IZ ZAPISOK РО POEZII GRAMMATIKI: - Alexander Zholkovsky

ON PASTERNAK’S FIGURATIVE VOICES

Alexander ZHOLKOVSKY (USC, Los Angeles)

Andreju Zaliznjaiku

(1) Femina praeferri potuil tibi nulla, Lycori:

praeferri Glycerae femina nulla potest.

haec erit hoc quod tu: tu non potes esse quod haec est.

tempora quid faciunl! hanc volo, te volui

Martialis, 6, XL

(2) Все наклоненья и залоги

Изжеваны до одного (555) 1

(3) И полночь в бурьян окунало (135)

(4) И, не готовый ни к чему такому,

Я третьим затесался в tête-a-tête (341)

Martial’s pun on ‘time/tense’ is probably the earliest known formulation of what poetry of grammar can do. The treatment of tense and, for that matter, mood, – in Pasternak (hereinafter P.) is an interesting topic 2, but I will concentrate on his “poetry of voice”. In dealing with stylistic invariants, a major challenge is to account for their place in the author’s poetic world by describing them in the same way as motifs of the referential domain, -namely, as embodiments of the poet’s more abstract invariants, which, beginning from a certain level of generality, should be common to both domains.3 If the image of night being dipped into high grass by a mysterious third agency is evidence of the poet’s interest in voice, the actual tête-a-tête joined by an intruder, “a third one”, offers a referential analogy shedding light on the mainsprings of that interest.

Most of my examples illustrate the type of trope/voice that can be called ‘Involving a Third Party’ (ITP): “third”, because the additional partner joins the minimal, i. e. binary, real contact; “voice”, because ITP has to do with transformations on the number and order of a predicate’s actants; and “trope”, because the involving is figurative. But even before and without tropes this kind of situation is inherent in P.’s imagery and, therefore, naturally born out of its foam.

P.’s universe teams with intense interactions. Even most intimate activities – eating, love-making, poetry-writing – are open to the world and welcome gate-crashers.4 Entering through windows or otherwise, the new arrivals engage in complex three (or more) way relationships with the already intertwined partners. The poet’s obsession with such triangles deeply affects his grammar and tropes, making rare purely referential examples of the tret’im zatesalsja v tête-a-tête kind. Sometimes the figurative “as if” will serve merely to build on the preexistent referential contacts, cf. situation (5):

(5) И можно слышать в коридоре,/ Что происходит на

npocmope/ O чем в случайном разговоре/ С капелью говорит

апрель (445),

which, even stripped of the imaginary conversation between “April” and the “dripping” and of its topic (o čem}, comprises somebody [= partner Nl] hearing [= the predicate of contact] in the hallway [=N2] the sounds of April dripping [= N3] outside [= N4]. But most typically, it is the troping that creates the contacts.

To enhance the interconnectedness of the depicted world, P. stretches the reader’s imagination and the rules of Russian grammar. The proverbially false conjunction of sentences

(6) Шли дождь и два студента

would be, for P., a perfect instance of coherence, cf.

(7) On шел с небольшою толпой облаков (626),

where wordplay on the same verb conjoins a walking person (Jesus) and passing clouds.

Wordplay is one type of purely verbal linkage; alliteration (to the point of paronomasia) is another, cf. the classical šljuzy žaljuzi (150), or, in (7), šel/ nebol’šoju and totpoj/ oblakov, where alliteration supports the punning effects.

If referential and verbal links are the two extremes of P.’s contact-ridden poetics, the middle ground is occupied by figurative links, establishing imaginary, yet plausible semantic connections among entities. In fact, in (7), underneath alliterations and lexical coincidences, P. discovers a contiguity (man and clouds are part of the same landscape) and a similarity (both are on the move).

A classical 1TP features two objects which are somewhere “here”, linked by a close referential contact, plus a remote and unrelated third object, which is figuratively read into the picture.

(8) (а) Сиренью моет подоконник/ Продрогший абрис ледника (106);

(b) Бывало раздвинется запад/…/ И примется хлопьями цапать,! Чтоб под буфера не попал (70);

(с) Сестра моя – жизнь и сегодня в разливе/ Расшиблась весенним дождем обо всех (112).

The contour of the glacier is presented as joining in, in fact, bringing about the lilac’s brushing against the window sill; the west gets similarly involved in the contact between the snowflakes and the speaker; and my sister life is seen as the prime mover behind the rain’s encounter with everybody.5

But the initiative need not come from outside the contact: the partners fraternizing “here” can draw in something from “out there” (see (9)); nor is the topographical distribution ‘a lonely party out there – a contacting pair here’ obligatory (see (10)).

(9) (a) [The poet] …таянье Андов вольет в поцелуй (149);

(b) Губы и губы на звезды выменивать (123);

(10) И тут тяжелел обожапья размах/…/ И располагался росой на полях (104).

In both examples in (9) lovers “really” kiss and figuratively get faraway Andes melting/stars to participate, while in (10) the adoration that is “here” figuratively reaches out to join the contact (dew falling out in the fields) going on “there”.

In fact, even the 1 + 2 pattern itself is an oversimplification; as can be seen from Note 5 and the following examples, the critical number three often results from putting together several pairings.

(11) (а) Крыльцо б коснулось сонной ветвью их [the beloved’s shoulders] (176);

(b) И дым над изголовьем/ Бежит за пассажиркою по лестни-цам витым (294);

The derivation of (11a), where the figurative presentation of events divests, in a voice-like manner, the real agent (“woman”) of the role of grammatical subject (to confer it on the “porch”), is probably best described as a superposition of three binary contacts: ‘branch hanging over porch’ + ‘she reaching the porch’ + ‘she/shoulders brushing against branch’ => ‘porch touching her/shoulders with branch. A similar, if more inventive, superposition of several pairs underlies (11b): three separate contacts (‘woman passenger on her sleeping coach bunk’ + ‘locomotive’s smoke close to coaches’ + ‘smoke enveloping overhead staircases [when passing the stations]’) are fused into a picture of ‘smoke chasing the woman up and down the staircases’.6 And in (11c) the two obvious real pairs are ‘Balzac’s cane tapping on the sidewalk’ and ‘Balzac thinking of the lines [that he is composing]’; but the complete derivation should also take into account the temporal coincidence, or, rather, alternation, of the thinking and tapping, the double entendres (on mež strok and vskol’z’), and perhaps, the Gogolian intertext (Akakij’s realization that he was ne nа seredine stroki, a …na seredine ulicy)7 that underpins the trope.

My references to “here”, “there”, “distance” etc., have assumed throughout the spatliality of all the links and partners. P. tends to spatialize almost any abstraction. Along with bona fide spatial partners (expanse, clouds, porch, sidewalk, etc.), we find temporal entities (midnight, April), processes (dripping, melting), emotional states (sway of adoration), philosophical categories (life) and ever thinner abstractions, whose spatiality/physicality is increasingly problematic, cf.:

(12) (а) Смотри: и рек не мыслит врозь/ уществованья ткань сквозная (370);

(b) Кто коврик за дверьми/ Рябиной иссурьмил… ? (150);

(c) Кто мой испуг изобразит росе… ? (208);

(d) А поперек, на голый лед,/ Как зеркало на подзеркальник,/ Поставлен черный небосвод (399);

(e) И в обе оконницы вставят по месяцу (108);

(f) See (3);

where the spectrum of imaginary third parties ranges from pan- or monotheistic presences (12a, b), to purely rhetorical ones (12c, d) to hypothetical agents implied by the morphology of Russian voice (12d-f).

If ITP is so typical of P., it is because it epitomizes major concerns and techniques of his poetics. Four very general principles underlie P.’s trope system and produce a strong impact on his treatment of language.

(i) P.’s poetics, “governed by metonymy, blurs the outline of things”, fostering “mutual penetration of objects” (Jakobson 1969, 144) and a “representation of a single, indivisible world” – by transcending the “separateness of objects… produced by the linguistic schemata” through a “substitution of linguistic functions”. Thus, instead of oplyla sveča “the candle guttered” we find oplyla pečat’ “the print guttered” or oplyvšaja kniga “a guttering book”.8 Such lines… obliterate the separateness of “book” and “candle” “…transformed into facets of a unified whole” (Lotman 1978, 22).

(ii) Thanks to metonymies, the lyrical “hero is as if concealed in a picture puzzle, …broken down into a series of … parts, … replaced by surrounding objects…. The hero’s activity eludes our perception, action is replaced by topography…. The active voice has been erased from Pasternak’s poetic grammar…. If the lyric ‘I’ is… a patiens, is some active third person then the real actor? No, the genuine agent has no place in Pasternak’s poetic mythology…. The third person… denotes the instrument rather than the agent” (Jakobson 1969, 146-8). Such is the linguistic counterpart ofP.’s

un-Romanlically modest self-effacement of the lyrical hero.

(iii) But P.’s interest in voice does not stop at passives and instrumentals: he is determined to “chew up all of them – down to” the characteristically Russian impersonal constructions like vstavjat “[they] will insert” and okunalo “[it] dipped”. To put this in philosophical terms, P.’s world, fragmented, passive and anonymous as it is, is not without the organizing presence of a prime mover: reality is “perceived as a message reaching [the poet], as a sudden and unexpected appearance, a greeted arrival” of something from somewhere, perhaps of “some incorporeal, unknown and unknowable wind” (Pasternak 1960). This ‘sense of arrival’ manifests itself in such motifs as ‘penetrability of space’, ‘contact between distant partners’, and ‘incorporeal entities behaving like physical bodies’.

(iv) Far from being hazy, flaccid or static, P.’s world is permeated with exuberant energy, powerful to the point of destructiveness, full of collisions, of great, even cumbersome quantities, etc. Grammatically this predisposes his diction toward superlatives, exclamations, plurals etc., and, in syntax, toward heavily cluttered structures.

These four distinct principles – cubistic interpenetration of objects, de-romanticized merging of the lyrical subject with “every trifle”, divine emanation of force, and world’s overpowering density – add up to a very coherent, specifically Pasternakian Weltanschauung. One category on which they seem to converge is grammatical voice. Indeed, the metonymal shifts discussed by Jakobson and Lotman can be described as neologisms, or rather neogrammatisms, in the sphere of voice. The transformations whereby the book lit by a guttering candle becomes a guttering book are akin to the rules that connect such structures as:

(13) I sold my book to him – They sell Russian books in that bookstore/ in Los Angeles – The bookstore sells Russian books – The book was sold to him by a young clerk – He was sold this book in that bookstore last year – This year the book sells well/ itself – This year’s Los Angeles sales of this book were good – Last year saw this book climbing the sales charts ….

The metonymic nature of voice transformations, which consist, roughly, in reshuffling the actants around the predicate, is particularly evident in the way the distinction between actants and circumstants is sometimes blurred. Cf., for instance, the promotion of bookstore and especially last year to the role of subject, the latter being based on a kind of trite metonymy underlying a whole set of perfectly grammatical voice transformations:

(14) (а) Когда он приехал в Москву, шел дождь – Москва встретила его дождем;

(b) Когда становилось холодно, люди жались к костру – Холод сгонял людей к костру;

(с) В октябре в Москве начались дожди – Октябрь принес в

Москву дожди.

It is by exploiting this kind of transformations that P. achieves some of his typical effects, and it is often hard to draw the line between “normal” linguistic and “poetic” Pasternakian tropes; cf.

(15) (а) Незваная, она внесла, во-первых,/ Во все, что сталось, вкус больших начал (371);

(b) В его залив вкатило время/ Все, что ушло за волнолом (381);

(d) Мело, мело, метель костры лизала,/ Пигмеев сбив гигантски у костра (340);

(e) [Dagestan] Так и рвался принять машину/ Не в лязг кинжалов, так под дождь (346);

(f)И будто вороша каштаны,/ Совком к жаровням в кучу сгреб/ Мужчин – арак, а горожанок – / Иллюминованный сироп (106);

(g) И март разбрасывает снег/ На паперти толпе калек (602).

Or, to return to Lotman’s example, where does one stop in the series:

(16) Я читаю книгу при свете оплывающей свечи – Я читаю при оплвающем свете – Я читаю оплывшую книгу – Я оплываю за чтением книги…?

This is determined by linguistic convention, and P., not content with the existing “chewed up” voices, creates a poetic language where almost anything along these lines is possible – in order to bring together normally disparate entities, demote the traditional subject, embody the arrival of a remote message, and put together a multitudinous cluster of participants.

As our preliminary experience with defining ITP shows, the description of a Pasternakian “voice” should consist of specifying the real and imaginary situations (RS and IS), the transformations that map RS onto IS, and the types of motivations that naturalize the mapping.

Real and figurative situations. Saying that a new (third) partner is drawn into a contact implies, first of all, a distinction between the initial RS | (e.g., lilac branch plus window sill with glacier in the distance) and the resulting IS (glacier + branch + window sill all united). While the IS is spelled out in the text, reconstructing the RS can be a problem – semantic, when the real picture is hard to make out (cf. the alternative reading of (llb) in Note 6 and the uncertainty of either reading), or structural, when different synonymous structures can be posited for the RS.

Involving a new partner implies also that already in RS this partner (e.g. the glacier in (8a)) has been part of the scene (= present on the same plane of contiguity). This leads to the notion of zero contact, or minimal co-presence. There are, of course, problematic distinctions – for instance, between zero contact and the situation of ‘being there, alongside’ (which, in P., is an important type of contact: Ту zeds’, my v vozdukhe odnom (366)); or between zero contact and ‘being in the same line of vision’ (e.g. window sill – branch – glacier). Also, for the sake of examples like (12d-f) we should probably posit an all-pervasive zero presence of an “It”-agency.

A special type of zero contact is the relation between an entity and its part or property: although the link itself is by definition quite strong, it is, so to speak, no big news, and therefore hardly a contact at all. Grammatically, such a third party is recruited from a dependent (argument or attribute) of an argument of the RS predicate. Cf.

(17) (а) Они [flowers] росой оттягивают мочки (210);

(b) Смел прусаков с сиденья табурет (333);

(d) Пронзительных иволог крик и явленье/ Китайкой и углем желтило стволы (355).

The overall impression of such images is not the usual “drawing-in” of a new partner from the outside, but rather that of “drawing-out”, or deploying, of some dormant internal reserves: the petals/earlobes of flowers; the seat of the stool; the thunder aspect of the thunderstorm; and, most interestingly, the black-and-yellow color of orioles.

We can now specify the constraints on RS and IS in each figurative voice; for instance, in ITP, IS is a triple contact, while in RS, there are no triple contacts, all entities are linked (by at least zero contacts) and two of the participants of IS are linked by an above-the-zero contact.

Operations. The rules that transform RS into IS (in ITP and other “voices”) fall into three main groups: rules increasing the power of the predicate (= the number of its arguments); those reducing this power; and those modifying the predicate’s relations with its arguments (without affecting it numerically).

Increase can be achieved either by adding new arguments, i.e. drawing in (or out) the third party (as in (8) and (17)); or by splitting an argument into two, as in the alternative reading of (11b), where the smoke is both the pursuer and the staircase; cf. also

(18) (а) По улицам шеренгой куцых карлиц/ Бульвары тянут сумерки свои (376);

(b) …Литейного, лентой рулетки/ Раскатывающего на роликах плит/ Во все запустенье проспекта/ Штиблетную бурю толпы (230);

where, in each case, one and the same “street” entity figures twice, as both subject (“the boulevards”; “the Litejnyj avenue”) and object (“down the streets”; “into the entire emptiness of the avenue”).

Among reductions, the reverse of addition is omission of actants, cf. the deletion of the object of grabbing in (8b), and similar deletions in (19):

(19) (а) Ивы нависли, целуют в ключицы (123),

(b) …бульвар…/ скамью дождем растительным кропит (309);

In (19a) P. omits the persons kissed, in (19b), the trees shedding the leaves, and in (19c) the light that does the marking.

The other reductive operation is fusion (= the opposite of splitting), which maps two entities from RS onto one actant in IS. Purely technical fusion occurs whenever the RS predicates have common arguments, which, of course, will figure only once each in IS (unless there is splitting, see above), e.g. the porch, the beloved’s shoulders and the branch in (11a). More interesting poetically is the figurative equation of distinct entities, which results, in IS, in double actants, cf.

(20) (а) И бритве ветра тучи гриву/ Подбрасывает духота (206);

(b) Луч солнца, как лимонный морс,/ 3атек во впадины и ямки/ И лужей света в льдину вмерз (472);

Note the varying degrees of fusion: in (20a) two of the three actants are ideally and symmetrically double (“wind”/”razor”; “cloud”/”mane”); in (20b) there is one harmonious hybrid (luža sveta, i.e. “melted-and-then-frozen-again part of the ice’/ ‘portion of sunlight”); as for (20c), in its double actant (pyl’ca “pollen/ “[the speaker-lover’s] lips”) one of the two fused entities (“lips”) is reduced to a very tenuous implicit presence, – a frequent case, best described as fusion + omission.

The mоdifying operation of sсгamb1ing is the most voice-like of all – it inverts the “normal” order of a predicate’s actants:

(21) (а) …проселок влек/Колеса по песку в разлог (237);

(b) See(18b).

In both cases, the roadway (dirt road; avenue) becomes the subject-agent, while the subjects that really move (crowd/ its shoes; carriage/ wheels) are demoted to the role of passive objects.

The other type of modification does not change either the number or the order of actants, but intensifies the contact itself, e.g.

(22) (а) Скользит, задевая парами за ивы/ Захлебывающийся локомотив (215);

(b) …потолок/ Тащил второй этаж па третий (238);

In (22a) the locomotive touches the trees with the smoke as if with something solid, rather than merely envelop them; in (22b) a forcefully dynamic “dragging” replaces the static “connecting”; and in (22c) the “drowning” is a stronger version of “seeing [the trees against the sky]”. Intensification and scrambling often combine, as in

(23) Там белкою кидался в пихту кедр (336),

where the agent is demoted to instrument (RS = “squirrel jumps from tree to tree”), while peaceful jumping is intensified into aggression.

The six operations (and their subtypes) differ significantly in the effects they produce. Drawing-in, drawing-out, and splitting, as increases, make the structure both more coherent and more cluttered, but differ as to extra- or intra-version. Reductive transformations can hardly promote cluttering; rather, they help with coherence, in particular, with direct confrontation of disparate entities. Finally, modifications contribute to the effect of metonymic redefinition of contacts, in particular, to the strengthening of “insignificant” ones.

These expressive effects combine with one another when the elementary operations form complex constructions – the actual Pasternakian voices. For instance, ITP, which has to go from a 2-place predicate to a 3-place one, must use addition, often involves modification, and can include reduction (if a powerful increase has produced a surplus of actants). This formulation makes room for a variety of different subtypes of ITP. Other figurative voices are defined by various other superpositions of elementary operations.

Motivations. Figurative voices sound so natural in P. because they are made very much at home by the entire structure of his poetic world. At the most general level, they are in accord with the four principles: contact, demotion, emanation, cluttering. At the level of deep invariants, the voices are often connected with such Pasternakian motifs as the ‘sinister’ (e.g., the smoke chasing the woman in (11b)), the contact between thie physical and the incorporeal (e.g. the dipping of midnight into high grass); etc.9 On more concrete levels, the troping is supported by phonetic similarities; by morphological ambiguities (in particular, ambiguous Instrumentals); by the syntactic unity of the clause or sentence and by syntactic ambiguities (in particular, long concatenations of parallel noun phrases which obscure the structure); by lexical double-entendres – puns, paronomasias, wordplay; by semantic similarities between different components of RS (common actants and other shared features); and by various modalities, which make the figurative claim less categorical and thus more acceptable (cf. the subjunctive b in (11a); questions in (12b, c); the modal phrase tak i rvalsja in (15e); the future tense of prokatiš’ in (17c); or negations, as in Vot put’ perebežal plotinu,/ Na prud ne posmotrevši vbok (466)).

More essential than such general and/or external motivations is the type of figurative link forged between RS and IS. Often it is purely metonymical; then the figurative predicate (= the master trope of IS) is basically the same as one of the predicates in RS, only somehow adapted to subsume the other contiguous predicates and actants. For instance, in (7) the movement of clouds finds its place in the government model of human walking, “X walks with Y down Z to Q…,” which has to accommodate such unlikely companions as “Y =- clouds”. Or, in (11a), the master verb “X touches Y with Z” is provided by the woman’s touching the overhanging branches with her shoulders; it is then predicated on the porch and brings the three (shoulders, branch, porch) together.

Although in pure metonymies all the building materials are from the start there in RS, the figurative leap can, due to disparity between the superimposed entities, be quite unexpected. Thus, in (20c), in order to fill the government model “X kissed Y with Z” (provided by the implicitly present “lovers”), the newly drawn-in actants, which, in RS, were merely there (“evening”) or wafted by (“pollen”), had to be sculpted into more solid presences (…večer/ Iz pyli lepilsja…); cf. also, in (15f), the “raking together with a scoop” transferred from roasted chestnuts to people gathered around the stoves.

In most cases, metonymy is supplemented with metaphor. This is quite obvious when, in order to cover the IS, new and strikingly original predicates are brought in from outside the RS (i.e. from the axis of similarity); cf. the “razor shaving the mane” in (20a), “the unwinding of tape-measure” in (18h), or the “drowning of trees in the sky” in (22c). Or the metaphorical element can be less conspicuous, as in (22a), where the intensification of “enveloping with smoke” into “touching with smoke” is patterned on some imaginary but very unspecific situation involving solid objects.

Of course, P.’s “futuristic” predilection for metonymy and obliteration of subjects tends to obscure metaphorical presences. Hence, even when such a presence has to be postulated for analytic purposes, e.g. in

(24) Тенистая по.точъ стоит у пути,/ На шлях навалилась звездaми(135),

one can still have trouble picturing its corporeal forms (a woman leaning with stars as her breasts on the road?). Yet, P.’s avoidance of metaphor should not be exaggerated. Note such clearly drawn (“symbolist”? “surrealist”?) master similes as “sun = drunkard” and “landscape = barber” in

(25) (а) Солнце садится, и пьяницей/ Издали, с целью прозрачной/ Через оконницу тянется/ К хлебу и рюмке коньячной (486);

(b) Похоже, огромный, как тень, брадобрей/ Мокает в пруды дерева и ограды/ И звякает бритвой об рант галерей. (98)

* * *

My tentative remarks onP.’s figurative voices have completely left out diachrony. As a token tribute to its relevance 10, I will conclude with an analysis of a classic line by one of P.’s most influential mentors – Afanasij Fet:

(26) Что оно [the sun] горячим светом/ По листам затрепетало

The strikingly ungrammatical and “Pasternakian” IS

(27) sun quivered on leaves with hot rays

can be derived as follows:

(28) RS: the sun lit the leaves with its rays and/while = [zero

contact] the leaves quivered in the wind

After scrambling one of the predicates:

(29) Листья затрепетали на ветру => Ветер затрепетал на листьях,

the two predicates are superimposed – in a complex operation comprising addition, fusion, and intensification (of “sun’s” impact on “leaves”). This results in:

(30) IS’: *The sun/wind lit/quivered on the leaves with its rays,

which, after the omission of “wind” from the double subject and of “lighting” from the double predicate, yields, roughly, IS = (27) = (26). The trope is purely metonymical. It is not an ITP, for it starts off with a triple and a binary contact and ends up with a triple one, but it enhances the coherence of the depicted landscape (light, wind, leaves, temperature, physical impact) in much the same way as Pasternak’s figurative voices do on a systematic basis.

NOTES

1 Figures in parentheses after quotations refer to pages in Pasternak (1965), except those exceeding 600, which refer to Pasternak (1959).

2 On P.’s original use of the future tense see Zholkovsky (1985).

3 On invariant motifs and referential and stylistic domains see Zholkovsky (1984a).

4 See Zholkovsky (1984a, 147-149).

5 A detailed account of (8a) should reflect the speaker’s implicit line of vision: window sill – lilac – glacier; and in (80), the deleted object of grabbing (= the speaker) and the additional predicates in the subordinate clause (“in order to prevent from being hit by the bumpers”) should be included in the picture.

6 A different reading of (11b) is equally plausible, with figurative, rather than real, staircases, formed by the spiraling puffs of smoke: this accounts better for the “winding staircases”.

7 Gogol even has the word trotuar in the preceding sentence.

8 Lotman analyzed an unfinished early fragment existing in several variants (see Pasternak 1969), e.g.: Как читать мне? Оплыли слова/ Aх, oткуда, откуда сквожу я/ В плошках строк разбираю едва/ Гонит мною страницу чужую.

9 On the ‘sinister’ in P. see Zholkovsky (1984b), on the meeting of extremes, Zholkovsky (1984a, 140).

10 For attempts at structural diachrony of P.’s poetics see Nilsson (1978), Livingstone (1978), Zholkovsky (1985). A systematic study of an invariant (e.g. a voice like ITP) as it changes through P.’s three periods is called for.

REFERENCES

Jakobson, R..: 1969, The prose of the poet Pasternak”, in D. Davie and A. Livingstone (eds.), Pasternak. Modern Judgements, Aurora Publishers, Inc., Nashville/London, 135-151.

Livingstone, A..: 1978, ‘Pasternak’s last poetry’, in Victor Erlich (ed.), Pasternak. A Collection of Critical Essays, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 166-175.

Lotman, Yu.: 1978, ‘Language and reality in the early Pasternak’, in Victor Erlich (ed.), Pasternak. A Collection of Critical Essays,, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2131.

Nilsson, N. A.: 1978, ‘Life as ecstasy and sacrifice: Two poems by Boris Pasternak’, in Victor Erlich (ed.), Pasternak. A Collection of Critical Essays, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 51-67.

Pasternak, В.: 1959, Doktor Živago. Societé d’Edition et d’lmpression Mondiale.

Pasternak, В.: 1960, Three letters’. Encounter 15 (August), 36.

Pasternak, В.:1965, Stixotvorenija i роeту, Sovetskij pisatel’, Moskva.

Pasternak, В.: 1969, [Publication by E. V. Pasternak, Trudy po znakovym sistemam (Tartu). 4, 239-281.

Zholkovsky, A.: 1984a, Themes and Texts. Toward a Poetics of expressiveness, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.

Zholkovsky, A.: 1984b, The “sinister” in the poetic world of Pasternak, International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and PoeticsXXIX (forthcoming).

Zholkovsky, A.: 1985, ‘Mexanizmy vtorogo roždenija: О stixotvorenii Pasternaka “Mne xočetsja domoj, v ogromnost’…”‘, Sinlaksis14 (Paris) (forthcoming).