The Petersburg Tradition: Essays in Honor of Nina Perlina

Introduction

John Bartle, Michael C. Finke, and Vadim Liapunov, eds. From Petersburg to Bloomington: Essays in Honor of Nina Perlina. Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 2012, 1–3. (Indiana Slavic Studies, 18.) Introduction       Like  Athena,  Nina  Moiseevna  Perlina  arrived  in  the  United  States  in   1974   as   an   already   accomplished   scholar.   After   completing   the   A.   I.   Herzen  Pedagogical  Institute  in  1961  with  an  M.A.  and  M.A.T.  in  Rus-­‐‑ sian  and  German,  she  worked  as  a  senior  research  fellow  at  the  Dosto-­‐‑ evsky  Museum  in  Leningrad  from  1969  until  1974.  In  1970,  she  joined   the  renowned  group  of  scholars  already  working  on  the  thirty-­‐‑volume   academy  edition  of  Dostoevsky’s  complete  collected  works.  She  con-­‐‑ tributed  more  than  fifty  pages  of  meticulously  researched  annotation   and   commentary   for   several   of   Dostoevsky’s   early   works.   She   also   contributed   an   extensive   introduction   and   commentary   to   the   pub-­‐‑ lished  memoirs  of.  S.  Kovalevskaia  and  A.  G.  Dostoevskaia,  with  A.  S.   Dolinin  as  editor  (1964).   After  arriving  in  the  United  States,  Professor  Perlina  was  accepted   by  the  graduate  program  at  Brown  University.  Under  the  mentorship   of  Victor  Terras,  she  completed  her  dissertation  and  received  her  doc-­‐‑ toral  degree  after  only  two  years.  The  fruit  of  this  labor  ultimately  be-­‐‑ came  her  highly  influential  book  Varieties  of  Poetic  Utterance:  Quotation   in  the  Brothers  Karamazov  (1985),  a  magisterial  application  of  Bakhtin’s   theories   to   Dostoevsky’s   last   novel.   Professor   Perlina   continued   her   work   on   Dostoevsky,   broadening   it   to   include   studies   of   Herzen’s   writings  and  their  importance  for  Dostoevsky.  But  Professor  Perlina’s   protean  interests  and  erudition  also  led  her  to  write  about  such  writers   as   Gogol,   Pushkin,   Bulgakov,   Kharms,   Auerbach,   Vico,   Bakhtin,   and   Martin  Buber,  and  to  investigate  such  topics  as  the  Siege  of  Leningrad,   the  culturology  of  N.  P.  Antsyferov,  and  the  myth  of  the  maternal  and   life-­‐‑giving  nature  of  the  October  Revolution.  Her  groundbreaking  ar-­‐‑ chival   research   on   Freidenberg’s   unpublished   papers   in   Oxford   and   her  tireless  research  in  Russia  resulted  in  a  remarkable  biography  and   penetrating   analysis   of   Ol’ga   Mikhailovna   Freidenberg’s   innovative   treatment  of  ancient  folklore,  cultural  history,  and  historical  aesthetics.   Her   acknowledgment   of   debt   to   numerous   scholars,   both   colleagues   2 Introduction and  former  students,1  is  fully  reciprocated  by  her  interlocutors,  who,   after  engaging  in  a  true  intellectual  dialogue  and  exchange  of  knowl-­‐‑ edge,  depart  with  a  deep  sense  of  gratitude  and  enlightenment.  It  is   quite   fitting   that   she   herself   characterizes   her   work   with   others   as   a   “symposium,”  not  strictly  in  the  sense  of  a  formal  scholarly  exchange,   but  as  an  occasion  for  the  convivial,  free  exchange  of  ideas.  The  pleas-­‐‑ ures  of  laughter  and  play  are  always  mixed  with  the  serious  explora-­‐‑ tion  of  scholarly  matters.   Professor   Perlina’s   teaching   is   enriched   by   the   same   rigorous   research,  thoroughness,  and  creativity  that  sustain  her  published  writ-­‐‑ ings.  She  is  as  at  home  and  effective  in  an  undergraduate  class  on  ad-­‐‑ vanced  grammar  and  stylistics  as  she  is  in  a  graduate  seminar  on  the   poetic   image   of   the   city   in   Russian   literature.   Professor   Perlina   is   an   almost  inexhaustible  source  of  information  about  nearly  every  aspect   of  Russian  and  Soviet  literature,  culture,  and  history,  which  she  gener-­‐‑ ously  shares  with  her  students.2   Although  it  is  hard  to  imagine  what  she  was  like  as  a  teacher  in  a   Russian   village   school,3   Professor   Perlina’s   work   in   the   university   classroom  is  distinguished  by  remarkable  sensitivity  and  openness  to   bold  and  complex  ideas,  even  when  they  are  wrong.  On  the  one  hand,   she  is  better  than  most  teachers  at  understanding  what  a  student  has  to   say;   on   the   other   hand,   she   carefully   crafts   her   response   so   as   to   encourage  her  students  to  see  the  consequences  of  a  particular  inter-­‐‑                                                                                                                 1  Although  she  thanks  several  people  for  “Englishing  her  English,”  an  anec-­‐‑ dote  communicated  by  Arlene  Forman  says  much  about  Professor  Perlina’s   command   of   English   academic   vocabulary:   “from   the   outset   Nina   would   astound  me  by  her  knowledge  of  rather  arcane  English  vocabulary.  We  used   to  bet  on  whether  or  not  I  could  find  a  given  word  in  the  dictionary,  and  I,  as   a   native   speaker,   would   often   be   brought   up   short   by   the   words   she   had   learned  by  reading.  Of  course,  I  should  not  have  been  surprised.  As  a  child,   upon   hearing   the   word   “dantist,”   Nina   immediately   assumed   that   it   could   only  mean  a  “Dante  scholar.”   2  As   John   Bartle   puts   it,   “She   also   knows   all   the   right   places   to   send   her   students,  whether  it  is  to  find  an  allusion  only  hinted  at  in...