From: zeleny@husc8.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Venedikt Erofejev: Moskva - Petushki
Keywords: Moskva, Petushki
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:37:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov16.183743.17512
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Nov16.174101.17510@husc3.harvard.edu> 
verbit@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) writes:

>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>>verbit@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) writes:

>>>Michael Zeleny writes:

>>>>In article <1992Nov11.155243.17352@husc3.harvard.edu> 
>>>>verbit@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) writes:

MZ:
>>>>>>With any luck, your attention span will rise to the occasion.

MV:
>>>>>       No luck.

MZ:
>>>>Your loss.

MV:
>>>	Hmm?

MZ:
>>Let me make it clear: either you share my interest in finding out the
>>true meaning of the work, assuming that there is truth to be discovered
>>therein, or you are solely concerned about winning the argument.  In the
>>latter case, please do not bother answering, -- I concede your point by
>>default.  Life is to short for this sort of interminable bullshit, and I
>>have other cats to flog.

MV:
>	I think that in the case of Erofeev the question
>	is not of truth, but one of *context* in which
>	his book is taken. Clearly, we disagree what
>	context is appropriate: you propose one of Roman
>	tradition, my guess is the Russian avangarde
>	and conceptualism, starting with Silver Age
>	and ending somewhere around SMOG. I respect
>	your preference, but, as usually with good
>	books, the meaning is derivative from context.

You are avoiding the question.  Every student of linguistics knows
that meaning is context-dependent.  The point is whether there exist
objective criteria for fixing the right context.  I say that such
criteria exist in the text itself, taken together with the historical
circumstances of its production.

My selection of context is supported by *internal* textual evidence;
by contrast, yours appears to be spuriously self-selected.  I have
given solid examples of allusions to Ovid, Rabelais, etc.; where does
Erofeev appeal or allude to the tradition of your preference?  The
sole _M-P_ citation I can think of at the moment, is a clearly
derisive one, referring to Blok; likewise, his reference to Tsvetayeva
as a powerful emetic (in the Rozanov essay) would seem to contradict
your assumptions.  Note that I am in substantial agreement with you
concerning his anti-aestheticism; however, to my mind, this only
supports my case.  Remember that Flaubertian aestheticism is
intrinsically connected with the doctrine of pure art, i.e. aesthetic
(endophoric) amoralism!

MV:
>	Borges once wrote a story where the contemporary
>	Spanish author writes Don Kishot identical to
>	Cervantes' one, but due to different context the
>	story acquires completely different meaning.
>	This is what you are doing with Erofeev:
>	putting his work in context of Thomas Aquinat, Beckett
>	and Rimbaud (IMO, totally alien one) you 
>	completely redefine the meaning of his book.

Will you take your Rimbaud and shove him? you were the only one to
mention his name; ditto for Aquinas.  I know nothing of Beckett's
influence on Erofeev.  For my purposes, Rabelais and Ovid will
suffice.

MV:
>	From the scholarly point of view, that's
>	a fine exercise, and I am sceptical enough
>	towards the process of truth seeking to
>	assume that this is a natural purpose of scholarly
>	practice.

I am not.  Please elaborate on your skepticism.

MV:
>>>  [  More translations from Erofeev, with the same degree
>>>     of accuracy ]

MZ:
>>Up yours, Verbitsky.  If you want to pass for a watchdog of accuracy in
>>academia, then show your credentials.  For all I know, your grasp of
>>Russian grammar may be of the same quality as your mastery of English.

MV:
>	A nice exchange...

Hey, Misha, I need my translating credentials to make a living.  If
you won't try to break my rice bowl, I won't try to shave your
gerbils.  Do we have a deal?

MZ:
>>Misha, the Thelemites may not have had a place to go to Mass, but each
>>of them had a private chapel.  What do you think Rabelais expected them
>>to do there, -- jerk off?  It is well known that the utopia of Rabelais
>>has its origins in the Augustinian identification of freedom and worship
>>(see the oft-cited article by Per Nykrog in the _Revue d'Histoire
>>litt\'eraire de la France_, LXV (1965), 385--397), -- indeed, its very
>>name is replete with evangelical connotations associated with the
>>author's friend, Erasmus.  It is equally well known that the peculiar
>>anticlericalism of the author of _Gargantua_ is fully consistent with
>>his Christian faith, -- just read the famous book on the religion of
>>Rabelais, written by no less of a historical authority than Lucien
>>Febvre.

MV:
>	Ditto for Christianity of Parny and Pushkin's
>	translation from latter: there are always people
>	who will rabidly argue that every particular
>	person is Christian. I don't think that this
>	discussion could be resolved.

Misha, the people I am citing are respected scholars, not cranks.
Lucien Febvre is all but deified by the vast majority of working
historians today, much like Ranke was a century ago.  If anything is
kinown in literary history, then so is the above referenced thesis on
the religion of Rabelais.  But if you want to revel in your obstinacy,
then so be it.

>	Misha.
>
>>>The Dragon's coming out of the see,
>>>with the shimmering silver head of wisdom looking at me.
>>>He brings down the fire from the skies,
>>>You can tell he's doing well by the look in human eyes.
>>>You'd better not compromise.
>>>          It won't be easy.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
" -- I shall speak bluntly, because life is short."