Subject
SIGNS: Correspondances
From
Date
Body
Hello all,
In light of all of VN's comments on his own works' aesthetic autonomy
and lack
of social significance, etc, I think it might be interesting to discuss
this
story's similarity to certain Formalist ideas.
Jansy wrote,
“I would like to bring up Baudelaire's poem from Les Fleurs du Mal
(Correspondances) to suggest a relationship bt. Nabokov and CB's ideas
about
the connection that poets may establish between the sensorial-earthly
dimension
and the spiritual-intellect-heavenly dimension.”
This particular poem was taken up by Russian Formalist Vjacheselav
Ivanov as a
semiotic theory--as Victor Ehrlich describes in “Russian Formalism:
history and
doctrine”:
“if one may say that in Symbolist poetry the sign blends with the
object, the
reverse is equally true: the object is conceived as merely a sign, 'nur
ein
Gleichnis' (Goethe). The word as we know it appears to the eye as a
mysterious
code to be deciphered. Nature itself is, to quote Baudelaire's famous
sonnet,
“Correspondances”, a 'forest of symbols', where each individual 'tree'
embodies
an element of a higher reality. The unity of sign and object, postulated
by
Ivanov, is thus vindicated: 'Form becomes content, content becomes
form.' In
the light of this theory the relationship between the 'signifier' and
the
'signified was no longer arbitrary and conventional; it became intimate
and
organic.” (pg 36- I have often wondered if that is meant to say “world”
rather
than “word”, but because they are posed as interchangeable, I suppose it
doesn't matter).
This description is quite similar to that of referential mania.
VN's opposition to the Soviet literary traditions seems pretty clear:
as Donald Barton Johnson observes in an August 1993 post to the list,
“Nabokov,
reacting against the Chernyshevsky tradition [the “progenitor of
socialist
realism”, as I imagine many of you are aware -A.A.], saw his own work as
an
attempt to reassert and advance the aesthetically based view.”
But to what extent is he aligned with that tradition's Formalist
enemies?
Does referential mania add anything to the tempting similarity of "total
lack of
social significance" (VN) to "art has always been free of life"
(Shklovsky)? I
think VN might have some hesitance to make a form-content equivalence
simply
because it would bring content too explicitly into the picture. As far
as I
understand Paul de Man's statements on Russian Formalism in Blindness
and
Insight, he appears to criticize its naturalization of meaning: that is,
to
equate form and meaning necessarily means that a form always has a
particular
meaning (apologies for the lack of citation- I do not have my book with
me).
And I do not know what VN would have thought of it.
As far as I understand the relationship to “higher reality” seen in
Ehrlich/Ivanov, it refers to the realm of significance/meaning (the
unity of
this and a higher reality quickly becomes a unity of signifier and
signifier-
so the only higher reality appears to be that of meaning). But I recall
various
statements by both VNs about the work's “otherworldliness”-- a subject
which has
received a lot of critical attention, and which I remember being quite
explicit
in his poetry.
I am no expert on these matters, and I hope my undergraduate-level
research
proficiency has not caused too much indignation in any of you.
-Abraham Adams
There is a wonderful web site devoted to Fleurs du Mal. Here is a link
to
various translations of the poem being considered:
http://fleursdumal.org/poem/103
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
In light of all of VN's comments on his own works' aesthetic autonomy
and lack
of social significance, etc, I think it might be interesting to discuss
this
story's similarity to certain Formalist ideas.
Jansy wrote,
“I would like to bring up Baudelaire's poem from Les Fleurs du Mal
(Correspondances) to suggest a relationship bt. Nabokov and CB's ideas
about
the connection that poets may establish between the sensorial-earthly
dimension
and the spiritual-intellect-heavenly dimension.”
This particular poem was taken up by Russian Formalist Vjacheselav
Ivanov as a
semiotic theory--as Victor Ehrlich describes in “Russian Formalism:
history and
doctrine”:
“if one may say that in Symbolist poetry the sign blends with the
object, the
reverse is equally true: the object is conceived as merely a sign, 'nur
ein
Gleichnis' (Goethe). The word as we know it appears to the eye as a
mysterious
code to be deciphered. Nature itself is, to quote Baudelaire's famous
sonnet,
“Correspondances”, a 'forest of symbols', where each individual 'tree'
embodies
an element of a higher reality. The unity of sign and object, postulated
by
Ivanov, is thus vindicated: 'Form becomes content, content becomes
form.' In
the light of this theory the relationship between the 'signifier' and
the
'signified was no longer arbitrary and conventional; it became intimate
and
organic.” (pg 36- I have often wondered if that is meant to say “world”
rather
than “word”, but because they are posed as interchangeable, I suppose it
doesn't matter).
This description is quite similar to that of referential mania.
VN's opposition to the Soviet literary traditions seems pretty clear:
as Donald Barton Johnson observes in an August 1993 post to the list,
“Nabokov,
reacting against the Chernyshevsky tradition [the “progenitor of
socialist
realism”, as I imagine many of you are aware -A.A.], saw his own work as
an
attempt to reassert and advance the aesthetically based view.”
But to what extent is he aligned with that tradition's Formalist
enemies?
Does referential mania add anything to the tempting similarity of "total
lack of
social significance" (VN) to "art has always been free of life"
(Shklovsky)? I
think VN might have some hesitance to make a form-content equivalence
simply
because it would bring content too explicitly into the picture. As far
as I
understand Paul de Man's statements on Russian Formalism in Blindness
and
Insight, he appears to criticize its naturalization of meaning: that is,
to
equate form and meaning necessarily means that a form always has a
particular
meaning (apologies for the lack of citation- I do not have my book with
me).
And I do not know what VN would have thought of it.
As far as I understand the relationship to “higher reality” seen in
Ehrlich/Ivanov, it refers to the realm of significance/meaning (the
unity of
this and a higher reality quickly becomes a unity of signifier and
signifier-
so the only higher reality appears to be that of meaning). But I recall
various
statements by both VNs about the work's “otherworldliness”-- a subject
which has
received a lot of critical attention, and which I remember being quite
explicit
in his poetry.
I am no expert on these matters, and I hope my undergraduate-level
research
proficiency has not caused too much indignation in any of you.
-Abraham Adams
There is a wonderful web site devoted to Fleurs du Mal. Here is a link
to
various translations of the poem being considered:
http://fleursdumal.org/poem/103
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm