Vladislav Khodasevich Research Articles

Le social contre l’esthétique

AbstractThis article analyzes the difficult cooperation between exiled Russian artists and the editors of émigré political-literary periodicals, Zemgor activists who, for the most part, lacked appropriate esthetic notions. This is illustrated through several outstanding episodes: Vladislav Khodasevich’s clash with Vladimir Zeeler in the émigré press concerning Boris Poplavskii’s death, or Vladimir Nabokov’s confrontation with the editors of Sovremennye zapiski who refused to publish the fourth chapter of his novel The Gift because of the biography of N. G. Chernyshevskii it contained.(traduit par Christine COLPART)

Why the First-Wave Russian Literary Diaspora Embraced Shklovskian Estrangement

This essay explores the implications of Victor Shklovsky's concept of estrangement as it extends to the experience of Russian writers in exile, following the October revolution. The discussion, informed by diaspora theory, begins with Shklovsky's stay in Berlin in 1922–23, when border crossings were still possible. He argued for literature's independence from politics. The dynamics of diasporic literary life and its evolving “articulations of identity” are considered in the context of Soviet literary politics. The semantic unfolding of estrangement and its “historical metamorphoses” emerge in the work of two émigré writers. Aleksei Remizov relied on estrangement in linguistic and genre experiments in exile that encompass historical changes in the Russian language at home and abroad. The poet Vladislav Khodasevich argued for the creative continuity of Russian literature in exile, citing past models, from Dante to the Hebrew Poetic Renaissance in the Russian empire at the turn of the twentieth century.

History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe: Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Vol. 1 by M. Cornis-Pope J. Neubauer (review)

522 SEER, 83, 3, 2005 Vygotskii'sview of the concretizationof psychologicalactivityas a mechanism for creating new symbols and meanings capable of being incorporated into the culturalstock. Vladislav Khodasevich was certainlyrightto pinpoint that Tsvetaeva's memoirs were only partly autobiographical because they foregrounded a psychological pattern linked to the formation of speech and creativeself. School ofLanguages andCultures ALEXANDRA SMITH University ofCanterbugy, NewZealand Cornis-Pope, M. and Neubauer, J. (eds).History oftheLiteragy Cultures ofEastCentral Europe. Junctures andDisjunctures in theigth and20th Centuries. Vol.I. A ComparativeHistory of Literaturesin EuropeanLanguages, i 9. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA, 2004. xx+ 647pp.Works cited.Index. 1i98.00: $238.oo. How or even whetherit ispossibleto presenta literaryhistoryof East-Central Europe is a question with which the editors of this volume grapple.After all, we have to do here with literaturewrittenin some twentylanguages, and over a geographicalspacestretchingin arelativelynarrowarcfromtheMediterranean to the Baltic Sea. What is more, the taskneeds to be accomplishedduring a time of unprecedented geo-political upheaval when the entire concept of 'EasternEurope' (invented, as LarryWolffhas shown so convincingly, in the eighteenth centuryand perpetuateduntil very recently by the divide between the so-called capitalist and Communist worlds) is up for grabs. And finally, this all needs to be done at a time when the standard models for writing literaryhistoryhave been called into questionby innovativeworkssuch as the NewHistogy ofFrench Literature (Cambridge,MA, 1994), editedby Denis Hollier. Fromthe beginning, the book's editorsinsistthat theirliteraryhistoryhas a purpose beyond that of a normal scholarlybook. It is written not so much to provide informationabout the literatureand cultureof the region (althoughit certainlyprovidesmuch of that),asto forceEast-CentralEuropeansand other interested observersto recognize that transnationalconnections rather than separate national existences are and have always been the norm for this region. 'The primaryinspirationfor our project is thus an ethical imperative ratherthan an epistemologicallonging [... .]A literaryhistoryof East-Central Europe will make sense if it furthers, on however small a scale, the communicationbetween the peoples of the region' (pp. 15- I6). On the whole, the success of this volume is decidedly mixed. The most serious problem is that of methodology -the book does not have one but presents rather a grab bag of approaches ranging from very traditional to contemporary.Thus, the firstsection is organized, a la Hollier, into 'nodes of time', focusing in reverse chronological order on key dates in the region's history(I989, I956/68, 1948, 1945, I9I8, I876/78/8I, I848, and I776/89). Each section begins with an introductionmeant to set the scene historically, and is generally followed by individual essays of varying lengths and quality on the situation in particularcountries. Forthe most part, these essaysmake REVIEWS 523 little or no attempt at transnationalcomparison,which is provided implicitly as a resultof the heading underwhich they appear. The nodal approach,however, is followed only forhalfof thevolume. After this,we switchto a section called 'Historiesof LiteraryForm'.This portion of the book considers in turn 'Shifting Periods and Trends', 'Shifting Genres', 'The HistoricalNovel', and 'Historiesof Multimedia Constructions'.As with the nodal essays, some of these contributions (the best ones in my view) are themselves comparative. I would note particularly Guido Snel's article on fictionalizedautobiographyin East-CentralEurope,GalinTihanov's essayon the birth of modern literary theory in East-Central Europe, and Dina lordanova's overview of East-CentralEuropean cinema and literaryhistory. But most of the essaysare neither comparativenor particularlyenlightening: rather,they focus on individualauthorsor literarymovements in a traditional literaryhistoricalmanner. There is one other serious problem with this volume, and it concerns the role of Russian culture in the region. Following the lead of 'East-Central European'intellectuals,thevolume'seditorshave almostcompletelyexcluded Russian literaturefrom consideration.To be sure, it would be a seriouserror to view East-Central European literature through an exclusively Russian prism. That being said, it is hard to see how one could write such a history without takinginto considerationthe specialrole that Russianliterarymodels played during,say, the modernistor Communistperiods. To be fairto the book's editors,I should note that thisbook, large as it is, is one of fourprojectedfor this serieson East-CentralEurope.Volume two is to focuson the shiftingtopographiesof literarycultures,volume threeto consider literaryinstitutions,andvolume fourto examine the makingofliteraryfigures. I hope that the publisherwill assignto futurevolumes a proofreadercapable of catching the significantnumber of...

"Directing" the Reader: Khodasevich's "Sorrento Photographs" and Montage

THE COMPAKATIST "DIRECTING" THE READER: KHODASEVICH'S "SORRENTO PHOTOGRAPHS' AND MONTAGE Jason Brooks Each performance in the theater is unique. Actors have the leeway to adapt to the audience or to make adjustments from one night to the next; there is room for unexpected error; indeed, the actress who plays Ophelia one night may no longer be playing the role a week later. Not so in motion pictures. The final product as viewed in the movie theater is unchanging. The director of the film provides the moviegoer with a singular version of the work: actors were directed; editing and special effects were completed before the sprocket hits the perf; adjustment from night to night is impossible. This unchanging quality of a film coupled with the passive role of the viewer creates a strange dynamic between spectator and spectacle. Spectators do have a level of freedom when watching a film, since all texts have a surplus ofmeaning that effectively allows a viewer play, yet certain filmic techniques limit the audience's range of play within a film-text.1 The great Russian director and film theorist, Vsevolod Pudovkin, for example, believed in a filmmaker's power to manipulate, control, direct his audience, forcing them to specific, conceptual conclusions. According to Pudovkin, the spectator sees only that which the director chooses to show him, and thus is at the conceptual mercy of the filmmaker. The film director keeps his audience in this vulnerable, impressionable position ofpassivity through the use ofvarious filmic structures and stylistics. Scene composition, lighting, sound, close-ups, and the use ofpeculiar film-stock are some of the many tools a filmmaker may use to influence and focus the spectator's attention. Chiefamong a director's repertoire is montage, the highly coercive formal element of filmdescribed by Bazin as the "abstract creator of meaning" (45). In his article, "On Montage," Pudovkin asserts that montage delineates the director's general cultural level which allows him, not only to know, but also to understand life correctly. It also delineates his ability to observe life, to evaluate his observations, and to think about them independently. Finally, it delineates his artistic talent by means ofwhich he converts inner hidden relationships, which can be clearly seen and immediately perceived without explanations (Dart 165).2 Because the director, via film's formal elements, exercises what Pudovkin called a "despotic" control over the spectator, it is essential to consider the effect that such an influential medium can have, not only on the viewers but on other forms ofcultural and artistic expression that intersect and come into contact with film. Clearly, for European poets of the modern period, film was a prevalent and influential medium. Film in some ways is a metonym for modVoI . 28 (200V: 39 "SOKKENTO PHOTOQKAPHS" ano MONTAQE ernism, and the move from static to motion images came to define much of this period. With this in mind, the present essay explores the merging offilmic and poetic techniques in Vladislav Khodasevich's poem, "Sorrento Photographs" ("CoppeirraHCKHe cpOTorpadiHH"). Illustrating the use of the motion picture technique of montage in Khodasevich's text as a means ofdirecting the reader to specific conclusions, the following argument leans heavily on the film theory of Vsevolod Pudovkin, who, as seen above, placed great power over a viewer in the director's hands. Emphasizing Khodasevich's use ofmontage, his juxtaposing of multiple, disparate images in different lines and stanzas, this discussion must also consider the generic and media constraints on a poetic text, as well as how poets can incorporate filmic structure and style into their work. Ultimately , we must address the question: to what extent can a poetic system allow for the integration ofvarious media? Therefore, what is the evolutionary potential of the systematically conservative art of poetry? Clearly this essay is too limited in scope to answer these questions outright; however after a close analysis ofKhodasevich's poem through the lens offilmic style, this essay will at least suggest an answer to such questions ofgenre and interdisciplinary borrowing. To this end, my theoretical discussion uses Roman Jakobson's theory ofintersemiotic translation as a starting block for an "intersemiotic adaptation of systems."3 Thus, the present paper reads in parts...

The Estranging Mirror: The Poetics of Reflection in the Late Poetry of Vladislav Khodasevich

The Estranging Mirror: The Poetics of Reflection in the Late Poetry of Vladislav Khodasevich

Writing a Usable past: Russian Literary Culture 1917-37 by Angela s> Brintlinger (review)

REVIEWS I I7 War, yet another trait in his character could explain this, namely the ability and willingness to take every thought to its ultimate logical conclusion, and then act decisively on the basis of this conclusion. Having embraced the Bolshevikcause, he was fullypreparedto die for it. Smith'sbook, a monumental scholarlyachievement and alreadythewinner of the 2000 Alec Nove Prize (awardedannuallyby the BritishAssociation for Slavonic and East European Studies), could benefit from minor editorial intervention, if a second edition and/or a translation into Russian can be expected. Smith misspells the firstname of the Israeli Prime Minister Begin (pp. 302, 366), the patronymic of the Russian businessman Nikolai Denisov (p. 89), aswell as the surnamesof the fictionalcharacterMechik in Razgrom by Fadeev and of the critic Vladimir Friche(pp. 267, 273). He is also mistaken about the patronymic of the author Azhaev (Nikolaevich, not Ivanovich, p. 366), the stressin the wordgruppovshchina (it should be on the penultimate, not on the second syllable,p. 273), a famous addressof writers'blocksof flats in Moscow (p. 360) and the title of Rachel May's book (p. 333). Some of Smith'sremarksconcerningMirskyarealsoimpreciseandeven contradictory, especially if compared to Smith's other publications. Thus, his assertionthat the English language of Mirsky'sletters to Jane Ellen Harrison was 'stiffish' (p. 35) sits uneasily with his earlier statement that 'Harrison seems to have destroyed the letters she received from Mirsky' (Oxford Slavonic Papers.New Series,28, 1995, p. 63). Likewise,his attributionof the 1925 BookoftheBear(a subjectof the Mirsky-Harrisoncorrespondence)to the Hogarth Press (p. 99) is hard to reconcile with the fact that thispublicationwas broughtout in 1926 by the Nonesuch Press(thiswas also made clearby Smith himselfin the Oxford Slavonic Papers,28, 1995, PP. 71, 74, 84). In addition, on p. 292 the date of Mirsky'sarrestis given as the night of 2-3 July 1937, whereas from the date on the arrestwarrant(p. 307) and other documents in the MirskyNKVD file it looks as if he was arrestedon the night of 2-3 June. Finally,I would like to use this opportunityto supplythe missingdates (see pp. 57 and 22I) for the verse theorist Valerian Adol'fovich Chudovsky (i 89 I- 1937?) and the author GeorgiiNikolaevich Munblit (I 904-98). Department ofSlavonic Studies ANDREI RoGACHEVSKII University ofGlasgow Brintlinger, Angela. Writinga UsablePast: RussianLiteray Culture I9I7-37. Studies in Russian Literature and Theory. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL, 2000. X + 253 Pp. Notes. Bibliography. Index. $79.95. THE title of this book hides what amounts to another, slightly unusual, contributionto the Pushkinbicentennial. Failedattemptsby the three authors under discussion, Jurii Tynianov, Vladislav Khodasevich and Mikhail Bulgakov ,to writea biographyof Pushkinformthebackgroundto thebiographies which they were able to write, of Griboedov, Derzhavin and Moliere respectively.Angela Brintlingeriswell qualifiedto discussbiographicalwriting of the I 920s and I930s, havingwrittenherdoctoraldissertationon the subject. i i8 SEER, 8o, I, 2002 However, this book is no mere revamped PhD thesis,but a fascinatinginsight into three very different authors: Mikhail Bulgakov, the academic-turned novelistTynianov, and the emigrepoet-turned-academicKhodasevich.As the excellent bibliography makes clear, the last two of these have attracted relativelylittle critical attention among criticswriting in English. Indeed, the author herself is responsible for much of what has been written. The three authors are each allotted two chapters, one on the biography they did write (DeathoftheVazir-Mukhtar; Derzhavin; LifeofMonsieur deMoliere) and one on their attempts to portray Pushkin. Both Tynianov and Khodasevich produced unfinishedbiographies,while Bulgakov'splayAlexander Pushkin (laterstagedas LastDays)is remarkableforthe complete absence of the eponymoushero from the stage. There are, however, in addition, some interestingminor figuresin Brintlinger'scanvas. Wil'gel'mKiukel'beker,Pushkin'sclassmateat the lycee, isthesubjectofTynianov'spopular'children'snovel'Kiukhlia, inwhichPushkin plays a secondary role. The definitive nineteenth-century biography of Derzhavin by Iakov Grot was, as Brintlingerexpertly demonstrates,a major influence on Khodasevich'smuch shorterwork.Finally,the short-storywriter Vikentii Veresaev was also the author of the much-reprinted documentary collagePushkin inLife,whichmadehimaplausible,butintheeventuncongenial, collaboratorof Bulgakov.There is also a tailpiece devoted to the Pushkiniana oftheballetdancerandchoreographerSergeiLifar',andofVladimirNabokov, the strength of which is rather weakened by the obvious, and readily acknowledged, fact that Lifar'was a vastly inferiorwriter compared with t.he three major writers under discussion. The point of the title, an adapted quotation...

Writing a Usable past: Russian Literary Culture, 1917-1937

In Writing a Usable Past, Brintlinger considers the interactions of post-Revolutionary Russian and emigre culture with the genre of biography in its various permutations, arguing that in the years after the Revolution, Russian writers looked to the great literary figures of the past to help them construct a post-Revolutionary present. In detailed looks at the biographical writing of Yuri Tynianov, Vladislav Khodasevich, and Mikhail Bulgakov, Brintlinger follows each author's successful biography/ies and their failed attempts at biographies of Alexander Pushkin on the centennial anniversary of his death. Brintlinger compares the Pushkin biographies to the other biographies examined, and in a concluding chapter she considers other, more successful commemorations of the great poet's death. She argues that popular commemorations--exhibits, concerts, special issues of journals--were a more fitting biography than the genre of the For post-revolutionary cultural actors, including Tynianov, Khodasevich, and Bulgakov, Pushkin was a symbol rather than a model for constructing that usable past.

On Diasporic Intimacy: Ilya Kabakov's Installations and Immigrant Homes

Russian 6migre writer Nina Berberova tells a story of domestic embarrassment. Some time in the early 1930s the writer Ivan Bunin paid a visit to Berberova and poet Vladislav Khodasevich in their little flat in the working-class outskirts of Paris that were populated by immigrants. The apartment hardly had any furniture and no particular dinner was served that night. Yet Bunin was irritated by Berberova's precarious domesticity: 'How do you like that! They have an embroidered cock on the teapot!' exclaimed Bunin once as he entered our dining room. 'Who could have imagined it! Poets, as we all know, live in a ditch, and now it turns out they have a cock on the teapot!'' The embroidered cock symbolized a certain intimacy with everyday objects that appeared to be in profoundly bad taste for Russian intellectuals in exile. For Bunin, it was an example of domestic kitsch that compromised the purity of Russian nostalgia. The

Khodasevich: His Life and Art

This critical biography of Vladislav Khodasevich (1886-1939), David M. Bethea introduces to the Western reader the life and art of a literary figure described by Vladimir Nabokov as the greatest Russian poet of the twentieth century.Originally published in 1983.The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

Sorrento Photographs: Khodasevich's Memory Speaks

The Russian poet Vladislav Khodasevich (1886-1939), who spent the last seventeen years of his life in Western Europe, wrote a total of five books of verse: the first two, Molodost (Youth, 1908) and Shchastlivyi domik (The Happy Little House, 1914), are largely derivative and, by the poet's own admission, immature; the last three, Putem zerna (Grain's Way, 1920), Tiashelaia lira (The Heavy Lyre, 1922), and Evropeiskaia noch’ (European Night, 1927), form the limited body of his mature work. It is on the basis of the last three collections that Khodasevich's modest reputation has been established. It is ironic that the relative obscurity of Khodasevich's best work bears witness to the vagaries of exile about which he often wrote. Indeed, in 1922, the year Khodasevich left Russia, Valéry published Charmes, Proust died while polishing his novel, Eliot founded the journal Criterion and printed The Waste Land in its pages, and Joyce's Ulysses was released in a small Parisian edition.

Four Poems by V. Khodasevich

Vladislav Khodasevich (1886-1939) is the author of five small volumes of verse, of which the first two (from 1908 and 1914) are omitted from his Collected Poetry, published in 1927. In the remaining years of his life abroad (he had left Russia in 1922) Khodasevich wrote no more than a handful of poems. Khodasevich was acutely aware of the coming darkness which gathered over Europe as the 1930s wore on. His silence was self-imposed or, rather, grew out of his despair at the end of it all: Also an important critic, Khodasevich once wrote that anyone who had breathed the heady atmosphere of Symbolism in Russia was affected for life. He had breathed that air himself (although, as a skeptic, he did not share the Symbolists' visionary metaphysics). Khodasevich also lived and breathed the grand tradition of Russian poetry, and Pushkin plays a unique role in shaping his poetics. He knew what was at stake and experienced, as few of his contemporaries, the angonizing triumph of chaos. Khodasevich's voluntary exile soon was made official. He becameand to a large extent remains-an unperson in his homeland. First in Berlin and then from 1925 in Paris, where he lived out his final years of estrangement, Khodasevich speaks of rootlessness and lonelinesstwo of the characteristic themes of our age. But he also knew of another existence, and some of his best poems recreate that moment of transcendence, when a reality which reeks of violence, disorder and humdrum death recedes and the poet is literally beside himself. For a major poet, Khodasevich wrote little, but then a poet's work cannot be counted by the dozen like eggs. In fact, a dozen of Khodasevich's greatest poems would be enough. For the quantitatively minded, there are many, many more than that which have a place in the true history of Russian poetry.