UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The development of personality in Karolina Pavlova's intimate poetry Karwowska, Bozena M. 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A8 K37.pdf [ 3.01MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097789.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097789-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097789-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097789-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097789-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097789-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097789-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097789-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097789.ris

Full Text

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KAROLINA PAVLOVA'S PERSONALITY IN INTIMATE POETRY by Bozena M.Karwowska M.A., Warsaw U n i v e r s i t y , 1977 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of S l a v o n i c S t u d i e s We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1989 c) Bozena M.Karwowska,1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives, it is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date flrf, ft* 1<W DE-6 (2/88) A B S T R A C T K a r o l i n a Pavlova (1807 - 1893} i s one of the most i n t e r e s t i n g XIX century Russian poets, and an important f i g u r e i n XIX century l i t e r a t u r e in g e n e r a l . Once the center of an important l i t e r a r y s a l o n and admired by c r i t i c s , she died in Dresden almost f o r g o t t e n . Pavlova's u n f o r t u n a t e personal l i f e i n t e r r u p t e d her l i t e r a r y career i n Ru s s i a . However i t enriched the i n t i m a t e poetry which she wrote during her e n t i r e l i f e . T h i s poetry comprises a unique c r o n i c l e of the i n t i m a t e f e e l i n g s and o p i n i o n s of a woman poet in XIX century Russia. F o l l o w i n g the methods of Roman Jakobson i n h i s "Grammar of Poetry and Poetry of Grammar", i n t h i s t h e s i s we t r y to d e s c r i b e the development of p e r s o n a l i t y in Pavlova's i n t i m a t e poetry.In our analyses of her poems we examine grammatical forms used in her stanzas. The continuous themes of her poetry - time, events, people - a l l t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s grammatically included in verbs, so we looked e s p e c i a l l y for verbs in her poems as the most i n t e r e s t i n g source of in f o r m a t i o n . Close analyses of some f e a t u r e s of Russian verbs (tenses, aspects,numbers, persons and genders), ways of using them and frequency in Pavlova's poems help t o examine her point of view on l i f e in general and e s p e c i a l l y on women's l i f e . T h i s kind of a n a l y s i s makes i t p o s s i b l e t o e x p l a i n her l i f e not by c e r t a i n events from her biography but by her o p i n i o n s about l i f e and i t ' s r u l e s . TABLE OF CONTEST paqe ABSTRACT i i " INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER I. RELATIONS BETWEEN THE SPEAKER ANDOO OTHER PEOPLE 13 •II. THE GRAMMAR OF FATALISM 32 I I I . DIVISIONS WITHIN THE SPEAKER 38 IV. LIFE DIVISIONS 43 V..GENDER-MARKED POETICS 48 CONCLUSION 53 ADDENDUM: The Role of Verbs 57 NOTES 61 BIBLIOGRAPHY 63 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N 0 Gos pod i f as I ys' molitvu. eta. Tjazelaja, iz serdca glabiny. Ne daj opjat" pover i tf mne pr ivetu, Ne daj opjat' mne te l e videt' sny; Ne daj zabyt' bezumnomu. poetu Mac i t e l " nyx urokov s tar i r>y f Tof s oew das a s r o d n i l a s j a tak smelo {fo cto c mladyx ja veronal a l e t , Tof Sem zilafpred <*em blagogovelaf --Pogibio vse . M»e ba.du.scr>osti net, Daj t i x i j trad f smirennoe daj delo lames to mne vsego, cem polon svet.l With these words K a r o l i n a Pavlova at 53 years of age, concluded one of her l a s t poems, Dresden, in March I860. In t h i s poem she expressed how she d i d not expect anything in the future? l i k e w i s e nothing from the past was good enough to make her n o s t a l g i c . She d i d not want to repeat any experience from the past; she gave up a l l hopes for the f u t u r e . E v e r y t h i n g that used t o be connected with hopes and happiness seemed to be (according t o t h i s poem) .just l i k e a nightmare. In her 50s Pavlova seemed t o be f u l l y r e s i g n e d t o unhappiness in l i f e . Her only d e s i r e was to be a poet. She was ready t o s a c r i f i c e e v e r y t h i n g for p o e t i c t a l e n t , for the a b i l i t y t o w r i t e poetry. Being a poet meant for her to be g i f t e d , to be somebody chosen by God. Th i s kind of t h i n k i n g about poetry connects Pavlova with romanticism and i t s ideology. U n l i k e p r e v i o u s philosophy and l i t e r a t u r e , romanticism valued poets not because of t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s but because of t h e i r unusual, a b i l i t y to see more than a l l other people do. A l s o u n l i k e p r e v i o u s poetry romanticism paid a t t e n t i o n to the poet's i n t e r n a l l i f e which was the most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t o p i c in poetry at that time. The poet was not supposed t o d e s c r i b e o b j e c t i v e r e a l i t y but to see the e n t i r e world through h i s own soul and heart. Poetry was d e s c r i b e d by F . S c h i l l e r as immortal and ever 1 a s t i n g . A c c o r d i n g to h i s w r i t i n g a poet represented the most e l e v a t e d f e e l i n g s and b e l i e f s of mankind and because of t h i s was a l s o immortal. The basic f e a t u r e of the i n t e l l e c t u a l c l i m a t e of romanticism was the c o n v i c t i o n of the u n u s u a l i t y and mysteriousness of a p o e t i c a l f u n c t i o n and the e x c e p t i o n a l p o s i t i o n of a poet in a s o c i e t y . As a t r a n s l a t o r Pavlova d e f i n i t e l y knew not only the major t h e o r e t i c a l works of romanticism but a l s o contemporary western poetry.Although the same tone and themes are present in a l l Pavlova's poetry , u n l i k e many poets at that time she h e s i t a t e d to c a l l h e r s e l f a poet; however in her poems she proudly quoted t h i s name given t o her by o t h e r s . 2 For Pavlova poetry was the very s p e c i a l part of her l i f e , c l o s e l y connected with her r e a l , o r d i n a r y l i f e . Ivan Aksakov, who v i s i t e d her in Dresden in the same year that she composed the above stanzas wrotes " ( . . . H i t would seem that the c a t a s t r o p h e which has reached her, a t r u e misf o r t u n e experienced by her, the s e p a r a t i o n from her son, l o s s of the p l a c e in s o c i e t y , name and wealth, her poverty, the n e c e s s i t y of l i v i n g by her l a b o r s - a l l t h i s , i t would seem, would s t r o n g l y shake a person, leave profound t r a c e s on him...nothing of the s o r t , she i s the same as always, has not changed at a l l except that she has grown old e r and e v e r y t h i n g that has happened to her has o n l y served as m a t e r i a l for her verses...".3 What Aksakov was r e f e r r i n g to when he mentioned c a t a s t r o p h e and misfortune i s q u i t e c l e a r from Pavlova's biography. K a r o l i n a Pavlova was born K a r o l i n a Karlovna Jaenish i n J a r o s l a v l ' i n 1807 i n t o a well-educated German f a m i l y . Her father was a p r o f e s s o r of p h y s i c s and chemistry at the School of Medicine and Surgery in Moscow. K a r o l i n a r e c e i v e d a superb education at home: in a d d i t i o n t o Russian and German she a l s o knew French, Spanish, I t a l i a n and Dutch. She was t u t o r e d i n P o l i s h by Adam Mickiewicz, the great P o l i s h poet, who became her f i r s t , romantic love. The departure of Mickiewicz ended the only r e a l l y happy p e r i o d of Pavlova's l i f e . He wanted to marry her but because of her f a t h e r ' s o p p o s i t i o n she had to r e f u s e . S h o r t l y a f t e r , Mickiewicz l e f t for Petersburg and i n s t e a d of l o v e o f f e r e d her h i s f r i e n d s h i p . I n 1829 he escaped from R u s s i a (where he had been sent from Poland for p o l i t i c a l reasons) and K a r o l i n a d i d not see him anymore. Nevertheless, t h i s f i r s t , romantic l o v e with a poet i n f l u e n c e d her l i f e and i t s echo i s present in some of her poems. In the l a t e 1820s Pavlova was a l r e a d y 4 at t e n d i n g the important l i t e r a r y g a t h e r i n g s i n Moscow, t r a n s l a t i n g poetry and w r i t i n g her own verse. In 1833 her f i r s t book appeared - t r a n s l a t i o n s of Russian poets i n t o German, t i t l e d "Das N o r d l i c h t " . In the end of 1836 she married N i k o l a j Pavlov, who was well known at the time of t h e i r wedding as a short s t o r y w r i t e r . Her f a m i l y l i f e was probably not so unhappy from the beginning (they had a son, I p p o l i t ) but in the end i t turned out to be a tragedy for K a r o l i n a , one which s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n c e d the r e s t of her 1 i f e . The Pavlovs had t h e i r own l i t e r a r y s a l o n from 1833 t o 1844, which was attended by the l e a d i n g w r i t e r s and c r i t i c s . Pavlova's t r a n s l a t i o n s and o r i g i n a l poetry were valued by her f r i e n d s and guests very much, and she cared about these o p i n i o n s . Because of t h i s high esteem, t h i s time should have been happy for K a r o l i n a , but her f a m i l y l i f e made t h i s happiness impossible. Although Pavlov was known as a w r i t e r , h i s t a l e n t soon ran dry and h i s wife turned out to be the l i t e r a r y leader of t h i s couple. A l s o t h e r e were b i g d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e i r education and f a m i l y background. She was o b v i o u s l y well educated; he grew up i n a peasant family. At the time of t h e i r wedding she was r i c h ( a f t e r her u n c l e ' s death she r e c e i v e d a b i g i n h e r i t a n c e ) , but her husband soon began t o use up her money in gambling . The c h i e f reason for the f i n a l break between the Pavlovs was h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with K a r o l i n a ' s younger cousin, whom she had taken in and 5 t r e a t e d as a member of the f a m i l y . F i n a l l y Pavlova decided to leave her husband. Because of i n f o r m a t i o n given to the Governor by her father (or perhaps by Pavlova h e r s e l f ) Pavlov was searched at home and e x i l e d t o Perm. A l l K a r o l i n a ' s former f r i e n d s accused her of t r e a t i n g her husband with c r u e l t y and Pavlova became i s o l a t e d . Her l i t e r a r y t i e s i n Moscow were severed . It was probably one of the most d i f f i c u l t p e r i o d s of her l i f e . For the next h a l f year she d i d not w r i t e anything. Pavlova l e f t for Petersburg where a new tragedy overcame her. During the t e r r i b l e c h o l e r a epidemic her father d i e d . T r y i n g to avoid contagion, Pavlova l e f t without a t t e n d i n g h i s b u r i a l , which was a source of new s c a n d a l . She was accused by her former f r i e n d s of inhumane behavior toward her f a t h e r . To Pavlova i t seemed that the e n t i r e world was against her. Depressed and broken, she l e f t for Dorpat where she s e t t l e d with her mother and son. Her acquaintance with , and l a t e r , her l o v e for B o r i s U t i n , a law student -25 years her j u n i o r - whom she had met in Dorpat, helped her toward recovery. He was the g r e a t e s t love of her l i f e . U t i n departed for Petersburg and soon Pavlova followed him. A l l her e f f o r t s to enter Petersburg l i t e r a r y l i f e turned out to be f u t i l e , l i k e w i s e her r e l a t i o n s h i p with U t i n was ended. In a d d i t i o n , her son, I p p o l i t , decided to go back to l i v e with h i s father and attend U n i v e r s i t y . Because of the a t t i t u d e of the Petersburg w r i t e r s who c r i t i c i z e d and r i d i c u l e d her poetry, and because 6 of the open h o s t i l i t y of her former Moscow l i t e r a r y f r i e n d s , Pavlova decided i n 1856 to leave Russia. A f t e r two years of t r a v e l i n g , s h e f i n a l l y decided t o s e t t l e in Dresden. Her l i f e in Germany and e s p e c i a l l y her l i t e r a r y a c t i v i t y of these years has not been researched enough. It i s q u i t e c l e a r that her f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n was very d i f f i c u l t and that a f t e r the death of A. K. T o l s t o y (1875), who was the l a s t of her Russian f r i e n d s , Pavlova was completely f o r g o t t e n . She d i e d in 1893 near Dresden, completely unknown at that time to Russian readers. 4 In the seventy years of l i t e r a r y career Pavlova t r a n s l a t e d poems from and i n t o d i f f e r e n t languages i n c l u d i n g German, French, E n g l i s h and P o l i s h in a d d i t i o n t o w r i t i n g o r i g i n a l poetry and prose in Russian. Even though she was p r i m a r i l y a poet, some of her prose can be placed on the same l e v e l with her best verse. A very s p e c i a l p l a c e in her l i t e r a r y r e p e r t o i r e i s occupied by her only novel - Dvojnaja zizn', p u b l i s h e d i n 1848 and w r i t t e n in a semi-prose and s e m i - p o e t i c a l genre. During her l i t e r a r y career i n Rus s i a Pavlova was mainly known and admired for her 1 a r g e r , n a r r a t i v e poetry. Beginning with the mid-1840's the most important events of the epoch evoke a keen response in her poems. The most s i g n i f i c a n t poems of that s t y l e of poetry are Razgovor v Trianone and Razgovor v Kremle,which c r i t i c s r e c e i v e d as her major and the most s i g n i f i c a n t 7 works. These two poems unduly earned for t h e i r author the l a b e l of S l a v o p h i l e . Pavlova's Russian poetry i s d i v i d e d by c r i t i c s 5 i n t o two p r i n c i p a l p e r i o d s . The f i r s t begins from her e a r l y poetry from the l a t e 1830s u n t i l 1853, when she experienced the s t r o n g l i t e r a r y c r i s i s which occurred because of her u n f o r t u n a t e f a m i l y l i f e and personal d e p r e s s i o n . The second begins from 1853 and terminates with the c y c l e Fantasmagorii i n the mid-1860.6 From the point of view presented in t h i s paper the d i v i s i o n for p e r i o d s based on the knowledge of Pavlova's biography i s not so important. The p e r i o d i c a l d i v i s i o n w i l l be made on the b a s i s of t e x t u a l a n a l y ses. Moreover; we w i l l be rather l o o k i n g for a development of Pavlova's p e r s o n a l i t y then for any p e r i o d i c d i v i s i o n s of her poetry. Pavlova's l y r i c s are deeply personal.Sendich w r i t e s , " i t i s a c o n f e s s i o n of s o u l , a l y r i c a l r e c o r d of her emotional torments". In t h i s paper we w i l l analyze poems where her l y r i c a l " I " predominates, where we can c l e a r l y see the p e r s o n a l i t y of the author; poems in which Pavlova g i v e s her i n t i m a t e o p i n i o n s about l i f e , r e l a t i o n s between people, f e e l i n g s . These o p i n i o n s are r e s u l t s of her own experiences and her own b e l i e f s . Her l y r i c p oetry i s abundant in themes. The theme of the poet, h i s v o c a t i o n and h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the e x t e r n a l world i s continued throughout her poetry. A l s o the theme of women's l i f e and women's 8 d e s t i n y i s present in Pavlova's poetry d u r i n g her e n t i r e l i f e . She was a woman and she was a poet and t h e r e f o r e she inc o r p o r a t e d these two f a c t o r s i n t o her poems.They dominated her l y r i c s . Pavlova's personal l i f e p r o v i d e s an important background t o her l y r i c poetry. But, a l s o her l y r i c poetry can be used as a key t o her p o e t i c p e r s o n a l i t y . In t h i s paper we w i l l t r y to d e s c r i b e t h i s p e r s o n a l i t y and i t s development without r e f e r r i n g t o any events from her l i f e . We w i l l a l s o not quote any o p i n i o n s about her p e r s o n a l i t y given by her f r i e n d s and acquaintances, which we can f i n d i n many d i a r i e s , memoirs and l e t t e r s . We w i l l .just t r y to show Pavlova's own way of t h i n k i n g - her o p i n i o n s about l i f e in ge n e r a l , women's l i f e and her own l i f e - by a n a l y z i n g the in t i m a t e poems which were w r i t t e n through her e n t i r e p o e t i c c a r e e r . In the f o l l o w i n g chapters we w i l l show at f i r s t the r e l a t i o n s between the speaker of the poem and a l l other people. The development of Pavlova's r e l a t i o n s with o t h e r s i s the most s i g n i f i c a n t problem of her e n t i r e poetry. Then, we w i l l analyze her o p i n i o n s about the r u l e s of l i f e and we w i l l a l s o t r y to show whom or what she blames for her unfor t u n a t e l i f e . In her poems Pavlova u s u a l l y t r i e s to omit any judgement, but i n some of them she g i v e s s t r o n g o p i n i o n s and p r e s e n t s her point of view on the most important q u e s t i o n s - who or what i s g u i l t y of the misfortune in l i f e . 9 As a romantic poet she a l s o t r i e s t o analyse h e r s e l f and the r e f l e c t i o n on her i n t e r n a l l i f e i s present i n almost a l l her poems. In t h i s paper we w i l l analyse how she d e s c r i b e s h e r s e l f and, e s p e c i a l l y , how she analyse a l l d i v i s i o n s w i t h i n her p e r s o n a l i t y . It i s not only the d i v i s i o n for the soul and mind, but a l s o the s t r u g g l e of the soul for i t ' s r i g h t s . In her poetry we w i l l see a l s o how Pavlova d i v i d e s l i f e for separate p e r i o d s and that a l l what happen to her seems t o be t y p i c a l for a l l woman of t h i s s o c i a l c l a s s at that time. T h i s d i v i s i o n i s a r e s u l t of the r u l e s of l i f e and i s c l o s e l y connected with a l l o b s e r v a t i o n s made by Pavlova about people, times and events. F i n a l l y , in the l a s t chapter of t h i s paper, we w i l l analyse the gender-marked p o e t i c s and we w i l l t r y to show how important for her poetry was the fact that i t ' s author was a woman and how i t r e f l e c t s the speaker's p o i n t of view on a l l p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d problems. In t h i s paper we w i l l analyse and r e f e r t o poems from a l l p e r i o d s of Pavlova's l i f e i n t h e i r c h r o n o l o g i c a l order. For c l o s e s t a n a l y ses I have chosen only some of them, those which are the most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of each stage of the development of Pavlova's p e r s o n a l i t y and which b r i n g new in f o r m a t i o n about her o p i n i o n s about her i n t e r n a l l i f e . We w i l l e s p e c i a l l y r e f e r t o : Da il" net (Yes or no) ( J u l y 1839) 10 *f*f*f <Da, mnogo bylo nas...> Yes, There were many of us >(1839 > *f*f*f (K tebe teper' Ja dumu obrascaju) (To you I now t u r n my thought) (1842)7 DumaCVcera listy izorvannogo toma. .->Meditat ion ('Yesterday the pages of a t o r n volume)(1843) Duma (Ne raz sebja Ja voprosaju strogo...} Med i t at ion t'Not once do I q u e s t i o n myself s t r o n g l y ) (1844) Duma tSxodilas* Ja i rosxodilas' .. ».>Meditat ion (I had met and parted ) (1844) Prohtja stixotvoren ija molodoj zensciny(After r e a d i n g a poem by a young woman) (1846) ###<Mladyx nadezd i ubezdenij) (The hopes and c o n v i c t i o n s of youth) (1852)8 ### <0 bylom, o pogibsem, o starom) ( Of what was, of what pe r i s h e d , of what i s old)(1854)9 ### (Proslo spolna vse Sto bylo) ( A l l that was has f u l l y passed away ) (1855)10 ### <Umolk sum ul ic,-pozdno> (The s t r e e t n o i s e has died - i t i s l a t e ) (1858) ##+f (Kogda vstreSaJus* Ja slucajno) (When unexpectedly I meet ) ( t h e end of 1850s or the beginning of 1860s). In our analyses we w i l l f o l l o w the methods used by Roman Jakobson, who brought l i n g u i s t i c and grammatical c a t e g o r i e s i n t o h i s a n a l y s e s of poems. E s p e c i a l l y 11 i n t e r e s t i n g and u s e f u l are h i s "Poetry of grammar and grammar of poetry" , where he w r i t e s : "I have s t a t e d r e p e a t e d l y that the rhyme technique i s >either grammatical or antigrammatical< but never a g r a m a t i c a l , and the same may be a p p l i e d as well t o poets' grammar in g e n e r a l . " Jakobson p o i n t s out that grammatical c a t e g o r i e s can be u s e f u l for a n a l y t i c a l work and that grammar p l a y s an important r o l e in each poem.Since language i s a base for each u t t e r a n c e , a l s o poetry has to use i t as the m a t e r i a l . In language there i s a d e f i n i t e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between two c l a s s e s of expressed concepts - m a t e r i a l and r e l a t i o n a l - or, i n other words, between the l e x i c a l and grammatical aspects of 1anguage."The ancient and medieval theory of poetry had an i n k l i n g of p o e t i c grammar and was prone t o d i s c r i m i n a t e between l e x i c a l t r o p e s and grammatical f i g u r e s (...), but these sound rudiments were l a t e r l o s t . " w r i t e s Jakobson. The r o l e of grammar i n poetry he compares with the r o l e of geometry in the p a i n t e r ' s composition,"based on a l a t e n t or patent geometrical order or on a r e v u l s i o n against geometrical arrangements.For the f i g u r a t i v e a r t s geometrical p r i n c i p l e s represent a " b e a u t i f u l n e c e s s i t y " ( . . . ) . It i s the same n e c e s s i t y that i n language marks out the grammatical meanings. "11 The grammatical forms used in a poem have to correspond with t h e i r o r d i n a r y meanings, and because of t h i s they can be d e s c r i b e d by grammatical c a t e g o r i e s . In our analyses of Pavlova's poems we w i l l examine grammatical 12 forms used in her stanzas. The continuous themes of her poetry - time events, people - a l l t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s grammatically i n c l u d e d in verbs, so we w i l l look e s p e c i a l l y for verbs i n her poems as the most i n t e r e s t i n g source of in format i o n . 13 I.RELATIONS BETWEEN THE SPEAKER AND OTHER PEOPLE Beginning with the e a r l y poems, the d i v i s i o n between the speaker of the poem and a l l other people i s marked in Pavlova's poetry very c l e a r l y . R e l a t i o n s with o t h e r s are one of the c o n t i n u o u s l y present themes of her stanzas. Although Pavlova focuses on d i f f e r e n c e s between h e r s e l f and a l l o t h e r s , i n many poems we can see that she does not t h i n k about her own l i f e as e x c e p t i o n a l . In one of her e a r l i e s t w r i t t e n poem Da il" i net the speaker of the poem shows a l l her hopes for a b e t t e r f u t u r e by f o r t u n e - t e l l i n g with d a i s y p e t a l s . Za listkom listok sryvaja S beloj zvezdock i polej, Ej sepcu.fcvetku vverjaja., Cto skryvaju at Ijudej. Suevernoe mectan*e Vidit v r>em sebe otvet Na serdecnoe gad an"e -Budet da mner Hi net? Mnogo v serdce vdrug prosnetsja Nezabvenno-davnyx grez,, Mnogo iz grudi pol'etsja Strastnyx pros'b i gor'kix s1ez. No na detskoe molen* e, Na poryvy burnyx let Serdcu casto providen"e Molvit mi lostivat net/ Stixnut zazdy molodye; Mozet byt', zasepdut vnov" I mectan"ja nezemnye, I nadezdaf i ljubov' . No na zov videnij rajaf No na sladkij ix privet 14 Sendee, zizn' vospominaja, Sodrognuvsis', molvits net! In the beginning the speaker expresses only h e r s e l f and even separates h e r s e l f from others.The flower used as the f o r t u n e - t e l l e r i s c l o s e r to her than f r i e n d s : Ej sep6o.f cvetku vvepjaja f Cto skryvaju. ot Ijudej. <7S) She asks the d a i s y p e t a l s q u e s t i o n s she would never ask anybody and by t h i s shows us her d i s t a n c e to a l l other people. In the f i r s t part of the f i r s t s t anza verbs are used in f i r s t person s i n g u l a r - " I " : sepcu and skryvaju .She asks not about somebody e l s e ' s l i f e but about her own f u t u r e . These are the only two verbs i n t h i s form in the e n t i r e poem.Even though she separates h e r s e l f from a l l others, her l i f e w i l l .join general r u l e s , r u l e s which govern everybody's l i v e s . T h e r e f o r e verbs i n the f i r s t person s i n g u l a r are no longer used in t h i s poem. Beginning with the second part of the f i r s t s t anza the speaker uses the t h i r d person s i n g u l a r or p l u r a l ipol'etsja, prosnhtsja, stixnut, zasepcut) . By using t h i s form of verbs the speaker omits h e r s e l f . Not she, but f e e l i n g s are the s u b j e c t s of sentences.The poem remains on a general l e v e l - as the s u b j e c t s of a l l sentences a b s t r a c t nouns are used. These f e e l i n g s are a t t r i b u t e s of her p e r s o n a l i t y but a l s o p e r s o n a l i t i e s of other people, so a l l statements are ge n e r a l . The speaker of the poem i s j u s t l i k e a l l others, and her l i f e w i l l be l i k e t h e i r l i v e s . It i s not d e s c r i b e d 15 how the best of f e e l i n g s Clove and happiness) w i l l be hurt. The speaker does not e x p l a i n anything. We know only about the r e s u l t s , which are enumerated i n c o n s e c u t i v e sentences in which even r e f l e x i v e verbs (.prosnetcja, pol'etcja') are sometimes used. The sad and re s i g n e d tone i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Pavlova's i n t i m a t e poetry. We w i l l f i n d the same tone in a l l the poems analysed here. The speaker of the poem d e s c r i b e s s i t u a t i o n s and stages, but does not f i g h t with r e a l i t y . The speaker of "Da, mnogo by l o nas" ( a l s o 1839) i s a woman who had been a part of a group of young g i r l s (.mladencesk ix podrug) and who i s t h i n k i n g about the past and the l i f e of t h i s group and, e s p e c i a l l y , what happened to her g i r l f r i e n d s as a group. Da, mnogo bylo nas,mladenceskix podrug; Na detskom prazdnike sojdemsja my, by vale, I nasej radostfju gremela dolgo zala, I s zvon kirn xoxotorn nas rasstavalsja krug. I my ne verili ni grusti, ni bedam, Navstrecu zizni sli tolpoju svetlookoj; Blestal pred nami mir roskosnyj i $ irokoj, I vse, cto bylo v nem, pr inadlezalo nam. Da, mnogo bylo nas, - i gde tot svetlyj roj?... 0, kazdaja iz nas uznala zizni bremja, I nebyliceju to nazyvaet vremja, I pomnit o sebe, kak bud to o cuzoj. The speaker of t h i s poem seems t o be f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d with the group and not a s i n g l e verb i n the f i r s t person s i n g u l a r i s used here. Her experiences are not d i f f e r e n t ; they are t y p i c a l of the g i r l s of t h i s s o c i a l c l a s s . Beginning with my (we), the poem moves in i t s l a s t l i n e s to kazdaja iz nas 16 (each of u s ) . Each of them has experienced as an i n d i v i d u a l what they have a l l undergone. In the past they are d e s c r i b e d as one body. The speaker uses c o l l e c t i v e nouns (.tolpa, krug, raj) and verbs i n the f i r s t person p l u r a l to d e s c r i b e t h i s group and i t s a c t i v i t y in the past. Now they are no longer one body, so the speaker uses the t h i r d person s i n g u l a r form of verbs (.uznala, nazyvaet, pomnit) . She f i n i s h e s the poem with the l i n e : / pomnit o sebe, kak bud to o cuzoj. Now each of them i s so a l i e n a t e d from what she used to be that she t h i n k s about h e r s e l f as about another. To mark t h i s d i s t a n c e from the speaker Pavlova uses verbs of not the f i r s t but the t h i r d person. The speaker shares the same experiences; t h e r e f o r e she does not d e s c r i b e h e r s e l f s e p a r a t e l y but uses the same t h i r d person s i n g u l a r form for h e r s e l f t o i n d i c a t e how d i s t a n t she f e e l s from her past s e l f. The same theme of change i n people i s present i n K tebe teper' ja dumu obrascaju (1842). K tebe teper' ja dumu obrascaju, Bezgresnuju, xot' grustnuju, — k tebe.' Nesus' dusoj k dalekomu mne kraju I k otcuzdennoj mne davno sud'be. Tak mnogo let proslo, - i dni nevzgody, I radosti vstreealis" dni ne raz; Tak mnogo let, - i bolee, Sem gody, Sobytija peremenili nas. Ne takovy rasstalis" my s toboju/ Rasstalis' my, - ty pomnis i i , poet? -ft scast'ja dar predlozen byl sud'boju; Da, mozet byt', a mozet byt' - i net/ 17 Kto z vas dostigf o svetlye </iden*jaf 0 gordyje, vzyskatelf nye sny? Kto uderzal minutu vdoxnoven'ja? 1 luc zari, i tak morskoj volny? Kto ne stojalf ispuganno i nemo, Pred idolom razvencannym svoim?... The speaker of the poem i s a woman who remembers a beloved man from the past, so the d i v i s i o n between " I " in the present s i t u a t i o n and "we" in the past i s connected here a l s o with t h e i r present s e p a r a t i o n . In t h i s poem Pavlova a l s o focuses on changes and once more r e p e a t s that events played a much more important r o l e in those changes than time. The speaker does not separate h e r s e l f from a l l others, but even more s t r o n g l y than before expresses that those changes are t y p i c a l of everybody's l i f e . In the beginning of the poem the speaker focuses on h e r s e l f and uses verbs i n the f i r s t person s i n g u l a r (.obrascaju, nesus') to change t h i s focus t o my in the second and t h i r d stanzas. The l a s t part of t h i s poem ( l a s t two stanzas) c o n s i s t s of r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s beginning with the quest i o n word "Kto?". The speaker l e a v e s the poem in the middle of the f i f t h stanza,and the reader i s l e f t t o supply h i s own c o n c l u s i o n and r e f l e c t i o n about l i f e . From " I " the poem moves t o "we", which expresses two people c l o s e l y connected by lov e and f i n a l l y t o general o b s e r v a t i o n s about everybody, even the readers. The r u l e s of l i f e work for everybody. 18 In Duma (Vcera listy izorvannogo tamar) (. 1843) the speaker r e f e r s to her own past and her own experiences, but again as i n her e a r l i e r w r i t t e n poems,she does not t h i n k about h e r s e l f as an e x c e p t i o n . Vcera listy izorvannogo toma Popalis' mne, - »a nix vzgljanula ja} Zabytoe sepnulo vdrug znakomo, I vs pom Has' mne vsja vesna moja. To byli vy, rodnye nebylicy, Moim mectam laskajuscij otvet} To byli te zavetnyje stranicy, Gde detskix slez ja pomnju davnyj sled. I mne blesnul skvoz' let prozytyx teni Rebjaceskij, vel ikolepnyj mir} Blesnuli dni vysokix ubeidenij I pervyj mojf nezdesn ij moj kumir. Tak, stalo bytff i v zizni beztrevoznoj Dolzny projti my tot ze grustnyj put', Brosaem vsef uvy, kak dar nictoznyj, Cto my kak klad v svoju vlozili grud'/ I ja svoi pokinula ximery, Idu vperedf gljazu v nemuju. dal'; No zal' mne toj neistoscimoj very, I mne poroj mladyx vostorgov zal'/ Kto ozivit v du.se by lye grezy? Kto snam moim otdast ix prelest' vnov'? Kto voskresit v nix lik markiza Pozy? Kto k prizraku mne vozvratit ljubov'?... The n a r r a t i o n begins in the f i r s t person s i n g u l a r ; then in the f o u r t h stanza the speaker uses the f i r s t person p l u r a l form of verbs. She i s j u s t one of "we", and her personal l i f e i s only a v a r i a t i o n of the general r u l e . The speaker r e g r e t s the l o s t f e e l i n g s from the past. How c l o s e l y connected the speaker i s with other people we know a l s o from 19 the i n t e r r o g a t i v e l a s t s t anza of t h i s poem. She i s asking about somebody who w i l l g i ve back a l l the best f e e l i n g s to her. T h i s stanza c o n s i s t s of four r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s about somebody who w i l l g i v e the l o s t meaning to her l i f e . The speaker cannot change her l i f e by h e r s e l f , but j u s t asks for somebody who can b r i n g back happiness i n t o her l i f e . She f e e l s l o n e l y , but she s t i l l b e l i e v e s that she i s l i k e a l l o t h e r s and that somebody can change her l i f e . T h e l o n e l i n e s s i s not equal to s e p a r a t i o n and the speaker wants somebody e l s e t o be with her and b r i n g back a l l hopes and dreams to her l i f e . T h i s b e l i e f that she needs somebody to change her l i f e c l e a r l y present in t h i s poem, seems to disappear i n her l a t e r w r i t t e n poems. In Duma (. Ne raz sebja ja voprosaju strogo.) (. 1844) the speaker c o n f e s s e s that she has to f i g h t by h e r s e l f with r e a l i t y and that something i n s i d e her h e l p s her . Ne raz sebja ja voprosaju. strogo, I v du.su ja gljazu samoj sebe; Zelanij v nej uze zavjalo mnogo, I mnogoe ustupleno sudfbe. I pomnju ja, d ivjasT, kak v zizni vse my. Pro rannjuju, obiI •' nuju vesnu, I den' za dnem na detskie edemy Tumannuju spuskaet pel enu. No s kazdoj mgloj nevedomaja sila Tainstvenno vstaet v grudi moej, Kak tarn blestjat nebesnye svetila Jasnee vse, cem noc-' krugom temnej. Ja veruju, cto junye nadeldy Ispolnjatsja, xot' v obraze drugom, Cto cas pridet, gde my otkroem vezdy, Cto vse k mete nezdanno my dojdem; 20 Cto lozny v nas bessil*e i smascen'ef Cto dast svoj plod nam kazdyj pads id cvet, 6to vsem bar1'bam v duse Jest' primeren'e, Cto kaldomu voprosu Jest" otvet. In the beginning of the t h i r d stanza, not somebody e l s e , but her own b e l i e f i n general j u s t i c e helps her with re c o v e r y a f t e r every sad experience and makes her s t r o n g . T h i s i s the way how we should think about nevedomaja si la mentioned in t h i s stanza. And she does not thi n k only about h e r s e l f . She b e l i e v e s that vce k mete nezdanno my dojdem . Although she speaks by h e r s e l f and uses the f i r s t person s i n g u l a r form " I " , she i s a l s o one of a l l o t h e r s and she uses the f i r s t person p l u r a l form of verbs t o d e s c r i b e t h e i r f u t u r e . The poem i s d i v i d e d i n t o two p a r t s . F i r s t c o n s i s t s from the f i r s t t h r e e stanzas, where the speaker i s t h i n k i n g about h e r s e l f . The on l y i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e s to o t h e r s i s a v e r b l e s s phrase in the second stanza - kak </ zizni vse my. In the second part of t h i s poem except the f i r s t l i n e of the fou r t h stanza t h e r e are no verbs in the f i r s t person s i n g u l a r . The i n t r o d u c t i o n to the second part i s ja veruju. and then each l i n e i s j u s t a separate b e l i e f . These enumerated e x p e c t a t i o n s are for a l l her f r i e n d s , a l l other people, not on l y for the speaker by h e r s e l f . The speaker i s one among o t h e r s but she a l s o s e p arates h e r s e l f by expressing that d e s c r i b e d wishes are her own even though she does not t h i n k only about h e r s e l f . Even though Pavlova b e l i e v e s , that she i s j u s t one among o t h e r s and her l i f e i s l i k e anybody e l s e ' s , a 21 d e s c r i p t i o n of her own l o n e l i n e s s i s present i n almost a l l her poems.In her e a r l y poetry the l o n e l i n e s s i s not connected with a l i e n a t i o n and "we" in these poems means that the speaker i d e n t i f i e s h e r s e l f with o t h e r s . She expresses that she used to be a member of the group which does not e x i s t anymore, she w r i t e s about her g i r l f r i e n d s as about one body; l i k e w i s e as about one body she w r i t e s about h e r s e l f and the "poet" in the past. The f i r s t person p l u r a l form of verbs i s used by her a l s o to d e s c r i b e a l l people. My (we) i n her poetry does not mean only the s p e c i f i c group but has a general meaning of people. The c l e a r d i v i s i o n between " I " and "others" appears in w r i t i n g i n 1844 in Duma (.Sxodilas' ja i rasxodilas''). Sxod i 1 as' ja i rasxod Has' So mnogimi </ zemnom put if Ne raz mectami podelilas', Ne raz ja mol v i 1 ai >Pros ti .'< No do proscan'ja rokovogo Uze stojala ja odna; I xladnoe to bylo slovo. Pus toj otzyv pustogo sna. I kazdaja lisala vstreca Menja pr izraka moego / ne zvala ja izdaleca Nazad dusoju nikogo. I ne po nix mne grustno bylo, Mne grustno bylo po sebef Cto serdca radostnaja si la Us tup it z iznennoj sud'be; Cto ne nisxodit s nebosklona Boginja k ziteljam zemnym; Cto vse myf s zarom Iks ion a, Obnimem obloko i dym. Mne bylo tjagostno i grustno. Cto Izet ulybka i sleza, I to, cto slysim my izustno, I to, cemu gljadim v glaza. I ja vstreeaju, s nim ne sporja, Spokojno nyne bytie; I gorestniej mladogo gorja Mne ravnodusie moe. R e f l e x i v e verbs i n the t h r e e f i r s t l i n e s of the f i r s t s t anza r e f e r t o very c l o s e connections between the speaker and other people in the past. It was probably the very d i s t a n t past, because in t h i s poem the speaker d e s c r i b e s a l s o i n the past tense times when she stayed alone and d i d not miss anybody. The speaker c l e a r l y separates h e r s e l f from a l l other people and confesses that in the past she was sad not because of people from her d i s t a n t past but because of h e r s e l f . Once again in Pavlova's poetry the speaker knows that she i s l i k e a l l o t h e r s and her l i f e f o l l o w s the same general r u l e s as everybody's l i f e , so she uses verbs i n the f i r s t person p l u r a l to d e s c r i b e the r e a l i t y of l i f e . She does not blame people. She knows that e x t e r n a l s i g n s of f e e l i n g s l i e d and t h i s knowledge made her f e e l s o r r y but not angry. She used to b e l i e v e that they would do u n b e l i e v a b l e t h i n g s in t h e i r l i v e s , but r e a l i t y changed her o p i n i o n . Now she i s alone. In t h i s poem she s t i l l uses "we" because in person they are together, but she a l s o uses " I " and "they" because they are separated in s p i r i t . And her soul does not miss anybody who used to be her c l o s e f r i e n d . There are two stages of her f e e l i n g s o r r y for h e r s e l f in t h i s poem- At f i r s t she f e l t s o r r y because she had l o s t a l l f e e l i n g s , and then, f i n a l l y , she f e e l s sad because even t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s i n d i f f e r e n t t o her. We a l s o have the impression that she f e e l s a l i e n a t e d from a l l her p r e v i o u s f r i e n d s and knows that they do not care about a l l these changes. Maybe they have not even n o t i c e d them. The speaker separates h e r s e l f from the group a l s o because she knows more than they know. She knows what w i l l be in the fu t u r e , that the happy s t r e n g t h of the heart w i l l y i e l d t o d e s t i n y of l i f e . The f e e l i n g of being one among o t h e r s r e t u r n s in Pr-octja stixotvoren i ja mo 1 odoj ie»soiny (. 1846> . b ib 1 i Opjat" otzyv pecalfnoj skazkir Nam vsem znakomoj s davnyx por, Nadezd bessmyslennye laski I z izn i s trog i j pr i gov or. Uvyf dusi pustye dumyf Mladyx vostorgov pi en i prax.' Ljubili vse odnu zvezdu my V nepostizimyx nebesax.' I vsef volnujaeja, iskali My snoviden'ja svojego} I namf utixsim, zal" edva 1i, Cto uzilis" my bez nego. In t h i s poem the speaker expresses a l l f e e l i n g s and op i n i o n s in the f i r s t person p l u r a l form,"we". The f e e l i n g of i n t e g r i t y with a group i s so str o n g i n t h i s poem that the speaker does not use even a s i n g l e verb in the f i r s t person s i n g u l a r . There i s no c l e a r i n f o r m a t i o n about t h i s group, but from the t i t l e of the poem we can surmise that the speaker i s t a l k i n g about a l l women, e s p e c i a l l y about women-poets. They a l l .joined the same hopes and f i n a l l y they f e e l s o r r y because they had to l i v e without p r e v i o u s dreams. T h i s i n t e g r i t y i s because of the same experiences and the same f a t e , not because of any personal connections with or w i t h i n any group. Even though the speaker of the poem f e e l s l o n e l y and knows that people around do not understand her she a l s o knows that she i s not the only person in t h i s kind of s i t u a t i o n s . T h i s i s the kind of i n t e g r i t y which can make a person a l i e n a t e d from her f r i e n d s s t r o n g e r . It i s the knowledge that many other people f e e l the same and go through the same problems i n t h e i r l i v e s . The knowledge that r e a l i t y makes many people g i v e up t h e i r dreams and hopes and j u s t f o l l o w the general r u l e i s not equal to acceptance of t h i s s i t u a t i o n and t r u s t i n g o t h e r s . Pavlova knows that the r u l e s of l i f e have hanged her pr e v i o u s f r i e n d s but i t does not mean that she t r u s t s people who f o l l o w these r u l e s . In "*##" (.Mladyx nadeld i ubezdenij) <. 1852.) the speaker d e s c r i b e s her contemporary l i f e as being the same as the l i f e of other peoples Mladyx nadezd i ubezdenij Kak mnogo ja p e r e l i I af Kak mnogo radostnyx videnij Razvejal vetr, pokryla mgla/ I si la dumf i bujnost' rvenij Kt grudi moej esce eel a. Ty, s jasnym vzgljadom xeruvima, Doc' nebar serdca ne trevoz'f Kak ten' nesetsja radost' mimo. 25 I lzet nadezda. 0 tee go z Tak eta ten' neobxodima? I tak vsesil'na eta loz'? (Jt/y/ Sprjatajus' ja s soboju; fivu. s drugimi naravne} No ziznej cudnoju, inoju NeJ'zja ne bred it' mne bo sne. Kuda devat'sja mne s dusoju./ Kuda devat'sja s serdcem mne/... The second l i n e of the l a s t s t anza tarings the only i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h i s poem about the speaker's r e l a t i o n s with o t h e r s . She does not f e e l that she i s one of them; she .just l i v e s l i k e o t h e r s , but i n s i d e she i s d i f f e r e n t . She o n l y behaves h e r s e l f l i k e a l l other people but she s t i l l can not g i v e up her dreams and only pretends to be equal with o t h e r s . She separates h e r s e l f very c l e a r l y by c a l l i n g other people "they". She i s not a part of them, and she has to f o r c e h e r s e l f to keep a l i v e the i l l u s i o n of being l i k e o t h e r s . The poems begins from the sentence ( f i r s t two l i n e s ) ended with the verb in the f i r s t person s i n g u l a r (.perezHa) . The verb put in the end of the sentence (and a l s o i n the end of the l i n e ) expreses that i t ' s meaning i s very important. It shows how much the speaker focuses on h e r s e l f , how the experience i s important for her.She a l s o has to f o l l o w the r u l e s of l i f e (at l e a s t she t r i e s ) and asks doc neba not to d i s t u r b her e f f o r t s to be l i k e a l l o t h e r s . The speaker knows that happiness i s o n l y an i l l u s i o n and that hopes l i e . The only way to be t r u s t e d by others i s to l i v e l i k e they do. She wants to be l i k e they are but a l s o she can not g i v e up her daydreams about the kind of l i v e she used to l i v e . In the end of the second s t a n z a the speaker asks two r e t h o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s which are separated from the r e s t of the stanza by the only enjambement in t h i s poem. In both q u e s t i o n s i s used c o n s t r u c t i o n of a sentence with verb "to be" omitted. T h i s kind of c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t y p i c a l for the present tense but here i t only makes stronger the impression that the speaker expresses not contemporary s i t u a t i o n but the general o b s e r v a t i o n which can be t r u e not o n l y for her but maybe a l s o for o t h e r s . These d i f f e r e n c e s between the speaker and o t h e r s are even more s t r o n g l y d e s c r i b e d in <0 bylom, o pogibsem, o star am)<1854). 0 bylom, o pogibsem, o starom My si-' nemaja duse tjazela} Mnogo </ zizni ja vstretila zla, Mnogo cuvstv ja istrati 1 a darom, Mnogo zertv nev popad prinesla. Sla ja vnov' posle kazdoj osibki, Zabyvaja zestok ij urok, Bezoruzno </ z itejsk ie ssibkii Very v slezy, slova i ulybki Vyrvat-' urn moj iz serdca ne mog. 1 dasoju, sud'be nepokornojf Sred' nevzgad, odolevs ix menja' Ubez'den'e v uspex soxranja, Kak igrok ozidala upornyj Denf za dnem ja scastlivogo dnja. Smelo klad ja brosala za k1 adornt-I stoju.f proigravlisja v pux; I scastlivcy, sidjascije rjadom, Smotrjat zadnym, jazvitel"nym vzgljadorn — Izmenjaet Ii t</erdyj mne dux? The speaker focuses on h e r s e l f and her own l i f e . She does not f e e l any i n t e g r i t y with people around her. The poem begins with the general o b s e r v a t i o n that t h i n k i n g about anything that belongs to the past i s hard for the s o u l . The verb used in t h i s sentence ( f i r s t two l i n e s of the poem) -tjazela ( d i f f i c u l t ) i s in the present tense, t h i r d person s i n g u l a r and i s connected with mysl* (thought) as the subje c t of t h i s sentence. There i s no i n f o r m a t i o n about the speaker i n these two 1ines and we do not know whose soul she i s t a l k i n g about. It i s j u s t a general statement not connected with any s p e c i f i c time, any s p e c i f i c person or group of people. T h i s general o b s e r v a t i o n i s the only connection i n t h i s poem between the speaker and other people. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y in t h i s sentence she omits the f i r s t person p l u r a l form and makes j u s t a general statement about the s o u l . She does not thin k about h e r s e l f as about somebody who belongs t o any kind of group. There i s no "we" form in the e n t i r e poem. Other people who are s t i l l around her are d e s c r i b e d as f o r t u n a t e ones, " s i t t i n g t o g e t h e r " and "lo o k i n g at her". The speaker compares h e r s e l f in t h i s poem to a pl a y e r who has l o s t and i s now standing against happy, s i t t i n g people. S p i r i t u a l l y she i s not a member of t h i s group. The speaker c a l l s h e r s e l f the person who l o s t , these people are f o r t u n a t e . She i s sta n d i n g , they are s i t t i n g . They are l o o k i n g at her and want t o know i f she g i v e s up. In person she i s s t i l l among them, but her former f r i e n d s are now very d i s t a n t , they are l i k e judges. They look at her 28 jazvitelnym vzgljadom ; they are l i k e enemies, but she does not judge them, j u s t d e s c r i b e s . In the poem (.Umolk sum ul icr-pozdno) (1858) the speaker d e s c r i b e s the contemporary s i t u a t i o n of l o o k i n g through the window at the landscape, which make her n o s t a l g i c about some days from the past. Umolk ium ulic, — pozdno; 6erneet neba svodf I tuci idut groznof Kak vitjazi v poxod. Na temnye ix rati Smotrju. ja iz okna.,-I i/spomil is' f nekstati, Drugie vre men af Te dni - ix bylo malof-Tot mimoletnyj srok, Kogda ja ozidala-I siysalsja zvonok/ Ta pavest' bez razvjazki/ Uzel' i nyne mne Vsej etoj staroj skazki Zabyt' nel'zja vpolne? Ja stixla, ja dovol'na, Bezumie proslo; No vse to cto-to bol'nof I cto to tjazelo. The speaker d e s c r i b e s the present s i t u a t i o n as bo r i n g and quie t by showing the town which goes to s l e e p . The contemporary s i t u a t i o n i s not important. It i s shown in t h i s poem mostly to r e l a t e i t with another time, with the happy moments from the speaker's p a s t . I t was a very small part of her l i f e , but she s t i l l misses those days when she would be wa i t i n g and the b e l l would r i n g . A l l t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n r e f e r s t o the people < the b e l l does not r i n g by i t s e l f ) , but the 29 speaker does not even mention anybody. She i s n o s t a l g i c about the s i t u a t i o n , but not the people. The speaker focuses on h e r s e l f . In the second stanza of t h i s poem she se p a r a t e s h e r s e l f from the d e s c r i b e d landscape and from the present. Her b e t t e r l i f e belongs to the past. Because of r e f l e x i v e form of the verb ivspomni 1 is'') i t i s not c l e a r l y marked who reminds t h i s another time. Only from the con t e s t we can say that t h i s memory came to the speaker, but came by i t s e l f . The speaker d i d not intend t o think about her past .But continuous t h i n k i n g about the past i s stronger that e v e r y t h i n g e l s e . The speaker of our f i n a l poem *#* <Kogda vstrecajus' ja slucajno), w r i t t e n in the end of the 1850s or the beginning of the 1860s, i s f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d with her f r i e n d s from the past. Kogda vstrecajus' ja slucajno S druz'jam i pros Iyx, Iu.6six let,-Mne kazetsja, mez nami tajna Vse to, cego uz bol'se net. Kak svjazyvaet prestuplen'e UbijCf sverSivsix noc'jo. grex, Nas vjazet proiloe volnen'e, Bylaja grust' i preznij smex. Da: nasi lucsie nadezdy Ubili my </ sebe samyx. My razodrali ix odezdy I sprjatali bogatstva ix. I grustno nam napominan'e 0 torn, 6to utaili my, Cto bez kresta i bez nazvan'ja Lezit v mogile cernoj t'my. I, prezrja dolguju razlukuf My, </s tret ivsis' f uze spesim 30 Polat' drag draga mo lea rukuf Ne vozvrascajasf k dnjam bylym. The n a r r a t i o n begins with a sentence with the in the f i r s t person s i n g u l a r (/strecajas" , but because of the r e f l e x i v e form of t h i s verb, i t s meaning i s not only " I " but a l s o o t h e r s . These o t h e r s are c l e a r l y named in the second l i n e of the f i r s t s tanza. The speaker t a l k s about her f r i e n d s from the past. These meetings are d e s c r i b e d i n the f i r s t and l a s t stanzas, which frame the poem. There i s nothing they want to t a l k about and i t seems that they t r e a t the past l i k e a s e c r e t . At the end of the poem the speaker says that i n s p i t e of a long s e p a r a t i o n , they are in a hurry to say farewel1,and,they do not want to be reminded of t h e i r past. The former f r i e n d s h i p s e p arates them now. The f i r s t person s i n g u l a r o c c u r s only in the f i r s t stanza; i n a l l o t h e r s the speaker uses f i r s t person p l u r a l v e rbal forms . Now they are separated in person and they f e e l comfortable with i t . They are s t i l l connected but not by t h e i r former f r i e n d s h i p . About t h i s they even do not want to t a l k . Three stanzas i n the middle of the poem d e s c r i b e the unspoken, the connection between them that i s s t i l l a l i v e . Using verbs in the f i r s t person p l u r a l and thus s i t u a t i n g h e r s e l f i n s i d e the group, the speaker compares them with k i l l e r s connected by crime. Just as t h e i r crime u n i t e s the k i l l e r s , so the f r i e n d s are connected by p r e v i o u s f e e l i n g s . They have k i l l e d by themselves t h e i r b e t t e r f e e l i n g s , and t h i s crime s t i l l connects them. T h i s d e s c r i p t i o n i s a l s o a judgement. The 31 speaker does not separate h e r s e l f from t h i s group. She i s a l s o g u i l t y l i k e a l l the ot h e r s , and thus she i s i n t e g r a t e d with her former f r i e n d s . The s i t u a t i o n d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s poem seems to be a re v e r s e of the ones d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r when they were together in person, but the speaker d i d not f e e l t o be one of them. F i n a l l y , at the end of her l i f e Pavlova, judging a f t e r people, a l s o judged h e r s e l f . I I . THE GRAMMAR OF FATALISM G e n e r a l l y speaking, Pavlova has avoided any p o s s i b i l i t y of .judgement of people t i l l the l a s t of her poems. In her e a r l y poetry she blames time and e s p e c i a l l y events for a l l changes i n people's l i v e s . In K tebe... she wr i t e s s <...),- i boleef cem gody, Sobytida peremenili nas. (104-105) They are not sub j e c t but the d i r e c t o b j e c t of t h i s sentence. They d i d not do anything, i t j u s t happened to them. In some of her poems the r e a l i t y of l i f e seems to be an excuse which e x p l a i n s e v e r y t h i n g and which makes i t p o s s i b l e not to judge anybody. The speaker of the poem Da mnogo. . . says: 0, kazdada i z nas uznala zizni bremda and i t i s the e n t i r e e x p l a n a t i o n for a l l changes i n s i d e the p e r s o n a l i t y of each member of the group of young g i r l f r i e n d s . - Pavlova in her poems a l s o omits grammatical forms that can show any connection between people and events. Instead of t h i s , she d e s c r i b e s stages and a c t i v i t y of the s o u l , f e e l i n g s , hopes and dreams.People do not c r e a t e events and do not c r e a t e t h e i r l i v e s . T h e y are changed by a l l that happens. Although Pavlova poetry i s very personal and we expect mostly sentences with verbs in the f i r s t person ( s i n g u l a r and p l u r a l ) in a l l her poems some stanzas c o n s i s t of sentences with verbs in the t h i r d person. In "Da i l ' net" the n a r r a t i o n i n the t h i r d person begins in the second part ( l a s t four l i n e s ) of the f i r s t s t a n z a and co n t i n u e s t i l l the end. In Da, mnogo bylo nas, t h i s form appears in the t h i r d l i n e of the f i r s t stanza and in the l a s t two l i n e s of the second stanza . In K tebe teper' ja dumu obrascaju not only a l l sentences in the second stanza are in the t h i r d person, but the same form i s c o n t i n u o u s l y used beginning with the t h i r d l i n e of the t h i r d s tanza t i l l the end of the poem. The n a r r a t i o n i n Duma (.Vcera listy izorvannogo toma) begins with sentences with verbs i n the t h i r d person (the e n t i r e f i r s t stanza) and t h i s grammatical form i s used a l s o in the l a s t two l i n e s of the second stanza and the whole t h i r d stanza. In every Pavlova poem there are at l e a s t some sentences in the t h i r d person p l u r a l . In a d d i t i o n , we should r e a l i z e that each c o n s e c u t i v e sentence w r i t t e n i n the t h i r d person u s u a l l y has a d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t , but they are a l l connected with people as a d i r e c t o b j e c t of a sentence or because the subj e c t i s an a t t r i b u t e of mankind ( l i k e f e e l i n g s or dreams). The t h i r d person i s used in Pavlova's poetry when the speaker d e s c r i b e s only part of h e r s e l f but a l s o when she wants to d e s c r i b e what happens to her or to the other people. We can even say that i t i s t y p i c a l of Pavlova not t o use verbs i n the p a s s i v e v o i c e but - in s t e a d - t o change the subj e c t of sentences. In s p i t e of the f r e q u e n t l y changed sub j e c t of sentences, the subject of the poem i s s t i l l the 34 same ( u s u a l l y I or we!) and i s present in many sentences as a d i r e c t o b j e c t . T h i s grammatical form g i v e s the p o s s i b i l i t y of not d i r e c t l y showing the a c t i v i t y and stages of people and g i v e s the p o s s i b i l i t y of b u i l d i n g more general ( i n meaning.) sentences. The speaker of the poem j u s t d e s c r i b e s the s i t u a t i o n but does not g i v e any judgment and e v a l u a t i o n . It g i v e s the impression that the poet's d e s c r i p t i o n i s o b j e c t i v e and not given through her own o p i n i o n s and b e l i e f s . We should a l s o note that in p a r t s w r i t t e n in the t h i r d person, Pavlova's poems remain on a general l e v e l with a b s t r a c t nouns and metaphorical language. It helps t o d e s c r i b e general o b s e r v a t i o n s and r u l e s and a l s o t o omit d e t a i l s and c l a r i f y e x p l a n a t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n we should r e a l i z e that a number of r e f l e x i v e verbs used i n her poems have the same r o l e . By using the r e f l e x i v e form of verbs in Da i l f net the speaker should j u s t d e s c r i b e that in the f u t u r e in a heart thunders prosnetsja , from a chest t e a r s poletcja . E v e r y t h i n g w i l l happen by i t s e l f . In K tebe teper' ja dumu obrascaju the r e f l e x i v e verb nesus' shows us that the speaker i s the sub j e c t and a l s o an object of t h i s a c t i o n . The r e f l e x i v e form of the verb rasstalis' makes i t p o s s i b l e not t o g i v e any i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e i r departure. By using the verb vstrecalis to d e s c r i b e t y p i c a l days a f t e r t h e i r departure, the speaker shows how i n d i f f e r e n t these days are. A l l events happen by themselves and i t i s i n d i f f e r e n t i f the speaker 35 d i d something t o c r e a t e happiness or misfortune in her l i f e . In Duma (Vcera listy izorvannogo toma) the speaker confesses, that her past vspomnilac' by i t s e l f and the purpose were pages of the t o r n volume (listy izorvannogo toma) which .just came a c r o s s her (.papal is" ), a l s o by i t s e l f . A l s o in Duma (Ne raz sebja ja voprosaju. strogo) the speaker uses the r e f l e x i v e form ispolnjatcja ( f u l f i l ) t o d e s c r i b e her b e l i e f s i n general .jus t i c e . We do not know how t h e i r hopes w i l l be r e a l i z e d in the f u t u r e . T h i s b e l i e f , not the means of i t s r e a l i z a t i o n , i s important i n t h i s poem. "A s i g h escape l i p s " (Vsdox sorvetsja s ust) c o n f e s s e s the speaker of Duma (.Kogda v raz dor s samim soboju)12 (1843) and i t seems to be a d e s c r i p t i o n of Pavlova's i n t i m a t e poetry. A l l her d e s c r i p t i o n s of l i f e and i t s r u l e s are gene r a l , and the poet a l s o t r i e s t o omit any s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n by using these grammatical forms that can help her with i t . The answer t o the qu e s t i o n s of who i s blamed by Pavlova for a l l the unhappiness and sadness in her l i f e and what caused her s e p a r a t i o n and i n t e r n a l s t r u g g l e i s not easy. We have a l r e a d y learned that i n her poetry people are e x p l a i n e d by time and events. But a f t e r a n a l y z i n g some of her poems we should note how important r o l e f a t e p l a y s in a l l the ex p l a n a t i o n s given by the poet i n her stanzas. The f u t u r e d e s c r i b e d in Da i i ' net i s known t o the speaker of the poem. The f o r t u n e - t e l l i n g with d a i s y p e t a l s i s only an 36 excuse to show what w i l l happen and what the speaker knows from the beginning. We should remark that a c c o r d i n g to t h i s poem Pavlova d i d not expect happiness in love,nor d i d she expect the r e a l i z a t i o n of her dreams and hopes. In K tebe teper' ja dumu obrascaju the speaker w r i t e s : /? scast' ja dar predlozen byl sud' boju; Da, mozet byt', a mozet byt-' - i net.''13 (104-105) People's l i v e s are determined by f a t e , but maybe they can change t h i s f a t e . The speaker i s not sure and seems not to care. A tone of i n d i f f e r e n c e in t h i s sentence i s q u i t e c l e a r . Pavlova in her poem does not b a t t l e r e a l i t y , she .just d e s c r i b e s i t . In l a t e r w r i t t e n poems Pavlova does not r e f e r d i r e c t l y t o f a t e . Instead, she d e s c r i b e s how t y p i c a l a l l those changes in p e r s o n a l i t y are and how u s e l e s s i s any s t r u g g l e against the r u l e s of l i f e . Even she, a f t e r a long s t r u g g l e , has to g i v e up and l i v e l i k e a l l others; t h i s f i n a l l y g i v e s her peace of mind. But r e a d i n g Kogda vstrecajus* ja slucajno we have an impression that she and her f r i e n d s gave up too e a s i l y , and because of t h i s , they l o s t . They b e l i e v e d in f a t e and the general r u l e s . They d i d not t r y to change anything, and because of t h i s people by themselves are g u i l t y of k i l l i n g t h e i r hopes, dreams, f e e l i n g s - the best aspects of t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t i e s . They became i n d i f f e r e n t to e v e r y t h i n g . The problem of .judgement seems to be one of the most i n t e r e s t i n g c h a l l e n g e s in the e n t i r e corpus of Pavlova's poetry. A n a l y z i n g her i n t i m a t e poetry we can see how she has changed her o p i n i o n s and how, f i n a l l y , she came to the c o n c l u s i o n that not f a t e , time or events but people by themselves are r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e i r own l i v e s . But, for the poet, the p e r s o n a l i t y of any i n d i v i d u a l i s d i v i d e d i n t o s e v e r a l p a r t s and i t i s d i f f i c u l t to say which part of the p e r s o n a l i t y i s r e s p o n s i b l e for a l l the mistakes that f i n a l l y makes a l i f e one determined by g r i e f and sorrow. A c t u a l l y we should say that she does not w r i t e about the p e r s o n a l i t y of o t h e r s but in her poetry she focuses on h e r s e l f and her own p e r s o n a l i t y . 38 I I I . DIVISIONS WITHIN THE SPEAKER The d i v i s i o n w i t h i n the speaker appears in the e a r l i e s t w r i t t e n poems and i s c o n t i n u o u s l y present i n a l l of Pavlova's poetry. In Da i l ' net (1839) the speaker knows that a f t e r experiences of g r i e f and sadness providence w i l l say no to the heart. Then, a f t e r some more years (and experiences of misfortune) the heart by i t s e l f w i l l say no to any e x p e c t a t i o n s of a b e t t e r f u t u r e (and dreams about love and happiness). In K tebe teper' ja dumu obrascaju. the speaker sees c l e a r l y the d i v i s i o n between her own body and s o u l . Although she and the man from the past are separated now, her soul can t r a v e l t o meet him. T h i s d i v i s i o n between soul and body becomes even more c l e a r i n Pavlova's l a t e r w r i t t e n poems. In Duma (.He raz sebja ja voprosaju strogo) (. 1844) the speaker looks i n s i d e her soul and d e s c r i b e s what happens i n s i d e t h i s part of her p e r s o n a l i t y . E s p e c i a l 1 y i n t e r e s t i n g here i s the f a c t that the speaker does not only d e s c r i b e s the contemporary s i t u a t i o n of h i s s o u l , but a l s o r e l a t e s i t t o the past. Both verbs -zavjalo and ustupleno are in the past tense and both show us that the speaker knows more than he can see now. He knows what used t o be i n s i d e h i s soul and what i s l o s t . A n a l y z i n g these verbs we can see that the f i r s t (.zavjalo") i s in the a c t i v e v o i c e of the t h i r d person s i n g u l a r form; the second 39 iastapleno') i s a p a s s i v e past p a r t i c i p l e . By using d i f f e r e n t verbal forms, the speaker shows us that the processes and events which caused these changes were d i f f e r e n t and that the soul of the speaker a l s o changed by i t s e l f . In the e n t i r e poem the r e i s no in f o r m a t i o n about the other part of her p e r s o n a l i t y , she focuses only on her i n t e r n a l and s p i r i t u a l l i f e . It seems that she value s only t h i s part of her e x i s t e n c e ; only her f e e l i n g s and b e l i e f s are important to her. In Duma iSxodilas' Ja i rasxodilas* ) (1844:> the speaker n o t i c e s that her soul does not t r e a t anybody as a c l o s e f r i e n d . The d i v i s i o n between l i f e " i n s p i r i t " and " i n person" i s shown in t h i s poem p r e t t y c l e a r l y . The speaker confesses that when she had a hard time her soul d i d not c a l l anybody t o be with her. She does not care about any other kind of r e l a t i o n s between people l i k e w i s e she does not care about her l i f e " i n person". In Mladyx nadsid i ubezdenij w r i t t e n in 1852, t h i s d i v i s i o n i s shown even more s t r o n g l y . The speaker c o n f e s s e s that a l l her dreams and hopes from the past are s t i l l a l i v e in her soul and they d i s t u r b her contemporary l i f e . She has two l i v e s nows the e x t e r n a l , which i s s i m i l a r to other people's l i v e s , and the i n t e r n a l , f u l l of dreams and e x p e c t a t i o n s . The l a t t e r i s connected with her soul and she can not c o n t r o l i t . She even asks somebody whom she c a l l s "daughter of P a r a d i s e " not to d i s t u r b her heart . The l i f e of her soul i s so strong that 40 somebody unreal has to make i t a l i v e , not j u s t the speaker by h e r s e l f . T h i s l i f e i s stronger than her w i l l i n g n e s s to g i v e up. Outwardly she has behaved l i k e everybody e l s e , and only in dreams can she l i v e her s e c r e t , i n t i m a t e l i f e . F i n a l l y she asks: Kuda devat'sja mne s dusoju/ Kuda devat'sja s serdcsm mnef... (152) Soul and heart are metonymies of her s p i r i t u a l l i f e , and she does not see any p o s s i b i l i t y of r e a l i z i n g her s p i r i t u a l l i f e , her dreams and hopes in o r d i n a r y , r e a l l i f e . It i s i n t e r e s t i n g that the speaker does not d i v i d e h e r s e l f i n t o a body and s o u l , but the d i v i s i o n i s u n c l e a r . There i s the speaker as a whole and her s p i r i t which i s l o c a t e d in her chest, heart or s o u l . Her s p i r i t i s part of her p e r s o n a l i t y , but her r e a l l i f e can not change anything in her s p i r i t u a l 1 i f e . The d i v i s i o n between mind and-heart appears in 0 bylom, o pogibsem, o starom (1854!). In t h i s poem the speaker co n f e s s e s that even a f t e r many sad experiences her mind could not change her heart. The speaker " i n person" i s s t i l l among other people, but she focuses on her s p i r i t u a l l i f e and on her s o u l . Her s p i r i t u a l l i f e was so s t r o n g and her hopes were so a l i v e i n s i d e her soul that her mind, knowing the r u l e s of l i f e and having a l o t of sad experience, c o u l d not make them g i v e up or even change. Now the speaker knows that she has l o s t . What i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , the soul of the speaker i s l i k e a mirror of her l i f e . In t h i s poem what 41 e x a c t l y happens to the speaker as a person i s not d e s c r i b e d . We know only how her soul r e a c t e d to a l l the events in her l i f e and what has taken p l a c e i n s i d e i t . Heart and mind are here metonymys of f e e l i n g s and j u d i c i o u s n e s s and t h e i r f i g h t took p l a c e i n s i d e the soul of the speaker. The s p i r i t u a l l i f e of the poet can be d i s t a n c e d from her r e a l l i f e as a person as long as her dreams and hopes are a l i v e in her soul and poetry. The speaker of the poem Proslo spolna vse to, cto bylo, (. 1855) seems to be f u l l y r e s i g n e d to l i f e without f e e l i n g s . Proslo spolna vse to, cto bylof Rassudok cuvstvo pokeril, I odolela voli sila Poslednid vzryv serdecnyx s i l . I kak segodnja vse daleko, Cto soversalosja veerai Stremlen' e dum, bor'by bez proka, Dusi bedovaja igra.' Kak dolgo grud' portala vzdorno, Ki61ivyx prixoted polna; I kak vsS tixOf i prostorno, I bezotvetno v nej do dna. Ja vspominaju l i s ' poroju Pro lues id son mod, kak pro zlo, I myslju s tjazkoju toskoju 0 torn,, cto bylo, ito proslo. She i s s t i l l a l i v e as a person, but she w r i t e s that e v e r y t h i n g that used to be now i s over. The o n l y e x p l a n a t i o n she g i v e s i s the i n f o r m a t i o n that good sense has won over f e e l i n g s and, in a d d i t i o n , that d e s i r e s are not so s t r o n g now. She accepts t h i s s i t u a t i o n . The speaker by h e r s e l f appears in the l a s t stanza of t h i s poem. The d e s c r i p t i o n of the s t r u g g l e from the past and i t s r e s u l t are given without any f e e l i n g s . It i s .just the r e a l i t y , not an o p i n i o n of the speaker. Now her soul i s quie t and does not d i s t u r b her anymore. Ja stixla, ja dovolna, Bezumie proslo; (184) w r i t e s the speaker of the poem Umolk sum ulic,-pozdno(1858). Her s p i r i t u a l l i f e and l i f e " i n person" are u n i t e d , but s t i l l something makes her l i f e d i f f i c u l t and hard , she i s glad but not happy. She s t i l l misses f e e l i n g s from the past. On the other hand, she does not want t o go through these s t r u g g l e s anymore because she knows how p a i n f u l and u s e l e s s they were, which she confesses in Dresden. 43 IV. LIFE DIVISIONS The d i v i s i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y i s present in Pavlova's poetry not only by d i r e c t d e s c r i p t i o n , but a l s o in her d i v i s i o n of l i f e i n t o separate p e r i o d s . Looking c l o s e l y i n t o her poems we r e a l i z e that happy time means for her the time when she was u n i t e d with her soul and with other people. Her in t i m a t e poems are a c h r o n i c l e of her l i f e , f e e l i n g s and ex p e c t a t i o n s . According to her poetry, the past was d i v i d e d i n t o c e r t a i n p e r i o d s . Happy ch i l d h o o d was followed by sad experiences and the r e a l i t y of l i f e . In Da, mnogo bylo nas... the speaker remembers the time when her g i r l f r i e n d s were a s i n g l e group and when they d i d not b e l i e v e in unhappiness and misfortune. The memory of those days i s so a l i v e that the speaker uses not only the past but a l s o the fu t u r e tense i n her d e s c r i p t i o n . The speaker f e e l s as i t she were back in the past when she w r i t e s : Na detskom prazdnike sojdemsja my, byvalo,. For Pavlova the happy times are over; they belong o n l y to the past. The speaker of K tebe teper' ja dumu. obrascaju d e s c r i b e s the happiness by the p a s s i v e past p a r t i c i p l e otcuzdennaja . In Duma (Veera listy izorvannogo tons') the speaker of the poem d e s c r i b e s what "pages" means for her , which reminded her of her past. The second stanza of t h i s poem begins with an apostrophe:To byli 44 vy (...) and then in the t h i r d l i n e a part of the same phrase i s repeated: o byli te(.*.') . In the past tense the verb t o be in Russian has onl y one form i n the p l u r a l (.byli) for a l l persons, so the speaker could repeat the same form ( and by t h i s a l s o the same phrase) and by using d i f f e r e n t pronouns (vy and Oni) change addressees. In the beginning, the addressees are these pages, s t a r t i n g from the t h i r d l i n e the addressees are we, the readers. By those changes the speaker a l s o shows the r e l a t i o n s between those pages (here a l s o metonymy of the happy p e r i o d of her past) and h e r s e l f . They are very c l o s e (by using vy) and d i s t a n t (te) at the same time. The memory of happy days i s s t i l l a l i v e for her, and in the l a s t l i n e the speaker uses the present tense of the verb pomnit' to make i t s meaning even s t r o n g e r . In the t h i r d s tanza what happened to the speaker a f t e r she found these pages i s d e s c r i b e d . The poet twice uses the same verb blesnut' , both times in metaphorical meaning, i n t h i s stanza. In the beginning she w r i t e s blesnul and then in the second part ( l a s t two l i n e s ) blesnuli. The only d i f f e r e n c e between both forms i s in number: at f i r s t s i n g u l a r and then p l u r a l . By t h i s she shows us that i t was a process - at f i r s t j u s t a small p i e c e of memory and than a l o t , ev e r y t h i n g that was good and happy i n her c h i l d h o o d . We should a l s o note that the verb blesnut* i s connected in i t s meaning with l i g h t which come through the darkness, and her chi l d h o o d i s for the speaker l i k e a l i g h t in her l i f e . In 45 l a t e r w r i t t e n poems Pavlova d e s c r i b e s her happy past as a time of the best of f e e l i n g s and as a time of e x p e c t a t i o n s . The same tone of n o s t a l g i a i s present in "Proctja stixotvorenija molodoj zensSiny, Mladyx nadezd i ubezdenid and Duma (.Ne raz sebja Ja woprosaju strogo?. Childhood i s d e s c r i b e d t h e r e as a time of hopes, hopes that are gone because of the r e a l i t y of l i f e . However, something from the past i s s t i l l a l i v e in the soul of the speaker of each of these poems. Some kinds of f e e l i n g s from the past have not completely vanished: they form a l i n k between the past and present, but they a l s o make the poet n o s t a l g i c for her past. In Umolk sum ul ic,—pozdno as a happy time the speaker d e s c r i b e s times when somebody responded t o her e x p e c t a t i o n s : Kogda ja ozidala -I siysalsja zvonok/. (216-217) The past for Pavlova i s d i v i d e d i n t o two p a r t s , and only one of them i s connected with happiness. Her happy time i s gone. The speaker of Mladyx nadezd i ubezdenij w r i t e s that the wind has taken away and the fog has covered her happy dreams. The next stage of her past was the time of g r i e f , sadness and the r e a l i t y of l i f e . In Da, mnogo bylo nas the speaker d i v i d e s events from the past i n t o two groups d e s c r i b e d by verbs i n the s i n g u l a r and those i n p l u r a l form. The unhappy p e r i o d of the past i s d e s c r i b e d as a time of e x p e r i e n c i n g the hardness of l i f e . U n l i k e the happy ch i l d h o o d , t h i s part of her l i f e i s u s u a l l y d e s c r i b e d by very general statements about the r u l e s of l i f e . To show 46 these r u l e s , the speaker of a poem u s u a l l y uses the present tense. In Duma (.Veera listy izorvannogo toma) the speaker d e s c r i b e s these r u l e s as in an order of l i f e : Dolzny projti my tot ze grustnyj put*. The present tense in Pavlova's poetry i s used not only t o d e s c r i b e general o b s e r v a t i o n s that are t r u e at any time, but a l s o t o d e s c r i b e contemporary events. Although the present s i t u a t i o n i n one poem j o i n s the unhappy past in the next, we can d i v i d e her e n t i r e p o e t r y i n t o poems where the present s i t u a t i o n i s d e s c r i b e d as a s t r u g g l e with the soul and where the contemporary s i t u a t i o n i s s i t u a t e d a f t e r the speaker of a poem has given up h i s s t r u g g l e and l i v e s l i k e a l l other s . The b o r d e r l i n e i s d e s c r i b e d i n the poems Mladyx nadezd i ubezdenid and 0 bylom, o pogibsem, o starom. In the f i r s t of these poems the speaker c o n f e s s e s that now she i s l i v i n g l i k e a l l o t h e r s and that she manages h e r s e l f . Both i n f o r m a t i o n i s given in the present tense (.spravlJajus' , zivu). In the second the speaker knows that she has l o s t , and people are l o o k i n g at her, wondering i f the hard experiences have changed her. In t h i s poem a l l that i s happening now i s d e s c r i b e d i n the l a s t stanza. However, the f i r s t l i n e of t h i s s t a n z a i s in the past tense and r e f e r s t o the past.The contemporary s i t u a t i o n i s the r e s u l t of the past, so the speaker does not separate past and present s i t u a t i o n s by d e s c r i b i n g them i n separate stanzas. Between the past and the present the drama of the speaker's l i f e takes p l a c e . Knowing the r u l e s of l i f e , she 47 t r i e d t o l i v e a g a i n s t them and p reserve the best of f e e l i n g s longer than a l l her f r i e n d s . As a r e s u l t , she became separated and l o n e l y . The f u t u r e almost does not e x i s t i n Pavlova's poetry and the f u t u r e tense i s seldom used in her poems. The speaker of Da i i ' net knows her f u t u r e very w e l l , and she d e s c r i b e s two stages of m i s f o r t u n e in her f u t u r e l i f e . A ccording to t h i s poem, the f u t u r e i s determined by f a t e . However, we should r e a l i s e that i n t a l k i n g about the f u t u r e , the poet means the happy f u t u r e , not j u s t events that are b e f o r e her. By g i v i n g up t h e i r dreams and hopes people have k i l l e d t h e i r f u t u r e , and the only t h i n g the speaker of Dresden asks God for i s p o e t i c t a l e n t for h e r s e l f . The only f u t u r e Pavlova wants at the end of her l i f e i s the f u t u r e of her poetry. 48 V- GENDER-MARKED POETICS In h i s works about Russian grammar Roman Jakobson d e s c r i b e s the r o l e s of gender i n Russian.14 In h i s a r t i c l e about the s i g n zero as a category i n grammar and s t y l i s t i c s he p o i n t s out that in language a very important r o l e i s played by the o p p o s i t i o n marked vs.unmarked. Because of t h i s o p p o s i t i o n , unmarked (sign zero.) has i t s own meaning which always depends on i t s o p p o s i t e (marked). Consequently i n our analyses we should note the fa c t that when i n some of Pavlova's poems the gender of the speaker i s not marked, t h i s f a c t has s p e c i a l meaning because in her other poems the gender i s marked very c l e a r l y . However, as Jakobson w r i t e s in h i s a r t i c l e , t h e problem of gender i n Russian i s q u i t e complicated. The feminine gender in Russian - a c c o r d i n g to h i s words - i s always used t o d e s c r i b e the female part of mankind. Supruga always means a woman, he p o i n t s out. Some feminine nouns can be used to d e s c r i b e a man but u s u a l l y in p e j o r a t i v e meaning l i k e on - svolo6f, st&rvaf etakaja drdan' i razmaznja. The masculine gender - i n o p p o s i t i o n t o feminine - i s not n e c e s s a r i l y connected with a male human being. Suprug can mean "husband" but can not g i v e any inf o r m a t i o n about gender in phrases l i k e odin iz su.pru.govf oba supruga or ljuboj iz suprugov. Some masculine nouns do not carry any s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the sex; masculines l i k e vrac 49 or tovarisc apply t o both males and females itovarisc Ivanova - starsij vrac). The noun poet a l s o belongs i n the same category .In o p p o s i t i o n to the noun poetess r e s e r v e d for females, the noun poet does not pr o v i d e any i n f o r m a t i o n about sex. A l l Jakobson's o b s e r v a t i o n s about gender in Russian b r i n g us t o the c o n c l u s i o n that the female sex of the speaker does not have t o be n e c e s s a r i l y expressed by feminine gender. Pavlova transformed her own pe r c e i v e d experience of l i f e i n t o poetry, using the feminine gender for the speaker in many of her poems. A f t e r checking the gender of the speaker in her short l y r i c s p u b l i s h e d in the volume of Biblioteka poeta we know that the feminine gender i s marked i n almost 50% of her short l y r i c s most of which i s marked grammatically by the form of the verb. G e n e r a l l y we can say that i n poems where the speaker uses verbs in the f i r s t person s i n g u l a r and the past tense, the feminine gender i s showed by the form of verbs. Pavlova used t h i s way of showing the feminine gender in Duma (Vcera listy izorvannogo toma), Duma (Sxodilas ja i rasxod i 1 asf ') , (Mladyx nadezd i ubezden i j ) , (.Umolk sum ul i c , -pozdno) i f we look o n l y i n t o the poems e s p e c i a l l y chosen for c l o s e r a n a l y s e s i n t h i s paper . In Duma (.Ne raz sebja ja voprosaju strogo) the feminine gender of the speaker i s shown by the pronoun samoj in the sentences/ v dusu ja gljazu samoj sebe . However, the feminine gender of the speaker i s a l s o shown in a non-50 grammatical way. In Da, mnogo byJo nas the speaker g i v e s us d i r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n , r e f e r r i n g t o g i r l s by d e s c r i b i n g the s u b j e c t of the poem as a group of young g i r l f r i e n d s (.mladenceskije pod rugs') and s i t u a t i n g h e r s e l f as a member of t h i s group. In Da i i ' net the speaker i s shown in a s i t u a t i o n t y p i c a l for a woman: the s i t u a t i o n of fortune t e l l i n g with d a i s y p e t a l s . A l s o i n K tebe teper' ja dumu obrascaju we know about the fern inine gender of the speaker from the situation. The poem is an intimate speech to beloved man, so the speaker is presumabl y (in that era of Russian poetry.) a woman. For a t o t a l of the 87 poems which comprise her e n t i r e l y r i c output only in four i s the masculine gender of the speaker marked. The poems where the masculine gender of the speaker i s shown belong to her e a r l y poetry and are l e s s then 57. of a l l analyzed poems. In 39 analyzed poems the gender of the speaker i s not shown. There are mostly poems w r i t t e n in the f i r s t person s i n g u l a r or p l u r a l form in the present tense. Because of t h i s we should r e a l i z e d that in the e n t i r e Pavlova's i n t i m a t e poetry the gender of the speaker i s e i t h e r feminine or not marked. Pavlova as a woman f e e l s s t r o n g u n i t y with the l i f e of other women. In some poems,by showing t h i s u n i t y , she i n d i c a t e s the gender of the speaker.In the poem Proctja stixotvorenija molodoj zensciny the t i t l e p r o v i d e s us with a l o t of i n f o r m a t i o n . In the e n t i r e poem the speaker uses 51 the f i r s t person p l u r a l form, but s i n c e she r e f e r s t o poems w r i t t e n by a young woman, we now that she i s d e s c r i b i n g a women's l i f e . S i m i l a r p o e t i c s of marking the feminine gender of the speaker are used by Pavlova in Lublju. ja vas, mladyje devy; . In the f i r s t l i n e of t h i s poem the speaker r e f e r s t o g i r l s (mladyje devy) and then by using the f i r s t person p l u r a l form shows that she a l s o used to be a member of the same group, that a l l g i r l s have the same dreams in the beginning of l i f e and that they have to g i v e up t h e i r hopes dur i n g t h e i r l i v e s . However we should a l s o note that i n some of Pavlova's poems the gender of the speaker i s not i n d i c a t e d . In Proslo spolna vse to, cto bylo and Kogda vstrecajus' ja slucajno the gender of the speaker i s unknown. It i s i n d i f f e r e n t to the meaning of these poems what the gender of the speaker i s . A l l o b s e r v a t i o n s and o p i n i o n s d e s c r i b e d by the speaker are general and connected with a l l people, not o n l y with the feminine part of mankind. In Dresden where the feminine gender of the speaker i s shown c l e a r l y by the form of verbs (zila ,verovalaf blogogovela) and a d j e c t i v e s (cuzda,daleka) the speaker in h i s p r a i s e to 6od c a l l s h e r s e l f by a noun and a d j e c t i v e in the masculine gender (bezumnomu. poetu). In s p i t e of the masculine gender the noun poet does not necessary means a male human being. As we have a l r e a d y mentioned i t belongs to the category of masculine nouns not connected with e i t h e r sex. However we should note that i t i s the on l y noun from t h i s kind used by Pavlova i n her i n t i m a t e poetry . In the poem where the feminine gender of the speaker i s shown very c l e a r l y the masculine gender of t h i s noun sounds d i f f e r e n t than in any other environment. Because of t h i s the speaker of t h i s poem shows even more s t r o n g e l y that for her t i t l e "poet" (about that she ca r e s so much) i s not reserved for men but should be used for everybody who r e a l l y i s a poet, without any d i s t i n c t i o n due t o gender. V I . C O N C L U S I O N In a l l of Pavlova's i n t i m a t e poetry only a few events from her l i f e are r e c a l l e d d i r e c t l y . Mostly we know what events from her l i f e the poet r e f e r s to by comparing the poem with f a c t s from Pavlova's biography. However, even without any s p e c i f i c knowledge about her l i f e , r eading Pavlova's poems g i v e s us a s o r t of p o e t i c biography. We e s p e c i a l l y l e a r n what the response of the p e r s o n a l i t y of the poet was to her biography. Pavlova's i n t i m a t e poetry i s a unique d i a r y of a woman-poet's e n t i r e l i f e , e s p e c i a l l y her i n t e r n a l , s p i r i t u a l l i f e . Neither her biography, nor other people's o p i n i o n s can g i v e so much i n f o r m a t i o n about the p e r s o n a l i t y of the poet as her own i n t i m a t e poetry. We can see not her behavior but ra t h e r her s t y l e of t h i n k i n g , and we can see how s e n s i t i v e her f e e l i n g s were and how st r o n g and independent was her p e r s o n a l i t y . We can a l s o see the development i n s i d e the poet and a l l the changes in her o p i n i o n s and .judgements. A f t e r a n a l y s i n g these poems, we know that for Pavlova, l i f e was from the beginning determined by f a t e . T h i s b e l i e f came probably from the common knowledge about a l l stages of t h e i r l i f e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of women from t h i s s o c i a l c l a s s . However, t h i s b e l i e f can be for us a l s o the source of i n f o r m a t i o n about how d i f f i c u l t i t was for a young woman to be s p i r i t u a l l y independent and 54 b e l i e v e that she could be st r o n g enough t o c r e a t e her own l i f e . As a young woman, a f t e r the sad experience with her love for Mickiewicz, Pavlova d i d not expect happiness in love, and i t seemed that she was ready for a l l kinds of misfortune in her f u t u r e l i f e . However, in l a t e r w r i t t e n poems the memory of a happy c h i l d h o o d i s c o n t i n u o u s l y present.Throughout her e n t i r e l i f e as a poet, she compared every part of her l i f e with y o u t h f u l , c l e a r f e e l i n g s from her c h i l d h o o d . I n her poetry t h e r e i s not any evidence that she wanted to s t r u g g l e for happiness in her personal l i f e . A tone of r e s i g n a t i o n i s present i n a l l her poems. Even though in those w r i t t e n in 1843-44 the poet does not completely g i v e up the hope for happiness in l i f e , she b e l i e v e s in ex t e r n a l help, as she i s not strong enough t o manage her happiness and f u t u r e by h e r s e l f . Because of her strong b e l i e f that l i f e cannot be happy and cannot f o l l o w her dreams, Pavlova gave up her hopes at the beginning of her 1ife.However, we should r e a l i z e that she was ready for misfortune but not for changes i n s i d e people, e s p e c i a l l y her f r i e n d s . According t o her l a t e r w r i t t e n poems, the big g e s t tragedy of her l i f e was the s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t changes i n the r e l a t i o n s between people. When ot h e r s had a l r e a d y changed, she s t i l l in her s p i r i t was l i k e a c h i l d who b e l i e v e d i n the words and e x t e r n a l s i g n s of f e e l i n g s . At the end of her l i f e Pavlova blamed people themselves for a l l changes in t h e i r own p e r s o n a l i t i e s and t h e i r way of l i f e . Not general r u l e s 55 and f a t e , but the fa c t that people are determined by b e l i e f s i n m isfortune makes t h e i r l i v e s u s e l e s s . Because of these b e l i e f s they themselves " k i l l " these hopes and dreams. Nobody, who from the beginning knows that he w i l l not be s u c c e s s f u l , can win. It was too l a t e for changes when Pavlova learned t h i s r u l e . Except for the l a s t poems Pavlova d i d not judge^anybody in her poetry. Throughout her e n t i r e opus, she omitted any p o s s i b i l i t y of showing people's a c t i o n s a g a i n s t or toward changes i n t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t i e s . At the end of her l i f e she judged people and blamed them because they d i d not do anything against these changes. The language of Pavlova's i n t i m a t e p o e t r y i s simple and c l e a r . Mostly she uses dead metaphors and does not t r y to b u i l d any new p o e t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s . We should n o t i c e that her p o e t i c a l language i s sometimes very c l o s e t o o r d i n a r y speech. In many cases o n l y a r e g u l a r meter and rhymes show that i t i s a poem. But the p o e t i c a l language of t h i s poetry i s e x c e p t i o n a l l y p r e c i s e , e s p e c i a l l y when we are l o o k i n g at verbs. Just a simple a n a l y s i s of verbal forms used in her poems can e x p l a i n the meaning of the poem. She does not use a l o t of a d j e c t i v e s , sentences i n her poems are mostly short and simple. But every time ,the speaker of a poem chooses the p e r f e c t verb and i t s form t o d e s c r i b e e x a c t l y what she should say. Sometimes because of the form used i n a sentence we know more than what i s j u s t in words. Her verbal statements are very c l e a r even in those stanzas which remain 56 on a very general l e v e l . Because t h i s poetry i s mostly about the s p i r i t u a l problems of a woman who i s a l s o a poet, Pavlova uses a l o t of a b s t r a c t i o n s . She w r i t e s a l o t about her soul and r e f e r s to the s t r u g g l e i n s i d e her p e r s o n a l i t y . In these p a r t s of her poems she uses mostly a b s t r a c t nouns but her s t y l e i s always the same: simple and c l e a r so we can see a l s o how p r e c i s e l y she analyses a l l stages of her soul and her own t h i n k i n g . Even when she seems to be depressed and l o s t she knows about i t , p e r f e c t l y analyzes h e r s e l f and can transform her own exp e r i e n c e s i n t o c l e a r sentences and -f i n a l l y - i n t o a poem. Her p o e t i c a l language i s e x c e p t i o n a l l y b e a u t i f u l and f u l l of meaning in s p i t e of the fac t that the major p o e t i c a l m a t e r i a l of her poetry i s Russian grammar, not complicated p o e t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s . Maybe a l s o because of t h i s the p o e t i c a l c h r o n i c l e of her l i f e seems so unusual and so t a r g i b l e . 57 A D D E N D U M s The Role of Verbs The main r o l e of verbs in any language i s to d e s c r i b e a c t i o n and to connect t h i s a c t i o n with a s p e c i f i c time. There are th r e e tenses in Russians past, present and f u t u r e . From the form of the verb we know when the event happened, •ne tense may o c c a s i o n a l l y be used with the meaning of another. The present tense may be used t o mean the f u t u r e or the past. It i s used with the meaning of the past when the speaker wants to p o r t r a y events v i v i d l y , as i f they were t a k i n g p l a c e now, at the moment of speaking. The f u t u r e tense i s g e n e r a l l y used when the speaker wishes to express h i s c e r t a i n t y that the a c t i o n w i l l take p l a c e . The simple f u t u r e tense may o c a s i o n a l l y be used to mean the present or the past. In Pavlova's poetry we see the f u t u r e tense in the meaning of the past i n Da, mnogo bylo nas, . . .where the speaker w r i t e s Na detskom prazdnike sojdemsja my, byvalo,.The p a r t i c l e byvalo u s u a l l y denotes a c t i o n s which took p l a c e a long time ago and g e n e r a l l y r e c u r r e d . P e r f e c t i v e verbs in the past tense are r a r e l y used t o mean the f u t u r e . We should a l s o note that only a l i m i t e d number of verbs can be used in the past tense with t h i s meaning. The most common are the verbs pose! and poexal. The most common p e c u l i a r i t y in the use of tenses i s the use of the 58 present tense with the meaning of the past, a l l o t h e r s are used only o c c a s i o n a l l y and not with a l l verbs. One of the f e a t u r e s of Russian, which d i s t i n g u i s h e s i t from n o n - S l a v i c languages, i s the f a c t that the Russian verb has aspect. There are two a s p e c t s : p e r f e c t i v e (denotes a completed a c t i o n ) and i m p e r f e c t i v e (denotes an a c t i o n in progress, but does not s p e c i f y whether i t i s completed). Verbs which d e s c r i b e a completed a c t i o n do not have present forms - they d e s c r i b e only the past and the f u t u r e . Pavlova in her poems p e r f e c t l y uses the d i f f e r e n c e i n meaning between both forms. For i n s t a n c e , i f from the point of view of aspects we a n a l i z e the verbs in the second s t a n z a of Pa, mnogo bylo nas,...we see that a l l of them are i m p e r f e c t i v e verbs i n the past tense. In t h i s way the speaker makes c l e a r that a l l her c h i l d h o o d e x p e c t a t i o n s and those of her f r i e n d s c h i l d h o o d f a i l e d to become r e a l i t y , were never completed. In a d d i t i o n t o the a c t i v e and the p a s s i v e v o i c e , which i n d i c a t e whether the verb denotes the s u b j e c t or object of the sentence, Russian has r e f l e x i v e verbs, which i n d i c a t e that the s u b j e c t may a l s o be the object of the sentence. Then t h e r e are verbs with the meaning of r e c i p r o c i t y , which i n d i c a t e that the a c t i o n of two or more persons pass from one to the other . Such verbs are u s u a l l y marked by the p l u r a l form of the verb with the p a r t i c i p l e -sja, or the s i n g u l a r form with -sja and the p r e p o s i t i o n s. T h i s 59 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the Russian verb i s a l s o very important for Pavlova's poems. In her poems she r a r e l y uses the p a s s i v e v o i c e . The sub j e c t of each sentence i s marked very c l e a r l y . In many cases she uses verbs with the meaning of r e c i p r o c i t y l i k e sojdemsja, sxodilas", vstrecajus-' e t c . In some forms of verbs gender i s marked c l e a r l y , but i n some t h e r e i s no in f o r m a t i o n about gender. G e n e r a l l y inf o r m a t i o n about gender i s the most s p e c i f i c in the s i n g u l a r form of verbs in the past tense. In many cases gender i s marked only by a personal pronoun or by a noun, which always has a" gender. Because of t h i s in some of Pavlova's poems the gender of the speaker i s not grammaticly marked and the author uses other ways to show the feminine gender of the speaker. The Russian grammar a l s o employs i n f i n i t i v e s , which may be used with verbs, a d j e c t i v e s or p r e d i c a t i v e adverbs. They are e s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g for us because of t h e i r a b i l i t y to f u l f i l l the f u n c t i o n of main verbs, in s p e c i a l types of sentences named " i n f i n i t i v e sentences". T h i s kind of sentences i s used to express that something should be done. Two c o n s e c u t i v e imperative sentences end the poem Mladyx nadezd i uhezdenij,Because of t h e i r form we know that although the speaker does not know what to do with her soul and heart, she cannot leave them as they are. She must do someth ing. 60 There i s a l s o the imperative, which has onl y the second person ( s i n g u l a r and p l u r a l ) i n Russian. In her i n t i m a t e poems Pavlova g e n e r a l l y does not use t h i s form of verb. It i s very important to r e a l i s e that she mostly d e s c r i b e s s i t u a t i o n s , and because of t h i s does not need t h i s form of verb.She does not ask anybody t o do anything. We should mention, a l s o , that there are s e v e r a l verb p r e f i x e s , which change or modify the meaning of the verb, making i t sometimes very s p e c i f i c and sometimes very g e n e r a l . The verb as a p r e d i c a t e p l a y s the major r o l e in every sentence, and has to be present in every sentence. There i s only one exception - in sentences in the present tense the verb "to be" i s omitted.Only the short form of a d j e c t i v e i s used. Pavlova in her poems q u i t e o f t e n uses t h i s kind of sentences. Because from our point of view the i n f o r m a t i o n given by the verb ( e s p e c i a l l y about person) sometimes d i d not f u l f i l l our i n t e r e s t , we r e f e r e d a l s o to the e n t i r e sentence, e s p e c i a l l y t o the info r m a t i o n which r e f e r e d t o the person as a grammatical category. 61 N O T E S 1. K a r o l i n a Pavlova, Polnoje sobranije stixotvorenij (Moskva 1964),218. Further c i t a t i o n s i n the tex t are given to t h i s e d i t i o n by page number. 2. see Pavlova's poems N.M.Jazykovu E.ft.Baratynskomu and .K.T<olsto>mu 3. A l e t t e r of 23 January 1860 i n I.S.ftksakov v ego pis'makh,111(M.,1892),p.353. Quoted in the i n t r o d u c t i o n by B.Heldt to K.Pavlova,ft double l i f e (Barbary Coast Books,1986),p.vi i i . 4 My sources for t h i s b r i e f biography of Pavlova are the f o l l o w i n g : Munir Sendich, "The L i f e and Works of K a r o l i n a Pavlova" (New York Univ.,1868) and the i n t r o d u c t i o n by Barbara Heldt to K.Pavlova,/? double l i f e , op. c i t . 5 . i b i d . 6.In h i s book about Pavlova M.Sendich w r i t e s that her poems from the second p e r i o d "appear" monotonous because of constant r e f e r e n c e s t o her sad d e s t i n y . Her poems from the f i r s t p e r i o d he d e s c r i b e d as " d i s t i n g u i s h e d by a predominance of elements of the f a i r y t a l e and f a n t a s t i c nature. 7. T h i s poem i s connected with Pavlova's l o v e t o Mickiewicz.See notes to K.Pavlova, o p . c i t . 552 8. T h i s poem i s connected with sad experiences connected with the c o n f l i c t with N.Pavlov. See notes to K.Pavlova, op.c i t.564 9. In t h i s poem Pavlova r e f e r s t o her l o v e t o B.Utin and her r e l a t i o n s h i p s with the son.See notes to K.Pavlova, op.c i t.568 10. One of poems connected with B.Utin. See notes to K.Pav1 ova, op.c i t.570. 11. R.Jakobson,Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry, Selected Writings,volume III (The Hague - P a r i s 1981) 12. Kogda </ razdor s samim soboju £/2 Mod urn bessi1'no pogruzen, Kogda lezit na nem poroju Unylo-prazdnyj poluson,-Togda zasepcet vdrug ukradkoj, Togda zvucit v grudi moej Kakoj-to otzyv gr-ustno-sladkoj Dalekix cuvstv, dalekix dnej. Zal" nebyvalogo mne snova. Pros tor gljaduseego mne past: Mel' kn'et prizrak, uronit slovo, I tscetnyj vzdox sorvetsja s ust. No vdrug v cas darn, v cas grusti Izivoj, Vzjav pravo groznoe svoe" Busi ustaloj i lenivoj Perstorn kosnetsja by tie. I v tadnod sile vecno junyj Otvetit dux moj na prizyv; Drugie v nem prosnutsja struny, Drugoj voskresnet v nem poryv. Gljazu v 1ico Ja zizni strogoj I poznaju, 6to nas ona Nedarom vecnoju trevogoj Na bod tjazelyd zvat" vol'na; I cto ne tscetno serdce ljubit Sredf gorestnyx ee zabot; I cto ne vse ona pogubit, I cto ne vse ona voz'met. 14. R. Jakobson,Word and Language, Selected Writings, volume II (The Hague - P a r i s 1971). See a l s o R.Jakobson Izbrannye raboty (Moskva 1985) B I B L I O G R A P H Y Brodsk i.j , N. L. L i teraturnyje Salony i Kruzki. Moskva -Leningrad:Academia Gasparov,M.L Ocerk Istorii Ruskogo Stixa. Moskva: I z d a t e l s t v o Nauka,1984. Hingley, Konald Russian Writers and Society in the Nineteenth Century. London: Weidenfeld and N i c o l son, 1977. Jakobson,Roman Word and Language. Selected Writings, vol.11. The Hague - P a r i s : Mouton, 1971. Jakobson, Roman Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry, Selected Mritings,vol. III. The Hague - P a r i s : Mouton P u b l i s h e r s , 1981. Jakobson, Roman Izbrannye Raboty. Moskva: Progress, 1985. Leighton, Lauren G.Russian Romantisism. Tuo Essays. P a r i s : Mouton,1975. Mann, J.V Poetika Russkogo Romantizma. Moskva: Izdatelstwo Nauka,1976. Pavlova, Karol ina Polnoe sobranie stixotvorenij„ Moskva: B i b1i ot eka Poet a,1964. Pavlova, Karol ina The Double Life.Tra.nm. and i n t r o d . Bar bar a Heldt.Oakland: Barbary Coast Books,1986. Prokopovic,E.N. Glagol v Predlozenii. Semantika i Stilistika Vido-Vremennyx Form.Moskva: Nauka, 1982. Pu l k i n a , I.,Zakhava - Nekrasova E. Russian. Moscov: Progress P u b l i s h e r s . Sendich, Munir "The L i f e and Works of K a r o l i n a Pavlova".Diss.Michigan: Ann Arbor,1969. Sendich, Munir " K a r o l i n a Pavlovas a Survey of Her Poetry".Russian Literature Triquoterly, 1972, v. 3, pp.229 - 248. Unbegaun,B.O Russian Vers if ication. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097789/manifest

Comment

Related Items