Through four hundred years of accumulated disparaging comments from critics, revenge plays have lost much of the original luster they possessed in early modern England. Surprisingly, scholarship on revenge tragedy has invented an unfavorable lens for understanding this genre, and this lens has been relentlessly parroted for decades. The conventional generic approach that calls for revenge plays to exhibit a recurring set of concerns, including a revenge motive, a hesitation for the protagonist, and the revenger’s feigned or actual madness, imply that these plays lack philosophical depth, as the appellation of revenge tends to evoke the trite commonalities which we have created for the genre. This dissertation aims to rectify the provincial views concerning revenge tragedies by providing a more complex, multivalent critical model that makes contemporary the outmoded approaches to this genre. I argue that Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory of carnival, and the ways in which it engages with new historical interpretations of early modern drama, functions as a discursive methodology to open up more creative interpretative possibilities for revenge tragedy. Carnival readings expose gaps in new historicism’s proposed systems of omnipresent power, which deny at every turn the chance for rebellion and individuality. Rather than relegating carnival to an occasional joke, quick aside, or subplot, revenge plays explore carnivalesque concerns, and revengers plot their vengeance with all the aspects of a carnival. In these plays, revengers define subjectivity in terms of the pleasure-seeking, self-serving urges of unofficial culture; negotiations for social change occur in which folk culture avoids a repressive, hierarchal order; and carnival play destabilizes courtly systems that track, classify, pigeonhole, and immobilize individuals.

In his analysis of Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita, Elliot Mason explores the biblical and mythological ancestry of two of the novel’s most under-studied demonic characters: Azazello and Korov′ev-Fagot. Both characters, it is argued, serve important thematic roles within The Master and Margarita, acting as symbols of the oppressed artist, creativity and judgement. Azazello and Korov′ev-Fagot are integral to an eschatological reading of the text, with Korov′ev in particular suggesting new areas of Faustian influence within The Master and Margarita. Azazello’s relevance to the novel is discussed in terms of his relationship with another of Bulgakov’s characters: the demon Abaddon. Through an examination of the biblical, literary and mythological development of the myth of the Azazel-figure throughout history, Mason argues a thematic, and perhaps even more tangible, connection between the two characters. In the context of Bulgakov’s novel, it is argued, Azazello and Abaddon are interrelated, and it is this relationship that sheds new light on the thematic importance of either character to The Master and Margarita. An examination of older, non-canonical biblical texts allows the connection between Azazel and Abaddon to be explored and applied to Bulgakov’s novel. It is argued that Bulgakov himself, upon reading the texts studied, came to many of the same conclusions, and that these conclusions resulted in the connectedness of Azazello and Abaddon within The Master and Margarita. The second chapter of Mason’s study is devoted to tracing the heritage of the character, Kovo′ev-Fagot. A number of references and clues within The Master and Margarita are suggestive of the fact that Bulgakov had a particular literary, mythological or contemporary figure in mind when he created the character. Despite these references, Bulgakovian scholars have so far been unable to identify precisely whom Bulgakov was drawing on as inspiration for Korov′ev. Using the information provided by The Master and Margarita, Mason argues for a reading of Korov′ev-Fagot as the biblical, mythological sea-beast, Leviathan. He further links the character with Mephistopheles, finding a connection between Leviathan and Mephistopheles in a lesser-known version of the Faust legend, which replaces the name of one with the other. An overview of Leviathan’s eschatological and thematic functions, as well as his relationship with Egyptian and Norse chaos serpents, is used in order to provide the demonological background of the figure to a potentially non-specialist audience. The themes explored in this section of the argument are then applied to The Master and Margarita itself, in order to better understand the intended role of Korov′ev-Fagot to Bulgakov’s work. The identification of Korov′ev-Fagot with Leviathan and Mephistopheles, as well as that of Azazello with Abaddon, serves as a foundation of information, compiled in order that future interpretations may hopefully draw from it.

Few spaces have been as tyrannically predetermined as St. Petersburg and Soviet Moscow. This paper aims to present a theoretical narrative delineating the tyranny of space through both Russian capitols by examining both Peter the Great’s and Lenin’s predetermined construction of Russian spaces. First will be an examination of the manner in which Peter the Great undercut authentic Russian tradition by replacing historical with European spatial consciousness. In the second chapter, a few case studies from the history of Russian letters will be provided so as to best demonstrate the continuing anxiety of spatial representation plaguing Russian writers through the nineteenth century. Chapter three concerns Lenin’s spatial despotism. In contrast to Peter the Great, who opened Russia (and Russian consciousness) to the West, Lenin will compress space by reclaiming Russia’s capital of old, Moscow. This compression of space is best embodied in the kitsch, micromanagement, and tyranny of the Soviet communal apartment. Finally, the goal is to show the shift from the highly cerebral production of the place that is St. Petersburg to the unconscious social cues that constituted the mapping, reading, and minute control of Soviet spaces as evidenced in the works of Mikhail Bulgakov’s Heart of a Dog. By defamiliarizing common spaces, Bulgakov points to Russia’s inability to reconcile space with its national identity. / text

In his analysis of Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita, Elliot Mason explores the biblical and mythological ancestry of two of the novel’s most under-studied demonic characters: Azazello and Korov′ev-Fagot. Both characters, it is argued, serve important thematic roles within The Master and Margarita, acting as symbols of the oppressed artist, creativity and judgement. Azazello and Korov′ev-Fagot are integral to an eschatological reading of the text, with Korov′ev in particular suggesting new areas of Faustian influence within The Master and Margarita. Azazello’s relevance to the novel is discussed in terms of his relationship with another of Bulgakov’s characters: the demon Abaddon. Through an examination of the biblical, literary and mythological development of the myth of the Azazel-figure throughout history, Mason argues a thematic, and perhaps even more tangible, connection between the two characters. In the context of Bulgakov’s novel, it is argued, Azazello and Abaddon are interrelated, and it is this relationship that sheds new light on the thematic importance of either character to The Master and Margarita. An examination of older, non-canonical biblical texts allows the connection between Azazel and Abaddon to be explored and applied to Bulgakov’s novel. It is argued that Bulgakov himself, upon reading the texts studied, came to many of the same conclusions, and that these conclusions resulted in the connectedness of Azazello and Abaddon within The Master and Margarita. The second chapter of Mason’s study is devoted to tracing the heritage of the character, Kovo′ev-Fagot. A number of references and clues within The Master and Margarita are suggestive of the fact that Bulgakov had a particular literary, mythological or contemporary figure in mind when he created the character. Despite these references, Bulgakovian scholars have so far been unable to identify precisely whom Bulgakov was drawing on as inspiration for Korov′ev. Using the information provided by The Master and Margarita, Mason argues for a reading of Korov′ev-Fagot as the biblical, mythological sea-beast, Leviathan. He further links the character with Mephistopheles, finding a connection between Leviathan and Mephistopheles in a lesser-known version of the Faust legend, which replaces the name of one with the other. An overview of Leviathan’s eschatological and thematic functions, as well as his relationship with Egyptian and Norse chaos serpents, is used in order to provide the demonological background of the figure to a potentially non-specialist audience. The themes explored in this section of the argument are then applied to The Master and Margarita itself, in order to better understand the intended role of Korov′ev-Fagot to Bulgakov’s work. The identification of Korov′ev-Fagot with Leviathan and Mephistopheles, as well as that of Azazello with Abaddon, serves as a foundation of information, compiled in order that future interpretations may hopefully draw from it.

No description available.

The eighteenth-century natural philosopher Mikhail Vasil'evich Lomonosov (1711-1765) has long been represented by Russian writers and scholars as an encyclopedic figure who not only pioneered the dissemination of a scientific ethos in Russia, but whose own innumerable contributions to science make him eminently worthy of inclusion in a pantheon among the greatest scientific minds. A robust mythology extolling Lomonosov's role in Russian science and culture formed in the years immediately following his death, and would increase in vigor while adapting to changing historical circumstances until well into the twentieth century. This dissertation explores the evolution of Lomonosov's imposing stature in Russian thought from the middle of the eighteenth century to the first decades of the Soviet period. It reveals much about the intersection in Russian culture of changing attitudes towards the meaning and significance of science, as well as about the rise of a Russian national identity of which Lomonosov became an outstanding symbol. / The processes by which myths can be used to create and shape historical memory are highlighted throughout this inquiry. At first, Lomonosov was depicted very generally as the pioneering Russian natural philosopher; later his contributions, still broadly framed, were conflated with select institutional agendas; finally historians of various disciplines appropriated his life in order to reinforce their own professional strategies. Even as the myth of Lomonosov grew more elaborate, however, it was the inspiring idea of Lomonosov's heroic determination to propagate science, culture, and education within Russia and his successful struggles against myriad obstacles to achieve this end that remained the primary and enduring biographical element. It is this image with which my study is principally concerned.

Through four hundred years of accumulated disparaging comments from critics, revenge plays have lost much of the original luster they possessed in early modern England. Surprisingly, scholarship on revenge tragedy has invented an unfavorable lens for understanding this genre, and this lens has been relentlessly parroted for decades. The conventional generic approach that calls for revenge plays to exhibit a recurring set of concerns, including a revenge motive, a hesitation for the protagonist, and the revenger’s feigned or actual madness, imply that these plays lack philosophical depth, as the appellation of revenge tends to evoke the trite commonalities which we have created for the genre. This dissertation aims to rectify the provincial views concerning revenge tragedies by providing a more complex, multivalent critical model that makes contemporary the outmoded approaches to this genre. I argue that Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory of carnival, and the ways in which it engages with new historical interpretations of early modern drama, functions as a discursive methodology to open up more creative interpretative possibilities for revenge tragedy. Carnival readings expose gaps in new historicism’s proposed systems of omnipresent power, which deny at every turn the chance for rebellion and individuality. Rather than relegating carnival to an occasional joke, quick aside, or subplot, revenge plays explore carnivalesque concerns, and revengers plot their vengeance with all the aspects of a carnival. In these plays, revengers define subjectivity in terms of the pleasure-seeking, self-serving urges of unofficial culture; negotiations for social change occur in which folk culture avoids a repressive, hierarchal order; and carnival play destabilizes courtly systems that track, classify, pigeonhole, and immobilize individuals.

Thèse--Univ. de Paris. / "Bibliographie": p. 115-125.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1998. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [222]-239).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1963. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 170-177).