From: verbit@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Venedikt Erofejev: Moskva - Petushki
Keywords: Moskva, Petushki
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:36:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov16.213619.17516
Organization: Sozialistische Patienten Kollektiv


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

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



>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. 

>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.

	The criteria are never positive and in the case
	of Erofeev (with ambivalence as a stylistical 
	principle) depend more on historical circumstances.
	As in the case of imaginable Spanish writer (see below)
	you never can tell the context from the text itself,
	this is just definition of the context (see the
	Borges story just below).

>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.


>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!

	The Russian avangardist tradition depends, as Tsvetaeva
	wrote, on XVIII century more than on XIX. This is why
	the *plan* of Erofeev's book is taken from Radishchev,
	Russian writer and prisoner of conscience of XVIII
	century. His book is also a divided on (~20) little
	chapters, each one named by some station between
	Moscow and Petersbourgh, and there are lots of
	stylistical borrowings from Radishchev in Erofeev's
	book.  I have read a good research
	where Erofeev's aesthetic orientation was 
	compared with Radishchev's one basing, in particular,
	on the choice of roads: Radishchev's from Petersbourgh
	to Moscow and Erofeev's - from Moscow to Vladimir,
	("Enthusiasts Road"), the same road where the political and
	others prisoners were taken in old times.

	Another allusion is V. A. Sologub's book (~1848) Tarantas,
	where the road Moscow-Kazan' takes a hallucinatory
	appearance as far as the heroes go East:
	the basic idea is that the country Eastern than
	Moscow is hallucinatory and non-existent.

	There are allusions just from the top of my head,
	surely even the idea of Erofeev's book has
	rich (semi-real) connotations in Russian avangardist
	tradition. Don't forget *textual* borrowings from
	Rozanov, allusions to Pushkin, Nabokov, Blok,
	which are not really countable (for reference,
	there was something by Weil and Genis which
	is surely available in the States, and there
	are lots more of critical stuff in Russia;
	I can ask my friends-professionals if you
	need).

	Anyway, I don't want to indulge in the textual
	search, because this is better to do in Cyrillic
	and because the volume is too much for news:
	your Swiss philologist counted 400 references,
	and I guess that someone with Russian
	background will find 400 more.


>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.

	Mostly because the dead man does not bite
	anymore, and the dead stuff does not interest
	anybody. Another reason is that I consider the whole
	philology as a scholarly exercise having nothing
	to do with the truth. One more reason, that I don't
	believe in truth because the world where it
	exists is too boring anyway.

>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.

	One thing is that some theologist wrote and another
	is what Rabelais ideas imply. I can say what (I believe)
	follows from Thelem conception: total negation
	of Christian ideas for tha sake of Renaissance
	humanism. More contemporary Thelemites (there were
	people even in this century who played with the idea)
	will agree. Naturally, I prefer to judge Rabelais
	religiosity not by the work of some theologist
	(I'd never believe a word on religion said
	by someone allegedly religious), but by his
	own writings. And by response in people they 
	cause.

>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.

	The question "Was Rabelais religious" belong to history,
	and there I tend to believe the historicist. The question
	"Were his writings anti-Christian?" belongs to my personal
	judgment. I have read the book (and still reread it sometimes)
	often enough to guess. The Christianity and Renaissance
	humanism (exemplified by Rabelais and Jonathan Swift
	and Villon *) are clearly incompatible, as well as Christianity
	and the totally carnivalized view of the world practiced
	by Rabelais. *) I forgot to mention the Medici family 
	and Cesare Borgia :) 

	Well, the last two books of Pantagruel serie
	are not so carnivalized or humanistic, 
	so I tend to agree even with their alleged
	religiosity (though it's being gnostic
	rather than Christian). This is not true for
	his first books. Note that Thelem *completely
	disappears* from last ones! And note that
	the connection between these last books and
	Erofeev's one is non-existent.

	Generally, the idea that Rabelais is a Christian
	writer basing on the last pages of Pantagruel
	sounds like the medieval argument that Apuleius
	was a Christian because at the end of the
	Golden Ass the hero becomes a follower
	of Isis cult. First of all, he becomes a cult
	follower only at the end, and the book before
	the end is dedicated to anything but religion.
	And second, Isis cult is clearly no more
	Christian than the Bottle cult, Thelem 
	or anything else. Basically, the Bottle
	cult of Rabelais is parallel to the
	Hermeneutic cult of Egyptians, the same
	as the Apuleius' hero was born again into.

	Misha.
		I want power -
		Because it feels good
		I want power -
		I'll wash America with blood
		I want power - 
		a clear blue light in the skies
		I want power - 
		running through my veins and out of my eyes.
					M. Gira
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet