Russian Literature (12 page)

by an ‘unknown power’, a malign supernatural force, albeit one within him, a character’s belief that his or her fate was ‘foreshadowed’ was, for Tolstoy, an indication of psychic morbidity, of a bent to self-destruction.

Tolstoy, then, was an example of a reader who read Pushkin ‘like a poet’ – a term which Pushkin himself understood to mean a creative personality in a broad sense, someone who might be inspired tangentially, rather than literally, by what he or she read.

It took a century or so after
War and Peace
was published before any writer repudiated Pushkin as boldly, but also as creatively, as Tolstoy had. But by the 1960s, decades of force-fed patriotism had inspired – at
‘I
least among some unofficial Soviet writers – a marked disaffection with
shall

the literary classics. Varlam Shalamov, for example, began one of his
be

Kolyma Tales
with a bitter parody of the first line of
The Queen of Spades
:
famou
‘One day they were playing cards in the barracks residence of Naumov,
s a
one of the guards of the horses in the prison camp.’ The irrelevance of
s lon

the original to Soviet life is cruelly underlined. A more extended
g as

repudiation of Pushkin was to be found in the poetry of Joseph Brodsky,
anoth

whose personal canon of great Russian poets (Derzhavin, Baratynsky,
er

poet

Mandelstam) demonstratively side-stepped ‘the father of Russian literature’.

liv

es’

Brodsky’s important sequence, ‘Twenty Sonnets for Maria Stuart’

(1974), for example, distances itself from Pushkin in a variety of ways, overt and hidden. It selects a verse form (the sonnet) which Pushkin scarcely employed. Alliteration, which is a striking device throughout the cycle, is used far more obviously than in Pushkin’s works. Brodsky also makes clear from the outset that the ‘muse’ to whom ‘Maria Stuart’

is addressed is a fantasy, an invention, something that will ‘step down from the screen/and enliven the parks like a statue’ (sonnet no. 1). The addressee is both less and more real than the statues to which several of Pushkin’s late poems are addressed (and which are evoked in Brodsky’s simile). She is an emanation of a film that the lyric hero saw as a boy,
71

where ‘Sarah/Leander walked click-click to the scaffold’ (sonnet no. 2).

That is, she is an artistic vision of a kind far less substantial than a sculpture. Yet at the same time, the cycle insists on her actual, physical existence, as someone who is the object of a desire deserving consummation, so that ‘Scotland becomes our mattress’ (sonnet no. 8).

And to mark his distance still further, Brodsky continually, and, from the point of view of conventional literary piety, impertinently, quotes from Pushkin’s love poems in order to undermine their emotional rhetoric, most particularly through glaring lexical dislocations that are utterly contrary to the spirit of Pushkin’s harmonious combinations of disparate poetic styles. A case in point is the wry parody, in the sixth sonnet, of Pushkin’s ‘I loved you’ (translated here by Peter France):
I loved you. And my love (or maybe
it’s only pain)
still stabs me through the brain.

The whole thing’s shattered into smithereens.

ture

I tried to shoot myself – using a gun

rae

Lit

isn’t so simple. And the temples: which one, the right or left? Reflection, not the shakes,
ssian

Ru

kept me from acting. Jesus! what a mess!

I loved you with such strength, such hopelessness
may God send you in others
– not a chance!

He may be capable of many things,

but – with Parmenides – won’t reinspire

the fire in the blood, the bones’ crunching collapse, swelling the lead in fillings with desire

to touch – ‘your hips’, I must delete – your lips.

Apart from the two direct quotations from Pushkin (italicized here – for the full text of the original poem, see Chapter 6), the poem’s parodistic relationship to its original is established by the use, in line 12 of the Russian, of the archaic article
sei
– ‘yonder fire’ would be correct in terms of register. But the original is used as a mere backing canvas for purely Brodskian (and twentieth-century) rhetorical embroidery. This
72

includes the vulgarism
byust
(‘bust’, here rendered ‘hips’) in line 14

(Pushkin would have used the high-style
persi
, or ‘breasts’, in the context of a love poem), the reference to ‘the shakes’ in line 6, the throwaway mention of Parmenides (the fifth-century Greek rationalist philosopher who held that only what exists can be known) in line 11, and, especially, the ironic undermining of the allusion to God in line 9.

Such a direct, defiant repudiation of Pushkin qua Pushkin, based upon a thorough knowledge of his works, remained a rarity even in twentieth-century Russian literature. Far more common was the attempt to find an ‘alternative’ Pushkin to the ‘father of Russian literature’ or ‘Soviet patriot before his time’ by looking once more to
‘I
Pushkin’s own works. Just as censorship fostered ‘Aesopian language’,
shall

so did the narrow, official image of ‘the greatest Russian writer’ foster
be

an ‘Aesopian Pushkin’. From the mid-1930s, writing about Pushkin, a
famou

self-evidently ‘safe’ topic (unlike the late Dostoevsky, with his notorious
s a

loathing for the Russian revolutionary movement and devotion to the
s lon

Orthodox Church), could allow writers to voice issues that would have
g as

been utterly taboo if touched upon directly.

anoth

er

poet

A case in point was Anna Akhmatova’s essays on Pushkin. These emphasized Pushkin’s talent for ‘encryptation’ – at a point when
liv

es’

Akhmatova herself was evolving a protective obscurity in response to institutionalized oppression. Equally, Akhmatova’s emphasis on Pushkin’s struggle for dignity in a world reduced to moral squalor by authoritarianism articulated her view of the position of the Soviet writer. Exactly so did Shostakovich use citations from his own setting of Pushkin’s poem ‘The barbarian painter with his somnolent brush’ in order to weave the theme of posthumous artistic justification into his Fifth Symphony, his first major public work after the vicious vilification that had greeted
Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk
in 1936.

To be sure, the emphasis here on the writer’s sacred role made these unofficial views of Pushkin close to official views, in terms of tone if not
73

interpretation. But there were also other, less solemn, ‘alternative Pushkins’. Many preferred, in the words of Andrey Sinyavsky, to approach Pushkin ‘not by the grand front entrance lined with busts wearing expressions of unrelenting nobility on their faces, but with the help of the anecdotes and caricatures that have been dreamed up by street culture as a kind of response to, revenge for, Pushkin’s resounding fame’. To continue Sinyavsky’s own metaphor, writers approached Pushkin by the back door or ‘black entrance’ rather than the front or ‘parade’ one.

The smutty tone of the phrase ‘back door’ pointed to the fact that intimacy in all its forms was a governing trope of twentieth-century anti-establishment literature, which also led to an emphasis on Pushkin’s clandestine writings. The
Gabrieliad
, an irreverent romp depicting the insemination of the Virgin Mary by Satan and the Angel Gabriel as well as God, which had circulated in manuscript during
ture
Pushkin’s lifetime and been published in full only after the Revolution,
rae

Lit

now attained canonical status. Preparation for the first ‘complete’

edition of Pushkin in the 1920s turned up quantities of private
ssian

Ru

correspondence, rough drafts, jottings, and so on, which were equally helpful to the construction of a new, ‘intimate’ Pushkin. Most obviously, they explored subject matter uncongenial to the decorous image of a ‘national poet’. Here, Pushkin could be found boasting of having wiped his ‘sinful hole’ with pages torn from the prolific occasional poet Count Khvostov’s latest book, or comparing the ‘colon and comma’ that ornamented his loins with the mere ‘comma’ of a politically powerful, but sexually disadvantaged, grandee. But the new Pushkin materials offered more than such glimpses of the forbidden. They also contributed to a growing sense of the writer’s manuscript as a text in itself, not just an intermediate stage between inspiration and publication (as Pushkin himself, whatever his concerns about textual integrity, had certainly seen it). After 1928, as censorship became fiercer, and more and more writers practised ‘the genre of silence’, or composed texts for ‘the desk drawer’, it was the manuscript that alone
74

held the promise of eluding social control. Books might be purged from libraries, but in the words of Mikhail Bulgakov, whose
Master and
Margarita
was one of the most famous manuscripts to survive the Stalin years (though Bulgakov himself did not), ‘manuscripts don’t burn’.

What was more, with their doodled landscapes, portraits of salon beauties, ducks, devils, and chargers, Pushkin’s manuscripts had a liveliness, a physical presence (‘facture’) that had characterized the avant-garde publications of the 1910s and 1920s, but which began to disappear as control over print culture tightened in the 1930s. (Ill. 9.) As Pushkin’s negligently scrawled self-portraits presented a welcome alternative view of the poet to the congealed bronze of statues, so,
‘I
for 1960s Modernists, it was precisely the poet’s immateriality, his
shall

‘emptiness’, his ‘chatter’, his amoralistic and slippery variability of
be

style, his idiosyncratic undefinability, that appealed. There was a
famou

revival of interest in Pushkin as parodist, an identity that had also
s a

appealed to writers in the 1920s, when even the sacred notion of the
s lon

poet as prophet had been subject to ironic appropriation (the writer
g as

Vikenty Veresaev had wondered in 1929 whether ‘Monument’, like the
anoth

character of Evgeny Onegin, might not be a sardonic travesty of
er

poet

Romantic stereotype: ‘Is this poem maybe not just a parody?’). Soviet Socialist Realists had seen themselves, in all seriousness, as heirs to
liv

es’

Tolstoy and Turgenev, and pontificated solemnly to readers about their approach to the ‘writer’s craft’. Underground or semi-official writers of the 1960s and 1970s, on the other hand, preferred to approach classic works of Russian literature via the ‘back door’ of irony. Venedikt Erofeev’s
Moscow-Petushki
was a
reductio ad absurdum
of the official practice of using citations from the classics as a way of displaying a text’s cultural credentials – texts from the Bible to the labels of tins of boot-polish appeared in a disorderly profusion, with no sense of relative importance. And in Dmitry Prigov’s mock-obituary in the style of
Pravda
, Pushkin’s essential frivolity was used to undermine the pomposity of official biography and of recognized writers:
75

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, and the Soviet Government announce with the very deepest regret that on the 10 February (29 January, Old Style) 1837, as the result of a tragic duel, the course of the life of the great Russian poet Aleksandr Sergeevich Pushkin, aged 37, has come to a sudden and untimely end.

Comrade Pushkin was always distinguished by high principles, a sense of responsibility, and a demanding attitude towards himself and others. In every post that he was deputed to occupy he displayed boundless fidelity to the appointed task, a military valour and heroism, and all the elevated qualities of a patriot, a citizen, and a poet.

He will always remain in the hearts of his friends and those who knew him well as a rake, a joker, a tearaway, and a terrible boozer.

ture

Pushkin’s name will live for ever in the memory of the Russian people as
rae

Lit

the eternal flame of Russian poetry.

ssian

Ru

From ‘the father of Russian literature’, Pushkin had become a jester, a participant at bachelor revels. He was even paid the dubious compliment of a pornographic forgery, his so-called Secret Memoirs of 1836 and 1837, which confessed, among other things, to three-in-a-bed frolics with his wife Natalya and her sister Aleksandra. And his key works now included, besides
Evgeny Onegin
(not as Belinsky’s ‘encyclopedia of Russian life’, but as a playful piece of eavesdropping on gossip and an example of ‘manipulation of plot’),
The Little House at Kolomna
,
The
Gabrieliad
, and
Count Nulin
.

76

‘Awakening noble

feelings with my lyre’

Writers as ‘masters of minds’

A literary sermon is freer and more independent than a treatise; it often looks above real phenomena, far beyond them, sketching out its prophetic words on the distant and empty horizon.

(Pavel Annenkov, 1858)

In the last chapter, we saw how the pomposity of the Pushkin cult provoked an understanding of Pushkin as jester, as
homo ludens
, a pleasant acquaintance to be ‘strolled’ with, rather than as a disdainful and frowning pedagogue. Pushkin became the herald of meaning as non-meaning, the poet above all of
The Little House of Kolomna
(1830), which concludes its bizarre and studiedly pointless saga of a transvestite cook with the following words: Here’s a moral for you: in my view