Printer Friendly

The Lifelike Statues of Ovid and Pushkin's Orthodoxy.

Abstract: Ovid's imitation of Horace's "Exegi monumentum" is the culminating image of the ekphrastic and iconic modes of the many lifelike statues in Metamorphoses. In the fourth century, classical concepts of metamorphosis and sculptural metaphor play an integral role in the formulation of Eastern Orthodox concepts of Incarnation and theosis. This article demonstrates the intersection of the Ovidian and Orthodox paradigms of the lifelike statue in Pushkin's imitation of Horace and its various Russian manifestations: "Monument" (1836). Analysis refines notions of the conflict between word and image in the poem to emphasize the mutually enlightening progressions of matter and spirit as a continuum, not a binary opposition, challenging traditional interpretations of "Monument." Pushkin's concept of his poetic legacy rejects the notion of a static immortality, privileging writerly over readerly reception as the fundamental component of his life after death. The "sulunar pit" that Pushkin references in the second stanza is read not as a future sympathetic reader, but as a future innovative writer that will transform Pushkin's works into new ones, thereby ensuring the poet's vital and earthly immortality. Pushkin's "sculptural myth" becomes a paradigm for allusion as the rite by which the sacred life of poetry is perennially renewed.

Key words: sculptural myth, Ovid, Metamorphoses, Orthodoxy, reception, "Monument," ekphrasis
Exegi monumentum

   [phrase omitted]

Exegi, monumentum

   I have raised to myself a monument not made by hands,
   The people's path to it will not become overgrown,
   It raises its unsubmissive head higher than
      The Alexandrian pillar.

   No, all of me will not die--my soul in sacred lyre
   Will out live my dust and elude decay--
   And I will be honored, as long as in the sublunar world
      At least one poet is alive.

   Rumor of me wdl go throughout all of great Rus',
   And every tongue existing in her will name me,
   The proud grandson of the Slavs, the Finn, the now wild
      Tungus, and the Kalmyk, friend of the steppes.

   And long will I be loved by the people,
   Because I evoked kind sensations with my lyre,
   Because in my harsh age I glorified freedom
      And called for mercy to the fallen.

   To god's command, o muse, be obedient,
   Fearing no offence, demanding no laurels;
   Accept praise and slander indifferently,
      And do not debate with a fool. (1)


Many well-known ties bind the Russian poet Alexander Pushkin to the Latin poet Ovid (43 BCE-17/18 CE). Pushkin himself emphasized the parallels between his exile to the south under Alexander I and Ovid's exile to the same region under Augustus. Readings of Ovid's works have provided productive insights into many of Pushkin's individual poems as well as his "mythopoetic consciousness." (2) This article reopens one of the less-frequently considered connections between Pushkin and Ovid: their imitations of Horace's "Exegi monumentum." (3) With good reason, scholarly consensus has long defined the "Monuments" of Horace (23 BCE) and Derzhavin (1795) as the primary network of referentiality in Pushkin's "Monument" (1836). Other translations and imitations of Horace in Russia, particularly those of Lomonosov and Radishchev, have been shown to be important as well. (4) But Ovid's imitation must have also held a certain allure for Pushkin. (5) Ovid concludes Metamorphoses (circa (8) CE) with an imitation of Horace's "Monument" in which he claims immortality "beyond the stars" that at least equals and perhaps surpasses the deifications he describes for Julius and Augustus in the lines immediately preceding this final envoi. Ovid's imitation of Horace is indeed more than just an imitation; it is the final monumental reference in a series of works about mythic statues and sculptures. The same could be said of Pushkin's "Monument."

The Cappadocians, perhaps the most important thinkers of the early Eastern Church, were steeped in the culture of classical antiquity and relied on the language of antiquity like metamorphosis and concepts like the ambivalence of the lifelike sculpture to forge sophisticated theological arguments. Their foundational work on ideas like Incarnation and theosis would become authoritative doctrine in the Eastern Church. In their writing, the lifelike sculpture metaphorically represents the tension between flesh and spirit at the heart of Christ's descent into the material form of his creation in order that humans can be transformed back into the image of God in which they are created.

In the early period of his exile, Pushkin explored a personal connection to Ovid and his work: in the late Stone Island cycle, Pushkin explored the thematics of Orthodox theology in a serious tone that seems to contradict the blasphemous playfulness of earlier works. The study of both an Ovidian and a Cappadocian aesthetic of the lifelike statue offers new insight into Pushkin's monument metaphor in 1836. This essay reads the iconic and ekphrastic modes of Pushkin's "Monument" against the iconic and ekphrastic modes of the lifelike statue in Ovid's Metamorphoses and the iconic and ekphrastic modes of the sculptural metaphors foundational to the Eastern Orthodox concepts of Incarnation and theosis. This additional layer of the creative tension between paganism and Christianity often noted in Pushkin's "Monument" reveals how Pushkin's fascination with Orthodoxy in the Stone Island cycle contributes to the aesthetic development of his earlier "sculptural myth."

Why Ovid and the Cappadocians?

The tension between imitation and originality lies at the core of the "Monument" poem genre and complicates the relationship between the lifelike statues of Ovid, the Cappadocians, and Pushkin. Pushkin's fascination with Ovid during his earlier exile is well known, but there is no textual proof that Pushkin was actively thinking about or alluding to Metamorphoses in 1836. Likewise, Pushkin's interest in Orthodox themes in the Stone Island cycle is well known, but he most certainly was not reading the Cappadocians' writing on Incarnation and theosis. On what basis, then, does it make sense to read these diverse writings together?

Ovid has frequently been dismissed as a source for "Monument." In his detailed analysis of the poem, M. P. Alekseev briefly considers Ovid's imitation of Horace as a possible influence on Pushkin alongside more substantive arguments about Horace and Derzhavin. (6) He cites Costello's "Pushkin and Roman Literature" (1964), which speculates that Pushkin could have been working with a reference to Ovid's "Tristia," if only it was not so obvious that he was directly dealing with Horace. Alekseev makes the astute observation that Ovid too was influenced by Horace and that he imitated "Exegi monumentum" in the last lines of Metamorphoses.

Alekseev's treatment of the Ovid connection ends with this note. Furthermore, he ridicules the parallels that Lednicki finds between Pushkin's "To Ovid" (1821) and "Monument," referring to them as "pure fantasy" (chistaia fantastika). To substantiate his claim, Alekseev cites four lines from "To Ovid" that seem directly to contradict the claim to immortality and fame in "Monument":
   [phrase omitted]....

   Alas, among the crowd a misplaced singer,
   I will be unknown to new generations,
   And, an obscure victim, my weak genius will die
   With my sad life, with fleeting fame.... (7)


There is room to disagree with Alekseev's dismissal: the inversion could be seen as an indirect reference. The opposite of something is as interesting as its parallel and as strongly connected. When writing "To Ovid" in 1821, the young Pushkin in exile could not directly imitate Ovid's claims to immortal fame, so he imitated them inversely. As an older Pushkin contemplated death, a more permanent type of existential exile from his readership, it would make sense for him to return to his earlier thoughts about Ovid and earthly, political exile. (8)

However, the ways that Pushkin and Ovid engage with the aesthetics of the lifelike statue go beyond direct, textual references. While it is difficult to prove direct influence or allusion, the conceptual similarity between the lifelike statues of Pushkin and Ovid suggests a shared conclusion as much as an imitation. A fascination with monumental sculpture brings the poets together in a way that, surpasses their imitations of Horace. One might speculate that fascination with sculpture as a motif leads them to imitate Horace's poem more than a fascination with Horace's poem itself.

Pushkin's interest in monuments extends from his earhest days at the Lyceum in Tsarskoe Selo, where he studied the Latin classics intensively, to his works written immediately preceding his death. The neoclassical sculpture and monuments in the glyptotheca of Catherine the Great span from Pushkin's earhest verses in 1814 to the final chapter of The Captain's Daughter, dated 19 October 1836. The sculpt ural motif dominates works in between as well: it resurfaces in the myth of the destructive statue that Roman Jakobson identified in The Bronze Horseman, The Stone Guest, and The Golden Cockerel (9) In Metamorphoses. Ovid too includes a wide array of stories about humans transforming into material images and sculptures coming to life. The motif of the lifelike statue is arguably one of Ovid's most effective: it begins and ends Metamporphoses in crucial ways that suggest the poet was particularly drawn to it. The demonstration that follows suggests not so much that Pushkin is alluding to Ovid's lifelike statues or actively reading Metamorphoses in 1836, so much as that both poets relied on the same aesthetic tension between the iconic and ekphrastic in the lifelike statue.

While Pushkin objectively studied Ovid and read Metamorphoses as well as Ovid's other works, the same certainly cannot be said of the Cappadocians. Most, likely Pushkin never read them and may never have heard of them. Here again, however, there is no need to argue that Pushkin was reading Ovid or the Cappadocians in 1836. It is sufficient to claim that his classical education at the lyceum, combined with his lifelong interest in sculpture and his specific interest in Orthodox themes in the Stone Island cycle of 1836, brought the Russian poet to a similar aesthetic conclusion about the ekphrastic and iconic modes of the lifelike sculpture. The Cappadocians act as a textual intermediary between the paganism of Ovid and the Russian Orthodoxy of Pushkin's era. Like Pushkin, the Cappadocians conceptualized Christianity through the lens of their classical education. The fact that they come to the same conclusions about the sculpture metaphor speaks to the power of Pushkin's aesthetic insight into Orthodoxy. What is more, it evokes a moment in which paganism and Christianity appear not to be at odds, but rather in productive aesthetic dialogue. That, productive dialogue is part of what this analysis is meant to demonstrate.

The lifelike sculpture stands at the center of the intersection between Christianity and classical culture in aesthetic ways that transcend iconoclasm, and yet this is not to claim that Pushkin was personally interested in dogmatic theology or its roots in classical antiquity. Questions of personal piety aside, Orthodox Christianity was for Pushkin a well of aesthetic inspiration in both parodic and neutral keys. In this sense, too, the theological aspects of Pushkin's monumental motifs parallel Ovid's celebrated irony, satire, and sarcasm in the myths he retells. (10) To the point, Pushkin's Gavriliada can be read as "a New Testament theme transposed into the key of Metamorphoses." (11) The transposition belies Pushkin's aesthetic sense that the very moment, of the Incarnation, the moment of Jesus' conception, is a great mystery in that it is a story whose details cannot be imagined without some consequential blasphemy. On this note, it is helpful to consider Alyssa Dinega Gillespie's thesis that Pushkin's "Prophet" (1828) is "a mythopoetic narrative of poetic genesis and a successor to 'The Shade of Barkov in Pushkin's personal poetic mythology." (12) Her argument about the parallels between prophecy and inspiration in the obscene The Shade of Barkov and the serious poem "Prophet" supports the idea that the Incarnation could be for Pushkin both an object of blasphemous satire in representing the physical conception of Christ as well as an aesthetically interesting paradigm of kenosis.

Both Ovid and the conceptual paradigm of metamorphosis that Pushkin had access to in the Orthodox Church emphasize the ekphrastic and iconic modes of the lifelike statue: the creation that has the potential to rise to the image of the creator or to return to its unformed material basis. But how does this discovery relate to Pushkin's Orthodoxy? The question is fraught with peril. On the one hand, there are the dangers of "presumptuousness, oversimpbfication, and moralizing" or rehashing "run-of-themill verities that are 'new' only to us" that Olga Sedakova describes in her analysis of the theme of foolishness and intelligence in "Monument." (13) Stephanie Sandler endorses Sedakova's analysis and notices "refreshingly pagan notions deriving from the ancient Latin source and a worldview where monuments incarnate the spiritual power of the dead" alongside the "Christian nuances." (14) In a similar vein, it is hard to disagree with Oleg Proskurin, who writes, "for Pushkin, religious symbols ... were necessary only insofar as they helped to manifest his message about the sacredness of poetry--a sacredness that could not be accommodated in any religious creed." (15) Ovidian irony towards sacred narrative certainly seems to be a viable mode for interpreting Pushkin's "Monument," both with regards to the tradition of writing a "monument" poem and the religious concepts like Incarnation and theosis that he parodied in earlier works (not only in Gavriliada). As a counterbalance, however, the serious tone of the poem, its connection to the paschal themes of the Stone Island cycle, and its allusions to Del'vig weigh heavily in arguments that "Monument" cannot be satisfactorily read as a parody. (16) On this basis, it makes sense to look for the iconic and ekphrastic tension in Metamorphoses and the writings of the Cappadocians to better understand what is at stake in Pushkin's "Monument," one of his final formulations of his "sculptural myth."

The Lifelike Statues of Ovid

One aesthetic principle stands out in the sculptural motifs of Pushkin and Ovid: they operate in both ekphrastic and iconic modes. In her comparison of ekphrasis in Russian and French poetry, Maria Rubins defines ekphra sis as "intersemiotic translation." (17) Iconism represents the same process, but inverted: the transformation of the verbal into visual signs. (18) Ovid's sculptures function in an ekphrastic mode when they move up on the matter/spirit scale. When a sculpture comes to life, it is brought to life by the addition of some spirit, some divine or demonic spark. One of the defining tropes in ekphrasis is verbally to describe the statue as alive. (19) To raise matter to sentience and reason is to endow it with spirit, a miracle celebrated in the genre of ekphrasis. But neither Ovid nor Pushkin limits his interest in sculpture to its ekphrastic potential. Ovid's sculptures sometimes operate in an iconic mode when beings endowed with sentience and reason transform into something less free and rational: the living being becomes a river, a laurel tree, or a stone sculpture that fulfills an iconic function for the story that motivated the transformation. The iconic/ekphrastic symmetry of the lifelike sculpture reveals the ambivalence of sculpture as the liminal point where it can be impossible to determine whether it is matter that was given an immortal soul or deprived of one.

Many of Ovid's lifelike sculptures correspond to the ekphrastic mode. In one of the first metamorphoses, the Titan Prometheus "molds" earth and rainwater into "the image of the omnipotent, gods." (20) The form of man as a crude representation of the gods in rough material form reappears in many of the sculptural transformation myths in the work. When the earth is repopulated after the flood, Deucalion and Pyrrha toss stones (the "bones" of mother earth) behind them that begin to take on human form, "not well defined, but like roughed-out statues." (21) Thus, in both the pre- and post- flood worlds that Ovid describes, the statue motif plays a crucial role in establishing the connection of the spiritual and material in human form: humans are earth and stone formed in the image of the gods and brought to life by some divine spark, the very miracle celebrated in ekphrasis.

As the events of Ovid's narrative progress temporally from creation myths to his own historical moment of the transition of the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, more refined matter transforms into more refined beings. For example, the Pygmalion myth differs from the creation myths in that the artist creates an ideal ivory form that then is brought to life as an image of perfection. (22) The simple clay and crude stones in the early myths are replaced by a different medium (ivory), artistic talent, and forethought: Pygmalion certainly did not toss behind his back the ivory out of which his ideal appeared, brought to life by Venus. (23) His sculpture is not a "roughed-out statue," but feminine beauty incarnate. One step further in the refinement, of humans from matter to spirit comes at the end of Metamorphoses--the deification of Julius and Augustus Caesar, who become stars. These metamorphoses are the climax of what began when Prometheus molded clay into human forms and endowed them with mind, with reason, and "told them to lift their eyes to the stars." (24) The monuments to these emperor-gods that increasingly adorned the public spaces of the early empire were the earthly reminder of their metamorphosis and deification.

In imitating Horace, Ovid adds his own deification to the mix, prophesying his immortal life "beyond the high stars," higher than Julius and Augustus. (25) However, unlike Horace, who "has raised a monument," Ovid has "completed his work" which cannot be destroyed by the "wrath of Jove or corrosive time." Significantly he claims not a monument, but immortality. Not only does Ovid's divergence comment on Horace's original, it introduces a moment of subtle irony: the deification of Julius and Augustus represented in the many sculptures that depict them as gods could certainly provoke the wrath of the gods as it does in myths like "Niobe and Latona." Niobe turns to a marble statue of herself that weeps eternally after watching her fourteen children die. Her statuesque form is set on a mountain as a reminder of the terror of "divine wrath" and the dangers of human presumption in the company of gods. (26)

Niobe and Latona and other such myths suggest that the vector of transformation from matter to spirit in Ovid is not unidirectional. Pygmalion's ivory statue is marvelous because it is so lifelike and actually comes to life: the statue of Niobe is so terrible because the grief and loss immortalized in her marble form are the grief and loss of a living being. (27) Interspersed throughout the transformations from stone and sculpture to human and/or divine form are transformations of the human and divine into insentient matter. Mercury turns Aglauros into a statue that is darkened by her envy. (28) When some servants of Ino grieve her death, caused by Juno, the cruel goddess turns them into stone in the midst of their lamentations and refers to them as her "cruelty's greatest memorial." (29) The myth of Echo and Narcissus also shows a transformation from sentient being into semi-sentient, stone. The nymph Echo, cursed by Juno to utter only "the briefest of speech," wastes away to nothing and her bones turn to stone, which can only repeat what someone else says. (30) The lifelike statue in these myths reduces the living word to an inert image that becomes an icon of the verbal narrative.

Incarnation and Theosis as Sculptural Metaphor

The roots of Eastern Christianity's ideas about Incarnation and theosis in classical antiquity clarify the organic connection between what might otherwise seem to be opposed traditions (pagan/Christian. Ovid/the Cappadocians). Metamorphosis and the ambivalence of the lifelike monument that triggers both ekphrastic and iconic transformations played an important role in the thought of the Cappadocian fathers Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. It was their cultural historical moment that defined the legacy of the pagan past for the emerging Eastern form of Christianity. (31) The synthesis they find between the two has much to say about the frequently cited pagan/Christian balance in Pushkin's "Monument," albeit situated within differently inflected vectors of cultural power.

In Christianity and Classical Culture, historian of Christian thought Jaroslav Pelikan analyzes the writings of the Cappadocians to demonstrate the connection between Orthodox thought and its roots in Classical culture. The continuity that Pelikan identifies between metamorphosis and theosis in Oregon' of Nvssa's writings is particularly revealing:
   The first time, [God the Logos] took dust from the earth and formed
   humanity; this time, he took dust from the Virgin and did not
   merely form humanity, but formed humanity around himself. The first
   time he created; this time, he was created. The first time, the
   Logos made the flesh; this time, the Logos was made flesh, so that
   he might change our flesh to spirit, by being made partaker with us
   in flesh and blood. (32)


Pelikan's words reveal that the Incarnation implies both a lowering of the word to flesh (Incarnation), but also that the goal of such descent was so that "our" flesh might be raised to spirit (theosis). (33) In a different passage from Gregory of Nyssa's writings, Pelikan finds another sculptural metaphor: "A related sculptural metaphor for the restoration could refer to it as 'modeling us anew from the evil mould of sin once more to God's own image.'" (34)

The metamorphosis of human nature for the Cappadocians rested on the idea that in Adam all humans were created in the image of God, but that the image was lost, destroyed, distorted by the fall into sin. Human nature has two possible vectors: "Human nature, though destined for the heights of participation in the divine nature through theosis, had instead proven itself capable of finding innumerable pathways downward." (35) In Ovid there are also two sorts of possibilities for human metamorphosis. On one hand, the flesh, the stone and clay from which humans are created, can be brought to higher forms of rationality and life. On the other hand, humans can also metamorphose into lesser forms of freedom and rationality. For the Cappadocian Fathers, only through the Incarnation could the image of God in man be restored. The idea of man made in the image of God is a sculptural metaphor that in many ways recalls the ambivalence of Ovid's ekphrastic and iconic statues.

The Lifelike Statue and Pushkin's "Monument"

Like Ovid's envoi, Pushkin's "Monument" also celebrates the iconic and ekphrastic modes that monumental sculpture in the literary text can evoke. Particularly in the first stanza of the poem one sees the tension between ekphrasis and iconism.
   [phrase omitted].

   I have raised to myself a monument not made by hands,
   The people's path to it will not become overgrown,
   It raises its unsubmissive head higher than
      The Alexandrian pillar.


In its ekphrastic mode, these lines represent a verbal depiction of an object of visual art, a monument. References to the most significant monuments in the Petersburg of Pushkin's day strengthen the ekphrasis: the Bronze Horseman and the Alexander Column. Jakobson identifies the reference to the Bronze Horseman in the semantically loaded word "not made by hands" (nerukotvornyi), arguing that Pushkin employs it in parody of V. G. Ruban's 1770 reference to the Thunder Stone as "mountain not made by hands" (nerukotvornaia gora). (36) The reference to the Thunder Stone makes even more sense when contrasted with the Alexander Column in Petersburg, one of the possible referents of the enigmatic phrase, "Alexandrian pillar" (Aleksandriiskii stolp). In his 1834 essay about the dedication of the Alexander Column, Zhukovsky saw in its polished granite an allusion to the rough-hewn Thunder Stone that represents the refinement of Russia under Peter's heirs: if Peter created Petersburg and Russia out of the rough stone, his heirs worked it into a thing of great strength and refinement. (37) Pushkin places his own monument in the same allusive progression: the unrefined Thunder Stone transforms into the refined marble of the Alexander Column, which results in yet a greater and more refined substance--the poetic word, the medium which in its ekphrastic mode transforms these material monuments into a verbal monument of greater substance and value. Where Jakobson sees a conflict here between word and idol, (38) I see a progression from unrefined matter to refined matter to word (spirit) that exemplifies ekphrasis both as a genre and as a concept of the transformation of image into word.

As ekphrasis, Pushkin's "Monument" lies on the cusp of a broader shift in Russian culture from the image to the word. As Russian culture entered the mid-nineteenth century, Marcus Levitt writes, "the literary text--narrative or libretto--took precedence over the visual and the aural. The divinization of the Word--logocentrism--displaced the visual dominant," (39) But Pushkin's "Monument" itself reflects the transitional moment: the visual and iconic counterbalances the emerging cultural logocentrism.

Iconic moments in Pushkin's "Monument" rely on the visual and material nature of images to communicate the profundity of the non-visual and spiritual essence of Pushkin's poetic work. In choosing the image of a monument as an icon for the totality of his verbal work, Pushkin chooses one that has profoundly visual and material, as well as verbal, meanings. Allusions to the Bronze Horseman and Alexander Column reiterate this point. It is not enough to suggest a connection to the monuments of world literature created by the poets who wrote versions of Horace's "Exegi monumentum," Pushkin must also define his own monument by comparison with the two most prominent works of monumental sculpture in the Russia of his day. The choice of a "monument not made by hands" triggers both the ekphrastic and iconic concepts of the visual/verbal dichotomy in Russian culture by alluding both to Ruban's ekphrasis of the Bronze Horseman and to the Orthodox paradigm of iconography from which the term originates. The place of "Monument" within the paschal structure of Pushkin's "Stone Island cycle" reinforces the connection. (40)

Significantly, the iconism of Pushkin's poem is not limited to the term "not made by hands" and goes beyond the idea of a visual representation of the word. The theological argument for the use of icons in Orthodox worship relies on the idea that they are necessary for a full doctrine of the Incarnation. If God really became flesh in Jesus Christ, then he could be seen and therefore must be represented visually. To destroy or forbid the image of Christ is tantamount to denying the Incarnation. (41) In the first stanza, the ekphrastic mode seems to dominate and Pushkin seems to celebrate a logocentric "word"; however, if one considers the theological implications of the Incarnation as a kenotic descent from spirit to matter, from word to flesh, the rest of the poem moves in a more iconic direction.

The iconism of "Monument" challenges another aspect of Jakobson's seminal article on Pushkin's sculptural myth. Jakobson discusses Pushkin's interest in the ambivalence of the statue, but he does so through a semiotic lens, discussing the differing aspects of signifier and signified, united in the material form of the sculpture. He writes, "We have therefore established two types of the poetic metamorphosis of a statue. How then are they realized in lyrics? Subjectivity is the basis of all lyric poetry. It is a question, then, of the poet's subjective conception: the immobile statue of a mobile being is conceived either as a moving statue or as a statue of an immobile, being." (42) While Jakobson's strictly opposed binaries (either/or), seem well suited to the myth of the destructive statue he identifies in The Bronze Horseman, 'The Stone Guest, and The Tale of the Golden Cockerel (the middle stage of Pushkin's interest in statuary), "Monument" reflects the end of Pushkin's development and calls for a different, non-binary, structure. Jakobson's binaries exclude the concept of transformative progression. On the other hand, Ovid's progression of lifelike statues as a central device in Metamorphoses fits Pushkin's interest in the monument metaphor specifically as he is writing "Monument" and reconsidering the problems of a poet separated from his audience in 1836. It also raises positive manifestations of the Christian relationship to classical culture that counteract the iconoclasm referenced by Jakobson. (43)

Pushkin's "Monument" combines both the Orthodox and classical paradigm. His word stands at the apogee of the progression from Falconet's stone monument to Montferrand's granite monument to Pushkin's "monument not made by hands," but the height of his achievement is not something that he grasps absolutely: there is also an implied descent as his words go out to the people, sometimes falling into the fertile mind of at least one "poet" (piil), sometimes landing in the poor soil of at least one "fool" (glupets). In contrast to the untouchable immortality of Ovid's transformation "beyond the stars," Pushkin's immortality is conditional, dependent on the "sublunar," earthly, physical existence of an earthly poet capable of transforming Pushkin's works into yet others.
   ... [phrase omitted].

   ... as long as in the sublunar world
   At least one poet is alive.


This line is significant for the whole poem because it reflects both Pushkin's desire to maintain an earthly form of immortality (as opposed to the universal motifs that define the immortality of the other poets), but also because it makes room to oppose writerly reception, the creative transformation of Pushkin's works through the power of a future creative poet, to t he static reception of a future reader.

Juxtaposing Pushkin's second stanza to Derzhavin's second stanza reveals evidence that supports such a reading.
   Derzhavin:

   [phrase omitted].

   So!--all of me will not die, but the larger part of myself,
   Having eluded decay, at death will begin to live,
   And my glory wdl grow, unfading,
   As long as the universe esteems the Slavic peoples.

   Pushkin:

   [phrase omitted].

   No, all of me will not die--my soul in sacred lyre
   Will outlive my dust and elude decay--
   And I will be honored, as long as in the sublunar world
      At least one poet is alive.


In hne two of this stanza, Pushkin relocates Derzhavin's "to live" (zhil') to the first half of the line--"will outlive my dust" (moi prakh perezhivet)--and moves Derzhavin's "having eluded" (ubezhav) to the end Celude decay" [tlen'ia ubezhit]). That reversal allows Pushkin to set up the rhyme "will elude"/"poet" (ubezhit/piit), reframing Derzhavin's universal, public imagery with the earthly, private imagery of one poet. As Bethea notes, Pushkin's transformation of Derzhavin's lines reveals Pushkin's preference for the private consciousness in opposition to Derzhavin's preference for public consciousness. (44) But the logic of the lifelike statue as a paradigm for Pushkin's future metamorphosis suggests that, in addition to the private/ public contrast, Pushkin's reworking of Derzhavin implies a contrasting mechanism of reception. Derzhavin's use of "to esteem, honor" (chtit') does not necessarily imply a creative, transformative act. A poet can honor or esteem another poet, but a poet must do more to earn their title. A poet must create and in so doing transform the works of other poets, a point underscored by the "Exegi monumentum" genre. Poets must read, but they also must write. Furthermore, the near rhyme of Pushkin's "poet" (piit) with Derzhavin's "to esteem, honor" (chtit') is itself suggestive of how Pushkin transforms Derzhavin. Etymologically "to esteem, honor" (chtit' ) is connected to "to read" (chitaf). By transforming the last word of the second stanza from chtit' to piit, Pushkin raises Derzhavin's condition for immortality from esteem for a nation to an individual poetic response.

Through emphasis on writerly reception, Pushkin's metamorphosis into an immortal being takes on more of the image of God as understood by the Cappadocians than might be expected. Metamorphosis of human nature for the Cappadocians was the restoration of the image of God, the goal of theosis. The image of God emphasized three attributes: reason (Logos), freedom, and immortality. (45) The conditions of the immortality Pushkin envisions for himself suggest an image that is very like the reason (Logos), freedom, and immortality by which humans are recognized as made in the image of God. By focusing on his words, his poetry, his own freedom and immortality, the image of the monument allows Pushkin to frame his legacy in the terms of Christian theosis, of regaining the image of God, in addition to the allusions evoked by the connection of the monument to the pagan deities described in Ovid's Metamorphoses.

Pushkin's transformation from mortal to immortal in "Monument" differs from what Horace and Ovid and Lomonosov and Derzhavin describe in that, in addition to the immortahty of his name ('sloven budu ia," "slukh obo mne"), he emphasizes writerly reception, allusion to his poetry, as the vehicle of immortahty. Ovid claims that his "name will never die," whereas Pushkin claims an immortality that reflects the metamorphosis of theosis, not only in himself ("my soul in sacred lyre / will outlive my dust" "dusha v zavetnoi lire / moi prakh perezhivet"), but in those who recognize reason (logos), freedom, and the immortality of humans, even though they have "fallen" (padshim). (46)

The precondition of his glory (slava) in the second stanza is that there will be one poet alive in the sublunar world. In the context of the lifelike statue, a poet can certainly be read as someone who will do more than just read Pushkin's works. A poet creates: he will read them and transform them into yet other great works of literature. (47) Pushkin's transformation does not end with his death and removal to some cold and distant, interstellar space, but rather finds new form, a new body, as his words inspire the works of future poets. (48) This is not to say that Pushkin excludes a simpler, utilitarian type of non-poetic reader from his legacy. In the fourth stanza, he long will be loved by flesh-and-blood posterity, not for having achieved greatness, but for the fact that his poetry elicits good feelings and glorifies freedom and mercy. While the primary condition of his glory hinges on the future poet of stanza (2) and the possibility of writerly reception, the notions of readerly reception in stanzas (4) and (5) also connote kenotic descent, The abstract deification and fame described by other authors of a "Monument" is brought back to earth from the expansive universe, below the stars and moon, to the realm where flesh and spirit still strive with one another in an uneasy symbiosis, where it is still unclear whether people as living sculptures will be raised to the divine image in which they are created or lowered to the matter from which they are formed.

Conclusion

The ekphrastic and iconic dimensions of Ovid's lifelike statues make their most important contribution in understanding the oppositions between paganism and Christianity and pride and humility that frequently surface in interpretations of "Monument." The Orthodox concepts of Incarnation and theosis provide a significant advancement of Ovid's basic observation that Pushkin also employs as a figure for future allusions to his poetry. Ovid's claim that his work makes him greater than Julius and Augustus, and perhaps even greater than Horace, is bold, but it does not make room for his work to come back to life: it is petrified just as much as the statues of Caesar and Augustus, and there is no room for its future metamorphosis beyond the "high stars." Likewise, the works of Horace and Derzhavin and others stand, beloved but unchanged and unchanging, with no future beyond rote memorization and readerly reception.

Pushkin's work, on the other hand, only continues to have life in the creative reception of future generations, not primarily of readers, but of writers (poets). This reading gives the last stanza of Pushkin's "Monument" a different interpretation. The offence (obida) and laurels (venets), the praise (khvala) and slander (kleveta), take on a different meaning when one considers the possibility of the positive sense that obedience to god (velen'iu bozhiiu) could have: not just avoidance or acceptance of one's reception, but a patient waiting for the sublunar poet to bring life again to Pushkin's words, despite the many fools that, will reduce his living words to inert stone time and again. Incarnation and theosis corroborate Ovid's conceptual framework of the ekphrastic and iconic statue and make possible the divinization that Pushkin claims for himself in "Monument."

The connections between Ovid and Orthodoxy in Pushkin's "Monument" add another dimension to the complex relationship between bterature, politics, and religion in the Russian Empire under Nicholas I. As Proskurin points out in the epilogue of his article about the "competition" between Pushkin and Metropolitan Philaret, by 1834 neither poet nor priest had won, but rather the empire had established control over both the church and hterature. (49) Yet Ovid's lifelike statues and their resonance in Ort hodox concepts of Incarnation and theosis predict a future victory for Pushkin: if poetry holds sacred truth, then the metamorphosis of allusion is the rite by which its life and meaning must be sacramentally renewed.

Please note: Some non-Latin characters were omitted from this article.

Binghamton University

References

Alekseev, M. P. Stikhotvorenie Pushkina: "la pamiatnik sebe vozdvig": Problemy ego izucheniia. Leningrad: Nauka, 1967.

Bethea, David. Realizing Metaphors: Alexander Pushkin and the Life of the. Poet. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998.

--. "Pushkin's Mythopoetic Consciousness: Apuleius, Psyche and Cupid, and the Theme of Metamorphosis in Evgenii Onegin." In Two Hundred Years of Pushkin, 2: Alexander Pushkin: Myth and Monum ent, edited by Robert Reid and Joe Andrew, 15-37. New York: Rodopi, 2003.

Cavendish, Philip. "Poetry as Metamorphosis: Aleksandr Pushkin's 'Ekho' and the Reshaping of the Echo Myth." The Slavonic and East European Review 78, 3 (2000): 439-62.

Costello, D. P. "Pushkin and Roman Literature." Oxford Slavonic Papers 11 (1964): 46-55.

Gillespie, Alyssa Dinega, ed. Taboo Pushkin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2012.

--. "Bawdy and Soul: Pushkin's Poetics of Obscenity." In Gillespie, Taboo Pushkin, 185-223.

Gribanov, Aleksandr. "Zametki k stat'e Iakobsona 'Statuia v poeticheskoi mifologii Pushkina.'" In I vrem ia i mesto: Istoriko-filologicheskii sbornik k shestidesiatiletiiu Aleksandra L 'vovicha Ospovata, edited by Ronald Vroon et al., 177-86. Moscow: Novoe izdatel'stvo, 2008.

Hokanson, Katya. "Politics and Poetry: The 'Anti-Polish' Poems and 'I budt myself a monument not made by human hands.'" In Gillespie, Taboo Pushkin, 283-317.

Iakubovich, D. P. "Antichnost' v tvorchestve Pushkina." In Pushkin: Vremennikpushkinskoi komissii, 6: 92-159. Moscow: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1941.

Iieste, M. "Zametki k teme Pushkin i Ovidii." In Russkaia filologiia: Sbornik studencheskikh nauchnykh robot, edited by Z. G. Mints, 171-90. Tartu: Tartu Ulikool, 1967.

Jakobson, Roman. Puskin and His Sculptural Myth. Translated and edited by John Burbank. The Hague: Mouton, 1975.

Lednicki, Waclaw. "Pushkin's 'Monument.'" In Bits of Table Talk on Pushkin, Mickiewicz, Goethe, Turgenev, and Sienkiewicz, edited by Waclaw Lednicki, 87-110. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1956.

Levitt, Marcus. "'Metamorfozy' Ovidiia v russkoi literature XVIII veka--Pro et contra." In Litterarum fructus: Sbornik statei, v chest' Sergeiia IvanovichaNikolaeva, edited by N. Iu. AlekseevaandN. D. Kochetkova, 142-53. St. Petersburg: Al'ians-Arkheo, 2012.

--. Russian Literary Politics and the Pushkin Celebration of 1880. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989.

--. The Visual Dominant in Eighteenth-Century Russia. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2011.

Malein, A. I. "Pushkin i Ovidii (otryvochnye zamechaniia)." In Pushkin i ego sovremenniki: Malerialy i issledovaniia, 23-24: 45-66. Petrograd: Imperatorskaia akademna nauk, 1916.

Modzalevskii, B. L. "Katalog biblioteki A. S. Pushkina." In Pushkin i, ego sovremenniki: Materialy i issledovaniia, 9-10: 1-370. St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk, 1910.

Ovid. Metamorphoses. Translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2010.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. Christianity and Classical Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

Pokrovskii, M. M. "Pushkin i antichnost'." Vremennik pushkinskoi kom issii 4-5 (1939): 27-56.

Proskurin, O. A. "Imperia i svoboda: Pamiatnik." In Poeziia Pushkina, ili Podvizhnyi palimpsest, 275-300. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 1999.

--. "Pushkin and Metropolitan Philaret." In Gillespie, Taboo Pushkin, 112-56.

Pushkin, A.S. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v 10-i tomakh. Edited by B. V. Tomashevskii. Leningrad: ANSSSR, 1977-79.

Rubins, Maria. Crossroad of Arts, Crossroad of Cultures: Ecphrasis in Russian and French Poetry. New York: Palgrave, 2000.

Sandler, Stephanie. Distant Pleasures: Alexander Pushkin and the Writing of Exile. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989.

--. Commemorating Pushkin. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004.

Sedakova, Olga. '"Non-Mortal and Mysterious Feelings': On Pushkin's Christianity." In Two Hundred Years of Pushkin, 3: Pushkin 's Legacy, edited by Robert Reid and Joe Andrew, 33-45. New York: Rodopi, 2004.

Smobarova, Tat'iana. "How The Bronze Horseman was Made." In Two Hundred Years of Pushkin, 2: Alexander Pushkin: Myth and Monument, edited by Robert Reid and Joe Andrew, 103-16. New York: Rodopi, 2003.

Vulikh, N. V. "Ovidii." In Pushkin: Issledovaniia i materialy, 227-30. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2004.

Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Church. Baltimore: Penguin, 1967.

Zhukovskii, V. A. "Vospominanie o torzhestve 30 avgusta 1834." In Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v 12-i tomakh, edited by A S. Arkhangel'skii, 10: 28-32. St. Petersburg: Izdanie A. F. Marksa, 1902.

I am grateful to David Bethea, Marcus Levitt, Don Loewen, Zoya Pavlovskis-Petit, and Nancy Tittler for their perceptive criticism of early drafts of this work and to my two anonymous reviewers.

(1) Pushkin's poetry, unless otherwise noted, is cited according to A. S. Pushkin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v 10-i tomakh (Leningrad: Izd-vo "Nauka," 1977-79). Translations from Russian are my own. For other translations of Pushkin's "Monument," see Marcus Levitt, Russian Literary Politics and the Pushkin Celebration of 1880 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), 24; and Stephanie Sandler, Commemorating Pushkin: Russia's Myth of a National Poet (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004), 21-22.

(2) For background scholarship on Ovid and Pushkin, see A. I. Malein, "Pushkin i Ovidii (otryvochnye zamechaniia)," in Pushkin i ego sovremenniki: Materialy i issledovaniia 23-24 (Petrograd: Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk, 1916), 45-66; M. M. Pokrovskn, "Pushkin i antichnost'," Vremennik Pushkinskoi komissii 4-5 (1939): 27-56; D. P. Iakubovich, "Antichnost' v tvorchestve Pushkina," Vremennik Pushkinskoi komissii 6 (1941): 92-159; W. Lednicki, Bits of Table Talk on Pushkin, Mickiewicz, Goethe, Turgenev, and Sienkiewicz (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1956), 95; D. P. Costello, "Pushkin and Roman Literature," Oxford Slavonic Papers 11 (1964): 46-55; M. Iieste, "Zametki k teme Pushkin i Ovidii," in Russkaia filologiia: Sbornik studencheskikh nauchnykh rabot, ed. Z. G. Mints (Tartu, 1967): 171-90; Stephanie Sandler, Distant Pleasures: Alexander Pushkin and the Writing of Exile (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989), 39-56; N. V. Vulikh, "Ovidii," Pushkin: Issledovaniia i materialy (St. Petersburg: Izd-vo "Nauka," 2004), 227-30. David M. Bethea's discussion of Pushkin's "mythopoetic consciousness" in particular is relevant for my analysis of Ovid's lifelike statues: see David M. Bethea, Realizing Metaphors: Alexander Pushkin and the Life of the Poet (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998), 10-17 and 89-117; "Pushkin's Mythopoetic Consciousness: Apuleius, Psyche and Cupid, and the Theme of Metamorphosis in Evgenii Onegin," in Alexander Pushkin: Myth and Monument, vol. 2 of Two Hundred Years of Pushkin, ed. Robert Reid and Joe Andrew (New York: Rodopi, 2003), 15-16.

(3) Alexander Gribanov critiques Jakobson's formulation of Pushkin's "sculptural myth" in his essay "Zametki k stat'e Iakobsona 'Statuia v poeticheskoi mifologii Pushkina,'" in 1 vremia i mesto: Istoriko-filologicheskii sbornik k shestidesiatiletiiu Aleksandra L'vovicha Ospovata, ed. Ronald Vroon et al. (Moscow: Novoe izdatel'stvo, 2008), 177-86. He identifies Jakobson's fadure to note the significance of Ovid and the lifelike statues of Metamorphoses for Pushkin, although he does not focus on Ovid's imitation of Horace (177-86).

(4) O. A. Proskurin, "Imperiia i svoboda: Pamiatnik," in Poeziia Pushkina, ili podvizhnyi palimpsest (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 1999), 275-300.

(5) B. L. Modzalevskii, "Katalog biblioteki A. S. Pushkina," in Pushkin i ego sovremenniki: Materialy i issledovaniia 9-10 (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk, 1910), 304. Ovid's Metamorphoses was avadable to Pushkin in several different formats during his lifetime. He owned two French translations and one edition in the original Latin. The cut pages in the French volumes suggest that they were the primary source of his knowledge of the text.

(6) M. P. Alekseev, Stikhotvorenie Pushkina: "la pamiatnik sebe vozdvig." Problem y ego izucheniia (Leningrad: Nauka, 1967), 78 n. 38.

(7) Ibid., 76 and 76 n.33. The Russian text is cited as in Alekseev.

(8) Stephanie Sandler concludes her work on Pushldn in exile by suggesting that the problem of how to reach a readership is fundamental to the works of this early period. "What makes the writings from Pushkin's exile a distinct, if not. uniquely unified group of texts is the way that they enable a new articulation of the problems of reading Pushkin. [...] Far from his audiences in Petersburg and Moscow, Pushkin in exile took up the fantasies of reaching--and, in some texts, vainly reaching toward--his readers" (Distant Pleasures, 212). The preoccupation with reception in Pushkin's "Monument" reveals a similar concern as the poet contemplates the future of his works in 1836.

(9) Roman Jakobson, Puskin and His Sculptural Myth, trans, and ed. John Burbank (The Hague: Mouton, 1975), 15-17.

(10) On Russian reception of Ovid's Metamorphoses in the eighteenth century, see Marcus Levitt's essay "'Metamorfozy' Ovidiia v russkoi literature XVIII veka-- Pro et contra," in Litterarum fructus: Sbornik statei v chest' Sergeiia Ivanovicha Nikolaeva, ed. N. Iu. Alekseeva and N. D. Kochetkova (St. Petersburg: Allans-Arkheo, 2012), 142-53. Levitt offers a helpful discussion of the dynamics between pagan mythology and Orthodox Christianity in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (143-44) as well as examples of both "high" and "low" eighteenth-century receptions of Metamorphoses (145-47). His article provides the historical context for the Ovid Pushkin encountered in Russian culture of the early nineteenth century.

(11) Costello, "Pushkin and Roman Literature," 49.

(12) Alyssa Dinega Gillespie, "Bawdy and Soul: Pushkin's Poetics of Obscenity," in Taboo Pushkin: Topics, Texts, Interpretations, ed. Gillespie (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2012), 196.

(13) Olga Sedakova, "'Non-Mortal and Mysterious Feelings': On Pushkin's Christianity," in Pushkin's Legacy, vol. 3 of Two Hundred Years of Pushkin, ed. Robert Reid and Joe Andrew (New York: Rodopi, 2004), 34.

(14) Sandler, Commemorating Pushkin, 24.

(15) Oleg Proskurin, "Pushkin and Metropolitan Philaret: Rethinking the Problem," in Taboo Pushkin, 144.

(16) In Stikhotvorenie Pushkina, see Alekseev's lengthy discussion on allusions to Del'vig in "Monument" (164-225, especially 220-21), and in Realizing Metaphors see Bethea's discussion of the issue of parody and the presence of Del'vig in "Monument" that significantly refines Alekseev's arguments (218 and 226-31).

(17) "The ecphrastic procedure can therefore be seen as an intersemiotic translation, which transforms plastic signs into verbal." Maria Rubins, Crossroads of Arts, Crossroads of Cultures: Ecphrasis in Russian and French Poetry (New York: Palgrave, 2000), 7.

(18) The juxtaposition of iconism to ekphrasis is my own formulation, inspired by Rubins's juxtaposition of "iconographic" to "iconoclastic" literary narratives about the visual arts in Crossroads of Arts, Crossroads of Cultures (109 and 262 n. 1).

(19) Tat'iana Smoliarova, "How the Bronze Horseman Was Made," in Reid and Andrew, Alexander Pushkin: Myth and Monument, 108 and 112.

(20) Ovid, Metamorphoses, trans. Stanley Lombardo (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2010), 7.

(21) Ibid., 17.

(22) David Bethea convincingly argues in Realizing Metaphors that, when courting his future wife, Pushkin drew on Ovid's version of the Pygmalion myth. The Paphian artist prays to Venus for the image to come to life and is ecstatic when the ivory turns to flesh under his embrace. Pushkin conceptualized his love for the statuesque Natalie along similar lines: he longed to have her come to life under his embrace. In both personal letters and poetry, Pushkin realized "this double- sided sculptural metaphor in the year of his courtship [1830]" (106-09). In "Pushkin's Mythopoetic Consciousness," Bethea describes how Pushkin turned to the myths in the Metamorphoses of both Ovid and Apuleius for multiple examples of the capriciousness of love and its transformations as he looked forward to marriage (17). Bethea's observations about Pushkin's mythopoetic concept of marriage have resonance with the poet's mythopoetic conception of death and legacy. Transformations are inherent to the liminal times of marriage and death, and so it makes sense that Pushkin would find in Ovid's myths a fitting paradigm for thinking about his life in art.

(23) Ovid, Metamorphoses, 275-76.

(24) Ibid., 7.

(25) Ibid., 445.

(26) Ibid., 153 and 157.

(27) In all of these transformations Ovid seems to play with one of the central notions of ekphrasis and iconism as intersemiotic translation, or, in the words of Smoliarova's description of the Bronze Horseman, that "the barrier between life and its representation in the statue should be completely obliterated" (Smoliarova, "How the Bronze Horseman Was Made," 108).

(28) Ovid. Metamorphoses, 59.

(29) Ibid., 108.

(30) Ibid., 76-78. Narcissus is also described as "like a statue carved from Parian marble." His obsession with his visual reflection (statue-like) is the visual complement of Echo's curse to aurally reflect what is said by others. While Echo can say nothing original, Narcissus can see no one else. For a relevant discussion of Pushkin's interest in the Echo myth and the nature of allusion, see Philip Cavendish, "Poetry as Metamorphosis: Aleksandr Pushkin's 'Ekho' and the Reshaping of the Echo Myth," The Slavonic and East European Review 78, 4 (2000): 439-62.

(31) Jaroslav Pelikan, Christianity and Classical Culture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 170-71.

(32) Ibid., 284-85.

(33) Elsewhere Pelikan writes, "The term [theosis], therefore, was an expression both of retrospection and of anticipation. It described the human condition before the fall as one of participation in God through 'the most exact likeness to the image of its prototype [tei akribestatei homoiosei kata ten eikona tou prototypou],' and it looked forward to the metamorphosis of human nature after the apocatastasis [restoration--SD] as the recovery, through 'partaking of the divine nature,' of that participation, and thus to the fulfillment of the image of God" (ibid., 135).

(34) Pelikan, Christianity and Classical Culture, 285.

(35) Ibid., 281.

(32) Ibid., 284-85.

(33) Elsewhere Pelikan writes, "The term [theosis], therefore, was an expression both of retrospection and of anticipation. It described the human condition before the fall as one of participation in God through 'the most exact likeness to the image of its prototype [tei akribestatei homoiosei kata ten eikona tou prototypou],' and it looked forward to the metamorphosis of human nature after the apocatastasis [restoration--SD] as the recovery, through 'partaking of the divine nature,' of that participation, and thus to the fulfillment of the image of God" (ibid., 135).

(34) Pelikan, Christianity and Classical Culture, 285.

(35) Ibid., 281.

(36) Jakobson, Sculptural Myth, 29.

(37) V. A. Zhukovskii, "Vospominanie o torzhestve 30 avgusta 1834," in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v 12-i tomakh, ed. A. S. Arkhangel'skii, (St-Petersburg: Izdanie A.F. Marksa, 1902), 10: 31. In "Politics and Poetry: The 'Anti-Polish' Poems and 'I built myself a monument not made by human hands'" (in Gillespie, Taboo Pushkin, 283-317), Katya Hokanson points out that Zhukovsky's article states that poetry loses its voice to describe the event of the monument's unveiling, whereas Pushkin reasserts the voice of poetry in "Monument," claiming it to be higher than the Alexander Column and with a wider audience (308). Where Zhukovsky sees the end of ekphrasis, Pushkin sees its renewed vigor.

(38) "Thus logos (the word) overcomes eidolon (the idol) and idolatry" (Jakobson, Sculptural Myth, 29).

(39) Marcus Levitt, The Visual Dominant in Eighteenth-Centujy Russia (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2011), 266.

(40) Bethea, Realizing Metaphors, 225. Bethea points out a different allusion inherent in the word nerukotvornyi and rel ated to the paschal theme of the Stone Island cycle: the temple (khram, rukotvornyi i nerukotvornyi) which the Christ of the Gospels claims he will destroy and rebuild in three days.

(41) Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (Baltimore: Penguin, 1967), 41-42.

(42) Jakobson, Sculptural Myth, 34.

(43) Ibid., 37.

(44) Bethea, Realizing Metaphors, 231.

(45) Pelikan, Christianity and Classical Culture, 129-32.

(46) "The fallen" can include the traditional reading of these lines as an allusion to the Decembrists. But, as with nearly all of the words in this poem, a specific allusion does not preclude a more general one.

(47) In "Poetry as Metamorphosis," Cavendish identifies a simdar concern in Pushkin's "Echo" (1831): "[Pushkin's 'Echo'] anticipates a reversal of Bloomian 'anxiety of influence': the poet betrays anxiety, not about the fact of precursors with whose originality he must compete, and whose influence he must overcome, but about the absence of successors who will imitate and adapt his work, and thus secure his posthumous reputation" (441). However, Cavendish does not find a simdar interpretation for the "sublunar poet" of "Monument" (452).

(48) Consider these early lines from the poem "In an album, to Illichevskii" ("[phrase omitted]," 31 May 1817): "[phrase omitted]" ("Oh my kind genius knows, / That I would sooner prefer / To the immortality of my soul / The immortality of my creations") (PSS, 1: 227). A little later in the same poem Pushkin voices the idea that his poems most likely will die: "Moh cthxh nycKaft VMpyr" ("Let my poems die") (ibid.).

(49) Proskurin, "Pushkin and Metropolitan Philaret," in Taboo Pushkin, 146.
COPYRIGHT 2018 Slavica Publishers, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Dement, Sidney Eric
Publication:Pushkin Review
Date:Jan 1, 2018
Words:8744
Previous Article:The Poet Turned Journalist: Alexander Pushkin and the Reading Public.
Next Article:Tragedy in the Balkans: Pushkin's Critique of Romantic Ideology in The Gypsies.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |