevant is

sue; in the cases where the issue is not really relevant, I will refer to them as “tradi

tions.” The presence and/or absence of the subtraditions, the variety of their inter

relations and their historical dynamics can serve as distinctive features of the general tradition. They characterize its identity as well as the historical stages of its exist

ence. They are also instrumental for its internal dynamics.

Although it is quite fascinating to identify the individual cases of serial repeti

tion between 1815 and 1870 and interpret their intertextual functions and semantic

message, such an undertaking will only accumulate more empirical data. For the sake of efficiency, here such observations are restricted to the ones necessary for the analysis of the dynamics of the tradition.

The longevity of the trends within the tradition is a basic distinctive feature relevant to its dynamics. The subtraditions range between ones that are present for centuries and ones that exist only for a few years. In terms of a given period of time, one may speak of permanent and temporary trends. The presence of the perma nent trends can be steady or sporadic. The duration of the temporary ones varies.

Some have a rather short life, while others remain productive for quite a long 157 period. It is also possible that a permanent trend associates only temporarily with another permanent one, so in terms of the history of the latter, the former one func tions as a temporary trend. Therefore, the permanent and the temporary trends are not absolute, but relative functional categories.

The associations of permanent and temporary trends ensure the continuity of the general tradition, as well as that of the various subtraditions. The permanent trends provide the necessary element of repetition. The temporary ones supply the opportunity for change. They also help establish contact with the contemporary communicative situation. The presence or absence of these associations, their inter relations, the list of the temporary trends involved in them and their own interrela tions are distinctive features of the tradition. They determine, as well as mark, the chronological stages of its history and the directions of its development.

An instance of such an association of permanent and temporary trends during the period analyzed in this work is the motif “accusation of lack of sense.” This mo tif is a permanent trend of the semantics of parody. Also permanent are its func tions as a reason for laughter and a lowering device of adaptation.

The motif materializes in the individual parodies by means of sets of tempo rary trends. The ones that concern the devices of adaptation form two groups: (1) the accusation is rendered by a direct statement, and (2) the accusation is presented by a demonstration of features which makes the reader infer lack of sense. The direct statement may be placed within the verse parody. I will quote a few instances of this particular device: “Ty ne Orfej, no smelee / v silax smysl robkij po- prat’” (RStP 165), “piSu. . . an smyslu vovse net!” (320), “ljublju. .. stixov nelepyx pustotu” (490), “lezet v menja erunda v tepluju zvezdnuju no£’” (513), “est’ li, polno, 158

sraysl v stixotvoren’i vsem? ... Ja dumaju, Cto n e t..( 5 3 4 ) , “balagurja v kazdoj fig

ure” (786)). The statement can be made also in the paratext, i.e., in the title

(“PoetiCeskaja fiepuxa. . . ” (322); “Stixotvornyj Pustocvet, ili Popurri, sostavlennoe

iz rifm i bessmyslicy” (350)), in the subtitle (6ertopolox. Karmannaja knizica dlja

ljubitelej i ljubitel’nic galimat’i. na XIX stoletie (352); “Duet Feta i Rozengejma

(Bessoznatel’noe likovanie i bessoznatel’noe xulenie)” (435)). It may appear as an

ironic pseudonym of the author (Bezmyslin, Sanrim-Sanrezonov, Jakov Xam). Very

often it is introduced not in the parody itself, but in the verbal context which accom panies the parody (e.g., novel, play, critical article, explanatory note, letter, live con versation).

The tradition involves specific semantic codes in order to convey the state ment. Some of them are as permanent as the motif itself, while others are short lived. As early as 1763, in his parody against Lomonosov, Sumarokov used the op position thoughts vs. words (“Net myslej; za slova prinjat’sja nadlezit” (103)). In it,

“words” had the characteristic of the “low” constituent. In 1859, one finds the same opposition expanded by the equation words = poetic devices = rhyme in a parody by D. Minaev ridiculing the poetry of Benediktov:

Mysl’ mne, mysl’! Vladeja slovom, Rifmoj, muzykoj re2ej,

Zatjanu vam pesn’ zivuju, S pySnoj reC’ju v zavitkax. (472)

In view of this code, the full meaning of the statement “Mne i rifmy izmenily i starinnye druz’ja” (434) in another parody by Minaev (1865) becomes clear: the parodied poet, Prince Vjazemskij, is degraded to a producer of rhymes. The equa tion rifmy (rhymes) = slova (lack of thoughts) was not Minaev’s invention. It 159

originated in the eighteenth century and has been frequently used as a means of varying the component “word.” The same opposition, i.e., rhyme = word vs.

thought, is also one of the keys for decoding Dobroljubov’s ironic reference to A.

Majkov (1860), i.e., “mimyj grazdanin rifmovannogo slova,” as a specific lowering

device (520).

During the first two decades of the nineteenth century the already traditional opposition thought vs. word was expanded by associating it with a number of opposi

tions characteristic for Russian Romanticism and Aesthetioism, namely, mind vs.

soul, mind vs. imagination, reason vs. dreams, clear thoughts vs. unclear thoughts, thought/word vs. sound/feeling. In the non-parodic context, the second members of

these specialized semantic codes had positive authority. In the parody, however,

they acquired negative authority. The adaptation made them functional equivalents

of stupidity and nonsense by shifting the positive authority to the first components of

the opposition, i.e., mind, reason, clear thought, word.

In some texts the ironically inverted semantic code is accompanied by the orig inal opposition. For example, N. Polevoj adds an ironic statement to his parody of

Romantic elegy “Razuverenie” (1829). Presented as a note from the editor, it in forms the readers that the editor cut off nine stanzas, but hopes that “the poet” will not be offended, because “no sense (smvsl) was either added, or lost, and one can already see the entire soul of the poet in the published stanzas” (329). In a similar fashion, but within the text of the parody itself, I. Panaev discloses the key for inter preting the semantic code in his parody of the “Pure Art” lyrics of E. RostopCina (1847)

Net! K golove moej Cernokudijavoj, VenCannoj mirtami, um vovse ne pristal. 160

Kogda v dvizen’i um - mertvo voobrazen’e ... Ne mir dejstvitel’nyj - odni mne nuzny grezy, odna poezija duSe moej nuzna! (481)

In 1859, in a parody of Polonskij’s poem “Lunnyj svet”, A. Snitkin first states one of the aesthetic principles of “Pure Art” (“Vse, dto vazno, £to gluboko,// nosit

sled nejasnyx dum” (528)) and then degrades its credibility in the two concluding

lines “Neponjatnye voprosy!//Neponjatnyj resul’tat!”.

In the 1840s, the proponents of Aestheticism reversed the semantics and the

valorization of the component “words.” They used to this effect the series of opposi tions reason vs. emotion, articulate vs. inarticulate, word vs. sound. The first com ponents, namely, reason/articulate thought/word became the “low” constituents,

while the second components, namely, emotion/inarticulate thought/sound became the “high” ones.

The oppositions, as well as their respective evaluations, were frequently used

as themes in the “Pure Art” poetry. Here are several samples from Fet’s poems

written between 1844 and 1866: “O, esli b bez slova / skazat’sja duSoj bylo mozno!”

(“Kak mo§ki zareju,” 1844), “Cto ne vyskazeS slovami - / zvukom na du§u navej”

(“PodehT zivymi snami,” 1847), “Bessil’e izvedano slov k vyrazen’ju zelanij” (“Na-

prasno!” 1852), “Na rynok! Tam kriCit zeludok, / Tam dlja stookogo slepca / cennej

groSovyj tvoj rassudok / bezumnoj prixoti pevca” (“Psevdopoetu,” 1866).

The Realists did not reverse the semantics and the value of the traditional op

position thought vs. word. They only further diversified its semantics by emphasizing

a different series of related oppositions, namely, goal oriented action vs. idling, hu

man vs. animal, civilized vs. wild, sense vs. nonsense, etc. In their system of values, the first components were interpreted as “high”, while the second ones were 161

interpreted as “low.”

The Realists, as well as some members of other literary groups, turned to the

strong cultural and literary tradition of assigning positive authority to “mind” and

“reason” in order to discredit the aesthetic principles of the poetry of the “Pure Art”

school. For example, in 1865 Minaev’s parodies charged Fet with writing pointless

poetry (“i poju, poju bez celi” RStP 428) and of being “mindless and idle” (“bezum

nyj i prazdnyj” 431). This loyalty to the original distribution of meaning and value in

the traditional semantic opposition is the cause for the negative evaluations of Fet’s poetry. It came from literary camps which upheld very different aesthetical and po litical platforms. Fifteen years before Minaev, who belonged to the moderately rad

ical literary circles, similar criticism was voiced in the magazine Biblioteka dlja

dtenija. where the conservative Osip Senkovskij ironically praised Fet’s works as

“the highest poetry of ‘Nought’” (Gromov, 18).

The tradition of verse parody adopted several compositional devices for en

coding the accusation of lack of sense. One of them utilizes an inscribed communi

cative situation. It appears in three varieties. The first variety presents the negative

evaluation as a statement of the inscribed author (or editor) of the parody (e.g., the above-quoted “Duet Feta i Rozengejma” and “Razuverenie”). The second one in

troduces it in an ironic way as a statement made by the lyric persona. This commu nicative situation relies on the assumption that the lyric “I” expresses the thoughts and feelings of the parodied poet himself. The model is used, for instance, in the previously cited parodies of Rostopdina’s lyrics and of Fet’s poems. The third varie ty, which was popular in the 1860s, presents the statement as an evaluation by an in scribed reader. It may be composed as a monologue of the parodist = reader = 162

lyric persona (e.g., “I oden’ mne diki kazalis’ / te strofi, dto Fet napisal” (RStP 504)),

or as a monologue of a character = reader addressed to another character (e.g.,

”Xode§’ znat’ otdego ja bledna? / Utomilas’ segodnja uzasno ja: / Vse ditala stixi Zarina /.../ A vse smysla v nix mne ne postid’: /... dto za did’?” (570)).

The realization of metaphor is another compositional device. For example, the metaphor “mvdanie” (to moo, to bellow) used by Fet in 1859 in a positive sense in order to denote the concept of inarticulate sound, was realized by Minaev in 1863 in the following absurd stanza:

Na dvore mydit korova, 2det na kiy§e koSku kot. Nebo temno i surovo, burja placet i revet. (RStP 513)

The most likely genealogy of this animal motif leads back to N. Loman’s paro dy (1861) of Krestovskij’s poem “Ja by uSel ot vas na bereg morja” (RStP 562, 800), which utilized the equation inarticulate sound = animal sound in relation to the po etry of “Aestheticism” (“Mnogo vesu mysli ne davajte - / Pesn’ spoetsja bez bol’Six usilij /... / II’, pozaluj, promjaud’te koSkoj!.”

In turn, Loman’s animal motif is probably influenced by the language practice of referring to statements overcharged with sentiment and lacking adequate logic as

“meowing” fmjaukat’l. as well as by the use of the latter in the parodies of the epi gones of Romanticism. For instance, in the play Luna i stixi (1842) the author of the “poems” “2aloba” and “Razodarovanie” is named Miao-Miao (Meow-Meow)

(RStP 738). The tradition of ridiculing the infatuation of the “Aestheticians” with inarticulate sound by means of animal motifs is very pronounced in Sderbina’s paro dy (1859) of A. Grigor’ev’s “Venezia la bella”

I ja ispolnen byl kakix-to dikix grez, Mne videlis, vezde tragideskie lica; 163

I ja zavyl togda, kak nekij dikij pes, A milaja moja zavyla budto psica, — I v vegnom gorode takoj podnjalsja voj, Cto zareveli vdrug: kozel, osel, oslica. . . (RStP 486)

Functionally similar to the realization of the metaphor is the tradition of creat ing episodes which enact the communicative situations encoded in certain set ex pressions. The phrases “he does not know what he is talking about (or: what he is doing; or: what he wants)” (on sam ne znaet. dto on govorit (gto on delaet. gego on xoget)) are the keys for decoding the meaning of the following situations: “Var’iruju gto-to iz Gejne, / A imenno gto? - uz ne znaju. /... / Cego ja xogu? - neizvestno..

(RStP 569); “begut na gej-to zov vdali / (Na gej? - vam dela net)” (500); “Madam, gto sdelalos’ so mnoju - / ne mogu znat’!” (549). The phrases “I do not want to read this nonsense,” “I do not want to listen to this nonsense,” and “I do not care about this nonsense” provide the code for interpreting the following situations described in the parodies: “Iz ruk moix vypala kniga - / ne trogal ee ja s tex por” (504); “No ona, o gore! -/.../ Vnov’ pustilas’ v more, / IspugavSis’ gten’ja” (434); “I ej [gerni] ne znat’, gto on [poet] pisal!” (440).

The theme of nonsense, although connected with the permanent trend of ac cusation of lack of sense, develops a variety of representational devices and deserves to be investigated as a separate subtradition. The opposition sense/thought vs. non sense/word is to be inferred from the absence of logical connection between the lines, phrases, and words in a given poem. In this case, the opposition thought vs. word is presented by means of the series sense vs. nonsense and formal logic vs. ab sence of formal logic. 1

Such cases are an intermediate stage between accusation of lack of sense through a direct statement and by demonstration. Usually, the verse parody which 164

demonstrates the lack of sense is accompanied by prose context which identifies the message of the demonstration as “lack of logical connection = nonsense.”

The first extensive parody that applies this device is “Kalejdostixon” (1825).

Its subtitle “OtryvSatye stixi” (Fragmentary Verses) focuses the attention of the

reader on the absence of logical connection between the lines (RStP 170). Four years later the same device was utilized in the more elaborate parody Piitideskaja

igruSka (RStP 173). As the prose commentary of the latter shows, the parody pokes fun at several targets at the same time, namely, at the schools of both Classicism and

Romanticism, at the genre of album verse and the social customs associated with it, at dilettante poets, and at improvisation as a behavioral norm of the Romantic poet.

Along with the lack of connection between the lines, this parody also uses the ran domness of their association as a lowering semantic code. The prose commentary suggests that the eventual “authors” cast dice in order to select the lines for their poems from the list offered by the parodist.

A direct descendent of PiitiSeskaja igruSka. the following epigram by N. Pole- voj is targeted at Romanticism in general and at the poet E. Baratynskij in particu lar. It appeared in 1830. The verse parody was given in two variants created by transposition of the words, phrases, and lines (RStP 185,703).

Variant 1 Variant 2 Salun, Goracij naSix let, Salun, Goracij naSix let! O milyj baloven’ dosuga! U’ sredi voln tumannoj Lety Ty pozabyl poeta-druga, Ty utonul, kak vse poety, DuSemutitePnyj poet. DuSemutitel’nyj poet? O ! Ty poet, Sredi bespefinogo dosuga I ja poet, my vse poety. Ty sredi voln tumannoj Lety Ty pozabyl poeta - druga, Ne utonul, poet - atlet! Dusemucitel’nyj atlet. 165

The remark that “one may rearrange all lines, instead of the dots one may in sert a proper name, and there still will be no sense added or lost, namely, as there had been no sense before, so there still will be no sense [after the transposition]” (703), exposes not only the device, but also its intended meaning.

Similar “rearrangement of lines” is used in 1865 in Minaev’s parody “Jubilejnyj motiv. (Komu ugodno)” (RStP 428). In this case, the lack of logical connection be tween the lines as well as between the text and the facts, demonstrates the high de gree of conventionality not of one particular poem, but of all contemporary poems written to honor people at official anniversary celebrations. It exposes this kind of poetry as a cliche in which the words are devoid of any real significance (e.g., “Kog- da na vsex, v kom sila est’, / Smotrela Rus’ v nemom ispuge.../ ( Poet objazan peregest’ / Zdes’ jubiljatora zaslugi.)”).

A specific variation of the device is found in N. Polevoj’s parody of

“PosvjaSgenie Pletnevu” from Evgenij Onegin (RStP 309). In this case, the parodist uses not random transposition, but the reversal of the beginning and the end as a general lowering code, i.e., the last line becomes first, the line before the last be comes second, and so on, until the first line of the original becomes the last line of the parody. Thirty-two years later, the same device is used by Minaev in a parody of

Fet’s poem “Usnulo ozero” (507). In both cases the parodists point out that in spite of the complete reversal of the order of lines, the text still makes sense. They use it as proof that there is no real logical connection between the lines and, consequently, no serious message in the parodied poems.

As Gasparov’s analysis of the second parody shows, the message of Fet’s poem was encoded not by means of the rules of formal logic, but by a specific way of 166 inverting them (339,343,346).^ By restoring the dominance of formal logic, the parody actually voids the specific poetic message. Here, as in the case of the previ ously discussed function of sound in poetry, the crux of the matter is not that the parodist is right and the parodied author is wrong, or vice versa, but that they use different poetic norms. However, amidst the ongoing competition between different literary schools, the implied expectation of the parodist was that the contemporary reader would not only incorporate the knowledge of this difference as part of his/her repertoire, but would deny positive aesthetic (and, quite often, general ideological) authority to the poetics of the parodied party.

The second group of temporary trends used to evaluate the original as “non sense” does not focus on the logical connections between the lines and the words as such, but works with the meaning of the sentences and the situations. The device does not rely on any direct comment. This is an exclusively practical demonstration of cases of “nonsense” and “absurd” in the text of the verse parody. The parodist creates grammatically correct units that do not make sense in themselves. For ex ample, in “Net! ne dolzno radostno / mne, mladoj, tuzit’” (RStP 358) the nonsense is demonstrated by the conflict between the logical incompatibility among the emo tions marked by the adverb “joyfully” (radostno) and those marked by the verb “to grieve” (tuzit*). and the syntactic compatibility between the two parts of speech.

The meaning of “nonsense” can be conveyed also by more subtle stylistic means. For instance, the alleged lyric persona in Prutkov’s “Serenada” tells his sweetheart “Budet v naSej vlasti / Tolkovat’ o mire, / O vrazde, o strasti, / O Gva- dalkvivire” (396)). In order to recognize the “nonsense” in this statement, the read er is expected to realize that “discussing” (tolkovat’) lofty topics such as “the 167

world/universe,” “animosity,” and “passion” is not compatible either with the com

municative situation of serenading in real life, or with the poetic norms of the liter

ary genre. The small talk about the river Guadalquivir is not stylistically compatible

with these elevated subjects, either.

The reader is also expected to seek an explanation for the mixing of these fea tures. He has to decide whether it occurred there because this is a piece of inferior

poetry or because this is a deliberate construction, i.e., a parody, intended to show

that the use of Romantic cliches produces such poetry.

This device of “demonstration” rather than of “comment” in regard to non sense became prominent in Russian verse parody in the 1840s mainly through the

works of I. Panaev who used the pen name “New Poet”. Its popularity increased greatly in the 1850s and the early 1860s.

The preceding analysis of the association of permanent and temporary trends

connected with the motif “accusation of lack of sense” showed that the element of

change is introduced through the new temporary trends, as well as through changes

in the semantics and the evaluation of the already available ones. In spite of the fact

that the latter strategy is much less obvious and, therefore, more challenging as an

object of investigation, it has been studied very little. Except for the article by Tyn- janov mentioned above, little has been done to clarify this particular side of the his torical dynamics of the tradition.

In order to learn more about the nature and the function of this strategy, I will

examine the subtradition of parody of the ode between the second half of the eight

eenth century and the first two decades of the twentieth century. Unlike the steady presence of the permanent trend of “accusation of lack of sense,” the subtradition of 168 parody of the ode progresses at an irregular pace. The considerable distance in time between the individual manifestations of the latter sets out the differences in their functions and semantics.

The first manifestation of this subtradition was the eighteenth-century parody of the ode. It functioned mainly as a means of literary criticism and its dominant semantic message was that of ridicule of the poetics of certain kinds of ode.

During the first two decades of the nineteenth century, the function of inten tional literary criticism gradually withdrew to the background and parody of the ode turned into a traditional comic genre. Accordingly, its semantics changed to that of a general means of humor or ridicule. The effect of laughter was achieved by the discrepancy between the high status of the genre in the normative poetics of Classi cism and the insignificant topics of the individual parodies (e.g., Naximov’s “Oda” (RStP 137), “Pesn’ luze” (147), PuSkin’s “Usy. FilosofiCeskaja oda”).

During the first decade of the century there appeared also another trend which used not the poetics of the genre, but certain ideological and political issues as target of ridicule (e.g., “O ty, prostranstvom neobSirnyj” (RStP 117), “Parodija na odu 9- uju lomonosova” (130)). Due to the political circumstances, it never developed into a dominant trend, but existed as a peripheral, although influential variety. It changed the function and the semantics of the parody of the ode to, respectively, “means of political criticism” and “ridicule of the ideology of Russian autocracy dur ing the reign of Paul I and of the military institutions of the time.”

In the 1820s parody of the ode underwent radical change of function and se mantics. It acquired a function of its own, i.e., was used as a specialized code of adaptation. From this point on, parody of the ode existed in the repertoire of the 169 reader as both an actual literary tradition, and a recognition of its presence in terms of a lowering semantic code. A distinctive feature of its function as a code is the de liberate connection with selected trends from the previous history of the tradition.

The general message conveyed by it is that it is doubly ridiculous to follow models that have already been evaluated as ridiculous. “Oda Xvostovu” (1825) is the most prominent representative of this double function of the tradition in the 1820s. In it, PuSkin ironically mirrored the revival of the poetics of the eighteenth-century ode in the works of Kjuxel’beker. For that purpose he revived the function of parody of the ode as a means of literary criticism.

The reference to the subtradition of parody of the ode is introduced through a rath er sophisticated set of motifs which involves other subtraditions of the tradition of parody as well.

The most obvious of them is the image of Count Xvostov. Tynjanov reasons that Xvostov could be either a parodied author, or “a polemic name used as means of caricature,” i.e., the parody in its essence was not directed at him. The two op tions, however, do not necessarily exclude each other. Xvostov is both a parodied author, since he wrote Classical odes, and a lowering device, since his name had be come an emblem of a parodied author and a target of ridicule in the tradition of the literary society “Arzamas” (1815-17). From the point of view of the structure of the parodic invariant, Xvostov and the genre of ode are the most obvious, but not domi nant originals and targets of ridicule. The relations between the original of parody and the target of ridicule in “Oda Xvostovu” are similar to those in the already ana lyzed parody of Minaev “Ja ne rozden v al’bomy dam” (ch. II, 4.2.1.B.b) 170

“Oda Xvostovu” refers simultaneously to three trends of the tradition of Rus sian verse parody: the one of Arzamas in general, the one of ridiculing Xvostov’s

works in particular, and the one of parody of the ode as genre. They are instrumen

tal for the construction and marking of this particular text because they provide em

blematic originals and, at the same time, function as lowering semantic codes of

adaptation. In the late 1850s and the 1860s, the dominant concern of parody of the ode

changed. The focus of literary criticism moved from the issues of poetics to those of

the relations of literature to political ideology. Ideology was seen as the most impor tant message of literature and literary criticism became a means of social and politi

cal debates. Accordingly, the tradition of parody of the ode as a semantic code was

interpreted not as lowering of the literary models alone, but, above all, of the politi

cal ideology associated with them. The liberal and radical critics of the 1860s used

parody of the ode primarily as criticism of the political ideology of the Russian au

tocracy and the military ideology that was its by-product.

The parodists used the explicit intertextual connection with the eighteenth-

century tradition of parody of the ode in its function as literary criticism in an ironic way. Their actual predecessor was the trend of parody of the ode from the 1800s which, too, ridiculed, although from the point of view of different political and philo sophical convictions, the monarchistic and military ideology. Since the political con

ditions during the 1860s still did not allow the political message to be made explicit,

the parodists resorted to ironic reference to the earlier stage of the tradition.

At the end of the 1850s, interest in eighteenth-century Russian literature was directly connected with the possibility of using it as a historical metaphor in order to 171 convey contemporary political and ideological concerns. In 1859, the influential rad ical critic N. Dobroljubov published in Contemporary the article “Russkaja satira v vek Ekateriny.” In it, he compared eighteenth-century satire to the “denunciatory”

(oblifitel’naja) poetry of the 1850s. His opinion was that they both were futile, be cause neither one attacked the principles of social injustice, but were concerned only with individual manifestations of it. He suggested that contemporary literature should change the target of satire and ridicule while retaining “the veil of joke.” He worked to turn his views into a dominant literary norm by means of his literary criti cism, his own parodies, and his policy as editor of “Svistok” (“Whistle”), the satirical supplement of Contemporary.

Dobroljubov himself did not use parody of the ode as a semantic code, but other parodists who shared his views did. The parodies appeared in the satirical magazine Spark whose positions were close, although not identical, to those of Con temporary. On the surface, the early cases of the revival of the tradition resemble both the tradition of parody of the ode as literary criticism and as a general means of comic literature (e.g., A. Ablesimov’s “Oda poxval’naja avtoru Mel’nika” (RStP

112), S. Marin’s “Na rozdenie molodogo greka” (115), I. Dmitriev’s “Gimn vostorgu” (126), Naximov’s “Oda” (137)).

In 1861, the editor of Spark and well-known parodist V. Kurodkin published three such parodies, i.e., “Vozrozdennyj Panglos,” “Skandal,” and “Oda na pojavlenie v “Svistke” Novogo Poeta” (PI 1:157,166,169). They were part of a rather heated controversy over the works of one of the editors of Contemporary. I. Panaev

(El 1: 734,736). The last two parodies used as originals the structural models of di dactic and laudatory ode. The connection with ode is especially clear in the third 172 text, where the term “ode” appears in the title. The dominant ideological issues in volved in this parody are not very pronounced in the text itself. They are supplied by extraliterary facts which were nevertheless considered an essential part of the liter ary competence of the time. Those facts are that Kurodkin represented the views of the radically minded circles, Voskobojnikov, the critic of Panaev, represented the conservative groups, while Panaev himself was a liberal, rather than a radical writer.

For that reason, KuroCkin’s ridicule ranges from denigrating (in regard to Vosko bojnikov) to mild (in regard to Panaev).

In terms of the text itself, the “veil of joke” is much more transparent in “Skandal” and in another one of KuroCkin’s parodies, “Konskij difiramb” (PI 1:

236), which was published in 1862. In the same year also appeared V. Burenin’s

“Difiramb sovremennoj russkoj presse” (PI 2:713). The last two titles suggest direct intertextual connection with the eighteenth-century tradition by reference to A.

Sumarokov’s parody “Difiramb Pegasu” (RStP 109), a classic example of parody of the ode intended as literary criticism. In the text of “Konskij difiramb” there is also reference to M. Xeraskov’s religious hymn “Kol* slaven na§ Gospod’ v Sione” as one of the originals of the parody.

The dominant targets of ridicule of all these parodies, however, are not the old works of literature or the eclipsed literary schools, but the views of certain contem porary conservative authors, literary critics, and journalists expressed mainly in criti cal articles and reviews. The intention of the parodists is to ridicule not the literary norms and values advocated by them, but their political views. It is thinly veiled by the intertextual metaphor of the eighteenth century ode and the tradition of its parody. 173

A distinctive feature relevant to the function of the parodic tradition as a low ering semantic code is the fact that the reference to it is always introduced by indica tion of several subtraditions. Thus, “Oda Xvostovu,” indicates the traditions of the eighteenth-century parody of the ode, of Arzamas, and of the parody of the image of the poet (i.e., the emblematic function of Xvostov). “Difiramb sovremennoj russkoj presse” indicates the parodic tradition of the eighteenth-century ode, that of

“Spark” in general, and of Kuro5kin’s “Konskij difiramb” in particular (e.g., “Ljubl- ju, kogda Skarjatin dsrzkij / kopytom b’et svoix vragov”). In “Skandal,” KuroCkin al ludes to Sumarokov’s parody, but also to the tradition of Contemporary and Spark by indirectly indicating the contemporary parodists Dobroljubov, Minaev, and Lo- man, and the emblematic parodied poets of the time Rozengeim and SluCevskij. By inscribing markers of the past and contemporary state of the tradition into the indi vidual text the parodist signals that it is the tradition and not just individual works that he uses as a lowering semantic code.

The conflict between the supporters of Romanticism, Aestheticism, and Real ism is made very explicit in Minaev’s “Literaturnye opolCency. Opyt epideskoj poemy” (RStP 420,1863). The Crimean war (1853-6) had inspired a number of au thors to write patriotic poems glorifying the Emperor and the military might of Rus sia. The similarity in the topics and in the sentiments led poets like Majkov, Bene diktov, and Prince Vjazemskij to try to revive certain poetic norms and values of eighteenth-century poetry in general, and of the genre of ode in particular. In a move which resembles that of PuSkin in the 1820s, but is dominated by ideological, rather than literary concerns, the camp of the Realists turned to parody of the ode in order to voice its disagreement with the political sentiments of these authors in a 174

matching literary form.

Minaev’s parody is composed as a miniature play in which the parodied poets

denounce the enemies of Russia and praise Russian arms. Irony is the dominant

type of laughter involved in encoding the message of the parody and in the strategy

of adaptation. Although a great number of lowering semantic codes is used in the seemingly simple composition of the work, I will concentrate only on the ones that involve parody of the eighteenth-century ode.

Major Mixail Burbonov, the inscribed poet created by Minaev and used in a

series of his parodies, participates in the text as a member of the group of the real parodied poets. He is the one who qualifies the text as “a stern ode” (groznaja oda).

The function of this statement is to signal that the genre is one of the originals of the parody.

The quotations from Majkov’s poem “Pamjati Derzavina” and the periphrastic reference to Derzavin as “ten’ pevca Ekateriny” highlight several points expected to be part of the repertoire of the competent contemporary reader: (1) Derzavin as au

thor of odes glorifying Empress Catherine II, (2) the ode as a genre connected with

the ideology of autocracy, (3) the parody of Derzavin’s ode “Bog” by Semenov

(1808) with its ridicule of military ideology, (4) Marin’s “Parodija na odu 9-ju Lomo nosova” with its criticism of both the Russian Emperor and military ideology, and

(5) Majkov’s poem as a representative of the revival of the poetics and ideology of monarchistic odes in the 1850’s and 1860’s.

The lines ascribed to Burbonov “Nu-ka, drugi, priudar’te / Pesni majkovskix vremen” allude to the lowering semantic code of playing balalajka or some other folk instrument (i.e., low poetry) as opposed to lyre or harp (i.e., high poetry). The 175 latter was popular in the eighteenth-century tradition of comic literature and paro dy. For example, “Podaj mne, muza, balalajku, / Xodu ja odu otodrat”’ (RStP 112) or:

Gudok, ne liru, prinimaju, V kabak vxodja, ne na Parnas; Kri£u i glotku razdiraju, S burlakami vznosja moj glas: “Udar’te v bubny, v barabany, v tarelki, lozki i stakany,

S svoej Gomerica balalajkoj I ty, VergiliSka, s dudoj... fPoetv XIII veka 1:164)

In the same year and in the same magazine Russkoe slovo. Minaev published another parody “Kto sija?”(RStP 425) which used as the original Lomonosov’s “Oda na den’ vozSestvija. . . Elisavety Petrovny” (1748). The prose part of his feuilleton

“Dnevnik temnogo £eloveka” into which the verse parody is inserted provides direct information about the actual targets of ridicule, namely, “poems of Prince Vjazem- skij, Benediktov, and A. Majkov.”

Compared to the already discussed verse parodies of the ode, the verse text of

“Kto sija?” lacks the deliberate connection with other trends of the parodic tradi tion. The complementary distribution of the original and the target of ridicule in the verse text and the prose context, respectively, is still another difference. These devi ations from the 1860s model of using the tradition of parody of ode as a code proba bly result from the parodist’s awareness that the model had become already part of the competence of the contemporary reader. The parodist expected him to recog nize and interpret the parody according to the already familiar model, in spite of the changes introduced in this version of it. Such an implied interpretative strategy is a sign that by the middle of 1863 this function of parody of the ode had been 176

recognized by both the encoders and the decoders as a specific trend within the more general subtradition.

At the beginning of the twentieth century the interest in eighteenth-century

poetry and in the ode as its emblematic genre was revived once again. The literary

school which cultivated it was Russian Symbolism. The high aesthetic authority of the return to old literary forms and values was based on the positive interpretation

of “old” in the sense of “ancient,” “classical,” “wise,” “solemn,” “honored ancestor,”

etc. The parodies of Symbolism countered this semantic chain with the low value of

“old” when interpreted as “old-fashioned,” “irrelevant,” “senile,” “cliche,” “less ad vanced,” etc.

Since the return to archaic poetic and stylistic devices was particularly promi

nent in the works of Vjafieslav Ivanov, he became the emblem of this particular

tendency within Russian Symbolism. As one might expect, the tradition of parody of

the ode as a lowering semantic code was used in the parodies which had selected his works as a target of ridicule (e.g., RStP 639,640,641). The main similarity between

the twentieth century parodies of the ode, the eighteenth-century ones, and those of the 1820s is that literary criticism is their dominant function. The difference be tween them and the parodies of the 1860s is that they do not regard the function of ideological criticism as a dominant one.

Twentieth-century parody of the ode utilizes a variety of forms produced by

the tradition. For example, in his parody of Vjadeslav Ivanov’s poetry, Aleksandr

Izmajlov actually gives a list of poets whose works had been previously used as origi nals and targets of ridicule in a number of well-known parodies. This list of names testifies that the parodist knew and intentionally applied the tradition of parody of 177 the ode as a lowering semantic code: Dokol’ v piitax ziv Ivanov Vjafieslav, - Vzbodrjas’ volxvuet Tred’jakovskij... Sokrovnyj mne v volSbe iz krugovratnyx pu££, Vzrevev, vozrevnoval Derzavin.

Kogda b, predteda moj, mog Kjuxel’beker zit’, - Izmlev, o mne by on vzygralsja! (RStP 640)

Izmajlov’s list of the parodied authors follows the chronology of the non-parodic literary tradition, i.e., V. Trediakovskij (1703-68), G. Derzavin (1743-1816), V.

Kjuxel’beker (1797-1846). The latter is different from the chronology of the paro dies of those poets. As it has been already pointed out, Minaev parodied an ode by Lomonosov (1711-1764) thirty-seven years after PuSkin had written a parody of the odes of Xvostov (1757-1835) and Kjuxel’beker (1797-1846).

Chronology is a distinctive feature which is essential for the identity of the tra dition. There are two related issues concerning it. One is the actual dates when the individual texts were written, published, and republished. It provides information about their succession in time. The other one is the question of the chronological stages in the development of the tradition. While the first issue is entirely within the domain of literary history, the second one belongs to both the history and the theory of literature.

Studies of the history of Russian verse parody determine the chronological stages of the tradition either by means of the non-parodic works used as originals

(i.e., literary schools, genres, and authors) or by the dating of the parodies. In the latter case, the divisions do not represent the actual chronological stages of the tra dition itself, but follow the segmentation of literary history as used in surveys of Rus sian literature (e.g.. Istoriia russkoj literaturv. “Russkaja literatura” (LES). and in 178

studies of certain historical periods (e.g., Poety VIII veka, Poety 1790-1810-x godov”). The basic unit of this convention is the decade. The next step up is the

century. They both can be subdivided into quarters and halves. The closest that

studies of Russian verse parody come to the actual chronology of its tradition are the

cases when the scholars discuss such specific phenomena as the subtradition of pa rodic pseudonyms complete with pseudobiography (e.g., Novyj poet, Jakov Xam,

Koz’ma Prutkov) or the switch from the comic effect evoked by explicit semantic

and/or stylistic discrepancies to that evoked by the irony hidden behind close imita

tion of the parodied original.

The chronology of the tradition as a process cannot be determined without adequate knowledge of the competition between the various structural models and

subtraditions for the dominant position, but neither the factors, nor the functions have been studied systematically yet.

2. The Historical Dynamics of the Tradition

Although the Russian Formalists were the first to consider parody as factor in the historical dynamics of literature, they never investigated the question of whether

the tradition of parody itself follows the general pattern of “literary evolution” sug gested by them. From the time of the official ban on Formalism in general in the early 1930s up to the late 1950s such a problem was simply off limits for Soviet scholars. Western students of parody or theoreticians of literature did not raise it, either. Even after the renewed interest in Formalism began in the late 1950s and early 1960s, still no one considered the issue. As far as the study of the historical dy namics of Russian verse parody is concerned, all along there have been observations 179 on individual trends within the tradition, but no comprehensive study has been pro duced.

The expert on the history of Russian verse parody, A. Morozov, for example, notes that there was “an entire historical trend in the development of parody” (RStP

54). He draws the chronological boundaries of this trend in a very general way by saying that “from N. Polevoj to M. Mixajlov and I. Panaev parody was content with ironic stylization.” The dating of the pieces of parody by reference to these authors situates the trend between the end of 1820s and the mid-1850s. In order to specify the upper chronological boundary of the period, one must take into account also the following opinion of Morozov:

“Mystifying ironic imitation could not satisfy both the parodist and the reader for very long. More salt and pepper, ridicule and spite was needed. In order to preserve its right to exist, parody had to become merrier. It ma tured and acquired life and literary wisdom in the person of Koz’ma Prut kov. Koz’ma Prutkov was the creative find that met the imminent need for renovating literary parody” (55).

Obviously, Morozov regards Prutkov’s works as something different from the subtradition of “ironic stylization.” He considers them not only successors, but also a new stage in the historical dynamics of Russian verse parody. One can agree with this opinion, but only in a very general way. Morozov’s empirical investigation as well as that of a number of other students of Russian verse parody, is not intended to reach the finer details of intertextuality, on one hand, and does not have the facili ties that permit examination of the facts in broader perspective, on the other.

Although correct in general, Morozov’s description of “ironic stylization” is too cursory to be used in its genuine form as basis for further analysis. Morozov uses such distinctive features as “abominable resemblance to those [poets] whom he [Pa naev = New Poet] parodied,” dispensing with “the grotesque development of 180 parody” (53), and relying “not upon explicit comic effect, but upon ironic reading [of the original].” In order to make his system of terms compatible with the one used in this work, one must realize that the texts which he had in mind follow patterns that range from the classical to the minimally marked adaptation (see here ch. II, 3). He has noticed only certain aspects of what has been defined in Chapter Two here as dominance of the specialized codes of adaptation over the general ones, irony as a dominant kind of laughter, and ironic reading of the original (ch. II, 4).

Morozov did not realize that what he called ironic stylization was a specific his torical manifestation of the more general trend of minimally marked adaptation. That is why he did not explore the intertextual connection between the subtradition of “ironic stylization” and a number of parodies that employ the same variant of adaptation, but appeared either before 1829, or after 1855. He did not realize also the actual range of the functions of “ironic stylization” as a factor in the historical dynamics of the tradition. Here, it became possible to notice the intertextual con nections and the functional significance of “ironic stylization” because of the investi gation of the synchronic structural patterns (ch. II) and of the distinctive features of the parodic tradition (ch. Ill, 1).

This broader perspective also permits one to see that the historical dynamics of Russian verse parody (1815-70) is perpetuated by two internal factors, namely, by the minimally marked and the maximally marked adaptation of the original. Their function is to compete for the dominant position in the process of structuring of the text at any moment of the development of the tradition. The fact that the former factor is dominated by the strategy of simulation of the original and the latter one by that of change creates the tension necessary for fueling the historical dynamics. The 181

contrast between the implied emotional response of the reader, namely, the domi nance of irony, on one hand, and of “carnival” (“folk”) laughter, on the other, is

another source that energizes the dynamics of the tradition.

“Dominance” is the key concept for understanding the process. Since there is

always a subtradition of minimally marked adaptation, as well as a subtradition of a

maximally marked one, the issue is not of the presence or the absence of one of the

factors, but of the extent of their influence over the poetics of parody at a given

time. It is also important to realize that “dominance” is not just a matter of the

number of texts, but also of the influence of the texts over the present and future state of the system. Therefore, it is a matter of the perception of the competent con temporary and historical readers, as well.

This perspective requires a substantial correction of the way the trend of “iron ic stylization” is perceived by present-day literary theoreticians and historians. This

chronologically specific trend is not the only instance when minimally marked adap

tation was used in Russian verse parody; it is the instance when this strategy was used and perceived as a dominant norm in the poetics of parody.

Because of space constraints, only a limited amount of the analyzed material

can be introduced as proof of the validity of the above conclusions. The first sam

ples considered below demonstrate that both variants of adaptation coexisted be

fore, after, and during the time of the “ironic stylization.” Two pairs of parodies of the genre of elegy provide excellent evidence of the situation before 1829.

The pair consisting of Permskij’s “Elegija” (RStP 121,1763) and M. Popov’s

“Elegija” (122,1769) documents the coexistence of the two strategies as early as the

1760s. Both parodies have the same original and target of ridicule, i.e., the genre of 182

Classical elegy. The strategies of adaptation of the original, however, are different. Permskij’s work is produced by means of maximally marked adaptation. The high topics of elegy, i.e., lament and suffering because of unhappy love, are consist ently lowered by a variety of general codes. As the segment of the text below dis plays, the low counterparts are introduced by means of a series of semantic opposi tions such as suicide by drowning vs. bathing in the river, illness caused by unhappy love vs. sickness caused by gluttony, insomnia because of psychological depression vs. staying awake because of bedbugs.

X reke bez straxa ja stremilsja, Za uzinom ja fruktov el. No tol’ko liS* kupalsja v nej. Ja nod’ pokoju zdu naprasno, Oplakivaja vremja strogo, Mne son ne mozet glaz somknut’. V bolezn zestokuju priSel, No pravda, dto klopy vsedasno No lekar’ mne skazal, dto mnogo I bloxi ne dajut usnut’.

In contrast to this, the adaptation of the original in Popov’s parody does not apply any general semantic codes as motives in the text. Its main lowering device is the specialized code of permitted level of repetition in poetry vs. excessive level of repetition.

Prosti, prekrasnaja, zivi ty v toj strane, Ty dasto vozdyxaj o pladuSdem, o mne, £alej menja, zalej, kak ja zaleju, Ja v serdce, ja tebja odnu, ja, svet, imeju. Prosti, prosti, prosti, e§de skazu prosti, Ty vmeste ty ko mne s ljubov’ju ty rasti. (123)

A note in prose identifies the target of irony, “I became attracted to the fre quent repetition of words and because of that I gathered them in a pile and named this composition an elegy; as far as my intention is concerned, even a slow-witted reader would be able to realize from my verses what it is” (689). Obviously, the ex cessive repetition of motives, phrases, and words in verse parody is intended to con vey the notion of the cliche as a lowering counterpart of poetry. The kind of 183 laughter elicited as emotional response of the reader here is irony rather than the “carnival” (“folk”) laughter elicited by Permskij’s parody. The note makes clear the intention of the author to work with the norms of “repetition of words” in poetry, which means that his adaptation deals with repetition as a specific literary and not as a general comic device. This solves the question of whether the repetition was in tended as a specialized or as a general semantic code, in favor of the former propo sition.

The other pair of parodies of elegy, both published in 1821, displays a chrono logically later, but otherwise similar case of the coexistence of the two variants of adaptation. Although this time the original of parody and target of ridicule is not Classical, but Romantic elegy, the maximally marked adaptation still uses general codes similar to those of its predecessor from the 1760s. The suffering described in the elevated style of elegy is actually toothache.

I ja, otverzennyj, ja mudus’ vse - zubami!

Ax! ne v progulkax li bespednyx Po etim aadam i sadam Podstergla menja lukavaja prostuda? Ne eti 1’ lakomye bljuda Predugotovili sverSenno eju zlo? (RStP 160)

The minimally marked text uses trivial Romantic motives and expressions

(cliches) as a specialized code. Compared to its forerunner, i.e., Popov’s parody of

1769, it is a much closer imitation of the original. It is much more difficult to identify the lowering semantic code of this adaptation, if the reader has at his disposal the verse text alone.

Moldit ugrjumyj b o r. . . lud solnca dogoraet. .. BrodjaSdij veterck v listodkax um iraet... S bezbreznoj vysoty Proxlada snizoSla na lone temnoty. (158) 184

The increase in the level of similarity shows that both the encoder and the de coder have become more experienced and sophisticated in their handling of mini mally marked adaptation. Still, the producer is not willing to trust the interpretation of the verse parody to the reader alone. As in the case of the parody from the

1760’s, here, too, he provides markers of adaptation outside the verse parody. The markers are the motto from Horace “Nugae canorae” (sonorous trifles), the ironic note in prose, allegedly by the editor, which actually conveys the motive of “accusa tion of lack of sense,” and the pseudonym of the parodist, i.e., Podrazaev

(Imitation).

Other examples of minimally marked adaptation before the end of the 1820s are A. Saxovskoj’s “Romans” (RStP 139), N. Certelev’s cycle of parodies “Nemno- goe dlja mnogix” (165), PuSkin’s “Oda Xvostovu,” etc.

After the period of “ironic stylization,” namely, in the second half of the 1850s and in the early 1860s, N. Dobroljubov, the group of A. Tolstoj and the Brothers

2em£uznikov (i.e., Koz’ma Prutkov), D. Minaev, and other parodists used both minimally and maximally marked adaptation. In 1860, Dobroljubov even created the parodic image of the poet Apollon Kapel’kin by means of verse parodies based exclusively on minimally marked adaptation (RStP 403-12).

The works of the main representatives of the trend of “ironic stylization,” on the other hand, demonstrate the coexistence of the two strategies during the period of the dominance of minimally marked adaptation. For example, Polevoj’s almanac

“PoetiCeskaja depuxa” (1829-32) contains a large number of minimally marked verse parodies. Among them is even one of the classical representatives of this structuring strategy, “Russkaja pesnja” (RStP 323). In his diary, V. Kjuxel’beker left the 185 following information about the way this parody was perceived by the competent contemporary reader, “Fate played a strange trick on the creator of the parody - the song came out not bad at all; therefore, it may be called a bit too close, but quite successful imitation, rather than a parody of Del’vig’s song” (qtd. in RStP 734).

In the same almanac, however, one also finds a case of maximally marked adaptation. The parodied work is PuSkin’s epigram “Sobranie nasekomyx” and the target of ridicule is A. PuSkin and the poets of the so-called PuSkin’s Circle, namely,

N. Jazykov, E. Baratynskij, A. Del’vig, V. Kjuxel’beker, and, probably, P. Katenin

(RStP 332,732). The original applies the general code of “low” insects as a lowering device. Polevoj’s parody retains the use of a general code, but replaces the “low in sects” of the original by the close semantic variation of “low” plants. It also retains the “carnival” laughter as intended emotional response.

Vot Glinka - bozija korovka, Vot Russkoj belenv sem’ja. Vot Kadenovskij - zloj pauk. Pvrel Livonli udalyj, Vot i Svin’in - rossijslqj zuk. I Finskij nas dertopolox. Vot Olin - dernaja muraSka, I mak Germanii zavjalyj, Vot Raid - melkaja bukaSka. I drevnix Ellinov gorox. (A. PuSkin) (N. Polevoj)

Likewise, among the parodies of Panaev, the overwhelming majority of which are minimally marked, one finds such an excellent example of maximally marked adaptation as “Serenada” (RStP 389). There, the exotic Spanish setting character istic for the genre is consistently lowered by substituting details from the low class

Russian lifestyle and by the “low” style of the language: Uz nod’, Akulina! Okresnosti spjat; Vse ziteli Klina Davno uz xrapjat. 186

The coexistence of the two variants of adaptation in Russian verse parody

leads to the question of their interaction. In general, the latter may be described in

the following way. Within the tradition they act as two opposite poles connected by

both contrast and gradual transformation of functions. Due to the contrast they are

capable of functioning as opposite poles, due to the transformation, they have the

capacity for switching between dominance and subordination. Since each of the variants of adaptation has its own norms which regulate the “authorized transgres

sion” of the original, the connection by contrast produces a series of binary opposi tions.

The sets of norms for transgressing the norms of the original are the following:

maximallv marked adaptation vs. minimally marked adaptation

Dominated by: Dominated by:

change of the original vs. simulation of the original

general semantic codes vs. specialized semantic codes

’’carnival” ('“folk”') laughter vs. ironv

active encoder vs. active decoder

clear indication of positive vs. ambiguous indication of positive & negative authority & negative authority

The above sets of norms allow one to regard the maximally marked adaptation an “authorized transgression” of the minimally marked one and vice versa. The fact that each one of the variants of adaptation is, at the same time, a strategy of trans gressing the norms of the original, means that at the level of their interaction they 187 function as “authorized transgression” of an “authorized transgression.” If one ac cepts Hutcheon’s definition of parody as “authorized transgression” (ch. 1,2.9) than the latter structure may be regarded as closely related to the issue of parody of parody.

Either of the two variants of adaptation can function as an agent of the histori cal dynamics of parody in the same way in which parody works as a factor in the dy namics of literature in general. In every particular case, only one of the two ex tremes acts as a functional equivalent of parody; the other one serves as a functional equivalent of the parodied set of norms. It is important to note that the variant of adaptation which functions as a parodied original ought to preserve its connection with the structural invariant of parody. It is exactly this connection that makes the variant of adaptation a factor in the historical dynamics of the tradition of parody. If the connection is lost, the process will concern the historical dynamics of a literary tradition other than that of parody.

This view permits one to realize the basic difference between the historical dy namics of parody and the historical dynamics of literature. In the former process, the structure of parody itself supplies both factors, namely, the agent of change is the subordinate variant of adaptation, while the factor of continuity is the dominant one. In the latter, parody is an agent of change, while the non-parodic work is an agent of continuity.

The outlined model of the interaction between the agents of continuity and change within the tradition of parody concerns only one of the two tracks which con nect the poles, i.e., the one of contrast. The empiric material, however, includes a large number of works which use various combinations of the two strategies. This 188 means that the other track, i.e., the gradual transformation of functions, is also a nec essary component of the historical dynamics of the tradition. Due to it, the competi tion between the opposite poles never ends with absolute victory for one of them. In order to demonstrate how the second track works, I will analyze as a sample the subtradition of parody of didactic poetry, more precisely, of fable, parable, and apologue (moral fable) between 1815 and 1859. Present Soviet sources use fable as an umbrella term that covers fable in a narrow sense, parable, and apologue.^ I will use parody of fable in the same manner, i.e., it will cover parody of fable in a narrow sense, of parable, and of apologue.

At the time of Arzamas (1815-18), the maximally marked adaptation func tioned as a dominant subtradition. The literary society was founded upon “carnival” laughter and, consequently, upon extensive use of general semantic codes as lower ing devices in both its production of general cultural texts (e.g., the rituals - parodies such as the roasted duck dinners, the red fool’s hat, the inversion of the Masonic rit uals of initiation and purification, etc.) and its production of verbal texts (e.g., the pseudonyms, the speeches of the members, the minutes of the gatherings).

However, Arzamas also produced and endorsed parodies of fable which used varieties of adaptation ranging from classical to minimally marked. Since Arzamas was a literary group which was on its way to becoming a dominant factor in Russian poetry, this served as a strong impetus for the transformation of the subordinate function of minimally marked adaptation into a dominant one.

The traditional target of ridicule of the Arzamasian parodies of fable are the works of Count Xvostov. “His parables,” — Morozov writes, — “were perceived as parodies. The “Arzamasian parables” written as imitations of his, were not only 189

parodies, but also a mocking act of creativity a Ja Xvostov...” (RStP 35). Evidently,

the members of Arzamas practiced both reader’s parody (i.e., read Xvostov’s para

bles as parodies) and minimally marked parody (i.e., wrote parodies by simulating the form of the originals).

Xvostov’s fables were parodied not only by the poets of Arzamas, but also by I. Krylov who, like Xvostov, was member of the literary society “Colloqium of Lovers

of the Russian Word.” In spite of the fact that the parodists were members of liter

ary groups with conflicting aesthetic norms, they applied the same strategy of adap

tation. They did not use general semantic codes to change the original, nor did they turn to carnival laughter as elicited effect of the adaptation.

Some readers might disagree with the latter assertion, especially in connection with Krylov’s parodies (RStP 291-92). Indeed, at first glance texts like “Vdrug volk / ...IK nim v dveri - tolk. / Davaj kri£at’ / 1 komara kusat’” seem perfect examples

of “carnival” laughter and general semantic codes used as lowering devices. There is

no question as to the presence of “carnival” laughter and general lowering codes in both Krylov’s and the Arzamasian parodies. The point is that there they do not function in the way they would in a parody of elegy, ode, or ballad, because the orig inal itself uses them in its own poetics. In a parody of fable, general codes and “car nival” laughter do not function exclusively as a means of lowering change. They are used as a technique of imitating the original, as well. This situation makes one recall the theoretical dispute over the question of whether the parody of “comedy” is

“tragedy” or not (ch. 1,2. 5.1).

In view of the insufficient theoretical examination of the question of parody of comic literary works, empiric analysis must proceed cautiously. As an initial step, 190 one must specify the general norms of the poetics of Russian fable in the 18th and the first half of the 19th century with regard to the general lowering codes and laugh ter as an intended emotional effect. According to the Classical poet A. Sumarokov, a prolific producer of fables himself (334), fable (parable) is a “low” genre, which uses coarse language. Sumarokov’s works established the characteristic of the genre as a “miniature comedy of manners”(“Basnja,” KLE). Later Classicists such as I.

Xemnicer, Krylov, Dmitriev, etc., preserved the “low” topics and characters of the plot, but moved the stylistic emphasis from Sumarokov’s “vulgarisms” to the collo quial language and the middle literary style. The proponent of Realism, V. Belinskij remarked that “story and goal” constitute “the essence of fable,” and the “main characteristics” of the latter are “satire and irony” (8:576).

The description of fable in KLE notes that the “aphoristically formulated con clusion, instruction in ethics, or moral are given either at the end or at the beginning of the fable.” What it does not mention is the distribution of the comic mode of in terpretation between the components of “story” and “aphoristic instruction.” There was a strong tendency to concentrate the comic mode in the “story” and to render the “instruction” in a serious one.

The story consisted of two levels: (1) the plot with its “low” actions, characters

(low class people, animals, objects), and circumstances, and (2) the allegoric inter pretation of the plot. The level of the plot always lowered the story through general semantic codes in order to produce the intended comic effect. The element of alle gory implied that such features as conversing animals or objects were not to be iden tified as nonsense, but as didactic personification. Along with conveying the didactic message of the fable, the “instruction” had also the function of indicating the 191 presence of the allegoric level of the story.

In the parody of fable, it is precisely the didactic message that is affected by the lowering technique. The adaptation usually applies the motif of lack of sense. The accusation may be shaped either as a direct statement or as a demonstration. The maximally marked adaptation uses a direct statement which may, or may not be ac companied by a demonstration. The minimally marked one uses only demonstra tion.

Another way of lowering the didactic message without using general codes is that of the trite moral, namely, the “instruction” instructs nothing that is worth learn ing. The irony encoded by the latter device is stronger and more precisely targeted at the utilitarian function of the genre than that used in connection with the “dem onstration of nonsense.”

The device of demonstration of nonsense dominates the poetics of the paro dies of Xvostov’s fables. The parodies written by Krylov use both demonstration of nonsense (“I so steny pauk I... I Upal, lezit, / Oskalil zuby / 1 Sopotom skvoz’ zuby /

Vot dto kridit,” RStP 291) and trite conclusion (“I mne priSlos’ skazat’ tut kstati, / £to sil’nyj slabogo nedavno pogubil” 292). The Arzamasian ones use demonstration of nonsense and trite moral even more extensively:

V strane, gde penitsja IrtyS’, 2ila i prozivala myS’, A mozet byt’ i krysa. Ona, kak baba Vasilisa, Vse veselilasja, ne dumaja o tom, Cto, mozet byt’, pridet ej vstretit’sja s kotom. A kot zverok izvestnoj, I s ryla, i s xvosta premiloj, preprelestnoj A popadis’ emu, tak budet tesno. MjauCit kot, A my§’ piSiit i, prygaja, idet kotu navstreSu. Kot mySku szal Cetoju lap - 192

I v mig ee on cap-carap. Smysl basenki moej ja vam, druzja, zamedu: My zdes’ zivem, K bedam plyvem; Rok - kot, muz£ina - krysa; A baba vsjakaja - takaja z Vasilisa. (295-96)

In the Arzamasian parodies there are two direct statements accusing the paro died author of lack of sense. The first one appears in the dedication in verse:

No ty, moj mecenat, vzgliani na eti pritSi, V nix, mozet byt’, najdeS ty mnogo di£i, No na sebja penjaj: ja b ix ne napisal, Kogda tebja by ne Cital. (294)

The second one is placed in the parody “Oxotnik i plotnik” (“Citateli prostjat, ja ne grammatik, / A prosto basnoslov - lunatik”) (299). These cases of maximally marked parody found among the minimally marked ones are particularly instructive. They show that Prince Vjazemskij and, probably, other members of Arzamas, could, but elected not to use this kind of adaptation more extensively. The minimally marked adaptation is present in nine of the ten parodies. This ratio means that at the time of Arzamas minimally marked parody had become a rather influential, al though still subordinate, strategy in the tradition of Russian verse parody.

It became a dominant strategy in the parody of fable ten years later when the tradition of Arzamasian parody of Xvostov’s fables was revived and transformed by

N. Jazykov and, probably, A. PuSkin. The originals of these parodies were I.

Dmitriev’s “edifying quatrains” (RStP 303-5). This time, all twelve parodies are produced by means of minimally marked adaptation. The difference is that the am biguity of the functions of positive and negative literary authority is intensified by the decision to avoid obvious nonsense and use only trite conclusions to demonstrate the lack of sense. 193

Nad lebedem zelaja posmejat’sja, Gus’ tynoiu ego odnazdy zamaral; No lebed vymilsja i snova belym stal. Cto delat’, esli kto zam aran?.. Umyvat’sja. The laughter intended as emotional response of the reader, is irony rather

than direct ridicule, since the parodists do not use the potential of the plot for lexical

and/or thematic lowering of the original. Dmitriev’s fables were perceived by the

contemporary reader as more “graceful” than those of his predecessors. The mini

mally marked parody evidently imitates this smoothing over of the language and the imagery of the fable characteristic of its original. In a similar fashion, at least part of the nonsense in the parodies of the fables

of Xvostov was imitation of the nonsense produced unintentionally by the parodied author himself. Xvostov had no real feeling of literary style.

Although he knew the rules of Classical poetics, he got lost as soon as he made a step beyond the basic conventions. As the lines “Oslu v rot ne vlozi razumny raz- govory, / Ni filinu, sove ne daj prekrasny vzory.” (RStP 722) demonstrate, for exam ple, he was aware that there were patterns of compatibility between attributes and characters in the fable. Nevertheless, in “Lev i klop” he came up with the line “klop gordyj nekogda svirepa l’va kusaja” (RStP 721).

The phrase was not intended as a lowering technique (i.e., a low subject de scribed in high style), since the rest of the fable is rendered in a rather coarse style.

It is simply one of the many results of the stylistic insensitivity of the Count. It makes the impression of nonsense, because even the rather liberal genre of fable could not absorb such a stylistically incompatible combination as “proud bedbug”.

A series of such quotations of Xvostov’s unintentional nonsensical phrases was published in 1866 as an extended motto to the Arzamasian parodies of his fables 194

(written in 1815 or 1816). In the lines “Inye, razum ves’ vkljutfaja v sladost’ uxa, / Ne trebujut v stixax ni vymisla, ni duxa,” the metaphor/metonymy “sladost’ uxa” (the sweetness of the ear) used in the traditional semantic motif sound vs. thought is so clumsy that the text reads as nonsense. It is up to the reader to interpret the non sensical text as bad poetry or as unintentional parody. Another of those quotations achieves the same result not by means of stylistically incompatible combinations or poor figures of speech, but by entangled semantic structures such as “If something is not agreeable for someone, / to that one, of course, that / is not needed for anything”

(Komu protivno Sto. / Tomu. konefrio. to / ne nado ni na £to).

The analysis of the dynamics of the subtradition of parody of fable shows that the dominance of minimally marked adaptation was finally established in 1826 or 1827 with the parodies of Dmitriev’s “edifying quatrains” by Jazykov and PuSkin.

This is a couple of years earlier than the suggested lower chronological boundary of

“ironic stylization.”

The parody of fable was a pioneer in regard to the dominance of minimally marked adaptation. The fact that the fable was a rather popular genre of Classical poetics made the original/target of ridicule relevant in terms of the contemporary dynamics of literature. In the 1810s and 1820s, the parody of fable was a productive trend from the point of view of the historical dynamics of the tradition of parody it self. It was a productive trend also in terms of the dynamics of literature in general

(e.g., its function in the competition between the schools of Classicism, Sentimental ism, and Romanticism).

In addition to this, the minimally marked adaptation was a very effective strategy, because as “wise,” i.e., didactic poetry fable was particularly sensitive to 195 accusations of lack of sense.The allegorical interpretation of its “story” provided one more way for introducing nonsense by realizing the metaphors and/or the personifi cations. These features enabled the minimally marked adaptation to assume the function of the dominant strategy faster and easier than it happened in the other subtraditions of Russian verse parody. The following period (1827-51) is charac terized by the expansion of the dominant function of minimally marked adaptation over the other genres, especially over lyrics. Having fulfilled the function of a path- breaking experiment, the parody of fable moved to the periphery of the action. The parodies written during this time either follow the already established dominant pat tern of adaptation (N. Polevoj)^ or test new specialized codes for lowering the

“story” of the fable (I. Mjatlev).^

The next turn in the historical dynamics of the subtradition began with

Prutkov’s parodies of fable published in 1851. They initiated the decline of the dominance of the minimally marked adaptation. Like the ascent, the decline was a process which did not begin simultaneously in every one of the genres participating as originals in the “ironic stylization.” Another similarity between the two processes is that within the individual subtraditions the changes were introduced gradually, rather than abruptly.

Parody of fable, once again, served as a pioneer. In terms of the internal dy namics of the tradition of parody, the ability of fable to generate nonsense was the main reason for its revival. Unlike the situation at the time of the ascent of the strategy, this time fable was not really a relevant component of the general literary process. Classicism and, respectively, fable were already history. The contemporary literary controversy revolved around the schools of Romanticism, Aestheticism, and 196

Realism, none of which cultivated the genre.

Why then did the 2em£uznikov brothers and A. K. Tolstoj, people well versed in literature, turn to the parody of fable at all? Questions of this kind have been of ten asked by the students of Prutkov’s parodies. The general consensus is that the fables of K. Masal’skij, also published in 1851, were neither their real original, nor their actual target of ridicule. My interpretation of the Masal’skij - Prutkov connec tion is that Masal’skij’s fables served mostly as means of drawing the attention of the parodists to the tradition of parody of fable, rather than to themselves.

Prutkov’s parodies refer to the subtradition of parody of fable in the same way in which PuSkin’s “Oda Xvostovu” refers to the trend of parody of the ode. They are not only a continuation of the respective subtradition, but also a new stage of its his torical dynamics. They use the presence of the subtradition in the repertoire of both the parodist and the reader of parody in order to produce a new specialized code of adaptation. The validity of this interpretation of the function of Prutkov’s fables is proven by the fact that it explains why the aesthetically irrelevant original not only did not hinder the productivity of the subtradition, but, on the contrary, boosted it greatly.

This happened because fable was aesthetically relevant in an indirect way, namely, as a metonymy of didactic poetry. In turn, didactic poetry was pertinent to the issue of the utilitarian and non-utilitarian functions of literature and the contro versy over their evaluation. At this new stage of the subtradition of parody of fable, the genre of fable was no longer the dominant target of ridicule. In general, the new target may be described as “lack of appreciation of the conventional nature of litera ture on part of both the encoders and the decoders of the literary texts.” 197

Since Prutkov’s parodies were written during a period of almost a decade, the target of ridicule underwent certain transformations. In the works published in

1851, the target remains close to the traditional accusation that didactic literature of fers trivial and useless counsel (see the Arzamasian parodies of fable and of those of

Jazykov and PuSkin).

In the parodies published between 1853 and 1855, the irony puts to trial the general literary norm. It challenges the assumption that the message which the reader decodes is necessarily the same one that had been encoded in the text by the author. The parodies demonstrate that the interpretation of the reader is not de termined exclusively by the intention of the individual encoder, but also by the rules of the reader’s horizon of expectations.

In the parody published in 1859, the target of irony concerns the counterpart of the above literary norm, i.e., the assumption that the message is not encoded by the author, but is produced by the reader in the process of interpretation of the work. The parody examines the limits of the author’s dependence upon the horizon of reader’s expectations in the act of interpreting the literary work.

The analysis of the actual texts helps one understand how the change in the function of parody of fable led to the decline of the dominance of the minimally marked adaptation. The three groups of texts outlined in relation to the transforma tions of the target of irony are also relevant to the techniques of demonstration of nonsense. P. Berkov noted the internal difference between the parodies “Nezabud- ki i zapjatki,” “Konduktor i tarantul,” and “Caplja i begovye drozki,” and the rest of

Prutkov’s fables. He attributed it to the extensive use of the technique of “inten tional lack of logic, and, at times, absurdity” (Koz’ma Prutkov 31). Aside from the 198

somewhat disapproving attitude toward the use of nonsense, Berkov’s observation

that the three texts differ from the rest of Prutkov’s parodies of fable is correct. The

reason for this difference, however, is more complicated than the one given by him.

The three parodies have perfected the use of nonsense and trite conclusions as

lowering counterparts to the “story” and the moralistic point of the genre. The con nection with the composition, techniques, and some of the specialized codes of the

Arzamasian parodies (e.g., “Dozd’,” “Prosvirnja i Sornik,” “Oxotnik i plotnik,”

“Kon&na korovy”) is not difficult to notice. One of the obvious similarities is that

they, too, consist of a story, which comes first, and a clearly marked moralistic point.

However, in Prutkov’s texts the ratio between these components in terms of

size is different. The “story” is shortened considerably, while the “conclusion,” al ways presented as a direct statement of the parodist addressed to the reader, is quite

extended. As a result, the “story” becomes approximately as long as the “conclu

sion.” The actual ratio between the number of lines is 4:6,10: 6, and 6:9; and the

total is 20:21. In the Arzamasian parodies the “story” is several times longer than

the “conclusion”. For example, 10: 3 (“Dozd”’), 29: 4 (“Prosvirnja i Sornik”), 47: 4 (“KonCina korovy”); and a total of 86:11.

Another specific feature of Prutkov’s parodies is that the logic of the “stories”

is rather deficient. At the level of the literal meaning, there are details that are ir relevant, strange, or both (e.g., the bouquet of forget-me-nots in the hand of the footman riding on the footboard of the carriage; the desire of the Russian nobleman

to have legs as long as those of a heron). These narrative motifs do not really have a logical connection with the moral of the “conclusion” at the level of the allegoric in terpretation of the “story. Thus, in “Konduktor i tarantul” it remains unclear 199 whether a reader who desires to travel without money would be only chased out, or chased out and killed, as happened to the tarantula. Moreover, the stable and mo- nosemantic symbolism of the tarantula as a deadly dangerous creature makes it an absolutely illogical allegory of a person whose only sin is to be riding without a ticket.

The conclusion of “Nezabudki i zapjatki” reveals the technique of parodying the “story” by a demonstration of lack of logic through irrelevant and/or miscon- nected details rather directly:

Citatel’! v basne sej otkinuv nezabudki, Zdes, pome§£ennye dlja Sutki, Ty tol’ko eto zakljudi: Kol’ budut u tebja mozoli, To, Ctoby izbavit’sja ot boli, Ty, kak PaxomyC na§, ix kamforoj left. (10)

The size of the “story” and of the “conclusion”, as well as the ratio between them, are features that are characteristic neither for the original of Prutkov’s paro dies, i.e., the genre of fable, nor for the tradition of its parody which precedes them.

The increased use of change in the process of adaptation signals that the dominance of minimally marked adaptation has been disturbed.

This step away from imitating the form of fable is accompanied by another change. This time it takes place in the poetics of the subtradition of parody alone.

Prutkov’s parodies change the target of irony. The dominant target of their prede cessors is fable as a representative of the poetics of Classicism. In them, irony keeps the positive evaluation of didactic literature, in order to blame certain Classical fables that they are unable to perform the didactic function of the genre, because their counsel is worthless.

Prutkov’s parodies reinterpret the preceding stage of the subtradition. Fable is considered not as representative of Classical poetics, but as representative of 200

didactic literature in general. The change in the ratio between the “story” and the

“conclusion” reflects the change in the interpretation of both fable and the previous model of its parody. The previous model is applied as a specialized code that con veyed the meaning of “respected precedent of low evaluation.” Prutkov’s parodies appear at a time when Classicism in general and the fable in particular are no longer productive literary trends. The relevant issue of literary life is the controversy between those who believe that the main function of literature is to edify the reading public about social and moral issues, and those who contend that aesthetic value is independent of social and ethical considerations. Under these circumstances, a demonstration proving that didactic literature not only offers trite or illogical advice, but also does not even tell its simple “story” in a reasonable way, is, if not a pledge of allegiance to the second camp, then at least a comment on the inadequacy of the norms championed by the first one.

Since Russian parody has been traditionally examined as a means of expres sion of the controversy between the various political groups in Russia, for the sake of clarity it is necessary to note that the radical literary critics were not the only ones who believed in the dominance of political and social concerns in literature. This aesthetic norm was accepted by many conservative critics and high governmental of ficials, as well. The differences between radicals, liberals, and conservatives came not from the aesthetic norm, but from the political doctrine to which the highest positive authority was assigned. Therefore, at that time ironic doubt in the validity of this norm did not automatically mean radical, or liberal, or conservative political convictions. Moreover, these parodies were not yet attributed to Prutkov, but were published anonymously. The later attribution to Prutkov increased the probability 201

of inferring implied political message.

The next step toward a further weakening the influence of the minimally

marked adaptation is made in the group of parodies published between 1853 and

1855. With the exception of “Cervjak i popad’ja,” the rest of them did not change

the ratio between the “story” and the “conclusion.” However, that did not mean a return to the dominance of the minimally marked adaptation. In this case, the technique that introduces the element of change works not at

the level of composition of the literary work, but at that of the semantics of the lan guage. It dramatically increases the level of nonsense within the story by means of

simultaneous, but different interpretation of words or phrases. Key polysemantic words which carry within themselves the possibility for failure of communication are: vkus (taste) meaning preference for certain kinds of food, or for certain lifestyles

and political platforms (“Raznica vkusov”); stan meaning a good looking human fig ure and a police district (“Stan i golos”); nestis’ meaning ‘to rush’ and ‘to lay eggs’

(“Cinovnik i kurica”); etc.

The fable “Cervjak i popadja” is a transitional stage between the typical 1851 and 1853-55 models. It retains the shortened “story” and the changed ratio between

“story” and “conclusion,” but also uses the multiple meaning of the word “gervjak” as “worm” and “hunger.” The second meaning is related to the expression “zamorit’ gervjagka.” The idiom is used in the sense of “to have a bite to eat,” but its literal meaning is “to kill the little worm”. Hunger can be interpreted literally as a desire to eat, but in a figurative sense it can mean a desire for making love.*’

The immediate object of lowering is the lexical unit (i.e., “the word”) as means of conveying a logical message. The distinctive feature of all these parodies is that 202

they build their “story” on the basis of a simultaneous, but logically incompatible in

terpretation of polysemantic words which produces the effect of nonsense. The con

fusion in the meaning of the words is a lowering inversion of the poetic norm of fable

which requires distinguishing between the literal and the allegorical interpretation of

the “story.” The ridicule is targeted at the assumption that the message of the author

transmitted by means of words can always be received by the reader. The “story” of

the parody-fable creates a communicative situation which demonstrates that the

two sides in a dialogue may interpret the same words in a different way and thus be unable to establish meaningful communication. The message is that the reader can

produce meaning which has not been intended by the author.

The irony also touches upon the influence of the repertoire of the reader and the repertoire of the work as factors of interpretation. It challenges the norm that,

the fable is always a source of edifying conclusions. This aspect of the target of ridi

cule is disclosed in the previously mentioned “Cinovnik i kurica” (1855). This non

sensical parody ends with the following lines: “Razumnyj Celovek kol’ basn’ siju proCtet, / To, verno, i moral’ iz onoj izvlefiet” (45).

It remains an open question as to whether the parodists intended such texts as

“Raznica vkusov,” “Pome§£ik i trava,” “PomeSCik i sadovnik,” “Stan i golos,”

“Cinovnik i kurica” as indirect criticism concerning ideological issues, or as a parody of the habit of ideological interpretation of literary texts. Slavophiles and Western- izers, landowners (pomegfiki). bureaucrats (flnovniki), and police officers (sta- novve) were certainly key words in the ideological debates of the 1850’s. In

Prutkov’s parodies they are introduced by means of motives that had somewhat 203

become stereotypes in the literature of the period.

Scholars, especially the Soviet ones, tend to interpret these texts as cases of in direct liberal criticism of the Russian political and social system. Their argument is

that the strict censorship made impossible explicit criticism concerning such sensitive

political issues as “landowners” or “police officers.” Under those circumstances, the fact that the latter were presented as comic figures led to interpreting the parodies

as political satire.

The texts themselves, however are very uncommitted ideologically. For in stance, neither the representative of the Slavophiles, nor that of the Westernizers is

presented as a less comic figure (“Raznica vkusov”). In a similar way, the lowering

of the police officer in “Stan i golos” begins with the stereotype satirical reference to

his “rather fat (stout)” figure, but develops into a comically absurd situation which, if

anything, clashes with the initial satirical overtones. The situation is rendered in the

following four lines:

Kakoj-to stanovoj, soboj dovol’no tuCnyj, NadevSi vatoCnyj xalat, PriSel k otkrytomu okoSku I molCa nadal gladit’ koSku. (35)

It is possible to interpret “Stan i golos” as a politically involved satire. One

could base this kind of reading upon the metonymic series police officer (stanovoj)

= cat = enemy of birds and which would allow him/her to infer a counterpart se

quence X = singing bird = victim of the cat, where X can be any “singer”, i.e., per

son good with words such as a poet or writer. In this line of reasoning, the compari

son between the merits of having command over a police district/figure (stan) and over verbal art/voice /golosh could be interpreted as a satiric conclusion that in Rus sia it is better to be a policeman than a poet. 204

However, if one considers the fact that the officer regards the “song of the

bird” as a means for pleasing his “mother-in-law” and his “relatives” and that the bird, in turn, envies the policeman, the decoded ironic conclusion might be quite dif

ferent, namely, that a poet pleasing a police-run society is not that different from an

actual policeman. The possibility for two interpretations of the satiric message that are so differ

ent is alarming. It undermines the validity of the entire approach to the text as an

ideologically committed satirical statement.

Although written in 1851, “Stan i golos” is the first text to fully employ the pat tern of the parodies written between 1853 and 1855. Therefore, the chronologically later disclosure in “Cinovnik i kurica” that the repertoire of the reader of fables may infer meaning even from an intentionally absurd “story” is probably valid for “Stan i golos,” too. There is no evidence in the texts which prevents the conclusion that the ideological interpretation of literature is one of the stereotypes in the repertoire of fable which was lowered by means of absurd situations generated by polysemantic words.

Further evidence in favor of such an interpretation of the target of ridicule in these parodies (except for “Zvezda i Brjuxo”) is the 1854 polemics about the func tion of parody. It began with a publication in the Saint Petersburg Gazette (Sankt-

Peterburgskie vedomosti) in which the anonymous reviewer of Prutkov’s parodies insisted that “parody must be directed against something that has a more or less se rious significance, otherwise it would be an idle game.” In the “Letter of the famous

Koz’ma Prutkov to the unknown feuilleton-writer.. “ the parodists responded by ridiculing the utilitarian criterion in the evaluation of literary works advocated by the 205

critic. They ironically claimed that his statement was “an unsuccessful parody,” i.e.,

a plagiarism, of Prutkov’s aphorism “While tossing stones into the water, watch the circles formed by them, otherwise such activity would be an idle game” (6). Since

the ideological interpretation of literature is a central concern of the utilitarian set of

norms and values, one may infer that the parodists were not among its unwavering advocates.

The change of the target of ridicule in this group of parodies and the technique

of using polysemantic words and phrases to create an absurd “story” brings up the

issue of language as a means of communication. The latter is completely irrelevant for the “story” of fable as a genre. In it, people, animals, and objects establish verbal

communication between themselves without any difficulty. Therefore, both the is sue of failed communication and the means for presenting it in the parody of fable

are instances of difference and not of imitation of the original. Their impact upon the dominance of the minimally marked adaptation is stronger than that of the ab breviation of the “story” used in the first group of parodies.

The final stage of this line of gradual transformation of the dominance of the minimally marked adaptation is the parody “Pastux, moloko i CitateP.” Its three-line

“story” is not really a story, because all that it tells the reader is that the author of the fable does not know where the shepherd took the milk and why he did not come back. This is absurd in terms of the intent of the author, i.e., he writes a story only to say that he does not know the story. The “conclusions” are neither trite, nor absurd, because they are eliminated completely. Instead, in the fourth, and last, line the au thor turns directly to the reader and asks for more information about the story of the shepherd. The inscribed author does not rely on the reader for an interpretation of 206

the “story”, he relies on him to make the “story.”

The changes are so radical that there is not a chance for dominance of the

minimally marked adaptation. The difference from the previous stage of the domi nance of the maximally marked one is that instead of obvious general codes, the en

coder uses specialized ones which have already become a stable part of the reper toire of the reader of his parodies. Various components of the parody function as

such codes, namely, the shortened “story,” the absurd, the expectation that the

reader will supply both the information and the interpretation which the parodist has left out.

Another line in the gradual transformation is developed by the parody “Zvez- da i brjuxo.” It has the following distinctive features. The general codes are reintro duced as dominant codes of adaptation. The ideological interpretation is not used as a target of ridicule. Although somewhat ambiguously, it is suggested that this in terpretation could be used in the decoding of the message of the parody. The polys emantic words are retained as means for creating an absurd story (e.g., zvezda = 1. a star in the sky; 2. spiritual enlightenment; 3. an order).^ The parodists expanded significantly the size of the “conclusion” and included in it an undoubtedly satirical interpretation of the preceding “story”

Nadal’stvo, den’ i no£’ pekuSCees’ o nas,

Predstavit k ordenu svjatogo Stanislava.

Togda, - v den’ postnyj, v den’ skoromnyj, - Sam bududi stepennyj general, Ty moze§ byt’ i s bodrym duxom,* I s sytym brjuxom!* Ibo kto z zapretit’ tebe vsegda, vezde Byt’ pri zvezde? (52) 207

The two lines marked with an asterisk are a parody of the serious “conclusion” in Dmitriev’s edifying quatrain “Ravnovesie” which reads “[Syn several] V tebe i bodryj dux, i bogatyrska sila” (RStP 303,723). The substitution of the stylistically and semantically high concept of “heroic strength” (bogatyrska sila) by the low im age of a “belly” (brjuxo) clearly uses the general semantic code of the parts of the body.

The conflict between high and low is not restricted to the relation between original and parody, but is maintained throughout the text of the parody itself. The association of the stylistically and semantically high “star” with the low “belly” marks the dominance of the maximally marked adaptation. There is also the internal con flict between the high semantics of “star” (spiritual enlightenment) and the satiric realization of this metaphor as the order of St. Stanislav. The order, interpreted as a sign of highly effective support of the official governmental policies, was evaluated as a low semantic component in the context of the radical and liberal political ideas of the time (1855).

The line of examining the target of ridicule in the direction of unambiguous po litical satire was not followed further in Prutkov’s parodies of fable. It became very productive in the 1860s when the renewed dominance of the maximally marked adaptation spread over the subtraditions of parody of other genres of poetry.

Although based on a limited historical period (1815-70), the analysis of the dy namics of the tradition of Russian verse parody had at its disposal a sufficient amount of empiric material in order to prove that the internal agents of the dynam ics of this tradition are the strategies of the minimally and the maximally marked adaptation of the original. It also demonstrated the way in which those factors 208

perform their functions, i.e., through tension created by their contrast, as well as

through gradual transformation of function within the texts, within the individual subtraditions, and within the tradition in general.

This view of the historical dynamics of the tradition permits one to realize that

previously identified trends, such as that of “ironic stylization,” for instance, are nei

ther freely floating entities, nor are determined solely by the extraliterary political

circumstances. They have their own place and functions as components of the tradi

tion. One realizes also that together with a better understanding of the individual trends, the new information brings new possibilities for the study of the intertextual relations. As demonstrated to some extent by the above examination of the subtra

dition of parody of fable, the latter must be studied not only with regard to the rela

tions between original and parody, but also between parody and parody.

Yet, the internal dynamics of the tradition of parody must not occupy the en

tire field of vision of the examiner, because it is unquestionably affected by the dy

namics of the general literary process.

3. Verse Parody and Literary Process

The relations between verse parody and the literary process in general must be studied from the point of view of the production, reception, and the text of the liter ary works. Here, interest will be focused upon the intertextual connections. The issues of production and reception will be addressed only with regard to their rele vance to intertextuality. Production will be considered in terms of the intentional and/or unintentional results of the act of enunciation. Reception will be examined in terms of the repertoire and the expectations of the reader. 209

The purpose of this discussion is to prove the necessity for recognizing the sys temic character of the relations between Russian verse parody (1815-70) and the historical dynamics of Russian literature.

Existing studies of Russian verse parody explore only individual aspects of these relations. They do not concentrate on the implications of the fact that the phenomena under consideration exist and function as components of a system. For example, the function of parody as literary criticism has never been examined with regard to its connection to the functions of parody as a means of mechanizing the literary devices as well as of synthesis of new literary forms. All three functions are united into a system by their metaliterary relation to non-parodic literature. The systemic approach contributes to the better understanding of the individual issues as well. It makes the researcher aware of questions which otherwise would remain out side of his/her field of vision. Thus the traditional study of parody as a means of lit erary criticism explores its impact on the literary process from the premise that the intention of the parodist always coincides with the interpretation of the reader. At tention is concentrated upon a limited number of practical results achieved by this criticism.

It has been pointed out that parody was one of the strategies used in the com petition between Classicism and Romanticism, and later, between Aestheticism and

Realism, in order to win dominant position in the historical dynamics of non-parodic literature. A major point also made in existing studies is that parody as literary criti cism affected the valorization of the poetry of individual authors. Parody is consid ered one of the factors for the permanent or temporary devaluation of the works of Benediktov, Rukol’nik, Sfierbina, Fet, Majkov, Rozengejm, Sludevskij, and others 210 that occurred in the repertoire of significant groups of competent contemporary and historical readers.

Instances of change of patterns of production, because of criticism voiced through parody, are noted as proof of the impact of parody on the development of non-parodic literature. The examples include cases when the poet corrected his own poem in response to this kind of criticism, cases when the poet withdrew parodied works from later publications of his works, and cases when the poet stopped writing poetry for extended periods of time (e.g., Slu£evskij). In all these instances, scholars of Russian parody maintain, this became possible because as a reader of the paro dies of his works, the parodied poet changed his evaluation of their quality.

There are only a few attempts to balance the traditional enthusiasm over the effectiveness of parody as literary criticism by pointing out that the more talented the parodied poet was, the less inclined he was to let this criticism change his pat terns of production. In spite of numerous parodies, PuSkin neither changed nor withdrew from publication “Cernaja Sal’”; likewise, Fet did not change his attitude to

“Sopot, robkoe dyxanie.”

The first advantage of the systemic approach to the function of parody as liter ary criticism is the change of the traditional premise of this discussion. The new premise accounts for the fact that any action may result either in a success, or in a failure. Therefore the intended criticism of the parodist may, or may not coincide with the criticism inferred by the reader. This opens new perspectives to the study of the effect of literary criticism conveyed through parody. Freed from the objective of dealing with success only, the investigation can probe deeper into the web of cases of success and failure through which literary criticism moves from the position of 211 intended to that of inferred response to parody.

For instance, among the parodies which advocated Classicism there was a number of successful individual works, but as a whole they failed to win the competi tion, i.e., to prevent the decline of Classicism and the rise of its criticized contestant, namely, Romanticism. In other words, these parodies won a number of battles, but lost the war.

Success and failure are relative, because criticism performs a double task: it is offensive toward the norms to which it assigns negative authority, and defensive to ward the ones to which it delegates positive authority. The latter fact has been over looked by students of Russian verse parody. They usually regard works which assign positive literary authority to a declining literary movement as “defensive,” and the ones which associate positive authority with a rising school as “offensive parody.”

Such a view does not take into account the real distribution of the defensive and the offensive functions of parody.

The picture becomes even more complex when one realizes that the results of the defense and of the offense can be either final, or not. The failure of the defen sive functions of the criticism in the parodies advocating Classicism was final, be cause this literary school was dismissed to the periphery of the literary process and lost its productivity. The offensive functions of the criticism voiced by the propo nents of Classicism, however, did not fail completely. A number of the points the

Classicists made in their parodies were used as a lowering semantic code in the next turn of the literary process when Realism challenged Romanticism and took over the dominant position. Figuratively stated, the Realists inherited and used a map of the vulnerable points of Romanticism prepared by Classicists’ parodies. 212

Also possible is the opposite situation: previously successful offensive strate

gies fail when used against a new competitor. Such critical arguments as “obscure,”

“senseless,” “imitative,” “lifeless,” which helped Realism to keep the school of Aes-

theticism in a subordinate position between the 1840s and the 1880s, did not succeed

in preventing Symbolism from becoming the dominant school in Russian poetry of the first decade of the twentieth century.**

The systemic approach to the study of parody as literary criticism opens new

perspectives on the issue of the intentional character of the critical message as well.

As reader’s parody demonstrates, criticism may not be intentionally encoded by the producer of the text, but can be inferred during the act of reading. In general, read

er response criticism has proven that there is a possibility of inferring messages which have not been intentionally encoded by the author of the literary work.

The intertextual relations of parody as metaliterature are not confined only to intentional literary criticism. The most serious attempt to break free from the tradi

tional approach to parody as means of literary criticism is the Formalist theory of

parody. In it, parody is regarded as an inherent agent of literary evolution (see ch. I,

1.8). In spite of the various inconsistencies and shortcomings of this theory, it is a

major step toward better understanding of the relations between parody and the his torical dynamics of the literary process. The decisive innovation is the shift from in terpretation of the message of intentional criticism to analysis of the function of the clashes of poetic norms within the text of parody.^

Formalist theory emphasizes the metaliterary functions of these clashes. The conflicting poetic norms mechanize the literary devices and thus contribute to the awareness of both the encoder and the decoder of the significance of the literary 213 form. They also renew the impact of the worn-out (mechanized) devices by placing them in a new context. Finally, they resolve the tension between parody and non parody by producing new forms of non-parody. The final stage of the transforma tion, however, remains on the periphery of the interests of the Russian Formalists.

In fact, they were not really interested in parody or in the parodic tradition as part of the literary process in its own right. Their attention was focused mainly on the function of parody as agent of change in the dynamics of non-parodic literature, or, to use Tynjanov’s terms, they studied the “syn-function”, and not the “auto-func tion” of parody (ch. 1,4). The reduced interest in both parody per se, and the final stage of the transformations testifies that the Formalists were attracted by the meta- iiterary functions of parody in relation to non-parody rather than by its general liter ary function. This attitude explains also the previously mentioned fact that the For malists never asked whether parody acts as an agent of change within its own tradi tion in the same way as it does in the tradition of non-parodic literature (ch. Ill, 2). One might expect that studies devoted to the theory and history of Russian parody in general and of verse parody in particular would be more inclined to select a systemic approach to the subject. However, they do not. They too are dominated by the question of how parody refers to non-parody, rather than by that of how parody stands its own grounds as literature. For example, the most extensive discus sions in these studies are devoted to the issue of the participation of parody in the competition between the literary schools of Classicism, Romanticism, Aestheticism,

Realism, and Symbolism as it took part in non-parody. No one has ever asked whether and how these schools affected the poetics of parody itself, or has come up with such concepts as classical parody, romantic parody, realistic parody, etc., 214 although such notions as classical elegy, romantic elegy, classical poem, romantic poem, classical ode, romantic ode, etc., have been widely used.

In view of the present state of the investigation of the relations between Rus sian verse parody (1815-70)and the general literary process, it is possible to outline a very general model of the system. A more detailed version will be feasible only after further extensive exploration, which exceeds the objectives of the present study. The model offered below is intended only as a starting platform for an eventual de tailed analysis.

From the point of view of intertextuality, the relations between Russian verse parody (1815-70) and the general literary process are organized as a two-level sys tem. One of the levels is centered around the metaliterary function of parody. Such issues as the functions of parody as literary criticism and as an agent in the historical dynamics (of both non-parodic literature and the tradition of parody) belong to that level. The other level is centered around the function of parody as literature. It in volves the functions of self-identification by means of the structural invariant and of self-preservation through the historical dynamics of its own tradition.

The specification “point of view of intertextuality” means that the model relies primarily upon the literary texts. The concept of intertextuality, however, includes to a certain extent the questions of the production and reception of the texts. On the other hand, the concept of “literary process” evokes immediately the notion of the so-called “literary life” (literaturnaja zizn’) which is a relevant issue in any inves tigation of literature as an act of enunciation. Even such literary purists as the For malists realized that the literary process cannot be adequately studied without the help of the concepts of “literary everyday life” (literaturnvj bvt) and “literary 215 biography” (literaturnaja biografija).

Recently, William M. Todd argued convincingly that literary studies must not limit themselves “to the traditional aesthetic categories (such as plot, character, dic tion)” (Fiction 7). Well aware of the main objection against opening the study of lit erature to sociological issues, Todd asks:

In comparing these novels with nonliterary texts (including behavioral ones) and in applying the categories of nonliterary disciplines (such as the sociology of knowledge and social history) to them, am I failing to distin guish between the social and the aesthetic, and thereby losing a sense of the specificity of verbal art?

Then he gives three different reasons why his approach is not only adequate, but also necessary (7,8). The first reason is that the interpretive conventions of both fiction and nonfiction in early nineteenth century Russian literature were not as sharply differentiated as they are in the subsequent institutionalization of literature.

The cultural practice of the time aestheticized the life of the Westernized gentry and transferred the matter and manner into literature and, conversely, literary patterns were transferred to the aestheticized social events as behavioral models and seman tic codes. Therefore, for the interpretation of this literature, the knowledge of the social conventions is essential.

The second reason is that the awareness of the cultural context would contrib ute to the understanding of the specific modes of adaptation of the traditional liter ary categories in these works. This would also help realize and explain the differ ence in the perception of these adaptations by the contemporary and by the histori cal reader.

The third reason is that one needs a combination of methods in order to study hybrid phenomena. Since Russian literature of “the time of PuSkin” (i.e., between 216 the 1810s and 1840s) combined social and aesthetic principles and used the combi nation for the purpose of cultural transformation, the study of it needs the “hybrid” concepts produced by modem social theory. Todd makes a special point of the fact that these concepts are not completely alien to verbal art, because they have been initially borrowed from literary theory and linguistics and then adapted and enriched by sociology.

Of course, at times those general conclusions receive support from data be yond the scope of the material analyzed by Todd. Todd’s arguments are valid not only for Russian fiction, but also for Russian poetry and not only for “the time of PuSkin,” but also for the literature of the 1850s and 1860s. They give theoretical support to the already stated necessity of studying the relations between Russian verse parody (1815-70) and the literary process in relation to the entire act of enun ciation.

However, at present one cannot elaborate the proposed general model by in corporating more extensively the points of view of production and reception. The study of the social functions of Russian verse parody has been not only very limited, but also conducted along the lines of the method of Vulgar Sociologism (vuTgarnyj sociologizm). This means that their results are of little help, because literary schol ars from the East and West agree that the method is theoretically erratic, The only work that can be of use, although with serious reservations about the general conclu sions of the author in mind, is Berkov’s book on Koz’ma Prutkov. The lack of suffi cient amount of soundly researched data would make any generalization about the patterns of production and reception of parody premature. 217

Still, the need for an investigation of the functions of parody beyond the level of the literary work is obvious (see ch. II, 4.1,4.2.1; 5; 6). To serve this need, the next chapter will explore several aspects of Russian literary life in the period be tween 1815 and 1870. For the lack of a better term that would convey more precise ly the role of “literary life” as a mediator between the literary process and the social life, I will use the term “social functions of parody.”

Notes

1 Lotman gives a concise outline of the presence of the accusation of lack of sense in Russian poetry during the second decade of the nineteenth century (“Poezija” 19-26). He refers to Pu§kin’s statement that “there are two kinds of non sense (bessmvslica): one that originates from the iack of feelings and thoughts when substituted for by words; the other one [originates] from the abundance of feelings and thoughts and of the lack of words to express them” (23). Likewise, Lotman con tends that there were two kinds of “nonsense” (or “lack of sense”). One was “above” the judgement of the “common” (or “good”) sense (zdravvj smvsl). and the other one was “below” it. Therefore, the opposition good sense vs. lack or sense ex isted in two varieties, i.e., logic vs. poetic license fpoetideskaja bessmvslica) and logic vs. lack of logic. According to Lotman, both kinds of lack of sense belong to the periphery of the literary process. The term ‘periphery’ is used in a strictly structural sense, i.e., as a necessary counterpart of the ‘center’ (26). His discussion of “the mechanism of nonsense” makes one recall the Formalist view of the function of parody as an agent of the dynamics of literature. “The stylistic and semantic combinations forbidden by common sense and poetic norms,” he says, serve as means of compiling a stock of “unexpected semantic combinations.” This stock is eventually used as a basis of the metaphoric characteristics of the new literary styles (26). ^ M. Gasparov regards Minaev’s parody as a case of palindrome, i.e., a text that may be read both forwards and backwards and will usually retain its meaning. From the point of view of a super-competent historical reader, such as Gasparov himself, the effect of this device exceeds the intended effect of parody. It brings up the question of relations between structure and meaning in poetry (347). Gasparov does not address the question of the ways in which the parody was perceived by the competent contemporary reader.

^ The generalization of the term ‘fable’ (basnja) can be observed most con veniently in the articles “Basnja,” “Pritda” (Parable), and “Apolog” (Apologue) in KLfe and LES. 218

^ In his “Apologi,” Polevoj follows the technique of “trite conclusion” as a lowering device (Mn.p. 182). The latter was firmly established by PuSkin and Jazy- kov in their parodies of Dmitriev’s apologues.

In his fable “Medved’ i koza,” I. Mjatlev uses French words and phrases as a lowering technique in the conversation between the animals and in the indirect speech in the “story” of the fable. The device itself was nothing new. French was a specialized semantic code used as a lowering device in Russian satirical literature from the second half of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century. The effect of novelty is a result of the way in which Mjatlev applied the device. First, the genre of fable was an unusual place for this specialized code. Second, French functions not as a means of producing a didactic satire, but as a means of parody of didactic literature, i.e., of fable. The full effect of the parody is achieved through the combination between the nonsensical “story” and the trite conclusion.”

^ According to Berkov, “Cervjak i Popad’ja” is “undoubtedly” related to the “slippery” (skol’zkie) topics of conversation that were cultivated as subject of laugh ter by the group of bachelors connected with the magazine Contemporary (Prutkov 34, 65). “Discussion of sexual behaviour” is one of the several possible interpreta tions of the euphemism “slippery topics.”

^ A text written between 1793 and 1796 shows remarkable parallels with “Zvezda i brjuxo” Pust’ tebe priroda darovala V Ijul’ke knjazja, grafa imena, Pust’ zvezda sverxu na grud’ upala, Razmetav po pledam ordena, No pover’, £to jarkij sej fenomen Dlja tvoix dostoinstv verolomen, Vse sii naseiiki vmig spadut. I gremjaSCie bez del tituly, Tak ze, kak naslednoj slavy guly, Do gory potomstva ne dojdut. (Poetv 1790-1810x godov 219-20)

At the time of Koz’ma Prutkov, this text was known only in manuscript form. The lack of reliable data makes it impossible to decide whether the parodists knew it, or came to the idea of using the polysemantic word ‘star’ (zvezda) independently.

® Tynjanov analyzed in detail the stylistic changes in Russian poetry in the second and third decades of the nineteenth century. According to him: “That which was regarded as a sin in the 1820s, the period of longing for new genres, now, at the end of the 1820s and the beginning of the 1830s, the time of the quest for a new style, becomes important and interesting. ‘Sluggishness,’ ‘day-dreaming’ and ‘vague ness,’ ‘careless rhymes and style,’ and ‘refinement’ are no longer regarded as charac teristics that fall out of the old system, but have become valuable new devices” (“PuSkin i TjutSev” 339). 219

Tynjanov names the new genre which emerged as a result of the changes in the literary style “the fragment.” He characterizes it as a lyric form that was “not cano nized’ and was “an almost extraliteraiy” entity in terms of the system of genres of Russian literature during the 1830s. The genre was discovered by F. Tjutdev. In the 1840s, ‘50s, and ‘60s, it was “legalized” and included in the literary system by A. Fet, one of the leaders of the school of Aestheticism (“Vopros o Tjut£eve” 385). The genre is also associated with the poetics of Russian Symbolism. According to Tynja nov, Tjutdev’s poetry was also “a link that connected the rhetorical eighteenth-century lyrics with Symbolist poetry (“TjutCev i Gejne” 387).

^ One may observe both the theoretical premises of Formalism and the prac tical results of their implementation in the case studies of the eighteenth- and nine teenth-century Russian poetiy in Tynjanov’s articles “Oda kak oratorskij zanr,” “Arxaisty i PuSkin,” “PuSkin,’ “PuSkin i TjutCev,” and “Stixovye formy Nekrasova.” CHAPTER IV

SOCIAL FUNCTIONS OF RUSSIAN VERSE PARODY (1815-70)

In order to determine the basic social functions of Russian verse parody (1815- 70), I will analyze a selection of documented instances of production and response to parody within institutions of literature such as literary salons and circles, journals, editorial boards, publishing and the book trade, within informal groups based on family, friendship, age, and sex, as well as within formal organizations such as educa tional institutions and military units.

The functions of Russian verse parody as a test of social compatibility and as tactics of aggressive competition will be studied with regard to the organization and the ideology of the institutions of literature and the informal and formal social groups.

First, I will clarify the semantics of the terms “society,” “ideology,” and “social institution.” Second, I will examine parody as a test of social compatibility in terms of the specific historical circumstances, modes of communications, and ideological objectives of various institutions and groups. Third, I will explore its function as a tactical means of ideological, literary, and political competition within the communi ty of the men of letters and the reading public.

220 221

1. Society, Ideology, Social Institutions The standard Russian translation of the English word ‘society’ is ‘obSCestvo.’

However, both the English and the Russian words have a variety of meanings which do not coincide completely. In order to avoid misunderstanding one must be aware of the differences between the semantics of the English and the Russian word, as well as those between the nineteenth- and twentieth-century usage of the Russian word.

According to The American Heritage Dictionary, ‘society’ has four major meanings. Three of them are relevant for the study of the social functions of paro dy:

1. a. The totality of social relationships between human beings, b. A group of human beings broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual inter ests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture, c. The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuat ing group. 2. a. The rich, privileged, and fashionable social class, b. The so cially dominant members of a community. 3. Companionship, company.

There are six major meanings of ‘obggestvo’ listed in Slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo jazvka. Five of them have relevance to this study of the social functions of parody.

1. An aggregate of people, united by certain relations which are determined by historical changes in the means of production of material and cultural (duxovnye) goods. [...] 2. In pre-revolutionary Russia and in the countries in which class division of society still exists: a. A limited group of people who belong to the privileged classes (e.g., to the high levels of the nobility or to the influential groups of the bourgeoisie). [...] b. The most active and ideologically progressive part of the population regardless of its origin, so cial class, and property qualification; [a group] disposed to serve the com munity. [.. „] 3. A circle of people with which one maintains closer ties, the closest company of people; a milieu, a circle of acquaintances. [...] 4. A company, several people who spend time together. [...] 5. An organiza tion, a union of people who set for themselves common tasks. 222

The first meaning of ‘obSgestvo’ interprets the term from the point of view of the Marxist philosophy. Although nowadays this is the dominant meaning of the word, it did not exist before the 1840s, nor was it a widely accepted semantic varia tion between 1840 and 1870. In contemporary English the Marxist interpretation of the term ‘society’ is also not among the commonly accepted variations of the seman tics of the word.

For the sake of brevity, I have omitted the quotations from literary works and other texts used to illustrate the semantics of ‘obSgestvo.’ However, it is necessary to note that one can elicit from them some additional information about the chronolo gy of meanings two, three, four, and five. The majority of examples comes from the works of Aleksandr Griboedov,

Aleksandr PuSkin, Ivan Turgenev, Lev Tolstoj and other nineteenth-century writers which were published between 1815 and 1870. Thus, one is assured that the mean ings they illustrate were part of the ideology of the Russian authors and of the Rus sian reading public during the period under investigation. These meanings outline the semantic range within which the writers of that period could select and organize their intentions concerning the social functions of parody, and the reading public

1 could place its expectations.1

I will use the word ‘society’ mainly in terms of its first English meaning (i.e., 1. a, b, and c). If the word is associated with any other variation of its meaning in Eng lish or in Russian (i.e., those listed under obggestvo). this will be specified explicitly.

Human society is a structure consisting of different social groups organized ac cording to a variety of rules and principles. Historians of Russian literary, political, and social life have ascertained that the social group whose ideology dominated the 223 life of the country up to the 1840s (Todd Fiction) and even up to the mid-1850s (Ri- asanovsky) was the so-called “polite society” (Todd Fiction) or “educated public”

(Riasanovsky). Scholars invariably complain about the lack of sufficiently researched data about these social structures. Indeed, it is not possible to outline with certainty the boundaries of “polite (good) society,” “high society,” and “the educated public.” It has been noted that the three social groups did not coincide. Thus, according to the recollections of a contemporary, Nikolaj Karamzin told PuSkin, while looking at a group of senators, that none of them belonged to “good society” (see in Todd, Fic tion 27). Obviously, the membership in the highest levels of the government admin istration was not a sufficient reason to be accepted in polite society.

On the other hand, membership in the social group of the educated public was no such reason either. For example, PuSkin evaluates Nikolaj Nadezdin, a professor in the Moscow university, literary critic, and editor of the influential magazine Tele scope. as a person who lacks the social graces necessary for a member of polite soci ety and, therefore, an outsider:

“I met Nadezdin at Pogodin’s. He seemed quite common to me, vulgar. boring, presumptuous, and without any manners. For instance, he picked up a handkerchief that I had dropped. His criticisms were very stupidly written, but with liveliness and sometimes even with eloquence. There was no thought in them, but there was movement; his jokes fell flat (qtd. in Todd, Fiction 22).

In the first half of the nineteenth century, both polite society and the educated public were dominated by the members who belonged to the Russian gentry. The number of people of non-gentry origin, the so-called raznoflncv who entered the group of the educated public and, occasionally, even polite society was steadily in creasing during the eighteen thirties, forties, and fifties.^ Finally, by the the eighteen 224 sixties it was not polite society, but the educated public that became the dominant ideological force.

It must be noted that neither polite society nor the educated public were part of the administrative division of Russian society established by the Table of Ranks which Emperor Peter the Great introduced in 1722 and which, with some modifica tions, was used up to 1917. What is more important, both social groups slowly drift ed away from the government, and around 1855 the split between their ideology, so cial and political goals, and those of the state was completed (Riasanovsky).

‘Society’ is a word which refers to both a fact of life and an ideological concept through which people think about that fact. Human society not only exists, but con stantly reflects upon its own existence. Therefore, ‘society’ and ‘ideology’ are insep arable human activities.

‘Ideology’ is another concept that may have a variety of interpretations. In this case, the diversity of meanings is not noted in the dictionary definitions of the word, but can certainly be found in specialized studies (Todd, Fiction 10-15).

For the purpose of this analysis, the best working interpretation of ‘ideology’ is the one offered by William M. Todd. He defines it as “a subjectively coherent, at least implicitly tactical set of values and understandings, manifested through lan guage in the cultural productions and daily life of a group of individuals” (15). Thus understood, ‘ideology’ is closer to the semantics of the Russian word ‘mirovozzrenie’

((world)-outlook, Weltanschauung, (one’s) philosophy), rather than to that of ‘ideologija’ (ideology). In contemporary Russian the semantics of ideologija does not normally include the “subjective” component on which Todd insists.

Like any other definition, the one quoted above does not convey all of the con 225

siderations of its author. In the analysis which follows, Todd investigates the “para

dox” of ideology as an agent of both inclusion into and exclusion from social groups

(18-25), the role of ideology in the power-struggles within the national culture (25-

30), the competition between the styles of verbal communication (31-3), the tension between the psyche of the individual and the “social self,” i.e., the adaptability of the individual to a repertoire of social roles (33-7), the overlap between the membership in different social groups as a challenge to the coherence of the dominant ideology (39-44), etc.

Todd thus supplements his definition, which does not consider the dynamics of ideology. In spite of the fact that his conclusions are drawn on the basis of Russian material of a certain historical period, a lot of them are valid for Russian literature in general. Moreover, some of them present noteworthy contributions to the gener al sociology of literature.

He emphasizes that ‘ideology’ is not to be equated with such concepts as ‘polit ical program,’ ‘philosophical theory,’ or ‘economic strategy.’ He also insists that the relations between society, ideology, and literature are neither as simple, nor as direct as some students of literature believed they were. Todd favors the study of the liter ary process in a broad cultural context. He points out that literature should be ex amined not only as text, but also as social institution, i.e., as “an objectified social ac tivity with established roles and functions” (45).

As an act of enunciation literature presumes a group of people (at least one writer and one reader) and a message with ideological implications of various kinds and degrees. Therefore, literature not only has the potential of becoming a social institution, but in order to exist, it has to realize it. The mode and the structures 226 through which the potential is realized, change in the course of time. Literature it self, language, culture, technology, the structure of society are among the main agents of the process of institutionalization of literature.

In Fiction and Society the institutions and the process of institutionalization of

Russian literature are explored by means of the most sophisticated methods of modern sociology of literature. The analysis covers the history of modern Russian literature until the mid-1840s The main conclusions of the author are well justified, but the exact meaning of the terms “institution” and “institutionalization” at times remains unclear.

For example, the author speaks of “the institution of literature” in general (45) and at the same time he refers to certain nationally, chronologically, and socially specific variants as “institutions of literature” as well (e.g., popular (mass) literature of the eighteen twenties (78); the high literature “that Pu§kin, Lermontov, and Go gol’ encountered,” (105)). Obviously, these are different levels of abstraction, and some consideration of their interrelations, as well as some additional markers at tached to the term “institution” would have clarified the theoretical concept of the author.

In a similar vein, one feels somewhat lost when at first he/she reads that “liter ature and social concerns (education, leisure, morality); literature and the market place; censorship” are “aspect[s] of literature as an institution” (45), but later sees

“education,” “censorship,” and “the marketplace” mentioned as institutions “relat ed” to the institution of literature, rather than its constituents (“aspects”) (50).

One wishes for a more accurate use of terminology also in the cases when “the system of patronage” is referred to as a “dominant mode of literary 227

institutionalization” (52) as well as “an institution” (“the institution of literary patronage” (54)). “The familiar groups,” too, are referred to as “a separate

institution of literature” (72), as well as an “institutionalization.”

An additional reason for being uncertain as to the exact interpretation of the

term ‘literary institution* is the fact that the “system of patronage” and the “familiar

groups” (associations) are considered at times literary institutions or institutionaliza tions, but in other instances they are regarded as non-literary ones (e.g., “... these

beginnings [of a modem institutionalization of literature] took place in close interac

tion with two other institutionalizations which may be labeled, approximately, a pa tronage system and a system of familiar associations” (50)).

Since Todd’s book on the interrelations between Russian literature and society

offers many insights relevant for the study of the social functions of Russian verse

parody, it is necessary to make some of its basic terms compatible with the ones used

in this investigation. First, I will consider briefly the use of Jakobson’s structural

model of literature as a speech act (act of communication) (47-52). Todd applies the term ‘model’ to denote Jakobson’s structural outline, but does not introduce another term in order to denote the specific historical actualizations of the model es

tablished as a result of his own analysis (52,55,78,80,105).

I would prefer to think of Jakobson’s ‘model’ as ‘invariant’ and of its historical actualizations in Russian literature as structural variants. In this way, not only will the terminology of Chapter Four be consistent with that used in Chapter Two, but the relations between literature as a social institution and its historically, nationally, and socially specific manifestations will be viewed as relations between an invariant and its variants„ 228

The second issue which deserves comment concerns the concepts ‘institution’ and ‘institutionalization.’ The problem is similar to the one about the relations be tween parody as an individual work and as a process of production of such works. Consequently, I will offer a similar solution: namely, I will regard ‘institutionaliza tion’ as a discrete process.

The individual institutions emerge as points of temporary stability within the structural dynamics, which in this case is the process of institutionalization. I will re peat the metaphor of the constantly folding and unfolding of the steps of an escala tor in order to illustrate once again how a discrete process operates. The third issue worthy of comment is the reference to the system of patronage and the familiar groups as literary as well as non-literary institutions and institution alizations. A similar problem has been discussed in connection with the question of whether the lowering of a high subject is a general comic technique or a specific technique of parody.

The logical solution found for it is also applicable in the cases of the systems of patronage of the familiar groups. The two social institutions are not literary institu tions per se. Being a literary institution is only one of the potential functions of their invariant. Whether or not this function will be realized and whether or not it will be come the dominant function of a particular unit depends on the kind of variant and variation produced in the process of institutionalization.

As the history of Russian culture shows, there were patrons who did not sup port literature, as well as those who did. Likewise, there were literary salons and cir cles that were concerned mostly with the creation, evaluation, and dissemination of literature, as well as such which did not include literature among their major 229 concerns. Therefore, the system of patronage and the familiar associations can not be considered literary institutions on the basis of the invariant. They can become literary institutions only on the level of the functional variants.

2. A Test of Social Compatibility Between 1815 and 1870 literary parody permeated the everyday life of the educated Russians. There is no complete collection of the texts of the parodies pro duced during that period, nor a satisfactory catalogue of the ones that have been identified in various printed sources. In spite of that, however, one can ascertain with confidence that the amount of parodies produced during this period was much higher than what was recorded on paper.

Letters and memoirs documenting the life of the Russian nobility and intelli gentsia of the period testify that humor, wit (ostroumie), subtle, not-so-subtle, and even sarcastic cracks (ostroty). irony, and parody were highly valued components of

“polite talk” as a norm of verbal communication.^ Literary games, which often in cluded parody, were a popular form of entertainment and recreation. Social gather ings and rituals such as private theatrical performances, masquerades, meetings of different societies (e.g., Arzamas, The Society of Loud Laughter, The Green Lamp

Society, the luncheons of the editorial board of the journal Contemporary), drunken bouts of young men (especially young officers) included pranks and practical jokes which relied heavily on parody in general and literary parody in particular.

Undoubtedly, only part of these parodies were recorded and, in turn, only part of what was recorded has survived until today. Even from the incomplete body of materials available today one can see that the form of the texts of verse parody and 230 the communicative situations in which they were produced and reproduced vary greatly.

The communicative situations described in the memoirs of contemporary readers/listeners show that the ability to identify and adequately interpret parody was one of the informal tests which determined whether a person had the qualities necessary for a member of a given social group. Short parodic impromptus used in polite conversation quickly checked the person’s ability to comply with the norms and values of the group. Depending on whether the individual passed or failed the test he/she was marked as a prospective member or not.

One must realize that parody was neither the only, nor the final test which de cided the acceptance or the rejection of the individual. Nonetheless, it was an im portant one, because wit and a sense of humor were highly valued social skills. One may recall the already quoted opinion of PuSkin about Nadezdin as a person lacking the social graces expected from a member of polite society. There, the fact that

Nadezdin’s “jokes fell flat” is obviously one of the points at which he failed the ac ceptance examination.

Polite conversation, or “talk” as some scholars also call it, was the dominant mode of communication among the educated Russians of the time (Todd, Fiction 31). Its norms assigned high value to brevity, wit, asides, quotations, allusions, in stant improvisations, quick reply to verbal challenge, and codified changes of intona tion and gestures. Since short verse parodies (part of a line, a line, and a stanza) complied with all of these requirements, one may assume that “polite talk” was a common way of using parody as an informal entrance exam to polite society. 231

Unfortunately, only very few of these short texts were put in writing. Still, there are some excellent samples preserved, complete with the actual communica tive situation in which the parodies were produced and consumed. One of them is quoted in Ivan Panaev’s description of his first meeting with PuSkin. The event took place in the bookstore of Aleksandr Smirdin, the most famous man in Russian pub lishing and the book trade between 1825 and 1857.

PuSkin and his friend Sergej Sobolevskij, a well-known wit and author of epi grams, parodies, and puns, entered the store. Panaev recognized only PuSkin, be cause he had seen his portrait, but did not know who his companion was. “... He [Sobolevskij] turned toward Smirdin with a smile,” Panaev writes, “and began in a rather solemn tone, ‘No matter when you come to Smirdin’s. . Then he stopped.

Smirdin got fidgety and a smirk appeared on his face. Half-smiling PuSkin looked at his companion and shook his head” (Gric 245)

At that time Panaev not only did not know Sobolevskij, but was also unaware of the text from which he quoted. Only later he learned that the line came from the following epigram by PuSkin:

K Smirdinu kak ni prideS’, NiCego ne kupiS’, II’ Senkovskogo najdeS, II’ v Bulgarina nastupiS’.

Smirdin himself was on good terms with PuSkin, published several of his major works, and paid him very good royalties, but PuSkin and many other writers despised

Senkovskij and Bulgarin and disapproved of Smirdin’s business association with them. Both Osip Senkovskij and Faddej Bulgarin were successful journalists, edi tors, and writers who were actively involved in Smirdin’s publishing ventures. At the same time, however, they were associated with the conservative circles in the 232 government and with the secret police (the so-called Third Section). The last line of the epigram alludes to the rather rude expression “to step into... (i.e., excrement).” The insult is really strong, since the name Bulgarin is used to replace the last word of this expression. Evidently, the solemn tone of

Sobolevskij’s recitation was incompatible with the intended tone of the epigram.

The quotation was a minimally marked parody which preserved the text, but changed the encoded intent of the author of the original. The ironic recitation evoked an expectation of praise, while the original presumed scorn.

The reactions of the listeners show that the competent PuSkin and Smirdin immediately identified the recitation as parody. The insufficiently competent Pa naev did not know the original and could not recognize the parody. The failure to pass this test marked Panaev as an outsider to the group to which the other three be longed, namely, the professional literary community (writers as well as publishers) in

Petersburg. The ability to identify and interpret the parody in a similar way was one of the many tests as well as signs of the affiliation of PuSkin, Sobolevskij and Smirdin with institutions of literature such as the group of the professional writers and the publishing business.

The community of the professional men of letters was part of the “educated public,” rather than of polite society. For example, professional writers such as Sen kovskij and Bulgarin and leading publishers such as Smirdin and Slenin were not members of the polite society.^ It might seem as a contradiction to speak of the pro fessional writers as public, but it is not. The word ‘public’ is not used in its meaning of “admirers or followers, especially of a celebrity,” but in the sense of “a group of people sharing a special interest.” 233

Another sample of a short oral parody has been preserved in the following epi sode told by Anna P. Kern. “Once, he [PuSkin] was standing by. the fireplace in the drawing-room with his hands behind his back... Illidevskij moved toward him and said:

U pedki, pogruzen v moldan’e, PodnjavSi ffak, on spinu grel i nikogo vo vsej kompan’e blagoslovit’ on ne .xotel (qtd. in D&G 436).

In this case the text is a maximally marked adaptation of PuSkin’s poem “De mon.” The most obvious marker of the original is the repetition of the last two lines of “Demon” “i nifego vo vsej prirode / blagoslovit* on ne xotel” (“and he did not want to give his blessing / to anything in all of nature”). The adaptation substitutes nikogo (no one) for nifego (nothing) and, what is more important, kompanija (com pany) for priroda (nature). In general, the strategy of the adaptation is to lower the high subject of the original by means of the semantic opposition “solemn” vs. “mun dane”. It produces the juxtapositions “spiritual coldness” vs. “a cold back” and “na ture” vs, “a friendly company.” Furthermore, the bitter eloquence of the demon is contrasted to the friendly mockery of the old friend and school-mate Aeksandr

Ilii^evskij. Here the communicative situation does not include insufficiently competent listeners. The social group, whose unity has been tested and confirmed by the ability to recognize and adequately interpret the parody, is an informal friendly circle with a strong interest in literature. It includes a professional poet (PuSkin), an amateur poet (Illidevskij), and a competent listener/reader (Kern). In terms of a larger social segment, the group is part of polite society. 234

Checking the membership credentials of an individual by means of his/her re sponse to parody was the first step in a series of checks on his/her compatibility with a given social group. The next step concerned the position of the member and his/her mobility within the group hierarchy.

The two areas in which the individual was tested were, on one hand, his knowl edge of the norms and values of the group, and, on the other, his awareness of the authorized transgressions of these norms and values. The second area was the deci sive test. For example, when PuSkin claimed that certain journalists only pose as members of polite society without actually being such, he proved his accusation by demonstrating their ignorance of some authorized transgressions: Is it not ridiculous for them to pass judgement on what is acceptable or not acceptable in society, on what our ladies can and cannot read, on what ex pressions belong to the salon [gostinaja] (or boudoir, as these gentlemen put it)? Is it not amusing to see them as protectors of high society, in which they probably have no time or need to appear... Why should they know that in the best society mincing manners and pomposity are even more in tolerable than commonness (vulgantej and that it is precisely this which re veals ignorance of society? Why should they know that the unashamed, original expressions of common people are repeated in high society without offending anyone’s ear, while the prim circumlocutions of provincial polite ness would only arouse a universal involuntary smile... This desire to pass themselves oft as members of high society has led our journalists to commit amusing blunders. One of them thought that it is inadmissible to speak of fleas in the presence of our ladies and delivered a stern reprimand about this — to whom? To one of our brilliant young courtiers... “ (qtd. in Todd, Fiction 22).

The most important skill in polite society was the ability to decipher correctly the message of a given utterance despite the intentional opacity of the codes. The actual semantic scope of polite talk and manners was much wider than the one pre scribed by Nikolaj Karamzin, a writer, historian, and ideologue of Russian polite so ciety. Depending on its specific context, a polite statement or gesture could convey attitudes ranging from flattery, through genuine politeness, to insult. 235

A good illustration of this point is the practical joke which Aleksandr

2emduznikov, son of the civilian Governor-General of Petersburg, a future Gover nor of Vilnius, one of the co-authors behind the pseudonym Koz’ma Prutkov, played on the minister of finance Voron£enko.

Every day at nine in the morning he [the minister] used to take a walk along the Palace Embankment. £emduznikov got the whim to walk there at the same hour and, passing by VoronCenko, with whom he was not acquainted personally, he would stop, take off his hat, and say, “The minister of finance is the mainspring of action.” Then he would walk away... He did this every morning until Voron£enko went and complained to the chief of police Ga- laxov. ZemCuznikov was threatened by exile and ordered not to bother his excellency the minister of finance any longer (qtd. in Berkov, Koz’ma Prut kov 23).

Obviously, the actual statement did not include even a shade of insult. If any thing, it was a praise bordering on flattery. And still, the memoirist perceived the episode as an act of intended insulting mockery and so did Vorondenko and Galax- ov. The key for interpreting the phrase as minimally marked parody was not in the text itself, but in the communicative situation in which it was repeated.

Polite society had a special appreciation of minimally marked parody. Usually, the social functions of this kind of parody in the communicative situations associated with the life of polite society are identified as entertainment. However, there was more to it than just a popular pastime. It also functioned as a test of the social fit ness of the individual, in general, and of his literary competence, in particular.

The adequate response to this kind of parody demonstrated mastery of two of the society’s most valued norms, namely, quick assessment of the context, and liter ary sophistication. Polite society was a relatively small and closely knit group. Be cause of family ties, long-lasting friendships, rivalries, and animosities, and common social, occupational, and educational backgrounds, the actions and the feelings of its 236

members were rather predictable. Therefore, the members did not need extended explanations in order to interpret correctly the parodies created by means of mini

mally marked adaptation.

Since minimally marked parody relied not on obvious verbal signals, but on

personal assessment of deep structural, semantic, and stylistic interrelations, it was

able to test the extent to which the individual could make correct value judgements

according to “good taste.” ‘Taste’ was the the highest positive norm of the polite so

ciety. Accordingly, the most valued type of reader was not the informed reader, but

the sensitive one. Being informed was not enough. Everyone was supposed to be in formed, otherwise he could not be a member of the group. It is not accidental that the great masters of this kind of parody, PuSkin, the £em£uznikov brothers, Count

Aleksej Tolstoj, and Ivan Panaev, were all members of this social group.

It is also true, however, that another master of minimally marked parody,

Nikolaj Polevoj, was not a member of polite society. Nonetheless, this does not can cel the conclusion about the particularly strong affinity between the norms of polite society and the poetics of this kind of parody. It only demonstrates that the domi nant ideology of polite society influenced the norms and values of the educated pub lic. It also shows some of the ways in which this was accomplished. Polevoj in creased the number of the competent readers of minimally marked parody by in cluding segments of the educated public other than polite society.

Unlike the creators of Koz’ma Prutkov, who by birth belonged to the high so ciety of St. Petersburg, Polevoj was born to a family of wealthy merchants from Sibe ria. He worked as a successful journalist, editor, and writer in Moscow and, later, in

Petersburg. His literary works and journalistic endeavors were oriented toward the 237

educated public rather than toward the polite society alone. It has been suggested that he owed his journalistic success to a large degree to his skillful use of humor and

satire, including parody. He successfully solved the problem of teaching new read

ing skills to part of his readership by supplying the minimally marked parodies with a

rather extensive paratext which provided the context and, at times, even the explicit directions necessary for adequate interpretation. The solution, however, has the potential for serving needs that are broader than this particular expansion of the reading audience. It can be used at any time when a parody is intended to reach an audience with varying degrees of literary competence. Polevoj’s personal contribution was not only that he invented a new so

lution, but also that he recognized the communicative problem at the right moment

and responded to it appropriately.

The rapid institutionalization of Russian literature during the 1830s and 40s

also led to certain restructuring within the reading public. The social composition of

the categories of elite (select, privileged) and ordinary (random, common) reading

public changed. The elite public was no longer composed exclusively of members of polite society. An increasing number of razno£incv were being admitted into it. The

criterion for selection was no longer the membership and the place of the individual in the hierarchy of polite society, but his/her membership and position in the hierarchy of the profession of letters (e. g., the activity of the extremely influential literary critic Vissarion Belinskij, of the poet and editor Nikolaj Nekrasov, etc.).

The restructuring did not change the basic norms that distinguished the elite public from the ordinary one. One of these norms/privileges was the right to hear or read a new literary work before it was published. In terms of the production and 238 reception of parody this meant that the elite readers/listeners were expected, as be fore, to come up with an adequate interpretation with little or no help on the part of the author. Identifying the right context and system of values encoded by the paro dist was part of the test of the eligibility of the individual for the social role of “a member of the elite reading public.”

The second norm/privilege was the right to know the writers personally. The status of personal acquaintance did not automatically mean friendly relations. It was compatible also with feelings such as critical attitude, rivalry, and even enmity. The literary salons and circles, the meetings of the editorial boards, and the social events connected with publishing and the book trade were the forms which structured the social life of the elite reading public.

The common reading public included the groups of the subscribers to maga zines and newspapers, the book-buyers, the patrons of public libraries, the visitors of the literaturnve gtenija (i.e., public meeting in the 1860s, where the authors read their own works in front of a broad audience). Of course, some members of the or dinary reading public engaged in this kind of activities more regularly than others.

Although the people who read regularly and extensively were at times very compe tent readers, they still did not belong to the elite public, because they did not have the necessary personal ties with the profession of letters. For that reason, the ordi nary public read the works only after they were published. In case some of the works were not publishable and were disseminated in manuscript, the common readers normally did not have access to the copies written by the author himself.

What was the function of parody in regard to this hierarchic division of the reading audience? First of all, like any other literary work, it served as a marker of 239

status. Having heard the parody from the author himself, having witnessed the very

act of improvisation, or having received a copy of it written personally by the author was a sign of distinction within the reading community. A further differentiation of the reading audience existed within the two major

divisions. At this point there is very little information about the internal hierarchy of

the common public. More, but still insufficient, information is available about the

hierarchy of the elite audience.

The literary salons, circles, and editorial boards had different degrees of pres

tige and influence. Thus the salon of Ekaterina Karamzina was the most respected and influential literary association in the eighteen twenties and thirties, the group

around the editorial board of the literary journal Contemporary was the dominant

literary association in the eighteen forties, fifties, and sixties, while the literary circles of Nikolaj Gred (mid 182Gs - mid 1830s), of Aleksandr Voejkov (late 1820s and

1830s), or Nestor Kukol’nik (late 1830s - mid 1840s) were much less prestigious.

Parody was one of the means for establishing the spirit of group solidarity.

More precisely, this function was performed by friendly parody created through clas

sical or maximally marked adaptation of the original. The reason why the function was not carried out by the minimally marked parody is the following. The main task

in this case was not to screen off people who were not compatible with the group,

because the members of the group had already passed the test of social compatibili

ty. They had already proven their literary competence and good taste. Now, the ob jective was to confirm the cohesion within the group by enjoying the shared familiar

ity with the authorized transgressions of its general behavioral norms. 240

The chief purpose of the parody was not to check whether the reader/listener would identify correctly the original, but to challenge him to discover the dominant

intended attitude within the maze of relations between original, new material, extra-

literary context, target of criticism, target of approval, and kind of laughter. There is always a strong possibility for misinterpretation if one is not familiar with the rela tions between the members of the group.

For example, the following parody of the genre of poems dedicated to hostess

es of literary salons, taken out of the context of the salon of Avdot’ja Elagina, might

sound as an irreverent lowering of a religious prayer and, therefore, look like an ex ercise in free thinking a la Voltaire of the kind practiced by PuSkin in his poem Gav- riliada.^

Svjataja mudenica Evdokija, Moli boga o nas! My vse gregnye takie!!! A pervyj iz nix az. Svjataja mudenica Evdokija, moli boga o nas. My vse userdno K tebe pribegaem, A ty miloserdno Napoi nas daem. Svjataja mudenica Evdokija, moli boga o nas! (Sobolevskij, qtd. in Aronson 160)

In fact, the intertextual connections of this parody are quite different. It is re lated not to Gavriliada. but to PuSkin’s “Akafist Ekaterine Nikolaevne Karamzinoj,” which is a sincere, although rather exalted, praise to another famous salon hostess.

The reference to the well-known religious work of the Eastern Orthodox church,

“The Akathistos of Our Holy Mother of God,” in PuSkin’s poem is far from any reli gious or personal irreverence. It is unquestionably a device for elevating the style of his praise to Karamzina. 241

Sobolevskij’s parody, while lowering the general model of lofty praise of a sa lon hostess, does not include any ridicule either of its literary original, nor of

Avdot'ja (Evdokija) Elagina. It is a piece of friendly parody and part of the tradition

of literary games, friendly jokes, and laughter cultivated by polite society.

This tradition had quite strict rules for selecting the authors of such jokes and parodies. Only a respectful and affectionate friend had the right to engage in these exercises of playful lowering of the high target of the joke. If there was any doubt as to the sincerity of the friendly feelings, the joke was regarded with suspicion, because it could be an act of camouflaged ridicule.

The tradition of playful lowering usually includes the author of the parody as a target of laughter as well. For example, in a parodic poem devoted to still another salon hostess, Aleksandra Smirnova-Rosset(i), the parodist, 2ukovskij, includes himself as target of the carnival laughter: O, car’ moj nebesnyj! Ja na vse reSit’sja gotov. Prikazete 1’, kozu Dam sodrat’s moego blagorodnogo tela, £to-by s§it’ Vam Djuzinu teplyx kaloSej, daby, guljaja po travke Nozek svoix zamoflt’ ne mogli by. Prikazete 1’ u§i Dam otrezat’ sebe, Ctob v letnee vremja xlopuSkoj Vam userdno sluza, polozili oni derznovennyx Mux... (2ukovskij, qtd. in Aronson 189)

In a letter to Prince Petr Vjazemskij (1831), PuSkin describes the communica tive situation in which the above parody originated, “£ukovskij’s teeth hurt, he quar rels with Rosseti, she makes him leave her room, and he writes an Arzamasian apol ogy in hexameter for her” (189). (There is some difference between the text quoted by PuSkin and its later variant published in a collection of £ukovskij’s works. Since

PuSkin’s quotation is obviously incomplete, I cite here the later variant.) The 242

* characteristic of the parody as “Arzamasian apology in hexameter” is an important clue about the way a contemporary elite reader had perceived the text. The combination of carnival type of laughter, general semantic codes for lowering the high subject, inclusion of the author of the parody and of the fellow-members of the literary association as subjects of lowering, and the meter (hexameter) were regarded as a trade mark of Arzamasian parody.

Indeed, there is strong similarity between 2ukovskij’s parodic minutes of the meetings of the literary society Arzamas, written more than twenty years before the parody, and his new text. The similarity concerns both the poetics of the parodies and their function as an expression of group solidarity.

The minutes of Arzamas made fun of both the literary rivals from the Collo quium of the Lovers of the Russian Word and of the members of Arzamas. In doing that they used the same kind of carnival laughter and the same kind of general low ering codes. The difference was in the attitude behind the laughter. The rivals were ridiculed, while the fellow-Arzamasians were playfully teased. These parodies estab lished the limits of the authorized transgressions allowed by the friendly relations be tween the members of this social group. Had an outsider written the same thing, it would have been interpreted as ridicule and insult. Likewise, a less privileged mem ber of, not to mention a stranger to, the salon of Smimova-Rosset would have not dared offer such an apology to its hostess.

2ukovskij’s friendly parody-apology was possible only within the context of the predictable relations within Smirnova’s salon. By this, it expressed and strengthened the feeling of group solidarity between iis members. In addition to this, Smirnova’s appreciation of the parodic production in the spirit of Arzamas made her a 243

particularly distinguished friend in the eyes of the former Arzamasians 2ukovskij, PuSkin, and Vjazemskij. The Arzamasian parody was a test of the compatibility of

her literary taste, with that of the Arzamasians. By appreciating this parody

Smirnova won the approval of the most famous poets of the time and, therefore,

rose in the hierarchy of the elite literary audience.

Along with the ideological function of parody as an expression of group soli

darity, it also served as a pastime for the members of the group. Most often it in

cluded reciting and listening to already written parodies, but frequently there were

also acts of improvisation which involved one or more parodists. The act of produc tion was organized either as co-authoring of a piece, or as a competition.

A classical example of cooperation is Koz’ma Prutkov’s comedy-parody Fanta- zija. The text was produced in 1850 by the familiar literary association of Aleksej and Vladimir £emCuznikov and Aleksej Tolstoj. Here is Aleksej 2em£uznikov’s ac count of their activity:

At that time we were very young, healthy, and jovial. We had no worries whatsoever and lived, thank God, a comfortable and trouble-free life. And there we were — I and my cousin Count Aleksej Tolstoj, — we decided to write together in a humorous form a small play entitled Fantasy. We wrote in the same room on two separate tables. We divided the play into two parts each of which had an equal number of scenes. He took one part and I took the other. When we finished and joined the two parts together, it turned out that in [a scene written by] one of us the characters leave the stage, while in [the next scene written by] the other they are [still] on stage. No connection whatsoever... We almost died laughing over our creation. Then we thought up the middle [part]. We inserted a thunder storm and other things and handed the play to my other brother, Vladimir, now de ceased, to write the conclusion (qtd. in Berkov, Koz’ma Prutkov 43)

According to several accounts, two parodies of 2ukovskij’s ballad “Smal’gol’mskij baron” appeared as a result from a competition which started in the salon of Sofija Ponomareva (RStP 252,253). On June 22,1821, six writers who used 244

to visit this salon, plus Ponomareva and her husband, founded the Society of the Lovers of Literature and Wisdom (Aronson 117). This was a friendly literary associ ation whose chief organizing principles were entertainment and laughter.

The recollections of the memoirists differ slightly as to the exact circumstances

in which Baron Anton Del’vig created the first of the two parodies. The story told by

Del’vig’s nephew is quite in line with the spirit of jokes and pranks reigning in this sa

lon. According to it, Ponomareva said to Del’vig that he could not write anything as

good as “Smal’gol’mskij baron.” Del’vig replied that there was nothing easier than that. With 2ukovskij’s text in hand, he began to walk back and forth across the room improvising the parody.

According to V. Gaevskij, the challenge came from Aleksandr Izmajlov. The

point to prove was not whether Del’vig was able to write a first-rate ballad, but whether it was difficult to parody a poem. It was Del’vig who selected 2ukovskij’s ballad in order to demonstrate that there is nothing easier than to parody a poem

(RStP 252). The communicative situation described in this account excludes the element of prank from Del’vig’s action. The act of production does not deceive the

expectations of the audience by coming up with a parody instead of a serious ballad.

Anyway, the result of the contest was a parody whose original was £ukovskij’s bal lad, but whose target of laughter was Izmajlov, a satirist, author of fables, and editor of the magazine Loyalist (Blagonamerennvj).

Morozov thinks that as far as the original is concerned, the parody was intend ed just as “a joke,” but as far as the target of ridicule goes, it was “a satire” aimed at

Izmajlov. He also claims that the second parody, which was written by Izmajlov, was oriented “against” Del’vig (253). He supports this interpretation of the intended 245 attitude of the second parody by pointing out that Izmajlov had published a parody involving Del’vig in Loyalist (715).

The interpretation of Del’vig’s parody as “a satire” against Izmajlov and of Izmajlov’s parody as oriented “against” Del’vig, however, fails to explain why in a letter to a fellow-poet from the circle around Loyalist Izmajlov quotes Del’vig’s parody and finds it “very successful” (oCen’ udagnoj). It also does not explain why later scholars of Russian literature thought that Izmajlov’s parody was written by

Del’vig and was simply an improved variant of his previous text (716). These facts cannot be explained, unless one assumes that the intended attitude of the two paro dies was different from the one suggested by Morozov.

Since both parodies originated within the group of authors connected with Ponomareva’s salon, I am inclined to regard them as cases of friendly parody. Al though not completely devoid of literary rivalry, they nevertheless expressed the spirit of camaraderie within the Society of the Lovers of Literature and Wisdom.

Morozov was misled by the carnival lowering codes in Del’vig’s parody. He perceived the image of the drunken Izmajlov in a ripped tail-coat soiled with tobac co and vodka and the mention of his beating by the policemen (kvartal’nye) as ridi cule (252). Judging these codes in the tradition of the late nineteenth century and the pre-Baxtinian twentieth-century tradition, Morozov had no other possibility but to interpret them as a means of denigration.

The fact that Morozov neglects the original communicative situation is another reason for misinterpretation. Carnival imagery, strong expressions, drinking, eccen tricity, mischief, and various other liberties were authorized transgressions accepted in Ponomareva’s salon (Aronson 117-22).^ In this context there is no basis for 246

interpreting the carnival imagery in Del’vig’s text as satirical ridicule and denigra

tion. It is true that outside of the context of the Society of Lovers of Literature and

Wisdom, the following quatrain from Del’vig’s parody does sound like an insult:

Podojdi ty, moj Bor’ka, moj tragik smeSnoj, I prisjad’ ty na brjuxo moe; Ty skotina, no, pravo, skotina lixoj, I skotstvo po nutro mne tvoe. (RStP 253)

The point is, however, that it should not be taken out of its context. The inten

tions of the parodist and the interpretation of the readers of the time must be recon structed only in the context of the original act of enunciation.

If one compares this stanza to the way in which 2ukovskij (Kassandra)

presents himself and his fellow-Arzamasian A. Turgenev (Aeolian Harp) in the pa

rodic minutes of Arzamas, it becomes clear that within a friendly literary association carnival imagery was an authorized transgression not necessarily intended or inter preted as an insult.

Tixo i jasno, kak pen’ blagorodnyj s svoim protokolom, USki szavSi i ryl’ce podnjav k miloserdnomu nebu, v kreslax sidela [Kassandra]. - “Ujmis’, Arzamas! vozglasila Kassandra, Hi garmonija puza Eolovoj Arfy tebja izumila?

Mne - Del’fijskij trenoznik ono. Proricaju, vnimajte!” Vzlezla Kassandra na puzo, sela Kassandra na puze. (2ukovskij, qtd. in Aronson 102)

The fact that the two parodies were not intended for publication also supports the interpretation of the texts as friendly parody. This was a form of pastime which expressed the jovial spirit of Ponomareva’s salon rather than a means of publicizing a literary controversy.

The communicative situations characteristic of the life of polite society and the elite reading public included not only meetings and conversations, but also an 247

extensive body of texts in manuscript. The tradition of this manuscript literature in

cluded familiar letters and notes, copies of personal letters made for friends and

relatives, collections of poems and drawings in the handwritten albums of the ladies,

handwritten magazines for a close circle of relatives and friends (e.g., Muratovskaja voS’ (Muratovo Louse). Sol’naja zarja (School Dawn))^ and manuscript copies of published, but unavailable, or of unpublished works (the last two categories were

particularly popular among the men).

The basic functions of manuscript parody were the same as the ones noted in

the discussion of the tradition of the “talk” of polite society, namely, a prerequisite for admission into a given social group, a means for finding a position within the group hierarchy, and an expression of the spirit of group solidarity.

One specific merit of the manuscript form is that it helps maintain the ties be tween the members of the group in case they are separated. Another merit is that it expands the circle of readers who can relate to the norms and values of the group from the position of an insider. Along with its basic function as a channel of com munication between parties separated by space and time, for the contemporary reader manuscript literature had also the merit of being a personal, intimate, uncen sored, unofficial, and even secret mode of communication.

A fourth merit, this time strictly from the point of view of the literary scholar, is that manuscript literature documents the circulation of a large number of texts which would have otherwise disappeared. It enables the historical reader to pene trate under the surface of the printed literature of the time. Thus he/she can see more about the institutionalization of literature and the development of the literary poetics than what is displayed by the published texts. 248

Manuscript literature is the main source of friendly parody, since it was inten tionally oriented toward a limited circle of readers. The same is true also for paro

dies satirizing religious and political figures and issues. A third group of parodies

strictly confined to manuscript literature consists of texts using overt sexual and/or

scatological lowering codes. All three groups shared the status of marginality as

compared to the published literary production, but their chances of being incorpo

rated into the mainstream literature were very uneven.

Because of the increase of interest toward the biographies of the literary fig

ures of the past which began around the middle of the nineteenth century and the rise of the positivistic trends in the literary scholarship in the second half of the same

century, many friendly parodies from the past were published in various scholarly

periodicals. A number of them appeared also in the collected works of important writers. Some texts from the other two groups were published abroad, but never in

Russia. With the change of the political conditions, especially after 1917, many of

the political satire parodies were published as well. The group which still remains mostly in manuscript form is that of the scatological and of what some researchers

have named “pornographic” parodies

Since I have already discussed the functions of the friendly parody in connec

tion with its existence as an oral improvisation and since the manuscript texts do not

add anything substantial to it, I will not discuss it again. The specific functions of the political and religious parodies-satires concern mainly ideological issues and will be

examined in the third part of this chapter. Therefore, here I will consider briefly the functions of the almost completely neglected group of the parodies with scatological and/or sexual lowering semantic codes. 249

Literature which employs such codes has puzzled scholars for a long time. On

one hand, the norms of polite society and of the educated public banned overt scato

logical and sexual vocabulary from both conversation and print. On the other hand, a number of prominent members of these groups wrote, read and copied the so-

called “scabrous works” (e.g., Sergej Neelov, Aleksandr PuSkin, Prince Petr Vjazem- skij, Mixail Lermontov, Count Aleksej Tolstoj, Nikolaj Loman, etc.).^ It is this dis crepancy between the ideology and practice of the groups which has been so hard to

explain.

In order to solve the difficult problem, one must assume that the norms of the two social groups allowed scatological and sexual codes as an authorized transgres sion. No one has studied the rules of this transgression in detail. It seems reasona ble to suppose that speech behavior followed the same general restrictions which regulated the status of the drunken bouts of young unmarried officers. Here is how

Lotman describes the attitude of polite society toward balls and drunken bouts of young bachelors:

The ball as a proper and truly genteel pastime was the opposite of the rev elry which, although cultivated by certain circles of the officers of the Guards, was generally regarded as a manifestation of bad taste. A young man was allowed to participate in it only in moderation and within certain limits (Roman PuSkina 90).

Although extremely incomplete, the available data shows that scabrous poetry in general, and verse parody in particular, were produced exclusively by men and were intended for an all-male audience. The social occasions which permitted and even required scabrous texts belonged to the lifestyle of informal all-male groups such as students in military and other privileged schools, young military officers and, although less often, young civil servants, and men of letters with Epicurean and 250

Bohemian inclinations (e.g., the members of Arzamas (1815-18), of The Green

Lamp Society (1819-20), of Nestor Kukol’nik’s literary “Stock Exchange” (1836 - mid-1840s), the literary board of the journal Contemporary (1848 - mid-1850s), the friendly and family association around Count Aleksej Tolstoj in his estate Krasnyj

Rog (early 1860s), etc.).-^

It is true that some of the gatherings could include women, but they belonged to special social categories. They were either women of dubious virtue (from the point of view of polite society), or prostitutes. They did not expect or receive the same treatment as the ladies in polite society and among the educated public. Con sequently, their presence did not impose the same restrictions on the language and the topics of conversation. They were regarded as expendable attributes of the all male company.-^

Men signaled their willingness to transgress certain norms of polite society and to accept the norms of all-male company by the use of scatological and sexual vo cabulary and topics. Swearing (materSfina) was the main marker of the person's readiness to disregard the norms imposed by parents or other figures of authority, including “the ladies.” The military as a formal social group had a double set of norms. On the surface, there were the official rules and regulations, while under neath them there was the unofficial code of behavior in which swearing was the rule rather than the exception. The meaning of swearing was much broader than the lit eral meaning of the phrases. It was a symbolic speech act referring to both the membership in this quintessential all-male group and the special status of the mili tary in comparison with the norms of the civilian segment of polite s o c i e t y . ^ 251

In such situations, literary verse parody with scatological and sexual lowering codes did not perform the function of an entrance examination. Rather, it assured

the upward mobility of the members within the all-male group. It was a sign of so phistication, because, unlike the ordinary act of swearing, it required literary compe

tence. One of the most prestigious positions in the group hierarchy was that of pro

ducer of scabrous poetry. The all-male society had a special role reserved for what

one may call “the bard of masculine identity.” Parody was one of the means through

which a man could attain this highly valued position.

Individual variations of this role appeared in modern Russian literature in the

second half of the eighteenth century. Two of them have been noted by Lotman, al though he does not touch upon their connection with the hierarchy and the ideology

of all-male societies. The first variant, which Lotman calls “Russian Diogenes,” or "new cynic,” is defined by the following three features “a philosophical contempt for

wealth [combined] with poverty, a disregard for the norms of propriety, and obliga

tory incessant drinking” (“Everyday Behavior” 84). The role modified and, in turn, was modified by the behavior of Ivan Barkov (1732-68), a poet and translator who worked in the Russian Academy of Sciences. The modification associated with his

name later served as a model according to which “the behavior and the literary im

age of Kostrov, Milonov, and a dozen of other literary figures” was organized.

The second role noted by Lotman was that of “the wit, the jester, and the buf foon” (83). A literary figure whose biography was structured according to this ster

eotype is General Sergej Marin (1775-1813). As an officer, he fought in the battle of

Austerlitz, received four wounds, was awarded a golden sword for bravery, and was promoted to staff captain. At Friedland he got a shell fragment in the head, was 252

decorated with St. Vladimir’s cross, and promoted to adjutant. In 1812, he served as

a staff general in the war against Napoleon, and died at the end of the war. Marin

was also an active politician and an interlocutor of Napoleon and of the Russian

Emperor. However, the attention of his contemporaries and of the historians of ear

ly nineteenth-century Russian literature and culture was captured not by his success ful military carrier and extraordinary bravery, but by his performance as a prankster, wit, poet-satirist, and author of parodies (84).

To these two variations one may add a few more that developed during the

nineteenth century. A salon counterpart of the military “wit, jester, and buffoon”

(i.e., the stereotype “Marin”) was created by the Moscow nobleman Sergej Neelov / (1779-1852). According to M. GerSenzon, “His scabrous verse is the the most char acteristic and the most amusing [part of his poetic production], but it, of course, will never be seen in print” (qtd. in Berkov, Koz’ma Prutkov 25). It is not clear in exactly what circumstances the scabrous verses were recited, but there can be no doubt that no matter whether the location was a ball, a social evening, or the gentlemen’s Eng lish Club, the intended audience did not include ladies.

PuSkin and Vjazemskij introduced a special blend of the previous three types which one might call “Arzamasian jester.” Barkov’s influence was very strong. As a student in the Lyceum PuSkin even wrote the parody “Ten’ Barkova” in which the apparition of Barkov blesses the inscribed poet who is identified with the lyrical per sona. The connection with the role of the military “wit, jester and buffoon” is not as direct as it was in the case of Marin, but the public familiar with this kind of poet ry constituted undoubtedly the largest segment of the extended audience to which many of the parodies were addressed. 253

This conclusion is supported by the history of PuSkin’s mock-epic Gavriliada.

The poem uses sexual topics as a lowering cod e.^ It caused an official investigation on charges of blasphemy. The trouble started because of a denunciation from the servants of one staff captain (italics mine — L.P.G.) Mit’kov to the religious authori ties. They complained that their master had given them the blasphemous poem to read.

During the interrogations in August 1828, PuSkin told two different stories in tended to convince the Committee that someone else was the author of the parody.

The fact relevant for this analysis is not that PuSkin obviously was not very good at lying, but that these stories present his ideas of what kind of audience could be in terested in this kind of reading matter. First, he testified that he saw Gavriliada in

1815 or 1816 and copied it as a student in the Liceum (italics mine — L.P.G.), but later lost the copy. The second time, he told the Committee that the manuscript was passed around among the officers in the Hussar regiment (italics mine — L.P.G., but that he did not remember from whom he got the text (TomaSevskij, “Istorija” 63 ).^

Evidence of the connection with the role of a “salon jester” is found in the fa miliar letters exchanged between the Arzamasians. These letters were intended to be read not only by the actual addressee, but also to be read to and even copied by other members of polite society. At times even letters which included obscenities were shown to members of polite society. Here is Vjazemskij’s reaction when he learned that one of his rather ribald letters was shown to other people:

2ukovskij showed the Karamzins my letter; with him I permit myself to swear most obscenely and walk around without trousers. My conscience doesn’t bother me, but I am ashamed. However, there’s no harm done. In my voice and habits there are certain bursts of Pindaric profanity (qtd. in Todd, Letter 81). 254

According to Todd, “verse that the younger Arzamasians wrote for their letters — unlike the elegiac poetry in Karamzin’s early correspondence — is almost invar

iably ribald or parodistic” (129). Actually, there were a number of pieces which

were both ribald and parodistic. Thus PuSkin begins his letter to Vjazemskij with the

following parody which lowers the high topic of poetic inspiration and creativity (e.g., PuSkin’s own poem “Prorok”) by means of a maximally marked adaptation that employs the scatological code

V gluSi, izmufias’ zizn’ju postnoj, Iznemogaja zivotom, Ja ne paiju — sizu orlom I bolen prazdnost’ju ponosnoj.

Bumagi beregu zapas; Natugu vdoxnoven’ja Cuzdyj, Xozu ja redko na Parnas, I tol’ko za bol’Soju nuzdoj. No tvoj zatejlivyj navoz Prijatno mne S£eko£et nos: Xvostova on napominaet, Otca zubastyx golubej, I dux moj snova pozyvaet Ko izpraznen’ju preznix dnej. rPoIn.Sob.Soe.429)

Todd makes one very perceptive observation about the authorial intentions

implied by the use of obscenities in the familiar letters. Their function is not only to make the letter intimate, but “to give future readers the impression that they have found something so scabrous that it was not intended for their eyes” (133). If Todd’s interpretation is correct, and I believe it is, then the social function of the Arzama sian scabrous parody is somewhat different from that of its predecessors. It not only symbolizes the compatibility of the author and the readers with the all-male social group and assures their upward mobility within the group, but also allows the future 255

readers to identify themselves as members of the elite reading public, namely, as people who can see texts not intended for the common reading audience.

This new social function broadens the literary potential of the scatological and the sexual lowering codes. They assume the additional meaning of a literary tradi tion practiced by the members of polite society and intended for an elite audience.

The functions and the expanded literary potential of the Arzamasian scabrous paro dy are used in the production of parody associated with the social role which emerged in the 1860s. I will call this variation “Prutkovian jester.”

Its emblematic figure is Count Aleksej Tolstoj. The main differential feature of the parodies associated with it is the fusion between scatological and sexual lower ing codes on one hand, and logical absurdity, on the other. ^ The social function of these parodies was to test the compatibility of the reader and of the author with a specific segment of the competent reading public. It included readers who accepted the idea that literature does not have to be exclusively a means of didactic criticism, but can also be a play with devices and points of view. Although in principle this at titude toward literature was not connected with a particular social class, a number of contemporary readers identified it with the aesthetic ideology of the group of the literary “aristocrats”.^

Also in the 1860s there emerged another variation of the social role “wit, jest er, buffoon.” Contemporary readers identified it with the group of radically minded men of letters and the part of the educated public which expected literature to serve mainly as a means of ideological debate. One may name this role “radical jester.” It is represented by the professional parodist Nikolaj Loman. 256

Like the “Prutkovian jester,” the “radical” one was aware of the presence of

scabrous parody as part of the Russian tradition of verse parody and used it as a lit

erary device. However, Loman does not utilize the amelioration and expansion of its semantics through the practice of the “Arzamasian jester.” Instead, he prefers to

disregard the status of scabrous parody as authorized transgression. He takes into account only the general norm according to which the scatological and sexual lower ing codes were banned from use in polite society and in printed matter.

In Loman’s interpretation, the use of these codes becomes a symbolic act. By using them, the parodist challenges the norms of censorship in general. The connec tion of the two codes with the ideology of the all-male social groups fades almost completely, while the meaning of of “text banned from print” is brought to the fore.

Reference to obscene manuscript literature serves as an ironic metaphor signifying the parodist’s defiance of political censorship.

This is one of the intended messages of Loman’s parody “Na kladbiSSe” (RStP

554). There are five lines in it which summarize the plot of a well-known unprint able scatological parody “Na kladbiSSe veter sviSEet.” The other intended message is denigration of the poetry of Konstantin SluCevskij who was considered representa tive of the literary school of Aestheticism. The radical critics opposed this school partly on literary, partly on philosophical and political grounds. For them, the cen tral principle of its aesthetics, namely, “an for art’s sake,” was an expression of both aesthetic, and political conservatism.

For similar reasons Loman appends the following note in prose to the parody

“Rassvelo. Glaza otkryty” (RStP 555). The reference to the manuscript tradition of scabrous literature is intended as a lowering device: 257

’’There are no more hints here, everything is so definite and precise that there is not a single feature added by me. The poet [Sludevskij] has brought the escalation of passion to the point that is rendered in manuscript collec tions [of poems]. I do not refrain from writing a variation of the poem, but after the theme I pause; [the rest] might very likely be presented by [a series of] dots [replacing unprintable words]. (RStP 799) In the parody of Tjutifev’s poem “PoSli. Gospod’. svoju otradu” Loman directly

applies an obscenity as a lowering device (RStP 499). The culinary code, more pre

cisely that of exotic food, is only camouflage which helps the obscene finale pass the scrutiny of the censor and appear in print in Russia

Tak oblegCi, gospod’, verigi Tomu, kto mnogo preterpel, Kto v zdeSnej zizni, krome figi. Drugix plodov eSCe ne el (italics mine — L.P.G.).

The real referent of the italicized text is not the fruit itself, but an obscene ex pression and gesture used to convey insulting and absolute denial. Obviously, the original of the parody is TjutCev’s poem, but the target of ridicule is his aesthetic and political ideology.

The parody produced by the “radical jester” parts with the existing tradition of the “Arzamasian jester” in another significant way. It is not intended to test and promote social compatibility, but, on the contrary, to make public the disagreement of the group represented by the parodist with the ideology and the literary practice of other social groups. This is, however, only one instance of the use of parody as tactics for voicing ideological discord. Aggressive competition is a major function of parody which deserves special consideration. 258

3. The Tactics of Aggressive Competition

This is actually not a single function, but a functional pair. It includes the abili ty of parody to serve as a means for voicing ideological differences as well as a means for campaigning against adversaries and winning over the competition. The interest in these functions of parody has a long history. Some parodists and literary scholars even maintain that this should be the only function of parody. Traditionally, the function is discussed by means of military metaphors such as battle, struggle, at tack, weapon, etc.

In fact, what is involved is not a battle, but a competition for the interest, the approval, and the financial support of the groups of the producers (writers and pub lishers), the distributors (booksellers), and the consumers (readers). These objec tives cannot be achieved through physical violence; therefore the military metaphors are a misleading representation of the nature of the functions. The objectives can not be achieved through external ideological oppression either. The failure of gov ernment censorship to direct the literary process proves this quite convincingly. Lit erature develops only in the conditions of free competition between individual pro ducers (writers) and groups of producers united by common literary ideology, i.e., literary schools and movements.

The years of study of parody with regard to its function as tactics for initiating and winning ideological controversies have produced results that are not as impres sive as one might expect. The main contribution of those studies is that they have identified and collected a considerable number of individual cases. Their main shortcoming is the fact that the interpretation of the cases is often one-sided and, at times, even erratic, due to the excessive interference of the ideology of the scholar. 259

It is not likely that there will be major changes of the situation in the near fu ture. The main reason for this pessimistic forecast is the state of contemporary lit

erary theory. In spite of the progress made by the modern sociology of literature,

the relations between literature, ideology, and society still remain a rather grey area.

Even the views of such a respected scholar as Terry Eagleton at times contain signif

icant oversights. An example of this is the list of what he calls “the major constitu ents of a Marxist theory of literature.” Here is the list itself: (I) General mode of production, (II) Literary mode of production, (III) General ideology, (IV) Aesthetic ideology, (V) Authorial ideology, (V) Text (Literature and Ideology 44). It remains unclear why it is only the Authorial ideology that is granted the status of “major con stituent” and its logical counterpart, the ideology of the reader, is omitted. More over, later Eagleton mentions the “ideology of the act of reading itself (62).

Another serious reason for pessimism is the fact that regardless of the recent rise of the interest in the points of convergence between the social, political, and aesthetic functions of various objects and actions, there is no reliable method of analysis of such materials. The problem is hard to solve, because of the extreme di versity of the material. Virtually every object and action has the potential of acquir ing ideological connotations.

For instance, what would seem a rather technical question — the channel through which a text is communicated, namely, orally, in manuscript, or in print, — can develop a wide range of ideological connotations. I will not explore the beliefs in the magic power of the spoken or written word, nor the religious, aesthetic, and legalistic implications associated with manuscripts and printed matter. I would only take as an example one of the censorship rules of Emperor Nicholas I. Acting as a 260

special censor of PuiSkin’s works, Nicholas I appended the following instruction to the poem “Druz’jam”: “It may be distributed in manuscript (po rukam). but should

not be printed” (TomaSevskij, PuSkin 253). Obviously, at that time the ideological

implications of a manuscript literary text were significantly different from those of a

printed one.

In view of the existing difficulties and limitations, one cannot present a succinct

discussion of the function of Russian verse parody (1815-70) as tactics of aggressive competition. A full-scale investigation cannot be undertaken, because the purpose

of this study does not allow to commit the space and attention which such an investi gation requires. Therefore, I will analyze only one major issue, namely, the use of ideological concepts associated with writing of poetry and the image of the poet in campaigns for winning the support of the communities of producers and consumers and of the institutions of literature.

The term “ideological,” according to the interpretation adopted in the first part of this chapter, refers not only to political and philosophical, but also to aesthet ic and literary ideas, norms and values. The ideology of the authors as a social group is centered around the questions of the status of creative writing and the status of the writer.

In Russia during the period between 1815 and 1870 the status of writing poetry fluctuated between the views of the creative act as (1) a kind of public duty, (2) a strictly personal, emotionally rewarding activity, (3) entertaining, and (4) work to earn a living. Different literary schools made different choices to which one or what combination of these general concepts they would assign the highest ideological val ue and make their norm. Each literary school developed a set of images and stylistic 261

devices for conveying its version of the ideological norm. Classicism saw the act of writing poetry as civic duty which involved glorifying

the monarch and enlightening the readers by means of a codified hierarchy of liter

ary genres. Sentimentalism constructed its norm by combining the concepts of per sonally rewarding activity, private entertaining, and amelioration of the manners of polite society. Romanticism capitalized on another combination, i.e., personal self- fulfillment plus rebellion against the existing poetic, individual, and political norms.

Aestheticism made the strictly personal self-expression its only concern and ruled out any connection with social and political ideology. Finally, Realism returned to the concept of civic duty, but interpreted it in a different way. Its norm was based on a combination of civic duty, understood as social criticism with political overtones, and the view of artistic creativity as work for making a living. Correspondingly, the concept of the poet developed variations which ranged from ‘'bard of imperial glory” (Classicism) to “advocate of the suffering people”

(Sentimentalism, Realism), from “divinely inspired prophet” (Romanticism) to “ra tionalizing, socially conscious critic” (Classicism, Realism), from “stern moralist”

(Classicism, Realism) to “pleasure-seeking Epicurean” (Romanticism, Aestheti cism), from “sensitive youth” (Sentimentalism, Romanticism) to “demonic seducer”

(Romanticism), from “victim of social injustice” (Romanticism, Realism) to “victim of his own passions” (Romanticism, Aestheticism).

The literary work was also associated with a series of ideologically significant concepts. It was seen as an imitation of a revered model of Classical Antiquity

(Classicism), a unique aesthetic object (Sentimentalism, Romanticism, Aestheticism,

Realism), a materialization of divine inspiration (Romanticism), an almost ritual 262

offering to the sacred art of poetry (Romanticism, Aestheticism), an ideological

statement with specific practical purpose (Classicism, Sentimentalism, Romanticism,

Realism), an expression of the poet’s inner self (Sentimentalism, Romanticism, Aes

theticism, Realism), a production of a craftsman (Romanticism [Romantic irony], Realism), a piece of merchandise (Realism), etc. The general strategy of parody is to select some of these concepts and stylistic

devices typical for a given author, genre, or literary school and to lower their value.

The actual tactical moves vary greatly. The clear-cut cases of aggressive competition

appear when the parodist completely rejects the norms and values of the author of

the original. Such are, for example, the parodies of the members of Arzamas ori ented against the literary ideology of the members of the Colloquium of Lovers of

the Russian Word (1815-18) and the parodies directed at Fet and the ideology of Aestheticism written in the 1850s and 1860s by supporters of Realism such as I. Pa-

naev (RStP 502), I. Turgenev (504), D. Minaev (506,510, 511). In them, the paro

dists do not share and, therefore, completely deny positive authority to the views of

their competitors about the image of the poet, the concept of writing poetry, and the work of poetry. The denial is accompanied with ridicule which makes it even more

effective in terms of influencing the attitude of the reader.

However, it is not obligatory that the parodist should absolutely reject a given general concept. The difference and the disagreement can concern only a specific variation of it. Thus, Dobroljubov parodies the poems of Rozengejm by using a dif ferent tactic. He does not deny the validity of the general concept of poetry as a

means of ideological (literary, social, and political) criticism. On the contrary, Do broljubov is one of the most fervent proponents of this view of poetry and of the 263

poets who support it. What he ridicules and denigrates is the manner in which Roz- engejm uses this concept. Dobroljubov disapproves of Rozengejm’s civic poems, because, in his view, they criticize the wrong social issues in a wrong way.

In both cases, the purpose of the parody is to discredit the norms and values of the poems of individual poets and of the literary groups which they represent. By making the ideology of the competitors seem ridiculous the parodist expects to weaken the support for them within both the literary community and the reading audience. This, in turn, would cause difficulties in finding support from the institu tions of literature such as literary salons and circles, publishing houses, bookstores, literary periodicals, etc.

The same purpose can be served by the institution of literary criticism as well.

Indeed, parodies were frequently included within larger pieces of expository prose such as letters discussing literary topics, reviews, and critical articles. There were reasons for such doubled criticism. Compared to literary criticism written in exposi tory prose, verse parody has two advantages. On one hand, it evokes more active emotional response from the reader, and, on the other, as a demonstration in the form of a poem it affects more directly the reader’s literary repertoire and horizon of expectations. Through this, parody diversifies the approaches to the mind and feelings of the reader and increases the chances of the competitors to influence the consumer. In addition, parody is a particularly effective tactic for reaching the mod erately sophisticated reading audience which is not interested in the details of the literary disputes and does not read serious literary criticism, but enjoys comic and/or satirical literature. 264

The following episode from the memoirs of Sergej Aksakov is an excellent il lustration of the effectiveness of parody as tactics of aggressive competition. The

event actually took place in 1806, i.e., before the period investigated in this study.

Nevertheless, 1 decided to use it, because, for one, the chronological deviation is not

significant, and, for another, the information about the reactions of the contempo rary readers is so scarce that one does not have much choice.

My turn came. I said that of all [ Russian poets] I like Lomonosov the most, and that I consider his ode from Job his best work. The face of GorodCaninov lit up with joy. “Would you be so kind as to recite [a part] from this exquisite ode,” he said. This was just what I had been waiting for, hoping to impress the professor with my recitation. Alas, fate punished me for my pride and for my literary conservatism in a very cruel way! Instead of the famous verses of Lomonosov, “Oh, you man who in your hardship // grumble against God in vain,” I recited, because of my incredible absent- mindedness, the following two verses, “Oh, you officer, who in your hard ship // grumble against [military] duty in vain!”. “I beg your pardon,” the professor started to scream, “this is an appalling parody of the exquisite ode of Lomonosov.” I got confused, blushed, and hurriedly started again, “Oh, you officer who in your hardship...” The whole auditorium thundered from the loud laughter. Dumbfounded by aggravation and embarrassment, I was utterly ashamed and could not understand what had gotten into me.... Later I straightened things out with GorodCaninov. I tried to as sure him that this was an unfortunate mistake, a case of absent-mindedness by which I myself had been absolutely amazed, and that everything had happened, because just before the class I had heard the damned parody twice and read it once myself... (158-9).

Obviously, the impact of the parody upon the young Aksakov was so strong

that for a while it displaced the original from his memory. This is an effect that no

piece of literary criticism rendered in expository prose can accomplish. Moreover, since this could happen to a person that did not resent, but, on the contrary, re spected the poetics of the parodied original, one may assume that the parody could be even more influential if the literary preferences of the person are not as definite or as firmly established as those of Aksakov. 265

The fear of being ridiculous was certainly an important factor which shaped the literary taste of the readers and of the authors. It also had a strong bearing upon

the decisions of the publishers and the booksellers, because it directly affected the

sales of books and magazines.

Another tactical maneuver concerning the ideological concepts of the poet and

of the writing process was the parody of the literary biography. According to Lotman, the phenomenon ‘literary biography of the author’ appears only in modern literature. More precisely, it emerges during those periods of literary history when

“the concept of [literary] creativity is seen as identical with [that of writing] poetry” (“Lit. biografija” 110).

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Lotman maintains, the phenome non ‘literary biography of a poet’ became part of Russian literary ideology and practice.(113). It got firmly established during the eighteen thirties and forties (115).

“The act of creation of a biography of the writer,” Lotman writes, “becomes a type of literature” (114). To this one may also add that the literary biography of the poet becomes also part of the repertoire of the reader and a condition for the adequate interpretation of his works.

The literary biography does not include all the facts of the real biography of the poet. It screens the available events through certain “cultural codes” and incor porates the ones that are relevant for the particular model. In case the real biogra phy lacks some features that are necessary from the point of view of the model, the poet either modifies his real life according to the requirements of the chosen model and the features do appear, or he invents them. Lotman finds PuSkin’s attitude to ward building his own literary biography particularly instructive in this respect. For 266

PuSkin the creation of his own literary biography “was always subject of the same conscious creative efforts and perseverance as [the writing of] his literary works”

(114). The readers also participate in the creation of the literary biography of the poet. They are especially active about supplying various invented, or as Lotman calls them, “mythological” elements.

The literary biography is a point of convergence between ideology and practi

cal activity as well as between literary, social, religious, and political ideology. Its lit erary significance makes it suitable as an original of literary parody. The best known case of parody of literary biography is, of course, the poet-hoax Koz’ma Prutkov. There are also several other such parodies (e.g., the images-hoaxes Novyj Poet, Major Mixail Burbonov, Junker Zvonkobijuxov, Konrad LilienSvager, Jakov

Xam, Prutkov’s son Faddej Prutkov, etc.). The proliferation of such parodies means that the tactic was very successful. It was used mainly to ridicule and discredit the ideological norms of literary biography endorsed by a specific literary school or group of poets, but it also had as a secondary target the literary biographies of cer tain individuals (e.g., the poets Benediktov and Rozengejm).

Imitating the invariant structure of literary biography, the parodies consisted of two parts. The part in prose included notes about the life and the family of the poet-hoax, about his manner and habits of creative writing, about the physical ap pearance of his manuscripts, etc. The part in verse contained the actual verse paro dies ironically presented as pieces of non-parodic poetry. In this way, the parody became a means of aggressive competition between large structures which included literary texts, and ideological and behavioral models. The parodic ridicule and deni gration of the parody concerned not only the literary production (poems), but also 267 the ideological and behavioral norms and values of the image of the poet endorsed by literary schools or individuals.

Aggressive competition pursues two main objectives which complement each other. On one hand, it minimizes support for the competitors, and, on the other, it campaigns to increase the support for the ideology endorsed by the parodist. There fore, the wider the audience — the greater the chances of success. This is especially valid for accomplishing the second goal, since the campaign targets not only people who might switch literary allegiance, but also people that are about to make their choice for the first time. This explains the increasing presence of parody in the available media of communication such as letters, literary magazines, literary alma nacs, and books.

The number and the prominence of verse parody on the pages of literary peri odicals steadily increased during the eighteen thirties, forties, and fifties. It has been noticed that after 1855 and in the early eighteen sixties the character of the parodies changed significantly (Kravcov 91; Berkov, “Iz istorii,” 242; Morozov, RSP 66;

BuxStab “Dobroljubov”). This happened because the so-called “Utilitarian school” became a very active competitor in the literary life of the period (Kravcov 91). The writers and critics who belonged to this school believed that literature should be use ful for the reader. “Useful” in their interpretation meant that it must instruct and guide the readers in solving the social and political problems of their time.

There is a tradition of regarding parodies of this kind as thinly disguised social and political satire. Some scholars maintain that the purpose of these parodies was extraliteraiy rather than literary. However, the situation is more complicated than it seems. For Dobroljubov and others who sympathized with the utilitarian variety of 268

Russian Realism, the social and the political convictions of the poet were a literary issue. As long as the biography of the poet was regarded as a literary issue this was a

perfectly legitimate assumption. Evidently, one cannot simply declare these issues

as extraliteraiy. They may be extraliterary from the point of view of the school of Aestheticism, to mention the main competitor of this kind of Realism, or from the

point of view of other varieties of literary ideology, but they were not such for the Utilitarian Realism.

The prominent place of political ideology in these parodies won them the at

tention of a very wide audience. Because of the lack of freedom for open political debate and criticism in Russia, literature had taken over some of these functions.

Consequently, there was a strong popular demand for literary works which could

serve as alternatives to direct political criticism. The parodies of Dobroljubov, Mi naev, Kurofikin, Saltykov-SCedrin and other contributors to the magazines Contem porary and Spark responded to this demand of the reading public. In return, they acquired a large number of readers who supported their literary ideology. This was reflected in the increase in the number of subscribers to the magazines and in the demand for the books published by some of these parodists.

* * *

Investigation of the social functions of Russian verse parody (1815-70) demon strated that it served two main social needs. First, parody was instrumental for the consolidation and internal structuring of certain social groups. It was used as one of the entrance examinations which determined whether the candidate had the quali ties necessary for the members of polite society and/or the educated public. It was 269

also instrumental for testing the ability of the members of these social groups to per

form various roles within the group hierarchy, since it required mastery not only of

the norms, but also of the authorized transgressions of the rules of the group.

Second, parody helped differentiate between individual social groups by set

ting demarcation lines between their ideologies and even behavioral patterns. The divisions were the condition for organizing the hierarchy of the literary groups within the society at large. Parody functioned as an effective tactical means also in the ag

gressive competition between the literary groups for securing the dominant position

in this hierarchy.

At times the competition between the literary groups was intended and inter

preted as a metaphor of the struggle for power between the various political ideolo

gies and groups of Russian society. This situation was result of the restrictions im posed by the government upon the freedom of political debates. The political impli

cations of literary ideology made parody a very popular literary mode in the eight

een fifties and sixties.

Another important reason for the popularity of parody was the fact that it was regarded as a form typical of informal social groups, unlike serious literature which

could be cultivated by formal as well as informal groups. One of the indications of the status of parody as “informal” literature is the fact that it was not included as part of the literary curriculum of educational institutions.

Therefore parody was perceived as an access to the life and relations of the community of the men of letters. The steady increase of the social prestige and in fluence of this group from the beginning of the nineteenth century onward made the position of a member of the elite reading audience a very desirable sign of social 270 distinction. Through parody, the members of the common reading public got the feeling of moving closer to the literary community and to the cherished position of a member of the elite audience.

Thus, both the political implications and the desire for attaining higher social prestige contributed greatly to the real boom in the interest in parody in the 1850s and 1860s. The dramatic change in the volume of material and in the scope of the reading audience is noted in the following remark of M. N. Longinov, a contributor to the magazine Contemporary. In 1866, while recalling the life of the literary circle around the editorial board of the magazine back in the early 1850s, he wrote: “In our circle, parodies (at that time they had not yet become such an ordinary thing as today — italics mine L.P.G.), epistles, poems, and all sorts of other literary pranks constituted an entire (body) of manuscript literature ...” (Berkov, Koz’ma Prutkov

32).

The increased interest of the reading public in parody caused increased pro duction of this kind of literature. This meant that more writers devoted more time to parody. In the 1860s there was already a group of poets who produced mainly parody, i.e., there was a community of professional parodists. At that time were published also many manuscript parodies preserved in the archives of the poets of earlier times. This also strengthened the feeling that there was a special community of the lovers of parody and increased its self-awareness and self-esteem.

All this suggests the conclusion that there is yet another, although rather spe cialized social function of parody, namely, to create and expand its own literary ide ology and its own social group within the larger community of the men of letters and the educated public. 271

Notes

* As a subdivision of the entry introduced under the verb “obSEat’,” Vladimir Dal* includes also “grazdanskoe obSEestvo” (civilian society) which means “the citi zens of a given state, [geographic] location, all non-military people.”

^ RaznoEincv. according to Riasanovsky’s definition, are “people of mixed background below the gentry, such as sons of priests who did not follow the calling of their fathers, offspring of petty officials and lower rank army men, or individuals from the masses who made their way up through education and effort” (47-8).

“Polite talk” or “polite conversation” as a norm of verbal communication and the role of wit and parody in it are discussed at greater length and detail by Todd (Letter: Fiction). Lotman (“Decembrist;” “Everyday behavior”), and Berkov (Koz’ma Prutkov).

^ Avdot’ja Panaeva recalls a story about a meeting between the well-known publisher Smirdin and PuSkin’s wife. Natal’ja PuSkina’s attitude clearly demonstrats that she did not regard this man, who regularly published the works of her husband and paid generous royalties for them, a member of polite society. The episode is rendered as a story told by Smirdin himself: So, when I entered the study, Aleksandr SergeeviE [PuSkin] said to me, “My wife took the manuscript from me. Go to her. She wants to see you in per son.” He lead the way, knocked on the door, and she answered, “Come in.” Aleksandr SergeeviE opened the door and left. I did not dare to step in, be cause I saw a lady standing by the pier-glass with one knee on a stool and a maid who was fastening her satin corset. “Come in. I am hurrying to get dressed,” said she. “I asked you to come to me in order to tell you that you are not going to get the manuscript from me unless you bring me a hundred [rubles] in gold instead of fifty. My husband sold you his verse too cheap. Bring the money at six and you will get the manuscript... Good-by.” She said all this fast, without turning her head toward me. Instead, she was look ing at herself in the mirror and fixing the long curls that come down along her cheeks. I bowed and departed for Aleksandr SergeeviE’s study” (Gric 270-71).

^ Additional information about the custom of dedicating poems to salon hostesses is available in Literatnrnye kruzki i salonv (154.156,164,165,183).

^ Contemporary readers perceived Izmajlov as a “cynic” and his fables as “cyn ical” and “distinguished by Russian humor” (Aronson 118-19). “Russian” in this case means a low-class” or “peasant” (muzickij) kind of humor. Izmajlov himself supported this perception of himself by his deliberately negligent appearance and manners. In Voejkov’s poem Dom sumasSedSix (Insane Asylum) there is a stanza devoted to Izmajlov. It gives a description which has a number of details similar to the ones mentioned in Del’vig’s parody: 272

Vot Izmajlov — avtor basen, Rassuzdenij, epigramm; On piSdit mne: “ Ja soglasen, Ja pisatel’ ne dlja dam! Moj predmet: nosy s prySdami; Xodim s muzoju v traktir Vodku pit’, est’ luk s sel’djami... Mir kvartal’nyx — vot moj mir.” (Russkaja satira 82)

^ Muratovskaja vo§’ was a humorous manuscript journal written by A. Ple§deev and V. Zukovskij at the Muratovo estate. Later both poets became members of Ar zamas and “the play with literature turned into playful literature” (Lotman, Sotvor- enie 249). “Utrennjaja zarja” was a humorous manuscript journal written by the students of the School of the Ensigns of the Guards and the Cavalry Cadets. Lermontov’s scabrous “Hussar poems” appeared in it.

® In his dissertation, William Hopkins gives a detailed account of the Russian and English terminology used to denote this type of literature.

^ These works of PuSkin and Lermontov are analyzed by Hopkins (’’The De velopment,” “Lermontov’s Hussar poems”). Cases of the use of scatological and sexual lowering codes may be found in Aleksej Tolstoi’s “Bunt v Vatikane” (379), “Medicinskie stixotvorenija” (401-5), “Mudrost’ iizni (416-20) and in the cycle “Voennye aforizmy Faddeja Koz’mida Prutkova” which is probably co-authored by Tolstoj and Vladimir Zemduznikov (Koz’ma Prutkov 77-89).

To these literary societies and friendly associations one may also add the Society for Loud Laughter (ObSdestvo gromkogo smexa) (Lotman, “Decembrist” 129) and the Society of Swine (ObSdestvo svin’ej (Aronson, 20). As one can see from the descriptions of the rituals of these societies and the kind of language and literature associated with them, they followed very persistently the imagery and the ideology of carnival (Aronson, 62,103,113-15,294-95; Todd, Letter 129-33; Lotman, “Decembrist” 129-35; Berkov, Koz’ma Prutkov 34-5). In a poem addressed to Aleksej Tolstoj, M. Longinov explicitly identifies the spirit reigning among the au thors of the poet-hoax Koz’ma Prutkov and their friends with that of the Russian folk carnival which took place during the so-called “Svjatki” (Dec. 25 — Jan. 6):

Proditav tvoju balladu Pro vrada i pro jantar’, Vspomnil ja kak do upadu My duradilisja vstar.

Smex i klili! Vedno svjatki! Kto teper’ vas voskresit: “Nezabudki i zapjatki,” “Zamok Pamba, “Junker Smit”? (Berkov, Koz’ma Prutkov 18) 273

H Usually such categories of women were included in the carousing of young bachelors, and married men tried to avoid such gatherings (Lotman. Roman PuSkina 76,90; “Decembrist” 102). Moreover, not all bachelors were interested in partici pating in these bouts.

17 The most informative study of the norms which regulate the use of swearing (mater’ggina. mat) in Russian society is that of Boris Uspenskij, although he is most interested in the reconstruction of the ancient rituals and beliefs of the Eastern Slavs and pays relatively little attention to the practice of the members of the nineteenth- century educated gentry.

^ “Ten’ Barkova” is discussed in detail by Hopkins (”The Development” 274- 81).

The connections between the Gavriliada and the eighteenth-century French and Russian tradition of mock-epic and libertine verse are briefly considered by TomaSevskij (Gavriliada) and Harkins (Gavriliada). Lur’e suggests that there might have been some old apocryphal version of the Biblical story which PuSkin read dur ing his exile to the South and used as a source for the poem.

1^ The enduring popularity of nineteenth-century scabrous poetry among Rus sian military men has been noted by both Hopkins (”The Development”) and Tara- novsky in connection with the pornographic mock-epic “Luka MudiSCev. Literary legend attributes the poem to Ivan Barkov, but Taranovsky shows that its versifica tion pattern belongs to thepoetry of the 1830s and suggests as a very probable au thor PuSkin’s brother Lev SergeeviC.

1^ Examples of logical absurdity combined with scatological and sexual lower ing codes are found in the poems from the cycle “Medicinskie stixotvorenija” and in the series of quatrains “Mudrost’ zizni.” 17 x' The question about the controversy between the so-called “aristocrats” and the authors from the “commercial trend” is rather complicated. The terms “aristo crat” and “commerce” or “commercial” were used in more than one sense and un der different circumstances. The basic point of the controversy was the question of whether one should write for pleasure and moral satisfaction, or for money. It has been pointed out that not all authors who were, so-to-speak, aristocrats by birth shared all of the views associated with the ideology of the literary aristocrats and even endorsed some of the ideas of the “commercial trend.” It is also clear, howev er, that there was something more than purely literary issues that was involved in the rather heated controversy. For a more extensive discussion of the question one might consult Todd’s Fiction and Society (81-88). 18 10 The issue of literary biography was introduced by TomaSevskij. The most significant recent contribution to the development of the concept is Lotman’s article “Literaturnaja biografija,” which explores the relations between the literary text and its author in the context of medieval and modern Russian literature and culture. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The analysis of Russian verse parody (1815-70) verified the preliminary theo retical assumption that literary parody must be regarded as a discrete process, rath er than an individual text. It treated the individual texts as constituents of the act of enunciation. It became clear that the text of the parody fully materializes only through the acts of its production and reception. For instance, a text intended as parody may not be perceived as such (e.g., Panaev’s minimally marked parody “Gus- tolistvennyx klenov alleja”), and, conversely, a piece of serious poetry may be inter preted as parody (e.g., Turgenev’s reading of “Slyxali 1’ vy”). The investigation was conducted on the assumption that the boundaries of the work of literature are not as well defined as they might seem when one reads an indi vidual written text. There can be a number of variants which precede the production of the final one (e.g., 2ukovskij’s “Arzamasian parody” dedicated to Smirnova-

Rosset). At times there can be also later versions of what was initially a final ver sion.

Versions are always produced during the act of reading, which is actually an act of restructuring and interpretation of an existing text according to the repertoire and the expectations of the reader. Usually this side of the life of the text does not leave traces, because people do not record it, but there is at least one way to prove that this is what really happens. The evidence is provided by the parodies which used to

274 275

circulate in oral form (e.g., “Luka MudiSCev”), but were occasionally recorded. Each person who knew the poem by heart provided a text that was different from

the others. Therefore, what is available is a collection of versions of an invariant,

rather than a series of repetitions of the same text.

The concept of parody as a process is also necessary, because the individual text does not exist in a vacuum. It is always connected with other texts through the repertoire and the horizon of expectations of both the reader and the writer. The

interpersonal knowledge of literature is a major factor that secures the success of

the act of communication in which the literary parody is the message. The parodic

text establishes intertextual relations not only with the parodied text, but also with

the literary norms and values carried by a group of texts which it represents. The

text of parody establishes also intertextual relations with other parodies. The act of enunciation and intertextuality allow the investigator to gain better insights of the

dynamics of parody and to identify its major literary and social functions.

The literary functions are aimed at two main objectives. The first objective is to establish the self-identity of parody and to make parody part of the interpersonal literary competence. This means that the authors and the readers become aware of

the structure of the invariant (i.e., original — adaptation — parody) and can identify the individual text as a structural variation.

It also means that both authors and readers of parody can interpret correctly the markers of similarity and difference which allow one to identify the original, the new material, the kind of laughter, the orientation, and the target of ridicule of the parody. First of all the reader needs to recognize the techniques and the codes of adaptation. Only then does the author have the choice of using minimally marked 276

(in terms of difference), classical, or maximally marked adaptation, and to expect that his intent and message will be adequately decoded.

The actual competence of the producers and consumers of parody is not a di rect result of the theoretically possible variants and variations of the invariant. It is a result of their historical realizations within a given tradition. This is why the syn chronic analysis of Russian verse parody (1815-70) in Chapter II is a case study of a historically specific realization of this general literary function.

The second main objective of the literary functions of parody is to establish a tradition of parody. The dynamics of the tradition is maintained by the tension be tween the minimally and the maximally marked variants of adaptation as each of the two extremes strives to become a dominant trend. The function of the struggle is to keep the necessary ratio between repetition and change so that the tradition can remain productive. The analysis of Russian verse parody demonstrated how the minimally marked adaptation gradually gained momentum and became a dominant trend in the parodic tradition of the eighteen forties and fifties and then, also gradu ally, started retreating from that position in the late eighteen fifties so that in the eighteen sixties the maximally marked parody once again became a dominant trend.

Along with the competition between the minimally and the maximally marked adaptation as an internal agent of change, repetition and change within the tradition depend also on the development of the literary process in general. The change of literary schools and the prominence of individual poets affects the system of literary norms and values, as well as the supply of originals and specialized codes. For ex ample, while the parody produced by the Romantic poets of the eighteen tens and twenties was directed against the norms and values of Classicism, and especially 277

against its emblematic representatives Count Xvostov and Admiral SiSkov, the parody of the Realists of the eighteen forties, fifties, and sixties was oriented against

Aestheticism and its emblematic representatives Fet and Slu£evskij.

The relations between the historical dynamics of the tradition of parody and

the general literary tradition are a two-way street. On one hand, parody depends on

non-parodic literature for its material, techniques, and orientation, but on the other

hand, it is an important agent of change in the historical dynamics of non-parodic

literature. Therefore, it indirectly helps build its own tradition as well.

The social functions of parody are in a sense the subject that is the most diffi cult to study, because of both lack of sufficient data and lack of adequate theoretical support. However, the main objectives of these functions are quite clear. The ob jective that has been rather neglected by the scholars of Russian verse parody is the role of parody as a test of social compatibility. It can be used as an entrance exami nation to check whether an individual has the literary competence required for join ing a given social group (e.g., “polite society,” the “educated public,” various all male groups, etc.). It can also be used as a promotion test in order to determine the position of the individual within the group hierarchy. Thus, an author of parodies can assume the role of a “new cynic,” a “Prutkovian jester,” a “critic of political ide ology,” etc., and a member of the reading audience can be promoted from the com mon reading public to the elite one.

The objective which has attracted much more attention, but has not been ade quately analyzed yet, is the performance of parody as tactics of aggressive competi tion. The purpose of the parody in this case is to discredit the ideology represented by the non-parodic piece of literature selected as original. Parody is expected to 278 weaken the support for this type of ideology within both the literary community and the reading public. The projected practical results of this function of parody include creating financial difficulties for the publishing and/or the dissemination of the parodied kind of literature.

Of special interest in this case is the function of parody as an alternative tactic of literary criticism. As demonstrated by the experience of Sergej Aksakov, parody affects some areas of the response of the reader that are not accessible for literary criticism rendered in the form of expository prose. Therefore, parody does not sim ply duplicate literary criticism, but intensifies its effect upon the ideology of the reader.

Probably the most frequently discussed social function of parody is its rcle as a means of political dispute. The traditional view is that in this case parody functioned not as a literary, but as a political tactic. Because of the strong scholarly tradition any view which challenges its validity has to be very carefully supported by solid evi dence. It was beyond the scope of this investigation to perform such a task. None theless, the ideology and the practice of the Utilitarian Realists in the eighteen fifties and sixties allows one to put up for reconsideration one basic problem, namely, is it justifiable to exclude political considerations from the literary ideology of the Utili tarian Realists as long as they themselves regarded those considerations as an indis pensable and major element of their aesthetics.

Once again, the answer, or answers, to these questions require a revision of the concept of the literary text as a closed and self-sufficient unit. While respecting the aesthetic autonomy of the text, one must also explore its relations with the other components of the act of enunciation and with other texts. 279

Another, and even more important, revision is needed with regard to the gen eral perception of parody as a noteworthy part of literature. Unlike many literary historians, theoreticians, and critics, Russian writers such as PuSkin and Dostoevskij did not consider parody a marginal constituent of literature. On the contrary, for them the combination of parodic and non-parodic modes of expression became the staple of their most celebrated works (e.g., Evgenij Onegin. “The Idiot. The Brothers Karamazov).

It is also worth considering the fact that the influential Russian poet and phi losopher Vladimir Solov’ev was also an enthusiastic producer and reader of parody.

He regarded the Prutkovian type of comic absurdity as an ironic variation of the categories of “sublime” (vozwSennoe) and “esoteric” (sokrovennoe) (Morozov,

RSP 78).

Evidently, there is still a lot to be done in order to fully realize the scope and importance of both the literary and the social functions of Russian verse parody. APPENDIX A

Russian Titles of Parodies and Parodied Works in English Translation

Note: The Latin transliterations of the Russian titles follow the order of letters in the Latin alphabet. In the cases when the first line of a poem is used as title, the translation capitalizes the words according to the English spelling rules.

“A. T. X-vu” - “To A. T. X-v”

“Akafist Ekaterine Nikolaevne Karamzinoj” — “The Akathistos to Ekaterina Nikolaevna Karamzina”

“Al’bom svetskoj damy, sostavlennyj iz proizvedenij russkix poetov” — “Album of a Society Lady Composed of Works of Russian Poets” “Apologi” — “Apologues”

“Ballada ‘Jugel’skij baron’” — “Ballad ‘The Baron of Jugel’”

“Baron Brambeus. Ballada” — “Baron Brambeus. A Ballad”

“Bog” - “God”

“Bunt v Vatikane” — “Rebellion in the Vatican”

“Caplja i begovye drozki” — “The Heron and the Racing Cart”

“Cepotfka i grjaznaja Seja” — A Chain and a Dirty Neck”

“Cvetok zasoxSij, bezuxannyj” — “Little Flower, Diy and with No Fragrance” “Cernaja Sal”’ - “A Black Shawl” (Jertopolox. Karmannaja knizica dlja ljubitelej galimat’i. na XIX stoletie” — Thistle. A Pocket Book for the Lovers of Nonsense for the 19th century”

“Cervjak i popadja” — “The Worm and Priest’s Wife”

“Cinovnik i kurica” — “The Bureaucrat and the Hen”

280 281

“Davno li, bezumnyj i prazdnyj” — “Was It Long Ago, When I, Senseless and Idle” “Demon” - “Demon” “Devica-gastronomka” — “A Gourmet Maiden”

“Difiramb Pegasu” — “Dithyramb to Pegasus”

“Difiramb sovremennoj russkoj presse” — “Dithyramb to the Contemporary Russian Press”

“Dnevnik temnogo deloveka” — “A Diary of an Obscure Man”

“Do rassveta podnjavSis’” — “Having Gotten up before Dawn” “Dozd”’ - “Rain” Dom sumasSedSix — Insane Asylum

“Druz’jam” — “To My Friends”

“Duet Feta i Rozengejma (Bessoznatel’noe likovanie i bessoznatel’noe xvalenie)” — “The Duet of Fet and Rozengejm (An Unconscious Exultation and an Unconscious Praise)”

“Dvenadcat’ sonnyx statej” — “Twelve Soporific Articles”

“Dvenadcaf spjaSCix butoSnikov. PouCitel’naja ballada” — “Twelve Sleeping Policemen. An Edifying Ballad”

“Dvenadcaf spja§£ix dev” — “Twelve Sleeping Maidens”

“ES2e parodija” — “One More Parody”

Evgenij Onegin — Eugene Onegin

Evgenij Onegin. Roman v stixax. sokraggennvj i ispravlennvi po stat’jam novejgix izerealistov Temnvm delovekom — EugeneOnegin. A Novel in Verse. Abridged and Revised by the Obscure Man according to the Articles of the Newest Pseudorealists.

“Elegija” - “Elegy”

Fantazija — Fantasy

Gavriliada — The Epic of Gabriel

“Gimn vostorgu” — “Hymn to Rhapsody” 282

“Gljazu kak bezumnyj na belyj sultan” — “I am Looking at the White Plume like a Madman”

“Gljazu kak bezumnyj na carskij ukaz” — “I am Looking at the Tsar’s Decree like a Madman” Gore at uma — Woe from Wit

“Gustolistvennyx klenov alleja” — “The Path Along the Luxuriant Maples”

Idiot — The Idiot

“Iz al’boma A. P. Kern” — “From the Album of A. P. Kern”

“Iz derevni” — “From the Village”

“Ja by uSel ot vas na bereg morja” — “I Would Like to Go Away from You to the Seashore”

“Jubilejnyj motiv. (Kcmu ugodno)” — “A Jubilee Motif. (To Anyone You Wish)”

Kavkazskij plennik — The Captive of the Caucasus

“Kak moSki zareju” — “Like Midges at Dawn”

“Kalmyckij plennik. Otryvok iz romantiCeskoj poemy” — “The Captive of the Kalmyks. A Fragment from a Romantic poem” Kamelija - Camelia

“Knut” (’’Remjanyj knut, nebezuxannyj”) — “Whip” (”A Leather Whip, Not without Aroma”)

“Knut” (’’Skazi mne, dvigatel’ narodnyj”) — “Whip” (”Tell Me, Oh, Mover of the People”)

“Kogda napliv protivnyx mne idej” — “When the Influx of Ideas that I Detest”)

“Kol’ slaven naS gospod’ v Sione” — “How Glorious is Our Lord in Zion”

“KonCina korovy” — “The Death of the Cow”

“Konduktor i tarantul” — “The Conductor and the Tarantula”

“Konskij difiramb” — “A Dithyramb to Horses”

“Kto sija?” — “Who is That [Woman]?”

“Lev i klop” — “The Lion and the Bedbug” 283

“Literaturnye opoldency. Opyt epiceskoj poemy” — “Literary Minutemen. An Attempt at an Epic Poem”

“Luciferov praznik. Romantideskaja karikatura” - “Lucifer’s Feast. A Romantic Caricature” “Luka MudiSdev” — “Luka MudiSdev”

Luna i stixi — The Moon and Verses

“Medicinskie stixotvorenija” — “Medical Poems”

“Medved’ i koza” — “The Bear and the Goat”

“Moskovskij plennik” — “The Captive of Moscow”

“Motivjasno-lirideskij” — “A Bright-Lyrical Motif ’

“Mudrosf zizni” — “The Wisdom of Life” “Na kladbiSde veter svigdet” — “The Wind is Whistling in the Graveyard”

“Na rozdenie molodogo greka” — ‘On the Birth of a Young Greek”

“Na smert’ grafini Ozarovskoj” — “On the Occasion of the Death of Countess Ozarovskaja”

“Na smert’ kudera Agafona” — “On the Occasion of the Death of the Coachman Agafon”

“Nadpis’ k portretu grafa Xvostova” — “Inscription to the Portrait of Count Xvostov”

“Naprasno!” — “In Vain!”

“Ne za Ljudmiloju Ruslan” — “Ruslan is Riding Not in Search of Ljudmila”

Nedorosl’ — The Minor

“Nemnogoe dlja mnogix” — “A Little for Many [Readers]”

“Nazabudki i zapjatki” — “Forget-me-nots and the Footboard”

“Novoizobretennaja privilegirovannaja kraska” — “Newly Discovered Privileged Coloring”

“O ty, prostranstvom neobSirnyj” — “Oh, You, of Limited Space” 284

“OCerki literaturnoj zizni” — “Sketches from Literary life”

“Oda” - “Ode” “Oda na den’ vosSestvija... Elisavety Petrovny” — “Ode on the the Day of the Coronation... of Elisaveta Petrovna” “Oda na pojavlenie v ’Svistke’ Novogo Poeta” — “Ode on [the Occasion of] the Appearence the New Poet in ’Whistle”’ “Oda poxval’naja avtoru Mel’nika” — “Ode Praising the Author of The Miller”

“Oda Xvostovu” = “Oda ego sijatel’stvu grafu Dm. Iv. Xvostovu” — “Ode to Xvostov” = “Ode [dedicated] to His Excellency Count Dm. Iv. Xvostov”

Opvt o xlvggax ~ An Essay on Fops

“Osada Pamby” — “The Siege of Pamba”

“OteSestvu i vragam ego” — “To My Fatherland and Its Enemies”

“Otryvok iz poemy — “A Fragment from a Poem” “Otryvok iz poemy ’Ivan Alekseevifi, ili novyj Evgenij Onegin’” — “A Fragment from the Poem ’Ivan Alekseevid, or a New Eugene Onegin’”

“Otryvok iz poemy ’Kurbskij’” — “A Fragment from the Poem ’Kurbskij’”

“Oxotnik i Plotnik” — “The Hunter and the Carpenter”

“Pamjati Derzavina” — “To the Memory of Derzavin”

“Parodija na odu 9-uju Lomonosova” — “Parody on the Nineth Ode of Lomonosov”

“Pastux, moloko i Sitatel’” — “The Shephard, Milk, and the Reader”

“Pervaja ljubov’” — “First Love”

“Pesn’ luze” — “Song [devoted] to the Puddle”

“Pesnja” - “Song”

“Pevec na bivakax u podoSvy Parnasa” - “A Bard in the Bivouacs at the Foothills of Parnasus”

“Pevec v stane russkix voinov” — “A Bard in the Camp of the Russian Warriors”

“Pevec vo stane epikurejcev” — “A Bard in the Camp of the Epicureans” 285 “Piitigeskaja igruSka” = “Piitigeskaja igruSka, otyskannaja v sundukax pokojnogo deduSki Klassicisma” — “A Poet s Little Toy” = “A Poet’s Little Toy Found in the Chests of the Dear Late Grandfather Classicism”

“Podelis’ zivymi snami” — “Share Your Vivid Dreams”

“Poetigeskaja gepuxa” = “Poetigeskaja gepuxa, ili otryvki iz novogo al’manaxa ’Literaturnoe zerkalo’” — “Poetic Trifles” = “Poetic Trifles, or Fragments from the New Almanac ’Literary Mirror’” Poetigeskie eskizv - Poetic Sketches “Portret” - “Portrait”

“Poslednyj duet” — “The Last Duet”

“PosluSaj, deduSka” — “Listen, Dear Old Man”

“PosvjaSgenie P. A. Pletnevu” — “Dedication to P. A. Pletnev”

Priezzij iz uezda — The Man Who Arrived from the Uyezd “Prorok” - “Prophet”

“Prosvirnja i Somik” — “The Communion-Bread Maker and the Saddler” “Psevdopoetu” — “To a Pseudopoet” “Ravnovesie” — “Equilibrium”

“RazmySlenie Andreja Ivanoviga Krona nad vetkoju kukel’vana” — “Reflections of Andrej Ivanovig Kron over a Branch of Kukel’van”

“Raznica vkusov” — “A Difference in Tastes”

“Razogarovanie” — “ Disillusionment”

“Razuverenie” — “Dissuasion”

“Roma L’Antica. Otryvok iz ’Odissei poslednego sumasbroda’ — “Roma L’Antica. A Fragment from ’The Odyssey of the Last Madcap’” “Romans” — “Romance”

Rossiada” — The Rossiad

Ruslan i Ljudmila — Ruslan and Ljudmila

“Russkaja ballada” — “Russian Ballad” 286

“Russkaja pesnja. Parodija” — “Russian Song. A Parody”

“Sceny iz rycarskix vremen” — “Scenes from the Age of the Knights”

Selo Stepanfikovo — The Village of StepanEikovo

“Serenada” — “Serenade”

“Serenade (Podrazanie Fetu)” — “Serenade (An Imitation of Fet)” “Skandal” - “Scandal” “Skazi mne, vetka Palestiny” — “Tell Me, Branch from Palestine”

“Smal’gormskij baron” — “The Baron of Smalgolm”

“Sobranie nasekomyx” — “A Collection of Insects”

“Sojuz Poetov” — “The Union of Poets”

“Solnce sprjatalos’ v tumane” — “The Sun Hid in the Fog”

“Spi, prostrel, poka bezvrednyj” — “Sleep, Little Rascal, for the Time Being Harmless”

“Spor gredeskix filosofov o prekrasnom” - “A Debate among [Ancient] Greek Philosophers about Beauty”

“Stan i golos” — “Figure and Voice”

“Stixotvornyj pustocvet, ili Popurry, sostavlennoe iz rifm i bessmyslicy” — “A Barren Flower of Verses, or Potpourri Composed of Rhymes and Nonsense”

“Sopot, robkoe dyxanie” — “Whisper, Timid Breath”

“Tixo vefier dogoraet” — “Quietly the Evening Is Burning Down”

“Tlennost’” — “Transience”

“Topot, radostnoe rzan’e” — “Tramping, Joyous Neighing” “Ulitfennyj mzdoimec” — “An Unmasked Bribe-Taker”

Urok koketkam — A Lesson for Coquettes

“Usy. Filosofi£eskaja oda” — “The Moustache. A Philosophical Ode”

“V al’bom pobornika vzjatok” — “In the Album of a Champion of Bribery” 287

Velikosvetskij xlv§£ - A High-Life Fop

“Vesennie melodii. (Podrazanie Fetu)” - “Spring Melodies. (An Imitation of Fet)” “Voennye aforizmy Faddeja KozmiCa Prutkova” — “The Military Aphorisms of Faddej KozmiC Prutkov”

“VoBebnaja gitara. Parodija “Eolovoj arfy V. A. Bukovskogo” — “Magical Guitar. A Parody of V. A. Bukovskij’s ’Aeolian Harp’”

“Vot serdca gorestnyx zamet” — “Here They Are, the Bitter Notes of [My] Heart” “Vozrozdennyj Panglos” — “Revived Pangloss”

“Vozvrat Cackogo — The Return of (Sackij”

“Xolod, grjaznye selen’ja” — “Cold, Muddy Settlements” “Zametki o zurnalax” — “Notes about [Some] Journals”

“Zamok Smal’gol’m” — “Castle Smalgolm” “Zvezda i Brjuxo” — “The Star and The Belly”

“Baloba”— “A Complaint”

“Bilna svete rycar’ bednyj” — “A Poor Knight Lived in the World” APPENDIX B

English Translations of Verse Parodies Quoted in Russian

CHAPTER II p. 93 Always repeat the same thing a hundred times: “The clinking of a golden goblet, sparkling wine, The rapture of love, the end of desires Is — voluptuousness.” Add here exclamations; Say: “There is no happiness for heart and soul here!” Do not forget to say that you always dream, That here you drink wine, there — you expect happiness... These are all the rules — take up the quill — write!... p. 95 left column When, shapely and with light-colored eyes, She stands in front of me, I think: On the day of Elijah the Prophet She got her divorce! p. 95 right column When, shapely and with light-colored eyes, She stands in front of me I think: “A houri of the Prophet Is brought from heaven to earth.” p. 99 Listen, dear old man, every time I look at this castle of Retler It comes to my mind: What if this is prose, And bad [prose], moreover? ___

288 289 p. 101 Neither the red beard, nor the joy of the old age, Nor your decrepit wife, Nor the horses saved you from the grave ailment!... And Agafon is gone! He died out like a spark from the hooves in the darkness of the night, Like the resounding neighing of a tired horse!... Oh, heavens! I lift my eyes toward you with a tear And, transitory as I am, I cannot, but ask you: Can’t we really hold the reigns forever And find happiness in wine in vain? Or are the better coachmen to live in the better world And are we to live with the bad ones! Alas! You won’t shake the reins any more; You won’t beat the horses with your whip, And, wiggling your mustache, curse them in Russian fashion; You will no longer go to fetch water, either! Your dashing voice won’t pour forth, And a passenger won’t cover his ears because of you, And in the glow of the lanterns The scream of the postilion will no longer respond. And, oh! KuzminiSna won’t smile through tears! Everything became silent after you! The [female] cooks are shedding tears, Your wife and the stablemen are making wreaths of straw Saying to the one who departed to eternal rest: “Since you died — go to the devil!” p. 103 left column On Pindus, Xvostov is a nightingale, Only — a nightingale-robber, In the Senate — the living dead, And an evil spirit among people. p. 103 right column On Pindus, Xvostov is a nightingale, In the Senate — a guardian of truth, In the family — a guardian genius [spirit, angel], And an affectionate friend of people everywhere. p. 103 Half-lord, half-merchant, Half-sage, half-ignoramus, Half-scoundrel, but there’s hope That he’ll be a complete one in the end. 290 p. 106 This is the sight of the Russian Flaccus! This is the one who, like him, too, Soaring quickly, like the king of birds, carried the sound to Helicon, This is the image of the creator of odes and parables, the worshipper of the Muses, Svistov, Who variegated the field of Russian belles-lettres! p. 108 Peas, sorrel, radishes, spinach, Carrots and kidney beans, Cabbage, asparagus, watercress - I consider all, all of them rubbish. Circassian bull! I sing of you, I see in you the perfection of the world! You sweeten my life! And it is bliss to think of you! p. 109 I wasn’t born to write in lyric seizures In the albums of ladies. I can only castigate bribe-takers With the whips of my epigrams; And if I knew that you, too, Are susceptible to corruption. Then I would, without listening to gossip, Denounce you for bribe-taking. p. 112 Have you heard that the nightingale, Which elevated my soul — Does not sing amidst the branches — He sang and at the same time he thought? p. 115 I love you in everything... In the Russian tale, in the Russian dance, In the shouting and whistling of the coachman, In the drunken shaking and squatting Of the kazaSok and trepak.

In the pies, in the sterlet-soup, In the cabbage soup, in the goose-giblets, In the njanja. in the tvkovnik. in the hot cereal, And in the mutton tripe... 291 CHAPTER III p. 156 Bows, dandies, aiguillettes, And the diamonds of eyes alight. p. 156 He burnt abundant incense to [honor] the Immortals. p. 157 You are not Orpheus, but you are capable Of trampling timid sense more boldly. p. 157 I write..., but there is no sense at all! p. 157 I love ... / the emptiness of absurd verses. p. 157 Nonsense creeps into me / in a warm starry night. p. 157-8 And is there, after all, any sense in the entire poem? ... I think that there’s none___ p. 158 jesting in every figure [of speech] p. 158 There are no thoughts; one must get down to words. p. 158 A thought, give me a thought! Commanding words, Rhyme, the music of the words,

I will strike up a lively song for you With luxuriant locutions and curlicues. p. 159-60 No! Mind has not stuck at all Into my curly dark head crowned with myrtle.

When the mind’s in motion — imagination’s dead... I need only dreams — not the real world, The only thing my soul needs is poetry! 292 p. 160 Everything that is important and deep Bears the marks of vague thoughts.

Incomprehensible questions! Incomprehensible result! p. 160 Oh, if one could only reveal His soul without words! p. 160 What you cannot express by words, Cast [an impression of] it on the soul by [the means of] sound! p. 160 The impotence of the words for expressing desires is known. p. 160 To the market! There the stomach shouts, There your cheap common sense is more valuable For the hundred-eyed blind man Than the insane fancy of the bard [poet]. p. 161 And those stanzas which Fet wrote Seemed to me very wild. p. 162 Do you want to know why I’m pale? I’m terribly tired today: I kept reading Zarin’s verses

And never found any sense in them ... what kind of absurdity is this? p. 162 In the yard a cow is bellowing, A tom cat is waiting for the pussy cat on the roof. The sky is dark and bleak, The storm is crying and roaring. p. 162 Do not give much weight to thought — The song will come out without much effort

Or, perhaps, just meow like a cat! 293

p. 162-3 And I was full of some wild dreams, I saw tragic faces everywhere; And then I howled like some wild dog, And my sweetheart howled like a bitch, - And in the eternal city rose such a howl, That a he-goat, a jack-ass, a jenny suddenly started howling, too. p. 163 I am doing a variation of something from Heine. But what exactly? I don’t know.

• •••■•••••••••«• What do I want? No one knows.... p. 163 They run to someone’s call from afar. To whose call? It’s none of your buisiness. p. 163 Madam, what happened to me — I don’t know! p. 163 The book fell out of my hands — I haven’t touched it ever since. p. 163 But she, oh, woe! —

She set out into the sea again Frightened by the reading. p. 163 And it [the mob] couldn’t care less About what he [the poet] wrote! p. 164 Variant 1 Naughty boy, Horace of our times, Oh, dear spoiled child of leisure! You have forgotten your friend-poet, You, soul-troubling poet. Oh,...! You are a poet, And I am a poet, we all are poets, You poet-athlete, you did not drown In the waves of the misty Lethe! 294 p. 164 Variant 2 Naughty boy, Horace of our times! You soul troubling poet! Have you drowned, as all poets, In the waves of the misty Lethe? Oh, dear spoiled child-poet! In your carefree leisure, You have forgotten your friend-poet, Your soul-troubling athlete. p. 165 When Russia was looking in silent fear At everyone endowed with power ___ fThe poet must list here The achievements of the guest of honor.) p. 166 No, I, a young woman. Shouldn’t grieve joyfully. p. 166 It will be in our power To discuss the world, Animosity, passion, And the Guadalquivir river. p. 173 I love when the daring Skarjatin Strikes his enemies with his hoof. p. 174 Well, friends, strike up Some songs of Majkov’s times! p. 174 Muse, hand to me the balalajka! I want to rip off an ode! p. 175 I take a gudok. not a lyre, And enter a pub, not Parnassus; I shout and tear my throat apart, Raising my voice with the barge haulers: “Strike the tamburines, the drums, The plates, the spoons, the mugs

• iiiittiiiitttiii Homer with the balalajka. And you, Virgil, with the pipe ___ 295 p. 176-7 As long as VjaCeslav Ivanov lives among the poets, — Tred’jakovskij, encouraged, mumbles spells ___

My brother in sorcery, Derzavin, roared with zeal From the dense forests of the cycle of life.

If only my predecessor Kjuxel’beker could live, — Delighted he would have been exalted [over me]. p. 182 I strove for the river with no fear, But only bathe in it. Sternly bemoaning the time I got a severe illness, But the doctor told me, that I ate too much fruit at dinner. In vain I await repose in the night, Sleep cannot close my eyes. But it’s also true, the bed bugs and fleas Never allow me to fall asleep, p.182 Farewell, fair one, may you live in that country, May you often sigh about the one who cries, about me, May you miss me, miss me, as I miss you, I, in my heart, I have you, my light, you alone. Farewell, farewell, farewell, again I’ll say farewell, May you with love, you with love for me, you grow up. p. 183 I, an outcast, I suffer all the time — from toothache!

Oh! Wasn’t it during the carefree strolls Around those cottages and gardens When the sly cold seized me? Weren’t those succulent dishes The ones that prepared the way for the harm it inflicted? p. 183 The morose pine forest is silent... the ray of sun is burning to an end ___ The wandering breeze is dying down in the tender leaves. From the boundless heights Coolness descended on the bossom of darkness. p. 185 left column Here is Glinka — a ladybird, Here is KaCenovskij — an evil spider. Here is also Svin’in — a Russian beetle. Here is Olin — a black ant, Here is RaiC — a tiny bug. p. 185 right column Here is the family of Russian henbane. The courageous couch-grass of Lithuania, And our Finnish thistle, And the wilted poppy of Germany, And the peas of the Ancient Greeks. p. 185 It is already night, Akulina! Everything around has fallen asleep. All the inhabitants of Klin Have been snoring for a long time. p. 189 And suddenly the wolf Pushed the door, got in, And — lets scream and bite the mosquito! p. 191 And from the wall the spider

Fell, he lies With his teeth bared, And, whispering through his teeth, This is what he shouts___ p. 191 And I have to say here, by the way That the strong killed the weak not long ago. p. 191-92 In the country where foams the IrtyS, A mouse, or maybe a rat, Lived and fared well. It, like the woman Vasilisa, Had fun all the time without worrying That it might happen so that it has to face the cat. And the cat is a well-known little animal, Supercute and supercharming, 297 No matter whether you look at its mug or its tail, But if it catches you, then You are in a hard spot. The cat meows, And the mouse squeaks And prances toward the cat. The cat squeezed the mouse with a pair of paws — And in a second it sank in its claus. I will spell out the moral of my little fable For you, my Mends: We live here, We sail toward misfortunes; Fate is the cat, man is the rat; And any woman is the same as Vasilisa. p. 192 And you, my patron, look at these fables, In them, perhaps, you’ll find a lot of nonsense, But blame yourself: I would have not written them Hadn’t I read you. p. 192 The readers will forgive me, I am not a grammarian, But simply a moon-struck author of fables, p. 192-3 Once, wanting to mock the swan, The goose soiled him with silt; But the swan washed himself and became white again. What should one do if he is soiled?... Wash himself. p. 193 Do not put sensible conversations in the mouth of a mule, Nor give beautiful glances to an eagle owl or an owl. p. 193 the bedbug, once a proud creature, biting the lion ___ p. 193 Others, who confine reason to the sweetness of the ear alone, Demand neither imagination in verse, nor spirit in poetry. p. 199 Reader! In this fable, having dismissed the forget-me-nots, Which were placed here as a joke, You must just infer this: If you have corns, Then, to get rid out of the pain, You, like our PaxomiS, treat them with camphor. 298 p. 202 A reasonable man, if he reads this fable, Will, undoubtedly, infer some moral from it. p. 203 Some police officer, who was rather stout, Having put on his quilted gown, Came to the open window And silently started stroking the cat. p. 206-7 The superiors who care for us day and night,

Would nominate you for the order of St. Stanislav.

Then, on a fast-day or a meat-day, As a staid general yourself, You could have both a cheerful mood And a full belly! Really, who would prevent you then From being with a star always and everywhere. p. 218 Even if the nature had bestowed upon you In the crib the title of a prince or count, Even if a star had fallen on your chest Dispersing the medals on your shoulders, Believe me that this brilliant phenomenon Is trecherously harmful for your virtues, All these signs would fall off in a second. And the loud titles, that are not supported by deeds, As well as the resonance of inherited gloiy, Would not reach the mountain of posterity.

CHAPTER IV p. 231 No matter when you come to Smirdin’s, You will not buy a thing, Because you either find Senkovskij, Or step into Bulgarin. p. 233 By the stove, engulfed in silence, Having lifted up [the tails of] his tail coat, he was warming up his back And did not want to give his blessing To anyone in the entire company. 299 p. 240 Oh, saintly martyr Evdokija, Pray to God for us! We all are such sinners!!! And the first among them is me. Oh, saintly martir Evdokija, pray to God for us. We all turn to you With devotion, And you mercifully Quench our thirst with tea. Oh, saintly martyr Evdokija, pray to God for us! p. 241 Oh, my heavenly King! I am ready to do anything [for you]. If you command, I would let my skin Be flayed off my noble body so that a dozen Warm galoshes would be sewn for you, So that while walking in the grass, You wouldn’t get your little feet wet. If you command, I will let my ears be cut off, So that in summer-time serving you with devotion As a fly swatter, they would knock down The insolent flies... p. 246 Come to me, my Bor’ka, my funny tragic [actor], And sit down on my belly; You are a swine, but a truly spirited swine And this suits my gut-feeling just fine. p. 246 With her minutes, quietly and serenely, like a noble stump, She was sitting in the chair; her ears lowered And her muzzle raised toward the merciful sky. “Quiet, Arzamas!” appealed Kassandra, — “Or is it that the harmonious sounds of the belly of the Aeolian Harp astounded you?”

For me it [the belly] is the tripod of [the oracle in] Delphi I am going to give you a prophecy. Listen!” Kassandra climbed up on the belly; she sat down on it. p. 254 In the wild, tormented by a life of fasting, With an exhausted stomach I do not soar, I perch like an eagle, And I am ill of diarrheic idlness. 300

I am guarding my supply of paper; Free from the strain of inspiration, I rarely walk upon Parnassus, And only out of great necessity.

But your ingenious manure Tickles my nose pleasantly; It reminds me of Khvostov, The father of the toothy pigeons, And calls my spirit anew To the defecation of former days. (qtd. in Todd, Letter 130) p. 257 And thus, oh, Lord, lighten the fetters Of this man who suffered greatly, And who in this life, except for figs, Has not. tasted other fruits at all. p. 272 Here is Izmajlov — author of fables, Of maxims, and of epigrams; He squeaks to me: “I agree, I am an author not for ladies! My subject is noses with pimples; My Muse and I go to the pub To drink vodka and eat herrings with onions... The world of district policemen — that’s my world.” p. 272 When I finished your ballad About the doctor and the amber, I remembered how we used to Play fools in olden times.

Laughs and yells! Forever Svjatki [carnival]! And today who can revive you: “Forget-Me-Nots and the Footboard,” “Castle Pamba,” “Junker Smit”? APPENDIX C

ABBREVIATIONS

AHD = The American Heritage Dictionary

BGU = Belorusskij Gosudarstvenyj universitet BSE = Bol’Saja sovetskaja enciklopedija D&G = “Dostoevskij i Gogol’”

ES = Enciklopedigeskii slovar’

Izdat. AN SSSR = Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR KLE = Kratkaja literaturnaja enciklopedija

LE = Literaturnaja enciklopedija

LES = Literaturnvj enciklopedigeskij slovar’

LRP = “Literaturnaja rol’ parodii” Mn.p.= Mnimaja poezija ORED = Oxford Russian-English Dictionary

PEPP = Princeton Encyclopaedia of Poetry and Poetics

PI = Poetv “Iskrv”

PL^ = “Parodija kak literaturnyj zanr”

RLP = Russkaja literaturnaja parodija RIP = Russische literarische Parodien RSP = “Russkaja stixotvornaja parodija”

RStP = Russkaja stixotvornaja parodija

SPB = Sankt Peterburg

301 LIST OF REFERENCES

Aksakov, Sergej T. Sobranie sofinenij. Vol. 2. Moscow: Xudozestvennaja Literatu re, 1955T 4 vols.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Boston: American Heritage; Houghton, 1969.

Argo [Abram MarkoviC Gol’denbergl. “Parodija kak takovaja.” Na literaturnom postu 2.XV-XVI (1927): 65-70.

Aronson M., and S. Rejsner. Literaturnve kruzki i salonv. Leningrad: Priboj, 1929.

Baxtin Mfixail] M. “Iz predistorii romannogo slova.” Voprosv literaturv 8 (1965) [partial publication]. Russkaja i zarubeznaja literatura. UEenve zapiski Mordovskogo universiteta. Vyp. 61. Saransk, 1967. Rpt. in Voprosv literaturv i estetiki. Moscow, 1975. Eng. trans. “From the Prehistory of Novelistic Discourse.” The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans, by Caiyl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1981. 41-83.

—. Problemv tvor£estva Dostoevskogo. Leningrad, 1929. (Eng, trans. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Ed. and trans. Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: U of Minn. P, 1984.) 2nd. rev. ed. Problemv poetiki Dostoevskogo. 1963. Moscow: Sovetskaja Rossija, 1979.

—. Tvordestvo Fransua Rable i narodnaja kul’tura srednevekov’ja i Renessansa. Moscow: Xudozestvennaja literatura, 1965. Eng. trans. Rabelais and His World. Trans, by Helene Iswolsky. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana UP, 1984.

Begak, Boris. “Parodija i ee priemy.” Russkaja literaturnaja parodija 51-65.

Belinskij, Vissarion G. Polnoe sobranie soCinenij. 13 vols. Moscow-Leningrad: Izdat. AN SSSR, 1953-59.

Ben-Porat, Ziva. “The Poetics of Literary Allusion.” P T L 1 (1976): 105-28.

—. “Method in Madness: Notes on the Structure of Parody, Based on MAD TV Satires,” Poetics Today 1 (1979): 245-72.

Berkov, P. N. “Iz istorii russkoj parodii XIII-XX vekcv (K voprosu o parodii kak satiri£eskom zanre).” Voprosv Sovetskoj literaturv. Eds. P. N. Berkov et al. Vol. 5. Moscow-Leningrad: Izdat. AN SSSR, 1957. 22-66.

302 303 —. Kozina Prutkov, direktor probirnoj palatki i poet: K istorii russkoj parodii. Leningrad: Izdat. AN SSSR, 1933.

Bethea, David H., and Sergej Davydov. “Pushkin’s Saturnine Cupid: The Poetics of Parody in The Tales of Belkin.” PMLA 96 (1982): 8-21.

Bezymenskij, A. “O literatumoj parodii.” Voprosv literaturv 5.8 (1961): 157-67.

Bol’Saja sovetskaja enciklopedija. 2nd. ed. 1949-59. 51 vols.

Booth, Wayne C. A Rhetoric of Irony. Chicago, 111.: U of Chicago P, 1977. —. The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1961.

Bradis, L. V. “Satirideskij perepevvtvordestvepoetovTskry.’” Udenve zapiski Kalininskogo gos. ped. instituta im. M. I. Kalinina. Vol. 36. Kalinin, 1963.

BuxStab, B. Ja. “Nekrasov v stixax ‘Novogo poeta’.” Nekrasovskij sbornik. Vol. 2. Moscow-Leningrad: Izdat. AN SSSR, 1956. 434-44.

—. “Dobroljubov-parodist.” Izvestija Akademii nauk SSSR. Otdelenie obSdestvennvx nauk ns 1-2 (1936).

Ceitlin, Aleksandr. “Literaturnaja parodija i klassovaja bor’ba.” Russkaja literaturnaja parodija 5-38.

Conte, Gian Biagio. Memoria dei poeti e sistema letterario. Turin: Einaudi, 1974.

Cuddon, J. A. A Dictionary of Literary Terms. N. Y., Garden City: Doubleday, 1977.

Culler, Jonathan. “Prolegomena to a Theory of Reading.” Suleiman 46-68.

Cizevskij, Dmitrij. “O literaturnoj parodii.” Novvj zurnal 79 (1965): 118-40.

Dal’, Vladimir. Tolkovvj slovar’ zivogo velikorusskogo jazvka. 3rd ed. 4 vols. SPb — Moscow. 1903-9.

Dane, Josef A. “Parody and Satire: A Theoretical Model.” Genre 13 (1980:145-59.

Dmitriev, V. G. SkryvSie svoe imja. Iz istorii psevdonimov i anonimov. Moscow: Nauka, 1970.

Dobroljubov, N[ikoIaj] A. “Perepevv. Stixotvorenija Obliditel’nogo poeta. SPb., 1860.” Sobranie sodinenij v devjati tomax. Vol. 6. Stat’i i recenzii. 1960. Moscow-Leningrad: Xudozestvennaja literatura, 1963. 211-20.

Fiene, Donald M. “PuSkin’s “Poor Knight’: The Key to Perceiving Dostoevskij’s Idiot as allegory.” International Dostoevsky Society Bulletin 8 (1978): 10-21. 304 Dostoevskij, Feodor. Sobranie sofinenij v desjati tomax. 10 vols. Moscow: Xudozestvennaja literatura, 1956.

Dukrot, Oswald, Tsvetan Todorov. Encyclopaedic Dictionary of the Sciences of Language. Trans. Catherine Porter. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1979. Eagleton, Terry. Criticism and Ideology: A Study in Literary Theory. London: New Left Books, 1979.

Ejxenbaum, Boris. Literatura (Teorija. Kritika. Polemika). Leningrad: Priboj, 1927.

—. “Teorija‘formal’nogo metoda’.” Literatura. Eng. trans. “The Theory of the Formal Method” in Matejka & Pomorska, eds. 3-37.

—. “O. Genri i teorija novelly.” Zvezda 6(1925). Rpt. in Literatura. 1927. Eng. trans. “O. Henry and the Theory of the Short Story” in Matejka & Pomorska, eds. 227-70.

El’sberg, Ja. Nasledie Gogolja i §gedrina i sovetskaja satira. Moscow: Sovetskij pisatel’, 1954.

Er.ciklopedi£eskij slovar’. SPb.: Brokgauz & Efron, 1890-1904. 41 vols.

Enciklopedigeskij slovar’. 7th rev. ed. Moscow: Br. A. i I. Granat i Ko, 1910-38. 57 vols.

Eventov, I[saak] S. Lirika i satira. Leningrad: Sov. pisatel’, 1968.

FiSer, Vlad[imir]. “Parodija v tvordestve PuSkina.” Russkij bibliofil VI (1916): 84-

Frejdenberg, O. M. “Proisxozdenie parodii.” Trudy po znakovvm sistemam. 6 (1973): 490-7. Eng. trans. “The Origin of Parody” in Semiotics and Structuralism: Readings from the Soviet Union. Ed. Henryk Baran. White Plains NY: International Arts and Sciences Press, 1974. 269-283.

Freund, Winfried. “Zur Theorie und Rezeption der Parodie: am Beispiel moderner lyrischer Parodien.” Sprache im technischen Zeitalter 62 (1977): 182-94.

—. Die literarishe Parodie. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1981.

Frow, John. “System and History: A Critique of Russian Formalism.” The Oxford Literary Review 4.2 (1980): 56-71.

Frye, Northrop. The Anatomy of Criticism. N.Y.: Atheneum, 1970.

Gasparov, M. L. “Stixovoj polindromon: Fet i Minaev” Semiotics and the History of Culture, Eds. Morris Halle etal. UCLA Slavic Studies 17. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, 1988. 338-47. 305

Genette, Gerard. Palimpsestes: La litterature au second degree. Paris: Seul, 1982.

Goldman, Lucien. Le Dieu cache: Etude sur la vision tragique dans les “Pensees” de Pascal et dans le theatre de Racine. Paris: Gallimard, 1959. Eng. trans. The Hidden God: A Study of the Tragic Vision in the “Pensees” of Pascal and the Tragedies of Racine. Trans. Philip Thodv. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964.

—. Pour une sociologie du roman. Rev. ed. Paris: Gallimard, 1965. Eng. trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock, 1975.

Gray, Donald J. “The Uses of Victorian Laughter.” Victorian Studies 10 (1966/67): 145-76.

Gric, T. et al. Slovesnost’ i kommercija (Kniznaja lavka A. F. Smirdina). Moscow: Federacija, 1929.

Gromov, Pavel P. “A. A. Fet” Stixotvorenija. By Afanasij Fet. Moscow-Leningrad: Sovetskij pisatel’, 1960. 5-88. Grossman, Leonid. “Parodija kak zanr literaturnoj kritiki.” Russkaja literaturnaja parodija. 39-49.

Harkins, William E. Gavriliada. Three Comic Poems: Gavriliada. Count Nulin. The Little House in Kolomna. By Alexander Pushkin. 17-22.

Highet, Gilbert. The Anatomy of Satire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1962.

Hodgson, Peter. From Gogol’ to Dostoevsky. Jakov Butkov. a Reluctant Naturalist. in the 1840’s. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1976.

Hopkins, William H. “Lermontov’s Hussar Poems.” Russian Literary Triquarterlv 14 (1977): 36-47,416-29.

—. “The Development of Pornographic Literature in Eighteenth- and early Nineteenth-Century Russia.” Diss. Undiana U., 1977.

Hutcheon, Linda A. A Theory of Parody: The Teachings of Twentieth-Centurv Art Forms. N.Y.: Methuen, 1985.

Householder, Fred W., Jr. “Parodia.” Classical Philology. 39(1944): 1-9.

Ikegami, Yoshihiko. “A Linguistic Essay on Parody.” Linguistics 55 (1969): 13-31.

Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins UP, 1978.

Istorija russkoj literaturv. 10 vols. Moscow-Leningrad: Izdat. AN SSSR, 1941-56. 306

ISfienko, IjTja] T. Parodii Saltvkova-SCedrina. Minsk: Izd. BGU im. V. I. Lenina, 1973.

Jakobson, Roman. NovejSaja russkaja poezija (Nabrosok pervyj). Viktor Xlebnikov. Prague, 1921.

—. “Linguistics and Poetics.” Style and Language. Ed. T Sebeok. Cambridge, Mass., 1960.350-377. (Rpt. in Selected Writings: Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry. Ed. Stephen Rudy. Vol. 3. The Hague: Mouton, 1981. 18-51.)

—. “The Dominant.” Readings in Russian Poetics. Eds. Ladislav Matejka and Krystyna Pomorska. 82-90 (Rpt. in Selected Writings: Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry. Ed. Stephen Rudy. Vol. 3. The Hague: Mouton, 1981, 751-756.)

Jampol’skij, I. “Priraedanija.” Sobranie stixotvorenij. By D. D. Minaev. Leningrad: Sovetskij pisatel’, 1947. 409-64. —. Satirideskaja zurnalistika 1860-x godov. Moscow, 1964.

Jauss, Hans Robert. “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory,” New Literary History 2 (1970): 7-37.

Jump, John D. Burlesque. London & N.Y.: Methuen, 1972.

’’Kamelija, duvstvitel’nyj roman” Sovremennik 17.7 (1852): 125-30; 17.8 (1852): 320-

Karrer, Wolfgang. Parodie. Travestie. Pastische. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1977.

Kiremidjian, G. D. “The Aesthetics of Parody.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 28 (1969): 231-42.

Kratkaja literaturnaja enciklopedija. Moscow: Sov. enciklopedija, 1962-75. 8 vols.

Kravcov, Nikolaj. “K istorii russkoj parodii.” Russkaja literaturnaja parodija. 66-

Lange, Victor. “The Reader in the Strategy of Fiction.” Expression. Communication and Experience. Proceedings of the Xllth Congress of the International Federation of Modern Languages and Literatures. London: The Modern Humanities Research Association, 1973. 86-102.

Laurenson, Diana. Current Research in the Sociology of Literature: Introduction. The Sociology of Literature: Applied Studies. Sociological Review Monograph 26. Keele, Staffordshire: U of Keele, 1978. 1-16. 307

Lelievre, F. J. “The Basis of Ancient Parody.” Greece and Rome 1(1954): 66-81.

Liede, A, “Parodie.” Reallexicon der deutchen Literaturgeschichte. Vol. 3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1966.

Literaturnaja enciklopedija. Moscow: Izd. Kommunistideskoj akademii, 1929-39. 11 vols.

Literaturnvj enciklopediceskij slovar’. Moscow: Sovetskaja enciklopedija, 1987. Lixatfev, D. C., and A. N. Panfienko. “Smexovoj mir” drevnej Rusi. Leningrad: Nauka, 1976.

Lotman, Ju. M. Struktura khudozhestvennogo teksta. 1970. Providence, N. Y.: Brown UP, 1971. Eng. trans. The Structure of the Artistic Text. Trans. Gail Lenhoff and Ronald Vroon. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan, 1977.

—. “Literaturnaja biografija v istoriko-kurturnom kontekste (K tipologideskomu sootnoSeniju teksta i liCnosti avtora).” U£enve zapiski Tartusskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 683 (1986): 106-121. —. Roman PuSkina “Evgenij Onegin.” Kommentarij. 2nd ed. Leningrad: ProsveSCenie, 1983.

—. “Poezija 1790-1810x godov.” PoStv 1790-181 Ox godov. 5-62.

—. “The Poetics of Everyday Behavior in Eighteenth Century Russian Culture.” The Semiotics of Russian Cultural History. 67-94.

—. “The Decembrist in Daily Life (Everyday Behavior as a Historical-Psychological Category.” The Semiotics of Russian Cultural H istory. 95-149. —. Sotvorenie Karamzina. Moscow: Kniga, 1987.

“Luna i stixi.” Svn Oteftestva 31.3 (1842): 127-41.

Lur’e, S. “’Gvriliada’ PuSkina i apokrifideskie evangelija.” PuSkin v mirovoj literature. Sbornik Statej.” Leningrad: Gosudarstvenoe izdatel’stvo, 1926.

Makogonenko, Gfeorgij] P. Ot Fonvizina do PuSkina: Istorija russkogo realizma. Moscow: Xud. literatura, 1969.

Markarjan, A[nu§van] M. O satire. Moscow: Sov. pisatel’, 1967.

Markiewicz, Henryk. “On the Definition of Literary Parody.” To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Vol. II. The Hague: Mouton, 1967. 1264-72. 308 Masanov, Ju. V mire psevdonimov. anonimov i literaturnvx poddelok. Moscow: Izdat. vsesojuznoj kniznoj palaty, 1963.

Maslov, Georgij. “Novoe o stixotvorenii PuSkina “PosluSaj, deduSka, mne kazdyj raz’. . .1818 g.” PuSkin i ego sovremenniki. Materialv i issledovaniia. XXVIII (1917): 96-98.

Matejka, Ladislav, Krystyna Pomorska, eds. Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT P, 1971. Ann Arbor, Mich.: 1978.

McLuhan, Marshal, and Wilfred Watson. From Cliche to Archetype. N.Y.: Viking, 1971.

Morozov, Afleksandr A.] “Parodija kak litcraturnyj zanr.” Russkaja literatura 1 (I960): 48-77.

—. “Russkaja stixotvornaja parodija.” Russkaja stixotvornaja parodija (XVIII- nadalo XX v.) Ed. A. A. Morozov. Leningrad: Sovetskij pisatel’, 1960. 5-88.

—. “Literaturnaja rol’parodii.” Russkaja literaturnaja parodija. 104-14.

Morson, Gary Saul. The Boundaries of Genre: Dostoevskij’s Diary of a Writer and the Tradition of Literary Utopia. Austin: U of Texas P, 1981.

Mukafovsky, Jan. Kapitel aus der Asthetik. Frankfort, 1967.

—. Esteticka funkce. norma a hodnota jako socialm faktv. Praha: F. Borovy=, 1936. Eng, trans. Aesthetic Function. Norm and Value as Social Facts. Trans. Mark E. Suino. Ann Arbor, Mi: U of Michigan, 1970.

Myers, Jack, and Michael Simms. Longman Dictionary and Handbook of Poetry. N.Y. & London: Longman, 1985.

Monter, Barbara Heldt. Koz’ma Prutkov: the Art of Parody. Slavistic Printings and Reprintings 211. The Hague: Mouton, 1972.

Muecke, Douglas C. The Compass of Irony. London: Methuen, 1969.

Novikov, V. I. “2anrovaja suSCnost’ literaturnoj parodii.” Izvestija Akademii nauk SSSR. Serija literatury i jazyka 37.1 (1978): 20-30. Orlov, Vl[adimir], ed. Nikolaj Polevoj. Materialv po istorii russkoj literaturv i zurnalistiki tridcatvx godov. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo pisatelej, 1934.

Ostolopov, Nikolaj F. Slovar’ drevnej i novoj poezii. SPb., 1831. 3 vols.

Oxford Russian-English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. 309 Panaev, 1.1. Povesti i oSerki. Moscow: Sovetskaja Rossija, 1986.

Poirier, Richard. “The Politics of Self-Parody.” Partisan Review 35 (1968): 339-53.

Poljakov, M. Ja. “Jazyk parodii i problema struktury stilja.” Literaturnve napravlenija i stili. Eds. P. A. Nikolaev and E. G. Rudneva. Moscow: IzdatePstvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1976.115-30.

Poetv 1790-1810x godov. Eds. Ju. M. Lotman and M. G. Al’tsuller. Leningrad: Sovetskij pisatel’, 1971.

Poetv “Iskrv.” Ed. I. Jampol’skij. 2nded. 2 vols. Leningrad: Sovetskij pisatel’, 1955.

Pratt, Mary Louise. Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana UP, 1977.

Princeton Encyclopaedia of Poetry and Poetics. Enl. ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1974.

Prutkov, Koz’ma. Polnoe sobranie sodinenij. B. Ja. BuxStab, ed. Leningrad: Sovetskij pisatel’, 1949.

Pushkin, Alexander. Three Comic Poems: Gavriliada. Count Nulin. The Little House in Kolomna. William E. Harkins, ed. and trans. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1977.

PuSkin, A. S. Gavriliada. Poema. B. TomaSevskij, ed. Letchworth & Herts: Prideau, 1979.

PuSkin, Aleksandr S. “Anglija est’ otefcestvo karikatury i parodii...” Polnoe sobranie soginenij v Sesti tomax. Vol. 5. Moscow: Gos. izd. xud. literatury, 1950. 99- 100.

—. Polnoe sobranie soflnenij. Vol. 2. Leningrad: Izdat. AN SSSR, 1947.

Rassadin, St. “Zakony zanra.” Voprosv literatury 11.10 (1967): 66-80.

Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. A Parting of Ways: Government and the Educated Public ]n Russia 1801 - 1855. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976.

Riewald, J. G. “Parody as Criticism.” Neophilologus 50 (1966): 125-48.

Riffaterre, Michael. Essais de stvlistique structurale. Paris: Flammarion, 1971.

Rohrich, Lutz. Gebarde-Metapher-Parodie. Dusseldorf: Schwann, 1967.

Rose, Margaret A. Parodv/ZMetafiction: An Analysis of Parody as a Critical Mirror to the Writing and Reception of Fiction. Ixtndon: Croom Helm, 1979. 310

RostopCina, E. P. Vozvrat Cackogo v Moskvu. ili Vstre£a znakomvx He posle dvadcatipjatiletnej razluki: Prodolzenie komedii Griboedova “Gore ot uma.” Sankt Peterburg, 1865.

Rotermund, Erwin. Die Parodie in der modemen deutchen Lvrik. Munich: Eidos, 1963.

Russkaja literaturnaja parodija. Eds. B. Begak et al. Moscow-Leningrad: Gosizdat, 1930.

Russische literarische Parodien. Eds. Dmitrij Tschizewskij and Johann Schropfer. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1957.

Russkaja stixotvornaja parodija (XVIII - nadalo XX v.). Ed. A. A. Morozov. Leningrad: Sovetskij pisatel’, I960.

Russkaja satira. L. A. Plotkina and N. I. Totubalina, eds. Moscow-Leningrad: Izdat. Xudozestvennoj literatury, 1960.

Samov, Benedikt. “Plody iznurenija: Literaturnaja parodija vsegda i segodnja.” Voprosv literatury 28.11 (1984): 106-50.

Shlonsky, Tuvia. “Literary Parody: Remarks on Its Method and Function.” Proceedings of the IVth Congress of International Comparative Literature Association. Ed. Francois Jost. Vol. II. The Hague: Mouton, 1966. 797-801.

Slovar’ Sovremennogo Russkogo Jazvka. 17 vols. Moscow-Leningrad: Izdat. AN SSSR, 1950-65.

Steblin-Kamenskij, M. I. “Apologija smexa.” Izvestija Akademii nauk SSSR. Serija literatury i jazika 37.2 (1978): 149-56.

Steiner, Peter. “Three Metaphors of Russian Formalism.” Poetics Today 2 (1980- 81): 59-116.

—. Russian Formalism: A Metapoetics. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell UP, 1984.

Straxov, Nikolaj N. Zametki o PuSkine i drugix poetax. Kiev, 1897.

Striedter, Jurij. “The Russian Formalist Theory of Prose.” A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 2 (1977): 429-70.

Suino, MarkE. Afterword. Aesthetic Function. Norm and Value bv Jan Mukafovsky. 97-102.

Suleiman, Susan, ed. The Reader in the Text: Essays on Audience and Interpretation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1980. 311

Suleiman, Susan. Introduction: Varieties of Audience-Oriented Criticism.” Suleiman 3-45.

Saxovskoj, A. A. Urok koketkam. i]i Lipeckie vodv. Sankt Peterburg, 1815.

Sklovskij, Viktor. “Iskusstvo kak priem.” Poetika: Sborniki po teorii poetiCeskogo jazvka. Petrograd, 1919. Rpt. in O teorii prozv. Moscow, 1925. Moscow: Federacija, 1929. 7-23. (Eng. trans. “Art as Technique,” in Lee T. Lemon and Marion J. Reis (eds), Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays.” Lincoln, Neb.: U of Nebraska P, 1965. 18-21.)

—. “Svjaz’ priemov sjuzetoslozenija s obSCimi priemami stilja.” Poetika: Sborniki Petrograd, 1919. Rpt. in O teorii prozv. 1925. Moscow: Federacija, 1929. 24-67. (Eng. trans. “The Connection between Devices of Sjuzhet Construction and General Stylistic Devices,” in Stephen Bann and John E. Bowlt (eds), Russian Formalism: 20th Century Studies. Edinburg: Scottish Academic Press, 1973. 48-72.)

Taranovsky, Kiril. “The Rhythmical Structure of the Notorious Russian Poem Luka.” International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics XXV/XXVI (1982): 429-32.

Todd, William Mills, III. The Familiar Letter as a Literary Genre in the Age of Pushkin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1976.

—. Fiction and Society in the Age of Pushkin: Ideology. Institutions and Narrative. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1986.

Todorov, Tzvetan. Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogical Principle. Trans. Wlad Godzich. Theory and History of literature. 13. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1984.

—. “Three Conceptions of Poetic Language.” Russian Formalism: A Retrospective Glance. A Festshrift in Honor of Victor Erlich. Eds. Robert Louis Jackson and Stephen Rudy. New Haven: Yale Center for International and Area Studies, 1985. 130-47.

Tolstoj, Aleksej K. Sobranie soCinenij. Vol. 1. Moscow: Izdat. Xudozestvennaja literatura, 1963. 4 vols.

TomaSevskij, Boris. Teorija literatury (Poetika\. Moscow-Leningrad, 1925. Moscow-Leningrad: Gos. izdatel’stvo, 1928.

—, ed. Iroi-komigeskaja poema. Leningrad: Izdat. pisatelej, 1933.

—. FuSkin. Kniga pervaja (1813-1824). Moscow-Leningrad: 1956. 312 — .Istorija. PuSkin. Gavriliada. 39-54.

—, “Literatura i biografija.” Kniga i revoljucaja I (1923). Eng. trans. “Literature and biography.” Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views. Eds. Ladislav Matejka and Krystyna Pomorska. 47-55. Tschizevskij, Dmitrij und Johan Schropfer, eds. Russische literarische Parodien. Heidelberger slavische Texte. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1957.

Tunimanov, V. A. “Povesti i oCerki Ivana Panaeva.” Povesti i ocerki. By 1.1. Panaev. Moscow: Sovetskaja Rossija, 1986. 3-20.

Tynjanov, Jurij. Arxaistv i novatorv. Leningrad: Priboj, 1929.

—. Dostoevskij i Gogol’ (K teorii parodii). Petrograd, 1921. Rpt. in Arxaistv i novatorv 412-55.

—. “Stixovye formy Nekrasova.” Letopis’ doma literatorov. 1921. Rpt. in Arxaistv i novatorv 399-411.

—. “TjutCev i Gejne.” 1921. Rpt. in Arxaistv i novatorv 386-89.

—. “Oda kak oratorskij zanr.” 1922. Rpt. in Arxaistv i novatorv 48-86.

—. “PuSkin i TjutCev.” 1923. Rpt. in Arxaistv i novatorv 330-66.

—. “Arxaisty i PuSkin.” PuSkin v mirovoj literature. Leningrad, 1926. Rpt. in Arxaistv i novatorv 87-227.

—. “O literaturnom fakte.” Lef 2(1924). Rpt. in Arxaisty i novatorv 5-29.

—. “O literaturnoj evoljucii, Na literaturnom postu 4 (1927). Rpt. in Arxaisty i novatorv 30-48. (Eng. trans. “On Literary Evolution” in Matejka & Pomorska, eds. 66-78.

—. “Vopros o Tjut£eve.” 1923. Arxaisty i novatorv 367-86.

—. “PuSkin.” Arxaisty i novatorv. 228-91.

—,ed. Mnimaja poezija. Materialv po istorii poetiEeskoj parodii XVIII i XIX w .. Moscow-Leningrad: Academia, 1931. 5-9.

—. “Predislovie.” Mnimaja poezija 5-9.

Uspenskij, Boris A. “Religiozno-mifologiCeskij aspekt russkoj ekspressivnoj frazeologii: Semantika russkogo mata v istoriCeskom osveSdenii.” Semiotics and the History of Culture. UCLA Slavic Studies. 17. Eds. Morris Halle et al. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, 1988. 313 Vachek, Josef. Dictionaire de linguistique de rEcole de Prague. 3rd ed. Utrecht/Anvers: Spectrum, 1970.

Verweyen, Theodor. Die Parodie in der neueren deutschen Literatur. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1979. Volo§inov, V. N. Marksizm i filosofija jazvka. 1929. Eng, trans. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Trans, by L. Matejka and I. R. Titunik. N.Y.: Seminar, 1973.

Weisstein, Ulrich. “Parody, Travesty, Burlesque: Imitations with a Vengeance.” Proceedings of the Ivth Congress of the International Comparative Literature Association. Ed. Francois Jost. Vol. 2. The Hague: Mouton, 1966. 802-11.

Yunck, J. A. “The Two Faces of Parody,” Iowa English Yearbook 8 (1963): 29-37.

Zumthor, Paul. “Le Carrefour des rhetoriqueurs: intertextualite et rhetorique.” Poetique 27 (1976): 317-37.

2irmunskij, V. A. Bajron i PuSkin. Iz istorii romantideskoi poemv. Leningrad: Nauica, 1978.