cLABIKATER
20
SLAVICA TERGESTINA
European Slavic Studies Journal VOLUME 20 (2018/I)
Literary Theory in Bulgaria
slavic) ter
cjiAbmkM I [p
SLAVICA TERGESTINA
European Slavic Studies Journal
1592-0291 (print) & 2283-5482 (online)
WEB EMAIL
PUBLISHED BY
EDITORIAL BOARD
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
www.slavica-ter.org editors@slavica-ter.org
Universita degli Studi di Trieste
Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche, del Linguaggio, dell'Interpretazione e della Traduzione
Universität Konstanz
Fachbereich Literaturwissenschaft
Univerza v Ljubljani
Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za slavistiko
Roman Bobryk (Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities)
Margherita De Michiel (University of Trieste)
Tomaš Glane (University of Zurich)
Vladimir Feshchenko (Institute of Linguistics,
Russian Academy of Sciences)
Kornelija Ičin (University of Belgrade)
Miha Javornik (University of Ljubljana)
Jurij Murašov (University of Konstanz)
Blaž Podlesnik (University of Ljubljana, technical editor)
Ivan Verč (University of Trieste)
Antonella D'Amelia (University of Salerno) Patrizia Deotto (University of Trieste) Nikolaj Jež (University of Ljubljana)
Alenka Koron (Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies) Durda Strsoglavec (University of Ljubljana) Tomo Virk (University of Ljubljana)
DESIGN & LAYOUT
Aljaž Vesel & Anja Delbello / AA
Copyright by Authors
Contents
literary theory in bulgaria
10 What is it That is Being Threatened? Introductory Words
Hmo Haxodumca nod y^po3ou? BBedeHue b meMy $ DARIN TENEV
16 Poststructuralist Backgrounds: the Political Strategies of Resistance in the Literary-Theoretical Debates during the i96o-i97os in Bulgaria
nocmcmpyK.mypanumcK.ue npednocunKu: nonumunecKue cmpamezuu conpomuBnenua b numepamypoBednecKux de6amax b 1960-1970-x ^o^ax b Eomapuu $ ENYO STOYANOV
46 Anti-Odysseus: Orphism and Late Communism in Bulgaria
AHmu-Oducceu: 0p<fiu3M u no3dHuu K0MyHu3M b Eomapuu
$ MIGLENA NIKOLCHINA
70 Authentic and Heterogeneous Mimesis: Reflection and Self-reflexivity in Todor Pavlov and Yuri Lotman
AymeHmunHuu u ^emepo^eHHUu MuMecuc: ompaxeHue u aBmopefynexcuBHocmb y T. naBnoBa u K. MomMaHa
$ KAMELIA SPASSOVA
98 Exotopy: Mikhail Bakhtin and Jacques Lacan on the Outside Context of Discourse
^K30TO^Mfl: Muxauj BaxTUH u ®aK HaKaH o BHemHeM KOHTeKCTe gucKypca $ MARIA KALINOVA
118 Tension Episodes (A Fragment of the History of Literary Theory in Bulgaria. The Case of the Bulgarian Guillaumist School)
3nu3odu Hanpaxemocmb ((ppazMenm ucmopuu numepamypHou meopuu b Eomapuu. Cnynau c SomapcKou WKonou ^uuoMU3Ma) $ DARIN TENEV
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
varia
152 Between the Sureness of Theory and the Folly of Literature. A commentary to the reception of Saussure's theory of language (from Jakobson to Bagic)
Mexdy yBepemocmbK meopuu u 6e3yMueM numepamypu. KoMMenmapuu k BocnpuamuK meopuu n3biKa de CoccKpa (om %Ko6coHa do Ea^u^a) $ ANNA SKUBACZEWSKA-PNIEWSKA
174 Das slowenische Gesicht: Literarische Reportage uber Auswandereridentitaten
The Slovene Face: a Literary Reportage on Emigrant Identities $ LIDIJA REZONIČNIK
196 «HeTMpe MM3HH» Bacw.M» HBaHOBMna HanaeBa (06 0gH0M
MM^OTBopnecKOM ^eHOMeHe rpamgaHCKOH bomhh b Poccmm 1917-1923 rr.)
The „Four Lives" of Vasily Ivanovich Chapayev (about one Myth-making Phenomenon of the Russian Civil War 1917-1923)
$ HEHAfl E.flArOJEBHT
214 (E^e pa3) 0 nepcneKTMBax poccwwcKOM .MHraoKynbTyponorMM
Russian Lingvokultorologija: Culturul Linguistics or Linguistic Culturology? $ MPHH BHKTOPOBHH $HAHnnOB
238 Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole del russo contemporaneo
Recent Trends in Contemporary Russian Word-Formation $ LORENZO PENTA
reviews
2 76 Ritorno alla filologia
Return to Philology $ IVAN VERČ
310 Monografija o pesnici Anni A. Ahmatovi
Monograph about Poet Anna A. Akhmatova $ DENIS PONIŽ
7
Literary Theory in Bulgaria
What is it That is Being Threatened? Introductory Words
hto haxoghtc^ nog yrp030h? bbegehhe b temy
$ darin tenev ► darin.tenev@gmail.com
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
What is it that is being threatened by the approaches to literature that developed during the sixties and that now, under a variety of designations, make up the ill-defined and somewhat chaotic field of literary theory? Paul de Man, "The Resistance to Theory"
By the end of the seventies Paul de Man defined in a famous article the resistance to theory as a resistance to reading. Almost forty years later it has become obvious that the resistance to theory is in the first place a resistance to reading theory, to reading what theory had and still has to say. The recent opening of the dossier of Julia Kristeva and the allegation about her collaboration with the Bulgarian Secret Services is a perfect case in point as it provided a welcomed excuse not to read "difficult" texts. At the same time, as de Man himself pointed out, the resistance is not something external to theory but "a built-in constituent of its discourse", it is triggered, as it were, by the inner tensions of the field, and it is this fact that most probably made possible theory's own resistance to dominant ideologies and hierarchies. Theory was -and still can be - a form of resistance.
Yet, the stakes of doing theory then and now are not obvious. The ongoing fetishization of the word "resistance" in the present day context facilitated by its exploitation in the cultural industry (think, among so many other instances, of the last Star Wars episodes) makes us ever more blind to what the mechanisms and the practices of resistance in the complicated context of yesterday were. In this sense, the history of theory is necessary for theory as it can reveal through the transversal movement and the transformative development of concepts the logic of its inner tensions as well as their relation to the political and social conjunctures. It can be said generally that the stakes of literary theory throughout the 20th Century were at least triple - epistemological,
11
DARIN TENEV What Is It That Is Being Threatened? Introductory Words
political and social. And what this means is that literary theory was seen as posing at least a triple threat, a threat for the established scientific paradigms, a threat for the political order, a threat for the social status quo.
This still too general account might be misleading and too dogmatic if one were not to look into concrete cases and investigate the overdetermined particular contexts. In the present issue of Slavica TerGestina the authors present episodes of the history of literary theory in Bulgaria from the 1960s to the end of the 1980s. The case of Bulgaria is interesting in more than one aspect. Even though Tzvetan Todorov and Julia Kristeva, both of whom played a crucial role for the development of literary theory in the West, came from Bulgaria, none of the literary scholars of their generation who remained in the country came to be as known or reached their world fame. What is more, unlike USSR, Czechoslovakia or Poland, for the most part the very context of literary studies in Bulgaria remained non-transparent to the outside world despite the fact that at least two other Bulgarians, Alexander Ludskanov and Miroslav Yanakiev had important positions in the International Association for Semiotic Studies, and many others communicated intensively with renown colleagues from both the East and the West. As Todorov and Kristeva came to be associated with Bakhtin and structuralism, one should ask what was the role of Bakhtin and structuralism in their country of origin. What was the reason structuralism was so attractive? Why structuralism and not phenomenology, hermeneutics or something else? And what was the response to structuralism on the part of the Communist Party? Where did Bakhtin fit in all this? Were there other socially relevant theoretical paths at the time? How were the theoretical problems connected to the political conjuncture and to the Cold War ideologies?
12
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
The authors in the present issue address these and other related questions with the believe that every good theory should be self-reflexive and aware of its own history and its position. All the authors are members of the Literary Theory Department at the University of Sofia and the texts are to a large extent the result of their seminars and discussions in the framework of the Sofia Literary Theory Seminar. The history of literary theory proposed here is not history for history's sake, but a proper moment of theoretization.
The closer look, which the authors offer, shows that things were not as one would have expected, if one were to follow the widely accepted scholarly representations of the period. The dividing line between the East and the West, or the one between the official representatives of the Party and the literary scholars, etc., were never simple; these were lines traversing the very things they were delineating, multiplying lines betraying internal struggles and discordances but also unexpected resonances, unforeseeable chances, and unstable alliances. The theories of these times, theories imbued with tensions, unstable and mobile, transformative, were sometimes deliberately blind to their environment and in this very blindness offering insight into the political and social stakes of the debates they were taking part in or refusing to be a part of; and sometimes were an involuntary and oblique offering to the system they were passionately opposing. Theoretical writing made difference in an unpredictable way with the disseminations of conceptions it operated at the margins of the dominant philosophical discourse. The phenomenon of the theoretical voices in the often dissonant choir of competing strategies striving to gain control over the state of affairs, caused sense of imminent danger with the promise for new possibilities eluding any form of external control. To read always poses a threat. Reading theory now, reading into the history of theory
13
DARIN TENEV What Is It That Is Being Threatened? Introductory Words
now, when forms of naive positivism find their way back to the academia and the politically correct offspring of the late critical reflection become functionaries of censure not that different from the one from socialist times, can reveal not only what the possibilities once were but also in what way theory can still open up ever new alternatives, alternatives to any attempt to seal off critical thinking. $
14
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Darin Tenev
Darin Tenev is associate professor at the Literary Theory Department at the University of Sofia and at the Sociology and Humans Sciences Department at the University of Plovdiv. He is the director of the Institute of Critical Social Studies. He has published two books in Bulgarian - Fiction and Image. Models (2012) and Digressions. Essays on Jacques Derrida (2013), as well various articles on literary theory, model theory, deconstruction, and contemporary philosophy, among which the most recent are: "Jacques Derrida" in Oxford Bibliographies in Literary and Critical Theory; "Models of Poetics. A Response to Robert Matthias Erdbeers Poetik der Modelle" in Textpraxis; "Modes of Fiction, Models of Fiction" in Literary Form. Theories - Dynamics - Cultures. Perspectives on Literary Modelling.
15
DOI - 10.13137/2283-5482/22381
Poststructuralist Backgrounds: the Political Strategies of Resistance in the Literary-Theoretical Debates during the 1960 1970s in Bulgaria
nOCTCTpyKTypa^HCTCKHe npegnocLmKH: no^HTHHecKHe CTpaTeraH conpoTHB^eHH^ b ^HTepaTypoBegnecKHx ge6aTax b 1960-1970-x rogax b Bo^rapHH
$ enyo stoyanov - enyo.stoyanov@gmail.com
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
The article attempts to reconstruct some of the political stakes in the conceptual and methodological debates among two groups of literary critics during the i96oies and the I970ies in Bulgaria: the structuralists and their opponents, the so-called "Impers-sionist critics". This debate seems to be a pertinent context for addressing the emergence of poststructuralism since it was the intellectual ferment, in which Julia Kristeva formed her conceptual background, before later becoming among the first poststructur-alist critics of structuralism in France. Before, emigrating, Kristeva was part of the group of the "impressionist critics", who were developing ways of resisting official Marxist doctrine while retaining claims for Marxists legitimacy. They were very critical of the structuralists, who also were attempting to gain legitimacy, though by aligning with Marxism as a materialist science, a stance the "impressionists" viewed as contributing to alienation.
LITERARY THEORY, RESISTANCE, BAKHTIN, KRISTEVA, MARXISM, STRUCTURALISM, POSTSTRUCTURALISM
CTaTBA nMTaeTCfl BoCCTaHoBMTB nonu-TMHeCKMM 3anor B KOH^nTyatfBHBIX M MeTogonorMHeCKMX gMCKyCCMAX Me^gy flByMA rpynnaMM nuTepaTypo-BegoB b 1960-x m 1970-x rogax b Bonra-puu - Me^gy CTpyKTypanMCTaMM m mx npoTMBHMKaMM, TaK Ha3HBaeMHMH «MMnpeCCMoHMCTCKMMM KpMTMKa-MM». ^Ta gMCKyCCMA, nO-BMgMMOMy, ABMeTCfl Ba^HHM KOHTeKCTOM B03-HMKHoBeHMA noCTCTpyKTypaflM3Ma, nocKoaBKy OHa npegeraBmeT co6om MHTeaaeKTyanBHyw cpegy, b koto-pom ro^MA KpMCTeBa nepBoHana^BHo C^opMupoBana cbom ugeu, nepeg TeM KaK BnocaegcTBMM CTana ogHMM M3 nepBHX KpMTMKoB CTpyKTypanM3Ma bo $paH^MM. flo ^MM^pa^MM KpMCTeBa ABMeTca HneHoM rpynmi MMnpeC-CMoHMCTCKMX KpMTMKoB, KoTopBie nHTawTCA pa3pa6oTaTB CTpaTeruu npoTMBoCToflHMfl O^M^Ma^BHOM MapK-cmctckom goKTpuHe, He oTKa3BiBaacB ot nouCKa MapKCMCTCKoM neruTMM-hoctm. Ohm KpuTMKyMT CTpyKTypa-amctob, KoTopBie TaK^e CTpeMATCA K aerMTMMHoCTM, Ho oCHoBHBaflCB Ha HaCToMHMBoCTM MapKCM3Ma KaK MaTepuanMCTMHecKoM HayKM - no3M-^Mfl, B KoTopoM «MMnpeCCMoHMCTCKMe KpMTMKM» BMgflT ^arcrop, CnoCo6CTBy-m^mh oTHy^geHMM.
TEOPHa ^HTEPATYPH, COnPOTHB^EHHE, EAXTHH, KPMCTEBA, MAPKCH3M, CTPYKTYPA^H3M, nOCTCTPYKTYPA^H3M
17
ENYO STOYANOV ► Poststructuralist Backgrounds
These debates formed the conditions for the canonization of works, themed around the traditional values of Bulgarian peasantry and the crisis of these values due to modernization. The Bulgarian structuralists stringently rebuked the valorization of traditionalism in these works, while most of the impressionist critics eagerly celebrated them. The latter stance ultimately became dominant in the Bulgarian literary scene during the i98oies. The short stories of one of the authors, Nikolay Haytov, were the subject of the most public clash between Nikola Georgiev and Toncho Zhechev - one of the most conservative members of the "impressionist critics". While these debates won't be the focus of this article, it is important to note here that such seemingly trivial critical disagreements were often the only public form the theoretical debates took during the period. For example, Nikola Geor-giev elected to avoid publishing theoretical texts, preferring instead to write critical analyses of concrete works that were highly suggestive of underlying non-explicit methodological coherence.
The present article will attempt to reconstruct some of the political stakes in the conceptual and methodological debates among two groups of literary critics during the i96oies and the i970ies in Bulgaria: the structuralists and their opponents, the so-called "impressionist critics". Such a reconstruction seems appropriate when discussing the poststructuralist legacy of Eastern Europe, since it may produce understanding about some aspects of the conceptual background, out of which one of the earliest forms of poststructuralist criticism of structuralism emerged: the early theoretical works by Julia Kristeva in France, who before emigrating, was very active in the group of the "impressionist critics". The group earned its name due to their style of writing and their perceived lack of consistent methodology. As early as the first half of the i96oies it was embroiled in a heated polemic with the current Bulgarian structuralists, and especially with one of their most influential representatives, Nikola Georgiev. While the crux of the public debates between the two groups involved taking dissenting stances on the merits and the overall cultural and political value of the works of different Bulgarian writers that emerged during the i96oies\ these discussions had an even higher stake - both groups presented conflicting forms of implicit resistance to the dominant Marxist orthodox doctrine in literary studies at the time - the so-called "theory of reflection", developed in the 1930s by one of the most prominent ideologues of the Bulgarian Communist Party, Todor Pavlov. Both groups were attempting divergent heterodox brakes from the dominant party line, while claiming to remain strictly within Marxist methodology. This was done by highlighting heterogeneous aspects of Marxist doctrine - populism, progressivism, scientism, each side in the debate making claims for Marxist legitimacy through appeal to some of these notion at the expense of the rest. In this way the theoretical,
18
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
the literary and the political formed a very tight knot - a somewhat subtle strategy of resistance to the official ideology.
One noteworthy point of contention between impressionists and structuralists was their reception of Mikhail Bakhtin's thought and especially his notion of "carnival", developed in his book on Rabelais (Bakhtin 1984), as well as its ideological and methodological ramifications, though this aspect of the debate was less public on the structuralist side and thus requires some reconstruction. The "impressionist critics" at the time were among the first to embrace Bakhtin's ideas outside the USSR. The structuralists resisted Bakhtin precisely because the impressionists embraced him, while the impressionist relied on his ideas as a backdrop for their criticism of structuralism. Thus the contrasting attitude toward his positions to a large degree informed the theoretical aspect of the work of both of these groups. The article will focus on the different takes on Bakhtin that emerged in these debates, not least because they lead into Kristeva later work, since she was instrumental in introducing Bakhtin to western audiences and based her influential notion of "intertextuality" on his writings.
the "impressionist critics" and the ahistorical "vale"
What brought the "impressionist critics" together was a diagnosis of the modern condition as suffering from almost inextricable effects of alienation. Most of them - Toncho Zhechev, Zdravko Petrov and Krastyo Kuyumdzhiev - developed a strikingly conservative project for the overcoming of this condition. They advocated that cultures like the Bulgarian one, situated in a geographical and historical "vale" in the periphery of Western civilization, may indeed have the capacity to retrace back the steps on the road of modernity and reestablish traditional
19
ENYO STOYANOV ► Poststructuralist Backgrounds
values and an ahistorical, cyclical existence. This contra-modern conservative nationalism was still marginal during the 1960s, being more overtly incompatible with orthodox Marxist progressivism, but would eventually come to dominate the rhetoric of the Bulgarian Communist Party during the 1980s and even paved the way for some of the political language of the far right in current Bulgarian politics.
The conceptual basis for this conservative turn in most of the writings of the "impressionist critics" was effectively presented in a monograph by Toncho Zhechev (1975), dedicated to the history of the struggle for an independent Bulgarian church in the 19th century, which ends with a discussion of the plot of a poem from the Bulgarian Revival, involving the folklore motif of embedding living sacrifices in buildings, so that their basis is stable. This folklore motif was used by Zhechev as an allegory for the sacrifice of traditional values in the name of progress and modernization. He dwelled upon the notion of debt, accumulated by such sacrificial logic of history and insisted upon the need for making amends in the form of restoration of lost traditions.
In his appeal to tradition Zhechev nonetheless was seeking Marxist legitimation. In the introduction to The Bulgarian Easter, he claims the authority of Marxist historical theory as overcoming the alternative between the "ancient" view of history as a circle and the "petit bourgeois" notions of perpetual progress (13). According to Zhechev its superiority amounts to seeing repetition of conflicts and contradictions within historical continuity. What is remarkable here is the strategic appropriation of orthodox Marxist revolutionary rhetoric in favor of an affirmation of tradition. This involves a double gesture. On the one hand, the historical paradox Zhechev highlighted in the introduction to his book was the perceived coincidence of the "patriarchal" order with the most radical egalitarian politics: "The more undeveloped,
20
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
patriarchal in socio-economic sense [a people is][___] the more susceptible and prone it is to the most radical, the most daring... ideas" (14). Thus for him "only [my emphasis] the national idea, formed in the fight for an independent church", a fight, that was steeped in traditional religious values, "passed with all of its strength into later Bulgarian revolutionary movements and had a long life in the post-Liberation political history" (14). A similar logic is found in the discussion of the ideas of the Russian 19th century arch-conservative politician and philosopher Konstantin Leontiev: "The tragedy of Leontiev was the tragedy of the Russian conservatism [_] Why it managed to have a positive social function, only being in opposition to power, thus becoming a sort of liberalism?" (136).® By a conceptual and rhetorical "slight of hand", he emphasized the quasi-dialectical "contradiction" as this precise continuity of tradition within revolutionary practice, rather than the more orthodox Marxist presentation of revolution itself as having a history and tradition, or history itself as a revolutionary process. This gesture comes with the implication that there is no revolutionary practice that is not rooted in the "patriarchal life" of the community. Thus for Zhechev conservatism and traditionalism can be seen paradoxically as the drive behind progress and radical political action.
On the other hand, he seems to be insisting, that while the deficiency of societal and institutional progress spurs radicalization, this radicalization itself amounts to a betrayal of its own conservative conditions. He discusses the political activism of various figures during the Bulgarian Revival as perceiving their own society and traditions as deficient in comparison to the "more developed" societies, and thus attempting a sort of "Imitation" that goes further than what was being imitated:
The interest of Zhechev with Leontiev in the book is premised on the part the latter played in the struggles for an independent Bulgarian church, but he is referenced not so much because of being representative of the inherent conservatism of this struggle, but rather because the discussion of his ideas allow Zhechev direct engagement with conservative politics.
21
ENYO STOYANOV Poststructuralist Backgrounds
3
Apparently his strategy worked - by his own admission, Zhechev's book was enthusiastically received by the leader of the Bulgarian Communist Party, Todor Zhivkov, who asked him for a meeting and an autographed copy of the book immediately after its publication. See (Zhechev 442).
He seems to be implying that this "overradicalization" stems from a breakdown of the immanence of the dialectical process of history, i.e. from the lack of continuity between radical political practices with traditional ways of life. In this way Zhechev's early writings seem to stake the following project: evolution out of tradition is the only true horizon for emancipatory politics.3
These pronouncements resonated with the current literary process itself - many authors during the period were writing about the dissolution of the traditional Bulgarian peasantry due to the party politics of nationalization of private agricultural lands. This crisis was held by Zhechev, Petrov and Kuyumdzhiev as only an episode in the grand process of modern dismantling of traditional forms of life. Sometimes their take on these topics even amounted to naturalizations of this profoundly political process.
While most of the authors that focused on the suffering of the peasantry at the time wrote in a social realist style, there was one marked exception - the works by Yordan Radichkov. Radichkov's prose involved the setting of Bulgarian peasantry, but it relied on almost modernist techniques of writing that espoused various forms of absurdist
In the most backward countries, patriarchal until recently, there emerges a particularly extreme political and ideological radicalism, which imitates the ready results in the advanced countries, without knowing the evolution that led to them. Forces that are new, formless, lacking tradition, thirsting for innovation and success come to life, and they rapidly exchange the religious conscience, developed by superstition, with bourgeois political superstitions. In their slogans and cultural program from most backward they become not just advanced, but the most advanced, most progressive. (14)
22
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
humor. While some of the more traditional critics were displeased by his style - after all, the life of Bulgarian peasants was not supposed to be a laughing matter - Kuyumdzhiev attempted to assess his work as conforming to the overall tendency of depictions of the crisis of traditional ways of life due to the degradation, brought about by the process of modernity. For this purpose in a series of articles from the beginning of the 1970s he evoked Bakhtin's notion of carnival as an explanatory concept of the seemingly unorthodox and extravagant laughter in Radichkov's works4:
[Radichkov] observes from a position, form a perspective that may be called sub specie aeternitatis, that is - from the point of view of eternity. This is the ancient peasant's view of the world, the view of the 'peasant civilization', more ancient than religions, the state, ideology, and history. A civilization, which with some of its layers - the oldest, the firmest, the most conservative - remains untouched by history, beyond it. [...] And if here everything attains a carnivalesque and grotesque form, displays its comic sides, this is not Radichkov's fault, but the worldview of the peasantry itself, the peasant's eternity' that has seen a lot more than a few changes of civilization, of spiritual and worldly powers, of decorations and costumes. [...] At the peasant's forum during the carnival everyone is devil and angel, mocker and mocked, perpetrator of evil and victim at once. (Kuyumdzhiev 68-7o)5
In a recent article on the insertion of Radichkov's works into the Bulgarian literary canon, Boyko Penchev also discusses this reading by Kuyumdzhiev. (Cf. Penchev 11-20).
The quote is from a later article that combines two earlier texts by Kuymdzhiev on Radichkov that were published in the beginning of the 1970s.
The passage ends with a reference to Bakhtin having described this atemporal, prehistorical, mystical "worldview of the peasantry [...] in his famous book on Rabelais" (70). This ahistorical reading of the significance of Bakhtin's carnival, its use as a conceptual template for a return to the past, was later combined with a similarly "eternalist"
23
ENYO STOYANOV Poststructuralist Backgrounds
3
It is notable that in the West this humanist turn was vigorously opposed primarily by structuralists like Louis Althusser. For more on this very complex dynamic around the humanist - anti-humanist controversy, see (NIkolchina 2013, 2014).
7
Later it was reprinted in (Stoyanov 1988b: 209-540).
8
For some parallels between the ideas of Lukacs and Bakhtin, see (Tihanov 2000).
tzvetan stoyanov: ambivalence as a political strategy
The notion of "alienation" was the core concept for the "humanist" reformation movement of Marxism, most prominent in the Eastern Bloc during the 1960ies. It held Marx's early writings, and especially his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 as its conceptual pivot and attempted to provide an alternative to the more rigid structural Leninist reading of Marx, thus serving as a form of resistance to official party politics.6 One of the more systematic attempts in Bulgaria to pose the problem of alienation as the crux of modernity was Tzvetan Stoyanov's book The Ties that Break Off: Ideas and Motifs of Alienation in Western Literature, first published in 19677.
The study attempts to trace various forms of alienation in Western European literature since the Enlightment, while the basic premise is strikingly similar to Lukacs's History and Class Consciousness (1972)8:
reading of Nietzsche' notion of the Dionysian (see Miglena Nikolchina's article in this issue).
The radical conservatism, legitimized through a populist sentiment in the still dominant Marxist environment of the 1960-1970s, was not the only heterodox doctrine that emerged within the literary debates, it wasn't even the only position that formed in the work of the "impressionist critics". One of the most influential members of the group, Tzvetan Stoyanov, a prominent figure in the field of Comparative Literature, presented a markedly different strategy. What brought him close to Zhechev and Kuyumdzhiev was their agreement in identifying a problem in modernity - the problem of alienation, considered both psychologically and socially. Yet, there was a stark contrast in the way he sought to remedy the situation.
24
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
the various forms of the psychological experience of alienation are seen as stemming from the reification of the dynamic productive forces and relations in society, which leads to destruction of the numerous social threads that tie the individual to his or her community and world. Of course, these early ideas of Lukacs, which emphasize the Hegelian heritage in Marx, while extremely influential in the West, were repudiated in orthodox Marxist circles. That is probably why Stoyanov never explicitly cites Lukacs, though the parallels are very prominent. He even reaffirms the solution, proposed by Lukacs - that the working class should not be considered as fully defined by alienation and reification, since it is supposed to produce the remedy for alienation (Stoyanov 1988b: 218-219). For Lukacs this comes in the form of thought directly intervening in the social process (which was one of the reasons for the rejection of his position by orthodox Leninists). Although Stoyanov doesn't expressly state this solution to the problem of alienation, his study is primarily dedicated to presenting the various historical forms of alienation, together with the proposed intellectual projects for overcoming and compensating it. While the starting thesis seem not too terribly original, the following analyses present a fascinating multifaceted approach to the problem of alienation, which is developed in a dialectical manner. Different historical actors, philosophers and literary authors are presented as identifying a form of alienation and then proposing compensations that in turn only deepen the alienation they were supposed to overcome.
Similarly to Kuyumdzhiev, Stoyanov makes a strategic use of Bakh-tin's ideas as disclosing a counterpoint to alienation in his presentation of the historical process. The significance of Bakhtin for this project is primarily in offering a picture of a historical cultural form that lacks alienation - the famous "carnival" in its employment of the grotesque:
25
ENYO STOYANOV ► Poststructuralist Backgrounds
The grotesque in the Renaissance is vital, we can even say positive, not in the cheap, but in the grand, philosophical sense of the world, as Bakhtin has convincingly demonstrated in his work on Rabelais. It is tied to the germination and birth, with cycles of life in the living organism, with the eternal continuity of life. [...] The grotesque speaks in the name of the organic, non-alienated consciousness, merged with the continuity of time and space, with the ancestral and cosmic communities. (Stoyanov 1988b: 372)
This reference is at first part of a contrast that Stoyanov is outlining between this carnivalesque continuity and the Romantic uses of grotesque and "freakish" imagery. He insists that the Romantic grotesque has lost its ties to this overwhelming cosmic integration of carnival and is one of the many ways in which alienation manifests itself in modern art:
Thus the grotesque degrades from a symbol of cosmic and biological energy into a symbol of degradation, of ugliness, and the disguises of this degradation take three forms. In some cases the Romantic grotesque is 'demonized' - becomes a pure monster, a vampire, carrier of evil without any positive charge. In other case, the reverse takes place - it is sentimentalized [...], it plays the part of a frightening rigid façade, beyond which the suffering subject contorts and entices sympathy [...] And at last there are 'middle cases', where the two principles start to merge and seemingly return to the former ambivalent whole - but this ambivalence now has a different basis: even in the most freakish human type remains pure subjectivity, the abstract sympathy towards the destructive self remains. Objectively [...] this grotesque body undoubtedly [...] must be removed from the face of the earth. But subjectively, seen from the 'inside', we feel for it. [...] It is a monster that suffers'! (373)
26
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
According to Stoyanov this split into two sides, into two "worlds", is foreign to the Bakhtinian carnival and thus opens up radical contradictions, fosters alienation.
Still, there is some ambiguity on Stoyanov's part as to this dismissal of Romanticism. Later on he explicitly states that the Romantics were attempting a return to the fullness of life in carnival, and not just substituting it with these modern contradictions:
The Romantics attempt to revive what Bakhtin termed culture of popular laughter', the spirit of carnival during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. [...] They show keen sense, understanding and love for the carnival. [...] With the Romantics [...] we see a longing for laughter, in which things change places, merge or lose their bounds. Frightening and happy, ugly and sweet, vicious and good-natured emerge together form one element, here there no longer are any coordinates, but a single ambivalent 'field of meanings'. (417-418)
This integral and dynamic in its continuous ambivalence "field of meanings" is precisely presented as a worthy project for overcoming alienation. Stoyanov praises the Romantics for emphasizing interest in historical continuity: "The Romantics are very sensitive to this feeling of wholeness, they want to understand the continuity of matters, they feel the transitory, change" (419). Yet, their historicism instead of restoring the de-alienated integrity of life turns into passive sentimentalism.
Longing passionately for a return of the past, the Romantics also mourn it as irretrievable, which is crucial part of their attitude toward it. [...] What the Romantics achieve is not a return of the past, but a return to
27
ENYO STOYANOV ► Poststructuralist Backgrounds
the past, i.e. their efforts are not aimed at active change of the present in the direction of the past, but rather the subjective immersion in past times, interest, study. It is restored ideally, not actually (449).
Thus carnival degrades into a masquerade: "The masquerade is false, repulsive, it is also a symbol of life, yet this is not the creative organic life, but rather the life of alienation, disintegration [...]" (451) This problem of the modern masquerade as a degradation of cosmic and organic unity of opposites Stoyanov detects (472) in Edgar Allan Poe's uses of parodies as comic cyphers, hidden behind the horrific overt meaning, a product of a rational procedure. As long as the reader has managed to acquire or discover the code, he or she can decipher the comic subversion as the governing principle of the language of Poe's writings. The parodic elements in carnival, in contrast, are seen as "neutralizing the separate in its hypertrophic tendency, not allowing it to become dominant, to disturb the harmony and to introduce its 'dictatorship'. Parody is agent of harmony!" (473).
While he constantly describes how the Romantics missed the mark with their nostalgia for the carnival, Stoyanov remains unclear whether he himself endorses an active attempt at reconstituting the lost holism of carnival. On the one hand, he certainly presents Bakhtin's descriptions of the carnival as a social institution that provides a model for de-alienation. Still, his constant focus in his study are the various attempts at presenting the past as a positive model for the present with the concomitant failures of such nostalgic projects: he traces a line from Rousseau through Herder to the Romantics, in which all "nostalgic" compensations turn out to produce further alienations. It seems that instead of a contra-modern attempt at avoiding modern conflicts and contradictions, he rather intends to project a dynamic model of
28
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
uninterrupted and ambivalent integration of these continuously emerging contradictions into a "field" of non-hierarchical, non-stable, ambiguous meanings. This is less a return to carnival, and more an insistence on something akin to what Bakhtin sees in the novel - polyphony.
This is even clearer in the text Tzvetan Stoyanov wrote last (and couldn't quite finish before his death in 1971) - The Genius and his Mentor (1988a: 417-599). The subject of this book was the "guidance", provided by Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev to Feodor Dostoyevsky. Pobedon-ostsev, the de facto censor of Dostoyevsky's later works, was a prominent political figure in the Russian Empire, who was deeply involved with the "paternalist" conservative movement in 19th century Russia. The paternalist doctrine involved emphasis on the "fatherly" nature of traditional forms of power and was distinctly contra-modern. Still, there was something very peculiar in Pobedonostsev style of conservatism. Pobedonostsev's paternalism, according to Stoyanov, employed a very modern strategy of manipulation:
[...] 'manipulation' of the public, the organized mass ideological and psychological effect of the governing structure on society. 'Manipulation', of course, is an ancient phenomenon, but now it receives such stark specific manifestations [...] the conservative Pobedonostsev is among the first that recognized the 'modern' side of the phenomenon and decided to put it to use [...] The soul becomes a battleground - in the past it was still a battleground, but the whole of society, unified by faith, was struggling against the devil as something foreign; while now the society itself is split, the devil is on the inside.! Thus Konstantin Petrovich axiologically defines two types of manipulation - on the one hand, he defends the good, the right, 'our' manipulation, which is noble and blessed [...]; on the other, he rejects the antagonistic, the 'devil's' manipulation, which brings doom. (439)
29
ENYO STOYANOV ► Poststructuralist Backgrounds
For Stoyanov, what is modern in Pobedonostsev's views is the acknowledgment of this disintegration of the fabric of society through ideological means, this breakdown of social ties that brings about alienation. By reinforcing one of the positions, Pobedonostsev himself becomes an agent of alienation. It is worth to note that the distinction between "right" and "wrong" ideology that is criticized here mirrors precisely the Leninist rhetoric that was predominant in the official party doctrine, especially in terms of the place of the artistic expression in society. Stoyanov insists on developing this analogy by focusing on Pobedonstsev's politics towards the arts:
[...] the traditional practice [of control over artistic expression] could not satisfy Konstantin Petrovich. It was predominantly negative - persecution, punishment, preventive, its aim was not so much to do something, but to block others from doing something - which was necessary, yet insufficient. Together with the negative side there had to appear a positive one. (468)
This "positive" strategy was to attempt a non-traditional form of manipulation by becoming a mentor for a literary genius and turning him into his ideological instrument by subtly guiding him to the "right" conceptual position. The benefit of this procedure was, of course, a work of art that hides its manipulative nature, while at the same time heightening the effectiveness of the ideological message by engaging not only rational thought, but the imagination as well. Stoyanov points towards the prolific correspondence between Pobe-donostsev and Dostoyevsky during the latter's work on the "Brothers Karamazov" novel, which shares many features of Pobedonostsev's paternalistic position.
30
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Yet, the intent of Stoyanov in this book is to show how this relationship brings a dialectically opposite result, and Dostoevsky turns out almost unwittingly to be a "manipulator of the manipulator". This ideological mismatch between the mentor and the writer comes about in an even subtler way. Stoyanov focuses on two aspects of the novel - the way it intensifies the complexity of its criticism of modern western ideologies and the way in which it somewhat fails to consistently provide a positive counterpoint. In respect to the first ambiguity Stoyanov presents a reading of Ivan Karamazov's "Great Inquisitor" as Dostoyevsky's way of presenting western Catholicism and socialism as collapsing into the same nihilistic position - they both lose God, and by losing God, lose everything, for which they stand:
According to Dostoevsky, the 'materialists', or, which for him is the same, the 'nihilists' in their internal development reach a moment, where they 'destroy' not only the hierarchy of God's world, but the world itself. [...] As long as the materialist negates God's reason, he needs to negate 'matter' itself, i.e. himself. [...] Usually things are considered to be the other way - that 'materialists' elevate matter, while religious thought degrades it. [...] But Dostoyevsky tries to convince us this is so only apparently - you can have 'matter' only with God, because God nurtures it and moves it (508).
This complex dialectic in Dostoyevsky, outlined by Stoyanov, seems both consistent with paternalistic denunciations of "materialism" as "nihilism", and at the same time exceeds its one-sidedness. In effect Dostoyevsky seems to be drawing upon the language of his mentor's ideology, in order to produce a new conceptual position. This excess of complexity in Dostoyevsky's writing is presented by Stoyanov as
31
ENYO STOYANOV ► Poststructuralist Backgrounds
The reference Stoyanov made to Leontiev as an embodiment of the paternalist position may easily be read as an indirect criticism of the strategic use of his ideas by Zhechev.
troubling for Pobedonostsev and his reductive instrumental attitude towards literature.
Yet, according to Stoyanov9, a further embarrassment for Pobedonostsev became the portrayal of the "positive" (from the paternalistic perspective) characters in the novel. Alyosha, the supposedly "utterly beautiful human being" in the novel, barely acts in it and Dostoevsky confessed to Pobedonstsev that in terms of this character the novel was not even a start of a novel. The situation with his mentor Father Zosima became problematic as well - his speech in the novel, which is rife with notions, taken wholesale from the rhetoric of paternalism, was faced with criticism from a very unlikely source - from Konstantin Leontiev, a fellow traveler of Pobedonostsev, who publicly took issue with Zosima's position as being "almost heretic"(529-35, 542).
But the worst perpetrator of the subtle subversion of the mentor's ideological rationale was the unfinished structure of the book itself. Stoyanov speculates about the thoughts, burdening Pobedonostsev after Dostoyevsky's funeral:
Maybe during the first days after the funeral he was reconsidering his long history of closeness with the genius. [...] Was he evaluating things only from the side which benefited him? [...] And taking into account only this "first novel", with all of its apparent tendency, was everything in it "all right"? If Alyoshas story was finished, maybe it would have been otherwise, but now the novel was as it was - in this case wasn't there a change in the basic points, wasn't there a need for a new evaluation, this time only of what was written and not what was intended? Wasn't there a need for deciphering Brothers Karamazov once again [...] especially since Dostoyevsky loved circumlocution [...]? Wasn't there some hidden "half-expressed" [...] beyond all the mentioned meanings
32
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
in favor of the "conservative" ideology, what in fact was the deepest symbolism of the novel, what was it "trying to say" as an autonomous work [...]? What was it [the novel itself] "trying to say" first of all with its plot, with the horrific murder of the father, around which the whole appearance and disappearance of the characters revolves? [...] [A]fter all who exactly killed Feodor Karamazov, and, which is even more important, why was he killed? (548-549)
A "paternalist" novel about the unresolved and unresolvable murder of the father! Here the crucial point is that this predicament is ensured primary by the text itself, rather than some sly trick, perpetrated by Dostoyevsky himself. This almost deconstructive potentiality of the complex structure of the novel to strain, to override, to overturn the intended meaning, the product of the mentor's "guidance", is the propensity of writing, on which Stoyanov staked both his methodological engagement with Bakhtin, and his personal and political activity. Dialogical meaning, even, as mentioned earlier, to a point of parodic travesty that undermines any dominant position, was seen as subverting the ideological manipulative pressures and restrictions and seems indeed to had been Stoyanov's own utopian political and intellectual project. Pobedonostzev here turns into an allegory of the various manipulative party operatives and censors that Stoyanov had to work with on daily basis, and the ambivalence of words, used in these exchanges, is presented as a strategy for expression of conceptual dissent, hidden precisely in its ambiguous manifestation. However, this strategy is not presented as akin to the calculated operation of the likes of Poe, whom Stoyanov criticized precisely on this point. He sees true resistance not so much in intending a hidden "parodic" meaning that subverts the manifest one as in a form of an overcoded doublespeak, but rather
33
ENYO STOYANOV ► Poststructuralist Backgrounds
10
In fact structuralism during the i96oies was a target of methodological and political scrutiny from many sides, including party officials. See Darin Tenev's contribution in this volume.
in the unintended fact of ambiguity that comes about with language itself. This general heteroglossia is what seems to be the crux of his reliance on Bakhtin.
The ideas of the "impressionist critics" converged around common topics, yet they diverged significantly in the way they interpreted them. Both Stoyanov and Kuyumdzhiev used Bakhtin's notion of carnival, but on closer scrutiny pertinent differences emerge. Unlike Stoyanov, who explicitly praises the continuity of history and the Romantics for emphasizing it, and considers Bakhtin's carnival as precisely historical cultural institution from pre-modern times, Kuyumdzhiev stylizes it as a persistent ahistorical timelessness that remains parallel to the movement of historical time. In fact this type of conservative antihistoricism comes very close to the ideology of "paternalism" that Stoyanov was trying to demystify. One can even speculate whether The Genius and his Mentor was an allegorical polemic not only with party "manipulators", but also with this conservative tendency in Stoyanov's own circle.
anti-humanism, vagueness and bakhtin
For Tsvetan Stoyanov and his impressionist colleagues structuralism with its purported scientific rigor embodied the modern ill of alienation.10 While the two groups had fundamental disagreements, the theoretical and ideological lines of dissention were rarely publicly discussed before the 1980s, which demands an effort for reconstruction. The present article will attempt to explicate the structuralist position through the way they engaged in criticism of Bakhtin, whose ideas were largely instrumentalised by their opponents. The structuralist answer to the use of Bakhtin in the writings of the "impressionist critics" became public at a later point. During
34
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
the 1990s Nikola Georgiev published a couple of articles (1990, 1999) containing criticisms of Bakhtin. These articles seem to attempt to shed light upon Georgiev's earlier antagonistic engagements with the Bulgarian Bakhtinians during the 1960s and 1970s, where the brunt of his resistance to Bakhtin was left without express comments, in the background of his arguments. The first article directly engages with the case of Radichkov and makes a point about the use of Bakhtin (though without expressly mentioning Kuyumdzhiev) with the aim of depoliticizing his writings:
Boyko Penchev (12, 19) also makes a point of these comments by Georgiev as indications of the struggles around the canonization of Radichkov during the 1970ies, though he does not go into detail about the conceptual position, espoused by Georgiev.
[...] the ruling ideologeme created an image of him [Radichkov] [...] that was conservative in literary terms and devoid of conflict in social terms. [Radichkov] was interned into the package of the freshly formed at the time official mythologemes of the originally native, the roots, the Bulgarian folklore, the mythological [...] If he's read with both eyes open, it becomes clear that all these roots and speculations about the people's psyche are secondarily taken up and ironically displaced. [...] Radichk-ovs works were driven through his [Bakhtins] notions of carnival, the grotesque, popular laughter culture [...] and emerged from them once again as ours, native, non-modern. [...] Because Bakhtin's carnival is the triumph of the popular, and consequently democratic element over some pretentious scientists. [...] (Georgiev 1990:4)11
This sarcastic polemic continues in the second article, on which we will focus our attention, since it discusses Bakhtin in detail.
This latter essay is titled "The Stuttering Dialogue" and it is dedicated to the jubilee of a former structuralist who turned to Bakhtin's notion of dialogue as a basis for his humanist ethics - Tzvetan Todorov, who in his youth used to be Georgiev's peer during their
35
ENYO STOYANOV ► Poststructuralist Backgrounds
studies in the University of Sofia. While the occasion of the article is celebratory, the text itself is far from it. It reads more as a scathing demystification of the perceived unethical and authoritative aspects of Bakhtin's writings. Georgiev opens the article with a questioning of the "dialogical principle" in Bakhtin, Todorov and others by alluding to its being "unprincipled" (Georgiev 1999: 5). While the article focuses largely on the different interpretations and engagements with Bakhtin in the West, it points toward a possible reconstruction the lines of dissention around the Russian theorist in the Bulgarian debates during the 1960s and 1970s.
The primary attention here is given to the ways, in which the figure of Bakhtin was developed into an "image" (6) by his various exegetes, a process that, according to Georgiev, amounted to a full blown mythology. He meticulously combs texts by different commenters for phrases that form a perception of Bakhtin as "enigmatic", "mysterious", "prophetic", and even "saintly". Then he proceeds to propose a reason for their persistence in the writings on the Russian literary theorist: "[...] in literary studies during the 20th century the longing for the "harmonious person" (I borrow this cliché from the dictionary of the communist propaganda in Bulgaria during the 1970s) was vigorous. It turned out that too many people do not want to see "the humanities without the human", and consequently literary studies without the man" (11). The "harmonious person" is, of course, a cliché, developed out of the "humanist" Marxist discussions around alienation. It seems clear, that the mythologizing of Bakhtin in the eyes of Georgiev was an obvious symptom of resistance to the anti-humanist materialism in literary studies that structuralist methodology was in the process of developing during the 1960s and 1970s. This statement directly references the primary theoretical discord between
36
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
the structuralists and their rivals, but the political significance of these disagreements from the point of view of Georgiev needs some further clarification.
In an attempt to show the way Bakhtin's theories have been compromised politically during socialism, he points to some radical attempts at the demythologizing of Bakhtin's work in the writings of Russian scholars during the 1990s.12 His insistence is on the various ways, in which Bakhtin's views, and especially the concept of carnival, were completely consistent with the orthodox party emphasis on collectivism and "the people".
But the crucial examination of the political relevance of Bakhtin comes when Georgiev turns to a discussion of Bakhtin's style. He continues the strategy of amassing quotations from various authors, all possessing a common feature - they all describe Bakhtin's writing as "puzzling", unclear, nebulous, vague (9-13). He even tackles from this perspective one of the most frequently debated issues in Bakhtin studies - the problem around the authorship of some of the works, bearing the signatures of his "circle". He insists on the view, that there is a stark contrast between the way Medvedev's "The Formal Method in Literary Studies" attempts to clearly define its concepts and Bakhtin's style both in his early and later works and points to Tz-vetan Todorov's description of Medvedev's style as "concise, purposeful, with clear straightforwardness, with striving for terminological transparency and consistency" and of Bakhtin's writing as "confused composition"13, while criticizes him for resisting the questioning of the authorship on the basis of these observations (13).
This issue of the "vagueness" of Bakhtin's style leads Georgiev directly to the topic of the "ambivalence" that was so favored by Tzvetan Stoyanov:
12
See, for instance (Ryklin 34-51). Ryklin claims, that in his notion of "carnival" Bakhtin presented the Stalinist terror as some form of repeatable and necessary ritual violence, thus serving as some sort of relief for the trauma of the concrete historical political violence. Similar connections between Bakhtin's notions and totalitarianism draws Vadim Linetskiy in Anti-Bakhtin (1994). An older colleague of mine, Mihail Ned-elchev, once mentioned a rumor he heard on a trip to the USSR in the 1980s, that during the 1960s the communist party let Yuri Lotman publish his structuralist studies in Tartu as a kind of "scientific export", a showcase for the heights of socialist scholarship, while at the same time combating its "dangerous" influence locally by allowing Bakhtin's criticism of structuralism to be published and to gain ground. While unconfirmed, this rumor clearly points at a perception of Bakhtin's theories at that time as conforming to official party doctrine.
"Bakhtin's signed works are characterized by confused composition, repetitions to the point of restatement, and a tendency toward abstraction (due, perhaps, to German philosophy)." (Todorov 8).
37
ENYO STOYANOV ► Poststructuralist Backgrounds
It turns out, that one of the key concepts in Bakhtin,"ambivalence", needs to be applied above all to his own writings - and to their evaluation. Whether this vagueness, nebulousness, etc. is for the better or for the worst depends on the evaluation of the means and ends, but in one direction it is clearly for the best: it contributes to the authority of Bakh-tins discourse and the authority, rational or irrational, of the image that was created of it. Experience shows, that authoritarian language may with equal success or failure be based on mystifying metaphorical vagueness, or the opposite, on brevity, conciseness and simplicity... The two types, seemingly contradictory, merge and often are used together, though clearly during the 20th century there appeared ideologies [...] that were slanted in one or the other direction". (14)
The ambiguity of language, on which Stoyanov based his political project, here is presented as deeply suspect and profoundly ideological. Let's reiterate: the two "authoritarian" strategies, outlined by Geor-giev, are, first, ambivalence and vagueness, and second, declarations of simplicity. The first one bears the marks of Stoyanov's preferences for Bakhtin's heteroglossia, while the other has seemingly quite a lot to do with Zhechev's and Kuyumdzhiev's praise for the simplicity of the ahistorical condition of the "peasant's worldview", beyond the temptations of modernity. One can easily conclude by way of elimination that according to Georgiev the value of the scientific rigor of structuralism may be found in its being both clear and complex, that is - both non-manipulative and non-reductive. This line of reasoning is in line with the way the structuralists during the 1960s defended themselves from attacks - just like the "impressionist" humanists, they were claiming a Marxist lineage for themselves, though on a different basis: as continuing the tradition of developing Marxism as a materialist science.
38
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
While Marxist humanism and structuralism may no longer be as relevant in themselves in current theoretical debates, what can be glimpsed from the complex and multifaceted divergences from the official Marxist doctrine in literary studies during the 1960-1970s is theory itself as a site of struggle and political resistance, rife with risk and promise, and with conceptual and political creativity. Furthermore, as we mentioned in the beginning of the article, this clash between incompatible conceptual positions in Bulgaria would eventually bear fruit in the West - Julia Kristeva, who was very much directly influenced by Tzvetan Stoyanov in her formative years as a scholar, emigrated to the then bastion of structuralism, Paris, where she criticized the static models of structuralist thought and ultimately developed a theory, in which poetic language compensates the alienating effects (especially vis-à-vis the body) of the signifying chain of symbolic language, thus becoming one of the foremost voices of what soon after became known as "poststructuralism". V
39
ENYO STOYANOV ► Poststructuralist Backgrounds
References
bakhtin, Mikhail, 1984: Rabelais and His World. Trans. Helene
Iswolsky. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. georgiev, nikola, 1990: Ot svirepoto nastroenie kam
igriviat konformisam [From the Savage Mood to the Playful Conformism]. Puls 29. 4-5. georgiev, nikola, 1999: Zaekvashtijat dialog [The Stuttering
Dialogue]. Literaturna misal 2. 5-28. kuyumdzhiev, krastyo, 1977: Fenomenat Radichkov [The Radichkov Phenomenon]. Kritika i literaturen zhivot [Criticism and Literary Life]. Sofia: Balgarski pisatel. 58-79. linetskiy, vadim, 1994: Anti-Bakhtin. Saint Petersburg:
Typographia, im. I.E. Kotlyakova. lukacs, györgy, 1972: History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Trans. Rodney Livingstone. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. nikolchina, miglena, 2013: Lost Unicorns of the Velvet Revolutions: Heterotopias of the Seminar. New York: Fordham University Press. nikolchina, miglena, 2014: Inverted Forms and Heterotopian Homonymy: Althusser, Mamardashvili, and the Problem of 'Man'. boundary 2 41. 79-100. penchev, boyko, 2017: Kanon i prisposobyavane. Opakovaneto na Radichkov [Cannon and Adaptation. The Packaging of Radichkov]. Ed. Nadezhda Alexandrova et al. Nadmoshtie i prisposobyavane [Domination and Adaptation]. Sofia: Faculty of Slavic Studies Publishing. 11-20. ryklin, mikhail, 1992: Tela terrora [The Body of Terror]. Terrorlogiki [Terrorlogics]. Moscow: Tartu. 34-51.
40
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
stoyanov, tzvetan, 1988a: Sachinenia v dva toma [Selected Writings in Two Volumes], Ed. Antoaneta Vojnikova et al. vol. 1. Kulturata kato obshtenie [Culture as Communication]. Sofia: Balgarski pisatel. stoyanov, tzvetan, 1988b: Sachinenia v dva toma [Selected Writings in Two Volumes], Ed. Antoaneta Vojnikova et al. vol. 2. Otchuzhdenieto [Alienation]. Sofia: Balgarski pisatel. tihanov, galin, 2000: The Master and the Slave: Lukacs, Bakhtin and
the Ideas of their Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press. todorov, tzvetan, 1984: Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogical Principle. Trans. by Wlad Godzich. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. zhechev, toncho, 1975: Balgarskijat Velikden ili strastite
balgarski [The Bulgarian Easter, or the Bulgarian Passions]. Sofia: Marin Drinov Publishing.
41
ENYO STOYANOV ► Poststructuralist Backgrounds
Pe3MMe
CTaTuaTa ce onuTBa ga peKoHcTpyupa HacT ot no.uTUHecKUTe 3a.O3u B Ko^enTya^HMTe u MeTogo.oruHecKUTe cnopoBe Me^gy gBe rpynu .uTepaTypoBegu npe3 6o-Te u 70-Te b Bt.rapua - cTpyKTypa.ucTUTe u T.Hap. „uMnpecuoHucTUHHu Kpm^u". ToBa HanuHaHue e no.e3HO 3a agpecupaHeTo Ha nocTcTpyKTypa.ucTKOTo Hac.egcTBo Ha H3TOHHa EBpona, tbm KaTo gaBa gocTBn go uHTe.eKTya.Hua KoHTeKcT, b komto ce ^opMupaT ugeuTe Ha fö.ua KptcTeBa, KoaTo Bnoc.egcTBue m,e ce npeBtpHe b eguH ot ntpBUTe „nocTcTpyKTypa.ucKu" KpuTun,u Ha cTpyKTypa.u3Ma bbb OpaHn.ua. npegu ga eMurpupa, Ta e MHoro 6.m3-Ka go Kptra Ha „UMnpecuoHucTUHHUTe KpuTu^u". rpynaTa no.ynaBa ToBa Ha3BaHue Han-Bene 3apagu .uncaTa Ha c.egBaHe Ha acHa MeTo-go.orua b TexHUTe u3c.egBaHua. npe3 60-Te rpynaTa e aHra^upaHa c pa3na.eHa no.eMUKa c 6B.rapcKUTe cTpyKrypa.ucTu u oco6eHo c eguH ot HaM-npegcTaBUTe.HUTe mm ^urypu, HuKo.a reoprueB. ny-6.uHHUTe ge6aTu Me^gy Te3u gBe .uTepaTypoBegcKu HanpaB.eHua ce cBcpegoTonaBaT r.aBHo oko.o cnopoBe, cBBp3aHu c o^HKaTa Ha TBopnecTBoTo Ha KoHKpeTHu aBTopu (HaM-ro.aMa ocrpoTa koh^.uk-TUTe npugo6uBaT b o6cB»gaHeTo Ha ge6wTa Ha HuKo.aM XaMTOB) u pagKo gocTuraT go gupeKTHu o6cB»gaHua Ha KOH^nTya.HUTe mm npegnocraBKu, KoeTO Ha.ara Hy^gaTa ot peKOHCTpy^ua Ha Teope-TUHHUTe mm BB3r.egu. yganeH nogcTBn kbm TaKaBa peKOHcTpyKn.ua ce OKa3Ba pa3HonocoHHaTa ynoTpe6a Ha ugeuTe Ha Muxau. BaxTUH b TeKcTOBeTe Ha „UMnpecuoHucTUHHUTe KpuTun,u", tbm KaTo TOBa MO^e 6u e egHa ot HaM-paHHUTe pe^e^^uu Ha BaxTUH u3bbh Pycua npe3 60-Te. K.ronoBuaT aKu,eHT b cTaTuaTa e HaHUHa, no komto Te3u rpynu o^opMaT cBOUTe BB3r.egu b ctnpoTUBa cpem,y o^u^ua.HaTa MapKcucTKa goKTpuHa, goMUHuparn,a npe3 nepuoga, KaTo pegoM c
42
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
T0Ba npaBaT onuT ga .eruTUMupaT Ta3M CtnpoTUBa b MapKCMCTKM TepMMHM. HaCT 0T „uMnpeCU0HUCTUHHUTe KpuTu^u" (T. ^eneB, 3. neTpoB u KptCTro KyroMg^ueB) pa3BuBaT egHa nognepTaHo koh-CepBaTuBHa K0H^m,ua, 3a.ararn,a Ha npegCTaBaTa 3a auCropuHHu CtnpoTuBuTe.Hu Cu.u Ha 6t.nrapCK0T0 Ce.o, cu.u, kohto Te uCKaT ga 3ageMCTBaT Cpemy pa3pymuTe.HUTe e^eKTu Ha MogepHU3a^uaTa. Ho T03u Bt3r.eg Ce 0Ka3Ba HenpueM.uB 3a gpyr Ba^eH npegeraBu-Te. Ha rpynaTa - ^eTaH Ctoahob. Ctoahob Cnoge.a 6e3n0K0MCTB0-T0 Ha ÄeneB, neTpoB u KyroMg^ueB ot e^ercruTe, CtnpoBo^flamu npo^Ca Ha M0gepH0CTTa, u 0C06eH0 npo6.eMa 3a „0Tny»geHueT0". Ctm,eBpeMeHH0 tom e cu.ho CKenTuneH KtM TexHua K0HCepBaTU3tM u Tpagun.uoHa.u3tM. Ot CBoa CTpaHa CrpyKTypanuCTUTe (Bt3r.e-guTe Ha kohto Ca peK0HCTpyupaHu b CTaruaTa HaM-Bene Bt3 0CH0Ba Ha no-KtCHu TeKCT0Be Ha HuKo.a reoprueB Btpxy BaxTUH) TtpCaT CBoaTa .e^uTUMa^ua npe3 Bpt3KaTa Ha CBoaTa MeTogo.orua C MapK-CUCTK0T0 HaCToaBaHe Btpxy MaTepua.uCTUHHa HayHH0CT. reoprueB npuBu^ga b K0H^e^^uuTe u »eeroBeTe Ha BaxTUH (u uM^.u^uTH0 b nuCaHuaTa Ha 6t.rapCKUTe My noC.egoBaTe.u) gBe B3auM0CBtp3aHu aBTopuTapHu TeHgeHnuu - onpoCTaBaHe u HeaCH0Ta. noC.egHara e 0C06eH0 Ba^Ha b K0HTeKCTa Ha pa3r.e^gaHua ge6aT, g0K0.K0T0 npoeKTa 3a no.uTuneCKa CtnpoTUBa, komto Ctoahob Ce onuTBa ga o^opMu npe3 6o-Te, pa3HUTa cu.ho uMeHHo Ha „aM6uBa.eHTH0CTTa", noHaTue, K0eT0, pa36upa Ce, 3aeMa ot BaxTUH.
B CBoa ^uHa. CTaTuaTa n0C0HBa no-gupeKTHUTe Bpt3Ku Ha e.e-MeHTu ot pa3r.egaHua ge6aT C no-KtCHUTe KpuTUKu Ha KptCreBa KtM CTpyKTypa.u3Ma - b Tax hmêhho npo6.eMtT 3a 0Tny»geHueT0 m,e u3urpae K.ronoBa po.a.
43
ENYO STOYANOV ► Poststructuralist Backgrounds
Enyo Stoyanov
Enyo Stoyanov is an assistant professor at the Literary Theory Department at the University of Sofia. He has published studies on various theoretical topics in literary theory and philosophy and his research interests are in the field of political theory, aesthetics, and continental philosophy. Some of his publications include "A Poem, Learned by Heart" (2012), "The Event of Literature: The Deleuzian Reversal of Platonism Continued" (2013), "Fictional Worlds Theory and the Persistence of Mimesis" (2015).
44
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
45
DOI - 10.13137/2283-5482/22382
Anti-Odysseus: Orphism and Late Communism in Bulgaria
AHTH-OgHCCeH! Op^H3M U n03gHHH KOMyHH3M
b Bo^rapHH
$ miglena nikolchina - nikolchina@gmail.com
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 
(2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
A 1980s debate between Bulgarian "structuralists" and so called "impressionist critics" provides a line of demarcation between structuralists and post-structuralists while simultaneously delineating "Orphism" as the heavily controversial theoretical counterpart to the rise of Thracian studies in archeology and historiography. Since national identity turns out to be a major ideological wager of these controversies, they acquire an unforeseen relevance today.
ORPHISM, THRACIAN MYTHOLOGY, LATE COMMUNISM, NATIONALISM, NATIONAL IDENTITY
B ^TOM MCCfleflOBaHMM flMCKyCCMfl C BOCBMMfleCflTBiX TOflOB XX BeKa MeKfly öoarapcKMMM «CTpyKTypaflMCTaMM» M TaK Ha3HBaeMHMH «MMnpeCCMO-HMCTCKMMM KpMTMKaMM» paCCMaTpM-BaeTCA KaK cnocoö pa3rpaHMHeHMA öoarapcKMX CTpyKTypaaMCTOB m nocTCTpyKTypaflMCTOB. B to Ke BpeMA ^Ta flMCKyCCMA no3BoaaeT HaMeTMTB «op^M3M» KaK apeHa TeopeTMHeCKMX pa3HoraaCMM, pa3BOpaHMBawm;MXCfl napaaaeflBHO C poCTOM ^paKoaorMM b MCTOpMHeCKMX HayKaX. nOCKOflBKy Ha-^MOHaflBHafl MfleHTMHHOCTB ABflfleTCfl OflHMM M3 MfleOflOrMHeCKMX 3aflOrOB ^TMX pa3HOrflaCMM, OHM OKa3BiBaMTCfl CerOflHA HeOKHflaHHO aKTyaflBHBiMM.
OPÍH3M, ÍPAKHHCKAa MHÍO^OrHa, n03flHHH KOMYHH3M, HA^HOHA.flH3M, HA^HOHAflbHAa HflEHTH^HOCTb
47
MIGLENA NIKOLCHINA ► Anti-Odysseus: Orphism and Late Communism in Bulgaria
The master mind behind the rocketing of Thracian studies (Thracology) and the inventor of Orphism (Fol 1986) as the ancient religion of the Thracians was historian Alexander Fol who founded the Institute of Thracology in 1972 and who, before our own disbelieving post-structuralist eyes, constructed Bulgaria's Thracian ancestry out of a few scattered references in Ancient Greek sources. With all the archeological activity which accompanied his theoretical endeavors, the reality of Bulgaria's monumental Thracian roots is now obviously here to stay.
The publication of Miroslav Yanakiev's book Bulgarsko stihoznanie might be regarded as the beginning of Bulgarian structuralism although Yanakiev's influence was
already under way in the
second half of the 1950s. Given the isolationism of the regime, Yanakiev had pretty good international connections. He was in contact with Jakobson: a facsimile of Jakobson's letter regarding Bulgarsko stihoznanie is included in Garnizov (239-242). In one of the many battles waged against Yanakiev, Yuri Lotman (1982) interfered in his defense. For a more detailed account of the controversies triggered by structuralism see Darin Tenev and Enyo Stoyanov in this issue.
This essay explores a peculiar trend in 1980s Bulgarian theoretical thinking which might be termed Orphism and which accompanied - without necessarily recognizing, or being recognized by - the rise of Thracian studies in archeology and historiography.1 Although the genealogy of this trend has been traced back to the first half of the 20th century, the immediate point of departure for my examination will be the antagonism between structuralists and so called impressionist critics, which marked intellectual life in Bulgaria since the 1960s.2 My goal, however, will be to foreground a certain brand of orphism, if there ever was one, which ignored and was ignored by this antagonism, while participating in theoretical communications with a broad spectrum of disciplines and discourses ranging from dissenting Marxist critiques of the regime to various post-structuralist orientations.3 What made the exchange not only possible but also quite fruitful was a common strategy for evading, displacing, and ultimately erasing all traces of the official dogma, even when it was contested. Ignoring the structuralist-essayists clashes was hence intentional and strategic. Contestation, it was implied, would already contaminate the contestant with the discourse of the enemy; complete disregard would be the only proper road to take.
The "Orphic" link was nevertheless there. Towards the end of the 1970s there was, so to say, a classical turn to the controversies, theoretical, ideological, and obliquely political, between the rather irregular brand of Bulgarian structuralism4 and the "impressionist critics" whose major representative was Toncho Zhechev. A number of paradoxes surround these controversies. Toncho Zhechev and his group were prevailingly perceived then, as they tend to be perceived today, as courageously antagonistic to the official dogma and hence subversive. This view disregards Zhechev's efforts to ground his ideas in a certain
48
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
reading of Marx, however superficial and misconceived (Panova 15; see also Enyo Stoyanov's contribution in this issue), as well as his easy-going relationship with the central publishing venues: all this in stark contrast to the situation with the structuralists who were attacked in the central press and frequently had trouble publishing their works. As Iskra Panova, representing the camp of structuralism, acerbically remarked (14) apropos of Zhechev's essay "The Myth of Odysseus": "One might envy the courage of [Zhechev's] creed if it were not well known that Odysseus was never one to take uncalculated risks."
The publication of Zhechev's essay "The Myth of Odysseus" and the controversy it triggered is what I describe as classical turn in the structuralist-impressionist confrontation. "The Myth of Odysseus" initially appeared at the end of 1979.5 In it, Zhechev opposes the home-coming Odysseus to the sea-faring Odysseus. Odysseus' home-coming to the bucolic joys of agriculture is proclaimed to be the quintessence of Bul-garianness. The sailor is transformed into a settled tiller of the land; Odysseus - into a noble Bulgarian peasant who has never given in to cravings to leave his fruit-bearing vale. This retro-utopian patriarchal vision had already become apparent in Zhechev's previous writing; its articulation through Greek myth, however, might be seen as symptomatic of a more general tendency. The 1980s are characterized by the infiltration of Ancient Greek literature, culture and philosophy in various areas of the humanities, which, via the arc of antiquity, find a way to connect and share, or sometimes oppose, their agendas. I do not claim that the turn to antiquity during this decade is stronger qualitatively or quantitatively in comparison with other periods of Bulgarian culture. Its specific aspect is, rather, the effort to translate the highly specialized classical studies into broader philosophical, ethical, esthetical and ultimately political horizons.
I analyze the 1980s multidisciplinary exchanges and their
political implications
in (Nikolchina 2013a).
What I call "irregular" is, among other things, branding it as structuralism in so far as its major representatives resisted being branded as structuralists - or, indeed, as anything. Nikola Georgiev has meanwhile argued for the impossibility of schools in literary theory (17-136). This position is subtended by a certain "vertical" orientation of Bulgarian theoretical thinking - a meta-positioning with respects to all brands and schools (Cf. Nikolchina 2013b: 146-147), which, set side by side with what will appear here as Or-phism, acquires a curious new dimension.
The essay was reissued twice before the fall of the regime and has been reissued many times since. Iskra Panova's response has never, so far as I know, been re-issued.
49
MIGLENA NIKOLCHINA ► Anti-Odysseus: Orphism and Late Communism in Bulgaria
Multiple factors were probably at work. At a time when practically all Bulgarian intellectuals knew Russian, the influence of A.F. Lossev and Sergei Averintsev was definitely among those factors: not only in terms of their contribution to their concrete fields of study but most of all in terms of their ability to transform these fields into a meta-reflexive position with regards to the present. This ability was typical of the efforts to escape the ideological clichés of the regime yet the manner of its application was far from homogeneous. In Bulgaria, in the 1980s, Bogdan Bogdanov and Tzotcho Boiadjiev succeeded in consolidating classical studies into a dynamic mode of dissenting thought. As their younger colleague Kalin Yanakiev points out after the fall of communism, what inspired such endeavors was "resistance to the dead official philosophical thinking, which drove us to oppose it with a blend of rhetoric, imagination and reflection, at times, perhaps, too expressive and too trustful of subjectivity." (Preface 7) In spite of the ingredients of imagination and subjectivity - which were, after all, present to a different degree in the different authors - this mode was also, as Kalin Yanakiev's book Ancient Greek Culture: Problems of Philosophy and Mythology demonstrates, inflected by close reading, linguistic discipline, and attention to the letter of the text. Although totally opposed in its implications to Zhechev's Odysseus, the book never mentions him and never makes clear who exactly is implied in the lash at the "official semi-ideological semi-anachronistic Bulgarian academism." While the structuralists' attack of Zhechev's Odysseus is explicit and direct, Yanakiev keeps a sanitary distance from the controversy by avoiding any reference to it.
This divergence with respect to Zhechev's Odysseus might in fact serve as a line of demarcation between structuralists and posts-structuralists in Bulgaria during the 1980s. Among the post-structuralists
50
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
there were many who were deeply and personally indebted to their structuralist teachers (Cf. Kiossev); their own work, however, thrived in a heterogeneous and multidisciplinary milieu which was a major feature of the epoch and which included classical studies as one of the most active strands. At the time, various authors working in various spheres of the humanities resorted to the classical inheritance in the spirit described and exemplified by Kalin Yanakiev. Many of them were closely connected through a dense network of seminars which allowed constant and immediate exchange of knowledge and ideas. The range of what they did with the ancients was sometimes staggering. There was Bogdan Bogdanov's voluminous output which elegantly, cunningly, and expertly undermined official clichés. There were, at the opposite end, extremist "dada" theoretical gestures like Vladislav Todorov's "Eros, Knight of the Prosthesis." From ethics and axiology (Videva) to literary studies (Nikolchina 1988), it was as if paying tribute to the Greeks were some sort of rite of passage. Tzotcho Boiadjiev's influential study Plato's 'Unwritten Doctrine' with its emphasis on oral philosophical communication became emblematic for the penchant to sidestep censorship through seminar discussions. The propensity to think the shared dialogic fields via ancient Greek prisms is even more explicit in Boyadjiev's "Socratic Discussions and Modern Dialogue," as well as other texts like Rajcho Pozharliev's "Phenomenology of the Dialogic Situation in Plato's Symposium," Boriana Katsarska's "Soul. Eros. Community," etc. In the 1980s this exchange almost completely disregarded Toncho Zhechev's Odysseus and Fol's Thracology. Yanak-iev's "alienated individualist" approach to antiquity was following a shared project for inhabiting a parallel universe with regards to the methodological, ideological and political wagers of the controversy surrounding Odysseus.6
I cannot go here into the full complexity of either the individual development of the authors discussed, or the trends of which they are part.
51
MIGLENA NIKOLCHINA ► Anti-Odysseus: Orphism and Late Communism in Bulgaria
odysseus and national(lst) exoticism
A decade later Boyan Manchev employs the concept of "national exoticism" in order to examine Zhechev's use of the myth of Odysseus. Manchev explores both the specific Bulgarian genealogy and the broader European context of Zhechev's approach. At various moments of time, a number of European cultures construct their national identity through classical reference. Manchev evokes the structural paradox inherent in this practice - the paradox of a national, i.e. particular uni-versalism - in order to address the dilemmas of Bulgarian culture when, in the second half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, it came to face the task of such construction. Orpheus and Dionysus - the Orphic-Dionysian, Bacchic, ecstatic, sacrificial, carnal, transgressive, primal, chthonic elements - become central to this effort because of a double or triple causality with respect to European but also Balkan and especially Greek (the most problematic for multiple reasons) uses of the classical inheritance. On the one hand, these chthonic aspects remained more or less vacant after earlier European uses which emphasized the rationality, harmony, and classical measure of the ancients; on the other hand, both Orpheus and Dionysus have a Thracian connection, so Bulgarian could claim a geographic relatedness; and there was Nietzsche, of course, whose early 20th century influence played its role. Manchev sees Zhechev's return to the earlier efforts as an answer to the failure of the communist regime to implement a communist identity and the ensuing ideological crisis which produced the Thracian myth as one of its symptoms:
[...] The "Thracian myth" is de facto a project for the "rediscovery"
(equivalent to a "re-planting") of the roots of the Bulgarian nation:
52
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
an apparent tendency toward de-europeanization [...] which in fact unconsciously is trying to reconstruct the traumatic - because seen as lacking - European identity of the Bulgarian nation as "central" rather than "peripheral." In short, this is an attempt to re-write the Bulgarian (or now Thraco-Bulgarian) culture as the cradle of the European civilization tout court. Through its new self-identification as inheritor to Thracian culture the Bulgarian national project discovers the veiled road to identification with the Other of Greece, or the other Greek - Dio-nysian (i.e. "Thracian") culture.
The dynamic Manchev uncovers is that, while being late and left with no other options but the exotic ones for its identity, Bulgarian culture implements the Thracian myth as a mechanism for transforming the exotic into universal. This, however, implicates an anti-modernity move in so far as identity is sought for in a unique archaic past. Zhechev's specific input into this effort is, according to Manchev, to "tame" and "domesticate" the Thracian Orpheus through the image of the home-coming rather than sea-faring Odysseus. The failed future-oriented communist identity is thus translated into a return to patriarchal roots. Zhechev transforms elemental excess into pastoral morality and tragedy - into idyll. As other studies have noted, Zhechev subjects to the same domesticating procedure key historical figures from the Bulgarian past, trimming their questionable bohemian ways into models of pristine patriarchal virtue (Penchev 20-21). This taming tendency sums up Zhechev's ideal of Bulgaria's "vale culture" (small, isolated, misunderstood by the harsh big world but beautiful) and his take on national identity.
There may have been, however, an additional and more personal trigger for his "Myth of Odysseus." Zhechev was part of a small circle
53
MIGLENA NIKOLCHINA ► Anti-Odysseus: Orphism and Late Communism in Bulgaria
which took care of the posthumous publication of the works of his friend Tzvetan Stoyanov, a brilliant theoretician and writer who died prematurely in 1971 under circumstances his friends found suspicious. (Cf. Vassilev) In the early 1960s, according to Zhechev's own testimony, Stoyanov wrote a dialogue "Orpheus: Delirium with Mythology" which was published for the first time in 1978, a year before the first appearance of "The Myth of Odysseus" (Zhechev 1988: 13-14). Hardly a dialogue, Stoyanov's "Delirium" alternates powerful and terrifying soliloquies in which Orpheus recounts now Dionysus invoking and raping him, now the Bacchante tearing him ecstatically to pieces (Stoyanov 357-362). It so happened that 1978 was also the year of the infamous Bulgarian umbrella case in which expat Bulgarian writer Georgi Markov was assassinated on a bridge in London, presumably by the Bulgarian secret services. Georgi Markov was a close friend of Tzvetan Stoyanov. When "Orpheus: Delirium with Mythology" was published for the second time ten years later, Zhechev and the other editors had it followed by "The Second Part of the Conversation," a dialogue which had not been previously published, and for good reasons. In it, transparently disguised as 19th century Bulgarian writers, Stoyanov depicts Georgi Markov and himself discussing, deploring, and ultimately accepting self-sacrifice in the face of a hopeless situation which, again quite transparently, was the communist regime (Stoyanov 357-385).
Orpheus, sacrificial terror, Stoyanov's untimely and disturbing end, Markov's exile and violent death, as well as both Stoyanov and Markov's dream of participating in the "grand dialogue" (Stoyanov 64) of world literature might have been, therefore, the very concrete background from which Zhechev's idyllic Odysseus was differentiating himself, finding shelter in his vale, brushing the sweat from his forehead like some sort of agricultural Sisyphus. Odysseus was, perhaps, the fruit of
54
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Zhechev's on-going debate with his dead friends. Benignly, this could be perceived as survivor's guilt and some sort of plea for the nation's survival. But at what price? Iskra Panova, the most vehement and articulate critic of "The Myth of Odysseus," does not mince her words when asking why Zhechev did not choose some other mythical figure for his hero. "All the others are losers, all the others are vanquished... Only Odysseus the Cunning scores all the points, collects all the profit, never misses a chance and is the only one to reach old age and close the cycle under the skirts of Grandma Penelope." (Panova 33)7
While this may look all too personal, Panova's critique is relentlessly logical and follows two major lines of argumentation. The first one targets Zhechev's methodology or, rather, lack thereof: he uses Ancient myth in order to produce a conservative and rightist new mythology disregarding scientific knowledge and analytical rigour. "His village becomes the Bulgarian village in general, the village becomes the people, the people becomes the People with a capital P, immutable and sacred." (Panova 31) The second one targets the ideological implications of his essay. In counter distinction to received ideas about structuralism, Panova focuses on Zhechev's tampering with context and temporality: his musings deny concrete realities, specific history, change, process, innovation, the courage of producing the new and - as she keeps repeating - of stepping into the unknown.
The fate of Panova's article is rather strange: always mentioned, never quoted, its points frequently recycled without acknowledgment.8 Strangest of all, it has been denounced as an attack against Zhechev from the positions of the official party line (cf. Karev). In fact, apart from the editorial note with which the journal introduces her article, there is not a single instance of the orthodox Marxist rhetoric in Pano-va's own text. Panova emphsizes the anti-European, anti-democratic,
Being a loser, being vanquished, fighting beyond hope were recurring motifs in Tzvetan Stoyanov's work. In this passage, as so very often in those parabolic times, we might be dealing with more than meets the eye.
Her biography is a bit too complicated for the simplistic divisions dominating Bulgarian political life: during World War 2 Panova was member of the illegal communist and antifascist Union of Working Class Youth; in the 1980s she was monitored and molested by the secret services and expelled from the Bulgarian Communist Party for founding and being an active member of the Club for Glasnost and Democracy which played a key role in bringing down the regime. She was, to put it in terms of her own discussion of Odysseus, never one to calculate risks.
55
MIGLENA NIKOLCHINA ► Anti-Odysseus: Orphism and Late Communism in Bulgaria
anti-intellectual, and anti-modernization consequences of Zhechev's nationalism: with this, she would make perfect sense today in the face of contemporary nationalisms. There is unavoidably too much Zhechev in a critique of Zhechev, which must have been a problem for Kalin Yanakiev's milieu, but there is no discrepancy between her position in its broad outlines and the position exemplified by Yanakiev's Ancient Greek Culture: Problems of Philosophy and Mythology. A curious illustration of their subterranean agreement may be found in their use of a rather rare word - wombness (utrobnost): the wombness and the return to the womb it implies is something they would both prefer to see avoided, culturally speaking, while Zhechev, according to Panova, keeps taking his Odysseus and Bulgarianness back there. That the wombness is equivalent to going back to brutal male domination, a return to padre padrone (the film with the same title was fresh then), Panova does not fail to hint. Yanakiev's strategy was nevertheless quite different from Panova's: instead of offering a direct critique of Odysseus, he reverses the reversal implemented in Zhechev's myth.
the diaphragmic soul
Yanakiev's point of departure is precisely the "Other Greece" described by Boyan Manchev as the orphism which remained vacant and thus open to the aporias of Bulgarian cultural identity. Ancient Greek Culture: Problems of Philosophy and Mythology is based on a straightforward and clear-cut rejection of the ideas about Greek antiquity as noble simplicity and tranquil greatness. This, according to Yanakiev, is the dominant but misleading paradigm to which his reflections will oppose an angry, passionate, troubled, brutal, voracious and ultimately tragic spirituality, which is material and carnal in its very abhorrence and revolt against
56
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
the material and the carnal. This is Dionysus who has devoured Apollo into a "unity of the epic and the tragic." Dionysus, so to say, does the work of Apollo: the spiritual, the distant, the archer shooting from afar is seen here as only possible through spastic and enraged interaction with the bodily and the material. This stormy border is implemented as a constant passage between reason and madness, affect and control, exploit and crime, heroism and monstrosity, Olympian and chthonic: it is an antagonistic merger of Dionysus and Apollo, a tragic coincidence of liturgy-and-defilement, which acquires its anatomo-philosophical expression in the "pneuma" of the "diaphragmic soul," conceived as a foundational spastic agitation, as seething and stormy breathing, and as infuriated expulsion of elemental materiality in a confrontational articulation of the world. Anger is the mode of existence of this soul:
Human existence in so far as it is animated - unlike the chthonic one - is essentially an enraged existence, it is a constant spasm, a constant and heterogeneous irritability against the world and in the world. (Yanakiev 1989:15)
Being spiritual means being infuriated in the most literal sense of the word. (Yanakiev 1989: 19)
Yanakiev proposes the diaphragmic spirituality, the thumos of Homer's hero, as uncovering the tragic in the Homeric epic: this re-writes Nietzsche who did influence Yanakiev's early 20th century predecessors but most importantly it completely pulverizes Zhechev's transformation of tragedy into idyll. It is not that the epic turns tragedy with Yanakiev: their unity, rather, engenders his own genre of "expressive" philosophical reflection. If - according to Manchev - the result
57
MIGLENA NIKOLCHINA ► Anti-Odysseus: Orphism and Late Communism in Bulgaria
of Zhechev's Odysseus operation is a "horizontal immanentism" and an incarnation of the transcendent in the immanent, with Yanakiev the furious and tireless breathing in and out of the chthonic constantly brings forth the transcendent which keeps collapsing back into the immanent: hence the rage. An acquiescent and cosy identification with the topos of the native vale is completely incompatible with this dynamic.
And yet, perhaps, this is again Bulgarian, too Bulgarian. Or is it Thracian?
orpheus the ironic
Bogdan Bogdanov's book Orpheus and the Ancient Mythology of the Balkans appeared in 1991: i.e. after the changes, after Yanakiev's Ancient Greek Culture: Problems of Philosophy and Mythology and more than 10 years after Zhechev's "The Myth of Odysseus." The book includes and re-writes various articles beginning with the late 1970s: thus, Bogdanov's interest in this theme precedes and is co-extensive with the debates around Zhechev and with their displacement exemplified by Yanakiev. Alexander Fol is also an important explicit reference point for Bogdanov, which is not the case with the other authors discussed here. Bogdanov is critical of Zhechev and Fol but, like them, he is concerned with the problem of identity, Bulgarian but also Balkan. This is a major difference from Yanakiev for whom national or ethnic identity, vale or peninsular, simply did not exist as a problem worthy of discussion. Orpheus seems to have been a rather dramatic topic for Bogdanov. In the Introduction to the 1991 edition, he claims that writing the book was motivated by his lack of satisfaction with his earlier publications (Bogdanov 4). Towards the end of his life he once again edited and re-worked the book which
58
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
appeared a few months before his death: the theme of Orpheus, which according to some of his close friends Bogdanov hated, accompanied him for about 40 years.
Unlike Toncho Zhechev (a literary critic) or Kalin Yanakiev (a philosopher), Bogdanov is a classical scholar proper. Furthermore, Bogdanov explicitly associates his methodology with semiotics which amounts to taking a side in the structuralist-impressionist debate. And yet, in a note at the beginning of the book he waives aside these aspects in order to emphasize that his true interest is "through the analysis of ancient written sources about Orpheus to reconstruct the ideological background, which found concretization in the image of the hero. The author believes that the resilience of this background is the major factor explaining the vitality of this character in the ancient and more specifically the Balkan cultural tradition." (3) Bogdanov, therefore, explicitly enters the discussion via its ideological implications (like Iskra Panova who makes a similar move in her article on Zhechev). Like Zhechev, Bogdanov seems to situate his "homo Balcan-icus" in a sort of timeless or at least sufficiently ancient framework; unlike Zhechev, he introduces the "resilience of the background" in a critical manner. The critique is carried out through the opposition of "open" and "closed" societies (not without a reference to Karl Popper, of course), a problem which will keep appearing in Bogdanov's books in the 1990s. In this framework the Orphic, transcendent and (hypothetically) Thracian orientation of the cosmos is taken as an example of closedness and indifference towards the creation of a rich and varied social world. It is monotonous and apocalyptic, but it is also extremely hierarchical in its penchant to "flee social reality", its "a-sociality," its "imperviousness and intolerance towards variety" and its proclivity for "forms of irrational abreactions:"
59
MIGLENA NIKOLCHINA ► Anti-Odysseus: Orphism and Late Communism in Bulgaria
[...] The Thracian idea of the world is produced through the enhanced relation between the chthonic and the uranic along a vertical axis which seems to be less formal and endowed with greater value than it is in the Hellenic cultural sphere. The passion for differentiation allows us to presume that, unlike the Hellenic domain in which the vertical axis is a tool for describing a natural hierarchical articulation, the Thracian domain leaves the vertical direction undeveloped as a hierarchy and shapes it as a simple vertical tension. (Bogdanov 165-166)
If Bogdanov is thinking of Yanakiev here, he never says so. Did Yanak-iev? Bogdanov appears in Yanakiev's acknowledgements in the 1988 edition and is no longer there in the 1999 edition. It is clear, though, that funnily enough philosophy which is considered to be one of the greatest Ancient Greek contribution to Western culture, is identified by Bogdanov as an "unartculated" Thracian and Orphic verticality, which has been "devoured" by the Hellenic world. Orpheus, verticality, and (the poverty of) philosophy are thus opposed to the seafaring horizontal openness of the Hellenic polis with its inclinations towards realism and rationalism, and towards the "pleasures of plurality," which can explain
[...] political phenomena like the democracy of the polis and the free spirit in the Athenian social life, as well as facts like the Hellenic polytheism and concrete phenomena like the circulation of writing in the early Hellenic world. A direct consequence of this tendency is the penchant of ancient Greek culture towards written communication and the early emergence of secular literature with an array of different genres and especially genres of prose. (Bogdanov 163)
60
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
So if with Zhechev the idyll absorbs the epic and the tragic, if with Yanakiev they are blended into philosophical reflection, with Bogdanov, it is narrative and the early Greek novel that wins the day. It is important to emphasize that Bogdanov's opposition of Thracian and Hellenic is highly strategic in the early stages of Bulgarian democracy when his Orpheus book appeared. While always insisting that there cannot exist an ethnically pure culture ("Thracian" philosophy is Greek, after all), Bogdanov is clearly sending a warning through his distinction between the democratic, plural, seafaring, and open Hellenic world (an idealization that played a key role in Western democracies) and the monotonous and unarticulated vertical hierarchism of the Thracian cosmos which was being produced as Bulgarian identity. This warning obviously refuses to differentiate between the enclosure of Zhechev's stationary Odysseus who, as Manchev points out, collapses even the vertical in agricultural immanentism, and Yanakiev's intense verticality. Yanakiev's passionate and infuriated diaphragmic soul, if read via Bogdanov, would appear to dump any colourful multiplicity in the tension between chthonic and uranic. It is extremely Orphic and Thracian, and, ultimately, apocalyptic.
repetitions: third part of the conversation
Tzvetan Stoyanov's post-humous publications, although written in the 1960s, became part of the debates of the 1980s. Adding to the genre diversity, his "Orpheus: Delirium with Mythology" has been defined as a "dialogue."9 Yet there is nothing dialogic in the terrifying ravings of Dionysus and the ferocious extasy of the chorus. Orpheus is the one who narrates their invocations in a strange temporality which is both future ("and then he will tell me... and then they will tell me") and past because it is the severed head of Orpheus which seems to repeat the
Theatre joined the Orphic party in the 1990s. In the article quoted here, Boyan Manchev discusses this theatrical input as an alternative to national exoticism. Later on, Manchev entered into a long and fruitful "Orphic" collaboration, both theoretical and performative, with stage director Ani Vasseva. (Cf. Vasseva, Manchev) And finally, there is Ivan Stanev's art film Moon Lake (2009) in which the Orphic myth provides the framework to the film's melancholy reflections on a dying civilization. The film inspired a book of theoretical essays with Bogdan Bogdanov, Boyan Manchev, Darin Tenev, Kamelia Spasso-va, Maria Kalinova and myself among the contributors. (Nikolchina 2009) There has been a number of Bulgarian novels treating the Orpheus myth in various ways but, in tacit agreement with Bog-danov's views, none of them can match the quality of the theoretical and per-fomative elaborations.
61
MIGLENA NIKOLCHINA ► Anti-Odysseus: Orphism and Late Communism in Bulgaria
10
Zhechev's embarrassment - which might relate not only to the violent and pessimistic but also to the explicit homosexual aspects of the dialogue - is quite perceptible in his story about how Stoyanov read aloud the dialogue while Zhechev's mother was around. (Zhechev 1988: 14).
story, post-mortem, into eternity. The merger of pneuma and spirit, of the carnal and the heroic, which Yanakiev foregrounds as "tragic mystery," follows, with Stoyanov, a downward spiral of destruction and horror. His Orpheus/Dionysus is a figure of doom face to face with chthonic and gory sacrificial carnage:
Come, let me touch you one last time before you become a minced pile, before they rip your white sacrificial flesh! I will never hear you again, never! How unbearable this rite is, this subterranean secret! Stench and fissures, and seething mud - disgusting! Beautiful and disgusting! Look at me, Orpheus, look at me closer, even closer, look in my eyes! Don't you recognize me? Don't you remember - how many times you have looked into these eyes, with these eyes? Now you know me! This is me, this is you, I am you, you are Dionysus, yes, you yourself are Dionysus! Mud in the mud! Have you recognized yourself? Murderer and victim! [...] Born from mud - die in mud! (Stoyanov 361)
Toncho Zhechev domesticates the sacrificial into the pastoral; he excludes it from the cosy patriarchal "vale" which will become the signature of his nationalist exoticism.10 With Tzvetan Stoyanov sacrificial doom is tied to the national problematic. In "The Second Part of the Conversation," the dialogue which follows "Orpheus," the Bulgarian twist to sacrifice is described as a "principle of deterioration," as a law of "constant sinking," which postulates that the "vale concealment," which hides horror in its complacent heart, transforms any heroic act, any exceptionality and sacrifice for the common good into a senseless and fruitless defeat bound to vanish without a trace. Quotations from emblematic Bulgarian poems are mingled in Orpheus's delirium explicating the connections with "The Second Part of the Conversation:"
62
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
You say that the river will take [the severed head of Orpheus] - the big river that runs towards the plains seething with blood; the crimson river; the widow crying for husband and sons lost in the rite; she will take it; she will carry it; and the head will sing, it will keep singing with earth and sky, beasts and nature; covered with blood; my head will sing floating down through the inseminated, fertile, dark, muddy native plain! (363)
The infinite loop which the temporality of "Orpheus: Delirium with Mythology" introduces - the still living Orpheus narrates what his severed head will be singing, what it has already sung - is re-enacted in "The Second Part of the Conversation." In it, 19th century poet Botev discusses with another 19 th century writer, Karavelov, whether to undertake a suicidal revolutionary act which he has already undertaken, which he will keep undertaking. Repetition is implied by the very title but also by the fact that Botev and Karavelov are in fact performing a later conversation, a mid-204 century conversation, one which implies the author himself and his friend, the writer Georgi Markov. According to Maria Kalinova the principle of deterioration, expounded in the conversation, is not entirely hopeless because Stoyanov offers as a way out,
[...] not innocent self-sacrifice but another Dionysian logic: theatre. Like an actor, performing his role, Botev stages and rehearses his own death. Escaping Dionysus is through repeating Dionysus. In "The Second Part of the Conversation" self-sacrifice is replaced by the mimicry and mimesis of death, by a theatre act, a performance [...] (Kalinova)
And yet, this performative repetition works back and forth in time and as bloody as ever: Georgi Markov will be (is, was) assassinated; Stoy-anov's own end will be (is, was) strange without, as he seems to have
63
MIGLENA NIKOLCHINA ► Anti-Odysseus: Orphism and Late Communism in Bulgaria
feared, even the benefit of being recognized as sacrificial. Repetition... repeats; it repeats its own unacknowledged sacrificial gore. Against this background the anger of Yanakiev's furious diaphragmic soul acquires a double function: it is a universal principle of rejecting the chthonic in which it is nevertheless immersed; but it is also a refusal to accept the fate of vale deterioration, the fate of a doomed local identity. Anger (which I call revolt in my Promethean reading of romanticism) preserves the struggling verticality, which acquiescence collapses into Zhechev's idyll and drowns in the blood of unacknowledged scapegoats, as Stoyanov's Orpheus has it. Maintaining the vertical is a rejection of sacrifice; a refusal to play the victim. A year after the publication of Yanakiev's youthful book the anger will explode into the streets. $
64
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
References
Bogdanov, bogdan, 1991: Orfej i drevnata mitologija na Balkanite [Orpheus and the Ancient Mythology of the Balkans]. Sofia: Sofia University Press. boiadjiev, TZOTCHO, 1984: "Nepisanoto uchenie" na Platon [Plato's
'UnwrittenDoctrine']. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. boiadjiev, tzotcho, 1991: Sokratovite besedi i moderniyat dialog [Socratic Discussions and Modern Dialogue]. Filosofski pregled 2. 38-57. fol, alexander, 1986: Trakijskijat orfizym [Thracian Orphism].
Sofia: Sofia University Press. garnizov, vassil (ed.), 2017: Vekat na strukturalizma [The Century
of Structuralism]. Sofia: New Bulgarian University. georgiev, nikola, 2006: Trevozhno literaturoznanie [Anxieties
of Literary Theory]. Sofia: Prosveta. kalinova, maria. "The Second Part of the Conversation: Tzvetan
Stoyanov, Georgi Markov." (manuscript) karev, georgi, 2014: Toncho Zhechev i negovoto zavryshtane kym Itaka. [Toncho Zhechev and his Homecoming to Ithaca]. [http://www.librev.com/ discussion-culture-publisher/2308-toncho-zhechev] katsarska, boryana, 1992: Dusha. Eros. Obshtnost [Soul. Eros.
Community]. Filosofski pregled 2.2. 3-14. kiossev, alexander, 2014: An Interview. [http://piron.
culturecenter-su.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Aleksander_ Kiossev_interview_ED%D0%B5dAKfinal.pdf] lotman. juri, 1982: Otvoreno pismo do redaktsiata [An Open Letter to the Editors]. Literaturen front 11: March 18, 1982.
65
MIGLENA NIKOLCHINA ► Anti-Odysseus: Orphism and Late Communism in Bulgaria
manchev, boyan, 2003: Modernost i Antimodernost. Bylgarskiat natsionalekzotizym [Modernity and Anti-Modernity: the Bulgarian National Exoticism]. LiterNet. [http://liternet.bg/ publish2/bmanchev/modernost2.htm] nikolchina, miglena, 1988: Mityt za Prometej i poetikata na anglijskia romantizym [The Myth of Prometehus and the Poetics of English Romanticism]. Sofia: Sofia University Press. nikolchina, miglena (ed.), 2009: Moon Lake. Sofia: Altera. nikolchina, miglena, 2013A: Lost Unicorns of the Velvet Revolutions: Heterotopias of the Seminar, New York: Fordham University Press. nikolchina, miglena, 2013B: Byzantium, or Fiction as Inverted Theory. Ed. Benigno Trigo. KristevasFiction. State University of New York Press. 143-155. panova, iskra, 1980: Po povod na edin mit [On the Occasion
of a Myth]. Filosofska misyl, 7. 13-34. penchev, boyko, 2017: Spornite nasledstva (Contested Legacies).
Sofia: Literaturen vestnik. pozharliev, rajcho, 1991: Fenomenologiya na dialogichnata situaciya v „Piryt" na Platon [Phenomenology of the Dialogic Situation in Plato's Symposium]. Filosofski pregled 2. 27-37. stoyanov, tzvetan, 1988: Sachinenia v dva toma [Selected Writings in Two Volumes], Ed. Antoanta Vojnikova et al., vol. 1. Kulturata kato obshtenie [Culture As Communication]. Sofia: Balgarski pisatel. todorov, vladislav, 1992: Eros, ritsaryat na protezata [Eros, Knight of the Prosthesis]. Ed. Orlin Spasov. ArsErotica. Sofia: DLIDU. 219-253.
66
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
vasseva, ANi, boyan manchev, 20i8: Meteor - izbrani teatralni tekstove [Meteor: Selected Texts for the Theatre]. Sofia: Meteor. vASSiLEv, yordan, 2010: Tzvetan Stoyanov: lych svetlina [Tzvetan Stoyanov: a Ray of Light]. LiterNet 128, 7. [https://liternet.bg/ publishy/jvasilev/cvetan-stoianov.htm] videva, nedyalka, 1987: Grytskoto moralno syznanie do epohata na elinizma [Greek Moral Consciousness before the Epoch of Hellenism], Sofia: Sofia University Press. yanakiev, kalin, 1999: Preface to the Present Edition. Ancient Greek Culture: Problems of Philosophy and Mythology. Sofia: Emaliol. 7-8. yanakiev, kalin, 1988: Ancient Greek Culture: Problems of Philosophy
and Mythology. Sofia: Sofia University Press. yanakiev, miroslav, 1960: Bulgarsko stihoznanie [Bulgarian
Versification]. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. zhechev, toncho, 1979: Mityt za Odisej [The Myth of Odysseus.].
Septemvri 10. 138-183. zhechev, toncho, 1988: Preface to Tzvetan Stoyanov. Sachinenia v dva toma [Selected Writings in Two Volumes], Ed. Antoanta Vojnikova et al., vol. 1. Kulturata kato obshtenie [Culture As Communication]. Sofia: Balgarski pisatel. 5-27.
67
MIGLENA NIKOLCHINA ► Anti-Odysseus: Orphism and Late Communism in Bulgaria
Pe3MMe
TeKCTBT pa3rae»ga egHa c^e^M$MHHa HacoKa b TeopeTMHHoTo mmc-^eHe b BB,nrapua npe3 i980Te roguHM, koato 6m Moraa ga ce Hapene „op<£m3bm" m koato CBnpoBo^ga BB3xoga Ha TpaKo^oruaTa b Mcropu-necKMTe HayKu, KaTo BpB3KaTa Me^gy gBaTa ^eHoMeHa Hecro nBTu ocTaBa Hepa3no3HaTa. ,3,e6aTMTe oko^o „Mmtbt Ha OguceM" (i979r.) ot Tohho ^eneB ca nocraBeHu b to3m KoHTeKCT 6^arogapeHue Ha M3C^egBaHeTo Ha BoaH MaHHeB „MogepHocT u aHTMMogepHocT. Bb-■nrapcKuaT HauuoHa^eK3oTM3BM." „Mmtbt 3a OguceM" c HeroBoTo naTpuapxa^Ho-ugu^uHHo „kotoobmhho" „onuToMaBaHe" Ha Op^e-eBCKoTo e pa3raegaH ot MaHHeB b reHea^oruaTa Ha, ot egHa CTpaHa, ycu^uaTa no KoHCTpyupaHe Ha 6B^rapcKa MgeHTMHHocT ot nBpBaTa no^oBMHa Ha 20 BeK m, ot gpyra CTpaHa, MgeHTM^MKanuoHHaTa Kpu3a, HacTBnu^a npe3 BTopaTa no^oBMHa Ha 20 BeK c^eg Kpaxa Ha onuTa ga ce u3rpagu KoMyHucruHecKa ugeHTMHHocr. Hacroam,eTo M3C.negBaHe noKa3Ba KaK npe3 i980Te roguHM cnopoBeTe, npegu3BMKaHM ot ^eneB, onepTaBaT 3oHaTa Ha npoTMBonocTaBaHe He caMo Me^gy „MMnpecu-oHMCTMHHaTa KpuTMKa" u crpyKTypanu3Ma, ho CBrn,o TaKa Me^gy CTpyKTypa^M3BM u nocr-crpyKTypanM3BM, komto b oHa3u enoxa b 6B^rapcKua KoHTeKCT MMa xapaKTepa Ha nogBM^Ho u xeTeporeHHo croBapaHe Ha mho^ctbo gu^unnuHM, mKoau u TunoBe gucKypcu u 3a komto caMara TeMa 3a Ha^MOHa^Ha MgeHTMHHocT e upe^eBaHT-Ha. TaKa goKaro CTaTuaTa Ha 3acTBnBarn,aTa CTpyKTypa^M3Ma HcKpa naHoBa „no noBog Ha eguH mmt" (1980) B^M3a b npaKa no^eMMKa c Ha^MOHa^eK3OTM3Ma Ha ^eneB, paHHaTa KHura Ha Ka^MH flHaKueB PpeeHozp'bUKama Kynmypa - npo6nmu Ha fiunocofimma u Mumonozuxma (1988) paguKa^Ho npeo6pBrn,a BM3MaTa Ha ^eneB u ^yHKuuoHupa KaTo CTpaHa b to3m ge6aT, KaTo o6ane no eguH 3HaKoB HaHMH oTKa3Ba
68
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
ga ro npuno3Hae. Hapeg c HcKpa naHOBa u Ka,MH flHaKueB, EorgaH EoigaHOB c MOHorpa^uaTa Oprfeu u dpeemma Mumonozua Ha Eanmnume (1991), KaKTO u gua,orBT „Op^en. E^HyBaHe c MMTO^orua" ot ^eTaH CToaHOB (HanucaH om,e npe3 1960Te roguHM, ho M3,a3,B,n nocMtprao egBa npe3 1978r. m no TarcBB HanuH OKa3a, ce nacT ot gucKycuuTe Ha 1980Te) ca pa3raegaHM TyK KaTO pen,MKM b eguH KpuTunecKM o6MeH, komto noKa3Ba npo6^eMaTMHHocTTa u pucKOBeTe Ha gacHO-Ha^MOHa-^ucTMHecKua peTpo-yTonu3'BM, HaMepu, M3pa3 b Ogucen Ha Tohho ^eneB. To3m o6MeH 6u mofb, ga xBtp^u M3o6u,Ha cBeT,MHa Btpxy aB,eHua, npeBtpHa,u ce b nacr ot no^MTunecKua hm »mbot gHec, u cm 3ac,y^aBa ga 6tge M3c,egBaH om,e no-BHMMaTe,HO, BK,wnuTe,HO c or,eg Ha no-rctcHMTe My TpaHC$opMa^MM.
Miglena Nikolfaina
Miglena Nikolchina is a literary historian and theoretician whose research engages the interactions of literature, philosophy, political studies, and feminist theory. She is professor at the Literary Theory Department at the University of Sofia, Bulgaria. In English, her publications include the books Matricide in Language: Writing Theory in Kristeva and Woolf (2004), Lost Unicorns of the Velvet Revolutions: Heterotopias of the Seminar (2013).
69
DOI - 10.13137/2283-5482/22383
Authentic and Heterogeneous Mimesis: Reflection and Self-reflexivity in Todor Pavlov and Yuri Lotman
AyTeHTHHHMH u reTeporeHHMH MHMecHc: oTpa^eHHe U aBTOpe^^eKCHBHOCTL
y T. naB^OBa u ro. ^OTMaHa
$ kamelia spassova - ksspassova@uni-sofia.bg
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
The paper focuses on the mirror as a metaphor in the Marxist and structuralist paradigm by means of which contradictory concepts of literature in terms of its mimetic activity crystallize. The term mimetic reflection was in circulation in the Soviet Union at that time as one of the key concepts of the dogmatic Marxist-Leninist aesthetics and especially of Todor Pavlov's theory of reflection, in which literature is seen as an authentic reflection of reality. A detachment of reflection theory can be traced in the works of Lotman and Kristeva. In their theoretical works the mirror functions as a metaphor for intertextuality, and self-reflexivity as the ability of literature to refer to its own techniques, its own process of creation and its own fictional status. Thus, the article outlines two mimetic types: authentic mimesis, represented by Pavlov's theory, and on the other side, heterogeneous creative mimesis, developed by Lotman's text within a text structure and Kristeva's genotext in merging Jakobson and Bakhtin's legacy.
MIMESIS, REFLECTION, MIRROR, SELF-REFLEXIVITY, INTERTEXTUALITY, REALISM, DEVICE
B ^HTpe BHMMaHMfl ^TO^O TeKCTa ctomt 3epKaao KaK MeTa^opa b MapKCMCTCKoM M CTpyKTypaaMCTCKoM napagurMe, nocpegcTBoM KoTopoM KpMCTaflflM3yWT npOTMBOpeHMBMe noHATMA o .MTepaType c yneTOM ee MMMeTMHeCKoM aKTMBHoCTM. TepMMH «MMMeTunecKoe oTpa^eHue» ^MpKy-aupyeT b CoBeTCKoM CoM3e KaK ogHo M3 oCHoBHHX noHATMM MapKCMCT-CKo-aeHMHCKoM ^CTeTMKM m oco6eHHo Teopuu oTpa^eHMA Togopa naBaoBa. PaccToaHMe ot TeopMM oTpa^eHua mokho npocaeguTB b pa6oTax .floTMa-Ha m KpucTeBoM. B Mx TeopeTMHecKMx TeKCTax 3epKa.o ^yH^uoHupyeT KaK MeTa^opa MHTepTeKCTyaaBHocTM, a aBTope^.eKCMBHoCTB - KaK cnoco6-HoCTB AMTepaTypH CCBi.aTBCfl Ha CBoM Co6cTBeHHBie MeToflH, Ha cbom Co6CTBeHHBm npo^cc TBopeHua, Ha cbom Co6cTBeHHBIM (^M^MoHaflBHBIM CTaTyC. CooTBeTCTBeHHo, B CTaTBe onucaHH gBa Tuna MMMecuca: ayTeH-TMHHBiM MMMeCMC, npegCTaBaeH B Teopuu naB.oBa, a c gpyroM CTopoHBi -reTeporeHHHe TBopnecKMM MMMecuc, pa3pa6oTaHHBiM CTpyKTypoM ^oTMa-Ha, TeKCT b TeKCTe, m b reHoTeKCTe KpMCTeBoM, rge Hacaegue 3Ko6coHa o6ieflMHfleTca c HacaegueM BaxTMHa.
MHMECHC, OTPA»EHHE, 3EPKA.nO, ABTOPEiflEKCHBHOCTb, HHTEPTEKCTYAflbHOCTb, PEA.H3M, nPHHOM
71
KAMELIA SPASSOVA ► Authentic and Heterogeneous Mimesis
mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest: adorno or pavlov?
| A novel is a mirror taken along a road. | SAINT-REAL
| Stendhal 1830: The Red and the Black, Vol. I, chapter XIII
We discovered (such a discovery is inevitable in the late hours of the night) that mirrors hare something monstrous about them. Then Bioy Casares recalled that one of the heresiarchs of Uqbar had declared that mirrors and copulation are abominable, because they increase the number or men.
| Borges 1940: Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius
It is possible to approach the broad and prolific topic of mirrors and literature by staging a conceptual typology, differentiating realistic mirroring from fantastic mirroring. The pivotal point of the contradistinction and dissimilarity is the function of specular reflection, concerning the relation between the inner space of literature and the outer empirical context. The realistic and the fantastic mirrors rely on disparate techniques and dissimilar aesthetic strategies: the one places an accurate mirror before reality, while the other places a distorted mirror within the literary work. The latter produces distortions, disfigurements and deformations, it poses the question about the ontology of fiction.
72
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
The realistic mirror of Stendhal and the fantastic mirror of Borges illustrate two antithetical mimetic modes. It is evident that the transposition from the fictional world into such a conceptual apparatus implies acts of subtraction, reduction and allegorization. Thus, Stendhal's and Borges' mirrors are just figures, exemplifying the realistic and anti-realistic paradigms of literature and the relevant presupposed theory or ideology behind them.
The relation between reality and Socialist Realism in the frame of Soviet Marxist ideology at the time was examined through the metaphor of the mirror reduced to the requirement that art should be an accurate copy of reality. Stendhal's sentence that 'a novel is a mirror taken along a road' was taken out of the context of its more complex implications, the irony inherent in it remained unnoticed, it was instead reduced to a slogan by East European theory of reflection.
Discussing Hegel's legacy, Adorno criticized the immediacy of a copy theory in view of its mechanistic limitations and false pretensions to objectivity. He pointed out that such a theory is not really based on dialectics, but on authenticity: 'This needs to be remembered at a time when those who administer the dialectic in its materialist version, the official thought of the East Bloc, have debased it to an unreflected copy theory' (Adorno 8). The main deficiency of such a concept of realism for him was the unreflected relation between reality and the subject, or its immediacy. Adorno mocked the East European version of dialectic for being rigid, static and suited to dogmatism, or a kind of dialectic without a real concept of change. The dynamic element in the so diminished copy theory of realism was the flat, unmediated identity. From this perspective, the crucial task of philosophy was to reflect on the language via negative dialectics. Negative dialectics divided the subject through his/ her critically self-reflexive (and also self-destructive) capacity: doing
73
KAMELIA SPASSOVA ► Authentic and Heterogeneous Mimesis
In a beautiful article Artemy Magun clarifies the moment of negativity with relation to the mimetic theory and its embodiment of negativity: "Adorno claims that his 'negative' dialectic rests on the 'preponderance of the object,' that it is asymmetrical in this sense, and that the object belongs on the side of the 'non-identical' (Ador-no's logical analogon to mimesis) [...], the object is not a 'beyond'; it is rather a chaotic confusing movement already within the subject." (128).
Quite contrary to Adorno's reading of Odysseus as negatively subverting the mythological structures, the same Homeric hero was figured out as conservative, anti-modern myth in the writings of the Bulgarian critic Toncho Zhechev. On the Bulgarian Odysseus and anti-Odysseus tendencies, see Nikolchi-na's article in this issue.
His authority was tremendous: "he dared to attack — with strong 'dialectical-Leninist' arguments — such leading Communist critics as the Hungarian Georg Lukacs, the Croat Zvonimir Richt-man, and the Russians Mikhail Lifshitz, Elena Usievich, and Valerian Fedorovich Perever-zev" (Kiossev 135).
and undoing activities. Adorno's mimetic theory insisted on the negative moment of the non-authentic components. Instead of advocating the reflection of empirical reality, Adorno proposed a mimetic theory of the non-identical. He stressed the possibility of language in art to express hiatuses, gaps, ellipses, absences, empty places.
What is important is that the negative element of indeterminacy has a material expression.1 Adorno claimed that the immediate can be reached only by tracing what is most mediated and inauthentic in art. The paradigm of the mimetic and self-reflexive subject was the figure of Odysseus, who 'for the sake of his own self, calls himself Nobody and manipulates resemblance to the natural state as a means of controlling nature' (Adorno and Horkheimer 2002: 53).® According to Adorno's conceptual framework, the main strategies for a non-authentic mimesis in art were the processes of a non-identical, linguistic mimicry and self-reflexivity. Those processes can be named and expressed by language. The very moment of non-recognition (negative anagnorisis) is exactly the point of interruption and hiatus: the withdrawing of the subject that is objectified and embodied in the figure of Nobody. Adorno would have definitely prefered the monstrous mirror of Borges.
What was this unreflected copy theory that provoked Adorno's rejection? Even though there is no specific reference, it is not difficult to recognize Todor Pavlov's Theory of Reflection (Teorija otrazhenija, 1936). Pavlov, a Bulgarian orthodox Marxist philosopher, wrote this work while he was an exile in Moscow.3 It was not before long that his theory became - with its conceptualization of literature as reflection of reality - the cornerstone of dogmatic aesthetics for the entire Eastern bloc. A second and revised edition appeared in Bulgarian in 1945, with Pavlov already back in his native country after the Communist takeover. English translation was also edited and published in Sofia in
74
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
1962, in order that the aesthetic maxims could be better transmitted to the west of the Iron Curtain.
The theory of reflection is an elaboration of Lenin's ideas of knowledge as reflection of reality. Lenin himself used the metaphor of the mirror in his article 'Leo Tolstoy as the Mirror of the Russian Revolution', 1908, where he claimed:
Jameson in his book on Realism points out that the theory of reflection was Lenin's and that Lenin identified Tolstoy's novels with the peasantry (1; 79).
A mirror which does not reflect things correctly could hardly be called a mirror. [...] And if we have before us a really great artist, he must have reflected in his work at least some of the essential aspects of the revolution. [...]From this point of view, the contradictions in Tolstoy's views are indeed a mirror of those contradictory conditions in which the peasantry had to play their historical part in our revolution.
Lenin pointed to the role of Tolstoy as an (in)accurate mirror and the (dis)ability of his works to correctly reflect the revolution. The admiration for Tolstoy's sober realism contradicted with the disgust for his inclination towards religion and clericalism. Lenin's critique of non-resistance to evil was aimed at the political inexperience of the masses in the late 19th century, and Tolstoyan contradictions only mirrored the historical and economic conditions of the time. It is symptomatic that such a diagnosis related directly to the figure of the author and the social context, regarding the degree of organized revolutionary activity, bore no remarks on genre, language, or literary devices. The theory of reflection and its foundation in Lenin's ideology required the authentic mirror of sober realism.4
In the 20th century, the concept of mimesis became the contested ground of a permanent clash between the antagonistic paradigms of Marxism and formalism, renewed by the debate on what is realism in
75
KAMELIA SPASSOVA ► Authentic and Heterogeneous Mimesis
Mareeva outlines an alternative Marxist theory developed by Mikhail Lifshitz, who emphasizes not so much the element of
reflection, but, rather, the element of creativity. Her conclusion confirms the dominant character of Pavlov's theory: "They isolate and juxtapose, even though not in a banal form, two dialectical aspects of the Marxist concept of practice, namely, reflection and transformation. Todor Pavlov's version of the reflection theory was officially approved while Lifshitz' ontognoseology went into the philosophical underground." (304).
art and what is the literariness of literature. The typological division of authentic and non-authentic mimesis can trace the different trends in the Marxist approach between East and West.5 On a meta-level it makes more palpable how the metaphor of the mirror renders both the reality in literature and the fictional reality either as a direct transposition and identification of the outer world, or as an autonomous self-reflexive device, related to language and poetic function in the theory of Jakobson. The most authentic mirror of all aesthetic mirrors, which reflects things correctly (i.e. the accurate version of the Marxist-Leninist dialectics) in Eastern Europe was Pavlov's Theory of Reflection.
authentic mimesis: in the thousands of mirrors the same reflection of reality
Pavlov succeeded in imposing the formula of literature as a mirror of reality, based on the evolution from Marx through Engels to Lenin. The foundation of Pavlov's theory of reflection was Lenin's view that consciousness is like a subjective image of the objective world. The episte-mology developed by Pavlov relies on the precondition of the objective things reflected in human consciousness. All matter has the capacity for reflection, understood as a type of cognition: this is an objective necessity of matter - a formulation of a materialistic imperative. The dialectic element in such a doctrine is actually the never-ending process of authentication between matter and consciousness: "And because this is so, epistemology, unlike psychology, seeks to determine chiefly in how far the image does or does not resemble the object, in how far it is an accurate and adequate reflection of the object in consciousness and in how far there is likeness, similarity or coincidence between them" (Pavlov 1970: 85). The higher is the degree of similarity, the better is the mirror.
76
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
The "logical" (or better ideological) chain of the argument is: first, ideas are copies, photographs and mirror images of objective reality, of things; and, second, phenomena exist regardless of consciousness and are reflected in consciousness, thus they become possible objects of cognition. This is a process in which material entities are transplanted and transposed from reality directly into the human mind. The procedures of transplanting and transposing are based on Marx and his critique of Hegel (the famous turning of Hegel on his head). Todor Pavlov relied very often on the following quotation from Marx: "With me the reverse is true: the ideal is nothing but the material world reflected [umgesetzte] in the mind of man, and translated [übersetzte] into forms of thought."6 (1976: 102). In the Theory of Reflection the sentence above has a nodal role. Pavlov's work followed the premises that the material world is reflected in the mind, but in such reflection and translation there is no space for language as a tool for self-reflexivity and modification of reality. The images in the consciousness are the same, accurate and adequate, repetition of material world in the thousands of mirrors. They are identical copies without any deformation: materializing the idea of Plato, inverted Hegel.
In short, the function of language was ignored. Pavlov's theory of reflection was against language as a mediating agent. It opposed the linguistic method, which copes only with hieroglyphs, subjective signs without connection with reality. However, it is evident that signs can refer to completely fictitious things, as in 'unicorn' or 'dragon'. What happens to dragons in this theory? In the case of unicorns and dragons, there lurks the danger that no philosophical guarantee of the objective reality can be given. Ergo, such cases are ideologically subversive, undermining the regime. Dragons and unicorns are politically unacceptable.
In original: "Bei mir ist umgekehrt das Ideelle nichts andres als das im Menschenkopf umgesetzte und übersetzte Materielle." (Marx 1968: 25)
77
KAMELIA SPASSOVA ► Authentic and Heterogeneous Mimesis
On the theory of refraction (npe^oM^eHue) in the Bakhtin's Circle's as a more complex dynamic between the work of art and the outer space of the context, see Maria Kalinova's article in the present issue. It demonstrates the wager of completely different mimetic theory, based on a Marxist theory of language.
Adorno posed the same argument of authenticity against Lukacs's concept of realism. The anti-realist aesthetics of Adorno and Althusser was opposed to Lukacs's realism in (Lee 2004: 61-79). For the letter exchange on realism between Lukacs and Anna Seghers, and also for the Lukacs-Brecht debate, see (Lukacs 1980).
Lukacs position on reality was clearly manifested in his critique against Bloch and expressionism in "Realism in the Balance" (1938), conserving the technique of montage in Joyce, a technique incapable to give a total and coherent view of reality, but only fractions of reality: "Such effects arise from its technique of juxtaposing heterogeneous, unrelated pieces of reality torn from their context [...] However, as soon as this one-dimensional technique - however legitimate and ♦
The distinction between mimetic anti-linguistic and linguistic approaches emerged as early as the 1920s and 1930s debates on realism between, on the one hand, Formalism (Jakobson, Shklovsky) and Bakhtin's Circle, and, on the other, Lukacs's understanding of realism and the novel. Galin Tihanov, who has explored this debate, notes that "For Lukacs, language is completely neutral to the process of reflection"; while "Voloshinov's arguments in Marxism and the Philosophy of Language [...] grants all ideologies the power to refract rather than reflect reality." (2000: 59; 99). The observations on supra-linguistic reflection as opposed to linguistic refraction can be transposed to our case.
Pavlov's theory of reflection was anti-linguistic.7 In its mechanics there was a direct transposition of objects in human consciousness. While in Bakhtin's Circle's refraction by means of language was conceived as deforming and transforming reality, Pavlov kept reality unchanged by reflection. The main requirement for art was to reflect reality, and the more accurate it was, the more reliable it became. This was the traditional 'translation' of mimesis in the socialist-realistic discourse for literature in the Eastern Block.
jakobson's green herring and the extreme relativityof realism
In his early article "On Realism in Art", first published in Czech language and later in Russian, Roman Jakobson introduced the phrase "extreme relativity of the concept of 'realism'". This early formalist work can be seen as offering avant la lettre a critique and an alternative to the dogmatic reflection theory of Pavlov and also anticipate Lukac-Bre-cht debate in the 1930s, the other prominent protagonists, who were arguing on the real realism.8
78
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Jakobson insisted on more strict scholarly terminology in order to escape from the common causerie among historian of literature, chatting about life and time under the umbrella of realism. He gave definition of various forms of realisms, focused on the figure of the author [Ai; A2], the reader/ the critic [Bi; B2], the context [Ci; C2], the device [Di; D2] and the code [E], so we can retroactively recognize the six communicative functions of language used already at this point as a model. What is crucial here are two tendencies, operating within the entire model: (1.) the function of de-automatization and deformation (revolutionary, avant-garde, atypical mode with its rejection of the current conditions, and strive for anomaly and novelty). and (2.) the function of naturalization and faithfulness to already established reality (the conservative, traditional, canonical, typical mode with its pretention of genuine realism). The two modes can be related to the author and thus we have the realistic author, who opts for maximum verisimilitude to truth, nature and reality [A2], or the modern impetus of "realist in a higher sense", as the sur-realist [Ai]. But the operation can also be attributed to the reader's horizon of expectation, and then there emerges the conservative reader [B2], who expects the familiar employment of old literary techniques, and the rebellious reader [Bi], who recognizes the automatization of the devices. In the frame of the context we have the historical movement of Realism of the 19th Century [Ci] and the later naturalization of exactly this meaning [C there is a progressive realism and classic realism and both of them are in opposition to the modern movements with their invention of higher degree of reality. In sum, Jakobson differentiated the classic conservative realism from the atypical realism of de-automatization and estrangement. The first type does not recognize the self-sufficient aesthetic value of deformation, whereas the second type does. Not
♦ successful it may be in a joke - claims to give shape to reality (even when this reality is view as unreal) [...] or of totality (even when this totality is regarded as chaos), then the final effect must be profound monotony." (1997: 44). The axis of homogeneity and heterogeneity is important distinctive symptom in approaching different mimetic concepts.
79
KAMELIA SPASSOVA ► Authentic and Heterogeneous Mimesis
For the function of the device, Shklovsky's theory of estrangement has a foremost role in Russian Formalism, for the differences between Shklovsky and Jakobson regarding the autonomous status of the device, see (Ti-hanov 2005: 667-668).
10
For reading Jakobson's metalingual function as a metapoetic, see (Finke 1995). The multi-perspectives technique, introducing a mirror inside the literary work, is high-lightened as a metafictional move, which enhances the mimetic activity, by Herman in his valuable book on Concepts of Realism (56).
to miss the forest for the trees, it is important to focus on the core point, which is device9. The modes of de-automatization and naturalization corresponds to typical normal device and atypical abnormal device, which can be normality or deviation, regarding the author, the reader or the context. The two axis of deformation by the device has been already discussed in this early article: the metonymical prose deformation and the poetical metaphor as an "inverted negative parallelism" (1987: 26). Jakobson himself defined realism [E] as "the requirement of consistent motivation and realization of poetic devices" (27), stressing the techniques in art and their transformative forces. This can be read as an introduction to the poetic function. In addition he claimed that the motivation of the device can be an internal factor. "[l]t is possible to motivate and justify this device in the painting itself; an object is doubled when reflected in a mirror. The same is true in literature. The herring is green because it has been painted. Why did you paint it?" The author will always have an answer, but, in fact, there is only one right answer: "To make it harder to guess." (26). The mirror of Jakobson redoubles the object inside the work of art and makes things harder to guess. This kind of redoubling of the device makes the code visible and the deformation more palpable. It is the self-reflexive function, which generates the surplus of commentaries of one's own poetic.10 The mirror mechanism of a text within a text is a simple autopoietic procedure.
lotman's text within a text
Yuri Lotman, founder of the Tartu-Moscow Semiotic School, also provided a transformation of the dominant Marxist theory of reflection, as a particular combination of Bakhtin's and Jakobson's premises. Lotman
80
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
explicitly affirmed that his methodological wager is an attempt to 11 combine the formal-structural paradigm of Roman Jakobson and the part of the crea-contextual-dialogical paradigm of Mikhail Bakhtin. The Tartu scholar (Kolarov 2009). conceived the structure of the text as heterogeneous because he saw it as at least dually coded, as being always already a kind of a text within a text. To put it briefly, semiosis is exactly the process of this inner hybridization, which has a creative potentiality. The dual codes reveal autopoiesis, the immense capacity of literature not simply to repeat, but also to generate creation in the process of repetition, to produce its own motifs, topoi and new forms from within.11 This concerns the immanent hybridization, or the shift of levels in the literary work.
The Tartu school members had a fascination for the functions of the mirror within the work of art. A whole issue of Sign Systems Studies was dedicated to the semiotics of the mirror, with texts by Z.G. Mintz, G.V. Obatnin, V.M. Meizerski, S.T. Zoljan, and L.N. Stolovits, but also with the most profound observations of Lotman and Levin (1988). The structure of the text within a text implies a mechanism of the mirror inside the text. The mirror in the work of art redoubles the semiotics process, which makes it a complex self-referential system. The mirror is no more a metaphor of the reflection of reality, but a self-reflexive device, which has a subversive political implication: substituting the mirror of Stendhal with the one of Borges.
For the Tartu school the mirror was a device of fantastic literature; whereas the theory of reflection forbade the fantastic elements and used the metaphor of the mirror to insist on a sober realistic thinking of art. Thus the function of dual codes could trick the Soviet system and use their weapon of mirror against the logic of realistic representation. The exact methods of Tartu school could blind the authorities because they explored the idea of dual codes, mirror effects, and heterogeneous
81
KAMELIA SPASSOVA ► Authentic and Heterogeneous Mimesis
12
Julia Kristeva introduced the Tartu school in an issue on semiotics in Tel Quel with regard to this School's desire for a scientific approach to theoretical discourse and its dynamic generative methods (1968: 6).
13
The four devices are catalogued by Borges (a typical Borgesian catalogue of an atypical paradigm) in his lecture on 2 September 1949.
mimesis in a scientific language that was complex and not easy to be criticised.12 Such methods served as an encoding system.
The historical context reveals that Lotman's article "Text within the text" first appeared in the semiotics journal of the Tartu school Sign Systems Studies - Zy^EimiKq 14 (1981). The topic of the whole issue coincideed with the article, i.e. it was exactly a "text within the text", particularly as Lotman's contribution was the first in the issue while its author was the chief editor of the journal as well. But in that issue several contributors from the Tartu school developed brilliant observations with regard to the idea of 'text within a text' in different contexts and cultural dimensions. Thus, Lotman was not alone in opening the heuristic potential of the text within the text - there was a theoretical network of shared ideas, methods, and concepts represented. Here I will focus on the articles by Yuri Levin ("The Narrative Structure as a Generator of Thought: Text in the Text in the Works of J. L. Borges") and by Peeter Torop ("The Problem of Intext") in order to outline two crucial aspects: the scientific mathematical approach and the productive layers of text and language.
The article by Yuri Levin in this journal explored the notion of text within a text by means of logic structures in a generative perspective. Levin, who himself was a mathematician and a semiotician, provides a good example of how mathematical formulas can clarify certain paradoxes in literature (the matheme of the simple structure of Borges' stories is: A:{ai|A, bs : {bi|c, cs|b}}., such as the recursive structure of the narrative, the comment-frame, the transformation of the frame, etc. At the very beginning of the article Levin recalled Borges' four devices in examining fantastic literature: 1. the text within a text; 2. the contamination of reality and dream; 3. time-travelling; 4. doppel-ganger.13 All of these devices serve to make an as if' world and they
82
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
use a double replication structure in a synchronic and in a diachronic perspectives in order to produce self-referential transformation in art. These four devices of fantastic literature were investigated in both Levin's and Lotman's observations on the device of the text within a text. Levin kept exemplifying these fantastic devices only with stories by Borges, while Lotman used examples from art in general - from Renaissance paintings (Jan van Eyck, "The Arnolfini Portrait", Velasquez, "Las Meninas", Massys, "The Moneylender and his Wife") to films and literature. The structure of these examples that produce a replica by a replica is the double coded device: "In these cases the object and its representation are so glaringly not equivalent, and the transformation of the representation in the process of replication is so obvious, that attention is naturally drawn to the mechanism whereby the replica is made, and the semiotic process becomes a conscious one rather than a spontaneous one." (1990: 55). The semiotic process can be either naïve, non-reflected and automatic, or a manifested one by the meta-levels of self-reflexivity: the mirror is inside the text.14
In "Text within a text" Lotman explained that each text has a layer structure with upper-levels, lower-levels, or units on its own level. The meta-levels are not outside the text, respectively the system, but are composite parts of self-description. They are upper-levels in a hierarchic sense, as they subordinate and organize the lower levels. Thus meta-layers describe the text from within and accomplish internal control. This procedure opens up the capacity of self-development for the system. Meta-levels are a package of metadata, i.e. the metalanguage from within (Lotman 1988: 35).
The conflict between levels is the key generator of novelty and creation, of "cultural explosions" if we are to use Lotman's favourite expression. So each code-text could be unpacked in at least two
14
An interesting fact is that practically all of the examples analyzed by Lotman and the Tartu school for the text within a text structure were also commented in Lucien Dallenbach's book Le récit spéculaire. Essai sur la mise en abyme, published in 1977 in the collection Poétique, edited by Gérard Genette and Tzvetan Todor-ov. The book examined the mirror in the text, taking as a departing point André Gide's passage from 1893 on mise en abyme (a kind of reflection and miniature replica of itself ), in which were depicted the replications within a work. Gide's examples of mise en abyme in art enumerated the typical repertoire on mirror as a self-reflexive device; and already in his text one can see listed together "Las Meninas", "Hamlet", "Wilhelm Meister", "The Fall of the House of Usher" (Dallenbach 1989.).
It is noteworthy also that the observations of
the Tartu semioticians were in fact directly relevant for what came to known as 'metafiction'. The term 'metafiction', coined by William H. Gass in 1970, describes in a sense precisely the mirror in the text as a metaphor, grasping the awareness of literature of its own fictional status. Lotman himself was attentive to the different functions of the mirror and the double replication in the non-verbal pictorial art and in literature, focusing in his analysis on Velasquez and Jan van Eyck.
83
KAMELIA SPASSOVA ► Authentic and Heterogeneous Mimesis
15
I cannot do this in the space of the present article, but it is interesting to trace also how the mirror was taken up in Bulgarian literary theory after Lotman. The main figure on the side of Bulgarian structuralism was Nikola Geor-giev, who - just like Lotman, whose works he had read from early on - undermined the Marxist sober realistic mirror with a self-reflexive one. In Nikola Georviev's writings the mirror functioned as a metaphor for homo legens in literature (don Quixote as a reader of "Don Quixote"; Hamlet as an actor in "Hamlet", etc.). The names of Miglena Nikolchina, Kleo Protohristova, and many others should also be mentioned but, also follow this shift of mirror paradigm. I will just note that it seems that in all their works, as singular and irreducible as they remain, the mirror turned out to be important as curved or crooked, producing distorted reflections.
layers - the upper and the lower - and that is the condition for the text to be a self-organised, self-regulated, and self-developed system, or to be a semiosphere. According to Lotman, every text, and not only the literary work, is an autopoietic mechanism. The text of literature, however, makes this auto-modelling capacity of the text more explicit, it exposes and illuminates this capacity. The mirror in Todor Pavlov's theory stands between literature and social reality; the mirror in Lot-man - with awareness of its genesis in Jakobson's writing - is inside the text and is a metaphor for dual codes and self-reflexive device that constructs the literary space.
heterogeneous mimesis: the background coding and kristeva's genotext
It is tempting to compare Kristeva's concept of genotext and Lotman's analysis of the structure of text within a text.15 Both are inflective and generative mechanisms; they can be observed in terms of dual codes and heterogeneity. I will examine the dual-coded structure of Lotman in the light of Kristeva's early distinction between semiotic and symbolic functions, namely between genotext and phenotext. Text, or more precisely the dual coding of a text within a text, or the genotext within a phenotext, is a notion that functions similarly in Lotman's and Kris-teva's accounts of semiotics. In the context of the 1960s, both of them explored the semiotic levels of the text in its potentiality for creation and novelty. The semiotic levels with them were no longer structures and symbols but non-revealed processes of genesis, a space of engendering. This dynamic dimension of the text was called semiosis in both Lotman's and Kristeva's writings, whereas the theoretical approach to semiosis was termed semanalysis by Kristeva.
84
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
One aspect that was pointed out by Kristeva as representative of the Tartu school is the generative and dynamic principle, which traces back the process of the production of the text (1968). It is relevant to Kristeva's own theory about the two types of texts (genotext and phenotext) or the two types of processes (semiotic and symbolic). The phenotext includes the symbolic level of the language; it includes subject-object relations and it has a communicative function. On the other hand, there is a sub-level beyond the symbolic - namely, the semiotic level, or the genotext. It includes the semiotic creative process, pre-Oedipal relations, creative drive energy, and the repetition of drive charges (Kristeva 1984). Similarly to Lotman's structure of dual codes, the genotext is a text within the text, a kind of hidden creative process, an underlying foundation of language. The genotext inputs material discontinuity in the signifying process. It is more of a process than a structure, more of an energy than an object, it is para-linguistic: "even though it can be seen in language, the genotext is not linguistic (in the sense understood by structural or generative linguistics)."(1984: 86) This is the crucial difference between Lotman's and Kristeva's understandings of text: for Lotman the text is always a semiotic phenomenon and a discursive formation that implies signs and language; for Kristeva the forming and transforming potential of the genotext is beyond language. And Kristeva gets even further in "transposing" the textual codes into dynamical and psychical terms.
The parallel trajectories between Kristeva and Lotman were recognised in Peeter Torop's article "The Problem of Intext." Torop was familiar with the French editions of Kristeva's Semeiotike and Revolution in Poetic Language. He linked the intertextuality in Kristeva (and its genesis back to Bakhtin's dialogue) and the genotext/ phenotext organization with the process of transposition. Torop claimed that
85
KAMELIA SPASSOVA ► Authentic and Heterogeneous Mimesis
Kristeva even refuses the term intertextuality and prefers the term transposition instead (35). She defined transposition in connection with Freud's dream-work and "considerations of representability (die Rücksicht auf Darstellbarkeit)." (1984: 60) Her precise definition of transposition was "the signifying process' ability to pass from one sign system to another, to exchange and permutate them [...]. In fact, this transposition as the passage from one sign system to another was pointed out by poetic mimesis - this is not a mimesis ruled by the logic of identification, sameness, and the one truth but a creative heterogeneous mimesis mastered by way of polysemy. "Mimesis, in our view, is a transgression of the thetic when truth is no longer a reference to an object that is identifiable outside the language." (1984: 58) The axis of the metaphor (condensation) and the axis of metonymy (displacement) were seen as two operators of the transformation and pluralisation of denotation. The third transformation was transposition, that is, a passage from one system to another, as it deconstructs an old stage and opens a new stage. Kristeva's description of the creative poetic mimesis was very similar to Lotman's understanding of semiosis and the exchanges between semiospheres. The process of semiosis was conceived as always transferring information from the periphery to the core of one semiosphere, between the different levels of one text, or between semiospheres. The semiosis implied a theory of heterogeneous mimesis that subverted the strict identical theory of reflections.
In Lotman's approach, the text, by definition, merged a minimum of two texts, two languages, or, in other words, it was always double-coded. The most axiomatic characteristic of a text was its internal and immanent heterogeneity. Lotman referred to the structure of the text as heterogeneous because of its dual code. Because of this the text was claimed to function as a "thinking device" which could generate
86
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
new semantics and new forms16. The text had an immanent heterogeneous structure which was self-developed and subordinated. It always coded with a dual code: one was dominant and explicit and the other was hidden and implicit, but the focus and background codes, or the dominant and local codes, could transform their positions in the process of semiosis. "A background coding, which is unconscious and consequently usually not noticed, is introduced into structured consciousness and acquires conscious significance." (Lotman 1988: 37) The 'background coding' in Lotman was a concept parallel to Kristeva's 'genotext'. There is a negative aspect in both of them - a moment of undoing, of non-meaning, of unconscious processing. Exactly such a negative side was seen as the foundation of the generative process, it was thought to be inherent to the act of creation.
The difference between Pavlov's theory of reflection and semiosis in Lotman was marked by the relationship between text and context. Lotman radically inverted the notion of context - it was not equal to the reality or the everyday world as it was in the theory of reflection. The context in the discourse of the Tartu school functioned like a text. Text and context were isomorphic; they were parallel structures framing a common paradigm. Each context included at least two perspectives; there were always interactive processes within it, between the kernel and the periphery. The more heterogeneous the context was, the more probable the event, the "cultural explosion". The novelty of Lotman's implicit mimetic theory was the substitution of the pair 'reality/fiction' for the pairs 'nucleus/periphery,' 'focus/background,' and 'homogeneous/heterogeneous.' (Cf. Grigorjeva 217-237.) Heterogeneous mimesis in literature and events in culture, from his viewpoint, were possible only when the positions, units, and elements were not at one and the same level but were hybrid, so that they continuously produced differences
16
On the creative function of language and the generic feature of literariness in the Tartu school see: (Grishakova 63).
87
KAMELIA SPASSOVA ► Authentic and Heterogeneous Mimesis
between levels. The intercourse of the maternal and foreign semiosis accelerated the process of creation. The idea of "maternal" and foreign semiosis in Lotman is close to Kristeva's own conceptualisation of semiotics. "Introduction of an alien semiosis that is untranslatable into the 'maternal' text puts the latter in a state of excitation: the object of attention shifts from the message to the language as such and reveals the explicit code heterogeneity of the code of the maternal text itself." (Lotman 1988: 40) Jakobson's notion of code was entangled here with Bakhtin's polyphonic approach, which produced a polyphony of codes transforming themselves in a process of never-ending mutual "translation" or encoding. The dialogue between maternal and foreign semiosis was understood as a transposition that generates novelty.
It is crucial that for Lotman two codes, two languages, or two texts have already been interfering in a single text. This inner fold of a redoubling structure like a text within a text reveals and illuminates the inner mechanism of automodelling. This illumination shows how the text functions by a self-referential device, drifting down and up the sub/ meta levels outlined in the pairs of 'internal/external,' 'core/periphery,' 'text/context,' 'representation/transformation,' 'unconscious/reflexive,' and 'hidden/visible'. The self-referential device illuminates exactly the conventional "nature" of an automodelling work. Even though the text is self-referential, it is not self-sufficient, i.e. it requires an external impetus or unfamiliar input to continue the work of hybridization and transformation, a process in which the formulations of a new law are established. The paradigmatic aspect of Lotman's semiotics is not closed in the structure of the work of art. On the contrary, it is open to the dynamic approach of shifts in the paradigms, crossing the boundaries between the separate semiospheres. Only by such shifts in the paradigms can new forms and new theories be observed. According to
88
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Lotman the capacity of novelty by is produced by the minor changes in the system. His theory of cultural explosions was an endeavour parallel to Kristeva's revolution of the poetic language.
In order to outline the differences between Pavlov and Lotman, I defined two types of mimesis: authentic and creative; or homogeneous and heterogeneous mimesis. The first works within the logic of identification and accurate reflection (T. Pavlov's version), the second within the process of creation and transformation (Lotman's version). Beginning during the 1960s, Lotman's conceptualization of the dual code structures elaborated a strategy of reloading the mimetic theory beyond the official discourse. Lotman and his adherents used the mirror to show the reduplication of the semiotic process, and in particular the implosive fold of the mechanism of text within a text.
Thus it is possible to say that mimetic theory was considered in a twofold manner in the Marxist and Formalist paradigm in the Eastern Block. But, as I demonstrated in this paper, there were turbulent clashes in both paradigms. Adorno and Pavlov had different type of mirrors and mimetic practices in mind, and the same can be said of the case with Adorno and Lukacs. The most rigid and the most influential theory in the Eastern Bloc was Pavlov's theory of reflection, which insisted on an authentic mimesis. Lotman with the idea of 'dual codes' and Kristeva with the notion of 'genotext' approached the heterogeneous mimesis relying both on the poetic function in Jakobson and on Bakhtin's het-eroglossia. Their resistant theoretical practice used the 'legitimate instrument' of the mirror, they just multiplied the layers: and instead of reflection of the outer space in the inner space of fiction, the device was revealed to serve as a self-reflexive function within the work of art, making it - despite all institutional attempts for its subjugation -autonomous precisely because it is heterogeneous. $
89
KAMELIA SPASSOVA ► Authentic and Heterogeneous Mimesis
References
AEBHH, ro. H., 1981: noBecTBOBaTe^BHaa CTpyKTypa KaK reHepaTop CMBic.a: TeKCT b TeKCTe y X.^.Eopxeca. Peg. W. ^OTMaH. Tpydbi no 3HaxoeuM cucmeMaM- En^Eiurm^ XIV, eunycx 567. TapTy: H3gaTe^BCTBOM TapTycKoro yHMBepcMTeTa, 14. 45-64. AEBHH, ro. H., 1988: 3epKa^O KaK ^OTeH^Ma.^BHBIM CeMMoTMHeCKMM oöteKT. Peg. W. ^oTMaH. Tpydbi no 3HaxoeuM cucmeMaM -En^Eiurm^ XXII, BBinycK 831, TapTy: H3gaTe.BCTBOM TapTycKoro yHMBepcMTeTa, 22. 6-24. TOPOn, n. x., 1981: npoö.eMa MHTeKCTa. Peg. W. .floTMaH Tpydbi no 3HaxoeuM cucmeMaM- En^Eiurm^ XIV, eunycx 567. TapTy: H3gaTe.BCTBoM TapTycKoro yHMBepcMTeTa, 14. 33-44. Adorno, Theodor, 1993 (1963): Hegel: Three Studies. Trans. Shierry
Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. adorno, theodor w., and max horkheimer, 2002: Dialectic of Enlightenment. Dirans. Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press. borges, jorge luis, 1961 (1940): Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius. Trans.
James E. Irby. New World Writing, April, No. 18. dällenbach, lucien, 1989: The Mirror in the Text. Trans. Jeremy
Whiteley and Emma Hughes. University of Chicago Press. grigorjeva, jelena, 2003: Lotman on Mimesis. Sign Systems
Studies 1. 217-237. grishakova, marina, 2008: Literariness, Fictionality, and the Theory of Possible Worlds. Ed. Lars-Äke Skalin. Narrativity, Fictionality, and Literariness: the Narrative Turn and the Study of Literary Fiction. Örebro: Örebro University Press. 57-76.
90
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
finke, Michael c, 1995: Metapoesis: the Russian tradition from
Pushkin to Chekhov. Durham: Duke University Press. jakobson, roman, 1987: "On Realism in Art". Language in Literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [first published in: Jakobson, Roman, 1921: 'O realismu v umeni'. Cerven, 4. 300-304.] jameson, fredric, 2013: The antinomies of Realism. London: Verso Books.
herman, luc, 1996: Roman Jakobson: Concepts of realism. Columbia,
SC: Camden House. 50-60. kiossev, alexander, 2004: Heritage and inheritors: The literary canon in totalitarian Bulgaria. Ed. Marcel Cornis-Pope and John Neubauer. History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe: Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 132-141. kristeva, julia, 1968: Linguistique et sémiologie aujourd'hui en
U.R.S.S. Tel Quel 35. 3-8. kristeva, julia, 1984: Breaching the Thetic: Mimesis. Genotext and Phenotext. Revolution in Poetic Language. Trans. Margaret Waller. Foreword Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press. kolarov, radosvet, 2009: Povtorenie i satvorenie. Poetika na avtotekstualnostta [Repetition and Creation. Poetics of Autotextuality], Sofia: Prosveta. lee, taek-gwang, 2004: The Politics of Realism. Lukâcs and
Reflection Theory. The Ana Chronist, 10. 61-79. lenin, vladimir ilyich, 1908: Leo Tolstoy as the Mirror of the Russian Revolution. Proletary No. 35, September 11 (24); [also in Lenin, 1973: Collected Works, Vol. XV, Moscow: Progress.] [https:// www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/sep/11.htm]
91
KAMELIA SPASSOVA ► Authentic and Heterogeneous Mimesis
lotman, Yuri, 1988: "Text within a Text", Soviet Psychology 26. 32-51. [Translation of ^OTMaH, föpuM, 1981: TeKCT b TeKCTe. Peg. K>. ^OTMaH. Tpydbi no 3HaKoeuM cucmeMaM-Zy^ziwrmq XIV, eunycx 567. TapTy: H3gaTe.bCTBOM TapTycKoro yHMBepcMTeTa, 14. 3-18.] lotman, yuri, 1990: Iconic rhetoric. Universe of the Mind. A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Trans. Ann Shukman. Introduction by U. Eco. London / New York: I. B. Tauris. 54-62. lukacs, georg, 1980: Essays on realism. Trans and Rodney
Livingstone. London: Lawrence and Wishart. mareeva, elena, 2016: Lifshitz' Ontognoseology as a Version of Lenin's Theory of Reflection. Studies in East European Thought, 68. 295-305.
marx, karl, 1976: Capital: a Critique of Political Economy, vol 1.
Trans. Ben Fowkes. London: Penguin. marx, karl, 1968: Nachwort zur zweiten Auflage. Das Kapital,
Werke, Band 23, Bd. Berlin: Dietz Verlag. 18-28. magun, artemy, 2013: Negativity (Dis)embodied: Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe and Theodor W. Adorno on Mimesis. New German Critique, 40. 119-148. nikolchina, miglena, 2013: Lost Unicorns of the Velvet Revolution.
New York: Fordham University Press. pavlov, todor, 1945: Teoriya na otrazhenieto: Osnovni vuprosi na dialektichesko-materialisticheskata teoriya na poznanieto [Theory of Reflection. Basic Problems of the Dialectical and the Materialistic Theory of Knowledge]. Sofia: Narizdat. pavlov, todor, 1970: Theory of Reflection. Basic Problems of the Dialectical and the Materialistic Theory of Knowledge (Fragments). The Philosophy of Todor Pavlov. Sofia: Sofia Press.
92
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
HUBER, WERNER, MARTIN MIDDEKE, AND HUBERT ZAPF (eds),
2005: Self-reflexivity in Literature. Text & Theorie Band 6. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2005. SHKLOVSKY, victor, 1991: Art as Device. Theory of Prose. Trans.
Benjamin Sher. Elmwood Park: Dalkey Archive. 1-14. Stendhal, 2015 (1830): The Red and the Black. A Chronicle of the Nineteenth Century. Trans. K. Scott Moncrieff. Ware: Wordsworth Editions. TiHANOv, galin, 2000: The Master and the Slave: Lukacs, Bakhtin and
the Ideas of their Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press. TiHANOv, galin, 2005: The politics of estrangement: The case of the
early Shklovsky. Poetics Today 26, 4. 665-696. TiHANOv, galin, 2015: Aktualnostta na ruskia formalizam [The Actuality of Russian Formalism]. Literaturen vestnik 31. 1, 9-12.
93
KAMELIA SPASSOVA ► Authentic and Heterogeneous Mimesis
Pe3MMe
Or.ega.OTO e .uTeparypoBegcKa MeTa^opa b paMKUTe Ha MapKeueT-KUTe U ^OpMa.UCTKU nOflXOflM, npe3 KOaTO KpUCTa.U3UpaT npOTM-BopeHUBu koh^^mm 3a .uTeparypa c or.eg Ha MUMeTUHHara M geMHOCT. Ot egHa CTpaHa e BapHOTO pea.HCTUHHOTO or.egano Ha CreH-ga. (aBTeHTUHeH MUMecuc), a ot gpyra e ^aHTacruHHOTO oraega.o Ha EOpxec, KOeTO BUHaru pa3MHO^aBa, pa3KpuBaBa u pa3n.acraBa (xeTepOreHeH MUMecuc). Te3u MeTa^opu uMaT ugeo.oruHecKu $oh, KOMTO e CBBp3aH c nogHOBaBam,ua ce ge6aT Me^gy aHTaroHHCTHHHHTe napagurMu Ha MapKCU3Ma u <£opMa.u3Ma BBpxy BBnpOCUTe: m,o e pe-a.u3BM B H3KycTBOTO u KaKBO TOHHO npegcraB.aBa .HTepaTypHOCTTa.
^OrMaTUHHaTa MapKCucrKO-.eHUHCKa ecTeTUKa b .u^to Ha TOgOp naB.OB Ha.ara KjumeTO 3a .uTeparypara KaTO OTpa^eHue Ha geMCTBUTe.HOCTTa, c KOeTO 3a.ara Ha OTHOmeHue Ha ugeHTu-^uKa^ua u aBTeHTUHHOCT Me^gy eMnupuHHua CBaT u TBop6aTa. Teopua Ha OTpa^eHueTO e aHTH.HHrBMCTMHHa Teopua, Ta paguKa.HO u3K.roHBa "HOCUTe.a" Ha npOU3BegeHueTO. TpaHC^opMa^uaTa Ha nogo6eH aBTeHTUHeH MUMecuc Mo®e ga ce OTKpue b pa6oTUTe Ha ^OTMaH u KpBCTeBa BBpxy pa3n.acTaBaHeTO Ha e3UKOBUTe paBHu-rn,a. npu Tax or.ega.Hara MeTa^opa CTaBa k.mh 3a o6o3HanaBaHe Ha gBOMHu CTpyKTypu, Me^gyreKCTOBu npoHUTu u BBo6m,e o^opMa egHa caMope^.eKCuBHaTa KOHu,enu,ua 3a TBopnecTBOTO KaTO npou.ec Ha caMOor.e^gaHe u caMOHanpaBa.
TaKa MUMeTUHHUTe Teopuu b H3TOHHua 6.ok Tuno.oruHHO MoraT ga 6BgaT pa3ge.eHu Ha gBa Tuna: aBTeHTUHeH u xeTeporeHeH MUMe-cuc, ho Te ga.eH He noKpuBaT ge.eHeTO MapKCu3BM/ $opMa.u3BM. B CTaTuaTa cbm ce onuTa.a ga noKa^a, He KapTHHaTa e no-c.o»Ha. TaKa HanpuMep b paMKHTe Ha MapKCHCTKHTe Teopuu, AgopHO KaTeropuHHO
94
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
3acTaBa Ha crpaHaTa Ha HeaBTeHTuHHua HeraTuBeH MuMecuc, um-n,nuu,uTH0 KpuTuKyBaMKu Teopua Ha 0Tpa»eHueT0 Ha naB^OB u eK-c^^M^MTH0 TeopuaTa Ha poMaHa Ha ^yKan. ^pyro u3MecTBaHe Ha Teopua Ha 0Tpa»eHueT0 ugBa ot MapKcucTKaTa Teopua BBpxy e3uKa u Teopua Ha npenynBaHeTO Ha KpBra BaxruH.
ÄOTMan u neroBKTe c^MHmaeHH^M K3no.n3BaT oraega^nuTe e^eK-tu, 3a ga noKa^aT KaK 4>yHKu,uoHupaT gBOMHuTe KogoBe u ygBoaBa-neTO Ha ceMuoTunnua npon.ec npe3 0C06en0T0 uMn,no3uBno BrBBaHe Ha TBop6aTa ot Tuna Ha TeKcr b TeKcTa. KpBcTeBa b PeBO.nrou,uaTa b noeTunecKwa e3uK 3acara MuMeTuHHaTa geMHocr npe3 ono3uH,uaTa ^eHOTeKcr/reHOTeKcr, KoaTO e Ha ^puH^u^a Ha pa3nogo6aBaHeTO Me^gy cuMB0.nuHH0/ceMu0TuHH0. B T03u cmucb,h reHOTeKcTBT e noBene npou.ec, otko^koto e3uK. ToM e cKpuT TBopnecKu npeo6pa3yBa-Te^, KOMTO u3no^3Ba npou,egypuTe Ha ge$opMau,ua Ha MeTa^opaTa u MeTOHuMuaTa (no Hko6coh) u Ha TpaHcno3uu,uaTa (no BaxTuH). H KpBcTeBa, u .HoTMaH OTKpuTO 3aaBaBaT, He b ocHOBaTa Ha TeopuuTe um e cMecBaHe Ha noeranecKaTa ^ynKnua Ha Hko6coh c gua^ru^ua ^pMH^M^ Ha BaxTuH. TaKa Te 0Ka3BaT uM^^u^uTHa cBnpoTuBa Ha Teopua Ha OTpa»eHueTO, u3no.n3BaMKu co6cTBeHua My TeopeTuneH uHcTpyMeHT - or^ega^OTO - 3a guaMeTpa^HO paanuneH nogxog kbm ^uTepaTypHaTa TBop6a. ABTeHTuHHuaT MuMecuc u3no^3Ba pea^u-ctuhhoto oraega.no Ha CTeHga^, goKaTO xeTeporeHHuaT MuMecuc -oraega^OTO Ha Bopxec, KoeTO ynoTpe6aBa KaTO caMope^^eKcuBeH noxBaT, KOMTO ga 6e^e»u HOBaTopcTBOTO u caMOHanpaBaTa Ha xygo-»ecTBeHaTa TBop6a.
95
KAMELIA SPASSOVA ► Authentic and Heterogeneous Mimesis
Kamelia Spassova
Kamelia Spassova is an assistant professor at the Literary Theory Department at the University of Sofia and a lecturer at the Slavic Institute, University of Cologne. She has published in Bulgaria a book on the poetics of example: Event and Example in Plato and Aristotle (2012), which deals with the tension between literary examples and theoretical discourses. She is working on the project of the transformations of the concept of mimesis in XX.
96
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
97
DOI - 10.13137/2283-5482/22384
Exotopy: Mikhail Bakhtin and Jacques Lacan on the Outside Context of Discourse
3K30T0nH£: Mnxan^ BQXTHH h KaK ^aKaH 0 BHemHeM KOHTeKCTe gncKypca
$ maria kalinova - maria.kalinova@slav.uni-sofia.bg
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 
The present text treats the concept of exotopy in Bakhtin and Lacan, explicating the direction and the possible indices for comparison between post-Marxism and Psychoanalysis. The general idea is not to seek a new causative element - the unconscious in place of economics, although this problem cannot be overlooked in view of contemporary debates - but rather to trace the logic of outsidedness of truth and knowledge: the concept of desire in Eastern and Western theory constitutes an immanent (real) outside, which cannot be subsumed into Aufhebung or any higher level of unity. Both Bakhtin (1895-1975) and Lacan (1901-1981), without having met each other, belonging in one and the same generation and facing different conceptual challenges and problems, work in a condition of unique philosophical 'likelihood' on the subject of the human being's ex-centricity - the secret of the human being, its innermost intimacy, is located outside itself.
OUTSIDEDNESS, EXOTOPY, REFRACTION, OUTSIDE-STANDING, IDEOLOGEME, EXTIMACY, INTERMEDIATION
(2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
TeKCT nocBam;eH ^K3OTO^MM BaXTMHa u HaKaHa, noKa3MBaa HanpaB.eHue M BO3MO^HLie MHfleKCLI cpaBHeHMA Me^gy nocTMapKcu3MOM u ncuXoaHa-.M3OM. Hgea He b tom, hto6li ucKaTB HOBLIM npMHMHHHM afleMeHT - 6eCC03-HaTe^BHOe BMeCTO ^KOHOMMKH, XOTA ^TOT Bonpoc He.B3fl MrHOpupOBaTB c yneTOM coBpeMeHHLX gucKyccuu, a 3aKawnaeTCfl b tom, hto6li npoc.e-gMTB .OrMKy BHeHaXOflMMOCTM MCTM-HLI M 3HaHMA, cTpeM.eHMe BOcTOHHOM u 3anagHOM Teopuu KOHcrpyupoBaTB MMMaHeHTHoe (pea^BHoe) BHemHee, KOTopoe He.KB3fl yga.MTB B Aufhebung M.M Ha 6o.ee blicokmm ypoBeHB eguH-CTBa. 3gecB u BaXTMH, u HaKaH - He BCTpeTMBmMCB HMKorga, npuHagae-^am;ue noHTM k ogHOMy noKO.e-hmk (BaxrMH ^m. c 1895 no 1975 r., HaKaH - c 1901 no 1981 r.) u, HecMOTpa Ha pa3HLe MticoBHtie TpygHocru u npo6.eMH, KOTOpLIM OHM nocBam;a-mt cBoe BpeMA b noucKax OTBeTa - b ygMBMTeflBHLiX «OKpecTHOcTAX» MHMM pa3BMBaWT TeMy, HTO He.OBeK ABflfleTca ^KC-^eHTpMHHHM u ero ^eHTp HaXogMTca cHapy^u. CeKpeT He.OBeKa, ero ray6oKaa mhtmmhoctb, cKptrra cHapy^u.
BHEHAXOflHMOCTb, ^K30TO^Ha, nPE^OM^EHHE, ^KC-CHCTEH^Ha, HflEO-HOrEMA, ^KCTHMHOCTb, ME»flHHHOCTb
99
MARIA KALINOVA ► Exotopy: Mikhail Bakhtin and Jacques Lacan
The present study compares the exotopy theories of two of the most prominent thinkers of the 20th century - Mikhail Bakhtin and Jacques Lacan, both of whom belong to different intellectual traditions (Bakhtin's semiotics is greatly indebted to Marx, Neo-Kantianism, Lebensphilosophie, but also to folklore; Lacan's psychoanalysis is faithful to Sigmund Freud's and concordant with the structuralism of Saussure, Lévi-Strauss, Jacobson, as well as with French Heideggerianism and the Neo-Hegeli-anism of Alexander Kojève). In many respects both schools - Bakhtin's circle and Lacanian psychoanalysis - are parallel in their conceptual movements, assuming critical stances in relation to dominant discourses, Soviet totalitarianism and Western capitalism respectively. In both cases the criticism is directed against the constitution of truth as a dominant category, against its tautological enclosure and against the denial of the subject's ability to construct his or her own autonomous meaning.
If we are to trace shared influences in the course of history, they would be related to the theoretical tendency, advancing Kierkegaard's polemical attitude towards Hegel and the shift in the dominant position of the cognitive subject at the expense of the object's subjectivization. With Bakhtin and Lacan alike, monumentality of speech is split up by the Other, who is not merely the listener in a communicative situation, but someone believed to be able to commune with us through the medium of one's outsidedness. According to Bakhtin, human consciousness attains maturity by mastering the virtue of dialogism, while Lacan defines human unconscious as the discourse of the Other. The communication model of intersubjectivity with both thinkers is an attempt to indicate the topos of the social relation, realized through transformation of the outside context of the discourse. According to Bakhtin, the outside context is connected to the concept of outsidedness; for Lacan this would relate to ex-sistence as outside-standing.
100
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
In relation to method, both authors attribute to art and literature the status of via regia when tackling the problem of reality's hybrid nature. For Bakhtin literature becomes refraction of the world which has come undone with the emergence of language. For Lacan literary fiction, apart from its employment in the practice of interpreting works of art in defense of psychoanalytical propositions, is associated with the functioning of the signifying chain and refers to the constitution of truth as the truth has the structure of fiction (Tenev 2012: 250-251).
The basic theoretical differences between the two schools are related in their respective references to Saussure's linguistics and Freud's psychoanalysis. Language according to M. Bakhtin, V. N. Voloshinov, P. Medvedev is an ongoing process of becoming and practically there exists no actual moment in time, - as Saussure suggests - in relation to which the synchronic system of language can be structured. The sign can only come about on an 'international territory' i.e. it is a necessary condition that individual consciousnesses are socially organized and that individuals inhabit a certain community. On the other hand, an individual consciousness related to answerability not only cannot explain or understand a certain something but, on the contrary, is in need to be furnished with an explanation by the social ideology (Voloshinov 1973: 12). Lacan, as well as Laplanche and Lecercle after him, employs spatial graphics in relation to the signifier/signified pair, differing from Saussure's presentations in that the signifier is composed of a multi-level metaphoric chain, while the demarcating line between signifier and signified demonstrates a peculiar value of its own, nowhere to be found in Saussure. With Lacan the signifier and the signified exist in a relationship of variability and become fixed (coincide) only at particular points of communication, the line between them comprising the repression of the signified (Barthes 1967: 49).
101
MARIA KALINOVA ► Exotopy: Mikhail Bakhtin and Jacques Lacan
In 1927 under the authorship of Voloshinov is published the short critical article 'Freudianism' (Voloshinov 1976), treating the unconscious as an aspect of consciousness - it is the 'unofficial conscious' - linguistic in nature - which comes into opposition with the 'official conscious' (Bruss, Titunik 1976: vii). It is believed that Voloshinov exerts a direct influence on the structuralist studies of the Prague Linguistic Circle, an influence which in turn affects the works of Lacan through the studies of Roman Jacobson and Claude Lévi-Strauss (Wilden 1980: 1-30, 31-62). If possible, although within certain limits, such an influence of Bakhtin's circle on Lacan's ideas should refer to the Marxist philosophy of language, rather than to the critique of Freud. Despite the French translation of 'Freudianism', published in Switzerland, the book remained overlooked in France due to situational reasons (Lecercle 2006: 116).
Despite the lack of explicit dialogism between Bakhtin and Lacan, belonging in one and the same generation, and the different conceptual challenges and problems, to which they devote their time in search of answers, the points of proximity between them confirm Koyré's observations on the complexity and unpredictability in the history of ideas: 'We must not forget, moreover, that "influence" is not a simple, but on the contrary, a very complex, bilateral relation.' (Koyré 1957: 5). In a state of unique conceptual 'likelihood' the two thinkers work on the subject of the human being's ex-centricity - the secret of the human being, its innermost intimacy, is located outside itself.
Although working with different concepts and enduring the effects of different political coercions, both Bakhtin and Lacan think that the unconscious has an exotopic character. They approach the problem of the 'outside' by dissociating it from the naïve realism (in the form of socialist realism or as a return to 'positive' or 'empirical' narratives on
102
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
consciousness, behavior and sexuality). Both scholars invest an ambivalent meaning into their notions of exotopy - at once outsidedness and lack. According to both, exotopy refers to the opposite of positive reality, to an outside context, which is not simply located on the exterior of a surface or structure, but also in the sense of functioning as a lack in relation to it.
cultural exotopy, ideologeme, extimacy
In his article from the early 1924 'The Problem of Content, Material, and Form in Verbal Art' Bakhtin points out that culture should not be understood as a spatial totality with an inner territory of its own: 'A cultural domain has no inner territory' (Bakhtin 1990: 274). Culture is entirely situated upon boundaries, it is a boundary in itself - composed and refracted by other boundaries. They traverse creative activities transversely, so they cover all their composite characteristics. Bakhtin compares the boundary with a ray of sunlight, refracted in every drop of cultural life. In his last text 'Response to a Question by the Novyi mir Editorial Staff' from 1970 Bakhtin discusses the relationship between one's own society and the foreign culture, again insisting that in order to delve deeper into one's own culture, one has to cross its boundaries. Only through the eye of the Outsider or the Foreigner can one comprehend one's own culture (Bakhtin 1986: 1-10). The notion of culture composed of similar elements (actually each separate element can be refracted into or constitute a boundary for another) is related to the theory of refraction (Rus. npenoMnenue [prelomlenie]) worked out by Bakhtin's circle of scholars. This theory is an objection against the former formal-structural proposition, which radically constrains the work of art into a kind of inner space, having no relation to the outside
103
MARIA KALINOVA ► Exotopy: Mikhail Bakhtin and Jacques Lacan
context, as well as against the theory of reflection, which proposes a mechanical and objective representation of the outside context. The refraction theory poses the problem of the more complex dynamics (dialogue) between the inner and the outer space of the work of art, of the possibility for the 'outside' to invade and transform literary phenomena on the level of their minimal units.
In Lacan's works the problem of traversing the outer space is often illustrated with topology figures - Möbius strip, Klein bottle, torus. Employing topological figures, he provides solutions for different problems: the Möbius strip represents the exteriority of the object a, preceding the negation non-I/I, outside/inside; Klein's bottle describes the relation between the master-signifier and the Other; the torus represents the relation between demand and desire. Those are two-or three-dimensional figures which disrupt the traditional Euclidean representation of space - they represent the way in which psychoanalysis problematizes binary oppositions such as outside/inside, social/ natural, real/fictional. With the Möbius strip and Klein's bottle we cannot affirm which point is on the inside and which one on the outside, nor can we say at which particular moment one moves from the inside outwards (or vice versa), any localization becomes impossible. In his tenth seminar on anxiety Lacan shows how a remainder of the cross-cap figure has the form of a Möbius strip. If an ant is crawling on one of its visible sides - by virtue of their identical character - it shall move on to its opposite side without having to traverse the edge of the strip. In a similar way the vase from Bouasse's famous experiment can only become, in Lacan's version, a one-sided surface, its outer and inner side being caught up into one and the same continuity: 'From then on, the whole vase becomes a Möbius strip because an ant walking on the outside comes onto the inside without any difficulty at all.
104
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
The specular image becomes the uncanny and invasive image of the double.' (Lacan 2014: 97)
Both Bakhtin and Lacan show how each of the dichotomous terms inside/outside can 'transition' into one another. Although such a process may seem dialectical (interpretation of Hegel's master/slave dialectics is of key significance in the approach of both authors), here the crucial point is not the mutual transformation of opposites, but rather the formulation of an 'outside' which is immanently postulated. Exotopy actually assumes the status of intermediation and represents an attempt to conceptualize the 'outside' as traversing, transitioning, continuity between two discourses. Working out the details of overcoming theoretically the inside/outside dichotomy, Bakhtin and Lacan introduce various neologisms, which make the demarcating line between them grow thinner. Bakhtin's circle comes up with the neologism 'ideologeme', while Lacan coins the term 'extimacy'.
The history of the 'ideologeme' neologism can be traced back from its coinage during the 1930s in Voloshinov's monographic study 'Marxism and Philosophy of Language' (1930) up to its 'resuscitation' in the context of French humanities after 1968, related to Julia Kristeva's work on the concept of dialogism. Her conception of the ideologeme preceded her theory of intertextuality - the ideologeme of the sign displaces the symbol, representing that which has not yet, but will or may come to pass, setting the modes of an infinite variety of future transformations (Kristeva 1969: 71).
Voloshinov introduces the concept of 'ideologeme', formulating it as a regulator between authorial intentions (inner context) and ideology (outer context). The ideologeme is ambiguous and immaterial, incomplete thought, the trace of the outer context, of that which is in the air, a sort of Zeitgeist, functioning on a micro-individual level.
105
MARIA KALINOVA ► Exotopy: Mikhail Bakhtin and Jacques Lacan
Voloshinov makes a distinction between immaterial ideologeme and ideology that possesses form, structure and solidity. According to him 'The ideologeme is a vague entity at that stage of its inner development when it is not yet embodied in outer ideological material; it can acquire definition, differentiation, fixity only in the process of ideological embodiment' (Voloshinov 1973: 33). According to Bakhtin an example of a speech that is similarly incomplete and unfolding 'in the midst' of the dialogue is the speech of human self-definition. The self, defining itself by way of 'Who am I?' and 'With whom am I?' is a moment of opening up of speech, in order that the possibility for the emergence of an ever new meaning is preserved. The very opening up presupposes that what exists on the outside participates in the constitution of one's identity (Bakhtin 1984: 233).
The concept of extimacy is introduced by Lacan at the seminar on February 10, 1960, and defined by him as follows: 'What we described as the central place, as the intimate exteriority or extimacy, that is the Thing.' (Lacan: 1992, 139). The neologism is derived from the oxymoron intimate exterior - through the desire of the Other the secret is exteriorized. It is namely the Mobius strip that can demonstrate the paradox of extimacy: the real is all at once exterior to the symbolic and central to it in the sense of exception ('excluded in the interior'). If we favor a distinction between the uncanny (das Unheimliche) and the extimate (extimite), then in Lacan's terms the uncanny would belong to the domain of the imaginary, while the extimate - to that of the real. Speaking in spatial terms, in contrast to the extimate, determined by the coinciding of inside and outside, das Unheimliche seems to have the effect of coinciding distant and close: a threatening approach of something we have kept at a distance (Spassova 2017: 134-161).
106
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
In City Lights, one of Chaplin's masterpieces made at the time when Warner Bros. created the first sound-track series, we find an illustration of Lacan's extimacy (Žižek 2006). Chaplin chooses to demonstrate sound severed from speech, to focus the attention onto its materiality and blur the distinction between what lies outside the body and what resides within it. His character 'The Tramp' swallows a whistle and starts hiccupping, each hiccup resulting in a whistling sound emission from the inside of his body. By virtue of the fictional framework this extimacy produces a comic effect in the audience, while the character himself burns with shame since what is constitutionally excluded from the interior becomes an exterior, a haunting sound. With extimacy we have the illusion that something screened becomes visible, while in fact the concept refers to a structural exception which serves to displace the lack.
Should we choose to look for another example from Chaplin's oeuvre that would illustrate Bakhtin's ideologeme then it seems that the most adequate one can be found in his autobiography, particularly in the account of how the image of the Tramp came to be invented. In My Autobiography Chaplin recounts that during the shooting of Kid Auto Races in Venice Mack Sennett told him to make himself up as a comedian and put on whatever he fancied. On his way to the check-room, having no idea of the image he was after, Chaplin decided to huddle on a pair of loose and baggy pants, put a bowler on his head and pick up a small cane. The only thing he had been after was the discrepancy - between the baggy pants and the tight jacket, between the small bowler and the oversized shoes, between the moustache of an adult and the expression of a youth in his twenties. The make-up and the costume gave rise to the character and his image emerged on the scene - The Tramp became alive. Those behind the camera started laughing, a crowd gathered,
107
MARIA KALINOVA ► Exotopy: Mikhail Bakhtin and Jacques Lacan
composed not only by the rest of the actors but also by various laborers, woodworkers, check-room keepers etc. (Chaplin 1964: 154). The episode of the actor, discovering his peculiar fictional persona, approximates Bakhtin's idea of the creation of the hero - moving from the make-up and the costume toward the character proper. In such a way the face is born out of the mask (the persona), while consciousness becomes a product of the social role. Human self-definition proceeds from the inside outward.
Both examples from Chaplin's actor's experience, although describing to a certain extent the traversing of the outside and inside contexts in Bakhtin and Lacan, manifest a flaw by creating the impression that extimacy and the ideologeme comprise a 'risk-free', controllable and indestructible outsidedness. What remains insufficiently emphasized is that, in order to evade the threat forewarned of by both authors, a particular structural presence of a lack or an exclusion from the domain of the Other should be preserved. In the case of City Lights the conventionality of comedy refers to its opposite - the extimate - nonetheless preserving the divide (non-coincidence) between reality and madness. The ideologeme in turn possesses a transformative and revolutionary force by virtue of its incompleteness. This incompleteness (non-sublimation) of negation is a condition of it not becoming a 'fossilized' construct. Should it attain its complete embodiment without reserve, it transforms into a slogan, an ossified mark of totalizing ideologies, a dead-end for dialogism.
to step outside
In Bakhtin's philosophical anthropology the notions of autonomy and completeness of the human body are generated by an illusion, similarly
108
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
to Lacan's 'mirror stage' where the I's visual field registers missing 'pieces' of 'my' body. At any given time exterior contexts of the human being and its self-likes (Lacan will term the human self-like objet petit a - object little a) do not coincide - there is always something inaccessible to vision and consciousness, something strictly subjective, yet belonging in the context of the other who is outside and in front of myself. The head, the face and its particular expression - mostly the world behind our own back - are accessible only as a reflection in others (Bakhtin: 1990, 23). The concept of 'context' in Bakhtin's early aesthetics is understood through the term krugozor (field of vision, literally circumvision; Rus. Kpy^o3op), the outside context being the krugozor in the world of values, a spatial form, traversed and refracted by the perspective of others. Similarly, in Lost Unicorns of the Velvet Revolutions Miglena Nikolchina interprets the Bulgarian neologism obzhivyavam ('living about and around'), seeking to clarify the mysterious moment in theoretical exchange as a kind of drawing on of the unknown (the outside) towards the known (the familiar). The prefix ob- presupposes an emptiness, a possibility of accepting in your krugozor foreign life and speech in a way that what is foreign never assumes the status of absolute takeover and 'possession' of the individual interior (Nikolchina: 2013, 38). Bakhtin's context is organized around the constant presence of such a lack - the center of dialogism is situated on the outside, on the side of others. The concept of lack is interpreted as remainder, as insufficiency, as something which is 'nowhere' for the personal horizon to attain completeness - hence, in Bakhtin's view, the 'lack' and the 'excess' of seeing conceptually coincide. In his treatment lack and excess come as a surplus and at the same time as something lesser in relation to the outside context, they constitute its disproportionateness, irremediability and excessiveness. The lack-excess of the subject in the
109
MARIA KALINOVA ► Exotopy: Mikhail Bakhtin and Jacques Lacan
dialogue characterizes its 'outsidedness': 'Cognition surmounts this concrete outsideness of me myself and the outsideness-for-me of all other human beings, as well as the excess of my seeing in relation to each one of them, which is founded in that position of outsideness." (Bakhtin: 1990, 23).
Lacan, on his part, introduces the neologism ex-sistence, outside-standing, in order to demonstrate that the center of human being is radically exteior, other, outer, while the subject of the unconscious is decentered and ex-centric. The new term from the Seminar on 'The Purloined Letter' is introduced on condition that outsidedness is correlative to compulsive repetition (Wiederholungszwang), the principle of which is organized in accordance with the insistence of the signifying chain (Lacan, 2006: 6). Lacan borrows Heidegger's term ex-sistence as in French translations of 'Being and Time' 'ex-sistence' renders the Old Greek eKaramq and the German Ekstase (Fink: 1995, 122). The ancient meaning of the word is usually employed in the sense of 'being or standing outside oneself', 'being displaced'. Heidegger aims at splicing different nuances of meaning into the term: from the derivatives of the Old Greek 'to stand outside', 'to step outside', 'to be into the open' to a search for the associative relation with the lexical base of the word 'existence'. Without rejecting the nuances, already introduced in the course of history from Plotinus through Meister Eckhart and Saint Teresa of Ávila to Heidegger, Lacan employs the term with a view to point to the place of the subject in the unconscious. At the same time he points out that something is lacking on the inside but demanding on the outside. Such an exotopic positioning of the subject alludes to a type of recurring context or to the existence of an outside which recurs. Túxn is on the one hand sought for, and on the other - 'banished' outside the functioning as avró^arov 'network of signifiers' (Vidinsky: 2017, 91).
110
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
According to Jean-Jacques Lecercle such a shift in the position of the unconscious - not as something deeply concealed but as a surface - can be traced already in the Marxist critique of Voloshinov's 'Freudianism'. According to the latter, what Freud calls 'unconscious' is to him an internalization of the outer social dialogue (ideology), while the transference between analysant and analyst is a social interaction related to the linguistic agon, and, ultimately, a speech genre (Lecercle: 2006, 107). The result of matching Lacan's subject of the unconscious with Bakhtin's concept of ideology - in the present case, not as a set of ideas but as a set of signs, comprising the arena of class struggle and forming the contents of the unconscious - would allow us to think ideology as a space, constantly re-accentuated and polyphonically displaced by the activity of subjects. Also, the ideology, moving behind one's invisible back in order to fill in the missing materiality of our krugozor of values, will make use of us as its own distorting mask, its excess.
According to Harold D. Baker, Bakhtin and Lacan exhibit specifics which prevent the ultimate splicing of their respective notions of discourse. For Bakhtin the discourse is dialogically articulated, it is always a historically concrete sequence of utterances, while for Lacan 'the signifying chain' is an imaginary construct in the unconscious, traversing the axis of the utterance at each and every one of its points (Baker: 1995, 502). Where Bakhtin will insist on diachronic relations, Lacan will refer to linguistic synchrony. Bakhtin sticks to the sound (intonation), Lacan subtly points towards the letter (writing).
Although approaching intersubjectivity from different perspectives, both Bakhtin and Lacan pose the problem of the outside of truth and knowledge. It is precisely in the mode of outsidedness that truth and knowledge could have the chance of being explicitly formulated and clarified. Presently, theoretical thought is deeply concerned with
111
MARIA KALINOVA ► Exotopy: Mikhail Bakhtin and Jacques Lacan
the problem of truth and knowledge that seem to shed their specific 'outside' status and become engulfed by economics as its last remaining refuge of outsidedness (Habjan: 2011, 73-74). The market is perceived as a natural context, as a whole new Nature, as the only factor capable of imparting significance to values. In a broader context or, as Bakhtin himself might put it, within the scope of 'Great Time', we ought to persistently pose the question what would happen should we do away with the concept of subjective oscillation and the human being loses the ability to displace or step outside itself. $
112
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
References
baker, Harold d., 1995: Psychoanalisys and Ideology. Bakhtin, Lacan, and Žižek. History of European Ideas 20, 1-3. 499-504. bakhtin, mikhail, 1984: Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. Trans.
Caryl Emerson. London: University of Minnesota. bakhtin, mikhail, 1986: Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Trans.
Vern W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas Press. bakhtin, mikhail, 1990: Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical
Essays. Trans. Vadim Liapunov. Austin: University of Texas Press. barthes, roland, 1967: Elements of Semiology. Trans. Annette
Layers and Colin Smith. New York: Hill and Wang. bruss, neal, titunik, i. r., 1976: Preface. Freudianism: A Marxist Critique. By V. N. Volosinov. New York: Academic Press. vii-xiv. chaplin, Charles, 1964: My Autobiography. New York:
Penguin Classics. habjan, jernej, 2011: The Vicissitudes of the University Discourse: on Ducrot's Formalization of Bakhtinian Polyphony. Sociological Problems 3-4. 65-79. kalinova, maria, 2017: The Human Being's Last Word. The Parahuman: Grace and Gravity. In honour of prof. Miglena Nikolchina. Ed. K. Spassova, D. Tenev, M. Kalinova. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridsky University Press. 923-933. koyre, alexandre, 1957: From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe.
Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. kristeva, julia, 1986: TheKristeva Reader. Trans. Toril Moi. Oxford:
Columbia University Press. lacan, jacques, 1992: The Seminar. Book VII. The Ethics of
Psychoanalysis, 1959-60. Trans. Dennis Porter. London: Routledge.
113
MARIA KALINOVA ► Exotopy: Mikhail Bakhtin and Jacques Lacan
Lacan, Jacques, 2006: Écrits. Trans. Bruce Fink in collaboration with Héloïse Fink and Russell Grigg. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company. lacan, jacques, 1977: The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis. 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis. lacan, jacques, 2014: The Seminar. Book X. Anxiety. Trans. A. R.
Price. Cambridge: Polity Press. lecercle, jean-jacques, 2006: Marxist Philosophy of Language.
Trans. by Gregory Elliott. Leiden: Brill. nikolchina, miglena, 2012: Lost Unicorns of the Velvet Revolutions.
Heterotopias of the Seminar. New York: Fordham University Press. spassova, kamelia, 2017: Mimetic Machines in the Uncanny Valley. The Parahuman: Grace and Gravity. In honour of prof. Miglena Nikolchina. Ed. K. Spassova, D. Tenev, M. Kalinova. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridsky University Press. 134-161. tenev, darin, 2012: Fictzia i obraz. Modeli [Fiction and Image.
Models]. Plovdiv: Janet 45. vidinsky, vassil, 2017: Sluchainosti: istoricheska tipologiya
[Contingencies. A Historical Typology ]. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridsky University Press. voloshinov, v. n., 1973: Marxism and the Philosophy of Language.
Trans. Ladislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik. New York: Seminar Press. voloshinov, v. n., 1976: Freudianism. A Marxist Critique.
Trans. I. R. Titunik and ed. in collaboration with Neal H. Bruss. New York: Academic Press. wilden, anthony, 1980: System and Structure: Essays in
Communication and Exchange. New York: Tavistock Publications. Žižek, slavoj, 2006: The Parallax View. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
114
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Pe3MMe
B craTMATa ce ctnocraBaT TeopuuTe Ha eK30T0nuaTa y gBaMa ot HaM-3HaHMMMTe Muc«uTe«u Ha XX BeK - Muxau« BaxTMH u KaR HaRaH. B MHoro 0TH0meHua gBeTe mK0«u - KptrtT Ha BaxTMH u «aKaHuaH-CKaTa ^CMxoaHa«M3a - ca napa«e«Hu mhchobhu gBu^eHua, 3aeMa-m,u KpuTuHHu ^03u^uu cnpaMo rocnogcTBam,u gucKypcu, 6u«o Ha ctBeTCKua T0Ta«uTapu3^M u«u KanuTa«u3Ma Ha 3anaga. H b gBaTa c«ynaa KpuTuKaTa e HaconeHa cpem,y K0HCTpyupaHeT0 Ha ucruHa-Ta ot goMHHupa^a ^03M^Ma, HeMH0T0 TaBT0«0ruHH0T0 3aTBapaHe u 0TpuHaHeT0 Ha cy6eKTa ga u3pa6oTBa CBoe aBT0H0MH0 3HaneHue. HHTepcy6eKTuBHuaT Moge« Ha K0MyHuKan,uaTa npu gBaMaTa e onuT ga ce noconu MecT0Hax0^g,eHueT0 Ha con,ua«Ha Bpt3Ra, octmecTBeHa npe3 TpaHC^opMan,ua Ha BtHmHua K0HTeKCT Ha gucKypca. 3a BaxTuH BiHmHuaT K0HTeKCT m,e 6tge CBtp3aH c n0HaTueT0 eHemxoduMoemb, 3a HaKaH T0Ba m,e e ex-sistence.
npe3 1927 r. u3nog aBT0pcTB0T0 Ha B. H. B0«0muH0B u3«u3a Rpuru-necKuaT onepK "Opong^tM", komto pa3r«e^g,a HecB3HaBaH0T0 KaT0 acneKT Ha CB3HaHueT0, to e „He0^un,ua«H0 ct3HaHue" - «uhfbuctuhho no CBoaTa npupoga, - K0eT0 B«u3a b nporaBopenue c „0<£u^ua«H0T0 ci3HaHue". Cnura ce, ne B0«0muH0B npaKo B«uae Btpxy crpyRTypa«Hu-Te u3C«egBaHua Ha npa^Kua «uHrBucruneH Kpt^oK, K0eT0 B«uaHue ot CBoa CTpaHa npe3 pa6oTaTa Ha PoMaH Hko6coh u aHTpono«oruaTa Ha K«og HeBu-Crpoc gocTura go pa6oTaTa Ha HaKaH. Aro e bmmo^ho nogo6H0, MaKap u orpaHuneHo B«uaHue Ha BaxTuH0Bua Kptr Btpxy ugeuTe Ha HaKaH, to Tpa6Ba ga ce oTHece o6ane no-CKopo KtM MapK-cucTKaTa ^u«oco^ua Ha e3uKa, otko«koto kbm KpuTuKaTa Ha Opong.
BtnpeKu 0TCtCTBueT0 Ha eKC^«M^MTeH gua«or Me^gy BaxruH u HaKaH, npuHag«e»a^u nonTu Ha egH0 u ctmo n0K0«eHue (BaxruH
115
MARIA KALINOVA ► Exotopy: Mikhail Bakhtin and Jacques Lacan
»MBee OT 1895 r. go 1975 r., .HaKaH - ot 1901 r. go 1981 r.), BBnpeKu pa3-flUHHUTe MUGHOBHU npegM3BMKaTenCTBa M BBnpOCM, Ha KOUTO nOCBe-m,aBaT BpeMeTO cu b TBpceHe Ha 0Tr0B0p - TOHKUTe Ha 6^m3oct Me^gy Te3M gBe ^urypu ca BneHaxnaBamu. B yguBUTe^HO "cBcegcTBo" Ha MMCB^Ta m gBaMaTa aBTopu pa3BUBaT TeMaTa, ne HOBemKOTO cBm,e-ctbo e eKc^empuHHO m HeroBuaT ^HTBp e m3bbh Hero. TaMHara Ha HOBeKa, HeroBaTa HaM-gB,n6oKa mhtmmhoct, e cKpuTa otbbh.
H npu BaxTUH, m npu .HaKaH - BBnpeKu He pa6oTaT c pa3^uHHu
noHaTua u ca nog.no:®:eHM Ha pa3^uHHu no^uTunecKu npuHygu -
HecB3HaBaHOTO e ex30m0nuuH0. Te nogxo^gaT kbm npo6^eMa 3a
"BBHmHOTo", cnacaBaMKu ro ot HauBHua peanu3BM (nog ^opMara
Ha conuanucruHecKM peanu3BM u^u ïïbk KaTO BpBmaHe kbm "no» (t » 3mtmbhm m eMnupuHHu pa3Ka3u 3a cB3HaHueTO, noBegeHueTO m
ceKcya^HocTTa). H BaxTUH, m .iïaKaH npugaBaT Ha pa36upaHeTO cu 3a
eK30T0nua aM6uBa^eHTeH cmmcb^ - Ha e^nmnocm, ho m Ha nunca. 3a
gBaMaTa eK30T0nMHH0cTTa npenpama kbm npoTUBono^o^HOTO Ha
n03MTUBHaTa peanHocr, kbm BBHmeH KOHTeKcT, komto He e npocTO bbh
ot egHa ohockoct m^m crpyKTypa, ho m b cMucB^a Ha ^uncBam, ot Hea.
116
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Maria Kalinova
Maria Kalinova is an assistant professor at the Literary Theory Department at the University of Sofia, Bulgaria. She defended her doctoral thesis on the subject of literary publicity in the Bulgarian Revival era. She published the book 'Childhood and Intellectual History of Bulgarian National Revival Writers' (2012) based on her dissertation. Editor of the 'Literary Journal' weekly. Managing director of VS Publishing House, member of the 'Bulgarian Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies'. Member of the 'Bulgarian Psychoanalytic Space' association. Editor of the series for contemporary Bulgarian literature 'New Bulgarian Literature', 'Literary Journal' Foundation and "p.m." by VERSUS. Her academic interests include the logic of dissent in language and literature, Lacanian Psychoanalysis, Chaos Theory, Lyric Theory.
117
DOI - 10.13137/2283-5482/22384
Tension Episodes (A Fragment of the History of Literary Theory in Bulgaria. The Case of the Bulgarian Guillaumist School)
3nH3ogM Hanp^^eHHOCTL (OpameHT hctophh ^HTepaTypHOH TeopHH b Bo^rapHH. C^ynan c 6o^rapcKOH
mKO^OH rHHoMH3Ma)
$ darin tenev - darin.tenev@gmail.com
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
The development of structuralist ideas in Bulgaria coincided with the liberalization of the human and social sciences during the 1960s and the 1970s and from the start was involved in various discussions, both internal and external. The present paper focuses on the case of the literary theoretician Christo Todorov, a representative of the Bulgarian Guillaumist School, and his curious siding with Pantelei Zarev, a powerful professor in the highest ranks of the Bulgarian Communist Party and at the time a Rector of the University of Sofia, during his attack on structuralism. At the end I propose a Guillaumist interpretation of the situation in which Todorov found himself, using his own methodological instruments.
STRUCTURALISM, CHRISTO TODOROV, GUSTAVE GUILLAUME, PANTELEI ZAREV, MODALITY, TENSION
Pa3BMTMe CTpyKTypaaMCTcKMX MfleM B
BoarapMM coBnaao c aM6epaaM3a^MeM ryMaHMTapHMX m co^MaaBHMX HayK b 1960-x m 1970-x rogax m c caMoro HaHa-aa npHHMMano ynacTMe b pa3aMHHMX AMCKyccMflx, KaK BHyrpeHHMX, TaK m BHemHKX. B Hacroam;eM craTte oc-H0BH0e BHMMaHMe ygeaaeTca caynaw aMTepaTypHoro TeopeTMKa XpMcro TogopoBa, npegcraBMTeaa 6oarapcKoM maBoMMcmnecKoM mKoati, m KaK oh BcTaa Ha cropoHy naHTeaeMa 3apeBa, npo^eccopa b BHcmnx HMHax 6oarap-ckoM KoMMyHMCTMHecKoM napTMM M peKTopa Co^mmckoto yHMBepcMTeTa, bo BpeMA ero HanageHMa Ha crpyKTy-paaM3M. B koh^, McnoaB3ya ero MeTo-AMHecKMe MHcTpyMeHTH, a npegaaraw rMMoMMcTcKyw MHTep^peTa^MW cMTy-a^MM, b KoTopoM oKa3aaca TogopoB.
CTPYKTYPAflH3M, XPHCTO TOflOPOB, rroCTAB rHHOM, nAHTE-HEH 3APEB, MOflAflbHOCTb, HAnPSÄEHHOCTb
119
DARIN TENEV - Tension Episodes (A Fragment of the History of Literary Theory)
There is a tendency to look at the history of the human sciences in Eastern Europe during the socialist times as if they were sharing the same fate everywhere (cf. Znepolski). It doesn't seem to be the case and this becomes evident when one starts investigating carefully the destiny of the different trends that were popular in the so called 'West' (a generalization just as misleading since what was happening in Germany was not what was happening in France, in Italy, in the USA, etc.). If one uses the widespread - and often questionable - distinctions of different theoretical schools as introduced by American literary criticism readers and textbooks from the 1980s and the 1990s as a starting point (cf. Selden; Newton; Rivkin, Ryan), one can easily see that even aside from the Russian Formalism and the American New Criticism -labels that define the critical school geographically already on the level of its name - structuralist semiotics, hermeneutics, phenomenology, etc., are distributed in a quite uneven way throughout the different countries on both sides of the Iron curtain. The case alone of Marxism and its many divisions and subdivisions would suffice to make it clear that there was an inner dynamics to the historical transformations of any critical attitude specific to the different regions and thus even Marxism was "practiced", as it were, very differently in USSR, in Hungary, in Poland, etc. The detailed tracing of particular cases could help the researcher draw a much more complex picture of the state of human sciences, a picture that would put in question the simplifying generalizations about "theory" in "Eastern Europe" and would lead to a reconsideration of the simple dividing line between "East" and "West".
In this paper I want to address such a specific case, the case of the Bulgarian Guillaumist School which appeared during the years when structuralism was both most flourishing and most criticized in Bulgaria, namely the 1960s and the 1970s. This School and its relation to
120
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
other manifestations of structuralism in this country is to this date completely unaccounted for, even in the most recent research that maps out the general history of Bulgarian structuralism (see Garnizov; Nedelchev 2014, 2017; Trendafilov). I will focus more particularly on Christo Todorov (1938-1983) of whom it can be claimed that together with Krassimir Mantchev (1938-1997) is the co-founder of this School.
It should be kept in mind that the context of the debates around structuralism in Bulgaria is much broader and goes beyond the rather limited scope of a particular school, beyond also the field of literary theory, on which I will be focusing. It can be said that these debates have as a background ongoing processes of transformation and liberalization of the human and social sciences in Bulgaria that started by the end of the 1950s (cf. Deyanova 2009; 2015) and that lead to a surprising explosion of theoretical discourses in the philosophical and literary seminars in 1980s (cf. Nikolchina 2013, Goncharova). During the 1960s the "young", the "non-conformists", the "reformists" were often tolerated by the Party and scholars of today point to the noticeable "difference in the force of control" exerted by the Party over them compared to other cases (Deyanova 2015: 140-141).
A look at these processes would reveal that it was never a question of a simple opposition between the dogmatic Party representatives and the progressive researches introducing Western or underground Soviet theories. There was a constant negotiation born out of tensions both in the areas of scholarly work (competing approaches producing methodological 'force fields') and in the dominating ideological tenets (related to power struggles in the Party and all the important institutions -universities, journals, publishing houses, etc.). This situation created "mechanisms that imply incessant interactions and renegotiations, network games reducing uncertainties but also increasing the odds
121
DARIN TENEV - Tension Episodes (A Fragment of the History of Literary Theory)
Miglena Nikolchina points to this "double-edged hermeneuti-cal problem" which the socialist history poses with the dissolving of the context in which certain parabolic levels of meaning were self-evident and with the simultaneous accruing of contexts previously unknown, the contexts brought up by the opening of the archives of the State Security and the like. (Cf. Nikolchina 2011) Of course, the very reading of the archives is quite problematic given the dissolving contexts and this puts in question the status currently given to recently accrued contexts (Nikolchina 2011, Deyanova 2015).
See Yanakiev 1960.
for submission." (Deyanova 2015: 136) The mechanisms of the network games leave traces in the published texts that it is getting harder and harder to grasp.1 Furthermore, there were interactions, actions and reactions, events which were not recorded in the published texts and whose reconstruction should rely on interviews, memoirs and oral histories dating from later. In the case of the Bulgarian Guillaumists even the personal archives of the scholars sometimes lack evidence as to the way they were treated and threated, how and why they chose their strategy and so on.
If I turn now to the history of structuralism in Bulgaria, I should stress the fact that perhaps no other theoretical school was as influential in the domain of literary theory during the 1960s and the 1970s. Neither phenomenology, nor hermeneutics, nor thematic criticism, nor genetic criticism can be conceived as a significant factor in the literary studies of the period. Structuralist semiotics, on the other hand, - together with the exact methods in human sciences it was promoting - was from early on seen as important and it immediately provoked vivid discussions that were to last from the beginning of the 1960s (with the attack on what could be claimed to be the first Bulgarian structuralist book in literary theory, the book by Miroslav Yanakiev on the Bulgarian verse structures2) to the mid-1980s (and the attacks on Kleo Protohristova's use of mathematical formulas in the analysis of prose rhythm) (Garnoziv 192-213).
At the same time, structuralism was so multifaceted that it is hard to point to univocal traits that can help the researcher of today understand which texts and authors were seen as structuralist and why. Thus, if one looks closely at the writings of Nikola Georgiev, a scholar who was thought at the time to impersonate the structuralist position per se, one cannot fail to notice that his approach is much closer to New
122
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Criticism and Russian Formalism than to structuralism. And Mihail Nedelchev, who was accused at the time of being a "young structuralist critic" admits in recent texts that in a sense he was not and could not have been a structuralist and that the accusations were rather used in an instrumental way for a sort of ideological oppression (Nedelchev 2014, 2017). This alone makes it clear that the stakes of "structuralism" were both theoretical and political. And while some were labelled structuralists without it being so, others were avoiding the term precisely in order to introduce and develop structuralist ideas.
But if structuralism was so important in Bulgaria (so much so that two of the most prominent names of French structuralism came from Bulgaria - Tzvetan Todorov and Julia Kristeva3) why is it the case that so little is known about Bulgarian structuralism abroad? There were two Bulgarians (three if we count Julia Kristeva) on the executive committee of the International Association for Semiotic Studies - Miroslav Yanakiev and Alexander Ludskanov, the last being also among the vice-presidents with Juri Lotman and Roman Jakobson.4 And yet the same Jakobson, who has been exchanging letters with Yanakiev at least since 1960 (cf. Garnizov 239-243) and was holding in high esteem Ludskanov, in an interview for the Bulgarian journal Lik in 1972 forgets to mention Bulgaria when he enumerates where structuralists semiotics is mostly developed and names USSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania from the Eastern Bloc. (Jakobson 1972). This is not an exception. In the same way in his introduction to the Brown University Press edition of Lotman's The Structure of the Artistic Text in 1971 Thomas Winner writes that the semiotics of literature "have been a central concern of scholars in both the West (especially France, the United States, and Germany) and the East (especially Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Soviet Union)", omitting Bulgaria (Winner ix).
On the role of Tzvetan Todorov and Julia Kris-teva for the development of structuralism and post-structuralism, see Todorova 2012.
The full list of the members of the executive committee of the Association, the vice-presidents, etc. can be found on the last page of the journal that the Association was publishing, the journal Semiotica.
123
DARIN TENEV - Tension Episodes (A Fragment of the History of Literary Theory)
In fact, already in 1972 the Belgium linguist Marc Wilmet (1972) speaks of a Sofia School of Guillaumists. Other members of the group include Alexandra Mantcheva, Roumiana Kamenova, Assen Tchaouchev, Yossif Simeonov, Radka Bechkova, Al-bena Vassileva, Silvia Boteva, Paissii Hristov and others.
For a general introduction, see (Valin; Hirtle 3-104, 205-236).
This effect of partial invisibility is most probably a product of the particular strategies adopted by Bulgarian structuralists, product of the games they played or refused to play with Party functionaries and dogmatic Marxists but also with other styles of thought and other theoretical approaches. In the limited space of this essay I will delineate only a fragment of this complicated history.
The name Bulgarian Guillaumist School usually denotes a group of linguists that were inspired by the work of Gustave Guillaume (1883-1960). The members of the group were not the ones who invented the name, it was rather introduced by French and Canadian linguists much later.5 The main principles of the group were articulated in the second half of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s in a series of articles written in French by Krassimir Mantchev and Christo Todorov separately or together (cf. Mantchev 1967, Todorov 1968, Mantchev, Todorov 1971, Todorov, 1971). The group continued functioning actively mainly in the universities in Sofia and Veliko Tarnovo at least to the beginning of the 2000s. In 2007 the French Langages journal published a special issue on "L'École guillaumienne de Bulgarie" (Gandon, Tchauchev). Not everything, however, was about linguistics. Christo Todorov from the very beginning started building a literary theory based on their own Guillaumist linguistics and later Krassimir Mantchev also turned to literary theory (cf. Mantchev 1998) transforming and developing further Todorov's postulates. This line of theoretical and analytical work was continued in the second half of the 1990s by some of the texts by Boyan Manchev (cf. Manchev 2003) with a particular stress on the philosophical stakes of such a linguistic and literary theory.
Here, unable to present more fully Gustave Guillaume's theory, I will but point to some of its aspects most relevant for the Bulgarian scholars of the time.6 For Guillaume, the mechanical explication of
124
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
linguistic phenomena is insufficient for it cannot take into account 7
the inner logic of language and the causality of linguistic transfor- specified the translations are mine.
mations which brings forth these phenomena. This inner logic and its causality can be grasped only on the level of the mental, on the level of thinking, for language is a way to conceive the thinkable and give it form. Therefore the mechanical explication should be doubled by a psychological one (cf. Guillaume 1970: 5-6), leading to the formulation of this theory as a psycho-mechanics of language. "The invention of the sign [...] is the second time of the phenomenon whose result is language; its first time is the creation of that of which the sign, when the invention will have been done, will be the vehicle. In the history of language the phenomenon is irreversible: it is not the sign that calls forth the idea, but the idea that calls forth the sign." (Guillaume 1973: 241-242; translation mine.)7 The psychomechanical viewpoint permits Guillaume to describe not only the static but also the dynamic aspect of language, the becoming of linguistic categories such as the article, the tenses and aspects, the auxiliary verbs, etc. According to him, the becoming of a language forms part of the structure of this language and the genesis of the linguistic representation of ideas, which is also the genesis of the ideas themselves - what he calls ideogenesis - is not lost but preserved with every next development of the language. He calls law of non-recurrence the law according to which all the previous stages in the articulation of an idea remain part of the actual state. This means nothing less than the inscription in the actual of a dynamics that would keep it in transformation.
There are a couple of tendencies for the development of the idea and the tendencies themselves are based on tensions that form two types of movement. The first type comprises the movements between the universal and the singular, called singularization (from the universal to the
125
DARIN TENEV - Tension Episodes (A Fragment of the History of Literary Theory)
Guillaume, and later the Bulgarian Guillaumists, used as synonyms universal and general, on the one hand, and singular and particular, on the other. Therefore, in different texts particulariza-tion and generalization are employed instead of singularization and universalizatiorn,
To put things this way is simplifying and misleading. In fact, Guillaume's early use of the triad tension - extension - bi-exten-sion in the description of the three plans of the time in posse, the potential time (including the infinitive, the compound and the double compound (surcomposées) forms), was substituted with the triad immanent - transcendent - bi-trascendent (see Guillaume 1973: 184-192), while the term tension started being employed for the general mobility or transformability in the direction of the actual or the virtual, resp. the singular or the universal.
singular) and universalization (from the singular to the universal).8 Guillaume calls these movements themselves tensorial movements (movement tensoriel) (cf. Guillaume 1973: 40) and speaks respectively of singularizing and universalizing tension. The second type comprises the movements between the virtual and the actual, respectively the virtualizing and actualizing tensions. The very term tension was often employed without an explicit definition, although already in his early work Temps et verbe (1929) he proposes a definition which holds also for the later uses. There he writes that the tension is "the impression of progressive mobility" and claims that it is inseparable from the potentiality of the idea. (Guillaume 1970: 15-16). In Temps et verbe however he described the actualization of the virtual as a distension, making use of the couple tension/ distension that he was to abandon substituting it with two tensions - virtualizing and actualizing one.9 Here I will retain the use of tension as the immanent progressive transformability of a state of affairs which imbues the state with a direction of change.
It would not be wrong to say that the couples universality-singularity and virtuality-actuality are homologous (cf. Guillaume 1973: 25-26). They allow for descriptions that are complementing each other. It should be noted also that when Guillaume envisaged a complex process like the two compound transition from the universal to the singular and again to the universal - as when he was describing the ontogenesis of the vocables of the Indo-European languages, or when he was analysing the ideogenesis of the articles in French (cf. Guillaume 1973: 25-45, 87-98, 143-183) - the initial and the final universal were not the same. The universal, what it meant, how it was grasped, etc., just like the singular, in this theory, is not a constant, but a non-predetermined variable subjected to the work of tensions.
126
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Krassimir Mantchev used Guillaume's work as a ground for the development of his own understanding of ideogenesis, where the most crucial operation was the progressive discrimination of subject and object. The process of gradual differentiation of subject and object not only in the linguistic but also in the epistemological and philosophical sense was grasped as a linguistic event in which a semantic hierarchy among verbs was produced, where being (être) is at the basis, followed by having (avoir) and then by doing (faire), being, having and doing being the three stable position in the progressive discrimination (Mantchev 1967). It is easy to note that the first two of these verbs ('to be' and 'to have') are also an auxiliary verbs and the third ('to do' or 'to make') can be used also in syntactic constructions in a special way in French (roughly corresponding to the English 'making someone do something'). Guillaume himself has noted that the verbs who become auxiliary are in no language just random verbs and insisted that 'I am' (être) pre-exists in the ideal filiation of words the 'I can' (pouvoir), which in its turn pre-exists 'I do' (faire) (Guillaume 1973: 73) but he never associated this with the becoming of the subject and the object. According to the law of non-recurrence, this becoming should be understood as a part of language, which means that people witness it again and again. Subject and object are not pre-given, they are in constant becoming. What is more, for Krassimir Mantchev and Christo Todorov in the gradual differentiation the different positions suppose not just a further development of the same type of subject and object, but the production of new classes of subjects and objects and also a new configuration of their relation (cf. Todorov 1985: 71-76, 147-148). Beside the three stable positions of being, having and doing, there are two unstable positions of transition. The first one, between being and having, is the position of the modal verbs 'can' (pouvoir), 'want' (vouloir), 'must' (devoir) where
127
DARIN TENEV - Tension Episodes (A Fragment of the History of Literary Theory)
the discrimination between subject and object is further operated. The second position, between having and doing, is occupied by verbs for perception and intellection called by Mantchev and Todorov transmodal. Here is the place for 'see', 'hear', 'think', 'understand', etc.
I will give a short and simplifying account of the hierarchy produced by the progressive discrimination of subject and object. At the position of being (être) subject and object are indistinguishable. No differentiation between animate and inanimate is possible here and from the point of view of the subject there is no difference between 'He is smart' and 'The house is big'. In this position the subject is "plerotrope" (Todorov 1985: 73) and general. The distinction at the point of ability (pouvoir) is still too fable and it gives the image of a passive subject. There is a partial overlapping between being and ability to which testifies the semantic synonymy between, say, 'being rich' and 'able to buy'. The position of desire singularizes the subject. It polarizes the subject and object, introducing an obvious direction from one to the other. Desire (vouloir) necessitates the appearance of an object and constitutes the subject as subject of desire. The duty or obligation (devoir) retains the direction and even intensifies it while simultaneously subjecting the subject to the object pole in the sense that obligation transcends the subject and is independent of the subjective desires. This produces a split dividing the subject into a neutral empty subject who is "the subject proper to the modal verb" and a real one put in a passive position, expressed by the passive voice of 'I am obliged to...' (Todorov 1985: 121, Todorov 2003: 198-199). Thus, here the true subject position, which is bound to be implicit, remains empty and unoccupied, while the explicit subject position is that of a "subject-patient" or "object-agent" - someone on whom the obligation or duty falls upon (Todorov 1985: 64-65, 73, 102). Christo Todorov describes the transition from ability to
128
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
desire to obligation in terms of increasing 'force of actualization' (Todor-ov 1971: 130). At the next stable position, namely the point of having (avoir), the subject and the object are separated, the idea of possession defining them both, the subject as subject of possession and the object as something being possessed. As a second stable position there is no longer direction here notwithstanding the obvious differentiation. A good example in English for the close relation between obligation and having can be given with the expressions 'to have to do' and 'to have sth'. The transmodal position introduces an active subject (who listens to, thinks about, ponders over, notices, etc.) who however leaves the object unaltered. The last position - that of doing (faire) - produces an active subject who alters the object.
In this account of the hierarchy I referred to Christo Todorov's texts written between 1968 and 1983, and I should add that these were not linguistic but rather literary-theoretical texts, that introduced Kras-simir Mantchev's ideas into narratology, genre theory and later into the history of French literature. Todorov's understanding was that literature is not some kind of second-order language (I will come back to this), a connotative system that relies on the denotative system of natural language. Such a Barthesian conception, he claimed, leaves the researcher mainly with the problem of interpretation. For Todorov however, with literature before it is a question of interpretation, it should be a question of the immanent logic of the system, a logic that is linguistic in its core. The progressive discrimination of subject and object is operated in literary works as language and this language and the discrimination do not precede the work but are part of it forming its very structure. He puts an accent on the modal notions showing how they are at the basis of any narrative text10 driving the characters and constructing the coherence of the plot. Where there are only open
10
Unfortunately, in the limited space of this essay I cannot go into Christo Todorov's work on poetry and I will have but to refer the reader to the second volume of his history of French literature dedicated to the French poets: Todorov 1982.
129
DARIN TENEV - Tension Episodes (A Fragment of the History of Literary Theory)
11
In this Todorov's conception was analogous to that of Claude Bremond (Bremond 1964, 1966). As it was in accordance with his own Guillaumist understanding, Todorov accepted Bremond's idea for a transition between three phases: virtual-ity, actualization and result, but he criticized him for seeing this triad as an objective property of any real process, introducing an extra-linguistic factor in the narrative organization. For Todorov himself, the very knowledge of the real could not be but linguistic (language having the function "to apprehend the integrality of the thinkable", Guillaume 1973: 240) and therefore these categories are immanent to language (Todorov 1971: 128-129).
possibilities (like in Voltaire's Candide or in some adventure novels) the integrity of the story is weak, the episodes are relatively autonomous and the intrigue can be prolonged indefinitely. Desire introduces a clear direction and finality that only become stronger with obligation and thus these modalities hold the story together keeping it from falling apart. The clash of desire and obligation produces narrative conflicts; and when the conflict occurs in one and the same character the effect is psychologization. The conflict creates the strongest integrity of a story. (Todorov 1985: 163-170) In order to have a story, Todorov insisted, it is not enough to narrate different events with the same characters. Two sentences put next to each other still do not make a story. There has to be a modal link between the sentences (he called this link lien interphrastique), the events should be associated on a deeper level by the modal notions.
In the approach to the basic semantic level of the literary works Todorov's work was perhaps closer to A. J. Greimas than to any other theoretician. But how is one to get to the deeper level? Taking up Guillaume's understanding of the singularizing and universalizing tensions he described the finished literary work as a product of a singularizing tension that go from virtuality to actuality. "The virtual phase is assumed by the implicit modal notions, while the actual phase is expressed by the verbs for action themselves." (Todorov 1985: 162) The actualization of the virtual is the mental operation of affabulation (or the construction of the intrigue in the thought) whose final point is the narrative text itself. At the virtual phase there are many possibilities to tell the story; at the position of the singular only one of these possibilities turns out to have been realized.11 Now, the usual direction of reading would have been to start from the singularity of the work and move forward with its interpretation based on the given
130
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
physical organization of signs (the signifiers). The mental operation of interpretation - be it psychoanalytic, "mystique, rationalistic, spiritualistic or materialist, progressist or reactionary" (Todorov 1985: 156) - generalizes and reaches a new kind of universality by investigating the different meanings attributable to the intrigue. If we term U1 the initial virtuality with its universality, S - the singularity of the finished work, and U2 - the universality which results from interpretation, it becomes obvious that U1 and U2 are rather different. U1 - S forms the first tension and S - U2 forms the second one. Christo Todorov's own approach was not to interpret in the sense of moving in the direction to U2, but to go back from S to U1 and in this sense to focus on the first tension and the way the intrigue is built. He discovered that in order to move back from the realized work to its virtuality it is enough to summarize the story. The summary makes explicit precisely what in the narrative work of art remains implicit - the role of the modal notions. (Todorov 1971, 1985, 2003) Using the summaries of different works of authors from Corneille and Racine through Diderot and Voltaire to Camus and Marcel Aymé, summaries most often taken from textbooks, he demonstrated convincingly how the modalities of possibility, desire and obligation produced the integrity and the coherence of the works.
In his texts Christo Todorov was debating with A. J. Greimas, Roland Barthes, Claude Bremond and G. Genette. Gustave Guillaume and Krassimir Mantchev served as reference points. He used sometimes the Russian formalists and Vladimir Propp and only on very rare occasions the Soviet structuralists such as Lotman.12 No Bakhtin who was most popular at the time in Bulgaria.13 No reference in any of the texts in French to any Bulgarian scholar apart from those belonging to the Guillamist School, most often people from the same university department. No Marx or Lenin.
To my knowledge there are only two occasions where he refers to Lot-man. In 1971 he refers to Lotman's thesis that literary value is not immanent to the work but is conceivable only on the basis of the relationship between
text and context. Todorov seems to agree but adds that whatever
the relation between work and context is, it has to be based on the degree of organization of the text, organization which is immanently produced by language. (Todorov 2003: 97) Later, in 1982, he includes Lotman's Analysis of the Poetical Text (1972) in the bibliography to his work on the history of French poetry with a short annotation saying the book is important but without however actually referring to him in the text (Todorov 1982: 139, 142). As with the majority of his publications, both of these texts were in French.
13
On the reception of
Bakthin in Bulgaria see Enyo Stoyanov's paper in this issue.
131
DARIN TENEV - Tension Episodes (A Fragment of the History of Literary Theory)
14
For a period of fifteen years Todorov published in Literaturna misal only three texts and one book review. Beside the article discussed here, the other two texts were a criticism of the anti-novel (1971) and a paper on the relationship between linguistics and aesthetics in literature (1984); the book review is on Georges Poulet and dates from the same 1973 as the article on which I will focus.
Most of his texts were published either in international semiotic journals such as Informations sur les Sciences Sociales and Semiotica or in the Annular of the University of Sofia. As I said, almost all of his texts, just like those of Krassimir Mantchev, were written in French.
Looking at these facts one can get the feeling that the Bulgarian Guillaumists were not living in Bulgaria, at least not in socialist Bulgaria of the 1960s and the 1970s.
There was one important exception to this strategy of writing in French and not dialogizing with the Bulgarian literary context - an article from 1973 written and published in Bulgarian in the most important journal for literary studies, the journal Literaturna misal (Literary thought).14 The article offered a severe criticism of Roland Barthes and the Saussurean-Barthesian type of structuralism. At the time one of the strategies for the introduction of foreign theories was to pretend to criticize them lightly as an excuse to present them in detail. This was not the case with Todorov's article. He had a genuine argument. Simply put, his point was that the structuralist semiology of Barthes had put the stress on the arbitrariness of the signifier-signified distinction and had privileged the signifier because it had a physical quality, thus reducing the role of the thought process and the mental operation behind the becoming of language. There is arbitrariness, Todorov claimed following Guilaume's conception, only on the level of sounds and words since they are discrete units, but with a phrase or with a text the meaning is global and not just a mechanical sum of the meaning of the discrete parts. The generalization of arbitrariness and the privileging of the signifier made Barthes - and Saussure before him - blind for the ideogenesis of language. This misstep further led to the application of the denotation-connotation couple to literature and to the understanding that literature uses the first order signs of natural
132
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
language and is therefore a connotative - or second order - system. This understanding resulted in the idea that the doubling of the arbitrariness of signs in literary text reveals the freedom for innumerable interpretations. As I pointed above, for Todorov in order to grasp the nature of the literary work first one has to go backwards from the singularity of the text to the first tension ('backwords' means from S to U1) and the linguistic becoming of the text structure, which is following the progressive discrimination of subject and object along the line of modal notions. And he believed that there is nothing arbitrary about that procedure. For him, Barthes's views were problematic as they, on the one hand, reduced the linguistic becoming or the ideogenetic part of literature, and on the other, made the interpretation based on the analysis of linguistic structures seem frivolous with the stress on the arbitrariness.
Todorov was not the first to criticize the arbitrariness of the sign from a Guillaumist position. This criticism was part of a more general disagreement with Saussure on the part of Guillaume and was taken up by his students. The title of a book by a Guillaumist linguist published ten years after Todorov's article, is much telling: Against the Arbitrariness of the Sign (Toussaint 1983).15 The 1973 article against Barthes is undoubtedly interesting for taking the debate in the field of literary theory. At the same time it is no less interesting for the one who is tracing the history of theory in Eastern Europe in general and Bulgaria in particular. For it appeared in a singular context.
The debates in Bulgaria around structuralism that began in 1960 with Miroslav Yanakiev's book (1960) on Bulgarian verse structures reached their climax in the first half of the 1970s.
In 1969 Pantelei Zarev, a powerful professor in the highest ranks of the Bulgarian Communist Party, who was at the time a Rector of the
15
There is an explicit reference in Tous-saint's book both to Christo Todorov and to Krassimir Mantchev. Cf (Toussaint 13).
133
DARIN TENEV - Tension Episodes (A Fragment of the History of Literary Theory)
There were two series of the bulletin, a white one and a blue one. The issue on structuralism was in the white series, which was rather secret and was not distributed openly.
University of Sofia, published a small book criticizing structuralism. Even though he praised Lotman and the Tartu School and wrote that to an extent structuralist ideas can be useful, his attack was severe, as he claimed that structuralism was an "anatomy of the dead, and not of the living", that it was "wrong" or "reactionary" in its exclusion of "the human essence of artistic production" and its intentional ignorance of the relation between the artist and the people. (Zarev 19-20, 26-27, 29). For him one of the problems of structuralism was that it had replaced "the organic whole" with a mechanical one, producing thus "a rupture between the work and the separate phrase, a rupture between the phrase and the word". (Zarev 12)
It seems that part of this criticism was included in his rectorial address in 1968 and was immediately recognized as a threat making some of the youngest scholars leave to other universities (Manchev 2018).
The same 1968 in August Bulgarian students and professors were sent to Prague for the Sixth International Slavic Congress, where Miroslav Yanakiev was next to Roman Jakobson and Jan Mukarovsky and the students, inspired by the formalist legacy and the structuralist semiotics brought back this inspiration to Bulgaria (Nedelchev 2017: 134-140). Later some of them were asked to edit an issue of the Bulgarian Writers Association's bulletin16 on structuralism and in 1970, the year after Zarev's booklet got out, they published there a chapter by Saussure, eight texts by Levi-Strauss, seven texts by Barthes, three by Philippe Sollers and one by Genette (Nedelchev 2017: 151; Garnizov 247).
In 1969 the International Association for Semiotic studies was founded with Miroslav Yanakiev and Alexander Ludskanov being on the Executive Committee next to people from all around Europe, including Jakobson, Umberto Eco, Lotman, Benveniste, Fonagy, etc.
134
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
In 1972 Roman Jakobson was invited to Bulgaria and gave a long 17
I cannot go here into
interview for the Lik journal (Jakobson 1972). He was interviewed by the problems the place
of humanism poses
some of the former students who went to the Prague congress. 1972 to the researcher. For
a more subtle way to pose this question, see (Nikolchina 2014).
in Moscow a volume with translations of semiotic texts from various countries and opened in a sense the Soviet academia to semioticians that were not "home-grown". The book included texts by Levi-Strauss, Jakobson, Jin Levy, Claude Bremond, Meyer Shapiro, Max Bense and others. It had an immediate impact in Bulgaria and it was mentioned as an important book in the preface to the 1972 Jakobson interview.
Meanwhile the attack on structuralism was getting stronger, involving critics and writers that presented it as "western" and "individualistic" fashion choking the life out of the literary works. It is difficult to describe the position from which the attack was launched. It comprised people with different views and different interests. On the one hand, it was the position of Marxist humanism of those critics who were already seen as dogmatic and who in hold of institutional power tried to maintain this power.17 Zarev's small book can be included here. On the other hand, there were younger critics who were not dogmatic Marxist-Leninists and who were rather irritated by the introduction of the exact sciences in literature simply because this contradicted their own understanding of what literature is and how it should be studied. As I pointed at the beginning of this text the discussed period was one of liberalization of the human sciences and the ongoing transformation of the field of literary studies allowed for various forces to intervene and curious alliances to be formed. Thus there was a group of the younger scholars formed during the 1960s who were later called "essayists" and "impressionists" in which there were traditionalists and even proto-nationalists like Toncho Zhechev but also
was an important year also because Lotman (1972) succeeded to publish
135
DARIN TENEV - Tension Episodes (A Fragment of the History of Literary Theory)
18
I take the expression from Enyo Stoyanov's article in this issue.
19
On the structuralist-impressionist debate see Manchev 1999 and the texts of Enyo Stoyanov and Miglena Nikolchina in this issue. On Todor Pavlov's criticism of the proto-nationalistic views of Lyudmila Zhivkova's circle including Toncho Zhechev's group, see (Kiossev 174 n79).
Todorov's relation with Barthes and Greimas should be further researched, but it seems certain that he knew them both personally and that he was close with Greimas. I could not specify when he met them - was it during his first specialization in France (Nancy) in 1961-1962 or during the second specialization in 1967-1968 in the Sorbonne? According to Boyan Manchev (2018), at the second big Urbino conference on narratology in 1968 he had most probably a long debate with Barthes but unfortunately I could not find written traces of this debate. Todorov's text from the Urbino conference ("The Hierarchy of Narrative Functions", Todorov 1985: 96-103) refers only to Guillaume and Krassimir Mantchev which is only natural as it was written ♦
progressive thinkers like Tzvetan Stoyanov and Julia Kristeva (before her departure to France) and it seems to be the case that apart from the personal friendship what was uniting them was "their agreement in identifying a problem in modernity".18 It was the impressionists who in 1974, several years after the death of Tzvetan Stoyanov, started on the pages of the Literaturna misal journal perhaps the most important controversy on structuralism. At the time their attitude was getting more and more conservativist and they were criticized for that by some of the old Marxists such as Todor Pavlov.19 Structuralists, for their part, were often defending Marxist positions sometimes against the humanist dogma and sometimes not.
It is in this complicated context that Christo Todorov's article on Barthes was published. The article referred to Zarev's criticism of structuralism as one of "the transformations of the contemporary bourgeois ideology", stating that this aspect was already well studied by Zarev (Todorov 1973: 22). That it has been well studied meant among other things that Todorov himself did not have to dwell on this topic which allowed him to focus on his Guillaumist reading of Barthes. But the complexity of Todorov's gesture deserves attention. The reference to Zarev can be read also as a sort of insurance so that such a text be published in the first place. Such an interpretation is not without ground as it was a common practice at the time. However, in this specific case Todorov was pretending to criticize structuralism in general and in this sense it seems plausible that he would not have needed such a protection. Furthermore, albeit different in almost every point from Zarev's attack, the article shared with it something important. Both Zarev and Todorov criticized the privilege bestowed to the discrete units of language and both of them claimed that in this way a crucial part of the meaning construction is lost. And after all this was a sort of
136
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
a starting point for the whole ideogenetic theory. Also, as I said earlier, Todorov's criticism was not superficial, it was not just an excuse to present Barthes's views.20 At the same time presenting his criticism as a criticism of structuralism as a whole meant stepping up and taking a position in the ongoing debates. And this position sided with the dogmatic functionaries and the conservative impressionists instead of with people like Miroslav Yanakiev. Was he trying to imply that the Guillaumist theory he and Krassimir Mantchev were developing had nothing to do with structuralism?
Zarev must have had liked the article against Barthes because two years later a shorter version of it was included together with Zarev's own text in a volume on structuralism published in Moscow and gathering authors from various countries (Basina, Polyakova 377-395).21 Judging from this collection of essays one cannot but get the impression that Pantelei Zarev and Christo Todorov formed a front in Bulgaria against structuralism as such.
The political stakes of literary theory in the Eastern Bloc are yet to be studied. It was rarely about the possible direct influence on politics. Sometimes, the explicit distancing from political questions was a political gesture. Sometimes, the production or introduction of theoretical thought was political in the sense that it created places of freedom; and then theoretical thinking in itself was an active transformation or subversion of a system that often tried to control it and reduce it. Also, theory always provides new categories for the analysis of what is going on, be it in a story, in a poem, or in a real event.
Christo Todorov's own theory can give the researcher tools for the understanding of his situation. The way Krassimir Mantchev and he were developing their Guillaumist theory lead inevitably to the particularization22 of the theory distancing them from the French
♦ before the conference and therefore before the debate. On the other hand, in a note to a text of his published during the same year he thanks Greimas for his suggestions during
the work on the text (Todorov 1968: 41). Which means that they communicated personally. Is it possible that with his criticism of Barthes Todorov was taking Greimas's side after the fall out of Barthes and Greimas that took place precisely at that time? Or is it rather the case that Greimas's approach with the focus on the semantic level and the deep structures was from the outset closer to Guillaume and therefore also to Todorov? Much is still to be clarified but even these facts would have remained unknown to me without Boyan Manchev's help,
to whom I would like to express here my gratitude.
21
I want to thank again Boyan Manchev for drawing my attention to this volume.
22
Following Guillaume and Todorov hereafter I will use generality and universality, on the one hand, and particularity and singularity, on the other, as synonyms.
137
DARIN TENEV - Tension Episodes (A Fragment of the History of Literary Theory)
structuralists in general and from the other Guillaumists in particular (cf. Pottier 44; Gandon, Tchaouchev 3-12). The initial virtuality and universality were gradually reduced to a singular theory. From this perspective the reference to Zarev and the decision to publish the text on Barthes in Bulgarian can be interpreted as a move of generalization, to which the shared criticism of the Barthesian preference for discrete units and the following inability to see the global meaning testifies. In such a generalization and virtualization Christo Todorov was apparently searching to find the common ground between the dogmatic humanist-Marxist position of Zarev and his own Guillaumist views. However, on this level of generality no theory could have been developed; the development would have inevitably led to a new particular-ization. What is more, the generalization of Marxism and Guillaumist structuralism was producing simultaneously particularizations both in non-structuralist Marxism and in structuralism (Marxist or not). The generalization was not unification.
The virtuality of the common ground should be further questioned as to its modal structure and the subject-object relationship this structure presupposed. One possibility will be to see Todorov's own motives as based on the goal to achieve knowledge (an intellective and thus a transmodal notion), knowledge what literature is and what is the role of language in its constitution. In short, a desire for knowledge. A modal notion directed at a transmodal one. A subject of desire who desires to become a subject of knowledge. The desire however cannot be achieved if possibility/ ability is lacking thereof, for possibility holds a more basic position in the hierarchy of modal notions and desire depends on it. In the context of the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s the possibility for such type of knowledge was threatened and it is not improbable that this gave Todorov another motive for siding with
138
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Zarev. Such a siding was a possibilization of the achievement of desire. The price he had to pay was that he had to occupy a position which was no longer the subject position of his desire. It is hard to think that Zarev himself, like Todorov, wrote his article against structuralism because he wanted. It would be much more appropriate to say that he had to, it was his obligation or even duty, because he was a subject put in the place of an object-agent by the empty subject of power. Siding with Zarev meant that Todorov also had to abandon being a subject of desire and become an object-agent, a tool in a game it didn't matter he liked or even understood. He was, indeed, instrumentalized as the 1975 volume clearly shows. Of course, there were struggles between different devoirs in the ruling Party as well as among the functionaries in the University, but the point is that the level of obligation meant a different subject structure. In the force field of literary theory in Bulgaria the articulation of a strong theoretical position was possible only if subjected to some of the obligations that the association with dominant Party figures presupposed.23 Notwithstanding the internal power struggles, these "network games" (Deyanova 2015) produced empty subjects of power to whom the real subjects were subjected by forms of obligations and duties. The subject of obligation turned out to be the true structure resulting from the virtualization and the reaching of common ground.
So there was modal conflict, a modal conflict between "I want" and "I must", between desire and obligation. It is clear what the choice Todorov made was. He turned to a new particularization, writing almost exclusively in French but after 1973 to my knowledge publishing only in Bulgaria. It was a sort of self-isolation. And even to this day he remains a figure unknown to the wide academic circles in this country.
23
This hypothesis could provide another answer to the question posed by Boyan Manchev (1999) as to why the Bulgarian structuralists did not produce a general literary theory. It could have been a choice not to play if possible the institutional power game which would put them in the position of object-agents.
139
DARIN TENEV - Tension Episodes (A Fragment of the History of Literary Theory)
24
In this sense the Christo Todorov's case would confirm Boyan Manchev's observation that the problem of the clash between structuralism and institutionalized Marxism in Bulgaria was never conceptual. Cf. Manchev 1999.
If Todorov was faced with a modal conflict between desire and obligation, then it becomes obvious that the problem was neither methodological, nor conceptual, for a productive singularization of a Marxist-Guillaumist theory is thinkable.24 It was a problem of becoming a subject and what kind of subject is one becoming. The dynamics of the modal conflict reveals at least one more thing beyond a possible explanation of the situation. It reveals the political stakes of Todorov's Guillaumist literary theory. The stake of theory (and of that particular theory) was to explicate the relationship between the modal and the transmodal notions and in a reflexive way to indicate the crux of transformation. The modal notions characterize the actions, the transmodal notions characterize the subject of action (Todorov 1985: 171-172) but theory is the point where the transmodal can have as its object the modal, a reflexive point where the desire to know leads to a knowledge of desire. And the theoretical knowledge of desire is simultaneously a knowledge of the tension, of the inherent tendencies within a given context. Every movement of singularization and universalization was a tensorial movement. The tensions opened up directions, directions for change, even if the change that actually happened to these particular scholars was not the one they were imagining. The appearance of the generality, the tense generality of Zarev-Todorov, was a product of a non-predetermined potentialization disclosing the immanent trans-formability of the field beyond the particular agents. Above, following Guillaume, I defined tension as the immanent progressive transforma-bility of a state of affairs which gives a direction of change. The tension episodes of Bulgarian literary theory in the 1960s and the 1970s made evident - and here is the transmodality of theory, both perception and cognition, reflexively turned to the dynamics of the modal notions it rests on - the immanent transformability and the constant becoming
140
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
of subjects. Some chose to play the game and change it from inside. Some chose self-isolation. Some immigrated and others just kept on reading carefully literary works. But theory made it clear, it does so every time, that things can no longer be the same, that every status que is filled with tensions that eventually will change it. $
141
DARIN TENEV - Tension Episodes (A Fragment of the History of Literary Theory)
References
BASiNA, e., m. POLYAKOVA (eds), 1975: Strukturalizm: za i protiv
[Structuralism: pro and contra], Moskva: Progress. bremond, claude, 1964: Le message narratif. Communication 4. 4-32.
bremond, claude, 1966: La logique des possibles narratifs.
Communication 8. 60-76. deyanova, liliana, 2009: Ochertania na malchanieto [Outlines of
Silence]. Sofia: Kritika I humanizam. deyanova, liliana, 2015: Socialnite nauki v arhiva na Darzhavna sigurnost [The Social Sciences in the Archives of State Security]. Sociologicheski problem XLVII, 1-2. 134-153. gandon, francis, assen tchauchev (eds), 2007: Langages
("L'École guillaumienne de Bulgarie"), 165. garnizov, vassil, 2017: Strukturalism i kasen socializam [Structuralism and Late Socialism]. Vekat na strukturalizma [The Century of Structuralism]. Ed. Vassil Garnizov. Sofia: Nov bulgarski universitet. 178-252. goncharova, galina (ed.), 2013/2014: The Academic (Under)Ground
1981-1989. A Special Issue of Piron Journal. 8. Guillaume, gustave, 1970: Temps et verbe suivi de LArchitectonique du temps dans les langues classique. Paris: Libraire honoré Champion. Guillaume, gustave, 1973: Langage et science du langage. Paris:
Librairie A.-G. Nizet. hirtle, walter, 2007: Language in the Mind. An Introduction to Guillaumes Theory. Montréal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
142
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Jakobson, roman, 1972: Poetika-Semiotika-Literaturoznanie. Razgovor [Poetics-Semiotics-Literary Theory. An Interview]. LIK 48 (23 December 1972). KiossEv, alexander, 2009: Istinskiat naslednik [The Real Heir].
Kritika I humanism 29, 2. 145-174. lotman, yuri (ed.), 1972: Semiotika i isskustvometria [Semiotics and
Art-Measurement]. Moskva: Mir. manchev, boyan, 1999: Interpretatsii na ideologiata, ideologii na interpretatsiata [Interpretations of Ideology, Ideologies of Interpretation]. Literaturna misal 1. 5-30^ manchev, boyan, 2003: Nevuobrazimoto [The Inimaginable]. Sofia:
New Bulgarian University. manchev, boyan, 2018. Interview with the author, taken on 29 January 2018.
mantchev, krassimir, 1967: Hiérarchie sémantique des verbes
française contemporains. Cahiers de lexicologie, 10: 31-46. mantchev, krassimir, christo todorov, 1971: Eléments
d'idéogénie. Annuaire de l'Université de Sofia, LXIV. mantchev, krassimir, 1980: Approche de l'idéogenèse. Eds. André Joly, Walter H. Hirtle, Langage et psychomécanique du langage, Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille. mantchev, krassimir, 1998: Sémiotique etNarratologie. Sofia:
University of Sofia Press. nedelchev, mihail, 2014. "Eskiz kam literaturovedski memoari" [A Sketch in view of the Memoirs of a Literary Theoretician]. Nevidimata shkola [The Invisible School]. Ed. Miglena Nikolchina et al. Sofia: Literaturen vestnik. 49-59.
143
DARIN TENEV - Tension Episodes (A Fragment of the History of Literary Theory)
NEDELCHEv, Mihah, 2017. Kogato biah 'mlad kritik-strukturalist' [When I Was a 'Young Structuralist Critic']. Vekat na strukturalizma [The Century of Structuralism]. Ed. Vassil Garnizov. Sofia: Nov bulgarski universitet. 129-157. newton, k. m., 1988: Twentieth Century Literary Theory: A Reader.
New York: St. Martin's Press. nikolchina, miglena, 2011. Prochitat na komunisticheskoto nasledstvo mezhdu izplazvashtite I nabavyashtite se konteksti: Julia Kristeva and Vera M [Reading the Communist Legacy Between Dissolving and Accruing Contexts: Julia Kristeva and Vera M.]. Sociologicheski problemi XLIII. 3-4. 96-113. nikolchina, miglena, 2013. Lost Unicorns of the Velvet Revolution.
New York: Fordham University Press. nikolchina, miglena, 2014: Inverted forms and Heterotopian Homonymy: Althusser, Mamardashvili, and the Problem of "Man". boundary 2, 1. 79-100. pottier, Bernard, 1976: Sur la formulation des modalités en
linguistique. Langages 43. 39-46. rivkin, julie, michael ryan (eds.), 1998: Literary Theory:
An Anthology. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishings. SELDEN, raman, 1985: A Reader's Guide to Contemporary Literary
Theory. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky. todorov, hristo, 1968: Logique et temps narratif. Information sur
les sciences sociales VII, 6. 41-49. todorov, christo, 1971: La hiérarchie des liens dans le récit.
Semiotica 2: 121-139. todorov, christo, 1973: Kritika na literaturovedskite vazgledi na Rolan Bart [A Critique of Roland Barthes's Literary Views]. Literaturna misul 2: 10-28.
144
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
TODOROv, Christo, 1982: Histoire de la littérature françaiseXVIIIe -
XXe s. Deuxieme partie: La poesie. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. TODOROv, christo, 1985: Etudes d'histoire de la littérature française
(18-20 s.). Sofia: University of Sofia Press. TODOROv, christo, 2003: La théorie opérative et la littérature
française. Veliko Tarnovo: Faber. TODOROVA, PETYA, 2012. Kum istoriata na humanitaristikata ot vtorata polovina na 20 vek: bulgarskiat prinos za razvitieto na strukturalizma i poststrukturalizma (Tzvetan Todorov i Julia Kristeva) [Toward a History of the Humanities in the second half of the 20th Century: the Bulgarian contribution for the development of structuralism and poststructuralism (Tzvetan Todorov and Julia Kristeva)]. Dissertation defended on 10 April 2012 at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. toussant, Maurice, 1983: Contre l'arbitraire du signe. Paris:
Didier Erudition. trendafilov, hristo, 2017: Izvanstolichni nauchno-prosvetni centrove po vremeto na soc-a [Scientific Enlightenment Centres Outside of the Capital City in the Socialist Times]. Vekat na strukturalizma [The Century of Structuralism]. Ed. Vassil Garnizov. Sofia: Nov bulgarski universitet. 158-167. valin, roch, 1954: Petite introduction à la psychomécanique du
langage, Québec: Presses de l'Université Laval. wilmet, marc, 1972: Gustave Guillaume et son école linguistique.
Paris: Fernand Nathan, et Bruxelles: Labor. winner, thomas g., 1971: Introduction. In: Iu. M. Lotman, Struktura khudozhestvennogo teksta. Providence: Brown University Press. vii-x.
145
DARIN TENEV - Tension Episodes (A Fragment of the History of Literary Theory)
yanakiev, Miroslav, 1960: Bulgarsko stihoznanie [Bulgarian
Versification]. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. zarev, pantelei, 1969: Strukturalizm, literaturoznanie i esteticheski ideal [Structuralism, Literary Studies, and Aesthetic Ideal]. Sofia: Balgarski pisatel. znepolski, ivaylo, 2017: Roland Barthes i Yuri Lotman: Semiotikata v Zapadna i Iztochna Evropa. Komparativni razmishlenia. [Roland Barthes and Yuri Lotman: Semiotics in Western and Eastern Europe. Comparative reflections]. Vekat na strukturalizma [The Century of Structuralism]. Ed. Vassil Garnizov. Sofia: Nov bulgarski universitet. 92-99.
146
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Pe3MMe
Pa3BMTueTO Ha crpyKTypanucTKM ugeu b B'nrapua CBBnaga c no-nuTMKara Ha nM6epanM3a^Ma Ha XyMaHMTapHMTe u co^ManHM Ha-yKM b CTpaHaTa m TaKa ot caMOTO cu Hana.no ce OKa3Ba BBBneneHO b MHO^eCTBO gUCKyCMM, B'BTpemHM M BIHmHM, KaKTO M naCT OT BCe
no-ycno^HaBam,OTO ce none Ha nuTepaTypo3HaHueTO. B to3m KOHTeKCT ce noaBaBa m 6'nrapcKara ruMoMucTKa mona, BogeHa ot e3UKOBega KpacuMup MaHneB u nuTeparypoBega XpucTO TogopoB. C^e^Ma-nM3upanu bbb OpaHuua npe3 mecTgeceTTe, m gBaMara guanoru3M-paT noBene c ^peHCKUTe cu Koneru, numaT npeguMHO Ha ^peHCKu m nonTM M3u,ano npeHe6perBaT b TeKCTOBeTe cu 6'nrapcKaTa cpega. Cpeg ManKOTO CTaTuu Ha TogopoB, HanucaHM Ha 6'nrapcKu, o6ane ce OTKpoaBa egHa KpuTUKa kbm P. BapT ot i973 r., KoaTO ce npegcTaBa KaTO KpuTMKa Ha CTpyKTypanu3Ma BBo6m,e m b KoaTO tom B3UMa CTpaHaTa Ha naHTeneM 3apeB, ToraBa peKrop Ha Co^uMcKua yHMBepcuTeT, kom-TO om,e npe3 i969 Bene e HanagHan cipyKTypanucTKMTe TeHgeHu,Mu HaB'H m b CTpaHaTa ot CBOUTe gorMaTunHM XyMaHucrunHO-MapK-CMCTKM ^O3M^MM, $yH^MOHMpam,M KaTO O$M^ManHa ^O3M^Ma Ha
BKn no B'npoca 3a rpaHMu,MTe Ha no3BoneHOTO b TeopuaTa. B'npeKM ne ruMOMM3M'T Ha TogopoB MO®e ga 6'ge BugaH KaTO Bug CTpyKTy-panu3'M m B'npeKM ne u3cnegoBaTenuTe, c komto o6cB»ga ugeuTe cu no TOBa BpeMe, ca BCunKUTe crpyKTypanucTM (A. rpeMac, Kn. BpeMOH m T.H.), c Ta3M CBoa CTaTua tom caKam CKpuBa TO3u acneKT Ha TeopuuTe cu. ToBa CBBceM He O3HanaBa, ne KpuTUKaTa My kbm BapT e noBBpXHOCTHO u3BUHeHue 3a 3ano3HaBaHe Ha 6BnrapcKara ny6nuKa c HeroBUTe TpygoBe - HanpoTMB, craBa gyMa 3a cepuo3HO HecBrnacue m go6pe o6ocHOBaHu apryMeHTM, ecTecTBeHO u3BegeHu ot ruMOMMCTKua nogXog. Mo®e ga ce Ka^e, ne Ta3u My pa6oTa ce
147
DARIN TENEV - Tension Episodes (A Fragment of the History of Literary Theory)
HaMecBa b eguH 3agB.6oHaBam, ce TeoperaneH pa3puB Me^gy rpeMac u EapT, KaTO caM TogopoB nogKpena Her.acHO, ho OHeBugHO rpeMac. Ct^eBpeMeHHO, c ^y6.^uKa^uaTa Ha 6'B.rapcKM no CTpaHeH HanuH He npocro ce yKa3Ba kbm pa3puB b crpyKTypa.u3Ma, ho nocpegcTBOM TOBa yKa3BaHe ce pa3KpMBa u bb3mo»ho pa3Hopenue b HacroaTe.HO HecTpyKrypa.McTMHHMa 6'B.rapcKM MapKcu3^M. BtnpeKM TOBa, maH-cbt, komto Bp^3KaTa c MorBmara uHCTUTy^uoHa.Ha <£urypa Ha 3apeB gaBa, He M3r.e®ga ga e 6u. npuB.eKaTe.eH 3a XpucTO TogopoB, komto c.egBam,MTe eguHageceT roguHu cnupa ga ny6.uKyBa b ^MTepaTypHa mucb. u ce u3O.upa noBTopHO ot no-mupoKua 6'B.rapcKM KOHTeKcT.
B Hacroam,aTa cTaTua ce npeg.ara xunoTe3aTa, ne u36opBT Ha XpucTO TogopoB He ce ocHOBaBa Ha KOHu.enTya.Ha HeBB3Mo:^HocT 3a TeopeTu3upaHe, o6eguHaBam,o MapKcucTKu u ruMOMucTKM npeg-nocTaBKu, a ce	Ha Moga.Hocru u Moga.eH npexog ot ^e.aHue
kbm gB.r u 3ag^.^eHue, onucaHu b co6cTBeHaTa My Teopua, npu KoeTO ce npou3Be^ga pa3.uneH cy6eKT, „npa3eH cy6eKT" Ha B.acTTa, cnpaMO komto pea.HuaT cy6eKT Ha geMcTBueTO m,e 6^ge nacuBeH, cBegeH go o6eKT-areHT, uHcrpyMeHTa.u3upaH. B TO3u cmucb. ot-Ka3BT ot 6'Bgem.o CBTpygHunecTBO Ha Togop uMa He KOH^nTya.Hu, a Moga.Hu ocHOBaHua.
BtnpeKM npuBMgHMa Heycnex Ha cTpaTeruaTa My, HanpaBeHOTO ot Hero m,e e pa3Kpu.o Hanpe^eHua u bb3mo»hoctu b OH3u KOHTeKcT, kouto goToraBa He ca 6u.u BuguMu.
148
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Darin Tenev
Darin Tenev is associate professor at the Literary Theory Department at the University of Sofia and at the Sociology and Humans Sciences Department at the University of Plovdiv. He is the director of the Institute of Critical Social Studies. He has published two books in Bulgarian - Fiction and Image. Models (2012) and Digressions. Essays on Jacques Derrida (2013), as well various articles on literary theory, model theory, deconstruction, and contemporary philosophy, among which the most recent are: "Jacques Derrida" in Oxford Bibliographies in Literary and Critical Theory; "Models of Poetics. A Response to Robert Matthias Erdbeers Poetik der Modelle" in Textpraxis; "Modes of Fiction, Models of Fiction" in Literary Form. Theories - Dynamics - Cultures. Perspectives on Literary Modelling.
149
Varia
DOI - 10.13137/2283-5482/22386
Between the Sureness of Theory and the Folly of Literature. A commentary to the reception of Saussure's theory of language (from Jakobson to Bagic) Me^gy yBepeHHocTtro TeopHH h 6e3yMHeM ^HTepaTypM. KOMMeHTapHH K BOCnpHOTHro
TeopHH ^3MKa ge Coccropa (ot ^Ko6coHa go Barana)
$ anna skubaczewska-pniewska - annaskpn@umk.pl
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Rather small in number but highly influential works of the Swiss linguist still trigger fierce controversies and heated interpretation disputes. According to some researchers, de Saussure embodies a scientific paradigm and represents what in the humanities is most systematized and scientific while to others, he is an insane scientist secretly studying old poetry in order to discover meanings encoded in poems. The article sums up a hundred-year-old reception of the Genevan's thought in the literary studies and it explains anagrammatic poems dedicated to Saussure's theory.
STRUCTURALISM, ANAGRAMS, POSTSTRUCTURALISM, DECONSTRUCTION, GRAMMATOLOGY, SEMIOLOGY, RECEPTION
CKpoMHte no oôteMy, ho oneHB Baua-TeaBHte gocru^eHua mBe^apœoro auHrBucra no-npe^HeMy BH3HBa»T pa3Horaacua u crpacTHte uHTepnpe-Ta^MOHHHe cnopt. CoraacHo ogHMM uccaegoBaTeaaM ge Coccwp Bonaom;a-eT HayHHyw napagurMy u aBaaeTca npegcraBMTeaeM Toro, hto b ryMaHu-TapHtx HayKax Hau6oaee cucreMaTu-3upoBaHo u tohho, gaa gpyrux - ^To cKopee Bcero cyMacmegmuM yneHHM, TaMHo M3yHawm;MM gpeBHMM ^o^3MW gaa Toro, hto6li pacKptTB ceKpeT-Hoe cogep^aHue, 3amu^poBaHHoe b cTuxoTBopeHuax. B cTaTBe nogBogflTca uToru cToaeTHeM pe^muu Mtcau ^eHeB^ b auTepaTypoBegeHuu u o6-cy^gaMTca aHarpaMarunecKue ctmxm, nocBA^eHHte Teopuu ge Coccwpa.
CTPYKTYPAflH3M, AHAPPAMMH, nOCTCTPYKTYPAflH3M, flEKOHCTPY^Ha, rPAMMATO^OrHa, CEMHO^OrHa, PE^E^^Ha
153
ANNA SKUBACZEWSKA-PNIEWSKA «- The Sureness of Theory and the Folly of Literature
For several years we have been witnessing an increased interest in the works of Ferdinand de Saussure and in himself, which is not without a relation to two round anniversaries celebrated in 2013 and 2016. Both the 100th anniversary of the scholar's death and the 100th anniversary of the publication of the history's most famous linguistic compendium, which his Course in General Linguistics (Cours de linguistique générale) undoubtedly is, were commemorated in conferences and scientific sessions which took place almost all over the world as well as in numerous publications re-interpreting the works of the linguist from Geneva and outlining the up-to-now reception of his ideas. To be more specific, the reception which has been very stormy, "even adventurous and romantic" (Grzegorczyk 2017: 77).
Rather small in number, especially taking into consideration papers which the author prepared to publish, but highly influential works of the Swiss linguist triggered and - as the latest publications show -still trigger such fierce controversies and such heated interpretation disputes that one cannot but have an impression as if the participants were not discussing the same scientist. According to some, he embodies a scientific paradigm and represents what in the humanities is most systematized and scientific while to others, he is an insane scientist secretly studying old poetry in order to discover meanings encoded in poems. Suffice to say, the "duality" or the "dualism" of Saussure ("Les deux Saussure", "la dualité saussurienne" [Calvet 1975: 46]) became a scientific problem which was discussed in separate papers, even at scientific conferences (Lotringer 1974). Following such rhetoric, one should add that from the perspective of over a hundred years' presence of the Genevan scholar's thought in the world science, it would be legitimate to hold a conference entitled "Four Saussures". The term "Saus-sure's theory of language" was defined in different ways by various
154
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
researchers at various stages and referred to four different text corpora which were presented to the world at long intervals.1
The first and the most well-known Saussure would be the nominal author of the Course in General Linguistics, edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. Until 1957, when The manuscript sources of the Course in General Linguistics by F. de Saussure (Les sources manuscriptes du „Cours de linguistique générale" de F. de Saussure) by Robert Godel was published, it had been the only source of the Saussurean theory of language which by that time had already changed the face of science and made the modest linguist from Geneva a legend. The second Saussure would be the author of the Genevan lectures on general linguistics which were the basis for the Course, but, as it was proved, were significantly distorted and radicalised2 by the editors using students' notes. One can see the extent of the distortion by reading papers by Rudolf Engler or Eisuke Komatsu. The first researcher compared the text of the Course, four sets of notes of students and the notes of the professor himself by printing corresponding fragments in six columns (Engler 1968-1974).3 Each of the three volumes edited by Komatsu, on the other hand, presents both in English and in French the materials from one of the three series of the famous lectures on general linguistics delivered at the University of Geneva (Komatsu 1993-1999). The fact that the last words of the Course indicating "the fundamental idea" (l'idée fondamentale) of the whole book had never been uttered by the lecturer and were added by the editors encourages one to pose a question whether it is justified to call Saussure a structuralist. Let us recall those words fraught with consequences: "The true and unique object of linguistics is language studied in and for itself" (de Saussure 1959: 232) ("La linguistique a pour unique et veritable objet de la langue envisagée en elle-même et pour elle-même"). The continuators interpreted those words as a
Few Saussure's achievements, although important for the history of language, which preceded the publication of the Course are not discussed here since the extent of their influence has been very narrow. The main one is the book Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes (1879), with which a very young author before his PhD attracted the attention of the
experts.
The next stage of radicalization was in structuralism (Bédouret-Larraburu 2012: 28).
It is worth mentioning that Engler called Charles Bally and Albert Seche-haye author-editors (Engler 2004: 46).
155
ANNA SKUBACZEWSKA-PNIEWSKA «- The Sureness of Theory and the Folly of Literature
"Dernier legs de l'héritage saussurien à nous être parvenu, avec un retard de cent ans, le manuscrit De l'essence double du langage jette aujourd'hui une lumière plus vive sur l'écart qui sépare, à cet égard, le Pseudo-Saussure du véritable Ferdinand de Saussure."
demand for the autonomy of linguistics and took the encouragement to absolutise the systemic relations (langue) at the expense of their update in specific utterances (parole), which became the hallmark of structuralism.
The third and the fourth Saussures left the manuscripts of the linguist which were not published in his own lifetime and which showed a wide spectrum of his interests and formed two different thematic units. The analyses of old poetry revealed by Jean Starobinski (Staro-binski 1964; Starobinski 1971), surrounded by an air of scandal and mystery, started to live their own life and made a spectacular career in the theory of literature. Looking for theme-words (mot-thème), especially names, hidden in the sound tissue of Vedic, Saturnian and New Latin poems which, as it turned out, were the other life of Saussure, who at the same time delivered lectures on general linguistics, was so inspiring that many people followed (Piekarski 2016: 219-242).
The theoretical and linguistic potential of sketches included in the Writings in General Linguistics (Écrits de linguistique générale, 2002) is being discovered today. There are opinions that in order to appreciate the substantive content of those materials, especially the work On the Dual Essence of Language (De l'essence double du langage), a real "philological revolution" should be staged (Depecker 2012). According to the co-editor of the Writings, Simon Bouquet, only the total re-definition of the up-to-now saussurology, especially the rejection of the hegemony of the Course, which created Pseudo-Saussures (Bouquet 2010b: 31-48), gives a chance that we will finally meet the real Saussure:
The last Saussurean heritage which arrived with a one hundred years' delay, the manuscript On the Dual Essence of Language, sheds today a more vivid light on the difference which separates a PseudoSaussure from the real Ferdinand de Saussure.4 (Bouquet 2010a: 52)
156
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
***
Not all of the "four Sausures" mentioned here were equally important for the development of the literary studies. While it is impossible to imagine a modern theory of literature without the Course (the founding text of structuralism) and anagrams (psychoanalysis and post-structuralism), the notes from the lectures and the manuscripts, so important from the perspective of the history of linguistics as they help to discover the authentic views on language of one of the most important linguists of all time, have not been so significant for the literary research so far.5
It so happened that the most effective propagators of Sausurre's ideas among literary scholars were a lingusit Roman Jakobson (Jakobson 1987: 393-436; Jakobson 1971: 272-279) and a philosopher Jacques Derrida (Derrida 1967), who imposed their own conception of this theory on the scientific world (Skubaczewska-Pniewska 2013: 94-153).
Starting from the first mention in the brochure Novejsaja russkaja poèzija in Prague in 1921, through the famous definition of poetic function as the projection of "the principle of equivalence from the axis of selection into the axis of combination" to the statements from the early 1980s, Jakobson (1896-1982) developed Saussure's ideas which governed each of his scientific endeavour and determined the direction of development of all structuralist schools. A set of terms of each centre was based on binary oppositions propagated in the Course: signi-fier-signified (signifiant i signifié), language-speaking (langue-parole), synchrony - diachrony (synchronie-diachronie), syntagmatic-associa-tive relations (rapports syntagmatiques-rapports associatifs). The most universal (and "monopolistic") from Jakobson's proposals is the idea of two aspects of language which developed into two types of aphasia
5
On the other hand, anagrams which are so fascinating for literary scientists are rather ignored by linguists.
157
ANNA SKUBACZEWSKA-PNIEWSKA «- The Sureness of Theory and the Folly of Literature
Jakobson began his scientific career in pre-revolutionary Russia, where he co-founded the Russian formal school and where he first heard (probably from Siergiej Karczewski) of the Course. He received a copy of the book from the editor Albert Sechehaye himself in 1920 while he was in Prague. In years 1933-1938 the structuralist was a professor at the university in Brno, then he spent two years in Scandinavia, from where he left for America in the early 1940s to deliver a series of lectures on the Saussurean theory at École Libre des Hautes Études in New York and then to take the chair in Slavic Languages at Columbia University. After that, Jakobson was a professor at Harvard and then at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
and the opposition of metaphor (paradigmatic plane, i.e. the axis of selection) and metonymy (operation on the syntagmatic axis, i. e. the axis of combination), and which were grounded in the functioning of two cerebral hemispheres where one is responsible for the proper use of contiguity relations and the other for correct associations. Such dichotomies categorise all artistic phenomena and all signs of activity and human behaviour.
What is important, Jakobson was one of the first to appreciate the theoretical and literary potential of the notes on anagrams. He would publish and comment on the correspondence between Saussure and Antoine Meillet, which coincided with his own "anagrammatic" analyses of Wielimir Chlebnikow's poetry.
Frequent changes of place of living and connections of the author of Linguistics and Poetics with various universities helped to disseminate Saussure's ideas not only in the Eastern and Western Europe, but, in fact, across the whole world.6 Not without significance was Jakob-son's considerable standing. It was through Jakobson that Levi-Strauss, Barthes, Kristeva, Lacan and, last but not least, Derrida assimilated Saussure's thought.
In the book suggestively entitled What if Derrida was wrong about Saussure? one can read that "structuralism, circa 1966, needed the radical reappraisal that Derrida's intervention provides" (Daylight 2012: 186). The intervention came about through the deconstruction of structuralism conducted in Of Grammatology (De la grammatologie, 1967). It should, however, be borne in mind that it was a part of a large-scale philosophical project on the deconstruction of logocentrism, i.e. philosophical structure which recognises existence as presence. Opposing that tradition, Derrida put himself in the position of an initiator of a new scientific era. Structuralism with its conviction that
158
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
everything could be presented systematically and described with binary oppositions which was at that time in its heyday seemed to be a relic of the previous era. When attacking it, a deconstructionist would break the scientific paradigm and undermine the cognitive optimism of the metaphysics of presence. The selection of the Course in General Linguistics as the subject of the analysis and simultaneously the source of inspiration for Derrida's most important categories seems strategic. Writing a somewhat anti-Course, the author made Of Grammatology a founding text of deconstruction and at the same time anti-logocentrism and anti-phonocentrism (and, of course, post-structuralism).7
The influence of Jacques Derrida's philosophical programme created in confrontation with Saussure's theory on the literary research is hard to overestimate. The programme is fully accomplished in the methods of text reading used by the theoreticians of literature at Yale University, the late literary analyses of Roland Barthes as well as the works by Julia Kristeva.
Derrida infers from the Course both the theory of meaning as dissemination (dissémination) and (indirectly) interpretation as misreading, but above of all, the most important deconstruction tool, i.e. the category of différance. The philosopher found an ally in Saussure because of his solely "negative" understanding of language expressed in the assumption of language as the system of differences, "in language there are only differences without positive terms" (de Saussure 1959: 120). Derrida assigned significant philosophical functions to Saussure's difference that he further clarified. He wanted to see it as a condition for the existence of language and a chance to cross the metaphysics of presence. In terms of the functioning of language, a denial of identity and presence by differentiation which is both difference and deferral (according to the meaning of the French verb différer) means a constant
Derrida's famous paper Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences (La structure, le signe et le jeu dans le discours des sciences humaines) delivered in Baltimore in 1966, commonly thought of as the inauguration of post-structuralism, is, in fact, the announcement of paradigm change while Of Grammatology can be treated as a manifesto.
159
ANNA SKUBACZEWSKA-PNIEWSKA «- The Sureness of Theory and the Folly of Literature
deferral of the balanced meaning. It is connected with the re-interpretation of the structure of linguistic sign. Derrida reduces Saussure's dyadic sign to the signifier which cannot indicate the presence of the signified, but only the presence of other signifiers which produce an undisturbed movement of traces. In other words, the signified is nothing more than a trace which is always in the position of the signifier. While différance (with a silent "a") is an alternative to Saussure's différence (with an "e"), Derrida's grammatology is a counter-proposal to Saussure's semiology, in which "sign" has been replaced with "trace".
Différance treated as the basic mechanism governing the language allowed Derrida to deny the idea of the presence of the sign, its meaning and existence itself. He says that nothing can be present in itself since there are only differences and traces of traces. Although the author of Of Grammatology focuses here on highlighting contradictions in the Course, there is no doubt that he also did his homework on anagrams (Derrida 1967: 57).
While discussing the reception of Saussure's anagrammatic analyses, it is impossible not to mention the name of Julia Kristeva. The French-Bulgarian scientist noticed that they offered an opportunity to go beyond the current linguistic and literary concepts (Kristeva 1974: 239). She took that opportunity and proposed "semanalysis" and formulated the concept of the unconscious of the text based on a non-linear transversal process of meaning. Such a perspective opens the text to unlimited context and releases it from the reign of the subject and the author. As a combination of voices and codes, the text somewhat "produces" its meaning by itself. According to Kristeva, it begins in the network of phonic differences transversely arranged and comes out as a consequence of non-linear reading, i.e. as the unconscious of the text. What is more, Kristeva also spread another Saussurean term,
160
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
namely paragrams (paragrammes). She made it the basis for her own "semiology of paragrams" which, in fact, was one of the versions of post-structuralist theory of intertextuality (Kristeva 1969: 113-146).
Fascination with anagrams, however fruitful, has diverted the attention of literary scholars from Saussure's other achievements and the findings of contemporary Saussurology. Being preoccupied with the fight against "Saussurism" (Gasparov 2013: 8) and searching for the true Saussure, it has brought out innovation from the manuscripts, so far absent in the literary research. The near future will show how and to what extent also the latest findings of Saussurologists shall inspire literary researchers, but meanwhile, let us look at the one hundred-year-old reception of the theory of the Genevan scholar from the angle of literature.
Indie rock, sometimes called independent rock (indie comes from independent), is considered a type of alternative music.

Among numerous texts dedicated to Saussure and his ideas, artistic expressions seem to stand out. A starting point for further deliberations are two poetic texts: the poem la folie de saussure by Kresimir Bagic and the lyrics of Magnetic Fields song The Death of Ferdinand de Saussure, which can also by analysed as a poem. On the one hand, those works are a testimony of the highest rank which in the scientific world is assigned to the linguist; on the other hand, they are a manifestation of demythologisation of that figure.
In 1999, Merge Records released a triple-album 69 Love Songs of the American rock (more precisely, indie rock8) group Magnetic Fields. As the title says, it contains sixty-nine pieces written by the group lead singer, Stephin Meritt, dealing with various aspects of love in an ironic way. What is important, all the lyrics make a somewhat poetic treatise
161
ANNA SKUBACZEWSKA-PNIEWSKA «- The Sureness of Theory and the Folly of Literature
on how the term and subject of love function in the artistic discourse and pop culture, especially in love songs. On the third record there is a piece The Death of Ferdinand de Saussure, a mourning ballad in tone. Merritt sings and sometimes melorecites his own lyrics in his characteristic bass voice and already in the first part the text touches upon the theory and philosophy of language and exposes the weaknesses of structuralism, and even science in general.
I met Ferdinand de Saussure
On a night like this
On love he said
"I'm not so sure
I even know what it is
No understanding
No closure
It is a nemesis
You can't use a bulldozer
To study orchids"
Saussure, referred to in the lyrics, is an icon of linguistics, i.e. a researcher made famous by the Course in general linguistics. It was the book published by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye under Saussure's name (1857-1913) in 1916 that brought the assumed author posthumous fame, who soon became one of the most influential scholars of the century. It is said that Saussure's impact on different scientific fields equalled in strength to that of Freud and Marx, and his innovativeness to that of Galileo or Copernicus. In fact, the influence of Saussurean concept of language, and more precisely, structuralism, out of which the theory was born, spread from philosophy, through ethnology,
162
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
history and sociology, to biology while the Genevan's breakthrough in thinking of language is often compared to Copernican revolution:9
For just as Copernicus had claimed that the Earth rotated about the Sun, instead of the Sun rotating about the Earth, Saussure claims something analogous in the case of language. [...] Instead of seeing words as mere adjuncts to our grasp of reality, Saussure saw our understanding of reality as depending essentially upon our social use of the verbal signs which constitute the language we use. Human existence is, by definition, a linguistically articulated existence. (Harris, Taylor 1994:177).
And it is not the only scientific revolution (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) connected with the gradual discovering of Saus-sure's achievements (Aron 1970; Dziadek 2001; Skubaczews-ka-Pniewska 2017).
What is more, it should be remembered that structuralism aspired to belong to the sciences while the structuralist methodology, directly deriving from the Course, functioned as a reliable tool that could be used to systematize everything, starting from language, through literature and art to the structures of kinship. Semiology, on the other hand, also projected in the Course (with Peirce's semiotics), developed into a meta-language integrating different fields of knowledge. Se-mioticians of culture shared an assumption based on the Course that linguistic signs make a universal pattern which helps to understand the functioning of all other sign systems and the verbocentric view on culture where the natural language is the matrix and the linguistics is the scientific "base".
Therefore, Saussure's helplessness, who in the song by Magnetic Fields cannot answer what love is, and what is more, denies the sole possibility of explaining the essence of that feeling, is more meaningful than if there were any other scholar in his position.
It is the scientificity and systemicity of structuralism, the "bulldozer" of the humanities, that shuts it off from the delicate and
163
ANNA SKUBACZEWSKA-PNIEWSKA «- The Sureness of Theory and the Folly of Literature
beautiful "orchid" of feelings. The sole existence of the escaping rationalisation and disambiguation ("No understanding" / "No closure") of love seem to be gods' revenge ("nemesis"), a punishment for the arrogance of the scientist, who achieved his success at the expense of simplifying the reality.
The lyrics of the refrain based on an anti-thesis, syntactic parallelism and numerous lexical and phonetic repetitions are assigned to Saussure and even more highlight the cognitive futility of artificial systems and formal schemes.
He said...
So we don't know anything You don't know anything I don't know anything About love But we are nothing You are nothing I am nothing Without love
As far as the content plane is concerned, the refrain boils down to ascertaining ignorance about what is the most important and what makes us humans while formally (the expression plane) it resembles a grammar exercise (inflection system). There is no need to remind that the dichotomy of expression plane and content plane which is the basis of literary structuralism updates the Saussurean opposition of signifiant-signiefie. According to the structuralist theory of language, the meaning as signiefie is an intra-language element, words have meanings only because of structural relations, being mutually entangled.
164
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Thus, there is no specified meaning, idea or content in the term "love". 10
What is meant is
Everything that can be said about love is closed in the structure of Lamont Dozier and
bothers Brian and
language, and in the language there are only differences after all. Eddie Holland
The title death of Saussure mentioned in the next part of the song has - as it could be said - an ironic-autothematic dimension. Shooting at the linguist, the composer as if acts in the name of the whole music industry, here represented by the song-writing team Holland-Dozi-er-Holland,10 which created for the famous record company of Motown such hits of the group Supremes as Baby Love or Stop! In the Name of Love.
I'm just a great composer
And not a violent man
But I lost my composure
And I shot Ferdinand
Crying "it's well and kosher
To say you don't understand
But this is for Holland-Dozier-Holland"
Conspicuous in the lyrics are the phonetic efforts relating to Saussure which he called anagrams, but here the proper name is not so much coded as exposed. Merritt plays with Saussure's last name by rhyming composer/composure, but most of all by emphasizing sound similarity between Saussure and so sure as well as the name Ferdinand and the verb understand. As a lead singer, Merritt emphasises the sureness included in the name of the precursor of structuralism by saying, or rather signing, in English "Saussure" and "so sure". To be more precise, the area of phonetic similarities in specific verses is bigger and includes contradictions as well: "I met Ferdinand de Saussure"/"I'm not so sure, „shot Ferdinand"/ "don't understand". Similarly, the tension
165
ANNA SKUBACZEWSKA-PNIEWSKA «- The Sureness of Theory and the Folly of Literature
between sureness and unsureness concerns the scientific direction of the Genevan. The Course in General Linguistics, signed with the name of Saussure, is an arbitrarily imposed set of rules and definitions which were long taken for granted. In the meantime, the manuscripts as well as the memories of the family and colleagues show a portrait of a scientist who carefully poses questions and is far from final conclusions (Joseph 2012: 361-362). Saussure's fascination with anagrammatic poetry was also accompanied by hesitation about the status and extent of the phonetic repetitions he had noticed. As everybody knows, the linguist gave up his very advanced research on anagrams because he had not obtained any answer to the question on their usefulness and intentionality, and he was not sure if they were the basis of poetry or rather the outcome of coincidence. This unsureness is shared by many of his followers: "Unfortunately, I do not think there can be a definitive resolution to the question of the anagram's reality" (Gronas 2009: 188).
A doubtful existence of anagrams together with the scientist's determination in searching for them not only undermined his image of a serious scientist, but also gave rise to a legend "about an insane professor from Geneva" (Panas 2005: 46), vacillating "between knowledge and delirium" ("entre savoir et délire" [Pierssens 1979: 52]). The motif of the insanity of the structuralist, obsessed with identifying phonetic repetitions ("In his obsession Saussure found anagrams everywhere" [Gronas 2009: 162]) returned in the poem by Kresimir Bagic la folie de Saussure (Bagic 2013: 80). It returned literally as the Croatian writer and literary scholar decided to repeat the title of the essay which had given rise to the "psychiatric" way of speaking of the Genevan (Deguy 1969: 20-26). The poet also quoted a title formula from of a famous publication by Starobinksi, "words below words" (Les mots sous les mots). As in Stephin Merritt's lyrics, in Bagic's poem we can
166
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
find anagrammatic puns with Saussure's last name, but they are very 11
,,rij rije
ce de saussure'
difficult to notice in translation. (Majdzik 2015: 101-102). In order not
to risk a more detailed analysis, let me only quote one couplet which could be treated as the shortest summary possible of the up-to-now presence of the Swiss linguist in science.
words are below words
at the end de Saussure (Bagic 2013:80)11
History has gone full circles. At the beginning, there was the Course, the "Vulgate of Saussurim" ("vulgate du saussurisme") (Rastier 2009), a text without the author which put linguistics on the pedestal of science, then anagrams showing that there is a secret behind every text. Today's saussurology promises to present the authentic Saussure and create perspectives for the development of the true Saussurean linguistcs. Let us hope that this time it succeeds in eluding Saussure's "dead-ends" which "predict dead-ends in linguistics" (Todorov 2011: 302).^
167
ANNA SKUBACZEWSKA-PNIEWSKA «- The Sureness of Theory and the Folly of Literature
References
ARON, Thomas, 1970: Une seconde révolution saussurienne.
Langue française. No 7. BAGic, KREŠiMiR, 2013: la folie de Saussure. Plaši li te moja boja.
Zagreb: Meandarmedia. BÉDOURET-LARRABURU, Sandrine, 2012: Littérature et linguistique: quelle place pour Saussure?. En quoi Saussure peut-il nous aider à penser la littérature? Eds. S. Bédouret-Larraburu, G. Prignitz. Pau: Presses de l'Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour. bouquet, Simon, 2010a: D'une épistémologie néosaussurienne de la linguistique à la question de l'universalité des droits de l'homme. RIFL. No 3. bouquet, Simon, 2010b: Du Pseudo-Saussure aux textes
saussuriens originaux. Le projet de Ferdinand de Saussure. Eds. J.-P. Bronckart, E. Bulea, C. Bota, Genève : Droz. calvet, louis-Jean, 1975: Pour et contre Saussure: vers une
linguistique sociale. Paris: Payot. daylight, russell, 2012: What if Derrida was wrong about Saussure?
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. deguy, michel, 1969: La folie de Saussure. Critique. No 260. DEPECKER, LOïc, 2012: Les manuscrits de Saussure: une révolution
philologique. Langages. No 185. dziadek, ADAM, 2001: Anagramy Ferdynanda de Saussure'a -
historia pewnej rewolucji. Teksty Drugie. No 6. engler, rudolf, (ed.), 1968-1974: Saussure, Ferdinand, de, Cours de linguistique générale, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
168
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
engler, rudolf, 2004: The Making of the „Cours de linguistique générale". Trans. M. Pires, C. Sanders. The Cambridge Companion to Saussure. Ed. C. Sanders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. gasparov, Boris, 2013: Beyond Pure Reason: Ferdinand de Saussure's Philosophy of Language and Its Early Romantic Antecedents. New York: Columbia University Press. gronas, Michail, 2009: Just what word did Mandel'shtam forget? A mnemopoetic solution to the problem of Saussure's anagrams. Poetics Today. Vol. 30. No 2. grzegorczyk, anna, 2017: „Presemiotyczne raje" a koncepcja Ferdinanda de Saussure'a. Kurs na Ferdinanda de Saussurea. Ed. A. Grzegorczyk, A. Kaczmarek, K. Machtyl. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza. Harris, ROY, taylor, Talbot J., 1994: Landmarks in linguistic thought: the western tradition from Socrates to Saussure, London: Routledge. jakobson, roman, 1971: Zeichen und System der Sprache. Selected
Writings. Vol. 2. The Hague: Mouton & Co. jakobson, roman, 1987: La théorie saussurienne en retrospection.
Selected Writings. Vol. 8. Ed. S. Rudy, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Joseph, John e., 2012: Saussure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, komatsu, eisuke, (Ed.), 1993-1999: Saussure, Ferdinand, de, Premier Cours de linguistique générale (1907): d'apres les cahiers d'Albert Riedlinger. Trans. G. Wolf; Deuxieme Cours de linguistique générale (1908-1909). Trans. G. Wolf: d'apres les cahiers d'Albert Riedlinger et Charles Patois; Troisieme Cours de linguistique générale (1910-1911): d'apres les cahiers d'Emile Constantin. Trans. R. Harris, Oxford: Elsevier Science.
169
ANNA SKUBACZEWSKA-PNIEWSKA «- The Sureness of Theory and the Folly of Literature
KRiSTEVA, Julia, 1969: Sëmëiôtiké. Recherches pour une sémanalyse.
Paris: Éditions du Seuil. KRiSTEVA, julia, 1974: La révolution du langage poétique, Paris:
Éditions du Seuil. Lotringer, sylvère (ed.), 1974: Les deux Saussure. Recherches
Sémiotexte. No. 16. majdzik, katarzyna, 2015: Lektura anagramatyczna a przeklad (zmagania translatorskie z wierszem Kresimira Bagicia la folie de saussure). Przekiady Literatur Siowianskich. Vol 6. Part 1. panas, wtADYSfcAw, 2005: Lekcja profesora Arendta. Tajemnica siodmego anioia. Cztery interpretacje. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Sklodowskiej. piekarski, ireneusz, 2016: Strategie lektury podejrzliwej. Lublin:
Wydawnictwo KUL. pierssens, michel, 1979: Le signe et sa folie. Le dispositif
Mallarmé/Saussure. Romantisme. No 25-26. rastier, François, 2009: Saussure et les textes. Texto! Textes et
cultures. Vol. 14. [http://www.revue-texto.net/ 10.03.2018]. saussure, Ferdinand, de, 1959: Course in general linguistics. Eds. Ch. Bally and A. Sechehaye in collaboration with A. Riedlinger. Trans. Introduction and notes W. Baskin. New York: Philosophical Library. skubaczewska-pniewska, anna, 2013: W wiqzieniu systemu. Ferdinand de Saussure a teoria literatury. Torun: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikolaja Kopernika. skubaczewska-pniewska, anna, 2017: „Mimesis" czy „semiosis', czyli o potrzebie trzeciej rewolucji saussure'owskiej. Kurs na Ferdinanda de Saussurea. Ed. A. Grzegorczyk, A. Kaczmarek, K. Machtyl. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.
170
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
STAROBiNSKi, Jean, 1964: Les anagrammes de Ferdinand de
Saussure, textes inédites. Mercure de France. No 2. STAROBiNSKi, jean, 1971: Les mots sous les mots: Les anagrammes
de Ferdinand de Saussure. Paris: Gallimard. TODOROv, tzvetan, 2011: Teorie symbolu. Trans. T. Strözynski. Gdansk: slowo/obraz terytoria.
171
ANNA SKUBACZEWSKA-PNIEWSKA «- The Sureness of Theory and the Folly of Literature
Anna Skubaczewska-Pniewska
Anna Skubaczewska-Pniewska (Anna Skubachevska-Pnevska) - an assistant professor at the Institute of Polish Literature, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun (Poland), the head of the Literary Theory Unit. The author of the monographs in Polish: On Different Understanding of a Literary Work of art. Selected twentieth century literary theories versus factuality of a literary work of art (2006), In the Prison of System. Ferdinand de Saussure and theory of literature (2013); co-editor and co-author of the following books: The Theory of Carnivalization. Contexts and interpretations (1999,2011), Literary Allusion. Theory - Interpreatations - Contexts (2007), Self-Conscious Poetry. Interpretations of Authotem-atic Poems (2009), The Theory of Literature in the Light of Linguistics (2011), From Lem to Sienkiewicz (with Ingarden in the Background) (2017). Research interests: theoretical poetics, the methodology and history of literary criticism, the theory of the novel, intertextuality.
172
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
173
DOI - 10.13137/2283-5482/22386
Das slowenische Gesicht: Literarische Reportage über Auswandereridentitäten
The Slovene Face: a Literary Reportage on Emigrant Identities
$ LiDijA REzoNiCNiK - lidija.rezonicnik@gmail.com
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Der Beitrag befasst sich mit dem Werk Das slowenische Gesicht (Slovens-ki obraz) der slowenischen Autorin Brina Svit. Einleitend wird auf die Problematik der hybriden Form des Werkes hingewiesen und das Werk als eine literarische Reportage definiert. Anschließend widmet sich der Beitrag dem Hauptthema der Auswandereridentität. Die Frage der Auswandereridentität, vor allem aber deren Bewahrung, wird im Slowenischen Gesicht aus drei Perspektiven dargestellt, und zwar aus der Perspektive der Erzählerin, der argentinischen Slowenen und des polnischen Schriftstellers Witold Gombrowicz. Dem letzteren weist die Erzählerin eine wichtige Rolle zu, da er als Außenstehender dem Slowenentum nicht unmittelbar verbunden ist, dafür aber das Emigrantenschicksal mit den ausgewanderten Slowenen teilt. Sie fasst die Gedanken aus Gombrowicz' Tagebüchern und dessen Briefwechsel zusammen und kommentiert sie, um abschließend ein polyphones Konzept von Identität hervorzuheben.
BRINA S VIT, DAS SLOWENISCHE GESICHT (SLOVENSKI OBRAZ), WITOLD GOMBROWICZ, ARGENTINISCHE SLOWENEN, EMIGRATION, IDENTITÄT, AUTOBIOGRAPHISCHER DISKURS, LITERARISCHE REPORTAGE
This contribution is focused on The Slovene face (Slovenski obraz), a literary reportage written by the Slovene writer Brina Svit. Having defined Slovenski obraz as "literary reportage", this article especially takes into consideration the challenges of genre hybridity and focuses on emigrant identity as the main topic of Svit's work. The reportage namely looks at the question of identity - especially the preservation of its components - from three different perspectives: the point of view of the narrator; of the Argentines of Slovene descent; and that of the Polish writer Witold Gombrowicz. The latter is given an important role in the reader's perception of the entire story. He is an "outsider", not ravelled into web of the Slovene identity, yet still has the experience of emigrant life and can therefore relate to many of its aspects. The narrator quotes and comments on his thoughts - as he voiced them in his diaries and correspondence - in order to support a final realization about the polyphonic character of identity.
BRINA SVIT, THE SLOVENE FACE (SLOVENSKI OBRAZ), WITOLD GOMBROWICZ, ARGENTINES OF SLOVENE DESCENT, EMIGRANTS, IDENTITY, AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL DISCOURSE, LITERARY REPORTAGE
175
LIDIJA REZONIČNIK - Das slowenische Gesicht
Der Roman wurde auch ins Deutsche übersetzt: Con brio: ein Liebesroman. Aus dem Slowenischen von Astrid Philippsen und Nadja Tomšič übersetzt. Wien: P. Zsolnay, 1998, Nachdruck 2002.
Der Roman wurde auch ins Deutsche übersetzt: Moreno: eine richtige Liebesgeschichte. Aus dem Französischen von Judith Klein übersetzt. München: C. H. Beck, 2005.
Die slowenische Schriftstellerin Brina Švigelj-Merat (1954), die unter dem Pseudonym Brina Svit schreibt, lebt seit Anfang der 80er Jahren in Paris. Sie schreibt vor allem Romane wie April (1984), Gewöhnliche Verhältnisse (Navadna razmerja, 1998, in Koautorenschaft mit Peter Kolšek), Con brio (1998),1 Der Tod der slowenischen Primadonna (Smrt slovenske primadone, 2000), Moreno (2003),® Überflüssig das Herz (Odveč srce, 2006), Coco dias oder Goldene Tür (Coco dias ali Zlata vrata, 2008), Nacht in Reykjavik (Noč v Reykjaviku, 2013), und Essays bzw. Kurzprosa, z. B. Loblied auf die Trennung (Hvalnica ločitvi, 2011) und Das slowenische Gesicht (Slovenski obraz, 2014). Silvija Borovnik (38-45) stellt in ihrer Analyse fest, dass die wiederkehrenden Haupthemen der Prosawerke von Brina Svit Identität, Multikulturalität und Interkulturalität sind. Die Themen entspringen der eigenen Migrationserfahrung und den Übergängen zwischen den Kulturen und Sprachen. Das ist charakteristisch nicht nur für die biographische Realität (zwischen Frankreich und Slowenien) und ihre literarischen Topoi, sondern betrifft auch ihren Sprachgebrauch: Nach dem langjährigen Aufenthalt in Frankreich ist das Slowenische nicht mehr die ausschließliche Sprache, in der sie schreibt. Mit dem Roman Tod der slowenischen Primadonna (2000) beendete die Autorin die Phase, in der sie sich ausschließlich in der Muttersprache ausdrückte. Seit dem Jahre 2003, mit der Veröffentlichung des Romans Moreno, der sich auch inhaltlich mit dem Thema des Wechsels der Sprachidentität befasst (Rožič: 89-96), verfasst Brina Svit ihre Werke zuerst in Französisch und überträgt sie dann ins Slowenische.
Das Buch Das slowenische Gesicht ist das sechste Werk, das die Autorin in Französisch geschrieben und in Frankreich veröffentlicht hat (Visage slovene, 2013), um es dann erneut zu bearbeiten bzw. ins Slowenische zu übertragen (2014): „Was wiederum bedeutet, dasselbe
176
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Buch noch einmal zu schreiben, es aus einer Sprache in die andere zu übertragen mit der Freiheit der Gestaltung, die die Autorenschaft bietet, die Dinge auf Slowenisch doch etwas anders auszudrücken, wie man es sonst auf Französisch zu tun pflegt" (Svit: 9).
hybride literarische gattung
Das slowenische Gesicht besteht aus 15 nicht nummerierten Kapiteln. Das erste Kapitel besteht aus dem Vorwort, im zweiten schildert die Autorin die Vorbereitungen und Begleitumstände des Schreibens, in den anschließenden dreizehn Kapiteln werden die literarisierten persönlichen Erzählungen der Slowenen über die Emigration nach Argentinien wiedergegeben. Jede Geschichte wird mit einem Porträtfoto des Informanten, der berichtenden Person oder deren Verwandten bzw. Freunden, ergänzt, die der Erzählerin von dem Lebensweg und der Lebenseinstellung berichten.
Die biographischen Ausschnitte in der Beschreibung der argentinischen Slowenen sind im Slowenischen Gesicht mit den Beobachtungen der Erzählerin und derer subjektiven Wahrnehmung der beschriebenen Personen und deren argentinischer Lebensräume sowie der Problematik von Emigration und Identität verflochten. Darüber hinaus enthält die Erzählung auch persönliche Erfahrungen der Erzählerin/ Autorin (z. B. der Tod ihrer Mutter) und metanarrative Elemente: Im Vorwort (Vorwort über die Treue) und im ersten Kapitel (Wo soll man beginnen?) erläutert die Erzählerin die Idee zum Schreiben, das Zusammentragen des Materials und die Entstehung des Buches, das Hauptthema und die Struktur des Werkes. Einzelne Erzählungen werden mit Kommentaren über das Zusammentragen der Informationen, den Treffen mit den Informanten und der Schilderung der Entstehung
177
LIDIJA REZONIČNIK - Das slowenische Gesicht
Wenn sich der Beitrag auf die außenliterarische Person Witold Gombrowicz bezieht, benutze ich den Nachnamen des Schriftstellers. Wo es sich um die innenliterarische Person handelt, wird die von der Erzählerin verwendete Bezeichnung Gombro benutzt.
der Porträtfotos ergänzt. Die dritte Erzählebene betrifft die Figur, die von der Erzählerin Gombro genannt wird, und bezieht sich auf die außenliterarische Persönlichkeit, den polnischen Schriftsteller Witold Gombrowicz (1904-1969).3
Alle drei narrativen Ebenen sind eng mit der außenliterarischen, historischen Realität der argentinischen Slowenen, die mit tatsächlichen Namen genannt und mit Porträtfotos gezeigt werden, der Bezugnahmen auf Gombrowicz' Tagebücher und dessen Korrespondenz sowie mit Tatsachen aus dem Leben der Autorin/Erzählerin verbunden. Allerdings wird dies alles nicht dokumentarisch und objektiv, sondern aus der Perspektive der Erzählerin dargeboten. Darum geht es auch nicht primär um eine (Auto)Biographie bzw. ein Werk, das auf dem sog. autobiographischen Pakt beruht. Die Geschichten der argentinischen Slowenen werden fragmentarisch und nicht chronologisch dargestellt; sie stellen Einträge der Erzählerin dar, die sich mit den einzelnen Personen zumeist nur einmal und auch nur für eine begrenzte Zeit traf. Die Erzählerin notiert deren persönliche Aussagen entsprechend ihrer subjektiven Perzeption und vermittelt sie in literarisierter Form, mit Gedankendigressionen bzw. essayistischen Einlagen, und kommentiert sie anhand ihrer eigenen Lebenserfahrungen oder übernimmt Ansichten aus Gombrowicz' Werken. Der Bezug auf die außenliterarische Realität auf allen drei narrativen Ebenen ordnet das Werk in den autobiografischen Diskurs ein, der in der Literaturwissenschaft als ein Geflecht von Realität und Fiktion definiert wird und auf keine bloße dokumentarische Präsentation der Tatsachen beschränkt bleibt (Čeh: 23-27; Zlatar Violic: 24-28). Im autobiografischen Diskurs gibt es keinen autobiographischen Pakt, der nach Philippe Lejeune (On autobiography, 1989) von der Identität des Erzählers bzw. Autors und des Protagonisten ausgeht.
178
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Das slowenische Gesicht kann aus oben genannten Gründen nicht als (Auto)Biographie oder als eine traditionelle literarische Form wie z. B. Roman oder Kurzgeschichte bezeichnet werden. Ebenfalls unzutreffend ist die Bezeichnung als eine halbliterarische Form wie z. B. Essay, oder als nicht literarische Form, wie z. B. Reportage oder Reisebericht. Nach der Aussage von Brina Svit handelt es sich um ein Geflecht von literarisierten Zeugnissen, Geschichten, Essay und Fotoreportage (vgl. Interview, Sucur, 2015). Die Erzählerin des Slowenischen Gesichts bezeichnet das Werk als „ein Gruppenporträt mit Gombro" und meint, dass es sich um einen „Text (handelt), bei dem das Genre schwierig zu bestimmen" und der „im Entstehung begriffen sei" und der „eine Geschichte der Vertriebenen und Auswanderer erzählt und über deren Identität nachdenkt" (Svit: 113). In der Literaturkritik und Publizistik wird das Werk folgendermaßen bezeichnet: Eine Reisebeschreibung der Lebensgeschichten slowenischer Auswanderer in Argentinien, eine Porträtsammlung mit den Fotos der Autorin (Rugelj: 105, 106), ein Buch der Gesichter (vgl. Radaljac, 2015), ein Roman und Essay über die Identität (vgl. K. M., 2013), eine literarische Reportage mit essayistischen Elementen (Kolsek: 15), eine literarische Ethnobiographie (Potisk: 108). Die letzte Bezeichnung entstammt der Anthropologie und bezeichnet die Schreibform, in der der Forscher und/oder der Erzähler ein immanenter Teil der Erzählung ist, wobei er sich der Doppelrolle der Akteure, die er beschreibt, und seiner selbst als Forscher bewusst ist. Die Ethnobiographie bezieht sich im nichtliterarischen Sinne sowohl auf die autobiographische Erzählung des Ethnographen über seine eigene Arbeit als auch auf die Arbeit eines Anthropologen, der eine Gruppe erforscht, der auch er selbst angehört. Im literarischen Sinne schließlich stellt aber die Ethnobiographie einen Erinnerungstext dar, der auch ethnographische Elemente des Erzählerumfeldes
179
LIDIJA REZONIČNIK - Das slowenische Gesicht
miteinbezieht (Reed-Danahay 2017: 145). Die Erzählerin des Slowenischen Gesichts erforscht die Gruppe, der sie zwar indirekt angehört (Slowenen, Auswanderer), obwohl sich ihr Emigrationsmotiv sehr von dem, das die slowenischen Emigranten nach Südamerika vertrieb, unterscheidet. Sie interessiert sich für die Menschen, ihre gesellschaftliche und geistige Kultur. Die Erzählung darüber vermittelt sie aber in literarisierter Form, die von Martina Potisk nach D. Reed-Danahay mit dem Terminus „literarische Ethnobiographie" bezeichnet wird.
Im wissenschaftlichen Diskurs, z. B. in der Studie über die autobiographische Erfahrung in den Werken slowenischer Schriftstellerinnen (Rožič: 104), wird für Das slowenische Gesicht die literarische Form des Romans gewählt, während Niko Jež (2017) die Bezeichnung Essay mit Merkmalen der literarischen Reportage benutzt. Zmago Šmitek (377-381) gibt bei der Definition der literarischen Reportage folgende Merkmale an: In der literarischen Reportage werden der objektive Weg und die Ereignisse mit den subjektiven Erlebnissen konfrontiert; beide Bilder sind Spiegelungen der Subjekterlebnisse; genauso ist die Auswahl der beschriebenen Ereignisse und deren Rekonstruktion persönlich bedingt und durch die literarisierte Beschreibung widergegeben. Die Erzählerin des Slowenischen Gesichts fokussiert in ihrer Reportage auf die Problematik der Wahrung von Identität, sei es der slowenischen oder der polnischen, und versucht auf diese Weise einen übergeordneten Blick auf die verschiedenen Zugehörigkeiten zu gewinnen.
identität
Das Thema der Identität, vor allem deren Verständnis und Bewahrung bzw. Suche wird im Slowenischen Gesicht aus drei Perspektiven
180
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
beleuchtet: aus der Emigrantenperspektive der Slowenen in Argentinien, der Perspektive der Erzählerin und aus einer dritten Perspektive, die durch Gombrowicz' Identitäts- und Nationalitätsauffassung bestimmt ist, die in dessen Tagebüchern und dessen Briefwechsel zum Ausdruck kommt. Alle drei Perspektiven sind durch die persönliche Erfahrung der Emigration geprägt, allerdings sind die Erzählungen und Überzeugungen der argentinischen Slowenen und Gombrowicz nicht unmittelbar aus deren Sicht, sondern aus der Perspektive der Erzählerin wiedergegeben, die Akzente setzt und kommentiert.
Migrationen werden in theoretischen Studien als eine Ortsveränderung der Einzelpersonen oder Gruppen verstanden, wobei die Ortsveränderung dauerhaft oder vorübergehend sein kann. Impliziert sind dabei Veränderungen des sozialen Umfelds, der Gesellschaftsbeziehungen, der Kultur, Identität, zwischenmenschlicher Interaktion, der Normen, des Wertsystems, der Bedürfnisse, Institutionen usw. (Moric 2016: 36, 37; Klinar: 15-49). Die Gründe für die Ortsveränderung sind entweder extern (wirtschaftlich, politisch, sozial) oder entstammen innerer Entscheidung.4 Die Erzählerin des Slowenischen Gesichts entschied sich für Umsiedlung aus Slowenien nach Frankreich freiwillig. Sie hält Kontakte mit der Heimat weiterhin regelmäßig aufrecht. Zugleich aber hat sie das Leben in einer multikulturellen Stadt übernommen und sich in die neue Umgebung dermaßen integriert, dass sie bei ihrer Arbeit, dem literarischen Schaffen, nicht mehr nur die slowenische, sondern auch die französische Sprache benutzt. Während ihre Migration individuell und freiwillig ist, war die Umsiedlung der Slowenen, die im Werk auftreten, großenteils erzwungen. Slowenen emigrierten nach Argentinien in größerer Zahl (Gruppenemigration) entweder zwischen den beiden Kriegen wegen der Armut und des Faschismus (vor allem aus der Region Primorska bzw. Küstenland) oder
Es bestehen verschiedene Klassifizierungen und Definitionen der Migration. Klinar (32-49) teilt die Migrationen z. B. in innere und internationale, und diese wiederum in wirtschaftliche, politische, permanente und temporäre, organisierte und nicht organisierte, freiwillige und erzwungene, konservative und innovative Migrationen und Braindrain. Die Haupttheorien der erzwungenen und freiwilligen Migrationen fasst z. B. Moric (2016: 38-46) zusammen
181
LIDIJA REZONIČNIK - Das slowenische Gesicht
sie wanderten nach Südamerika nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg aus, weil sie wegen ihrer antikommunistischen Haltung in der Heimat verfolgt wurden. In Argentinien bauten sie ihr neues Zuhause auf, wenngleich sie weiterhin eine starke Zugehörigkeit zum Slowenentum bewahrten. Sie bilden eine sog. Diaspora, eine nationale Gemeinschaft, die sich auf dem Gebiet einer anderen Nation niedergelassen hat. Das wesentliche Element ihrer Identität bleibt dabei nach wie vor die starke Erinnerung an die „verlorene Heimat" und folglich das Festhalten an der nationalen Identität. Während die traditionellen Definitionen der Diaspora voraussetzen, dass die Diaspora-Mitglieder sich nicht gänzlich in die neue Umgebung integrieren, schreiben die neuen Auffassungen der Diaspora eine Hybridität von Kultur zu, also eine Möglichkeit der Integration, bei der aber die ursprüngliche Kultur aufrechterhalten und immer wieder erneuert wird (Moric 2014: 83).
Die Art und Weise, wie die Identität der Angehörigen der slowenischen Diaspora in Argentinien bewahrt und verstanden wird, vermittelt die Erzählerin durch die Erzählungen der auftretenden Gestalten. Für die erste Generation der slowenischen Einwanderer in Südamerika ist die Identität einer der wichtigsten Werte, der bedingungslos bewahrt werden muss: „Denn man musste zusammenbleiben, sich helfen, die Ärmel hochkrempeln, in die Hände spucken. Gesangschore, Schulen, Klubs und Kirchen gründen. Sprache, Kultur, Religion bewahren und - sehr wichtig - ihre Wahrheit bezeugen, ihre Version der Geschichte. Sich nicht assimilieren lassen, ein Slowene bleiben, eine auf die andere Seite der Welt verpflanzte Linde, die neue Wurzeln schlägt, ergrünt, wächst, aufblüht..." (Svit: 34). Mit dieser Absicht gründeten die Slowenen in Argentinien slowenische Gemeinschaften, ließen sich in den slowenischen Nachbarschaften nieder, wo es bereits slowenische (Samstags)Schulen, Geschäfte, Gasthäuser, Klubs gab, wo
182
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
also die slowenische Infrastruktur festen Bestand hatte. Sie sprachen mit den Kindern ausschließlich slowenisch und erwarteten später von ihnen die Bewahrung der „reinen" slowenischen Abstammung, mit der Überzeugung, dass „die beste Argentinierin nicht besser als die schlechteste Slowenin ist" (Svit: 90). Die Identität richtet sich bei ihnen großenteils nach dem sog. primordialistischen Konzept von Ethnizi-tät. Dieses Konzept basiert auf den Natur- bzw. Verwandtschaftsverbindungen und meint, dass man in eine Ethnie hineingeboren wird, die etwas Unveränderliches und Geschlossenes für die Angehörigen anderer Ethnien darstellt (vergl. z. B. Van der Berghe 1991). In Unterschied zum Primordialismus behandeln die instrumentalistischen Konzepte die ethnische Identität als ein politisches und kulturelles Phänomen. Nach diesem Konzept ist die Ethnizität nicht angeboren, sondern wird von den Menschen entsprechend ihren politischen und wirtschaftlichen Zielen hervorgebracht (vergl. z. B. Cohen 1969). Das konstruktivistische Konzept berücksichtigt aber auch die psychologischen Aspekte, betont die Zufälligkeit und Fluidität der Ethnizität. Die Gemeinschaften stellen die Kriterien der Ethnizität selbst auf und haben als solche bestand, so lange sie die Verschiedenheit gegenüber anderen umgebenden ethnischen Gruppen aufrechterhalten. Die Interaktionen mit anderen Gemeinschaften stellen für sie keine Bedrohung, sondern eine Existenzbedingung dar. Ihre Entscheidung für eine Ethnizität ist in hohem Maße freiwillig, voluntaristisch (vergl. z. B. Barth 1998). Der Erzählerin im Slowenischen Gesicht kann eine konstruktivistische Sicht der Ethnizität zugeschrieben werden; sie kommt besser mit Multikulturaliät als mit hermetischen Gemeinschaften zurecht. Primordialistisches Verständnis der ethnischen Identität ist in der Erzählung vorwiegend den Vertretern der ersten Generation der Slowenen in Argentinien zu attestieren, den politischen bzw.
183
LIDIJA REZONIČNIK - Das slowenische Gesicht
wirtschaftlichen Emigranten, den Eltern der Informanten, mit denen sich die Erzählerin getroffen hat, und die ihre Heimat unfreiwillig verlassen haben. In der neuen Umgebung wollen sie die Erinnerung an ihre Heimat, das Slowenentum und die Katholizität bewahren. Diese übertriebene Geschlossenheit der slowenischen Gemeinschaft konfrontierte deren Kinder mit erheblichen Problemen. So sprachen sie nur Slowenisch, was ihre Integration beim Eintritt in die argentinische Schule sehr erschwerte. Sie mussten „das Schicksal ihrer Väter teilen und deren hartnäckige und sture Träume von dem Slowenentum auf der anderen Seite der Erde verwirklichen. Sie wurden nicht gefragt, ob sie Fremde sein bzw. eine Sprache, die niemand versteht, sprechen wollen. Nicht mal, ob sie glühende Katholiken sein wollen, die Identität als einen Kult praktizieren, konservativ und politisch streng rechts sein wollen [...]" (Svit: 94, 95). Eine offenere Sicht auf das Slowenentum wiesen die Emigranten auf, die nach Argentinien freiwillig kamen (z. B. Bojan Mozetič). Einige Vertreter der zweiten Generation der Slowenen in Argentinien (z. B. Tone Mizerit, Jani Gris) widersetzten sich ihren Eltern, der erzwungenen Identitätsbewahrung und dem Mythologisieren der Heimat. Sie verließen die slowenische Gemeinschaft, kommunizierten nicht mehr auf Slowenisch, heirateten die Partner anderer Nationalitäten, brachten ihren Kindern die slowenische Sprache nicht mehr bei. Sie wurden sich der Multikulturalität als eines Wertes erst nach Jahren des Lebens außerhalb der slowenischen Gemeinschaft bewusst, als sie sich erneut für das Slowenentum, die Sprache und Kultur zu interessieren begannen, einige (Andrej Rot) kehrten sogar in die Heimat zurück. Vor allem bei den Vertretern der dritten Generation (Fran Mozetič, Julia Sarachu) werden die Fluidität der Identität und Multikulturalität als Bereicherung begriffen.
184
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Die Erzählerin beschreibt die Ansichten einzelner Auswanderer subjektiv und nimmt zur geschlossenen Identität der Slowenen in Argentinien keine neutrale Haltung ein. Ihr Verständnis der Nationalität nach der voluntaristischen Sichtweise als auch ihre persönliche Geschichte sind diametral entgegengesetzt zu den Geschichten der slowenischen politischen und wirtschaftlichen Emigranten in Argentinien: „Mein Vater war ein Partisane, seiner war ein Domobranec [Mitglied der slowenischen Heimwehr im 2. Weltkrieg; Bem. L. R.]. Ich wuchs im Schoß der Mutter Heimat auf, trug das rote Pionierhalstuch um den Hals, in der Schule grüßte ich mit »Für die Heimat, mit Tito vorwärts« und sang Partisanenlieder. Währenddessen lief er durch die Pampa, spielte Fußball und betete in der Kirche für den Gott und die Heimat, aber nicht für dieselbe, als es die meine war" (Svit: 145).
Gegenüber diesen beiden Ansichten über Nationalität und Identität vermittelt die Erzählerin eine dritte Perspektive - die Geschichte des polnischen Schriftstellers Witold Gombrowicz bzw. Gombro, wie ihn die Erzählerin nennt. Gombro kommt bereits im Vorwort über die Treue und auch in allen vierzehn weiteren Kapiteln vor. Zentrale Informationsquellen über Gombro, die die Erzählerin anführt und die Grundlage für die Auseinandersetzung mit dem Hauptthema der Identität und Auswanderschaft bilden, sind Gombrowicz' Tagebücher, eine Sammlung von Briefen an seinen Freund Juan Carlos Gomez bzw. Goma und an Rita Gombrowicz, die Ehefrau des Schriftstellers. Sie vermittelte der Erzählerin wertvolle Informationen und übergab ihr das auf Spanisch selbst verfasste „Buch der Zeugnisse all jener Menschen, die Gombro in Buenos Aires traf" (Svit: 31). Aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach handelt es sich um das Buch Gombrowicz in Argentinien. Berichte und Dokumente (Rita Gombrowicz: Gombrowicz en Argentine. Témoignages et documents 1939-1963). Die Erzählerin erwähnt die genannten Quellen,
185
LIDIJA REZONIČNIK - Das slowenische Gesicht
fasst zusammen, interpretiert und zitiert den Schriftsteller, wobei die Zitate durch Anführungszeichen gekennzeichnet und mit Begleittext versehen sind.
Gombro, die Slowenen in Argentinien und die Erzählerin sind durch die Migrationserfahrung und die Problematik der Identitätsbewahrung verbunden, indirekt aber auch durch die Tatsache, dass man in Argentinien die Einwanderer, die aus Mitteleuropa immigrierten, Polacos nannte; also waren auch Slowenen für sie „Polen" (Svit: 19). Jedoch unterschied sich Gombrowicz' Ankunft in Buenos Aires in mancher Hinsicht von der Ankunft der Slowenen: Gombro, Mitglied der polnischen Aristokratie, kam im Hafen von Buenos Aires mit einem Luxusschiff an, als „Ehrengast der Eröffnung der neuen Schiffslinie von Danzig nach Buenos Aires" (Svit: 19). Bald danach brach der zweite Weltkrieg aus, das Schiff musste zurückkehren, Gombro entschied aber, in Argentinien zu bleiben, obwohl er nunmehr praktisch besitzlos war. Im Unterschied zu den Slowenen pflegte Gombro in Argentinien kaum Kontakte mit seinen Landsleuten: „Er blieb für sich allein als ein von der Herde getrenntes Schaf. Es befand sich keine Kirche, keine Gemeinschaft, kein nationaler oder nationalistischer Traum in seiner Kreislinie. In Buenos Aires [...] gönnte er sich vierundzwanzig Jahre Freiheit von der Geschichte" (Svit: 81).
Wichtige Akzente (nach subjektiver Beurteilung der Erzählerin) aus dem Leben des Schriftstellers sind linear gesetzt, sie beziehen sich auf die außenliterarische Realität bzw. historische Tatsachen und werden durch die Jahreszahlen abgesichert: Im Jahre 1939 kommt Gombrowicz in Argentinien an und entscheidet sich nach dem Ausbruch des zweiten Weltkriegs in Europa, nicht mehr in seine Heimat zurückzukehren; er fristet in Buenos Aires sein Leben ohne ein gesichertes Einkommen; Ende des 1941 beginnt er das Kaffeehaus Rex zu besuchen, übersetzt
186
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
dort mit seinen Bekannten den Roman Ferdydurke, der im April 1947 veröffentlicht wird, allerdings ohne Erfolg; im August 1947 bereitet Gombrowicz den Vortrag Gegen die Dichter vor; im selben Jahr wird er in der Bank Banco Polaco angestellt, verfasst den Roman Trans-Atlantik und beginnt die Tagebücher zu schreiben; 1955 kündigt er die Stelle in der Bank; nach der Krankheit im Jahre 1957 zieht er sich in das Städtchen Tandil zurück, um vollständig zu genesen; hier schließt er sich der sog. Gruppe aus Tandil an; 1963 kehrt er nach Europa zurück, lebt zuerst in Berlin, zieht später nach Paris; 1964 lernt er seine künftige Ehefrau Rita Gombrowicz kennen, zieht zusammen mit ihr nach Vence in Südfrankreich, wo er nach fünf Jahren stirbt.
Gombrowicz als reale, außenliterarische Person wird zu einem immanenten Teil der Erzählung über die argentinischen Slowenen. Gombro spielt mit seinen Ansichten über Nationalität und Identität, die durch seine persönlichen Erfahrungen mit dem polnischen Nationalismus, Polentum und Antipolentum geprägt sind, die Rolle eines Vermittlers zwischen der primordialistischen Sicht der Ethnizität der ersten Generation der Slowenen in Argentinien einerseits und der offenen, konstruktivistischen Sicht der Erzählerin und einiger anderen Figuren andererseits. Auch bei Gombrowicz' Landsleuten aus Polen, vor allem bei den Bauern und weniger gebildeten Bevölkerungsschichten, die nach Argentinien am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts nach den erfolglosen polnischen Aufständen und in den zwanziger Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts während der Wirtschaftskrise (politische und wirtschaftliche Emigration) auswanderten, überwiegt die ethnonationalistische Sichtweise der Identität. Sie schließen sich zu Gemeinschaften zusammen (z. B. im Jahre 1940 gründen sie den Polnischen Klub in Buenos Aires), pflegen nationale und katholische Werte und fühlten sich überlegen gegenüber den Einheimischen (Marganski:
187
LIDIJA REZONIČNIK - Das slowenische Gesicht
116-122). Gombrowicz kann sich in einer solchen Gemeinschaft nicht assimilieren. Im Brief an Julian Tuwim schreibt er, dass „die hiesige polnische Kolonie ein trostloses Bild der Trivialität und Dummheit ohne Vergleich bietet" (zit. n. Marganski: 119). Erst nach 1945 emigrierten nach Argentinien auch Vertreter der polnischer Intelligenz, unter denen Gombrowicz auch nur wenige Leser finden konnte.
Die Erzählerin benutzt Gombrowicz' Ansichten, um die slowenische Diaspora in Argentinien zu kommentieren. So zielt sie z. B. mit Gombrowicz' Witz vom Unterschied zwischen Sardinenkonserve und Emigration und dessen Clou, dass „hermetische Konservierung schändlich für die Emigration sei" (Svit: 90) auf die Isolation der slowenischen Diaspora, die die jüngere Generation erst recht von der slowenischen Identität abbracht hat. Gombro als eine „Außenfigur" bewahrt im Slowenischen Gesicht im Verhältnis zu argentinischen Slowenen und Slowenentum eine neutrale Haltung. Er ist mit den Slowenen nicht direkt verbunden, seine Emigrationserfahrung und Ablehnung der geschlossenen Anschauung über die polnische Identität ermöglichen aber der Erzählerin, dass sie ihn als einen äußeren Kommentator einführt. Über die Rolle des polnischen Schriftstellers im Slowenischen Gesicht schreibt sie: „Er ist mein Spiegel, der besser als irgendjemand die Identitätsproblematik reflektiert: alles was er über die Polen sagt, gilt auch für die Slowenen" (Svit: 146).
schlussfolgerung
Das Slowenisches Gesicht thematisiert durch die Geschichten der argentinischen Slowenen die Problematik der Emigration und Identitätsbewahrung. Im Gegensatz zu den Autoren, wie z. B. Zorko Simcic in Mensch an beiden Seiten der Wand, der über die slowenische Diaspora
188
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
und deren Vertreter in Argentinien in Form eines Romans schreibt, aber auch im Unterschied zu anderen Werken von Brina Svit, berichtet das Slowenische Gesicht über das Leben der Emigranten faktografisch. Durch die Ich-Erzählung, die zudem mit den Porträtfotos der Angehörigen der slowenischen Diaspora in Argentinien versehen ist, verbindet die Erzählerin die Ereignisse aus dem Leben der slowenischen Diaspora mit der eigenen Lebensgeschichte und mit der Geschichte des dritten Emigranten, des polnischen Schriftstellers Witold Gombrowicz. Mit der Anbindungen an reale, außerliterarische Personen und Ereignisse befördert die Autorin eine (auto)biografische Rezeption des Textes. Gerade dies löste negative Reaktionen aus, vor allem bei der Behandlung problematischer Kapitel der slowenischen Geschichte (zweiter Weltkrieg, Emigration als Konsequenz der Feindschaft zwischen Domobrancen und Partisanen). So bezichtigte einer der Informatoren die Schriftstellerin, seine Geschichte nicht objektiv dargestellt und keine klare Grenze zwischen Realität und Fiktion gezogen zu haben, und dass darüber hinaus das Werk „eine Karikatur der argentinischen Slowenen" sei (vgl. Eiletz, Offener Brief an Brina Svit). Gerade das Überschreiten der Grenzen zwischen Realität und Fiktion ordnet das Werk in den autobiografischen Diskurs ein, für den charakteristisch ist, dass der (auto)biografische Pakt nicht berücksichtigt wird und die objektiven Tatsachen mit den fiktiven Einlagen bzw. subjektivem Berichten vermengt werden. Fragmentarisches und episodenhaftes Geflecht von außenliterarischen Tatsachen, fotografischen Material, Paraphrasen von Texten anderer Autoren (vor allem Gombrowicz', stellenweise auch Hannah Arendt), essayistischen Überlegungen und metanarrativen Elementen lassen es nicht zu, das Slowenische Gesicht klassischen literarischen Formen, z. B. dem Roman, zuzuordnen. Das Slowenisches Gesicht ist eine literarische Reportage, eine in Gombrowicz' Heimat durchaus verbreitete literarische Form (z. B.
189
LIDIJA REZONIČNIK - Das slowenische Gesicht
Ryszard Kapuscinski), die faktographisches Material über ein Land, ihre Menschen und Kultur durch eine literarisierte Beschreibung subjektiv und durch fiktive Elemente angereichert präsentiert.
Im Rahmen der drei Erzählungsebenen befasst sich Das Slowenische Gesicht mit dem Thema der Identität und denkt über sie in zwei radikal gegensätzlichen Richtungen nach. Die Erzählerin, die aus Slowenien freiwillig auswanderte, sieht das Leben in einem anderen Land und unter anderen Menschen als eine Bereicherung, als eine Möglichkeit für die Multikulturalität und Mehrsprachigkeit, die der Einzelperson eine andere Sicht auf die eigene Herkunft und die Kultur vermittelt. Ihrer konstruktivistischen Perzeption der ethnischen Identität ist die im Werk dargestellte Ansicht der ersten slowenischen Einwanderer in Argentinien entgegengesetzt. Diese schöpfen die Identität aus der geschlossenen ethnonationalistischen Sichtweise, also aus einem primordialistischen Konzept von Ethnizität. Ihre Emigration war vorwiegend erzwungen. Sie begreifen ihre Auswanderung als etwas Tragisches und verleihen ihrer Heimat in der Erinnerung mythische Züge. Die dritte Ansicht und vermittelnde Position ist Gombrowicz' Sicht auf Identität. (Es ist interessant, dass Gombrowicz als Vermittler mit seinen ausgeprägten Überzeugungen auch noch im Werk eines weiteren slowenischen Autors, und zwar im philosophischen Essay von Ivo Urbančič über Dilemma des Europäertums, fungiert, vgl. Jež 2017). Letztlich macht die Erzählerin Gombro zu ihrem Verbündeten, er ist ihr „Alter Ego, Antiheld, graue Eminenz, Kontrapunkt" (Svit: 31). Gombro ist es, der davon zeugt, dass „die Identität nichts mit dem reinen Blut zu tun hat" (Svit: 111) und dass das »Gesicht«, wie die Erzählerin Identität metaphorisch nennt, ein Ausdruck von Umfeld, Kultur und Sprache ist, der Lebenserfahrungen, Geschichten und Überzeugungen wiedergibt, und der eben keine Maske darstellt, die durch Zwang bewahrt werden kann. $
190
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Quellen und Literatur
Barth, FREDRiK, 1998. Introduction. Ethnic groups and boundaries: the social organization of culture difference. Red. Fredrik Barth. Illinois: Waveland press. 9-38. berghe van den, pierre L., 1991: Biologija nepotizma: etničnost kot sorodstvena selekcija. Študije o etnonacionalizmu. Red. Rudi Rizman. Ljubljana: Knjižnica revolucionarne teorije. 79-107. BOROVNiK, siLvijA, 2016: Literarno-jezikovna polifonija in jezikovni pristop v literaturi Brine Svit. Seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture: Drugačnost v slovenskem jeziku, literaturi in kulturi. Red. Alojzija Zupan Sosič. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete. 38-45. cohen, abner, 1969: Custom and Politics in Urban Africa: A Study of Hausa Migrants in Yoruba Towns. Berkley und Los Angeles: University of California Press. Čeh, jožica, 2008: Med fikcijo in resničnostjo v avtobiografski
prozi. Jezik in slovstvo 53, 3-4. 23-35. eiletz, Marjan, 2015: Odprto pismo Brini Svit. Časnik. Spletni magazin z mero. 27. 3. 2015. http://www.casnik.si/index. php/2015/03/27/odprto-pismo-brini-svit/ (Zugriff 1. 3. 2017). gombrowicz, witold, 1998: Dnevnik. Ljubljana: Nova revija.
Auswahl, Übersetzung und Nachwort Mladen Pavičic. jež, nikolaj, 2017: Tango z Mistrzem. Polonistyka na poczqtku XXI wieku. Diagnozy. Koncepcje. Perspektywy: VI Swiatowy Kongres Polonistow, Universytet Šl^ski, 22-25 VI 2016. Kattowitz. (Im Druck).
191
LIDIJA REZONIČNIK - Das slowenische Gesicht
KLiNAR, peter, 1976: Mednarodne migracije: sociološki vidiki mednarodnih migracij v luči odnosov med imigrantsko družbo in imigrantskimi skupnostmi. Maribor: Založba Obzorja. kolšek, peter, 2014: Slovenci, ki v Argentini niso zaradi tanga: Slovenski obraz Brine Svit: Literarna reportaža o emigraciji ali „živeti in umreti v svojem jeziku". Delo 56, 297 (23. 12. 2014): 15. k., m., 2013: Brina Svit o identiteti tistih, ki se zanjo najbolj
borijo: Založba Gallimard predstavila dve avtoričini deli. MMC RTV SLO/STA. https://www.rtvslo.si/kultura/knjige/brina-svit-o-identiteti-tistih-ki-se-zanjo-najbolj-borijo/32o685 (Zugriff 1. 3. 2017). lejeune, paul, 1989: On autobiography. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (Theory and history of literature; vol. 52). Übersetzerin Katherine Leary. MARGANSKi, jANusz, 2005: Geografia pragnien. Opowiesc o
Gombrowiczu. Wydawnictwo Literackie, Krakau. MORic, ANJA, 2014: Domovina globoko v srcu. Kočevski Nemci v diaspori.
Etnolog 24, 75 (2014): 81-104. MORic, ANJA, 2016: Slovenski Nemci v diaspori. Doktorarbeit. Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede. Ljubljana. 18-87. Oficjalna strona Witolda Gombrowicza. Ja jestem self made man literatury! http://www.gombrowicz.net/ (Zugriff 1. 3. 2017). potisk, martina, 2015: Literarna avtobiografija argentinskih Slovencev ali častni dvoboj med los partizani in los domobranci. Dialogi 51, 7-8. 107-113. RADALJAC, ANJA, 2015: Na juriš! Brina Svit, Slovenski obraz. LUD Literatura. 22. 5. 2015. http://www.ludliteratura.si/kritika-komentar/na-juris/ (Zugriff 1. 3. 2017).
192
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
reed-danahay, Deborah, 1997: Auto/Ethnography: Rewriting the
Self and the Social. Oxford und New York: Berg Publishers. reed-danahay, deborah, 2017: Bourdieu and Critical Autoethnography: Implications for Research, Writing and Teaching. International Journal of Multicultural Education. 19, 1. 144-154.
rožič, megi, 2016: The autobiographical experience of migration in the literary works of women writers of the Slovenian literary polysystem. Doktorarbeit. Univerza v Novi Gorici, Fakulteta za podiplomski študij. http://repozitorij.ung.si/IzpisGradiva. php?lang=slv&id=2638 (Zugriff 10. 8. 2017). rugelj, renate, 2014: Slovenski obraz. Recenzija. Bukla. http://
www.bukla.si/?action=books&book_id=23051 (Zugriff 10. 8. 2017). svit, brina, 2014: Slovenski obraz. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. smitek, zmago, 1988: Poti do obzorja. Ljubljana: Založba Borec.
377-422.
šučur, maja, 2015: Brina Svit: Identiteta je vedno nekaj ironičnega. Dnevnik, 3. 1. 2015. https://www.dnevnik.si/1042702056/kultura/ knjiga/identiteta-je-vedno-nekaj-ironicnega (Zugriff 10. 8. 2017). zlatar violic, andrea, 2011: Avtobiografija: teoretski izzivi. Übersetzerin Olga Vukovic. Avtobiografski diskurz. Red. Koron, Alenka, und Leben, Andrej. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU (Studia litteraria). 23-33.
193
LIDIJA REZONIČNIK - Das slowenische Gesicht
Povzetek
Delo Slovenski obraz slovenske avtorice Brine Svit skozi zgodbe argentinskih Slovencev tematizira problematiko migracij in ohranjanja identitete. V prvoosebni pripovedi, opremljeni s fotografskimi portreti pripadnikov slovenske diaspore v Argentini, pripovedovalka dogodke iz njihovega življenja prepleta s svojo življenjsko zgodbo ter življenjepisom tretjega emigranta, poljskega pisatelja Witolda Gombrowicza, imenovanega Gombro. Navezave na realne, zunajliterarne osebe in dogodke, hkrati pa prestopanje meje med resničnostjo in fiktivnostjo delo umešča v (avto)biografski diskurz, za katerega je značilno, da ne upošteva (avto)biografske pogodbe in objektivna dejstva meša s fiktivnimi inserti oziroma subjektivnim poročanjem. Fragmentarno prepletanje zunajliterarnih dejstev, fotografskega gradiva, parafrazi-ranja besedil drugih avtorjev, esejističnih razmišljanj in metanarativ-nih elementov onemogoča žanrsko umestitev dela v okviru klasičnih literarnih vrst, na primer opredelitev z literarno vrsto romana. Slovenski obraz je literarna reportaža, v Gombrowiczevi domovini dobro poznana literarna vrsta (npr. Ryszard Kapušcinski), ki objektivno pot in raziskovanje dežele ali ljudi in njihove kulture predstavi subjektivno, skozi literariziran opis, ta pa vsebuje tudi elemente fikcije. V okviru treh pripovednih ravni Slovenski obraz predstavlja in razmišlja o identiteti v dveh radikalno nasprotnih pogledih. Pripovedovalka, ki je emigrirala prostovoljno, življenje v drugi državi in med drugačnimi ljudmi vidi kot obogatitev, možnost za večkulturnost in večjezičnost. Njeni konstruktivistični percepciji etnične identitete je nasproten pogled v delu predstavljenih prvih slovenskih priseljencev v Argentini, ki identiteto pojmujejo z zaprtega etno-nacionalističnega vidika, torej po primordialistični teoriji etničnosti. Njihova emigracija je bila
194
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
neprostovoljna, dojemajo jo kot tragično, domovina v njihovem spominu dobiva mitske razsežnosti. Tretji pogled na vprašanje identitete je Gombrotov pogled. Slednji s pripovedovalko in Slovenci v Argentini ni neposredno povezan, njegovo razumevanje narodnosti pa je blizu pripovedovalkinemu. Zaprtost v skupnosti, kot je to v primeru Slovencev v Argentini, je podobna zaprtim skupnostim poljskih emigrantov v Argentini, te pa Gombro kritizira. Pripovedovalka iz Gombrowiczevih Dnevnikov in korespondence, ki jih bere kot avtobiografski dokument, izbira posamezne misli in jih interpretira v obliki razmislekov ali komentarjev ob zgodbah intervjuvancev. Z njimi podkrepljuje svoj pogled na identiteto, Gombro dobi vlogo posrednika, zunanje instance, ki ni vpletena v slovenstvo, zaradi česar njegovi argumenti delujejo verodo-stojneje. Gombrowiczev zunanji pogled in izkušnja z drugo identiteto kot je slovenska, torej s poljskostjo, univerzalizira pripoved Slovenskega obraza v sklep, da preveč nacionalizma ubija identiteto, ter podpira končno spoznanje o polifoničnem karakterju identitete.
Lidija Rezoničnik
Lidija Rezoničnik concluded study of German and Polish philology at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. At the Department of Slavistics at the same Faculty she achieved her PhD with the dissertation The Polish and Slovenian Literary Canon from the Period of Modernism as Film Adaptation. In her researches, she mainly deals with Modernism in Polish and Slovenian literature, as well as interdisciplinary relations between literature and film (film adaptations). She presented results of her research at conferences for Slavists in Salzburg, Budapest, Basel and Ljubljana and in the articles published in the scientificjournals Primerjalna književnost and Jezik in slovstvo.
195
DOI - 10.13137/2283-5482/22386
«HeTbipe ^H3HH» BaCH^HH
HeaHoeMMa Hanaeea
(06 OgHOM MH^OTBOpMeCKOM ^eHOMeHe rpa^gaHCKOH BOMHb b Pocchh 19171923 rr).
The „Four Lives" of Vasily Ivanovich Chapayev (about one Myth-making Phenomenon of the Russian Civil War 1917-1923)
$ HEHAfl B^ArojEBH^ - blagojevic.nenad@gmail.com
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 
(2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
B pa6oTe aHaau3upy»Tca npo^ccBi npeo6pa3oBaHua ufleHTMHHocru b Me^BoeHHoe BpeMa b CoBeTCKoM Poccuu Ha npuMepe MU<|oao^U3a^uu o6pa3a Bacuaua HBaHoBuHa HanaeBa, KOMaHflMpa AMBM3MM b rpa^gaH-ckom BOMHe 1917-1923 rr. B HaHaae paccMaTpuBarorca ochobhbm ^Ta^Bi 6uorpa<|uu HanaeBa KaK peaaBHoM MCTOpMHeCKOM auHHoCTu, a TaK^e pa3auHHBie o^hku ero fleaTeaBHocru b Tpygax Beggymux uctopukob rpa»-gaHCKoM bomhbi b Poccuu. OcHoBHaa nacTB pa6oTH nocBameHa npo6aeMe MM^oTBopnecTBa u MU<|oaO^U3a^UU awHHocru HanaeBa, c noMomB» Hero ctopohhmkm hobom BaacTu b CoBeTCKoM Poccuu miTaaucB co3flaTB CBoeo6pa3HHM npoTUBoBec o6pa3y o^^epa KaK cuMBoay uMnepcKoM BaacTu. B CTaTBe npocae^MBaeTca npo^cc oTpBiBa o6pa3a HanaeBa ot KoHTeKCTa noauTUHecKoM uggeoaoruu u ero TpaHC^opMa^uu b npaKTU-HeCKU ^oaBKaopHHM aHeKfloTun-hbim nepcoHa» KaK CBuggeTeaBCTBo ^po^aHa^uu KoMMyHucTuHecKoM uggeoaoruu. B koh^ aHaau3upyeT-ca aurepaTypHo-xyflo^ecTBeHHHM o6pa3 HanaeBa, CBa3aHHBiM co BceMu nepeHucaeHHHMu Mu^oaoruHecKu-mu o6pa3aMu, ho oflHoBpeMeHHo oTauHa»muMca ot hux.
BACH^HH HBAHOBH^ ^AnAEB, nponArAHflA, mh®, HEOMH$O^O^H3A^Ha, JHibM
This paper analyzes the process of identity transformation of the inter-war period in Soviet Russia on the example of mythologization of Vasily Ivanovich Chapaev, division commander in the Russian Civil War of 1917-1923. In the beginning of the work main stages of Chapaev's biography as a real historical figure are considered, as well as various assessments of his activity in the works of leading historians of Civil War in Russia. The main segment of this paper is devoted to the problem of myth creation and my-thologization of Chapaev's personality, with the help of which supporters of the new government in Soviet Russia tried to create a kind of counterbalance to the figure of officer as a symbol of earlier imperial power. The article also traces the process of separation of Chapaev's figure from the context of political ideology, and its transformation into a practically folklore anecdotical hero as evidence of the profanation of communist ideology. In the conclusion of the article an artistic and literary figure of Chapaev, related to all above mentioned mythological figures, but simultaneously different from them, is analyzed.
VASILY IVANOVICH CHAPAEV, PROPAGANDA, MYTH, NEOMYTHOLOGIZATION, FILM
197
HEHAfl EAArOJEBMTi ► «HeTbipe »M3HU» BacH^Mfl UBaHOBuna HanaeBa
HcropunecKue npo^ccBi b XX BeKe, oco6eHHO b ero noc.egHue ge-caTu.eTua, u b Hana.e XXI BeKa bhhbm.m ogHy xaparcrepHyro HepTy pa3BMTMa co6bitum - Begym,yro po.B MgeHTMHHoCTM b cygB6e Ka^-goro o6m,ecTBa. Ha cerogHamHUM geHB mbi CTa.KUBaeMca c KpaMHe M3om,peHHHMM cnoco6aMu ynpaB.eHua npo^ccoM npeo6pa3OBaHua MgeHTMHHOCTM, pe3y.BTaTBI KOTOpWX MO^HO Ha6.MgaTB BO MHOrUX ropanux TOHKaX coBpeMeHHoro Mupa. ^TO He to.bko geMcTBue Mac-COBOM nponaraHgw, po.B CMH, yTOHHeHHaa TexHUKa no.uTTexHO-.oroB - ^TO b nepByro OHepegB pa6oTa c o6m,ecTBeHHoM naMSTBro u Ko..eKTMBHBiM 6ecco3Hare.BHBiM o6rn,ecrBa, c TeM, hto HanpaMyro CB33aHO C CUCTeMOM ^HHOCTeM gaHHOM Ky.BTypW. 06^eU3BeCTHO, HTO He.OBeK npu npuHSTuu pemeHUM u ocym.ecTB.eHuu Toro u.u uHoro Bw6opa onupaeTca Ha cucTeMy ^HHOcreM, OTpa^aromyro ero KapTMHy Mupa. OcHOBy 3tom cucreMBi o6pa3yroT Tpaguu,uu, ko.-.eKTMBHwe npegcraB.eHua, noBepBa u mu^bi. Mu^o.orunecKoe MBim.eHue KaK 3anaTOK 6o.ee no3gHux ^M^upuHecKux 3HaHUM b OCHOBHOM xapaKTepHO g.a o6m,ecTB c hu3kum ypoBHeM pa3BUTua, ho b coBpeMeHHOM Mupe oho npuo6peTaeT HOBoe KanecTBo. 3to KanecrBo b nepByro OHepegB CB33aHO c TeM, hto nocpegcTBOM Mu^o.orune-CKoro Mwm.eHua He.OBeK MO^eT CTaTB «o6^eKTOM MaHuny.^uu gpyrux .rogeM, napTUM, co^ua.BHBIx rpynn» (3opuM 20l3). Mu^o-.oru3an.ua co3HaHua, TaKUM o6pa3OM, craHOBUTca npuB.eKaTe.B-hwm uHCTpyMeHTOM BO3geMcTBua Ha mupoKue Maccw co CTopoHw pa3.uHHwx rpynn u no3BO.aeT bhocutb u3MeHeHua b ^HHOCTHyro cucTeMy o6m,ecTBa.
Mu$ KaK ocHOBHaa aneMKa Mu^o.orunecKoro co3HaHua Ha co-BpeMeHHOM 3rane pa3BUTua ne.OBenecTBa oTBenaeT He 3a o6peTeHue 3HaHUM o npupoge, äu3hu u Mupe, a 3a co^ua.BHyro u ^M0^u0Ha.B-Hyro äm3hb He.OBeKa. Mo^eT 6wtb, uMeHHO nosTOMy A.3>. .HoceB
198
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
BBIflBMHy, Te3MC 0 TOM, HTO «BCaKaa »MBaa AMHHOCTB eCTB TaK M,M
MHane mm^» (.HoceB i990: 99). Ecnu CBa3aTB c ^TMM yTBep»geHueM nony,apHoe b nocTMogepHU3Me npegcraBneHue 0 HenoBenecKOM ,mh-HOCTM KaK pe3y,BTaTe BnuaHua pa3Hwx mctohhmkob MH^opMa^MM, TO MO»HO rOBOpUTB O TOM, HTO 3HaHeHUe MM^a B TaKOM KOHTeKCTe npu6,u»aeTca k roHr0BCK0My noHaTuro «apxeTun».
.flpyroM Ba»HMH acneKT Mu^a - ero cmmbo,mhhoctb m anneropuH-HOCTB. H3Hana,BHaa no3HaBaTe,BHaa cym,HOCTB Mu^onoruu KaK pa3 M COCTOMT B a,,erOpUHeCKOM nOBeCTBOBaHMM O geMCTBMTenBHOCTM m ucTMHe. B ^T0M nnaHe Mu^onorua npecnegyeT Te »e ^nu, hto m nuTepaTypa m penurua, m pa3genaeT c hmmm 3agany 06pa30BaHua HpaBCTBeHHwx opueHTupoB o6m,ecTBa. OgHaKO Ha cerogHamHUM geHB mm^ He MO»eT 6bitb cpegcTBOM onucaHua geMCTBMTenBHOCTM, m no^roMy oh npeo6pa3yeTca b aneMeHT ugeonoruHecKoro BnuaHua Ha 06m,ecTB0. ^pyruMM cnoBaMu, Ka»gaa co^Ma,BHaa rpynna KaK hocm-TenB onpegeneHHOM ugeonoruu CKnoHHa k co3gaHuro cbomx mm^ob. ^aHHoe nono»eHue nynme Bcero mo»ho npocneguTB Ha npuMepe MgeonorMHecKMx npoTUBOCToaHUM nepBOM nonoBMHw XX BeKa, Korga b pe3ynBTaTe pa3pymeHua uMnepcKOM cucreMBi BnacTM b EBpone npo-M3omen ugeonorunecKuM B3pwB pa3Hwx co^Ma,BHHx rpynnupoBOK.
PaCCMOTpUM paHHMM ^Ta^ CTpOMTenBCTBa TaK Ha3WBaeMOM co-^Ma,MCTMHecK0M ugeonoruu m CBa3aHHoro c hmm Mu^OTBopnecTBa. Ha npuMepe 06pa30BaHua Mu^a 0 KOMguBe HanaeBe mo»ho npoa-Hanu3upoBaTB Bce nogKOHTpoABHBie m HenogKOHTponBHBie ^aKTopw 6wTOBaHua Mu^a b o6m,ecTBe, ero BnuaHue Ha KonneKTUBHoe C03Ha-HUe B ^flOM M MgeHTMHHOCTB HenOBeKa B HaCTHOCTM. C0^Ma,MCTM-HecKaa Mu^onorua 6wna npu3BaHa BonnoTMTB ugeanw Orcra6pcKoM peB0,ro^MM, y6eguTB nrogeM b onpaBgaHHOCTM Tex MaTepuanBHwx m HenoBeHecKux »epTB, KOTopwe Hapogw CoBeTCKoro coro3a npuHecnu m
199
HEHAfl EAArOJEBMTi ► «HeTbipe »M3HU» BacH^Mfl UBaHOBuna HanaeBa
go^^Hw npuHocuTB B ^aax 0K0HHaTeaBH0M no6egw yneHua Mapx-cu3Ma-.eHuHu3Ma. Hcropua PoccuMcxoro rocygapcTBa go Oxra6p-ckom peB0.ro^uu 6w.a Heygo6HWM HacaegueM gaa hobom Baacru, TaK xax 0Ha Moraa nopoguTB HocraaBruro, Tocxy no 6w.0My Beau-huw HMnepuu, 0T0gBuraa TeM caMWM ugea.w H0B0r0 BpeMeHu. n03T0My He yguBaaeT tot ^arcr, hto npou,ecc «npou3BogcTBa» hobom ucTopuu 6w. 3anyrn,eH b xparnaMmue cpoxu, u y^e b 20-e u 30-e rogw noaBaaeTca b nenaru, b KuH0TeaTpax, b auTeparype, b My3w-xe u ga^e b ^o.BK.ope ^e^wM pag cmästob 0 Beauxux geaTeaax peB0.ro^uu u rpa^gaHcxoM bomhw b Poccuu. nocae noxopoH B.H. JeHuHa HanuHaeTca Moga Ha 6a.B3aMupoBaHue, cbom MaB3oaeM noaynaeT u Taxaa nporaBopenuBaa ^urypa, xax peBoarou,uoHep rpuropuM Kotobckum. üomumo aereHgapHoro o6pa3a K0T0BcK0r0, oco6oe MecTo b coBeTcxoM aureparype u ucTopuu no.ynaroT u Boe-HanaaBHuxu BygeHHwM, Tpo^KUM, OpyH3e u gp. OgHaxo aereHga, 06pa30BaBmaaca Boxpyr Bcex ynoMaHyTwx ^uryp, aBH0 pacxogu-aacB c peaauaMu ucropunecxux co6wtum.
Oco6eHH0 3aMeTH0 3to Ha npuMepe Bacuaua HBaH0Buna Ha-naeBa, xoMaHgupa 25-0M guBu3uu PKKA b nepuog rpa^gaHcxoM bomhw b Poccuu. Kax ucropunecxaa .uhhoctb HanaeB aBaaaca og-hum u3 MHoronucaeHHwx noaeBwx K0MaHgup0B KpacHoM ApMuu. no ou,eHxaM ucTopuxoB PeBoarou,uu u Tpa^gaHcxoM bomhw, ero geMcTBua He uMeau pemarom,ero 3HaneHua gaa ucxoga bomhw (Bea-aep, BypoBcxuM 2007: 542-543). KocBeHHwe nogTBep^geHua ^T0My o6Hapy^uBaroTca u b 6uorpa^unecxux ^y6auKa^uax 0 äu3hu u geaTeaBHocTu xoMaHgupa, 0ny6auK0BaHHwx xax bo BpeMa CCCP, Tax u no3gHee (KyTaxoB i969, gafeec 20l0). no mhchum A. raHuHa, npunuH0M T0My, hto peaaBHaa .uhhoctb HanaeBa 6waa 0T0gBuHyTa Ha BTopoM naaH u BnocaegcTBuu ugeaau3upoBaHa, 6waa xax pa3 ero
200
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
ru6enB, nocraBMBmaa KOMguBa b oguH pag c TaKMMM BoeHananBHu-KaMM, KaK M.B. OpyH3e, H.A. ffl,opc u gp. Bce ohm, no cnoBaM raHu-Ha, 6w^m b nonuTunecKOM OTHomeHMM 6e30nacHWMM gna hobom BnacTu MMeHHO no npunuHe CBoeM ru6e^u unu 6one3HM, u ^0^T0My npegcTaBnanu C060M ugeanBHBiM MaTepuan gna MM^o^o^M3a^MM b nponaraHgunecKux ^nax (raHUH 20l4). Pa6oTy Hag o6pa3aMu ^TMx nonKOBog^B mokho Ha3BaTB nepBonpoxognecKoM b nnaHe npeo6-pa30BaHua HpaBCTBeHHBix u ^hhocthbIx opueHTupoB o6m,ecTBa nyTeM BjuaHua cpegcTB MaccoBoM MH^opMa^MM. HMeHHO ^0^T0My mm^ o HanaeBe CTan HaMHoro Ba^Hee peanBHoro ucTopunecKoro o6pa3a nonKOBogua, TaK KaK nocnegHuM CTan npegMeTOM uHTepecoB MCTopuKOB numB naTBgecaT neT cnycTa nocne CBoeM ru6enu.
Cpa3y nocne ru6enu Bacunua HBaHOBuna b 6opB6e c 6enorBap-geMn,aMu 5-ro ceHTa6pa i919 roga HanuHaMT noaBnaTBca nepBBie nereHgw, CBa3aHHBie c MucTepueM ero ru6enu, Bcneg 3a K0T0pw-MM ny6nuKyeTca KHura nonuTunecKoro KOMuccapa 25-0M guBM3Mu OypMaHOBa. OKOHnaTenBHaa KaH0HM3a^Ma o6pa3a HanaeBa npouc-xoguT b 1934 rogy b ^unBMe 6paTBeB BacunBeBwx «HanaeB», CHaTOM no MOTMBaM OypMaHOBOM KHuru. OrpoMHaa nonynapHOCTB 3Toro ^MABMa KaK pa3 u 3HaMeHyeT nepexog ot ucTopunecKoM nunHOCTu k MM^y. Co3gaHHtiM b KHurax m ^unBMe o6pa3 HanaeBa npegcTaB-nan C060M OTpa^eHue ugeanoB KOMMyHucTunecKOM peB0nM^MM: Bwxoge^ M3 npocToro Hapoga, npegcTaBUTenB co^ManBHwx hm30b 6e3 oco6oro 06pa30BaHua u c^e^Ma^BH0M BoeHHoM nogroTOBKu OKa-3WBaeTca CBepxTanaHTnuBWM BoeHananBHUKOM, cnoco6HBiM 0Ka3aTB pemuTenBHoe conpoTMBneHMe nro6oMy o^u^py ^pcKoM apMuu. HMeHHO Ha KOHTpacTe c 06pa30M u,apcKoro 0$uu,epa u CTpounca nanaeBCKMM mm^, TaK KaK gna 6onBmeBucTCKoM napTuu csmmm Ba®HHM 6bmo npugaTB fpa^gaHCKOM BOMHe xapaKTep KnaccoBoro
201
HEHAfl EAArOJEBMTi ► «HeTbipe »M3HU» BacH^Mfl UBaHOBuna HanaeBa
npoTMBocToaHMa, HecMoTpa Ha mho^ctbo npuMepoB, onpoBepra-b^hx TaKyro paccTaHoBKy cm^.
OgHaKo cerogHa gocroBepHo u3BecTH0, hto KaKoe-To 06pa30Ba-Hue B MecTHoM ^pK0BH0-npux0gcK0M mKoae Bacu^uM HBaH0BuH Bce-TaKu no^ynu^ (AnTeKapB 20l7: l2-lS), a TaK^e to, hto go Hana^a nepBoM MupoBoM boMhbi y Hero 3a n^enaMu 6bm no.nyrogoBoM onwiT BoeHHoro o6yneHua b KueBe b i90S-i909 rr. (2l-24). HanaeBcKue ycne-XM Ha TeaTpe BoeHHwix geMcTBuM nepBoM MupoBoM bomhbi gocraT0HH0 M3BecTHw, TeM He MeHee o^uu.ua.nBHBie 6uorpa$wi b nepBoe BpeMa He ynoMuHa^u o tom, hto KpoMe reoprueBcKoro KpecTa 2-M creneHu, Bacu^uM HBaHoBuH goc^y^u^ca go 3BaHua ^e^Bg^e6e^a, caMoro BwcoKoro 3BaHua cpegu yHTep-o^uu.epcKux huhob. C^egoBaTe^BHo, 3a BpeMa cBoero npe6wiBaHua Ha 3anagHwx $pomax oh Bno^He Mor no^yHuTB xopomyB nogroToBKy u b u,apcKoM apMuu.
H OypMaH0B, u 6paTBa Bacu^eBwi oTMena^u, hto raaBHoM ^£^BW ux pa6oT 6bmo 0TcTyn^eHue ot gpyrux npou3BegeHuM o rpa^gaHœoM B0MHe, K0T0pwe ohu cHuTa^u usiumHeM Mgea.^M3a^MeM ee ynacr-hukob, 3a K0T0p0M TepaBTca œuBMe repou. ABTopwi crpeMu^ucB onucaTB pea^BHo »uBmero ne^oBeKa, K0T0p0My He ny^gw TpycocTB, pyraTe^BcTBa, rpa6e», KypeHue u np..
Cp. u3 gHeBHuK0B OypMaH0Ba b nepuog HanucaHua poMaHa:
Yenenen... Yenenen, KaK nuKo^^a... £ Menycb, Menycb. Hu odHy fiopMy He Mozy môpamb oKonnamenbno. fiamb nu ¥amn deücmeumenbno c zpexaMu, co eceü nenoeenecKoü mpeöyxoü unu, KaK oöbmno, damb fyuzypy fianmacmmecKyw, mo ecmb xoma. u apKyw, no eo Mno^oM Ka-cmpupoeannyw. CKnonawcb k nepeoMy. (Anmernpb 20rj: 263-264)
H3 npou3BegeHua C. u r. Bacu^BeBwx «HanaeB. O ^uítMe»:
202
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
He Menaa Konupoeamb Vanaeea, He Menaa daeamb e^o $omo^pa$u-necKU, mu eocco3danu ezo, nomoMy nmo oópa3 coeduHun e ce6e ece munmecKue nepmu, xomopue Heom^eMneMO donMHbi 6unu 6bimb npucy^u Hanaeey... 0mm3aew.ucb om y3KOü 6uo^pa$u^HOcmu, mu xodoM ecezo xy^0MecmeeHH0^0 npov^ecca 6unu npueedeHu k Hau-6onee nonHOMy eocco3daHuw ^eücmeumenbH0^0 oónum Hanaeea. (nucapeecKuü, 1981:104)
OrpoMHaa nonynapHocTB khmtm u ^msíms napagoKcanBHBiM 06-pa30M CBMgeTanBCTByeT 0 tom, hto mmchho TaKoM »mbom o6pa3 Ha-na^BHMKa ambm3mm cnoco6cTB0Ban yKopeHeHuro MM^a 0 HanaeBe. KaK repoM KHuru u rmho HanaeB co BceMM cbommm «M3MMMHKaMH» 6bi. HaMHoro HenoBeHHee gpyrux o^o^TU3upoBaHHBIx ^uryp 6o.b-meBMKOB. TaKMM 06pa30M, mokho ga^e npegno.o»uTB, hto npe-yBe^MneHMe ero po.u b rpa^gaHcKOM BOMHe He Bxogu.no b nnaHBi 0^M^Ma^BH0M coBeTcKoM B.acTM, a, cKopee Bcero, cTano KocBeHHWM pe3y.BTaT0M geaTe.BHocru pe^uccepoB, cn,eH0rpa^0B u .uhhbix gpy3eM u 3HaK0MBix n0.K0B0gn,a. OgHaKO coBeTcKoe pyK0B0gcTB0 6Bicrpo o^Huno KaHecrao hobom Mu^onoreMBi, b nepByro oHepegB ^HjBMa (He 6e3 BnuaHua nynmero 3HaT0Ka B03M0^H0creM KUHe-MaTorpa^a Toro BpeMeHM Ceprea ^M3eHmTeMHa), u cTa.0 BcaHecKu cn0c06cTB0BaTB MaKcuManBHOMy pacnpocrpaHeHMro npoKaTa ^u.BMa bo Bcex KuHoTeaTpax cTpaHBi. BwgeneHue HanaeBa u3 Maccw gpyrux BoeHHocny^a^ux u geaTeneM orcra6pBcKoro nepeBopoTa b nepByro oHepegB cBa3aH0 c o6Hapy^eHueM hobbix B03M0»H0creM BnuaHua Ha Ko.neKTuBHoe co3HaHue nyTeM kuho. HeManoBa^Hyro po.B b ^T0M npo^cce cwrpa. tot ^arcr, hto «HanaeB» 6bi. nepBBiM 3ByK0-
BBIM ^u.BM0M, cHSTHM B C0BeTcK0M c0M3e. ^0^T0My ^M3eHmTeMH Bwgena. ^u.bm 6paTBeB BacunBeBwx KaK oguH u3 nepBBix u caMwx
203
HEHAfl EAArOJEBMTi ► «HeTbipe »M3HU» BacH^Mfl UBaHOBuna HanaeBa
apKux npuMepoB 3ByK0-3puTe.nbH0M ^o^3uu, npumegmen Ha CMeHy BM3ya.bH0M. ga^fcHenmee yKopeHeHMe nanaeBCKoro Mu^a b Macc0B0M C03HaHMM B 0CH0BH0M CB33aH0 C n0ny.apH0CTbW CaMOrO ^M.bMa, TaK HTO MO^HO CMe.0 rOBOpMTb, HTO HapOgHHM repOeM CTa. He MCTOpU-
neCKMM Bacujun HBaHOBMH, a raaBHbra repon $u.bMa 6paTbeB Bacu-flbeBMX. n0ny.ttapH0CTb, U3BeCTH0CTb U y3HaBaeM0CTb M306pa^eHH0r0 nepCOHa^a 6bi.U HaCTO.bKO Be.UKU, HTO HaKaHyHe BTOpOM MUpOBOM B0MHM B HeKOTOpblX ^p0BUH^Ua.^bHbIX panOHaX COBeTCKOrO C0W3a MeCTHHe ^UTe.U He MOr.M 06'BaCHUTb, KaKyW pOflb B UCTOpUU CTpaHbl MMe. B.aflMMMp HflbMH ^eHMH, HO 3aT0 nOHTM BCe 3Ha.M, KeM 6w. Bacujun HBaHOBun.
B neM npuHMHw TaKOrO pacnpocrpaHeHua MM^a 0 .ereHgapHOM n0.K0B0gn,e? OTBeTa Ha ^T0T BOnpOC, Hago CHanana o6paTUTbca k MOTMBaM C03gaHua Mu^a. mh CKjOHaeMca k MHeHuro, hto mm^ojo-ru3an.ua o6pa3a HanaeBa He 6bi.a ynpaB.aeMbiM npon,eccoM u.u, bo bc3kom Cjynae, He Bxoguja b npuopuTeTHbie 3aganu ugeoflorunecKon nponaraHgH C0BeTCK0M Bjacru. B KanecrBe nogTBep^geHua gaHHon mhcjm npuBegeM gBa apryMeHTa. Bo-nepBbix, Bcaeg 3a ^u.bMOM nep-COHa^ HanaeBa nona. b Kpyr ^o.bKjopHoro TBopnecrBa, o HeM cranu CKjagbBaTbCa aHeKgoTH. ^TM aHeKgoTH y^e b 30-bie rogbi XX BeKa CTaju npuo6peTaTb npo^aHMpyrom,MM XapaKTep no OTHomeHuro k MapKCMCTKO-.eHMHCKOMy yneHuro. B hmx HanaeB nam,e BCero Bbicrynafl BHpa3UTe.eM HapogHoro MHeHua o HeK0T0pbix aCneKTax $yHKn,uoHu-poBaHua Con,uajuCTMHeCKoro crpoa. yKpen.eHue TaKoro Mu^a o Hana-eBe He moijo BxoguTb b unrepecbi 0^un,uaflbH0M Bjacru. Bo-BTopwx, .ereHgapHHM o6pa3 no^KOBog^ HanpaMyro CBa3aH C yCnexoM ^ujbMa, C TeM, hto pe^uCCepaM u c^HapucraM geñcTBUTe.bH0 yga.ocb co-3gaTb npou3BegeHue ucKyccTBa, KOTopoe Bbigeflujocb u3 Maccb gpyrux ^ujbMOB o PeBOj^uu. ga^e TaKue npeBocxogHbie b TexHunecKOM
204
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
n^aHe ^u^bMw, KaK Cmama u EpoHewcev, nomeMKUH ^M3eHmTeMHa, He npuB^eKnu TaKoro BHUMaHua ny6,nuKu, KaK ^m^bm Bacu^beBwx.
B neM »e ceKpeT ^T0^0 ^u^bMa? nony^apHOCTb ^u^bMa HanpaMyro CBa3aHa c TeM, hto 3puTe^b Mor no^HOCTbw OTO»gecTBUTbca c u3O-6pa»aeMHMu nepcoHa»aMu. ^T0 b nepByro onepegb KacaeTca a3MKa. HanaeBCKaa penb b ^M^bMe OT^unaeTca npocTOTon. Ha npocTOM Ha-pogHOM a3MKe raaBHBiM repon o6m,aeTca c copaTHMKaMM, BparaMM m rpa»gaHCKuMu, a TaK»e Bwpa»aeT cBoe MHeHue o PeB0^ro^MM, rpa»gaHCKOM BonHe, MapKCucTCKO-^eHUHCKOM yneHMM m T.g. Hc-KycHO cocTaB^eHHMe c^HapucTaMM gua^oru 3anacTyro C03gaBa^u cuTyan,uoHHyro kommhhoctb, 3a cneT nero ^m^bm 6wcTpo pa3ome^ca Ha ^uTaTH, KOTopwe 3anoMHu,nucb Ha go^rue rogw, HanpuMep, no-cne BHCTpena neTbKu u3 HaraHa «- Tuxo, rpa»gaHe! Hanan gyMaTb 6ygeT!» u^u «- PaHeH? - PaHeH, Bacu^un HBaHOBun. - Hy u gypaK.» HMeHHO conepe»MBaHue, roMop m bo3mo»hoctb OTO»gecTB^eHua ce6a c KUHorepoeM cnoco6cTBOBa^u yKpeoneHuro Mu^a o HanaeBe b MaCCOBOM CO3HaHMU.
HanaeB b ^u^bMe 6bm npegcTaB^eH He KaK o<£u^ua.^bHBm ranoc PeBO.n^uu, a KaK ne^OBeK, yMeromun roBopuTb u gyMaTb Ha a3MKe o6wHHoro Hapoga. H Mup0B033peHue HanaeBa TaK»e npegcTaB^eHO b ynpom,eHHGM Buge, name Bcero c aKn,eHTGM Ha TpagunuoHHtie n,eHHG-CTu u HpaBM pyccKoro Hapoga, HanpuMep: «- A bot, Bacu^un HBaHO-BMH, My»MKM CGMHeBaroTCa, TM 3a 6o^bmeBUKGB aflb 3a KGMMyHMCTGB? - H 3a MHTepHan,uoHa^! - Bacu^un HBaHOBun, a tm 3a BTopon u^u 3a TpeTun? - Hero 3a BTopon? - HHTepHan,uoHa^. - Hy, 3a tot, 3a KOTopwn Hy»HO. A ^eHMH b KaKOM? - B TpeTbeM, oh ero u co3gaa, TpeTun boab-meBucTCKun. - Hy u a 3a TpeTun.».
B ^MflbMe 6paTbeB Bacu^beBwx o6pa3yeTca onno3Mu,Ma «CBon -Hy»OM». nogo6HO TOMy, KaK ÜBep CTaHOBMTca «cbomm 6apuHOM» b
205
HEHAfl EAArOJEBMTi ► «HeTbipe »M3HU» BacH^Mfl UBaHOBuna HanaeBa
poMaHe .H.H. To.croro «BoMHa u Mup», b ^u.BMe «cbommm» BBicTy-naro HanaeB u ero opguHape^ neTBKa. «Hy^uMu» no oTHomeHuro k Hapogy aBnaroTca o^u^pBi, KanneneB^i u uHTe.^.^u^eH^ua. B ^TOM u ecTB npuHUHa BKnroneHua ^ujBMa b pa3pag nonuTunecKoM npo-naraHflw u no.HoM ero noggep^Ku co ctopohbi coBeTCKon Bnacru.
^pyruM HeMaaoBa®HHM ^arcropoM b pacnpocTpaHeHuu Mu^a o HanaeBe aBnanucB noBTopw noKa3a <£u.BMa. B ra3eTe «npaBga» ot 22 Hoa6pa 1934 roga nuraeM: «InaBHoe ynpaBneHue KMHo^oTonpoMHm-.eHHocru coo6m,aeT HaM o Mepax, npuHaTBix g.a Toro, hto6bi «Ha-naeBa» nocMoTpena Bca cTpaHa. .fleHUHrpagcKaa $a6puKa MaccoBoM nenara $u.bmob Kpyr.Bie cyTKu b Tpu cmchh pa3MHo»aeT to.bko «HanaeBa». npom.no 15 gHeM c Tex nop, KaK «HanaeB» BnepBBie noa-Bu.ca Ha ^KpaHe. 3a ^TOT kopotkum cpoK KapTUHy cMoTpeno cBBime gByx mu..uohob 3puTe.eM» («Mbi ugeM cMoTpeTB «HanaeBa). Ha npocMoTp ^u.BMa opraHU3oBaHHo ompaBnanucB u,e.Bie ko.xo3bi, 3aBogw, mKo.Bi u gpyrue ynpe^geHua. B HeKoTopBix KUHoTeaTpax «HanaeBa» He cHUManu c e^egHeBHoro penepTyapa HecKo.BKo neT. Toabko b nepBoM rogy npoKaTa, 1934-oM, ^u.bm yBugeno 30 mu...u-ohob nenoBeK, a go koh^ roga nparcrunecKu Bce HaceneHue cTpaHBi (nap^eHoB 2017). TaKoe npucyTcTBue <£u.BMa b coBeTcKoM 6wTy 30-x rogoB u o6ecnenu.no HanaeBy MecTo b Kon.eKTUBHoM naMaTu.
OgHaKo no6onHWM ^^eKT hobom «»u3hu» HanaeBa gna coBeT-cKoro pyKoBogcTBa, cKopee Bcero, 6bi. Heo^gaHHBiM. 06pa3 kuho-repoa BgoxHoBu. Hapog Ha co3gaHue MHo^ecTBa aHeKgoranecKux cro^eTOB, b KoTopwx HanaeB BBicTynaeT KaK cBoeo6pa3HBiM aHTunog o^uuuanBHWM npegcraBneHuaM o6 ugeanBHoM coBeTcKoM neno-BeKe, HocuTene 6ygym,ero KoMMyHucrunecKoro o6m,ecrBa. ^ypHa-.mct ^eoHug nap^eHoB cnuTaeT, hto $o.bk.ophbim o6pa3 HanaeBa oKoHnaTenBHo c^opMupoBanca b nepuog c 1967 no 1968 rog, b cBa3u c
206
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
myMHMM npa3gH0BaHMeM 50-.eTua OKra6pBCK0H peB0.^uu (ibid.). Ec.u npMH3TB ero T0HKy 3peHua, to TaKoM gaTupoBKoM mo»ho o6b-acHMTB u npo^aHMpyro^MM xapaKTep ^Tux aHeKg0T0B, ynuTBiBaa Hac.egue anoxu «0TTene.u» b c0BeTCK0M Ky.BType u ucKyccTBe. OgHaKo aHeKgoTw npo HanaeBa u neTBKy noaB.a.ucB u go, u noce 6o-Bix rogoB u b ochobhom 0Tpa»a.u tot ®e xapaKTep np0CT0BaTBix HapogHwx repoeB co MHoruMu HegocTaTKaMu, hto 6bi.o n,e.Bro u aBTopoB $u.BMa. CKopee Bcero, HanaeB cra. HapogHoM .ereHgoM uMeHHo u3-3a ero HpaBCTBeHHBix «Heg0CTaTK0B», a He no npunuHe p0MaHTuHH0CTu 6uorpa^uu n0.K0B0g^.
B cogep»aHuu aHeKg0T0B mo»ho yBugeTB Tuno.oruHecKue oco-6eHH0CTu ^Tux repoeB: TaK, b aHeKgoTax c ceKcya.BH0M nogon.eKoM HanaeB BBicrynaeT KaK aHa.or nopynuKa P»eBCKoro, repoa 6o.ee CTapwx, gopeB0.ron,M0HHBix aHeKg,0T0B. TaKUM 06pa30M, b $o.BK.ope npou3om.a npocraa CMeHa 06pa30B npu coxpaHeHuu Tuna repoa u 0gH0BpeMeHH0 CMeHa fl0peB0.roH,u0HH0M ^CTeTUKu (o$uu,ep u,ap-CK0M apMuu) n0CTpeB0.ron,u0HH0M (HanaeB). OgHaKo u3MeHeHue BHemHero o6pa3a He noB.ua.o Ha ochobhom uctohhuk WMopa 3rux aHeKg0T0B - CMemeHue BBicoKoro u Hu3Koro. HanaeB b hobbix aHeKgoTax npuo6peTaeT Bce xapaKTepucTUKu npegcraBUTena con,ua.BHBix hu30b, npoTuBonocTaB.eHHoro BceMy BBic0K0My - uHTe..u^eH^uu, o^u^pcTBy u ga»e «KpacH0My» Hana.BCTBy. TaKoe MecTo HanaeBa b K0..eKTuBH0M naMSTu 6bi.o 06ecneneH0 pa6oToM 3>ypMaH0Ba u 6paTBeB Bacu.BeBBix, ho uMeHHo b aHeKgoTax mh^ no.ynu. CBoro H0Byw »U3HB. ^,0Ka3aTe.BCTB0M 3Toro c.y»uT npogo.»eHue ®u3Hu ^T0^0 Mu^a y»e noc.e pacnaga CoBeTCKoro coro3a u 0K0HHaTe.BH0r0 pa3BeHHaHua MapKCucTCK0-.eHUHCK0r0 yneHua.
B CB33U co CKa3aHHBiM HeyguBUTe.BHo, hto Mu^ o Hanae-Be npuB.eK BHUMaHue nucaTe.eM-nocTMogepHucT0B. B CBoeM
207
HEHAfl EAArOJEBMTi ► «HeTbipe »M3HU» BacH^Mfl UBaHOBuna HanaeBa
npou3BegeHMu «HanaeB u nycT0Ta» BuKTop ne^eBUH ucno^B3yeT o6pa3 KaK pa3 MM^o^orunecKoro repoa, BonnomeHue Ko^ercruBHoro 6ecco3HaTe^BHoro pyccKoro Hapoga. ne^eBUHCKUM HanaeB gaeTca nepe3 B0CT0HH0e pe^uruo3Hoe yneHue - Tu6eTCKUM 6yggu3M, rge eMy npucBauBaeTca po^B 6ogxucaTTBBi, npo6y»geHHoro cym,ecTBa, npeogo^eBmero K0HeHH0CTB 6htm3 u BBimegmero U3 6ecK0HeHH0CTu nepepo^geHua. föMop TaKoro n0BecTB0BaHua 3aKnmaeTca b tom, hto ^o^BK^opHWM HanaeB, aumeHHHM ^m6bix tohhbix m g0CT0BepHBix gaHHwx o pea^BH0M geaTe^BHocTu ucTopunecKon ^mhhoctm, TepaeT CB0W ugeHTHHHocTB, 0gH0BpeMeHH0 coxpaHaa CBa3B c 06pa30M caM0-ro HanaeBa, hto npaKTunecKH npegcTaB^aeT co6om cyTB 6yggMCTCKoro yneHua: npo6y^geHue (HupBaHa) u ocBo6o^geHue ot CTpagaHua gocTuraeTca nyTeM u36aB^eHua ot co6cTBeHHoro «H».
B o6m,eHMu c neTp0M/neTBK0M, raaBHHM repoeM üe^eBUHCKoro poMaHa, ^MTepaTypHWM HanaeB paccKpwBaeTca KaK ynuTe^B, My-gpe^ paccKpwBawm,uM mctmhhmm xapaKTep Mupa u po^B 0Tge^BH0M He^0BenecK0M auhhoctm b HeM. HHTepecHo to, hto Ha CTpaHuu,ax poMaHa HanaeB CHana^a BBiCTynaeT KaK no^Haa npoTUBono^o^HocTB ero ^0^BK^0pH0My o6pa3y, b 6o^Bmen Mepe npuMBiKaa k BBic0K0My, neM k HU3K0My. TaKoe BBegeHue nepcoHa^a o6yc.noB.neHo TeM, hto n0BecTB0BaHue b npou3BegeHuax BuKTopa üe^eBUHa onupaeTca Ha onucaHue npon,eccoB, npoucxoga^ux b He^0BenecK0M co3HaHuu - onucBiBaa nopa^eHHoe mu30^peHueM co3HaHue nau,ueHTa 06-pa3u,0B0M ncuxuaTpunecKon k^mhmkm b MocKBe neTpa nycT0TBi, nucaTe^B npoBoguT mu3oaHa^u3 He npocTo 0Tge^BH0r0 ne^oBene-CKoro C03HaHua, a Ko^^eKTUBHoro 6ecco3HaTe^BHoro Bcero pyccKoro o6m,ecTBa. ^0^T0My Bcrpena raaBHoro repoa c HanaeBWM, npoucxo-guBmaa b yc^oBuax CH0BugeHUM neTpa, npeBpam,aeTca bo BCTpeny 6ecco3HaTe^BHoro co cbomm cogep^aHueM, T.e. mm^om. OTTyga u
208
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
^03M^M0HMp0BaHMe HanaeBa KaK aB,eHua, KOTopoe b guxoTOMuu bwcoko-hm3ko 3aHMMaeT MecTo nepBoro. TaKoe nocTpoeHue cro^eTa n03B0,u,0 aBTopy ^^eKTMBHoe OKOHnaHue CBoero npou3BegeHua, Korga raabhbiM repon oco3HaeT, hto HanaeB u3 ero chob 6bi, HaBeaH aHergoTaMu, KOTopwe paccKa3BiBa,u ocranBHBie ^a^MeHTBI khmhmkm. OgHaKO, b npoTMBOCToaHuu c pea,uaMu ^m3hm 90-x rogoB b MocKBe, co3HaHue repoa ge,aeT BBi6op b no,B3y CBoero BHyTpeHHero ^mktmb-Horo Mupa, OTKa3MBaacB BepuTB b »yircyro geMCTBUTenBHOCTB. Mu^ o HanaeBe OTKa3BiBaeTca yMupaTB b C03HaHuu repoa, oh npeogo,eBaeT ga^e caMBin cmíbhmh KaTapcuc b Buge ,eneHua b ncuxuaTpuHecKOM ,eHe6Huu,e, u TaKMM cnoco6oM ocTaeTca nacTBro ugeHTMHHocru He to,bko repoa ne,eBMHcKoro poMaHa, ho m pyccKoro o6m,ecTBa b ^e,0M.
Cu,a KO^^eKTMBHoro 6ecco3HaTe,BHoro, cu,a ugeHTMHHocru u cocToaHua c03HaHua onpege,eHHoro o6m,ecTBa ,ynme Bcero npoc,e-»uBaeTca Ha TaKux npuMepax. Ee3 yneTa ochobhbix xapaKTepucTUK ugeHTMHHocTu o6m,ecTBa, Bpag ,u mo^ho roBopuTB 0 $m,oco$mm, c0H,M0,0ruM u ncuxo,oruu b paMKax ogHon Ky,BTypBi. $
209
HEHAfl EflATOJEBM^ ► «HeTbipe km3HM» Bacu^ufl MBaHOBMHa HanaeBa
^MTepaTypa
AnTEKAPb, n.A., 20l7: Hanaee. MocKBa:«Mo.nog;aa rBapflua». be^^ep, m., BypoBCKHH, a., 2007: rpawdaHCKamcmopw 6e3yMHOû
eoúnu. MocKBa: «ACT». rAHHH, a.b., 20l4: KnroneBtie MOMemrarpa^gaHcKOM BOMHw. HacTB I. Hcmopus.p$.[https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=dzbDsbDKvaY] flAHHEC, B.O., 20l0: Hanaee. MocKBa: «Bene».
30PHH, H.H., 20l3: Mu^o^orMHecKoeMwm^eHMe b
^OpMMpOBaHMM ncUXO^OrMHecKOM^^OcTHOcTM ^MHHOCTM
Ha c0BpeMeHH0M^Ta^e pa3BMTua o6m,ecrBa. Studia Humanitatis,Ne 3. MocKBa. [http://st-hum.ru/content/zoriy-ni-mifologicheskoe-myshlenie-v-formirovanii-psihologicheskoy-celostnosti-lichnosti-na] KyTHKOB, h., i969: Eoeeoû nymb Hanaeea. Kyn6wmeB. ^oceb, a.®., 20ll: fluanexmum Mu^a.MocKBa: «Mwcai». nAP$EHOB, HanaeB. HaMedHu. Hama ^pa.
[https://namednibook.ru/chapaev.html] nHCAPEBCKHH, fl.c., i98i: EpambaBacunbeeu. MocKBa: «HCKyCCTBO».
Mw ugeM cMOTpeTt «HanaeBa»! Kynbmypa.PQ. nopman
KynbmypHo^oHacne^ua., mpaduy,uû mpodoe Poccuu. [https://www. culture.ru/materials/56l42/-mi-idem-smotret-chapaeva]
210
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Pe3UMe
y pagy ce aHaau3upa npo^c TpaHC$opMa^Mje ugemuTeTa y Mefjy-paTHOM nepuogy y CoBjeTCKoj Pycuju Ha npuMepy MMToao^M3a^Mje Bacuauja HBaHoBuna HanajeBa, KoMaHgupa gMBM3Mje y pycKOM rpa^aHCROM paTy 1917-1923. Ha nonemy paga pa3MaTpaHe cy raaB-hm MOMeHTM M3 HanajeB^eBe 6uorpa$uje Kao cTBapHe McropMjcKe auHHocTu, Kao u pa3auHMTe npon,eHe aeroBe geaaraocTM y pago-BMMa Bogehux ucropunapa rpa^aHcKor paTa y Pycuju. raaBHu geo paga nocBeheH je npo6aeMy cTBapaaa MMToBa u MMToaoru3an,uje HanajeB^eBe auHHocTu, noMohy Hera cy npucTaaun,e HoBe BaacTu y coBjeTcKoj Pycuju noKymaBaae ga cTBope HeKy BpcTy npoTMBTe^e ^urypu o$M^Mpa Kao cuM6oaa paHuje uMnepujaaHe Mohu. y pagy ce TaKo^e npaTu npo^c ogBajaaa HanajeB^eBor auKa og KoHTeKcTa noauTMHKe ugeoaoruje, u aeroBa TpaHC<£opMa^Mja y npaKTMHHo <£u-rypy jyHaKa ^oaKaopa u BM^Ba, mTo npegcTaB^a goKa3 cBojeBpcHe npo$aHan,Mj e KoMyHucTMHKe ugeoaoruj e. Ha Kpajy paga ce aHaau3upa KBu^eBHM m yMeTHMHKu auK Hanaj eBa, Koj u j e noBe3aH ca cbmm no-MeHyTMM MMToaomKMM ^urypaMa, aau ce ucToBpeMeHo pa3auKyj e og aux. TaKo j e auK HanajeBa noneo ga npBeHcTBeHo ogp^aBa Mucau Hapoga o paTy u BaacTu. oBor paga j e ga oTKpuj e cnen,u$uH-hoctm cao^eHor u cnoHTaHor npo^ca HeoMMToao^M3a^Mj e Koj u j e KopumheH u j om yBeK ce KopucTu y noauTMHKe nponaraHgHe cBpxe, aau 3axBaa>yj yhu ceMaHTMHKoM 6oraTcTBy MMTa ogp^aBa npe noraeg Ha cBeT j egHor gpymTBa, Hero Ha aera npoj eKToBaHy cauKy cBeTa.
211
HEHAfl EflATOJEBM^ - «HeTbipe KM3HM» Bacu^Mfl MBaHOBwna HanaeBa
Nenad Blagojevic
Nenad Blagojevic PhD is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Russian language and Literature at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Nis (Serbia). In his studies he focuses on contemporary Russian literature, as well as Russian literary science fiction of the 20th century. He has published a number of studies regarding works of contemporary russian writer Victor Pelevin, the Strugatsky brothers science fiction, and connections between film and literature.
212
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
213
DOI - 10.13137/2283-5482/22386
(Ern,e pa3) o nepcneKTHBax
pOCCHHCKOH ^HHrBOKy^bTypo^orHH
Russian Lingvokultorologija: Culturul Linguistics or Linguistic Culturology?
$ roPHH BHKTOPOBHH $H^HnnOB - l596672O@yandeX.ru
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
B CTaTBe npegaaraeTca KpuTuHecKuM pa36op coBpeMeHHoro cocToaHua u3yneHua B3auMocBa3u a3BiKa u KyaB-TypH b poccuMcKoM HayKe u apryMeH-TupyeTca ToHKa 3peHua, cocroamaa b tom, hto HayHHaa u yHe6Haa gucu;u-nauHa, uMeHyeMaa b oTeHecTBeHHoM aKageMMHecKoM Tpaguu;uu auHrBo-KyaBTypoaomeM, Mo»eT pa3BuBaTBca 6oaee ycnemHo b KoHTeKCTe He ToaBKo auHrBucTuHecKoro, ho u co6cTBeH-ho KyaBTypoaoruHecKoro 3HaHua, opueHTupyacB Ha cooTBeTCTBy»mue TeopeTuHecKue u MeTogoaoruHecKue ycTaHoBKu u ucnoaB3ya noHaTua, Tep-muhh u uccaegoBaTeaBCKue npueMH, pa3pa6oTaHHHe b HayKax o KyaBType.
^HHrBOKYnbTYPO^OrHa, KynbTYPO-HOrHa, B3AHMOCBa3b a3HKA U KWIbTyPbl, AHA.AH3 flHCKyPCOB, KyjIbTyPHME 3HA^JEHHa, a3HKOBME aB^EHHa, a3HKOBME CTPyKTyPH, PE^EBAa flEaTE^bHOCTb, ^HHrBOKyjIbTyPHHE HCCflEflOBAHHa
The article is intended to convince the reader that the scientific and educational discipline, called in the national academic tradition linguoculturologi-ja, can make more progress in the context of not only linguistic, but also the actual culturological knowledge, focusing on the relevant theoretical and methodological guidelines and using the concepts, terms and research techniques developed in the sciences of culture.
LINGUISTIC CULTUROLOGY, CULTURAL STUDIES, LANGUAGE-AND-CULTURE RELATIONSHIP, DISCOURSE ANALYSIS, CULTURAL VALUES, LINGUISTIC PHENOMENA, LINGUISTIC STRUCTURES, SPEECH ACTIVITIES, LINGUISTIC-AND-CULTURAL STUDIES.
215
OPIUM BMKTOPOBMH <t>IMUinnOB (E^e pa3) o nepcneKTUBax poccuicKOM
BBEflEHHE
npegno^eHHMM b Ha3BaHuu cTaTbu nogxog nogpa3yMeBaeT npeg-BapuTenbHMM 0TBeT Ha Bonpoc o tom, hto npegcraBnaeT u3 ce6a .MHrBoKynbTyponorua cerogHa, u noneMy HWHemHee nono^eHue gen He aBnaeTca onTMManbHWM. ^aHHaa npo6neMa, ga m on,eHKa CMTya^MM, He aBnaroTca hobbimm (cm. 06 3tom: ^ynuHMHa, naB.0Ba), ogHaKo, Ha Ham B3rnag, pemeHue noKa He HangeHo. 06parn,aBmu-eca k 3T0M TeMe paHee aBTopw, xoTa u cym,ecTBeHH0 pacxogaTca b CTeneHM CBoen kpmtmhhoctm no 0TH0meHuro k nuHrB0KynbTypono-ruM, npaKTunecKM eguHogymHw b onpegeneHuu nyTen noucKa ee pa3BMTua. «npogyKTMBHWM gna pa3BUTua nuHrBoKynbTyponoruM HanpaBneHueM mo^st cTaTb o6pam,eHue k aHanu3y gucKypca» -numeT E.H. ^ynuHMHa (242), u no cyTM npogon^aeT Ty ^e Mwcnb b CTaTbe, Bwmegmen ii neT cnycra, AHHa B.naBnoBa: «ecTb Hage^ga, HT0 xoTa 6bi 0Tge.bHwe nuHrB0KynbTyponoru nepeK^ronarca Ha 60-nee ocMBicneHHoe 3aHaTue, neM u3yneHue KynbTypHwx koh^otob
B 0TpWBe 0T gUCKypC0B, B K0T0pwx ux T0nbK0 M M0»H0 0TBiCKaTb» (2l2). B HacToa^en CTaTbe a no3Bonro BwcKa3aTb coMHeHue b tom, HT0 M3yneHue gucKypcoB aBnaeTca eguHCTBeHHon B03M0^H0CTbro pa3BMTua gna nMHrBoKynbTyponoruM, a TaK^e b tom, mto TaKon nogxog yBenunuT ee maHCBi CTaTb caM0CT0aTenbH0n gucn,MnnMH0M, a He npuBegeT k cnuaHuro c MeTogonorunecKM 6onee pa3BUTon 06-nacTbro ^unonorunecKon KpuTUKu, yTBepguBmenca cerogHa nog MMeHeM gucKypc-aHanM3a, ho B0cx0garn,en b cbomx 0CH0BaHuax k 60r0cn0bck0-3k3eretmheck0m m ^mnoco^cko-repmehebtmne-CK0M TpaguuMM.
216
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
HTO TAKOE .HHrBOKy.bTyPO.OrHfl	1
yC.oBHoe HCK.MHeHHe
CoCTaB.aroT aBTop&i,
paöoTaM^He b Pe-
B CBoeM y^e naTHag^TM.eraeM npenogaBaTe.BCKoM npaKTMKe Ha cny6.MKe Ee.apycB.
nepBoM ^e 3aHaTMM KypCa no .MHrBOKy.BTypooruM a npeg.araro
CTygeHTaM gBa paöonux onpege.eHua ^TOM gu^un.uHBi b Kanecrae
OTnpaBHOM tohkm g.a ee u3yneHua. 06a ohm, b o6m,eM-TO, ne^aT
Ha noBepxHOCTM. nepBoe a Ha3BiBaro .MHrBOKy.BTypo.orueM b y3-
KOM CMBice m nogpa3yMeBaw nog hum ecw coeoxynmcmh meKcmoe,
npedcmaemeMux ux aemopaMu KaK meKcmu no nuH^eoKynhmypono^uu,
T.e. yne6Htie noCo6Ma, MOHorpa^uu (m3 noc.egHux cm.: EBCWKOBa;
3wKOBa) m CTaTBM, Cogep^am,ue c.obo «.MHrBOKy.BTypo.orua» b
Ha3BaHMu m.m aKTMBHO Mcno.B3yrom,ue ero b CaMOM TeKCTe. B HacToa-
mee BpeMa b page poccuMcKux By3OB cymecTByw Ka^egpw, KOTopwe
HanpaMyw onpege.arn Ce6a KaK 3aHUMarom,ueca .MHrBOKy.BTypo.o-
rueM. TaKOBM Ka^egpa o6m,eM .mhtbmctmkm m .MHrBOKy.BTypo.oruM
b Ka3aHCKOM ^egepa.BHOM yHMBepcMTeTe, Ka^egpa MHocipaHHBix
a3HKOB m .MHrBOKy.BTypo.oruM b Hu^eropogcKOM rocyHMBepcMTeTe
mm. H.H. ^o6aneBCKoro, Ka^egpa aHr.uMcKOM $M.o.oruM u .uHrBO-
Ky.BTypo.oruM CaHKT-neTep6yprcKoro rocygapcTBeHHoro yHMBepcM-
TeTa. TaKMM o6pa3OM, KpoMe Kopnyca TeKCTOB .MHrBOKy.BTypo.orMW
«b y3KOM CMwc.e» cocTaB.awT ^ua.BHBie mhcruTyTBi m pa6oTa-
rom,ue b hmx .wgu, HeKOTopwe u3 KOTopwx, BepoaTHO, cor.acaTca
Ha3BaTB ce6a .MHrBOKy.BTypo.oraMu. KaKux-.u6o CBugeTe.BCTB
cym^ecTBOBaHua o6.acTu 3HaHUM c aHa.oruHHBiM HauMeHOBaHueM 3a
npege.aMM Poccuu HaM HaMTu He yga.ocB, u3 nero mokho 3aK.muTB,
HTO .MHrBOKy.BTypo.orua b onucaHHOM BBime CMBic.e — aB.eHue b
nepByw onepegB OTenecTBeHHoe1. BTopoe u3 momx pa6onux onpege-
.eHMM .MHrBOKy.BTypO.OrMM OCHOBaHO Ha npO3paHHOM 3TMMO.OrUM
caMoro c.OBa: nepeBog ero cocTaB.arom,ux gaeT HaM HayKy o %3UKe
217
OPIUM BMKTOPOBMH <t>IMUinnOB (E^e pa3) o nepcneKTUBax poccuicKOM
u xynbmype. ^T0 - «mupoKoe» noHUMaHue .uHrBOKy.BTypo.oruu, no3Bo.arom.ee BK.ronaTB b Hee .ro6we TeKCTw u uMeHa, KaKUM-.u6o 06pa30M 3aTparuBaromue npo6.eMw B3auM00TH0meHua a3WKa u Ky.B-Typw u.u OTge.BHwx ux s.eMenroB He3aBucuM0 ot MecTa u BpeMeHu C03gaHua stux TeKCTOB. npueM, npu noMomu KOToporo mbi no.ynu.u 06a pa6oHux onpege.eHua — no cyTu CBoeM Bno.He .uHrBucTUHe-CKUM, u cocTouT b noucKe geHOTaTa c.OBa, TOHHee ero 3KCTeHCuoHa.a, t. e. MHO^ecTBa 06teKT0B, KOTopwe MoryT 6wtb o6o3HaneHBi gaHHOM a3HK0B0M eguHun,eM [9]. B nepBOM c.ynae mw ycraHaB.MBaeM SKcreH-cuoHa. no caM0ugeHTu<£uKa^uu o6BercroB, bo BTopoM — onupaacB Ha u3BecTHwe HaM ^aKTBi BHea3BiK0B0M geMCTBUTe.BHOCTu (3HaHue .uTepaTypw no cooTBeTCTByromeM TeMaTUKe) u pacnpocTpaHaa ux Ha Bcro n0TeHn.ua.BH0 B03M0^Hyro C0B0KynH0CTB 06teKT0B, cnoco6Hyro ygoB.eTBopuTB TeM ^e yc.OBuaM (TeKCTw «npo a3BiK-u-Ky.Biypy»). Ha gaHHBiM MOMeHT y»e uMeeTca 3HaHUTe.BHoe KO.uHecTBO u3gaHuM, cnen.ua.BHO nocBameHHwx .uHrB0Ky.BTyp0.0ruu u 03ar.aB.eHHBix cooTBeTCTBeHHO. ohm no3un,uoHupyroTca aBTopaMu KaK yne6HBie no-co6ua u caMu no ce6e OTHOcaTca k .uHrB0Ky.BTyp0.0ruu «b y3K0M CMwc.e», npegcTaB.aa ee KaK yne6Hyro gucn.un.uHy. OgHaKO hu ogHO U3 Hux He o6xoguTca 6e3 ynoMUHaHua pa6oT aBTopoB, KOTopwx b aKa-geMUHecKOM Tpagun,uu o6bihho OTHOcaT k $u.oco^aM, .uHrBucTaM, aHTpono.oraM u T.g. TaKUM 06pa30M, «y3Kaa» .uHrB0Ky.BTyp0.0rua onupaeTca Ha «mupoKyro» KaK ogHa HacTB nupaMugw Ha gpyryro. Bo.ee ageKBaTHO cuTyan,uro, OgHaKO, o6o3HaHUT BU3ya.BH0 c TpygoM npegcTaBUMaa MeTa^opa, OTCBi.arom.aa k uMnoccu6u.ucTUHecKUM pucyHKaM M.3mepa: «y3Kaa» .HHrBOKy.BTypo.orua KaK 6w cogep-®mt b ce6e HeconocTaBUMO 6o.Bmee no o6teMy 3HaHue, BwgaBaa ero 3a CBoe, ho noHTu no.HOCTBro uraopupya pea.BHwe KOHTeKCTw ero no.yneHua u o^opM.eHua.
218
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
CTATyC .HHrBOKy.bTyPO.OrHH
npegao^eHHtie pa6oHue onpegeaeHua BnoaHe no3BoaaroT opueH-TupoBaTB ynam,uxca b npo6.eMaTuxe gu^unauHBi, ho, pa3yMeeT-ca, He pemaroT npo6aeMy ee cogep^aHua u rpaHu^ HeogHoxparao BCTpenaBmueca MHe npu .uhhom o6m,eHuu cxenTunecxue cy^ge-Hua BecBMa yBa^aeMBix auHrBucT0B u ^uao.oroB b 0TH0meHuu auHrB0Ky.BTypo.oruu no3BoaaroT nogHaTB u npuHn,unua.BHBiM Bonpoc o Heo6xoguM0CTu ee caM0CToaTe.BHoro cym,ecTB0BaHua. 0Tge.BHoro BHUMaHua 3acay»uBaeT Bonpoc o tom, rge ucxaTB aHa-aoru «.uHrBoKy.BTypo.oruHecKoMy» 3HaHuro b 3apy6e^HoM Hay-xe. Ecau gocru^eHua poccuMcxux uccaegoBaTeaeM b 3tom o6aacTu yHuxaaBHw, to b xaxoM ^opMaTe 3HaxoMUTB c humu He nuTarom,ux no-pyccKu uHocTpaHHwx xoaaer? B xaxux 3apy6e^Hwx ^ypHaaax ny6auK0BaTBca TeM, kto 3aHUMaeTca gaHHoM npo6aeMaTUKoM? Kax npaBu.BH0 o6ynaTB CTygeHT0B, ^e.arom,ux cnen,uaau3upoBaTBca Ha «auHrB0Ky.BTypo.oruHecKux» TeMax, ho He HaMepeHHwx ot-xa3wBaTBca ot B03M0»H0CTeM, npegocTaBaaeMwx Me^gyHapogHoM axageMUHecxoM M06u.BH0CTBro? HTax. ecau bhobb B0cn0.B30BaTBca auHrBucTUHecK0M TepMUHo.orueM, to xpoMe SKcreHCuoHaaa mw goa^Hw onpegeauTB uHTeHCuoHa. paccMaTpuBaeMoro noHaTua, napaaaeaBHo 060CH0BwBaa SBpucTunecxyro ^hhoctb ero (noHaTua) npuMeHeHua.
06paTUMca k Bonpocy o caM0CT0aTe.BH0CTu, uHane roBopa, o CTa-Tyce auHrBoxyaBTypoaoruu. runoTeTunecKM 0Ha Mo^eT npeTeHgo-BaTB Ha 3BaHue 0Tge.BH0M Hayxu, pa3geaa KaxoM-To Hayxu, oco6oro HanpaBaeHua uau nogxoga b paMKax ogHoM U3 Hayx, o6.acTu uau oTpacau 3HaHua u t. n. no3HaHua «b huctom Buge» onpegeaaTB MecTo ogHoM U3 «-aoruM» b uepapxuu gpyrux, BepoaTHo, He Ba®H0.
219
WPMM BMKTOPOBMH GMflMnnOB ► (E^e pa3) o nepcneKTMBax POCCMMCKOM
YHMBepca.BHaa geca-TMHHaa K.accM^MKa-o,Ma (YAK) — cMCTeMa K.accM^MKan,MM MH^0pMan,MM, mu-poKo Mcno.B3yeMaa cerogHa bo BceM MMpe g.a cMCTeMaTM3an,MM npoM3BegeHMM HayKM, .MTepaTypw m ucKyc-cTBa, nepM0gMHecK0M nenaTM, pa3.MHHBix BMgoB g0KyMeHT0B m opraHM3an,MM KapToTeK.
rocygapcTBeHHWM py6pMKarop Hayn-H0-TexHMHeCK0M
MH^opMaUMM (rP-
HTH) Mcno.B3yeTca g.a cMCTeMaTM3an,MM Bcero n0T0Ka HayH-H0-TexHMHeCK0M MH-^0pMan,MM B PoCCMM m rocygapcTBax CHr yn-pe^geHMaMM, cBa3aH-HWMM c ynpaB.eHMeM geaTe.BH0CTBW b c^epe HayKM m o6pa3o-BaHMa. npegcTaB.aeT co6om yHMBepca.BHyw MepapxMHecKyw K.ac-cM^MKan,MW o6.acreM 3HaHMa m cBa3aH b CB0eM K0g0B0M HaCTM c HoMeHK.arypoM cneo,Ma.nBHocreM Ha-yHHWx pa60THMK0B.
4
BM6.M0TeHH0-6M-6.Morpa^MHecKaa K.accM^MKan,Ma (BBK) - npM3HaHHaa 3apy-6e^HWMM ^KC^epra-mm Han.M0Ha.BHaa K.accM^MKan,M0HHaa CMCTeMa MapKMpoBKM M3gaHMM, Mcno.B3ye-Maa b HayHHwx (d,m^-p0B0M K0g) M Macco-BWx (6yKBeHHBiM K0g) 6M6.M0TeKax PoccMM-ckom Oegepao,MM.
OgHaKo, 3T0 Ba^Ho c tohkm 3peHua coBpeMeHHwx cou,ua.BHBix, T0HHee MHCTMTy^M0Ha.fcHWX, M BC.egCTBUe 3T0r0, 3K0H0MMHeCKUx pea.uM. Hhbimm c.0BaMu, g.a opraHU3au,MM m ^MHaHCupoBaHua yHe6Horo npo^cca (mK0.BH0e ge.eHue Ha npegMeTw, yne6Hwe n.a-HW yHMBepcMTeT0B) m co6cTBeHH0 MCC.eg0BaTe.BCK0M geaTe.BH0CTM TaKoe pa3ge.eHue c0BepmeHH0 Heu36e^H0. He o6omtmcb 6e3 Hero m b 6u6.uoTeKax. ^k6om npogyKT HayHHoM geaTe.BH0CTM, 6ygB to CTaTBa M.M M0H0rpa$ua, go.^eH 6wtb BnucaH b oguH u3 pa3ge.0B. npegycM0TpeHHwx cy^ecTByro^MMu cucreMaMu KogM^MKa^MM m py6puKau,MM uH$opMau,MM (YAK2, TPHTH3, BBK4). T0.BK0 B 3T0M c.ynae KHura oKa^eTca b 6u6.M0TeKe (ga^e ec.u 3Ta 6u6.M0TeKa
-	3.eKTpoHHaa) Ha «npaBu.BH0M» no.Ke, a Te, K0My 0Ha geMcTBu-Te.BH0 Hy^Ha, CMoryT oTwcKaTB ee cpegu orpoMHoro HMC.a gpyrux. B K.accM<^MKaTope rPHTH .MHrB0Ky.BTypo.orMM KaK TaK0B0M HeT hm nog KogaMM, HaHMHarom,MMuca c i3 («Ky.BTypa, Ky.BTypo.orMa»), hm nog KogaMM rpynnw i6 («a3WK03HaHue»). He yga.0CB o6Hapy^MTB ee m b pa3ge.ax o6.acreM 3HaHua! no.ynaeTca, hto .MHrB0Ky.BTypo.o-ruM «b y3K0M CMBic.e» tyopManbuo He cym,ecTByeT, a nocBarn,eHHBie eM yneÔHwe noco6ua b cooTBeTCTBuu c geMCTByro^MMu cerogHa b PoCCMM yHMBepCa.BH0M geCaTMHH0M M 6M6.M0TeHH0-6M6.M0rpa^M-necK0M KogM^MKa^MaMM MapKupoBaHw 8l KogoM - «fl3BiK03HaHue» (KpacHwx:.2; Xpo.eHKo:.2). ABTopw stmx noco6uM, nparcrunecKM Bce
-	.MHrBMCTW M ^M.0.0ru, He oCTaBMB 6e3 BHMMaHUa Bonpoc 0 MeCTe .MHrB0Ky.BTypo.oruM cpegu gpyrux gu^un.MH, TaK^e nwTa.ucB onpege.MTB ero c tohkm 3peHua HayKM o a3WKe. To.bko y ogHoro M3 aBTopoB MW BCTpenaeM yKa3aHue Ha to, hto «ynacrue a3WKa b C03ugaHMM gyx0BH0M Ky.BTypw» go.»Ha ucc.egoBaTB HeKaa H0Baa gu^un.MHa m.m cucTeMa gMC^M^.MH «c npuopuTeToM Ky.BTypo-.oroB» (Xpo.eHKo: 32).
220
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
KaK C 3TMM0fl0rMHeCK0M, TaK M C HMCT0 fl0rUHeCK0M T0HKM 3peHua npegcTaB.aeTca oneBugHBiM, hto .MHrB0Ky.nBTypo.norMro bo3mo^ho npegcTaB.aTB b K0HTeKCTe KaK a3BiK03HaHua, TaK u HayK o Ky.BTy-pe. nonpo6yeM cge.aTB ^T0, o6paTUBmucB k y^e ynoMMHaBmeMyca 0^M^ManBH0My Knaccu^uKaTopy (rPHTH). Ha cerogHamHUM geHB oh cogep^MT g0CTaT0HH0 nogpo6Hyro py6pMKa^Mro pa3ge.a l3.00.00 Ky.BTypa. Ky.BTypo.orMa. Ecu opueHTupoBaTBca Ha cogep^aHue cym,ecTByrom,Mx Ha gaHHBiM M0MeHT noco6uM no .MHrBoKy.BTypo-.oruM m caMoe o6m.ee ee onpege.eHue KaK gucuunnuHBi, U3ynaro-m,eM B3auMogeMCTBue a3BiKa u Ky.BTypw, to 0Ha Mor.a 6bi BxoguTB b cnegyrom,ue py6puKu: l3.0l.00. 06m,ue Bonpocw Ky.BTypw. l3.07.00. Teopua, MeTogo.orua u ^u.oco^ua Ky.BTypw. l3.07.2l. 0Tge.BHBie HanpaB.eHua u mK0.w. l3.07.25. 0Tge.BHBie ^u.oco^CKo-TeopeTu-necKue npo6.eMw Ky.BTypw. l3.07.77. MeTogo.orua u MeTogw U3y-neHua Ky.BTypw. l3.09.00. Hcropua Ky.BTypw. Hcropua u3yneHua Ky.BTypw. l3.ll.22. Ky.BTypa u ugeo.orua. l3.ll.28. Ky.BTypa u .mh-H0CTB. l3.ll.44. Hau,uoHa.nBHoe m MHTepHau,uoHa.nBHoe b Ky.BType. Ha^M0HanBHaa ugeHTUHHocTB u B3auMogeMCTBue Ky.BTyp. l3.l5.5l. Ky.BTypHaa no.uTUKa. BnponeM, hm b ogHy U3 hmx 0Ha b gaHHBiM M0MeHT He BxoguT! B pa3ge.e «fl3BiK03HaHue» nepcneKTUBHon npeg-CTaB.aeTca to.bko py6puKa l6.3l.6l. npu^o^eHue a3WK03HaHua k gpyruM HayKaM.
OnPEflE.EHHH .HHrBOKy.bTyPO.OrHH
BbiacHMB, hto HMKaKoro 0^Mn,Ma.BH0 npu3HaHHoro craTyca y .mhtbo-Ky.BTypo.orMM noKa HeT, a 3HanuT, .ro6aa T0HKa 3peHua Ha ee Me-CT0 b cucTeMe 3HaHua MMeeT npaBo Ha cym,ecTB0BaHue, 3aMMeMca, HaK0Heu, cogep^aTe.BHWM onpege.eHueM 3tom gucnunnuHBi u
221
OPIUM BMKTOPOBMH <t>IMUinnOB (E^e pa3) o nepcneKTUBax poccuicKOM
paccMOTpuM HeKOToptie M3 MHoroHucneHHwx BapuaHTOB, npegna-raeMBix b y»e cym,ecTByrom,Mx yne6Hwx noco6uax. no»anyM, caMoe nogpo6Hoe onpegeneHue nuHrBOKynBTyponoruu npegnaraeT B.B. Bopo6BeB: «KOMnneKCHaa HayHHaa gucuunnuHa CMHTe3upyrom,e-ro Tuna, M3ynarom,aa B3auMOCBa3B m B3auMogeMCTBue KynBTypw m a3BiKa b ero 4>yH^M0HMp0BaHMM m OTpa»arorn,aa ^T0T npo^cc KaK ^nocTHyro CTpyKTypy egMHM^ b eguHCTBe mx a3WKOBoro u BHea3w-KOBoro (KynBTypHoro) cogep»aHua npu noMom,u cucTeMHwx MeTO-goB m c opuem^ueM Ha coBpeMeHHBie npuopuTeTBi u KynBTypHwe ycTaHOBneHua (cucTeMa HopM m o6m,eHenoBeHecKMx ueHHOcreM)» (36-37). B yne6HOM noco6uu B.A. MacnoBoM nuHrBOKynBTyponorua - «ryMaHMTapHaa gu^unnuHa, u3yHarom,aa Bonflom,ëHHyro b »mbom Hau,MOHa,BHBiM a3WK m npoaB,arom,yroca b a3BiKOBBix npou,eccax MaTepuanBHyro m gyxoBHyro KynBTypy» (30) m BMecTe c TeM - «ot-paC,B nUHrBMCTMKM, BO3HMKmaa Ha CTBiKe ,MHrBMCTMKM M Ky,B-Typonoruu» (9), «MHTerpaTUBHaa o6,acTB 3HaHuM, B6uparom,aa b ce6a pe3y,BTaTw uccnegoBaHuM b KynBTyponoruu m a3WKO3HaHuu, 3THOflMHrBMCTMKe M Ky,BTypHOM aHTpOnOAOrUM» (32). B.B. KpaCHBiX CHMTaeT, HTO nuHrBOKynBTyponorua u3ynaeT «npoaBneHue, OTpa»e-Hue m ^MKca^Mro KynBTypw b a3WKe m gucKypce» m «HenocpegcTBeH-HO CBa3aHa c u3yneHueM Ha^M0Ha,BH0M KapTMHw Mupa, a3BiKOBoro C03HaHua, 0C06eHH0CTeM MeHTa,BHO-,uHrBa,BHoro KOMnneKca» (i2). Cnegyrornue onpegeneHua npuHag,e»aT pa3HWM aBTopaM, ho 06a OT,MHaroTca ot npegwgym,ux CBoeM naKOHUHHOCTBro: ,uHrBOKy,BTy-ponorua - «KOMnneKCHaa o6,acTB HayHHoro 3HaHua 0 B3auMOCBa3M m B3aMMOB,uaHMM a3BiKa m Ky,BTypBi» (KapacMK: 87) m «^unoco^ua a3WKa m KynBTypw» (XponeHKo: 3l). BTopoe cnegyeT paccMaTpuBaTB b KOHTeKCTe ^aom cucreMBi gu^un^MH, K0T0pyro npegnaraeT A.T. XponeHKO. no ero MHeHuro, nuHrBOKynBTyponorua - TeopeTMHecKaa
222
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
HagcTpoMKa Hag 6o.ee o6m,eM HayKon, Ha3WBaeM0M .uHrB0Ky.B-TypoBegeHueM. npaBga, $u.oco^ueM a3BiKa npo$eccuoHa.BHBie ^u.oco^w name Ha3BiBaroT Bno.He KonKpeTnoe nanpaB.enue b ^u-.oco^HH XX BeKa (cm. &unoco$cKaa ^H^uKnone^uñ), a nog ^.oco^en Ky.BTypw y»e gocTaroHHo gaBHo TaR»e noHUMaeTca HenTo, sbho He CBoguMoe k npegMeTy gMH^B0Ky.bTypo.o^MM, KaK 6bi mupoKo mbi ero He TpaKToBa.u (4>yHgaMeHTa.BHBiM 0630p ucTopuK Bonpoca cm., nanpuMep, b &unoco$w Kynbmypu).
Motubw, npucyTcrByromue b ^MTMpoBannwx onpege.eHuax, b pa3.uHHwx K0M6uHan,uax BcrpenaroTca u b gpyrux Bepcuax, ^0^T0My BwmenpuBegennwM cnucoK, xoTa u ne aB.aeTca ucHepmiBaromuM, Bno.ne npegcTaBUTe.en. npaKrunecKu y Bcex aBTopoB npucyTCTByeT u nacro ga»e goMunupyeT ugea «K0Mn.eKCH0CTu», «cunTe3a», «uh-TerpaTUBnocTu», ucno.b3yroTca MeTa^opwi «B6upaHua» pe3y.BTaT0B gpyrux nayK, «CTBiKa» u T.n. TaKUM 06pa30M, o6pam,aeTca BHUMa-nue na MeÄgMC^M^.MnapnwM xapaKTep, norpanunnoe no.o»eHue .uHrB0Ky.bTypo.oruu. OgHaKo, 3tot motub no 0TH0meHuro k Ha-yHH0M gucn.un.uHe npegcTaB.aeTca HaM b npuHu,une He coBceM yMecTHWM. Me^n,ucn,un.uHapHBiM, a .ynme CKa3aTb no.u- u.u My.BTM-gMC^M^.MHapHWM, n0CK0.BKy «Me»gy» npegno.araeT ot-cyTCTBue .0Ryca - Haxo^geHue «hu TaM, hu caM», M0»eT 6wtb koh-KpeTHoe uccegoBaHue, npoBoguMoe coBMecTHo c^e^Ma.MCTaMM u3 HecKo.BKux o6.acTen, c ^e.bro pemeHua KaKon-.u6o nparcruHecKon 3aganu, K0T0paa no CBoeMy xapaKTepy He M0»eT 6wtb pemeHa b paM-Kax ogHon HayKu. Hto ®e KacaeTca HaynHon gu^u^um^ npeTeH-gyromen Ha caM0CT0aTe.BH0CTB, to ee npegMeT u cooTBeTCTByromue eMy MeTogo.o^MHecKMe ycTaH0BKu go.»Hw 6wtb c^opMy.MpoBaHw KaK oT.uHHBie 0T gpyrux, paHee o^opMUBmuxca HayK. B np0TUBH0M c.ynae ee npaBu.BH0 cnuTarB ucc.egoBaTe.BCKUM HanpaB.eHueM
223
OPIUM BMKTOPOBMH <t>IMUinnOB (E^e pa3) o nepcneKTUBax poccuicKOM
u.u HaynHOM mKoaoM. ,fl,pyroe ge.o - npoucxo^geHue HayKu u guc-^u^.uHapHaa KBa.u$uKa^ua u ugeHTu^uKau,ua ee .ugepoB. Em,e ogHMM HegocTaTKOM cym,ecTByrom,ux onpege.eHuM .uHrBOKy.B-Typo.oruu aB.aeTca ucno.B3OBaHue ux aBTopaMu gpyrux, TaK^e He ycroaBmuxca em,e b cboux 3HaneHuax c.ob u coBoconeTaHuM, 6o.ee HanoMuHarom,ux «HaynHBie OKKa3uoHa.u3MBi», He^e.u Tep-mhhh. TaKoB, 6e3yc.OBHO, «MeHTa.BHO-.uHrBa.BHwm KOMn.eKc»; noBceMecTHo BcrpenaroTca b TeKcTax o a3BiKe u Ky.BType, ho TaK u He no.ynu.u neTKoro onpege.eHua «Han.uoHa.BHaa KapTuHa Mupa» u «a3BiKOBoe co3HaHue», He coBceM acHo, hto noHuMaeTca nog «$MKca^MeM Ky.BTypwi» b a3BiKe Hapagy c ee «npoaB.eHueM» u «oTpa^eHueM».
nocKo.BKy c.obo «.uHrBoKy.BTypo.orua» OHeBugHO He otho-cuTca k c.OBaM o6m,eynoTpe6uTe.BHBiM, T.e. ucno.B3yeMBiM b no-BcegHeBHoM o6m,eHuu, a aB.aeTca nacTBW cnen,ua.BHoro a3BiKa, Ha3oBeM ero yc.OBHO a3BiKOM ryMaHuTapHOM HayKu, yMecTHo Ha-geaTBca, hto ^TO c.obo ôygeT onpege.eHO KaK TepMuH. OgHo u3 Hau-6o.ee tohhbix u eMKux, Ha Ham B3r.ag, onpege.eHuM «TepMuHa» npeg.o»u.a Eonbuaa coeemcxan ^H^UKnone^ua: «TepMuH (no3gHe.ar. terminus — TepMuH, ot .aT. terminus — npege., rpaHu^) 1) c.obo u.u c.oBoconeTaHue, npu3BaHHoe tohho o6o3HanuTB noHaTue u ero cooTHomeHue c gp. noHaTuaMu b npege.ax c^e^ua.BH0M c^epwi. T. c.y^aT c^e^ua.u3upyrom1uMu, orpaHunuTe.BHWMu o6o3HaneHua-mu xapaKTepHwx g.a 3tom c^epw npegMeTOB, aB.eHuM, ux cbomctb u OTHomeHuM. Ohu cym,ecTBywT .umB b paMKax onpege.ëHHoM TepMuHO.oruu. B OT.unue ot c.OB o6m,ero a3WKa, T. He cBa3aHw c KOHTeKcTOM» (TepMuH). K.WHeBMMH c.OBaMH 3gecB aB.awTca «rpaHHua, orpaHuneHue» u «cooTHomeHue». CTa.o 6bitb, ucko-Moe onpege.eHue .uHrBOKy.BTypo.oruu go.^HO OTrpaHunuBaTB
224
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
ee 0T gpyrux HayK, gucn.Mn.MH, o6.acreM 3HaHua m b to ^e BpeMa yKa3WBaTB Ha 0TH0meHua c hmmm. C 3tom tohkm 3peHua, hm 0gH0 M3 u3BecTHwx HaM Ha cerogHa onpege.eHMM He mo^čt CHUTaTBca ygoB.eTBopMTe.BHWM, nocKo.BKy He uMeeT TepMUH0.0ruHecK0-ro xapaKTepa, T.e. He 0TrpaHUHUBaeT onpege.aeMoe ot cxogHwx m CMe^Hwx cym,H0CTeM. Ern,e pa3 noBTopuM, hto Ba^eH He caM no ce6e Bonpoc onpege.eHua .MHrB0Ky.BTypo.oruM pagu yTBep^geHua ee caM0CToaTe.BHoro CTaTyca, a noucK TaKoro npegMeTa gMCu,Mn.MHti, K0T0pWM n03B0.M. 6w 0TKpWTB H0BWe nyTM pa3BMTUa 3HaHUa, 3Ha-Hua o a3WKe u Ky.BType, 3HaHua o He.0BeKe u o6m,ecTBe. Ha 3tom nyTM B03M0^eH u 0TpuuaTe.BHWM pe3y.BTaT: He.B3a ucK.ronaTB, hto Bonpocw, K0T0pwe cerogHa CTaBaTca b paMKax .uHrB0Ky.B-Typo.oruu, MoryT pemaTBca m.m y^e ycnemHo pemaroTca gpyru-MM gucn,Mn.MHaMM.
HHTepecHo oTMeTUTB, hto c tohkm 3peHua a3WKa H0MUHaqua HayK Mo^eT npou3BoguTBca npu noMom,u ogHoro npocToro c.o-Ba («^M3MKa», «xuMua») m.m gBycocTaBHoro c.oBa, ogHa u3 Ha-CTeM K0Toporo c00TH0CMTca c o6o3HaHeHueM npon,ecca no.yneHua m.m npegcTaB.eHua 3HaHua (-.orua, -rpa^ua), a gpyraa Ha3WBa-eT npegMeT no3HaHua (6uo-.orua, srao-rpa^ua). CpaBHUTe.BH0 ycnemHo ygaeTca yTBepguTBca gu^un.uHaM, o6o3HaHeHue ko-Topwx BK.roHaeT gBa cogep^aTe.BHwx K0Mn0HeHTa (con,uo.uHr-BMCTMKa, ncuxo.MHrBMCTMKa). Ec.u ^e g.a o6o3HaHeHuu H0B0r0 HanpaB.eHua ucno.B3yroTca Tpu KopHa (.MHrB0Ky.BTypo.orua, 3THoncuxo.MHrBucTMKa), m.m c.0B0C0HeTaHue (ncuxo.orunecKaa aHTpono.orua, ucTopuHecKaa srao.orua), sto CBugeTe.BCTByeT o ero MMHMMa.BHwx maHcax CTaTB caM0CT0aTe.BH0M HayKoM: a3WK 6ygT0 caM npenaTCTByeT ucn0.B30BaHuro Hpe3MepH0 yc.o^HeHHwx MHCTpyMeHT0B no3HaHua.
225
OPIUM BMKTOPOBMH <t>IMUinnOB (E^e pa3) o nepcneKTUBax poccuicKOM
OBJEKT H nPEflMET .HHrBOKy.bTyPO.OrHH
Hto aB.aeTca 06^eKT0M u npegMeTOM .MHrBOKy.BTypo.oruM no MHeHMK aBTopoB cym,ecTByrom,Mx yne6Hwx noco6uM? ,fl,.a OTBeTa Ha ^T0 Bonpoc B0cn0.B3yeMca $opMa.BHBiM npueMOM, ocHOBaHHOM Ha pyccKOM rpaMMaTMKe: ec.u o6teKT m npegMeT He yKa3aHBi b TeK-CTe aBHO, to ohm MoryT 6bitb npegcTaB.eHBi KaK o6teKTw geMcTBua npu nepexogHwx r.aro.ax b KOHcrpyKnuax Tuna «HayKa/gucn,M-n.MHa M3ynaeT + BuHMTe.BHBiM. nage»», «ucc.egyeT + Bmh. nag.» m T.n. H3 noco6ua B.B. Bopo6BeBa mbi M3B.eKaeM TaKUM cnoco6oM «B3auM0CBa3B m B3auMogeMCTBue Ky.BTypw m a3tiKa» u, HyTB ga-.ee, «Ha^M0Ha.BHwe ^opMBi 6wTua o6rn,ecrBa, Bocnpou3BoguMwe
B CMCTeMe a3BiK0B0M KOMMyHMKaU,MM», a TaK»e «BCë, HTO COCTaB-.aeT a3WK0Byw KapTMHy Mupa» (32). MHeHua B.B. KpacHwx m B.H. KapacuKa ^aKTunecKM coBnagawT c nepBWM m3 ^TMx onpege.eHMM. B TeKCTe B.A. Mac.0B0M .MHrBOKy.BTypo.orua M3ynaeT «MaTepu-a.BHyw m gyxoBHyw Ky.BTypy», a bot ee npegMeTw aBTop nepenuc-.aeT nogpo6HO, yKa3WBaa, BnponeM, hto ^T0T cnucoK MO»eT 6wtb gono.HeH: 6e3^KBMBa.eHTHwe a3WK0Bwe eguHMuw - «.aKyHBi Ha ceMaHTMHecKOM KapTe a3BiKa»; MM^o.orM3upoBaHHBie a3WK0Bwe eguHM^i: apxeTunw m MM^o.oreMBi, o6pagw m noBepBa, puTya.w u o6wHau, 3aKpen.eHHwe b a3WKe; napeMMO.oruHecKMM $OHg a3WKa; ^pa3eo.oruHecKMM ^OHg a3WKa; ^Ta.0Hw, crepeoTunwi, cmmbo.bi; MeTa^opw m o6pa3Bi; CTM.MCTMHecKMM yK.ag a3WK0B; peneBoe no-BegeHue; peneBOM ^TMKeT (Mac.OBa: 37-47). 3aMeTMM, hto ^eHOMe-HO.oruHecKMM CTaTyc ^TMx «npegMeTOB» o6o3HaneH He gocTaTOHHO noc.egoBaTe.BHo: 6o.BmuHCTBO OTHeceHw k a3WK0BWM aB.eHuaM, HeK0T0pwe - k noBegeHHecKMM, a bot rge m KaK n03B0.awT o6Ha-py»MTB m cooTBeTCTBeHHO M3yHaTB ce6a ocTaBmueca (<OTa.OHBi,
226
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
CTepeoTunw, cumbo.bi», «MeTa^opw u o6pa3Bi») He coBceM acH0. A.T. Xpo.eHKo Ha3HBaeT 06BeKT0M .MHrB0Ky.BTypo.orMM - «33bik h Ky.B-Typy» (3l), a ee npegMeT0M «<£yHgaMeHTa.BHBie BonpocBi, CB33aHHBie c npeo6pa3yrom,eM CTopoHoM CB33u a3BiKa u Ky.BTypw: u3MeHeHua 33HKa u ero eguHu^ 06yc.0B.eHHBie guHaMUKoM Ky.BTypw, a TaK»e npeo6pa30BaHua b CTpyKType u u3MeHeHua b 4>yH^uoHupoBaHuu Ky.BTypH, npegonpege.eHHHe a3BiK0B0M pea.u3a^ueM Ky.BTypHBix CMMC.0B» (30). npu ^T0M onucaHueM K0HKpeTHBix npuMepoB B3au-MogeMcTBua 0Tge.BHBix aB.eHUH Ky.BTypBi c a3BiK0BBiMu aB.eHua-MM go.»HH 3aHMMaTBca «60.ee nacTHBie .MHrB0Ky.BTyp0BegHecKMe gU^Un.UHBi» (3TH0.UHrBUCTUKa, .UHrB0^0.BK.0pUCTUKa). ^.b »e .uHrB0Ky.BTypo.oruu - «o6o6m,eHue uH^opMa^uu, HaKon.eH-hom 3TH0.MHrBMCTMK0M ^TH0.uHrBucruKaMu) u Bxogam,uMu b Hee flucuun.uHaMu» u «BHaBjeHue MexaHU3M0B B3aMMogeMcTBua u B3auM0B.uaHua gByx $yHgaMeHTa.BHBix $eH0MeH0B - a3BiKa u Ky.BTypM, 06yc.0B.MBarom.Mx ^eH0MeH He.0BeKa» (Xpo.eHKo: 30). H.O. A.e^upeHK0 CHUTaeT 06teKT0M .uHrB0Ky.BTypo.oruu «npo-gyKTB H,eHH0CTH0-CMBic.0B0r0 no3HaHua, Mup cy6BeKTUBHBix 06pa30B, CMBC.0B u H,eHH0CTeM, nopo»gaeMBix a3BiK0BBiMu .uh-H0CT3MU, T0HHee, Ux CMHC.0BHMM yCTaH0BKaMU» U.U «H3UK06yw/ ducxypcußHyw denmenbHocmb, paccMampueaeMyw c u,eHMcmw-cMUc-noeoü moHKU 3peHW» (KypcuB H.O. A.e$upeHK0. - W.O.), a npegMe-T0M - «penpe3em^uro b a3BiKe $arcroB Ky.BTypBi» (7-l4). Bpag .u nogpo6HBiM KpuTunecKuM pa36op cym,ecTByrom,ux onpege.eHUM n03B0.MT HaM cymecTBeHHo npogBUHyTBca b noHUMaHuu npegMeTa aHa.u3a, no3roMy o6o6m,uM Hame MHeHue b o6pa3e, npuMepHo TaK, KaK y»e ge.a.u ^T0 paHee b 0TH0meHuu .uHrB0Ky.BTypo.oruu b «y3K0M» u «mup0K0M» CMBic.ax. npaKTUHecKM Bce npuBegeHHBie onpege.eHua npou3BogaT BnenaT.eHue BUHerpeTa U3 60.ee u.u
227
OPIUM BMKTOPOBMH <t>IMUinnOB (E^e pa3) o nepcneKTUBax poccuicKOM
MeHee oguHaKOBBix cnoB-MHrpegueHTOB (xynbmypa, a3UK, uenoeex, 63auMoceñ3b, 63auMoenuñHue, u,eHHOcmu, CMucnu), nepeMemaHHBix np aKTMH ecKM np0U3B0.BH0 m o6pa3yrom,ux CMBicnoBBie eguHCTBa MCK.roHMTe.BHO 6narogapa cuHTaKCMHecKOM npaBunBHOCTM ux co-eguHeHua bo $pa3e, a He cogep^aTenBHoM noruKe, b cooTBeTCTBMM c KOTopoM TaKoe coeguHeHue 6bI.o nonyneHO. B3aTBie b coBOKynHOCTM MMerom,ueca onpegeneHua nuHrBOKynBTyponoruM npegcraBnaroT HaM noHTM Bce TeopeTMHecKM B03M0»HBie K0M6MHa^MM yKa3aHHwx MHrpegueHTOB, ho hm ogHoM n0C.eg0BaTe.BH0M TeopeTMKO-MeTO-gonoruHecKOM no3uu,MM, Ha ocHOBaHuu KOTopoM mokho 6bi.o 6bi pa3BMBaTB peanBHwe uccnegoBaHua stom caMOM «B3auM0CBa3u a3BiKa m Ky.BTypBi».
.HHrBOKy.bTyPO.OrHH KAK HACTb Ky.bTyPO.OrHH
nonpo6yeM TenepB nogoMTu k Bonpocy o npegMeTe nuHrBOKy.B-TyponoruM co BTopoM cropoHBi — paccMOTpeTB ee KaK B03M0^Hyro HacTB Ky.BTyponorMM. He OTKporoTca nu HaM b 3tom cnynae HOBBie nyTM nonyneHua 3HaHua 06 OKpy»arom,eM geMcTBMTenBHOCTM, o He-noBeKe m o6m,ecTBe, co6cTBeHHO 0 Ky.BType m a3BiKe? He 6ygyT nu nepcneKTMBBi pa3BMTua HameM gu^MnnuHBi BwraageTB 6onee npu-B.eKaTe.BHHMM c stom TOHKM 3peHua? HaHHeM, KaK Bcerga, ab ovo - c onpegeneHua KynBTyponoruu. BBugy HeB03M0^H0CTM cko.b-.hm6o nogpo6Horo aHanu3a Bcex cym,ecTByrom,Mx onpegeneHMM b paMKax CTaTBM B0cn0.B3yeMca ^opMynupoBKOM C00TBeTCTByrom,eH CTpaHu^i BuKuneguM, npegcraBnarom,eMca HaM Bno.He B3BemeHHoM: «Ha-yKa, M3ynaromaa Ky.BTypy, Hau6o.ee o6m,ue 3aK0H0MepH0CTM eë pa3BMTua. B 3agaHM KynBTyponoruu BxoguT ocMBicneHue KynBTypw KaK ^en0CTH0^0 aBneHua, onpegeneHue Hau6o.ee o6m,ux 3aK0H0B eë
228
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
4>yHR^uoHupoBaHua, a TaR^e aHa,u3 ^eHoMeHa Ry,BTypBi KaK cu-OTeMw» (BuRunegua. Ky,BTypo,oraa). Onpege,eHue oneBugHo ^u-eHTMCTCKoe (<^e,ocTHoe aB,eHue», «3aRoHBi 4,yHR^uoHupoBaHua», «CMCTeMHOCTB»), ho ocTaB,arom,ee Ra^goMy npaBo noHUMaTB o6BeRr M3yHeHua, T.e. Ry,BTypy, no-CBoeMy, a 3HanuT u cbom ucc,egoBaHua BwcTpauBaTB b cooTBeTCTBuu c caMMMu pa3HWMu napagurMaMu, no cyTu, BoRpyr c,oBa, a He noHaTua. Hhmmh c,oBaMu, npegMeT Ry,BTypo,oruu onpege,aeTca cogep^aHueM noHaTua «Ry,BTypa». Ec,u BocnpuHuMaTB ,uHrBoRy,BTypo,oruro RaR nacTB Ry,BTypo,o-ruu, to ee o6teRToM ,orunHo TaR^e cnuTaTB Ry,BTypy, hto6bi nog Hen He noHuMa,ocB.
BMecTo Toro, hto6bi b onepegHon pa3 nBrraTBca xoTa 6bi o6o3peTB BecB cneRTp cym,ecTByrom,ux onpege,eHuM Ry,BTypw, RaR ^T0 ge,a-eTca He to,bro b yne6HuRax no Ry,BTypo,oruu, ho u npaRrunecRu bo Bcex paHee ynoMaHyTBix noco6uax no ,uHrBoRy,BTypo,oruu (HanpuMep, A,e^upeHRo: 26-29, Mac,oBa: 12-15) npu6eraeM bhobb r npueMy pa6onux onpege,eHun. nonpo6yeM Ha3WBaTB Ry,BTypoM «cucTeMy 3HaneHuM (npegcraB,eHuM, cmbic,ob, ^HHocreM, a TaR^e 3HaRoB u cumbo,ob), pa3ge,aeMBix onpege,eHHon rpynnon uHgu-BugoB». C,obo «cucreMa» 3gecB npegnoHTuTe,BHee, neM, HanpuMep, c,oBa «Ha6op» u,u «RoMn,eRC», ho ucno,B3yeTca b «MarRoM» CMHCje, oTpa^aa ,umB noHuMaHue B3auMHon u MHoroMepHon CBa-3aHHocTu pa3Hwx npegcTaB,eHuM u,u 3HaneHuM, ho orarogB He ux BR,wneHHocTB b RaRyro-To «^ecrRyro» u,u Heu3MeHHyro CTpyRTypy. npuBegeHHwe b CRo6Rax c,oBa yronHaroT 3HaneHue onopHoro c,oBa b onpegeneHuu, a uMeHHo c,oBa «3HaneHue». TaRue 3HaneHua ot,u-naroTca ot 3HaneHuM b ,uHrBucTunecRoM CMBic,e. Ec,u a3WRoBoe 3HaHeHue aB,aeTca o3HanaeMWM HeRoToporo 3HaRa o3HaHarom,e-ro, rotophm aB,aeTca 3ByRoBaa ^opMa, T.e. c,obo, to Hamu 3HaHeHua
229
WPMM BMKTOPOBMH GMflMnnOB ► (E^e pa3) o nepcneKTMBax POCCMMCKOM
B npu.araTe.BHGM HaCTG.BKG CU.BHG aK-Tya.U3upyeTca eguH-cTBeHHGe noHMMaHue c.GBa «Ky.BTypa» KaK ypGBHa BGcnuTaHua, HTG erG nOHTM HeBG3-MG»HG npUMeHaTB K gpyruM cymecTByro-mUM U nGTeHD,UaflBHG BG3MG»HMM CMMC.aM Toro »e c.GBa. Toro »epoga conpGTUB.e-Hue a3MK GKa3MBaeT ucno.B3GBaHuro B egUHCTBeHHGM HUC.e npGHHG BGmegmerG b pyccKun a3BiK cnoBa Megua (Megua-xon-guHr, Megua-uccnego-BaHua): Bce iigümtku Ha3BaTB TG.BKG GgUH Tun nocpegHUKa npu KGMMyHUKan,uu MeguyMGM (^GTorpa-^uro, nenaTHGe CMH u t. g.) o6peKaroTca Ha npoBan npGHHBiMU ac-cGn,uan,uaMU pyccKO-a3HHHGrG CG3HaHUa c repoaMU cnupu-TunecKux ceaHcOB.
caMM aBnaroTca 03HaHarom,MMM gna Tex n,eHHOcreM m CMMcnoB, ko-TopMe nonynunu pacnpocTpaHeHue b o6mecTBe (unu coo6mecTBe). nocKO.BKy TaKoro poga 3HaneHua cocTaBnaroT KynbTypy, mm 6ygeM Ha3MBaTb ux KyRhmypHUMU 3naHenwMU. KaK 03HaHaromue ^HHOCTen Ky.BTypHMe 3HaneHua 6nu»e no CMMcny cnoBy 3uaHUMOcmhf HeM cnoBy o3uanamh. npegMeTOM nMHrBOKynbTyponoruM KaK pa3gena KynBTyponoruu unu «KynBTyponorunecKOM» nuHrBOKynBTyponoruM mo»ho Ha3BaTB KyRhmypuue 3uaHenm e H3UKe. npaBunBHen 6m.o 6m Ha3MBaTb TaKyro gucnunflMHy KyRhmypnoû RUnzeoKyRhmypoRozUeû c OHeBugHOM gna npo^eccuoHanBHMx KynbTyponoroB otcm.kom k noHMMaHuro KynBTypM m uccnegoBaTenBCKon npo6neMaTMKM b 6pu-TaHCKon mKone KynbTypHMx uccnegoBaHun. OgHaKO, KyRhmypnuû KaK onpegeneHue HacTOflbKO npoHHO yTBepgunocb b pyccKOM a3MKe b KanecTBe o^HOHHoro (KynbTypHMM/HeKynbTypHMn), hto ga»e b aKa-geMunecKOM gucKypce c TpygoM npu»uBaeTca KaK TepMUH. Bo3mo»-HO, CTOMT ocTaHOBMTbca Ha cnoBOCOHeTaHuu «nuHrBOKynbTypHMe MCcnegoBaHua», b KOTopoM ^opMaHT nuHrBO- b 3HaHMTenBHOM Mepe HenTpanM3yeT 0n,eH0HHBie CBoncTBa ocHOBHoro npunararenBHoro5. nog a3MKGM mm nogpa3yMeBaeM HecKonBKO coBepmeHHO onpege-neHHMx m OTnunaromuxca gpyr ot gpyra Bemen, a mmchho: ñ3UKoeue aeRenw, wuKoeue cmpyKmypu U peneeyw deameRhuocmh. CnoBOcone-TaHue «a3MKOBMe aBneHua» mo»ho noHUMaTb 6yKBanbHO u b to »e BpeMa npegenbHO mupoKo: Bce, hto aeRaemca HaM b a3MKOBMx ^opMax - ot OTgenBHoro cnoBa, Mop^eMM unu ga»e 3ByKa, ecnu oh BOcnpuHMMaeTca KaK 03HanaromMM hto-.m6o, go KOHKpeTHoro (b gyxe acTeTUKM B. Kpone) npoHTeHua cko.b yrogHO o6^eMHoro, ho Bce »e npegcTaBnaromero HeKyro n,en0CTH0CTb TeKCTa. B OTnuHue ot aB-neHun a3MKOBMe CTpyKTypM He BOcnpuHUMaroTca HenocpegcTBeHHO opraHaMM HyBCTB — ohm MoryT 6mtb nocTynupoBaHM npu noMomu
230
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
aHa.uTuHecKux onepan,uM u onucaHw b cnen.ua.BHoM .uTeparype o a3WKe (^oHeTunecKue 3aK0H0MepH0CTu, Mop^o.oruHecKwe u rpaM-MaTunecKue CTpyrcrypwi, cuHTaKcuc, K0Mn03un,ua u.u .B6aa gpyraa CTpyKTypa, uHorga MHoroypoBHeBaa, o6ecneHuBaBm,aa eguHCTBo a3WK0Bwx aB.eHuM). CuH0HuMaMu peneeoü deamenbnocmu mokho CHuTaTB c.0B0C0HeTaHua «peHeBoe noBegeHue» u «a3wiK0Baa gea-Te.BH0CTB», ec.u o6o3HaHaTB TaKuM Cn0C060M BCB C0B0KynH0CTB geMcTBuM He.0BeKa, coBepmaeMwx npu n0M0^u ecrecTBeHHoro a3WKa, KaK b ycTHoM, TaK u b nucBMeHHoM ^opMe. TepMuH «peHeBoe noBegeHue» 6bi. 6w caMWM ygaHHWM, ec.u 6w nog hum He noHuMa-.u Ham,e Bcero ucK.BHuTe.BH0 ycTHyB peHB. «fl3wiK0Baa geaTe.B-H0CTB» Bpoge 6w He uMeeT TaKux K0HH0Ta^MM u nogpa3yMeBaeT 6o.ee mupoKuM guana30H He.0BeHecK0M geaTe.BH0cru. BnpoHeM, HacT0.BK0 mupoKuM, HT0 b co3HaHuu noHTu cpa3y B03HuKaeT «a3w-K0B0e CTp0uTe.BCTB0», npo^ccwi ^opMupoBaHua .uTepaTypHoro a3WKa, 6opB6a c 3auMCTB0BaHuaMu, gua.eKTu3MaMu, 3a Bceo6m,yB rpaM0TH0CTB u T.n. B ^ToM CBa3u He.B3a He ynoMaHyTB e^e 0gH0 g0B0.BH0 6.u3Koe no 3HaHeHuB c.0B0C0HeTaHue, npeg.o^eHHoe HeKorga B.M. racnapoBWM, - «a3WK0B0e cym,ecTB0BaHue». B peneBoM geaTe.BH0CTu .uHrB0Ky.BTypHwie ucc.egoBaHua 6ygyr uHTepeco-BaTBca He MexaHu3MaMu ucn0.B30BaHua a3WK0Bwx ^opM u a3WKa b ^pMH^M^e, a pea.M3a^MeM uHguBugaMu CBoeM «C0^Ma.BH0CTM», npo^ccaMu ycTaH0B.eHua, noggep^aHua u pa3pymeHua o6m,e-CTBeHHwx 0TH0meHuM, ocym,ecTB.aeMwix npu noMom,u K0HKpeT-Horo a3WKa b yc.0Buax K0HKpeTH0M ^hhoctho-cmbic.oboM cpegw («cucTeMw 3HaHeHuM»), Ha3WBaeMoM Ky.BTypoM. TaKuM 06pa30M, r.aBHWM 3gecB aB.aeTca ycraH0BKa Ha noHuMaHue C0u,ua.BH0-CTu KaK B03M0ÄH0M T0.BK0 B Ky.BTypH0 C^e^M$MHeCKMX ^opMax, HacTBB K0T0pwx 6ygyT ^opMwi a3WK0Bwe. OopMw ^e, HanpuMep,
231
OPIUM BMKTOPOBMH <t>IMUinnOB (E^e pa3) o nepcneKTUBax poccuicKOM
BM3ya.bHwe u3ynaeT gpyraa nacTb Ky.bTypo.oruu — BU3ya.bHBie ucc.egoBaHua m T.g. OTMeTUM, hto Ha gaHHBin M0MeHT Hau6o.b-mue ycnexu gocTurayTBi b geK0HCTpyKu,Mu Ky.bTypHBix 3HaneHUM (K0..eKTMBHwx npegcraB.eHMM) b peneBBix npaKTMKax, b nepByro onepegb b nucbMeHHBix TeKCTax (gucKypc-aHa.u3). npaKTunecKM HeT 0gH03HanH0 npMHMMaeMBix HaynHBiM c006m,ecTB0M pe3y.bTaT0B M3yneHMa po.u a3BiK0BBix aB.eHun (oTge.bHBix c.0B, BBipa^eHun, peneBBix K.ume, rpaMMaTMnecKMx aB.eHun) m TeM 6o.ee a3BiK0BBix CTpyKTyp (oTge.bHwx CBa3en, 0TH0meHun, 0^^03M^MM m mx cmctcmbi b a3BiKe) b npoM3BogcTBe m nepegane Ky.bTypHBix 3HaneHun.
3AKJKMEHHE
nogBoga uToru HamuM noKa K0HcneKTUBHBiM pa3MBim.eHuaM o .MHrB0Ky.bTypo.orMM KaK nacTM Ky.bTypo.orMM, b HecK0.bK0 ynpo-meHH0M c gugaKTunecKMMM ^.aMu ^opMe npeg.o^MM cnuTaTb 06teKT0M ^T0M gu^unnuHBi Ky.bTypy, noHMMaeMyro KaK .ro6we K0..eKTMBHwe npegcTaB.eHMa (3HaneHMa), a npegMeT0M — B3auM0-gencTBMe a3BiKa (a3BiK0BBix aB.eHMn, a3BiK0BBix CTpyKTyp m npaKTMK peneBon geaTe.bH0CTu) m TaKux npegcTaB.eHMn.
B ga.bHenmeM mh n.aHMpyeM nogpo6Hee o6tacHMTb CBoro TonKy 3peHua Ha to, KaKoro poga ucc.egoBaHua n,e.ec006pa3H0 Ha3HBaTb .MHrB0Ky.bTypo.orunecKMMM (m.m .MHrB0Ky.bTypHHMu), TaK nT0-6h ohm 0T.una.ucb ot Bcex gpyrux nogxogoB k u3yneHuro a3HKa m Ky.bTypH, m neMy MMeeT cmhc. ynMTb CTygeHT0B b paMKax yne6Horo Kypca «^MHrB0Ky.bTypo.orua» b 3aBMCMM0CTu ot HanpaB.eHua ux np0$eccM0Ha.BH0M n0gr0T0BKM. Be3yc.0BH0 6o.ee nogpo6H0 go.^eH 6HTb onucaH m Ham B3r.ag Ha noKa .umb o6o3HaneHHHe TeopeTune-CKue m MeTogo.orunecKue 0CH0BaHua TaKux MCC.egoBaHun. $
232
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
a.e$hpehko, h.®., 20l0: Eumeoxynhmyponozua: y,eHHocmHo-cMUcnoeoe npocmpaHcmeo a3UKa. MocKBa: O.uma, HayKa. tepmhh: tepmhh. Eonbmaa coeemcKaa ^H^uKnone^ua. [https://
slovar.cc/enc/bse/2048084.html] BOPOBbEB, B.B., l997: Eumeoxynbmyponozua: meopua u Memodu.
MocKBa: H3gaTe.BCTBO PyAH. rAcnAPOB, b.m., i996: %3uk, rn.Ma.mb, o6pa3. ÄumeucmuKa a3UKoeo^o
cy^ecmeoeanua. MocKBa, HoBoe .uTepaTypHoe o6o3peHue. rPHTH, 20l8: Ky.BTypa. Ky.BTypo.orua. rocydapcmeeHHUÚ pyëpummop HayuHo-mexHmecKoü uH$opMay,uu. [http://grnti. ru/?pl=l3]
EBCWKOBA, T.B., ByTEHKO, E.w., 20l6: ñuH^60Kynbmypono^ua:
yne6HUK. MocKBa: O.uHTa, HayKa. 3MKOBA H.B., 20l7: Memaa3UKnunzeoKynbmyponozuu: KOHcmaHmu u
eapuaHmu. MocKBa: Tho3mc. kapachk, B.H. 2002: fouKoeoü Kpy^: nuwocmb, KOHV,enmu, ducKypc.
Bo.rorpag: nepeMeHa. KPACHHx, B.B., 2002: DmHoncuxonumeucmuKa u
numeoKynbmyponozua. MocKBa: rH03uc. Ky.bTypo.orHH, 20l4: Ky.BTypo.orua. BuKunedua. [http:// ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky.BTypo.orua (gaTa o6pam,eHua 3l.03.20l4; k MOMeHTy 3aBepmeHua CTaTBu onpege.eHue 6w.o u3MeHeHo)] .^c, l99o: EumeucmunecKuü ^H^uKnone^mecKuü cnoeapb. MocKBa,
CoBeTCKaa ^H^uK.o^egua. i28-i29. .y^HHHHA, e.h., 2004: ^uHrBOKy.BTypo.orua b cucTeMe
ryMaHUTapHoro 3HaHua. Kpumurn u ceMuomuKa. 7/2004. 238-243.
233
OPIUM BMKTOPOBMH <t>IMUinnOB (E^e pa3) o nepcneKTUBax poccuicKOM
mac-hoba, B.A., 200l: ñuMeoKynbmyponozüñ. yne6Hoe noco6ue gaa CTygeHT0B Bwcmux yne6Hwx 3aBegeHuM. MocKBa: H3gaTe.BCKuM ^mp «AxageMua», nAB^OBA, a.b., 20l5: ^uHrB0Ky.BTypoaorua b Poccuu: «3a» u
«npoTUB». Przeglad Wschodnioeuropejski. 6/2, 2015.20i-22i. xpo^ehko, A.T., 2005: OcHoebinuH^eoKynbmypono^uu: yne6Hoe
noco6ue. MocKBa: OauHTa. $Hgoco$HH KygbTypw, 1998: Ouaoco^ua xyaBTypw. CmaHoeneHue
u pa3eumue. CaHKT-neTep6ypr: H3gaTe.BCTB0 «£aHB». $Hgoco$HH, 2018: OMaoco^Ma. 0unoco^CKüñ^H^UKnone^M. [https:// dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_philosophy/9326/OMaoco^Ma]
234
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Summary
The subject of cultural studies (in Russian kulturologija) is determined by the concept of "culture". Considering linguoculturology as a part of culturology or cultural sciences it is also logical to consider the culture as its main topic.
Let's try to call culture "a system of values shared by a certain group of individuals as well as ideas, signs and symbols that express or represent these values". The word system is used here in its "soft" sense reflecting mutual and multidimensional connections of different values and their representations but not a "rigid" and unchangeable structure of them. Such representations are like meanings in linguistic sense of the word but they are themselves signs for values of a certain society or community. Since these kinds of meanings make up culture we will call them cultural meanings. So the subject of cultural linguistics as a section of cultural studies can be defined as cultural meanings (or collective representations) represented in the language.
By language we mean here three very concrete things named language phenomena, language structures and speech activity. Language phenomena are to be understood literally and at the same time extremely widely: we call a language phenomenon every entity which we perceive in language forms (from a single word or even sound to voluminous texts) and which represents for us as members of a certain community a separate meaning.
Unlike phenomena language structures are not perceived directly by our senses — they should be deducted with the help of analytical operations and described in linguistic books as phonetic patterns, morphological, grammatical, syntactical or any other structure ensuring the unity of the linguistic phenomena of different levels.
235
OPIUM BMKTOPOBMH <t>IMUinnOB (E^e pa3) o nepcneKTUBax poccuicKOM
Speech activity or "speech behavior" or "language activity" is the whole set of human acts and actions committed by means of language (both orally and in written form). Studiing the speech activity we are interested not in mechanisms people uses the language forms but in ways individuals implement their "sociality" — in processes of establishment, maintenance and destruction of the public relations which are carried out by means of a concrete language in a concrete social environment organized by a "system of values" (otherwise called culture).
It should be noted that at the moment the greatest success has been achieved in the deconstruction of cultural meanings (or collective representations) in speech practices, primarily in written texts (discourse analysis) but there are practically no unanimously accepted by the scientific community results of studying the role of language phenomena (individual words, expressions, speech clich\e's, grammatical phenomena) and language structures in the production and transmission of cultural meanings.
Iurii V. Filippov
Iurii V. Filippov, Ph.D. in History is an associate professor at the Russian State University for Humanities (Poccuuckuu ^ocy^apcm6eHHUu ^yMa-numapnuu yHueepcumem).
236
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
237
DOI - 10.13137/2283-5482/22386
Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole del russo contemporáneo
Recent Trends in Contemporary Russian Word-Formation
$ lorenzo penta - lorenzo.penta@studenti.units.it
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Nell'articolo vengono illustrati gli sviluppi piu recenti nel sistema di formazione delle parole del russo contemporaneo, contestualizzandoli all'interno dell'attuale quadro socio-linguistico. Una particolare attenzione viene data a quei tratti linguistici periferici che affiorano nello standard a seguito del processo di democratiz-zazione della lingua, spesso veicolati dalla lingua dei mass-media, rappre-sentante del nuovo modello linguistico.
FORMAZIONE DELLE PAROLE, RUSSO CONTEMPORANEO, MUTAMENTO LINGUISTICO, RISTANDARDIZZAZIONE, MORFOLOGIA
The paper discusses and contextualises recent trends in contemporary Russian word-formation system in relation to today's sociolinguistic context. Attention is devoted to peripheral linguistic traits emerging in standard varieties of contemporary Russian following the democratisation of the language, often spreading through mass-media, which represent the new linguistic model.
WORD-FORMATION, CONTEMPORARY RUSSIAN, LINGUISTIC CHANGE, RESTANDARDIZATION, MORPHOLOGY
239
LORENZO PENTA ► Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole
Sebbene il materiale lessicale che compone il dizionario non sia rappresentativo delle innovazioni nel lessico russo successive alla perestrojka, i risultati dell'indagine rimango-no comunque signifi-cativi nell'attribuire un ruolo di primo piano ai processi di formazione delle parole nella crea-zione di nuovo lessico.
INTRODUZIONE
Il sistema di formazione delle parole è caratterizzato da una doppia natura, semantico-lessicale e morfologica, che determina la specificità dello sviluppo storico dei processi formativi (Zemskaja 2006: 9). Da una parte, le risorse derivazionali di natura morfologica sono ten-denzialmente stabili: l'insieme dei morfemi derivazionali, la loro co-esione con i morfemi flessivi e l'insieme dei procedimenti formativi non sono particolarmente influenzati dalla realtà extralinguistica e subiscono solo parzialmente le ripercussioni dei mutamenti storici. Dall'altra, la componente semantico-lessicale del sistema di formazione delle parole, cosí come il sistema del lessico nella sua totalità, mostra una particolare suscettibilità nei confronti della realtá extralinguistica; in essa si riflette la cultura di un determinato periodo storico e la sua evoluzione è molto più rapida e percepibile. Tuttavia, ció non deve portare alla conclusione che lo studio del mutamento linguistico debba ridursi all'esclusiva analisi della sfera semantico-lessicale, in quanto i processi di formazione delle parole contribuiscono in modo determinante alla formazione di nuovo lessico. Esemplificativa a que-sto proposito è l'analisi lessicografica condotta da Kotelova (2015: 193) sulla base del dizionario Novye slova i znacenija: Slovar'-spravocnik po materialam pressy i literatury 60-ch godov, dalla quale risulta che ben l'85% delle neoformazioni presenti nella raccolta ha avuto origine da processi derivazionali e compositivi, mentre i neologismi semantici e i prestiti rappresentano rispettivamente solo l'8% e il 7,5% delle neoformazioni lessicali1.
Lo scopo di questo contributo è tratteggiare un quadro del sistema di formazione delle parole nella lingua russa contemporanea, dedicando una particolare attenzione ai fenomeni innovativi e di
240
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
ristandardizzazione. Naturalmente, il lavoro non ha pretese di esau-stivita: ci si limitera a evidenziare le tendenze di sviluppo principali, che determinano la produttivita di alcuni modelli rispetto ad altri, mettendole in relazione con il piu generale quadro sociolinguistico. L'esposizione sara cosí suddivisa: dopo un'introduzione al russo contemporaneo, verranno illustrate le principali tendenze innovative nel sistema di formazione nel suo complesso; in seguito, verranno ana-lizzati i singoli tratti piu significativi in due sezioni separate dedicate rispettivamente alla morfologia derivazionale e composizionale, per poi concludere con alcune osservazioni di carattere generale.
IL RUSSO CONTEMPORANEO
La lingua russa ha attraversato, a partire dalla perestrojka, una fase di tumultuoso mutamento, acceleratosi a seguito della caduta dell'Unione Sovietica nel corso della difficile transizione verso un regime democratico e un'economia di libero mercato. Tale sconvolgimento ha lasciato il proprio segno anche sulla lingua, in primo luogo a livello lessicale: la coniazione di nuove parole e l'assimilazione in massa di prestiti ha risposto all'esigenza di denominare tutta una serie di nuovi referenti nella societa nata dalle ceneri del socialismo sovietico. Il passaggio a una societa pluralista e la fine del controllo dell'autorita sulla lingua hanno determinato l'obsolescenza del paradigma comunicativo mono-logico sovietico (in cui 'uno parla, tutti ascoltano ed eseguono'; Lasorsa Siedina - Benigni 2002: 16), il rilassamento della norma linguistica e la rivalutazione in positivo del parlato. Da ció é conseguito l'affioramento nello scritto di tratti linguistici non codificati nelle grammatiche oppure in esse etichettati come colloquiali e fino ad allora relegati alla sfera del parlato e ai registri meno sostenuti. L'uso piu disinvolto della lingua é
241
LORENZO PENTA ► Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole
anche pero oggetto di critiche da parte di coloro che notano un generale abbassamento della 'cultura del discorso'. D'altronde, fenomeni affini sono stati osservati anche in altre lingue occidentali (tra cui l'italia-no), nelle quali sono stati riscontrati una tendenza alla desacralizza-zione della scrittura e un innalzamento della soglia di tolleranza nei confronti degli usi linguistici in passato considerati substandard. Va oggi diffondendosi, specialmente in conseguenza dell'accelerazione imposta della scrittura telematica, un atteggiamento linguistico che é stato definito da Baron (2008: 169) 'whateverismo linguistico', che privilegia l'espressivita e il contenuto a scapito della forma. La comu-nicazione si fa piu spontanea e diretta, mentre i ritmi frenetici della modernita incentivano l'azione della 'legge dell'economia discorsiva' (zakon recevoj ekonomii), che di per sé costituirebbe un fattore interno di cambiamento linguistico (Valgina 2003).
A una tendenza all'abbassamento della cultura del discorso e a cio che viene talvolta percepito come una volgarizzazione della lingua - fenomeni che dipendono principalmente da motivazioni di natura extralinguistica - si affianca nel russo contemporaneo una seconda causa di mutamento linguistico, legata in misura maggiore alle leggi interne della lingua, vale a dire lo sviluppo di modalita analitiche e agglutinanti. Tra i fenomeni che testimoniano la tendenza all'analiti-cita nel russo contemporaneo si possono citare l'aumento di sostantivi indeclinabili e di composti troncati, l'inosservanza delle flessioni ca-suali e delle reggenze tradizionali, l'uniformazione delle reggenze di alcune preposizioni e l'espansione dell'accordo semantico a scapito di quello sintattico, della reggenza preposizionale e degli aggettivi analitici (per una rassegna si veda Benigni 2002: 50-72). Tra le principali ma-nifestazioni della tendenza all'agglutinazione rientra l'indebolimento dell'alternanza consonantica in prossimita del confine morfematico.
242
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
TENDENZE PRINCIPALI NELLA FORMAZIONE DELLE PAROLE CONTEMPORANEA
Come si é detto, la formazione delle parole possiede una doppia natura: una morfologica e una semantico-lessicale; se la prima componente dimostra una certa stabilita, la seconda é soggetta a mutamenti relativamente piu rapidi a causa della sua suscettibilita nei confronti realta extralinguistica e dei mutamenti storici. Ne consegue che per parlare delle recenti tendenze nella formazione delle parole nella lingua russa contemporanea é necessario tenere in considerazione i mutamenti all'interno del dominio semantico-lessicale: partico-larmente produttive come basi di derivazione sono, ad esempio, le cosiddette 'parole-chiave' dell'epoca, vale a dire quelle parole che in un determinato periodo storico sono impiegate con particolare frequenza e sono significative dal punto di vista sociale, tra cui ri-entrano anche i nomi delle personalita piu celebri e influenti del-la contemporaneita.
Uno dei fenomeni innovativi piu evidenti degli ultimi decenni é stata l'adozione in massa di prestiti, dovuta non esclusivamente a ragioni referenziali, ma anche di moda linguistica. A partire dal 1985 si osserva un enorme afflusso di neologismi, internazionalismi (ovvero parole appartenenti al 'lessico intellettuale europeo' di origine grecolatina) e di angloamericanismi, in particolare nei campi semantici della politica, dell'economia, della tecnologia, dell'informa-tica, della cultura di massa, della musica, dell'intrattenimento, dello sport e dell'alimentazione (per una rassegna si veda Lasorsa Siedina - Benigni 2002: 107-112). Si potrebbe disquisire sull'effettiva necessita di alcune acquisizioni, che talvolta costituiscono veri e propri doppioni: cfr. transparentnyj - prozracnyj, prezentacija - predstavlenie.
243
LORENZO PENTA ► Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole
Come si é detto, all'internazionalizzazione del lessico si affianca il fenomeno di democratizzazione e liberalizzazione della lingua, con lo sdoganamento degli usi linguistici relegati precedentemente ai contesti comunicativi meno formali. Va progressivamente affer-mandosi una nuova norma, di natura piu dinamica e descrittiva, che porta a una rivalutazione del parlato e un atteggiamento linguistico che privilegia il principio individuale ed espressivo a scapito della forma e della norma codificata. Come rilevato da Kostomarov (1999) nella delineazione del 'gusto linguistico' del russo contemporaneo, ció costituisce un'apparente contraddizione con la parallela diffu-sione di un gusto per la letterarieta e la ricercatezza dello stile che determina non solo un recupero del lessico aulico e confessionale, ma appunto anche un'entusiasta assimilazione di forestierismi. Il contrasto, tuttavia, é solo apparente: tratto stilistico peculiare del russo contemporaneo é infatti la tendenza, tipicamente postmoderna, all'eclettismo linguistico, alla commistione di stile alto e basso e all'invenzione linguistica. Tutto ció si riflette anche nel sistema della formazione delle parole con l'attivazione di modelli letterari e internazionali e, allo stesso tempo, di altri piu colloquiali (se non nettamente substandard), dando forma a neoformazioni di carattere talvolta ironico od occasionale.
L'azione dei fattori 'esterni' di mutamento linguistico interagisce e si rafforza a vicenda con l'azione di fattori 'interni' al sistema della lingua, come le leggi dell'analogia e dell'economia dei mezzi discor-sivi (ekonomija recevyx sredstv), stimolate da ragioni di natura sociale. L'accelerazione dei ritmi della vita, come accennato, impone l'uso di forme piu flessibili e maneggevoli, mentre l'incremento del principio emotivo attiva corrispondenti modelli di formazione di natura espressiva e individuale (Valgina 2003: 131).
244
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Alla luce di queste osservazioni, è possibile distinguere con Zemskaja (2006) quattro tendenze principali nella formazione delle parole del russo contemporaneo: colloquializzazione; internaziona-lizzazione; tendenza all'analiticità e all'agglutinazione; aumento del principio individuale ed espressivo.
Colloquializzazione
Nella sfera della formazione delle parole si osserva l'avvicinamento verso il centro del sistema di modelli derivazionali e composizionali periferici o in passato poco produttivi di pari passo con il coinvol-gimento nei processi formativi di nuove basi di derivazione. Tra i modelli derivazionali più marcati che attraversano una fase di par-ticolare attività vi sono le univerbazioni2, solitamente mediante il suffisso -k(a), e le retroformazioni; relativamente più innovativo è invece il fenomeno del troncamento. Si nota inoltre l'inclusione nella varietà standard della lingua da parte di elementi gergali e popolari connotati in senso espressivo e valutativo, come ad esempio i sostan-tivi in -ucha (pornucha, cernucha, peducha). La maggiore accettabilità dei lessemi formati mediante il ricorso a questi affissi aumenta la produttività di quest'ultimi, ma è ancora dubbio il fatto che possano essere considerati a tutti gli effetti elementi della morfologia deri-vazionale standard.
Come in Benigni (2007), si e deciso di calcare l'etichetta russa univerbacija benché, nella terminologia lingüistica italiana, il termine 'univerbazio-ne' indichi un diverso fenomeno, di natura composizionale, e non di riduzione, ovvero la fusione di due parole originariamente autonome (ad es. palco-scenico, addosso, invece).
Internazionalizzazione
Alla colloquializzazione del sistema derivazionale fa da contraltare un processo di internazionalizzazione dovuto all'assimilazione in massa di parole ed elementi di origine straniera, per i quali i processi di formazione delle parole costituiscono un fattore di integrazione. Questo processo si manifesta con fenomeni di tre tipi (Zemskaja 2006: 12):
245
LORENZO PENTA ► Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole
1 ) aumento del numero di morfemi di origine straniera capaci di com-binarsi con basi russe;
2)	acquisizione dello status di affisso da parte di una serie di elementi di origine straniera;
3)	impiego di prestiti come base per la formazione di nuove parole.
Per quanto riguarda il primo fenomeno, è indicativo l'aumento della prefissazione nominale, che avviene specialmente (ma non esclusivamente) mediante prefissi di origine straniera. Ad essere particolarmente significativo non è solo il ricorso a quei prefissi già molto attivi in passato (come anti-, super- e sverch-), ma soprattutto l'inedita diffusione di prefissi di diversa semantica poco produttivi in passato.
Anche i suffissi d'origine straniera dimostrano un'elevata combi-nabilità con basi sia russe che allogene. Particolarmente intensa, ad esempio, è la produzione di sostantivi astratti deverbali mediante il suffisso con valore processuale -izacij- (dollarizacija, fermerizacija), impiegati per la denominazione di fenomeni significativi dal punto di vista sociale.
Per quanto riguarda l'ingresso nel sistema affissale russo di elementi di origine straniera, occorre premettere che l'acquisizione di nuovi morfemi derivazionali e composizionali costituisce un fenomeno abbastanza raro; tuttavia, nel corso della seconda metà del XX secolo si osserva la progressiva diffusione nel russo contemporaneo (cosí come in italiano e in altre lingue di cultura) di vari confissi di origine grecolatina impiegati per la formazione di vocaboli tecni-co-scientifici e internazionalismi: ad es. -drom, -teka, -vizor, -mobil', -bus, -tron (per una rassegna si veda Lasorsa Siedina - Benigni 2002: 123-126). La loro morfemizzazione non è stata pero immediata:
246
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
inizialmente impiegati solamente nella terminología, a partiré dagli anni Settanta e Ottanta ottengono il pieno rango di affissi all'interno del sistema derivazionale della lingua russa (Zemskaja 2006: 13).
L'impiego di prestiti come basi per la formazione di nuove parole procede di pari passo con l'internazionalizzazione del lessico. È pos-sibile valutare il grado di integrazione di un prestito nella struttura lessicale di una lingua osservandone la produttività come base per neoformazioni; tendenzialmente, le parole a cui si ricorre in misura maggiore appartengono al novero delle cosiddette 'parole-chiave' dell'epoca: ad esempio, da vaucer sono stati derivati vaucerizacija, antivaucernyj, postvaucernyj, poslevaucernyj ecc.
Rispetto ai suffissi, i prefissi sono caratte-rizzati da maggiore indipendenza dal punto di vista sia strutturale, sia semantico. Il loro significato tende a non cambiare a seconda della base con cui si combinano, su di essi cade spesso un accento secondario e non ammettono sovrapposizioni del proprio corpo fonico con quello della base, il che costituisce un tratto tipicamente agglutinante: cfr. ul'tra-amerikancy e taksist.
Tendenza all'analiticità e all'agglutinazione
La tendenza all'analiticità è incentivata dall'aumento delle parole invariabili, ossia quelle unità lessicali che esprimono rapporti grammaticali non con la forma della parola, ma con mezzi al di fuori di essa. Nell'ambito della formazione delle parole, il fenomeno si riscontra nell'espansione della classe degli aggettivi analitici e degli acronimi fonetici e alfabetici, in conseguenza del maggiore ricorso nella lingua d'oggi a modelli composizionali e di riduzione, come ap-punto gli acronimi, parole macedonia e composti troncati (Zemskaja 2017: 212). L'inedita frequenza di queste modalità di formazione, cosi come il ruolo più significativo della prefissazione (specialmente quella nominale e aggettivale3) è correlata allo sviluppo di modalità agglutinanti, che si riscontrano nella giustapposizione di elementi uscenti in consonante senza alcun adattamento fonologico al confine morfematico - spesso con l'ausilio di interfissi - incrementando il grado di riconoscibilità della base, in accordo con il principio di trasparenza morfotattica (Lasorsa Siedina - Benigni 2002: 53).
247
LORENZO PENTA ► Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole
Aumento del principio individúale ed espressivo
È nella formazione delle parole che si manifesta in modo particolare il gusto stilistico del russo contemporaneo per la commistione di stili e per l'invenzione e il gioco linguistici, che si contrappone all'imperso-nalità, alla formalità e agli stereotipi dell'epoca precedente e privilegia l'impiego di una molteplicità di mezzi d'espressione e l'ampio ricor-so a nomi propri di persona (politici, scrittori, attori, vip in genere) come basi di derivazione (ad es. busizm, berluskonizm). Tratto tipico è la intensa creazione di parole di carattere occasionale, coniate per ragioni non solo referenziali, ma appunto anche espressive. Il ricorso a occasionalismi non è più limitato alla sfera colloquiale e artistica, ma si riscontra oggi anche nella pubblicistica e nella lingua dei mezzi di comunicazione di massa, che costituiscono ormai il modello linguistico principale. La stessa diffusione sui giornali e nei mass-media di tratti linguistici periferici, marcati diafasicamente e diastraticamente verso il basso, non è solamente una conseguenza della pressione del parlato sulla scrittura o dell'azione della legge dell'economia discorsiva, ma risponde anche ad esigenze di natura espressiva. Anche quelle che in russo vengono chiamate 'abbreviazioni' (acronimi, composti troncati, ecc.; si veda la sezione dedicata) sono spesso impiegate non solo come denominazione ufficiale di istituzioni e organizzazioni, ma anche come mezzo espressivo, spesso di carattere ironico.
MORFOLOGIA DERIVAZIONALE
Prefissazione
Una delle peculiarità della formazione delle parole del russo contemporaneo è la particolare produttività della prefissazione nominale e aggettivale, che si intensifica a partire dal XVIII secolo, ma diviene
248
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
un tratto peculiare della lingua russa a partiré dalla seconda metà del Novecento. Zemskaja (2006: 12) nota come in passato sussistesse un peculiare contrasto tra verbo e sostantivo dal punto di vista derivazio-nale: la formazione di nuovi sostantivi e aggettivi avveniva prevalen-temente tramite suffissazione, mentre la formazione di nuovi verbi avveniva soprattutto tramite prefissazione. Oggi si riscontra pero una ripartizione dell'azione dei prefissi: la prefissazione verbale impiega in modo particolare prefissi di origine russa, mentre la prefissazione nominale e aggettivale fa ampio ricorso a prefissi di origine straniera, tra cui super-, anti-, giper-, de-, psevdo-, kvazi-, re-, pro-, kontr- ecc.
Di seguito viene presentata una rassegna delle categorie semanti-che cui appartengono i prefissi più produttivi sulla base di Zemskaja (2000: 110-118; 2006: 13; 2017: 213-221) e Ryazanova-Clarke - Wade (1999: 187-202). Va da sé che i prefissi più produttivi sono quelli che riflettono significati di particolare attualità nel periodo storico preso in esame.
1) Corrispondenza temporale: post-, posle-, do-, pred-. Questi prefissi si rivelano particolarmente produttivi in un'epoca di brusco cambia-mento proprio in virtù del fatto che indicano un 'prima' e un 'dopo' in relazione a un determinato fenomeno o evento. Particolarmente produttivi si rivelano post- e posle-, i quali hanno lo stesso signifi-cato e possono combinarsi con le stesse basi; tuttavia, il secondo si usa meno frequentemente rispetto al primo. Tra essi sussiste inoltre una sfumatura semantico-stilistica: post-, grazie anche alla sua particolare tendenza a combinarsi con parole di origine straniera, dà spesso forma a parole di registro letterario (non di rado a termini) dal significato più generalizzato e che si riferiscono a periodi temporali e ad eventi significativi: ad es. posttotalitarizm, postkommunizm. Con la fine dell'URSS, il prefisso post- conosce un inedito periodo di produttività e diviene uno dei tratti linguistici
249
LORENZO PENTA ► Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole
peculiari di questo periodo, potendo indicare virtualmente ogni aspetto della societa post-sovietica. Al contrario, posle- ha un signi-ficato quasi esclusivamente temporale e di conseguenza da forma a parole in relazione a fatti di importanza relativamente minore: cfr. posleputchevyj e posttotalitarnyj.
2) Negazione, opposizione, rifiuto, superamento: de(z)-, raz-, kontr-, anti-, ne-, bez-, neo-, eks-. Prefissi con questo significato sono dive-nuti particolarmente produttivi a partire dal 1985 e dopo la caduta dell'URSS, in concomitanza con lo smantellamento dello stato totalitario e dell'economia socialista e la messa in discussione dei principi su cui si reggevano. Sono diffusissime a questo proposito le formazioni in -izacija derivate mediante il prefisso de- (dekommu-nizacija, deétatizacija). Dalla semantica simile, kontr-, a differenza di de-, puo essere usato per derivare nomi d'agente (kontrreguljator, kontrdemonstrant), mentre raz- si combina preferibilmente, ma non esclusivamente, con temi russi (razgosudarstvlenie, raskazenit'). Anche le parole derivate in anti- rappresentano lo spirito del tempo e il rifiuto del passato sovietico; nel periodo post-gorbacioviano, il prefisso é stato impiegato anche per la derivazione di vocaboli afferenti a diversi campi semantici come, ad esempio, farmaci e prodotti casalinghi: ad es. antichrap, antizagar.
Il prefisso di origine grecolatina neo- é sovente impiegato nel russo contemporaneo per la formazione di parole che indicano ideologie e movimenti politici: negli anni Novanta, neobolsevizm, neostalinizm, neokommunizm, si aggiungono a neokapitalizm e neoko-lonializm, coniati negli anni Cinquanta e anch'essi connotati negativamente (Zajceva - Dolgova 2011). Eks-, tradizionalmente impiegato anche in epoca sovietica in combinazione con titoli e posizioni (ad es. eks-čempion, eks-ministr) va oggi sempre piu diffondendosi a
250
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
scapito di byvsij, probabilmente a causa dell'influenza dell'inglese 'ex- (ad es. eks-zena, eks-cuprug, eks-clen, eks-kinozvezda).
Infine, continuano ad essere molto produttivi i modelli di deri-vazione parasintetici bez-...-nyj e, più raramente, bez-...-ovyj, che indicano 'assenza, mancanza di un carattere, di una proprietà' (Zemskaja 2000: 117), preferiti in molti ambiti tecnici rispetto al meno economico sintagma preposizionale 'bez + genitivo'. Il progres-so tecnico-scientifico e la comparsa di nuove tecnologie e strumenti (ma anche di nuovi fenomeni politici ed economici) determinano la continua produttività del modello anche nel russo contemporaneo.
3)	Si osserva un'inedita produttività del prefisso pro- nel suo significato di 'a vantaggio, negli interessi di qualcuno', dovuta alla deideologiz-zazione del prefisso, impiegato in epoca sovietica solo in combina-zione con parole sulle quali gravava un giudizio ideologico negativo. In epoca sovietica, un aggettivo come prokommunisticeskij poteva trovare posto solo all'interno di una terminologia anticomunista; al giorno d'oggi, invece, parole come prorynocnyj, propravitel'stvennyj possono essere utilizzati da sostenitori di partiti e schieramenti diversi in quanto hanno perso la propria connotazione valutativa di natura ideologica.
4)	Falsità, mancanza di autenticità: psevdo-, kvazi-, lze-. Questa categoría semantica si dimostra particolarmente attuale in un'era di cambiamenti e di rottura con gli stereotipi dell'epoca precedente. Psevdo- è il più produttivo tra i prefissi elencati e puo legarsi sia ad aggettivi che sostantivi, mentre kvazi- solamente a sostantivi. Tra i due prefissi sussiste una differenza dal punto di vista semantico: psevdo- suggerisce l'idea di 'inganno', 'falsità', e dà forma a parole derivate che esprimono un giudizio soggettivo; kvazi- suggerisce invece l'idea di 'mancato raggiungimento del limite necessario',
251
LORENZO PENTA ► Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole
ed esprime una proprieta del referente (cfr. psevdodemokratija e kvazisinonimy). Il prefisso lže- é il meno produttivo dei tre, proba-bilmente perché esprime una valutazione particolarmente brusca e diretta (Zemskaja 200: 116).
5) Superlativita, qualita superiore, intensita, eccesso: super-, sverch-. La particolare produttivita di questi suffissi nel russo contemporaneo puo essere spiegata secondo Zemskaja (2000: 117) da due ragio-ni: la tendenza all'espressivita tipica della lingua contemporanea (particolarmente indicativo il ridondante supersverchfestival') e la denominazione di fenomeni legati al processo scientifico e tecnologico (per questi ultimi si usa in particolare super-). L'aumentata produttivita sia del prefisso allogeno che di quello autoctono non permette quindi di ridurre la questione alla sola influenza dell'in-glese e del lessico internazionale (che ha comunque determinato una perdita di terreno del secondo nei confronti del primo), ma va ad 'indicare un "rilassamento" dei limiti idiostilistici e psicologici della creativita dei singoli' (Denisova - Salmon 2002: 268). Indicativo, infine, il fatto che 'super' abbia acquisito lo status di parola indipendente e venga spesso usato, soprattutto nel linguaggio giova-nile, come interiezione (Kak dela? - Super!), predicato (Ty - super!) e come base di derivazione per aggettivi e avverbi (superskij, superski) (Zemskaja 2017: 215-216).
Il prefisso ul'tra-, originariamente connotato soprattutto politicamente (ad es. ul'trarusskij), ha recentemente esteso la sua sfera di impiego oltre il campo semantico della politica ed é impiegato oggi anche in vari domini scientifici (analisi scientifica, metallurgia, fisica, medicina, psicologia). Meno produttivi altri prefissi di eccesso come archi- e giper-, la cui diffusione viene comunque incentivata dall'internazionalizzazione del lessico (archimillioner, giperinfljacija).
252
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Una spiegazione di natura culturologica per la particolare produttività della prefissazione nominale nel russo contemporaneo è stata fornita da Zenkin (2012), il quale ritiene che la prefissazione costituisca la principale forma di autodefinizione della cultura del XX secolo, sviluppatasi secondo Zenkin mediante l'aggiunta di nuovi prefissi alle etichette che designavano i movimenti culturali precedenti, nei confronti dei quali si esprime un atteggiamento di negazione e superamento che si riflette nella semantica di prefissi come sverch-, neo-, giper-, meta- e, soprattutto, post- (che infatti, secondo Zenkin, potrebbero essere tutti ricondotti all''archiprefisso' ne-). Si puo concludere quindi che l'au-mento della produttività della prefissazione nominale sembra essere determinato dalle tendenze della cultura contemporanea - verrebbe da dire postmoderna - il cui atteggiamento di negazione e superamento del passato si riflette nella semantica dei prefissi più impiegati e che sembra andare di pari passo, in Russia, con la contrapposizione con il passato sovietico. A cio si aggiunge la preferenza accordata dal 'gusto linguistico' contemporaneo ad elementi di origine straniera o partico-larmente connotati dal punto di vista espressivo (è il caso, ad esempio, di molte formazioni in super-).
Per quanto concerne la prefissazione verbale, sono particolarmente produttive le modalità di derivazione di nuovi verbi a partire da basi straniere, solitamente mediante prefissi dal valore quantitativo-tem-porale, che ne agevolano l'inclusione nel sistema aspettuale russo. Tra i prefissi più diffusi vi sono ot- ('conclusione dell'azione'), pere- ('di nuovo', 'ancora') e i prefissi s- e pro-, usati nel loro significato risulta-tivo: skorrektirovat', proindeksirovat', otrestavrirovat', perefinansirovat' (Zemskaja 2017: 224). La creazione di coppie aspettuali dei verbi di origine straniera, considerati tradizionalmente biaspettuali, è in linea
253
LORENZO PENTA ► Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole
con lo sviluppo e generalizzazione della categoría dell'aspetto verbale (si veda Glovinskaja 2008).
Il fenomeno é osservabile sia nella lingua colloquiale, sia nello standard, in particolare nella lingua dei giornali, nella letteratura sportiva e nei testi tecnici (ad es. Fosfor pereprofilirujut na metizy). Nello standard, la maggior parte di questi nuovi verbi presenta il suffisso -irova-, -iziro-va- o, piu raramente, -ova-: dempingovat', lobbirovat', komp'juterizirovat' (Zemskaja 2000: 127); i verbi in -izirovat' sono correlati ai sostantivi in -izacija, rispetto ai quali sono pero meno produttivi e spesso compaiono successivamente (si veda sopra). Nella varieta orale dello standard é molto attivo il suffisso -it', in particolare per quelle formazioni nate a seguito di innovazioni tecnologiche e la diffusione di nuovi strumenti: kserokc - kserit' - otkserit'.
Interfissazione
L'espansione della classe degli interfissi nel russo contemporaneo é legata allo sviluppo di modalita agglutinanti nel sistema di formazione delle parole, a sua volta determinato dall'uso come basi di derivazio-ne di un gran numero di prestiti e cognomi indeclinabili e 'parole composte abbreviate'. Condizione necessaria per l'ingresso di queste classi di parole nel sistema derivazionale é infatti l'integrita morfologica della base all'interno del derivato, resa possibile dall'uso di interfissi (Zemskaja 2015: 44). Benché si possa pensare che l'espansione dei processi di interfissazione possa aumentare la varieta di modelli derivazionali, essa in realta contribuisce all'unificazione del sistema in quanto, complice la tendenza a impiegare per analogia solo gli interfissi piu produttivi (che sostituiscono quelli meno impiegati), é possibile ricondurre agli stessi tipi derivazionali parole formatesi sia con l'ausilio di interfissi, sia senza, in quanto prima del suffisso
254
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
mostrano segmenti fonici coincidenti almeno in parte, a prescindere dal fatto che questi svolgano o meno il ruolo di interfisso: cfr. šaum-janovec e suvorovec, molerovskij e lermontovskij, spartakovec e dinamovec (Zemskaja 2015: 37).
L'interfisso più attivo nel russo contemporaneo è -ov-, il cui im-piego permette di evitare l'alternanza consonantica e combinarsi con un maggior numero di basi rispetto a -ec e -skij: ogon'kovec, oonovec, èlektrosilovec (Zemskaja 2015: 44). Esso viene impiegato in particolare per la derivazione di prestiti e sostantivi di origine straniera (spesso indeclinabili), acronimi e composti troncati: ad es. pentagonovcy, adi-dasovskij, ritm-end-bljuzovskij, metrovskaja stancija, zekovskij, detsado-vec, voenkomatovskoepismo (Ryazanova-Clarke - Wade 1999: 204). La sua particolare produttività è dimostrata dal fatto che l'interfisso sta uscendo dal suo tradizionale campo d'azione (vale a dire la formazio-ne di vocaboli in -ovec, -ovskij, -ovščina, -ovstvo) per andare a legarsi anche a suffissi che, di norma, si uniscono direttamente alla base di derivazione: cfr. ržišče e ricovišče, razdevalka e zabegalovka, sacharnica e fruktovnica (Zemskaja 2015: 33).
Anche l'interfisso -š-, tradizionalmente impiegato per la forma-zione di aggettivi deavverbiali dal significato temporale o locativo (sevodnjašnij, tamošnij), viene spesso utilizzato nelle varietà colloquiali del russo contemporaneo anche per la derivazione di sostantivi indeclinabili (kinošnik, metrošnye znakomstva), nonché di acronimi uscenti in vocale (èmgeunik, kagebešnik, gaišnik). Se negli anni Sessanta e Set-tanta parole derivate con l'ausilio dell'interfisso -š- si incontravano prevalentemente nella lingua colloquiale, negli anni Novanta iniziano a comparire anche nella lingua dei giornali (Zemskaja 2006: 18); cio-nonostante, questo interfisso rimane stilisticamente connotato data la sua origine popolare (Zemskaja 2015: 45).
255
LORENZO PENTA ► Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole
Un altro interfisso che vede aumentare la propria produttività in relazione alla derivazione di sostantivi indeclinabili è -in-, tradizional-mente impiegato per la derivazione di numerosi toponimi di genere femminile (jaltinskij). Nello specifico, l'interfisso -in- sta progressiva-mente invadendo il campo d'azione dell'infisso concorrente -n- nella derivazione di aggettivi a partire da toponimi indeclinabili uscenti in vocale tonica, nonostante la caduta della vocale finale possa rende-re meno trasparente la base di derivazione sottostante (costituendo quindi una violazione del principio di trasparenza morfotattica): cfr. ulan-udenskij con alma-atinskij, dusanbinskij, bakinskij; karagandinskij (Zemskaja 2015: 34).
Si osserva, infine, un maggiore ricorso all'interfisso -c-, impiegato in combinazione con il suffisso -anin nella formazione di numerosi etnici in relazioni a città. Al giorno d'oggi si riscontra una particolare tendenza, in special modo nella carta stampata, a preferire l'uso di sostantivi in -anin, e specialmente in -canin, per riferirsi agli abitanti di una città anche quando già esiste una variante ben consolidata in -ec: cfr. belgorodcanin e belgorodec (Ryazanova-Clarke - Wade 1999: 208).
Suffissazione
Nell'ambito della formazione nominale nel russo contemporaneo, il gruppo più attivo è quello dei sostantivi astratti, impiegati per la de-nominazione dei fatti nuovi della realtà contemporanea (Zemskaja 2017: 224). Le classi di sostantivi astratti maggiormente in crescita sono quelle in -ost', -scina e -izm e i nomina actionis in -fikacija e -iza-cija; meno frequente è il ricorso a -stvo (Zemskaja 2017: 231). Questi modelli si collocano all'interno della tradizione derivazionale russa; l'elemento di novità è costituito dall'aumento delle basi che possono essere cosí derivate. Ad esempio, il suffisso -ost' vede aumentare la
256
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
sua combinabilità, potendosi oggi legare anche con aggettivi in -skij: russkost', sovetskost', detskost' (Zemskaja 2017: 231). La sempre maggiore frequenza di neoformazioni in -ost' derivate da aggettivi e participi passivi in -myj, indicanti possibilità dell'azione (smotrimost', samooku-paemost', konvertiruemost') è stata biasimata da parte di alcuni linguisti (si veda Ryazanova-Clarke - Wade 1999: 211; Kostomarov 1999: 191).
I	suffissi -scina e -izm sono ampiamente utilizzati per la formazione di sostantivi astratti che indicano tendenze e movimenti sociopoli-tici e culturali: frankizm, rejganizm, atlantizm, menedzerizm, vescizm, chippizm. Rispetto alle proprie controparti in -izm, le forme in -scina sono connotate sia negativamente che dal punto di vista espressivo, in quanto esprimono solitamente un giudizio negativo del concetto o della personalità a cui si fa riferimento (Zemskaja 2000: 101). Una connotazione negativa è riscontrabile anche nei vocaboli in -scina che indicano deficienze organizzative: sturmovscina, avralscina, dogonjae-vscina, crezvycajscina e zastojscina, variante colloquiale di zastoj (Ryaza-nova-Clarke - Wade 1999: 214). Relativamente recente è l'assunzione da parte di queste forme del significato di 'predisposizione': intererscina, mitingovscina, sluzbizm, vas'kizm, nasizm, vozdizm, imidzizm (Ryazano-va-Clarke - Wade 1999: 213, 216).
II	suffisso -izacij- è uno dei più produttivi nella formazione di sostantivi astratti nel russo contemporaneo (Zemskaja 2017: 225), spesso, come si è visto, in combinazione con il prefisso de-. Ogni fenomeno significativo dal punto di vista sociale (parola-chiave) dà vita a un sostantivo astratto corrispondente: ad es. vaucerizacija (Zemskaja 2000: 107). Se molte neoformazioni in -izacij- derivano da prestiti, fatto indicativo dell'alta produttività di questo modello derivazionale è la formazione di nuove parole a partire da base russe (ad es. zarplatizacija). L'ampia diffusione di sostantivi in -izacija (e -fikacija) è stata notata già a partire
257
LORENZO PENTA ► Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole
dagli anni Sessanta; la novità per la lingua russa consiste nel fatto che, nonostante si trattino di nomina actionis, essi non abbiano origine deverbale e, spesso, non possiedono neppure un corrispondente verbale (manca, ad esempio, il verbo vaucerizovat, che esiste solo in potenza). Cio è dovuto al fatto che i mutamenti sociali richiedono innanzitutto la formazione di nuove denominazioni in riferimento ai fatti sociali nuovi (tant'è che molte delle basi hanno origine straniera), il che determina nel russo contemporaneo il primato tra le neoformazioni della classe dei sostantivi su quella dei verbi (e degli aggettivi).
Meno interessanti sono gli sviluppi nel sistema dei modelli di formazione di nuovi nomi d'agente, per la quale il russo dispone di un vasto arsenale di suffissi. Tra questi, i più produttivi nel russo contemporaneo sono -nik e -(s)cik, impiegati per denominare le professioni della nuova realtà socioeconomica russa (kompjuterscik, piarscik) e l'appartenenza alla molteplicità di collettivi, schieramenti politici e ideologie sorta con il passaggio a una società pluralista (derzavnik, rynocnik). Secondo Zemskaja (2017: 234), negli ultimi venti e trent'anni un'intera serie di vocaboli in -scik, etichettati come inusuali o colloquia-li, sono ormai entrati stabilmente nell'uso: kompjuterscik, oboronscik, informacionscik, kaveènscik, piarscik, strachovscik, reklamscik, detektivscik ecc. I sostantivi in -(s)cik che indicano appartenenza a una collettività o un raggruppamento possono assumere una sfumatura negativa nel caso in cui esista un'altra variante con stessa radice: cfr. perestrojcnik e antiperestrojscik, kooperator e kooperatorscik (Zemskaja 2000: 103).
Molto produttivi sono anche i suffissi -ec e -ist, impiegati per la formazione di nomi d'agente che si riferiscono ai sostenitori di un leader politico o ai simpatizzanti di altri personaggi pubblici. Alla diffusione di -ist ha contribuito l'assimilazione di molti angloameri-canismi e internazionalismi; tuttavia, -ist non si lega ai cognomi russi
258
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
in -ov, i quali danno forma a nomi d'agente esclusivamente tramite -ec (Zemskaja 2000: 99).
Sia la formazione di sostantivi in -nik e -(š)čik, sia la formazione di sostantivi in -ec e -ist costituiscono modelli derivazionali tradizionali; la loro particolare produttivita non rappresenta quindi un significativo elemento d'innovazione. Molto piu interessante é il caso del suffisso -ovik/-evik, i cui derivati sono spesso rivestiti da una patina di ufficia-lita, formalita e professionalita (nalogovik, vachtovik). Questo suffisso viene impiegato soprattutto in combinazione con radici uscenti in consonante velare, andando a sostituire i suffissi piu produttivi -nik e -ščik, i quali richiederebbero un adattamento di natura fonologica: cfr. nalogovik e naložnik (Zemskaja 2017: 235).
Al netto dello sviluppo di modalita agglutinanti, la formazione di nomi d'agente non sembra presentare tratti particolarmente inno-vativi; un aspetto che pero meriterebbe ulteriori e piu approfonditi studi, date le sue implicazioni prettamente sociolinguistiche, é quello della formazione di nomi d'agente femminili. Nella lingua russa, cosí come d'altronde in italiano (si veda Fusco 2012), sussistono asimmetrie grammaticali e semantiche legate al genere. Rispetto ai corrispettivi di genere maschile, i nomi di persona femminili sono connotati diafasi-camente verso il basso (cfr. doktor e doktorša, professor - professorša), il che ne limita la diffusione nella varieta standard della lingua e spiega i numerosi casi di assenza di corrispondenti femminili a nomi d'agente maschili, dovuti in verita anche a ragioni strutturali (ad esempio, per le difficolta combinatorie con basi di derivazione monosillabiche o uscenti in velare: chirurg, mer, šef; Zemskaja 2017: 239-240). Ciononostan-te, nel russo contemporaneo si osserva un livellamento quantomeno parziale di alcune asimmetrie: se all'accordo sintattico viene sempre piu spesso preferito quello semantico, quantomeno nei registri non
259
LORENZO PENTA ► Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole
particolarmente sorvegliati (Lasorsa Siedina - Benigni 2002: 71-72), nel sistema derivazionale viene riscontrato un aumento del numero di corrispondenti femminili a nomi d'agente maschili. I suffissi più impiegati per la formazione di nuovi nomi di persona femminile sono -k(a) e, in misura minore, -sa; poco produttivi si dimostrano invece i suffissi -nica, l'antico -inja e i suffissi di origine straniera -isa e -essa (Zemskaja 2017: 240-241).
Nella formazione degli aggettivi si osserva l'espansione della classe degli aggettivi di relazione. I suffissi più utilizzati per la formazione di aggettivi di relazione sono -n-, -ov- e -sk-, eventualmente legati a un interfisso; in particolare, è aumentata la produttività del modello in -ovskij, impiegato per derivare nuovi aggettivi di relazione a partire da acronimi e composti troncati: SNGovskij, specnazovskij (Zemskaja 2000: 125).
In molte neoformazioni si avverte una 'compressione derivativa' che risponde all'esigenza di 'condensazione e velocizzazione' della lingua d'oggi, in particolare di quella dei mezzi di comunicazione di massa: cennostnyj, vlastnyj, stranovyj, novorusskij (Lasorsa Siedina 2007: 261); non a caso, molte neoformazioni aggettivali hanno carattere terminologico: barternaja sdelka, institut marketingovych issledovanij, kompjuternoe obespečenie. Per gli stessi motivi è diffusa la tendenza a sostituire il genitivo di specificazione con un corri-spondente aggettivo di relazione: ad es. cenovaja politika, rublevoe prostranstvo, vlastnye struktury (Lasorsa Siedina - Benigni 2002: 21-22).
Parallelamente all'espansione della classe degli aggettivi di re-lazione, si osserva la scarsa produttività della classe degli aggettivi qualificativi. Tuttavia, ció non significa che la categoria degli aggettivi qualificativi vada esaurendosi; significati qualificativi emergono infatti continuamente tra gli aggettivi di relazione, compensando
260
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
il calo nella formazione di nuovi aggettivi qualificativi (Zemskaja 2015: 206). L'acquisizione di un significato qualificativo comporta l'acquisizione di alcune caratteristiche morfologiche esclusive de-gli aggettivi qualificativi, come la possibilita di essere graduati e la realizzazione in posizione predicativa.
Fenomeni di riduzione
Nella morfologia derivazionale costituiscono modelli di particolare successo quelli che consistono nella riduzione del corpo fonico di una parola o di un sintagma. Fenomeno evidente é la proliferazione delle univerbazioni di unita lessicali del tipo 'aggettivo+sostantivo', con eliminazione del sostantivo e aggiunta di un suffisso derivazionale alla radice dell'aggettivo. Il suffisso piü impiegato per la formazione di univerbazioni é -k(a) (ad es. crezvycajnaja situacija - crezvycajka), ma non é raro il ricorso ad altri suffissi alterativi, come ad esempio -sa, -ik, -ucha e -uska: kontrol'naja rabota - kontrosa, obmennyj punkt -obmennik, cernyj chleb - cernucha, duchovoj pistolet - duchovuska. Attive fin dagli anni Sessanta del Novecento (Benigni 2007: 120), le univerbazioni in -k(a) si sono diffuse nel corso dell'ultimo decennio del XX secolo nella lingua della stampa periodica e nel discorso pubblico orale, in linea con la traslazione di altri fenomeni periferici verso il centro del sistema. La proliferazione di questo modello é determinata dalla sua economicita, in risposta alle esigenze di condensazione della lingua d'oggi, ma anche da ragioni espressive; inoltre, l'uni-verbazione soddisfa inoltre il principio dell'isomorfismo (Benigni 2007: 123-124). Sebbene molte forme univerbate rimangano circo-scritte ai gerghi sociali e professionali in cui sono state coniate (ad es. sinchronka, ovvero l'interpretazione simultanea), la produttivita del modello é testimoniata dal fatto che molte formazioni sono uscite
261
LORENZO PENTA ► Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole
dall'ambito gergale in cui sono comparse e vengono impiegate anche per la derivazione di denominazioni ridotte in relazione all'apparato statale e alla sfera professionale: ad es. oboronka - oboronnaja promysl-ennost', piscevka - piscevaja promyslennost', otecka - otecestvennaja produkcija. Il successo di questo modello derivazionale non sembra essere inoltre scalfito della polisemia o della scarsa trasparenza di alcune formazioni: ad esempio, personalka puo essere il prodotto dell'univerbazione di personal'noe delo, personal'naja avtomobil', e personal'nyj komp'juter.
Anche le retroformazioni, cosí come le univerbazioni, rappresen-tano un modello derivazionale periferico già attivo nello standard, ma che attraversa oggi una fase di particolare attività (Benigni 2007: 106). Esso consiste nella formazione di nuovi lessemi a partire da una base - prevalentemente aggettivale o verbale - attraverso l'elimina-zione di elementi suffissali (a differenza delle forme tronche, dove il processo di riduzione ha carattere fonologico e puo compromettere l'integrità della radice; si veda sotto); cio determina un mutamento di categoria rispetto alla base da cui derivano: ad es. intimnyj - intim, kriminal - kriminal'nyj; prikidyvat'sja - prikid, oblomat'sja - oblom. In particolare, la retroformazione deverbale, sebbene rappresenti un modello derivazionale tipicamente russo, mostra una particolare produttività nelle varietà non standard, specialmente nel linguaggio giovanile e nel gergo dei biznesmeny (Benigni 2007: 117-118). Altro tratto in comune con le univerbazioni è la polisemia di molte formazioni; ad esempio, oblom, che nello standard significa 'schianto, rottura', assume nel linguaggio giovanile il significato di 'insuccesso', 'stato depressivo', 'contrattempo improvviso che manda a monte un piano', mentre nel gergo dei biznesmeny assume il significato più generico di 'flop', 'fallimento' (Benigni 2007: 119).
262
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
morfología composizionale
Se da una parte la prefissazione e la suffissazione si confermano come i meccanismi di formazione piu produttivi, dall'altra un tratto peculiare del russo contemporaneo é rappresentato certamente da una maggiore intensita dei processi abbreviativi e composizionali.
Una delle conseguenze piu evidenti dell'influenza dell'inglese sulla morfologia composizionale russa é la mutuazione di composti 'nome+-nome' in cui il modificatore precede il nome modificato (Kapatsinski, Vakareliyska 2013). Calcando la struttura dell'equivalente inglese, in queste formazioni il modificatore viene anteposto alla testa del sintagma nominale, contrariamente alle consuete norme composizionali della lingua russa: cfr. prajs-list, biznes-plan con divan-krovat', zenscina-vrac (Straniero Sergio 2006: 64). L'ampia diffusione e la produttivita di que-sta modalita combinatoria, cosí come il fenomeno affine dell'espansione degli aggettivi analitici in relazione ai composti troncati (si veda sotto), costituiscono un ulteriore indizio della tendenza all'analiticita della lingua russa contemporanea.
Un secondo tratto caratteristico della morfologia composizionale russa contemporanea é l'espansione della classe delle 'abbreviazioni'. Occorre precisare che il termine russo abbreviacija ha un significato piu ampio rispetto all'equivalente letterale italiano 'abbreviazione' e comprende i processi impiegati per la formazione delle cosiddette 'parole composte abbreviate' (slozno-sokrascénnye slova), un'etichetta che comprende acronimi fonetici (OON) e alfabetici (SSSR), acronimi formati dalle iniziali di alcune parole e segmenti di altre (IMLI - Institut mirovoj literatury), forme tronche (zam per zamestitel'), composti troncati (kolchoz) e altri tipi di 'parole macedonia' (ad es. zavuc - zave-dujuscij ucebnoj castju). Sebbene le abbreviatury abbiano origine antica,
263
LORENZO PENTA ► Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole
e la rivoluzione del 1917 che svolge un ruolo di catalizzatore per questa modalita di formazione delle parole, fino ad allora non particolarmente produttiva. Nel corso degli anni Cinquanta, questo meccanismo di formazione e ormai attivo in diversi sottosistemi della lingua, special-mente nella terminologia, nella lingua degli affari e nella pubblicistica (Zemskaja 2006: 15). A cavallo fra i secoli XX e XXI si osserva uno svi-luppo senza precedenti di abbreviazioni di ogni tipo, in particolare di acronimi alfabetici e fonetici, solitamente indeclinabili. Anche agli inizi del nuovo secolo continua la tendenza, gia osservata da Panov negli anni Sessanta, a camuffare gli acronimi sotto l'aspetto di parole consuete come, ad esempio, nel caso del nome di molti partiti politici: SLON - Sojuz ljudej za obrazovanie i nauku, JABLOKO - Javlinskij, Boldyrev, Lukin, PARNAS - Partija narodnoj svobody, ČESTNO - Čelovek. Spravedli-vost'. Otvetstvennost' (Zemskaja 2000: 121).
Il camuffamento degli acronimi rende evidente come le abbrevia-zioni svolgano non solo una funzione condensativa, particolarmente attuale in un'epoca dai ritmi accelerati come quella contemporanea, ma anche una funzione espressiva e ludica, riscontrabile nei seguenti usi (Zemskaja 2000: 121-124):
•	formazione di acronimi che ricordano parole comuni, se non veri e propri camuffamenti, dando agli acronimi una connotazione aggiuntiva che altrimenti non avrebbero (ad es. MIF - Moskovskij investicionnyj fond, BiDe - Belyj Dom);
•	interpretazione degli acronimi in senso ludico (ad es. NEP - navede-nie elementarnogo porjadka, ČP - častnaja praktika, četvertaja polosa);
•	uso di composti troncati marcati diafasicamente verso il basso, che possiedono una carica beffarda e spregiativa che la locuzione non troncata non possiede (ad es. nadrep - narodnyj deputat);
264
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
• derivazione di aggettivi a partiré da acronimi alfabetici o fonetici di carattere ufficiale, connotate diafasicamente verso il basso (ad es. éséngovskij, iébésnyj, OGPUsnyj).
Fenomeno particolarmente evidente é la spesso biasimata ibridazione grafica tra alfabeto latino e cirillico (ad es. DVD-nneep, SOS-weuü 6op), segno della tendenza al gioco linguistico, ma anche dell'espansione della cultura angloamericana (Lasorsa Siedina 2014: 440).
Anche la produttivita dei composti troncati aumenta considerevol-mente a partire dal 1917, cosí come per tutti gli altri tipi di abbreviazioni, in risposta all'esigenza di dare un nome alle istituzioni e agli organismi del neonato stato sovietico. Il legame semantico con la sfera pubblica rimane costante fino ai giorni nostri, il che influisce sulla loro produttivita: nuovi composti vengono creati in relazione a nuove istituzioni, mentre altri sono caduti in disuso con la scomparsa del proprio referente, in particolare a seguito della dissoluzione dell'Unione Sovietica. Gli avvenimenti sociopolitici influenzano la produttivita delle forme tronche: ad esempio, modificatori come sov- (sovetskij) e soc- (sociali-sticeskij) escono dall'uso dopo il 1991, sostituiti da ros- (rossijskij). Altri campi semantici piuttosto produttivi risultano essere quelli legati alla sfera militare, medica e delle cariche pubbliche e private.
Nell'indagine sull'uso dei composti troncati condotta da Isabella Milan Albertin (2015) su un corpus giornalistico, la tipologia di composto troncato maggiormente diffusa é quella costituita da un agget-tivo tronco unito ad un sostantivo intero (ad es. gosbank). Nel periodo successivo alla perestrojka é effettivamente aumentato il numero di elementi troncati che si trovano in inizio di parola, sui quali spesso cade un accento secondario, che possono essere separati dalla parola successiva da una leggera pausa, nei quali il suono vocalico non viene
265
LORENZO PENTA ► Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole
ridotto, e che svolgono il ruolo di aggettivi analitici, e si comportano quindi come elementi invariabili, privi di marche flessive, mostrando la loro relazione col nome testa solamente attraverso la posizione immediatamente antecedente o successiva al nome cui si riferiscono. Oltre agli aggettivi tronchi sono osservabili anche altri tipi di modificatori analitici - prefissi, prefissoidi, nomi di origine straniera - dallo status grammaticale ambiguo, la cui espansione, assieme a quella della classe degli aggettivi analitici propriamente detti, rientra nella più generale tendenza all'analiticità della lingua russa contemporanea (per una classificazione si veda Benigni 2007: 54-105).
Un fenomeno di relativa innovazione è costituito dall'uso di forme tronche isolate, la cui base è costituita da un sostantivo (prepod - prepo-davatel') o, più raramente, da un sintagma nominale (nal - nalicnye den'gi, vichi - vychodnye dni). Questo modello di formazione è tipico della lingua colloquiale e delle varietà substandard della lingua (in particolare dello slang giovanile) ed è quindi marcato diafasicamente e diafasicamente verso il basso (tanto da essere spesso inserite tra virgolette); tuttavia, la diffusione di queste forme è ormai tale da non compromettere la comprensione del testo (Benigni 2007: 111). Alla loro circolazione con-tribuisce la loro economicità e praticità, che ben si adatta alla necessità di sintesi della lingua dei mass-media, e la loro connotazione espressiva, specialmente in presenza dei suffissi alterativi come -ik, -ak (televizor - telik, videomagnitofon - vidak).
Occorre distinguere le forme troncate, che costituiscono un fenomeno di relativa innovazione, dalle retroformazioni, che rappresentano un modello già attivo nello standard, ma che presenta una particolare produttività nella lingua d'oggi (Benigni 2007: 106). Le prime derivano da basi nominali e si differenziano da queste solo dal punto di vista stili-stico; le retroformazioni hanno invece origine deaggettivale e deverbale
266
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
e, di conseguenza, comportano un mutamento di categoría rispetto alla base da cui derivano. Un'ulteriore differenza consiste nel fatto che, nel caso dei troncamenti, la parte della parola eliminata non coincide con un suffisso; nelle retroformazioni, invece, la radice rimane intatta (ad es. komp - komp'juter, intim - intimnyj). Se le retroformazioni sono quindi il risultato di un processo morfologico, le forme tronche sono il risultato di un processo fonologico (Benigni 2007: 120).
La diffusione di modalità di formazione delle parole come il tronca-mento e la retroformazione, cosí come gli acronimi, risponde al principio di economia dei mezzi linguistici e alla tendenza alla condensazione della lingua d'oggi. Occorre inoltre osservare la relazione tra forme tronche e frequenza d'uso: ad essere troncate sono le forme impiegate per la denominazione di referenti a cui si fa riferimento più frequen-temente; le forme tronche infatti sono più maneggevoli, soprattutto se impiegate con elevata frequenza (Benigni 2007: 125). A ció si aggiunge la carica espressiva di queste forme, che trovano un'inedita accoglienza nella lingua dei media, orientata verso un atteggiamento più disinvolto e, appunto, espressivo. Il successo delle forme tronche puó essere inoltre imputato all'influenza straniera, in particolare del modello angloamericano; alcune formazioni hanno infatti ottenuto lo status di veri e propri internazionalismi (ad es. demo, prof, info). D'altronde, il veicolo con cui questi usi entrano nello standard sono i gerghi professionali e sociali, come i gerghi dell'informatica, della musica e lo slang giovanile, varietà particolarmente permeabili all'influenza dell'inglese (Benigni 2007: 135).
osservazioni conclusive
In questo contributo si è cercato di tratteggiare le principali ten-denze nella formazione delle parole nel russo contemporaneo,
267
LORENZO PENTA ► Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole
contestualizzandole all'interno del più ampio quadro sociolinguistico attuale. La democratizzazione e liberalizzazione della lingua, da una parte, e la sua internazionalizzazione, dall'altra, incentivano l'assimila-zione di prestiti interni ed esterni sia di natura lessicale, sia morfologica. Nella lingua dei mezzi di comunicazione di massa, modello del neostandard linguistico, si privilegia il ricorso a tratti linguistici stilisticamente connotati, marcati diastraticamente e diafasicamente verso il basso, accostandoli ad altri che sono invece di registro più elevato - prestiti di origine angloamericana e grecolatina, lessico aulico ed ecclesiastico - alla ricerca di uno stile originale, brillante ed espressivo, in affinità con le istanze poetiche e stilistiche postmoderne e la dinamicità del linguaggio telematico e di internet, all'insegna della contaminazione di generi e stili diversi e del remix libero.
I ritmi frenetici della società odierna, l'immediatezza della comunicazione in una società sempre più iperconnessa e lo sviluppo tecnico-scien-tifico determinano la preferenza per gli usi linguistici più economici e sintetici, privilegiando la trasmissione del contenuto a scapito della forma. Con ció si spiega la produttività di forme composizionali e ridotte come acronimi, forme tronche e composti troncati, retroformazioni e uni-verbazioni, nonché l'espansione della classe degli aggettivi di relazione.
Alle cause extralinguistiche di mutamento linguistico si affianca l'azione di due leggi interne della lingua, vale a dire la tendenza all'ana-liticità e all'agglutinazione. Nell'ambito della formazione delle parole, costituiscono tratti analitici in espansione la proliferazione della classe dei modificatori analitici e degli acronimi, spesso indeclinabili. Il mag-gior ricorso alla morfologia composizionale e alla formazione di 'parole composte abbreviate' permettono lo sviluppo di modalità agglutinanti consistenti nella giustapposizione di morfemi senza il ricorso ad adat-tamenti di natura fonologica - in linea con il principio della trasparenza
268
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
morfotattica - privilegiando cosí il ricorso ad alcune classi di affissi ri-spetto che ad altre. A ció si deve l'aumentata produttivita dei modelli d'interfissazione, che permettono di evitare l'alternanza consonantica, aumentando le possibilita combinatorie dei suffissi.
Grande rilevanza hanno inoltre i modelli derivazionali e composizio-nali impiegati per la formazione di occasionalismi, impiegati non solo per ragioni referenziali, ma anche a scopo ironico ed espressivo o per esprimere un giudizio; essi meriterebbero un discorso a parte, e perció vi e stato fatto solamente un accenno. In generale, l'invenzione linguistica e un tratto tipico della lingua d'oggi; parlanti e scriventi sembrano mettersi continuamente in gioco nel tentativo di sfoggiare il proprio estro creativo. Anche in questo caso, il modello e costituito dalla lingua dei giornali e degli altri mezzi di comunicazione di massa, nella quale l'adozione di uno stile disinvolto e brillante e il ricorso al gioco linguistico e ad altri mezzi espressivi costituiscono il contrasto piu netto con l'epoca sovietica.
In conclusione, viene da chiedersi quali siano le conseguenze per la lingua russa alla luce dei cambiamenti in atto qui evidenziati. Una considerazione sullo stato generale della lingua non puó prescindere dall'analisi di tutti i suoi livelli (lessico, morfologia, sintassi, testualita); ci si limita quindi ad osservare che i cambiamenti in atto nella sfera della formazione delle parole sono determinati dagli stessi fattori linguistici ed extralinguistici che influenzano il mutamento linguistico del russo contemporaneo nel suo complesso. Per quanto riguarda segnatamente il sistema di formazione delle parole, la maggior parte dei fenomeni innovativi non e costituita da tratti linguistici inediti, ma da modelli derivazionali e composizionali periferici che si diffondono progressiva-mente nello standard, incentivati dalla democratizzazione della lingua e dalla desacralizzazione della norma, in special modo nel russo digitato; la novita non e quindi tanto di natura linguistica, quanto sociolinguistica. $
269
LORENZO PENTA ► Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole
Bibliografia
baron, naomi, 2008: Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile
World. New York: Oxford University Press. benigni, valentina, 2007: Il mutamento linguistico nel russo
contemporaneo. Roma: Aracne. benigni, valentina, masini, francesca, 2009: Compounds in
Russian. Lingue e linguaggio 8, 2. 171-194. Fusco, fabiana, 2012: La lingua e il femminile nella lessicografia italiana fra stereotipi e (in)visibilita, Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso.
glovinskaja, marina j. 2008: Aktivnye processy v grammatike. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk. Aktivnye processy na rubeze XX-XXI vekov. ed. krysin l.p. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskich kul'tur. kapatsinski, vsevolod, vakareliyska, cynthia, 2013: [N[N]] compounds in Russian: A growing family of constructions. Constructions and frames 5, 1. 69-87. kostomarov, vitalij g., 1999: Jazykovoj vkus epochi. Sankt-
Peterburg: Zlatoust kotelova, nadezda z., 2015: Pervyj opyt leksikograficeskogo opisanija russkich neologizmov. Izbrannye raboty, Sankt-Peterburg: Nestor-Istorija. 181-199. milan albertin, Isabella, 2015: Analisi linguistica dei composti troncati in russo e del loro utilizzo nel linguaggio giornalistico. Venezia: Universita Ca' Foscari. lasorsa siedina, claudia, 1992: Note sul lessico della pubblicistica russa contemporanea. Slavia 1, 2. 21-30. lasorsa siedina, claudia, 2004: L'evoluzione del russo attuale e la prassi glottodidattica. Studi Slavistici 1. 223-233
270
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
LASORSA siEDiNA, Claudia, 2007: Variabilita della norma e standard linguistico del russo attuale. Gli studi slavistici in Italia oggi. Ed. De Giorgi R. et al. Udine: Forum. 257-268. lasorsa siEDiNA, Claudia, 2014: L'accelerazione del russo attuale e i mass-media. Linee di confine. Separazioni e processi di integrazione nello spazio culturale slavo. Ed. Moracci G. et al. Firenze: Firenze University Press. 437-447. lasorsa siEDiNA, CLAUDiA, BENiGNi, VALENTiNA, 2002: Il russo in
movimento. Un'indagine sociolinguistica. Roma: Bulzoni Editore. ryazanova-clarke, larissa, wade, terence, 1999: The Russian
Language Today. London: Routledge. denisova, galina, salmon, laura, 2002: Il russo 'della Pepsi e della liberta': moda linguistica, ideologia o nuovi referenti? L'inglese e le altre lingue europee: studi sull'interferenza linguistica. Ed. San Vicente, F. Bologna: CLUEB. 256-274. straniero sergio, Francesco, 2006: Aspetti morfosintattici e sociolinguistici dell'influenza dell'inglese sulla lingua russa. Rivista internazionale di tecnica della traduzione 9. 63-73. valgina, nina s. et al. 2002: Sovremennyj russkij jazyk. Moskva: Logos.
valgina, nina s., 2003: Aktinvnye processy v sovremennom
russkom jazyke. Moskva: Logos. zajceva, elena a., dolgova, elena J., 2011: Prefiksal'nye imena suščestvitel'nye v russkom jazyke načala XXI stoletija: osobennosti obrazovanija i značenija. Vestnik Volžskogo universiteta im. V.N. Tatiščeva 7. 23-27. zemskaja, elena a., 2000: Aktivnye processy sovremennogo slovoproizvodstva. Russkij jazyk konca XX stoletija (1985-1995). Ed. Zemskaja E.A. Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kul'tury.
271
LORENZO PENTA ► Tendenze recenti nella formazione delle parole
zemskaja, elena a., 2006: Aktivnye processy v russkom
slovoobrazovanii našego vremeni. Acta Neophilologica 8. 9-21 zemskaja, elena a., 2015: Jazyk kak dejatel'nost', Mosca: Flinta. zemskaja, elena a., 2016: Sovremennyj russkij jazyk.
Slovoobrazovanie, Mosca: Flinta. zemskaja, elena a., 2017: Literaturnaja norma i neuzual'noe slovoobrazovanie. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk. Ed. Krysin L.P. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskich kul'tur. zenkin, sergej 2012: Kul'turologija prefiksov. Raboty o teorii: Stat'i
Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. 137-147. švedova, natalija j. (ed.), 1980: Russkaja grammatika v dvux tomax. 1. Moskva: Nauka.
272
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Summary
The word-formation system is made up of two components: morphology and lexicon. While the first is relatively stable over time, the latter evolves more rapidly according to social changes. However, studying linguistic variation cannot be exclusively devoted to changes in the lexical-semantic system of the language, as most new words are created through word-formation processes.
The transition to pluralism and a free-market economy has led to the democratisation and liberalisation of the language, the relaxation of stylistic norms and the adoption of a great number of loanwords, which serve as root for many new derivatives. The new standard is represented by the language of newspapers and mass-media, which employs colloquial, informal and non-standard elements for expressive and ludic purposes. As the pace of life and writing speed up, preference is given to economical and synthetic elements, such as abbreviations, truncated forms, acronyms, 'univerbations' and relative adjectives. As a result, non-standard word-formation types and procedures infiltrate the standard usage. Moreover, analytical and agglutinative trends are growing stronger, and one of the typical features of contemporary Russian is the growth of analytical adjectives, abbreviations and complex words. As a consequence of the agglutinative trend, the morphemes employed in creating these words often do not undergo phonetic changes.
Lorenzo Penta
Lorenzo Penta is a student at the Department of Language, Translation and Interpreting Studies of the University of Trieste. His main area of interest is language variation and change in contemporary Italian and Russian language.
273
Reviews
DOI - 10.13137/2283-5482/22391
Ritorno alia filologia
Return to Philology
RECENSIONE D I
Studia Litterarum. HaynHtm ^M^o^orMnecKMM »ypHa.n HHCTMTyTa MMPOBOM ^MTepaTypti MMeHM A.M. ToptKoro POCCMMCKOM aKageMMM HayK.
$ ivan verc - iverc@spin.it
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Nel 2016 è uscito il primo numero della rivista Studia Litterarum, edita 1
1 11,	»il	1 1 1 il»	1	1 11 In seguito indicherem
dall Istituto A.M. Gor kij di Letteratura mondiale dell Accademia delle il volume con numeri
,	,	v	romani e il fascicolo
Scienze Russa (Institut mirovoj literatury imeni A.M. disponibile sia a stampa (Issn: 2500-4247), sia on-line (e-Issn: 25418564). L'accesso al sito (http://www.studlit.ru) è gratuito. La rivista, a scadenza trimestrale, è peer-reviewed ed è indicizzata in Doaj, ErihPlus, CiteFactor, EuroPub, Ulrich, Electronic Journals Library e Slavic Humanities Index. La direzione è affidata ad Aleksandr B. Kudelin (membro della RAN), il comitato scientifico ed editoriale è internazionale. Vengono accettati contributi in lingua russa, inglese, francese, tedesco, spagnolo e italiano. In questa sede passeremo in rassegna gli otto numeri (più di 2300 pagine), pubblicati nei primi due volumi (2016/vol. 1, nn. 1-4; 2017/vol. 2, nn. 1-4;).1
L'orientamento metodologico della rivista emerge dal saggio intro-duttivo di Vadim V. Polonskij (I/1-2), dove viene affrontato il problema dell'interpretazione come categoria dominante degli studi letterari della seconda metà del XX secolo. Tale orientamento metodologico sarebbe stato fortemente condizionato dalla filosofía. È una conside-razione condivisibile, già sottolineata da Gianni Vattimo nella prefa-zione alla seconda edizione di Verità e metodo di Hans-Georg Gadamer (1983). Il filosofo italiano notava, con una punta di rammarico, come la categoria della realtà come "orizzonte linguistico" fosse stata appli-cata maggiormente agli studi letterari che non alla filosofía. Polonskij affronta il problema della correlazione tra le due discipline, presente sin dall'antichità classica. In seguito, essa si sarebbe dipanata lun-go una continua oscillazione (Schlegel, Schleiermacher, Nietzsche, Heidegger) tra l'orientamento filologico della filosofia (filologizacija filosofii) e l'orientamento filosofico della filologia (filosofizacija filologii). In considerazione della crisi contemporanea delle teorie letterarie
277
IVAN VERÉ ► Ritorno alla filologia
"interpretative", lo studioso auspica un ritorno alla filologia "classica", com'era stata fondata nel XIX secolo (storia della letteratura, critica testuale, studi biografici, poetica testuale). A parere di Polonskij, un ritorno alla filologia propriamente detta sarebbe in grado di superare la non sempre feconda contaminazione tra filosofia e filologia.
L'indirizzo generale della rivista, anche nella sua divisione in sezio-ni, sembra seguire la strada indicata da Polonskij (teoria della letteratura, letteratura straniere, letteratura russa, letterature dei popoli della Federazione russa, folcloristica, critica testuale). In realta, gli articoli, pubblicati nei primi due volumi, possono essere raggruppati secondo studi metodologicamente e tematicamente omogenei, trasversali ri-spetto allo loro collocazione nelle singole sezioni.
EVOLUZIONE LETTERARIA
Piu di un terzo degli articoli é orientato verso la ricerca di ció che Tynja-nov aveva definito come evoluzione letteraria, come piccoli e grandi spo-stamenti (sdvig) che aprono la strada al rinnovamento di uno specifico genere letterario o di una poetica storicamente consolidata. In linea generale, seguendo le riflessioni di Michail Bachtin sulla "memoria di genere" nel "tempo grande", si puó affermare, come fa Irina L. Popova (I/1-2), che "memoria" e "oblio" sono categorie dominanti nell'evolu-zione della letteratura. La maggior parte degli studi, che nella rivista segue questo percorso, riguarda, oltre la letteratura russa, la letteratura inglese, francese e tedesca, a dimostrazione del fatto che l'evoluzione letteraria é un processo generale che si sviluppa indipendentemente dai limiti imposti dalla lingua, dalla nazione e dalla cultura di riferimento. Nelle singole letterature nazionali l'evoluzione si differenzia solo per i tempi del suo manifestarsi.
278
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Evoluzione dei generi. Nelle opere di John Gibson Lockhart (1794-1854) e Thomas Moore (1779-1852) il romanzo storico evolve, rispetto al canone di Walter Scott, verso un principio di continuità tra l'azione del singolo e il contesto generale (Elena Somova, II/1). Nina Ljachovskaja (II/1) affronta il problema della verità storica nella letteratura africana francofona, dalla quale emerge la differenza tra la narrazione di un'Africa storica (sognata, desiderata) e quella reale. Uno spostamento della narrazione storica nella letteratura araba (Aleksandr Kudelin, I/1-2 e II/4) si realizza, da un lato, grazie all'intrecciarsi tra elementi documentari e fiction, presenti nella Vita del profeta di Ibn Ishaq - Ibn Hisham (767-828 d.C.), mentre, dall'altra, l'incrocio tra discorsi diversi (discorso diretto, linguaggio della vita pubblica siriana) funge da genesi per un nuovo materiale narrativo. Piccoli e grandi spostamenti si hanno nel genere della letteratura di viaggio. Se per la scrittrice contemporanea africana Véronique Tadjo il viaggio porta a una dolorosa "biforcazione" tra l'at-taccamento alla tradizione tribale e la modernità (Nina Ljachovskaja, II/4), per il portoghese Camilho Pessanha (1867-1926) il viaggio (in Cina), alla scoperta dell'altro da sé, si risolve nel suo opposto, ovvero all'affermazione del sé (Gérard M. M. Siary, I/3-4). Dell'evoluzione del genere della commedia si occupa Michail L. Andreev, che in due articoli (I/3-4 e II/3) affronta il classico problema del superamento dei perso-naggi a ruoli "finiti" della commedia dell'arte nel teatro di Goldoni, mentre in quello di Corneille l'attenzione viene posta sulla nascita di un genere intermedio, dove i rigidi confini tra tragicità e comicità si attenuano. L'evoluzione del genere epico nella letteratura russa antica viene affrontata da Vladimir M. Kirillin (II/1), che in alcuni elementi della povest' e dello skazanie scorge il nucleo di un successivo sviluppo della norma letteraria, mentre il contributo di Anatolij S. Demin (I/1-2) introduce nelle riflessioni sulla letteratura russa antica non solo la
279
IVAN VERÉ ► Ritorno alla filologia
presenza di una costante interferenza di vari generi, dal didattico al filosofico, bensi, in primo luogo, la presenza di un autore che, pur anonimo, risulta fortemente ancorato alla contemporaneità. In ambiti diversi, Elena S. Kotljar (II/4) studia il processo evolutivo che, a causa del dominio coloniale e dell'inevitabile interculturalità, conduce l'eroe "eroico" della narrazione epica africana verso una figura meno monolitica, a tratti anche divertente. Uno spostamento significativo nel genere delle memorie viene individuato da Svetlana Ju. Pavlova (II/2), che nell'opera di Mademoiselle de Montpensier (1627-1693) trova la conferma di una lunga tradizione mitologica e letteraria della donna "forte", orientata verso l'autoaffermazione. Grande autonomia di giudizio rispetto alla cultura maschile del tempo si riscontra nella corrispondenze e nei diari di Rahel Varnhagen, donna dei salotti letterari in Germania, tra la fine del XVIII e gli anni '30 del XIX secolo, sensibile alle tendenze artistiche del tempo. Attraverso la lettura delle sue memorie, Dzul'etta L. Cavcanidze (II/4) ricostruisce le dispute culturali e letterarie del tempo, dal crepuscolo dell'età illuministica alla nascita del movimento romantico. All'evoluzione del genere delle memorie è dedicato anche lo studio di Ekaterina A. Esenina (II/4). Gli scritti autobiografici di Ana-stasija Cvetaeva, sorella di Marina, passano, da un iniziale indirizzo filosofico (Korolevskie razmyslenija, 1915), al romanzo di genere, per concludersi, infine, in un'autorappresentazione, volta alla costruzione di una propria immagine autonoma (Vospominanija, 1971, 2008). Anche nel romanzo davventura la figura di Fantômas, il "male" per definizione, subisce non poche trasformazioni nei 32 volumi, pubblicati a partire dal 1911 da Pierre Souvestre and Marcel Allain (alcuni dopo la morte di Souvestre nel 1914). Il personaggio si adegua ai segni culturali della Belle époque, ai modelli letterari coevi, alle cronache giornalistiche e ai nascenti canoni della letteratura di massa, antesignani delle serie
280
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
televisive "noir" e perfino dei fumetti (Kirill A. Cekalov e Natal'ja T. Pa-chsar'jan, II/4). Di romanzo erotico tratta lo studio di Andrej V. Golubkov (II/2) che individua nel romanzo Gamiani, ovvero Due notti di eccessi di Alfred de Musset (1830) un superamento della tradizione romantica e della tradizione francese del libertinaggio e delle perversioni sessuali, codificata dal marchese De Sade. Specialmente nella figura della lesbica Gamiani, Musset apre al personaggio decadente che precorre i Fiori del male di Baudelaire. L'articolo di Natal'ja Smirnova (II/1) esamina l'evoluzione del genere biografico attraverso la lettura dei romanzi di Paul Auster, poi raccolti in The New York Trilogy (1985-1986), dove biografia e autobiografia si intrecciano in una doppia narrazione: l'autore traccia la biografía del personaggio principale (un ispettore di polizia) che, a sua volta, viene descritto dal personaggio indagato dallo stesso ispettore. Alla tradizione del genere nella letteratura russa rivolge la sua attenzione Evgenija V. Ivanova (I/3-4). Se le biografie di Plutarco (Vite parallele) hanno influenzato il genere nella letteratura inglese (James Boswell, Lytton Strachey) e il successivo canone biografico di Thomas Carlyle (The Heroic in History, 1841), il "diritto alla biografia", in virtu di un riconoscimento agli uomini di scienza (e non agli eroi), evolve, sia nella letteratura francese (Gaston Tissandier, Les Martyrs de la science, 1879), sia in quella tedesca (Wilhelm Dilthey, Georg Simmel), verso la valorizzazione della grandezza spirituale dell'uomo. E l'orientamento di maggior successo nel genere biografico in Russia (G.O. Vinokur). Gia Tynjanov aveva individuato nel genere parodico il segno inconfondibile di un'evoluzione letteraria in atto. Ekaterina V. Kuznecova (II/1) esamina nella poesia iniziale di Igor' Severnjanin le allusioni parodiche al primo simbolismo (Brjusov, Bal'mont), presenti anche nelle opere di S. Gornyj, K. Cukovskij e A. Blok. Per Severnjanin la parodia si manifesta come "testo ambivalente", come sdvig necessario per approdare a un
281
IVAN VERÉ ► Ritorno alla filologia
proprio percorso estetico. Sulle trasformazioni endotestuali di una stessa forma poética, il sonetto, si interroga Elena V. Chaltrin-Chalturina (II/3), mettendo a confronto i sonetti del conte Paride (atto I, 3) e di Romeo (atto I, 5) nella tragedia di Shakespeare Romeo e Giulietta. Dall'analisi, anche in comparazione con i sonetti 126 e 128 di Shakespeare nell'e-dizione del 1609, emerge la dinamicità e l'integrazione "drammatica" del sonetto di Romeo, mentre il sonetto di Paride sembra estraneo alla trama della tragedia. SuWintertestualità dei generi si sofferma Jurij Ja. Barabas (II/3), analizzando il ciclo di Taras Sevcenko I salmi di Davide. La comparazione con il Libro dei salmi del Vecchio testamento dimostra il processo di adattamento e di trasformazione rispetto alloperasacrale. Il "dialogo delle interpretazioni", come chiave per la comprensione del ciclo di Sevcenko, trasforma il testo sacrale dalle componenti poeti-che in un testo poetico dalle componenti sacrali. La trasformazione di un'opera, da tempo codificata, in "testo" si risolve in due ipostasi di uno stesso fenomeno di natura spirituale e poetica.
Evoluzione delle poetiche. Tre articoli sono dedicati all'evoluzione letteraria nel periodo rococó, ovvero alla figura di Claude Prosper Jolyot de Crébillon (1707-1777), detto Crébillon fils. Natal'ja V. Lidergos (I/3-4) individua nello scetticismo e nell'ironia dei romanzi L'Écumoire ou Tan-zaï et Néadarné (1734), Le Sopha (1742) e Les Égarements du cœur et de l'esprit (1736-1738) una narrazione aperta, capace di offrire diversi piani di lettura (dalla cronaca mondana alla riflessione filosofica). Natal'ja T. Pachasar'jan (II/1) propone un'analisi comparativa tra l'organizza-zione cronotopica dei romanzi di Crébillon e i romanzi L'Astrée di Honoré d'Urfé (1607-1627) e La Princesse de Clèves di Madame de La Fayette (1678). L'evoluzione nel periodo rococó si manifesta come rifiuto dell'o-stentata retorica teatrale dello spazio barocco, che approda, infine, alla de-teatralizzazione e all'astrazione topografica dell'ambiente narrativo.
282
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Ricostruendo il consolidarsi della conversazione salottiera come rito sociale dell'aristocrazia francese del XVII e XVIII secolo, Veronika D. Altasina (I/1-2) trova nella narrativa di Crébillon fils alcune anticipa-zioni del "principio dialogico" (il dialogo del personaggio con se stesso, il dialogo dell'autore con il lettore, il dialogo mediato dalle citazioni con altri autori, l'autoreferenzialità dell'autore). L'evoluzione del primo romanticismo è il tema degli studi di Ljudmila G. Sakirova (II/i; II/2), che parte dalle iniziali esperienze poetiche di Lermontov, inserite a suo tempo come Dubia nelle opere complete ma successivamente tolte. A dimostrazione della paternità delle sue poesie giovanili, la studiosa traccia il percorso che porta Lermontov dall'almanacco Cefej, edito dal circolo di Semen E. Raie, fautore della scuola preromantica di Jena (in opposizione al "neo petrarchismo" di tradizione italiana), all'Istituto moscovita dei nobili (Moskovskij blagorodnyj pansion) negli anni 18291832. In questo periodo le dispute tra i seguaci della scuola di Jena e del neoclassicismo petrarchesco influenzano la sua poesia, anche se risulta evidente l'eco delle idee di Wilhelm Heinrich Wackenroder, teorico con i fratelli Schlegel della scuola di Vienna. Solo nell'ambito dell'Isti-tuto Lermontov si sarebbe potuto confrontare con le diverse tendenze (neo)romantiche, dalle quali avrebbe in seguito elaborato una propria poetica, autonoma rispetto alle dispute in atto. L'influenza della filosofia come motore evolutivo nella poesia di Coleridge viene indagata da Eka-terina P. Zykova (I/3-4) che, tracciato il percorso del poeta inglese da Locke e Spinoza a Kant e Schelling, conduce Coleridge a una feconda conciliazione tra il mondo spiritualizzato delle natura (Spinoza) e la libertà morale dell'individuo (Kant). L'evoluzione del concetto di stile poetico è al centro dell'attenzione del saggio di Irina I. Burova e Zhang Zizhu (II/2), dove la categoria letteraria dello stile (magistralmente studiata, a suo tempo, da Viktor V. Vinogradov) viene raffrontata con
283
IVAN VERÉ ► Ritorno alla filologia
l'opera The Arte of English Poesie (1589), attribuita a G. Puttenham, e con il trattato-poema Epithalamion (1595) di Edmund Spenser. In entrambi,
10	stile é inteso come armoniosa combinazione di elementi eterogenei (letteratura, música, pittura, architettura), tratto specifico decisivo anche per la fortuna delle traduzioni russe e cinesi del poema di Spenser. Elena V. Chaltrin-Chalturina (I/3-4) esamina le figure allegoriche del poema The Faerie Queene (1590-1596) di Edmund Spenser secondo le interpretazioni piu recenti su "simbolo" e "allegoria" di A.F. Losev e S.S. Averincev. Anche in questo caso la funzione di dire qualcosa "in altro modo" (allegoria, personificazioni, immagine, metafora e mito) si diversifica in una combinazione omogenea che solo molti secoli dopo verra superata dalla poetica del romanticismo. Il mutare di uno stesso tema dominante emerge dal confronto, proposto da Tat'jana Krasavcenko (II/3), tra la poesia di Edward James Hughes (1930-1998) e di Thomas Stearns Eliot (1888-1965) nel loro rapporto con il tema della natura. Solo Huges (poeta inglese) mantiene intatto fino alla fine tale rapporto, mentre l'anglo-americano Eliot sembra orientarsi verso la modernita "urbana". Del passaggio dalla letteratura didattica alla letteratura d'in-venzione si occupa Irina Karlovna Staf (II/4), che analizza il trattato LArchiloge Sophie, qui parle de lamour de sapience (ca. 1400) di Jacques Legrand nel suo rapporto con la narrativa didattico-morale, rappre-sentata da Boccaccio (Genealogia degli dei) e da Ovidio (Le metamorfosi). Nella poetrie di Legrand lo spazio autonomo dell'invenzione favorisce
11	distacco dai modelli educativi di tradizione biblica. Levoluzione della letteratura tedesca e austriaca nei periodi di transizione é trattata da V. Kudravceva (II/3), che individua alcuni spostamenti significativi nel periodo transitorio tra la fine del XIX e l'inizio del XX secolo, mentre Vasilij M. Tolmacev (II/3) legge i Buddenbrook di Thomas Mann come romanzo sulla fine del rinascimento letterario tedesco e i racconti Tonio
284
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Kröger (1903) e Morte a Venezia (1912) come movimento verso l'ambiva-lenza dell'artista contemporáneo. Alla A. Strel'nikova dedica due articoli (I/3-4, II/2) all'evoluzione del teatro austriaco nello stesso periodo di transizione. Attorno al gruppo della "Giovane Vienna" (H. Bahr, Schnitzler, Hofmannsthal), il teatro, che suscito molto interesse anche in Russia (Blok, Tairov), si manifesta come evento culturale e artistico, come metafora della vita, in opposizione agli ipocriti salotti viennesi. Già negli autori austriaci del XIX secolo (A. Stifter, F. von Saar, P. Ro-segger, M. G. Saphir) le forme del teatro (maschere, palcoscenico, si-pario) sono costitutive del mondo della finzione letteraria. In virtù del rinnovato ruolo della cultura teatrale nella Vienna di fine e inizio secolo sarà resa possibile anche la transizione verso la letteratura austriaca moderna. La riscoperta del ruolo dell'infanzia come fonte originale del futuro artista nella letteratura austriaca moderna è il tema dell'articolo di Vera V. Kotelevskaja (II/4). Lo sviluppo dell'idea neo-romantica dell'infanzia e la sua concettualizzazione come "altro" perduto, che solo l'arte puo recuperare, trova piena espressione nel romanzo Die Aufzeichnungen des Malte Laurids Brigge (1910) di Rainer Maria Rilke. Anastasija V. Golubcova (I/1-2) offre una riflessione sul periodo di transizione della letteratura italiana a cavallo dei secoli XIX e XX°, riscon-trando nelle opere degli scapigliati, dei veristi, di D'Annunzio, Pirandello, Carducci, Capuana e dei futuristi un fine comune: il tentativo di superare l'arretratezza culturale italiana per riportarla nell'alveo europeo. Della transizione tra tradizione e modernità nella poesia del poeta tataro R. Achmetzjanov (1935-2008) tratta l'articolo di Venera R. Amineva (I/3-4). L'analisi delle sue poesie (anni '60 e '80), avvalendosi anche degli studi di studiosi e teorici della poesia, come Anna Han e Aage A. Hansen-Löwe, rivela un diverso rapporto tra l'io lirico e l'og-getto della rappresentazione poetica. Anche in considerazione del ruolo
285
IVAN VERÉ ► Ritorno alla filologia
fondamentale della poesia russa del Novecento, viene alla luce un nuovo rapporto tra uomo e donna, dialogico (Bachtin), diverso dalla tradizione tatara. Secondo Jurij Girin (I/3-4), la transizione tra modernità e avan-guardia non segnerebbe un'insanabile rottura tra le opposte tendenze, perché la ricerca dell'Assoluto, a parere del ricercatore, sembrerebbe essere il filo conduttore di tutta l'esperienza dell'avanguardia europea dei primi decenni del XX secolo. Infine, la trasformazione della cultura popolare in vari periodi della storia russa viene trattata da Ekaterina A. Dorochova (II/4). La cultura popolare, per sua natura conservativa, si adatta al pragmatismo della storia (collettivizzazione degli anni '20 e '30, il periodo sovietico, la seconda guerra mondiale, la fine dei kolchoz, la tragedia di Cernobyl', il risveglio della sensibilità ecologica), recuperando, di volta in volta, i propri elementi fondativi.
LETTERATURA, SOCIETA E POTERE POLITICO
Tra i temi classici degli studi filologici un posto particolare spetta alle ricerche sul rapporto tra letteratura, società e potere politico. Tale rapporto puo essere conflittuale con conseguenti interventi censori e autocensori, puo essere mascherato e riportato alla luce con ricerche darchivio e puo essere fonte di letture alternative rispetto ai processi storici in atto. Anche se il conflitto tra potere e letteratura si riscontra in diversi momenti della storia russa, il maggior numero di articoli riguarda il periodo sovietico.
Censure e autocensure. Il contributo di Ol'ga A. Kraseninnikova (I/1-2) si occupa della pubblicazione di un pamphlet anonimo del 1732 (Pod-metnoe pis'mo 1732 goda), che durante il regno (1730-1740) della zarina Anna Ivanovna ebbe grande risonanza per le critiche mosse alla politica della Chiesa e all'eccessiva influenza straniera. Fu istituita un'apposita
286
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
commissione d'inchiesta (Resilovskoe delo) che porto alla condanna di molte persone innocenti. Igor' A. Vinogradov (I/1-2) indaga sui rapporti tra Nicola I e N.V. Gogol'. Lo zar fu suo lettore, sostenitore e censore, pas-sando da padre benevolo (con elargizioni, premi e favori) a padre critico (per esempio, nei confronti de Il matrimonio). Gogol' si rivolse spesso a lui per avere il sostegno alla pubblicazione delle sue opere, prima che queste passassero il vaglio della censura. Dopo la morte di Gogol', Nicola I diede pieno appoggio alla pubblicazione delle sue opere. Maksim L. Fedorov (II/3) osserva il mutare degli interventi censori in merito alla pièce di Dem'jan Bednyj Bogatyri. Inizialmente in perfetta sintonia con la tendenza "atea" della cultura ufficiale del tempo, la sua satira nei confronti del cristianesimo, dei bogatyri e del principe Vladimir fu in seguito considerata poco opportuna dalla censura sovietica. Negli anni '30 lo spettacolo fu tolto dalle scene e il regista Tairov e Dem'jan Bednyj persero il sostegno politico. Ogni nuova congiuntura storica doveva applicarsi anche ai testi scritti in precedenza. Cosí, per esempio, Anna S. Akimova (I/3-4) indaga sulle correzioni che nel 1944-1945 Aleksej Tolstoj fece sul I volume del romanzo Pietro il Grande (successivamente inserite nelle Opere complete del 1946-1953). Nella versione "rivista" fu-rono tolti alcuni "momenti sbagliati" (riferimenti positivi ai tedeschi, l'eccessivo carattere violento di Pietro, trasformato, per l'occasione, in milostivyj car'). Le vicissitudini del progetto di Gor'kij (1931) di pubblicare una collana sui presunti cambiamenti, avvenuti nelle singole realtà urbane, sono il tema del contributo di Dar'ja S. Moskovskaja (I/1-2). Le "brigate degli scrittori" avrebbero dovuto magnificare la dissoluzione della vita urbana borghese e mercantile, ma il tutto si risolse nel suo opposto, ovvero in una rinnovata coscienza "provinciale", poco adatta alle necessità del tempo. Cio che emergeva dagli scritti delle "brigate" (Anciferov, Zolotarev) era decisamente diverso rispetto alle attese e il
287
IVAN VERÉ ► Ritorno alla filologia
progetto fu annullato. Il vero volto delle "città" usciva dalle pagine dei testi censurati (Bulgakov, Il maestro e Margherita; Platonov, Lo sterro; Dobycin, La città di Enne; Vaginov, Garpagoniada). Dar'ja S. Moskovskaja (II/3) ricostruisce le fortune dell'opera teatrale Vysokoe naprjazenie di Andrej Platonov. Dopo la stroncatura di Vprok, scritto nello stesso anno (1931), Platonov tenta di adeguarsi ai dettami della "letteratura produt-tiva", trasferendo una storia d'amore in una fabbrica metallurgica. In sintonia con le direttive della RAPP, che invitava gli scrittori a superare (dognat' i peregnat') non un "qualunque Pil'njak", ma Shakespeare, dagli operai sovietici "concreti e vivi" della pièce emergono le figure delle tragedie shakespeariane (un Otello proletario, un Amleto sovietico, un komsomolec Romeo, un intelligent Laerte). La "shakespearizzazione" dei lavoratori d'assalto (udarniki) del primo piano quinquennale non fu apprezzata e la pièce fu pubblicata solo negli anni '80 (come gran parte delle sue opere). Sempre con una "brigata di scrittori" Platonov fu mandato da Gor'kij in Asia centrale (1934 e 1935) per preparare una pub-blicazione collettiva in occasione del X anniversario della costituzione della Turkmenia sovietica. Da questa esperienza nacque il racconto Dzan, anch'esso pubblicato solo negli anni '60. Delle sue tematiche e delle difficoltà della traduzione (sottolineate già da Brodskij), si occupa Robert Chandler (II/1), suo traduttore in inglese.
Ricerche d'archivio. Dalle carte del Vserossijskoe obscestvo krestjans-kich pistelej (1925-1930) emergono le direttive del Partito in merito alla necessità di "decontadinizzare" la società rurale del tempo. Elena A. Papkova (I/3-4) osserva come, da un primo invito di tipo "pedagogico", si passi velocemente alla condanna di poeti come Esenin (cantore della Rus', suicida nel 1925) e Kljuev (fucilato nel 1937), colpevole, secon-do il pensiero dominante, di opporsi alle politiche agricole del tempo (la collettivizzazione forzata). La stessa studiosa (II/4), sulla base di
288
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
un'analisi comparativa e su materiali d'archivio, ricostruisce il rapporto ambivalente di Vsevolod Ivanov nei confronti delle forze straniere in aiuto alle forze antibolsceviche del generale Kolcak nella guerra civile. Con l'intento di restituire alla nuova Russia-Urss il ruolo di potenza mondiale e memore dell'alleanza nella prima guerra mondiale, Ivanov tende a non inimicarsi troppo le potenze americane, inglesi, francesi e giapponesi. Da questi giudizi oscillanti derivano anche le modifiche alla stesura iniziale del Treno blindato 14-69 (1922) e alle successive sceneggiature. Su materiali d'archivio Galina Voroncova (II/4) ricostruisce la storia del gruppo di Nestor Machno nella guerra civile e l'episodio della fucilazione dell'atamano A. Grigor'ev da parte del suo gruppo nel 1919. Dalla ricerca emergono le incongruenze tra la verità storica e quanto descritto da Aleksej Tolstoj nella trilogia Chozdenie po mukam (1921-1941). Ol'ga V. Bystrova (II/4) studia la storia del progetto di Gork'ij per una collana sulla Storia della guerra civile (1929-1930). La collana, concepita per un'ampia platea di lettori, avrebbe dovuto avva-lersi della collaborazione di scrittori professionisti, attivi nella guerra civile. Dai materiali d'archivio risulta che solo il primo volume (1935) corrisponde all'impostazione iniziale di Gor'kij, mentre gli altri quattro, usciti dopo la sua morte, si discostano dal progetto iniziale. Rafael Carrión Arias (I/3-4) ha ritrovato negli archivi dell'Istituto Gor'kij un saggio del poeta spagnolo antifascista Manuel Altolaguirre sulla figura di Federico Garcia Lorca. Altolaguirre scrisse in realtà due varianti del saggio (1937), una per il lettore spagnolo e l'altra per il lettore sovietico. Sempre dall'archivio Gor'kij, Marina A. Arias-Vichil' (II/1) recupera un articolo del 1924 del giornalista Michail Pervuchin (Russkie na Kapri), dove viene ricostruita la storia dell'emigrazione russa sull'isola di Capri dal 1906 al 1913. La ricercatrice pone l'accento sul fatto che Gor'kij, al suo arrivo, trasformó la colonia russa in un circolo esclusivamente
289
IVAN VERÉ ► Ritorno alla filologia
político, trascurando completamente l'aspetto ambientale e la cultura umanistica dell'isola. Alle ricerche d'archivio di Alessandro Farsetti (I/1-2) è dovuta la pubblicazione di un'inedita poesia-acrostico di I.A. Aksenov (1918). Dall'analisi del linguaggio poetico e dall'intertestua-lità emergono lo smarrimento di fronte al "terrore rosso" del 1918 e la speranza di un ritorno alla vita normale. Negli anni '30 e '40 l'Istituto per le Letterature del mondo (Institut mirovoj literatury) cerco di risi-stemare e trasferire in sedi diverse i molti manoscritti arabi, persiani e turchi (anche in funzione del costituirsi delle repubbliche sovietiche), provenienti dai depositi della società Meždunarodnaja kniga, istituita nel 1923. Il'ja V. Zajcev (I/1-2) propone una sistemazione definitiva dei materiali, collocati in sedi diverse.
Letture alternative. Negli anni dal 1914 al 1920 O.E. Mandelstam ave-va tradotto il drammaturgo francese Jean Racine. Marija Ju. Ignat'eva (II/3) pone l'accento sull'analogia tra il "sole nero" di Fedra e la morte dell'artista di fronte ai tragici cambiamenti in atto. Ol'ga A. Bogdanova (II/2) legge il romanzo di D.S. Merežkovskij 14 dicembre (1918) come ri-flessione speculare tra la rivoluzione decabrista e quella bolscevica. La "bestia" è diventato il popolo russo (narod), spaccato dalla rivoluzione del 1917, mentre il seme fecondo della rinascita va ricercato nella "terra" (zemlja), intesa come Russia in sé. I dubbi di Gor'kij in merito a una nuova visione umanistica dopo la rivoluzione e la guerra civile vengono trattati da Natal'ja N. Primočkina (I/1-2). Il saggio A.A. Blok (1923) di Gor'kij trae origine dalla relazione di Blok Heine in Russia (1919), letta durante una riunione della redazione della casa editrice Vsemirnaja literatura, dove Gor'kij organizzo un seminario apposito sul tema. Da quelle discussioni ebbe origine il famoso articolo Krušenie gumanizma di Blok dello stesso anno.
290
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
LETTERATURA RUSSA PRIMA E DOPO L'URSS
I non molti studi sulla letteratura russa in periodi non-sovietici sono dedicati ai circoli letterari e al pensiero massonico del XVIII secolo, a Nikolaj V. Gogol' e a Lev N. Tolstoj, al simbolismo russo e, in un unico caso, alla letteratura contemporanea.
Circoli letterari e pensiero massonico. Natal'ja D. Bludilina (I/1-2) indaga sui rapporti di M.M. Cheraskov con il pensiero massonico, con i poeti del tempo (Sumarokov, Nartov, Rzevskij, A. e S. Naryskin, Anickov, Bulgakov, Majkov, Bogdanovic), con il circolo letterario moscovita e, in modo particolare, con i giornali letterari del 1760, dove vengono pubblicate anche le traduzioni di importanti pensatori coevi (Montaigne, Fontenelle, Voltaire, Dodsley, Gellert). Per il circolo moscovita l'illuminismo e il "cammino della ragione" (putesestvie razuma) furono intesi in primo luogo come realizzazione della massima "conosci te stesso" (samopoznanie) e come percorso verso l'autoperfezionamento (samosoversenstvovanie).
Gogol'. Igor' A. Vinogradov (2/4) studia la distanza di Gogol' dalla corrente occidentalista dello slavofilismo. Le varie posizioni slavofile (il decreto del ministro Uvarov sull'obbligo dell'insegnamento universitario della storia e della letteratura dei popoli slavi, la conferenza di Mickiewicz a Parigi al Collège de France, la posizione polacca sull'ori-gine "turanica" dei russi) sono il "filo rosso" che lega in una continuità omogenea gli scritti di Gogol'. Ekaterina G. Paderina (II/2) ritorna sulla datazione della commedia II processo (incompiuta) come parte dell'opera teatrale Il Vladimiro di terzo grado, pubblicata nelle Opere del 1842. La studiosa data Il processo nel marzo del 1840, basandosi sulla diversità del discorso pragmatico nelle memorie di Sergej T. Aksakov e Ivan I. Panaev (fonte primaria per la datazione). Jurij V. Mann (I/1-2) pone il
291
IVAN VERÉ ► Ritorno alla filologia
problema di un'edizione rivista e ampliata delle Opere complete di Gogol' (Polnoe sobranie socinenij i pisem v 23 tt. Moskva, IMLI RAN 2003), in considerazione della necessita di inserire anche cio che, in altri tempi, non veniva considerato come materiale pertinente all'opera di Gogol'.
Tolstoj. Irina I. Sizova (I/3-4) ricostruisce le ragioni per le quali la prima opera per il teatro popolare di Lev Tolstoj, Il primo distillatore (Pervyj vinokur, 1886), non ebbe repliche dopo l'iniziale rappresenta-zione nel villaggio di Aleksandrovskoe. Le rappresentazioni, dirette da V.G. Certkov nei teatri provvisori delle piazze (balagan), fallirono per motivi tecnici, dovuti alla difficolta della messa in scena degli elementi simbolici (il diavolo, l'inferno).
Il simbolismo russo. Magnus Ljunggren (II/3) si occupa della con-versione al cattolicesimo di Lev L. Kobylinskij (Ellis). Dopo la sua emi-grazione a Locarno nel 1911, Ellis é alla ricerca di una conciliazione tra cattolicesimo e ortodossia, cultura e religione, oriente e occidente. La sua conversione va ascritta, secondo il ricercatore, all'influenza che sulla scelta ebbe la medium olandese Johanna van der Meulen, incontrata nei circoli steineriani. Ljunggren (II/1) tratta anche del tema della morte e della resurrezione in A. Belyj e fa risalire il suo an-ti-urbanesimo (le immagini negative di Mosca e Pietroburgo) non solo all'Apocalisse di Giovanni, ma anche alla Grande Apocalisse di Isaia, con particolare riferimento alla distruzione della citta depravata. La visione spirituale del mondo é al centro dello studio di Andrej L. To-porkov (I/3-4). Nell'ambito dei duchovnye stichi di Vjaceslav Ivanov, egli si sofferma sulla poesia Stich o Svjatoj Gore (1910) e sul ruolo dei lemmi svet/svjat e videt'/vedat', fondanti per la sua produzione successiva. Del simbolismo floreale di Innokentij F. Annenskij scrive Natal'ja V. Nalegac (II/2). Le diverse combinazioni, legate alla semantica floreale e allo spazio comune del simbolismo russo ed europeo, consentono al poeta
292
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
10	sviluppo di diversi temi poetici (dalla realta del quotidiano aliarte e alla trascendenza). Lena Szilard (I/3-4) analizza la natura mistica dei simboli nel dramma Roza i krest' (1912-1913) di A. Blok e sposta la scelta cronotopica del testo dal periodo tedesco del luteranesimo (come indicato in molti lavori specialistici) all'eresia catara degli Albigesi, piu consona all'aspetto contrappuntistico, ambivalente e bipolare del dramma. Al "giovane simbolista" (mladosimvolist, secondo Vjač. Ivanov) Nikolaj V. Nedobrovo (1882-1919) e alla reciproca stima e affetto per Anna Achmatova (della quale, in un lungo articolo del 1915, recensi le raccolte Večer e Četki) é dedicato lo studio di Aleksandr V. Markov (II/4). Nell'ultimo verso della poesia E.M.M. (1913), Nedobrovo inserisce
11	nome del pittore della scuola senese Giovanni Antonio Bazzi, detto Il Sodoma (1477-1539). Markov interpreta questo dettaglio come con-ferma dell'ambivalenza dell'immagine della Achmatova e della stessa relazione con Nedobrovo (seria e auto-ironica). Nedobrovo riprende il racconto del Vasari (oggi contestato) sul soprannome del Bazzi, voluta-mente e orgogliosamente portato dal pittore presumibilmente omoses-suale, che pero poco avrebbe a che fare con la "sodomia" (sarebbe solo la toscanizzazione di un modo di dire piemontese: su, nduma! = orsu, andiamo!). Si trattava, in sostanza, di uno "scherzo", ironia e parodia di se stesso, di un riferimento a una realta "oltre lo specchio" (zazerkale) che contraddistingue l'esistenza di Anna Achmatova.
Letteratura russa contemporanea. Un solo articolo si confronta con la letteratura russa contemporanea. Zsófia Kalavszky (II/3) pone l'atten-zione su due saggi di Andrej Bitov (Poslednij tekst e Špaga ščekotlivogo dvorjanina), nei quali il culto di Puškin viene osservato attraverso il mutamento di meccanismi narrativi e retorici. La storia della ricezione puškiniana é, per Bitov, la storia del continuo intrecciarsi tra il discorso "storico-scientifico" e quello letterario.
293
IVAN VERÉ ► Ritorno alla filologia
MEMORIA, LETTERATURA E IDENTITA NAZIONALE
Il ruolo della memoria e della letteratura nel costituirsi dell'identità, sia personale che collettiva (nazionale), viene affrontato da diversi punti di vista. L'autoidentificazione è un processo che richiede riflessione e rap-porto critico con il passato. Puo essere contraddittorio e non omologabile nei parametri classici dell'identità nazionale e puo fungere da stimolo per il recupero di una tradizione dimenticata.
Letteratura, identità e memoria. Kazbek K. Sultanov (I/1-2) si dissocia dai parallelismi tra l'interpretazione del passato, fattore dominante del processo di autoidentificazione, e il tradizionalismo nostalgico. Il "passato non vissuto" (neizzitoe prosloe) e l'"uomo che ricorda" (celovek vospominajuscij) hanno assunto una funzione dominante nelle letterature dei popoli della Federazione russa. Se, da un lato, la memoria recupera i segni culturali del passato, dall'altro corre il rischio di tramutarsi in una "retrospettiva massimalista" (retrospektivnyj maksimalizm), orientata più verso i traumi del passato che non verso una proiezione sul futuro. Julija G. Hazankovic (II/2) utilizza il "cronotopo" di Bachtin come chiave di lettura per "aprire la porta" alla comprensione delle identità culturali delle letterature dei popoli della Siberia settentrionale. Pur in contatto con la letteratura russa, le differenze nella cronotopia riguardano la vita nomade, il rapporto uomo/donna, la strada, il cacciatore, il vecchio. La visione mitologica del mondo si configura come base della creazione artistica. L'identità nazionale e culturale buriata è il tema del saggio di Elizaveta E. Baldanmaksarova (II/4). La conoscenza e la valorizzazione del poema in forma di epistola Il testamento (1927), scritto in lingua antico-mongola e indirizzato agli uomini del XXI secolodal filosofo e scienziato XII Pandito Hambo-Lama Dashidorzhi Itigelov (guida spirituale dei buriati prima del 1917), puo essere per il popolo buriato un passo importante per il recupero
294
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
della propria tradizione religiosa (buddista) e culturale. A cavallo tra il XIX e XX secolo, nelle letterature delle popolazioni turca e tatara, inserite nell'impero russo, emerge un evidente conflitto tra vecchio e nuovo. Al'fina T. Sibgatullina (II/2) studia lo scontro tra occidentalizzazione e tradizione negli scrittori del tempo. Entrano i gioco principi morali e valoriali, la religione e il rapporto uomo/donna. I personaggi letterari sono ambivalenti, non pienamente inseriti nel modello culturale occidentale, ma nemmeno del tutto esclusi dal modello di tradizione islamica.
Letteratura e contraddizioni dell'identità nazionale. Essere "inglese" o "anglofono", "francese" o "francofono", "italiano" o "italofono" (come pure "russo" o "russofono") sono cose diverse. Al problema è dedicato l'articolo di Vladimir D. Sedel'nik (I/1-2). Basandosi sugli studi del com-parativista D. Durisin, egli propone un'indagine sul concetto di identità nelle letterature della Svizzera. Dallo studio emerge non solo un positivo interagire tra le culture presenti sul territorio, ma anche una situazione conflittuale con le rispettive letterature nazionali (francese, tedesca e italiana) e, spesso, un senso di dolorosa estraneità degli scrittori "svizze-ri" alle letterature cosiddette "nazionali". Un simile senso di estraneità alla cultura nazionale fu percepito anche dai tedeschi del Volga che, dopo la dissoluzione dell'Urss, si trasferirono in massa in Germania (la popolazione dei tedeschi del Volga diminuí di 7 volte). Lo studio di Tat'jana V. Goven'ko (I/1-2), dopo una panoramica sulla loro storia, dal Manifesto della zarina Elisabetta II (1762) alle discriminazioni in rela-zione alla prima e alla seconda guerra mondiale ("nemici interni"), si sofferma sul problema dell'identità nazionale che, secondo parametri consolidati (ottocenteschi), dovrebbe basarsi sulla lingua. L'estraneità dei tedeschi del Volga rispetto all'identità nazionale in Germania deriva da un'identità linguistica solo "ereditata" e avulsa dal suo sviluppo nella patria d'origine.
295
IVAN VERÉ ► Ritorno alla filologia
Letteratura e identità nazionale ucraina e bielorussa. Dello scrittore ucraino Jaroslav Mel'nik si occupa Jurij Ja. Barabas (I/1-2). Dopo una lunga emigrazione, Mel'nik si è completamente inserito nella nuova letteratura ucraina. Il rapporto con l'identità nazionale viene subor-dinato dallo scrittore a un principio umanistico generale, dove non c'è posto né per totalitarismi, né per passive accettazioni di fattori esterni, spesso inconsapevolmente importati. Il sentimento di appartenen-za nazionale e i valori della tradizione umanistica europea sono per Mel'nik due facce della stessa medaglia. Le tendenza all'autoriflessione letteraria come momento fondante per l'affermazione di una coscienza sociale e nazionale bielorussa dell'inizio del XX secolo viene descritta da Evgenij A. Gorodnickij (II/1). Di particolare interesse è la risposta, in forma di parabola (Apokrif, 1913), che il poeta bielorusso Maksim Bogdanovic (1891-1917) diede in merito a una celebre disputa del 1913 sul rapporto tra vita e arte. In molti autori bielorussi dell'inizio secolo (Janka Kupala, 1882-1942; Jakub Kolas, 1882-1956; lo stesso Bogdanovic) tale rapporto risulta inscindibile.
Letteratura e identità nazionale in altri paesi europei. Elena Ju. Sa-prykina (II/1) legge Le ultime lettere di Jacopo Ortis di Ugo Foscolo e Le mie prigioni di Silvio Pellico come risposta individuale alle tendenze risorgimentali italiane collettive. A partire dalle potenzialità insiste nell'animo, nella ragione, nella fede nella Provvidenza e, non ultimo, nella scelta consapevole della morte, l'individuo sofferente (Pellico) e infelice (Foscolo) si rivela come campo fecondo per l'affermazione dell'orgoglio personale e collettivo (nazionale). A partire dall'anno 1000 le identità nazionali danesi, norvegesi e svedesi presentano molte affinità. Nello studio di Alfred A. Macevic (I/1-2) viene trattato il tentativo da-nese di costituire una supremazia politica sul territorio scandinavo e la progressiva riscoperta, a cavallo tra il XIX e il XX secolo, delle singole
296
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
tradizioni culturali autoctone, in risposta, specie nelle zone rurali, alla crescente industrializzazione e urbanizzazione della regione. Il problema delYidentità nazionale islandese viene studiata da Andrej V. Korovin (I/1-2), sia come produzione letteraria autoctona, sia come let-teratura, prodotta da scrittori islandesi, emigrati negli U.S.A. La lingua, parametro imprescindibile dell'identità nazionale, risulta secondaria rispetto al sentimento di appartenenza culturale alla tradizione autoctona islandese. Il lettore islandese dell'isola considera i testi, scritti in lingua inglese, come parte integrante ("inclusiva") della letteratura islandese nel suo complesso. Di tipo "esclusivo" è invece il concetto di identità nazionale francese nello scrittore Maurice Barrès, del quale Vera V. Servasidze (I/1-2) percorre la vita artistica e politica. Da un iniziale individualismo (Le Culte du moi, 1888-1891), Barrès passa su posizioni nazionalistiche e antisemite (affare Dreyfus), specialmente durante la prima guerra mondiale (fu soprannominato "l'usignolo dei massacri"). Secondo la ricercatrice, il culto della tradizione ancestrale va visto come negazione del culto individualista giovanile e come tensione collettiva verso la rinascita morale di una nazione.
LA RUSSIA E GLI ALTRI
Gli altri con gli occhi della Russia. Nel trattato Lo spirito delle leggi (1748) Montesquieu parla di una Russia dispotica e servile. Ekaterina Vasil'eva (II/4) mette a confronto alcune reazioni russe al giudizio di Montesquieu: Frederic Henri Strube de Piermont, tedesco di origine, già segretario di Biron, favorito della zarina Anna Ivanovna e reggente dopo la sua morte, pubblica nel 1760 le Lettres russienes, dove polemizza con il filosofo francese per il suo giudizio sprezzante; Michail M. Scerbatov, da storico, auspica una riflessione sulla reale situazione della Russia; Caterina
297
IVAN VERÉ ► Ritorno alla filologia
II si pone in una posizione ambivalente tra gli ideali illuministici e il ruolo di governo del monarca. A dimostrazione che la lettura è, di norma, subordinata all'orizzonta d'attesa del lettore (ufficiale e non), Ekaterina A. Stacenko (II/2; II/3) studia la ricezione dello scrittore americano Mark Twain nella Russia negli anni 1872-1916. Si passa dal "puro umorista" al "grande scrittore" e "moralista", fino alla censura dei suoi testi anti-monarchici e anti-imperialisti.
La Russia con gli occhi degli altri. Lo studio di Marianna V. Kaplun (II/4) restituisce alla memoria uno spaccato di vita russa dell'ultimo terzo del XVII secolo, come emerge da una composizione in versi (1667) di Johann Gottfried Gregory, pastore luterano, maestro, coordinatore e regista del primo teatro di corte russo (1672). Nel testo, scritto in tedesco, la prima parte è dedicata alla quotidianità della vita russa e ri-prende in buona parte il lavoro di Adam Olearius (Ölschläger) Ausführliche Beschreibung der kundbaren Reyse Nach Muscow und Persien (1663), mentre la seconda è un omaggio allo zar Alessio I, suo sostenitore e protettore. Significativo il fatto che il componimento fu pubblicato per la prima volta nel 1898 in un volume sugli "stranieri amici" del XVII secolo(lnostranec-dobrozelatel' v Rossii vXVIIstoletii). Iwona Sakovicz (I/1-2) si occupa delle memorie e degli appunti di viaggio dei pochi visitatori britannici in Russia nel periodo di Alessandro II (1855-1881). Da un lato viene moderatamente apprezzato il livello culturale della nobiltà, dall'altro, invece, si insiste molto sull'arretratezza di un paese dispotico e barbaro. La convinzione del carattere "pigro e servile" della popolazione russa, specialmente negli strati sociali più bassi, non cam-bierà fino alla fine del secolo (ma di carattere "passivo" e "servile" dei russi, all'inizio del XX secolo, parleranno anche Rozanov e Berdjaev). Il ruolo subalterno della ricezione all'orizzonte d'attesa viene confer-mato da Anastasija V. Golubcova (II/3), che indaga sulla ricezione di
298
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Puškin in Italia nel XIX secolo. La lettura italiana è strumentale (poeta nazionale), finalizzata alle necessità della cultura italiana di trovare un'identità comune. Dopo l'unità d'Italia, due opere (Valentino Carrera, Alessandro Pouchkine, 1865; Pietro Cossa, Puschin, 1876) orientano la ricezione di Puškin verso il byronismo romantico. Nell'articolo di Natal'ja Ju. Charitonova (I/3-4) viene trattata la ricezione del libro Retour de l'U.R.S.S. di André Gide (1937). La sua pubblicazione in Francia fu accompagnata da una serie di pubbliche accuse sui giornali sovietici e da molte discussioni all'interno del partito (il testo fu tradotto ad esclusivo uso interno), ma il successo del libro, non solo in Francia, dimostra il fallimento della diplomazia culturale sovietica fuori dai propri confini statali. Tat'jana Jukic (II/2) studia il film Ninočka di Ernst Lubitsch (1939) e il ruolo della sovietica rivoluzionaria, assegnato a Greta Garbo. Anche se il modello, al quale Lubitsch si ispira, è Anna Karenina, l'aggiunta di una patina affettiva e melanconica si piega ai canoni del cinema hollywoodiano. Negli ultimi decenni, una fortuna particolare ha avuto negli U.S.A. il reportage di viaggio L'isola di Sachalin di Anton P. Čechov (1895). L'articolo di Evgenija M. Butenina (II/4) si sofferma sulla sua ricezione e diffusione nella formazione deonto-logica dei futuri medici statunitensi, diventando non solo un testo di riferimento etico, ma anche modello per chi volesse intraprendere la strada del medico-scrittore.
TEORIA E STORIA LETTERARIA
Il dialogo, a tutt'oggi fecondo, tra teoria letteraria e filosofia, trova con-ferma in due articoli che, in vario modo, affrontano il problema del rapporto tra l'io e l'altro. Aleksandr Belarev (II/4) confronta il concetto di lico in Aleksej A. Uchtomskij (1875-1942) e di visage in Emmanuel
299
IVAN VERÉ ► Ritorno alla filologia
Lévinas (1906-1995). Il filosofo francese utilizza la polisemia del lemma francese (viso, faccia, apparenza, sguardo), mentre Uchtomskij si interroga sul doppio significato del lemma russo (volto, persona). In entrambi i filosofi la semantica dei rispettivi lemmi va rapporta-ta direttamente alla dimensione etica, fondamento filosofico primo della personalita. Per Lévinas visage é un evento unico, assimetrico, imprescindibile nel rapporto io/altro, per Uchtomskij lico racchiude in sé, con la fisionomia individuale, il carattere di una personalita unica e irripetibile. L'incontro con l'altro é per entrambi la manife-stazione quotidiana, non scontata, dell'incontro con Dio come Primo e Ultimo interlocutore. Sergej V. Sandler (I/3-4) si interroga sulla compatibilita in Bachtin tra il carnevale e la diversita tra l'io e l'al-tro. Per il ricercatore, Bachtin non considerava queste due posizioni (folla vs. individuo) come inconciliabili. Attraverso l'analisi del per-corso filosofico ed estetico di Bachtin, Sander giunge alla conclusione che, particolarmente nel trattato Lautore e l'eroe nell'attivita estetica, centrale risulti il concetto di "io per me stesso", ovvero il costituirsi dell'immagine di una personalita libera e creativa. Queste posizioni, non sempre omogenee, troverebbero conferma in tutti gli scritti di Bachtin. Dei concetti di autore e opera come categorie storiche della letterarieta, tratta Stéphane Pujol (II/1). Gia in Diderot (1713-1784) il concetto di "opera" é in primo luogo "lavoro" (ing. work), che trasfor-ma non solo le categorie di "autore" e "lettore", "testo" e "paratesto", "centro" e "periferia", ma introduce anche il parametro della "soglia", intesa come ció che precede e circonda i confini del testo. Ancora in ambito filosofico-letterario, Aleksej L. Nalepin dedica due studi sulla possibilita di unire in una riflessione omogenea letteratura e tradizione popolare. Nel primo (I/1-2) viene riproposto il pensiero filosofico e religioso di Boris P. Vyseslavec (1877-1954), per il quale il
300
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
superamento della crisi spirituale della letteratura russa dell'inizio secolo sarebbe potuta avvenire solo attraverso la valorizzazione della tradizione popolare russa come riflesso del suo carattere nazionale. Nel secondo (I/3-4) viene esaminato il lascito intellettuale e filosofico di Ivan Il'yn (1883-1954), primo pensatore russo che ha tentato di trovare una sintesi tra il pensiero filosofico dell'emigrazione e la tradizione folclorica russa come sua parte integrante. Sulle differenze tra fatto e fiction si sofferma Françoise Lavocat (I/3-4). In una prospet-tiva diacronica, comparativa e interdisciplinare (letteratura, cinema, media, giochi informatici, fumetti), la fiction, fin dal XVII secolo, non si manifesta come necessariamente avulsa dal mondo reale. Nelle sue varie manifestazioni è un fenomeno trans-storico, trans-cultu-rale e trans-mediale. La tensione verso il "mondo possibile" ha una precisa strutturazione interna e una base ontologica. All' archeologia dei media, nuova disciplina che studia i modi della comunicazione, è dedicato lo studio di Estelle Doudet (II/1), dove vengono presentate le possibilità che il nuovo metodo d'indagine potrebbe offrire per un diverso approccio alla storia letteraria come produzione e ricezione del testo. Cosí, per esempio, nel dramma allegorico francese del XV°-XVI secolo, le opere morali di orientamento didattico-religioso, grazie alle conoscenze tecniche della rappresentazione visuale, si presentano, allo stesso tempo, come mezzo e messaggio della comunicazione. Andrej F. Kofman (I/1-2) propone infine la realizzazione di un Dizionario delle correnti letterarie del XX secolo. Il problema da superare è trovare una definizione condivisa per il sintagma "corrente letteraria", contrad-dittoria negli studi russi e pragmatica nelle trattazioni occidentali. Kofman introduce il concetto di "comunità artistica", che dovrebbe porsi aldilà delle singole voci poetiche, sapendo distinguere tra le auto-affermazioni e le definizioni dei critici letterari.
301
IVAN VERÉ ► Ritorno alla filologia
problemi della traduzione
Michail Ju. Ljustrov (I/3-4) mette a confronto la ricezione della lettera-tura francese in Russia e in Svezia nel XVII secolo. Mentre le traduzioni svedesi di Étienne Pavillon (1632-1705) e di Roger de Bussy-Rabutin (1618-1693) incontrano molto interesse, in Russia la letteratura francese è praticamente assente. Ció sarebbe dovuto all'estraneità della cultura russa nei confronti dei generi più diffusi nella letteratura francese. Il successo della letteratura francese in Svezia va attribuita invece all'al-leanza franco-svedese nella guerra dei Trent'anni e alla visita delle regina Cristina a Parigi. Elena A. Gurevic (I/3-4) studia i problemi della traduzione in lingua russa della poesia scaldica del periodo dal IX alla fine del XIV° secolo. L'antica poesia norvegese (eddica o scaldica) si contraddistingue per le rigide norme (allitterazioni) e un ricco bagaglio lessicale. La tradizione eddica tende alla semplicità, quella scaldica alla complessità. Per rendere evidente la differenza, i traduttori russi hanno dovuto in primo luogo risolvere il problema della metrica ("metro corto"), dei kenning singoli e multipli (perifrasi) e della composizione in visa (stanze). Alle dispute sulla traduzione source-oriented e target-oriented è dedicato l'articolo di Nathalie R. Neiman (II/2). Le teorie traduttive del pietroburghese Vladimir E. Sor (1917-1971), sostenitore della traduzione source-oriented, in contrasto con le teorie della scuola di Mosca (Ivan A. Kaskin, 1899-1963) e, indirettamente, con il pietroburghese B.B. Vachtin (1930-1981), vennero respinte dalle maggiori riviste spe-cializzate degli anni '60. Neiman fa risalire l'ostracismo nei confronti di Sor al predominio della scuola di Mosca nell'ambito della tradutto-logia sovietica degli anni '60. Il problema della traduzione filologica si era presentato già negli anni '30. Marija E. Malikova (II/3) prende in esame le traduzioni di Adrian A. Frankovskij dei romanzi inglesi del
302
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
XVIII secolo, dove la pratica traduttiva, in opposizione alla traduzione "idealistica" (marxista), rivela il tentativo di individuare nella lingua russa non solo le particolarità sintattiche dell'inglese, ma anche una resa adeguata del discorso diretto improprio, teorizzato in Germania dal linguista Carl Vossler e in Russia da Michail M. Bachtin. Vladislav A. Rezvyj (II/3) tratta il problema della traduzione "poética". Nel 1945 Georgij A. Sengeli, nell'articolo Lo Shakespeare di Pasternak (inedito), sottopone a severa critica le traduzioni di Pasternak. Anche sulla base di analisi statistiche, Shengeli considera la traduzione di Pasternak una "falsificazione" (anche se egli stesso incorre in interpretazioni errate del testo originale), ma non considera il fine ultimo di Pasternak, quello di produrre un testo tradotto come se fosse un originale in lingua russa.
l'arte della parola e le altre arti
La tendenza a convogliare in un'unica espressione artistica forme diverse (testo, immagine, musica) non è una prerogativa del mondo contemporaneo. Aleksandr E. Machov (I/1-2) studia le funzioni di alcune specifiche figure retouche (diafora, apostrofo) nelle Passioni di Johann Sebastian Bach, che trasformano il dramma in un'espressione di gio-ia, mentre Nadège Langbour (I/3-4) si sofferma sugli scritti di Denis Diderot nella rivista Correspondance littéraire in merito alle esposizioni parigine (i Salons), riprese in seguito nel saggio Paradoxe sur le comédien (1783-1784). Come lo spettatore di fronte a un quadro, l'attore deve saper distinguere tra "emozione" e "razionalità" critica, distinzione tutt'ora alla base delle moderne teorie sul lavoro dell'attore. Una feconda collaborazione tra letteratura e pittura si ebbe a cavallo tra il XIX e il XX secolo. Del libro, inteso come oggetto estetico in sé, si occupa Natal'ja A. Drovaleva (II/2). Tra le molte edizioni dell'Angelo di fuoco (Ognennyj
303
IVAN VERÉ ► Ritorno alla filologia
angel) di Valerij Ja. Brjusov, particolare attenzione viene rivolta all'e-dizione del 1909, dove le incisioni medioevali (Faust, Mefistofele, la strega Renata, l'angelo Madiel) sono a sostegno dei ritratti verbali e sottolineano il carattere multimediale e pittoresco dei personaggi del romanzo, in contrapposizione ad alcuni stereotipi letterari e pittorici. Il confronto tra rappresentazione verbale (autobiografía, memorie) e immagine (fotografía, caricatura) incide anche sulla ricezione del lettore. Sulla base degli studi di Zinkin, Lotman, Tynjanov, Sontag e Roland Barthes, questo aspetto particolare viene affrontato da Aleksej A. Cho-likov (II/1). Nella ricezione dello scrittore D. Merezkovskij, la presunta veridicita storico-culturale del genere autobiografico e della fotografía viene distinta dalla soggettivita interpretativa delle memorie e della caricatura, piu sottoposte a un processo selettivo, all'individuazione di un "spazio" preciso della memoria. Al contributo fondamentale del materiale iconografico (fotografíe, riproduzioni) nella Letopis' zizni i tvorcestva S.A. Esenina (voll. I-V), per una migliore conoscenza della vita e delle opere di Esenin, e dedicato anche l'articolo di Maksim V. Skorochodov (II/3).
CULTURA POPOLARE
Natal'ja V. Zacharova, Vladimir L. Kljaus e Ljudmila P. Machova (II/4) analizzano il canto alla dea della fertilita nella cultura cinese, inter-pretato da un cantore cieco (registrato nel 2011) al tempio dello Spirito della montagna di Tanshan Dong Yue, nella regione Puxian. Il testo, in originale cinese nelle tre varianti di scrittura e in traduzione russa, predice il futuro di un bambino e si basa sulla tradizione del confucia-nesimo. Ljudmila V. Fadeeva (II/2) studia l'influenza dell'iconografia cristiana sull'immaginario collettivo russo, ucraino e bielorusso. Con
304
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
la frequentazione del rito litúrgico della messa (sia cattolica, sia orto-dossa), il motivo della tomba nella chiesa incide anche sulla compo-sizione dei versi spirituali Chozdenie Bogorodicy (O trech grobnicach). Elena A. Samodelova (II/3) pubblica i testi apocrifi Son Bogorodicy e Molitva archangelu Michailu, annotati negli anni 1914-1915 dal celebre etnografo Petr G. Bogatyrev (1893-1971). Egli segnalo la cospicua pre-senza della tradizione folclorica anche nei luoghi piu vicini ai centri industriali del tempo. Aleksandr V. Pigin (II/4) esamina la critica del vecchio credente Dionisij V. Batov (1825-1910) alla visione dell'aldila durante il sonno letargico (obmiranie), conosciuta grazie a un racconto sulla "donna rinata" (ozivsaja zenscina), annotato negli anni '30 del XIX secolo dall'archimandrita Makarij. A conferma dei danni perpetrati dalla Chiesa ufficiale, il vecchio credente, confortato dai testi cano-nici, considera il racconto una pura invenzione (vymysel), che non corrisponde a nessuno dei canoni ortodossi sul mytarstvo (travagli e tormenti che l'anima soffre per 40 giorni prima di essere giudicata).
VARIA
Jorg Schulte (I/3-4) propone una nuova interpretazione del mito della porta di corno (per i sogni veri) e d'avorio (per i sogni falsi) nel XIX libro dell'Odissea. Dall'analisi dei materiali (corno e avorio), legati ai miti astronomici dei tempi di Omero, viene suggerita l'ipotesi che essi rappresentino il punto piu settentrionale e quello piu meridionale del cielo. Stephen Rachman (II/2) studia la relazione tra lo scrittore e naturalista Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) e lo scrittore "romantico" Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804-1864), considerato con Edgar Allan Poe, Hermann Melville e Mark Twain tra i maggiori scrittori statunitensi dell'Ottocento. Nonostante una certa rivalita tra Thoreau e Hawthorne
305
IVAN VERÉ ► Ritorno alla filologia
(entrambi vicini alla cerchia dei trascendentalisti americani), dalle pagine dei diari di Thoreau e dalla corrispondenza di Hawthorne emerge un proficuo dialogo di reciproca stima.
***
Gli articoli, qui raggruppati per aree di ricerca omogenee, dimostra-no la vitalità degli studi sulla letteratura in Russia e la continuità di una ricchissima tradizione, recuperata e affrontata con spirito critico. Era prevedibile, dopo tanto botat' po Derride, un ritorno all'indagine filologica, anche se nessuna metodologia (pre-, post- o proto-) ha in realtà mai perso di vista l'oggetto primo della propria ricerca (la parola, ovvero la letteratura nelle sue manifestazioni sincroniche e diacro-niche). L'ha fatto solo in modi diversi. Poteva occuparsi di come un testo "funzioni", di come si "trasformi" e di come "anticipi" lo sviluppo successivo, ma, in un modo o nell'altro, si occupava di evoluzione lette-raria, poteva indagare sulla memoria, sull'identità o sul rapporto tra il sé e l'altro, ma l'oggetto della ricerca rimaneva pur sempre la cultura, Y etica e perfino la traduzione o poteva occuparsi della "ricezione" e della connessione tra le diverse forme della rappresentazione, indirizzando la ricerca verso la comprensione dei sistemi della comunicazione. Non a caso, le bibliografie di riferimento degli articoli, oltre la letteratura specialistica, ci riportano alla filosofia (Bachtin, Volosinov, Ricoeur, Spet, Florenskij, Foucault, Gadamer), ai pre-formalisti russi (Potebnja, Veselovskij), a chi li ha superati (Jakobson, Sklovskij, Tynjanov, To-masevskij, Ejchenbaum) e a chi, lungo percorsi diversi, ne ha raccolta la memoria: strutturalisti e semiologi (Lotman, Barthes, Eco, Genette, Jauss, Hansen-Lëwe), narratologi (Schmidt), grandi studiosi di poetica e di storia culturale (Lichacev, Toporov, Frejdenberg, Gurevic). Il ritorno
306
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
alla filologia non contempla l'oblio delle esperienze precedenti, e solo una memoria rivisitata. E cio che la nuova rivista russa Studia litteraria propone ai suoi lettori. $
307
IVAN VERÉ ► Ritorno alla filologia
Ivan Verč
Ivan Verč (born in Trieste, Italy, 1950), essayist and specialist of Slavic studies, full professor of Russian Language and Russian Literature at the University of Trieste (retired). The main field of his researches are theory of literature and the figure of the subject in the historical, poetological and ethical dimensions of literary works, with particular attention to Russian literature. Last works: Razumevanje jezikov književnosti, 2010; Kornevye morfemy v Evgenii Onegine A.S. Puškina, 2013; Verifiche. Preverjanja. Prover-ki, I-IV, 2016. He also published many articles in specialist reviews in U.S.A., Russia, Hungary, France, Italy and Slovenia. In 1994 he founded at the University of Trieste (Italy) the series Slavica tergestina (since 2011 published in collaboration with the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia and Konstanz, Germany). Member of the Editorial Board of the journal Slavica tergestina and of the Advisory Council of the journals Primerjalna književnost (Slovenia) and Europa Orientalis (Italy).
308
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
309
DOI - 10.13137/2283-5482/22391
Monografija o pesnici Anni A. Ahmatovi
Monograph about Poet Anna A. Akhmatova
RECENZIJA KNJIGE
neža zajc: Uvod v poetiko Anne A. Ahmatove. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 2015.
¥ Denis Poniž - denis.poniz@guest.arnes.si
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Kako je mogoče določiti in estetsko ovrednotiti kritične točke, ki predstavljajo v njenem obsežnem pesniškem opusu ne samo stalnice zapletene poetike, ampak tudi precizno zasnovane poetične prostore, iz katerih se ruska literatura odpira v evropski prostor in obratno? Je sploh mogoče razumeti vse globine njene poetične izpovedi, genialnega spoja intelektualne ostrine in čustvene senzibilnosti, ki se je oblikovala na neštetih presečiščih osebnih stisk in kolektivnih katastrof, s katerimi je bila zaznamovana njena domovina? Čeprav ni doživela tistega, kar je skusilo kakšnih 600 drugih ruskih literatov, ki so končali v stalinističnih temnicah in gulagih, pa je bila ves čas na robu, nadzorovana, njena poezija iz nerazumnih vzrokov večkrat prepovedana, ljudje, ki so se z njo družili, pa so marsikdaj doživljali represije, ki jih ni mogoče razumeti, a jih je Ahmatova upesnila na poseben, človeško pretresljiv način? A morda je prav zato poezija Anne Ahmatove tako univerzalna, ustvarjena izven ozkih časovnih determinant in ves čas kozmopolitska, intelektualno izbrušena, a tudi zapisana ruski poetični tradiciji in vsemu, kar je ruski duh ustvaril od srednjega veka naprej. Zato se smemo vprašati zakaj je njena poezija, posebej ko jo spremljamo in doživljamo v njenem razvoju ali pa opazujemo samo njene časovno omejene plasti, nekaj, kar nagovarja tako ljudi z izostrenim poetičnim okusom in občutkom za intelektualno bogastvo njenih verzov ter poznavanjem kulturnega, političnega, zgodovinskega in poetološkega ozadja njene poetike, ki je generator njenih izpovedi, kakor tudi povsem navadne ljudi, brez zapletenih teoretičnih in zgodovinskih vedenj o Anni Ahmatobvi in njenem času. O tako zapletenem in nemalokrat tudi enigmatičnem poetičnem obnebju, kot je tisto, ki nam ga je zapustila Anna A. Ahmatova, ni lahko govoriti, še težje ga je strniti v znanstvene okvire, ki metodološko oblikujejo kar se da objektivno, a vendar ne suhoparno in zgolj akribično pisanje. Zdi se, da je študija Neže Zajc primer take dobre znanstvene prakse.
311
DENIS PONIŽ ► Monografija o pesnici Anni A. Ahmatovi
Njena monografija, Uvod v poetiko Anne A. Ahmatove, je izšla v zbirki Življenja in dela/Biografske študije pri Založbi ZRC 2015, in je v vseh pogledih celovito in premišljeno zasnovano znanstveno delo, ki skuša odgovoriti na naša zastavljena vprašanja in tudi na tista nezapisana, ki se oblikujejo kot podmnožice v raziskovanju razmerja med pesnico, njeno poezijo in poetiko ter zgodovinskim in socialnim svetom, v katerem se je gibala, ne vedno po svoji volji, nemalokrat igrača samopašnega, zločinskega stalinizma, ki je brezobzirno uničeval tisto, kar je v času sovjetizacije nastajalo kot najboljše v ruski umetnosti in kulturi. Vendar pa monografija ni samo znanstveno delo, ki bi kopičilo, razporejalo, primerjalo in vrednotilo dejstva ter argumente, ampak je zasnovano na izrazitem osebnem pristopu, ki za plastmi znanstvene eksaktnosti in empirične kavzalnosti odkriva še druge, skrite plasti, skozi katere popotuje humanistična misel, da lahko prodre v samo jedro umetniškega ustvarjanja in hkrati podoživi in rekonstruira prostor, v katerem sta se oblikovala tako ustvarjalec kot tudi ustvarjena umetnina. Pri tem je treba takoj dodati: Zajčeva nikakor ne uporablja biografske metode zato, da bi preko raziskave dejstev o pesničinem življenju, njenih stikih z drugimi umetniki, s podatki o osebnem življenju, njenih prostovoljnih in prisilnih popotovanjih, reakcijah na prepovedi objavljanja, skušala interpretirati poezijo kot globinsko mentalno strukturo in estetski organizem v presečišču med jezikom in njegovimi simboli, ki so bili, kot lahko razberemo iz monografije, za Ahmatovo izjemno pomembni in so v kritičnih trenutkih njenega življenja določali njeno poetično resonanco in razmerje do drugih ljudi. Nasprotno: globinsko branje poezije, če ga smem tako imenovati, je temeljno izhodišče njene metode; biografika je zgolj ilustracija tistega gradiva, tistih mnemotehničnih in čustvenih vzgibov, ki jih Zajčeva odkriva v poeziji Anne Ahmatove. V središču njene raziskave je poezija, ta (p)osebna izpoved, ki človeka
312
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
spremlja od pradavnine in ki se zmeraj znova obnavlja iz lastnih energij, iz lasnega izničenja in ponovnega vstajenja. O ničemer v literanove-dnem opusu ni bilo napisanega toliko kot o teh vprašanjih, a zdi se, da v razumevanju poezije nismo prišli prav nič dlj kot naši predniki, da samo ponavljamo in obnavljamo stare vzorce, jih poskušamo prilagajati novim pogojem in drugačnim kulturnim danostim. A resnična poezija, ki raste iz zavesti, da je njena »moč« pravzaprav v njeni »nemoči«, njeno edino spoznanje pa je skrito v samorefleksiji, da ni mogoče sveta spremeniti ali izboljšati, se zaveda tudi svoje izvirne silovitosti, svojega »orfejstva«, ki jo ohranja tudi v najbolj mračnih in nepoetičnih časih. Nemalo takih časov je doživela tudi Ahmatova, pravzaprav smemo reči, še posebej, ko zapremo monografijo Neže Zajc, da je tako potekalo vse zrelo življenje pesnice, katere delo danes predstavlja enega največjih poetičnih »zakladov« ruske literature v dvajsetem stoletju.
Prepričan sem, da je težavnost »dešifriranja« poetičnih besedil premosorazmerna z njihovo estetsko, idejno in zgodovinsko kompleksnostjo. Bolj ko je besedilo »potopljeno« v svoj čas, bolj je tudi del nekega univerzalnega sistema vrednot in spoznanj ter tradicije, segajoče do samih začetkov evropske civilizacije. Tako pesniško besedilo se napaja iz prvinskih poetičnihizpovedi, elementarnih drobcev zgodb in mitov, opisov arhetipskih situacij in njihovih simbolov, ki jih prevaja in spreminja v konkretne pesmi in pesnitve, s tem pa jim podeljuje nove pomene in nagovarja svoje sodobnike.
Sama avtorica v Predogovoru označi svojo znansveno metodo »z dvema načeloma: 1. verodostojno vrednost nosijo predvsem najožji dokumenti same avtorice. 2. vrednotenje je zavestno zamejeno z avtoričinim pogledom na zgodovinsko obdobje (sekundarna obravnava je drugotna in sledi podrobni analizi opisanega gradiva). Preučevanje zajema rokopisno gradivo, osebna pričevanja, avtorsko korespondenco
313
DENIS PONIŽ ► Monografija o pesnici Anni A. Ahmatovi
in upošteva ruske kritične izdaje rokopisnega gradiva, ki so v tem pogledu edine veljavne, čeprav tudi to zahteva dopolnlno raziskovalčevo delo in previdnost. Upoštevala sem tiste obravnave, za katere je Anna A. Ahmatova trdila, da so nastale izpod peresa ljudi, ki so njeno poezijo dobro poznali, jo razumeli in cenili.«
S temi izhodišči in znansvenimi principi, ki so vgrajeni v tristo strani dolgo monografijo, se seveda lahko strinjamo, vendar jih velja vseeno nekoliko kritično osvetliti. Ne zato, ker ne bi »delovali« pri prikazu in podrobni interpretaciji pesničinega življenja, ki je vsekakor z neštetimi vidnimi in nevidnimi vezmi povezano s pesniškim opusom in vsako pesmijo (in pesnitvijo) posebej, ampak zato, ker se postavlja načelno vprašanje: je torej mogoče veljavno (zanesljivo, skladno z vsebinami, idejami in ne nazadnje tudi recepcijskimi učinki pesmi) intrpretirati samo opus pesnika ali pesnice, ki je zapustil tako obsežno (bibliografsko in biografsko) zapuščino in o katerem je napisanih na desetine študij, razprav in esejev? Je torej poezija ustvarjalcev, ki so brez takega »zaledja« interpretaciji manj dostopna, le-ta pa je zaradi tega, ker se ne more kar naprej sklicevati na veljavne vire in pričevanja, bolj nezanesljiva ali celo napačna? O tem, da je Zajčeva temeljito, tako rekoč do zadnje biografske podrobnosti, izkoristila možnost proučevanja dostopnega gradiva, govori ne samo zgradba monografije, ampak tudi o njenem prizadevanju, da bi stvarem prišla do dna in jih ustrezno podkrepila s podatki in navedki, O tem priča skoraj devetsto (!) opomb pod črto, ki ilustrirajo in/ali potrjujejo trditve, ki jih je zapisala avtorica monografije o Ahmatovi ali jih je povzela po relevantnih avtorjih in pričevalcih. Seveda se nujno zastavlja vrsta načelnih vprašanj, a poskušali bomo osvetliti samo nakatera, v prvi vrsti tisto, ki se sprašuje o veljavnosti avtointerpretativnih izjav same pesnice in ki jih Zajčeva najbolj pogosto uporablja pri svoji interpretaciji posameznih pesemskih besedil.
314
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
Izven slehernega dvoma je, da je pesnica (in to velja za vse pesnike in pesnice) tista, ki najbolje »pozna« svojo poezijo in lahko o njej, njeni genezi, učinkih in še o čem, pove največ in na najbolj neposreden način. Toda ali vseeno: niso vse kasnejše interpretacije, tudi tiste, ki nimajo dostopa do primarnih virov in se morajo zadovoljiti zgolj s »pesemskim izdelkom«, ki vstopi v recepcijski prostor brez dodatnih razlag, opomb in pojasnil, prav tako veljavne in lahko odkrijejo še druge pomenske razsežnosti (neke) pesmi, ki so jih intrpreti, sodobniki pesnice ali sama pesnica Ahmatova prezrli in to iz najrazličnejših vzrokov, izpostavimo samo enega: Če namreč pesem, postane »univerzalno besedilo«, ne more biti razložena samo na nekaj načinov, za katere so bili sodobniki in sama pesnica prepričani, da so edini pomembni in torej tudi dominantni, ampak ustvarja iz svoje kompleksnosti vedno nove in nove intrpretacijske modele, tudi glede na spreminjajoče se razmerje pesmi do zunajliterarne resničnosti, na katero prejšnnje interpreacije nimajo in ne morejo imeti odločujočega vpliva. Prav pesniški opus Anne Ahmatove je dokaz za to trditev: v času svojega nastanka in pesniči-nega življenja je bil nekajkrat grobo problematiziran, nerazumljen, odklonjen, ideološko zavrnjen in postavljen v izolacijo, da bi šele v spremenjenih zgodovinskih razmerah in že po pesničini smrti začel dobivati pomen in veljavo na recepcijskem horizontu, ki ni bil več v (ob)lasti ideologije, svojo avtentično vrednost izvirajočo iz univerzalnih humanističnih vrednot. To izjemno pomembno lastnost poezije Anne Ahmatove, ki tudi po smrti dobiva vse večjo veljavo, v svoji monografiji razgrinja in utemenjuje tudi Neža Zajc. A ni bistvena kanonizacija pesnice, pač pa tisto, kar je tudi osnovni namen monografije. Z dokumenti, pričevanji, predvsem pa z natančnim analitičnim branjem poezije na njeni sinhroni in diahroni osi je avtorici monografije uspelo razgrniti bistvene značilnosti pesničine poetike, a hkrati tudi zelo natančno
315
DENIS PONIŽ ► Monografija o pesnici Anni A. Ahmatovi
osvetliti njeno življenjsko pot. Malo je pesniških osebnosti v moderni evropski literaturi od Rimbauda naprej, katerih življenjska usoda in pesniški razvoj sta tako tesno povezana, prepletena in soodvisna; Anna A. Ahmatova vsekakor sodi mednje in to je avtorica monografije izpostavila na ustrezen, pregleden in tudi (za bralca brez predznanja) informativen način.
Monografija tako vzporeja dva svetova, dve vzoporedni realnosti. Prva realnost je pesniški svet, ki je, kot smo omenili, vedno bolj prisoten, recepcijsko izzivalen, univerzalen v svojem sporočilu, ki je nastalo v nekem stesnjenem času represije, strahu, negotovosti in preganjanja drugače mislečih, a je ta čas preseglo in danes nagovarja svoje bralce še bolj intenzivno kot v času anstanka ali kmalu po njem. Druga realnost je pesničino življenje, njene (intimne) zveze z drugimi umetniki, njene izkušnje z represivnim aparatom sovjetske, pravzaprav stalinistične družbe, a tudi »predzgodba tega časa, pesničino rojstvo in odraščanje v carski Rusiji, kulturni in politični kontkst, ki ga grobo prekinja boljševistična revolucija. Oba svetova se ves čas njenega življenja zadirata drug v drugega, poskušata preglasiti drug drugega, a se vedno znova vračata k temeljni razsežnosti, ki jo predstavlja poezija, ali z besedami Neže Zajc: »Čeprav pesnica ni hotela preveč natančno povezati nekaterih pesmi z biografsko realnostjo, se je vse življenje ukvarjala z nezmotljivim pomnjenjem lastne duševne preteklosti.«
Če se vrnemo k izhodiščnemu vprašanju o vrednosti avtointer-pretativnih izjav pesnice o lastnih besedilih, če te izjave primerjamo s tem, kaj so o njenem pesniškem opusus (in posameznih, izpostavljanih pesmih) sodili njeni sodobniki, potem moramo priznati, da je Neža Zajc s svojimi komentarji in analizami tega gradiva opravila izjemno delo in pesnico postavila v edini možni prostor, to je v zgodovinsko perspektivo, s katero se, kot predstavniki različnih humanističnih
316
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
strok, soočamo danes. Vendar pa pri tem nikakor ne smemo spregledati pomembnega dejstva: vsaka interpretacija nekega literarnega dela, vsak pogled v kulturo nekega časa se ne more izogniti determinantam tega časa. Zato seveda avtorica monografije ne govori in tudi ne more govoriti o pesmih kot da so »zamrznjene« v času svojega nastanka, ampak jih lahko presvetli le s svetlobo časa, v katerem je nastala njena monografija. Če neko literarno delo, posebej pesem omogoča toliko interpretacij, kolikor je interpretov, pa je res tudi, da vsaka nova interpretacija na poseben način povzema vse prejšnje, a je z njimi tudi v latentnem sporu: »novo branje« literarnega besedila je mogoče le, če »ukinja« vsa prejšnja in pričenja s točke nič. Pri tem pa ji je v veliko pomoč, kot je to mogoče opaziti pri branju monografije Neže Zajec, vse tisto, kar je mogoče razumeti kot neizpodbitne in verodostojne vire in vse druge preverljive podatke o pesnici, njenem življenju in delu. Tako monografija o Anni Ahmatovi ni samo analiza njenega življenja in poetične ustvarjalnosti, ampak prikaz prostora in časa carske Rusije in komunistične Sovjetske zveze, ki je od konca devetnajstega stoletja pa vse do druge polovice dvajsetega krojil usodo toliko ljudi različnih narodnosti kot noben režim pred in po njem. $
317
DENIS PONIŽ ► Monografija o pesnici Anni A. Ahmatovi
Denis Poniž
Denis Poniž je diplomirani komparativist, upokojeni redni profesor za zgodovino slovenske in evropske dramatike, poučeval na Akademiji za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo Univerze v Ljubljani. Gostujoči profesor na evropskih univerzah, avtor več stokovnih del s področja dramatike, dramaturgije, zgodovine in teorije poezije, semantike in digitalne humanistike.
318
SLAVICA TERGESTINA 20 (2018/I) - Literary Theory in Bulgaria
319