Sjani 13

SoTa rusTavelis qarTuli literaturis instituti
Shota Rustaveli Institute of Georgian Literature

ivane javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis
zogadi da SedarebiTi
literaturaTmcodneobis instituti

Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
Institute of General and Comparative Literary Studies

komparativistuli literaturis qarTuli asociacia

Georgian Comparative Literature Association

sjani

yovelwliuri samecniero Jurnali
literaturis Teoriasa da SedarebiT literaturaTmcodneobaSi

Sjani

Annual Scholarly Journal of Literary Theory and Comparative Literature

13

Institute of
Literature Press
UDC (uak) 821.353.1.0(051.2)
s-999

redaqtori

irma ratiani

Editor

Irma Ratiani

saredaqcio kolegia

Editorial Board

levan bregaZe
Levan Bregadze
Tamar barbaqaZe
Tamar Barbakadze
Teimuraz doiaSvili
Teimuraz Doiashvili
maka elbaqiZe
Maka Elbakidze
gaga lomiZe
Gaga Lomidze
Tamar lomiZe
Tamar Lomidze
revaz siraZe
Revaz Siradze
bela wifuria

Bela Tsipuria
saredaqcio kolegiis
sapatio wevrebi

Honorary Members of
Editorial Board
manfred Smelingi (germania)
Manfred Schmeling (Germany)
sadao cukui (iaponia)
Sadao Tsukui (Japan)
rudolf kroitneri (germania)
maia burima (latvia)

Rudolf Kreutner (Germany)
Maja Burima (Latvia)
pasuxismgebeli mdivani

Responsible Editor
solomon tabucaZe
Solomon Tabutsadze

sjani 13, 2012, maisi
Sjani 13, 2012, May

redaqciis misamarTi:
Address:
saqarTvelo
Georgia
Tbilisi, 0108
0108, Tbilisi
merab kostavas q. 5
5, M. Kostava St.
telefoni: (+995 32) 2 99-63-84 Tel.: (+995 32) 2 99-63-84
faqsi: (+995 32) 2 99-53-00 Fax: (+995 32) 2 99-53-00
www.litinstituti.ge www.litinstituti.ge
E-mail: litinstituti@yahoo.com E-mail: litinstituti@yahoo.com

ISSN 1512-2514

2

Sinaarsi
Contents

redaqtorisgan

7 From the Editor
literaturis Teoriis
problemebi

Problems of Literary
Theory

ivane amirxanaSvili
agiografiis stilis
sakiTxebi
(Teoriuli SeniSvnebi)

8 Ivane Amirkhanashvili
Some Questions of
Hagiographical Style
(Theoretical remarks)

enio stoianovi
fiqciur samyaroTa Teoria,
rogorc literaturuli
gamomgoneblobis Teoria

14 Enyo Stoyanov
Fictional Worlds Theory as a
Theory of Literary Invention

iordan luckanovi
isev àTeni ierusalimis
winaaRmdeg~ Sesaxeb
(lev Sestovis tragediis
kontr-elen(ist)uri
filosofia)

24 Yordan Lyutskanov
Again on Athens against
Jerusalem (Lev Shestovs
Counter- Hellen(ist)ic
Philosophy of Tragedy)

andrei taSevi
klasikuri pragmatizmi:
mimoxilva

47 Andrey Tashev
Classical Pragmatism: An
Overview

poetikuri praqtikebi

Poetical Practices

konstantine bregaZe
modernizmis epoqa, rogorc
miToss moklebuli dro
konstantine gamsaxurdias
romanSi `dionisos Rimili~

66 Konstantine Bregadze
Modernism as a Mythless Age in
Konstantine Gamsakhurdia's
Novel "The Smile of Dionysus"

tatiana megreliSvili
realizmi rusuli kulturis
istoriul-literaturuli
evoluciis WrilSi
(ganviTareba modernulobis
paradigmis CarCoebSi)

87 Tatiana Megrelishvili
Realism in a Historical-Literary
Row of Russian Culture:
Movement Within a Modernity
Paradigm

3
literaturismcodneobis
qrestomaTia

Chrestomathy of
Literary Theory

iuri lotmani
poeturi teqstis analizi

111 Iuri Lotman
Analysis of Poetical Text
leqsmcodneoba

Theory of Poetry

lela xaCiZe
X saukunis qarTuli da
bulgaruli himnografiis
istoriidan

135 Lela Khachidze
From the History of the 10th-
Century Georgian and Bulgarian
Hymnography
regina koiCeva
bizantiidan bulgareTamde
da saqarTvelomde _
modifikacia da
tipologiuri msgavsebebi
Zvel bulgarulsa da
qarTul himnografias Soris

146 Regina Koycheva
From Byzantium to Bulgaria and
to Georgia Modifications and
Typological Similarities between
Old Bulgarian and Georgian
Hymnography

ana aleqsieva
bulgaruli baxusuri poezia
me-19 saukunidan: konteqsti,
specifika da lirikuli
Tematika

162 Anna Alexieva
Bulgarian Bacchic Poetry from
the 19th Century: Context,
Specific Characteristics, and the
Lyrical Subject

filologiuri Ziebani

Philological Researches

maia jaliaSvili
win gaswrebuli saaTi
anu tradiciisa da novaciis
sinTezi qarTul
modernistul narativSi

176 Maia Jaliashvili
The Clock Ahead of Time or
The Synthesis of Tradition and
Novelty in Georgian Modernist
Narrative

ivan xristovi
1920-iani wlebis eqstra-
kanonikuri literatura

185 Ivan Hristov
Extra-Canonical Litarature of the
1920s

interpretacia

Interpretation
stanka petrova
kus sizmari

192 Stanka Petrova
The Turtle's Dream

4
kritikuli diskursi

Critical Discourse

dimitri aleqsandrovi
sxeulis problema margaret
etvudis teqstSi `warRvnis
weli~

217 Dimiter Alexandrov
The Problem of the Body in
Margaret Atwoods The Year of
the Flood

Targmanis Teoria
Theory of Translation

diakvani petre (Sitikovi)
metaforis Targmanis
sakiTxebi (saxarebis
teqtebis mixedviT)

223 Deacon Peter (Shitikov)
On the Issue of Translation of
Metaphor (With Reference to
Evangelical Texts)

folkloristika _
Tanamedrove kvlevebi

Folkloristics
the Modern Researches

marine turaSvili
zepiri istoriis Teoriuli
da meTodologiuri kvlevis
sakiTxebi

233 Marine Turashvili
On the Question of the Theoretical
and Methodological Research of
Oral History
kulturis paradigmebi

Paradigms of Culture

Jana nurmanova
literaturisa da filmebis
Sedareba, rogorc
samecniero sfero

245 Zh. K. Nurmanova
The Literature and Movies in a
Scientific Field of Comparison

vida bakutite
legenda, miTi, simbolo:
fenomenTa ganmarteba
litvuri Teatrisa da
dramaturgiis ganviTarebis
konteqstSi

258
Vida Bakutyt
The Legend, Myth, Symbol:
Definition of the Phenomenon in
the Context of Dramarurgyss and
Theatres Development in
Lithuania

memoria

Memoria
ivane amirxanaSvili
simaRle sulierebisa

270
Ivane Amirkhanashvili
Primary Spiritual Values
Dedixated to Eliso
KalandariS\hvili

5
eliso kalandariSvili
bibliuri paradigmatikisa da
saxismetyvelebis Tavisebu-
rebani vaJa-fSavelas
SemoqmedebaSi

272
Eliso KalandarishviliI
Peculiarities of Biblical
Paradigmatics and Tropology in
Vazha-Pshavelas Creativity
gamoxmaureba, recenzia

Reviews, Comments

rusudan canava
irma ratianis naSromi _
`fabula da siuJeti _
Pro Et Contra~

281 Rusudan Canava
Irma Ratiani's book
"Fabule and Plot. Pro Et Contra"
axali wignebi

New Books

moamzada gaga lomiZem

287 Prepared by Gaga Lomidze

SoTa rusTavelis qarTuli
literaturis institutis
samecniero publikaciebis
stili
293 Style of Academic Publications of
Shota Rustaveli Institute of
Georgian Literature

6
7
r__:__oro|:b
ogor_:|o o_oobg_g_o,
_rb:g ,|_:bo"-| bob:o__:r_ :ooJg_: :b|:__or__go: o:go|o
_:_gorogoo: _: Job::r|oo. oorg_g:_ oo|o :r|_oo| o:boog1_, _rb:gJo
b:roo__bogo: oro _g__bo| - |:_:rog_go|: _: _g:r_oo| - go__r:__-
r_g-_gg_goo __b_r_Jo ooo1:___go o:|:g:. Joo: r_|o:g_go| _:ro_go
go__r:__ro| ob|_o___|: _: _g:r_oo| o__bo_r_:o: :_:__ooo| _g:-
r_go go__r:__ro| ob|_o___| _roo:b_oo:b or:g:gbgo:bo o:b:oJroogo:
:_:gJor_o. :_oro__go o_oor:b__oo| _:rg_Jo :r:_roo |:|_oob:ro,
|:_ob__r_b_oo o_ |::ooo__go :__ogo: :bbor_o_g_:. :o ogo_ro |:o__-
bo_ro _roo_rooo| _o__g _roo, |:__r:___o J___o: _rb:g ,|_:bo"-|
:b:go boo_ro, :oorb__go :g_oro: ob__rb:_oob:g_ro J_o:__bgooo: _:
o:|J_:_ro _ogogoo_ro o_o:_o_oo.
goo__ogb_o, roo _rb:gJo b:roo__bogo o_go_:_o_o |:ob__r_|o
o_b_: o_oobg_g_o|:ogo|, bogo o:g:_ ,|_:bo" b:ro:__oo :b:roo|
|gg:| |:_ro:Joro|o :_o:r_o|:__b.
oro__|oro oro: r:_o:bo
From the Editor
Dear Readers,
The forthcoming issue of international scientifc journal Sjani is exceptional not
only for its signifcance but its contents as well. For the frst time, the journal presents the
material prepared in scientifc-literary centres of two countries: Georgia and Bulgaria.
Shota Rustaveli Institute of Georgian Literature and Bulgarian Institute of Literature of
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences have a long history of interrelation. On the basis of the
memorandum large numbers of seminars, conferences and publishing activities have been
carried out. The present issue of journal Sjani, with its distinguished contributors as well
as the wide range of philological themes presented in the journal, is a clear example of the
close scientifc ties these two countries have had over the past years.
The editorial board hopes that the papers presented in the journal will be rather in-
teresting for the readers, as for Sjani it will continue moving towards the international
recognition.
Professer Irma Ratiani
8
ivane amirxanaSvili
(|:_:rog_go)
:oor:_oo| |_ogo| |:_oob_o
(o_oro_go J_boJgb_o)
b:b:roo_o _og_gogo| J_o_:g| oo:1_ o__|, go_r_ o:|Jo :g_oro __| :b
_go|boo|.
:oor:_o_go J_oo_o___o| |:__og_gJo_ __g| __b__b_o: oog:boJ-
bo| |::bo, roo_go_ :r :ooob:__: _: :g:obo| bo:, roo_go_ :r o|oo|.
:oor:_o: :ro| oo__go, bob:|b:r :___go ,r:_:_", roo_go_ bor-
_o_g__: ,r:_:_o|ogo|". __ogo_:r_go __b__o: o:go_:bg_ :b|:1_gr_go:.
_| :r :ro| o:go|__:go J_oo_o___:, o:r:o o|o_ :|:og:-go|bob__go:, roo
o:go|__g_o| ooobogbog_: bb__: o_, |:_:_ :r :ro| o:go|__g_:.
:oor:_o_go b:b:roo_o :ro| o:|_bo |:1o:_o_o| ooobogbog_:1_.
|:1o:_o_:| |_r| _:g__| ,:|_oo" ooro. :_:oo:bo: _boo_r_:, _oogb_:,
|o_o:g_ro _: _rogb_go ob__r_|_o oooobog| :o:| _: ob_r:go :|r_g_|
,_:_g_o:|".
|:1o:_o_: - ooro - ob_r:go. r:o__b:_:_ o_:ro: _| _roo:bo:, oo-
__b:_ __ro :_gogo J_|:og__go:, roo :_ r:_:_ J_o_g:go| _:__bogo b_|o|
g_r_o| :ggoo.
ob_r:go o:r_o ro_oro_o|: _: :bro| _:bob_| :r oog:go|bob_|. o|
:b:roJ| _b_g| o_oobg_go| (o|o_b_go|) _|o_ogoo:|: _: :__oo| o:go|__r_-
_|. _| obg_g| J_oo_o___ooo |_o____roo| ::__o_r_:|, roo_go_ J_o-
og_: o:r_o o__:_or_o|: o_ _roo_o| :oo__b_oo :r _:_o:_o_og__|.
|_o____roo| ::__o_r_: ob_r:g| ::bgo_| |ob:o_gog_|o:b,
_bogr_:|o:b, |o_o_bgo| b_|o:b, |::bo: _b_:|o:b, |:o_:b:_ J_oog_:
b:oogo__| o|_oo _oo_o_ro b:_:_o, roo_go_ Jo:ob_o| ,:r:_:bobo__r"
ooo_g|_| b:rooJo|.
__: ooo_b_o, ro_: ob_rgo| Job::bo b__g: 1__:oor1_ :oo_o| _: :r-
_g__g _oro_:_ :b|b__g__:. :o _oro_o| b:ro|b| :b|:1_gr:g| ob_rgo|
_oogb_: _: oJg_bo_ro| J_rob_o| _b:ro.
|o__o_o_:| _obo| :bro| o:go|__r_: - b:b:roo_o ob_r_: bo:o:_g:
b:|:_oob:_. :oo_oo J__og__go: :b:roJo :r :_boo| ro_oro_o| _:bob_|.
:r|_o| r:_:_, r:|:_ bo:o:_g: g_r o__go, :r|_o| o|o_, r:_ bo:o:_-
g: _b_: o_g:. go__r:__r: |ob_oo|: _: g:o:r:_o| _roo:bo::. o| _ro_ro-
_g:_ __oogo_ :ro| _: o___g_g_:_. bo:o:_g: |:o_o_g| o:go|o _oro: :_g|.
:o _oroo| :r_J_ |:o_o_go g_r :ooob:__:.
g_r go__goo, roo _:ro_g :oor:_o:Jo J_oboJb_: o:go|__g_o|:__b
|br:_g:, o:r:o, |:o:o_ro_, :ro| :bb_o:, roo |::bo :|:bo| o|_, roor_
:_o_g:o|. :o _ooo| o:go|__g_: ggob__:, o::goo:_, _rogb_g-__g__r_-
go__r:__ro| o_oroo| orog_o_o
9
go oo_og_o| :_oo__oo|:|.
b_rooo b_gogb_o| o:go|__r_: o| :ro|, roo o:|Jo oo_o___| o__:,
roo_g|:_ __|g_o _b:Jo :_g| :_o_go, ___|_o| :1ro oo_b_: _b:Jo, go__-
r:__r_go _bo| _b_:, oo|o o:___b__go ogo|_: o_oo:r_o| oo:Jo,
roo |_o___| (ob_r:g|) _bb__: |_rgogo _: |:J_:g_: _bo| :r_b_go
o:r:o__r_o| :oo__b_o|:. obroo| _b__o__ro goo_: o|_oo:, roo oo
o:go|o:g:_ oooobog| :oo| ,:_:_:1og:|", _g__ro1_:|, _o_r_oo, |:b_-
_oo, _o_:__oo, r_oobo|__b_o_oo, o__roo: _: ro_ooo oo_ror_:|. o_o:,
roor_ _:rbo_b_o| |:J_:g_:, o:go| |r_g :oob:__g_:| b:_og:b, _o_-
r_g o___g_g_:Jo oog_|.
:o obrog, :oor:_o_go |_ogo ob__b_o_ro:. o:| :_g| oo1:bo, |br:_g:
_: ooo:ro_go: o_oo__b, roo |o__g:Jo ::_o_bgo| o__:, _ro, |:b_o|
|_go.
|_ogo| ob__b_o_ro:1_ |:_ro| ooro o_or_, ro_: b_r|, roo :o-
or:_o|_| _g:g_:o: ,:bo:roob _b: rgbogo oo |_go|:". _|_ oo, :g-
_oro: _b_: ::|:bo|, ,:o:roo|" Job::b:_, |_gJo ob__b_oo|, b:b:_o_ro|
|:boo :r|__go ,:b_o1:___go" o__:.
o___o |o__g:Jo _o_bg__o:b. ,oo_g_:go" |:b_o |o__g:Jo oog__b
__g_:g_:|.
|o__go| _|o__o_: _ro-_roo oo:g:ro _:__oro: o:go|__g_o|:, ro-
o_g|:_ :g_oro ooooog_| :bro| _:bobo| _:rg_Jo.
o:go|__g_: _:bobo_:b :_:bg_g:|o:b :ro| :oog__go. :r_o_ _|:-
__oggo_. ob__b_oo| |_go|_g_o_: :_:_ oo_o___|.
_:bobo_:b :_:bg_g:_ _:bobo:, o_ :o:| J___o oo:_g|. __ooo _:bob-
oorbog_: J_oog_: oo__b:_ J___o| ooo_:bo :r o_o|, r:o__b:_:_ _:bo-
bo_:b :_:bg_g:.
_g_g:__ro |o__goo ob__: _: |o__goo oo:gr__:. _| :ro| |:rbo_bo-
_rogo, o|_oro_go _: |o_o:g_ro _o|oo|o| o:go _: ogo. _o|oo|o| Joboo
b__: oogg_b_o, roog_o_ :b__bogo: _ro|: _: |ogr__Jo. _o1o__ro oog-
g_b_o :o|:b_: o__:_o1o__r :r|Jo _: _| :ro| o:o:Jo, roo_g|:_ ob_:
ooo:ro:g|.
r:_ __ro _o_b:go: obro:, ooo __ro o__:_ 1r_b:g| :g_oro _|o_-
_o__ro _oo_oo| _oroor_:1_.
r: b__: o_, |:_:_ _|o__o__ro _boo_r_: _ooro|oor__: _boo_r_-
o| bg__g_rog _oro:|? o_ob_: _r:go_o| _____o. _r:go_: oJg_bo_ro|
_ro-_roo |:__og_go:.
|o__g: :b:ooro_| :oo| Job::r||. rooro_ :ro| |o__g:, o|_oo: :o-
:go. _borogo: _:___r:o _b_: J__ob:| ggr__o| ooro_o ooo|:ogo|, r:o: Jo-
b::r|o |r_g:_ o_b_| :__o_go.
|o__go_ro orb:o_b_o _ob__b_ro__go br__ogoo oJg_:. or:g:g|o__-
g:o:, _roo J_b__goo, ogoooo1b_ro| Jo:_g_og_:| _og_|. o:go|o:g:_,
|o__g_o| o:goo_r: :r _obo| b_|ro|, ooo _o___|, |og:o:1_|. _gro b_ _og-
_gogo| :r _obo| ___|. oo:g:ro:, _roo_ro_:gJoro, |o__g:o: _:gJoro| b:|o:oo _:
J___o.
10
g_Jo:ro__: ___|_Jo obogg_:. ___|_| :_g| ogoo:b|bo| _b:ro. :b-
|bog ___|_Jo ggob__: _b: roor_ :g_oro| :1rogb_o|: _: o_oobg_go| :_-
_oo| |:_roo |_r____r:.
_bo| _og_go ___:go, bo_:b|o o_ b:bogo _roo:b_oo:b o__:bo__r:_ _o
:r :ro| _:_:gJor__go, :r:o__ or:b_g:_, Job::bo _:gJoroo :ro:b :_:-
_:gg_go, :bg:__go :ro:b r:_:_ b_gJ_|:b_o _roo| :rJ_oo, roo_g|:_
o:go|__g:_ J_googo: Job::bo __b_ro g_bo_oo.
_o__:| _r:_o_o_go :ooo_ooo, |_ogo - _| :_:oo:bo:. o|_oro_go
og:g|:1ro|oo, |_ogo - _| _oo_::, _ob_r___g:_ _o |_ogo - _| _b::.
,_b: - _oorg_g_| _oggo|:, ob_ogo__:g_roo| :oob:__g_::"
( 1999: 363).
|_ogo :bog_| ___|_| go__r:__r_g :g_obooo_ro:|.
|_ogo| _:o:b:|o:o__go ogo|_:: oobo_ob_ro:, r:_ |:_roo_ _oo-
_o| __g__r_go boJ:bo_ :ro|.
b:b:roo_| ogoo|r_g_o_o|: _: ogoo:_oro_o| |:_:b_go |_g:_
roo :r ::bb__|, o:| :r__:b |r_g_o__: _: b:oo:_:go__: o__: _: _ro.
:oor:_oo| o__: _: _ro - _| :ro| |_ogo| :r:b_o:. r:_ o__o _ro :_o|,
o__: ooo __ro :b:o__o__| _oro:o: _:bobo1:_o:|.
o_Jgo__ |:___b_Jo _roo_b_| oo_r _:__bogo ro_oro__go |_ogo|
Jgo_o _ro__ro_oo :oog_ |:b_goo_g:b_go :_oobb_: ob_rg_o|:ogo|
( 2002: 217). o_o_: _:__bogo _ro__ro_o_o| :r_J__ :oor:_oo|
o__:o o:go|ogo| b:oo:_:go: _or|__go go__r:__r_go |_ogo, roo_go_
:_boJb_g Jgo_ _ro__ro_o|:_ ooo_:g|: |ob:og_, _o___g_:, |og:o:1_,
|ooo_g_, |oo:rog_, o:g: _: _r:go_:.
_| _:bobo:, ob:_gr_go _____o _o, roor_ oo_g:, o:__: _:bobo|
|__oo| Joboo, _oro:o: g:ror_oo. _g_o_b__o| _roo_roJ_ooro|oor_:
b__: oo1_1o ___|_o| |_r____r_go oogo:boo|: _: :rooboo|:.
|:b_| robo:| _: |o_o_bg_| o:___b _o_r_o. _r:1_o _obo:b
ob_ob:_o_|, roog_o_ oog:ob_| oo__o1o_|. oo__o1oo - ,ooo_o:",
_ob:_oo| |:b_o|o!
_:g___go _o_r:, o__:_or: o_b_: _|, J__:r_:, _ooo__o o_ r_-
oobo|__b_o:, ooo_oo| :r:__r| o:__| :g_oro|__g o__:|, r:_:b o|
:ro| _ro__go, roo_go_ _obo| oogo:bo:| _: oo|o __b__o:_ |bor__ :o
oogo:bo:Jo :bo|:1_gr_:.
o|_g_, roor_ oo1:o_:Jo, __bgo o_ |o:g_:, _:g__ :___go, :_g_oo-
go _: :r:_ro|oo_o_go g_bg_b_:, :r_ __ro :oo:rb_g| _: :r_ _oro:, o:-
r:o oogo:bo:Jo, o:go|o |oor:ggoo _obo| :b_o_or__g o:bo|, roo_gJo_
_roo o:o:bo| :oo__:_ _o :oo_|bor__g _o|:roobo:| obg_g|.
ob_rgo| J_oo_o___ooo ob_ogo__:go: og:g|: _: b_g| J_: go_r_:
boro:_o_go oo__o_o| :b:go1o|:|. oo__o_o| orooro___o :__o_| ob_rgo|
:g_oro___|, o:Job, ro_: ob_r:g1_: _:oo_o___go oo__o_o| r:o: _: :r|o.
J_: |:___b__o| :g_or1_: b:o_g:oo:
,go__r:__r: - _oorg_g_| _oggo|:, _| :ro| :g_oro| ,___go| o:b_r:",
oo| oo_r b:__o|: _: _o_r_o| :oo__b_: (2002: 20).
og:b_ :oorb:b:Jgogo
11
roor_ |:g:g___go oo__o_: :b|:1_gr:g| ob_rgo| |_og|, o|_ ob_r-
go| |_ogo :_:go_| oo__o_:|. _| roo _r_o bo___go _o:1oo :r :ro|, :o:|
|_r____r_go :b:go1o_ :_:|__r_|, ro_: obg:ro:b_o :b_ __gg_go |o_o__
_:o_g:b_: g:ro:b_1_ :b_ _:g___g, _gg:_ |o_o__1_ _: ooro_oo, ro_: g:-
ro:b_o_:b (|bg: 1: :r :r|_o|) oog_og:ro obg:ro:b_o|:__b.
o|o_ _b:_o:, roo :oor:_o: ob:_gr_go |:J_:g__oo __ro oo_-
ror_|, go_r_ |ogoo1o_oo, :oor:_o_g b:_:_Jo go__r:__r: :r :ro|
br_ogog:bo oogg_b:.
|ob:o_gogo| _goJor_o| _r:_o_o_go b_|o ogoo_:r_g_go| _g_o_b-
__|:_ J_o_:g|. _| _g_o_b__o _g_g:1_ o__:_ o_ ob_b| o:g|, |:_:_ :_boJb_go
b_|o _g_g:1_ __ro o__o__ _: J__g:go g_bg_b_:.
,roog b:boo_go| _bogr_o|" r:o__boo_ oob:_g_oJo |ob:o_gogo|
_goJor_o| b_|o or_g_g: ooo|:ogo|, r:o: :o:g_ b_|o| _:_r_g_ggo: :bg_bo|.
o::goo:_, :r_:b__o| _oo1o_Jo ,|oogo| _o:_o|" |o__g_o ,:__og_r:-
g:_", :r:boro:_o_go _r:1oo :ro| :_oo__o_go: ,o_ o:g|: b_o|: 1__: g_r
o:go|__:g g:r, gob:oo:b :r_:r__go |o__:r_go :__| b_o_: ooo:ro __r:-
o:g:_|:". :_ |ob:o_gog_ :r_g_g| _goJ_|, _boo_r_: _r_g: _:bob|. _oo__ro
b:roo__b: :r_:o|:b_: _|o__o__r _:__:_, :r___:__:_. :g_oro _ro_-
oo :r_g_g| boro:|, r:o: ogo| __ro ::o_:ro| oog_ boro:. ,bor_o_g:_
ogo_r|: b_gobo__|: |_go_r:_ ogo_ro: _:_o: |og_|" - _| _r:1: :__o_|
,|oogo| _o:_o|" _oo__r o:go|__g_:| _: _:bobo| o__o__ b:rbo_Jo :___g|
o:|.
go__r:__ro| b_o|oo_ro :bro o:go|__g_o|: _: _:bobo| |obo_1|
b:roo:__b|, r:_: o_o: _b_:, o__-b:_g_o o:|J_:oo: _: _orooo.
:oor:_o:, roor_ o__ogoo1__go oro1:, |:__og_gJog_ _go|-
boo| robo:o: _ooo_r:_o:| b:b:roo_|: _: o_oobg_g| Joro|. oo, o:go|o
_ob__o__:g_ro :o:r:_oo, b:roo:__b| go__r:__ro| :g_obooo_r :br|,
o:go| o:gJo b:___og o:go|o o:go| _:bob|, roo_g|:_ oo__b:_ :_g| _:gJoro
|bg: :br_o:b, r:o__b:_:_ |o__g:|o:b _:_:gJor__g _ro _:bob| J_oog_:
_ob__| _:gJoro |o__g:|o:b _:_:gJor__g o_or_ _:bobo:b.
_:oobo_:bo:
Kazhdan, Aleksandr Petrovich, Istoria vizantiiskai literaturi (650-850 g.g.), Aleteia, Sanqt-Peterburg,
2002: 217) ( , (650-850 .),
, - , 2002).
Todorov, Tsvetan, Teorii simvila, M., Dom intelektualnoi knigi, 1999: 363 ( ,
, ., , 1999).
12
Ivane Amirkhanashvili
(Georgia)
Some Questions of Hagiographical Style
(Theoretical remarks)
Summary
Key words: hagiography, style, genre.
A work of literature always contains more than the author puts into it or implies.
The basis of hagiographical work is also a tendency to indicate the subject which is not
expressed and let us hear the voice that is not heard.
Hagiography is a model, something taken in advance that is realized for some-
thing. Utilitarian function is defned at the outset. This is not free creativity but it is to be
taken into account that the demand for freedom appears where there is no freedom.
Hagiographic composition is a response to public demand. The society wants to
have such a hero. Mens consciousness, taste, social and national interests demand this
and the writer fulflls the order. The stronger the unity society hero writer, the
easier to make a difference here, bypassing the established rule.
The writer does not take into account only the canons of a genre and rhetoric. He
takes into consideration the peculiarities of readers (listeners) psychology and percep-
tion. This causes activation of creative subjectivity which might not be satisfed only by
the use of metaphors and tropes.
The activation of subjectivity puts the writer closer to the reality, life, law of life,
nature of the things from which such emotional fow may come which gives rise to non-
canonical impulses of inspiration. It is the moment when the inner vision of the writer
comes to the surface and is embodied in a certain form. The extent of these forms is deter-
mined by the writers taste and the ability to feel the beauty.
Specifcity is created by the peculiarity of the genre a composition is written for
reading aloud. Therefore, it is impossible not to take into account the canons of rhetoric.
There is something that you cannot say in a loud voice there is also something that
you should say loudly. Literature is the unity of quietness and talking. It is silence and
speech simultaneously. The expression of an idea has its own form. Without this form the
idea cannot be expressed.
We cannot say that the striving for freedom is noticed in Georgian hagiography but
there is a desire to refect the subject in such way as it is perceived. The freedom of this
kind is revealed, for example, when national and cultural motives are rendered.
The peculiarity of the art of writing is that there is an idea in it which has roots
in the language; the sense of the text is sought in the language; the nature of literary lan-
guage, its tempting property is just this, that a subject (writer) has a desire and possibility
to use the external parameters of language. Genetic logic of a narrative is that it requires
re-fning of the narration in itself; fctionalization it with fgures, images, citations, remi-
niscences, operation with metre and rhythm m. The theme as a means of persuasion fnds
og:b_ :oorb:b:Jgogo
13
its full expression in tropology, fgurative speech.
In this respect hagiographical style is intentional. It has a purpose, aspiration and
tendency to revive an idea, time, spirit of the things in a word. The ideas come to life in a
word. Mortal things fnd immortality in the word.
The aesthetics of the word is one of the main factors of a freedom which is found
by an author within the frames of the law of genre.
Freedom is identifed by the deviation from the canon. It is not without reason.
The striving for intention operates here too. Deviation from the canon is also canon if it
brings result. Strict adherence to the guidelines may not achieve results as deviation from
the canon.
Everything starts with a word and ends with a word. This is Alpha and Omega of
religious, historical and social cosmos. Inside the cosmos there happen events which are
spread in time and space. Physical events are mirrored in metaphysical essence and it is a
game which is addressed by mind. The more alive narration, the better an author takes care
about the formation of aesthetic emotion.
What happens where aesthetic consciousness is opposed to the ordinary form
of consciousness? The effect of simplicity is created. Simplicity is one of the basics of
beauty.
A word determines the content of the narration. What word is, so is the narration.
Language texture must create conditions for contemplation so that the content has been
grasped in full.
Hagiography as an ideologized prose, at its core implies cooperation of feelings
between the composition and the reader. By its conceptual apparatus it represents an au-
tonomous genre of literature, its own canon closed in its own self which has link with
other genres as one canon connected with the word may have a link with the second canon
connected with the word.
14
ENYO STOYANOV
(Bulgaria)
Fictional Worlds Theory as a Theory of Literary Invention
Possible Worlds
Despite the fact that the discourse of possible worlds has its starting point in Leib-
nitz, its current form is related to the way Saul Kripke
1
resorted to the notion of possible
worlds in order to clarify systematically the modal categories: possibility, necessity, con-
tingency and impossibility. The concept of possible worlds establishes these categories
in the following manner: a given statement is possible only if it is true in at least one
possible world; it is necessary only if it is true in all possible worlds; its contingent only
if it is true in some possible worlds and untrue in others; and its impossible only if it is
untrue in all possible worlds. Besides clarifying modalities in this somewhat recursive
manner
2
, already in Kripke this notion is used to afford a new semantics for proper names.
Kripke questions the Russelian identifcation of proper names with a bundle of descrip-
tions. Russel missed a problem with this reduction of names to descriptions, which resides
in a special class of statements, involving belief. For example: the statement X believes
that Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander the Great according to Russels theory will
not risk changing its truth value if we replace Aristotle with the author of the Poetics.
But that will not always be the case, since it is entirely possible that X precisely does not
know or believe that Aristotle is the author of the Poetics. May be he believes it was Plato
who wrote the Poetics and that Aristotle was teaching Alexander the Great. In this case the
statement X believes that author of the Poetics was the teacher of Alexander the Great
will not be true. Based on examples like these the equation of proper names with descrip-
tions becomes obviously problematic. Kripkes alternative is to claim that the proper name
is a rigid designator related to a multiplicity of possible worlds: worlds, in which Aristotle
is not the author of the Poetics, and worlds, among them our world, in which he is. Thus
possible worlds are presented as domains of discourse, helpful in resolving semantic is-
sues of statements (and especially counterfactual statements)
3
.
This type of reasoning with the help of possible worlds has become a way for de-
veloping logical semantics since the sixties in a two-dimensional direction, i.e. it offered a
way for differentiating intension from extension. These two interdependent sematic levels
derive from Freges distinction between Sinn and Bedeutung (see Frege 1960). For Frege
Bedeutung is the level of relation between statement and world, i.e. the truth value of state-
ments. Sinn on the other hand is the mode of presentation of Bedeutng. The way Frege
defned Sinn and Bedeutng presented numerous problems, especially the question of syn-
onymy and the semantics of fctional terms (fying horse). Since for Frege Bedeutng is the
truth value of a statement, it turns out that all statements that share truth value are synony-
mous. The way out of this predicament was sought in intension. Unfortunately, the way
Frege defned Sinn was lacking, since expressions like fying horse lack reference and as
objectless are diffcult to understand as mode of presentation. The semantics of possible
15
worlds provided a way out of this conundrum by defending logical (truth-relative) seman-
tics through shifting the emphasis from truth values to truth conditions. Thus intension
became a rule for assigning truth value with the aid of possible worlds. Montague, the pio-
neer of this line of development of possible world semantics for natural languages, defned
intension as a function from possible worlds to extensions (see Montague 1974; a good
summary of Montague grammar may be found in Partee 1989). Somewhat simplifed, this
means that we start with the language and the set of possible worlds, and intension is the
rule of relating statements of the language to some portion of a subset of possible worlds.
Montagues notion of intension comes close to the classical notion of proposition and as
such is not heavily language dependent (i.e. it can be expressed in different languages
without loss). Furthermore, as Barbara H. Partee has pointed out (Ibid.:119), it remains
intension in an extensional sense, i.e. this is a semantics that subordinates everything to
reference. Possible worlds are there to provide all discourse with a proper domain.
Overall the semantic use of the notion of possible worlds aims at disambiguation.
But this curative notion itself seems ambiguous, since the semantic problems, addressed
here, shed no light on the question of the ontological commitment of the discourse on pos-
sible worlds. In this context one of the more contested positions is the indexical notion of
actuality, presented by David Lewis (see, for instance, Lewis 1986). According to him, the
actual world is simply the world, in which a statement under scrutiny is been produced.
Therefore he claims that possible worlds fully exist and each one is actual from its own
perspective, relative to the others. Others (among them Stalnaker 1984, Plantinga 1974;
Cresswell 1988) have claimed that are possible worlds, but only one of them has happened
to be actual our world. They generally agree with Kripkes insistence that possible
worlds are stipulated, not discovered by powerful telescopes (Kripke 1980: 44). In this
view possible worlds are most often considered as purely linguistic constructions with
logical import
4
.
A further complication in the theory of possible worlds comes from the question-
able implication of the word world involved. As mentioned above, the difference be-
tween genuine and actualist basically comes down to this question. The actualist posi-
tion considers possible worlds as abstract objects, among which one has been actualized
and thus allows for full quantifcation. The genuine realists insist on treating possible
world as concrete individuals. Beyond the difference between the abstract or concrete
character of possible worlds, most theoreticians view these entities as maximal or accord-
ing to Kripkes expression, they are total ways the world might have been, or states or
histories of the entire world (Kripke 1980:18). Later his notion has been contested by
Jakko Hintikka, who insists that the talk of possible worlds should be restrained by a
notion of relevance, which will let them be only small worlds:
In order to speak of what a certain person a knows and does not know, we have
to assume a class (space) of possibilities. These possibilities will be called scenarios.
Philosophers typically call them possible worlds. This usage is a symptom of intellectual
megalomania. In most applications possible worlds are not literally worlds in the sense
of universes but merely small worlds, that is, so many applications of the language in
question, typically applications to some relatively small nook and corner of our four-
dimensional world. Such a space of scenarios is essentially the same as what probability
16
theorists mean by sample space. It might be called the epistemic space. Depending on
the application, the elements of that space can be states of affairs or sequences of events.
What the concept of knowledge accomplishes in any case is a dichotomy (relative to the
knower) of the elements of the epistemic space into those that are ruled out by as knowl-
edge and those that are compatible with everything he or she (or it, if we are dealing with
a computer) knows in a given scenario. (Hintikka 2003: 34-5)
Despite those differences in construing the precise sense and volume of the notion
of possible worlds, it seems that the primary way, in which they can be differentiated, is
by comparison. Differences are gouged always on the background of some parallelism, be
it on a local (small worlds) or global (total worlds) scale.
Fictional worlds in Doleels theory
The debates in analytic philosophy around the notion of possible worlds, summa-
rized all too briefy here, became complicated further by the insistence of some literary
theorists (the most notable among them are Lubomir Doleel, Thomas Pavel and Ruth
Ronen see Doleel 1998; Pavel 1986; Ronen 1994) on the usefulness of possible worlds
theory for defning literary fction, but only under the condition of differentiation between
possible and properly fctional worlds. The theoreticians that hold this position claim that
such a distinction is necessary in order to provide a defnable specifcity for literary texts
among the various applications of the possible worlds model in logic, physics, philoso-
phy, historiography and even its everyday uses. As mentioned earlier, the focus of the
present examination will be Doleels arguments in favor of constructing such a special
class of possible worlds. In this endeavor the guiding question will be not so much how
the possible worlds framework has been adapted for dealing with the problem of literary
fctionality, but rather whether this framework, through all the adjustments it undergoes in
its application to literature, is not relying on premises that illegitimately restrict by default
our understanding of literary invention.
In Heterocosmica Doleel defends the recourse to the possible worlds model on
the basis of his criticism of the previous one-world models for describing fctional texts
(Doleel 1998: 2-12). This is done in two directions. The frst one involves exposing the
shortcomings of previous theories by grouping of the views of Bertrand Russel, Frege, and
structuralism under the same banner the thesis that literatures fctional statements lack
reference (Ibid.: 2-6). According to Doleel, Russel reduces fctional statements to empty
terms, Frege, as we mentioned earlier, retains only intensional signifcance for them, and
the tradition, started by Saussure, views literature as auto-referential language. The sec-
ond, and more crucial, part of Doleels criticism is directed at those theories that have
claimed to provide literature with some kind of reference: mimetic theories (Ibid.: 6-10).
The major objection on Doleels part is that mimetic models never let the reference of
literary text be fctional particulars. Since according to these positions the domain of liter-
ary discourse is the actual world, the reference of all literary statements is either actual
particulars (the claim that for every character, event or entity in the literary work there
necessarily is an actual prototype), or instead of particulars, literary texts refer to univer-
sals. It is noteworthy that besides these options of mimetic theory, Doleel fnds a third
Enyo Stoyanov
17
one, which is somewhat unusual the critical discourse, in which fctional particulars
are retained, but they are presented as existing prior to their creation by the literary
text in some undefned ontological region, where they readily await the literary author to
fnd them and describe them (Ibid.:8-9). For Doleel the fctional particulars cannot ex-
ist before the text that has invented them. This last point of Doleels criticism aimed at
critical constructs which do not rely on the possible worlds framework, is quite telling,
since it obviously rejects the thesis of potential existence of what the literary text will
present in the form of fctional worlds. But what Doleel fatly denies here is precisely the
view that has been developed already by Aristotle as a way to tie possibility and literature
together. According to Aristotle, potentiality is always prior to actuality, except for the in-
famous Unmoved mover. For Doleel all literary possibilities emerge, while for Aristotle
all emergence depends on possibility. Such an option is barely even discussed in Doleels
talk of possible worlds. In this respect Doleel (see Doleel 1998:25) relies on Ricoeurs
differentiation between potentiality as actualitys past, and pure fction: What might
have been the possible in Aristotles terms includes both the potentialities of the real
past and the unreal possibilities of pure fction. (Ricoeur 1988: 191-192). The accep-
tance of such a thesis without qualifcation is problematic, since this type of distribution
of real and unreal in relation to Aristotelian possibilities seems misguided. After all,
real for Aristotle is precisely the actual in its distinction from the possible. Everything
possible is possible precisely to the extent that it may become actual, or at least it might
have had that option. The only way possibilities may be unreal besides their contingent
non-actualization is due to them being outside the realm of possibility (i.e. impossible a
category, of which Aristotle hardly has anything to say). So unless pure fction stands
for impossibility, the distinction between non-literary potentiality and literary possibility
as an antecedent and a consequent in relation to actuality cannot be preserved.
Along with the classical semantic theories of fction, Doleel criticizes pragmatic
theories as well (see Doleel 1998: 10-12). In concordance with his insistent constructiv-
ism, he claims that the predominant pragmatic theories of fction, which present a no-
tion of pretense in literary speech-acts, are inadequate and instead asserts that the literary
author does not pretend and actually does something s/he creates something that is not
actual. But his major gripe with pragmatic approaches in describing aesthetic activities
boils down to the perceived necessity of truth-conditionality in defning fction (Ibid.:24-
28). The statements of the literary author cannot be questioned about their truth value, but
once a fctional world has been established by the texture of his work, questions of truth
value once again become valid. Generally, Doleel claims that the literary text establishes
something, a world, and once it has been established, it obeys the same truth conditions as
any existing object, referred to by discourse. This does not mean, however, that Doleel
fully rejects pragmatics in the name of semantics. The pragmatic component is precisely
the act of stipulation of a fctional world by the fnite text. Still in this stipulation, in this
speech-act construction, the stipulated is what matters. Writing is a creative act as long as
it creates something that conforms to the norm that defnes a fctional world.
This subordination of pragmatics to semantics is not unproblematic. Doleel even
goes as far as to claim that there is a difference in principle between texts that refer to
the actual world and those that construct a fctional world (Ibid.:24-28). The frst type
18
Doleel calls world-imaging, and the second type world-constructing texts. The refer-
ence of world-imaging texts exists before these texts, while with world-constructing text
the speech act is primary. This type of generalization on Doleels part is quite untenable.
It is enough to point towards Austins performatives. I pronounce you husband and wife
does not refer to some preexisting state of affairs and cannot be attributed any truth value.
Still, it relates to the actual world and adds something new to it. Of course, Doleel seems
to be trying to classify literary texts among performatives as a special type as an order of
speech acts that constitutes a non-actual world (see Ibid.: 133-184). Yet it is not clear what
kind of conventions can differentiate between statements, aimed at worlds (at a world,
ontologically different from the actual one), and statements, aimed at a world, the actual
one. If anything, this points towards a confguration of truth-conditions that are context-
sensitive, rather than to subordination of the pragmatic register to semantic import.
But that is not all. Doleels insistence on the primacy of the produced fctional
worlds in defning literary acts of invention shares the shortcomings of all theories that
restrict literary statements to fctional status. As an illustration of the problem with this
reduction, I will give a constructed example. One of the ways, in which I can produce a
literary text, may follow such a procedure: I may take an article from Wikipedia, devoted
to the Second World War; I may give a title to this quoted narrative that will present this
texts as a literary narration, for instance A Literary Story. What am I actually doing?
Am I turning a text that is supposed to image a pregiven world into a text that constructs
a fctional world, or am I making a point about representations of the actual world? Am I
producing a text that refers to a world, or rather a text that refers to textuality itself? It is
not coincidental that when Doleel attempts to adapt his theoretical model to postmodern
metafction (Ibid.: 160, 166-168, 206-226), he never comments on gestures similar to the
one by Borgess Pierre Menard. Besides, the constructed example I provided is clearly an
effect of intertextuality. It seems, however, that Doleel will allow for intertextuality only
among literary works, since otherwise the boundary between worlds would be jeopardized
(see Ibid.: 199-202).
But what is the precise difference between fctional worlds and the actual one?
The fctional worlds behave as a form of possible worlds. According to Doleel, they
are macrostructures, populated with particulars that are ontologically homogeneous, i.e.
equally fctional (Ibid.: 16). Thus the London, inhabited by Sherlock Holmes and Doctor
Watson is not a London we can visit, but rather an utterly fctional London, though one
that resembles very much the actual London. Examples like this one involve the problem
of transworld identity. In order to avoid any essential dependence of the fctional par-
ticulars that have actual prototypes on those prototypes, Doleel rejects the need for any
necessary resemblance between the counterparts. Verisimilitude is rejected as a necessary
rule for creating fctional worlds. Instead he presents a more fexible version of Kripkes
theory of names as rigid designators (Ibid.: 17-18, 225-226). Thus by passing through the
world-boundary, the semantic import of the proper name undergoes a radical ontological
transformation. Only the name remains, in order to maintain the transworld link, yet even
its rigidity is lax in Doleels account. When he comments on postmodernist rewrites of
classical literary works, he is forced to accede that even the name may lose its identity
(Ibid.: 225-226). Still, he attempts to reinscribe this loss of rigidity in a sequence, a re-
Enyo Stoyanov
19
constructable series of aliases, which appear as variants of an invariant rigid designator in
different possible worlds.
More pertinent than this derigidization of designators is the fact that characters and
entities with actual prototypes like Napoleon and London constitute a problem for the af-
frmed autonomy of the fctional world from the actual one. In spite of his insistence that
the fctional counterparts of actual prototypes are entirely fctional, just as the rest of the
particulars in the fctional world that lack prototypes, he is forced to accede that the fact of
the transworld link of some terms with their actual counterparts adds some signifcance to
them (Ibid.: 16-17). Doleels response is that this added signifcance has only transworld
relevance, i.e. it does not interfere with the semantic functionality of the terms with proto-
types within the constructed fctional world. But why are we restricted not to include some
transworld signifcance for all terms? We can easily claim such signifcance for fctional
entities without actual prototypes, albeit in an inverted form. Is the perceived impossibility
as an actual particular, as a being in our world, of a character like Caliban in Shakespeares
Tempest not relevant to the way we understand this character? The difference between
Napoleon and Caliban in the way they operate in fction is predicated on this perception of
their relative possibility or impossibility in the actual world. It turns out that the fctional
world always depends on the actual world. Doleel is, of course, right to affrm that this
dependence cannot be considered in terms of verisimilitude (Ibid.:17-18). Still, without
such dependence no fctional world may be accessible from the actual. It seems that the
actual world turns out to be the constant subject of changing predicates.
Furthermore, it appears as if the actual world is something quite stable and ho-
mogeneous for Doleel. This impression results from the way in which his theoretical
construction presents heterogeneity as a differential feature of fctional worlds (Ibid.: 23).
In line with Leibnitz, Doleel insists that worlds must comply with rules of compossibility
for the entities that populate them (Ibid.: 19-20). Therefore he speaks of macrostructural
constraints imposed upon worlds general rules that determine what sort of entities may
be accepted to appear in a particular world. The heterogeneity of fctional worlds stems
from the fact that conficting macrostructural constraints may apply in their construc-
tion. They may form different, separate zones of compossibility within a world, which are
incompossible among themselves. According to Doleel it is precisely these conficting
condition provide for the generative principles of narrative plot in literature. It turns out
that the fctional worlds in their paradoxical constitution conform to a rule of compossi-
bility of incompossibles that is explicitly rejected for the actual world. But, after all, the
actual world is not readily available to us as something settled, all we have at best is a set
of actually available descriptions that are not necessarily compatible, i.e. compossible.
That is why we have actual debates about what is possible and what is impossible, what is
good and what is bad, what is allowed and what is prohibited, etc. These controversies are
not restricted to macrostructural conditions for story generation in fctional worlds, they
generate our actual stories as well.
The fact that Doleel tasks macrostructures to generate narratives seems to render
narrative plot as something derivative. This comes as a consequence of his insistency on
the primacy of fctional world as a conditioning macrostructure. This basically amounts
to subordinating the dynamism of literary experience to something very much static. In
20
this Doleel relies on Von Wrights notion of the event as a difference between two static
states of affairs (Ibid.: 55-56)
5
. While this notion undoubtedly makes of events and plot
something derivative, but this is a gesture that ultimately fails to explain what it claims to
be explaining. The reduction of events to the difference between antecedent state of affairs
and a consequent one manages to show that there is an event, but cannot defne the event
itself, cannot explicate how a certain state can be transformed into another. It seems that
even the classical structuralist narratology, derided by Doleel, is preferable here, since it
tends to view the plot as primary and the states of affairs as functionally dependent upon
its evental structure.
One fnal feature of the distinctness of the fctional worlds is the most baffing, since
it seems to violate the implicit rationale of the semantic of possible worlds. Doleel insists
that fctional worlds are incomplete (Ibid.:22-23). This is their ontological feature and not
a reference to the small worlds version of the possible worlds framework. Hintikkas
notion is above all a pragmatic notion, the appeal to alternatives is based on relevance for
actual contexts, laden with considerations of expectations and purposes. For Doleel the
referents of literary texts have only those qualities and quantities, which the text manages
to confer upon them, and no more. All of the so-called fctional particulars have some
kind of void in their infrastructure that nonetheless does not make them void. Of course,
here Doleel refers to a well-known conundrum of fctional statements, appearing in lit-
erature. It involves the relevance of questions of the sort: How many children does Lady
Macbeth have? The literary text constructs Lady Macbeth as a mother of children, but
does not quantify over them, so they have the paradoxical existence of being an indeter-
minable number. According to Doleel this is a decisive feature of fctional worlds that
separates them from any other possible world, including the actual. It is quite telling that
here Doleel resists to use the semantic model of possible worlds for the purpose it was
developed disambiguation. When encountering statements like the one about Lady Mac-
beth we may use possible worlds to disambiguate them. In this procedure in what Doleel
terms fctional world one may discern a set of possible worlds that includes worlds, in
which Lady Macbeth has two children, worlds, in which she has three children, etc. It
turns out we can easily present the fctional worlds in this manner, i.e. not as a special sort
of possible worlds, but rather as a collection of them. If this is so, then literary statements
will be referring not to particulars, but to sets. Thus it may turn out that the insistent talk
of fctional particulars and individuals in Doleels theoretical model is misplaced. The
literary reference under his logic cannot fail to be some form of generality.
This embarrassment that ultimately subverts the intention with which Doleel
presents his discourse on fctional worlds forces a fnal question at his theoretical model:
whether the world-construction, which he claims as the primary inventive power of litera-
ture, amounts to anything more than simply opening up of actuality to some type of pure
transcendence, which pulls us further away from the real? The fact that in this theory the
availability of possible and/or fctional worlds seems to affrm the radical contingency of
the actual does not lessen in any way the feeling that this utterly contingent actual world
is nevertheless our inescapable destiny.
Enyo Stoyanov
21
Conclusion: Two notions of invention
A consistent theory of invention (literary or otherwise) is extremely diffcult to
achieve, since the notion of invention immediately presents caveats and paradoxes. First
of all, we should keep in mind that in any talk about invention there always seems to be
something, which undermines this notion in terms of the way it offers itself as something
persistently new i.e. there is always a risk in identifying something as invention, since
identifcation implies recognition, and recognition implies a relation to something given,
something already available, something well established. Thus invention, as it is usually
conceived, seems to be a relative notion it refers to something as new only in some re-
spects, in determined contrast to something established, to something old, and from an-
other perspective this relative novelty turns out to be something defned and established,
something upon which we already have frm grasp. But this double reduction of invention
to the established once as determined deviation from it, and second, as itself slipping into
the established through identifcation always comes after the fact, when the invention
has already done its work, when something new has become well known, i.e. it has already
started ceasing to be new. Thus when we refer to literary texts as something invented, we
already strip them from any active, persistent novelty by becoming inventions they cease
to be inventive. By claiming fnality for literary invention we seem to miss the question of
its continuous functionality in and through literature. It seems that we have two confict-
ing notions of invention the frst one entails establishment of something which is new
only in its difference to other established things; the second, stronger notion of invention,
is resistance to establishing, a relation to something radically undetermined. In the frst
case we ask ourselves what has been established, what features and qualities differentiate
what has been established in comparison with other establishments. In the second case
we ask about the conditions for the constant undermining of any establishment. The theory
of fctional worlds obviously tends to ask the frst question. In it literary invention is only
a correlate of what has been invented the fctional worlds. It thus constrains literature
to producing ever-increasing transcendence, it drives it always further out of this world.
What it fails to explain, though, is how literature manages to disturb our preconceived no-
tions of the actual world, its continuous work of dismantling the established givens of our
experience the work identifed with literature at least since Romanticism.
Notes:
1. His initial contribution was in the form of two articles during the sixties. The insight, presented
there, was further developed in his lectures in Princeton University, collected in Naming and Necessity (see Kripke
1980).
2. There is, of course, a source for genuine doubt here, since the possible worlds framework of modal
categories insists on defning all of them with one of them.
3. The rigid designator theory of proper names considers the act of initial naming the basis for tran-
sworld identity, linking objects trough the plurality of possible names. The major alternative to Kripkes
non-essentialist approach is Lewiss notion of counterparts, among which a relation obtains on the basis
22
of some essential resemblance (see Lewis, 1986).
4. John Divers names this two positions genuine and actualist realism about possible worlds (see
Divers 2002, pp.15-25), though the more common terms are possibilism and actualism. Realism seems
more apt, since it presents properly this discourse as truth-relevant.
5. The precise defnition, given by Doleel is the following: event is the transformation of an initial
state into an end state at a certain time (Ibid.). Subsequently it appears that according to him there should
be nothing more in the evental transformation, except the substitution of states.
References:
Cresswell, M. J. Semantical Essays: Possible Worlds and Their Rivals. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1988.
Divers, John. Possible Worlds. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.
Doleel, Lubomr. Heterocosmica: Fiction and Possible Worlds. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hop-
kins University Press, 1998.
Frege, Gottlob. On Sense and Reference, in: Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob
Frege. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1960: 56-78.
Hintika, Jakko. A Second Generation Epistemic Logic and Its General Signifcance. Knowledge Con-
tributors. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003: 33-55.
Kripke, Saul. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980.
Lewis, David K. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.
Montague, Richard. Formal philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague. New Haven: Yale Uni-
versity Press, 1974.
Partee, Barbara H. Possible Worlds in Model-Theoretic Semantics: A Linguistic Model. Possible Worlds in
the Humanities, Arts, and Sciences: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 65. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989: 93-
123.
Pavel, Thomas. Fictional Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986.
Plantinga, Alvin. The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974.
Ricoeur, Paul. Time and Narrative. Vol. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
Ronen, Ruth. Possible Worlds in Literary Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994.
Stalnaker, Robert C. Inquiry. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1984.
Enyo Stoyanov
23
_boo |_oo:bogo
(_g:r_oo)
_o__o_r |:o_:roo: o_oro: roor_ go__r:__r_go
:oooob_goo| o_oro:
r_1o_o_
|:_g:boo |o__g_o: _o__o_ro |:o_:ro, :r|__go |:o_:ro, go__r:__r_go
b:r_g:, g_ooor _og_1_go.
ooroo:_o _oobg:, roo_go_ |_:_o:Jo: _:|o_go, _o|:b_r_: ooo| :r_g_-
g:|, o_ r:o__b:_ :ro| go__r:__r_go :oooob_goo| :___g:__ro :bb-
ogg: _o__o_ro |:o_:ro| o_oro:, roo_go_ ogo :obg__g_o| o:boog1_
:bgoo:r_:, roor_ J_|:og__go |:o_:ro| |_o:b_o_o| :bJ_o_:, _: :-
_:o1:r_: 60-o:bo bg_o| :b:go_o__r _ogo|o_o:Jo. :___b_o o_b_: :__o_-
_go g_ooor _og_1_go| oo_r J_ooo:g:1__g |_r____r:1_, roo_go_
b:JrooJo ,___ro_o|oo_:: _o__o: _: :r|__go |:o_:ro" (!8) :_g| b:oo_:g-
o__go. ,go__r:__r_g b:r:_ogoo:| |gor__: oo_1oo| o_oro:, :__og_-
_go: :b:go :o_o| :ooob_: _: :oo|:ogo| |bg:_:|bg: b_rb_o| :oo__b_:.
obogo_ :|_ J_gog_o bg_b oo ooro_o|: o_ orob_oo_o| :_:|, roogo|
J___:_:_ o_ob_: _|: o_ o| b:b:roo_o", b_r| _og_1_go. :o _o_:_:Jo b:o-
g:_ b:b| _og_1_go| o|o_gb__g_go: _: _:oo_o___g_: :o |:_oobo|:_oo,
:b_ ooo| |_|:b_ o_ r:o__b:_ :ro| go__r:__r_go :oooob_go: |:goro
oo|o :___g:__r:_ :__oo| |:_oobJo. r:o: J_go_boo go__r:__r_go b__g:
|:goro: oob__| _ob__b_r:_o: o:g:_ b:b:roo_1_ _: :r: oo :ooobog |:o-
_:ro1_, roo_g|:_ o_ gbg__oo. o_o_: o|oo| _oobg: o_ r: :ro| _o__o_ro |:o-
_:ro? :o:1_ o:|_bo| :|:__o:_ _o bg_b :r|__go |:o_:ro| :b:go1| g:b__bo
:b:go_o__ro _ogo|o_oo| |:__og_g1_.
24
YORDAN LYUTSKANOV
(Bulgaria)

Again on Athens Against Jerusalem
(Lev Shestovs Counter-Hellen(ist)ic
Philosophy of Tragedy)
1
In this paper I shall concretise a prior inquiry on the potential of Russian early twen-
tieth century humanities to launch non-Eurocentric understanding of history, art and cul-
ture.
2
An important aspect of this specifc intellectual sovereignty, insofar aesthetic matter
is concerned, is the non-alignment with the idea of aesthetic distance
3
(yet non-alignment
complemented with an alternate notion). Its geopolitical or rather geo-poetical
4
aspect
relates to particular ways in which the historiosophic operators of East, Greece and
Rome are confgured in discursive expression. The ideas contested by the mentioned
aspects of this new intellectual sovereignity are both exemplifed and promoted by the
classical (Attic) tragedy. The idea of aesthetic distance and the sister-ideas of an inferior
barbarity and an inferior Orient for frst time coincided in Attic tragedy and, at least the
latter two, were for frst time embodied in it.
5
Therefore we gain an extra reason to explore
the responses to tragedy as indicative of whether cultural otherness could or could not be
recognised. For tragedy is not only a symptom but also a part of the problem.
The intellectual shift I hope to detect is, in general, congruent with a commit-
ment with the notions of involvement and (someone, the) other. This means that it,
insofar happens, is intimately tied with the currents in philosophy called existentialism
and personalism. I shall, inevitably, touch upon aspects of them as conveyed in early
Shestovs work, but I shall not make them a separate theme of inquiry.
Whether and why ones works contain geography-relevant images or not can form
a separate theme of inquiry too. What I want to note here is that Lev Shestovs work, un-
like, for example, that of Dmitry Merezhkovsky, could hardly suggest such images (I am
hinting at a possible analogy between a-geographism and aniconism here). So, exploring
Shestovs refections on the poesis (invention) of human environment (and his own at-
tempts of that kind: unlike Merezhkovskys, non-affrmative), I shall inevitably focus on
symbolisations which refer to experiencing a/the geographical space only indirectly. In
brief, aesthetical distance will be the signifer and the geocultural constellation East
Greece Rome will be a possible signifed.
It is impossible to separate Shestovs philosophy of tragedy from Shestovs analy-
sis of Dostoevskys and Nietzsches philosophy of tragedy. And it is diffcult to separate it
from his fundamental dissent with Viacheslav Ivanov in gnoseology (if we are to mention
a contemporary of his and not Kant or Aristotle). Besides, I have to frequently refer to
Dmitry Merezhkovskys position, insofar it is him, I guess, whom they frequently confront
or conform to (though indirectly and non-consciously rather than vice-versa).
We cannot predict what will happen tomorrow this is the fundamental counter-
argument of Shestov against Ivanov (Cf.: Vlast Kljucjej = Potestas clavium [frst edition
1923]. Part three. Vjacheslav Velikolepnyj [Vjacheslav the Magnifcent] [based on a 1916
25
talk], ; in: Shestov 1993, 1: 252-254).
The most important in Kantian gnoseology (one professed in its essentials by
Ivanov as well as by others) is, regarding to Shestov, to calm down the troubled moral
sense of the contemporary European man, proving to him that these truths [the truths
considered universal, Y.L.] have come naturally and have not fallen from the sky (part
V; p. 265). The early twentieth century philosophy claims to have come back to ontolo-
gism, but in fact it does not give up gnoseology, Shestov argues
6
; he identifes its achieve-
ments with the re-announcement of universal truths as not man-given but god-given (p.
266). Shestov calls the new philosophy, one armed with ontologism and intuitivism and
therefore (promoting itself as) all-explaining, Mahometan (268, 270 etc.). A specifc
prejudice or idea of Islam is discernible here, but I shall postpone the discussion on the
issue for a later occasion
7
.
The main objection of Shestov against Ivanov, Kantian gnoseology and Hellenic
(by origin and by nature) philosophy could be formulated otherwise, in a broader and
more fundamental way: Why truths are to reign over people, and why not the reverse?
Still you can forget the power of necessity, and not forget an insult Mans availability
for man is, then, more powerful than a truths; personal experience assigns more power to
people, to man, than to truths. (Cf.: Afny i Ierusalim [Athens and Jerusalem], (1938),
part : Skovannyj Parmenid [Parmenides Bound], in: Shestov 1993, 1: 339-408). It is the
indications of personal psychic or spiritual experience that have to organise ones world
view or world picture, if the latter notion is at all adequate with regard to Shestov, given
his abstention from grounding philosophy on visual metaphors.
8

Parmenides Bound is worth considering against the Prometheus Bound tradi-
tion. I guess that, at least insofar the humanistic interpretation of Prometheus image
is concerned, the two conceptions would sharply confict with each other. Shestov re-
gards what he calls idealistic philosophy the worst of the passions which enslave man.
Yet a cosmogonist interpretation of Prometheus (one demonstrated in Viacheslav
Ivanovs Prometheus, 1919, cf. Losev 1976: 282-287), if radicalised, indeed could lead
to Shestovs stance. How? If, for example, we recognise Ivanovs Prometheus [the plot
of this tragedy encompasses the story of Prometheus helping the people (before being pun-
ished for this) and their response in words and deeds to his act] instead of reading it as
one more Prometheus Bound as an appeal to attend to the human centre of activity; to
the Promethean fre as a vital renewal, and not as a good received as a gift and inherited;
to the topos of action instead of to the topos of memory. It appears, then, that man is
staged as capable of disenchanting himself from the power of eternal truths, and it can be
directly seen that he is not a slave by nature.
Let us briefy analyse Ivanovs Prometheus and the choices which back this
work and of which it is symptomatic. When compared with Prometheus Bound, Pro-
metheus (Ivanov 197186, 2: 105-155) demonstrates a disintegration of monumentality
(of the protagonists image as well as of the architectonic of the work). The supra-textual
theme occurs to be not the super-human being, but man. It is the living and acting doubling
of man between slavery/ peace/ Necessity and freedom/ turmoil/ will that is inspected
here. Men doubt whom to follow Pandora or Prometheus; she evidently embodies and
promotes what Shestov calls the idealistic world-order, the power of ideas and he the
(Lev Shestovs Counter-Hellen(ist)ic Philosophy of Tragedy)
26
acute notion of unpostponable mortality (and an awareness of a to infnity postponable
immortality). It is, next, the renewable creatability of myth: fre is not a possession to be
inherited but a quarry to be re-captured by the deserving (cf. act I, scene IV; etc.). Hence
fre and the myth of stealing the fre are prevented from acquiring the status of eternal
truths. This immanence of truth to time and space, its conditionality are supported by the
very choice of a theme. Ivanov did not elaborate a wide-known piece of plot but shaped
instead one that needed extraction from contradictive and obscure sources and that lacked
an affrmed prototype. (Thus he balanced between an overt renewal of tradition and an
overt reverence to it.) What would Shestov dislike here? The dense mythographic orna-
ment, I guess. And, more important: he could have suspected Ivanov in simulation It
remains for me an issue still to be studied. Yet I guess that Prometheus did not make or
could not have made Shestov change his general opinion on Ivanovs philosophy. From
Shestovian point of view, Ivanovs 1919 Prometheus should have just embodied the fgure
of the philosopher-mythmaker, one far more self-consistent than simply philosophers-
idealists (whose embodiment may well serve the traditional Prometheus Bound). The end
of the part II of Vjacheslav the Magnifcent is pointing.
I would like to focus now on an early book of Shestov which bears the same anti-
Hellenic and anti-idealist vein as the later works I already referred to, but which was
focused on the works of writers from the previous generation (that is, on the works of
fathers and not of rivals as Ivanov or Edmund Husserl (a 1917 chapter of Potestas
Clavium faces Husserls gnoseology) and which was far less explicit in highlighting the
long-term roots of idealism it combated. There is no single line in this book on the Old
Greek theory and practice of tragedy, on Aristotle and his Poetics and on the late adapta-
tions and ideas of them: yet the book combats them from its frst to its last page, fghting,
at frst sight, only against philosophy of idealism and within the realm of philosophy
(and not of poetics). What is also worth noticing is the rareness of erudite ornament in
his discourse; and its spokenness the last thing being interpretable as a performative
refusal from the treatise-like discourse (especially, syntax and phraseology) of idealism.
9

In order partly to explain these features it is worth recalling that Shestov studied law in
University and that his early books combined literary criticism and philosophy, both in
terms of subject and in terms of approach.
The primacy of the intimately-personal here-and-now over the ideas there-and-
then was defended already in Shestovs Dostoevskij i Nitcje (Filosofja tragedii) [Dos-
toevsky and Nietzsche (A Philosophy of Tragedy)] (1
st
ed..: Mir iskusstva journal,
1902; I am citing from the 4
th
ed., the 1971 Paris reprint of S.-Petersburg 1903 3
rd
vol. of
his collected writings).
There is a realm of human spirit which has not seen volunteers yet: people go
there only against their will.
This is the realm of tragedy. Man who has been there begins to think otherwise, to feel
otherwise and to desire otherwise (from the Introduction; (1971: 16); translation mine).
Those who have not been there invoke the whole of their idealism and their well-
tried philosophies of cognition which have for long given them the chance to live in tran-
quility amidst the enigmatic mystery of horrors occurring before their eyes. (16).
The writers scarred by the tragedy do not teach but call the reader as a witness,
Yordan Lyutskanov
27
wanting from him to be given their right to think by theirselves, to hope the right to ex-
ist. While idealism and the theory of cognition directly declare them: you are madmen,
you are immoral, condemned, lost people. () Perhaps the majority of readers do not
want to know this, but [they must know that] the writings of Dostoevsky and Nietzsche
contain not answers but a question. The question: do these people who have been refuted
by science and morality have a hope, that is, is it a philosophy of tragedy possible? (17).
According to Merezhkovsky, Dostoevsky narrates the tragedies of his characters
as a witness and makes the readers witnesses (Merezhkovskij 1914, 18: 6-8). Does this
estimation differ from Shestovs? I see a difference in the accents: Merezhkovsky points to
the directness of the link between the writer and the characters, and between the characters
and the reader; Shestov emphasises the link between the depicted and the reader and adds
the proposition that the writer depicts his personal tragedy. The tendency towards dis-
solving of aesthetical distance serves, in Merezhkovskys and Shestovs interpretations,
different purposes; they arrange the author character reader triangle differently. From
here one more, and substantial, difference between the two interpreters becomes visible:
reading Merezhkovsky, one understands that the writer is still on a kind of pedestal or has,
as Dostoevsky, just left it, and still carries out a sound and privileged existence (insofar he
witnesses peoples tragedies and not them his), whereas according to Shestov the writer
strives for or covets his own existence in mens eyes (in the minds of readers as witnesses).
Does this difference make sense within our theme?
A writer taking the role, the fate, the path of that very human being lost in his or her
tragedy it is an idea which suggests an understanding of Other and otherness different
from and more radical than Bakhtins dialogism.
10
Its radicalism reaches a point from
which the initial situation involving two beings the lost and the empathising is diffcult
to identify; if, of course, we assume the ontological priority of a situation involving two
beings (and not a single one). The empathising, or the one who carries out compas-
sion, has melt into the lost and has become, and actually is him. One can recognise here
an act of kenosis (the self-humiliation of Gods personal incarnation in the suffering fesh
and soul of a human) yet without the pathos and conceit invited when such words are
used. Even the minimum of self-satisfaction, to which (in its sublimated form) even the
most devoted compassioner pays tribute, is exterminated here.
Yet I am afraid I am embellishing the writers condition as felt by Shestov. If the
writer had descended form his supreme stance, he has almost forgotten this and he is al-
most entirely lost in his current miserable condition. He has not taken the role of the lost,
but initially resides in it and becomes a writer in order to get out of it. Shestov anticipates
or refers to a description of tradition, of super-situational existence founded not on the will
to compete
11
but on the hope for compassion.
The archetypal condition here, if we reside within the Judeo-Christian tradition, is
one of Job.
12
I guess a potential to develop a humanities epistemology from here which
would compete with the one drawn from writings of Bakhtin and Hans-Georg Gadamer.
13

I would call the second consciense of the dialogical hermeneutics (as represented in
Makhlins book, see the reference) a conscience still not fallen in order to be reanimated.
And the one exemplifed by Job is one after reanimation or resurrection. However reverent
to the Thee of tradition, to the frst conscience, the understanding I of not-Jobean
28
provenance retains a great portion of self-confdent anthropocentrism. I am afraid there
has been too swift a jump over the gap of despair thematised by philosophers like Shestov.
I guess that dialogic hermeneutics and the one presupposed by Shestovs radicalism could
be made compatible if not interoperable in a more encompassing philosophy of under-
standing.
14

Both the fgures of the writer and of the compassioner (or the collocutor, if we
adhere to Bakhtins perspective) are removed from their intellectual pedestals, through
putting them on the place of their counterparts, in a literal sense and entirely. This world
picture, one detected in Shestovs writings, resists to aesthetic completion of the phe-
nomena (spiritual, human) it contains into plastic and into classical forms. The writer
of whom Shestov writes and Shestov himself would not have built themselves a monu-
ment perennial And what matters most here is not the presence or lack of pride and
self-affrmation but their form.
Shestovs philosophy delineates a world of forms which, if expressed artistically,
would contribute to the aesthetics of ugliness and aniconism promoted by Leonid An-
dreevs Eleazar.
15
Andreevs allegory, in its turn, is propably capable of encoding the
new one to be realised in the 20
th
century arrangement within EastGreeceRome,
the constellation of historiosophical symbols I consider a key one for modern Europe and
its outskirts. To say it with the historiosophemes just mentioned, we are accustomed
to think that Rome (the state or the civilisation) must not transform into an East (a
despoty; or barbarism) in order Greece (art, philosophy, culture etc.) to survive.
But Shestov and Andreev anticipate and beware quite different a condition: Rome is
a gendarme of Greece who polices the man in order to prevent him from the reality
of an East (undersood as a realm freed from the power not of necessity but of eternal
truths).
Before continuing my inquiry, let me look for them, the parts of the historiosophic
triad I referred to, bound in a sentence and in a reading not constructed by me. Contem-
plating the place of Scythian Olbia within the Hellenic universe of the Roman epoch, as
well as the niche of Dio Chrysostom (who visited Olbia in about 95 AD and delivered a
lecture there) within that very universe, a contemporary historian of Black Sea writes the
following. Dio was a Greek trader whose trade was Greekness. His line was to play on
the Roman inferiority complex by posing as the voice of old Greek wisdom and discrimi-
nation. As a Stoic preacher, Dio made big Romans feel coarse and clumsy, a feeling they
evidently appreciated (Ascherson 1996: 73). On the previous page he had characterised
Dios Thirty-Sixth Discourse (Boristhenica), the result of Dios attempt to sell Platon-
ism not to Romans but to Olbians representing a phase of Hellenic culture already archaic,
thus: Dio brought in not only the Greek pantheon but his own impression of Persian
mysticism and allegory, and in his creation account there is a strong favour of Judaism.
[] Somewhere at the core, buried under all this, were the original Stoic doctrines about a
universe made of four concentric spheres: earth, water, air and fre (ibid. 72).
I will not speculate on what Shestov would refute in Dios discourse and
approach.
In short, tragedy gives birth to a personal experience which is probably uncom-
municable. An artistic presentation of a tragedy does not teach and does not answer
Yordan Lyutskanov
29
questions, but displays and shares and puts the question: is tragical experience communi-
cable? Idealism is helpless here insofar it does not listen to but is in search of a moral, of
disciplined knowledge and of answer, evading direct or personal involvement.
When the problem is posed in this way (from and to the bare person
16
), the
understanding of tragedy, if developed towards conceiving it as an artistic whole, cannot
be set against exclusively Old Greek or any other concrete cultural-historical context.
Tragedy is a function of person and not of culture; and of the person him/herself, and not
of some kind of persons conceptualisation (artistic or whatever). The two possibilities
just rejected (to ontologise tragedy from culture or from a concept of personality) commit
their proponents to idealism. And idealism is cognitively inadequate and, besides,
unchaste and even sacrilegial. Therefore (1) to deduce tragedy from the Greek antiquity
(including from its archaic phase) and to understand it against the context of Old Greek
artifacts conceived as prototypes or (2) to shape it artistically in some way, for example,
in the way the Old Greeks did it in short, to hellenise the tragedy quietly substitutes
an idea for the real sense of the phenomenon we willy-nilly call tragedy. The hellenisa-
tion of tragedy depraves the tragic experience from its innermost, that is, from its being
intimate and personal.
This is a stance incompatible with Viacheslav Ivanovs. And it has some points of
touch with Merezhkovskys.
If the works of Dostoevsky and Nietzsche, that is, the artistically-shaped attempts
to share (to communicate) tragical experience, indeed contain not an answer but a ques-
tion, we cannot speak of closedness, completeness, monism, monologism in them.
(It is out of this stance, through its hellenisation, from where can the one of Bakhtin
arise; Ivanovs one could have impulsed Bakhtin only negatively, insofar from Bakhtins
point of view Ivanov conceives the tragedy in Dostoevskys works as an abolition of the
diad, as a diad brought back under a monistic condition just because Ivanov professes
systematisation, synthesis, synthetism. That means that, from Baktins standpoint, Ivanov
is reproachable in monologism not only because he sees in Dostoevskys novel a tragedy
(and tragedy, as we know from Bakhtin, is a monologue staging a dialogue). Yet a care-
ful reading of Ivanovs Dostoevsky and Novel-Tragedy (1916) and On the Essence of
Tragedy (1912) combined would show
17
that Bakhtin simplifes his idea; that the notion
of archaic tragedy, one not detached from its religious roots, discovered or invented by
Ivanov to ft the phenomenon of Dostoevskys novel, could hardly ft Bakhtins defnition
of tragedy
18
, and it is the revival of this archaic form that Dostoevskys novel is said by
Ivanov to forerun. Instead, I would call Ivanov a monologist because he is a system-
atician, or idealist. Of course, this is an aspect also displayed by Bakhtin in the frst
chapter of his book on Dostoevsky (both, 1929 and 1972, versions). Yet what Bakhtin ap-
plies to Ivanovs vision of Dostoevsky is Shestovs general criticism against Ivanov (ide-
alism), one departing, by the way, from an analysis of that very book of Ivanov which
uncludes his essay on Dostoevskys novel-tragedy (Borozdy i mezji [Furrows and
Boundaries]). Bakhtin employs his new understanding of Dostoevsky, one owing much
to Ivanov-on-Dostoevsky and to Shestov-contra-Ivanov, against both of them: arguing
against the former and just mentioning the latter).
A kind of openness can be viewed in the early Merezhkovskys concept of tragedy
30
(form Eternal Companions) as well: Merezhkovsky centres tragedy neither on person
nor around culture; he lets tragedy and rebirth, tragedy and vita
19
breathe apart, not
bringing them to synthesis.
It is interesting that, according to Shestov, the tragical experience can appear to be
uncommunicable not because the speech of the addressee is powerless (a situation expect-
able within Russian modernism, one that had appointed Tjutchev among its forerunners:
a thought uttered is a lie) but because the recipient is feeble; yet the latter is not identi-
fed with the crowd or like just as the one who speaks is not a hero, a genius or
like.
20
Something else: it is not word that is untruthful but already the thought.
Inasmuch Shestov puts himself not in the epicentre of tragedy but among those
who try to understand it in philosophical terms, his doubts about the recipient of speech
sharing tragic experience can be equated to doubts about I am and to a true and not
declarative Thou are, or recognition of the second persons being. Any attempts
to explain what tragical guilt is and from where it comes, even the very posing of such a
concept, is already a kind of arbitrage, a deal, negotiating the conditions under which
the experience of him who lives within the tragedy can be recognised as absolute and that
of the spectator as trustworthy. (And they ought not to be negotiated.) Such an arbitrage
debases the sharing of tragical experience from its existential force and frees him to whom
that experience is shared from responsibility. Here lies the seed of idealism.
Adopting Shestovs stance, it becomes possible for us to understand that ancient
Greek tragedy and the forms originating from it constitute themselves only one particular
mode (from several possible) 1) to express tragic experience, and 2) to shape it artistically.
What is expressed and shaped here (in Greek tragedy) is neither the shared matter nor
the sharing person but the things that might have been heard by the outsiders. Thus, from
Shestovs standpoint (if we are to develop it and hold to it), the ancient Greek recipient
fails to respond to the tragical experience (the latter remains uncommunicated).
This is what can be understood from the Foreword of Shestovs attempt at a
philosophy of tragedy.
Interpreting Dostoevskys novels has to be a matter of arbitrary action, one,
however, aiming to tell the story of the regeneration of Dostoeskys convictions, argues
Shestov (1971: 22). I am going to outline three moments here. First, to defne interpreta-
tion a matter of arbitrary action () means to defne it as an existential and not
as an idealist activity. Second, to insist and to show (ibid. 21-22) that Dostoevskys
novels (dis)mantle the personal tragedy of Dostoevsky himself and that the plotting of
the characters fates is a self-disguise, means to hold a viewpoint opposite to the one ex-
pressed by Bakhtin 25 years later. Both (Shestov and Bakhtin) are consistent in outlining
the core of life (the former)
21
and the real (or complete) dialecticity (or dialogicity) of the
idea (the latter).
22
Ivanov remains inbetween: balancing his interest between the writer
and the form of the fctional world created by him, delegating to them equal power to at-
tract and involve, and himself involved in argument not so much with Dostoevsky than
with his characters (cf. his Dostoevsky and Novel-Tragedy, in Ivanov 197186, 4: 401
ff.). The dialogue of ideas artistically shaped is for Shestov less important than the tragic
existence, one pre-artistic in its essence, sense and energies. And, third, tragedy is a dead-
lock-and-rebirth, the rebirth is a part of tragedy. In tragedy on stage rebirth is promised,
Yordan Lyutskanov
31
it is neither available nor vital, it is even postponed into the cathartic experience of the
beholder. It is a condition within and through which the beholder affrms his or her Ego.
Tragedy on stage (on behalf of the beholder) takes a revenge against god Dyonisus at the
expense of the protagonist: as Innokenty Annensky says (Evripid 1906, 1: 18), the suffer-
ing god Dyonisus suffers in myth fctitiously, falsely, mockingly, whereas the suffering
of the humans exposed to his vengeance, is real. The untheatrical tragedy is different: s/
he who suffers has the chance for rebirth in his or her own horizon; s/he is not deprived
of it for the consolation of the beholder.
23
Insofar tragedy implies a rebirth or regeneration
of the the one who suffers, it is it where should Raskolnikovs path from the Crime and
Punishment epilogue lie a path whose genre archetype I have defned as one of a vita.
24

That is, a tragedy within the existential experience preconditions a tragedy-and-vita within
the cultural and artistic one. It might seem that this view coincides with that of Vjacheslav
Ivanov, but in fact they differ diametrically. Tragedy in Shestovs understanding is, before
all, a tragedy of humankind, of man, of him/her, who remains the last and the meanest
even in God (being embraced by Him etc.), in Ivanovs it is one of godhood (found) even
in the last and meanest man.
25
Evidently, there was no other path to the truth except through penal servitude, the
dungeon, and the underground
26
, say Dostoevskys works (Shestov 1971: 37). I guess
Ivanov would have mentioned Demeter and Dyonisus here, displaying quite a different
style of philosophising (compared to Shestov). I am inclined to think that it is a style de-
termining, at least to some extent, Ivanovs ideology: a cultured personalism, disposed to
abundantly cite proper names, binds with ancient mytography and this mythography with
the classical world-picture, and so on. Dostoevsky had preached (or had thought that
he had done so) the idea of all men brotherhood, whereas Europe memorised him as a
psychologist of the underground man. Here Shestov sees a bitter irony of fate (1971:
24); Merezhkovsky would have spoken of tragedy, in his usual way of being pathetic.
To shed tears and to dedicate oneself to humane arguments is one thing, and
to prophesy to oneself new life, encountering his penal servitude as something temporary
is quite another thing, says Shestovs analysis of Notes from the House of the Dead
27

(1971: 40-43). Humanity calls the natural order of things as an ally and this is tragical
because that order enters an irreconcilable contradiction with humanity (46). It is a clash
resulting in (the) refeneration (or rebirth) that co-constitutes a tragedy. What matters is
(the) characters tragedy and not (the) tragedy within the beholder; not the reconciliation
be it sentimental self-consiliation or satisfaction from justice established but the way
out to rebirth, and the rebirth itself (46).
But a tragedy (human proneness to tragedy) might not be exhausted by penal servi-
tude, and rebirth might still persist to be ahead. Dostoevsky himself appears to be experi-
encing tragedy and not just depicting it; a tragedy which goes on after the penal servitude.
You may well endure penal servitude but not be reborn.
Dostoevsky did not forget his [humanistic] faith while he was at penal servitude
(1971: 47). In an 1861 paper, that is, already after the periods of penal servitude and
military service, [h]e fervently extolled realism, analysis, and Westernism. (49). An
invisible foe knocks down his convictions at a time when he, together with many others,
should have triumphed serfdom is abolished and so on (49 ff). Let the lofty ideas (for
32
social change) be triumphant and realised, but nevertheless each man taken separately,
or this very man (I), does not feel easier or happier about it, retells Shestov the credo
of the underground man (52). Notes from the Underground is a public, albeit a veiled,
renunciation of his past. (53). Dostoevsky is unprecedentedly desparate, and that is
why he is unprecedentedly bold count Tolstoy would call it effrontery, as bold
as Nietzsche later (53).
It comes out that the culmination of a (true) tragedy lasts, and persists after the fatal
blow. It might come out that tragedy ending with protagonists death and with catharsis
for the beholder is invested with the spirit of conciliation and capitulation; with regard
to form, it removes the emphasis towards the frst phase of the lasting tragic momentum
of despair-(or death)-and-rebirth, i.e., towards death) and thus under- and misrepresents
authentic tragedy.
28
If Crime and Punishment indeed conveys a tragedy, the part of the
story referred to by the Epilogue does constitute a part of that tragedy, its second phase.
(Yes, it is a phase represented in sketch, in miniature, in semi-profle, not en face and
not in profle, but this is a separate question). Non-reduced tragedy coincides with the
transformation deathrebirth; and not with the protagonists crime, punishment and death,
(aimed at) regenerating us. The transformation could be inevitable and necessary or it
could be an act of free choice and will. Death is the enthelechy of the crime and punish-
ment cycle. The culminations duration, from death/despair to rebirth, has meaning of
its own a formal-logical and an aesthetical (poetological) one. Two important possibili-
ties are hinted at here: frst, the possibility of logical intuition differing from the Aristo-
telian, one relying on the law of identity (i.e., A is A and so on; compare [Smirnov
2003]); and, second, the possibility of conceiving the particular places of a work of art
(i.e., its culmination, outset etc.) not as momentary but as durational (they are no more
impulses of unity of time, space, action and expressive force).
It is an ontology of tragedy inferring neither Christianisation of tragedy (under-
stood as an artistic manifestation of the Hellenic spirit), nor Hellenisation of the Gospels
and the stuff conveyed by them. Tragedy thus conceived precedes the cultural-historical
particularisations and syntheses mentioned.
Dostoevsky casts a look upon his previous credo the humblest man is also a
human being and is called your brother [emphasis Shestovs, Y.L.] through the eyes
of that very humblest man and rejects that credo. How can you tolerate it [the poetry
of brotherhood, Y.L.], if you know from personal experience all the horrors of such
a downtrodden existence?, asks Shestov on behalf of Dostoevsky and his underground
man. How one can bear the role of an object of sympathy of lofty souls? (55).
If we go on hypothesising on the views expressed and viewing them as (succession
of) variants within a coherent paradigm, and if we emphasise the protest against being
made an object, we can arrive at Bakhtins standpoint. But what happens in Shestovs work?
Reason and conscience could be regarded as the fnal judges insofar we live for
the sake of ideals and hopes and through them but what we are supposed to do when
a judge appears who surpasses those fnal judges? (56).
Perhaps the full force of sorrow and despair should not at all be directed toward
the preparation of doctrines and ideals suitable for mans everyday life, as the teachers
of mankind have hitherto done, while always zealously concealing their own doubts and
Yordan Lyutskanov
33
misfortunes from the eyes of outsiders. Perhaps we should abandon pride, the beauty of
dying [emphasis mine, Y.L.], and all external embellishments and again try to catch sight
of the much-slandered truth? What if the old assumption that the tree of knowledge is not
the tree of life is false? (57).
Protagonists dying or murder on stage might cease the fow of tragedy, to deprive
it from those aspects which can witness its actuality.
It is not teaching that sustains hope, but it is hope that sustains teaching. Psychol-
ogy, and not reason and conscience, determines human existence and self-conscience
(57-58). By psychology Shestov means mans character without, prior and despite of his
idealist constructions (including self-presentations).
Reason and conscience can judge over the living for and through ideas and
hopes, but they cannot do it over (in fact a depth) psychology (one which breaks with
those ends and means). Shestovs letter on Dostoevsky and Nietzsche points at way
of existence and judge of (the) existence coinciding in the word psychology. The
spirit of the text witnesses that the judge over this psychology is the willed unity of
despair-and-daring. (Human being is irreducible to the couple of hearth and reason;
and the morphology of our operative concepts is irreducible to one single logical type, to
the type of the concept-monad, one self-consistent in its self-identity. The bit of trans-
formation given in the dual unity of despair-and-daring differs in character from the bit
of constancy demonstrated in such concepts as reason, hearth, despair and daring,
inevitably taken as self-consistent even if they suggest a fellow-concept.)
Man renounces the rights of his inherited faith in reason and conscience,
the hereditary profession of ideas and hopes only when it becomes absolutely impos-
sible to stick to them anymore (59). As for the pride, it is dialectically bound with the
disengagement from despair, with prudent adherence to reason and conscience (cf. 69).
The worst condition to fall into is to confess that you have fallen into the condition of the
humblest man; Dostoevsky, unlike Tolstoy, can deceive neither himself nor the others
anymore (70).
The humblest man is forced to look the truth in her eyes. It turns out that to regard
something as uncognisable might not only be unchaste but be indicative of cowardice, of
a will to escape truth. Transforming the truth, one alive in danger, into Ding an sich (thing
in itself) transfers all the disturbing questions of life into the realm of unknowable. I
fnd it possible to add an emphasis here not made explicit by Shestov but generally ftting
his thought. Arresting the problems in Dinge an sich is a kind of gnoseological reduction
which is likely to have been affected by a logical intuition that arrests the concepts, as
self-suffciently self-identic, into monads. Such an intuition is made explicit in the law of
identity, formulated by Aristotles (cf. Smirnov 2003). The absolutisation of this intuition,
its (probably involuntary) reintroduction as a gnoseological and cosmological model leads
to what Shestov would have called philosophy of burying the truth.
I fnd an artistic correlate of Shestovs philosophy of tragedy in a 1906 short story
from Leonid Andreev, Eleazar. Non-classical art hurts, and that is why it is unaccept-
able and its professor looses the duel against the statesman (the emperor). Eleazar dem-
onstrates that non-hellenic art and norm of art exist, and what an art and a norm! They
could be conceived as radicalisations of the principle of images dissimilarity to its presup-
34
posed prototype (Viktor Bychkov, a historian of Byzantine aesthetics, destills from texts
of Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagites the term of image dissimilar, and classifes this type
of image among the few major types within the Byzantine theory of image, cf. Bycjkov
1977: 133-137), or, rather, as domestifcation of aniconism (dissimilar images, when
introduced into the 8-9
th
c. theories of the iconodules, represent a further domestifcation
of aniconism, cf. ibid. 137-138)
29
to make it, if not acceptable, at least perceptible for a
view trained in the aesthetics of Hellenism. The image dissimilar introduces the ugly or
deformed into the realm of non-aniconic art. It can be considered an aesthetical correlate
of the apophatic approach in cognizing God (ibid.).
I guess that my comparative discourse is initially vulnerable to criticism: Shestov
attempts a philosophy of tragedy while Ivanov and Merezhkovsky approach its poethics
and aesthetics (whatever the disciplinary provenance of the concepts they use), and com-
paring utterences produced within different disciplines is methodologically incorrect. The
fact that Shestov touches upon the poetics of tragedy only to proceed with an examination
of its philosophy and that he evades the speculativism of philosophical aesthetics (the case
with Ivanov being the opposite) is already pointing. Shestov is not defending a dissertation
in philosophy, so he is not bound to avoid philological or any other neighbouring approach,
or to mark them as supplementary in his inquiry; neither are his conclusions without im-
plications for these neighbouring disciplines. Therefore I infer that his approach and his
conclusions are symptomatic of intellectual choices made not only within philosophy but
within the feld shared by philosophy, philology, aesthetics and (proto)poetics.
This means that the rejection (direct or indirect) of speculative philosophy approaches
and preconceptions in the interpreting of tragedy surely implies that the theory of drama
developed since Aristotles has to be dismissed, and the same with the dramaturgic norms
preceding that codifcation and reconstructed with regard to Old Greek artifacts.
I shall try now to convene Shestov and Merezhkovsky for a brief discussion.
Idealism professed by the Hellenes, from Socrates till Kant and further on,
becomes confused before the abyss of despair (one supplying motives for quite a lively,
unsurmountably lively scepticism) in the works of, for example, Lev Tolstoy. (Terror-
stricken, he cursed all the higher demands of his soul and turned for knowledge to me-
diocrity, averageness, to vulgarity (), pp. 75-76.) This is the thesis acquirable from
Shestovs work (75 etc.). The Hellenic worldview in Tolstoy, and especially in Dosto-
evsky, collapses into the Christian abyss, which also has a truth to offer, another (alien?)
truth. This is what says Merezhkovsky.
30
Merezhkovsky postulates two truths; but deprives the one of them from ability to
compete: his Christianity possesses no aesthetic self-consistency. For Shestov, Helle-
nism is totally mistaken, whereas the other tradition (to the extent through a synecdoche
it is present in his book of philosophy of tragedy) is self-consistant both ethically and
aesthetically (insofar it truthfully expresses the exsistence and him who exists). The
contours of the initial situations coincide but the problem is being solved by Shestov and
Merezhkovsky differently. Yet with Ivanov even the initial situation is different: for him,
a gulf between Athens and Jerusalem simply does not exist or, if exists, is neu-
tralised within a consistent Hellenising strategy. Ivanov does not conceive Hellenism as
decline (as does it Merezhkovsky) but as diffusion, encounter and (mutual) enrichment.
Yordan Lyutskanov
35
Thus Ivanov makes a step forth in thinking the form (Hellenism) and a step backwards
in thinking the mattter (the bundle of actual traditions).
31
Within Shestovs interpre-
tation, Tolstoy detaches his attention from the abyss, and Dostoevsky vocalizes it;
within Ivanovs, the one shelters himself behind questioning what? instead of asking
how?
32
, but both are within Hellenity, which comprises its archaic phase reproduced
within the later Hellenism.
33
Merezhkovsky cannot afford himself the ease of Ivanovs
self-devotion to the rhetoric and dialectics of Apollo and Dyonisus for he feels a
vein in culture irreducible to these symbols. The difference between their readings of
Crime and Punishment Epilogue is diagnostic. Merezhkovsky points out the symbol of
Raskolnikovs post-heroic path the Gospel (Merezjkovskij 1914, 18: 21). And Ivanov
(in Dostoevsky and the novel-tragedy) half-quotes a passage from this epilogue, without
mentioning the Gospel(s) it is Asia what attracts Ivanovs attention (Ivanov 197187, 4:
434).
34
If the barbarians had not been invented and associated with Asia by the ancient
Greeks, Ivanov would have done this. The Epilogue of Crime and Punishment appears
in Ivanovs work at least one more time, and in a context which amazed me. Juxtaposing
Dostoevskys words and his comments, Ivanov brings to the fore the image of barbarians
idealism.
35
It is an image and a stance recalling Vitaly Makhlins stance with regard to both
Soviet scientistic and Russian religious philosophy when Makhlin employs the concept
platonism of barbarians (Platonismus der Barbaren) (coined by M. Heidegger within his
1923 university course Hermeneutics of facticity) (Makhlin 2009: 214). What I want to
stress here, introducing my chronic puzzlednes by Makhlins bringing of Bakhtin to the
forth at the disadvantage of his Russian contemporaries (with few telling exceptions) into
the main text of my article, is the following. First, associating Platonism/ idealism with the
barbarians is contestable (for example, Shestov ascribes it to the culturised) and, second,
it is probably a re-active ascribtion (compare the promotion of Occidentalism following
the one of Orientalism nowadays). (I guess I am anticipating the reason for Makhlins
systematic tacit exclusion of Shestov from his discourse.) To return to my discourse and
to the test case of Crime and Punishment Epilogue, I would suggest the following. It is
Merezhkovsky who brings forth this setting to make it philosophisable in terms of Ath-
ens and Jerusalem; afterwards come Shestov and Ivanov, to interprete it in diametri-
cally different ways. A pointing commonality between the two rival interpreters of Dosto-
evsky is the attack against what they call idealism. I guess that both their criticisms are
vulnerable to a further one (one emebedded in Makhlins, and in Heideggers, Bakhtins,
Gadamers standpoints, if we accept Makhlins interpretation): Ivanov and Shestov disre-
gard (seem not to be interested in) the historical aspects of the (gnoseological) subjects
conditionedness (and Ivanov seems to disregard whatever aspects of it).
Shestov defnes idealism as creat[ing] a priori judgements and the Ding an
sich, identifes it as one way to struggle against pessimism and skepticism (84). Ide-
alism appears to be impossible without a portion of contraband materialism, as dem-
onstrated already in Socrates and Platos doctrine of good one incorporating the belief
in retribution (85). With the walls of judgements apriori and Ding an sich idealism
defends itself from the diffcult demands of real life. In this sense, idealism is like an
oriental despotic state: outside, all is resplendent, beautiful, and eternal; but inside, there
are horrors (86).
36
36
It is the losing of the ground under ones feet that leads to doubt in everything (this
is contrary to the Cartesian methodological credo: de omnibus dubitandum [in everything
you must doubt], a credo grounded in intellectual self-confdence) (86).
37
When the bul-
wark of idealism collapses and can no longer shelter the man from the evil demons of
skepticism and pessimism, it is then (and facing them) when he experiences for the frst
time in his life that fearful loneliness from which not even the most devoted and loving
heart is able to deliver him. And precisely at this point begins the philosophy of tragedy (87).
Tragedy is not a (condition of) split between reason and feelings and the like; it is,
instead, their necessary absence. And it is not seen by Shestov as determined by forces
exterior to man and governing him; mans existence is tragic prior to their inference. That
split and that dialectic might occur in the imagination of him who experiences tragedy,
of the external viewers, of the investigators, but they dont constitute its core. Tragedy
abolishes the dialectic of reason and feelings and leaves bare another kernel of man,
a kernel undefnable in terms of essences: living on the edge between massive condi-
tionedness/full uncertainty on the one hand and rebirth on the other.
Hope is lost forever, but life remains, and there is much life ahead. You cannot
die, even though you would like to (87). The Hellenic tragical hero, on the con-
trary, cannot continue to live even if he wants to The idea, or the belief, of retribution in
Platos doctrine of good, so crude and material an idea (85), is not cruder and not more
material than its twin invested in the theory of tragedy
38
since Aristotles.
39
These twin-
beliefs undermine philosophical and poetological idealisms from within. And Shestovs
work implies this parallelism.
To die like a scoundrel is impossible, Dmitry Karamazov has learned (87), because
death feel shame too (death cannot protect from shame) (87). But isnt it crude and mate-
rial to hand down the shame (and sin) to descendants and isnt an art which cultivates
such a belief immoral and misleading? It is worth reminding here the idea of inevitable
inheriting of the tragical guilt. I guess that to regulate actual human relations according
to this principle can not give it the status of eternal truth; and to invest it in the logic of
plotting, of art, does the opposite. We have conditioned and unconditioned (absolute) in-
evitability, respectively.
40
)
Perhaps there is nothing here but ugliness. One thing only is certain: there is re-
ality here a new, unheard of, unwitnessed reality, or better put, a reality that has never
before been displayed. And those who are obliged to call it their reality () will view
everything with different eyes than we (87-88).
Dostoevsky does not want universal happiness in the future, he does not want
the future to vindicate the present. He demands a different vindication and prefers to beat
his head against the wall to the point of exhaustion rather than to fnd solace in the humane
ideal (99).
The totality which encompasses past, present and fture, is inconsistent, it is hypo-
thetic and that is why it cannot, in particular, vindicate mans behaviour (cf. here, p. 99;
and the arguments against V. Ivanov in Potestas Clavium).
In Crime and Punishment Raskolnikovs real tragedy does not lie in his decision
to break the law, but in the fact that he realized he was incapable of such a step.
41
And
the Epilogue is an adjunction: the piece of preaching Dostoevsky feels himself obliged
Yordan Lyutskanov
37
to perform; or this is one of the moments when he lets to be seduced by the thought that
he is needed and needed as a preacher and conciliator (cf. 108-114).
42
Narrators dubious
conduct lets us think, as Shestov suggests, that Raskolnikov accepts the path to con-
version just out of bitternes to himself (115).
The time is out of joint (Hamlet), realises Dostoevsky, and it is impossible to
reconnect it; that is why to explain tragedy (Dostoevskys and whatever) with the help of
antique theories or to invest in a character dreams for a new life is inappropriate (cf. 116-
117 etc.). The inappropriateness of the old ideas might be explained in two ways: (1) man
has tried a new experience which they (be anthropological or aesthetical) cannot explain;
(2) they are basically inclined and designed to conceive time as all one, whereas time (if
singular is at all adequate here) is normally disjointed and multiple. I guess that Shestov
ascribes the frst argument to Dostoevsky while he himself professes the second, the radi-
cal one.
The impossibility or incapability of helping the fellow man (to make him, the hum-
blest, to be the frst) causes hatrid for him: for that reason that, for example, you cannot
feel the satisfaction of your nobility or loftiness, you are deprived of self-satisfaction (117-
118). What remains is Wille zur Macht, the will for power (119).
Shestovs discovery, that it is not Raskolnikov who is under trial but Dosto-
evsky (17; 43-44)
43
, gives a reason to detect in Crime and Punishment dialogism a
poetological, an ethical and a gnoseological altogether. (We cannot deny to the author
subjectivity, that is why he is an agent in this situation, even being trialled.) But Shestov
is interested by something different.
The idea of retribution is for him an adjunction
44
; hence we cannot recognise this
tragedy (no matter whose: of Raskolnikov or of his author) as ftting the type of the old Greek trage-
dy: latters basic characteristic is a masking facet here. Shestov may be enters a discussion
with Merezhkovsky or may be not; but one way or other, Shestov says new things.
Retribution justifes an irreal condition which the beholders habit has made to
appear as real: the condition of the character (the personal embodiment of tragedy) being
on trial and the dramaturgist (the personal embodiment of viewing a tragedy from its edge)
being judges expositor (and eventually a prophet).
It is not the person but the agency of the dramaturgist, as representing the habitual
judging power, which Shestov regards inferior, compared to the character (criminal) who
experiences the tragedy.
The gulf between the tragedy-after-Shestov and the tragedy after its habitual under-
standing seems to be no less considerable than one between the systems of regular and
reverse perspective in visual arts. Something more: I am inclined to view these differ-
ences in composing the receptive space of drama and, respectively, painting as analogous
and even as indicative of shared and/or opposite world-views.
As I already said, Shestov steadily brings out from the characters tragedies the
tragedy of the author, of Dostoevsky. This not necessarily means that Shestovs work, be-
ing philosophical, is psychological as well but not poetological. The claim that the main
tragedy in Dostoevskys novels is the tragedy of their author is a covert poetological claim.
Shestov develops a philosophy of tragedy which has the potency to ground an aesthetics
and poetics of tragedy considerably differing from Aristotles.
38
The whole complex comprising guilt for commiting a murder, nemesis, purifca-
tion of the beholder through compassion and fear does not fulfl the tragedys aesthetic
and social potential but predestines it into something which hides its core and diverts the
people from this core, that is, from the responsibility of the personal choice: Raskolnikov
is guilty. By his own admission (forced from him by torment, and consequently unwor-
thy of belief), he committed a crime: murder. People decline all responsibility for his suf-
fering, however terrible it is. (119). To summarise: tragedy, understood and performed
after Aristotles, is an idealist structure which diverts man from the burden of the personal
responsibility and the free will and which leads, eventually, to Kants gnoseology.
The power of consequences, implied by Shestovs book, grows as one comes closer
to its end; and they are approaching systematicity with huge potential to generalize. I shall
stop here, noting that Shestov, indirectly, substantiates a relation of heredity between the
philosophy of Dostoevsky and his own philosophy of tragedy (cf. 120 etc.). The philoso-
phy of Dostoevsky is (like) the philosophy of Ivan Karamazov (Raskolnikovs heir)
a philosophy without even a hint of complacency; one determined by experiencing the
despair-and-daring. It is Nietzsche who disguises this philosophy into a scholarly form:
beyond the good and the evil.
Dostoevsky himself in his public activity, Shestovs analysis shows, occurs to be a
prophet (see pp. 128-129; cf. Asman 2001: 205-210 etc.): not in forecasting the future
but in withstanding at a distance of irreconcilability from the plans and models of social
order and organisedness and their professors.
45

Yet, as a reader of Shestov, I am tacitly driven to suspect that Dostoevsky, in his
desparate daring to insist that insignifcance and absurdity of the humblest mans ex-
istence is more important than anything else, professes an idea too. After all (writes
Shestov), he wants () one thing only: to be convinced of the truth of his idea [ital-
ics mine, Y.L.] (cf. Shestov 1971: 129), and there is but one [Dostoevskys italics]
sovereign idea [italics mine, Y.L.] in this world: namely, the idea of the immortality of
the human soul () (cf. 125). It is not here the implications of such a suspicion to be
discussed.
Now I shall try to summarise what I consider most important in Shestovs philoso-
phy of tragedy.
Tragedy, for Shestov, is a personal and intimate form of existence, a mode of existen-ce
in which person has freed itself from the ideological and which exposes the inner self.
Tragical experience is uncommunicable (unsharable), but it is explicable from
the standpoint of gnoseology and anthropology incompatible with those of the specula-
tive, or idealist, philosophy (no matter which: Hellenic or European).
The reality of the tragical experience needs an artistic expression, radically differ-
ent from the one represented by the ancient Greek tragedy and codifed within the subse-
quent tradition.
Shestov rejects modes of artistic representation and production which cultivate eth-
ics of retribution and nemesis. In Shestovs understanding, man and God, the self and
the other have a non-symmetrical contact: in love as well as in sin. From the standpoint
of some mystic traditions, for example of Sufsm, this should mean that Shestovs man
in tragedy (or man in Trouble) conveys (has no choice but to convey) a higher mode of
spiritual existence than the one embodied by the Hellenic man.
Shestov fnds the unhidden reality of tragic experience in the works of two 19
th
cen-
Yordan Lyutskanov
39
tury authors, Dostoevsky and Nietzsche. I guess that the world-view foundation of their
philosophies, of their self-conduct in philosophy can be found in the Old Testament. Man
(or his inner, one freed from ideologism, self) does not postpone, does not sublimate,
does not lay on someone else the burden of the always actual act of free choice.
Personal as well as cultural (historical) dynamics cannot be foreseen, it could be
conceivable as tragedy only in the sense conveyed by Shestov. Or rather, it is a free curve,
determined by impulses of marrying the bare
46
tragic experience and of escaping this
ceaseless trial.
Shestovs understanding of tragedy does make sense within the broad rethinking
of mimetism and iconism in art initiated within modernism and avant-garde, a rethinking
which made alien and neighbouring aesthetic traditions, among them the Byzantine, far
more accessible from the standpoint of the modern European one.
Shestov offered a radical prefguration of what was later acknowledged as a
philosophy of dialogue employed in literary studies; that is, a version of the philosophy
conveyed by Martin Buber in I and Thou (1923) and a sketch of a version of the poet-
ics of dialogism developed by Makhail Bakhtin since the early 1920s. The main points
in Shestovs work were the removing of the author from his pedestal considering his
attitude toward the character and toward the beholder (the reader); and the development
of a hermeneutics of a/the frst conscience vis--vis a second conscience whose onto-
logical priority is presupposed (Bakhtin changed the perspective and develops instead a
hermeneutics of the second conscience approaching a/the frst and being dependant
from it). I should summarise that the radical condition of being thrown into a catastrophe,
one tearing or superceding the threads of historical conditionedness, had undergone from
Shestov to Bakhtin a (relative) normalisation and re-installment into a historical sequence
and conditionedness.
That Shestov, still, did not consider tragedy and idealism outside cultural-his-
torical experience is clearly witnessed by the title and by the content of his late (1938)
book Athens and Jerusalem. He utterred here the cultural-historical name of the main,
according to him, borderline within philosophy, within philosophising. And he evoked
these names neither in a mode of allegory nor in the mode of illustration.
47
I have diffculties with fnding in the early 20
th
century Russian literature artistic
works which implement the poetics implicitly prescribed by Shestovs philosophy of trag-
edy. As regards the formal aspect of that unity of form, content and intention which makes
a work of art, I would seek among the works of futurists and expressionists. But I would
be skeptic, insofar I am inclined to associate the peculiarities which could be interesting
for my inquiry (clear semantisation of the factura and of fuctuations between micro- and
macro-textual levels, tendency toward diagramism and iconism, at the expense of
conventionalism) with late Hellenism (compare with the so-called fgure poems)
and not with a non-Hellenic tradition. Hellenism goes out of its boundaries to meet the
alien and probably to achieve a synthesis of new range. And alien art, I am afraid, can be
only symbolically, or emblematically, pointed at like in Leonid Andreevs Eleazar. Yet
I guess there is way beyond Hellenism which is different from the one prefgured or rep-
resented by the avant-garde. It would be a mode of communicating with the alien within a
Hellenistic form but while professing that alien on behalf of the lyrical protagonist (or
the narrator) and while experiencing some kind of biographical bound with it.
48
40
Notes:
1. I use the terms Hellenism, Hellenistic not in the sense of J. G. Droysen (and Merezhkovsky if I
am to adhere to the prosopographic horizon of my inquiry) who emphasise the periodisation aspect (after the
Hellenic/ Classical period), but in the sense of Ivanov who has in mind assimilation under the sign of Hellas.
2. Lyutskanov 2010.
3. I am not going to attend to the origin of this notion as a concept, that is, I shall not investigate
Shestovs work with concern to the fate of 18
th
century aesthetics in Russian religious philosophy or likewise.
4. Geopoetiken 2010: The introduction (Marszaek & Sasse 2010: 11-12) and especially Susi K.
Franks contribution (Frank 2010) to the volume discuss the basic differences and the subtle interpenetra-
tions between two neighbouring discourses refecting the mutual dependence between mans symbolising
activity and the geographical aspects of mans habitat, geopoetics and (the more closely tied with geopoli-
tics) geokulturology.
5. On the invention of barbarians by the Attic dramaturgists see: Ascherson 1996: 50-51, 61-64 (re-
fers to Edith Hall, Inventing the Barbarian, Oxford, 1989).
6. Concentrating on the methods of cognition displaces the due concern of cognition, says Shestov,
and that is why gnoseology, especially Kantian, is unacceptable for him.
7. Ivanovs portrait in Shestovs work (V, p. 277), 18
th
century, Roman decline, Mohametan gnose-
ology being the key phrases and/or images (but consider the next note), has in common with his portrait
in a work from Nikolay (an Eastern Magus in a magnifcent garment; Gumiljov 1990, 147-148).
8. This is one more issue deserving separate exploration. The abstention from (usually almost uncon-
scious) considering of operative concepts within a virtual analogue of what is called pictorial space cor-
relates, I guess, with the abstention from frequent use of proper names referring to history of culture and to
myth. Both features might contribute to a philosophical correlative of art with limited iconism (representation)
9. Later, in Potestas Clavium, he explicitly made the treatise-like discourse of some of his Russian
contemporaries (of Serguei Bulgakov, in particular) an object of irony.
10. Compare with the dilemma, or rather the tri-lemma, set by Bakhtin in his early 1920s essay The
Author and the Hero in the Aesthetic Activity: the hero as being absorbed by the author, the author as
being absorbed by the hero (the unredempted hero of Dostoevsky), or the hero as his/her own author.
Given the specifc status Bakhtin, compared to Shestov, has (he is a well-known classic of literary studies
and humanities), and given the place I give him in my theme (which is Shestov against the context of
and not Shestov and Bakhtin), I shall skip bibliographical references to his works here.
11. Compare with Serguei Averintsevs description of refective traditionalism (viewed as type of
and epoch in artistic creativity).
12. Just like the Athens Jerusalem dilemma, the archtype of Job is steadily thematised by Shestov
starting with his early works and uttered in a title later, in emigration (In Jobs Balances, 1929).
13. I am referring here to (Makhlin 2009) who fnds in their works the basics of a new epistemology
of humanities, epistemology of the second conscience.
14. I indeed do not understand Makhlins neglecting of Shestov and of Vladimir Lossky, when he
thematises the conditionality of cognition and the rehabilitation of tradition (the cognising I putting him-/
herself in a kind of passive voice with regard to it) in writings of Bakhtin and Gadamer.
15. In fact Shestovs work preceeds Andreevs, 1906, with few years.
16. I think that to interpret Shestovs insistence on the priority of personal experience before ideas
(or, as Berdyaev will call them: objectifcations) as psichologism would be a fallacy. He demonstrates
or, rather, performs an ontological and not a psychological interest and focus. I would call his existen-
tialist-personalist ontology performatively-apophatic on behalf of personalism (unlike Berdyaevs utterly
cataphatic personalist ontology).
17. I hope I have carried out a relevant one in an unpublished chapter of my PhD thesis (Lyutskanov
2005). Both essays were included in Ivanovs 1916 book Borozdy i mezhi (Furrows and Boundaries).
18. Ivanov identifes the epic with a monad or a diad viewed from a distance and solved in a synthesis,
Yordan Lyutskanov
41
and the drama with a diad unsolved; therefore Dostoevskys novel turns to be a quasi-monad, disintegrated
from within, by the unsolved diad constituting its inner form. Ivanov could have hardly associated the
religion-bound variety of tragedy from his theory with a monological frame. Yet I guess that it was easy
for Bakhtin not to recognise or to refute such subtleties, moreover, said in disperse and not very discrimi-
native manner: Bakhtins language pertained to another epoch. A considerable part or layer of Ivanovs
argument probably was not perceptible as theory-relevant articulation by him (though he might have well
understood the theorethical implications drawable from them).
19. In his 1889 essay Dostoevsky (included in his Eternal Companions, 1897) Merezhkovsky
leaves the reader with the notion that tragedy in Crime and Punishment ends and from that point on there
starts something different, its character being metonymically hinted at via reference to the Gospel.
20. Shestov outlines a kind of a will for unpathetic self-minimisation on behalf of the author in Dos-
toevsky, and also realises its unfulfllability. This will has something in common with the metaphysical
modesty of Anna Akhmatova, of the implicit author of her lyric, in modeling the lyric speaker and her/his
doubles (if we are to heed Serguei Averintsevs (1995) analysis of her lyric).
21. The core of life, or the clash between man and idea; and not between ideas or between men.
22. I have just said something unacceptable for, probably, most if not all who have read Bakhtin.
Bakhtin, in fact, differentiates between dialectic and dialogism, relating dialectic to the realm of mono-
logism. But we could think of dialogism as of utmost dialectics of an idea: that is, to regard dialogism as
the discriminative potency of an idea made actual. To say it otherwise (considering the agents involved):
getting involved into an idea (not whatever idea but a peculiar kind of it), the agents are more and more
involved in disconsent. The peculiarity of such an idea may well relate not to its what but to its how.
Moreover, it may well have no discoursive equivalent at all, being only a kind of a feld of power or
ideological ambient. And a dialogical novel would be a novel constructed in a way facilitating the dis-
criminative, disconcentive force of the idea or the feld to be released. I guess that I have offered an
exaggerating look upon Bakhtins dialogism, but how could we explain his refusal to deal with biographi-
cal matter, or, to say it otherwise, the taboo on relating the novels structure to Dostoevskys biographical
personality? I am not inclined to derive this taboo only from an imperative of interdisciplinary speciali-
sation (poetics vs. biography and so on). I am sure that even such a direct relating of novels structure
and writers biographical personality as the one demonstrated or implied by Shestov could be explained
in terms of poetics. Now it seems to me that eliminating the agency of the biographical author could
have been a temporary measure, helping to cope with otherwise (if that agency retained) overwhelmingly
complex a structure. But eliminating this agency meant to deal with an idea, indeed, an idea bearing the
imprints of different agents and penetrated by existential valencies, yet an idea. A cluster of disconsent-
ing ideas specifcally shaped would form a polyphonic novel. When one refuses to relate this cluster to a
biographical (extratextual) agency this means that he sees poetics as a discipline studying the idea and
not human existence (neither human contact with idea). Of course, we have to decide how to name that
peculiar kind of ideas or ideological ambient
23. The protagonist, not being made a defnitive victim of the god (of God) and thus (and concur-
rently) not being exposed to beholders pity, evades objectifcation. From the one hand, it is a tragedy
more cruel than the theatrical both to the beholder (because it refuses to console him/her that someone
else has undergone the blow; neither provides for him/her the psychic comfort of pity) and the protagonist
(because it prevents a fnal bringing all torment to an end blow). From the other hand, it is a tragedy
more benevolent, insofar it discloses the horizon before both of them (protagonist and beholder). And,
besides, it turns to be potentially and profoundly dialogic, insofar the god (or God) ceases to be a power
hitting unanswerable blows, the defnitiveness is postponed and, subsequently, the hypothetic end might
be negotiated (between the last and meanest man and God). (The really tragic condition surely had made
its human subject the last and meanest of all men.)
24. But see how Shestov deals with the melodramatism of this epilogue! (1971: 109 ff.)
25. To say it otherwise: the tragedy of the petrifed, though touched by the Divine light, last piece of
clay; and not of the last, to reach the bottom, kenothic beam.
Again on Athens Aagainst Jerusalem
42
26. Transl. by Spencer Roberts; the whole book (with the exception of Shestovs introduction) is avail-
able on-line, among a number of his books translated into English, see the list at: http://www.angelfre.
com/nb/shestov/library.html, but this publication lacks page-numbers. The passage belongs to the end of
chapt. 3. When necessary, I shall refer to this edition as to (Shestov 1969), but in order to facilitate the
reader I shall be retaining the references to the Russian edition I have used. Hereafter all translations, if
not specifed otherwise, are Roberts.
27. Spencer Roberts uses The House of the Death only for the title of that work.
28. I dont know how to differentiate, terminologically, between tragedy entailing catharsis and au-
thentic tragedy. It seems to me that qualifcations like authentic and true do not ft well the mental
style of Shestov despite the high frequency of the word truth in his work.
29. A loose example for an image dissimilar would be the type of the holy fool.
30. I would have spoken of Hellenistic, even classicist world-notion; but Merezhkovsky, evi-
dently, insists on delineating between Hellenic and Hellenist(ic), classic(al) and classicist, using
more frequently the frst couple of concepts and giving preference to the frst concept within each couple.
hellenism is not only a difussion of Hellenity and a contact with alien cultures, but a decline (in this, I
guess, Merezhkovsky is a classicist, without being aware of it). The importance invested in these discrimi-
nations speaks for the fact of Merezhkovskys situatedness within the tradition, be it a tradition reduced to
its survival minimum aesthetics and artistic artifacts.
31. I am searching for symptoms of acquiring the Byzantine tradition as honoured Other. My estima-
tion is dependant on the theleology of this search, which constitutes the global framework of the current paper.
32. Cf. Ivanov 197187, 4: 416, 420, etc., and below, the next note. Yet Ivanov himself is much like his
Tolstoy, in his swift switch to a what-mode. This is my way of re-formulating and re-interpreting Bakhtins
claim that Ivanov hastens to make generalizations about the ideology of Dostoevskys novels unsupport-
able by the texts, without having shown (or spoken about) the form-building projections of their (from him
discovered: 197187, 4: 419) ideological dominant, Thee are. Ivanov hectically walls himself within
brilliant what-s. With this I want to say again that Bakhtins criticism against Ivanov is a concretisation of
Shestovs.
33. Cf. his paper on the novel-tragedy, esp. 3 (Ivanov 197187, 4: 409). One more telling dif-
ference: Shestov does not discriminate between Dostoevsky and Nietzsche, assigning to both the ex-
perience of the psychological depth and the assault against idealism. Ivanov is inclined to think that
Nietzsche retreats, not having resisted within the utmost depths and having objectifed how into what
(cf. in Nietzsche and Dyonisus, 1904, in: Ivanov 197187, 1: 720; cf. also ibid. 4: 414). The what vs.
how controversy, however represented, is a central issue for all these thinkers Ivanov, Shestov, (early)
Bakhtin. Conceptualising it, in one way or another, could bring their philosophisying to the key concepts
of Byzantine philosophy (which make it approachable from post-idealist stance) person and energy.
From now on vague notions had to be concreticised, approximated, adapted, but the basic discrimination
had been already expressed.
34. Asia appears, in Dostoevskys epilogue and in Ivanovs excerptions, twofold: as an area of
menace (cf. next note) and as an area lacking personality, as humankinds birthplace where Abraham
and his focks still graze, one to be opposed to the modern personality torn from its ties with the Earth
(and the creation) and rushing about in senseless excitement. One can recognise here, in Asias second
aspect, the historio- and geosophical scheme made articulate in Vladimir Solovyovs 1877 paper Three
Powers. Asia lies outside history; it substitutes for the world of the savages (Montaigne) but, unlike that
world, has not only cultural-historical potential but also capital the Biblic appearance. With regard
to Dostoevskys text, one can interprete this Asia as an allegory of earth waiting to be Christianised and
welcoming Christianisation; with regard to Ivanovs excerption, one can speak about Hellenisation instead
about Christianisation. Ivanov hints at something else: Hellenitys encounter with the culture of the Old
Testament is its frst, archetypal in its fruitfulness barbarisation (if we dont count one from the archaic
period: the interaction with the Thracian culture, cf. Dionysus and Early Dionisianism etc.).
35. Cognition, becoming purely idealist, announces the overall relativity of recognised and of to-be-
Yordan Lyutskanov
43
recognised values; person fnds itself closed in its solitude and either desperately or proudly celebrating
the apotheosis of its rootlessness. On the danger of such a global idealism speaks Dostoevsky in the epi-
logue of his Crime and Punishment, under the symbolic guise of a terrible new strange plague that had
come to Europe from the depths of Asia... Here we read, besides, the following: () (Ivanov 197186,
4: 418, translation mine Y.L.; quotation from Dostoevsky after: Dostoevsky 2006). As an allegory of
menace, this Asia of Dostoevsky seems ro memorise the Great Plague of 134753 and is reproduced in
several works of Vladimir Solovyov. Note in Ivanovs comment the phrase repeating the title of a famous
work of Shestov, Apotheosis of Rootlessness (1905).
36. Shestovs vigilance with regard to the oriental despotic state (yet on a level recognisible as
one of rhetoric), combined with profession of non-idealism (non-Hellenism and non-Atticism) is prob-
ably reminiscent of the cultural experice of an/the eastern man; what is the religion of the Temple
for the prophets of Judea, the dissident, counter-culture proponents of Judaic monotheism (cf. Asman
2001: 205-210), that is the philosophy of idealism for Shestov. I am speaking of a partially conscious
self-identifcation, a phenomenon grounded in the hypothetic phenomenon of culturally conditioned he-
redity. (If we remain within the horizon of that (Shestovs) epoch, with its three phases: the boundary
of centuries, between the two revolutions and since/after the Civil war, in order to theorise on the phe-
nomenon of that heredity from an immanent standpoint, I would point out George Florovskys 1921 paper
The Land of Fathers and the Land of Children. Florovsky distinguished between three modes of minds
historicity: embeddedness in a materially evident tradition; savage rootlessness (state of mind constitutive
for what Levi-Strauss called cool cultures a few decades later); participation in a cultural yet empiri-
cally non-evident tradition. Expectedly for the Russian 1921, he incorporated this discrimination not in an
epistemological but in a historiosophic speculation.) Within the aspects or bits of Shestovs philosophical
credo fully brought to consciousness, the spiritual fesh of the bare man is more perseveringly and
more passionately tried and explored than the spiritual fesh of history.
37. I am tempted to compare these different ways to doubt with two diametrically different kinds of
irony (thematised by Serguei Averintsev in one or two of his 1970s works) the one grounded in the re-
jection of the ironised and the other in loving or enjoying it (the one suggesting an alienated and the other
an involved condition of the self). Doing so, I am hinting at my conviction that Averintsevs work as an
interpretor of aesthetic culture in its multiple diversity is fed by the discourse shared by Merezhkovsky,
Shestov, Ivanov, Innokenty Annensky, Lev Pumpjansky and so on a discourse feeling itself uneasy by
the classical heritage and recurrently inspecting and promoting the intrusions of non-classic and of
post-classic experiences into the classical tradition (be it the Hellenic, the Cartesian or their juxtaposition).
38. It abuses human condition with regard to both him who experiences tragedy (the agency of the
character) and him who is watching it (the agency of the beholder) training them in nave and false concili-
ation and hypocrisy.
39. I guess that Vjacheslav Ivanovs essays on tragedy would well represent this tradition.
40. I do not know whether the old Greek and the old Jewish cultures give the opportunity to evade the
chain of retribution(s).
41. Shestov polemicises against Merezhkovsky: Dostoevskys characters tragedy is in their inability
to begin a new and different life. And so profound, so hopeless is this tragedy that it was not diffcult for
Dostoevsky to present it as the cause of the agonizing experiences of his heroes who murder. But there is
not the slightest basis here on which to regard Dostoevsky as an expert on or an investigator of the crimi-
nal soul. (109; italics mine, Y.L.; compare Merezjkovskij 1914, 18: 6, 8).
42. Hence the suggestion that, in Shestovs interpretation of the novel and its epilogue, the Gospel
might not embody the way to rebirth; while Merezhkovskys reading leaves no room for doubt here. Then
it becomes clear that it is the agencies of the preaching writer and of the humanised Gospel that are re-
pudiated by Shestov and Raskolnikov: He tries again to revive in his memory that understanding of the
Gospel that does not reject the prayers and hopes of a solitary, mined man under the pretext that to think
of ones personal grief means to be an egoist. () But he can expect all this only from the Gospel that
Sonya reads, which is as yet uncut and unaltered by science and Count Tolstoy, from the Gospel in which
44
there is preserved, along with other teachings, the story of Lazaruss resurrection; where, what is more,
Lazaruss resurrection indicating the great power of the miracle worker gives meaning also to the other
words that are so puzzling and incomprehensible to the poor, Euclidean human mind. (cf. Shestov 1971:
124-125). Almost nowadays, the entanglement which might be called the tragedy vita entanglement,
which was probably initiated by Merezhkovsky and which involved Shestov and Pyotr Bicilli among
others, fnds the following clear and reconciliating solution: It is my contention that Crime and Punish-
ment is formally two distinct but closely related, things, namely a particular type of tragedy in the classi-
cal Greek mold and a Christian resurrection tale; that it successfully superimposes the two forms because
they are, within clearly determined limits, identical; fnally, that the confict between the two forms occurs
at precisely the point where they cease to be superimposable. (Cassedy 1982: 171; emphasis his).
43. Am I right, in getting Raskolnikov into such a trouble?, addresses Dostoevsky his readers.
Compare also: To the very end, Raskolnikov could not repent deep down in his heart, for he felt that
he was completely innocent; he knew that Dostoevsky had burdened him with the accusation of murder
merely for appearances sake (cf. 123).
44. In Crime and Punishment, the chief task of all Dostoevskys literary work is overshadowed by
the idea of retribution, which has been cleverly ftted to the novel. To the unsuspecting reader, it seems that
Dostoevsky is actually Raskolnikovs judge, and not the accused. But in The Brothers Karamazov, the
question is posed with such clarity that it no longer leaves any doubt as to the authors intentions. (cf. 119).
45. Shestov refers to Ernest Renan, to his History of Israel preface. As it seems, Shestov defnes
the relation between Dostoevsky and the liberals in the same way in which Renan has defned the rela-
tion between the builders of Israel (both secular and lay) and the prophets; and he himself seems
inclined to regard the situations as analogous to each other (128-129).
46. It is important to understand that bareness and solitude are indicative of opposite conditions. Bare
man is cast into loneliness, and the acting man can retreat into his monumental solitude. As Shestov points
out, Prometheus, unlike the humblest man (including Raskolnikov and so on), is never alone: Pro-
metheus was lucky he was never left alone. He was always heard by Zeus; he had an adversary, someone
he could irritate and provoke to anger by his austere look and his proud words. He had a cause. (114).
47. Already Potestas clavium (1923), in the part written in 1921 and placed in the edition I referred to
above as a preface, introduces as central and fundamental the difference between the Psalmist and Aristotles.
48. In the long run, the aesthetics implied by Shestovs philosophy of tragedy could be associated
with a rigorous (that is, one with iconoclastic vein) revision of the Byzantine theory of image. It could
be considered as a (re)introduction of an aesthetics which 70 years later Serguei Averintsev metonymi-
cally designated as Near-Eastern [art of] wording, opposing it to Greek literature (Averintsev 1971).
These preliminary considerations have to be rethought against the context of a recent attempt to explore
the aesthetics of some Russian religious thinkers (P. Florensky, S. Bulgakov), symbolist writers (V. Ivanov, A.
Bely) and avant-garde painters (Vasily Kandinsky) as neo-Byzantine or as approximating such (Bychkov
1999: 308-490).
References:

Ascherson, Neil. Black Sea: The Birthplace of Civilisation and Barbarism. London: Vintage, 1996
Asman, Jan. Kulturnata pamet: pismenist, pamet I politicheska identichnost v rannite visokorazviti kul-
turi. Sofa: Planeta 3, 2001. (Translation of: Jan Assmann. Das kulturelle Gedchtnis (Schrift, Erin-
nerung und politische Identitt in frhen Hochkulturen). Mnchen: C.H.Beck, 1992).
Averintsev, Serguei. Grecheskaja literatura i blizhnevostochnaja slovesnost (Protivostojanie i vst-
recha dvukh tvorcheskih printsipov). Tipologija i vzaimosvaz literature drevnego mira. Moskva:
Nauka, 206-266, 1971 (, . -
( ). -
. , , 206-266, 1971 [Translation in Bulgarian: Ivanka Dobreva, 1984]
Yordan Lyutskanov
45
Averintsev, Serguei. Spetsifka liricheskoj geroini v poezii A. Akhmatovoj : solidarnost i dvojnichestvo.
Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 41 (1995), 7-20. (, . -
. : . Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 41
(1995), 7-20).
Bychkov, Viktor. Vizantijskaja estetika. Teoreticheskie problemy. Moskva: Iskusstvo, 1977. (,
. . . : , 1977). [Trans-
lation in Bulgarian: Sabina Pavlova, 1984]
Bychkov, Viktor. 2000 let khristianskoj kultury sub specie aesthetica. T. 2. S.-Peterburg Moskva: Uni-
versitetskaja kniga, 1999. (, . 2000 sub specie aes-
thetica. . : , 1999).
Cassedy, Stephen. The Formal Problem of the Epilogue in Crime and Punishment: The Logic of Tragic
and Christian Structures. Dostoevsky Studies 3 (1982), 171-190. Web. 2 April 2012. http://www.
utoronto.ca/tsq/DS/03/171.shtml; Internet.
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. Produced by John Bickers; and Dagny and David Wid-
ger. Released March 28, 2006: n.pag. Web. 2 April 2012. http://www.gutenberg.org/fles/2554/2554-
h/2554-h.htm; Internet.
Gumiljov, Nikolaj. Pisma o russkoj poezii. Comp. G. Fridlender (with the participation of R. Timen-
chik). Moskva: Sovremennik, 1990. (, . . .
.. ( ..). : , 1990).
Evripid. Teatr. Polnoe sobranie pes i doshedshikh do nas otryvkov. Translation, foreword, comment In-
nokentij Annenskij. T. 1. S.-Peterburg, 1906 (. .
. ., ., . . . . 1. ., 1906).
Frank, Susi K. Geokulturologie Geopoetik. Defnitions- und Abgrenzungsvorschlge Marszaek, M.,
S. Sasse. Eds. Geopoetiken: Geographische Entwrfe in den mittel- und osteuropischen Literaturen.
Berlin: Kadmos, 2010, 19-42.
Ivanov, Vjacheslav. Sobranie sochinenij v 4-kh tt. Eds. D. V. Ivanov, O. Dechartes. Bruxelles: Foyer
Oriental Chrtien, 197186. Web. 2 April 2012. http://www.rvb.ru/ivanov/1_critical/1_brussels/toc.
htm; Internet (, . 4- . . . . . -
. Bruxelles: Foyer Oriental Chrtien, 197186. Web. 2 April 2012. http://www.rvb.ru/ivanov/1_
critical/1_brussels/toc.htm; Internet).
Losev, Aleksej. Problema simvola i realisticheskoe iskusstvo. Moskva: Iskusstvo, 1976. (, .
. : , 1976). [Translation in Bul-
garian: Emilija Stamatova, 1989].
Lyutskanov, Yordan. Vjacheslav Ivanov: Tragedijata kato fgura na elinizatsija na izkustvoto. Iztokt,
Grtsija I Rim v konteksta na ruskija Srebren vek. Doktorska [PhD] disertatsija. Sofa, Institut
za literatura, 2005, 136-146 (, . :
. , .
, : , 2005, 136-146).
Lyutskanov, Yordan. Tragedijata kato simvol na elinstvoto: nevzmozhnost i vzmozhnosti za neevro-
potsentrichna humanitaristika v ruskija modernizm. LiterNet, 24.07.2010, 7 (128): n.pag. Web. 2
April 2012. http://liternet.bg/publish25/jordan-liuckanov/tragediiata.htm; Internet. (, -
. : -
. LiterNet, 24.07.2010, 7 (128): n.pag. Web. 2 April
2012. http://liternet.bg/publish25/jordan-liuckanov/tragediiata.htm; Internet).
Makhlin, Vitalij. Vtoroe soznanie : Podstupy k gumanitarnoj epistemologii. Moskva : Znak, 2009. (-
, . : . : , 2009).
Marszaek, Magdalena, Sylvia Sasse. Geopoetiken. Marszaek, M., S. Sasse. Eds. Geopoetiken: Geog-
raphische Entwrfe in den mittel- und osteuropischen Literaturen. Berlin: Kadmos, 2010, 7-18
Merezhkovskij, Dmitrij. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij v 24-kh tt. Moskva: Sytin, 1914. (
. 24- . : , 1914).
46
Shestov, Lev. Dostoevsky and Nietzsche: Philosophy of Tragedy. Translation by Spencer Roberts. Ibid.
Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Nietzsche. Ed. by Bernard Martin. [S. l.:] Ohio University Press, 1969. [Con-
tains also: Editors Introduction; The Good in the Teaching of Tolstoy and Nietzsche]: n.pag. Web. 2
April 2012. http://www.angelfre.com/nb/shestov/dtn/dtn_0.html; Internet.
Shestov, Lev. Dostoevskij i Nitche (Filosofja tragedii). Paris, YMCA-Press, 1971 (, .
( ). Paris, YMCA-Press, 1971). [Bulgarian translation:
Nedalka Videva, 1993].
Shestov, Lev. Sochinenija: v 2-kh tt. Moskva: Nauka, 1993. (, . : 2 . :
, 1993).
Smirnov, A. V. O logicheskoj intuitsii arabo-musulmanskoj kultury. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie
64 (6 2003), 81-96. (, .. - .
64 (6 2003), 81-96).
oor_:b g___:bogo
(_g:r_oo)
o|_g ,:o_bo o_r_|:gooo| bob::_o__" J_|:b_
(g_g J_|_ogo| _r:__oo| _ob_r-_g_b(o|_)_ro _ogo|o_o:)
r_1o_o_
|:_g:boo |o__g_o: g_g J_|_ogo, _r:__o:, oo__rbo|__go _: :g:b:_o|-
__go _g_bo1oo, _oo_or _o|_o_g|_o, _gro__b_ro1oo.

|_:_o:Jo ::b:go1__go: g_g J_|_ogo| :_r__go b:b:roo_o ,_o|-
_o_g|_o _: bo_J_" (_r:__oo| _ogo|o_o:) (!03 b_go), :o:| :r_: oo|o go-
:bo b:Jroo_o (,:|:__o: o:g:", ,:o_bo o_r_|:gooo| bob::_o__"), _ooo_ro
o_r__og|_o| (roor_ J_|_ogo| o:b:o__rog_ |o_oogoo_ro o|o_gb__-
g_goo| :g_oro|:), go:b_|g:g og:bogo|: (roor_ J_|_ogo:b _:ooro|oor_-
_go ooro|:) _: oob:og :b_obo| (roor_ J_|_ogo|_roob__go oo:1rogbo|:)
og:g|:1ro|_o. |_:_oo| oo1:bo: :ooo_ggoo| _: b:roo:bobo| oo___ro _:
_o__g__rogoo_ro oboJgb_go_o g_g J_|_ogo| _ob_r-_g_bo|__ro
_r:__oo| _ogo|o_o:Jo. :o:| :r_:, |_:_o:Jo |:_:ro: :_r__go o_o__ |:_-
__bo| oo r_|_g go__r:__r_g b:b:roo__1_ _: o:o oo__o_:1_, roog_o_
_:r:_ _|:_:_: g_g J_|_ogo| _ogo|o_o:|.
|_:_o:Jo b:roob_bogo: o| ooroo:_o __b__b_o_o, roo_g|:_ J_|_ogo
go:g:1o|: !) :g:b:r_o|__go _|o__o_:, roo_go_ o1:b_o_ro _|o__o_o|
bob: og:b1_ b:oob_g:| _: :b|_b_:| ooo_:g_: o_o__ |:___bo| oorg_g b:b-
_g:rJo, 2) _o:goo1oo| _:|:b_o|o, _ogo|o_o:, roo_g|:_ bo_og:o _r_o_go-
_: _: oob:og :b_obo_ |:_o:o_ _:r:_ :goo:r__b_b.
oog:bbo:, roo |_:_o:Jo b:oogrogo |:_oob_o |:o:b:_o_ o_b_:
:oo_gg__go.
Yordan Lyutskanov
47
ANDREY TASHEV
(Bulgaria)
Classical Pragmatism: An Overview
*
The Origins of Pragmatism. Context and Preconditions
The term pragmatism was used for the frst time by the American philosopher
Charles Sanders Peirce in 1871 during one of the regular meetings of the Cambridge
Metaphysical Club.
**
In front of his colleagues, the philosopher presented and developed
an unformulated method researched by George Berkeley, giving it the name pragmatism
(CP 6.482).
***
As a hypothesis, the doctrine frst appeared in written form in Peirces essay
How to Make Our Ideas Clear, published in 1878 in the journal Popular Science Month-
ly. Although the term pragmatism was not mentioned there, the essay is considered the
beginning of the doctrine. In that work, Peirce frst presented the logical principle which
became known as the pragmatic maxim, which became the core of pragmatism. Peirces
article went unnoticed until William James turned the academic communitys attention
towards the ideas expressed there. This occurred in 1989 in James essay Philosophical
Conceptions and Practical Results. There the word pragmatism was used in writing
for the frst time. Along with that, James noted that Peirce had used this term as early as
the beginning of the 1870s to refer to the ideas expressed in How to Make Our Ideas
Clear. When James essay appeared, he was at the height of his academic fame. His words
provoked great interest and gave the new doctrine a fying start. It soon found passionate
supporters in Europe as well.
One of the frst to transmit the doctrine of pragmatism to the Old Continent was
the Bulgarian philosopher Ivan Sarailiev (1887-1969). He became familiar with the theory
during his studies at the Sorbonne and at Oxford (1905-1910). Immediately upon obtain-
ing a post teaching the history of philosophy at Sofa University in 1919, Sarailiev began
giving lectures on pragmatism. Numerous publications and lectures dedicated to the new doc-
trine followed, which culminated in a broad study entitled Pragmatism (Sarailiev 1938).
However, Sarailiev was not merely a popularizer of the doctrine. His own philo-
sophical outlooks were quite close to those of pragmatism. This made him the frst prag-
matist in Eastern Europe and one of the frst in Europe as a whole. The only ones to pre-
* This study was realized with the fnancial support of Project BG051PO001-3.3.04/61 (Support for the devel-
opment of the academic potential of young scholars in the humanities and the strengthening of their professional
contacts with established international scholars in their academic sphere) of the Operative Programme Develop-
ment of Human Resources, co-fnanced by the European Social Fund of the European Union.
** This was a small group of people who gathered to discuss philosophical questions. Besides Charles Peirce, the
group also included William James, his brother, the later famous writer Henry James, Oliver Wendell Holmes,
Jr., Chauncey Wright, John Fiske, Francis Ellingwood Abbot, Nicholas St. John Green, Joseph Bangs Warner,
Henry Ware Putnam, Francis Greenwood Peabody and William Pepperel Montague.
*** Here the established international norm for citing Peirce is followed. CP is an abbreviation for Collected
Papers of Charles Peirce, while the following numbers indicate the corresponding volume and paragraph. W
is an abbreviation for Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition. The numbers following it indicate
the corresponding volume and page. A full bibliographic reference can be found in the list of literature cited.
48
cede him were the brilliant representative of the theory, Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller,
and the young Italian philosophers united around the journal Leonardo.
As a way of thinking, pragmatism has been known since Antiquity. Some of its
ideas are individually woven into the philosophy of Socrates and Aristotle, and later in
that of the scholastics, John Locke, George Berkeley, and many others. Peirce writes (CP
5.402, note 2) that even Jesus was a pragmatist. His claim: You shall know them by their
fruits can be interpreted as an early version of the pragmatic maxim. But only in the
second half of the 19
th
century did the objective scientifc and social preconditions for the
unifcation of these ideas into an independent doctrine appear. This was the time when the
totalizing philosophical systems which had dominated until then were in crisis. The Kan-
tian, Hegelian and other theories, unifed under the term German classical idealism, turned
out to be unable to encompass many of the scientifc discoveries of the second half of the
19
th
and the beginning of the 20
th
century. Their monolithic structure gradually, but ever
more noticeably, began to show cracks. The need arose for a new, more adequate doctrine
for making sense of the world. It needed to catch these phenomena as they unfolded and
trace the changes which occurred in reality, rather than trying to force it into a ready-made
mould. The pragmatic doctrine turned out to be an alternative to theories which had lost
their explanatory power.
Pragmatism arose in the United States, becoming into the frst and most meaning-
ful American contribution to world philosophy. The place of its appearance, as well as
the time, is no accident. The socio-political processes across the Atlantic (especially the
American Civil War of 1861-65 and the penetration of the spirit of Puritanism in England)
in combination with the crisis in the grand philosophical systems created fertile soil for
the germination of pragmatism.
Pragmatism is also the offspring of the scientifc context of the United States in the
mid-nineteenth century. Along with the doctrines ancient and medieval roots, we could
also point to theories and concepts which were contemporary for Peirce and which infu-
enced the creation of pragmatism. Max Fisch noted the following nine: the Kantian roots
of Peirces thought (1856-1865); Bains theory of belief (1859); the Darwinian and other
theories of evolution (1859); the legal philosophy of Green (1870-1872); Peirces obser-
vational and theoretical work as a scientist in the period 1860-1878 and particularly in
chemistry, spectroscopy, stellar photometry, metrology, and geodesy; the shock of Mills
examination of Hamilton (1865); Peirces falling back on Whewells philosophy of sci-
ence (1869) and the experimental psychology of Fechner, Helmholtz and Wundt (1862-
1876) (Fisch 1986: 133). This list does not pretend to be exhaustive, but rather shows the
auspicious academic context and broad foundations upon which the new doctrine rested.
The Core of Pragmatism

From its creation until today, the doctrine of pragmatism has developed into more
than twenty different varieties. However, the foundation-laying principles for all of its
adherents are shared: doubt in the possibility for one theory to cover all of reality; the con-
nection between theory and practice, thought and action; the abolition of abstract philoso-
phizing; emphasis on mans active position in the world; a change of perspective, in which
the gaze is turned not backward, towards the past, but forward; an orientation towards an
Andrey Tashev
49
anticipated future result of a given idea. Pragmatism is often defned as a philosophy of
action, which emphasizes the family trait most characteristic of all of its variants their
focus on action. This particularity has also given the doctrine its name (from the Greek
pragma action).
The core of all types of pragmatism is also shared. This is Peirces abovementioned
maxim. The fundamental pragmatic ideas have gradually formed from and around it. Its
reformulation, the change in its scope and emphases, even its incorrect interpretation have
been the source of many of the variants of pragmatism. For this reason, it is logical namely
for Peirces maxim to stand at the center of this study. An analysis of it will delineate the
boundaries of the term pragmatism and its content. After that our attention will be turned
towards the philosophers other concepts related to the maxim, as well as towards the
ideas of William James.
Peirce writes: The very frst lesson that we have a right to demand that logic shall
teach us is how to make our ideas clear To know what we think, to be masters of our
own meaning will make a solid foundation for great and weight thought (W3: 260). Or,
to put it another way: a single formula without meaning, lurking in a young mans head,
will sometimes act like an obstruction of inert matter in an artery (ibid). According to
him, neither Descartes nor Leibniz nor any of the contemporary logicians offered a work-
ing criterion for the clarifcation of ideas, i.e. for the precise establishment of their meaning.
This was also the specifc impulse for creating the pragmatic maxim, which is nothing other
than such a criterion.
In the essay How to Make Our Ideas Clear, Peirce differentiates three grades of
clearness. The frst and most fundamental is that of subjective knowledge (or familiarity).
A person has reached this level of clearness when he can recognize the idea and does not
confuse it with another under any circumstances. We remain on this level of clarity in our
understanding of the majority of ideas.
Higher than this is the grade of the abstract defnition, which is built upon the
frst. In order to reach the second grade of clearness, we have to be capable of defning
the idea in general terms. The abstract defnition of diamond, for example, includes a list
of its physical characteristics: it is a mineral, a natural allotrope of carbon and so on. The
problem with this type of defnition is that they do not provide any guidelines on how to
determine whether an object we encounter actually falls under it (De Waal 2005: 18). On
the basis of the cited defnition, we have no way of discerning whether a given translucent
stone is a diamond or not, unless we are specialists in this sphere.
But there is also a third grade, which leads our investigations to a higher level of
clearness than the abstract defnition. This is Peirces pragmatic maxim: Consider what
effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our con-
ception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the
object (W3: 266). What does it mean, for example, to say that a body is heavy? According
to the logical principle cited, this means that in the absence of an opposing force, the body
will fall. Our whole idea of heaviness is reduced to consequences. The pragmatic criterion
can be applied successfully to all sorts of ideas and terms.
*
* Later Peirce wrote that there is also a fourth, higher grade of clearness, called pragmatic adequacy (CP 5.3).
But this idea is mentioned only once and remains undeveloped.
50
Pragmatism in its original variant is thus a method for ascertaining the meaning of
concepts, terms and assertions. The conceivable practical consequences which the idea
evokes are its meaning. If it does not give rise to any such consequences, then it is mean-
ingless. But if the results of two or more ideas coincide, then their meaning is identical.
One of the goals of pragmatism is to show that numerous philosophical terms have no
meaning
and that certain key philosophical problems were caused by terminological unclearness
(De Waal 2005: 5).
The search for the conceivable practical effects of a given idea is tied to Peirces
attempt through pragmatism to introduce into philosophy the logic of relationships, which
has passed through experimental proof. He was convinced that only in this way could
philosophy escape subjectivism and be transformed into a true science. Peirce had solid
experience in the sphere of the empirical sciences. He was a chemist by education. For
over thirty years, he worked for the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, conducting a large
number of observations and experiments. Researchers defne him as the founding father
of experimental psychology in America. According to Peirce, in the empirical sciences,
reason passes from and through the known towards the unknown. Such experimental
methods could be useful for philosophy, because with them universally valid laws could
be discovered. The point of the experiment is to defne from the individual reaction how
all objects of a given kind would react under the same circumstances. In other words, the
rule is sought.
From this follows the exceptionally important stipulation that the pragmatic maxim
demands that one search not for random, one-off consequences, but rather habits for ac-
tion or behavior. The understanding of this phrase in Peirces terminology passes through
his conception of thought as a transition from doubt towards belief. The philosopher em-
phasizes that he does not use these terms in their everyday or in their religious sense.
Doubt and belief in Peirces special usage mean respectively the starting of any question,
no matter how small or how great, and the resolution of it (W3: 261). Doubt always
evokes irritation and alarm in the one experiencing it. The desire to overcome unpleasant
feelings and to reach the opposite of doubt belief is natural. It is tied to peace and satis-
faction. The transition between the two states is realized through thought. Thus, according
to Peirce, the drive to pass from doubt to belief is the only stimulus for thought and the
basic goal of every study: Some philosophers have imagined that to start an inquiry it
was only necessary to utter a question whether orally or by setting it down upon paper
There must be a real and living doubt, and without this all discussion is idle (W3: 248).
However, the essence of belief is the establishment of a habit (W3: 263), from which it
follows that the whole function of thought is to produce habits of action (W3: 265).
After belief has been achieved, doubt disappears, the action of thought ceases and
we may proceed in accordance with the created habit. But, since belief is a rule for ac-
tion, the application of which involves further doubt and further thought, at the same time
that it is a stopping-place, it is also a new starting place for thought (W3: 263). Thus, the
process of thinking continues endlessly.
Hence, the application of the pragmatic maxim requires foreseeing the entire pro-
cess of transition from doubt to belief in order to defne the end result of it as well the habit.
Andrey Tashev
51
The Method of Guessing
Correctly foreseeing the practical consequences of a given idea means formulating
a hypothesis based on reality and experience. For this reason, Peirce identifed his prag-
matism with the logic of abduction and claimed that the question of Pragmatism is the
question of Abduction (CP 5.196-197).
The other names for abduction are retroduction, the method of guessing, or simply
hypothesis. The principle itself was well known and widely applied before Peirce, too. The
American philosophers contribution is that he raised this principle to the rank of a method
for forming judgments, placing it alongside induction and deduction.
Abduction is a heuristic method which consists of combining given facts and form-
ing a hypothesis on the basis of them (i.e. deriving something unknown from real, avail-
able data). Peirce emphasized that the facts upon which the hypothesis is based, as well as
the inference made from it, are only probable. Yet despite the lack of absolute certainty in
the presuppositions and the inference, this method is exceptionally useful, because it gives
us a necessary starting point in our search.
Peirce illustrated his method with the following example:
Suppose that I enter a room and there fnd a number of bags, containing different
kinds of beans. On the table there is a handful of white beans; and, after some searching, I
fnd one of the bags contains white beans only. I at once infer as a probability, or as a fair
guess, that this handful was taken out of that bag. This sort of inference is called making a
hypothesis. It is an inference of a case from a rule and a result. We have, then:
DEDUCTION
Rule: All the beans from this bag are white.
Case: These beans are from this bag.
Result: These beans are white.
INDUCTION
Case: These beans are from this bag.
HYPOTHESIS
Case: These beans are from this bag (W3: 325-6).
In the abductive method, the judgment is arrived at backwards in comparison
to the other two. It begins from the rule, passes through the result in order to reach the
specifc case. The hypothesis is a beginning stage in every scientifc study, as well as in
the discovery of new ideas in general. The following stages are deduction and induction,
respectively, through which a test of the hypothesis is conducted.
At frst glance, the method seems easy, yet scholars constant interest in it indicates
the opposite. Entire studies, as well as scholarly forums and projects continue to be dedi-
cated to abduction.
52
Final Opinion and Fallibility
Returning to the idea of thought as a transition between two states, we can sum-
marize that each of us strives to achieve certain belief, so as to avoid unpleasant doubt.
Surely, true belief for Peirce is that fnal opinion which is in harmony with reality and
which all people would reach under optimal conditions. In his essay The Fixation of Be-
lief, published several months before How to Make Our Ideas Clear, the philosopher
examined the ways of fxing a given belief and how each of us behaves towards our
natural drive to reach certainty. He differentiates four methods: that of stubbornness, of
authority, a priori, and scientifc. Peirce examines these methods solely in connection with
the solving of scientifc problems.
The frst method consists of the stubborn maintenance of a given belief, without
taking into account facts and opinions that do not agree with it. In order to preserve ones
belief unimpaired, one must work out appropriate habits. One can ignore or reinterpret
those facts which cast doubt on ones beliefs, or simply not communicate with people who
hold different opinions. Typical examples of the use of the method of stubbornness are the
founders and followers of conspiracy theories. The basic faw of this method is that the
social impulse is against it. The man, who adopts it will fnd that other men think differ-
ently from him and that their opinions are quite as good as his own, and this will shake
his confdence in his belief (W3: 250).
The method of authority attempts to solve this problem by raising the method of
stubbornness to the social level. In this case, beliefs are preserved not by the separate
individual, but by a social institution (most often a church or state). It is the institutions
task to regulate information such that opinions contradicting their belief do not reach
members of the society. History is rich with examples that show that the method of author-
ity is also unsuccessful. Inevitably the moment comes when differing views break through
the censorship and destroy the artifcially preserved beliefs, sowing doubts in the minds of
the members of the society.
According to Peirce, the a priori method is higher than the preceding two. In this
case, there is not individual or institutional censorship. Its essence lies in the acceptance
of that belief which seems most agreeable to reason for our individual mind. Agreeable
to reason does not mean that which agrees with experience, but that which we fnd
ourselves inclined to belief (W3: 252). In other words, that which according to us is in
agreement with our other beliefs. But since this does not rest on tested facts, this belief
usually turns into an intellectual trend. And intellectual trends rarely last longer than a few
centuries.
Peirce does not deny that each of these three methods has indisputable advantages
and would be useful in particular circumstances. But no one of them can satisfy our need
for a stable and generally accepted belief, because they presume a limited number of
researchers and do not take into account the idea of reality. Only the scientifc method
overcomes their faws. It is qualitatively different from the remaining three. It is realized
through abstraction, deduction and induction. Central to it is the hypothesis that there is a
reality that is independent of a given person or a group of peoples thoughts and opinions
about it: We may defne the real as that whose characters are independent of what any-
body may think about them to be (W3: 271). That, however, does not mean that the real
Andrey Tashev
53
is static and defnable once and for all. On the contrary, according to Peirce, it is dynamic
and in a constant process of change.
Peirce borrows his defnition of real from the scholastics, especially the British
philosophers Duns Scotus and William of Ockham. This is one of the few viewpoints
which the founder of pragmatism remained true to almost his entire life. In the debate
between the nominalists, conceptualists and realists, which was topical during the second
half of the 19
th
century, Peirce supported the realists.
We will touch on the concrete dimensions of Peircean realism again a bit later. But
its consequences for the fxation of belief are signifcant: those realities affect our senses
according to regular laws, and, though our sensations are as different as our relations to the
objects, yet, by taking advantage of the laws of perception, we can ascertain by reasoning
how things really are, and any man, if he have suffcient experience and reason enough
about it, will be led to the one true conclusion (W3: 254). By studying a reality that is
independent of our opinion, we can reach long-lasting belief, or the true conclusion, as
Peirce puts it here, towards which we are striving. The essence of the scientifc method
lies precisely in that: As opposed to the frst three methods, where human understanding
sets the terms, the scientifc method proceeds from the recognition that nature does not
accommodate itself to our beliefs, but that our beliefs must accommodate themselves to
nature (De Waal 2005: 15). Belief reached in this way is not created by us, because the
grounds for it are not dependent on our opinion. With the help of the scientifc method, we
simply reach it. Reality acts similar to a centripetal force it pulls everyones thoughts
towards the fnal opinion.
Peirce accepts that there are important questions which remain unanswered. Reach-
ing the fnal opinion is not within the strength of a single scholar and a single human life-
time, because reality is inexhaustible. A whole community of researchers would need to
work suffciently long on a given problem in order to reach the fnal opinion. In this way,
Peirce arrives at the strange utopian concept of an ideal society of researchers who work
in ideal condition and reach the truth. Critics who accuse pragmatism of being an apology
for individualism and wild American capitalism clearly are not familiar with this aspect
of Peirces philosophy or they choose to ignore it.
The end of the investigation, however, is put off into the unforeseeable future,
when the positions of all scholars will converge on a single point. For this reason, the fnal
opinion must be interpreted not as an actually attainable goal, but as a regulatory principle
of investigation: It is an ideal that justifes our continuing inquiry, our readiness to be
shown our error, and our determination to pursue investigation that converges on fnal
agreement (Hausman 1993: 36). Attaining it is a secondary goal. The important thing is
for the investigation to continue. Only then does knowledge grow, while thought corrects
itself both with respect to conclusions, but also with respect to presuppositions. However,
this phase can be reached only if reason is left free to follow its path for a suffciently long
time. For this reason, Peirce made this appeal: Do not block the way of inquiry (CP 1.135).
Yet investigation on any scientifc question whatsoever will not stop, because we
cannot in any way reach perfect certitude nor exactitude. We never can absolutely sure of
anything (CP 1.147). That is, in short, Peirces concept of fallibilism. It is a logical conse-
quence of the realism presented above. Since reality is dynamic and in constant change,
54
there is no way for us to catch it and to defne it infallibly once and for all. Even if such
defning was possible for a given moment, in the next one the phenomenon would already
have undergone change.
Peirces concept of fallibilism should not be confused with extreme skepticism,
since it is balanced out with the concept of critical common-sensism. According to the
latter, there are ideas which are in practice infallible and work well. If we study them in
detail, we will fnd that they, too, deviate from the rule. Yet we can calmly believe in them
until a concrete reason for doubt arises. Ideas that are infallible in practice are a suitable
foundation for our scientifc arguments. With this assertion, Peirce sharply differentiates
himself from Descartes, who recommends that we base every one of our ideas on doubt.
He also rejects another key Cartesian viewpoint that a good philosophical argument
must resemble a chain. The faw in this concept is that the strength of the chain is always
defned by its weakest link. According to Peirce, it is more acceptable for an argument to
resemble a rope. In this case, every concept in its support will increase its fexibility. At the
same time, if any of the idea-fbers snap, i.e. if it turns out to be wrong, this will not have
fatal consequences for the strength of the rope.
According to the skeptics, we cannot know anything with certainty, thus it is best
to refrain from making judgments. The dogmatists, for their part, argue that there are obvi-
ous and universally valid truths and build their philosophical conceptions upon them. With
fallibilism, combined with critical common-sensism, Peirce fnds a third path between
dogmatism and skepticism.
For Peirce, it is indisputable that the scientifc method is adequate for satisfying our
need for a certain and universally valid belief. However, the frst and most important con-
dition for its application is that the meaning of the opinion in doubt or dispute should be
clear (Fisch 1986: 3-4). And such clarifcation can be reached only through the pragmatic
maxim. It creates the grounds for applying the scientifc method.
The Boundaries of Thought
Peirce took up the path of the pragmatic rebellion (Max Fisch) against Cartesian-
ism and the big philosophical systems as early as the end of the 1860s. With his three ar-
ticles published in the Journal of Speculative Philosophy during 1868-1869, he noted the
boundaries beyond which thought was not capable of passing. This early cognitive theory
of Peirces opened the doors wide for the appearance of the pragmatic maxim.
The boundaries of thought are marked by the following four claims: 1. We have no
power of Introspection 2. We have no power of Intuition 3. We have no power of think-
ing without signs. 4. We have no cognition of the absolutely incognizable (W2: 213).
Peirce uses the phrase intuitive knowledge in the sense of direct, unmediated
knowledge, that which is determined not by other knowledge, but by an object external
to the consciousness. The second claim in its expanded form reads: No cognition not
determined by a previous cognition, can be known. It does not exist (W2: 210). Des-
cartes assumes we have the ability for intuitive knowledge and this becomes one of the
pillars of his philosophical system. But Perice shows that Descartes thesis is untenable.
That the whole is always larger than the parts making it up is often cited as an example of
intuitive knowledge. According to Descartes and his followers, we do not need any other
Andrey Tashev
55
knowledge in order to reach this conclusion. The part is smaller than the whole sometime,
Peirce claims, but not always. Let us, instead of a cake, take the set of natural numbers
and divide them into two equal parts even and odd. Are the parts smaller than the entire
whole in this case? No, they are equal. There are exactly as many even numbers, on
the one hand, and odd, on the other, as there are natural numbers as a whole. Hence the
claim about the existence of intuitive knowledge is incorrect. From this claim of Peirces
it follows that there are no frst truths. Unmediated knowledge until this moment was also
used as a criterion for defning knowledge. Since this type of knowledge does not exist, the
need for a new criterion arises. After setting off down this path, Peirce will arrive at the
pragmatic maxim a few years later.
The lack of capability for introspection means that the direction of knowledge is
from the outside inward. We frst learn about external reality and after that, as a result
of our interaction with it, we also discover and develop our I. This process runs in the
following manner: in its frst contacts with reality the child begins to understand that its
body is the most important thing in the universe. Only what it touches has any actual and
present feeling; only what it faces has any actual color; only what is on its tongue has any
actual taste (W2: 201). The importance of the body increases when the child realizes that
it can cause changes in other objects by touching them. With this, Peirce turns Descartes
doctrine, according to which man frst comes to know himself, on its head.
The inability for introspection is a direct consequence of our lack of intuitive
knowledge and leads to the inability of thinking without signs. Since we have no direct
access to our thoughts, we can reach them only through signs. The only thought we can
grasp is thought in signs. From this we can also derive the principle, which is key not only
for pragmatism, but for the whole of Peirces philosophy: All thought must necessar-
ily be in signs (W2: 207). But according to the pragmatic maxim, the meaning of a sign
is in the conceivable practical consequences that it provokes. Hence, if all of our thinking
is in signs, the meaning of every thought is not in the thought itself, but in the thoughts it
gives rise to.
In Peirces early cognitive theory there are passages that can also be interpreted as
an anticipation of the pragmatic maxim, for example: No present actual thought (which is
mere feeling) has any meaning, any intellectual value; for this lies, not in what is actually
thought, but in what the thought may be connected with in representation by subsequent
thoughts; so that the meaning of a thought is altogether something virtual (W2: 227).
First, Second, Third
An important particularity of Peircean thought is that it is wholly triadic. And the
most fundamental triad in his philosophy is indisputably that of the categories Firstness,
Secondness and Thirdness. His doctrine of the categories was presented for the frst time
in 1867 in the key essay On a New List of Categories. This doctrine was the frst and
most important step in the development of his philosophical system.
The categories are the universal conceptions of being, the ultimate genres or ideas
to which each phenomenon can be reduced. Many thinkers before Peirce had mulled over
the categories, including Plato, Aristotle, Hegel and Kant. The Kantian list, for example,
contains twelve categories, while that of Aristotle has nine. Peirce did not accept a single
56
one of his predecessors suggestions. Instead, he reduced the categories to three.
Peirce changed the name of the science whose goal was the identifcation of the
categories several times. The same process occurred with the titles of the three categories
themselves. According to Peirce, the words quality, reaction and mediation most precisely
express their meaning, but for scientifc terms, Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness are to
be preferred as being entirely new words without any false associations whatever (CP 4.3).
One of the defnitions of the categories reads:
Category the First is the Idea of that which is such as it is regardless of anything
else. That is to say, it is a Quality of Feeling.
Category the Second is the Idea of that which is such as it is as being Second to
some First, regardless of anything else, and in particular regardless of any Law, although it
may conform to a law. That is to say, it is Reaction as an element of the Phenomenon.
Category the Third is the Idea of that which is such as it is as being a Third, or
Medium, between a Second and its First. That is to say, it is Representation as an element
of the Phenomenon (CP 5.66).
Firstness is something in and of itself, qualitative immediacy. Secondness is that
which resists, the brutal opposition, or reaction. It is close to that which the contemporary
humanities call otherness. Thirdness is something which lies in between, the dynamic
mediation.
The three categories by defnition are included in the act of cognition about every
phenomenon. They are indivisible from one another, while in every concrete case one of
them dominates over the others. Pure Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness are an unattain-
able ideal. Firstness, for example, might exist in the sphere of the pure feelings, the pure
colors, the pure aromas, in general everything that is what it is before it is incarnated in
something else. Firstness would be the idea of a feeling in which there is no comparison,
no relation, no recognized multiplicity (since parts would be other than the whole), no
change, no imagination of any modifcation of what is positively there, no refection,
nothing but a simple positive character (CP 5.44). Obviously, such a feeling cannot exist
and be described before turning into something else. For that reason we need the second,
in which it is incarnated, and after that the third to connects them. Firstness presumes
Secondness, while it, in turn, presumes Thirdness.
Critics of Peirce often ask the question: Why are the categories exactly three in
number, and not two, four or fve, for example? The philosopher motivates their number
in the following way: The reason is that while it is impossible to form a genuine three by
any modifcation of the pair, without introducing something of a different nature from the
unit and the pair, four, fve, and every higher number can be formed by mere complications
of threes (W6: 174).
The favorite example Peirce used to illustrate the indivisible triadic structure is
the act of giving. In such a case there is a giver, a receiver and something being given.
Viewed formally, the process consists of two dyadic halves: the giver deprives himself of
something, while the receiver obtains that same thing. But in the act of giving, they are
indivisibly connected in the triad.
From the above discussion it follows that the Peircean categories, unlike those of
his predecessors, are not a warehouse for concentrated knowledge. What is important is
Andrey Tashev
57
not a given category in and of itself, but rather the relationship between the three in each
phenomenon. Its meaning is hidden precisely in this relationship. The connection of First-
ness, Secondness and Thirdness to pragmatism is obvious, even though in The Fixation
of Belief and How to Make Our Ideas Clear, Peirce does not mention his categories.
But in a letter to William James from 1902, he notes: I have advanced my understand-
ing of these categories much since Cambridge days; and can now put them in a much clearer
light and more convincingly. The true nature of pragmatism cannot be understood without
them (CP 8.256).
The way of thinking frst demonstrated in Peirces doctrine of the categories be-
came a basic identifying characteristic of his entire philosophy. It is no accident that schol-
ars have defned it as relational philosophy.
The Riddle of the Universe
After he had worked out the three universal categories and had formulated the
pragmatic maxim, Peirce set to work on the diffcult task of solving the riddle of nature
and the development of the universe. His study in evolutionary cosmology is entitled A
Guess at the Riddle. Unfortunately, this book of Peirces remained unfnished, but parts
of it were published in the journal Monist during the period 1891-1893. They give us a
good idea of the authors ambitious intentions. Besides Peirce, several other philosophers
during the second half of the 19
th
century offered a general evolutionary cosmology. They
include Herbert Spencer, as well as two of the participants in the Cambridge Metaphysical
Club John Fisk and Francis Abbot. But, as the insightful Peirce scholar Murray Murphey
notes, such theories were so largely fanciful and so clearly nonscientifc that scientists
themselves remained highly skeptical. It was Peirces endeavor to built a cosmological
theory which would be broad enough to afford a view of the probable course of future
events yet specifc enough to be scientifcally acceptable (Murphey 1961: 329).
Peirces evolutionary cosmology is not detached from the rest of his concepts. It
is a natural continuation of the idea of thinking as a transition from doubt to belief and of
pragmatism. The fnal phase of the thought process, according to Peirce, is the establish-
ment of a new habit of action (the so-called habit-taking tendency). This is a type of
evolutionary development in the person, thanks to which he adapts to the changing world.
It was already emphasized that pragmatism grasps the world in the dynamism of its occur-
rence. Here, too, the idea of evolution is applied.
At the foundation of Peirces evolutionary cosmology is a triad corresponding to
his categories. According to the philosopher, the universe arose in the infnite past from a
state of total chaos. In this beginning phase there was still not time, space, matter or laws.
This was the kingdom of the absolute Nothing. But it was also one of completely undeter-
mined and dimensionless potentialities (CP 6.193). Out of the womb of indeterminacy
we must say that there would have come something, by the principle of frstness, which
we may call a fash (W6: 209). The appearance of this fash is something like a cosmic
accident. It is not tied to a concrete cause, but happens accidentally, simply because it is
possible. It follows that the frst active element participating in the origin of the universe
is pure chance. Peirces doctrine of chance is called tychism (from the Greek tych
58
chance). According to the philosopher, the action of chance is analogous to that of a mind
or spirit.
Peirces understanding of chance has been applied successfully in other scientifc
spheres as well. The Nobel prizewinner for chemistry in 1977, the Belgian of Russian
descent Ilya Prigogine (1917-2003), emphasized that tychism played a signifcant role in
the formation of his viewpoints on chaos.
The frst spark in the total chaos of the absolute Nothingness is followed by new
ones. Gradually tendencies form; change follows the drive towards establishing laws. In
this way, time, space and everything else are formed. This is possible due to the activity
of the second active element in the universe enduringness: continuation dominates
in every system and sooner or later unites even its most far-fung elements (Mladenov
2004: 87). Peirce called his doctrine of stability synechism (from the Greek synechs
uninterrupted, continuous). The idea of enduringness as an active principle in the universe
occupies a central place in Peirces philosophy. It is precisely what makes the process of
semiosis possible, as well as the application of pragmatism. The author emphasizes that
the proof of his pragmatism includes the establishment of the truth of synechism.
The third active element in the universe is love; Peirce called the doctrine of evolu-
tionary love agapism (from the Greek agape love). Evolutionary love contains within
itself chance and endurance, but adds a new element as well sympathy and attraction
(just as Thirdness contains the other two categories, but cannot be reduced to any one of
them separately, nor to a mechanical synthesis between them.) The idea of evolution via
creative love should not be interpreted as a metaphor, but literally (De Waal 2001: 56),
without forgetting, however, that for Peirce the universe is a developing intellect and all
conceptions connected with this process, including agapism, are mental: The agapastic
development of thought is the adoption of certain mental tendencies by immediate at-
traction for the idea itself, whose nature is divined before the mind possesses it, by the
power of sympathy (W8: 196).
Taken in its entirety, Peirces evolutionary cosmology shows the development of
the universe from total chaos to absolute order, until the world becomes an absolutely
perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the inf-
nitely distant future (W8: 110). But this moment will arrive at some point in the unfore-
seeable future. Now in the universe, along with the principle of determinism, the principle
of chance is operating as well. The proportion between them is different in every phenom-
enon, but they are inevitably present everywhere: Try to verify any law of nature, and you
will fnd that the more precise your observations, the more certain they will show irregular
departures from the law (W8: 118). Some of these irregularities indisputably arise from
the imperfection of the scientifc methods used. However, we can never be certain in the
absolute regularity of any law whatsoever.
The similarity between anti-determinism presented here and the doctrine of fal-
libilism is only ostensible. In fallibilism, the indeterminism is a result of our own lack of
knowledge, while here Peirce points to the presence of real (in the sense described above)
absolute chance.
Andrey Tashev
59
The Other Branch of Pragmatism
From a linguistic point of view, the pragmatic maxim is rather awkward. Terms
derived from the Latin word concipere are found a total of fve times within two sentences.
Later Peirce explains (CP 5.402, note. 3) that he had allowed himself this stylistic faw
so as to avoid the incorrect association of the maxim with something different from the
purely intellectual meaning of the ideas. According to Carl Hausman (1993: 39), this is
also one of the reasons that Peirce replaced the term belief from The Fixation of Be-
lief with idea in the pragmatic maxim. Yet despite all of these precautionary measures,
the doctrine fell victim to an incorrect interpretation, and that by a person who presented
it and popularized it to the academic world William James. He made the maxim famous,
but gave it a new meaning.
Above we have already discussed Peircean realism and the defnition of real bor-
rowed from the scholastics. It is complemented by the conviction that not only individual,
but some shared objects are real as well. From this point of view, Peirce approaches the
pragmatic maxim as well. In writing that the meaning of an idea is in the conceivable
practical effects it causes, he does not have in mind accidental consequences. For him, it
is important to ignore such accidental consequences and to extract the general, the rule for
action. The conceivable practical effect or meaning of an idea consists precisely of this
rule, which he calls habit: what a thing means is simply what habits it involves (W3:
265). Habit is a predisposition to act in a certain way under certain conditions. It cannot be
limited solely to human behavior. The laws of nature are also habits.
The meaning of the word chair, for example, is connected not with concrete
sensory perceptions, but with the fact that the object of the idea will provoke in us the
habit of sitting. But it would be too elementary and incorrect to interpret this in terms of
stimulus-reaction: If you see a chair, sit down! There are many situations in which the
same object activates different habits. To foresee what the effect of a given idea would
be that means discovering its meaning. For that reason, in the phrase conceivable prac-
tical effects, the accent in Peirce falls on conceivable.
In his essay Philosophical Conceptions and Practical Results from 1898, James
presents Peirces maxim in the following way: To attain perfect clearness in our thoughts
of an object, then, we need only consider what effects of [a] conceivably practical kind
the object may involve what sensations we are to expect from it, and what reactions we
must prepare. Our conception of these effects, then, is for us the whole conception of the
object, so far as that conception has positive signifcance at all.
This is the principle of Peirce, the principle of pragmatism (James 1992: 1080).
This, however, is a paraphrase of the Peircean principle, which differs signifcantly
from the original: Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings,
we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is
the whole of our conception of the object (W3: 266). First, to practical effects James
adds the object may involve. With this, he broadens the scope of the Peircean principle,
diluting its normative character. The object many include many effects which are not part
of our idea of it.
To explain what is meant by effects, James clarifes: what sensations we are to
60
expect from it, and what reactions we must prepare. With this, he turns Peirces maxim
on his head. Feelings and reactions are individual effects, while Peirce, following the
principles of realism, includes in the meaning of ideas only the rule, the habit, i.e. general
effects. Thus, James ascribes to Peirce that from which the latter sharply distances himself
namely, a nominalistic interpretation of pragmatism.
But James does not stop here. Immediately after he has presented the principle, he
writes: I think myself that it should be expressed more broadly than Mr. Peirce expresses
it (James 1992: 1080). And he proposes the following version of the pragmatic maxim:
The ultimate test for us of what a truth means is indeed the conduct it dictates or inspires.
But it inspires that conduct because it frst foretells some particular turn to our experience
which shall call for just that conduct from us (ibid.). It is notable that James uses truth
instead of idea. The mixing of the two terms eases the transition from the establishment
of meaning towards a theory of the truth based on these viewpoints. The adjective par-
ticular again underscores James nominalistic interpretation. Moreover, according to his
principle, the effect must be connected with our experience. There is no such requirement
in Peirces maxim. As a whole, in James the effects are tied to the individual, while in
Peirce the accent falls on the object.
One example would complement our notion of the consequences of these linguistic
differences. Both philosophers apply their maxim to the idea of transubstantiation. This
is the religious conception according to which during communion the bread and wine are
transformed into the body and blood of Christ. According to Catholic dogma, this change
is literal, without, however, affecting the palpable qualities of the bread and wine. Ap-
plying his principle to this idea, Peirce establishes that it is meaningless, because it does
not evoke specifc practical consequences. The tastes, colors and all the other qualities of
the bread and wine are the identical before, during and after communion, therefore there
is no practical difference between the normal bread and wine and those taken during the
religious ritual. James principle leads to the opposite conclusion. For sincere believers,
the idea of transubstantiation has a pragmatic value, because it leads to a change in their
sense of the world and their behavior. Peirce relates the pragmatic value to the conceiv-
able practical effects of the process of transubstantiation itself, while for James it is in the
practical effects that the idea evokes in the specifc person.
James continues to change the principle. In his book Pragmatism, published in
1907, he has already defned pragmatism as a theory about the truth, which even more
categorically distances itself from the original variant of the doctrine. Peirce repeatedly
stresses that his pragmatism is not a theory, but a method for scientifc inquiry that can be
used for all sorts of ideas (truth, reality, probability and so on). Truth is not the only, nor is
it the most important, object of study.
The transition from a method for establishing meaning to a theory of the truth in
James is due in part to the infuence of Schiller and Dewey. But the ground was prepared
for it already with the abovementioned replacement of idea with truth. For James, the
truth is not established once and for all and unchanging. It is created anew every time by
the specifc individual. For an idea to be true, it must work well, which means it must
create satisfactory relations with other parts of our experience (James 1987: 512, his
emphasis). Hence, for James, the truth is not every one of our random thoughts, which is
Andrey Tashev
61
how he is often interpreted by critics of pragmatism: The true, to put it very briefy,
is only the expedient in the way of our thinking, just as the right is only the expedi-
ent in the way of our behaving (James 1987: 583, his emphasis). This is yet another
signifcant difference in comparison to Peirces viewpoints. For the latter, pragmatism is
not a tool for solving everyday, practical problems, but a method through which we can
learn the lessons of the world.
James pragmatism can also be used to solve philosophical disputes, for example,
whether the world is guided by matter or God; is there design and free will or not? The
pragmatic solution to these and all such problems is simple, according to James. We must
simply answer the question: what would be the present practical difference if each of the
two claims were true? If there is no difference, the two theories are identical. If there is a
difference, the truth is the theory which works better.
Such an incorrect interpretation of the maxim has led to a dramatic split of the doc-
trine into two main branches. From this point on, every pragmatist, whether consciously
or not, follows one of the two tendencies: the Peircean method of establishing meaning, or
the theory of truth introduced by William James.
When he announced his pragmatism, James was a world-famous scholar and pro-
fessor of thousands of student, before whom he laid out and developed his viewpoints. In
this way, his doctrine resonated widely and gained followers all over the world. Peirces
career was at the opposing pole. His ideas were familiar only to a small group of people,
while his lack of students made his style ever more cryptographic and diffcult to under-
stand.
Max Fisch cited an extremely accurate observation made by Paul Carus at the
Third International Congress of Philosophy in Heidelberg in 1908: Peirce is the only
pragmatist who can think scientifcally and with logical precision. The others write like
novelists rather than philosophers (Fisch 1986: 297). For this reason, their writings are
more accessible and have become more popular.
The facts laid out above show why James theory had more followers in the frst
decades following the advent of pragmatism. Schillers humanism is a variant of it. It is
more diffcult to defne the affliation of Deweys instrumentalism. It combines the ideas
of Peirce and James, which even more strongly accentuates the deep differences between
the ideas of the two philosophers. But still, Dewey is closer to James. On the other hand,
the conceptual pragmatism of Clarence Irving Lewis tends towards the Peircean variant.
Placing such a sharp boundary between representatives of the two types of prag-
matism is in large part conditional, when we take into account the general principles men-
tioned in the beginning of this paper. But this opposition is clearly expressed, and often the
pragmatists themselves defne their viewpoints as belonging to one of the two tendencies.
At the beginning of the 20
th
century, the doctrine found energetic young followers
in Italy in the Pragmatic Club of Florence, organized around the journal Leonardo. They
were divided into two groups, mirroring the Peirce-James opposition. One group called
its version logical pragmatism and strictly followed Peirces original doctrine. The key
fgures in logical pragmatism were Giovanni Vailati and Mario Calderoni. Giovanni Pap-
ini and Giuseppe Prezzolini on the other hand defned their pragmatism as magical and
followed James ideas.
62
The Peirce-James division is also refected in the works of the Bulgarian pragma-
tist Ivan Sarailiev. In texts introducing the doctrine, he emphasizes James theory. But his
personal philosophical viewpoints, expressed as early as the beginning of the 1920s, are
much closer to Peirces ideas. In this way, Sarailiev becomes one of the earliest followers
of the original doctrine, which gained vast popularity decades later.
The two variants of pragmatism have continued almost to the present day. Richard
Rorty, for example, can be placed on James side, while Susan Haak works on the original
variant of pragmatism, for which she is frequently called Peirces intellectual grand-
daughter.
Peirce was not happy with the direction his method was taking. The following
generation of pragmatists destroyed the basic message of his philosophy: meaning can-
not be written in theoretical formulas, it must be rediscovered every time, depending on
the circumstances that give rise to it (Mladenov 2004: 84). After him, the pragmatists
attempted to create models of thinking with universal validity. In 1905 Peirce noted that
the word pragmatism was already greatly overexposed due to constant use with all kinds
of meanings and without any rules. While to serve the precise purpose of expressing the
original defnition, he [Peirce] begs to announce the birth of the word pragmaticism,
which is ugly enough to be safe from kidnappers (CP 5.414). However, the word prag-
maticism proved to be too ugly and thus did not succeed in establishing itself. It remains
in the archive of Peircean terminology, as do many other words he coined.
During the fnal decade of his life, Peirce dedicated much time and effort to ex-
plaining and defending his pragmatism from incorrect interpretations. He claimed that his
sole contribution to international philosophy was the new list of categories, while the sole
contribution he had left to make was to prove the validity of his pragmatism. To this end,
he used the doctrine of signs. Thus we arrive at the important question of the relationship
between pragmatism and Peirces semiotics.
Semiosis and Thought
There is a close connection between pragmatism and Peirces semiotics. The prag-
matic maxim is a criterion for establishing meaning, while the sign, included in the pro-
cess of semiosis, is a carrier of that meaning. Peirce himself implicitly, and sometimes
explicitly as well, emphasized the closeness of the two doctrines. His claim that we cannot
think without signs is evidence of this connection. In one of the many classifcations of
the sciences which he made, he defned logic as the science studying the general laws
of signs. It has three branches: speculative grammar, critic and methodeutic (CP 1.191).
Pragmatism is part of the third division. In his essay A Survey of Pragmaticism (1906),
he writes that the effects of an idea are in the proper signifcate outcome of a sign, which
is the interpretant (CP 5.473).
These claims point directly to Peirces conception of the sign and semiotic action
(semiosis). A sign, or representamen, is something which stands to somebody for some-
thing in some respect or capacity (CP 2.228). Furthermore: A Sign is anything which
is related to a Second thing, its Object, in respect to a Quality, in such a way as to bring a
Third thing, its Interpretant, into relation to the same Object (CP 2.92).
Andrey Tashev
63
The philosopher is obviously following the line of thought established in the doctrine
of the categories. The sign model proposed by him is irreducibly triadic, including a sign,
an object and an interpretant. It can be represented graphically as follows (Mladenov 2005:
106):
Sign

Never compelled meaning
Habit-taking tendency,
interpretation
Object Interpretant
Unlimited semiosis,
growing knowledge, thinking
The Peircean conception of the sign is in principle different from the model of Fer-
dinand de Saussure, who laid the foundations of another infuential tradition in semiotics.
According to the Swiss linguist, the sign consists of the signifed and the signifer, and the
meaning arises due to the difference between two signs. In the Saussurian dyadic model,
there is no growth of knowledge, but only the comparison of signs.
In Peirce, the object creates its own sign, while it in turn creates the interpretant.
Nothing is a sign until it is included in this triad that is, until it has been interpreted. The
sign replaces the object only in some respect or capacity (CP 2.228). For this reason, its
meaning cannot be fully revealed. Some unlit aspect always remains, which is a poten-
tial beginning of a new interpretation.
The interpretant must not be confused with the fgure of the interpreter. The latter is
the person who interprets the signs, while the interpretant means the action which a given
sign evokes. This, for its part, changes into a new sign with a different interpretant, which
gives rise to yet another new sign In this process, the tendency toward habituation and
the transformation of the interpretants into habits can be observed.
This is Peirces idea of endless semiosis. From this it follows that meaning does
not arise at a specifc place, but rather in the relationships between the sign, object and in-
terpretant. It is without a beginning, it grows, changes and develops. Unlimited semiosis,
endless interpretations, and the growth of thought are synonyms (Mladenov 2005: 106).
Some researchers present the relationships between the three participants in the process
as a triangle, but that completely contradicts Peirces ideas. It neglects the fact that the
American philosophers semiotic model is an open schema for knowledge and there is no
way it could be illustrated with a closed fgure such as a triangle.
The interpretation of signs, thought and the application of the pragmatic maxim are
identical. All three of them consist of disclosing the relationship between the participants
in semiosis with the goal of defning the interpretant-habit. This guarantees the endless
growth of knowledge.
64
A Short Look Ahead
Peirce in any case did not manage to fnish his strict proof of the correctness of
his maxim. Yet despite this, pragmatism cannot be dismissed. The paradox is that if it is
shown to be incorrect, that will only confrm the adequateness of the ideas within it, es-
pecially fallibilism. The immortality of the pragmatic doctrine is a sure sign that studies
into the search for the fnal opinion will continue until Peirces words come true: Truth
crushed to earth shall rise again (W3: 274) in their full splendor.
References:
CP 1-8. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Vols. 1-6. Eds. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1931-1935; Vols. 7-8. Ed. Arthur W. Burks, Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958.
De Waal, Cornelis. On Peirce. Belmont, MA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2001.
De Waal, Cornelis. On Pragmatism. Belmont, MA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2005.
Fisch, Max. Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.
James, William. Writings 1902-1910. New York: The Library of America, 1987.
James, William. Writings 1878-1899. New York: The Library of America, 1992.
Hausman, Carl. Charles S. Peirces Evolutionary Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1993.
Mladenov, Ivan. Pragmatizmat na Charles Peirce i flosofyata sled kraya na golemite sistemi. Ivan
Sarailiev. Usilieto da uznavash. Sofa: 2004. (, .
. . . :
2004.)
Mladenov, Ivan. Misleneto v semiotichna perspektiva. Filosofski Alternativi, 6 (2005): 101-116. (-
, . . , 6 (2005): 101-
116.)
Murphey, Murray G. The Development of Peirces Philosophy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1961.
Sarailiev, Ivan Pragmatisam. Prinos kam istoriyata na savremennata flosofya Sofa: Pridvorna pechat-
nitza, 1938. (, . . -
. : , 1938.)
W: Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition. Vols. 1-6 and 8 (of projected 30), Peirce Edi-
tion Project, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982- .
Andrey Tashev
65
:b_r_o _:J_go
(_g:r_oo)
_g:|o__ro or:o:_o1oo: oooobogg:
r_1o_o_
|:_g:boo |o__g_o: or:o:_o1oo, b:rg1 oor|o, _ogo:o __oo|o, oboJgb_go:,
|oo:rog_, oo_:__:, o__:ro, |:ogoo J_b___g_:, _:__oro_o, _o_ro,
|_ooogoo:.
|_:_oo| _gg_go| |::bo: or:o:_o1oo| ooroo:_o |:_oob_o, _:o_go_-
r__go oo|o _:o::r|_go|, :o_ro__go _ogo|o_o|o| b:rg1 |:b__r| oor-
|o| oo_r. oor__go _gg_g: b:roo__bogo: or:o:_o1oo| J_|b:ggo| __oboo,
r:o: :or_g_| oo|o b:o_gogo :r|o: o:go_:b o| roor_ |oo:rogo| o_oro: o|_
b:oo_:go_:, o_o_:, ooo:g:gJo, _ogo:o __oo|o| o_Jg_ooo, oob_: :o __roo-
bo| :_:roo_:. o| oo1_1_o, r:o:_ oor|o|: _: __oo|o| :oo_gb: oo:b_ob:, _:
J____o_, r:_ oo_g: :o oro__||, :bbog_go o_b_: |_:_o:Jo.
oor|o| o_gg_g:r_o (o::goo:_, o:_| _roJo) :_boJb:g_b, roo or:-
o:_o1oo :ro| _o__rob:, roo_go_ _:_:gJor__go: |o|__o:Jo :r|__g |bg:
ooo_gr__o:b. _| |o|__o: ooo_:g| oor|o| _:b_ro|_oo| (_:__oro:o: _o-
__rob:), _:googo1o| (|b:gg_: ooo| J_|:b_, roo _g_g: :1ro o__:ro:), _go-
g__o_r _o|oogoo:|, :1rogb_o| _ob____o:|, :_r__g _obo__r o_oro:|
_: |_ooo_o_:| (ooo_gr_: boJb_o| J_|:b_). |_:_oo| oo1:bo: |o_roo|__g:_
:bobogo| _g_g: 1_ooob:oooggogo _o__rob: _: J___:_ _::_:|__ro|
r_g_g:b__ro: oor|o| or:o:_o__g orob_oo_o:b, roo_go_ o:go| obrog
or:o:_o1oo| ooroo:_ :1r| :oob:_:g|.
|_:_o: J_oog_: oogobbooo or:o:_o1oo| _ogo|o_oo| oo_g_ :bo_:-
_o:_, roo_go_ boob_: :o_ro__go __boo_bo| o:_:r__go:.

66
konstantine bregaZe
(|:_:rog_go)
oo__rbo1oo| _oo_:, roor_ oooo|| oo_g__go _ro,
_ob|_:b_ob_ :o|:b_r_o:| roo:bJo ,_oobo|o| _ooogo"
J_|:g:go
XX |. 20-o:b bg_Jo _ob|_:b_ob_ :o|:b_r_o:o oo__rbo1oo| _oo_: :b-
|:1_gr: roor_ oooo|| oo_g__go _ro (J_r. _||_ ,go__r:__r_go o:ro-
1o"), roo:_ o:b o__:_or_g:_ oo:boJb: _oo_o| |_go_r _ro1o|1_, r:_ _go-
|boo_: :_:oo:bo| _1o|__b_o:g_ro JoJo| _g_J _o_b:|, oo| o__:_o1o__r-oo-
oo|_ro oorg_g|:b_o|_o|::b :__bo_:|, _o_o_r_:Jo ogooo__b_o_o_:_o-
o| J__og_go:|, ___o:bo1:_o:|. bogo _og_gog_ _| :oobg__go o_o, _roo
obrog, o|_oro_go oro__|_oo: _: _:_:_go1o_oo - ___bo__ro _ogogo1:-
_oo| _o_:g_ro :bgoo:r_:, o|o_goo ooo _: r_gog__o_o, bogo, o_or_
obrog, __b_:o_b__ro o__:_o1o__ro ,r__goo", r:|:_ bo_J_o _o_roo| |o_g_o-
go _: _or__g__o| :_:_:|_: _bo_::
,J_goo g_bg_oo :b:g _ro|: oo|o |:___o_|o _oo_:_o::: oooo|| oo_-
g__go _ro. |...| |:_roo _obo o:b:o__rog_ _grooo|:: o__bo_r_:Jo r_g:-
_ogo1oo, b_gogb_:Jo ____ro1oo _: _:_:o1oo, _:go _ogogo1:_o:. _|_go
o__:bo1:_o:. |...| _grooo| |_go_ro _ro1o|o, _| :r :ro| |_ogo| _ro1o|o, :r_
o___ro :_o_r_:. oooo|| oo_g__go _ro. :_ :ro| |ooooo_" (:o|:b_r_o:
!83: 460, 470).
:og:r:_, oooo||oo_g__go: _oo:gr_|:_ _go|boo| __|:_r:-
go1:_oo| oro__||, :b_ oo__rbo|__g _oo_:Jo o__:_o1o__ro oro_b_:_oo|,
,_o_roo:b o:b:1o:roo|" (:o|:b_r_o: !83: 460) |:_og_go:o :__o_:| _:
obogo_ :r|__goo, :b_ obogo_ oogg_b:o: |ob:o_gogoo ogooJ_oo|:1_-
gr:|, r:_, roor_ _| o_-! |:___bo| o_or_ b:b_gro| o|_oro_go: oro__|o:_
_b:__o, ooroo:_:_ :b:ooro: oo1o_ogo|__ro: _: o:__ro:go|__ro: _bo-
o_r_:o. J_|::oo|:_, :_:oo:bo: oro_b_:_o: :o_o :r|__go|, roor_ _r-
o:__roo |::r|_o |ogr_o|, ooobo:r_g_r :ogo|_:1_, r:_ _:___ob: _b_-
o|o___g_g_:o: _: ___bogoo_o| :bgoo:r_:|, r:|:_ J___:_ oo_g: o:|-
J_:_ro ob__|_ro:go1:_o:, _r:bo1:_o:, _oo_r_o:go1:_o:, o_ro_r:_o-
1:_o:, ___bo_r:_o1:_o: (,_:go _ogogo1:_o:, _|_go o__:bo1:_o:") _: :b:go
|o_o:g_ro __b_o|: (_. b. o:|orogo |:1o:_o__oJJMassengesellschaften, o:.
orog__:ro:_o, bgrogo o_r_ro:) _: gobro |o__o:go:o: b:oo_:go_:.
:o _ob1_ _o oob_: J_:|:___b__Jo, r_b_|:b|o|: _: :bo:b:og_goo| _oo__-
Jo J_o_J:g__go o_o__b_ro|__go _: :borooo__b_ro|__go o:r:_oo_o|:
_: b:roo__b_o| :__o_: - _roo obrog, oo_g_: _o_roo (bo_J_), bogo, o_-
or_ obrog, ob_ogo_oJoorogb_: :oo_go_: o:|:Jo, oob_: oo|o |_o____roo|
_:Jg: (_. b. Ichdissoziation), |_go_ro __g__r: _o b::b:_gg: ___bo__ro: _ogo-
go1:_o:o (Jo_bg_ro).
oo__o__ro or:__o__o
67
:___:b :ooo_ob:r_, oo__rbo|__go ob_rgo:, goo:r__: r: :_boJ-
b_go o|_oro_go _ggog__o| _ob1_, __ob__: roor_ r_:__o: o:g:_
oo__rbo1oo| _oo_:1_, __ob__: roor_ oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| _ro_o_: (Vietta
2007: 19), roogo| (_oo_o|) _ro-_roo _oo:gr_|o boJ:bo |:_b_o|o___g_go _:
___bo__r o__bo_r__1_ oro_b_or_:, ___bo__ro oror_|o| ___oJo1oo _:
ooobo:r_g_r-_oo_r_o_go ob__r_|_o| _:_o:_o_og_::. :oo_oo:_, oo__r-
bo|__go ob_rgoo| ooroo:_o _o|__r|o, roor_ _:|:gg_oJo, o|_ bg_bJo,
|bor__ oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| :_:oo:bo| |_go_r-__g__r_go _ro1o|o_:b
:oo_g:bo| 1_o| oo_:|: _: oo|o _1o|__b_oo|:ogo| |:1ro|o| oooog_:1_
o_o ooo:ro_go. :o og:g|:1ro|oo |:ob__r_|o _:_gorg_:| go:g:1o| oo-
__rbo1oo| _ro:b_go o_gg_g:ro |oggoo go__:, r:|:_ o__ go1o:r_:
,|o_o:g_ro _ggog__o| :|:bg: - ob__|_ro:go1:_o:, _r:bo1:_o:,
_oo_bo_:_oo| :b:go _oro_o (__g__obo, __g_r:_o, r_obo1:, :g_oo:b_:-
b_o), :b:go o__o: |:J_:g__o (r:_oo, _rb:g-:1_o_o) - :r _obo| oo-
__rbo|__go roo:bo| __b_r:g_r orog_o:_o_:|. orog_o:_o_:, r:_ :_::
oo__o_go, |_g |bg:g:ro:: _| :ro| |:1o:_o_:Jo o:b:o__rog_ |_o____-
roo| orog_o:_o_:, oo__rbo1oo| _oo_:Jo oo|o Job::bo _:___o:___go:
_: _:Jg:. |bor__ :_ ggob__: o_b_:goo| _g:g_:_o:, r:_ oo__rbo1o|,
roor_ o|_oro_g oro__|| :_:oo:bo|:ogo| oo:_g|" |:_ _: _g_ooo _ro:b_g
:g_oro: _o_:__o| o:ro:bo |_:_oo| :g_or| ___ogbo| _. .| (Vietta 2007: 20-21).
_. :o|:b_r_o:| ,_oobo|o| _ooogo_" |bor__ _ooo_ro oo__rbo|__go
ob:_gr_go ___|_o: (ooo:bbo:, roo _:ro_go go__r:__r_go oo__rbo1oo|
|ogr__Jo _| :ro| _g_g:1_ __ro |r_g_o_ogo ob:_gr_go ___|_o oo__rbo-
|__go _|o__o_o| og:g|:1ro|oo), roogo| |:1ro|o|__go _o|__r|o oo__r-
bo1oo| _oo_o| :_:oo:bo| _1o|__b_o:g_ro _: |_go_ro _ro1o|o| b:roob_b:-
1_: ooo:ro_go, r:_ :oobg__go: o_b_:goo| |:_og_go:o _g:g_:_ooo,
:b_, |bg:g:r:_ - _or__g_:o: |:_og_go:o :_:_:|_oo, r:_ _go|boo|
oboo oro__|_Jo o:__ro:go|__r-oo1o_ogo|__ro _boo_r_o| ::_ob_-
:|, ro| |:__og_g1__ oob_: _o_o_r_o| ,_:gobro_:", :b_, :_:oo:bo| _1o|-
__b_oo| obogo_ :r|__goo, roor_ :r|__goo, J_oo|:1_gr:, r:o:_
:_:oo:bJo J_o_oo :ooobgo: |:_r:g_ro _boo_r_o| :__o_: _: _o_ro1_
oro_b_:_oo| _:_:rg:.
:o:g_ro_g:_ _. :o|:b_r_o:| roo:bo| ___|_Jo oo__o_go: _o_roo|
|o_g_ogoo :oobg__go _1o|__b_o:g_ro _ro1o|o| _:og_go| __: - oo__r-
bo1oo| _oo_:Jo _oobo|o| _|o__o1__go __g_o| r_:booor_o|: _: oooo|_ro
_boo_r_o| _:__ob_o| __:, r:_ |:ogoo _:oJo o:r_boo oo:gr__: (J_r.
roo:bo| o:g_o ,_:o: J_go:| ____o:ro 1_1_" _: ,_o_ob_o:_ b:|gg: _ob-
|_:b_ob_ |:g:r|:oooo|:), roo:_ roo:bJo ob__b_or__go: og:g|:1ro|o oo-
__rbo|__g _oo_:Jo :_:oo:bo| |r_go ob_o-_1o|__b_o:g_ro _o_r|o___o-
goo| J_|:b_ (,b_gb:r _og |:o:r_Jo _: :r_ |_g| _b:ro:").
*
* |bor__ o|:g|o |:g:r|:oooo|__go :or_: _: |_o____roo| _:Jg: :b:|o:o_| :g:__oo-
bo| (:b o_b_:_ |bg: _:rog_go oo__rbo|_o :g_or_o|) goro__g ,o_"-|:_, roo_go_ o__oo-
g:_ or__g: o:_ob:| _go:_roo:|: _: g_r_: _b_b_o| __oobo_ro:| Joro|, _: roo_g|:_,
r. g:b_ro| o_rob:go og:b_o_go| o|:g|:_, g_r oo_oog_o: (r:|:_ _|:|r_go b:|o:oo
:_g|) g_Jo:ro_o _1o|__b_o: _: _1o|__b_o:g_ro ogooo__b_o: (J_r. o_ro|: _: o:_ob:|
(_goo|oJogo|) _o_go| g__|_o, _roo obrog, _: g_r_: _b_b_o|: _: ___o_r_o| _o_go|
g__|_o, o_or_ obrog).
oo__rbo1oo| _oo_:, roor_ oooo|| oo_g__go _ro, _ob|_:b_ob_ :o|:b_r_o:|
roo:bJo ,_oobo|o| _ooogo"
68
,_oobo|o| _ooogo" oo_rbo1oo| _oo_o| _boo_r_o|__g _: o|_oro_g
_ob___|_Jo o_ob_: _: o:g|__: (,o_b_:goo| _g:g_:_o:"J,Mentalittswan-
del" - |. go__:), _: :o__b:_, |r_go _b_roooo, _:bob1ooo_r_oo: _: _|o_-
_o__ro :___g:__rooo :gg_b| 1o:_:_ oo__rbo|__go go__r:__ro|:ogo|
_:o:b:|o:o__g _o|o_o:_o_r _o|__r|_| (,o_"-| |_o____roo| r_g_g:-
_:Jg:, _1o|__b_o:g_ro :oo_g:go: _: JoJo). :oo_oo:_, :__og__go: :-
goog:go|boboo o| o|_oro_g-_boo_r_o|__go _ob___|_o, r: ooro_Jo_
o_ob_o_: ,_oobo|o| _ooogo", gob:o_:b _| roo:bo, o|_g_ roor_ 1o:_:_
oo__rbo|__go go__r:__r:, _| :ro| :oroor_go r_:__o: |:__orog oo__r-
bo1oo| _oo_:1_, |:_:_ ggob__: oooo|oo_g__gooo :oobg__go _b:ooro
o_|ooo1oo. _| o_b_:g_ro _: o|_oro_go _ob___|__o::
a) _o_roo| |o_g_ogoJ_or__g_:o: :_:_:|_:Jboogo1oo (bo_J_)
b) o|_oro_go _:_:_go1o_o - l o|o_goo ooo, r_gog__o_o r_|_o|:
_: _ro:bo:Jo, !2! _: !24 bg_o| _rogb_go _:_:|_ro__o.
:___:b :ooo_ob:r_, roo:bo| ___|_Jo oo__o_go |:g:r|:oooo| o_|ooo1-
oo, __b_o1oo, _|o__o_o1oo, ,b_rg_o| :ro|_o_r:_o:", _| ,|bgo|o |_boo _:-
:g:__:" (og:r:o_ !7!: 3) _: ___:__b__ro oo1: _o :r :ro|, :r:o__ __obo-
|__r-_oobo|_ro bo_:o:, roogo| oo_o:_ ggob__: oo__rbo1oo| oooo|oo_-
g__go o:__|_r_or__go _oo_oo (,_| |:___b_ o__o|_o__go") :oobg__go
|:__o:ro |_o____roo| oogo:boo|: _: |:o_:ro| :roobo_goo| :r_:_-
g:go r_g_go| _r:o__go :b__:, ro| J___:_:_ _o_o_r_:Jo oro_:obo-
|_o| _1o|__b_o: __g_ ggob__: roor_ |:1ro|| oo_g__go, :_:___go
_1o|__b_o:, roor_ :_:___go: (Geworfenheit) (:o___ro),
*
r:_ ro-
o:bo| o_r|ob:o| ,_b_rogo", oo____ro _: _:bob1ooo_ro ob_o-_1o|__b-
_o:g_ro o_oo:r_o::.
!

l. |_o____roo| _:Jg: (Ichdissoziation)

,_oobo|o| _ooogJo", roor_ ___|_o| |:1ro|o| :Jg:-:bgoo:r_o|,
o|_ ___|_o| |_r____ror_o| og:g|:1ro|oo oboJgb_gog:bo: o:o:-Jgogo|
_roo_roooo:ro_o| o:r:_oo:, r:_ o:go|o :r|oo ob_o-_1o|__b_o:g_ro
_b_o|:: _: oo oo__rbo|__go ___|__o| _ro-_roo _oo:gr_|o oo_ogo:
(J_r. r. ro:_ooo| ,g_go| o_r:bo", :b _. _oo|o| ,_go|_").
**
_. :o|:b_r_o:|
*

_b_: :_gboJbo, roo o. :o___ro| _1o|__b_o:go1oo oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| :_:oo:bo| |bo-
r__ :o :_:___go (b_:go :oo___go), _: :o__b:_, |:1ro|| oo_g__go _1o|__b_oo|
_ogo|o_o_ro ::1r_: _: _:__ob_:: (ob. oo|o ,_o_o_r_: _: _ro", Heidegger 2001: 175-
180).
** |:_roo_, o:oo|: _: oo| _roo_roooo:ro_o| o:r:_oo: _: :o ooo:ro_o| Joboo :bgo-
o:r__go o:oo|: _: oo| _ob_go__o _: o:o Joro| :__bo_: _oor:__|:_ oo__rbo|__go
ob_rgoo|:ogo| _:o:b:|o:o__go _ooo|o:, roogo| _:o_go_r_:_ oo__rbo|__g go__r:-
__r:Jo _oor:__|:_ _ro:b_g_bog:b __|or_|oobo|__g ob_rgo:| (:|_g_ _r. _:__:|) __:g-
Jor__: (Fhnders 2010: 126-131). |:g:r:__o_, _| o:r:_oo: _. :o|:b_r_o:o, roo_go_ J_oo_-
o___o| :_r__g __:o1_ __|or_|oobo1oo| _|o__o__r _: o|o_gob__g_gorog _ob____o:|
o1o:r__: (J_r. oo|o __|or_|oobo1oo| o:bo__|_o ,Declaratia pro mea)", |bor__ __|or_|o-obo-
|__go ob_rgoo_:b :_ooo_:b: _: oo _:ro_g oo__rbo|__g ob_rgo:Jo oorg_go: o:b
_::__ob:. :_g_ _b_: oo_g:|, roo :o|:b_r_o:|o:b o:o:-oo| _ob_go__o _oor:__|:_ ob_o-
_1o|__b_o:g_r (_ogo|o_o_r) grogJo: :_:b_g__ogo, o:Job ro_: _ro:b_g __|or_|oo-
bo|__o:b _| _ob_go__o _oor:__|:_ _|o_ogoo_r :b __g__rogoo_:r |or___1_: :-
:1r__go (o:. _. g_r__go| bog_g: ,o_gg_go _o :r:, oo_g_go: _:ob:J:g_").
_ob|_:b_ob_ r_:o_
69
roo:bJo o:oo| oooo|_ro b:_o _: o:|o:b _:_:gJor__go g_b:bo| |:bo|-o___-
g_g_: |ooog_r:_ oo__rbo1oo| _oo_:Jo _:_:r_g oorg_g|:b_o|_| :b:-
|:bo_r_|, bogo Jgogo| (_ob|_:b_ob_ |:g:r|:oooo|) oo_r |:__o:ro o:oo|
_:r_o_: (J_r. |:g:r|:oooo| oo_r o:oo|__go g_b:b_o| :b_bgo| _oo1o_o) _:
o:oo| oo_r Jgogo| _:b__gg: _: |:g:r|:oooo| _b:_o_o:, J_|::oo|:_, Jo:-
ooo:ggoo| :r_og:, |ooog_r:_ oooo|oo_g__g oo__rbo1oo| _oo_:Jo
o:b:o__rog_ :_:oo:bo| |r_g ob_o-_1o|__b_o:g_r _o_r|o___ogo:|:
(o.:o___ro| oob__goo ,:_:___go:|") _: o__:_o1o__ro oorg_g|:b_o-
|_o|::b oo| |r_g :__bo_:| :b:|:bo_r_| (J_r. roo:bo| J_o__o o:g_o
- ,_ob|_:b_ob_ |:g:r|:oooo| :g_ooor_r__o", ,_o_ob_o:_ b:|gg: _ob-
|_:b_ob_ |:g:r|:oooo|:").
2

o:o:-Jgogo| _| :___b: (,..._: :___: bg_b| Joro| r:_:_, r:_ ___booo
___bo|:_o_ :r _b_: :o___:ro_o"), :b_ oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| :_:oo:bo| o__:-
_o1o__ro oorg_g|:b_o|_o|::b oob_g__: _: oo|:b :__bo_:, roor_ __g_
:_oboJb:, oor__go o__:_o1o__ro r__go| (,_o_roo| |o_g_ogo" - bo_J_), :b_
_o_:g_ro __|:_r:go1:_oo| oro__|o| J___o:, r:_ o:go| obrog :oobg__-
go: o:g:_ oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| o_b_:g_ro |o__o_o_oo - oo|ogo| _:o:b:|o:-
o__go oo1o_ogo|__r-o:__ro:go|__ro _boo_r_oo, ooobo:r_g_r-_o-
o_r|:b__go oor:goo: _: ___bo__ro oror_|o| ___oJo1ooo (,:o_r_:bo1:-
_o:"), r:1__ roo:bo| oo_g| ___|_Jo o__oog:_ b__: ooboJb_::
,_r_:1o: _:__o:g| _grooo| _o_ __g__r:|... J__og__go: og_g __b-
_:o_b_1_ J_oo:ro| o:b o:go, __:b:|_b_go ooo| J_o__. |...| _:oo_:go1oo| _:-
r_|_go: oo_g: :_:oo:bo| oorogb_:. _r_:1o:o J__ob: _groo_go _ro1o|o.
:oo_oo:_:: _| |:o_:ro o_g_ro| |_bo _groo_g o_:_r|:, oo_1o:|: _: oo_g|
b_gogb_:Jo. |...| ,:o_ro_: (o:b:o__rog_ ___bo__ro _ogogo1:_oo| _ooo|o -
_. .) _g_g:| ooob_g_|, _groo:|:_ _: o:oobo:|:_ (og_go |_go_r-:ro|_o_r:-
__go __g__ro| _ooo|_o - _. .). :ooo__ bgo| J_o__ o_b_: _roo ogo_ro
:o_ro_o| b:_o:", :oo| oo_ro:g__go _oboo b:goo:bo |o:r|_go J_ro_ b:bo
(oooo|_ro _boo_r_o| o:_:r__go ob_ogo_o - _..). |...| ob__|_ro:o oo_g:
|og:o:1o| robo:. oo_go _groo: _::o:bob__| __g__ob_o| oo_o:, r:-
_oo|, r_obo1o| |:__r_o:, r_obo| bo__o:, 1_go| b:oor_o b:r_gb_| _o__-
o: _: _g_g:_or_o:. __o__|o _o_g: b:go_ob_o _b_o| ooo:ro. |...| bg_bo og:-
go __g_ g__:r b__:g| g:o:1 |:b_|. o_ og:go |og:o:1_| g__:r b:b:g|, g_r_
|_go :_o1r__: _|o__o_r:_. _| |:Job_go _:rbbo| |:_ob_go, _Jbo, _g:1:-
oo, o:_o. o:Job:o _::o:bob_: oogoob_o| b_go, _g:1:oo |:_obgo| __o_:|
oo:bgo:, og:go _o__g _Jbo |:b_o| __r_:|" (:o|:b_r_o: !2: 22-25, 80).
__g_ roo:bo| _:|:b_o|o_:bg_ b:b| (J_r. roo:bo| o:go ,bo|go"), roo
|g:r|:ooo_, (J_|::oo|:_, oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| :_:oo:bo), roo_go_ o_b_:g_ro
og:g|:1ro|oo oooo|_ro _boo_r_o| o:_:r__go ob_ogo_o: _: og_go _:r-
o_go :ro|_o_r:__go |_go_ro __g__ro| __:b:|_b_go b:rooo:__b_go:,
ooo:goog_ _ooro|oor__: oo| o:b:o__rog_ ___bo__r _: o_r_r_g-ooobo:-
r_g_r _ogogo1:_o:|: _: o_b_:go:|, oo|ogo| Job::b:_ ooo:goog_ oo___-
_go: |_go_r-oboo __g__r:1_ :o_ro_:bo1oo|, :b_ ___bo__ro _ogogo1:_o-
o| _ooobor_:, r:o:_ :ooobgo: _o_o_r_o| __|:_r:go1:_o: (:_|:boJb:go:,
70
roo |bor__ :o _o_o_ooo:Jo ggob__: roo:bJo ob__b_or__go Jo_bg_ro-
|__go |_go_ro __g__ro|: _: ___bo__ro _ogogo1:_oo| _ob_go__o, r:_
roo:bo| _ro-_roo g:o_oo_og_ro b:1o:). |:g:r|:ooo_| _bogr_: _b_g| _|_-
go _: __o_roo _ogogo1:_oo| _ooobor_o| _:1:Jo, :b_, oo _bogro| __g-
__ro|, :o J_oobg_g:Jo roor_ _:|:gg_ro, o|_ |:__o:ro _:ro_go |_go_ro
__g__ro| :_|:|r_go| _:1:Jo (J_r. roo:bo| o:go ,__oobo| b:__r_:g1_",
:|_g_ |:__o:ro o:b:o_o:o_g__o|:_oo o_o_go - ,roog b:boo_go| :-
_:g:r__go |:bgo|_:__o" (:o|:b_r_o: !2: 362), roo:_ roo:bo| ___|_Jo
og_go _ro|_o:b_go _:ro_go __g__ro| _:__oo| _r:o__g :b__:1_: obo-
J__go), r:_ obg_g| oo| o_|ooo1o|: _: _1o|__b_o:g_r JoJ|:
,:__ ___b_oo| ___bgoo :_:__go, |:_:rog_go! r_obo| _:r_o
J_b|bo: |:obr_ooo. o:Job goro_bo oo _ro| _r:__o:, roogo| b:r|_go| o:g-
1og__o :bo_o| br_og:g_b _: :_:o_g_r__b. |...| _: |:obr_o |:_:rog_goJo -
b:|:bg:r_o, b:|o_g:r_o... b:br_g_o... |o_:_:__... |oobo_r_ _: :_:g:-
r_:... (b__:g ___:b_oo| o___gJo |o|bg:_ _:gJgogo_:g _: b_oo |o|bgo| :-
_:g:r_: :r o_b:b:!)" (:o|:b_r_o: !2: 342).
_or__oro|__r:_ o_ go__goo, |:g:r|:ooo_ o:go|o _1o|__b_oo| J_:,
_oo__r _:1:1_ oo_o__:, ro__|:_ |_o___o ob_ogoo_ro :__og_gooo
_b_: :_oobb__| o:go|o _1o|__b_oo| _. b. |:|ob:r_g_oo| _:1:1_, gob:o_:b,
_roo obrog, _o_o_r_:Jo _o_:g_ro __|:_r:go1:_oo| _ob1_ |:g:r|:oo-
o_ |:__o:ro |_o____roo| oogo:boo| _:Jg:| :bo__o| _: |__o:r o:g|
:r:|r_g_:|og:b oo__o_go:_ :_o_g:o| (Ichdissoziation) (J_r. roo:bo| J_o__o
o:g_o ,_ob|_:b_ob_ |:g:r|:oooo| :g_ooor_r__o", ,_:_:_: o_g1_o|:_oo"
_: |bg.), bogo, o_or_ obrog, o:|Jo bb__: |___|o|o o:g:_ |:o_:ro|, roor_
:roobo_go _: oob_|ro__go oogo:boo|, ooo:ro (J_r. o:go ,__boo| |:-
_g:g1_ b:ro_o_go"). _| _o obg_g| |:g:r|:oooo| oo_r |:__o:ro _1o|__b_oo|
:bg__r J__:|_:| _: oo| ::1r_:| _og_gg:r |:1ro||: _: oo1:b| oo_g_-
_g :r|_o:_ (Joo_b:__ro|__go b:_:_o). bogo roo:bo| |:1ro|o|__go
_o|__r|o| oob__goo, :_:oo:bo| :r|_o: ____roob__go: oorg_gJoJoo, :b_
:r_o_bo|: _: |r_go :_roo| JoJoo - |o_g_ogo| JoJoo, r:_ roo:bJo |:g:r-
|:oooo| o_oro| - oo:b_| booJ___o| ooroo:: :_b:___go:
,_og_go :_:oo:bo o__:o _ro|: _: oo:g_| :bo__o|... obogo_ |bg:_:|bg:
g:ro:_ooo, :gJgoo| oorg_go _ooogo_:b - oorg_g gb_:o_o|, oorg_g gb_-
o_:b - oorg_g |o_g_og:o_o|. |...| o_ |o|bgo o__ob_:, ro_: :go_o_r_, roo
bg_b |o_g_ogo|::b _:_:__g_o go:__oo. o_ro_ bg_b| __b_1_ :o:|o _ooo-
go o_gg_| _: |o_g_ogo o|_ b:gg__:g|, roor_ _goJ:1_ _robg_go| b:_g:-
g_g| _:ro" (:o|:b_r_o: !2: 235).
*
_ro:__roo g_Jo:ro__:, r:_ |:g:r|:ooo_| (J_|::oo|:_, o:b:o__rog_
:_:oo:b|) |:__o:r :r|_o:Jo J__gbo:, :ro| |:__o:ro :_|:|r_go|, |:__o:ro
|o_g_ogo|, _: :o__b:_, |:__o:ro |:|r_goo|: _: :_roo| :r_:_g:go:
(:o ob_ogoo_r :r_:_g:go:| _o o:b:o__rog_ oooo|oo_g__go _: __|:_-
* J_r., o. :o___ro: :_:oo:bo| _1o|__b_o: :b|:1_gr: roor_ ,|o_g_ogo|:ogo| _o_b:"
(Sein zum Tod) (Heidegger 2001: 245), roor_ |o_g_ogJo :_:___go: (Geworfenheit in den
Tod) (Heidegger 2001: 251): ,:_:oo:bo roor_ _o o:__:, oo o:Job:og_ |:|o_g_ogo_:: :o1:-
___go" (Sobald ein Mensch zum Leben kommt, ist er alt genug zu sterben) (Heidegger 2001: 245).
_ob|_:b_ob_ r_:o_
71
r:go1__go _ogogo1:_o: _o__g __ro :oo:_r_|). roo:bJo _ro|__| _o_r:
|:g:r|:oooo| :__o:Jo |bor__ :o oorg_gJoJo| |ooogo: - ,|o_g_ogo| o:g:_o"
(:o|:b_r_o: !2: 207).
*
_ro|__| ooob_: |:g:r|:ooo_Jo, roor_ oo__rbo1-
oo| _oo_o| :_:oo:bJo, oo|o Jor__go bob:or_o|::b :b|bg:g_oo, roog_o_
o_o__b_ro|__go _boo_r_o| b:rooo:__bg_o :ro:b (o:. bo. _ob|_:b_ob_
:rg_oo| oo:g:ro) _: o_:r _ro|_o:b_g _or__g__1_ :__ob__b |:__o:r
_1o|__b_o:|, o__oog:_ obg_g| |o_g_og|: _: |:ogoo _1o|__b_o:g_r _o-
b:go:1_ _o_r|, :b_, o__oog:_ obg_g| roor_ |:__o:ro o:go|, o|_ 1o:_:_
:_:oo:b_ro :r|_oo| :r:r:o:_ _: :oo_:_ :b__:|:
,oo, :_:oo:boo| _oo__o:g, o:rog:_ ogo:r_o| _ro_o g:ro, _|:1-
_gro oobo| |or___1_ _|:1_gro_ :_:b__go. go_:_:| ro_go gogo_o __:-
go:, o:o:Jo|, o_obo|, bg_b _o _roo:b_o| g_bg_oo. :|_ o_ob_: _bogr_o| _:-
_:g_ro _:r|o" (:o|:b_r_o: !2: !46).
|:g:r|:ooo_ o__oog:_ __ogo| |:__o:ro _1o|__b_oo| :o _oo__ro _:-
1o| oro _roo_ro|:ooro|ooro 1oo _:og_g:|: _roo obrog, _1o|__b_oo| o:-
_:g |:__b_r1_ - rbo_bo| _:1:1_ :o:_g_o|, bogo, o_or_ obrog, _1o|__b-
_oo| __ro _::g, _|o__o__r _:1:1_ _:r_b_o| |:J_:g_oo.
_or__oro| oob__goo _1o|__b_oo| _|o__o__ro _:1: J__|::o_: :_:-
oo:bo| _1o|__b_oo| oo _oro:|, ro__|:_ |_o___o |:__o:ro ogoooo| (Selbst)
ooo:ro _grogo: _: o:_|oo:g_r:_ __ogo| _ob__| _o|_:b_o: |:__o:ro
|_o____roo|:_oo: :b_, _1o|__b_oo| oo__o_g _:1:1_ |_o___o __ogo|
:r b:__ro:g___| |:__o:r o:g|, _. o. __ogo| :r ::_boo_ro| :r_|:o_:ro-
Jo |:__o:ro :r|_oo| orog_o:_o_: _: :1ro (Seibert 1997: 25), gob:o_:b |:__-
o:ro o:go| ogooJ_o__b_: |_o___Jo :oroor_g:_ obg_g| |:__o:ro :o:o _:
b:ro:g:go :r|_o|: _: :r|_oo| J__booo :oobg__g |:|ob:r_g_o:|, r:_
o:go| obrog obg_g| _1o|__b_o:g_r JoJ|: _: :oo_g:go:|.
:oo| |:ooro|ooro_ _o _1o|__b_oo| _|o__o__r _:1:1_ |_o___o __o-
go| 1_r_g__ _: 1__:oor_g:_ oo_o_r:| |:__o:r ogooo:|J|_o____ro-
:| _: o:|o:b ooo:goog_ _:_:gJor__g _1o|__b_o:g_r orog_o:_o_:|.
J_|::oo|:_, _|o__o__r _:1:1_ |_o___o __ogo| ooooogo| roor_ |:__-
o:ro o:go|, o|_ :r_|:o_:ro| ooo:ro bob:r__g__|o_ro :__o: _: :bb_o:,
_::bgo_oo o|_oo, rooro_ :ro| b_o|oo_ro :_:oo:bo| _bogr_:Jo :gJgo-
o| b:b:: :b_, _1o|__b_oo| :_boJb_g _:1:1_ |_o___o __ogo| J_oo_J:o|
o|_oo _1o|__b_o:g_ro ___go| _oro:, r:_ _go|boo| o_bogro _: _:___
:_ _: :bg: oo__o_go b_ooo, ,:o__oo" ob__r_|o |:__o:ro ,o_"-|, |:__o:ro
oorogb_o| ooo:ro _: o:r|_o |:__o:ro _1o|__bo_oo|:_oo _og_gg:ro |:-
ooo:ggo _boo|oo_g:r_oo| :r_J_ (Seibert 1997: 26).
:oo_oo:_ _og_g: |:g:r|:ooo_ :oo_:b :o1_ _oobo|_r __obo1o| _:
___: bor_o_g-|_b|_g:_ro _bogr_oo, ___: oogo:bo _roo_:b o1ogo-
r__go _: :oog:r_bogo oo__o_go ooo_b_oo: J_r., :o__o__go __o__o
o:ro1Jo ob:_g:r b:gog _o|o:b, :b :g:boJo o_:go_g |o_go| o:_bogr_g_-
o:b, b:b:_ |__|_:g_ro :_:__:bo _: o:g_:gob__:bo |bg: _: |bg: :_b:b__r-
* :|_g_ J_r.: ,o_g_ ____g1_ b:go|__ro rob_:o| _g:r_o::. _:_r__ogo __:bo| |:b_ J_-
ooo___ro| _: ooo_Jb:o: |:b_oro_:" (:o|:b_r_o: !2: 2!3).
72
o_b:__ro _b__g__oo| _:g_o:b (oo|o| g__o, g_bo:, ob_oro), :b |_g:_,
|br:_g: _1o|__b_o:g_ro ,:ooooJg:|:_oo", ,:oorogo|:_oo" - Joo_b:-
__ro|__g borg:b:Jo, :b_ :r:r:Jo __|_:_o_ro Jo:bo_o: _: :_ro: (:|_b-
__bo| ob__o|__ro |_:b|_o). o:o: _oog:bo|o:b _o:goJo |:g:r|:ooo_ |bo-
r__ :o _|o__o__ro _1o|__b_oo| oooog_o| |_rgog1_ _: oo|__b |br:_g:1_
oo:boJb_|:
,o_oo, o:o:o _oog:bo: o_ roo :o__bo go_o_ro _o_ro1_ _: |_g1_, _ro
oJg_bo_r ___| :|___: b_oo o:go. o_ :r oob_: :goo, o:o:o _oog:bo, o_
r: b__: oo g:r|_gg:g_o| :_:_o:. |...| :r_ o| oob_: go_o__, o_ r: b__:
b:g_r_oooo|og ___:oobo| _g_J. o_ gb__:g :o go_:Jo g:go|__r _o_:o_ro|
bg_b|, __:b:|_b_go go_o| :_g:_ o_ _:o_:g_:, o_ _|__ o__o_:" (:o|:b_r_o:
!2: !6).
*
:o _|o__o__ro _1o|__b_oo| J_b:rb_b_:| _: o:|o:b oor_b_:|, _:
:ogr:_, o|o_gob__g_gorogo |__o|o|o| _:og_g:|: _: |:__o:ro ogoooo|
|r_g ,:oorog:|", roo_go_ (|:__o:ro ogooo:) o__oog:_ J_:b|_b_| o:|
|:__o:ro |_o____roo| _1o|__b_oo| ob_ogoo_r orog_o:_o_:|: _:
_1o|__b_o:g_ro JoJoo (|o_g_ogoo) :oobg__g |:__o:ro _1o|__b_oo|
_ob:go:| (:og__o|__go ,_o_b: :r _o_b:", :b_: _or__oro|__go ,:b-:b"),
|:g:r|:ooo_ :|_g_ __ogo| _b_:|o:b, _b_o| |:|o_o_bgo o:g_o:b _J_:-
go b:og_r-o:bo_o|__ro |o:bgogo| oooog_o| |:J_:g_oo:_ (J_r. o:g_o
,boob_: _ob_ro|_:_o", ,oob_o b__o|:_oo", :|_g_, _:o: J_go:| _oJo |:g:r-
|:oooo| _o_bo|:_oo ooo_gbogo o:g_o).
:oo_oo:_ oo_o| oo o:go|o oor__|, _:o: J_go:| _oJo _: _og_g: oorg_-
g_o_og :_:go|__r gb__|, r:_ o:| :bog_| |:__o:ro o:go| ogo_ro J_|:_-
oo|, oorg_g_obogo _go:_rogo oogo:boo| b:bog:_ :b__o| J_|:og_go:|:
,_:o: J_go:| _oJo _o_b:o b_oo |b__go |:g|_oo :b__rb:. _ogoo
:_r_ g__o, _b_g ro_|: g|g:o, oo_go ___ o1g:r_Jo g1og:r :b o1o| ::1:b_|
g___go, ggooo, g_orooo, oo_| go|gro _: |:b:_oro_ _:g_og:r r_obo-
|_g:rJo, |_r_o| oo:1_. |...| _oJo o:o:_:_o| _:b_:1o: |:o_r:_ or_gb_:. :_
o|_ :bgo| b:r _b_:|o:b, _: _b_:| boo :r_ _:bobo :_g| _: :r_ :_:oo:b_ro
|or_bgogo| robo:" (:o|:b_r_o: !2: 335).
_og_gog_ :ooo |:g:r|:ooo_ __ogo| J_ob:rb_bo| :r_|:o_:ro|, _b_-
o| bob:r__g__|o_ro :gJg_r-b:og_ro _J_:go :__o:, r:o: :og:r:_ _ob-
__| _o|_:b_o: |:__o:ro |_o____roo|:_oo, gob:o_:b |:__o:ro |:|r_go
ogoooo| J_b_: o:|Jo :oroor_g:_ obg_g|, _roo obrog, |:__o:ro ,o_"-|
:r:r:oo|: _: :o:oo| _r:o__g :b__:|, o_or_ obrog, 1o:_:_ :_:oo:b_ro
_1o|__b_oo|: _: _o_o_r_o| :|_r__g _: |:1ro|| oo_g__g oo__o_go-
_:_ ::1r_:|. |:g:r|:oooo| :o |_o____r _1o|__b_o:g_r :bb_o:| _o,
roor_ :_gboJb_, _o__g __ro :oo:_r_| oo____r:_ :r|__go o|_oro_go
r_:go: - oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| oo_r |_o___o|:ogo| J_o:g:1__go _|_go
* J_r., _|o__o__ro _1o|__b_oo|:__b |br:_g: J_o__ o:|:Jo_ ggob__:: ,g__o. :g:-
bo| _o| oor:_ oog_og:r, ooJor_oo g_b_o oob:| bb:g_b. J_gb:ro :o __bo_r :_:oo:b_|
_: o_b:_r_:: go_o o_b_:_ _r:go g_bo, g:o:1o _og-Jgogo o_:g__|, o:__:|o:b o_o_b|:
gb_g__, :r_ r:o_ go_o__ oo:1_ o__o, r:_ |:goro:, _: :r_ r:o_| g_o_ro__ b_oo b_go |o-
|bgo|:ogo| (:o|:b_r_o: !2: 20!)
_ob|_:b_ob_ r_:o_
73
_: __|:_r:go1__go _ogogo1:_oo| _oro_o: ___bo__ro oror_|o, _r:bo-
1:_o:, ob__|_ro:go1:_o:, _:oo_:go1:_o:, _o_o| _oo_r_o:go1:_o: _: :. J.
(J_r. roo:bo| o:g_o ,:_o__go _og_o| __:", ,g:1_ro __go", ,og:g_o|
___go", ,__g__obJo", ,_o__or go__b1obo| __:b:|_b_go o:_o_b_o", ,:oo-
:bo:", ,o_r_ob:_|" _: |bg.)
o_o_: :o _|o__o__r _:1:1_ o__oog:_ _o_bo| __:, :b_, _roo obrog, _-
_obo|__ro o:g_:gob__o| oro__|o, bogo, o_or_ obrog, _b_:|o:b |o:bgog_
(_:o: J_go:| _oJo _o_b:) |:g:r|:ooo_Jo o:ob_ g_rJ:r ___:__| roor_ |:-
__o:ro |_o____roo| _:Jgo|, o|_ oorg_gJoJo| - |o_g_ogo| - _r:o__g
:b__:|, :r:o__ _o__g __ro :oo:_r_| o:|, r:o__b:_:_ o__oogo __obo1oo
obg_g| oob__bogo:| (,r: g__o |ogob|, b_o| _boo _:g:o|"), bogo oob__bo-
go: |:|ob:r_g_o:| (Verzweifung), JoJ|: (Angst) _: orbog:| (Zittern), _: :o__-
b:_, _1o|__b_oo| _gg:g _oo__r _:1:1_ _:r_b_:|.
oo_go roo:bo| o:boog1_ |:g:r|:ooo_ o__oog:_ or__g: |:__o:ro _1o|-
__b_oo| _|o__o__r, _oo__r _: rbo_bo|__g _:1_| Joro|, r:_ o:g:_ roo:-
bo| |_r____ro| _ob_1__ _o :o|:b_:: __roo_, roo:bo| _oooo1o_o: o|_: :_-
_go, roo _roo:b_o| _b:_gg_: |:g:r|:oooo| b:b rbo_boo: _: o:_:go |_go_-
r_oo, b:b:_ |__o|o|oo: _: bor_o_go __|_:1oo :_g|ogo o:g_o: ,o:_oo|o|
g:g:_o" vs. ,:ooro:go| _o_b:", ,|o:r:_o| _g__o" vs. ,oob_o _gobo|:_oo",
,oo|_o_ro _g:ro|b_r:" vs. ,b:robo| b:gJo", ,__boo| |:_g:g1_ b:ro_o_go"
vs. ,|:___ro_go" _: :. J. roo:bo| _oooo1o_oo| :og:ro |_r____ror_oo
:g_oro __ogo| oo:g:ro oro_:obo|_o| |_o____roo| or:ggooooo|
(Vielheit) (bo_J_), :b_, oo|o ogoooo| :or__go _: _:Jgogo o_oo:r_oo|
:ob__b|og_:|: _: :oo:_r_:|. roo:bo| _| _oooo1o_o_ro o:go|__r_:
_:r:_ J_boJb: . _:b_:g:o:
,|:g:r|:oooo| _| o_r__o:, _roo __o__r_|oo_:b o_or_Jo :_:g:r_b:
- :o|:b: roo:bo| _oooo1o_o_r |_r____r:Jo: J_|::oo|o _g_o:g_o o_oo-
__ro, oo1:b_:|:b_go oob:_gg_ooo :_oo|__o_b b:b _oobo|_r o:g_:go-
b__:|: _: __|_:1|, b:b _o _ro|_o:b_g r_goo_r :___ob_:|: _: _o_oro:|"
(_:b_:g: !83: 32).
oo_go roo:bo| o:boog1_ |:g:r|:ooo_ o__oog:_ __ogo| _1o|__b_oo|
_oo__r _:1:1_ ob_ogoo_ro :__og_gooo J_o_bogo |__o|o|o|, |:|ob:r-
_g_oog_o|: _: _1o|__b_o:g_ro JoJo| _:og_g:| |:__o:r |_o____ro:-
Jog_ :ooo_J:g__go Job::bo J_o__b_o|__go o:goo|og_o|: _: b__go-
o| |:__og_g1_ _: J___:_ rbo_bo| oooog_:|. :b_, _or__oro|__r:_ roo
go_g:o, |:g:r|:ooo_ __ogo| _1o|__b_oo| _oo__ro _:1o_:b rbo_bo| _:1:-
1_ _1o|__b_o:g_ro b:b_ooo| (Sprung) :__o_:|, r:_ _go|boo| ogooJ_-
o__b_:|: _: ogoo_boo_r_:Jo |:__o:ro ogoooo|, |:__o:ro :_:oo:b_ro
:r|o| _o:_g_| _or__g_:_ :b__:|, r:_ o:go| obrog o:|Jo J_o_oo __g_
obg_g| |:__o:ro :borooogoo_ro :r|o| _go:_rogo _g_o_b_o| J_o_g_g
__boo_b:_ oo:1r_:|. J_|::oo|:_, |:g:r|:oooo| _boo_r_:Jo |:o_:ro|__-
go _o_o_r_o| :__o: __g_ _:roog__: _: _o_o_r_: ooo:1r_: _: :boggro-
__: roor_ _go:_rogo| _o:b:_o:, roor_ |:_goo _r:b|__b__b__roo|:
_: _go:_rogo ooo_g|oo J_oo|ogo _ooor_o| _o:g___o__ro oogo:bo:.
74
:o J_o__b_o|__g b__go:|: _: :bb_o:| |:g:r|:ooo_ ogoo:r_| |:-
__o:ro :gJgoo| ooob__oo: _: :gJgoo| _ooo|Jo ,ogoob:_ro:g_oo"
(J_r. roo:bo| o:go ,_ob|_:b_ob_ |:g:r|:oooo| :g_ooor_r__o"). J_|::oo|:_,
:gJgoo| _ooo|o, roor_ |:g:r|:oooo| :__o:Jo, o|_ roo:bo| ___|_Jo, |oo-
og_r:_ _:_:r_g o:r:_o1_g _o_o_r_:| :b:|:bo_r_| - ,bg_b :gJgo-
:Jo g_o_bgoo obogo_ b:o_gogo _bogr_oo. |bg: _:b:rb_bo :_:oo__ro
__o_g_goo| ooob_:: _: :_rob__g __bo_r_:1_ _:r_o" (:o|:b_r_o:
!2: 235).
*
:r_: :oo|:, __b__o|:_oo |:g:r|:oooo| |o_g:r_go, roo_go_ |_og__:
bg__g_rog |:_o_:_bogr_o, :b _|o_ogoo1__g (go_:go, J. _g:oo| _ooo|)
|:|o_g:r_go o|_oro:|, |:g:r|:oooo| :__o:|: _: J_o__b_o|__g b__go:Jo
oo|_o_ro :r|o| o:_:r__g _roo_ro_r_o:_ __ob__:, :b_, |o_g:r_go oo|
oo_r :o:1r_: roor_ _go:_roo:|o:b 1o:r_o|: _: oo|o _gg:g oooog_o|
|_go_r-J_o__b_ooo |:__og_go (J_r. o:g_o ,|o:r:_o| _g__o" ,o:_oo|o|
g:g:_o", ,oo|_o_ro _g:ro| b_r:"). :r_: :oo|:, _roo obrog, _:rgo1o|:_oo,
roor_ _oooro_g |:|r_go:Jo _go:_rooo| _o:b:_oo|:_oo, |:g:r|:oooo|
|br:_g:, _: o_or_ obrog, 1__:_oo| b__rgogo, _g_g:__ro _| roo:bJo |oo-
og_r:_ :b:|:bo_r_| |:__o:r |_o____ro:Jo _:_:r_go _go:_rogo
|:b_o|o| _gg:g oooog_o|:__b, |:__o:r ogooo:Jo _go:_rogo _b_o| _gg:g
bg_ooo|:__b |br:_g:| _: :og:r:_ _1o|__b_o:g_ro JoJo| _:og_go| __:|,
J_|::oo|:_, _o_o_r_:Jo ogooo__b_o_o_:_oo| J_|:og_goo| _:__ob_o|
o___go:|, r:_ |:g:r|:oooo|:ogo| _obo| :_:oo:bo| _1o|__b_oo| _o:_g_|
|:__b_r1_ :|ggo| (,b:b_ooo|") bob:ooro:|: :b_, |:g:r|:oooo| __b__o|:_oo
_r_o:, _:rgo1-_oobo|o|:_oo |br:_g:, 1__:_oo| b__rgogo, _og_gog_ _|
|ooog_r:_ oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| :_:oo:bo rbo_bo|__go _1o|__b_oo| oo-
oog_o|:__b |br:_go| |_rgog| :b:|:bo_r_|, ro| J___:_:_ :_:oo:bo: __g_
oo_go :r|_oo _b_: :bo_:_o| o_o1o|o (:b_oroo:), r:_ roo:bo| __ro:-
o___g_g_:Jo |o:r:_o|, :b_ g:g:r_o|, roor_ _go:_rogo| __roo:: |oo-
ogo1__go (J_r. __b__o |:g:r|:ooo_| |bor__ |o:r:_o| _g__| b__bo|, r:_
_b_: :go:1roo roor_ _1o|__b_oo| rbo_bo|__g _:1:1_ :|ggo| :g_1o:,
bogo __b__o|:ogo| _g_o| _:r_b_: - _go:_rogo |:b_o|_o|:_oo |:g:r-
|:oooo|, J_|::oo|:_, 1o:_:_ oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| :_:oo:bo|, :__bo_o|: _:
oo|o _1o|__b_o:g_r _o_r|o___ogo:Jo :_:g:r_bo| :g_1o:).
:o _1o|__b_o:g_ro b:b_ooo| (Sprung) :__o_o| __: :|_g_ o_:gb__-
: roo:bJo ob__b_or__go _. b. ,o, :_:oo:bo|-o:oo|oo!" (O, Mensch-Pathos),
r:_ __or_|oobo1oo| _ro-_roo _oo:gr_|o J_oo_o___ooo _: o|o_gob__g_-
gorogo _o|__r|o:, |:_:_ ggob__: :_:oo:bo| _goo| b:_oo| o__o| r_:o-
go_:_oo| ooobogbog_:, r:_ ooogo_o__r:_ _go|boo| |:__o:ro _:-
Jgogo |_o____roo| 1__:__r :b1ooog_:o__ (:r:bo_J_:b_ro :_oo)
:_g:b:| (__|or_|oobo|__go :b:go :_:oo:bo| _ob____o:), :b_ |:__o:ro :b-
orooogoo_ro :r|o| _go:_rogo| b:bog:_ :b__:|, bogo :___:b :ooo-
* J_r.: ,obogo_ :gJgo:: __bo_ro o_roo_o :_:oo:bo| _bogr_:Jo, r:_:b |bor__ :_:: o-
go_ro |:ooob_. J_o__ _o _o_goo_:__o: ob__: _: :_:oo:bo o__:o o_g:b_ogo_ro o1_roo
o__r_: b:r|_go|:__b, :_:oo__r __o_g_go:| oob_|. |:g:r|:ooo__ bo|_:gooo oo:o_-
ro| og:g| :gJgo:| (goooo_ !8: 303).
_ob|_:b_ob_ r_:o_
75
_ob:r_, _go|boo| 1o:_:_ :_:oo:bo| _gg:g |:o_:ro| __b_r:_ oo:1r_:|
(Fhnders 2010: 166-168). |:g:r|:oooo| o_r|ob:o|__go ___g: (_: o:g:_ :g_oro-
|__go oo1o_o:_) |bor__ :o __or_|oobo|__go ,o, :_:oo:bo|-o:oo|oo" :ro|
____roob__go (J_r. ,:|bo_o o:_g: :_:oo:bo!", :o|:b_r_o: !2: !4) _:
oo|o 1__:_oo|__b |r:_g: |bor__ __|or_|oobo|__go, _: :r: bo_J_:b_ro,
:_o| 1__:_oo|__b |br:_g::, r:_ _o_o_r_:Jo |:__o:ro o:goo _o_roo|
b:b:_gg_:| _o r: _go|boo| (r:_ |bor__ oo__rbo1oo| _oo_:Jo :ooggob-
_: oogo_o__r |ogr__Jo _. b. _g:__o|, _o_r_r_o|: _: ___bo__r-o:b_:b_r
_ogogo1:_o:1_ oro_b_or__go o:o oo_r _:__ob__go _o_:go_:r_go
oogo_o__ro |o|__o_o| |:boo, r:_ oo__rbo1oo| _ro-_roo boJ:bo:), :r:o__
ooro_oo, _go|boo| _o_o_r_:|: _: |:__o:r _1o|__b_o:Jo |:__o:ro o:-
go| _go:_rogo| b:bog:_ :b__:| _: :o__b:_, _oJo_:b 1__oJ1_, |:|r_go
:r|_oo_:b _|:|r_go :r|_o:1_ :_:|ggo|:__b |br:_g:|. :oo_oo:_, :o
_o:bo|__ro o:oo|oo :o|gg:g_go |:g:r|:ooo_ roo:bJo o__oog:_ orogo|
1o:_:_ :_:oo:bo|, :_:oo:boo| o__o|, :_:oo:bJo _goo|b:_oo| o__o| :_:-
|:rb_b:_, orogo| _|_go _: __o_roo _ogogo1:_oo| :r_|oo|::b :_:oo:bo|
:_:rb_bo|:ogo|, _ogogo1:_oo|::b, roo_go_ |:g:r|:oooo| :__o:Jo |bor__
:_:oo:bo| 1__:__ro _b_o|, :b_, :o J_oobg_g:Jo, :_:oo:bo| _goo| b:_oo|
o__o| __|_r___o:| obg_g| (J_r. o:g_o: ,:_o__go _og_o| __:", ,og:g_-
o| ___go", ,g_b:bo", ,r___:|bo_go __r___go", ,:oo:bo:", ,_o__or go-
__b1obo| __:b:|_b_go o:_o_b_o", ,o_r_ob:_|" _: |bg.).
*
|:g:r|:oooo| _| o,
:_:oo:bo|-o:oo|o _: oo|o :__ogo1oo ogoo o_r|ob:o| 1_:b__g __|or_|oobo-
|__g ro_oro_:Jo_ _o :ooob:__:, r:_ :o:g_ro_g:_ :g_oro|__go o:_:go
_oo__ro _: _o:b_ro, _: b_:go, _ro|_o:b_go oo1o_oo| :oogg_b: _: _o_-
|or_:_::.
3
:___:b :ooo_ob:r_, |:g:r|:oooo| 1__:_oo|__b |br:_g: _: 1__:-
_oo| Job::bo ooobogbog_:, roo:bo| _| ooo_o|_: bo_J_:b_ro b:_:_o, _b_:
:go:1roo |bor__ roor_ oo__rbo1oo| _oo_:Jo :_:oo:bo| bog_gor__go
|_o____roo| _: oo|o ogoooo| _:Jgogoo| _:og_go|: _: _goo| b:_o-
o| o__o| _gg:g oooog_o| __:, r:_ roo:bJo __ob__: roor_ __or_|oobo-
|__go o_|o:bo|__ro b:_:_o: J_r., oo_go roo:bo| o:boog1_ ob__b_or__go
,org_|_go o:bgogo|" _ooo|o, r:_ |bor__ :o :b:go :_:oo:bo| o_|o:bo|__r
oo|o:1_ ooboJb_::: ,|:r__Jo gob___o. |:Jobg:_ oogb____gg:r. o1__r
rb_obg:g_ og:g_o. o:__gogoo |o__:_o oo:. ooro_:b org_|_go o:bgogo
:ooo_o|. go_:bo b_o| |:b_Jo o_-_:_o| o|:g|o" (:o|:b_r_o: !2: !32).
:___:b :ooo_ob:r_, |:g:r|:oooo| 1__:_:_ g_r r_:go1_: _: oo|o 1__:-
_oo| ___ob|_r___o: |ooog_r:_ oo__rbo1oo| _oo_:Jo, :b_ :oo:_r__go
oogo_o__r-o|_oro_go _:_:_go1o_o|: (l o|o_goo ooo, bo_oro| r_gog_-
_o: _ro:bo:Jo, r_|_go ogJ_go1oo|: _: o_:go_ro _:Jo1oo| :_1_g_:) _:
* roo:bJo oo__o_go r___:|bo_goo| _ooo|o (J_r. o:go ,r___:|bo_go __r___go") |bo-
r__ o:b:o__rog_ :_:oo:bo| ___bo__ro _ogogo1:_ooo J_o_roogo:1_, oo| o__:_o1o__r
oorg_g|:b_o|_o|::b :__bo_:|: _: :og:ro :r|_ooo :oobg__g _1o|__b_o:g_r :-
oo_g:go:1_ oo:boJb_|: ,bo:o:_g: g:oo obogo_: |ob:ogo|::b r___:|bo_go __r___-
go. |...| |ob:ogo|::b r___:|bo_go __r___go _:o: J_go:| ____o:ro 1:1_" (:o|:b_r_o:
!2: !77). :o |o__g_Jo |:g:r|:ooo_ roor_ |:__o:r o:g|, o|_ 1o:_:_, oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o|
:_:oo:b|:_ ooo:1r_|. bogo |ob:og_ :_ |ooog_r:_ |bor__ ogoooo1b:_ ____g |_o_b_o-
|__r _: ___bo__r oror_||, o:b:o__rog_ _|_go _: __o_roo _ogogo1:_o:| :b:|:bo_r_|.
76
___bo__r-o:b_:b_ro oror_|o| ___oJo1oo| _oo_:Jo |bor__ :_:oo:bo| _goo|
b:_oo| o__o| |r_g ___ob|_r___o:| :b:|:bo_r_| (J_r. o:g_o ,_o_gooo|
og:go", ,:oo:bo:", ,_o__or go__b1obo| __:b:|_b_go o:_o_b_o", ,o_r_ob:-
_|", ,__g__obJo").
*
:oo_oo:_::, roo roo:bJo ______go _: :_ro_o___go: ___bo__ro
oror_|o|, roor_ o:b:o__rog_ _|_go _ogogo1:_oo| _ro-_roo :ooggo-
b_o|, _o_:Jo _o_:g_ro ob__r:_o: _: _ooobor_:, r:_ :_:oo:bo: :r: _::-
bgo_o|, :r:o__ o:oo _roo_ro:__bo_o|: _: _roo:b_oo|::b o1ogor_o|,
_roo:b_o| Joro| _oo_bo_:_oo| J__og_goo|:, _: :og:r:_, ___o:bo1:-
_oo| _ro-_roo oo1_1o _: _:_:go1:_oro :_oobb_: (J_r. o:g_o ,:oo:bo:",
,o_r_ob:_|", ,__g__obJo"). J_|::oo|:_, roo:bJo ______go: ___bo__r-
o:b_:b_ro _: o__bo_r_go oror_|o| _|_g_o-:bo:b:og_g_ro ___oJo1oo,
roo_go_ _:_orooo| obo| _o:_g_| :bgoo:r_:|: _: _o:_g_| |:_:_o-
roo o__:g| |bor__ ___bo__r oror_|Jo b_:g| _: _:_orooo| |:ooo:ggo
_: |:_og_go:o __bo_r_:| (:o ____ro|__g __ooo:|) |bor__ o__bo_r_g-
___bo__r oror_|o:b :_:gJor_|.
:oo_oo:_, :_boJb_go |_o____ro _: oo____ro oro__|_o| J___:_,
oo_b__:g:_ |:g:r|:oooo| Job::bo o|o_gob__g_gorogo _: J_o__b_o|__go
o:go|bo_go|: _: b__goo|:, oo_b__:g:_ oo|o :__o_ro _o_roo| oo_o|: (,o_
oo| o_b:Jo _:ggo_ b_oo |og:___, :go_g_ 1: :_o:g__go"), |:ogoo _:o-
Jo oo|o |_o____ro: o:ob_ _:oJ:g: _: _:or_g: (Ichdissoziation), |:g:r|:ooo_
o:ob_ o:go|o _1o|__b_oo| _oo__r _:1:1_ _:rb: _: g__:r :b:bor_o_g:
_1o|__b_o:g_ro b:b_ooo rbo_bo| _:1:1_, roo:_ roo:bJo b:1:|o_go: oo-
__rbo1oo| _oo_:Jo :_:oo:bo| |r_go ob_o-_1o|__b_o:g_ro _o_r|o___ogo-
: _: o:g:_ oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| __|:_r:go1__go :r|o:
,gobro __bo| o_robo_ro _og:_:b1_ ogog| oog:or_g b:_o_ |b__g|.
b_g:, b_g: _:b:o_b o:_:go :gg_o. |o_g_ogo| :b_go1_o| _r_og_ogoo
___oo:b J:r:1:1_ _oog_o __obo _: __r:_:|_go, _: o_|oo| :gg_o| _:
:_:_o_o| J_o_Jo ogogo:r_ _b_o| |:J_oo_ooo r__go_o. |...| :_:r_ |o_o-
go J_ooogo:, :_:r_ _orogo. _: _ro:__roo b:_gr:: b_oo: _ob_g1_ _:g:r_bo-
go b:o_rb_:gogoo :_b_| o_b_:_ b_oo |b__go.
_:o: J_go:!
b_oo _bogr_o| b:b_g:r1:1_ J_ooo:_:o_:!.." (:o|:b_r_o: !2: 377).
* J_r., :g:b:r_o|__g b_gogb_:Jo ____ro|__o _: o:o oo_r :oo_b:___go o:b_:bo|:
_: 1o:_:_, ___bo__ro oror_|o| __g_o, bogo oogo_o__r |ogr__Jo _o_:go_:r_go
oogo_o__ro ooor:o_o (o_:go_ro _:Jo1oo, _ro:b_go b:_oob:g-|o_o:go1oo, r_|_go
ogJ_go1oo) _: o:o oo_rg_ _:__ob__g _o_:go_:r_g |:b_gobo_o_Jo oroo:or__go
o:b_:b_o|: _: o:|J_:_ro oJ_b_go_o| __g_o - o:b_oo:bo: :r_o_____r:Jo _: o:b_:-
bo| __g_| J_rb_o_go o:g:_orogo o__:bo1:_o: (o:. _r:__oro| __g_o) _: o:g:_orogo
_og___ogo1:_o: |o_go| o__rb_o:Jo. :oo_oo:_, J_oobg_gooo :r o_o, roo, roor_ _:Jo-
|__r o_:go:Jo, o|_ ogJ_go__r r_|_oJo ____ro|__o _: oo:rog_go oogo_o__ro o:g_o
___bo__ro oror_|o| ___oJo1oo| og:g|:1ro|oo _ro o__ogoo_r og:__oro:1_ o_b_b
_: _roo_roo:b:oJroogo_b_b - o:rob__o _: _:Jo|__o o_:go:Jo, o:o:_og|_o _: ogJ_-
go__o r_|_oJo.
_ob|_:b_ob_ r_:o_
77
ll. _o_roo| oo_o| oo_ogo
ooo:bbo:, roo roo:bJo oo__o_go _:rgo1o|:_oo |:g:r|:oooo| _g__bo-
o_ro _: _boo_ro g_ogg: _b_: :go:1roo, roor_ oo__rbo1oo| _oo_:-
Jo ,oo_g_go" _o_roo| oo_o| :g_oro: _: _o_o_r_:|: _: |:__o:r o:gJo
_go:_rogo |:b_o|_o| _gg:g oooog_o| o___goo| |ooog_ro :b:|:bo-
_r_:, gob:o_:b |:g:r|:oooo| :__o:Jo _:rgo1o (,_o_ro_o| oo_b_ro") _go:-
_rooo| (_oobo|o|) :o_g__bo_ro _o:b:_o:: (J_r. roo:bo| o:go ,__oobo|
b:__r_:g1_").
4
J_|::oo|:_, _o_roo| oo_o| oo_ogo oogo:b:_ o|gg:g:g| ro-
o:bo| b:r:_og| _: oo:g:ro o_r|ob:o| (|:g:r|:oooo|) ___go| |:__og_go b__:
- oo o__oog:_ _:_o_| o:go| _|:b_go _o_ro|: ,o_ oo| o_b:Jo _:ggo_ b_oo
|og:___. :go_g_ 1: :_o:g__go. _:o: J_go:| o|go| |:bgo:b gb__:g oo|
|:o:g_|, bogo oo| _:|:|r_g| - oo_|:gg_oJo" (:o|:b_r_o: !2: 58).
o:r:o, |:g:r|:oooo|__go _o_roo| oo_:, _: J_|::oo|:_, oo__rbo1oo|
_oo_:Jo oooo|_ro _boo_r_o| r_:booor_o| __: o:r_boo oo:gr__: (_:r-
go1o| _:__og:), roo:_ |ooog_r:_ ooboJb__go: oooo|oo_g__g _: ___bo-
__ro _ogogo1:_ooo _ooobor__g oo__rbo1oo| _oo_:Jo o:b:o__rog_ :_:oo:-
bo| |r_go ob_o-_1o|__b_o:g_ro _o_r|o___ogo: (o. :o___ro| oob__goo
,:_:___go:"JJ,Geworfenheit") _: oo|o o__:_o1o__ro oorg_g|:b_o|_o-
|::b |r_go :__bo_: (,_:o: J_go:, b_oo _bogr_o| J_: 1:1_ J_ooo:_:o-
_:"). :o__b:_, :g_oro| oo_r _|o__o__r :b1ooog_:Jo (ob:_gr_go ___|_o|
ob_o___|__:g_r |ogr__Jo) _oobo|_ro oooo|o|, oooo|_ro _boo_r_o|
:_oroob_o| __: :r :_oobb_: _1o|__b_o:g_ro _ro1o|o| _:og_go| |:J_:-
g_:, :r:o__ oo boob_:_ og_1or_g-___o_r_go :r|o| o:_:r__g o|o_go-
b__g_gorog _o___:_ oog_ggob:. roo:bJo oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| :_:oo:bo| _|
|r_go ob_o-_1o|__b_o:g_ro _o_r|o___ogo: roo:bo| _oogoJo :ob__b-
|og__go: _: |ooog_r:_ :_b:___go: ::|o_obo| J_oo_ooo| o_o1:oo,
|:_:_ _ooobor_| |o_g_ogo| _ooo|o roor_ :r_o_bo|: _: |r_go :_roo|
ob:_gr_go |:b_, r:_, o|_g_ roor_ _o_roo| oo_:, roo:bo| g:o_oo_og_r
:1o|| b:roo:__b|:
,__:b:|_b_g:_ :go:r_ ::|o_o:bJo. |_g:_r_b_go, __oo_:oo o_b_
ogog| oooo:r_: b:g|o:b _g_| Joro|. :_o: o:r_Jo oog:r__gogoo _:_o_:g_b
|:o__r_Jo :oo__ob_go gg__o:b_o.
_:go _: g:o |b__:b o:r_o| |_:o1_ _: :|___ro:b _:_:ro_g__g Jo|_|.
|o_g_ogo|::b _:__o__go o:oo |:b__o br_og_oo| |__or_| ooo:ob__b.
1:r_:Jo|_r:_ :_oor__go _or___o:bo _r_g_o ooo_o| :_g:r_goo
_:_b:_:go, o|_ ___o:b :r:g| oor__g:bo|__r o__ooro| _:1_. J_oo_ooo|
rogo |_bo_g: o___: o_b_| ooro_:b _: og:g_:oo_:o__g b:ogb:r_o-
_:b. _:rg: J_r_go: 1o| oor1_ o_:r :ggo|: _: :_:_oo| b__|. _:b:o_b o:_:-
go :ggo| b__o. _ro:J__r_|_g o_ro| o_og_ogoo |_gogo:b b_o| og:gbob
r_| b:oor1__ _: ogo__1_ :_:_o_o|: _: :gg_o| _oog_o. _: _:b___g:
_:_g_bogo _oog_o| brbb:. b_og:bJo |o_g_ogo| |_bo _:|..." (:o|:b_r_o:
!2: 374).
|:g:r|:oooo| oo_r _1o|__b_oo| rbo_bo| _:1:o__ g_r :o:_g_:, :b_
78
|:o_:roJo ogooo__b_oo|: _: _1o|__b_o:g_ro |:_r__bo| (_o_roo|) g_r
oooog_: _: o__:_o1o__r-_go:_rogo oorg_g|:b_o|_o|::b :__bo_:, r:_
roo:bJo :|_g_ |ooogo1__go: |:g:r|:ooo_|: _: o:o:oo|| Joro| _ob_go__o-
o: _: o:o:-Jgogo| |:ogoo ,:___boo", :|_g_ :ooobgo: r_goo_r oo__Jo
o:r_bo:, r:_ :o:g_ro_g:_ _b_: :go:1roo roor_ oo__rbo1oo| __|:_r:-
go1__go _oo_oo ____roob__go o:b:o__rog_ :_:oo:bo| :r_:_g:go _-
1o|__b_o:g_ro bg__ro (:_ :r _b_: _:g:gob___|, roo |:g:r|:ooo_ |bor__
__|or_|oobo1oo| J_oo_o___ooo o_oo_o|: _: o|o_gob__g_goo| :1:1_
oro__or__go oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| :_:oo:bo| :b1o:___go |:b_:, r:_ -
_. o. ob:_gr_go :b1o:__o|: _: :|_r:or_o|:__b |br:_g: - ooo:goog_
_:o:b:|o:o__go: __|or_|oobo|__go _|o__o_o|:ogo| - Fhnders 2010: 154-156).
5
r_goo_r oo__Jo |:g:r|:oooo| o:r_bo bob:|b:r :b|:1_gr_go _:
:oobg__go: oo|o :oroor_go r_goo_ro :or_oo, __roo_, oo|o :or_oo
_ro|__|: _: _oobo|o| Joro| (roogo| __goob:_o:_ oo__o_go: o:gJo ,:|o1o|
oob:|__rJo |:_:roo_ :o1:gr_: _ob|_:b_ob_ |:g:r|:oooo|:"), roogo| (:o
:or_o|) |:__og_go_ |:g:r|:oooo| oo_r _ro|__| __boo_bo| |__r_o_oo_g
r_____o:Jo ggob__:: __roo_, oo| _g__boo_r o_ _boo_r :__o:Jo _ro|__|
_o_r: (J_|::oo|:_, _ro|_o:bo:), _roo obrog, :oog__go: o_o_o:g_r
r_goo_r ob|_:b_o:|o:b - o_o_o:g_r __g_|o:|o:b, roo_go_ o:go| obrog
b:roo:__b| _. b. o_r_r_go oor:go| :bo|:1_gr_g ob|_:b_o:|, roogo|
bo:_Jo_ J_o_J:g__go :o _|_g_ooor:go| __b__o: _: :r|o_ :borooogo-
o_r _ob_1_ :ooob:__: |_o___o| |:|o_o_bgo go_:g_ro o:g_o| o:_|o-
o:g_r _:or_bg:|: _: J_1___g:Jo, bogo |o_o:g_r _ob_1_ - oo:rog_go
oogo_o__ro o:go| _ooroo oorbog_:Jo, o_or_ obrog, |:g:r|:oooo| _bo-
o_r _: _g__boo_r :__o:Jo _ro|__| _o_r: :b:|:bo_r_| |o_g_og|: _: :r-
_o_b:|, :b_ :|og___r _1o|__b_o:g_r |:|r_go:| _: :o__b:_ o:| __g_
b:oo_og__go :_g| |_o___o| _1o|__b_o:g_ro b|bo| _o:_g_|o oo|_o__ro
_: _oo__ro __b__o: (:_|:boJb:go:, roo _ro|__| _o_ro| (_ro|_o:boo|) o|-
:g|o :____o:ro__go _: r:o__b:_o_ |__r_o_oo_go :__o: _: r_____o:
- _. o. _ro|__|: _: _ro|_o:boo| a priori o_o_o:g_r __g_|o:|: _: oo| oo_r
ob__ror__or__g _ro|_o:bo:|o:b :oog_: - _ooo_ro: oo__rbo1oo|
_oo_o| :_:oo:bo|:ogo|, r:_, roor_ obo| o|_oro:Jo: _boogo, __r _o__g
:bo:b:og_goo_:b o__| |:o:g_| _: bo_J_|o:b __goobor__:).
:___:b :ooo_ob:r_, :b|bg:g_oo J_: |:___b__o| :_:oo:bo|::b, roo-
go| _1o|__b_o:_ bob:|b:r:: ____roob__go |:_og_go:o _: __ogo_go
|o_o:g_ro o_ r_goo_ro _r:_o_ooo, |:g:r|:ooo_, roor_ oo__rbo1oo|
_oo_o| _ooo_ro b:rooo:__b_go, o_o_o:g_r _ro|_o:bo:1_, o_o_o:g_r
__g_|o:1_, :b_ _r:_o_o_g r_goo_r _o|__r|1_ _o :_:r :o_:r_| _1o|__b-
_o:g_ro b|bo| 1:|, :r:o__ oo, roor_ _ooo_ro ,oo__rbo|_o", _oo_b_:
r_goo_r _r:_o_o:| (:o J_oob_g:Jo o_o_o:g_r __g_|o:|, r_gooo|, r_go-
o_roo| _ob__|oob:g_r-_o:o_o__r :_:|) _: :goo:r_| r_goo_ro
o:go|__g_o| oo|__g:_|, r:_ oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| oo_r :bgoo:r__g o:-
go|__g_:o::b (oogo_o__ro, __obooo__ro _: |o_o:g_ro o:go|__g_:bo)
_ro-_roo o:go|__g_:o::bo:, _: r:_ _r:b|__b__b__ro:|o:b _J_:go
_ob|_:b_ob_ r_:o_
79
r_goo:| - :b_, _:gJor| - _go|boo|, _og_gg:ro J_:o:gg_o|, :o J_oob-
g_g:Jo, o_o_o:g_ro r_goo_ro ob|_:b_oo|: _: oo| oo_r ob__ror__or__go
r_goo_ro |b:gg_o| :og:go|bob_o| :r_J_. _| _o o:go| obrog _go|boo|
r_goo_ro _o|__r|o| _:__ob_:|: _: _r:b|__b__b__roo| bg_oo:| |:__o:-
ro oorogb_go r_goo_roo|: _: o:|1_ _:o_:r__go ob_ogo__:g_ro r_go-
o_ro :rb_g:bo| :1:1_ (Schmid 1999: 99).
|:g:r|:ooo_, roor_ oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| :_:oo:bo, :o _oo_o| oo_r :b-
goo:r__go r_goo_ro o:go|__g_o| :1:1_ |bor__ |:__o:r ob_ogo__:-
g_r r_goo_r _o|__r|| :goo:r_| _: _1o|__b_o:g_ro JoJo| _:og_go|: _:
b|bo| 1:| |:__o:r _boo_r_:|: _: |:__o:r oorogb_g r_goo_r :rb_g:bJo
_o_|, __roo_, |:__o:r oorogb_g r_goo_r b:roo__b_Jo oro__or__g
_oobo|o| __g_Jo _: :r: _ro|__Jo _: _ro|_o:bo:Jo, r:_ oo|o __g__ro|:-
ogo| _r:_o_o_go r_goo_ro __g_o: _: roo_g|:_ o:g:_ :ro| :gJgoo_:b
b:1o:r_o _: roogo| bo:_Jo_ b:oo_:go_: oo|o oorg_go r_goo_ro b:roo_-
_b_o (ob. o:go ,_ob|_:b_ob_ |:g:r|:oooo| :g_ooor_r__o"). :___:b :ooo-
_ob:r_, |:g:r|:oooo| :or_: _ro|__|: _: _oobo|o| Joro| _b_: :go:1roo,
roor_ oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| :_:oo:bo|:ogo| ooo:goog_ _:o:b:|o:o__go ob-
_ogo__:g_ro r_goo_ro oo_: _: r_goo_ro :rb_g:bo (J_r. ,:|o1o| oob:-
|__rJo |:_:roo_ :o1:gr_: _ob|_:b_ob_ |:g:r|:oooo|:"), roo_g|:_ oo
:goo:r_| _r:_o_o_go __g_|o_r-ob|_o___oob:g_ro r_goo_ro _o|__r-
|o|::b _o|_:b_or_o|: _: r_goo_ro o:go|__g_o| |:__og_g1_: J_r.,
|:g:r|:oooo| oo_r |:__o:r r_goo_ro:1_ o_o_go - ,o_ _goo| oo:|: _:
r_goo_r o:ro_|o1o| Joro| gor__go" (:o|:b_r_o: !2: 83). :_ |bor__ oo-
__rbo1oo| _oo_o|: _: :o _oo_o| :_:oo:bo|:ogo| _:o:b:|o:o__go r_goo_-
ro o:go|__g_:: :_b:___go, r:_ oorg_g roJo ggob__: _o_roo| oo_o|
oro__|Jo ob_ogo__:g_ro r_goo_ro :rb_g:bo| _:__ob_:|: _: _r:b|__b-
__b__ro:|o:b _J_:go r_gooo|, _. o. _:gJoro| _:o_:r_:Jo.
o_o_:, oo__rbo1oo| _oo_:Jo _| oorogb_go r_goo_ro :rb_g:bo _:
r_goo_ro oo_: :oroor_go o:r_bo|ogo|:: :bbor_go, r:_ roo:bJo __g-
oobor__go |:boo |ooogo1__go: _:rgo1o|, roor_ _ooboo| ooo|_:|o|,
_:__ogoo, ro|o oo1_1o_ o:g:_ |:g:r|:ooo_:, roo_go:_ _:rgo1o :_b__b_g
_b_b1_ J_|g: (_b_bo - |o_g_ogo| |ooogo (Metzler 2008: 274) (J_r. roo:bo|
o:go ,_:o: J_go:| ____o:ro 1_1_"). J_|::oo|:_, roo:bo| ___|_Jo ob__b-
_or__go _o_roo| oo_o| _| :oroor_go _r:bo _: oo__rbo1oo| _oo_:Jo
_go:_rogo| oooog_o| :oroor_go J__og_go: ggob__: roor_ o:g:_
oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o|:ogo| ooo:goog_ _:o:b:|o:o__go o_b_:g_ro _: o|o_g-
ob__g_gorogo |o__o_o_:, r:_ _go|boo| oo__rbo1oo| _oo_:Jo _ooobor_-
_go |_o_b_o|__r-o:__ro:go|__ro _boo_r_o| oooo-|:_r:g_r _boo_-
r_:|o:b :oroor_g J__o:g|_go:|: _: oo|:_oo :b_:obo1o| (J_r.: _:r-
go1o| _b_b| |bor__ oo| |:ooro|ooro_ ooor:go :g_oo:b_:b: _::_robo| _:
:_:b_b:g| - :o|:b_r_o: !2: 358-35, r:_ |bor__ :o o|o_gob__g_gorog
_: _boo_r_o|__g J__o:g|_go:|: _: :b_:obo1o1_ ooboJb_::).
bogo, roor_ __g_ :_oboJb:, |:g:r|:oooo| |_o____roo| _:Jgo|:
_: oo|o o:oo|::b, :b_ o__:_o1o__r-_go:_rogo oorg_g|:b_o|_o|::b :-
80
__bo_o| :r_:b oo____r _:__or:_ ggob__: :bgoo:r__go o|_oro_-
go _:_:_go1o_o (l o|o_goo ooo, _ro:boo| !!8 bgo| bo_oro| r_gog__o:),
|_go_r-:ro|_o_r:_o_go __g__ro| :r_:_g:go _:__o: _: _o_:Jo __g__-
ro| b:_gg:_ ___bo__ro _ogogo1:_oo| _ooobor_: (J_r. roo:bo| o:g_o -
,bobo| b:bo| J_oo|_g:", ,:_o__go _og_o| __:", ,1:_g:r__ob1_", ,r__-
_:|bo_go __r___go", ,__g__obJo", ,:oo:bo:", ,_o__or go__b1obo| __:-
b:|_b_go o:_o_b_o" _: |bg.). _| _o |:g:r|:oooo| _boo_r_:|: _: |_gJo obg_g|
_o_roo|: _: _goo| b:_oo| o__o| _:Jg:|, r:_, o:go| obrog, oro_:obo|_o|
|_o____roo| __|_r___o:| (Ichdissoziation) :b:ooro_| _: o:|Jo :_gog_|
:_:oo:bo| :r|_oo| |:1ro|oo_g__g _1o|__b_o:_ :b__:|. |ooo_oo:__-
ro:, roo roo:bo| |:o:_rJo :_b:___go _oobo|o| _ooogo| b:_gg:_ ___|-
_Jo gbg__oo obogo_ gooo||:bo:b, oro|b:b_, :oogobg:r__g, J__r:g__g,
oob__bog, :__:___g, J_1:rboJ__g _oobo|o|, ,o:r:o :r|:_ ooo_oo:r_
_oobo|o o_ :r J_obg__ro:" (:o|:b_r_o: !2: !66). :ooo _o _o_o_r_o| b:r-
o:g:g, |:|r_g _: :o:o :r|1_, :_:oo:b_ro _1o|__b_oo| :r_:_g:g _r:o-
__go:1_, :b_, :_:oo:bo| _1o|__b_oo| ooo:goog_ oorg_gJoJoo (|o_g_ogoo)
:b|:1_gr_go:|: _: oo| g_r _:og_g:1_, _: :o__b:_, _og_go _:g___go
|_o___o| :oroor_g ob_ogoo_r _ob:go:1_: ooboJb__go, r:_ roo:bo|
oo_g ob_o___|__:g_r |ogr__Jo __ob__: roor_ 1o:_:_ oo__rbo|__go
_boo_r_o|: _: oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| _oo:gr_|o boJ:bo.
J_boJgb_o:
!. :___:b :ooo_ob:r_, _ob__o__:g_ro og:g|:1ro|oo oo____go: r. og:r:oo|
J_o__o J_boJgb:, roo_go_ o:b :ooo_g: ,_oobo|o| _ooogo|" |:1ro|o|__g _o|__r-
|o:b _:_:gJor_oo: ,:oo_oo:_ g_r o__: or:b_g:_ bg_bo ob_rgoo|:ogo| _ob|_:b-
_ob_ |:g:r|:oooo| _r:__o:. _| o_o |bgo|o |_boo _::g:__o| o_b_ __oogJoog_ro,
o:r:o o:ob_ :bbor_go __:. o|, r:|:_ _:o: J_go:| b:ro:ro_g o|o_gJ_rob_:Jo
_o__: _ob|_:b_ob_ |:g:r|:ooo_ (oooo|o|__b oor_b_o| __:), _:__o_r:_ o:|:_ _bg:_
_ob_: ooo:_g__go. o_ob_ o| o_o, roo o:g:_g_ :r _b_o_: _| :o:go, _g_J__b__g:_
robo_: obogo_. |:__o:ro _b_o| J___bogo:o _:__o: oo, o|_g_ roor_ o:-
r:J _obg:ro. _| o_o J___ooogo oo| _r:__o:, ,o:o_go J__go" roo _:ooo _:, _b:_o:,
__bo_ g_r J_ob_b:r: ogoo__" (og:r:o_ !7!: 3). :_ ___|_o|: _: oro_:obo|_o| J_-
_:|_o| o_r|o___og:_ _: _ro__ro_o:_ :___go: :r_oo:o__go _o|__r|o| (_|_g_o-
_oobo|_ :r_oo:_go, :b_ o__r_ o_ro) |:__og_g1_ J_: |:___b__o| _:ro_go ob_rgo-
o|: _: _ogo|o_oo| (o_rb_g_, o__robo, r_|o:g_go) bo:_Jo J_o_J:g__go _ob____o:
(og:r:o_ !7!: 28-37), roo_go_ ob_ogoo_ro _: :borooogoo_ro og:g|:1ro|oo
go:g:1o_: |:o_:ro|: _: :_:oo:bo| oogo:b |obo_1_r oo__g| - ,goo:_1:r:g,
b:oob:_go_g _:ro_g b:|o:o_|, roo_go: _r:__o: |:o_:ro| :roobo_go b:_o|
J_o_|gr: _o :_:r o_b_o_:, (_:rog_go _:_o|ogo| :r__:b o:g| oobg__go _g:1ooro-
g_o:, or:g:go |:___bo| bob :_:grogo |:_:rog_goJo), :r:o__ Job::bo |r_g_o_o|
oob:o_orog 1:1_ :_or_go _ro: __ogog_o" (|bg:o: Joro|, :|_oo _ooo| _:ro_go
b:|o:o_o|: _: _:ro_g ob_rgo:Jo :r_oo:o__go _o|__r|o| r_:booor_o| __: o_o
roog ro:_ooo| ,g_go| o_r:bo" - _..) (og:r:o_ !7!: o_g_). o:r:o :_ :og:go-
|bob__go :r::, _roo obrog, oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| |o__o_o_:, _:, o_or_ obrog, o:g:_
oo__rbo|_o :g_or_o|:ogo| ooo:goog_ _:o:b:|o:o__go o|o_gob__g_gorogo _ro-
1o|o _: :or_: _: :ooo :oobg__go _: :booro__go oo__rbo|__go ob_rgoo| o|
_ob|_:b_ob_ r_:o_
81
o:go|__r_:, |:_:_ |r_go:_ _b_rog:_ _: _:bob1ooo_r:_ _: _og_gg:ro _|o__o-
__ro _: o|o_gob__g_gorogo :bor_o|: _: ogoooo1b_roo| :r_J_ ______go _:
___ob|_r_or__go: o_o__b_ro|__go _: :borooo__b_ro|__go o|o_gob__g_go-
rogo _o|__r|o, roogo| |:ooro|ooro_:_ :_b:___go: ,o_"-| _:Jg: (Ichdissoziation) (|.
go__:), _1o|__b_o:g_ro JoJo _: |:o_:ro| __|:_r:go1:_o: (J_r. _r. _:__:| ,oro__-
|o", r. o_1ogo| ,_ogo|_o _:_o", r. o. rog__| ,o:g__ g:_ro_| ro_| b:b:b_r_o", o.
o:bo| ,_o__or _:_|__|o", :. _ogobo| ,Berlin. Alexanderplatz", o. or_|_o| ,_:_:r_go
_roo| oo_:Jo", _. _oo|o| ,_go|_", _. |. _goo_o| ,_b:_o_o oob:" _: or:g:go |bg:).
oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| _| |o__o_o_: (o|o_gob__g_gorogo :or_: _: _o|o_o:_o_-
ro:) _:r:_ J_boJb: 1. :o|:b_r_o:o: ,o_o_, :o:g_ _ro|, o:|:_ (_ob|_:b_ob_ :o|:-
b_r_o:| - _. .) J__bo _oo_o| |_bo. _|o__o1oo|, bo_J_:bo1oo| _: _oobo|o1oo| |:o|:g:
o:|:_ b:_bg_o: |_gJo. :o _oo_o_:b ob__: o:|Jo :or_:, r:_ :or__g: oo| oorg_g ro-
o:bJo ,_oobo|o| _ooogo", roor_ ooro| :or_: _ro|__-_oobo|_| Joro|. _| :or_:
_r:_o_o_go: _: :o:g_ _ro|, _| :ro| oo|o o:b:o__rog_ _groo_go __g__ro| |:b_. _|::
:or_: o_go:b_ :oo|_:_o|:, o___|o, g:b_ro|:, bo_J_|o (:o|:b_r_o: !!:: 378).
:_g_ _o__g _rob_g :g_|g:o b:1|, roo roo:bo| _o|o_o:_o_ro _o|__r|_o - _ob|_:b-
_ob_ |:g:r|:oooo| o|o_gob__g_gorogo _: r_goo_ro :or_:, oo|o |_o____roo|
r_g_g: - _| 1o:_:_ oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| :_:oo:bo| oo____ro _: _:bob1ooo_ro |_-
go_ro _: o_b_:g_ro o_oo:r_o:: _: :r: _r:go_ |g:r|:oooo| ,|bgo|o |_boo _::g:__:".
2. :___:b :ooo_ob:r_ ooo:bbo:, roo roo:bJo oo__o_g o:oo|: _: oo| o:r:_oo:Jo
:oroor_g:_ obogo_ oo_ooo|o|: _: _:|_r:_oo| _oog__|o: :oo_g_o: _: o:o |__o:Jo
oo___g:, J_|::oo|:_, roo:bo| oooo|_ro _o|__r|o| obogo_ |:g:r|:oooo| :r:_boo-
_ro _|o_o_o|: _: oo|o :b__gbogo goo_o1_ro _ooog__|_o| oro__or_:_ ::1r_:
_ob__o__:g_ro og:g|:1ro|oo o__:ro: _: :_boJb_go o:r:_ooo|:ogo| o:g|oobg__-
go ob__ror__:_o:: (|o_: !!: 7!-73), r:_ roo:bo| ___|_o| |:1ro|o|__go _o|__r-
|o| _:gobrogo _: :r:|r_g_o_ogo o:ro:b_::, r:o__b:_:_ :_ :og:go|bob__go :r
:ro|: a) _roo obrog, o:g:_ roo:bo| _|o__o__ro _ob____o:, roo_go_ b:r:_ogo|: _:
o_r|ob:_o| |:b_o: J__obo| og:g|:1ro|oo ooroo:_:_ ___ob_: __|or_|oobo|__g
J_oo_o___oo o_oo_|: _: o|o_g:b__:|, roo_go_ go:g:1o| _o_o|: _: o_r|ob:-
o| :b1o:___g ob_ogoo_r _: _1o|__b_o:g_r oo__g|, roogo| J_|::oo|:_:_
|:g:r|:oooo| o_r|ob:o| |:b_Jo oo__o_go: 1o:_:_ :_:oo:bo| ob_o-_1o|__b_o:g_-
ro _ro1o|o oo__rbo1oo| _oo_:Jo. J_|::oo|:_, :|_oo _ooo| o_r|ob:_o| |:b_o: _|o-
_ogoo1_:, _. o. ob__ror__:_oo|:| obogo_ o:o :r:_boo_r1_ _o__|or_: _: o:oo
o_r|ob:o|__go :borooogooo| obogo_ _|o_o:b:go_o__ro :b:go1o| |:__og_g1_
:b|b: g:og_g| __|or_|oobo|__go |__ooo J___bogo |:g:r|:oooo| o_r|ob:o| :b1o-
:___go |:bo| ,_ro__r:_" ob_ogo__:g_r _|o_ogoo_r |:b_o__ r____or_:| (_r-
o__r:_o _|o_ogoo_ro _oo_o or:gg:_:: o_b_:_ J_. _g:oo| bog_g_Jo, roogo:
o_r|ob:o: |:b__o| ob__ror__:_oo|:| |bor__ roo 1__:oogrogo: _|o_o:b:go_o-
__ro oo_oo_o): ,__|or_|oobo|__g b:b:roo_Jo o_oobg_go, :r|_oo:_, g_r ooogbo|
_r:_o_o_go _|o_ogoo_ro o:b_roo o_r|ob:o: |_go_ro _bogr_o|, :b___o|
bg_b_:|, :_ :r go:g:1o_b o_r|ob:o: |_go_ro _roo_roo_o| |:ob__r_|o b:b:_|,
___:g_r:_ _:o_J:g__g |_r:o|" (_:b_:g: !83: 32), b) o_or_ obrog, roo:bJo oooo|_ro
_o|__r|o| ob:_gr_go __b__o:: _::__obo| _: ::ob__b|ogo| ___|_|: _: o_oobg_gJo
oooo|_ro _boo_r_: _: oo:b_obo| _o_o_r_o| o__:_o1o__ro oorg_g|:b_o|_o|: _:
oro_:obo|_o| _1o|__b_o:g_ro |ogr_o| ob:_gr_go |ooogo1_:. :oo_oo:_, ro-
o:bJo oooo|_r b:_:_| ooo:goog_ ob_o-_1o|__b_o:g_ro :_: :_g| _: :r: _|o_o:b:-
go_o__ro. :___:b :ooo_ob:r_, o:o:-Jgogo| _ob_go__|, oorg_g roJo, _ogo|o_o_ro
_:_gorog: :_g| _: :r: _|o_ogoo_ro. J_|::oo|:_, obogo_ oo_ooo|o|: _: _:|_r:-
_oo| _ooog__|o: grogJo |:g:r|:oooo| :borooogoo_ro :r|o| :b|b: _: :b|b: oo|o
o_r|ob:o|__go oorogb_o| :r:|r_g_o_o_go :b|b: o_b_o_: _: oo|o, roor_ o_r-
82
|ob:o|, 1o:_ _1o|__b_o:g_r orog_o:_o_:| :b1_ _og_|. ooo _o___|, ro__|:_
|:_:ro: __|or_|oobo|__go ob:_gr_go ___|_o| oo:g:r oro_:obo|_1_, roo_go_
oo__rbo1oo| _oo_o| :_:oo:bo| ooo:goog_ :b1o:___go |:b_: _: :r: ,_ro__r:_o"
_|o_ogoo_ro oro___o:: ,|:g:r|:oooo| _b_: _b_: oogo:1roo :r: roor_ :r_g__-
go |o_o:g_ro (__o_:g_ro) _g:|o| Jgogo, :b oorogb_go b:|o:oo _: 1__o__o :_:oo:-
bo|:ogo| _:o:b:|o:o__go boJb_o| o:_:r__go, :r:o__ roor_ _oo_o| oro____o,
roor_ |:___b_o: oo_b:1_ :ro_g__go |o_o:g_r-oogo_o__ro _:_:_go1o_o|:
_: ___bo__ro :__bo_o| ooro_Jo ooob_g___go :_:oo:bo| _r:o1oo. |...| J_oog_:
oo_g:|, ,_oobo|o| _ooogo|" __|or_|oobo|__go" o_r|ob:_o r_:g_r :r_oo|: _:
|o_o:g_r-oogo_o__r _ob1_ oo_o____b (o_g1:o_ !6: 2!, 22).
3. _og_gog_ :oo| |:ooro|ooro_ _ro:b_go o_gg_g:ro J. o_b_ro o:go| |:__r|o
b:Jrooo| _ooo| ,|_:_o:Jo" ,_oobo|o| _ooogo| |_r____r: _: _ogo|o_o_ro oor_o"
(o_b_ro !82: !52-!5) _o g:rbo_b_|, roo ,_oobo|o| _ooogo| ooro _roo :b:r_-
o:bo oorogb_:: (sic! - _. .). oo :r:__r| :__o_| |bgo|ogo|, |bor__ o|_, roor_
:o:| _r. bo_J_ oooobog|" (o_b_ro !82: !58). |_:_oo| :g_or| :o ,___g_oo" (roo-
go| _:|:_o_oo:_ oo o:g| |r_g_oo:_ :r ob_b_|) |_r| oo_oooo| |:g:r|:oooo|
,1__:__r" _b_:1_, ooo_o|_: oo|ogo|, roor_ bo_J_:b_ro _ooo| ooor:go|_o 1_-
_:_o|:ogo|, oo_g:|o|:_oo o:b:robo: - roor_ |_|_o :_:oo:b_o|:ogo| _:o:b:-
|o:o__go _ro|_o:b_go oor:go| :ooggob_: - __bo _o_ogo_o|. :_ _o__g _rob_g
_b_: oo_g:|, roo |:g:r|:oooo| 1__:_o: o_ 1__:_oo|:__b |br:_g: __|or_|oobo|__-
go o|o_gob__g_goo|:ogo| _:o:b:|o:o__go 1__:_o::, r:_ _go|boo| :_:oo:bo|
oo_r |:__o:r :boroogoo_r :r|Jo |:__o:ro _go:_rogo |:b_o|_o| ,:b|b:|:" _:
:o:g:r_ |:__o:ro _oooro_go ,o_"-| _:og_g:|: _: :_:g:bg:|, _go|boo| |:__o:-
ro |_o____roo| _o|oo_roo| Jo:robo:|: (Einfhlung) _: :b__:| (:o |:_oob_o:b
_:_:gJor_oo :|_g_ ob. 1_ooo). bogo roo:bo| ___|_Jo |:g:r|:oooo| ,:b:r_o:bo _b_-
:" :r_ oo| o_b_:go:Jo _: :r_ oo| |:__o_gJo :r ggob__:. |:ob__r_|o:, |:_, roo_g
_oo1o_Jo oo:_ggo: o_b_ro: |:g:r|:oooo| ,:b::r_o:b _b_:|"?! :oo| J_|:b_ :g_oro
:r:__r| g:o_bo| _: :r_ :bo:r_:g|, _ob_r___g:_ r:Jo ggob__: |:g:r|:oooo| :b-
:r_o:bo _o___:. :r:_:, ___|_o_:b |r_go:_ |:ooro|ooro r:o go_oo - |:g:r|:ooo_
:_g|ogo: |bor__ oo_g:|o|:_oo _:bo:r_o|: _: o:b:roboo| o:oo|oo: :gob|_boo
o_b_:_ _r:_g |____b_ go__b1obo|:ogo| _:bo:r_o| :b_g: (rogo:b_o| |:__r__o|
_oo1o_o), :b o_1ogo| og_o|:_oo |:__o:ro o:o_g_o| _:ro_o| _oo1o_o. bogo,
r:_ J__b_: roo:bo| |_r____ro|: _: _ogo|o_o_ro oor_o| :b:go1|, r:_ :g_oro|
oo_r ,|_:_oo|" |:o:_rJog_: :_b:___go, o:|1_ |:_roo_:: :r: o|__go:, r:_, b_oo
:1roo, _:g|:b:_ oo:boJb_| o_b_ro| |_:_oo| _::g o__bo_r_g _g:go_o_:_o:1_.
4. :_ _b_: :_oboJbo|, roo _roo obrog, |:g:r|:oooo|: _: _:rgo1o|, bogo, o_or_
obrog, :J_b:bo|: _: _:ooo| (o. o:bo| ,|o_g_ogo g_b__o:Jo") _roo_roo:o: :oog_:
_: :o _oo1o_Jo _:rog_go :g_oro| o. o:bo|:_oo oo:og:1_ |:_:ro |r_go bob|_b|o:,
r:_ J_oogo:g:1: _ro:b_go: o_gg_g:ro: J. o_b_ro: o:go| |bg: |:__r|o b:Jrooo|
_ooo| ,|_:_o:Jo" ,_ob|_:b_ob_ :o|:b_r_o: _: ooo:| o:bo" (o_b_ro !8!: !!3-!24),
r:o__b:_:_ roor_ _roo, o|_ o_or_ b_gogo| _roo_roo_| |r_go:_ :b|bg:g__go
o|o_gob__g_gorogo _: _|o__o__ro _ob____o: ___g| |:__ogg:_: __roo_, _:ooo-
|:_oo :J_b:bo| _r_o: :_:_o| ooo|__|_:g_r o:oogoo:Jo, r:_ :borooogoo_r
_: ogooJ_o__b_oo |or___1_ __obo|__r-oro:|__go _oobo|_rooo: _: :r:_bo-
o_ro g_ogg_o| oo_r 1_|o:ob_o|, :b_ _go:_rogo| ggr__o| _b:ro|, _:ob_goo::
:booro__go. _| _o o:go| obrog :oobg__go: :b__b__go _: _bogr_o|::b oob_g_-
_ogo :|____r-_|o__o_o|__ro _ooo| b_gogb_o| _ro1o|oo: _: oo|o :r_:_g:go o:r-
_boo: :J_b:bo| o:oogoo: _: J_o_oo |o_g_ogo |ooog_r:_ |bor__ :|_oo _ooo|
b_gogb_o| J_oo_o___oo o:r_b| :b:|:bo_r_|. bogo |:g:r|:ooo_ _:rgo1Jo __r_o|
o:go| _o_ro| - _oobo|o|, _:rgo1o oo|ogo| |bor__ bor_J_|bo_go _go:_rooo|
_ob|_:b_ob_ r_:o_
83
:o_g__bo_ro _o:b:_o::. :___:b :ooo_ob:r_, oo|o _:oo_o___g_: _:rgo1o|:_oo _|
:ro| __r_oo| _:oo_o___g_: o:go|o _go:_o|:_oo. |:g:r|:oooo|: _: _:rgo1o| _r-
oo_roo_Jo o_b_ro :r oog:go|bob_| |bor__ :o |o__o_o_:| (__r_oo - _go:_o|
_roo_roooo:ro_o| oo__g|), :r_ o:g:_ |:g:r|:oooo| oo_r :ooo_o_g J_ob_:| _r-
_oo| :r|o| J_|:b_ _: :r_ o_r|ob:o|__g o:gJ__:g__g _:oo_o___g_:|: _: ___-
g:| _:rgo1o| ooo:ro, roo_go_ :J_b:bo| ___go|::b :b|bg:g_oo roo:bo| oo_g |o_-
___r :bgoo:r_:Jo :r:|o__| :_:_o| ooo_ro_o__g o:oogoo:Jo _: _o|_:b_oo|
o:oo|oo :b|:1_gr_go __r_oo|: _: _go:_o| _roo_rooo| _oro: :_g|: ,gb_:|:_
o|_oo ooooob_: _: o:gJ__:g_: _b_:, roor_ oo|... _: |:_:_ o:gJ__:g_: :r :ro|, o_
robo: g_g:r_go: _: _go|:or_go. g_Jo:ro_|: _: o:_:g |o_g:r_g| Joroo b__:
:|:1r_o__: o__:o" (:o|:b_r_o: !2: 35!).
o. o:bo| bog_go| ,|o_g_ogo g_b__o:Jo" _: _. :o|:b_r_o:| roo:b ,_oobo|o| _ooo-
go|" o_b_ro|__go ,_ooogoo_ro ob__ror__:_o:" o:go| _ro1_ o:ro__g:_ ::-
_ro_o_: _: ::_:o_g_r: 1. :o|:b_r_o:o o:go| |_:_:Jo ,J_boJgb_o J. o_b_ro| bob1_
_ob|_:b_ob_ :o|:b_r_o: _: _:|:gg_o _groo_go __g__r:", |:_:_ ___:g_r:_::
:oo_g_oogo o_b_ro| :r|_ooo __ooog_:bo _g_o_b_:r_g |:_oob_1_: ,:g_oro (J.
o_b_ro - _. .), roor_ b:b|, :r_og_ _::bo: oo :r_oo_:o, roo o. o:bo| bo-
g_go| ooro :J_b:bo __r_o| ooroJg_bo_r oogob_g _o:bgog|, _:ooo|, o|_g_ roor_
|:g:r|:ooo_ - __b__o| g:|, _:rgo1|, o:r:o o:| |bor__ :_ oo|_:rgo: b_go _g_g:1_
o__:_. o:| g_r J__obb_go: (o_ :b1r:b _:_b_g:g| og:go), roo o:bo| bog_g:Jo oo__-
o_go: _|o__o1oo|: _: ooo|__|_:go1oo| _r:__o: (_:og_o|__ro), _. :o|:b_r_o:|
roo:bJo _o b:ro:ro_go, _oobo|_ro r_goo_roo| _ro1o|o: :|:b_go, r:_ :ooob:-
__: ooro| :or_:Jo _ro|__-_oobo|_| Joro| (|:_roo_, J. o_b_r| __: oo_b|_-
b_o__|, roo orog_ b:b:roo_o| o_o: og:_obo| _o:go_o_:b o__| |:o:g_|, _og_-
gog_ :oo| oro_o_ooo: |o_r:__|: _: :g_oo:__| _roo_roo:, o_o_: orog_ ob_r:go
__o__r_|:_ |bg:_:|bg:g:r:_ :o_J:g_| :o o_o:|). :J_b:bo| o:g_:oorg_g:_ _b_ob:-
ro _r_o:go o:go|o bor_J_|bo_go _|o__o__ro o__:go|: _: o_1o|:_oo (_:ooo|:_oo)
o:o:oo:gg_r gb_:Jo :_:_o| ogo|, |:g:r|:ooo_ _o _:rgo1Jo b__:g| _o_ro _oobo-
|_| _ro-_ro ooo|_:1|, :|_ roo, :_ _|o__o__ro ooo_b_o _o :r :ro| oo:g:ro, :r:o__
oo|_o_ro (b:1:|o: :g_oro|:: - _. .). |...| |:g:r|:oooo|: _: _:rgo1o| _roo_roo:Jo
_og_gog_ o:oogoo_ro :ooro_b_go:, _| :ro| __r_oo|: _: _go:_o| _roo_roo:.
o. o:bo:b _o b:o_g:bo: o:oogoo_ro gb_: ___:__b_-_|o__o|, :J_b:bo|:, roo_go_ o-
go| __o:g| o:|. |...| :oro:_, gob_ :|_o _g_o_b_:r_g bo_:b|_Jo g_r :r_g__g:, oo
:o:o_ _o__| b_g| _:g:o| _|o__b ro_go go__r:__r_go _: _ogo|o_o_ro oro-
g_o_o| :|:J___g:_" (:o|:b_r_o: !!: 32-33).
:_boJb_g orog_o:|o:b _:_:gJor_oo :|_g_ |:g|_oo _:o:__r_g:_ o|__go| .
goooo_ |_:_o:Jo ,:__bo_o| orog_o: _. :o|:b_r_o:| _oobo|o| _ooogJo" (goooo_
!8: 27-307), |:_:_ o:b _ob__o__:g_ro og:g|:1ro|oo orog_oo| o:ro__go :b|b:
J_oogo:g:1:, r:|:_ o__ go1o:r_: ,:_g_ _b_: J_gboJbo, roo |:_roo_, o__:r:_ ooo:b-
bo: :1ro, ooo_o| _oobo|o| _ooogo|" 1oo_roo o:|:o ooo:| o:bo| ,|o_g_ogo g_b_-
_o:Jo" :bo_or_::. :o o_gg_g:r_| obogo_ :r_b_go o|:g|_o| |:__og_g1_ :oo:-
_go _:|_gb_o. o_ _:r:_ _:g:_gor__oo, :o or b:b:roo_Jo _roo:b_oo|::b |r_go:_
:b|bg:g__go |:_oob_o: b:oogrogo _: :_:b_g__ogo. :o J_oobg_g:Jo |:_o_ _b_:,
__roo_, _ob|_:b_ob_ |:g:r|:oooo| :_:__:| _:rgo1oo, r:_ _:ooo|:_oo _|_:g _ob
:J_b:bo| _r_o:go:b:: J__:r__go. :_ orog_ ob_rgo|:ogo| oorg_gb_:ro| b:roo:_-
_b| og:_obo| _o:go_o - ,b:_ooo" _: ,___ro|o". :o J_oobg_g:Jo _:rgo1o _o_ro
_oobo|_| :b|:bo_r_::, oo|o _ro-_roo ooo|_:|o:. |...| oJg_bo_r_o|, :o J_oobg_g:Jo _o
o:go|o _go:_o|, _oobo|_| (:b_ _:rgo1o|) ggr__oo |:g:r|:ooo_| |_r| _1o:ro| _oobo-
|_r |orob_|. og:_obo| ,___ro|Jo" :_boJb_go:, roo :o_g__bo_ro oJg_bo_r_o| ggr_-
_oo :_:oo:bo oob_| o:r:_o_g o__:o:, _o_r |:o_:roJo _bogr_:|. _o_o_, :|_oo
84
robo: ___g_: |:g:r|:ooo_|:_. |...| :bg:, r:_ J__b_: o. o:bo| bog_g:|, ,|o_g_ogo
g_b__o:Jo". :_ ob_r:g _|_:g _ob :J_b:bo| J_oo_o___ooo _ro1o|o: :|:b_go. _:ooo
oJg_bo_r_::, roogo|:_oo :J_b:bo __r :oogob_ro ggr__oo:: :_:___go, J_o__ _|
_g_g:__ro _oobo|_r, |__|_:g_r _r_o:gJo :_:o1r__:" (goooo_ !8: 305-306).
g_o_ro, 1o:_:_ o. o:bo| _: _. :o|:b_r_o:| J_oo_o___o|, _: __roo_, o:oo :_-
boJb_go b:b:roo__o| (,|o_g_ogo g_b__o:Jo", ,_oobo|o| _ooogo") _ooogoo_ro :b:-
go1o __ro _ro: _: _:_gorg__go _gg_go| |::bo: _: :_boJb_go orog_o: :r_b_g
_:_g:r_g _:oobg_g_1_ _:o_:r__g 1__:oor_g _: :r:oro__|oob:g_r _gg_g:|
:r _b_: _:___obo|, roor_ _| J. o_b_ro| J_oobg_g:Jo:.
5. J_r.: ,_oobo|o| _ooogo _ooo_ro __|or_|oobo|__go _ogo:: o__ogoooo, |_o-
go|_o_oo, o|o_g:b__oo. _r:o__go o|o_g:b__: b_gogb_o| _o:_g_| |:b__
_b:___o_:. __|or_|oobo|_o|ogo| _r:o__go o|o_g:b__: _g_g:1_ _ro:_ :_:oo:-
b_ro, _. o. _ro:__roo |boro _: _roo__go o_oo:r_o::. o:| :ooob_r:g oo_o___:-
Jo oo_g:| _g_g: :_:oo:b_ro robo:, gb_:, oo_go _bogr_:. :_:oo:b_ro _o_o_r_:,
:og:r:_, |bg__: 1_gr_g _bogr_:|: :_:oo:bo _o:_g_|o :r|_oo|: _: :r:r:oo|
|::b:Jo 1_g:r1_ :_oobb__:. __|or_|oobo1oo| o|o_gob__g_goo| |:__og_gJo
|bor__ _| :r_oo_: __g|" (_:b_:g: !83: 2!). o_o_:, o|o_ _b_: :_boJbo|, roo roo:-
bo| ob:_gr_go ob1go| b_|o _: |:bo|o___g_g_: |ooogo|__r __b__b_o_| :gg_b|
(|ooogo|__ro b:_:_o roo:bo| o_or_ oog:gro _|o__o__r-oo__o__ro b:_:_o:), r:_,
_roo obrog, o__bog:_ ___ob_: og_g_:ro_g _: og_g_rob_g oooo||, o_or_ obrog,
oo:b_| :oo_b:__o| :oo_:goo|_r oo__g_|: _: o:r:_oo_|. |:ogoo _:oJo, J_oo-
g_: oo_g:|, roo ,_oobo|o| _ooogo" __|or_|oobo|__g-|ooogo|__ro roo:bo:, :o
oro _|o__o__r-o|o_gob__g_gorogo _o|__r|o| oogo:bo::, r:o__b:_:_: a) ___-
|_Jo __|or_|oobo1oo _oor:__|:_ ggob__: roor_ roo:bo| o|o_gob__g_gorogo
:1o|o (:b:go :_:oo:bo| _ob____o: _: oo|ogo| _:o:b:|o:o__go _. b. ,o, :_:oo:bo|
o:oo|o"JJO, Mensch-Phathos) _: ob:_gr_go ro_oro_:, oo|ogo| _:o:b:|o:o__go |o-
__go| |oo_g_oroo: _: |ooo:_roo _: o_b:g 1_:b__go o:o__o__ro _oboo - ,b_oo
o_b:g o:o__o_ro, :b__go _obo oo___ro obroo|:" (:o|:b_r_o: !2: 382), b) bogo,
|ooogo1oo ggob__: roor_ oooo|1_, o|_ |:__o:r J_oo_o___oo o:goo|og_:|:
_: b__go:1_ _:__ob__g |__|_o_r |:bo|o___g_g_:Jo, roogo| ob:_gr_go __b-
__o:_, _roo obrog, :oob:__go: _r:b|__b__b__roo| ,:b|b:|:" _: bg_oo:Jo, bogo,
o_or_ obrog, o:g:_ ___|_o| ob_o___|__:goo| a priori |ooogo|__ro o_oo_oo :b-
gr_o:-:b__b:|: _: _:__ob_:Jo.

_:oobo_:bo:
Fhnders, Walter. Avantgarde und Moderne: 1890-1933, 2. Auf., Metzler Verlag, Stuttgart, 2010.
Gamsakhurdia, Konstantine. Tkhzulebani 10 tomad, t. 7. Tbilisi: Sabch. Saqartvelo, 1983. (:o|:b_r-
_o:, _ob|_:b_ob_. ob1_g_:bo !0 _oo:_. o.: ,|:g. |:_:rog_go", !83. _. vll).
Gamsakhurdia, Konstantine. Tkhzulebani 20 tomad: Dionisos Gimili, t. 2, Tbilisi, Didostati, 1992.
(:o|:b_r_o:, _ob|_:b_ob_. ob1_g_:bo 20 _oo:_: ,_oobo|o| _ooogo", _. ll, o.:
,_o_o|_:_o", !2).
Gamsakhurdia, Zviad (a). Konstantine Gamsakhurdia da Qristianoba. Tserilebi da Eseebi, Tbilisi: Khe-
lovneba, 1991. (:o|:b_r_o:, 1go:_ (:). ,_ob|_:b_ob_ :o|:b_r_o: _: _ro|_o:bo:".
- b_rog_o _: _||__o, o.: ,b_gogb_:", !!).
Gamsakhurdia, Zviad (b). Shenishvnebi Sh. Iungeri-Khotivaris Tsignze K. Gamsakhurdia da Dasavlet
Evropuli Kultura. Tserilebi da Eseebi, Tbilisi: Khelovneba, 1991. (:o|:b_r_o:, 1go:_ ().
,J_boJgb_o J. o_b_ro-bo_og:ro| bob1_ _. :o|:b_r_o: _: _:|:gg_o _groo_go
__g__r:". - b_rog_o _: _||__o, o.: ,b_gogb_:", !!).
_ob|_:b_ob_ r_:o_
85
Heidegger, Martin. Sein und Zeit, 18. Auf., Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tbingen, 2001.
Iungeri, Stef. Konstantine Gamsakhurdia da Tomas Mani. Kritika. 4 (1981): 113-124 (o_b_ro, J__-
_o. ,_ob|_:b_ob_ :o|:b_r_o: _: ooo:| o:bo". _ro_o_:. 4 (18!): !!3-!24).
Iungeri, Stef. Dionisos Gimilis Struqtura da Filosofuri Dzirebi. Tsiskari. 10 (1982): 152-159 (o_b_-
ro, J___o. ,_oobo|o| _ooogo| |_r____r: _: _ogo|o_o_ro oor_o". _o|_:ro. !0
(!82): !52-!5).
Kankava, Guram. Dionisos Gimilis Mitosuri Struqtura. Kritika. 2 (1983): 20-34 (_:b_:g:, _r:o.
,_oobo|o| _ooogo| oooo|_ro |_r____r:". _ro_o_:. 2 (!83): 20-34).
Lomidze, Gaga. Gautskhoebis Problema K. Gamsakhurdias Dionisos Gimilshi. Literaturuli Dziebani.
XIX (1998): 297-307 (goooo_, ::. ,:__bo_o| orog_o: _. :o|:b_r_o:| _oobo|o|
_ooogJo". go__r:__r_go oo_:bo. XlX (!8): 27-307).
Metzler Lexikon literarischer Symbole, hrsg. von G. Butzer, Metzler Verlag, Stuttgart, 2008.
Schmid, Wilhelm. Philosophie der Lebenskunst. Eine Grundlegung, 4. Auf., Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt
am Main, 1999.
Seibert, Thomas. Existenzphilosophie, Metzler Verlag, Stuttgart, 1997.
Sigua, Soso. Martvili da Alamdari. Konstantine Gamsakhurdias Shemoqmedeba. t. 1. Tbilisi: Ganatle-
ba, 1991. (|o_:, |o|o. o:r_gogo _: :g:o_:ro. _ob|_:b_ob_ :o|:b_r_o:| J_oo_o_-
__:, _. l. o.: ,:b:og_:", !!).
Tevzadze, Davit. Konstantine Gamsakhurdia da Tanamedroveoba. Tbilisi: 1996. (o_g1:o_, _:goo.
_ob|_:b_ob_ :o|:b_r_o: _: o:b:o__rog_o:. o.: !6).
Tvaradze, Revaz. Mtliani Saqartvelos Mesitkve. Tsigni da Mkitkhveli. Tbilisi: Sabch. Saqartvelo,
1971 (og:r:o_, r_g:1. ,oogo:bo |:_:rog_go| o_|o__g_". - bobo _: o_oobg_go, o.:
,|:g. |:_:rog_go", !7!).
Vietta, Silvio. Der europische Roman der Moderne, Fink Verlag, Mnchen, 2007.

Konstantine Bregadze
(Georgia)
Modernism as a Mythless Age in Konstantine Gamsakhurdias Novel
The Smile of Dionysus
Summary
Keywords: mythos, modernism, mythless age, father-son interrelation
In the 20s of the 20
th
century Konstantine Gamsakhurdia (1891-1975) defned mod-
ernism as a mythless age (cf. the essay Literary Paris), therefore metaphorically indicat-
ing the spiritual crisis of the epoch. It implied the presence of the existential human fear,
his alienation with metaphysical-mythic prototype, the impossibility of self-identifcation
and dehumanization. On the one hand, historical processes and cataclysms total devel-
opment of technical civilization, world war and revolutions and, on the other hand, funda-
mental metaphysical quake, which Nietzsche called the death of God and revaluation of
values provoked the above mentioned consequences.
Correspondingly, western as well as Georgian modernistic literature highlighted
the quest for an exit route of a humans spiritual-cultural crisis and therefore acquisition of
sense to his existence. From this standpoint, it is worth mentioning German researchers
86
Silvio Viettas study: Refection of social changes industrialization, urbanization, new
forms of communication (telephone, telegraph, railway and vehicles), new forms of media
(radio, newspapers) do not represent the main issues of a modernistic novel. The ques-
tions that are raised here are completely different: the problem of modern subjectivity in
society, its inner split and collapse in modernism. The instability of mentality is unveiled,
an inevitable historical process peculiar for modernism (see S. Vietta, European Mod-
ernistic Novel // S. Vietta, Der europische Roman der Moderne, Mnchen, 2007. S.
20-21).
K. Gamsakhurdias The Smile of Dionysus (1924-1925) is a typical modernistic
literary text, with its discourse emphasizing existential and spiritual crisis of a modern-
ist human being. Simultaneously, an attempt is made to overcome the existential crisis
provoked by the death of God an unsuccessful attempt to reanimate Dionysus aesthetic
culture ending in failure hence demonstrating humans existential lack of prospects in
the epoch of modernism (you are lying in a cold grave and the soul is sad).
In modernistic texts are mythological paradigms integrated (i.e. J, Joyce Ulysses.
Gr. Robakidzes Snake Skin and others), where those paradigms have double meaning:
on the one hand, purely poetical-aesthetic, when mythical paradigms form compositional,
narrative and imagological foundations of a text, and, on the other hand, purely ideologi-
cal, when an author uses myth as means for overcoming crisis (i.e. Gr. Robakidzes novel
Snake Skin).
From this standpoint, K. Gamsakhurdias The Smile of Dionysus is no excep-
tion. Mythical paradigms and imagology having double meaning are also represented in
the text: on the one hand (Dionysian) myth, as a foundation for text composition, narrative
line and imagology and, on the other hand, (Dionysian) myth as an ideological founda-
tion for the novel an attempt to overcome mythless existence and establish new values.
However, the revival of the myth did not turn out to be means for overcoming existential
crisis but an illusionary-ephemeric ideological action.
The paradigm of father-son interrelation is worth mentioning in The Smile of Dio-
nysus, which is of onto-existential character and is one of the motifs of modernistic texts
(cf. Gr. Robakidzes Snake Skin, or J. Joyces Ulysses). Mythical image of a father is
a symbolic representation of a lost prototype in modernism, and the denial of a father by
the son and the fathers curse of his son demonstrates the ontho-existential lack of pros-
pects and alienation with metaphysical basis of a contemporary human being.
_ob|_:b_ob_ r_:o_
87

()
- :

..
1
. .,
1848 . ( 1849: 45),
2
-
. -
, ,
, . -
. , , -
, - .
( 1879: 45).

, ,
1840-
1895 .
3
. - -
- -
XIX
, , ..
-
. -
. , -
,
.
XIX -
. , -
,
1840-1895 .
-
. ,
,
. ,
(
1976: 66). , ,
(-
1967: 132). ,
, -
, -
( 1966). -
. ,
88
1960-1970- -
-
. , -
,
XIX , .., .., ..,
.., .. .
, , -
, ,
. , -
, , -
.
. -
, ,
- -
,
4
. , ;
, , , -
, , -
, ,
(') ( 1981: 338). , , -
,
,
. , -
,
, . , -
,

(., , .) -
(., , ).

. , , , ,

(, 1955: 35). , -
-,

: .

5
,
,
, ,
; -
, , , -
.
.
, . :

89
. . , , , , <> -
, ,
, , ( 1882: 406).
-
: [<>. tipos , , ]
<>4) , ; 1) -
4; ; 2) , (
1986: 496). , , -
, 1882 ,
. XIX
, - ,
, ,
.. . -
, , ,
, , , , , -
( 2006), -
.
-
, (, , ,
),
(, ; -
, , , ,
, ).
- , .
, -
, -
XIX
,
. ,
, , ,
( ) .
, , , -
, ,
, -
? , -
, 1850- -
.

, ,
. ,
, ,
. , , -
.
, -
- :
90
, , , -
. ,
-, -
1850- ., -

, -
.
,
,
, .
,
.
-,
,
. -
.
- -
. , ,
.
, . , -
() , -
, -
, ,
( 1986). .,
, , ,
( 1962). , .., -
, .
, ,
.
,
.
. ,
, .
, - (
, , -
, , , ), - -
, . ,
, -
.
-
, .
, ,
-
, -

91
. ,
,
. ,
., -
.
6
1850- -
, .
, ., (,
) , -
-
, . -

, .
( , ) -
,
,
.

, ,
. -
, . :
, ,
.. ,
, ,
,
, .
, -
, ,
.
. -
. ,
, , (.) -
. . -
. ,
, -
.
,
, ,
, .
.., -
, -
, ,
, (
2000: 191). , .,
, .,
- :
92
.
- , -
.
,
. .
- ,

. : , ,
- ( - ..)
. ,

- , , -
, - , ,
; ,
, , , ,
, , - , -
. , , -
( 1993: 313-314).
-
(-).
,
, -
. - ,
: , ,
, .
, -
, .
, -
. -
, -
.
. ,
. , ,
( ), -
.

. , .
, , (-
, 1702). . :
( ) ,
-
( 1994:174-175).
, (-
) ,

93
, , , ,
, ,
, ( - ..)
( 1994: 305-306).
-
.
, , , -
. ( -
XIX , -, ) -
.
( ), .
,
, .
. , -
,
, , ( 1993:
158). (
1993: 384).
-
, ,

( ) ( 1927, Kretshmer 1956, 1991).
-
, ,
. ( )
, , .
() ,
, .
- , ,
, , -
.
- (, ) ( - ..) (
2000:193).
, -
, , , -
, (,
-, , ) . ,
-
.
,
-
,
, .

- :
94
. -
, -

.
-
, -
. , , -
, , -
( -
1850- , , ..),
,
, ,
.
.,
-
, -
, .
, ,
, -
, .
-
, ,
( ),
, , -
, .
-
,
-
.
, -
,
,
.
() -
7
-
, .
XIX ,
, .
, ( -
)
, 1840-1895 , -
XIX ,

8
. , ,
,

95
.
: -
. . .

, , -
. ,
, -
1820- .
9
, ,
,
.
:
,
( ,

<>) ( 1986: 284).
:
<> , 1829 -
, <> 775-. <> , -
, ,
, . . (
- ..)
, -
( 1947:49-50). -
( ) .
-,
, - ,
, , -
.
-
(-
), , -
.
. .
. ,
. -
.
, , -
,
10
,
, , -
-
. ,
, , .
- :
96
.
. .
, -
,
.
(
), -,
, (
) ..

11
. ,

,
12
, .

. , -
.
-,
, -,
- ,
, . -
, ,
( 2000: 132).
,
, -
, -
. ,
,

.
1840-
(., ., ), -
(., ., .) . -
, ,
, -
.
. , -
, , ,
.
.

.
, XIX .,

, .. ,

97
( ) , .
-

, ,
, , .
, -
. , -
(
2008).

, -
, , -
.
, ,
XIX ,
-
. , -

. , ( -
-, -), .
-
, . -
.
.
-
(
), -

13
.
, , -
, . , , ,
, ,
. ,
(, , )
( , ; , -
; ,
). , ,
.
, ,
. , -
, , ,
, , ,
. -
-
. ,
- :
98
. ,
, .
,
,
, , ,
( , ,
, - , -
). . -
,
(, ).
, -
.
. ( ) . (
, ), -
,
, (, , -
, , ) -
.
, ,
, -
. ,
, .
, . ,

( ,
,
, ). -
, ,
.
, ,
, -, ,
, -
. , , -
XIX , .
, (: -
, .).
, ( , -
, )
, , ,
, , ,
.
( , -
), ,
(. ). ,

99
, , ,
- ( 2002:45).
?
-
1860- ? ( -
) XIX ? -
, :
.
, .

.
, -
XIX-XX .
, :
XIX
, , .
, -

, -
, .
, 1960- , -
,

. , ,

-
.
,
, , -
, , -,
: . -

, ,
(.),
, XVIII - 1970-
.
,
. -
, ,
. , -
, -
, , -
, -
, I. -.
- :
100
-
. -
.
XIV
,
, -
, (.). -
, -
(., )
, , -
(
.).
,
-.
,
.
,
1812 . , ,
, , -
,
1813 .
, , -
, . ,
: , -
,
. , ,
( 2001: 389). -
, , -
.

: ,
( , ),
(
), ( -
).
( ).

.

. -
,
,
, , , , ,
: ... / , ,/

101
?.

, , ., : -
; , ,
, .
[. 1884:33].
, -
-. - ,
, , , .
, ( )

.
1. 19.VI(1.VII).1813 ( 18 (30).VI.1812), -
8(20).III.1887, . , XIX .
2. . (1857).
3. 1840-1895 . :
, , -
. -
, ( 1972:6).
4. , -
: ,
, // ().
: // -
() ( 1980: 432).
,
.
5. XIX . -
(. , . , . , . ), , ,
. . , .
. , . , .. . ,
-
. , , , ,

. .
- -
(, , -
..) .
, -
; ,
, , -
. . ( ,
, -), .
- -
- , , -
:
- :
102
, . ,
-, ,
. , ,
, -
. -
, ,
, .
,
, . , -
, ( 1967: 705).
6. .
( , )
( ). , -
1812 (, , ,
).
I.
7. - . , -
.
, ( :
2002: 194).
8. XIX .
( 1991; 1994), , ,
.
9. , ,
: (), ( )
, -, -
, , , ; -,
- .
: : -
( ) ( ) ( 1976).
:
- ( ),
(),
(-),
(, , . ),
(),
: - (),
(, ),
( 1962).
:
,
,
,
(, ., ),
( 1982).
, . ,
, . , -
. -
: , , , ,
- , , (

103
1972: 46). , -
, ,
, ( 1959: 3010.
.. ,
. -
.
0. ,
( , -
), -
, -
- ( 1981: 269).
1. ., , ( 1988), -
, .
2. , ,
,
, . ,
, <> <> (-
1981: 237).
3. , .. -
. , . -
, -
: : ,
, . , , -
, - ! :
: , , -
, - . , : -
, . ; -
: , , - ,
- (-
1876:267-268). -
, , .
:
Annenkov, Pavel. Vospominanija I kriticheskie ocherki. SPb: izdatelstvo Sankt-Peterburg, Tip Stasju-
levicha, 1879, t.2 (... . .,
-, . 1879. . 2).
Bleiler, Eigen. Autisticheskoe myshlenie, Odessa, izdatelstvo Medgiz, 1927 ( . -
. , , 1927.
Borev, Juriy. Estetika. Moskva, Dysshaja shkola, 2002 http://independent-academy.net/science/li-
brary/borev_estetika/index.html (, .. : /.. . .:
, 2002. 511 . ISBN 5-06-004105-0 http://independent-academy.net/science/library/borev_
estetika/index.html)
Burno, M. Trudnyj xarakter I pjanstvo. Kiev, Visha shkola. 1991 ( . .
. , 1991).
Bychkov, V. Estetka. Moskva, Gardariki, 2008 http://www.erlib.com/_//1/
(...., , 2008 http://www.erlib.com/_//1/)
Vayl, P. Genis, A. Rodnaja rech. Moskva, 1991 ( ., . . ., 1991).
Greimas, A. Dogovor veridikacii//Jazik. Nauka. Filosofja. Vilnjus, 1986 ( . -
- :
104
// . . . , 1986).
Grigorovitch, D. Poln. sobr. sotch. T.12. Moskva, 1876 ( .. . .
.,.12,, 1876)
Gukovskiy, G. A. Realizm Gogoglja. Moskva-Leningrad, Academia, 1967 (, ..
. -, Academia, 1967).
Dal, B. Tolkovyj slovar ivago velikorusskogo jazika. V 4-x tt. T. .IV , izdatelstvo S-Peterburg M.O.
Volfa, 1882 (. . . 4- . .IV. . .-
... 1882).
irmundskaja, T.A. Ot barokko k romantizmu. SPb, Academia, 2001( ..
. - , 2001).
Zolja, Emil. Eksperimentalnyj roman//Istorija estetiki. Pamjatniki mjrovoj estetitcheskoj misli.
T.3. Moskva. 1967 ( . // . -
. . 3. ., 1967).
Ingarten, R. Issledovanija po estetike. Moskva, Inostrannaja literatura, 1962 ( .
. ., , 1962).
Kant, Immanuil. Kritika tchistogo razuma. Moskva, Misl. 1994 ( . -
. ., , 1994).
Kretschmer E. Geniale Menschen. ., 1956.
Kuprijanova, E.N. A.S.Pushkin. - Istorija russkoj literaturi. V 4-x tt. T.2. Ot sentimentalizma k realizmu.
Leningrad, Nauka, 1981 ( .. ... . 4-
. .2. . .: , 1981).
Istorija estetiki. Pamjatniki mjrovoj estetitcheskoj misli. V/10 tt. T.5. 2002 ( .
. 10. . 5. 2002).
Literaturnie manifestj zapadnoevropejskix klassicistov. Moskva. Inostrannaja literatura, 1980
( . ., ,
1980).
lotmah, Jurij. Xudoestvennaja struktura Evgenija Onegina// UZ, Tartusskij universitet, 184,
1966 (, .. //, 184, 1966).
Maimin, E. O russkom romantizme. Moskva, Visshaja shkola, 1982 (, .
., , 1982).
Mann, Jurij. Poetika russkogo romantizma. Moskva-Leningrad, AN SSSR, Nauka, 1976 (.,
. . -. . , 1976).
Marks. K., Engels, F. Polnoe sobr. cotch. V 55 tt. T.37. Moskva, Goslitizdat, 1955 ( .,
. .. 55 . . 37. .: , 1955).
Megrelishvili, Tatiana. Antinomii Mikhaila Lermontova. Tbilisi, izdatelstvo Tbilisskogo universiteta,
2000 ( .. . ,
, 2000).
Nemirovskij, I.V. Bibl;ejskie alljuzii v Mednom vsadnike Pushkina// Russkaja l;iteratura, 1988:5
( . . // , 1988:5).
Platon. Sobranie sotchinenij. V 4 t. T.2. Moskva, Misl (. . 4 . - .
2. - ., ,1993).
Pospelov, G.N. Istorija russkoj literaturj I veka. Moskva, vjsshaja shkola, 1972 (, . .
I .: , 1972).
Pushkin, A.S. Sobr. cotch. V trex tomax. T.2. Moskva, Xudlit, 1986 (, . .
. .2. .: ., 1986).
Pushkin, A.S. Sobr. cotch. V 12 tt. T.8. Moskva-Leningrad, Academia, 1947 (, .. .
. . 12- . .8 ., Academia, 1947).
Razvitie russkogo realizma (v trex tomax). .II Moskva, Nauka, 1972 (
( ). .II. .: , 1972).
Rudnev V.P. Protch ot realnosti: issledovanija po f ilosof ii teksta. II. Moskva, Agraf, 2000 (-

105
.. : . II. - .: , 2000. - 432 .)
Rutchko, S. Psoxologitcheskie arxetipj v Mertmjx gushax Gogolja// Topos 02/06/06 http://topos.
ru/article/4719 (, . . // ,
02/06/06.: http://topos.ru/article/4719).
Annenkov, Pavel. ZametkI o russkoj literature 1848 g. // Sovremennik 1849:1 (,
.. 1848 // , 1849:1).
Solovev, Vladimir. Tri retchj v pamjat Dostoevskogo. Moskva. 1884 ( .
. ., 1884).
Slovar inostrannjx slov. Izdanie 13-e, st. Moskva, Russkij jazjk, 1986 ( .
- 13-, . .: . 1986).
Smirnov, I.P. Psixodiaxronika: Psixoistorija russkoj literaturi ot romantizma do nashix dnej.
Moskva, NLO, 1994 (, . . : -
. , 1994).
Turgenev, Ivan S. Sobranie cotch. T. XII, Moskva, Xudlit, 1959 (, .. . .
XII. - . ., 1959).
Foxt, W. Spornje voprosj razvitija romantizma v russkoj literature XIX veka. Vezdunarodnij sezd
slavistov: materialj diskussii. T.1 Problemj slavjanskogo lteraturovedenija, folkloristikI,
stilistiki. Leningrad, izdatelstvo AN SSSR, 1962 (, .. -
XIX . : -
. . 1. , . , -
, 1962).
Cheidegger, M. Evropejskij nigilizm// Vremja I bitie. Moskva, Entrada. 1993 ( . -
. // . ., Entrada 1993).
Cheidegger, M. Hegel i greki//Vremja I bitie. Moskva, Entrada. 1993 (M .
. // . ., Entrada 1993).
Jakobson, Roman. O xudozestvennom realizme// Xrestomatija po teoretitcheskomu literatu-
rovedeniju/ Sost. Tchernov I. Tartu, 1976 (, .. // -
/ . . . , 1976).
Tatiana Megrelishvili
(Georgia)
Realism in a historical-literary row of Russian culture:
movement within a modernity paradigm
Summary
Key words: realism, russian culture, modernism
At a modern literary discourse with reference to a historical-literary number of
Russian literature there are some of the most known defnitions of the term realism [Ya-
kobson 1976: 66; Gukovsky 1967; Lotman 1966]. However these defnitions cant be con-
sidered universal and need resolute reconsideration, hardly only we will touch creativity
of such literary artists in Russian literature of the XIX century, as I. Turgenev, N. Gogol,
A. Pushkin, L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoyevsky and many others.
One of axiomatically known defnitions of realism as arts where typical is repre-
sented in typical circumstances, also at all doesnt allow is high-grade to describe many
- :
106
literary works of Russian literary classics of the XIX century just because her heroes arent
always typical in a direct sense of this lexeme in modern Russian. The psychologism of
Russian literature, its special sign in world culture, demands more profound judgment
of characters, than what is possible (and that not always) within category of the typical.
Yu.Lotman, considering a role of authors installations of a narration in the course
of defnition of a method of a work of art, achieves magnifcent result, especially that in
its work that case texts which it is traditionally considered to be realistic [Rudnev 2000
ekstensionally isnt outlined: 191]. However its defnition also not universally and also
doesnt answer very many questions.
It turns out that the huge layer of Russian literature of the XIX century, traditionally
designated by the term critical realism, remains a subject of scientifc discussion. Some-
how to understand in the circumstances, it is necessary to address frst of all to semantic
flling of the concept realism. And here it is found out that during different historical and
cultural eras it is concept possessed the various contents. Having arisen at the beginning
of the Middle Ages, this defnition initially belonged generally to philosophy, gradually
the internal contents. Addressing today to semantic flling of the concept realism, we
fnd such signifcant historical and cultural oppositions, as realism nominalism, real-
ism idealism, realistic consciousness unreal (romantic, modernist) consciousness. It
is obvious that in attempt of unifcation of these oppositions in the complete module we
will receive opposition of two types of thinking rationalistic and romantic. The ratio-
nalistic will be understood as such type of human consciousness which uses as the main
construction material world outlook concept sphere realistic concepts, at the same time the
romantic type of consciousness operates with romantic concepts, ideas.
All these components are universal and treat area of philosophical knowledge of
reality an individual or to the psychology sphere. Literature learns reality in artistic imag-
es, and blindly to transfer philosophical categories real and ideal to literary criticism
for defnition of accessory of the artist to this or that school without a role of the esthetic
concept of this or that author hardly costs. These nominations of the term fnally confuse a
situation with literary defnitions in that their option which offers literary criticism. Most
likely, tendency to excessive socialization of art, sometimes to the detriment of its esthetic
importance, understanding of idea as the phenomenon which is exclusively belonging
to the sphere social (idea of democrats in Russian public life of the period of the 1850th
years, ideas of populists, ideas of Marxists etc.) played with literary criticism, in particular
with history of Russian literature and its theoretical judgment, at a certain stage of de-
velopment a malicious joke, and much of the sphere esthetic and spiritual was excessive
made a part of politic a certain stage of development of scientifc knowledge.
Assuming that only consideration of Russian cultural (including literary) process
can help in its movement in clearing of understanding of an essence of the processes
occurring in Russian literature in 1840-1895 years, it is necessary to address directly to
Russian literature of the XIX century which subsoil contains the answer on raised the
question. A way passed by Russian literature from Eugeny Onegin to novels of the XX
century, the analysis of such components defning it as narrative structure, ideological full-
ness, the relations in modus form contents, leads to a conclusion: the concept realism
is in many respects artifcial. It not absolutely successfully marks a certain component

107
of one of the central paradigms of development of world culture, in our case of Russian
culture as its integral part, namely a component of episteme modernity (M. Epstein, 1996)
where the modernity is understood as the cultural era epistemological uniting culture of
the XVIII century - the 1970th years.
Developing since the XIV century in Russian literature interest to the personality
in general, to an inner world of heroes in Russian classicism acts on the foreground, at the
same time interest to individual expressiveness of art style, an idiolect of the writer (G.
Derzhavin). The understanding of the extra class importance of the person, civil activity
(see, for example Fonvizins Greenhorn) as the main way of self-realization of the per-
sonality living in imperial society, an accentuation of social contradictions of the Russian
reality (Travel from Petersburg to Moscow of A.Radishchev) became a distinctive sign
of Russian classicism. The protest against slavery wild sounds in the ode Liberty
at Pushkin, at the same time in hope to destroy this slavery in Russian literature poets-
Decembrists raise the voice.
Russian literary romanticism is represented not reaction to classicism, at all re-
action to a literary aspect of life. Russian romanticism grew from burning feeling of shame
for the Russian reality which was tested by society after events of 1812. The nation which
has won Napoleon, appeared in the face of the internal enemy whom the old feudal
orders especially ugly looking against the European life with which all participants of the
European campaign of Russian army of 1813 could get acquainted were. Contempt for
gray mediocrity, dirt of terrestrial life, greedy melancholy for other life as Belinsky
wrote from here was born. From here belief in the dream world, melancholy for harmony
of the person and nature: The person in the concept of romantics isnt allocated from the
nature, doesnt resist to it as something independent and self-valuable, and is integrally
included in it as an integral part. The threads connecting it to the nature, are diverse and
arent always open for our consciousness [Zhirmunsky 2001:389]. At the same time Rus-
sian romanticism is impregnated with a civil tendency, thirst of a feat, the heroic beginning
or melancholy for it during era without a hero - a post- Decembrists era.
Further movement of Russian literature to a modernism was characterized by in-
crease of the same tendencies: interest to the personality, its inner world (of Tolstoy peo-
ple, as the rivers), to accruing contradictions of public life (a categorical imperative
Dostoevsky All benefts of the world dont cost a tear of one child), passionate belief
in existence of other life (Chekhovian the sky in diamonds). Russian modernism it is
declarative proclaimed other reality possible (And impossible it is possible at A.Blok).
At the same time literature on all extent of the development during the specifed
period of a modernity conceptually designated the central component. This component
expression of a national picture of the world in conceptually signifcant artistic images.
Russian literature brought in this stage of development of art consciousness a huge con-
tribution the image of the hero disinterested, aspiring to construct life on spiritual bases
because if these bases arent present, to the hero of this kind, as, for example, to Pushkin
Evgeny, and life isnt lovely: ... or all ours / And life anything, how dream empty, / Sneer
of the sky at the earth?.
Thus, development of Russian literature during an era of a modernity occurred in
modus classicism modernism. Such esthetic-art concepts as classicism, sentimentalism,
romanticism, became components of it . Literature, which can be designated the
- :
108
term realism (critical realism), it should be read within the same modus and episteme
modernity as one of its components.
At the same time literature on all extent of the development during the specifed
period of a modernity conceptually designated the central component. This component
expression of a national picture of the world in conceptually signifcant artistic images.
Russian literature brought in this stage of development of art consciousness a huge con-
tribution the image of the hero disinterested, aspiring to construct life on spiritual bases
because if these bases arent present, to the hero of this kind, as, for example, to Pushkin
Evgeny, and life isnt lovely: ... or all ours / And life anything, how dream empty, / Sneer
of the sky at the earth?.
Thus, development of Russian literature during an era of a modernity occurred in
classicism modernism. Such esthetic-art concepts as classicism, sentimentalism,
romanticism, became components of it modus. Literature, which can be designated the
term realism (critical realism), it should be read within the same modus and episteme
modernity as one of its components.
_:_o:b: o_r_goJgogo
(|:_:rog_go)
r_:go1oo r_|_go __g__ro| o|_oro_g-go__r:__r_go
_gog__oo| grogJo
(:bgoo:r_: oo__rb_goo| o:r:_ooo| b:rbo_Jo)
r_1o_o_
|:_g:boo |o__g_o: r_:go1oo, r_|_go __g__r:, oo__rbo1oo
oo_b__:g:_ ooo|:, roo r_|_g_bog:b |:o__bo_ro _o|__r|Jo __roob
,r_:go1oo|" :r:_roo :bo:r__: :r|_o|, oo|o _obo__ro _: |_o:b_o__ro
:|o____o ___o__ |r_g_o_og:_ :r :ro| :b|:1_gr_go. :b|bg:g__g
og:g|:1ro|o: Joro| J_oog_: :oog_oo r.o:_o|obo| (r.o:_o|obo. ob:_-
gr_g r_:go1o1_. !76), .:.__og|_o| (.:.__og|_o, o_J_obo _: r_:go|__ro
|_ogo| orog_o_o. !57), o.o.go_o:bo| (o.o.go_o:bo __g__ro| _ooogoo-
_ro _gg_go|ogo|. !67) ___obo_o_o. _og_go o:o:bo, :bbog_go o:oo _oo_o|
o__bo_r_go _o|__r|1_ __b__o_ro _:oo_o___g_o| _ob___|_Jo, _b:__o_|
:o :b|:1_gr_:o: |_o___o| bob::_o__orog b:|o:o|.
o_ ,r_:go1oo|" _b_:| |_o:b_o__ro oboJgb_gooo J_g:g|_o, :_oog:-
b_bo o|_o |_o:b_o__r ooo1o_o_|, roor_o_::: r_:go1oo - booob:go1oo,
r_go1oo - o__:go1oo (g.r__b_go, 2006), r_:go|__ro :1rogb_: - :r:r_-
:go|__ro (:__o|_o__ro) :1rogb_: (g_o_ro !27, Kretshmer 1956, _rbo
!!). _b_rogo:, :o booob:_o_| :r|__g |o__:_o:Jo |o_b:__ g_r J_:_g|.
o__o _:g_Jg_o, roo obogo_ XlX |:___bo| r_|_go __g__ro| (o:|-
o:b _ro:_ go__r:__ro|) :bgoo:r_o| oro__|1_ _:_gorg_: _:g_bo:r_:

109
r_:go1oo| :r|o| :_:Jo, o:Job _oro:bo: og:go oog:o_roo :o _oo_o| r_|_g
go__r:__r:|, roogo| bo:_Jo_ |:_gg__go: _:|o_g _oobg:1_ _ob_r_-
__go o:|_bo| oogb: (XlX |:___bo| r_|_go go__r:__ro| J_|:b_ :g__rb:-
_o_go _ob____o_o ob. r_| _oor:b_o: bob_Jo (g:og-_bo|o !!, |oorbogo
!4), roog_Jo_, |bg:o: Joro|, :r b__: __roob r_:go1oo| :_::1r_:).
1:|, roo_go_ r_|_go: go__r:__r:o :o:r: _g_bo ob_obo_:b XX
|:___bo| roo:b_:o__ _: oo|o :bo|:1_gr_go _oooob_b__o| (b:r:_o_go
|_r____r:, o___ro oogo:bo:, _:oo_o___g_: oo__|o:b ,_oro:-Job::r-
|o") :b:go1| oog_:g:ro oo _:|_gb:o__, roo _b_: r_:go1oo, :r_g__gbog:_,
b_gogb_ro:. o| :r_o_ o|_ _:r:_ :oo_g_o| o|o_goo __g__ro| (bg_b|
J_oobg_g:Jo r_|_go __g__ro|) :bgoo:r_o| oo:g:ro o:r:_ooo| :r_g__g
J_o:__b_g b:bog|, __ro _ob_r___g:_, oo__rb_goo| _oo|o_oo| J_o:_-
_b_g b:bog| (o._oJ__obo, !66), |:_:_ oo__rb_go: :__go: roor_
__g__r_go _oo_:, roo_go_ _oo|o_oogoo_r:_ :_roo:b_| __g__r:| Xvlll
|:___bo_:b oo_og__go XX |:___bo| 70-o:b bg_:o__.
:o o_roo_Jo r_|_go: __g__r:o, o:|o:b _ro:_ _o go__r:__r:o, :b-
ggo |:_o:o_ ro_go 1: _g:|o_o1oo_:b oo__rbo1o:o__. ooroo:_ __:o_:_
:o 1:1_ J_googo: oogobbooo |bg:_:|bg: _|o__o__r-ob:_gr_go ___obo-
_o:, oo| |:o:g_|o:b _o _:| r_|_go _g:|o_o|__ro |_og:, roo_go_ J_|:-
boJb:g:_ _b_r_: _g:|o_o1oo| _groo_g oo__gJo. |:o_:ro| _g:|o_o|__ro
|_r:oo, roo_go_ _grooo_:b J_oogo_:, :oob:_:g_: :bob:og_g_ro :|o-
g___1oo| _ob____o:| _:, oo:g_ro_g:_, oo_ooo__: oo o__:g_r J_|:og_-
go_1_, roog_|:_ :_:oo:b| ob_: |o:g:1o|, o::goo:_, :b:og__go
oob:r_o|, _rog:ro :b:go o__r_ oorg_go|, _:b_1_ :|gg:1_, roo_go_ :-
b:bor_o_g__: :__og__g |o_o:g_r :r_:_ob_|. _og_gog_ 1_ooo_o_go
ooo_:g| |:_oobo| |:1o:_o_rog-_ogo|o_o_r ob:r_|.
__r _o__g Xlv |:___b_Jo r_|_g go__r:__r:Jo :_oor: ob__r_|o, 1o:-
_:_, oorogb_o|:_oo _: o_r|ob:_o| Job::bo |:o_:ro|:_oo, roo_go:_ _g:-
|o_o1oo| _oo_:Jo oorg_g og:b1_ :_ooob:_gg:, oo:g_ro_g:_, :_ro:g_:
ooobogbog_: ob:_gr_go |_ogo| ob_ogo__:g_ro :oob:_go|, ob_rgo| o_o-
og___o| ooo:ro (. __r:gobo). r_|_go _g:|o_o1oo| :bo:|bg:g__g boJb:_
o__: :_:oo:bo| _:boJb_g_o|: _: rogo| :r:bo__rogo :|o___oo J__:|_:,
oo|o oo_:g:__orogo _g:bgo| roor_ ooo_ro_g |:1o:_o_:Jo oorogb_o|
ogoor_:go1_o| oo:g:ro 1o| :oo_g_o: (ob. o::goo:_, _obgo1obo| ob_-
:_obo_:ro), :|_g_ r_|_go r_:goo| |o_o:g_r bob::_o__o:o: :___b-
_or_: (r:_oJb_go| oo1:_ro: o___r_ro_:b oo|_ogJo). oro__|_o ,g_-
g_ro| _:oob_o|" bob::_o__ o|oo| o_J_obo| o_:Jo o:go|__g_:, oo:g_ro-
_g:_, :o ooboo| oo|ooo|:__b bo:| oo:_g__b oo__o-___:ro|__o.
r_|_go go__r:__r_go roo:b_o1oo :r :ro| ,r_:__o: _g:|o_o1o1_",
|:_roo_:_, o| :r J_oog_: :_go_g:o, roor_ r_:__o: _bogr_o| :o: o_ oo
go__r:__r_g ob:r_1_. r_|_go roo:b_o1oo| :_oo__b_: :b:ooro: :r-
|__go |ob:o_gogo| :oo |or_bgogo| J_rob_:o, |or_bgogo|:, roo_go_
r_|_go: |:1o:_o_:o !8!2 bgo| oogg_b_o| J_o__ :bo_:_:. _ro, roo_g-
o:_ b:oog_obo _::o:r_b:, ,Job::bo o_ro|" ooro|oor :_oobb_:. :o J_oob-
g_g:Jo g_go|booo og_g __o_:g_r b_|ro|, roo_go_ :b|:__or_oo o:b-
ob_ :_oob:Jo:_ oob:b_: _groo_go _ogogo1:_oo| _ob1_. :o __:b:|_b_go|
- :
110
J_|:b_ _o b:o_go b:roo__b: J___ob: r_|_oo| :rooo| _groo_go g:J_roo|
_g_g: oob:bog_| !8!3 b_g|. |bor__ _og_gog_ 1_ooo_o_go: b:rooJg:, _-
gob|_o| o_ooo, r_bo ___r_goo|: o_ ,_bogr_o|__go g_g_o|" ooo:ro |o-
o_ggogo|: _:, oo:g_ro_g:_, ,|bg: _bogr_o|:__b" _:_o___go |br:_go|
robo:, r:|:_ J___:_ oo_g: _.b. o_b__o| |:o_:ro| rbo_b: _: :_:oo:bo|:
_: _b_:| Joro| :rooboo| _:o_:r_o| |_g_o:bo oogo_obo. oo:g_ro_g:_,
r_|_go roo:b_o1oo :__boogo: oo_:g:__orogo __b__b_o_oo, ooro-
o| b__rgogoo, _roo__go |:b_o|oo :b oo|_:oo bo|_:gooo :b|:__or_oo
oo|____:ro1oo| _ooro _oo_:Jo.
r_|_go go__r:__ro| J_o_ooo :bgoo:r_: oo__rbo1oo|:__b |bor__
1_ooooo_:bog __b__b_o:o: :ogo_r_oo b:|o:o__:. _|_bo:: oorogb_o|:_-
oo _: oo|o Job::bo |:o_:ro|:_oo ob__r_|o (_og|_oo| ,:_:oo:b_o, roor_
o_ob:r__o"), |:1o:_o_rogo _bogr_o| bob::_o__o:o: 1r_: (_o|_o_g-
|_o|__go ,_:__oro_go ooo_r:_ogo" - ,|:o_:ro| _og_gg:ro __oog___o:
_roo :gJgo| _r_og:_:_ :r _or|"), oo_o: r_:goo| :r|_oo| _ro: rbo_b:
(b_bogo| ,:go:|_o:bo _:"). r_|_go: oo__rbo1oo: ___g:ror__g:_ :oo:_b-
:_: |bg: r_:goo| :r|_oo| J_|:og_go: (,J__og__go_ _o J_|:og__go:").
oo:g_ro_g:_, oo__rbo1oo| o_roo_o| go__r:__r:Jo o_:_oo_ :ro|
___obo_or__go :o go__r:__ro| J_o:__b_go oo:g:ro _oooob_b_o| r:o:
- _|:: |:o_:ro| b:_oob:g_ro |_r:oo| :oob:_g: _ob__o__:g_r:_ oboJ-
gb_gog:bo ob:_gr_go |:b__o| o_Jg_ooo. r_|_go: go__r:__r:o ob:_-
gr_go :1rogb_o| :bgoo:r_o| :o __:o1_ __o__|o bggogo J_o_:b: |bor__
_:b:ro ooro| bg_b_oo, ooro|:, roo_go_ o|br:_go|, ooo:g:go _bogr_:
|_go_r_:1_ _::__obo|, gob:o_:b, o_ _| |:__og_go :r o_b_:, o|:g|o _ooo|
oor|, o::goo:_ rooro_ o_J_obo| _g_bo:, _bogr_: :r:_ __or|".
r_|_go go__r:__ro| :oo_:b: oo|o :bgoo:r_o| :b|:bogg_g __:o1_
:b|:__or_oo o_:_oo_ g. |ogogoogo: :b|:1_gr:: ,_oobg:|: ,r: g:__ooo" :r:
:_g| :1ro, r_|_oo| _:boJb_g_: o| _o :r :ro|, roo _| orog_o: :_:b_go_o|,
:r:o__ ooogo| 1_o _ro| oor:g_ro :_:b|:__o|__b. _o|_o_g|_oo _rog:r:_
oob:1: _| 1:, ro__|:_ oorbog_o|:__b oogoooo:" (|ogogoogo !884: 33).
:oro:_, r_|_go go__r:__ro| :bgoo:r_: oo__rbo1oo| _oo_:Jo
ooo_ob:r_o_: oo__|oo ,_g:|o_o1oo - oo__rbo1oo". oog:ro _|o__o__r-
ob:_gr_go _ob____o_o, roor_o_:: _g:|o_o1oo, |_b_oo_b_:go1oo, ro-
o:b_o1oo, |bor__ :o oo__|_o| J_o:__b_g b:bog_:_ o__:. go__r:__r: _o,
roo_go_ :bo|:1_gr: __rooboo ,r_:go1oo" (,_ro_o__go r_:go1oo") _b_:
o_b:| b:_oob_go oo__rb_goo| o|:g|o oo__|_o| _oo|o_oo| b:rbo_Jo,
bogo |:_:ro r_:go1o1_ roor_ r_|_go go__r:__ro| _:oo__o___g oo-
o:ro_g_:1_, oo1:bJ_bobogo :r :ro|.
o:go|o:g:_ __roobo ,r_:go1oo|" :oo__b_: r_|_go go__r:__ro| oo-
o:ro o_J_obo_:b oo_og__go oo_go XlX |:___bo| o:boog1_, g_o_roo, __ro
ob_r_ooo:: :oobg__go. o:b:o__rog_ o__bo_r_go :1rogb_:, roo_go_ o:-
go|o o_oo_ogoo_ro oo__oo o_g_o_o|_oogob:r_goo| ooo:ro_g_oo
_: go__r:__r_go oro__|_o| __g__rogoo_ro _: _ooo:r:_ogo|__go
b__go| 1oo ooob_g| bob, |_g __ro ___o robo| __roob ,r_:go1oo|" :oo__-
b_o| b_gogb_ro:|, gob:o_:b :_boJb_g __roob| :_go: _ob_r___go:, r:_
__roobo|ogo| o:g1_ oboJgb_gog:bo:.

111
iuri lotmani
oo___ro ___|_o| :b:go1o
oo___ro _obog_o| g__|o__ro _ob_

g__|o |o__g_o|:b J___:. _roo J_b__goo, :r:__ro: :o g_Jo:ro__-
:1_ og:g|:bobo, o:r:o o:b o:ob_ J_oog_:, b:rooJg:| :r_g__go :__-
ro_o. g__|Jo :oo__b__go |o__g: - _|:: _b_rogo _bo| |o__g:, :b_ g__-
|o__ro _ro__go, roo_g|:_ g__|o_obJo oogo_boo. :o:|o:b, o| ogoo oog_o-
rogo ro_o:. |bor__ oo__o_go _bo| |:g__|o_obo |o__g:|o:b oo|o o|:g|_-
o| :b o:bbg__ro| b_:gooo g:obb_go :b|bg:g_:| _r-oo_ro:oo_b_g _:
J_ooro|oor__g _ro__g_| (1o:__borog |o__g:|: _: |:g__|o |o__g:|)
Joro|.
oo___ro ___|_o |::b_o_ or:bo1__go _b::. _| _b: b:b_gr__:
g__|o__r _ro__g_:_. :o__b:_, _:bob1ooo_ro: oo|o :oog_: _b_rogo
_bo| |o__g_o:b, gob:o_:b :o 1oo bor_o_g__: _g_g:1_ o:r_ogo _: _b_ro-
go _:b:b_gr_: boJb:_ |_o_b__:_. o:r:o :_ o:g| ob_b| :r_g__go |oob_g__o.
1oo_ro _b:Jo - r_|_gJo, _|_ob_rJo :b b_b_rJo - g__|o ___|_o| |:boo
b:roogo__b| obogo_ oo__o_go _bo| g__|o__ro _g_o_b__o| b:bog|. :oo-
__b__go |o__g_o :_roo:b__go: __ro gr__g |o|__o:Jo.
o_ oo__o_g oo___r ___|_| :bgobog:go, roor_ |::b_o_ or-
:bo1__g _b:|, o:Job _| __:b:|_b_go o:|Jo oogo:b:_ o_b_: r_:go1__go.
o|, r:_ b:roo:__b_: |o|__oo| b:bog|, :_ b:roogo__:, roor_ |r_go
|o|__o:.
*
_| :r_oo_: o:g1_ :r|_ooo:. _og_gg:ro __g__ro| _b:| (roor_
oo__go_ob_g |o|__o:|) _bog_r|:g_roo| or___b1o: :_g|.
o| ooo|br:_o|, ooo_g:| oo_go |:o_:ro _: :__og__| o:|. b__: o|__,
roo r_:goo| :o: o_ oo b:bog| _| |o|__o: :r ooo_:g| (o::goo:_, _g:|o-
_o1oo| o:_:go oo_1oo| |:o_:roJo :r oob:bog_o| ,_::go _b_:" :b ,_::go
g__|o_:"), :|_o J_oobg_g:Jo o| _:r_o_| r_:goo| :o :|o____o| :r|_o:|.
:og:r:_ _:go__: oo__o_go __g__ro| _:o:b:|o:o__go |o|__o:
_b:-oo__g_o|:, roog_o_ _rooo_oro| ooo:ro o1ooor__go:, o|obo _roo:bo
oo___o| - oo_go |:o_:ro| _roo_ro:b|bg:g__g oo__g_| b:roo:__b|.
:o :_oo, g__|o, roor_ _roo:bo _b:, _o|:g|_: oo_g _b_rog _b:|
_: :r: oo| b:bog|. __g_ o| _:__o, roo :o _bo| |o__g:o: r:o__bo: r:o__boo_
:o__go :b :|__go: (_: :r: :|__g :o:|ooo |o__g:), 1_:gg_b:| :b__b| ___-
|_o| boJb:_o |_o_b_o| - |o__go| bob:1_. 1o:__borog ___|_Jo :oo__b_-
* |:_oob| J_b__g:_ g:o:r_og_o, |ob:o_gog_Jo g__|o| ___|_o J_oog_: b:roogo_o-
boo, roor_ _b:o: oo_go roo| (o_r:r_oo|) r_:go1:_o:. _|_bo:: ,r_|_go _b:", ,oo__o_go
_oo_o| r_|_go go__r:__r_go _b:", ,oo__o_go oo__o| J_oo_o___:", ,oo___ro _o_go,
roor_ _roo:bo |o|__o:", ,g__|o, roor_ b:___ogo oo___ro |:o_:ro". oooo__go :o-
g:ro |o|__o: ___|_Jo :b|bg:g__g:_ r_:go1__:. |bg:_:|bg:g:ro: |o|__oo| _ob1_ oo|o
J__:r__ooo |o_o___.
go__r:__ro|o_o_b_oo| _r_|_oo:oo:
112
_g |o__g:|o:b J__:r_oo |:g__|o |o__g: __ro ,o|bgogo:". :_gogo J_-
|:obb_go:, roo g:oo_:r_g ___|_Jo |o__g: oog:gro: _: _bog_r|_oo| gr__g
b:bog| :_boJb:g|.
:o: o_ oo b:b:roo_o| g__|o_obo| J___bo|:| b:roogo__: oo:bgo-
_ooo _ob__r_o ooo|:, r:_ :g_oro| og:g|:1ro|oo, |:o_:ro| J_:__b|.
_o_b_g___ro: _ro-_ro g__|Jo :ooo__b: :ooo_o::
?
o_J_obo: o_g_ oo:b_r: ,,?
r:_oo g_r J_:obbo: _o_b_g___ro: :o _:_oo| _ooo__ro _____o, ro-o_go_
o_J_obo: o_o|g_ J_boJb:? |:_o_ o|::, roo ,_og_o" (,") :r oob:bog_o_:
_o_b_g___ro| oo___r |:o_:roJo _: :r_ oo _o:_g_| r_:go:Jo, roo_go_
oo|__go oo__go| ooo:ro :r_|o|__o_r oo__o_go:_ :_o_o_o_: _:, _o:_-
g_|o :_oo, :r_ :r|_o_:.
o_J_obo| oo_1oo| g__|o_:Jo :o _ro__ro_oo| oo_go oo:bgo_oooo| oo_b_-
_:g:_, ggob__: |:o_:ro| |bg:g:ro oo__go:
,
,

. . .
(,_g_bo ob_obo")
:oo_oo _o_b_g___ro| |o|__oo| _rooboJgb_gog:b _:_o_| o_J_obo :_o_-
g:o_:, roor_ or:1rog:b _r:1_|.
_b:_o:, oo__o_go oo___ro ___|_o| g__|o_obo J__|::o_: oo| _bog_r-
|_o|, bogo g__|o_obo| J_o:__b_go |o__g_o :g|__b :o _bog_r|_o|. o:oo
_roo_roooo:ro_: :_o_o_:, roor_ |:o_:ro| |_r____r:.
:og:r:_, oo___r |:o_:ro| ::bbo: :r: o:r_o |o__g_o| |:__o:ro b_|b:,
:r:o__ - |oboboo_o|: _: :b_oboo_o| |:__o:ro |o|__o:_. :|_, o::goo:_,
,|o_g:r_go" :r_g__g ___|__Jo g_ggob_:, roor_ |o_o_bgo| |obobooo,
|bg_Jo _o ,|o_g_og|" _o:b:r__:. ,___" _: ,_:o_", ,|o_o_bg_" _: ,|o_g_o-
go" oo___r ___|_Jo J_oog_: |oboboo_r oboJgb_go_| :oob:_:g__| _:,
ooro_oo, _roo _: oog_ |o__g: oo_1o:Jo J_oog_:, :r __ro__| |:__o:r o:g|
:b |:__o:ro o:go| :b_oboo:_:_ _o oog_ggobo|:
, . . .
. . .
(o. _g__:_g:)
:o |o__g_| oo___r |_r____r:Jo |::b_o oboJgb_go: _bog_:, o:r:o
o|obo |:g__|o_obo oboJgb_go:|:_ ob:rb_b__b. :o oro _ooo| oboJgb_go:-
o: _ob_go__o ooo __ro oo:_r:_ J_orobo:, roo ___|_Jo o:o J__|::o_:
_roo _: oog_ boJ:bo - oo__o_go |o__g:.
o_ro go_o:bo
113
?
,
;

.

?
(g. o:o:_og|_o)
g__|o| g__|o_obo

_oorg_g_| _oggo|:, :J_:r:: g__|o_obo| booob:_o_ro b:|o:oo. ___|_o|
|:o_:ro :bo|:1_gr_: |o__g_oo. g__|o| oo_go |:b_go: g__|o_: :_gog:_
o_o_: or ___:_: _roJo :g:_roo:b_o Jo:o_g_:oo|, _bg__goo| :_o-
boJgb_g |o__g_| (, , , ), o_or_Jo _o - _o_oo, |:bo-
rog g__|o_:| ( , , ) oooo__go
o:o:bo| oo_o: J_orobo: _r:_o_o_g:_ ::1r__go go__r:__r_go :b_o-
o_1:: ,oo___ro - :r:oo___ro" _:, gob:o_:b ___|_o| _:|:b_o|Jog_ gbg__:
ooo1o_o: , _ " :o _:ooro|oor_o| ob__ror__:_o: ooo_o| :|_ _b_: o_o|:

o:r:o o:o:_og|_o| ___|_o :r:o:r_o g:b|_b_| :o ___|_o| |o__g:o:
|:o_:ro| or:bo1:_oo| |o|__o:|, :r:o__ ::oog_| _o___ o:|.
__r _roo, |:b_g_o| (_b__o|) J_o:_:g__go 1ob_o| oo_go |o|__o:
oo___ro ___|_o| :b:go1o
114
oo_ooo_| :r: oboJgb_go:o: ,_o_ooo" _: ,oo___ro" g_g_o| :oo_b_-
go:1_, :r:o__ :_:|__r_| o:o| _roo:bo:|. 1ob_o :_boJb:g_b _ob_:__|:
, :b ob:_gr_g oo_o___:|: . o:oo o_Jg_ooo ,o_" :obb_g|
oo___r oboJgb_go_| |bor__ _o_ooo oboJgb_go_o| bo:_Jo. ,o__:b_",
roor_ oo_1oo| |ooogo, oob__go: ,g::Jo", bogo ,o_b__o| o_g1o|
_:r_gJo" :ooo_oob_: , " (-| oo__o1oo|: _: _:__ob_r___-
_go _ooo__o| -| 1_:gg_boo ," :_o_o_: :b1o:___go oo___ro
|ooogo| |:boo).
ogo|, ogoo :o _o_:| J_:__b| :r:, _r:go_, |::bo: _oboJgb_go |o-
__g_o, :r:o__ - |:b_o_, roog_o_ b:|_|b_o: b_gogb_o| |bg: _:ro| -
__rb_ro| |:o_:ro_:b. b:b:roo_o| g__|o_obo| _o_ooo b:bogo b:__roor_o|
obg_b_:ro: (_o__g __ro _ob_r___g:_ - _|:: |_1:bo| |_ogo| b:__roor_o).
J_oobg_goo ro_o:, roo _o_: _rb_oo| boob_: __rb_r_go b:|o:oo| 1ob_|:
, . _o_ooo, _|_ oo, bg__g_rogo |:o_:ro - _|:: oro1o|,
r_:goo|: _: __rb_ro| |:o_:ro, bogo _r:_o_o_go oo_1oo| |:o_:ro ooro-
ooo _: _:go:.
-| oo_r :__go |:o_:ro| oo___ro oo__go ___:__| _og_gg:r
-|. :o |_o:b_o__r |o|__o:Jo _: |oboboo_o:, bogo oo_1oo|: _:
oro1:_go _o_o| _:ooro|oor_: oob|bogo:.
b:roooJo: ___|_o| :1rorogo _ro__g_o| or:bo1:_oo| :og:ro
|__o::
o_ o_g_b
Jo:o_g_:o: _b:o|o:
oo_1oo|: _: _o_o| oo_1oo|: _: _o_o|
_roo:bo: _:ooro|oor_:
:og:r:_, o:o:_og|_o| b:b:roo_Jo (oo| g__|o__r _ob_1_) ___|_o| |_-
o:b_o__ro or:bo1:_o: ___ob_: _ob_go__|, _roo obrog, oo__o_g ob_o-
go__:g_r |_r____r:Jo :1rorogo _ro__g_o| or:bo1:_oo| |o|__o:|:
_: (:r_og_ - _b_rog _b:Jo |o__g:o: |_o:b_o__r |_r____r:|:) _:, o_or_
obrog, _r:_o_o_g oo___r oo__g_| Joro|.
o:r:g_go1oo| _b_:

:bo_or_o| rogo| :bboggo|:| _b_: _:g:_ob_r__oo o:r:g_go1oo|
_b_:, roo_go_ :r:_rob_g :bobog_o_: oo__o_o| orob_oo_o:b _:_:g-
Jor_oo. b_gogb_:Jo o:r:g_go1oo| _o:g___o__r _b_:1_ oo_ooo__:
__r _o__g :. b. g_|_gog|_o: ,bg_b :r g:oog_o :_:oo:bo| _bogr_:|: _: _b_-
o| |o_o_bg_|, :r_ g:_:r_o o:o (r:_ _go|boo| J_|:_:r__go |:b_o|
_roo_ro:oo_b_go:|), bg_b o:o J_g:__r_o oo_o___o| boJbo| oob__goo".
:og:r:_, o:r:g_go1oJo, oog_oo|: _: |r_go _roo_ro:oo_b_goo|:b
:b|bg:g_oo, b:1:|o_go: :b:goo:. ogo_roob__go o_gg_g:ro r. :_|-
__rgo|_o o:r:g_go1o| J_o__b:or:_ :b|:1_gr:g|: ,oro |_o_b_o (_:_oo),
o:r:g_g_ro:, o_ o|obo oog_orogo:, :b|bg:g__: obogo_ o:oo _|: o_ o|
o_ro go_o:bo
115
b:bogo, roo_g|:_ :o |_o_b__Jo _::bgo_oo _roo _: oog_ oo1o_o: __:go:".
_: J_o_oo: ,o:r:g_go1oo J_oog_: :bgobogoo, roor_ :r:|r_go :bo_or_:".
o:r:g_go1oo| 1_ooooooo__go ogo|__o J_oog_: :og:r:_ b:-
oog:_:gooo: o:r:g_go1oo b:roo:__b| orb_gr|, roogo| _roo b:bogo
J_oo__b_: :b:goo_ro o_or_ b:bogo| o_Jg_ooo. _| __:b:|_b_go oorg_go
b_gro| oog_orogo :r::, o:r:o :r_ :oo_b_go: oo|:b, o| :b:gooo| o_o-
o:r_o:Jo: - ::bbo: |:_roo boJb_o, __roo_, o|obo, roo_go:_ J_o__b_o|:|
:oog_o_o oorg_g b_grJo.
_| oro b_gro o__b__ro :r::, o:r:o, :r_g__go :_oo, _rog:ro-
g:bo:. :oo_oo oorg_go o:o:bo| J_|:b_ bg_b go|__goo o:r:g_go| o_or_
b_gro| oob__goo. :|_oo:, o::goo:_, o:r:g_go1oo:
, , , ,
, , , . . .
:_ :b:goo_ro: o1o|: _: ooo| oo_o____o (,,, _ ,,,
) _: :o _b__o| oboJgb_go_o. o1_ :_o_o_:, roor_ _boogo _b_:.
-o| oo__go oo|o :b:goooo ob:roo_:. :o:|o:b, gbg__: o:r:g_go1oo|
__ro ro_go boo_J_o_, ro__|:_ orb_gro| orog_ b:bogJo bor_o_g__:
o:oo _roo_rooo__gor_: - oooo__go o:o:bo o_oro| :b:goo_ro:.
, , .
(:. o_J_obo)
oo_g_ 1__|:ro:g_o _: _rob:or |ob_:_|_r oo1o_o:Jo:.
_|:: _rog:rog:bo r:o:_o__go _oro_o. o:o Joro| J_oobb_g: o:r:g_go1-
oo| _:oo_o___g_:, roo_go_ ::J_:r:g_|, roo :g_oro| _boo_r_:Jo :r
b:rooJoog: oro :b|bg:g__go |_go_ro :bb_oog_:. ob:_gr_g ___|_Jo
orog_ b_gro :b:goo_ro: _roo_roo| ooo:ro. _b__o _: J_:_-
_b| _roo_roJ__:r___g ro_g |_r____r:|.
o_, |:_:_ |:_o_ g:_g| |o__g_o|: _: |o__g:oJ_o:bbo__o| _ob_1_
:bbor_o_g__g o:r:g_go1oo:b, |o__g:-oo___|: _: |o__g:-oo__g| Jo-
ro| o_:r__: _roo_go ooo:ro__o. oro _b_o| _roo_ro_:oo_o___g_o|
|:__og_go: |bor__ _r_o bo___go ,:_:_:booo oboJgb_go:". :|_ b:r-
ooo_ob_: ,|:b_oroo:", roo_go_ _r:_o_o_g:_ oo_1oo| ooroo:_ ogo|_-
:_ oogg_:. roor_ b:b|, o| b:roo:__b| J__:r_oo J_1____g |__roJo
__ro 1o:_o _:bob1ooo_r_o| :oogg_bo| __roo J_oobg_g:|. |ob:o_gog_Jo
_b_: :_g_boJb:, roo oo_1o: o|_oo |_r____r::, roogo| _g_g: _g_o_b_o
_roo_roJoro| o:r:g_go1oo| _:oo_o___g_:Jo:. o:J:|:_:o_, o:o __o|r_:
:r_g__go :1rorogo _:_gorog:.
1_ooo_o_go_:b _b_: _:g:|_gb:o, roo ob:_gr_g|: _: :r:ob:_gr_g
|_r____r_| :b:|bg:g_| _o__g _roo :r|_ooo boJ:bo. _b: :ooorb_g: o:_:-
go |og:roo. _roo _: oog_ oboJgb_go_o J_oog_: or:g:gg:r:_ :ooob:-
_o|. ob:_gr_go ___|_o| |_r____r:Jo |og:r_ _::go:. o:rog:_, _bo|-
ogo| :b_rb_g_go: |o__g_o| _rooo _oro:, b_gogb_:Jo _o ogoo |o__go|
oo___ro ___|_o| :b:go1o
116
_| _rooo _oro: o:r:g_go1oo| _:oo_o___g_:Jo: |bg: |o__go| __r:|o:b,
ro| J___:_:_ o:o Joro| o_:r__: :b:gooo| _:oo_o___g_:.
|og:r_ _bo| |:|:r_go _: :__og__go ogo|_::. __roo_, o| _1r_b-
g_g_o_| _bo| o_r:_o:| J___oo:o:, :r_og_ ogoob__ro, |_o____ro :_-
_oo| ooo:ro. oo_1o:Jo |og:ro| _:__oo| J___:_ :__oo| :___g:__ro: :r:-
|o__|:: oo__b:_ _ooroo, roor_ _b:Jo. |:o:o_ro_, oo___ro |_r____r:
|_o:b_o__r:_ :_og_oo o__:_:: :__r__go. o| :oob:_:g| oog:r ro_g
:1rorog |_r____r_|, roog_o_ bg__g_rogo _boo |:_roo_ g_r :_ooo__o:.
_g_o_b__o|: _: :o _g_o_b_o: _ob__o| J_o:_:gJor__go |o|__o:
ob:_gr_g b:b:roo_| :bog_| :r_g__g _:oo__o__go:|. oo| :oo o| b:r-
oogo__:, roor_ ro_go ogoo:bgoo:r_:_o |_r____r:, roo_go_ oboJ-
gb_gogb:_ bob _|br_| :_:oo:bo| oo_r :_:o__ J__obog, ____:gJoro| ogo|_oo
:_g_rgog _g_g: |o|__o:| _:, :r_g__go :_oo, _o|:g|_: _o_b:g or:-
bo1o_|. ob:_gr_go b:b:roo_o ____:gJorJo: :r_oo|o:b _: o_gg_: oo|o
1_:gg_boo. __r _o__g :b_o__ro _roo| _o:g___o_o|_o: o_o_b_b, roo _ro
o_ob:r_Jo or__r g_r J_bg:g, o:b:o__rog_ _o:g___o_o|_|:_ :r :b:_go-
_r_| ___g_: ooo| J_|:b_, roo :o:o:_ b_go g:_g| ,:r: o|" ,_g_bo ob_o-
bo", roo_g|:_ o_bo_b_b oo|o oorg_go o_oobg_g_o _: ogoo :g_oro. o_J_obo|
_oo_o| :r____|_orogo |_r____r_o __g_ :_:r :r|_o|. o:o :_|:__b:_
_b_: g_go__o :r: o:r_o o_J_obo|__g _o_b:| (o|_oro_o|o g:g___go:,
oo_:bgog__| :o _o_b:| _oo_o| ooroo:_o |_r____r_go ooo_b__o| :J___-
o|:|, o:r:o, |:ob_b:ro_, g_r :_:__b| oo o_roo_o| _ob_r___go oogg_b-
_o| _roo_ro:_:o_g_o |_r____r_|), |:goro: :r_og_ _og_gog_ ooo| _:-
gob__:, r:_ __boo o_o o_J_obo|ogo| _: r:_ J_:__b| bg_bo _oo_o| _:o:b:|o-
:o__go ob:_gr_go :__oo| |:__og_g|. _| :oo_:b: :b_bor_o_g__go:.
b_gogb_o| _obog_: b:ro_go: :_o_o_go |_o___o| _boo_r_:Jo.
:o:|o:b, o| oob:bog_o| o|_oroo| oo____r o|gg_go:Jo_. :og:r:_,
|:g|_oo J_|:og__go: ,_g_bo ob_obo|" o_J_obo|__go :__oo| r__ob|_r_-
or_:. o_J_obo| b:b:roo_o| _oobgo|:| g_r _:gogob__o ooo__gbo _oo__o|
o|_oro_g _: go__r:__r_g oogg_b_|, o:r:o |:g|_oo J_|:ogo: o|_oo
_boo_r_o| _ob|_r_or_:, roogo|ogo|:_ _| oogg_b_o __boo:. r: o_o:
_b_:, _| o_b_: oo:bgo_ooo oo__go.
ob:_gr_go b:b:roo_o ____:gJorJo: o:go| ooobo:r__go:b _: :o
_:__|, roor_ b:b|, __:gJor__: b_gogb_o| o|_oo ogo|__o, rooro_::
oo|o _bg__go b:brogogo: _: :o: o_ oo _oo_o| :b|bg:g__go ooobo:r_-
go|:ogo| (:r_og_ - _roo _: oo:g_ _oo_o| ooobo:r_go|ogo|) :b|bg:g__-
go ob_oro:_oo| oobo__:.
g__|o, roor_ oogo:bo:
rooo: _:_oo| |:1_g:ro:. :bo:_og:o _ro-_ro g__|Jo rooo_| ,|:|ob:go
1:r_o" _bo_:. o:| ob__g_go:Jo _ob_: b_:r_bo, roogoo:_ |:_g_ o:b-
_:b:1_ :_oboJb_: bogo_ |_ro_obo| _:|:|r_go. oo_bo| ooboJb_gooo _:_oo
|o__g:| b:::g|, _:_oo| _:|:|r_go| :_oboJgb_go o:_1: _o |o__g:o:|:_:r|
_o|:g|_:.
o_ro go_o:bo
117
oo___ro ___|_o| ooroo:_ _ob|_r___o_g orob_oo_| Joro| J_oobb_-
g: _roo J__|::oo:. oooo__go boJb:_o _g_o_b_o ooo|br:_o| _:oo__o__-
goo|__b, ro| J___:_:_ ___|_orogo oogo:bo: b:roogo__:, roor_
:r_g__go _r:1:. _|:: _roo:bo _ob|_r___oo| |ob_:o:__ro _:ggo. :o:|-
o:b, _og_go :og:ro _g_o_b_o g_ggob_: obogo_, roor_ boJbo| b:bogo,
oogo:bo: _o oo_b| ogo|__| _roo:bo boJbo|:, roo_g|:_ 1o:_o _: _:_b:-
b_gr__go oboJgb_go: :_g|.
oorg_go :_: _go|boo|, roo g__|Jo oooo__go _ob_o: |o__g:|
_o|:g|_:, bogo o_or_g:ro :_oo _:_oo, J_o_oo, |_ro_o, _:, ogo|,
oo_go ___|_o J_oog_: :bgobogoo, roor_ |::b_o_ :__go |o__g_o.
:|_o J_oobg_g:Jo _:_oo |bg: :r:__ro:, o_ :r: :b|:__or__go, o_:1oob:-
g_ro |o__g:, roo_g|:_ _roo:bo _: _:_b:b_gr__go Job::r|o :_g|. obrooo
|_r____r:Jo |bg: _:_o_o|:_oo oo|o ooo:ro_: |ob_:o:__ro:, bogo |:g__-
|o o:r:g_go1oo| J_oobg_g_Jo - o:r:_oo:__ro b:|o:oo|::.
_:_oo| _roo:bo: ggob__: o__r_g, ob_ob:_o_r, |ob_:_|_r|: _: :1-
rorog _ob__1_. _roo:bo: :r_og_ _obogoo_ro or:bo1:_o:, roo_go_
_:_oo| Joboo bJor:_ b:roo_obo| o_:r go_:g_r _:gJor_|.
_:_oo| |_o:b_o__ro _roo:bo: o:g| ob_b| oo _:__orJo, roo_g|:_
o.b._obo:bogo: ,|:g__|o roo| |oogo_rog_" _bo_:. |:g__|o |o__g:o: g__|o-
__ro oboJgb_go_o| 1_:gg_boo g__|o| o_1o_g |o__g_Jo bor_o_g__:
ob___or_: :b:go oboJgb_go_o|:, roog_o_ oo__o_go |:g__|o _ob___-
|_o| :r_J_ b:roo___b_go:. _| _:_oJo bJor:_ obg_g| :1rorogo __b_r_o|:
_:, o:oo:b _ro:_, or__o_|_g-|__o_|_ro b:|o:oo| b:bog:__o|, :r_og_ -
_:gJor_o| rogo| J_o|r_g__go |o__g_o| :oo_o_:|.
_:_oo _ro_ro_g:_ |o__g:o: ooo__gro:_:: _: - |o__g:_, roo-
go| oboJgb_go: |_g:_ :r __og__: oo|o _oooob_b__o| oboJgb_go:o:
o__:bo__r _:o| (gob:o_:b _:g___go boJb_o| oboJgb_go:o: |ob_:o:_o_: _:
__b__o_r:_ :b|bg:g__go obr__o_b__o|:b boJbo| :_: :b|bg:g__go
oo_r:_o_o:). :oo_oo _:_oo, _rog:r:_, :or__go b:|o:oo|::. :_ bg_b bob:-
J_:, |:1o:_o_, b_gogb_o|ogo| _:o:b:|o:o__go o:g1_ :r|_ooo oogg_b:,
ro__|:_ _roo _: oo:g_ ___|_o|ogo| orob_oo_g:_ _:|:Jg_o: _ro1_ o__o
ob__ror__:_o:. oo__go| __ro |ob_r___go _obo| ob__ror__:_o: oog_g:
_roo_roo| ooo:ro __go_:g_b__ro oboJgb_goo| :r_g__g |oor:gg_|.
_:_oo ob:rb_b_| g__|o| (roor_ :r:ob:_gr_go _boo|) oo_g |_o:b-
_o_:|. :o:|o:b, oo_b| ob__ror__g oboJgb_go:|. :o oboJgb_go:o: Joro|
b:roo_obogo _:o:_goo| |:__og_g1_ :o_: oo____ro ___|_o| |o__o_o-
__ro ooo:ro_: oo|o oboJgb_goo| ooo:ro.
o_ :bgobog:go o. g:|ogo_go| |_ro_ob|, , " :b
o.___obo| ,, , _:grbo_b__oo, roo _:_oo| ro_o_g-
_obogoo_ro _roo:bo: b:roo_obo| oo| :1rorog _roo:bo:|.
g__|o| 1o:__borogo _: ob__r:g_ro oboJgb_go_o oog_orogo:,
ro__|:_ oo|o oboJgb_go: __og__: oo||:g_ oro1:_g:_ :_oo__o_g Jo-
b::r|| (_|_ oo, _:_oo| __o__r_|o oro1:o1:_oo| J_oobg_g:Jo), o|:g| _____|
g:b___oo :r_og_ g__|o| |_o:b_o_o| |r_go _____o|:| (:|_oo: go|og:-
oo___ro ___|_o| :b:go1o
118
go_ro oo_1o:). :o:|o:b, _| oro J_oobg_g: gbg__: obogo_ :oob:_go|_o|
|:boo. oo___r oboJgb_go:o: :_o| _:oo__o___go |o|__oo| |:boo o:oo
__b__oobor_: J__og__go:. J_o_oo, _| oro |o|__o: (o_b_:_ _roo o:o:bo
_:ro_go _g:|oo o_o| b:roo__bogo) |_r____r_g:_ :b|bg:g__: oro1o|-
:b, roo_g|:_ oo_1o:|o:b ooo:ro_: :r :_g|.
g__|o| |_o:b_o__ro _roo:bo: ggob__: r:o__boo_ |_r____r_g
_ob_1_. :_, _bob:r_| _oggo|:, J_oboJb_: _g_g: |o|__o_ro :_ro:ggo| o:_|o-
o:g_ro r_:go1:_oo| __b__b_o:, J_o__ _o - o:oo J_|_|__:, r:_ b:roo_-
obo| _:o:__oo :1rorog J_|:og_go_|.
o:g_:oorg_g:_ oo_1oo| 1o:_o _: ooroo:_o boJbo|, _:_oo| :oob:-
b_gr_: _go|boo_: o__r_g-ro_o_go, |ob_:_|_ro _: ob_ob:_o_ro ro_-
o| _roo:bo:|. o1o_ogob_o|: _: _obogoo_ro :bo_or__o| :r|_o:
r_|_go g__|o| |:b_o| |_:_o:1_ (gooobo|ogo| J_o___roob__g _oro:_o:-
Jo) :bobog_o_:, roor_ _:__g_:__ro boJ:bo. :|_, o::goo:_, o1o_ogo-
b_o :b:|o:o__: ro_oro__g oo_1o:|, o:r:o |r_go:_ :r b:roo:__b_:
_og_gg:ro oo_1oo| boJ:b|.
:o o_roo_Jo g__|| _ob_: :b|:1_gr_go ro_o_go |_r____r:,
roo_go_ ooo|br:_o_: _bo_o_:_oo|__b (_b_: ::_ob__go_o _roo o__ro,
roo_go_ o___o_:, |:1o:_o_, g__|o| |ooogo_, r_|_g g__|Jo o|_oro_-
g:_ :|_o o__r| b:roo:__b_: oob__r_o:bo o:oo), _: :b|:1_gr_go -
,oo___ro" - ob_ob:_o:, roo_go_ r_:go1__o_: |::b_o ___g:o:_o_ro
|_ogo|: _: ,o:_:go" oroo_o_go boroo| |::b_o |o|__oo| o_Jg_ooo.
b:gbo| b:roo__boo, oo_1o: :b|:__or__go _b: o_o. Xvlll |:___b_Jo o:| |:-
_og_go:o_ _bo___b_b ,_o_ro_o| _b:|".
*
:o__b:_, |bor__ _og_g__o_ro
_bo|:b :b|bg:g__go: :_o_o_o_:, roor_ oo___ro ___|_o| boJ:bo.
:|_o J_oobg_g:Jo ooroo:_o ___|_orogo oboJgb_go_o| J_|:b_
:|_gbo_b_b: ,oo_1o:| :b___ogb_: :b oo_1o:| :r :b___ogb_:". g__|o| Jo_:
_o__r_b_o:_o: :o _:__oro_o|ogo| o:Job __boo o_o.
J_o_oo o:g| ob_b| o__r_go _ro__g_o| _:|r_g__goo|: _: |ob-
_:_|_ro _ro__g_o| _:_|r_g_goo| J_|:og_go_o (,:_:_:b:"), oo-
___ro ob_ob:_o: _:b:b_gr_: ro_o_g _: g__|o__r ob_ob:_o_:_ (oro|o-
_o_go _g_o_b__o| :b|:1_gr_go ob_ob:_o: _: g__|o_o| b_o:|o:b
_:_:gJor__go ob_ob:_o:) _: ggob__: o:oo _ob_go__o. :|_, o::goo:_,
:._._og|_oo| |:b_o:ro g__|Jo , , b:roooJo:
_ooo__ro _ob_go__o ro_oo| :g:__r ob_ob:_o:|: _: oo|o g__|o__ro o:|:-
go| _o_oo-|:g:o:r:_o ob_ob:_o:| Joro|.

.
:
* J_r o. :. go:1_o|_o| _oor:o: |. orog1_: _b_: g:b|og__|, roo _oor:o: _:b_rogo: oo o_-
roo_Jo, ro__|:_ oo_1o:| oo_obog_o_: :|:_o:, |:g:o:r:_o _bo| :oo__b_:, :ooo_o:
- ,_o_ro_o| _b:" :o _ro| orobo_g:_ __r_:.
o_ro go_o:bo
119

?

.
:. g___b|_o| ,_g_o:Jo" J_oboJb_: _:ooro|oor_: ro_oo| o:or_g
b_o:|: (roo_go_ o_oobg_g| :J_:r:_ :b|_b_| g_roob_ogo| ,oro_obo|")
_: g__|o_o| _ob_1_ :oogg_bog _r:o__g ob_ob:_o:| Joro|, r:|:_ _rogo|
_o_ooo _g_o_b__o (|bg:g:r _ob___|_Jo o:oo __r:_o: _ooo__r _g__r|
J_oo_b_:).
_|: o_ o| |_r____r_go Jr_ :o _ro| :g_oo:__r:_ :_:r __:gJor__:
g__|o| _b_:|. o| :b r_:go1__go:, :b :r oob:bog_o| |:g__|o |_r____-
r:Jo _: :oob:_:g| _:oo__o___g oboJgb_go_|. _g_g: _g_o_b_o| o:b-
bg__r:o (r:|:_ :_ogo _ob_: o__ro|: _: ro_oo| _roo_roooo:ro__o|
J_oobg_g:Jo) :_:ob:_gg: o__:go1__go |_r____ro| _ob_1_, roo_go:b
ooo:ro_:Jo_ :_o_o_: r_:g_ro ___|_o.
_ro_ro_g:_ ooo_ob:r_o_: |bg: oro__|o_. 1_ooo __g_ :_gboJb_o,
roo g__|o| :bgoo:r_:Jo ggob__: o:_|oo:g_ro J_1___g_o| J_oo__o|:
_: J_o_oo o:oo ,oor__go|" __b__b_o:.
:o:|o:b, b:1:|ooo _b_: J_gboJboo, roo 1_oob:o_g:oo |:o:rogo:bo:
obogo_ b_gogb_r:_ o1ogor__go |_r____r_go _ob__o| ooo:ro (:|_oo:
,r_|_go g__|o| ro_oo_o| :bgoo:r_:", ,oo___ro |_ogo| o|_oro:" _: |bg:).
___|__o| r_:g_ro :bgoo:r_o|:| _ro _ob_1_ :_ro:gg:o: o:_|oo:g_r
,oor__g:|" :bg:g| o:oo o:_|oo:g_ro J_b:rb_b_: |bg: _ob_1_. |:g:g___go
boJb_o _:__g_:__r ogo|__:_ o___g:. _roo J_b__goo, _g_g: boro:_o_go
b_|o __o__:. :o:|o:b, _:__g_:__ro boJb_o :__og__g ogo|__:_ o___-
g:. :|_, o::goo:_, XX |:___bo| oo___r __g__r:Jo _obogoo_ro _obo|
o:_:go or:bo1__go: :r_g__go oo___ro |_og_o|ogo| (__roo_, oo:o-
ogo|, roog_o|ogo|:_ oo|:__o o_o ro_o_go b:b:1o| __o__r_|o o:go|__-
g_:) :__og__go :b_:. roo:b_o_o|_o:_ ::__o_| _g_g: (o:o :|_ _ob:o)
:_ro:gg: :br_o|, _bo|, ,o:_:go|:" _: ,_::go|" ooo:ro, o:r:o J_ooo__|
:b:go :_ro:gg_o :r:ob_ogo__:g_ro, _b:o|o, _r:_o_o_go _g_o_b__o| oo-
o:ro, roog_o_ Job::r|o|: _: _bo| _ob_1_ ob_b_: o:g|.
|_ro_o, roor_ oogo:bo:
oo___r b:b:roo_Jo :__og_g:_ :ooo_o_: _:_oo _: oo_go ___|_o
*
,
|_ro__:_ _:_o_: _:__g_:__ro:. o| oro1:_go ___|_o| :1:__:_ _:
o:g_:_ _:_o_o| o:r:g_g_ro: _: bJor:_ o:b |__g| b:r:_o_go orob_ooo|
:bbor_o_g_:|.
* oo___ro ___|_o| :__og__go |_o_b__o: :r_og_ |o__g: _: |_g__|o__ro _g_o_b-
__o (_ob_o_o, oor__o_o, o:r_gg_o). o:o o_or__go _b_: :_go. |o__g_:_ _:b:b_gr_:
___ob_: oo ooro:|, roo bg_b bob:J_: :r_g__g _b:1_ _:b_rogo ___|_o, _:oo__o___g
boJb:_ _ro__g_:_ _:_o_: _o _go|boo| ooo| or_1_o__o:|, roo _|:: oo___ro ___|_o.
oo___ro ___|_o| :b:go1o
120
|_ro__:_ _:b:b_gr__g ___|_Jo |_ro__o| ooo:ro_: _:_o_o|:_-
oo _oobg_g: _:_o_o| ooo:ro_:| |o__g_o|:_oo. :o :_oo J_oog_: oo_g:|,
roo |_ro__o - _|:: |_o:b_o__r:_ _roo:bo ,|o__g_o". o::goo:_, ,_g_bo
ob_obJo" oooo__g |_ro_| ::bbo: |:__o:ro ob__ror__go oboJgb_go:,
o:go|o _oooo1o_o_r:_ :b|:1_gr_go :1rorogo __b_ro (|_ro_o| |_o:b_o-
__ro ooro) - oorg_go oob_:_o__o _: |__o_|_ro, :r_og_ - |ob_:o:__r-
_g__|o_ro oboJgb_go_o, roog_o_ ooo__gbo _:_o_Jo: _ob__b_ror__go.
|_ro__o| :r_g__g r:o__bo:Jo _| ob_r_o: _:r_g__go:, _roo-
_ro| :r _oobg_g: |_ro__go _: |ob_:_|_ro |_r____r_o, r:_ :_:r g:o-
__|: |bor__ oooo__go :og:ro |_r____r_go _g_o_b_o| :oo__b_o| :b
:oo___b_goo| o:go|__g_: :b|:1_gr:g| oo| ob:_gr_g oboJgb_go:|.
|_ro_o| _g_g:1_ o:r_ogo |:b_: oob_:_o__o. :_ ggob__: roooo| _ro-
_roo ooroo:_o _:bobo - oo|o ob:r_go:.
*
|:_o_ _b_: :r: o:r_o |_ro-
_o| oo__goo| J_1____go:|, :r:o__ - oo| |_r____r_g _g_o_b_:r_-
go:|:_. |_ro_Jo J_o:g:go _:_o_o |_r____r_g:_ o:b::r__g_o:bo: _:
boJb:_oo| oob__goo o_r:r_o_g:_ :r:: :bg:__go.

, , ,
.
(o_J_obo, )
:o:|o:b, or_:_o__o| |:1_gr_Jo J_oog_:, o:ob_ obobo| o:go _roo
_:_oo| (roor_ b_|o, oorg_go|) _ooobor_:o o_or_1_.
--
.
(o_J_obo, -| J:go oob:b:1o)
o:r:o obogo_ |_ro_o| :ro_g__g |:b_o_Jo gbg__oo _ooob:b-
__ro _: _:_g_o__:r__go _:_o_o| boJb:_ _: o:booo__gr_g:_ r_:go1_-
_g o_r:r_o:|.
:|_, o::goo:_, :ro:_ob|_o| ,J_oo_oo:" ___ob_: og:g|:bobo goo-
__r |__o:|: o_1o|o - 4 _:_oo, |obo_1o - 2 _:_oo. oooo__g oob_:_o__Jo |_-
o:b_o__r:_ _ooobor_| g:_rroooo:bo __b_o _:_o_o, bogo |obo_1o :b-
bor_o_g__go: g:_rroooo:b |_ro_obJo, roog_o_ :o _ob1_ oo_g_, g:oo-
_:r_go _:_o_o| |:boo :_o_o_:. _| _o _1r_bg_g_o_| _:|_gbo|, |_b__b_oo|
ob_ob:_o:|.
,

, _

,
* ob:r_go: - orb_gro:bo:. ob:r_goo| orob_ooo |_r____r_go oo_ooo| |:__og_go:.
o_ro go_o:bo
121
, ,
,
,
!
:o:|o:b, :o o_:r __b__b_o_| :bg:g| or:g:g__rog:bo :_:br_o,
roo_go: b_:gooo o| _|o_o_bgo goo__ro |__oo| b:_gg:_ ob:_gr_go
|_r____ro| _o_b:g oogg_b:_ o___g:. oorg_g oob_:_o__Jo g_bo rooo_o
obogo_ _:o:__oo rog| :|r_g_| _: o:oo :oo_og_: :1r| :r:__r| :_g_|.

. . .
_|:: __b_o _:_o_o| |_o:b_o__ro o:r:g_g_o. o:r:o ooo __ro :J-
_:r:: o:oo |_ogo|__ro o:go|__r_:. :1rorog:_ _ooobor__g _:_o_Jo
J_b:rb_b__go: Xvlll |:___bo| o:_:go g__|o__ro boro_o. o:oo |_o:b_o-
__ro __g_o __r_bo: roo:b_o__g o:_:g g__|o_:|, roogo| _:rg_Jo
," _: ," |oboboo_o: _: J_oog_:, _rog:rog:bo b_gr_o|
|:boo b:roogo__|, bogo , " _r:b|_oroor__go:, roor_
` ".
oorg_go _:_oo| ooo:ro_: o_|:oo|:_oo :bo|:1_gr_: goo__ro |ob-
_:_|_ro _:gJor_o| boro_oo.
o_or_ oob_:_o__o |bg:g:r:_:: :__go. bob:_:__o| oo:g:ro b_gr_o
:b:bog__go: __b_ _: g_b _:_o_Jo. |_ro_o| :o b:bogo| oooo__go b:_g_-
oo b:roo:__b| |ob_:_|_r|: _: :1rorog oogo:bo:|. |:o:o_ro_, orog_ _|
b:bogo _roo_roJoro| :1rorogo o:r:g_go1oo| _:oo_o___g_:Jo:. o_J-
go__ _: o_rg_ _:_o_o obogo_ oo_or__b o_b_o_ _: o___g|_ _:_o_o| 1o:_|
:1r|. o:r:o :bo_or_: :_:_ :oo:_r_| :b|bg:g_:|: oorg_g J_oobg_g:Jo |:-
:b_o_ oobooogo: oo___ro J_:oo_o (, ", , ",
, "), o_or_ b:bogJo _:b:__go: roo:b_o__go oo__o_o| boro_-
o|ogo| _:_Jg__go b:__r:go|__ro |_r:oo, gob:o_:b o| :r: o:r_o J_o:o-
rb_b__go:, :r:o__ - bg__go_. roo:b_o__go J_:ooo _r:b|_oroor__go:
:_or__go :gJgo| |:b__, roo_go:_ |:o:o:Jo b_go_:b ::_o, r:_:b __g_
_o_bg:_ _:oo:rb:. _| _o b:roo_obo| :o |_o-go|__ro b:1_o| _roo_roJ_-
_og_o| :booro__g |::b_o |_ogo|__r _____|.
o_rg_ _: o__br_ _:_o_o| oo_b:1_ J_oboJb_: :b:go _ob_go__o. |ob_:_-
|_r:_ _| bob:_:__: ooo_o| :r oo:gr__: o_rg_ _:_oo| ogo|, __:b:|_b_go
_| oro _:_oo b:roo:__b| bob:_:__o| |ob_:_|_r :ro_g_:|, bogo :1-
rorog:_ o:| __:gJor__: :_or__go :gJgo| |:b_. _| b:1:|o_go: :_:_:-
boo (o_rg_ _: o__br_ _:_o_o| oo_b:1_), roo_go_ :o |_ro_Jo _ro:__roo:,
___|_Jo _o |:_roo_ oJgo:o:_ gbg__:.
_: o:ob_, |_ro__go :_o| ob_r_o: oo__b:_ oog:gro:, roo __:-
b:|_b_go _:_o_o :_o_o_:, roor_ |_b__b_o:, roor_ |_ro_o| |obo_1o _:
:r: roor_ oo|o _ro-_roo |_r:oo| _:|:|r_go. :_, r: o_o: _b_:, :r|_ooo:
o|o_, roo _| oro _:_oo :_roo:b__go: bob:oor__ _:_o_o:b (oorg_g or-
oo___ro ___|_o| :b:go1o
122
o:b) _: ooo__gbo |obo_1_r _:_o_o:b:
,
!
,
.

! . . . _: :. J.
:b|bg:g__go _ob__o| r_:go1__go _: :r:r_:go1__go |_r____-
r_go |o|__o_o| or:g:gro_bog:bo _roo_ro:_:_g_o: b:roo_obo| |_or_|,
roor_ :r_g__go _:_b:b_gr__go Job::r|o| :ooob:_g_g _roo:b boJ:b|.
:og:r rog| :|r_g_| |_ro_o oo|o J_o:__b_go _:_o_o| ooo:ro.
:o:|o:b, ___|_o| oogo:bo:|o:b J__:r__oo, _| obogo_ _oooob_b_o| |:-
boo b:roogo__:. :|_, o::goo:_, :ro:_ob|_o| ,J_oo_oo:Jo" |_ro__o
:_roo:b__go: ___|_o| oobogoo_r b_o:Jo, roo_go_ __g_o__:r_: oo:g_
goo__r |__o:|: o_1o|o - :b_oo_1: - |obo_1o. o_1o|o :o__o__| :_:oo:bo|
oo_r _b_o| _:|:oorbog_g:_ :b__go Jrooo| b:_o_o_r_:|, bogo :b_o-
o_1:Jo :ooo_o_go: og:g|:1ro|o oo__o| b:_g:bo| _b:_o_oo|, :o:o_o|
J_|:b_. b:rooo_ob_: |ob:r_goo :_|:g|_, oJgo_oo:bo J_oo_ooo|: _:, o_-
or_ obrog, oo__o| _b:_o_o ,J_oo_ooo| ____o|" _:ooro|oor_:. |obo_1Jo
_| _:ooro|oor_: ::oog__go: _: _r:__o: _o|oo_r _:bob:_:: :_o:r_-
_go. :o:|o:b, :ro:_ob|_o roo:b_o1oo| _oo_:Jo :__:ro :___g_oo :o-
__o__|, roo _b_: :r: o:r_o _grogo:, :r:o__ _b:o|o roo:b_o_o|o|o-
go| boob_:o: boob_: oog:r :ooggob__Jo, rooro_:: _:roJb:go, _r::bo
:b _o|oo_ro _:_:|_ro_::
,
,
, ,
;

, , ,
,
,
.
b:_o_o_ro oo_g:b_o:, o:b:roboo| oooog_o|, _|_ oo, |:ogoo
:b:roJJo, _ob_:__o| _:o_:r_o| _b:ro obogo_ _b:o|o |:o_:ro| ogo|_::,
b:roooJo: ro_go |_o:b_o__ro |_r____r:, roo_gJo_ oo__o| _roo _: oo-
g_ ogo|_: - |r_go ogoo:oob:_go| J_|:og_go: - __ro_| o:b_o_r_:_
_:, :o:|o:b, _o:_g_| oo_b_g:_ _b:___:.
:o _roo:b :1rorog |_r____r:Jo oo____go: |_ro_o, roor_ _g_-
o_ro go_o:bo
123
o_b_o. g__|o| |_o:b_o_: ___ob_: |_ro__o| roor_ :1rorogo oogo-
:bo_o| ooo__gro:| _: :r_og_ - oog:ro boJb:_o ___|_o| ob__r:g_r
:_:|, roo_go_ J__|::o_: Job::r|o| :b__o__g _roo:bo:|.
|_ro_o| _ob|_r___o:Jo _roo_ro| _ooro|oor__:, |_g o_or_, oro
_:_oorogo _ro__go. g__|o| _g_g: |:bo| |bg: _obo| |_r____r_o| o|:g-
|:_, |r_o_| ::bbo: :r_g__go o__:bo1oo. :o:|o:b, o| :1rorog _ob|_r__-
_o:|:_ b:roo:__b|.
1_ooo __g_ :_gboJb_o roooo| |::b_o |_o:b_o__ro rogo. |:roooo
|o__g:| _:_oJo :r|_ooo oboJgb_go: _bog_:, o:r:o _:_o|:r_J_ oo___r
_|ogogJo o| :r oob:bog_o|. :og:r:_, _g_g:__ro, r:_ :_gboJb_o rooo:Jo
_b_:o: J__og_o|: _: _:ooro|oor_o| J_|:b_, gr__g__: |_r____r_go
b_gogo| _roo_roooo:ro_:1_. _|:: rooooo :_roo:b__go oro _:_oo -
|_ro_o| _g_o_b_:r_go _oro:. _og_go _:_oo b:roo:__b| ob__ror__g
:1r_|, |_o:b_o__r oogo:bo:|, oooo__go |_ro_o |bg: :r:__ro:, o_ :r: :o
_g_o_b_:r_go |_o:b_o__ro _ro__g_o| J__og_:-J_ooro|oor_:, ro| o_J-
g_ooo:_ b:rooo_ob_: boJborogo |_r____ro| __ro o:_:go _ob_.
:
.
(go_o, )
:o or_:_o__Jo b:roo_obogo :1rorogo ooo:ro_o| :bboggo|:| _b_:

:goog:go|boboo _:_oo: _roo_roJ_b:o_o| o_Jg_ooo b:roo_obogo |_o:b-
_o__ro |_r____r:, roo_go_ :r oob:bog_o| oooo__g |_ro_Jo.
_rob:or (o__r_g|: _: ro_o_g) ob_ob:_o:| :b:o__o__| b_gog_ro
rooo: (J_:b|_b_o, roo :o _ooo| |_ro__o gbg__: _:|:b_g__go g__|o|
_:|:b_o||: _: oo| _:|:|r_g|, r:_ o:o :b|:__or__g Jo:o_g_:o:| :bo-
g_|). o:r:o _:_o_o| :1rorogo o:r:g_go1oo _g_g:1_ oo:_r:_ b:1:|o_-
go: g__|o__ro b_rb_o| o_Jg_ooo. :b:_or: _b:o_: o1o|_o:b_o__r _oo-
og__|_|: ,, " _: ,,". :oo_oo Job::r|orog:_ o|obo
ooo_oo| oog_orogo:. ooo __ro og:g|:bobo: 1obo| () |_o:b_o__ro
boJb:_o:. :o:|o:b, o:go|o:g:_ :r :r|_o|: o| _:_oo| b:bogo:. oo|o
|_o:b_o_: _:_oJo _oobgo| |:ooro|ooro ooo:ro_g_oo:_ gr__g__: _: o:|
oorg_go _:_oo| :b_oo_1:_ :___g|. _og_gog_ _| bg_bogo| __g_ _:r:_:: _bo-
ogo. :b:go _: |:__r:___o: roooo| :b|:__or__go |_o:b_o__ro _b_:.
o_ roooo| |:boo :oog_o_o _:_oo: ogo |o__g_| ,," - ,,", o:Job
:_gog:_ _:grbo_b__oo, roo :_ :1rorog J_|::oo|o:| |:_roo_ :r: :_g|
:_ogo. _roo J_b__goo, roooo| J_|:b_ bg_b oo_r :ooo_o_go J_b___g__o
:oog__:. o:r:o :bgobogoo oooo__go _:_oo| J_o:__b_go :1rorogo
____o:
+ :
+ .
:_, o_or_ ___Jo o:g| ob_b| roooo| _g_g: ogo|_:, bogo oooo__go
o:o:bo _: |o__g: b:roo_obo| :1rorog _roogoo_|. :og:r:_, |_o:b-
oo___ro ___|_o| :b:go1o
124
_o__ro _roo_roJ_|::oo|o: o_:r__: :r: oo__b:_ ogo |o__g_| Joro|,
r:o__b:_:_ - _:_o_| Joro|.
_b_rogo:, roo o:r_ogo |_ro__go |_r____r: J__|::o_: obogo_
_g_o_b_:r_g boJborog :__|.
gob:o_:b |o__g:o: _:gJoro _:_oJo _: o:oog_ _roo_roooo:ro_:
_:_o_| Joro| :b|bg:g__go b:|o:oo|::, goo|__goo oo |:g__|o |o__o_o_:-
1_, roo_g|:_ :b:ooro_| :o:_roo:b__go Jo_:_:_oorogo _:gJor_o _:
_:_oo:Joro|o r_g:_o_ro ooo:ro__o. J_oog_: :o o_oo:r_oo| J__gg:
Jo_:roooo| J_oo_:bo| o_Jg_ooo. :o _ro| b:b_g:r_:_o_o r_g:_o_ro orob-
_oooo __og__: _:_o_| _: _:_oo:Joro|o _:gJor_o| r:o__bo: o1r__:.
:og:ro _____o ooo_b_g: _:_oo| o__r_go rogooo| J_o_or_o|:|. _: ooro-
_oo, _:_oo| o__r_go rogooo| :1r_o| J___:_ _:_oo:Joro|o _:gJor_oo
g__|o| :__r__go: _g__go|.
|:g__|o ___|_Jo o:ob__ror__go _: r_g:_o_ro _:gJor_o| _:-
ooro|oor_: o:g1_ ooroooo:. _roo obrog, _|:: obogo_ _roo _: oo:g_ oro__-
|o| oro :|o___o. _roo _: oog_ |:g__|o oogg_b: :b|bg:g__g _ro__g_Jo b:b
o:ob__ror__g ogo|__| :gg_b|, b:b _o r_g:_o_r rog| :|r_g_|. o_or_
obrog, orog_ _| |:b_o: _roo_roo| :g__rb:_o_go: _:, o:J:|:_:o_, _go|b-
oo| _:gJoro: :r_g__g or:g:g__rogb_:|. :o:|o:b, orog_ o:o:bo _boro-
go _:gJor_o| :g__rb:_o_go: _: b:roo_obo| |bg:g:r, |obo_1_r orob_oo1_
_:__ob__g |_o:b_o_:|. o:o g_r b:roogo__bo boJb:_o _ro__g_o| |_o:b-
_o__r _:o:_. _| oboJgb_go_o _o :r :__o_| _borog oboJgb_go_|, :r:o__
o:b::r|_o| o:oo:b _: b:roo_obo| _roo_roJ__:r___g b_gog|. _og_gog_
:oo| J___o: o1:r_o _ro__rogb_:. o_ Jo_:|:g__|o _:gJor_| :bg|:1-
_gr:go, roor_ |ob_:o_r ooo:ro__|, o:Job _b_: :_gboJboo, roo |_ro-
_o| b:or|:b_o:o: Joro| |ob_:_|_r:_ _g_g:1_ __ro g:oo_:r_go: or_:-
_o__o. J_oobg_gooo :r::, roo g__|o bJor:_ ogog__: or_:_o__oo. :|_oo:
g__|o| ,, _o_or__go b:b_g__o_. _:_oo| |_o:b_o__ro ob__r:_o:
_go|boo| oo| |ob_:_|_r _:|r_g__go:|:_. oo___ro _ob|_r___oo_:b
:oog__ogo _:_oo _oo:gr_|:_ :1rorog:_ _: |ob_:_|_r:_ _:|r_g__go:.
:oo_oo or_:_o__o| _oo_ro |_ro_obo o:g1_ oo_g_ g_r o_b_:. :_:_:b: :_
:oob:_go|o| |:boo gbg__: _: obogo_ o:Job obo:r_:, o_ or_:_o___o
_b_g__o obroo| |:boo:: _roo_ro:_:_:gg_go:
,,
,
.
".
(b. b__r:|ogo)
g__|Jo ,, " or_:_o__:_ _:b:b_gr_: o:g1_ og:g-
|:bobo:. 35 |_ro_Jo gbg__: Jo_:|_ro__go oro :_:_:b: _: |_ro_o:-
Joro|o, _o__g __ro b:1:|o_go, oobo :_:_:b:. :o:|o:b, _|:: o_or__go oog-
g_b:, :b_ |_r____r_go boroo| J_b__go ___oro:_o:. o_J_obo| g__|o| -
,, " - !6 |_ro_Jo :r_ _roo :_:_:b: :r J_oobb_g:.
o_ro go_o:bo
125
ob__ror__go :1ro| :ro_g_o| :oo, o| _:_oJo :_:r ___g:. or-
_:_o__o| oooo__g _:_o| oo|__g| _:o:__ooo _:_oo, roo_go_, o:go| obrog,
__:gJor__: ooo__gbo rooo_|. b:rooo_ob_: or_:_o__o. o_or_ _: o_oob_
_:_o_Jo _oo:gr_|:_ goo:r__: oorg_go _: o_|:o_ _:_o_o, r:_ _:_oo| oo-
__goo| J_o_or_o| |:J_:g_:| oog_g: _: J___r__g b_gog| __g_ :r: oro,
:r:o__ oobo rooooo :_:gJor_|, ro| :oo_ r_g:_o_ro _:gJor_o| J__:r__-
ooo bob: o_g_or:_ o:__go|.
___|_o| |_ro__go _:b:b_gr_: oo_or_| Jo_:_:_oorog ooo:ro__|
__ro o:_:g _ob_1_. _:_oo| b:roo_ob: :b:ooro_| _:gJoro: or |:b_o:|:
Jo_:_:_oorog|: _: _:_oo:Joro||. |_ro_o| :oo_o_:_ b:rooJo|, o:go|
obrog, Jo_:|_ro__g _: |_ro_o:Joro| _:gJor_|. o:oo _b_: _rog:ro-
g:bo ro_o:. |_ro_o:Joro|o _:gJor_o :b:g _ob__1_ oo_or_| _:_oo:Jo-
ro| |_o:b_o__r J__og_:-J_ooro|oor__|, Jo_:|_ro__go ooo:ro__o
:b|:1_gr:g| |_ro_o| Jo_: ob__r:g_r _:gJor_| _:_o_| Joro|, roo-
g_o_ _:_oJo |o__g:o: ooo:ro__o| o:r:g_g_ro:.
:og:r J_b___g_:| :_:|__r_| oo_1oo| o|_oroo| _roo |:ob__r_|o
ooo_b_o. or_:_o__1_ __ro ro_go |_ro_o| b:roo_ob:| _gr _rogb_g
__g__r:Jo (1_oor oo_1o:Jo, oo|o :gg_boo _o - obobor_gJo_) o:b :bg_:
r__r_bo| :oo_o_:. ob :g__bo| ooboooo, :|_ oob_: _g:|o__ro :r:_go
_:|o_o| b:gb_r 1:_:g:_ :r_:_obo|:|. 1:_:g:Jo r__r_bo (oo|:o__ro)
g__|o| |:b_o|:_ o___g:. J_o_oo o| o:b :bg:g| _og_g ooborooo_g |:o_:-
_o__| _: :b:go :1rorogo _g__roo :_og_rg_:. r__r_bo |_ro_o:Joro-
|o _:oo__o___go |_r____r_go _ro__go ro_o:: o| _og_gogo| :bg:g|
bob:oor__ |_ro_|. :|_, o::goo:_, og_g orog:b|_g :g:_:Jo r__r_bo|:
_: |_ro_o| ogo _:_o| |:_roo rooo: :_:gJor_|. o_ |_ro_| :bgobog:go,
roor_ _:_oo| ooooor__g oo__o_go:| - r__r_bo rooo:| _:_o|:g|_:.
r__r_bo| :bo_or_:_o: roooo| :bo_or_:_oo| :b:goo_r rog|
:|r_g_|. _roo obrog, _og_gogo| o:g| ob_b| _rog:rog:bo _g_o_b__o| :b-
o:|bg:g__go boJb_o, o_or_ obrog _o :b|bg:g__go |_ro__o J___r__g-
J_ooro|oor__go: _roo_rooro__or_o| o_Jg_ooo _: b:roo_obo| ro_g
|_o:b_o__r oogo:bo:|. |_ro_o g_ggob_: _:_oo| __b__ooo (__ro o:_:g
_ob_1_), r__r_bo _o roooo| rogJo:. :o:|o:b _ro:_, roor_ __g_ :_gboJb_o,
b:roooJo: |_ro_o| Jo_: ob__r:_o_go _:gJor_o, roo_go:_ :r_g__go
|_o:b_o_: ::bbo:. boo_J:_ oogobooo |_ro__go _ob|_r___oo| o|_o boob_:
o_go_o_r, ,o_|o_:g_r" o::goo|, rooro_:: |_ro__go ob_ob:_o:.
gr__go oo___ro ___|_o| _:_o_: o_:r |_ro__g _ro__g_:_, ooo
_o___| - ro_g |_ro__:_ (o__:g_:_, ,ob_obo|__r |_ro__:_") :b:-
ooro_| ob_ob:_oo| :r_g__g ob_r_o:|, r:_, _roo J_b__goo, :o_or_| :1-
rorogo |:b_o|o| bg__roo| bob:| _: 1r_o| o_|o_:g_ro _:__oro| rog|
(o__o oo_1o:Jo J_|:og__go: o:oo J_ooro|oor_:). :_ g:b___oo _bg__-
go o:r:_o_||: |bor__ :og:ro, _ob|_o___o_ro ob_ob:_ooo :_g_rgogo
|_ro__go |_r____r_o _g_g:1_ b_g|:_r_go: o___g_g_oo, ,:r:o_|o_:-
g_ro" :br_o|ogo|. o_J_obo roo:b_o__g oo_o_Jo :r ooo:ro:g| :o |:bo|
|_ro__|, o:r:o o__b_| o:o oo_o_Jo ,_g_bo ob_obo" _: ,|:bgo _ogoob:-
oo___ro ___|_o| :b:go1o
126
Jo". g_roob_ogo |:r_go| :og:ro |_ro__oo ,|:J_:|:" _: ,|::gJgo 1_:-
o:rJo". _|, roor_ b:b|, J_oobg_gooo oogg_b: :r::. |_ro__go ob_ob:_oo|
oobo_ob_ro: b:roo:__b| oo _ob|, roo_g1__ _b:_:_ o_g_o_: oro1:_go
ob_ob:_o_o| |oor:gg_ (r:_ oo_1oo|ogo| _bg__go:). o:o b:rooJo| |ob-
_:_|_r ob_ob:_o:o: or:g:g__rogb_:. |_ro__go ob_ob:_o_o :b_oo_1o|
|:boo _ooro|oor__: |:g:o:r:_o ob_ob:_o_|. J_|::oo|:_, _| __:b:|_b_go
__ro oo:_r:_ :_o_o_:, go_r_ - bg__g_rog o___g_g_:Jo. :og:ro o:r:-
_o_|_go oogg_b: _:r:_:: b:_boo oo:oogo|, go|:_ b:_oob_go :_g| o_b_:_
,_g_bo ob_obo". o:g_:__:b__go |og:__ (,___o:", o_J_obo| o_ooo) oo-
___r o___g_g_:Jo :_ o:g1_ o_:_oo_ J_orobo:. :o:|o:b, o_J_obo| roo:bo|
g__|o_o|: _: |ob_:_|_ro |_r____r_o| oob__goo :__go ooobroo| _b:,
:g:o, go__r:__r_go o_b_: _: b:oJg_: _bg__go |:|:_ro _bo| _____o.
oo___ro |o___o| orog_o:
bob:o__:r_ bobo| _:rg_Jo |o___o| :_o| orog_o:| oo_go oo|o
oo__gooo g_r :bgobog:go, gob:o_:b |o___o| :_o| 1o:_o _:bob_o J_-
_b_: roor_ oo_1o:|, :|_g_ - oro1:|. :o __:b:|_b_gJo o|obo :_og_oo _:
o:booo__gr_g:_ ggob__:. :r_: :oo|:, |o___o oro1:Jo _: |o___o oo-
_1o:Jo _roo _: oog_ ro_o:. oo_1o: _: oro1: :_:_g:b:go oo_boo :r:: :oo-
J_go _roo_roo|:b _: oro1:_go |_r____r: oo___r _obog__1_ 1o__r
o:g_o:_ 1_oo_o___|. _| 1_oo_o___: :b|:__or_oo _ro:: |o___o| |__-
roJo. oo_1oo| o|_oro:Jo _:r:_:: _boogo :o |__roJo _oo_ro |:b:r_g_go
roo:b_go :b bog_go|__ro |o___o| J_gro| _:___o. :o:|o:b _:_:gJor_oo
b:oogrogo o_oro_go |:_oob_o| :_:b_g__: oooobog| o:g1_ |_roo1_g
__|__r|_| oro1o| o_oro:Jo. :oo_oo :bgobog:go |o___o| obogo_ oo :|-
o____|, roog_o_ oo_1oo|ogo|:: _:o:b:|o:o__go.
oro1o| |o____o:b J__:r_oo, oo___ro |o____o :ooorb_g: :b-
1o:__o| :_og_oo o:_:go _oboo. oo___ro |o___o :r ooo|br:_o|, oo-
goobro| _roo roo_goo_ bg__g_rogo :o:go, o:b _b_: :_oog__| oo:g:ro
_: _ro:__roo oogg_b:, goro__go |:o_:ro| :r|o. :o :_oo, oo_1o: __ro
:bgo|:: oooo:b, go_r_ - roo:bo. :oo_oo o| :oo_gg_g_o, roog_o_ oo1b:_
o|:b:g_b goro_o|, roor_ oor:_o_go r__ob|_r___oo|ogo| |:goro bg_-
_g_rogo o:|:go| :oo__b_:| (_| b:rg_1o J_oobb_g: ogoo :. b. g_|_gog|_o|
J_|:boJb:g oobor:_o:Jo __og|_o| J_|:b_) b:roogo__b_b oo__o| :r: r_-
:g_r, :r:o__ - oooogoo1__g |:b_|. _bogr_o|__go _:___o |:goro_|
:b|:1_gr_g _r:b|_oro:_o:|, r:o: oo___r |o___:_ :oo__|.
oogobooo _ro o::goo|. |:obr_oJo o_J_obo| :_:|:bg_o| o:bobg_
:r_oo__| roo :r go_bo__o _: obogo_ oo|o oo_1oo| o:|:goo gb_goo_-
g:b_go__o, _ggo J_g_o:r_o_: oo:Jo, o_o o_ :r: o_J_obo :_:|:bg_:Jo.
|:_o_ o|::, roo |:obr_o_go o_roo_o| g__|_Jo :_:|:bg_: ooo_oo| :r _o-
_ror_|, |:o:o_ro_, or:g:g1o| ooob|_bo_: :___g:, b_:_o_goooo
:_:bg_b::
o_ro go_o:bo
127
,
. . .
,, . . .
,
...
,,
J_r. ,_:g_:|oo| __go|" :J_:r:_ :g_ooor:_o_go _:_o_o:

, ,

:o:|o:b, o_J_obo :o:_o_: :_:|:bg_oo _: J_oobg_goo ro_o :_:r__:
o:| g. o. r:_g|_o| o:_ooro:|:
. . .
...
,,. .
g_oggogo|, b_:_o_gooo :b__gbogo :_:oo:bo| :o |:b_Jo g_r J_g:o-
bb_go obogo_ :_:|bg__go :_:oo:bo| __b1_r_g J_b:_gg_:|. o_J_obo|
|bg: g__|_Jo boo oob|_bo__go: ,o|_r:_o1oo", ,:b__gb:", 1oo_roJo _o -
,_ob_" _: ,|:_:bo_".
ooo|ogo|, r:o: b:gbg__o ,:_:|bg__go|" |:bo| ,g_oggogo|" |:b__
_r:b|_oro:_oo| oboJgb_go:|, _b_: :bgobogoo o| _oo_ro roo:b_o__go
oooo, roo_go:_ :b:ooro: :og:ro |o____o| b:rooJo:.
:bo:b:og_goo| o:_:go: |:_or:o J__ob: |o___o, roo_go:_ _oo_o|
|o_o:g_r-_ogo|o_o_r o__:o: oo_go _ooog__|o :b:1o:_: _: |_:og_r
oooogoo_r oo__g:_ :__o:. |:o_:ro o_o_: or |__ro_: _roo: - ooboo|,
_r_rbo_b_o|: _: __go| |:o_:ro - ,_:g:_o", ,|:|:bgo| _:ro", ,rooo", o_or_
- o:go|__g_o|, |o|:_:go|, Jrooo|: _: _b_rogo, o:_ro:r_:g_ro _o_o|
|:__go: ,|o__go", ,_obo", ,oJogo_ro __r:". |o___o| |:__og_go: ooro|
b_:_o_goooo :___g: oorg_go |:o_:ro_:b o_or_Jo. o| _::o_J:g_| __r:-
gobo:, oogobogo:, go:1_o|_oo, o_J_obo:.
:_ r_:go1__go: :og:ro |o___o - ooboo| |:o_:ro - ooro| :___-
g: - o:go|__g_o| |:o_:ro. :r|_ooo:, roo ,ooboo| |:o_:ro" _: ,o:go|_-
_g_o| |:o_:ro" o:b:r:_ _ob_r___go:. o_ _roo o:o:bo ,rooo:", o_or_
,oJogo_ro __ro|" |:boo b:roogo__:, o_ _roo o:o:bo ,_:g:_o:" , o_or_
- ,|o_go|" |:boo:: oo__o_go. r:_oJb_go| g__|Jo :_:|:bg_o| :_ogo
_or:_o_go |o1_|_oo:: _:|:b_g__go.
roo:b_o1oJo :b:goo_ro |o___o |bg:_:|bg:g:r:_ :o_:. roo:b_o-
__go oo_1oo| _bog_r|_oo :r o_o_: or b:___og, _roo_ro_:ooro|oor__g
(ooboo|: _: o:go|__g_o|) |:o_:ro_:_. o:|Jo :|:b_go: ooboo| b:___ogo,
_or:go |__ro _: oo| |:1_gr_| :r_o :r|__go o:go|__g_o| _|:|r_go
oo___ro ___|_o| :b:go1o
128
_: 1_|ogr_orogo |:o_:ro. :bo:b:og_g_r |o___| :b:|o:o_| _roo o_o-
o:r_oo_:b o_or_Jo :_:|gg:, o:| ::bbo: |:b_o|o _: ogo o_b___o. :o:-
go|__g_o| roo:b_o__go |o___o :_:|gg: _o :r::, :r:o__ - b:|gg:. o:|
::bbo: |:b_o|o oo1o_o: _: - ooo:ro_g_: (|:ogoo o_b__o| b:_gg:_). o|
orob_oo_g:_ _o::, gob:o_:b roo:b_o1oo|ogo| _roo _o_|or__go b_r_ogo-
_:b o_or_Jo :_:|gg: _or:oo| |obobooo:. ogoo ooor:o: (roo_go_ :o:-
go|__g_o| |obobooo:, :___:b - o_:ro roo:b_o__go |o___o - ,:b__gb:
:o:go|__g_::") :o:1r_: obogo_, roor_ _b_g__o :_:b:_gg_:.
:oo_oo :_:|:bg_: roo:b_o__g _obog_:Jo J_oog_: _r:b|_or-
oor__go o_o| ,oo___r :___g:_", ,|:o:r:_o|o :_:bg_b:_", ,o|_r:_o1-
o:_", o:r:o :r:|o__| b:roo:__b| ogoo|_Jo _:__g_g_:| _: _o__g _oJobog|:
:b o__|:Jo :_:|:bg_:|.
:og:r:_, oo___ro |o___o _go|boo| __o__r_| :b1o:___go:|,
_ogo1oo| _:_g:b:| oo__o_go ob:_gr_go :1rogb_o| _:o:b:|o:o__go _g_-
o_b_:r_go oo__go| :r_g__g _roogoo:1_. J_o_ooJo g__|o| |o___o
J_oog_:, _:_ob_r____| _: :b1r:b _:_:bgog__| _g_g:1_ _J_:go _bogr_-
o|__g |o__:_o_|. :o:|o:b, _| |o__:_o_o _o|:b_r_: roo_goo_ |:b_o|o
goro__go oo__go| _:_:|__r_:|, :b _:r_o_:| _: :r:|o__| gbg__: oo|
:r_J_. o_J_obo| g__|o ,, (1817) :|_ oo:gr__:: ,, . J_r. :r_og_:
,, ,, _ ,
.
,
,, _
, ,, _
. (o:o:_og|_o, , ")
_r:_o_o_g goro__g |__o_o:b ooo:ro_: :o J_oobg_g:Jo b:rooJo|
or:g:g__rog:b :1rorog ______|, o:r:o o| _og_gogo| :r_g__g oboJ-
gb_go_| :oob:_:g|. oo_1oo| _:o:b:|o:o__go ogo|_:: _bogr_o|__go
|o__:_o_o| oo_go |oor:ggo| :r_:|:bg: goro__g o_o:o: :b|:1_gr_g,
J__:r_oo o_or_ oo__goo| b_|b:_. ogoo :o b_|b:o: :r|o :booro__-
go: :_:oo:bo: _roo_ro_:oo_o___g__o| 1oo_roo 1o:_o oo__goo: _:
o:oo _r:b|_oro:_ooo, r:_ __g__ro| _ooorogo oo__g_o| 1_oo_o___o-
o:: :oobg__go.
oo___ro |o___o| _o__g _roo |o__o_o__ro ogo|_:: o:|Jo :r_g__go
ro_oo| :bo_or_:_o_o|, o:r:g_go1o_o| oob:bog_o:. 1o__r |:o:r-
ogo:b:_ o|__go_b ,|o__:_o:o: rooo_o|" J_|:b_. o|:g|o orob_ooo bJor-
:_ oro1:|: _: _ob_o:_or:_Jo:_ J_oobb_g: (___:g_o|, |o__:_o_o|: _:
o_oo:r_o:o: :bo_or_:_o:). :|_o J_oobg_g_Jo _ro_o_o|_o :obb_g_b
oo___ro |_r____r_go orob_oo_o| J_oogro| _:__| _: o|__go_b ,oo___-
ro _ob_o:_or:_o|" :b oro1o| |o___o| ,:r:oro1:_go" |_r____ro| J_|:-
b_ (:. _go| ,|oo_obo_o", ,o___r_ro", !20-o:bo bg_oo _:o:ro___go
or:g:go b:b:roo_o).
o_ro go_o:bo
129
oo___r ___|_Jo b:ro_go ,|bgo|o o___g_g_:"
___|_o|: _: |o|__oo| ooo:ro__o oo_1o:Jo |o__o_o__r bor_J_|bo:|
oo_go|. bg__g_rog _borog _ob_:__Jo _boo| ooo__o ooo:ro:g| ___-
|_o| r__ob|_r___o:|: _: oo| :Jo_gr:| oo__o_go _bo| _o__ro |o|__oo| o_J-
g_ooo. :o:|o:b, o|o_b_go _b_: _go__| :o _b:|. J_o_oo, o:b _b_: o_o__|,
roo _|: o_ o| ___|_o |bor__ oo|ogo|:: :b__ogbogo. _og_gog_ _| o|o_b_g|
_og_g: :r_g__go |:b_o|o _obg_b_oo| |:boo, r:_ bob _|br_| _oo_bo_:_o_r
:__|.
oo___ro ___|_o| :__o: |bg:g:ro:. oo___ro ___|_o __b__oobor_|
or:g:go |_o:b_o__ro |o|__oo|, or:g:go ,_bo|" _roo_ro:_:o_g_o g_gJo.
:o:|o:b, ob_oro:_o: J___oob_o| _bo| J_|:b_, :r_og_ - :o _bo| r__ob-
|_r___o: _: ob:_gr_go oo__gor_o| :b:go _ooo| bg_oo: o|o_b_go| oo_r,
bJor:_ J_:__b| ___|_o| ooroo:_ ob_oro:_o:|.
b:roogo_oboo |o__:_o:, ro__|:_ ___|_o| :_o_o_g |_o___| _|oo|
___|_o, roo_go_ :r ___g: |_r____r_go oogo_obo| b:rbo_Jo _: b:r-
oo___b_go: oo__o_go _bo| _:rg_Jo. _| o_b_: |bg: ___|_o|, |bg: _b:1_
J___bogo ___|_o| _r:o_b_o. :|_o J_oobg_g:Jo o|o_b_go J_____: :o _bo|
r__ob|_r_or_:|. oro o___ro, __g__r_go, ob:_gr_go _bo| _roo_ro-
ooo:ro_: 1o__r o|:g|o _: J_o:g|_:_o:, bJor:_ _o - :b|bg:g__go _:
J__o:g|__go. o| ob:_gr_go 1_oo_o___o| :b:go _ooo| b_:ro_ o___g:.
:|_, o::goo:_, _:roo_:: _boogo, roo !820-o:bo bg_o| _ro_o_:|
,r_|g:b _: g__oog:" _b:o| b:b:roo_:_ oo_bg_b:. :o:o:_ ooo_oo| J_-
_og__go: :o oo_oo| ,_b:o|oo|" :__o:. o:r:o :b: o_J_obo|__go _oo_o|
o_oobg_g_| :b|:__or__go o:_:g1b_oroo: :b:|o:o__:o? o|obo boo
_oob_go_b_b gog__ro| ,|:bo_:oo o_1o_g|:" _: ,org_:b_g _:gb_g|",
o:rbo| _ro_o__g oo_o_|, o_:bogobo| ,__J_b_:|", |:_o:o_ |:__oggo:b:_
o_bo_b_b ogo_o_|o| ,|o_g:r_go| b_gogb_:|". o__robo_|o|: _: o_g_-
b:go|o| J__bo_:go :_b_r_o|, :r_og_ :o_g__|o|: _: o_:bo| _obog__-
o| J_o__ o|obo :r _b_: :b__go_r_ob: r:o__boo_ or:1rog:b _:_o|: _:
:___g |__b:|. :r _b_: _:gogob_oo, roo o_J_obo| oo_o: :oo_g__b_: __b-
1_ro| o_og:g__r_ooo oo _oo_:Jo, ro__|:_ 1b_oroo: :r:b:_g_ |:g:g-
___go o_o, go_r_ - oogo_o__ro __oog|:oo__oo:. o_ ___|_o J_o_:g_: oo
_roo| |:_og_go:o_ :_o:r__go 1b_orooo| J__r:_bo_o__g _g_o_b__|,
__b1_r: :_ro:g:g_: o:|. oo_oo| _b:o|o: obogo_ go__r:__r_g :|o___Jo
:ooob:__o_:.
b:b:roo_o ob__o_: J_o__o _:_o_oo:

.
_| o_o _o_:_: o|o:bo_:b, roo_g|:_ o_J_obo| o:b:o__rog_ o_oobg_go
J_|:boJb:g:_ o_bo_:. oo|o 1_:gg_boo :__o_oro: _b_: b:ro_go_o o__-
_r-__g__r_go ooo:ro__o| :r_g__g |o|__o:Jo, _b_: :_og:go|bob_-
ob: ___|_o| o:_:go _rogb_g-oor_go :b__o| :__og_go:. _| |o|__o:
oo___ro ___|_o| :b:go1o
130
ooo_:g_: :r_g__g |o__:_o_| _: o:o J_|:ogo _roo_roooo:ro__|. :|_,
o::goo:_, oor_go _: _g_o_ro _oo1o__o _roo_ro| J__b:o_o_:, o:r:o
o|obo g_r J__b_oo_: obo:r_g, _ro_o__g :b _:b_:|_o__r :o_| (_boo-
go:, roo :r__o| g_Jo:ro_o ___|__o| |:__og_g1_ ,o|o:bo|" J___bo|:|,
o:___r|obo: _goo_ob__ b:oo:_og: o:o _g_g: _:b_:|_o__ro _oo1o_o.
:|_g_ ooo__b_b ,o:___o|" _ro:b_go _: r_|o oo:rob_g_o, roog_o:_
___|_o_:b :ooo__| ,___o:bo ___:r_o|" |__b_o, o_o_: :r:gob J__b_b_o:
,_:roJb:g|:" _: ,1:_b_go| _:oo| |o1o:rJo" b:ro_g _:b_:|_o_:|. ___|_o|
,o|o:bo|_ro" :|:__o J_oobg_goo ro_o o_o :oo__b__go - o:| g:b|_b_-
_b J_o_ooo _oo1o__o (o::goo:_, roogo| g_g1_ o_o_o r_|g:bo), |:b_-
_o :b _ooo___o.
:o:|o:b, ___|_o| ooo__gbo b:b_g___o ___ob_: oog:r |o|__o:|,
roo_go_ |r_go:_ :r _o:bbo_: ,o|o:bo|__g" _r:o_b__|. :_ :ooo__b_:
ob:_gr_go or:bo1:_oo| |bg: _ooo - |:b_o:ro r:ob__go oo_o:. o_oobg_go
o:| _:r:_ o_bo_: Xvlll |:___bo| o_|:o__o_:b _:b___go. :oo_bo:| b_g|
_b_o_: _oboJgb_go r:ob__go boJ:b-ogo|__o, o::goo:_, oooogo|, b_g_-
ogo|: _: g_gJobo| b:b:roo__Jo :bo_or__go ooroooo |:b_g_o :b |:-
o:_:rogo| oo_:__o| _oo_ro |o___o. :o:|o:b, ob:_gr_go or:bo1_o| _|
oro _ooo _roo_roJ__o:g|__go o_o. :|_, o::go:_, ,o|o:bo|__go" :_: _-
go|boo_: goro__g b:_o_r_:|: _: _|o_ogoo1o|, bogo ,r:ob__go" b:1o
__r:___:| :o:bgog__: |o___|: _: :g:b__r_g-_:b_:|_o_r _oo1o__1_.
J_oobg_gooo ro_o: o:r_bo _:r:o1obo|:, roo_go:_ J_b_go_: ogo: o_roo_-
_o|:_oo ooo_gbogo oo_oo| b_r:, r:_:b o:go g_r ::rog: ,r:ob__go" oo_oo|
|_ogo|, _|o_ogoo1oo|: _: oroboo| _roogog :oo__b_:|.
:o:|o:b, ,o|o:bo1oo|:" _: ,r:ob__go" oo_oo| _roo_roJ__o:g|__go
|_r____r_o| _roogogo :oo__b_: :r :oob_r:g_: ,r_|g:b _: g__oog:|"
_ob|_r___o_g _o|ob:b|_|. o_:bogobo| o|:g|o :b :_o_J_ogo|__go |_-
go|_g_o_oo :o|gg:g_go _:bg_bogo _ro_o1oo (_:r:o1obo1oo| __g__ro|
og:g|:1ro|oo, _| oro |_ogo _roo_ro| _:_:bgog_:. J_r. _:r:o1obo| oo_r
o_:bogobo|, roor_ o|___o oo_1oo| o:o:oo:gro| |:oror:oo :_o:r_:)
:og:ro o_o_r_go _:_o_o:

. . .
*

_rb_oo_: oo o:ogo|:_oo ooo_gbogo _:_o_o| b:__r:go1o|, roo_g|:_
o_r:o |:_r_o oo|_:_:, J__o:g|__go: o| b_rboooro| _o1o__ro J_|:og_-
go_o| :b oro oo:g:ro ooro| o__-b:_g_:_ og:_ob_ro _roo_ro_:oo_-
o___g__o| J_|:b_ ,gog__ro:b_g" o|__go:|o:b.
* _| _:_o_o ,:_o_J_ogo|__go:" :r: o:r_o ob:_gr_go |:bo| |_r____ro| oob__goo, :r:o__
ro_oo_o| o:go|__r_:o: :oo_. :og:ro _:_o_o :b___ogb_: oJgo:o vl (_. _:r:bog|_o|
__roobogoooo) ro_o_g _o_r:|. oo_o:Jo o| J_:__b| 3,% (|:ob__r_|o:, roo _| _o_ro
_oobg_g: :_o_J_ogo|:| -3,4%, __og|_o|o:b :o:g_ bg_Jo -!0,8% _: !!,6-o:, ogoo o_J_obo|
goro_:Jo (!8!7-!8!8 bb.) - ,!%. _|:: _:r:bog|_o| oo_r :oo:b:roJ__go _o_r_o). :og:-
r:_, _:_oo o_g_or:_:: :oo_o_ogo. o:_1oo ooo_b_g: boob_: :_o_J_obo|__go b_rbo - _ro-
_o__g |__b:Jo oo_o___: ___r:_ __rb__: _: __r:___: :_:o_:b_: _|o__o1or__go
:b__r:o| ___:g_1_, roog_o_ :oo| J___:_ _g__oo1o_o| oboJgb_gooo :_og_rg_:.
o_ro go_o:bo
131
ob:_g:r orgog|_o| |:b_go| oob|_bo_:| ___|_o _b_: b:_roo oo
_roo|ogo| o:g1_ :bg__ro _: :oo_oo o__:_ :__o:_o roo:b_o__go :b___-
o| |o|__o:Jo. :o:|o:b, __og|_o| :g:__o| oob|_bo_: o_oobg_g| obogo_
ooo_oo :ob__: roo:b_o1oo| ob:_gr_g _b:|, roo _b_J:_ :__ogo__ob: _|
__:b:|_b_go.
oo_oo| ___|_o g:_:_, o:g_:__:b_g:_ :_:ob:_gg_| bogo_ _roo
|o|__oo_:b o_or_Jo _: ooo:ro:g| o:o| _roo_roJ_ooro|oor_:|. _b_ro-
go:, o_oobg_go o:go| __g__r_g :r|_b:gJo g_r oo_go_: oo_go ___|_o|
ooo:ro :oo|:__ _roo:b ,_b:|". or:g:g_rog:bo ___|_o| ob:_gr_g _____|
:b:ooro__: :o, _roo J_b__goo, J__o:g|__go _b_o| _roogogo :oo__b_:.
:|_oo: |bgo|o o___g_g_o| |_r____r_go oboJgb_go:. g:r:_ :-
__r__g b|b:rJo oobg__rogo __bo |b__go obg_g| _ro|_:go1:_o:|, _|_ oo,
:oo:gg_b| :b1:g__go bogoo_r_o| |:__o:r |_r____r:|. :|_g_, |bgo|o
o___g_g_o| J__o:g|_go: ___|_o| |_r____r:|o:b ::__o_r_| :o __:-
b:|_b_g|. :o:Jo: oo ,_bg_o|" _:boJb_g_:, roo_go: b_:gooo:_ b_:go
oboob__: (g. _og|_oo| _r_|_oo:oo_go _o_:_o| oob__goo). |_r____r:
_bob:ro:, |:b:o |bg: |_r____r:| :r J___:b_: :b :r _:or_g_g:. :__og:_oo| _|
oro b_rbo ob:_gr_g ___|_| _bog_go_o__go:| :bog_|.
|bgo|o o___g_g_o| ob:_gr_go __b__oo| orog_o: oorg_go: :bobo-
g: o. :b_obo:. oo| b:Jroo_Jo :oogg_bogo: :r_og_ _:gJoro |bgo|o o___-
g_g_o|: _: ob:_gr_go o___g_g_o| _o:goo1:_oo| orog_o_| Joro|:
|bgo|o o___g_g_o|: _: :g_oro|__go _ob___|_o| _roo_roJ_b_oo| 1oo
o_:r__: _o:goJo r_ogo__o| _roo_roooo:ro_o| :b:goo_ro _:gJor_o.
oo| o_Jg_ooo :g_oro oor| g_r_oo :oo___: _: b_rb__: o:oo _:oo_o__-
_g__o| _o:goo1or_:.
1_oooobooogo :1ro o__:_ :r|_ooo: o|_oo _obog__o| :bboggo|:|,
rooro_:: ,_g_bo ob_obo". o:|Jo _o_:__o|: _: go__r:__r_go, _o_ooo,
o___r-oogo_o__ro _: _ogo|o_o_ro r_oobo|__b_o_o| |oor:ggo| J___:_,
o:g| ob_b| or:g:gro_bog:bo _ob___|__o _: or_g_g: ___|_o| oobogoo1oo.
:_g_ ggob__: oo___ro |_r____ro|ogo| _:o:b:|o:o__go _o__g _roo
:r|_ooo _ob_go__o| :r|o. oo_1o:, roor_ o___g_g_o| _ooo, gobgo|__-
r:_ oobogo_roo|:__b ooo|br:_o|. ooo| :oo, roo b_gogb_:Jo b_o|oo_r
_oro:g_r |_r____r:| ::bbo: Job::r|orogo _:_gorogo| __b__b_o:, oo-
_1oo| oobogoo1oo oo_b| _ob|_r___o_g oboJgb_go:| _: 1oo_ro |o|__-
o:Jo :boo:r__:, roor_ goro1oo, |bg_Jo _o - roor_ goro__g-_oo__ro
|:b_o|o (ooo|_: oob__goo, o_ gob ooobb_g: oo___ro |:o_:ro| __b_r:_).
:o:|o:b, oobogoo1oo| orob_ooo _bob::_o___: oboJgb_go:o: |:_r-
oo g_gJo |_o:b_o__ro _ro__g_o| o__oog :_:b:_gg_:|. ___|_Jo :o__-
o_oo ooo_ob:r_o| :b|bg:g__g |o|__o:o: oogogoo, :ooo__b_: :b-
o:r__o|: _: |o|__o:_o1:_oo| or:g:g__rog:bo b_rb_o _: o:g| ob_b| |:o-
_:ro| :b|bg:g__go |_r:o_o. oo___ro (ob:_gr_go) ___|_o, orob_oo_g:_,
oogo_obo_ro:.
o:g1_ oogo: ___|_o| Job::bo or:g:g_bo:boo| :oogg_b: o:ro_o_go
oo_1oo| boo_J_Jo :b oo__o| oo_r :b|bg:g__go ob_ob:_o_o|, :b _o__g -
oo___ro ___|_o| :b:go1o
132
_roo_ro|:ooro|ooro |_og_o| :J_:r: :oo__b_o| o::goo_Jo. gb:boo,
roor r_:go1__: _| orob_ooo o|_oo oo__o| J_oo_o___:Jo, rooro_::
obo__b_o :b_b|_o. :o og:g|:1ro|oo :bgobogoo oo|o g__|o ,, .

. . .
, ,

, ,
,_
,
,
, ,
,

,

, .
b:b:roo_o g:o__| goro__go _ogo| _roo:booo, r:_ o_oobg_go|
oo_r ob__o_o_r:_ J_orobo:. :o:|o:b, _roo:boo| _| J_rob_: ooo_oo g:r-
o| |ooo:_roo _oooo| |:b_goo_g:b_go| _oobgoo :_or_g :b__:|, roo :_ o|
b:roooJo: ___|_o| _g_o_b__o| or:g:g|o|__o_ro:|o:b go_ogJo.
g__|Jo J_oobb_g: _roo ooroo:_o |_og_ro _g_o_b_o - _|:: go__r:-
__r_go:. ___|_o __oob|_r:_o_g:_, :J_:r:_ :o_: go__r:__r_g :|o-
_o:_o_1_ _: o_o_: o:|Jo b:ro_go :r:: _J_:go _o_:__o, o:r:o o| o:ob_ oo-
:boJb_| o_oobg_g| :r_g__g __g__r_g-_o_oo _: go__r:__r_g :r_oo1_,
roogo| _ob___|_o| :r_J_ g__|o :__:ro:. ___|_o| |o__g_o o_or__go:,
o|obo |bg: :r:__ro:, o_ :r: :r_J_ |o|__o_o| |ob:g_o. _| b:1:|o_go
__g__r_go:, obobor_go: o_g_or:_ _ooro|oor_| ___|_| o|_o b:b:r-
oo__|, roo_go: :g_or_o |_o____r:_ ooo|br:_o_b_b ,|o__g_|" oo_o:
:_b_go|__b (g_roob_ogo, o:o:_og|_o, _g__:_g:).
:o:|o:b, _roo:bo: o:g1_ ooroooo:. __g_ oorg_go oro _:_oo obg_g|
:b|bg:g__g go__r:__r_g :|o_o:_o_|. g:ob_| __oo-
bo1oo| oo_1o:|, __ro 1_|_:_, oo| oo |_:b_:r__|, roog_o_ o:|orog __g-
__r_g _boo_r_:Jo __:gJor__: g_roob_og| :b :orobo1o| (J_r. b. _o_-
go:r_g|_o| oobor:_o:, roo_gJo_ __r:___: :o:bgog__go: __g__ro|
_|:o J_:o1_). -| __:gJor__: !880-!80-o:bo bg_o| o:|orogo
oo_1o:, :o_b_obo _: b:_|obo (,,, , / , , /
"), b:o_og|_o| roo:b|_o, oo:g_roob-
o_ro go_o:bo
133
__go ob__go_b_oo| g__|o_:. J_oobg_gooo :r::, roo ,, gbg__: oo-
g:ro g__|o__ro g:ro:b_o| |:boo, roo_go_ :JoJgg_| oo__o1o| (:r: ),
bogo ,," _ob_r:|__g:_ _o_ooo _orooo:: oo__o_go. , "
|bg: |_ogo| J_:ooo o_b_o_::
,
, . . .
(:. o_J_obo, 19 1825 )
ooboo__::oo:b_g_o| oo_1o: _:go__o_: b__r:|ogo| J_oo_o___o|
_J_:go 1_:gg_boo _: _go|boo_: goro__go |_o___o| _o_oo
_ob_r___go:|.
oo_go |_ro_o| _ob___|_Jo , " :_o_o_:, roor_ o__:-
_or: (|o_g_ogo b::_ro| g:oo:r|), bogo _ooo__o ," _ ,"-|o:b
|_r____r_g :b_oo_1:| b:roo_obo| _: oo_g__go: _ob_r___g-|:borog
oboJgb_go:|. :o:|o:b, _g_ooo gbg__oo _:_o|:

o:|o:b J__:r__oo , " (J_r. :b_oo_1:: ,, - ")
|:borooo| boJb_| oo_b| _: __:gJor__: __g_ |r_go:_ :b|:1_-gr_g |:-
:b| - b:_o:b :bo__g g:oo:r|.
o:r:o o__:go g:ooro| |:b_| J_oog_: _ob__| oro :b|bg:g__go
oboJgb_go:: !. oorooo-go__r:__r_go (,, , ", ,,
") _: 2. :|o_o:_o: _ro|_o:b_g |:__g_|oo __g-
__r:|o:b:

, ...
(b. b__:|ogo, , )
:_ o:g| ob_b| |_o:b_o__ro _:gJor_o| oorg_go |o|__o:. J_o_oo g:o-
oro|, roor_ |:bo| r_:go1:_o: ::__o_r_| o_or_ |o|__o:|.
o_or_ |_ro_o ___ob_: oboJgb_go:o: r_goo_r-_ro|_o:b_g b_o:|,
r:_ oo_roob__go o_oobg_go|ogo| __bo ro_o o_o. b:roooJo: , "
-| oorg_go |_ro_o| (,"-o| |: ,"-| |obobooo) _: , " -|
:b_oo_1:. :o_g__bo_ro _bogr_o| __g_oo|:b Jg_o| _ooo-goo :o:go|_-
_g__go |_go| |:b_ :_ |:g|_oo _:bob1ooo_ro:. r:o__b:_o_ oo_go_b_go:
__:b:|_b_go _:_oo. bob:oor__o _:_o_o| |_o:b_o__r |:o_:roJo ,:_ooo"
o:rog:_ roo _:_ogo:. :o:|o:b, o:|o:b _:_:gJor__g __g__r_g oboJ-
gb_go_Jo o:g1_ _b_rog:_ o:g|__o_: ,_o_o_r_:" _: b:roooJoo_:
o__bo_r_g-_ogo|o_o_ro g__|o_o|: _: |_o:b_o__ro _:gJor_o| |:o_:ro.
ooo__gbo |_ro_Jo ,ooob__o" :r_g__go ___|_orogo |ob:go|
|:boo:: oobo___go. oo___ro ___|__o| :b|bg:g__go |o|__o_o :b:r-
b_g_b :o _b_o| Job::r||, o:r:o ogoo :o |o__go| |:1ro|o :b___ogb_: o:|
:r: roor_ _|o_ogoo_ro oo_o___o| :_boJgb:, :r:o__ - roor_ __g-
__r_go boJ:bo. |_ro_o ooo_:g| :o _b_o| ob__ror__:_o:o: oo_g :o:|. ,
" _: , " __r|, roor_ o_J_obo_:b ooo_ob:r_ oo__-
oo___ro ___|_o| :b:go1o
134
_ro _r:_o_ooo b:_:rb:b_go _o_:__o. :b_b|_o| __g__r_g |:o_:roJo o|obo
b:roogo__: |:__orog oo_1oo| |:boo. , " oog:boJb_| ___|_|:-
r_J_ _:gJor_o| or _oo1_: oorg_go o:o:bo: :r:go__r:__r_go, _o_ooo,
:gJgoo| |:__go (roo_go_ _ooro|oor__: obobor_g |:o_:ro|), o_or_ _o
|bg: :r:__ro:, o_ :r: :gJgoo| |:__go| :o|:bg_go go__r:__r_go _r:_o-
_o:. XlX |:___bo| _:|:|r_g| oo_1o:Jo ,a " b:roo:__b| :gJgoo|
:r:boJborogo |:o_:ro| __g__r_g boJ:b|. :o _ob1_ , " _|:: |bgo|o
- :r:go__r:__r_go o___g_g_:, roo_go_ go__r:__r_go :|o_o:_o_o|
oog_obo_r _roogoo:Jo :_o_o_:, roor_ _bogr_o| bo: (,", _: :r:
,", ,", _: :r: ,").
g__|o| |:o |_ro_Jo o_:r__: :b|:1_gr_go _ob|_r___o_go ob_r_o:.
oooo__go |_ro_o J___: :r_g__g oorooo-go__r:__r_g |_og1_ _:-
__ob__go 3 _:_oo|: _: :o |_ogo_:b :oog:r_bogo _roo _:_oo|:b. oorg_go
oro |_ro_o| oob__goo :bo|:1_gr_: :o _:_oo| :_ogo_ - _|:: |_ro_o|
ogo. J_o_oo g:b___oo _:r_g_g_|. o_|:o_ |_ro_Jo :b|bg:g__go _:_oo
:_:ob:_gg_| ogo_:b o_or_ :_og1_. _o__g __ro oo:_ro: |_r____-
r_go _o|ob:b|o __:b:|_b_g |_ro_Jo. o:g1_ go__r:__r_go g__|o_o|:
_: ooroo:_o o_oo| oob__goo o|obo :_o_o_: XlX |:___bo| oo_go oo___ro
_r:_o_oo| _ob1_. J_oobg_gooo ro_o:, roo |:o:_rJo b:b|_b_o: ,",
oorg_g o:r_g:g1_ _:|o_go :J_:r: o:bgogoo, bogo __:b:|_b_go |_ro_o|
ogo _:_oJo:
.
o:bgogo:bo: o_or_ o:r_g:go - XlX|. _:|:b_o|o| oo___ro o___g_g_o|
boro_o| J_|::oo|:_ _g:gogo| |:b_gbo__: oo___r :|o_o:_o:_ o___g:.
:o |_ro_Jo oo_go_b_g:_, ___|_o| ro_o_go ob_r_oo| |:ooro|ooro_,
_:o:___go: o_b_o_ _:_oo:
, .
_| _:_oo :ooorb_g: o:go|o |:boroooo, _| :ooooJ_go: go__r:__-
r_go :|o_o:_o_o| |:o_:ro_:b. :og:r:_, _roo obrog, ___|_Jo go__r:__-
r_g:_ b:roo__bogo: oobo_ro _: oo_g__bo_ro |:o_:ro_o, o_or_ obrog _o,
o:|Jo :|:b_go: :r:go__r:__r_go r_:go:. o:r:o ogoo _| r_:go: :r::
|::bo, :r:: bogoo (:ooo :b|bg:g__: , "-|:b), _|:: |:bo| _oro_o.
," - ,"-|o:b J_b:o_:Jo - __r:_og:bo :b:go::,
roo_go_ __r _o__g Xvlll |:___bo| oo_1o:Jo :o__gooo ooooog_o_:. :o:|-
o:b, _ob__ro| :_|:boJb:g:_ ooo_bogo: _bo_:g_ro |o__g: - ,", :ro|-
_o__g_|__go r_:go:, roor_ :|_r:___go _oro_o| _roogoo:, _g_-
g:1_ or:b_go: obo__b_o :b_b|_o|ogo|.
r_|_go_:b o:rob: o:o:r goooo_o.
, , ", !72.
Iuri Lotman, Analysis of Poetical Text. 1972.
Translated from Russian by Tamar Lomidze.
o_ro go_o:bo
135
lela xaCiZe
(|:_:rog_go)
X |:___bo| _:ro_go _: _g:r_go oobor:_oo|
o|_oroo_:b
,|_:bo|" bob: boo_rJo |:|_go_ro oo_1oo| oro og:g|:bobo b:rooo:_-
_bgo| - oo:b_ oobbbo|: (X|.) _: :b_r_: ooro|o| (vlll |.) o_o_go_r_oo| J__:r_-
ooo _gg_go| J____o| o_go_:_oo| |:J_:g_: oog__:. o_g_ :oog:_g__b_o
_o_o:rbgo| _roo __o| - 1oo| |:oJ::oo|:ogo| :b__ogbogo orog_ :g_o-
ro| |::gog_o (b:boo_: !35-!3).
bob:o__:r_ o_go_:_o:Jo _gg_go| :r_:go _o__g __ro _:roog__:,
r:_ _go|boo| _roo o__:_ |:ob__r_|o go__r:__r_go oogg_bo| :bb-
ogg:| og_go _g:r_go ob_rgoo_:b. o:r:g_g_o X |:___bo| _o_o _:ro-
g_go oobor:_o| - oo:b_ oobbbo| _: :o:g_ o_roo_o| og:g|:bobo _g:r_-
go oo_g:bo|: _: ob_rgo| - _ob|_:b_ob_ or_|g:g_go| J_oo_o___:| Joro|
oo_go_b_g:_ o|:g|o _: |:__r:___o :_oobb_:.
bo. ooro|:_oo ooo_gbog oobor:_o_g _:bob|, roo_go_ og. _:g:b-
oJgogo: :_oo:bob: |ob:| oo:1_ o_J:oo|:|, :bg:g| J_o__o |:o:_ro: ,bogo
_|_ :go:bo o:| _:r|: _oro o___|:, _o_|:, _o_oo: g__r_oo: :__b_rg_-
o:b oobbbo|:_:". _| |:o:_ro b:og:_ b:roogo__b| or oorogb_:| - _roo
o:o:bo: o___ ooro, roo_go_ ooob|_bo_: _ooo___oo ,_:ro" _: ,_o_o".
:r:b:_g_ |:__r:___o: o| :r_oo_:, roo oo oo:b_ oobbb| ,_o_oo: g_-
_r_oo:" J_|obog| bo. ooro|:_oo ooo_gbogo |::gogo| J__ob:|. _| :r_-
oo_:, __:go_, oobbbo| :oorb__g :g_oro___1_ o___g_g_|.
o___ ooro| |:b_go :__g_ogo: oobbbo| :o |::gogo| :_ro|_o_Jo_:
,boo_:go _oro, J__bo_ _oro o___|: bob:J_ o____o: o___o|: _: :_o__"
(b:boo_ !87: 335-34).
:_ oob|_bo__go o___ ooro| gob:oo| _:__bo| __: __:gJor__:
o.boro_g:| |:b_g|. oo|o :1roo, _| _b_: o_o| _:|:gg_o |:_:rog_go| :b_
:_b:1_oo| o___ - ooro, roogo| o__oo| b:b: _oobg_g: oo:b_ oobbbo| oo_-
g:b_o:| (X |:___bo| l b:b_g:ro). _| oo|:1r_: :1o:r__g o_b: |:o__bo_ro
go__r:__r:Jo. :_:_. _.____goo_ ooobo_| ,_:rogo| _bogr_o|" |o__g_|
ooro :_b:1o: o__o| J_|:b_: ,|r_go _oggoo: |o__ooo:, |ooboo: _: :bog-
b_oo:, _oroo|oo__:r_ o_o _o___| _og_go:, o:J_b__go __g_|o:o:, oob_:-
g_ g:b:_o:, _b_o _: o_::go _: _oggoo: __oogoo: |:obo_oo: |r_go"
(____goo_ !60: !7!). :o:| _b_: _:_o:_o| o| :r_oo_:_, roo :o o__o| |:b_g|
__:gJor__: g_ob_o_o| |:_oo|_ooo|o| _::r|_:.
:oro:_, bo. ooro|:_oo ooo_gbog |::go_g1_ _:ro_go |:o:_ro|
oob__goo o_g_o_: roor_ _o_o oobor:_o|, o|_ ___o|:ogo| b:_g_:_ J_|-
b:ggogo _or|__go o__o| |:b_.
bg_b| oo_r oobbbo| __boo o_o_go_r_oo| - 77 |::gogo| :oogg_-
g__|o_o_b_o:
136
b:o _b:__o, roo o| o_o J_o__b_go _: r__:__oro _:ro_go ,o:rbg:bo|" _og_-
g_|o r__:__oo|:. l _:ro_go ,o:rbg:bo|" J___boo oo:b_ oobbbo: J__ob: :b:go
_oo_: _:ro_go oobor:_oo| o|_oro:Jo. :o _r__go| _g_g: J_o_ob_roob-
__g r__:__o:| |:__ogg:_ ___g| l _:ro_go ,o:rbg:bo". oo:b_ oobbbo _ro:_-
_roo :g_oro: _:rog_g oobor:_o: Joro|, roo_g|:_ :og:ro |oro_go|:
_: oo__goo| |:o_J:o :_g| b:_:r__go. oo|o ___o|:ogo| _boogo o_o_go_-
r_o: _gr__r :__o:__: |bg: _:rog_g oobor:_o: |::gog_|.
_rob_go_:b o:robog |::gog_o:b _ro:_, _| _r__go J_o_:g_:
o:g:_ oo:b_ oobbbo| !00-1_ o__ |::go_g|, o:o Joro| ,o:rbg:bo|:ogo|" :b-
__ogbog _g_g: o_or_ _oroo| |::go_g|.
:oro:_, oo:b_ oobbbo :g_oro l _:ro_go ,o:rbg:bo|" oo_go |_o_:rob_-
go b:bogo|: (b:boo_ !87: 25-26). _| |::gog_o, roog_o_ _ro|_o:b_go
oo_1oo| J___gr_| b:roo:__b|, J__obogo: :o _r__go| ro_go ooobogb_-
o| :og:go|bob_oo. _o_o _r:_o_o_goo| g_r_oo, o:o :b:|o:o_| _o_o
oroob:g_ro:_. :o oro _:__oro| J_rb_o: :b_o_or__g |:b_| :bog_|
oo:b_ oobbbo| oo_1o:|.
,o:rbg:bo|:ogo|" :b__ogbogo :|1_ o__o |::gogoo o1:b_o_ro _o-
oo| ,o:rbg:bJo" oo:b_ oobbbo: J_o_:b: oroob:g_ro, _:ro_go __b:. _:ro_g
oobor:_o:Jo _| :ro| _rob_go_:b o:robogo oobor:_o_go _r__go|
:_:ro_g_o| _ro:__roo J_oobg_g:. :og:ro r:o, 1o:_:_, b:_g_:_ oo|:-
go_b_go: oobor:_oo| - |:|_go_ro ob_rgoo| :o _ro-_roo _g_g:1_
_:bobo__ro _:ro| o|_oro:Jo.
o|:g| oogg_b:| oog:_ggo_o X |:___bo| _g:r_go oobor:_oo| o|-
_oro:Jo. X |:___b_ :oorb__go b:b:: _g:r_oo| o|_oro:Jo. _|:: b:b: |oo_-
ob oorg_go| oo_g:b_oo|: (83-27bb.), roogo| b_oo oob_: :r|_ooo _ggo-
g_: _g__bo| |_go_r _bogr_:Jo - _rob_g_bog:bo go__roo| _g:r_-
g_bog:boo J__gg:. oo|og_ b_oo, 83 b_g|, _rogb_go: _r_:o _g:r_go
o_o_o:g_r _b:_ |_bo |:b_gobo_o|: _: __g_|oo|:ogo|. :o:g_ b_g| |oo_ob
l-o: _g:r_oo| og_g ___:_:g:_Jo - ogo|_:Jo :r|__go go__r:__r_go
|_og: :_:o_:b: _g__bo| :b:g ___:_:g:_Jo - or_|g:gJo. or_|g:go o__:
_g:r_go go__r:__ro|: _: __g__ro| _oboJgb_gog:b_| __b_r:_.
|oo_ob oorg_go:b J_o:bbo_oo _: oo|o ob:r_:g_roo |:r_go_: :o
_oo_o| _oboJgb_gog:b_|o oo_g:b_ - _ob|_:b_ob_ or_|g:g_go.
_ob|_:b_ob_ or_|g:g_go _g:r_oo| o|_oro:Jo _boogo:, roor_
o__bo_ro, ob_r:go _: oo:rob_go. o| o_o og:g|:bobo b:rooo:__b_go or_-
|g:go| go__r:__r_go |_ogo|: lX |:___bo| oob_r_g|: _: X |:___bo|
_:|:b_o|Jo.
_g:r_go ob_rgoo| o|_oro:Jo oo _boogo:, ooroo:_:_, roor_
:g_oro ,_o_:__o__ro |:b:r_o|:". _|:: _:_:_:o: oorg_go _r__go |g:g_r
ob_rgo:Jo. |:ob__r_|o:, roo :o:g_ _r__gJo J_|_go: _ob|_:b_ob_ or_|-
g:g_go| ,:b:b_ro (:g_:___ro) go_g_o", roog_o_ |g:g_ro |:__g_|oo
oo_1oo| oorg_g boo_J_:_:: oobb__go.
_ob|_:b_ob_ or_|g:g_go o_o oorg_go :g_oro, roo_go:_ |g:g_r
ob_rgo:Jo J__ob: o|_oro_go _robo_: - ,o|_oro_o". 06 b_g|, |oo_ob l-o|
g_g: b:boo_
137
_:g:g_oo, o:b o:rob: :o:b:|_ :g__|:b_ro_go| ,oobo |o__g: :ro:b_go: bo-
b::_o__", r:_ :oobg__go o_o :o _r_|o| :gr__g_oo oo_roob__g _g:-
r_oJo. o:|g_ ___ogbo| b:Jrooo ,o|:b_r_: o_oo_oo|o|:ogo|", roo_gJo_ :_-
b_r| bo. o_oo_oo|o| roog:| og_go |g:g_ro _bo| :_o:r_o|:ogo|.
_ob|_:b_ob_ or_|g:g_go| _o__g _roo b:Jrooo: ,__: boo_: |:b:r_-
:o:", roo_gJo_ o| _:r_o_| __bo _bo|, __roo_, _rob_go| orooro____-
go:| _: b:o_g_o_| og_go |g:g_ro _bo| :b|:__or__g oboJgb_go:|
_g:r_go __g__ro|:ogo|.
:oro:_, _ob|_:b_ob_ or_|g:g_go| |:boo X |:___bo| _g:r_o| _:g-
_: _bog_r|:g_ro oo_g:b_, roo_go:_ |:__og_go b:__:r: _g:r_go |:|_-
go_ro ob_rgoo| r:o__boo_ _:r|. oo_go oo|o J_oo_o___: _rogb_go boJ-
boo:: :__g_ogo.
X |:___bo| _:|:b_o|Jo, |oo_ob _o_o| o__oo| b:b:Jo, or_|g:go| go__r-
:__r_go |_ogo|:ogo| _:o:b:|o:o__g |_go|_g_o_:| :|:b:g| _ob|_:b_ob_
or_|g:g_go| o:b:o__rogo| - b_rboro1__ br:ro| oo_g:b_o:_, __roo_,
oo|o b:Jrooo - ,:|oo:ogo|" (|or:o_ !2 : 60-70 ).
:oro:_, lX |:___bo| oob_r_g|: _: X |:___bo| _:|:b_o|Jo :J_:r:_ o_-
g_o_: _rogb_go |_go|_g_o_: oo :r_ooJo, roo_g|:_ __:gJor__: |:|_go-
_ro ob_rgoo| oro __o__|o b:rooo:__b_go - oo:b_ oobbbo _: _ob|_:b_ob_
or_|g:g_go. roor_ or_g_g:, o:o Joro| |:o_:ro o|:g-|_:: _oboJgb_go-
g:b_|o go__ro__g - oobor:_o_go _r__go| - ,o:rbg:bo|" bob:J_
:b__go _g:bgo| og:g|:1ro|oo:_. :_g_ gob_: b:1o :g_|g:o oo :r_oo_:|,
roo ,o:rbg:bo|" |:b_goo _boogo: _r__go, roo_go_ _ro-_roo o__:_ oboJ-
gb_gog:bo b:bogo: _ro|_o:b_go oo_1oo| - oobor:_oo| gr__go r_o_r__-
:ro|:. oo| J_o__bg_| :b|:__or__go bggogo :_go J__:bogo oobor:_o-
o| o|_oro:Jo, r:_:b :o _r__go| J___b:1_ :b_-_go Jroo:, _:__orog:_,
_go|boo| _:or:go |::gogo|: _: :g_oro| o_o_go_r_oo| oooog_:|: _:
:_:rb_b:|.
!84 b_g|, og:b_o:Jo, b:oo_ob_bo| _bog_r|o___o| obo_o:_ogoo, :oo-
_g__b_: og_go _g:r_go b_gb:b_ro, roo_go_ Xl |:___boo o:ro___:. _|::
,_ob_go|" oog_ ,o_ogo| _roo_oobo" (Zaimov 1984 ). oo J_o_:g| |g:g_ro
o:rbg:bo| _ro-_ro _og_g_| r__:__o:| _: _o_ __r:___:| oo|:b_r_| :o
_r__go| J_|b:ggo|:ogo|.
|g:g_ro ,o:rbg:bo|" J_o_g_go _| b_gb:b_ro |:__r:___o: oo og:g-
|:1ro|oo, roo J_o_:g| o1:b_o_r oobor:_o:Jo b:_g_:_ _boogo :g_oro|
- _goo_b_o |___o_go| |::gog_|. _|:: oo_go _o_go ,o:rbg:bo|:ogo|"
:b__ogbogo |:o|::gog_o|:. roor_ _boogo:, _|:: :o _r__go|:ogo|
|o__o_o__ro |::gog_o| |:b_o:. |bor__ o:o oob__goo ooo_o |:b_g-
bo__: ogoo :o _r__go: - ,_roo_oobo" (_:ro_g:_ - ,|:o_|:go_b_o:
b___r:_").
|g:g_ro ,o:rbg:bo|" J_o_g_g :o _bo_:g_r b_gb:b_r| oo_o_gb: .oo-
oogo| |_:|_o: (1978).
b_gb:b_ro b:_g_go:. J_o_:g| _o_o:rbgo| o:|:g:| l o:r:|__go_:b vl
(1oo|) oobJ::o:o__. o:|Jo b:roo__bogo ,o:rbg:bo|" r__:__o: X |:___-
X |:___bo| _:ro_go _: _g:r_go oobor:_oo| o|_oroo_:b
138
boo o:ro___:, ogoo b_gb:b_ro _o Xl |:___b_Jo: :_:b_rogo. b_gb:b_ro :-
_:_b_ro: ooro r:o:_o_o|| _ob_go| (oog_ |_oooo|) :bgo|, _g:r_oJo.
,o_ogo| _roo_oobo|" :ooo__ogo|, o. 1:ooogo| :1roo, oo|o oro-
ob:go J_oog_: J__obogo_o oro_:Jo, roo_go_ _g:r_go _ro|_o:b_go
__g__ro| _oboJgb_gog:b_| __b_r| b:roo:__b_: X-Xl |:___b__Jo (Zaimov
1984: 2).
_| _bo_:g_ro b_gb:b_ro, roor_ or_g_g:, _:_:gJor__go: _ob|_:b-
_ob_ or_|g:g_go| |:b_go:b. |bor__ o| _b_: o_o| r__:__oro _: J_o__b_go
|g:g_ro ,o:rbg:bo|" :o _ro-_roo _og_g_|o r__:__oo|:.
_goo_b_o |___o_go| |:o|::gog_o| _o_go:b _ro:_, b_gb:b_rJo
:|_g_ J_|_go: oo_go _o_go __boo (|:g:r:__o_, o1:b_o_go) :g_oro|:.
_ob|_:b_ob_ or_|g:g_go, roor_ b:b|, o:g:_ o:robo_: _rob_go_:b oo|
oo_r J___bog ,o:rbg:bJo" J_|_g :o |::gog_|.
,o_ogo| __oo_oobo|" :ooo__ogo| o. 1:ooogo| :1roo, _| :r:: _r-
ob_go oroob:go| 1_|_o o:ro:b_o. _ob|_:b_ob_ or_|g:g_go g:og_g|
_goo_b_o |___o_go| |:o|::gog_o| o:go|__:g o:ro:b_| (Zaimov
1984: 1).
:oro:_, ,o_ogo| _roo_oobo|" oob__goo, _ob|_:b_ob_ or_|g:g_go
b:roogo__:, roor_ _:oo__o___go oo:rob_goooo orob_oo_o|
o_ob_ oo_g:b_, roo_g|:_ ___ogbo| |g:g_ro ,o:rbg:bo|" _ro- _roo _og_g_|o
_: |:__r:___o r__:__o:.
b_gb:b_ro oobor:_oo| o|_oroo|:ogo| :b|:__or__g __r:_-__-
:| oo|:b_r_| oo og:g|:1ro|oo, roo J_o_:g| oroob:g_ro - |g:g_ro |:-
:gog_o| oo_g _o_g| 80-1_ o__ o_or_ _oroo| |::go_g|, roo_go:
:g_oro: _ob|_:b_ob_ or_|g:g_go.
_ob|_:b_ob_ or_|g:g_g| ___ogbo| oo_go _o_go o_or_ _oroo| |:-
:gog_o|:, roog_o_ ooo_:g| _o_o:rbgo| ooo_oo| oo_g o_roo_|. o:oo
_or:gg_|o: ,ooogo|ooro:" - J_o_:g| |:__o:r ro_o_g |:1oo_|: _:
o_|o_:g_r _oooo1o_o_|. :o _ooo| |::gog_o (o_ooo_g_o) J__:r_oo
o_or_ r:o__booo gbg__: ogoo o1:b_o_r oobor:_o:Jo_ _o (o__r_g_go
!7!: 048 ). :b|:__or_oo oJgo:oo: o:oo :r|_o: :o: o_ oo _g__bo| (:r:_r-
ob_g_bog:b) _ro|_o:b_g oo_1o:Jo. _:ro_g oobor:_o:Jo :o obrog :oob:_-
go|| b:roo:__b| oo:b_ oobbbo - _ro:__roo :g_oro, roo_g|:_ ___ogbo|
oo_go roo ,ooogo|ooro" |_o_:rob_o|:.
:oro:_, _ob|_:b_ob_ or_|g:g_g| J___obo: oo_go |_o_:rob_go b:bogo
oroob:g_ro |::gog_o|: |g:g_ro ,o:rbg:bo|:ogo|". _| |::gog_o
oobor:_oo| J___gr_| b:roo:__b|. __ro_| o_ogoo_r :b:og_:|o:b
J_rb_o_go goro1oo :o |::gog_| o__:_ Jo:o_g_:g| b_o|.
b:roog:__bo :o :g_oro| 1oo| |:oJ::oo|:ogo| :b__ogbogo o_or_
_oroo| |::gogo| ___|_|:
g_g: b:boo_
139
oo:b_ oobbbo| J_|::oo|o - 1oo| |:oJ::oo|:ogo| :b__ogbogo |:-
:go_go :oog:_g__b_o ,|_:bo|" bob: boo_rJo, :oo_oo oo| |r_g ___|_| :_
:_:r b:roog:__bo.
oo:b_ oobbbo go__roo| o_r_|:goo_r b_|| oo|__g|. _| :r_oo_:
or:g:gobrog:: :r__gogo oo| J_oo_o___:Jo. :b:goo_ro o_oo:r_o: :_-
140
oobb_: _ob|_:b_ob_ or_|g:g_go:b:_.
|:b:r_o| |:_oob:go: o_r_|:goo_ro |o|__oo| oob__goo 1oo| |:o-
J::o| _:___go: J_o__o |:_oob:g_o: !. g__: !6,!-3! (o:go o_o_ro|: _:
g:1:r_| J_|:b_), 2. o:o_ 23, !-3 (o_|o| oo_r obobo:ro: _: _:ro|_g_go:
obog_:), 3. oo:b_, ,!-38 (ro:_Joogo| J_|:b_), 4. oo:b_, !!, 55-57 (o___g-
oooo__:ro: _: _:ro|_g_go: :b1r:bg:).
|:ob__r_|o:, roo |:_oob:go: :o |o|__oo_:b orog_ oobor:_o :|:b:g|
obogo_ oorg_g| - g__: !6,!-3!.
oobbbo| |::go_go oogo:b:_ :o o:goo:: Jo:ob__go. |:b:r_o-
|__g |:_oob:go| o|:g|o: |::gogo| |_go|_g_o_:_, 1o:_o Job::r|o_
_: _r:1_ogoo:_. |:b:r_o|__g |:_oob:gJo o_o_ro| g__r_: |::go_gJo
:|_: :r_:o_o_go: ,_::bog_ b__b 1__: b_:go: J_bo".
__r:___:| o___g| lll _roo:ro| _:|:b_o|Jo b:rooo_o_go _rog:ro
,:_|:r_:_", r:_ :oobg__go: _o_goo _:__oo| __ro_|o :b__oo:
,o:o:o, __ogo _: oob_:g_o,
r:o_: gogo__o, :r: _b_oo b__b,
r:o_o_ J_ob__g g:ro
_: :bo:_r_| b__b
r:go: _: _o_g:o: b__bo: |oor:gg_".

__r:___:| o___g| |::gogo| ll _roo:rJo b:roo__bogo ,|:oo|go|"
|ooogo_: - o_o_r_go, rb_obg:g_ |:oo|o| _r:b|_oro:_o: _o_ob_oo|
:g:_:
,obog_o o_o_ro|: oo|,
roo_go o:r:_o| ooo|_o_:
|:oo|goo: rb_obg:goo:
_: g:b:_o: :r: J_ob_:g__:,
:b oo|o_| b_go :go _o_ob_o| Job:,
ob__o| _: :r: _:ob__o|
_: :r: o__| oog_| :b|__b_:|:".

oobbbo| :o |::gogo| ogo _roo:r| b:roo:__b| oroob:g_ro
_oroo|oJogo|:bo, roo_gJo_ _ogg:_boo_: ::1r__go: oorg_g_obogo
___oo| :b|::bg_:_ oogg_bog ,|_go_r |:ooob__".
:r:b:_g_ _r:o:__go: _ob|_:b_ob_ or_|g:g_go| |::go_go. _b_:-
go o_o_ro|: _: g:1:r_| |:b:r_o|__g o:g1_ _:_r_booo :b__b| _ob|_:b-
_ob_ or_|g:g_go o_oo| oroob:g_r :b1o:__:|. o_o_r_go oor_oroo:
_: o|oboo ,_:oooo__go" |_go| :bbo_b_:| oo |ob:b_go| _r_ogoo __o-
go|. o_o_r_go |:oo|o| _: _bogr_o| J_|::oo|o |_ogo| |:bob::_o__o_,
:g_oro ob|_b_| _g:r1_ :_r_g, ,:bJoJgg__g" o:_bog:r| _: _g__r_: o:|
oob_:g_:| - g:1:r_| o|:g|:_.
_ob_r___go |:b:r_o|__go o:go :g_or| :b1o:__o| _o:_g_|
_ob_1_ :_:g| |bg: _oo1o_o|: _: oogg_bo| - o:_bogro| _g:r_o:|o:b J_oo-
ro|oor_oo. _| oo_go_b_g ob:_gr_g _____| _obo|. :_g_ :J_:r:_ o_g_o_:
:g_oro| :1rogb_o| o:|J_:_ro:.
g_g: b:boo_
141
:oro:_, _ob|_:b_ob_ or_|g:g_go _: oo:b_ oobbbo ooo_oo| o:b:o__-
rog_bo - X |:___bo| l b:b_gro| oo_g:b_bo :ro:b. orog_ o:o:bo| J_oo_o___:
ogo_ro_:: _:_:gJor__go ,o:rbg:bo|" |:b_goo _boog _r__go:b. orog_
o:o:b| _o_o _g:bgo oo_o_go| :o _r__go| J___b:Jo. :o:|o:b _ro:_, o:o
___ogboo oo_go _o_go ,o:rbg:bo|:ogo|" :b__ogbogo o_or_ _oroo| |:-
:gog_o|:. _|:: J_|::oo|o ,o:rbg:b_o|" oo_go |_o_:rob_go b:bogo.
orog_ o:o:bo| J_oo_o___: :ooorb_g: oo___ro |r_g_o_oo _: ogo|,
orog_ o:o:bo| oo_g:b_o: _oobg_g: _rogb_go |_go|_g_o_oo :oorb__-
go o____o| - |oo_ob l-o|: _: _:|:gg_o |:_:rog_go|, ,:_b:1_oo|" o__o|
- ooro lo| oo_g:b_oo| b:b:|. :b|bg:g_: o_oo:r_o| oo:Jo, roo _ob-
|_:b_ob_ or_|g:g_go, _:__orog:_, ob__| _g:r_go ob_rgoo| _o_
_r:_o_o_|, oo:b_ oobbbo _o :b:g _oo_:| _obo| oo _roo|:ogo| __g_ __g|o
|:___bo| bob _:b___g _:ro_g |:|_go_ro ob_rgo:Jo. orog_ o:o:bo| |:-
:gog_o oobor:_oo| J___gr_| b:roo:__b|.
_:oobo_:bo:
Karabinov, Ivan. Postnaia Triod. Sankt-Peterburg: 1910 ( . . .:
1910).
Khachidze, Lela. comp. and ed. Ioane Monchkhis Poezia. Tbilisi: 1987 (b:boo_, g_g:. ___|_o :-
oo|:__o:_ oo:o1:_: _: :oo_gg_g: _:_roo. oo:b_ oobbbo| oo_1o:. oogo|o: !87).
Khachidze, Lela. Qartuli Qristianuli Kulturis Istoriidan. Tbilisi: 2000 (b:boo_, g_g:. _:ro_go
_ro|_o:b_go __g__ro| o|_oroo_:b. oogo|o: 2000).
Khachidze, Lela. Tipological Parallels (Towards the History of Christian Poetry From the 8
th
to 10
th

Century) (b:boo_, g_g:. _ooogoo_ro o:r:g_g_o (vlll-X |:___b__o| _ro|_o:b_go
oo_1oo| o|_oroo_:b), |_:bo, !2, oogo|o: 20!!).
Metreveli, Elene. . comp. and ed. Zlispirni. Tbilisi: 1971 (o__r_g_go, _g_b_. :oo|_: _: :oo_g-
g_g: _:_roo. ogo|oorbo. oogo|o: !7!).
Popov, Georgi. Novootkrita Originalna Starobolgarska Chast v Teksta za Trioda. Sofa: 1978 (
. . .
. 6. Co: 1978 ).
Siradze, Revaz. Kulturul - Literaturuli Paralelebi Qristianuli Kultura da Qartuli Mwerloba. Tbilisi:
1992 (|or:o_, r_g:1. __g__r_g-go__r:__r_go o:r:g_g_o. bobJo: ,_ro|_o:b_-
go __g__r: _: _:ro_go ob_rgo:". oogo|o: !2.
Zaimov Jordan. The KICEVO TRIODIUM also known as BITOLA TRIODIUM , Nijmegen: 1984.
Wellesz, Egon. A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography. Oxford: 1980.
142
Lela Khachidze
(Georgia)
From the History of the 10
th
-century Georgian and
Bulgarian Hymnography

Summary
Key words: hymnography, Lenten Triodion, htichera, Ioane Minchkhi, Constantine of
Preslav.
In this paper, using the method of comparative analysis, one very interesting phe-
no-menon in the history of the 10th-century Georgian and Bulgarian hymnography has
been considered.
The tenth century is the time of strengthening national self-consciousness in the
history of Georgia. At this period several branches of Georgian ecclesiastical writing reach
their peak of evolution, including Christian poetry hymnography.
In Georgian hymnography a special place is occupied by Ioane Minchkhi who
lived and worked in the frst part of the 10
th
century. The revealing of Minchkhis unknown
heritage by us 77 hymns, testifes to the fact that he was the frst Georgian Lenten Trio-
dion compiler and editor.
By composing the frst Georgian Lenten Triodion Ioane Minchkhi created a new
epoch in the history of Georgian hymnography. All redactions of the later period are based
on the frst Georgian Lenten Triodion. Ioane Minchkhi is the only author among Geor-
gian hymn-writers who has done work of such scope and complexity.
Along with the hymns translated from Greek this collection comprises more than
100 hymns written by Ioane Minchkhi himself, including all small-sized hymns for Lent-
en Triodion. Thus, Ioane Minchkhi is the author of the whole Sticherion part of the frst
Georgian Lenten Triodion. These hymns which represent the masterpiece of Christian
poetry are created with account of strict requirements of this collection. Along with big
traditionalism they are also characterized by great originality. Merging of these two fac-
tors gives to Ioane Minchkhis poetry uniqueness.
By introducing more than 100 hymns for Lenten Triodion Ioane Minch-
khi added original Georgian layer into The Lenten Triodion of Byzantine type. In
Georgian hymnography it is considered the only case of Nationalisation of hymno-
graphic collection translated from Greek. Generally, such kind of thing is less expected
in the history of this one of the most canonic branches of ecclesiastic writing - hymnography.
It is noteworthy that in Ioane Minchkhis hymnographical canon which is devoted
to St.Giorgi, there is mentioning of king Giorgi expressed with great benevolence. This
must have been the king of Western Georgia, i.e. king of Abkhazia Giorgi I who is re-
ferred to in The Life of Kartli. The name of this king is associated with the foundation
of Chkondidi Episcopate.
King Giorgi with great entreaty asks Ioane Minchkhi to create this hymn that tes-
tifes to the distinguished authority of this hymn-writer. At the same time makes prominent
the image of this less studied worthy king in the history of Georgia.
g_g: b:boo_
143
Similar phenomenon has been discovered by us in the history of the 10th-century
Bulgarian hymnography. The tenth century is an extremely fruitful time in the history of
Bulgaria. This was a time of the reign of Czar Simeon I who made signifcant change in
the spiritual life of the country, namely, he replaced the Greek language in liturgy with
Bulgarian. According to his will in 893 the Peoples Council recognized Bulgarian as an
offcial language for the state and church. In the same year Simeon moved the literary
school from the old capital of Bulgaria Pliska to the new capital Preslav. The Preslav
Literary School became a great literary and cultural centre of Bulgaria.
The outstanding fgure of this epoch Constantine of Preslav was in high favor and
agreement with Simeon I. Constantine of Preslav is known in the history of Bulgaria as
a scholar, writer and translator. He was one of the most important men of letters working
at the Preslav Literary School at the end of the 9
th
century and the beginning of the 10
th

century.
In the history of Bulgarian writing he is known mainly as the author of The Didactic
Gospel. This is the frst compilation of preaches in Slavic literature. The compilation also
features Alphabet Prayers which are recognized as frst specimens of Slavonic ecclesiastic
poetry.
Constantine of Preslav was the frst author who created historical chronicle in
Slavic literature Histories. In 906, by commission from Simeon I, he translated Four
Epistles against the Arians by St. Atanassius of Alexandria, as a response to the beginning
of the spread of heresies in medieval Bulgaria. Constantine of Preslav is the alleged author
of Service for Methodius, showing the struggle of Saint Methodius for the recognition
of Old Church Slavonic.
Constantine of Preslav is also the author of one more work: Proclamation of the
Holy Gospels where he rejects the priority of the foreign language, namely Greek and ev-
idences an exceptional importance of Old Bulgarian for the elevation of Bulgarian culture.
Thus, in the person of Constantine of Preslav Bulgaria in the 10
th
century had
a universal fgure who laid the foundations to several branches of Bulgarian ecclesi-
astic literature. All his creative work bears the imprint of national tradition.
At the end of the 9
th
century and the beginning of the 10
th
century similar aspira-
tion is clearly manifested in an environment with which two outstanding representatives
of the ecclesiastic literature Ioane Minchkhi and Constantine of Preslav are connected.
As it turns out, there is an amazing similarity between them also from the viewpoint
of contribution made in the most important liturgical-hymnographic collection
The Lenten Triodion. Under the name of The Lenten Triodion in Christian writing
is known the collection which is one of the most important parts of an extensive repertoire
in hymnography. Its compilers made an outstanding contribution to the history of hym-
nography because the work done at the compilation of this collection actually means the
search for numerous hymns and authors heritage, and their preservation.
In 1984 in Holland at the initiative of Najmegen University an old Bulgarian manu-
script was published that is dated from the 11
th
century. It is Kichevo Triodium also
known as Bitola Triodion which contains one of the oldest redactions of Slavic Lent-
en. As it turns out, this manuscript is associated with the name of Constantine of Preslav.
He must have been an editor and compiler of this one of the earliest redactions of Slavic
144
Lenten Triodion.
Bitola Triodion includes the whole cycle of Climenti Studites Three-Odes.
Along with them the whole cycle of unknown (presumably, Byzantine) author enters the
manuscript. It seems Constantine of Preslav himself translated from Greek these odes
entering the Lenten Triodion compiled by him.
According to the publisher I. Zaimovs opinion, it is not an exact translation of the
Greek original. Constantine of Preslav gives free translations of Three-Odes by Climenti
Studites.
Thus, according to Bitola Triodion, Constantine of Preslav appears as a fgure
with independent translational principles to whom belongs one of the earliest and impor-
tant redactions of Slavic Lenten Triodion.
The manuscript deserves special attention for the history of hymnography from the
viewpoint that it contains the whole cycle of original Slavic hymns over 80 small-sized
hymns the author of which is Constantine of Preslav.
Thus, Constantine of Preslav created the whole Sticharion part of original hymns
for Slavic Lenten Triodion. These hymns represent the masterpiece of hymnography.
Lyricism merged with profound theological education makes these hymns extremely im-
pressive.
This is the whole cycle of small-sized hymns which cover almost the entire period
of the Lent. The majority of them includes own rhythmic metre and musical composi-
tions. The hymns of such type in comparatively small number are found even in Byzantine
hymnography itself. They are especially rare in Christian poetry of this or that country (not
Greek-speaking). In Georgian hymnography around 30 hymns of this type belong to the
only author Ioane Minchkhi.
The work features Constantine of Preslavs one small-sized hymn intended for the
Palm Tuesday that has been compared with Ioane Minchkhis small-sized hymn intended
for the same day using the method of comparative analysis.
Both of these authors follow the tradition of Jerusalimite liturgy according to which
on the Palm Tuesday several readings from the Gospel are put. Of them the hymns of both
authors refect only one the Gospel of Luke (16, 19-31).
Minchkhis hymn is totally inspired by this proverb. The spirit of the hymn, general
content and phraseology are also similar to the Gospel reading. At the same time, original
artistic images are also found. The symbol of garment presented in the hymn attracts
attention the transformation of rich, splendid garment into Hells fames. Of interest is
also a kind of confession expressed by a hymnographer.
Based on the Parable of the rich man and Lazarus Constantine of Preslav makes
original generalization of the theme. Being clothed in purple and fne linen he tries to
purify his soul through tears of repentance. In contrast to the style relevant to rich clothes
and life the author recalls the Savior crucifed naked and begs the Lord to have mercy on him
like Lazarus.
Concrete Gospel proverb is raised by the author to the highest level of generaliza-
tion by contrast with other episode and phenomenon the crucifxion of Our Savior. This
produces unexpected artistic effect. Here a large scale of the authors thinking is clearly
shown.
g_g: b:boo_
145
Thus, Constantine of Preslav and Ioane Minchkhi are almost contemporaries the
representatives of the frst half of the 10
th
century. The creative work of both of them is
closely linked with the collection known under the name of The Lenten Triodion. Both
of them made great contribution in compilation of this collection. Along with this, the
whole cycle of small-sized hymns intended for The Lenten Triodion belongs to them.
This is the entire Sticharon part of relevant Lenten Triodion. The creative works of both
of them are distinguished with poetic perfection and fnally, the activity of both of them
coincides with the reign of two kings distinguished with national aspiration Simeon I
and Giorgi I, Abkhazian king of Western Georgia. The difference is that Constantine of
Preslav actually starts great traditions of Bulgarian literature, whereas Ioane Minchkhi cre-
ates new epoch in Georgian ecclesiastic writing that has already begun six centuries before
by that time. The hymns of both of them represent the masterpieces of hymnography.
146
REGINA KOYCHEVA
(Bulgaria)
From Byzantium to Bulgaria and to Georgia Modifcations and
Typological Similarities between Old Bulgarian and
Georgian Hymnography
*
In 1977, the scientifc facts known at that time led the great Georgian researcher
Korneli Kekelidze to the conclusion that the original (not translated) Georgian hymnogra-
phy of the 10th c., which is remarkable in its magnitude and which was created simultane-
ously with the Georgian translations of the Greek chants, was an unprecedented phenom-
enon in history (Grigolashvili 1979: 177, citing Kekelidze 1960: 55). Curiously, a state-
ment by his compatriot Revaz Siradze from the same year, 1977 There are suffcient
grounds for the uniformity of Old Bulgarian and Old Georgian literature... (Siradze 1977:
63)
**
now sounds like a premonition of the great wave of discoveries that began in the
1970s in the feld of original Old Bulgarian hymnography (La poesia: 109-112). We can
now conclude that the original Georgian hymnography has a known historical parallel
namely, Old Bulgarian chant poetry from the end of the 9th and the early part of the 10th c.
This is a suffcient prerequisite to arouse the interest of comparatists. However, Siradzes
statement from the same year, 1977 Very little has been written about Old Bulgarian-
Georgian literary connections (Siradze 1977: 63)
***
remains valid even at this moment.
In palaeoslavic hymnology, the typological parallels between the two traditions are still an
exotic rarity. This article is a humble attempt in this direction.
1. Original Hymnography
The period during which the hymnographic genre of the canon blossomed in the
Byzantine Empire, the 8th9th c., was marked by an untold number of hymnographic
works. Precisely in response to the zeitgeist, Old Bulgarian and Georgian hymnography
adopted the new Byzantine genre not only by translating the new works but also by creating
their own remarkable original chants. In Old Bulgarian hymnography, this phenomenon
was almost simultaneous with the advent of Slavic letters and is characterized by scholars
as the Golden Age of Bulgarian literature (from the end of the 9th c. until the frst decades
of the 10th c.). Although suggestions have been made that certain Slavic chants were writ-
ten in Great Moravia or in Rome (see e.g. Kozhuharov 1984: 1819; Turilov 2006: 119),
Bulgaria was the irrefutable center of Old Bulgarian hymnography (Popov 1982: 22-26),
whose creators were Saint Cyril and Methodius disciples, from whose ranks only three
* The article is fnanced in the frames of the project Support for the Development of the Scholarly Potential of
Young Humanitarian Scholars and the Strengthening of their Professional Contacts with World-famous Scholars
in their Area of Study Project ( BG051PO001-3.3.04/61) fnanced by the European Social Fund according to
the Development of Human Resources Operational Programme (by the intercession of the Bulgarian Ministry
of Education, Youth and Science).
** The original passage of the article reads as follows:
....
***

- .
147
names of hymnographers have reached us, namely: Constantine, the bishop of Preslav; St.
Clement of Ohrid; and St. Naum of Ohrid. The vicissitudes of history have deprived us of
Slavic hymnographic manuscripts from that early epoch.
In Georgian hymnography, whose beginning is usually considered to be in the 8
th
c.
(Klidze 1944; Grigolashvili 1979: 174), the 10th c. is defned as the climax (classical
period) of original chant poetry. By virtue mostly of the unique hymnographic miscellany
preserved until the present day and compiled in the years 978988 by the Georgian hym-
nographer Mikael Modrekili, more than a few names of Georgian hymnographers from
that epoch have reached us, including those of Ioane Minchkhi, bishop Ioane Mtbvri,
Kurdanai, Ezra, Stepane (Sananoisdze), the bishop of Chkondidi, Ioane Konkozisdze, and
Mikael Modrekili. Like original Slavonic chant poetry from that time, Georgian hymnog-
raphy was concentrated mainly in Georgia and more specifcally in the monasteries in the
Kingdom of Tao-Klarjeti (Grigolashvili 1979: 175176; Dzhgamaya 2000: 406).
One of the most typical motivations to compose original chants was, of course, the
need for liturgical services for the newly canonized national saints. This need remained
valid for practically the whole time frame encompassing the existence of original hymnog-
raphy. In Slavic literature, already in the 9th c. the disciples of Cyril and Methodius wrote
services in honor of their teachers, whom the Church considers equal to the Apostles.
Four such works are known today: a service for St. Methodius written by Constantine of
Preslav, a canon for the same by St. Clement of Ohrid, an anonymous service for St. Cyril,
and an anonymous canon for the two brothers (Istoriya: 124). In Georgian hymnography,
scholars have determined that the frst original work was a chant by Ioane Sabanidze from
the 8th c. about the martyrdom of the Arab Abo Tbileli, who was converted to Christianity
(Kekelidze 1944).
The creative attitude towards adopted Byzantine hymnography can be clearly seen
in the fact that both Slavic and Georgian hymnographers from the 9th10th c. composed
plenty of chants in honor not only of national saints, but also for ecumenical feasts, for
which Greek liturgical masterpieces already existed. Thus, in reference to original Old
Bulgarian hymnography for Christmas and Epiphany (a canon for Christmas by Constan-
tine of Preslav, an anonymous canon for Epiphany, pre-festive and post-festive stichera),
Georgi Popov the discoverer of many of these chants noted: It is interesting that like
the Old Bulgarian hymnographers, the Georgian writers have also composed a number of
works in similar genres in honor of the feasts of Christmas and the Epiphany. For example,
the iambic canons for the pre-festive Christmas cycle by Ioane Mtbevari the Georgian
hymnographer from the 10th c. are well known, as are his stichera for Christmas, Epiph-
any and others (Popov 2002: 380381).
*
We also can identify another parallel between the two chant traditions from the
9th10th c. in the Menaion repertoire. They include a canon for St. Euthymius the Great
by St. Clement of Ohrid (Stanchev, Popov 1988: 120129, 170181) and a canon (pre-
served in the tropologion of Mikael Modrekili) for the same saint by the Georgian hym-
* In the original: , -
, -
. .
, ,
.
From Byzantium to Bulgaria and to Georgia Modifcations and Typological Similarities between
Old Bulgarian and Georgian Hymnography
148
nographer from the 10th c. Ioane Minchkhi (Khachidze 1984). It is noteworthy that the
two canons are composed in modes which correspond to one another the Georgian canon
is in the fourth, while the Old Bulgarian one is in the eighth mode (i.e. the fourth plagal).
These common characteristics are a prerequisite for a future comparative study of the two
works.
The great scholar Lela Khachidze proposed a sound hypothesis that the sticheron
at Lord, I have cried for the same Georgian canon had been written by another author
Ezra (Khachidze 1984). It is remarkable that such collective chant writing is documented
in Old Bulgarian hymnography as well. Some of the preserved acrostics prove that St.
Clement of Ohrid and Bishop Constantine of Preslav divided up between themselves in
advance the works to be composed for certain commemorations (Popov 1982: 2123), and
one of them usually wrote the stichera, while the other the canon for the feast. Admitted-
ly, other men of letters, who have remained anonymous, took part in this collaboration, too.
Perhaps the most striking parallel between the Old Bulgarian and Georgian strate-
gies for adopting Byzantine tradition can be noted in the Triodion repertoire (for the mov-
able calendar cycle). As Georgi Popov revealed in his studies, the most prolifc Old Bul-
garian hymnographer Constantine of Preslav in the course of translating the Byzantine
Triodion Book in the years 885886 translated three cycles of triodia and tetraodia, and
instead of translating the fourth namely, the acrostic cycle of St. Joseph the Hymnogra-
pher, which has remained untranslated in Slavic, he compiled his own cycle comprising
the longest acrostic known so far in medieval hymnography (Popov 1985: 108). Similarly,
the studies of Lela Khachidze convincingly attest that the most productive Georgian hym-
nographer, translator and compiler of the earliest Georgian Triodion Book Ioane Minch-
khi had added over 100 chants of his own, including stichera, full canons, a triodion and
others, to the translated Greek Lenten works (Khachidze 1984).
Original Old Bulgarian and Georgian hymnography shared one and the same des-
tiny during the next mediaeval millennium. The general decision to unify the texts for
worship in the whole Eastern Orthodox world led to the elimination of original hymnog-
raphy from the liturgical books. According to G. Popov, the starting point of this process
in the Slavic world was the mid-tenth century, and in Georgian literature the beginning
of the 11th c. However, mainly in the provinces, miscellanies of the old type continued to
be transcribed. Due to this fact, some later copies of ancient original chants have reached
us. It is remarkable that the most active center in the implementation of this reform, which
aimed at reducing the content of the liturgical books only to certain strictly fxed translated
Byzantine texts, was the same for Bulgaria and Georgia it was Mount Athos with its
schools of literary reforms (Gugishvili; Dzhgamaya 2000: 406; Popov 2006: 39-41).
Some common phenomena can be traced in the case of translated hymnography
as well. A characteristic feature recorded in the scientifc literature on Slavic, Georgian
and Syriac hymnography is the interpolation of a second ode in eight-ode canons. As
specialized studies show, this practice originated in the Palestinian-Sinaitic hymnographic
tradition of the 8th9th c. It is well known that the early hymnographic production of the
First Bulgarian Kingdom (from the end of the 9th c. and the beginning of the 10th c.) still
preserved some Palestinian-Sinaitic peculiarities before fnally reorienting itself towards
the Constantinople liturgical model (Krivko 2008: 67, 77). As for the Georgian chant po-
Regina Koycheva
149
etry, Khachidze associated the origin of the practice of adding a second ode to eight-ode
canons with the hymnographer Ioane Minchkhi and dated the phenomenon to the 950s
(Khachidze 1984).
A quite important typological similarity between Old Bulgarian and Georgian
hymnography can also be noted with regard to the translation of Byzantine chants. Gener-
ally, the Old Bulgarian translations from the end of the 9th c. and the early 10th c. aimed
at preserving the rhythm of the Greek original, without or with minor alterations. In some
cases this strategy led to a rewording of the content of the Byzantine text (see Istoriya: 108
and the bibliography there). It seems that the same phenomenon was familiar in Georgian
hymnography, too. For example, in examining the ancient Georgian translations of the
canons to the Venerable Fathers of the St. Sabba Monastery by Stephen the Sabaite, E.
Dugashvili concluded that the Georgian translations from the 10th c. are free (sensus de
sensu). The translators sought to preserve the form of the Greek original, e.g. the syllabic
correspondence between the heirmos and the troparia (Dugashvili 2003). The same con-
clusion was drawn by Tinatin Chronz in his newly published study on the Georgian text of
a Greek canon for a sick person. The earliest Georgian copy of this text is in an octoechos
from the 11th c., written by the eminent Georgian man of letters St. Giorgi Mtatsmindeli
(10091065). The translation of the canon has preserved all the important features of the
form of the original, including the acrostic (transmitted periphrastically in Georgian) and
the rhythmic structure of the troparia, all of which of course, has led to a free treatment of
the texts content and a rather new interpretation of its Greek original (Chronz 2010: 209).
2. The Translation of Heirmoi
Special attention to the rhythm of a text in the process of its translation into another
language has been most strongly noted, of course, in the translation of heirmoi stanzas
which serve as rhythmical and melodic patterns in hymnography (see Koycheva 2004: 69
and the bibliography there).
In general, the heirmoi used in original Old Bulgarian hymnography are translated.
Only the texts of the heirmoi in the iambic canons, such as the canon for the Nativity
by Constantine of Preslav, are exceptions to this rule. In these canons, the content of
the heirmoi is highly paraphrased in order to be adapted for the intended form of fve
lines of twelve syllables each (Popov 1997: 78; Popov 1998: 4). Knowing that there are
Greek heirmoi that differ only in a few words, we can accept that the rewording in the
aforementioned Old Bulgarian translations in practice has turned them into original Slavic
heirmoi.
According to Elena Metrevelis investigations, the vast majority of Georgian heir-
moi also consists of translated ones. Out of the 403 Georgian heirmoi she studied, the
Greek originals of only 17 of them have not been found (Mtrvli, Outtier 1975: 341).
This is not by chance, because precisely the Greek heirmoi with their old melody and
rhythm, upon which new chants were composed again and again, to the greatest degree
introduced and retained the Byzantine tradition in non-Greek literatures (Prohorov 1972:
128). However, Georgian chant poetry, perhaps even more so than the Slavic one, con-
tains original heirmoi, too, which were written by the hymnographer Ioane Minchkhi
150
(Khachidze 1984).
As was already mentioned in this article, this type of translation, which preserves
the authentic rhythm of the original, was particularly typical of the adaptation of Byzan-
tine heirmoi to the Old Bulgarian language in the last decades of the 9th c. and in the early
10th c. A relevant illustration of this type of translation technique can be provided on the
basis of the Slavic texts of the heirmoi in the Lenten triodia and tetraodia by Constantine
of Preslav.
Some of the heirmoi included in the triodia by Constantine of Preslav contain tex-
tual changes in comparison with their Greek originals. Most often these changes are small.
Of course, we must keep in mind that the Greek texts issued by Eustratiades in his edition
of the Heirmologion (Eustratiades 1932), which is used as the basis for comparison of
the differences noted in this article, can only provisionally be taken as the originals of the
translated texts, recorded in copies of the cycle by Constantine of Preslav.
An impressive example for such a kind of modifcation is the heirmos for the ninth
ode of the triodion for Thursday from the fourth week of Great Lent (Popov 1985: 554).
The Byzantine original of the heirmos is from the resurrectional canon 281, according
to the Heirmologion edited by Eustratiades (Eustratiades 1932: 199). A comparison with
the Old Bulgarian text of the heirmos shows that the lines B / p
/ q B are translated by changing the order
of the words and by omitting the conjunction and. Thus, the literal English transla-
tion of these lines is having seedlessly conceived and having born the incarnated God
for humans, whereas the Old Bulgarian one is /
/ having conceived God, incarnated without seed, having born
[Him] for humans. In the Byzantine original the adverb seedlessly qualifes the con-
ception: B having seedlessly conceived, while in the Old Bulgarian
text this adverb was replaced by a prepositional phrase qualifying the Incarnation:
God incarnated without seed. This inverted translation did not
change the theological concept of the work. Due to the inversion, however, the length of
the original lines (7+8+7 syllables) was preserved,
**
whose length inevitably would have
been disrupted if the grammatical structure and word order of the Byzantine text had been
strictly followed.
The transformations made from the source text into the translated text of the heir-
moi from the triodion cycle by Constantine of Preslav can be divided in a highly simplifed
way into the removal of a word, the addition of a word, and the replacement of one lexeme
by another one.
A removal of a word is found in the heirmos of the tenth ode in the triodion for
Wednesday from the third week of Lent (Popov 1985: 509510). The Byzantine original
of the heirmos is from the canon for the Assumption by St. John of Damascus (Eustratiades
1932: 141, canon 100, the frst heirmos for the ninth ode). In this case the three-word
expression B 5 (seven syllables) (literally the nature of the immaterial
* The third Old Bulgarian line quoted ( eight syllables) in its variant in the
triodion of Bitola is one syllable longer than its corresponding line in the original ( q B
seven syllables). Therefore, the protograph perhaps contained the short form of the participle . It is
very likely, too, that the genitive form was written in the protograph instead of , which was
used quite often during the Middle Bulgarian period of the Bulgarian language.
Regina Koycheva
151
minds, i.e. spirits) was translated into Old Bulgarian with the two-word phrase -
p the kind of the immaterial (eight syllables), which reproduces the length of
the Byzantine line. Here the noun in genitive case was removed from the translation,
for which reason the adjective p takes on the function of a noun.
An addition of a word is present in the Old Bulgarian translation of the heirmos
of the ffth ode from the triodion for Friday from the third week of the Great Forty Days
(Popov 1985: 514). The heirmos is from the resurrectional canon 182 according to
Eustratiades edition (Eustratiades 1932: 131). Here the translation darkened
(four syllables) of the line [ T (six syllables) was supplemented with the
adjunct by sins (instrumental case, plural), which is missing from the original.
This modifcation enhanced the moral focus of the work and extended the line to the tar-
get length: (six syllables). Of course, the possibility that the addition is
a result of a copyists mistake should not be excluded in light of the fact that the phrase
was common in hymnography.
*
Even so, however, the accumulation of
a number of examples in which the changes which are present in a translated text have
made this text closer to the rhythm of the original speak in favor of a deliberate translation
strategy. In support of this, the modifcation analyzed above is not unique in the heirmos
in question the length of the last line is also equal with the number of syllables in the
fnal line of the Byzantine stanza at the expense of one missing word: S,
Oh Christ, as the only merciful[One] Oh Christ,
as merciful (both of them eight syllables each).
In all these cases, the removal or addition of words in translation still did not change
the theological sense of the text. This was also the case when certain lexemes were not
translated with their exact equivalents, but were replaced by other words, usually similar
in meaning.
**
A typical example of this is the heirmos for the ffth ode of the triodion for Friday
from the ffth week of Lent (Popov 1985: 595). The Byzantine original is from the Great
Canon of Repentance by St. Andrew of Crete (Eustratiades 1932: 170, canon 240).
Here the word form 5 (four syllables), instead of its exact equivalent -
oh [You] Philanthropist (six syllables), was replaced with oh [You]
Merciful (four syllables). In this way, the line in which the lexical substitution appeared
acquired the desired length. The translation 5 (four syllables)
(four syllables) or oh [You] Compassionate (four syllables) was noted by M.
Velimirovi in his comparison of texts of heirmoi in Byzantine and Slavic heirmologia
(Velimirovi 1960: 54, 5657).
***
Similarly, the length of a line from the original is preserved in the Old Bulgarian
text through the lexical replacement (literally [they] bless)
[they] praise in chants, compare:
* I am very thankful to Assistant Professor Maria Yovcheva for this hypothesis.
** The lexeme which is equivalent in meaning to a certain word from the original, and the lexeme which replaced
the equivalent in the process of translation are a typical example of so-called thematic lexis, as defned by Ev-
geniy Vereshchagin. According to him, thematic lexis comprises vocabulary units which are not linked to each
other through synonymy or antonymy, but appear in the same context, which indicates the presence of common
semes in their meanings. About thematic lexis, see: Vereshchagin 1997: 254, 257261.
*** On the contrary, the same translation was evaluated by A. Gove as less consistent with the rhythm of the origi-
nal than the literal translation (Gove 1978: 215217).
152
s (12 syllables)
(12 syllables)
Whom the heavenly powers praise in chants
This substitution is present in the heirmos for the eighth ode of the triodion for
Thursday from the fourth week of the Great Forty Days (Popov 1985: 553), whose Byzan-
tine original is from canon 289 (Eustratiades 1932: 204).
The frst two lines in the translation of the heirmos for the eighth ode from canon
239 (Eustratiades 1932: 170) are an example of the same type. Here the nominative plural
with the defnite article s (four syllables) was not translated with its exact equiva-
lent venerable (six syllables), but replaced with the lexeme saints
(three syllables).
*
Likewise, in place of the expected prepositional phrase in the
kiln (three syllables), which should have translated T i (fve syllables), we fnd
a completely different text: y in Babylon (fve syllables). By means of these
lexical replacements, the syllabic lengths of the Old Bulgarian lines equaled those of the
Byzantine ones compare the following:
s q (7 syllables) T i (5 syllables)
Thy venerable children in the kiln
(7 syllables) y (5 syllables)
Thy holy children in Babylon
Obviously, for the Old Bulgarian translator, this Byzantine passage consisted of two
lines (7 + 5 syllables), which caused the observed lexical substitutions. One confrmation of
this fact is the presence of a punctuation mark in the Bitola triodion precisely after the seventh
syllable in the Old Bulgarian text of this heirmos as part of the triodion by Constantine of
Preslav for Monday from the third week of Lent: wU ... (Popov
1985: 502).
In this case as well, the lexical substitutions made in the process of the Old Bulgarian
translation did not alter the general sense of the work. In the frst part, the more particular
term () venerable was replaced by the generic one saint,
holy, insofar as sanctifed people, whether belonging to the venerable, martyrs, holy bish-
ops, etc., are all saints, and the categories which the Church uses to classify them only
specify their type of sanctity. In the second part, however, the lexemes kiln and Baby-
lon, taken as separate vocabulary units, have nothing in common. The link between them
is the story about the three Jewish youths thrown into the Babylonian kiln, from Chapter
Three of the biblical Book of Daniel. Both the pairing of q () children with
() kiln as well as children with y Babylon equally
well reconstruct the biblical situation, because this situation is famous and is the obliga-
tory theme of the heirmoi for the eighth ode. And since the text of the heirmos in question
is meant only to recall this situation, without commenting it, the lexical substitution T i
y was preferred as a convenient way to achieve the desired length of
the line, without changing the general sense of the work. It is very likely that this lexical
* The same replacement is present also in one of the textual variants of the translation of the frst heirmos for the
eighth ode from canon 53 (Eustratiades 1932: 39) issued by Hannick (Hannick 1978: 100).
Regina Koycheva
153
replacement was infuenced by the texts of some other heirmoi for the eighth ode for ex-
ample the heirmos for the seventh ode from canon 325 (Eustratiades 1932: 227), whose
beginning reads: q q T ...
We have full reason to believe that exactly these lexical substitutes were present
in the protograph of the Old Bulgarian Triodion Book, because we fnd them in all 24
manuscripts containing this heirmos as part of the triodion cycle by Constantine of Preslav
and the translated Lenten triodia by St. Theodore the Studite and St. Clement the Studite.
The heirmos is in the sixth mode, eighth ode, and is included in Constantines canons for
Monday from the third week of Lent and for Saturday from the fourth week, as well as in
Theodores triodia for Thursday from the third and sixth week, and in Clements canon for
Monday from the ffth week of the Great Forty Days.
The examples provided above are not the only ones, but are suffcient to illustrate
the rule that the modifcations made in the process of translating the heirmoi were intended
to bring the rhythmic structure of the Old Bulgarian texts as close as possible to the struc-
ture of the originals, without disrupting the general theological sense of the works.
*
The same phenomenon was likely not unknown to Georgian hymnography in a
certain period as well. E. Metreveli in her studies on the Georgian heirmoi paid special
attention to the comparison between the originals and their translations with respect to
the distribution of syllables in lines. Using this criterion, the researcher divided the trans-
lated Georgian heirmoi into three groups according to the extent of their difference from
the originals (Mtrvli, Outtier 1975: 351). Regarding one very large group out of the
three, Metreveli came to the conclusion that the total number of syllables in the Greek
and Georgian heirmoi coincides, with a difference of two or three syllables (Mtrvli,
Outtier 1975: 352).
**
Despite the very limited range of literature on this issue in Sofa
libraries, it can be assumed that not a few of the Georgian heirmoi which have equal or
similar number of syllables as compared to their Greek originals contain the same type of
lexical alterations, which were analyzed here in the Old Bulgarian translations of some
heirmoi. A confrmation of this view, as well as of Metrevelis cited conclusion, can be
found in the abovementioned article by Tinanin Chronz on the Georgian translation of a
Greek canon parakletikos for a sick person. There the author concluded that the Georgian
heirmoi, upon which the canon had been composed, are melodically oriented towards the
Greek ones, but are not word-for-word translations (Chronz 2010: 198).
***
Comparing the
number of syllables in the originals and in the translations of the model stanzas, Chronz
clearly showed that as a rule, the Georgian texts correspond in the number of syllables to
the Greek ones or deviate from them by no more than two syllables (Chronz 2010: 193,
197).
* More details on the issue of the lexical alterations in the translated Old Bulgarian heirmoi were brought up in
my article: Koycheva 2004, where a comparison with the contemporary Church Slavonic translation was also
proposed.
** This passage in the original of the article reads: Le nombre total de syllables dans les hirmoi grecs et gor-
giens concorde, deux ou trois syllables prs.
*** ...sich melodisch an den griechischen orientieren, jedoch keine wrtlichen bersetzungen sind.
154
3. The Structure of Heirmologia
In the academic literature, the most frequently noted typological similarity between
Slavic and Georgian hymnography is the equal structure of the Heirmologion the litur-
gical book containing the full texts of the rhythmic and melodic models (the heirmoi)
required for composition and for performance of works from the genre of the canon. All
currently known medieval Slavic heirmologia, as well as the main type of Georgian heir-
mologia are arranged by odes (i.e. within each of the eight modes, frst all the heirmoi for
the frst ode are written out, then all the heirmoi for the second ode, then for the third
one, etc.). In contrast to these miscellanies, the main type of Byzantine heirmologia has a
different ordering by canons (i.e. within each of the eight modes and following the suc-
cession of the odes /1, 2, 3, 4.../, frst all the heirmoi belonging to a canon are given, then
in the same way the heirmoi from another canon are written out, etc.).
According to the specialist in Georgian heirmologia Elena Metreveli, the selection
of the heirmoi included in these miscellanies was made by the compilers themselves, and
was not borrowed readymade from a Greek heirmologion (Mtrvli, Outtier 1975: 335
and other pages). A similar hypothesis regarding Slavic heirmologia was proposed by the
Belgian Slavicist Christian Hannick. In his opinion, the Old Bulgarian Heirmologion was
compiled already in the 9th c. by the saintly brothers Cyril and Methodius, who them-
selves selected which heirmoi to include and in what sequence to order them in the new
book (Hannick 1978: 83-84).
These two peculiarities (i.e. the arrangement by odes and the unique selection of
heirmoi) unite Georgian and Slavonic heirmologia and differentiate them from the Byz-
antine ones. However, there are also some individual traits of the books structure that
distance all three of these hymnographic traditions from one another. According to the
investigations made by Milos Velimirovi and Elena Metreveli, Georgian heirmologia as
a whole contain two times fewer heirmoi than the Slavonic ones, and three times fewer
than the Greek ones (Mtrvli, Outtier 1975: 341). Also, a specifc feature of the Geor-
gian collections of the same type is that a corresponding theotokion was added to each
heirmos, thus these collections were named Heirmoi and Theotokia in the manuscripts
(Mtrvli, Outtier 1975: 334). Neither the Slavic nor the Byzantine literatures have ever
witnessed such a phenomenon (Mtrvli, Outtier 1975: 334).
The characteristic features of the heirmologias structure in different hymnographic
traditions, especially the arrangement by odes in both Slavic and Georgian miscellanies
of this type, raise the issue of patterns and more precisely the issue of whether direct con-
tact between Georgian and early Medieval Bulgarian hymnography could possibly have
existed.
In order to address this issue, frst it is necessary to recall the facts and well-ground-
ed scientifc conclusions which are important for the chronology of the phenomena. The
earliest preserved Byzantine and Georgian manuscript heirmologia date from the 10th c.
(Mtrvli, Outtier 1975: 334, 353; Hannick 1978: 48). In Metrevelis view, the frst Greek
heirmologion appeared in the 9th c. at the Monastery of St. Sabba in Palestine, and the frst
Georgian one - at the end of the same century or in the beginning of the next century in the
same monastery where the Georgian liturgical miscellanies were initially compiled (M-
Regina Koycheva
155
trvli, Outtier 1975: 334, 338, 343). The earliest preserved Slavic heirmologia are from
the 12th c. (Svodnyj tlog: 147150, 225227), but according to both Roman Jakobson
and Christian Hannick, a specialist in the feld of Slavic heirmoi, the Old Bulgarian Heir-
mologion also originated in the 9th c. (Jakobson 1965: 117; Jakobson 2000: 340341;
Hannick 1978: 48, 78, 79-83, 87; Hannick 1989: 111-114). The most ancient heirmologia
known today which are arranged by odes are Georgian. The early Greek heirmologia are
arranged by canons. The Byzantine miscellanies sorted by odes are later - they date from
the 13th c. at the earliest (Mtrvli, Outtier 1975: 333-334). One remarkable exception is
known, however: a fragment of two folia from the 10th-11th c. (Paris, Suppl. grec 1284),
which are a part of a Greek heirmologion arranged by odes (Mtrvli, Outtier 1975: 334).
The existence of this fragment proves that even if we quite provisorily assume some direct
contact between Georgian and Cyrillic written heirmologion production, these contacts
are unlikely to have taken place without the mediation of Byzantine literature. The same
conclusion is implicitly present in the following fnding by Roman Krivko: Obviously the
structure of the Slavic Heirmologion is due to borrowing from a still unestablished region
of the Byzantine Empire, probably peripheral to the capital... (Krivko 2008: 77-78).
*

The question of models and the consideration of the possibility of direct contact
between early Slavic and Georgian literatures are the topic of a lengthy scientifc discus-
sion between the Slavicists Christian Hannick and Francis J. Thomson. On the basis of
the assertion in the Extensive Vita of St. Constantine-Cyril the Philosopher that the Holy
Brothers had translated selected church services, Hannick, as already mentioned, in his
study from 1978 proposed a hypothesis that during the mission to Great Moravia (up to
885), St. Cyril and St. Methodius compiled the frst Slavic Heirmologion which was or-
dered by odes (Hannick 1978: 8384). In the same place in this study, Hannick added: ...
this kind of Heirmologion was created by the Slavic apostles (ibid: 84).
**
The full context
of the statement leads to the supposition that here Hannick meant that the selection of the
included heirmoi had been unique and not that the Holy Brothers had themselves invented
the type of heirmologion arranged by odes. The wording of the quoted passage, however,
allows ambiguity, which became the basis of Thomsons criticism.
Thus, two years later Thomson, in his review of Hannicks work, criticized this
standpoint (interpreted by Thomson to mean that the Slavic apostles had been the frst in
all of history to arrange the heirmoi by odes) and suggested that probably the Holy Broth-
ers had not invented this arrangement themselves, but had seen it in Georgian ecclesiasti-
cal literature. In support of his own opinion, he drew attention to the fact that there was a
Georgian monastic colony on Mount Olympus where Methodius was an abbot (indeed, St
Hilarion the Iberian was there at precisely the same time) (Thomson 1980: 103).
After nine years (Hannick 1989), Hannick responded to this criticism by clarifying
the chronology of events: the frst Georgian monastery on Mount Olympus was founded
by St. Hilarion the Georgian in 864, when St. Methodius had already left that place (Han-
nick 1989: 114). According to the latest data, in 864 the Thessalonian Brothers were in
* In the original of the article this passage reads as follows: ,
, , -
....
** ce type dhirmologion a t cr par les aptres des Slaves.
156
Great Moravia, for which they had departed from Byzantium as early as 862 (Nikolova
1995: 638640). It should be admitted however, that Thomsons criticism and especially
the emphasized adjunct at precisely the same time may be due to the huge discrepancies
in the dating of St. Hilarions life in the different hagiographical sources. For example,
while according to Zhitiya (1993: 68) the saint founded the frst Georgian monastery on
Mount Olympus around 864 and died in Thessaloniki in 875, according to Loparev (1910:
59), the Georgian had come to Olympus much earlier roughly in 845-850, and died in
Thessaloniki later in 880 or 882.
However, Thomsons criticism has obviously left a deep mark on Hannicks re-
search path, because after a further 17 years, namely in his summarizing work on the Heir-
mologion (2006), the Belgian now seems inclined to accept Thomsons remark; regard-
ing the similar structure of Slavic and Georgian heirmologia, he wrote: The comparison
remains typological. Direct contact zones between the two traditions the Georgian and
the Slavonic are detected only if Olympus in Bithynia is taken into account (Hannick
2006: 402).
*
I would add two considerations to the problems presented in this scholarly discus-
sion. First, the assumption that the Georgian Heirmologion, ordered by odes, already ex-
isted in the 860s (the period when St. Hilarion was on Mount Olympus), does not ft with
the chronology worked out by Metreveli, according to which the Georgian Heirmologion
was composed at the end of the 9th c. at the earliest.Therefore, I would draw attention to a
slightly later moment, not only in relation to the Heirmologion, but in general as a possible
interface between Old Bulgarian and Georgian literature. It is known that after the death
of St. Hilarion the Georgian in 875 in Thessaloniki, his relics were solemnly transferred
in 882 from Thessaloniki to Constantinople by the order of the Byzantine Emperor Basil I
the Macedonian (Zhitiya 1993: 68). It is quite logical to assume that clergy from different
countries, including above all the homeland of the miracle worker Georgia were invit-
ed to this event. Scholars have also ascertained that the Slavic apostle St. Methodius made
a journey from Great Moravia to Constantinople at the invitation of Basil I the Macedo-
nian; this journey, according to some researchers, happened at the end of 881, according to
others during 882 itself, but according to still others in the summer of 883. It is known
that during this trip the saint left two of his disciples together with Slavic books in the Byz-
antine capital (Nikolova 1995: 645). It is not impossible that the Moravian bishop attended
the ceremonial transfer of St. Hilarions relics, or even that he had been specifcally invited
to it. It is known from his Old Bulgarian Extensive Vita that immediately after his return
to Moravia from the Byzantine Empire until his death in 885, St. Methodius devoted
himself to intense literary activity together with his disciples and busied himself mainly
with translations (Nikolova 1995: 646647). In view of this activity, probably planned, as
well as in light of the fact that St. Methodius was carrying Slavic books with him to the
Byzantine capital, the apostle surely took a great interest in manuscripts during his visit to
Constantinople, and if he met there Georgian men of letters who had come to revere the
feast of their compatriot-saint, it is very likely that he acquainted himself with their
* The original passage reads: Der Vergleich bleibt typologisch. Direkte Berhnungspunkte zwischen beiden
Traditionen, der georgischen und der altslavischen, ergeben sich nur, wenn man an den bithynischen Olymp
denkt.
Regina Koycheva
157
books. A strong prerequisite that could have led to a desire for such contacts was the com-
mon purpose in the struggle against the trilingual heresy, which had dealt blows to both St.
Methodius and St. Hilarion, as Kuyo Kuev pointed out (Kuev 1967: 74; see also Siradze
1977: 68).
Of course, one can hardly trace all the historical moments at which the Holy Broth-
ers could have possibly met Georgian scribes. But it should be noted that St. Hilarion the
Georgian had visited the same places Olympus, Thessaloniki and Rome as St. Cyril
and St. Methodius had (Zhitiya 1993: 68; Nikolova 1995: 633644), although probably
at different times. Whether they actually met or not, which is ultimately too pedantic a
question, it must be remembered that both the Slavic Apostles and the great Georgian saint
had their followers, who could also have shared information a fact to which Siradze has
drawn attention (Sirazde 1977: 68).
In any case, it is undisputed that the Thessalonian brothers took into consideration
the Georgian literature in their great missionary work, whether they were closely familiar
with it or not. This is evidenced by the following phrase from St. Cyril, uttered to the
Roman clergy and documented in his Old Bulgarian Extensive Vita: ...we know many
peoples who have their own books and give glory to God each in their own language,
among which he mentioned the Iberians, among others. This passage led Revaz Siradze to
the conclusion: ...it is clear that at that time Georgian literature was already known both
in Bulgarian and in Roman enlightened circles (Siradze 1977: 64).
**

Here we must mention a hypothesis proposed by Maren Taden and later recalled
by Siradze that St. Constantine-Cyril the Philosopher may have visited Tbilisi, according
to Taden on the way to his mission in the Khazar Khaganate, and according to Siradze
more likely near or during the time of his mission to the Saracens (Arabians) in Bagdad
(Siradze 1977: 64). These assumptions, however, seem very uncertain in my opinion, at
the very least because the geographical trajectories of the two missions would require an
excessive detour in order for Tbilisi to be visited en route.
* * *
Each of the three analyzed typological similarities between Old Bulgarian and
Georgian hymnography combine the adoption of a Byzantine model with a simultane-
ous departure from this model. In fact, this combination is the outward expression of the
adoption of the spirit (e.g. the very essence) of the Byzantine hymnography. Thus, both
Old Bulgarian and Georgian chant poetry acquired the new Byzantine genres and semantic
topoi by composing original art instead of translating, because in that distant epoch on the
border between the frst two millennia of the new era, what was most important was not
translating particular Greek chants, but praising Christ in ones native language by means
of the new genres. Likewise, both the early Slavic and the Georgian translations of heir-
moi allowed paraphrases of the content in order to preserve the most important element
strict rhythmic and melodic structure of these stanzas, without which the heirmoi could
not properly serve their chief function as sound patterns in hymnography. The similar
arrangement (by odes) of Slavic and Georgian heirmologia differed from the order (by
* The original passage reads: ..., ,
, .
158
canons) typical for the Byzantine miscellanies of this kind, because the layout of these
Slavic and Georgian manuscripts was intended to be practical and to assist the church ser-
vices and not to follow the lead of a certain authoritative liturgical center. Such deference
to authority appeared later and led to the unifcation of the divine services in the different
East Orthodox countries, but, alas, also to some loss of national originality.
References:
Chronz 2010: Chronz, Tinatin. Kranken, Heiland, gewhre Unversehrtheit: Ein georgischer Krankenk-
anon und seine griechische Vorlage. PJANIE MALO GEORGIJU. Sbornik v Chest na 65-godishninata
na Prof. Georgi Popov. Sofa: Bojan Penev Publishing Centre ( W. -
65- . . :
), 2010, 190209.
Dugashvili 2003: Dugashvili, E. Drevnie Gruzinskie Perevody Gimnografcheskih Kanonov Stefana Sa-
vatsmindskogo (Stefana iz Monastyrja Sv. Savvy). Religija (Tbilisi) 10-11-12 (2003) (,
. (-
. ). () 10-11-12 (2003)). http://www.nplg.gov.ge/
caucasia/Abstracts/RUS/2004/No3/Summary/13.htm
Dzhgamaya 2000: Dzhgamaya, L. Akrostih v Drevnearmjanskoj i Drevnegruzinskoj Tserkovnoj Pismennosti (a
part from the article Akrostih). Pravoslavnaja Entsiklopedija. Vol. 1. Moscow: Pravoslavnaja Entsiklopedija
Church-Scientifc Center (, . -
( ). . . 1. : --
), 2000: 405406.
Eustratiades 1932: Eustratiades, Sofronios. Heirmologion (Hagioreitike Bibliotheke, 9) (,
5. s (>[ , 9)). Chennevires-sur-Marne, 1932.
Gove 1978: Gove, Antonina F. The Evidence for etrical Adaptation in Early Slavic Translated Hymns.
Monumenta musicae byzantinae 6 (1978) (Copenhagen): 211246.
Grigolashvili 1979: Grigolashvili, L. M. Izuchenie Gruzinskoj Gimnografi. Russkaja i Gruzinskaja
Srednevekovye Literatury. Leningrad: Nauka (, . . -
. . : ), 1979: 174181.
Gugishvili: Gugishvili, Sh. Bogosluzhenie Gruzinskoj Pravoslavnoj Tserkvi (a part from the article
Gruzinskaja Pravoslavnaja Tserkov). Pravoslavnaja Entsiklopedija. Vol. 13 (, . -
(
). . . 13). http://rusk.ru/st.php?idar=21048
Hannick 1978: Hannick, Christian. Aux origines de la version slave de lirmologion. Monumenta musi-
cae byzantinae. Subsidia, vol. VI (Fundamental Problems of Early Slavic Music and Poetry). Ed. Ch.
Hannick. Copenhagen, 1978: 5120.
Hannick 1989: Hannick, Christian. Das Hirmologion in der bersetzung des Methodios. Mezhdunaro-
den Simpozium 1100 Godini ot Blazhenata Konchina na sv. Metodij. Vol. 1. Sofa: Publishing House
of the Holy Synod ( 1100 . -
. I. : ), 1989: 109117.
Hannick 2006: Hannick, Christian. Das altslavische Hirmologion. Edition und Kommentar. (=Monumenta
linguae slavicae dialecti veteris. Fontes et dissertationes. Seriem condiderunt Rudolf Aitzetmller,
Josef Matl, Linda Sadnik, nunc edendam curat Eckhard Weiher. T. 50). Freiburg i. Br. 2006. XXIII
+ 877 p.
Istoriya: Istorija na Byrgarskata Srednovekovna Literatura. Compiled by Anissava Miltenova. Sofa:
Iztok-Zapad Publishing House, 2008 ( .
: . : , 2008).
Regina Koycheva
159
Jakobson 1965: Jakobson, Roman. Methodius Canon to Demetrius of Thessalonica and the Old Church
Slavonic Hirmoi. Sbornk prac Filosofck fakulty Brnnsk University. Ronik XIV. Brno, 1965:
115-121.
Jakobson 2000: Jakobson, Roman. Ezikyt na Poezijata. Sofa: Zaharij Stojanov Publishing House, 2000
(, . . : , 2000).
Klidze 1944: Kekelidze, Korneli S. Drevnegruzinskaja Tserkovnaja Literatura. Etjudy po Istorii
Drevnegruzinskoj Literatury. Tbilisi, 1955 (, .
. . , 1944). http://krotov.
info/history/08/demus/1944keke.html.
lidze 1960: Kekelidze, Korneli S. A History of the Georgian Literature. Vol. 1. Tbilisi, 1960 (in
Georgian language).
Khachidze 1984: Khachidze, Lela A. Ioann Minchkhi Gruzinskij Poet 10 Veka. PhD. Diss. Tbilisi (-
, . X (), , 1984). http://
www.dissercat.com/content/ioann-minchkhi-gruzinskii-poet-x-veka.
ycheva 2004: Koycheva, Regina. Kym Harakteristikata na Starobylgarskija Prevod na Irmosite v Tri-
odnija Tsikyl na Konstantin Preslavski (, . -
). Palaeobulgarica,
28, 1 (2004): 6878.
zhuharov 1984: Kozhuharov, Stefan. Pesennoto Tvorchestvo na Starobylgarskija Knizhovnik Naum
Ohridski. Literaturna istorija 12 (1984): 319 (, . -
. 12 (1984): 319.
La poesia: La poesia liturgica slava antica / . XIII Congresso
Internazionale degli Slavisti (Lubiana, 15-21 Agosto 2003). Blocco tematico n
o
14. Relazioni. A cura
di Krassimir Stantchev e Maria Yovcheva / : .
Roma: Dipartimento di Letterature Comparate dellUniversita degli Studi Roma Tre Sofa: Centro
di Studi Cirillometodiani presso lAccademia Bulgara delle Scienze, 2003.
rivko 2008: Krivko, Roman N. Sinajsko-Slavjanskie Gimnografcheskie Paralleli. Vestnik PSTGU III:
Filologija 11, 1 (2008): 56102 (, . - -
. III: 11, 1 (2008): 56102).
uev 1967: Kuev, Kujo M.Chernorizets Hrabyr. Sofa: BAS, 1967 (, . .
: , 1967).
Loparev 1910: Loparev, Hrisanf M. Vizantijskija Zhitija Svjatyh 8-9 Vekov. Vizantijskij vremennik (-
, . VIIIIX . ) 17,
14 (1910): 1224.
Mtrvli, Outtier 1975: Mtrvli, Hlne, and B. Outtier. Contribution lhistoire de lhirmologion:
anciens hirmologia gorgiens. Le Muson. Revue dtudes orientales (Louvain) LXXXVIII, 34
(1975): 331359.
Nikolova 1995: Nikolova, Svetlina. Metodij. Kirilo-Metodievska Entsiklopedija. Vol. 2. Sofa: St.
Kliment Ohridski University Publishing House (, . . --
. II. : . ),
1995: 632650.
Popov 1982: Popov, Georgi. Novootkriti Himnografski Proizvedenija na Kliment Ohridski i Konstantin
Preslavski. Bylgarski ezik (, e. -
. ) XXXII, 1 (1982): 326.
Popov 1985: Popov, Georgi. Triodni Proizvedenija na Konstantin Preslavski (Kirilo-Metodievski Studii
2). Sofa, 1985 (, e. (--
2). , 1985).
Popov 1997: Popov, Georgi. Novootkrit Kanon na Konstantin Preslavski s Tajnopisno Poetichesko
Poslanie (, . -
). Palaebulgarica XXI, 4 (1997): 317.
160
Popov 1998: Popov, Georgi. Kanon za Rozhdestvo Hristovo ot Konstantin Preslavski (, .
). Palaebulgarica XXII, 4 (1998): 326.
Popov 2002: Popov, Georgi. Vizantijskata Himnografska Traditsija i Pesnotvorcheskite Projavi na Kir-
ilo-Metodievite Uchenitsi. Srednovekovna Hristijanska Evropa: Iztok I Zapad. Tsennosti, Traditsii,
Obshtuvane. Sofa: Gutenberg Publishing House, 2003: 370381 (, .
- . -
: . , , . :
, 2002: 370381).
Popov 2006: Popov, Georgi. Novootkit Starobylgarski Kanon za Nedelja Petdesetnitsa i Negovijat Vi-
zantijski Obrazets (, . -
). Palaeobulgarica , 3 (2006): 348.
Prohorov 1972: Prohorov, Gelian M. K Istorii Liturgicheskoj Poezii: Gimny i Molitvy Patriarha Filofeja
Kokkina. Trudy Otdela Drevnerusskoj Literatury (Leningrad). Vol. 27 (Istorija Zhanrov v Russkoj
Literature 10-17 Vekov), 1972: 120-149 (, . :
. (-
). XXVII ( X-XVII .), 1972: 120-149).
Siradze 1977: Siradze, Revaz. O Starobolgarsko-Gruzinskih Literaturnyh Svjazjah (, .
- ). Palaeobulgarica 2 (1977): 6373.
Stanchev, Popov 1988: Stanchev, Krasimir, and Georgi Popov. Kliment Ohridski: Zhivot i Tvorchestvo.
Sofa: St. Kliment Ohridski University Publishing House, 1988 (,
. . . : .
, 1988).
Svodnyj tlog: Svodnyj Katalog Slavjano-Russkih Rukopisnyh Knig, Hranjashchihsja v SSSR. 11-13
Vekov. Moscow: Nauka, 1984 ( - ,
. XI-XIII . : , 1984).
Thomson 1980: Thomson, Francis. J. Monumenta musicae byzantinae. Subsidia, vol. VI (Fundamental
Problems of Early Slavic Music and Poetry). Ed. Ch. Hannick. Copenhagen, 1978 [a review on this
miscellany]. The Slavonic and East European Review 58, 1980: 102-104.
urilov 2006: Turilov, Anatolij A. K Opredeleniju Obema Tvorcheskogo Nasledija Uchenikov Kirilla i
Mefdija v Sostave Slavjanskogo Trebnika (Predvaritelnye Nabljudenija nad Juzhnoslavjanskoj Ru-
kopisnoj i Staropechatnoj Traditsiej) (, . -
(
)). Schriften ber
Sprachen und Texte. Bd. 8. Slavica mediaevalia in memoriam Francisci Venceslai Mare. Heraus-
gegeben von J. Reinhart. Wien, 2006: 107123.
Velimirovi 1960: Velimirovi, Milos. Byzantine Elements in Early Slavic Chant: The Hirmologion.
(=Monumenta musicae byzantinae. Vol. IV). Copenhagen, 1960.
Vereshchagin 1997: Vereshchagin, Evgenij M. Istorija Vozniknovenija Drevnego Obshcheslavjanskogo Litera-
turnogo Jazyka (Perevodcheskaja Dejatelnost Kirilla I Mefodija i Ih Uchenikov). Moscow: Martis, 1997
(, .
( ). : , 1997).
Zhitiya 1993: Zhitija Russkih Svjatyh. Uchebnoe Posobie. Vol. 5. Kolomna: Svjato-Troitskij Novo-Go-
lutvin zhenskij monastyr, 1993 ( . . 5. :
- - , 1993).
Regina Koycheva
161
r_ob: _oob_g:
(_g:r_oo)
o1:b_oo_:b _g:r_o:o__ _: |:_:rog_goo__ -
oo_o_o_:_o: _: _ooogoo_ro o|:g|__o og_g _g:r_g|:
_: _:ro_g oobor:_o_| Joro|
r_1o_o_
|:_g:boo |o__g_o: og_go _g:r_go oobor:_o:, _:ro_go oobor:_o:,
o:ro:bo, _:gJoro, o:r_g:go: r:o__bo:, oroogooobo, _ob|_:b_ob_ or_|-
g:go| |:__g_|oo b_|_o| _o_g_ro:, boob_: _orogo _: boob_: o_oo_o_|o,
boob_: og:roob o_ro_go.
|_:_o: b:roo:b_b| |:o o__b__r __boo_b| og_g _g:r_g|: _: _:ro_g
oobor:_o:| Joro|. orog_ o:o:bJo og:g|:bobo: o1:b_o_ro boo_Jo|
:_:o_:_o:, :o:| :r_: o|:g|o: o1:b_o_ro oo__go_:b o:oo _:Jor_o|
orob_oo_o: !) _g:r_oo_: _: |:_:rog_go_ _rob_go oobor:_oo| :b:g
_:g_:1_ __rogb:_ o:|_bo|, :r: obogo_ :b:go |::gog_o| o:roboo,
:r:o__ o:go|o oroob:g_ro oobor:_oo| J__oboo (lX-X |:___b__o), 2) _r-
ob_go |::gog_o o|_ oo:rob_o_:, roo ___:bJo :r|__go o:r_g:go:
r:o__bo: :r or_g_o_:, 3) :o:g_ o_roo_Jo :_|:boJb:go: o|, roo |g:g_ro
oobor:_o: :go:1_ o_o :b_oogo, roo_go_ |:_:rog_go|:ogo| _:o:b:-
|o:o__go:, o_o_: o1:b_o_rJo :og:ro r:o :r gbg__:.
162
ANNA ALEXIEVA
(Bulgaria)
Bulgarian Bacchic Poetry from the 19
th
Century:
Context, Specifc Characteristics, and the Lyrical Subject
The Bacchic theme established itself distinctly in Bulgarian poetry in the 1840s
and 50s, when, most often under the infuence of Greek prototexts (the work of Atanasiy
Hristopulo), it appeared in poetry collections, songbooks, the periodical literature, and in
several cases in texts which remained unpublished during the Revival Period.
*
The authors
who introduced it were sometimes important fgures from the Bulgarian canon (for exam-
ple, Petko Slaveykov), but in most cases were poets who were subsequently marginalized,
such as Konstantin Ognyanovich, Manol Lazarov, Yordan Hadzhikonstantinov, Krastyo
Pishurka and others. In their poems (which, in fact, are frequently songs, since they con-
tain paratextual instructions for the specifc melodies to which they should be set), the role
of a hedonistically minded lyrical subject is outlined, whose existence passes above all
under the sign of unrestrained drunkenness and the motto in vino veritas.
The motif of drinking and wine, having its precursor in the ancient tradition and in
biblical textuality, was present within the Bulgarian cultural context even before the popu-
larization of the poetry under discussion here. It can be found in the folkloric tradition,
where it has become an important element in certain ritual practices; it has woven itself
into the rituality of the holiday, but also palpably marks the sphere of the everyday. In
1673, for example, one foreign traveler noted that the residents of Gabrovo () are quite
inclined to openly show their inherent weakness for the drinking of wine ( -
1986: 147), while several centuries later, the Revival-
Era man of letters Ivan Bogorov noted that in Stara Zagora they toss back rakia [brandy]
like water, most are in the habit of gulping down 100 drams of the most fery spirits at once
with the greatest pleasure, without batting an eye ( 1868).
Despite the fact that drinking was something ordinary in Bulgarian everyday life,
in the written tradition until the appearance of Revival-Era Bacchic poetry, it most often
bore a negative valence, falling into the paradigm of feshly pleasures (alongside gluttony
and voluptuousness), which are neither natural, nor necessary and for that reason must
be avoided at all cost (. 1996: 106). This is why men of letters from the
end of the 18
th
and the beginning of the 19
th
century tended to stigmatize the sinners who
played the bagpipes and futes and drums and dance and eat and drink and sit at the feast
table day and night ( 1962). According to Kiril Peychinovich, drinking contradicts
the Christian ethnical imperatives, which demand that we sit wisely, refrain from lechery,
and not drink wine intemperately, and not to dance the horo as the madmen dance it (-
1816).
Such Christian moralizing statements on drinking continued to be topical towards
the middle of the 19
th
century as well, as can be seen from the popularity of the book The
* The concepts The Bulgarian Revival and the Revival Period have been canonically established in the Bul-
garia historiographic and literary-historical texts, most frequently covering the time period from the second half
of the 18th century to the Liberation of Bulgarian from Ottoman rule (1878).
163
Roots of Drunkenness and What Uses It Has For Those Who Drink A Lot, translated by
Zahariy
Knyazheski, which traces the physical and moral damages caused by regular drink-
ing: Drunkenness ruins our blood and destroys the bodys beauty and all of our strength;
it weakens our brain, ruins and scrambles our reason; it hardens our heart like stone.
Drunkenness is the enemy of our spirit; it harmfully squanders our property. Drunkenness
is more galling than a bad woman and corrupted and unhappy children. It abases humans
and likens them to animals ( 1842).
Nevertheless, during the 1840s and 50s, alongside such edifying-didactic attitudes
towards drinking, other sociocultural impulses were set into motion, which not only did
not condemn the consumption of alcohol, but even legitimized it in poetic texts and in this
way stabilized one of the most enduring images of the Revival Period, presenting it as a
time of distancing from medieval asceticism and dogmatism, a time of the rehabilitation of
worldly joys and pleasure in life. The activation of such attitudes and the meanings they
gave rise to in certain works was inspired both by the surrounding context of everyday
life in which drinking was normally present, as well as by the cultural dialogue with other
texts and poetic traditions (Greek, Russian, and European infuences), through the realiza-
tion of intertextual mechanisms and interactions.
The paradigm-founding text, which integrated the transformative energies hover-
ing in the sociocultural space, stabilizing them into a holistic and conceptual artistic pro-
gram, is Konstantin Ognyanovichs collection Entertaining Book for the Year 1845. As
the title indicates, it is neither the lesson nor the moral interest which should determine
the receptive attitude, but rather the sense of entertainment, of the playful beginning
imbued in the texts. In this sense, K. Ognyanovichs book appeared as an unusual inter-
mezzo, a break from Revival-era literature, which was otherwise quite serious in terms
of topic and which until the publication of the collection in question predominantly set
great store by its infuential didactic-enlightenment potential. This collection includes the
poem Winelover, which is, in fact, the frst printed poetic appearance of the Bacchic
theme in Bulgarian literature:
, , / , /
/ / , / ,
/ , / ! / /
, / / ! / , -
/ , / , / . /
, / , / , ,/ ( 1845).
Literal English translation [the original has an ABABCDCD etc. rhyme scheme]
Why do you teach me, dear friend / so much wisdom/ when my soul cannot/ pen-
etrate without diffculty/ into grammar, rhetoric/ and into that Verse-making/ which causes
me such pains/ Ill lose my feeling! / Why do I need to learn/ so many speeches with dif-
fculty/ when it isnt proper / to say them sober! / Look, its better to teach me/ how to drink
wine/ and to shout leave me alone/ to my hearts content./ And tell me something else as
well/ if you know something new/ how nice it is, how pleased I am ( 1845)
A post-Revival-Era reading of the cited text would most likely take note of certain
cultural-historical virtues in it (insofar as it represents a worldly topic and distances
Bulgarian Bacchic Poetry from the 19th Century: Context, Specifc Characteristics, and the
Lyrical Subject
164
itself from Church Slavic speech), but would remain disappointed both by the frivolity of
the topic introduced, as well as by the helplessness of the expressive means in which it
is voiced. If, however, we abandon such an evaluative approach, we will see that the text
presents not only a hedonistic motif which is new for Bulgarian literature. It introduces
the opposition studying/merry-making, making clear its preference for the latter and in
doing so undermines value systems fundamental to the enlightenment project. The poem
also presents a new type of role, which can be called the Dionysian person.
*
This refers
to a subject, who shows an obvious lack of interest in the sciences (even in their capacity
as a modifed form of the Artes Liberales my soul cannot/ penetrate without diffculty/
into grammar, rhetoric/ and into that Verse-making/...), announcing his preference for the
carefree, intoxicated state.
The essential particularity of this subject is his collectivistic, impersonal attitude.
He realizes himself solely within the framework of the community to which he belongs.
Called a bratstvo (brotherhood) or druzhina (band) in the texts, it is the community of the
other, which has become ones own through feasting and merry-making, through the act
of drinking and shared pleasure:
, , ! / , , / / ...
( 1857); ....! , / / -
, / ... ( 1852).
Literal English translation [the frst excerpt consists of seven-syllable lines with an
AABB rhyme scheme; the second alternates eight and seven-syllable lines with an ABAB
rhyme scheme]:
Hey, my dear band! / You, who have drunk / let all be well with you / and may your
heart be glad ( 1857); Brothers! Fill your jars, / put wine in the cups / and
slurp down the last drop, / let your hearts be merry ( 1852).
The hedonistic brotherhood thus formed is not a constant structure. Outside of its
framework, each member could simultaneously belong to other communities as well, and
fulfll various social roles or distance himself from the collectivist environment, if he feels
the need to express his individuality. Having landed in its accidental space, however, the
subject forgets his parallel affliations and roles, his individuality loses its contours and
he is transformed into a Dionysian person, that is, into a subject who is not being unto
himself, but being for/in the collective, where, as Nietzsche says the subjective vanishes
into full self-forgetting ( 1990:74).
It is no accident that the motif of forgetting is predominant in the texts in question.
Both unpleasant experiences are subject to forgetting (Let us forget every sorrow/ that up-
sets us on this earth; let us have fun with songs, with joy/ in this pleasant hour of ours
- 1858), as well as moral imperatives, traditional authorities and norms, civic
engagement, patriotic duty, national ideologemes, and the past, in order to arrive at the
* The term Dionysian person preserves a memory of its ancient geneology (the celebration of the cult of the
god of wine and festivities) and at the same time situates itself within a Nietzschean context as a member of the
dichotomy of the Dionysian-Apollonian beginning, connecting itself with the idea of the communal character
of the former, with its orgiastic ecstaticness, in which the principle of individualization is violated (see
1990). The Nietzschean dichotomy in its turn inspired the Jungian classifcation of psychological types, in which
the Dionysian person is tied to connotations of extroversion, because his psychological activity is oriented to-
wards the object, towards external phenomena and facts (see 1995)
Anna Alexieva
165
total cry for (self)forgetting: Let everything disappear! ( 1852a) as a desire
for the obliteration of all prior knowledge, as a yearning for the tabula rasa.
When keeping in mind that the Balkans are a territory which, as Paul Ricoeur puts
it, is characterized by a surplus of memory ( 2000), while the Revival Period
(since it was a time of constructing the Bulgarian national identity) was to the greatest
extent captivated by the impulse for discovering the signs and bulwarks of memory; when
keeping in mind the universal will for recording, for remembering everything, for resur-
recting the relics of the past, it can be presumed that the subject in the texts under discus-
sion commits a serious offense against the conjuncture of memory, i.e. against one of the
important cores of the Revival-era worldviews horizon.
The motif of forgetting is also connected with the particular placement of the Dio-
nysian person in the zone of non-passing time (which is mythological in its essence). It
is devoid of events, of chronological reference points and is shaped as an unbroken pres-
ent, liberated from the onerous burden of historicity. Such a conception of temporality is
antithetical to the progressive linear model of time characteristic of other texts from the
period, which are primarily oriented towards civic enlightenment and which represent the
hope for the future, for more perfect development, which inevitably leads to civilizational
progress. Disengaged from the perspectives of the future, liberated from the memory of
the past, the time of Bacchic poetry seems to be stopped in the zone of the hedonistic
present, frozen in a point of unchangingness. It is a question of a particular timelessness,
of the abolition of history and eventfulness through celebration and Bacchic intoxication.
The Dionysian person lives, as M. Eliade would put it, in the present continuous tense
( 1994: 100), which is characterized by the endless repetition of one and the same
actions, which are primarily oriented towards the satisfaction of the somatic needs (
to eat, to drink [] a full cup of rich wine, a warm roll and a bit of cheese - -
1851), whose sole point is to produce () above all pleasant feelings (
1845: 137). Going beyond the boundaries of the temporal stream, stopping its fow shakes
even the idea of death, imagined not as an end and an irreversibility, but as a continuation
of one and same life, given over to hedonistic, alcohol-fueled (self-)forgetting:
, / , / , /
, , / , / , . / ,
, / , / , /
. / , / : /
, / ; / , /
... ( 1851).
Literal English translation [the original consists of eight-syllable lines with an
AABB etc. rhyme scheme]
Thats why I tell my band/ when I die/ to dig a whole in the cellar/ in the cellar,
behind the door/ because there is a cask there/ that holds three hundred pails./ There, be-
neath it they should dig,/ and they shouldnt waste too much time/ because Ill get thirsty
again/ and Ill want to drink again./ When they go to bury me there/ they should keep this
in mind:/ place my feet towards the threshold/ and my head under the tap;/ so when the
wine overfows there,/ it will pour into my mouth ( 1851).
The destabilization of temporal landmarks, the reduction of temporality to the un-
Lyrical Subject
166
broken present is also connected with the spatial reshaping of the world into which the
Dionysian person is placed. It can be said that when put in contact with this subject, certain
traditionally important topoi are profaned, deprived of their higher signifcance. With a
view to the private sphere, for example, one such signifcant space is the home, thought of
as the territory of blood-kinship ties which structure its members in a vertical hierarchy.
The peak of this patriarchal structure is sacred and beyond temporality. It refers to tradi-
tion and to the ancestors, to the unforgettable dead, idealized through the power of blood
and temporal distance. The next most powerful positions in the hierarchical structure of
the home are occupied by the stately fgures of the oldest Father (who is the personifcation
of the law, a symbol of institutionality and power) and the Mother the guardian of famil-
ial memory. The remaining positions are given to the younger members of the family, who
traditionally show deference and respect to the authority of the parents. This hierarchical,
age-regulated space, which is subordinate to certain ethical norms and traditions, is sacral-
ized in the cultural memory as an ber-value which must be preserved and defended from
conficts, internal contradictions and external interference.
It is precisely the self-suffciency of the family ties, their idyllic closedness to the
insignia of the foreign that is destabilized in these Bacchic texts. The space of the home
is transformed into a gathering place for the multifaceted hedonistic community, which is
united not by the force of blood-kinship ties, hierarchies and power positions, but under
pressure from the spontaneous desire for satisfaction and merry-making. In this space, the
verticals disappear, the world becomes as horizontal and fat as the feast table. The author-
ity fgures from the patriarchal power structure (the Fathers and Mothers) are replaced by
the fgure of the master-of-the-house/the one who treats guests to wine (...Come on, for
the master of the house, / Petko the Householder: / he greets his guests,/ around the wind-
ing tables 1857), whose position, however, has little in common with that of
the patriarchal elders, insofar as it is played out as a situative role. It changes just as the
drinkers locations change, and given its instability is deprived of the signs of authoritar-
ian dominance. It is notable that the space of the home, insofar as it is transformed into
a territory for drinking, is also marked by another semiotic lack, that of female presence.
Even though drinking is traditionally associated with amorous satisfaction, the drunken
community in the texts under discussion has a decidedly male character, which to a cer-
tain extent predetermines the idiom of its discourse, which slips away from the refned
overtones inevitable for male-female communication and opens up in the spontaneity and
lowered rhetoric of the feast.
The other location for collective male drunkenness, with an eye to the public
sphere, is the space of the pub. In Bulgarian heroic epic (which in its turn updates the
ancient high treatments of the topic of the feast), the pub is a place for yunatsi, or young
heroes, to meet, where they discuss questions of fateful importance to nature, the socium
and themselves. For the subject of the Bacchic poems, however, the pub is a topos con-
nected with connotations of the everyday-needs, of the consumerist beginning. It is a place
where one drinks and sings, where spirits are sold, which lead to oblivion and forgetting,
to the disregard of decency and inhibitions. It is a space that can generate merry-making
and spontaneity, but not serious discussion about fateful questions nor rational dialogue
between dignifed men on dignifed topics, as is the exemplary, ancient function of the
Anna Alexieva
167
feast environment. In this sense, its semantics have been profaned, reoriented to the low-
est levels of somatic-everyday needs. The publicness of the topos is even thrown into
question, insofar as the ancient use of the term public presumed situatedness within
the civic-political order: the space of the bios politikos, of active engagement in socio-
political acts; all meanings which are irrelevant for the hedonistic environment in which
the Dionysian person is situated.
On the level of the degraded interpretation which signifcant topoi from Bulgar-
ian life take on, we can also fnd certain geographical objects, which lose their concrete
character and national signifcance and take on the dimension of a u-topian spatiality,
structured according to the desires and pleasure-oriented needs of the subject. And since
the abovementioned desires are always oriented towards the modes of drunken ecstasy,
these objects are transformed into hyberbolized receptacles for alcohol, as happens in one
text by Spas Zafrov, for example, in which the Dionysian person wishes That the Danube
were not water/ but rather that it fowed with wine:
, / ,/ , /
. / , / , /
, / (...) / / ,
/ / , / ,
, . / ( , / ),/
, / , / , /
( 1857).
Literal English translation [The original is in eight-syllable lines with an AABB
etc. rhyming scheme]:
How beautiful it would be/ how thankful / If the Danube were not water, / but rather
fowed with wine./ To travel over wine,/ when I crossed the Danube,/ and to take a drink
from it,/ whenever I felt like drinking () And sometimes to get out / of the boat and get in,/
to bathe and swim/ and to keep pouring it in,/ to drink endlessly, sweet wine, rich wine. /
And if (God forbid/ but were human, so it might),/ and if something were to happen, / and
I would meet my death there,/ I would fnd myself happy/ to die of wine ( 1857).
These desired, limitless spaces, where rivers of wine and drunken-naivist in-
sights about life and death fow, also contain the implications of something less visible,
yet essential for the psychological outlook of the Bacchic subject. They inspire his desire
for sinking/fusing into them: (If only you were wine, oh sea,/ oh, how nice it would be,/
up above the wine,/ to unfurl a sail,/ to foat and to melt away
*
), for getting lost in their
festive atopianess, which (in the framework of a psychoanalytical treatment
**
), could also
be read as a striving for regressive bliss, as a desire for pre-subjectiveness and the opening
of the natural, pre-cultural structure of matter, in which even the idea of death is not con-
* The term Dionysian person preserves a memory of its ancient geneology (the celebration of the cult of the
god of wine and festivities) and at the same time situates itself within a Nietzschean context as a member of the
dichotomy of the Dionysian-Apollonian beginning, connecting itself with the idea of the communal character
of the former, with its orgiastic ecstaticness, in which the principle of individualization is violated (see
1990). The Nietzschean dichotomy in its turn inspired the Jungian classifcation of psychological types, in which
the Dionysian person is tied to connotations of extroversion, because his psychological activity is oriented to-
wards the object, towards external phenomena and facts (see 1995).
** See 1997.
Lyrical Subject
168
nected with anxiety and fear, but with the principle of satisfaction, with the liberation of
the I from the burden of personalness (I would fnd myself happy/ to die of wine).
The cry for fusion with the non-acculturated, natural state of the physical world
fnds its explication in the poem Drunken Prayer by Petko Slaveykov, in which through
a reverie for rain, for a food of wine, the cosmicness of the hedonistic utopia is brought
to its limit:
, , , / , , / -
, / ; / , , / -
. / / , /
/ ! / , - /
/ ; / , , , /
! / , / / -
. / , , / , , /
/ / /
. / , / , /
- / ; / /
( 1978: 84-85).
Literal English translation [the original is in eight-syllable lines with an AABB etc.
rhyme scheme]:
Oh, listen Bacchus, our god, /who gives wine, wormwood,/ before you I fall down
in worship/ and roll around in the mud;/ I shall praise you, creator,/ with such bows until
the very end. / Every year you allow/ new grapes to grow,/ and in the fruits broth/ you pour
such pleasurable water!/ But it is our cursed luck - /our stomachs can barely hold/ six ok-
kas; / for this reason, oh god, do a good deed/ and expand our stomachs!/ Go ahead and
say/ of that drink let it hold/ at least one hundred okkas./ And again I beg you, our god, / to
arrange as you see ft,/ at least once a month/ for wine to come instead of rain / so every
poor man can / drink on faith and without fear./ And against those unbelievers,/ who do
not serve you with a pitcher,/ send a food of that drink / to drown them all; / while we,
in your glorious honor,/ will drink again today.
The poem Drunken Prayer introduces the travestied-playful characteristics of
a natural I, whose strategy includes a degraded re-accentuation of signifcant religious
models. Even with its title, the text combines in one syntagma concepts which seem in-
compatible at frst glance, marking the religious speech genre of prayer with the adjective
drunken, which instantaneously destabilizes its elevated meanings. It is well-known
that the church sacrimentary strictly regulates both the content of the prayers text, as
well as the actions accompanying the ritual. According to religious norms, every prayer,
as a union of man with God, includes a laudatory section (the so-called slavoslovie or the
ecstasy of wonder in man, who contemplates the works of Gods infnite mercy, great
mercy and omnipotence in the moral and material world
*
), a supplicatory section (which
requires moderation in the petition, because it is prudent for virtues to be in moderation)
and a repentant section (because our prayer is above all repentance and a petition for the
forgiveness of sins).
* The citations are from: : 2001.
Anna Alexieva
169
Adhering to the formal model of prayer structure, the Dionysian person in Slaveyk-
ovs text destabilizes and degrades the semantic aspects of prayer on every level. The
poem begins with a laudatory section, which, however, does not praise the triune God in
his capacity as a supreme, transcendental authority, but rather the pagan divinity Bac-
chus, whose blessing consists of the fact that he gives wine, wormwood wine. Whats
more, this parody of laudatory speech is accompanied by particular ritual actions,
in which the elevated meaning of bowing in prayer is reduced to a banal drunken rolling
around on the ground:
(and [I] roll around in the mud;/ I shall praise you, creator,/ with such bows until
the very end). The supplicatory section of the parodical prayer is oriented primarily
towards the subjects base-somatic needs, to the satisfaction of his aspirations for feast-
ing, which contradicts one basic religious postulate according to which prayer does not
indulge the idle fesh, because the purpose of prayer is the overcoming of physicality and
the destruction of carnal man (
: 2001). As might be supposed, the text is missing the repentant section. Repentance
assumes humility, a recognition of ones own sins and a striving to overcome them. The
Dionysian man in Slaveykovs text not only does not think of his impulses towards pleas-
ure within the regime of sinfulness; instead, possessed by the destructive beginnings of
drunken ecstasy, he wishes for the drowning of all of those not devoted to the hedonistic
ritual (And against those unbelievers,/[] send a food of that drink / to drown them
all), which violates all principles of Christian ethics. It must be noted, however, that the
gloomy ending to the poem is only ostensible; it does not fall into the scope of negation,
but rather into the humorous zone of the carnivalesque, in the call for the continuation of
the feast ([we] can drink again today), in the entire playful discourse of this type of poetics.
Besides offending ideological concepts signifcant for religious doctrine, the prin-
ciple of travesty also takes aim at certain worldviews that are fundamental to the enlight-
enment project and which are refected in their own way in some Bulgarian texts from the
middle of the 19
th
century. For example, Bulgarian civic poetry uses the categorical ap-
paratus of Enlightenment writings, proclaiming the Kantian idea of emerging from self-
imposed nonage ( 1984) on the path to knowledge and reason, as well as through the
mastery of the universal laws of science, which would lead to mastering nature and civi-
lizational progress. Scientifc knowledge, in its capacity as a rationalistic product which
demolishes myths and religious postulates, was raised to cult status and transformed into
an important element in the new enlightenment mythology, at whose foundation lay the
inviolable belief in the progressive advance of humanity along the path of enlightened
knowledge.
This mythologeme of critical reason, however, is parodically given a new mean-
ing in the Bacchic texts of the Revival Era, in which wisdom and knowledge (important
symbols of Enlightenment axiology) are not only devalued ( I dont want wisdom, or
studying/ I only want drinking - 1851), but are also subjected to an auto-da-fe
of sorts (Get out quickly, books!/ Let a fre burn you up; /come on, throw them in/ what do
I need these troubles for? - 1980: 132).
The juxtaposition between science and hedonistic celebration, between a serious-
rational and carefree-celebratory way of life, as well as the subjects unwavering bias
Lyrical Subject
170
towards the latter comes at a time when the values of science and education were still
being established in a stubborn struggle not so much against convinced opponents, as
against apathetic inertia for this reason it was necessary to make use of fanatical support,
to be holy and untouchable by the degrading violations of the unserious, the ironic and the
ambiguous, to demand and to unconditionally receive the greatest possible seriousness
( 1990:142). The behavior of the subject in the texts examined here not only de-
stabilizes the important, ber-valued postulates of the Bulgarian enlightenment movement
from the middle of the 19
th
century, but also takes aim at the philosophical-ideological
principles of its proto-image the European enlightenment project parodically giving
new meaning to its doctrinal models, in which rational knowledge and the perfecting of
science occupy an important place.
On the other hand, the European enlightenment was a time of disparate, even anti-
thetical presence of various conceptions, some of which, distancing themselves from the
blindness of instrumental reason which sees the world as a giant analytic judgment
(, 1999: 46), undertake a criticism of sorts of rationalism and scien-
tifc knowledge, juxtaposing them against the idea of the primitive, natural state of man
and the world. In his First Discourse, Jean-Jacques Rousseau reaches the conclusion that
the impressive progress of knowledge has not contributed anything to the cleansing of
morals and that our souls have become corrupted in proportion to the advancement of
the Arts and Sciences ( 1988: 225). Undertaking a critique of the individual sciences
(astronomy was born of superstition; eloquence from ambition, hate, fattery, and false-
hood; geometry from avarice; physics from vain curiosity; all, even moral philosophy, from
human pride [] from human depravity 1988 233), and even citing the authority
of Socrates (who also praised ignorance [] and scorned our vain sciences 1988:
230), Rousseau calls upon humanity to free itself from the social illusion that knowledge
perfects morals:
Peoples, know once and for all that nature wished to protect you from knowledge,
just as a mother snatches away a dangerous weapon from the hands of her child, that
all the secrets which she keeps hidden from you are so many evils she is defending you
against, and that the diffculty you experience in educating yourselves is not the least of
her benefts. Men are perverse; they would be even worse if they had had the misfortune
of being born knowledgeable.... ( 1988: 232).
Civilization, the advance of scientifc knowledge, and the mastery of nature do not
lead to the perfection of morals, but rather alienate and corrupt man, condemning him to
loneliness and an unauthentic existence. The only escape for dealing with alienation, ac-
cording to Rousseaus Second Discourse, is turning back towards the primordial, natural
state of being (retake your ancient and frst innocence; go into the woods to lose sight and
memory of the crimes of your contemporaries, and have no fear of cheapening your spe-
cies in renouncing its enlightenment in order to renounce its vices 1988: 672).
The concept of turning back towards prehistoric, natural structures of existence,
which resurrect the image of the primordial lost homeland, also fnd grounds in the
Bulgarian Bacchic poetry from the middle of the 19
th
century. Does this mean that in paro-
dying a specifc enlightenment doctrine (in this case the rationalistic-progressive one),
it makes explicit its belonging to another enlightenment (Rousseauian) model, in whose
Anna Alexieva
171
schema the image of the Dionysian person appears as a particular modifcation of the
natural primitive-spontaneous bon sauvage?
In fact, the myth of lost immediacy, whose restoration can be brought about through
a return towards the roots of naturalness, suggests doubt in the enlightenment project and
its decline (it is no accident that this myth exercises infuence over several later philo-
sophical conceptions,
*
while Rousseaus Confessions presents the directions, themes and
ideological foundations for a new cultural period that of Romanticism). For Bulgarian
literature from the middle of the 19
th
century, however, this mythologeme turns out to be
irrelevant (with the exception of Bacchic poetry) in the general striving towards the struc-
turing of a rationally
ordered world, shaped from knowledge and the civilizational accomplishments of
humanity. During this period, Rousseaus viewpoints received only an indirect reception,
primarily through the texts of his follower Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, and it was only in
the 1870s that some of his ideas (mainly his pedagogical conceptions) were explicated di-
rectly in the Revival-era journalistic discourse, and even then quite contradictorily. Thus,
for example, in his article We Must Work, Petko Slaveykov announces that Saint-
Pierre and Jean-Jacques Rousseaus school, which preaches patriarchalism and a return to
primitive times, lost its importance in the present 19
th
century ( 1869). In an-
other, anonymous article from that period,
**
those who are carried away by Rousseaus ideas
against the sciences and the arts are stigmatized, since in doing so they hinder enlightenment
and civilizational progress.
If we accept that the Rousseauian criticism of science and the call to go back to
nature in an indirect manner (through the borrowing and imitation of Greek and Russian
literary themes) nevertheless infltrated Bulgarian Bacchic poetry, we will see that the
concepts in question have undergone fundamental transformations, especially with respect
to their excessively literal, profaned interpretation. Thus, the serious critique of rational
knowledge undertaken by Rousseau is reduced in the Bacchic poetry to a frivolous, one-
sided juxtaposition between studying and drinking, and even then, studying is not con-
ceived of within the framework of impressive scientifc progress (as in Rousseau), but on
the level of some elementary stage of literacy (as in Nayden Gerov: why do you learn
in vain/() to read?/ what good are the ABCs/ frst learn to drink! 1980: 131). As
far as the theme of returning to nature is concerned, it is interpreted primarily in terms of a
degraded, consumerist model for mastering natural blessings with an eye to their potential
for wine production (...Come, spring, make/ everything green/ make our big vineyards/
ripen the grapes/ so we can make wine/ so we can get drunk! 1980: 132). The
subjects feasting needs are transformed into the sole goal, into the point of his existence,
which thus is deprived of all possible lofty implications:
... / -, -,/ ,
/ ( 1852); ... / , /
, , / ,

( 1857).
* The Nietzschean sorrow for the ecstatic Dionysian culture can be tought of in this paradigm; the Baudelairian
horror at progress, which activated the poets desire to stop the march of the world (see 1989); the
symbolist impulse towards searching for the lost primordial homeland (thought of as Nirvana), and, of course,
the Spenglerian presentiment of the decline of the West as a result of civilization progress.
** See 1874.

Lyrical Subject
172
Literal English translation [the frst alternates eight and seven-syllable lines with an
ABAB rhyme scheme; the second has eight-syllable lines with an AABB rhyme scheme]
There is no other state/ more pleasant, better,/ than for it to be said hes drunk,/
this is my silver ( 1852); Only when I drink wine/ and when I get drunk on it/
then I know that I exist/ then I know, that I light up the world ( 1857a).
Of course, the subjects mytho-ritualistic strategies for dissolving into the natural
structures of being remain, as well as the Rousseauian idea of the adequation of luxury
and science with a view to their pernicious effect on man (Luxury is rarely found with-
out the sciences and the arts, and they are never found without it 1988: 235),
which provokes the subjects drastic decision to reject riches and luxury (Do not praise
gold and silver to me/ better praise fne wine (); / I dont want gold, I dont want silver/
there is only one thing a need - / a full bottle of rich wine 1851). As a whole,
however, these concepts, which are essential for the enlightenment world view, are subjected
to literalization, which deprives them of their elevated, philosophical potential and brings
them closer to mass, popular taste. It can be said that the subject of the Bacchic texts has
mastered the ideological language of the Revival Epoch, but uses it primarily on a prag-
matic-functional everyday or hedonistic-unserious level, which empties it of meaning.
Having become particularly popular towards the middle of the 19
th
century, over
the subsequent decades the Bacchic poetry was subject to a critical, predominantly pejo-
rative reinterpretation, tied to accusations of frivolity and banality and especially a lack
of engagement with national-liberation activity. During the 1860s and 70s, in connection
with the revolutionary activities which were then undertaken and whose goal was a change
in the political status quo, rebellious lyric poetry became ever more topical it was also
canonized after Bulgarias Liberation from Ottoman rule in 1878. Of course, Bacchic
poetry continued to be published even in the revolutionary decades, as well as later, but
now with an altered, distinctly marginalized status. If the Bulgarian literary canon has
nevertheless allowed certain Bacchic models, they are connected with the heroic fgures
of men in cold taverns (which can be found in the poem Hajduti (Rebels) by the poet-
revolutionary Hristo Botev), who sketch out strategies for rebellion. In the most canoni-
cal Bulgarian novel Under the Yoke by Ivan Vazov the drunkenness of a people is
praised, which, however, has nothing to do with alcoholic intoxication, but instead is a
metaphor for the ecstatic national-liberation drive that seized the community.
It is obvious that the Bulgarian literary canon has announced its preference for an-
other type of sublime, revolutionary drunkenness, for another rebellious mode of celebra-
tion, which was meant to awaken the national spirit and daze the world with its spec-
tacularity. In the lofty company of the revolutionary and the rebels, the Dionysian person,
with his hedonistic displays, is interpreted as absurd-amusing, but also in certain cases as
a threatening incarnation of spiritual lack, of national stagnation. Placed within stopped
time, on the periphery of the rebellious topography, given over to drunken rhetoric, he
is asynchronic both with the revolutionary chronotope, as well as with the ideological
discourse of the era. This is why, completely naturally, after the Liberation, he has been
situated in the literary marginalia; a place marked by the signs of the shameful and the
undignifed, a semi-aesthetic existence.
Anna Alexieva
173
References:
Angelov, Bonyo. Iz istoriyata na balgarskata muzikalna kultura. Balgarska muzika, XIII, n. 5, 1962.(
, . [From the history of Bulgarian
musical culture]. , XIII, . 5, 1962.)
Baeva, Sonya. Petko Slaveykov. Zhivot i tvorchestvo. Sofa, Balgarska akademiya na naukite, 1968. (-
, . . [Life and work]. ., , 1968.)
Benjamin, Walter. Hudozhestvena misal i kulturno samosaznanie. Sofa, Nauka i izkustvo, 1989.( -
, . [Artistic thought and cultural self-
awareness]. ., , 1989.)
Bogorov, Ivan. Nyakolko dena razhodka po balgarskite mesta. Bukuresht, 1868.( , . -
[Several days walk through Bulgarian locales] . ,
1868.)
Gerov, Nayden. Vakhicheski pesni. Balgarska vazrozhdenska poeziya. Sofa, Balgarski pisatel, 1980.
(, . [Bacchic songs]. [Bulgarian
Revival-era poetry]. ., , 1980.)
Dakova, Vera. Prosveshtenski impersonalizam i liricheski geroy v rannata balgarska vazrozhdenska po-
eziya. Godishnik na Sofyskiya universitet. Fakultet po slaviyanski flologii, ezikoznanie i literaturoz-
nanie. V, 83, 1990. (, .
[Enlightenment impersonalism and the lyrical hero in early Bul-
garian Revival-era poetry]. . . . . .,
[Yearbook for Sofa University. Department of Slavic Philology, Linguistics and Literary Studies].
V. 83, 1990.)
Eliade, Mircea. Mitat za vechnoto zavrashtane. Sofa, Hristo Botev, 1994.( , .
[The Myth of the Eternal Return]. ., , 1994.)
Zafrov, Spas. Kolko bi bilo harno. Blagarska gusla. Tsarigrad, 1857.( , .
[How nice it would be]. [Bulgarian gusla]. , 1857.)
Zafrov, Spas. Koga si pija vintseto. Blygarska gysla. Tsarigrad, 1857. (, . -
[When I Drink My Wine]. . , 1857.)
Yoanovich, Nayden. Za vinolyubtsite. Novobalgarski pesni. Beograd, 1851. (, . -
[For Winelovers]. [New Bulgarian songs]. , 1851.)
Kant, Immanuel. Otgovor na vaprosa: Shto e Prosveshtenie? Filosofska misal, 1984, 12.( , -
. : ? [An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlight-
enment?]. , 1984, 12.)
Knyazheski, Zahariy. Korenya na piyanstvoto i kakva polza prinosya na oniya, shto go piyat mnogo.
Smirna, 1842. (, . ,
[The Roots of drunkenness and what use it has to those who drink a lot]. . 1842.)
Nauka i nevezhestvo 1874. Vek, 04 . 1874, 48. ( [Science and Ignorance] 1874:
, 04 . 1874, . 48.)
[German and Austrian Travelogues about the Balkans]
1986. [Foreign travelogues about the Balkans]. . 2. .,
, 1986.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Razhdaneto na tragediyata i drugi sachineniya. Sofa, Nauka i izkustvo, 1990.
Ognyanovich, Konstantin. Zabavnik za leto 1845. Paris, 1845. (, .
1845 . [Entertaining Book for the Year 1845 by K. Ognyanovich]. , 1845.)
Peychinovich, Kiril. Kniga siya zovomaya ogledalo. Budin, 1816.( , . -
. [The book, entitled mirror]. , 1816.)
Pishurka, Krystio. Koga ploskata az vidja Tsarigradski vestnik, 26. 07. 1852, br. 93. (, -
. ... [When I See the Bottle] , 26 1852, . 93.)
Pishurka, Krystyo. Veseliy chas. Razna lyubovna pesnopevka. Beograd, 1858.( , . -
Lyrical Subject
174
[Happy hour]. , . . . ,
. [Songbook with various love songs]. , 1858.)
Ricur, Paul. Pamet zabravyane istoriya.( , . [Memory,
history, forgetting]. http://grosni-pelikani.hit.bg/prevodi/ricoeurgvg.htm (17.03.2012 .)
http://grosni-pelikani.hit.bg/prevodi/ricoeurgvg.htm (17.03.2012)
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Razsazhdenie dali vazrazhdaneto na naukite i na izkustvata e doprineslo za
ochistvane na nravite. Izbrani sachinenia. T. 1. Sofa, Nauka i izkustvo, 1988.( , -. -

[Discourse on whether the restoration of the sciences and the arts has contributed to refning moral
practices]. [Selected works]. .1, ., , 1988.)
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Razsazhdenie varhu sledniya vapros, predlozhen ot Dizhonskata akademiya:
kakav e proizhodat na neravenstvoto mezhdu horata i osnovava li se to na prirodniya zakon. Izbra-
ni sachinenia. T. 1. Sofa, Nauka i izkustvo, 1988. (, -.
, : -
[A discourse on a subject proposed by the academy
in Dijon: What is the origin of inequality among men and is it authorized by natural law?].
. .1, ., , 1988.)
Sveti Yoan Zlatoust Za udovolstviyata. Tochno izlozhenie na pravoslavnata vyara. Sofa, Tiliya, 1996.
( . [On pleasures].
[Precise presentation of the Orthodox Faith]. ., , 1996.)
: 2001 [Holy and Righteous St. John of Kronstadt
on Prayer: 2001]. http://www.pravoslavieto.com/books/za_molitvata/index.htm (17.03.2012 .)
Sveti i pravedni Yoan Kronshtadski za molitvata: 2001
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/books/za_molitvata/index.htm (17.03.2012.)
Slaveykov, Petko. Bratya! Garneta palnete Pesnopoyka ili razlichni pesni, satiri i gatanki na balgarsky
yazik za uveselenie na mladite. Bukuresht, 1852.( , . ! ...
[Brothers! Fill your jars] ,
[A songbook or various songs, satires and riddles in the Bulgarian
language for the entertainment of the young]. , 1852.)
Slaveykov, Petko. Povtorka. Pesnopoyka ili razlichni pesni, satiri i gatanki na balgarsky yazik za uvesele-
nie na mladite. Bukuresht, 1852.( , . [Repeat].
, . , 1852.)
Slaveykov, Petko. Zdravitsa. Nova pesnopoyka. Tsarigrad, 1857.( , . .
[New songbook]. , 1857.)
Slaveykov, Petko. Tryabva da rabotim. Makedoniya, 30. 09. 1869, br. 41. (, .
[We must work]. [Macedonia], 30 . 1869, . 41.)
Slaveykov, Petko. Piyanska molitva. Sachineniya v osem toma. T. 1. Sofa, Balgarski pisatel, 1978. (-
, . [Drunken prayer]. [Works in eight vol-
umes]. . 1. ., , 1978.)
Freud: Sigismund. Otvad printsipa na udovolstvieto. Az i to. Prirodata na nesaznavanoto. Sofa, Evraziya,
1997.(, . [Beyond the pleasure principle].
. [The ego and the id. The nature of the subconscious.] . .,
, 1997.)
Horkheimer, Adorno 1999. Horkheimer, Max; Adorno, Theodor. Dialektika na Prosveshtenieto. Sofa,
GAL-IKO, 1999.( , ; . [Dialec-
tic of enlightenment]. ., -, 1999.)
Jung, Karl. Psihologicheski tipove. Universitetsko izdatelstvo Sveti Kliment Ohridski, 1995. (,
. [Psychological types]. ., . ,
1995.)
Anna Alexieva
175
:b: :g__|o_g:
(_g:r_oo)
_g:r_go :b_|_ro oo_1o: XlX |:___bo_:b:
_ob___|_o, |o__o_o_: _: goro_go o_o:_o_:
r_1o_o_
|:_g:boo |o__g_o: _:ooro|oor__go o_roo_o, :_r__go oo__rbo|__go oo-
_1o:, :b_|_ro o_o:_o_:, goro_go |::bo, o:rob:go1or__go ___|__o _:
:g_or_o, :r:|:__g_|oo go__r:__r:.
|_:_oo| oo:g:ro _gg_g: ooo:ro_go: :g_oogo| oo1o_o_ro _: b_:-
_o_ro r_____o_go _o|__r|o| _:bg:ro_g g:orobo1_, roo_go_ |:_:-
roo:| XlX |:___bo_:b oo_b|. _roo obrog, |o: (:b|:__or_oo _gobo|) :r oo-
obb_g: _:|:or:b _o___:_, r:_:b b:roo:__b| _g:r_g_o| _og_g__o_ro
_bogr_o| :b__o__g b:bog| _: oo| :r_J_ __o_o o_ _r_o: |or_bgog:_
ooobb_g:. o_o_:, o_or_ obrog, 1oo_ro _o_:__o__r ___|_Jo o:| :_g| _:o:__-
ooo oboJgb_go: :r_gbog_o|: _: oor:g_ro :_gor:b|bogoo| __oboo.
oo_b__:g:_ oroo| _:r_o_ooo ob:ro| b:roob_bo|:, _| _:__o :r b:r-
oo:__b| :ro_r| ooo|:ogo|, roo :b_|_ro o_o:_o_: :gr__g__| _g-
:r_g oo_1o:Jo, :b|:__or_oo, XlX |:___bo| J_:bg_o_:b, _: _rob_go,
r_|_go _: _groo_go go__r:__r_go _r:_o_o_o| 1_:gg_b:| :bo__o|.
|oo| oo___ro b_rb_o| :o:rog_:o b_go J__b_o _g:r_g go__r:__r:|
:ob_:ro_o |:_ro:Joro|o __gob:r_go oro__|_o| oob:bog_. _| :|:_goro
:r::, r:_:b _gobo1oo _: orobo_go:, roo_g|:_ :o oo_1o:Jo gbg__oo
_:|:gg_ro _r:_o_o_o|ogo|:_ :ro| _:o:b:|o:o__go _: oo__rbo1oo| _oo-
_o| |:__:oo b:o_:_ ooobb_g:. :r_: ooo|:, roo |_:_o:Jo ooroo:_o :___b_o
__o__: o:r:_oo_oo :__boog oo_1o:1_, :|_g_, __r:___: _ooo: o:ro-
_oo| __b__b_o_|, roog_o_ :_bob_| o_ :o_or_| :bo:b:og_goo|: _:
_r:_o_o_go r_goo_ro _:|__go_o| o___|. :b_|_ro oo_1oo| goro__go
o_oo| ooroo:_o boJ:b-ogo|__o: ooo_r|ob:g_ro:, _og___ogo|__ro :b-
b_o: _: ___r:g_r__go _|o_ogoo_ro oro_b_:_o:.
XlX |:___b_Jo oboJgb_gog:bo :_ogo _:oo_go_r: :b_|_ro: oo_1o:o _:
o:| |:_o:o_ _gro oo___ro _r__go_ oo_o_gb:. |:___bo| ogo :obg__g_-
Jo :o _ooo| oo_1o: o1ogor__go :_oobb_:, r:_:b o| ooobb_o_: o__ogoo-
_r:_ oo___g:_ _: :r:|_roo1_g:_.

Lyrical Subject
176
maia jaliaSvili
(|:_:rog_go)

bob :|br__go |::oo
:b_
_r:_o_oo|: _: bog:_oo| |obo_1o
_:ro_g oo__rbo|__g b:r:_ogJo
_:ro_go __g__r:, _r:_o_o_g:_, ,o|o_goo r:_o_|oo" ooo:1r_-
o_:. b_gogb_:Jo _:, _oorg_g_|:_, go__r:__r:Jo ooo_ob:r_ oro__|_o,
ooroo:_:_, _groo:Jo ooo_ob:r_ oro__|o: o:r:g_g_ro _: :b:goo_ro o_o.
go__r:__r: o:go| Job::b _:bob1ooo_r__| oo_g_o_: _: :gg_b_: oo-
g:r __b__b_o_|, roog_o_ J_oog_: _obo_: b_o|oo_r ogoo_o:r __g__-
r:|. :r_g__g |:___b__Jo _:ro_go __g__ro| :og:ro _o:o: _rog:r:_
J_o1___:. XX |:___bo| _:|:b_o|o_:b _o b_gogb_ro b:___ogo: Jobo_:bg_
ooo1:__: _:|:r_g_g:_. :rbog _or_:oo| b_rog_o :oo| J_|:boJb:go _:|__ro
o_o. oo|o ,_|o__o1oo", _groo_g __g__r:1_ oro_b_or__go og:g|:1ro|o,
or:_oob:go1oo| _:_:_:, b_gogb_o| ,|o_o:g_ro |:o|:b_ro|" or_og_o-
|:b o:g_:b|b: _obo_: |r_go:_ |bg:g:r go__r:__r_g :_oo|__ro|. _r:b-
_go __g__roo :__:___go _o_: ::Joo_ oo|__g_: ,_b_rogo _g:g_:-
_oo|" _bog_r|:g_r orob_oo| _: _:bob1ooo_r:_ ooobb_g_: |ooogo1oo|
:oob_b:|, roor_ go__r:__r:Jo ooo_ob:r_ _gog__o_ro oro__|o| _ro
rog|. o:rog:_, r_b__o_ro| :gg_boo J__obogo |__o: |r_g_o_ogo :r
o_o, r:_:b _rog:r |borb:1ogb_:| J_o_:g_:, oo_b__:g:_ :oo|:, _o_: ::-
Jooo| b:b_r_|, oo| o:b:_oo:| :b:go:oo|:_oo _o_o oboJgb_go: _ob_:
_:ro_go __g__ro| ,:ooor:g_o|ogo|".
o:b_:o:b |:_:rog_goJo_ :oobb_b_b o|_oo |:b_g_o, roor_o_:::
Joo_b:__ro, bo_J_, o|_:r _:og_o, g:b_ro _: |bg_o. gog: gooo:ooo_|
___oo_: |_:b_ob:go_ro |_ogo|, :. |_rob__ro|: _: _. :o|_bo| :gg_b:,
b.goro_o_:boo_| g_bo| |_ogo|: - :. Jbo_g_ro|: _: o. :g__b_ro|:. :g-
g_bo| :r_:go o:b_:o:b o1r__o_: _: o:|Jo __ro o__:_ ogr_o_: o:-
b:_ro_go _grooo| |:b_g_o. :gg_b: _o oo:og:|:_ _go|boo_: _: oo|-
br:__:|:_ - _:ro_g go__r:__r:Jo oooo__go_o |o:bg_bo.
_roo obrog, Job::b:_ g:ro_: go__r:__ro| :_:b:go|_:. _| oro-
__|o, o_o_: b_g:, o:ob_ bor_o_g__o_:. oo:g_ro_g:_, :b:go:o: :r: oo-
o_g|_r:_, :r:o__ :_boo_r__g:_ ooo:ro:g_: __|o_roo_b__|.
Job::bo, ooo_g|_ro, ob__o_o_ro ,_g:g_:_o:" g:|og :rbogo|
|:b_go:b :ro| _:_:gJor__go, roo_go:b:_ oorg_g:_ :bb_: ogo_ro oo|-
br:__: o_o_:r og_g _:ro_g go__r:__r:|o:b ,oor_b_o|:" (_b:, |ob_:_-
|o) _: |:o_:ro| ,_|o__o__ro :ogo|_o|:".
oo__rbo1oo, |bor__ |o:bg_o: oo_o| oboJgb_gooo, o:b_:o:b ooo_:g-
_: oo_g _:ro_g __g__r:|, r:_ :_o_o_o_: _o___, roor_ _:ro_go __g-
_ogogoo_ro oo_:bo
177
__ro| ,r_b_|:b|o" (r. ro:_oo_). XX |:___bo| _:|:b_o|o_:b !0-o:bo bg_o|
ogoo__ _| oro__|o :ooob:__o_: go__r:__r_g _rb:g-:1_o_Jo
_:_g_ogo ob:_gr_go o_ o_oro_go o:|:goo, roog_Jo_ :o|:b_o_: oo-
__rbo1oo|ogo| boJ:b_ogogo o__:g_o. ob_go: _:|:1_gr: _:g___go ,o1-
oo|" oo_bo|:, roo_go_ o:Job _:ro_g go__r:__r:Jo :bb_:. oo__rbo1oo
o:go| o:gJo ooo_:g| or:g:g__rog:b |_ogo|__r oo_:|. _g_g:1_ ogo_ro, r:
o_o: _b_:, o:ob_ oo_1o:Jo :bbor_o_g__go _ggog__o o_o, r:_, _oorg_-
g_|:_, _o|__r_:bb_go: ___o| oo_g:b_ooo :ooob:_:. oro1:Jo _o _:or:go
:b:go |:b_go ,J_ooogr:", roo_go: oobo:__r_o:, _|_o1_o:, b:b:b:__o:,
ooobro_o: b:roo:bob_| _:ro_go go__r:__ro| :b:go |:b_.
|:_:rog_goJo oo__rbo1oo| ,|:b:r_o|" oorg_g ,o_:_:_g:_" _o|-
__r_:bb_g_o: roog ro:_oo_ :_o:r_|. _o_o:bo b_r|: ,oorg_go oo_o__go
|ooogo1oo|: |o__go_r:_ _:_:__: oo__rbo1oo| |:b:r_:|. roog ro:-
_ooo| :_:___go |o__g:, :_o:_r_bo _:b_:1o:, og:go|ooogr_go |:b__o ogor-
_:|o ooob_:: bg_bo :b:g:1r_oo|:. oorg_g:_ oo:b J_g:b__: oo:b::bo|
oogrog o:g|, oorg_g:_ oo:b oog:|o_bob: bo_J_| obg:g__go |o__g:" (_:oo_
!!6: 30) _o_o:b _:ooo| :1roo, roog ro:_oo_o__ |:_:rog_goJo oo__r-
bo1oo :r :r|_o_: _: g::-_J:g_g:|: _: oo|_ roJ:Jgogo| oo__rbo|_o-
o| o|_oro: obogo_ :__ro: o_o: ,roog ro:_oo_o _:b_r: oorg_go
|ooogo|__ro g__|_o", ,oo|o g__|_o _: _|__o o__: oor_b_o| o_b__:_
_:ro_g ob_rgo:Jo" (_:oo_ !!6: 30). _ob|_:b_ob_ :o|:b_r_o:_ roog
ro:_oo_| ooobb_g_: |:_:rog_goJo oo__rbo1oo| _:ob__:_. ,roog ro:-
_oo_ _b_o_: _groo_go _: r_|_go ob_rgoo| oroo::b_:|, boob_: b_gogb_-
o| :oogoo:|, _o__: g_Jo:ro_o oo_1oo| _:ro_g oor_|. o:b o_oro_g:_
_:r_o :|_go |:___bo| _:rog_g ob_r:go: :bo:b:og_g_r-__ogo_:r_go
og:g|:1ro|o _: |:1o:_o_roo: _|o__o1o|: _: boob_: b_gogb_o| o:bo_-
ob| :1o:r: (,_ro_rob bo_J_| :rJ_oo", ,_ :b_b_oo", ,o|_:r _:og_o", ,|__-
_:b o:g:ro_", ,_oobo|o| __g_o _: |:_:rog_go", ,_:ro_go oo__rbo1oo",
,_ro_rob bo_J_ _: o__: o:r:_o oor_b_o|:", ,:g_r_ :obJ_:obo _: :bro
_r|obo", ,__|or_|oobo1oo, o_o_| :o_r____o:"...) (|o_: !!: 560).
oo__rbo1oo |:_:rog_goJo, _oorg_g_|:_, _:__:gJor_: _:rog_g |oo-
ogo|__|. _o|__r_:bb_g_o:b _ro:_ oo__rbo1o| ,:bor_o_g__b_b"
:g:__oob _:oo_, _ob|_:b_ob_ :o|:b_r_o:, __ob: J_b_g:o: _: |bg_o.
|o|o |o_: !! b_g| :oo__o_g :g:__oobo| ,:r_o|__g _g:gog_|" _bo-
__| ,_:ro_go oo__rbo1oo| |:b:r_:|". oo__rbo1oo _:_ooro|oor_: _:ro_g
go__r:__rJo :o____g ,:_ob J:gob|", roo_go_ ,o:g:_| :_:_oo_:"
(_o_o:b _:oo_) _:ro_g ob_rgo:Jo. _:rog_go: oo__rbo|__o:, _o_o:bo|
:1roo, _oorg_g_| :oo_:b:_ _:gob___go |o__go| :___b: _:o|:b_| oo1b:_.
,_:ro_go |o__go| :_:_:__:| _o_o __r:___: oo:__o_| roog ro:_oo_o
_: :rbog _or_:o_o". :rbog _or_:o_ __ogo_: ,_:ro_go _ogo|o_oo|
:b_g__ogo o:_o| J__gr:| _: _:ro_go _rogb_go :1rogb_o| r_|_:gr:_o:|
__:gJor__: |ooogo|__r |_og:|" (_:oo_ !!6: 47). roog ro:_oo_ _:b-
g_|o b_gogb_o| oo1:b| b__:g_: _oroo| oo_r _:o|o| _:og_g:Jo _: |:_:rog_-
go| r_b_|:b||:_ |bor__ :o:| __:gJor__:. _:rog_go ob_rg_o _:r:_
bob :|br__go |::oo :b_ _r:_o_oo|: _: bog:_oo| |obo_1o
178
robo_b_b, roo __bo_r oo__rbo1o| _:ro_go __g__r: ooo1:___go _b_:
_:bg__ro_:. _o_o:bo b:1| _|g:o_: _:ro_go ob_rgoo| Job::b ooo1:___-
go:| |o:bg__o|:ogo|.
o_o__ |:___bo| !0-o:bo bg_o_:b |:_:rog_goJo oo__rbo|__g (oo-
or_|oobo|__g, |ooogo|__r, __|or_|oobo|__g, ____ro|__g...) b:b:r-
oo__| _obo_b_b g_o _o:b_go, bo_o goro_o_:boo_, _o: bo:b_go, |:b_ro
_or__oo_ _: |bg_o. o:b_:o:b :ooo_g_o: obroo| :b:go ___bo_:, oo__r-
bo1oo| _|o__o_o| orob_oo_o. 20-o:bo bg_o|ogo| _o oo__rbo1oo b:roob-
b_:, roor_ _:ro_go __g__ro| :bo|:1_gr_go |:b_. o|g:g_ Jo_bg_ro:
:ro_o| ,_grooo| __o__|o |_ogo" _bo_:. roor_ _boogo:, XX |:___bo|
20-o:b bg_Jo _ogo|o_o_r-_|o__o__r|: _: __g__rogoo_r ooo_gr__-
Jo b:roobb_: J_: |:___b__o|, __roo_, :ro_o| b_gogb_:1_ oro_b_:_o:.
oo__rbo|_ J_oo_o__o:ogo| o:bgo_go :_oobb_: o:bo_ro1oo|: _: :ro_o|
_|o__o_:, roogo|ogo|:_ _:o:b:|o:o__go o_o :r:r_b_|:b|_go o__:g_o.
_| o_o o__:_o1o__ro __:go1oo, |:o_:ro| :or__go ggr__:, :roobo_go
oorogb_o| r_g_g:, _b_:|o:b _:gJoro| :b_g__:, :_:oo:bo| _og_r_o| :_o-
:r_:, :_:oo:bo| bor_:_ _: |_g:_ :bg_b:. :o _ro| :_oroob_: J_: |:___b__-
o| r_goo_r-oo|_o__ro _o|ooobo_ro |o|__o_o. r_b_|:b|_go oorogb_:,
roor_ |:o_:ro| o_r:r_oo| _o:_g_|o obg_rg:go, b:ooo__: _: _gg:g _ro|-
_o:b_go _go:_: o__: o:_g:bo|__oo| |:b:_. |:o_:ro| _:r:_ _bogr_:|:_
_:__:r: oogo:bo: _: :_:oo:b|:_. r_goo: _: ob:_gr_go :1rogb_: _ro-
o:b_o| J__rb_:.
g_o_roo, _:ro_g oo__rbo|__g b:r:_ogJo_ b:roobb_: :ro_o|ogo|
boJ:b_ogogo :|o____o. _:ro_go :ro_o| J_|:b_ _:ro_g go__r:__ro|-
o_o_b_o:Jo |:ob__r_|o :oo_gg_g_o :r|_o| (_. ____gooo|, .:b_bog:oo|,
. _:rbo:|, o. __bgoJgogo|, o. b:g__o:|o _: |bg:). :o o__bo_ro: :oo_gg_g_o|
_:|_gb_o_:b b:b|, roo Xvll-Xvlll |:___b__Jo _:ro_g go__r:__r:Jo _gro-
o_go go__r:__ro| o|:g|o oro__|_o ooo_ob:r_o_: _: |:__ogg:_ _ro|-
_o:b_go r_goo: __o. |:1o:_o_, :ro_o| go__r:__ro|ogo| _:o:b:|o-
:o__go: oo|_o__r-:g_oro_go |o_g:r_go, ob__ror__:_oo| o_oo_o (,|:o-
oob ro:_ :|:|ob_o"(g:b_:b vl), b_o|oo_ro |o___o| |bg:, _:_:r_go
oboJgb_goo| oo_:. :g_oro_go: (,g__bo|__:o|bo|" g:b_:bo|__go _o-
o_b_:r_o, ooro: oo_b_roo| |:_goo oo_b_ro:_ ob__ror__:_o: _: |bg:.
ob__ror__:_o: _go|boo_: |:|_go_ro go__r:__ro| _o_b:|). :ro_oJo
_oo:gr_|o o_o |_o___o| ooo:ro_: _1_b:_|o:b, |o_go| |:o__r:go, o:b-
::r|_o: |bg:_:|bg: |_ogo|:, J_:|:___b_orogo _oo:_o1oo, oo:g_ro_-
g:_, _ro|_o:boo| ooro_: b:ro:roo:|o:b, :b|:__or__go ob__r_|o
:b_o__roo|:_oo. :ro_o| _|o__o_:Jo _oboJgb_gog:b_|o o_o ,:r__ggo|"
orob_ooo, |:r_o|__ro :|:bg:, |:r_o|: _: br_ogo| :g_oro_o, _oro:g_ro
oo__o| oroo:_o, __r:___: :r_b_go _oooo1o_o_ro ob:ro|:_oo, ___or:-
_o_go:.
XX |:___bo| 20-o:bo bg_o |:_:rog_go|ogo|:_ oo__rbo1oo| ,o_ro|
b:b:" o_o. bob:o_ro:b ogo:| o_gg_go: :g:__oobo: _o_o _oo_o| _:|:|r_-
g:_ |:b_g_o. |:ob_b:ro_, _| _r:o__go oogg_b: :b_: _rog:ro 1_g:r:-
o:o: _:go:Jgogo
179
o_o_o o_ |:boJbo, roo_go:_ ,_:b_:|_o_ro bo_o" :oo:bob:. ,_:b_:|_o_ro
bo_o" |bor__ :b:go b_gogb_: o_o. |:ob__r_|o:, roo _groo:Jo_ _::bgo_oo
_| bg_o :_oboJb: |o:bg__o| _:|:b_o|:_. gor_obo: g_g_o: !!0 b_go :oo-
:_b:_: ,go__r:__r_go r_gog__oo|" _:|:b_o|:_. _| :1ro :o1o:r_| roo:-
bo| o_or__o_o|_o:: :_orboo, |:ro_oo _: |bg_o:.
roog ro:_oo_ _o_ro_:, roo bJor:_ J___bog:_ oo:r_: |_gJo
,:_oo|__r_go :gg_b: o__o|": ,o_r__og|_o| _ro J:rJ:b__g __g__obJo
_| :og:ro :_oro1ooo :oooo_g:: ,_gr bg_b:b| :r b:__oob:g| _:b_o| ,_ro-
_o_: boob_: ob_o|", o:r:o |o_g_ogo| _ro| _|:o_o_ orobo| ooo| :gg_-
b:|o" (ro:_oo_ !6: 32). ,_:ro_go oro1o| r_b_|:b|o ogo_ro_ __:gJor__:
H
2
SO
4
-o| go__r:__r_g |:b_g|", - b_r_: !27 b_g| _rb. ,o_o:r_b_b_o:-
Jo" :_:_o :b_r_go:. |:_go|boo:, roo __ob: J_b_g:o: :o ___Jo oob:bog_-
o_:. _ro_o_o|o __ob: J_b_g:o:| oro1:_g J_oo_o___:| :bobog:g| _:
:b|:__or__g __r:___:| ,_:ro_g oro1:Jo r_b_|:b|o|" _ro-_ro ogo_r
:ooob:_g_g| ,|:b:g:r_o|" :___g|. |bor__ :o b:b:roo_1_ :ooo_o_go J_-
b___g__o b:roo:b_b| __ob: J_b_g:o:| J_oo_o___o| :b:g, oo__rbo|__g
:|o____|: ,__ob: J_b_g:o: or_:go|_o __ro:, go_r_ :|_r:__oo| :oo:rog_-
go. oo| J_oo_o___:Jo orr_:go _oo_o| o_ ooo_o__ oor_o| b:roo__b_o-
_:b :oo_o|". ,:b_r_o _go| J_oo_o___:Jo _oJo:r_o :|_r:__oo| _ob1_
oJg_o:b, _. J_b_g:o:| or_:go1oo |:b_o| _:g:_o| J_o__ oo_o|. or_:go
o:|Jo oo__o_go: :r: oorg_g:_ _: :__og__g ooro:_, roor_ :|_r:__o:
|ooogo|_o|:ogo|". :. :b_r_go: o|:g|_:| b__:g| __ob: J_b_g:o:|: _: __-
o_or _o|_o_g|_o| Joro|. oo|o :1roo, ,_o|_o_g|_o or_:go|_o: _o_o_: oo
:g:_| |:b_| r_:go|_o| |ooJgo_oo, o:r:o oo_g J_bo:| or_:g |__roJo
:_:o_:b| bogo_ ___rog" (:b_r_go: !27: 24).
,_bo| o_|o_:g_ro _b_roo| _:_o_:ro" _bo_: _o_o:b _:oo_o _|o_| _:
oo _:ro_go |ooogo1oo|, |:1o:_o_ _o, _:ro_go oo__rbo1oo| o:o:oo:-
gr:_ :oo:_b:_:. _:rog_go oo__rbo|__o _o_ro_b_b, roo |:___b_o:
:bo:ggo:Jo boob_: b_gogb_o| :__bogo b_rb_o:go |ooogo|__| _b_:
:___ob:o |bor__ r_|o:g_go:b oor_:ooro _:gJoroo, o:|o:b bo_o| :__oo,
bogo ,|:_r__b:_" |bor__ _|o_o :oo:__o_:o, roo_go_ r_|og_go| oo-
__o_o| _or|__go o_o_go_r_ o_o.
oo__rbo|__o :|:_o__b_b oo _:gJor|, roo_go_ :r|_o_: |ooo-
go1o|: _: b:o_gog _:ro_g oo_1o:| Joro| (r_|og_go_:b _|o_:o__). o|obo
_o_ro_b_b, roo r_|_oo: _1o J___g:g: _:ro_g __g__r:| _: o:go|o
|:b_ _::_:rgob:. ,ob_ogo__:go1oo, o:go|__g_: J_oo_o___o|, b_gogb_-
o| ogoooo1bo:, roo_g|:_ ___| _:_:_| _| |_og: (|ooogo|__o|),
|:_:rog_go|ogo| :b:go :r :ro|. r_|og_go|: _: _|o_o| J_o__ :oo| o__o__-
: ooo_o| :__ro::" (_:oo_ !!6: 47).
_:rog_go oo__rbo|__o :r_ oo:| ogob___b_b, roo XX |:___bo| :_:-
oo:bo :b|bg:g__o_: og_go |:___b__o| :_:oo:bo|:b _bogr_o| b_|oo,
o|o_gb__g_gooo, _boo_r_oo, :r_oo| :__ooo - _og_gog_ _| _o :gg_-
b:| :b__b_: __g__r:1_. :b:go: _bogr_:o b_gogb_:|:_ :b:go o_r|o___og_-
o :_bob:, o:r:o oo:g:ro o| o_o, roo ,og_go _:ro_go oo__o_:" o_o bo_o_ro
180
bo:_:o _: b_:ro oo__rbo1oo|ogo|. _o_o:b _:oo_ _o_ro_:, roo r_|og_g-
|: _: _|o_Jo ,|:_:rog_goo J__ro: oo_go o:go|o ob:_gr_go _b_ro:", o:o
_o _roo:b_oo:b :b:o_|:g__:o ,J_oo_o___o| ob__b|ogo:". _o_o:bo| :1roo,
_|o_o: ::ro_g: r_|og_go| _|o__o__ro o__:g_o. o:b :bboob_: goro__-
go o_o:. ,oo|o g__|o| __g__r:, oo|o roooo| |oo_o_r_, ogr_go _ooo__o,
b:br_ogo:, bo_:b|_o| :ooboo:, _bo| o_|o_:g_ro _b_roo| _:_o_ro: o:|
:o_g:b| _:ro_go |ooogo1oo| o:o:oo:gr:_" (_:oo_ !!6: 35). _|o_| _o_o:bo
,|o__go| obgoor|:_" _bo___:, roo_go:_ _::|bro o_o_or __ :bgog|
_: o_g:, roo oo__o|ogo| _g_g:1_ |:ob__r_|o bobo g__|o_obo o_o.
|:_go|boo:, roo _:rog_g_o __ogo_b_b oo__rbo1oo| oor_o|
_rogb_g bo:_Jo _:o_b:|, roor_ :o:| :__o__b_b _groo:|:, _|o:b_o|: o_
|bg: _g__b_Jo (obgo|Jo _ob _ob| ,__r_boo_b_b", _|o:b_oJo - obor:|
_: |bg:). _:rog_go oo__rbo|__o|:ogo| _:goo _r:ooJgogo| |:b_go_ _b-
oob__|o o_o. g. :_rob_:Jgogo| :1roo, ,_r:ooJgogo _b:o_|:g_: o:go|o
J_oo_o___oo _r:b ___:__b__| _: o_o__ |:___bo| _:rog_g oo___|. oo|
rooo_|: _: |:b__| (b:b_o|b:b J__b_g:_ - :_:go|__r:_) oo_or_| o:b:-
o__rog_ oo_1o:". ,_r:ooJgog| :_g| :oo:_r__go |:b__o, roo_go:_ :r
_:o1:r__: o:go|o ___oo|ogo| :b:go oo_1oo| o_g__gooo:g:ro o_g_ro".
,oo_go g_rg_bo| o:obogro: :ro| _r:ooJgogo| goro_:Jo, :ro| g_rg_bo|
_goo|oo|:go:. o:g:_o _r:ooJgogo o_o o_o: o:go|o _bogr_oo _: oo|
oo_1o:Jo oJg_: o_o_ro o|o_gob__g_go:" (:_rob_:Jgogo !0: 44).
g.:_rob_:Jgogo _r:ooJgogo| oo_1o:| :_:r_| o_g_ro|, g_rg_bo|, g:-
_oro|, _r:b|_: gooobo|, J:_oro:bo|, __:r oo| J_oo_o___:|. _oorg_g_-
|:_ _o, o:| r_|og_go| o_o_go_r__ :_b:__|.
oo__rbo1oo g:g_ro:b :_rob_:Jgogo|ogo|:_ boJb:g_: ,r_|og_go-
|: _: og_go oo___o| r_b_|:b||" (:_rob_:Jgogo!0: 44). oo _o_ro_:,
roo _| r_b_|:b|o g__|o_obo| :___boo _b_: _:b___go_o. ,o:b_:o:b _b_:
_:gor_boo b:r|_go, roor_ oooo_o: _: _r__g:b_oo. _r:ooJgogo :ro|
|:__b_ro ooo|ogo|, roo bg_b J_go__o r_|o:g_go| |:|:bg_Jo _: __:b:|_b_-
g:_ _:gro:g__o oo|o g:g_oo _: 1_ro_b__oo" (:_rob_:Jgogo !0: 44).
_ob|_:b_ob_ :o|:b_r_o:| :1roo, :_oo|:gg_ro _ro_o_: _b_: J___g:-
g: r_goo_r|. :oo| |:___o_|o o::goo:_ _o _r:ooJgogo| oo_1o:| ooobb_g-
_:. ob_r:go _r:ooJgog| __|or_|oobo1oo| bob:or:_ :|:b_g__: _: _o_ro-
_:, roo _r:ooJgogo| J_o__ ,_:ro_go go__r:__r: __roo_:b :_:g:r_:"
(:o|:b_r_o: !8: 585).
_:rog_g oo__rbo|_o: J_oo_o___:Jo oboJgb_gog:b rog| o:o:Jo_:
_:ro_go go__r:__r_go _r:_o_o:, oo:g_ro_g:_, oorogb_go bogo_r_:
o:o |o:bg_o: oo_o|__b _oo__:. _r:_o_oo|: _: oorogb_go bogo| _roo-
_ro_:oo_o___g_o| og:g|:1ro|oo, |:ob__r_|o: ooo:| |__rb1 _goo_o|
:o:g_ |:b_gbo__o| b_rogo. oo|o :1roo, _r:_o_o: obogo_ oo:| ro_o bo-
Jb:g|, roo _roo o:o: ro:_ _: _ro_g:_ :o:g__| bob: o:o:|, o:Job _|
|o__g: __gg_g:_ _:_:r:g_: :1r|. ,_r:_o_o:, _oorg_g_| _oggo|:, _go|-
boo| o|_oroo| J_rob_:|, _| _o oo:| _go|boo|, roo b:r|_go :r: o:r_o
b:r|_g:_ :_go_g:o, :r:o__ o:b:o__rog_o:o:_. o|_oroo| J_rob_: :b_-
o:o: _:go:Jgogo
181
rob_| _:_| :r: obogo_ o:go|o o:oo| oo1o_oo_:b :ooo_ob:r_, :r:o__ o|_,
ooo_o| oo_go _groo_go go__r:__r:, oo_ro|o_:b oo_o___go _: o:|o:b
_ro:_ oo|o oJogo_ro _g__bo| go__r:__r: _ro_ro_g:_ :r|_o_b _: _r-
oo:b b_|ro| _obo:b. o|_oroo| J_rob_:, roo_go_ J_rob_:: _roo|: _: b:r-
o:ggoo|:, - orog_|o _ro:_, - ob_r:g| _r:_o_o_go:| :bog_|. :r_og_
oo:_r:_ J_:roboob_| :_og| _ro|: _: o:b:_ro_go:Jo" (_goo_o !6:
407).
,_oobo|o| _ooogo|" |o____ro |:_r__bo: ob_rgo| _bogr_:, _ob-
|_r_or__go ,g__bo|__:o|bo|", ,:oor:b_:r__:bo:bo|" _: ,go|r:oo:bo|"
_:g___go oo__go| oob__goo. |_ogo - ,go|r:oo:bo", ,g_ro_ro", _r. bo_J_,
:. _r:b|o, _. :o|_bo, o. o:bo, __|or_|oobo1oo, ooor_|oobo1oo _: r_:go1oo. :1-
rorogo b:_:_o - _r. bo_J_, o. Jo_bg_ro. oobo, _:b__, _ro|_o:b_go oo-
oo|o _: b:ro:roo:, b:_oob:g_ro o:oo|o" (|o_: !!: 605).
o|, r:|:_ :g:__oobo 20-o:b bg_Jo _ro b_rogJo _:ro_go oo_1oo|
J_|:b_ b_r_:, o:go|__g:_ J_oog_: |:_roo_ o:Job__g ob_rgo:1_ :-
g:gr__goo. oo|o :1roo, o:b:o__rog_ oo_1o:| _o_o _:gJoro _ob_: og_g
|:_:rog_go|o:b. :b:go go__r:__r: J___:_: b:r|_go|:b ,J__|r_g__go"
o___o| :_:r_:|, J_ooo_:b: r: o:b:o__rog_ oo_1o:Jo :b:go |_ogo. |_ogo
__ro _ro:, b_gogb_ro, bo_:b|_oo: _: oo__oo |:g|_, :bJor__go bob:b-
__g bg__g_rog _b:|. o:go_r:o: _g_g: __roo _: ___bo__r g__|o_obo: |o-
__g_oo, _g:go:__ro| bo__oo. ,o___o __:b:|_b_go: oo_r :_oo__o_gbo
:ro:b :oo__bo_go _: ogog| J_|:obb_go, ogog| _:|:g_ro :b:r__goo, _oro:
_o :_oo__o_go: bo|go_:b _: _:_r_g |:b__oo. |_ogo |:g|_: b_gro1oo.
oo_Jor__go o___o| :g__ob:_o_oo, roo_gbo_ oor_:oor J_Jg:o__, J_r__-
g:o__ oo_o|". ,:b:g |_ogJo :ro| _b_og:b_: _: :o bo|gJo ogog| :|:rb_g:_
or_go:b _r_oorbo_b_oo| |:bog_o, _oogo _:o__o| |:JoJ:ro :br_og_o,
|:Job_go _:o__o, |_go_ro __b_b:, roo_go_ o_goo_| |_g o_or_o__b bo:_-
ro:1_, |:o_:ro o_b__o, roo_go_ :__gor__o_: __o| |o_b:__|, _roo
|o__goo, _g_g:__ro, r:|:_ _o oob__bog|, :oo_|:bg_g| _: :__r:_ |:Jo-
b_g| ob:b:g| |_go o:go| _ooro _: J___bo_g bg__g_Jo" (_:oo_ !86: 245).
_o_: ::Joo_o 1_|_:_ J_boJb: 20-o:bo bg_o| _:ro_g oro1:Jo ooo_o-
b:r_ __b__b_o_o. !24 b_g| o:b:o__rog_ _:ro_g go__r:__r:1_ _:_gor-
g_o|:| J_boJb:g_:: ,_:ro_go ob_rgo: _:_r_b_: o:go| o:g|, o:go| o_|:
ob_ogo__:go1oo|, |_go_ro _:rb:___ogoo| orob_ooo| :_o:r_:o__ oogo_:.
_| :_gogo :|:b|b_go_ :ro|: bg_bo go__r:__r: or:bo_g:_ :r :ro| _:_:g-
Jor__go _oo_o| _:roJb:go:b. oo _:| o:go| oo1o_o:1_ _: goo__o__|:
b_gog:bo o_o _: o_b_: _:oo__o___go, o:go|__:go. g_Jo:ro_o J_oo_o__o
o:r_o: _og_gogo|, o:| :r:go| _:bo:r_: :r |gor__:. o_ :r oo_gor|, roo
_og___ogo1oo| b:b:Jo bg_bJo ,gob_:" _: ,:r|o o:r:_o" ob_r_:. oorogb_o|
_:r_o_o| :o| - oorogb_: :_g:bogo: _o:_g_| obg_rg:g:o__" (::Joo_ !24:
!4). _ob|_:b_ob_ :o|:b_r_o:|ogo| oo__rbo1oo boJb:g_:, oo:g_ro_g:_,
_bog_r|:go1o|:_. :b:g o___|: _: :b:g _oro_| - _grooo| g_r_og_r_
|o:r_g|.
oo__rbo1oo _:ro_g roo:b_Jo b:roobb_:, roor_ |:o_:ro| |r_go-
182
:_ :bg__ro :b__o| :oob:_g:. |:o_:ro| :o roo:b_o| o_r|ob:_o :bo_-
_o:b :r: roor_ _rob_g J__obog|: _: _:|r_g__g|, :r:o__ roor_ o:r:_
_ob:_|, :oo_oo:_ roor_ ogooob _oro: b:b:roo__o|:, :|_g_ ,Job::r|o"
_rog:r:_ __b:_o:, :r_:o:g:go, oogoggog_. o_r|ob:| J__ogo: J__g:go|
_roo| _ob_:, :_:::_ogo| |ogr___o, _roo:b_oJo J__roo| _: _: oob: _:
J__ob:| :b:go, __r :rb:b_go |:o_:ro. ro_: _:__:| oo_:|o| b:b:_o - g:r_o|-
__ro _:g_o _1:ro:1:ro __b_oo - :__b_r_| _: ob:_g:r| ___oro:_oro
_bo__|, ob_r:g| _o_g:o|, roo _| b:b:_o, _r:go_, :_boJb:g| |oo:bob__|,
roo_g|:_ bg_bo J_o__b_: __r _o__g g_r o:1r_|. b_gogb_: b:b |:r__:, b:b
_o bob oo_o|, roor_ |::oo.
_:ro_go oo__rbo|__go b:b:roo__o _:ro_g |ob:o_gog_Jo b:roob-
b_:, roor_ ,bob :|br__go |::oo", :oo_oo:_ o_o, roo _gro: _:r_o _roo
oo:g:ro oo1_1oo, _| ob:_gr_go ___|__o :r o_o oog:_ :_|:_o_go _: :|:_o.
_:oobo_:bo:
Aabashidze, Kita. Tavisufali Shemomqmedi. jurn. leila #3, Tb: 1924 (::Joo_, _o_:. ,o:go|_-
_:go J_ooo_o__o". . ,g_og:". 3, o.: !24).
Avaliani, Lali. XX saukunis 10-20-iani wlebis literaturuli dajgufebani. Jurn. literatura, #1, Tb: 1998
(:g:go:bo, g:go. XX|:___bo| !0-20-o:bo bg_o| go__r:__r_go _:____:bo.
_rb. ,go__r:__r:", !, o.: !8).
Gamsaxurdia, Konstantine. wignSi: qarTuli literaturuli esse. Tb: 1989 (:o|:b_r_o:, _ob|_:b_ob_.
bobJo: _:ro_go go__r:__r_go _||_. o.: !8).
GafrindaSvili, Valerian. leqsebi, poema, Targmanebi, eseebi, werilebi. Tb:1990 (:_rob_:Jgogo
g:g_ro:b. g__|_o, oo_o:, o:ro:b_o, _|__o, b_rog_o. o.: !0).
GachechilaZe, Giorgi. Barokos problema da qarTuli litmcodneobis amocanebi, gaz. literat. saqarT, 30,
Tb: 1972 (:b_bog:o_, ooro. :ro_o| orog_o: _: _:ro_go go_o_o_b_oo| :oo-
_:b_o, :1. ,go__r:_. |:_:ro", 30, o.: !72).
Gawerelia, Akaki. demna Sengelaia. Jurn,memarcxeneoba. #1, Tb:1927 (:b_r_go:, :_:_o. __ob:
J_b_g:o:. _rb,,o_o:r_b_b_o:". !, o.: !27).
GomarTeli, Amiran. qarTuli simbolisturi proza. Tb: 1997 (oo:ro_go, :oor:b. _:ro_go |oo-
ogo|__ro oro1:. o: !7).
Eliot, Thomas Stearns. `Ra aris klasika. (in Georgian langiage). Tb: 1996 (_goo_o, _oo:|. r: :ro|
_g:|o_:. o: !6).
RobaqiZe, Grigol. CemTvis simarTle yvelaferia. kreb. Tb: 1996 (ro:_oo_, roog. b_oogo| |o-
o:rog_ _g_g:__ro:. _r_. o.: !6).
Sigua, Soso. Martvili da alamdari. Tb: 1991 (|o_:, |o|o. o:r_gogo _: :g:o_:ro. o.: !).
TabiZe, Tician. Jurn. Cisferi Yanwebit, QuTaisi: 1916 (_:oo_, _o_o:b. _rb. ,_o|__ro _:bb_-
oo", __o:o|o: !!6).
TabiZe, galaktion. Zvirfasi safavebi, wignSi: 96 esse, Tb. 1986 (_:oo_, :g:__oob. ogor_:|o
|:_g:g_o, bobJo: 6 _||_, o.: !86).
o:o: _:go:Jgogo
183
Maia Jaliashvili
(Georgia)
The Clock Chead of Time or
The synthesis of Tradition and Novelty in Georgian Modernist Narrative
Summary
Key words: georgian culture, modernist, narration.
Georgian culture, traditionally was considered within the radius of world. Proc-
esses that were going on in the art, and, frst of all, in the literature, mainly, was a parallel
and similar to the processes that took place in Europe. Literature followed its internal
regularities and demonstrated such tendencies, which may have had any self-suffcient
culture. Such openness of Georgian culture was limited somewhat in certain centuries.
From the beginning of XX century, the artifcial isolation has been prepared for disruption
from inside. Archil Jorjadzes articles in this view was excellent confrmation.
His aesthetism, his point of view, which was oriented on European culture,
preachment of mystical reality, exemption from the social service restraints of art, all
of this created a completely different literary atmosphere. Kita Abashidze, who was fas-
cinated of French Culture and followed the universal principle of natural changeability,
thought that the appearance of symbolism was logically regular process in the Georgia
literature.
The scheme, which he created under the infuence of Ferdinand Brunetire, french
writer and critic, was not perfect, because it contained a lineata opinions. Nevertheless,
Kita Abashidzes writings, his support for a new generation had a great importance to
the development of Georgian culture. The Symbolism was one of stream of Modernism.
Gradually appeared in Georgia as well-known names in Europe such as Arthur Schopen-
hauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Oscar Wilde, Wilhelm Wagner and others.
The Scandinavian infuence was evident in the creativity of Chola Lomtatidze, es-
pecially, August Strindbergs and Knut Hamsun s style. Nico Lortkipanidze had an infu-
ence of the Vienna School , especially, Arthur Schnitzlers and p. Peter Altenbergs style.
This infuence was not only meant an imitation, But the aspiration to create a new artistic,
modernistic methods in Georgian literature. Great importance was also, that Vasil Barnov
embodied the old Georgian syntax and thus made his narrative more stylized.
A new generation of writers (among them, frst of all, The Blue Horns, Greg-
ory Robakidze, Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, and others), not impulsive, but consciously
applied to experiments. Modernism meant primarily to introduce novelty. This process
entailed the entire Georgian culture. That is why this process was called by Grigol Robak-
idze as Renaissance of Georgian Culture.
In general, the two high fow was in a half of XX century in the Georgian Litera-
ture: on the one hand, Modernism, with its various branch (Symbolism, Impressionism,
Expressionism, Futurism), and, on the other hand, Neorealism of Javakhishvilis prose,
which was demonstrating the pulse of the epoch.
184
Modernism was some kind of protest against realism. We said some kind, because
it was a new chapter in the Georgian literary life, which was repeating past experience and
was developing new perspective. We mean, that fact that Modernism used experience of
the ancestors. For example, it is known that the aesthetics of Modernism regenerated ide-
als of Baroque, medieval dualism, allegorical images.
Modernism was some kind of protest against realism. We said some kind, because
it was a new chapter in the Georgian literary life, which was repeating past experience
and was developing new perspective. We mean, that fact that Modernism used experience
of the ancestors. For example, it is known that the aesthetics of Modernism regenerated
ideals of Baroque, medieval dualism, allegorical images. For example, The Blue Horns
was declaring Besik Gabashvili, Georgian poet of eighteenth century, as their ancestor,
because they were linked their work to Besikis poetry In terms of music and metaphori-
cal artistic style. Titsian Tabidze wrote: The writer of the future must unite Rustaveli and
Malarme .
Rustaveli, a Georgian classic poet, expressed the best traditions of Georgian cul-
ture and Malarme, French poet, was a symbol of modern western modernist aesthetics
culture. In Georgia aesthetics of Modernism created distinguished writers, among them:
Grigol Robakidze, The Blue horns, Niko Lortkipanidze, Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, Va-
sil Barnov, Demna Shengelaya, Leo Kiacheli. Modernist novels was written by: Grigol
Robakidze Snakes Shirt, Konstantine Gamsakhurdias Dionysuss Smile, Demna
Shengelaias Sanavardo.
XX Century 20 ies was the golden age of the Modernism. It is important to
mention one very important fact,that this time in the Europe was created masterpieces of
Modernism, among them, frst of all, is James Joyces Ulysses and Thomas Stearns Eliot
s The Waste Land . Their works have become a touchstone of modern literature. With
the appearance of both Ulysses and Thomas Stearns Eliot s poem, The Waste Land 1922
was a key year in the history of English-language literary modernism. In Ulysses, Joyce
employs stream of consciousness, parody, jokes, and virtually every other established lit-
erary technique to present his characters. Each chapter of this novel employs its own liter-
ary style, and parodies a specifc episode in Homers Odyssey. Furthermore, each chapter
is associated with a specifc colour, art or science, and bodily organ. This combination
of kaleidoscopic writing with an extreme formal schematic structure renders the book a
major contribution to the development of 20th-century modernist literature. The Georgian
modernists were used a similar style of narration. The use of classical mythology as an
organising framework, the near-obsessive focus on external detail, and the occurrence of
signifcant action within the minds of characters have also contributed to the development
of literary modernism. Georgian modernist works was revealed in the Georgian reality, as
the The clock ahead of time, thats why it was denied by someone new, because they
could not understand the new methods of narration.
o:o: _:go:Jgogo
185
IVAN HRISTOV
(Bulgaria)
Extra-Canonical Litarature of the 1920s
To speak of a canon in a literary tradition that has only a 130 year history is perhaps
an overly ambitious task. Since this use of the concept canon in Bulgarian literature has
become fashionable only in the past decade, even the posing of such a question carries
liberal-critical implications. However, is it even possible to say what a canon is, without
saying what it is not? I would like to begin with the clarifcation that I fnd as a condition of
extra-canonicity the desire of certain writers from the 1920s to speak of various aesthetic
expressions without a view to their specifc characteristics. Thus, for these writers it is
natural to speak of art, architecture or music the crucial thing is to fnd the fundamental
principle, the essence of the phenomenon and its correlation to other phenomena, and not
so much to focus on its autonomy. It becomes important not to present a separate point of
view in art, but to establish its correlation to phenomena from life itself. Given this char-
acteristic, the era of the 1920s differentiates itself from the preceding stage of Bulgarian
modernism in the essential role played by the fgure of the critic. He is the one who can
grasp the common symbolism, the shared meaning of individual aesthetic expressions.
On the basis of this understanding, I have divided the following text into four parts: art,
architecture, music and a conclusion. I will analyze three articles: the frst, Native Art,
is by Bulgarias most notable representative of expressionism, Geo Milev, a writer with
a decidedly interdisciplinary bent, being a poet, critic and visual artist. The second work
is Native Architecture by Chavdar Mutafov, also a representative of the avant-garde
and the author of criticism and prose. The third article is The Jazz Band as Worldview
by Kiril Krstev, primarily a critic, but also a representative of Dadaism and futurism in
Bulgarian literature. The paper attempts to answer the question of why even today these
authors have problems with their canonicity.
1. Art
In his article Native Art, published in the newspaper Vezni, or Libra, in 1920,
Geo Milev examines not only the problem of identity in art, but also the problem of ca-
nonical art (Milev 1920: 2). It is striking that in this article he prefers to speak of art in
general and not specifcally of literature, music or visual art. In contrast to older, already
canonized art, new art according to Milev should reestablish its paths towards mythi-
cal man, towards the primitive man of pre-being towards Adam. According to him,
art should return to the primary spiritual essence of man; man, apart from his material
transformations, reassessments and acquisitions, freed from all that which we today call
material culture, civilization.
For Geo Milev the return to primitive, spiritual sources of human existence is im-
portant. The material maturity of contemporary life or civilization is that which views
being (bitie) as everyday life (bit), the human family (rod) as a nation or folk (narod), the
universal as provincial. Here Milev obviously touches on aspects of mythology. First, he
186
attempts to recover the sacred meaning of art. Art should relate to being (bitie) and not
to everyday life (bit), it should address existential and not social questions. Second, art
should relate to the human family, that is, it should be non-national in character (something
which also fully applies to mythology itself). Third, it should have a universal, rather than
provincial, meaning. The aesthetes of nationalism are those who according to Milev wish
to banish contemporary art to the isolated province of a single local art. In this view art
becomes above all the everyday life of a people (narodniyat bit), with all of its unique
characteristics and differences from every other peoples everyday life.
For Geo Milev the new art should be an expression of the subconscious, the fruit
of intuition and not of logic. Here we can clearly see a rejection of rational foundations.
However, is it possible for a canon to exist at all without any rational premises? In its very
rejection of rational foundations, Geo Milevs conception also rejects any kind of prescrip-
tive role and any direct participation in the canon. As one of the psychological delusions
of realism, or of nationalist art, the critic points to the fact that the national feeling is
drawn out of the subconscious into the conscious, from the sphere of intuition into the
sphere of logic. Creation guided by logic gives rise not to artistic but to scientifc works.
Milev stigmatizes the tradition of realism as being based on everyday life and national
consciousness; for him, such a tradition is everyday-political art.
The essential contribution of Geo Milevs conception lies in his attempt to dif-
ferentiate the concepts national art and folk (narodno) art. In his view the concept
national art is tied to an idealistic understanding of art that views every object as a
psychological phenomenon, as a symbol; in such art, national feeling appears as a psycho-
logically operative element. The concept folk art is tied to a materialistic understand-
ing of art that uses every object as substance; in such art, national feeling appears as the
everyday life of a people (naroden bit). For Milev, folk art is the art of nationalism. He
also draws attention to the fact that nationalists confuse the concepts of native (rodno)
and folk (narodno). Here Milev clearly points out the canonical requirements for folk
art. It should be art for the limited audience of a given tribe, a given region, a given class,
a given time. We can readily see how simplifed the nationalists conception is in com-
parison to that of Geo Milev. According to Milev, ethnic and geographical differences can
exist only as a subconscious element. In his view, art cannot have a class character, since
existential problems are not class-based. Due to its universal nature, art should not be tied
to a single time period. Here the modernists idea of the economy of art with respect to
history is clearly apparent for them, the art of modernism is not a description of facts but
a combination of symbols. Milev also points out certain essential requirements for folk art:
Bulgarian folk, rural everyday life should be depicted; Bulgarian national ideals should
be praised; all characters must be taken directly from Bulgarian society and should refect
the average psychology of the average Bulgarian environment; and any action should take
place within Bulgarias borders. Here we see that in describing what folk art should be,
Geo Milev also points out what native (rodno) art or art in general should not be.
Geo Milev introduces yet another opposition in his article Native Art. Besides
contrasting native (rodno) and folk (narodno) art, Milev also contrasts art as a temple
with street art, which he also refers to as tendentious art or newspaper art. In this
way he attempts to construct an elite conception of native art in which the idea of art as a
Ivan Hristov
187
temple, as an expression of a Universal Spirit, reveals its neo-Platonic and neo-Christian
foundations. The temple is the place for universal or native art, while the street is the place
for folk art.
In this way Milev argues that all of the elements that form the basis of national
identity and towards which the nationalists strive have not only already been attained, but
have become subconscious. They are elements attained in a previous cultural stage; how-
ever, contemporary times call for different elements. Thus he essentially executes a global
operation which expresses the need for Bulgarian art to be freed from its local tasks and
from the nationalist canon which has changed it into a dead form and to be brought out
onto the world stage. The critic reduces ethnic characteristics to the subconscious level.
He replaces the concept national consciousness with the concept national subconscious-
ness. However, it is precisely the metaphysical foundations of this new canon that in prac-
tice deprive it of canonicity.
2. Architecture
Chavdar Mutafovs article Native Architecture is also crucial to the current dis-
cussion (Mutafov 1927: 1). The author regretfully notes the absence of an academic or
theoretical foundation upon which to examine the concept of native architecture; for
this reason, attempts to create a Bulgarian architectural style remain fruitless. However,
Mutafovs article itself represents a theoretical approach not only to the problem of native
architecture, but also to the problem of the canonical in general.
According to Mutafov, the easiest way to achieve a Bulgarian style is to set off
along the path of church architecture and small provincial houses. Architects during the
1920s transferred this style onto industrial buildings, marketplaces, schools and bathhous-
es just as craftsmen from the art academy transfer braided designs onto ceramics and em-
broidered patterns onto pyrographed boxes. However, this mechanistic transfer does not
answer the question of the canonical. There are several factors that make the idea of the
Bulgarian canon exceptionally problematic. In the frst place, the author lists the lack of a
large architectural tradition in the past. In the second place he mentions a strong infuence
of foreign Byzantine and Ottoman styles, and later the early Renaissance and Baroque as
well. In the third place he notes the crossing of European and Asian infuence and the
attractive building power of Constantinople. All these factors have made the Bulgarian
understanding of the canon very uncertain. Mutafov sees some kind of representativeness
expressed in the very clumsiness of Bulgarian builders who were trained in foreign mod-
els, as well as in their partial barbarianism, in their wild primitivism. This is soon followed
by the neo-romantic understanding of the uneducated or only partially educated genius,
who introduces a new freshness, creates new proportions, a new feeling of stabil-
ity, and who discovers the charm of naive composition. The 20th century becomes the
time in which Bulgarian canon formation is sought, while the place it is most typically
expressed is the Bulgarian Revival Period Balkan Mountain town.
However, even in such expressions foreign elements can be found, according to
the critic. Precisely in the wealth of proof remains the hidden instinct for some kind of
canon. It becomes clear that in Mutafovs conception, the new canon appears as a secret,
as an instinct, as something inscrutable and hidden. It has the character of a revelation,
Eztra-Canonical Litarature of the 1920s
188
similar to the revelation given to Christ. In this respect he comes close to Geo Milevs
understanding of searching for the foundations of the canonical in the subconscious and in
the neo-romantic conception of the genius.
Here the most important question arises: is it possible for the old architecture, which
is a monument, a dead tradition, even if exhaustively studied, to be the jumping off point
for a canon? Mutafov excludes the possibility for the canon to be examined in its conser-
vative version as something closed and unchanging. For him the canon is more like a
simultaneously dynamic and static structure, which changes its characteristics depending
on the conditions it fnds itself in. Thus, the old architecture was created for other people,
for conditions which during the 20th century have been overcome, and for needs that seem
foreign to the contemporary human; for these reasons, such architecture should be reject-
ed. However, this rejection is a process that affects not only Bulgarian native architecture
but more generally every modern and modernizing culture. Despite being contemporary
and universal, despite being similar and functional, all new buildings carry their national
tradition, showing thousands of hidden paths to the eternal spirit of the native, in order to
invoke it and build its secret into the reality of its own style and time. Of course, achiev-
ing representativeness is the purview only of great masters who manage to return to the
pre-beginnings of their style and to approach the eternal laws of architecture.
It becomes clear that the canon is in fact an eternal turning backwards, however
with thousands of new additions. But that which the critic fnds missing in the Bulgar-
ian canon is not the moving ahead but rather the returning. Mutafov speaks of the lack of
familiarity with the native. Since they are not familiar with it, Bulgarian architects have
not succeeded in translating into the language of forms, a way of translating the nave
wooden constructions into concrete, religious style into a worldly style, they have not
found a characteristically Bulgarian wall or opening, nor a native grouping of forms. If
the Bulgarian style is contained in Byzantine or Oriental motives, these motives cannot
remain the same. Despite being insuffciently studied, these motives appear naive, strong,
barbarian and fresh, just as they were created by the old masters. In order to resolve the
question of the canonical it is necessary for the old to be re-created in a new way and not
merely to be enthusiastically and thoughtlessly copied.
Here Mutafov provides an answer to the question of what is canonical in his opin-
ion and how it can be achieved. As the frst factor in the formation of the canon he empha-
sizes knowledge of the native tradition with all of its values that have undergone the test
of time. Second, he notes knowledge of or training in two other foreign traditions those
of the West and the East. These paths for achieving representativeness in art are related to
the past, to the knowledge of tradition. As far as the present is concerned, Mutafov recom-
mends knowledge of the surprises and revelations of contemporary times. Only by know-
ing the native, the Eastern and Western traditions and by being privy to the revelations of
modern times can the artist overcome the prejudices of the native in order to truly reach it
from then on. In the end, although he recommends knowing the world tradition, Mutafov
does not advocate a conscious rational attainment of the canon. For him this attainment
consists in a reckless and decisive re-creating of the past in the present. Here, in that
reckless and decisive re-creating, we discover the neo-romantic conception of the genius.
Although the native for Mutafov is only that which overcomes its form in order to always
Ivan Hristov
189
attain itself, nevertheless the question of the canon remains unanswered, because in the
framework of the neo-Platonic tradition it is reached via an irrational path.
3. Music
Modernist writers seem to consider music the most desirable art precisely because
of its extra-canonicity. In his article The Jazz Band as Worldview Kiril Krstev makes
an attempt to examine jazz, the offspring of cosmopolitanism, not only as a musical style
but as a worldview, and tries to discover the roots of this phenomenon (Krstev 1927:
2). The jazz band, the author declares, is surely not only that which its name says, an
orchestra meant to frighten; it is surely not only that strange negro orchestra in which
certain noble instruments boldly meet with vulgar noise producers; it is surely not only
that stylistic prostitution of noble music imposed by a postwar psyche that introduced a
decline in the taste for the stable; it is surely not only an equivalent musical phenom-
enon from a new cultural-aesthetic ideology that could generally be called Dadaism and
which has given to painting and poetry Kurt Schwitters and especially Tristan Tzara, with
his pets lumineux...
The parallel Krstev makes between jazz and Dadaism is an important moment in
his conception. This connection is suggested in the fact that both styles are based above
all on a play with form, avoiding content to the extreme. While Chavdar Mutafov follows
the conception of expressionism, insisting on the metaphysical and reaching the founda-
tions of the canonical in a transcendental essence, Krstevs conception as expressed in
this article rejects the possibility of reaching any kind of essence. Dadaism or jazz give
rise to the deconstruction of preceding styles which attempt to give some kind of founda-
tion to human existence and which offer some kind of metaphysical solution. Given their
connection to the cult of ancestors, metaphysical beliefs are strongly tied to cosmic tradi-
tions. This is the reason why for Mutafov the path towards the formation of the Bulgarian
canon passes through a return towards older, pre-modern beliefs and the renovation of a
realistic, rationalistic tradition. Krstevs article characterizes jazz and Dadaism as styles
of decay, art without metaphysical direction. They are products of the First World War
and as such are witnesses to the end of a civilization. The First World War refuted to basic
tenets of the Enlightenment: reason and moral conscience. Krstev focuses on the satiety
with Western civilization, which is expressed in the loss of authenticity in living and in
the mechanization of culture. However, he also pauses on another aspect of the conscious-
ness of a person from a cosmopolitan city, namely his satiety with canonical culture, with
canonical art, with the blows of the whip of the intellect. In his view, it is for this reason
that the person of the 1920s has stretched out his hands towards the not-so-refned yet
ecstatically primitive sensations of man from a faraway, dark and uncorrupted world.
Then from somewhere on the islands or from the south came the wild tom-tom, the raspy
refrain of the negro banjo, the Indians hunting horn, to which, as a synthetic civilized
nuance, was added the piano, car horns and a series of penny whistles, even revolver,
declares Krstev.
In his fnal analysis the critic questions the possibility of examining the jazz band
as a worldview at all and suggests the more acceptable phrase characteristic of a world-
view, which he defnes as a return to the pre-civilized sensations of the child-man. The
190
jazz band is far from barbarism, far from the releasing of the beast within man. For
Krstev this phenomenon is more likely nostalgia for Natural Man, which has more
complex cultural-aesthetic foundations that those in the music of Beethoven.
Yet the critic goes even further in his argumentation. He sees the jazz band not only
as a striving towards extra-canonical art, the opposition to academism so characteristic of
the 1920s, but also as a striving towards extra-canonical culture in general. This break-
down according to Krstev is not only that half-perfected cynicism that accompanies
some innate pleasure in mocking ones own accomplishments whether as individual or
collective values culture, art, science, morality. For the critic, the jazz band as a world-
view represents a loss of faith in norms, laws, solidity, in the divine predestination of man.
Thus he reaches some of Nietzsches theoretical claims, especially that of the reevalu-
ation of all values. And here we discover a concept that is exceptionally important to
Krstevs conception and which also relates to the idea of extra-canonicity. This is the life
beginning, which is equivalent to a symbolic primitive experience of the eternally human
in its most depersonalized and natural form: free childrens play. We see that for Krstev
the extra-canonical is realized through the search for a childs worldview as one possibil-
ity for starting over again, for escaping burdened historical reason. For him, the jazz-band
worldview is the typical offspring of Western man; such a thirst for human primitivism
would lead a Russian to church, for example.
In his fnal analysis, Krstev comes to the conclusion that the jazz band is a char-
acteristic of an irresponsible worldview, even of a worldview that has rejected all the
necessary preconditions of a worldview. It becomes clear that it is in fact a modernist
worldview that knows no limitations, which lies beyond good and evil, beyond the idea of
the canonical as a whole. In its inevitability and naturalness also lie its tragic favor and its
exultation in the era of the 1920s.
4. Conclusion
What exactly makes these texts extra-canonical? A canonical work is simultane-
ously closed and open. It possesses a rhetorical status that allows it simultaneously to be
in its own time, to be in a time of hermeneutical distance (the time of the reader) and to
maintain the impression of being open to future readings. A canonical work is a work that
always leaves the impression that it has not been understood fully, that it stands open to
new interpretations. The works eternity can be defned as the effect of the commensura-
tion of two consciously different quantities, of two consciously incompatible times; of si-
multaneously synchronic and diachronic literalness and the fgurative shifting of meaning.
From its very appearance, the canonical work is characterized by this tension between the
literal and the fgurative; this allows for a similar fgurative-literal shifting in every subse-
quent reading of the work. This gives the work the effect of being meaningful everywhere
and at all times. The fgure which makes possible the eternalness of the work is allegory.
Canonical works are allegorical. The canonicity of works produces this allegorical effect.
However, allegorical genres are precisely those that have diffculties with canonic-
ity. The Bible, for example, turns out to be the object of extra-literary codifcation. This is
the case because excessive allegoricalness leads to allegorical insuffciency. For a text to
be canonically allegorical, it needs to have a literal level of interpretation. Thus, the canon-
Ivan Hristov
191
ical understanding of Geo Milev, Chavdar Mutafov and Kiril Krstev the return towards
mythical man, towards the primitive man of pre-existence, towards Adam; this returning
to the primary spiritual essence of man; man, apart from his material transformations,
reassessments and acquisitions, freed from all that which we today call material culture,
civilization; the achievement of that secret, as an instinct, as something inscrutable and
hidden; that reckless and decisive re-creating of the past in the present or that return
to the pre-civilized sensations of the child-man and Natural Man in fact turns out to
be an overly allegorical project that suffers from allegorical insuffciency.
References:
Krstev, Kiril. Dzhaz-banda kato mirogled [The jazz band as worldview]. Iztok [East] 2 (192627), 57
(19 fevruari [February] 1927): 2 (, . - 2 (1926
27), 57 (19 1927): 2).
Milev, Geo. Rodno izkustvo [Native art]. Vezni [Libra] 2 (192021), 1 (Oct. 1920). (, .
. 2 (192021), 1 ( 1920)).
Mutafov, Chavdar. Rodna arhitektura [Native architecture]. Iztok [East] 2 (192627), 58 (26 fevruari
[February] 1927): 1 (, . . 2 (192627), 58, 26
1927: 1).
og:b bro|_ogo
(_g:r_oo)
!20-o:bo bg_o| __|_r:-_:bobo__ro go__r:__r:
r_1o_o_
|:_g:boo |o__g_o: go__r:__r_go b_|o, !20-o:bo bg_o, __|_r:-_:bobo-
__ro:, ob:_gro:, :r_o_____r:, o_|o_:, __or_|oobo1oo, _:_:o1oo, _g:-
r_go go__r:__r_go oo__rbo1oo.
|_:_o: ob__: ooo| ::b:go1_oo, o_ r: :ro| _: r: :r :ro| go__r:-
__r_go _:bobo. ob_rg_o| |_rgogo, roo !20-o:b bg_Jo |bg:_:|bg: _|o_-
_o__ro oo1b_o| :oob:_go| |:J_:g_: _obo_:o, _:o:b:|o:o__go boJ:b-
ogo|__o| :r_J_, :bbog_go: roor_ __|_r:-_:bobo__roo| ooro:. :o
ob_rg_o|:ogo| oboJgb_gog:bo: :r: :b:go go__r:__r_go b__go| J__ob:,
:r:o__ __g_ :r|__go| ooo:ro_o| _:b:bg: _bogr_:|o:b. :o o|o_gb__-
g_goo| ___o J_|:_bo:_ |_:_o: _:_o_ogo: |:o b:bog:_: ob:_gro:, :r_-
o_____r:, o_|o_:. oorg_g b:bogJo :bbog_go: |_:_o: ,:_ogorogo ob:_-
gro:", roo_go_ __|or_|oobo|_ ob:_g:r|, _o oog_g| ___ogbo|, o_or_Jo
- ,:_ogorogo :r_o_____r:", roo_g|:_ :r_o____oro b:g_:r o__:_ogo
go:g:1o|, _: o_|:o_ |___o: _ooo: _:_:o|_ _orog _r_|__go| b:r_g_g| -
,_:1-_b_o roor_ o|o_gb__g_go:". |_:_oo| oo:g:r :oo_:b:| b:roo:_-
_b| oo |:_oobo| _gg_g: o_ r:_oo :bo__o:b 1_ooob:oooggogo :g_or_o
_:bobo__roo| orog_o:|, r:_:b _| |:_oobo ___|:_ :r _:r:g| o:go| :___-
:go:|. |_:_oo| oo1:b| :o J__oobg:1_ o:|_bo| :__o: b:roo:__b|.
192
STANKA PETROVA
(Bulgaria)
The Turtles Dream
1
The poetess Detelina Dimova
2
gives the impression of being a contemplative per-
son, closed within herself. Perhaps this is why her frst collection of poetry, The Dreaming
Mind, which set out on its journey to the reader in 2002, requires a more careful reading
in order to reveal itself fully.
In terms of content, the book has two layers an obvious, superfcial one, in which
the individual works are realized, each existing for itself alone, and a deeper layer, ac-
complished through references between the poems. The second layer, the deeper one,
takes up the subject of dreaming, which is directly mentioned in some of the works. With
the exception of the poem The Dreaming Mind, which gives the collection its title, in the
others, the theme of dreaming is merely an accompanying thought wherever it is mentioned.
Yet returning to it keeps the theme open and makes it fundamental to the collection. It runs
through the entire book and provides grounds for speaking of the presence of a meta-poem.
By examining the links between the poems, we will attempt to show the existence of a poetic
metatext.
The meta-poem, i.e. the deep text, encompasses both the books formal as well
as the content-related aspects. The graphic realization of the poems represents an aural
whole, for whose realization vocalic versifcation is used, combined with free verse, grad-
ually moving from one form to the other in the three sections of The Dreaming Mind. The
vocalic versifcation is based on the accent falling on one and the same vowel in each
subsequent word in the syntagmatic order, which here will be called alternation.
The replacement of vocalic versifcation by free verse is accomplished with vocalic
alternation, which in the beginning encompasses entire works, but later covers ever-short-
er portions of the poems. In the end, the texts shift into free verse, where accentuation on
one given vowel is not ordered, but rather intertwines with accentuation on the others.
The frst section
3
of the collection, entitled, Sacred Geometry, consists of works
written in vocalic versifcation. With the exception of the poem Ontological Thoughts for
the Waves in Winter, one and the same vowel is accented from beginning to end. In the
abovementioned poem, the accent shifts to almost all vowels, with the exception of [u].
The ordering of a given vowel in Ontological Thoughts continues for up to several lines
or can be observed vertically in the left and right halves of the verses. After that, the ac-
cent shifts to another vowel and again ordering ensues. In this way, short blocks of vocalic
versifcation are formed. In the second section with the title The Dreaming Mind, having
the same name as the book as a whole, the frst three poems are written with ordering of
the accent entirely on one and the same vowel: in the frst, Sudden Collapse, this is [a];
in the next, with the opening line I Never Arrived, it is based on the ordering of [i]; while
in China, the third poem, the accent again falls only on the vowel [a]. The texts in the
remaining six poems in this section represent a mosaic of short blocks of vocalic versifca-
ob__ror__:_o:
193
tion, formed by the shifting of the accent from one vowel to another, as in Ontological
Thoughts for the Waves in Winter.
The frst and second sections of the volume mutually interpenetrate each other with
their exchanged texts. The presence of a poem with fragments of vocalic versifcation
amidst texts composed entirely with it is an interweaving of the vocalic sound into the
fabric of the metatext. Likewise, the presence of works that are a solo, sound-symbolic
whole amidst works with separate sound blocks is a penetration of this whole into the form
and mosaic. The mutual interpenetration of the two sections guarantees the formal unity
of the metapoem. This contamination turns out to be a wedge not only on the level of
the individual texts, but also on the level of the books sections. On the other hand, given
the interrelation of the poems arranged in such a way, we can observe the diffusion of the
vocalic versifcation until its full disappearance in the third section, A Hypnotist with
Glasses, which is written in free verse.
The frst poem, A Body of Passions is the key junction from which the layers of
meaning in The Dreaming Mind set out. A Body of Passions contains within itself the
metapoem in condensed form. When we examine this frst poem in detail and compare
what we fnd there with the remainder of the book,
4
we will also discover the separate
elements of the metapoem.
At frst glance, the poem has no connection to the metapoem. It does not thematize
the question of dreaming, but rather of reading and the reader. In it, the movement of the
lyrical I in the space of language recreates the inescapable movements of every reading
the entrance into the temple of Words
5
and getting into the virtual world they give rise
to, which is followed by an exit from this world. But the characters passage through the
interior of language, connected to the title of the book, makes dreaming and reading con-
textual synonyms. Reading is compared with the irreal being of dreaming, while dream
as a refection of ones own internal world transforms the act of reading into a journey
towards ones self.
In A Body of Passions, each vowel is an empty door, which makes the vowels
doors to the virtual world. The poem can be divided into three parts, the frst of which proj-
ects the entrance into the text itself, but also the penetration into the interior of the book.
The beginning starts with taking a step towards Words:
Original Bulgarian Transliteration
(with accents in bold)
Literal English
Translation

:
Vidyah katedralata na slovata; I saw the cathedral of the
words

,
tam sglasnite sa kambanite there the consonants are the
bells
; a glasnite praznotata im; and the vowels their
emptiness;

tam vsyaka glasna e prazna

vrata
There every vowel is an
empty door

km zvntyashtiya glas na
prostranstvoto
To the resounding voice of
space
The Turtles Dream
194

,
i propadane v okeana ot
bagri, uhaniya
and a collapse into the
ocean of hues, scents

.
i vsyakakvi vlastni i tayni
predstavi.
And all sorts of masterful
and secret ideas.
The Words, seen as a cathedral, call forth the idea of a person, who is standing in
front of it, contrasting with his height and creating a sense of mystery, but also of depen-
dence. In this image, language becomes an expression of religion. Words are a temple, a
place for divine liturgy, i.e. a means for communicating with God. In his religious faith, man
has given himself over to their power and takes a step forward in anticipation. The many
bells, ringing all together, act as an invitation to the impending Sunday service. Read in this
way, the frst lines invite the reader to enter into the interior of the book and towards oneness
with language.
When seen as a cathedral, the Words are external with respect to the I, they are
not able to be controlled by him and are not his possession on the contrary, he is subor-
dinate to them. And as he examines the cathedral, they still remain external, despite his
movement towards the interior the vowels and consonants are described as objects, they
are not part of the person, but something seen as outside of him. Unifcation with them, in
which feelings and sensations take part, happens with the falling into the ocean.
Man enters into language. The sounds make the entrance into language visible and
feul his expectations about what can be discovered in its interior. Despite the fact that the
vowels are the cathedrals doors, they do not lead to anything enclosed with walls and
limited, just as perception does not end with hearing their tone, but begins after it; just as
reading does not end with the letters in the text. The sounds lead towards a voice, which
creates the space of the temple. Language itself is space and it reverberates. Language
speaks, as Heidegger said in his analysis of a poem.
6
The sounds come from language,
and not from man, and mans speech is merely an echo within his body. In A Body of
Passions, this speaking is expressed with the description of the sounds, which in the inte-
rior of the cathedral dissolve into non-linguistic visibility. What is seen passes through the
senses and comes to life in a world, language transformed into an ocean of hues, scents
and ideas. The image of the ocean is a metaphor for the possibilities of the imagination,
but also shows our dependence on virtual boundlessness man can travel and be the cap-
tain of a ship, but he can also drown.
The sound-bells are only the external part of language, their internal side is coming
into contact with silence, as the image of the cathedral shows very well. Just as one who en-
ters a temple sinks into its interior with his perceptions and forgets the bells ringing outside,
similarly the language of the interior ignores the speech of sounds. Inside, such speech is not
necessary; there man begins to listen to the deep. Language speaks as the ringing of still-
ness. The stillness calms, revealing a world and things in their essence (Heidegger 1999: 231).
Stepping towards the interior of the temple, looking through its frst door, the door
of A, turns out to be a movement towards ones self there the lyrical I sees its own
body:
Stanka Petrova
195
Literal English Translation
a prez vratata na A and through the door of A

az vidyah izostavenoto si
tyalo
I saw my abandoned body

,
razyadeno ot sladkiya zdrach
na zhelaniyata
eaten away by the sweet
dusk of desires,

;
igrachka za plavnite leopardi
na strastite;
a plaything for the supple
leopards of the passions;

Vidyah tantsa si na
vzheigrach
I saw my tightrope-walkers
dance

nad gora ot bleshtyashti
brsnachi
above a forest of glistening
razors
v shatrata na zabavata byah in the tent of entertainment,
I was
, sluchaen zyapach, a random gawker,

pochitatel na drami po
trotoarite
a fan of sidewalk dramas

,
i zapalen chitatel na
bulevardni romani
and an avid reader of
boulevard novels,

,
byah gledachka s karti Taro,
7
I was the fortune-teller with
Tarot cards
,
,
Akrobatt, ohraneniyat
sharan,
the acrobat, the well-fed carp
Hipnotizatort The hypnotist

The body has been left behind and in this, its abandonment is expressed. That it is
eaten away destroys its wholeness. This is the frst thing that the I sees after passing
through the door of the A. The verb vidyah (I saw) is repeated two times. The frst
time, the body is only the object of what is happening, while at second glance it plays
more or less active roles that of the tightrope-walker, gawker, fan, reader, fortune-teller,
acrobat, carp, hypnotist, and seller of fraudulent nirvanas. All of these transformations
are, in fact, carried out while the abandoned body is the object of passions, the roles are
located within it, virtually projecting its inner representations. After the semicolon at the
end of the fourth line, the separateness of all sorts of images is concretized, i.e. the two
uses of the verb vidyah express one and the same thing in different ways. The corroded-
ness is expressed in the lack of a complete and constant image, in the changes in which
the I hesitates.
The word dusk creates an associative connection to the subconscious, whose
drives can vaguely be caught in the dream. The body is so defenseless that it is trans-
formed into a plaything. It has no power to consciously control, since the consciousness of
the I has detached itself. It observes, contemplates. There is no limit to the transforma-
tions undertaken in the list of experiences. The lyrical I watches itself amidst the numer-
ous games, in which it is both the plaything and the player.
The transformations are seen and completed within the interior of language, in
The Turtles Dream
196
the cathedral. Language turns out to be a means for searching and realization. Man is
contained within it, exists within it, due to the necessity to formulate and concretize both
the external and the internal world through language. The very fact that the transforma-
tions take place in the cathedral indicates their verbal nature, but that does not rule out the
potential possibility for the creation of images, rather merely confrms it. And their virtual-
ness does not reduce their effectiveness.
In the second part of the poem, the Words are no longer seen, they have been appro-
priated and dissolved in perception. The body and the consciousness are divided spatially
and experience different states. The body experiences the changing events dynamically,
fnding itself at the center of their development, at their culminating point, whereas the
consciousness contemplates the bodys actions.
Against the backdrop of the razors, hyperbolized as a forest, the I is small. This
image, seen after passing through the frst door of the cathedral, is an expression of the
knowledge in the interior of language. The dash placed between the role of the tightrope-
walker above the razors and all the other transformations juxtaposes, but also comple-
ments and clarifes. In his separateness, the tightrope walker is transformed into a general-
ized expression of all the other incarnations. In this way, every individual image becomes
a concrete form of knowledge and the most passive role of the carp is placed next to that of
the hypnotist, which allows for the maximal psychological effect upon the other and which
is the most active. The roles can be compared to a list of numerous readings, each of which
continues to exist in the memory and which, in fact, forms the interior of the cathedral. The
readings make the I simultaneously a spectator and a participant.
The preposition na (of) in the title A Body of Passions as a sign of belonging
tells us that they have replaced the I. However, since the body is located in the cathedral
of language and is created by it along with everything else, both the body and the passions
are subordinate and belong to language. Above the striving and helplessness, the body
turns out to be given over to language.
The incarnation of the body is multi-layered and is realized in its polysemy on the
level of form, as well as that of content. The title of the frst poem refers to the virtual body,
reproduced through the reading; this is the lyrical I, but it also refers to the concrete
form of the text, which is a poem, a linguistic body, while in terms of content the poem is
transformed into a cathedral.
The entrance into the interior of the cathedral announces the existence of the Word
passing through its door, man is brought into being, while it, with its virtual worlds,
rushes into him. He transforms into everything which the unlimited possibilities of the
Word can evoke. In this sense the Word is his creator, and to the greatest extent the creator
of the writing person, who turns out to be the most subordinate, the most possessed by it.
The Dreaming Mind shows the reality of the person who writes and reads, one who ex-
ists through language, homo scribens. In this reality, the Word does not exist through the
person, rather the person exists through the Word.
The line bordering between the frst and second parts of the poem a prez vratata
na A (and through the door of A) places attention on the vowel [a], by taking it beyond
the borders of the word. The frst poem directs the gaze to the frst letter of the alphabet.
Here emphasis is entirely laid upon it with the help of vocalic versifcation. The text an-
Stanka Petrova
197
nounces a beginning not only because it is frst; it is entirely realized with ordering on the
vowel [a]. The constantly repeating [a] under accent, begun in the frst line and passing
through the entire text, reminds us that we fnd ourselves at the beginning of the book
this is the frst graphically depicted door to it, a virtual entrance which the lyrical hero
passes through.
In his study Sound and Meaning, Radosvet Kolarov attributes the following char-
acteristics to the vowel [a]: openness, emptiness of space, scope, lowness, drop-
ping (Kolarov 1983: 103), noting that in the examples he has studied, it is found in key
situations with a bell ringing in connection with the signs scope, volume, openness
of space, solemnity, weight and downward movement (ibid., 104). In the poems
examined here, the associations with which the sound is connected are confrmed here
frst of all we see a church, which includes the abovementioned signs and which calls forth
the idea of breadth with its festive dimensions and the ringing spreading outside it. The
empty doors also confrm the lack of barriers and the interpenetration of everything at the
place where the lyrical I enters. The falling corresponds to the downward movement
noted.
The third part of A Body of Passions again begins with the door of A, but from
the viewpoint of its other side. In it we can trace the fight from the interior of the Words
and a return to the abandoned, real body.
Literal English
Translation

,
prez vratata na Av svetlinata
na Nyakoga,
through the door of A in
the light of Sometime,
,
,
na kalniya bryag na rekata,
kray koyato igraeh na Nyakoy,
on the muddy bank of the
river,
upon which I played at
Someone,

,
v kratkiya oranzhev problyask
na yagodovoto gadene,
in the short orange fash
of strawberry nausea,
, v trakaneto na vlakovete, in the clattering of the
trains,
, otnasyashti me nanyakde, carrying me off
somewhere,

v nishtetata na byagstvoto i
ekstaza
into the nothingness of
fight and ecstasy
, ot vsyako propadane, away from all falling

v yarkoto pladne s kntyashti
proshtalni kambani
in the bright noon with
echoing farewell bells
Pred katedralata in front of the cathedral

,
Vidyah samotata na tyaloto si i
onemyah,
I saw the loneliness of my
body and fell mute,
. za da vlyaza. so as to enter.
The Turtles Dream
198
This new returning to the door of A begins with an opposite relationship to the
Words and with a distancing from them. The change of mood is imbued in a new view of
time and of ones self. The concrete moment that has passed has changed into the indef-
nite Sometime, with which the moment of becoming is neglected, along with everything
that happened in it. The transformation of the I into Someone is an expression of
alienation from living in the world of Words and of its devaluation. The indefnite direc-
tion somewhere, in contrast to the other two words, is written with a lowercase letter and
despite the fact that it comes at the end of the line, remains hidden in the interior of the text
due to the lack of its graphical markedness. Its remoteness from Sometime and Some-
one is also hidden from the gaze. The sense of aimlessness, of the insignifcant participa-
tion of the will imbued in somewhere makes the lexeme the equivalent of wherever.
Along with Sometime, somewhere forms the works particular chronotope. As long
as the direction is not defned, the lyrical I remains in the interior of the cathedral. Upon
leaving it, the time and place are made concrete in the bright noon of the echoing fare-
well bells/ in front of the cathedral.
Upon entering the temple of Words, the I objectifes its existence, unifes itself
with language and receives being within it. But after the experience, he hurries to get out
of its speaking, and strives towards reality, toward the language in being. The beginning
and fnal parts, besides the difference in directions, also contrast in their differing percep-
tions of the interior of the cathedral. The ocean is reduced to a river, and while in the
beginning the falling was a cause for all experiences, imbuing them with a richness, in the
third part, it is transformed into the nothingness of fight and ecstasy and in this way
devalues the possibility for virtual experiences.
Synesthesia is a constant part of the journey in the virtual world. In his article
The Dream as a Semiotic Window, Yuriy Lotman writes of the senses: In a dream, the
basic feature is polyglossia. The dream does not lead us into visual, verbal, musical or
other such spaces, but into their harmony, which is analogous to reality. The translation
of dreams into human languages is characterized by a reduction of their indefniteness
and increase in communicativeness (Lotman 1998: 165). When one is deeply engrossed
in reading, a translation of the language of communication into that of the senses occurs,
which is similar to Lotmans description. The associations called forth by the words acti-
vate all the senses, independent of the fact that in reality there is no actual stimulus. These
particularities of the literary text bring it closer to dreams.
Synesthesia in A Body of Passions is present in a different way in its frst and
third parts. While at the beginning the sounds disintegrate into colors and scents that is,
into the negation of what is seen, this is expressed with the short orange fash/ of straw-
berry nausea. The saturation of the senses is also a reason for the desire to go outside.
The one who has entered the cathedral lives in the past. When we take as our start-
ing point the fact that the lyrical I recreates the act of reading, here is how Yuriy Lotman
has described the chronological perception of the text: In time, the text is perceived as
a kind of freeze-frame, artifcially capturing the moment between past and future. The
relationship between past and future is not symmetrical. The past is outlined in two ways:
internally in the direct memory of the text, personifed in its structure, in its inevitable
contradictions, the immanent battle with its internal synchronicity; and externally in
Stanka Petrova
199
its correlation to extra-textual memory. The spectator, having mentally placed himself in
that present moment in which the text was realized (for example, in a given frame, at the
moment I am looking at it) seems then to turn his attention to the past which converges in
a cone (Lotman 1998: 20; italics mine SP). The past moment in the poem is realized
through the lyrical Is telling of that which was met on the path to the interior of language.
The past is the basic tense and covers almost the entirety of the poem. The present tense
is found in two places the frst is tied to the sounding of language here and now and
is expressed by the present active participle zvntyashtiya resounding (the resounding
voice of space). The second indication of the present is found in the bifurcation of tem-
porality in the fnal part of the poem. After the abovementioned Sometime, upon leaving
the cathedral, the lyrical I fnds himself in a concrete present moment the bright noon
with echoing farewell bells, again attested to by the present active participle. The end of
the work also takes a turn towards the past. This leads to the conjecture that the step made
by the I so as to enter his own body, is in fact entering into the following text in the book.
The verb vidyah I saw is repeated four times. It marks the beginning and the end of the
text. The body turns out to be within the space of language, i.e. it turns out to be made from
speech. During the supposed exit from the Word, the lyrical I attempts to enter his body,
but the past tense is a sign of once again entering linguistic reality. The I turns out to be
beyond language only as long as it takes to turn the page.
At the end of the poem I saw the loneliness of my body and fell mute/ so as to en-
ter, we meet the image of the lyrical I outside the cathedral as well. Loneliness hints
at the same abandonment, as in the interior I saw my abandoned body. This detach-
ment, this dividedness from the physical essence appears constant, as if the I wanders
in search of unity with himself, in striving to attain completeness and lack of conficts.
The reason for his dividedness from his image is language, since man cannot enter into
it with his physical body. However, the step taken at the end of the poem suggests to us
that even outside the text as well, the body is created by speech, since the second text in
the collection follows. It seems that the I is making an attempt to step outside the text,
which would mean outside language as well in the last line so as to enter, he prepares
to return to his body, yet in the course of reading his body becomes the next text. With this,
the frst poem ends and the essential part of the book begins. A passage from text to text
has been initiated or the dreaming mind passes from body to body until the end, where
waking follows, as expressed directly in the fnal poem. On the other hand, this passing
through the book is transformed into a reading and joins all the other readings seen in the
second part of A Body of Passions. Thus, besides being a character in the book, the step
taken by the I transforms him into an implicit reader.
8
The frst poem, placed as it is in the beginning of the collection, is simultaneously
part of and not part of it it is a depiction of reading and at the same time needs a reading,
it is both a text and a fgurative description of the text. In its role as a depiction, as an ex-
planation, A Body of Passions separates itself from the remaining part of The Dream-
ing Mind, yet it is also the door, the border between the dream and the waking state and
the beginning of the journey into the dream itself. For the reader, the text is the form which
depicts the cathedral. As the reader enters into the poem, the lyrical hero replays his ac-
tions in the cathedral. The readers repetition of the lyrical Is actions transforms the book
The Turtles Dream
200
into a cathedral. A mirror image of the reading is produced. The compositional frame
is also an essential and very traditional method of the rhetorical fusion of texts, which
have been coded differently. A normal (i.e. neutral) construction is based, in particular,
on the fact that the framing of text () is not included in the text. Its role is to signal the
beginning of the text, but it is itself located beyond the limits of the text. It is suffcient to
introduce such a framework into the text to relocate the audiences center of attention from
the communication to the code. The matter is more complex where the text and the frame
are interwoven to the extent that each part is, simultaneously, both frame and framed text
(Lotman: 88-89). Besides entering into the frst section of the collection and being part of
the book, A Body of Passions is also intended to relocate the readers attention from the
communication to the code. The described passage through the door of A aims to incite
the reader into noticing his entrance into the book, independent of whether this will occur
implicitly in the process of reading or whether it will evoke deeper interest.
A Body of Passions recreates the act of reading not only fguratively, but also
verbally. It begins with the verb vidyah I saw. On the one hand, the verb relates to the
narrative of the lyrical hero, but at the same time also recreates the readers gaze upon the
text, which will soon be read. The frst line I saw the cathedral of Words is equivalent to
I saw the poem. The description of the sounds and their effect in the subsequent lines is
a description of the immersion into the text, of the process of reading. It also includes the
readers identifcation with the hero so as to result in the co-experiencing of that which is
described and in the desire to more quickly exit the text, to read its denouement.
Besides the general theme of dreaming, the connectedness of the texts in the col-
lection is also realized by the lyrical Is crossing over from one text to another. This part
of the code at the beginning of the collection shows the I and the reader as companions,
and every following poem continues their shared experience.
The text says: I saw the loneliness of my body and fell mute/ so as to enter. The
crossing over is accompanied by falling mute. But this occurs upon leaving the cathedral,
on the border between two poems. This is a step of anticipation, of language falling silent
between the frst and second texts.
The last line of the initial poem creates a transition towards the interior of the book
grammatically as well, with a change in tense. Alongside the use of the past tense, the
present is also used in its general sense along with the imperative mood. The second work,
Lost, continues in the present tense.
This temporal connectedness is repeated once more, but now between the frst and
the fnal poem, entitled A Hypnotist with Glasses. At the beginning of the book, the past
tense becomes the present, while at the end this is reversed; in A Hypnotist with Glasses
a transition from the present to the past is completed. In this way, a bridge is created be-
tween the beginning and the end, which closes the book.
At the beginning of the paper I mentioned that A Body of Passions represented
a metapoem in condensed form and establishes a knot of relations with the other poems.
Such references are most strongly expressed in the other two key poems, The Dreaming
Mind and A Hypnotist with Glasses, each of which shares the same title as the section
of the book in which it is located. In each of the three sections, one key poem stands out
in the frst section this is A Body of Passions. The sections also establish a connection
Stanka Petrova
201
with this poem in them, the actions of the lyrical Is entering, experiencing and exiting
are repeated, but no longer in the cathedral, but in dreams. The frst section, Sacred Ge-
ometry, represents entering into dreams; while the following section, which shares the
same title as the collection as a whole, represents the depth of the dream; while the third,
A Hypnotist with Glasses, is the exiting from it and awakening. In the third section,
mention of dreaming is found in most of the poems. Exiting from the dream makes it ex-
ternal with respect to the I and visible from the outside.
In the poetry collection, the number three is repeated it is made up of three sec-
tions and in each of these one key poem stands out. Tripleness also appears within the
framework of the deep text through the lyrical I, the hypnotist, and the connection be-
tween them the metatext/dream which unites them into one whole with its realization.
Throughout the course of the book, the metatext directly identifes with the dream,
and the hypnotist is its creator. The twofold signifcance of the action of the lyrical I
(reading/dreaming) is directly expressed in the books fnal text, which does not contrast
with the poems A Body of Passions and A Hypnotist in Glasses, but rather comple-
ments them.
The fnal poem also returns us to the ocean, which we met in the frst. Parts of the
geographic realia of the ocean become an object of attention in other poems as well and
thus maintain the connection with A Body of Passions. However, in the frst poem, it is
an ocean of hues, scents/ and all sorts of masterful and secret ideas and the recreation of
the waters surface in some of the texts recalls this and transforms the possibilities of the
Word and oceanic scopes into synonymous concepts. In the poem Sacred Geometries,
real shores are compared to those created from speech:
Original Bulgarian Literal English Translation
,

The shores the green shores,
taking in everyone
and even those too cold and distant
; to you and to me they are nothing but shores;
but in the sacred geometry of the sky
, , they are changeable, sedimented material,
... the backs of legends They are
the shores of the Odyssey the fossilized
, , sentences, tightly bound in hexameter,
, , they are the shores of Mexico, refected
, in Cortezs armor,
. they are the shores of our childhood
imagination.
The borders of the ocean, the earthly shores are one and the same for everyone. No
desire to visit them is expressed, even if they are real. The line to you and to me they are
nothing but shores expresses a nuance of disparagement. They can also be alluring, but
only once refracted through the imagination, having passed through the sacred geometry
of the sky. The allusion to the places which Odysseus journeyed towards is replaced by
The Turtles Dream
202
the sentences from Homers Odyssey. Thus the ocean becomes a book, and the shores
depend on the individual possibilities for reading. The illumination of the sentences, their
visibility can be any of the stops in the Odyssey or Ithaca, it could be the shore of the New
World. The possibility of language, represented as a shore of the imagination, is a dynamic
point, a liminal moment of entering into the reading or coming out of it and returning to
reality. The ocean appears in the role of being compared to the virtual possibilities of the
Word. The attitude towards it and towards the desire to travel through its territory is differ-
ent in the different poems and corresponds to the section in which a given poem is found.
The theme of traveling is introduced as early as the second poem, Lost, where the
I mentally draws the route of its painted schooners and their freight. At the beginning of
the journey into the book, the as-of-yet unknown world creates a sense of being lost:
Literal English
Translation

,
Ptuvat bezumnite mi
narisuvani
shhuni
na yug,
My wild, drawn schooners
travel
south,

.
km vzdushnite kuli na yuni. towards the castles-in-the-
air of June.

Blbukat vzdushni mehurcheta
v tusha - risuvam
The air bubbles burble
in the India ink
Im drawing
(
)
(i mezhdu drugoto risuvam
naum)
(and by the way Im
drawing in my mind)
...
, risuvam maymuni i ucheni, I draw monkeys and
scholars

,
izgubeni v dzhunglite na
Kolumbiya,
lost in the jungles of
Columbia,
,
risuvam indusi i kyurdi,

izgubeni
I draw Hindus and Kurds,
lost

,
v shumnite ulitsi na Kalkuta i
Istanbul,
in the noisy streets of
Calcutta and Istanbul,
, i prostitutki, izgubeni and prostitutes, lost

,
v mahmurluka na klubnata
publika,
in the hangover of the club
audience,
, izgubeni v ludnitsite, lost in madhouses,

,
risuvam priyut za izgubeni
kucheta v Tsyurih,
I draw a shelter for lost
dogs in Zurich,

risuvam izgubeni v buryata

shhuni
I draw schooners lost in the
storm
(
)
(i mezhdu drugoto risuvam
naum)
(and by the way Im
drawing in my mind)
, i sshtestvuvam izgubena, and I exist lost
, kuha kato bambuk, empty as bamboo,

.
kato vzdushnite kuli na yuni. like the castles-in-the-air
of June.
Stanka Petrova
203
It does not become clear whether the text recreates a work created on canvas or
something drawn mentally. The initial announcement Im drawing is followed by the
phrase (and by the way Im drawing in my mind) and the list of numerous places, which
the reader takes as being drawn in the mind. But right before the end, after this list, there
is a new (and by the way Im drawing in my mind), according to which all the already
mentioned places would have to be drawn in reality. The ostensible frame blurs the demar-
cation between thought and action, they fuse and trade places.
The schooners are bezumni (wild, reckless, crazy), they are not subordinate to
the control of their creator, since the artist himself is confused and his uneasy feeling is in-
jected into what is drawn. Along with the schooners, the lyrical I travels in his thoughts.
The lost people are in an emotional state comparable to his. In fact, the I is drawing
himself, his internal world. The mind draws. Everyone is party to the shared feeling,
even though they are each assigned to their own separate environment, at home. They
are not lost in the space beyond themselves, but in their own thought. The artist is located
everywhere and nowhere, for this reason he searches for a stronghold and fnds it in the
overt kindred relationships of being lost. Traveling amidst the lost people through the
streets of the world is an expression of the lack of a stronghold in the inner world, which
has turned out to lack visible boundaries. The title of the poem itself responds to the fall-
ing in the frst part of A Body of Passions. Even if a science of falling exists, it contains
within itself a surprise, evoked by the change of setting and by the unlimited possibilities
which suddenly reveal themselves before the person.
In the frst section of the collection, traveling is the beginning of a life within the
oceans confnes and the lyrical I moves with readiness and confdence. Worlds are
located within the sacred geometry of the sky, they are not part of the everyday, but
exist beyond it. The ability to overcome distance is expressed in The Apricot, but it is
already shaken, thrown into question to describe an apricot () is it necessary to run
three thousand miles to the east. After that poem, we no longer fnd a repeated and quick
change of topoi as in the works discussed until now, yet the theme of traveling carries
on throughout the entire collection. Most poems from its second section are static, but
The Dreaming Mind returns to traveling, now expressed directly: the dreaming mind
travels and travels, and travels/ trots about like a turtle in a suitcase. The threefold use of
the verb expresses not only the repetitiveness of the action, but also attempts to impose a
sense of the constancy of this repetitiveness. The activeness is already announced in the
title. The active participle dreaming as a verbal-nominative form lends activeness to the
noun mind. Since this poem provides the title for the whole collection, this activeness is
thus imbued in all the texts. The work following The Dreaming Mind, Setting out from
Babylon, takes up the theme already with its title. The hour has come. Day is breaking.
Let us go. This frst line seems to be a continuation of the preceding text, in which the
dreaming mind talks in its sleep in the morning, before waking up. With the dawning of
the new day, language, perhaps mixed up by the hypnotist, has become verbose and in-
comprehensible and the mind sets off towards its waking, it travels towards the exit from
its dream. The title Setting out from Babylon is a reminiscence of the Biblical mixing
of languages and the scattering of the people over the earth.
9
The connection between
The Dreaming Mind and Setting off from Babylon is also realized in the metaphor
The Turtles Dream
204
of the mind as the tower of time the dreaming mind is a collapsing tower of minutes.
The reference to the Biblical event recalls Gods interference and related to the topic of
dreaming the presence of the hypnotist, of the unseen causer of dreams.
Travel is a movement towards ones self, both in the central part of A Body of
Passion, as well as in the related second section of the collection. In the middle part of
the book, the reading has reached its greatest depth and the state of the lyrical I with its
contemplation corresponds to the observation of its body in the opening work. The theme
of keeping silent enters actively into the second section. Here, in works such as Heresy
and The Builder of Labyrinths, the mind has reached the rational level, but in a dream;
coming in contact with the heart, it senses the boundlessness of silence and space (The
Dreaming Mind), which do not submit to the descriptiveness of words. The certainty
of the sensation changes into the uncertainty in the attempt to be incarnated in words,
the internal unnamable knowledge of things changes into a lack of knowledge due to the
faltering of understanding. Words attempt to place boundaries around the boundless and it
slips away, limitlessness is uncapturable and cannot be ft into the sounds of language. To
feel the mysticism of the boundless and the unnamable, we can only describe the visible
and the imaginable and then compare what has been put into words with the impossibility
of enveloping it and thus to draw near to it. The work The Dreaming Mind reminds us
that the true aim of reading is to reach the silence, it is the fnal topos towards which the
doors of the vowels and the bells of the consonants lead, the sounds turn out to be only
languages sensory means for entering into it.
The poem A Body of Passions relates to The Dreaming Mind as the material
relates to the spiritual. The connection between the two works is alluded to by the places
of the titles within the book, which also defnes their weight. While The Dreaming Mind
gives its title to the entire collection, A Body of Passions is the frst poem, leading the
reader into the book, and is associated with the very body of the book. The two poems
can be related to each other also as form and content, where the form is the body of the
book, and the content the idea arrived at. The works are united by traveling, in which the
mind is the active one, while the body is subordinate. The body not only does not initiate
its movements, they are subordinate to the mind, but not to the bodys own mind, because
the mind belonging to the body merely observes, its possibilities only go so far as to see
the actions, but not to initiate them as well. The mind moves in dreams, but does not
possess the ability to control the dream, it is only a witness and its actions are metamor-
phoses of what is happening projected onto the consciousness. The unfolding activity
itself is instigated by someone else, who here and in the entire book is not seen until the
fnal poem. And even in that poem he is only hinted at, since the mind indirectly brushes
against or rather senses his presence.
In the central poem, the mind travels and travels, and travels/ trots about like a
turtle in a suitcase. Having the appearance of an inanimate object, the body is completely
subordinate. The image of the suitcase-body gives us a comparative concept as to what
extent its sensory abilities can stretch and calls forth the idea of dependence on someones
hand. The mind is the living thing, the turtle, whose rest is disturbed by bumps along
the journey. Albeit slow and only refecting outward jolts with its trotting and subject to
their lurching, it possesses the ability to move on its own and to sense the dynamics of
Stanka Petrova
205
the one carrying the suitcase. The mind also possesses senses with which it can touch
what exists outside. The comparison like a turtle in a suitcase leads towards his double
distancing from the external world. First, the shell in which he is wrapped has organically
grown into him. It protects him from the jolts of the journeys and gives him a chance
to hide inside it, but also hinders him from directly experiencing contact with the outer
world. The turtle shell protects the turtle-mind from life and death, but it makes contact
with out there possible, without damaging his delicate sensitivity. The second distancing
from the real world, which does not possess the openings of the turtle shell, is the suitcase.
Light does not get into it, only the resonance of contact with the external world reaches the
turtle. Thus, when the turtle pokes his head outside to get to know the world, its eyes meet
the darkness. There is no path for directly coming out into the world, for that reason the
turtle dreams and in its dream attempts to overcome the space of the suitcase.
In the poem The Dreaming Mind, silence and boundlessness are contrasted with
verbosity and the lack of space:

For the boundlessness of silence
and space
there are no names
There is nothing more to say about the nameless. In this way, the lack of ways of
naming it is expressed. The lines which follow describe the words among whose multitude
the mind is located:
Literal English
Translation

,
ala zaklyuchen e snuvashtiyat
um sred dumite,
but if the dreaming mind is
locked up amidst the words,

;
v mudnata konvulsiya na
ustnite;
in the slow convulsion of the
mouth;

, ,
snuvashtiyat um ptuva i
ptuva, i ptuva,
the dreaming mind travels
and travels, and travels

,
topurka kato kostenurka v
kufar,
trotting about like a turtle in
a suitcase,

,
snuvashtiyat um e
ruhvashtata kula na minutite,
the dreaming mind is the
collapsing tower of the
minutes,

;
kladenetsa na tgata ot
nepostoyanstvo;
the well of sorrow from
inconstancy

Snuvashtiyat um blnuva
sutrin
the dreaming mind talks in
its sleep in the morning
,
v dushniya uyut na kuhnite,

predvkusvayki
in the stuffy comfort of
kitchens, foretasting
,
, ,
sapunenite klyuki,
revolyutsiite, muhla,
the soap-opera gossip, the
revolutions, the mold
The Turtles Dream
206

skukata i uzhasa da si
zaklyuchen v dumi
the boredom and horror of
being locked up in words

.
i stradanieto mu povyarvayte
e neobyatno.
and its suffering believe
me is boundless.
The juxtaposing conjunction ala (but) places a bridge in the unequally divided
poem. The metaphors locked up in the dreaming mind amidst words and a turtle in a
suitcase play the role of metaphor/synonyms in the poem and mutually complement each
other. The words turn out to be a body for the mind, as is the suitcase. And it is just such
an imperfect body due to the impossibility of the mind to free itself from their locked-
ness. They are an intermediary in its striving towards boundlessness, yet cause the slow
convulsion of the mouth because they are explanatory and processual, distributed in time
and are tied to it, words always exist here and now. They dynamically swarm everyday
life and accompany the ephemeral. The push and dynamics of action creates the necessity
for them, they are required for that push and those dynamics, they accompany the stuffy
comfort of the kitchens, the revolutions, mold. However, the dreaming mind is the
collapsing tower of minutes, it possesses the ability to turn back and overturn times, to
repeat its experiences many times and in this sense to select its own being. Dreaming con-
nects the mind with the heart and transfers its pain to it, ignoring the rational and dispatch-
ing the well of sorrow. This is not merely brushing up against feeling; in dreaming, the
mind experiences its depth.
The language in the two parts of the poem is differentiated into the language of
the boundless and another for everyday life. The frst part speaks of names, while the
second speaks of words. Names are missing, but if they had been created, they would
have to be different from everyday, repetitive language. If a language were found for the
boundless, it would have to be singular and unrepeatable, a language in which man does
not christen the boundless, but rather the boundless christens man by lifting him above
profane everyday life. Giving a name is a creative act, a way of individualizing and rec-
ognizing. Thus naming is represented as a sacred act which draws near to the boundless.
Words, insofar as they accomplish the naming of things, do this secondarily, repeating
already received names.
We also discover various sides of language between A Body of Passions and
The Dreaming Mind. Unlike the dumi or words in The Dreaming Mind, in A Body
of Passions, language consists of slova or Words/Speech. Dumi are acquired spontane-
ously, they are the unfnished language of everyday life, while we prepare ourselves for
slovo or the Word and study it, we create it and attempt to make it complete. Because
it draws near to fragmentary language, the dreaming mind talks in its sleep in the morn-
ing/ and its suffering () is boundless. The mind seeks silence because of the insuf-
fciency and surplus of everyday language, sensing it on the edge of its waking, in the
approach to the small passions of existential alertness. Words (dumi) do not suffce, and to
avoid the suffering and their limitation, the mind travels to the dream, in this way feeing
from the surplus of jabbering.
The two works contrast with and at the same time complement each other. In the
frst poem, the basic word is body, while in the central one, it is mind. The open space
of the cathedral is contrasted with the stuffy comfort of the kitchens, which are a center
Stanka Petrova
207
of words (dumi). The territory of Words (slova) is limitless, their sounds diffuse freely
and resound in the infnite, the vowels are empty doors, uniting outside and inside,
here and there into one body, while words (dumi) are cooped up amidst everyday life,
where cathedral-like space is lacking.
The grammatical category of nominal number also holds a meaning for the con-
trast in scope the singular of the cathedral emphasizes its breadth and solidity, while the
mention of the plural kitchens is a sign not only of their crampedness but also of their
everyday function.
The poems complement each other, since the body is the receptacle of the mind,
and here the body is even engendered by the mind, independent of whether we are talk-
ing about its virtual image or the body of a book, evoked by the imagination and derived
from it.
The path to the churchs exit begins from the third section of the collection, which
fnds its parallel in the direction of the movement in the third part of A Body of Pas-
sions. In the opening poem Auto-da-f, we are familiar with the river and the light of
Sometime from A Body of Passions with one difference here, the past is concretized
as yesterday:
- , No heavier than ornaments for a Christmas tree
- , no lighter than the dusky streets,
, ephemeral as newspapers
foating in the river
? who will save us from yesterday?
Yesterday or Sometime, it makes no difference how distant the past is, it has
lost its value. In passing through the dream-text, the lyrical I seems defenseless, no
heavier than ornaments for a Christmas tree. No matter whether the attitude towards
ones self is expressed with I played at being Someone or with ephemeral as newspa-
pers and foating in the river, this reveals the impossibility for control over that which
happens to the I. The movements-game and foating along the river like a newspaper are
one and the same powerlessness in the face of an effective, changing reality.
This changed attitude towards ones self in the sections Sacred Geometry and A
Hypnotist with Glasses is clearly visible in the eponymous poem Sacred Geometry:
Literal English
Translation

i v sveshtenata geometriya na
nebeto
and in the sacred geometry
of the sky
,

vseki, vseki e vladetel na
drevna imperiya
Everyone, everyone is a
ruler of an ancient empire
, s bregove ot vobrazhenie, with shores of imagination,
. vkameneni legendi i senki. fossilized legends and
shades.
The Turtles Dream
208
Here the shores are not riverbanks, they are fxed by the I and are solely depen-
dent on the potential of his imagination. These are the shores of the ocean of hues, scents/
and all sorts of masterful and secret ideas. They are changeable, sedimented material/
backs of legends (Sacred Geometry) and everyone is a traveler in the ocean and a
discoverer of these shores. The attitude towards them is sacralized they are found in
the high space, in the sacred geometry of the sky. Here the I is in the fairytale land of
possibilities in it everyone is a ruler and tests his potential to shape the virtual world of
which he is the master.
While the I moves in the section Sacred Geometry, in A Hypnotist in Glass-
es, it is moved by something. Even though in both sections this movement is caused by
thought, in the mediated movement, self-abandonment can be observed. Differences can
be discovered in both ways of moving, which again correspond to the differences between
the movement in the frst and third parts of A Body of Passions.
In the section Sacred Geometry, the movement is realized with the participation
of the will. In the poem Lost, the lyrical I mentally draws objects and people in differ-
ent places. Thought moves from the jungles of Columbia through the noisy streets of
Calcutta and Istanbul to the hangover of a club audience to madhouses to a shelter
for lost dogs in Zurich and schooners lost in the storm. In the poem Sacred Geom-
etry, this listing off continues intensely, enumerating different topoi. Those mentioned
include the shores of Mexico, the shores of our childhood imagination, visions/ from
the delta of the Niger, through the Red Sea to Tangiers/ and America. In The Apricot,
the distances gush forth, with this being the culminating point of the dynamic:
Literal English
Translation
Za da opishesh kaysiyata To describe an apricot
...
nalozhitelno li e da tichash is it necessary to run
tri hilyadi mili na iztok three thousand miles to
the east

,
i pochti da dostignesh Indiya and to almost reach India

stremitelno da prekosish
pustinite
to vehemently cross the
deserts
, na Siriya i Egipet, of Syria and Egypt,

,
da izkachish piramidite v Giza, to climb the pyramids at
Giza,

,
da popitash Sfinksa za
istinskoto i ime,
to ask the Sphinx her real
name,

,
da posetish vsichki gradini v
Yerusalim
ili Tripoli,
to visit all the gardens in
Jerusalem
or Tripoli,

,
za da opitash furmite im i
smokinite,
to taste their dates and
fgs,
, da otkriesh izvorite na Nil, to discover the sources of
the Nile,
Stanka Petrova
209
, da se izdignesh s priliva mu, to rise on its tide
, ,
s tinyata, liliite, trstikata with the mire, the lilies, the

reeds
v lchistiya vihr in the radiant whirlwind
...

da trchish tri po tri hilyadi dni
na uchilishte
to run three times three
thousand days to school
...
Against the background of this dynamic, let us compare the movement in Auto-
da-fe: no heavier than ornaments for a Christmas tree/ no lighter than the dusky streets,/
ephemeral as newspapers,/ foating in the river / who will save us from yesterday? The
activeness of the verb relates to an unknown, missing subject, signifed with the interroga-
tive pronoun who. The future tense makes this activeness probable. The question who
will save us/ from yesterday is rhetorical. The pronoun, in fact, turns our attention to the
lack of a savior, it signifes that lack by pointing to the expectation, but not referring to
a concrete anticipated individual. The lyrical I is passive, an object of eventual future
action. Against this background of anticipation, the present active participle foating
confrms passivity. The very form of the word, even taken out of context, contains within
itself passivity, which stands out in comparison with the synonym swimming. Floating
occurs on the current of the river, it happens in anticipation of the stated who. In move-
ment realized in such a manner, we can discover an expression of helplessness, of self-
abandonment to anticipation, which is confrmed several times in the repeated parts of the
phrase, which refer to the I no heavier than ornaments for a Christmas tree/ no lighter
than the dusky streets,/ ephemeral as newspapers,/ foating in the river. As identical parts
referring to the object of the action, these phrases synonymously complement the helpless-
ness, the inaction in Auto-da-fe, with which the third section of the book begins.
The independent movement of the I in the section A Hypnotist with Glasses
is strongly reduced. Dreaming is frequently mentioned, as a substitute for movement.
Knowledge about it is a sign of the unmoving state of the body. In seven of the nine poems,
dreaming is mentioned. The topic of the penultimate poem, Who Knows is the waking
state, while the fourth poem In the Light of April seems to be detached from the others.
The text In the World of Dreams directly mentions dreams only in the title of the poem,
similar to the opening text in this section, where dreaming is directly mentioned only in
its motto. However, the title line In the World of Dreams is the topos where what is
experienced takes place. Each of the seven poems has its own theme and the collections
basic theme is woven into them.
In its motto, taken from Geo Milevs poem Dragon, the monstrous corpse
of my dream, the opening work of the third section, Auto-da-fe, mentions the theme
of dreaming already as something dead and separate from the I. Detachment from the
dream is alienation, the dream is transformed into a corpse, into otherness which can be
seen. It seems that the dreamers alienation can never be total, in that the dream can never
break every tie with its creator and possessor. This is hinted at by the motto the lexeme
corpse is tied to something suffciently foreign to everything which surrounds it, yet the
possessive pronoun my shows the attitude of the possessor. The lack of feedback the
The Turtles Dream
210
corpse possessing nothing of the surrounding world, it has only that which is a part of it
to a certain extent creates the pain of possessing what has become alienated. In this sense,
that which is alienated never becomes fully alienated, it is merely suffciently distant from
its possessor.
In Auto-da-fe, dreaming and language are one and the same thing in the motto,
the dream is a corpse, while in the text of the work, manuscripts, the written Word are
burned at the stake.
The following poem, In the Hour of the Crystal Shades, mentions dreaming as a
past I dreamed thunderous nightmares/ in the train the drunken soldiers. Dreaming is
present as a nightmare, but here it is not possessed by the I. The following work, Scat-
ter, begins as a liberation, a distancing from dreamed-up images:
Literal English
Translation
, , Razprsnete se, senki, Scatter, oh shades,

,
ne shestvayte dlgo kray men, do not stalk me for long,
! Otstpete reditsi nevidimi! abandon invisible lines!

Veche svrshva snyat mi na

plennik
My dream of being a
captive is already done

, , Sberete se, senki, Gather together, oh shades,
, v krga ot izstinala pepel, In a circle of cold ashes.

...
v svoya pepelen dom
otstpete
step back into your ashen
home

,
Veche v plen sm na vzduha
svetl,
I am now a captive of the
bright air,
koyto chaka tsftezha which waits for the
blooming
. na tsveteto. Of the fower.
The prompt Scatter, oh shades seems to be a conscious act, which leads to emo-
tional liberation. The following three lines show a state of anticipation of waking. The
other state of captivity towards which the I has set out, that of wakefulness, that which
is connected to everyday life, contains a larger dose of consciousness, more pragmatism
and the creator of dreams is distanced from it.
Scatter makes a concrete intertextual link with Auto-da-fe via the phrase cold
ashes. In the individual poems, dreaming undergoes development; for example, in Con-
demned to Rain, it is a mortal, heavy dream, while in The Dreaming Mind it is fight
from everyday life, in Auto-da-fe it is a monstrous corpse and so on. The image of the
stake also changes. In Auto-da-fe the manuscripts are burning, while in Scatter only
the cold ashes remain. The intertextual development of the images connects the indi-
vidual texts more frmly and creates a dynamism in the meta-poem, it is not a collection of
texts unifed by recollected words, but rather a text which develops.
The fnal three lines in Scatter seem to prepare for the mood of the following
Stanka Petrova
211
poem, In the Light of April. It is the only one in the entire book which is written in
meter. In it, the whole dynamism of the third part is gathered, which is expressed not so
much in the slightly more frequent use of verbs, but rather in the trochaic meter and the
lexemes selected by it. The lines another procession walks/ along the heavenly bridges/
banners of light/ the towering fanfare of chords give the impression of measured meter,
of solemnity, festiveness.
The fnal poem in the book, A Hypnotist with Glasses, begins with a conjecture
of untruthfulness, of a lie. This defnition is strengthened by the superlative my most
desperate lie whose meaning suggests the lack of a better opportunity for the I to
be elsewhere, for conscious fight from the unaccepted truth or for the falling into the lie
which was not realized at frst:
, Since Im taking a walk, perhaps
- , through my most desperate lie,
and my fngers are numb and twisted
, around dreamed-up objects,
, I perhaps am not walking, but lying on the lap
of some hypnotist
. with glasses.
, And his face seems to be in the sky, and it is
light
, Above that six-diopter,
multi-storey azure
there somewhere the world is violet
-, and you can live lightly-lightly
-... rock-a-by
At the very end of the collection, before the defnite exit from the dream, the lyri-
cal I rejects it by qualifying it as a lie. A Hypnotist with Glasses begins with a mood
similar to the third part of A Body of Passions, in which the I is coming out of the
cathedral. Instead of the consciousness that he has found himself in the cathedral, in A
Hypnotist with Glasses, the I is conscious that he has found himself within a dream.
Upon leaving it, on the border between dream and reality, he senses the hypnotist.
The two adjectives defning azure six-dioptered and many-storey return
towards language. The frst corresponds to the number of vowels in the Bulgarian lan-
guage. Language is once again distanced from the lyrical I and is visible. In A Body of
Passions, it is a cathedral, while here it is the sky. Here we must recall that the shores of
the ocean in the poem Sacred Geometry are found in the sacred geometry of the sky.
With language, traveling up above, the I draws near to the creator of both the dream in
which he lives and who is also his own creator, the creator of the I.
Seeing the vowels as the lenses of the glasses on the hypnotists face refers to the
The Turtles Dream
212
writing man, to the author as the creator of worlds and of characters. The ordering of the
poems in the book using a combination of vocalic versifcation and free verse illustrates
the multi-storiedness of the sky. Thus every poem, formed with the ordering of a certain
vowel, represents a layer of the sky. Language is a means of seeing beyond the everyday,
into the sacred geometry of the sky, it gives new knowledge about things. But glasses
are a two-sided intermediary. On the one hand, they are a mediator for the lyrical I in his
connection to the other world, and on the other, they are on the eyes of the hypnotist.
Recognition of Alices world in A Hypnotist with Glasses once again refers to
dreaming. The frst two parts of the poem are connected to each other with indirect ref-
erence to Alice in Wonderland (Carroll 1991). The frst ends with stopped time, and the
second begins by citing the characters from Alice in Wonderland:
I humbly beg the March Hare and the Hatter
, to be serious
and urge the honorable Mr. Bean
... to pay attention
But they are in the devils mirror
, of my consciousness,
And it is the end of a civilization
. of crying volcanoes.
Between reality and the virtual world, the lyrical I speaks with his virtual inter-
locuters and having not yet fnished his thought, he realizes that they are in his conscious-
ness. Besides the March Hare and the Hatter, Mr. Bean is mentioned among them as well,
whom we know as a TV character. This recalls the consciousness ability to refect not
only on reality and to create its own dreams, but also to turn the dreams of others into its
own. The I in its turn ends up both a reader and a viewer, one who perceives that created
by an other, just like the reader of The Dreaming Mind.
The animals, the jury in Alice in Wonderland, are replaced in The Dreaming Mind
by the characters from the lyrical Is readings. The consciousness which contains them is
called a devils mirror. It does not preserve them in some frozen form, but absorbs them
and gives them new life in its very own dream. The awakening of consciousness is the
realization of the end of that dream.
The third and fnal part of the A Hypnotist with Glasses returns to the time before
the dream, to reality, which incites fight. With the approach of reality also comes a differ-
ent view on the ocean it is no longer made of hues, scents/ and all sorts of masterful and
secret ideas, a true watery surface has replaced it:
, , Cho-cho-san, Titanic a sorrowful hologram,
, . Smoke over Fujiyama, in the shape of a
vignette.
There somewhere the armadas of unknown
armies
Stanka Petrova
213
ploughed the oceans
. with Nike on their shoulders.

There is no God the voiceless telegrams

told us
and we greeted our death
, with fare guns,
, and the unsetting sun of the Eagle was
shining,
there somewhere over the Pacifc
and Atlantic confnes
, , , operas, chansons, yodelers blared forth
... sentimental Roman warbling
, Just like the sleepers in the sorrowful Titanic,
Just like the old wizards of Atlantis
. we woke up and we werent there.
The imagination has gone too far, it has become too presumptuous and the lyri-
cal I has transformed into a passenger from the Titanic, who had expected to tame the
ocean. Cho-cho-san and Titanic bear the sign of a tragic end, of death. They function in the
poetry collection as a substitute for the explicitly written word end in some of the texts.
The following line leads to this interpretation: smoke over Fujiyama, in the shape of a
vignette. It is stated directly that the smoke takes the shape of a vignette, i.e. it replaces
the foral motive following the end of a text. The word end and the vignette beneath it
undergo a unique paraphrase as a way of framing the text. But unlike novels for children
and young readers, where that sign is usually present in contemporary literature, here with
this choice of means it is equivalent to the meaning of end or death. Moreover, if these
two lines copy their model exactly, they would have to be the very end of the text, since
they fulfll the function of its frame, or of coming out of language. But they are found in
the interior, slightly before the middle of the fnal part of A Hypnotist with Glasses.
The three lines immediately following them: there somewhere the armadas of unknown
armies/ ploughed the oceans/ with Nike on their shoulders, if interpreted analogously to the
preceding lines, could be read as a substitute for a drawing on the fnal page, similar to Alice
in Wonderland, for example.
The metapoem fnishes by returning to the point in reality from which the lyrical I had
entered into the dream, abandoning that reality. The end also functions as a frame which is part of
the text, just as in the beginning with A Body of Passions. The memory of reality, abandoned
upon entering the dream, begins in the third part of A Hypnotist with Glasses, which is marked
grammatically by a change of tense, interweaving itself with the end of the metapoem.
The denial of God makes the thought of rescue amidst the ocean impossible. The
aggressive message of the telegrams, There is no God, is a rejection of the possibility for
salvation on the ship/island. The unsetting heraldic sun cannot replace him it is earthly.
Thus, man fnds himself thrown amidst the ocean, abandoned in the primordial solitude
The Turtles Dream
214
which accompanies him in death. Without God, man loses his being, he loses his reasons
for existing, because nothing has depth any longer. For that reason he seeks depth, mean-
ing, and God in dreaming. And the poet can give fesh to the dream, to transform it into
verse, into a book, in which God exists and thus to prove he exists. In the essay Hlderlin
and the Essence of Poetry, Heidegger speaks of this: Poetizing is the originary naming
of the gods. But the poet word frst obtains its naming power when the gods themselves
bring us to speak (Heidegger 1999: 96). The mind of the poet tosses aside the fat time
of lack with his travelling: The time is needy, and thus its poet is overabundant so
abundant that he would often like to languish in the thought of those who have been and
in expectation of the one who is coming, and would simply like to sleep in the apparent
emptiness (ibid., 98).
The line we woke up and we werent there as an equal end to the past before
the dream and of the dream itself leads to the idea of existing only in the state of dreaming.
As if in his life a person passes from one dream into the other, existing thus. But since a
book is used for the recreation of the dream, from what was said above we can conclude
that sman exists in language and in the ideas which are formed in this language. And even
when he attempts to leave language, he once again lands in it. This crossing from text to
text puts him in a situation of living out something already given, he himself does not cre-
ate the body of his experience, but enters into it once it has already been created.
Waking up from the book comes as an adequate end to The Dreaming Mind. But
coming out of the dream, out of the virtual reality, means sinking into the ocean. This is
expressed twice with the comparative phrase just like. Until now, the lyrical I had
been in the ocean of the Word and with each subsequent text found itself once again within
it, thus the fnal poem should end not with sinking, but with coming out into reality with
that would come the end of the book and the corresponding exit from all of its texts. But
instead of this, the characters are lost in the ocean, they fall into it, enlightened by the
awakening that they do not exist. On the one hand, they seem to have been a game
played by the hypnotist, which is now over, but on the other hand, waking is a place where
God is absent, it does not presume the existence of being. It turns out to be in the book
co-created and preserved by the poet. With this, reading is placed within a universal time
independent of the everyday passage of time; here it is a question not only of the poetry
collection under discussion, but of reading in general.
The journey of the lyrical I ends similarly to that of the passengers in the Titanic.
He has joined the heroes of all the previous readings, even though he himself is a reader
since The March Hare and the Hatter are found in his consciousness, but he, for his part,
is a knot in the consciousness of the reader. With this comes the idea of the life of the one
who reads the poetry collection in somebodys virtual world as well. The end comes with
closing the fnal page and turning again towards reality. The telegrams received by the pas-
sengers on the ship tell them There is no God and deny the existence of the Word, which
is a denial of their very selves, since they are engendered by it.
Everyone is together so as to wake up after the fnal poem with the closing of the
book. Having reached the fnal lines of the book, the lyrical I fnds no subsequent text to
enter, there is no body and he wakes up. But the lack of language in which to live is his end.
The basic problem of the deep text becomes the question of reality. Even in the
Stanka Petrova
215
opening poem, the hero turns out to be in the interior of the Word and outside his own
body. The readiness to enter into the physical body in the next line presumes his return
to reality, but the fact that this poem is the frst and not the last throws this into doubt and
begs the question of where, in fact, does the entering occur, since the second text and the
falling in it follow. What we get is a passage from text to text and an entering from one
irreality into another, which turns out to be an unsuccessful attempt to exit language and
return to reality. The observation of ones self in the virtual projection in the frst poem
and the change in number from singular to plural in the fnal one, after the mention of the
March Hare and the Hatter and the honorable Mr. Bean is a way of joining with the
heroes and accepting the lyrical I into the society of the virtual world. But the last line
we woke up and we werent there, which ends the book, refutes the existence of reality
as we think of it and hence the possibility to transition into it.
Notes:
1. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Emiliya Gurneva, Nikolay Neychev, and Vladimir Ya-
nev people who helped me with their advice during the writing of this paper. One fnished part of The
Turtles Dream was published on November 29, 2006, in the electronic journal LiterNet. It appears here
for the frst time in its full and edited version.
2. Detelina Dimova was born in 1967 in Silistra. She graduated from the Art High School in Kazanlk
with a specialty in fne arts. She has taken part in group exhibitions and has illustrated books of poetry
and prose. Her poems and graphics have appeared in various newspapers and magazines, including Vezni
(Libra), Stranitsa (Page), Literary Forum, Slovoto Dnes (The Word Today), Kula (Tower), and
others. She lives in Kazanlk.
3. Given the detailed analysis of the poem A Body of Passions, which the present text divides into
three relatively independent parts, and its necessary comparison to the individual divisions of the poetry
book, for convenience and for greater clarity, here I will speak of three parts when examining A Body
of Passions, and three sections when examining the collection as a whole.
4. The present article will not examine all the poems from The Dreaming Mind, but rather those which
most clearly unite the separate poems in terms of form and content and transform them into a single, com-
mon text.
5. Here I will use Word with an initial capital letter for the Bulgarian slovo, which echoes the bibli-
cal usage (In the beginning was the Word), while I will translate the more ordinary Bulgarian term duma
as word without a capital letter translators note.
6. Heidegger examines Georg Trakls poem A Winter Evening.
7. The fnal word in this line is an exception to the vocalic alternation, as the accent is on the [o] rather
than the [a].
8. A concept of Wolfgang Iser, cited in Nikola Georgiev (1999: 64).
9. See: Genesis 11: 7 9.
References:
Caroll, Lewis. Alisa v stranata na chudesata [Alice in Wonderland]. Sofa: T.F. Chipev, 1991. (,
. . : . . , 1991).
Dimova, Detelina. Snuvashtijat um [The dreaming mind]. Sofa: Zahariy Stoyanov, 2002. (,
. . : , 2002).
Georgiev, Nikola. Propasti i mostove na mezhdutekstovostta [Chasms and bridges of intertextuality].
Plovdiv: Plovdiv University Press, 1999. (, . -
The Turtles Dream
216
. : , 1999).
Heidegger, Martin. Sshtnosti [Essences]. Sofa: Gal-Iko, 1999. (, . .
: -, 1999).
Kolarov, Radosvet. Zvuk i smisl [Sound and meaning]. Sofa: BAS Press, 1983. (, -
. . : , 1983).
Lotman, Yuriy. Kultura i vzriv [Culture and explosion]. Sofa: Kralitsa Mab, 1998. (, .
. : , 1998).

|_:b_: o__rog:
(_g:r_oo)
__| |o1o:ro
r_1o_o_
|:_g:boo |o__g_o: go_:go1or__go g__|ob_o:, o__:-oo_o:, 1o:b_:,
r_:go:, _o_b:.
2002 b_g|, ,o_b_:oor__go :1ro", ob:_g:r ____gob: _ooog:| oorg_go
oo___ro _r__go, _:_og_og_: go__r:__r_go or_oooo ,|g__go|_r_o".
bobo b:roo:__b| or_____b_| _g:r_g oo_1o:Jo, _ro-_ro| oo oro: Jo-
ro| (o_or_: r_o_b __b_go| 2002 bgo| bobo ,_ro| b:b:b_r_o"), roo_go_
o__b_| o|_o g__|b_o:|, roo_go_ __|o_roo_b__g _g:r_g oo_1o:| b:r-
oo:__b|. _| :ro| ,|o__go_ro" g__|b_o:, roo_go_ ___ob_: o:bgogo| _:|o:|
_roo _: oog_ boog:b1_ |ob_:o:_o__r o:booo__gro:Jo
_r__g| - ,o_b_:oor__go :1ro" oboJgb_goo| oro _ob_ ::bbo:.
_og_go g__|o b:roo:__b| _ro oogo:b _: _ro|:_ o:go|o:gJo ooo_g_g
g__||, roog_o_ _:oo__o__g:_:_ J_oog_: o_b:| b:_oob_go. o_o_:, o_
__rogb:_ _:g__gor__oo, :oogo_boo o__:g__||, |:_:_ 1o:b_o| o_o:
|:_o:o_ :___:g_ro:. g__|_o, roo_go:_ oboJgb_gog:bo :_ogo __:go:o
_r__gJo, o::goo:_ ,gb_: |b__go|:" _: ,go_:Jo :ooob_g___go oobo1o|
:o__o__go" _o__g _rob_g b:1| _|g:o_b _oobg:|, roor_ :r:r|__go
1o:b_o| _1o|__b_o:g_r b:bog|, :b_ b__: _oobgo|: _: 1o:b_o| :oog_:.
:r:r_:g_ro _: oogg_o:r_ ,o_" :ro| o_oobg_go, roo_go_ J__obogo: o:g:_
:g_oro| oo_r _: goo:r__: g__|o_:b g__|:o__. J_|::oo|:_, bobo o___g:
_rog:r r__:_ (_o:_) o_oobg_go|:ogo|. :o:|o:b:g_, o_oobg_go| :r|_oo|
r_:g_ro: _: b:o_gogo: _gg_g_J __:: bg_b bg_bo| obrog oo-gobb_go |:__-
o:r o:g_| bobo| oor_:_, roo_go_ go_:_ _bob:ro: go_:Jo :ooob_g___go
,oobo1o| :o__o__go:" J__ob: _: bobJog_ _roo o_or_| oo_og_oo :g_o-
g:ro bg_bo _bogr_o| oboJgb_gog:b __:o_|.
_ooog:| bobo| _ogo|o_o_ro |o_ro_ obogo_ oo|o oo___ro b:|o:oo-
_:b :r :ooo_ob:r_o|. g__|ob_oo| :og:ro |_ogo (__r:_o roo:bo _:
o:go|__:go g__|o| |_r____r:) g:o__| _oro:|: _: ___::1r| Joro| :r-
|__go _o_r_b__gooo.
Stanka Petrova
217
DIMITER ALEXANDROV
(Bulgaria)
The Problem of the Body in Margaret Atwoods
The Year of the Flood
The problem of the body, human and posthuman, is one of the most important
problems in my PhD work on the postmodern dystopian novels in North America and
Canada. The aim of my dissertation is to show what happens with the development of
dystopian novels in the Western world themes, heroes, language nd critical approach.
On the whole, it involves insights and comments on sexual politics, power, human suf-
fering, alienation and, of course, the central motif of these topics is the body human,
posthuman, virtual and cybernetic. My dissertation contains only postmodern novels and
is not only centred on the problem of the body but also on other issues regarding dystopian
art and literature in the Western world. This article will slightly shift the focus, placing it
on modernist literature, studying one of its most famous short pieces of writing Kafkas
Metamorphosis (Kafka 2009). he Metamorphosis is not a dystopian piece of writing
because it is not situated in the future, but it has a dark dystopian-like subject matter and
is probably one of the most famous grim short pieces of writing of modernist literature in
general. It is also one of the most studied short pieces of writing around the world and is
essential to the problem of the body in world literature.
The Metamorphosis follows the transformation of a salesman, Gregor Samsa,
into a bug of human proportions. Samsa s trial is unequalled in world literature with its sa-
tirical portrayal of solitary human suffering and determinism. The story has been analyzed
many times, because, although it is much shorter than a novel, it is full of situations, im-
pressions and emotions concerning the body. We will see later in the article that it begins a
very interesting issue concerning the problem of the body in literature, namely movement,
spatial orientation and various manouvres. It is as if Kafkas whole text follows the curves
of Samsas body and becomes the single macabre inscription of his personal tragedy. The
Metamorphosis is probably one of most concise, focused and tense literary works that fo-
cus on the mental confict resulting from physical transformations. Kafkas works are very
tense but they most often focus on one singular tragic fate. In this particular story, Samsas
metamorphosis refects or most probably fails to refect (which must have been Kafkas
intention) the spiritual and moral downfall of Samsas family: his sister, father and mother,
that is, the holders of power, material, physical and moral support fail to acknowledge the
disastrous fate of one who is their own fesh and blood. The Metamorphosis shows a typi-
cal modernist distrust in capitalist enterprise and petty bourgeois work ethic and the story
itself is an escape from their norms and philosophy. Kafka is one of the frst writers who
were capable of portraying the human body incapable of work Gregor Samsa is one of
the most famous bedridden characters in world literature.
The problem of the body and work is developed in Western Literature in the post-
modern literature more importantly by Margaret Atwood. The article will explore the dif-
_ro_o__go _o|__r|o
218
ference in her attitude towards this problem. Margaret Atwood is one of the most impor-
tant writers who study the problem of the body in world literature today (Atwoods Poetry
[s. a.]).
The problem of the so-called posthumanism is central to her work. Posthumanism
is a very broad term encompassing different conditions, forms and relations, transsexual
and atavistic variations. Slowly but surely during the past three decades she has estab-
lished herself as one of the major experts in this feld. She has a different approach to this
problem than Kafka, who reaped the benefts of the glory of his single one short virtuoso
work. Kafka studies the metamorphosis from its day one and in close circumspection in
otherwise only human surroundings. Margaret Atwood slowly strips the human skin off
her characters, but that is done in the course of three dystopian novels. She clearly excels at
doing this and is notable for her rich palette of heroes ranging from the two sexes and some-
times a negation of them both and ranging from good to evil and from villains to victims.
All three authors in my dissertation are masters of the posthuman, beginning with
Blade Runner, or Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (a.k.a Blade Runner), from
the late 1960s. Philip K. Dick is one of the pioneer writers of this area. His interests were
primarily in the sphere of androids and their relation to humanity and its characteristic
features. Next comes William Gibson with his Neuromancer. It is a brilliant novel of
posthumanism, one of its seminal works. It is very computerized and technology oriented.
I prefer to separate the posthuman which is oriented towards computers and technology
from its other more natural-animalistic-atavistic counterpart which we fnd in Atwoods
novels. One of the best critical articles about the posthuman is Jil Galvans study Enter-
ing the Posthuman Collective in Philip K. Dicks Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
(Galvan 1997). Recently here in Bulgaria the topic was popularized through two col-
lections of articles, which were published on the USA (Halberstam & Livingston (eds.)
1995; Hayles 1999), but translated into Bulgarian Posthuman Bodies, edited by Judith
Halberstam and Ira Livingston and published by Indiana University Press (translated into
Bulgarian 2005) and N. Katherine Hayless How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bod-
ies in Cybernetics, Literature and Informatics, published by the University of Chicago
(translated 2005).
I have written an article on the relationship between gender and machine in Neu-
romancer and an article on the hero in the postmodern dystopian novels of Margaret At-
wood (cf. Alexandrov 2009; 2010). The artifciality of Atwoods protagonists is something
completely different. Her frst dystopian novel: The Handmaids Tale presents us with
the gruesome and grotesque Aunts, some of most famous ugly and evil characters in the
dystopian genre. Atwood shows even in her frst dystopian novel that she has the neces-
sary characteristics of becoming one of the great literary explorers of the problem of the
human body (Atwood 1986).
The Handmaids Tale focuses on the sexual problems of the body but contains
a very mature study of the psychic interpretation of bodily sexuality and the relationship
between power, loneliness and love, three conditions of human nature that infuence the
body. Atwoods novels are epic adventures and unlike Kafkas protagonist who is bedrid-
den and can cause disturbance only to his family, her posthuman images and outcasts are
always on the move, constantly changing surroundings often for the worse and become
Dimiter Alexandrov
219
part or even observers and analyzers of a postapocalyptic catastrophe. Margaret Atwood
wrote books for children and drew comics and that infuences her posthuman characters.
She also admired masters of the grotesque and the macabre like Edgar Allan Poe. In Oryx
and Crake, she even creates an atavistic character in the face of Jimmy A.K.A. the Snow-
man (Atwood 2003).
Atwood continues her posthuman experiments in her last dystopian novel The
Year of the Flood (Atwood 2009). Here the main protagonist is a fipsy-fopsy character
named Toby, a great contribution to the great dystopian line of awkward conditions, next
to the tortured Winston Smith, the poisoned cyber-cowboy of Neuromancer and the
Bladelike character Molly Razorgirl.
She uses a mop handle for balance: the elevator stopped working some time ago
and the back stairs are slick with damp, so if she slips and topples there wont be anyone
to pick her up. (Atwood 2009: 3).
Atwood never describes what has happened to her characters before the reader
fnds them the way they are described in the novel. The impression remains that their form
is due to an ecological catastrophe and that they were born that way. But from the frst
page of the novel the body is related to an important aspect of disaster fear (here fear
is from falling, but the abstract atmosphere of fear permeates the whole novel, the bodily
instability symbolizes the borderline condition of society and civilization). Atwood is at
her best when describing the natural cycle of life, related to the body, earth and decay.
Vultures are our friends the Gardeners used to teach. They purify the earth. They
are Gods necessary dark Angels of bodily dissolution. Imagine how terrible it would be if
there were no death! (Atwood 2009: 3).
Fears everlasting presence is a pestilence. Atwood is a writer, who pays much at-
tention to the body and eventual possibly sexual aggression towards it:
She is prepared. The doors are locked, the windows barred. But even such barriers
are no guarantee: every hollow space invites invasion. (Atwood 2009: 5).
Atwood has abandoned the topic of vice in her second dystopian novel Oryx and
Crake (Atwood 2001) to a certain extent. The Handmaids Tale has shown the readers
that she can masterfully explore this topic with literary means. Not since Aldous Huxley
has there been a dystopian writer who can so successfully exploit the problem of sex. Here
we meet two different approaches concerning the problem of sex, Kafkas and Atwoods,
determined, of course, by the culture of the period in which both of the artists lived and
worked. Atwood has a specifc attitude towards sex. She is not an erotic writer, but a writer
who can successfully translate sex and sexual relationships in the manner, norms and
approach of post-moral fctional universe of pimps, sex-clubs and greasy outlooks. She
has a very peculiar, very provoking, very sharply radical way of evoking disturbing gro-
tesque pictures of underground sex life. The Year of the Flood contains a dissection of
the structures of the system of sexual exploitation created by the evil Corps. These include
control of sexual activities through healthcare issues and control of bodily condition and
leisure activities through training facilities in the security zone The Sticky Zone. Atwood
is masterful in her descriptions of the relation between politics and the human body. Her
bodies always oscillate between the personal and the intimate intimate, which is often
awkward and full of insecurity and suffering like in Kafkas work and a larger paradigm of
The Problem of the Body in Margaret Atwoods The Year of the Flood
220
social and political Foucauldian discourse. Atwood is a very Foucauldian author, but she
also manages to study his ideas of power from a different perspective underground life,
sex trade, even style and fashion. Here is what the new boss of the underground sex busi-
ness looks like: He was a wiry guy with a shaved head and black, shiny, alert eyes like the
heads of ants, and he was easy as long as everything was cool. (Atwood 2009: 7).
She portrays a tense and comics-like appearance of the owner of the vice and plea-
sure industry in the postapocalyptic world. Atwood is a master of extracting comic and
grotesque features from the media and comics universe and applying them to characters in
her novels, who can forget the evil family controlling The Republic of Gilead from The
Handmaids Tale, for example. In The Year of the Flood we are told that everyone left
out of the sex market will be regarded as pathetic, which means that body and sex stan-
dards are set not naturally but so far as only to serve commercial needs. Disease and old
age will be the bodily marks of the borderline between those participating in the grotesque
pornographic exploitation and those who are left outside of it.
Both Atwood and Kafka focus on bodily conditions that turn their characters into
social outsiders. Both writers masterfully exploit the theme of human suffering and failure
caused by physical tragedy. In Kafkas work the protagonist turns into a giant bug, whose
nature and origin is studied even by great authors such as Vladimir Nabokov, who was a
lepidopterist. In The Year of the Flood bugs are a menace to the body but in their natural
condition as aggressive swarms that cause painful rashes and Toby sprays her body with
SprayD for bugs.
Tobys body also suffers from changes and a partial metamorphosis. While search-
ing the ground for human remains, she senses that her fngers are getting thicker and
browner like roots.
Besides excelling in grotesque and painful descriptions Atwood shows that she can
also make her readers laugh at bodily problems of literature:
She rubs with soap theres still a lot of soap, all of it pink and sponges off. My
body is shrinking, she thinks. Im puckering, Im dwindling. Soon Ill be nothing but a
hangnail. Though shes always been on the skinny side Oh Tobiatha, the ladies used to
say, if only I had your fgure! (Atwood 2009: 17; italics mine, D.A.). The Year of the
Flood is one of the few dystopian novels that contain the problem of obesity.
The Toby character also has a problem with the cleanliness of her body: She
scrubs her long dark hair, twists it into a wet bun. She really must cut it. Its thick and too
hot. Also it smells of mutton. (Atwood 2009: 17).
Toby is one of the most famous literary tramps of the dystopian novels; her body
is constantly suffering and needs to be taken care of throughout the novel. Atwood has al-
ways been a writer aware of the sufferings and misfortunes that the living body can cause.
Atwoods characters are in the paradigm of typical American epic heroes, always on the
road and most of the time alone by themselves; what is revolutionary in their portrayal is
namely the problem of the body.
Atwood is a writer who pays special attention to hair and its relation to corporate
enterprise, fashion and human appearance. New to the dystopian novel is her eccentric but
fashionable artifcal hair, described with much humour and colour: She looked good
glittery and green and sinuous with a new silver MoHair. I was considering one of those
Dimiter Alexandrov
221
myself they were better than wigs, they never came off but some girls said the smell
was like a lamb chops, especially in the rain. (Atwood 2009: 55).
Atwood pays special attention to the teeth, dental surgery and dental cosmetics in
The Year of the Flood, which is something maybe not entirely new, but rare in the dys-
topian subgenre till now. On the whole Atwood is a writer who likes to discuss the body in
relation to surgery and cosmetics. And sometimes allows herself a dose of black humour
with a provoking familiarity that immediately draws the readers attention: CryoJeenyus.
What a scam that place was. You paid to get your head frozen when you died in case
someone in the future invented a way to regrow a body onto your neck, though the kids at
HelthWyzer used to joke that they didnt freeze anything but head shells because theyd
already scooped out the neurons and transplanted them into pigs. They made a lot of
gruesome jokes like that at HelthWyzer High, though you never knew whether they were
actually jokes. (Atwood 2009: 293).
Atwood is very successful in depicting strange and dangerous things that happen to
the body: for example its disappearance from a photo (this relates the body to memory and
past and the failure of their interpretation, their elusive character). The characters of the
book get various rashes, bruises, fever and often they have to take care of them and fnd
remedies for them and prepare those remedies often in natural surroundings. More shock-
ing is however the attempt to think about escaping the body and its limitations: But still
frightened, because when might the whole problem the whole thing- start happening to
them again? The whole signs of mortality thing. The whole thing thing. Nobody likes it,
thought Toby being a body, a thing. Nobody wants to be limited in that way. Wed rather
have wings. Even the word fesh has a mushy sound to it. (Atwood 2009: 264).
References:
(includes all of Margaret Atwoods dystopian novels; they are all related to the problem of the body):
Alexandrov, Dimiter. The Hero in the Postmodern Dystopian Novels of Margaret Atwood. [Paper deliv-
ered at] Managing Diversity and Social Cohesion: the Canadian Experience. Fifth Conference of the
Central European Association for Canadian Studies, 16-18.10.2009, held in Sofa.
Alexandrov, Dimitr. Materija i plt v kiberprostranstvoto Nevromantik na Uilam Gibsn. Slovesa,
17.07.2010: n.pag. Web. 2 April 2012. http://www.slovesa.net/index.php?id=2579; Internet. (-
, . .
, 17.07.2010: n.pag. Web. 2 April 2012. http://www.slovesa.net/index.php?id=2579).
Atwood, Margaret. The Handmaids Tale. New York: Random House, 1986.
Atwood, Margaret. Oryx and Crake. [S. l.]: O. W. Toad Ltd., 2003: n.pag. Web. 2 April 2012. http://www.
epubbud.com/read.php?g=VGQE5UWB&p=62; Internet.
Atwood, Margaret. The Year of the Flood. New York: Random House, 2009.
Atwoods Poetry :Margaret Atwoods Poetry: n.pag. Web. 2 April 2012. http://www.sparknotes.com/
poetry/atwood/themes.html; Internet.
Galvan, Jil. Entering the Posthuman Collective in Philip K. Dicks Do Androids Dream of Electric
Sheep?. Science Fiction Studies 24, 3 (Nov., 1997): 413-429.
Halberstam, Judith M., and Ira Livingston. Eds. Posthuman Bodies. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1995.
Hayles, N. Katherine. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and Infor-
matics. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1999.
Kafka, Franz. The Metamorphosis. Translated by Ian Johnston. Last revised on March 2009: n.pag. Web.
2 April 2012. http://records.viu.ca/johnstoi/stories/kafka-e.htm; Internet.
The Problem of the Body in Margaret Atwoods The Year of the Flood
222
dimitri aleqsandrovi
(_g:r_oo)
|b__go| orog_o: o:r:r__ __g__o| b:b:roo_Jo
,b:r_gbo| b_go"
r_1o_o_
|:_g:boo |o__g_o: oo|_-oo__rbo|__go, _o|_ooo_ro, _:|:gg_ro |:o_:ro,
|b__go, o:r:r__ __g__o, oo|_-_o:bo1oo, |__|o, :_:oo:bo| _:b_g:.
|_:_o: o_gg_g| |b__go| orog_o:| o:r:r__ __g__o| ogo oo|_-oo-
__rbo|__g roo:bJo ,b:r_gbo| b_go", roo_go_ 200 b_g| :ooo_:. |_:_o:
_:_:gJor__go: :g_oro| __ro gr__g b:Jrooo:b, roo_go_ J_o|b:ggo|
oo|_oo__rbo|__go _o|_ooo_ro roo:bo| _gog__o:| br_ogo_o :o_ro_:|:
_: _:b:_:Jo. |_:_o: ob__: _ro-_ro _boog oo__rbo|__g b:b:roo_o:b J_-
_:r_oo, |:_:_ :|_g_ :_:r__go: :b:goo_ro orog_o:_o_: - _r:b_ _:_-
_:| ,o__:oor_o1_o:b". |_:_o: b:roo:b_b| _gog__o:| r_oro |:o|:| ob_o-
go__:go|__ro _r:b|_oro:_oo_:b ob__|_o_g |:1o:_o_:o__, roo_go_
b:roob_bogo: :o_ro__go r_gooo _o|oo_r _oo_:Jo. roo:bo, roo_go_ :g|_|
oo__rbo1o|: _: oo|_oo__rbo1o| Joro| :r|__g |o_:ro_g_| :ro| _ogo_
_. _o_o| ,_|o1or_:o :b_roo__| _g___ro _bgr_o?". bobJo :bbog_go:
oo|_-:_:oo:b_ro _og___ogo, roo_go_ :_oo_ro ooo|: _: oo|:b :oobg__go
r:_o:_oo| J___:_ :_oo__b_:. _| :ro| _rooob:g_ro :o:go oogo_o_g_|:
_: :b_roo__1_, _:b:J:_g|: _: _gg1_, :__bog_:|: _: |o|:|_o__1_. _og-
o:o o|obo| ,b_groo:b|_ro" :|_g_ oo|_-:_:oo:b_r orog_o_| _b_:. o|
_o_ro:b__go b:b:roo_o: _: ooo_:g| o|_o o_o_|, rooro_:: ___bogoo:,
b:rg: _: _b__o_:, r:|:_ oog_:g:ro _:b:__go ob_rgo|, o:r:r__ __g__o|
_o|_ooo_r |:o_:roo__. o:r:r__ __g__o| go__r:__r_g-_o|_ooo_ro _o-
Jo:ro ob__: !86 b_g| :oo_g__b__go roo:boo - ,b_gb:__oo :o:go", |:_:_
_:go oobg__: og_:_o| _o__o_r |:o_:roJo _: _gro :b|:___go| :_:_:b:
oo_b_g|. __g__o| o_or_ _o|_ooo_ro roo:bo _b_: _b__o__ro __|o_roo_b-
__o| orog_o:_o_:| _: o:b__oo_ro gor_|_o| |:JoJro_:|. ,:b_ogoo: _:
_:_g:" oogoobro| oo|_-:_:oo:b_r oo1:_ro:1_ __:boJo, roo_go_
oo|_-_:_:|_ro__g |_:_o:Jo: _:, oo_b__:g:_ ooro| o___goo|: J_o_bo|
o:go|o b:r|_go, |r_go:_ o_:r_:. ,b:r_gbo| b_go" o|_g _r_b__: oo oro-
g_o:_o_:|, roo_go_ :bbog_go: ,:b_ogoo: _: _:_g:Jo", o_o_: :o roo:bo|
oo:g:r _or|_:| oo:g:ro ooro, oo|_-:_:oo:bo o:b:bb:g: _oo b:roo:__b|.
roogo| __b:_ro |b__go o_b_: |_:_oo| _ro-_roo :___:g_ro |:_oobo.
Dimiter Alexandrov
223
()
()

( )

.
, -
.
, ,
-
. ,
, , .

. ,
,
. -
,
.
-
. -
,
,
. ,
.
-
, ,
, , -
.

. 1990- -
. ,
-
-
.
3 :
1. . . . , -

(Dagut 1976:22).
2. . . ,
o:ro:bo| o_oro:
224
- , -
(Mason 1982:149).
3. , -
. -
. 5 (dead,
cliche, stock, recent, original) :
, -
;
;
;

, ;
(Newmark 1998: 58).
-
.
. , -
,
. (Tabakowska 1993: 67). -
, -
, . -

, , .
,
-
. . , -
(different mapping
condition) :
;
;
;
(Mandelblit 1995: 488-493).
, -
.
-
: ,
, , , -
, - (Maalej 2007: 134).
-
. -
: -
. ber die verschiedenen
Methoden des bersetzens ( ) . -
:
, ,
()
225
, .
,
(Schleiermacher). -
XX ., .,
.. . ,
, -
.
(Steiner 1975:378). .
. ,
,
. , -
(Venutti 1995:17-19). ,
, .
,
.
. -
. ,
. -
, -
; ,
. ,
, ,
() (),
(Nida 1982: 159).

. . .
: .
, -
, .
, ,
-
,
. ,
, , ().
, -
, .

. . . . ,
,
, , -
(, 1994: 159-161).
, , -
, ,
. -
( )
226
, -
.
, -
(Waard 1974:113).

. -
: New King James Version (KJV) ,
,
1976 ; Todays English Version (TEV) ,
. 1976 , Good News Translation;
New Living Translation (NLT) 1996 , -
; The Message (MSG) -
, 1993 ; Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
2006
; Jewish New Testament (JNT) . , -
, 1989 .
BibleGateway.com.
-
(. 6:22 . 11: 34) , -
.
.6:22 ( )
. ,
,
; ,
.
. 11: 34 ( )
; ,
, -
; ,
.
-
. ,
, , . -
, oftalmos
luhnos .
. ,
:
.6:22 (NKJV)
The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore
your eye is good, your whole body will be full
of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole
body will be full of darkness.
. 11: 34 (NKJV)
The lamp of the body is the eye. Therefore,
when your eye is good, your whole body also
is full of light. But when your eye is bad, your
body also is full of darkness.

-
.
. . -
()
227
, ,
. , ,
, , , ,
( 2004: 68). , -
,
:
.6:22 (JNT)
The eye is the lamp of the body. So if you
have a good eye, that is, if you are generous
your whole body will be full of light; but if you
have an evil eye, if you are stingy, your whole
body will be full of darkness.
. 11: 34 (JNT)
The lamp of your body is the eye. When
you have a good eye, that is, when you are
generous, your whole body is full of light; but
when you have an evil eye, when you are
stingy, your body is full of darkness.

,
,
.
,
, 22-23 ,
, , .
,
(luhnos) (oftalmos).
, , -
.
. :
.6:22 (TEV)
The eyes are like a lamp for the body. If
your eyes are sound, your whole body will be
full of light; but if your eyes are no good, your
body will be in darkness.
. 11: 34 (TEV)
Your eyes are like a lamp for the body.
When your eyes are sound, your whole body is
full of light; but when your eyes are no good,
your whole body will be in darkness.

of, -
(tou somatos), for,
. -
-
.
NLT , -
:
.6:22 (NLT)
Your eye is a lamp that provides light for
your body. When your eye is good, your whole
body is flled with light. But when your eye is
bad, your whole body is flled with darkness.
. 11: 34 (NLT)
our eye is a lamp that provides light
for your body. When your eye is good, your
whole body is flled with light. But when it is
bad, your body is flled with darkness.
( )
228
The Message . :
.6:22 (MSG)
Your eyes are windows into your body.
If you open your eyes wide in wonder and
belief, your body flls up with light. If you live
squinty-eyed in greed and distrust, your body
is a dank cellar.
. 11: 34 (MSG)
Your eye is a lamp, lighting up your
whole body. If you live wide-eyed in wonder
and belief, your body flls up with light. If you
live squinty-eyed in greed and distrust, your
body is a dank cellar.

-
, .
,
.
ERV :
.6:22 (ERV)
The only source of light for the body is
the eye. If you look at people and want to help
them, you will be full of light. But if you look
at people in a selfsh way, you will be full of
darkness.
. 11: 34 (ERV)
The only source of light for the body is
the eye. When you look at people and want to
help them, you are full of light. But when you
look at people in a selfsh way, you are full of
darkness.

, .
,
. -
.
,
.
, -
, -
: - , - . -
, - -
. (, 2004: 94)
, - -,
.
.
, , -

. , ,
, , -
-
. XX ,
,
,
.
()
229
:
Beekman, John, Callow, John. Ne iskajaya slova bojiya. Sankt Petersburg: 1994. ( ., .
: , 1994.)
Dagut, Michael. Can metaphor be translated? Babel, 32 (1976): 21-33.
Desnitskiy, Andrew. Teoriya perevoda posle E.Nida. http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/1595663.html#_ftn9.
(, . . : ).
Maalej, Zouhair. Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis. Cognitive Linguistics in Critical
Discourse Analysis: Application and Theory. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007.
Mandelblit, Neli. The Cognitive View of Metaphor and its Implications for Translation Theory.
Translation and Meaning. Part 3. Maastricht: Universitaire Press, 1995.
Mason, Kirsten. Metaphor and Translation. Babel, 28 (1982): 140-149.
Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation. New York: Prentice Hall, 1998.
Nida, Eugene. Toward a science of translation. Brill: Leiden, 1982.
Lakoff, George, Johnson, Mark. Metafori, kotorymi mi jivem. Moskva, 2004. (, ., , .
, . , 2004).
Tabakowska, Elzbieta. Cognitive Linguistics and Poetics of Translation. Tbingen: Gunter Narr Verlag,
1993.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des Uebersezens. http://www.bible-
researcher.com/schleiermacher.html
Steiner, George. After Babel: aspects of language and translation. London: Oxford University Press,
1975.
Stern, David. Kommentariy k evreyskomu novomu zavetu. Moskva, 2004. (, .
. , 2004).
Venuti, Lawrence. The translator's invisibility: a history of translation. London: Routledge, 1995.
Waard, Jan. Biblical metaphors and their translation. The Bible translator, 25 (1974): 107-116.
Deacon Peter (Shitikov)
On the Issue of Translation of Metaphor
(with reference to evangelical texts)
Summary
Key words: metaphor, translation, translation theory, evangelical texts.
In the paper author considers theoretical and practical aspects of translating
metaphor with reference to evangelical concept THE EYE IS THE LAMP OF THE
BODY. The main diffculty in the process of metaphor translation is the present of
differences in metaphorical systems of Source and Target languages. As the tool of
showing of conceptual picture of the world, Metaphor is always based on the national
mentality. So when we plan to translate it we can take account of the differences between
concept-building in different languages.
In the frst part of the paper author examines theoretical approaches to the metaphor.
There are two main approaches to theoretical rethinking of the metaphor in contemporary
investigates. Traditional linguistic considers metaphor as fgure of speech at all. It means
( )
230
that metaphorical phrase can be transformed into non-metaphoric form without any loss
of meaning. Cognitive linguistic is aware of role of the metaphor as the main tool of
cognitive processes. In this case translation of metaphorical concept is the problem of
semantic equivalence at frst.
The classical approach to the metaphor applies three different way of its
translating.
1. Metaphor is not translatable (E.Nida, M. Dagut)
2. Metaphor can be translated as every other word (K,Mason)
3. Metaphor can be translated, but there are an inter-linguistic and inter-cultural
limits for it (P.Newmark, Van den Broeck).
P.Newmark shows different ways to translate metaphorical fgures: To preserve the
same metaphor to substitute it for other metaphor to change it for comparison to add
an explanations to translate metaphor by paraphrase.
The cognitive approach to the metaphor means that its translation is the inter-cultural
process, so it is too hardly to translate the metaphor adequately. Therefore translation of
metaphor, which based on cultural factors, cant be examined as linguistic phenomenon. So
for adequate translation of conceptual metaphor one must deeply know intercultural ties.
However the practical rules of translation suggested by cognitive linguistics researchers
are the same as traditional one. N. Mandelblit considers certain practical operations: To
translate metaphor as comparison to translate it by paraphrase to explain sense of
metaphor on notefood remove it in translation.
The question about conditions of metaphors keeping in translation is important too.
The second part of the paper deals with this question. The question of metaphor keeping in
translation is linked with theoretical decisions about role of form of original text.
There are two trends in theory of translation: The keeping of the form of original
text (F. Schleiermacher, M. Heidegger, G. Steiner) and the neglecting of it. The frst way
considers that demetaphorization of original text in translation is the depletion of its initial
expression. The second way shows that metaphor can and must be eliminate in translation
in any convenient case. F. Schleiermacher suggests two way for overcoming language
and cultural barriers: to bring the reader to understanding of foreign actual of original
text, or to change the text for comfort of readers. For author the act of translation is the
act of violence for original. Readers dont feel that they read texts of another culture.
Replacement of metaphor brings us to depletion of original, and only keeping of the
metaphor allows us to touch culture of original text.
Other theoreticians of translation believe that the aim of translation is to transfer the
meaning of original without strong biding with its form. E. Nida designates two kinds of
translation: formal equivalence, when translator follow the form of original; and functional
equivalence, when translators aim is to bring the meaning of text closer to reader.
Neglect of the form of original is the basis of popular theory of the scopos (K.
Rise, H. Fermeer), which claims that the action is formed by its aim. Text dont exist per
se but it belongs to culture, so when we transfer text into another culture we change it
inevitably. Translator must transform original text for cultural comfort of readers.
In the third part of the paper author illustrates how these theoretical aspects of
metaphors translation are realized in practice. As a stuff of research was used different
kind of English translations of The Bible, such as: New King James Version, Todays

231
English Version, New Living Translation, The Message, Easy-to-Read Version, Jewish
New Testament.
This analysis demonstrates that there are a varieties in the modes of translation
transformations of metaphor, but the conceptual principles of translators are equal. They
know that THE LIGHT IS GOOD, THE DARKNESS IS BED.
Author proposes the resume, that neglecting of source form of metaphor for readers
comfort is the worse way in translating. When metaphors are abolished, semantic power of
original text is weaken. Researchers of XX century show it clearly that the metaphor cant
be boiled down to literal meaning without semantic losses. So the rejection of metaphor in
translation is the depriving of cultural context and aesthetical power
_o:_g:bo o__r_ (Jo_o_ogo)
(r_|_oo)
o__:_oro| o:ro:bo| |:_oob_o
(|:b:r_o| _____o| oob__goo)
r_1o_o_
|:_g:boo |o__g_o: o__:_or:, o:ro:bo, o:ro:bo| o_oro:, |:b:r_o|
___|__o.
|_:_oo| oo:g:r :oo_:b:| b:roo:__b| o__:_oro| o:ro:bo| o_oro-
_go _: or:__o__go :|o____o| b:roob_b: |:b:r_o|__go b:roo__bo|
- ,og:go |b__go| ob:ooo:" _:oobo_oo. o__:_oro| o:robo| _ro-_ro
|oro_g_| b:roo:__b| b_:ro|: _: |:o:robo _bo| o__:_or_go |o|__oo|
:b|bg:g__go:. o__:_or:, roo_go_ o|o_goo| _ob__o__:g_r |_r:o|
_obo|, ooroo:_:_ _rogb_g o_b_:go:1_: _:__ob__go. o:robo| _ro|
oo:rob_go: _og_gogo| _b_: :oog:go|bobo| _| :|o___o.
|_:_oo| oorg_g b:bogJo __r:___: _ooo: o__:_oro|:_oo o_oro_g
oo_oo:|. :r|_o| oro ooroo:_o oo_oo: :o |:_oobJo: _r:_o_o_go gob-
go|_o_: o__:_or:| ooobb_g| |:_ro|:ogo| _:o:b:|o:o__g _o_r:_ _:
oggo|, roo o__:_or_go _:1: J_oog_: :r_:o_ob:| :r:o__:_or_g _or-
o:_ oboJgb_goo| _:_:rgo| :r_J_, _obo__ro gobgo|_o_: _og_gogo|
b:1| _|g:o| oo:|, roo o__:_or: J_o__b_o| oro__|o| :b__o__go _: oboJ-
gb_gog:bo b:bogo:. :o J_oobg_g:Jo o__:_or_go _b_o| o:rob:, oorg_g ro-
Jo |_o:b_o__ro __gog:g_b_oo| orog_o:| b:rooJo|.
_g:|o__ro oo_oo: o__:_oro| o:robo| |:o |bg:_:|bg: 1:|
go:g:1o|:
!. o__:_or: :r :ro| o:rob:_o (_.bo_:, o._:__o)
2. o__:_or: J_oog_: oo:robo|, roor_ _g_g: _:b:rb_bo |o__g:
(_.o:b|obo),
3. o__:_or: o:rob:_o:, o_o_: :r|_o| ob__r-gobgo|__ro o_
ob__r-__g__r_go b:rbo_o, roo_gJo_ o| _b_: oo____| (o.bo_o:r_o, g:b _b ro_o).
( )
232
o. bo_o:r_o gobg_b_| |bg:_:|bg: oo_oo:| o_ roor _b_: oo:robo|
o__:_or:: J_gob:rb_boo o__:_or:, oob__| oo|o b:b:_gg_: |bg: o__:_o-
roo, J_o_g:go| J__:r_ooo o__:_oroo, _:_o:_o| :bo:r___o, o__:_or:
oo:robo| o_r__r:1oo.
_obo__ro oo_ooo| o:b:bo:_, o__:_oro| o:rob: :ro| ob__r-__g-
__r_go oro__|o _: _| :ro_g_| o__:_oro| :___g:__r o:ro:b|. :oo_oo
o__:_oro| o:ro:bo, roo_go_ __g__r_g _:__or_1_: _:oo_o___go,
:r J_oog_: :bgobogoo roor_ gobgo|__ro __boo_bo. J_|::oo|:_,
o__:_oro| o:ro:bo|:ogo| |:goro: _ro: ob__r__g__r_go bo:_|gg_o|
J_o__b_: _: J_|b:gg:. o_o_: o:ro:bo| ooroo:_o b_|_o, roo_g|:_
_obo__ro gobgo|_o o_gg_g:r_o go:g:1o_b _r:_o_o_go| o|:g|o:.
b. o:b__go_o r:o__boo_ or:__o__g oo_o___:| go:g:1o|: o__:_oro|
roor_ J__:r_o| o:rob: - o:r:_r:1oo o:rob: - o__:_oro| ooroo:_o
:1ro| :b|b: - o:ro:bJo oo|o _:_:rg:.
o:ro:bJo o__:_oro| _:_og_o| |:_oobo oboJgb_gog:bo :oobg_g::.
|_:_oo| o_or_ b:bogo |bor__ :o |:_oobo| _gg_g:| _o|:b_r_:. o__:_oro|
J_b:rb_b_: o:robo|:| _:_:gJor__go: o_oro_g oo_oo_o:b, roo_go_
___|_o| oroob:go| _oroo| oboJgb_go:| o_gg_g|.
o:ro:bo| o_oro:Jo oro ooo:ro_g_: J_oog_: :oog_oo: _roo:
oroob:go ___|_o| _oroo| J_b:rb_b_: (_.Jg:o_ro:b_ro, o. :o___ro,
.J_:ob_ro), o_or_ - oorg_go oo_ooo| _:r_o_:. oorg_go 1: _go|boo|,
roo oroob:go ___|_o| __o__:_oro1:_o: _o_:g| oo| :1r|: _: _or__g_:|.
o_or_ oo_ooo| o:b:bo:_, o:robo| _ro| o__:_or: J_og_o|_:g:r:_ _b_:
o_o| :oo___go ___|_o_:b.
_. Jg:o_ro:b_ro 1b_orogo _: __g__r_go :ro_ro| _:og_go| or 1:|
go:g:1o|, o_oobg_go|:ogo| __ro :_gog:_ :|:_o roo :b__| ___|_o,
oo:rob_go _b_: __:_o| o_oobg_g1_ oo| oor_:|. J___:_ o:robo|
oro__|o ,o:gooor_ooo :__:_" J_oog_: b:oog:go|, r:_:b:_ o_:r_:
o| r:_ oroob:gJo: _: o_oobg_g_| :r :_go ooo| J_rob_:, roo o|obo |bg:
__g__ro| o:_:r__g ___|_| __boo:b. o__:_oro| b:b:_gg_:| oog_:g:ro
oroob:go ___|_o| :__:|_r_:o__ _: obogo_ o__:_oro| J_b:rb_b_oo
o_ o_b_: J_|:og__go oo __g__r_go _:|__go_o| J_rob_:, roo_go_
___|_o| ___:bJo:.
o:ro:bo| |bg: o_or__o_o|_o ooobb_g_b, roo o:ro:bo| b_gogb_o|
oo1:bo:, roo oob__| ___:bJo :r|__go ooroo:_o :1r_o| :_oo_:b:,
o_o_: :r :ro| :__og__go, roo _| oob__| oroob:gJo :r|__go _orooo.
_.bo_: o:ro:bo| or _oo| :oo_o_|: _oroo|oo_ro J_|::oo|o:, ro__|:_
oo:rob_go ___:bo| _oro:| oo_g_:, _: __b__oob:g_ro _og_:|o:,
ro__|:_ oo:rob_go| oo:g:r :oo_:b:| o_oobg_go|:ogo| ___|_o| ___o
J__bo: b:roo:__b|.
_oroo| _:r_o_: :ro| ooo_g:r_go o_oroo| - ,|_ooo|o|" :ooo:g:go
b_r_ogo (_. ro|_ _: . __ro__ro), roo_go_ :_b:__|, roo oo1bo_:b :ooo-
_ob:r_ b__: _o___o| b:oo_:go_:. ___|_o o:go|o:g:_ :r bb__:, :r:o__
oo___ogb_: r:oo_ __g__r:|, :oro:_ ro__|:_ go:roboo o:|, oo|o
|:b__ggog_: :r_:_g:go oro__|o:. oo:rob_go: _b_: oo:b_rbo| ___|_o|
o_oobg_g1_ oor_:.

233
marine turaSvili
(|:_:rog_go)
1_ooro o|_oroo| o_oro_go _: o_oo_ogoo_ro
_gg_go| |:_oob_o
1_ooro o|_oroo|, roor_ o:b:o__rog_ o__bo_r_go |__ro|, o_oo-
_ogoo: |bg:_:|bg: b_:ro_:b ooo_ob:r_o|. oo|o :oo__b_: XlX |:___bo|
40-o:bo bg_o_:b _:|:gg_oo| :_:__oo_r br__Jo |:_o:o_ ooo_g:r_go :b_:.
o:| J_o__, r:_ o_gg_g:ro 1_ooro o|_oroo| roo_goo_ _ro :br1_ J_b_r__:,
J_o_oo |:__b_r| o_oro_go |:__oggo| J_rb_g: b:roo:__b|.
oo_b__:g:_ ooo|:, roo o|_oro_o|_o |:__o:r b:Jroo_Jo o_oro_go
oo_ooo| :r_g__g b:or|:b_o_| o__b__b, :r|__go go__r:__ro| oooo-
bogg: oo:1_ oo_ooo_|, roo :oo_gg_g_Jo |:oo ooroo:_o o_oro_go oo_-
oo: :ooorb_g:: _go_:r_goJ:r:_go_:r_go, _ro_o__go _: _:__ob_o|.
_go_:r_goJ:r:_go_:r_go o_oroo| og:g|:1ro|oo, _:g: o_o:1_
_go_:r_go 1_ooro o|_oro: :r:_go_:r_go 1_ooro o|_oroo| bob::_o__
ooroo:_:_ oo|o :oo__b_o_:b ooo_ob:r_o|, :b_ gob __ro o__:_ oo|:b_r_|
b:b_r:|. o:o:o:_ J_oog_: oo_g:|, roo :_boJb_go |:_oobo o_gg_g:ro:
oo_r __ro o__:_:: :oo_gg__go, go_r_ 1_ooro o|_oroo| o_oroo| _:
o_oo_ogooo| |bg: |:_oob_o.
_go_:r_go 1_ooro o|_oro: bJor:_ :bobog_: 1_ooro o|_oroo| b:-
bog:_, roor_ _| :g:b b_gob|o: b:roo:_ob: _og_ooo| _bog_r|o___Jo.
o:g_:oorg_g:_ o| J___o_: :oob_bogo o:o:_:__o| _bogr_o| :b:ro-
Jo|::b, roo_g|:_ o|obo |o_o_bg_Jo ::r__b_b _:, roo_go_ !48 b_g|
_og_ooo| _bog_r|o___o| 1_ooro o|_oroo| oror:ooo _:ob_o.
_go_:r_go| |:bob::_o__o: :r:_go_:r_go oor_o|, :b_ bg__g_rogo
:_:oo:b_o|, ob__rgo_| or:__o_: - o|_oro: _g_oo_:b 1_ooo. :o o__o|
:_r__g ooobr__:_ !50-60-o:b bg_Jo ro_:b_go 1_ooro o|_oroo| |o_-
_o:go|__o g_ggob_o:b. o:Job, ro_: :o_ro__go: o_gg_g:r_o: _| o__: :_-
_o_r:_ obogo_ 60-o:bo bg_o_:b :o_:__|.
o_gg_g:ro: :r_g__go b:bogo ob:r| _g_r| :r:_go_:r_g 1_oor o|-
_oro_| _: oo| :oo__b_:|. 1oo_ro oroooob_b_|, o:., :ro o_ooro|,
oo:bbo:, roo :r:_go_:r_g oo_oo:| :_:ob_g__o oboJgb_go: :_g| 1_ooro
o|_oroo| ob_ogo__:g_roo|ogo|. o_ooro :_boJb:g|, roo ,1_ooro o|_oro:
o|_oroo| :___bo|ogo| :b__ogbogo |:J_:g_: :b obogo_ o_oo_o _o :r
:ro|, oo oo:g_ro_g:_ o|_oroo| o_oro::, roo_go_ :o__o__|, roo _-
r:go :_:oo:b_|:_ _: o:__ro:g_r __oog___o:| oo_g__go:_ |:__o:ro
o|_oro: :_go _: _| o|_oro: _b_: o_o| _o__o_b_or__go" (Okihiro 2001: 42).
:o _:oo_o___g_:| _bo:_r_: oobo:_og|_:. !60-o:bo bg_o| r_go-
g__o_o| _ro|, 1_ooro o|_oroo| |o__o:go|__| oo_g o|o_gooJo __ro
_: __ro bg__g_rogo :_:oo:b_o| (,___go" _: ,o|_oroo|:b _:o:g_go" -
_og_goro|_o_:
234
roor_ o:o 1o__r go__r:__r:Jo ooob|_b__b) _og_g__o_ro _bogr_o|
:|:bgo| o__: o1o_:g_:.
|:ogoo |o__g: :o o_o:1_ ___:r_ |_b_o :og|o: o_g:, roo_go:_ _g_-
g:1_ o_:_oo_ b:roo:bob: |:__o:ro b__g::
,_go_o1ooJ:r:_go_o1oo ooo:goog_ |:|:_ogo __o__r_|o_o: _: o:o
Joro| :r :r|_o| r:_:_ _ro: __|_r_go. or_ob:g_ro :r:gob::, ,_o_o
:_:oo:b_o_" or:gg:_:: _: o:oo oogb: :r_ o_ o|_ ob_go:" (Ives 1995: 11).
!60-o:bo bg_o| J_o__ or:g:go 1_ooro o|_oroo| oror:o: oo1b:_
o|:b:g_: o|_oroo| ogooobogg_go: oo|:1r__o| b:b_r:|. :_boJb_go |:-
o_J:o, roor_ :oob_bog, :|_g_ bg__g_rog :_:oo:b_o:b, |:_gg_go o_oo|
J_|::oo|o ob__rgo__o| :r_g__g _ooob:_o:| b:roo:__b_: _: oo|o |:-
b_o|o o_oro_go |:__og_go_ J_og_o|_:g:r:_ :J____go o_o.
_ro_o__go o_oroo| |:b_o| b_:ro| go__r:__r_go _ro_o_o| |__-
ro b:roo:__b|. o_o_:, J_o_ooJo o| or:g:go _o:bo_:r_go _: |:1o-
:_o_rogo o__bo_r_o| b:bog:_ o__:, roo_go: _:rg_Jo_ 1_ooro o|-
_oro: :ooo__b_:. oo_b__:g:_ ooo|:, roo _ro_o__g o_oro:| _gro ooobr_
_:g| :o_ro_o| J__ro__g J_:__Jo, |:o:rogo:b:_ J_oog_: oo_g:|, roo
oo|o :gg_b: _groo:Jo _o__g __ro _o_o:, :b|:__or_oo, _o_ ro_:b_o|:
_: o_:go:Jo, |:_:_ b:o_g:bo: 1_ooro o|_oroo| oo_g:b_o: b:Jroo_Jo _g:-
|orogo |:_oob_o. _ro_o__g o_oro:| _1r_bg_g_o_| _boboo: b:roob_bo|:
_: J_b___g__o| :__r_o| _ob____o:, _| :b|:__or_oo _b_: |__||,
_g:||, r:|:| _: _obo||. :o _:__or_o| _gg_g:|o:b _:_:gJor__go o_oro_go
orob_oo_o_:b :|_g_ _boogo:, roo oooo__g _g_-___| J_oog_: |:__o:ro
oo1o_o: _ob__| (r:_, o:go| obrog, :gg_b:| :b__b| 1_ooro o|_oroo|
oro___o| _gg_go| b:b:_o_r1_).
_ro_o__go o_oro: __r:___:| :o:bgog_| ___g_o_1_, o:J:|:-
_:o_, o| _:ob__r_|__go: _go_:r_goJ:r:_go_:r_go| bob::_o__ |:_o-
ob_o| :J___oo. :o:|o:b, o:b J_oog_: b:roo:_obo| |:1o:_o_o| oro-
g_ ob:r_: _go_:r_go_ _: :r:_go_:r_go_. oo_b__:g:_ ooo|:, roo _go-
_:r_goJ:r:_go_:r_go |:1o:_o_o| b_gr_o J_oog_: oogo_o__r:_
oo_ogor__gbo o_gb_b. o|obo obogo_ o:Job :r :ro:b oogo_o1or__gbo,
ro_: _ro_o__go o_oroo| |o__o:go|_o: _o___|o: _:__:r:g:_ __ogo|
o:o oogo_o1or_:|.
_:__ob_o| o_oro: o:g_:oorg_g:_ b:roo:__b_: ooobogb:|, roo
o_gg_g:r_o :rb__g |:_oob| oooo_1o| :b bob:|b:r ::1r__go b:r-
oo__bo| :r_J_ oo__b_b. oorogb_:|o:b :b ___o:b _gg_go| oro__|Jo
o__bo_r_| |:__o:ro _:|_gb_o :b oo|:1r__o _gg_go| o|gg_go:Jo
oooog__go ob_oro:_oo| :b:go1o| _: oo|o b_g:bg: :_:oobo_o| 1oo
J__ogo:o b:oo:_:goob. o_ o_gg_g:ro oro___| bob:|b:r ::1r__go
oo_oooo (:r_: oo J_oobg_go|:, ro_: oo| oo1:b| __g_ :r|__go o_oroo|
___:g_ro _:o_J:g_: _: :_ro:g_: b:roo:__b|) :r ob__|, :r:o__ |:-
J_:g_:| :og_g| ob_oro:_oo_:b g:r:__o ogooob :oo_og_og__|, |bor__
:___:b ooo_ob:r_o| ob_oro:_o:1_ _:__ob_o| o_oro:.
1_oor o|_oro:Jo _| o_oro: b:roob_bogo: :r_g__go, oo|ogo| _:-
o:b:|o:o__go, ogo|__oo, roog_o_ _gg_go| b:b:_o_r1_ _o_ :gg_b:|
o:rob_ __r:Jgogo
235
:b__b_b. _g_g:1_ oboJgb_gog:bo o| _:__o:, roo 1_ooro o|_oroo| _:__ob_o|
o_oroo| 1oo_roo ooo__g:ro o_gg_g:r_o|::b oooobog| :r _ob__o
bob:|b:r ooo1:___go _oobg_o :b :b|:1_gr_go |:_oob_o. :o __:b:|_b_go|
J_|:b_ _oo_|obo :_boJb:g|:
,_g_g:1_ _o_o :r_o_b_o, roo_go_ o:go|__g:_ ooo_ob:r_ ob__r-
go_| _:|:_:g:_ :ooo__b_: o|::, ro_: oo|o oo:g:ro _:boJb_g_: :r: oo-
__b:_ ob_oro:_oo| oooog_::, :r:o__ obroooo ob__rgo_| |_o____ro b:-
b:b_r_o| b:roo_: ooo| J_|:b_, o_ roor ___r_| o:o:_:_o :b _:go |:__o:r
_bogr_:| b:r|_gJo (oogo:bo:Jo :b roo_goo_ oob:_g_oo:b ooo:ro_:Jo).
o|, o_ roor |:_ro_b o|obo :oo| J_|:b_, oo_ogo|:| o:g| r:| :ro___b,
r: o:booo__gro:| orb_g_b, b:1| r:| _|g:o_b _: r: |o__g_oo :_oo|__o_b.
:_boJb_go |:_oob_o oboJgb_gog:bo: b_o|oo_ro ob__rgo_| ::1r_o|ogo|
_: |_roo1_g _gg_g:| |:goro_|" (Tompson 2000: 227).
o_gg_g:ro: :r_g__go b:bogo :|_o b__g:| :r o1o:r_|. o:., oor__-
go ooobb_g|, roo ,|:g|_ _o:goo" ob__rgo_|:_oo oo_bog oo_oo:| oo-
oobog|, o:r:o :r: b:_r_ggo:|. oo|o J_b___g_oo _:__ob_o| o_oroo|
o:obog__go _b_: oo:Jo o_oo:r_o|, roo _ro: _o:goJo _oobg_o o:-
|_b_o_:b :ooo_ob:r_ o:go|o:g:_ o:__: (Portelli 2007).
_:__ob_o| o_oroo| _o__g _ro oboJgb_gog:b |:_oob|, roo_go:_
1_oor o|_oro:Jo_ oog: :_ogo, _ob__b_r:_o: b:roo:__b|. __r:___:
:|:o:bgog__go: :r: obogo_ r_|oob__b_o| oo_r b:rooo_o_g |o__g_1_,
:r:o__ o:o _|_o__g:_o:|: _: _o1o__r r_:__o:1_, r:|:_ 1_ooro o|_oroo|
_gro o_oro_go ooo:ro_g_o| |o__o:go|_o oog:go|bob_|.
1_ooro o|_oroo| 1oo_ro o_gg_g:r|, roo_go: |:_oo:bo:| _:__o-
b_o| o_oro: :|:1r_o_|, |__r:, roo oro__|o| oorg_g b:o_| |:_oobo|
_gg_g: _b_: b:roo:__b__|. o_gg_g:ro: __r ob__rgo_ _b_: _:ob_o| _:
obogo_ :oo| J_o__, ro__|:_ o_o_o _: orog_o_o :oo_og_og__: J_o_ooo
_:_gorg_o|ogo|, J_oog_: _o__o_b__o| _gg_go| _:b__:.
b:Jrooo| _:|:b_o|Jo J_g__:__o 1_ooro o|_oro_o| o_oro_go |:-
_oob_o| :bbogg:|, :o__r:_ __g_ J_g_b_oo 1_ooro o|_oro_o| b:b_ro|
o_oo_ogoo_r |:_oob_|, r:_ _o__g __ro oboJgb_gog:bo: b:ro|bo:bo
|:_gg_go o:|:go|, 1_ooro o|_oroo|, oo|:oog_g:_.
b:ro:___go ob__rgo_| :bbor_og_o| :|:__| Job:_r_g |o__-
:_o:Jo |:_:ro b:roo:__b|. ob__rgo_| o|gg_goo| |_ogo oo___roo__go,
_g:b_ogo _: o_or_go _b_: o_o|, o_o_:, |:goro_o| J_oobg_g:Jo, :oo-
obg_go_. _g_g: ob__rgo__ro g:g___go:, roo r_|oob__b_o: o:go|__-
g:_ orobo| o:go, __r:___oo oo_|oobo| |:o_o_g| _: |_oo_go oo|__|
_g:b_og:_ _o:|_bob J__oobg_|. oo|o_bo| _b:ro o:go|o:g:_ :r oo_o| _:
ob__rgo__r_| _gro o_J:o: o:ro_o :oo| oo|:_b_g:_.
ob__rgo_ :r_g__gbog:_ b:roo__b::. :r: o:r_o ob__rgo__r_o
__ogo_b |:o:b:_o_ ooo1:__:|, :r:o__ bJor:_ r_|oob__b__o_ __g:g_b
ooo| :oo, o_ roor J_og__b Jor__go b:r|_go| :o_o| ooob_:|, r:_:b
o:oo |:o:b:_o_ b:roob_b: _b_:o. :r:go| |_r| _go:gob_:_ :b :oob:_go|
_b:r| oo_g__g:_ oog_bg_bo|.
ob__rgo__r_o ob__rgo_| oro__|o| o:b:oob:bog_bo _b_: :b_b_b _:
1_ooro o|_oroo| o_oro_go _: o_oo_ogoo_ro_gg_go| |:_oob_o
236
r:o__b:_:_ J_|:og__go: _:_bo:rob r_|oob__b__| _g:b_ogo:|: _:
|o1_|__Jo. |:b_g_o|, o:ro__o| _: |bg: |:bo| ob_oro:_oo| oobo__o|:|
ob__rgo_r_o: r_|oob__b__| o:o Joro| _o:goo| J___bo| _1o _b_:
oo|__b, r:|:_ o:oJo |_rgogo| :r:r|_oo|, |:__o:r o:gJo b:___ogoo|,
:bb_oo| J__ggo|, b:r|_go| _gbr__go _: ogoo_ro_o__go J__:|_o|
:oobg_g:Jo :_:ob_g__o oboJgb_go: _bog_:.
_g_g: _ooo| ob__rgo_ :r_g__go b_|_o|: _: boro_o| _:_go| oo-
b__goo _b_: :bbor_o_g__|. _|_bo:: |:o_J:o| bob:|b:ro J_|r_g_:, |r_go
o1:_ _o_b:, Job::r|o:bo, o:r:o oo___roo__go J__oobg_o| ooo1:__:,
r_|oob__b__o|ogo| o:|_b_o| J__b_g___go:, o:|_bJo oo|o_bogo o_oo|
:bgr_o:, b:ob_ro :_g_rgogoo| 1__oob_gboo _o_b:, oooog__go b:b:-
b_r_o| 1_|_:_ _:o_J:g_: _: _oo_o| :og:go|bob_:.
ob__rgo__ro ob__rgo_| b:b_r:o__ _b_: :__bo| b_o|oo_r ob_or-
o:_o:| oo:g:ro o_oo|: _: ooo:g:go r_|oob__b__o|, o:oo o_:b_o|, b:r-
o:___o|: _: b:r_o:__go_o| J_|:b_. _oorg_g_| _oggo|:, r_|oob-
__b__o| _bogr_o| |:_roo oob:b:1| _: obogo_ :oo| J_o__ J_:g|o| o|
___:g_oo. b:_oob_go _b_: o_o| _g_g: b_goo|:bg_ooo b_:ro, o:., o_:-
bo|, _:g:_o| :b _:b_|__g_o| _: oo oogg_b_o| o|_oro_o, roog_o_ r_|-
oob__b_o| oorogb_:o :bo_:_:, roo ___o oo:b_obo| ::1r_: _: J__oobg_o|
b:oo_:go_:.
_::r_og__go _rb:g-:1_o_o, :oo_g__b__go :b :oo__g__b__go
_b_:goo_o _: |bg: o|:g|o b_:ro_o _gg_go| |:b_o| b_r_og| b:roo:_-
_b_b. 1oo_ro r_|oob__b_| o|:g|o _ooo| _o__o_b_:_o: ogooo__:Jo
:_g| _:__go, o_o_:, _o___|o: |:_o_|, _o_o:goo_|, :1_o_o_:b
:oob:gr_| _: |bg: |:o:b|ogro o:|:g:| |:__gb:o_|: _: |:r_:__Jo ob:-
b:g|. :__og__go: :o o:|:g_o| ob__rgo_| b:_:r_:o__ :_bo:. :|_g_
J_|:og__go: r_|oo__b__o: ob__rgo_| _ro| b:roo:_obob o_o:|o:b
_:_:gJor__go b:b:b_r_o, b_rog_o _: _o_o|_r:o_o.
ob__rgo_|:ogo| ooo1:__o| :b|:__or_oo |:|:r_go 1:| 1_ooro
o|_oroo| |bg: |o__o:go|__o| b:Jroo_o| :_bo: :b o:oo:b :|:_r_:
b:roo:__b|. o:g_:oorg_g:_ ob__rgo__ro: __g_ :r|__go ob__rgo__o
_b_: :ooo_ggoo|. _o___| J_oobg_g:Jo o_oo__o _roo:b_oo|::b :b|bg:g-
__:, r:_:b o|obo ob__rgo__ro| oro__|oob:go1o1_, r_|oob__b_o| o:-
b:oJroogoo| |_rgog|: _: oo| og_gro___g_g_:1_: _:oo_o___go. J_|:-
:oo|:_, _roo ob__rgo_ o_g_or:_ :b|bg:g__: o_oro|:b. _| _o |bor__ o|
_ro:__roo 1:: ooo| _:|:__b:_, o_ r: |:bo| _oobg_o _:g|g:o. r:_ __ro
o__o o_o| ob__rgo__ro: |:_gg_go |:_oobo| _: oorogb_o| J_|:b_, ooo __ro
:_gogo: oo|ogo| o_or_go :bb_oo| J__ob: _: ob__rgo_| b:ro:___g:_
b:_:r_:.
bob:|b:ro _gg_go| b:_:r_: ob__rgo__r| o|_oo ob_oro:_oo| :_:Jo
_bo:r_:, roo_go_ r_|oob__b_| J_|:og__go: :r :b|og|. oobro_go:
:r_g__g b:bog| :bggogo _bogr_o| ooob_o|:| |r_go |o1_|_oo :r
:b|og| |:b_g_o _: o:ro__o, :o:b _o J_oog_: ob__rgo_ bobJo oo:__oo|.
ob__rgo__r_o o1:_ _b_: o_gb_b ooo|ogo|, roo bob:|b:r o_o_b_b
r: J___o: oo|:go_b_go ob__rgo_|::b _: r: - :r:. o_ r_|oob__b__o|
o:rob_ __r:Jgogo
237
:b_b:___o |bg: b_:ro_| _bob::_o___:, o:o o_oo| :_ro:g_o|__b _b_:
_ooob. :o:b _o J_oog_: |r_go:_ :b:go :|o___o b:roo:bobo|, roo_go_
o:g_:oorg_go _gg_go| b:bog| :r b:roo:__b_:.
ob__rgo__r_o J__oobg_o| bob:|b:r ooo1:__:1_ _gr| _b_: o_J:o-
_b_b _: b:b_:b:b o:o:b :_:|:bg_g:_:_ o1:_ o_gb_b, roo r_|oob__b_o|
oo_r :___g :b|bg:g__g _1| oo_gb_b, _| _o J_|:og__go: oboJgb_gog:bo
ob_oro:_oo| b_:ro_ o___|.
|:|_rg_go: |:goro1_ o__o _oobgo| ooo1:__:, r:_:b 1oo_roo
r_|oob__b_o _o_o bbo| :bo:ggo:Jo _roo _:|o_go _oobgo| :rJ_oo og_g-
ro___g_g_|. :|_oo oobogoo| _ro| J_oog_: o| ob__rgo__ro| b_|bo_:b
ooo__gbo J__oobg_| bob:|b:r ggr__| _: |:_oob_| _oobgo| _:|oo| :r_J_
:bobog:g|. r_|oob__b_o: :r_g__go b:bogo _o o:|_bo| oo_g__ _: o:o
|:_:rJo :__o_ro b:rog: J_o_oo J__oobg_| oooobog|. ob__rgo__ro _b_:
__:_o| o:go ::ro_o| o|_oo _oobg_o| _:|o:|, roog_o_ oo_g_ o:|_b_|
oog:go|bob_|.
oo J_oobg_g:Jo, o_ ob__rgo__r| oo:1_ o__o _oobg: :_g| ooo1:___go,
go_r_ :o:| _roo| 1_g:ro oog:go|bob_|, :o:rog__go: ooo__gbo ob__r-
go_| b:_:r_:.
_ro__r:_o 1_ooro o|_oro_o J_googo: J_g:_:roo ,:__oo _:_r|.
orog_|, ob__rgo__r|:_ _: r_|oob__b_|:_, |:_roo _bo| :oo|:b:b:_ :r-
_g__go _roo| _ro:_ :_:r_: |gor__:o, _| _o ro_go J__oobgo| _:|oo|:
_: _gbr__go o:|_bo|ogo|:: :__og__go. b_o|oo_r :_:oo:b| _g_g: |:goro
___:go| :b|_b_o|ogo| _ro |gor__:. _or:gg_|oo| ob_: 1__oob_gboo
1_|_:_ _: or:bo1__g:_ :r __b__oobor_| _: ooob__o| o__:g_ro
_robogoooo _:b_o: _: o:oo goo__ro _:____: :r J__ogo:, 1oo_ro|
_o - _r:go_ _gro |:o_o_go :r ::bbo:.
ob__rgo__o| _:b__: o_oo| :b oogg_b_o| _g_g:1_ :|:_og:bo _:
oboJgb_gog:bo oorogb__oo _b_: oob__|, r:_:b o|obo o__ __r:___:|
_: o:_ogo|__o:| oo|:b_r__b _: _:ro r_o__:_o:_ :_go |:_oo:bo:|:
o_ |:1o:_o_:Jo. :o:|o:b, oo__b_o_ro r_|oob__b__o _b_: _:g:__-
_oo :|:_o|, o_o:|o:b ooo:ro_o|, _roo|, :_ogo__:r_oo| _: b_goo-
|:bg_oooo| :og:go|bob_oo. J__:r_oo :b:g:1r_: r_|oo__b__o obo-
go__:obogo_ J_o_ooo __:oo|ogo| _b_: J_oogob:boo.
ob__rgo_| oo1:bo _: oro___o| :r|o b_rogooo, |:__g__obo 1:ro|
:b oor:_o _ob_:__o| o_Jg_ooo _b_: :_b:___|. :__og_g:_ _b_: :ob|b:|
r_|oob__b__o|ogo| o_ roor oob__: b:b:b_r_o| _: _r:b|_ro___o|
:oo__b_:. _b_: :_ob_ro| :oo__b_o| __g_o| o_ro_o_go _oro_o,
roogo| _:oobo_:_ r_|oob__b__| oo_b_go. b_rogoooo J___oob_o|:|
:__og_g:_ _b_: oo_oooo| ob_oro:_o: ob__rgo__ro| |:b_go|, g:ro|,
oo|:o:roo|, __g__obo| booro|, ob__rgo_| oo1bo| _: _:_oogo o:ro_o|
J_|:b_. :og:ro _orooo J___oob_o| :1:gb: :b|:__or_oo oboJgb_-
gog:bo: b:bJo J_|_go r_|oob__b__o|:ogo|.
1o__r ob__rgo__r_o _o:g_b bob:|b:r J_bg__r_|, roo_go: J_-
|:og_go: _:oo_o___go: roor_ ob__rgo__ro|, :|_g_ r_|oob__b_o|
o:go|__:g _ro1_. ob__rgo_ _b_: _:o_oo| oobroo_go|:ogo| b_g|:_r_g
238
_ro| _: :r:|_ro| ob__rgo__ro| _:go:b_oo. b:ob_ro :o:r:__r: _b_:
o_o| o|_, roo ob__rgo__ro o:| _:r:_ b__:g__| _: _ro_:_ro oo|o |:o_J:o
o_oo:r_oo| J_oobo_: J__ogo|. :o:g_ _ro|, o| o|_o :_og1_ _b_:
o_o| ooo:g|__go, roo 1__o__:_ :r oooo_ro| r_|oob__b_o| __r:___:.
oobro_g_Jo :_g_rgogo: b:b_:b:b _:o:_go:| obg_g|, o_o_:, _o___-
|o: o:| |_g r:o__boo_ b_oJo ogob__|, o_ o| o:oo og:go|:b o_b:g ooJo-
r_oo:: ooo:g|__go.
_og_goro|__o, gobgo|__o _: :borooogo_o bJor:_ __ogo_b
_or1_ :__g_ob ob__rgo_| ,|o_booo :r_oo_g:", b_o|oo_ro bo: |:__g_|oo
1:r_o_:b - o__:bo| _:g__o| bo:_r:o__.
1o:_:_ ob__rgo_| |__o: oogo:b:_ oro___o| oo1b_1_: _:oo_o___-
go. :r_g__go oro____o|ogo| r_|oob__b_o| oo_go _bogr_o| o|_oroo|
b:b_r:: oo1:bJ_bobogo, |bg_o - _ob__b_r:_o:| oo oogg_b_1_ oooobog|,
roog_Jo_ r_|oob__b__o oob:bog_o_b_b.
o__:g_r J_oobg_g:Jo ob__rgo__r_o J__oobg_o| orog_ |:bo| _oo-
ob:_o:| :ooo__b__b. oorg_go J__oobg: 1o:_o _b_: o_o|, r:o: r_|oob-
__b__| |:J_:g_: oo___o ob_oro:_o: b_:_o_gooo :_oo|__b, |:_o-
obo| J_|:b_ |:__o:ro :1ro :ooo_g:b _: |:_o:ro|o _ro _ob__o J__bob
_g_g: oo ___:g|, roo_go_ o:o oboJgb_gogb:_ oo:bbo:o. |o__o_o__ro
J__oobg_o| :oo__b_: _o _:|:Jg_o: _:__orogo ob_oro:_oo| oooog_-
o|ogo|. o_o_:, ob__rgo__ro obogo_ J__oobg_o| _:|ooo :r:: J_1____go.
_:___o| oo_g:b:|, r_|oob__b_o| oo_r :__o__go :b_b:___o| oo_-
g_ |:boo _o_or_:|, oo_g_ oooobogg_| _: :. J. J__ogo: oobro_go|
|:o:|_bo_ b:__1_:, r:_ _o|__|o:| |oob_:b_ro:| o:__|. J__oobg_|
Joro| o:go|o:g:_ b:oo|_go J_boJgb_o| b:rog: |o__:_o:| :bo_b_:g| _:
:b_o_r:g_|. o_o_:, ob__rgo__r_o: :|_oo b:rog_o 1ooo_r:_ _b_: :ooo__bob,
roo |:__o:ro oo|:1r__oo ob__rgo_| Job::r|o :r _:br_ogob.
_oobg_1_ r_|oob__b_o| oo_g_ o:|_b_o J_oog_: oo_ooo___| ob-
__rgo__ro| oo_r o:go:b _gro |o__o_o__ro J__oobgo| _:|o:| _: b:_g_:_ -
,roor?" _: ,r:_oo?". :|_o J_oobg_g:Jo b:ob_ro ooo__gbo J__oobg:1_ o:go:b
|br:_:_ :_:_o| _: r_|oob__b_Jo g_r :_gog_| ob__r_||.
J_|:og__go: :bbog_go |:_oob_o ob_oo_roo| 1_g:r| :|___|,
r:_ ogoo ob__rgo__ro|: _: r_|oob__b_o| oo_r _b_: o_o| _:__bogo.
:|_g_: o:|o__oo| b:rooo:__bg_o| J_oobg_g:Jo_, o:o |_ro |:1o:_o_o|
og:g|:bobo b:rooo:__bg_o| oor:_o _bogr_o| J_|:b_ o__o_:o__o :-
oob. o_o_:, _og_g :_:oo:b| ob_oo_roo| |:__o:ro :__o: :_g|. ob__rgo_|
o|gg_go:Jo, roor_ ob__rgo__rJo, :|_g_ r_|oob__b_Jo, J_|:og__go:
:bb__| _b_rb_goo| J_rob_:. _gg_go| |:bo| r_g_g:b__roo| _:
o|_oroo| J_b:bgo| oboJgb_goo| _ob1_ :__og_g:_ _b_: oob__| ob-
__rgo__r_o| obro_:b _b_rb_goo| b:ro|bo| :og:go|bob_:, oobro-
_g_o|:_oo _or|__g:_ _: :_oo ooo_ro: _: o:_1o| :oo__b_: ooo|ogo|,
roo r_|oob__b__| o:go| b_gJo :|:_g:b:_ |:_o:ro|o _ro oo___o. o_o_:,
o:Job, ro_: ob__rgo__r| _gro bob: |:o_J:o :_g| b:_:r__go, J__og__go:
_b_rb_goo| :ooobg_go J__oobgoo ooo:roo|. _ro-_roo b_rbo, roogo|
o_Jg_ooo:_ _b_rb_go |:_oobo| b:oogr:: J_|:og__go, _o_:_o| oo_g:b::.
o:rob_ __r:Jgogo
239
ro_g _: _b_rb_g _oobg_1_ r_|oob__b__o: o:g_:oorg_g:_ J_oog_:
oo_g__, _:_|r_g_g:_ _: o:g_:_gooo oo1o_oo_:b _o:|_bob. ob__rgo__ro
|:ob__r_|o |:_oob| ob__rgo_| oro__|Jo oogo:b_oo _b_: oo_r_b__|.
r_|oob__b_o r:_ __ro o__o| :b|b:| __ogo|, ooo __ro _:bgrog_oo _g_:
_: __ogo|, ob__rgo__r| ::_obo|, roo oo|o o:|_b_o __ro _g:b_ogo
_: J__bo_:go b__:. ob__rgo_| |:b_o| __:o1_ |o_robogo| :oob_b: |:goro:
_ob_rob_:_o_go J__oobg_o|:_oo r_|oob__b_Jo ob__rgo__ro| ooo:ro
b_oo| :_goo_:o__ o:ob_.
1_ooro o|_oroo| |o__o:go|__| __g:ro _g_o: oobro_g_o:b :b
:r:o_o_o:g_r :_ogorog :oo::_ob_rg_o:b ob__rgo_| b:_:r_:. :|_o
oorogb__| oJg_bo_ro o|_oro_o :_go, roo_go:_ J_oog_: _og_gor_go
_or__g_:_ _ob__|. o|obo o1:_ :ro:b _| o|_oro_o oogoobrob, oo-
_b__:g:_ ooo|:, roo J_oog_: |_g:_ :r o:|_bo| ob__rgo__ro| J__oobg:|.
oooo__go o:o:bo oogoobro| :o_| b:r|_go| J_|:b_, roo _o__g _rob_g
::_o_bgob, o:_ogo oo:ob _: ___g:b__go:| J_:_:rob.
oob:obroo| b:ro|b1_ oro r:o :b__b| oboJgb_gog:b :gg_b:|: :) :o-
_o| :o_or_: _: ) obroo|:| r_|oob_b_o| oo_r o|_oroo| J_g:o:1_:.
:|_o J_oobg_g_Jo oogg_b_o _roo:b_oJo or_g:, _robogoo: o_grog__:,
b_o: o_gg_: _: _r:oo| _: o_ooro| _g_o_b__o g:ro_b. :o_or__g
o|_oro_|, roor_ b_|o, :b:|o:o_| b_:_o_ro oogg_b_o| :oo_og_:|:
_: :oo_gb:1_ _ob__b_r:_oo| oo_r__og_:. :o_or__go o|_oroo| |:-
bob::_o__o_ |:___o_|o _:_g:| _:r:_ ooo1:___go ob__rgo__ro
b:roo:__b|, roo_g|:_ J__ogo: _1_|_o_o| o_o|o_r:_ :oo_bo: _:
J__|::oo_o|:_oo o:go| :roo_g:. o_o_:, r_|oob__b__| J_oog_:
_|: o_ o| o|_oro: oo__b__r _ob__o :o_or__go, roo o:g_:oorg_go
|boro g:ro:b_o __g_ :_:r :b|og__o. :_|:boJb:go: o| _:__o, roo 1oo_roo
r_|oob__b_o ob__rgo_|:ogo| |::b_o_ _o1:__:, 1oo _o o|_oro_|,
b_o|oo_r |o__:_o:Jo, oorg_gog_ J_obg__r| oo_obro|. o_ ob__rgo__ro o:o
obro:| ::b_g__ob_|, o|obo _:ob_go:b :b _r:go_ J_o__ J_|:og_go:|
_:_go__o:b, roo _| obro: b:roob _o:goJo. r_|oob__b_o|:ogo| :o
o|_oro_| :b|:__or__go oboJgb_go: :_g| _:, roor_ b_|o, oobro_g|
ooo1:___go |o__go| o_o: _b_: _:g:_:_oo.
bg_o| :bo:ggo:Jo o|_oroo| :o_or_: obroo| J___:_ ogooob-
__ror__:_oo| _oro:_ o___g:. :_:oo:b_| :r: obogo_ |:__o:ro b:r|_go
:b|ogo, :r:o__ oo| :_boo_r_:|:_ __ogo_b. J_|::oo|:_, 1_ooro o|-
_oroo| |o__o:go|__| J_b_: :_go ob_ogo__:g_r ooob__o:b _:
o|o_gob__g_go:|o:b, roo_go: _ro |_r____r_g _oro:_Jo oo___g:
o:go:b ob_go:.
_|o_ogo_o:, |o_oogo_o: _: |o_o:g_ro o__bo_r_o| |bg: _:r-
_o| oo_g:b__o: 1_ooro :oob:_go| _oro_o _: oo_og:_o_o _oobgo| _g_J
_::__b_| o:| J_o__, r:_ o:oo |_o____ro: :_o:r_|. :_boJb_go _:r_o|
|o__o:go|__o: :g_o :___| 1_ooro o|_oroo| o_oo_ogoo:| _: _oobg:r_|
b:ro|borogo ob__rgo__o :o_oob_|.
oo___roo__go, _oooro_go ob_oro:_oo| oo|:__:_ _|o_ogoo_ro
ob__rgo__o ob__rgo__ro|::b _r:_o_o_g:_ o_og:g__ro| rog| oo-
240
oobog|, r:_ b_g| _Jgo| oor:_o _ob_:__o| _:o_:r_:|. |o_o:g_ro o__-
bo_r__o| |o__o:go|__o _o _oor:__|o:| |_:b_:r_o1or__go _: r:-
o__borogo _oobg:r_o| :oo__b_:| :bog__b.
J__oobg_o| _:|oo| _g_g:1_ oboJgb_gog:b _b:r-bg_g:| r_|oob__b__o|
oo_r ooobroogo| __r:___oo oo|o_b: b:roo:__b|. o_gg_g:r_o:
_::_ob_|, roo :_:oo:b_|, roor_ b_|o, b:rooo_o_go| obogo_ o_o-r_
b:bogo _|ooo. bg__g_rog:_ |:_:r1_ _ob__b_r:_oo| b:_gg:_ ob__r-
go__ro b:ob_r :o:r:__r:| ___r_| _: J_o__ J__oobg:1_ _o_ro|, r:_
o:| _go| _: ob_:| __:b_:g|. __r:___o| J_b:rb_b_o| _b:r-bg_go|
:bgoo:r_: ob__rgo__ro|ogo| _b_rb_g o_oo:r_o:Jo b:g:r_bo| o:go_:b
:_og_o| |:___o_|o |:J_:g_::. :og:ro _b_rb_go o_oo:r_o: J_oog_:
:oobg__go o_o| r_|oob__b_o|:_oo o|_oo J__oobgo| _:|ooo, roo_g|:_ o:b
o:|_bo __g_ :|_: (r:_ __:go boJ:bo: ooo|:, roo ob__rgo__ro ___r:___o_
_|o_b_:). ob__rgo_| oro__|Jo b:boJb_go oo_go_b_go |o:bg__o _o o_o:|o:b
_:r_b_o| |:J_:g_:| oog_g:.
oo|o_bo| __o__| |oro_g_| b:roo:__b| o|, roo __r:___: o|_o
o___|: _: ob_oro:_o:1_ _b_: :o:bgog__|, roogo:_ J_|:og__go: ob-
__rgo__ro :r _o:bbo_:. b:ob_ro| obro_:b oo|:__o: g:o:r:_Jo b:r_go|
_: _:o:oo| _:b__o| ___b_o| _:__g_:_, o:r:o _o:bboo_o| |:_oobo|
:bbogg:o__ :__og__go: oobro_go| ogoo__ oo|o_b:. 1_ooro o|_oro:
r_|oob__b_o| _: :r: ob__rgo__ro| ooob__| _: oo|:1r__| :rog_|.
roor_ ob__rgo__ro|, :|_g_ 1_ooro o|_oroo| oro___o| g_Jo:ro_ :oo_-
_:| b:roo:__b| o|, o_ r:o__b:_ b:roo:bob: oo| oo_r b:_:r__go: ob-
__rgo__o: |:_oobo| orggog :r|__go _g_g: ob:r_. o:o Joro| o:oo, go|:_
o:_og| b:_g_:_ |__o_:.
ob__rgo__ro| oo1:bo:, b:b_ro| o|_oroo| oog:ro g_r|o:, roor_ o:|
r_|oob__b_o |o:g:1o|, o:Job:_ _o, ro__|:_ oo :1go:___g or___b1o_|
_: :_o:o:| J_o_:g|. _g_g:__ro, r:|:_ r_|oob__b_o _g_:, b:ob_ro|
obro_:b :|og___r:_ oo___go _b_: o_o|.
1_oor o|_oro_Jo b__: o|__, roo :_:oo:b_o |:__o:r o:g| :_____b.
1oo_roo oorogb_: oo1o_o:| r:_o_:g_r:_ _ggo|, o:r:o |:__o:r o:g|
:rbo_b_|, roo o:booo__gr_go _: 1_|_o:. 1oo_roo:, J_|:og__go:,
_boo_ro| :b _g__boo_ro| _ob_1_ _::o:bob_o| ooob__o _|o:oogbo _:
oooo_ b:r|_go_:b.
:_|:boJb:go:, roo |:__o:ro go1_:g_ro _oooob_b_o go__o_or1_
:___g_:g ob__rgo__|:_ :_go. :bgo| o|b_oo:r_ ob__rgo__ro _: r_|-
oob__b_o |:bo| :ooo___g_g_oo _: |b__go| ooor:o_oo _roo_roo_b.
|:goro:, roo ob__rgo__r| r_|oob__b_1_ _og_gogo| _goro| og:go.
oo:bo| ob__ro_ro| og:go_r_:, |ogr__Jo o1_r: _: |bg:_:|bg: ooor:o_o
oo| ___r:___o:1_ oo_ooo__b. o|_g_ roor_, b:r_o| J__gr: ooo|
o:boJb__go:, roo r_|oob__b_| :b :r _o:bbo_: :b :r |__r: oo|o. :|_o
___g:| o|obo :b _b_|o:Jo oggo:b :b ooo| JoJoo, roo o:go oo:b_ob_|,
o:|_b_| :oo_g__b. _| :r _b_: oo J_oobg_g_|, ro__|:_ ob_rgo__ro |br:_o
o1_roo b:ob_ro ___bo_o| :o:ro_go:| :oobo_| _: _o_o|_r:o_| :b
ob__rgo_|o:b _:_:gJor__g |bg: |:b_| :og:go_r_|. oo_go ob__rgo_|
o:rob_ __r:Jgogo
241
:bo:ggo:Jo :__og__go: __gg_go go1_:g_ro _ob_:__o| _:o_:r_:.
_ooogo :b o:go| _:br: ooo| o:boJb__go:, roo ob__rgo_ro r_|oob__b_|
oo_bg_:, :ooo o| o:| :b:go|_| _: _oo_|, roo obro: :b:roo|. ,o:r-
og:?", "::!", ,_:___r__go:!" - :og:ro J_o:bog_o _or1_ ___:_ __r|
_: _r:b|_ro__Jo_ :_og| o_:g_|. :oo_oo, g_r:g_r _oo_b_:r_1_ _o-
_o_|o: _|o__go _|_o__g:_o:.
:r_ bo_o_ :r_g__g rog| o:o:Jo_b r_|oob__b_|: _: ob__rgo__r|
Joro| _|o__go _oo_bo_:_o:Jo. :bb_oo| o:boJb__go: boo| __oro, o:_1:,
o:bgogo, |:r_:1oo _: :_:b_rb_g_:_. ro_: :_:oo:b_o _oo_o_oo :_og-
|_o:b, o|obo |br:_:_ _: bo:o:_g: g:o:r:_| ob___b. ob__rgo__r_| _b_:
J__ogoo :o _|o__go ooboJb__o| _:g_r:, r:_:b o:oo _r:b|_ro__Jo
:_oo__o: |bg:g:r:_ J__og__go o_b_:. |:r_:1o_go oooo__o bob:_:__o|
oboJgb_go:| r:_o_:g_r:_ _ggo:b. obogo_ obroo| _:|r_g_o| J_o__
J__ogo: ob__rgo__r| r_|oob__b_| |:r_:1oo| :b|b: |obogo|.
1_ooro o|_oroo| |o__o:go|__o oJgo:o:_ o_ o1o:r__b |o_o:g_ro
o__bo_r__o| o_J:__o| _:ob__r_|_:| ob__rgo_| b:_:r_o| oro__|o|
_:_gorg_:1_. o|_oro_o|_| _rb_go:o r_|oob__b__o bg__g :r_oo|
oo:_ogob _: o|_o o___ro :_og:| oo:o:g|ob, |:_:_ o:o ob__rgo_|
b_g| :r:gob J__Jgo|. o:Job, ro_: |bg: _o|_oogob_Jo r_|oob__b_o:b |:-
_:ro ooo_ob:r_o| o:oogo| _b_rog :r_ooJo. :borooogo_o, o:.,
r_|oo__b__o:b _ro:_ _bogro_b, roo o:oo _og_g__o_ro _bogr_: _:
ob__rgo__o o:o|:g_ :r_ooJo :__g_ob.
r_|oob__b__o| |:_bogr__g :_og_Jo 1_ooro o|_oroo| |o__o-
:go|__o bJor:_ oo1:_ro_b _: o:oo :r_oooo ob__r_|__o:b. o:b:-
o__rog_ _og_g__o_ro _bogr_o| b:r|_go| _or1_ :__g_g: b:roo:__b|
1_ooro o|_oroo| |o__o:go|_o| oo1:b|. o_o_:, 1o__r r_|oob__b__o
:ooo_g:o_b |_rgog|, ob__rgo__r| _bg_bob o:o b:r|_go:b _:_:gJor__go
J_bo_o _: |bg: :_og_o. 1_ooro o|_oroo| |o__o:go|__o: :|_oo J_-
|:og_go_o _b_: :ooo__bob, _::og:go_rob _: :__og_g:_ _or1_
:__g_ob.
ob__rgo_| b:ro:__oo _:|:|r_g_g:_ |:goro: o|_oo _b_rogo
,_ob:g_ro" J__oobgo| oogb:, roo_go_ r_|oob__b_| |_oo_g| oo|__o|, _o__g
_rob_g _:_o_r__|, :b:go oogg_b_o og_g| J_:_:ro|, _:|_gb_o :ooo_:bo|
:b ooo:ggo|__b ::b__o|, roo _o__g _rob_g ::b:go1o| _:rb: o_ :r: o|_oo
|:_oob_o, roogo| o_o:_ _b_o_:.
ob__rgo_| _:|r_g_o| J_o__ _o__g _rob_g _b_: :b_o:r_o| r_|-
oob__b_|, roor :ooo__b_: _: |:_ o_b_: _:__go b:b:b_ro. 1o__r
ob_rgo__ro o:o _o__o_b_1_ b_go| oob_r:| ob__rgo_| _:|r_g_o|o:b:g_
|obog|, r:_ :r_g__g _b_rb_go:| b:roo_obo|. _r:_o_o_g:_, r_|oob-
__b__o|:ogo| _: o:oo o_:bo| b_gr_o|:ogo| b:b:b_ro| _: :Jo_r_go
___|_o| :|g_o _b_: ooo1:___| _: :_:___|. o_ ob__rgo_ |_:_oo| :b
bobo|:ogo| b:_:r_:, r_|oob__b_| :__og_g:_ _b_: oo_bo_o| :|go. :r
:ro| o:ro__go _r:go_ b:go__o _: o:b :go_ogoo :_:oo:bo| _bogr_o|
o|_oro:, oo|o _g:b_ogo oo|:1r__o _: 1o__r __o__r_|:_ oor:__go
_:_gorg__o.
242
_g:b_ogo ob__rgo_ J_oog_: ro_go _: :o:g_ _ro| _oo_o_ro o_o|,
:oo_oo |:goro:, r_|oob__b_| ob__rgo_| J_o__ _o_: o__o _ro _:g_oooo
_: b:ob_ro oob_oogoo| :r_J__ :g_|:_roo. o:b _b_: orobo|, r:o__b:_
oboJgb_gog:bo o_b_: oo|o ob__rgo_ 1_ooro o|_oroo| oro___o|:ogo| _:
_o__g _rob_g _:rbo_b__| oo| oo_r :b__g _:bo:r_:Jo.
:oro:_, b:JrooJo J_g__:__o 1_ooro o|_oroo| o_oro_go _: o_-
oo_ogoo_ro |:_oob_o| :r_g_g:|, roo_go: :og:go|bob_: oboJgb_-
gog:bo: :_boJb_go o_oo_oo ob__rgo_| b:|:b_r:_ _: |:_gg_go o:|:go|
oo|:o1:__g:_. :oo_oo::, roo _|o_ogo_o:, |o_oogo_o: _: |o_o-
:g_ro o__bo_r_o| |bg: _:r_o| oo_g:b__o: 1_ooro :oob:_go| _oro_o
_oobgo| boJbo| _g_J _::__b_| o:| J_o__, r:_ o:oo |_o____ro: :_o:r_|.
o:o :g_o :___| 1_ooro o|_oroo| o_oo_ogoo:| _: r:o__borog _oob-
g:r_| b:ro|borogo ob__rgo__o :o_oob_|, r:_:b bg_o| J_o__
o|_oroo| :o_or_: obroo| J___:_ ogooob__ror__:_oo| _oro:_
o___g:. :_:oo:b_| :r: obogo_ |:__o:ro b:r|_go :b|ogo, :r:o__ oo|
:_boo_r_:|:_ __ogo_b _: r:_oob:go1:_oo|__b ooo|br:_o:b, roo
b:r|_go:b _ro:_ ___o J_ogob :bo_oJo _bogr_:.
_:oobo_:bo:
Abrahams, Rojer D. Every Day Life, A Poetics of Vernacular Practices. Philadelphia: Publisher University
of Pennsylvania Press, 2005.
Ives, Edward D. The Tape-Recorded Interview: A Manual for Field Workers in Folklore and Oral History.
Publisher Unit Tennesse Press, 1995.
Allen, B. B., Montell W. L. Memory to history: Using oral sources in local historical research. USA:
Publisher American Association for State and Local History, 1981.
Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. Publisher Basic Books, 1977.
Didion, Joan. We Tell Ourselves Stories in Order to Live: Collected Nonfction (Everyman's Library).
Publisher Everyman's Library; Everyman's Library Children's Classics edition, 2007.
Thompson, Paul. The Voice of the Past: Oral History. USA: Publisher Oxford University Press, 2000.
Lehman A. Lebengeschichte. Enzyklopdie des Mrchens. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995, s.
825-833.
Linde, Charlotte. Life Stories: The Creation of Coherence (Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics). USA:
Publisher Oxford University Press, 1993.
Myerhoff, Barbara. Telling One's Story. Publisher Center Magazine, 1980.
Okihiro, Gary Y. Common Ground: Remaining American History. Publisher Princeton University Press,
2001.
Yow, Valerie R. Recording Oral History: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. USA: Publisher Sage
Publications, Inc, 1994.
Portelli, Alessandro. The Order Has Been Carried Out: History, Memory, and Meaning of a Nazi Massacre
in Rome (Palgrave Studies in Oral History). Publisher Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Poniatowska, Elena. Nothing, Nobody: The Voices of the Mexico City Earthquake. Publisher Temple
University Press, 1995.
Reingold, Nathan. Science, American Style. Publisher Rutgers University Press, 1991.
Ritchie, Dinald A. Doing Oral History. USA: Publisher Oxford University Press, 2003.
Carr, Edvard H. What is History? Great Britain: Vintage, 1967.
Schneider, Wiliam. So They Understand: Cultural Issues in Oral History. Publisher Utah State University
o:rob_ __r:Jgogo
243
Press, 2002.
Shopes, Linda. Using oral history for a family history project (American Association for State and Local
History. Technical leafet). USA: Publisher American Association for State and Local History,
1980.
Henige, David. P. Oral Historiography (Aspects of African History). UK: Publisher Longman Group
United Kingdom, 1982
Marine Turashvili
(Georgia)
On the Question of the Theoretical and Methodological
Research of Oral History
Summary
Key words: oral history, methodology, elite/unelite, critical, grounded.
Methodology of oral history, as of the modern scientifc sphere, has various sources.
Since the 40s of the XIX century the practice of the oral history has been popular in the
western academic circles. After choosing a genre of the oral history the next step for a
scientist is the selection of the theoretical basis.
Despite of the use of the various theoretical approaches in the researches the survey
of existing literature singles out three main methods: elite/unelite, critical and grounded.
The subject of the elite/unelite theory is the elite oral history against the unelite oral history
or who is merited to be recorded.
Oral history of elite people is opposite to the oral history of ordinary people
interview practice from down to up, earlier supporters of which are British scientists of
the 50s and the 60s of the past century. American oral historians catched up this idea only
in the 60s.
Many programmes of oral history aimed at recording point of view of the witnesses
of the history. Such kind of work was a certain combination of topics of interviews with
ordinary people as well as with prominent ones and its basic theoretical principles were
clarifed as far as possible.
Basic source of the critical theory is a sphere of the literary criticism. Though
afterwards it became a part of many humanitarian and social sciences und oral history was
used within their boundaries. In the USA critical theory has many supporters but it has
mere infuence over Europe, especially over the UK and over Italy. In the works of these
scientists class questions are leading. Critical theory is provided with the conception of the
ideas and views of the people without offcial rank.
Grounded theory at the beginning demanded of the scientists the approach to
the chosen topic without ideas thought out beforehand. Scientists can set up their own
conclusions and ideas of the research of a person or a group of people on the basis of
analysis and checking the material obtained during the research. As Straus and Juliet
Corbin point out the scientist doesnt start the project with early thought out approach
(except the case when the aim is to analyze in details and to deepen existing theory)
but tries the assumption to be emerged from the information, hence, the grounded theory
244
stems from the information.
The method of the research of the grounded theory has its characteristic traits,
which infuence over the investigation greatly. The important fact is that some followers
of the grounded theory demand of the scientists not to use questions and certain themes
thought out beforehand.
In the beginning of the research we tried to review theoretical topics of oral history.
On this occasion we are discussing problems of recording of oral histories, which are
important in obtaining high-grade materials.
For getting a successful interview it is signifcant to have a conversation in domestic
situation. Style of the interview must be impartial, sincere and friendly, if needed even
provoking. Each interviewer is obligated not to keep a respondent in tension, to listen with
attention and to stimulate the respondent to be frank. Skill of listening is to be worked out
and an interviewer needs a hard work to work out this ability.
To some extent an interview is a performance. Not only an interviewer tries to get
ready well, but a respondents worries as well, thinking how to demonstrate memories
of the distant past. Nobody wants to look absent-minded or with lack of the talent of
expression. In this process interviewers must be co-participants and help respondents to
be frank and exact. During giving the information of names, dates and etc., the interviewer
has to show a route. In help to overcome isolation, undesire, bad mood, in being frank and
self-critical the interviewer plays a decisive role for the respondent.
Each type of interview has its rules and norms: to fulfll preliminary work, maximal
readiness, to prepare impartial questions, not to interrupt the respondent, to expand the
topic of the answer, to know properly recording equipment, to work out exactly obtained
recordings and to take into account ethics.
For the successful ending of the interview it is necessary to fnd a fnal question,
which will stimulate the respondent and will make him to think on the past, to compare
new events with the old ones, to make important conclusions and to look for future, to
analyse if there are the topics not being discussed. Sometimes a respondent is expecting
the questions that an interviewer has to put but he hasnt done it.
A frank interview can be very emotional, for this after the interview an interviewer
must take much time and have a conversation without recording equipment. A respondent
should feel how important his interview will be for oral history project and should be
sure of the signifcance of the work he has done. The respondent must be informed how
his interview will be used and will be kept. It is not correct for the interviewer to leave
the respondent simply taking with him the story of a persons life, his frank opinions,
sometimes very personal observations.
In this work we tried to make out the theoretical and methodological questions of
oral history which in our opinion is important for recording and preparation of an interview.
And for these reason psychologists, sociologists and other researches of the social feld,
have again analysed forms of the oral expression and has declared subjectivity of the oral
history. They have sensed the methodology of oral history and accordingly have given
preference to qualitative interviews rather than to quantitative ones, as after years repeat
of the history is turned into a form of self-interpretation. People remember not only their
own past but they try to realize it and strive for rationalization to live better in the present
together with the past.
o:rob_ __r:Jgogo
245
..
()

- ,
-
. -
.
,
,
, -
.
( -
) (.) (
) (.).
-
, , .
., -
1949 . -
,
. -
,
: ,
, -
(, 1968:151).

. .-. . -
-
, (. :
1999: 20). -
: ,
.
.
,

,
, -
( 1979:135). -
: , -
( ), ,
__g__ro| o:r:_oo_o
246
.

.. . , -
, -
, -
: ,
, .
-
, -
,
, -
,
- . , -
:
, , ,
,
..

. -
.

()

()

( )

(, -
, ).
..
247
1.

. , -
.
, (.,
., .), , -, -
. ,
, , -

.
- ,
. ,
- . ,
,
(.), (-
.. . , -
). ,
.
, -
. . -
. . .
. .
, ,
. . . ,
- .
-
, , .
, ,
. . ,
- -
, , - . -
, . , ,
( 2003:7) ,
, , -
. -
. :
. ,
. .
,
. , , , -
, , , ,
, . . ,
. , . , . , -

248
.
, -
() .
,
.
,
,
-.
2.
( )
-
- , , , -
.

, . -
: -
, .
, , :
-
(, , ..).
, ,
.

- ,
:
1. , /-
(. ,
. - ).
.
2. ,
( ).
. , .
. .
3. , , -
, /, -
- .
, .
. , -
.
4. --
. . . , -

..
249
. , -
,
, ()
.
-
, , , ,
, . -
,
-
.
, -
- (, -
), () ().
3.
-
, , .
-, -
, , -
. -
-
.
. -
-
, , .
.
, -
(. ). -
,
. ,
. -

, -
. ,
.
. , -
, (
1968:25). , ,
(.). ,
, -
(, ). -
, , -

250
- ,
,
, .
,
. ,
.
, -
, -
. -
, ,
.
4.
-
(), -
,
. ,
(.), -
.
. ,
. -
,
.
-
.
. -
, . : -
, -
, , ,
. ( 1973:30). ,
.
, -
-
, () , -
( 2000:276).
5.

2001-2005
.. , -
-
. ,
,
..
251
, -
, - -
(-
2003:91). , -

.
, .. ,
, , -
, ,
,
.
,

. . -
, , , -
. , -
-
. .
(,
1978:150). , ,
.
-
:
(-
. , . );
(
. . )
(
. , . );
- (, -
, , , , , , ,
, , , );

(, , );
(
,
.).
-
.
. -
, . -
-
.

252
:
lekseev, ixail P. Vzaimodeistvie literatury s drugimi vidami iscustva kak predmet nauhnogo izuhenia.
Sbornik issledovanyi I materialov Russcaia literature I zarubejnoe iscusstvo. Leningrad: Nauca,
1986. / , .
. -
. : , 1986.
Durichin, Dioniz. Teoria sravnitelnogo izuhenia literatury. Moscva: 1979 (, .
. : 1979)
Madanova, Margarita. Vvedenie v sravnitelnoe literatyrovedenie. Almaty:2003 (, .
. : 2003).
Manevih, Iosif M. Kino i literature: Dissdoct. iscusstv. nauk. M.:1968 (, . -
: . . . . .:1968.
Nacipov, Duisenbek. Belaia aruana. Moscva: 2003 (, . . :
2003).
Tihounina, Natalia. Vzaimodeistvie iskusstv v literatournom proizvedenii kak problema sravnitelnogo
literatyrovedenia. Sravnitelnoe literaturovedenie teoretiheskyi I istorihescyi aspecty: materially
Pospelovskix htenyi. Moskva: 2003 (, . -
. -
: : Y .
: 2003.
Halizev, Vladimir. Teoria literatury. Moscva: 2000 (, . . :
2000).
Uellek, R, Uorren, O. Teoria literatury. Moscva:1978 (, ., , . .-
:1978.).
Eixenbaum, Boris. Literatura i cino. Leningrad: 1973 (, . . -
: 1973).
Zh. K. Nurmanova
The Literature and Movies in a Scientifc fField of Comparison
Summary
Key words: literature, cinema, comparative studies, the flm script, screen adaptability of
literary, prose flm repertoire.
Zh. K. Nurmanovas article The literature and movies in a scientifc feld of
comparison uses the interdisciplinary approach to the sphere of comparative literary
studies. The author systematizes history of working out of this question beginning from
R.Wellek and Aust.Warren to modern comparativists. Works of K.Pishua and A.M.Russo,
D. Dyurishina, M.P. Alekseev and other authors are exposed to the analysis. Quoting
the offered aspects of this subject in academician Alekseevs classical work Nurmanova
Zh.K. offers her approaches in a scientifc feld of comparison and terminological settings:
a literary cinema, actor's prose, a cinematography of literature (CL along with LC
Martyanova's literary cinematography ), prose flm repertoire, memory of the flm text
..
253
and flm image within one work of art and etc.
The comparative history of literature and cinematography is rethought and presented
as multidimensional area by Zh.K.Nurmanova. A material on which article constructed is
Kazakh literature.
Along with the developed classical approach to studying of this problem studying
of text of art in a literary context, the author offers two new approaches: personal and
impersonal.
The personal approach assumes studying of cinema aspect activity of writers in a
context of their creative biography and literary aspect in creativity of cinematographers
(actors, directors, and operators). The author of article tries to state systematically the
vision of a cinematographic aspect problem of creativity of famous writers, to revive
the unknown facts from flm life of writers, to fll the missing facts of their creative life.
From the actor necessarily - to the actor by vocation, from incidental to main this is a
range of flm works of writers. Some cases when writers along with an actor's job mastered
the director's job are analyzed in this article.
According to the author, studying of author's prose of cinematographers (actor
and director prose) can become original opening, being represented perspective area of
comparison. Nurmanova Zh.K. tries to systematize and classify this aspect of the risen
problem. The special attention is paid to genres of actor and director prose. In hierarchy of
the presented genres especially memory studies, autobiographical prose, and also the art
prose which is directly connected or isn't connected with the main creativity of the actor/
director who slightly opens the second I of the person of art are allocated. In comparison
with actor's prose director's literary creativity refects unity and synthesis of literary and
cinema process. V. Shukshin, S. Narymbetov, T.Temenov are the classical examples of
refection of this process.
Zh.K.Nurmanova labels studying text (flm scripts and flm prose of writers),
intertext (intertextual) and intratext (intermedia) communications as an impersonal
approach. Each kind of communication is analyzed by the author in detail; new concepts
(the pretext, afterwards of a flm, the text-intermediary, CL cinematography of literature
and others) are entered.
Zh.K.Nurmanova positions her article as vector expansion of literary routes on a
literature and cinematography material.
Studying of text connections of flm scripts and flm prose of writers in a context
of comparative literary studies according to Zh.Nurmanova will allow to meet a lack
in studying of writers creative heritage and to create more complete idea of a literary
cinematography. The motion picture art began with involving professional writers. In this
thesis it was stated that literature was the cradle of cinematography and without it the
birth and development of this entertainment art form X Muses would be impossible.
Nurmanova Zh.K. allocates some periods: from the period of piece professionalism of
the cinema writer (I.Martyanov) to mass arrival of known prose writers in flm dramatic
art. It is noted that the frst screenwriters were playwrights as the equipment of flm
literature initially was considered approximated to art drama, and only then arrival was
outlined. The author of article notes that it is diffcult to name a writer in modern literature
who wasnt a screenwriter or didn't cinematize own works.

254
The flm scenario, according to Zh.Nurmanova can be defned as the pretext and
the flm post text. Thus the pretext is defned as the text preceding creation of the flm,
and the post text as the literary work created on the basis of already existing or expecting
flm published as the advertizing product which should be released or already seen. From
here we are able to state the following defnition of the flm script: it is the intermediary
text between literature and cinema, acting as the pretext or the post text of the feature
flm. Writers work of on flm scripts considerably enriched writers, having made essential
impact on formation of their prose according to the author of the article.
Along with the existing term LC the literary cinematography entered into a scientifc
turn by I.Martyanova Zh.K.Nurmanova tries to enter the term CL - a cinematography of
literature which can be treated in the status of a terminological defnition and is defned
as the art text including elements of motion picture art in which the writer allocated a
hint on flm thinking (B. Eykhenbaum), works on a chamber principle with image of a
visual order with emphasized visual character. The author of article allocates two types
of a cinematography of literature primordial and borrowed. The second one is connected
with names of writers who transferred practical experience of cinema on the literature
feld.
As to terminological borrowings from cinema area, the author allocates the
following: installation, a close up, a freeze frame, a fashback, fow - flm receptions which
managed to be entered in poetics of verbal creativity most organically. Having removed
from area of verbal art to motion picture art area, these terms found the status of literary
terms, having expanded a palette writers of art prose.
Zh.K.Nurmanova names researcher N. V. Tishunina from Petersburg staticizing
calls of work of the a problem of comparative literary criticism in a prism of an intermedia
studying interaction of arts in the feld of the literary text as one of the important openings
in comparison area. Literature as art of a word is capable to incorporate elements of any
art, including cinematography.
The arsenal of cinema means can be realized in the case of the literary work by
means of inclusion of cinema subject in poetics of the title, repertoire of mentioned flms
in a context of prose, direct or undercover introduction of actor's images, words of
lexico-semantic group flm, professional belonging of literary characters to a flm world,
professional opinion on representatives of motion picture art.
Zh.K. Nurmanova positions her article as vector expansion literary routes on
a literature and cinematography material and notes that offered article doesn't apply
for exhaustive coverage of the topic but it only opens this subject in a scientifc feld of
comparison.
..
255
:b: b_ro:bog:
(_:1:b_oo)
go__r:__ro|: _: _ogo_o| J__:r_:,
roor_ |:o__bo_ro |__ro
r_1o_o_
|:_g:boo |o__g_o: go__r:__r:, _ob_o:_or:_o:, _ooo:r:_ogo|_o_:, _obo-
|__b:ro, _ob_o:_or:_o_go go__r:__r:, oro1o| _obo r_o_r__:ro.
|_:_o: ,go__r:__ro|: _: _ogo_o| J__:r_:, roor_ |:o__bo_ro
|__ro" o__b_| _ooo:r:_ogo|__go go__r:__r:oo_o__boo| ob__r-
_o|_oogob:r_g oo_oo:|. :g_oro |o|__o_r:_ b:roogo__b| _ooo:-
r:_ogo|_o_o| o|_oro:| _:b___go r. __g__o|: _: o. _or_bo_:b, o:b:o__rog_
_ooo:r:_ogo|__o| b:oggoo. :b:go1o|:ogo| b:roo__bogo: _.ooJ_:|,
:.o. r_|o|, _. _o_roJob:|, o. o. :g__|__go|: o_ |bg: :g_or_o| b:Jroo_o.
:_:__oo_o|o :g__|__go| _g:|o__ro b:Jrooo| :oo__b_oo |_:_oo| :g_oro
__ogo| b:roo:bobo| o:go|o oo_oo: :o |:_oobo|: o_ __roobogoo_o|
ooo:ro: go__r:__r_go _obo, o|:booo| oro1:, go__r:__r_go _ob_o:-
_or:_o:, _ogoo| r_o_r__:ro| oro1:, _ogoo| ___|_o| o:b|ogro: _: :.J.
|_:_o:Jo b__: go__r:__ro|: _: _ob_o:_or:_oo| _ooo:r:_ogo|__-
go o|_oroo| b_g:b:go :_:b__g: _: oro__|o b:roo__bogo: roor_
or:g:gJro:bo |__ro. |_:_o: ooroo:_:_ _o_:r_: _:1:b_r go__r:__r:|.
:o |:_oobo| _gg_go| :r|__go _g:|o__ro oo_ooo| :r_:, :g_oro or :b:g
ooo:ro_g_:| |o:g:1o| o_oobg_g|: oorogb_g| _: oo____r|.
oorogb_go oo_ooo| o:go|__r_:: J_o|b:ggo| _obo| :|o___o ob_rgo|
oor:_oo| _ob___|_Jo, bogo go__r:__r_go :|o___o - _oboo:_or:__o|
(o|:booo, r_o|oro _: oo_r:_oro) grogJo. |_:_oo| :g_or| oo:bbo:,
roo, |o|__o:_o1:_oo| :oo__b_oo, _b_: :_o_bg__| __boo _:___o
ob_rg_o|: o_ r_o|or_o| _bogr_o_:b, roo_go_ o:oo J_oo_o___:|: _:
J_oo_o___oo _bogr_:| __ro og:g|:bobo| :b_o| _:o_gorg_g_o|:ogo|.
:r|_o_b ,o|:boo_:_ _::___gbo", oobo__oo o|:boo_o, J_oobg_gooo
o|:boo_o _: oo:g:ro rogo| J_o|r_g_g_o. oog_ J_oog_: :gr_g__|
r_o|or_|: o_ ob_rg_1_. :g_oro __ogo| |_:_o:Jo b:roo:bobo| _:g__
ob_r:go _: _:g__ r_o|oro, :|_g_, o| ob_rg_o, roo_go:_ o|:booo|: o_
r_o|oro| rog_o_ ooor_|.
|_:_oo| :g_oro __ogo| _ob_o:_or:_o|_o| (o|:booo, r_o|oro)
_og_g__o_ro _bogr_o| oob__goo, ___o b:|bg__| J__obog goo:r_:|.
oo|o :1roo, oboJgb_gog:bo __r:___: _b_: _:_ooo| :g_ooor:_o_g
b:b:roo__|, ooob__|: o_ ob:_gr_g go__r:__r:|, roo_go_ oor-
_:oor :b oro:_ _:_:gJor__go: oorogb_o| o_oo| ___o J__bo:o:b.
o|:booo|::b :b|bg:g_oo, r_o|oro| go__r:__r_go _r_:_o_go: :|:-
b:g| go__r:__r_go _: _ob_o:_or:_o_go oro__|_o| _roo:bo:|: o_

256
|obo_1|. g. J__Jobo, |. b:roo__ogo, _. __o_bogo :oo| _g:|o__ro o::goo_o
:ro:b.
___|_o| J_|b:gg:| (|__b:ro, oor:_o _bogr_:), ob__r___|_| (ob__r-
___|__:g_r|) _: ob_r:___|__:g_r :b_ ob_r:o__o:g_r _oo_bo_:_o_|
|_:_oo| :g_oro ooobb_g|, oo____r oo_oo:_. :_ _og_gb:oro _roo_roo:
:g_oro| oo_r ___:g_r:_ :ro| J_|b:ggogo, :o:| :r_: :oo__b__go: :b:go
_b__o (or____|_o, _ogoo| _o_r_o, :r_:o:g:go ___|_o, go__r:__r_go
_ob_o:_or:_o:).
|_:_oo| :g_oro ooobb_g|, roo oo|o |_:_o: ::_:roog_| go__r:__ro|
_: _ob_o:_or:_oo| _gg_go| o:|:g:|, gob:o_:b |_:_o: b:roo:__b| :og:ro
|:_oob_o| _gg_go| ,:_:roo_o| g___or|".
_ogoo| |__b:r_o|, :r_og_, |__b:ro|__o| _og_g__o_roo| J_|b:gg:
:oo:g|_| oo |o_:ro_g_|, roo_go_ :o |__roJo :r|_o|. __r:_|:__o: o|
_:__o, roo :o ooo:ro_g_oo _gg_g_o ooo_oo| :r _o_og:, :b o_ _o_og:
o:go:b oboro _: :r:_ro| ooo__oo. |_:_oo| oo:g:r ooo__1:| b:roo:__b|
o|, roo _obo go__r:__r:| ___ob_:, _: roo :r _o_ogo_o go__r:__r:
_ob_o:_or:_o: :r_ b:roooJoo_: _: g_r_ __rog:b :bgoo:r_:| g_r oo-
g__:. _obo, roor_ o_:o_ o_1: :r o:r|___: go__r:__ro| :r_J_. |_:_oo|
:g_oro r:oo__boo_ o_roo_| :oo_o_| _ogob:roo_:Jo: oro__|oob:go
_obo |__b:ro|__o_:b _:b___go (o. o:r_o:bogo) oro1o| ob_rg_o| o:|o_r
J_oogr:o__. :_|:boJb:go:, roo oorg_go _obo |__b:ro|__o _r:o:__r_o
o_gb_b, r:_:b ,_obogo__r:__r:" _r:o:__roo| b:bog:_ ooobb_o_:, o_o_:
ooo:g:gJo o:oo _roo:b_oo|::b :oo_gb: oob_:. |_:_oo| :g_oro :_b:__|,
roo g_r oooo_b_: o:b:o__rog_ ob_r:go, roo_go_ :b o:g:_ :r o_o |__b:ro|
:g_oro, :b_: :r __ogo_: o:go|o b:b:roo_o| _obo_ ___g:|.
_ogoo| |__b:ro J_oog_: or____|_:_ o_b:| :bbog_go, bogo o:g:_
_ogoo oo|_-___|_o:. :oro:_, or____|_o b:roo:__b| ____|, roo_go_
bob _|br__: _ogo|, bogo oo|_-___|_o, roor_ go__r:__r_go b:J-
rooo J__obogo: __g_ :r|__go ___|_o| |:__og_g1_. :___:b :ooo_ob:r_
J_googo: gog:r:__oo, roo _obo |__b:ro :ro| :r_:o:g:go ___|_o go-
__r:__r:|: _: _obo| Joro|. o. o:r_obog:| _:o_go_r__go __roobo| ,go-
__r:__r_go _ob_o:_or:_oo|" :r_:, |_:_oo| :g_oro __ogo| :b:go
__roobo| - ,_ob_o:_or:_oo| go__r:__ro|" b:roob_b:|. . _ob_b:_oo :o
_b_o| J_|:b_ :oo_:, roo _ob_o:_or:_oo| go__r:__r: ,b_g| _b_o|
_obo| __oboo :1rogb_:|" _: oo|o oo:g:ro orob_ooo: ,_:_r_o| go1_:g_r:_
_: ob_or:_ bg_b_:". :g_oro _ob_o:_or:_oo| go__r:__ro| or _oo| :oo-
_o_| - oorg_g_o_og| _: b:|_|b_|. _| __:b:|_b_go oo ob_rg_| ooo_:g|,
ro-o_go:_ _oboJo oo___go or:__o__go :oo__og_: :ooo__b_| _:
go__r:__r:Jo :_ooo_:b_|.
__roobogoo_r:_, _obo|__ro_:b, :g_oro o__b_| J_o__ _b__|: ob-
|_:g:_o:, :bgo _:_ro, :b_r__go _:_ro, _ogoo| o_ob:r_:. :o _b__o:
oo:b_rb_| _: g_r:g_ro J_oo_o___o| or:b_g b:bog:_ o__b_b, o:o :-
:r_go_| ob:_gr_go _ogoo| |:1_gr_o _: o:go|o :_ogo _:oo_go_r_|
go__r:__r_g _b__| Joro|, r:o:_ o:go| bog:_ ob_r:go: J_oo_o___ooo
..
257
o:go_r: ::_:roog:.
:o:| :r_:, |_:_oo| :g_oro ooobo_| b. g. _oJ_bo:|, o___r_ro| _bo-
g_r|o___o| g___or|, o__b_| r: oo| b:Jroo| ooo| J_|:b_, roo :r_:o:g:go
___|__o| J_|b:gg: |:_o:o_ _o_ orog_o_o:b:: _:_:gJor__go. o:g:_ go-
__r:__r: oo__b:_ _oggo|ooo_g_go |o__g::, roo o| o:go| o:gJo :_roo:b_|
b_gogb_o| |bg:_:|bg: _:r_|, _ob_o:_or:_oo| b:oggoo.
_obo| J_|:og_go_o J_oog_: b:roobob__| obogo_ go__r:__r_go
b:b:roo_o| b:rogo| J___:_. go__r:__r_go b:Jrooo| J_obog_g:Jo, _o-
b_o:_or:_o_go |:J_:g__o| :r|_b:go_ J_oog_: :_:roog__|: _ogoo|
|:o:_ro| oo__o_:Jo _obo| |:bo| b:rogoo, oro1o| _ob____Jo oob|_b__go
_ogo_o| r_o_r__:roo, o|:booo| b:_o| oor_:ooro :b J_bo__go :b J_-
_:rgooo :_g_rgoo oo g__|o_oo, roog_o_ _ogoo| g__|o_o-|_o:b_o__r
___| oo___ogb_:, oooo__o oor_o| oro__|ooo, roo_go_ _obo|:o_:ro|
__:gJor__:, oro__|o_o J_b___g_oo _obob_gogb_o| b:rooo:__bg_1_
_: |bg.
:g_or| oo:bbo:, roo |_:_o: :ro| ,:_:roo_o| g___oro" go__r:__r_go
1_o|: go__r:__r:|: _: _ob_o:_or:_o:Jo, o_o_:_: ogoo__ g_r :b_r-
b_| :o o:g1__ oboJgb_gog:bo orog_oo| :oo_gg_g:|. |_:_oo| oo:g:r
:oo_:b:| b:roo:__b| bob: og:b1_ b:ooboo| oo|:1r__o, roog_o_ J_o__
|bg: o_gg_g:r_o| obro_:b:_ _b_: o_b:| _:o_J:g__go _: J_|b:ggogo. o:g:_
:g_oro_ ::ro_g_| :o |:_oob1_ o_J:o:|.

258

()
, , :

, -
, , -
. , -
, , - o.
-
. , , -
, P .
e - . , -
( -
, ). - -
, ,
1903 ., , , .
,
1905-07 . ,
. -
(1971),
(1977).
*
-
: , -
. -
, .
a a-a
, -
XIX ., ,
- . -
1891 . ,
(1891-1902), (1893-94) , -
( ,
(. ) ).
, ,
. ,
(-
1881 ), , VI ,
, , VIII
, , . B 1864 .
* .
.
259
, 40 ( 1904 .).

. -
, ( ).
, ,
- (1888),
(, 1901) ( ),
. -
, , -
, 1900
. , ,
, ,
( 2004 . UNESCO
).
,
(-
), y y (162),
(128), (38), (139).
, -
,
, -
, , .
,
(XIX .), - -
.
, ,
, , -
:
.
, XIX
., .
-
. ac
. ac - ,
.
- ,
.
. , -
,
, , , ,
Alus (. alus, c. , .
piwo) (Kraszewski 1846: 37).
.. -
. - . , , ,
, , :

260
. -
, (Pavela 1977: 1-15). -
. -
, a .
,
.., : , , -
. o ,
20 .
a -
a. (-
- ) Dangus (.
) (Perknas, . , - , ,
).
. :
a , ,
(Moniuszko 1909: 16). B -
, - Saule (. ), Numa (. ), Dungus
(Dangus, . ), Deiwo (Deiv, . ) (Chopicki 1848: 1,2).
, , -
, ( , -
). , ,
, -
. a ,

, : -
, , Laima (-
), . , Laima
- , , -
- , - Laima .
:
*
(Moniuszko1909: 12). (-
) ,
/ (
) (Aleksota, . - ,
Alexothe) (Balsys 2009: 134).
. , -
,

, .
. . 1906 .
O , a -
. (
. ) . , ,
* .. .

261
- :
<...> -
, , - , -
, :
!! , , . , , -
. ,
<...> !
!
*
( 1976: 73-74).
.
,
.: -
, ( 1920 .). -
, . -
, ,
, -.
, .
(),
. . , ,
-
. -
(Martiit 2004: 18 -25; Vaiinas 1924: 15).
. ,
:
, , (Nijol),
. , Rosa (Rasa,
. o), Poklius (). -
, ()
(Beresneviius 2001: 102; Balsys 2005: 44). o -
.
,
-

, , XIV (. 1854 .).

, , XIV ( 4 ; .
1826 . , 1839 . ). ,
. ,
, , , -
.
.
1915 . ,
.
, , -
- , ,
* .
, , :

262
. ,
, , ec .
- a a, -c ,
. Pajauta (-
) - , , -
, .
, -
. -
: . - ,
- . -

*
, - ,
- .
**
- , -
, , - , .
- (Deryng 1854: 26).
, -
- .
. - Lizdeika (-
) -
. -
, , . -
, .
-
-
. , -
.
(Beresneviius 1991: on-line).
lizdas (. o):
e. , ,
, , . , -
, o, . A
:
, (Beresneviius 1995: 160181;
1988: 286).
, , -
, . ,
-
, . , a
- . -
.
-
. B XIX
* a (. Auska) - XVI . (. Aura)
- .
** - .

263
XX . () -
, , o e,
, .
.
1908 . -
-
, e
, , .
, -
. , -
-
. ,
( 1908a: 31 ).
o , -

. -, -
, o , .
1907 . -
, , -
,
ca-. -,
e , o,
, (a ).
, , .
, , -
, , , -
y, , . -,
, , -
, , e .
, ,
, ,
. -
oo p , , ,
. ,
.
, - .
, -
: uolas (, . ), Beras (, . -
, . ), Uosis (, . ) Drebul (, . ).
... c -
: , , -
, - - .
, ,
: , , - p (
, , :

264
).
: , , ,
, -, . -
, o, p , o
, , . -
, , - -
e (. egl), .

. -
( , -
) - (rauda).
. .
: ( ) - -
, - .
, , , -
: altys (. ), e ilvinas (),
alias (. ), elti (. ).
, , Velnias () - -
; Velnias
. ( )
(Laume) -
, - . -
, .
( , ) (Vlius 1983: 53-72).
-
, -
, , (Kavolis 1992: 21-34). -
...
: - ,
- , . C .
, -
, (Kritopaitis
1996: 21-34).
. ca- - ,
, , -
- , . -
1907 . . ,

. ... , -
, -
, c , ,
(- 1908b: 3 ).
, -, ,
-

265
, . ,
,
, . , -
,
,
-
.
:
Balsys, Rimantas. Meils deivs Mildos autentikumo klausimu. Logos 59, 2009 balandis-birelis.
Balsys, Rimantas. Prs ir lietuvi mirties (poemio, mirusij) dievybs: nuo Patulo iki Kaulinyios.
Tiltai. Priedas: Lietuviai ir lietuvininkai. Etnin kultra IV, Nr. 29. Klaipda: KU l-kla, 2005.
Beresneviius, Gintaras. Trumpas lietuvi ir prs religijos odynas. Vilnius: Aidai, 2001.
Beresneviius, Gintaras. Gediminas ir Lizdeika. Miestelnai, 1991. Tekstai.lt [on-line]; available
from http://tekstai.lt/literatriniai-sjdiai/2671-miestelenai-1991-gintaras-beresnevicius-gediminas-ir
lizdeika?catid=475%3Aalmanachas-miestelenai. Internet., . 11. 08. 2011.
Beresneviius, Gintaras. Balt religins reformos. Vilnius: Taura, 1995.
[Chopicki, Edward?]. Milda. Libretto, rkopis, 1848. Lietuvos moksl akademijos Vrublevski bibliotekos
Rankrai skyrius, F9-1017.
Deryng, Emil. Pojata crka Lezdejki czyli Wilno w XIV wieku. Dramat z powieci Bernatowicza w trzech odsonach z
prologiem i muzyk skreli Emil Deryng. Wilno: w Drukarni M. Zymelowicza typografa, 1854.
Kavolis, Vytautas. Moterys ir vyrai lietuvi kultroje. Vilnius: Lietuvos kultros institutas, 1992.
Kraszewski, Jzef Ignacy. Anafelas, pieni z poda Litwy, pie pierwsza. Wilno: Nakadem i Drukiem
Jzefa Zawadzkiego, 1846.
Kriktopaitis, Juozas Algimantas. Archainio teksto struktriniai ir semiotiniai bruoai. Liaudies
kryba,VI, 1996.
Martiit, Aura. Literatros modernjimo procesai XX a. I pusje. Menotyra, 2004, T. 37, Nr. 4.
Moniuszko, Stanisaw. Milda, kantata, partytura orkiestrowa sprawdzona i do druku przygotowana przez
Prof. P. Maszyskiego. Warszawa: sekcja im. Moniuszki WTM, 1909 [pierwodruk], Biblioteka WTM,
sygn. 1116/M; Moniuszko, Stanisaw. Milda, kantata mitologiczna, partytura. Biblioteka narodowa w
Warszawie, mf. 3458.
Pavela, Vaa. Giglija (Epin poema) [vert Jonas Graiinas]. Lietuvos nacionalins Martyno Mavydo
bibliotekos Ret knyg ir rankrai skyrius, f. 39-9.
Vaiinas, Petras. Ms dramos ygis. Vairas, 1924, Nr. 7.
Vlius, Norbertas. Pasakos Egl ali karalien mitikumas. Btis ir laikas: Filosofjos istorijos
baruose. Vilnius: Mintis,1983.
Ardzimba, Vladislav Grigorevich. K istorii zheleza i kuznechnogo remesla (pochitanie kuznitsy u
abkhazov). Drevniy Vostok. Etnokulturnye sviazi. Moskva: Nauka, 1988 (,
. ( a). -
. . : , 1988).
Meyerhold, Vsevolod Emilevich. Perepiska. 1896-1939 (vstupitelnaya statya Y.A. Zavadskogo).
Moskva: Iskusstvo, 1976 (, . . 18961939 (-
. . ). : , 1976).
Malenkaya khronika, Vilenec. Severo-Zapadnyj golos, 1906. Nr. 756, 31 maya ( ,
. - , 1908, No. 756, 31 ).
Egle, carica uzhey (Novaya litovskaya mifologicheski-fantasticheskaya drama), Teatr i muzyka. Severo-
Zapadnyj golos, 1907, Nr. 375, 3 marta ( , ( -
), . , 1907, No. 375, 3 ).
, , :

266
Vida Bakutyt
The Legend, Myth, Symbol: Defnition of the Phenomenon in the Context of
Dramarurgyss and Theatres Development in Lithuania
Summary
Key words: myth, legend, symbol, lithuanian language, lithuanian dramaturgy, folklore
The attempts to use a legend, myth or symbol as a reference point in the Lithuanian
dramaturgy and theatre has its pre-history, which often becomes a matter of controversy.
This phenomenon is partially linked with the development of the national and cultural
identity. Indicative in this respect is the period when both Lithuania and Georgia were part
of the czarist Russian Empire at the same time in history. Lithuania and Georgia are linked
by a number of cultural ties: the Caucasus topic was used in the Lithuanian literature and art.
However, the development of literature and dramaturgy in the native language in
Lithuania and Georgia has certain differences. When the famous Georgian writer Vazha-
Pshavela gained recognition in the world of literature (around 1881), the Lithuanian printed
word, with its origins dating back to the 16th century, and the Lithuanian language, being
one of the oldest Indo-European languages, faced the oppression of Polonization and
Russifcation from the 18th century onwards. With such historical circumstances in mind,
we have to speak about two different contexts of development of literature and theatre in
Lithuania and different defnitions of the topic under analysis relating to it. The use of a
Lithuanian myth or a legend in the dramaturgy written in other than Lithuanian language
(19th century) and their use upon the restoration of the freedom of the Lithuanian word are
two different cases loaded with peculiar aspects.
The baggage of the means of artistic expression used by the Polish Romantics
in Lithuania in the 19th century included a number of Lithuanian words and characters
from the Lithuanian mythology, which used to acquire a symbolic meaning and render
archaic characteristics. The master of mythological mindset Jzef Ignacy Kraszewski
wrote his trilogy Anafelas with reference to the ancient Lithuanian mythology and named
it after the songs from the Lithuanian legends. We may draw certain analogies between
the frst part of the trilogy by Kraszewski titled Lament of Vitolis and Giglia by Vazha-
Pshavela (Lithuanian poet Jonas Graiinas, born in Tbilisi in 1903, translated Giglia
into Lithuanian in 1977). The characters of the two works a Lithuanian Ramojus and
a Georgian Giglia are warriors: the descriptive narratives and the scenes picturing the
laments of their families bear certain resemblances.
With the music written by the Polish composer Stanisaw Moniuszko, who
maintained his residence in Lithuania for some two decades, three cantatas Milda, Nijoa
and Krumine were based on the afore-mentioned plot line from the Lithuanian mythology.
The texts (writing in Polish) of the cantatas contain a number of Lithuanian-Samogitian
words evolving into symbols.
The transformed plots from the Lithuanian mythology and the modifed characters
from Lithuanian myths can be seen in a three-act play with a prologue and music Pajauta,

267
the Daughter of Lizdeika, or Vilnius in the 14th Century written by an actor of the Vilnius
City Theatre Emil Deryng in 1854 after a historic novel of a Kaunas-born writer Feliks
Aleksander Geysztowt Bernatowicz writing in the Polich language. The play juxtaposes,
yet does not contrast, two religions paganism based on the Lithuanian mythology and
Christianity. The play makes use of the names of mythological gods and goddesses and
portrays the modifed characters from Lithuanian legends Krivi Krivaitis (head pagan
priest) Lizdeika and his daughter Pajauta. In fact, according to the Lithuanian mythology,
Pajauta is the priestess of Lizdeika.
Krivi Krivaitis Lizdeika is a character from the legend about Vilnius, which has
already become an archetype in the Lithuanian consciousness. He was the one to explain
the dream to the Grand Duke of Lithuania Gediminas, signalling the establishment of a
capital in Vilnius. The name of Lizdeika derives from a Lithuanian word lizdas (Engl.
nest): He was found in an eagles nest. In fact, the epics and folktales of other nations,
including the Caucasus, also include the motif of priests found in a bird's nest. A bird, in
particular an eagle, is often associated with the biographies of shamans or giants.
The plays based on folklore (fairy-tales) made an impact on the development of
stylistics of the stage art in Lithuania in the early 20th century. The refections of polemic
type accompanied a Russian writer and playwright Evgeny Chirikov on his visit to
Lithuania in 1908 and his new work The Magician entitled the Russian fairy-tale, which
was staged by a Georgian director Kote Marjanishvili in Vilnius.
The character from a folktale-legend and the image of a Lithuanian played an
important role in the frst plays of Lithuanian playwrights after the Lithuanian print ban
was lifted in the early 20th century (an offcial ban on the Lithuanian press in the czarist
Empire lasted 40 years (from 1864). In 1907, at the Vilnius City Theatre, the Lithuanian
amateurs staged a fve-act mythological play Egl, the Queen of Serpents by Aleksandras
Fromas-Guutis, a Lithuanian Romantic writer, one of the predecessors of dramaturgy in
the Lithuanian language, based on a Lithuanian folktale-legend. It gives a clear indication
of anthropomorphism: Here you may not only fnd the symbols of a man evolving into a
reptile (serpent-man) but also an irreversible turning of a man into a tree.
Legends and myths also fell into the scope of attention of the founders of the
Lithuanian professional theatre in Kaunas in the early 20th century: Petras Vaiinas
wrote a mythological fairy-tale Milda, Goddess of Love (1920) for this stage. The period
which marked the development of the professional Lithuanian dramaturgy by refusing
the amateur theatre traditions took advantage of symbolism, with its tendencies in the
Lithuanian dramaturgy associated with both folklore (fairy-tale) and the experience of
world dramaturgy. The use of the elements of folklore and mythology in Lithuanian
literature and dramaturgy had an effect on the development of the Lithuanian national
consciousness, playing a crucial part at the time when the Lithuanian intellectuals
embarked on the road of building the national professional theatre.
, , :

268
go_: :___o__
(g:_go:)
g__b_:, oooo, |ooogo: __boo_bo: :bo:r__: go_g_ro
o_:_ro|: _: _r:o:__roo| :bgoo:r_o| _ob___|_Jo
r_1o_o_
|:_g:boo |o__g_o: oooo, g__b_:, |ooogo, go_g_ro _b:, go_g_ro
_r:o:__ro:, _og_goro.
g__b_o|, oooo|: o_ |ooogo| :oo__b_o| o___go:| go_g_r
_r:o:__ro:|: _: o_:_ro, :_g| o:go|o bob: o|_oro:, r:_ bJor J_oobg_g:Jo
_:go| |::bo b__:. _| __boo_bo b:bogorog _:_:gJor__go:, _rogb_go o_
__g__r_go o__b_oo| :bgoo:r_:|o:b:_. |:__r:_|:__o: o| o_roo_o,
ro__|:_ orog_ go_g:_: _: |:_:rog_go_ _:ro|__go r_|_go ooo_roo|
b:bog_o o_gb_b. J___:_ go_g:|: _: |:_:rog_go| _gro __g__r_go
_:gJoro ::bbo:o: _:g_:|oo| |:_oob| go_g_r go__r:__r:|: o_ b_gogb_:Jo
|:_o:o_ _o_o :_ogo __:go:.
o_o_: :_|:boJb:go:, roo go__r:__ro|: _: _r:o:__roo| :bgo-
o:r_: oJogo_r _b:1_, go_g:|: _: |:_:rog_goJo :b|bg:g__go o_o. o:Job
ro__|:_ _boogo: _:rog_go: ob_r:go: g:J:-_J:g_g:o :_o:r_: ooooog:,
ro_or_ _ro-_roo: oboJgb_gog:bo: J_ooo_o__o:, go_g_ro _b:, roo_go_
_b_: oo_g:|, roo _ro-_roo _og_g_|o ob_o-_groo_go _b::, _: :o:| :r_:
go_g_r _b:1_ :oo__o_go bob_o Xlv |:___bo_:b gbg__:, :o o_roo_o|:ogo|
oogob_oo|: _: r_|_oo| oo_r :__o_r:_ ob:r_o_:. :og:ro o|_oro_go
:r_oo__o| :og:go|bob_oo, bg_b _b_: go|:_roo go__r:__ro|: _:
o_:_ro| :bgoo:r_o| or :b|bg:g__g _ob____1_.
_r:o:__ro:Jo go_g_ro oooo|: o_ g__b_o| :oo__b_: :r:go_g_r
_b:1_ (XlX |:___b_) _: :o __roobo: bo:r_:, _:oo__o__goo| :___bo|: _:
go_g_ro _bo| _gg:g :_1_g_o| o_roo_Jo :ooorb_g: o:go|o :b|:__or__go
:|o____oo.
XlX |:___b_Jo go_g:Jo oo_g:b_ oogob_go roo:b_o_o|_o o__b__b_b
go_g_r |o__g_|: o_ oor_| go_g_ro oooogooo_:b, roo_go_ o:___:
|ooog_r _:ogorog:| _: bob: og:b1_ :oo_ob_: :r_:_go boJ:b-ogo|__o.
oooogoo_ro :1rogb_o| _ro_-_roo: og:g|:bobo b:rooo:__b_go:
oo1__ ob:|o _r:|b_g|_oo J__b: o:go|o _rogoo: ,:b:_og_:", og_g go_g_r
oooogoo:1_ _:_r_booo _: b:b:roo_o| J_o:__b_go b:bog_o| |:b_g_o_
go_g_ro |oo__r_o_:b ooo_ob:r_o|.
J_|:og__go: o:r:g_g_o| :gg_: _r:|b_g|_o| _rogooo| oorg_g
b:bog|: Lament of Vitolis _: g:J:-_J:g_g:| ogo:|" Joro| (go_g_go:
oo__o: oob:| r:o_o_b:|o:, roo_go_ !03 b_g| _:o:_: oogo|Jo o:r-
ob: g::-_J:g_g:| oo_o: ogo: go_g_r _b:1_). orog_ b:b:roo_o| oo-
r_o - g:_go_go r:oo___: _: _:rog_go ogo:_ o_roog_o :ro:b:
__|_ro__o_go b:r:_ogo _: |__b_o, roo_go_ o:oo o_:bo| ob_b:r_:|
:|:b:g| o:o Joro| o|:g|_:| _|g:o| b:1|.
o_ :goog:go|bob_o oogob_go: _oooo1o_oro| |_:bo|g:g oobo-

269
_|_oo J__obog o_|o_:| (oo o_o bgo| o:boog1_ _bogro_: go_g:Jo), |:oo
_:b_:_: og_:, o_o : _: r_oob_ ___ob_: go_g_r oooogoo:Jo :r|__g
_:_g:|. _:b_:b__o| ___|__o (_:b_rogo oogob_r:_) J_o_:g_b go_g_r
|o__g_|, roog_o| :_:1r_ogo :ro:b |ooogo_Jo.
go_g_ro oooogooo| |:b__ggog |o____| _: oo_o_o_or__g
o_r|ob:_| gbg__oo |:o-oo_o___o:b oo_|:Jo, orogooo: _: o_|o_oo,
o:_:__:, go1__o_:| _:goJgogo, :b gogbo_|o Xlv |:___b_Jo, roo_go_
gogbo_|o| o_:_ro| o|:booo: b_oog __robo: !854 b_g| _:b_r: _: roo_g|:_
|:__ogg:| __go_| :g__|:b__r _o|_ogo1 _rb:_ogo__| oogob_r _b:1_
_:b_rogo o|_oro_go roo:bo ___g|. oo_|: J_ooro|oor__go: or r_goo:
o::bo1oo, roo_go_ go_g_r oooogoo:| ___g| |:__ogg:_ _: _ro|_o:bo:.
:o:| :r_:, :oo__b__go: oooogoo_ro _o_ro_o| |:b_g_o _: go_g_ro
g__b__o| |:b__ggogo o_r|ob:_o - oo:g:ro o::bo o_g__go go1__o_:
_: oo|o _:goJgogo o:_:__:. o_o_: go_g_ro oooogooo| o:b:bo:_ o:_:__:
go1__o_:| _ogo:.
go1__o_: gogbo_|o| g__b_o| _ro-_roo o_r|ob:Jo: _: go_g_r
_boo_r_:Jo :r___oo_go boJ:b-ogo|_o| o:o:r__go:. obogo_ o:b J_ogo
__ooob:|, go_go| oo:g:ro _r_oo| |o1oro| :bb:, roo_go_ gogbo_|o|
___:_:g:_:_ b:oo_:go_:| :_b___:. oo|o |:b_go go1__o_:, go_g_ro
|o__go|::b go1_:| oo_o|, r:_ ___| boJb:g|. :_|:boJb:go:, roo go1__o_:
:rbogo| ___Jo ooogb_|. __r:_|:__o: o| _:__o, roo |bg: _r_o| _oo|Jo _:
1_oor|o__go_r_:Jo, _:g_:|oo| b:oggoo, bo_o| ___Jo b:oogbo o_g_go|
oo_ogo |:_o:o_ :gr__g__go:. bo_o, :b|:__or_oo _o :rbogo, bJor:_
_:_:gJor__go: J:o:b_o:b _: ogo:o_o:b.
oo_|_o, roo_g_o_ _:__ob__go: _og_gor|: o_ 1_:or_1_ _o_
:gg_b:| :b__b_b_b o_:_ro| ob:_groo| :bgoo:r_o: |_ogo|_o_:1_ o_o__
|:___b_Jo. :oo| :o|:bg_go: r_|o ob_rgo|: _: _r:o:__ro| _g_bo bor_ogo|
!08 bgo| go1o_o gogbo_|Jo _: oo|o b:b:roo_o _:_o_:ro, roo_go_
_:rog_go: r_o|oro: _o__ o:r_:boJgogo: _:_: gogbo_|Jo.
_og_gorJo :r|__go o_r|ob:_o _: go_g_go| |:b_ oboJgb_gog:b
rog| o:o:Jo_: go_g_go _r:o:__r_o| b:b:roo__Jo, o:| J_o__,
r:_ go_g_ro _g_g: o|_g b_:_:ro_go :b_: XX |:___bo| _:|:b_o|Jo
(go_g_ro :ooo__ogo: :o_ro:g: _:ro|__go r_|_oo| _ro| _::bgo_oo
40 bgo| :bo:ggo:Jo) !07 b_g|, gogbo_|o| o_:_rJo, oo_g:r_g_o|::b
_:_ooog_____go: _:|o: _:_: go_g_go roo:b_o_o|o ob_rgo| :g__|:b-
_r:| _roo:|-r_1__o| b_o oo_o___o:bo oooogoo_ro oo_|:, _g_,
g_g_o| ___o_:go. o| :b_rooooor_o1oo| _ro-_roo og:g|:bobo o::-
gooo:: b:b:roo_Jo J_oog_: b::b___o r_o_ogo:_ :_:____g _:_|: o_ b__
:_:____g :_:oo:b|.
g__b__oo: _: ooo_oo _:ob__r_|_: o_o__ |:___b_Jo _:_b:|Jo
go_g_ro oro__|o_go o_:_ro _:o__ob_g_o:_ :oob:__|. !20 b_g|
o__r:| g:o_o_b:|o: |o__o:g_r:_ _:_oo|:ogo| J__ob: oooogoo_ro 1_:-
o:ro ,oog_:, |o_g:r_go| _:g_o_roo.
_og_goro|: _: oooogooo| _g_o_b__o| :oo__b_:o go_g_r go__-
r:__r:| _: _r:o:__ro:Jo go_g_ro _rogb_go _boo_r_o| :bgoo:r_:|
J__b_o b_go, _: oboJgb_gog:bo rogo J_:|r_g: oro__|o_go o_:_ro|
b:oo_:go_:|: o_ :bgoo:r_:Jo.
, , :

270
ivane amirxanaSvili
(|:_:rog_go)
|oo:_g_ |_go_r_o|:
_go|o _:g:b_:roJgogo| b|ogb:|
:|_oo :_:oo:b_o __r:___:|: _: _:_:|_:| oo|:b_r__b bogo_, o:r:o,
|:ob_b:ro_, |bor__ o|obo grb_o:b og:go:b__go| :r__:b, r:_:b _b_or:_,
_bo:_ro_, _or___b1oo_ _o|:b_r_o:b o:go:bo |:_o_|.
_go|o _:g:b_:roJgogo o_o _roo o:o:bo, roo_go_ _og_gogo| g:-
o___: :r:bg__g_rogo bogoo: _: |_go_r_oo. o| o_o boo_Jo ooo|:, o_
r:o__b oJg_bo_ro:, ro_: :_:oo:bo| ob__g___| _b_rog:_ _rb_oo| o:g-
o_:go: _: Job::bo _r:go_:.
o:go:b ob_go:, b:roo___b_go_ _o :ro| o:|1_ b:r|_g _roJo |:-
_:ro. oo__b:_ :bgo| o_o |o_o_bg_|o:b, oo__b:_ _bogg:_ J_orobo_:
_o_o_r_o| :r||, oo__b:_ __g:r_: _g__bo_r_:.
_:r:_ o:b|og|, 80-o:bo bg_o| ogo| bg_b| _ogogoo_r |:o_oro|
J_oo_o:_: _roo _:_:b_:r:, |:og:go:bo oob:, roo_go:_ o:b ooo_:b: |:-
o_:ro |ob:go|_, _J_:go:, |ooo. o:Jobg_ oo___: __r:___o| __b_rJo.
J_|:boJb:g:_ o__ro_: _:ro_g b:gb_r |oo__r_|, __r:g_: _:b__r|,
___g:g_:.
oo_b__:g:_ :oo|:, o:ob_ g_r o__o_o, roo _o_ooo o:oro :b|:1_gr:g_:
oo| oorogb_g b:|o:o|. :J_:r: o_o, roo :o o__:_ _r:go, _ooogo:bo :_:oo:bo|
|_go_ro |:o_:ro |bg: |o_ro__| ooo_:g_:, |bg: :_:b_o|: _: oboJgb_goo|
|:b_| |bg__o_:.
:oo_oo :r :o_gorg_o:, ro_: |_roo1_g |:o__bo_ro o_J:o:| oo-
_o_: b_go _: o:g_ |:ob__r_|o, |:_go|boo Jroo_o_ J_oogo:g:1:.
oo| Jroo_| Joro| :oog:rb_g_o oobor:_o:| ,_ro|_o:b_go o_:_:-
_go: _: |_gb:b-|:: or_go:bo| ooogo_o", roo_go_ 2005 b_g| :oo|_:
:ooo__ogo: ,_bog_r|:go:".
_go|o _:g:b_:roJgogo| :o bobo| o_oobg_g| |:J_:g_: _og_g: og:go
::__gbo| ooog__o_o| o|_oro:|, :bgo| :__bo| _:_:_o| o_oro:| _:
or:__o_:|.
_r:_o_o_g:_ ooog__o_: oobb__go: :b_o__ro ro_oro_o| _ro|_o-
:b_g :b:goo:_, o:r:o roor_ _go|o _:g:b_:roJgogo: J_boJb:, _ro|-
_o:b_go o_:_:_go: :ro| :r: _J_:go :ro_g_: _rob_g-roo:_go
or:_or_go b_gogb_o|:, :r:o__ ogo|orog:_ :b:go oogg_b:, :b:go :bro
- :b:go o|o_gob__g_gooo, oo1b_oo: _: o:|J_:_oo. o_|o| _boogo
,_:_:_: oo:1_" (o:o_, 5-7) :ro| oorg_g|:b_ o_:_:_goo|:, r:_:b |bor__
,oo:1_" :ooo_g_o: o| ooroo:_o o_o_o, roog_|:_ __ro:g_| ooog__o_:.
oogo:bo _: _roo:bo: o__bo_ro| oo_oo: |:_gg_go o_oo|:_oo - _go|o
_:g:b_:roJgogo _ro:_ _: :r_o_b_or__g:_ :bobog:g| _:_:_:o:
|_gb:b-|::|__g o_oo_o_:|, o|o_gob__g_go:|, |_og|, go__r:__r_g
o_ooro:
271
b_:ro_|, oo:g:r oo_og_|, _ro|_o:b_go _oo_o|: _: oor:go| |:_oob_|. _|
:ro| Jroo:, roo_g|:_ g_r_| g_r :_ggo| g_r_ _roo |o__o:go|_o o_ roooo
o_oobg_go, go|:_ |_r| :bgo| :__bo| ooog__o_o| o|_oro:| _: :o o|_oroo|
_ob___|_Jo - |_gb:b-|:: or_go:bo| _:_:_:o: |_ogo|_o_:|.
_go|o _:g:b_:roJgogo| |:o__bo_ro Jroo_| ___o: o:go|__ro
b_gb_r:, roo_gJo_ oro__|oob:go1oo:b _ro:_ :g_oro| oorogb_go oor-
_r__o_ o_oob_: _: _| b_ooo :b:b_o| o_oobg_g| oo|o :b:go_o__ro _gg_-
g_o| ooo:ro.
oro__|oob:go1oo _: oorogb_go ogo|__o :oo:rb_g_: _go|o|
_g_g:b, |:_:_ oo_g:b_o_:: oogo|o| og:b_ _:g:boJgogo| |:b_goo| |:-
b_gobo_o _bog_r|o___|: o_ |_og:Jo.
bogo_ro, |:_oo| o_o_b_, _:__:g:go o__bo_ro _: o__:oo, _go|boo_ro
_og_: _: _ro_go, b:go|o:bo oo_g:|o. :|_oo o_o _: :|_o:_ _:grb_:
b|ogb:Jo _go|o _:g:b_:roJgogo - bg_bo ogor_:|o o_o:ro.
|oo:_g_ |_go_r_o|:
272
eliso kalandariSvili
(|:_:rog_go)
ogo_ro o:r:_oo:_o_o|: _: |:bo|o___g_g_o| o:go|__r_:bo
g::-_J:g_g:| J_oo_o___:Jo
*
ogo_ro |:bo|o___g_g_: :oo|:g:go: _og_go _ro|_o:bo _ro| go-
__r:__r_g-|::1rogbo :oo__og_o|:. _bog_r|:goo|:_oo |br:_g: b:r-
ooJo| |:b_-|ooogoo: o|_o |o|__o:|, roo_go_ |:o_:ro| _roo:bo:Jo,
oogo:bo:Jo ooo:1r_| _: :r: _:b:b_gr__g:_, |___g:r_g:_. o_ob_:
:r_g__go :r___oo_go oo__g_o, roog_o_, _roo obrog, o_:_r:_ r_-
g:o_b_or__go:, o_o_:, o_or_ obrog, _o: _: obg:ro:b__go:. |bor__ _| |ob-
o_1o :_:go_| o:o o|o_gob__g_gorog _: _|o__o__r _b_:|.
J___bogo|: _: J__bo:_o|, o_r:_o|: _: o__obo|, b:r_g:go|: _:
|:|r_go| :b_obooo_ro J__ro_o| |:__og_g1_ :_oo__b__: _roo:bo b__go|,
ooo:ro_g_o| o_ob_ o|o_g:b__:, _1_b:_|| _:oorbog__go |_o___o :o-
g:-1o:r_o| 1oo _b_: _:_r_b__| oorg_g|:b_o|_|, o:|Jo _b_: :___|
oorg_g_obogo, o__:g_ro :roobo:.
ogo_ro |:bo|o___g_g_: :bo|:1_gr_go: :r: obogo_ J_:|:___b_-
orogo o|o_gb__go|:, :r:o__ oo_go J_o_ooo go__r:__r_go _oo__o|:.
o| o:b_:o:b :1rogb_o| b_|:_ o___g:. o:ro:go:, o:b:o__rog_ o_roo_Jo
_boo_r_o| oo1:booo:ro_go ob__b|ogo: o_gg_:, o:r:o ogo_ro :b-
|:bogb_o| _oro_o :go_b__ro o_ _r:b|_oroor__go 1oo __:go_
:b|:1_gr:g| go__r:__r_g-|::1rogbo oro__|o| ooo_ob:r_o:| _g_g: :brJo.
:r___oo_g-o:r:_oo_go :1rogb_: _:ro_go |:|_go_ro _: |:_ro
ob_rgoo| |:__og_go: |:__og_go:. oooogoo_ro _: :_o_oo|__go |oo-
ogo_: :b|:1_gr:g| _ob__o__:g_r o:b:|o:o_g_|, _obo__r :|o____|,
_|o__o__r orb:o||. _:ro_go |:bo|o___g_g_ooo |o|__oo| |::1rogbo b_|o
_b:_:_ ggob__: roor_ XlX, o|_ XX-XXl |:___b__o| _oo_:o: _ogo|o_o_r
o|o_g:b__:|: _: ob:_gr_g-_|o__o__r orob_oo_Jo.
g::-_J:g_g:| J_oo_o___o| o|o_gob__g_gorogo _: |:b_orogo
:oob:_go| o:go|__r_:bo |bor__ ogo_ro |:bo|o___g_g_o| :r___oo_g-
o:r:_oo_g bo:_o:b oo|o or:b_go, |o_roo|__go _:gJoroo ob|b_:. :o:|-
o:b:g_, |o__o_o__ro: o|, roo :b|:bogb_o| _g:|o__r _oro_| :_ _rb_oo|
oooogoo_r, bob:r__ro|_o:b_g b:roo__b:o: :r___oo_go oo__g_o, r:_
:bg__r b__g:| :__|. J_o_ooo _r:b|_oro:_oo| 1oo oooogoo_ro,
__oob_ro, 1_:or_g-_:b_:|_o__ro b:roo__b_o |ooog_r-_|o__o__r
__b__o:| oo_b| _: or:b_g:_ _b_r_: _ro|_o:b_g _boo_r_:Jo, oo or:-
g:g__rog:b _: _:bg_bog |ogr__Jo, roo_g|:_ g::-_J:g_g: _obo|.
g:: :b:g, __bo ,_robo_oo|" _obo|. o:|Jo |:o_:ro| |:|r_go:_, g__-
_or_go:_ ooo:1r_: _: br_r_bg:_, 1__ro_go:_ _: 1_|ogr__go:_,
roo_go:_ _rb_oo| go_:go1oo _: r:go_:_o_go:. :o o:go|__ro _ro-
bo_ooo| oo_o___o| :r_:go _o, _oorg_g_|:_, :_:oo:bo| |_go| bo:_o:.
* _:__go: _o_or_o| :g_oro|__go g_r|o:.
273
g::-_J:g_g:| o_r|ob:o: _g_g:1_ og:gJo|:__oo o:go|__r_::
o:oo :1rogb_o| o:r:_o_|_go:. :o obrog o|obo |r_go:_ :bg__ro _: :b-
|bg:g__go _boo_r_o| _:o:o_go_r__gbo :ro:b XlX |:___bo| _:ro_g
go__r:__r:Jo. orog_o_o, roo_go:_ _| o_r|ob:_o b:oogro:b, obg:g_
o|o_gob__g_gorogo go_ogo| J___:_ oJg_: roor_ |:__o:r o:go:b,
o|_ :r_ooo_g_g |:o_:ro|o:b, |:1o:_o_:|o:b. o:oo :b:go o___o o:r:-
_o_|_go: |:_og_go:o_ _:o_go_r__go :1rogb_o| _ob1_. _| o:go|__ro
,:_oob_b_o:", roo_gbo_ bJor:_ ob__o_oo| bo:_Jo o__| |:o:g_| _: o:b_:o:b
_boo_r, ::1r__g, b:o_g orob_oo_:_ _:go__:. :o 1oo _o b__: ooro|
o__:oor_o1:, __ro|_g:g_:.
g::-_J:g_g:| o_r|ob:o: :1rogb_o| o:r:_o_|_go:|, g_o_roo,
|:__ogg:_ ___: _ro|_o:b_go ooo_gr_o| o:r:_o_|_go _b_:. _ro|_o-
:boo| bo:_Jo _r:_o_o_go :1rogb_o| |:_og_go:o_ :gr__g__go oo-
__go oor__g:_ o_gg_:. _| _ggog__o b_g| _b_o| _boo_r_o| :b:go,
og_go|:b |r_go:_ :b|bg:g__go _ooo| b:oo_:go_:|. oo:b_ o_roooro|
:bo:r__oo, _ro|__| o_b__o _: oo| oo_r b:_:_:_o :b:go oo|__g:__o
_bob::_o___o_: oo_g |:o_:roJo :gr__g__g :1r_|: _: J_b___g__|.
|bor__ :ooo b|bo| boob_: o:o: oo _bg__go r_:__o:|, roo_go_ oo_g:
_r:_go: bob:J_ o:_bogro| _:_:_:|. oo |:1o:_o_:Jo, roogo| oo_o___o|
oo:g:ro orob_ooo o_o: ,o_:go o_:go|: bog _: _ogo _ogo|: bog", o_|o
:o_go_r_| o:r:_o_|| - ,:r: bob::_o_oo:_ oro_o|:". o| or_ggo| og:gbob
_ggo| og_go _oo_o| boro_| :bgoo, og_go :_o_oo| _:bobo| ooo_r:_o_g
ooobogb_| - o:_go| :b|:__or__go, _bg__go orob_oo_oo: ,roo_go:b
__| __roo:g|: J_b|: o:r___b_|:, oo_o_:r _ro__rooo_:", ,:__rob_g_oo
o:b__g:ro: o___bo: _: __oog| __o__oo ooo_g_o: o___bo:". _| :ro| :b:go,
__b:_ro goo_o| o_ob_, o:r:o _ro:__roo _: _1_b:_|o g_Jo:ro__:,
roo_go:_ _b_: Jg:| :b:go :_:oo:bo, b:ogooo oo____go, |_go_ro __-
ro|_g:g_oo :|bogo|b__go.
og_go :_:oo:bo| |o_g_ogo _: oo||:g_ bo:_Jo ,:b:go _:_o|" b:|:bg:,
r:|:_ o:gg_ oo_o__go :b|:__or__g oboJgb_go:| :bog_|, g::-_J:g_g:|
o_r|ob:o: |_go_ro o__:oor_o1o| _oo:gr_|o 1::. :o:| _o o|obo |bor__
:1rogb_o|: _: _o___o| o:r:_o_|_gooo :_b_g_b. o|obo_, o:_bogro| o|:g-
|:_, _ggo:b og_g boro_| :bgoo. _| :b:go orob_oo_o _o o:_g| ___ob_: _:
:r: boro:__g _:bob|. :ooo g:: ogo_ro g_Jo:ro__o| _:o:o_go_r__go:
__b__o:| :bog_| o:go| oor_|.
_b_: J_o_g:go| |:o_:ro, og_go b_|oo _bogr_: oo____go: - :|_oo:
g::| |_go|_g_o_:, o:| :r |_r| ogo|_ooo: Joro|, roo_gbo_ |:o_r:_
_ogor_:|_: _: ooo_oo| :_o_ro_|, :_obo__| :r:|boro :1rogb_:, _:g-
g:|_go J_b___g__o |:o_:ro|: _: :_:oo:b1_. :r:_: ooo| :_:oo::b
|:_o:o_ _gr| b__:g| o|_o|, roo_gbo_ _ro _ro|, :g:o, :r_g__g __b__o:|
:|r_g__:, o:r:o g::| o:b:o__rog_ _oo_:Jo |r_go:_ :oo__:g: bo:_:o.
ob_r:go :b|:__or_oo :oo_o_| oo bg__g__|: _: b_|_|, roo_go:_
J_ro|oo_o|, |o|bgo| :__o| oo_ogo ___g| |:__ogg:_. _ro-_roo :|_oo:
,_o:_robo o_g_ro|" ooggo| :_:oo. _o:_robo_ oogg_: oo_g:g__go,
ogo_ro o:r:_oo:_o_o|: _: |:bo|o___g_g_o| o:go|__r_:bo g::-_J:g_g:|
J_oo_o___:Jo
274
roogo| |o|bgo| :__:, |:o:o_ro| :_:b_: b:o_|:o:o g_r oo:b_rb:, :b_ g_r
_o:_rob:. :|_o o_g_:r| |:o_oo| oo|:o|:b_r__ g_r:gob _:___:, ,_o_ro|o"
:r __og_:. :o J_b___g_o| orooo_o_go:| _: J_1____go:| :b|:__or_oo
:oo:_r_| o| :b|bg:g_:, roo_go_ :o:g_ |:_oobo| _ro|_o:b_g ::1r_:|: _:
oo:Jo _:o_go_r__g _boo_r_:| Joro| :r|_o|. _ro|_o:b_go ooo_gr_:
|r_go:_ :ooro_b:g| robo:_-_ob_r___g r_:go_| oo_g__bo_r, |:-
o_oo :r|_o:Jo. _o_ob_oo_ _: |:|___g_go_ o:go:boo :r|oo |r_go:_
:ooro_b:g_b roboo|oo_r, :_:oo:b_ro |:o_:ro|ogo| _:o:b:|o:o__g,
b_gJ_|:b_ oogg_b_|. o:gg_ oo_o__go| :bo:r__oo, oo |:o_:roJo :r_
_orbob__o:b, :r_ :b_orbob__o:b, |_g| :r |gor__: :r|_oo| oobo_ro,
bog_go _oro_o. :o__b:_, |:o_oo _bogr_o| J_|:b_ robo:_-_ob_r___go
b:roo__b_o obogo_ _r_rbo_bo| |__ro| :b___ogb_:. |bor__ :|_ :_o_-
g:o| g::-_J:g_g: ooo| oo :_:o-b_|_|, roo_gbo_ :_:oo:bo| _boo_r_o|
o|_oroo| _::g:bgoo:r__g __:o1_ J_o_J:g_: :r_g__g :r_oo_:o:
J___:_, J_o_ooJo _o _og_gg:ro |:__og_go :oo__:g: _: _Job::r|o,
__ro o__o_, o:bob_, :r:_o:b_r _r_rbo_b:_ o__:. |bor__ :o:| :_oo:b_b_b
oo|o o_r|ob:_o. :g__: __o_g:_ro o_g:go| oogro| oo1:bJ_bobogo:1_
roo _:_o_r__:, __r |:__o:ro |_go| bo:_| __gor__:, ,oor| _:bogo: bo|-
g_o". |:b:o o_o| ::b_o| o:go| :b:g o|o_gob__g_go:|, o| __r ogooob
o_boo_r_|, r: oob_: o__:go:b J_roog_o| J_o__, r:_oo __r_bo| _g|
:_:o__ __boo :b__:. oo_oo| ll o:go :g__:| |_go_ro o__:oor_o1o|, oo|o
|_go| bo:_Jo ,:b:go _:_o|" b:|:bgo| _b:_o |_r:oo:. |:gg_| o:gg__ ___go|
o:r:_oo: :_ o:go|__ro _r:b|_oro:_ooo ob_b| o:g|. :g__: b:o_-b:o_
oo_o| :b:g g_Jo:ro__:o__. o_g:go| oo_g_oo| _ro _ob_r___g :_:oJo
_:_gg_:| |:_og_go:o_ |o|bgo|_gro| oo1:bJ_bobogo:Jo _:_gg_: oo-
_g_:. ,go|:_ o__ro: oo|b__r__|"... - ob__| g:: _: _g_g: |o__g:, r:_ :oo|
J_o__ oo_o_:, r:_:_ oo|_o__ro, o:o_ro o:goo 1_:__or_bo| obro:|.
_| :1ro|: _: :ooo|:bg_goo| obg_rg:go:, o:_|oo:g_r:_ :oo:_r__go
_oo_o_ro o_b_o| J_o_g_go. b__ggo| _oro_g_o: ,|o|bg _:o_o| __r:Jo",
,|o|bgJo: _ob__| _orbogo", ,o_g_ |:_g:go :ob:ro|" - J_o:orb_b__go
_:__oo_oo :ob_g| ooro| _boo_r_:Jo or_g :b:g ooo_g|| - bg_b
|o|bgJo g:r|_oo, r:_ b_oogo| oo____go:. |bor__ _| :_oob_b: :og_g|
:g__:| o:g:|, _o|bg_rogo| o:go| :b:g orb:o||, :r:__ro _:ooo|, o__o_
- o:_|oo:g_ro oooobogo|. oorg_g:_, ro_: _bogr_o| _ogo|o_o:
_::_o_r_| _: o_oob:g| - ,o:r_oo bg_b g1_o:b ___:bo?" r:|:_ _r-
__goo: _bob_:1_ _o_ro_ oo_g_:, o_or__ _o b:_o:1_, o__:go| |_-
go| |:o:_robo_ oo|_go, _:ob_oo roo _g__r_: _r_o:|, _:__rgo|
o_g_:ro _o|_o| |_g| _: :ooo o:|:_ |_go oo:o_o_gobo|. o:r:_o_|o:,
:oo_oo:_ _g_g:|:ogo| :__:ro _: oo____go, o|_g_, roor_ :b:go
b_go:_ro_bgo|, :b:go g_Jo:ro__o| _::__o| oorg_g ____Jo o_o_go
- ,o_g:r__| o__ro J_bo". _ro|__| 1:1_ o_:ro :g__:, g_Jo:ro_o o:r-
_gogogoo _g_ob_:_ o_:g| o:go| :b:g orb:o||, :oobo|: _: |:ogoo_
:rooboo|, ogobo_r_o| (,o_o| b_ |b__go") oooog_oo boob_: ob__:rogoo
_J___ooo_ :oggo| 1:| _: ,|r:| :_:|r_g_|", ogooob:_ _1o:r_: :b:g
_go|o _:g:b_:roJgogo
275
g_Jo:ro__:| _: oo_g |:o_:ro|:_ :1o:r_|.
g::-_J:g_g:| 1b_orog orb:o|| |:__ogg:_ ___g| _ro|_o:b_go :og:-
1o:r_o| orob_ooo, roogo| o:b:bo:_:_ 1__o_ro _: oobo_ro o_r:r_oo| _og_go
_g_o_ooo :r|_: _b_: oo_o|:g|o| 1_o_oo|. _| 1_|br:_g: :b:ooro_|
oo| |:__b_r_rog |gg:| _goo|__b, :b_ 1b_orog _:bg_b:|: _: :bbo_b_:|.
_g_o_ooo: :og: obg_g| _:__o:|, _:_bob_:|. obogo_ 1_|br:_goo _1o:r_:
:r|o o:go| _o:_g_| ,o_|". o_r:r_oo| |:o:g_Jo _:| _1_b:_|o :r|_:, _o_roo.
:_:oo:b| :b_orooo| 1: ogoo __:go: _:_|:b:, o:| o:g_o| |:__o:r o:gJo
:_:_obo| b:_o _goo|:, :boboob_o| _: _o_roJ_oo|ogo :b__|.
g::-_J:g_g:| |:o_:roJo :r: obogo_ :_:oo:bo, :r:o__ _b_o| _g_g:1_
_oboJgb_go |_o___o_ _o _|br:_go| J_oo_o__o:b :oogo:b_:|, oo| o:_go:b
1o:r_:|. o|obo obogo_ |:oJgobg_go| o:goo ro_o oo_o____b, :r:o__ __-
g_:go obo| _:rb:boo. :oo_oo:_ _b_o| :|_go_r_: g::|o:b obogo_
ob:_gr_go ooroooo: _o :r :ro|, :r:o__ _ro: _ogo|o_o_r-r_goo_ro
_ob____oo| b:bogo, roogo| o:b:bo:_:_ |:o_:roJo :r:__ro: J_oobg_gooo _:
ooo_g|_ro, _og_gog_ _oorbog_: :r_g__g _:bob1ooo_r_:|. _b_:| :_g|
obo - o|, r:_ b_|oo obogo_ :_:oo:b| _b_: _ob__|, _goo| b:_:_ J__obog
:r|_:|. obo| :r|_o: _o o:go|o:g:_ _go|boo| 1b_oo| __boo_b|:_.
g::|o:b _b_:| o:go|o 1b_ :_g|, 1o__r :_:oo:bo: o|:g|o, 1o__r
_o o:o1_ :o:_g__go_ _o. __ro o__o_, _o_b:go o_ :r:_o_b:go _b_o|
|_o___o: oo_r :_:oo:bo: ___go| J__:|_:, o:oo _o___o| oor:g_r-_oo__ro
__oboo :b|_: g::| J_oo_o___o| o:bo__go orob_ooo:. :oo| o::gooo or:g-
g:_:: oo| oro1:|: _: oo_1o:Jo. og:g|:bobo_o|ogo| oogobooo _ro o:o:b|.
ooobro:Jo ,_g__o obogo_ _rob_g |o_g:" b:roob_bogo: :_:oo:bo: oroo-
ro:, |o__go|: _: |:_oo| _roo_ro_:ooro|oor_:, og:goo:__o:. _g__
o:rogo|oo_o_go:, o:obog__go:. o| _:_o: :g1b_o:| |_go| |o_ro_o__
:bo__o| _: __ogo| :b|b:| :oo| oo1_1o. :_:oo:bo| |o_o_bg_ _o_go|: _:
oob:bo_o| _b_g__o _:ggo:. _| |:ob_b:ro _:bob1ooo_r_::. _g___ _o, _|_go
_g__, _go|__ogogoo J_boJb:g|: ,_ 1b_ roo :r go_o__ _:_o|:, ___|g_ oo_-
go _g__bo| og:gbob :g__b_o, r:_ J___oo: oo|ggo:, r:_ _:_ro:g__g:
___:oobo| 1_r1_, o:r:o :o:o Jroo: o_b_o_:: _:_o: _b_: |_o_o|, _o__g
J___oo: b:o_obo|, roo o_r_ ob:bo|, J_o__ o|_g __:_o|, J___oo: ::|boro|,
_|:: oo|o |o_o_bg_, _o:_, _:g:b:bg__o _g_g: oo| ob_o|, roboo| _|_-
|_ro:|, :o:| roo :r gb__:g__, _: o__ _:go__J_o_o. :_:r oob_o_: o:| J_o-
__ |o_o_bg_, :_:r_ o_o b_oo _o_b: |:goro, _g_:oJgo__oo, __bo_r:_
_:gb_g:g_o og:g| _: oogo|g_b__o" (g::-_J:g_g: 2002:!68).
|:__o:ro :r|_o| o|bg_rog:_ :__o|, o:_:go o__:g_o|ogo| o:g-
:bborgo| o::goo_o g::| |bg: ob1_g__Jo_ or:g:g1o| ob_b| o:g|.
g::-_J:g_g:| J_oo_o___:Jo J_|:og__go: og:go :g:__gboo :_:-
oo:bo| |_go_ro :bgoo:r_o| 1:|. ogoo:bbo_b_o| |_rgogo o_r|ob:Jo
:_or:g| 1b_orog ooo_g||, r:_ b__: |:bob_:ro oo|o Job::bo :_o:|ggo|:.
:o oro__|| |:__ogg:_ ___: |bg:_:|bg: oogg_b:, 1o__r o__:oor_o1:
:oobg__go: oo____ro, :r_J_ oo1_1oo, _o_o| goo_oo, ooro|:b :-
__boo_r_g:_. oob_o: _:_o: __g_o:Jo o:go| oo_ggo| oo1boo g:o|
J_oo_o___:Jo
276
g_go| bor_|, _o_ro|, roo :ooo _:|r_g__: oo|o _|:1_gro _:b_g:.
o:b :r o_o|, roo :o :__oo |_go_ro og:go :_bog_:, :b:g |_g| b:o_:o|,
:b:g bor_| J_o|b:o|. oob_o:| _b_:|o:b bogb:_:ro: _o_o_ _go|boo|
_o_roo:b o:b:1o:ro:|. :oo| _:|__ro: _goo|:b oobog__go __rb_o|
_b:ro, roo_go_ |:|b:_g_o___o| _ro-_roo |:b_:. o:_bogro| oobo_ro
oo_g:b_o:_ boo or |:b_o|| ___ob_o_:: _:_:_: _: |:_gorg_go_o___:.
_ro|_o:b_go |ob:b_go| oo_ogo o:g1_ or:b_go: g::| J_oo_o___-
o|ogo|. _| _b_rogo_::. |ob:b_go __o__|o |:o__ogo:. oo o|gg:g:g|
oo_g ,:b:g :_o_o:|". oo:b_ b:ogo|o__o_go :ro| oorg_go o_:_:__go _ro|-
_o:b_go |ob:b_go|:. o:| boob_: o:o_o :|__ _bo___b: ,_:_:o |ob:b_go|:".
b:ogo|o__o_go bob _|br_| o_|o _ro|__|, r:o: oo_bo_o| b:gb|, :b:o1:_ob
1:bo __go|:. oo:b_ o_roooro| :bo:r__oo, o___g_gbo :o _ro| _o_go|
__g_o:Jo o_gb_b, o_o_: g_r robo_b_b :o:| _: o:go:bo o:g| _obo, o:r-
o:g :_:oo:b_:_ ooobb_g_b_b. _: :o, oo_o| oo:b_ b:ogo|o__o_go, r:o: _-
r:_g_| og:go :_bogo| _o_g_1_, r:_:b |:__o:r |_go_r o:b_o_r_:o:
J___bogo: o:o g_Jo:ro__o| 1o_:b :b:___:. b:ogo|o__ogo| oog-
gob_o| oo1:bo o| o_o, roo b:gb| o:go|o _o_g_o J___bo _: |ob:b_go|__b
oo_r__ogo_o, o:r:o :o _o_g:o: :oo :_:oo:b_o _o :r _b_: _:|_ogo_gb_b,
:r:o__ oob:bo_o| 1oo _b_: J__oob:o o:go_:go:, :b_|:_:o |:__o:ro
o:go _: oo__oo J_b_:g_:. |ob:b_g| _b_: oo_g_| og:go| :b_g:, og_go 1o-
_:b :_:_oo: _: b:ogo|__o| o:goo g_Jo:ro__:1_ oo___g:. |ob:b_g| _:-
_:_| ogoo o:_bog:ro_. ,J_ob:b_o" - _| :r: _r:go ooo:rog::, roo_go_
:_:oo:bo: J_oog_: J_:|r_go| :b :r J_:|r_go|, :r:o__ :__og__go, :r-
_:_g:go ooobogb: o:oogo|, gob_ o1:_:: :_o:ro| oo _ro:__ro _: ____:r
g_Jo:ro__:_, _:ooo|, r:_ :_:o__ o_o _: _g_g:__ro o:go_:b _:ob_o|.
_ro|_o:b_go |ob:b_go| oo_ogo ___g| |:__ogg:_ g::| J_|:boJb:g
oo_o: ,ooo_r _: :_Job:|". oorogb_go :bgoo:r_o| 1:| :_ |bor__ |o-
b:b_go| oo:_ro :b__: :b|:1_gr:g|.
o. bb_b__go| _:_gorg_oo, g::| o_r|ob:o::b 1oo 1_:_o:g:go:,
1oo_ - _g__:_o:g:go. 1_:_o:g:go: :g__:, r:_:b o| orob_ooo: Job::bo
J_b:rb_b_oo _o:_g_| o__:go: _ro_go rb_:, _g__:_o:g:go ooro:
oob_o:, roo_go:_ g_r J_ogo _goo| bogo| _:__gb: |:__o:r o:gJo (bb_b__go
!8:5!).
1_:_o:g:g ooro: _:__oro:| :b___ogb_: :_Job:. oo|o 1:, o:r-
og:_, :oorb__go: _ob_r:|__goo| boJboo: J:r:1o| _:b:_oo_:b - b_-
go|ro:o__. ooo_ro g:_o |_go| o_ob_:, :_Job: Job::b o:go|__g_:|
oo_g__go, J_ogogo oorogb_::. o:o b:|o:o| :b|:1_gr:g| o:oog_ 1b_o-
rogo oro_b_or_o. ooo_ro _or|_:| _o|:b_r_:, :_Job: - __or|o:|.
1b_orogo o_b_o, roo_go_ o|gg:g:g| ooo_ro| |:__o_g| o:oo
J_roog_o| :o|, :ro| o| ooo, roo_go:_ _b_: ooo_:bo| :_Job:| __-
ro|_g:g_:. :o J_oobg_g:Jo ooo_g|o :r__:b oo_o|, o:r:o |o_roo|__go
Jo:_g_og_o| o:g:| oo_b|. :_Job:| :r_:_ob: ___ b__:, _| :r :ro| o_:b-
_g_go oro__|o, roor_ |bg: J_oobg_g:Jo (:g__:, oob_o:). o_r|ob:o: |:oo_-
o__o |ogr__ :r |___: roogo| g_g|. oo__go o:r_ogo:: J_bg__r:, obog_:,
277
:_o:r_:. o_o_: b:brogogo _: o_:b_g_go: J_o__o __:oo - |:__o:r
o:go:b o:r_o _:rb_b:. ooo_ro|:b J_b_oogo :_Job: _go| b_g_g|
o:ob_ g_r orb_b|. o| __g_ b_go|_ro:, |bg:o: |_g_1_ 1r_b:g|, ogoo J__b_o|
_o_g_| oob:bo_o, o:r:o oooo_ _: _:oor_bg_go _:r_o _r_bo| oo| Job::b
:r|_:|. g_Jo:ro_o |ob:b_go b:brogogo _: o_:b_g_go:, :bbo_b_o|__b
ooo:g:go 1: __go:bo:. oo ogoo_:_gg_:|, |_go_r :or_:|, Job::bo bo-
b:|boroo| _:r_g_g:| obg_g|. goob:_ b:g:r_bogo :_Job: oo _o_g_| ob:-
bo_|, roo_go: ::1r_:_ _o_roo: _::_o|r:. oo_oo| _ob:gJo :_Job:| ooo_o|
_:og__go :_g| |:__o:ro _o_go| J_rob_:, oo b_go|ro|, b:gb| :ro_|,
ooo_gr:g|, o:r:o |_go_r oJgo_o:o__ __r Jor|:: - _:o-_:oooo _b:r_
_r_ogoo _oro|, :g:o, |o_o_bgo| ogoo___ o_gooob_|, r:_:b:_ |_go|
:b|o__:__o| 1: _:b_g:|: _: |_go_r go_ogJo :oobb__:. :_Job:| |_go
roogo| g_go:, :r:b:_g_ oo:_ro roogo|:, go_r_ ooo_ro:b _o1o__ro
_:ooro|oor_: o_o. bogoo: _: o:r:_oo :o oo| g_r ooo_, o| |_go_ro og:go|
:b_g:| _: 1_:o:_g_:|, _goo_ro|__b |br:_g:| oooobog|.
:b|:__or__go oboJgb_go: _bog_: g::-_J:g_g:| J_oo_o___:Jo
bogg:-bg_b__|, 1__boo_r, oo_oo_r, 1__b_rog oogg_b_|. _| b:_:_o
oo__b:_ oog:gro:, roo g::| o_gg_g:ro: __o__|o b:bogo |::b_o_ J_-
o|b:ggo| o:| (r. _o_b:o_, . :|:oo:bo, o. bb_b__go, r. |or:o_, r. og:r:o_, 1. _o_-
b:o_, o. _g_boo_, o. J:r:oo_ _: |bg.). bogg:-bg_b_:bo :bbog_go: roor_
o|o_gob__g_gorogo, o|_ ob:_gr_g-_|o__o__ro __b__oo| og:g|:1ro|oo.
bogg: :oo_b:__o| _ro-_roo Job:_oro::. o| |:__ogg:_ ___g| ro-
or_ bob:r__ro|_o:b_g, o|_ J_:|:___b_orog b:roo__b_| |:o_:ro1_.
o:|Jo o_:gb__: :o: o_ oo _oo_o|, b:gbo| :1rogb_o|: _: b:|o:oo| o:go-
|__r_:bo. :r|_o| oooo|_ro bogg:-b:roo__b_o, roo_gbo_ :_roo-
:b__b _oo_|, _r_| _: _og___o_ro b:|o:oo|:: |_go_ro oo_g:b_oo| _r-
oogooo| og:g|:1ro|oo. _| b:roo__b_o _roo|: _: |ogr_o| oo_o:: _:
:r_g__go :oor__gooo:_ b:|o:o__:.
bogg:-bg_b_:bo _ro|_o:b_g :1rogb_:Jo_ _o_ rog| :|r_g_|.
og_g:_o_oo|__g o|_oro:Jo ogo_r o:_ro:r_o: _: bob:|b:ro___g_go:
bogg_o _goo|b_bo| (o_o_:bo:) r:bJo: :_g:bogo. _1_b:_|o __b:__: oo_-
g_:g| bog_go r_:goo| |_b|_:g_ro boJboo (_g:ogo, ___bgo, _r_|o,
b_g_o:_o) :__g_ogo, o_o_: oo|o oo_oo_ro, :r:robo:_o |:b_o|o o__:o
:___b_or__go:.
:b:g:_o_oo|__g |:o_:roJo bogg:-bg_b_:bo __go| _o__o|, oo|o
|___go| b:rooob_bo:. :oo_b:__: :_:oo:b| |_go_ro :oo__og_o| _:b-
g_bo|, Job::bo ggr__o| :bgoo:r_o| 1:| _b|bo|. :oo| _g_g:1_ og:g|:bobo
:ooggob_:: b:ro:roo |:gg_| :r_:_ob: o:gg_ oo_o__g:_. |bor__
:oo_b:__o| o:goo o_goo_| oo| :r|Jo oogg_o:r_ ooo_g|o b:ogo|:,
g_Jo:ro__o|:. |:gg_ _b_: _:ro:g__|, o_, _:o:|_o| 1:1_ _b_: _:_ogo|
og_go :r|o _: og:go _b_: :_bogo| obogo_ roor_ o:gg_|, :bg:_ Joog|,
:b:go :r|oo, :b:go g_Jo:ro__oo.
:oo_b:__o| _o:_g_|o _oro:: :oo_:go_|_ro bogg: oo:b_ _goo|-
o___g_go|:. _| :ro| o:|J_:_ro, go:g_ro ggr__: |:o_:ro| :_|:|r_go|:
J_oo_o___:Jo
278
_: oo|o o:bo__go oogg_b_o|:. o:_oo|o| g:g:Jo oo:b_| oo_r :b__ogo oo-
__b:_ oo|_o__ro: o:go|o :r|oo, roo oo|o :_b_r: obogo_ |ooogo_oo,
ooboJb__oo, o__:_or_oo o_: J_|:og__go. _|_:_ogoo_ro _r:o1oo
|__g| obro:|, o_o_: 1__o_ro o_r|_:gooo| |:ogoo |___go| o_r|o___og:|
:o:_g__go, b__Jo|o__o_go ob_ob:_o:_ J_oo:_g|.
g::-_J:g_g: o:go| ob1_g__Jo ooo:ro:g| roor_ oooogoo_r,
o|_ :_o_oo|__g bogg:-bg_b__|. :_|:boJb:go:, roo oooo oo|ogo| ogor_:|o:,
roor_ b:gbo| bo:_Jo b:roo_obogo, oo|o J_oo_o___ooo _b:ro| b:rooob_bo
oogg_b:. oooo boo _b:_:_ :gg_b| :_:oo:bo| ob_o|: _: :r_ |:o_:ro| _:-
_:gJor_o| _b:r|, r:_, o:go|o:g:_, _:b_:1oo|, o_b_o|, |:|_rg_go| oo-
o_g|_| J_o_:g| _: J_oo_o___ooo :1rogb_o| b:oo_:go_:| _b_o| b_g|.
,ooo_o o| |:J_:g__o:, roog_oo:_ :r___oo_o, :r:_boo_ro| :r|_ooo
_oro_o ggob__: _: _boo_r ob_:| __:gJor__:. :r___oo_o ob_ogo_o:
|o1or_Jo ggob__: _:, :o__b:_, |o1or_| J_oog_: o_r|ob:go1__go oo-
o_o, bogo ooo_| __o_r|ob:go1__go |o1or_o g_bo_oo" (goooo_ 2008: 2!8).
bogg:-bg_b_:bo g::| oo_o_Jo |bg:_:|bg: __b__o:| :|r_g_|. _|_-
bo:: :o: o_ oo _:__o|: _: oogg_bo| bob:|b:ro___g_g_:, :r:r_:g_ro| go-
1_:go1:_ooo _oo:gr_|o _ob____oo| :oo_g_o:, ooro| ob__o_oo|: _: b:-
o_gboggo| _b:ro| :___b_or_:, _g__boo_ro|, _boo_ro|: _: 1__boo_ro|
_roo_ro:b|:1_gr_goo|, :b, ooro_oo, :oooro_b:goo| bg_b_: _ob_r___g
J_oobg_g_Jo, :_:oo:bo| |_go| bo:_Jo b:_ro:g_: _: oo|o _:_r_|o ob:r__o|
:oo_bo:, :b_ ,|_go| b:_oobg:", __go| ogoob_bo| (o_o_:boo|) oo|_o__ro
b:__o|: _: oorogb_:|: o_ ___1_ o:oo 1_oo_o___o|, :bobo_b_o __b__oo|
_b:__o_:.
_b_: :_oboJbo|, roo g:: oooogoo_ro bogg:-bg_b__o|, g__b__o|:
_: 1_:or_g-_:b_:|_o__ro :r|__o| (__g_o, :g_:__o, gob__o) ___|__Jo
:_b_ro|:| :r:|o__| ooo:ro:g| o__o__oo, ooo_r:_o_g ob_ob:_o:|. o:b
_:r:_ o_o|, roo _og_g ooo|, g__b_:| oro Jr_ :_g|: r_:g_ro, :b_ |:rbo_bo
_: or_:g_ro, :b_ _:___r__go. :oo_oo:_ o:| bogg: o_ bg_b_: _og_gogo|
J_oo:_g| :r: roor_ oo____ro, _:o__o___go _:__o, :r:o__ roor_
ob_o| _:Jg_:, |:g:r:__o r_:go:. :oo_oo:_ o| :r:|o__| :r b_r|, 1_|_:_
:|_ oob_:o. ooo_r _: g__b_:r_g _oo1o_| _og_gogo| :bg:g| |o__g: :b _r:1:,
roo_go_ o:| o__o___g_o| |:b_| __:r:g|. g:: b_r|: ,:oo_b", ,b__:g_b",
,_b:b:go", ,|o_bo:o", ,o__go:b", ,og_g:_ :obogo" _: :.J. :o 1oo o| ooo_o|
bg_b:b :__bo_| _:__|, r:o: oog:boJbo|, roo _| :r:: oo____ro r_:go:,
ooob_:ro _: :_|r_g__go, o:r:o :r_ _|:__oggo, J__og__go, _:_Jg__go
_:b_:|o:oro::. :|_ ob__: ,:b_roobo|" |:o_:ro _ob:go, roo_gJo_ g_go|
oo_r g_b_oo| b|bo|: _: :__ob_o| :o:go: :_oo__o_go. _oo1o_o :|_ ob__::
,o__go:b, o:_go| ooo| oor|:"... J_o__ _o :o:| oo_g_: b:b_gr:_ g__b__ro
obro:. g:: :r|:_ g:o:g_| _:go__roo _:___r__go, :r goo__o__|,
roo _| _:__o o:| o:g:_ :_g| b:b:bo :b b:robo-:b__ogo. o| _robog:_,
_:_o1:_ oog:boJb_|, o__go:bo _: _:b:rb_b| bg_b oog:b_o|. :ooo o| o:g1_
:bgo| _:| |:b:r_o|__g ob_ob:_o:|o:b. _boogo:, roo o:_bog:ro o:go|
ooo_gr_:| :_:go_| :r: J_ob_:o: :b ro:b_:o:, :r:o__ ,b__:r_:o:"
279
|:boo. o| ro_o :oo|, obogo_ :|_oo :_:oo:bo o_b_: b__:roo, :r:o__ _:_:-
_|, _g_g:, gob_ ooo|_rg_| :|_ oo___g:|, b__:ro o_b_:o. o:_bog:ro :r:go|
:o:g_|, _:o__ro| oo| oo_r :_|r_g__go |:|b:_g_o. go|:_ o:g_-orbo_bo|
og:go _: __ro :_g| - orbo_b_|, go|:_ :r: - o| o:_go| :r_J_ _:o_og_|
o:g|.
,:b_roobo|" roogo| bob o_oor_| boob_: ooro __b:__:. g::
:_b_r| :o bogg:|, ogoo ob__:ro: og:goo _:b:b_g|. oobo o_ooro_:b oo-
oo__go boob_:b| |bg:_:|bg: :|o___oo :_o_g:o| - _roo oo| rb_obg:g_:|
_|g:o| b:1|, o_or_ - _goo_ro:|, o_|:o_ - o_r__o|_r:_ :_o_g:o|, o_oob_
- g_go| _g:gog| :_:r_|. _| |_o____r :b__:Jo oo____go r_:go::,
roo_g|:_ _oo_oo| o:_|oo:g_ro o_b_oo :_g|_: oo|__g|. :oo| J_o__ g:J_:ro
boob_: ob__ro:_ :_b:__| o:g|. r_:go: :_:_ :o_g__bo_ro|: _: oo_oo_ro|
1_g:r1_:.
g::-_J:g_g:| oo_o_Jo bogg:-bg_b__o roo :r_g__go oorooooo|
J_o_g_go:, _| |:o__bo_ro go__r:__r:Jo_ :ro| :_boJb_go. r. |or:o_ ,|__-
o:r-o:|oobogo|" _ob:go| :b:go1o|:| b_r|: ,:o J_oobg_g:Jo oooo|_ro boggo|
J_oo_:b: :o:rog__go: oooo, roo o:_:go o__:g_o oooobog| :o o__:go:
:bbor_o_g_:|, o_b_:_ og_1o_ro _orooo. :_:_ g:: :g_oro|__go _:-
b:ro_oo oogoooo_| J_oo_:bogo oooo|_ro boggo| ooroooo:1_: ,_:o-
_:o b__:g_b |_r:o|:" - :_:_ :_boo_r_:: ooo|:, roo _oo1o_o ooroo-
oo b:|o:oo|::, oorooooo| __b__o:1_ g:_o_r_|. oo|o __b__o: _o _|-
o__o__ro:. oo |:bo| :b1o:__:| _o|:b_r_:, _o|:b_r_: oo_oo| ooroo:_o
o__o| :oo_bo:|" (|or:o_ !75:46).
g::|o:b oooo|o :_ro|_o:b__go:, :b:g r__g1_: oo____go. :oo|
_oorg_g_|o boJ:bo: oorogb_goo|, ob_ogo__:goo| bob, :|_g_ _or__g_:o:
oo |o|__oo| :1o:r_:, roo_go_ _ro|__| ooo_gr_:| ___g| |:__ogg:_.
bogg:-bg_b_:o: __b__o:_ o:go|__ro _: :b|:__or__go:, o::goo:_,
|o1o:ro bob:|b:ro___g_g_:|:_ J_o_:g| _: 1b_orog |b:gg_:|:_, o| b:b
ob_oro _: :oggorg:g_: (_goro:| |o1o:ro ,:b_roobo_:b", o1o:| |o1o:ro
,g_go|og:o_go_:b"), b:b _o ob_g:_ :oo|:_boo _: _:|:_o_r__go (:g__:|
|o1o:ro ,:g__: __o_g:_ro_:b").
:oro:_, ogo_ro o:r:_oo:_o_o|: _: |:bo|o___g_g_o| :og:go|-
bob_o| :r_J_ g::-_J:g_g:| J_oo_o___o| J_|b:gg: _:gobrogo _: :r:-
|r_g_o_ogo:. _ro|_o:b_go _boo_r_: :b|:1_gr:g| oo| o_r|ob:o: 1b_-
orog |:b_|, ob1_g_:o: ob:_gr_g-_|o__o__r _b_:|.
_:oobo_:bo:
g::-_J:g_g: 2002: g::-_J:g_g:. oo_o_o. o.: ,_o:", 2002.
goooo_ 2005: goooo_ . ,or:_o| |_og:". go__r:__ro| o_oro:. XX |:___bo|
o_oo_ogoo_o. o.: go__r:__ro| ob|_o___o| :ooo__ogo:, 2005.
|or:o_ !75: |or:o_ r. ,oooo|_r bogg:o: _: bg_b_:o: __b__o:". g::-_J:g_g:| b_oo
oo_o:. o.: ,|:_:rog_go", !75.
bb_b__go !8: bb_b__go o. oJg_bo_ro oog_g:ro. o.: !8.
J_oo_o___:Jo
280
Eliso Kalandarishvili
(Georgia)
Peculiarities of Biblical Paradigmatics and
Tropology in Vazha-Pshavelas Creativity
Summary
Key words: biblical paradigmatics, tropology
The basis of paradoxical thinking of Vazha-Pshavelas protagonists is paradoxical
nature of Christian doctrine. The widespread pattern of traditional thinking radically
changes in the depths of Christianity. These changes provide the formation of new, totally
different type of consciousness. In Vazha-Pshavelas world not only man but even the most
insignifcant subject of Nature strives for the wholeness with the Creator, communion with
his grace. Personifcation of nature in Vazhas creations is not only artistic conventionality
but a part of profound philosophical and religious concept according to which there is
nothing accidental and impulse in the world, everything subordinates certain regularity.

281
rusudan canava
(|:_:rog_go)
oro: r:_o:bo| b:Jrooo - _:_g: _: |o___o
Pro et Contra
o., go__r:__ro| ob|_o___o| :ooo__ogo:, 20!!.
go__r:__ro|o_o_b_o: _ogogoo_r _o|_oogob_| Joro| _g_-
g:1_ _ob:oo__ro _:ro:. _roo obrog, ooo_o| _g_g:__ro __g_ _:__bogo:,
o_or_ obrog, _g_g:__ro, r:_ __g_ _:__bogo:, b_g:b:g ::1r_:| _:
_or___or_:| oooobog|. _| |_g:_ :r :ro| :bor_:, _| oo____ro r_-
:go::. :o, rog:_ roo go_g:o, :r:o_r:_oo| _ro-_roo _oo:gr_|o
oo1_1o __roobo| _b_:Jo _b_: g_oooo. go__r:__ro|o_o_b_o: _o, _oor-
g_g_|:_, |bor__ __roobo| b:rooJo:|, oo| _oro:_g:g_:| _: ,__g:_o:|"
o_gg_g|.
_:_g: _: |o___o o:go:b ,b:_boo" __roob_o:, o:r:o |:_o_ |:_o_1_
roo oo__:, o:oo _roo:b_oo|:b :oo_bg: _: oooo__go| ,|:1_gr_o|"
_:__b: |:_o:o_ ro_go:. |bor__ :o |:_oobo| :b:go1| _o_gb_: oro__|or
oro: r:_o:bo| b:Jrooo ,_:_g: _: |o___o (pro et contra)". b:Jrooo oobo
oob:_g_oo|:b J___:: oorg_g b:bogJo :bbog_go: :b_o__ro og:g|:1-
ro|_o _:_go|: _: |o___o| J_|:b_ (og:_obo _: :ro|_o__g_), o_or_Jo
- o_roo_o oo|_:b_o__roo_:b roo:b_o1oo| b:oggoo, o_|:o_Jo - r_|_go
_oro:go|__ro |_ogo| b:rooo:__b_go: J_b___g__o, o_oob_Jo -
_b__o| o_oro:.
o|, roo _g_g: ooroo:_o go__r:__r_go :bro :b_o__ro:Jo b:oo-
_:go_: _: ,ooob:og:", |:_og_go:o_ :ro| :_o:r__go. _boogo: o|o_, roo
:b_o__ro:Jog_ _:ob_o _ogogooo|, roor_ o__bo_r_go _o|_oogobo|
J__ob:. og_g_rob_go: go__r:__r:o oorg_g:_ ::_boo_r: o:go, roor_
go__r:__r:o, :o:| _o b_go J__b_o go__r:__ro| |o_-_o:g_ro o_oroo|
- oo__o_o| - b:rooJo:o. go__r:__r:, roo_go_ _J-g_| :o _ooo| r__-
g__|o:| o:go| |:__o:r r_1_g_:__1_, |:g|_oo |bg: roo| oogg_b::.
*
|r_g
|oobo__| go__r:__ro| o_oro:o :ro|_o__g_| ,oo__o_:Jo" oo:_bo:. _rob_go
go__r:__r: oo_go o:go|o :r|oo, ooo_o|, oooobog|, roo oo :o:1rob,
roor_ o_oro_go oo__o_o| |::bo. oo__b_o_ro o:b:_:r_o: o_oro_go
oo__o_o| J_|:og_go:|o:b oo_go _rob_go go__r:__ro|ogo| :ro| _:-
o:b:|o:o__go, oo b:b:roo__o| b:oggoo, roog_o_ oo__o_o| _::__:o__
*__r _o__g __oo_ro__ b_r_: ob1_g__| ,oo_1oo| J_|:b_" (roo_gJo_ |:_:ro: J_o_ooJo
_ro:_ ooo_g:r_g oo___r ,|oo_1_"), ,oo_ro|o| J_|:b_", ,oJgo:oo :oob:o_g:o_| |bo-
r:_ :ooo_oo| J_|:b_", ,|o__g_o| |og:o:1o| J_|:b_", ,g:o:1:_ _: _Jbo_ __r:_ _r_-
1_ o___g_g_:Jo", ,|oo__ro| J_|:b_" (Frgm. B 16a-25 Diels). __oo_ro__ |:ob__r_|o_ b_r_:
__g__r:1_, oo|o b_gogb_:oo_o_b_oooo _r:__:__o:: ,o_|o_o| J_|:b_", ,ob:_groo|
J_|:b_", oo o|__go| _ogogo1:_oo| _b_1o|1__.
:oobo:_r_:, r___b1o:
282
J_o_ob_b. :|_ roo, o_ |:_oob| :o __oboo J_gb__:go, __roo_: roo _rob_go
go__r:__r: Jobo_:b :oo__o :r:-go__r:__r:| _: :ooo, :r_g__go :1-
roo, oorg_g:_ :b_: o:go|o:g:_o, J_oog_: :r_ o_ _:gg:|_g:_ oo-
g_bg_bo| o| oo|:1r_:, roo go__r:__r: ,_:o:_:" |:_rob_oJo.
oo_b__:g:_ ooo|:, roo :b_o__ro oo__o_: :bobog:g| ob:_gr_go ___-
|_o| |::1o|o _oooob_b__|, _:_go|: _: __roobogoo_ro :oo_gbo|
|:_oobo |:_o:o_ ro_go:. o:ro:go:, o:g:_ __roob_o ,_:_g:" _: ,|o-
___o" go__r:__ro|o_o_b_o:Jo oogo:b_oo o_go_r__:, o:r:o :o __r-
oob_o| _:r_o _b_:-__roob_o, r:|:_gorg_go:, __ro :_r__g _oo__Jo:
oo|:oo__go. o. r:_o:bo :bobog:g| __r og:_obo|, J_o_oo _o :ro|_o__g_|
oo|:1r__| :o |:_oobo:b _:_:gJor_oo.
og:_obo|ogo| oo_1o: (_: |:_roo_ b_gogb_o| _g_g: _:ro) :ro| :og:,
J_|::oo|:_, _g_g:__ro, r:_ oo__o| oo_r oob1g_: _r_ _: :oob:obo:,
r:_o oo___r ob1_g__| :r: :_go oo:g:ro _:|__go: - g_Jo:ro__:, o:o
J_oog_: obogo_ _|o__o__ro __b__o: _:__o|ro|. _ob_r___g:_ _:_g:|:
_: |o___1_ og:_obo :r o|__go|. :ro|_o__g_ _ooro|oor__: og:_obo|
og:g|:1ro|| oo_1oo| :r|o|, oboJgb_goo| J_|:b_ _: :goo:r_| :b:g b__g:|.
,oo_1oo| _oo:gr_|o _:o|:b_r_: :ro| J_oo_o___ooo :ogo| _b:ro, roogo|
o_Jg_ooo:_ r_:g_ro :o_o, :b1:g__o:b r: :g_oro| J_oo_o___oo b:r-
oo|:bg:|o:b, ___|__:go1__go :o_o| |:b_| oo_b_b _: :r_:o_ob_o:b
ob:_gr_g oogg_b:o: goo__r _:r:_. __roobogoo_ro og:g|:1ro|oo,
:ro|_o__g_ :b:|bg:g_| r_:g_r _o____|: _: oooo||, |:_:_ r_:g_ro
_o____o, roor_ r_:g_ro b_ooog__o, |:__ogg:_ ___: :o:g|, bogo
oooo|o :oog__go: oooo|_ob:_oo| oro__|o:b, roo_go_ oob_|ro__go
_: _roo:b_oo:b J___r__go ___|__:go1__go _o____o| oogo:bo:|
b:roo:__b|" (g. 25).
*
:o |:_g:boo oo1o_oo| :r_g_go| J_o_oo b:roo__bogo:
___|_o| |_r____r_go :b:go1o| :ro|_o__g_|__go og:g|:1ro|o. |bor__
:o ooo_b_o_:b o. r:_o:bo :oo-_o_| _: ___:g_r:_ ::b:go1_| __roob_o|
- _:_go|: _: |o___o| - _o:_ ,bob:o:r|" - o_,_o"-|. _,_o"-o| |bg:_:|bg:
:_:, _: J_|::oo|:_, :bo:r__: :r|_o|. o_ o:| :bgobog:go, roor_
_og_g_|o :b_o__ro rbo_b:-b:roo__b_o| :|:bg:|, oooo|o r_goo_r-|:_-
r:g_ro __boo_bo:. :o :|o___oo oooo|o| 500-o__ :o:r__:: _boogo.
:ro|_o__g_ :o |o__g:| |bg:_:|bg: _ob___|_oo o__b_|: ro J_oobg_g_Jo
,oooo|o" |bor__:_ _r:_o_o_g :o:g| - ooo| :_boJb:g|, ro J_oobg_g_Jo
_o :o:g|, roo_g|:_ ___ob_: _|: o_ o| ob:_gr_go ___|_o. |bor__ _| __:-
b:|_b_go _ob___|_o :ro| o. r:_o:bo| _gg_go| |::bo.
:ro|_o__g_ :oo_o_| _r:__oo| b:bog_|: :o:go, b:|o:oo, :b-
|_:, |:o1_ro, |:o_o_go _: |::go_go. ,:o:go", |:g:r:__o_, _b_: J_-
_|::o_o__| oo:|, r:|:_ ___| _:_g:| :b |o___| g_bo__o. o:J, r:|
ooo:1r_| :ro|_o__g_ __roob ,oooo|Jo"? :o _oobg:1_ o:|_bo| :|:__o:_
o.r:_o:bo oooboo| :ro|_o__g_| ,oo__o_o|" _:ro_g, r_|_g _: ob-
go|_r_bog:b o:ro:b_|, ooobo_| o__bo_r_g :oo_gg_g_| _: :|_gbo|:
* :_:_ _: J_o_ooJo_ _:oobo__go: oro: r:_o:bo| b:Jrooo ,_:_g: _: |o___o (Pro Et Contra)".
r_|__:b _:b:g:
283
:ro|_o__g_| _oroo| |_r____r_go o_oroo| |:__og_g| b:roo:__b|
oooo|o - :o:go, roo_go_ :r _go|boo| o:r_og:_ oogg_b_o| oo:og:| :b_
_:___o| _r_|oo _: o:booo__gr_g |oor:gg_|, roo_go_ o:b:o__rog_
|o__o:g_r go__r:__r:Jo obo__: ,_:_g:_" _: :r_ ooo|, roo_g|:_
___ob_: :b_o__ro _r:__o:, :r:o__ - __ro o__|, _:__1_ :__g _: oooo|
|:__og_g1_ ooo_ob:r_ :b:go oooo|_ob:_oo| oro__||: _: J___|, roor_
oo_o___:o: |:_roo-ob:_gr_g _:r:|, roo_go_ o__-b:_g_:_ _:bgog__:
go__r:__r:oo_o_b__o| oo_r ___|___ooo ,|o___o|" __rooboo :b|:1-
_gr_g _g_o_b_| _: roo_go_ _ro_ro_g:_ ooo_:g| _: ___ob_: oorg_g
or|" (g. 36).
o_ |bor:_ :go_, o. r:_o:bo| :1roo, :ro|_o__g_|__go oooo|o-
:o:go (:o _ob___|_Jo mu`qo~-o| ,:o:g:_" o:ro:b| |:g|_oo go1o:r_ -
r._.) J_oog_: :gooo roor_ o|, r:_ _:_g:|: _: |o___| Joro|:: -
_ro_ro_g:_ _roo_:: _: o_or__ (__ro |o___o:, go_r_ _:_g:). :g:o,
ro_go: :ro|_o__g_| (__roobo: _oroor_o| :ror:1_) oogobogoo
_:_go| o_:_oo :oo_gb: |o___o|:b (_| boo ___|:_ gor|). :o :1ro| |:-
og_|_r:_oo_ oogoboo :oob:ro_| :ro|_o__g_| ,oo__o_o_:b", o_-!7 o:gJo
oo o|__go| ___|_o| Job::r|orog |:__og_g1_, ooroo:_:_, _r:o:| _b_:,
o:r:o ogo| ,o_o|_:1__" b_r|: ,o_o|_:|" Job::r|o (:o:go) gr__go :r
:ro|: go_:_ _:_o or:g:go bgo| :bo:ggo:Jo _:b__o:go| __bo ob:r__Jo,
o:| _o__r_: oo|_o_obo, o| o:r_o:. |:bgJo _o |:_oro_o _b:b:__b _ob_:|
_: :b|:___g| _o1:___b oo| g:|. _: :o, o| r_b__: o:g| _::_b_g| r:
_:roJb:g|, 1oo_ro| ::b_o| o:go| gob:o:|, o:g| _|boo| o_r_|, :b:_-
_r_| o:o, ogooob _o :_:rb_:. orob_ooJo, :o, _| :ro| ,o_o|_:|" Job::r|o,
|bg: _g_g:__ro b:ro_go:" (17.1455b). o|, r:|:_ :o :oob:ro_Jo :ro|_o__g_
go:g:1o|, roor_ oo_ro|o| ,o_o|_:|" Job::r||, _:_g: __ro:, go_r_
|o___o. |:_o_ o| :ro|, roo bg_b :r g:_g| ,o_o|_:|" _ooo| |bg: ___|_o, roo
J_gogoo o:oo J__:r_:. _r:__o:Jo |:_o_ |bg:g:r:_::. :_ bg_b J_googo:
_ro :o:g1_ (ooo1_) J_ob1_go r:o__boo_ _r:o_o|o| ___|__o| J__:r_:,
o::goo:_ :go_oo :_ro__o| oooo: _ro:| ooo| _ro-_roo oo:g:ro ooro,
_ro_bo: _:ro| oo:g:r|:r_:go - ::o_obobo :o:r_g__go r_b__:
:ro|Jo. Job o:| _g:g| o:go|o _ogo - _go__ob_|_r:. Jgo_o bgo| J_o__
o:oo| o_gg_goo|ogo| J_r| ooo_| or_|__ _: _g:g| ___:|. _| :ro| oooo-
:o:go. :o :o:g1_ _r:__o_o _:b_r_| _|_og_o (_rogoo: ,or_|__:"),
|o_o_g_o (,_g___r:"), _grooo__o (,or_|__", ,_g___r:"). :o _r:__o_o|
_ro: :b:go1o |:J_:g_:| g:og_g| go_g:o, roo |:_roo _:oJo |:_o_ g:_g|
_:_g:|o:b, roo_go_ oooo__g ob_r:go:b (_roo obrog, oooo|_ob:_oo|
orob_ooo_:b :ooo_ob:r_, o_or_ obrog, _ob_r___go _r:o_o|o| _|o__o_o|
:og:go|bob_oo) :bg__r _ob___|_| go:g:1o| _: _:oo__o___g |o-
____r _:r:| _obo|.
o. r:_o:bo| b:Jrooo| o_or_ b:bogJo ,:b_o_o__oo_:b _o__oo|__b"
b:roo__bogo: _:_go|: _: |o___o| |:_oobo| _gg_go| ooroo:_o __b-
__b_o_o |:_o:o_ gr__go o_roo_o| :bo:ggo:Jo - :b_o__roo_:b :_-
r__g J_:|:___b__:o__, r_b_|:b|o|, _g:|o_o1oo|, :bo:b:og_goo|,
Pro et Contra
284
roo:b_o1oo| b:oggoo. o_gg_g:ro |:g|_oo o:ro__g:_ oo_ooo_| :_r_-
_go J_:|:___b__o| oo__o_o| ooroo:_ :b|bg:g_:1_ :b_o__ro:|o:b
ooo:ro_oo: ,:_r__go J_: |:___b__o| oo__o_: _ro|_o:b_go o|o_g-
ob__g_gorogo orob_oo_o| _:b_rg:-_:_:_:Jo _: ogoo| ___|_o| ob-
__ror__:_o:Jo o_oo:r_o|, _:r| :oo| J_ob1_g _:_g:1_, roo:_
_oo_b_: J_oo_o___oo:_ :r_:|:b_go :o:go|, :b_ :oob:obo| :b_o__r
_ob____o:|" (g. 47).
:o o_roo_o| go__r:__r_go oro__|o oo_g__ _: o:r_og:_ :|_
J_oog_: _:g:b:|o:ooo: _ro|_o:bo:Jo _o_roo :ro| _ro:__roo g_Jo:ro__:,
|bg: _g_g:__ro |ooogo:. b:ro:ro_g :1rogb_:Jo _o _o_ro_o_ |oo-
ogo_o: (roo :r:__ro go_g:o |bg: _g_g:__r1_). :___:b :ooo_ob:r_,
,g_Jo:ro__:1_ b_r:" |_g |bg: _|o__o_:| _: _:bob_| oooobog|, r:_
:r:_roo ___: b:ro:ro_go o_roo_o| oo__o_:Jo. o. r:_o:bo| b:JrooJo _|
|oro_g_ _:r:_ :ro| b:roo__bogo: ,:b _b_: g:_o:roo, roo :_r__go J_:
|:___b__o| ___|__o |___: ob:_gr_go ___|_o| _oroo| |_r____r_go
o_oroo| _:__bog boro_| _:, J_|::oo|:_, g_r b:oogg_: |r_g_:|og:b
go__r:__r_g boo_J_:_, :b:_ _b_: _:g|g:o |:_oobo: :ro| _o :oob:obo
oro__|o|: _: ___|_o| ob:_gr_goo| _ro:__roo o|:1_gr_go?" (g. 48).
_:|o_g _oobg:1_ o:|_bo| :|:__o:_ o. r:_o:bo ooooobog:g| :o _:ro|
_:rog_g o_gg_g:ro: b:Jroo_| _: _o:bbo_: oo|:1r_:|: ,oo_b__:g:_ ooo|:,
roo :_r__go J_: |:___b__o| oo__o_: _:r| :oo| :oob:obo| _|o__o_:1_
:b_ _o__o_r ___|_1_, o| |r_go:_:_ :r :oo| _:r| ob:_gr_g ___|_1_...
o__:-oo1:bo:b J_rb_o_go |_r____r_g-oo__o__ro _g_o_b__o _: :r:
:oob:obo _b_: oogobbooo ob:_gr_go _|ogogo| o|:1_gr_g_:_ :_r__go
J_: |:___b__o| ob_rgo:Jo" (g. 50-5!).
go__r:__r_go oro__|o, b_|oo o_ _b_go__, _oo__o| o:_o|__o:|
:|:b:g|. J_:|:___b__Jo _:o_go_r__go |_r____r_go oo__go (roo_go_,
roor_ :r _b_: J_g:g:o:1oo, o_:_ro b_gogb_rooo :ooorb_o_: - r._.)
_ro_o| J__gg:|o:b _ro:_ ,:o:go|__g_:" _: ,ob:_gr_go ___|_o _gg:g
_r_b__: oo|ogo| _b_rog gooob:r_g oo1o_o:|, :b__bog| r_:g_ro|: _:
b:roo|:b_go| 1ob_| Joro|" (g. 52). r_b_|:b|o| _oo_o|, roo:b_o_o|_o|
,___|__o :__r__go: |_r____r_go ooo1o_o_o| - r_:g_ro :o:goJ
:oob:obo, :r:_o__o_roJ_o__o_ro - gor__o1_go o:o:Joo: _: oob:_-
gg_ooo" (g. 53). |:g|_oo go1o:r_ oo|:1r_:|, roo _| ooo1o_o_o r_b_-
|:b|o| _oo_o| _ro_o_o|_o| oo_r :o:1r_:, _roo obrog, roor_ _:r_b_:
ob:_gr_goo| :b_o__r oo__go:b _: :oob:obo| _|o__o_:|o:b, o_or_
obrog, roor_ :b:go go__r:__r_go :br_o| _oroor_o| o_r|o___og:
(g. 53).
o. r:_o:bo| b:Jrooo| lll o:go ,_:_g: _: |o___o _o_gb_: _boogo
go__r:__r:oo_o_b_oooo ooo:ro_g_o| r_|_go _oro:go1oo| b:roo-
o:__b_go: og:g|:1ro|_o| oooobogg:|. :_ b:roo__bogo: r. o:_o|obo|,
g. J_gog|_o|, ._oo:J_g|_o|, . _b_g:r_o|, o. _obo:bogo|, . _ob_b:_oo|,
g.orooo|, g. oro_b|_o| ob_oro oo1o_o_o _:_go|: _: |o___o| J_|:b_.
r_|o _oro:go|__o| __r:___o| __b_rJo oo___: :__b:_r_o|
r_|__:b _:b:g:
285
(___:oog:ro1:_oo|) o_oo_o (J_gog|_o). _| o_oo_o o:o _::_:gJor_| go-
__r:__ro| |_r____r_o:b _: |_:__| ___|_o| ogo|_rogo, gobgo|__ro,
:br_go _: |_r____r_go _:bob1ooo_r__o| _:__b:. ___|_o| |_r__-
__ro| _gg_go|:| _o, _b_rogo:, bob: og:b1_ :oo_o| _oro:JJob::r|o,
_:_g:J|o___o. r_|o _oro:go|__o _:_go| _:r_ __roob:_ bJor:_
o__b__b_b ,o:|:g:|", :b_: ,_:_g: :bobog_: roor_ |o___o| b:oo_:-
go_o|ogo| |:goro o:|:g:" (g. 60). :b|:bogg_g orog_o:_o_:Jo _b_-
rog:_ J_oo_o|: oo_ogo|, obroo|, o_oo|, :ooo|:bg_goooo obroo| |:-
_oob_o. gr__go o:|:go| :b:go1o| |:__og_g1_ o. r:_o:bo :|_gbo|: ,...
_oro:go|__o|ogo| |o___o |_r____r_g:_ oob_|ro__go oo__go:,
roogo| o_Jg_ooo:_ :g_oro o:r_og:_ :o_J:g_| _:__bog go__r:__r_g
|__o_|: _: boro_|, _:_g: _o - o:|:go| |_g:_ |_:_o__ro oogo:bo::,
roo_go_ r_|_go |_ogo| o_oro:Jo :rb:b_go o:|o_rooo :ooorb_g:" (g.
67). :o:g_ o:gJo :J_:r:_ b:b| o_gg_g:ro| __oog:bb_o: __g:r_ _or|__ro|
oo1o_oo|:_oo.
b:Jrooo| o_oob_ o:gJo ,|o___ogoo: + b:r:_ogoo:" b:roo__bo-
go: oo|_|_r____r:go|__o| (_o_orogo, r_oobo, :r_o, r_oo:|o, _ro|-
__g:, _b__o) og:g|:1ro|_o, ooroo:_:_, __r:___: :o:bgog__go: _r:r
_b__o| o_oro:1_. :_boJb_go:, roo _b__o| o_oroo| o_oo_ogoo_r
|o:bg_| b:roo:__b| |o___o| ::1r_: b:r:_ogooo| grogJo. _gg_g:
ob__: _b__o| J_ooo:g:1__go _ro:_o|: :o:goJb:r:_ogoJb:r:_o: :b_ -
o|_oro:(Job::r|o)Jobro:Jb:r:_o: :b:go1oo.
_b__o| o_oroo| |:__oggo:bo _gg_g: _:r:_ b:roo:b_b|, r: ooo_o o:b
:b_o__ro o_oro_o_:b _: r: - r_|o _oro:go|__o|:b, :o:|o:b o_g_o_:
obog:_o_o_: ,__roo_: b:r:_ogo_o| oo_r J_ooo:g:1__go ,:o:go"-| _b_-
: __ro gobro:, go_r_ :b_o__ro ,:o:go" _: _:bgog__: _oro:go|__r
,_:_g:|", bogo ,b:r:_ogo|" _b_: __ro _:roo:, go_r_ _oro:go|__ro
,|o___o" _: _:bgog__: :b_o__r ,:o:g|" (g. 73).
b:Jrooo| ogo| o. r:_o:bo _r_b__: bobo| _:|:b_o|Jo _:|o_g
_oobg:|:
,o___ oo_g_: _: ___o_:go_ oo_g_:".
,o___ oo_g_: _: J_o__ _:r_o|::b oo_g_: ___o_:go".
r: _obo| :b|bg:g_:| :o or o:r_og _r:1:| Joro|?
,:bg: _:b:o_gog_oo go_oo, roo :b|bg:g_:| :o or, _roo J_b__goo
o:r_og _r:1:| Joro| _gro r:o J_oog_: _obo__|: b:roo|:bg:, roo_go_
oooo|_ob:_oo| oro__|Jo _roo:b__:, _:o:|_|__r_go, roo_go_ :oob:o-
bo| _____b:| b:roo:__b|, oo1_1-J___oroo:, roo_go_ b:roo:b_b| _:g-
Jor_|, :b:_ - obroo| b_gogb_:, roo_go_ _obo| :b|bg:g__|"... (g. 7).
_| :ro| oJg_bo_ro _:|:|r_go o__bo_r_go b:Jrooo|:, roo_go_ o_o-
obg_g| |o:g:1o| _ro |:_oobo:b _:_:gJor_oo o:goo_rog o__bo_r_g
oo|:1r__|, :o oo|:1r__o| :b:go1|, o:oo _roo_roooo:ro_o| _:__b:|.
:|_g_ :b|:__or_oo oboJgb_gog:bo:, roo o_gg_g:ro ,:r |g:o| b_r_og|" - _|
_o oo:| boJb:g|, roo |:_oobo __r _o__g _o::, :r:goo:ro ooo_r:_ogo, obogo_
g:r:___o, o:r:o _| o| g:r:___o:, roog_o_ ,o:gJ__:g__go |o_o__oo"
o_gg_g_b 1:| o_oobg_go|__b. oro: r:_o:bo| ,_:_g: _: |o___o (pro et contra)"
|_roo1_go J_b:o_bo: _:ro_g o__bo_r_:Jo.
Pro et Contra
286
Rusudan Tsanava
Irma Ratiani, Story and Plot
Pro et Contra
Tbilisi, Institute of Georgian Literature Publishing, 2011.
Key words: fabule, plot, text
Literary Studies is one of the most dynamic subjects among all other philological
disciplines. On the hand, it seems that everything has already been explained and verifed,
on the other hand even the most established facts need revision, re-considering and
proof-reading. It is not merely obstinacy, but an objective reality. The main reason of this
unstableness can be found in the nature of the concept/term itself. The primary aim of
Literary studies is to research the origin of the term, its change in form and the capacity
it holds.
Story and Plot are very familiar concept, but when it comes to terms, dissociating
one from the other is rather a hard job to do and fnding borders between them is quite
diffcult. The book Story and Plot (Pro Et Contra) by Professor Irma Ratiani deals with
the analysis of the above-given problem. The work is divided in four parts: The frst part
discusses antique views on Story and Plot (Plato and Aristotles); the second part includes
the period from post-antiquity to romanticism; the third part is dedicated to Representatives
of Russian Formalist School; the fourth part analyses Gerard Genettes theory.
The scientifc work offers the readers a wide range of material devoted to one
subject, the viewpoints given in the book are being analysed and there is a try of fnding
interrelation amongst them. It is noteworthy that the researcher does not put an end mark
at the end of the book, which means that the subject is still open to research, the tone is not
imperative, it is just a presumption, but these are the suppositions that fnd their way to the
readers hearts. The book Story and Plot (Pro Et Contra) by Professor Irma Ratiani is a
valuable acquisition for Georgian Literary Studies.
r_|__:b _:b:g:
287
oro: r:_o:bo
_:_g: _: |o___o. Pro et Contra
:ooo__ogo:: go__r:__ro| ob|_o___o| :ooo__ogo:
20!!
_:_g: _: |o___o b:_boo __roob_o:, o:r:o |:_o_ |:_o_1_ roo
oo__:, o:oo _roo:b_oo|:b :rb_g: :oo_gb: _: |:1_gr_o| _:__b: |:_-
o:o_ ro_go:. |bor__ :o |:_oobo| :b:go1| _o_gb_: b:Jrooo, roo_go_
oobo oob:_g_oo|:b J___:: oorg_g b:bogJo :bbog_go: :b_o__ro og:g-
|:1ro|_o _:_go|: _: |o___o| J_|:b_ (og:_obo _: :ro|_o__g_), o_-
or_Jo - o_roo_o oo|_:b_o__roo_:b roo:b_o1oo| b:oggoo, o_|:o_Jo -
r_|_go _oro:go|__ro |_ogo| b:rooo:__b_go: J_b___g__o, o_oob_Jo
- _b__o| o_oro:.
Totalitarianism and Literary Discourse: 20th Century Experience
Editor: Irma Ratiani
_o_:go_:ro1oo _: go__r:__r_go _o|__r|o:
o_-20 |:___bo| :oo__og_:
r__:__oro: oro: r:_o:bo
:ooo__ogo:: Cambridge Schloars Publishing
20!!
20!2 b_g| :ooo__ogo:o Cambridge Scholars Publishing :oo|_: bobo
,_o_:go_:ro1oo _: go__r:__r_go _o|__r|o. o_-20 |:___bo| :oo_-
_og_:" (Totalitarianism and Literary Discourse. 20th Century Experience), roo_go_
ooo1:__: Joo: r_|o:g_go| _:ro_go go__r:__ro| ob|_o___Jo. bob|
|:__ogg:_ _:__o 200 b_g|, go__r:__ro| ob|_o___Jo b:_:r__go :o:-
g_ |:b_gbo__o| |:_ro:Joro|o _ob__r_b_oo| o:|:g_o. _ob__r_b_o:
b:_:r_: Joo: r_|o:g_go| _rogb_go |:o__bo_ro _ob_o| ob:r_:g_roo
_: o:go oo__:r: _:ro| :_o:r__g |o__o:go|__| oo_go o|o_goo|
o:|J_:oo. _| o_o oorg_go |:_ro:Joro|o _or_oo, roo_go_ _:_ooo _o-
_:go_:ro1oo|, _oor:__|:_ |:goo: _o_:go_:ro1oo| :gg_b:|: _: J_-
___| go__r:__r_g oro__|1_. _ob__r_b_oo| _:|r_g_o| J_o__,
20!0 b_g| _:ro_g _b:1_ _:o_g_: o:|:g_o| _r__go, roo_go:_ _:roo
|:_ro:Joro|o __r:___: ooo1o_:. |bor__ :o o:|:g_o| rb__go 20!2 b_g|
obgo|_r _b:1_ :oo|_: _boogo: obgo|_ro: |::ooo__ogo |:bgo:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing. _| :ro| _ogogoo_ro oro_ogo| oorg_go |:-
o__bo_ro bobo, roo_go_ ooo1:__: |:_:rog_goJo, _:ro_g _gg_goo __b-
_rJo _: roo_go:_ |:_ro:Joro|o :_o:r_: ooooog:.
:b:go bob_o
288
Postcolonial Writers in the Global Literary Marketplace
by Sarah Brouillette
|:r: r_o__o
oo|__ogobo_ro ob_rg_o go:g_r go__r:__r_g :1:r1_
:ooo__ogo:: algrave MacMillan
20!!
:g_oro b:JrooJo :bobog:g| ob_rg_o| _:__oro:|, roog_o_ go-
__r:__r_g :1:r1_ ,oo|__ogobo_ro|" |:b_goo :_o:b. |:r: r_o__o
:1:r| __:gJor_| oo|__ogobo_ro ob_rg_o| ogooJ_o__b_:|. o:o oo_-
g:b_o:| o| go__r:__r_go ___|__o| :g_oro: 1o:_ o|_oro:Jo ogoo-
:oob:_go|, ogoo_ro_o_o| _: o:g_:_go| |:b_goo ooob|_bo_|. o| __ogo|
:g_oroo| |:_oobo :bg__r:_ :o:1ro| o|_oo ob_rg_o| :oo__og_o|
:b:go1o| _ob1_, roor_o_:: __r__ _og_o_o _: |:go:b r_J_o. :r|__go
o_oro_o|, :1ro| :b:go1o| _: ob_rg_o| _:ro_ro|: _: ___|__o| _gg_go|
1oo, bobo oboJgb_gog:bo |:__b_ro: go:go1:_oo| _: oo|__ogobo:go1oo|
_gg_go| |:_o_Jo.
Utopian Spaces of Modernism: British Literature and Culture, 1885-1945
Edited by Rosalyn Gregory and Benjamin Kohlmann
oo__rbo1oo| __ooo_ro |ogr___o: ro_:b_go go__r:__r: _: __g__r:,
!885-!45
r__:__or_o: ro|:gob r_oro _: _b_:oob _ogo:bo
:ooo__o_go: Palgrave MacMillan
20!!
bobJo :bbog_go: __oooo| rogo oo__rbo|__g go__r:__r:Jo. o:|Jo
oob:1_go: go__r:__r_go __oooo| o_o_:ro |o___ro, !885-_:b !45 bg:o__
_: __g__ro| ___|__o ooo:g|__go: o:go:bo o:__ro:g_r |ogr__|:
o_ _ob___|_Jo, roogo| ooro_Jo o|obo :_oo__b_b_b. bobo :_roo:b_|
oobob:g_ oro__|or_o| o_ :b:g:1r_: o_gg_g:r_o| obog:_o_r b:Jroo_|.
_r__go| oo:g:ro o_o:: __ooo:bo1oo, :b|:__or_oo _o _o_:go_:r_g
oo:rog_go:|o:b oo|o :oog_o| __b__b_o:, r:_ :b|:__or_oo ooo_-
g:r_go :b_: o_-20 |:___bo| o_or_ b:b_gro_:b. :oo__o:Jo :bbog_go:
o|_oo ob_rg_o| __ooo_ro bogg_o, roor_o_:: _o1__ _obr:_o, gor_obo:
g_g_o o_ __oo| _oo|o _: o:oo b:b:roo__o o|_oo __gg__g_o_ogo
:g_or_o| ___|__o:b _o:goJo: b:roo__bogo, roor_o_:: b:rg1
o_:r_ oboobo, bo_ _o_o| o__g_o|_o :g_or_o _: bob:|b:ro___g_g_ro
oro1o| b:rooo:__bg_o.
289
On Representation: Deleuze and Coetzee on the Colonized Subject
by Grant Hamilton
r:bo :oogoobo
r_or_1_b_:_oo| J_|:b_: __goo1o _: ___1__ _ogobo:go1__go
|_o___o| J_|:b_
:ooo__ogo:: Editions Rodopi B.V.
2011
:o oboJgb_gog:b :oo_gg_g:Jo, :oogoobo oo|__ogobo:g_r o_oro:|,
|:obr_o :_ro__go b:rooJoo| :g|_r:go_go ob_rgo|, bo_go| or_ooo|
g:_r__o| _ob o:_|__g ___1__| oro1:| _: _r:bo oo|_|_r____r:go|_o
_ogo|o_o|o|, og __goo1o| b::1r_g| _roo:b_o| __:gJor_|. oo|__ogo-
bo_ro o_oroo| oboJgb_gog:b orog_o:1_ - r_or_1_b_:_oo| orog_o:1_
oro_b_or_oo, :oogoobo :o__o__|, roo o__o _ogobo_r |_o___| __-
goo1o|__go |_o____roo| b_g:b:go :_:b_ro| 1oo :bgobog:go, _o-
gobo_ro |_o___o| _r:b|__b__b__g _oro:| :oog:gg_bo. _gg_g:Jo b:r-
oo__bogo: ___1__| roo:b_o| - ,ob_bro| oob:", ,:r:ro|_o| oogo_obJo"
_: ,_o" b:_oobg: __goo1o|__go o_oo_oo _: bob: og:b1_ b:oob_g| o:b:-
o__rog_ oo|__ogobo_ro go__r:__ro| _: o_oroo| |:_oob_|.
Teaching Ecocriticism and Green Cultural Studies
Edited by Greg Garrard
__o_ro_o_o| |b:gg_: _: __g__ro| _gg_g_o |oobg:bo| J_|:b_
r__:__oro: r_ :r:r_o
:ooo__ogo:: Palgrave MacMillan
20!!
:r_oo| _ro1o|o o:b:o__rog_ o_oo:r_o::. :oo_oo:_::, roo :r_oo|
_:_g:|o:b _:_:gJor__go |:_oob_o bob::_o__orogo _: oboJgb_gog:bo:.
__o_ro_o_: _o go__r:__ro| _: __g__ro| J_|b:ggo| _ro-_roo :___:g_ro
|__ro:. _b_o| J_|:b_ b_ro| J_|b:gg:o _:|::oo_:b _: roo:b_o__go
b:bo| go__r:__ro_:b, _g_g: o_roo_o, r_oobo _: __g__r_go :b:go1o|
:bro ooo_g:. bobJo J_|_go: _b_o| J_|:b_ __g__r_go _gg_g_o,
r:_ go__r:__r:|o:b _ro:_ ooo_:g| _o_r_g o__o:|, _obo|, _goo:__r
_ggog__|.
Contemporary Literature: The Basics
by Suman Gupta
|o_o:b _oo:
o:b:o__rog_ go__r:__r:: |:__ogg_o
:ooo__ogo:: ROUTLEDGE
20!!
go__r:__ro| _gg_go|:| ,o:b:o__rog_ go__r:__r:" _ro-_roo _g_-
g:1_ :___:g_ro |:_oobo:, o:r:o ob_go: oo|o :r|o| :b|:1_gr:. bobJo
290
b:roo__bogo: |:|:r_go |:J_:g__o, ro| oob__goo:_ J_googo:
:b:go_o__r:_ _: |o|__o_r:_ oog___o o:b:o__rog_ ___|__|. :g_o-
ro b:oogro| r:o__boo_ _oobg:|: r: :___g| go__r:__r_g ___|_| o:b:-
o__rog__? J_oog_: o_ :r: :r|_o__| o:b:o__rog_ go__r:__ro| _:bo-
bo? r: :gg_b:| :b__b| _g__ro, _g___rob_go _: :__oo-go1_:g_ro o__o:
o:b:o__rog_ go__r:__r:1_? roo_go ooroo:_o _ob____o_o _: o_o_o:
_g_g:1_ bJoro?
The Postcolonial Unconscious
by Neil Lazarus
bog g:1:r_|o
oo|__ogobo_ro :r:_boo_ro
:ooo__ogo:: University of Warwick Press
20!!
bobJo b:roo__bogo: oo_go oo|__ogobo_ro _gg_g_o| o:bor:o_go
bg_b_o| o___go:. o:go| :o oog_oo__r b:JrooJo bog g:1:r_|o :o__o__|,
roo :o o_oroo| :r|_ooo _ro_o__go _ob__o__o :_:|:b__o:. :_ oobooogo:
_:or:go go__r:__r_go b_:ro, g:1:r_|o :bobog:g| g:oobo:o_ro__go,
:_ro__go o_ :r:o :g_or_o| b:Jroo_| _: o:o oo|__ogobo_r _ob___|_Jo
:o:g|_|. :o:g_ _ro|, bobo| :g_oro |r_go:_ :bg__r:_ _oob_go| o|_oo
:gg_bo:bo o_gg_g:r_o| b:Jroo_|, roor_o_:: r__ro_ __oo|obo, __g:r_
|:o_o _: _r:b_ __bobo. bobo :b|:__or_oo |:|:r_go: oo|__ogobo_ro
_gg_g_o| o|_oroo| _: :bgoo:r_o| :_boo| og:g|:1ro|oo.
The Modernist Novel A Critical Introduction
by Stephen Kern
|oog_b __rbo
oo__rbo|__go roo:bo, _ro_o__go J_|:g:go
:ooo__ogo:: Ohio State University Press
20!!
|oog_b __rbo go:g:1o| oo__rbo|__go roo:bo| |:___g :b:go1|,
roo_go_ ooo_:g| :o_ro__go, ro_:b_go _: _groo_go :g_or_o| b:b:r-
oo__|. o_o:__r:_ _:_o_og b:JrooJo __r:___: :o:bgog__go: _or-
o:g_r |o:bg__1_, roog_o_ J_oogo:g:1: _obr:_o|, _oo|o|, g_g_o|,
or_|_o|, o_o|, _og_b_ro|, _o| o:|o|o|, _:__:|, o_1ogo| _: |bg_o| oro1:o.
__rbo __ogo| :bo:r_o|, o_ _oro:g_r |o:bg__Jo roor :o|:b: oo o_ro_o|
_ob:oo_ro o|_oro:. o| oo_g__ _b_:, :|_g_, o_-20 |:___bo| oorg_go b:b_gro|
oo_1o:| _: __rb_r:|. bobo :bro| r:oo| J_|:b_ |:|:r_go ob_oro:_o:|
go:g:1o| _: :b__ogbogo: oo__rbo1oo| b:boo _:ob__r_|__go |__-
__b__o|: o_ o_gg_g:r_o|ogo|.
291
The Cambridge Introduction to Literature and the Environment
by Timothy Clark
_ooooo _g:r_o
__oro_o| _bog_r|o___o| J_|:g:go go__r:__r:|: _: :r_oo| _gg_go|
|:_oobJo
:ooo__ogo:: University of Durham
2011
__o_ro_o_: J__:r_oo :b:go _o|_oogob::, roo_go_ :r_oo| _:_go|
_ro1o|o| go:g_r |:_oob| bob: og:b1_ b:oob_g| _: __g__ro| _: go-
__r:__ro| _gg_go| |:b:_ :___g|. bobJo :b|:1_gr_go: __o_ro_o_o| r:-
o: _: b:roo__bogo: _ob__o__:g_ro o_oo__o, roo_go: b_:gooo:_
|____b__| |:J_:g_: _og_g:o, roo ___|__o :bg__ro __oboo b:o_oobob.
How Literature Changes the Way We Think
by Michael Mack
o:o_g o:_o
roor _ggo| go__r:__r: bg_b| :1rogb_:|
:ooo__ogo:: Continuum Publishing Corporation
20!2
bobJo :bbog_go:, o_ r:o__b:_ oboJgb_gog:bo: _: roor :g-
g_b:| :b__b| b_gogb_o| J_|b:gg: _: _o:bo_:r_go o__bo_r__o, :b-
|:__or_oo _o go__r:__r: |:1o:_o_:1_. ogob:b| |:1o:_o_:1_
go__r:__ro| oboJgb_gog:bo :gg_b: |:o:b:_o __r:___o| |::bo :r
_o_og:. o__bo_r_o b_gogb_:Jo b:roo|:bgo| |:boo |:o_:ro| b:roo__b:|
_go|boo_b_b. bobo| :g_oro| o_ooo, b_gogb_: :r: o:r_o :|:b:g| bg_b|
|:o_:ro|, :r:o__ :b|:__or__go _b:ro ::bbo:, roo oog:boJbo|, o_
roor J_oog_: :__oo| _: oo_o___o| bg__go _oro_o| J__gg:. :g_oro
ooooobog:g| o|_oo _boogo oo:1rogb__o| b:Jroo_|, roor_o_:: bo_J_,
___o, _bo:oobo, _:og_o, rooo _: o__o _: _b:__o_|, o_ r: ooo:ro_:
:_g| go__r:__r:| :_:oo:b_|: _: oogo_o_:|o:b, :|_g_ r_:g_ro |:o_:ro|
|:o__bo_ro |:_oob_o:b. r_:g_ro |:o_:ro|:b :oo_b_goo| b_:gooo,
_|o__o__ro |:o_:ro g_bo:r_: oo_o___o| :b|bg:g__go _: __r _o__g
__boo _oro_o| o:go|__r__o| bg_oo:Jo _: :bo_or_:_oo| _: o|_oo
o:gb_ or:__o__o| :_oo_bgr:Jo, rooro_:: |__r_o_oo_o _: :.J.
292
Memory, Metaphors and Meaning: Reading Literary Texts
by Nicolae Babuts
bo_og:_ :_o|o
o_b|o_r_:, o__:_or_o _: oboJgb_go::
go__r:__r_go ___|__o| b:_oobg:
:ooo__ogo:: Transaction Publishers
20!!
go__r:__r: o_gg_g| :_:oo:b_r o_oo:r_o:|, |:o_:ro|, |o_o_bgo|
_: |o_g_ogo| |:o__ogo__|, :r_og_ bg_b| ooo:ro_:| |bg_o:b, bg_b|
|_rgog_| _: o_b__|. o| :b|bg:g__: o__bo_r_o|:b o:go|o _:boJb_-
g_oo _: o_oo__oo. o:r:o bobo| :g_oro __ogo| _::o__o_o|, roo
go__r:__r:|: _: o__bo_r_:| Joro| |:_o:o_ _gro |:_roo:. orog_ g_J-
o:ro__o| :go_b__roo|__b o|br:_go|. :o oo1bo|ogo| go__r:__r: o__b_|
o__:_or_| _: :o:| |:o__bo_ro _gg_go| o|:g|:_ :__o_|. _obo__ro
og:g|:1ro|o :r _go|boo|, roo |:o_:ro|: _: ___|_| Joro| 1__oob_gbooo
o:b:_:r_o::, :b oboJgb_go: :g_or| ___ogbo| :b go__r:__r: :__oo|
__gog:g_b_o:. oboJgb_go: _:oo_o___go: ob_oobo__r obo_o:_og_1_ _:
o_b|o_r_o| :r_J_ |:o_:ro oboJgb_go:| _:r:g|. :_o|o| o__o__oo,
o_oobg_go ___|_| bog_go |:o_:ro| :bo:r__o| o|:g|:_ :o_J:g_| -
o:| oboJgb_go:o: |_o_b__:_ :b _ob:oo__r oo__g_:_ _o_|. :_o|o
|:ogoo_ :_b:__|, roo oboJgb_go: o__:_or_o| _: b:r:_ogo| 1oo
ooo_b_g: _: orog_ o:o:bo J_o__b_:| o|:b:g| oo1b:_.

samecniero Jurnalis _ sjani~

citirebis stili

1. literaturis institutis periodul gamocemebSi ibeWdeba naSromebi, romlebic
moicavs Tanamedrove literaturaTmcodneobisaTvis aqtualur Temebsa da
problemebs, mniSvnelovan gamokvlevaTa jer gamouqveynebel Sedegebs.
2. naSromi warmodgenili unda iyos or calad (eleqtronuli versiiT: el-fostiT an
CD diskze) da Tan axldes:
Tavfurceli, romelSic miTiTebuli iqneba avtoris saxeli, gvari, statusi da
sakontaqto koordinatebi;
anotacia qarTul da inglisur enebze (1 nabeWdi gverdi), sakvanZo sityvebiTurT
(3-5 sityva).
3. damowmebani statias unda erTvodes boloSi. damowmebani warmodgenil unda iqnas
rogorc traslitirebuli formiT, ise _ original enaze. qarTuli dasaxelebebis
translitireba unda ganxorcieldes `romanizaciis qarTuli erovnuli sistemis
modelze~. ix. wikipedia.com
(ix. cxrili, danarTi 2).
4. naSromi moculobiT unda iyos kompiuterze nabeWdi ara umetes TxuTmeti da
aranakleb xuTi gverdisa.
5. naSromi dabeWdili da gaformebuli unda iyos 4 formatis TeTr qaRaldze
Semdegnairad:
a) naSromis saTauri (iwereba SuaSi);
b) naSromis teqsti;
g) damowmebani original enaze da translitirebuli (ix. danarTi 2. damowmebuli
literaturis nusxa);
d) anotacia;
e) oTxive mxriv datovebuli mindori 25 mm;
v) nabeWdi teqstis Srifti Lit.Nusx 11, intervali _ 1;
me-5 punqtis a), g) da d) qvepunqtebis moTxovnebi ar exeba rubrikebs `memoria~
da àxali wignebi~.
6. JurnalSi miRebulia `literaturis institutis stili~ (list), romelic
koreqtirebulia `tomfsonis~ katalogis standartis moTxovnilebis Sesabamisad:
a) motanili citata ZiriTadi teqstisgan gamoiyofa brWyalebiT (` ~). citirebis
dasasruls, mrgval frCxilebSi, daismis indeqsi, romelSic aRniSnulia
citirebuli teqstis avtoris gvari original enaze, teqstis gamoqveynebis
weli, Semdeg _ orwertili da gverdi.
magaliTad: (abaSiZe 1970: 25), ( 1982: 27), (Pound 1935: 67).
(ix. warmodgenili nimuSi, danarTi 1).
b) saleqso strofis (da ara striqonis) citirebis SemTxvevaSi, motanili citata
gamoiyofa teqstisagan da citatis fontis (Sriftis) zoma mcirdeba erTi
zomiT (mag.: Tu teqstis fontis zomaa Lit.Nusx 11, maSin citatis zoma iqneba
Lit.Nusx 10).
7. damowmebani (damowmebuli literaturis nusxa) unda dalagdes indeqsis mixedviT,
anbanuri rigiT da daibeWdos garkveuli wesiT (dawvrilebiT ix. cxrili, danarTi 2).
8. a) statiis avtoris vrceli ganmartebani inomreba da inacvlebs teqstis bolos
anotaciis win;
b) statiis avtoris mcire SeniSvnebi aRiniSneba varskvlaviT da Caitaneba
gverdis bolos, sqolioSi.
9. avtori pasuxismgebelia dasabeWdad warmodgenili naSromis literaturul stilsa
da marTlweraze.
10. Semosuli statia sarecenziod gadaecema anonimur eqspertebs.
11. Semosuli masalebis ganxilvis Semdeg, damatebiTi miTiTebebisaTvis, redaqcia
daukavSirdeba dasabeWdad SerCeul naSromTa avtorebs.
12. avtors, gansazRvruli vadiT (ara umetes sami dRisa), koreqturisaTvis eZleva ukve
dakabadonebuli naSromi. Tu dadgenil vadaSi statia ar iqneba dabrunebuli,
redaqcia uflebas itovebs SeaCeros igi an dabeWdos avtoris vizis gareSe.
293
citirebis, miTiTebisa da bibliografiis formis nimuSi

danarTi 1

danarTi 2

cxrili:

monacemis tipi

damowmebuli literaturis nusxis
(damowmebani-s) forma indeqsis mixedviT
Bibliography Form

wigni,
erTi avtori

Book, one authors

erTi Tavi wignidan
an ese krebulidan

Chapter in a book or
an essay from a
collection

Abashidze, Kita. Etiudebi XIX-s-is Kartuli Literaturis Shesakheb.
Tbilisi: gamomtsemloba merani, 1970 (abaSiZe, kita.
etiudebi XIX s.-is qarTuli literaturis Sesaxeb.
Tbilisi: gamomcemloba `merani~, 1970).

Weiss, Daniel A. Oedipus in Nottingham: D.H. Lawrence. Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 1962.

Tsipuria, Bela. Postmodernizmi. Literaturis Teoria. XX Saukunis
Metodologiuri Kontseptsiebi da Mimdinareobebi. Tbilisi:
literaturis institutis gamomtsemloba, 2005 (wifuria, bela.
`postmodernizmi~. literaturis Teoria. XX saukunis
meTodologiuri koncefciebi da mimdinareobebi.
Tbilisi: literaturis institutis gamomcemloba,
2005).

Johnston, Martin. Games With Infinity. The Fictions of Jorge Luis
Borges. Cunning Exiles Studies of Modern Prose Writers. Eds.
Don Anderson and Stephen Knight. Sydney: 1974.

nimuSi:
Jenetis amocanaa prustis mxatvruli maneris TaviseburebaTa gamokvleva da
imis dasabuTeba, rom `metafora da metonimia SeuTavsebeli antagonistebi
rodi arian. isini ganamtkiceben da msWvalaven urTierTs, meore maTganis
jerovani Sefaseba sulac ar niSnavs metonimiaTa erTgvari nusxis (romelic
konkurencias gauwevs metaforaTa nusxas) Sedgenas, aramed imis gamovlenas,
Tu rogor monawileoben da funqcionireben analogiis mimarTebaTa farg-
lebSi `Tanaarsebobis mimarTebebi. amgvarad, unda gamoaSkaravdes metoni-
miis roli metaforaSi~ (Jennet 1998: 37). ratom SearCia Jenetma analizis sagnad
swored prustis Semoqmedeba? imitom, aRniSnavs mecnieri, rom TviT prustis
esTetikur TeoriaSi, iseve, rogorc praqtikaSi, metaforul (analogiaze
damyarebul) mimarTebebs Zalze arsebiTi roli ganekuTvneba, imdenad
arsebiTi, rom maTi mniSvneloba da roli, sxva semantikur mimarTebebTan
SedarebiT, Zalze gazviadebulia.
294
wigni,
ori, an meti avtori

Book, two or more
authors
Kekelidze, Korneli da Aleksandre Baramidze. Dzveli Kartuli
Literaturis Istoria. Tbilisi: gamomtsemloba metsniereba, 1975
(kekeliZe, korneli, da aleqsandre baramiZe. Zveli
qarTuli literaturis istoria. Tbilisi:
gamomcemloba `mecniereba~, 1975).
Natadze, K, et al.Kartul-Rusuli Literaturuli Urtiertobebis Istoriidan.
Kutaisi: gantiadi, 1994 (naTaZe k ... qarTul-rusuli
literaturuli urTierTobis istoriidan. quTaisi:
gamomcemloba `ganTiadi~, 1994).

Houghton, Walter E., and G. Robert Strange. Victorian Poetry and
Poetics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959.

statia samecniero
Jurnalidan

Article in a scholarly
journal

statia gazeTidan
an Jurnalidan.

Article in a magazine
or newspaper
published monthly
Kavtiashvili, Venera. Ilia Chavchavadzis da Hainrikh Haines
Shemokmedebis Tipologiisatvis. Literaturuli Dziebani. XXXI
(2010): 163-174 (kavTiaSvili, venera. ìlia WavWavaZis da
hainrix haines Semoqmedebis tipologiisaTvis~.
literaturuli Ziebani. XXXI (2010): 163-174)

Campbell, Jean. Poetic Genealogy, Mythmaking and the Origins of
Urban Nobility: Giovanni Boccaccio and Ambrogio Lorenzetti .
Heliotropia 7, 1-2 (2010): 51-63.

Kiknadze, Valeri. Mikheil Javakhishvili Akhali Teatrisatvis
Brdzolashi. Kartuli Universiteti 18-24 marti, 2010:5 (kiknaZe,
valeri. `mixeil javaxiSvili axali TeatrisaTvis
brZolaSi~. qarTuli universiteti 18-24 marti, 2010: 5).

Morozova, Tatijana. Skelety iz Sosednego Podezda: Pochemu
Ljudmila Petrushevskaja tak ne Ljubit Svoikh Geroev.
Literaturnaja Gazeta. 9 centjabrja 1998: 10 (, .
:
.
. 9 1998: 10).
wigni, avtoris
gareSe

Book, no author given

Sabibliotek'o Sakmis Organizatsia da Martva..Batumi: gamomtsemloba
achara, 1989 (sabiblioTeko saqmis organizacia da
marTva. baTumi: gamomcemloba àWara~, 1989).

New Life Options: The Working Women's Resource Book. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1976.

dawesebuleba,
asociacia da
misTanani, avtoris
poziciiT

Sakartvelos Sapatriarko. Ts'igni Shekmnisa. Tbilisi: 2006
(saqarTvelos sapatriarqo. wigni Seqmnisa. Tbilisi:
2006.

295
Institution, association,
or the like, as "author"
American Library Association. ALA Handbook of Organization and
1995/1996 Membership Directory. Chicago: American Library
Association, 1995.

redaqtori, an
kompilatori,
avtoris poziciiT

Editor or compiler as
"author"
Duduchava, Marina. Ed. Literaturis Teoriis Mtsire Leksik'oni. Tbilisi:
gamomtsemloba nakaduli, 1975 (duduCava, marina.
redaqtori. literaturis Teoriis mcire leqsikoni.
Tb.: gamomcemloba `nakaduli~, 1975).

Henderson, John. Ed. The World's Religions. London: Inter-Varsity
Fellowship, 1950.

eleqtronuli
dokumenti
internetidan

Electronic document
From Internet

Mitchell, William J. City of Bits: Space, Place, and the Infobahn.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995. 29 September 1995. Web. 17
May 2011. http://www-mitpress.
mit.edu:80/City_of_Bits/Pulling_Glass/ index.html; Internet.

Nevskaja, Darja. Problema Dialogichnosti Sozdajushego i
Sozdannogo Tekstov (Graf Amori Final. Okonchanie
Proizvedenija Yama A. I. Kuprina). Literature, Folklore, Arts.
Vol. 705. (2006): n.pag. Web. 15 May, 2011 (, .

( .
. . ). Literature, Folklore, Arts. Vol. 705. (2006):
n.pag. Web. 15 May, 2011).

enciklopedia,
leqsikoni

Encyclopedia,
Dictionary
Ideologia. Kartuli Sabchota Entsik'lopedia. Abashidze, Irakli.
ed.Tbilisi: 1964 ( ìdeologia~. qarTuli sabWoTa
enciklopedia. abaSize, irakli. red. Tbilisi: 1964).

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield: MA: G. & C.
Merriam, 1961.

interviu
(gamouqveynebeli)
saavtoro
xelnaweri

Interview
(unpublished) by
writer of paper

Morganisi, Nensi D. Interviu Avtortan. 16 ivlisi 1996. Pol Riviera,
Masachusetsi, Chanatseri (morganisi, nensi d. interviu
avtorTan, 16 ivlisi 1996, fol riviera, masaCusetsi,
Canaweri)

Morganis, Nancy D. Interview by Author. 16 July 1996, Fall River, MA.
Tape recording.
296
konferenciis
masalebi

Conference
Proceedings
Choloqashvili, Rusudan. Gamotsemebi Komunisturi Rezhimis
Shesakheb Sakartveloshi. Totalitarizmi da Literaturuli
Disk'ursi. Meotse Sau'kunis Gamotsdileba.Tbilisi 7-9 okt'omberi,
2009. Tbilisi: literaturis institutis gamomtsemloba, 2010
(ColoyaSvili, rusudan. `gadmocemebi totalitaruli
komunisturi rejimis Sesaxeb saqarTveloSi~.
totalitarizmi da literaturuli diskursi. meoce
saukunis gamocdileba. Tbilisi, 7-9 otomberi, 2009.
irma ratiani. red. Tbilisi: literaturis institutis
gamomcemloba, 2010).

Tezisebi, an
sadisertacio
naSromis daskvnebi
(debulebebi)

Thesis or dissertation
Ts'ikarishvili, Lela. Mikheil Javakhishvilis Shemokmedebis
Sakhismetqvelebiti Aspek'tebi. PhD. Diss. TSU, 2004
(wiqariSvili, lela. mixeil javaxiSvilis Semoqmedebis
saxismetyvelebiTi aspeqtebi. filologiis
mecnierebaTa kandidatis samecniero xarisxis mosapo-
veblad warmodgenili disertacia. Tsu, 2004).

Bishop, Karen Lynn. Documenting Institutional Identity: Strategic
Writing in the IUPUI Comprehensive Campaign. PhD. Diss. Purdue
University, 2002.

*erTsa da imave wels gamocemuli ramdenime naSromi (calke an TanaavtorobiT)
an erTi da igive naSromi (gagrZelebebiT) ramdenime nomerSi mieTiTeba anbanuri
rigiT. magaliTad: (abaSiZe 1987a: 21), (abaSiZe 1987b: 87).

297
The Citing Style for Scientific Publications
of the Journal "SJANI"
1. Periodical editions of the Institute of Literature publish works concerning ontemporary issues of
literary studies, results of the researches that have not been published yet.
2. The work should be sent by E-mail (English materials - maillit@litinstituti.ge; Russian materials -
litinstmail@gmail.com) and accompanied by:
Title page, where authors name, surname, academic degree, position and contact coordinates
should be indicated.
Annotation in English Language (1 printed paper accompanied by key words).
3. List of approved bibliography on original language (enclosed to the article). Georgian and Russian
resources should be transliterated. (Please, conform to standard transliteration system)
4. The text should be minimum 5 and maximum 15 printed papers.
5. An article should be formatted in the following way:
Title of the article (in the middle)
Key Words
Main text
Bibliography on original language (Georgian and Russian resources transliterated)
Annotation
Margins: top-bottom, left-right 25mm
Font size: 11, Line spacing-1
6. The Citing Style "Style of the Institute of Literature" is submitted to the internationas standarts.
Requirements:
A) Citation is isolated from the main text by Quotation marks, ('' '') at the end of citation, in
brackets is written the index, indicating the name of the author of the citation, publication
year, then colon and page number. For example: (Jennet 1998:37) see the Appendix 1.
B) In case of citing the stanza (not line) of the verse, the citation is isolated from the text and the
font size is reduced (the text font size is -11, the citation font size is -10)
C) These requirements do not apply to the headings "Reviews" and "New Books", where the font
size is:
Main Text 10
Notes- 9
7. The Citing Style "Style of the Institute of Literature" is submitted to the internationas standarts.
Requirements:
A) Citation is isolated from the main text by Quotation marks, ('' '') at the end of citation, in
brackets is written the index, indicating the name of the author of the citation, publication
year, then colon and page number. For example: (Jennet 1998:37) see the Appendix 1
B) In case of citing the stanza (not line) of the verse, the citation is isolated from the text and
the font size is reduced (the text font size is -11, the citation font size is -10)
C) These requirements do not apply to the headings "Reviews" and "New Books", where the
font size is:
Main Text 10
Notes- 9
8. Bibliography list should be ordered according to the index, in alphabetical order.
See the Appendix 2.
9. Wide explanations of the author of the article is numbered and placed at the end of the work. Small
notes are indicated with asterisk and explanation is made at the end of the page.
10. The author is responsible for the literary style and orthography of the work.
11. After evaluating submitted articles the board of editors will contact authors for further directions.
12. The article is returned to the author during a certain period (maximum 3 days) for proof-reading. If
the author breaks dead line the board of editors preserve the right to ban its publication or publish a
work without informing an author.
298
Sample for citation, indication and bibliography

Appendix 1

Appendix 2
Bibliography Form

Book, one authors

Chapter in a book or
an essay from a
collection
Weiss, Daniel A. Oedipus in Nottingham: D.H. Lawrence. Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 1962.

Johnston, Martin. Games With Infinity. The Fictions of Jorge Luis
Borges. Cunning Exiles Studies of Modern Prose Writers.
Eds. Don Anderson and Stephen Knight. Sydney: 1974.

Book, two or more
authors
Houghton, Walter E., and G. Robert Strange. Victorian Poetry and
Poetics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959.

Article in a scholarly
journal

Article in a magazine
or newspaper
published monthly
Campbell, Jean. Poetic Genealogy, Mythmaking and the Origins of
Urban Nobility: Giovanni Boccaccio and Ambrogio Lorenzetti .
Heliotropia 7, 1-2 (2010): 51-63.

Morozova, Tatijana. Skelety iz Sosednego Podezda: Pochemu
Ljudmila Petrushevskaja tak ne Ljubit Svoikh Geroev.
Literaturnaja Gazeta. 9 centjabrja 1998: 10 (, .
:
.
. 9 1998: 10).
Book, no author
given
New Life Options: The Working Women's Resource Book. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1976.

Institution,
association, or the
like, as "author"
American Library Association. ALA Handbook of Organization and
1995/1996 Membership Directory. Chicago: American Library
Association, 1995.

Jennets task is to examine Prousts artistic methods and to prove that Metaphor and
Metonymy are not incompatible antagonist. They strengthen and enhance each other, assessing
the other does not mean to form some kind of metonymy list, (which will compete with
metaphor) but to find out how they function in the boundaries of analogy. Therefore the role of
metonymy in metaphor should be revealed (Jenet 1998: 37). Why did Jennet chose Prousts
works for analyzes? The reason for this is that in Prousts aesthetic theory, as well as in
practice , metaphoric relations (based on analogy) play a vital role, important in such an
extend that their meaning and role, in relation with other semantic relations is exaggerated.
299

Editor or compiler
as "author"

Henderson, John. Ed. The World's Religions. London: Inter-Varsity
Fellowship, 1950.

Electronic document
From Internet

Mitchell, William J. City of Bits: Space, Place, and the Infobahn.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995. 29 September 1995. Web. 17
May 2011. http://www-mitpress.
mit.edu:80/City_of_Bits/Pulling_Glass/ index.html; Internet.

Nevskaja, Darja. Problema Dialogichnosti Sozdajushego i
Sozdannogo Tekstov (Graf Amori Final. Okonchanie
Proizvedenija Yama A. I. Kuprina). Literature, Folklore,
Arts. Vol. 705. (2006): n.pag. Web. 15 May, 2011
(, .
( .
. . ). Literature, Folklore,
Arts. Vol. 705. (2006): n.pag. Web. 15 May, 2011).

Encyclopedia,
Dictionary
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield: MA: G. & C.
Merriam, 1961.

Interview
(unpublished) by
writer of paper

Morganis, Nancy D. Interview by Author. 16 July 1996, Fall River,
MA. Tape recording.

Conference
Proceedings
Choloqashvili, Rusudan. Gamotsemebi Komunisturi Rezhimis
Shesakheb Sakartveloshi. Totalitarizmi da Literaturuli
Disk'ursi. Meotse Sau'kunis Gamotsdileba.Tbilisi 7-9 okt'omberi,
2009. Tbilisi: literaturis institutis gamomtsemloba, 2010
(ColoyaSvili, rusudan. `gadmocemebi totalita-
ruli komunisturi rejimis Sesaxeb saqarTveloSi~.
totalitarizmi da literaturuli diskursi. meoce
saukunis gamocdileba. Tbilisi, 7-9 otomberi, 2009.
irma ratiani. red. Tbilisi: literaturis
institutis gamomcemloba, 2010).

Thesis or
dissertation
Bishop, Karen Lynn. Documenting Institutional Identity: Strategic
Writing in the IUPUI Comprehensive Campaign. PhD. Diss.
Purdue University, 2002.

* Works published in the same year (separately or in co-authorship) or one and the same work
(with continuations) in several volumes will be indicated in alphabetical order. For example:
(Abashidze 1987a: 21). (Abashidze 1987b: 87).

300

Sjani 13

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sjani 13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SoTa rusTavelis qarTuli literaturis instituti

Shota Rustaveli Institute of Georgian Literature

oo___ro _obog_o| g|oro _ob_

:o or_:_o__Jo b:roo_obogo :1rorogo ooo:ro_o| :bboggo|:| _b_:

tam vsyaka glasna e prazna

risuvam indusi i kyurdi,

risuvam izgubeni v buryata

v dushniya uyut na kuhnite,

s tinyata, liliite, trstikata with the mire, the lilies, the

Veche svrshva snyat mi na

There is no God the voiceless telegrams

You might also like