In this dissertation, I argue that the locus of Tsvetaevaseemingly conflicted views about art and the criteria for its evaluation is the tension between the rational, ethical, and distinctively human in us, and the irrational spontaneous impulse. Tsvetaevaterm for the irrational impulse is stikhiia, a force of nature that is characterized by a creative striving. Stikhiia, on Tsvetaevaview, is not unique to humans. Plants and animals are driven to grow and reproduce in virtue of the same force. But in humans stikhiia finds its unique expression due to the human possession of the faculty of the will. Insofar as humans come to be possessed by stikhiia, they experience an urge to reproduce, create, and dissolve in the larger we or a grand ideal. In her poetry and critical writings, Tsvetaeva examines different dimensions and expressions of stikhiia, from the revolutionary impulse that drives the masses, to erotic passion, to artistic creation, to all-embracing and indiscriminate motherly love. Yet stikhiia, on Tsvetaevaview, is not the only type of human motivation, and it would be misleading to characterize all human activity as stemming from this single source. Humans are also moved to act by principles they reflectively endorse, and can rule themselves in accordance with rationally adopted laws. On Tsvetaevaview, stikhiia and the rationally adopted principles and values can come into conflict. A work of art, she argued, is a result of a conflict in which the artist managed to maintain a balance between the two impulses through an act of will. Works that have been produced through an act of will alone are products of an uninspired craft. By contrast, those that have come into being through stikhiia that was not mastered by the artistwill collapse into undisciplined mutterings and formless visions. As Tsvetaeva argues in her seminal essay (Art in the Light of Conscience, 1932), a genuine work of art can only be produced by an artist who masters stikhiia through an act of will. In the opening chapter, I examine Tsvetaevacycle Лебединый Стан (The Demesne of the Swans, 1917-1920). I show that in it Tsvetaeva raises a problem for herself as a poet: what is the poetrole in the morally destitute time? Tsvetaevanarrator becomes increasingly self-conscious of the need to articulate her mission. On the one hand, she must be guided by the power and the sheer forcefulness of stikhiia, exemplified in the poems by the figure of the faceless and nameless masses, natural forces, and the vengeful God enacting obscure dark laws. On the other hand, she must be attuned to her inner ethical disposition, her conscience. While stikhiia is a source of inspiration, the force that gives her voice and elicits a response, a conscience would silence her, revealing her singing as inappropriate. Torn in this way, Tsvetaevapoetic narrator attempts to reconcile the tension by discovering an ethical dimension to her poetic project. Her mission, as an ethically minded poet, will be two-fold: to preserve an account of the virtues that are lost and forgotten in the revolutionary chaos; and to retain the memory of the virtuous defenders of the ordered world whose valor will be suppressed and distorted by the historical narrative of the morally indiscriminate victors. What inspired the poem is the inherently productive force of stikhiia; but it is equally important that stikhiia rages against something enduring and active. On my reconstruction of Tsvetaevathinking, the poet is inspired by the tension that emerged between stikhiia and those that oppose it due to their rectitude and ability to stand their ground in the face of danger. I go on to examine Tsvetaevanotoriously difficult and controversial essay 1932). In this essay, Tsvetaeva argues that art is essentially amoral “ even more radically, that great art puts conscience to sleep. Insofar as an artist is guided by her conscience, her artistic achievements will be limited and her creative powers compromised. Yet a close reading of Tsvetaevatypology of artists shows that she does not think that great art is necessarily immoral “ indeed, that would be a counterfactual. So how can great art be compatible with the requirements of morality? Tsvetaevalucid analysis reminds us that artists are human beings, and so are bound by the moral requirements appropriate to humans. Insofar as they are artists, they should not create from the requirements of their conscience; but their creation may conform, if they are lucky, to the demands that their conscience places on them as human persons. Tsvetaevaown self-conception in which she dealt with the tension between poet and human being implicitly, comes into sharper relief in the context of this later discussion: an artist may create poems that express or preserve ethical truths, but she cannot do it because shebound by moral duty, or by the voice of conscience. Once the poet makes an explicit attempt to meet the distinctively ethical demands, she becomes a chronicler (letopisets). Being a poet does not free a human being of her moral duties just as being a human being does not relieve a poet of a morally indiscriminate calling to create. This leads me to focus on the dimension of stikhiia so central in Tsvetaevapoetry: erotic passion, and its power to inspire the artist to create her works. For Marina Tsvetaeva, both poet and lover are inspired by stikhiia. She thinks that a poet, insofar as she is a creator of works of art, is exempt from ethical considerations; yet she is ethically responsible insofar as she is a human being. An excellent artist may be an ethically failed individual, just as an ethically successful individual may destroy herself as an artist. Tsvetaevaperspective on erotic passion is structurally similar, and my next chapter focuses on the issue of erotic impulse and Tsvetaevaultimate rejection of erotic desire as an authoritative ground for action. My reading suggests that on her view, a virtuoso lover may be an ethical failure; conversely, an ethically successful person may be a boring lover. Tsvetaeva experiments with different models for reconciling the tension between eros and art within stikhiia; and the conflict between stikhiia-driven phenomena (erotic urge, artistic impulse, the revolutionary impulse) and ethical requirements. On her considered view, art takes precedence over eros (as well as other expressions of stikhiia), and ethics takes precedence over all stikhiia-driven phenomena, including art. But even an ethically responsible individual may nevertheless be tempted to excuse herself from moral requirements by the promise of brute power that stikhiia gives. I conclude the dissertation by attending to the types of love Marina Tsvetaeva finds less likely to be determined by stikhiia and thus compatible with ethical requirements, sometimes even enhancing the ethical tendencies: the ideals of maternal love, and the love between a teacher and a pupil. Traditional erotic love is ethically problematic, selfish, partial, and fleeting. It also threatens to destroy the artist by channeling all of the stikhiia-generated powers into the love-making. Because both art and love are essentially creative and aim at reproduction, they compete, thus leading to the extinguishing of the creative impulse. On the basis of Tsvetaeva1929 poem (Perekop), I examine her concept of peoplecompassion (narodnoe sostradanie) and develop an analysis of compassionate love that must be universally extended to all victims of terrible events and precedes the ethically relevant distinctions between the fallen (such as ˜good™ and ˜bad,™ ˜right™ and ˜wrong™). The beloveds are loved without having done anything to earn the love, just in virtue of their vulnerability and humanness in the face of an impossible situation. This ultimate form of love as compassion and understanding leads Tsvetaeva to reconceive of her poetic mission in her later poetry. It is no longer limited to preserving the memory of worthy beloveds and ensuring their immortality and salvation in the work of art because of their inherent merits; the poet also has a duty to mourn all of the willing and unwitting victims of the terrible historical events, extending her love to all of the fallen as if they were equally entitled to it, and refusing to succumb to hate despite their crimes. The poet thus emerges not just as a history-maker and a truth-teller, but a specially selected moral agent whose burden it is to extend the gift of compassion and understanding to the worthy and the unworthy alike.']

Last modified

• 11/24/2019

Creator

• Max Rosochinsky

DOI

• https://doi.org/10.21985/n2-m85w-sd62

Subject

• Slavic Languages and Literatures

Keyword

• Russian Literature
• 20th Century Russian Poetry
• Marina Tsvetaeva

Date created

• 2018-01-01

Resource type

• Dissertation

Rights statement

• In Copyright