Russian Literature (11 page)

Nor was confessional poetry the only genre that was not anticipated in Pushkin’s work. As Lidiya Ginzburg argued in a classic history of nineteenth-century Russian literature,
On Psychological Prose
, it was Aleksandr Herzen, in
My Past and Thoughts
, who pioneered the genre of confessional prose, employing a searingly emotional rhetoric that would probably have embarrassed Pushkin. Conversely, Pushkin’s wonderfully vivid, playful, and self-deprecating letters have few successors in Russian tradition. Later masters of the epistolary form,
ture
such as Marina Tsvetaeva, inclined to literary-philosophical abstraction
rae

Lit

and to lamentation on the unfairness of fate rather than to concrete detail and teasing humour. So far as the theatre was concerned,
ssian

Ru

Pushkin wrote no dramatic comedies, which both before and after his lifetime constituted the glory of the Russian theatre. (Gogol’s
The
Government Inspector
, ensconced in the international repertory as a unique masterpiece, was the successor to eighteenth-century texts such as Fonvizin’s
The Minor
or Knyazhnin’s
The Boaster
, and the inspiration for Aleksandr Ostrovsky, the prolific mainstay of the mid-nineteenth-century Russian theatre.) Nor did Pushkin contribute to the extremely important genre of tragicomedy, as exemplified in Chekhov’s
The Cherry Orchard
or Mayakovsky’s
The Bed-Bug
. His greatest achievements remained splendidly isolated. To be sure,
Evgeny
Onegin
inspired imitations, but none of these were more than entertaining exercises in light verse. The psychological complexity of
Boris Godunov
was captured in Musorgsky’s operatic setting of the play, rather than in Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy’s trilogy of historical dramas about Boris, his predecessors and his successors,
64

works of a painstaking dullness rather than the young Pushkin’s sketchy brilliance.

If Pushkin can be seen as a pioneer, it is of ‘mixed genre’ texts. The narrative poem with prose ‘frame’ in
The Egyptian Nights
(1835) was, for instance, paralleled (though not imitated) in Karolina Pavlova’s
A Double
Life
(1844–7), a prose story using poetry to represent the thoughts and dreams of its protagonist, Cecilia. But given the preoccupation of Romantic literature throughout Europe with new and hybrid forms (take Heine’s ‘verse novel’
Atta Troll
, or the use of song to represent Mignon’s imaginative world in Goethe’s
Wilhelm Meister
) it is difficult to argue that the intergeneric text in Russian literature derives wholly from
‘I
Pushkin’s influence.

shall

be

Even the conventional view of Pushkin’s centrality to the Russian
famou

literary language can only be partly endorsed. Much of Pushkin’s
s a

streamlining of syntax had been anticipated in the eighteenth century,
s lon

not only in the writings of Nikolay Karamzin, traditionally seen as the
g as

pre-Pushkinian pioneer, but also in humbler sources, such as the
anoth

memoirs of Princess Natalya Dolgorukaya, produced in 1767 as a
er

poet

private chronicle for her descendants, and in translations from the French of novels and of conduct books. Besides, as the scholar Boris
liv

es’

Gasparov, among others, has argued, the Pushkinian/Karamzinian line was only one of many literary orientations in the early nineteenth century; other writers were as likely to react against it as they were to espouse it.

So far as prose fiction went, Pushkin’s heritage was similarly idiosyncratic. A sore point for advocates of Pushkin’s role as the ‘founding father of Russian literature’ has been the writer’s failure, among his many brilliant excursions into diverse genres, to provide models for the enormous psychological novels that have, since the late nineteenth century, been internationally regarded as Russia’s greatest contribution to world literature. Even so determinedly individual a
65

13. Ostrovsky,
Too Clever By Half.

Ostrovsky’s
Too Clever By Half
(1868) in an ‘eccentric’ circus staging by the film director Sergey Eisenstein (1923): a dozen or so ginger-haired clowns cavort provocatively on a climbing-frame set. Ostrovsky, the linchpin of the Russian theatre in the mid-nineteenth century, is a clear case of a successful writer whose work bears little or no relation to Pushkin’s (with the possible exception of his fairy-tale drama
The Snow Maiden
).

Unlike Pushkin, he was a professional man of the theatre, many of whose plays, so far from being brilliant but theatrically problematic experiments, were competent formulaic comedies lifted above the rut by the author’s extraordinary ear for vulgar
‘I
speech, vivid sense of the ridiculous, and infectious misan-shall thropy.
The Storm
, on the other hand, was a full-blooded
be

famou

melodrama of merchant life that was quite out of kilter with Pushkin’s emotional delicacy. Which is not to belittle
s as

Ostrovsky’s achievements as a dramatist: his plays have a firm
lon

g

place on the international stage (
The Storm
inspired Janácěk’s
as a

opera
Katerina Kabanova
, for instance), as well as the national
noth

one. And in early twentieth-century Russia, their familiarity bred
er

poet

not contempt but daring on the part of directors, including
liv

Meyerhold and Stanislavsky, as well as Eisenstein.

es’

Modernist as Nabokov, who held much Russian Realist prose to be as bogus in intention as it was garrulous in expression, and who detested psychological literalism, commented of Pushkin’s Evgeny Onegin that he is ‘fluid and flaccid as soon as he starts to feel, as soon as he departs from the existence he has acquired from his maker in terms of colorful parody and as a catchall for many irrelevant and immortal matters’. It was above all as a triumph of surface-painting that he admired the novel. To be sure,
Evgeny Onegin
is stylistically diverse and has a narrator who plays many parts (a friend of the characters, a mouthpiece for
67

them, an ironic commentator upon folly, a sympathizer in time of grief).

Yet even Tatiana remains a symbol rather than a counterfeit of lived reality, a creature of idealism rather than representation. She is as much a manifestation of the creative sensibility as a portrait of a provincial young lady. If her letter to Evgeny, written when awake, is a tissue of quotations from books she has read, her dream of Evgeny surrounded by strange creatures is narrated in the language of Pushkin’s own lyric ballads.

None of this has resonance in, say, the writing of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, or Chekhov. Pushkin’s characters usually do not have their own voices: they are pegs upon which the fabric of authorial brilliance is hung (the same is true of Gogol’s characters, with the exception of the Mayor in the
Government Inspector
, who, in his final outburst of rage against the trick that has been played on him, achieves a truly personal eloquence unlike anything else in the play). Pushkin’s
ture
acidly detached portrayal of Hermann and Liza allows little space to
rae

Lit

speech from within the characters: Hermann in particular remains enigmatic because he is always seen from outside. The furthest
ssian

Ru

possible point from this was reached in Dostoevsky’s extraordinary, and by both national and international standards revolutionary, story
Notes from Underground
, in which we have no point of orientation but the voice of the central character himself, tormenting us with his capricious and contradictory statements from the very first sentence of the novel: I am a sick man. A bitter and spiteful man. An unattractive man. I think that my liver has something wrong with it. But actually I don’t give a stuff about being ill and I’m not even sure what’s wrong with me. I’m not going for treatment and I never have gone for treatment, even though I do respect doctors and medicines. And on top of that, I’m superstitious; superstitious enough, even, to respect medicine. (I’m educated enough not to be superstitious, but I still am superstitious.) No, sir, the reason I don’t go for treatment is out of spite. You probably won’t want to
68

understand that. Well, I understand you there. But of course I won’t manage to explain to you precisely whose nose I aim to put out of joint with my spite . . .

No English translation can imitate the grammar of the original, which employs the flexibility of Russian syntax in order to place the adjective in a different position in each of the first sentences, so that the cadence rises to a pitch of hysterical triumph on ‘unattractive’. But the nature of the rhetorical stategies comes across. As a statement is presented, it is immediately contradicted; just as contradictory is the Underground Man’s combination of insistent solitariness and inability to do without his listener, the antagonist who ‘probably won’t want to understand’.

‘I

The Underground Man’s confession is presented without any of the
shall

devices customarily used to establish a memoir as ‘real’. There is no
be

diary discovered after his death, his listener remains anonymous, and
famou

there is no motivating occasion (in contrast, the murderer in Tolstoy’s
s a

Kreutzer Sonata
makes his confession in a train carriage, a propos a
s lon

discussion of marriage).
Notes from Underground
breached the literary
g as

etiquette of Pushkin’s prose as energetically as its monstrously
anoth

paranoid, intolerant, and rude narrator poured contempt on the
er

poet

behaviour conventions of polite society.

liv

es’

To be sure, aspects of Pushkin’s prose were to be treated as exemplary by some later writers. For Chekhov, it was Pushkin’s sparing use of figurative language, his preference for metonyms over metaphors, that was particularly attractive. For Tolstoy, it was above all the directness and immediacy of Pushkin’s opening paragraphs that had weight. The second sentence of
Anna Karenina
– ‘Everything had got mixed up in the Oblonsky household’ – has the deliberate flatness of the first line of
The Queen of Spades
, ‘A game of cards was going on one day in the residence of Narumov, an officer in the horse guards.’

Yet Tolstoy, the most ‘Pushkinian’ of writers in terms of his way of beginning a narrative, was decidedly anti-Pushkinian in other respects.

69

The caricatured Napoleon in
War and Peace
is at the far end of the representational spectrum from Pushkin’s ambivalent, but fervent, tributes to the leader’s Romantic grandeur. ‘Napoleon’ (1822) opens with lines that employ the cosmic imagery of the eighteenth-century formal ode to evoke the French emperor’s transcendent greatness: The fateful destiny is played out: The great man has flickered into darkness.

In gloomy unfreedom has rolled to an end

The thunderous age of Napoleon.

For Tolstoy in
War and Peace
, ‘providence’ replaced ‘destiny’, and characters achieved greatness in the sight of their God and of their literary creator because of their lack of aspiration to the ‘greatness’

represented here. In Pushkin’s writings, for instance
The Bronze
Horseman
, the word ‘idol’ occupied a vital place, capturing an
ture

ambiguous configuration of greatness and moral transgression. In
rae

Lit

Tolstoy’s mind, all idols, by definition, could only deceive, and in attempting to escape their common humanity were certain to reveal
ssian

Ru

their tawdry and hollow true selves. The fact that Tolstoy’s father, a member of Pushkin’s own generation, had made him learn ‘Napoleon’

by heart in the nursery did everything other than ensure piety towards Pushkin and his hero.

Compared with Pushkin’s sense that prose should be ‘modest’ and ‘lucid’, too, the expansiveness of Tolstoy’s vast ‘baggy monsters’ was provocative to the point of impertinence. The epilogue of
The Queen of
Spades
ties up the ends with exaggerated neatness, underlining the fact that this is a piece of fiction. Tolstoy’s endings, on the other hand, are made fuzzy by their epilogues and afterwords. There is the sense of the writer returning again and again to subjects he could not bear to abandon. And the intimations of fate that play an ambiguous role in
The
Queen of Spades
were, for Tolstoy, always escapable. If there is some sense that Hermann may really have been taken to the Countess’s house
70