A lecture at the English Language Evenings (formerly the “English Language Discussion Club”) in Moscow given by Tatiana Venediktova, professor at Moscow State University, on 11 January was called “Henry D. Thoreau and Fyodor M. Dostoyevsky: ‘Communication in the Higher Sense’.” Here is my report on the interesting lecture by Professor Venediktova. Henry D. Thoreau and Fyodor M. Dostoyevsky have not previously been compared, but in a way they have a lot in common, though it is hard to believe. To see this it will be useful to compare some facts in common. First of all, on July 4, 1845, Thoreau decided to retire to the woods to meditate and to think about life. Half a year later at Christmas time, Dostoevsky, 28 years old, was arrested for participation in a mildly subversive group, the Petrashevsky Circle, and sentenced first to prison and then to a harsh exile in Siberia for a total of ten years. He was left to his own devices and had plenty of time to think and to reflect. Both of the writers were in exile, though for one it was voluntarily and for the other it was enforced. Then, each of them published a book that became very famous. Thoreau wrote Life in the Woods or Walden and Dostoevsky – Notes from the House of the Dead. Both of these books were on the borderline between fiction and documentary. They were not novels, narrative poems, or plays; there were no clear story lines, no plot lines. Nor were they autobiographies, although much of their contents were based on their authors’ lives. Maybe, this form of writing can be better described as an essay. This French word means an experience, an experiment, an attempt. Both of these publications seemed extravagant at that time, excursive, different from common works. All events in the books took place in one symbolic year cycle. In their works Thoreau and Dostoyevsky were scrutinising questions of life and truth. At that time both of them were experiencing a kind of change, a transformation in their inner worlds. The core simple situation in their books is the same: a simple lonely person on the margins of society tries to communicate with wild nature and with the rest of the world. This theme was very typical in a way at that time. In the 19th-century American culture the concept of nature was very important; it was both a friend and an enemy; a symbolic entity; and a source of transcendental meanings. In the Russian cultural imagination, the relationship with nature was a collective idea of the people living on the earth. This people was uncultured, uncivilised, unfree; but with the richest natural resources available. And here some parallels can be made. Nature writing in America was in the classical form. In Russia “going to the people” (xождение в народ) in the 19th century also produced a similar kind of literature. The protagonists went to nature or to the people and tried to understand them – to engage in their world. Thoreau, a man who believed in God and alludes to that being many times throughout Walden, lets readers know and see that much more in the world is worthy of deep thought and reverence: all that earthly nature has to offer. Thoreau’s communication with nature is predominantly on a frontier. Nature doesn’t speak, it is voiceless; a person and nature cannot hear each other. But according to Thoreau, the further away you are the better communication is. It’s important never to be close; one needs space, distance, freedom of movement. We cannot see the space between our eyes and nose. It is necessary to remain at a certain distance to be able to refocus the vision, to keep it fresh and new. The privilege of distance and the challenge of novelty – this is what we ever gain from nature. A person goes to school in nature – here there is a communication in a higher sense. The way of seeing differs according to the level of the grade you have. The first, the lowest grade, presupposes just looking, staring, essentially passive. But if one rises just a little, it becomes possible to master a higher art of reading. Actually, there is something “fishy’ about the reading: sometimes we make nature mean what we want it to mean. It is a real talent to be able to read. One should keep asking for individuality, retaining distance, rise above reading to a special way of seeing. What can be considered higher than reading or seeing nature as a symbol? “We must be born again in order to speak what we can write.” We should convert to nature. Thoreau followed the ideas of Emerson who defined nature in the following way: “all that is separated from us, all which Philosophy distinguishes as the NOT ME, that is, both nature and art, all other men and my own body, must be ranked under this name, NATURE.” As a reflection of God, nature expressed symbolically the spiritual world that works beyond the physical one. As Thoreau says, the shoulder should be seen as separate from the body. And one should continue asking him/herself: “Who is it?” How can it be understood? As a schizophrenic split of personality or maybe as a loss of subjectivity? It seems as something deeper. “You need to lose yourself to find yourself.” Thoreau is talking in his book about micro-vision, a study of “home-cosmography.” Perhaps the main theme and overbearing concept that Thoreau wishes to convey to readers throughout Walden is that people must recognise the great power and potential for new discovery and enjoyment in their minds. He says that every man lords over a realm, his mind, which makes the earthly empires pale and petty in comparison. “...Explore thyself” – this is Thoreau’s appeal. “Be a Columbus to whole new continents and worlds within you, opening new channels, not of trade, but of thought.” In his book he gives a prescription how to live and to communicate. When our body experiences the sun, it responds to it. With careful observation it is possible to notice and to be aware of what’s going on between you and nature. This is a new and free territory, it is not colonized by clichйs. And one should be aware, pay attention to it. One should not read nature as a letter, but investigate the unconscious processes. Dostoevsky was also first and foremost an explorer, of both the world around him and the world within him. During his exile he was far away from his home with criminals and other unfortunates. It was a compulsory life; but it became his source of insight. The first and most striking impression experienced by the writer was the insistent human noise; voices that could not be escaped. It irritated and mystified him at the same time, as it couldn’t be mastered or disciplined. Gorianchikov, protagonist of Dostoevsky’s Notes from the House of the Dead learnt by hearing. Dostoevsky is talking in his book about education by ear. Such learning allows for interpretation. It’s interesting to see how education proceeds. This was a peculiar experience. Seeing and listening are two different things. Seeing presupposes distances, individualisation, separation. Hearing cannot exist without proximity, other people, etc. Gorianchikov meditates a lot on custom. Привычка (a custom) has the same root as учить (to teach), as well as привыкнуть (to acquire a custom) as выкнути, полюбить (to love). Man is a creature that can become accustomed to everything. It may seem a degradation: how can a man be accustomed to such awful things as a prison, for example. But on the other hand, it shows the flexibility of human nature, a sacrifice, mental stupor versus love. Its functions are accepting, forgiving, saving. There is a power of deeper custom (“Custom is our nature”) becomes the main theme of Dostoevsky’s works. Thoreau’s and Dostoevsky’s works are quite different and no direct comparison can be made among them; here a play with two texts, regular opposition should be made. These two authors are the pride of their nations: according to Americans, Thoreau expresses their feelings and thoughts; and Russians own Dostoevsky for themselves. Here a comparative view of the cultures is required. American culture emphasises visuality and literacy (America starts with a letter), as Russia sticks to empathy. Americans get used to relying under stress on a new instrumental approach (reading and writing). The American fantasy is to walk out and be free; while a very Russian way is to bury down and to be free. Thoreau and Dostoevsky never met. They both were supreme individuals and it is hard to imagine a dialogue between them. And still it’s evident that they had much in common. The two books are written very directly to their readers, and they were intended to provoke thought. Through the narrators’ indirect dialogue they are demonstrating a “higher sense of communication”. By Iana Kraeva Note: For information about English Language Evenings, see www.ELEMoscow.net
|
