No Mere Reflection - Mirrors As Windows On Russian Culture

Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature
Volume 34
Issue 2 Reflections and Refractions: The Mirror Article 3
in Russian Culture
6-1-2010
No Mere Reflection: Mirrors as Windows on Russian Culture

Julia Chadaga
Macalester College
Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/sttcl
Part of the Slavic Languages and Societies Commons
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative

Works 4.0 License.
Recommended Citation
Chadaga, Julia (2010) "No Mere Reflection: Mirrors as Windows on Russian Culture," Studies in 20th &
21st Century Literature: Vol. 34: Iss. 2, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.4148/2334-4415.1729
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
No Mere Reflection: Mirrors as Windows on Russian Culture
Abstract
This essay traces the development of mirror use in Russia from the medieval period to the modern day
with particular attention to the dynamic interplay between the utilitarian and symbolic functions of this
object. I examine how the discourse around mirrors in Russia was shaped by a preoccupation with
border-crossing and identity that is distinctive to Russian culture as well as by mirror lore from other
world traditions; and I demonstrate that the presence of mirrors shaped the production of imaginative
literature in profound ways. The essay focuses on several key functions of the Russian mirror: as a site of
self-creation and social interaction, as illusionistic décor, and as a tool for obtaining knowledge. In
discussing human responses to mirror reflections, as documented in written texts, folklore, and film, my
essay begins with personal mirrors in private spaces that conveyed the features of solitary beholders, and
then moves outward to consider larger objects in public spaces, from street mirrors to glass skyscrapers,
that were seen by multitudes and generated countless reflections in both the literal and the figurative
sense.
Keywords
mirror, mirror use in Russia, Russia, Russian history, medieval period, modern day, identity, tradition,
imaginative literature, self-creation, social interaction, private spaces, texts, folklore, film, public spaces
This article is available in Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature: https://newprairiepress.org/sttcl/vol34/iss2/3
Chadaga: No Mere Reflection: Mirrors as Windows on Russian Culture
No Mere Reflection:
Mirrors as Windows on Russian Culture
Julia Chadaga
Macalester College
Aleksei Mikhailovich Romanov, who reigned as tsar of Muscovy

in the years 1629-76, had something in common with all of us: he
studied his own reflection in a mirror, albeit an appropriately ma-
jestic mirror nestled in the center of a fan of peacock feathers.1 As
an implement of the tsar’s grooming, this object is exceptional, but it
is also typical: mirrors in pre-Petrine Russia were usually small and
handheld, and they were kept out of sight for reasons both econom-
ic and ecclesiastical. In pre-eighteenth century Russia, glass was a
luxury item, and the cost of an average mirror was nearly ten times
the amount of a typical day’s pay (Hellie 21). Prince Vasily Golitsyn,
one of the wealthiest men in late Muscovy, owned eighty-one mir-
rors; the cost of one of the mirrors, twenty rubles, was equal to that
of “six slaves” (Hellie 592).2 Golitsyn’s gluttony for reflections had
sacrilegious overtones in the context of his times: in Russia prior to
Peter the Great’s modernizing reforms, a taboo on mirrors prevailed
(Pravdivtsev 325-26). Church prohibitions stipulated that mirrors
were to remain covered; gazing into mirrors was to be kept at an
absolute minimum; on rare occasions, large imported mirrors were
hung high on walls, so as to reflect neither people nor large spaces;
and the Church Council of 1666-67 forbade members of the clergy
to own mirrors altogether (Leonov 359).
Wall mirrors began to appear in Russia in the second half of the
seventeenth century; they were hung only in interior rooms such as
bedchambers, never in outer rooms used for receptions. These mir-
rors, framed in carved and embellished wood, were always covered
Published by New Prairie Press 1

Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature, Vol. 34, Iss. 2 [2010], Art. 3
Chadaga 171
with taffeta, satin, or velvet curtains on rings, or were locked up in

the manner of icon-cases (Volkovskoi 25). Why did mirror owners
go to such lengths to keep reflections under control? One reason
may be that the face has a particularly important status in Orthodox
Christianity: human beings are seen as the image and likeness of
God. In fact, the Russian language has several related words to des-
ignate the face: lik ‘visage,’ litso ‘face,’ and lichina ‘mask’—each one
in turn showing a progression from sacred to profane.3 This am-
bivalent aura around the human face informed the Church prohibi-
tions against mirror gazing; moreover, limiting this practice would
also be a way to stem the tide of vanity, which was, after all, a deadly
sin.
When we examine the discourse around mirrors in Russia from
the medieval period to the modern day, we find a preoccupation
with border-crossing and identity that is distinctive to Russian cul-
ture along with echoes of mirror lore from other world traditions.
Here I will focus on several key functions of the Russian mirror: as a
site of self-creation and social interaction, as illusionistic décor, and
as a tool for obtaining knowledge. My essay distinguishes between
mirrors that reflect human features and those that do not; starting
from personal mirrors that convey the features of an individual, the
essay moves to mirrors that capture the reflections of multitudes,
culminating in a fifteen-story mirror that reflects not people, but
the sun, and other architectural mirrors, more recently built, that—
literally and figuratively—have generated countless reflections.
Mirrors Invade Russia

During his grand tour of Europe in 1697-98, Peter the Great
took note of the prevailing Baroque aesthetic—the spatial expan-
sion and play of light enabled by mirrors—and brought this influ-
ence home with him. In the first decades of the eighteenth century,
mirrors in Russia began to enjoy widespread use, were kept uncov-
ered, and tended to be much larger than before: for example, the
Vorob’ev factory produced mirrors up to nine feet in length (Ashari-
na 6) (figs. 1-3). Peter himself had four early eighteenth-century
English rosewood mirrors in the bedroom of his Summer Palace.
His wife Catherine I had six mirrors in her bedroom, including a
seventeenth-century Venetian one.
https://newprairiepress.org/sttcl/vol34/iss2/3
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 2
172 ST&TCL, Volume 34, No. 2 (Summer 2010)
Fig. 1. Mirror with Russian imperial Fig. 2. Mirror in a frame decorated Fig. 3. Mirror crafted by the Faberge
arms and crown, crafted by Charles with carved roses and acanthus leaves, firm, 1892. Wood, silver, and glass.
Kaendler, 1730s. Silver and glass. It 1750-60s. Gilded wood and glass. Image from the Digital Collection of
is believed that Emperor Peter III Image from the Digital Collection of the Hermitage Museum, used with
(the ill-fated spouse of the future the Hermitage Museum, used with permission.
Catherine the Great) received this permission.
mirror as a wedding gift. Image
from the Digital Collection of the
Hermitage Museum, used with
permission.
In the mid-eighteenth century, the poet Mikhail Lomonosov

revolutionized both the Russian literary language, with his innova-
tions in verse, and the Russian glass industry, with his work at the
factory that he founded. Lomonosov revered Peter the Great, dedi-
cating panegyrics and monumental mosaics to the monarch; and
akin to his idol, Lomonosov did much to introduce mirrors into
Russian interiors. Lomonosov wrote his “Letter on the Usefulness of
Glass” (1753) in order to persuade the Empress to provide him with
a plot of land where he could situate his glass factory, yet this prag-
matic dimension does not begin to account for the enthusiasm and
sheer sweep of the poem.4 This expansive paean to the miraculously
versatile material that is glass also contains an implicit celebration of
the Russian language as an expressive medium that likewise bends
to its master’s will.
Lomonosov’s poem extols the virtues of glass in every form one
can imagine, from drinking vessels to barometric spheres. Praised,
too, are windows, which let sunlight in while we stay warm inside,
and greenhouses, where flowers thrive even in winter; Lomonosov
then shifts his focus from transparent to reflective glass: the men-
tion of hothouse flowers turns the poet’s mind to the beauties who
use them to play dress-up. Now the fair sex becomes Lomonosov’s
addressee, and women’s self-adornment, his topic. Yet Lomonosov

Chadaga 173
does not condemn women’s vanity, as some of his contemporaries

do; instead he drinks in the vision of their beautification rituals with
the ardor of a Robert Herrick contemplating his beloved clad in silk.
Glass plays a crucial role in such rituals, as mirrors enable women’s
artifice and even double their allure: “No bylo b vashe vse staran’e
bez uspekhu, / Nariady vashi by dostoiny byli smekhu, / Kogda b
vy v zerkale ne videli sebia. / Vy vdvoe prigozhi, steklo upotrebia”
‘Your striving would all come to naught, / And your outfits would be
laughable, / If you could not see yourself in a mirror. / You are twice
as comely when you use Glass’ (Lomonosov 270).
Lomonosov shows how intrinsic glass was to the discoveries
of those he champions, from Copernicus to Newton, who, “hav-
ing learned the laws of rays refracted in Glass,” sought to tell the
truth about the world. The telescope—whose workings incorporate
mirrors—reflects the full glory of God’s creation, as does the mi-
croscope. It is the transformation of vision enabled by glass, in fact,
that liberates our minds and allows us to travel from one state to
another: “V bezmernom uglubia prostranstve razum svoi, / Iz mysli
khodim v mysl’, iz sveta v svet inoi” ‘Probing infinite space with our
reason, / We pass from thought to thought, from this world to the
next’ (Lomonosov 276). Glass as a material invites a restless move-
ment of the eye, from looking-at to seeing-through and back again;
hence it suggests transportation into another realm. Moreover, mir-
rors, as a unique type of glass object, truly constitute other spaces—
a point to which I shall return.
The Claude-glass, which became popular in the eighteenth
century, was a mirror that subverted its conventional function and
highlighted the spatial aspect of mirror reflection. It was used to
reflect not the features of the beholder but the landscape around
him; and rather than convey a true likeness of this landscape, such
mirrors altered its appearance. These mirrors were round or oval,
convex, with a dark backing that depicted the reflected landscape
with muted lighting and softened contours. These objects were
popular among travelers who wished to make their viewing expe-
rience conform more closely to the rules of the picturesque. Such
mirrors turned any landscape beheld into a work of art with lighting
effects in the style of Claude Lorrain—hence the name. Christopher
Thacker cites the recollections of an eighteenth-century traveler in
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 4
England mediating every impression with such a mirror. As a con-

sequence of gazing into the Claude-glass with his back turned to
the actual scene, he suffered an accident: “Fell down on my back
across a dirty lane with my glass open in one hand, but broke only
my knuckles: stay’d nevertheless, and saw the sun set in all its glory”
(142). This mirror compels its user to literally turn his back on phe-
nomenal reality and thus to reverse himself—to enter, as it were, the
world beyond the looking glass.
The Russian glass industry developed rapidly in the second half
of the eighteenth century, and all the major centers of glass pro-
duction were established at this time. Many of the factory owners
were members of the aristocracy, such as the appropriately titled
svetleishii ‘most radiant’ Prince Menshikov and Prince Potemkin,
who had been enticed by the prestige and fashionable status of the
material (Pyliaev 68). Among the objects made at Potemkin’s facto-
ry were pyramids and faceted prisms known as raiki ‘little heavens’
(Asharina 14). By the middle of the nineteenth century, mirrors en-
joyed a great vogue in Russia’s capital, which Peter had moved from
Moscow to St. Petersburg, a city that he established in 1703 and that
famously came to be dubbed “a window on Europe.” The city was a
window in one sense, and a mirror—or a myriad mirrors—in an-
other, in that its many waterways generated reflections of the city as
far as the eye could see. Joseph Brodsky describes how “the ubiqui-
tous presence of water” shapes the experience of being in the city,
using language that is not only catoptric, but cinematic:
The twelve-mile-long Neva branching right in the center of the
town, with its twenty-five large and small coiling canals, provides
this city with such a quantity of mirrors that narcissism becomes
inevitable. Reflected every second by thousands of square feet of
running silver amalgam, it’s as if the city were constantly being
filmed by its river…No wonder that sometimes this city gives
the impression of an utter egoist preoccupied solely with its own
appearance. (“Guide” 77)
Looking into a mirror is a way to verify and affirm one’s sense of
self. Brodsky’s characterization of St. Petersburg, the Western-ori-
ented Russian capital conjured up through Peter the Great’s force of
will, is instructive in its emphasis on mirror-gazing because the cre-

Chadaga 175
ation of this city signified a major change in Russia’s identity, from

cloistered Muscovy to an enlightened, European nation.
In the middle of the nineteenth century, Johann Gustav Kohl, a
German traveling through St. Petersburg, reported being struck by
the use of glass in upper-class interiors and public gathering places.
He contrasted the Russian appetite for mirror images with the cus-
toms that prevailed among his German readers:
In the interior of apartments… mirrors are lavished with unheard-
of prodigality. In the coffee-houses of Petersburg you frequently
see as many large mirrors as among us good copper-plates and
pictures. In the private houses, too, the walls are covered with
prodigious looking-glasses. (12-13)
In Kohl’s account, Russians prefer the ambiguous and dynamic re-
flected image of themselves in real space, multiplied and fragment-
ed, to the static and conventional images of the world offered by
“good copper-plates and pictures.”
In light of Peter the Great’s crucial role in introducing mirrors
into Russian interiors, it is perhaps no coincidence that the follow-
ing folk speculation arose regarding the modernizing monarch, who
broke the taboo against traveling abroad (among others):
Our sovereign and his inner circle went beyond the sea, and
he traveled through the foreign lands and visited Stekol’nyi [a
corruption of Stekgol’m, i.e., Stockholm]. And in the foreign land
a maiden rules the Glass Kingdom, and that maiden abused our
sovereign; she put him in a hot frying pan, took him out of the
frying pan and had him tossed into a dungeon. … That man is
not our sovereign, but a foreigner; our sovereign, while among
the foreigners, was sealed into a barrel and cast into the sea. (qtd.
in Solov’ev 100; see also the variants on 109 and 111)
According to this popular legend, Peter the Great met an un-
timely end in the perilous kingdom of Glassland. In ironic contra-
diction to the transparent name of that kingdom, the emperor, it
seems, was hidden from sight in a dungeon, then sealed in a barrel
and consigned to the depths of the sea. It was not Peter, but a for-
eigner—a sinister double!—masquerading as him (just as glass can
masquerade as a more precious material, from amethyst to gold),
who returned to rule over Russia. Peter should have never traveled
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 6
abroad; and he certainly should have never, ever set foot in Glass-
land.
In this legend, glass becomes invested with several provocative
attributes. It is a signifier of the foreign, the alien, the strange; it
belongs to the fairy-tale realm, and more broadly, the domain of the
imagination. The word Stekgol’m, enigmatic-sounding to the Rus-
sian ear, mutates into the more comprehensible Stekol’nyi, an adjec-
tive meaning “of glass.” The foreign city-name acts as an incantation,
and a city of glass emerges from a linguistic misapprehension. This
invention then generates another: the city of Stekol’nyi is part of
an entire stekol’noe tsarstvo ‘Glass Kingdom’—which comes to stand
for all that is hostile and menacing to Russia. The people among
whom this legend arose were apparently predisposed to think of
glass in such terms.
It is customary to consider glass as synonymous with clarity, yet
the Russian legend of Peter’s demise makes Glassland a place where
obscurity and darkness reign. Because of its transparency, we have
also come to regard glass as a purely functional material—in other
words, we do not really regard it at all. We simply look through it at
whatever is on the other side. Yet glass is never simply functional;
and in Russia, its uses are even more complex, as an example from
more recent times shows. Urban dwellers are familiar with the way
in which windows in subway cars come to function as mirrors when
the trains race through tunnels. As Elena Frolova reports, however,
the windows in the Russian metro yield bizarre reflections, for rea-
sons that have to do with an anxiety about foreignness, just like the
one that informed the legend of Peter in Glassland:
You’ve probably noticed at one time or another the reflection
of the passenger sitting next to you and thought: “What a freak
of nature! How can he live with a face like that?” I don’t mean
to offend you, but you are, to put it mildly, no beauty yourself
(I’m talking about your reflection). On the other hand, if there’s
nothing else to do during the ride, you can make funny faces
and entertain yourself and the people around you. (Frolova, my
trans.)
What is the source of these funhouse-mirror reflections? To cre-
ate the panes of the windows in question, molten glass is stretched

Chadaga 177
between a series of rollers, then cooled and polished. This process

inevitably leads to distortion, and thus, distorted reflections. Frol-
ova observes that in the West they have devised a way to combat
such distortion, because “they don’t appreciate our national form of
amusement.” The technique for producing perfectly smooth sheet
glass involves floating the molten glass on a pool of molten tin.5
While other countries have adopted this method, most factories in
Russia—including the one where the metro windows are made—
still use the old technique that yields distorted glass. On the bright
side, Frolova concedes, “You will never be bored riding the metro.”
The windows in a metro car do not always serve as windows,
but in the Russian case, even their mirror-function is subverted. In-
stead of seeing a true likeness, the viewer finds himself changed, as
if in a fairy tale, into something freakish and unrecognizable (just
as Peter was swapped for a foreign impostor in Glassland). Frolova
gently chides the backwardness of her compatriots, yet she takes
pride in their imaginative reaction to their funhouse reality, enabled
by a peculiar kind of glass.
The phenomenon of the inadvertent mirror can be found fur-
ther back in time, in early Soviet Russia—and this mirror, too, ap-
peared in a subterranean setting. In a curious counterpart to the
proliferation of Lenin’s images—in the form of posters, paintings,
and sculpture—in the years following his death, when a cult de-
veloped around the leader, visitors to his mausoleum in the 1920s
and 1930s would peer into his crystalline sarcophagus and see three
Lenins: the man himself, and two reflections, thanks to the unusual
tilt of the glass walls (“Protestuiia”). By 1939, a new sarcophagus
was in the works; finished in 1945, it took the form of a rectangular
prism with walls tilting at a new angle that eliminated reflections
(Kotyrev 137-38). In this shrine built to perpetuate Soviet power,
the authentic body of Lenin was analogous to the sacred relics of
old, but his reflection was a blasphemous phenomenon and could
not be allowed.
Mirror reflections, when unbidden, are uncanny because they
create a doubt in the viewer’s mind about what s/he is seeing: a fa-
miliar face or a foreign one. Sigmund Freud in his essay “The Un-
canny” speaks of the double as a literary motif that generates the
feeling of the uncanny, and notes that when confronted with one’s
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 8
own double, “a person may identify himself with another and so

become unsure of his own true self ”; what is even more chilling
about seeing one’s double is the memento-mori effect of such an
encounter. Freud cites Otto Rank’s argument that “the double was
originally an insurance against the extinction of the self ” and wryly
speculates that “the ‘immortal’ soul was the first double of the body.”
At a certain point in a person’s psychological development, however,
“the meaning of the ‘double’ changes: having once been an assur-
ance of immortality, it becomes the uncanny harbinger of death”
(142)—a mirror reversal from a guarantee of continued existence to
a signifier of guaranteed annihilation.
Freud cites his own experience with an unexpected reflection
in order to address the question of “how our own image affects us
when it confronts us, unbidden and unexpected.” He recalls riding
on a train that “lurched violently,” whereupon
the door of the adjacent toilet swung open and an elderly gentleman
in a dressing gown and traveling cap entered my compartment. I
assumed that … he had entered [my compartment] by mistake. I
jumped up to put him right, but soon realized to my astonishment
that the intruder was my own image, reflected in the mirror on
the connecting door. I can still recall that I found his appearance
thoroughly unpleasant … [Was this displeasure] perhaps a vestige
of the archaic reaction to the “double” as something uncanny?
(161-62 emphasis in the original)
Mirrors not only offer a virtual space that lies beyond their sur-
face, but they generate images that become intruders into our own
world. Freud’s experience with his double occurs on a train, a site
that Frolova likewise describes as a site of unbidden reflections. The
anxiety about reflections played out on a massive scale in Russia
during the construction boom of the late 1990s, when a multitude of
glass-fronted skyscrapers appeared in the urban landscape, and the
press documented the popular dismay at the proliferation of reflec-
tions that these buildings generated.6 When we recall the prohibi-
tions against mirror-gazing that existed in pre-Petrine Russia, we
realize that this unease over mirror reflections has a lineage that is
centuries old.

Chadaga 179
Mirrors as Texts and Texts as Mirrors

Mirrors have never been mere generators of reflections; as ob-
jects with symbolic as well as utilitarian functions, they have gener-
ated a variety of conflicting metaphors. In Peter the Great’s time,
the word mirror referred not only to looking glasses, but also to
didactic publications, as seen in the proliferation throughout Eu-
rope of books of an edifying character with the word mirror in
the title (for example, the German Mirror for Princes).7 Many such
works reached eighteenth-century Russia in translation and were
soon joined by native versions; the best known of these is The True
Mirror of Youth, whose publication was ordered by Peter’s decree in
1717. It was designed for the young nobility and set forth standards
for proper behavior in a new, Western-oriented Russia. In contrast
to the commonplace association of mirrors with superficiality and
vanity, the mirror here was made to connote the rules of propriety
and thus a concern with one’s inner condition (Goldberg 127).8 An
astronomical chart published in Russia in 1717, which addressed
itself to “industrious youths and persons of any age who desire to
understand the movement of the heavens and the Earth according
to the treatise of Copernicus,” was titled The New Celestial Mirror—
in other words, this publication purported to capture and reflect the
starry skies for readers eager to learn about them.
The reflective qualities of mirrors invited both sacred and pro-
fane associations: spiritual insight on the one hand, vanity on the
other. As instruments of self-absorption, mirrors became wildly
popular during the Renaissance. Widespread censure of such bla-
tant displays of vanity, which were seen as signs of moral collapse,
resulted in a new, clandestine accessory: now dandies and ladies
of fashion carried around pocket mirrors disguised as tiny prayer
books (Goldberg 143). This phenomenon, with its movement from
the sacred to the profane (masquerading as the sacred) can itself
be seen as a mirror reflection—let us not forget that mirrors create
reverse images, not perfect copies—of the evolution of the book-as-
mirror metaphor.
The didactic associations of mirrors are central to Vladimir
Lukin’s one-act comedy Shchepetil’nik ‘The Trinket-Dealer’ (1765),
based on Robert Dodsley’s The Toy-Shop (1735).9 The play is struc-
tured around a series of confrontations between customer and com-
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 10
modity, each resulting in a moral lesson grounded in materialism.

When the first customer, a flighty woman, requests to see a mirror,
the shop owner responds by describing a special mirror made of
“the best glass in the world” that strips away pretenses and shows
pretenders for who they are; it paradoxically reflects not the polished
outside of a gallant or a coquette, but rather the false and corrupt
inner self (104). Interestingly, in the analogous scene in Dodsley’s
play, the prospective customer decides against this purchase: “Lord,
I’m afraid to look in it, methinks, lest it should show me more of my
Faults than I care to see” (15). Lukin’s characters, however, have no
such qualms; this line is elided in his version. The exposing mirror
in Lukin’s play is one of several optical devices that the shopkeeper
offers for sale; these devices, in a hypostasized demonstration of
their actual powers, show in a true light the foibles of human na-
ture to would-be customers. As Russian secular literature developed
concurrently with the glass industry, the latter yielded optical de-
vices after which literature sought to model itself, and Lukin along
with his contemporaries presented their works as true mirrors that
not only reflected but also educated the public.
Vasilii Narezhnyi’s novel A Russian Gil Blas (1814), like The
Trinket Dealer, is another mirroring of a Western work, and both
texts offer insights into how Russians responded to the new pres-
ence of mirrors in their midst. A mirror serves as a central prop in
Narezhnyi’s novel. It first appears in a description (Chapter V) of
the protagonist Chistiakov posing in front of a “fragment of mirror
cemented to the wall” (the fact that he can only afford a mirror frag-
ment is telling in itself) before setting out to woo the daughter of the
village elder—only to be sent packing (62). The mirror-fragment
later reappears (Chapter IX) when Chistiakov reports that his bride-
to-be, Feklusha, “could not stop looking at herself in the shards of
my mirror” (85). Narezhnyi builds the two chapters on a model of
buoyed hopes and crafty schemes that dissolve in humiliation.
Both the hero and heroine of Narezhnyi’s novel imagine that
their lineage signifies real status, when in fact it has become a mean-
ingless tag. Chistiakov is convinced that the elder will not refuse
him: “He will be afraid to insult the exalted station of my ancestors,
and me myself, armed with this cutlass here, which proves by its
own antiquity the antiquity of my noble home” (62). Later Chistia-

Chadaga 181
kov urges Feklusha to remember her distinguished lineage: “You’re

not a bit worse than a bride from overseas, and what’s more, you’re a
princess” (82). That both of these moments occur in scenes of dress-
ing up in front of a mirror suggests, in a context in which hereditary
rank has lost its meaning, the empty theatricality of each character’s
desperate performance.10 Narezhnyi’s novel presents the mirror as a
symbol of vanity, but also as a site of simultaneous self-creation and
self-deception, or misrecognition, and these meanings are part of
the complex of associations that continue to accompany the mirror
in our time.
Mirrors and Mysticism

The figurative function of mirrors manifested itself in the liter-
ary realm as well as in visual media. In the Russian translation of
Symbola et Emblemata (1705), images of mirrors appear with such
captions as “It spares no faults,” “I tell the truth,” and, in a tableau
in which a heart is burned by the sun’s rays reflected off a catoptric
lens, “I burn but am not consumed” (fig. 4). The last image curious-
ly juxtaposes the iconography of the Bible with that of the modern
empirical quest and suggests
that in the Baroque imagina-
tion science and mysticism
were in equal measure a part of
the mirror’s aura and not very
far apart. A similar combina-
tion of the empirical and the
mystical is found in a Russian
oral legend about a mirror that
once belonged to Pyotr Tchai-
kovsky. This mirror still hangs
in the hall of his former resi-
dence in Klin, converted to a
house-museum following his
death in 1893. Witnesses at-
test to having seen the face of
the late composer in the mir- Fig. 4. A page from Symbola et Emblemata (1705). The texts
corresponding to the bottom two images (provided on the
ror. It is believed that the silver facing page of the book) read “I tell the truth” and “I burn but
amalgam in the backing of the am not consumed.” Image located at
http://www.archive.org/details/symbolaetemblema00lafe.
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 12
mirror acted as a photographic plate to capture Tchaikovsky’s re-

peatedly reflected image.11
The Tchaikovsky mirror is a mix of folklore and science. It
evokes the Shroud of Turin and appears as another type of miracle
as well: a self-creating daguerreotype. This example underscores the
mystical associations around mirrors that persist to this day, fueled
by a belief in remembered reflections. A leap of faith once allowed
people to see mirrors as containers capable of holding on to the re-
flection of a sacred sight. In Germany during the Renaissance, pil-
grims traveled to designated shrines every seven years and captured
the images of holy relics in small mirrors, which they then carried
back to their native villages as evidence of their encounter with the
divine. Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of movable type, became
involved in the manufacture of these mirrors (Goldberg 138-39).
The notion of a mirror as an object with the capacity to capture and
contain is prominent in Russian myths and superstitions. This may
help to account for the increasing popularity in Russia of feng shui,
an ancient Chinese practice that advocates the strategic placement
of mirrors inside the home in order to deflect and attract negative
and positive energy, respectively. A current Russian website devoted
to real estate cites a number of feng shui-based principles of mirror
placement:
Avoid mirrors in the bedroom: in our sleep we release negative
emotions, and if a mirror near the bed reflects them back, you
risk waking up not feeling rested…. As for mirrored tiles, they
propagate troubles throughout the whole house because they
create truly chaotic reflections. Avoid them like the plague, for
they “slice up” a person’s reflection into parts, and in so doing
they generate negative energy….However, if you situate a mirror
so that it will reflect a stream or a garden, it will “attract” their
valuable energy. A mirror behind the stove will “double” your
food, and therefore, your prosperity too.12
Russian traditional culture envisions the mirror as not merely a re-
flecting surface but as a container and a channel, and Russians today
seem especially receptive to the principles of feng shui, which pres-
ent the mirror in similar terms.
The definition of zerkalo ‘mirror,’ in Vladimir Dal' ’s four-vol-

Chadaga 183
ume Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language,

published in 1883-86, provides a thumbnail sketch of the cultural
resonance that mirrors had accrued by then. The articulation of
these deep-seated associations provides a key for reading the sig-
nificance of mirrors in Russia in later periods as well. Dal' defines
zerkalo as “a fairly smooth metal or glass board that reflects objects”
and reports that “glass mirrors are blackened from underneath or
covered with tin or mercury” (680). A cow mirror, according to Dal',
signifies the fine hair on the bovine hindquarters, whose degree of
luster was used to assess the animal’s milking capacity. This part of
the cow’s body was perceived as mirror-like, for both its reflective
quality and its ability to convey information accurately. The term
mirror also appeared in the lexicon of card sharks, designating “a
little mirror sewn onto a handkerchief, or a large, smooth gold ring,
or a snuffbox with a smooth surface” (680), used by a player (in a
four-player game) to reveal his hand to his partner, allowing both
to cheat and reap the benefits—providing yet more evidence of the
link between mirrors and immoral behavior. These two examples of
zerkalo usage illustrate the split personality of the mirror in Russian
culture (reflecting such a split in Western culture more broadly): the
object was associated with both truth and deception.13
Dal' cites a number of popular beliefs about the powers of a mir-
ror, including the following: “If you break a mirror, you will come
to harm”; “Mirrors in a house where a dead man lies are covered up
so that he won’t be able to see himself in them”; “If you stretch or
eat in front of a mirror, you will fall ill and wither away”; and “She
ought to have her fortune told in front of a little mirror (zerkal’tse),”
which Dal' helpfully glosses as “it’s time to get married.”14 Not only
cows, but human beings can themselves function as mirrors, as Dal'
demonstrates when he provides another meaning for zerkal’tse: “the
pupil of the eye” (6680-81).15 Mikhail Bakhtin may have had this
meaning in mind when he depicted in his essay “Art and Answer-
ability” (1919) the tableau of two people in dialogue, each seeing
her own reflection in the eyes of her interlocutor (23); and John
Donne’s seventeenth-century lyric “The Good-morrow” captures in
mirroring syntax that moment of intimacy when “My face in thine
eye, thine in mine appeares.”
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 14
Fig. 5. Interior of the Catherine Palace in Tsarskoe Selo designed by Francesco Bartolomeo Rastrelli,
1752-56. Reproduced from A. I. Leonov, ed. Russkoe dekorativnoe iskusstvo. 18-i vek. Vol. 2. Moscow:
Izd. Akademii Khudozhestv, 1963, 55.
Mirrors in Space and Space in Mirrors

Now let us move from mirrors in small personal spaces to ever
larger public spaces, and to the infinite virtual spaces that every
mirror contains. The multiplication of mirrors in Russian interiors
was part of a wholesale revolution in architecture in the wake of
the Petrine reforms, which translated into buildings that let in more
light and air, and that had expanded interior spaces, thinner walls,
and lighter constructions. Improved lighting technology as well as
extensive use of wall mirrors and the optical capacities of faceted
glass in chandeliers gradually led to brighter interiors (Voronov and
Dubova 10). Baroque architects painstakingly arranged mirrors so
as to best reflect the room’s various sources of light. Sconces and
other light fixtures were attached to mirrors so that every lit candle
would be reflected therein (Leonov 344-47). Mirrors and windows
alternated with one another, creating the illusion of expanded space.
This effect can be seen in the Italian House at the Kuskovo estate
near Moscow and in the Catherine Palace in Tsarskoe Selo designed
by Rastrelli (fig. 5). Designers in contemporary Russia similarly em-
phasize the illusion-making potential of mirrors to transform inte-
rior spaces.16
Nikolai Chernyshevsky incorporated such strategic use of mir-
rors into the design of the utopian Crystal Palace in his 1862 novel,

Chadaga 185
What Is to be Done? Inside the Crystal Palace, “all the intervals be-
tween the windows are covered with enormous mirrors” (284), a
detail evoking the interior of a lavish eighteenth-century palace.
Indeed, Walter Benjamin notes that utopias, when translated into
visual terms, are simultaneously forward- and backward-looking
(148-49). The mirrors not only expand the space but also make the
objects within it proliferate, seeming to multiply the abundance.
In the first decades of the twentieth century, utopian architec-
tural projects throughout Europe called for extensive use of glass,
a material that, owing to its optical properties, took on a signifi-
cance transcending its utilitarian value. Paul Scheerbart and his
fellow thinkers wrote that replacing brick buildings with ones of
glass would bring about “a paradise on earth.” Scheerbart proclaims
that brick buildings should give way to glass architecture, which
will adorn the face of the earth like “sparkling jewels”; the world
will become “as splendid as the gardens of the Arabian nights. We
should then have a paradise on earth, and no need to watch in long-
ing expectation for the paradise in heaven” (46). Scheerbart, how-
ever, does not embrace all forms of glass with equal enthusiasm; he
hesitates before the duplicitous portal of the mirror and places such
objects squarely in the realm of utility rather than beauty:
[O]ne should only allow the quicksilver effects of mirrors a
utilitarian existence in the dressing-room. In other rooms of
the house the mirror-effects, which continue to reflect their
surroundings again and again in a different light, disturb the
general architectural impression, for they do not last. When
kaleidoscopic effects are wanted, they are perfectly justified.
Otherwise it is best to do without the quicksilver-mirror; for it is
dangerous—like poison. (47-48)
Scheerbart plays on the visual resemblance of mercury to the metal
amalgam of a mirror to underscore his point about the evasive visual
impression created by a mirror, just as mercury that has escaped its
container eludes attempts to retrieve it, contrasted with the steady
and constant effect of light through colored glass. Scheerbart then
turns this visual trickery of the mirror into a sign of its treachery—
“it is dangerous—like poison”—this time reinforcing the argument
with reference to the toxicity of mercury (which mirrors at one
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 16
point did contain).17 Here again we note an unease about mirrors

that seems to stem from their capacity to capture and convey the
human likeness.
While Constructivists in Russia designed projects for utopian
glass houses, theirs was a largely paper architecture: glass was ex-
pensive and difficult to obtain in the early decades of the twentieth
century, especially after the Bolshevik revolution (Boldyrev 332).
Large-scale production of transparent sheets of window glass did
not become possible in Russia until 1926 (Babakhanov 25). Even
in that year, the journal Sovremennaia arkhitektura ‘Contempo-
rary Architecture’ bluntly reported that “today there is no glass on
the Soviet market” (63). Evgenii Zamiatin thus drew on all the re-
sources of his imagination to create, in the world’s first anti-utopia,
titled We (My 1921), a realm called the One State where not only the
buildings, but also the sidewalks, the furniture, some of the cloth-
ing (“glass silk,” Zamyatin 53), and virtually everything else is made
of glass. Zamiatin’s insight into the effect that reflections have on
the human psyche provides an illuminating framework in which to
examine the use of mirrors in the extra-literary realm. The narra-
tor of Zamiatin’s novel, D-503, extols the perfect transparency, and
by association, the efficiency and purity of the glass walls within
which he and his fellow citizens dwell, but this transparency is put
into question as D’s diary unfolds. Disturbing optical phenomena
manifest themselves; it is shown that every window, every medium,
alters perception in some way.
The optical effects of glass serve as a counterpoint to the trans-
parency that the One State values. One of the most important opti-
cal qualities of glass overlooked by the State is reflection. D starts
noticing the reflective qualities of the surface on which he walks
(“that limpid, mirrorlike point of the pavement … the mirror-
smooth pavement”) during an episode in which he sees a woman
who takes a tremendous risk in breaking from the ranks and whom
he mistakes for his beloved I-330. He flings himself toward her, but
is relieved to see, at the last second, that it is not she: “Not her! Not
I” (127).18 In the context of the mirrorlike pavement, “I” can be read
here as an aspect of D’s own self. (Zamiatin purposely chose the Lat-
in letter I to designate the heroine’s name.19) The reflective capacity
of the glass surfaces around D allows him to arrive at the realization

Chadaga 187
that there are two selves inside him—a compliant self and a self that
longs to rebel.
A doctor uses the image of reflective glass to describe D’s condi-
tion: he has acquired a soul, which can be thought of as mirrored
glass that is all surface, but suddenly takes on depth.
Take a plane, a surface—this mirror, say. And on this surface are
you and I … But imagine this impermeable substance softened
by some fire; and nothing slides across it any more, everything
enters into it, into this mirror world that we examined with such
curiosity when we were children. … The cold mirror reflects, but
this one absorbs—forever. A moment, a faint line on someone’s
face—and it remains in you forever. (89)
The revelation of the mirror’s depth pushes D to recognize his own
interiority. Note too that the doctor speaks of the wonder with which
children contemplate the mirrors that adults use in strictly utilitar-
ian ways—to check the degree to which their exterior conforms to
the norms of their society and/or to their own image of themselves.
Recovering that sense of wonder in contemplating the mirror world
can serve as a journey back in time; the mirror, then, becomes a
potential fountain of youth.
After a life-changing encounter with I-330, D feels split in two,
and glass plays a necessary role as a mirror in what is essentially a
doppelgänger scenario—yet it is not the beginning of madness, but
of lucidity. D stands before a mirror and sees himself “clearly, for
the first time” (59)—he sees himself as an unrecognizable other and
the mirror, not as a flat reflective surface but a bottomless depth,
so that he is looking simultaneously here and there. The sensation
enabled by mirrors of being at once here and elsewhere inspires Mi-
chel Foucault’s analysis of mirrors in the context of what he calls
the heterotopia: a real site (in contrast to the utopia, which is by
definition unreal) in which “all the other real sites that can be found
within the culture are simultaneously represented, contested, and
inverted.” Foucault identifies the mirror as a “mixed, joint experi-
ence” between the utopia and the heterotopia:
The mirror is, after all, a utopia, since it is a placeless place. In the
mirror, I see myself where I am not, in an unreal, virtual space
that opens up beyond the surface…But it is also a heterotopia
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 18
in so far as the mirror does exist in reality, where it exerts a sort

of counteraction on the position that I occupy… The mirror
functions as a heterotopia in this respect: it makes this place
that I occupy at the moment when I look at myself in the glass
absolutely real, connected with all the space that surrounds it,
and absolutely unreal, since in order to be perceived it has to pass
through this virtual point which is over there. (24)
It is notable that Zamiatin uses the heterotopia of the mirror as an
instrumental object to deconstruct the very idea of a utopia.
Let us recall the story about Peter in Glassland, which was
generated by a profound anxiety about border-crossing that mani-
fests itself in a number of ways in traditional Russian culture.20 To
cite one example of a tradition that has survived into the modern
day, Russians will often refuse to shake hands or interact with an-
other person in any other way over a threshold—both participants
must be on the same side of this perilous boundary. In this light,
the unease (and its flip side, the fascination) before mirrors pecu-
liar to Russia can be traced to the idea of the mirror being a space
into which we travel, whether we want to or not, just as soon as
we look into it. Russians designate the space reflected in the mirror
with a concrete noun: zazerkal’e, which may be rendered literally
as ‘that-which-is-beyond-the-mirror.’ Thus, the Russian language
renders the virtual space inside the looking-glass that much more
real. The word zazerkal’e is a coinage tellingly analogous to the word
zarubezh’e ‘that which is abroad’ formed from the prefix za ‘beyond’
and the noun rubezh ‘border.’ Mirrors are in fact at the center of a
popular Russian superstition involving border-crossing: if you leave
the house and need to return for any reason, you must glance into
the mirror—otherwise, an unforeseen calamity may prevent you
from traveling any farther (Grushko and Medvedev 167-68; Brod-
sky “In A Room and a Half ” 491).
Umberto Eco recognizes “the magic of the mirror … in the fact
that its extensiveness-intrusiveness allows us, both to have a better
look at the world, and to look at ourselves as anybody else might”
(220-21).21 The mirror offers the beholder a way to travel into a dif-
ferent space; and this idea is activated in stories in which the hero
gets transported into the looking-glass. There is an established lit-
erary tradition of fantastic tales in which a doppelgänger emerges

Chadaga 189
from a magical mirror, and Russian literature participates in this

tradition in ways peculiar to it. Valerii Briusov’s “In the Mirror”
(1901) and Aleksandr Chaianov’s “The Venetian Mirror, or the Re-
markable Adventures of a Glass Man” (1922) are two stories on the
theme of catoptrophilia in which the protagonists switch identities
with their reflections. The texts can be placed in the Doppelgänger
tradition, but they are also exceptional in their reinvention of it.
By the time that these two stories were written, plate glass had
come into wider use and there emerged a kind of spectacular sub-
jectivity, suggested by the image of multiple store-front reflections
of passersby who simultaneously see themselves and others seeing
them. Vladimir Mayakovsky, speaking for the Futurists at a public
lecture in 1913, defined beauty as the frenetic street life of the urban
crowd and enormous shop windows reflecting the images of tram-
ways, trucks, and automobiles flying by (Kamenskii 31-32). The
interaction of the shop windows and the crowds creates an environ-
ment of multiple reflection and aesthetic inspiration. Isobel Arm-
strong discusses this phenomenon in the context of nineteenth-cen-
tury England: the human sensorium begins to respond to
the new production of mass-produced transparency in which
one’s body can be, glancingly, inadvertently, reflected back from
the environment, belonging to the urban phantasmagoria outside
one’s control. For the first time in our culture, perhaps, the self
can be a mirage returned from the surfaces of the city’s landscape.
(124)
In the Russian context, such modernist works as Iurii Olesha’s Za-
vist’ ‘Envy’ (1927) depict and reflect upon the psychological impact
of this phenomenon.
Earlier I discussed the origins of the mirror-book metaphor.
One of the sources of this analogy had to do with the physical form
of mirrors, which up through the seventeenth century were convex
and thus reduced whatever they reflected. As Anna Torti explains,
when printed books “in which pre-existing material is re-presented
in a condensed form” began to appear, observers noted the double
function of reflection and reduction that books and mirrors had
in common (24-25). In the twentieth century, street mirrors took
on this function of capturing and conveying the outside world. Eco
speaks of the mirror as a prosthesis in the sense that it “extends the
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 20
organ’s range of action… it allows us to catch visual stimuli from

where our eye could not reach” (220), and mirrors placed in public
spaces indeed served this prosthetic function, allowing people to
see the space in back of them as well as around corners. As such,
street mirrors were an ideal device for surveillance, whether used by
police officers or those attempting to flee them.
The street mirror that appears halfway through Envy, however,
exceeds its utilitarian purpose and offers the potential for liberating
optical play. The novel’s antihero, Kavalerov, loves such mirrors be-
cause they allow him to break out of the prison of his ego and study
the vibrant world around him; and because the world is in motion,
the mirror generates the illusion of time moving backward: objects
that had already disappeared from view now swim back into Kavale-
rov’s field of vision: “A tram that had just vanished from your sight
once again speeds along in front of you, slicing along the edge of the
boulevard like a knife through a cake. A straw hat suspended on a
sky-blue ribbon looped through someone’s arm (you had just now
seen it, it had attracted your attention, but you had no time to look
back), returns to you and glides past before your eyes” (49). These
details are poignant because Kavalerov is a man who has missed his
chance; he is one of the so-called byvshie liudi ‘has-beens’ (literally
“former people”). This chapter culminates in Kavalerov’s meeting
with his mentor Ivan, mediated by the street mirror, which has the
power to reverse time. In a novel written a decade after the Bolshe-
vik coup and ambivalent about what the Revolution has wrought,
such a presentation of the street mirror, placed on the street in prac-
tical terms for the purpose of surveillance and social control, is pro-
vocative indeed.
Street mirrors figure prominently in Sergei Eisenstein’s first
feature-length film, Strike (1925), depicting a strike from 1905 as a
paradigmatic example from the history of the workers’ movement.
A series of mirrors command the camera’s attention, but each of
them deviates from its conventional function as a reflecting surface
in which an individual contemplates his own image. This is fitting
in light of the film’s depiction of what happens when workers go
on strike, and their machines stop. The mirror is, after all, a form
of technology, and its function, too, gets subverted by Eisenstein’s
film.

Chadaga 191
When the workers abandon the factory, the effect is unprec-

edented: the world turns upside down, as seen in the carnivalesque
episode when the strikers dethrone their oppressors, conveying
them in wheelbarrows down to the river in what Yuri Tsivian, in
his commentary to the film, calls a “mock-execution.” In fact, Strike
begins with an image of the world literally upside down: just a few
minutes into the film, we see a man’s legs reflected upside down and
distorted in rippling water; then we see the film running backward
and discover that the legs belong to a factory spy who has been fol-
lowing a group of conspiring workers. The spy walks backward out
of the frame, to be replaced by strike
leaders heatedly discussing some-
thing. This sequence prepares us for
the important role that reflections
will play in the rest of the film.
In the fourth section of the film,
the strikers’ luck begins to change,
and a desperately poor worker is
shown taking his family’s only mir- Fig. 6. From Eisenstein’s Strike. The worker takes
ror to the flea market to be sold. He down the mirror.
tosses it down on the floor on top of
his wife’s shawl and other clothes that
he is planning to sell, and the mirror
lies face-up, chaotically reflecting the
space around it. The couple fight over
their child’s underclothes, which the
worker finally flings on top of the pile,
and then the child himself is plunked
7. From Eisenstein’s Strike. The mirror on top
on top of the mirror, where he sits, Fig. of the clothes.
distraught and wiping his eyes (figs.
6-8). This sequence is followed by the
intertitle: “Hunting the Red Beast.”
Tsivian points out that this phrase
has two meanings: the factory spy
nicknamed the Fox is a “red beast,”
but so are the communists whom he
is hunting, not realizing that they are
Fig. 8. From Eisenstein’s Strike. The child on top
on to him and that soon, the hunter of the mirror.
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 22
will become the hunted. Reflect-

ing surfaces dominate the screen
at the beginning of this sequence,
gesturing at this reversal of fortune,
which is a major structuring motif
throughout the film. Following the
intertitle, an oval street mirror fills
the frame; the Fox approaches it
and checks his reflection. We next the Fig. 9. From Eisenstein’s Strike. The Fox approaches
street mirror.
see a large glass sphere that reflects
the bustling street life; the Fox is
caught in the mirror as well (and
reflected upside down), and the two
strike leaders spot him (figs. 9-11).
According to Tsivian, these spheres
were filled with water and placed
in drugstore windows in Russia,
“which made drugstores perfect
Fig. 10. From Eisenstein’s Strike. Strike leaders inside
places to check whether someone the drugstore.
is watching you.” The workers use
mirrors in a strategic way—not to
study their own faces, but to watch
for danger and protect the collec-
tive.
In the film’s final mirror image,
a factory spy approaches the King
of the underworld to solicit his ser-
vices in sabotaging the strike; the Fig. 11. From Eisenstein’s Strike. The Fox is caught in
King spits out a stream of liquor the spherical mirror.
onto the mirror during his morning ablutions, and looks at his own
smiling, distorted reflection. The factory spy at the beginning of the
film likewise had a distorted reflection; Eisenstein thus demonizes
both characters through visual means. The King calls out, “I need
five unconscionable ones,” and his cohorts reply, “None of us has
a conscience.” In this film, those who collaborate with the powers
that be are shown contemplating their own reflections—they are
looking out for number one, not for one another. Presented as a
solitary, self-absorbed activity, mirror-gazing is condemned within

Chadaga 193
the framework of Eisenstein’s revolutionary aesthetics.

The mirror images in Strike resonate hauntingly with Eisen-
stein’s account of a cryptic episode from the time he served in the
Red Army in spring of 1919, recorded in his memoirs from the
1940s. What is significant is that he chooses to set it down, then
struggles, seemingly without success, to make sense of it:
I sleep on the surface of a mirror in Dvinsk. In the apartment
hastily allotted to me—after the Red Army has taken Dvinsk—
there are no beds left… But a mirrored wardrobe stands proudly
in the empty room. The wardrobe lies on its back. A straw
mattress lies down on top of the mirrored surface of its doors
that reflect the world. I lie on the mattress. My God, how much
I’d like to make a metaphorical interpretation or an image out of
this! But nothing comes. So I shall leave myself lying on the straw
mattress, placed between me and the mirrors of the wardrobe
doors… (Eisenstein Selected 138-39)22
Eisenstein makes a show of not understanding the import of this
mysterious event from his early life. He shies away from attempt-
ing a sophisticated, baroque interpretation of the meaning of the
mirrored wardrobe, and leaves the object alone—in fact, he under-
scores its proud solitude.23 Yet it seems that the interpretation is
there, waiting to be discovered. No image comes to Eisenstein as he
contemplates the memory, and indeed, by covering the mirror “that
reflected the world” with crude straw and then with his own body,
the future filmmaker effectively prevents any image from emerging.
The straw mattress, the Red Army’s contribution to the décor of the
expropriated room, serves to block Eisenstein’s access to the mirror
world.
The mirror-covering in Eisenstein’s account hints at the mysti-
cal associations around this object. The act of covering a mirror has
currency in religious practice: recall that Dal' attests to the Russian
custom of covering mirrors in a house of mourning. Eisenstein is
suggesting that the war communism scenario is also an occasion
for mourning—the Old World has been annihilated, and according
to folk belief, covering the mirror prevents the soul of the deceased
from becoming trapped in the mirror-world forever. Moreover, that
trapped reflection might be seen by the living and frighten them to
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 24
death, and so, all visible traces of pre-revolutionary Russia must be

obliterated.24
Mirrors have long been reputed to contain the power of proph-
ecy. What did this particular mirror presage? A year later Eisenstein
would appear on stage for the first time, in A. Averchenko’s The
Double and as a clown in F. M. Sluchainyi’s The Mirror (Leyda and
Voynow 153). Three years after that he would make his first film
(Glumov’s Diary), and the optical lenses prefigured by the mirror on
which he once slept would come to play a leading role in his life, his
thought, and his way of seeing the world.
Yet there is another, more distressing meaning here as well.
Sleeping on a mirror is akin to sleeping atop an abyss—not only
because of the fragility of glass, of which Eisenstein was all too
aware, but because zazerkal’e ‘the space beyond the mirror’ looms as
a chasm in the writings of the Symbolists, and in literary works and
folklore stretching back in time for centuries. We recall the strange
image in Strike of the child sitting on the mirror—poised over an
abyss—to which the camera returns again and again. This image
prefigures the harrowing sequence at the end of the film when the
police besieging the workers’ building grab a child (who has been
shown in the film several times before, thus eliciting an especially
keen emotional response in the viewer), suspend him over the stair-
well, and throw him down to his death. In Eisenstein’s recollection,
the straw mattress serves as a flimsy “veil over the abyss.” It is in this
fraught state of suspension that Eisenstein recalls his twenty-year-
old self. The concluding sentence of this entry, “So I shall leave my-
self lying on the straw mattress…” suggests that the terrifying sensa-
tion of lying stretched out over an abyss is still with the middle-aged
Eisenstein as he writes these lines, a coded reference to his fate as a
visionary artist under the Stalinist regime.
In his films, Eisenstein wielded mirrors to achieve expression-
istic cinematic effects: for example, his cinematographer Eduard
Tisse used sunlight reflected off a large mirror as a spotlight of
sorts, “marking out hard-edged blocks of space or endowing objects
and faces with sculptural gleams” (Bordwell 46). Using a mirror to
cast light creates a phenomenon that is not designated by any single
word in English, but in Russian is materialized in a concrete term—
akin to zazerkal’e—suggesting a certain mindfulness about optical

Chadaga 195
phenomena that is unique to Russian culture. The beam of light that

bounces off a mirror or other reflective surface and hops along the
walls and ceiling is known in Russian as a solnechnyi zaichik ‘solar
bunny.’ This bunny is not always an innocent creature: in Olesha’s
Envy, it appears as a troubling reminder of time’s passing (40); it
can be threatening, as a gleam of reflected light purposefully aimed
into the victim’s eye (indeed, this capacity of mirrors to capture and
redirect light has even found application on the battlefield)25; and it
can imperil the one who unknowingly sends the solar flare into the
world, as Timothy Colton documents:
[Stalin’s] daily commute took his armor-plated Packard convertible
through the Arbat area… Fanatical security accompanied him
everywhere. A near-sighted housewife, who had the misfortune
of trying to read a clock across [Arbat Street] out her apartment
window just as his car wallowed by, was arrested when the
sunlight glinted off her opera glasses. This happened in 1949; she
did not see Moscow again until her release from a Siberian camp
in 1955. (323)
The sunlight reflected off glass in this incident served as a key
component of a building under construction in Moscow at exactly
this time, using the labor of those who had been arrested, often
under equally false pretenses (Colton 336-37). This building, the
first Soviet skyscraper, was distinguished by a spire that was secretly
a mirror, designed to reflect sunlight and to glorify Soviet power
through this dazzling display. But as we shall see, the mirror refused
to behave itself; the glass rebelled, as it were, and refused to serve
the Soviet state in an uncanny instance of what one might call poetic
justice.
The Constructivist dream of all-glass buildings whose windows
would overtake the function of walls gave way in Stalin’s time to
buildings that constituted a triumph of heavy opacity. Yet in the fa-
mous Stalinist Gothic high-rises built after World War II, glass reas-
serted itself in the form of the spire, which became the distinctive
feature, one could say the trademark, of these still-standing monu-
ments to Stalin. Moscow State University (MGU) was the first of the
seven high-rises (Tarkhanov and Kavtaradze 141; Papernyi 126). Its
spire, meant to evoke the architecture of the Kremlin, in particu-
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 26
lar the spire of the Spasskaya tower, at sixty meters is taller than a
fifteen-story building, and topped by an enormous star that weighs
twelve tons (Kuleshov and Pozdnev 181-82). The spire of MGU is a
decorative element that draws attention to the monumental height
of this building, which was constructed to be the tallest in Europe—
inheriting the mantle of the unrealized Palace of Soviets.
The MGU spire may be the world’s largest optical illusion. It is
made of orange-yellow glass covering an aluminum backing that,
when the sun strikes it, resembles gold. The same kind of glass em-
bellishes the sides of the clock face and the gigantic star (fig. 12). The
builders of MGU turned to glass when seeking an economical alter-
native to covering the spire with gold. By adding
carbon to the molten mixture, they were able to
produce a special golden-yellow glass; they ap-
plied pulverized aluminum to the reverse side
of rectangular panes of glass and then attached
these to the steel girders of the spire (Levinson
et al. 167). Some of the mirror pieces are large,
while others are as small as the palm of a per-
son’s hand, and affixed with nails. During the
perestroika period, journalist Dmitrii Semenov
described the spire as being “like a mirror, only
an orange one. Nowadays hardly anyone knows Fig. 12. The spire of Moscow
about it, even among the students, but at one State University (MGU). Image
located at www.mospromstroy.
time the designers were very proud of their un- com/objects/built/msu/, used
usual solution—it was both cheap and beauti- with permission.
ful” (“Pervyi sovetskii neboskreb” 3).
The falsification of the MGU spire is double: it is made of glass
masquerading as gold and it conceals a top-secret communica-
tion device. In an article written in May 1991, Semenov reported
that it was possible to climb up into the very star at the top of the
spire, but he and his crew chose not to do so because “it’s danger-
ous there right now—too slippery” (“Pervyi” 3). Yet in a follow-up
article written just five months later, the author admitted that he
and his crew had not been permitted to ascend because the star
housed “a high-frequency radio … Phrases that seemed ‘slippery’
were removed from the article” (“Etazhi so znakom minus” 1). In
the latter article, Semenov is more open about whose operations the

Chadaga 197
star conceals: the deep sub-basement of the building houses “the

headquarters of what appears to be the Moscow directorate of the
KGB,” and the agents employed therein were the ones who forbade
him to investigate further.
The MGU spire is a mirror that reflects not human features but
the sky—recalling the early eighteenth-century mirrors placed so
high that they reflected nothing but the ceiling (as in the ballroom
of the Menshikov Palace, built 1710-1727, in St. Petersburg). This
anti-mirror represents the effacement of the human subject in an-
other way as well, in that the spire acts as a substitute for a human
figure: originally, a statue of Lomonosov, then of Lenin, was to crown
the building. In this way, the radiance of the spire stands in for the
radiance of Lenin. The spire constituted an attempt to play a trick
by using, literally, a trick of light. Yet the plan backfired when the
fragility of the glass asserted itself. The glass pieces began to break
off, and sharp fragments showered the observation platform at the
base of the spire, which had to be closed as a result (“Pervyi sovetskii
neboskreb” 3) (fig. 13). Just before the 1980 Olympics, the univer-
sity made an attempt to spruce up the spire, but the results were
less than stellar. The MGU administration hired freelance steeple-
jacks to install new orange glass to
the top of the spire. Unfortunately,
the new glass panes soon fell out as
well. In a recent article, Semenov re-
ports that the MGU mirror requires
constant upkeep: “[F]rom time to
time, a worker has to haul up onto
his shoulders a crate full of mirror Fig. 13. A fragment of glass from the MGU spire.
pieces, take along a glass-cutter, and Image located at http://nnm.ru/blogs/a92/pod_
shpilem_bashni_mgu/. Photograph by Sergey Do-
climb up to the spire. Glass is a frag- lya, used with permission.
ile thing” (“Taina zheleznoi dveri”).
Yet let us not succumb to the temptation to view the MGU spire
simply as a means to ridicule Soviet illusion-making; let us instead
allow another reading of this object as a celebration of mirrors and
glass whose optical qualities and even fragility are to be cherished.
In contemporary Moscow, reflective glass has been reshaping the
cityscape in dramatic ways; buildings such as the Crystal Island
complex designed by Norman Foster have stirred up controversy
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 28
while still in the planning

stages. Already standing in
the western part of the capi-
tal, with more spectacular
structures in the works, the
Moscow International Busi-
ness Center presents a vast
mirrored façade to the rest of
the world (fig. 14). The center
was initially known as Mosk- Fig. 14. The façade of a skyscraper under construction in the
va-Siti ‘Moscow City’; the lin- Moscow International Business Center. Photograph by Mat-
thew Thrasher, used with permission.
guistic code-switching in the
name, from Russian to English, positions Moscow as a modern, Eu-
ropean metropolis—a new Petersburg! Fredric Jameson’s discussion
of the Westin Bonaventure hotel in Los Angeles offers insight into
the sometimes hostile reception of skyscrapers appearing in Mos-
cow in recent years: he speaks of the building’s
disjunction from the surrounding city… The great reflective glass
skin of the Bonaventure…repels the city outside, a repulsion for
which we have analogies in those reflector sunglasses which
make it impossible for your interlocutor to see your own eyes
and thereby achieve a certain aggressivity toward and power over
the Other. In a similar way, the glass skin achieves a peculiar and
placeless dissociation of the Bonaventure from its neighborhood:
it is not even an exterior, inasmuch as when you seek to look at
the hotel’s outer walls you cannot see the hotel itself but only the
distorted images of everything that surrounds it. (41-42)
However, there is more than one way to read a mirror, and several
factors complicate the reception of reflective surfaces in the urban
landscape of contemporary Russia. By way of conclusion, I will pro-
vide two examples to explain what I have in mind.
Street mirrors, as discussed above, are designed as a means of
surveillance and crime prevention, with some measure of success at
least with regard to interiors: installing observation mirrors above
shelves of products in stores and bookshelves in libraries has proven
to sharply reduce the number of attempted thefts and vandalism.26
But a recent report about a new street mirror installed in Krasnodar

Chadaga 199
speaks not of its policing potential but its magical associations. On

27 February 2008, members of the Zerkalo youth center installed
a large street mirror on Karl Marx Street at one of the city’s busiest
bus stops, next to the Luch ‘Ray of Light’ movie theater. According
to the center’s director, the mirror “symbolizes the sincerity of the
young generation”; it promises to give the youngsters a glimpse of
their future prospects and of pathways to solving the vital problems
of the day. What is more, “one of the reasons for installing it is the
mirror’s ability to relieve aggression and tension in the people who
are waiting for a bus.”27 Thus, if Jameson reads the glass surfaces that
are taking over modern cityscapes in terms of stirring up aggres-
sion, others see mirrors as having quite a different effect.
A feature entitled “Why We Live Here,” published in Boston
Magazine in 2002, places “The reflection of Trinity Church on the
Hancock Tower” as the third item on the list. Perhaps the attrac-
tion is the way in which the reflection of the venerable church in
the sleek skyscraper visually seems to convey the harmony between
historical epochs epitomized in the different architectural styles, to
say nothing of the functions, of the two buildings in question. An
analogous example may be found in Moscow, in the Federal Ar-
bitration Court building, completed in 2007. This building, which
features a striking use of reflective surfaces, is the work of architect
Vladimir Plotkin, whose other buildings likewise show his fascina-
tion with the expressive potential of mirrored walls (fig. 15). An ar-
ticle published by the Architectural News Agency describes how the
walls of the courthouse serve
as mirrors reflecting two archi-
tectural monuments nearby—
the Pimen Church and a fire
observation tower: “The inter-
section with Pimen Alley of-
fers a remarkable vantage point
that combines the view of the
tower with a reflection of the
church belfry. Let us note that
the reflections are not there by Fig. 15. The Federal Arbitration Court building, designed
by Vladimir Plotkin. Image located at http://agency.archi.
chance; on the contrary, they ru/news_current.html?nid=4132. Photograph by Aleksei
were a part of the plan from the Naroditskii, used with permission.
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 30
start, as can be seen from the project designs” (Tarabarina). The

reflected monuments coexist in harmony with the new glass build-
ing. Moreover, the building creates a new harmony between the two
monuments by placing them next to each other, thanks to the visual
trickery of mirrors. The very form of the courthouse building sug-
gests certain ideas about the humanistic goals informing the work
going on inside:
The main impression conveyed by the architecture of this
building is that of purity and openness, permeability, lightness,
and rationalism, as well as respect toward everything—toward
the monuments around it and the people inside; all of this
revolves around the image of the ideal court of justice, one that
is humane, rational, open, around all those qualities that we have
become accustomed to connecting with an open society and the
European path of development… The building appears either as a
reflection of the process of our country’s humanization, or—what
seems more objective—as an attempt to give the process a gentle
push forward through artistic means. (Tarabarina)
It is my hope that the reflections generated by mirror-buildings in
contemporary Russia will create a more benevolent effect than earli-
er skyscrapers did—by multiplying the beauty of their surroundings
and fostering flights of imagination as mirrors are wont to do—and
then, perhaps, Moscow may yet emerge as the utopian glass city of
the future.
Notes
1 Other tsars’ mirrors in pre-Petrine Russia likewise took the form of a large fan
(of peacock or ostrich feathers, or a folding fan of satin or leather) with a mirror
at the center. See Volkhovskoi 31.
2 For detailed descriptions of Muscovy mirrors, see Zabelin 193-95.
3 A discussion of the significance of these distinctions is found in Florenskii
92.
4 See Morozov 1004 for details on Lomonosov’s petition to the Empress.
5 The method was invented by British engineer Alastair Pilkington in 1959.
See Ellis 57.
6 I am grateful to Sean Pollock for this information.

Chadaga 201
7 For a guide to this phenomenon, see Grabes. See also Wimsatt: “Works called
mirrors generally aim in some way both at inclusiveness and the presentation
of ideals; they are either compendiums of exemplars or compendiums of more
or less corrupted entities in which exemplars are implicit” (139). For a discus-
sion of the special significance of the “speculum genre” in the Russian context,
see Chadaga 2002.
8 As a symbol, the mirror has had a range of often conflicting associations.
Starting in the Middle Ages, the duality of mirror symbolism can be seen in the
coexistence of the notion of Virgin Mary as the “spotless mirror” who perfectly
reflects divine truth with the iconographic association of Venus with a mirror,
a symbol of the search for truth but also self-absorption and sinful pride. See
Goscilo in this issue.
9 Lukin actually used a French translation of Dodsley’s play, which was itself
based on Thomas Randolph’s The Conceited Peddlar (1630). See McLean.
10 The last chapter of Book I revisits the mirror motif, now on a figurative level.
A series of catastrophes rains down upon the protagonist, and he declares: “My
heart was akin to a mirror broken into a thousand pieces. Each of them shows
part of its object, but all of them together make up a most abominable picture”
(Narezhnyi 143).
11 I am grateful to Liudmila A. Aksenova, a curator at the Museum of the City
of Petersburg at the Peter and Paul Fortress, for this information.
12 “Fen-shui dlia zerkala” from the website Stroitel’stvo i nedvizhimost’, http://
www.estate-building.ru/topics/64.
13 On the “split personality” of reflection see Goldberg 121 and Werness 9.
14 A classic description of Russian fortune-telling with the use of mirrors is
found in Alexander Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin; the tradition is also discussed in
Grushko and Medvedev 168 as well as in Pendergrast 36.
15 I am grateful to Valery and Larisa Bekman for giving me insights into Dal' ’s
lexicon and providing invaluable cultural context.
16 See the comments by contemporary designer Liliia Voskovskaia on the com-
mercial glass website http://b2b-glassware.ru/. See also Pravdivtsev 382-401.
17 Only in 1835 did Julius von Leibeg invent a process of backing mirror glass
with silver instead of mercury. See Turner 721.
18 The English translation here and throughout is revised. For the original, see
Zamiatin 1989.
19 Collins (71) interprets I-330 as D’s anima, just one of the psychic aspects of
D himself.
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 32
20 Natalie Kononeko Moyle cites ethnographic and linguistic data attesting to a

profound dread of border-crossing in traditional Russian culture.
21 Eco also considers the mirror a channel in that it is “a material medium for
the passage of information” (221), and this formulation helps to elucidate fur-
ther the way in which mirrors in Russian culture function as portals to other,
often fantastic, realms. See Lodge and Goscilo in this issue.
22 Translation revised; original cited in Shklovskii 62.
23 Shklovskii admonished Eisenstein for his baroque treatment of objects in his
film October, so that he ended up depicting “an uprising of dishes” rather than
the Bolshevik triumph in all its glory (qtd. in Lary 124).
24 See Grushko and Medvedev 167-68: “Mirrors in a house where there is a
dead man are covered up so that his soul may not be reflected in them, and then
appear there [pokazyvat’sia ottuda], scaring the living people to death.”
25 For examples of mirrors used in warfare, see Pendergrast 60 and Pravdivtsev
229-33.
26 This information is provided at the commercial glass website, http://b2b-
glassware.ru.
27 “V tsentre Krasnoiarska ustanovili ulichnoe zerkalo,” IA REGNUM K-
NEWS, 2 Feb. 2008, at http://www.knews.ru/allnews/962704; the story is also
covered at http://regions.ru/news/cultura/2127157.
Works Cited
Armstrong, Isobel. “Transparency: Towards a Poetics of Glass in the Nineteenth
Century.” Cultural Babbage: Technology, Time and Invention. Ed. Francis
Spufford and Jenny Uglow. London: Faber, 1996. 123-48.
Asharina, N. A. “Russkie zavody khudozhestvennogo stekla XVII-XVIIIvv.” Iz
istorii russkoi keramiki i stekla XVII-XIX vekov: sbornik trudov. Ed. N. A.
Asharina. Moscow: Gosud. ordena Lenina Istoricheskii muzei, 1986.
Babakhanov, S. B. Fakely “Ognei.” Makhachkala: Dagestanskoe knizhnoe izd-
vo, 1991.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical Essays by M.M.
Bakhtin. Ed. Michael Holquist and Vadim Liapunov. Austin: U of Texas
P, 1990.
Benjamin, Walter. “Paris: The Capital of the Nineteenth Century.” Reflections:
Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings. Trans. Edmund Jephcott.
New York: Schocken, 1978.

Chadaga 203
Boldyrev, A. S., ed. “Stekol’naia promyshlennost’,” Promyshlennost’ stroitel’nykh

materialov SSSR 1917-1967. Moscow: Izd. literatury po stroitel’stvu, 1967.
Bordwell, David. The Cinema of Eisenstein. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1993.
Brodsky, Joseph. “Guide to a Renamed City.” Less than One: Selected Essays.
New York: Farrar, 1987. 69-94.
-. “In a Room and a Half.” Less than One: Selected Essays. New York: Farrar,
1987. 447-501.
Chadaga, Julia Bekman. “Mirror Writing: The Literary Traces of the Zertsalo.”
The Russian Review 61 (Jan. 2002): 73-93.
Chernyshevskii, N. G. Chto delat’? Iz rasskazov o novykh liudiakh. Ed. T. I.
Ornatskaia and S. A. Reiser. Leningrad: Nauka, 1975.
Collins, Christopher. “Zamyatin’s We as Myth.” Zamyatin’s We: A Collection of
Critical Essays. Ed. Gary Kern. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1988.
Colton, Timothy J. Moscow: Governing the Socialist Metropolis. Cambridge:
Belknap of Harvard UP, 1995.
Dal', Vladimir. Tolkovyi slovar’ zhivogo russkogo iazyka, 6th edition, vol. 1.
Moscow: Gos. izd-vo inostrannykh i natsional’nykh slovarei, 1955. 680-
81.
Dodsley, Robert. The Toy-Shop (1735). Introd. Harry N. Solomon. Augustan
Reprint Society 218-19. Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial
Library, U of California P, 1983.
Eco, Umberto. “Mirrors.” Iconicity: Essays on the Nature of Culture. Festschrift
for Thomas A. Sebeok on His 65th Birthday. Ed. Paul Bouissac, Michael
Herzfeld, and Roland Posner. Tubingen: Stauffenburg, 1986.
Eisenstein, Sergei. Selected Works IV. Beyond the Stars: The Memoirs. Ed.
Richard Taylor, trans. William Powell. London: BFI, 1995.
-. Dir. Strike [video]. Image Entertainment, 2000.
Ellis, William S. Glass: From the First Mirror to Fiber Optics, the Story of the
Substance that Changed the World. New York: Avon, 1998.
Florenskii, P. A. Iconostasis. Trans. Donald Sheehan and Olga Andrejev.
Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 2000.
Foucault, Michel. “Of Other Spaces.” Diacritics 16 (Spring 1986): 22-27.
Freud, Sigmund. “The Uncanny” (1919) in The Uncanny. Trans. David
McLintock. New York: Penguin, 2003.
Frolova, Elena. “Ne ochen’ prozrachnaia istoriia.” Material 2, 2002. Web. 24
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 34
Mar. 2004.
Goldberg, Benjamin. The Mirror and Man. Charlottesville: UP of Virginia,
1985.
Grabes, Herbert. The Mutable Glass: Mirror-imagery in Titles and Texts of the
Middle Ages and English Renaissance. Trans. Gordon Collier. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1982.
Grushko, Elena and Iurii Medvedev. Slovar’ russkikh sueverii, zaklinanii, primet
i poverii. Nizhnii Novgorod: Russkii kupets, 1995.
Hellie, Richard. The Economy and Material Culture of Russia, 1600-1725.
Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1999. 221.
Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.
Durham: Duke UP, 1991.
Kamenskii, V. V. Zhizn’ s Maiakovskim. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1974.
Kohl, J. G. Russia and the Russians in 1842. Vol. 2. London: Henry Colburn,
1842.
Kononeko Moyle, Natalie. “Spacey Soviets and the Russian Attitude toward
Territorial Passage.” New York Folklore 7.1&2 (1981): 83-96.
Kotyrev, Andrei. Mavzolei V. I. Lenina: proektirovanie i stroitel’stvo. Moscow:
Sovetskii khudozhnik, 1971.
Kuleshov N. and A. Pozdnev. Vysotnye zdaniia Moskvy. Moscow: Moskovskii
rabochii, 1954.
Lary, Nikita. “Viktor Shklovsky: The Good and Awkward Friend.” Eisenstein at
100: A Reconsideration. Ed. Al LaValley and Barry Scherr. New Brunswick:
Rutgers UP, 2001. 121-28.
Leonov, A. I., ed. Russkoe dekorativnoe iskusstvo. 18-i vek. Vol. 2. Moscow: Izd.
Akademii Khudozhestv, 1963.
Levinson E. A. et al. Khudozhestvennoe steklo i ego primemenie v arkhitekture.
Leningrad: Gosud. izdatel’stvo literatury po stroitel’stvu i arkhitekture,
1953.
Leyda, Jay and Zina Voynow. Eisenstein at Work. New York: Pantheon, 1982.
Lomonosov, M. V. Stikhotvoreniia. Biblioteka poeta, Malaia Seriia, 3rd ed. Ed. A.
Morozov. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1954.
Lukin, V. I. Shchepetil’nik. Russkaia komediia i komicheskaia opera XVIII veka.
Ed. P. N. Berkov. Moscow-Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1950.
McLean, Hugh. “The Adventures of an English Comedy in Eighteenth-Century

Chadaga 205
Russia: Dodsley’s Toy Shop and Lukin’s Ščepetil’nik.” American Contributions

to the Fifth International Congress of Slavists, Sofia, September 1963. The
Hague: Mouton, 1963.
Morozov, Aleksandr. Commentary to “Pis’mo o pol’ze stekla” by M. V.
Lomonosov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Vol. 8. Moscow: Akademiia nauk
SSSR, 1959.
Narezhnyi, V. T. Rossiiskii Zhilblaz, ili Pokhozhdeniia kniazia Gavrily
Simonovicha Chistiakova in Izbrannye sochineniia v dvukh tomakh. Vol. I.
Moscow: Khudlit, 1956.
Olesha, Iurii. Zavist’. Ni dnia bez strochki. Minsk: BGU im. V. I. Lenina, 1982.
Papernyi, Vladimir. Kul’tura “Dva.” Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1985.
Pendergrast, Mark. Mirror Mirror: A History of the Human Love Affair with
Reflection. New York: Basic, 2003.
Pravdivtsev, Vitalii. Eti zagadochnye zerkala… Vzaimodeistvie cheloveka s
zerkalami. Moscow: Izd. “RITs MDK,” 2002.
“Protestuia ot imeni millionov trudiashchikhsia SSSR, krest’ianin Nikitin
vystrelil v sarkofag s telom Lenina, a zatem ubil sebia.” Fakty i kommentarii.
22 Oct. 1999. Web. 27 Apr. 2000.
Pyliaev, M. I. Zabytoe proshloe okrestnostei Peterburga. St. Petersburg: Izd. A.S.
Suvorina, 1889.
Scheerbart, Paul. Glass Architecture. Trans. James Palmes, ed. Dennis Sharp.
New York: Praeger, 1972.
Semenov, Dmitrii. “Etazhi so znakom minus.” Moskovskaia Pravda, 12 Oct.
1991.
-. “Pervyi sovetskii neboskreb,” Moskovskaia Pravda, 18 May 1991.
-. “Taina zheleznoi dveri,” Vecherniaia Moskva, 22 July 2004.
Shklovskii, Viktor. Eizenshtein. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1973.
Solov’ev, S. M. Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen v piatnadtsati knigakh, Book
VIII. Moscow: Izd. Sotsial’no-Ekonomicheskoi literatury, 1962.
“Steklo v sovremennoi arkhitekture,” Sovremennaia arkhtitektura 3 (1926).
Tarabarina, Iuliia. “Zdanie Federal’nogo Arbitrazhnogo suda Moskovskogo
okruga.” Agenstvo Arkhitekturnykh Novostei. 30 July 2007. Web. 15 Nov.
2007.
Tarkhanov, Alexei and Sergei Kavtaradze. Architecture of the Stalin Era. New
York: Rizzoli International, 1992.
DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1729 36
Thacker, Christopher. The Wildness Pleases: The Origins of Romanticism. New

York: St. Martin’s, 1983.
Torti, Anna. The Glass of Form: Mirroring Structures from Chaucer to Skelton.
Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1991.
Tsivian, Yuri. Audio commentary for Strike, dir. Sergei Eisenstein, Image
Entertainment, 2000.
Turner, Jane, ed. Dictionary of Art. New York: Grove’s Dictionaries, 1996.
Volkhovskoi, M. G., comp. Domashnii byt russkikh tsarei v XVI-XVII vv.
po Zabelinu, Kliuchevskomu, Karnovichu i drugim (1904). Moscow:
Panorama, 1992.
Voronov, N. V. and M. M. Dubova. Nevskii khrustal’: ocherki osnovnykh etapov
razvitiia. Leningrad: Khudozhnik RSFSR, 1984.
Werness, Hope B. The Symbolism of Mirrors in Art from Ancient Times to the
Present. Lewiston: Mellen, 1999.
Wimsatt, James I. Allegory and Mirror: Tradition and Structure in Middle English
Literature. New York: Pegasus, 1970.
Zabelin, I. E. Domashnii byt russkikh tsarei v XVI i XVII stoletiiakh. Book I.
Moscow: Kniga, 1990.
Zamiatin, Evgenii. My in Izbrannoe. Moscow: Pravda, 1989.
Zamyatin, Yevgeny. We. Trans. Mirra Ginsburg. New York: Eos, 1999.

No Mere Reflection - Mirrors As Windows On Russian Culture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

No Mere Reflection - Mirrors As Windows On Russian Culture

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

No Mere Reflection - Mirrors As Windows On Russian Culture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature

No Mere Reflection: Mirrors as Windows on Russian Culture

Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/sttcl

Part of the Slavic Languages and Societies Commons

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative

Aleksei Mikhailovich Romanov, who reigned as tsar of Muscovy

Published by New Prairie Press 1

with taffeta, satin, or velvet curtains on rings, or were locked up in

Mirrors Invade Russia

172 ST&TCL, Volume 34, No. 2 (Summer 2010)

In the mid-eighteenth century, the poet Mikhail Lomonosov

Published by New Prairie Press 3

does not condemn women’s vanity, as some of his contemporaries

174 ST&TCL, Volume 34, No. 2 (Summer 2010)

England mediating every impression with such a mirror. As a con-

Published by New Prairie Press 5

ation of this city signified a major change in Russia’s identity, from

176 ST&TCL, Volume 34, No. 2 (Summer 2010)

Published by New Prairie Press 7

between a series of rollers, then cooled and polished. This process

178 ST&TCL, Volume 34, No. 2 (Summer 2010)

own double, “a person may identify himself with another and so

Published by New Prairie Press 9

Mirrors as Texts and Texts as Mirrors

180 ST&TCL, Volume 34, No. 2 (Summer 2010)

modity, each resulting in a moral lesson grounded in materialism.

Published by New Prairie Press 11

kov urges Feklusha to remember her distinguished lineage: “You’re

Mirrors and Mysticism

182 ST&TCL, Volume 34, No. 2 (Summer 2010)

mirror acted as a photographic plate to capture Tchaikovsky’s re-

Published by New Prairie Press 13

ume Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language,

184 ST&TCL, Volume 34, No. 2 (Summer 2010)

Mirrors in Space and Space in Mirrors

Published by New Prairie Press 15

186 ST&TCL, Volume 34, No. 2 (Summer 2010)

point did contain).17 Here again we note an unease about mirrors

Published by New Prairie Press 17

188 ST&TCL, Volume 34, No. 2 (Summer 2010)

in so far as the mirror does exist in reality, where it exerts a sort

Published by New Prairie Press 19

from a magical mirror, and Russian literature participates in this

190 ST&TCL, Volume 34, No. 2 (Summer 2010)

organ’s range of action… it allows us to catch visual stimuli from

Published by New Prairie Press 21

When the workers abandon the factory, the effect is unprec-

192 ST&TCL, Volume 34, No. 2 (Summer 2010)

will become the hunted. Reflect-

Published by New Prairie Press 23

the framework of Eisenstein’s revolutionary aesthetics.

194 ST&TCL, Volume 34, No. 2 (Summer 2010)

death, and so, all visible traces of pre-revolutionary Russia must be

Published by New Prairie Press 25

phenomena that is unique to Russian culture. The beam of light that

196 ST&TCL, Volume 34, No. 2 (Summer 2010)

Published by New Prairie Press 27

star conceals: the deep sub-basement of the building houses “the