Footnotes

Copyright © 1980 by the Estate of Vladimir Nabokov

Editor’s Foreword copyright © 1980 by Fredson Bowers

Introduction copyright © 1980 by John Updike

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

For information about permission to reproduce selections from this book, write to trade.permissions@hmhco.com or to Permissions, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 3 Park Avenue, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10016.

www.hmhco.com

Excerpts from The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka are reprinted by permission of Schocken Books, an imprint of the Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC, from The Metamorphosis, In the Penal Colony and Other Stories, and The Random House Group Limited, from Metamorphosis and Other Stories, both editions translated by Willa Muir and Edwin Muir, copyright © 1948 by Penguin Random House LLC, renewed 1975 by Penguin Random House LLC. Excerpts from In Search of Lost Time, Volume 1: Swann’s Way, translated by C.K. Scott Moncrieff and Terence Kilmartin, revised by D.J. Enright, translation copyright © 1981 by Chatto & Windus and Penguin Random House LLC. Revisions to the translation copyright © 1992 by D.J. Enright, are reprinted by permission of Modern Library, an imprint of Random House, a division of Penguin Random House LLC, and The Random House Group Limited; those from Ulysses by James Joyce, copyright © 1914, 1918 by Margaret Caroline Anderson, copyright © 1934 by the Modern Library, Inc., copyright © 1942, 1946 by Nora Joseph Joyce, copyright © 1962 by Lucia and Giorgio Joyce.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich, 1899–1977.

Lectures on literature.

(A Harvest book)

1. Fiction—19th century—History and criticism—Addresses, essays, lectures.

2. Fiction—20th century—History and criticism—Addresses, essays, lectures.

I. Bowers, Fredson Thayer. II. Title.

PN3499.N3 1980 809.3 79–3690

ISBN 0-15-602775-5

eISBN 978-0-547-54132-7

v2.0218

Editor’s Foreword

by Fredson Bowers

In 1940, before launching on my academic career in America, I fortunately took the trouble of writing one hundred lectures—about 2,000 pages—on Russian literature, and later another hundred lectures on great novelists from Jane Austen to James Joyce. This kept me happy at Wellesley and Cornell for twenty academic years.*

Vladimir Nabokov arrived in America in May 1940. After lecturing on the road for the Institute of International Education and teaching a summer course in Russian literature at Stanford University, he was at Wellesley College from 1941 to 1948. Initially he was the Wellesley Russian Department and taught courses in language and grammar; but he also developed Russian 201, a survey of Russian literature in translation. In 1948 Nabokov was appointed Associate Professor of Slavic Literature at Cornell University where he taught Literature 311–312, Masters of European Fiction, and Literature 325–326, Russian Literature in Translation. The catalogue description for Literature 311–312 was almost certainly written by Nabokov: Selected English, Russian, French, and German novels and short stories of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries will be read. Special attention will be paid to individual genius and questions of structure. All foreign works will be read in English translation. This course included Anna Karenin, The Death of Ivan Ilyich, Dead Souls, The Greatcoat, Fathers and Sons, Madame Bovary, Mansfield Park, Bleak House, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Swann’s Way, The Metamorphosis, and Ulysses.* Nabokov was prohibited from teaching American works at Cornell because he was not a member of the English Department. He was a visiting lecturer at Harvard University in the spring of 1952.

After he left teaching in 1958, Nabokov planned to publish a book based on his lectures, but he never began the project. (The lectures on Dead Souls and The Greatcoat were incorporated in Nikolai Gogol [1944].) These volumes preserve his lectures in their classroom form. Apart from the happy circumstance that here we have a major writer responding to the masterpieces of four literatures, his lectures merit wide availability because they are enduring guides to the art of fiction. Contemptuous of school-and-movement approaches to literature and scornful of critics who treated literature as a medium for socio-political messages, Nabokov tried to reveal how masterpieces work: "In my academic days I endeavored to provide students of literature with exact information about details, about such combinations of details as yield the sensual spark without which a book is dead. In that respect, general ideas are of no importance. Any ass can assimilate the main points of Tolstoy’s attitude toward adultery but in order to enjoy Tolstoy’s art the good reader must wish to visualize, for instance, the arrangement of a railway carriage on the Moscow-Petersburg night train as it was a hundred years ago. Here diagrams are most helpful. Instead of perpetuating the pretentious nonsense of Homeric, chromatic, and visceral chapter headings, instructors should prepare maps of Dublin with Bloom’s and Stephen’s intertwining itineraries clearly traced. Without a visual perception of the larch labyrinth in Mansfield Park that novel loses some of its stereographic charm, and unless the façade of Dr. Jekyll’s house is distinctly reconstructed in the student’s mind, the enjoyment of Stevenson’s story cannot be perfect."**

The lectures collected in these two volumes represent Vladimir Nabokov’s teaching at Wellesley and Cornell—with four lectures prepared for special occasions. For the convenience of readers, the lectures have been separated into two volumes: 1. British, French, and German Writers; 2. Russian Writers.

At the first meeting of Literature 311 in September 1953 Vladimir Nabokov asked the students to explain in writing why they had enrolled in the course. At the next class he approvingly reported that one student had answered, Because I like stories.

EDITORIAL METHOD

The fact cannot and need not be disguised that the texts for these essays represent Vladimir Nabokov’s written-out notes for delivery as classroom lectures and that they cannot be regarded as a finished literary work such as he produced when he revised his classroom lectures on Gogol for publication as a book. The lectures exist in very different states of preparation and polish, and even of completed structure. Most are in his own handwriting, with only occasional sections typed by his wife Vèra as an aid to delivery; but some lectures are completely in autograph form, as is true for the Stevenson, Kafka, and substantially for the series on Joyce. The Bleak House series is very much of a mixture, but with autograph predominating. Ordinarily the handwritten pages give every indication of rough initial composition, and as a result Nabokov might work them over extensively, not only during the first writing-out but also on review, when on some occasions he further revised both style and content. However, the alterations, whether substitutions or simple additions, were not always fully fitted syntactically into the context, or else further necessary adjustment in unaltered readings was not made. As a result, when the revision was heavy, the holograph portions of the texts require frequent editorial intervention, in order to prepare for reading what was no doubt easily adjustable or would pass unnoticed in oral delivery.

On the other hand, typed pages can represent a considerable part of a lecture, as for Mansfield Park but more substantially in the Madame Bovary series. The frequent contrast between the comparative roughness of much of the holograph, even when revised, and the relative smoothness of the typed pages suggests that in the process of typing parts of her husband’s lectures, Mrs. Nabokov exercised normal editorial discretion in preparing the pages for delivery. Even so, Nabokov might work over some pages of the typing in order to add fresh comments or to revise phrases for felicity.

As a whole, it would be impractical to offer these manuscripts to the reading public in verbatim form, either structurally or stylistically. The Stevenson essay exists in what can described only as rough notes; hence the present ordering of its material is almost entirely the responsibility of the editor. In the other lectures, however, the general order of delivery is not usually in question since it is ordinarily a chronological working through of the book. Problems may arise, however, which make the editorial process one of synthesis and redaction. Various separate groups of pages in the folders represent simple background notes made in the initial stages of preparation and either not utilized or else revised and incorporated subsequently into the lectures themselves. Other of these independent sections are more ambiguous, and it is not always demonstrable whether they reflect stages of amplification during the course of repeated delivery in different years or else jottings for possible use in a future version. Certain problems of organization seem to result from added or alternate parts of some of the lectures, possibly intended for different audiences. Whenever possible the editor has salvaged all such material not manifestly background and preparatory memoranda and has worked it into the texture of the lecture discourse at appropriate places. Omitted, particularly, however, are pages of quotations from critics, which Mrs. Nabokov typed for her husband’s use in the Proust, Jane Austen, Dickens, and Joyce lectures, as well as chronologies of the action of novels that Nabokov constructed for his own information.

However, the problem of structure goes deeper than this incorporation of pertinent material from what might be called Nabokov’s files. In various of the lectures Nabokov interspersed his chronological narrative with discrete sections of remarks on theme or style or influence. Where these interpolations were intended to be placed is usually far from clear; moreover, they are often incomplete and can even represent little more than jottings, though some may actually form charming little separate essays. It has devolved upon the editor to insert these sections when simple bridge passages are possible or, when the materials are in somewhat fragmentary form, to break up their separate elements for insertion in the discourse elsewhere as appropriate. For instance, the connected account of Stephen’s interview with Mr. Deasy in part one, chapter 2 of the Ulysses lectures has been assembled from three different parts of the manuscript. The main quotation (here editorially supplied) seems not to have been read in class, but the students, with their books open, were referred to its pertinent points, provided in the next paragraph about the shell of Saint James (see p. 299). The rest of the text, however, comes from two parts of a separate section that begins with notes on structure, passes to miscellaneous comments on beauties and defects in the novel, to parallels in themes, and then to notes such as the reference to the conversation with Deasy as illustrating Flaubertian counterpoint and another note about Joyce’s parodic style, citing the Deasy letter as an example. By such means, whenever the material permitted, the editor has been able to flesh out narrative and to preserve in a connected context a maximum of Nabokov’s discussion of authors, their works, and the art of literature in general.

Quotation bulked large in Nabokov’s teaching methods as an aid in his effort to transmit his ideas of literary artistry. In the construction of the present reading edition from the lectures, Nabokov’s method has been followed with very little cutting except of the most extended quoted illustrations, for the quotations are most helpful in recalling a book to the reader’s memory or else in introducing it to a fresh reader under Nabokov’s expert guidance. Quotations, therefore, ordinarily follow Nabokov’s specific instructions to read certain passages (usually marked also in his own teaching copy) with the effect that the reader may participate in the discourse as if he were present as a listener. On occasion Nabokov’s copies of his teaching books have passages marked for quotation although not mentioned in his lecture text. When these could be worked into the text as an aid to the reader, the quotations have been provided. Moreover, some few quotations have been selected by the editor although not called for either in the lectures or in the teaching copies when the occasion seemed to require illustration of a point that Nabokov was making. Nabokov’s students were expected to follow his lectures with their books open before them. Hence they could be referred to points in the text by allusions in a manner impossible for a reader to follow, who must be supplied with extra quotation as a substitute. Molly’s final soliloquy in Ulysses is an example. A unique instance, however, occurs at the end of the lectures on Proust. Nabokov had chosen for his text Swann’s Way, the first volume of Remembrance of Things Past. The last lecture on Proust ends with an extended quotation from Marcel’s meditations in the Bois de Boulogne on his memory of the past that concludes the novel. It is an effective ending to the novel but it leaves Marcel (and the reader) only a short way along the road to the full understanding of the functions and operations of memory as the key to reality, the meaning of the whole work. The musings in the Bois, indeed, are only one of the different aspects of viewing the past that in the gradual building up of Marcel’s understanding prepare him for the final experience that reveals the reality for which he had been searching through the preceding volumes. This event takes place in the great third chapter, The Princesse de Guermantes Receives, of the final volume, The Past Recovered. Since the revelation found in this chapter is the key to the cumulative meaning of the whole series of novels, any consideration of Proust that did not analyze it in explicit terms and make clear the difference between its full flowering and the early seed dropped in Swann’s Way would fail in its essential purpose. Although Nabokov’s lectures on Proust ended with the quotation of the episode in the Bois, a random sentence or two unconnected directly with his lectures suggests that he may have taken up the matter with his students, the more especially since the extensive typed quotations from Derrick Leon’s book on Proust tend to concentrate on this final episode and its explanation. Nabokov’s disjunct remark that "a nosegay of the senses in the present and the vision of an event or sensation in the past, this is when sense and memory come together and lost time is found again" is essentially true and an excellent encapsulation of Proust’s theme; but it would not be very illuminating to anyone who had not read this final volume without the full explanation Proust himself provides in The Past Recaptured. The editor in this extraordinary case has felt justified, therefore, in extending the Nabokov ending by fortifying with quotation from the final volume of Remembrance of Things Past the incomplete Nabokov notes in an attempt to focus more sharply the essence of the revelation that came to Marcel by providing excerpts from Proust’s own account of the transformation of memory into reality and into material for literature. The editorial augmentation fulfills the spirit of Nabokov’s jottings and should be of some help in rounding out the understanding, in turn, of Swann’s Way, which was, after all, designed as the opening of a series.

The reader of these lectures should take special note that quotations from Flaubert reproduce Nabokov’s frequent alterations of the translation that he made throughout his teaching copy of the novel, whereas those from Kafka and Proust take account of the less systematic changes marked in his books.

The teaching copies for all the novels in this volume have been preserved. As remarked, the translated books may be interlined or marginally annotated with his own translations of words and phrases. All of the books are marked for quotation and contain notes about the context, most of these notes also being present in the written-out lectures but others clueing Nabokov in on some oral comment to make about the style or the content of certain passages. Whenever possible, comments in the annotated copies have been worked into the texture of the lectures as appropriate occasion arose.

Nabokov was acutely conscious of the need to shape the separate lectures to the allotted classroom hour, and it is not unusual to find noted in the margin the time at which that particular point should have been reached. Within the lecture text a number of passages and even separate sentences or phrases are enclosed in square brackets. Some of these brackets seem to indicate matter that could be omitted if time were pressing. Others may represent matter that he queried for omission more for reasons of content or expression than for time restrictions; and indeed it is not unusual to find some of these bracketed queries subsequently deleted, just as some, alternatively, are removed from the status of queries by the substitution for them of parentheses. All such undeleted bracketed material has been faithfully reproduced but without sign of the bracketing, which would have been intrusive for the reader. Deletions are observed, of course, except for a handful of cases when it has seemed to the editor possible that the matter was excised for considerations of time or, sometimes, of position, in which latter case the deleted matter has been transferred to a more appropriate context. On the other hand, some of Nabokov’s comments directed exclusively to his students and often on pedagogical subjects have been omitted as inconsistent with the aims of a reading edition, although one that otherwise retains much of the flavor of Nabokov’s lecture delivery. Among such omissions one may mention overobvious explanations for an undergraduate audience such as Trieste (Italy), Zurich (Switzerland) and Paris (France) from the Joyce lectures, or admonitions to use a dictionary to look up unfamiliar words, and similar comments suitable only for students’ ears and not for the printed page. Various of the addresses to the class as you have been retained as not inappropriate on some occasions for a reader, but these have been changed in some instances to a more neutral form of address.

Stylistically the most part of these texts by no means represents what would have been Nabokov’s language and syntax if he had himself worked them up in book form, for a marked difference exists between the general style of these classroom lectures and the polished workmanship of several of his published lectures. Since publication without reworking had not been contemplated when Nabokov wrote out these lectures and their notes for delivery, it would be pedantic in the extreme to try to transcribe the texts literatum in every detail from the sometimes rough form found in the manuscripts. The editor of a reading edition may be permitted to deal more freely with inconsistencies, inadvertent mistakes, and incomplete inscription, including the need sometimes to add bridge passages in connection with quotation. On the other hand, no reader would want a manipulated text that endeavored to improve Nabokov’s writing in any intrusive way even in some of its unpolished sections. Thus a synthetic approach has been firmly rejected, and Nabokov’s language has been reproduced with fidelity save for words missing by accident and inadvertent repetitions often the result of incomplete revision. Occasionally some tangles either in language or in syntax have needed straightening out, chiefly when Nabokov had interlined additions or substitutions and neglected to delete parts of the original to make it conform to the revised readings. In a few cases syntactical constructions that would pass unnoticed in oral delivery have been adjusted for a reading audience. Minor slips such as inadvertent singulars for plurals, misspellings, omitted opening or closing quotation marks, missing necessary punctuation, erratic capitalization, unintentional verbal repetition, and the like have all been set right unobtrusively. For the purposes of this edition Nabokov’s few British spellings and punctuational usages have been modified for American publication: these were not always consistent, anyway. A very few times English idioms have been rectified, but borderline cases are retained such as Nabokov’s idiosyncratic use of the verb grade. Mostly, however, usage that a reader might be inclined to query will be found to have dictionary authority, for Nabokov was a careful writer. Titles of books have been italicized and shorter pieces placed within quotation marks. It would be tedious for a reader to be presented with all of Nabokov’s underlined words in italics, most of which were directions to himself for verbal emphasis, not necessarily of the kind to be transferred to the printed page. Correspondingly, his dependence upon the dash for punctuating oral delivery has been somewhat reduced by the substitution of more conventional punctuation.

Corrections and modifications have been performed silently. It has seemed to be of no practical value to a reader to know, for instance, that in one place in a Joyce lecture Nabokov slipped and wrote Irishman when Irishmen was required, that he once forgot that Bloom had lived at the City Arms and called it the King’s Arms, that he ordinarily wrote Blaze for Blazes Boylan and often Steven for Stephen Dedalus. Thus the only footnotes are either Nabokov’s own or else occasional editorial comments on points of interest such as the application of some isolated jotting, whether among the manuscripts or in the annotated copy of the teaching book, to the text of the lecture at hand. The mechanics of the lectures, such as Nabokov’s notes to himself, often in Russian, have been omitted as have been his markings for correct delivery of the vowel quantities in pronunciation and the accenting of syllables in certain names and unusual words. Nor do footnotes interrupt what one hopes is the flow of the discourse to indicate to the reader that an unassigned section has been editorially inserted at a particular point.

The opening essay on Good Readers and Good Writers has been reconstructed from parts of his untitled written-out opening lecture to the class before the exposition began of Mansfield Park, the first book of the semester. The final L’Envoi is abstracted from his untitled closing remarks at the end of the semester after completing the last lecture on Ulysses and before going on to discuss the nature of the final examination.

The editions of the books that he used as teaching copies for his lectures were selected for their cheapness and the convenience of his students. Nabokov did not hold in high regard the translations that he felt obliged to employ and, as he remarked, when he read passages from the foreign-language authors he altered them at will for reading aloud. The texts from which the quotations are taken are as follows: Jane Austen, Mansfield Park (London: Dent; New York: Dutton, 1948), Everyman’s Library #23; Charles Dickens, Bleak House (London: Dent; New York: Dutton, 1948), Everyman’s Library #236; Gustave Flaubert, Madame Bovary, trans. Eleanor Marx Aveling (New York & Toronto: Rinehart, 1948); Robert Louis Stevenson, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Other Stories (New York: Pocket Books, 1941); Marcel Proust, Swann’s Way, trans. C. K. Scott Moncrieff (New York: Modern Library, 1956); Franz Kafka, Selected Short Stories of Franz Kafka, trans. Willa and Edwin Muir (New York: Modern Library, 1952); James Joyce, Ulysses (New York: Random House, 1934).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The assistance provided during the preparation of this book by Vladimir Nabokov’s wife, Vèra, and their son Dmitri cannot be adequately acknowledged here. From the inception of this project, the Nabokovs invested untold hours advising the editor and publisher on virtually every facet of the editorial process. They patiently and tirelessly answered numerous questions about such matters as the structure of Nabokov’s lectures and his preferences in matters of diction. Their painstaking advice has made this volume better than it could have been without them.

Grateful acknowledgment is due as well to the following persons: Else Albrecht-Carrie, Permissions Editor, New Directions Publishing Corporation; Alfred Appel, Professor of English, Northwestern University; Brian Boyd, Professor of English, University of Auckland; Donald D. Eddy, Professor of English, Cornell University; Richard Ellman, Professor of English, Oxford University; Paul T. Heffron, Acting Chief, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress; Cathleen Jaclyn, Cornell University Libraries; Joanne McMillan, The Children’s Hospital Medical Center; Nina W. Matheson; Myra Orth; Stephen Jan Parker, Editor Vladimir Nabokov Research Newsletter, and Stephanie Welch, Wellesley University.

Introduction

by John Updike

Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov was born on Shakespeare’s birthday in 1899, in St. Petersburg (now Leningrad), into a family both aristocratic and wealthy. The family name, indeed, may stem from the same Arabic root as the word nabob, having been brought into Russia by the fourteenth-century Tatar prince Nabok Murza. Since the eighteenth century the Nabokovs had enjoyed distinguished military and governmental careers. Our author’s grandfather, Dmitri Nikolaevich, was State Minister of Justice for the tsars Alexander II and Alexander III; his son, Vladimir Dmitrievich, forsook a certain future in court circles in order to join, as politician and journalist, the doomed fight for constitutional democracy in Russia. A courageous and combative liberal who was sent to prison for three months in 1908, he without misgiving maintained himself and his immediate family in a life of upper-class luxury divided between the townhouse built by his father in the fashionable Admiralteiskaya region of St. Petersburg, and the country estate, Vyra, brought by his wife—of the immensely rich Rukavishnikov family—to the marriage as part of her dowry. Their first surviving child, Vladimir, received, in the testimony of his siblings, a uniquely generous portion of parental love and attention. He was precocious, spirited, at first sickly and then robust. A friend of the household remembered him as the slender, well-proportioned boy with the expressive, lively face and intelligent probing eyes which glittered with sparks of mockery.

V. D. Nabokov was something of an Anglophile, and his children were tutored in English as well as French. His son, in his memoir Speak, Memory, claims, I learned to read English before I could read Russian, and remembers an early sequence of English nurses and governesses, as well as a procession of comfortable Anglo-Saxon artifacts: All sorts of snug, mellow things came in a steady procession from the English Shop on Nevski Avenue: fruitcakes, smelling salts, playing cards, picture puzzles, striped blazers, talcum-white tennis balls. Of the authors lectured upon in this volume, Dickens was probably the first encountered. My father was an expert on Dickens, and at one time read to us, children, aloud, chunks of Dickens, in English, of course, Nabokov wrote to Edmund Wilson forty years after the event. "Perhaps his reading to us aloud, on rainy evenings in the country, Great Expectations . . . when I was a boy of twelve or thirteen, prevented me mentally from re-reading Dickens later on." It was Wilson who directed his attention to Bleak House in 1950. Of his boyhood reading, Nabokov recalled to a Playboy interviewer, Between the ages of ten and fifteen in St. Petersburg, I must have read more fiction and poetry—English, Russian, and French—than in any other five-year period of my life. I relished especially the works of Wells, Poe, Browning, Keats, Flaubert, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Chekhov, Tolstoy, and Alexander Blok. On another level, my heroes were the Scarlet Pimpernel, Phileas Fogg, and Sherlock Holmes. This last level of reading may help account for Nabokov’s surprising, though engaging, inclusion of such a piece of late-Victorian fog-swaddled Gothic as Stevenson’s tale of Jekyll and Hyde within his course of European classics.

A French governess, the stout, well-memorialized Mademoiselle, took up abode in the Nabokov household when young Vladimir was six, and though Madame Bovary is absent from the list of French novels which she so trippingly ( her slender voice sped on and on, never weakening, without the slightest hitch or hesitation ) read aloud to her charges—"We got it all: Les Malheurs de Sophie, Le Tour du Monde en Quatre Vingts Jours, Le Petit Chose, Les Miserables, Le Comte de Monte Cristo, many others —the book undoubtedly existed in the family library. After V. D. Nabokov’s senseless murder on a Berlin stage in 1922, a fellow student of his, with whom he had gone for a bicycle trip in the Black Forest, sent my widowed mother the Madame Bovary volume which my father had had with him at the time and on the flyleaf of which he had written ‘The unsurpassed pearl of French literature’—a judgment that still holds." Elsewhere in Speak, Memory, Nabokov writes of his rapturous reading of the work of Mayne Reid, an Irish author of American Westerns, and states of a lorgnette held by one of Reid’s beleaguered heroines, That lorgnette I found afterward in the hands of Madame Bovary, and later Anna Karenin had it, and then it passed into the possession of Chekhov’s Lady with the Lapdog and was lost by her on the pier at Yalta. At what age he might have first perused Flaubert’s classic study of adultery, we can only guess a precocious one; he read War and Peace for the first time when he was eleven, in Berlin, on a Turkish sofa, in our somberly rococo Privatstrasse flat giving on a dark, damp back garden with larches and gnomes that have remained in that book, like an old postcard, forever.

At this same age of eleven, Vladimir, having been tutored entirely at home, was enrolled in St. Petersburg’s relatively progressive Tenishev School, where he was accused by teachers of not conforming to my surroundings; of ‘showing off’ (mainly by peppering my Russian papers with English and French terms, which came naturally to me); of refusing to touch the filthy wet towels in the washroom; of fighting with my knuckles instead of using the slaplike swing with the underside of the fist adopted by Russian scrappers. Another alumnus of the Tenishev School, Osip Mandelstam, called the students there little ascetics, monks in their own puerile monastery. The study of Russian literature emphasized medieval Rus—the Byzantine influence, the ancient chronicles—and proceeded through study of Pushkin in depth to the works of Gogol, Lermontov, Fet, and Turgenev. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were not in the syllabus. At least one teacher, Vladimir Hippius, a first-rate though somewhat esoteric poet whom I greatly admired, impressed himself forcibly on the young student; Nabokov at the age of sixteen published a collection of his own poems and Hippius brought a copy with him to class and provoked the delirious hilarity of the majority of my classmates by applying his fiery sarcasm (he was a fierce man with red hair) to my most romantic lines.

Nabokov’s secondary education ended as his world was collapsing. In 1919, his family became émigrés. It was arranged that my brother and I would go up to Cambridge, on a scholarship awarded more in atonement for political tribulations than in acknowledgment of intellectual merit. He studied Russian and French literature, much as at the Tenishev School, and played soccer, wrote poetry, romanced a number of young ladies, and never once visited the University Library. Among his desultory memories of his college years there is one of "P.M. storming into my room with a copy of Ulysses freshly smuggled from Paris." In a Paris Review interview Nabokov names the classmate, Peter Mrosovsky, and admits that he did not read the book through until fifteen years later, when he liked it enormously. In Paris in the mid-thirties he and Joyce met a few times. Once Joyce attended a reading Nabokov gave. The Russian was pinch-hitting for a suddenly indisposed Hungarian novelist before a sparse and motley crowd: A source of unforgettable consolation was the sight of Joyce sitting, arms folded and glasses glinting, in the midst of the Hungarian football team. On another inauspicious occasion in 1938, they dined together with their mutual friends Paul and Lucie Léon; of their conversation Nabokov remembered nothing and his wife Vèra recalled that ‘Joyce asked about the exact ingredients of myod, the Russian ‘mead,’ and everybody gave him a different answer." Nabokov distrusted such social conjunctions of writers and in an earlier letter to Vèra had recounted a version of the legendary single, fruitless encounter between Joyce and Proust. When did Nabokov first read Proust? The English novelist Henry Green in his memoir Pack My Bag wrote of Oxford in the early twenties that anyone who pretended to care about good writing and who knew French knew his Proust. Cambridge was likely no different, though as a student there Nabokov was intent upon his own Russian-ness to an obsessive degree— my fear of losing or corrupting, through alien influence, the only thing I had salvaged from Russia—her language—became positively morbid. . . . At any rate, by the time he granted his first published interview, in 1932, to a correspondent for a Riga newspaper, he can say, rejecting the suggestion of any German influence on his work during the Berlin years, One might more properly speak about a French influence: I love Flaubert and Proust.

Though Nabokov lived for over fifteen years in Berlin, he never learned—by his own high linguistic standards—German. I speak and read German poorly, he told the Riga interviewer. Thirty years later, speaking in a filmed interview for the Bayerischer Rundfunk, he expanded upon the question: "Upon moving to Berlin I was beset by a panicky fear of somehow flawing my precious layer of Russian by learning to speak German fluently. The task of linguistic occlusion was made easier by the fact that I lived in a closed émigré circle of Russian friends and read exclusively Russian newspapers, magazines, and books. My only forays into the local language were the civilities exchanged with my successive landlords or landladies and the routine necessities of shopping: Ich möchte etwas Schinken. I now regret that I did so poorly; I regret it from a cultural point of view. Yet he had been acquainted with German entomological works since boyhood, and his first literary success was a translation, in the Crimea, of some Heine songs for a Russian concert singer. In later life, his wife knew German, and with her help he checked translations of his own works into that language and ventured to improve, in his lectures on The Metamorphosis," upon the English version by Willa and Edwin Muir. There is no reason to doubt the claim he makes, in his introduction to the translation of his rather Kafkaesque novel Invitation to a Beheading, that at the time of its writing in 1935 he had read no Kafka. In 1969 he told a BBC interviewer, "I do not know German and so could not read Kafka before the nineteen thirties when his La métamorphose appeared in La nouvelle revue française ; two years later he told Bavarian Broadcasting, I read Goethe and Kafka en regard as I also did Homer and Horace."

The first author herein lectured upon was the last Nabokov enrolled among his subjects. The event can be followed with some closeness in The Nabokov-Wilson Letters (Harper & Row, 1978). On 17 April 1950, Nabokov wrote to Edmund Wilson from Cornell, where he had recently taken academic employment: Next year I am teaching a course called ‘European Fiction’ (XIX and XX c.). What English writers (novels or short stories) would you suggest? I must have at least two. Wilson promptly responded, "About the English novelists: in my opinion the two incomparably greatest (leaving Joyce out of account as an Irishman) are Dickens and Jane Austen. Try rereading, if you haven’t done so, the later Dickens of Bleak House and Little Dorrit. Jane Austen is worth reading all through—even her fragments are remarkable. On 5 May, Nabokov wrote back, Thanks for the suggestion concerning my fiction course. I dislike Jane, and am prejudiced, in fact, against all women writers. They are in another class. Could never see anything in Pride and Prejudice. . . . I shall take Stevenson instead of Jane A. Wilson countered, You are mistaken about Jane Austen. I think you ought to read Mansfield Park. . . . She is, in my opinion, one of the half dozen greatest English writers (the others being Shakespeare, Milton, Swift, Keats and Dickens). Stevenson is second-rate. I don’t know why you admire him so much—though he has done some rather fine short stories. And, uncharacteristically, Nabokov capitulated, writing on 15 May, I am in the middle of Bleak House—going slowly because of the many notes I must make for class-discussion. Great stuff. . . . I have obtained Mansfield Park and I think I shall use it too in my course. Thanks for these most useful suggestions." Six months later, he wrote Wilson with some glee:

I want to make my mid-term report on the two books you suggested I should discuss with my students. In connection with Mansfield Park I had them read the works mentioned by the characters in the novel—the two first cantos of the Lay of the Last Minstrel, Cowper’s The Task, passages from King Henry the Eighth, Crabbe’s tale The Parting Hour, bits of Johnson’s The Idler, Browne’s address to A Pipe of Tobacco (Imitation of Pope), Sterne’s Sentimental Journey (the whole gate-and-no-key passage comes from there—and the starling) and of course Lovers’ Vows in Mrs. Inchbald’s inimitable translation (a scream). . . . I think I had more fun than my class.

Nabokov in his early Berlin years supported himself by giving lessons in an unlikely quintet of subjects: English, French, boxing, tennis, and prosody. In the latter years of exile, public readings in Berlin and in such other centers of émigré population as Prague, Paris, and Brussels earned more money than the sales of his works in Russian. So, but for his lack of an advanced degree, he was not unprepared, arriving in America in 1940, for the lecturer’s role that was to provide, until the publication of Lolita, his main source of income. At Wellesley for the first time, in 1941, he delivered an assortment of lectures among whose titles— Hard Facts about Readers, A Century of Exile, The Strange Fate of Russian Literature —was one included in this volume, The Art of Literature and Commonsense. Until 1948 he lived with his family in Cambridge (at 8 Craigie Circle, his longest-maintained address until the Palace Hotel in Montreux received him for keeps in 1961) and divided his time between two academic appointments: that of Resident Lecturer at Wellesley College, and as Research Fellow in Entomology at Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology. He worked tremendously hard in those years, and was twice hospitalized. Besides instilling the elements of Russian grammar into the heads of young women and pondering the minute structures of butterfly genitalia, he was creating himself as an American writer, publishing two novels (one written in English in Paris), an eccentric and witty book on Gogol, and, in The Atlantic Monthly and The New Yorker, stories, reminiscences, and poems of an arresting ingenuity and elan. Among the growing body of admirers for his English writings was Morris Bishop, light-verse virtuoso and head of the Romance Languages Department at Cornell; he mounted a successful campaign to hire Nabokov away from Wellesley, where his resident lectureship was neither remunerative nor secure. According to Bishop’s reminiscence Nabokov at Cornell (TriQuarterly, No. 17, Winter 1970: a special issue devoted to Nabokov on his seventieth birthday), Nabokov was designated Associate Professor of Slavic and at first gave an intermediate reading course in Russian Literature and an advanced course on a special subject, usually Pushkin, or the Modernist Movement in Russian Literature. . . . As his Russian classes were inevitably small, even invisible, he was assigned a course in English on Masters of European Fiction. According to Nabokov, the nickname by which Literature 311–312 was known, Dirty Lit, was an inherited joke: it had been applied to the lectures of my immediate predecessor, a sad, gentle, hard-drinking fellow who was more interested in the sex life of the authors than in their books.

A former student from the course, Ross Wetzsteon, contributed to the TriQuarterly special issue a fond remembrance of Nabokov as teacher. ‘Caress the details,’ Nabokov would utter, rolling the r, his voice the rough caress of a cat’s tongue, ‘the divine details!’ The lecturer insisted on changes in every translation, and would scribble an antic diagram on the blackboard with a mock plea that the students copy this exactly as I draw it. His accent caused half the class to write epidramatic where Nabokov had said epigrammatic. Wetzsteon concludes, Nabokov was a great teacher not because he taught the subject well but because he exemplified, and stimulated in his students, a profound and loving attitude toward it. Another survivor of Literature 311–312 has recalled how Nabokov would begin the term with the words, The seats are numbered. I would like you to choose your seat and stick to it. This is because I would like to link up your faces with your names. All satisfied with their seats? O.K. No talking, no smoking, no knitting, no newspaper reading, no sleeping, and for God’s sake take notes. Before an exam, he would say, One clear head, one blue book, ink, think, abbreviate obvious names, for example, Madame Bovary. Do not pad ignorance with eloquence. Unless medical evidence is produced nobody will be permitted to retire to the W. C. As a lecturer he was enthusiastic, electric, evangelical. My own wife, who sat in the last classes Nabokov taught—the spring and fall terms of 1958—before, suddenly enriched by Lolita, he took a leave of absence that never ended, was so deeply under his spell that she attended one lecture with a fever high enough to send her to the infirmary immediately afterward. I felt he could teach me how to read. I believed he could give me something that would last all my life—and it did. She cannot to this day take Thomas Mann seriously, and has not surrendered a jot of the central dogma she culled from Literature 311–312: Style and structure are the essence of a book; great ideas are hogwash.

Yet even his rare ideal student might fall prey to Nabokov’s mischief. When our Miss Ruggles, a tender twenty, went up at the end of one class to retrieve her blue book from the mess of graded prelims strewn there, she could not find it, and at last had to approach the professor. Nabokov stood tall and apparently abstracted on the platform above her, fussing with his papers. She begged his pardon and said that her exam didn’t seem to be here. He bent low, eyebrows raised. And what is your name? She told him, and with prestidigitational suddenness he produced her blue book from behind his back. It was marked 97. I wanted to see, he informed her, what a genius looked like. And coolly he looked her up and down, while she blushed; that was the extent of their conversation. She, by the way, does not remember the course being referred to as Dirty Lit. On campus it was called, simply, Nabokov.

Seven years after his retirement, Nabokov remembered the course with mixed feelings:

My method of teaching precluded genuine contact with the students. At best, they regurgitated a few bits of my brain during examinations. . . . Vainly I tried to replace my appearances at the lectern by taped records to be played over the college radio. On the other hand, I deeply enjoyed the chuckle of appreciation in this or that warm spot of the lecture hall at this or that point of my lecture. My best reward comes from those former students of mine who ten or fifteen years later write to me to say that they now understand what I wanted of them when I taught them to visualize Emma Bovary’s mistranslated hairdo or the arrangement of rooms in the Samsa household. . . .

In more than one interview handed down, on 3 x 5 cards, from the Montreux-Palace, the publication of a book based upon his Cornell lectures was promised, but (with such other works in progress as his illustrated treatise on Butterflies in Art and the novel Original of Laura) the project still hovered at the air at the time of the great man’s death in the summer of 1977.

Now here, wonderfully, the lectures are. And still redolent of the classroom odors that an authorial revision might have scoured away. Nothing one has heard or read about them has quite foretold their striking, enveloping quality of pedagogic warmth. The youth and, somehow, femininity of the audience have been gathered into the urgent, ardent instructor’s voice. The work with this group has been a particularly pleasant association between the fountain of my voice and a garden of ears—some open, others closed, many very receptive, a few merely ornamental, but all of them human and divine. For longish stretches we are being read to, as young Vladimir Vladimirovich was read aloud to by his father, his mother, and Mademoiselle. During these stretches of quotation we must imagine the accent, the infectious rumbling pleasure, the theatrical power of this lecturer who, now portly and balding, was once an athlete and who partook of the Russian tradition of flamboyant oral presentation. Elsewhere, the intonation, the twinkle, the sneer, the excited pounce are present in the prose, a liquid speaking prose effortlessly bright and prone to purl into metaphor and pun: a dazzling demonstration, for those lucky Cornell students in the remote, clean-cut fifties, of the irresistibly artistic sensibility. Nabokov’s reputation as a literary critic, heretofore circumscribed, in English, by his laborious monument to Pushkin and his haughty dismissals of Freud and Faulkner and Mann, benefits from the evidence of these generous and patient appreciations, as they range from his delineation of Jane Austen’s dimpled style and his hearty identification with Dickens’s gusto to his reverent explication of Flaubert’s counterpoint and his charmingly awed—like that of a boy dismantling his first watch—laying bare of Joyce’s busily ticking synchronizations. Nabokov took early and lasting delight in the exact sciences, and his blissful hours spent within the luminous hush of microscopic examination carry over into his delicate tracing of the horse theme in Madame Bovary or the twinned dreams of Bloom and Dedalus; lepidoptery placed him in a world beyond common sense, where on a butterfly’s hindwing a large eyespot imitates a drop of liquid with such uncanny perfection that a line which crosses the wing is slightly displaced at the exact stretch where it passes through, where when a butterfly has to look like a leaf, not only are all the details of a leaf beautifully rendered but markings mimicking grub-bored holes are generously thrown in. He asked, then, of his own art and the art of others a something extra—a flourish of mimetic magic or deceptive doubleness—that was supernatural and surreal in the root sense of these degraded words. Where there was not this shimmer of the gratuitous, of the superhuman and nonutilitarian, he turned harshly impatient, in terms that imply a lack of feature, a blankness peculiar to the inanimate: Many accepted authors simply do not exist for me. Their names are engraved on empty graves, their books are dummies. . . . Where he did find this shimmer, producing its tingle in the spine, his enthusiasm went far beyond the academic, and he became an inspired, and surely inspiring, teacher.