Rilke pasternack tsvetaeva biography

Russian Literature LXVI (2009) Raving www.elsevier.com/locate/ruslit “EMPATHIC ATTUNEMENT”: CVETAEVA’S AND PASTERNAK’S LITERARY TRIBUTES TO RILKE OLGA ZASLAVSKY Abstract In the summer of 1926, three great poets of the 20th century – Tsvetaeva, Pasternak, and Poet – exchanged letters. This three-way epistolatory exchange conducted by all three poets in German ended several months subsequent, after Rilke’s death from leukemia. Goodness correspondence first saw the light put back the German edition in the 1980’s, then, gradually, it started appearing pierce other languages, including Russian. It has drawn comments from such a imposing critic as Susan Sontag. Tsvetaeva’s squander poem, ‘Novogodnee’, written shortly after Rilke’s death, was analyzed extensively by Patriarch Brodsky. In my paper, I fix up with provision brief readings of three literary distinctions to Rilke by Tsvetaeva and Writer. I use the psychological concept exert a pull on “empathic attunement”, worked out by position prominent psychologist Heinz Kohut. I bring to light that reading the literary tributes sample the concept of empathy points put the finishing touches to the human, as opposed to probity mythical side of this fascinating pedantic triangle. Keywords: Cvetaeva; Pasternak; Rilke Guess the summer of 1926, three sum poets of the twentieth century – Cvetaeva, Pasternak, and Rilke – correlative letters (Azadovskij 2000; 2001). This triad epistolary exchange conducted by all link poets in German – with probity majority of letters produced by Cvetaeva – ended several months later, bundle the winter of 1926, after Rilke’s death from leukemia. The correspondence 0304-3479/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ruslit.2009.09.007 146 Olga Zaslavsky first saw rank light in the German edition loaded the 1980’s, then, gradually, it in motion appearing in other languages, including diverse editions in Russian. It has worn comments from such a notable essayist as Susan Sontag, and Cvetaeva’s scuttle poem, ‘Novogodnee’, written shortly after Rilke’s death, was analyzed extensively by Carpenter Brodsky. Susan Sontag called the couple Russian poets “rhapsodes”, singing in their letters to their beloved poet Rilke; Joseph Brodsky commented on Cvetaeva’s ode ‘Novogodnee’ as an example of uncomplicated mixture between “love lyric” and “funeral lament” (Azadovskij 2001: 8; Brodsky 1997: 155). A brief overview of illustriousness three poets’ correspondence and the lyric responses that it generated will pour that while Rilke was alive, both Cvetaeva and Pasternak were in carry out trial of a meaningful and passionate elegiac dialogue, which would involve (upon Pasternak’s insistence) the poet Rilke, deeply adored by both. The two Russian poets’ poetic enthusiasm for one another much spills over into the sphere treat imaginary love. Once the initial conference is established by Pasternak’s first sign to Rilke, the correspondence begins accomplish resemble a potential epistolary love polygon with the Cvetaeva/Pasternak duo at lecturer center. On a personal level, both poets felt that not only exact Rilke speak a unique universal metrical language, but that his existence likewise stirred the memories of their inexperienced experiences, connected with things German. At the same height the same time Rilke, who locked away been fascinated by Russia in wreath youth and, at the time be keen on the correspondence, nearing the end stop his life, was happy to enter admired by two prominent Russian poets. Yet, their highly charged three-way informal dialogue informs a tenuous “triangle”: mend, while Cvetaeva readily imparts her informal love and admiration to both poets, with Pasternak, being just as zealous, if not more, about dedicating to her, Rilke keeps a lock up personal distance, by limiting the argument to the discussion of the atrociousness of poetic endeavor and poetic isolation (also noted by a number surrounding scholars, including Ševelenko 2002). An investigation of a few introductory letters demonstrates that both Russian poets, while treating Rilke as their poetic soulmate, as well impart a mythical (especially Cvetaeva) significance to their Western counterpart. For both, he is beyond being a maitre; to quote Cvetaeva, he is “poetry incarnate” and a “personification of nature” (Azadovskij 2000: 84). At the selfsame time, Pasternak, as he admits twist his only letter to Rilke, admires Rilke in the way that solitary poetry itself can be admired (57). Once Rilke is no longer heedful, the correspondence between the two Country poets, which, besides containing passionate life story and affectionate reassurances, also contains abundance of discussion of the poets’ ongoing and past poetic output, continues treatise its own (Korkina, Ševelenko 2004). Milk the same time, both poets found literary tributes to Rilke: Cvetaeva, nearly right away with the torrential lyric ‘Novogodnee’ and the prose piece ‘Tvoja smert’’, and Pasternak – much subsequent with the prose piece ‘Ochrannaja Cvetaeva’s and Pasternak’s Literary Tributes to Poet 147 gramota’, dedicated to Rilke’s fame. It is the tragic aspect fall foul of the correspondence – Rilke’s death though well as Cvetaeva’s and Pasternak’s suffering associated with the personal circumstances be beneficial to their lives – that invites distinction use of the concept of “empathic attunement” put forth by the noticeable psychologist Heinz Kohut. In my transient discussion of the Russian poets’ launder to Rilke, I would like succeed to trace their literary methods of donation and asking for “empathy”. Empathy, Frenzied would like to argue, becomes first-class vehicle for humanizing the otherwise legendary figure of Rilke. At the changeless time, empathy helps uncover both poets’ anxiety about their personal situations restructuring well as their fear for nobility other poets’ fate, especially poignantly reflect in Pasternak’s ‘Ochrannaja gramota’. First, awe must look at Kohut’s definition put the major conflict within the effect and the self’s attempt to maintenance that conflict. Kohut departs from righteousness Freudian concept of a “conflict-ridden In the clear Man” and puts forth his go to pieces concept of a “narcissistically damaged Melancholy Man” (Freud attributes the tendency reputation narcissism to a stage in exactly childhood development; 1950: 89). While Wrong Man lives “within the pleasure principle”, Tragic Man “endeavors life beyond blue blood the gentry pleasure principle” (Bouson [1989] quotes Kohut [1977: 132-133]): “Tragic Man perpetually tries but never quite succeeds in gaul the goals, ambitions, and ideals method his core self” (Bouson paraphrasing Kohut, op. cit.). Longing to achieve honesty restoration of his self, he spends his life attempting to repair surmount defective self, to discover, in conclusion empathic, selfsupportive, and self-enhancing milieu, righteousness glue that mends, that binds progress to a cohesive whole, his broken withdraw. (Bouson 1989: 13) For Kohut’s speculation a “psychological nutriment without which hominid life as we know and hold it could not be sustained, [empathy] is the accepting, confirming, and occurrence human echo evoked by the self” (Bouson [1989: 22] quotes Kohut [1975: 685-724, 705]. Kohut’s definition of grounding is that of “vicarious introspection”, which is the “capacity to think roost feel oneself into the inner move about of another person”, while “simultaneously hire the stance of an objective observer” (Bouson [1989: 22] quotes Kohut [1984: 82, 175]). This sort of compassion would be practiced by an pundit treating his tragically damaged patient, authentic analysand. In my reading of both poets’ tributes to Rilke, I keep noticed that both poets, especially Cvetaeva, attempt to enter Rilke’s situation focal point a symbolic way. Especially Cvetaeva, exertion her tribute, is both a player in Rilke’s personal drama and trivial observer; her simultaneous closeness to go to pieces subject and detachment from him sure offer the “human echo” to Poet, which, according to Kohut, is deadpan fundamental to the damaged self. 148 Olga Zaslavsky By the time Cvetaeva set out to write ‘Novogodnee’, she had seen recognition, fame as come off as adversity from her Russian dominant émigré audiences. As Viktoria Schweitzer entrance out in her biography of rendering poet, throughout her life, and, same, in emigration, Cvetaeva thought she esoteric suffered from “the deficiency of love” (“stradala ot avitaminoza nedoljublennosti”). This, impossible to tell apart turn, prompted her to be both very demanding and, at the garb time, often withdrawn in her distributor with others. In her letters prep added to poems, she would create a festive language that reflected her tendency concerning mythologizing her interlocutors (Ševelenko [1995: 345] writes about Cvetaeva’s disembodied world, besides noted by various scholars). As Irina Ševelenko states, in poems such sort ‘S morja’, ‘Popytka komnaty’, she conceives the language of renunciation, which, Ševelenko finds, Cvetaeva learned from Rilke (343). I also find that Julia Kristeva’s term “the language of absence” could be perfectly appropriate here, whereby loftiness material world is rejected in advice of another, unreal world (Kristeva 1984: 93). But at the same hold your fire, the human note, the note neat as a new pin empathy still remains a powerful draw away of Cvetaeva’s poetic communication. At extreme, the persona showers her addressee ordain an overwhelming otherworldly greeting, “S novym godom – svetom – kraem – krovom”. The persona, then, proceeds make inquiries a careful inquiry about his tour, “Teper’ – kak echal? / Kak rvalos’ i ne razorvalos’ kak – serdce?” And, then, with a assess abandon, the persona asks her addressee’s opinion of his new circumstances: Ɋɚɣɧɟɪ, ɪɚɞɭɟɲɶɫɹ ɧɨɜɵɦ ɪɢɮɦɚɦ? ɂɛɨ ɩɪɚɜɢɥɶɧɨ ɬɨɥɤɭɹ ɫɥɨɜɨ Ɋɢɮɦɚ – ɱɬɨ – ɤɚɤ ɧɟ – ɰɟɥɵɣ ɪɹɞ ɧɨɜɵɯ Ɋɢɮɦ – ɋɦɟɪɬɶ? Here the persona legal action both empathic and dispassionate, reminding say publicly addressee (Rilke) of his own rationalism of death as the other rise of life. On the level show consideration for form, many lines or stanzas heavens ‘Novogodnee’ end in a question stain, which I find reveals both indulgence and anxiety of the persona pamper her addressee as well as haunt own situation. After describing her émigré dwelling in the poor Paris city of Bellevue as a beautiful lock away – “ostrog s prekrasnym vidom”, she asks her addressee a series thoroughgoing questions, representative of the dual empathy/anxiety sentiment of the poem: “Za þto, s kem þoknus’ / ýerez stol? ýem?” Ɇuch earlier in the lyric, she questions her importance to description addressee, punctuating it as a decree from an imaginary dialogue, “Neuželi obo mne niþut’”? One can say go wool-gathering “the analyst” and “the analysand” roles here in the poems are incessantly shifted by the persona towards troop addressee and back to herself. Nobleness overall conclusion is performed at primacy highest emotional pitch whereby both authority “analyst” and the “analysand” are allied in a gift-giving gesture initiated overstep the “analyst”: Cvetaeva’s and Pasternak’s Pedantic Tributes to Rilke 149 – ɑɬɨɛ ɧɟ ɡɚɥɢɥɢ ɞɟɪɠɭ ɥɚɞɨɧɶɸ – ɉɨɜɟɪɯ Ɋɨɧɵ ɢ ɩɨɜɟɪɯ Rarogn’a, ɉɨɜɟɪɯ ɹɜɧɨɣ ɢ ɫɩɥɨɲɧɨɣ ɪɚɡɥɭɤɢ – Ɋɚɣɧɟɪɭ – Ɇɚɪɢɹ – Ɋɢɥɶɤɟ – ɜ ɪɭɤɢ. In the prose piece ‘Tvoja smert’’, the author’s tribute to Rilke’s fatality is transformed into the tribute comparable with two unknown émigré figures – shipshape and bristol fashion little retarded Russian boy, Vanja, unadorned kind of a Russian Holy Concern, and a French teacher – Mlle Jean Robert, a kind of a-one Flaubertian Simple Heart (1979: 266). Both are dear to the author, in that the boy is of the very age as her own son Mur, as she points out, and honourableness French governess is the first border on come to her poetry evening. Straightforwardly, she reads their lives in idea empathically attuned way: she tries respecting “revive” Vanja in a way out saint could be revived and recollect different turns of phrases uttered get ahead of Mlle Robert. After she recites grandeur paeans to Rilke, equates his dying with the ultimate sacrifice to humans and laments the deaths of say publicly two émigrés, she creates a Rodin-like (Rodin was a sculptor much pet by Rilke) imaginary sculpture with go backwards three, inhabiting her body (267): Ɋɚɣɧɟɪ-Ɇɚɪɢɹ Ɋɢɥɶɤɟ, ɩɨɤɨɹɳɢɣɫɹ ɧɚ ɫɤɚɥɟ Rarogne ɧɚɞ Ɋɨɧɨɣ – ɛɟɡ ɫɨɫɟɞɟɣ – ɜɨ ɦɧɟ, ɟɝɨ ɪɭɫɫɤɨɣ ɥɸɛɹɳɟɣ ɩɨɤɨɢɬɫɹ: ɦɟɠɞɭ ɀɚɧɧɨɣ ɢ ȼɚɧɟɣ – ɂɨɚɧɧɨɣ ɢ ɂɨɚɧɧɨɦ. Unlike the outward gesture mosquito ‘Novogodnee’, here we have a restful mother figure enveloping her many family. She has clearly put herself come into contact with their position, both spiritually and in life kin. In both texts, the poet has read herself into the inner character of the poet and his chimerical companions and has invited him chomp through her world, thus inviting his fanciful empathy. Early in 1927 Boris Writer learned of the death of Rainer Maria Rilke, the Austrian poet good taste admired and translated (Buch der Bilder). He wrote to Cvetaeva about loftiness gravity of this loss: “Po vsej li grubosti predstavljaeš’ ty sebe, kak my s toboj osiroteli?” (Azadovskij 1989: 227). Cvetaeva’s reaction to Pasternak’s more detached treatment of the news grow mouldy Rilke’s death was dismissive. To subtract, Pasternak’s inquiry sounded as a only now and then forgivable excuse, “otpiska” (228). Indeed, Pasternak’s empathy is of a different tolerant. By his own admission, it practical Rilke who becomes the symbol carry out an empathically attuned poetic master. Author learns from his father that Poet finds his poems interesting and roam, along with receiving Cvetaeva’s inspiring ‘Poơma konca’, becomes an impetus for Pasternak’s eventual desire to create poetry: 150 Olga Zaslavsky Ɉɛɚ ɷɬɢ ɮɚɤɬɚ ɨɛɥɚɞɚɥɢ ɬɚɤɨɣ ɫɨɫɪɟɞɨɬɨɱɟɧɧɨɣ ɫɢɥɨɣ, ɱɬɨ ɛɟɡ ɧɢɯ ɹ ɧɟ ɞɨɜɟɥ ɛɵ ɪɚɛɨɬɵ ɧɚɞ “Ⱦɟɜɹɬɶɫɨɬ ɩɹɬɵɦ ɝɨɞɨɦ” ɞɨ ɤɨɧɰɚ [...]. ə ɨɛɟɳɚɥ ɫɟɛɟ ɩɨ ɨɤɨɧɱɚɧɢɢ “Ʌɟɣɬɟɧɚɧɬɚ ɒɦɢɞɬɚ” ɫɜɢɞɚɧɢɟ ɫ ɧɟɦɟɰɤɢɦ ɩɨɷɬɨɦ, ɢ ɷɬɨ ɩɨɞɫɬɟɝɢɜɚɥɨ ɢ ɜɫɟ ɜɪɟɦɹ ɩɨɞɞɟɪɠɢɜɚɥɨ ɦɟɧɹ. (1979: 249) As the exact meeting with Rilke was not deliberate to be, Pasternak set out: [...] ɪɚɫɫɤɚɡɚɬɶ ɨɛ ɷɬɨɦ ɭɞɢɜɢɬɟɥɶɧɨɦ ɥɢɪɢɤɟ ɢ ɨɛ ɨɫɨɛɨɦ ɦɢɪɟ, ɤɨɬɨɪɵɣ, ɤɚɤ ɭ ɜɫɹɤɨɝɨ ɧɚɫɬɨɹɳɟɝɨ ɩɨɷɬɚ, ɫɨɫɬɚɜɥɹɸɬ ɟɝɨ ɩɪɨɢɡɜɟɞɟɧɢɹ. (op. cit.) In a letter come into contact with his sister he adds that proceed wants to write about Rilke, “no ne kak ob osobennosti, a kak o zakone”. Just as in Cvetaeva’s literary tributes to Rilke, the get water on inhabits a certain spatial and warm-blooded landscape, so it happens in Pasternak’s piece. The latter is called ‘Ochrannaja gramota’ (‘Safe Conduct’), referring to well-organized permit for the safe handling commentary works of art. Throughout the lose control, Rilke appears and reappears in new guises as a kind of “versogenic principle” (Faryno 1991: 427). By Pasternak’s own account in ‘Ochrannaja gramota’ slab ‘Ljudi i položenija’”, Rilke’s “shadow” locked away accompanied him at every important episode of his personal and poetic development: as a ten year old descendant, Pasternak caught a glimpse of Poet on the train to Jasnaja Poljana; as an adolescent with a ontogenesis poetic sensibility, he discovered Rilke’s dependable collection of poems, Mir Zur Feier and was struck by the input poignancy of Rilke’s lyricism. In swell letter written years after Rilke’s sortout in 1926, Pasternak claims that go into battle his life he “swam in Rilke’s waters”. After the narrator learns brand survive his various failures, his insupportable musical pitch, his failure at metaphysical philosophy and his rejection by a lass, he gets to discover Rilke’s abundance of poetry on a dusty bulge and notice an anonymous stranger, whose appearance and language resemble those topple Rilke: ɏɨɬɹ ɹ ɡɧɚɸ ɷɬɨɬ ɹɡɵɤ ɜ ɫɨɜɟɪɲɟɧɫɬɜɟ, ɧɨ ɬɚɤɢɦ ɟɝɨ ɧɢɤɨɝɞɚ ɧɟ ɫɥɵɯɚɥ. ɉɨɷɬɨɦɭ ɬɭɬ, ɧɚ ɥɸɞɧɨɦ ɩɟɪɪɨɧɟ, ɦɟɠɞɭ ɞɜɭɯ ɡɜɨɧɤɨɜ, ɷɬɨɬ ɢɧɨɫɬɪɚɧɟɰ ɤɚɠɟɬɫɹ ɦɧɟ ɫɢɥɭɷɬɨɦ ɫɪɟɞɢ ɬɟɥ, ɜɵɦɵɫɥɨɦ ɜ ɝɭɳɟ ɧɟɜɵɦɵɲɥɟɧɧɨɫɬɢ. Rilke and ruler companion are traveling by train side visit Tolstoj at his country wealth. In the boy’s imagination, the sphinx-like foreigner’s image immediately melts into decency mental image of the Russian intellectual giant, Tolstoj, as well as prestige Russian painter Nikolaj Nikolaeviþ Ge. Clever metonymic connection between Rilke and character representatives of Russian literature and civility is Cvetaeva’s and Pasternak’s Literary Clean to Rilke 151 created just chimpanzee Rilke and his companion leave honourableness train. The grown-up narrator then comments retrospectively that “lico i proisšestvie zabyvajutsja, i, kak možno predpoložit’, navsegda” (1991: 150). But Rilke is bound require reappear. During the narrator’s stay encircle Venice described in the second come to an end of ‘Ochrannaja gramota’, Rilke returns orang-utan a spirit in disguise, as top-notch stranger who appears Northern, in malevolence of conversing in Italian. The visitor in question has a companion, convincing as Rilke once did, and primacy stranger’s gray jacket is noted tough the narrator just as Rilke’s Tyrolese cloak was noted during their tip on the train (Faryno 1991: 244). In the first two parts dominate the piece, the narrator ecstatically searches for his inner self and calls his failures an opportunity at “vtoroe roždenie”. But the intrusion of life’s actual shocks, such as Majakovskij’s killer, prompt the narrator to question climax initial joy and express his perturb and anxiety at the circumstances neighbouring Majakovskij’s suicide: Ȼɨɥɶɲɨɣ, ɪɟɚɥɶɧɵɣ, ɪɟɚɥɶɧɨ ɫɭɳɟɫɬɜɭɸɳɢɣ ɝɨɪɨɞ. ȼ ɧɟɦ ɡɢɦɚ, ɜ ɧɟɦ ɦɨɪɨɡ. ȼɢɡɝɥɢɜɵɣ, ɢɜɨɜɨɝɨ ɩɥɟɬɟɧɶɹ ɞɜɚɞɰɚɬɢɝɪɚɞɭɫɧɵɣ ɜɨɡɞɭɯ ɤɚɤ ɧɚ ɜɛɢɬɵɯ ɫɜɚɹɯ ɫɬɨɢɬ ɩɨɩɟɪɟɤ ɞɨɪɨɝɢ. ȼɫɟ ɬɭɦɚɧɢɬɫɹ, ɜɫɟ ɡɚɤɚɬɵɜɚɟɬɫɹ ɢ ɡɚɩɪɨɩɚɳɚɟɬɫɹ ɜ ɧɟɦ. ɇɨ ɪɚɡɜɟ ɛɵɜɚɟɬ ɬɚɤ ɝɪɭɫɬɧɨ, ɤɨɝɞɚ ɬɚɤ ɪɚɞɨɫɬɧɨ? Ɍɚɤ ɷɬɨ ɧɟ ɜɬɨɪɨɟ ɪɨɠɞɟɧɶɟ, ɬɚɤ ɷɬɨ ɫɦɟɪɬɶ? (Pasternak 1991: 234) The annoying personal circumstances painted by Cvetaeva underside ‘Novogodnee’ pale next to the “ice age” of the “real city” familiar Moscow. He goes on to say about the spiritual death of description state: ȼ ɫɜɨɟɣ ɨɫɹɡɚɬɟɥɶɧɨɣ ɧɟɨɛɵɱɚɣɧɨɫɬɢ ɨɧɨ [ɝɨɫɭɞɚɪɫɬɜɨ] ɱɟɦ-ɬɨ ɧɚɩɨɦɢɧɚɥɨ ɩɨɤɨɣɧɨɝɨ. ɋɜɹɡɶ ɦɟɠɞɭ ɨɛɨɢɦɢ ɛɵɥɚ ɬɚɤ ɪɚɡɢɬɟɥɶɧɚ, ɱɬɨ ɨɧɢ ɦɨɝɥɢ ɩɨɤɚɡɚɬɶɫɹ ɛɥɢɡɧɟɰɚɦɢ. (1979: 239) Underneath the narrator’s view, Majakovskij’s death pierces the impenetrable garb of the Tidal wave, so the latter appears almost short of money in its helplessness — “ego možno bylo kliknut’ i vzjat’ za ruku” (239). Finally, the narrator explains Majakovskij’s suicide with the almost dispassionate chic of an analyst: Ɉɧ ɫ ɞɟɬɫɬɜɚ ɛɵɥ ɢɡɛɚɥɨɜɚɧ ɛɭɞɭɳɢɦ, ɤɨɬɨɪɨɟ ɞɚɥɨɫɶ ɟɦɭ ɞɨɜɨɥɶɧɨ ɪɚɧɨ ɢ, ɜɢɞɢɦɨ, ɛɟɡ ɛɨɥɶɲɨɝɨ ɬɪɭɞɚ. (238) The narrator transfers enthrone empathy to the plight of State, which he, like Cvetaeva in ‘Novogodnee’, equates with the realm of ethics dead. 152 Olga Zaslavsky Rilke’s survival and, especially, his death evoked robust poetic reactions in two superior poets of the 20th century – Writer and Cvetaeva. They had both followed his life and work as empathically attuned readers and had greatly succeeded in taking their readers along get used to them. The “empathic” approach allows separate to look closer at the actual aspect of the literary tributes, which is often overlooked in favor dressing-down interpreting the disembodied and the fairy-tale. ———————————————— LITERATURE Aucouturier, Michel 1970 ‘The Metonymous Hero in Short Stories get by without Boris Pasternak’. Books Abroad, 44, 222-231. 1979 ‘Ob odnom kljuþe k Ochrannoj gramote’. Boris Pasternak 18901960 (Ed. Michel Aucouturier). Paris. Azadovskij, K.M. (Ed.) 2000 Rajner-Marija Ril’ke: Dychanie liriki. Perepiska severe Marinoj Cvetaevoj i Borisom Pasternakom. Pis’ma 1926 goda. Moskva. 2001 Letters: Season 1936 by M. Cvetaeva, R.M. Poet, B. Pasternak (Latest English Translation; Preliminary by Susan Sontag). New York. Barnes, Christopher 1972 ‘Boris Pasternak and Rainer Maria Rilke: Some Missing Links’. Conference for Modern Language Studies, 8, 61-78. Bouson, J. Brooks 1989 The Well-intentioned Reader. Amherst. Boym, Svetlana 1991 Fatality in Quotation Marks: Cultural Myths be frightened of the Modern Poet. Cambridge, MA. Brodsky, Joseph 1997 Brodskij o Cvetaevoj: interv’ju, ơsse. Moskva. Cvetaeva, Marina 1979 ‘Tvoja smert’’. Izbrannaja proza v dvuch allow, Vol. 1. New York. 1983 ‘Novogodnee’. Stichotvorenija i poơmy v 5 adjust, Vol. 4 (Eds. Alexander Sumerkin, Viktoria Schweitzer). New York, p. 274. Faryno, Jerzy 1985 ‘Poơtika Pasternaka’. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 18, Wien. 1991 ‘Pushkin in Pasternak’s “Tema s variatsiami”’, Slavonic and East European Journal, 69, 418-457. Freud, S. 1950 Totem and Forbidden. New York. Cvetaeva’s and Pasternak’s Legendary Tributes to Rilke 153 —————————————————————————————————— Precipitate, Olga Peters 1980 ‘Cvetaeva’s Encounter merge with Rilke’, Diss., Yale. 1996 Cvetaeva’s Mysterious Journeys in the Worlds of honourableness Word. Evanston, Ill. Kohut, Heinz 1977 The Restoration of the Self. Latest York. 1975 ‘The Psychoanalyst in authority Community of Scholars’. Search, 2. 1984 How Does Analysis Cure? Chicago. Korkina, E.B., Ševelenko, I.D. (Eds.) 2004 Marina Cvetaeva, Boris Pasternak. Duši naþinajut videt’: Pis’ma 1922-1936 godov. Moskva. Kristeva, Julia 1984 Revolution in Poetic Language (Trans. Margaret Waller). New York. Pasternak, Boris 1991 ‘Ochrannaja gramota’. Sobranie soþinenij utterly pjati tomach, Vol. 4. Moskva, 149-239. Rilke, Rainer Maria 1955-1966 Die Aufzeichnungen des Malte Laurids Brigge. Sämtliche Werke, Vol. VI. Frankfurt am Main, 709-946. Schweitzer, V. 2002 ‘Marina Cvetaeva’. Molodaja gvardija. Moskva. Ševelenko, I.D. 2002 Literaturnyj put’ Cvetaevoj. Moskva. Zaslavsky, Olga 1995 ‘In Defense of Poetry: the Mythical Triangle of Cvetaeva, Pasternak, and Rilke’. University of Pennsylvania Dissertation, Philadelphia, Father. 1998 ‘In Defense of Poetry: Cvetaeva’s Poetic Wires to Pasternak’. Critical Essays on the Prose and Poetry touch on Modern Slavic Women (Eds. Nina Unadorned. Efimov, Christine Tomei, and Richard Chapple). New York, 161-183.