Information to Users

INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced 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 9427818 Decoding PuSkin: Resurrecting some readers’ responses to “Egyptian Nights” Tracy, Lewis Mashburn, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1994 Copyright ©1994 by Tracy, Lewis Mashburn. All rights reserved. 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 DECODING PUSKIN: RESURRECTING SOME READERS' RESPONSES TO EGYPTIAN NIGHTS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Lewis Mashburn Tracy, B. A., M. A. ***** The Ohio State University 1994 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Irene Masing-Delic Frank Silbajoris Adviser^ George Kalbouss Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures Susan ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I express sincere appreciation to Dr. Irene Masing-Delic for her guidance and insight throughout the work on this 4 dissertation. Thanks go to the other members of my advisory committee, Drs. Frank R. Silbajoris and George Kalbouss, for their suggestions and comments. To my wife, Susan, I offer sincere thanks for your faith in me and your willingness to endure with me the vicissitudes of my endeavors. VITA July 18, 1958 ................Born - Los Angeles, California 1980 ...................... B. A., University of California, Berkeley 1987-1993 .................. Graduate Assistant, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1989 ...................... M. A., Department of Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1994 ...................... Instructor of Russian Literature and Culture, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio PUBLICATIONS "Decoding PuSkin: Resurrecting Some Readers' Responses to Egyptian Nights." Slavic and East European Journal, 37, No. 4 (1993), 456-471. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION..................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................... iii VITA ........................................... iv CHAPTER PAGE I. READING PUSKIN'S EGYPTIAN NIGHTS. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO R E A D ? ....................... 1 II. THE HISTORY AND RECEPTION OF EGYPTIAN NIGHTS ................................. 33 III. TRANSCENDING THE MOMENT: DOSTOEVSKIJ AND PUPKIN . ................................. 65 IV. COMPLICATING THE MOMENT: BRJUSOV AND PUPKIN . 129 V. THE LAST MODERNIST MOMENT? GOFMAN AND PUSKIN ................................. 194 CONCLUSION..................................... 246 APPENDICES A. Gofman's and TomaSevskij' s Version of the First Improvisation ............................... 252 B. Bondi's Version of theFirst Improvisation . 254 C. Nineteenth-Century Version of the Second Improvisation ............................... 255 D. TomaSevskij's Version of the Second improvisation ............................... 258 E. 1834-35 EN Fragment Published by Gofman. 261 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................... 263 V Chapter I Reading PuSkin's Egyptian Nights. What Does it Mean to Read? Reading is not an innocent activity. Jonathan Culler If reading is not an innocent activity, then documenting one's reading is even less so. Culler's negation implies guilt. But what is the reader guilty of? The object of this chapter is to discuss that very point. Its purpose is to de fine how the activity of reading is seen in this disserta tion. This is important because the subject of this work has been approached from the point of view of the reader and what occurs during the act of reading. My topic is specifically concerned with three interpre tations of Aleksandr Pupkin's unfinished tale Egyptian Nights (hereafter EN). I am referring to the readings of Fedor Dostoevskij, Valerij Brjusov and Modest Gofman. Their inter pretations of this tale were not greeted with wide acclaim. Brjusov, for example, was accused by ^irmunskij of turning PuSkin's poem about Cleopatra into an erotic ballad.1 Gofman's version of EN, in turn, was criticized in a contem porary review for its final chapter, which in the reviewer's opinion "does harm to the poet," i.e., PuSkin, because it presents EN as a logically complete work.2 Perhaps even 1 2 harsher was Boris TomaSevskij's appraisal of Dostoevskij's 1880 speech on PuSkin. He characterized it as a brilliant speech that is extremely characteristic of the speaker and yet which "completely misses Pushkin."3 Although this comment is apropos of the 1880 speech rather than Dostoevskij's 1861 article on EN, nevertheless the approach in both the speech and the article is similar and it is precisely that that TomaSevkij's reproach is concerned with. Time has not made these interpretations any more acceptable to scholars of Russian literature. Joan Delaney Grossman, for example, com ments that although Brjusov "complained of the 'magnifying glasses' placed between his generation and the 'true' Pushkin," he could himself be implicated in having "inserted a tinted lens of his own."4 In a similar vein, Leslie O' Bell dismisses Brjusov's and Gofman's efforts to complete the po etic and prose sections, respectively, of EN as "more cre ations of the modernist period than extensions of Pushkin's work."s My aim is not to posthumously redeem the reputations of Dostoevskij, Brjusov or Gofman as interpreters of Pupkin or to debunk the criticisms that have been offered. Indeed, it is fair to say that each of them viewed Pu&kin through a "tinted lens." Dostoevskij wrote one article on EN. The article was en titled "Otvet russkomu vestniku." He wrote his interpretation of EN in 1861 in a period when Pupkin was under attack and his relevance for contemporary Russian society seriously in question. Dostoevskij's reading of EN is aimed in part, at 3 least, to respond to those attacks. Brjusov, as Grossman has pointed out, sought the "true" PuSkin in his many articles on the poet. We are principally concerned with Brjusov's 1910 article "Egipetskie no£i" and his 1916-17 poem entitled "Egipetskie noEi," in which he pre sents his version of how EN might have continued. Both his article and his poem on EN serve to bolster the image of PuSkin that Brjusov was attempting to create. Gofman's professional life was dedicated to establishing the authoritative canon of PuSkin's works. He came to apply his knowledge and skill as a textologist on EN and, based upon his study of the manuscripts associated with EN, made certain decisions as to how the plot should continue to de velop. He wrote several articles on EN, namely "'Kleopatra' i 'Egipetskija no£i'," "Iz 'Egipetskix noCej'," and "Les "Nuits 6gyptiennes' de Pouchkine et leur heroine." Gofman also wrote his own version, entitled Egipetskie noEi. of how EN might have continued. Many of his opinions were disputed by other textologists (eg. S. Bondi) and his completion of EN could be viewed as an effort to substantiate the conclusions he had drawn in various works over the course of twelve years. Returning briefly to the criticisms of Grossman, et. al., we will notice a certain resemblance between them. The first is that they are all predicated upon an objective un derstanding of interpretation. Grossman's critique of Brjusov that he has possibly used his own "tinted lens" in his inter pretation of Pu&kin is her way of invalidating Brjusov's work. The "tinted lens" implies that Brjusov failed to be 4 objective. The problem with this is that after thirty years of reader-response theory it is no longer sufficient, perhaps not even interesting, to object to an interpretation purely on the basis of a perceived lack of objectivity. Indeed, one of the objects of this chapter is to discuss the fact that everyone, Grossman included, reads with a "tinted lens," if by "lens" we mean the methodological approach that a reader has chosen to employ. This is not to deny the existence of standards that we as a professional community feel obliged to uphold and assert; We can still sit in judgement of one an other. We might, however, want to speak of the relative clar ity of our respective lenses. Perhaps the tint of Brjusov's lens is so strong that what is seen through it is a Pupkin that only Brjusov would recognize. Even if we grant, however, the weakness of a particular reading, this does not mean that it has little or nothing to offer us. This leads us to a second similarity among the criticisms, which is a presence of a tone of complete dismissal. O'Bell's opinion of Brjusov's and Gofman's efforts to complete EN is a case in point. The recipient of such an appraisal is likely to be disregarded by the rest of the scholarly community, perhaps without much thought. However, I would suggest that it is not in our interest to ignore even "poor" readings.

Load more