My thanks to Catherine Ciepiela, Beth Holmgren, Catharine Nepomnyashchy and Katherine O'Connor, who commented on earlier versions of this essay presented at the 1991 AATSEEL Pushkin panel and the 1992 Amherst Siniavskii symposium. My research on Siniavskii, part of a larger project on myths of Pushkin in Russian culture, has been generously supported by a National Endowment for the Humanities fellowship for college teachers, a Social Science Research Council post-doctoral fellowship and the Amherst College research award program.

1. Helena Tolstoy, “From Susanna to Sarra: Chekhov in 1886-1887,” Slavic Review 50, no. 3 (Fall 1991): 590-600.

2. These sentences about nationalism and sexuality owe much to Mosse, George, Nationalism and Sexuality: Middle-Class Morality and Sexual Norms in Modern Europe (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Parker, Andrew, Russo, Mary, Sommer, Doris and Yaeger, Patricia, eds. Nationalisms and Sexualities (New York: Routledge, 1992 Google Scholar; and, in the comments about gender and triangular desire, Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky, Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985 Google Scholar. On the associations of Jewishness with sexual excess and bodily monstrousness, see Gilman, Sander, The Jew's Body (New York: Routledge, 1991 Google Scholar.

3. The attacks on Siniavskii and Iulii Daniel’ and some letters written in their defense can be read in a convenient volume, Tsena metafory, Hi prestuplenie i nakazanie Siniavskogo i Danielia (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo “Kniga”: 1989), 16-56. This is the only publication to date of Siniavskii's writings in book form in Russia.

4. Siniavskii himself called attention to the similarity between these two stages in branding him an “enemy of the people” —first anti-Soviet, then anti-Russian. See Andrei Siniavskii, “Dissidentstvo kak lichnyi opyt,” Sintaksis, no. 15 (1986): 131-47, esp. 146-47. The essay has been translated into English as “Dissent as a Personal Experience,” tr. Maria-Regina Kecht, Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature, no. 31 (1982): 21-29.

5. Gul’ characterizes Abram Terts generally as an infectious disease, as less talented than Dmitrii Pisarev (from whom Gul’ claims that Siniavskii plagiarized his tide—compare Pisarev's 1865 “Progulka po sadam rossiiskoi slovesnosti”; one supposes that Gul’ has not heard of such common antecedents as Rousseau's “Reveries d'un Promeneur Solitair” or the peripatetic teachings of Socrates). Solzhenitsyn writes with sarcasm and wit but his criticisms seem disproportionate and rather thick, particularly when he tediously “proves” that Pushkin's writings were rich in philosophical content despite Siniavskii's claim for their emptiness. See Roman Gul', “Progulki khama s Pushkinym,” Novyi zhurnal, 124 (1976): 117-29; Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,” … Koleblet tvoi trenozhnik,” Vestnik Russkogo Khristianskogo dvizheniia, 142 (1984): 133-52.

6. The charge of collaboration or switching sides has continued to haunt writing about Siniavskii. This must be behind the pointed question about whether he served his full prison sentence in the interview conducted by Feliks Medvedev, “Besedy s Andreem Siniavskim i Mariei Rozanovoi o Pushkine, i ne tol'ko o nem,” Knizhnoe obozrenie, no. 4 (26 January 1990): 8-9; see 8.

7. See “Progulki s Pushkinym. Fragment,” Oktiabr', no. 4 (1989): 192-99. The Moscow journal Voprosy literatury published the Pushkin book in full in the seventh, eighth and ninth “1990” issues of the journal that appeared late in 1991. For their forum on the book, see “Obsuzhdenie knigi Abrama Tertsa Progulki s Pushkinym,” no. 10 (1990): 77-153. An excellent account of the journalistic and cultural battles occasioned by the publication of a fragment from Progulki s Pushkinym is in Catharine Theimer Nepomnyashchy, “Andrei Sinyavsky's ‘Return’ to the Soviet Union,” Formations 6, no. 1 (Spring 1991): 24-44. Gul''s essay was partly reprinted by the right-wing Literaturnaia Rossiia, no. 26 (30 June 1989): 18-19. For a full listing of essays attacking the book, as well as those in Siniavskii's defense, see Nepomnyashchy.

8. Igor’ Shafarevich, “Rusofobiia,” Nash sovremennik, no. 6 (1989): 167-92; the reference to Siniavskii is on 185. For the comparison to Rushdie, see Shafarevich, “Fenomen emigratsii,” Literaturnaia Rossiia, no. 36 (8 September 1989): 5.

9. See Andrei Siniavskii, “Russkii natsionalizm,” Sintaksis, no. 26 (1989): 91-110; tr. Dale E. Peterson, “Russian Nationalism,” Massachusetts Review 31, no. 4 (Winter 1990): 475-94. For the best known instance of Solzhenitsyn's statements against the liberal tolerance that Siniavskii represents, see Solzhenitsyn, “Nashi pliuralisty,” Vestnik Russkogo Khristianskogo dvizheniia, no. 139 (1983): 133-60; tr. into English as “Our Pluralists,” Vbum«Z of East and West Studies 29, no. 2/125 (Summer 1985): 1-28. In “Nashi pliuralisty,” Solzhenitsyn repeats Gul “s insinuation about Siniavskii's release from the labor camps having occurred early (150, Russian text).

10. I will be focusing on, the Pushkin book, but it should be noted that Siniavskii's other writings since his emigration have drawn their share of public hostility. For a furious review of his Gogol’ book, see R. Pletnev, “O zlom suemudrii knigi Abrama Tertsa,” Novyi zhurnal, no. 121 (1975): 72-80.

11. Abram Terts, Progulki s Pushkinym (London: Overseas Publication Interchange, 1975), 17. Further citations from this book will be indicated in the text with pagenumber references only. The translations throughout are my own unless otherwise indicated; in this case, the translation comes from Catharine Nepomnyashchy and Slava Yastremsky's translation in progress of Strolls With Pushkin, as cited in Nepomnyashchy, “Strolling with Abram Terts: Space, Time and Culture in Strolls With Pushkin,” presented at the 1992 Amherst Siniavskii symposium.

12. See Siniavskii's interviews with T. Putrenko, “Pushkin—nash smeiushchiisia genii,” Literaturnaia gazeta (8 August 1990): 7; and with Grigorii Nekhoroshev, “'Tam my shchitaemsia krasnymi … ,” Knizhnoe obozrenie, no. 2 (13 January 1989): 3.

13. M. Rozanova, “K istorii i geografii etoi knigi,” Voprosy literatury, no. 10 (1990): 159-60. See also her comments in an interview she and Siniavskii did with Samuil Lur'e, “Abrashka Terts, professor iz Sorbonny,” Literator, no. 20 (25) (1990): 4-5; see esp. 4.

14. Viacheslav Vozdvizhenskii, “Progulki s Shafarevichem i bez … ,” Strana i mir, no. 6 (1989): 166-71; see 167 on Siniavskii's preference for figurative and exaggerated expression.

15. Compare Siniavskii's comments that the most important and radical thing about his writing is its style. For example “Dissidentstvo kak lichnyi opyt,” 132-33.

16. My argument here draws on Paul de Man's arguments about the philosophical tradition, specifically about Locke, Condillac and others (and his work draws on that of Jacques Derrida). See de Man, “The Epistemology of Metaphor,” On Metaphor, ed. Sheldon Sacks (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 11-28. De Man's opening sentence gives some sense of how his argument informs my own: “Metaphors, tropes, and figural language in general have been a perennial problem and, at times, a recognized source of embarrassment for philosophical discourse and, by extension, for all discursive uses of language including historiography and literary analysis” (11); his essay discusses the “epistemological damage” that figural language potentially does to philosophy and how philosophy works to contain the damage.

17. Some of Siniavskii's most aggressive attackers have tried to vanquish the vampire with the shining sun, among them Evgenii Sergeev in “Obsuzhdenie knigi Abrama Tertsa,” 85; a letter from multiple Leningrad authors published as “Antikul'tura” in Literaturnaia Rossiia, no. 39 (29 September 1989): 20. Others have resorted to reiterating Pushkin's “sainthood'1: Sergei Nebol'sin,” Obsuzhdenie knigi Abrama Tertsa, “117; the editors’ statement in Literaturnaia Rossiia, no. 37 (15 September 1989): 16; V. Gusev,” Kraine ser'ezno,” Literaturnaia Rossiia, no. 38 (22 September 1989): 8.

18. One critic, Dmitrii Urnov, called this the “scandalous posing of a serious question.” See his comments in “Obsuzhdenie knigi Abrama Tertsa,” 139. Siniavskii uses a similar analysis of the theatrical dimensions of a tragic situation in his essay about Stalin: “Stalin—geroi i khudozhnik stalinskoi epokhi,” Sintaksis, no. 19 (1987): 106-25.

19. Abram Terts, V teni Gogolia (Paris: “Sintaksis,” 1981), 7.

20. Compare the argument of Grigorii Pomerants that V teni Gogolia, Progulki s Pushkinym and Golos iz khora (A Voice from the Chorus, 1973) form a trilogy. He makes this point in “Strastnaia odnostoronnost’ i besstrastie dukha. Stat'ia pervaia,” Strana i mir, no. 1 (1984): 101-14, esp. 106. In a revised version, this essay appeared as “Diaspora i Abrashka Terts,” Iskusstvo kino, no. 2 (1990): 20-26. A different trilogy (the books on Pushkin, Gogol', and Rozanov) was suggested by Sara W. Fenander's presentation at the 1991 AATSEEL meetings, “The Rozanov Line of Terts/Siniavskii's Literary Genealogy.”

21. The restless pacing motion is also used strikingly to characterize Golos iz khora (London: Stenvalley Press, 1973), again in the very beginning of the book, its epigraph (7). While Golos iz khora is also a kind of companion to the book on Pushkin, composed as it was from letters from the camp and formally exaggerating the structure of Progulki s Pushkinym, my own sense is that the link between the books on Pushkin and Gogol’ is more complex and more telling. The beginning of the latter picks up on the ending of the former. This linkage suggests their continuity but Siniavskii further plays on the possible reversals between endings and beginnings in V teni Gogolia. Thus the first chapter is called an epilogue, the last entitled “The Dead Are Risen: Forward—To the Sources” ( “Mertvye voskresaiut.Vpered—k istokam!” ).

22. V teni Gogolia was, of course, completed after Siniavskii's release. But the question of whether Progulki s Pushkinym was actually written in the camps has recurred in attacks on the book since the first insinuations among emigre writers. See the trenchant response of M. Rozanova, “K istorii i geografii etoi knigi,” 155-56.

23. See Gul', “Progulki khama s Pushkinym,” 124-25, for the assertion that it is “Tens,” not Pushkin, who resembles Khlestakov.

24. For example, in arguing how differently their egos worked, 64-65.

25. Leonid Batkin, “Siniavskii, Pushkin—i my,” Oktiabr1, no. 1 (1991): 177.

26. Gogol’ writes: “It was only Pushkin's lot to manifest in himself this independent sense of being, this resonant echo that responds to every single sound in the air. When we think of any poet, we get some sort of idea of what his sense of self is like. […] Only Pushkin has nothing of the kind. What can you grasp about Pushkin himself in his writings? Try to catch hold of his disposition as a person! In its stead the same wonderful image appears, an image responsive to everything except itself.” Cited from N. V. Gogol', Sobranie sochinenii, 7 vols. (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1986), 6: 333-34.Google Scholar

27. In fact, a recent essay about Pushkin did make this comparison by way of introduction: L. Rassovskaia and S. Agranovich, “Vokrug Pushkina,” Oktiabr1, no. 6 (1990): 189-96, comparison on 189.

28. Vozdvizhenskii, “Progulki s Shafarevichem i bez …,” 169.

29. Compare M. Rozanova's literalizing paraphrase of the passage on erotic legs in “Abrashka Tens, professor iz Sorbonny,” 4.

30. When Vozdvizhenskii cited these lines, he showed his discomfort with the image in adding that he had no idea what it meant and he introduced the quotation as an example of Siniavskii writing the impermissible ( “nepozvolitel'nye veshchi” ). See Vozdvizhenskii, “Progulki s Shafarevichem i bez … ,” 168.

31. I am adding a bit to the intriguing argument found in Barber, Paul, Vampires, Burial, and Death: Folklore and Reality (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.Google Scholar

32. Perkowski, Jan L., The Darkling: A Treatise on Slavic Vampirism (Columbus, OH: Slavica, 1989)Google Scholar, esp. 18-36.

33. Pushkin's Pesni zapadnykh slavian (Songs of the Western Slavs, 1834) translates and transforms a vampire tale—no. 13, “Vurdalak”; Pushkin, Sobranie sochinenii, 10 vols. (Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo “Nauka,” 1977-1979), 3: 282-83. For the Russian folktale version of a vampire tale, see “Upyr',” in Biblioteka russkogo fol'klora, Skazki, (Moscow: Sovetskaia Rossiia, 1989), 2: 421-24.

34. Solzhenitsyn,” …Koleblet tvoi trenozhnik,” 137.

35. “Obsuzhdenie knigi Abrama Tertsa,” 150.

36. Note the representation of sexual danger as contagion and thus as disease in the comments of Roman Gul’ (see footnote 5 above); in Iurii Davydov's contribution to “Obsuzhdenie knigi Abrama Tertsa,” 135-37; compare Nepomniashchii's contribution to “Obsuzhdenie knigi Abrama Tertsa,” 144-45, where he uses metaphors of filth and dirt.

37. Solzhenitsyn, “ … Koleblet tvoi trenozhnik,” 137.

38. In his recent study of Russian folk culture, Siniavskii writes eloquendy of the power of associative logic (he calls it sviazyvanie) in the skazha, drawing examples from both the language of skazki, where verbal repetitions and transformations can motivate the plot and the images of the tales, including bridges, roads and weaving. Siniavskii locates the aesthetic pleasure of the tales in part in these connections and linkages. See A. Siniavskii, Ivan-durak: Ocherk russkoi narodnoi very (Paris: “Sintaksis,” 1991), 89-100.

39. It may be relevant here that camp slang includes provocations with decidedly homosexual implications using imagery of blowing, bursting, etc. See Vladimir Kozlovskii, Argq russkoi gomoseksual'noi subktd'tury (New York: Chalidze, 1986), 98. Kozlovskii defines one other term that may explain the imagery of Solzhenitsyn's “labyrinth” passage: he gives kostochka as another term for male member (51). I comment below on how homophobic taunts are used in the Progidki s Pushkinym controversy.

40. See, for example, Ellis Hanson, “Undead,” Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories, ed. Diana Fuss (New York: Routledge, 1991), 324-40, who notes the frequent appearance of the vampire in writing about AIDS; and Sue-Ellen Case, “Tracking the Vampire,” Differences 3, no. 2 (Summer 1991): 1-20 for a meditation on lesbian subjectivity and a desire that is imagined as wounding. Christopher Craft takes as his premise that “vampirism both expresses and distorts an originally sexual energy,” it represents desire “under the defensive mask of monstrosity”; he cites a formulation that seems especially relevant to Solzhenitsyn— “'the identity of desire and fear.'” See Christopher Craft, ‘ “Kiss Me with Those Red Lips': Gender and Inversion in Bram Stoker's Dracula,” Speaking of Gender, ed. Elaine Showalter (New York: Roudedge, 1989), 216; Craft cites Franco Moretti, Signs Taken for Wonders (London: Verso, 1983), 100.

41. Craft, ‘ “Kiss Me with Those Red Lips, '” 220.

42. See Margaret Dalton, Andrei Siniavskii and Julii Daniel': Two Soviet ‘Heretical’ Writers (Wurzburg: Jal-Verlag, 1973), 130-31. Dalton offers acute observations about the modernist body represented in “Pkhents” and links diem to Siniavskii's knowledge of modern art (95), but this point is subsequendy lost.

43. Dmitrii Eremin, “Perevertyshi,” Izvestiia (13 January 1966), reprinted in Tsena metafory, 22.

44. The example of homophobic language in the controversy over Progulki s Pushkinym deserves further study in the fuller context of representations of homosexuality in Russian culture. I have given examples from two cultural contexts that one would otherwise presume to be different: in “Perevertyshi” the context is official, Soviet and backed by legal sanctions that made (and make) male homosexual acts illegal; in the Solzhenitsyn quotations, the context is presumably a conversation among dissident activists, but also the labor camps (see footnote 39 above) where “being queer” is one of the sharpest insults aimed by prisoners at each other. (For political prisoners, the charge of being complicit with the authorities would also be powerfully insulting and it, too, is used by Solzhenitsyn and others in their attacks on Siniavskii, as discussed above.) On the disdainful attitudes of some former political prisoners toward homosexuality, see Kozlovskii, Argo russkoi gomoseksual'noi subkul'tury, 110.

45. Cited from Eremin, “Perevertyshi,” in Tsena metafory, 22. The passage comes from Siniavskii's “Sud idet,” also reprinted in Tsena metafory, 288. The English translation is from Abram Tertz [Andrei Sinyavsky], The Trial Begins and On Socialist Realism, tr. George Dennis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 25.

46. This is quite die opposite of what is argued by Margaret Dalton who reads Siniavskii's characters’ views as his own. In Andrei Siniavskii and Julii Daniel', Dalton also notes the “absence of convincing, three-dimensional, sympathetic feminine characters in his fiction” (131). Her judgment requires an inappropriate realism in the psychology of characters in Siniavskii's fantastic tales and makes it seem as if the only feminist judgments to be made are those of locating “positive” or “negative” women characters.

47. By the end of the essay Solzhenitsyn has come up with a dance form more acceptable to his image of Pushkin, not surprisingly the traditional Slavic round dance known as the “khorovod.”

48. Solzhenitsyn, “ … Koleblet tvoi trenozhnik,” 136.

49. These metaphors have been studied well by feminist theorists who have read Freud's essay on “Femininity” critically; see, for example, Luce Irigaray, Speculum of the Other Woman, tr. Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), 112-29.

50. While I know of no essays about gender written by the actual authors of attacks against Siniavskii, there are vivid writings by similarly-minded conservative, nationalist thinkers. See, for example, Valentin Rasputin, “Cherchez la femme,” Nash sovremennik, no. 3 (1990): 168-72; and, in the same issue, Tat'iana Okulova, “Nam dobrye zheny i dobrye materi nuzhny …: Razmyshleniia o zhenshchine i zhenskoi teme v sovremennoi masskul'ture,” 173-87, for a more pointed linkage between patriotic nationalism and conservative views about gender.

51. See the intelligent comments about this scandal by Petr Vail’ and Aleksandr Genis in “Obsuzhdenie knigi Abrama Tertsa,” 124. I am also sympathetic to the observations of Natal'ia Popova about the paucity of Pushkin scholars and Pushkin scholarship in Russia, despite all appearances to the contrary, in “Gall'skii petukh i rusofobiia,” Knizhnoe obozrenie, no. 46 (17 November 1989): 16.

52. An exception is Catharine Nepomnyashchy, “Strolling with Abram Tertz.” See also one of the first published pieces on Progulki s Pushkinym: Natal'ia Rubinshtein, “Abram Terts i Aleksandr Pushkin,” Vremia i my, no. 9 (June 1976): 118-33.