I loved you is a reversible text

Pushkin’s Invention of "Reversible  text".  Case Study:  “I Loved You”


  Introduction.

The famous poem begins with the words “I loved you.” The poem is almost  universally  perceived  as a story of “unrequited  love”. But when linguists  Jackobson[1], Zhlochevsky[2], Senderovich [3]   try to justify this understanding with the linguistic  analysis of the text, they encounter serious difficulties: the grammar and the syntax of the poem resists  the  interpretation we know. One way or another,  each of the authors has to admit these  inconsistencies  are intended, and are hard to reconcile with their preconception.
Nepomniashi [4] is the only one, as far as I know, who  admitted ambiguity of the poem :
-----------
We will never be able to decide what prevails, what is expressed here: contained jealousy or self-sacrifice, acceptance or resentment, bitterness of undervalued – and, therefore -  fading love or a concealed flame, "I loved" or "I love" .
-----------

So, is the  poem about "acceptance" or about  "resentment"  or about some strange mixture of those contradictory feelings? I argue  that the poem has two intended interpretations, "two sides",  such that a reader's attitude determines the interpretation he sees.   I call this type of text "reversible" after  a reversible coat:
-both "sides" of the poem  have "patterns", images,
-which "side" you see depends on  your point of view,
-nobody (among intended readers)  shall see both "patterns".
To the best of my knowledge, Pushkin invented this device.  I claim that he used it, in particular,   to create the poem  ILY.   The two meanings of the poems are created by different literary devices and can not be reconciled.  And this is how Pushkin wanted it.
This article is a springboard to a large research devoted to "Eugene Onegin" (EO) as a reversible text.

In the first section, I give definitions of reversible text and describe expected properties of Pushkin's reversible texts, as well as the procedure for identifying such a text. 
In the second section I show two sets of poetic devices leading to two meanings in ILY.

1. Definitions
1.1. Reversible text

I'le give a general definition first, as the idea of "reversible text" is applicable not only for Pushkin's poetry. The concept of specific Pushkin's reversible text is defined later based on Pushkin's own classification of his readers.

Following Umberto Eco theory  [5],  it is convenient to see the text as "a lazy machine that demands the bold cooperation of the reader to fill in a whole series of gaps…missing elements", a "machine for producing 'possible worlds', interpretations…". And the interpretation is understood as    "the semantic actualization of everything that the text means"  for a Model Reader" (the intended reader, in other words).  What is a "semantic actualization" of the text to one reader, may not be such for another reader. So, interpretations are reader-specific.

The Eco's concept of "Model Reader" (as intended reader) is important, because such a reader is associated with the text (is "produced by the text", by the Eco's expression). In effect, the author has in mind not just a certain interpretation, he envisions  a Model Reader who reads the text in a certain way and arrives at a meaningful  for this reader interpretation.

This happens with a "normal text".  Reversible text is different by having  not one, but two Model Readers with opposite modes of reading and  different "enciclopedias" (Eco' term).

Definition: Reversible text  is a literary text which satisfies four conditions:
1. It is designed not for one, but  two Model Readers, readers of two Model types;
2. Each Model reader  is expected to understand the text, to arrive at some  interpretation of it.
3. If an Interpretation is  satisfactory for a Model reader of one type, it  will not be satisfactory for a Model reader of another type.
4. The text has  two sets of literary devices. A  Model reader of each type perceives only literary devices intended by the author for readers of his Model type.

For completeness, we can add that any reversible text allows a Super- reader,  who can see the trick of reversibility, understands  both incompatible interpretations and how they are created.  There is always at least one Super-reader, the author of the text. But there may be others.  For example, here I plan to show two opposite interpretations of ILY, announcing    myself as a Super-reader for this poem.  A Super-reader is not a Model reader of a reversible text, by the definition.

Using ambiguity in a literary text is nothing new. Reversible text  as a device is different from other devices which rely on ambiguity, double meanings, such as  irony, satire, allegory, subtext. Those devices require a reader to grasp two ideas at once to understand the meaning of the text. The reversible text,  by contrast, is designed so that each Model reader  can NOT find both meanings.

I can expect an objection that the existence of reversible texts contradicts a general  assumption about a textual integrity of a significant literary text. Indeed,  having two sets of literary devices leading to two interpretations seems to warrant this concern. However,  I argue that the text built as reversible has "double" integrity:  each Model  reader  notices only the literary devices intended for his type, and has no reason to doubt the integrity of the text.

Let us notice that such a device as reversible text is particularly useful in Russia, where it plays a role of trojan horse.   In cases of censorship, for example, this may help to smuggle in forbidden ideas, hiding them from censors.  In a case of a strong domineering mass culture, a dissident poet may want to pacify mass readers, making the text look traditional on  the first glance, while it is delivering the author's  ideas  to a sympathetic reader. Those adversarial circumstances were always major Pushkin's concerns.

In the future articles, I plan to show that, before and in parallel to creating ILY,  Pushkin used the same device in "Eugene Onegin":  his greatest masterpiece is a reversible text, having two different fabulas, sets of characters  and two meanings in two interpretations, intended for two types of readers.  Then  I plan to  demonstrate that the device turned out  to be useful for Chekhov — and he employed it too for the same purposes.

1.2. Pushkin's reversible texts
A reversible text requires for its functioning  two Model types of readers with  distinct views and tastes. To understand the design of Pushkin's reversible text we need to figure out who these Model Readers are for him. Fortunately, Alexander Sergeevich himself  defined  two types of people, distinct by their mode of perception.

Namely, Pushkin wrote in "Eugene Onegin"  (Chapter 4, stanza L1):

Hundred times blessed is the one who is devoted to his faith,
Who lulled his cold mind
And rests in his heart's joy
As a drunk traveler on an overnight  stay,
Or, more tender, as a butterfly on a spring flower;
But woe to one who  can foresee all
Who does not feel giddy
Who hates the translation
Of every word, every move
Whose experience has cooled  his heart
And forbade him to be carried away.

The two modes of perception are different  by the role of  "cold mind" in understanding of the world: a person who  "lulled his cold mind"  into a dream state will  perceive much nicer world (until he has to  wake up) than a person with his mind fully awake, who does not allow himself to  be carried away. Most people would belong to one or another group, and it is impossible to belong to both.
We may expect these two modes of perceptions to concern not only reality, but artistic texts as well.

Accordingly, we can say that Pushkin has in  mind two Model readers:  the  "butterfly on the flower" type reader  can be also called a "credulous"; the type of reader who does not "get carried away"  may be called "incredulous".

A reader who "lulled his cold mind" does not use reasoning,  analysis to understand  the text.   In contemporary terminology (introduced by Freud in the end of 19th century),  the reader perceives the text, mostly,  subconsciously.

Thus, dealing with  a poem, a credulous  reader shall get to a sweet understanding of a poem  based on subconscious, emotional perception, but an incredulous   reader  applies his "cold mind" to get to  the bitter "translation".

Creating a reversible text then would mean to give every of these two types of readers enough material to base the conclusion on, and these conclusions shall be opposite, as the readers themselves. 

Most likely, a credulous  reader in Pushkin's time was a fan of sentimental novels, which create an image of an illusory  fair world, where deep heartfelt feelings are a cause for celebration. An incredulous reader  would look at this sentimental image  skeptically.

We may say that in this stanza, Pushkin justified looking at his texts as potentially reversible, designed with two opposite types of readers in mind.
Based on this helpful explanation  from A.S. Pushkin, one may apply the next Reversibility rule to test reversibility of a Pushkin's text:

(1) Find in the text  the devices which act subconsciously to please a credulous  reader while leaving an incredulous reader indifferent.
(2)  Find   anomalies in  the text which make the text ambiguous, incongruous for an incredulous reader but could not be noticed without  conscious intellectual efforts.
If the search on any step fails,  the text may  not be reversible. If both steps are successful,  the first meaning can be derived based on the results of the step (1) and the second meaning shall be based on the results of the step (2). If the interpretations contradict each other, the text is reversible.

I want to stress that the rule is inferred  from Pushkin's own description of two modes of perceptions in the stanza I cited.  If the rule  works, it would support the hypothesis that Pushkin, indeed, wrote his text with these two Model readers in mind, and he gave everybody a key to become a Super-reader. 

It is important to notice that, judging by the same  stanza  (Ch4, LI) Pushkin himself identifies with the incredulous group, who do not get "carried away".  He derisively compares a credulous reader  with  "a drunk traveler on an overnight  stay".   It means, the interpretations are not equally valuable: the interpretation intended for an incredulous reader is closer to Pushkin's  views. 


2. Case Study: “I loved you.”

I start with my literal translation:

I loved you: the love in my soul still, possibly,
Has not completely faded yet. 
But it shall  not disturb you anymore—
I do not want to trouble you at all.
I loved you wordlessly, hopelessly,
Languishing with timidity, with jealousy.
I loved you so tenderly, so sincerely,
God help you to find   some other love like this. 

2.1 The popular  meaning

Here I describe popular understanding of the poem among regular Russian readers and researchers.
To get this meaning of the poem for a Russian reader, one can just read a Wikipedia article or recommendations on official education sites, since they all express the same ideas and reflect the established tradition.
The poem is  understood literally as Pushkin's own sincere  confession of love to a  woman he knew, as a direct  address to this woman.  It is customary  for a commentator  to express regret that an addressee of the poem is unknown. Here are some quotes:
“‘I loved you’ is one of Pushkin’s most beloved poems. These simple eight lines teach self-sacrifice, for there is no place for egotism and disrespect in love.”
“The final lines show the nobility of the hero: he wishes his beloved woman to be happy with another man, even though he still loves her.”

This understanding is exported abroad, and is accepted universally. For instance, [Chesnokova] is interested in literary devices in this text that create “the illusion of simplicity,” while at the same time express “the deepest emotions to which lovers are able.”
In short, the only commonly accepted interpretation of “I loved you”  is a sweet expression of eternal, selfless love by A.S. Pushkin to some of his acquaintances. This is the interpretation R. Jakobson [1], for example,  accepted before any analysis.

2.2. Application of the Reversibility Rule. Step 1
Here I demonstrate how the reversibility rule is applied to the ILU to find the two interpretations and to make a conclusion about its reversibility.  The process consists of two steps.
On the first step  we need to "find in the text  the devices which act subconsciously to please a credulous reader while leaving an incredulous reader indifferent".

The first such device is an accumulation (accumulation is a literary device that involves gathering related words, phrases, or ideas to build intensity and emphasize a point). The poem accumulates a large  semantic  cluster  of words and expressions related with the concept of  "love":  love-cluster.

The love-cluster:
-to love, love (five times in eight lines, the verb's tense is not relevant here)
-silently, hopelessly
-timidity
-jealousy
-(love) so tender
-(love) so sincerely
-wish  somebody else will love you

For a credulous reader, the accumulation device works unconsciously such that each of the units in the love-cluster points to    an image of sentimental love, acting as  a strong positive emotional stimuli. 

The incredulous  readers are not supposed to be charmed  by the idea of sentimental love, or,  maybe they are affected by the image of selfless love to a lesser degree, particularly if they do not believe in such a thing. 

The second poetic device of this sort is the phonetics of the poem. With all the repetitions of sounds, internal rhythms, parallel syntax constructions and so on (I will not go here in the details of the original Russian sound of the poem).  The poem is perceived  like an ancient spell, like a mantra, like a lullaby. This increases the subconscious emotional effect of the poem on a credulous reader, further helps to "lull" his mind.

The third poetic device "which act(s) subconsciously to please a credulous reader while leaving an incredulous reader indifferent" is the absence  of metaphors or visual images in the text.  This "simplicity"  further increases "credulity"  of a credulous reader, the emotional effect of the semantic love-cluster on such a reader. A credulous  reader feels like the speaker speaks artlessly,  directly, from  his heart.  The device  does not make a difference for the incredulous reader, who does not care much about the semantic love-cluster.

Absence of visual images does not mean that the poem  does not have poetic images,   as  R. Jakobson[1]  and S. Senderovich [3]  claim. In general sense, an artistic image in a poem is a mental image which the author, through literary devices , evokes in the reader to prompt an emotional response.

In ILY,  Pushkin creates an image of sentimental self-sacrificial love.  The image is not visual,  rather it is a mental image of a concept, idea.   The image is created with the love -cluster cues, specifically designed to evoke such an image and strong feelings in credulous  readers. The poem is as minimalist as any text-based conceptual work. It would make Pushkin's poem a prototype of "conceptual art", if it was not a reversible text at the same time.
There is no doubt for a credulous reader that the poem is lyrical, direct, sincere expression of A.S. Pushkin's true love to an unknown (to the reader, known to  Pushkin) woman.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first analysis which justifies the traditional meaning of the poem ILY.


2.3 Application of reversibility rule, step 2


This step calls  to discover anomalies of the text first.  We call the speaker in the poem "the  hero". The woman here is called "addressee".
Here is the list of the anomalies.

1. Love in the past tense.  The expression "I loved you" is an anomaly in Russian, where "real love" means eternal love. The expression "I loved you"  has two opposite meanings: love in the past and uncertain feeling currently.     One thing is certain: the hero  speaks not about "real" love, but about some other love, which can fade away.
2. Quantifiers of uncertainty: there are four such quantifiers in the second sentence: "still", "possibly",  "not completely", "yet".  All of them are supposed to quantify the chance of existence,  and the degree of expiration  of the hero's love. It looks like the hero dangles his love in front of his addressee, threatening  that it will be  extinguished completely soon.
3. Advice to calm down. The hero says about his love: "It shall  not  disturb you anymore". The line implies that
the hero's attention was previously noticed by the addressee,   it disturbed her, and she made it clear for the hero;
the interactions with the  addressee happened recently, otherwise she would  have stopped worrying already, without the hero's prompt. So, the first line takes the meaning: "I loved you just recently", which sounds frivolous, like a folk story about lieutenant Rzhevsky (поручик Ржевский).
knowing that the  addressee  does not want  his attention,  the hero addresses her with the confession of his (past) love.  Polite in form, the address  is inconsiderate, impudent. It has a specter of stalking;
the hero wants the addressee to stop worrying about  his advances, to put her at ease;
the attempt to mollify the addressee in this line means that the addressee is  not an image of a woman, but a real woman, the hero attempts to manipulate.
 4.  Qualities of love: "I loved you silently, hopelessly, / Languishing with timidity, with jealousy."   The hero highly recommends to the addressee exceptional qualities of his love, while   threatening that the love is expiring. This is inconsistent with the idea of hero's selflessness. It sounds more like an auctioneer's  call:  "Going! Going! Gone!"
 5. Declared sincerity of  love. Love can not be insincere. "Sincere love" is a tautology. Saying that the love is not just sincere, but exceptionally sincere ("so sincere" ) makes it sound like a sales pitch rather than a confession.
 6. The punch line. The last lines "I loved you so tenderly, so sincerely, God help you to find   some other love like this".  means: "My love was exceptional. Good luck for you to find such a love like mine again". The hero expresses doubt that the addressee can be so lucky again. The comparison of possible  "loves" (which is itself an anomaly in Russian, since the Russian  word "любовь" is almost never used in a plural form) and the idea that the two "loves" may be identical brings up the impersonality of the poem. Jakobson [1] noticed grammatical incongruity of the last line. "The text intentionally opens a path to two different interpretations of the last line.  It can be understood as invocation type denouement. On another hand, the fossilized expression "дай вам бог" ("God  help you…") … could be interpreted as  sort of  a mode of  "irreality", meaning that without God's interference the addressee will hardly encounter  another love like this. In the last case the line may be understood as an example  of "implicit negation"…"
  7. Addressee. The ultimate uncertainty in the poem is the addressee. There is nothing personal about this poem: it could be sent to any  woman who did not respond to the hero's attention yet. We do not know any specifics about their relationship except that she was disturbed  by his advances.

Now, I am ready to give the  second interpretation  of the poem, which takes into account all the anomalies  above.
The poem is not a lyrical one,  rather this is a dramatic monologue. There are two characters: the adventurous hero (Don Juan-type) and the addressee, behind the scenes.  A short time ago, they had some superficial interactions,  and the addressee showed her concern over the hero's attention.  In the letter – monologue, the hero makes another attempt to win her over by trying to calm her apprehension, by praising  unique qualities and rarity of his love, by pressuring her to act fast  while the fading love lasts. 
Generally,  one of the features of a dramatic monologue is an unreliable narrator. And indeed, the hero speaks about love, but his impudence, insistence on the fleeting nature of his interest to the woman  allows the reader to see that he, actually, means not "love" (as Russians usually understand it),   but  some transactional relationships.
The poem turned out to be  an illustration to a recurring theme of "Eugene Onegin", which is high  society's  "love games" . See, for example, Ch 1, X:

How early could he be hypocritical,
To hide his hope, be jealous,
To dissuade, to assure,
To appear gloomy, to languish,
To appear proud and obedient, 
Attentive or indifferent,
How  fiery eloquent he was,
How careless he was  in his love letters!
…..
The poem could be one of those  "careless" love letters Onegin wrote in his youth. The hero, too,  tries "to dissuade, to assure" at the same time, stressing both unusual "sincerity"  and the fleeting nature of his love.
Pushkin has constructed here a perfect reversible text: a sweet poem about unrequited  selfless eternal love for many, and an ironic depiction of a womanizer's tricks for few  cool minded readers.
The second meaning is opposite to the first one, and, in my opinion,   no reconciliation can preserve  the integrity of a poem.  It confirms that ILY is a reversible poem.  Q.E.D.

As Pushkin said, in Russia,  a credulous reader "who is devoted to his faith" is  "Hundred times blessed", while  woe is to an "incredulous" reader. It was so during Pushkin's time, and it did not change. Credulous readers of ILY dominate, incredulous readers do not get to publish academic articles about ILY.

But it does not mean that incredulous readers do not exist. Nepomniashy [6]  published  a  report about an interesting empirical study:
"a professor at a philosophy department asked students how they understand the last two lines of the Pushkin's poem:  "I loved you so tenderly, so sincerely,  God help you to find   some other love like this.  " Out of 20 students, 19 said that this is an irony, and the twentieth said: "It is a mockery". "
Academician Nepomniahsi is very angry about these results: "This is an unhuman understanding of a clear text which has  unbelievably many meanings  (многозначен невероятно) . " This quote can give a reader an idea that the fight for  sentimental reading of the poem ILY  is perceived in Russia as existential. But Pushkin can hope  to be understood.

3. Conclusion
I introduced the concept of reversible text and demonstrated that Pushkin, indeed, wrote the poem ILY as a reversible text so that the two categories of readers he clearly described in the stanza L1 in part 4 of  "Eugene Onegin" see different meanings there: one is depiction of sentimental love, another is a hypocritical   letter Onegin in his youth could write to one of his victims. I hope it demonstrates that Pushkin is not  just a romantic - sentimental poet and "realist" writer.  He is a deep and original thinker, but he does not make all his ideas obvious to everybody at once. We are just scratching the surface trying to reach  the true  meaning of this heritage.
I want to end with the long quote from M. Gershenzon [7]

"Beauty is a lure, but beauty is an obstacle. A beautiful form of art tempts everybody to gather and look.  It does not deceive, but weak attention is swallowed by beauty; for weak eyes it is not transparent. .. Only a  tense and sharp gaze can penetrate it and see the depth under it. Nature protects its little children, like puppies,   with blessed  blindness. Art gives each person only what he can withstand: to one it gives the whole of its truth, because he is mature, to another it gives a part, and to a third it shows only its brilliance, the charm of its form, … Pushkin's poetry, too, conceals profound revelations, yet the crowd glides effortlessly through it, rejoicing in its smoothness and brilliance, mindlessly reveling in the music of the verses, the clarity and vividness of the images. Only now, after so many years, are we beginning to see these depths."

Bibliography


1. Р. Якобсон  Поэзия грамматики и грамматика поэзии// Семиотика. - М.: Радуга, 1983.- С. 462-482.
2. А. Жолковский. «Я вас любил…» Пушкина: инварианты и структура. https://dornsife.usc.edu/alexander-zholkovsky/bib21/
3. С. Я. Сендерович. Фигура сокрытия.  Избранные работы. Том 1. Языки Славянских Культур. Москва, 2012.
4. В.С. Непомнящий Русская картина мира.“Наследие”. М., 1999.
5. Lucie Guillemette and Josiane Cossette (2006), « Textual Cooperation », in Louis H;bert (dir.), Signo [online], Rimouski (Quebec), http://www.signosemio.com/eco/textual-cooperation.asp.
6. "Нет истины, где нет любви" (из интервью с В. С. Непомнящим)
7. М. Гершензон. Мудрость Пушкина . Том 1.