English Rhythms in Russian Verse: On the Experiment of Joseph Brodsky 9783110238099, 9783110238082

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements
A note on copyright and transliteration
Introduction
1. Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics
1.1. Introduction
1.2. The Monosyllable Rule
1.3. The Stress Maximum Principle
1.4. The Monosyllable Rule: Brodsky’s English sources
1.5. The Monosyllable Rule: Brodsky’s Russian sources
1.6. Unstressed syllables in W positions: Regressive Dissimilation (RD)
1.7. Counting methods
1.8. Anti-RD rhythm: Brodsky’s English predecessors
1.9. Anti-RD rhythm: Brodsky’s Russian sources
1.10. Elision and redundant syllables: Brodsky’s English sources
1.11. Elision and redundant syllables: Brodsky’s Russian predecessors
1.12. Conclusion
2. Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Brodsky’s redundant syllables: A description
2.3. English elision
2.4. Phonological regularities in Brodsky
2.5. Brodsky’s rule and recitation
2.6. Brodsky and Slutsky
2.7. Semantic associations of disrupted meter and elision
2.8. Conclusion
3. Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources
3.1. Introduction
3.2. The “English” uses of Brodsky’s anti-RD
3.3. The rhythm of exile
3.4. The form of Brodsky’s anti-RD: English or Russian?
3.5. Brodsky’s Russian predecessors: Bely, Khodasevich, Tsvetaeva
3.6. Conclusion
Conclusion
Appendices
I. Changes from Brodsky’s drafts to final versions
II. 100 randomly-selected words with the shape -Xxx- in the prose of Brodsky, Slutsky, and Donne
III. Words with the shape -Xxx- in elision positions in the verse of Donne, Brodsky, and Slutsky
IV. Statistical tests of words with the shape -Xxx- in poetry and prose
V. Anti-RD rhythm in Brodsky’s iambic poems
VI. Anti-RD rhythm in Tsvetaeva’s iambic poems
VII. Anti-RD rhythm in Brodsky, Tsvetaeva, and Donne
References
Author index
Subject index

Citation preview

English Rhythms in Russian Verse: On the Experiment of Joseph Brodsky

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 232

Editor

Volker Gast Founding Editor

Werner Winter Editorial Board

Walter Bisang Hans Henrich Hock Heiko Narrog Matthias Schlesewsky Niina Ning Zhang Editor responsible for this volume

Hans Henrich Hock

De Gruyter Mouton

English Rhythms in Russian Verse: On the Experiment of Joseph Brodsky by

Nila Friedberg

De Gruyter Mouton

ISBN 978-3-11-023808-2 e-ISBN 978-3-11-023809-9 ISSN 1861-4302 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Friedberg, Nila, 1972⫺ English rhythms in Russian verse : on the experiment of Joseph Brodsky / by Nila Friedberg. p. cm. ⫺ (Trends in linguistics studies and monographs ; 232) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-023808-2 (acid-free paper) 1. Brodsky, Joseph, 1940⫺1996 ⫺ Criticism and interpretation. 2. Linguistics in literature. 3. English language ⫺ Influence on foreign languages. 4. Russian poetry ⫺ 20th century ⫺ History and criticism. I. Title. PG3479.4.R64Z665 2011 891.71144⫺dc22 2011000755

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ” 2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: RoyalStandard, Hong Kong Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ⬁ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany. www.degruyter.com

To the other Joseph

Acknowledgements This book focuses on the ‘‘English accent’’ of the Russian poet Joseph Brodsky. An anglophile and, eventually, Poet Laureate of the United States, Brodsky was able to import certain English features into his Russian prosody long before becoming fluent in English and leaving the USSR. This subtle poetic foreign accent puzzled me for many years and seemed impossible to understand within the framework of one discipline or one theory. I therefore chose an alternative route, combining in a single study the methods of generative phonology, archival and biographical research, phonetics, statistics, readers’ surveys, and Russian verse theory. I would like to thank the researchers from various fields whose expertise and advice provided guidance along the way. (All errors, of course, are my own.) First and foremost, I am grateful to Elan Dresher, who introduced me to the field of linguistic analysis of poetry. Among the many talents that Elan possesses, one is to suggest to his students an area of research that later evolves into a defining interest, an indispensable part of their lives. I thank Elan for exemplifying how to analyze texts clearly and rigorously, and for conversations that were always inspiring. Thanks to Paul Kiparsky, Emily Klenin, Barry Scherr, and Michael Wachtel, who generously shared their time, expertise, and enthusiasm for metrics; in this regard I am also indebted to Jean Louis Aroui, Nigel Fabb, Kristin Hanson, Bruce Hayes, Donka Minkova, Mikhail Lotman, Kirill Postoutenko, Gerald S. Smith, and Marina Tarlinskaja. I am grateful to Luba Golburt for her critical input on many parts of the book, and most importantly, for sharing her wisdom and intuition on what counts as an ‘‘interesting question.’’ Many thanks to Stephanie Sandler, Catherine Ciepiela, and Michael Wachtel for reassuring me of the importance of linguistic analysis for literary criticism; their encouragement, their comments, and their own example of dedication to poetics were crucial to me as I wrote the book. Yakov Klots provided invaluable help with locating the relevant manuscripts at the Yale University Beinecke Library. Tomas Venclova, Liudmila Shtern, and Lev Losev answered some important questions on Brodsky’s biography. Polina Barskova o¤ered valuable insights on meter – the sort that only a poet could give. I am grateful to all those who read, heard, or commented on parts of this work in writing or at conferences: John Bartle, David Bethea, Zhenya Bershtein, David Birnbaum, Aaron Beaver, Karen Evans-Romaine, Lazar and Ekaterina Fleishman, Michael Gorham, Olga Kagan, Christoph Kueper, Cynthia Martin, Valentina Polukhina, Karen

viii

Acknowledgements

Rice, Joseph Schallert, Yael Schonfeld Abel, Alexandra Smith, Rebecca Smollett, Aleksandr Stepanov, and Dean Worth. My colleagues at Portland State University o¤ered their input as well, and for that I thank Sandra Freels, Martha Hickey, Laurence Kominz, Suwako Watanabe, Fernando Sanchez, Jonathan Pease, and Pat Wetzel. Bruce Hayes, Leonid Kasatkin, Svetlana Stepanova, Alexei Kochetov, Henry Rogers, and Kie Zuraw answered various questions on phonetics, while Todd Leen gave advice on statistics at the early stages of this work. Friends and colleagues from the Middlebury College Russian School, Toronto, and Oregon agreed to read Brodsky’s poetry for this project, and I was particularly honored to have recorded the famous Russian actor Veniamin Borisovich Smekhov. Avram Brown provided assistance with editing, proofreading, and translation; unless otherwise noted, all glosses in the book were created in collaboration with Avram. Thanks to Anke Beck, Angelika Hermann, Hans Henrich Hock, Wolfgang Konwitschny, and Birgit Sievert of Mouton de Gruyter for their support of the project. I am particularly thankful to Ann Kjellberg and the Brodsky Estate for support without which this publication would have been impossible. I thank the Estate for permission to use literal glosses of Brodsky’s individual lines and titles which diverge from authorized translations; this helped me to clarify elements of the original not obvious in a literary translation. (In those cases where existing published title translations are used, the source is indicated in Appendixes V and VI). I am also grateful to the Estate for permission to reproduce and quote excerpts from the manuscripts held at the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library (Yale University), and for permission to quote excerpts from poems appearing in ‘‘Sochineniia Iosifa Brodskogo’’ (2001). I have used the 2001 edition of Brodsky due to its broad coverage, even though many poems appearing in this publication (as opposed to Brodsky’s Ardis editions) were not considered part of his mature canon by the poet. My thanks go to Michael Naydan for permission to use translations of Marina Tsvetaeva’s poem titles appearing in After Russia (1992); and to Oxford University Press, Henry Holt and Company, Random House, and Farrar Strauss Giroux for permission to quote the texts acknowledged in the Copyright section. Parts of the Introduction, Conclusion, and Chapter 2 have previously appeared in Friedberg (2009a), while sections 3.2, 3.3, footnote 3 (Chapter 3), and Appendix V are a revised version of the analysis presented in Friedberg 2002b. Most of all, thanks to my family – to my supportive parents Zhenya and Isaak, and to Arie Baratt for his patience, encouragement and mathematical skills; thanks also to Yakov, Ira, and Sasha. Finally, I am grateful to the other Joseph – my son Os’ka, whose birth proved to be the best book deadline an academic could ever wish for.

A note on copyright and transliteration Excerpts from ‘‘The Sound of the Tide,’’ ‘‘Footnote to a Poem,’’ and ‘‘In a Room and a Half ’’ from LESS THAN ONE by Joseph Brodsky. Copyright 6 1986 by Joseph Brodsky. Reprinted by permission of Farrar, Straus and Giroux, LLC. Excerpts from the undated manuscripts of ‘‘Mukha,’’ ‘‘P’iatstsa Mattei,’’ and ‘‘Zagadka angelu.’’ Copyright 6 by the Brodsky Estate. Reprinted by permission of the Brodsky Estate. Excerpts from ‘‘Zagadka angelu’’ from ‘‘Maramzinskoe sobranie,’’ samizdatskoe sobranie sochinenii Brodskogo podgotovlennoe Vladimirom Maramzinym [The ‘‘Maramzin collection,’’ a samizdat collected works of Brodsky prepared by Vladimir Maramzin 1972–74]. Copyright 6 1972 by the Brodsky Estate. Reprinted by permission of the Brodsky Estate. Facsimile of an excerpt from the undated manuscript of ‘‘Mukha.’’ Copyright 6 by the Brodsky Estate. Reprinted by permission of the Brodsky Estate. Excerpts from ‘‘Ia vsegda tverdil, chto sud’ba igra,’’ ‘‘Odnoi poetesse,’’ ‘‘Novye stansy k Avguste,’’ ‘‘Zagadka angelu,’’ ‘‘Mukha,’’ ‘‘P’iatstsa Mattei,’’ ‘‘Muzhchina, zasypaiushchii odin,’’ ‘‘1 sentiabria 1939 goda,’’ ‘‘Posviashchaetsia Ialte,’’ ‘‘Pered pamiatnikom A. S. Pushkinu v Odesse,’’ ‘‘Nichem, Pevets, tvoi iubilei,’’ ‘‘Peschanye kholmy, porosshie sosnoi,’’ ‘‘Meksikanskii divertisment. Zametka dlia entsiklopedii,’’ ‘‘Biust Tiberiia,’’ ‘‘Reki,’’ ‘‘Arkhitektura,’’ ‘‘Ia pozabyl tebia, no pomniu shtukaturku,’’ ‘‘Ritratto di Donna,’’ ‘‘Pen’e bez muzyki,’’ ‘‘Dvadtsat’ sonetov k Marii Stiuart,’’ ‘‘V semeinyi al’bom,’’ ‘‘Gvozdika,’’ ‘‘Pokhozh na golos golovnoi ubor,’’ ‘‘Flammarion,’’ translations of Donne’s ‘‘A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning,’’ ‘‘The Flea,’’ ‘‘The Storm,’’ ‘‘The Will,’’ and translation of Richard Wilbur’s ‘‘The Agent’’ from SOCHINENIIA IOSIFA BRODSKOGO by Iosif Brodskii. Copyright 6 2001 by the Brodsky Estate. Reprinted by permission of the Brodsky Estate. Excerpt from EUGENE ONEGIN by Alexander Pushkin, translated from the Russian by James Falen. Copyright 6 1998 by Oxford University Press. Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press.

x

Copyright

Excerpt from ‘‘A Hundred Collars’’ from THE POETRY OF ROBERT FROST, edited by Edward Connery Lathem. Copyright 6 1930, 1939, 1969 by Henry Holt and Company. Copyright 6 1958 by Robert Frost, copyright 6 1967 by Lesley Frost Ballantine. Reprinted by permission of Henry Holt and Company, LLC. Excerpt from ‘‘In Memory of W. B. Yeats’’ from COLLECTED POEMS OF W. H. AUDEN by W. H. Auden. Copyright 6 1940 and renewed 1968 by W. H. Auden. Reprinted by permission of Random House, Inc. Transliterated Russian poem titles, along with their English translations, will be used when poems are mentioned in the main text for the first time. Upon subsequent occurrences in the main text and footnotes, only the English translation of a given title will appear. Poem titles (including titles that consist of the first line) and bibliographic entries will be spelled according to the Library of Congress transliteration system. However, when the text of the poem is quoted or analyzed, a scholarly transliteration will be used instead, such that ‘q’ ¼ ja, ‘’ ¼ ju, ‘e¨ ’ ¼ jo, ‘~’ ¼ cˇ, ‘{’ ¼ sˇ, ‘v’ ¼ zˇ, ‘}’ ¼ sˇcˇ,  ¼ c, ‘u˘ ’ ¼ j. Scholarly transliteration helps to avoid confusion in syllable count, crucial for the metrical analysis presented in this book.

Table of contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A note on copyright and transliteration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii ix 1

1. Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. The Monosyllable Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3. The Stress Maximum Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4. The Monosyllable Rule: Brodsky’s English sources . . . . . . 1.5. The Monosyllable Rule: Brodsky’s Russian sources . . . . . . 1.6. Unstressed syllables in W positions: Regressive Dissimilation (RD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7. Counting methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8. Anti-RD rhythm: Brodsky’s English predecessors . . . . . . . 1.9. Anti-RD rhythm: Brodsky’s Russian sources . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10. Elision and redundant syllables: Brodsky’s English sources 1.11. Elision and redundant syllables: Brodsky’s Russian predecessors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 10 12 18 20 23

2. Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Brodsky’s redundant syllables: A description . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. English elision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Phonological regularities in Brodsky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5. Brodsky’s rule and recitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6. Brodsky and Slutsky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7. Semantic associations of disrupted meter and elision . . . . . . 2.8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53 53 54 58 61 68 74 79 82

3. Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. The ‘‘English’’ uses of Brodsky’s anti-RD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. The rhythm of exile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. The form of Brodsky’s anti-RD: English or Russian? . . . . . 3.5. Brodsky’s Russian predecessors: Bely, Khodasevich, Tsvetaeva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

85 85 87 90 99 103 119

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

122

27 34 36 40 42 47 51

xii

Table of contents

Appendices I. Changes from Brodsky’s drafts to final versions . . . . . . . . II. 100 randomly-selected words with the shape -Xxx- in the prose of Brodsky, Slutsky, and Donne. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Words with the shape -Xxx- in elision positions in the verse of Donne, Brodsky, and Slutsky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Statistical tests of words with the shape -Xxx- in poetry and prose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. Anti-RD rhythm in Brodsky’s iambic poems . . . . . . . . . . . VI. Anti-RD rhythm in Tsvetaeva’s iambic poems . . . . . . . . . VII. Anti-RD rhythm in Brodsky, Tsvetaeva, and Donne . . . . .

145 150 171 176

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Author index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subject index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

183 206 209

126 128 140

Introduction The biography of a poet is in his vowels and sibilants, in his meters, rhymes and metaphors. Joseph Brodsky (1986: 164) Poetry is composed of patterns – artistic arrangements of sound, syntax, and stress. Yet linguists and verse theoreticians are often asked, especially by poststructuralist literary critics, why patterns matter. A typical response to this question may recall the suggestion of Russian poet and mathematician Andrei Bely that discovering verse patterns might render aesthetics an exact science (Belyi1 1910: 231–285), i.e., explain why we feel that one poem ‘‘flows’’ while another does not, or why we sense that one poet sounds di¤erent from another. Unfortunately, such an argument is rarely satisfactory to contemporary literary or cultural critics: formal analysis, they might counter, merely recapitulates the intuitions we already have, o¤ering few surprising insights. In reality, however, pattern analysis involves much more than a formulation of what we already sense. It often reveals facts about poets and poetry that are unexpected.2 For example, Gasparov (1995) demonstrates that phonologically, the rhyming patterns of the Russian poets Vladimir Mayakovsky and Joseph Brodsky are strikingly close, despite the former’s status as extroverted, masses-oriented revolutionary, whom Brodsky, the introverted author of ‘‘quiet poems’’ (Brodskii 2001, 3: 136), would seem highly unlikely to echo (Gasparov 1995: 91–92). A formal investigation of patterns is important for many reasons. Apart from revealing poetic similarities (or di¤erences) unexplained by intuition alone, pattern analysis also contributes to the discussion of disputed authorship, often clarifying whether a piece was written by a particular individual (Tarlinskaja 1987; Vickers 2002). Patterns can help to describe various literary genres, because each genre may display a formal regularity all its own (Hanson 2006). Patterns can be linked with specific semantic associations, thus illustrating that the study of form is highly relevant to literary interpretation (Taranovskii 1963; Wachtel 1. Common spellings of Russian surnames will be used in this text (thus Brodsky instead of the Library of Congress [LoC] transliteration Brodskii), with the exception of bibliographic references, in which authors will be cited as spelled according to LoC convention in the works in question. 2. See Wachtel (2004) for an illuminating discussion of pattern and poetry.

2

Introduction

1998; Freeman 1981).3 Patterns can also shed light on numerous other questions crucial to understanding literature: What does it mean to be an artistic reformer? What does it mean to be influenced by a foreign poetic style? If a poet seems to have been influenced by several sources at once, which is likely to have had the most significant impact? What renders a poet’s style unique rather than reminiscent of predecessors? These issues are impossible to discuss in depth without understanding the formal structure of a given poet’s work; moreover, if one aims to explore the cultural or literary significance of poetic innovation, it is necessary to first understand what, exactly, innovation is. The broad goal of this book is to underscore the relevance of linguistics to literary studies. Although several researchers have successfully linked these disciplines,4 in Western scholarship a gap between formal and literary analysis is at present still the norm, and may even be widening. The prevalence of this linguistics/literature gap is especially clear from special conferences or edited volumes aimed at closing it (Fabb, Attridge, Durant and MacCabe 1987; Kiparsky and Youmans 1989; Dresher and Friedberg 2006). As the organizers of such attempts themselves admit, these gatherings and volumes typically represent the views of ‘‘opposing camps’’ (Youmans 1989a: xii) or a ‘‘montage’’ of approaches (Fabb and Durant 1987: 4), or they strive for ‘‘greater public awareness’’ of distinct theories (Dresher and Friedberg 2006: 1). But works presented at such venues or published in such volumes still rarely synthesize linguistic and literary analysis into a single study. As Klenin (2009: 282) notes, only four of the fourteen papers included in the Dresher and Friedberg (2006) volume fulfill the ‘‘editors’ stated goal of building a bridge between strictly literary and linguistic approaches to meter.’’ Toward the aim of bridging this gap, I focus on Joseph Brodsky, the Russian poet and 1987 Nobel Prize laureate who emigrated to the United States in 1972, and whose stylistic innovations seem particularly intriguing to literary critics and scholars of meter alike. It is well known that in 1964–65, exiled by the Soviet authorities to the north Russian village of Norenskaia for ‘‘social parasitism,’’5 Brodsky read and translated texts of 3. See also Taranovskii 1966; Gasparov 1999; Traugott 1989. 4. See Taranovskii 1963, 1966; Wachtel 1998; Gasparov 1999; Tarlinskaja 1987; Traugott 1989; Freeman 1981. 5. The ‘‘social parasitism’’ law (Article 209) penalized ‘‘individuals avoiding socially useful labor and leading an anti-social and parasitic way of life’’ (cited Gordin 2000: 185). In reality, this meant anyone not o‰cially employed for longer than four months; under this rubric the authorities particularly

Introduction

3

John Donne, among other English-language poets (Brodsky 1986: 361; Brodsky 1995: 469).6 Although by his own estimation the poet’s knowledge of English at the time was limited7, he seems to have incorporated into his own work certain features of English verse rhythm, developing an ‘‘English accent’’ in his Russian poetry long before becoming fluent in English (Smith 1999b; Friedberg 2002b).8 For scholars of meter, the very fact of such borrowing is interesting in and of itself. How similar was Brodsky to his English source reading, John Donne, given Donne’s own status as one of the most eccentric versifiers in the English tradition (Co‰n 1952: xix)? What exactly was Brodsky able to hear and borrow from Donne’s prosody? Did he reproduce Donne’s eccentricity in Russian, and if not, why? Brodsky’s English-flavored experiment has significance for Slavic literary critics as well, because it raises questions regarding the poet’s relationship with his Russian as well as foreign sources. As careful examination of the history of Russian versification reveals, the ostensibly ‘‘English’’ rhythms of Brodsky appear also in the verse of such Russian predecessors as Marina Tsvetaeva, Boris Slutsky, and Vladislav Khodasevich, all of whom Brodsky read and valued, and all of whom employed this unusual form in a manner suggesting no foreign associations whatsoever (see Taranovskii 1966; Smith 1976;

targeted dissidents, poets, and other intellectuals. The punishment for ‘‘social parasitism’’ was forced labor and exile to remote regions of the USSR for a period of five years, which in Brodsky’s case was later shortened to a year and a half (Polukhina and Losev 2006: 340). 6. Brodsky also devoted poems to Donne (‘‘Bol’shaia elegiia Dzhonu Donnu’’ [Grand elegy for John Donne], 1963) and Frost (‘‘Na smert’ Roberta Frosta’’ [On the death of Robert Frost], 1963) even before his exile, and translated the poetry of Donne, W. H. Auden, Andrew Marvell, Richard Wilbur, Robert Lowell, and Hyam Plutzik after it. In addition to the poems listed in Appendix V, Brodsky also translated Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (Brodskii 1992). 7. Brodsky’s knowledge of English was passive not only in the mid-1960s, but also later, at the time of his expulsion from the USSR in 1972. When, upon emigrating, he met Auden in Vienna, Brodsky recalls, ‘‘the only English phrase I knew I wasn’t making a mistake in was ‘Mr. Auden, what do you think about. . . .’ ’’ (Brodsky 1986: 376). 8. Brodsky’s poetic ‘‘Englishness’’ has been thoroughly researched by literary scholars. See, among others, Ivask 1966; Kreps 1984; Ivanov 1988a; Polukhina 1989; Lose¤ 1992; MacFadyen 1998; Kulle 2001; Shaitanov 1998; Smith 1999b; Stepanov 1999; Losev 2006; and Klots 2008.

4

Introduction

Lotman 1999; Volkov 1998; Losev 2006). What did this rhythm mean for Tsvetaeva, Khodasevich, and Slutsky, and what did it really mean for Brodsky? How did Brodsky transform the semantics and structure of his Russian predecessors’ experiment, and why did he succeed? What is unique about Brodsky’s form, and which source, the English or the Russian, is its true origin? One would expect that a di‰cult and esoteric foreign-language text such as Donne’s would have a far smaller influence on the poet than familiar texts in his native tradition; but must this necessarily be the case? To address questions regarding the English flavor of Brodsky’s poetry, this book o¤ers an in-depth exploration of one aspect of his versification – iambic meter, more specifically, the various rhythmic realizations of this meter.9 There is good reason to focus on iambic meter – in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the most frequently used (Gasparov 1984). It might be thought that after two hundred years of usage, little experimentation with this meter would be possible, but the work of Brodsky shows that even commonly-used classical forms provide various and unexpected possibilities for innovation (Friedberg 2009a). In discussing Brodsky’s experiment, I employ evidence from a wide variety of disciplines and theories rarely combined in a single study. The first two of these theories are the generative (Halle and Keyser 1971; Kiparsky 1975, 1977; Hayes 1989; Hanson 1992) and the Russian statistical approaches to verse (Belyi 1910; Taranovski 1953; Tarlinskaja 1976; Gasparov 1984). Representatives of the generative approach to meter describe poets’ styles in terms of explicit rules (Halle and Keyser 1971; Kiparsky 1975) or, more recently, of well-formedness constraints (Hayes and MacEachern 1998; Golston and Riad 1999; Kiparsky 2006). For its part, the Russian school analyzes poets’ styles in terms of rhythmical constants, i.e., conditions that poets do not violate, and rhythmical tendencies, i.e., statistical frequencies of certain forms (Jakobson 1979e), with most attention paid to tendencies (Tarlinskaja 1976; Gasparov 1984). Some representatives of the Russian school criticize the generative tradition and find counterexamples to generative rules (Tarlinskaja 2006: 57–58), believing that generative linguists expect these rules to be inviolable (i.e., to be constants) and ‘‘predictive’’ of how poets will write. Closer examination, however, shows the Russian and generative approaches 9. Similarities with English versification have also been noted in Brodsky’s rhymes (Gasparov 1995), enjambment patterns (Scherr 1990; Smith 1999b), and stanza structure (Stepanov 1999).

Introduction

5

to have much in common. First, both are linked to the works of the Russian-American linguist Roman Jakobson and are based on the fundamental assumption that structural patterns matter. Second, generative metrics rules were not meant to be taken prescriptively; rather, they pinpoint the reasons that certain rare lines in poetry sound non-canonical (Attridge 1989: 185). Since Russian scholars have formulated conditions contributing to such non-canonical lines as well (Belyi 1910; Taranovski 1953; Jakobson [1955] 1979b; Jakobson [1973] 1979c), the two approaches are in this respect quite comparable (Youmans 1989b: 9). Third, recent formulations of generative metrics acknowledge the importance of statistical tendencies in verse (Hayes and MacEachern 1998; Hall 2006; Kiparsky 2006), i.e., the philosophical divide between the Russian and generative schools with regard to statistical variability has similarly diminished. Of course, the two approaches do have important distinctions in the formal machinery they employ; but most relevant for our purposes is the di¤erence in the degree of crossover with literary interpretation or textual source criticism. Numerous representatives of the Russian school were linguists and, at the same time, prolific literary critics; it is therefore not surprising that they sought to render their formal findings relevant for literary interpretation or the pinpointing of influence sources (e.g., Taranovskii 1963, 1966; Zhirmunskii 1966; Gasparov 1995). Generative metrics scholars, in contrast, evince a di¤erent orientation, often situating their poetry research in the context of contemporary phonology and natural language theory (Kiparsky 1975; Hayes 1983, 2008). But nothing in principle excludes generative theories from literary applications.10 Indeed, this study will illustrate that the Russian approach and generative theory are equally relevant for literary criticism, since violations of both statistical norms and generative rules of verse can interact with a poem’s meaning or hint at its author’s possible textual influences. The generative and Russian schools of metrics are not the only rarelycombined research methods used in this study. As is common in literary analyses, but unusual in generative ones, this book discusses Brodsky’s specific source readings, as well as biographical and archival data on the poet, all of which help to establish the context in which experimental rules emerged. And as is customary in linguistic analyses (Hayes and MacEachern 1998; Cole and Miyashita 2006) but rare in literary studies, I conduct fieldwork on readers’ intuitions regarding poetic rhythm, and analyze 10. For an example of the e¤ective use of generative theory to address literary issues, see Hanson 2006.

6

Introduction

how ‘‘real’’ Brodsky’s rules are for his audience. In order to illustrate that such methodological diversity is crucial for understanding Brodsky’s experiment, I will now briefly summarize how various methods contribute to the analysis in each of the three chapters of the book. Chapter 1 provides a general comparison between English and Russian iambic meter, discusses the relationship between meter and language, and analyzes the rhythms of specific English, American, and Russian poets that Brodsky read in the 1960s, including John Donne, Robert Frost, Marina Tsvetaeva, and Boris Slutsky. Both the generative and Russian approaches allow me to analyze these poets’ rhythms, identifying a common semantic aura for some, and explain why Brodsky adopted certain forms while ignoring others. The chapter’s main theoretical contribution is that it expands the generative approach, which has typically formulated metrical rules of specific poets without comparing them to the rules governing these poets’ textual sources. Moreover, the chapter represents an attempt to relate Losev’s (2006), Polukhina and Losev’s (2006), and Polukhina’s (2008) biographies of Brodsky to the domains of linguistics and versification – an important step, given that a detailed chronological listing of readings having potentially influenced Brodsky’s rhythm became fully accessible only upon the publication of these studies. Chapter 2 analyzes a particular English-flavored feature of Brodsky’s iambic verse, namely, metrical elision, the phenomenon whereby a poet ignores vowels for the purposes of metrical scansion. This feature appears in the poetry of two of Brodsky’s sources, Boris Slutsky (Smith 1999a; Losev 2006: 63) and John Donne. I argue that the di¤erences between the seemingly identical rhythms of Brodsky and Slutsky become apparent only if one takes into account the syllable shapes the two poets employ. Brodsky’s elision turns out to be highly constrained and rule-governed throughout the poet’s body of work. It is also strikingly similar to elision employed by Donne (which, unlike other aspects of the English poet’s meter, is highly regular). Slutsky’s elision, by contrast, does not display the same degree of prosodic regularity as Brodsky’s. The structural contrast between Brodsky and Slutsky prompts me to propose that the two poets represent two kinds of poetic innovators: Brodsky is a rule-maker, i.e., a poet who creates new rules that hold for extended periods of time, while Slutsky is a rule-breaker, who violates old rules but creates no new ones in their stead.11 Crucial for this proposal are Kiparsky’s (1977) and

11. This argument was previously presented in Friedberg 2009a.

Introduction

7

Hanson’s (1992) formulations of the generative theory of meter, according to which syllable shape can play a role in a stress-based iambic meter. In contrast, Russian verse theory has typically analyzed iambs without reference to syllable shape (Belyi 1910; Taranovski 1953; Gasparov 1984). Thus without the application of generative theory, an important aspect of Donne’s possible influence on Brodsky would go unnoticed, as would rhythmic di¤erences between Brodsky and Slutsky (Friedberg 2009a). Moreover, combining linguistic fieldwork with archival research has allowed me to discover an additional aspect of Brodsky’s experiment that is not immediately obvious: Brodsky’s elision rule proves to be quite abstract, in the sense that it is neither observed nor acknowledged by readers who recite his verse. At the same time, the poet’s intent to apply an elision rule is supported by corrections he introduced into poem drafts.12 Chapter 3 examines another English-reminiscent feature of Brodsky’s verse, namely his unusual (for Russian) stress frequencies in the middle and end of lines (Lotman 1999; Smith 1999b; Friedberg 2002b), which often appear in Brodsky’s English-themed or generally foreign-themed poems. In this case, again, two potential sources of Brodsky’s experiment have been proposed – English verse itself (Smith 1999b) and the nontraditional iambs of Russian poets Marina Tsvetaeva (Lotman 1999) and Vladislav Khodasevich.13 Utilizing statistical analysis of rhythm, I find that on the formal level, this aspect of Brodsky’s ‘‘English’’ accent (unlike elision) has far more in common with non-canonical Russian rhythms than with his English sources. At the same time, I trace the function of this rhythm in Tsvetaeva and Khodasevich, and find that for them the semantic aura of the form had nothing to do with ‘‘Englishness’’ or foreignness; rather, the rhythm appears in poems describing unpredictable or unruly behavior, bodily deformity, or alcohol consumption. One possible explanation for Brodsky’s decision to adopt Tsvetaeva’s and Khodasevich’s form in foreign contexts is that his goal was neither to approximate English nor to echo any specific elements of his Russian predecessors’ texts. Instead, the meaning of Brodsky’s rhythm results from his desire to foreground particular aspects of Khodasevich’s, Tsvetaeva’s – 12. Drafts of poems are held at Yale University’s Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Thanks to Yakov Klots for finding the relevant poems discussed in detail in Chapter 2. 13. On Khodasevich’s non-traditional rhythm, see Taranovskii 1966.

8

Introduction

and his own – biography. Recall that both Tsvetaeva and Khodasevich were e´migre´s; also importantly, Brodsky’s foreign-flavored rhythm does not appear exclusively in foreign-themed texts, but also in those written during his 1964–65 northern exile in Norenskaia (Friedberg 2002b). Using Tsvetaeva’s and Khodasevich’s rhythmic language allowed Brodsky to identify his own banishment to Norenskaia with Tsvetaeva’s and Khodasevich’s banishment from Russia; Brodsky further extended the semantics of this rhythm to foreign contexts simply because Tsvetaeva’s and Khodasevich’s rhythm could have had reminiscences with foreign lands, where e´migre´ poets had lived. From a theoretical standpoint, it is the Russian quantitative approach rather than generative metrics which proves crucial for this analysis. Taranovsky, a practitioner of the Russian approach, illustrated precisely that not only meters, but also their subtle rhythmic variations, can have particular thematic auras (Taranovskii 1966). The application of Taranovsky’s approach allows us not only to notice that Brodsky’s predecessors’ rhythm was semantically consistent (and di¤erent from Brodsky’s), but also to acknowledge that Brodsky himself used a consistent rhythm to mark exile. Moreover, identifying Brodsky’s exilic form has practical significance for literary scholarship, for, as will be shown in Chapter 2, it helps pinpoint the time Brodsky’s as yet undated poems of the 1960s were composed. As this summary illustrates, the various analytic approaches applied in this book to the same phenomenon, i.e., Brodsky’s ‘‘English’’ accent, complement one another, each providing insights that alternative approaches do not (Friedberg 2009a). Further, the seemingly minute elements of rhythm under consideration reveal something of greater significance than the mere presence of a pattern: they shed light on the poet’s biography, and on his own self-assessment. To be sure, a writer’s conceptualization of his/her place in literary context can be highly contradictory; in one interview Brodsky claims to see himself as a student of Donne (Polukhina 2000: 156), while in another he objects to even a comparison: ‘‘Who am I to be influenced by Donne? The only thing I learned from him is stanza structure’’ (Polukhina 2000: 121). As I will show with the aid of linguistic methods, the lessons Brodsky learned from Donne were clearly not limited to stanza structure. Moreover, pattern analysis goes beyond clarifying autobiographical inconsistencies (such as Brodsky’s varying statements on Donne); it can also help to fill in biographical gaps. Neither poets nor literary historians always provide us with complete details on how texts are created: we do not know, for example, what associations went through

Introduction

9

Brodsky’s mind as he translated Donne in a remote northern village one evening in 1964. But it is possible to at least partially reconstruct these missing pages of the biography by using linguistic tools. As a result, linguistics makes us better readers – ones who hear, it is hoped, the same music of verse that might have sounded in the poet’s ear.

1. Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

1.1. Introduction What are the metrical norms of English and Russian verse? What were the rhythmic features of Brodsky’s readings in the 1960s, wherein these norms were sometimes violated? The major ‘‘English-sounding’’ traits of Brodsky’s Russian verse could potentially be related not only to Brodsky’s English readings, but also to the experiments of such twentieth-century Russian predecessors as Marina Tsvetaeva or Boris Slutsky. Thus, a detailed analysis of the rules observed and broken prior to Brodsky is crucial, enabling us to approach Brodsky’s experiment within a wider cultural context, determine the relative importance of his sources, and evaluate the extent of Brodsky’s own innovation. Moreover, the analysis of sources will help explain why Brodsky borrowed some foreign rhythms while ignoring others. What is iambic meter? The generative approaches of Halle and Keyser (1971) and Kiparsky (1975, 1977) view this meter as an abstract template with alternating weak (W) and strong (S)1 positions; odd metrical positions are weak and even ones strong. Ideally, W and S positions correspond to weak and strong prosodic elements as defined by stress, syllable quantity, or tone. In English and Russian poetry, positional strength is based on stress. Lines perfectly matching the iambic template are given in (1) and (2); here the WS sequence stands for abstract meter, while capitalization represents actual phonetic stresses, i.e., rhythm. (1) thy FIRM- ness DRAWS my CIR- cle JUST Rhythm W S W S W S W S Meter (‘‘A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning,’’ Donne [1572–1631] 19522: 38) (2) vol- XVY za- BU- dut AD- res TVOJ Rhythm W S W S W S W S Meter ‘The wise men will forget your address’ (Brodskii 2001, 2: 118) 1. A strong position is also sometimes called an ictus. 2. This edition of Donne, crucial, as will be discussed, for Brodsky’s reception of the poet, will be referred to hereafter as ‘‘Donne 1952.’’

1.1.

Introduction

11

Weak and strong positions can further be grouped into iambic feet, such that the template in (1) and (2) constitutes a sequence of four feet: (WS) (WS) (WS) (WS). Syllabo-tonic verse, i.e., verse that regulates both the number of syllables and the position of stresses, includes not only iambic (WS) but also trochaic (SW), dactylic (SWW), amphibrachic (WSW), and anapestic (WWS) meters, where the combinations of capital letters represent the basic feet comprising these meters. Syllabic systems such as French verse regulate the number of syllables but not stresses, while accentual systems such as the Old English four-beat line regulate the number of stresses but not syllables. An intermediate type between syllabo-tonic and accentual is the Russian dol’nik (Bailey 1975; Tarlinskaja 1993), a meter in which, as shown in Table 1, the number of W’s between S positions varies between one and two.3 Table 1. An example of Brodsky’s dol’nik – ‘‘Ia vsegda tverdil, chto sud’ba igra’’ [I’ve always maintained that fate is a game] S

S

S

S

tver-

DIL,

cˇto

sud’-

BA

ig-

RA

za-

DA ˇ EM C

nam

RY-

ba,

raz

EST’

ik-

cˇto

go-

TI-

cˇes-

kij

po-

be-

la

spo-

SOB-

nost’

tor-

iz

be-

DIT, ˇ AV Z

kak

kak

STIL’ ˇ AT’, C

RA SˇKO-

u-

KO-

la

ja

vseg-

cˇto

‘I’ve always maintained that fate is a game / That who needs fish when we’ve got caviar? / That the Gothic style will conquer as a movement / As the ability to get high without an injection’ (Brodskii 2001, 2: 427)

Returning to iambic verse, whether Russian or English, we might note that rhythm and meter do not always coincide as neatly as in (1) and (2). Why is precise conformity to the template relatively rare? First, if all iambic verse repeated the rhythm in (1) and (2), poetry would be extremely monotonous. Second, in English literary language, approximately 78.2 percent of all words are monosyllables, whereas in Russian 3. Despite its Russian name, the dol’nik meter has been shown to exist in other poetic traditions, including English and German (Bailey 1975; Tarlinskaja 1993).

12

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

literary language, the incidence of monosyllabic lexical words ranges between 6.3 percent for prose and 10.8 percent for iambic tetrameter (Scherr 1980: 359–361; Gasparov 1968: 67).4 Thus, neither Russian nor English language data can fit the iambic template perfectly: English has too many stresses to accommodate, while Russian has too few. How do English and Russian poets adapt the linguistic givens of their languages to the demands of verse? What departures from the iambic pattern do they allow or prohibit?

1.2. The Monosyllable Rule The abundance of monosyllables in the English language mentioned by Scherr (1980) has direct consequences for the sound and ‘‘feel’’ of English iambic meter. Consider Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116, discussed at length by Fabb (1997: 40). Three out of five metrically weak positions in (3) are filled with stressed monosyllables: LET, NOT, and TRUE. In addition, some unstressed monosyllables fill S positions – the unstressed to and of occur in S, while me could be either stressed or unstressed – rendering the mismatch between iambic template and actual rhythm even more pronounced: (3) LET W

me NOT to the MAR- riage of TRUE MINDS S W S W S W S W S (Shakespeare, Sonnet 116, cited in Fabb 1997: 38)

Indeed, labeling the line ‘‘iambic’’ may seem arbitrary: its first four syllables could easily be scanned according to the trochaic template, with odd positions being strong, and even positions weak, i.e., (SW) (SW) (LET me NOT to. . .). If actual lines of what is called iambic poetry do not conform to the meter exactly, does this mean that (3) is in fact a random combination of stressed and unstressed syllables? The reason to believe in the existence of a uniform iambic template has to do with the fact that English poets typically employ only certain types of departures from the pattern. For example, it turns out that the rhythm of (4) and (5) below is common

4. Scherr’s (1980: 359) calculations are based on two-thousand-word excerpts from Melville’s Moby Dick, Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury, and Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms.

1.2.

The Monosyllable Rule

13

in Shakespeare’s iambic verse, but the rhythm of (6) is avoided (Hayes 1988). (4) WHEN to the SES- sions of SWEET SI- lent THOUGHT W S W S W S W S W S (Shakespeare, Sonnet 30, cited in Hayes 1988: 222) (5) RI- cher than WEALTH, PROU- der than GAR- ments COST W S W S W S W S W S (Shakespeare, Sonnet 91, cited in Hayes 1989: 222) (6) *WHEN in the COURSE of se- RENE SI- lent THOUGHT W S W S W S W S W S (construct by Hayes 1988: 223) In example (4), the fourth W position is filled with the monosyllabic stressed word sweet. Example (5) includes the stressed syllable of the polysyllabic word RICH-er in the W position at the beginning of the line, with the stressed syllable of PROU-der occupying a W immediately following a clause boundary. In contrast, in the unsuccessful construct (6), the stressed syllable of se-RENE occurs in a W position, with no line boundary or major syntactic break preceding the inversion. It turns out that the distribution of stressed syllables in English verse is sensitive to word and phrase boundaries. Following Kiparsky (1975), Hayes formulates a constraint to account for Shakespeare’s metrical choices (Hayes’s wording is preferred here to Kiparsky’s as the less technical for non-linguist readers): The Monosyllable Rule (Hayes 1988: 222; after Kiparsky 1975) ‘‘A stressed syllable must occupy s position unless: (i) it consists of a single, monosyllabic word; or (ii) it immediately follows a phonological phrase boundary.’’5 5. Tarlinskaja (2006) claims that Shakespeare’s dramas o¤er counterexamples to this rule, namely, instances of words such as dese´rved, appe´ar, begı´n, and compe´lled scanning SW, with no potential pause preceding the respective stressed syllables in W. However, she grants that in Shakespeare’s time these words might have been initially stressed (Ko¨keritz 1974: 332–339).

14

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

To understand how Kiparsky, whose Monosyllable Constraint formed the basis for Hayes’s rule, interprets the term ‘‘phonological phrase,’’6 let us examine (7) below. While in (5) the beginnings of the phonological phrases coincide with a line break or clausal boundary, in (7), another existing line of Shakespeare, the mismatch exhibited by BLESS-es is preceded neither by line break nor clausal boundary. (7) NA- ming W S

thy NAME BLESS- es an ILL re- PORT W S W S W S W S (Sonnet 95, Shakespeare 2004: 195)

Yet intuitively it is clear that English speakers are likely to make a break between name and blesses, but not between thy and name or an and ill. Thus, what the Monosyllable Rule really states is that metrical mismatches exhibited by polysyllabic words (i.e., polysyllabic inversions) are licensed after potential breaks – breaks which may or may not be manifested in actual performance. In this respect, Shakespeare is strikingly di¤erent from the seventeenth-century poet John Donne, whom Brodsky imitated and translated. Consider the following line of Donne: (8) shall be- HOLD GOD and NE- ver TASTE DEATH’S WOE W S W S W S W S W S (Donne, Holy Sonnets, cited in Kiparsky 1975: 605) Donne uses polysyllabic inversion, associating the word beho´ld with an (SW) sequence, despite the absence of a phonological phrase boundary to the left of the weak-positioned stressed syllable -ho´ld. Donne thus violates

6. Kiparsky (1975) locates the phonological phrase edge using syntactic information and the boundary condition of Chomsky and Halle (1968). English phonological phrase formation is still little understood: some proposals following Kiparsky’s are outlined by Selkirk (1978), Nespor and Vogel (1982), and Hayes (1989), among others. The details of these proposals do not concern us in this study, but, to summarize that of Hayes (1989): a phonological phrase in English consists of the head of the phrase (i.e., a verb in a verb phrase, a noun in a noun phrase, etc.) together with all head-related material to the left (e.g., modifiers of verbs and nouns, articles of nouns, etc.), with one non-branching complement optionally adjoined to the right.

1.2.

The Monosyllable Rule

15

the Monosyllable Rule, and this fact is one of the reasons his meter is considered among the most eccentric in the history of English versification.7 Formulating the Monosyllable Rule has a¤orded interesting applications in the field of metrics in particular and the study of style in general. Importantly, it has allowed scholars to formally di¤erentiate between poetry and prose. Since prose language does not follow the iambic template, it is not expected to abide by the Monosyllable Rule (see Fabb 1997: 51– 53). Moreover, modified versions of the Monosyllable Rule taking into account phrase, word, and foot boundaries allowed Kiparsky (1977) to propose a typology of English verse, illustrating the existence of an elegant linguistic method by which to represent the metrical ‘‘fingerprints’’ of various poets. Finally, the Monosyllable Rule accounting for word boundaries reveals interesting di¤erences not only between poets, but also between poetic traditions of various languages. This fact was known before Kiparksy’s study; Roman Jakobson (1979b: 168), with whose theory Kiparsky’s approach has a great deal in common, argued that word boundaries play a crucial role in Russian versification.8 For example, they explain the di¤erence between an acceptable Russian line (9) and the far less common rhythm illustrated in (10). Consider Jakobson’s phonetically identical constructs: (9) DAM # u- ve- DET W S W S ‘[He] will steal the ladies’ (Jakobson 1979c: 205) (10) *DA- mu veW S W ‘The lady is led’

DET S (Jakobson 1979c: 205)

7. This feature of Donne is one reason that Tarlinskaja (1976) considers his meter a transitional form between iambic and syllable-counting verse, because in terms of syllable count Donne is regular. In syllable-counting meters such as French and Italian, the placement of polysyllabic stresses is relatively unconstrained (though Hanson [1996] argues that strong stresses in the Italian endecasillabo typically fall on even positions, namely position four or six and position ten.) Hence, if Donne’s style was indeed evolving toward a syllabic model, it is not surprising that his alignment of polysyllabic stresses is loose. 8. See also Tomashevskii 1929.

16

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

In (9), the first W is filled with a stressed monosyllable and is immediately followed by a word boundary (indicated by the # symbol). In (10), by contrast, the first W is filled with the stress of a polysyllabic word and is not immediately followed by a word boundary. According to Jakobson, rhythms matching (9) are very common in eighteenth- and nineteenthcentury Russian iambic poetry, but polysyllabic inversions as in (10) were typically avoided by poets of this period.9 Let us restate this restriction on the distribution of Russian polysyllables, bearing in mind, however, that the rule was violated in twentieth-century Russian iambic verse and occasionally even in that of earlier periods.10

9. Note that this restriction does not apply to weaker degrees of stress. The filling of a W position by weakly stressed prepositions or conjunctions such as cˇe´rez [through], ´ıli [or], and me´zˇdu [between], or by the secondary stress of compounds, as in te`mno-kudrja´vyj [dark curly] or cˇe`rno-zele´nyj [black-green], is allowed (Nabokov 1964; Shengeli 1923). 10. Polysyllabic inversions structurally similar to Donne’s occur in the verse of the nineteenth-century Russian poet Fedor Tiutchev. In his famous lyric ‘‘Silentium’’ (1830), the stresses of polysyllabic words zaxo´djat [set] and zve´zdy [stars] fall in W positions and, as with Donne, are not preceded by phrasal breaks. ‘‘Silentium’’ (Tiutchev 1987: 105) W

S

W

S

W

S

W

S

mol-

ˇ I, C

skry-

VAJ-

sja

i

ta-

I

i

ˇ UVC

stva

i

mecˇ-

TY

svo-

I–

pus-

KAJ

v du-

SˇEV-

noj

glu-

bi-

NE

vsta-

JUT

i

za-

XO-

djat

o-

NE

bez-

MOL-

vno,

kak

ZVEZ-

dy

v no-

ˇ I, – C

lju-

BUJ-

sja

I-

mi –

i

mol-

ˇ I. C

‘Be silent, hide yourself, and hide / Your feelings and your dreams – / Let them, in the silence of the soul / Rise and set / Silently, like stars at night – / Admire them – and be silent.’

1.2.

The Monosyllable Rule

17

The Russian Monosyllable Rule (after Jakobson 1979b; Jakobson 1979c)11 A stressed monosyllabic word can occur in a W position. The main stress of a polysyllabic lexical word cannot occur in a W position.

The Russian Monosyllable Rule is stricter than Kiparsky’s rule for English, since in Russian the stress of a polysyllabic word cannot occupy a weak position even at the beginning of a phonological phrase. Whence the Russian rule’s strictness? Linguistically, the rigidity of the Russian Monosyllable Rule is completely artificial. Jakobson (1979c: 205) attempts to explain it by the fact that Russian features contrastive or phonological stress, implying that if a word is misaligned metrically, there exists the possibility of confusing muku´ [flour – accusative case] with mu´ku [torture – accusative case], or pla´cˇu [I cry] with placˇu´ [I pay]. Such an explanation, however, is unsatisfactory, because the syntactic and lexical context wherein the theoretically ambiguous word appears typically makes clear which meaning the author has in mind. The strictness of the Russian Monosyllable Rule in fact has very little to do with linguistics, and is perhaps explained rather by the historical circumstances in which it emerged (Tarlinskaja 1987; Gasparov 1984). As Gasparov argues, eighteenth-century classicism However, Tiutchev’s experimentation was an unlikely model for Brodsky’s English flavor, in part because of Tiutchev’s o¤-putting (to Brodsky) association with tsarism, his having, in Brodsky’s words, ‘‘not just kissed the emperor’s boots,’’ but ‘‘kissed them with passion’’ (Volkov 2002: 61). The subtlety Brodsky sought in foreign imitation, moreover, is far from the stark semantic markedness of Tiutchev’s inversions in ‘‘Silentium.’’ The metrically mismatched za-XO-djat [set] and ZVEZ-dy [stars] describe the disappearance of stars in the morning, the former word being conceptualized in Russian as ‘‘downward movement.’’ Along with the drop in pitch from stressed to unstressed syllable, the disconnect between meter and rhythm evokes the stars’ descent (Koroleva 1973). In my own reading of za-XO-djat, the pitch decreases from 260.9 Hz (for the stressed XO-) to 196.7 Hz (for the unstressed -djat). Thus the last two syllables of za-XO-djat acoustically mimic the word’s meaning. 11. Earlier formulations of a Russian Monosyllable Rule were proposed by Jakobson ([1923] 1979a) and Zhirmunsky (Zhirmunskii [1925] 1971), but these prohibited polysyllabic stress only in the first W position of a line. Jakobson later expanded the prohibition to apply to all W positions, with certain exceptions (e.g., Jakobson 1979b; Jakobson 1979c).

18

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

demanded a strong opposition between verse and prose. Hence it is not surprising that the number and type of allowable mismatches between meter and rhythm was quite limited. Another possibility (M. L. Gasparov, personal communication with Emily Klenin) is that the strictness of the Russian Monosyllable Rule was historically imposed by censors and editors. This suggestion is extremely appealing, and the publication history of certain poets proves it to be on the right track. For example, in the case of Boris Slutsky, most of the poet’s metrically unconventional iambic verse remained unpublished in the 1950s and 1960s, i.e., the iambic poems allowed to be printed in this period displayed a very limited amount of experimentation (see Chapter 2). In any event, the fact that the Russian Monosyllable Rule was violated by twentieth-century poets demonstrates that the restriction was linguistically artificial to begin with. 1.3. The Stress Maximum Principle While word boundary is central to the theories of Kiparsky and Jakobson, not all scholars take it into account. Halle and Keyser’s approach (1971) ignores word boundaries altogether, instead making reference to a Stress Maximum12: The Stress Maximum Principle (paraphrase of Halle and Keyser 1971: 169) A Stress Maximum (i.e., a stressed syllable surrounded by unstressed syllables within the same syntactic constituent in a line of verse) cannot occur in a weak metrical position.

Halle and Keyser illustrate their theory by quoting a purposely unmetrical line by John Keats; the mismatch is indicated in boldface: (11) HOW MA- ny BARDS GUILD the LAP- ses of TIME W S W S W S W S W S (Keats, Poems [1817], cited in Halle and Keyser 1971: 171) This line’s unmetricality is due to its inclusion of three mismatches in a row: unstressed the and unstressed -ses are associated with S positions,

12. The tenet that ‘‘word boundaries may be disregarded in metrical verse’’ holds in later versions of Halle’s theory as well (Halle and Fabb 2008: 10).

1.3.

The Stress Maximum Principle

19

whereas the stressed LAP-, a Stress Maximum, is associated with a W position. Moreover, broken meter in Keats’s line is not a matter of the poet’s sloppiness, but is, rather, aesthetically justified: ‘‘It seems quite clear that the poet is purposely moving outside of the meter in order to caricature metrically the sense of the line. The line is literally what it speaks of figuratively, a ‘lapse of time’ ’’ (Halle and Keyser 1971: 171). The Stress Maximum Principle formulated above applies in Russian in exactly the same way as in English. Zhirmunsky points out that changing the word order of (12) results in an unmetrical construct (13): ˇ AT’ se- BJA za- STA- vil (12) on u- -va -Z W S W S W S W S (W) ‘He made others respect him’ (Evgenii Onegin, Pushkin 1986, 2: 187) ˇ AT’ (13) *u- -va -Z W S W

se- BJA on zaS W S W

STA- vil S (W)

‘He made others respect him’ (construct by Zhirmunskii 1966: 64) Although Zhirmunsky does not use the same terminology as Halle and Keyser (1971), his construct in (13) is precisely what these authors would consider a violation of the Stress Maximum Principle: unstressed syllables ˇ AT’, a Stress -va and se- occupy S positions, while the stressed syllable -Z Maximum, occurs in a W position. Halle and Keyser’s theory allows us to discover commonalities between Russian and English versification, an illuminating result if one is investigating universal tendencies of poetic meters. But as Jakobson, citing Kiparsky, notes: ‘‘[T]he search for a common denominator in a diversity of forms has o¤ered a serious obstacle to metrical studies and . . . it has frequently been di‰cult to catch a diversity behind the apparent common denominator’’ (Jakobson 1979d: 578). An approach focusing exclusively on the common rules shared by English and Russian verse would not adequately explain the nature of Brodsky’s innovation. By its very nature, cross-linguistic borrowing such as Brodsky’s implies adopting rules the two languages do not share. For this reason, I will consider the English and Russian versions of the Monosyllable Rule instead of the Stress Maximum Principle, adopting, however, Halle and Keyser’s idea that the form of a line can reflect metrically what it means.

20

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

1.4. The Monosyllable Rule: Brodsky’s English sources The placement of stressed syllables into W positions described by Kiparsky and Hayes shows that English poets employ a variety of rhythmic configurations to depart from strict iambicity. To which of these rhythms was Brodsky exposed when he read Donne in English? Consider Donne’s ‘‘A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning,’’ which Brodsky translated in 1967 (Polukhina and Losev 2006: 336). In Donne’s original text, the stress of a polysyllabic word, sublu´nary, occurs in a W position.13 This syllable is not immediately preceded by a phonological phrase boundary (*sub-Ø-lunary), thus violating the English Monosyllable Rule: (14) DULL sub- LU- na- ry LOW S W S W S

vers LOVE W S (Donne 1952: 38)

Brodsky never created an exact rhythmic equivalent of (14) in his native tongue, despite the existence of Russian precedents (see note 10). He does on occasion employ words whose stress must be shifted to fit the iambic template (e.g., stressing a´tomnyi ‘atomic’ as ato´mnyi [Brodskii 2001, 2: 83]). But except for the few foreign quotes shown in (19), I was unable to find an example of a true metrical inversion, i.e., an instance in which a stress shift is ruled out as ill-formed, and a polysyllabic word is metrically misaligned. Brodsky’s 1967 translation of the line in (14) replicates the W-position stress, but since this stress is a monosyllabic word, the rhythm strictly obeys the rules of Russian versification. (15) TAK i lju- BOV’ zem- NYX W S W S W S ‘So too the love of earthly hearts’

ser- DEC W S (Brodskii 2001, 4: 288)

Moreover, Donne’s line-initial polysyllabic inversions (perfectly legitimate in English under the Monosyllable Rule) are avoided in Brodsky’s translations as well. Consider the following lines from ‘‘The Flea’’ (16), ‘‘A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning’’ (17), and ‘‘The Will’’ (18):

13. Mu¨ller’s dictionary (1953), which most likely served as Brodsky’s source on pronunciation, stresses the word sublu´nary on the second syllable.

1.4.

(16) a.

The Monosyllable Rule: Brodsky’s English sources

21

Cru´-ell and sodaine, hast thou since Pu´r-pled thy naile, in blood of innocence (Donne 1952: 32)

b.

Ax, vse zˇe stal tvoj no´got’ palacˇo´m, ‘Oh, after all, your nail has become an executioner’ (Brodskii 2001, 4: 294)

(17) a.

Mo´-ving of th’earth brings harmes and feares (Donne 1952: 38)

b.

Ze`m-le-trja-se´-nje vzor strasˇ´ıt ‘The earthquake frightens the gaze’ (Brodskii 2001, 4: 288)

(18) a.

One-ly to give to those that count my gifts indignity (Donne 1952: 43)

b.

Te´m u´cˇisˇ ’ slat’ dary´, komu´ pretja´t one´ ‘You teach [me] to send gifts to those who despise them’ (Brodskii 2001, 4: 297)

Brodsky begins the translations (16b) and (18b) with, respectively, the stressed interjection ax [oh] and the emphatically stressed pronoun tem [to those]. In (17b) he begins the line with the compound ze`mletrjase´nje [earthquake], of which the first syllable bears secondary stress. Again, he approximates Donne’s stressing in W positions while remaining strictly within the range of permissible Russian mismatches, since he fills W positions with stressed monosyllables or secondary stresses (the latter being as permissible as monosyllables, according to Shengeli 1923). Brodsky’s refusal to copy English polysyllabic inversions, whether those preceded by pauses or not, suggests that he finds either type equally unacceptable, in this respect following eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Russian metrical standards. In the whole corpus of Brodsky’s Russian iambic poetry, including translations, true polysyllabic inversions (as opposed to metrically-driven stress shifts) occur only in foreign-language quotations, such as the German phrase in Brodsky’s translation of Hyam Plutzik’s ‘‘Horatio,’’ another in Brodsky’s ‘‘Dva chasa v rezervuare’’ [Two

22

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

hours in a reservoir – gloss Grudzin´ska-Gross 2009: 222], and another in an Italian place name in ‘‘P’iatstsa Mattei’’ [Piazza Mattei]. (19a) WER- den und SEIN, sta- RIN- na ja di- LEM- ma W S W S W S W S W S (W) ‘To become or to be, an ancient dilemma’ (Brodskii 2001, 4: 273) (19b)

ˇ I- te VAS ist DAS in- KU- bus FROJ- ljajn ska- Z W S W S W S W S W S (W) ‘Miss, tell me, what is an incubus?’ (Brodskii 2001, 2: 140)

(19c)

i DVE- ri ZAW S W S

per- toj na VI- a W S W S W

DEL’- ji fu- NA- ri W S W S W ‘And a locked door on Via dei Funari’ (Brodskii 2001, 3: 208) The absence of polysyllabic inversions anywhere else suggests their unacceptability for Brodsky in the context of native verse. Given that the Russian restriction against polysyllabic inversion is linguistically artificial, why was the poet so adamant in this regard? One may be tempted to explain this rigidity by way of Brodsky’s own statement that he was zarazˇen normal’nym klassicizmom [contaminated with normal Classicism] (Brodskii 2001, 2: 135). But Brodsky was equally influenced by the aesthetics of the Baroque (MacFadyen 1998), a period of looser opposition between verse and prose than that maintained by Classicism (Tarlinskaja 1987; Gasparov 1984). It is surprising that an admirer of the Baroque would completely exclude an innovation relaxing metrical rigidity, and especially puzzling insofar as, in translations and stylizations of foreign verse, Brodsky does not shy from breaking other norms of Russian versification. We might hypothesize that in Russian, polysyllabic inversions are highly marked, whereas Brodsky seeks something more subtle to signal a foreign flavor. A Russian speaker accustomed to reading verse would easily notice polysyllabic inversions: they are rare and involve two disruptions in a row, one mismatch in a weak position and one in a strong one. The marked status of polysyllabic inversions is also enhanced by the

1.5.

The Monosyllable Rule: Brodsky’s Russian sources

23

fact that they are often connected with meaning, and their associations have nothing to do with foreignness at all.14 1.5. The Monosyllable Rule: Brodsky’s Russian sources Among the poets young Brodsky read, Tsvetaeva’s verse provided the most important example of meaning-based polysyllabic inversions.15 Considering Tsvetaeva the greatest poet of the twentieth century (Kudrova 1997), Brodsky surely noticed her formal experimentation.16 For example, in ‘‘Dvoe’’ [The two], Tsvetaeva (1925) questions the validity of strict poetic forms (‘‘What’s the use of rhymes?’’), and breaks the Russian Monosyllable Rule. In (20), the word RIF-me [rhymes] exhibits polysyllabic inversion, with Tsvetaeva’s rhythmic choice signaling her refusal to play by the rules – precisely the theme of the poem: ˇ TO NUZ ˇD C W S ‘What’s the use’

(20) . . .

...

V RIF- me? je- LE- na, STAR’- sja W S W S W S W ‘Of rhymes? Helen, grow old’ (Tsvetaeva 1925: 209) Likewise, in the poem ‘‘Chitateli gazet’’ [Newspaper readers] (1935), Tsvetaeva violates the Russian Monosyllable Rule to symbolize her revolt against norms. The poem, depicting newspaper readers on a subway train, 14. Polysyllabic inversions sometimes perform a semantic function even in English, despite their being metrically acceptable in this language for centuries. As Tarlinskaja suggests, inversions in English poetry often indicate vigorous motion (e.g., Shelley’s wa´ving a sword ), falling (e.g., Shakespeare’s Fa´lling on Diomed; Frost’s Fa´lling in love), or shaking (e.g., Yeats’s Sha´king and waving or Shakespeare’s Sha´king his bloody fingers) (Tarlinskaja 2006: 66–68). 15. This inversion, of course, is only a subtype of the general meaning-form synthesis that characterizes Tsvetaeva’s verse (Belyi 1922: 7, cited in Shevelenko 2002: 217; Karlinsky 1966: 197, Zubova 1999: 26–34), a synthesis that, as Shevelenko argues, ‘‘resists being broken down into separate categories of phonetics, rhythm, and imagery’’ (Shevelenko 2002: 216). 16. Brodsky furthermore devoted three essays in literary analysis to Tsvetaeva: ‘‘Ob odnom stikhotvorenii’’ [On a poem], ‘‘Poet i proza’’ [Poet and prose], and ‘‘Notes on the Commentary’’ in the volume Marina Tsvetaeva: One Hundred Years (Viktoria Schweitzer et al., eds.) (Kudrova 1997).

24

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

compares the subway to hell and the reading of newspapers to a contagious disease. At the end of the poem Tsvetaeva describes a humiliating encounter with newspaper editors, to whom she is o¤ering a manuscript for consideration. The broken meter created by ru´kopisju seems to underscore that Tsvetaeva refuses to follow the editors’ instructions. It could also be interpreted as an outburst of uncontrollable emotion (specifically, anger) that the poet experiences in front of the editors. Table 2. ‘‘Newspaper Readers’’ (Tsvetaeva 1961: 216) W

S

W

S

W

S

kto

NA-

sˇix

sy-

no-

VEJ

gno-

IT

vo

CVE-

te

LET?

sme-

SI-

te-

li

kro-

VEJ,

pi-

SA-

te-

li

ga-

ZET!

VOT,

DRU-

gi,

i

ku-

DA

sil’ˇ TO C

NEJ,

cˇem

v SIX

stro-

KAX!

DU-

ma-

ju,

ko-

GDA

s RU-

ko-

pi-

sju

v ru-

KAX

‘Who lets our sons / Rot in the prime of life? / Blood-mixers, / Newspaper writers! / That, friends –, and much more / Forcefully than in these lines, / Is what I think when / [I stand] with a manuscript in my hands’

In an earlier poem, ‘‘Tebe – cherez sto let’’ [To you, a hundred years later] (1919), Tsvetaeva breaks the meter in precisely the same context, i.e., direct speech wherein the persona expresses anger: Table 3. ‘‘To You, a Hundred Years Later’’ (Tsvetaeva 1921: 95–96; 1961: 105–106) W

S

na

ˇ - nyx Z ˇ ENVSTREC sˇcˇin- TEX, ˇ ZUS’, kak SMOT- risˇ’, i

gor-

SBO- rio-

NA

W

sˇcˇe od-

S

W

S

W

S

zˇi-

VYX, scˇast- LI-

lov-

LJU

sa-

mo-

ZVA- nok! VSE

NA

zˇi-

VA!

W

S

slo-

VA:

mert-

VY

W vyx vy!

‘At the passing women, alive and happy / You look, and make me proud, and I hear [your] words: / ‘‘A bunch of imposters! You are all dead! / She is the only one alive!’’ ’

1.5.

The Monosyllable Rule: Brodsky’s Russian sources

25

In Tsvetaeva’s ‘‘V ushakh dva svista. . .’’ [Two ringings in the ears. . .] the word bjetsja [is beating] results in violation of the Russian Monosyllable Rule as well, and similarly indicates uncontrollable emotion, in this case the abrupt movements of a ‘‘beating soul’’: Table 4. ‘‘Two Ringings in the Ears. . .’’ (Tsvetaeva 1924: 173) W

S

W

S

W

S

W

S

W

S

W

v u-

SˇAX

DVA

ta:

SˇEL-

ka

i

me-

TE-

li!

BJET-

sja

du-

SVISSˇA-

i

DY-

sˇit

KROV’.

my

po-

lu-

ˇ IC

li

TO,

cˇe-

GO

xo-

TE-

li:

VY–

moj

vos-

TORG

do

sne-

go-

VOJ

po-

STE-

li,

JA–

VA-

sˇu

SMERT-

nu-

ju

lju-

BOV’

‘Two ringings in the ears: of silk and a blizzard! / The soul is beating – and the blood breathes. / We got what we wanted: / You – my delight – until the snow bed, / I – Your mortal love.’

Brodsky would undoubtedly have seen Tsvetaeva’s Russian Monosyllable Rule-violating poems, having in the late summer and fall of 1961 read Tsvetaeva’s poetry in the e´migre´ journal Sovremennyia zapiski [Contemporary notes]. Sergei Shul’ts (2000) recalls: Our neighbor, Iakov Ivanovich Davidovich, Liuda Shtern’s father, knew the director of the University library very well and was able to check out books from the University special archive; thus they wound up at my disposal for several days and nights – enough to arrange the photocopying of the most interesting materials from these books. The library had almost every issue of Contemporary Notes published in Paris in the 1920s–40s (of the seventy issues that came out in that period it had, I think, sixty-two), and most of these issues passed through my and Iosif ’s hands. From this journal I photocopied all the Russian novels of Vladimir Nabokov . . . the poetry and prose of Georgii Ivanov and Marina Tsvetaeva, and many other things.

The above-quoted ‘‘The Two,’’ ‘‘Two Ringings in the Ears,’’ and ‘‘To You, a Hundred Years Later’’ were indeed published in Contemporary Notes. In addition, ‘‘To You, a Hundred Years Later’’ and ‘‘Newspaper Readers’’ appeared in the edition of Tsvetaeva’s Izbrannoe [Selected works] that came out in the USSR in 1961. All four of Tsvetaeva’s inversions are semantically motivated, and given the importance of Tsvetaeva

26

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

for Brodsky, he most likely paid attention to these four, because, in Brodsky’s own words, ‘‘in a poem, every line is a choice’’ (Brodsky 1995: 469). Tsvetaeva was not the only twentieth-century Russian poet to employ polysyllabic inversion.17 This device also occurs in the verse of Boris Slutsky, the World War II generation poet whom Brodsky greatly admired, and even visited in April 1960 (Brodsky 1985; Polukhina and Losev 2006: 328).18 Slutsky tells of Nazi tortures, and the broken meter displayed by cˇe´ljust’ [ jaw] in (21) emphasizes the abruptness of the physical pain the line describes.19 ˇ E- ljust’, v zˇi- VOT (21) v ge- STA- po BJUT v C W S W S W S W S ‘In the Gestapo they hit you in the jaw, in the stomach’ (Slutskii 1991: 140) 17. Note that while these examples from Tsvetaeva clearly instantiate polysyllabic inversion, another phenomenon in Russian verse superficially similar to such inversion, but in fact markedly di¤erent, is the case in which a poet simply stresses words in a non-standard manner; no departure from the metrical template occurs in his/her pronunciation, though a speaker of Standard pronunciation may consider these inversions. For example, in Bagritsky’s ‘‘Narushenie garmonii’’ [Violation of harmony] (Bagritskii 1964: 233), the words sˇa´xmatnoju [chess, adj.], vpı´lsja [bit into], and cˇe´rtit [draws] could be scanned as the nonstandard sˇaxma´tnoju (by analogy with the surname Sˇaxma´tov), vpilsja´ (by analogy with the feminine form vpila´s’), and cˇertı´t (by analogy with the similar verb cˇertı´t [misbehaves]). In fact, in the poem ‘‘Skumbriia’’ [The mackerel], Bagritsky eschews the Standard Russian stress in the eponymous noun (sku´mbrija) in favor of the Odessa pronunciation (skumbrija´) in order to rhyme with cˇesˇuja´ [fish scales] (Bagritskii 1964: 320). Zarva’s (2001) dictionary of Russian stress explicitly labels skumbrija´ non-standard. Such cases will not be considered polysyllabic inversion in this study. 18. The source of Tsvetaeva’s semantically-loaded inversions is unclear; but Slutsky’s have been traced to the legacy of Russian constructivism, a movement arising in the early 1920s that espoused the maximization of verbal ‘‘density,’’ such that every expressive device in a poem would be connected with its theme (Friche 1931, 5: 453–457). In 1939 Slutsky attended a poetry seminar taught by Il’ia Sel’vinsky, who had played a major role in the constructivist movement (Slutskii 2005: 232). 19. Although the poem quoted was not published until 1982 (Slutskii 1991: 516), Brodsky may have seen it in the 1960s in underground editions, in which many of Slutsky’s poems circulated (Smith 1999a).

1.6.

Unstressed syllables in W positions: Regressive Dissimilation (RD)

27

The exact proportion of meaning-motivated inversions in Russian verse, as well as the ranges of their possible meanings, is yet to be determined, and an exhaustive examination of this phenomenon would require a separate study. What we see already is that polysyllabic inversions are clearly not neutral, and at least in the texts that Brodsky read in the 1960s, they signify strong, possibly uncontrolled emotion, as well as abrupt movement. Thus, Brodsky did not perceive polysyllabic inversions as appropriate for English stylization despite their structural similarity to English verse. Abandoning polysyllabic inversion (i.e., the stressing of W positions) meant that the poet’s options with regard to imitating English iambic prosody were limited to the three other mimetic possibilities: manipulating the distribution of stressed syllables in S, unstressed syllables in S, and unstressed syllables in W. Each of these devices will prove crucial in explaining Brodsky’s ‘‘English’’ accent.

1.6. Unstressed syllables in W positions: Regressive Dissimilation (RD) Recall that, due to the relative infrequency of monosyllables in the Russian language, Russian poets use long words, as a consequence often filling S positions with unstressed syllables.20 This phenomenon is illustrated by the following line (22) of Pushkin’s Evgenii Onegin, in which the unstressed syllable -mat’ of the word vydumat’ [think of ] occupies an S position: (22)

ˇ - sˇe VY- du- mat’ ne MOG i LUC W S W S W S W S ‘And could think of nothing better’ (Pushkin 1986, 2: 187)

But poets have not always considered the rhythm of (22) acceptable. Mikhail Lomonosov, who borrowed iambic meter from German in the eighteenth century, sought in his odes to produce predominantly ‘‘perfect’’ 20. Although, as illustrated by the following line from Donne’s ‘‘A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning,’’ the insertion of unstressed syllables into S positions is possible in English as well, in Russian this practice is much more common. and W

WHIS S

per W

to S

their W

SOULS S

to W

GO S

28

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

iambs, perhaps considering this orderly rhythm especially suitable for ‘‘magnifying the loftiness, splendor and nobility’’ of monarch and state (Zhirmunskii 1966: 35): (23) ot- KRY- las’ BEZD- na ZVEZD pol- NA; W S W S W S W S ‘There opened an abyss full of stars’ zvez- DAM cˇis- LA net, BEZD- ne DNA W S W S W S W S ‘The stars were without number, the abyss without bottom’ (Lomonosov, ‘‘Vechernee razmyshlenie o Bozhiem velichestve’’ [Evening meditation on divine majesty], cited in Zhirmunskii 1966: 35) Yet after using them for four years, Lomonosov decided to depart from predominantly ‘‘perfect’’ iambs (Taranovski 1953), motivated, perhaps, by a desire to access the significant portion of Russian vocabulary unamenable to this pattern. (For an alternative view on Lomonosov’s motivation, see Shapir 2000). The high frequency of long words in Russian becomes especially evident if we look at Tables 5 and 6, which provide the distribution of various word shapes in Russian prose (Tomashevskii 1929). The frequencies are from Tomashevsky’s calculations based on Pushkin’s prose as exemplified by ‘‘Pikovaia dama’’ [The queen of spades], while examples of word shapes are my own. Prose vocabulary was chosen because the frequencies of word shapes in poetry would be a¤ected by rhythmic considerations:21 Table 5. Words allowing a full match with iambic meter (Tomashevskii 1929: 104–105; unstressed syllables are in lower-case x, stressed in capital X ) Word shape

Percentage

Example

Gloss

xX

17.7

po-SˇEL

‘he went’

Xx

15.4

MA-ma

‘mama’

X

8.6

KOT

‘cat’

pre-KRAS-no

‘wonderful’

xXx

14.6

21. Tomashevsky notes that the incidence of words of iambic shape (xX) in Evgenii Onegin is greater (26.8 percent) than in ‘‘The Queen of Spades’’ (17.7 percent).

1.6.

Unstressed syllables in W positions: Regressive Dissimilation (RD)

29

Table 6. Words forcing the iambic mismatch of unstressed syllables occupying S positions (after Tomashevskii 1929) Word shape

Percentage

Example

Gloss

xxX

9.4

‘good’

xxXx

8.3

xo-ro-SˇO po-pro-SˇAJ-ka

Xxx

7.2

PRA-vil’-no

‘correct’

xXxx

7.5

va-RE-ni-ki

‘perogies’

xxXxx

2.6

za-i-KA-jet-sja

‘stutters’

xxxxXx

0.3

pe-re-nap-rja-GAT’-sja

‘get overworked’

xxxXx

2.0

pe-re-xo-DI-la

‘was crossing’

xxxX

1.6

pe-re-po-LOX

‘turmoil’

xXxxx

1.4

pro-VA-li-val-sja

‘was falling in’

Xxxx

1.3

PRA-ved-ni-ki

‘the virtuous’

All other word shapes

2.1

‘beggar’

As the data illustrates, the only word shapes allowing composition in iambic meter without the insertion of unstressed syllables into S positions are xX, Xx, xXx, and a monosyllabic stressed X (if X is preceded by an unstressed monosyllable). These words constitute, at least to judge from Pushkin’s text, only 56.3 percent of Russian vocabulary; the remaining 43.7 percent forces poets to fill some S positions with unstressed syllables. For example, while a trisyllabic word with the prosodic shape xXx ˇ AL’-no [sadly]) easily fits the iambic template (WSW), a word (e.g., pe-C with the prosodic shape xxX (e.g., pod-no-SIT’ [to serve]) or Xxx (e.g., VY-du-mat’ [to invent, make up] does not.22

22. Secondary stress is not much help to poets seeking to avoid unstressed syllables in S positions. According to Kasatkin (2003: 76), Russian secondary stress is separated from the main stress by two syllables to the left, e.g., lju`bve-o-bı´l’-nyi [amorous], sta`roslavja´nskij [Old Church Slavonic], pe`dinstitu´t [teachers’ college]. This means that secondary stress is likely to appear only in words of at least four syllables of the shape -xxxX-, which are rare: from Table 7 we see that words shaped xxxxXx, xxxXx, and xxxX constitute only 3.9 percent of all vocabulary. Moreover, secondary stress in xxxX-shaped words will in any case fall on a W rather than S position (Shengeli 1923: 40).

30

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

How do long words function rhythmically in specific Russian and English texts? For comparison I selected a stanza of Pushkin’s novel in verse Evgenii Onegin and its English translation by James Falen (1998), scanned in Tables 7 and 8 respectively. This choice was motivated by the consideration that the rhythm of a canonical Russian text such as Onegin should be discussed before evaluating non-typical rhythms such as Brodsky’s.

Table 7. Evgenii Onegin, Pushkin’s text (polysyllabic words in boldface) (Pushkin 1986, 2: 187) W1

S1

W2

S2

W3

S3

moj

DJA-

dja

SA-

myx

kog-

DA-

ne v

SˇUT-

on

u-

va-

i

ˇLUC

jeno,

S4

(W5) Rhyme

ˇ EST- nyx C

PRA-

vil,

ku

za-

ne-

MOG,

ˇ AT’ Z

se-

BJA

za-

STA-

sˇe

VY-

du-

mat’

ne

MOG.

GO

pri-

MER

dru-

GIM

na-

U-

ka,

C

BO-

zˇe

MOJ

ka-

KA-

ja

SKU-

ka

C

s bol’- NYM

si

DET’

i

DEN’

i

ˇ ’, NOC

D

ne

ot-

xo-

DJA

ni

SˇA-

gu

ˇ ’! PROC

D

ka-

KO-

je

NIZ-

ko-

je

ko-

VAR-

po-

lu-

zˇi-

VO-

go

za-

bav-

LJAT’,

F

je-

MU

po-

DUSˇ-

ki

po-

prav- LJAT’,

F

pe-

ˇ AL’- no C

pod-

no-

SIT’

le-

KAR-

vzdy-

XAT’

i

DU-

mat’

pro

se-

BJA:

G

‘‘ko-

GDA

zˇe

ˇ ERT voz’C

MET

te-

BJA!’’

G

0

11

0

13

8

0

14

0.0%

78.6%

0.0% 92.9%

0.0%

100.0%

0

0.0% 57.1%

W4

A B

vil

A B

stvo

stvo,

E

E

1.6.

Unstressed syllables in W positions: Regressive Dissimilation (RD)

31

Table 8. Eugene Onegin, Falen’s English translation (Pushkin 1998: 5) W1

S1

W2

S2

W3

S3

W4

my

UN-

cle,

MAN

of

FIRM

con- VIC-

by

FALL- ing

GRAVE- ly

ILL,

he’s

WON

a

DUE

res-

PECT

for

HIS

a¤-

LIC-

the

ON-

ly

CLE-

ver

THING he’s

ple ly

PRO- fit OBORE- dom, BRO-

may HIS but GOD

eXAMWHAT DEAD-

S4

(W5) Rhyme tions A B tions A

DONE.

B thers; C thers, C

to

TEND a

SICK

MAN NIGHT and

DAY

D

not

DA-

ring

ONCE

to

STEAL a-

WAY!

D

and, OH,

HOW

BASE

to

PAM-

GROSS- ly

E

and

en-

ter-

TAIN

the

NEAR- ly

DEAD

F

to

FLUFF the

PIL-

lows

for

HEAD

F

and

PASS

per his

him

ME-

di-

cines

mo-

ROSE-

while THIN- king

UN-

der

EVE-

ry

SIGH

ly

E G

the 0

DE14

vil 2

TAKE 14

you, 1

UN12

cle, 0

DIE! 14

G

0.0

100.0

14.3

100.0

7.1

85.7

0.0

100.0

In Pushkin’s text there are sixteen trisyllabic words; in the translation only four. This disparity has an important consequence for the form of the Russian and English texts as a whole: there is a di¤erence in the general ‘‘rhythmic feel’’ of Pushkin’s original and Falen’s translation. We can quantify this ‘‘feel’’ by calculating the respective percentages of stresses in W and S positions.23 This practice of adding up the number of stressed syllables vertically (i.e., per metrical position) and calculating their percentage of the line total is a method of the Russian Quantitative School of meter (Taranovski 1953; Gasparov 1974; Bailey 1975; Tarlinskaja 1976; and others). From the final two rows in Tables 7 and 8, we can see that in Pushkin’s original, S3 (i.e., the third S position in the line) is stressed 57.1 percent of the time, while in Falen’s translation it is stressed

23. Although in Pushkin’s stanza in Table 8 the W position is never stressed, in theory it can be, so long as it is occupied by a monosyllabic word (Taranovskii 1971). In Russian verse, stressed monosyllables tend to occur in W after a major syntactic break or at the beginning of a line (Taranovskii 1971).

32

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

85.7 percent. In other words, Pushkin fills S3 with stressed syllables much less often than Falen. This disparity is not peculiar to Pushkin and Falen, but rather typical for Russian and English verse generally. Taranovsky and Gasparov scanned thousands of lines of eighteenth-, nineteenth-, and twentieth-century Russian verse (Taranovski 1953; Gasparov 1974), determining the stress tendency to be somewhat similar to Pushkin’s as shown in Table 7. Tables 9 and 10 give percentages of stresses in S positions; S1 indicates the strong position of the first foot, S2 of the second foot, and so on. Table 9. Percentage of stressed S positions in Russian iambic tetrameter (Taranovskii 1971; Gasparov 1974) Period

S1

S2

S3

S4

18th century

93.2

79.7

53.2

100.0

19th century (older generation)

84.4

92.2

46.0

100.0

19th century (younger generation)

82.1

96.8

34.6

100.0

Soviet era

82.2

87.2

46.8

100.0

Table 10. Percentage of stressed S positions in Russian iambic pentameter (Taranovskii 1971) Period

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

19th century

82.8

73.7

84.6

53.8

100.0

20th century

82.8

69.1

83.1

41.3

100.0

It turns out that Pushkin’s tendency to stress the penultimate S position less frequently than its neighboring S positions is a general feature of Russian iambic (as well as trochaic) verse. Taranovsky calls this tendency the Law of Regressive Accentual Dissimilation (RD) (Taranovski 1953). Representing the percentage of stressed strong positions in Russian iambic verse graphically would typically yield the penultimate ‘‘dip’’ shown in Figures 1 and 2. Of course, the exact stress percentage in penultimate S has varied over time: in the eighteenth century, iambic tetrameter S3 was stressed 53.2 percent of the time, but only 34.6 percent among the younger generation of nineteenth-century poets. The stress percentage in S1 for iambic tetrameter also dropped from the eighteenth to the nineteenth

1.6.

Unstressed syllables in W positions: Regressive Dissimilation (RD)

Figure 1. Russian iambic tetrameter (Taranovskii 1971; Gasparov 1974)

Figure 2. Russian iambic pentameter (Taranovskii 1971)

33

34

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

century.24 But a constant throughout the periods indicated is a dip-like pattern, or Regressive Dissimilation (RD), in the last three S positions in the line.

1.7. Counting methods Any metrical counting requires a certain amount of simplification, because counting forces the linguist to adopt a binary stress system and artificially divide syllables into absolutely stressed or unstressed, whereas in reality, both Russian and English exhibit various levels of stress (Kiparsky 1975: 582, after Jespersen 1933; Trager and Smith 1951; see also Zhirmunskii 1966: 93). The situation is further complicated by the fact that S positions in verse can themselves reinforce the prominence of variably stressed categories such as pronouns or auxiliary words, i.e., the rhythmic impact of poetic context cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, I will adopt a binary approach, because such a system, if applied consistently, can reveal interesting contrasts between poets and periods. Following the practice of Taranovsky and the insights of Zhirmunsky (Taranovski 1953; Zhirmunskii 1966), I employ the counting method outlined below: Russian verse (a) (b)

(c)

(d) (e) (f )

Nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs are always stressed; Unstressed syllables of polysyllabic words, monosyllabic prepositions, conjunctions, and particles (-to, -zˇe, -by, -li, -nibud’, lisˇ’, uzˇ, cˇut’) are always unstressed, unless they rhyme with stressed syllables; Monosyllabic question words (kak, cˇto, gde, kto, kem, cˇem, cˇej ) are stressed only in the context of a question or an exclamation; when they function as subordinate conjunctions, they are always unstressed; In S positions, personal, possessive, and demonstrative pronouns ( ja, on, moj, svoj, tot, ta, sam) are counted as stressed; Numerals (dva, tri, pjat’) are always counted as stressed; In S positions, disyllabic conjunctions and prepositions (kogda, komu, cˇtoby, pered, cˇerez) are counted as stressed.

24. In eighteenth-century iambic tetrameter, S1 is stressed more frequently (93.2 percent) than S2 (79.7 percent), rendering the wave-like pattern applicable only in the last three S positions. (Taranovskii 1971; Gasparov 1974).

1.7.

Counting methods

35

Can a comparable system be applied to English verse? Many aspects of this method have their corollaries in Tarlinskaja’s approach. She too considers nouns, verbs, adjectives, numerals, and most adverbs to be always stressed, and also regards unstressed syllables of polysyllabic words, monosyllabic prepositions, conjunctions (that, if ), and particles (e.g., the to of an infinitive) as always unstressed (Tarlinskaja 1987: 38). Similarly, she stresses monosyllabic question words (who, where, when, why) in the context of actual questions, but not when these serve as conjunctions (Tarlinskaja 1976). I will adopt these aspects of her system for counting English verse. But there are also important di¤erences between the Russian approach and that of Tarlinskaja. Tarlinskaja (1987) stresses personal, possessive, and demonstrative pronouns in S positions only when the latter two occur in a focus construction and the former occur at the end of a phrase; otherwise, these pronouns are unstressed.25 In contrast, the Russian system considers pronouns in S positions to be always stressed. Tarlinskaja’s decision is based partly on distributional evidence, which seems to hold at least for personal and demonstrative pronouns (Tarlinskaja 1976). She shows that while in English iambic poetry, personal and demonstrative pronouns occur in weak positions more frequently than in strong ones, in Russian the situation is the opposite. She concludes that the di¤erences in distribution reflect the varying prominence of pronouns in the two languages: in English, she suggests, personal and demonstrative pronouns have weaker prominence than in Russian; therefore, they should be treated di¤erently in counting. Of course, we do not know the extent to which Brodsky was aware of the distributional data later discovered by Tarlinskaja. He could have assumed that English pronouns are stressed in S positions as frequently as in Russian, an assumption that would seem to do no injustice to the English language; despite Tarlinskaja’s distributional observations, native

25. Further details of Tarlinskaja’s (1987: 36–39) system: unlike in the Russian approach, disyllabic prepositions, conjunctions, and relative words (into, unto, upon, without, within, until, whoso) are treated as unstressed, even when their stress falls on S positions. Disyllabic modal and auxiliary verbs (cannot, having, being) are considered unstressed in S positions as well. The monosyllabic pronouns no and all are considered stressed in S positions. The monosyllabic auxiliary verbs to be and to have are treated as unstressed; my system treats these as unstressed as well. Tarlinskaja treats modal verbs as unstressed, while I treat them as stressed.

36

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

speakers of English can display great variability as to whether they emphasize auxiliary words in recitation (see Fabb 1997). For example, Shakespeare’s line can be read either as Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day (with shall stressed and I unstressed) or as Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day (with shall unstressed and I stressed), depending on the performer’s choice. For the sake of completeness, I will examine the stress tendencies of English verse both from Tarlinskaja’s perspective and from that assuming maximal resemblance to the Russian method (which will be referred to in this book as the Taranovsky-Zhirmunsky approach as applied to English, or Taranovsky-Zhirmunsky [Eng.] for short). As we will see, the overall contrast between Russian and English rhythms is so prominent that it holds regardless of which approach to auxiliary word stress on S a linguist chooses to adopt.

1.8. Anti-RD rhythm: Brodsky’s English predecessors Due to the prosodic qualities of the Russian lexicon, Russian poets prefer to use many long words and few monosyllables. English poets do exactly the opposite, with the result that in their verse, penultimate S frequently receives accent; moreover, sometimes this position is stressed even more often than the antepenultimate one, meaning that English verse can violate Regressive Dissimilation. For example, consider Shakespeare’s and Donne’s rhythms as calculated by Tarlinskaja and shown in Table 11 (Tarlinskaja 1976). Both poets depart from Regressive Dissimilation, gradually raising the S-position stress frequencies in the last three feet (e.g., 69.8 < 74.4 < 93.6 for Shakespeare). Table 11. English iambic pentameter (Tarlinskaja 1976: 279, 310) Title

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

Shakespeare, Sonnets

55.8

88.6

69.8

74.4

93.6

Donne, Songs and Sonnets

54.1

77.7

64.4

72.8

86.2

Byron, Don Juan

70.6

80.0

76.2

69.7

93.6

I will refer to rhythm that violates Regressive Dissimilation in the last three feet as ‘‘anti-RD.’’ This term will be used in this study very

1.8.

Anti-RD rhythm: Brodsky’s English predecessors

37

generally, irrespective of the exact numbers that cause the violation, or the language in which the poem is written. ‘‘Anti-RD’’ simply means that the final three feet do not display a dip-like pattern, and that the penultimate position is stressed more than the antepenultimate one. English poets do not invariably violate Regressive Dissimilation. For example, as shown in Table 11, Byron’s rhythm in Don Juan does follow a dip-like pattern in the last three feet. Nevertheless, here the contrast between penultimate S and its neighbors is not as pronounced as in Russian: compare Byron’s numbers (76.2 > 69.7 < 93.6) to nineteenthcentury Russian iambic pentameter (84.6 > 53.8 < 100.0; Taranovskii 1971). Tarlinskaja’s figures on Shakespeare, Byron, and Donne are based on scanning hundreds of lines; for his part, Brodsky in the 1960s was probably exposed to only a limited portion of these poets’ work. Let us examine the statistical tendencies of these texts, limiting our scope to English iambic poems Brodsky could have seen prior to 8 September 1964 – an appropriate cut-o¤ point because on this day Brodsky completed ‘‘Novye stansy k Avguste’’ [New stanzas to Augusta], in which Brodsky produced several foreign-flavored metrical features with the clear intent of ‘‘sounding foreign’’; even the title of the poem is borrowed from Byron (Losev 2006: 110). In interviews with Birkerts and Volkov, Brodsky mentions that he encountered the poetry of Robert Frost in English as early as 1962 (Volkov 1998: 94; Polukhina 2000: 78). So impressed was Brodsky with Andrei Sergeev’s rendering of ‘‘A Hundred Collars’’ that he scarcely believed it could be a translation, and decided to check the Russian text against Frost’s original. Although at the time Brodsky’s English proficiency (as he acknowledges to Birkerts) was limited, even a cursory look at Frost’s text reveals it to be, regardless of which counting method one adopts, rhythmically ‘‘heavier’’ than Russian verse, weighted as Frost’s poem is with numerous monosyllabic nouns, verbs, and adjectives, which are considered stressed in either system (bore, town, great, man, see, late, years, keeps, old, sends, run, wild ): LAN-ca-ster BORE him—SUCH a LIT-tle TOWN, SUCH a GREAT MAN. It DOES-n’t SEE him OF-ten of LATE YEARS, though he KEEPS the OLD HOME-stead and SENDS the CHILD-ren DOWN there with their MO-ther To RUN WILD in the SUM-mer—a LIT-tle WILD (‘‘A Hundred Collars,’’ Frost 1939: 61)

38

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

Also significant among Brodsky’s poetic sources is Donne’s ‘‘The Will.’’ Brodsky’s friend the poet Evgeny Rein recalls that in early 1963 he took Brodsky to the home of Ivan Alekseevich Likhachev, who knew several languages, translated and wrote poetry himself, and owned Donne’s books in English. During this visit Likhachev translated excerpts from Donne’s ‘‘The Will’’ right o¤ the page (Rein 2003: 377–378). From this encounter with Donne, Brodsky was, as with Frost, likely to notice the relative ‘‘heaviness’’ of English verse. Brodsky’s readings in English poetry prior to September 1964 also likely included such poems as Donne’s ‘‘The Apparition,’’ ‘‘A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning,’’ ‘‘The Storm,’’ and ‘‘The Flea.’’ His translations of three of these poems were completed in 1967, while his rendering of ‘‘The Apparition’’ was cited in an article by A. Anikst as early as 1966 (Shaitanov 1998; Polukhina 2008: 142–147). But in all probability the poet began reading these texts sometime after May 1964. In an interview Brodsky recalls: ‘‘In 1964 . . . I was arrested and exiled to the Arkhangel’sk region, and as a gift for my birthday [May 24th] Lidiia Korneevna Chukovskaia sent me . . . a ‘Modern Library’ edition of Donne. This is when I first read, read in earnest, all of Donne’s poems’’ (quoted in Polukhina 2000: 154). The stress frequencies for the relevant poems of Donne and Frost are given in Tables 12 and 13.26 Table 12a. Brodsky’s sources: English iambic pentameter (Tarlinskaja’s method) Title and date

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

RD

Frost, ‘‘A Hundred Collars,’’ I5 only, 161 lines (Frost 1939)

69.0

83.0

76.2

72.2

92.1

observed

Donne, ‘‘The Will,’’ I5 only, 36 lines (Donne 1952)

83.0

67.0

58.3

77.8

72.2

violated

Donne, ‘‘The Storm,’’ 74 lines (Donne 1952)

39.0

84.0

75.7

68.9

90.5

observed

Donne, ‘‘The Apparition,’’ I5 only, 12 lines (Donne 1952)

42.0

75.0

66.7

75.0

91.7

violated

Donne, ‘‘The Flea,’’ I5 only, 15 lines (Donne 1952)

80.0

67.0

80.0

93.3

60.0

violated

26. I analyze the source texts of only the earliest of Brodsky’s iambic translations of Donne (1966–67) because these are the texts that Brodsky is likely to have read most carefully in the 1960s.

1.8.

Anti-RD rhythm: Brodsky’s English predecessors

39

Table 12b. Brodsky’s sources: English iambic pentameter (TaranovskyZhirmunsky [Eng.]) Title and date

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

RD

Frost, ‘‘A Hundred Collars,’’ I5 only, 161 lines (Frost 1939)

78.0

88.0

83.9

80.1

92.5

observed

Donne, ‘‘The Will,’’ I5 only, 36 lines (Donne 1952)

92.0

72.0

72.2

88.9

75.0

violated

Donne, ‘‘The Storm,’’ 74 lines (Donne 1952)

45.0

89.0

85.1

82.4

90.5

observed

Donne, ‘‘The Apparition,’’ I5 only, 12 lines (Donne 1952)

67.0

92.0

91.7

83.3

91.7

observed

Donne, ‘‘The Flea,’’ I5 only, 15 lines (Donne 1952)

87.0

80.0

86.7

100.0

66.7

violated

Table 13a. Brodsky’s sources: English iambic tetrameter (Tarlinskaja’s method) Title and date

S1

S2

S3

S4

RD

Donne, ‘‘The Will,’’ I4 only, 12 lines (Donne 1952)

83.3

66.7

58.3

91.7

observed

Donne, ‘‘A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning,’’ 36 lines (Donne 1952)

66.7

80.6

69.4

91.7

observed

Donne, ‘‘The Flea,’’ I4 only, 12 lines (Donne 1952)

66.7

58.3

75.0

91.7

violated

Table 13b. Brodsky’s sources: English iambic tetrameter (TaranovskyZhirmunsky Eng.]) Title and date

S1

S2

S3

S4

RD

Donne, ‘‘The Will,’’ I4 only, 12 lines (Donne 1952)

83.3

66.7

75.0

91.7

violated

Donne, ‘‘A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning,’’ 36 lines (Donne 1952)

72.2

86.1

77.8

94.4

observed

Donne, ‘‘The Flea,’’ I4 only, 12 lines (Donne 1952)

83.3

83.3

91.7

91.7

violated

40

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

Although Tarlinskaja’s system yields percentages (12a–13a) that are lower than those calculable by the Taranovsky-Zhirmunsky (Eng.) approach (12b–13b), the generalization that holds across both approaches is that English poets do not necessarily observe Regressive Dissimilation; and even when they do, the di¤erence between penultimate and antepenultimate positions is not as sharp as in Russian.27 Of course, Brodsky’s readings in English at the time might not have been limited to the poems listed in Tables 12 and 13.28 But this selection is su‰cient to illustrate the contrast between traditional English and Russian rhythms. Even were Brodsky to be unmindful of the exact numbers, he might intuitively have sensed that the stress tendencies of English verse di¤er greatly from traditional Russian counterparts.

1.9. Anti-RD rhythm: Brodsky’s Russian sources But was English poetry the only potential source of anti-RD rhythm that Brodsky might have seen in his youth? Did any Russian poets that he read violate Regressive Dissimilation? According to Taranovsky, the first violation of Regressive Dissimilation in Russian poetry occurs in the 1906 iambic tetrameter of Andrei Bely, whose frequencies in each S position were 85.3 – 53.3 – 60.3 – 100.0, respectively (Taranovskii 1966). Bely’s unusual rhythm was also the likely source of Vladislav Khodasevich’s anti-RD (Taranovskii 1966), as well as that of Tsvetaeva (Smith 1976). Below is a partial list of Tsvetaeva’s anti-RD poems appearing in publications Brodsky might have seen in the early 1960s, which include Tsvetaeva’s 1961 Selected Works and the e´migre´ journal Contemporary Notes, which latter we know Brodsky read in 1961 (Shul’ts 2000). A complete list of Brodsky’s possible readings in this regard appears in Chapter 3 and Appendix VI. 27. For example, while in Russian iambic pentameter, the average di¤erence between S4 and S3 is 36.3 percent, in Frost’s ‘‘A Hundred Collars’’ the di¤erence is only four (by Tarlinskaja’s counting system) or 3.8 percent (by mine). Tarlinskaja’s own counts for Byron given in Table 12 are quite comparable: the di¤erence between S4 and S3 for Byron is only 6.5 percent. 28. In interviews Brodsky mentions his admiration for Eliot’s ‘‘Sweeney Among the Nightingales,’’ W. H. Auden’s ‘‘The Shield of Achilles,’’ and Frost’s ‘‘Acquainted with the Night’’ (Polukhina 2000: 551), all of which were included in the Williams anthology of American verse Brodsky had with him in exile (Losev 2006: 300, Polukhina and Losev 2006: 338).

1.9.

41

Anti-RD rhythm: Brodsky’s Russian sources

Table 14a. Some of the anti-RD iambic pentameter poems published in Tsvetaeva’s Selected Works (1961) Title and date

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

Written in Russia ‘‘Est’ nekii chas – kak sbroshennaia klazha’’ [There is a certain hour – like a burden cast o¤ – gloss Taubman 1989: 149] (1921), I5 only, 17 lines

70.6

88.2

64.7

76.5

100.0

81.3

100.0

43.8

75.0

100.0

Completed in emigration ‘‘Rolandov rog’’ [Roland’s horn], (1921, 1932)29, 16 lines

Table 14b. One of Tsvetaeva’s anti-RD iambic pentameter poems published in Contemporary Notes (Paris, 1920–32) Title and date Written in Russia ‘‘Zakinuv golovu i opustiv glaza’’ [Having tilted my head and lowered my eyes] (1921), I5 only, 16 lines

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

87.5

93.8

18.8

87.5

100.0

Table 15a. One of the anti-RD iambic tetrameter poems published in Tsvetaeva’s Selected Works (1961)30 Title and date

S1

S2

S3

S4

96.9

40.6

53.1

100.0

Written in emigration ‘‘Zavodskie’’ [Factory workers] (1922), 32 lines

29. Based on the date of its publication in Contemporary Notes, the date of this poem has been given as 1932 (Tsvetaeva 1961: 199). Tsvetaeva’s 1965 edition gives an earlier composition date (1921), mentioning, however, that Tsvetaeva introduced corrections into the poem as late as 1938–39 (Tsvetaeva 1965: 744). 30. Tsvetaeva’s anti-RD rhythms as represented in a di¤erent collection, Posle Rossii [After Russia], have been analyzed by Smith (1976).

42

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

Table 15b. One of Tsvetaeva’s anti-RD iambic tetrameter poems published in Contemporary Notes (Paris, 1920–32) Title and date

S1

S2

S3

S4

75.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

Written in Russia ‘‘Skuchaiut posle kutezha’’ [People get bored after a binge] (1919), 12 lines

Stressing S3 more often than S2 in tetrameter and S4 more often than S3 in pentameter, Tsvetaeva’s rhythm clearly violates Regressive Dissimilation. Note also that her rhythm di¤ers from English anti-RD. If we look at a more complete edition of Tsvetaeva, such as her seven-volume Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works] (Tsvetaeva 1994), the average percentage of stressing in all anti-RD iambic tetrameter poems is 42.7 percent in S2 and 67.8 percent in S3. For comparison, in Donne’s anti-RD poems in Songs and Sonnets (Donne 1952), these positions are stressed much more frequently: 62.8 percent in S2 and 81.03 percent in S3 (Tarlinskaja method) or 70.7 percent in S2 and 89.3 percent in S3 (Taranovsky-Zhirmunsky [Eng.] method). Iambic pentameter numbers exhibit a similar contrast between Tsvetaeva and English (see Appendix VII). Thus, statistically, Tsvetaeva’s anti-RD rhythm is quite distinct from the English anti-RD. In Chapter 3, we will attempt to answer the question of which of the two anti-RD versions – Russian or English – Brodsky adopted, and why Tsvetaeva might be as suitable a source for representing a ‘‘foreign’’ flavor as Donne. 1.10. Elision and redundant syllables: Brodsky’s English sources The view of iambic meter outlined so far has been rather simplified. Each metrical position was presented as associated with one and only one syllable. In reality, English verse frequently allows the addition of extra syllables in the middle of a line, with the result that one position is filled with two syllables. Some Russian poets, including Brodsky, also occasionally employ this method. When two syllables are inserted into one position in English, one of the vowels may (though not necessarily) be deleted in recitation, or the two vowels can be slurred and pronounced as one. We will refer to this phenomenon as elision, bearing in mind that elision does not necessarily have to correspond to outright deletion of vowels in recitation:

1.10.

Elision and redundant syllables: Brodsky’s English sources

43

(24) by RIGHT of WAR what- E’er his BUSI- ness BE W S W S W S W S W S (Paradise Lost 1, Milton 2003: 9) In (24), elision is marked by an apostrophe, but poets may metrically ‘‘ignore’’ certain vowels even without the inclusion of this sign. Below is an example from Shakespeare in which two syllables occupy a single metrical position, and the word of which they are a part, though spelled memory, may be pronounced as mem(o)ry: (25) and QUITE di- VORCE his ME- mory from his PART W S W S W S W S W S (Love’s Labor’s Lost, Shakespeare 2000: 82) The manner in which English poets insert two syllables into one position is systematic. Halle and Keyser (1971: 172) propose the following elision rule: a sequence of two vowels optionally separated by a sonorant consonant (e.g. /l/, /m/, /n/, /r/, /j/, /w/) or a fricative (/v/, /s/, /f/, etc.) can occupy a single metrical position. Note that this rule takes no account of whether the vowel undergoing elision is stressed or unstressed, phonologically long or short, or first or second in the sequence. Nor does the rule specify whether the two vowels belong to one word or two. Halle and Keyser’s (1971) elision rule is thus quite general. In contrast, Kiparsky (1977) proposes a much more specific theory of elision, singling out particular sub-types by way of prosodic rules. Prosodic Rule 1 allows an unstressed vowel to be ignored if it follows another vowel or a diphthong; thus disyllabic going and flier may be treated as monosyllabic. Prosodic Rule 2 deletes an unstressed vowel medially before a sonorant followed by another unstressed vowel, i.e., trisyllabic victory and misery will be treated as disyllabic vict(o)ry, mis(e)ry. Prosodic Rule 3 turns unstressed vowels /I/ or /U/, if followed by another vowel, into glides [ j] or [w], resulting in disyllabic readings of envious and annual. From Kiparsky’s examples we see that each Prosodic Rule applies to polysyllables, while Rules 2 and 3 apply specifically to trisyllabic words of the shape STRESSED-unstressed-unstressed (Xxx). These Prosodic Rules, Kiparsky states, are derived from fast speech effects in natural language: the pronunciation variant mem(o)ry, for example, occurs not only in verse but also in fast or careless speech.

44

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

To which of the above rules was Brodsky exposed when reading English poetry? And which of them could the poet have encountered prior to 8 September 1964 – the date he completed his English-flavored ‘‘New Stanzas to Augusta,’’ featuring not only a reference to a Byron title, but also English-reminiscent elision? Again, available biographies, interviews, and memoirs (Losev 2006; Polukhina and Losev 2006, Rein 2003; Polukhina 2008) provide concrete information as to Brodsky’s English sources. As mentioned above, in early 1963 Brodsky and the poet Evgeny Rein visited Ivan Alekseevich Likhachev, who translated excerpts from Donne’s ‘‘The Will’’ for his guests into Russian (Rein 2003: 377–378). An hour’s examination of Donne’s verse with Likhachev may have su‰ced for Brodsky to notice the several contractions in the text: to’Embassadours, who’had, to’any, to’annihilate, to’invent. Later, in 1964, during his exile in the northern Russian village of Norenskaia, the poet would see further instances of contraction in the ‘Modern Library’ edition of Donne he received as a gift in May 1964, i.e., prior to composing ‘‘New Stanzas to Augusta’’ (Polukhina and Losev 2006: 336). The poems Brodsky eventually translated (‘‘The Apparition,’’ ‘‘The Flea,’’ ‘‘A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning,’’ and ‘‘The Storm’’) contain numerous examples of contraction, all of which follow Halle and Keyser’s rule: th’earth, the’other, th’other, w’are (¼ we are), thee’and, I’had, to’impute, we’owe, th’ayres, Sara’her31, mee’had, wee’mongst, lye’equally, tremblingly’aske, o’er, and me’I. Having encountered Donne’s elisions, Brodsky might have concluded that in English verse, vowels, even those required by orthography, can be ignored. Donne’s above-cited poems also include less obvious cases in which elision is necessary but not indicated by apostrophe. In ‘‘The Will,’’ ‘‘The Storm,’’ and ‘‘A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning,’’ misery, withering, prisoners, ordinance, Jesuits, Hilliard, hideous, and virtuous have to be treated as disyllabic to fit the ten-syllable iambic pentameter template. Such abbreviated pronunciations were considered the norm in English iambic verse in the age of Shakespeare, and hence of Donne (Tarlinskaja 1976: 22). All of them follow Kiparsky’s Prosodic Rules, specifically Rule 31. Intervening /h/ does not pose a counterexample to Halle and Keyser’s theory because, as Ladefoged (1993: 37–38) explains, ‘‘[i]n English, [h] acts like a consonant, but from an articulatory point of view it is the voiceless counterpart of the surrounding sounds’’ – hence there is no real consonant intervening in Sara’her. The idea that /h/ is a voiceless vowel is also expressed by Henry Rogers (2000: 35).

1.10.

Elision and redundant syllables: Brodsky’s English sources

45

2 (misery, withering, prisoners, ordinance) and Rule 3 (Jesuits, Hilliard, hideous, virtuous): (26) Donne a. As virt(u)ous men pass mildl(y) away b. To Jes(u)its, to bu¤ones my pensiveness c. By Hill(i)ard drawne, is worth an history d. Honor and mis(e)ry have one face and way e. With(e)ring like pris(o)ners, which lie but for fees f. Sleepe is paines eas(i)est salve. . . g. h.

(PR3) (PR3) (PR3) (PR2) (PR2) (PR3)

With hid(e)ous gazing to fear away feare (PR3) (PR2) Even our ord(i)nance placed for our defence (Donne 1952: 38, 43, 126, 126, 126, 127, 127)

Moreover, Brodsky could have seen elisions following Prosodic Rules 2 and 3 in other poems appearing in Donne’s (1952) volume: in fact, Donne’s Songs and Sonnets (Donne 1952) alone contain thirty-eight instances of post-tonic Xxx-shaped elisions, of which thirty-five (i.e., 92.1 percent) follow Kiparsky’s Rules 2 and 3. Elisions of this type also occur in Frost’s ‘‘A Hundred Collars,’’ which as mentioned Brodsky recalls having seen in English as early as 1962 (Volkov 1998: 94). (27) Frost a. They met him in a gen(e)ral store at night (PR2) lamps (PR2) b. Woodsville’s a place of shrieks and wand(e)ring (PR2) c. The fam(i)ly all away in some black meadow (PR2) d. All in a fam(i)ly row down to the youngest (Frost 2002: 85–92) Examples of Prosodic Rules 2 and 3 listed here display an interesting regularity, namely the deletion of phonologically short vowels, a pattern Brodsky might have noted from transcriptions in Mu¨ller’s (1953) dictionary. Transcription guidelines provided by this work, the primary English-Russian reference available at the time, clearly specify that English vowels are categorized as phonologically tense (long) or lax (short), and that English features contrastive pairs such as peak / pick and fool / full (Mu¨ller 1953: 5–8). Below I reproduce Mu¨ller’s transcriptions of some of the words undergoing elision in Donne and Frost in (26–27); in each

46

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

of these examples, elision a¤ects short vowels. Similarly, all thirty-eight instances of Donne’s elision in Songs and Sonnets (Donne 1952) apply to short vowels as well.32 Table 16. Mu¨ller’s (1953) transcriptions. In this dictionary the symbols [I] and [u] stand for high lax (short) vowels. Word

Transcription of the first post-tonic vowel

virtuous

[u]

Jesuit

[u]

misery

[‘]

prisoner

[‘]

hideous

[I]

ordinance family

[I] [I]

general

[‘]

Of course, the reason Kiparsky’s Prosodic Rules target short vowels has nothing to do with meter and verse. If a poet decides to use an Xxx-shaped word, the first post-tonic syllable in such a word is short simply as a consequence of English stress rules, which assign stress in nouns to the antepenultimate syllable if the penultimate syllable is short and open (as in MI-se-ry or PRI-so-ner); and otherwise to the penult, as in ve-RAN-da or ho-RI-zon (Chomsky and Halle 1968: 71). In other 32. All of Donne’s thirty-eight post-tonic elisions in words with the shape -Xxx- target short vowels, and most follow Kiparsky’s Prosodic Rules 2 and 3. In the list below, elisions that follow neither Prosodic Rules 2 nor 3 are in boldface: discov(e)rers, spec(u)lar, usur(i)ous, myster(i)ous, rev(e)rend, worth(i)est, glor(i)ous, stead(i)ly, scatt(e)ring, intir(e)ness, virt(u)ous, infl(u)ence, inconsid(e)rate, transsubstant(i)ates, spirit(u)al, med(i)cine, prerog(a)tives, idol(a)trie, incest(u)ously, gen(e)ral, whisp(e)ring, treach(e)rously, wind(o)wie, cur(i)ous, ver(i)er, virt(u)ous, negot(i)ate, infl(u)ence, ath(e)ist, Jes(u)its, pris(o)ners, terrestr(i)al, myster(i)ous, mut(u)al, happ(i)est, murd(e)rer, ath(e)ists, sorr(o)wing. In selecting relevant trisyllabic words, I followed, where possible, the transcriptions in Mu¨ller’s (1953) dictionary, because this is the most likely source of Brodsky’s information about English pronunciation while in Norenskaia. Thus, since Mu¨ller (1953) considered words like di¤(e)rent and sev(e)ral to be disyllabic rather than trisyllabic, I did not include them in the list.

1.11.

Elision and redundant syllables: Brodsky’s Russian predecessors

47

words, English is sensitive to vowel length not only in terms of displaying contrast between bit and beet, but also in calculating the location of stress. But even if Brodsky was not aware of this stress rule, dictionary transcriptions might have alerted him to the shortness of the first post-tonic vowel, and he may have decided to reproduce such shortness in his Russian elisions as well.

1.11. Elision and redundant syllables: Brodsky’s Russian predecessors While abundant in the works of Shakespeare and Donne, metrical elision is much rarer in Russian iambic poetry than in English, though occasionally found in twentieth-century experiments.33 I will focus on only one type of elision – the post-tonic elision in words with the shape -Xxx(i.e., those with the stress pattern STRESSED-unstressed-unstressed). This is the most frequent and most lexically diverse kind of elision in Brodsky, represented by twenty-nine examples (for more on which see Chapter 2). Consider examples of elision in words with the shape -Xxx- which Brodsky might have encountered before 1962 (the date of his first experiment), and which occur either in published volumes or clandestine editions he is reported to have read (Polukhina and Losev 2006; Shul’ts 2000). These include one line of Marina Tsvetaeva; one line of Eduard Bagritsky, the Soviet poet Brodsky was ‘‘terribly fond of . . . in [his] youth’’ (as mentioned in a conversation with Tomas Venclova; cited MacFadyen 33. What are the criteria for designating a poem ‘‘iambic with extra syllables’’? After all, such poems resemble the Russian dol’nik, the meter allowing unstressed syllables intervening between strong positions to freely range between one and two. In the example of Brodsky’s dol’nik given in Table 1, every line contains disyllabic unstressed intervals, hence the poem is not perceived as iambic. In contrast, experimental iambic verse discussed in this study displays the insertion of extra syllables into lines quite infrequently, retaining its overall iambic tendency. In the spirit of Gasparov (1968: 71), I assume that if more than 75.0 percent of the lines in a given poem follow the rules of Russian iambic verse (e.g., do not exhibit the insertion of extra syllables), then the poem is iambic, and if more than 25.0 percent contain ‘‘extra’’ syllables, the poem is a dol’nik. For example, Tiutchev’s ‘‘Posledniaia liubov’ ’’ [Last love] is considered a dol’nik rather than iambic, because 41.7 percent of its lines include disyllabic unstressed intervals. All poems analyzed here as ‘‘iambic with extra syllables’’ fall within the parameters proposed by Gasparov. For example, for Brodsky the percentage of lines with extra syllables ranges between .69 and 12.5; for Slutsky, between 1.9 and 14.3.

48

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

2000: 76)34; and four lines of the World War II generation poet Boris Slutsky.35 (28) lju- BOV’, lju- BOV’, i v SU- do-ro- gax, i v GRO- be W S W S W S W S W S ‘Love, love, in convulsions and in the grave’ (Tsvetaeva 1961: 124) (29) raz- DER- gi-va- jut- sja W S W S W ‘The clouds part, creaking’

ob- la- KA, S W S

sˇcˇa S

treW

(Bagritskii 1956: 266)

34. There are three additional instances of elision in Bagritsky’s largest edition (Bagritskii 1964), but this total of four is still a much smaller data set than Brodsky’s and Slutsky’s. i

ˇNEZ

no po-

JET

vo

MNE

i

za-

ki-

PA-

jet

W

S

W

S

W

S

W

S

W

S

W

‘And in me tenderly sings and simmers’ i

VE-

W

S

ter vosW

TO-

ka

pri-

le-

TIT

v no-

ˇI C

S

W

S

W

S

W

S

W

‘And the east wind will come to me at night’ vy-

VE-

tri-va-

jut-

sja

i

na-

SKVOZ’

pro-

BI-

ty

W S W S W S W S W W S ‘The [idols] are wind-weathered and pierced [by the rains]’ (Bagritskii 1964: 304, 307, 318) 35. I first searched for elisions in Tsvetaeva’s Selected Works (1961) and in all of her publications in Contemporary Notes, which Brodsky read (Shul’ts 2000). The search for Slutsky’s elisions published by 1962 was conducted in Slutskii 1957 and Slutskii 1959, although it is clear that Brodsky read more than what was published in these volumes, because Brodsky’s own ‘‘Evreiskoe kladbishche okolo Leningrada’’ [The Jewish cemetery near Leningrad] and ‘‘Isaak i Avraam’’ [Isaac and Abraham] echo Slutsky’s ‘‘Evrei khleba ne seiut’’ [Jews do not sow bread] and ‘‘U Abrama, Isaka i Iakova’’ [Abram, Isak, and Iakov [have retained]] (Grinberg 2007), which at the time only circulated in underground editions.

1.11.

Elision and redundant syllables: Brodsky’s Russian predecessors

(30) sta- RUSˇ- ko-ju vyW S W S ‘a carved-out old lady’

49

rez- NOJ W S (Slutskii 1957: 77)

(31) na- RA- do-vat’- sja mosk- VO- ju W S W S W S W ‘enjoying Moscow to the fullest’ (Slutskii 1959: 72) (32)

a XO- cˇet-sja ras- cˇi- sˇcˇat’, razW S W S W S W ‘one feels like cleaning and straightening’

RAV- ni- vat’ S (W) (W)

(Slutskii 1961, reprinted in Slutskii 1991: 370) (33) [. . .] ze- LE- no-[v]o ma- kin- TO- sˇi- ka W S W S W S (W) W ‘his green little mackintosh’ (Slutskii 1961, reprinted in Slutskii 1991: 329) The departure from canonical iambic rhythm these lines display is unusual, but clearly intentional. In the example from Tsvetaeva, the squeezing of two syllables into one position has a semantic function: just as a convulsion (su´doroga) involves muscular contractions, the word su´doroga is contracted metrically. In Bagritsky’s line the word razde´rgivajutsja [part, due to being jerked open like curtains] literally disrupts the metrical flow, just as jerking constitutes deviation from the normal rhythm of nature. Slutsky’s lines in (31–32) indicate uncontrolled emotions (xo´cˇetsja, a form of wanting used in impersonal constructions amounting literally to something like ‘there exists a desire,’ and nara´dovat’sja, which literally Elision also occurs in one trochaic line of geologist-poet Leonid Ageev (Ermilova 1964: 251). v zaS

poW

LUS

denW

nu-ju S

straW

NU S

‘To the afternoon country’ (Den’ poezii 1961: 18). Interestingly, Brodsky and Ageev participated in the same poetry reading at the Leningrad Mining Institute in March 1961 (Kulle 2003: 10; Polukhina and Losev 2006: 329). Ageev’s trochaic poem with a disruption was included in the 1961 anthology Den’ poezii [A day of poetry] and could well have been selected by Ageev for the reading.

50

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

means ‘to get enough enjoyment of ’); the speakers’ loss of emotional control is thus indicated by Slutsky’s intentionally losing control of the iambic flow.36 Interestingly, Brodsky’s lines with redundant syllables do not exactly echo the semantic aura of this device in his predecessors’ texts. The semantic peculiarities of Brodsky’s experiment need not concern us here and will be discussed in section 2.7; at this point, a rather di¤erent question will be addressed, namely: what makes such redundant syllables possible in Russian iambic verse to begin with, whether for Brodsky or his predecessors? Does vowel shortness play any role in examples (28–33)? English Prosodic Rules, as we have seen, operate on phonologically short vowels; the Russian language, for its part, does not have phonological quantity contrasts, i.e., it draws no distinction between short vowels as in English bit, soot, and get and long vowels as in English beet, suit, and gate. But the lack of quantity contrasts does not mean that Russian vowels cannot be phonetically short; indeed, they are reduced in unstressed positions. Moreover, Russian vowel reduction is further divided into first- and second-degree, with the former typically longer than the latter (Bolla

36. Of course, elisions occurring in Brodsky’s reported readings until 1962, or in what he might by then have read that was o‰cially published in Russia, are not su‰cient for an adequate statistical analysis. But if we analyze the unpublished verse of potential antecedents that had been written by 1962, we find that among Brodsky’s possible predecessors, Slutsky produced the largest number of elisions in words with the shape -Xxx-, namely, nineteen. In contrast, Tsvetaeva, judging from her most complete edition to date (Tsvetaeva 1994), used only six such elisions throughout her lifetime. Even if Brodsky paid attention to at least one of these examples (Tsvetaeva 1961: 124), her small data sample is insu‰cient for a statistical analysis. Instead, it is to Slutsky that Brodsky’s experimentation will be compared in Chapter 2. Slutsky’s nineteen elisions are taken from his most complete edition of poetry to date (Slutsky 1991); the editor specifically indicates when the poems were written and which were hitherto unpublished. Tsvetaeva’s six elision examples were found in volumes 1 and 2 (Stikhotvoreniia i perevody [Poems and translations]) of her Collected Works in Seven Volumes (Tsvetaeva 1994); dramatic writings in volume 3 were not analyzed. Tsvetaeva’s six elisions in words with the shape -Xxx- include: su´d(o)rogax [convulsions] (Tsvetaeva 1994, 1: 570), sorevnova´n(i)ja [contests] (Tsvetaeva 1994, 2: 53), razbra´s(y)vajusˇcˇaja [throwing around] (Tsvetaeva 1994, 2: 124), razgla´zˇ(i)vajusˇcˇije [ironing] (Tsvetaeva 1994, 2: 124), Volo´sˇ(i)nskoju [of Voloshin] (Tsvetaeva 1994, 2: 306), and nebe´sn(y)je [celestial] (Tsvetaeva 1994, 2: 387).

1.12.

Conclusion

51

1981).37 First-degree reduction occurs in vowels immediately preceding stressed syllables (i.e., first pre-tonic vowels), as well as in word-initial and word-final vowels. Second-degree reduction occurs in all other unstressed positions (Matusevich 1976; Bolla 1981). Returning to examples (29–33), we can state that vowel reduction clearly plays a role in licensing redundant syllables in Russian iambic verse. Among the two vowels the respective poets insert into one position, the first always undergoes second-degree reduction, because it is post-tonic, non-word-final (SU-do-ro-ga, raz-DER-gi-va-jut-sja, VZDROGnuv-sˇu-ju). In other words, whether the words containing the redundant syllable appear in verse or prose, this redundant syllable is already as short as it can be. The same is true of Brodsky’s and Slutsky’s experimental lines discussed in Chapter 2.38 1.12. Conclusion It is now possible to answer, at least in part, the question regarding sources posed at the beginning of this chapter. Why, when attempting to recreate English prosody in Russian, did Brodsky borrow elision but ban polysyllabic inversion? The two devices have much in common: both may carry semantic associations, both were prohibited in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Russian verse and partially legitimized in the twentieth century. Why does Brodsky not treat the two in the same way? The reason may be that the poet prefers to impart foreign flavor to his verse in an inconspicuous manner – a phenomenon one could refer to as 37. As Matusevich (1976) points out, other studies have shown that the distinction between first- and second-degree reduction is not fully justified for all vowels; the only vowel for which the distinction is clearly expressed is /a/. Timberlake (2004: 42) reports that while stressed [a] has the duration of about two hundred milliseconds, the same vowel in the first pre-tonic position takes about one hundred milliseconds, while in other unstressed positions only eighty milliseconds. 38. Some unstressed vowels, especially those exhibiting second-degree reduction, can be completely deleted in spoken Russian, e.g., sxo´d(i)te [you are getting o¤ ], mo´zˇ(e)te [you can], na´d(o) [necessary], me´s(ja)ca [of the month], spec(i)a´l’no [on purpose] (Kasatkin 2003: 168). Voznesensky’s lines quoted in Chapter 2 exhibit the same colloquial feature as spec(i)al’no, namely the loss of a vowel when followed by another vowel, thus milic(i)one´r [policeman] (Kasatkin 2003: 168). As we shall see, however, instances of metrical elision in Brodsky tend to be quite abstract, often unrelated to colloquial vowel deletion. Thus, the interaction between metrical elision and colloquial deletion will receive only limited consideration in Chapter 2.

52

Brodsky’s predecessors: Rules, violations, semantics

hidden stylization (see also Nikolaev 2005).39 Using post-tonic redundant syllables in Russian iambic poetry is a subtle mode of imitating English verse, insofar as the syllables a¤ected are already inconspicuous due to Russian vowel reduction; they are, as will be shown in Chapter 2, furthermore even less conspicuous in Brodsky’s verse than in Slutsky’s. In contrast, polysyllabic inversion is not ‘‘masked’’ by any natural language phonetic process; it is a purely metrical device involving disruption of the expected rhythm; it is also readily apparent on the basis of a single line. Many Russian speakers accustomed to reciting poetry from elementary school on would easily notice such inversions, because the rhythmic inertia of the poem would force the misplacement of word stress. The unequal status of elision and polysyllabic inversion is obvious even from the amount of attention they receive in the literature on meter. Scholars are far more conscious of polysyllabic inversion than of elision: the ban against the former is mentioned in the classic Formalist treatises on meter (Jakobson 1979a; Shengeli 1923; Zhirmunskii 1971; Tomashevskii 1929), while the same treatises say virtually nothing about elision in iambic verse. Even Zhirmunsky’s thorough study discusses redundant syllables only in the context of the dol’nik (Zhirmunskii 1966: 195–208). The conspicuous absence of the very concept of elision in these works suggests that poets and scholars have not considered it as marked as polysyllabic inversion; elision is indeed a hidden stylization method. The concept of hidden stylization also explains why, for the purposes of imitating foreign prosody, Brodsky selects anti-RD rhythm in addition to elision. There is nothing inherently non-Russian about individual lines (e.g., xX xx xX xX) featuring anti-RD rhythm: they have occurred in Russian iambic verse since the eighteenth century (Belyi 1910: 262–263). What is unusual about anti-RD poems is the frequency of such lines. Thus, Brodsky’s subtlety lies in the fact that, in and of itself, neither elision nor anti-RD signal foreignness – only an exaggerated incidence of such forms. Indeed, this innovation-within-tradition is precisely the special quality Brodsky’s contemporary fellow poets saw in his style; in the words of Konstantin Azadovsky, Brodsky ‘‘existed within [traditional] form, but . . . within that form he heard, found and perceived that which his predecessors had not seen and were unable to realize’’ (quoted in MacFadyen 2000: 17). 39. The notion of hidden stylization can also explain why Brodsky uses foreign words in his Russian poetry less often than one would expect in the work of an anglophile (Nikolaev 2005); foreign words within a native context are attention-grabbing.

2.

Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse1

2.1. Introduction In the early 1960s Brodsky’s verse sees the emergence of a peculiar stylistic feature infrequent in Russian iambic poetry. This feature is elision, the phenomenon whereby a metrically redundant syllable is ignored for the purposes of meter. The question of which source texts influenced Brodsky’s experiment is complicated. On the one hand, the English-language works he read in the early 1960s – for example, poems by John Donne and Robert Frost (Volkov 1998: 150, 90, 133; Rein 2003: 377–378; Losev 2006: 63) – contain numerous examples of elision, with words such as mis(e)ry and gen(e)ral treated as disyllabic. At the same time, metrically redundant syllables also occur in the texts of a figure in Brodsky’s own national tradition, Soviet poet Boris Slutsky (Smith 1999a: 19; Losev 2006: 63; Lotman 2006).2 Brodsky’s disparate sources, English and Russian, raise a number of challenging questions ranging well beyond the study of meter alone. Which source had a greater impact on Brodsky – precedent in English, which until at least 1972 he knew only passively (Brodsky 1986: 376), or Slutsky, who wrote in Russian? Even if it was Slutsky who first inspired Brodsky to experiment, how did Brodsky’s elision develop over time? Finally, if Brodsky’s experiment can be considered English-flavored, why does the same not hold for Slutsky’s? There is good cause to compare Brodsky and Slutsky, although the juxtaposition of the two may seem paradoxical. Slutsky was a communist, a propaganda o‰cer during World War II, whose reputation among some is that of, as Smith (2001: 206) summarizes, ‘‘a sound but rather stodgy o‰cial poet of the middle generation.’’ Brodsky, by contrast, was an anglophile who never joined the party and was exiled to the Russian North for ‘‘social parasitism.’’ Nevertheless, Brodsky and other poets of 1. This chapter is a revised and expanded version of my article ‘‘Rule-makers and rule-breakers: Brodsky and Slutsky as reformers of Russian verse,’’ Russian Review 68 (4): 641–661. 2. Heino (2001, 2004) has analyzed Slutsky from a linguistic standpoint. Smith (1999a) and Losev (2006: 63) mention the omission or addition of syllables in Brodsky’s and Slutsky’s syllabo-tonic meters.

54

Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse

his generation held Slutsky in high regard, partly because of Slutsky’s socially critical poems, which circulated in underground editions (Smith 1999a; Losev 2006: 61–64). Several of Brodsky’s poems clearly echo or paraphrase Slutsky (MacFadyen 2000: 64–75; Grinberg 2007; Losev 2006: 61–64). Twenty-five years after first discovering him, Brodsky still praised Slutsky’s stylistic innovations, crediting him with having ‘‘almost single-handedly changed the diction of post-war Russian poetry. . . . [I]t is regrettable that he is less available in English than his often witless successors who rather shamelessly exploit his formal discoveries’’ (Brodsky 1985: 544). Given Slutsky’s stylistic influence on the younger generation of poets, it seems important to determine whether, in their rhythmic innovation (i.e., inserting extra syllables into iambic lines), Brodsky and Slutsky are at all similar. Although both poets base their elision on the presence of vowel reduction in Russian phonology, there is an explicit linguistic distinction between their two methods. Beyond the realm of reduction, moreover, stark di¤erences emerge. I will show that the prosodic shape of Brodsky’s disrupted iambic lines includes only a small and carefully selected subset of what is possible in the language. In contrast, Slutsky’s disrupted iambic lines are not constrained phonologically, and the di¤erence between their rhythm and that of his prose is not statistically significant. The shape of Brodsky’s redundant syllables is uniform across years and strongly resembles the prosody of English verse, while Slutsky creates no consistent phonological pattern.

2.2. Brodsky’s redundant syllables: A description In what sense are Brodsky’s redundant syllables ‘‘redundant’’? Recall that English and Russian poets alike deviate from the iambic template to avoid monotony. Departures from the metrical ideal are common, but only specific deviations are allowed. In eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Russian verse, as well as in Brodsky’s poetry, odd positions may be filled by stressed syllables, as long as the latter are represented by monosyllabic words (Jakobson 1979c). In Chapter 1 we referred to this restriction as the Russian Monosyllable Rule. Now consider the opening of Brodsky’s ‘‘New Stanzas to Augusta’’ (1964). Except in line 7, Brodsky observes Russian metrical rules. When he does deviate from the template, W positions are filled with stressed ˇ D’ [rain] in line 2, while S positions are monosyllabic words, e.g., DOZ filled with unstressed syllables, e.g., u- in line 3. Departures from the template are in boldface:

2.2.

Brodsky’s redundant syllables: A description

55

Table 1. ‘‘New Stanzas to Augusta’’ W

S

W

S

W

S

W

S

1.

vo

VTOR-

nik

na-

cˇal-

SJA

sen-

TJABR’.

2.

ˇ D’ DOZ

LIL

vsju

ˇ ’. NOC

3.

PTI-

cy

u-

le-

TE-

li

ˇ ’. PROC

4.

vse lisˇ’

JA

di-

NOK

i

XRABR,

5. 6.

DATYN-

tak zˇe

o-

cˇto pus-

ne ne-

smotbo-

REL SVOD

im raz-

VSLED. RU-

7.

ˇ D’ DOZ

STJA-

gi-

va-

SVET.

mne

JUG

ne

NU-

jet zˇen.

pro-

8.

nyj

(W)

sˇen,

‘September started on Tuesday. / It rained all night. / All the birds flew away. / Only I am so lonely and brave, / that I did not even watch them go. / The bleak firmament is shattered, / the rain squeezes a ray of light. / I do not need the south.’ (Brodskii 2001, 2: 90)

However, line 7 is problematic. The stressed syllable of the polysyllabic pro-SVET [ray of light] falls on an odd position, violating the Russian Monosyllable Rule: ˇ D’ STJA- gi- va- jet pro- SVET (1) DOZ W S W S W S W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ‘The rain squeezes a ray of light’ The problem can be solved by proposing an alternative analysis: ˇ D’ (2) DOZ W 1

STJA- gi-va- jet S W S 2 3 4

pro- SVET W S 5 6

It is possible simply to count two syllables (gi-va) as one (cf. Lotman 2006). Read this way, the line’s rhythm becomes an iconic representation of its meaning. Just as rain ‘‘squeezes a ray of light,’’ two syllables are squeezed into a single metrical position.3 3. However, many instances of inserted ‘‘extra’’ syllables do not carry obvious semantic functions in Brodsky (see section 2.7).

56

Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse

Brodsky’s unusual rhythm is not born of error. The Brodsky papers held by the Yale University Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library reveal almost no attempts to repair such non-standard lines (see Appendix I). In seventy percent of the instances of disrupted meter, the nonstandard rhythm was retained from early draft to final version. When Brodsky did introduce a metrical alteration, it was more frequently (25.0 percent) a change from standard to disrupted meter than the other way around (5.0 percent!). Clearly the poet wanted these lines to have the rhythm that they do. Below are some examples of changes between draft (a) and final (Brodskii 2001) version (b): (3) a. b.

W S W ˇcto TUF- li vzdy- MA- ju-

S W v KOM- nasˇcˇe-je sja

S W S te bles- TJAT po- loTNO

a. Draft: ‘That the shoes are glistening in the room’; b. Final: ‘The rising piece of cloth’4 (‘‘Zagadka angelu’’ [Riddle for an angel] – gloss by Bethell, Brodsky 1967: 75) (4) a. b.

[. . .]

W S W voZIT’- sja s nej SVJA- zy-vat’-

S W s NEJ sesja se-

S W S BE do- ROBE do- RO-

W zˇe zˇe

a. Draft: ‘To bother with it is too much trouble’; b. Final: ‘To get involved with it is too much trouble’ (‘‘Mukha’’ [The fly]) (5)

W a. vnub. pod-

S W S W S W S W S W ˇSA- ja vo- pre- KI mel’- KAN’- ju ˇ CER- ki-va- ja bla- go- da- RJA mel’- KAN’- ju

a. Draft: ‘Persuading, despite the twinkling’; b. Final: ‘Emphasizing, thanks to the twinkling’ (‘‘The Fly’’)

4. The samizdat collection (1972) of Brodsky’s poetry edited by Maramzin includes the final version of ‘‘Riddle for an Angel’’ featuring a disrupted line. However, in the commentary to the poem, an earlier draft is mentioned as including an alternate, undisrupted version of this line (Brodskii 1972: 525).

2.2.

(6) a. b.

Brodsky’s redundant syllables: A description

W S W S W S ˇGRAF VYJ- gral, do klub- NIC ˇGRAF VY-i gral, do klub- NIC

57

W S W ki LA- kom ki LA- kom

a. and b. Draft and final version: ‘The horny count has won’ (Note the spelling change from the earlier wyjgral [won] to the final wyigral [won]) (‘‘P’iatstsa Mattei’’ [Piazza Mattei]) In this respect the rhythm in ‘‘The Fly’’ is particularly interesting: (7) a. b.

W S W ras- PLA- cˇiras- PLA- cˇi-vat’-

S W S W S vat’- sja, ex, s pla- NEsja s pla- NE- toj

W toj

a. Draft: ‘To repay – oh! – the planet’; b. Final: ‘To repay the planet’ In an earlier draft, Brodsky used the word ex [oh], an interjection expressing regret or disappointment. Although this interjection salvages the line rhythmically, its occurrence seems strikingly inappropriate: the persona speaks of being ‘‘infected’’ with ‘‘indi¤erence,’’ hence the heavily emotional ex seems misplaced, standing out even in Brodsky’s typewriting:

Figure 1. A manuscript of Brodsky’s ‘‘The Fly,’’ the Brodsky Papers, Beinecke Library, Yale University. Gloss: ‘You’d be surprised / how very infectious, giving rise to sleepiness / and indi¤erence, is the tendency / to repay – oh! – the planet in kind.’

58

Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse

In the earlier draft, the interjection ex functions as a mere rhythmic placeholder, without which, Brodsky perhaps realized, the line would be non-standard; his later decision to omit the interjection must have been a conscious choice.5 In all of Brodsky’s Russian-language iambic verse published in his Sochineniia [Works] (Brodskii 2001) – a total of 253 iambic poems – I have found twenty-nine lines in which two syllables must be inserted into a single position. As we will see, Brodsky’s twenty-nine experimental lines are surprisingly uniform, and their shape turns out to have statistical significance, suggesting that Brodsky must have carefully selected the words to which elision applies.

2.3. English elision It will be recalled that such poems of Donne as Brodsky had seen or translated by 1966–67, and had likely studied in Norenskaia soon after receiving Donne’s (1952) volume in May 1964 (Polukhina and Losev 2006: 336, 343–344), include clear instances of elision. Albert James Smith, the editor of the Penguin Classics edition (1986) of Donne’s complete poetry, comments: Donne’s rhythms depend upon colloquial speech-forms which he himself notated when he wrote out his poems, and copyists of his manuscripts tried to preserve. Early printed editions of his poetry indicate somewhat haphazardly, by apostrophe or by contraction, where vowels are to be slurred or elided. . . . (Donne 1986: 336)

The volume that Brodsky owned followed precisely such ‘‘earlier editions’’ and indicated elision by an apostrophe. ‘‘The Apparition,’’ ‘‘The Flea,’’ ‘‘A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning,’’ and ‘‘The Storm’’ (i.e., the poems Brodsky eventually translated) include the following contracted forms: th’earth, the’other, th’other, w’are (¼ we are), thee’and, I’had, to’impute, 5. It might be suggested that even though ex was deleted in the published version, its metrical position was retained and filled with a pause, and that all of Brodsky’s disrupted lines in Table 2 feature not elision but a pause (e.g., ˇ D’ STJA-gi-va-jet Ø prosvet). See note 15 for arguments against such a DOZ pause-based analysis. 6. Thanks to Avram Brown for bringing this comment to my attention.

2.3.

English elision

59

we’owe, th’ayres, Sara’her, mee’had, wee’mongst, lye’equally, tremblingly’aske, o’er, and me’I. Of course, many of these contractions do not reflect modern colloquial speech patterns at all (e.g., to’impute or we’owe). Moreover, Donne’s apostrophe usage is strikingly inconsistent: at times the elided vowel is included (the’other), at times left out (th’other). Nevertheless, the fact that Brodsky encountered precisely these spellings, in precisely the 1952 edition of Donne, is tremendously important. By explicitly including apostrophes, this edition illustrated to Brodsky that English versification permits counting two syllables as one. In contrast, other publications of Donne, including the one cited above (Donne 1986), do not indicate elision by apostrophe at all. Had Brodsky encountered such modern, non-apostrophized versions of Donne, he may not have reached the same conclusion that he did, and may have overlooked elision altogether. Seeing apostrophized elisions, moreover, might have trained Brodsky to more easily spot non-apostrophized instances. The Donne volume Brodsky owned includes many examples of orthographically unmarked elisions, each of them following Kiparsky’s (1977: 240) Prosodic Rules 2 and 3, restated below for the sake of convenience. It is these rules that Brodsky transposed into Russian verse with striking precision: Prosodic Rule 2 (Kiparsky 1977: 240) This rule ‘‘deletes an unstressed vowel medially before a sonorant followed by an unstressed vowel.’’ As examples, Kiparsky gives vict(o)ry, imag(e)ry, sick(e)ning, etc. Prosodic Rule 3 (Kiparsky 1977: 240) This rule ‘‘turns an unstressed high vowel into a glide before a vowel’’; thus /I/ and /œ/ can become glides [ j] and [w] respectively. As examples, Kiparsky offers the disyllabic reading of envious or annual. For example, in ‘‘The Will,’’ ‘‘The Storm,’’ and ‘‘A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning,’’ misery, withering, prisoners, ordinance, Jesuits, Hilliard, hideous, and virtuous have to undergo elision to fit the iambic template of these poems (see Chapter 1, section 1.10); in other words, these must be scanned as mis(e)ry, with(e)ring, pris(o)ners, ord(i)nance, Jes(u)its, Hill(i)ard, hid(e)ous, and virt(u)ous, despite the fact that the 1952 edition of Donne does not indicate the metrically redundant vowel by bracketing. Thus the first line of ‘‘A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning’’ (Donne

60

Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse

1952: 38) requires the reader to disregard two prevocalic vowels, neither of which are apostrophized in spelling: (8) as VIR- t(u)-ous MEN PASS MILD- l(y) a- WAY W S W S W S W S Brodsky’s works provide evidence that the poet was fully aware of these orthographically non-obvious elisions. In his translation of Donne’s ‘‘The Storm’’ (10), though the original English orthography makes the English painter’s name Hilliard seem trisyllabic, Brodsky spells the name as disyllabic: Xilxqrd (Xill-jard ). A Russian commentary to Brodsky’s translation appearing in the volume Bog sokhraniaet vse [God preserves everything] (Brodskii 1992) gives a trisyllabic spelling of this surname, Xilliard (Xill-i-ard ), which suggests that Brodsky’s disyllabic variant is not the only Russian interpretation possible. Brodsky’s choice in this regard indicates the poet’s ability to identify elision in the English source text. (9) by HIL- l(i)ard DRAWNE, is WORTH an HIS- to- ry W S W S W S W S W S (Donne 1952: 126) (10) ko- TO- ry XILL- jard MNIL os- TA- vit’ na xols- TE W S W S W S W S W S W S ‘Which Hilliard hoped to leave on a canvass’ (Brodskii 2001, 4: 290) When we examine those words of Donne with the shape -Xxx- where elision has to apply, we find them surprisingly similar. First, in each instance, the first post-tonic vowel occurs in an open syllable (e.g., o´r-dinance). Second, each vowel requiring metrical elision precedes either a sonorant (which can be represented by a vowel or a sonorant consonant) or a [v]. Thus, the words undergoing elision in Donne follow Prosodic Rules 2 and 3, and the choice of intervening consonant also follows Halle and Keyser’s (1971) rule allowing elision to occur across both a sonorant and a [v]. The patterns observed are not limited to those poems of Donne which Brodsky translated. If we select all words with the shape -Xxx- requiring elision in Donne’s Songs and Sonnets (included in the Donne volume that

2.4.

Phonological regularities in Brodsky

61

Brodsky owned), it turns out that 89.5 percent of elisions (thirty-four of thirty-eight) simultaneously follow both of the restrictions described, i.e., the first post-tonic elided vowel in these words occurs in an open syllable and precedes a sonorant or a [v]. Clearly, this pattern is the result of a careful choice on Donne’s part: in his prose sermons, published in the same volume, the percentage of words with the shape -Xxx- that conform to both these restrictions is only 50.0 percent, while in Donne’s prose letters the rate is even lower, at 38.0 percent.7 Moreover, the di¤erence between Donne’s handling of words with the shape -Xxx- in poetry vs. prose turns out to be statistically significant also if we examine the patterning of the two features (open post-tonic syllable vs. intervening sonorant) separately rather than as a bundle (see Appendix IV for significance tests). Thus it would appear that Brodsky had chosen to imitate Donne, English versification’s most notorious rule-breaker. However, Brodsky did not borrow Donne’s metrical eccentricities, incorporating instead a perfectly regular feature of the English poet’s verse – his elision. Brodsky could have noticed the striking regularities in the prosodic shape of Donne’s lines with redundant syllables and introduced these regularities into his Russian verse – a testament to his exceptional intuition regarding foreign prosody.

2.4. Phonological regularities in Brodsky If we look at instances in which Brodsky inserts two post-tonic syllables into one position, we find them strikingly similar to one another and to such instances in Donne.8 The phonological structure of words – i.e., the language itself – tells us which syllable to ignore. Consider the first post-tonic syllables shown in the grey column in Table 2.

7. Words with the shape -Xxx- in Donne’s letters were randomly selected from the section entitled ‘‘From Letters’’ of the volume that Brodsky owned (Donne 1952: 363–413). Words with the shape -Xxx- in Donne’s sermons were randomly selected from the section ‘‘From The Sermons and Death’s Duell,’’ appearing in the same volume (Donne 1952: 458–594). 8. Of course, the insertion of two post-tonic syllables into one metrical position is not the only type of disruption practiced by Brodsky. At times he employs vowel elisions that can only be analyzed as pre-tonic, and scans voobsˇcˇe´ [in general] as v(o)obsˇcˇe´, reflecting colloquial pronunciation of the word. Such

62

Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse

Note that the words in which disruption occurs contain at least three syllables with the shape -Xxx-, e.g., SLE-du-jet [follows] – recalling Donne’s elision in words such as MI-se-ry and HI-de-ous (i.e., Prosodic Rules 2 and 3). Of course, this is not the only word shape to which Brodsky applied elision in his lifetime, but it is the predominant one, and the one wherein the similarity with English is most pronounced; for this reason we will use this shape as the basis of our comparative study (see Chapter 1, section 1.11). The two phonological restrictions on English elision described as applying in Donne also tend to apply in Brodsky. First, the post-tonic syllable shown in the grey column is typically open, just as in the English examples of Prosodic Rules 2 and 3 Brodsky encountered. Second, the vowel in scansion is repeated in numerous poems (occasionally more than once in each), e.g., four times in ‘‘Gorbunov i Gorchakov’’ [Gorbunov and Gorchakov] (Brodskii 2001, 2: 268, 271, 280), five times in ‘‘Posviashchaetsia Ialte’’ [Homage to Yalta] (Brodskii 2001, 2: 293, 298, 302, 304), and once each in ‘‘Otryvok (Oktiabr’ – mesiats grusti i prostud)’’ [Fragment (October is the month of sadness and colds)] (Brodskii 2001, 2: 197), ‘‘Iz ‘Shkol’noi antologii’ ’’ [From the ‘School anthology’] (Brodskii 2001, 2: 319), ‘‘Peschanye kholmy, porosshie sosnoi’’ [Sand hills overgrown with pines] (Brodskii 2001, 3: 74), ‘‘The fly’’ (Brodskii 2001, 3: 287), ‘‘Ia pozabyl tebia, no pomniu shtukaturku’’ [I seem to have forgotten you, but I remember the plaster] (Brodskii 2001, 4: 159), and Brodsky’s translations of Plutzik’s ‘‘Horatio’’ (Brodskii 2001, 4: 272) and Donne’s ‘‘The Flea’’ (Brodskii 2001, 4: 294). However, these examples constitute instances of a single word. If we look instead at the lexical diversity of Brodsky’s pre-tonic disruptions, they turn out to be limited to very few examples: na vel(o)sipe´de [on a bicycle] (Brodskii 2001, 4: 136), radi(o)aktivnyj [radioactive] (Brodskii 2001, 3: 276), and the abovementioned v(o)obsˇcˇe´. For this reason, I exclude pre-tonic disruptions from the analysis. Lines with metrically redundant syllables in words with the shape -Xx- (as opposed to -Xxx) will be excluded for the same reason: Brodsky only employs such disruptions three times. All three instances occur in his iambic hexameter poem ‘‘Piataia godovshchina’’ [The fifth anniversary], and most likely, Brodsky interpreted the redundant syllables as an extrametrical position in the middle of a hexameter line, since all occur after the third foot: oxra´nn(ik) [guard], na kole´s(ax) [on wheels], Te´r(ek) [the river Terek]. Finally, in selecting words with the shape -Xxx- with rhythmic disruptions, I excluded cases in which Brodsky reflects vowel elision via spelling, such as cellulojdnyj instead of celluloidnyj [celluloid] (Brodskii 2001, 1: 121) and fizionom’ju instead of fizionomiju [face] (Brodskii 2001, 2: 226), because here the input form for the meter is already shortened, and no metrical elision takes place.

STJA-

VZDRA-

PI-

ˇ D’ DOZ i

ob... on

ko-

che-

2. ‘‘New Stanzas to Augusta’’ (1964)

3. ‘‘Muzhchina, zasypaiushchii odin’’ [A man falling asleep alone] (1965)

4. ‘‘1 sentiabria 1939 goda’’ [1 September 1939] (1967)

5. ‘‘Posviashchaetsia Ialte’’ [Homage to Yalta] (1969)

6. Translation of Richard Wilbur, ‘‘The Agent’’ (1967–1971)

7. ‘‘Pered pamiatnikom A. S. Pushkinu v Odesse’’ [In front of the monument to A. S. Pushkin in Odessa] (1969–70)

8. ‘‘Nichem, Pevets, tvoi iubilei’’ [In no way, Bard, your anniversary] (1970)

jet

nuje va-

je-

ca-

du-

nengigi-

ru-

nad

va-

ot

tak

jet

moj

go

po

i

to-

kon-

tu-

pro-

sja

W

ju

kol-

jet

-je-

-sˇcˇe-

jugi-

S

2nd posttonic

1st posttonic

sen-

na-

ne-

DVE

fe-

NU

SVET

po-

S

tja-

be-

u-

de-

lo-

W

BRJA

GA-

JUT-

RAT-

TNO

S

jet

noj

ku

W

Phonological regularities in Brodsky

TYR-

MNO-

RO-

SLE-

MA-

vzdy-

1. ‘‘Riddle for an Angel’’ (1962)

S

W

Title and date

Table 2.9 Brodsky’s rhythmic disruptions (from Brodskii 2001). Due to space considerations, sentence fragments are quoted. The consonant in the word ego [of his] is transcribed as [v] according to its modern pronunciation. Transliteration (rather than phonetic transcription) is used.10

2.4.

63

podraspod-dosmeto po-

16. ‘‘The Fly’’

17. ‘‘The Fly’’

18. ‘‘The Fly’’

19. ‘‘The Fly’’

20. ‘‘The Fly’’

21. ‘‘Reki’’ [Rivers] (1986)

22. ‘‘Rivers’’

vat’-

zy

s nej

15. ‘‘The Fly’’ (1985)

i,

stvi-

v pos-

14. ‘‘The Bust of Tiberius’’

[v]o-

sˇe-

ˇ IVC

slu-

13. ‘‘The Bust of Tiberius’’

me

ro

OP-

...

12. ‘‘Biust Tiberiia’’ [The bust of Tiberius] (1984)

do

gral,

i-

stvu-

sˇa-

SˇAV-

ˇ UVC

va-

cˇi-

TO-

to-

-va-

ki-

ˇ ERC

MA-

vat’-

cˇi-

PLA-

-jesh

va-

ja-

va-

vy-

SO-

SVJA-

LED-

VY-

GRAF

11. ‘‘Piazza Mattei’’ (1981)

ca

ri

sˇcˇe-

JA-

i

10. ‘‘Meksikanskii divertisment. Zametka dlia entsiklopedii’’ [Mexican Divertimento. Encyclopedia entry] (1975)

se-

sja

go-

ja,

sja

jet-

ja

sja

-lo-

to

s po-

sja

bla-

s pla-

sja

u-

no

jet-

i

be

sja

tju

klub-

na

a-

vyj

je

ni-

MI-

[a]lju-

9. ‘‘Peschanye kholmy, porosshie sosnoi’’ [Sand hills overgrown with pines] (1974)

W

S

2nd posttonic

1st posttonic

S

W

Title and date

vo-

VSJA

za-

na

go-

NE-

v VI-

BE

kru-

v mor-

vcˇe-

o-

da-

toj

de

do-

sej-

ˇE Z

vse-

ˇ AL Z

vra-

ki

ˇNIC

pre-

lu-

ro-

W

va-

e-

S

kax

ˇ INSˇC

je

nej

RASˇ-

ˇ EN’Z

jax

lyx

zˇe

sja

kom

W

BO-

RJA

VJA-

RO-

ˇ AS C

TIT’-

GO

LA-

NE

PLAN

S

64 Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse

zazaty ot-

oboso

23. ‘‘Arkhitektura’’ [Architecture] (1990–91)

24. ‘‘Architecture’’

25. ‘‘Architecture’’

26. ‘‘Ia pozabyl tebia, no pomniu shtukaturku’’ [I seem to have forgotten you, but I remember the plaster] (1993)

27. ‘‘I seem to have forgotten you. . .’’

28. ‘‘I seem to have forgotten you. . .’’

29. ‘‘Ritratto di Donna’’ (1993)

SI-

TAV-

RU-

KA-

VA-

VI-

IG-

S

sˇcˇej

ju-

va-

vajero-

zy-

sˇisˇedo-

ve,

sja ne

ot

sja

sˇej

ˇv LUC

im-

ma

u

ku-

jet-

ra-

pe-

ja

sˇcˇa-

-ju-

du-

go-

iz-

MOJ

ob-

vo-

ver-

ve-

la-

tom

SVE-

s tem

jesh’

-va-

W

S

ry-

W

S

2nd posttonic

1st posttonic

ja

ˇ EN’Z RJA

vij

ti

ˇ ASC

ZU-

ca

W

TRI-

KAM

S

1. ‘The rising piece of cloth’ 2. ‘The rain squeezes a ray of light’ 3. ‘And follows matted hair’ 4. ‘a dropped konfederatka [four-cornered hat]’ 5. ‘Many even [have] two’ 6. ‘He trembles from an uncomfortable [thought]’ 7. ‘Copied [for a hundred years]. Thus rolls onto’ 8. ‘On the fourteenth of September’ 9. ‘Aluminum aeroplane’ 10. ‘And the lizard on the boulder. . .’ 11. ‘The horny count has won’ 12. ‘Rushed headlong from everything’ 13. ‘That has happened, and turn into. . .’ 14. ‘[Not] later, but already now’ 15. ‘It is not worth getting involved with’ 16. ‘Is palmed o¤ in the form of faded. . .’ 17. ‘To repay the planet’ 18. ‘Emphasizing, thanks to. . .’ 19. ‘[Focusing] on the wallpaper’ 20. ‘Being mixed with the day before yesterday. . .’ 21. ‘Sometimes dull, sometimes wrinkled’ 22. ‘You will feel dizzy’ 23. ‘You are flirting with that light’ 24. ‘Envying the clouds’ 25. ‘You are the empress of the vacuum’ 26. ‘Denying the better part’ 27. ‘My Vesuvius thunders down on’ 28. ‘Left over from the eruption’ 29. ‘[Thoughts] about Sidorov, not to mention [Ivanov]’

W

Title and date

2.4. Phonological regularities in Brodsky

65

66

Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse

the grey column tends to be followed in the next syllable by a vowel, a sonorant consonant (i.e., [ j], [m], or [r]), or [v], which in Russian has sonorant qualities (Bondarko and Zinder 1966; Jakobson 1978).11 Again, such a configuration recalls Kiparsky’s Prosodic Rules 2 and 3, which similarly apply before vowels and sonorant consonants.12 Moreover, Donne and Brodsky would seem to share a common motivation for using this particular word shape for elision purposes. Each of the restrictions on elision that these poets introduce has the same goal: to render the ‘‘extra’’ syllable less noticeable. Because the redundant syllable occurs in long polysyllabic words, it is relatively short compared to the same syllable in shorter words. In a stress-timed language such as Russian or English, the intervals between stressed syllables have the same duration (Abercrombie 1967: 97–98); thus the longer the word, the shorter is each of its syllables.13 In fact, applying elision in any but a polysyllabic word struck Brodsky as ‘‘sloppy,’’ and he once remarked that W. B. Yeats was ‘‘sloppy with meters’’ (Brodsky 1986: 361); for Yeats, unlike Brodsky, the two syllables inserted into one position do not have to belong to the same polysyllabic word: (11) and LIVE a- LONE in the BEE- LOUD GLADE W S W S W S W S (‘‘The Lake Isle of Innisfree,’’ Yeats 2000: 31) 9. As this book was going to press, I encountered an additional example of elision in Brodsky’s translation of Auden’s ‘‘In Memory of W. B. Yeats’’ (Brodskii 2010: 42). In this poem, gubernii [provinces] is scanned as gubern(i)i. This example supports the proposal regarding Brodsky’s elision outlined in this chapter: the elided vowel occurs in an open syllable and precedes another vowel, i.e., a sonorant. 10. Due to Russian vowel reduction, after soft consonants /e/ and /a/ are generally realized as the short high vowel [I] (Timberlake 2004: 44–49); for this reason, a word such as ja´sˇcˇerica [lizard] would be pronounced as ja´sˇcˇ[I]rica. However, because Table 2 uses transliteration rather than phonetic transcription, vowel reduction is not indicated. 11. A complete list of references is given by Padgett (2002). 12. Table 2 would seem to evince a pattern by which the vowel in the grey column tends to be a high one: /i/, /u/, or /t˙ /, transcribed in the table as y. However, statistical analysis reveals that Brodsky uses (as do Donne and Slutsky, to whose elision Brodsky’s will be compared) post-tonic high vowels in words with the shape -Xxx- almost as frequently in prose as in elision positions in verse. Thus, the high vowel parameter is irrelevant, and will be ignored in this study (see Appendix IV for statistical tests results). 13. Thanks to Bruce Hayes for bringing the relevance of stress timing to my attention.

2.4.

Phonological regularities in Brodsky

67

The intervening sonorant requirement on elision that both Brodsky and Donne tend to observe seems to have a similar explanation in Russian and English as well. Fleischhacker (2002) and Zuraw (2003) argue that from a phonetic standpoint, vowel-sonorant transitions are more ‘‘vowellike’’ and less perceptually salient than transitions between vowels and obstruent consonants such as [p] or [t]. In other words, for their ‘‘syllableblurring’’ e¤ects, Brodsky and Donne did not choose words with an intervening sonorant by chance; the phonetic transition between a vowel and a sonorant is indeed blurry. Still, the similarity of Brodsky’s elision to English is not a total one. Of course, at the level of phonological restrictions (i.e., restrictions on the class of sounds or syllable shapes used) Brodsky’s rule is identical to English. But at the level of line shape it is not, because the poet introduces an additional condition on permissible S position sequences – a condition absent in the source rule. Elision in English does not have to be followed in the next S position by an unstressed syllable (e.g., in As VIR-t(u)ous MEN, the elided vowel -u- is immediately followed by a stressed MEN in an S position). Brodsky, by contrast, further reduces the prominence of the extra syllable by always omitting stress on the post-disruption S position: the contrast between W and S positions is consequently less pronounced, and even a reader accustomed to verse scansion is likely to dismiss the disruption when faced with a long string of unstressed syllables.14 Why did Brodsky introduce this additional restriction? A number of possibilities can be proposed in this regard. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Brodsky preferred his foreign stylizations to be hidden and di‰cult to detect. While incorporating English elision into Russian, he may have decided that the more restrictions on the redundant syllables he introduces, the less prominent these would seem to the Russian ear. There may be an additional reason for Brodsky’s choice. Unlike English, Russian does not display phonological contrast between short and long vowels. Thus Brodsky may simply have been trying to use alternative means to compensate for the lack of length distinctions in Russian. But no matter his reasons, we can conclude that the uniqueness of Brodsky’s pattern 14. Positions in which Brodsky inserts two syllables are prosodically nonprominent (cf. Dresher 1994) by virtue of being as far removed from the next stressed S position as possible. The insertion of extra material into nonprominent positions is not limited to Brodsky; a similar tendency is characteristic of Biblical Hebrew chant (Elan Dresher, personal communication; see Dresher 1994).

68

Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse

consists in the poet’s ability to simultaneously combine numerous independent (i.e., metrical, phonological, and phonetic) requirements that render the extra syllable as inconspicuous as possible. Although there is no process in Russian phonology requiring the conjunction of these restrictions, in Brodsky’s meter they apply simultaneously.15

2.5. Brodsky’s rule and recitation How phonetically real is Brodsky’s elision? It turns out that, while in English ‘‘extra’’ syllables may or may not be omitted, in Brodsky’s verse no speaker ever omits /i/ in stjagivajet. The spectrogram and waveform of Brodsky’s recitation clearly reveal that no omission of /i/ takes place (see Figure 2). Neither does the well-known Russian actor Veniamin Smekhov, reading Brodsky’s verse, omit /i/ (see Figure 3). Of course, to evaluate Brodsky’s elisions, examining recitations by the poet or a professional actor is insu‰cient. Phoneticians typically analyze sounds by comparing their properties in di¤erent contexts, which a focus on Brodsky’s recording would naturally preclude. The problem can be solved by eliciting additional native Russian speech: we can simply construct a prose sentence identical to Brodsky’s line, and place it in the context of Brodsky’s stanza rewritten as prose (thanks to Bruce Hayes for suggesting this experiment). Thus, we might predict that if readers are really aware of elision, they will delete the ‘‘extra’’ vowel in Brodsky’s poetic line, but not in the prose sentence, because the latter involves no pressure to conform to meter. The constructed prose text shown in (12) entails a change in word order so as to avoid rhyming; some of the original poetic lines were also eliminated due to their explicitly poetic diction. 15. The fact that the first post-tonic syllable is constrained argues against the pause-based analysis of Brodsky’s elision-containing lines suggested to me by Marina Tarlinskaja (personal communication). If Brodsky intended to regularize the disrupted lines by adding a pause rather than eliding syllables, why did he create so many constraints upon shortening the first post-tonic syllable? Regular iambic lines do not require post-tonic syllables to be open and to belong to long words containing the string -Xxx-, e.g.: vo VTOR-nik na-cˇal-SJA sen-TJABR’ (Brodskii 2001, 2: 90). Moreover, the presence of pauses is highly variable and depends on the choices of individual performers during recitation, whereas Brodsky’s constraints on elision are rigid, existing regardless of how one reads the line.

2.5.

Brodsky’s rule and recitation

69

Figure 2. Brodsky’s pronunciation of [s]tja´givajet. Circled on the waveform and spectrogram is the phonetic realization of /i/, indicating that the vowel is pronounced.

(12) Constructed prose text Vo vtornik nacˇalsja sentjabr’. Vsju nocˇ’ lil dozˇd’. Uleteli vse pticy. Dozˇd’ stjagivajet prosvet. Mne ne nuzˇen jug. ‘September started on Tuesday. / It rained all night. / All the birds flew away. / The rain squeezes a ray of light. / I do not need the south.’ I recorded eighteen speakers of Russian who read Brodsky’s line and the prose construct three times, and found that neither in Brodsky’s original line nor in the construct did any speaker omit /i/.16 Neither for Brodsky nor his readers, apparently, is the pressure of meter enough to force the omission of the extra syllable. Brodsky’s elision is purely abstract: the syllable is there, but simply does not count. More16. Although those surveyed deleted the last vowel in stjagivaj(e)t, this deletion applied both in Brodsky’s line and in the construct, and hence was not triggered by the meter.

70

Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse

Figure 3. Veniamin Smekhov’s reading of -givajet. The phonetic realization of /i/ is circled.

over, omission in this context is not only avoided in recitation; it is also consciously acknowledged as impossible. A survey conducted among seventeen native speakers of Russian reveals that none of the respondents would ever omit the first post-tonic vowel in STJA-gi-vajet.17 17. Note that the test did not measure whether vowel deletion – with regard to the words taken from the poetry of Slutsky, Voznesensky, and Brodsky – actually occurs in speech. The thirty-four words, many of which are highly poetic, would be extremely di‰cult to elicit in spontaneous conversation, wherein, moreover, it would be di‰cult to create a controlled environment such that each word is used an equal number of times. Thus, instead of examining production, I designed a controlled experiment whereby respondents were asked solely to express a yes/no judgment, i.e., state whether the form is possible or not. Understanding speakers’ judgments about elision is important, because poets are likely to have similar intuitions; and are likely, furthermore, to themselves compose verse based on acceptability judgments, rather than on speech production analysis.

2.5.

Brodsky’s rule and recitation

Figure 4. Julia Lotman’s reading of -givajet in poetry and prose. The phonetic realization of /i/ is circled.

71

72

Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse

Of course, even if Brodsky’s elision in stjagivajet is abstract, one still cannot deny that phonetics explains some aspects of this disruption. The exact border between the phonetic realization of /i/ and the following /v/ is di‰cult to pinpoint on a spectrogram, because the Russian sound [v] resembles a sonorant, exhibiting far less friction phonetically than other Russian fricatives (Bondarko and Zinder 1966). Phonetics does explain why Brodsky placed particular prosodic restrictions on elision; what it does not do is reflect the elision of stjagivajet in performance. Neither does the acknowledgement of the abstractness of Brodsky’s elision in stjagivajet imply that Brodsky never uses non-abstract or speech-based elisions. Avoiding a whole aspect of language – i.e., its colloquial instantiation – would be rather restrictive, as Brodsky at times seeks to portray the colloquial language of various characters. This, for example, can explain why Brodsky’s pre-tonic colloquial elision in the word v(o)obsˇcˇe´ [in general] is repeated so many times in ‘‘Gorbunov i Gorchakov’’ [Gorbunov and Gorchakov] and ‘‘Homage to Yalta’’ (see note 8): both poems represent various characters’ direct speech.18 Other colloquial elisions of Brodsky include aljumin(i)jevyj [aluminum], which appears in ‘‘Sand hills overgrown with pines’’ (1974) and is deemed preferable by 86.7 percent of survey respondents, and vak(u)uma [of the vacuum], which appears in ‘‘Architecture’’ (1990–91) and is accepted by 73.3 percent.19 In an earlier draft of ‘‘Piazza Mattei’’ included in the Brodsky papers held by the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library (Yale University), the poet spelled the word vyigral [he won] as vyjgral, suggesting that he intended his readers to use the colloquial pronunciation of the word, whereby the vowel /i/ becomes a glide [ j]. Brodsky was not trying to avoid colloquial elisions; but importantly, he does not use exclusively colloquial patterns, incorporating instead both abstract and speech-based rules. In this respect, he di¤ers markedly from his contemporary Andrei Voznesensky, whose poetry written before

18. Vowel deletion in v(o)obsˇcˇe´ is so widespread in colloquial Russian that phoneticians number it among the most common speech elisions (Kasatkin 2003: 168). 19. Brodsky’s vy(i)gral [he won] was accepted by twenty percent of those surveyed, zavidu(ju)sˇcˇaja [envious] by 26.6 percent, and svjaz(y)vat’sja [to get involved with] and rasplacˇ(i)vat’sja [to pay back] by 6.7 percent each, while none of the respondents accepted podcˇerk(i)vaja [emphasizing] or sled(u)jet [follows].

2.5.

Brodsky’s rule and recitation

73

Brodsky’s first experimentation with elision (1962) employs only speechbased elisions and never abstract ones.20 (13) mi- li-

ci-o NER-

ski- je o-

W S W S W S W ‘The bands on policemen’s caps’

KO- lyS

W

sˇi S

(Voznesenskii 2000, 1: 42) (14) kak po- plav- KI mi- li- ci-o W S W S W S W ‘Policemen, like floats’

NE- ry S W S (Voznesenskii 2000, 1: 21)

Voznesensky uses elided forms in milic(i)onery [policemen] and milic(i)onerskije [policemen’s], as well as aljumin(i)jevaja [aluminum] (Voznesenskii 2000, 1: 98), the first two examples being accepted by sixty percent of survey respondents and the latter by 86.7 percent. Colloquial vowel deletion in milic(i)oner is also reported by phoneticians (Kasatkin 2003: 168), and in fact is so widespread that in the 1970s the Russian post-modernist poet Dmitry Prigov created a grotesque Soviet caricature by the misspelled and elided surname of Milicaner (Prigov 1997: 149–165). Of course, Voznesensky’s three examples of colloquial elision are insu‰cient to o¤er a reliable comparison with Brodsky, but his avoidance of abstract elision, as opposed to Brodsky, is quite suggestive. In fact, one may hypothesize that Brodsky did not exclude abstract elision precisely so as to be distinguished from poets like Voznesensky.21 Such a choice could be explained in part by the cultural atmosphere of the late 1950s and early 20. This is as far as we can judge from Voznesensky’s (2000) edition. Note also that Slutsky’s elisions are not as ‘‘speech-based’’ as those of Voznesensky; many are as abstract as Brodsky’s. Slutsky’s elisions in scˇita(ju)sˇcˇim [counting], p(e)redovaja [front line], rabot(a)jusˇcˇije [working], and vzdrogn(u)vsˇuju [rattled] were rejected by all of the respondents, and the highest acceptance rate for Slutsky, for bezvy(i)grysˇnaja [no-win], ocˇ(e)red’ [line], and provol(o)cˇnoje [wired], was thirty-three percent. 21. It is well known that Brodsky thoroughly disapproved of Voznesensky’s language (Polukhina 2000: 235); in one poem devoted to Aleksandr Kushner, Brodsky even humorously suggests making a trophy of him: ‘‘My predpocˇli by podnesti . . . skal’p Voznesenskogo’’ [We would prefer to present you with . . . Voznesensky’s scalp] (Brodskii 2001, 2: 368).

74

Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse

1960s, when a fundamental distinction between Moscow and Leningrad schools of poetry could be observed (Smith 2001: 202). Moscow poets, such as Voznesensky or Yevtushenko, read at big stadiums. Seeking to bring verse to ‘‘the masses,’’ they modeled poetry after the rhythm of everyday speech; it is thus not surprising that poets of this group would avoid metrically abstract rules. In contrast, Leningrad poets like Brodsky, according to Aleksandr Kushner, had more ‘‘possibilities to sit behind a table, alone with paper and think. . . .’’ (MacFadyen 2000: 22). Brodsky echoes this idea in an interview: ‘‘[The Muscovites] have a tendency toward . . . playing to the crowd. This is not the case in Leningrad. When you’re sitting in a room, it makes no sense yelling as if you’re at a stadium’’ (Polukhina 2000: 136). Given these beliefs, Brodsky’s use of abstract elision is not entirely unexpected: this abstract rule helps the poet to distinguish verse prosody from everyday speech (wherein elisions, when they occur, are concrete as can be) and Brodsky’s desire to draw such distinction is further evinced by the peculiar chant-like manner of his recitation.22

2.6. Brodsky and Slutsky Although the first post-tonic syllable that Brodsky ignores is often omitted only in the abstract, the regularity of this syllable’s shape cannot be dismissed. It is unlikely that all long Russian words containing the string -Xxx- have a first post-tonic syllable that is open and is followed by a sonorant. To underscore the unusual regularity of Brodsky’s rhythmic disruptions, let us compare Brodsky’s experiment to that of Slutsky. Brodsky explicitly acknowledged Slutsky’s ‘‘formal discoveries’’ (Brodsky 1985: 544); to what extent, then, was Brodsky’s experiment close to them? Table 3 provides examples of Slutsky inserting two syllables into one position prior to 1962, the date of Brodsky’s own first such experiment in ‘‘Riddle for an Angel.’’ In contrast to Brodsky, Slutsky’s long words with the shape -Xxx- show a much lower tendency for the first post-tonic syllable to simultaneously be followed by a sonorant and be an open syllable. Only 68.4 percent

22. I am grateful to Luba Golburt for bringing the relevance of recitation to my attention.

S

VZDROG-

SPRA-

SPRANE-

SLE-

TA-

W

na

im,

ix,

....

u

sˇcˇi-

Title and date

1. ‘‘Pered veshchaniem’’ [Before the broadcast] (1939–56)

2. ‘‘Before the Broadcast’’ (1939– 56)

3. ‘‘Before the Broadcast’’ (1939–56)

4. ‘‘V soroka strokakh khochu ia vyrazit’ ’’ [In forty lines, I want to express] (1939–56)

5. ‘‘Chuzhie liudi’’ [Alien people] (1939– 56)

6. ‘‘Ia dumaiu, chto sleduet nachat’ ’’ [I think we should start] (1939–56)

ju

te-

E-

sˇu-

va-

vato-

va-

sˇcˇim

nuv-

sˇi-

sˇiko-

do-

ju-

ry-

jet-

jet-

S

2nd posttonic

1st posttonic

tu

lja,

je

sja,

sja,

pe-

W

po-

i

ˇ AST’ C

sˇcˇi

do

do-

W

u

VE-

ZVAL

NA-

re-

S

ˇ EST’ C

lit-

VU-

S

ru-

ju

W

KA

S

Table 3. Slutsky’s lines (pre-1962) featuring rhythmic disruption within long words with the shape -Xxx-; ‘a’ indicates that the poem was written in the given year but remained unpublished until the 1980s (Slutskii 1991).

2.6. Brodsky and Slutsky

75

POL’BO-

kak

bez-

a

do-

....

VDRUG

is-

ra-

8. ‘‘Odnogodki’’ [Of the same age] (1957a)

9. ‘‘Voina’’ [War] (1959a)

10. ‘‘1945’’ (1961)

11. ‘‘Raznye izmereniia’’ [Di¤erent dimensions] (1961a)

12. ‘‘Di¤erent Dimensions’’ (1961a)

13. ‘‘Mesiats-mai’’ [The month of May] (1961a)

14. ‘‘The Month of May’’ (1961a)

15. ‘‘Shestoe nebo’’ [The sixth heaven] (1961a)

VY-

O-

PRA-

XO-

VY-

PRO-

VI-

po

7. ‘‘Posle reabilitatsii’’ [After rehabilitation] (1957a)

S

W

Title and date

va-

xa li-

va-

sˇi-

bude-

zo-

ju-

sja

cˇet-

ta-

na-

grysˇ-

i-

jem je

sˇcˇi-

iz

lis’

ni-

pe-

sja

cˇi-

ja

ne

jet-

ras-

no-

locˇ-

vo-

je

pri-

mu,

mo-

di-

W

S

2nd posttonic

1st posttonic

RU-

FRONT

fron-

re-

RUS-

sˇcˇat’,

lo-

ki

ver-

NUL

VO-

BA-

sˇito-

ja

RAV-

RE-

DEN’-

S

ska-

raz-

te-

grazˇ-

na

ˇ IC

za-

W

S

go

jut

be-

ni-

ja

je

W

DA

vat’

S

76 Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse

....

ze-

sta-

na-

16. ‘‘Futbol’’ [Soccer] (1961a)

17. ‘‘Khudozhnik’’ [The artist] (1961/63)

18. ‘‘Tri sestry’’ [Three sisters] (1957)

19. ‘‘Ia ne liubil stola i lampy’’ [I did not like the table and the lamp] (1959)

2nd posttonic red’ [v]o ju vat’-

1st posttonic cˇeno kodo-

LERUSˇRA-

O-

S

sja

vy-

ma-

u

S

mosk-

rez-

kin-

vra-

W

VO-

NOJ

TO-

ˇA C

S

ka

S

W

S

(Slutskii 1991, 1961, 1957, 1959)

ju

sˇi-

W

1. ‘to the rattled frontline’ 2. ‘[what], may I ask, do they need’ 3. [who], may I ask, invited them’ 4. ‘some things’ 5. ‘the investigator, the political propaganda chief ’ 6. ‘who considers this part and this honor’ 7. ‘apparently, the reason’ 8. ‘like a barbed-wire barricade’ 9. ‘a no-win lottery’ 10. ‘one feels like cleaning and straightening’ 11. ‘the Russian calamity is interrogated’ 12. ‘cannot beat an axe’ 13. ‘suddenly [they] were distinguished from the frontline’ 14. ‘the front gave back, for [lack of ] use’ 15. ‘functioning hands’ 16. ‘a line at the doctor’s’ 17. ‘his green little macintosh’ 18. ‘a carved-out old lady’ 19. ‘enjoying Moscow to the fullest’

W

Title and date

2.6. Brodsky and Slutsky

77

78

Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse

(thirteen of nineteen) of words in the rhythmic-disruption position conform to these two requirements simultaneously, while in Brodsky the percentage is 86.2 (twenty-five of twenty-nine).23 Brodsky’s and Slutsky’s rhythms also display very di¤erent relationships to the prosodic tendencies of the Russian language. Having calculated the percentage of ‘‘special’’ -Xxx- words in the two poets’ disrupted lines, I compared this with the percentage of such words in their prose. One hundred long words with the shape -Xxx- were selected at random from Brodsky’s essay ‘‘Puteshestvie v Stambul’’ [A journey to Istanbul] (Brodskii 2001) and Slutsky’s prose piece ‘‘O drugikh i o sebe’’ [About others and myself ] (Slutskii 2005). For Brodsky, the di¤erence turned out to be quite significant: 86.2 percent of -Xxx- words in disrupted lines conform to both restrictions, while in prose the rate is 60.0 percent. In Slutsky’s verse, by contrast, 68.4 percent of words with the shape -Xxx- in disrupted lines conform to the two restrictions vs. 60.0 percent in prose. Table 4. Long words with the shape -Xxx- in Brodsky’s and Slutsky’s poetry and prose Poet

Percentage of words with the shape -Xxx- following the two restrictions at once

Slutsky

Prose Disrupted iambic lines

60.0 (60 of 100) 68.4 (13 of 19)

Brodsky

Prose

60.0 (60 of 100)

Disrupted iambic lines

86.2 (25 of 29)

For Brodsky the di¤erence in word choice between disrupted iambic lines and prose is statistically significant, with a level of p ¼ 0.0044, i.e., had there been no real di¤erence in overall word use, the probability (p) 23. Slutsky’s disruptions do not occur exclusively in words with the shape -Xxx-, but also, for instance, between the words o-fi-ci-AL’-no [o‰cially] and po-DOX-sˇij [croaked, i.e., dead (sl.)] in the iambic line: Oficia´l’no podo´xsˇij dekada´ns [O‰cially croaked decadence] (Slutskii 1991: 60). Disruption further occurs not only in post-tonic syllables, but also in pre-tonic syllables, as in po-pa-DAN’-ja in the iambic line: Rane´nja v ro´t. Popada´nja v glaz [Wounds in the mouth. Hits to the eye] (Slutskii 1991: 383).

2.7.

Semantic associations of disrupted meter and elision

79

of the observed data occurring is p ¼ 0.0044.24 In this respect, Brodsky is similar to Donne, in whose word choice the di¤erence between elided lines and prose also proves significant (p ¼ 0.000). For Slutsky, on the other hand, the observed data (wherein p ¼ 0.2448) is consistent with there being no real di¤erence in overall word choice for poetry and prose. The data suggest that, in creating metrical disruptions in poetry, Brodsky and Donne intuitively select words combining the two features in question, while Slutsky does not. Moreover, as shown in Appendix IV, Slutsky does not observe either of the two phonological restrictions on elision separately, and thus di¤ers from both Brodsky and Donne, who do. Slutsky’s -Xxx- words in elided positions in poetry prove not significantly di¤erent from his prose in terms of the intervening sonorant parameter (p ¼ 0.48); nor are they significantly di¤erent from prose in terms of the open syllable parameter (p ¼ 0.096). The prosaic nature of Slutsky’s poetry has been noted (Urban 1984: 198), and in one interview Slutsky reveals his desire to write ‘‘poems that . . . would acquire some of the qualities of prose – the exactness, non-vagueness, brevity, [and] informative quality’’ (Urban 1984: 186). We are now justified in characterizing Slutsky’s poetry as ‘‘prosaic’’ not only due to its ‘‘informative quality,’’ but also because its rhythm is literally prosaic; linguistic evidence sheds light on what ‘‘sounding prosaic’’ means. 2.7. Semantic associations of disrupted meter and elision We now see that the term ‘‘disruption,’’ used at the beginning of this chapter to refer to the rhythmic experiment of both Brodsky and Slutsky, is somewhat imprecise. Brodsky’s ‘‘disruption’’ is not a disruption at all, but rather a highly constrained rule of abstract elision. Slutsky’s experiment, on the other hand, indeed constitutes genuine disruption, insofar as no constraints are imposed on the shape of extra syllables. That Slutsky intends for his disruptions to be disruptive is evident from the semantic functions these lines perform. The poet uses broken meter in lines associated with some violation of harmony or deviation from the expected, i.e., lines dealing with (a) pain, physical wounds, or unpleasant noises; (b) objects that stand out, just as lines with extra syllables stand out; (c) uncontrolled emotion; and (d) inability or reluctance to count. 24. Thanks to Todd Leen for suggestions relating to statistical analysis.

80

Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse

Pain, wounds, noises: (15) i po-ste-PEN-no za-MA-zy-va-lis’ TRE-sˇcˇi-ny ‘And gradually the cracks healed’ (Slutskii 1991: 370) (16) ra-NEN’-ja v ROT. po-pa-DAN’-ja v GLAZ ‘Wounds to the mouth. Hits to the eye’ (Slutskii 1991: 383) (17) na VZDROG-nuv-sˇu-ju pe-re-do-VU-ju ‘To the rattled frontline’ (Slutskii 1991: 40) An object/person that stands out:25 (18) vdrug VY-de-li-lis’ iz fron-to-VO-go BRAT-stva ‘Suddenly [they] were distinguished from the frontline brethren’ (Slutskii 1991: 394) (19) v ma-ZUR-skix TO-pjax // vy-NY-ri-va-li MY ‘We were coming up for air in the marshes of Mazuria’ (Slutskii 1991: 385) Uncontrolled emotions: (20) na-RA-do-vat’-sja mosk-VO-ju ‘enjoying Moscow to the fullest’ (Slutskii 1959: 72) (21) a XO-cˇet-sja ras-cˇi-sˇcˇat’, raz-RAV-ni-vat’ ‘one feels like cleaning and straightening’ (Slutskii 1961, reprinted in Slutskii 1991: 370) 25. The form of the elided line appearing in Brodsky’s first experiment with elision in his ‘‘Riddle for an Angel’’ (vzdyma´jusˇcˇejesja polotno´ [the rising piece of cloth]) seems connected with its meaning in ways reminiscent of Slutsky’s usage: just as the rising cloth protrudes, vzdyma´jusˇcˇejesja polotno´ stands out rhythmically due to its extra syllable. Note also that in this line the first posttonic vowel /u/ precedes a fricative, namely [sˇ cˇ ], rather than a sonorant, which is not typical for Brodsky’s elisions but quite acceptable for Slutsky.

2.7.

Semantic associations of disrupted meter and elision

81

Counting: ˇ E-ta (22) vos-XO-dit SOLN-ce. // ne ZNA-ju-sˇcˇe-je SC ‘Up comes the sun, which knows no counting’ (Slutskii 1991: 34) ‘‘The sun’’ that ‘‘knows no counting’’ appears in a line in which the rhythm is literally disrupted. Another counting-related example occurs in the context of Slutsky’s statement of his credo as a poet: ˇ ISˇ-ko-ju s du-SˇO-ju VE-sˇcˇej, (23) ja BYL mal’-C ˇ EST’. ka-KIX v lju-BOJ po-E-zi-i ne SC ˇ AST’-ju i svo-JE-ju C ˇ EST’-ju svo-JE-ju C ˇ AST’ i C ˇ EST’. scˇi-TA-ju-sˇcˇim E-tu C ‘I was a little boy with a prophetic soul, / Countless examples of which abound in any poetic tradition. / Who considered this part and this honor / A part of himself, and his own honor.’ (Slutskii 1991: 60) The word scˇitajusˇcˇim has double meaning, ‘‘considering’’ or ‘‘counting.’’ Ironically, it is scˇitajusˇcˇim that disrupts the line’s rhythm; the disruption, however, is integral to the poem’s interpretation. Slutsky’s choice signals that he refuses to follow the norms of metrical ‘‘counting,’’ placing content above form, and making form serve content (see also Scherr 2010). In the same lyric, the poet draws his battle lines: (24) V revansˇe soderzˇan’ja nad metaforoj, V pobede suti protiv baraxla, V bor’be za to, cˇtob raspaxnuv kryla, Poezija strjaxnula pudru s saxarom. ‘In the revanche of content over metaphor, / In the victory of meaning over junk, / [I struggle] so that poetry, its wings flung wide, / Might shake o¤ its sugary powder.’ (Slutskii 1991: 60) Some of Brodsky’s abstract elisions interact with semantics in a similar manner (e.g., ‘‘The rain squeezes a ray of light’’), although the correlation

82

Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse

between meaning and form is far less consistent than with Slutsky. In one poem, Brodsky associates elision with ‘‘squeezing,’’ yet in another with the exact opposite – an object standing out (‘‘the rising piece of cloth’’ in Table 2, example 1). In one poem, elision simulates fast movement (‘‘rushed headlong’’ in Table 2, example 12), yet in another the ‘‘extra’’ syllable emphasizes duration of time (‘‘copied for a hundred years’’ in Table 2, example 7). Many of Brodsky’s elisions seem to have no particular semantic association at all, and in this respect Brodsky is quite reminiscent of Donne.26 Indeed, Brodsky would seem in his disrupted lines to resist semantic consistency at all costs. While Russian vowel reduction renders metrical disruption quite subtle even in Slutsky, the semantic consistency of disrupted lines may provide Slutsky’s readers with a cue that something peculiar is happening in these lines, and thus induce them to pay closer attention to form. But Brodsky was not interested in providing such elision-highlighting cues. Drawing the reader’s attention via such consistency would undermine the poet’s strategy of hidden stylization, in this case specifically the subtlety with which he introduces English rules into Russian. In contrast, Slutsky truly violates the rules of Russian meter. ‘‘Pain’’ is the ‘‘primary theme’’ (Eliseev 1995: 175) of Slutsky, who tells of war, wounds, and broken joints. Forcing us to struggle through lines that do not flow and pay attention to meters that break, he recreates the pain and discomfort he experienced himself.

2.8. Conclusion Having compared the experiments of Brodsky and Slutsky, we might recall the words of Otto Jespersen: ‘‘life consists of little things; the important matter is to see them largely’’ (Hanson 1992: vi). The insertion of an extra syllable into twenty-nine lines may appear a little thing. Yet statistical analysis shows that ‘‘little things’’ are in fact not little: the likelihood of the Brodsky pattern described occurring at random is very low. Moreover, little details sometimes allow us to propose larger categories extending far beyond the area in which they were originally noticed. The comparison

26. Neither can we discern any consistent association with violation of harmony or deviation from the expected in Donne’s elisions in Songs and Sonnets: in fact, elision appears here in words such as virt(u)ous and happ(i)est.

2.8.

Conclusion

83

between Brodsky and Slutsky opens up new terrain for future investigation of the di¤erences between what we might call rule-makers (i.e., poets like Brodsky, who create new rules) and rule-breakers (i.e., like Slutsky, those who break old rules but create no consistent new rule in their stead).27 Such a theory would make no value judgment regarding either rule-makers or rule-breakers. Rule-makers may value consistency; rulebreakers may consider consistency too predictable, preferring instead constant, dynamic change. Although the concept of ‘‘rule’’ is used in this chapter in a rather narrow sense (i.e., as a set of prosodic restrictions on poets’ rhythms), we can potentially define the term more broadly to include any type of pattern in poetry or generally in art. Under this definition, Slutsky does have his rules, among them that metrical violations are related to semantics. Thus it is possible for a poet to be a rulebreaker in one domain and a rule-maker in another. The study of Brodsky’s elision reveals something else: a poet may have remarkable intuition about foreign-language rhythms regardless of his/her command of the given non-native tongue. Even at a non-proficient stage of foreign language learning, long before Brodsky became a highly acclaimed English-language essayist in America (Brodsky 1986; 1995)28, the poet was capable of imitating foreign verse prosody with surprising precision. The noted metrician George Saintsbury was mistaken when he categorically stated that in analyzing English verse ‘‘foreigners . . . naturally cannot bring the necessary ear’’ (Saintsbury 1914: 17829); Brodsky clearly could, for the same reason that a person with a musical ear can faithfully mimic the melody of a foreign song, the words of which s/he does not necessarily understand. Moreover, the exact sources a poet has read (e.g., a particular edition with particular spelling variants, or specific source texts following certain patterns) play an important role in helping that poet reconstruct the rhythm of foreign verse. 27. In an illuminating study of inexact rhymes in Tsvetaeva, Brodsky, Mayakovsky, and Pasternak, Gasparov (1995) demonstrates Tsvetaeva’s exceptional freedom in rhyming. It would be interesting, extending the theory proposed here from the sphere of rhythm to that of rhyme, to examine Tsvetaeva’s rhymes chronologically and determine whether she should be classified as rule-breaker or rule-maker. 28. For discussions of writers who were, unlike Brodsky in the 1960s, bilingual, see Klenin’s (2002) study of Afanasii Fet’s German-Russian bilingualism, or Beaujour’s (1989) analysis of bilingualism among Russian e´migre´ writers, including the Russian-Englishness of Vladimir Nabokov. 29. See Du¤ell (2008: 1–2) for a review and critique of Saintsbury’s ideas.

84

Redundant syllables: Elision in Brodsky’s verse

This chapter also illustrates that linguistic research can help qualify linguistically unsupported suppositions about style. Iakov Gordin has said that for Brodsky ‘‘speech and verse were very closely connected’’ (MacFadyen 2000: 16), but here we find that this is not always the case. Although Gordin’s formulation may be correct with regard to Brodsky’s speech-based elisions, it is problematic insofar as Brodsky does not always imitate colloquial Russian. In some instances, Brodsky does not follow his own or anyone else’s speech-based deletion patterns, opting instead for abstraction. Of course, Gordin is not alone in seeking to connect verse structure with speech, or rather, with measurable reality; recent generative studies of meter (e.g., Hayes and MacEachern 1998) o¤er a phoneticallybased explanation of metrical structure as well. Yet acoustic analysis of Brodsky’s rule demonstrates that not all aspects of verse design are measurable, and the Formalist-style focus on abstract templates (Jakobson 1979a; Chatman 1965; Kiparsky 2006) can provide us with new insights about poetic structure even today. Thus, the discovery of Brodsky’s rule illustrates the importance of the notion of abstractness for describing di¤erences among poets of Brodsky’s generation. In identifying abstract rules, the array of methods is crucial. The generative approach gives us evidence that Brodsky’s pattern exists, phonetic analysis demonstrates that this pattern may be abstract (i.e., not always reflected in speech), and historical background suggests why Brodsky may have opted for abstraction. The combination of approaches reveals what we would not notice otherwise, and at the same time shows that even ‘‘minor’’ formal experimentation is rooted in cultural history and the settings of poets’ lives.

3.

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources

3.1. Introduction In the 1960s and early 1970s, Joseph Brodsky translated into Russian selected verse of John Donne, Andrew Marvell, and Richard Wilbur, furthermore composing a number of original poems echoing his English readings (Polukhina and Losev 2006: 344). Many of these texts display a rather peculiar feature: Brodsky uses a rhythm distinct from prototypical Russian iambic rhythm and tends to stress penultimate ictuses more than antepenultimate ones (Smith 1999b; MacFadyen 2000: 197; Friedberg 2002b). The appearance of Brodsky’s unusual rhythm – that which we have previously labeled ‘‘anti-RD’’ – in translations and English-flavored poems has been previously attributed to English influence (Smith 1999b); I argue that Brodsky’s rhythmic match with his English sources is approximate and partial. In reality, Brodsky’s tetrameter is as reminiscent of his Russian anti-RD predecessors Marina Tsvetaeva (Lotman 1999) and Vladislav Khodasevich as of his English sources; moreover, Brodsky’s anti-RD pentameter is rhythmically indistinguishable from Tsvetaeva’s. These facts lead one to wonder why one Russian poet should echo the rhythms of another in order to sound ‘‘English.’’ I provide an explanation for this conundrum, first demonstrating that Brodsky’s unusual rhythm is not exclusively limited to imitations of English poetry.1 Examining the poet’s anti-RD verse, which comprises forty-two poems from Brodsky’s Sochineniia (Brodskii 2001), I show that after departing to the north Russian village of Norenskaia in 1964, and to America in 1972, Brodsky introduced a significant anti-RD change into his prosody. Thus, Brodsky’s unusual rhythm can be said to appear in four contexts rather than only two, specifically: the poems of the Norenskaia

1. Analyzing the Donne-inspired ‘‘Pen’e bez muzyki’’ [Singing without music – gloss Smith 1999b], in which anti-RD appears, Smith suggests that Brodsky’s rhythm is ‘‘nearer the English model than the Russian’’ (Smith 1999b: 15).

86

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources

exile period2, poems written in emigration, poems about foreign lands (i.e., not only the UK or US), and translations.3 Moreover, these four contexts do not constitute a random set: they have in common their association with exile or spatial dislocation, whether imagined, as in translations, foreign stylizations, or foreign-themed poems, or real, as in poems written during Brodsky’s literal exile or emigration (Friedberg 2002b). I further propose a possible explanation as to why, in order to convey a foreign or exilic flavor, Brodsky echoed Tsvetaeva’s and Khodasevich’s rhythms. Both Tsvetaeva and Khodasevich were e´migre´s. Thus, by using antiRD in Norenskaia, Brodsky likely emphasized his connection with other exiles, and further expanded the semantic aura of anti-RD to foreignness in general. The chapter makes several contributions to the fields of metrics, poetics, and Brodsky studies. Previous studies of this rhythm (Lotman 1999; Smith 1999b; MacFadyen 2000) overlooked the fact that Brodsky’s anti-RD displays a surprisingly consistent pattern over time; acknowledging this pattern has important empirical consequences, for it allows us to establish the chronology of some as yet (Brodskii 2001) undated texts. On the methodological level, I illustrate that statistical analysis can be a useful tool in explicating Brodsky’s relationship to his sources, because through it we can determine whether Brodsky’s body of anti-RD verse is significantly di¤erent from that of his predecessors. Additionally, this chapter analyzes Brodsky’s rhythmic links with Vladislav Khodasevich, whom Brodsky read in the early 1960s (Shul’ts 2000); previous study of the relationship between form and meaning in Brodsky and Khodasevich has focused on the semantics of meter (Wachtel 1998) rather than rhythm. Moreover, the study of rhythmic a‰nity between the two poets allows 2. Polukhina (1991) conducted a study of Brodsky’s tropes, demonstrating that the poems written in emigration and in Norenskaia follow a singular pattern. The metrical distinctiveness of the poems written in emigration was suggested by Smith (2002). 3. The theme of Brodsky’s exile has been widely discussed in literary criticism (Polukhina 1989; Kline 1990; Bethea 1994). As discussed in Friedberg (2002b), the term ‘‘exile’’ can potentially be used in a very broad sense to indicate the poet’s alienation from society; but under this definition, it would be unhelpful to propose a correlation between rhythm and meaning, since practically every poem by Brodsky conveys a sense of alienation. Moreover, Brodsky himself theorized that ‘‘exile is the poet’s natural condition’’ (quoted in Kline 1990: 56). Therefore, I will use the term ‘‘exile’’ only to refer to the literal exile to Norenskaia, emigration, or imaginary dislocation to a foreign land (Friedberg 2002b). An alternative definition of ‘‘exile poems’’ is proposed by Kline (1990).

3.2.

The ‘‘English’’ uses of Brodsky’s anti-RD

87

me to establish a possible textual source for Brodsky’s little-discussed poem ‘‘Flammarion’’ (1965), namely, Vladislav Khodasevich’s ‘‘By the Sea’’ (1917).4 On the theoretical level, this chapter contributes to the ongoing discussion about the function of literary form. Numerous studies have shown that poetic meters are often linked to specific themes, images, or genres; that is, meters convey information. I argue that rhythms, i.e., particular realizations of meters, also convey information (see Taranovskii 1966); moreover, Brodsky’s contribution to the history of Russian iambic meter is that he altered the preexisting semantics of anti-RD rhythm, deriving its new aura of foreignness and exile from personal associations rather than from the meaning of this form suggested by predecessors’ texts.

3.2. The ‘‘English’’ uses of Brodsky’s anti-RD Let us recall that eighteenth-, nineteenth-, and twentieth-century Russian iambic meter displays a tendency for Regressive Accentual Dissimilation. To be more precise, while exact numbers in tetrameter positions S2 and S3 vary across periods, what remains constant is a sense of relations: S3 is always stressed less frequently than S2 and S4. For example, the younger generation of nineteenth-century Russian poets stressed the last three S positions in their tetrameter 96.8 > 34.6 < 100.0 percent of the time; in the Soviet era, though the individual percentages changed, the relationship remained the same: 87.2 > 46.8 < 100.0 (Taranovskii 1971; Gasparov 1974). A similar relationship is observed in iambic pentameter, where S4 remains stressed less frequently than S3 and S5 across periods (see Chapter 1, section 1.6). Now consider the iambic tetrameter that Brodsky uses to translate Donne’s ‘‘Valediction: Forbidding Mourning.’’ In this translation, S3 is stressed more frequently than S2 (38.9 < 91.7 < 100.0). A similar tendency 4. Ranchin (2009), for instance, links Brodsky’s ‘‘Flammarion’’ to Lermantov rather than Khodasevich. On the literary ties between Khodasevich and Brodsky, see the discussions of Shvarts (1992); Bethea (1994: 198); Batkin (1997: 221–225); Bezrodnyi (1997); and Ranchin (1998, 2001: 345–379). Though Khodasevich’s use of anti-RD is too infrequent to allow for a statistical analysis, the few experiments he did conduct in this regard contribute to our understanding of the semantic genesis of this rhythm across time, and thus have direct relevance for interpreting Brodsky.

88

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources

is displayed by Brodsky’s other tetrameter translations from English, including those of Andrew Marvell’s ‘‘The Nymph Complaining for the Death of Her Fawn’’ (60.7 < 65.6 < 100.0) and ‘‘Eyes and Tears’’ (69.6 < 82.1 < 100.0). Here again, exact percentages vary while the relationship remains constant, but unlike in traditional Russian verse, Regressive Dissimilation is violated, and anti-RD rhythm (see Chapter 1, section 1.8) is used instead. The English associations of anti-RD are not limited to Brodsky’s verse translations, but are also seen in his original poetry. The title of ‘‘New Stanzas to Augusta’’ (1964), in the tetrameter portion of which Brodsky violates Regressive Dissimilation (28.8 < 78.8 < 100.0), recalls Byron’s ‘‘Stanzas to Augusta.’’ This rhythm occurs also in Brodsky’s ‘‘Pen’e bez muzyki’’ [Singing without music – gloss Smith 1999b] (1970) (22.9 < 89.8 < 100.0), a poem that, as Smith (1999b) notes, uses geometrical imagery reminiscent of extended metaphors found in English Metaphysical poetry. Here Brodsky’s lyrical persona asks a lover to draw a triangle that would symbolize the connection between them; in Donne’s ‘‘Valediction: Forbidding Mourning,’’ the connection between lovers is compared, similarly, to compasses: Brodsky’s ‘‘Singing without Music’’ (Brodskii 2001, 2: 386)

Donne’s ‘‘Valediction: Forbidding Mourning’’ (original) (Donne 1952: 39)

. . . .ita´k, razlu´ka est’ provede´nije prjamo´j, i zˇa´zˇdusˇcˇaja vstre´cˇi pa´ra ljubo´vnikov – tvoj vzglja´d i mo´j – k versˇ´ıne perpendikulja´ra

Our two souls therefore, which are one, Though I must go, endure not yet, A breach, but an expansion, Like gold to ayery thinnesse beate. If they be two, they are two so As sti¤e twin compasses are two, Thy soule the fixt foot, makes no show To move, but doth, if the’other do.

podnı´metsja, ne otyska´v ube´zˇisˇcˇa, pomı´mo go´rnyx vyso´t, do lomoty´ v viska´x; i e´to li ne treugo´l’nik? ‘And so, parting / is like drawing a straight line, / and a pair of lovers desiring to meet / – your gaze and mine – / to the top of the perpendicular / will rise, without finding / any refuge other than mountain / heights, to the point of aches in one’s temples; / and is this not a triangle?’

3.2.

The ‘‘English’’ uses of Brodsky’s anti-RD

89

That Brodsky may have perceived anti-RD as a suitable representation of English prosody is also confirmed by the occurrence of this rhythm in ‘‘Dvadtsat’ sonetov k Marii Stiuart’’ [Twenty sonnets to Mary Queen of Scots] (1974), a cycle drawing upon Brodsky’s memory of seeing a film about Mary Queen of Scots in postwar Leningrad. Overall, the cycle is written in an iambic pentameter that follows Regressive Dissimilation (92.0 > 17.6 < 100.0). However, in sonnet 17, Brodsky switches to an anti-RD iambic tetrameter (48.1 < 63.0 < 100.0). This sonnet, portraying Mary’s execution, includes reference to English-language vocalization: To, cˇto istorglo izumlennyj krik iz aglitskogo rta [What forced a surprised scream from the English (substandard ) mouth]. A similar rhythm is used in the iambic-pentameter sonnet 9 (53.8 < 69.2 < 100.0), which represents a direct dialogue between Catholics and Protestants (A my katoliki – Ax, vot kak! Xrjask! [And we are Catholics – Oh, so that’s how it is! Bam!]) and explicitly refers to Hollywood (Nocˇ ’ v nebol’sˇom po-gollivudski zamke [A night in a small Hollywood-style castle]). Thus, both sonnets seem to mimic the English language that Brodsky explicitly mentions in the poem and perhaps associates with his childhood viewing of a biopic of an English queen, and the occurrence of this English-flavored rhythm in them is therefore not entirely surprising.5 Brodsky does not connect Englishness exclusively with anti-RD tetrameter. As we have seen, sonnet 9 is written in iambic pentameter; moreover, Brodsky violated Regressive Dissimilation in this meter type even before ‘‘Twenty Sonnets,’’ and with the same ‘‘English’’ purpose. For example, in 1965 Brodsky employed this rhythm in an elegy devoted to the death of T. S. Eliot (59.6 < 75.0 < 100.0). As is well known, this poem is modeled on W. H. Auden’s ‘‘In Memory of Yeats’’ (Polukhina 5. The rhythmic shift in the two sonnets is particularly important given that the cycle as a whole, though devoted to a Scottish queen, is in terms of content and vocabulary choice entirely Russian (France 1990). It includes a parody of Pushkin’s famous lyric ‘‘Ia vas liubil’’ [I loved you] as well as a representation of a Soviet’s visit to Paris. Brodsky further Russianizes the cycle by using numerous colloquial expressions, vulgarisms, and dialectal words, e.g., aside from the already-mentioned substandard aglitskogo [English], the colloquial za besplatno instead of the Standard Russian besplatno [free], the colloquial expression zadelali svinju [did mischief ], the dialectal sjudy instead of the Standard Russian sjuda [here], the dialectal vcheras’ instead of the Standard Russian vchera [yesterday] (see Friedberg 2002b). Thus, in light of the overall Russian flavor of the cycle, the switch to a di¤erent rhythm acts as an important vehicle for signaling a shift in viewpoint.

90

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources

2000: 20), which, interestingly, does not itself feature iambic meter at all.6 It is possible Brodsky selected anti-RD iambs in this case precisely because, in his own versification system, this form is associated with an English flavor. The ‘‘English’’ instances of anti-RD usage clearly form a well-defined and coherent group of poems. But the analysis proposed so far is problematic insofar as, in Brodsky’s verse overall, English-flavored uses of anti-RD are far less frequent than non-English-flavored ones. Throughout his lifetime, Brodsky produced forty-two anti-RD poems, only thirteen of which can be argued to have a clear connection with Englishness. Rather, most of these poems describe landscapes, images, or events located either in some generic geography (e.g., ‘‘A Man Falling Asleep Alone,’’ ‘‘Architecture,’’ ‘‘Vzgliani na dereviannyi dom’’ [Look at the wooden house]) or in the USSR (‘‘In Front of the Monument to A. S. Pushkin in Odessa’’); or refer to non-English-speaking foreign lands (‘‘The Bust of Tiberius,’’ ‘‘Einem Alten Architekten in Rom,’’ ‘‘Landsver-kanal, Berlin’’ [Landswehr Canal, Berlin]). We therefore need to revise the definition of anti-RD distribution and consider its English-flavored cases merely a subset of a larger category. But what is this larger category?

3.3. The rhythm of exile If we examine the average stressing in iambic tetrameter poems Brodsky wrote throughout his lifetime, a curious pattern emerges. Recall that

6. If we attempt to scan Auden’s poem iambically, its first line would violate both the English Monosyllable Rule (WIN-ter would be associated with WS) and the Stress Maximum Principle (the DEAD of would be scanned as SWS), suggesting that the meter cannot be classified as iambic at all. He disappeared in the dead of winter: The brooks were frozen, the airports almost deserted And snow disfigured the public statues; The mercury sank in the mouth of the dying day. What instruments we have agree The day of his death was a dark cold day. (Auden 2007: 88)

3.3.

The rhythm of exile

91

Brodsky was tried 13 March 1964 in Leningrad; convicted of ‘‘social parasitism,’’ the poet was exiled to the north Russian village of Norenskaia, where he stayed from March 1964 until November 1965 (Polukhina and Losev 2006: 336, 340). Interestingly, in Norenskaia, anti-RD becomes Brodsky’s major tetrameter rhythm (57.1 < 60.1 < 100.0). In contrast, the periods that immediately precede and follow Norenskaia are marked by traditional Russian rhythm, i.e., the poet’s verse displays Regressive Dissimilation. Moreover, it is not only the Norenskaia period that proves rhythmically distinctive: anti-RD also becomes the predominant average rhythm after Brodsky moves to the United States (30.8 < 67.4 < 100.0), as well as in his translations (50.6 < 75.4 < 100.0). The common rhythm used in the three contexts – the Norenskaia exile, emigration, and translations – suggests that these contexts are somehow connected: all three involve dislocation in space and are thus associated with what we might call the rhythm of exile (Friedberg 2002b), where exile is understood as either physical (i.e., a forced dislocation to another part of Russia; emigration to a foreign country) or metaphorical (i.e., an imaginary dislocation to a foreign land envisioned by poet or poet-translator). If this broader approach to anti-RD distribution is adopted, then the poems discussed in the previous section would fall into the rhythm of exile category simply because ‘‘English-flavored’’ also implies ‘‘foreign-flavored.’’ But how did Brodsky’s anti-RD come to indicate foreignness or exile? In certain isolated poems, we find violations of Regressive Dissimilation in Brodsky’s verse even before Norenskaia, for instance in 1962–63 texts that describe generic landscapes (featuring trees, ponds, bays, sea, winds): e.g., ‘‘Riddle for an Angel’’ (39.1 < 68.8 < 100.0), ‘‘Derev’ia okruzhili prud’’ [The pond was surrounded by trees] (50.0 < 64.3 < 100.0), ‘‘Blestit zaliv, i vetr neset’’ [The bay is shining, and the wind carries] (50.0 < 87.5 < 100.0), and ‘‘V semeinyi al’bom’’ [For a family album] (31.3 < 87.5 < 100.0). Mir odeja´l razru´sˇen sno´m. No v cˇje´m-to naprjazˇe´nnom vzo´re maja´cˇit v su´mrake nocˇno´m okno´m razre´zannoje mo´re. (‘‘Riddle for an Angel,’’ Brodskii 2001, 1: 191) ‘The world of blankets is disturbed by sleep. / But in someone’s tense gaze / looms in the night gloom / the sea, bisected by a window.

92

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources Ne my´ li zde´s’, o posmotrı´, von ta´m, okruzˇeny´ pesko´m – po o´be sto´rony skamjı´, zasty´v, na beregu´ morsko´m. (‘‘For a Family Album,’’ Brodskii 2001, 1: 221) ‘Is it not us here, have a look, / over there, surrounded by the sand – / on both sides of the bench, / frozen on the sea shore.’

Table 1. Brodsky’s iambic tetrameter (averages across poems by period)7 S2

S3

S4

Regressive Dissimilation

1962–63, 17 poems

77.5

62.9

100.0

observed

Exile (1964–65), 16 poems

57.1

60.1

100.0

violated

In Russia after exile (1966–71), 10 poems

79.8

51.1

100.0

observed

Emigration (1972–96), 8 poems

30.8

67.4

100.0

violated

Translations (various periods), 8 poems

50.6

75.4

100.0

violated

7. Despite the fact that Brodsky employed iambic tetrameter in 1961 (98.6 < 27.3 < 100.0), the table uses 1962 as the starting point for period comparison, because none of the poems written in 1961 (or at least, none included in Brodsky’s Works [Brodskii 2001]) violate Regressive Dissimilation. 1962 was thus selected because in this year Brodsky begins to violate Regressive Dissimilation; hence the importance of establishing whether this anti-RD tendency is reflected in the general averages for the period. 1962 and 1963 have been grouped together in order to achieve a sample comparable with that of the Norenskaia period (1964–65): seventeen iambic poems for the former period and sixteen for the latter; of these totals, seven poems violate RD both in 1962–63 and in 1964–65. Unfortunately, the post-Norenskaia Russian period does not allow for a similar sample size (only ten iambic tetrameter poems), but it does make possible a comparison with the emigration period, when Brodsky wrote a total of eight iambic tetrameter poems.

3.3.

The rhythm of exile

93

However, around 18 January 1964, in the midst of Brodsky’s prosecution by the authorities8 and just before his exile, a significant shift in meaning takes place: now suddenly anti-RD starts to correlate mainly with references to exile or foreignness present in the texts themselves. It was on this day that Brodsky wrote ‘‘Sadovnik v vatnike, kak drozd’’ [A gardener in a quilted jacket, like a thrush] (10.0 < 85.0 < 100.0), in which he explicitly mentions the traditional jacket (the vatnik) of the Russian convict, as if anticipating his own imprisonment. ‘‘Vse dal’she ot svoei strany’’ [Farther and farther from your country] (0.0 < 100.0 < 100.0), written in Norenskaia, mentions dislocation from one’s native land in its very title. The poem ‘‘Flammarion’’ (50.0 < 63.6 < 100.0) is named for the famed French astronomer Camille Flammarion (1842–1925). The speaker of ‘‘Gvozdika’’ [Carnation] (16.7 < 66.7 < 100.0) imagines the Alps in his room: I Al’py gromozdjatsja na stole [And the Alps stand hulking on the table] (Brodskii 2001, 2: 62). ‘‘New Stanzas to Augusta’’ belongs to this same category because of the title’s link (mentioned above) to Byron. Apart from thematic and stylistic characteristics of anti-RD poems, there is an additional reason to consider the Norenskaia period distinctive: its anti-RD tendency has a very clear-cut end point. Between his release in 1965 and his emigration in 1972, Brodsky did not use this rhythm in any of his original tetrameter verse except for one poem, ‘‘Singing without Music’’ (i.e., one instance of a total of ten). But even in this exceptional case, the foreign-flavored rhythm is functionally and stylistically motivated: not only is the poem inspired by Donne’s ‘‘Valediction: Forbidding Mourning,’’ but it is also dedicated to a foreign woman (as indicated by the roman initials F. W.) and explicitly mentions dislocation abroad in the second line: Kogda ty vspomnisˇ ’ obo mne / V kraju cˇuzˇom [When you remember me / In a foreign land]. Of course, the rarity of anti-RD in the post-Norenskaia Russian period is characteristic only of Brodsky’s original poetry: in 1966–72, this rhythm did appear in translations of Donne, Marvell, and Wilbur. But this fact 8. On 29 November 1963, the newspaper Vechernii Leningrad [Evening Leningrad] published a denunciation of Brodsky’s alleged ‘‘social parasitism’’; thus began the poet’s persecution at the hands of the authorities (Etkind 1988). Attempting to avoid arrest, Brodsky entered the Kashchenko psychiatric hospital in Moscow, where he stayed until 2 January 1964; on 18 January, he composed ‘‘A gardener in a quilted jacket, like a thrush’’ (Kulle 2001; Polukhina and Losev 2006: 336).

94

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources

does not vitiate the proposed analysis, because in translating verse, a poet may choose to retain foreign flavor even if his original verse has changed in style. Moreover, the distributional pattern discovered here allows us to better interpret these translations. When Brodsky uses anti-RD in postNorenskaia renderings of Donne or Marvell, he rhythmically ‘‘recollects’’ and echoes the period of his own life when he first seriously studied English poetry, i.e., 1964–65. In other words, as a translator Brodsky incorporates elements of his own biography into these translations.9 Of course, such a phenomenon is not surprising in and of itself, as attested by translators (e.g., Marshak 1969, 3: 750). But the peculiarity of Brodsky’s translations lies in the fact that here elements of the translator’s biography are incorporated in extremely subtle, rhythmic ways di‰cult to detect without a large-scale statistical analysis of the poet’s prosody. To summarize, Brodsky’s post-exile period in Russia is characterized by a restriction on the functional domain of anti-RD usage, a restriction lifted only in 1974, after Brodsky had once again become an exile – this time, an e´migre´ to America. In this period, six tetrameter poems of a total of eight violate Regressive Dissimilation, making anti-RD Brodsky’s predominant emigration rhythm. Half of the tetrameter texts written during this time include foreign references or elements: the above-mentioned imitation of English speech in ‘‘Twenty Sonnets to Mary Queen of Scots,’’ the foreign-titled ‘‘Ritratto di Donna’’ (17.6 < 76.5 < 100.0), and the stanza structure of ‘‘The Fly’’ (17.5 < 84.5 < 100.0), likely borrowed from English Metaphysical poets John Donne or George Herbert (Stepanov 1999). The other half of the American-period anti-RD verse is either geographically vague, e.g., ‘‘Look at the wooden house’’ (18.8 < 68.8 < 100.0) and ‘‘Architecture’’ (8.3 < 70.8 < 100.0), in which the eponymous structures could be located anywhere in the world; or refer to Russia, as in ‘‘I seem to have forgotten you, but I remember the plaster’’ (0.0 < 87.5 < 100.0):

9. Such subtle ‘‘biographization’’ seems to characterize Brodsky as translator not only in terms of rhythm but also of meter. For example, in translating Auden’s ‘‘Stop All the Clocks’’ in iambic hexameter, a meter not used in Auden’s original and rare in Brodsky’s time (Gasparov 1984: 278), Brodsky echoes his own poem in this meter devoted to his mentor Anna Akhmatova (Friedberg 2009b); thus, the Russian version of ‘‘Stop All the Clocks’’ becomes a tribute to Brodsky’s two most important mentors, Auden and (less obviously) Akhmatova.

3.3.

The rhythm of exile

95

Ja pozabyl tebja, no pomnju sˇtukaturku v podjezde, vzduvsˇujusja sˇcˇitovidku trub otoplenja vperemesˇku s sypju zvonkov s familijami tipa ‘‘vypju’’ ili ‘‘ubju’’, i psoriaz azbesta pljus epidemiju gribnoje mesto elektroscˇetcˇikov blokadnoj mody. Ty umerla. Oni ostalis’ [. . .] (Brodskii 2001, 4: 159) ‘I seem to have forgotten you, but remember the plaster / in the building entryway, the swollen thyroid of the heating / tubes mixed with the rash / Of doorbells with surnames like ‘‘I’ll have a drink’’ / or ‘‘I’ll kill you,’’ and the asbestos psoriasis / plus the epidemic, a fungus / of Siege-style electric meters. / You died. They remain.’

However, it is not surprising that foreign-flavored rhythms are used here to describe the memories of Brodsky’s Soviet experience: as an emigrant living in America, he is now distant from that experience not only metaphorically but also physically. Thus the use of anti-RD to describe Russia, foreign countries, or geographically neutral landscapes alike can be explained by the fact that, to the poet, these are now equally foreign. The correlation between anti-RD rhythm and exile motifs or circumstances is not limited to Brodsky’s iambic tetrameter; the same pattern holds in his iambic pentameter. Although the violation of Regressive Dissimilation is not evident from poem averages for specific periods (e.g., Norenskaia: 86.4 < 31.6 < 100.0), the change in the absolute number of anti-RD pentameter poems from period to period is nevertheless suggestive. Before exile, Brodsky produces no anti-RD poems, while in Norenskaia he writes six, among which five signal, whether semantically or stylistically, exile or foreignness. ‘‘Menuet’’ [Minuet] is the name of a foreign dance. ‘‘Na smert’ T. S. Eliota’’ [On the death of T. S. Eliot], mentioned in section 3.2, is devoted to a foreign poet. ‘‘Einem Alten Architekten in Rom’’ suggests foreignness by virtue of its German title and its setting of Ko¨nigsberg, the original German name of Kaliningrad, which prior to World War II was the closest Western city to Russia (see Venclova 2002). The title ‘‘Kurs aktsii’’ [Stock prices] refers to a capitalist world entirely alien to Brodsky’s Soviet readers in the 1960s. Finally, ‘‘Pokhozh na golos golovnoi ubor’’ [The headwear looks like a voice] exhibits a similar link between rhythm and interpretation: the poem violates Regressive Dissimilation (46.9 < 75.0 < 100.0), and at the same time seems to refer to Brodsky’s life in Norenskaia:

96

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources Krugo´m snega´. I to´l’ko re´cˇ’ moja´ napomina´jet o razme´rax zˇ´ızni. (Brodskii 2001, 2: 353) ‘All around, the snows. And only my speech / reminds me of the size of life.’

Note that this last text appears in the section of Brodsky’s collected works that editor G. Komarov classifies as ‘‘undated poems of the 1960s’’ (Brodskii 2001, 2: 434). As we see, the poem’s content in combination with its antiRD rhythm (which Brodsky favored in 1964–65) allows us to postulate the likely date range of the poem’s composition as 1964–65 (Friedberg 2002b). As in the case of tetrameter verse, Brodsky’s Norenskaia period in iambic pentameter has a clear rhythmic end point. Between 1965 and his emigration in 1972, Brodsky eschews anti-RD, employing it in only one of a total of sixty-two iambic pentameter poems; the exception is ‘‘In Front of the Monument to A. S. Pushkin in Odessa’’ (54.2 < 66.7 < 100.0). This rarity of anti-RD in post-exile pentameter parallels Brodsky’s tetrameter, where, as noted, only one original poem written between 1966 and 1972 violates Regressive Dissimilation (‘‘Singing without Music’’). Moreover, as in ‘‘Singing without Music,’’ the anti-RD rhythm of Brodsky’s poem on Pushkin has a clear stylistic and semantic motivation. The poem is set in Odessa, the Black Sea port where Pushkin spent part of his southern Russian exile for a year starting in July 1823 (Tsiavlovskii 1931). Brodsky’s use of the rhythm of exile to describe another exiled poet is entirely appropriate; moreover, the ‘‘foreign’’ associations of anti-RD are also crucial to the interpretation of ‘‘In Front of the Monument to A. S. Pushkin in Odessa.’’ The Pushkin monument the speaker of the poem encounters faces the sea and stands ‘‘with his back to the fatherland.’’ Brodsky ascribes symbolic meaning to the positioning of the monument and o¤ers a parallel between Pushkin and himself: in Pushkin Brodsky had an illustrious precursor-poet who was forbidden to travel overseas10 and who attempted to find ways to escape.11 10. As shown in Tsiavlovskii and Tarkhova’s (1999) chronology of Pushkin’s life, Pushkin’s requests for permission to travel abroad were denied by the government. 11. Here Brodsky responds to Pushkin’s Odessa-period lyric ‘‘K moriu’’ [To the sea], in which Pushkin fantasizes about escaping overseas (Ne udalos’ navek ostavit’ / Mne skucˇnyj, nepodvizˇnyj breg [I did not manage to leave forever / the boring, still shore]) (Pushkin 1986, 1: 316). Pushkin’s escape plans are

3.3.

The rhythm of exile

97

Podı´, i o´n zdes’ podstavlja´l skulu´ pod akvilo´n, prikı´dyvaja, kak ubra´t’sja vo´n. (Brodskii 2001, 2: 338–339) ‘Perhaps he also / turned his cheek-bone to the aquilon here, / calculating how to get out.’

In the context of the poem, Brodsky’s foreign-flavored rhythm seems a conscious choice. It may be interpreted not only as a form of ‘‘commemorating’’ (Sandler 2004) Pushkin’s desire to escape to foreign lands, but also as a metaphorical means of granting this wish. In fact, this aspect of the poem strongly recalls the statement by Brodsky in his Englishlanguage essay ‘‘In a Room and a Half,’’ written in America sixteen years after ‘‘In Front of the Monument to A. S. Pushkin in Odessa,’’ that in composing this piece devoted to his parents in English, he aimed, at least metaphorically, to set his parents free from the foreign travel restrictions imposed on them by the Soviet authorities: I know that one should not equate the state with language, but it was in Russian that the two old people, shu¿ing through numerous state chancelleries and ministries in the hope of obtaining a permit to go abroad for a visit to see their only son before they died, were told repeatedly, for twelve years in a row, that the state considers such a visit ‘‘unpurposeful’’ (Brodsky 1986: 460).

Of course, the foreignness Brodsky conjures in ‘‘In Front of the Monument to A. S. Pushkin in Odessa’’ is quite distinct from the method of ‘‘In a Room and a Half.’’ In the poem, written in 1969–70, the foreignflavored rhythm is still a Russian-language rhythm; in the prose piece, written in 1986, Brodsky switches to English, in which he is by now fluent. But the general principle underlying both texts is nevertheless the same: linguistic means are manipulated in order to create imaginary travels. After ‘‘In Front of the Monument to A. S. Pushkin in Odessa,’’ antiRD disappears from Brodsky’s rhythmic repertoire for several years; in described by his biographers (Tsiavlovskii and Tarkhova 1999, 1: 423; Lotman 1995: 95), who point out that V. F. Viazemskaia even tried to raise money to help Pushkin leave the country from Odessa in secret. Brodsky had a somewhat similar escape fantasy: in 1960, while visiting his friend the pilot Oleg Shakhmatov in Samarkand, both entertained the idea of stealing a plane and going abroad (Losev 2006: 58–59).

98

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources

1970–72 he writes twenty-five iambic pentameter poems, none of which violate Regressive Dissimilation. The use of anti-RD resumes only in emigration, when Brodsky produces ten such poems (see Appendix V). As in the case of tetrameter works, the thematic scope of these poems is quite broad. Some constitute Brodsky’s recollections of Russia: ‘‘Sand hills overgrown with pines’’ (29.2 < 83.3 < 100.0), ‘‘I seem to have forgotten you, but I remember the plaster’’ (13.0 < 75.9 < 100.0). Others are geographically neutral: ‘‘Tikhotvorenie moe, moe nemoe’’ [My quiet-creation/poem, my mute] (0.0 < 83.3 < 100.0), ‘‘Rivers’’ (0.0 < 100.0 < 100.0), and ‘‘Otvet na anketu’’ [An answer to a questionnaire] (57.1 < 85.7 < 100.0) describe poems, rivers, or bureaucratic questionnaires imaginable anywhere in the world. Still other poems include foreign components such as a description of a Roman historical figure, a German landscape, an Italian title or, as in ‘‘The Fly,’’ a borrowing of stanza structure from Donne or Herbert (Stepanov 1999). These poems are ‘‘The Bust of Tiberius’’ (54.3 < 57.4 < 94.7), ‘‘Landswehr Canal, Berlin’’ (25.0 < 87.5 < 100.0), ‘‘Ritratto di Donna’’ (38.7 < 67.7 < 100.0), and ‘‘The Fly’’ (12.4 < 82.0 < 100.0), respectively.12 Again, as with tetrameter, the use of foreign-flavored rhythm in reference to Russia is justified; as Brodsky himself states: ‘‘Teper’ menia tam net’’ [I am no longer there] (Brodskii 2001, 3: 149). Brodsky’s emigration is rhythmically interesting in another respect: it is in this period that the poet extended anti-RD usage to iambic hexameter, a meter in which, pre-emigration, the poet never violated Regressive Dissimilation at all. Verse in which this rhythm appears includes the hexameter portions of ‘‘Sand hills overgrown with pines’’ (41.7 < 75.0 < 100.0), ‘‘The Bust of Tiberius’’ (40.0 < 100.0 < 100.0), ‘‘I seem to have forgotten you, but I remember the plaster’’ (60.0 < 80.0 < 100.0), and ‘‘An Answer to a Questionnaire’’ (81.8 < 86.4 < 100.0). Anti-RD also occurs in an iambic hexameter poem of uniform line length, ‘‘Piataia godovshchina’’ [The fifth anniversary] (70.8 < 80.2 < 100.0).

12. In emigration Brodsky also uses anti-RD in one pentameter translation, that of Tomas Venclova’s ‘‘Vienuolikta giesme˙’’ [The eleventh song] (56.9 < 60.8 < 98.0), completed around 1984 (Tomas Venclova, p.c.). This fact presents an interesting contrast with Brodsky’s tetrameter: the source language of the pentameter translation is not English, but Lithuanian, lending support to our hypothesis regarding the foreign (rather than merely English-language) associations of Brodsky’s anti-RD.

3.4.

The form of Brodsky’s anti-RD: English or Russian?

99

The analysis presented in this section thus shows that Brodsky’s unusual rhythm is strikingly consistent, first, in terms of interaction with exilic/foreign-flavored meaning or style, or the exile situation in Brodsky’s life; and second, insofar as anti-RD has the same associations across various meters (i.e., iambic tetrameter, pentameter, and hexameter poems). Finally, the use of this rhythm is consistent in that anti-RD has the same associations across di¤erent stanza types, i.e., in poems of uniform line length (e.g., ‘‘A gardener in a quilted jacket, like a thrush,’’ ‘‘Singing without Music,’’ ‘‘Look at the wooden house’’) and mixed (‘‘New Stanzas to Augusta,’’ ‘‘The Fly,’’ ‘‘Ritratto di Donna’’). The consistency of Brodsky’s anti-RD is not merely a curious descriptive fact in the history of Russian rhythm: it has important implications for our understanding of the value and limits of quantitative approaches to poetry. Brodsky’s pattern suggests that even though exact stress frequencies in his anti-RD poems vary, the poet still perceived verse with this rhythm as a distinct class and ignored variations in frequency. In other words, the poet grouped anti-RD poems together based on their meaning, function, and the fact that the penult S is stressed more frequently than the antepenult S; however, how much more frequently does not seem to have mattered.13 This is not to say that attention to exact numbers cannot explain any aspects of anti-RD. For example, the ANOVA analysis of variance can be extremely useful if we want to compare anti-RD across various poets and determine whether overall Brodsky’s use of this rhythm di¤ered from that of his predecessors.14 Section 3.4 presents the findings of just such an analysis.

3.4. The form of Brodsky’s anti-RD: English or Russian? Before we attempt to determine Brodsky’s di¤erence (or lack thereof ) from his Russian and English anti-RD sources, we might first explain the importance of the question. It could be argued that the Russian version of anti-RD, which a¤ords a poet numerous opportunities to use long words 13. In the English-inspired ‘‘Singing without Music,’’ the di¤erence between S3 and S2 amounts to 66.9 percent, while in Brodsky’s translation of Marvell’s ‘‘Eyes and Tears,’’ the di¤erence is only 12.5 percent; but in both cases antiRD clearly has the same motivation: to create the flavor of foreign verse. 14. Thanks to Todd Leen for suggesting the releance of ANOVA.

100

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources

and omit stress on antepenultimate S positions, accommodates Russian vocabulary better than would the English version of this rhythm. For this reason, one might claim, Brodsky cannot but resemble his Russian predecessors. But this explanation provides only a partial account of Brodsky’s experiment. As shown in Chapter 2, in creating a rule of elision, Brodsky approximates his English sources more than his Russian ones. Moreover, beyond the realm of elision, Brodsky is perfectly capable of constraining his vocabulary in order to imitate English rhythms. For example, in his ‘‘Old English songs’’ cycle of imitations of English verse, the poet closely matches English S frequencies; compare the numbers below to Donne’s ‘‘The Flea’’ (83.3 < 91.7 < 91.7): S2

S3

S4

‘‘Iz ‘Starykh angliiskikh pesen’: Zasporiat noch’iu mat’ s otsom’’ [From ‘‘Old English songs’’: A mother and father will start to quarrel at night] (1963), I4 only, 16 lines

87.5

93.9

100.0

‘‘Iz ‘Starykh angliiskikh pesen’: Zamerzshii povod zhzhet ladon’ ’’ [From ‘‘Old English songs’’: The frozen bridle burns your palm] (1963), I4 only, 17 lines

88.2

100.0

100.0

Brodsky can even stress his S-positions more frequently than in English, and sustain this rhythm in long poems, as in his 430–line ‘‘Prishla zima, i vse, kto mog letet’ ’’ [Winter arrived, and all those who could fly] (99.1 < 99.8 < 100.0). Thus, the pressures of the Russian vocabulary alone cannot automatically place Brodsky into the same group as the Russian e´migre´ poets he read. Exploring his relationship to sources is not trivial because there is a distinct possibility that, in terms of rhythm, the poet may be significantly di¤erent from his Russian predecessors. In order to conduct statistical tests, I first selected one representative from each tradition, Russian and English, restricting the choice to poets (a) who used anti-RD frequently15, and (b) whom Brodsky is reported 15. Tsvetaeva’s and Donne’s samples can be analyzed quantitatively, because these poets each produced a su‰cient number of anti-RD texts. For example, volumes one and two of the former’s Collected Works (Tsvetaeva 1994), contain thirty-two anti-RD tetrameter poems; Donne’s Songs and Sonnets,

3.4.

The form of Brodsky’s anti-RD: English or Russian?

101

to have carefully read in the first half of the 1960s (see Shul’ts 2000; Polukhina and Losev 2006: 330–336). These criteria lead us to two poets: Marina Tsvetaeva and John Donne. Tsvetaeva as a likely source of Brodsky’s anti-RD has been proposed by Lotman (1999); moreover, Brodsky’s interest in her meter is evinced by his statement in the essay ‘‘A Footnote to a Poem’’: ‘‘In terms of form, Tsvetaeva is significantly more interesting than any of her contemporaries, including the Futurists. . . .’’ (Brodsky 1986: 201). Brodsky’s attention to Donne’s prosody is similarly seen in the poet’s own words: for example, in an interview he recalls that after receiving the ‘Modern Library’ edition of Donne (1952) discussed in Chapter 1, he ‘‘read all of ’’ Donne’s poetry ‘‘in earnest’’ (quoted in Polukhina 2000: 154).16 To ensure further that the comparison between Brodsky and Donne does not hinge upon a particular approach to the stressing of English auxiliaries (which are, after all, an ambiguous category), I used the two methods of measuring English verse explained in Chapter 1: Tarlinskaja’s (1987) approach (where auxiliary words are stressed minimally) and the Taranovsky-Zhirmunsky approach as applied to English verse (where auxiliary words are stressed on S positions). Tarlinskaja’s method leaves us with nineteen anti-RD pentameter poems for Donne; TaranovskyZhirmunsky (Eng.), twenty-five. Note also that in order to avoid theorydependence, I considered Brodsky to be significantly di¤erent (or not di¤erent) from Donne only if both counting methods yielded the same outcomes, i.e., both theories would have to predict that there is a significant di¤erence between poets, or both would have to predict that there is none. Once the poems were selected, a one-way ANOVA analysis of variance was applied. Poets were compared in terms of three parameters in each meter, specifically: stressing in penultimate S, stressing in antepenultimate S, and the ‘‘slope,’’ i.e., the di¤erence between the penult and antepenult S. My decision to examine the slope was motivated by the fact that thirteen; and Brodsky’s Works [Brodskii 2001], twenty-six. The total number of anti-RD pentameter poems for Tsvetaeva is twenty-five; for Brodsky, seventeen. 16. Of course, Brodsky’s sources were not limited to these two poets: a third important user of anti-RD was Vladislav Khodasevich. Section 3.5 will identify important links between Brodsky and certain poems of Khodasevich. In this section, however, Khodasevich will not be discussed because of his small sample size (see note 17).

102

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources

contrast between positions in Brodsky at times seems sharper than in Tsvetaeva, and much sharper than in Donne. Thus, a statistical test could reveal whether Brodsky used such rhythm frequently enough to be considered distinct from his predecessors. Below I summarize the general results of the ANOVA tests; exact probability values are provided in Appendix VII.

BRODSKY

Antepenultimate S

Penultimate S

The slope, i.e., penult S minus antepenult S

Tetrameter

Not significantly di¤erent from Tsvetaeva

Not significantly di¤erent from Donne (both approaches)

Significantly di¤erent both from Tsvetaeva and Donne (both approaches)

Significantly di¤erent from Donne (both approaches) Pentameter

Significantly di¤erent from Tsvetaeva

Not significantly di¤erent from Tsvetaeva

Not significantly di¤erent from Tsvetaeva

Not significantly di¤erent from Tsvetaeva

Significantly di¤erent from Donne (both approaches)

N/A (Results for Donne are controversial across approaches)

Significantly di¤erent from Donne (both approaches)

Brodsky’s tetrameter anti-RD turns out to be a hybrid rhythm, since the antepenultimate S position seems ‘‘Russian’’ (not di¤erent from Tsvetaeva, but di¤erent from Donne) and the penultimate S ‘‘English’’ (i.e., not di¤erent from Donne, but di¤erent from Tsvetaeva); while the slope seems to be Brodsky’s original invention, i.e., neither English nor Russian. Brodsky’s pentameter anti-RD proves entirely ‘‘Russian’’ (not distinct from Tsvetaeva), and, except for the controversial position S4, it is also clearly di¤erent from Donne. Brodsky’s ‘‘Englishness’’ is rather limited and partial: in tetrameter, he is rhythmically indistinguishable from Tsvetaeva in S2, while in pentameter the same holds both in S3 and the slope. This fact raises a number of questions. Given that the pressures of Russian vocabulary can only partially explain Brodsky’s rhythmic choice, why did Tsvetaeva’s anti-RD

3.5.

Brodsky’s Russian predecessors: Bely, Khodasevich, Tsvetaeva

103

attract Brodsky? Was he drawn by the semantics of Tsvetaeva’s poems themselves? And what is this semantics? In order to address these issues, the next section will examine the likely origin and meaning of Tsvetaeva’s rhythm, discussing also Brodsky’s second possible source, Vladislav Khodasevich, whose work, along with Tsvetaeva’s, Brodsky read in the e´migre´ journal Contemporary Notes in 1961 (Polukhina and Losev 2006: 330; Shul’ts 2000). Although Khodasevich produced only a limited number of anti-RD poems17, the stress frequencies of these are extremely reminiscent of, and sometimes even identical to, those of Tsvetaeva, causing one to speculate that had Khodasevich written more of these poems, they could have been as similar to Brodsky as are Tsvetaeva’s.

3.5. Brodsky’s Russian predecessors: Bely, Khodasevich, Tsvetaeva Neither Tsvetaeva nor Khodasevich invented anti-RD: according to Taranovsky, the rhythm was first introduced by their contemporary Andrei Bely (Taranovskii 1966). Perceiving the repertoire of nineteenth century verse as rhythmically meager (Gasparov 1988: 450), Bely increasingly employed iambic tetrameter lines where the second strong position is unstressed and the third stressed – a line type nineteenth century poets used only infrequently (Bely 1910). As a result, in Bely’s 1906 iambic tetrameter, for instance, stress falls on 53.3 percent of second strong positions and 60.3 percent of third strong positions (Taranovskii 1966: 129).18 The stress frequencies of specific poems that Taranovsky discusses are given below; while the period frequencies are Taranovsky’s own, the frequencies 17. Khodasevich produced only four anti-RD iambic tetrameter texts and no antiRD pentameters (these results are based on searching through all of the iambic tetrameter and pentameter poems appearing in Khodasevich 1983, 1996), therefore, his small sample size prevents us from conducting a reliable statistical analysis. 18. It is not clear whether Bely’s anti-RD had any direct influence on Brodsky: after all, in one interview Brodsky remarked: ‘‘I will now say a terrible thing about Bely: he is a bad writer’’ (Volkov 2002: 389). Of course, a poet can echo those he dislikes as well as those he admires; but the most detailed biographies and chronologies (e.g., Losev 2006, Polukhina and Losev 2006) do not mention Brodsky reading Bely’s poems in the early 1960s at all. I will therefore summarize and discuss Taranovsky’s findings about Bely (Taranovskii 1966) only because Bely seems to have rhythmically influenced two poets that Brodsky valued and carefully read.

104

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources

for poems in the table below are based on my counts performed according to Taranovsky’s method (see Chapter 1, section 1.7). Table 2. Bely’s anti-RD iambic tetrameter19 Title and date

S2

S3

Written in

‘‘Melankholiia’’ [Melancholy] (1904), 28 lines

17.9

75.0

Russia

‘‘Vakkhanaliia’’ [Bacchanalia] (1906), 28 lines

42.9

64.3

Germany

‘‘Arlekiniada’’ [Harlequinade] (1906), 48 lines

31.3

79.8

Germany

‘‘V letnem sadu’’ [In the summer garden] (1906), 36 lines

41.7

69.4

Russia

‘‘Sud’ba’’ [Fate] (1906), 15 lines

33.3

66.7

Russia

‘‘Kaleka’’ [The cripple] (1908), 25 lines

52.0

56.0

Russia

Taranovsky not only describes Bely’s frequencies, but also notes that poems written in this rhythm feature repeated themes, tonality, or imagery. (The following list of themes does not exactly repeat Taranovsky’s classification, but naturally derives from his insights and data.) Anti-RD was used by Bely in descriptions of (a) nightmares; (b) unpredictable or unruly behavior (represented, for example, by harlequins and jesters); (c) bodily deformity (e.g., that of a hunchback); and (d) the drinking of alcohol. Taranovsky further demonstrates that the associations anti-RD evinces in Bely’s verse are based in part on historical convention. Readers accustomed to nineteenth-century poetry, with its alternating stresses on the last three feet, would have perceived Bely’s alternative rhythm, in contrast to the symmetry and smoothness of that of Pushkin or Zhukovsky, as asymmetrical and rough (Taranovskii 1966: 138). Of course, technically

19. Information on where Bely’s poems were written is based on Belyi 1966 and Lavrov 1995; Lavrov’s chronology is available in electronic form: .

3.5.

Brodsky’s Russian predecessors: Bely, Khodasevich, Tsvetaeva

105

Bely’s rhythm is no more ‘‘asymmetrical’’ or ‘‘disharmonious’’ than other Russian iambic rhythm types20, but such an impression may have held for Bely himself. As a result, he may have perceived anti-RD as an especially suitable form for depicting negative, unpleasant, or frightening subjects, such as nightmares. Moreover, Bely’s use of anti-RD to describe alcoholic intoxication or bodily deformity may also have a particular motivation (though this is not explicitly suggested by Taranovsky): drinking distorts one’s perception of reality just as anti-RD is a distortion of traditional Russian rhythm, and for the same reason, anti-RD (i.e., a ‘‘deformed’’ Russian rhythm) befits descriptions of physical deformity. Jesters and fools behave in an unruly manner and violate societal norms; similarly, anti-RD deviates from Russian rhythmic norms and indicates the poet’s liberation from the control of traditional forms. To illustrate that the four thematic categories are indeed represented in Bely’s poems, let us look at his texts. ‘‘Harlequinade,’’ as the title suggests, depicts jesters. Episodes of alcohol consumption appear in both ‘‘In the Summer Garden’’ and ‘‘Bacchanalia’’: Volnu´jutsja: smjate´n’je, krı´k. Ognı´ poga´sli v kabine´te;– Ottu´da probezˇa´l starı´k V poluzaste´gnutom zˇile´te,– I pa´daet,– i pal v toske´ S boka´lom pe´nistym rejnve´jna V protja´nutoj, suxo´j ruke´ U tixove´jnogo basse´jna;– (‘‘In the Summer Garden,’’ Belyi 2006, 1: 249) ‘They worry: confusion, screaming. / The lights went o¤ in the o‰ce;– / From there ran out an old man / In a semi-buttoned vest,– / And he falls,– and fell in melancholy / With a glass of frothy Rhine wine / In an outstretched dry hand / By a quietly burbling pool;– ’

20. It would be arbitrary to say that anti-RD is less symmetrical than nineteenthcentury Russian rhythm, because even in the nineteenth century, the most frequent line type was not symmetrical (e.g., Pushkin’s kog-DA ne v SHUTku za-ne-MOG [when he fell seriously ill], i.e., xX xX–xx xX).

106

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources

Boka´ly osusˇa´l, molcˇa´l, Kame´liju v petlı´cu fra´ka Votknu´l i v o´kna xoxota´l Iz du´sˇnogo, nocˇno´go mra´ka – (‘‘Bacchanalia,’’ Belyi 2006, 1: 244) ‘He emptied the glasses, was silent, / Stuck a camellia in the buttonhole of his tailcoat / And laughed into the windows / From the su¤ocating night-gloom –’

In ‘‘Fate,’’ Taranovsky suggests, Bely’s switch to anti-RD is motivated by the description of a deformed body – a hunchback with rotten teeth, who approaches a frightened woman and forces her to become his mistress: Plato´cˇek kruzˇevno´j drozˇ´ıt Na ro´zovyx jejo´ kole´njax; Bespo´mosˇcˇno ona´ sidı´t V lilo´vyx, la´skovyx sire´njax. Kacˇa´jetsja nad ne´ju nos, ˇ erne´jutsja gnily´e zu´by; C Uga´rnoj ga´rju papiro´s Rastja´nutye dy´shat gu´by; Vzgljad oskorbı´tel’nyj i zloj Vpiva´jetsja xolo´dnoj mgloj, I go´los razdaje´tsja gru´byj: ‘‘Ljubo´vnicej moe´ju bud’.’’ (Belyi 2006, 1: 229) ‘A lace handkerchief is trembling / On her pink knees; / Helplessly she sits / In purple, tender lilacs. / A nose is nodding above her, / And rotten teeth show black; / The noxious smoke of cigarettes / The parted lips are breathing; / A look o¤ensive and angry / Pierces like a cold fog, / And a rough voice is heard: / ‘‘Be my mistress.’’ ’

‘‘Melancholy’’ depicts an empty, abandoned restaurant, in which the speaker sees in a mirror his own endlessly tortured, nightmare-like twin reaching out to him. Tam – v ze´rkale – stoı´t dvojnı´k; Tam – vy´rezannym silue´tom – Priblı´zitsia, kiva´et mne´, Loma´jet v bezysxo´dnoj mu´ke V zerka´l’noj, v ja´snoj glubine´ Svoı´ protja´nutyje ru´ki. (Belyi 2006, 1: 239) ‘There – in the mirror – stands a double; / There, like a cut-out silhouette – / He will approach and nod to me, / Wringing, in a hopeless torment / In the bright depths of the mirror / His outstretched hands.’

3.5.

Brodsky’s Russian predecessors: Bely, Khodasevich, Tsvetaeva

107

Of course, it is not clear whether any of Bely’s rhythms had a direct impact on Brodsky. What is important, though, is that Bely’s anti-RD, as Ivanov observes, carried over into Tsvetaeva’s verse, which Brodsky certainly read; moreover, Tsvetaeva extended the use of this rhythm outside the realm of iambic tetrameter (Ivanov 1988b: 361). The borrowing was not merely structural: along with the rhythm, Tsvetaeva also echoes some of Bely’s motifs.21 Consider the Tsvetaeva poems Brodsky could have seen around 1961 (Shul’ts 2000; Polukhina and Losev 2006: 330):

Table 3a. Anti-RD tetrameter poems published in Tsvetaeva’s Selected Works (1961) or in Contemporary Notes (Paris, 1920–32) Title and date

S2

S3

Written in

‘‘Factory Workers’’ (1922), 32 lines

40.6

53.1

Emigration

‘‘Poet – izdaleka zavodit rech’ ’’ [A poet begins speaking from afar] (1923), I4 only, 8 lines

50.0

62.5

Emigration

‘‘People get bored after a binge’’ (1919), 12 lines

50.0

75.0

Emigration

21. Many of Tsvetaeva’s anti-RD poems were written during or after the brief period of her friendship with Andrei Bely in emigration, from May 1922 until Bely’s return to Russia in 1923 (Lavrov 1995; Shveitser 2002: 260–264). But Tsvetaeva’s anti-RD emerged even earlier, while in Russia, at which point the rhythm was likely to have been linked to Bely as well. Tsvetaeva attended the Symbolists’ gatherings at the Musaget (Musagetes) publishing house (Ivanov 1988b: 361); thus her echo of a rhythm from a Symbolist’s rhythmic repertoire is not entirely unexpected. Of course, Tsvetaeva claimed that Bely had no literary influence on her (Ivanov 1988b: 362), but as Khvorostianova (1999: 318) notes, this claim in itself constituted a mystification aimed at masking the influence. Issues regarding Bely’s influence on Tsvetaeva, and Tsvetaeva’s relationship with Symbolism, have been considered elsewhere (see Ivanov 1988b: 361–362; Saakiants 1988; Khvorostianova 1999, 2008; Ronen 1992; Ciepiela 2006: 19–20); here my primary concern is Brodsky’s di¤erence from these interrelated predecessors. But it is nevertheless curious that Bely, who called Tsvetaeva’s rhythms nepobedimye ritmy [invincible rhythms] (Belyi 1994: 347), himself turned out to be a creator of such rhythms – ones that can be traced in Tsvetaeva’s verse not only in terms of form, but also, as I will show, echoed semantics.

108

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources

Table 3b. Anti-RD pentameter poems published in Tsvetaeva’s Selected Works (1961) or in Contemporary Notes (Paris, 1920–32) Title and date

S3

S4

Written in

‘‘Blagoslovliaiu ezhednevnyi trud’’ [I bless everyday labor] (1918), 8 lines

50.0

87.5

Russia

‘‘Having tilted my head and lowered my eyes’’ (1921), I5 only, 16 lines

18.8

87.5

Russia

‘‘Moe ubezhishche ot dikikh ord’’ [My refuge from savage hordes] (1921), 4 lines

50.0

100.0

Russia

‘‘Ia ne tantsuiu – bez moei viny’’ [I am not dancing; it’s not my fault] (1921), 8 lines

62.5

75.0

Russia

‘‘Byt’ mal’chikom tvoim svetlogolovym’’ [To be your fair-haired boy] (1921), I5 only, 9 lines

33.3

77.8

Russia

‘‘There is a certain hour – like a burden cast o¤ ’’ (1921), I5 only, 17 lines

64.7

76.5

Russia

‘‘Pustoty otrocheskikh glaz! Provaly’’ [The voids of adolescent eyes! Chasms] (1921), I5 only, 9 lines ‘‘Blazhenny docherei tvoikh, Zemlia’’ [Blessed are they [who abandon] your daughters, Earth] (1921), 8 lines

55.6

77.8

Russia

50.0

62.5

Russia

‘‘S takoiu siloi v podborodok ruku’’ [[Grasping] the chin with such force] (1921), 8 lines

37.5

62.5

Russia

‘‘Roland’s Horn’’ (1921, 1932)22, 16 lines

43.8

75.0

Russia/ Emigration

‘‘People get bored after a binge’’ echoes Bely’s alcohol theme, in fact recalling the post-drinking (after a binge) restaurant scene described in ‘‘Melancholy’’: Skucˇa´jut po´sle kutezˇa´. A ja´ tak veseljus’ – ne cˇa´jesˇ’! Ty – gospodı´n, ja – gospozˇa´, A gla´vnoje – kak ty, taka´ja zˇ! Ne obmanı´s’! Ty zna´jesˇ’ sam Po zlo´mu xolodku´ v gorta´ni, ˇ to ja byla´ tvoı´m usta´m – C Lisˇ’ pe´noju s xolmo´v Sˇampa´ni!

22. On the dating of this poem, see Chapter 1, note 29.

(Tsvetaeva 1924b: 174)

3.5.

Brodsky’s Russian predecessors: Bely, Khodasevich, Tsvetaeva

109

‘People get bored after a binge. / But I am having so much fun – you can’t even imagine! / You are a lord, and I am a lady, / And the main thing is – the same as you! / Do not be deceived! You know perfectly well / By the angry coldness in your gullet, / That to your lips I was – / A mere froth from the hills of Champagne.’

The tetrameter portion of Tsvetaeva’s ‘‘A poet begins speaking from afar,’’ in which Tsvetaeva suddenly switches to an anti-RD rhythm, thematizes the unpredictable behavior of poets, the di¤erence in their speech from that of ordinary mortals. In this respect, Tsvetaeva’s use of anti-RD here recalls Bely’s harlequins, who violate societal rules, like Tsvetaeva’s poet: On tot, kto sme´sˇivajet ka´rty, Obma´nyvajet ves i scˇet, On tot, kto spra´sˇivajet s pa´rty, Kto Ka´nta na´golovu bjet, Kto v ka´mennom grobu´ Bastı´lij Kak de´revo v svoe´j krase´. ...................................... Tot, cˇji sledy´ vsegda´ prosty´li, Tot po´jezd, na koto´ryj vse Opa´zdyvajut. . .

(Tsvetaeva 1961: 152)

‘He is the one who mixes up the cards, / Who cheats about weight and count, / He is the one who asks questions from his school desk, / Who wipes the floor with Kant, / Who in the stone co‰n of the Bastille / Is like a tree in all its glory. . . . / He is the one you can never catch, / The train that everyone / Misses. . .’

This theme of unruly or unpredictable behavior is seen not only in Tsvetaeva’s anti-RD tetrameters, but also her pentameter poems. One, for example, opens with lines describing the wind-induced motion of a garment against its wearer’s will: Ja ne tancuju, – bez mojej viny / Posˇlo volnami rozovoje platje [I am not dancing; it’s not my fault / The pink dress moved in waves]. Another poem mentions sudoroga [convulsion], i.e., a bodily movement beyond one’s control: S takoju siloj v podborodok ruku / Vcepiv, cˇto sudorogoj vjetsja rot [Grasping the chin with such force / That the mouth is moved by convulsions]. In still another poem, the speaker seeks a ‘‘refuge from savage hordes’’ (Moje ubezˇisˇcˇe ot dikix ord ), i.e., from people presumably acting in an unruly, uncontrolled manner.

110

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources

Further tracing the themes Bely associates with anti-RD, we can also point to Tsvetaeva’s ‘‘Factory Workers,’’ which includes reference to deformed body parts (‘‘distorted brows’’) and the isterzannost’ [state of being torn apart] of zˇivoje mjaso [living meat].23 Truba´! Truba´! Lbov iskazˇennyx Posle´dneje: jesˇcˇjo´ my tu´t! Kaka´ja na´-smert’ osuzˇdjo´nnost’ V toj zˇa´lobe posle´dnix tru´b! (Tsvetaeva 1961: 143) ‘The [trumpet-like] smokestack! The smokestack! From distorted brows / Comes the last word: we are still here! / What doomedness to death / In that complaint of the last [trumpet-like] smokestacks!’

Deformed bodies also appear in Tsvetaeva’s pentameter poem ‘‘Roland’s Horn,’’ which mentions a jester’s hump: Solda´t – polko´m, bes – legio´nom gord, Za vo´rom – sbrod, a za sˇuto´m – vse gorb. (Tsvetaeva 1932: 234) ‘The soldier is proud of his regiment, the devil of his legion, / Behind the thief there is the ri¤ra¤, but behind the jester, only his hump.’

Thus, anti-RD rhythm in the poems by Tsvetaeva that Brodsky could have read by 1962 seems to invoke most of the themes established by Bely; but in addition to these themes, Tsvetaeva associates a further layer with this rhythm, namely, that of religious or Biblical contexts. Two of Tsvetaeva’s anti-RD poems mentioned in the table above refer to blessing: ‘‘I bless everyday labor’’ (50.0 < 87.5 < 100.0) and ‘‘There is a certain

23. The poem also explicitly verbalizes a feeling of hopelessness (Kakaja na-smert’ osuzˇdjo´nnost’ [What doomededness to death]), recalling Bely’s ‘‘Melancholy’’ with its ‘‘endless torment.’’ ‘‘Factory Workers’’ echoes other specific images and diction of Bely, for instance the depiction of smoky street-scenes (Tsvetaeva: zakopocˇennye korpusa [buildings covered with soot]; Bely: nad ulicami kluby gari [above the streets are clouds of smoke]); and both poems mention striking or unpleasant noises (Tsvetaeva: truba . . . vopijet [the smokestack, trumpet-like, cries out]; Bely: revet organ [the organ is roaring]).

3.5.

Brodsky’s Russian predecessors: Bely, Khodasevich, Tsvetaeva

111

hour – like a burden cast o¤ ’’ (64.7 < 76.5 < 100.0), which includes the line Blagosloven jemu grjadusˇcˇij sledom [Blessed [are you] who come immediately after it]. Along with ‘‘There is a certain hour – like a burden cast o¤,’’ the poem ‘‘To be your fair-haired boy’’ (33.3 < 77.8 < 100.0) references discipleship to a teacher, and furthermore explicitly mentions sacrifice (I derznovenno ulybnuvsˇis’ – pervym / Vzojti na tvoj koster [And smiling boldly, to be the first to mount your bonfire] (Tsvetaeva 1961: 127). The poem ‘‘The voids of adolescent eyes! Chasms’’ includes a further Biblical reference, specifically to David and Saul: Tak po nocˇa´m, trevo´zˇa so´n Davı´dov, Zaxle´byvalsja tsa´r’ Sau´l. (Tsvetaeva 1961: 132) ‘Thus by night, disturbing David’s sleep, / Did King Saul choke.’

On the face of it, the appearance of anti-RD in this latter context may seem unexpected: why is a rhythm associated with alcoholism, jesters, hunchbacks, or disharmony used to describe religious experience? An answer is provided in Tsvetaeva’s poem ‘‘Ot gneva v pecheni, mechty vo lbu’’ [From wrath in the liver and dreams in the brow] (1921). The poem is constructed as a prayer, where the speaker asks to be made ‘‘tongue-tied’’: Ot gne´va v pe´cˇeni, mecˇty´ vo lbu´ Bogı´nja Ve´rnosti, xranı´ rabu´. ˇ ugu´nnym o´bodom skrepı´ ej gru´d’, C Bogı´nja ve´rnosti, pokro´vom bu´d’. Vse sladkolı´cˇije snimı´ s kusta´, Kosnojazy´cˇijem skrepı´ usta´. . . (Tsvetaeva 1994, 2: 63–64) ‘From wrath in the liver and dreams in the brow / Preserve your servant, Goddess of Faithfulness. / Cover her breast with a cast-iron band, / Goddess of faithfulness, be her intercessor. / Take away all sweetness from the bush, / And bind her lips with tongue-tiedness. . .’

Tsvetaeva seems to suggest that rhetorical smoothness and order call a speaker’s sincerity into question; hence anti-RD rhythm could have been chosen by the poet to represent the persona’s stuttering or lack of

112

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources

eloquence, like the ‘‘slow of speech’’ Moses (Exodus 4:10), whose religious experience is therefore genuine.24 As we have seen, Tsvetaeva employs anti-RD in a wide variety of contexts, some of which echo Bely’s motifs and some which constitute her own elaborations thereof. What is clear, though, is that Tsvetaeva’s anti-RD is completely di¤erent from Brodsky’s: her version of this rhythm has no consistent association with foreignness or spatial dislocation, regardless of whether one considers the semantics of individual poems or the circumstances in which they were written. Thematically, Tsvetaeva’s anti-RD verse might reference a French epic character (‘‘Roland’s Horn’’), or people, events, or ideas not bound to any specific place, e.g., ‘‘A poet begins speaking from afar.’’ Tsvetaeva uses anti-RD both in Russia and after her emigration. In fact, Tsvetaeva’s 1961 Selected Works, which Brodsky could have seen, shows the following distribution: of eight iambic pentameter poems featuring anti-RD, seven were written in Russia, and only one beyond its borders.25 The proportion of Tsvetaeva’s anti-RD poems to the total number of iambic poems in this volume is also revealing: the former constitute 38.1 percent of all pre-emigration iambic tetrameter and pentameter texts; after emigration, the percentage drops to 30.0. Moreover, if we look at the most complete edition of Tsvetaeva’s lyric verse to date (Tsvetaeva 1994), there is no preference for anti-RD in emigration either (see Appendix VI). Of a total of thirty-two tetrameter poems appearing in this edition, eighteen were written in Russia and fourteen in emigration; of the twenty-five pentameter anti-RD poems, twentythree were written in Russia, one in emigration, and one, ‘‘Roland’s Horn,’’ was begun in Russia but completed abroad. Thus, neither publications available to Brodsky in the early 1960s nor the most complete edition of Tsvetaeva’s lyric today provide any evidence that Tsvetaeva associated anti-RD with emigration. In fact, Brodsky’s association of anti-RD with foreignness seems slightly closer to the semantics of this rhythm in Vladislav Khodasevich than Tsvetaeva, though even Khodasevich’s association is not exactly the same as Brodsky’s. Despite the fact that Khodasevich used anti-RD infrequently, it is important to examine his ties to Brodsky’s verse, because various interviews reveal that Brodsky considered Khodasevich ‘‘a true poet, a poet by definition’’ (Polukhina 2000: 547) and knew many of his 24. Thanks to Avram Brown for reminding me of this analogy. 25. Brodsky could easily have determined where the poems were written; the texts in this volume are dated, and the introduction explicitly mentions that Tsvetaeva left Russia in May 1922 (Tsvetaeva 1961: 9).

3.5.

Brodsky’s Russian predecessors: Bely, Khodasevich, Tsvetaeva

113

poems by heart (Volkov 1998: 290). Moreover, there is a form-meaning connection between Khodasevich and Brodsky: for example, Wachtel (1998: 96–118) has shown that Brodsky’s unrhymed iambic pentameter poem ‘‘Ostanovka v pustyne’’ [A stopover in the desert] (1966) clearly echoes Khodasevich’s blank verse ‘‘Dom’’ [House] (1919–20). Thus, it is illuminating to examine whether Brodsky was as sensitive to Khodasevich’s rhythm, i.e., his subtle realization of meter, as to his meter itself. Consider Khodasevich’s ‘‘Sittsevoe tsarstvo’’ [The calico kingdom], in which Regressive Dissimilation is violated. Below are provided the first four stanzas of the poem, as well as statistical data on Khodasevich’s other anti-RD texts: Po vecˇera´m mecˇta´ju ja´. (Mecˇta´jut vse´, komu´ ne spı´tsja.) Mne gre´zitsja ljubo´v’ tvoja´, Strana´ tvoja´, gde vsjo´ – iz sı´tca. Vyso´kije tvoı´ dvorcy´, Zadrapiro´vannye za´ly, Tvoı´ pazˇ´ı, tvoı´ l’stecy´, Tvoj sˇut, uny´lyj i usta´lyj. I o´n, kak ja´, izdaleka´ Den’ ce´lyj po tebe´ tomı´tsja. Pod ve´cˇer be´laja ruka´ Na pjo´stryj go´rb legko´ lozˇ´ıtsja. Togda´ iz u´st jego´, kak dy´m, Struja´tsja sı´tcevye sˇu´tki,– I pa´dajut k noga´m tvoı´m Goro´sˇinki da nezabu´dki. V okne – dalekije kraja: Xolmy, lesa, polja – iz sitca. . . O, skromnaja strana tvoja! O, milaja moja carica! (Khodasevich 1914: 63–64) ‘In the evenings I dream. / (Everyone who cannot sleep dreams.) / I dream of your love, / Your country, where everything is made of calico. / Your high palaces, / And drape-covered halls, / Your pages, your flatterers, / And your jester, sad and tired. / And like me, from afar / He pines for you all day / In the evening a white hand / Is lightly laid on his colorful hump. / And then from his mouth, like smoke, / Stream calico jokes, – / And at your feet fall / Peas and forget-me-nots. / In the window – faraway lands: / Hills, forests, fields – all made of calico. . . / O, your modest country! / O, my dear tsarina!’

114

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources

Table 4. Khodasevich’s anti-RD iambic tetrameter (Khodasevich 1983, 199626) Title and date

S2

S3

Written in

‘‘The Calico Kingdom’’ (1909), 48 lines

54.2

70.8

Russia

‘‘Utro’’ [Morning] (1916), 6 lines

50.0

66.7

Russia

‘‘By the Sea’’ (1917), 8 lines

50.0

75.0

Russia

‘‘Slepaia serdtsa mudrost’ ’’ [The blind wisdom of the heart] (1921), 4 lines

75.0

100.0

Russia

Like Bely, Khodasevich here violates Regressive Dissimilation, and in fact simultaneously echoes two of Bely’s anti-RD-described images, i.e., a jester and hunchback (Taranovskii 1966). But the poem also contains another element relevant to our discussion, namely, its mention of ‘‘faraway lands.’’ It is quite possible that if Brodsky encountered ‘‘The Calico Kingdom,’’27 he could have completely ignored the link between anti-RD, jesters, and bodily deformity – quite possibly the very reason Khodasevich borrowed Bely’s rhythm in the first place – and instead, could have reinterpreted the meaning of Khodasevich’s anti-RD, linking this rhythm with ‘‘faraway lands.’’ If this scenario is correct, it still does not fully explain the semantics of Brodsky’s rhythm. Brodsky had to introduce additional semantic modifications to Khodasevich’s form before he could use it in his own foreignflavored verse. After all, the woman depicted in ‘‘The Calico Kingdom’’ is a Russian rather than foreign monarch, i.e., a tsarina. Calico cloth, traditionally popular among Russian peasants, has strong associations

26. The four anti-RD pentameter and tetrameter poems by Khodasevich identified were found by searching through all of the poems appearing in Khodasevich 1983 and Khodasevich 1996. 27. Although ‘‘The Calico Kingdom’’ does not appear in the volume Putem zerna [By way of grain – gloss Shrayer 2007, 1: 185] that Brodsky reports having read in the early 1960s (Volkov 1998: 290), the poem had been published in Russia twice: by the Moscow publishing house Al’tsiona in 1914, and by the Grzhebin publishing house in 1921 (Khodasevich 1983, 1: 287).

3.5.

Brodsky’s Russian predecessors: Bely, Khodasevich, Tsvetaeva

115

with Russia as well.28 Thus, although the ‘‘faraway lands’’ motif is present in Khodasevich’s poem, the ‘‘foreign lands’’ motif which Brodsky eventually adopts for his own anti-RD is not. Brodsky’s ‘‘foreign’’ modification of the semantics of Khodasevich’s anti-RD is illustrated particularly vividly by the poem ‘‘Flammarion’’ (1965), written during his exile in Norenskaia. In this work, Brodsky echoes Khodasevich’s ‘‘By the Sea’’ (1917); this lyric appeared in a collection by Khodasevich, Putem zerna [By way of grain – gloss Shrayer 2007, 1: 185], that Brodsky ‘‘recall[ed] very distinctly’’ as his first encounter with Khodasevich’s verse in 1961–62 (Volkov 1998: 268). In ‘‘Flammarion,’’ Brodsky echoes Khodasevich with striking precision, repeating not only his anti-RD form, but also stanza structure (an alternation of tetrameter and dimeter), rhyme scheme (masculine-feminine-masculine-feminine), imagery, and vocabulary. Khodasevich, ‘‘By the Sea’’ (1917)

Brodskii, ‘‘Flammarion’’ (1965), 4 stanzas

A mne´ i vo´ln morskı´x pribo´j, Vlacˇa´ kame´n’ja, Poe´t lete´jskoju struje´j Bez utesˇe´nja.

Odnı´m ogne´m porozˇdeny´ dve dlı´nnyx te´ni. Dve o´blasti porazˇeny´ tenja´mi te´mi.

Bezve´trije, poko´j i le´n’. No v ja´snom sve´te Otku´da zˇe lozˇ´ıtsja te´n’ Na ru´ki e´ti?

Odna´ – ona´ bezˇ´ıt otse´l’ skvoz’ bezdoro´zˇ’je za zˇ´ızn’ moju´, za kolybe´l’, za ca´rstvo bo´zˇ’je.

Ne ty´ l’ jesˇcˇjo´ tomı´sˇ’, ne ty´ l’, Gluxo´je te´lo? Von – be´laja vskrutı´las’ py´l’ I prolete´la.

Druga´ja – pospesˇa´jet vda´l’, letı´t za tu´cˇej za zˇ´ızn’ tvoju´, za kalenda´r’, za mı´r grjadu´sˇcˇij.

Vzbira´jetsja na xo´lm kruto´j Ove´cˇ’je sta´do. . . A mne´ – ajde´sskaja skvoz’ zno´j Skvozı´t proxla´da.

Da, e´tot jazycˇo´k ognja´, – on ro´d pricˇa´la: kone´c doro´gi dlja menja´ tvoje´j – nacˇa´lo.

28. The first calico printing mill was built in Russia as early as 1745–50, after which mass production of the material commenced (Keppen 1893: 2), rendering it popular with Russian peasants (Olgin 1917: 8). The Russianness of calico is also reflected in the fact that in 1921 Sergei Esenin referred to his homeland using the phrase strana berezovogo sittsa [the country of birch calico] (Esenin 1990: 125).

116

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources

(Khodasevich 1920: 28)

(Brodskii 2001, 2: 161)

‘And to me even the breaking of the sea waves, / Dragging the stones, / Sings in its Lethe-stream / Without consolation. / Windlessness, peace, and lassitude. / But in the bright light / Whence the shadow that falls / On these hands? / Is it not you that still wearies, is it not you, / Deaf body? / Here the white dust whirled upward / And flew past. / Up a steep hill climbs / A flock of sheep. . . / And I feel, through the heat, the draft / Of Hades’s coolness.’

‘Born of the same fire / are two long shadows. / Two realms are struck / by these shadows. / One runs from here / through places inaccessible by road / for the sake of [or: beyond] my life, the cradle / and the kingdom of God. / The other runs far away, / flies past a cloud / for the sake of [or: beyond] your life, the calendar, and the world to come. / Yes, this tongue of fire, – / is a sort of mooring: / the end of the road for me, / for you – the beginning.’

Khodasevich and Brodsky each refer to shadows: the former poet asks the source of a shadow – Otkuda zˇe lozˇitsja ten’. . . ? [Whence the shadow that falls. . . ?] – while the latter provides an answer: Odnim ognem porozˇdeny / dve dlinnyx teni [Born of the same fire / are two long shadows]. The speakers of both poems associate the shadow with a lover: in Khodasevich’s poem, the shadow conjures the tortured memory of her; in Brodsky’s, the shadow protects her. The speaker of Khodasevich’s poem moreover mentions the world of the dead (ajdesskaja . . . proxlada [Hades’s coolness]); Brodsky, too, declares an end to his road (konec dorogi), later in the poem mentioning the underworld (ad [hell]): Ogo´n’, predpocˇita´ja sa´m sme´rt’ – zapuste´n’ju, vse cˇa´sˇcˇe sˇa´rit po lesa´m moje´ju te´n’ju. Vse sˇa´rit o´n, i, cˇto ni de´n’, dostu´pnej vzglja´du, kak me´cˇetsja ne mo´zg, a te´n’ ot ra´ja k a´du. (Brodskii 2001, 2: 162) ‘The fire, which itself prefers / death to desolation, / ever more often rummages through forests / as my shadow. / It keeps rummaging, and every day / becomes more accessible to the gaze, / just as the shadow, and not the brain dashes / from heaven to hell.’

3.5.

Brodsky’s Russian predecessors: Bely, Khodasevich, Tsvetaeva

117

Consider, however, how the two poets approach foreign references. In the lines quoted, Khodasevich alludes to Greek mythology, mentioning the river Lethe and the god/realm of the underworld Hades. As mentioned, Brodsky’s poem is named for the famous French astronomer and novelist Camille Flammarion. However, there is a significant di¤erence between the types of foreignness signaled by these respective references. The word letejskii [of or pertaining to Lethe], used by Khodasevich, is not perceived as foreign by Russian speakers at all, because the word ‘‘Lethe’’ has become integrated into the Russian language, as in the expression kanut’ v Letu [to fall into Lethe], i.e., to disappear. Similarly, in Khodasevich’s usage, ajdesskij [of Hades] does not strike the ear as foreign, but rather as an archaic, uncommon version of ‘‘hellish’’ or ‘‘pertaining to the underworld.’’ This impression is bolstered by the fact that in another poem, ‘‘Sorrentinskie fotografii’’ [Sorrento photographs], Khodasevich treats ajdesskij as a near synonym to drevnij [ancient]: he uses ajdesskij and drevnij adjacent to one another in the same line, separating them by a comma, which punctuation suggests that the two adjectives comprise a list of similar qualities: Ajdesskij, drevnij veter vejet [The wind from Hades, [in other words,] the ancient wind, is blowing] (Khodasevich 1983, 1: 158). Khodasevich could easily have punctuated this phrase di¤erently, without a comma – Ajdesskij drevnij veter vejet – in which case the adjective drevnij would be providing information supplemental to ajdesskij [The ancient wind of Hades is blowing]. But the poet chose the former alternative, which implies that for him, the word ajdesskij is notable for its archaism rather than foreignness. In contrast, Brodsky’s title Flammarion is explicitly foreign. It does not refer to any mythological objects without concrete geography, but rather to a specific person who had lived in a specific foreign location (France) until fifteen years before Brodsky was born. Moreover, Flammarion was foreign in more ways than one, i.e., also in the sense of ‘‘alien’’: in Soviet Russia the astronomer was decried as a mystic and irrationalist (Vinogradov 1935; Perel’ 1962; Seleshnikov 1966). Thus, the incorporation of this name into Brodsky’s poem is not accidental. Overall, the geography of the poem is completely neutral: Brodsky compares the two lovers to shadows generated by the same fire-like planet in the sky. But the title-induced association of ‘‘Flammarion’’ suggests that Brodsky sees these lovers not only through the lens of an astronomer, but also through an alien and foreign lens; in contrast, Khodasevich’s speaker seems to view his experience from an ancient rather than explicitly foreign perspective.

118

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources

To summarize, Brodsky changed or modified the semantic aura of anti-RD established by his predecessors. Of course, individual poems he wrote in this rhythm sporadically use these predecessors’ same motifs. For example, in ‘‘Twenty Sonnets to Mary Queen of Scots,’’ anti-RD appears in a description of a deformed body (i.e., the beheaded Queen Mary); likewise, the speaker of ‘‘In Front of the Monument to A. S. Pushkin in Odessa,’’ who vomits in the snow, is experiencing a hangover, recalling the ‘‘alcohol theme’’ of anti-RD in Tsvetaeva and Bely: Grek na felju´ke uxodı´l v Pire´j porozˇnjako´m. I sta´jka upyre´j vyva´livalas’ iz sramny´x dvere´j, kak cˇe´rnyj par, na vy´ucˇennyj naizu´st’ bul’va´r. I ja tam byl, i ja tam v sneg bleva´l. (Brodskii 2001, 2: 338–339) ‘A Greek man in a felucca was leaving for Piraeus / with an empty load. And a band of ghouls / came pouring out of shameful doors, / like black steam, / onto a boulevard known by heart. / And I was there, and I puked into the snow.’

However, none of the themes discussed above as associated by Bely and Tsvetaeva with anti-RD appear consistently in all of Brodsky’s poems with this rhythm; in contrast, from 1964 on, the aura or circumstances of exile, whether literal or metaphorical, does characterize all of them. The association of anti-RD with exile and foreignness Brodsky created was not based on what this rhythm meant for his predecessors. Nor did the exact location where Tsvetaeva’s and Khodasevich’s anti-RD texts were composed seem crucial for Brodsky: all of Khodasevich’s poems were completed in Russia, and as mentioned above, most of Tsvetaeva’s as well. Instead, we may speculate that Brodsky’s decision to make anti-RD the rhythm of exile and foreignness was influenced primarily by the life circumstances of these poets. Both Tsvetaeva and Khodasevich left Soviet Russia in 1922 (Malmstad and Hughes 1983: 471; Shveitser 2002: 581). Thus, Brodsky could have adopted their rhythm for two reasons simultaneously. He may have chosen to speak Tsvetaeva’s and Khodasevich’s rhythmic language because in Norenskaia he identified his own exile with theirs. At the same time, the fact that Tsvetaeva and Khodasevich were

3.6.

Conclusion

119

exiled abroad could have suggested to Brodsky that their rhythm is also suitable for creating foreign-flavored verse. Also possibly leading Brodsky to interpret anti-RD as ‘‘foreign’’ were the circumstances in which he first encountered this rhythm. According to Shul’ts (2000), Brodsky read Tsvetaeva’s poetry in Contemporary Notes in the summer and fall of 1961, while the first collected edition of Tsvetaeva’s works to be published in the USSR (Selected Works) was printed between 5 October and 15 October 1961 (Efron 2004: 137–140). It is likely that Brodsky saw anti-RD poems in the e´migre´ journal before the Russian volume appeared, in which case the medium through which he was first exposed to this rhythm – a foreign journal – may have a¤ected his perception of its meaning. The above suggestion regarding the influence of medium on Brodsky’s interpretation of rhythm is only one of several possible scenarios. But whichever circumstances led Brodsky to make his rhythmic choice, there is no doubt that the exile aspect of Tsvetaeva’s and Khodasevich’s biographies captivated his imagination, and likely was the most striking feature of these poets’ personae from the young Brodsky’s point of view. In fact, Brodsky’s fascination with exile and emigration while still living in the USSR is explicitly acknowledged in one of his interviews: As for Russian culture abroad as a whole, then naturally we didn’t know the details . . . but what did reach us bore – and this is remarkable, and herein lies the merit of the iron curtain – a timeless quality. That is, in my view it had something of the quality of an absolute (Volkov 1998: 178).

3.6. Conclusion The analysis of Brodsky’s anti-RD proposed here sheds light on the meaning of the poet’s own statement about meter: ‘‘[Meters] start to hum in one’s head – partly because they have been used by somebody one has just read; mostly, however, because they are themselves equivalents of certain mental states’’ (Brodsky 1986: 325–326). Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm did not typically echo any concrete elements from the poems he read; rather, the unusual form reflected his ‘‘mental state’’ – the state of a poet viewing reality from the standpoint of a foreigner and exile. Such a viewpoint is not surprising to anyone familiar with Brodsky’s interviews, and with scholarship on Brodsky generally (Polukhina 1989; Kline 1990;

120

Brodsky’s anti-RD rhythm: semantics and sources

Bethea 1994).29 What is surprising, though, is that the poet encodes this attitude rhythmically in ways that many readers might find di‰cult to detect. But what made Brodsky’s experiment possible in the first place? Why did he succeed in transforming the meaning and function of anti-RD that characterized the verse of his sources? After all, the auras of poetic form are usually not easily altered. For example, as Wachtel argues convincingly, the meter of a limerick, associated with humorous verse, cannot be used in a love poem without rendering a declaration of love insincere: the semantic aura of the limerick meter would of necessity induce Englishspeaking readers to perceive the text as a joke.30 But the status of anti-RD in Russian versification is other than that of the limerick in English. In explaining the di‰culties of changing the semantics of form, Wachtel refers to the fact that forms create ‘‘a century of firm expectations’’ (Wachtel 1998: 4); but expectations about anti-RD are neither century-long nor firm. The place of this rhythm in the history of Russian versification is quite marginal, and when Brodsky e¤ected his alteration of anti-RD semantics in the 1960s, he was at a remove of only sixty years from the rhythm’s first experimenter Andrei Bely. The analysis of Brodsky’s anti-RD now allows us to return to Brodsky’s translations and English stylizations discussed at the beginning of this chapter. As it turns out, not every seemingly ‘‘English-flavored’’ device in Brodsky’s repertoire is actually close to English verse: in the case of antiRD, the poet simply employs a non-traditional Russian form. If we were to encounter Brodsky’s Russian renderings of Donne without knowing the history and origins of anti-RD, we might be puzzled by Brodsky’s strategy

29. Brodsky’s statement in an interview with Miriam Gross published under the title ‘‘Born in Exile’’ is typical in this respect: ‘‘I suppose I developed this attitude quite some time ago while still in Russia. Because when I used to leave my house, my desk, and go on to the street, I encountered people who were in many ways much more foreign than if I’d gone, say, to Brazil – foreign to what I’d been doing. They were true strangers, and it was compounded by the fact that they spoke the same language. Living in a foreign country is no news once you’ve lived in Russia’’ (Gross 1981: 41). 30. Similarly, the Russian amphibrachic meter has been strongly associated with the themes of jealousy and revenge ever since Zhukovsky and Pushkin (Wachtel 1998: 20–58), a fact subsequent generations of poets are forced to take into account.

3.6.

Conclusion

121

as a translator: after all, his rhythmic choice, though ‘‘non-Russian,’’ does not approximate English verse either. Yet it seems that Brodsky’s goal was not to imitate English, but rather to seek out like-minded readers in Russia. By appropriating the unusual rhythms of Russian authors in exile for his translations and imitations of English verse, Brodsky in essence defined his ideal reader: one who, as Brodsky in his time had done, perused clandestine or semi-forbidden editions of Tsvetaeva or Khodasevich, and who could hear that same ‘‘foreign’’ rhythmic echo Brodsky had heard himself.

Conclusion This study has focused especially on demonstrating the value of formal analysis for contemporary literary studies. Formal approaches indeed produce illuminating insights regarding the geneses of texts and the meaning of artistic innovation. But how might the investigation of Brodsky’s foreign accent be of use to a linguist interested in natural language? What is the relationship between this unusual literary experiment and Russian phonology or lexicon? Hanson and Kiparsky have suggested (1996) that languages select meters optimal for their respective phonological systems. Although Brodsky’s experiment deals with innovation in rhythm rather than meter, Kiparsky and Hanson’s proposal is equally applicable to this study; how natural, then, was Brodsky’s English-flavored experiment for the Russian language? Ostensibly, it was not natural at all. For example, Brodsky’s elision, like that of Donne in English, is tied to the notion of syllable shape, whereas in the phonology of Russian stress, unlike that of English, syllable shape plays no active role. Russian stress is assigned lexically, and while its placement within a paradigm is systematic, overall stress can fall on any syllable irrespective of shape (Halle and Vergnaud 1990; Kasatkin 2003; Timberlake 2004). However, though Brodsky’s rule pertains to a phenomenon inactive in the phonology of stress, this rule does not contradict the phonology of the language. Applying elision across sonorants, for instance, Brodsky simply makes use of a universal phonetic property, i.e., the fact that vowel-sonorant transitions are less disruptive and more vowel-like than vowel-obstruent transitions (Zuraw 2003). Moreover, the crucial factor enabling Brodsky to create poetic elision in the first place is the presence of vowel reduction in Russian, i.e., the poet is simply applying additional constraints to what is already a fundamental property of the language. Likewise, there is nothing unnatural or ‘‘non-Russian’’ about Brodsky’s (nor, for that matter, Bely’s, Tsvetaeva’s, and Khodasevich’s) heavyending anti-RD rhythm. Russian verse theorists have calculated that a hypothetical poet, utilizing the entire vocabulary of the Russian language and not guided by any particular rhythmic preferences, would likely produce heavy-ending anti-RD lines in 26.6 percent of instances (see Tomashevskii 1929; Gasparov 1980: 4–5; Kolmogorov 1968: 152). This is quite comparable to the frequency of the traditional Russian rhythmic type, i.e.,

Conclusion

123

lines with stress omission in the penultimate foot (29.5 percent).1 The fact that heavy-ending anti-RD rhythm became less frequent in actual verse than the traditional alternating type is simply a matter of poetic convention or historical accident. But nothing in principle makes this rhythm ‘‘non-Russian,’’ just as there is nothing fundamentally ‘‘non-Russian’’ about elision. Thus, in creating his ‘‘foreign-flavored’’ rhythm, Brodsky coined possible Russian forms, di¤ering cardinally in this regard from Russian avant-garde poets like Aleksei Kruchenykh. The latter, for example, in his famous ‘‘trans-sense’’ poem ‘‘Dyr bul shchyl’’ allows a soft consonant shch to be followed by the central vowel y instead of the permissible front vowel i. Kruchenykh violates the rules of Russian phonotactics; Brodsky does not. It may be tempting to ask: why, ultimately, did Brodsky create his English-flavored rules in the first place? The question is especially relevant with regard to elision: did the poet introduce it because of its closeness to Donne’s prosody, or because elision is rooted in Russian vowel reduction? Of course, there may be more than one reason. Indeed, the uniqueness and complexity of Brodsky’s invention lie precisely in his ability to satisfy several independent requirements at once (Friedberg 2002a): on the one hand, Brodsky creates a rule that is strikingly reminiscent of English, but at the same time, the rule is also based on Russian phonological processes. The relationship between Brodsky’s rhythm and natural language is not the only issue that merits linguists’ attention. This study also raises questions about the role and meaning of abstractness in language and in verse. Linguistic analyses di¤er with respect to how much abstractness they allow in the description of languages (Kiparsky 1973; Dresher 1981; Odden 2005; Bakovic 2009), and abstractness itself can be understood in a variety of ways. In this study, abstractness has been understood as a condition by which a rule ‘‘ignores’’ syllables for metrical purposes, even if these syllables are not deleted in speech. In his seminal discussion of linguistic abstractness, Kiparsky (1973) uses the term to refer to features that do not surface in the synchronic phonology of a language, but are used merely for the analysis of particular linguistic phenomena. Kiparsky (1973) considered this type of abstractness to be problematic, and di‰cult for language learners to acquire. But at the same time, Kiparsky does support the use of abstract templates to describe poetic meter (Kiparsky 1975, 1977, 2006), i.e., in this latter instance, abstractness is understood 1. For more on theoretical iambs, see Gasparov 1980, Tomashevskii 1929: 4–5; Kolmogorov 1968: 152.

124

Conclusion

not as the abstractness of features or segments, but as an expectation of rhythmic regularity that is not necessarily realized. A full discussion of the meaning of abstractness in natural language phonology is beyond the scope of this book, but if we stipulate that at least some degree of abstractness in linguistics be allowed, an interesting di¤erence between natural language and verse emerges. In non-literary contexts, speakers can share abstract rules regardless of these speakers’ attitude to the interlocutor or the subtlety of their utterances. Consider, for example, the English stress rule. The rule assumes that the last syllable in nouns is ‘‘skipped’’ for the purposes of computing stress, with stress falling on the penultimate syllable if it is heavy, or antepenultimate otherwise (Chomsky and Halle 1968). Although this rule is not abstract in Kiparsky’s (1975) sense, it is in the sense that the ‘‘skipped’’ last syllable is not deleted in speech. Moreover, every English speaker – of whatever level of education or verbal sophistication – uses this rule, stressing the word CI-ne-ma for instance on the first syllable (rather than second or third). Verse, a form of artfully constructed language, is di¤erent in this respect, since a poet can choose to employ metrically abstract constructs or not. As shown in Chapter 2, Brodsky often opts for abstract elision, which, though rooted in natural language vowel reduction, is nevertheless abstract insofar as the syllable discounted for meter is not physically deleted in recitation. But elision does not have to be abstract in this way; Brodsky’s contemporary Andrei Voznesensky prefers non-abstractness, deleting vowels in his meter in the same way one does in colloquial speech. Of course, the choice to engage in metrical abstractness may not be consciously understood by the poets themselves; as Brodsky told David Bethea: ‘‘Even if there is a system in what I do, I understand it only after the fact’’ (Polukhina 2000: 547). But at the intuitive level, perhaps, poets can sense that some poetic rules are ‘‘closer to speech’’ than others, and they can choose which rules to follow. The supposition that Brodsky’s abstract rules are applied not entirely by accident may have interesting implications for literary and cultural analysis, since such a proposal might help explain the di¤erences among poets of Brodsky’s generation. Brodsky’s contemporary Aleksandr Kushner once stated that Leningrad poets such as Brodsky saw themselves as writing ‘‘mainly for [an] unknown reader, for an inconceivable reader, perhaps in the future’’ (MacFadyen 2000: 22), and drew a sharp distinction between themselves and the poets of Moscow (e.g., Voznesensky and Yevtushenko), many of whom gave stadium readings and sought to bring verse to ‘‘the masses’’ (see Chapter 2; Friedberg 2009a). Of course, not all poets of

Conclusion

125

these two cities match Kushner’s Moscow/Leningrad dichotomy. But his formulation does suggest that poets such as Brodsky aimed to appeal to a narrow, exclusive audience, the circle of the erudite, the like-minded, and ‘‘the inconceivable’’ – those who memorized the same texts and read the same rare, forbidden or semi-forbidden publications as the poet himself. It is therefore not surprising that Brodsky preferred abstract rules and hidden methods for foreign stylization, since these rules and methods are more likely to be sensed by the educated and the few. The seemingly minute patterns of rhythm discovered in this study thus turn out to be of primary significance, for they allow us to pose new questions about poets, their art, and their audience – questions that await further consideration. Do poets oriented toward the few tend to favor abstract rules? Do poets oriented toward ‘‘the crowd’’ tend to avoid abstractness, preferring speech-based (or ‘‘prosodic’’ [Kiparsky 1977]) rules instead? How exactly can one apply the distinction between rule-makers and rule-breakers, proposed in Chapter 2, to poets besides Brodsky and Slutsky? Is Tsvetaeva a rule-maker or rule-breaker? Which is Donne? And does not every artist combine a little bit of each? It seems likely that the theoretical concepts of rule-making, rule-breaking, and metrical abstractness should have relevance beyond poetics and metrics, and shed light on the general mechanisms of creativity. But in what way?

Appendix I.

Changes from Brodsky’s drafts to final versions

E – elision; S – standard rhythm. Poem

Earlier drafts

Final version

‘‘Zagadka angelu’’ [Riddle for an angel]

S

E

‘‘Novye stansy k Avguste’’ [New stanzas to Augusta]

E

E

‘‘Muzhchina, zasypaiushchii odin’’ [A man falling asleep alone]

E

E

‘‘1 sentiabria 1939 goda’’ [1 September 1939]

E

E

‘‘Posviashchaetsia Ialte’’ [Homage to Yalta]

E

E

Translation of Richard Wilbur, ‘‘The Agent’’

E

E

‘‘Pered pamiatnikom A. S. Pushkinu v Odesse’’ [In front of the monument to A. S. Pushkin in Odessa]

E

E

‘‘Meksikanskii divertisment. Zametka dlia entsiklopedii’’ [Mexican divertimento. Encyclopedia entry]

E

E

‘‘Piazza Mattei’’

S

E

‘‘Mukha’’ [The fly]

E

S

‘‘Mukha’’ [The fly]

S

E

‘‘Mukha’’ [The fly]

E

E

‘‘Mukha’’ [The fly]

S

E

‘‘Mukha’’ [The fly]

S

E

‘‘Mukha’’ [The fly]

E

E

‘‘Mukha’’ [The fly]

E

E

‘‘Arkhitektura’’ [Architecture]

E

E

‘‘Arkhitektura’’ [Architecture]

E

E

‘‘Arkhitektura’’ [Architecture]

E

E

‘‘Ritratto di Donna’’

E

E

Only complete manuscripts were considered, i.e., those that contain the sought-for stanza that, in the published version, features elision; or an equivalent stanza in which elision was eventually introduced. Incomplete manuscripts were ignored (e.g., ‘‘Biust Tiberiia’’ [The bust of Tiberius],

Appendix I.

Changes from Brodsky’s drafts

127

‘‘Ia pozabyl tebia, no pomniu shtukaturku’’ [I seem to have forgotten you, but I remember the plaster), and some manuscripts could not be located (e.g., ‘‘Peschanye kholmy, porosshie sosnoi’’ [Sand hills overgrown with pines], ‘‘Nichem, Pevets, tvoi iubilei’’ [In no way, Bard, your anniversary], ‘‘Reki’’ [Rivers]). A total of twenty lines were considered, of which fourteen (70 percent) exhibited elision both in manuscript (or at least, in one of the manuscripts) and published versions. Among the remaining six lines, only one instance occurred in which elision in the manuscript was changed to standard rhythm in the published version, while, in five cases, standard rhythm in the manuscript was changed to elision in the published version.

Appendix II.

100 randomly-selected words with the shape -Xxx- in the prose of Brodsky, Slutsky, and Donne1

Brodsky, Puteshestvie v Stambul [A journey to Istanbul] -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’) 2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other syllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

RAZ-

nicˇes-

ca

1

ideolo-GIrassto-JA-

ni-

je

SKA-

zan-

nyje

nak-LAprodol-ZˇE-

dy-

vajemogo

1

1

1

nicˇes-

ja koj

1

1

klima-TI-

1 1

civili-ZA-

ci-

i

1

1

1

POD-

lin-

nyje

1

1

TU-

pos-

ti

ˇ Eprevra-SˇC

nicˇes-

je

metafi-ZIPIS-

men-

nosti

vospri-JA-

ti-

je

VREvno-SJA-

mesˇcˇecˇes-

ni [v]o

nicˇes-

ja

individualis-TIsusˇcˇestvo-VAcˇelo-VE-

1

ki

1 1

1 1

1

1

kogo

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1 1

1 1

kij koje

1

1 1

1

1 1

1. Due to Russian vowel reduction, after soft consonants, /e/ and /a/ are generally pronounced as the short high vowel [I] (Timberlake 2004: 44–46). For this reason, unstressed /e/ and /a/ after soft consonants are counted as high vowels in Appendix II, despite the fact that transliteration therein does not reflect the occurrence of vowel reduction.

Appendix II

129

Brodsky (Continued) -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’)

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other syllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

bro-DJA-

sˇcˇe-

je

1

1

1

razu-ME-

ju

1

1

1

o-TE-

nicˇes-

tvo

1

rasprostra-NJAPLOS-

jutka-

sja ja

1 1

1

za-GLJA-

dy-

vat’

1

1

1

iz-VEST-

je

1

1

1

lingvis-TI-

nycˇes-

za-VJA-

zy-

vat’

1

1

1

sovre-MEN-

ny-

mi

1

1

1

BE-

ly-

je

1

1

1

na-VER-

notocˇ-

je

1

1

dos-TAVOZSLUpute-SˇES-

rascˇa-

ki

1

no te je

1 1

1

1

1

1

nik

po-KA-

tvenzˇet-

sja

1

ZA-

per-

tom

1

vpecˇat-LE-

ni-

je

1

NE-

ko-

torom

1

proisxo-DJA-

sˇcˇe-

mu

1

otkry-VA-

ju-

sˇcˇejsja

1

MYSvyra-ZˇE-

len-

nomu

ni-

ja

vni-MA-

ni-

SLU-

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

je

1

1

1

cˇa-

je

1

1

1

po-NJA-

ti-

je

1

1

1

ME-

ne-

je

1

1

1

130

Appendix II

Brodsky (Continued) -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’)

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other syllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

na-DU-

man-

nost’ju

o-BE-

sˇcˇan-

noj

NO-

vu-

ju

ne-MED-

len-

no

VOZ-

du-

xu

1

interpret-TA-

ci-

jej

1

1

2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

mak-SI-

mo-

vym

1

1

pos-LED-

ni-

je

1

1

1

metro-PO-

li-

i

1

1

1

ras-SMA-

tri-

val

1

1

1

korotko-NO-

gi-

je

1

1

1

pri-PI-

sy-

vajemyx

1

1

1

RIM-

ski-

je

1

1

1

po-E-

zi-

i

1

1

ot-NO-

sit-

sja

1

muzˇe-LO-

zˇes-

tve

1

pro-RO

cˇes-

tvo

1

pere-KI-

dy-

vajuscˇijesja

1

1

1

konsis-TEN-

ci-

i

1

1

1

GE-

ni-

jem

1

1

1

RA-

ven-

stva

STRAN-

na-

ja

1

pokry-VA-

ju-

sˇcˇej

1

raz-GLJA-

dy-

vajet

1

1

po-E-

to-

mu

1

1

NO-

vo-

[v]o

1

1

prirav-NJAV-

sˇa-

ja

1

1

1

1 1 1 1

Appendix II

131

Brodsky (Continued) -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’)

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other syllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

zˇe-LA-

ni-

je

1

1

1

nazy-VA-

je-

moj

1

1

1

ruko-VOD-

stvo-

valsja

1

1

kongeni-AL’-

nost-

ju

U-

li-

cam

1

1

DOS-

tu-

pom

1

1

ovos-TO-

cˇit-

sja

blagopri-JAT-

nu-

ju

1

1

mas-SIV-

na-

ja

1

1

pri-DU-

mav-

sˇij

ko-TO-

ro-

[v]o

1

1

CAR-

stvo-

vanij

1

1

cˇelo-VEotno-SˇE-

cˇes-

komu

ni-

je

1

1

1

pute-SˇEST-

tvi-

i

1

1

1

I-

men-

no

1

1

ˇ Eisklju-C

ni-

jem

1

1

1

ko-TO-

ro-

[v]o

1

1

POD-

dan-

nyx

zˇi-VOT-

no-

[v]o

1

1

MI-

ni-

mum

1

1

GRE-

cˇes-

koje

naz-VA-

ni-

je

1

1

pereime-NO-

va-

na

1

1

DOL-

la-

ry

1

1

prevra-TIV-

sˇij-

sja

1

1 1

1

1 1 1 1

1

132

Appendix II

Slutsky’s, O drugikh i o sebe [About others and myself] -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’)

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other syllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

PER-

va-

ja

1

1

memu-ARˇsto-LIC

ny-

je

1

1

1

ny-

je

1

1

1

podra-ZˇA-

ni-

ja

1

1

1

LY-

si-

na

1

1

1

predse-DA-

te-

lja

1

1

1

rozˇ-DE-

ni-

je

1

1

1

vy-SKA-

zy-

valsja

1

1

1

jurispru-DEN-

ci-

ja

1

1

1

skrep-LJAˇ ICkul’-C

ju-

scˇego

1

ko-

[v]o

1

to-VA-

ri-

sˇcˇami

1

litera-TUR-

no-

[v]o

1

1

kom-PAˇ UVC

ni-

i

1

1

stvo-

vali

1

1

O-

si-

pa

1

1

i-MU-

sˇcˇe-

stvo

1

1

BA-

be-

lja

1

PI-

sˇu-

sˇcˇaja

1

KOM-

na-

tax

1

O-

pi-

si

1

ˇPROC

na-

ja

1

1

TRANS-

por-

tom

nastro-JE-

ni-

je

1

1

MA-

tusˇ-

ke

1 1 1

1

1

1 1 1

1 1

Appendix II

133

Slutsky’s (Continued) -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’)

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other syllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

pi-SA-

te-

lej

1

1

1

pri-JAT-

no-

je

1

1

radiokompo-ZI-

ci-

ja

1

1

1

udo-VOL’-

stvi-

em

1

1

1

so-BY-

ti-

ja

1

1

1

VY-

tolk-

nuli

1

PLO-

scˇa-

di

1

ne-VI-

di-

maja

1

1

ne-MNO-

go-

je

1

1

OB-

ra-

zom

1

repu-TA-

ci-

ju

1

1

DU-

ma-

la

1

1

GLAV-

ny-

je

1

1

1

1 1

1

ME-

sjacˇ-

nogo

1

1

I-

men-

no

1

1

po-DAV-

len-

nost’

1

1

za-KA-

zan-

nuju

1

o-PRAV-

dy-

vat’

1

1

1

pri-JEM-

le-

mym

1

1

1

xo-ZJA-

i-

na

1

1

1

LO-

sˇa-

di

1

DET-

sko-

je

1

1

otde-LIVproisxo-ZˇDE-

sˇe-

jesja

1

1

1

ni-

ji

1

1

1

FI-

zi-

kam

1

1

GOS-

pi-

tal’

1

1

134

Appendix II

Slutsky’s (Continued) -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’)

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other syllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

vy-STRA-

i-

valsja

1

1

1

stixotvo-RE-

ni-

i

1

1

1

DEJ-

stvi-

ja

1

1

1

STALSZˇA-

ki-

valos’

1

1

1

ty-

je

1

1

1

AV-

to-

rom

1

1

NRA-

vit-

sja

gri-GORˇ ICkul’-C

je-

vicˇu

1

1

ko-

[v]o

1

1

polumet-RO-

vu-

ju

1

1

sredneazi-AT-

sko-

[v]o

1

1

NES-

kol’-

ko

o-BI-

del-

sja

o-SYP-

let-

sja

niko-LA-

je-

vicˇ

LE-

nin-

skoj

1

nabi-RA-

jut-

sja

1

ga-LAKˇ UVso-C

ti-

ki

stven-

nym

jeli-SE-

je-

vicˇem

RUSˇ ATSˇC

sku-

ju

tel’-

no

mos-KOV-

sko-

[v]o

poe-TI-

cˇes-

kuju

XLEB-

ni-

kov

1

mar-TY-

no-

va

1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1 1 1

Appendix II

135

Slutsky’s (Continued) -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’)

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other syllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

po-SLU-

sˇa-

ju

1

1

fo-TO

gra-

fov

1

ras-SKA

zy-

val

1

1

NES-

kol’-

ko

MAR-

tov-

skix

DU-

ma-

jete

1

1

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

1

ocˇer-NI-

tel’-

stve

1

KA-

zˇet-

sja

1

otno-SˇE-

ni-

i

1

1

1

ne-DOL-

gi-

je

1

1

1

dokto-RAL’-

no-

e

1

1

me-DA-

lja-

mi

1

1

1

nadzi-RA-

te-

lej

1

1

1

iz-DA-

ni-

je

1

1

1

LA-

ger-

nyx

1

1

niko-LA-

je-

vicˇ

1

1

1

ras-SA-

zˇi-

vali

1

1

1

PER-

vo-

je

1

1

PLA-

vil-

sja

ne-MA-

ly-

je

iro-NI-

cˇes-

koe

sja-

cˇi

tan-

nyj

TYˇ Ina-C

1 1

1

1 1

1

1 1

136

Appendix II

Donne, Sermons (Donne 1952) Vowel height of first post-tonic syllables was determined based on transcriptions provided in Mu¨ller’s (1953) dictionary, which most likely served as Brodsky’s source on English pronunciation. -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’)

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other syllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

ca-LA-

mi-

ties

1

par-TI-

cu-

lar

1

1

AGG-

ra-

vating

1

1

ac-CU-

mu-

late

1

1

1

CHEER-

ful-

ness

1

1

me-CHA-

ni-

cal

1

im-PO-

ve-

rish

1

1

MUR-

mu-

ring

1

1

PRE-

ce-

dency

1

in-GLO-

ri-

ously

1

FEL-

low-

ship

PRO-

fi-

table

1

un-SEA-

so-

nable

1

1

E-

ne-

my

1

1

1

as-SIS-

tan-

ces

E-

ne-

mies

1

1

1

SPEC-

ta-

cles

1

OR-

di-

nary

1

1

1

pros-PE-

ri-

ty

1

TEN-

der-

ness

CON-

scien-

ces

MUL-

ti-

plied

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1

1

Appendix II

137

Donne (Continued) -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’) 2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other syllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

sim-PLI-

ci

ty

1

1

PRO-

sti

tuted

1

1

sig-NI-

fi-

cative

1

1

HE-

mi-

spheres

1

1

CHEER-

ful-

ness

tem-PES

tu-

ously

1

an-TI-

qui-

ty

1

IN-

fa-

mous

1

1

CA-

bi-

net

1

1

1

in-GRE-

di-

ent

1

1

1

SPEC-

ta

cles

1

E-

le-

ments

1

1

1

in-DUS-

tri-

ous

1

1

1

RE-

ve-

rence

1

1

in-ES-

ti-

mable

1

1

insup-POR-

ta-

bleness

1

WON-

der-

ful

SA-

vour-

less

SUF-

fe-

ring

1

cos-MO-

gra-

phers

1

COM-

li-

ness

1

1

TES-

ta-

ment

1

1

CA-

bi-

net

1

1

E-

qua-

lly

1

1

TES-

ti-

mony

1

1

GLO-

ri-

fied

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

138

Appendix II

Donne (Continued) -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’) 2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other syllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

IN-

tri-

cated

1

FRAU-

du-

lent

1

BLES-

sed-

ness

in-TEL

li-

gence

1

SIN-

gu-

lar

1

SA-

tis-

fied

E-

ne-

my

1

1

1

GLO-

ri-

ous

1

1

1

SA-

vi-

our

1

1

1

SPI-

ri-

tual

1

1

1

MI-

se-

rable

1

1

TES-

ti-

fied

1

1

in-TER-

pre-

ting

1

1

E-

xo-

dus

1

LI-

te-

rally

1

1

neces-SA

ri-

ly

1

1

1

BLAS-

phe-

mous

1

1

1

CRI-

ti-

cal

1

1

verissi-MIL-

li-

tude

1

1

i-NA-

ni-

mated

1

CON-

sti-

tutes

1

a-BUN-

dan-

tly

par-TI-

cu-

lar

THO-

rough-

ly

COM-

pa-

ny

1

1

FIRM-

ma-

ment

1

1

1 1

1

1

1 1

1

1 1

1

1

1 1

1 1

1

Appendix II

139

Donne (Continued) -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’)

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other syllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

SAC-

ra-

ment

1

1

RIGH-

tious-

ness

fa-CI-

li-

ty

1

1

pro-XI-

mi-

ty

1

1

SE-

ri-

ous

1

1

A-

mo-

rous

1

1

incon-SI-

der-

able

e-VA-

po-

rated

1

1

GLO-

ri-

ousness

1

1

1

TES-

ti-

monies

1

1

1

IN-

fi-

nitely

1

1

1

in-FIR-

mi-

ties

1

ever-LAS-

ting-

ness

in-EX-

o-

rable

1

LAN-

gui-

shing

1

1

MUL-

ti-

plied

1

1

AB-

sti-

nence

1

PU-

nish-

ment

ma-TE-

ri-

al

li-CEN-

tious-

ness

im-MO-

de-

rate

ca-LA-

mi-

ties

1

irre-CO-

ve-

rably

1

1

MO-

nar-

chy

FU-

ne-

rals

1

1

con-VE-

xi-

ties

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1 1

1

Appendix III.

Words with the shape -Xxx- in elision positions in the verse of Donne, Brodsky, and Slutsky

Brodsky -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’) 2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other syllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

vzdy-MA-

ju-

sˇcˇejesja

1

STJA-

gi-

vajet

1

1

1

SLE-

du-

jet

1

1

1

ob-RO-

nen-

nuju

1

1

MNO-

gi-

je

1

1

1

VZDRA-

gi-

vajet

1

1

1

ko-PI-

ru-

jemoj

1

1

1

cˇe-TYR-

nad-

catogo

allju-MI-

ni-

jevyj

1

1

1

JA-

sˇe-

rica

1

1

1

VY-

i-

gral

1

OP-

ro-

met’ju

1

1

ˇ IVslu-C

sˇe-

[v]osja

1

1

1

pos-LED-

stvi-

i

1

1

1

SVJA-

zy-

vat’sja

1

1

1

pod-SO-

vy-

vajetsja

1

1

1

ras-PLAˇ ERpod-C

cˇi-

vat’sja

1

1

1

ki-

vaja

1

1

1

sosredo-TO-

cˇi-

vajetsja

1

1

1

1

1

Appendix III

141

Brodsky (Continued) -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’)

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other syllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

sme-SˇAV-

sˇa-

jasja

1

1

MAˇ UVpo-C

to-

vaja

1

1

stvu-

jesˇ’

1

1

1

za-IG-

ry-

vajesˇ’

1

1

1

za-VI-

du-

jusˇcˇaja

1

1

1

VA-

ku-

uma

1

1

1

ot-KA-

zy-

vajusˇcˇej

1

1

1

ob-RU-

sˇi-

vajetsja

1

1

1

os-TAV-

sˇe-

jesja

1

1

1

SI-

do-

rove

1

1

Slutsky -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’)

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other syllables

VZDROG-

nuv-

sˇuju

SPRA-

sˇi-

SPRA-

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

vajetsja

1

1

1

sˇi-

vajetsja

1

1

1

NE-

ko-

toryje

1

SLE-

do-

vatelja

1

sˇcˇi-TA-

ju-

sˇcˇim

1

1

1 1

142

Appendix III

Slutsky (Continued) -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’)

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other syllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

po-VI-

di-

momu

1

1

1

PRO-

vo-

locˇnoje

1

1

VY-

i-

grysˇnaja

1

XO-

cˇet-

sja

do-PRA-

sˇi-

vajetsja

1

O-

bu-

xa

1

1 1 1

1 1

VY-

de-

lilis’

1

1

is-POL’-

zo-

vanijem

1

1

ra-BO-

ta-

jusˇcˇije

1

1

O-

cˇe-

red’

1

1

ze-LE-

no-

[v]o

1

1

sta-RUSˇ-

ko-

ju

1

1

RA-

do-

vat’sja

1

1

1

1

Donne -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’)

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other s yllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

dis-CO-

ve-

rers

1

1

SPE-

cu-

lar

1

1

1

u-SU-

ri-

ous

1

1

1

Appendix III

143

Donne (Continued) -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’)

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other s yllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

my-STE-

ri-

ous

1

1

1

RE-

ve-

rend

1

1

WOR-

thi-

est

1

1

1

GLO-

ri-

ous

1

1

1

STEA-

di-

ly

1

1

1

SCAT-

te-

ring

1

1

en-TI-

re-

ness

1

1

VIR-

tu-

ous

1

1

1

IN-

flu-

ence

1

1

1

incon-SI-

de-

rate

1

1

transsub-STAN-

ti-

ates

1

1

1

SPI-

ri-

tual

1

1

1

ME-

di-

cine

1

pre-RO-

ga-

tives

1

i-DO-

la-

trie

1

in-CES-

tu-

ously

1

1

GE-

ne-

ral

1

1

WHIS-

pe-

ring

1

1

TRE-

che-

rously

1

1

WIN-

do-

wie

1

1

CU-

ri-

ous

1

1

1

VE-

ri-

er

1

1

1

VIR-

tu-

ous

1

1

1

ne-GO-

ti-

ate

1

1

1

IN-

flu-

ence

1

1

1

A-

the-

ist

1

1

1

1

1

144

Appendix III

Donne (Continued) -Xxx- word

Status (yes is indicated by ‘‘1’’)

Pretonic and stressed syllable

1st posttonic syllable

2nd posttonic and other s yllables

1st posttonic syllable is open (CV)

2nd posttonic syllable starts with sonorant

1st posttonic syllable is a high vowel

JE-

su-

its

1

1

1

PRI-

so-

ners

1

1

ter-REST-

ri-

al

1

1

1

my-STE-

ri-

ous

1

1

1

MU-

tu-

al

1

1

1

HAP-

pi-

est

1

1

1

MUR-

de-

rer

1

1

A-

the-

ists

1

1

SOR-

ro-

wing

1

1

1

Appendix IV. Statistical tests of words with the shape -Xxx- in poetry and prose (a) Percentage of words with the shape -Xxx- that obey two restrictions at once (i.e., the second post-tonic syllable starts with a sonorant and the first contains an open syllable) John Donne Elision positions in poetry

Prose (Sermons)

Prose (Letters [Donne 1952])

89.5% (34 of 38)

50.0% (50 of 100)

38.0% (38 of 100)

The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (Sermons) is significant (p ¼ 0.0000). The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (Letters) is significant (p ¼ 0.0000). Joseph Brodsky Elision positions in poetry

Prose (Puteshestvie v Stambul [A journey to Istanbul])

86.2% (25 of 29)

60.0% (60 of 100)

The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (A Journey to Istanbul ) is significant (p ¼ 0.0044). Boris Slutsky Elision positions in poetry

Prose (O drugikh i o sebe [About others and myself ])

68.4% (13 of 19)

60.0% (60 of 100)

The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (About Others and Myself ) is not significant (p ¼ 0.2448).

146

Appendix IV

(b) Percentage of words with the shape -Xxx- whose first post-tonic syllable is open (CV) John Donne Elision positions in poetry

Prose (Sermons)

Prose (Letters)

100.0% (38 of 38)

82.0% (82 of 100)

79.0% (79 of 100)

The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (Sermons) is significant (p ¼ 0.0025). The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (Letters) is significant (p ¼ 0.0011). Joseph Brodsky Elision positions in poetry

Prose (A Journey to Istanbul )

93.1% (27 of 29)

67.0% (67 of 100)

The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (A Journey to Istanbul ) is significant (p ¼ 0.0027). Boris Slutsky Elision positions in poetry

Prose (About Others and Myself )

89.5% (17 of 19)

76.0% (76 of 100)

The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (About Others and Myself ) is not significant (p ¼ 0.0963).

Appendix IV

147

(c) Percentage of words with the shape -Xxx- with a sonorant in the onset of the 2nd post-tonic syllable John Donne Elision positions in poetry

Prose (Sermons)

Prose (Letters)

89.5% (34 of 38)

61.0% (61 of 100)

45.0% (45 of 100)

The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (Sermons) is significant (p ¼ 0.0003). The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (Letters) is significant (p ¼ 0.0000).

Joseph Brodsky Elision positions in poetry

Prose (A Journey to Istanbul )

89.7% (26 of 29)

71.0% (71 of 100)

The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (A Journey to Istanbul ) is significant (p ¼ 0.0203).

Boris Slutsky Elision positions in poetry

Prose (About Others and Myself )

68.4% (13 of 19)

69.0% (69 of 100)

The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (About Others and Myself ) is not significant (p ¼ 0.4801).

148

Appendix IV

(d) Percentage of special words with the shape -Xxx- whose first post-tonic syllable contains a high vowel John Donne Elision positions in poetry

Prose (Sermons)

Prose (Letters)

63.2% (24 of 38)

64.0% (64 of 100)

65.0% (65 of 100)

The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (Sermons) is not significant (p ¼ 0.4634). The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (Letters) is not significant (p ¼ 0.4200).

Joseph Brodsky Elision positions in poetry

Prose (A Journey to Istanbul )

82.8% (24 of 29)

76.0% (76 of 100)

The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (A Journey to Istanbul ) is not significant (p ¼ 0.2214).

Boris Slutsky Elision positions in poetry

Prose (About Others and Myself )

57.9% (11 of 19)

71.0% (71 of 100)

The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (About Others and Myself ) is not significant (p ¼ 0.1290).

Appendix IV

149

(e) Among words with the shape -Xxx- that obey two restrictions at once (i.e., the second post-tonic syllable starts with a sonorant and the first contains an open syllable), we now look at the percentage that contains post-tonic high vowels John Donne Elision positions in poetry

Prose (Sermons)

Prose (Letters)

64.7% (22 of 34)

60.7% (31 of 50)

52.6% (20 of 38)

The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (Sermons) is not significant (p ¼ 0.3573). The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (Letters) is not significant (p ¼ 0.1498). Joseph Brodsky Elision positions in poetry

Prose (A Journey to Istanbul )

84.0% (21 of 25)

71.7% (43 of 60)

The di¤erence between elision positions in poetry vs. prose (A Journey to Istanbul ) is not significant (p ¼ 0.1148).

Appendix V.

Anti-RD rhythm in Brodsky’s iambic poems

In the tables below, the following conventions have been adopted: (a) Titles of poems violating Regressive Dissimilation are in boldface. (b) Figures given under ‘‘S2,’’ ‘‘S3,’’ ‘‘S4,’’ ‘‘S5,’’ and ‘‘S6’’ indicate the percentage of instances the given strong position is stressed. (c) ‘‘Lines’’ indicate the total number of lines (or certain types of lines) in the poem. (d) Titles and dates are as given in Komarov’s edition (Brodskii 2001). In cases of date discrepancies or omissions, the date ranges indicated are based on the chronologies of Polukhina and Losev (2006: 323–424) and Kulle (Brodskii 1992: 282–295). (e) For those poems having an English translation published by Farrar, Straus, and Giroux (e.g., Brodsky 1980, 1988, 1996, 2000, 2001), the existing English title (except in the case of ‘‘Pen’e bez muzyki’’ [Singing without music]) has been adopted and marked with three asterisks; remaining translations are by Nila Friedberg and Avram Brown, unless otherwise noted. (f ) Iambic trimeter and dimeter poems and lines are excluded from this accounting. (g) Cases of a poem comprising di¤erent line types (e.g., tetrameter and pentameter) of which only one type is counted are indicated via ‘‘I4 only’’ or ‘‘I5 only’’ (i.e., iambic tetrameter lines only, or iambic pentameter lines only).

IAMBIC TETRAMETER

S2

S3

S4

Lines

Year

BEFORE EXILE (1960–63) ‘‘Shestvie’’ [The procession], I4 only

100.0

59.2

100.0

103

1961

‘‘Prikhodit vremia sozhalenii’’ [There comes a time of regret]

96.9

15.6

100.0

32

1961

‘‘Tri glavy’’ [Three chapters]

97.1

23.5

100.0

68

1961

100.0

11.4

100.0

44

1961

97.7

32.9

100.0

596

1961

‘‘Pamiati E. A. Baratynskogo’’ [In memory of E. A. Baratynskii] ‘‘Peterburgskii roman’’ [Petersburg novel]

Appendix V

151

IAMBIC TETRAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC TETRAMETER

S2

‘‘Rozhdestvenskii romans’’ [Christmas ballad***]

100.0

‘‘Uzhe tri mesiatsa podriad’’ [For three months in a row now]

S4

Lines

Year

21.2

100.0

52

1961

100.0

17.9

100.0

28

1962

75.0

46.4

100.0

28

1962

100.0

71.9

100.0

65

1962

‘‘Zagadka angelu’’ [Riddle for an angel – gloss by Bethell, Brodsky 1967: 75–77]

39.1

68.8

100.0

64

1962

‘‘Utrenniaia pochta dlia A. A. Akhmatovoi iz g. Sestroretska’’ [A. A. Akhmatova’s morning mail from the city of Sestroretsk]

87.5

37.5

100.0

8

1962

‘‘Ne to Vam govoriu, ne to’’ [I’m telling you the wrong thing, the wrong thing]

70.8

54.2

100.0

24

1962

‘‘Chto vetru govoriat kusty?’’ [What do bushes say to the wind?], I4 only

75.0

75.0

100.0

8

1962

‘‘V semeinyi al’bom’’ [For a family album]

31.3

87.5

100.0

32

1962– 63

‘‘Derev’ia okruzhili prud’’ [The pond was surrounded by trees], I4 only

50.0

64.3

100.0

14

1963

‘‘Blestit zaliv, i vetr neset’’ [The bay is shining, and the wind carries]

50.0

87.5

100.0

8

1963

‘‘Iz ‘Starykh angliiskikh pesen’: Goriachaia izgorod’ ’’ [From ‘‘Old English songs’’: The hot fence], I4 only

100.0

66.7

100.0

12

1963

‘‘Iz ‘Starykh angliiskikh pesen’: Zimniaia svad’ba’’ [From ‘‘Old English songs’’: Winter wedding], I4 only

88.9

44.4

100.0

9

1963

‘‘Iz ‘Starykh angliiskikh pesen’: Zasporiat noch’iu mat’ s otsom’’ [From ‘‘Old English songs’’: A mother and father will start to quarrel at night], I4 only

87.5

93.9

100.0

16

1963

‘‘Proshel skvoz’ monastyrskii sad’’ [I passed through the monastery garden] ‘‘Otkuda k nam prishla zima’’ [Where the winter came to us from]

S3

152

Appendix V

IAMBIC TETRAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC TETRAMETER

S2

S3

S4

Lines

Year

‘‘Iz ‘Starykh angliiskikh pesen’: Zamerzshii povod zhzhet ladon’ ’’ [From ‘‘Old English songs’’: The frozen bridle burns your palm], I4 only

88.2

100.0

100.0

17

1963

‘‘V zamerzshem peske’’ [In frozen sand], I4 only

100.0

41.7

100.0

12

1963

‘‘Priliv’’ [High tide], I4 only

100.0

80.0

100.0

5

1963

75.0

31.3

100.0

16

1963

10.0

85.0

100.0

20

1964

100.0

12.5

100.0

8

1964

‘‘S grust’iu i s nezhnost’iu’’ [Sadly and tenderly – gloss Kline 1972: 452], I4 only

60.0

60.0

100.0

5

1964

‘‘On znal, chto eta bol’ v pleche’’ [He knew that this pain in his shoulder]

47.5

60.0

100.0

40

1964/ 1965

‘‘Vse dal’she ot tvoei strany’’ [Farther and farther from your country]

0.0

100.0

100.0

8

1964

‘‘Zabor pronzil podmerzshii nast’’ [The fence has pierced the snow’s lightlyfrozen crust], I4 only

87.5

25.0

100.0

8

1964

‘‘Gvozdika’’ [Carnation], I4 only

16.7

66.7

100.0

6

1964

‘‘Novye stansy k Avguste’’ [New stanzas to Augusta], I4 only

28.8

78.8

100.0

52

1964

‘‘Rumiantsevoi pobedam’’ [To the victories of Rumiantseva], I4 only

82.1

35.7

100.0

28

1964

‘‘Kak slavno vecherom v izbe’’ [How nice it is in the hut in the evening], I4 only

94.4

11.1

100.0

18

1965

‘‘Muzhchina, zasypaiushchii odin’’ [A man falling asleep alone], I4 only

15.4

100.0

100.0

13

1965

‘‘Stog sena i zagon ovechii’’ [The haystack and the sheepfold]

TRIAL AND EXILE TO NORENSKAIA (1964–65) ‘‘Sadovnik v vatnike, kak drozd’’ [A gardener in a quilted jacket, like a thrush] ‘‘Brozhu v redeiushchem lesu’’ [I am wandering in a thinning forest], I4 only

Appendix V

153

IAMBIC TETRAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC TETRAMETER ‘‘Sbegaiut kapli po steklu’’ [Drops run down the pane of glass]

S2

S3

S4

Lines

Year

100.0

75.0

100.0

4

1965

‘‘24.5.65 KP3’’ [24.5.65. KPZ]

72.7

72.7

100.0

11

1965

‘‘Flammarion,’’ I4 only

50.0

63.6

100.0

20

1965

‘‘Pervoe ianvaria, 1965 goda’’ [January 1, 1965***]

94.4

55.6

100.0

18

1965

‘‘Soznan’e, kak shestoi urok’’ [Consciousness, like a sixth lesson]

25.0

87.5

100.0

24

1960s

86.4

21.0

100.0

80

1969

100.0

66.7

100.0

6

1969

50.0

50.0

100.0

6

1969– 70

‘‘Pen’e bez muzyki’’ [Singing without music – gloss Smith 1999b]

22.9

89.8

100.0

244

1970

‘‘Litovskii divertisment’’ [Lithuanian divertissement***], I4 only

82.9

40.0

100.0

35

1971

‘‘Nichem, Pevets, tvoi iubilei’’ [In no way, Bard, your anniversary]

89.5

48.7

100.0

76

1970

‘‘Muzhik i enot’’ [The muzhik and the raccoon], I4 only

83.3

33.3

100.0

6

1970

‘‘Na 22–e dekabria 1970 goda Iakovu Gordinu ot Iosifa Brodskogo’’ [On 22 December 1970 to Iakov Gordin from Iosif Brodskii]

91.0

61.0

100.0

100

1970

‘‘Shipovnik v aprele’’ [Sweetbriar in April], I4 only

62.5

50.0

100.0

24

1970

100.0

50.0

100.0

12

1972

AFTER EXILE IN NORENSKAIA (1966–69) ‘‘S vidom na more’’ [With a sea view] ‘‘Ia probudilsia ves’ v potu’’ [I woke up in a sweat] ‘‘Pered pamiatnikom A. S. Pushkinu v Odesse’’ [In front of the monument to A. S. Pushkin in Odessa], I4 only 1970–72

‘‘Nabrosok’’ [A sketch]

154

Appendix V

IAMBIC TETRAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC TETRAMETER

S2

S3

S4

Lines

Year

‘‘Dvadtsat’ sonetov k Marii Stiuart’’ [Twenty sonnets to Mary Queen of Scots***], I4 only

48.1

63.0

100.0

11

1974

‘‘P’iatstsa Mattei’’ [Piazza Mattei], I4 only

61.1

50.0

100.0

72

1981

‘‘Mukha’’ [The fly***], I4 only

17.5

84.5

100.0

99

1985

‘‘Vzgliani na dereviannyi dom’’ [Look at the wooden house]

18.8

68.8

100.0

32

1988

‘‘Landsver-Kanal, Berlin’’ [Landswehr Canal, Berlin], I4 only

66.7

16.7

100.0

6

1989

‘‘Arkhitektura’’ [Architecture]1

8.3

70.8

100.0

60

1990– 91

‘‘Ia pozabyl tebia, no pomniu shtukaturku’’ [I seem to have forgotten you, but I remember the plaster], I4 only

0.0

87.5

100.0

8

1993

‘‘Ritratto di Donna,’’ I4 only

17.6

76.5

100.0

17

1993

IAMBIC TETRAMETER, Translations

S2

S3

Lines

Year

Konstanty Gałczyn´ski, ‘‘Anin´skie noce’’ [Nights in Anin]

76.5

35.3

100.0

17

1967

0.0

100.0

100.0

4

1967– 712

Wilbur, ‘‘A Black November Turkey,’’ I4 only

25.0

100.0

100.0

4

1967– 71

Andrew Marvell, ‘‘An Horatian Ode upon Cromwell’s Return from Ireland’’

83.3

60.0

100.0

60

late 1960s

EMIGRATION (1972–96)

Richard Wilbur, ‘‘Beasts,’’ I4 only

S4

1. Smith’s (2002a) results for this poem are 96.5–8.8–70.2–100.0 (Smith 2002a: 657). 2. Polukhina and Losev (2006) state that Brodsky worked on translations of Wilbur in 1967, but do not specify the exact poems; Kulle’s chronology (Brodskii 1992) mentions 1971 as the date Brodsky completed translations of ‘‘The Black November Turkey,’’ ‘‘Beasts,’’ ‘‘A Voice from under the Table,’’ and ‘‘The Agent.’’

Appendix V

155

IAMBIC TETRAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC TETRAMETER, Translations

S2

S3

Marvell, ‘‘The Nymph Complaining For the Death of Her Fawn’’

60.7

65.6

Marvell, ‘‘Eyes and Tears’’

69.6

Marvell, ‘‘To his Coy Mistress’’ John Donne, ‘‘A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning’’

IAMBIC PENTAMETER

Lines

Year

100.0

122

late 1960s

82.1

100.0

56

late 1960s

79.2

68.8

100.0

48

late 1960s

38.9

91.7

100.0

36

1967– 703

S3

S4

S4

S5

Lines

Year

BEFORE EXILE (1960–63) ‘‘Elegiia (Izderzhki dukha – vykriki uma)’’ [Elegy (Expenditures of the spirit – outcries of the mind)]

100.0

5.0

100.0

20

1960

‘‘Teper’ vse chashche chuvstvuiu ustalost’’ [More and more often nowadays I feel a tiredness]

95.0

20.0

100.0

20

1960

‘‘Leti otsiuda, belyi motylek’’ [Fly from here, white moth]

93.8

37.5

100.0

16

1960

100.0

30.4

100.0

23

1960

‘‘Strel’ninskaia elegiia’’ [Strel’na elegy]4

94.4

97.2

100.0

36

1960

‘‘Cherez dva goda’’ [Two years later]

87.5

37.5

100.0

16

1960

‘‘Sad’’ [The garden]

3. Polukhina and Losev (2006) state that Brodsky began translating Donne in 1967; Kulle (Brodskii 1992) mentions 1970 as the date the translations were completed. 4. Poems like ‘‘Strel’ninskaia elegiia’’ and ‘‘Prishla zima, i vse, kto mog letet’ ’’ were excluded from the list of anti-RD verse because the stressing in both S4 and S5 seems very close to 100.0 percent.

156

Appendix V

IAMBIC PENTAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC PENTAMETER

S3

‘‘Prikhodit mart. Ia syznova sluzhu’’ [March is coming. Once again I serve – gloss Kline 1972: 452]

92.9

‘‘Gost’’ [The guest], I5 only

94.8

‘‘Viteslav Nezval’’

S4

S5

Lines

100.0

28

1961

23.3

100.0

116

1961

96.4

35.7

100.0

28

1961

‘‘Liubi proezdom rodinu druzei’’ [Passing through, love the homeland of your friends]

90.0

15.0

100.0

20

1961

‘‘Vorotish’sia na rodinu. Nu chto zh’’ [You come back to your homeland. Well, then]

95.0

30.0

100.0

20

1961

‘‘Akh, ulybnis’, akh, ulybnis’ vosled, vzmakhni rukoi’’ [Oh, smile, oh, smile after me, wave your hand]

91.7

12.5

100.0

24

1961

‘‘Shestvie’’ [The procession], 100 lines

91.0

34.0

100.0

100

1961

‘‘Ia kak Uliss’’ [I am like Ulysses]

96.4

14.3

100.0

28

1961

‘‘Bessmertiia u smerti ne proshu’’ [I do not ask death for immortality]

96.3

14.8

100.0

27

1961

‘‘Moi golos, toroplivyi i neiasnyi’’ [My voice, hurried and unclear]

87.5

50.0

100.0

8

1962

‘‘Ia obnial eti plechi i vzglianul’’ [I embraced these shoulders and looked]

93.8

31.3

100.0

16

1962

‘‘Zof ’ia’’ [Zofja]

93.0

17.0

100.0

100

1962

‘‘Instruktsiia opechalennym’’ [Instructions for the sorrowful]

87.5

0.0

100.0

6

1962

‘‘V tot vecher vozle nashego ognia’’ [That evening near our fire]

100.0

35.3

100.0

34

1962

‘‘Otryvok (Na vas ne podnimaetsia ruka)’’ [Fragment (I cannot lift my hand against you)]

100.0

12.5

100.0

8

1962

7.14

Year

Appendix V

157

IAMBIC PENTAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC PENTAMETER

S3

S4

S5

Lines

‘‘Ia shel skvoz’ roshchu, dumaia o tom’’ [I was walking through a grove, thinking about how]

95.0

‘‘Vse chuzhdo v dome novomu zhil’tsu’’ [Everything in the house is strange to the new occupant]

25.0

100.0

20

1962

93.8

37.5

100.0

16

1962

100.0

0.0

100.0

20

1962

‘‘Sonet (My snova prozhivaem u zaliva)’’ [Sonnet (Once again we’re living by the bay)], I5 only

75.0

50.0

100.0

12

1962

‘‘Topilas’ pech. Ogon’ drozhal vo t’me’’ [The stove was lit. Flames trembled in the dark – gloss Kline 1972: 454]

93.8

81.3

100.0

16

1962

‘‘My vyshli s pochty priamo na kanal’’ [We left the post o‰ce and came right out on the canal]

93.8

12.5

100.0

16

1962

‘‘Na titul’nom liste’’ [On the title page]

85.7

28.6

100.0

14

1962

‘‘Ogon’, ty slyshish’, nachal ugasat’ ’’ [The fire, you hear, has started to die down]

85.0

30.0

100.0

20

1962

‘‘Oni vdvoem gliadiat v sosednii sad’’ [Together they look into the garden next door]

80.0

50.0

100.0

20

1962

100.0

70.0

100.0

20

1962

‘‘Sonet (Velikii Gektor strelami ubit)’’ [Sonnet (Great Hector has been killed by arrows)]

92.3

30.8

100.0

13

1962

‘‘Sonet (Proshel ianvar’ za oknami tiur’my)’’ ‘‘Sonnet (Outside the prison windows, January passed)’’

91.7

50.0

100.0

12

1962

‘‘Sonet (Ia snova slyshu golos tvoi tosklivyi)’’ [Sonnet (Once more I hear your melancholy voice) – gloss Kline 1972: 453]

100.0

42.9

100.0

14

1962

‘‘Estonskie derev’ia ozabochenno’’ [The Estonian trees worriedly]

‘‘Pritcha’’ [Parable]

Year

158

Appendix V

IAMBIC PENTAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC PENTAMETER

S3

S4

S5

Lines

‘‘Bol’shaia elegiia Dzhonu Donnu’’ [Grand elegy for John Donne]

99.0

‘‘Pereselenie’’ [Migration] ‘‘V tvoikh chasakh ne tol’ko khod, no tish’ ’’ [Your clock doesn’t have motion only, but also silence]

95.7

100.0

207

1963

100.0

20.0

100.0

20

1963

100.0

45.5

100.0

11

1963

‘‘Isaak i Avraam’’ [Isaac and Abraham]

98.2

95.6

100.0

608

1963

‘‘Moi slova, ia dumaiu, umrut’’ [My words will die, I think]

83.3

50.0

100.0

12

1963

‘‘Okna’’ [Windows]

87.5

33.3

100.0

24

1963

‘‘Telefonnaia pesnia’’ [The telephone song]

93.8

68.8

100.0

16

1963

‘‘Shum livnia voskreshaet po uglam’’ [The sound of the downpour everywhere resurrects]

87.5

18.8

100.0

16

1963

100.0

83.3

100.0

12

1963

‘‘Zazhegsia svet. Mel’knula ten’ v okne’’ [The light came on. A shadow could be glimpsed in the window]

83.3

66.7

100.0

12

1963

‘‘Steklo’’ [Glass]

93.8

81.3

100.0

16

1963

91.7

75.0

100.0

12

1964

‘‘Ex oriente’’

Year

EXILE IN NORENSKAIA (1964–65) ‘‘Rozhdestvo 1963 goda’’ [Christmas 1963] ‘‘Razvivaia Krylova’’ [Developing Krylov]

100.0

8.33

100.0

36

1964

‘‘Malinovka’’ [The robin]

100.0

0.0

100.0

20

1964

‘‘Dlia shkol’nogo vozrasta’’ [For the school-aged]

100.0

0.0

100.0

12

1964

93.8

43.8

100.0

16

1964

‘‘V derevne, zateriavsheisia v lesakh’’ [In a village lost in the woods]

Appendix V

159

IAMBIC PENTAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC PENTAMETER

S3

S4

S5

Lines

Year

‘‘Tvoi lokon ne svivaetsia v kol’tso’’ [Your lock does not curl into a ring]

100.0

2.5

100.0

40

1964

‘‘K semeinomu al’bomu prikosnis’ ’’ [Touch the family album]

100.0

0.0

100.0

12

1964

‘‘S grust’iu i s nezhnost’iu’’ [Sadly and tenderly – gloss Kline 1972: 452], I5 only

100.0

42.9

100.0

21

1964

‘‘Dom tuchami pridavlen do zemli’’ [Clouds press the house into the ground]

100.0

0.0

100.0

20

1964

‘‘Nasten’ke Tomashevskoi v Krym’’ [To Nasten’ka Tomashevskaia in the Crimea]

95.0

15.0

100.0

20

1964

‘‘A. Burov – traktorist – i ia’’ [A. Burov, tractor driver, and I]

90.9

100.0

11

1964

‘‘Sonet (Prislushivaias’ k groznym golosam)’’ [Sonnet (Listening to the fierce voices)]

92.9

14.3

100.0

14

1964

‘‘Tebe, kogda moi golos otzvuchit’’ [To you, when my voice will be heard no more]

100.0

36.4

100.0

22

1964

‘‘Gvozdika’’ [Carnation], I5 only

85.7

28.6

100.0

21

1964

‘‘Chasha so zmeikoi’’ [A chalice with a little serpent]

98.4

0.0

100.0

63

1964

‘‘Ostaviv prostodushnogo skuptsa’’ [Having left the unsophisticated miser]

100.0

0.0

100.0

8

1964

‘‘Sonet (Vybrasyvaia na bereg slovar’)’’ [Sonnet (Casting a dictionary onto the shore)]

92.9

14.3

100.0

14

1964

‘‘Einem Alten Architekten in Rom’’ [To an old architect in Rome]

66.7

87.4

100.0

111

1964

‘‘Severnaia pochta’’ [The northern post]

95.9

15.1

100.0

73

1964

‘‘Sonet (Ty, Muza, nedoverchiva k liubvi)’’ [Sonnet (You, Muse, are wary of love)]

92.9

14.3

100.0

14

1964

9.09

160

Appendix V

IAMBIC PENTAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC PENTAMETER

S3

S4

S5

Lines

‘‘Novye stansy k Avguste’’ [New stanzas to Augusta], I5 only

77.2

‘‘Neokonchennyi otryvok (Nu, vremia pesen o liubvi, ty vnov’)’’ [Unfinished fragment (Well, time for love songs, you once again)]

90.4

57.0

100.0

68

1964

15.4

100.0

52

1964

100.0

32

1964

‘‘Otryvok (Ia ne filosof. Net, ia ne solgu)’’ [Fragment (I am not a philosopher. No, I will not lie)]

100.0

‘‘Prishla zima, i vse, kto mog letet’ ’’ [Winter arrived, and all those who could fly]

99.1

99.8

100.0

430

1964

‘‘Na smert’ T. S. Eliota’’ [On the death of T. S. Eliot], I5 only

59.6

75.0

100.0

52

1965

‘‘Bez fonaria’’ [Without a flashlight]

100.0

0.0

100.0

12

1965

‘‘Iz vashikh glaz pustivshis’ v dal’nii put’ ’’ [Setting out from your eyes on a long journey]

92.9

35.7

100.0

14

1965

‘‘Menuet’’ [Minuet]

45.5

54.5

100.0

11

1965

‘‘V kanave gus’, kak stereotruba’’ [In a ditch there’s a goose like a battery commander’s scope], I5 only

80.0

20.0

100.0

10

1965

‘‘Ex ponto’’

87.5

25.0

100.0

8

1965

‘‘Prorochestvo’’ [A prophecy]

72.5

30.0

100.0

40

1965

100.0

0.0

100.0

16

1965

‘‘Iul’. Senokos’’ [July. Hay-cutting]

75.0

62.5

100.0

8

1965

‘‘Kurs aktsii’’ [Stock prices]

64.3

78.6

100.0

14

1965

‘‘Odnoi poetesse’’ [To a poetess]

42.2

75.0

100.0

64

1965

‘‘Dva chasa v rezervuare’’ [Two hours in a reservoir – gloss Grudzin´ska-Gross 2009: 222]

87.6

62.0

100.0

137

1965

‘‘V derevne Bog zhivet ne po uglam’’ [In the countryside, God lives not in corners]

6.25

Year

Appendix V

161

IAMBIC PENTAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC PENTAMETER

S3

S4

S5

Lines

‘‘Muzhchina, zasypaiushchii odin’’ [A man falling asleep alone], I5 only

85.2

‘‘Neokonchennyi otryvok (V stropilakh vozdukh ukhaet, kak sych)’’ [Unfinished fragment (The air in the rafters hoots like an owl)] ‘‘Pustye, perevernutye lodki’’ [Empty, capsized boats]

Year

32.0

100.0

122

1965

100.0

5.0

100.0

20

1965

100.0

0.0

100.0

8

1965

‘‘Stansy’’ [Stanzas]

61.0

42.0

100.0

33

1965

‘‘Feliks’’ [Felix]

98.2

12.7

100.0

276

1965

‘‘Naberezhnaia r. Priazhki’’ [The embankment of the river Priazhka]

58.0

50.0

100.0

12

1965

‘‘Moia svecha, brosaia tusklyi svet’’ [My candle, casting a faint light]

81.3

68.8

100.0

16

before 1 May 1965

‘‘Pokhozh na golos golovnoi ubor’’ [The headwear looks like a voice]

46.9

75.0

100.0

32

1960s

‘‘Sumev otgorodit’sia ot liudei’’ [Now that I’ve managed to cut myself o¤ from people]

78.6

21.4

100.0

14

1966

‘‘Neokonchennyi otryvok (Otniud’ ne vdokhnovenie, a grust’)’’ [Unfinished fragment (Not inspiration – far from it – but sadness)]

86.4

11.4

100.0

44

1966

‘‘Ostanovka v pustyne’’ [A stopover in the desert]

84.9

41.9

100.0

86

1966

‘‘Osvoenie kosmosa’’ [Space exploration]

83.3

20.8

100.0

24

1966

100.0

10.0

100.0

10

1966

71.4

28.6

100.0

7

1967

AFTER EXILE (1966–69)

‘‘Vpolgolosa – konechno, ne vo ves’ ’’ [In a hushed – of course, not full – voice], I5 only ‘‘Morskie manevry’’ [Naval maneuvers], I5 only

162

Appendix V

IAMBIC PENTAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC PENTAMETER

S3

‘‘V Palange’’ [In Palanga]

92.6

‘‘Otryvok (Oktiabr’ – mesiats grusti i prostud)’’ [Fragment (October is the month of sadness and colds)]

90.9

‘‘Otryvok (Noiabr’skim dnem, kogda zashchishcheny)’’ [Fragment (On a November day, when [only naked trees] are protected)]

S4

S5

Lines

100.0

54

1967

18.2

100.0

11

1967

77.8

22.2

100.0

18

1967

‘‘Po doroge na Skiros’’ [On the way to Skyros]

81.1

27.0

100.0

37

1967

‘‘1 sentiabria 1939 goda’’ [1 September 1939]

64.3

42.9

100.0

14

1967

‘‘Postscriptum’’

85.7

14.3

100.0

14

1967

‘‘Anno Domini’’

77.4

29.8

100.0

84

1968

‘‘Ia vypil gazirovannoi vody’’ [I drank some club soda]

95.0

5.0

100.0

20

1968

‘‘Pochti elegiia’’ [Almost an elegy]

80.0

40.0

100.0

20

1968

‘‘Vesy kachnulis’. Molvit’ ne gresha’’ [The scales have swung. It wouldn’t be a fault to say]

96.7

13.3

100.0

30

1968

‘‘Podsvechnik’’ [The candlestick]

92.5

22.5

100.0

40

1968

‘‘Prachechnyi most’’ [Laundry Bridge]

72.2

55.6

100.0

18

1968

‘‘Shest’ let spustia’’ [Six years later***]

91.7

11.1

100.0

36

1968

‘‘Elegiia (Podruga milaia, kabak vse tot zhe)’’ [Elegy (My dear girlfriend, the tavern is still the same)]

76.5

52.9

100.0

17

1968

‘‘Otkrytka iz goroda K.’’ [A postcard from the city of K.]

92.3

30.8

100.0

13

1968

‘‘Elegiia (Odnazhdy etot iuzhnyi gorodok)’’ [Elegy (Once upon a time this little southern town)]

68.4

47.4

100.0

19

1968

5.56

Year

Appendix V

163

IAMBIC PENTAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC PENTAMETER

S3

S4

S5

Lines

‘‘Gorbunov i Gorchakov’’ [Gorbunov and Gorchakov***], sections 1–5

95.8

‘‘Podrazhaia Nekrasovu ili liubovnaia pesn’ Ivanova’’ [In imitation of Nekrasov, or Ivanov’s love song]

Year

24.7

100.0

600

1968

84.6

59.0

100.0

39

1968

‘‘Zimnim vecherom v Ialte’’ [On a winter evening in Yalta]

79.2

25.0

100.0

24

1969

‘‘Posviashchaetsia Ialte’’ [Homage to Yalta***], intro only

76.6

55.3

100.0

47

1969

‘‘Didona i Enei’’ [Dido and Aeneas]

76.9

57.7

100.0

26

1969

‘‘Iz ‘Shkol’noi antologii.’ E. Larionova’’ [From the ‘‘School anthology.’’ E. Larionova]

70.6

50.0

100.0

34

1969

‘‘Iz ‘Shkol’noi antologii.’ O. Poddobryi’’ [From the ‘‘School anthology.’’ O. Poddobryi]

77.1

33.3

100.0

48

1969

‘‘Iz ‘Shkol’noi antologii.’ T. Zimina’’ [From the ‘‘School anthology.’’ T. Zimina]

97.6

9.52

100.0

42

1969

‘‘Iz ‘Shkol’noi antologii.’ Iu. Sandul’’ [From the ‘‘School anthology.’’ Iu. Sandul]

98.3

6.67

100.0

60

1969

‘‘Iz ‘Shkol’noi antologii.’ A. Chegodaev’’ [From the ‘‘School anthology.’’ A. Chegodaev]

88.9

16.7

100.0

72

1969

‘‘Iz ‘Shkol’noi antologii.’ Zh. Antsiferova’’ [From the ‘‘School anthology.’’ Zh. Antsiferova]

83.3

26.2

100.0

42

1969

‘‘Iz ‘Shkol’noi antologii.’ A. Frolov’’ [From the ‘‘School anthology.’’ A. Frolov]

91.7

10.4

100.0

96

1969

164

Appendix V

IAMBIC PENTAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC PENTAMETER

S3

S4

S5

Lines

‘‘Zdes’ zhil Shveigol’ts, zarezavshii svoiu’’ [Here lived Shveigol’ts, who stabbed his]

89.7

‘‘A zdes’ zhil Mel’ts. Dusha, kak govoriat’’ [And here lived Mel’ts. A soul, as they say]

30.8

100.0

39

1969

90.0

12.5

100.0

40

1969

100.0

0.0

100.0

24

1969

54.2

66.7

100.0

48

1969– 70

100.0

12.5

100.0

24

1960s

‘‘Razgovor s nebozhitelem’’ [Conversation with a celestial being – gloss Venclova 1999: 130], I5 only

75.6

36.2

100.0

127

1970

‘‘Debiut’’ [The debut]

74.2

38.7

100.0

31

1970

100.0

0.0

100.0

16

1970

‘‘Neokonchennoe (Drug, tiagoteia k skrytym formam lesti)’’ [Unfinished (A friend with a propensity for secret forms of flattery)]

67.9

39.7

100.0

78

1970

‘‘Muzhik i enot’’ [The muzhik and the raccoon], I5 only

75.8

48.5

100.0

33

1970

‘‘Sonet (Snachala vyrastut griby. Potom)’’ [Sonnet (First the mushrooms will grow. Then)]

64.3

57.1

92.9

14

1970

‘‘Ty znaesh’, skol’ko Sidorovu let?’’ [Do you know how old Sidorov is?]

83.3

33.3

100.0

24

1970

‘‘Chaepitie’’ [Having tea]

70.8

45.8

100.0

24

1970

‘‘Aqua vita nuova’’

90.0

15.0

100.0

20

1970

‘‘A zdes’ zhila Petrova. Ne mogu’’ [And here lived Petrova. I cannot] ‘‘Pered pamiatnikom A. S. Pushkinu v Odesse’’ [In front of the monument to A. S. Pushkin in Odessa], I5 only ‘‘Nu, kak tebe v gruzinskikh palestinakh?’’ [So, how are you liking the land of Georgia?]

Year

PERIOD OF 1970–72

‘‘Derevo’’ [The tree]

Appendix V

165

IAMBIC PENTAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC PENTAMETER

S3

S4

S5

Lines

‘‘Post aetatem nostram,’’ sections 1–5

76.6

‘‘S fevralia po aprel’. Moroznyi vecher’’ [From February through April. A frosty evening]

Year

41.1

100.0

107

1970

87.5

18.8

100.0

16

1970

‘‘S fevralia po aprel’. V pustom, zakrytom na prosushku parke’’ [From February through April. In an empty park, closed for drying – gloss Kline 1972: 454]

70.8

37.5

100.0

24

1970

‘‘S fevralia po aprel’. Fontan pamiati geroev oborony poluostrova Khanko’’ [From February through April. A fountain in memory of the heroes who defended the Khanko peninsula]

83.3

16.7

100.0

12

1970

‘‘Zheltaia kurtka’’ [The yellow coat], I5 only

70.6

52.9

100.0

17

1970

‘‘Subbota (9 ianvaria)’’ [Saturday (January 9th)]

85.0

25.0

100.0

20

1971

‘‘Litovskii divertisment’’ [Lithuanian divertissement***], I5 only

77.4

29.0

100.0

31

1971

‘‘Vtoroe Rozhdestvo na beregu’’ [The second Christmas by the shore***]

96.3

11.1

100.0

27

1971

‘‘Liubov’ ’’ [On love***]

86.7

33.3

100.0

30

1971

‘‘Odnomu tiranu’’ [To a tyrant***]

79.2

33.3

95.8

24

1972

‘‘Odissei Telemaku’’ [Odysseus to Telemachus***]

78.6

57.1

100.0

28

1972

‘‘Neokonchennyi otryvok (Vo vremia uzhina on vstal iz-za stola)’’ [Unfinished fragment (During dinner he got up from the table)]

61.5

53.8

100.0

13

1972

‘‘S krasavitsei nalazhivaia sviaz’ ’’ [Establishing a connection with a beauty]

87.5

37.5

100.0

8

1972

‘‘Pokhorony Bobo’’ [The Funeral of Bobo`***]

78.7

27.7

100.0

47

1972

166

Appendix V

IAMBIC PENTAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC PENTAMETER

S3

S4

S5

Lines

94.4

‘‘V ozernom kraiu’’ [In the Lake District***]

Year

11.1

100.0

36

1972

100.0

5.0

100.0

20

1972

‘‘Rotterdamskii dnevnik’’ [Rotterdam diary]

91.7

16.7

100.0

24

1973

‘‘Peschanye kholmy, porosshie sosnoi’’ [Sand hills overgrown with pines], I5 only

29.2

83.3

100.0

24

1974

100.0

8.3

100.0

12

1974

‘‘Dvadtsat’ sonetov k Marii Stiuart’’ [Twenty sonnets to Mary Queen of Scots***], I5 only

92.0

17.6

100.0

267

1974

‘‘Meksikanskii divertisment. Guernavaka.’’ [Mexican divertimento. Cuernavaca***]

90.0

16.7

100.0

60

1975

‘‘Meksikanskii divertisment. Zametka dlia entsiklopedii’’ [Mexican divertimento. Encyclopedia entry***]

61.0

43.9

97.6

41

1975

‘‘Meksikanskii divertisment. V otele ‘Kontinental’ ’’ [Mexican divertimento. At the Continental Hotel]

78.6

21.4

100.0

14

1975

‘‘Tikhotvorenie moe, moe nemoe’’ [My quiet-creation/poem, my mute]

0.0

83.3

100.0

12

1976

‘‘Klassicheskii balet est’ zamok krasoty’’ [The classical ballet, let’s say, is beauty’s keep***], I5 only

77.8

22.2

100.0

9

1976

‘‘Biust Tiberiia’’ [The bust of Tiberius***], I5 only

54.3

57.4

94.7

94

1984

‘‘Mukha’’ [The fly***], I5 only

12.4

82.0

100.0

90

1985

EMIGRATION (1972–96) ‘‘Osennii vecher v skromnom gorodke’’ [An autumn evening in the modest square***]

‘‘Voina v ubezhishche Kipridy’’ [War in Cypride’s refuge]

Appendix V

167

IAMBIC PENTAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC PENTAMETER

S3

‘‘Na vystavke Karla Veilinka’’ [At Carel Willink’s exhibition***]

98.6

S5

Lines

4.1

100.0

72

1985

0.0

100.0

100.0

7

1986

‘‘Posviashchenie’’ [Dedication]

87.5

6.3

100.0

16

1987

‘‘Posviashchaetsia stulu’’ [Dedicated to a chair]

89.8

17.3

100.0

98

1987

‘‘Landsver-Kanal, Berlin’’ [Landswehr Canal, Berlin], I5 only

25.0

87.5

100.0

8

1989

‘‘Otvet na anketu’’ [An answer to a questionnaire], I5 only

57.1

85.7

100.0

14

1993

‘‘Ia pozabyl tebia, no pomniu shtukaturku’’ [I seem to have forgotten you, but I remember the plaster], I5 only

13.0

75.9

100.0

54

1993

‘‘Ritratto di Donna,’’ I5 only

38.7

67.7

100.0

54

1993

‘‘Gollandiia est’ ploskaia strana’’ [Holland is a flat country], I5 only

63.6

54.5

100.0

11

1993

S5

Lines

Year

‘‘Reki’’ [Rivers], I5 only

S4

Year

IAMBIC PENTAMETER, Translations 5

S3

S4

Salvatore Quasimodo, ‘‘Questo silenzio fermo nelle strade’’

75.0

56.3

100.0

16

1970

Wilbur, ‘‘A Voice from under the Table’’

72.9

39.6

100.0

48

1967– 71

Wilbur, ‘‘Beasts,’’ I5 only

62.5

62.5

100.0

16

1967– 71

Wilbur, ‘‘A Black November Turkey,’’ I5 only

92.9

50.0

100.0

14

1967– 71

5. Brodskii (2010) includes several previously unpublished translations that were not considered in these calculations and statistical analysis. The translation of Auden’s ‘‘In Memory of W. B. Yeats’’ has the following frequency of stressing: for iambic pentameter lines, 78.9 – 68.4 – 68.4 – 63.2 – 100.0; for iambic hexameter lines, 88.2 – 70.6 – 64.7 – 82.4 – 64.7 – 100.0.

168

Appendix V

IAMBIC PENTAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC PENTAMETER, Translations 5

S3

S4

Wilbur, ‘‘The Agent’’

75.0

Donne, ‘‘A Valediction: Of Weeping,’’ I5 only

S5

Lines

Year

47.8

100.0

92

1967– 71

88.2

52.9

100.0

17

by 1970

Donne, ‘‘The Apparition’’

94.1

47.1

100.0

17

1966

Donne, ‘‘The Flea’’

85.2

37.0

100.0

27

1967– 70

Donne, ‘‘The Will,’’ I5 only

76.9

42.3

100.0

26

by 1970

Cyprian Norwid, ‘‘W pamie˛tniku’’ [In an album]6

80.3

31.6

100.0

76

1972

Tomas Venclova, ‘‘In Memory of the Poet. Variant’’

78.7

31.9

100.0

47

1976

Venclova, ‘‘Vienuolikta giesme˙’’ [The eleventh song], I5 only

56.9

60.8

61

1984

Constantine Cavafy, ‘‘Darius’’

71.8

51.3

100.0

39

1988

Umberto Saba, ‘‘Autobiografia’’

78.6

40.5

100.0

42

19927

Saba, ‘‘La ritirata in Piazza Aldrovandi a Bologna’’

75.0

50.0

100.0

16

1992

Saba, ‘‘Colombi in Piazza delle Poste’’

70.6

47.1

100.0

17

1992

Saba, ‘‘I libri che ti rendo, amico. . .’’

83.3

55.6

100.0

18

1992

Saba, ‘‘Al lettore’’

76.9

53.8

100.0

13

1992

Hyam Plutzik, Horatio, p. I

80.6

63.2

100.0

144

1992

Plutzik, Horatio, p. II

83.7

54.1

100.0

172

1992

98.03

6. Venclova (2008) provides an additional example of Brodsky’s translation from Norwid, namely that of ‘‘Dedykacja’’ [Dedication]. In this translation, Regressive Dissimilation is violated, with the penultimate foot stressed in forty of fifty-four instances and the antepenultimate in thirty-seven of fifty-four (Venclova 2008: 8). 7. Kulle (Brodskii 1992) does not indicate the date ranges of the Saba and Plutzik translations; for this reason, I cite the year of their first publication (Brodskii 1992).

Appendix V

169

IAMBIC HEXAMETER IAMBIC HEXAMETER

S4

S5

S6

Lines

Year

‘‘Gost’ ’’ [The guest], I6 only

87.5

37.5

100.0

16

1961

‘‘Pered pamiatnikom A. S. Pushkinu v Odesse’’ [In front of the monument to A. S. Pushkin in Odessa], I6 only

75.0

50.0

100.0

4

1969– 70

‘‘Peschanye kholmy, porosshie sosnoi’’ [Sand hills overgrown with pines], I6 only

41.7

75.0

100.0

12

1974

100.0

28.6

100.0

21

1975

‘‘Klassicheskii balet est’ zamok krasoty’’ [The classical ballet, let’s say, is beauty’s keep***], I6 only

77.8

50.0

100.0

18

1976

‘‘Piataia govodshchina’’ [The fifth anniversary***]

70.8

80.2

100.0

96

1977

‘‘Biust Tiberiia’’ [The bust of Tiberius***], I6 only

40.0

100.0

100.0

5

1984

100.0

100.0

100.0

5

1986

‘‘Chem bol’she chernykh glaz, tem bol’she perenosits’’ [The more dark eyes, the more bridges of the nose]

87.5

37.5

100.0

16

1987

‘‘Na stoletie Anny Akhmatovoi’’ [On Anna Akhmatova’s centenary]

75.0

50.0

100.0

12

1989

‘‘Pis’mo v oazis’’ [Letter to an oasis]

100.0

12.5

100.0

16

1991

‘‘Gollandiia est’ ploskaia strana’’ [Holland is a flat country], I6 only

100.0

50.0

100.0

4

1993

‘‘Ia pozabyl tebia, no pomniu shtukaturku’’ [I seem to have forgotten you, but I remember the plaster], I6 only

60.0

80.0

100.0

5

1993

‘‘Otvet na anketu’’ [An answer to a questionnaire], I6 only

81.8

86.4

100.0

22

1993

‘‘Meksikanskii divertisment. 1867’’ [Mexican divertimento. 1867***]

‘‘Reki’’ [Rivers], I6 only

170

Appendix V

IAMBIC HEXAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC HEXAMETER, Translations

S4

S5

S6

Lines

Year

Donne, ‘‘The Storm’’

94.6

55.4

100.0

74

1967–70

W. H. Auden, ‘‘Stop All the Clocks’’

68.8

62.5

100.0

16

1994

Donne, ‘‘Elegy to Lady Markham’’

85.7

57.1

100.0

63

by 1970

Donne, ‘‘The Will,’’ I6 only

82.5

47.5

100.0

40

by 1970

Venclova, ‘‘Vienuolikta giesme˙’’ [The eleventh song], I6 only

50.0

83.3

100.0

Richard Wilbur, ‘‘Beasts,’’ I6 only

87.5

75.0

100.0

1984 8

1967–71

Appendix VI.

Anti-RD rhythm in Tsvetaeva’s iambic poems

The table below includes only those iambic poems of Tsvetaeva that violate Regressive Dissimilation; RD-observing poems have been omitted. Poems that Brodsky is likely to have seen in the early 1960s, i.e., those published in Tsvetaeva 1961 or in Sovremennyia zapiski [Contemporary notes], are shadowed and indicated by (1961) or SZ, respectively. The remaining anti-RD poems are taken from Tsvetaeva’s (1994) collected works. English translations of poem titles by Michael Naydan and Slava Yastremski (Tsvetaeva 1992) are marked with three asterisks.

IAMBIC TETRAMETER

S2

S3

S4

Lines

Year

‘‘Nad Feodosiei ugas’’ [Over Feodosiia has expired]

50.0

60.0

100.0

20

1914

‘‘P. E.’’ part 5 (‘‘Pri zhizni Vy ego liubili’’ [You loved him in life]), I4 only

41.7

77.8

100.0

36

1914

‘‘Bessrochno korabliu ne plyt’ ’’ [A ship cannot sail indefinitely], I4 only

50.0

75.0

100.0

4

1915

‘‘Liubvi starinnye tumany’’ [Love’s ancient fogs]

63.9

66.7

100.0

36

1917

‘‘Na kortike svoem: Marina’’ [On your dagger [you engraved]: Marina]

50.0

62.5

100.0

8

1918

‘‘Skuchaiut posle kutezha’’ [People get bored after a binge], SZ

50.0

75.0

100.0

12

1919

‘‘Tebe – cherez sto let’’ [To you, a hundred years later] (1961), I4 only

25.0

100.0

100.0

4

1919

‘‘Dva dereva khotiat drug k drugu’’ [Two trees long for one another]

62.5

75.0

100.0

16

1919

‘‘Malinovyi i biriuzovyi’’ [Crimson and turquoise]

45.8

62.5

100.0

24

1920

WRITTEN IN RUSSIA

172

Appendix VI

IAMBIC TETRAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC TETRAMETER

S2

S3

S4

Lines

Year

‘‘Net, legche zhizn’ otdat’, chem chas’’ [No, it would be easier to give up my life than an hour], I4 only

50.0

66.7

100.0

6

1920

‘‘Byl Vechnyi Zhid za to nakazan’’ [The Wandering Jew was punished because]

60.0

80.0

100.0

5

1920

‘‘Ex-ci-devant,’’ I4 only

40.0

60.0

100.0

5

1920

‘‘Est’ podvigi. – Po selam stikh’’ [There are heroic deeds. Through the villages, verse]

14.3

71.4

100.0

7

1920

‘‘Petru’’ [To Peter], I4 only

56.3

75.0

100.0

16

1920

‘‘Plutaia po svoim zhe pesniam’’ [Straying amongst my own songs]

25.0

75.0

100.0

4

1919– 1920

‘‘Bol’shevik’’ [The Bolshevik], I4 only

60.0

90.0

100.0

10

1921

‘‘Dva zareva! – net, zerkala!’’ [Two blazes! No, mirrors!]

41.7

50.0

100.0

12

1921

‘‘A i prostor u nas tatarskim strelam’’ [We have room enough for Tatar arrows], I4 only

25.0

37.5

100.0

8

1922

‘‘Zavodskie’’ [Factory workers] (1961)

40.06

53.1

100.0

32

1922

‘‘Nochnogo gostia ne zastanesh’ ’’ [You will not find the nocturnal visitor at home***], I4 only

33.3

50.0

100.0

6

1922

‘‘Svetlo-serebriannaia tsvel’ ’’ [A light silver mold***]

25.0

37.5

100.0

16

1922

‘‘Poet – izdaleka zavodit rech’ ’’ [A poet begins speaking from afar] (1961), I4 only

50.0

62.5

100.0

8

1923

‘‘S drugimi – v rozovye grudy’’ [With others into pink heaps***]

50.0

56.3

100.0

16

1923

‘‘Ariadna’’ [Ariadne], part 2, I4 only

50.0

100.0

100.0

4

1923

WRITTEN IN EMIGRATION

Appendix VI

173

IAMBIC TETRAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC TETRAMETER

S2

S3

S4

Lines

Year

‘‘Prokrast’sia’’ [To steal through***]

25.0

56.3

100.0

16

1923

‘‘V glubokii chas dushi i nochi’’ [In the profound hour of the soul and night***]

25.0

43.8

100.0

16

1923

‘‘Est’ chas Dushi, kak chas Luny’’ [There is the hour of the Soul, like the hour of the Moon***]

75.0

83.3

100.0

12

1923

‘‘Minuta’’ [A minute***]

46.4

50.0

100.0

28

1923

‘‘Sivilla – mladentsu’’ [Sybil to the infant***], I4 only

17.6

100.0

100.0

17

1923

‘‘Stroitel’nitsa strun – pristruniu’’ [A builder of strings, I will discipline], I4 only

25.0

87.5

100.0

8

1923

‘‘Sok lotosa’’ [Lotus juice]

41.7

54.2

100.0

24

1923

‘‘Brozhu – ne dom zhe plotnichat’ ’’ [I wander – no reason to nail together a house], I4 only

50.0

75.0

100.0

8

1923

Lines

Year

IAMBIC PENTAMETER

S3

S4

S5

‘‘Prosnulas’ ulitsa. Gliadit ustalaia’’ [The street awoke. Tired, it gazes]

0.0

100.0

100.0

16

1908

‘‘Sopernitsa, a ia k tebe pridu’’ [A rival, I will still come to you]

66.7

75.0

100.0

12

1916

‘‘Kniaz’ t’my’’ [The prince of darkness], part 1, I5 only

60.0

80.0

100.0

5

1917

‘‘Blagoslovliaiu ezhednevnyi trud’’ [I bless everyday labor] (1961), SZ

50.0

87.5

100.0

8

1918

‘‘Zakinuv golovu i opustiv glaza’’ [Having tilted my head and lowered my eyes], I5 only, SZ

18.8

87.5

100.0

16

1918

WRITTEN IN RUSSIA

174

Appendix VI

IAMBIC PENTAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC PENTAMETER

S3

S4

S5

Lines

Year

‘‘Moe ubezhishche ot dikikh ord’’ [My refuge from savage hordes], SZ

50.0

100.0

100.0

4

1918

‘‘Ia – esm’. Ty – budesh’. Mezhdu nami – bezdna’’ [I am. You shall be. Between us – an abyss]

62.5

87.5

100.0

8

1918

‘‘Ia ne tantsuiu – bez moei viny’’ [I am not dancing; it’s not my fault], SZ

62.5

75.0

100.0

8

1920

‘‘Zvezda nad liul’koi – i zvezda nad grobom!’’ [A star over the crib – and a star over the co‰n!]

25.0

100.0

100.0

4

1920

‘‘Ia etu knigu poruchaiu vetru’’ [I entrust this book to the wind – gloss Filonov Gove 1994: 160], I5 only

50.0

100.0

100.0

6

1920

‘‘Syn’’ [The son], I5 only

40.0

100.0

100.0

5

1920

‘‘Ne tak uzh podlo i ne tak uzh prosto’’ [Not so mean and not so simple], I5 only

50.0

83.3

100.0

6

1920

‘‘Glazami ved’my zacharovannoi’’ [With the eyes of an enchanted witch], I5 only

12.5

75.0

100.0

8

1920

‘‘Byt’ mal’chikom tvoim svetlogolovym’’ [To be your fair-haired boy] (1961), I5 only

33.3

77.8

100.0

9

1921

‘‘Est’ nekii chas – kak sbroshennaia klazha’’ [There is a certain hour – like a burden cast o¤ – gloss Taubman 1989: 149] (1961), I5 only

64.7

76.5

100.0

17

1921

‘‘Pustoty otrocheskikh glaz! Provaly’’ [The voids of adolescent eyes! Chasms], I5 only

55.6

77.8

100.0

9

1921

‘‘Blazhenny docherei tvoikh, Zemlia’’ [Blessed are they [who abandon] your daughters, Earth] (1961)

50.0

62.5

100.0

8

1921

‘‘S takoiu siloi v podborodok ruku’’ [[Grasping] the chin with such force] (1961)

37.5

62.5

100.0

8

1921

‘‘Prostovolosaia Agar’ – sizhu’’ [I sit, a bare-headed Hagar – gloss Ciepiela 2006: 41]

42.9

85.7

100.0

14

1921

175

Appendix VI IAMBIC PENTAMETER (Continued) IAMBIC PENTAMETER

S4

S5

7.1

100.0

‘‘Tak govoriu, ibo darovan vzgliad’’ [I speak thus, for I have been granted a view], I5 only

21.4

‘‘Neobychainaia ona! Sverkh sil!’’ [Extraordinary is she! Beyond one’s powers!] ´ ndra Łysohorsky’s Translation of O ‘‘To My Mother’’

‘‘Ot gneva v pecheni, mechty vo lbu’’ [From wrath in the liver, and dreams in the forehead]

S3

Lines

Year

100.0

14

1921

78.6

100.0

14

1921

62.5

100.0

100.0

8

1921

44.4

77.8

100.0

18

?

43.8

75.0

100.0

16

1921/ 1932

0.0

50.0

100.0

6

1923

WRITTEN/COMPLETED IN EMIGRATION ‘‘Rolandov rog’’ [Roland’s horn] (1961), SZ ‘‘Praga’’ [Prague], I5 only

Appendix VII.

Anti-RD rhythm in Brodsky, Tsvetaeva, and Donne

In the tables below, only values for antepenultimate and penultimate positions are shown (i.e., S2 and S3 for tetrameter, S3 and S4 for pentameter). The Donne columns include two types of analysis: counts based on Tarlinskaja’s (1976) system (abbreviated as DT), and counts based on the Taranovsky-Zhirmunsky (Eng.) system described in Chapter 1 (abbreviated as DT-Zh). Brodsky’s and Tsvetaeva’s column titles are abbreviated as B and T respectively. The column ‘‘S3–S2’’ indicates the di¤erence between the values for S3 and S2. Iambic tetrameter B

T

S2

S3

S3– S2

39.06

68.8

29.7 50.0

31.3

87.5

50.0

S3

S3– S2

DT-Zh

S2

S3

60.0 10.0

66.7

88.9 22.2

56.3 41.7

77.8 36.1

77.8 100

64.3

14.3 50.0

75.0 25.0

50.0

87.5

37.5 63.9

66.7

87.5

93.8

88.2

100.0

10.0

85.0

75.0 25.0 100.0 75.0

47.5

60.0

12.5 62.5

75.0 12.5

100.0 100.0 45.8

0.0

S2

DT S3– S2

S2

S3

66.7

88.9 22.2

22.2

77.8

100.0 22.2

53.8

84.6 30.8

66.7

91.7 25.0

2.8

50.0

66.7 16.7

72.7

90.9 18.2

6.3 50.0

62.5 12.5

63.6

72.7

9.1

88.9

11.8 50.0

75.0 25.0

88.9 100

11.1

83.3

58.3

75.0 16.7

33.3

66.7 33.3

33.3

50.0 16.7

88.9

100.0 11.1

62.5 16.7

83.3

91.7

8.3

85.7

89.3

3.6 8.3

100 91.7

S3– S2

11.1 8.3

16.7

66.7

50.0 50.0

66.7 16.7

70.0

80.0 10.0

66.7

75.0

28.9

78.8

50.0 60.0

80.0 20.0

60.0

80.0 20.0

66.7

83.3 16.7

15.4

100.0

84.6 40.0

60.0 20.0

66.7

75.0

8.3

44.4

100.0 55.6

50.0

63.6

13.6 14.3

71.4 57.1

44.4

88.9 44.4

77.8

25.0

87.5

62.5 56.3

75.0 18.6

22.9

89.8

66.9 25.0

75.0 50.0

48.0

63.0

14.8 60.0

90.0 30.0

83.3

5.6

Appendix VII

177

Iambic tetrameter (Continued) B

T

S2

S3

S3– S2

17.5

84.5

18.8

S3

S3– S2

67.0 41.7

50.0

8.3

68.8

50.0 25.0

37.5 12.5

8.3

70.8

62.5 40.6

53.1 12.5

0.0

87.5

87.5 33.3

50.0 16.7

17.7

76.5

58.8 25.0

37.5 12.5

100.0 100.0 50.0

62.5 12.5

25.0

100.0

56.3

69.6

82.1

60.7

65.6

4.9 25.0

56.3 31.25

38.9

91.7

52.8 25.0

43.8 18.8

0.0

S2

DT

75.0 50.0

S2

DT-Zh S3

S3– S2

S2

S3

S3– S2

6.25

12.5 50.0 100.0 50.0

75.0

83.3

8.3

46.4

50.0

3.6

17.6 100.0 82.4 25.0

87.5 62.5

41.7

54.2 12.5

50.0

75.0 25.0

The null hypothesis adopted for this analysis was that there is no significant di¤erence among the poets in terms of their use of anti-RD rhythm. If the value of p (i.e., probability) turns out to be less than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis, i.e., show the two poets compared to di¤er significantly; if the value of p turns out to be greater than 0.05, then the two poets in question are not significantly di¤erent. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for iambic tetrameter (assuming no equal variance) yields the following results: Position S2 in iambic tetrameter The di¤erence between Brodsky and Tsvetaeva is not significant (p ¼ 0.0997).

178

Appendix VII

The di¤erence between Brodsky and Donne (using the Tarlinskaja-style analysis) is significant (p ¼ 0.000). The di¤erence between Brodsky and Donne (using the TaranovskyZhirmunsky [Eng.] system) is significant (p ¼ 0.000).

Position S3 in iambic tetrameter The di¤erence between Brodsky and Tsvetaeva is significant (p ¼ 0.001). The di¤erence between Brodsky and Donne (using the Tarlinskaja-style analysis) is not significant (p ¼ 0.891). The di¤erence between Brodsky and Donne (using the TaranovskyZhirmunsky [Eng.] system) is not significant (p ¼ 0.059). S3 minus S2 for iambic tetrameter The di¤erence between Brodsky and Tsvetaeva is significant (p ¼ 0.0016). The di¤erence between Brodsky and Donne (using the Tarlinskaja-style analysis) is significant (p ¼ 0.000). The di¤erence between Brodsky and Donne (using the TaranovskyZhirmunsky [Eng.] system) is significant (p ¼ 0.0001). Iambic pentameter B

T

DT

S3

S4

S4– S3

S3

S4

S3

S4

66.7

87.4

20.7

0.0 100.0 100.0

72.2 83.3 11.1

83.3

94.4 11.1

59.6

75.0

15.4 66.7

75.0

8.3

50.0 94.4 44.4

61.1

94.4 33.3

45.5

54.5

9.1 60.0

80.0

20.0

61.1 66.7

5.6

66.7

91.7 25.0

64.3

78.6

14.3 50.0

87.5

37.5

63.2 78.9 15.8

72.2

77.8

5.6

42.2

75.0

32.8 18.8

46.9

75.0

87.5

68.8

57.1 77.1 20.0

73.7

78.9

5.3

28.1 50.0 100.0

50.0

60.0 86.7 26.7

80.0

90.0 10.0

54.2

66.7

12.5 62.5

25.0

66.7 77.8 11.1

83.3

91.7

87.5

S4– S3

S3

DT-Zh S4

S4– S3

S4– S3

8.3

Appendix VII

179

Iambic pentameter (Continued) B

T S3

DT

S3

S4

S4– S3

29.2

83.3

54.2 62.5

75.0

12.5

33.3 60.0 26.7

83.3

0.0

83.3

83.3 25.0 100.0

75.0

80.0 93.3 13.3

68.6

77.1

8.6

54.3

57.4

3.2 50.0 100.0

50.0

56.7 76.7 20.0

81.25

87.5

6.25

12.4

82.0

69.7 40.0 100.0

60.0

40.0 60.0 20.0

72.2

83.3 11.1

83.3

33.3

66.7 75.0

8.3

86.7

100.0 13.3

0.0 100.0 100.0 50.0

S4

S4– S3

S3

DT-Zh S4

S4– S3

S3

S4

S4– S3

100.0 16.7

25.0

87.5

62.5 12.5

75.0

62.5

58.3 77.8 19.5

65.2

82.6 17.4

57.1

85.7

28.6 33.3

77.8

44.4

72.0 76.0

4.0

66.7

86.7 20.0

13.0

75.9

63.0 64.7

76.5

11.8

63.2 68.4

5.3

72.2

88.9 16.7

38.7

67.7

29.0 55.6

77.8

22.2

71.4 90.5 19.0

83.3

91.7

56.9

60.8

3.9 50.0

62.5

12.5

54.5 72.7 18.2

72.0

88.0 16.0

37.5

62.5

25.0

70.0 90.0 20.0

73.3

86.7 13.3

43.8

75.0

31.25 35.3 76.5 41.2

85.7

95.2

42.9

85.7

42.9

54.5

100.0 45.5 100.0 10.0

7.1 100.0

8.3

9.5

92.9

90.0

78.6

57.1

78.6

85.7

62.5 100.0

37.5

52.9

82.4 29.4

21.4 0.0

50.0

50.0

44.4

77.8

33.3

7.1

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for iambic pentameter yields the following results: Position S3 in iambic pentameter The di¤erence between Brodsky and Tsvetaeva is not significant (p ¼ 0.8496). The di¤erence between Brodsky and Donne (using the Tarlinskaja-style analysis) is significant (p ¼ 0.0026). The di¤erence between Brodsky and Donne (using the TaranovskyZhirmunsky [Eng.] system) is significant (p ¼ 0.000).

180

Appendix VII

Position S4 in iambic pentameter The di¤erence between Brodsky and Tsvetaeva is not significant (p ¼ 0.0965). The di¤erence between Brodsky and Donne (using the Tarlinskaja-style analysis) is not significant (p ¼ 0.638). The di¤erence between Brodsky and Donne (using the TaranovskyZhirmunsky [Eng.] system) is significant (0.0005).

S4 minus S3 for iambic pentameter The di¤erence between Brodsky and Tsvetaeva is not significant (p ¼ 0.5325). The di¤erence between Brodsky and Donne (using the Tarlinskaja-style analysis) is significant (p ¼ 0.0231). The di¤erence between Brodsky and Donne (using the TaranovskyZhirmunsky [Eng.] system) is significant (p ¼ 0.0083).

Notes on poems For iambic tetrameter, the numbers given in the table for S2 and S3 are based on the following poems, in descending order: Brodsky: ‘‘Zagadka angelu,’’ ‘‘V semeinyi al’bom,’’ ‘‘Derev’ia okruzhili prud,’’ ‘‘Blestit zaliv, i vetr neset,’’ ‘‘Iz ‘Starykh angliiskikh pesen’: Zasporiat noch’iu mat’ s otsom,’’ ‘‘Iz ‘Starykh angliiskikh pesen’: Zamerzshii povod zhzhet ladon’,’’ ‘‘Sadovnik v vatnike, kak drozd,’’ ‘‘On znal, chto eta bol’ v pleche,’’ ‘‘Vse dal’she ot tvoei strany,’’ ‘‘Gvozdika,’’ ‘‘Novye stansy k Avguste,’’ ‘‘Muzhchina, zasypaiushchii odin,’’ ‘‘Flammarion,’’ ‘‘Soznan’e, kak shestoi urok,’’ ‘‘Pen’e bez muzyki,’’ ‘‘Dvadtsat’ sonetov k Marii Stiuart,’’ ‘‘Mukha,’’ ‘‘Vzgliani na dereviannyi dom,’’ ‘‘Arkhitektura,’’ ‘‘Ia pozabyl tebia, no pomniu shtukaturku,’’ ‘‘Ritratto di Donna,’’ translation of Richard Wilbur’s ‘‘Beasts,’’ translation of Richard Wilbur’s ‘‘Black November Turkey,’’ translation of Andrew Marvell’s ‘‘Eyes and Tears,’’ translation of Marvell’s ‘‘The Nymph Complaining For the Death of Her Fawn,’’ translation of John Donne’s ‘‘Valediction: Forbidding Mourning.’’ Tsvetaeva: ‘‘Nad Feodosiei ugas,’’ ‘‘P. E.’’ part 5 (‘‘Pri zhizni Vy ego

Appendix VII

181

liubili’’), ‘‘Bessrochno korabliu ne plyt’,’’ ‘‘Liubvi starinnye tumany,’’ ‘‘Na kortike svoem: Marina,’’ ‘‘Skuchaiut posle kutezha,’’ ‘‘Tebe – cherez sto let,’’ ‘‘Dva dereva khotiat drug k drugu,’’ ‘‘Malinovyi i biriuzovyi,’’ ‘‘Net, legche zhizn’ otdat’, chem chas,’’ ‘‘Byl Vechnyi Zhid za to nakazan,’’ ‘‘Exci-devant,’’ ‘‘Est’ podvigi. – Po selam stikh,’’ ‘‘Petru,’’ ‘‘Plutaia po svoim zhe pesniam,’’ ‘‘Bol’shevik,’’ ‘‘Dva zareva! – net, zerkala!’’ ‘‘A i prostor u nas tatarskim strelam,’’ ‘‘Zavodskie,’’ ‘‘Nochnogo gostia ne zastanesh’,’’ ‘‘Svetlo-serebriannaia tsvel’,’’ ‘‘Poet – izdaleka zavodit rech’,’’ ‘‘S drugimi – v rozovye grudy,’’ ‘‘Ariadna,’’ part 2, ‘‘Prokrast’sia,’’ ‘‘V glubokii chas dushi i nochi,’’ ‘‘Est’ chas Dushi, kak chas Luny,’’ ‘‘Minuta,’’ ‘‘Sivilla – mladentsu,’’ ‘‘Stroitel’nitsa strun – pristruniu,’’ ‘‘Sok lotosa,’’ ‘‘Brozhu – ne dom zhe plotnichat’.’’ Donne (Tarlinskaja-style analysis): ‘‘The Sunne Rising,’’ ‘‘The Indi¤erent,’’ ‘‘Lovers Infinitenesse,’’ ‘‘The Legacie,’’ ‘‘Aire and Angels,’’ ‘‘The Dreame,’’ ‘‘The Flea,’’ ‘‘The Curse,’’ ‘‘The Message,’’ ‘‘The Broken Heart,’’ ‘‘The Primrose,’’ ‘‘The Relique,’’ ‘‘The Dampe.’’ Donne (Taranovsky-Zhirmunsky [Eng.] analysis): ‘‘The Sunne Rising,’’ ‘‘The Indifferent,’’ ‘‘The Legacie,’’ ‘‘Aire and Angels,’’ ‘‘The Dreame,’’ ‘‘The Flea,’’ ‘‘The Curse,’’ ‘‘A Nocturnall Upon S. Lucies Day, Being the Shortest Day,’’ ‘‘The Baite,’’ ‘‘The Will,’’ ‘‘The Relique,’’ ‘‘The Dampe,’’ ‘‘Negative Love.’’ For iambic pentameter, the numbers given in the table for S3 and S4 are based on the following poems, in descending order: Brodsky: ‘‘Einem Alten Architekten in Rom,’’ ‘‘Na smert’ T. S. Eliota,’’ ‘‘Menuet,’’ ‘‘Kurs aktsii,’’ ‘‘Odnoi poetesse,’’ ‘‘Pokhozh na golos golovnoi ubor,’’ ‘‘Pered pamiatnikom A. S. Pushkinu v Odesse,’’ ‘‘Peschanye kholmy, porosshie sosnoi,’’ ‘‘Tikhotvorenie moe, moe nemoe,’’ ‘‘Biust Tiberiia,’’ ‘‘Mukha,’’ ‘‘Reki,’’ ‘‘Landsver-kanal, Berlin,’’ ‘‘Otvet na anketu,’’ ‘‘Ia pozabyl tebia, no pomniu shtukaturku,’’ ‘‘Ritratto di Donna,’’ translation of Venclova’s ‘‘Vienuolikta giesme˙.’’ Tsvetaeva: ‘‘Prosnulas’ ulitsa. Gliadit ustalaia,’’ ‘‘Sopernitsa, a ia k tebe pridu,’’ ‘‘Kniaz’ t’my,’’ part 1, ‘‘Blagoslovliaiu ezhednevnyi trud,’’ ‘‘Zakinuv golovu i opustiv glaza,’’ ‘‘Moe ubezhishche ot dikikh ord,’’ ‘‘Ia – esm’. Ty – budesh’. Mezhdu nami – bezdna,’’ ‘‘Ia ne tantsuiu – bez moei viny,’’ ‘‘Zvezda nad liul’koi – i zvezda nad grobom!’’ ‘‘Ia etu knigu poruchaiu vetru,’’ ‘‘Syn,’’ ‘‘Ne tak uzh podlo i ne tak uzh prosto,’’ ‘‘Glazami ved’my zacharovannoi,’’ ‘‘Byt’ mal’chikom tvoim svetlogolovym,’’ ‘‘Est’ nekii chas – kak sbroshennaia klazha,’’ ‘‘Pustoty otrocheskikh glaz! Provaly!’’ ‘‘Blazhenny docherei tvoikh, Zemlia,’’ ‘‘S takoiu siloi v podborodok ruku,’’ ‘‘Rolandov rog,’’ ‘‘Prostovolosaia Agar’ – sizhu,’’ ‘‘Ot gneva v pecheni, mechty vo lbu,’’ ‘‘Tak

182

Appendix VII

govoriu, ibo darovan vzgliad,’’ ‘‘Neobychainaia ona! Sverkh sil!’’ ‘‘Praga,’’ ´ ndra Łysohorsky’s ‘‘To My Mother.’’ Donne (Tarlinskajatranslation of O style analysis): ‘‘The Good-morrow,’’ ‘‘The Sunne Rising,’’ ‘‘Loves Usury,’’ ‘‘The Canonization,’’ ‘‘A Valediction: Of The Booke,’’ ‘‘Loves Exchange,’’ ‘‘The Dreame,’’ ‘‘A Valediction: Of Weeping,’’ ‘‘The Flea,’’ ‘‘A Nocturnall Upon S. Lucies Day, Being The Shortest Day,’’ ‘‘Witchcraft by a Picture,’’ ‘‘The Apparition,’’ ‘‘The Will,’’ ‘‘The Blossome,’’ ‘‘The Primrose,’’ ‘‘The Prohibition,’’ ‘‘The Expiration,’’ ‘‘The Computation,’’ ‘‘Sonnet. The Token.’’ Donne (Taranovsky-Zhirmunsky [Eng.] analysis): ‘‘The Good-morrow,’’ ‘‘The Sunne Rising,’’ ‘‘The Indi¤erent,’’ ‘‘Loves Usury,’’ ‘‘The Canonization,’’ ‘‘Lovers Infinitenesse,’’ ‘‘The Legacie,’’ ‘‘Breake of Day,’’ ‘‘A Valediction: Of The Booke,’’ ‘‘Loves Exchange,’’ ‘‘The Dreame,’’ ‘‘The Flea,’’ ‘‘The Curse,’’ ‘‘A Nocturnall Upon S. Lucies Day, Being The Shortest Day,’’ ‘‘The Will,’’ ‘‘The Funeral,’’ ‘‘The Blossome,’’ ‘‘The Dampe,’’ ‘‘The Prohibition,’’ ‘‘The Expiration,’’ ‘‘The Computation,’’ ‘‘A Lecture upon the Shadow,’’ ‘‘Sonnet. The Token.’’

References Abercrombie, David 1967 Elements of General Phonetics. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Andersen, Henning 1969

The phonological status of the Russian ‘‘labial fricatives.’’ Journal of Linguistics 5: 121–127.

Attridge, Derek 1982 The Rhythms of English Poetry. London: Longman. Attridge, Derek 1989 Linguistic theory and literary criticism: The Rhythms of English Poetry revisited. In Phonetics and Phonology. Vol. 1: Rhythm and Meter, Paul Kiparsky and Gilbert Youmans (eds.), 183– 200. San Diego: Academic Press. Auden, Wystan Hugh 2007 Selected Poems. New York: Vintage International. Bagritskii, Eduard 1956 Stikhi i poemy [Verse and long poems]. Moscow: Gos. izdatel’stvo khudozhestvennoi literatury. Bagritskii, Eduard 1964 Stikhotvoreniia i poemy [Lyrics and long poems]. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’. Bailey, James 1973 The evolution and structure of the Russian iambic pentameter from 1880 to 1922. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 16: 119–146. Bailey, James 1975 Toward a Statistical Analysis of English Verse. Netherlands: Peter de Rider Press. Bailey, James 2004 Izbrannye stat’i po russkomu literaturnomu stikhu [Selected articles on Russian literary verse]. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury. Bakovic, Eric 2009 Abstractness and motivation in phonological theory. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 2 (1), available electronically: . Barinova, Galina A. 1971 Reduktsiia i vypadanie intervokal’nykh soglasnykh v razgovornoi rechi [Reduction and deletion of intervocalic consonants in colloquial language]. In Razvitie fonetiki sovremennogo russkogo iazyka [The development of the phonetics of contemporary Russian], S. S. Vysotskii, M. V. Panov, A. A. Reformatskii, V. N. Sidorov (eds.), 117–127. Moscow: Nauka.

184

References

Barinova, Galina A. 1978 Russkaia razgovornaia rech’: Teksty [Colloquial Russian: Texts]. Moscow: Nauka. Batkin, Leonid M. 1997 Tridtsat’ tret’ia bukva: Zametki chitatelia na poliakh stikhov Iosifa Brodskogo [The thirty-third letter: A reader’s notes in the margins of Iosif Brodskii’s verse]. Moscow: Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyi universitet. Beaujour, Elizabeth Klosty 1989 Alien Tongues: Bilingual Russian Writers of the ‘‘First’’ Emigration. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989. Bely, Andrey 1985 Selected Essays of Andrey Bely. Berkeley: University of California Press. Belyi, Andrei 1910 Simvolizm: Kniga statei [Symbolism: A book of articles]. Moscow: Musaget. Belyi, Andrei 1922 Poetessa-pevitsa [A poetess-singer]. Golos Rossii, no. 971 (May 21). Cited in Irina Shevelenko, Literaturnyi put’ Tsvetaevoi: Ideologiiapoetika-identichnost’ avtora v kontekste epokhi [Tsvetaeva’s literary path. The ideology-poetics-identity of the author in the context of the epoch], 217. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2002. Belyi, Andrei 1966 Stikhotvoreniia i poemy [Lyrics and long poems], T.J. Khmelnitskaia (ed.). Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’. Belyi, Andrei 1994 Sobranie sochinenii. Stikhotvoreniia i poemy [Lyrics and long poems], V.M. Piskunov (ed.). Moscow: Respublika. Belyi, Andrei 2006 Stikhotvoreniia i poemy [Lyrics and long poems], A.V. Lavrov and John Malmstad (eds.). St. Petersburg: Akademicheskii proekt. Bethea, David 1994 Joseph Brodsky and the Creation of Exile. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bezrodnyi, Mikhail 1997 Soloviiev poedinok [Nightingales’ duel]. Novoe literaturnoe obozreniie 27: 277–278. Bogoroditskii, Vasilii A. 1884 Glasnye bez udareniia v obshcherusskom iazyke [Unstressed vowels in common Russian]. Ph. D. diss., Kazan’ University. Bolla, Kalman 1981 A Conspectus of Russian Speech Sounds. Ko¨ln: Bo¨hlau Verlag.

References

185

Bondarko, Liia V. 1997 Fonetika sovremennogo russkogo iazyka [The phonetics of modern Russian]. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Bondarko, Liia V., and Lev R. Zinder 1966 O nekotorykh di¤erentsial’nykh priznakakh russkikh soglasnykh fonem [On certain di¤erential features of Russian consonant phonemes]. Voprosy iazykoznaniia 1: 10–14. Brodskii, Iosif n.d. Zagadka angelu [Riddle for an angel]. Novye stansy k Avguste [New stanzas to Augusta]. Vozle pamiatnika Pushkinu v Odesse [Near the monument to Pushkin in Odessa]. P’iatstsa Mattei [Piazza Mattei]. Mukha [The Fly]. Arkhitektura [Architecture]. Manuscripts, The Brodsky Papers, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University. Brodskii, Iosif 1972 Zagadka angelu [Riddle for an angel]. Novye stansy k Avguste [New stanzas to Augusta]. Muzhchina, zasypaiushchii odin [A man falling asleep alone]. In ‘‘Maramzinskoe sobranie,’’ samizdatskoe sobranie sochinenii Brodskogo podgotovlennoe Vladimirom Maramzinym [The ‘‘Maramzin collection,’’ a samizdat collected works of Brodsky prepared by Vladimir Maramzin 1972–74]. The Brodsky Papers, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University. Brodskii, Iosif 1992 Bog sokhraniaet vse [God preserves everything]. Moscow: Mif. Brodskii, Iosif 2001 Sochineniia Iosifa Brodskogo [Works of Iosif Brodskii], G. Komarov (ed.). St. Petersburg: Pushkinskii fond. Brodskii, Iosif 2010 Izgnanie iz raia: Izbrannye perevody [Exile from paradise: Selected translations], Iakov Klots (ed.). St. Petersburg: Azbuka. Brodsky, Joseph 1967 Elegy to John Donne, and Other Poems, trans. Nicholas Bethell. London: Longmans. Brodsky, Joseph 1973 Selected Poems, trans. G. L. Kline. New York: Harper & Row. Brodsky, Joseph 1980 A Part of Speech. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Brodsky, Joseph 1985 Literature and War. A symposium. Times Literary Supplement (May 17): 543–544. Brodsky, Joseph 1986 Less Than One. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

186

References

Brodsky, Joseph 1988 To Urania : Selected Poems, 1965–1985. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Brodsky, Joseph 1995 On Grief and Reason. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Brodsky, Joseph 1996 So Forth: Poems. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Brodsky, Joseph 2000 Collected Poems in English, 1972–1999, Ann Kjellberg (ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Brodsky, Joseph 2001 Nativity Poems, trans. Melissa Green. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Coats, Herbert S., and Alex P. Harshenin 1971 On the phonological properties of Russian [v]. Slavic and East European Journal 15 (4): 466–478. Chatman, Seymour 1965 A Theory of Meter. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle 1968 The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. Ciepiela, Catherine 2006 The Same Solitude: Boris Pasternak and Marina Tsvetaeva. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Co‰n, Charles M. 1952 Introduction. In The Complete Poetry and Selected Prose of John Donne, xvii–xxxix. New York: The Modern Library. Cole, Deborah, and Mizuki Miyashita 2006 The function of pauses in metrical studies: Acoustic evidence from Japanese verse. In Formal Approaches to Poetry: Recent Developments in Metrics, Bezalel Elan Dresher and Nila Friedberg (eds.), 173–192. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Daniels, W. J. 1972 Assimilation in Russian consonant clusters. Papers in Linguistics 5 (3): 366–380. Den’ poezii 1961 Den’ poezii [A day of poetry]. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’. Donn, Dzhon 1973 Stikhotvoreniia [Poems], trans. B. Tomashevskii. Leningrad: Khudozhestvennaia literatura. Donne, John 1952 The Complete Poetry and Selected Prose of John Donne. New York: The Modern Library. Donne, John 1986 The Complete English Poems, Albert James Smith (ed.). New York: Penguin Classics.

References

187

Dresher, Bezalel Elan 1981 Abstractness and explanation in phonology. In Explanation in Linguistics, Norbert Hornstein and David Lightfoot (eds.), 76– 115. London: Longman. Dresher, Bezalel Elan 1994 The prosodic basis of the Tiberian Hebrew system of accents. Language 70: 1–52. Dresher, Bezalel Elan, and Nila Friedberg (eds.) 2006 Formal Approaches to Poetry: Recent Developments in Metrics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dresher, Bezalel Elan, and Harry van der Hulst 1998 Head-dependent asymmetries in prosodic phonology: Complexity and visibility. Phonology 15: 317–352. Du¤ell, Martin J. 2008 A New History of English Metre. London: Legenda. Efron, Ariadna 2004 Zhizn’ est’ zhivotnoe polosatoe. Pis’ma k Ol’ge Ivinskoi i Irine Emel’ianovoi 1955–1975 [Life is a striped animal. Letters to Ol’ga Ivinskaia and Irina Emel’ianova 1955–1975]. Moscow: Vigraf. Eliseev, Nikita 1995 Put’ Borisa Slutskogo [The journey of Boris Slutskii]. Zvezda 5: 175–183. Erenburg, Il’ia 1923 Portrety sovremennykh poetov [Portraits of contemporary poets]. Moscow: Pervina. Ermilova, Elena V. 1964 Maiakovskii i sovremennyi russkii stikh [Maiakovskii and modern Russian verse]. In Maiakovskii i sovetskaia literatura [Maiakovskii and Soviet literature], Z. S. Papernyi (ed.), 231– 256. Moscow: Nauka. Esenin, Sergei A. 1990 Sobranie sochinenii v 2 tomakh [Collected works in 2 volumes]. Moscow: Sovremennik. Etkind, Efim G. 1988 Protsess Iosifa Brodskogo [The trial of Iosif Brodskii]. London: Overseas Publications Interchange. Fabb, Nigel 1997 Linguistics and Literature. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Fabb, Nigel, and Alan Durant 1987 Introduction: The linguistics of writing: Retrospect and prospect after twenty-five years. In The Linguistics of Writing: Arguments between Language and Literature, Nigel Fabb, Derek Attridge, Alan Durant, and Colin MacCabe (eds.), 1–14. New York: Methuen.

188

References

Fabb, Nigel, Derek Attridge, Alan Durant, and Colin MacCabe (eds.) 1987 The Linguistics of Writing: Arguments between Language and Literature. New York: Methuen. Filonov Gove, Antonina 1994 The modernist poetics of grief in the wartime works of Tsvetaeva, Filonov, and Kollwitz. In Russian Narrative and Visual Art: Varieties of Seeing, Roger B. Anderson, Paul Debreczeny (eds.), 148–172. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Fleischhacker, Heidi 2001 Cluster-dependent epenthesis asymmetries. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 7, Papers in Phonology 5: 71–116. France, Peter 1990 Notes on the Sonnets to Mary Queen of Scots. In Brodsky’s Poetics and Aesthetics, Lev Lose¤ and Valentina Polukhina (eds.), 98–123. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Freeman, Donald C. 1981 Keats’s ‘To Autumn’: Poetry as process and pattern. In Essays in Modern Stylistics, Donald C. Freeman (ed.), 83–99. New York: Methuen. Friche, Vladimir M. (ed.) 1931 Literaturnaia entsiklopediia [Literary encyclopedia]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Kommunisticheskoi akademii. Fridshtein, Iurii 1997 Rozenkrants, Gil’denstern i drugie. [Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and others]. St. Petersburg: Azbuka. Friedberg, Nila 1997 Rules, tendencies, and the theory of meter. MA thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto. Friedberg, Nila 2002a Foreign accent in Brodsky’s verse. In Meter, Rhythm and Performance, C. Kueper (ed.), 373–383. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Friedberg, Nila 2002b The rhythm of exile: The semantics of rhythm in Brodsky’s iambic poetry. Die Welt der Slaven 47 (2): 275–306. Friedberg, Nila 2002c Metrical complexity in Russian verse: A study of form and meaning, Ph. D. diss., Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto. Friedberg, Nila 2009a Rule-makers and rule-breakers: Brodsky and Slutsky as reformers of Russian verse. Russian Review 68 (4): 641–661. Friedberg, Nila 2009b The Russian Auden and the Russianness of Auden: Meaning and form in a translation by Brodsky. In Towards a Typology

References

189

of Poetic Forms. From Language to Metrics and Beyond, J. L. Aroui and A. Arleo (eds.), 227–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Frost, Robert 1939 Frost, Robert 2002

Collected Poems of Robert Frost. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

The Road Not Taken: A Selection of Robert Frost’s Poems, Louis Untermeyer, John O’Hara Cosgrave (eds.). New York: Henry Holt and Company. Gardner, Helen (ed.) 1985 The Metaphysical Poets. London: Oxford University Press. Gasparov, Mikhail L. 1968 Russkii trekhudarnyi dol’nik XX v. [The Russian three-stress dol’nik of the twentieth century]. In Teoriia stikha [A theory of verse], Viktor M. Zhirmunskii, Dmitrii S. Likhachev, and V. E. Kholshevnikov (eds.), 59–106. Leningrad: Nauka. Gasparov, Mikhail L. 1974 Sovremennyi russkii stikh: Metrika i ritmika [Modern Russian verse: Meter and rhythm studies]. Moscow: Nauka. Gasparov, Mikhail L. 1980 Quantitative methods in Russian metrics: Achievements and prospects. In Russian Poetics in Translation. Vol. 7: Metre, Rhythm, Stanza, Rhyme, G. S. Smith (ed.), 1–19. Colchester: University of Essex. Gasparov, Mikhail L. 1984 Ocherk istorii russkogo stikha. Metrika. Ritmika. Rifma. Strofika. [An essay on the history of Russian verse. Meter. Rhythm. Rhyme. Stanza.] Moscow: Nauka. Gasparov, Mikhail L. 1988 Belyi-stikhoved i Belyi-stikhotvorets [Belyi as analyst of and creator of verse]. In Andrei Belyi: Problemy tvorchestva [Andrei Belyi: Issues of his work], Stanislav Lesnevskii and Aleksandr Mikhailov (eds.), 444–460. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’. Gasparov, Mikhail L. 1995 Rifma Brodskogo [Brodskii’s rhyme]. In Izbrannye stat’i [Selected articles], 83–92. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. Gasparov, Mikhail L. 1999 Metr i smysl: Ob odnom iz mekhanizmov kul’turnoi pamiati [Meter and meaning: On one of the mechanisms of cultural memory]. Moscow: Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyi universitet. Gasparov, Mikhail L. 2000 Zapiski i vypiski [Notes and excerpts]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie.

190

References

Gasparov, Mikhail L., M. L. Spivak, and T. V. Tsiv’ian (eds.) 1999 Moskva i ‘Moskva’ Andreia Belogo. Sbornik statei [Moscow and Andrei Belyi’s Moscow. A collection of articles]. Moscow: Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyi universitet. Gordin, Iakov 2000 Pereklichka vo mrake. Iosif Brodskii i ego sobesedniki [Roll call in the dark. Iosif Brodskii and his interlocutors]. St. Peterburg: Izdatel’stvo Pushkinskogo fonda. Gordin, Iakov 2003 Mir Iosifa Brodskogo: Putevoditel’ [The world of Iosif Brodskii: A guide]. St. Petersburg: Zvezda. Grinberg, Marat 2007 The midrash from Joseph: ‘Isaac and Abraham’ as Brodsky’s urtext. In Poetics, Self, Place, Anna Lisa Crone, Catherine O’Neil, Nicole Boudreau, and Sarah Krive (eds.), 237–256. Bloomington, IN: Slavica. Gross, Miriam 1981 Born in exile. The Observer (October 25): 36–41. Grudzin´ska-Gross, Irena 2009 Czesław Miłosz and Joseph Brodsky: Fellowship of Poets. New Haven: Yale University Press. Halle, Morris 1987 A Biblical pattern poem. In The Linguistics of Writing, Nigel Fabb (ed.), 67–75. New York: Methuen. Halle, Morris, and Nigel Fabb 2008 Meter in Poetry: A New Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halle, Morris, and Samuel Jay Keyser 1971 English Stress, its Form, its Growth, and its Role in Verse. New York: Harper and Row. Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud 1990 An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hanson, Kristin 1992 Resolution in modern meters. Ph. D. diss., Department of Linguistics, Stanford University. Hanson, Kristin 1996 A theoretical perspective on the history of the modern English iambic pentameter. Unpublished MS. Hanson, Kristin 2006 Shakespeare’s lyric and dramatic metrical styles. In Formal Approaches to Poetry: Recent Developments in Metrics, Bezalel Elan Dresher and Nila Friedberg (eds.), 111–134. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

References

191

Hanson, Kristin, and Paul Kiparsky 1995 A parametric theory of poetic meter. Language 72: 287–335. Hayes, Bruce 1983 A grid-based theory of English meter. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 357–393. Hayes, Bruce 1984 The phonetics and phonology of Russian voicing assimilation. In Language, Sound, Structure, M. Arono¤ and R. T. Oehrle (eds.), 318–328. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hayes, Bruce 1988 Metrics and phonological theory. In Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. Vol. 2: Linguistic Theory: Extensions and Implications, Frederick J. Newmeyer (ed.), 220–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hayes, Bruce 1989 The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Phonetics and Phonology. Vol. 1: Rhythm and Meter, Paul Kiparsky and Gilbert Youmans (eds.), 201–260. San Diego: Academic Press. Hayes, Bruce, and Abigail Kaun 1996 The role of phonological phrasing in sung and chanted verse. Linguistic Review 13: 243–303. Hayes, Bruce, and Margaret MacEachern 1998 Quatrain form in English folk verse. Language 64: 473–507. Heino, Hannes 2001 Razmer, rifma i sintaksis: Priamoi i obratnyi poriadok slov v attributivnykh sochetaniiakh u Borisa Slutskogo [Meter, rhyme, and syntax: Regular and reverse word order in Boris Slutskii’s attributive constructions]. In Slavianskii stikh: Lingvisticheskaia i prikladnaia poetika [Slavic verse: Linguistic and applied poetics], Mikhail Gasparov, Aleksandr Prokhorov, and Tat’iana Skulacheva (eds.), 164–171. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury. Heino, Hannes 2004 Ritmika trekhstopnogo iamba B. Slutskogo [The rhythm of B. Slutskii’s iambic trimeter]. Paper presented at the conference Slavianskii stikh: Lingvistika i struktura stikha [Slavic verse: Linguistics and the structure of verse]. Moscow, 21–27 June 2004. Ivanov, Viacheslav V. 1988a O Dzhonne Donne i Iosife Brodskom [On John Donne and Iosif Brodskii]. Inostrannaia literatura 9: 180–181. Ivanov, Viacheslav V. 1988b O vozdeistvii ‘‘esteticheskogo eksperimenta’’ Andreia Belogo (V. Khlebnikov, V. Maiakovskii, M. Tsvetaeva, B. Pasternak) [On the influence of Andrei Belyi’s ‘‘aesthetic experiment’’ (V. Khlebnikov, V. Maiakovskii, M. Tsvetaeva, B. Pasternak)].

192

References In Andrei Belyi: Problemy tvorchestva [Andrei Belyi: Issues of his work], Stanislav Lesnevskii and Aleksandr Mikhailov (eds.), 338–366. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’.

Ivask, Iurii 1966

Literaturnye zametki: Brodskii, Donn i sovremennaia poeziia [Literary notes: Brodskii, Donne, and modern poetry]. Mosty 12: 161–171. Jakobson, Roman 1978 Mutual assimilation of Russian voiced and voiceless consonants. Studia Linguistica 32: 1–2, 107–110. Jakobson, Roman 1979a Reprint. O cheshskom stikhe: Preimushchestvenno v sopostavlenii s russkim [On Czech verse, mainly compared to Russian]. In Selected Writings. Vol. 5: On Verse, its Masters and Explorers, 3–130. The Hague: Mouton. Original edition, 1923. Jakobson, Roman 1979b Reprint. Russian binary meters. In Selected Writings. Vol. 5, 167–177. Original edition, 1955. Jakobson, Roman 1979c Reprint. Ob odnoslozhnykh slovakh v russkom stikhe [On monosyllabic words in Russian verse]. In Selected Writings. Vol. 5, 201–214. Originally published in Slavic Poetics. Essays in Honor of Kiril Taranovsky, Roman Jakobson, C. H. van Schooneveld and Dean S. Worth (eds.). The Hague, Mouton, 1973. Jakobson, Roman 1979d Retrospect. In Selected Writings. Vol. 5, 569–602. Jakobson, Roman 1979e On the translation of verse. In Selected Writings. Vol. 5, 131– 134. The Hague: Mouton. Janecek, Gerald 2002 Stikhi na smert’ T. S. Eliota [Verses on the death of T. S. Eliot]. In Kak rabotaet stikhotvorenie Brodskogo [How Brodsky’s poem works], Lev Losev and Valentina Polukhina (eds.), 33–42. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. Jespersen, Otto 1933 Notes on metre. In O. Jespersen, Linguistica, 249–274. Copenhagen: Levin og Munksgaard. Karlinsky, Simon 1966 Marina Cvetaeva: Her Life and Art. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Kasatkin, Leonid L. 2003 Fonetika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo iazyka [The phonetics of modern literary Russian]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.

References

193

Kavitskaya, Darya 1999 Voicing assimilation and the schizophrenic behavior of /v/ in Russian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 7: The Seattle Meeting, K. Dziwirek, H. S. Coats, and C. Vakareliyska (eds.), 225–244. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Keppen, A. P. 1893 The Industries of Russia. Ed. of English trans. John Martin Crawford. Vol. 4. St. Petersburg: Imperial Ministry of Finance. Khodasevich, Vladislav 1914 Shchastlivyi domik: Vtoraia kniga stikhov [Happy little house: A second book of verse]. Moscow: Al’tsiona. Khodasevich, Vladislav 1920 Putem zerna: Tret’ia kniga stikhov [By way of grain: A third book of verse]. Moscow: Tvorchestvo. Khodasevich, Vladislav 1927 Sobranie stikhov [Collected verse]. Paris: Vozrozhdenie. Khodasevich, Vladislav 1982 Sobranie stikhov v dvukh tomakh [Collected verse in two volumes]. Paris: Presse Libre. Khodasevich, Vladislav 1983 Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works], John Malmstad and Robert Hughes (eds.). Ann Arbor: Ardis. Khodasevich, Vladislav 1996 Sobranie sochinenii v chetyrekh tomakh [Collected works in four volumes]. Moscow: Soglasie. Khvorost’ianova, Elena V. 1999 Mistifikatsiia v tvorcheskoi biografii (Marina Tsvetaeva – Andrei Belyi) [Mystification in a creative biography (Marina Tsvetaeva – Andrei Belyi)]. In Moskva i ‘Moskva’ Andreia Belogo: Sbornik statei [Moscow and Andrei Belyi’s Moscow. A collection of articles], M. L. Gasparov, M. L. Spivak, and T. V. Tsiv’ian (eds.), 317–348. Moscow: Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyi universitet. Khvorost’ianova, Elena V. 2008 Usloviia ritma. Istoriko-tipologicheskie ocherki russkogo stikha [Conditions of rhythm. Historico-typological essays on Russian verse]. St. Petersburg: Izd-vo Russkoi khristianskoi gumanitarnoi akademii. Kiparsky, Paul 1973 How abstract is phonology? Manuscript; published in Explanation in Phonology [Kiparsky 1982], 119–164. Dordrecht: Foris. Kiparsky, Paul 1975 Stress, syntax and meter. Language 51: 576–617. Kiparsky, Paul 1977 The rhythmic structure of English verse. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 189–249.

194

References

Kiparsky, Paul 1982 Kiparsky, Paul 1985 Kiparsky, Paul 1989

Kiparsky, Paul 2006

Explanation in Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology 2: 85–138. Sprung rhythm. In Phonetics and Phonology. Vol. 1: Rhythm and Meter, Paul Kiparsky and Gilbert Youmans (eds.), 305–340. San Diego: Academic Press.

A modular metrics for folk verse. In Formal Approaches to Poetry: Recent Developments in Metrics, Bezalel Elan Dresher and Nila Friedberg (eds.), 7–49. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kiparsky, Paul, and Gilbert Youmans (eds.) 1989 Phonetics and Phonology. Vol. 1: Rhythm and Meter. San Diego: Academic Press. Klenin, Emily 2002 The Poetics of Afanasy Fet. Ko¨ln: Bo¨hlau Verlag. Klenin, Emily 2009 Review of Formal Approaches to Poetry, Bezalel Elan Dresher and Nila Friedberg (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006. Slavic and Eastern European Journal 53 (2): 281–282. Kline, George L. 1972 A bibliography of the published works of Iosif Aleksandrovich Brodsky. Russian Literature Triquarterly 1: 441–455. Kline, George L. 1990 Variations on the theme of exile. In Brodsky’s Poetics and Aesthetics, Lev Lose¤ and Valentina Polukhina (eds.), 56–88. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Klots, Yakov 2008 The poetics and politics of Brodsky’s translations into Russian. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Philadelphia, PA. Ko¨keritz, Helge 1974 Shakespeare’s Pronunciation. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kolmogorov, Andrei N. 1968 Primer izucheniia metra i ego ritmicheskikh variantov [An example of the study of a meter and its rhythmic variants]. In Teoriia stikha [A theory of verse], Viktor M. Zhirmunskii, Dmitrii S. Likhachev, and V. E. Kholshevnikov (eds.), 145–167. Leningrad: Nauka. Koroleva, Nina V. 1973 F. Tiutchev, ‘‘Silentium.’’ In Poeticheskii stroi russkoi liriki [The poetic structure of Russian lyric verse], Georgii Fridlender (ed.), 147–159. Leningrad: Nauka.

References

195

Kreps, Mikhail O poezii Iosifa Brodskogo [On Iosif Brodskii’s poetry]. Ann Arbor: Ardis. Kudrova, Irma 1997 ‘‘Eto oshelomliaet. . .’’: Iosif Brodskii o Marine Tsvetaevoi [‘‘This is astonishing. . .’’: Iosif Brodskii on Marina Tsvetaeva]. Zvezda 1: 210–216. Kulle, Viktor 2001 Iosif Brodskii: Novaia Odisseia [Iosif Brodskii: A new Odyssey]. In Sochineniia Iosifa Brodskogo [The works of Iosif Brodskii], G. Komarov (ed.), 1: 283–297. St. Petersburg: Pushkinskii fond. Kulle, Viktor 2003 Iosif Brodskii: Khronologiia zhizni i tvorchestva [Iosif Brodskii: A chronology of his life and work]. In Mir Iosifa Brodskogo: Putevoditel’ [The world of Iosif Brodskii: A guide], Iakov Gordin (ed.), 5–19. St. Petersburg: Zvezda. Ku¨per, Christoph (ed.) 2002 Meter, Rhythm and Performance. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Kviatkovskii, Aleksandr Pavlovich 1966 Poeticheskii slovar’ [A dictionary of poetics]. Moscow: Sovetskaia entsiklopediia. Ladefoged, Peter 1993 A Course in Phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Ladefoged, Peter 2003 Phonetic Data Analysis: Introduction to Fieldwork and Instrumental Techniques. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Lavrov, Aleksandr V. 1995 Andrei Belyi v 1900-e gody [Andrei Belyi in the 1900s]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, available electronically: . Lilly, Ian 1993 The metrical context of Brodsky’s centenary poem for Akhmatova. Slavic and Eastern European Journal 37: 211–219. Lose¤, Lev 1992 Lose¤. In Brodsky through the Eyes of his Contemporaries, Valentina Polukhina (ed.), 113–139. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Lose¤, Lev, and Valentina Polukhina (eds.) 1990 Brodsky’s Poetics and Aesthetics. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Lose¤, Lev, and Valentina Polukhina (eds.) 1999 Joseph Brodsky: The Art of a Poem. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

196

References

Losev, Lev 2006

Iosif Brodskii: Opyt literaturnoi biografii [Iosif Brodskii: Toward a literary biography]. Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia. Losev, Lev, and Valentina Polukhina (eds.) 2002 Kak rabotaet stikhotvorenie Brodskogo [How Brodskii’s poem works]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. Lotman, Mikhail Iurievich 1999 Chetyrekhstopnyi iamb Brodskogo [Brodskii’s iambic tetrameter]. Paper presented at the annual conference Comparative Slavic Metrics, Warsaw, Polish Academy of Sciences. Lotman, Mikhail Iurievich 2006 Generative metrics and the comparative approach. In Formal Approaches to Poetry: Recent Developments in Metrics, Bezalel Elan Dresher and Nila Friedberg (eds.), 253–266. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lotman, Iurii Mikhailovich 1995 Pushkin. St. Peterburg: Iskusstvo. MacFadyen, David 1998 Joseph Brodsky and the Baroque. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. MacFadyen, David 2000 Joseph Brodsky and the Soviet Muse. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Malmstad, John, and Robert Hughes 1983 Trudy i dni Khodasevicha [Khodasevich’s works and days]. In Vladislav Khodasevich, Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works], John Malmstad and Robert Hughes (eds.), 1: 468–472. Ann Arbor: Ardis. Marshak, Samuil 1969 Sobranie sochinenii v vos’mi tomakh. Tom tretii: Perevody iz angliiskikh i shotlandskikh poetov [Collected works in eight volumes. Vol. 3: Translations from English and Scottish poets]. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura. Marvell, Andrew 1951 The Poems and Letters of Andrew Marvell, H. M. Margoliouth (ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Matusevich, Margarita 1976 Sovremennyi russkii iazyk: Fonetika [Contemporary Russian: Phonetics]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie. Milton, John 2003 Paradise Lost and Other Poems, Edward Le Compte (ed.). New York: Signet Classic. Mu¨ller, Vladimir K. 1953 Anglo-russkii slovar’ [English-Russian dictionary]. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo inostrannykh i natsional’nykh slovarei.

References

197

Nabokov, Vladimir 1964 Notes on Prosody and Abram Gannibal. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel 1982 Prosodic domains and external sandhi rules. In The Structure of Phonological Representation, Part I, Harry van der Hulst and N. Smith (eds.). Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Nikolaev, Sergei 2005 Inoiazychie kak metakomponent stikhotvornykh tekstov Brodskogo (k voprosu o bilingvizme v poezii) [Foreign language as a metacomponent of Brodskii’s poetic texts (toward an analysis of bilingualism in poetry)]. In Iosif Brodskii: Strategii chteniia [Iosif Brodskii: Strategies of reading], V. Polukhina, A. Korchinskii, and Iu. Troitskii (eds.), 112–130. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Ippolitova. Odden, David 2005 Introducing Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Olgin, Moissaye J. 1917 The Soul of the Russian Revolution. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Padgett, Jaye 2002 Russian voicing assimilation, final devoicing, and the problem of [v]. MS, University of California at Santa Cruz, available electronically: . Perel’, Iu. G. 1962 K voprosu o mirovozzrenii K. Flammariona i ego roli v razvitii i rasprostranenii astronomicheskikh znanii [On the issue of K. Flammarion’s worldview and his role in the development and spread of astronomical knowledge]. Istoriko-astronomicheskie issledovaniia 8: 285–296. Polukhina, Valentina 1989 Joseph Brodsky: A Poet for our Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Polukhina, Valentina 1992 Brodsky through the Eyes of his Contemporaries. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Polukhina, Valentina 1997 Brodskii glazami sovremennikov [Brodskii through the eyes of his contemporaries]. St. Petersburg: Zvezda. Polukhina, Valentina 2000 I. Brodskii. Bol’shaia kniga interv’iu [I. Brodskii. A big book of interviews]. Moscow: Zakharov. Polukhina, Valentina 2008 Iosif Brodskii: Zhizn’, trudy, epokha [Iosif Brodskii: Life, works, epoch]. St. Petersburg: Zvezda.

198

References

Polukhina, Valentina, and Lev Losev 2006 Khronologiia zhizni i tvorchestva I. A. Brodskogo [Chronology of the life and work of I. A. Brodskii]. In Lev Losev, Iosif Brodskii: Opyt literaturnoi biografii [Iosif Brodskii: Toward a literary biography], 323–424. Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia. Prigov, Dmitrii 1997 Sovetskie teksty [Soviet texts]. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Ivana Limbakha. Pugh, Stefan M. 1993 More on glides in contemporary standard Russian: The loss of intervocalic /j/ and /v/. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 1 (2): 343– 351. Pushkin, Aleksandr Sergeevich 1986 Sochineniia v trekh tomakh [Works in three volumes]. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura. Pushkin, Aleksandr Sergeevich 1998 Eugene Onegin: A Novel in Verse, trans. J. Falen. Oxford University Press. Ranchin, Andrei M. 1998 Eshche raz o Brodskom i Khodaseviche [Once more on Brodskii and Khodasevich]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie 30, available electronically: . Ranchin, Andrei M. 2001 Na piru Mnemoziny: Interteksty Brodskogo [At Mnemosyne’s feast: Brodskii’s intertexts]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. Ranchin, Andrei M. 2009 ‘‘Krivonogomu mal’chiku vtoria’’: Lermontovskaia traditsiia v poezii Iosifa Brodskogo [‘‘Echoing the bow-legged boy’’: The Lermontov tradition in the poetry of Iosif Brodskii]. Slovo, available electronically: . Rein, Evgenii 2003 Zametki marafontsa: Nekanonicheskie memuary [Notes of a marathon runner: Non-canonical memoirs]. Ekaterinburg: YFaktoria. Rogers, Henry 2000 The Sounds of Language. London: Longman. Ronen, Omri 1992 Chasy uchenichestva Mariny Tsvetaevoi [The hours of Marina Tsvetaeva’s apprenticeship]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie 1: 177–190. Saakiants, Anna 1988 Vstrecha poetov: Andrei Belyi i Marina Tsvetaeva [A meeting of poets: Andrei Belyi and Marina Tsvetaeva]. In Andrei Belyi:

References

199

Problemy tvorchestva [Andrei Belyi: Issues of his work], Stanislav Lesnevskii and Aleksandr Mikhailov (eds.), 367–385. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’. Saintsbury, George 1914 Historical Manual of English Prosody. London: Macmillan and Co. Sandler, Stephanie 2004 Commemorating Pushkin: Russia’s Myth of a National Poet. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Scherr, Barry Paul 1980 Russian and English versification: Similarities, di¤erences, analysis. Style 14 (4): 353–378. Scherr, Barry Paul 1986 Russian Poetry: Meter, Rhythm, and Rhyme. Berkeley: University of California Press. Scherr, Barry Paul 1990 Beginning at the end: Rhyme and enjambment in Brodsky’s poetry. In Brodsky’s Poetics and Aesthetics, Lev Lose¤ and Valentina Polukhina (eds.), 180–193. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Scherr, Barry Paul 2010 Leonid Martynov, Boris Slutsky and the politics of rhythm. Paragraph 33 (2): 246–259. Seleshnikov, S. I. 1966 Iubilei otechestvennoi i mirovoi astronomii v 1967 g. [Anniversaries in national and world astronomy in 1967]. Astronomicheskii kalendar’ na 1967: 269–271. Selkirk, Elizabeth 1978 On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structures. In Nordic Prosody II, Thorstein Fretheim (ed.). Trondheim: TAPIR. Shaitanov, Igor’ 1998 Uravnenie s dvumia neizvestnymi (Poety-metafiziki Dzhon Donn i Iosif Brodskii) [An equation with two unknowns: The metaphysical poets John Donne and Iosif Brodskii]. Voprosy literatury 6, available electronically: . Shakespeare, William 2000 Love’s Labor’s Lost, Peter Holland (ed.). New York: Penguin Classics. Shakespeare, William 2004 Shakespeare’s Sonnets, Barbara A. Mowat, Paul Werstine (eds.). New York: Simon and Schuster. Shapir, Maksim 2000 U istokov russkogo chetyrekhstopnogo iamba: Genezis i evoliutsiia ritma [At the sources of Russian iambic tetrameter: The genesis and evolution of a rhythm]. In Universum versus: Iazyk – stikh –

200

References smysl v russkoi poezii XVIII–XX vekov [Universum versus: Language – verse – meaning in Russian poetry of the eighteenthtwentieth centuries], 131–160. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury.

Shengeli, Georgii 1923 Traktat o russkom stikhe [A treatise on Russian verse]. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo. Shevelenko, Irina 2002 Literaturnyi put’ Tsvetaevoi: Ideologiia-poetika-identichnost’ avtora v kontekste epokhi [Tsvetaeva’s literary path. The ideologypoetics-identity of the author in the context of the epoch]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. Shevoroshkin, Vitalii V. 1971 O dvukh [v] v russkom iazyke [On the two [v]’s in Russian]. In Razvitie fonetiki sovremennogo russkogo iazyka [The development of the phonetics of contemporary Russian], S. S. Vysotskii, M. V. Panov, A. A. Reformatskii, and V. N. Sidorov (eds.), 279–286. Moscow: Nauka. Shrayer, Maxim D. 2007 An Anthology of Jewish-Russian Literature: Two Centuries of Dual Identity in Prose and Poetry. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Shul’ts, Sergei 2000 Iosif Brodskii v 1961–1964 godakh [Iosif Brodskii in 1961– 1964]. Zvezda 5: 75–83. Shvarts, Elena 1992 Coldness and rationality. In Brodsky through the Eyes of his Contemporaries, V. Polukhina (ed.), 215–236. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Shveitser, Viktoriia 2002 Marina Tsvetaeva. Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia. Slutskii, Boris 1957 Pamiat’ [Memory]. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’. Slutskii, Boris 1959 Vremia [Time]. Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia. Slutskii, Boris 1961/63 Segodnia i vchera [Today and yesterday]. Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia. Slutskii, Boris 1991 Sobraniie sochinenii. Tom pervyi [Collected works. Volume one]. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura. Slutskii, Boris 2005 O drugikh i o sebe [About others and myself ]. Moscow: Vagrius. Shveitser, Viktoriia Slutskii, Boris 1999 Things That Happened, trans. G. Smith. Moscow: Glas.

References

201

Smith, Gerald Stanton 1976 The versification of Marina Tsvetaeva’s Lyric Poetry, 1922–23. Essays in Poetics 1 (2): 21–50. Smith, Gerald Stanton 1980 Russian Poetics in Translation. Vol. 7: Metre, Rhythm, Stanza, Rhyme. Colchester: University of Essex. Smith, Gerald Stanton 1985 The metrical repertoire of shorter poems by Russian e´migre´s, 1971–1980. Canadian Slavonic Papers 27 (4): 385–399. Smith, Gerald Stanton 1999a Soldier of misfortune. In Boris Slutsky, Things That Happened, 1–23. Moscow: Glas. Smith, Gerald Stanton 1999b Singing without music. In Joseph Brodsky: The Art of a Poem, Lev Lose¤ and Valentina Polukhina (eds.), 1–25. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Smith, Gerald Stanton 2001 Russian poetry since 1945. In The Routledge Companion to Russian Literature, Neil Cornwell (ed.), 197–207. London: Routledge. Smith, Gerald Stanton 2002a The versification of Joseph Brodsky, 1990–1992. Modern Language Review 97 (3): 1–16. Smith, Gerald Stanton 2002b The versification of Joseph Brodsky, 1993. Slavonica 8: 68–85. Stepanov, Aleksandr G. 1999 Ob odnoi stroficheskoi modeli u I. Brodskogo (‘‘Mukha’’) [On a certain stanza model of I. Brodskii (‘‘The Fly’’)]. In Literaturnyi tekst: problemy i metody issledovaniia. Vyp. 5, ‘‘Svoe’’ i ‘‘chuzhoe’’ slovo v khudozhestvennom tekste: sbornik nauchnykh trudov [Literary text: issues and methods of research. No. 5: ‘‘One’s own’’ and ‘‘the other’s’’ word in an artistic text: a collection of research works], I. V. Fomenko (ed.), 153–163. Tver’: Tverskoi gosudarstvennyi universitet. Svetozarova, Natal’ia D. 1988 Fonetika spontannoi rechi [The phonetics of spontaneous speech]. Leningrad: Izd-vo Leningradskogo universiteta. Taranovski, Kiril 1953 Russki dvodelni ritmovi [Russian binary meters]. Beograd: Srpska Akademija Nauka. Taranovskii, Kirill 1963 O vzaimootnoshenii stikhotvornogo ritma i tematiki [On the relationship of poetic rhythm to theme]. In American Contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavists, 287–322. The Hague: Mouton.

202

References

Taranovskii, Kirill 1966 Chetyrekhstopnyi iamb Andreia Belogo [Andrei Belyi’s iambic tetrameter]. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 10: 127–147. Taranovskii, Kirill 1971 O ritmicheskoi strukture russkikh dvukhslozhnykh razmerov [The rhythmical structure of Russian binary meters]. In Poetika i stilistika russkoi literatury [The poetics and stylistics of Russian literature], M. P. Alekseev (ed.), 420–428. Leningrad: Nauka. Tarlinskaja, Marina 1976 English Verse: Theory and History. The Hague: Mouton. Tarlinskaja, Marina 1987 Meter and language: Binary and ternary meters in English and Russian. Style 21 (4): 626–649. Tarlinskaja, Marina 1993 Strict Stress-Meter in English Poetry Compared with German and Russian. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. Tarlinskaja, Marina 2002 Verse text: Its meter and its oral rendition. In Meter, Rhythm and Performance, C. Ku¨per (ed.), 39–58. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Tarlinskaja, Marina 2006 What is ‘‘metricality’’? English iambic pentameter. In Formal Approaches to Poetry: Recent Developments in Metrics, Bezalel Elan Dresher and Nila Friedberg (eds.), 53–76. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Taubman, Jane A. 1989 A Life Through Poetry: Marina Tsvetaeva’s Lyric Diary. Columbus: Slavica. Timberlake, Alan 2004 A Reference Grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tiutchev, Fedor 1987 Polnoe sobranie stikhotvorenii [Complete poems]. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’. Tomashevskii, Boris 1929 O stikhe [On verse]. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Trager, George L., and Henry Lee Smith 1951 An Outline of English Structure. Washington, D.C.: American Council of Learned Societies. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1989 Meter in Auden’s ‘‘Streams.’’ In Phonetics and Phonology. Vol. 1: Rhythm and Meter, Paul Kiparsky and Gilbert Youmans (eds.), 291–304. San Diego: Academic Press.

References

203

Tsiavlovskii, Mstislav A., and Nadezhda A. Tarkhova 1999 Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva Aleksandra Pushkina. Moscow: Slovo. Tsvetaeva, Marina 1920 Blagoslovliaiu ezhednevnyi trud [I bless the everyday labor]. Sovremennyia zapiski 1: 50. Tsvetaeva, Marina 1921a Zakinuv golovu. . . [Having turned the head. . .]. Sovremennyia zapiski 7: 93. Tsvetaeva, Marina 1921b Tebe – cherez sto let [To you, a hundred years later]. Sovremennyia zapiski 7: 95–96. Tsvetaeva, Marina 1924a V ushakh dva svista [Two whistles in the ears]. Sovremennyia zapiski 19: 173. Tsvetaeva, Marina 1924b Skuchaiut posle kutezha [People get bored after a binge]. Sovremennyia zapiski 19: 174. Tsvetaeva, Marina 1925 Dvoe [The two]. Sovremennyia zapiski 23: 209–210. Tsvetaeva, Marina 1932 Rolandov rog [Roland’s horn]. Sovremennyia zapiski 50: 234. Tsvetaeva, Marina 1961 Izbrannoe [Selected works]. Moscow: Gos. izdatel’stvo khudozhestvennoi literatury. Tsvetaeva, Marina 1965 Izbrannye proizvedeniia [Selected works]. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’. Tsvetaeva, Marina 1992 After Russia, Michael M. Naydan (ed.), trans. Michael M. Naydan and Slava Yastremski. Ann Arbor: Ardis. Tsvetaeva, Marina 1994 Sobranie sochinenii v 7 tomakh [Collected works in seven volumes]. Moscow: Ellis Lak. Urban, Adol’f 1984 Stikh vstaet, kak soldat [The verse arises like a soldier]. Zvezda 4: 188–200. Untermeyer, Louis (ed.) 1962 Modern American Poetry. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Venclova, Tomas 1999 Lithuanian nocturne. In Joseph Brodsky: The Art of a Poem, Lev Lose¤ and Valentina Polukhina (eds.), 107–149. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

204

References

Venclova, Tomas 2002 Kenigbergskii tekst russkoi literatury [The Ko¨nigsberg text in Russian literature]. In Kak rabotaet stikhotvorenie Brodskogo [How Brodskii’s poem works], Lev Losev and Valentina Polukhina (eds.), 108–132. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. Venclova, Tomas 2008 Brodskii – perevodchik Norvida [Brodskii as translator of Norwid]. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Philadelphia, PA. Vickers, Brian 2002 ‘Counterfeiting’ Shakespeare: Evidence, Authorship, and John Ford’s Funerall Elegye. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vinogradov, A. V. 1935 Tvorchestvo Flammariona s tochki zreniia sovetskogo chitatelia [Flammarion’s work from the point of view of the Soviet reader]. Mirovedenie 24 (4): 261–267. Volkov, Solomon 1998 Conversations with Joseph Brodsky. New York: The Free Press. Volkov, Solomon 2002 Razgovory s Iosifom Brodskim [Conversations with Iosif Brodskii]. Moscow: Eksmo. Voznesenskii, Andrei 2000 Sobranie sochinenii v piati tomakh [Collected works in five volumes]. Moscow: Vagrius. Wachtel, Michael 1998 The Development of Russian Verse: Meter and its Meanings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wachtel, Michael 2004 The Cambridge Introduction to Russian Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, Oscar 1955 The New Pocket Anthology of American Verse: From Colonial Days to the Present. Cleveland and New York: The World Publishing Company. Yeats, William Butler 2000 The Collected Poems of W. B. Yeats. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions. Youmans, Gilbert 1989a Preface. In Phonetics and Phonology. Vol. 1: Rhythm and Meter, Paul Kiparsky and Gilbert Youmans (eds.), xi–xii. San Diego: Academic Press. Youmans, Gilbert 1989b Introduction: Rhythm and meter. In Phonetics and Phonology. Vol. 1: Rhythm and Meter, Paul Kiparsky and Gilbert Youmans (eds.), 1–14. San Diego: Academic Press.

References

205

Zarva, Maia V. 2001 Russkoe slovesnoe udarenie [Russian word stress]. Moscow: ENAS. Zemskaia, Elena Andreevna 1972 Russkaia razgovornaia rech’ [Colloquial Russian]. Moscow: Nauka. Zhirmunskii, Viktor Maksimovich 1966 Introduction to Metrics. The Hague: Mouton. Zhirmunskii, Viktor Maksimovich 1971 Reprint. Vvedenie v metriku [Introduction to metrics]. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Original edition, Leningrad, 1925. Zubova, Liudmila 1999 Iazyk poezii Mariny Tsvetaevoi: Fonetika, slovoobrazovanie, frazeologiia [The language of Marina Tsvetaeva’s poetry: Phonetics, word formation, phraseology]. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Zuraw, Kie Ross 2003 Infixation in Tagalog: Cluster markedness vs. similarity. Paper presented at the 5e`me colloque du GDR phonologie, Universite´ Paul-Vale´ry, Montpellier.

Author index Akhmatova, Anna 94, 151, 169 Attridge, Derek 2, 5 Bagritsky, Eduard 26, 47–49 Bailey, James 11, 31 Bakovic, Eric 123 Batkin, Leonid 87 Beaujour, Elizabeth Klosty 83 Bely, Andrei 1, 4–5, 7, 23, 40, 52, 103–110, 114, 118, 122 – ‘‘Bacchanalia’’ (‘‘Vakkhanaliia’’) 104–106 – ‘‘Fate’’ (‘‘Sud’ba’’) 104, 106 – ‘‘Harlequinade’’ (‘‘Arlekiniada’’) 104–105 – ‘‘In the summer garden’’ (‘‘V letnem sadu’’) 104–105 – ‘‘Melancholy’’ (‘‘Melankholiia’’) 104, 106 Bethea, David 86, 120, 124 Bezrodny, Mikhail 87 Brodsky, Joseph 1–4, 93, 97, 119 – ‘‘Flammarion’’ 87, 93, 115–117, 153, 180 – ‘‘The fly’’ (‘‘Mukha’’) 56–57, 62, 64, 94, 98–99, 126, 154, 166, 180 – ‘‘A gardener in a quilted jacket, like a thrush’’ (‘‘Sadovnik v vatnike, kak drozd’’) 93, 99, 152, 180 – ‘‘The headwear looks like a voice’’ (‘‘Pokhozh na golos golovnoi ubor’’) 95–96, 161, 181 – ‘‘Homage to Yalta’’ (‘‘Posviashchaetsia Ialte’’) 62–63, 72, 126, 163 – ‘‘In front of the monument to A. S. Pushkin in Odessa’’ (‘‘Pered pamiatnikom A. S. Pushkinu v Odesse’’) 63, 90, 96–97, 118, 126, 153, 164, 169, 181 – ‘‘In a room and a half ’’ 97 – ‘‘New stanzas to Augusta’’ (‘‘Novye stansy k Avguste’’) 37, 44, 54–55, 66, 88, 93, 99, 126, 152, 160, 180

– ‘‘Riddle for an angel’’ (‘‘Zagadka angelu’’) 56, 63, 74, 80, 91, 126, 151, 180 – ‘‘Twenty sonnets to Mary Queen of Scots’’ (‘‘Dvadtsat’ sonetov k Marii Stiuart’’) 89, 94, 118, 154, 166, 180 Chomsky, Noam 14, 46, 124 Ciepiela, Catherine 107, 174 Donne, John 3–4, 6–10, 14–16, 20– 21, 36–39, 42, 44–46, 53, 58–62, 66–67, 79, 82, 85, 87–88, 93–94, 100–102, 120, 122–123, 125, 136– 139, 142–149, 176–182 Dresher, Bezalel Elan 2, 67, 123 Du¤ell, Martin 83 Efron, Ariadna 119 Eliseev, Nikita 82 Fabb, Nigel 2, 12, 15, 18, 36 Falen, James 30–32 Flammarion, Camille 93, 117 France, Peter 89 Freeman, Donald 2 Frost, Robert 3, 6, 23, 37–40, 45, 53 Gasparov, Mikhail 1–2, 4–5, 7, 12, 17–18, 22, 31–34, 47, 83, 87, 94, 103, 122–123 Gordin, Iakov 2, 84, 153 Grinberg, Marat 48, 54

Halle, Morris, and Nigel Fabb 18 Halle, Morris, and Samuel Jay Keyser 4, 10, 18–19, 43–44, 60, 90 Halle, Morris, and Jean–Roger Vergnaud 122 Hanson, Kristin 1, 4–5, 7, 15, 82, 122 Hayes, Bruce 4–5, 13–14, 20, 66, 68, 84

Author index Ivanov, Vyacheslav 3, 107 Jakobson, Roman 4–5, 15–19, 52, 54, 66, 84 Kasatkin, Leonid 29, 51, 72–73, 122 Khodasevich, Vladislav 3–4, 7–8, 40, 85–87, 101, 103, 112 – ‘‘By the sea’’ (‘‘U moria’’) 115–117 – By way of grain (Putem zerna) 114– 115 – ‘‘The calico kingdom’’ (‘‘Sittsevoe tsarstvo’’) 113–115 Khvorost’ianova, Elena 107 Kiparsky, Paul 2, 4–6, 10, 13–15, 19, 20, 43–46, 59, 66, 84, 122–125 Klenin, Emily 2, 18, 83 Kline, George 86, 119, 152, 156–157, 159, 165 Klots, Yakov 3, 7, 167 Kudrova, Irma 23 Kulle, Viktor 3, 49, 93, 150, 154–155, 168 Lavrov, Aleksandr 104, 107 Lose¤, Lev 3–4, 6, 37, 40, 44, 53–54, 97, 103 Lotman, Mikhail 4, 7, 53, 55, 85–86, 101 Lotman, Yuri 97 MacFadyen, David 3, 22, 47, 52, 54, 74, 84–86, 124 Malmstad, John, and Robert Hughes 103, 114, 117–118 Marvell, Andrew 3, 85, 88, 93–94, 99, 154–155, 180 Nikolaev, Sergei 52 Norwid, Cyprian 168 Plutzik, Hyam 3, 21, 62, 168 Polukhina, Valentina 3, 8, 37–38, 40, 44, 73–74, 86, 89, 101, 112, 119, 124 Polukhina, Valentina and Lev Lose¤ 3, 20, 26, 40, 44, 47, 49, 58, 85, 91, 93, 101, 103, 107, 150, 154

207

Prigov, Dmitry 73 Pushkin, Alexander 19, 27–32, 89, 96– 97, 104–105, 120 Ranchin, Andrei 87 Rein, Evgeny 38, 44, 53 Ronen, Omry 107 Saakiants, Anna 107 Saintsbury, George 83 Sandler, Stephanie 97 Scherr, Barry Paul 4, 12, 81 Shaitanov, Igor’ 3, 38 Shakespeare, William 12–14, 23, 36– 37, 43–44, 47 Shevelenko, Irina 23 Shul’ts, Sergei 25, 40, 47–48, 86, 101, 103, 107, 119 Shveitser, Viktoria 23, 107, 118 Slutsky, Boris 3–4, 6–7, 10, 18, 26, 47–54, 70, 73–83, 125, 132–135, 141–142, 145–148 Smith, Gerald Stanton 3–4, 6–7, 26, 34, 40–41, 53–54, 74, 85–86, 88, 153–154 Stepanov, Alexander 3–4, 94, 98 Taranovsky, Kiril 1–5, 7–8, 28, 31– 34, 36–37, 39–40, 42, 87, 101, 103– 106, 114, 176, 178–182 Tarlinskaja, Marina 1–2, 4, 11, 13, 15, 17, 22–23, 31, 35–40, 42, 68, 101, 176–182 Timberlake, Alan 51, 66, 122, 128 Tiutchev, Fedor 16–17, 47 Tomashevsky, Boris 15, 28–29, 52, 122–123 Tsiavlovskii, Mstislav, and Nadezhda Tarkhova 96–97 Tsvetaeva, Marina 3–8, 10, 23–26, 40–42, 47–50, 83, 85–86, 100–103, 107–112, 118–119, 121–122, 125, 171–182 – After Russia (Posle Rossii) 41 – ‘‘Factory workers’’ (‘‘Zavodskie’’) 41, 107, 110, 172, 181

208

Author index

– ‘‘From wrath in the liver, and dreams in the forehead’’ (‘‘Ot gneva v pecheni, mechty vo lbu’’) 111–112, 175, 181 – ‘‘I bless everyday labor’’ (‘‘Blagoslovliaiu ezhednevnyi trud’’) 108, 110, 173, 181 – ‘‘Newspaper readers’’ (‘‘Chitateli gazet’’) 23–25 – ‘‘People get bored after a binge’’ (‘‘Skuchaiut posle kutezha’’) 42, 107–109, 171, 181 – ‘‘A poet begins speaking from afar’’ (‘‘Poet – izdaleka zavodit rech’ ’’) 107, 109, 112, 172, 181 – ‘‘Roland’s horn’’ (‘‘Rolandov rog’’) 41, 108, 110, 112, 175, 181 – ‘‘To be your fair–haired boy’’ (‘‘Byt’ mal’chikom tvoim svetlogolovym’’) 108, 111, 174, 181 – ‘‘To you, a hundred years later’’ (‘‘Tebe – cherez sto let’’) 24–25, 171, 181

– ‘‘The two’’ (‘‘Dvoe’’) 23, 25 – ‘‘Two ringings in the ears’’ (‘‘V ushakh dva svista’’) 25 Venclova, Tomas 47, 95, 98, 164, 168, 170, 181 Volkov, Solomon 4, 17, 37, 45, 53, 103, 113–115, 119 Voznesensky, Andrei 51, 70, 72–74, 124 Wachtel, Michael 1–2, 86, 113, 120 Wilbur, Richard 3, 63, 85, 93, 126, 154, 167–168, 170, 180 Yeats, William Butler 23, 66, 89, 167 Yevtushenko, Yevgeny 74, 124 Youmans, Gilbert 2, 5 Zhirmunsky, Viktor 5, 17, 19, 28, 34, 36, 39–40, 42, 52, 101, 176–182 Zubova, Liudmila 23 Zuraw, Kie Ross 67, 122

Subject index abstractness 69, 72–74, 84, 123–125 anti–RD rhythm – definition 36 – semantics 85–86, 93, 96, 98, 104, 108–112 – usage 84–99, 103–119, 150–175 colloquial (pronunciation) 43, 51, 58– 59, 61–62, 72–73, 84, 89, 124–125 dol’nik – definition 11 – vs. disrupted iambs 47 drafts (of poems) 7, 56–58, 72, 126– 127 elision – definition 6, 42 – in English 43–47, 58–62, 67 – in Russian 47–51, 53–58, 61–74, 79 – semantics 49–50, 55, 79–82 frequencies – of monosyllabic words 11–12 – of stress 7, 36, 38–40, 99–100, 103– 104, 107–108, 150–175 – of various word shapes 28–29 generative metrics 4–8 hidden stylization 52, 82, 125 iambic meter – definition 10 – iambic hexameter 62, 94, 98–99, 167, 169–170 – iambic pentameter 32–33, 36–42, 44, 87, 89, 95–96, 98–99, 112–114, 155–168, 173–175 – iambic tetrameter 32–34, 39–42, 87–90, 92, 94–96, 99, 102–104, 107, 109, 112, 114–115, 150–155, 171– 173

monosyllable rule – in English 12–13, 15 – in Russian 15–17 – violation (see polysyllabic inversion) polysyllabic inversion 14, 16, 20–21, 23–27, 51–52 – semantics 23–27 prose language 12, 15, 28, 54, 61, 66, 68–69, 71, 78–79, 128–139 prosodic rules 43–46, 50, 59–60, 62, 66, 125 recitation 42, 68, 70, 74 Regressive Accentual Dissimilation (RD) – in English 36 – in Russian 32–34, 87, 89, 91–92 – violation (see anti–RD) rhyme 4, 30–31, 34, 83, 115 Russian school of meter 4–5, 7, 31 social parasitism law 2–3 sonorants 43, 59–61, 66–67, 72, 74, 79–80, 122, 128–145, 147, 149 spectrogram 68–72 stanza 4, 8, 30, 68, 94, 98–99, 115 stress – in English 46, 122 – in Russian 122 stress maximum principle 18–19, 90 survey, readers’ 69–70, 72–73 syllable – open 46, 60–61, 66, 74, 79, 128–146, 149 – shape 6–7, 67, 122 unmetrical lines – semantics 18–19 vowel – deletion 42–43, 45–46, 51, 58–59, 61, 69–70, 72–73 – length 45, 47, 50–51, 67