Downloaded from Brill.Com09/24/2021 03:54:17PM Via Free Access the First Slovenian Novel and the Literary World-System 513

Journal of World Literature 3 (2018) 512–523

brill.com/jwl

The First Slovenian Novel and the Literary World-System

Jernej Habjan Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts [email protected]

Abstract

The first Slovenian novel is yet to be read in a way that is both comparative and sociological. For while Slovenian studies treats the emergence of the Slovenian novel sociologically but not comparatively, comparative literature studies views it comparatively yet not sociologically. This gap can be filled by the perspective of the literary world- system. Moreover, this viewpoint can subtilize the thesis of Slovenian studies that the belatedness of the Slovenian novel is part of the belatedness of the Slovenian bourgeoisie as well as the comparatist thesis that the Slovenian novel became possible only after the end of the possibility of the traditional European novel. The world-systemic approach can grasp this belatedness as a social fact that speaks less of the Slovenian novel’s essence than of the structural relations between Slovenian culture and its Euro- pean social environment.

Keywords

Slovenian novel – the world-system – Josip Jurčič – Walter Scott – Mikhail Bakhtin

The1 first character in the first Slovenian novel is Walter Scott:

Narrators have, as noted already by the famous novelist Walter Scott, the age-old right to begin their story at an inn, that is, the meeting place of

1 This article was written at the Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in the framework of the research project “Slovene Literature and Social Changes” (J6—

all travelers where various characters open themselves to one another directly and freely, confirming the proverb In wine there is truth. If we then claim this right ourselves it is because we believe that our Slovenian inns and innkeepers, while bearing a much simpler appearance, are no less original than Scott’s old English ones. Jurčič 141 (my translation)

This was the incipit to the first Slovenian novel, Deseti brat (TheTenth Brother). The author, Josip Jurčič, wrote the following in his notebook for 1865–1866, the period during which he wrote the novel:

It is an age-old privilege of narrators to begin their story at an inn, the free rendezvous of all travelers, where various characters open themselves without ceremony and concealment, especially if the English innkeep[er] is merry, open, etc. The Slovene inn has these features – while the character of the people is diff[erent], in this respect the two are alike. Quoted in Rupel 401 (my translation)

Both passages, that from the novel and that from the notebook, partake in what Mikhail Bakhtin will describe, a century later in his history of the Rabelaisian novel, as “[t]he substantial traditional link of wise and free speech with food and wine, the specific ‘truth’ of table talk” (Bakhtin Rabelais 121). But the passages diverge from each other in two aspects, both of which are key for the novel form itself: only the novelistic passage introduces the first half of the statement as another’s idea, and the second half as a polemical response to it. Only the incipit to Deseti brat ascribes the first half of the statement to Walter Scott, and compares itself to him in the second half; only this version presents the statement as a series of novelistic utterances, that is, in Bakhtin’s definition, “positions of various subjects expressed in discourse” (Bakhtin Problems 183). In short, only the novelistic version of the statement is novelistic. Moreover, in this version, these utterances about how to begin a novel are placed at the beginning of a novel, even at the beginning of the first Slovenian novel, thus securing the latter right away the autoreferentiality that is expected from novels.

8259) and the research program “Studies in Literary History, LiteraryTheory and Methodology (P6–0024),” both of which were financed by the Slovenian Research Agency. The Slovenian- language version of the article, titled “Prvi slovenski roman in literarni svetovni-sistem,” appeared in 2014 in Slavistična revija 62(4), 569–577.

Journal of World Literature 3 (2018) 512–523 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:54:17PM via free access 514 habjan

But we should expect more from a novelistic refraction of a notebook statement.We should expect a third position, one that responds to the very response to Scott’s idea: an utterance that profanes the belief that “our Slovenian inns and innkeepers … are no less original than Scott’s old English ones.” This the narrator could achieve by introducing either a new utterance or an actual inn and its profaning folklore chronotope. This kind of chronotope, writes Nada Petkovska (275), remains “on the periphery of the plot,” in Deseti brat. Periph- eral as it is, the inn does contradict the narrator’s belief in the originality of Slovenian inns, but by mistake, as it were, namely as an unsuccessful novelistic introduction of an inn. What is hence missing is a position that contradicts the narrator’s belief within the novelistic narrative itself and thereby enables something like the realization that this belief is a case of Freudian disavowal. For the narrator’s reaction, his belief in his originality in spite of better knowledge, gives the incipit the structure of fetishistic disavowal. Octave Mannoni (2003) grasps this structure with the following formula: I know well, but all the same … Applied to our case, this would sound something like the following: I know well that Slovenian inns and innkeepers bear a much simpler appearance, butallthesameIbelievethattheyarenolessoriginalthanScott’soldEnglishones. The opening conflict between the knowledge that Slovenian inns lack Scott’s originality and a belief to the contrary is resolved in a compromise that retains both the knowledge and the belief, but only in the manner of I know well, but all the same … “In the conflict between the weight of the unwelcome perception and the force of … [the] counter-wish, a compromise has been reached, as is only possible under the dominance of the unconscious laws of thought – the primary processes,” reads Freud’s explanation of disavowal (“Fetishism” 154). “Disavowals of this kind occur very often and not only with fetishists,” adds Freud (“An Outline” 204). And yet we don’t tend to expect them from narrators of novels. From them we expect the third position mentioned above, profanation of belief. For this kind of profanation is not only able to resolve the conflict but is itself a genuine novelistic carnivalization of fetishes (including the fetishes, both well known to the novel form, of “Throne and Altar”: a panic similar to castration anxiety may be experienced by “a grown man … when the cry goes up that Throne and Altar are in danger” [Freud “Fetishism” 153]). Deseti brat knows no such profanation, and hence monologic disavowal survives not only in its incipit but also in the motto before the incipit, namely in the quote from the Slovenian poet Simon Jenko’s post-Romantic lyric cycle Obrazi (Pic- tures/Faces). Granted, this verse motto is transformed into the prose text that follows the incipit, but this is a mere formal transformation rather than a genuine novelistic one. The entire chapter following the incipit is indeed a prose version of the verses quoted in the motto, but a version devoid of carnivaliza-

Journal of World LiteratureDownloaded from 3 (2018) Brill.com09/24/2021 512–523 03:54:17PM via free access the first slovenian novel and the literary world-system 515 tion, a version lacking the device that novels tend to employ in response to mottoes like the following: “A young hero through the grass / walks with a heavy chest. S. Jenko” (Jurčič 141; my translation). Paradoxically, a proper novelistic prosaization of Jenko’s Obrazi is to be sought in a response that is not even in prose form, namely the following: “A young hero through the grass / rides his bike real fast. S. Jenko” (Rob 7; my translation). This profanation – namely Ivan Rob’s 1938 Deseti brat, a text written two years before the first edition of Bakhtin’s above-quoted history of Rabelaisian novel – this travesty of Jurčič’s novel is the actual novel, as far as the novelization of Jenko’s Obrazi is concerned. Moreover, instead of disenchanting belief, the remainder of the first para- graph of the first Slovenian novel merely reproduces the structure of disavowal. The knowledge of the first sentence and the belief of the second are repeated as the knowledge of the third sentence and the belief of the fourth:

It is self-evident that a Slovenian mother has yet to bear a son capa- ble of outlining our national features with the accuracy with which the said unmatchable master has presented to the world the characters of his people. Hence, the narrator of this utterly true story will not attempt to portray the merry Slovenian innkeeper Peharček, and for three reasons: firstly, because it is impossible to conceive of Peharček exactly as he really was; secondly, because this noteworthy man holds merely a tempo- rary, fleeting place in our story, one limited to its beginning; and thirdly, because later on we will have to weave into the story another innkeeper, one quite similar in spirit to Peharček[.] Jurčič 141

But this is not all. Between the second and the third sentence, there is no ref- erence: the second assertion of knowledge follows the first assertion of the knowledge to the contrary without admitting the contradiction. As for the fourth sentence, it does refer to the knowledge of the third sentence as the rea- son for its own belief, but then goes on to add three further reasons, all of which are in contradiction not only with the third sentence but also with each other. It is hence almost cynicism when this long string of contradictions closes with the following caution against redundancy: “and we cannot recklessly tell the same things twice, can we” (Jurčič 141). As such, this compromise disavowal of knowledge on behalf of belief remains – and persists like any fetish (which, as Freud notes, is “easily accessible” [“Fetishism” 154]). For almost every chapter that is not preoccupied with the consequences of either Lovre’s letters or Marijan’s gunshot opens with at least

Journal of World Literature 3 (2018) 512–523 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:54:17PM via free access 516 habjan a minimal autoreferential commentary that retains in one way or another the opening conflict between the knowledge and the belief regarding the Slovenian material for a novel:

[Ch. II:] [A]ccording to accounts by our Slovenian forefathers … there was a lot more poetry among our people forty years ago and more than in today’s drought. (Jurčič 150) [Ch. III:] [A] small group … we wish to present to the reader in more detail – a task all the more easy to accom- plish as the group consisted of no more than five people[.] (156–157) [Ch. IV:] If anyone thought … that we would be following Lovre’s every step throughout this dreary tale … he could not be more mistaken. (170– 171) [Ch. V:] [L]et me … say openly that, among its other weaknesses, this story has a remarkable empty spot at this stage that was utterly impossible to fill in and plug up. (184) [Ch. VI:] When we say “towards the castle” we are merely using the word with which the common people dis- tinguish between agricultural and aristocratic buildings to imply with a certain level of respect that the latter, though not particularly exquisite, should nevertheless not be named by the common word house. (191–192) [Ch. XIII:] Narrator of a larger story would compare himself to an Amer- ican cattle herder with multiple wagons. … But perhaps we can still be forgiven if we use this opportunity to amend our delay and present to the honorable reader the new guests in their image and character. (262–263) [Ch. XIV:] Oh great Shakespeare, man of wisdom and knowledge …. But stop, dear pen! Where have you wandered off to? (274, 276)

But this is not all either. After this kind of autoreferential introduction, every chapter brings about a prosaization of its respective verse motto, a prosaization that is formal rather than novelistic – as if these verses, quoted as they are from William Shakespeare, Mikhail Lermontov, France Prešeren, Simon Jenko, Fran Levstik, Matija Valjavec, Miroslav Vilhar, Andrej Kančnik, Jakob Zupan, and folklore, belonged to a canon that should not be profaned by novelistic prosaization. The opening fetishistic compromise resolution of the conflict between knowledge and belief therefore persists – and becomes the very theme of Deseti brat. So let us finally look at the plot of Deseti brat. Lovre Kvas, a poor yet ambi- tious youth, becomes the teacher at the Slemenice castle. On his way there, he meets the misfit Martinek Spak, alleged tenth son of one and the same mother who, as such, has to be taken care of by the whole village, according to tradi- tion. At Slemenice, Lovre falls in love with the master’s daughter, Manica, who already has the affection of her neighbor Marijan, the son of master Piškav at

Journal of World LiteratureDownloaded from 3 (2018) Brill.com09/24/2021 512–523 03:54:17PM via free access the first slovenian novel and the literary world-system 517

Polesek castle. Manica prefers Lovre, while her parents prefer the rich Marijan. Marijan catches Lovre and Manica sharing an intimate conversation and pri- vately demands of Lovre that he leave Slemenice. Lovre leaves Marijan be, but forgets his rifle. With this rifle in hand, Marijan wounds Martinek after the latter predicts that Lovre will marry Manica. Fatally wounded, Martinek reveals to Lovre that Piškav is not only Marijan’s father but also Martinek’s father and Lovre’s uncle. Martinek is therefore Marijan’s half-brother, not a tenth brother. And Piškav is in fact Peter Kaves, an upstart who ruined Martinek’s mother for her dowry, ran away to Vienna, left yet another wife, namely Marijan’s mother, and bought Polesek castle under the alias Piškav. Martinek persuades Lovre to tell Kaves that his first wife, Martinek’s mother, forgave him for everything before she died. Kaves visits the dying Martinek, reveals his identity in a letter to Marijan, and honors Martinek’s wish to bequeath Polesek to Lovre. Martinek dies of the gunshot wound, Kaves kills himself, and Marijan moves away. Lovre leaves for Vienna. Upon his return as a lawyer, he marries Manica. Deseti brat therefore thematizes the disenchanted world of the rising middle class, that is, the compromise-driven world of the compromise-driven class. In this world, the couple that comes closest to a lovers’ missed encounter, like, say, that between Onegin and Tatyana or even Miss Bennet and Mr. Darcy, are Lovre and Martinek; and the love that drives these two together against their better judgement resembles epistemophilia at best – is he just an original or also original? is he just a Kvas or also a Kaves? (The latter question – a Kvas or a Kaves? – receives an uncanny answer on page 153 of the critical edition of Deseti brat [Jurčič 153], where a typo produces the compromise formation “Kavs,” which is a Slovenian vulgarism for sexual intercourse.) So, the compromise struck, by way of disavowal, in autopoetic commentaries is elevated to the very theme of Deseti brat – and this theme in turn is brought to an end with one final autoreferential commentary: equating Mar- tinek the alleged tenth brother with the words “THETENTHBROTHER” on his tombstone, Deseti brat makes these final words echo its first words, namely its title. Yet even before this ending-cum-beginning, the theme of compromise is autopoetic at least insofar as this kind of compromise disavowal characterizes the “modern aesthetic stance” as such (Močnik 7; my translation). In this sense, Deseti brat thematizes, in an autoreferential manner, the compromise- driven mechanism of aesthetic reception even where, without any autoreferential ambition, it narrates the compromise-driven disenchanted world of the compromise-driven middle class. In short, autoreferential commentaries, the formal prosaization of verse mottoes, the theme of the kind of compromise that characterizes modern aesthetic writing – all this comes very near to an actual novel; but so do the mother’s panties to her missing penis.

Journal of World Literature 3 (2018) 512–523 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:54:17PM via free access 518 habjan

“The dialogic orientation of a word among other words … creates new and significant artistic potential in discourse, creates the potential for a distinctive art of prose, which has found its fullest and deepest expression in the novel.” This idea, as it was famously proposed by Bakhtin (“Discourse” 275), is crucial for the above notion of the novel. To Yuri Lotman, however (411; my translation), this idea of novelistic dialogism also seems crucial for an “understanding of the artistic nature of Eugene Onegin,” the Pushkin novel analyzed by Lot- man against the backdrop of Bakhtin’s theory, the novel that Bakhtin himself (“Discourse” 329) treats as “an encyclopedia of the styles and languages of the epoch,” thereby (as noted by IvanVerč [119n86; my translation]) “somewhat cor- recting” V.G. Belinsky’s famous dictum about Eugene Onegin, and subsequently also (as added by Aleksander Skaza [182; my translation]) “polemicizing” with Lotman himself. Bakhtin’s theory of the novel is therefore relevant for the kind of novel introduced in Russian by Alexander Pushkin, the writer whom some Bakhtinians (Skaza; Javornik) have compared to a writer in Slovenian, namely the Slovenian national poet France Prešeren. Moreover, even Eugene Onegin itself has been compared, as a novel, to the last part of Prešeren’s 1836 narrative poem Krst pri Savici (The Baptism on the Savica) (Skaza 182–184; Kos “Puškinov” 10–11). Jurčič therefore was not without predecessors as he was introducing the novel form in the Slovenian language. Which can make one wonder why Jurčič the novelist failed to live up to the example set by Pushkin (or even Dostoevsky, who in the year in which Deseti brat appeared published no less than Crime and Punishment). What could be the reasons for this failure? Why is Jurčič unable to pick up where Pushkin or at least Prešeren left off? Moreover, why is Jurčič unable even to surpass his own source, Scott’s Antiquary, which is just one of Scott’s many novels of “private events and subjective passions,” which, already in Hegel’s 1830 judgement, combine “the inessential, particular side of life with an inessential material” (Hegel 248)? The existing scholarship on Jurčič is concerned precisely with this question. In Slovenian literary studies, the Slovenian novel is generally seen as a phenomenon of belatedness. This presupposition is common to both major traditions of Slovenian literary studies, the Kulturgeschichte of Slovenian Studies and the Geistesgeschichte of Comparative Literature. It is on this common basis that the former speaks about the belatedness of the Slovenian bourgeoisie and hence its novel, and the latter about the impossibility of the Slovenian novel prior to the end of the possibility of the traditional European novel. If these two theses were to be concretized, a certain lacuna would have to be filled, a gap that Slovenian Studies and CompLit create jointly as the former treats the early Slovenian novel sociologically but without a comparative dimension while the latter views it comparatively yet without

Journal of World LiteratureDownloaded from 3 (2018) Brill.com09/24/2021 512–523 03:54:17PM via free access the first slovenian novel and the literary world-system 519 a sociological dimension. What would hence be needed is a reading of Deseti brat against a comparative sociological background. In this way, a more con- crete approach would also be possible to the respective implications of the two theses, namely the dependency of the novel on the bourgeoisie, on one side, and the marginality of the Slovenian bourgeoisie compared to its Euro- pean competition, on the other. Finally, the presupposition common to the two theses – belatedness – would be freed in this way from both its ritual assertion and its equally ritual denial, as it would reveal itself to be a social fact that says less about the essence of the Slovenian novel than about the structural relationship between Slovenian culture and its European social environment. According to Matjaž Kmecl, an influential representative of Slovenian Stud- ies and its sociological approach to literature, Deseti brat is a depiction of what Karl Marx conceptualized as primitive accumulation of capital. The Slovenian novel was able to emerge only in the time of the first national political program, the first rise of the Slovenian press, and the first accumulation of capital in the hands of the Slovenian bourgeoisie (Kmecl Rojstvo 21–22). From this perspective, the early Slovenian novel is a “most precise seismometer” (22; my translation) of the difficulties encountered by the Slovenian bourgeoisie on its path to nationhood – while Prešeren’s plan to write a novella or a novel is pre- mature, from this point of view (19), as his accomplishments in poetry were unmatchable in prose before Jurčič’s time (120). Jurčič, the editor of the first Slovenian newspaper as well as the author of the first Slovenian novel, depicts, in this novel, his alter ego, Lovre, on the model of the emerging Slovenian intel- ligentsia, the “upstart intellectuals” (Kmecl Josip 79; my translation) who – like Prešeren (Kmecl Rojstvo 20) and the “Vaje” group (Od pridige 70) before them – tend to forsake the study of Theology or Philology for Law ( Josip 64) and try to marry into an estate (Rojstvo 115). Deseti brat thus introduces “the central early bourgeois myth about marrying into the estate of one’s beloved woman” (Rojstvo 115), a myth busted only by the 1876 novel Meddvemastoloma (Between Two Chairs), in which Jurčič transfers the law of talion from his “historical” novels to his “original” ones (that is, novels set in the present) and inaugurates the period epitomized by the 1893 story Jara gospoda (The Upstarts), Janko Kersnik’s critique of the Slovenian bourgeoisie (Rojstvo 109–111). For just like switching from Theology to Law, marrying into an estate, too, reveals itself to be a mere act of primitive accumulation of capital (Kmecl Josip 81–82). It hence takes the “original” novel Med dvema stoloma for the hero to fall into a Stend- halian love triangle and be ruined in the manner expected from a modern novel by Dušan Pirjevec, a dominant figure in the history of Slovenian Comparative Literature.

Journal of World Literature 3 (2018) 512–523 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:54:17PM via free access 520 habjan

Pirjevec approaches the Slovenian novel as a starting point for his theoriza- tion of the European novel (Pirjevec “Problem” 63, 66, 68, 69). For him, Deseti brat is an ideological text masking the impossibility of action, the incompati- bility of essence and being; Jurčič’s happy end masks that which the traditional European novel reveals by divorcing the hero’s being from essence and hence ending in catastrophe (64). But this, adds Pirjevec, is precisely what makes Jur- čič’s happy end an unwitting truth of the traditional European novel (69, 73); the Slovenian novelistic hero is not yet possible when the European hero is already impossible: Lovre does not yet see the problem when Emma Bovary no longer sees the solution (71). Lovre is rewarded precisely because, unlike Kaves, he is not a hero of action (Pirjevec “Pri izvirih” 35) – and, as Bakhtin might add, Obrščak, the plot’s innkeeper, is rewarded exactly because, unlike Peharček, he is not a Rabelaisian innkeeper. Even George Eliot’s Middlemarch, which Virginia Woolf called “‘one of the few English books written for grown- up people’, … cannot accept the idea of a world dominated by perfectly lawful injustice,” writes Franco Moretti (The Bourgeois 178); Deseti brat is “a children’s book,” writes Pirjevec (“Problem” 63; my translation). The two readings of Jurčič proposed by Kmecl and Pirjevec are the most rad- ical examples of sociologism and comparativism respectively. The middle way is approximated by Boris Paternu, on one side, who does address the Euro- pean novel’s influence in his sociologically inspired interpretation of Deseti brat (Paternu 25–27, 34, 19), and by Janko Kos, on the other side, who does mention the weakness of the Slovenian bourgeoisie in Jurčič’s time before focusing on the European novel as a no less important influence (Kos “Evropski” 36–37). Recently, in the year of the publication of the most recent of these readings of Jurčič, Marko Juvan mentioned Deseti brat in his defense of those contempo- rary approaches in literary studies that take into consideration literature’s comparative sociological background. As we have seen, this kind of background is precisely what is missing from both mainstream traditions in Jurčič studies; Juvan’s mention of Deseti brat in his defense of the background is therefore all the more promising. Moreover, Juvan zooms in precisely on the incipit to Deseti brat. For him, the incipit is a successful compensation for the belatedness of Slovenian literature: “The opening sentences of the first Slovenian novel … are describing a new genre in the Slovenian language …, … revealing that the writer … is transplanting Scott’s generic model, and suggesting how his ‘compromise’ might look[.] [T]he implied author … is leveling out the global cultural hierarchy … and canceling out the opposition[.]” (Juvan “Svetovni” 197; my translation; see also Juvan Literary 82–84) The opening sentences “are describing,” “revealing,” and “suggesting,” and the implied author “is leveling out” and “canceling out” – all these verbs are in the

Journal of World LiteratureDownloaded from 3 (2018) Brill.com09/24/2021 512–523 03:54:17PM via free access the first slovenian novel and the literary world-system 521 present continuous tense (in my translation of Juvan’s Slovenian verbs in the imperfect). This is not surprising, given the disavowal that organizes the first two sentences of Deseti brat, the contradictions that make the connections between and within the following two sentences, and the kind of novel that follows. It would be difficult to argue that Jurčič’s opening sentences actually describe, reveal, or suggest what Juvan says they “are describing,” “revealing,” and “suggesting,” or that the implied author really levels or cancels anything out. With his formulation, Juvan criticizes Moretti’s “[c]ompromise merger of the global (‘western formal influence’) with the local (peripheral ‘materials’, ‘local characters,’ and ‘local narrative voice’)” (Juvan “Svetovni” 196; see also Juvan Literary 82–84). Moretti himself picks up this relation between the global and the local from Fredric Jameson, whose articulation he finds “fundamentally a binary one,” while he himself feels that “it’s more of a triangle: foreign form, local material – and local form. Simplifying somewhat: foreign plot; local characters; and then, local narrative voice: and it’s precisely in this third dimension that these novels seem to be most unstable – most uneasy” (Moretti “Conjec- tures” 64–65). “Unstable,” “uneasy” – Jurčič’s devices of disavowal, and Juvan’s verbs in the imperfect, are certainly that. Which is ultimately why Jurčič’s devices are irreducible to either foreign form or local material: it is because of its instability and uneasiness that the implied author of Deseti brat is a local form, rather than a mere foreign form or local material; Jurčič’s implied author is a specifically literary inscription of the compromise between Scott’s novels and the Slovenian inn. A foreign, Scottian form can therefore no longer serve as an argument for Slovenian belatedness, not can local, Slovenian material cor- roborate Slovenian originality. Deseti brat is a compromise between a Scottian form and Slovenian material – and as such no different than, say, Scott’s Anti- quary itself, for, as Moretti admits, a global form, too, is born out of compromise (Moretti “More” 78–80).The difference between global and local forms lies else- where: Antiquary, after having emerged as a compromise, was in turn able to force other texts to compromise, including Jurčič’s Deseti brat, whereas the latter failed to exert such influence on world literature. In this sense, Scott’s local form is also a global form, and Jurčič’s is not. This is then what Jurčič’s belatedness boils down to. And from the perspective of Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-systems analysis, the approach that inspired Moretti to develop Jameson’s “binary” relation into a “triangle,” it is also possible to give a different ideological charge to this belatedness. For this kind of perspective allows us to see in belatedness a systemic phenomenon that, beyond the belated writer’s activity or inactivity, is in the last instance the result of the global division of labor, a process that takes place on a level that is both social in the sense of Kulturgeschichte and comparative in the sense

Journal of World Literature 3 (2018) 512–523 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:54:17PM via free access 522 habjan of Geistesgeschichte. It is to this level that we, students not only of Slovenian Studies and CompLit but also of world-systems analysis, should bring Deseti brat.

Works Cited

Bakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais and His World. Trans. Hélène Iswolsky. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1968. Bakhtin, Mikhail. “Discourse in the Novel.” In Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. Michael Holquist, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981, 259–422. Bakhtin, Mikhail. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Trans. Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984. Freud, Sigmund. “An Outline of Psycho-analysis.” In Freud, The Standard Edition of the CompletePsychologicalWorksof SigmundFreud.Volume23. Ed. and trans. James Stra- chey et al. London: Vintage, 2001, 139–207. Freud, Sigmund. “Fetishism.” In Freud, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psycholog- ical Works of Sigmund Freud. Volume 21. Ed. and trans. James Strachey et al. London: Vintage, 2001, 147–157. Hegel, G.W.F. Philosophy of Mind. Trans. William Wallace and A.V. Miller, rev. Michael Inwood. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. Javornik, Miha. “Mednyj vsadnik A.S. Pushkina i Kreshchenie pri Savice F. Presherna kak paradigma dvuh kul’tur.” In F. Prešeren – A.S. Puškin / F. Preshern – A.S. Pushkin, ed. Miha Javornik. Ljubljana: ZIFF, 2001, 187–201. Jurčič, Josip. “Deseti brat.” In Jurčič, Zbrano delo. Tretja knjiga, ed. Mirko Rupel. Ljubl- jana: Državna založba Slovenije, 1965, 139–371. Juvan, Marko. “Svetovni literarni sistem.”Primerjalna književnost 32:2 (2009), 181–212. Juvan, Marko. Literary Studies in Reconstruction: An Introduction to Literature. Trans. Simona Lapanja et al. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011. Kmecl, Matjaž. Od pridige do kriminalke. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1975. Kmecl, Matjaž. Rojstvo slovenskega romana. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1981. Kmecl, Matjaž. Josip Jurčič: pripovednik in dramatik. Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slo- venije za šolstvo, 2009. Kos, Janko. “Evropski izviri slovenskega romana v 19. stoletju.” Slavistična revija 33:1 (1985), 27–50. Kos, Janko. “Puškinov roman v verzih in Prešernova povest v verzih kot genološki problem.” In Romantična pesnitev: ob 200. obletnici rojstva Franceta Prešerna, ed. Marko Juvan. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, 2002, 3–12. Lotman, Jurij. “Roman v stikhah Pushkina ‘Evgenij Onegin’. Speckurs.” In Lotman,

Journal of World LiteratureDownloaded from 3 (2018) Brill.com09/24/2021 512–523 03:54:17PM via free access the first slovenian novel and the literary world-system 523

Pushkin, eds. A.Y. Balakin, O.N. Nechipurenko, and N.G. Nikolayuk. Saint Petersburg: Iskusstvo, 1999, 393–462. Mannoni, Octave. “I Know Well, but All the Same …” Trans. G.M. Goshgarian. In Per- version and the Social Relation, eds. Molly Anne Rothenberg, Dennis A. Foster, and Slavoj Žižek. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 2003, 68–92. Močnik, Rastko. Julija Primic v slovenski književni vedi. Ljubljana: Sophia, 2006. Moretti, Franco. “Conjectures on World Literature.” New Left Review 1 (2000), 54–68. Moretti, Franco. “More Conjectures.” New Left Review 20 (2003), 73–81. Moretti, Franco. The Bourgeois: Between History and Literature. London: Verso, 2013. Paternu, Boris. “Uvodna beseda.” In Josip Jurčič, Deseti brat. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije, 1998, 13–36. Petkovska, Nada. “The Chronotopes of the Castle, Drawing-room and Provincial Town in the Slovenian Novel of the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century.” In Bahtin in humanistične vede, eds. Miha Javornik et al. Ljubljana: ZIFF, 1997, 273–278. Pirjevec, Dušan. “Pri izvirih slovenskega romana.”Problemi 10:109 (1972), 31–36. Pirjevec, Dušan. “Problem slovenskega romana.” Trans. Tomo Virk. Literatura 9: 67/68 (1997), 63–75. Rob, Ivan. Deseti brat. S.l.: s.n., 1938. Rupel, Mirko. “Opombe.” In Josip Jurčič, Zbrano delo. Tretja knjiga. Ur. Mirko Rupel. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije, 1965, 373–414. Skaza, Aleksander. “Evgenij Onegin A.S. Pushkina i Venok sonetov France Presherna.” In F. Prešeren – A.S. Puškin / F. Preshern – A.S. Pushkin, ed. Miha Javornik. Ljubljana: ZIFF, 2001, 177–186. Verč, Ivan. Razumevanje jezikov književnosti. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 2010.

Journal of World Literature 3 (2018) 512–523 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:54:17PM via free access