How the Russians Read the French: Lermontov, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy

Notes

Notes Introduction 1. In this sense, Russia is the colony and Europe the imperium of Said’s Orientalism. 2. Hohendahl, Building a National Literature, 198. 3. Or perhaps, as Andrei Zorin suggests, the subject was neglected because few Soviet scholars knew French. 4. B. G. Reizov and Vera Milchina have also contributed a valuable body of work on the interrelationship between Russian and French literature in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. 5. Lotman, “Russkaia literatura na frantsuzskom iazyke,” in Izbrannye stat’i, 2:368. All references to Lotman’s work will give volume and page numbers in Arabic. 6. Lotman, “K postroeniiu teorii vzaimodeistviia kul’tur,” Izbrannye stat’i, 2:117. 7. Fonvizin, letter to Petr Aleksandrovich Panin, 29 September 1778, in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii D. I. Fonvizina (hereafter Pss), 904. 8. Seton-Watson, Nations and States, 5. 9. Cracraft, “Peter the Great and the Problem of Periodization,” 11. 10. Rogger, National Consciousness, 5–9. Much of my discussion of the eighteenth century here represents a condensation of the first two chapters of Rogger’s book. 11. Shcherbatov, Neizdannye sochineniia, 126. 12. Rogger, National Consciousness, 45–84. 13. “We are beginning and they are ending.” Fonvizin, letter to Ia. P. Bulgakov , 25 January 1778, Pss, 914. 14. Shishkov, Rassuzhdenie, 8. 15. Karamzin, Letters of a Russian Traveler, 3. 16. Anderson, Imagined Communities, 19–21. 17. Hastings, The Construction of Nationhood, 3–4. 18. For a discussion of mythological orientation, see Lotman, “Tekst v 225 tekste,” Izbrannye stat’i, 1:148–60. For a study of the biblical basis of five Russian novels, see Bethea, The Shape of Apocalypse. 19. Rachel Polonsky addresses the same issues in the introduction to her English Literature and the Russian Aesthetic Renaissance, especially 2, 6. 20. Schelling, System of Transcendental Idealism, pt 6, p. 219–36, especially 222–24. 21. Belknap, The Genesis of The Brothers Karamazov, 2. 22. Nina Perlina (Varieties of Poetic Utterance, 55–58) also applies Taranovsky ’s method of poetic analysis to prose. 23. Thomas Barran (Russia Reads Rousseau, xxiv) uses “intertext” this way, quoting Laurent Jenny (“The Strategy of Form,” in French Literary Theory Today, ed. Tsvetan Todorov [Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1982], 34– 63, 37). 24. Eliot, “Tradition and the Individual Talent,” 13. 25. Taranovsky, “Concert at the Railroad Station,” 18. 26. Ronen, An Approach to Mandel’shtam, xvii–xviii. 27. Riffaterre, “Syllepsis,” 625–38, Riffaterre, “Flaubert’s Suppositions,” 2– 11; Toporov, “O Strukture romana Dostoevskogo,” 225–302. 28. The terms are Riffaterre’s. See Semiotics of Poetry, 4–6. 29. See Meyer, “Gogol and Hoffman,” 62–73. 30. Frow, “Intertextuality and Ontology,” 46. 31. Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, 69–73. 32. René Wellek long ago reached this conclusion. See “Bakhtin’s View of Dostoevsky,” 232–35. 33. Tynianov, Arkhaisty i novatory, especially 87–227. 34. Rushdy, Neo-Slave Narratives, 17. 35. Pushkin, Eugene Onegin, 1:xxvi. Chapter 1. From Poetry to Prose 1. Reizov, Bal’zac, 297. 2. Lichtlé, “Balzac et la Revue étrangère,” 55. 3. Reizov, Bal’zac, 297. 4. Ibid., 294. 5. Ibid., 297. 6. This is according to Evgenii Borisovich Belodubrovskii. See Modzalevskii , “Biblioteka A. S. Pushkina,” 369. 7. Kahn, Pushkin’s “The Bronze Horseman,” 3–8. 8. Lednicki, Pushkin’s “Bronze Horseman”; Jakobson, Pushkin and His Sculptural Myth, 26. 9. Eidelman, Pushkin: Istoriia i sovremennost’, 142–48. 10. Lednicki, Pushkin’s “Bronze Horseman,” 25–42. 11. Vernadsky, “Pushkin and the Decembrists,” 45–76; Blagoi, Sotsiologiia tvorchestva Pushkina; Jakobson, Pushkin and His Sculptural Myth, 25. 12. Briggs, A Comparative Study, 106–7. 13. Akhmatova, “Pushkin i nevskoe vzmore,” 119–26. 14. Stroganova, “Otgoloski dekabristskoi temy,” 110–18. 226 Notes to pages 7–18 15. Mirsky, Pushkin, 209–10; Lednicki, Pushkin’s “Bronze Horseman,” 13–14; Kuleshov, Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo A.S. Pushkina, 331. 16. Jakobson, Pushkin and His Sculptural Myth, 26. 17. Harkins, “The Place of Domik v Kolomne,” 201–2. 18. This is in keeping with Lotman’s observation that Pushkin’s thinking about the historical process in the 1830s took the form of a tripartite paradigm. See Lotman, “Zamysel stikhotvoreniia ‘O poslednem dne Pompei,’” in Izbrannye stat’i, 2:445–51. 19. Mirsky, Pushkin, 212. 20. Lednicki, Pushkin’s “Bronze Horseman,” 137. 21. Pushkin, quoted in Lednicki, Pushkin’s “Bronze Horseman,” 12; Kahn, Pushkin’s “The Bronze Horseman,” 5. 22. Jakobson, Pushkin and His Sculptural Myth, 25. 23. Lednicki, Pushkin’s “Bronze Horseman,” 11–12. 24...