{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033091202582728005, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003228410008071025, 'mean_word_length': 4.876777251184834, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A sibyl of Two Voices: “Sivilla” by Marina Cvetaeva and “Eine Sibylle” by Rainer Maria Rilke. A Comparative Reading

“A Sibyl of Two Voices” presents a comparative reading of the poetic triptych “Sivilla” by Marina Cvetaeva and “Eine Sibylle” by Rainer Maria Rilke. On the grounds of the new material in the correspondence between Cvetaeva and Pasternak, Marina Cvetaeva, Boris Pasternak, Dusi nacinajut videt' (Korkina and Sevelenko 2004), it stands clear that Cvetaeva began her reading of Rilke in the same period as she wrote the first two poems of “Sivilla”. My reading is structured according to a number of parallels between the two poems, which are not only textual, but constitute a common figural skeleton. The reading is both comparing and contrasting, in line with the argument that Cvetaeva did not quote Rilke, but integrated part of the imagery in “Eine Sibylle” in “Sivilla”. One of the most remarkable contrasts between the two poems is Cvetaeva's fusion of the Sibyl with the Virgin Mary. Cvetaeva's Christian imagery is partly due to the notion of the divine voice, conceiving the Sibyl/Virgin Mary with an oracular insight. My conclusion is that Cvetaeva was not referencing Rilke, but reaching for an archetypal image.