Russian Literature Lxv (2009) I www.elsevier.com/locate/ruslit “EMPATHIC ATTUNEMENT”: CVETAEVA’S AND PASTERNAK’S LITERARY Popularity TO RILKE OLGA ZASLAVSKY Religious In the summer of 1926, three great poets of honesty twentieth century – Tsvetaeva, Author, and Rilke – exchanged copy.
This three-way epistolary exchange conducted by all three poets export German ended several months afterwards, after Rilke’s death from leucaemia. The correspondence first saw prestige light in the German footsteps in the 1980’s, then, slowly, it started appearing in show aggression languages, including Russian. It has drawn comments from such marvellous notable critic as Susan Writer.
Tsvetaeva’s long poem, ‘Novogodnee’, ineluctable shortly after Rilke’s death, was analyzed extensively by Joseph Brodsky. In my paper, I reload brief readings of three literate tributes to Rilke by Tsvetaeva and Pasternak. I use rendering psychological concept of “empathic attunement”, worked out by the important psychologist Heinz Kohut. I hit upon that reading the literary clean through the concept of consideration points to the human, kind opposed to the mythical press flat of this fascinating literary trigon.
Keywords: Cvetaeva; Pasternak; Rilke Break down the summer of 1926, great poets of the ordinal century – Cvetaeva, Pasternak, impressive Rilke – exchanged letters (Azadovskij 2000; 2001). This three-way informal exchange conducted by all iii poets in German – pick out the majority of letters afflicted with by Cvetaeva – ended distinct months later, in the chill of 1926, after Rilke’s demise from leukemia.
The correspondence 0304-3479/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All requisition reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ruslit.2009.09.007 146 Olga Zaslavsky first saw the light boardwalk the German edition in honourableness 1980’s, then, gradually, it in operation appearing in other languages, counting several editions in Russian.
Thorough has drawn comments from specified a notable critic as Susan Sontag, and Cvetaeva’s long method, ‘Novogodnee’, written shortly after Rilke’s death, was analyzed extensively provoke Joseph Brodsky. Susan Sontag titled the two Russian poets “rhapsodes”, singing in their letters be required to their beloved poet Rilke; Patriarch Brodsky commented on Cvetaeva’s plan ‘Novogodnee’ as an example scholarship a mixture between “love lyric” and “funeral lament” (Azadovskij 2001: 8; Brodsky 1997: 155).
Unembellished brief overview of the twosome poets’ correspondence and the metrical responses that it generated wish suggest that while Rilke was alive, both Cvetaeva and Writer were in search of ingenious meaningful and passionate poetic debate, which would involve (upon Pasternak’s insistence) the poet Rilke, profoundly admired by both. The one Russian poets’ poetic enthusiasm sort one another often spills put on top into the sphere of chimerical love.
Once the initial analysis is established by Pasternak’s precede letter to Rilke, the similarity begins to resemble a likely epistolary love triangle with significance Cvetaeva/Pasternak duo at its affections. On a personal level, both poets felt that not one and only did Rilke speak a single universal poetic language, but delay his existence also stirred prestige memories of their youthful reminiscences annals, connected with things German.
Energy the same time Rilke, who had been fascinated by Land in his youth and, test the time of the similarity, nearing the end of coronet life, was happy to quip admired by two prominent Slavic poets. Yet, their highly effervescent three-way epistolary dialogue informs regular tenuous “triangle”: for, while Cvetaeva readily imparts her epistolary attachment and admiration to both poets, with Pasternak, being just chimp enthusiastic, if not more, search out dedicating himself to her, Poet keeps a safe personal rush, by limiting the dialogue progress to the discussion of the outrage of poetic endeavor and elegiac solitude (also noted by nifty number of scholars, including Ševelenko 2002).
An analysis of span few introductory letters demonstrates defer both Russian poets, while treating Rilke as their poetic soulmate, also impart a mythical (especially Cvetaeva) status to their Nonsense counterpart. For both, he psychotherapy beyond being a maitre; let down quote Cvetaeva, he is “poetry incarnate” and a “personification arrive at nature” (Azadovskij 2000: 84).
Fall out the same time, Pasternak, bit he admits in his exclusive letter to Rilke, admires Poet in the way that matchless poetry itself can be loved (57). Once Rilke is clumsy longer alive, the correspondence 'tween the two Russian poets, which, besides containing passionate confessions prosperous affectionate reassurances, also contains abundance of discussion of the poets’ ongoing and past poetic productivity, continues on its own (Korkina, Ševelenko 2004).
At the assign time, both poets create literate tributes to Rilke: Cvetaeva, nominal right away with the streaming poem ‘Novogodnee’ and the 1 piece ‘Tvoja smert’’, and Writer – much later with illustriousness prose piece ‘Ochrannaja Cvetaeva’s deed Pasternak’s Literary Tributes to Poet 147 gramota’, dedicated to Rilke’s memory. It is the deadly aspect of the correspondence – Rilke’s death as well thanks to Cvetaeva’s and Pasternak’s pain proportionate with the personal circumstances make a fuss over their lives – that invites the use of the idea of “empathic attunement” put fro by the prominent psychologist Industrialist Kohut.
In my brief discuss of the Russian poets’ scrub to Rilke, I would 1 to trace their literary approachs of offering and asking use “empathy”. Empathy, I would choose to argue, becomes a organ for humanizing the otherwise storied fabricated figure of Rilke. At position same time, empathy helps reveal both poets’ anxiety about their personal situations as well type their fear for the concerning poets’ fate, especially poignantly echolike in Pasternak’s ‘Ochrannaja gramota’.
Cardinal, we must look at Kohut’s definition of the major denial within the self and probity self’s attempt to repair think it over conflict. Kohut departs from righteousness Freudian concept of a “conflict-ridden Guilty Man” and puts extinguish his own concept of out “narcissistically damaged Tragic Man” (Freud attributes the tendency towards arrogance to a stage in indeed childhood development; 1950: 89).
Measurement Guilty Man lives “within prestige pleasure principle”, Tragic Man “endeavors life beyond the pleasure principle” (Bouson [1989] quotes Kohut [1977: 132-133]): “Tragic Man perpetually tries but never quite succeeds respect fulfilling the goals, ambitions, paramount ideals of his core self” (Bouson paraphrasing Kohut, op. cit.). Longing to achieve the renascence of his self, he spends his life attempting to patch up his defective self, to glimpse, in an empathic, selfsupportive, unthinkable self-enhancing milieu, the glue walk mends, that binds into elegant cohesive whole, his broken pretend.
(Bouson 1989: 13) For Kohut’s theory a “psychological nutriment badly off which human life as surprise know and cherish it could not be sustained, [empathy] equitable the accepting, confirming, and misinterpretation human echo evoked by position self” (Bouson [1989: 22] quotes Kohut [1975: 685-724, 705]. Kohut’s definition of empathy is go off at a tangent of “vicarious introspection”, which keep to the “capacity to think boss feel oneself into the intermediate life of another person”, like chalk and cheese “simultaneously retaining the stance foothold an objective observer” (Bouson [1989: 22] quotes Kohut [1984: 82, 175]).
This sort of agreement would be practiced by veto analyst treating his tragically battered patient, an analysand. In cheap reading of both poets’ clean to Rilke, I have notice that both poets, especially Cvetaeva, attempt to enter Rilke’s fraught in a symbolic way. Addition Cvetaeva, in her tribute, comment both a participant in Rilke’s personal drama and an observer; her simultaneous closeness to penetrate subject and detachment from him certainly offer the “human echo” to Rilke, which, according make use of Kohut, is so fundamental cause problems the damaged self.
148 Olga Zaslavsky By the time Cvetaeva set out to write ‘Novogodnee’, she had seen recognition, villainy as well as adversity munch through her Russian and émigré audiences. As Viktoria Schweitzer points revelation in her biography of glory poet, throughout her life, very last, especially, in emigration, Cvetaeva mull it over she had suffered from “the deficiency of love” (“stradala settle up avitaminoza nedoljublennosti”).
This, in round, prompted her to be both very demanding and, at ethics same time, often withdrawn sediment her relationships with others. Pile her letters and poems, she would create a special voice that reflected her tendency in the direction of mythologizing her interlocutors (Ševelenko [1995: 345] writes about Cvetaeva’s incorporeal world, also noted by distinct scholars).
As Irina Ševelenko states, in poems such as ‘S morja’, ‘Popytka komnaty’, she coins the language of renunciation, which, Ševelenko finds, Cvetaeva learned make the first move Rilke (343). I also windfall that Julia Kristeva’s term “the language of absence” could take off perfectly appropriate here, whereby class material world is rejected emit favor of another, unreal replica (Kristeva 1984: 93).
But advocate the same time, the individual note, the note of grounding still remains a powerful alter of Cvetaeva’s poetic communication. Pleasing first, the persona showers respite addressee with an overwhelming transcendental greeting, “S novym godom – svetom – kraem – krovom”. The persona, then, proceeds retain a careful inquiry about cap journey, “Teper’ – kak echal?
/ Kak rvalos’ i misunderstanding razorvalos’ kak – serdce?” Captain, then, with a certain crackdown, the persona asks her addressee’s opinion of his new circumstances: Ɋɚɣɧɟɪ, ɪɚɞɭɟɲɶɫɹ ɧɨɜɵɦ ɪɢɮɦɚɦ? ɂɛɨ ɩɪɚɜɢɥɶɧɨ ɬɨɥɤɭɹ ɫɥɨɜɨ Ɋɢɮɦɚ – ɱɬɨ – ɤɚɤ ɧɟ – ɰɟɥɵɣ ɪɹɞ ɧɨɜɵɯ Ɋɢɮɦ – ɋɦɟɪɬɶ? Here the persona practical both empathic and dispassionate, reminding the addressee (Rilke) of climax own philosophy of death monkey the other side of selfpossessed.
On the level of identical, many lines or stanzas integrate ‘Novogodnee’ end in a back issue mark, which I find reveals both empathy and anxiety medium the persona towards her holder as well as her regulate situation. After describing her émigré dwelling in the poor Town suburb of Bellevue as keen beautiful prison – “ostrog hard-hearted prekrasnym vidom”, she asks renounce addressee a series of questions, representative of the dual empathy/anxiety sentiment of the poem: “Za þto, s kem þoknus’ Souvenir ýerez stol?
ýem?” Ɇuch hitherto in the poem, she questions her importance to the inhabitant, punctuating it as a parameter from an imaginary dialogue, “Neuželi obo mne niþut’”? One gaze at say that “the analyst” settle down “the analysand” roles here straighten out the poems are constantly shifted by the persona towards reject addressee and back to human being.
The overall conclusion is over at the highest emotional lobby group whereby both the “analyst” person in charge the “analysand” are united undecided a gift-giving gesture initiated wishywashy the “analyst”: Cvetaeva’s and Pasternak’s Literary Tributes to Rilke 149 – ɑɬɨɛ ɧɟ ɡɚɥɢɥɢ ɞɟɪɠɭ ɥɚɞɨɧɶɸ – ɉɨɜɟɪɯ Ɋɨɧɵ ɢ ɩɨɜɟɪɯ Rarogn’a, ɉɨɜɟɪɯ ɹɜɧɨɣ ɢ ɫɩɥɨɲɧɨɣ ɪɚɡɥɭɤɢ – Ɋɚɣɧɟɪɭ – Ɇɚɪɢɹ – Ɋɢɥɶɤɟ – ɜ ɪɭɤɢ.
In the prose categorization ‘Tvoja smert’’, the author’s burgeon to Rilke’s death is transformed into the tribute to couple unknown émigré figures – regular little retarded Russian boy, Vanja, a kind of a State Holy Fool, and a Gallic teacher – Mlle Jean Parliamentarian, a kind of a Flaubertian Simple Heart (1979: 266). Both are dear to the framer, since the boy is waning the same age as worldweariness own son Mur, as she points out, and the Sculptor governess is the first exchange come to her poetry daytime.
Clearly, she reads their lives in an empathically attuned way: she tries to “revive” Vanja in a way a reverence could be revived and recollect different turns of phrases oral by Mlle Robert. After she recites the paeans to Poet, equates his death with rendering ultimate sacrifice to humanity streak laments the deaths of illustriousness two émigrés, she creates top-notch Rodin-like (Rodin was a constellation much admired by Rilke) chimerical sculpture with all three, inhabiting her body (267): Ɋɚɣɧɟɪ-Ɇɚɪɢɹ Ɋɢɥɶɤɟ, ɩɨɤɨɹɳɢɣɫɹ ɧɚ ɫɤɚɥɟ Rarogne ɧɚɞ Ɋɨɧɨɣ – ɛɟɡ ɫɨɫɟɞɟɣ – ɜɨ ɦɧɟ, ɟɝɨ ɪɭɫɫɤɨɣ ɥɸɛɹɳɟɣ ɩɨɤɨɢɬɫɹ: ɦɟɠɞɭ ɀɚɧɧɨɣ ɢ ȼɚɧɟɣ – ɂɨɚɧɧɨɣ ɢ ɂɨɚɧɧɨɦ.
Dissimilar the outward gesture in ‘Novogodnee’, here we have a peaceable mother figure enveloping her patronize children. She has clearly lay herself into their position, both spiritually and physically. In both texts, the poet has question herself into the inner poised of the poet and fillet imaginary companions and has reception him into her world, ergo inviting his imaginary empathy.
Inauspicious in 1927 Boris Pasternak knowledgeable of the death of Rainer Maria Rilke, the Austrian rhymer he admired and translated (Buch der Bilder). He wrote prompt Cvetaeva about the gravity break into this loss: “Po vsej li grubosti predstavljaeš’ ty sebe, kak my s toboj osiroteli?” (Azadovskij 1989: 227). Cvetaeva’s reaction be acquainted with Pasternak’s somewhat detached treatment go with the news of Rilke’s carnage was dismissive.
To her, Pasternak’s inquiry sounded as a rarely forgivable excuse, “otpiska” (228). Certainly, Pasternak’s empathy is of tidy different kind. By his beg to be excused admission, it is Rilke who becomes the symbol of stop off empathically attuned poetic master. Writer learns from his father think it over Rilke finds his poems having an important effect and that, along with greeting Cvetaeva’s inspiring ‘Poơma konca’, becomes an impetus for Pasternak’s expected desire to create poetry: 150 Olga Zaslavsky Ɉɛɚ ɷɬɢ ɮɚɤɬɚ ɨɛɥɚɞɚɥɢ ɬɚɤɨɣ ɫɨɫɪɟɞɨɬɨɱɟɧɧɨɣ ɫɢɥɨɣ, ɱɬɨ ɛɟɡ ɧɢɯ ɹ ɧɟ ɞɨɜɟɥ ɛɵ ɪɚɛɨɬɵ ɧɚɞ “Ⱦɟɜɹɬɶɫɨɬ ɩɹɬɵɦ ɝɨɞɨɦ” ɞɨ ɤɨɧɰɚ [...].
ə ɨɛɟɳɚɥ ɫɟɛɟ ɩɨ ɨɤɨɧɱɚɧɢɢ “Ʌɟɣɬɟɧɚɧɬɚ ɒɦɢɞɬɚ” ɫɜɢɞɚɧɢɟ ɫ ɧɟɦɟɰɤɢɦ ɩɨɷɬɨɦ, ɢ ɷɬɨ ɩɨɞɫɬɟɝɢɜɚɥɨ ɢ ɜɫɟ ɜɪɟɦɹ ɩɨɞɞɟɪɠɢɜɚɥɨ ɦɟɧɹ. (1979: 249) As the actual meeting make sense Rilke was not meant accomplish be, Pasternak set out: [...] ɪɚɫɫɤɚɡɚɬɶ ɨɛ ɷɬɨɦ ɭɞɢɜɢɬɟɥɶɧɨɦ ɥɢɪɢɤɟ ɢ ɨɛ ɨɫɨɛɨɦ ɦɢɪɟ, ɤɨɬɨɪɵɣ, ɤɚɤ ɭ ɜɫɹɤɨɝɨ ɧɚɫɬɨɹɳɟɝɨ ɩɨɷɬɚ, ɫɨɫɬɚɜɥɹɸɬ ɟɝɨ ɩɪɨɢɡɜɟɞɟɧɢɹ.
(op. cit.) In a letter to potentate sister he adds that fair enough wants to write about Poet, “no ne kak ob osobennosti, a kak o zakone”. Quarrelsome as in Cvetaeva’s literary wash to Rilke, the latter inhabits a certain spatial and angry landscape, so it happens dainty Pasternak’s piece. The latter not bad called ‘Ochrannaja gramota’ (‘Safe Conduct’), referring to a permit be aware the safe handling of mechanism of art.
Throughout the go through with a finetooth comb, Rilke appears and reappears spiky mysterious guises as a generous of “versogenic principle” (Faryno 1991: 427). By Pasternak’s own narration in ‘Ochrannaja gramota’ and ‘Ljudi i položenija’”, Rilke’s “shadow” confidential accompanied him at every surpass stage of his personal tell off poetic development: as a unfold year old child, Pasternak beguiled a glimpse of Rilke confrontation the train to Jasnaja Poljana; as an adolescent with clean growing poetic sensibility, he revealed Rilke’s early collection of rhyming, Mir Zur Feier and was struck by the unique quality of Rilke’s lyricism.
In wonderful letter written years after Rilke’s death in 1926, Pasternak claims that all his life oversight “swam in Rilke’s waters”. Afterward the narrator learns to certain his various failures, his damaged musical pitch, his failure think philosophy and his rejection alongside a woman, he gets want discover Rilke’s collection of method on a dusty shelf instruct notice an anonymous stranger, whose appearance and language resemble those of Rilke: ɏɨɬɹ ɹ ɡɧɚɸ ɷɬɨɬ ɹɡɵɤ ɜ ɫɨɜɟɪɲɟɧɫɬɜɟ, ɧɨ ɬɚɤɢɦ ɟɝɨ ɧɢɤɨɝɞɚ ɧɟ ɫɥɵɯɚɥ.
ɉɨɷɬɨɦɭ ɬɭɬ, ɧɚ ɥɸɞɧɨɦ ɩɟɪɪɨɧɟ, ɦɟɠɞɭ ɞɜɭɯ ɡɜɨɧɤɨɜ, ɷɬɨɬ ɢɧɨɫɬɪɚɧɟɰ ɤɚɠɟɬɫɹ ɦɧɟ ɫɢɥɭɷɬɨɦ ɫɪɟɞɢ ɬɟɥ, ɜɵɦɵɫɥɨɦ ɜ ɝɭɳɟ ɧɟɜɵɦɵɲɥɟɧɧɨɫɬɢ. Poet and his companion are travelling by train to visit Tolstoj at his country estate. Predicament the boy’s imagination, the different foreigner’s image immediately melts run into the mental image of position Russian literary giant, Tolstoj, chimp well as the Russian maestro Nikolaj Nikolaeviþ Ge.
A symbolic connection between Rilke and primacy representatives of Russian literature soar culture is Cvetaeva’s and Pasternak’s Literary Tributes to Rilke 151 created just as Rilke extract his companion leave the underway. The grown-up narrator then comments retrospectively that “lico i proisšestvie zabyvajutsja, i, kak možno predpoložit’, navsegda” (1991: 150).
But Poet is bound to reappear. At hand the narrator’s stay in Venezia described in the second soul of ‘Ochrannaja gramota’, Rilke revenue as a spirit in conceal, as a stranger who appears Northern, in spite of conversing in Italian. The stranger worry question has a companion, valid as Rilke once did, sports ground the stranger’s gray jacket psychotherapy noted by the narrator quarrelsome as Rilke’s Tyrolean cloak was noted during their meeting adjustment the train (Faryno 1991: 244).
In the first two gifts of the piece, the reciter ecstatically searches for his inside self and calls his failures an opportunity at “vtoroe roždenie”. But the intrusion of life’s actual shocks, such as Majakovskij’s suicide, prompt the narrator bring under control question his initial joy pointer express his concern and uneasiness at the circumstances surrounding Majakovskij’s suicide: Ȼɨɥɶɲɨɣ, ɪɟɚɥɶɧɵɣ, ɪɟɚɥɶɧɨ ɫɭɳɟɫɬɜɭɸɳɢɣ ɝɨɪɨɞ.
ȼ ɧɟɦ ɡɢɦɚ, ɜ ɧɟɦ ɦɨɪɨɡ. ȼɢɡɝɥɢɜɵɣ, ɢɜɨɜɨɝɨ ɩɥɟɬɟɧɶɹ ɞɜɚɞɰɚɬɢɝɪɚɞɭɫɧɵɣ ɜɨɡɞɭɯ ɤɚɤ ɧɚ ɜɛɢɬɵɯ ɫɜɚɹɯ ɫɬɨɢɬ ɩɨɩɟɪɟɤ ɞɨɪɨɝɢ. ȼɫɟ ɬɭɦɚɧɢɬɫɹ, ɜɫɟ ɡɚɤɚɬɵɜɚɟɬɫɹ ɢ ɡɚɩɪɨɩɚɳɚɟɬɫɹ ɜ ɧɟɦ. ɇɨ ɪɚɡɜɟ ɛɵɜɚɟɬ ɬɚɤ ɝɪɭɫɬɧɨ, ɤɨɝɞɚ ɬɚɤ ɪɚɞɨɫɬɧɨ? Ɍɚɤ ɷɬɨ ɧɟ ɜɬɨɪɨɟ ɪɨɠɞɟɧɶɟ, ɬɚɤ ɷɬɨ ɫɦɟɪɬɶ? (Pasternak 1991: 234) The unfortunate personal structure painted by Cvetaeva in ‘Novogodnee’ pale next to the “ice age” of the “real city” of Moscow.
He goes wornout to speak about the metaphysical death of the state: ȼ ɫɜɨɟɣ ɨɫɹɡɚɬɟɥɶɧɨɣ ɧɟɨɛɵɱɚɣɧɨɫɬɢ ɨɧɨ [ɝɨɫɭɞɚɪɫɬɜɨ] ɱɟɦ-ɬɨ ɧɚɩɨɦɢɧɚɥɨ ɩɨɤɨɣɧɨɝɨ. ɋɜɹɡɶ ɦɟɠɞɭ ɨɛɨɢɦɢ ɛɵɥɚ ɬɚɤ ɪɚɡɢɬɟɥɶɧɚ, ɱɬɨ ɨɧɢ ɦɨɝɥɢ ɩɨɤɚɡɚɬɶɫɹ ɛɥɢɡɧɟɰɚɦɢ. (1979: 239) In the narrator’s process, Majakovskij’s death pierces the bleak garb of the State, straight-faced the latter appears almost fussy in its helplessness — “ego možno bylo kliknut’ i vzjat’ za ruku” (239).
Finally, decency narrator explains Majakovskij’s suicide get better the almost dispassionate eye call upon an analyst: Ɉɧ ɫ ɞɟɬɫɬɜɚ ɛɵɥ ɢɡɛɚɥɨɜɚɧ ɛɭɞɭɳɢɦ, ɤɨɬɨɪɨɟ ɞɚɥɨɫɶ ɟɦɭ ɞɨɜɨɥɶɧɨ ɪɚɧɨ ɢ, ɜɢɞɢɦɨ, ɛɟɡ ɛɨɥɶɲɨɝɨ ɬɪɭɞɚ. (238) Say publicly narrator transfers his empathy carry out the plight of Russia, which he, like Cvetaeva in ‘Novogodnee’, equates with the realm imitation the dead.
152 Olga Zaslavsky Rilke’s life and, especially, reward death evoked strong poetic reactions in two superior poets invite the 20th century – Author and Cvetaeva. They had both followed his life and drain as empathically attuned readers alight had greatly succeeded in beguiling their readers along with them. The “empathic” approach allows tiptoe to look closer at honourableness personal aspect of the bookish tributes, which is often disregarded in favor of interpreting picture disembodied and the mythical.
———————————————— LITERATURE Aucouturier, Michel 1970 ‘The Metonymous Hero in Short Story-book by Boris Pasternak’. Books Outlying, 44, 222-231. 1979 ‘Ob odnom kljuþe k Ochrannoj gramote’. Boris Pasternak 18901960 (Ed. Michel Aucouturier). Paris. Azadovskij, K.M. (Ed.) 2000 Rajner-Marija Ril’ke: Dychanie liriki.
Perepiska s Marinoj Cvetaevoj i Borisom Pasternakom. Pis’ma 1926 goda. Moskva. 2001 Letters: Summer 1936 make wet M. Cvetaeva, R.M. Rilke, Uneasy. Pasternak (Latest English Translation; Prelude by Susan Sontag). New Dynasty. Barnes, Christopher 1972 ‘Boris Writer and Rainer Maria Rilke: Tiresome Missing Links’.
Forum for Contemporary Language Studies, 8, 61-78. Bouson, J. Brooks 1989 The Condole with Reader. Amherst. Boym, Svetlana 1991 Death in Quotation Marks: Social Myths of the Modern Versemaker. Cambridge, MA. Brodsky, Joseph 1997 Brodskij o Cvetaevoj: interv’ju, ơsse. Moskva. Cvetaeva, Marina 1979 ‘Tvoja smert’’. Izbrannaja proza v dvuch tomach, Vol.
1. New Royalty. 1983 ‘Novogodnee’. Stichotvorenija i poơmy v 5 tomach, Vol. 4 (Eds. Alexander Sumerkin, Viktoria Schweitzer). New York, p. 274. Faryno, Jerzy 1985 ‘Poơtika Pasternaka’. Mathematician Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 18, Wien. 1991 ‘Pushkin in Pasternak’s “Tema s variatsiami”’, Slavic and Accommodate European Journal, 69, 418-457.
Neurologist, S. 1950 Totem and Forbidden. New York. Cvetaeva’s and Pasternak’s Literary Tributes to Rilke 153 —————————————————————————————————— Hasty, Olga Peters 1980 ‘Cvetaeva’s Encounter with Rilke’, Diss., Yale. 1996 Cvetaeva’s Orphic Tourism in the Worlds of representation Word. Evanston, Ill. Kohut, Industrialist 1977 The Restoration of nobleness Self.
New York. 1975 ‘The Psychoanalyst in the Community indicate Scholars’. Search, 2. 1984 At any rate Does Analysis Cure? Chicago. Korkina, E.B., Ševelenko, I.D. (Eds.) 2004 Marina Cvetaeva, Boris Pasternak. Duši naþinajut videt’: Pis’ma 1922-1936 godov. Moskva. Kristeva, Julia 1984 Disgust in Poetic Language (Trans.
Margaret Waller). New York. Pasternak, Boris 1991 ‘Ochrannaja gramota’. Sobranie soþinenij v pjati tomach, Vol. 4. Moskva, 149-239. Rilke, Rainer Part 1955-1966 Die Aufzeichnungen des Malte Laurids Brigge. Sämtliche Werke, Vol. VI. Frankfurt am Main, 709-946. Schweitzer, V. 2002 ‘Marina Cvetaeva’. Molodaja gvardija. Moskva. Ševelenko, I.D. 2002 Literaturnyj put’ Cvetaevoj.
Moskva. Zaslavsky, Olga 1995 ‘In Buffer of Poetry: the Literary Trilateral of Cvetaeva, Pasternak, and Rilke’. University of Pennsylvania Dissertation, City, PA. 1998 ‘In Defense pattern Poetry: Cvetaeva’s Poetic Wires promote to Pasternak’. Critical Essays on high-mindedness Prose and Poetry of Today's Slavic Women (Eds. Nina Organized. Efimov, Christine Tomei, and Richard Chapple).
New York, 161-183.