Nikolaj Nekrasov: His life and poetic art 9783111393865, 9783111031347

Citation preview

NIKOLAJ NEKRASOV: HIS LIFE AND POETIC ART

SLAVISTIC PRINTINGS AND REPRINTINGS

edited by

C. H. V A N SCHOONEVELD Indiana

University

1A

1968

MOUTON T H E H A G U E • PARIS

NIKOLAJNEKRASOV HIS LIFE AND POETIC ART

by

S I G M U N D S. B I R K E N M A Y E R The Pennsylvania State University

1968

MOUTON THE H A G U E • PARIS

© Copyright 1968 in The Netherlands. Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague.

No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG NUMBER: 68-17872

Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., Printers, The Hague

microfilm,

TO MY WIFE

INTRODUCTION

Nikolaj Alekseevi5 Nekrasov (1821-1878), one of the great poets of nineteenthcentury Russia, is virtually unknown in this country, chiefly perhaps because of the paucity of English translations of his poetry. Moreover, the strictly contemporary flavor of his poems requires some familiarity with the Russia of his time. Coming, as he did, just after the Golden Age of Russian poetry, Nekrasov wrote under conditions that were totally different from those prevailing when Puskin and Lermontov were alive. In the early 1840's the dominant literary critic, Belinskij, admonished all writers, including the poets, to be socially conscious in everything they wrote; in the 1850's, the critic Cernysevskij's negation of all spiritual values sounded a death knell for the poetry of the eclectics, like Fet; in the 1860's the radical critics, Dobroljubov and Pisarev, refused to recognize poetry except as a means of revolutionary propaganda. Nekrasov, although he did not subscribe to all the views of the Populists,1 felt a moral obligation (indeed, a compulsion) to speak for the suffering Russian peasant, whose misery he knew at first hand and for whom his sympathy was genuine, having been derived from his childhood experiences and his mother's humane attitudes; nor did Nekrasov's interest in peasant life and problems cease with the year 1861, when serfdom was officially abolished in Russia. Some knowledge of the poet's life and of the social background of the time is indeed relevant to an understanding of his poetry. Nekrasov's life was in a sense a drama in which he was the chief actor, and the stage for that drama was Russia itself. His family heritage and his emotional and intellectual development shaped his poetic temper and determined his choice of topics to write on. The best of his poems actually dealt with but two recurrent themes: 1. his recollections of his mother, 2. the life of the Russian peasant. It is in such poems that his empathy and his proneness to grieve over human suffering strike us as genuine and artistically convincing. On the other hand, one cannot deny that in many of his contemporary satires (and even in his long narrative poem, "Russian Women")2 Nekrasov seems to assume an altogether hypocritical attitude, paying lip service to artistic perfection and being concerned primarily about the salability of his literary production. The poet himself admitted (in his poem, "To an Unknown Friend") 1 2

See Glossary. All translations from Russian are original unless otherwise noted.

8

INTRODUCTION

that at times his lyre "was clearly out of tune". 3 His poetry could not — and never did — appeal to all strata of contemporary Russian society; and those to whom it did appeal, often interpreted it in terms of ideas rather than art. It was Cernysevskij, after all, who cast Nekrasov in the role of a radical saint. Yet the poet was no social reformer any more than Puskin and Gogol had been; it was his essential humaneness that prompted him to devote his talent to the cause of social betterment. Nekrasov's lifetime dream was to be remembered after his death by the Russian peasantry, whom he had portrayed so lovingly in his long narrative poem, Who is Happy in Russia. Since he identified himself with his people and his country, Russia looms large in his poetry as in his life. Nekrasov has been called by some "a poet of vengeance and grief", and his own words could be cited as proof that such an apellation was at least partly justified: Be at one with my Muse of distress: I have no other lilt in my possession. He who lives without wrath or depression Love of Motherland does not possess.4 Nekrasov's "Muse", however, seems to have been at her best in purely lyrical poems. He was primarily a lyrical poet and only secondarily a social satirist. The figure of Nekrasov-the-artist overshadows the social prophet. The gap between his world and ours can be bridged only through appreciation of his poetic art, of which his own personal life and the life of his Russian homeland were the matrix. Nekrasov, "a poet of vengeance and sorrow", and a first-rate lyricist, cannot be seen in his true perspective if considered apart from the times and the society in which he lived. His poetry, taken in its entirety, not only provides the key to the understanding of his complex personality but also reflects all the important political and social changes that occurred in Russia between 1845 and 1875. But it is the lyricist, not the satirist, that appeals to us as we read Nekrasov's poems. The "anger and grief" in Nekrasov's poetry have long since ebbed away, but his art remains.

* Nekrasov, "Umru ja skoro ... (Posvjascaetsja neizvestnomu drugu ...)", Sobranie socinenij v vos'mi tomax (Moscow, 1965-1966), Vol. II, p. 189. 4 Nekrasov, "Gazetnaja", Ibid., p. 143. Tr. by Nadine Jarintzov in Russian Poets and Poems (Oxford, 1917), Vol. I, p. 260.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

7 NEKRASOV'S LIFE A N D LITERARY ACTIVITY

I. Mother and Son

13

II. School and University Years

16

III. "Dreams and Sounds"

22

IV. Nekrasov's Journalistic Apprenticeship

25

V. Friendship with Belinskij

28

VI. Editorship of The Contemporary, Nekrasov as a Businessman and as a Poet VII. Editorship of the Fatherland Notes; The Waning Years

42 54

NEKRASOV'S ART

VIII. The Evolution of Nekrasov's Art as seen in the Mirror of Russian Criticism IX. Pre-Emancipation Rural Russia in Nekrasov's Poems X. Two Post-Emancipation Poems: "Peasant Children" and "The Peddlers" XI. "Red-Nose Frost" XII. "Who is Happy in Russia"

61 82 106 118 138

XIII. Nekrasov's Mother in his Poetry

190

Conclusion

200

Bibliography

203

Glossary

205

PART I

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

I MOTHER A N D SON

Nikolaj Alekseevic Nekrasov was born on November 28,1821, in the town of Nemirov in southwestern Russia. His father was a Russian regimental oificer; his mother (as most biographers now admit) was a Polish gentlewoman. It was she, and not her husband, who was destined to play a major role in the formation of the future poet's character. The Russian critic Lebedev-Poljanskij, in his biographical sketch of Nekrasov, gives this interesting account of the romance between the future mother of the poet and her Russian suitor: Aleksej Sergeevic often went on official business to Kiev, Odessa, Warsaw, and other cities. During one of his official missions he became acquainted with the family of the Polish magnate Zakrzewski and fell in love with his daughter Elena Andreevna. It is difficult to comprehend how an intelligent, educated, rich, beautiful and refined Polish aristocratic young lady could have been captivated by a semi-literate, coarse Russian officer. But she returned his love, and, not heeding her parents' entreaties and active opposition, she eloped with Aleksej Sergeevic. Thus, she broke forever all the ties that bound her to her former home, and gave up her former high position in society.1 The veracity of the above is borne out by what Nekrasov himself wrote in his reminiscences, which in turn were based on what his mother had told him: ... Staying rather frequently in Warsaw, ... he fell in love with Zakrzewski's daughter; it was useless to try to obtain the parents' consent to the marriage: a semi-literate army officer, and a rich man's daughter — beautiful, well-educated ... My father carried her away straight from a ball — he married her on the way to his regiment — and her fate was sealed.2 The marriage ceremony of Aleksej Sergeevic Nekrasov and Elena Andreevna Zakrevskaja (Helen Zakrzewska, daughter of Andrew) took place on November 11, 1817, in the little town of Juzvin in the Ukraine (in southwestern Russia). In time three sons were born, of whom Nikolaj was the eldest. In 1823, when the future poet was not quite three years old, his father retired from the army and settled on his 1

Lebedev-Poljanskij, N. A. Nekrasov. Kritiko-biograficeskij ocerk (Moscow, 1921), p. 7. Nekrasov, "Avtobiograficeskie nabroski, vospominanija i zametki", Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 49-50 (Moscow, 1946), p. 139. 2

14

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

family estate of Gresnevo, near the city of Jaroslavl' (northeast of Moscow). There, Nikolaj spent his childhood years. The boy was reared in what could hardly be called a happy home environment. The father turned out to be a bully and a drunkard who mistreated his family and his serfs alike and indulged in wanton orgies in the presence of his wife and children. The mother, on the other hand, was a refined and cultured woman. She knew several foreign languages, was a connoisseur of music and an avid reader. Full of compassion for the suffering Gresnevo peasants, she often interceded with her husband to save them from his brutalization — usually without success.3 The incompatibility of Nekrasov's parents, and the scenes of violence he witnessed, could not but leave an imprint on his young mind. In the words of Lebedev-Poljanskij, "... the first childhood impressions determined the poet's character and gave direction to his poetic creativity." 4 It was in those years that Nekrasov's empathy, his ability to suffer with his fellow men, became manifest. At home he had many occasions to witness human misery. Also, since his father's estate was located between the Volga River and the main road to Siberia, he actually saw Volga barge-haulers (burlaki) at work as they strained at hawsers while hauling heavy barges upstream and, at times, he would see Siberia-bound convicts passing on the highroad, with their shaven heads and heavy leg-irons. Nekrasov never forgot those sights and many years later he recreated them with remarkable vividness and poignancy in his poems, "On the Volga" and "The Unfortunates". In those early years, however, it was his mother's silent suffering at the hands of her despotic husband that became Nikolaj's personal tragedy. As told by one of the poet's biographers, Aleksej Sergeevic tormented his wife not only physically but spiritually and morally as well: ... In his rage, he would tie her to a linden tree and then issue stern orders that she should not be given anything to eat or drink, and then he himself would leave on a hunt. Evidently, he also beat her.... Being a sensualist, the poet's father was addicted to gross debauchery. Any peasant girl that caught his eye was led to him like a dog on a chain, and, if she knew how to please the master, she became his favorite mistress. Even during the lifetime of the poet's mother, they brought to the house a certain Agrafena, who treated Elena Andreevna with insolence and deliberate rudeness. As undisciplined natures do, Aleksej Sergeevic spent his time mostly hunting, drinking, and playing cards....5 Nikolaj never grew accustomed to his mother's uncomplaining martyrdom. He began to hate his father for it, bestowing all his affection on his mother. With her 3 Biographical details of Nekrasov's childhood are taken from the following sources: Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 49-50; Lebedev-Poljanskij, op. cit., Chapter II. 4 Lebedev-Poljanskij, op. cit., p. 8. 5 Ibid., pp. 8, 9.

15

MOTHER AND SON

he spent long hours reading or conversing, and it was she that awakened in him a love for beauty and an interest in poetry. By reading good literature to him she gave him his first lessons in literary taste. According to one of the poet's biographers, 6 his early readings probably included French novels popular at the time as well as works of contemporary Russian and Polish poets: Puskin, Lermontov, and Mickiewicz. The strong influence of Nekrasov's mother on her son's spiritual, intellectual and moral development has been recognized by most critics. Lebedev-Poljanskij has this to say: A n u m b e r of p o e m s : A Dog

Hunt,

Homeland,

The

Unfortunates,

Mother,

and others,

depict the poet's unhappy childhood. And what would his life have been like, had he not had a tender, loving mother? Lonely and abused, she was withering away in an atmosphere of ugly orgies and serfdom. "For twenty years she uncomplainingly bore her cross in the silence of a slave", and, proud and duty-conscious, she never even thought of breaking the marriage bond and fleeing from the sordid life that was her lot; and while slowly dying away, she concentrated all her love on her children. Through her sufferings and her love she saved her son. ... 7 What she was trying to save her son from was, above all, selfishness and gross materialism that were so evident in her husband. She must have taught Nikolaj something about the equality of all human beings and encouraged his friendliness toward the peasant children of Gresnevo. From his mother, Nekrasov could not help but acquire compassion for the Russian peasant. Elena Andreevna died in 1841 when the poet was twenty years old. A few of Nekrasov's biographers (Corbet, for one) 8 seem to think that her direct imprint on her son's personality was not great, that a sentimental remorse outweighed filial trust and love in the lifelong and quite remarkable enshrinement of the poet's mother to be found in his works. Be that as it may, the facts 9 establish only that this Polishborn and deeply religious mother fostered Nekrasov's idealism, introduced him at an early age to the spell of the written word, and, through her own example, taught him compassion and on whom to bestow it.

6 7 8 9

Corbet, Nekrasov, Vhomme et le poète (Paris, 1948), p. 12. Lebedev-Poljanskij, op. cit., p. 10. Corbet, op. cit., pp. 12 ff. See note 3.

II SCHOOL A N D UNIVERSITY YEARS

In 1832 Nekrasov, then eleven years old, entered a government-run secondary school (gimnazija) in the city of Jaroslavl'. He did not turn out to be a very bright student despite all the work he had done at home under private tutors. But he did read all the literary material he could lay his hands on, including certain proscribed poems by Puskin and articles by the contemporary critics, Polevoj and Nadezdin. His writings of that time were mostly juvenile satires with numerous personal references to his classmates and school authorities. In the secondary school I became addicted to bombastic phrase, and I began to read literary journals from time to time, while also writing satires on my friends.1 It was evidently such satire of a personal kind that caused most of young Nekrasov's trouble with the school's administration. Both the professors and the director failed to appreciate the wit and humor of his poems, and hinted to the young author that perhaps he might continue his education at some other institution of learning. When, to make matters worse, Nekrasov's father refused in 1837 to pay for any further instruction given his son, Nikolaj had no choice but to leave school and return to his home in Gresnevo. The five years spent by Nekrasov in the Jaroslavl' secondary school may be recorded as another milestone in his intellectual development: he had become acquainted with contemporary poetry and literary criticism; he had also asserted himself by writing poems both imitative and original. Nekrasov's favorite pastime in these formative years was imitating and occasionally parodying poems by Puskin, Lermontov, Byron, and others. The main point is, I would imitate whatever I had read. And so, at the age of fifteen, I already had a whole notebook full of poems, which gave me a strong urge to go to Petersburg. ... Puskin was hardly to be found in literary magazines any more, and Benediktov had been succeeded by others. Indebted to these poets for the rhetoric of my youthful style, I later remembered them gratefully.2 1 2

Nekrasov, "Avtobiograficeskie nabroski", op. cit., p. 147. Ibid., p. 148.

SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY YEARS

17

The poems referred to by Nekrasov in his memoirs are the same that appeared in book form in 1840 under the title Dreams and Sounds (Mecty i zvuki). In these, as one critic puts it, he "fell into the rut of epigone romanticism". 3 A fairer statement would be that in his apprenticeship as a poet Nekrasov learned by trial and error as did many other poets. In 1837, while dreaming of going to Petersburg and winning literary fame, young Nikolaj certainly did not know that a new age was dawning on Russia — an age of prose. Nekrasov's biographers differ somewhat with regard to his life and activities during the years prior to his university studies. M. M. StasjuleviC, in a biographical sketch preceding the 1877 edition of the poet's complete works, states: Nekrasov's father had always wanted his son to follow in his footsteps and choose a military career. As a result, young Nekrasov had to leave his secondary school early, and in 1839 he departed for Petersburg to enter the cadet corps. A friend of his father's, the Jaroslavl' district attorney Polozov, gave him a letter to a brother of his, who was then a district commander of the military police. The latter, in turn, recommended the young man to Ja. I. Rostovcev — and the matter was almost settled. But in Petersburg Nekrasov met his former Jaroslavl' friend, Glusickij, then a university student, and by chance he became acquainted with D. I. Uspenskij; his conversations with them strengthened his determination to become better educated, and he frankly confessed to general Polozov's wife his wish to enroll at the university. The Polozovs approved of his plans but, at the same time, they notified their kinsman in Jaroslavl'. Through him, Nekrasov's father learned of everything. The father's anger did not daunt the young man, who, as a result, was left to his own devices.4 A. S. Suvorin, in his "Sunday Sketches and Vignettes", gives a shorter but almost identical account, without mentioning in what year Nekrasov came to Petersburg. 5 S. N. Krivenko, one of the poet's biographers, quotes Nekrasov himself as saying: "1 arrived in Petersburg in 1837 (the year of Puskin's death). Since I had refused to bow to my father's wish and enter the cadet corps, my money was cut off by him." 6 The only way to end this apparent confusion is to accept the testimony of one of the poet's sisters, according to which Nekrasov left for Petersburg on July 20, 1838.7 Several different explanations are likewise given for Nekrasov's decision to enroll at the university. N. I. Glusickij, whose brother Andrej was a schoolmate of the poet in Jaroslavl', gives this interesting account: Upon meeting N. A. in Petersburg, my brother indeed made every effort to dissuade him from joining the cadet corps and ... entering military service; he succeeded. In that laudable task my brother was aided also by his university colleagues, Il'enkov and Kossov ... Their joint endeavor prevented Nekrasov from sinking into the slough of despond of ... army life and made it possible for him to register at the local university ... as an auditor.8 3

Druzin, "N. A. Nekrasov", Stixotvorenija N. A. Nekrasova (Leningrad, 1956), Vol. I, p. 8. Stasjulevic, "N. A. Nekrasov", Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 49-50, pp. 188-189 (See also footnote, Ibid., p. 190). 6 Suvorin, "Nedel'nye ocerki i kartinki", Ibid., p. 200. 6 Krivenko, "Iz rasskazov Nekrasova", Ibid., p. 207. 7 Butkevic, "Nabroski biografii Nekrasova", Ibid., p. 182. 8 Glusickij, "Po povodu biografii N. A. Nekrasova, pomescennoj v Otecestvennyx zapiskax", Peterburgskij listok, No. 107 (1878). 4

18

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

In the 1877 biography of Nekrasov by Stasjulevic, mention is also made of the theology professor D. I. Uspenskij. This man, as the biographers generally agree, should be given the credit for improving Nekrasov's knowledge of Greek and Latin, in which two languages the latter had not made much progress in Jaroslavl'. 9 Il'enkov and Kossov, themselves students, demonstrated their friendship for the poet by assuming the task of preparing him in mathematics and natural sciences, separate examinations in which were required for admission to the university. However, all these facts still do not provide a satisfactory explanation for Nekrasov's change of mind regarding his future career. The answer may perhaps be found in the following passage, quoted from the writings of the famous radical critic Nikolaj Cernysevskij: Who was it that suggested to Nekrasov that he enroll at the university? According to what he has told me, it was his mother. It happened, as told to me by him, in the following way: His mother wanted him to be an educated man, and often said to him that he should go to a university, since good education is obtained at a university and not in special schools. But his father would not even hear of it; he would agree to let Nekrasov go only for the purpose of entering the cadet corps. It was useless to argue, and the mother kept silent. The father sent Nekrasov to Petersburg to join the cadet corps. ... But the latter was going there with the intention of enrolling not in the cadets' school but at the university. ... 10 This revelation is too important to be treated lightly, the more so that it comes from a man who indeed knew Nekrasov very well and was interested in all that the poet told him about his early years. Cernysevskij, it may be pointed out, had conversed with Nekrasov many years before the poet's illness impaired his memory. It is therefore possible to arrive at the conclusion that the idea of enrolling at the university was inspired in Nekrasov by his mother, and that he went to Petersburg with that intention. Little is known about the first few months of Nekrasov's stay in Russia's capital. The poet himself, in his autobiographical sketch, states simply: "I was getting ready for the university, starving, and preparing nine boys, in all subjects, for admission to military schools." 11 This statement is repeated with minor variations by contemporary biographers of Nekrasov, such as M. M. Stasjulevic, S. N. Krivenko, A. A. Butkevic, and others. N. V. Gerbel' adds still another detail: "Nekrasov feverishly began to read textbooks and prepare ... for the stiff examination that was to take place exactly within a year." 12 Did Nekrasov actually enroll at the university during the initial period of his stay in Petersburg? 9

Stasjulevic, "Biograficeskij ocerk", Stixotvorenija N. A. Nekrasova: Polnoe sobranie v odnom tome (St. Petersburg, 1882), viii. This is a reprint of his article, the latter having been published separately in 1877. 10 Cernysevskij, "Zametki pri ctenii 'biograficeskix svedenij' o Nekrasove, pomescennyx v I tome posmertnogo izdanija ego Stixotvorenij", Polnoe sobranie socinenij i pisem (Moscow, 1939-1953), Vol. I, pp. 742-743. 11 Nekrasov, "Avtobiogr. nabroski", op. cit., p. 148. 12 Gerbel', "N. A. Nekrasov", Ibid., p. 184.

SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY YEARS

19

The previously mentioned N. I. Glusickij, whose brother (A. I. Glusickij) had been a classmate of the poet's in Jaroslavl', sent an explanatory letter to the editor of The Petersburg Leaflet (Peterburgskij listok) in 1878. This letter, whose main purpose was to supply pertinent biographical information about the deceased Nekrasov's university years, is quoted here in part: A. I. Glusickij earnestly wanted Nekrasov to be included in the number of Governmentpaid students; this was indispensable in view of the late poet's precarious financial situation. ... But Nekrasov himself presented an insurmountable obstacle to his being a regular student. "Nekrasov", my late brother told me, "was extremely weak in mathematics and, moreover, was somewhat repelled by that particular science. Despite my fervent wish to help him and my wearisome work with him in that subject, I lost all hope of his ever passing an examination even in the Department of Philology, where no great knowledge of mathematics is said to be required." In the other subjects required for the entrance examination, according to the words of A. I., the late poet was well prepared.13 Nekrasov's other tutor was D. I. Uspenskij, who undertook to prepare him in Greek and Latin, and also in the natural sciences. Thanks to Uspenskij's efforts, the future poet passed the entrance examination in Latin with a grade of "excellent"; but, as regards physics and geography, he received grades of "poor" in both, owing perhaps as much to his tutor's inadequate knowledge of these subjects as to his own distaste for them. His entrance grade in Russian language and literature was but "satisfactory", which could have been the result of his irregular study habits in the Jaroslavl' secondary school. It is obvious that Nekrasov's first attempt to gain admission to the university (in July 1838) must have ended in a failure. The failure was quite a blow to the young man's ego, for he suddenly saw all his dreams shattered. He did the only thing he could do, namely, appealed to the university rector, P. A. Pletnev, to give him another chance in view of his special situation (he was registering at the university against his father's wishes). Pletnev promised to plead Nekrasov's case before the admissions committee if the young man took his physics examination again. Nekrasov, however, never appeared for the examination. Consequently, he was advised by Pletnev to register only as an auditor, which he did. Thus, in September 1839, Nekrasov became an auditor at the university, having all but given up the idea of enrolling as a regular student. Nevertheless, he took another entrance examination in July 1840, which he also failed. 14 It is true, he received a grade of "excellent" in Russian language and literature, but his remaining grades were either "fair" or "poor" or even "unsatisfactory" (especially in modern foreign languages and in natural sciences). Yet it would be wrong to assume that Nekrasov's insufficient preparation for university studies was entirely his own fault. 13 14

See note 8. Evgen'ev-Maksimov, Zizrí

p. 162.

i dejateVnost'' N. A. Nekrasova

(Moscow-Leningrad, 1947), Vol. I,

20

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

A large share of the blame had to be borne by the Jaroslavl' secondary school, whose low educational standards were by no means exceptional among the provincial schools in the Russia of the time. Still another factor, a very important one, contributed to Nekrasov's failure at the university. It was the dire poverty in which he was forced to live during his first years in Petersburg. Owing to his father's refusal to help him financially, Nekrasov, from the very moment of his arrival in Petersburg (i.e., from July 1838) to the year 1840 inclusive, experienced all the miseries of a life of starvation and want. All of Nekrasov's biographers agree that under such circumstances, most of his energy would be spent in a desperate struggle to survive, to earn his daily bread —• as it indeed was. Here is what Nekrasov himself told a friend of his, S. N. Krivenko: For three years, I was hungry all day, every day. It was not only that I ate bad food and not enough of that, but some days I did not eat at all. I often went to a certain restaurant on Morskaja (Street), where one was allowed to read without ordering food. I would take a newspaper just to pretend, and then push a plateful of bread underneath and eat. ... 15

It was this constant starvation that finally brought on a serious illness, diagnosed by doctors as complete exhaustion of the organism due to malnutrition. Nekrasov, thought by many to be near death, eventually recovered, but the traces of the disease remained in his system for the rest of his life. In the years 1838-1841, Nekrasov vainly sought a way out of his dilemma. He clearly saw the impossibility of getting on without a steady source of income, but at the same time he still did not want to give up his dream of obtaining a university education. Against his better judgment, he struggled on, earning his livelihood by tutoring and other work while trying to attend university lectures as an auditor. Often he had to depend on the kindness of his various landlords not to throw him out into the street for not paying his rent. The following excerpt from his reminiscences contains his own account of the terrible conditions under which he lived in Petersburg in those years: I owed forty-five roubles to a soldier in the Raz' 'ezzaja (Street). I had been living in a wooden wing of his house. I was hungry and cold, and had a fever besides. The other tenants were telling me to go to the devil. Nevertheless, I recovered, but had nothing to live on, and the soldier was pressing me for money ... One day he comes to me and says first in a friendly manner: "Please write that you owe me forty-five roubles, and leave me your things as security." I gladly complied with his request ... Well, I think to myself, it's like having been relieved of a heavy burden. I go to a friend on the other side of town and stay there until late at night, I come back home, ... quite confident that the soldier will not bother me now for a long time. ... I come up to the house wing, and knock. "Who are you?" the soldier asks. "Your tenant, Nekrasov", I answer. "All our tenants are home", he says. "How can they all be home", I say, "if I just came!?" Then he says, "You shouldn't have bothered; you gave up your room, and left your things as security ,.."16 15 16

Krivenko, "Iz rasskazov Nekrasova", op. cit., p. 208. Suvorin, Ibid., p. 201 (See also Novoe vremja, 1877, Nos. 380, 662, 745).

SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY YEARS

21

Nekrasov's account is then continued by A. S. Suvorin, to whom the poet told the story in person: What could one do? The poor devil tried to argue, to shout — but it didn't help. The soldier was unmoved. Outside, the fall weather was dreadful, cold and bone-chilling. Nekrasov went along the streets, walked this way and that, until he became so fatigued that he sat down on the doorstep of a store. He was wearing only a tattered overcoat and a pair of serge trousers. He felt so wretched that he hid his face in his hands and wept bitterly. Suddenly he heard footsteps; he looked up and saw a beggar accompanied by a small boy. "Please give, for the love of Christ", wailed the boy, stretching out his hand toward Nekrasov. The latter still had not thought of an answer when the old man nudged the boy: "What's the matter with you? Can't you see, he himself will freeze to death by morning! Eh, you blockhead!" "And what are you doing here?" he continued, addressing the stranger. "Nothing", answered Nekrasov. "Nothing, there's a proud one! You've got no place to live, one can see that. Come along!" "I won't come. Leave me alone." "Well, don't act so important. You'll freeze to death, I say. Let's go, don't be afraid, we won't harm you." There was no other solution. Nekrasov went ... "I went to live with them", said Nekrasov.17 In this way, the poet came to know the "lower depths" of the Russian capital. Those terrible years, 1838-1841, gave him an insight into life and its problems which, in the long run, proved more valuable to him than his unfinished education. The adverse circumstances of Nekrasov's early Petersburg life could not but affect the normal development of his poetic talent. Unknown as he was at that time to the reading public and to literary critics, he had to take whatever short-term assignments he could get on the staffs of various literary journals, the chief among them being The Son of the Fatherland (Syn otecestva), The Literary Gazette (Literaturnaja gazeta), The Pantheon (Panteon), and Fatherland Notes (Otecestvennye zapiski). Besides writing book reviews and short articles, he did bibliographic research, composed fables and children's primers, and even wrote short plays for vaudeville theaters. Many years later he would tell his friends about that literary drudgery with a certain rueful relish: It is almost beyond belief that I could have worked so hard. I don't think I exaggerate if I say that in a few years I produced up to two hundred folio sheets of printed material for journals, beginning just a few days after my arrival in Petersburg. ... l s According to N. V. Gerbel', Nekrasov's first attempt at writing poetry for publication was the poem "Thought" ("MysT"), which appeared in 1838 in The Son of the Fatherland. His second published poem was "Life" ("¿izn'"), printed in 1839 in Library for Reading (Biblioteka dlja ctenija). This success, modest as it was, appears to have been the factor that made him choose poetry for his career. 19 The next step was to find a publisher for a collection of his already written poems. 17 18

19

Ibid., pp. 201-202. Nekrasov, "Avtobiogr. nabroski", op. cit., p. 149.

Gerbel', Ibid., p. 185.

Ill " D R E A M S A N D SOUNDS"

This first collection of poems by Nekrasov would probably have remained unpublished, had it not been for one Grigorij F. Beneckij. The latter, a teacher-supervisor in the pages' corps, and also the headmaster and owner of a preparatory boardingschool, was the first man to take an active interest in the young poet's fate. Not only did he appoint Nekrasov a tutor in his private school, literally saving him from starving to death, but, in 1840, he also helped the yet unknown author publish his slender volume of poetry, Dreams and Sounds (Mecty i zvuki). In his reminiscences, Nekrasov openly acknowledged his debt of gratitude to Beneckij: He was a fine person. Once he said to me: "Publish your poems, and I will sell them for you by subscription up to 500 roubles' worth." I gave to the printer my book, Dreams and Sounds ..-1 Both contemporary and later biographers of Nekrasov almost invariably mention Beneckij as the one whose encouragement and financial help launched the young poet on his literary career. The manuscript of Dreams and Sounds was submitted by Nekrasov to the censor in July 1839, and was approved by the latter still in the same month. The little volume containing forty-four of Nekrasov's poems was published early in 1840 — and turned out to be a failure. Both the reading public and the literary critics mostly ignored it, with the exception of Vissarion Belinskij, who lambasted it as un-original, imitative, and replete with outworn Romantic imagery. 2 In his autobiography Nekrasov thus describes the episode: I sent the book, Dreams and Sounds, to the printer. Then doubts came over me, I wanted to tear it to pieces, but Beneckij had already sold a hundred subscriptions to the cadets, and I had spent the money. What could I do? ... Hesitantly, I went with my book to 2ukovskij. The gray-haired old man, bent with age, received me, took my book and told me to come back in a few days. I did. He praised one of my poems, but he said: "You will be sorry afterwards if you have this book published." But I could not fail to publish it (and I explained why). 2ukovskij gave me a bit of advice: "Remove your name from the cover of the book." 1

2

Nekrasov, "Avtobiogr. nabroski", op. cit., p. 148.

Belinskij, "Mecty i zvuki N. N.", Polnoe sobranie socirtenij (Moscow, 1953-1959), Vol. IV, p. 119

(See also Otecestvennyja zapiski, 1840, No. 3, Section VI).

"DREAMS AND SOUNDS"

23

Dreams and Sounds was published under two initials, N. N. A newspaper railed against me, and I wrote a reply; it was the only time in my life that I defended myself and my work. The reply, of course, was a stupid one, more stupid than the book itself. All that happened in the year 1840. Belinskij also railed against my book. I distributed the printed copies on consignment; not even one was sold. That was an excellent lesson to me; I ceased to write serious poems and began to write egotistic ones.3 Belinskij's scathing review of Dreams and Sounds (which will be discussed later) had a lasting effect on Nekrasov. The young poet, his ego deeply hurt, vowed to write his poems thenceforward primarily for profit. Meanwhile, however, Nekrasov could not help feeling that he was a failure as a poet. This feeling was acerbated still more when a young university professor, A. V. Nikitenko, gave a sarcastic evaluation of Dreams and Sounds in one of his lectures on modern Russian literature. Here is the story as related by N. I. Glusickij: A. V. Nikitenko knew that among his students there was also a former high school student by the name of Nekrasov, who had been expelled from the eleventh grade for his satires on the school authorities; he knew likewise that the same half-educated high school student, not afraid of the great shades of Puskin and other poets, boldly dared to appear before the public with his meager collection of poems, Dreams and Sounds. In these, according to A. V. Nikitenko, there was not a trace of talent, nor sense nor even order, but only verbiage and wooden rhymes — in short, mere claptrap, which the author was advised by A. V. to eschew as soon as possible. Such was the verdict of A. V. with regard to our beginning poet. ... This tactless and inappropriate judgment on Nekrasov ... had quite unpleasant consequences for the latter; he at once stopped attending the lectures of the severe professor of literature, and soon afterwards he left the university. But he kept up his friendships with his former colleagues there.4 According to the Soviet critic V. E. Evgen'ev-Maksimov, the above incident took place shortly after the publication of Nekrasov's collection of poems in early 1840. On the other hand, the poet formally ceased to be an auditor at the university a little over a year later — on July 24, 1841. Probably the best of Nekrasov's youthful poems in Dreams and Sounds is "Such a One is No Poet" ("7o? ne poet"). It treats the subject of a poet's vocation, emphasizing the poet's mission and his attitude toward his nation. K. I. Cukovskij has advanced an interesting hypothesis, according to which the poem just quoted could be an imitation of either of the two poems on a similar subject by I. Panaev and P. Ersov, both of whom were contemporaries of Nekrasov. 5 However, it has also been pointed out by V. E. Evgen'ev-Maksimov that their poems resemble his (Nekrasov's) only in form but not in content. 6 3 4 6

6

Nekrasov, "Avtobiogr. nabroski", op. cit., p. 148. See Chapter II, note 8. Evgen'ev-Maksimov, op. cit., p. 213.

Ibid.

24

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

Certain critics (V. Druzin, among others) have consistently referred to Dreams and Sounds as "Nekrasov's youthful attempts which met with no success."7 This is an oversimplification. Naive and imitative as they were, these poems nevertheless contained at least the seeds of Nekrasov's future growth as a poet.

7

Druzin, "N. A. Nekrasov", op. cit., p. 9.

IV NEKRASOV'S J O U R N A L I S T I C APPRENTICESHIP

The man who helped Nekrasov get started in journalism was F. A. Koni, a friend of G. F. Beneckij. Both men were teachers in the cadets' school in Petersburg. Beneckij, in whose private school Nekrasov was employed as a tutor, recommended him to Koni as "a very gifted young man and a beginning poet". 1 That was in the year 1839, when both the author and his sponsor, Beneckij, had high hopes for Dreams and Sounds. In 1840, after the failure of Nekrasov's poetic venture, Koni gave the young writer an opportunity to earn a livelihood by inviting him to be a contributor to his literary magazines. It is said that Koni advised Nekrasov to forget poetry and turn to prose if he wanted to make a living. 2 Even if this were true, the advice apparently had little effect, for V. Kirpotin speaks of "several thousand poems" that Nekrasov wrote for various literary journals. He also points out that a popular writer had to be aware of his readers' demands and satisfy them. 3 Accordingly, Nekrasov would write prose stories, vaudeville plays (partly in verse), occasional poems, and the like. Writing exclusively for profit, be it in prose or in poetry, he at the same time asserted himself as a young but prolific and promising author. During the two years that Nekrasov worked for Koni on The Literary Gazette and The Pantheon, he wrote under an assumed name, as if remembering the advice given him by the poet Zukovskij before the publication of Dreams and Sounds.* In the initial period of his collaboration with The Pantheon he still tried to remain a Romanticist poet. Poems like "Melody", "Ophelia", "A Parting Tear", and "Sorrow and Tears", published in the above-mentioned magazine, all have the same general characteristics as Dreams and Sounds. Soon, however, a spiritual process, later described by the poet as "the killing of idealism" made him turn to realism for very practical reasons. He needed money. Discarding his previous pseudonym (Perepel'skij), and assuming a new one (Feoktist Onufric Bob), Nekrasov produced satirical poems, like "A Provincial Subdeacon" and others. A short time afterwards 1 2 3 4

Gorlenko, "Literaturnye debjuty Nekrasova", Otecestvennyja zapiski, No. 12 (1878), p. 50. Istorija russkoj literatury XIX veka (Moscow, 1909), Vol. Ill, p. 385. Kirpotin, Tvorcestvo Nekrasova (Moscow, 1937), p. 11. See Chapter III, note 3.

26

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

he made his debut in realistic prose with his short story, "Makar Osipovic the Casual", which was followed by "A Poet that Vanished Without a Trace", and "A Woman Singer". All three stories were published in early issues of Koni's magazine, The Pantheon, for the year 1840. Their publication marked the beginning of a new phase in Nekrasov's literary career, in which (at least for some time) prose took precedence over poetry. In the next year, 1841, Nekrasov wrote more prose stories for both The Pantheon and The Literary Gazette, of which the best known are "Twenty-Five Roubles", "The Usurer", "The Life of Alexandra Ivanovna", "The Carriage", "An Unlucky Man in Love", and "Captain Cook". Still another story, "A Woman of Experience", was also published in 1841 but in a different literary magazine, the Fatherland Notes, to which the author had just begun to contribute. The artistic value of these stories must not have been very great, for Nekrasov himself later remarked in his autobiography : My prose has to be approached with caution. Out of necessity to earn my daily bread, I wrote plenty of trash; my stories especially, even the later ones, are very poor — simply stupid. I do not wish to have them reprinted ...5 Weak as they were artistically, these early prose stories by Nekrasov contained a number of social themes that would subsequently be developed in his poetry of "vengeance and sorrow". Russian society as presented at the time by the author, consisted of only two kinds of people, the rich and the poor. Quite naturally, Nekrasov's sympathy would be wholly on the side of the poor; he had only hatred and scorn for the rich, even if he secretly envied them their wealth and power. Taking his models from "the seamy side of life" that he knew so well, he created a number of familiar types: a destitute writer ("A Poet that Vanished Without a Trace"); a commoner intellectual who ekes out a meager livelihood by private tutoring ("The Carriage"); a girl who has been seduced and abandoned ("The Life of Alexandra Ivanovna"). The misfortunes of such types always arouse the naive reader's sympathy. However, Nekrasov did not stop there but presented the "oppressors" in a very harsh and unfavorable light. He created or copied from other writers such types as the bribe-taking official who steals from the government ("Makar Osipovic the Casual"), the cynical career man who marries the ex-mistress of an "important person" for the sake of promotion (in the same story), the worldly dandy who seduces an innocent girl and ruins her chances of marrying a decent man of her own class ("The Life of Alexandra Ivanovna"), the Molieresque usurer ("The Usurer"), or the sly banker ("Twenty-Five Roubles"). Nekrasov's stories may be regarded, therefore, as part of the Russian literary tradition of combating social injustice, which led to the "problem novels" of the middle of the century. The form of these stories was hardly better than their content. This has been pointed out, among others, by Evgen'ev-Maksimov: 5

Nekrasov, "Avtobiogr. nabroski", op. cit., p. 153.

NEKRASOV'S JOURNALISTIC APRENTICESHIP

27

If the author of these tales had been an already formed and mature artist of the word, they would have exerted a strongly positive influence on public opinion. However, Nekrasov, the writer of fiction of the early '40's, did not have any worked-out artistic method. In his productions belonging to the group under scrutiny there are apt descriptions, lively dialogues, vivid images, as a consequence of which some ... pages bear the imprint of undeniable talent; but their artistic value is lowered, so to speak, by a constant stylistic discord. ... On his way from romanticism to naturalism Nekrasov passes through an apprenticeship period in the school of Gogol, whose influence is evident in most of his stories. ... As a result, the characteristic feature of his artistic prose of those years is a blend of elements of various styles, which hampers his artistic perception. ... 6 Nekrasov did not find it easy to switch abruptly from the stylistic conventions of epigone Romanticism to the realistic detail of Gogol's school. Proof of this are such early stories as "Makar Osipovid the Casual" and "A Poet that Vanished Without a Trace", in which the author's attempts to depart from the established Romantic patterns, and to write in a naturalistic vein, are clearly at odds. The late Romantic mannerisms are still manifest in the melodramatic content and in the artificiality of the plot; the same can be said about the bombastic phraseology and the lofty tone used in these stories. On the other hand, the influence of Gogol and his school is apparent in Nekrasov's preference for subjects taken from real life and, especially, city life. Only when the influence of Belinskij was added to that of Gogol, first in the form of impersonal criticism and then of personal friendship, did Nekrasov's style become robustly realistic.

6

Evgen'ev-Maksimov, op. cit., p. 275.

V FRIENDSHIP WITH BELINSKIJ

Vissarion Grigor'evi5 Belinskij (1811-1848), the leader of the Westernizing movement in the Russia of the 1840's, was Nekrasov's senior by about ten years. Insofar as he had never received his university degree and found the study of foreign languages rather difficult, his early career resembled Nekrasov's. His education, as D. S. Mirsky puts it, "was acquired ... by omnivorous reading and personal contacts with fellow students".1 On leaving the university, in 1831, Belinskij found journalism more suited to his temperament than scholarship (he was a talented polemicist), and he soon became one of the staff writers for the Moscow magazine, The Telescope (Teleskop). In 1834, while still writing for The Telescope, Belinskij published his famous "Literary Musings" ("Literaturnye mectanija"), in which he sowed the seeds of a future controversy by stating that Russia had no literature worthy of the name. Inspired by the Romantic idealism of Schelling with its sublime ideas of poetic and artistic creation, Belinskij proclaimed the need for a new kind of literature, a literature that would be close to life and "the people", With a zeal that eventually earned him the name of "Vissarion the Furious", he struck out at everything that was conventional in Russian literature, including the borrowed canons of Romanticism. By so doing, he became the scourge of the conservatives as well as the curse of the Slavophiles; on the other hand, his critical articles won him quick acclaim among the younger generation, who regarded him as their leader in the struggle to liberalize the Russian political and social system. The Telescope was suppressed by the authorities in 1836, partly on account of Belinskij's articles in it, and the young radical critic found himself without a job. However, since he was already known in the literary world, he was offered the post of chief editor of The Moscow Observer (Moskovskij nabljudateV), which he accepted. Finally, in 1839, Belinskij was invited by Kraevskij, the publisher of the Fatherland Notes (Otecestvennye zapiski), to be the chief critic on the staff of that important literary magazine. He left Moscow, where he had been living, and went to Petersburg with the idea of staying there permanently. He was warmly received by Kraevskij and his associates, and soon came to be regarded as the spokesman for the progressive 1

Mirsky, A History of Russian Literature (New York, 1949), p. 165.

FRIENDSHIP WITH BELINSKIJ

29

movement in Russian literature. His articles were certainly read by Nekrasov, who was at that time making his first acquaintances in the literary circles of Petersburg. Nekrasov found Belinskij's review of Dreams and Sounds in the March 1840 issue of the Fatherland Notes, in an obscure column labeled "Bibliography". Before passing the judgment that Nekrasov's poems were worthless, the critic had indulged in some general remarks on the nature of true poetry. These remarks, which must have made a deep impression on Nekrasov, are well worth quoting: In prose, even if it lacks feeling and imagination, there can still be wit, reason and a talent for observation, or, at least, smooth diction; but if poems reveal no artistic gift and contain no poetry, then there is simply nothing to be found in them — even the smoothness and sonority of the lines are then a fault rather than a merit, for they cause the reader annoyance instead of giving him pleasure.... Soul and feeling are the indispensable conditions for poetry, but that is not all; it is also necessary to have creative imagination, the ability to give an outward expression to the internal world of one's perceptions and ideas ... 2

But what was there in Dreams and Sounds that aroused Belinskij's ire and almost ruined the budding poet's career in the Russian literary world of the 1840's? Belinskij, undoubtedly, must have noticed that Nekrasov's poems reflected none of the actual experiences of the young man's life in Petersburg in 1838-1840. Nor was there any note of social protest on account of the miseries he had suffered. Moreover, the poems were largely imitative, based on Nekrasov's readings of various poets (Lermontov, Benediktov, Zukovskij, and others). For all these reasons, Belinskij's reaction to Nekrasov's first volume of poetry was strongly negative: To read a whole book of poems, encountering in them all the familiar and worn-out emotions, banalities, slick verses, and only occasionally to find in a heap of rhymed lines a poem that has a soul — is, if you please, a task or, better said, a labor for reviewers and not for the reading public. ... In poems, mediocrity is unbearable. Such, then, are the thoughts that occurred to us during the reading of Mr. N. N.'s Dreams and Sounds,3

The "banalities" to which Belinskij referred were typical of the pseudo-Romantic poetry of the late 1830's which he detested. V. Druzin makes the same point. 4 Nekrasov could not but get the message. The immediate result was that he abandoned poetry for a few years and began to write mainly in prose. Only occasionally did he resort to poetry in satires and vaudeville plays. In late 1841 or early 1842, he entered Belinskij's literary circle. I. I. Panaev in his memoirs gives this brief account of the events that led to Nekrasov's personal acquaintance with Belinskij: At the beginning of the '40's, Nekrasov joined the staff of the Fatherland Notes-, some of his reviews attracted the attention of Belinskij, and the latter made his acquaintance.5 a 3 4 5

See Chapter III, note 2. Ibid. Druzin, "N. A. Nekrasov", op. cit., p. 11. Panaev, Sobranie socinenij (Moscow, 1912), Vol. VI, p. 350.

30

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

It is known from other sources that Nekrasov began to contribute to the aforementioned magazine in September of 1841. Therefore, as Evgen'ev-Maksimov points out, it is possible that he met Belinskij in December of the same year. 6 The poet himself, in an autobiography which he dictated to M. I. Semevskij, made this statement: My book reviews attracted Belinskij's attention. Our ideas in the reviews were remarkably similar, even though my comments in the newspaper at times preceded Belinskij's reviews in the magazine. ... 7 Nekrasov's statement about the similarity between his and Belinskij's literary views is too important to be disregarded; it implies that both writers had known each other through their articles long before they met in person. It is, however, not possible to determine whether their friendship began in 1842 or 1843, although the latter date is regarded as more certain by many of the poet's biographers. In his partly autobiographical novel, The Life and Adventures of Tixon Trosnikov, written in 1843-1844, Nekrasov indirectly hinted whose articles had occasioned the radical change in his views on poetry. By giving a summary of Belinskij's scathing review of Dreams and Sounds in such a way that it contained the critic's literary and esthetic credo, the author made it rather clear that he himself had come to share Belinskij's opinions. These opinions could be summarized thus: 1. A true poet should regard his talent as a great and sacred attribute, as the property of all mankind. 2. Idea and content determine the merit of a poetic production. 3. It is not the "singing of personal concerns and sufferings" that makes up the content of a true poet's poetry; its content should "encompass all the problems of science and life that are posed by our times". 4. The poet of our epoch should be a man who is deeply sympathetic to "contemporary" progressive trends. 5. Reality should be the source of topics for his poetry.8 It is, of course, an open question whether Nekrasov had acquired these ideas through his reading of Belinskij's articles or through his participation in the meetings of Belinskij's literary circle; he could have acquired them in both ways. This hypothesis is partly confirmed by the information found in the biographical sketch preceding an 1882 edition of his poems, where we read: His acquaintance with literary groups around Belinskij belongs to the same period [18411845]. Belinskij undoubtedly was the prime mover of Nekrasov's intellectual development and the person responsible for the radical change that determined his subsequent literary activity.9 9

Evgen'ev-Makismov, op. cit., p. 311. Nekrasov, "Avtobiografija, zapisannaja dlja M. I. Semevskogo", Lit. nasledstvo, 49-50, p. 164. 8 N. A. Nekrasov, "2izn' i poxozdenija Tixona Trosnikova", Polnoe sobranie socinenij i pisem (Moscow, 1948-1953), Vol. VI, p. 168. " Stasjulevic, "Biogr. ocerk", op. cit., xii. 7

FRIENDSHIP WITH BELINSKIJ

31

Although a m o r e detailed analysis of the similarities f o u n d in the critical articles of N e k r a s o v a n d Belinskij is beyond the scope of this b o o k , a few examples can be given to illustrate the spiritual kinship of the poet a n d the critic in the early 1840's. Here is what Nekrasov himself said in his autobiographical sketch: I kept hearing that some of my short articles had been attracting Belinskij's attention. It would happen in this way: First I abused Zagoskin in The Sunday Gazette, then I would read much the same thing in The Monthly Magazine.10 If, as Evgen'ev-Maksimov sensibly suggests, The Literary Gazette a n d the Fatherland Notes are substituted for the above fictitious titles, the meaning of Nekrasov's r e m a r k becomes quite clear. 1 1 As we learn elsewhere, b o t h of the reviews mentioned were published in 1842, a n d their general tone was almost the same. 1 2 Nekrasov a n d Belinskij were chastising Mixail N . Zagoskin (1789-1852) for his novel, Kuz'ma Mirosev. This second-rate historical novel could n o t escape their censure at a time when the m a i n interest of b o t h was in a realistic presentation of contemporary Russian society a n d its problems. It is quite p r o b a b l e that N e k r a s o v ' s literary views were strongly influenced by Belinskij's, a n d it is wholly understandable, therefore, that Belinskij would m o s t likely have only praise f o r N e k r a s o v ' s articles. A good illustration of how identical their views were is given by I. I. Panaev's wife in her recollections: At one time, a very funny episode occurred. V. P. Botkin, who had been very pleased by a book review in the bibliography section, said: 'What a clever, vivid, intelligent, and witty analysis of the book Belinskij gave!" — and when he saw Belinskij he began to praise his review. "So you find I have written cleverly and wittily?" Belinskij asked him. "Delightfully, exquisitely!" answered Botkin. Belinskij laughed and said: "I will pass your praise on to Nekrasov; it was he who reviewed the book."13 T h e above incident, as told by Panaev's wife, could be regarded as an evidence of a close relationship existing between Belinskij and Nekrasov as early as 1842-1843. This is confirmed, in a somewhat m o r e general way, by I. I. Panaev himself: Nekrasov, from the very beginning, made a very pleasant impression on Belinskij. The latter came to like him for his sharp if somewhat obdurate mind, for the sufferings he had undergone so early in his life while struggling to earn his daily bread, and for the bold and practical outlook that he had acquired from his laborious and painful existence.14 Belinskij b o t h liked and trusted N e k r a s o v , which is shown by the fact that he not only collaborated with him on the staff of the Fatherland Notes but also left him in charge 10 II 12

13 14

Nekrasov, "Avtobiogr. nabroski", op. cit., p. 150. Evgen'ev-Maksimov, op. cit., p. 330, footnote 1. Literaturnoe

nasledstvo,

49-50, p. 152, note 17.

Panaeva, Vospominanija, 1824-1870 (3rd ed., Leningrad, 1929), p. 134. Panaev, op. cit., p. 350.

32

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

of the book review section during his own absence from Petersburg. In a letter to Kraevskij, written from Moscow on July 8, 1843, Belinskij gave this reply to the former's complaint about the scarcity of new books for reviewing: I have left you some book reviews, and — as you yourself write — there aren't any new books available in Petersburg; in the meantime, you can hardly make any payments to Nekrasov, Sorokin, and others of the hungry confraternity who are working in my place. 16

The phrase "working in my place" (rabotajuscej za menja) is of special interest here because of its connotation of writing in the spirit of Belinskij, in his critical and literary vein. Nekrasov, being a disciple and a follower of Belinskij, could probably express the latter's ideas better than anyone else. Equally interesting is the fact that in the summer of 1843 the poet still belonged, apparently, to the "hungry confraternity" of literary journeymen. Apparently the publisher, Kraevskij, like F. A. Koni a few years earlier, was not too generous to beginning literary critics, including Nekrasov. In the fifth chapter of Mme. Panaev's Reminiscences there is a passage which best illustrates Belinskij's concern about Nekrasov's welfare and his compassion for the young poet's ordeal in his hungry years, 1842-1843: ... There was a heated argument about Nekrasov between Belinskij and Botkin, the latter of whom regarded the naturalistic detail of Nekrasov's stories as impermissible in literature and harmful. "An organism will not be healthy if it is nourished only with sweets!" Belinskij was saying. "Our society is still in its infancy, and if literature hides from it all the coarseness, ignorance, and obscurantism that surround it, then there is no use waiting for progress." When they touched upon the low quality of Nekrasov's literary output, Belinskij gave this answer: "Eh, gentlemen! You can be glad that you have fasted so that you can eat a tasty dinner with a good appetite, but Nekrasov's stomach was aching from hunger without a morsel of stale bread to quiet the pain! You are all dilettantes in literature, and I myself have been a literary drudge. ... If I had had enough to eat, 1 would never have begun to waste my intellectual and physical strength on hackwork. ... I'll wager my head that Nekrasov has talent and, what's essential, a knowledge of the Russian people, whereas we are all distinguished by our lack of understanding of the latter. ... I have had conversations with Nekrasov, and I am convinced that he will gain acceptance in literature. ,.." 1 6

To the above, Panaeva adds this comment: "Nekrasov ... saw Belinskij quite often, and he began to write book reviews for the bibliography section of the Fatherland Notes."17 This, according to Panaeva, happened in late 1842 — and it is, therefore, in that year or early 1843 that the friendship between the poet and the critic must have begun. This information is corroborated by two other contemporaries of 15 Belinskij, Pis'mo A. A. Kraevskomu ot 8 ijulja 1843 g., Polnoe sobranie socinenij, Vol. XII, p. 165. 16 Panaeva, op. cit., pp. 132-133. 17 Ibid.

FRIENDSHIP WITH BELINSKIJ

33

Nekrasov, namely, the novelist I. S. Turgenev and the critic P. V. Annenkov. From their reminiscences it can be seen that in 1843 Belinskij was already exerting considerable influence on Nekrasov. In a letter to M. M. Stasjulevii, Annenkov wrote: In the year 1843 I saw how Belinskij took him over, revealing for him the essence of his [Nekrasov's] own nature and intellectual power, and how humbly he was being listened to by the poet, who later said: "Belinskij is promoting me from a literary vagrant to a nobleman." 18 Turgenev in his Reminiscences of Belinskij also makes this point quite clear: "In the summer of 1843 Belinskij, when I made his acquaintance, was taking good care of Nekrasov, and opening a career to him ,.. 1 9 The career that Belinskij was opening to Nekrasov was that of a literary critic and (later on) a magazine publisher. But he did more than that for the young poet who had turned to prose to make a living; he encouraged Nekrasov to go back to writing poetry. As Nekrasov himself acknowledges in his autobiography, both Belinskij and Turgenev helped him reassert himself as a poet. I became a close friend of Belinskij. Little by little, I started writing poems. About 1844, I brought to him the poem "Homeland"; only the beginning had been written. Belinskij was enraptured; he liked the undertones of negation and, in general, the incipient ideas which were developed in my subsequent poems. He convinced me that I should continue. I stayed home and worked. They sent a messenger over from Belinskij's. I went there. First I met Turgenev, and I read "Homeland" to him. He was enraptured: "I have read many poems, but I cannot write like this", said Turgenev. "I like both the ideas and the verse." In a collection of my poems, "Homeland" was printed at the very beginning of that particular edition. From 1844 on, things went well for me. Without any special difficulty, I received up to 700 roubles, while Belinskij (who had this contract with Kraevskij) got 450 roubles, even though he worked more. I began to needle him, pointing to my own earnings.20 A slightly different version of the above is given by S. N. Krivenko, who nevertheless emphasizes the fact that "Nekrasov's real activity began only from the time of his close acquaintance with Turgenev and Belinskij."21 Krivenko tells the story in these words: It seems that he had made the acquaintance of Turgenev, who subsequently showed his poem, "Homeland", to Belinskij. Belinskij became enthusiastic, praised Nekrasov lavishly and said: "That's the kind of productions that we need." Turgenev likewise praised Nekrasov, urging him to write more in this vein. ... 22 18

Quoted after Evgen'ev-Maksimov, op. cit., p. 316, footnote 1. Turgenev, "Vospominanija o Belinskom", Sobranie socinenij v 12-ti tomax (Moscow, 1956), Vol. X, p. 303. Nekrasov, "Avtobiografija", op. cit., p. 164. 21 Krivenko, Ibid., p. 209. 22 Ibid. 19

34

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

The poem, "Homeland" ("Rodina"), full of the poet's recollections of his own unhappy childhood and containing a fairly strong note of social accusation, could not fail to please Belinskij. Nekrasov realized that he, through a stroke of luck, had finally made a name for himself in the Russian world of letters. His poetic talent was beginning to pay. Although "Homeland" is an early poem by Nekrasov often quoted both in extenso and in excerpts, it is neither the first nor the most successful of the poems written by him in the middle 1840's. As a matter of fact, all editions of Nekrasov's poetic works begin with "A Contemporary Ode" ("Sovremennaja oda"), which was published in Part 4 of the 1845 volume of the Fatherland Notes. The poem "Homeland", according to Cukovskij, 23 appeared only in 1856. Since N. V. Gerbel', a contemporary of Nekrasov's, also refers to "A Contemporary Ode" as "Nekrasov's first poem" 24 and gives the date of its publication as late 1845, it is this poem that should be regarded as announcing the birth of Nekrasov's civic poetry. However, the recognition of Nekrasov's poetic talent by Belinskij came only with the two poems that followed a year later. These were : "On the Road" (" V doroge") and the already mentioned "Homeland" {"Rodina"). 1.1. Panaev, who knew Nekrasov and Belinskij personally, has left a brief but factual account of how the two poems were written in 1846: Nekrasov's literary activity up to that time had not been anything special. Belinskij had thought of Nekrasov as only a useful magazine collaborator; but, when the latter read to him his poem, "On the Road", Belinskij's eyes lit up, he impulsively embraced Nekrasov and said almost tearfully : "Do you realize that you are a poet — and a true poet at that?" From that moment on, Nekrasov rose even more in his estimation ... His poem, "Homeland", captivated Belinskij, who memorized it and sent it to his friends in Moscow ... There were periods in which Belinskij ... was especially fascinated by some friend of his ... In that period, he was fascinated by Nekrasov and spoke only of him. From that time on, Nekrasov became a permanent member of our circle.25

Belinskij, to be sure, must have been greatly impressed by "On the Road", and especially by the unobtrusiveness with which Nekrasov presented an important social problem in his poem. "On the Road" is a brief but poignant account of the sad fate of an educated peasant woman married to an ignorant and illiterate muzhik. Her husband tells of his plight and hers in a language that is both simple and realistic. He sums up his feelings in a statement which could be regarded as containing veiled social criticism: norySmiH ee rocno.na, A 6Bina 6bi 6a6eHica nHxaa!26 23 24 25 26

Ibid., p. 166, note 9. Gerbel', Ibid., p. 185. Panaev, op. cit., p. 351. Nekrasov, "V doroge", Sobranie socinenij v 8-mi tomax, Vol. I, p. 57.

FRIENDSHIP WITH BELINSKIJ

35

The sting of the poem was clearly aimed at Russia's landowners, which Belinskij was quick to notice. "On the Road", which is a vignette of peasant life, foreshadowed, as it were, a much ampler and more powerful presentation of peasant misery in "Homeland". The poem "On the Road" was published in 1846 in Nekrasov's literary almanac, Petersburg Miscellany (Peterburgskij sbornik). The almanac was his first successful publishing venture. What happened is told by V. Druzin: In the middle 'forties' Nekrasov became the initiator and publisher of literary miscellanies; these, according to his design, were to unite the young forces of Russian literature, the disciples of Gogol and Belinskij. In 1845 appeared The Physiology of Petersburg, and in 1846 — The Petersburg Miscellany ... In the first miscellany, Nekrasov published his story, "Petersburg Corners", as well as tales and sketches by Dal', Grigorovic, and Panaev. The second miscellany became the literary event of the period. In it, Dostoevskij first appeared in print with his "Poor Folk"; in The Petersburg Miscellany, Nekrasov's new poems were published: "On the Road", "A Drunkard", and "Lullaby". Belinskij contributed to both collections.27 Belinskij, in the words of V. Druzin, "was the first to welcome Nekrasov's new poems", and he regarded "On the Road" as the best among them. 28 All this, in addition to the good reception of the two miscellanies by the public, "strengthened Nekrasov's determination to get hold of some magazine, so that the progressive literature headed by Belinskij might have ... its own social organ."29 In the summer of 1846, Nekrasov met with his friends, G. M. Tolstoj and I. I. Panaev, and all three decided to buy or lease a literary journal. After some negotiating, they acquired from P. A. Pletnev The Contemporary (Sovremennik), the wellknown literary magazine founded by Puskin in 1836. Later on, in his autobiographical sketch, Nekrasov gave a detailed account of this memorable event: In the summer of 1846 I was a guest at the home of a friend of mine, the landowner Grigorij M. Tolstoj. He had been abroad, and had some rather liberal ideas. We passed the time together in the bathhouse and, sitting on the porch, we often conversed about literature. Panaev with his family also happened to be in the neighborhood since he had an estate there. I began to raise the question of the publication of a magazine. The whole problem hinged on money. Panaev announced that he had 25,000 roubles in ready cash; Tolstoj also promised to advance 25,000 roubles. Then I hastened to Petersburg. The Son of the Fatherland was dying away; its publisher, Masal'skij, was in Rome at the time. I made a trip to see him, but nothing came of it; then I went to Pletnev, the publisher of The Contemporary which had been started by Puskin in 1836. Pletnev agreed easily; he ceded the magazine to me and Panaev, and signed a contract whereby he was to get a rouble for each new subscriber. Furthermore, if the magazine should be suspended because of an apparent breach of censorship regulations, we would pay him 30,000 for nonfulfillment of the contract. ... 30 27

28 29 30

Druzin, op. cit., pp. 11-12.

Ibid., pp. 12-13. Ibid., p. 13.

Nekrasov, "Avtobiografija", op. cit., pp. 164-165.

36

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

The purchase of The Contemporary from Pletnev was a shrewd business venture, and it paid off handsomely in the years that followed. Belinskij's name, however, was not even so much as mentioned in the whole agreement. Could it be that Nekrasov's business sense was getting the better of his gratitude to Belinskij? Lebedev-Poljanskij speaks of a certain "misunderstanding" that took place between the critic and the poet. Belinskij had hoped to become an equal-share member of the editorial staff, but things did not turn out that way. The agreement was signed in Panaev's name, and Nekrasov and Panaev became the actual owners of the magazine. This caused a temporary break between Belinskij and Nekrasov which lasted several months. Many of the poet's contemporaries, such as Dostoevskij and Turgenev, for example, subsequently accused him of greed and selfishness, and the storm of controversy between his accusers and his defenders raged on for many years before it finally died down. Today, according to Lebedev-Poljanskij, the argument appears to have been settled: ... Dostoevskij was wrong. It has now been established beyond doubt that the transaction involving The Contemporary was quite different. Belinskij was in the last stage of tuberculosis with death hovering over him. The publishers, in spite of all their love and respect for Belinskij and their appreciation of his talents, did not want to become committed to his heirs in the event of his death. Belinskij subsequently made friends again with Nekrasov when he understood his practical motives, and continued to like the poet as before. We are not going to defend the latter by quoting all the correspondence attending the apparent quarrel. We will say one thing only: the cash book of The Contemporary shows that Nekrasov was not greedy; he readily gave cash advances even to beginning writers, and he never put Belinskij in an embarrassing position ...31 It may be interesting to compare the reactions of Belinskij and Turgenev to the businesslike and practical attitude of Nekrasov in his capacity as an editor and publisher. On February 19, 1847, Belinskij wrote Turgenev about Nekrasov: When making explanations to me, he was uneasy. He coughed, stuttered, said that for my own good he could not grant my request both for reasons he could not tell me and for reasons he would give me presently ... I liked him, I liked him so much that now I am alternately sorry for him and angry with him for his actions, not for mine. But it is hard to break spiritually with a man, and then call it quits ... Even now I value Nekrasov highly for his richly endowed nature and his talent; but in my eyes, nevertheless, he is a man who will have money, who will be rich, and I know how it is done. He has already begun on me.32 This initial bitterness must have largely disappeared by March 1, 1847, when Belinskij again wrote Turgenev: I have almost changed my opinion about the cause of Nekrasov's well-known actions ... It seems to me now that he acted honorably and in good conscience on objective grounds; he still has not matured enough to realize that there is a different and higher law, and he 31

Lebedev-Poljanskij, op. cit., p. 26. Belinskij, Pis'mo I. S. Turgenevu ot 19 fevralja 1847 g., Polnoe sobrartie socinenij, Vol. XII, pp. 334-335. 32

FRIENDSHIP WITH BELINSKIJ

37

could not acquire a different set of principles because, unlike us, he had grown up among stark realities. He had never been an idealist nor a romantic.33 Both letters show pretty clearly that Belinskij, although disillusioned about Nekrasovthe-man, could still love and respect Nekrasov-the-poet. Turgenev, who had begun to find Nekrasov's poetry less and less to his taste, found his actions more repugnant than Belinskij did. From that time on, he seldom concealed his growing dislike for the new editor of The Contemporary, especially since, as a paid contributor to the magazine, he depended on him financially. Many years later, Turgenev published in The European Messenger (Vestnik Evropy) the pertinent excerpts of Belinskij's letters in such a way as to show Nekrasov's alleged greed and lack of principles. In his private conversations, he is said to have referred to Nekrasov as being "pickled in alcohol" and remarked contemptuously that "poetry never so much as spent a night in his verse". 34 There was little truth in these accusations, which were caused partly by professional jealousy. The first issue of The Contemporary under Nekrasov's editorship appeared on January 1, 1847, and — in the words of N. V. Gerbel' — "it exceeded even the boldest expectations of the reading public". 35 It contained: a story by Turgenev (the first in his series, Notes of a Hunter), a novel by Hertzen, the beginning of a novel by Panaev, poems of Nekrasov and Turgenev, critical articles by Belinskij and others. In addition, the "Miscellaneous" section included Xor i Kalinyc by Turgenev and A Novel in Nine Letters by Dostoevskij. The progressive character of the magazine was subsequently revealed by the publication of Hertzen's "problem novel", Who Is To Blame? (Kto vinovatl). Under the influence of Belinskij's ideas, as Janko Lavrin puts it, Nekrasov changed The Contemporary "from a rather tame organ into a periodical of the revolutionary democracy in Russia". 3 6 The ideological outlook of the magazine was clearly defined by Belinskij in the leading article of the very first issue, entitled "A View of Russian Literature in 1846". This article began as follows: "The main purpose of our article is to acquaint the readers of The Contemporary beforehand with its views of Russian literature and, consequently, with its spirit and tendency as a periodical". Then Belinskij went on to expound his political and literary theory, the main points of which can be illustrated by a few pertinent excerpts: If we were asked what constitutes the peculiar nature of contemporary Russian literature, we would answer: it gets closer and closer to life, reality ... The significance of theoretical problems depends on their relation to reality. Problems which are still important to us Russians have long been solved in Europe. ... But this in no 33

Belinskij, Pis'mo I. S. Turgenevu ot 1 marta 1847 g., Ibid., pp. 342-343. Turgenev, Pis'mo Ja. P. Polonskomu ot 13 janvarja 1868 g., Polnoe sobranie socinenij i pisem, Serija II: Pis'ma (Moscow, 1964), Vol. VI, p. 30. 35 Gerbel', op. cit., p. 186. 36 Lavrin, Russian Writers : Their Lives and Literature (New York), 1954, p. 134. 34

38

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

way should deprive us of boldness and eagerness to attempt a solution of such problems, because until we solve them ourselves and for our own sake, we shall gain no advantage from the fact that they have been solved in Europe. ... 37

What were the "problems" that Belinskij had in mind? Because of censorship he could not mention them in The Contemporary, but he listed them in his defiant "Letter to Gogol". These were: the abolition of serfdom, the abolition of corporal punishment, and equality of all citizens (regardless of their social rank) before the law. 38 Nekrasov, whose views at that time closely paralleled those of Belinskij, was in complete agreement with his program. What the critic had merely outlined in his programmatic articles was expressed by the poet poignantly and with realistic detail in his poems wrtitten after 1846, most of which dealt with the evils of serfdom. Belinskij's "Letter to Gogol" (1847) was written from abroad where he had gone to improve his failing health. His contributions to The Contemporary became less and less frequent, so that Nekrasov often had to write review articles himself. The poet later admitted: "When Belinskij went abroad, I wrote many book reviews."39 Belinskij's most important contribution to The Contemporary at that time was his "View of Russian Literature in 1847", in which, as in the one previously published, the critic left his testament to Russian writers for many decades to come. The "mad Vissarion" returned to Russia in 1848, only to die there on May 26 of the same year — the first of the literary "commoners" to have assumed leadership of progressive public opinion in Russia. Now it was up to Nekrasov and his associates to preserve the radical character of The Contemporary. The impact of Belinskij's personality and ideas on Nekrasov in these important years, 1842-1848, had been decisive. The poet's biographers generally agree that the friendship with Belinskij greatly influenced Nekrasov's intellectual development and left a permanent imprint on everything he wrote thereafter. A. Ja. Panaeva, in her Reminiscences, quotes the poet as having said to the critic Dobroljubov: It is a pity that you did not know the man yourself. With every year that passes, I realize more and more what it means to me to have lost him. ... I remember clearly how the two of us used to converse about literature and various other subjects until almost two in the morning. Afterwards, I would wander in the empty streets for a long time; there was so much that was new to me in the ideas that he had expressed. ... You people entered literature wellprepared, with set goals and clear principles. But I ... I had no time to take care of my education; I had to think of ways to escape death from starvation. The literary crowd I fell in with was of a kind that made it easier to become dull than to develop one's mind. My meeting Belinskij was my salvation ... If he could only have lived longer! I would not be the kind of man I am now ,.." 40 37

Belinskij, "Vzgljad na russkuju literaturu 1846 goda", Poln. sobr. soc., Vol. X, p. 7 (See also Sovremennik, 1847, No. 1). 38 Belinskij, Pis'mo k Gogolju, Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 56 (Moscow, 1950), p. 572. 39 Nekrasov, "Avtobiogr. nabroski", op. cit., p. 153. 40 Panaeva, op. cit., p. 403.

FRIENDSHIP WITH BELINSKIJ

39

Panaeva adds: "Nekrasov uttered the last sentence in a trembling voice; then he rose quickly and left the room." 4 1 There is undoubtedly a certain amount of stylistic embellishment in her account, but it is quite possible that Nekrasov at that time (about 1861) felt a genuine remorse for not always having lived up to Belinskij's social and political credo. A few years after his meeting Belinskij, Nekrasov thus characterized him in a conversation with Dostoevskij: "What a man, what a m a n indeed! D o make his acquaintance, and you will find out what a fine soul he is." 42 And Dostoevskij later wrote in his literary reminiscences: " H e revered Belinskij and, it seems, had more affection for him than for anyone else." 43 This is undoubtedly true; the relationship between the critic and the poet was that of a kind teacher and a devoted disciple. At the time when Nekrasov was answering Turgenev's calumnies about his "exploitation" of Belinskij, he wrote a letter to the novelist M. E. Saltykov-SCedrin, which read in part as follows: His relationship with me up to the very day of his death had the same character as at the beginning. Belinskij saw in me a richly endowed nature which lacked development and education. And that was the main topic of his conversations with me ... which were meant for my instruction.44 As we can see, the poet had every reason to call Belinskij his teacher; and, indeed, he did so specifically in one of his poems: While praying to your long-suffering shade, My master, may I be allowed To humbly bend my knee before your name ... 45 Even though he bowed to the "long-suffering shade" of the great critic, Nekrasov regarded some of Belinskij's theories as too bookish and abstract to be of practical value. "All this was not what we needed", 4 6 the poet was quoted as saying some time after Belinskij's death. However, he always acknowledged his debt to the critic. His literary productions after 1846 were the proof that he had learned much in Belinskij's school. Lebedev-Poljanskij has this to say about Belinskij's influence on Nekrasov's writings: Belinskij sorrowed greatly for the common people, and talked a great deal about them. ... As a result, Nekrasov wrote Petersburg Corners, in which he depicted with sharply realistic strokes the life of the Petersburg poor who found their only happiness and relief in a bottle 41 12 43 44 15

"

Ibid. Dostoevskij, Sobranie socinenij (St. Petersburg, Izd. F. Marksa, n. d.), Vol. XI, p. 31. Ibid. Nekrasov, "Nabroski pis'ma M. E. Saltykovu", Lit. nasledstvo, 49-50, p. 155. Nekrasov, "Medvez'ja oxota", Sobr. soc. v. 8-mi tomax, Vol. II, p. 207. Quoted after Lebedev-Poljanskij, op. cit., p. 23.

40

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

of vodka. This realism in his writings was maintained by the poet even later, when he turned to the presentation of peasant misery and national misery in general.47

Nekrasov was indeed quite realistic in his descriptions of the life of the Petersburg poor which he knew so well, and the note of social accusation was so unmistakable that the prose tales known as Petersburg Corners (Peterburgskie ugly) were banned by the censor in April of 1844.48 It was only in 1845-1846 that most of this material was published by Nekrasov in his two collections, The Physiology of Petersburg (Fiziologija Peterburga) and The Petersburg Miscellany (Peterburgskij sbornik). In Nekrasov's poetic tribute to his master in the poem entitled "Belinskij" (1855), he speaks of the critic as the one who breathed new life into Russian literature : And he arrived, the unknown plebeian! ... He did not spare the flatterers, Nor the scoundrels, not even the idiots, Nor the thieves masked as ardent patriots. He probed all the traditions, And measured with no lying shame The abyss of savagery and evil In which, lulled by flattery to sleep In the oblivion of truth and honor, Our wretched fatherland had fallen! On her he did pour his reproaches For slavery, her age-old disease — And him the fatherland's false friend Proclaimed to be his country's enemy . . . "

In this poem, as Evgen'ev-Maksimov points out, Belinskij is presented not so much as a writer as a political orator. It is known that he was both. In "The Unfortunates" ("Nescastnye"), written in 1856, Nekrasov made the chief character, Krot, a spokesman for Belinskij's social and political ideas. Krot is a Russian revolutionary imprisoned by the Tsarist government for his political convictions. While in prison, he converses with his fellow inmates on topics like love of Russia and her bright future, the Russian peasant, the reforms of Peter the Great, and important figures of Russian literature, all of which Belinskij was fond of. Likewise, Belinskij's liking for certain literary and political figures (such as M. Kol'cov and Peter the Great) found its reflection in Nekrasov's poem. Even Nekrasov's rendition of Krot's speech before his death is reminiscent of Belinskij's last moments: B fleHb C M e p r a c n o « a o h BoenpaHyn, H CHOBa c a n y o6pena HeMaa r p y « b — h t o j i o c r p a H y n !

MeiTaHbeM HyjjHbiM oKpwnHn

Ero Tocnoflb nepea kohhhhoìì, 4

* Ibid., p. 25. Evgen'ev-Maksimov, op. cit., p. 315, footnote 1. 49 Nekrasov, "V. G. Belinskij", Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. I, pp. 195-196.

48

FRIENDSHIP WITH BELINSKIJ

41

H OH nofl HeSo Bocnapnji B xpace H JIERKOCTH OPJIHHOH. K p n i a j i OH paflocTHo: "Bnepefl!" — H ropfl, H aceH, H FLOBOJIEH: EMy MepeniHuca Hapofl M 3BOH MOCKOBCKHX KOJIOKOJieH J BocToproM B3op e r o CHHJI, H a nnomaflH, c p e a n H a p o s a , EMY xa3anocb, OH CTOHJT H r o B o p n j i ... 6 0

This is a highly poetical and dramatized description of Belinskij's death, but it agrees in the main with at least one apparently eyewitness account: "Shortly before his death, he spoke for two hours without stopping, as though he were addressing the Russian people."51 For Nekrasov, Belinskij (represented by Krot) had acquired the stature of an inspiring intellectual and moral leader. V. Kirpotin emphasizes the fact that Belinskij "was not only the greatest and the most remarkable Russian literary critic but also the social and political leader of the progressive circles of Russian society".52 All the available evidence points to the fact that Belinskij was indeed the leader of the radical movement in Russia of the 1840's. There is, likewise, little doubt that Nekrasov shared Belinskij's beliefs during that period and for a long time afterwards. Belinskij died on May 26, 1848, just when political freedom movements were flaring up all over Europe. He left to his disciple, Nekrasov, the immense responsibility of upholding the progressive tradition of The Contemporary in the years that followed.

50 61 52

Nekrasov, "Nescastnye", Ibid., p. 288. Evgen'ev-Maksimov, op. citp. 349. Kirpotin, op. cit., pp. 14-15.

VI E D I T O R S H I P O F THE CONTEMPORARY N E K R A S O V AS A B U S I N E S S M A N A N D AS A P O E T

Nekrasov's career as a magazine editor began in late 1846 when he, together with 1.1. Panaev, took over The Contemporary (Sovremennik). For the next twenty years it was a leading Russian literary periodical. D. S. Mirsky, the well-known Russian literary historian, points out that Nekrasov's editorship transformed The Contemporary f r o m "the valetudinarian antique it had become" to "a splendidly paying concern and the most lively literary review in Russia". 1 V. Kirpotin speaks of Nekrasov as having made The Contemporary "the most distinguished and outstanding Russian magazine of the nineteenth century". 2 All this is undoubtedly true. The success of The Contemporary was due as much to Nekrasov's literary genius as to his shrewd business sense. He certainly did not lack the latter. It was demonstrated by his securing the collaboration of the best literary critics of the time: Belinskij, Cernysevskij, Dobroljubov, and Pisarev. Belinskij's death in early 1848 deprived The Contemporary of its ideological drive at a time when a new wave of political repression was engulfing Russia. The European events of 1848 prompted the Czar, Nicholas I, to tighten censorship and apply stringent measures that turned the whole country into a police state for seven years (1848-1855). Under these conditions, Nekrasov's efforts to publish his magazine were often little short of heroic. Evgen'ev-Maksimov, in his article "Nekrasov-the-Journalist" ("Nekrasovzurnalist"), gives a vivid description of the poet's editorial and publishing labor in this period: In those years ... the situation of The Contemporary was extremely difficult. The magazine suffered not only from the direct blows of the censorship ... All the sources of information seemed to be dwindling. Little was being written in those years and reluctantly at that. "There is nothing to print", "there is no material", was the leitmotiv of many of Nekrasov's letters at the time. Circulation fell sharply. The financial condition of The Contemporary became extremely shaky and precarious. There was no money with which to pay for newsprint, not to mention salaries. It was necessary to borrow almost continually. The Contemporary was swamped with debts.3 1 2 3

Mirsky, op. cit., p. 227. Kirpotin, op. cit., p. 18. Evgen'ev-Maksimov, "Nekrasov-zurnalist", Lit. nasledstvo, 49-50, p. 99.

EDITORSHIP OF "THE CONTEMPORARY"

43

Under such circumstances, as V. Druzin remarks, it was "an act of great civic courage" to publish a radical literary magazine. 4 The fact that Nekrasov was able to save The Contemporary from extinction was due to his boundless energy, his talent as a writer, and his business ability. Not only did he manage to arrange a modus vivendi with the censorship, but he also maintained the leading position of his magazine in the 1840's and 1850's by securing the collaboration of nearly all the outstanding writers and critics of the time. Nekrasov soon found himself in the midst of a literary controversy. The attack on poetry, which had been launched by the Fatherland Notes in 1847, was joined in 1848 by other literary magazines and even partly by The Contemporary (whose staff was by no means unanimous in its opinions). What the consequences were can be seen from N. V. Gerbel's account: Beginning in the year 1848, in which the editors of The Contemporary did not find in Russian literature a single poem worthy of printing in the magazine, the attack continued all through the following year; and it was only in the second part of the 1850 volume that it was possible to print "A Strange Night", a comedy in verse by 2emcuznikov. Nekrasov's poems, however, first appeared only in the July issue of the same year. Thus, for three years Nekrasov published no poems, not even his own, in the magazine, limiting his activity to minor articles and short book reviews. ...5 As we also learn from the same source, it was not until late 1850 that two poems by Nekrasov appeared "after a silence of three years". These were two love poems, "The Rainstorm" and "You Are Kind Beyond Any Emulation"; according to Gerbel', there was nothing especially remarkable about them. 6 Could it be that the general atmosphere of an incipient "age of prose" was beginning to weigh heavily on the poet? There are many indications that Nekrasov was becoming increasingly concerned about the decline of Russian poetry in the late 1840's and early 1850's. He devoted a long article in the January 1850 issue of The Contemporary to the problem. Some of his opinions on the subject are interesting enough to be quoted: There are no poems. A few deplore it, many are glad of it, the majority think nothing of it. But why are there no poems? The reason is obvious. In this literary genre, main attention is paid to form ... But the difficulty in achieving expression, or form, is conditioned partly by the writer's talent and partly by the degree of development and refinement of the language ... Our literature, which sprang up and became established in a very short time, is already in a stage where exquisite form is regarded not as a merit but as a necessity ... Puskin and Lermontov perfected the poetic form in our language to such a degree that anyone with any command of the language at all can write smooth verses. Therefore, the smoothness and correctness of the verse no longer are even noticed in our times ...' 4

Druzin, op. cit., p. 13. Gerbel', op. cit., p. 186. 6 Ibid. 7 Nekrasov, "Russkie vtorostepennye poety", Polrt. sobr. soc. i pisem, Vol. IX, pp. 190-191 (See also Sovremennik, No. 1 (1850), Section VI, pp. 42 ff.). 5

44

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

In the same article, Nekrasov made some pointed remarks about the general character of the epoch in which he was living — an epoch in which poetry was giving way to prose: Since the poetic form invariably imposes restraints on the author without redeeming his faults, it is obvious that prose, which is less concerned about form, gives a freer rein to his thought... This is the main reason why, generally speaking, there are no poems. The fact that there are no good poems is due to something else: there are no poetic talents, or there are too few of them, and they also have turned to prose ... Ours is an epoch of positivism. Every man of letters naturally wants to derive the biggest profit from his talent and, in view of the general indifference to poetry and the futility of writing a great deal in verse ... prose offers much better opportunities in this respect ... 8 After a few passing references to the hostility of most contemporary critics toward poetry, Nekrasov continued: Whatever they may say about the materialism of our time, we are convinced that a good poet would not be at all superfluous in present Russian literature. Among book lovers there are always people ... for whom novels and stories are not enough, and who ... need to read a good poem from time to time. ... And is there any human heart whose strings would not respond to a beautiful poetic thought exquisitely expressed?... And so, the need for poetry undoubtedly exists among readers. If there is a need, there must be a means of satisfying it. We are not so poor in poetic talents as some think. ... 9 To make the case for poetry even stronger, Nekrasov mentioned a number of outstanding poems on file in his editorial office, pointing especially to those written by Turgenev and Ogarev. However, there was still another poet, whose first works had passed almost entirely unnoticed — Fedor Ivanovic Tjutcev (1803-1873). To quote Nekrasov, "... Tjutcev's poems are brilliant phenomena in Russian poetry. Mr. F. T. has written very little, but everything written by him bears the imprint of a true and fine talent, frequently original and always graceful, replete with thought and genuine feeling ..." 1 0 Nekrasov praised Tjutiev especially for his "vivid and convincing" descriptions of nature. He saw him as the equal of Lermontov if not of Puskin. 11 This "discovery" by Nekrasov of an important Russian poet at a time when interest in poetry was declining, could hardly be expected in and of itself to revive the interest of readers. Besides, Tjutcev's poetry was too philosophical and ornamental to appeal to a wide reading public. It remained for Nekrasov to recapture that public by creating a new kind of poetry, a poetry more adapted to the intellectual climate of his time. Such poetry first began to appear in Part 3 of the 1853 volume of The Contemporary, 8 9 10 11

Ibid., p. 191. Ibid., p. 193. Ibid., p. 205. Ibid., pp. 207, 212.

EDITORSHIP OF "THE CONTEMPORARY"

45

where Nekrasov's poem "Blessed Is an Even-Tempered Poet" ("Blazen nezlobivyj poet") was printed. In it, the author contrasts the "even-tempered poet" type with that of Gogol, who is presented as a self-appointed accuser of contemporary Russian society. Nekrasov gives his own explanation of Gogol's unpopularity with many readers: Ho HeT nomaflti y cyflb6w ToMy, left 6naropoflHbra remitt C r a n o6nHiHTejieM t o u u m , Ee crpacTeit h 3a6nysmeHHH. 12

In the stanzas that follow, he develops the idea of a poet seldom being recognized by his contemporaries during his lifetime. The poem ends with what may perhaps be regarded as an epitaph for Gogol: C o Bcex c t o p o h e r o KjiHHyr,

M TOJibKO Tpyn ero yBHan, KaK MHoro cflenan o h , noiiMyT, H KaK jiio6hji o h — HeHaBHfl«!13

In the light of the controversy over Nekrasov himself after his death in 1878, these last lines have an almost prophetic ring. V. Druzin dates the writing of the poem as 1852, i.e., shortly after Gogol's death (February 21, 1852). The lapse of more than a year between the writing and the publication could have been caused by censorship. N. V. Gerbel', who knew Nekrasov personally, wrote in 1873: ... Starting with the 3rd issue of the magazine in the year 1853, which contained his wellknown poem "Blessed Is an Even-Tempered Poet", we witnessed the appearance of some of his best poems, which subsequently brought him fame and made his name dear to every Russian. These poems were: "Muse", "In the Country", "The Unreaped Row", "The Forgotten Village", "Ma§a", "Vlas", "I Thought on War With Horrors Rife", "Be Silent, Muse of Vengeance and Grief!", "Shamefacedness", and some others. ..."

It is quite possible to assume that Nekrasov began to assert himself as a "civic poet" in the years 1852-1853. In "Muse" (written in 1851, published in 1853), Nekrasov characterized his poetry as one of social accusation, and his Muse as one of vengeance and grief. However, he also admitted that his Muse had taught him to understand human suffering and portray it poignantly and convincingly in his poems: Hpe3 6e3flHbi TeMHbie HacHjma h 3na, T p y a a h Tonofla OHa mchh Bena — IIoHyBCTBOBaTb c b o h crpaflaHbH HayHHJia H CBeTy B03BecTHTb o h h x 6nar0CJi0BHJia ... 1 5 12 13 14 15

Nekrasov, "Blazen nezlobivyj po6t", Sobr. soc. v. 8-mi tomax, Vol. I, p. 127. Ibid., p. 128. Gerbel', op. cit., pp. 186-187. Nekrasov, "Muza", Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. I, p. 130.

46

NEKRASOV S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

Nekrasov's Muse was a melancholy one, as can be seen from another poem of his, "The Forgotten Village" (1855). In five short stanzas full of dry irony Nekrasov managed to tell the complete story of luckless peasants forgotten by their absentee master. A similar theme appears in "Revolt" (1857), which consists of two terse stanzas vividly describing the methods used by landowners in suppressing a peasant rebellion. A vastly more ambitious poem is "Reflections at the Grand Entrance" (1958), regarded by many as Nekrasov's shattering indictment of the Russian bureaucracy of the time. It begins with a specific incident: a delegation of peasants from a remote village is turned away from the door of an important Petersburg official, whom they had come to see in a futile attempt to seek protection against their master's tyranny. In the words of Nekrasov, They departed, enduring the sun's heat, Spread their hands in a pitiful gesture, With the words: "May G o d be his judge!" 1 6

This moving poetic image is followed by the author's bitter diatribe against all Russian officialdom, which he accuses of callous indifference to the peasant's lot. The poem ends with the groans of the peasantry heard all over the land, with Nekrasov having the last word in a lyrical apostrophe addressed to the Russian muzhik: What means, then, your m o a n never-ending? Will y o u waken once more in power, Or, having made but a song like a m o a n , H a v e wasted your destiny's dower — A n d your soul forever will slumber? 17

This, then, was the kind of poetry that Nekrasov wrote and published in the years 1853-1858. The melancholy tone of his poems, however, was not caused only by the general atmosphere of oppression, so palpably present during the period; there were other factors of a more immediate and personal nature. For one thing, The Contemporary was ailing. As Lebedev-Poljanskij puts it, "toward the time of the Crimean campaign the situation of the magazine had become downright critical, the number of subscribers had dwindled, the finances were in a desperate condition." 18 Moreover, Nekrasov's attempts to have his poems published in book form were being repeatedly thwarted by censorship. As if this were not enough, he was suffering from a chronic disease whose origins could be traced back to the privations of his early years in Petersburg. Nekrasov fell gravely ill. In 1853, certain that his death was near, he wrote his "Last Elegies" ("Poslednie elegii"). The following excerpt seems to reflect his state of mind at the time: 16 17 18

Nekrasov, "Razmyslenija u paradnogo pod"ezda", Ibid., p. 302. Ibid., p. 304. Tr. by F. Cornford and E. Salaman in Poems from the Russian (London, 1948). Lebedev-Poljanskij, op. cit., p. 28.

EDITORSHIP OF "THE CONTEMPORARY"

.ZIyma MpaiHa,

M C I T M MOH

47

yHbnibi,

R P A A Y M E E PHCYETCH TCMHO. . . .

fl BHacy Bee ... A paHO CMepTb HfleT, H »CH3HH XAJIB MYIHTENBHO. Si MOJIOA,

Tenept noMeHbiiie MenoiHbix 3a6oT, M peace B FLBEPB MOIO CTYHHTCH rojio«: Tenepb 6w Mor a CAENATB HTO HH6YFLB. Ho no3«Ho! ... 19 Lebedev-Poljanskij, who quotes a few lines from the poem in his book, provides an anticlimax to the above by remarking tersely: "Fortunately, his illness was not as dreadful as it seemed to the doctors. Nekrasov recovered."20 Governmental censorship was keenly felt in literary circles, but its effects were sometimes peculiar. In the words of Lebedev-Poljanskij, Having stifled every living thought, the reactionism under Nicholas was also bringing demoralization to the literary milieu. Nekrasov, together with Ogarev, Kavelin, and others, took to drinking ... At the English Club, where he had been introduced by Turgenev, the poet became an inveterate card player; he gambled heavily, playing for high stakes and sometimes winning up to sixty thousand roubles, which represented a huge sum in those times. As a result, the poet, especially after a life of starvation, quickly began to acquire the habits of a gentleman ... He did not rid himself of those habits until his very death. He lived approximately in the same manner as others did, for example, Turgenev, Ogarev, and Botkin.21 The discrepancy between Nekrasov's private life and his profession de foi, especially in his "poetry of vengeance and grief", has been noted, among others, by Janko Lavrin: . . . H e gambled, hunted, entertained on a lavish scale, kept expensive cooks and even more expensive mistresses. In the end he became involved (together with his mistress, Mme. Panaeva) in a shabby financial transaction which concerned the entire fortune belonging to the feeble-minded wife of the expatriated poet, Ogarev — all this, while he was writing sincere, deeply felt poems about the people's woe and injustice. ...22 Indeed, one could be deeply moved while reading such poems as "Wine" (1848), "Masa" (1851), and "In the Country" (1853), without ever suspecting that their author's personal life was hardly what one would expect of a preacher of social reform. Indeed, in those times the often frustrating conditions under which a writer had to labor brought on demoralization and dissoluteness, which showed up in his conduct of his private matters but failed to affect his public image. Such was the case with Nekrasov. After the Crimean War, the death of Nicholas I in March of 1855 and the accession 19 20 21 22

Nekrasov, "Dusa mracna ...", Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. I, p. 156. Lebedev-Poljanskij, op. cit., p. 29. Ibid. Lavrin, op. cit., pp. 134-135.

48

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

of the reform-minded Alexander II to the throne ushered in a period of relative freedom in Russia. The Contemporary, after barely vegetating for seven years, finally began to thrive. New literary talents asserted themselves on its pages: Gondarov, Tolstoj, Pisemskij, in addition to the already famous Turgenev; the controversial articles of the radical critic, Nikolaj G. Cernysevskij, also attracted the attention of the reading public. The addition of Cernysevskij to the staif of The Contemporary in 1855 had farreaching consequences both for the magazine and Nekrasov. Cernysevskij's radical views aroused the hostility of the "gentleman writers" like Turgenev and Tolstoj, not to mention the anti-radical trio of Annenkov, Botkin, and Grigorovic. The friction further increased when Nikolaj A. Dobroljubov, another radical, joined the magazine's staff in 1857. As Lebedev-Poljanskij points out, The split within the group around The Contemporary began upon the addition of Cernysevskij and Dobroljubov to the staff, when the struggle between the "repentant noblemen" and the "commoners" entered its decisive phase, first in life and then in literature. ...23 In the ideological battle that ensued, Nekrasov took the side of his radical colleagues. Here is what he answered Tolstoj when the latter wrote him requesting that Cernysevskij be replaced as the chief critic on The Contemporary. I am especially annoyed that you revile Cernysevskij so. All people cannot be cut to our pattern. ... You now feel fine in the country, and you do not understand why one should grow angry. You say that attitudes toward reality should be healthy, but you forget that healthy attitudes can exist only in a healthy reality. It is odious to feign to be angry; I would fall to my knees before a man who explodes with honest wrath — don't we have enough reasons for it? And when we start growing angrier, we will be better, i.e., we will love more — love not ourselves, but our own country. ...24 To prove that he meant what he said, Nekrasov appointed Cernysevskij acting editor of The Contemporary during his absence in 1856 when he had to go abroad for his health: "I transfer to you my powers in everything ... so that not one article shall appear in the magazine without your consent." 25 Lest we think that Nekrasov's editorship of a literary magazine in the 1850's inhibited his poetic achievement at the time, we need but note that a collection of his mature poems appeared in 1856. It was headed by the ideological poem, "The Poet and The Citizen" ("Poet i grazdanin"), containing what might be called the program statement of his civic poetry. The aim of the poet, according to Nekrasov, was to sing of the people and to live for the people. This general idea was exemplified by the poems included in the collection, of which "On the Road" was perhaps the most characteristic. All these poems presented a composite picture of peasant life under the system of serfdom. They were full of realistic details but permeated "

14 25

Lebedev-Poljanskij, op. cit., p. 30. Nekrasov, Pis'mo L. N. Tolstomu ot 22 ijulja 1856 g., Poln. sobr. soc .ipisem, Vol. X, pp. 283-284. Nekrasov, Pis'mo N. G. Cernysevskomu ot 10 avgusta 1856 g., Ibid., p. 288.

EDITORSHIP OF "THE CONTEMPORARY"

49

with an almost Romantic lyricism. The novelty of this approach, with its dramatic tension and vivid narrative, quickly made Nekrasov, the poet, a favorite of the reading public. He was on his health-seeking trip in Italy when Cernysevskij wrote him: The sympathy of the public toward you is very strong, stronger than even I supposed, although I have been rebuked by you for partiality to your poems. The enthusiasm is universal. It is doubtful whether Puskin's first poems, or The Inspector General, or even Dead Souls, met with as much success as your book.26 With one stroke of his pen, the most influential Russian literary critic of the time placed Nekrasov on a par with Puskin and Gogol. At the same time, he explicitly stated his belief that the poet's talent should be used to the utmost. Remember, however, that every decent person in Russia puts his trust in you. You have accomplished a great deal, much more than I had assumed before reading your book. But you will accomplish still more. Your poetic power is enormous and ... fresh.27 Even Nekrasov's literary enemies unanimously agreed that his collection of poems was an immense success.28 Nekrasov returned from abroad in the summer of 1857 jubilant over the public's acceptance of his poems, which he once characterized as his "return to truth". 29 Convinced that a bold and radical approach to timely problems was what his readers wanted, he increased the staff of The Contemporary through the addition to it of N. A. Dobroljubov, the young fast-rising spokesman for the extreme wing of the radical movement. By so doing, he further alienated Turgenev and his group, whom he had already antagonized by failing to remove Cernysevskij from the magazine's editorial staff. The final break between the liberals and the radicals on The Contemporary occurred in early 1858, following Turgenev's attempt to prevent the publication of an article by Dobroljubov. The article, entitled "When Will the Real Day Come?" ("Kogda ze pridet nastojascij den'T), was an obviously slanted review of Turgenev's novel On the Eve (Nakanune): Dobroljubov had purposely overstressed the "revolutionary" character of the book. What happened is told, among others, by V. Kirpotin: ... Dobroljubov drew unmistakable revolutionary conclusions in his review of Turgenev's novel. Turgenev could not accept these conclusions. He requested that the article be deleted. Cernysevskij and Dobroljubov categorically refused to do so. Turgenev repeated his demand in the form of an ultimatum, but Nekrasov, the magazine's publisher, sided with Cernysevskij and Dobroljubov. The adherents of liberalism left the magazine's staff and were replaced by the already emerging group of commoner writers of the type of Resetnikov, et al. ...30 26

Cernysevskij, Pis'mo N. A. Nekrasovu ot 5 nojabrja 1856 g., Poln. sobr. soc. i pisem, Vol. XIV, p. 321. 27 Ibid., p. 325. 28 Druzin, op. cit., p. 17. 29 Nekrasov, "Avtobiogr. nabroski", op. cit., p. 153. 30 Kirpotin, op. cit., p. 22.

50

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

Dobroljubov, from the beginning of the year 1858, had been one of the editors of The Contemporary equal in status to Cernysevskij. Therefore, it is conceivable that he could defy Turgenev, the more so that he had Nekrasov's backing. As a consequence, the magazine lost such first-rate contributors as Turginev, Tolstoj, Botkin, Annenkov, and others; in their place came relatively unknown writers, among whom were Pomjalovsky, Mixajlov, Saltykov-Sòedrin, and Pypin. These men were the ones who, together with Cernysevskij, Dobroljubov and Nekrasov himself, determined the character of The Contemporary in the years 1858-1866. Nekrasov's break with Turgenev and his group in the late 1850's forced him to rely for the success of his magazine on the contributions of the radical writers and on his own poetic production. Fortunately, it was at that time that some of his best poems appeared, including "Reflections at the Grand Entrance" (1858), "On the Volga" (1860), "A Knight for an Hour" (1860), "Country News" (1860), and several others. Many of these were poems that would be widely read in Russia on the eve of the Emancipation, for they were vivid and moving descriptions of the misery of the Russian peasant. Generally speaking, "literature of accusation" was the mainstay of The Contemporary in this period. Its success with the readers could best be gauged by the magazine's circulation, which from 4000 copies in 1857 rose to over 7000 copies by 1861. Nekrasov, besides being a talented poet, was also a shrewd businessman. He gambled on the belief that zesty literary fare of this kind was what a great many readers wanted. His gamble paid off. The Contemporary became, in due course, the magazine with the biggest circulation in Russia. In the 1860's, however, troubles began to plague the magazine again. In November of 1861, Dobroljubov died of tuberculosis; in the summer of 1862, Cernysevskij was arrested for trying to organize a Socialist Revolutionary Party. The Contemporary, deprived of its powerful team of critics, was then suspended for eight months. During that time Nekrasov made heroic efforts to prevent the editorial staff from leaving; he found it especially difficult to persuade two of his collaborators, M. A. Antonoviè and G. Z. Eliseev, to stay on until publication was resumed. The new managing editor of the magazine, M. E. Saltykov-Scedrin, was Nekrasov's friend but received little cooperation from Antonovié and Pypin who resented him. He held his post for two years (1862-1864), and then resigned when he realized the futility of his efforts to bring harmony into the editorial staff. With Nekrasov and SaltykovSòedrin trying to continue the radical tradition of Cernysevskij, Pypin veering toward liberalism, and Eliseev embracing the ideology of populism, The Contemporary was not always able to maintain its position of a progressive literary magazine. To make matters worse, it was becoming the favorite target of Russian censorship on account of its negative attitude toward the reforms of 1861. Cernysevskij and Dobroljubov, as well as Nekrasov, realized that the Emancipation Act (February 19, 1861) was more to the advantage of the landowners than of the peasants; the latter had to pay excessive sums to gain their freedom and title to the

EDITORSHIP OF "THE CONTEMPORARY"

51

land they tilled. Nekrasov's first reaction to the news of the Emancipation was thus described by Cernysevskij: On the day of the proclamation of the Tsar's manifesto I came to Nekrasov's bedroom in the morning ... He had his head propped on a pillow ... In his right hand he held the printed sheet proclaiming the solution of the peasant problem. There was a sorrowful expression on his face, and his eyes were staring downward ... As I entered he started up, rose from his bed, clutching the sheet he had been holding in his hand, and said with agitation: "So that's what this 'freedom' is! That's what it is!"31 Nekrasov had no illusions about the alleged "benefits "of the Emancipation Act to the peasants. He knew that little was going to change in the miserable life of the Russian muzhik, who was still at the mercy of the landowners. Long after February of 1861, the poet continued to call attention to the peasant's plight in a series of poems published in his magazine in 1861-1863. Among these were: "The Crying of Children" (1861), "Orina, a Soldier's Mother" (1863), "Red-Nose Frost" (1863), "Little Gossips" (1863) and others. All these poems were enthusiastically hailed first by Cernysevskij and then by Pisarev, and they contributed toward the new image of Nekrasov as a civic poet and "a radical saint". In 1863, Cernysevskij's novel, What Is to Be Donel (Cto delat'l) was published in The Contemporary. It was, according to D. S. Mirsky, "the first and the most influential of a long succession of radical novels". 32 The publication of the novel angered the authorities, especially since Cernysevskij was in prison awaiting his sentence. Nekrasov and Saltykov-Scedrin, although they were aware of the risk of publishing a radical novel under the circumstances, felt it almost their civic duty to make What Is to be Donel available to Russian readers. The timing could not have been more disastrous. With the January 1863 anti-Russian insurrection engulfing Poland, the Tsarist government regarded all radical programs as little short of treason. The Contemporary's defiance of the regime could not go unpunished •— as it indeed did not. Nekrasov's poems written in the years 1863-1866 often contained ideas which seemed both radical and dangerous to the government. Thus, for example, "To the Memory of Dobroljubov" (1864) was an apotheosis of the young radical critic: What a lamp of wisdom has gone out! What a heart has ceased to beat! Years have gone, passions have subsided, And high above us you have been exalted ... Weep, the Russian land! — But be proud also — From the beginning of our time You have not borne such a son ...33 31

Cernysevskij, "Zametki pri ctenii posmertnogo izdanija Stixotvorenij N . A. Nekrasova", op. cit., Vol. I, p. 742. 32 Mirsky, op. cit., p. 215. 33 Nekrasov, "Pamjati Dobroljubova", Sobr. soc. v. 8-mi tomax, Vol. II, p. 128.

52

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

But it was the "social" poem entitled "The Railroad" ("¿eleznaja doroga") that drew the ire of the authorities immediately after being published by Nekrasov in 1864. The poem told of the misery of peasant laborers employed in the building of railroads in Russia. It ended on a bitterly sarcastic note: "Well, could one draw a more comforting picture, General, what would you say?"34 The "general" with whom the hero of the poem carried on an imaginary conversation was identified at the beginning as Petr Andreevic Klejnmixel', one of the pillars of the regime of Nicholas I. The reference was too obvious to be taken lightly by the government; consequently, The Contemporary was given a warning by the censor's office. The poems that followed, and especially "Songs About the Free Word" (1865) and "Ballet" (1866), are the best proof that the warning was not heeded by Nekrasov. A number of poems dealing exclusively with Russian peasant life and problems were written by Nekrasov in the years following the Emancipation Act. Of these, "The Peddlers" ("Korobejniki") and "Red-Nose Frost" ("Moroz-Krasnyj Nos") are perhaps the most famous. "The Peddlers" (1861) consists of six "songs" describing peasant life, and it may be regarded as a prime example of Nekrasov's skill in recreating the rhythm and style of Russian folksong. 35 "Red-Nose Frost" (1863) gained immense popularity both in Russia and abroad; it was probably the first poem by Nekrasov to be translated into English. No other Russian poet before Nekrasov had succeeded in presenting Russian peasant life in its diverse aspects with such poignant realism and lyricism. The young widow Dar'ja, the heroine of the poem, is the Russian peasant woman at her finest. She wages a lone battle against hunger and cold and, in the end, she is overcome by King Frost when she ventures into his forest domain in desperate quest for firewood to warm her children. Dar'ja's death amidst wintry splendor is told by the poet in these beautiful and moving lines: No sound! And the soul as though swooning With passion and sorrow. You stand And feel it surrendering, conquered To mystery, solemn and grand. The sun, and the blue vault of heaven The forest so still you behold, In silvery, nebulous hoar-frost Attired, full of marvels untold. Its wonders, its secrets entrance you, Austere and profound. But I hear A faint little sound in the branches: A squirrel is hurrying near. 34

Nekrasov, "¿eleznaja doroga", Ibid., p. 123. Tr. by J. Soskice in Poems by Nicholas Nekrasov. Cukovskij, Nekrasov, kak xudoznik (St. Petersburg, 1922); N. Andreev, "Fol'klor v poezii Nekrasova", Nekrasov v russkoj kritike (Moscow, 1944), pp. 148-150. 35

EDITORSHIP OF " T H E CONTEMPORARY"

53

On Darya a snow-flake it scatters, Dislodged by a leap, it would seem, And Darya stands silent and frozen Absorbed in her wonderful dream.36 In "Red-Nose Frost", Nekrasov finally struck the note of lyric grandeur he had not quite been able to attain in his previous poems. All these poems brought Nekrasov fame and success, but they made him extremely unpopular with Alexander II and his ministers, who regarded them as undermining the people's confidence in the ultimate success of the Emancipation. His magazine, The Contemporary, was viewed by the authorities with ever-increasing suspicion. Finally, an attempt on Alexander's life by the terrorist Karakozov (April 17, 1866) provided the Tsar with a pretext to liquidate the radical press. In a letter to Prince Gagarin, Alexander wrote: "I feel it my duty to protect the Russian people from these germs of harmful and false doctrines which could, in time, affect the public welfare if one did not put a stop to their development ..," 3 7 Nekrasov, who had been forewarned of the danger threatening his magazine, reportedly made a craven attempt to placate the authorities by composing and reciting a poem in honor of Count Murav'ev, the hangman of Poland and the Tsar's most powerful minister at the time. This did not save The Contemporary, however. The magazine was ultimately suspended in July of 1866, after twenty years of publication under Nekrasov's management.

38

Nekrasov, "Moroz-Krasnyj nos", Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. II, p. 117, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 178. 37 Quoted after Lebedev-Poljanskij, op. cit., p. 55.

VII EDITORSHIP O F THE FATHERLAND THE WANING YEARS

NOTES;

The Contemporary ceased to exist in July of 1866, but Nekrasov "would not and could not live without a magazine." 1 He knew, of course, that the government would not let him start a new one; consequently, he began to examine the possibility of taking over an existing literary journal. His attention turned to the Fatherland Notes (Otecestvennye zapiski), which was faring rather badly under Kraevskij's management. The latter, however, remembered that Nekrasov had taken away his best staff writers, Belinskij and Panaev. Nekrasov, in turn, was not likely to forget that Kraevskij had angrily written in an editorial in 1847: ... Not one article by Messrs. Belinskij, Panaev or Nekrasov will ever be printed in the Fatherland Notes as long as this magazine is published by us.2 But for several reasons Kraevskij's hostility toward Nekrasov seemed to have disappeared by 1867, and he was willing to come to terms. First, he was more interested in his thriving newspaper, The Voice (Golos) than in his unprofitable magazine; secondly, the death of Dudyskin, the acting editor, had deprived the Fatherland Notes of efficient management. Negotiations soon began, and an agreement was finally signed on November 8, 1867, whereby Nekrasov took over the magazine on a lease and became its editor-in-chief. Nekrasov's new Fatherland Notes was as different in tone from Kraevskij's as his Contemporary had been from that of PuSkin. B. P. Koz'min, a Soviet critic, thus comments on its importance: ... Even though Nekrasov's new magazine did not play so unique a role in the history of Russian culture and social thought as The Contemporary, nevertheless the Fatherland Notes under Nekrasov's editorship acquired the reputation of the best Russian magazine of its time. Like The Contemporary before it, the Fatherland Notes had among its contributors quite a few members of the revolutionary movement headed by the emigre P. L. Lavrov ... The ideological proximity between the Fatherland Notes and the revolutionary movement of the '70's is beyond doubt. ... 3 1 2 3

Lebedev-Poljanskij, op. cit., p. 61. Quoted after Evgen'ev-Maksimov, "Nekrasov-zurnalist", op. cit., p. 103. Koz'min, "Velikij poét revoljucii", Ibid., xxxv.

EDITORSHIP OF THE "FATHERLAND NOTES"

55

Tendentious as it is, Koz'min's opinion seems pretty well justified. The roster of the magazine's contributors contained the names of many Russian progressives and radicals: G. I. Uspenskij, F. M. Resetnikov, and others. Evgen'ev-Maksimov, in his recent book on Nekrasov, gives this characterization of the last decade of the poet's activity: The burden of editorial duties and wearisome dealings with the office of the censor did not prevent Nekrasov from producing ... a number of outstanding poetic works. Here, above all, belong such poems as "Grandfather" (1870), "Recent Times" (1871), "Russian Women" (1871-1872), "The Contemporaries" (1875), and a major portion of his grandiose epic, Who is Happy in Russia ("The Last One", "A Peasant Woman", "A Feast for Everyone", 1872-1876). While working on his poems, Nekrasov did not neglect the lyrical aspect of his creativity. The last collection of his poems published in his lifetime (Last Songs, 1877) was basically a collection of lyric poems.4 We learn from the same source that Nekrasov, in the three-year period ranging from 1870 to the end of 1872, worked assiduously on his long poems ("Grandfather", "Recent Times", "Russian Women", Who is Happy in Russia). In 1873, apparently, he turned once more to lyrics, which increased notably in quantity in the years 1874-1877. The lyrical note is especially strong in Nekrasov's Last Songs (Poslednie pesni). This collection, published in 1877, consisted of three parts and included the following poems: Part I. Lyrical Poems "An Introduction to the Songs of 1876-1877"; "To the Sowers"; "Te Deum"; "To Zina"; "A Prophet"; "Soon I Shall Fall a Victim to Decay"; "Days Are Passing"; "To Friends"; "To Muse"; "Despondency"; "Three Elegies"; "A Terrible Year"; "To a Poet"; "Flaming Letters"; "The Sentence". Part II. "The Contemporaries" Part III. "Excerpts from the Poem Mother"-, "Lullaby". Inasmuch as the best of these poems will be discussed in detail later, only a few remarks of general nature need be made about them here. V. Druzin thinks that in his Last Songs Nekrasov "sums up his poetic activity". 5 And indeed, there are a number of poems in the collection in which the poet, directly or indirectly, speaks of having served the Russian people with his poetic talent. From the "Introduction" where he invokes his muse of "love, indignation, and vengeance", to "To a Poet", Nekrasov defines his poetic mission in no uncertain terms. 6 4 5

•

Evgen'ev-Maksimov, Tvorceskij put' N. A. Nekrasova (Moscow, 1953), p. 187. Druzin, op. cit., p. 54. Nekrasov, Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. If, pp. 343, 344, 345, 346, 375.

56

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

Evgen'ev-Maksimov echoes Druzin by characterizing Last Songs as "the swan song of Nekrasov". 7 We know from other sources that the poet, who had been ailing since 1868, had a premonition of his approaching death. A. N. Pypin's diary gives this interesting account of a conversation with Nekrasov on January 15, 1877: ... H e was lying in bed, pale and exhausted. W h e n I came, he began to speak and, little by little, he became animated ... H e recited to m e s o m e of his p o e m s — from memory, of course: "The Sower", "Te D e u m " , "To Friends" ... H e calls this cycle his Last Songs; at the beginning of each p o e m there is an introduction — bidding farewell to life. . . . 8

Stricken with incurable cancer, Nekrasov knew that his days were numbered. In the very first stanza of his "Introduction to the Songs of 1876-1877", he prayed for his deliverance from pain: HeT! He noMoxceT MHe anTexa, HH MyapocTb ontiTHbix Bpaneii: 3aneM ace MyiHTb HenoBeica? O He6o! CMepTb noniiiH cxopeii! 9

And in another poem, "To Friends", he expressed the same idea even more poignantly : ft npHMHpujica c cyflb6oH HeH36e»HOK), HeT HH OXOTH, HH CHJibi TepneTb HeBbiHOCHMyro MyKy KpoMeumyio! 5KaflHO acenaio CKopeft yMepeTb. 1 0

But even though reconciled to his fate, Nekrasov neither felt sorry nor asked anyone to feel sorry for him: Cicopo CTaHy flo6bi«ieio TueHbH. THJKeJio yMHpaTb, x o p o m o yMepeTb; Hnnbero He nporny coacaneHbH, JSFL. H HeKOMy 6yfleT acaneTb. 11

Nekrasov's very last poem was addressed to his muse of "vengeance and grief" and was perhaps his final message to the Russian people: Meac MHOH H HCCTHMMH cepxmaMH riopBaTbCH flojiro Tbi He aauib }KHBOMy, Kp0BH0My coio3y! 1 2

There was indeed "a living bond of blood" (zivoj, krovnyj sojuz) between the dying 7

Evgen'ev-Maksimov, Tvorceskijput', p. 271. Pypin, "Iz zapisnoj knizki", Lit. nasledstvo, 49-50, pp. 191, 192 (See also Sovremennik, No. 1 [1913]). 9 Nekrasov, "Vstuplenie k pesnjam 1876-1877 godov", Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. II, p. 342. 10 Nekrasov, "Druz'jam", Ibid., p. 351. 11 Nekrasov, "Skoro stanu dobyceju tlen'ja", Ibid., p. 345. 12 Nekrasov, "O Muza! ja u dveri groba! ...", Ibid., p. 387. 8

EDITORSHIP OF THE "FATHERLAND NOTES"

57

poet and the Russian reading public, to which most eloquent testimony is borne by thousands of letters and telegrams received by Nekrasov shortly after the publication of his Last Songs. He was especially moved by the affection and sympathy of Petersburg students who, in response to his deathbed poems, wrote to him with youthful fervor: We shall mourn for you, our beloved one, dear singer of the people's woe and suffering; we shall mourn for the one who kindled in us a powerful love for the people and inflamed us with a burning hatred of their oppressors. ... We shall not forget your name and we shall hand it down to the ... people, so that they may also know him whose many good seeds have fallen on the soil of people's aspirations. . . . " But perhaps the most touching to Nekrasov himself was a farewell message that the exiled Cernysevskij had sent him from Siberia. It was contained in a letter written by Cernysevskij to Pypin but meant for the poet: Tell him that I have always been very fond of him personally, that 1 thank him for his kind disposition toward me, that ... I am convinced that he will gain immortal fame ... I weep for him. He was indeed a man with a noble soul and a great mind. And, as a poet, he stands higher than all other Russian poets.14 According to one of his biographers, Nekrasov, on hearing these words read to him said almost inaudibly: "Now I am comforted". 1 5 What he probably meant was that Cernysevskij's high opinion of him as a poet gave him much needed reassurance in these last moments of soul-searching and gnawing doubts. The poet knew then that his friend, the critic, approved the kind of poetry he had given Russia —• a poetry that would evoke lasting response from all Russians. Nikolaj Alekseevic Nekrasov died in Petersburg on January 8, 1878 (December 28, 1877, according to the old-style calendar). "His funeral", writes D. S. Mirsky," was one of the most striking demonstrations of popularity ever accorded to a Russian writer." 16 It was attended not only by the poet's literary friends and colleagues but also by unofficial representatives of the Russian revolutionary organization, "Land and Freedom" ("Zemlja i volja"). G. V. Plexanov made a speech on behalf of the revolutionaries, while F. M. Dostoevskij spoke for the literati as he compared Nekrasov to his great predecessors, Puskin and Lermontov. A personal friend of the poet, A. F. Koni, commented later in his reminiscences: "The poetic and moral values that Nekrasov gave to Russian society are so great that they should obliterate all his defects, even if these could be demonstrated. .,." 1 7 Coming from one of the poet's closest friends, such an opinion is perhaps not objective, but it is also not unique. Objectivity in judging Nekrasov's contribution 13 14 15 16 17

Quoted after Lebedev-Poljanskij, op. cit., p. 107. CernySevskij, Pis'mo A. N. Pypinu ot 14 avgusta 1877 g., op. cit., Vol. XV, p. 88. Ibid., p. 920 (Pis'mo A. N. Pypina k N. G. Cernysevskomu ot 5 nojabrja 1877 g.). Mirsky, op. cit., p. 228. Koni, 1821-1921. Nekrasov-Dostoevskij: Po licnym vospominanijam (St. Petersburg, 1921), p. 32.

58

NEKRASOV'S LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

to Russian poetry was what his contemporaries lacked. Turgenev and Tolstoj, for example, regarded him as a talentless poet; Belinskij (except for his criticism of Dreams and Sounds) came to praise without reservation anything that Nekrasov wrote, as did Cernysevskij, Dobroljubov, and Pisarev. The controversy about the poet's greatness lasted well into the first decade of the twentieth century, when it was finally settled in his favor by the Formalists.18 Today, Soviet critics (with the possible exception of K. I. Cukovskij) are constrained to admire his poems more for their social content than for their artistry. There was, of course, a strong political element in the controversy over Nekrasov, but there were other quite cogent reasons, too, for the disparity in the assessments of him. His poetry, with its stark realism of detail, new rhythms, and unsweetened earthy language, shocked many of his contemporaries who equated poetry with the classical elegance of Puskin, and the theme itself of "vengeance and grief" was shocking except to the radical intelligentsia of the 1850's and 1860's. Nekrasov held little attraction, therefore, for accustomed admirers of Puskin and Lermontov, and to refined esthetes like Turgenev he was simply unpalatable. Today it can be said that Nekrasov's popularity, during his lifetime and after, derived from public awareness of his genuine love for Russia and her people. His readers, especially those concerned about their country's welfare, often found in his poems a reflection of their own thoughts and opinions. And the added attraction of lyrical singing, rare in an age of prose, endeared him to his contemporaries. In a sense, he was — and still is — "the singer of the Russian people", and particularly of the Russian peasant.

18

Erlich, Russian Formalism (The Hague, 1955), pp. 237-238.

PART II

NEKRASOV'S ART

VIII THE EVOLUTION OF NEKRASOV'S ART AS SEEN IN THE MIRROR OF RUSSIAN CRITICISM

Before attempting to define the elements that go into the making of Nekrasov's art, it would be well to trace his gradual development as a poet. Nekrasov, unlike Puskin, did not burst upon the world as a genius; on the contrary, it took him many years to "find himself", to evolve his own poetic style. The year 1840 can be regarded as the first milestone marking the path of the evolution of Nekrasov as an artist. In that year, the rather young (eighteen-year old) and almost unknown poet published his first collection of poems, Dreams and Sounds (Mecty i zvuki). The book, treated with scorn by Belinskij and subsequently withdrawn by its author, is nowadays a bibliographic rarity. However, there remain some interesting though less known comments by other contemporary critics on the artistic merits of Dreams and Sounds. These, much more than Belinskij's dictum, do justice to Nekrasov as an apprentice poet. F. Mencov, reviewing Nekrasov's collection of poems together with that of E. Saxova (a second-rank Russian poetess), refers to both books as "the first attempts of young poets ... revealing a considerable talent and holding great promise for the future". 1 The critic makes favorable mention of one of the first published poems by Nekrasov, "Death" (1839), calling it "the best in the whole collection". He notes the influence on Nekrasov of poets like Benediktov (in "Coliseum", "The Unforgettable", "Days of Bliss") and Podolinskij ("A Meeting of Souls", "The Angel of Death", "Poetry"); however, he ascribes the young poet's "involuntary imitation" to youthful impressionability: ...How can a young man, whose memory is full of beautiful tirades by poets who have already merited general approval and respect, free himself entirely (as regards both idea and form) from their powerful influence, while experiencing his first flights of inspiration?2 Mencov clearly states that he does not "wish to blame this ... involuntary imitation for the shortcomings of Mr. Nekrasov's poems". Moreover, he emphasizes that among them are found some which "bear the imprint of poetic independence" (he 1

Zelinskij (ed.), Sbornik kriticeskix statej o Nekrasove (Moscow, 1886-1887), Part I, p. 1 (See also F. Mencov's article in Zurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosvescenija (1840), Part XXV, Section Vli). 2 Ibid., p. 2.

62

NEKRASOV'S ART

mentions "Two Moments", "The Departed One", "A Song for Zama", and others). He closes his article by predicting that Nekrasov will become famous as a poet if he only tries to educate himself and develop his natural talent through study of the works of "poets who are regarded as great by all enlightened people". 3 A similar attitude is evinced by P. A. Pletnev in an article which appeared in The Contemporary (Sovremennik) in early 1840. One of the most characteristic passages of his critique reads as follows: ... The collection of poems (Dreams and Sounds) is an interesting one. Here we have not only dreams and sounds, as the poet put it, but also ideas, feelings, and images. The little book, consisting almost entirely of lyrical poems, is full of diversity. We have a feeling that each poem is the creation of a thinking mind.... Our epoch is in such dire want of good poetry that we regard such phenomena with special satisfaction.4 Pletnev ends his review of Dreams and Sounds with what might be considered an attempt at constructive criticism. ... We have noted in Mr. N. N. only a certain carelessness in the finishing of his poems: there are some inaccurate expressions, incorrect stresses, and other minutiae of which he can easily rid himself if he pays attention to his work.6 This is indeed a mild and friendly critique, especially when compared with Belinskij's harsh judgment of Nekrasov as a poet. Another example of this type of critical appraisal is a review of Dreams and Sounds which appeared in The Northern Bee (Severnaja pcela) later in the same year (1840). However, the critic, Nikolaj Solov'ev, treats Nekrasov less kindly than does Pletnev: ... We have undertaken to read Dreams and Sounds, the poems of N. N. The author's name is entirely unknown to us; it seems to appear in our literature for the first time. For this same reason, it gives us even greater pleasure to point out a few poems that clearly hint at the author's giftedness. But this very mark of talent forces us to express our opinion frankly. The author, evidently, is much attached to the previous poetic school which thought there was no poetry outside the feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and despair. This tendency, unfortunately, has been reflected quite strongly in the poems of Mr. N. N. Moreover, his close reading of our best poets has also left traces that are too obvious to be disregarded ... 6 The critic does not deny that Nekrasov has a real poetic gift, but believes that "one can cultivate one's talent only by assiduous study of poetic art and by awareness of one's own predispositions". He then concludes in a slightly patronizing tone: "Only then will the high hopes, awakened in us by Mr. N. N.'s little book, be fulfilled. We wish that our expectations may indeed by justified, and that the author's talent may come even closer to perfection with each new work." 7 3 4 5 6 7

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.

p. p. p. p.

3 (See also Zelinskij's footnote on the same page). 6 (See also Sovremennik, 1840, No. 2). 7. 8 (See also N. Solov'ev's article in Severnaja pcela, No. 59 [1840].)

THE EVOLUTION OF NEKRASOV'S ART

63

The three articles just quoted would perhaps have counterbalanced Belinskij's unfavorable reaction to Dreams and Sounds, had Nekrasov taken more note of them. Although rather general in content and impressionistic in tone, they prove a point that needs to be restated: namely, that the young poet was still in search of his own style, still uncertain of himself.8 But is there nothing in these poems that deserves to be rescued from oblivion? The answer is by no means easy. As has been stated, only a few copies of Dreams and Sounds have been preserved, and these have become the jealously guarded property of a few European libraries (mostly in Russia). However, P. F. Jakubovic, in his little known biographical sketch of Nekrasov (whom he knew personally), devotes considerable space to what he calls "the unsuccessful literary debut" of the youthful poet, and weighs the value of Dreams and Sounds: ... this is the first attempt of a poet endowed with no mean talent, and it is extremely interesting to know whether this attempt contains at least the elements of the same mood that became so articulate in his later work. 9

Jakubovic is of the opinion that, if one disregards imitative ballads and other juvenilia, then "the greater part of the poems in the book will be found to contain a very definite outlook on life, on the dignity and mission of man, especially of a poet ..." 10 The critic proves his point by quoting a passage from one of Nekrasov's early poems, "Thought" ("Mysl"'): CnHT apaxjibitt MHp, ciiht crapeu o6BeTmajii>iii ... C x p o t t 6e3o6pa3He HaroTBi OnHTb no« MpaHHOfi pH30ft H01H, rTo/ifleiibHbiM 6jiecKOM KpacoTbi

TBI He MOH o6MaHemb OHH.11

Noting the awkwardness of form and expression and the wooden rhymes, Jakubovic nevertheless argues rather convincingly that even here "we already have before us not just a meditation-prone poetic nature ... but a thinking mind with an inquiring attitude toward life".12 To prove his point still further, the critic quotes in its entirety the poem "Tot ne poet" (referred to in Chapter III, Part I), remarking that young Nekrasov was already able to state quite forcefully, though perhaps not without bathos, what a poet's mission should be.13 Then, after a few more quotations from poems in which he sees certain autobiographical traits, JakuboviS thus sums up his views about Dreams and Sounds: 8 9 10

" 12 13

D r u z i n , op. cit., p . 9. J a k u b o v i c , Nekrasov: Ego zizri Ibid., p. 8. Ibid., p. 9. Ibid. Ibid., p. 10.

i literaturnaja

dejatel'nost'

( K a z a n ' , 1922), p. 7.

64

NEKRASOV'S ART

... These artistically weak poems reveal, nevertheless, a rich hoard of untapped spiritual power and fresh feeling. Except for their poor form, there is nothing in them that the later famous Nekrasov would be ashamed of; with its altruistic and lofty mood, Dreams and Sounds can be regarded as the preparatory, "lower" stage of his development as a poet ... And it seems to us that familiarity with this juvenile booklet of Nekrasov does away with the myth of a "sudden" transformation of an average storyteller into a first-rate lyricist.14

The critic also makes some interesting observations about the various meters used in Dreams and Sounds. It turns out that even in these early poems Nekrasov showed far less preference for the iamb than Puskin and the poets of his school. Of the fortyfour poems that make up the collection, only half are written in iambic measures: the remainder are composed in other meters, mostly dactylic, amphibrachic, and trochaic (only the anapaest, of which Nekrasov subsequently became so fond, is still missing). Jakubovic points to the occurrence of dactylic rhymes (so characteristic of the later Nekrasov), as in the following example: Maxio HA FLOUM M O W 6ecTanaHHyio PaaocTH cjiaflicoft flaHO, XOJIOAOM cepaue, KaK B 6ypK> TyMaHHyio, HOHbK) H flHeM CTeCHeHO.15

The very same passage is quoted also by K. I. Cukovskij in his early work, Nekrasov, kak xudoznik, as an example of what he calls "Nekrasov's weeping lyrics". 16 These lines do indeed have a mournful and yet haunting music reminiscent of Russian folk poetry. It is thoroughly Nekrasovian. The fact that this song-like quality appeared in so early a poem (written in 1839) would indicate that Nekrasov's own poetic style was already being molded by him long before 1846 (the year in which his first successful poem, "On the Road", was published). The year 1846 marks the beginning of the realistic strain in Nekrasov's poetry. This is evidenced by his portrayal of a grief-stricken peasant in "On the Road", and by the vivid descriptions found in "A Dog Hunt". On the other hand, the lofty accusatory tone of his early poems is still quite discernible in his elegy, "Homeland". The trend toward realism, which had been incipient in "On the Road" and "A Dog Hunt", became more and more obvious with each new poem written by Nekrasov in the years 1846-1856. In the first collection of his mature poems (1856), lyricism of mood is combined with realism of description and narration, the most typical examples being "The Forgotten Village", "Sasa", and perhaps "Vlas". There is something eerie and foreboding about the setting of "The Wedding" and "The Unreaped Row". No Russian critic of the time gave a full appraisal of the considerable artistic value of these poems. Belinskij, Cernysevskij, and Dobroljubov, 14 15 16

Ibid., p. 12. Ibid. (The same text is also quoted by Cukovskij, Masterstvo Nekrasova, 3rd ed., p. 630). Cukovskij, Nekrasov, kak xudoznik (St. Petersburg, 1922).

THE EVOLUTION OF NEKRASOV'S ART

65

being on the staff of The Contemporary, perhaps did not think it proper to express their opinion about Nekrasov's poems which were published in the magazine.17 It is in literary journals other than The Contemporary that comments on Nekrasov's artistry as a poet can be found at all. Many of these comments are hostile, as, for example, Èrast Blagonravov's article in an 1852 issue of The Muscovite (Moskvitjanin), or the strongly negative critique by Apollon Grigor'ev in the same magazine.18 Grigor'ev was subsequently attacked for his "purely esthetic criticism" by A. Pjatkovskij, whose article appeared in the Book Bulletin (Kniznyj vestnik) in early 1861. Here are a few characteristic excerpts from Pjatkovskij's evaluation of Nekrasov's art: ... Nekrasov tapped in our poetry a new stream that in nobody else's work has broken through with such fullness and vigor ... This new stream is the realistic and social element in his poetry. ... He can express in one line what other poets would not be able to express in a whole tearful message.19

These words could be applied to a poem like "The Forgotten Village" (1855) which, as Evgen'ev-Maksimov aptly observes, "gives ... a very clear proof of Nekrasov's capacity for artistic generalization".20 In that poem, a series of separate episodes produces in the end a composite picture of Russian peasant life in the first half of the nineteenth century. The critiques of Nekrasov mentioned so far are for the most part subjective, impressionistic, and biased either for or against. A relatively unbiased evaluation of the poet's art is found only in a long review article by Apollon Grigor'ev, published in the July 1862 issue of Time ( Vremja). Grigor'ev, to be sure, harbored no sympathy for Nekrasov's "muse of vengeance and sorrow" and regarded much of the latter's social indictment as "a bilious spot" 21 on his poetry. Nevertheless, he had a keen appreciation of poetic art. Following are some of his most significant opinions about Nekrasov as an artist: ... The name of the poet ... ranks with those of Kol'cov, Ostrovskij, and Turgenev. ... Do you know what has remained for us of this whole epoch? Nothing except the groans of one poet's heart — except one poem by Nekrasov ... the first poem that revealed his poetic personality. ... I am speaking about the poem "On the Road". ... What is the use of reading long stories about various Natasas, to whom the authors ascribe as a virtue, in protest against coarse and sordid reality, such a simple and obligatory thing as chastity? The whole period of such stories has been condensed here by Nekrasov into a succinct poetic form ... 17

Evgen'ev-Maksimov, "Nekrasov v kritike", N. A. Nekrasov, 1878-1938: Sbornik state] imaterialov (Leningrad, 1938), pp. 256-261. 18 Zelinskij, op. cit., pp. 42-47 (See also Moskvitjanin, No. 17 [1852], Part V, Section VIII; and Moskvitjanin, No. 15 and 16 [1855]). 19 ¡bid., p. 48 (See also A. Pjatkovskij's article, Kniznyj vestnik, No. 24 [1861]). 20 Evgen'ev-Maksimov, Tvorceskijput', p. 51. 21 Zelinskij, op. cit., pp. 105, 112, 119 (See also A. Grigor'ev, "Stixotvorenija N. A. Nekrasova", Vremja, No. 7 [1862]).

NEKRASOV'S ART

66

What was heard in this poem was not an imitation of peasant speech but the speech of a peasant... It was obvious that the poem was written by a man of Kol'cov's stature, whose reproduction of peasant language was true and whose compassion was genuine ...22 On the other hand, Grigor'ev sternly rebuked Nekrasov for the uneven quality of poems like "Homeland" (1846) and "On the Volga" (1860), ascribing it to the influence of the poet's "muse of vengeance and grief". 23 Then he went on to prove that Nekrasov was at his best as a truly inspired lyricist and not as a social satirist. To support this theory, he quoted extensively from "Sasa" (1855) and "Silence" (1857), and — at the close of his article — listed all the poems which he regarded as products of "a pure and lofty inspiration". 24 Needless to say, "On the Road" headed the list, being followed by "Troika", "Homeland", "The Rainstorm", "In the Country", "The Last Elegies", "The Unreaped Row", "Silence", "A Song for Eremuska", "The Sorceress", "Country News" (with the remark: "although lacking any artistic form, the poem has freshness and purity of content"), "The Crying of Children", "On the Volga", "Sasa", "The Poet and the Citizen", "Peasant Children", "The Peddlers", and a few others. The omission of some rather well known poems, such as "A Dog Hunt", "Whenever I Drive at Night along a Dark Street ...", "Vlas", and "The Unfortunates", is very significant, for these were the ones that offended the esthetic feelings of the critic. But criticism like Grigor'ev's was a rarity in the atmosphere of controversy that surrounded Nekrasov's poems. Earlier (in 1855) the same Grigor'ev had put the label of "anti-poetic" on them. 25 Most of the attacks were directed against Nekrasov himself. The poet's literary enemies accused him of plagiarism (as in the case of "Sasa"), denied that he had any talent, implied that his poetry was rabble-rousing. In the light of all this, the harsh words spoken by the Citizen in "Poet i grazdanin" acquire a special significance: TBOH n03MM 6eCTOHKOBH, Tboh anerHH He hobh, CarapBi HyjKflbi KpacoTbi ...

Tbom cthx THryi. ,.. 2 6 Nekrasov's doubt of his own creative power, and his consciousness of inadequacies in his poetic form, had been expressed by him in an earlier poem beginning thus: HeT b Te6e no33nn cbo6o^hoh, Moil CypOBHM, HeyKJIKJ-yKHM CTHx! HeT b Te6e TBopamero HcicyccTBa ..." 22

Ibid., pp. 113, 116-117. Ibid., pp. 136-137, 139-140. Ibid., pp. 148-149. 25 Cukovskij, Masterstvo Nekrasova (Moscow, 1959), p. 168 (See also Moskvitjanin, Nos. 15 and 16 [1855]). 29 Nekrasov, "Poet i grazdanin", Sobr. soc. v S-mi tomax, Vol. I, p. 257. 27 Nekrasov, "Prazdnik zizni, molodosti gody ...", Ibid., p. 176. 23

21

THE EVOLUTION OF NEKRASOV'S ART

67

It took the best efforts of Cernysevskij (cf. his well-known letter to Nekrasov) 28 to restore the poet's faith in his own powers. Nekrasov's gnawing doubts, however, never left him entirely; throughout his life he frequently referred in his poems to his inadequacy as an artist. The poet's "inferiority complex" regarding his craftmanship grew worse as the hostility of the critics toward his poetry increased. Favorable criticisms were few and far between; their scarcity can be judged by what Nekrasov wrote in February 1874 in a letter to V. R. Zotov, a Russian critic friendly to him: I thank you from the bottom of my heart, Vladimir Rafajlovic, for your kind and decent letter! It gave me great pleasure, for of late I have had nothing but abuse and peremptory accusations from the critics — and I have heard few kind words from them at any time in the last 34 years ...29 The poet had an explanation for it, however: "... those who could have said a kind word in my behalf were mostly my fellow journalists, and therefore in no position to speak about me." 30 Zotov, whose friendship for the poet dated back to the middle 1840's, had written an article (in 1865) about the poem "Red-Nose Frost". The critic asserted that Nekrasov was the best contemporary poet and a direct heir of Puskin and Lermontov, and that his significance as "a poet of the people" was not subject to argument. Zotov considered "Moroz-Krasnyj nos" "one of the best poems in Russian literature", and regarded Dar'ja's portrait as extraordinarily true and complete. Dmitrij Pisarev, a close friend of Nekrasov, said this about him in an article written in 1867: ... I respect Nekrasov as a poet for his ardent compassion for the common people's suffering and for his readiness to always intercede for the poor and the oppressed. ...31 It remained for other critics, more or less favorably disposed toward Nekrasov, to pass a judgment on the quality of his poetry, especially in the years 1866-1877 when his talent was supposedly waning. Some of these deserve a brief mention if only for their remarks on the artistic perfection (or lack of it) in the poems written by Nekrasov toward the end of his literary career. In an issue of The Kiev Telegraph (Kievskij telegraf) for 1869, M. Velinskij stated flatly: "... at the present time we are unable to find anyone more deserving of the name of poet than Nekrasov — a poet in the sense in which we understand the word". Velinskij, who believed "truth to life" to be the essence of poetry, 32 then quoted a passage from Part I of Nekrasov's Who is Happy in Russia to prove his point. The 28

See Chapter VI, note 26. Nekrasov, Pis'mo V. R. Zotovu ot 21 fevralja 1874 g., Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 53-54 (Moscow, 1949), p. 91. 30 Ibid. 31 Zelinskij, op. cit., Part II, pp. 10-11. 32 Ibid., p. 22 (See also M. Velinskij's article in Kievskij telegraf.\ No. 57 [1869]). 29

68

NEKRASOV'S ART

selection of the passage (which happened to be Jakim Nagoj's speech in defense of the peasants' drinking) clearly hinted at the populist sympathies of the critic who, besides, was more interested in Nekrasov's presumed populism than in his art. The year 1873 was characterized by an apparent change in the attitude toward Nekrasov's poetry of many hitherto indifferent or hostile critics. Three articles, all containing words of high praise, appeared successively in St. Petersburg News (S.-Peterburgskie vedomosti) and in New Times (Novoe vremja). In the first of these, the critic (known to us only as Z.) had this to say about the poet: Mr. Nekrasov has an original, independent, and well-defined talent, though not powerful enough to produce successors of the kind that Puskin and Lermontov produced. Mr. Nekrasov's muse can compare, as regards the originality of his songs, with the muses of these two poets; like them, Mr. Nekrasov has brought into Russian literature new hitherto unknown motifs, as well as new content and, in part, a form that differs from the previous forms.33 Not much more specific was the second article (published in New Times) dealing with Part II (entitled "The Last One") of Who is Happy in Russia. Written probably by A. Skabi5evskij (as the initials, A. S.,would indicate), it contained this memorable sentence: ... We have already said, and we repeat again, that Mr. Nekrasov's muse still gathers strength, spreads her wings, and flies onward. .. . 3i The critic then quoted a well-known passage from the Prologue to Part II of Who is Happy in Russia, where Nekrasov is indeed at his best in his description of the mowers: On the banks of the Volga The grass has grown high, And the mowers work gladly. ... The spirit of the work Is devouring the peasants. Like teeth in a ravenous Mouth they are working — The muscular arms, And the high grass is falling ,..35 The third article, published in St. Petersburg News, happens to have been written by the same person as the first one (Z.) and appears to be a sequel to it. The critic thinks very highly of the artistic quality of "The Last One" (Part II of Who is Happy in Russia): Mr. Nekrasov's poem, "The Last One," belongs to a category of literary productions in which artistic truth is harmoniously united with the author's idea. In the poem, the dying system of serfdom has been vividly depicted ... The figure of the last of the serfowners ap3S 34 35

Ibid., p. 103 (See also S.-Peterburgskija vedomosti, No. 27 [1873]). Ibid., p. 124 (See also A. Skabicevskij's article, Novoe vremja, No. 62 [1873]). Tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy and Free in Russia? (Oxford, 1917), pp. 117-118.

THE EVOLUTION OF NEKRASOV'S ART

69

pears before us as if he were still alive.... This time Nekrasov is indeed a genuine poet whose true poetic inspiration stems from his own life's experience and not from any calculated tendentiousness. Equally good is his portrayal of the peasants in the poem... Generally speaking, the present chapter of the vast poem, Who is Happy in Russia, is not only the best but incomparably the best ,.. 36 The author of the article went so far as to state that "even the choppy meter in which the whole poem is written lends beauty and expressiveness to 'The Last One' and does not bore the reader's ears".37 The same critic showed considerably less enthusiasm about "The Peasant Woman" (Part III of Who is Happy in Russia): The poet's excessive zeal in depicting the terrible misfortunes inherent in "a Russian woman's fate", and his artificial treatment of a quasi-piquant social theme, produce a generally unfavorable impression ... Two or three bright spots in the poem scarcely compensate for the artificiality and boredom of the whole. To these could be added the prologue, which contains a very good description of a nobleman's manor falling into ruin. In the prologue, the 'theme' is still absent and does not engulf the poet's artistic concepts, which are fashioned from life and not according to routine 'civic' precepts. Owing to this, the prologue turns out to be fresher, more poetic, and more real. 38 Four years later, shortly after Nekrasov's death (1878), the same Z. published in The European Messenger (Vestnik Evropy) a remarkable article containing his more seasoned judgment of Nekrasov as an artist. This article will be discussed further on in this chapter. Nekrasov died without seeing in print the fourth part of Who is Happy in Russia, better known as "A Feast for Everyone" (1876). This part of the poem was never approved by the censor for publication despite the poet's having revised it several times. It was first published in 1881, in a severely mutilated form, with many important songs and episodes left out. These were restored only in a 1920 edition of Nekrasov's complete works. 39 They had appeared separately, however, in 1908. 40 Consequently, all the critiques of this part of Who is Happy in Russia are of comparatively recent date. Nekrasov's Last Songs (1876-1877), published in early 1877, evoked a favorable response from the critics. Some of their opinions are worth quoting: ... The genuine beauty and high lyricism of these last poems call to mind the poet's best work ... (The European Messenger)41 The whole collection, The Last Songs, produces a deep impression; these "last songs" are, 36

Zelinskij, op. cit., Part II, pp. 126-128 (See also S.-Peterburgskija vedomosti, No. 68 [1873]). Ibid., p. 128. 38 Ibid., Part III, pp. 11-12 (See also Z., "Zurnalistika", S.-Peterburgskija vedomosti, No. 26 [1874]). 39 Kubikov, Poézija Nekrasova (Moscow, 1928), p. 78. 40 Ibid. 41 Zelinskij, op. cit., Part 111, p. 157 (See also Vestnik Evropy, No. 5 [1877]). 37

70

NEKRASOV'S ART

without doubt, the most dolorous and woeful groans of our poet's soul. From the standpoint of artistry, all the lyrical poems in the present collection are exceptionally good; but, should it be necessary to name the best among them, we would point to the excerpts from the poem "Mother" and "Lullaby". The mentioned excerpts, besides having considerable artistic value, are also of autobiographical interest. The poem "Lullaby" represents, as it were, a poetic epilogue to "the last songs" ... (New Times)™

Nekrasov ... is a true poet, endowed with a genuine poetic gift. ... The Last Songs can be said to have added a new and fresh laurel to his fame as a poet. ... However, this statement does not apply to the two satirical poems in the collection. These are written in the usual satirical manner of Nekrasov, i.e., with an abundance of personal traits of purely local and temporary character, with no attempt at generalization; as a result, they are unsatisfactory as far as their artistry is concerned. But the lyrical poems ... are written with much feeling and often put in an exquisite and attractive form. ... We are convinced that his poetry will occupy a prominent place in the history of our literary development. ... It is a proof of his significance that from now on, the spirit of freedom and of human dignity, so strongly expressed in all of Nekrasov's work, will form an integral part of our poetry ... Our poetry, thanks to Nekrasov, has taken a step forward ... (St. Petersburg News)** These, then, were some of the appraisals of Nekrasov as an artist by critics who wrote about him during his lifetime. With the poet's death (early 1878), the controversy about the merits of his poetry was renewed with a new zeal by the two opposing camps: The believers in "art for art's sake" (also known as the esthetes), and the Populists and other literary utilitarians. All the restraint, so evident during the last year of Nekrasov's life, was gone. The controversy lasted well into the first decade of the twentieth century, becoming somewhat subdued with the advent of the Formalists. Within the scope of this study, only the highlights of the most important critiques can be given. The attempts of the populist critics to defend Nekrasov's reputation as a poet were rather inept. Thus, for example, A. M. Skabicevskij (the chief critic on the staff of Fatherland Notes) wrote in July 1878: ... I am ready to agree beforehand with the judgment of the esthetes, who assert that Nekrasov's artistic form is less harmonious and sustained than that of his predecessors, that his verse is not as smooth and his language not as profound, brilliant and exquisite as theirs. ... The artistic form of his poetry proves to be inferior to that of his predecessors.41 The above views were shared also by G. Z. Eliseev, a populist critic whose pronouncements carried much more weight than those of Skabicevskij. In an article, written in early 1878, Eliseev stated curtly and categorically: "Actually, there are few poems 42

Ibid., pp. 160-161 (See also Novoe vremja, No. 394 [1877]). Ibid., pp. 179-182 (See also V. M., article in S.-Peterburgskija vedomosti, No. 154 [1877]). 44 Skabicevskij, Socinenija v dvux tomax (St. Petersburg, 1890), Vol. II, p. 381 (See also Otecestvennyja zapiski, No. 7 [1878]). 13

THE EVOLUTION OF NEKRASOV'S ART

71

by Nekrasov that could be regarded as artistically perfect; more often than not, ideas and tendencies in these ... affect the beauty of the form." 4 5 Unable to grasp the peculiarities of Nekrasov's artistic method, the two populist critics (Skabicevskij and Eliseev) — and many other critics as well — took the attitude that in Nekrasov's poetry the content was more important than the form. By so doing, they not only confused the whole issue but also supplied grist for the mill of the esthetic critics, whose hostility to Nekrasov had by no means abated after the poet's death. From time to time, there were attempts on the part of some critics to learn more about Nekrasov's literary craftmanship; such attempts, however, usually culminated in a wilfully distorted conclusion. The best example of this kind of criticism is probably the well-known article by S. A. Andreevskij, first published in New Times and then reprinted in the several editions of Andreevskij's Literary Readings (later, Literary Sketches) in the years 1889-1913. Before discussing Andreevskij's strongly biased article, however, it would be well to take note of a uniquely objective criticism of Nekrasov as a poet, which appeared in the December 1878 issue of The European Messenger. The critic (already known to us as Z.), although realizing the impossibility of taking a neutral stand in the existing controversy, nevertheless tried to give an honest and impartial answer to the question, "Was Nekrasov a true poet, or merely a journalist with a poetic talent?" His argument is too long to be cited here, but some of his statements will perhaps bear repetition: The answer to the question whether Nekrasov possessed the gift of poetic language depends o n ascertaining h o w often he did reach the heights of genuine, unadulterated poetry ... ... M a n y of his p o e m s are o n a very high artistic level, and their verse could never be labeled a s 'clumsy'. Let us mention, for example, the following, which represent the various stages o f his poetic activity as well as his various genres: " Y o u Are K i n d Beyond A n y Emulation ...", "I Thought o n War with Horrors Rife ...", "A Knight for an Hour", "To an U n k n o w n Friend". ... In these there are passages whose form is hardly inferior to that of Puskin's best poems. 4 6

To prove his point about Nekrasov possessing the gift of poetic language, the critic quoted a few lines from "In a Hospital" and "To an Unknown Friend"; he also gave examples of Nekrasov's poetic style, taken from "I Thought on War with Horrors Rife ..." and, among others, from the very end of Chapter V ("The Pomeshchik") of Part I of Who is Happy in Russia: "The chain has been broken, The strong links have snapped, A n d one end recoiling 45

Quoted after Evgen'ev-Maksimov, "Nekrasov v kritike", op. cit., p. 267 (See also zapiski, No. 3 [1878], p. 139). 46 Z„ "N. A. Nekrasov kak po6t", Vestnik Evropy, No. 11-12 [1878] pp. 476-477.

Otecestvennyja

72

NEKRASOV'S ART

Has struck the Pomeshchik, The other — the peasant!" 47 The conclusion arrived at by the author of the article was, in a way, a refutation of what had been said earlier by SkabiCevskij and Eliseev: ... To regard Nekrasov's work as a valuable contribution to our literature and, at the same time, to deny to him the gift of poetic language, is ... to contradict oneself; to negate his poetic talent as well as his social significance is both unjust and improper. These two views, both of them equally false, can only be balanced by a third one which recognizes in Nekrasov a poet in the true sense of the word — a poet whose mastery of thought and form is complete.48 Coming from a man who had often been critical of Nekrasov as an artist, this posthumous tribute was of more than passing interest particularly since its author had traced in his article the gradual development of the poet's talent in the years 1846-1877. S. A. Andreevskij, whose article appeared in 1889, had some knowledge of the poet's artistic method, as can be seen f r o m the following remarks: Nekrasov, thanks to his unusual endowments, opened up new sounds and forms to Russian poetry. He was forced to do so by the times in which he lived. ... These times demanded that poetry, in order to have an audience, lower its tone and become simpler. Nekrasov adapted himself to this difficult situation. He rescued from oblivion the long-forgotten anapaest, and for many years to come he made this rather heavy but pliable meter as popular as Puskin's airy and melodious iamb had been up to Nekrasov's time. ... In general, Nekrasov's rhymes were both deft and diversified; but the greatest diversity, as regards these, was attained by him in folk motifs. The best example of it is "Vlas". The short lines of "The Peddlers" ring with pure and harmonious accords ... ... Nekrasov sometimes attained an unusually beautiful fluency of verse ("Silence", "On the Volga", "The Poet and the Citizen", ... "I Thought on War with Horrors Rife ...", The Last Songs, and others.) 49 Nevertheless, in spite of his apparent familiarity with some aspects of Nekrasov's artistry, Andreevskij at length allowed himself to be carried away by his "esthetic" bias: A good two-thirds of Nekrasov's poems could be turned into prose and would even gain in the process ... This is because the poetic form, by its very nature, is not indispensable for most of the topics that the poet presents ... The "language of gods" does not harmonize with this kind of material. ... Nekrasov becomes a true poet when he presents peasant themes in peasant language ("On the Road", "The Green Rustle", "The Peddlers", "Vlas", Who is Happy in Russia, "Peasant Children," and others), or when he writes personal poems in literary language ("A Knight for an Hour," "The Rainstorm," etc.) ... 50 47 48 49 60

Tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy and Free in Russia?, p. 114. Z., "N. A. Nekrasov kak poet", op. cit., pp. 478-479. Andreevskij, "O Nekrasove", Literaturnye ocerki (St. Petersburg, 1913), pp. 149-150, 153. Ibid., pp. 143-145.

THE EVOLUTION OF NEKRASOV'S ART

73

In all fairness to Andreevskij, one must say that he recognized a true poetic talent in Nekrasov despite all the reservations he had about his poetry. This, however, did not prevent the critic from stating at the conclusion of his article: "Nekrasov was a better citizen than he was a poet. Therefore, we believe that Nekrasov is, in general, not a great but a remarkable and original poet, and the poet of his people's woe in particular." 5 1 Andreevskij's critique at least pointed the way to a more scholarly and less emotional approach to Nekrasov's poetry. But, by and large, most literary critics writing in the 1890's (with the exception of the Symbolists) either over-praised or over-condemned the poet. In 1895, a very laudatory article entitled "Nekrasov's Poetry" ("Poezija Nekrasova") was published by I. Ivanov, a less-known Russian critic. He said in it, among other things: ... We have before us a poet of grief and anger, a poet of burning hatred and most tender compassion — hatred for untruth and violence, and compassion for the helpless and the poor. ... In this world there is no holier and more beautiful union than that of poetry and national life.62 On the whole, Ivanov's article was too impressionistic to have any lasting effect, though it contained many apt observations about the poet's language and style. It remained for the Symbolists and the Formalists to restore Nekrasov to his rightful place in Russian literature. In 1902, a Moscow newspaper, The News of the Day (Novosti dnja), asked of its readers the question, "Has Nekrasov's poetry become antiquarian?" Among those who replied were two representatives of the Symbolist movement, V. Ja. Brjusov and N. M. Minskij (Vilenkin). The first of these thus expressed his views on Nekrasov's art: Nekrasov is characterized by the originality of his poetic language, by meters and rhythms peculiar to him alone: these are the external but unmistakable signs of true talent. Nekrasov's lines are easily recognizable, for they have a personality of their own ... After Puskin and Lermontov, Nekrasov began to sing in his own true fashion, without imitating his masters — and that is something that only great talents can achieve. Nekrasov managed to find beauty in domains which his predecessors had left untouched. ... Like no one else, Nekrasov knows how to utilize images taken from Russian folk tales. In his descriptions of nature, he sometimes equals Tjutcev's gift of observation. Nekrasov's poetry has not been given its due up to the present time.63 Minskij, in turn, echoed Brjusov by asserting that Nekrasov "is one of our great poets" and that besides being "the poet of the people's woe" he is also "one of the 51

Ibid., p. 172.

M

Ivanov, "Poezija Nekrasova", Pocin (Moscow, 1895), pp. 419, 452. Quoted after Evgen'ev-Maksimov, "Nekrasov v kritike", op. cit., pp. 272-273.

63

74

NEKRASOV'S ART

greatest Russian landscape-painters and exponents of the problems of Russian village life". 64 In 1906, a non-Symbolist joined in the ever-growing chorus of those who insisted on vindicating the poet's name. I. Ignatov, who made no secret of his dislike for the Symbolists (and especially for the Decadents), wrote an article in which he attempted to prove that their poetry compared unfavorably with that of Nekrasov. Quoting from well-known poems, like "On the Road", "Before Rain", "A Dog Hunt", "The Unfortunates" (Part I), "Sasa", "Vlas", etc., the author proved his point quite well, the more so that he supported his final argument by repeating what Dostoevskij had said about some of Nekrasov's poems: "these are written in immortally beautiful verses". 55 Ignatov concluded his article on a positive and at the same time wistful note: In the entire poetry of Nekrasov flowed "the live blood" of true poetic inspiration, and therefore ... a new interest in its "gloomy beauty" is bound to awake soon. And, of course, the sooner it awakes, the better.56

The author tried his best to stimulate interest in Nekrasov, even writing the poet's biography for A Gallery of Russian Writers (Galereja russkix pisatelej), published in 1909. In the same year (1909), an essay on Nekrasov by Jurij Ajxenval'd appeared in Part II of Silhouettes of Russian Writers (Siluety russkix pisatelej). This critic, whose personal approach to Nekrasov is perhaps as biased as that of V. Avseenko, 57 indulged in chiaroscuro criticism: ... His days passed without heroism and sacrifice, and at the same time Russia's sower and protector groaned in every part of the country ... In reality, Nekrasov's fall was of another and worse kind: he betrayed not only the burlak but also poetry. He ... trampled beauty with his feet, had no mercy for art into which he poured the destructive poison of hopeless prose, both external and organic. ... This is shown not only by the fact that many of his poems are ... a falsification of poetry ... but also in his composing mediocre stanzas .. . 68

Ajxenval'd, as he explains further on, meant only to prove what a pernicious influence the city of Petersburg must have had on Nekrasov's talent; for as soon as the latter freed himself from that influence, he "reveals, buried deep under the sands of prose, tiny particles of beauty, spirituality, as well as an original ... talent". Then, asserts the critic, he writes ... mournful and moving poetry, he zealously seeks out all those who suffer, in order to show them compassion, and arranges an artistic funeral for a dead peasant, as in his "Frost": 54

55 56

"

58

Ibid., p. 273.

Ignatov, "Nekrasov-xudoznik", Na slamom postu (St. Petersburg, 1906), p. 57. Ibid.

Avseenko, "Real'nejsij poet", Russkij vestnik, Nos. 7-8 (1878), pp. 432-459. Ajxenval'd, "Nekrasov", Siluety russkix pisatelej, Part II (Moscow, 1909), p. 16.

THE EVOLUTION OF NEKRASOV'S ART

75

He sleeps who has toiled without ceasing! He sleeps who has fostered the soil!59 "In such moments", continues Ajxenval'd, "it is evident that he became a city poet through some tragic and fateful mistake". 6 0 The critic then expounds the theory that Nekrasov was unable to write good poetry except when staying in the country or thinking about the country. As a proof, he cites the poet's own words: OnHTb OHa, poflHaa CTopoHa C ee 3ejieHbiM, 6jiaroflaTHbiM j t c t o m , H BHOBb flyuia no33Heft n o n H a . . .

t o j i b k o 3flecb a Mory 6biTb n03T0M! 6 1

Ajxenval'd goes on in this vein, quoting copiously from Nekrasov's lyrical poems, and finally he comes to this startling conclusion: Nekrasov ... is a poisoned poet: he is the singer of disturbed joy, troubled life, spoiled happiness. ... Having passed Nekrasov's stage, one usually goes further and in a different direction in one's artistic development; but a Russian youth, a Russian adolescent, takes from him his first lessons of noble thought and civic feeling.62 And so, according to Ajxenval'd, the poetry of Nekrasov amounted to little more than a primer of civic education. But let us return to the Symbolists and their attempts to define Nekrasov's poetry in terms of art. Andrej Belyj, in his collection of essays, Green Meadow (1910), mentions the poet several times, to wit: ... Puskin and Lermontov engendered Nekrasov ... Gogol', Tolstoj, Dostoevskij, and Nekrasov are all musicians, but — infinitely more so — they are preachers as well; and the music of their words is but a means to influence the listener.63 In his most important book, Symbolism (1910), Belyj devoted a separate chapter to an analysis of the components of Nekrasov's art. As a result of this analysis (the so-called "anatomy of style"), the high artistic values inherent in Nekrasov's form came to light. To be sure, it was the form and not the content of the poet's work that interested Belyj. The latter, like the two other Symbolists (Brjusov and Minskij) seemed to have little concern for Nekrasov's ideas. 64 Actually, the first conscious attempt to analyze Nekrasov's artistry was made by the Formalists, who deserve credit for the re-evaluation they gave of the poet's 53

Ibid., p. 19 (tr. of Nekrasov's poetry by J. Soskice, Poems by Nicholas Nekrasov, p. 149). Ibid., p. 20. 61 Nekrasov, "Nacalo poemy", Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. II, p. 125. 62 Ajxenval'd, op. cit., pp. 27, 28. 63 Quoted after Evgen'ev-Maksimov, "Nekrasov v kritike", op. cit., p. 273 (See also A. Belyj, Lug zelenyj, pp. 63-64). 64 Ibid., p. 274 (See also A. Belyj, Simvolizm, chapter "Lirika i eksperiment"). 60

76

NEKRASOV'S ART

contribution to Russian literature. This fact has been recognized even by Soviet critics, as, for example, Evgen'ev-Maksimov, who states: ... It is to the Formalists' credit that they first made an analysis of Nekrasov's poetic art on the basis of concrete examples, and proved him to be one of the outstanding masters of literary craft, not forgetting to mention his complete mastery of artistic form. . . . " The Formalists that Evgen'ev-Maksimov has in mind are (as he himself explains) Boris Ejxenbaum and Jurij Tynjanov, whose studies of Nekrasov appeared in the years 1921-1922. Tynjanov's article, "The Verse Forms of Nekrasov" ("Stixovye formy Nekrasova"), appeared in early 1921, almost simultaneously with A. Slonimskij's article, "Nekrasov and Majakovskij" ("Nekrasov i Majakovskij"); Ejxenbaum's article, "Nekrasov", was published in early 1922. The studies of the two literary historians, Tynjanov and Ejxenbaum, are typical examples of what V. Erlich calls "Formalist contextualism at its best". 66 What these two were attempting to do in their re-evaluation of Nekrasov was, first of all, to destroy the myth that he was a civic poet without any real talent, in the words of V. Erlich, The Formalist literary historians took issue with this time-honored axiom. They maintained that the traditional view of Nekrasov as a civic-minded poet who did not quite make his mark as an artist was a misconception. When Turgenev complained that Nekrasov's poetry was coarse and 'prosaic', he apparently applied to it standards derived from Romantic poetry. But these, the critics argued, were clearly misplaced criteria: it is both unfair and misleading to judge the poet's performance in terms of a canon that he is deliberately violating.67 In support of their theory, Tynjanov and Ejxenbaum gave as an example Nekrasov's conscious parody of Lermontov's "Lullaby" (1846). A good summary of their argument is found in Erlich's study of Formalism: The Formalist observations on the role of parody cast an interesting light on the mechanics of literary change. ... It has been often noted that Nekrasov derived some of his themes and meters from Lermontov. At the same time it was clear that on many counts Nekrasov's poetry diverged widely from the Romantic pattern. Here, too, the Formalists claimed, it is the use of parody that throws into focus the dual nature of literary continuity. ... The case in point was a bitter, sarcastic paraphrase by Nekrasov of Lermontov's popular lullaby 'Spi, mladenec moj prekrasnyj' (Sleep, my little one, my pretty one). With the shabby figure of the petty official substituted for the would-be proud warrior as the image of what the infant would become, the spell of rhythm was broken and a coup de grace given to the Romantic cliche which Nekrasov sought to dislodge. This is, the Formalist critic implies, how literary change comes about. The old is presented, as it were, in a new key. ... 6S 85

Ibid. Erlich, Russian Formalism, p. 237. 67 Ibid. (See also B. M. Ejxenbaum, "Nekrasov", Nacala, No. 1 [1922]). 68 Ibid., pp. 225-226 (See also Ejxenbaum, op. cit., and Ju. Tynjanov,"Pofcticeskie formy Nekrasova", Arxaisty i novatory, 1921). 66

THE EVOLUTION OF NEKRASOV'S ART

77

Both Tynjanov and Ejxenbaum were subsequently attacked for their views by orthodox Soviet critics, such as V. I. Kirpotin, A. M. Egolin, and N. L. Stepanov, who accused them (but especially fijxenbaum) of borrowing some of their ideas from Andreevskij's well-known article. 69 However, Kirpotin and Egolin, whose articles appeared at a much later date (in 1938 and 1944, respectively), could have been influenced in their argument by their excessive preoccupation with the social content and ideology of the poet's work. What the Formalists had to say about Nekrasov was, according to V. Erlich, this: Nekrasov wrote 'uncouth' poetry not because he was unable to compose smooth, mellifluous verse, emulating the PuSkin-Lermontov pattern, but because he did not want to do so. That Nekrasov was keenly aware of formal considerations, he proved, according to £jxenbaum, in his article on Tjutcev. That he could write well in Puskin's or Lermontov's 'tradition', he showed in some of his early derivative poems. But, Ejxenbaum insisted, little could be accomplished along these lines, since the norm established by the masters had hardened into a cliche. In order to give Russian poetic language a new lease on life, Nekrasov had to move boldly beyond the Romantic tradition. Out of an unorthodox mixture of certain elements of PuSkin's and Lermontov's verse with motifs and rhythms of vaudeville, folk songs and pamphleteering, he forged a new style which Turgenev, a Romantic 'epigone', found much too spicy for his palate. 70

Both Tynjanov and Ejxenbaum, V. Erlich believes, "approached Nekrasov's literary art without prejudice, indeed, with ... a favorable bias".71 Owing to this, they were able to evaluate his "hybrid" poetic genre, and they found him to be a mature and conscious artist, esthetically effective. K. I. Cukovskij (referred to by Erlich as "a free-lancing impressionist critic"), in his early book, Nekrasov, kak xudoznik (1922), made a number of interesting and original observations on the poet's art: He was a genius of despondency. A magnificent funeral music sounded in his soul unceasingly, and to create meant to him to listen to that music and to convey it to people. ... ... The reason why Nekrasov's lyrics are so irresistible is that all his images ... are permeated with the same emotions that he himself experiences ... 72

Cukovskij later denounced his early views as too subjective and impressionistic and took a more scholarly attitude toward Nekrasov's poetry. This can be seen from his book, Nekrasov's Craftsmanship {Masterstvo Nekrasova), first published in 1952. Stepanov, Egolin, Cukovskij, Corbet, and others, have pointed more than once to Nekrasov's artistic kinship with Puskin in matters of form and style (especially in the poems written in the years 1853-1856). Stepanov, in an article published in 1933, said this, among other things: 69 70 71 72

Egolin, "Literaturnaja bor'ba vokrug Nekrasova", Nekrasov v russkoj kritike, p. 19. Erlich, op. cit., p. 237 (See also fijxenbaum, op. cit.). Jbid., pp. 227-238 (See also footnote, Ibid., p. 238). Cukovskij, Nekrasov, kak xudoznik (St. Petersburg, 1922), pp. 9, 17.

78

NEKRASOV'S ART

In the maturity and wonderful simplicity of his craftsmanship, Nekrasov in many respects not only resembles PuSkin but also continues to apply the artistic principles established by the former. Nekrasov develops those principles of Puskin's verse which became especially manifest in Puskin's work during the 'thirties', in poems like "Autumn", "My Critic, Rosy-Gilled ...", "Ivan the Marriage Broker", etc., signifying a new phase of Puskin's realism that the latter was not destined to complete. It was the path that would have led ultimately to the liberation of poetic style from all artificiality and convention — the path of austere, true simplicity, of making every line as meaningful as possible.73 And A. M. Egolin, in an article published in 1944, observed briefly but succinctly: Scedrin and Nekrasov were developing the principles of Puskin's realism under new circumstances. In the poetry of the 'forties' and the 'sixties,' the role of Puskin's successor was assumed by Nekrasov, who had developed, under new conditions, the leading traits of Puskin's poetry: idealism, national flavor, realism, simplicity and lucidity in the expression of feelings and thoughts.74 On the other hand, Nekrasov, the great innovator, was anything but a blind follower of Puskin in the matter of style and form. Cukovskij makes this point quite clear: ... However much Nekrasov admired the beauty and harmony of Puskin's poetry, he nevertheless realized that a new epoch demanded of poetry new subjects, a different style, new intonations and rhythms. It took him some time to realize this.75 Cukovskij gives as a concrete example "The Unfortunates" ("Nescastnye"), written by Nekrasov in 1855, in which the influence of Puskin is rather obvious. Nekrasov consciously and deliberately utilized in his poem Puskin's form and style, as in these lines: M CMepTH UHLLib oHa anKana, K o r a a npecTynHaa Hora,

3Byia uenflMH, nonnpana Heflpyacenio6Hbie CHera . . . 7 6

There is, moreover, a much later poem by Nekrasov (written in 1874) in which the poet not only took his subject from Puskin's "Village" but also made use of all of Puskin's stylistic devices (verse pattern, diction, intonation, imagery). This is the well-known "Elegy (To A. N. Erakov)", which begins thus: ... YBH! IIoKa Hapoflw BjianaTCH B HumeTe, noKopcTBya 6HiaM, KaK "romne CTa.ua n o BbiacaceHHbiM nyraM, OnnaKiiBaTb HX POK, cnyacHTb HM 6 y a e x My3a, M B Mnpe HeT npoHHeft, npexpacHee c o n m ! . . . 7 7 73 74 75 76 77

Stepanov, "Nekrasov-xudoznik", N. A. Nekrasov, 1878-1938: Sbornik statej, pp. 112-113. Egolin, "Lit. bor'ba vokrug Nekrasova", op. cit., p. 21. Cukovskij, Masterstvo, pp. 48-49. Nekrasov, "Nescastnye", Sobr. soc. v. 8-mi tomax, Vol. I, p. 277. Nekrasov, "Slegija (A. N. Erakovu)", Ibid., Vol. II, p. 337.

THE EVOLUTION OF NEKRASOV'S ART

79

In view of all these examples, the favorite theory of the Formalists about the role of parody in the development of Nekrasov's style does not seem too convincing. Stepanov has some definite ideas on the subject: Andreevskij in the 1890's, and later the Formalists, reduced the problem of Nekrasov's style, of the new poetic method created by him, to mere "lowering" of style, as well as "parodying" and "rejecting" the traditional classical conventions through the use of parody, vaudeville, and verse feuilleton. However, the reduction of Nekrasov's reform of the verse to mere "lowering" and "parodying" does not explain the peculiarities of Nekrasov's poetry... Nekrasov's attitude toward Puskin and the classical heritage by no means fits the theory of "rejection", showing thereby the closeness of the ties between Nekrasov's poetry and that of his predecessors, and also the high regard in which Puskin was held by Nekrasov. The semantic principle of the verse, preciseness of diction, the lucidity and internal dynamics of the verse — all these are proofs of the kinship of Nekrasov's poetry with Puskin's.78 The problem of Nekrasov vs. his predecessors, interesting as it is, cannot be fully discussed within the limited scope of this book. A rather exhaustive treatment of this problem can be found, among others, in Cukovskij's Masterstvo Nekrasova (3rd ed., Moscow, 1959). Some mention should be made also of the so-called "Marxist critics", whose general approach to Nekrasov resembled that of the nineteenth-century social critics. The most important among these were G. V. Plexanov, A. V. Lunacarskij, and (possibly) M. N. Pokrovskij. Writing in the early part of the twentieth century, these critics could express their views more freely than their successors. Plexanov's article, written in 1903, was first published in Russia in 1905, in the collection entitled In the Course of Twenty Years (Za dvadcat' let). The author, though interested primarily in the content and ideology of Nekrasov's poetry, makes no secret of his critical attitude toward Nekrasov as an artist: ... Anti-esthetic trespasses abound in Nekrasov's poetry. His verse is not smooth ... His language seldom sounds beautiful. ... 79 Plexanov, whose favorite poets seem to be Puskin and Lermontov, gives two examples of Nekrasov's "un-musical" and "prosaic" language. The first one is taken from "A Knight for an Hour" ("Rycar' na cas"): OT jiHKyiomHx, npa3flHO 6ojiTaiomHx, OSarpaiomnx pyKH b k p o b h , YBeflH MGHH B CTaH IIOrH6aiOIJJHX . . . 8 0

The second one is the famous passage from "Reflections at the Grand Entrance" ("Razmyslenija u paradnogo pod"ezda"), referred to by Plexanov as "eloquent prose" and beginning thus: 78 79 80

Stepanov, op. cit., pp. 121, 135. Plexanov, "N. A. Nekrasov", Nekrasov v russkoj kritike, p. 67. Nekrasov, "Rycar' na cas", Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. II, p. 64.

80

NEKRASOV'S ART

A Bjiaaejieii pocKoniHtix nanaT E m e CHOM 6MJI

ray6oKHM

O6T>HT

...81

" T h e element of prose," the critic goes on, "was in general very strong in N e k r a s o v ' s poetry. ... N e k r a s o v ' s poetic talent was n o t powerful enough, a n d — which is the m a i n thing — n o t well-balanced." Plexanov (as he explains in a footnote) means here the poet's alleged inability t o clothe poetic images in a suitable language. 8 2 His argument is similar to t h a t of Andreevskij and equally unconvincing. T h e m a i n thesis of Plexanov seems to be that N e k r a s o v was a typical poet of the raznocincy g r o u p , whose aspirations h e expressed. 8 3 Let us n o w examine the article of a n o t h e r Marxist critic, A. V. Lunacarskij (published in 1921, on the 100th anniversary of Nekrasov's birth). Lunacarskij h a d this t o say a b o u t the poet a n d his a r t : Nekrasov is a civic poet, but he is a civic poet, and therein lies his strength. ... His lyricism is fervent, bitter, majestic, and profound. His is a beautiful soul. ... ... His poems are equal to his ideas. Everybody understands them from the very beginning, everybody sings them — even illiterate peasants do. ... Are Nekrasov's verses not smooth enough? But who has said that the smoothness of the verse is invariably its merit? Who has proven that it is necessary to write in smooth verses about the horrors of peasant life? ,.. 84 T h u s Lunacarskij, whether deliberately or not, refutes most of Plexanov's statements. But he goes farther t h a n t h a t : he wants t o m a k e quite clear his intent to prove t h a t N e k r a s o v is indeed a great artist. Here, f o r example, are some of Lunacarskij's observations a b o u t the musical quality of the poet's verse: ... The higher pathos in which Nekrasov's soul lived, could not be expressed except through singing. And so, here is a suggestion on how to scrutinize good poets. If what a poet has written cannot be sung, let him abandon verse and turn to prose. ... Poems must sing. ... I do not know whether even Puskin or Lermontov had produced as many musical poems as Nekrasov did. But I doubt if there is any remote corner in which the strains of "On the Volga" have not been heard. 85 T h e above holds true for N e k r a s o v ' s lyric poetry, Lunacarskij implies. But Nekrasov, according to the critic, is also a n epic poet, a past master at describing b o t h people and nature: ... Nekrasov creates types that remain in our memory forever. Nekrasov's landscapes are unsurpassably convincing. Nekrasov paints pictures that literally stare us in the eye. And he does it not only as a realist; his fantasy is just as magnificent and unforgettable. It is 81 82 83 84

85

Nekrasov, "Razmyslenija u paradnogo pod"ezda", Ibid., Vol. I, p. 302. Plexanov, op. cit., p. 68 (See also footnote on the same page). Ibid., p. 72. Lunacarskij, "N. A. Nekrasov", Nekrasov v russkoj kritike, pp. 87, 88.

Ibid., p. 89.

THE EVOLUTION OF NEKRASOV'S ART

81

enough to recall the soarings of folk imagination in the appearance of King Frost in Nekrasov's ... marvelous poem by the same name ... 86 Lunacarskij then sums up his ideas about Nekrasov as an artist, in a statement that has the ring of personal conviction: Immense possibilities lay concealed in Nekrasov ... Even though he once admitted in a poem, "strife often hindered my poetry", we can say that it did not. But had he lived in happier times, he would have sung happier songs; then all the petty critics would have seen that Nekrasov could have been as great an artist, if not greater, in a happy song about beauty, love, and life under freedom. ... However, would he then have been as great a teacher as he is now? Wailing and threatening, he raised wails and threats to the level of exquisite artistic and musical beauty. Without a moment's thought of ceasing to worship at the high altars of PuSkin and Lermontov, ... we nevertheless say: in Russian literature, and even in all literature, there is no other person whom we would worship and love more than we do Nekrasov.87 It is on this note, so consonant with the affection felt by the Russians for their poet in their age of prose, that this brief survey of Russian criticism of Nekrasov as an artist should perhaps end. Most of this criticism, it is quite true, appears to be rather impressionistic, and one could probably agree with A. M. Egolin, who said in his article, "The Literary Battle Around Nekrasov" (published in 1944): Despite the existence of a vast critical literature on Nekrasov's literary activity, the problem of his poetry has been studied but little from an esthetic viewpoint. ... 8S Since the time Egolin wrote these words, several important studies of Nekrasov's poetry have appeared in the Soviet Union, their authors being the already mentioned V. E. Evgen'ev-Maksimov, N. L. Stepanov, K. I. Cukovskij, and himself. All these studies, however, show more evidence of ideological than scholarly discipline (this being true even of Cukovskij's Masterstvo Nekrasova, Part II especially); copious examples are seldom followed by a synthesis of the critic's views.

86

87 88

Ibid.

Ibid., pp. 89-90. Egolin, "Lit. bor'ba vokrug Nekrasova", op. cit., p. 22.

IX PRE-EMANCIPATION RURAL RUSSIA IN NEKRASOV'S POEMS

In late 1842, Belinskij said this about Nekrasov: ... Nekrasov has talent and, what is essential, understands the Russian people, whereas we are all distinguished by our ignorance of the latter.1

In this case, Belinskij was right. Nekrasov had been born and raised on a country estate, and knew the muzhik, his life and problems at first hand. In the early 1840's, when he was strongly influenced by Belinskij's ideas, overtones of social criticism were already discernible in his prose writings. Nekrasov's concern over the Russian peasant's lot thus pre-dates the year 1845, when it was first expressed in a poignant and direct manner in the well-known poem, "On the Road" (" V doroge"). The poem tells in a dramatic fashion a story which was apparently common in the rural Russia of the pre-Emancipation period: a pretty peasant girl, having attracted the landowner's eye, is taken to his mansion (ostensibly to be his daughter's companion), lives there for a number of years and, after the old master's death, is sent back to her village (by the new master, whom she failed to please) and is forced to marry an illiterate peasant. This story is told by the woman's husband to a nobleman whose coach he is driving. The tone of the poem is set by the opening passage, in which the bored traveler asks the coachman to tell him "some amusing nonsense". He gets this interesting reply: Samomu mne neveselo, barin ("I'm not happy myself, bar in").2 Then the muzhik begins in simple language to narrate the story of a peasant girl who was brought up in a nobleman's household: CuBiuib Tbi, CMOJioay, cyaapb, OHa B SapcKOM flOMe 6bina yneHa BMecTe c 6 a p w u i H e H pa3HWM HayKaM, I I O H H M a e m b - C T a , IIIHTb, H B » 3 » T b ,

Ha BapraHe HrpaTb H wraTb — BceMflBopflHCKHMMaHepaM H u i T y x a M . OfleBanacb He TO HTO y Hac Ha cejie capaaHHHUbi HaniH, 1 2

Panaeva, op. cit., p. 133. Nekrasov, "V doroge", Sobr.

soc. v 8-mi totnax, Vol. I, p. 56.

PRE-EMANCIPATION RURAL RUSIA IN NEKRASOV'S ART

83

A npHMepHO npeacTaBHTb, b aTJiac; Ena BAOBOJib h Meay h KaniH. ... Bbiiujia 3aMy>K rocnoflCKaa floib, flaHB ÜHTep ... A cnpaBHBiiiH CBaflböy, CaM-aT, cjibiuib Tbl, BepHyjica b ycaflb6y, 3axBopan h Ha Tponuy b Hoib OTflan Bory rocnoflCKyio ayrny, Chpothhkoh ocTaBHBiiiH rpyrny ... Hepe3 Mecaii npnexaji 3HTeK — Ilepe6pan no pcbh3hh ayuiH M c 3anainKH ccaflHJi Ha o6poK, A noTOM flo6pajica h no rpymn. ... BopoTHJi oh ee Ha ceno — 3Haft-fle MecTO C B o e Tbi, MyatHHKa! B3Bbma fleBxa — KpyTeHbKO npninjio: Eenopyiica, BHiiib Tbi, 6ejionniKa!3 W h a t follows is a vivid account o f the girl's alienation f r o m the world to which she once belonged. Forced to marry her present husband, she has brought him nothing but grief: Bha TaKofl, noHHMaeuib, cypoBoft ... Hh KOCHTb, HH XOflHTb 3a KOpOBOfi! ... Tpex CKa3aTb, HTO6 jieHHBa Sbijia, fla, BHUib, aejio B pyicax He cnopHJiocb! KaK flpoBa HJIH BOfly Hecjia, KaK Ha 6apmnHy lima — craHOBHJiocb HHfla acaJiKO noflnac ... fla Kyflbi! He yTeniHuib ee H OÖHOBKOH : T o HaTepjiH eö Hory KOTH, To, cjibiuib, eft B capacjiaHe HeJiOBKO. npH nyacHx H Tyaa h ciofla, A yKpaflKoft peßeT, icax uiajibHa« ... nory6HJiH ee rocno,na, A 6biJia 6bi 6a6eHKa Jinxaa! Ha KaKOH-TO naTpex Bee ruaflHT /la HHTaex KaKyio-TO KHHXKy ... HHfla CTpax MeHH, CJlMIUb Tbl, meMHT, H t o noryÖHT OHa h cbiHHiiiKy: Y i h t rpaMOTe, MoeT, CTpnaceT, Cjiobho öapieHKa, xaxtAbift aeHt neuieT, EHTb He 6beT — 6htl. h MHe He aaeT ... a Heuojiro nocTpena noTeuiHT!4 The muzhik is becoming more and more desperate because his wife, unaccustomed

3 4

Ibid., pp. 56-57, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems by Nicholas Nekrasov, pp. 184-185. Ibid., pp. 57-58, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 185-186.

84

NEKRASOV S ART

to the harsh conditions of peasant existence, has lost all desire to live. She is slowly wasting away, while her husband looks on helplessly: Oibiuib, xaK menna xyaa h 6jieflHa, XoflHT, TOHCb, coBceM iepe3 CHJiy, B aeHb flByx Jioaceic He ciecT TonoKHa — Haft, CBajiHM nepe3 Mecau b MorHJiy ... 5

He probes his mind to find any possible reason for his wife's unhappiness, but can only say somewhat apologetically: ... Bh«ht Eor, He tomhji f l e e 6e3ycTaHHoft p a 6 o T o f t ...

OfleBan h K o p M H J i , 6 e 3 n y T H He 6 p a H H J i , Y B a a c a n , TOHCb, bot KaK, c oxotoh ... A , c n b i u i b , 6 a T b — T a x n o i T H He 6HBaji,

Pa3Be

TOjibKO n o f l n b H H y i o p y n y

...6

But here the traveler, who evidently has been listening to the coachman's story with increasing annoyance, interrupts him with a sarcastic remark: — Hy,flOBOJibHO,hmiuhk! Pa3orHaji TbI MOK) HeOTBH3HyK) cKyKy! ...' These last two lines of the poem bring out quite effectively the nobleman's lack of understanding for the peasant's unhappiness. He had expected to hear something amusing, and instead found himself being accused, though indirectly: " W h a t a wife she would have been, If not ruined by the masters!" 8

It was this note of social accusation that so endeared "On the Road" to Belinskij, who for a long time regarded it as the best among Nekrasov's poems. But, apart from the content, the form of the poem is balanced and polished: the reader is, as it were, carried along the road at a fast pace from beginning to end. The swinging rhythm of the anapaest line, so typical of many of Nekrasov's poems, is well suited to the motion of the carriage and to the earthy peasant idiom in which the story is told. The poet, to be sure, dispensed with any set stanzaic arrangement in order to allow the hero to tell the story in his own language, in the skaz tradition. By so doing, he actually made the meter of the poem reflect the varying degrees of emotion inherent in human speech: KaK Ha r p e x ,

fleBHTHafluaTbiii

roa

MHe b Ty nopy cnyiHCb ... IIocaflHiiH H a T * r j i o — fla H a H e f t h K e H H J i H . . . 9 6

Ibid., p. 58, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 186. « Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid., p. 57 (These two lines do not appear in J. Soskice's translation). ' Ibid., tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 185.

PRE-EMANCIPATION RURAL RUSIA IN NEKRASOV'S ART

85

This is the kind of verse most often used by Nekrasov to describe some aspect of the peasant life of the time. All the peculiarities of a person's speech and intonation are faithfully preserved in it. But is this poetry or rhymed prose? These lines do not "sing", as is the case with Nekrasov's later "folk" poems; they merely emphasize the emotional content of the coachman's story in "On the Road". Cukovskij's general remarks about Nekrasov as a poet could perhaps be applied to this particular example: In his literary heritage there are quite a few poems whose diction is typical of narration and skaz. This diction is characterized, first of all, by rapid changes of intonation, the weakening of those mid-line pauses which are an integral part of a song, and also by the carrying of the text to the next line. 10

It must be said, however, that Nekrasov, in "On the Road" and other poems of this type, "carried over to the next line" far less frequently than, for example, Puskin in "The Bronze Horseman" ("Mednyj vsadnik"). In "On the Road", a simple and realistic tone predominates. The poem exhibits none of the sentimentalism that was so characteristic of Nekrasov's poetic productions before 1845. It is in the poem "Troika" (1846) that Nekrasov grows sentimental again. Speaking more directly than he did in "On the Road", he bewails the hard lot of the peasant woman, particularly the swift passing of her physical beauty. The poet sees a pretty village lass looking longingly at a young cavalry officer riding by in a dashing troika. Speaking as if to her, he admires the girl's loveliness: Ha Te6a 3arna,ijeTbca He ahbo, IIojiK>6HTfe Te6a bchkhh He npoib: BteTCfl ana a nenra urpHBO B BOJIOCaX TBOHX, HepHblX KaK HOHb . . . u

He goes on in this vein, describing her "pretty, blushing cheeks", her "pert little eyes" gazing boldly from under her dark eyebrows. But then his mood changes, and he addresses the girl in a tone of bitter irony, predicting what her fate will be: IIoHCHBemb h nonpa3flHyeuib bbojiio, ByaeT 3KH3Hb h nojiHa h jierica ... fla He t o Te6e najio Ha flonio : 3a Hepaxy noEnemb MyKHica. 3aBa3aBiiiH n o a mmihkh nepeztHHK, riepeTaHeuib ypofljiHBO rpyflb, ByaeT 6HTb Te6a Myac-npHBepeziHHK M CBeKpoBb B Tpn norH6ejiH rHyTb. 10 11

Cukovskij, Masterstvo, p. 625. Nekrasov, "Trojka", Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. I, p. 77.

86

NEKRASOV'S ART Ot paGoTbi h lepHoii h TpyflHoii OmBeTeinb, He ycneBiuw pacuBecTt, Ilorpy3HmbCH Tbi b coh Henpo6yflHbiH, Eyaeim» hahhhtij, pa6oTaTb h ecTb. M B JIHUe TBOeM, nOJIHOM flBHJKeHbH, OOJIHOM 5KM3HI1 nOHBHTCH Bflpyr BbipaxceHbe Tynoro TepneHbH H 6eccMbicneHHbiii, BeHHbm Hcnyr. M cxopoHHT b cbipyio MorHJiy, KaK npofiflenib Tbi Tflacejiwtt cboh Becnone3Ho yracmyio CHJiy H hhwm He corpeTyio rpyat.12

nyTb,

It is a cruel fate, but one which she as a peasant woman cannot escape. The poet has n o words of comfort for the girl; he even tells her to stop dreaming of the handsome young officer who can never be hers. His pessimism is evident, and it gives an overtone of resignation to his unvarnished picture of a peasant woman's lot. In this poem Nekrasov is speaking in the first person, which detracts somewhat from its effectiveness. Nevertheless, "Troika" is a shrewd as well as bitter psychological portrayal of a Russian peasant woman, for whose plight the poet had a deep and abiding concern. A very different poem is "Homeland" ("Rodina", 1846). In it, the author, casting himself in the role of a "repentant nobleman", speaks out bitterly against the landowners and seemingly indicts himself together with his father and ancestors at Gresnevo: Behold it once again, the old familiar place, Wherein my fathers passed their barren vacant days! In muddy revels ran their lives, in witless bragging; The swarm of shivering serfs in their oppression found An enviable thing the master's meanest hound; And here to see the light of heaven I was fated, And here I learned to hate, and bear the thing I hated; But all my hate I hid within my soul for shame, And I at seasons a yokel squire became; And here it was my soul, untimely spoilt and tainted, With blessed rest and peace too soon was disacquainted ...13 It is poetically justifiable, at least, that Nekrasov should experience a kind of moral satisfaction in the poem on seeing his ancestral home uninhabited and falling into ruin: 12

Ibid., pp. 77-78. Nekrasov, "Rodina", Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. I, p. 68, tr. by Oliver Elton in A Book of Russian Verse (London, 1947), p. 69. 13

PRE-EMANCIPATION RURAL RUSIA IN NEKRASOV'S ART

87

— Now is blind and blank, that mansion old and grey; Women and dogs, buffoons and lackeys, where are they? Gone; but, of old, I know not what oppression leaden Weighed upon great and small, the weary heart to deaden.14 Whether these were his feelings as an individual is another story — but Janko Lavrin has this to say about the poet's attitude toward Russian landed gentry: ... On the whole, the virulence of his indictment was always in direct ratio with his own repentance — that of an individual landowner and the representative of a class all in one. Repentance, or rather a mood of ever-recurring moral masochism and self-castigation, may well have been needed by him even as a creative stimulus. This alone would be enough to throw some light on the duality of his behavior during the years of his prosperity: on the one hand the sumptuous living typical of a former squire, and on the other his constant and sincere self-reproaches, turned into poetry. And the more he hated the remnants of the squire in him, the more acutely he felt also the people's tragedy and the people's causes, with which he was anxious to identify himself as a poet.16 There is much truth in Lavrin's comment. Once we have realized that Nekrasov often thought and acted like a typical "repentant nobleman" of the 1840's, we are less likely to be shocked by his revulsion at "the old familiar place" and his elation over its being reduced to shambles. These two attitudes are especially strong in the latter part of the poem: ... Casting My gaze in loathing round, it gives me comfort still To see that they have felled the dark pinewood, the chill Shelter for tired men from summer heat reposing; The fallows are burnt up, the herds are idly dozing And hang their heads above the streamlet parched with drought; The crazy mansion, void and sullen, bulges out, Where once the long dull note of stifled lamentation Chimed with the clash of cups and shouts of exultation ...16 The last two lines of the poem contain what appears to be a direct reference to the poet's father and an indictment of the whole system of serfdom: Where he who ground the rest beneath him — only he To live his life, or act, or draw his breath, was free.17 Although the poem "leaves most of the poetical invective of Lermontov nowhere", 18 its rhyme pattern is too monotonous, and the lack of formal division into stanzas detracts somewhat from the poem's artistic effectiveness. The slow, ponderous movement of the verse in "Homeland" is very well suited to the somber mood of this most powerful of Nekrasov's elegies, as seen from the Russian original: 14 15

"

17 18

Ibid., p. 69, tr. by O. Elton in A Book of Russian Verse, p. 70. Lavrin, op. cit., pp. 139-140. Nekrasov, "Rodina", op. cit., pp. 69-70, tr. by O. Elton, op. cit. p. 70. Ibid., p. 70. Mirsky, op. cit., p. 230.

88

NEKRASOV'S ART M, c oTBpameHHeM KpyroM KHfla« B3op,

C oTpaflott BHHcy a, i t o cpy6jieH TeMHwft 6op — B TOMfliiiHH jieTHHft 3HOH 3amHTa H npoxjiana, — M HHBa BbiacaceHa, h npa3flHO apeMJieT CTaao, IloHypHB ronoBy Has bmcoxiiihm pyibeM, ... M Ha6oK BajiHTCH nycTOH h MpanHbiii a o m ,.. 1 9

The iambic pentameter used by the poet in "Homeland" has little in common with the classical elegiac meter. For comparison, both are given: A. Classical elegiac meter : ±

±_

t_

t_

B. The meter of "Homeland": r_

/_

t_

The poem lacks structural unity: the poet now speaks of the present, now of the past, and intermingles genuine personal recollections (as those of his mother, for example) with lofty if slightly artful accusatory passages. Moreover, the presentation of peasant misery in "Homeland" is too generalized, this being perhaps caused by the formal requirements of an elegy. A much more specific treatment of various aspects of Russian peasant life before the Emancipation is found in many other poems that Nekrasov wrote prior to 1861. Of considerable importance among these is "A Dog Hunt" ("Psovaja oxota"), written in the same year as "Homeland" (1846). In it, Nekrasov appears to be torn between two extremes : his love of hunting and his compassion for the suffering peasant. His description of "a gentleman's sport" is therefore not without irony and bitterness. The poem begins in a realistic manner typical of Nekrasov, with a description of a night watchman knocking at the window to rouse the master for the hunt. This is immediately followed by a lyrical description of the autumn, in which "the wind ... brings grief, blowing sullen clouds across the sky and scattering leaves over the field, as it howls mournfully ..." Then the mood changes, becoming almost tragicomical as the whole household turns into a beehive of activity at the landowner's call: EapHH npocHyjica, c nocTenn bckohhji, B Ty6HT o6opBaHHoft l e p r a ! " M 3axnonHynaci> flBept. Il0CT0flB, KTO-TO

Pa3BH3ajTH KOIHJIH IIHJIHrpHMM,

H o uiBefiuap He nycrarr, cicyflHOH nenTti He B3HB,

M nouiJiH OHH, cojiHueM najiHMbi ... 50

In the narrative or epic part, "Reflections at the Grand Entrance" follows this metric pattern: p

L

L

L

_

But as soon as the lyrical part begins, that is, as soon as Nekrasov addresses an angry tirade to the heartless official, the rhymes tend to become dactylic: TFEL, CHHTaroiUHH 3KH3HbIO 3aBHflHOK) YnoeHHe necTtio 6eccTi>WHOK> ... 51

However, when the poet begins to speak of the official in the third person, the dactylic rhymes disappear. This phenomenon was first noted by Cukovskij, who in 1922 thus commented on Nekrasov's "remarkable predilection for dactylic endings": Seventy-five per cent of all the poems written by Nekrasov have such endings — the huge poem, Who is Happy in Russia ... as well as "Vlas", "The Peddlers", "In the Country", "The Gossips", "Despondency", "The Green Rustle", etc. Nekrasov would often begin a poem in any meter he happened to think of, but, as soon as he came across some topic that was close to his heart, he would switch to his favorite dactylic line-endings. ... There are many such instances, and they all testify to the fact that the dactyls are organically inherent in his verse. 62

Much has been made by some critics (Cukovskij, among others) of the fact that Nekrasov, in "Reflections at the Grand Entrance" and many other poems, strove 50 51 52

S e e n o t e 42. See note 42. C u k o v s k i j , Nekrasov, kak xudoznik, p . 19.

98

NEKRASOV'S ART

deliberately to apply some of Gogol's artistic techniques to the writing of poetry. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that Nekrasov was a mere imitator of Gogol; he sooner could be called a continuator of the latter's traditions. Gogol's indirect satire (made effective through his presentation of the "seamy side" of life and creation of a gallery of transparently symbolic human types) was turned by Nekrasov and other poets of his time into direct social accusation, full of angry rhetoric. For example, Gogol in "The Overcoat" had made use of minute details to create a grotesque portrait of "an important person", whereas Nekrasov, in "Reflections at the Grand Entrance", openly accused the "important person" of immorality and heartlessness. This accusatory tone was Nekrasov's own; it had seldom, if ever, sounded so loud in the writings of Gogol. At the same time, the description of the peasants at the beginning of the poem was tinged with a kind of lyricism that could only be compared to that of Gogol's Mirgorod (in the famous passage where even the wet jackdaws sitting on a fence express the sadness of the scene). It was a combination of an externally prosaic picture with an internal lyrical note running through it that made many of Nekrasov's poems so effective stylistically. Proofs of this are found in "Reflections at the Grand Entrance", in some passages of "On the Volga", in "Country News", "Peasant Children" and "The Peddlers". In "On the Volga" ("iVa Volge"), written in 1860, Nekrasov described the inhuman labor and misery of the burlaki, peasants who worked as boatmen pulling barges up the Volga River. The poem begins with what might be called a lyrical introduction: the poet, roaming the countryside with his hunting dog, reminisces about his childhood and youth as they look to him in retrospect. He wryly compares himself to a beggar who has no other possessions except those treasured memories. His recollections of his early years are happy ones: he grew up close to nature, and knew neither sorrow nor suffering. In those days, the Volga seemed a friend to him, and the murmur of the waves on her shore told him of freedom and happiness. But he left the peaceful countryside and went away to the city to become a poet; this he did against the advice of his mother and friends and even against the attraction of his native fields and forests that tried, as it were, to detain him. Now, many years later, the poet reflects bitterly: "Perhaps it was that I lacked strength, or that my labors were unwanted",53 and he speaks of his life that was wasted in mere trifles. Once more he wants to turn to his youth to find his lost happiness, but his idyllic reveries are constantly interrupted by twinges of conscience in which his remorse for not having been true to his youthful ideals is plainly shown. And yet his thoughts cannot but turn to the Volga, the river on whose banks he grew up and whose sight he so loved. The poet's reveries are suddenly interrupted by rhythmic human groans; and, looking down upon the riverbank, he again beholds a sight that long before had shattered his juvenile peace of mind: 63

N. A. Nekrasov, "Na Volge", Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. I, p. 348.

PRE-EMANCIPATION RURAL RUSIA IN NEKRASOV'S ART

99

IIOHTH n p H r H y B U I H C b rOJIOBOH K H o r a M , O 6 B H T H M 6EHEBOK,

peKH IloJi3JiH rypi>6oK> 6ypjiaicn, 0 6 y T b i M B j i a n T H , BFLOJIB

14 6 w n HeBbiHOCHMO AHK M C T p a n i H O »CEH B THUIHHC

Mx MepHbitt noxopoHHbm KPHK — M

cepaue flporHyjio

BO M H e . 6 4

In a poetic apostrophe addressed to the Volga, he blames the river for destroying the happiness of his childhood; up to that time he had been unaware of the existence of these wretched human beings. It was a long time ago, he says, but he vividly remembers the day when, as a child, he ran down to the river to watch them in one of their rest periods. The poet remembers one burlak in particular, gloomy-faced and sickly-looking, whose words he never forgot although he did not quite understand them at the time. The man wished his injured shoulder would heal so that he could "pull at the rope like a bear", but then he said: "But if I could die by morning, that would be even better." 55 The sight of the burlaki, the poet continues, impressed him deeply and made him think of the Volga as "the river of slavery and sorrow". Now a grown man, he still remembers the Volga boatmen and their animal-like existence, and he wonders at the apparent meaninglessness of their suffering: yHbiJibift, cyMpaHHbift Sypjiaic! K a K H M Te6« a B aeTCTBe TaKHM h Hbme yBHflaJi:

3HaJi,

Bee Ty ace necHio TW noeiub, B e e T y a c e jiflMKy T b i H e c e u i b ,

B nepTax ycTanoro rama

Bee Ta ac n0K0pH0CTb 6e3 KOHija ... OTeu TBOii copoK jieT CTOHan, EpoflH no 3THM 6eperaM, M n e p e f l C M e p T H i o He 3 H a j i , H T O 3 a n o B e a a T b CHHOBbflM. M , KaK e M y , — He a o B e j i o c b

Te6e HaTKHyTbca Ha Bonpoc: MeM x y a c e 6 b m 6 b i TBOH yaen, Koraa 6 TH MeHee Tepnen? K a x OH, 6 e 3 r n a c H O T b i y M p e u i b , K a K OH, 6 e 3 B e c T H 0

nponaaeuib.

Tax 3aMeTaeTCJi necKOM

T B O H c u e f l H a 3THX 6 e p e r a x , r « e TW m a r a e u i b n o a JJPMOM

He Kparne y3HHKa B uenax, TBepfla nocTbiJibie c n o B a , 51 55

Ibid., p p . 3 5 1 - 3 5 2 . Ibid., p. 353.

100

NEKRASOV'S ART O t B e K a T e )tce: " p a 3 « a FLBA!"

C 6ojie3Heinn>iM n p n n e B O M "oil!" H B TaKT M O T a a rojiOBOii

...56

The poem thus ends on a note of utter hopelessness unrelieved by any promise of a brighter future for the hard-working burlak. Nekrasov's attitude toward the Volga boatmen, to be sure, is rather subjective and sentimental; but, as an artist, he is successful in portraying not only their inhuman misery but also their moral tragedy. The tragedy is that there is no way for the burlak, under the existing circumstances, to improve his lot. Nekrasov presents him as he is in his daily toil on the Volga, and as he is likely to remain. "On the Volga" is a very interesting poem, in point of form as well as of style. Its oratorical and declamatory pathos, its tense and lapidary verse, are at times reminiscent of Lermontov's "Novice" ("Mcyri"), especially in those passages in which Nekrasov speaks in the first person: HO H He BepHJI HHHCMy. HeT, — roBopan a h c j o h h t o h : H h h c m H e K y r u i e H H b i f t noxoii IIpoTHBeH cepfluy Moeniy ... 67

—

Short lines with masculine endings, so typical of the aforementioned poem by Lermontov, increase the stylistic effectiveness of numerous autobiographical passages found throughout Nekrasov's "On the Volga". The tone of the lyric-epic narrative changes constantly; although the poem is written in what might be called a "hybrid" style (a mixture of literary and colloquial Russian), it contains several short speeches in authentic folk dialect. This rapid and often unexpected succession of lofty and earthy passages can be best seen in that portion of the poem where Nekrasov's lyrical apostrophe to the Volga is followed by a prosaic description of the Volga boatmen. It begins thus: O

B o n r a ! ...

K0jibi6ejib

moh!

J I j o S h j i j i h k t o T e 6 a , KaK a ? OflHH, n o yTpeHHHM 3 a p a M ,

Korfla e m e B e e b M n p e c i d i t H ajibiii 6 n e c K e f l B a CKOJib3HT n o TeMH0-r0Jiy6biM BOjmaM, Si y 6 e r a n K p o f l H o f t p e i c e . May

Ha n o M o m b K pbi6aicaM,

K a T a i o c b c h h m h b nenHOKe, Epoacy c pyatbeM n o

ocTpoBaM.

To, KaK HrpaiomKK 3BepoK, C b w c o k o h KpyiH Ha necoK C K a n y c b , t o 6 e p e r o M peKH,

"

57

Ibid., p p . 3 5 3 - 3 5 4 . Ibid., p. 348.

PRE-EMANCIPATION RURAL RUSIA IN NEKRASOV'S ART

101

Eery, 6pocaa xaMeiiiKH, M necHio rpoMKyio noio

n p o yna;ii> paHHK>K> mow ... ayisiaTb 6hji totob, H t o He yiifly a HHKoraa C necnaHwx 3thx 6eperoB. ... 5 8

Torfla a

This idyllic tone, however, disappears as soon as Nekrasov turns to a description o f the boatmen: ... ycrajiH 6ypjiaKH, KoTen c paciiiHBM npHHecjin, YcejiHCb, pa3BejiH KocTep M Meac co6ok> noBenn HeToporuiHBwii pa3roBop. — Koraa-To

b Hhjkhhh nonaaeM? —

OflHH CKa3aji: — K o r j i a 6 nonacTb XoTb Ha Mjibio ... — "ABOcb npnfleM ,.." 6 9

The sight of these wretched human beings fills the poet's soul with anger and bitterness; and so Nekrasov, in tones full o f pathos, expresses a sudden change in his feelings toward his once beloved river: E o r BecT,

hto caejiajiocb co mhoh?

SI He y3Haji peKH po/moii ... IIpH6pe3KHbIX IITHU 3HaKOMbIH KpHK

3noBem, npoH3HTeneH h ahk, H roBop Tex ace mhjihx bojih MhOK) My3bIKOK) nOJIH! O , ropbKO, ropbKO a ptiflaji,

b t o yTpo a ctosji Ha 6epery poflHofi peicn, M b nepBbiii pa3 ee Ha3Baji PeKOK) pa6cTBa h tockh! ... 6 0 Korfla

T h e poem ends with another lyrical apostrophe, this time addressed to the V o l g a boatman as an individual and a type as well: YHbijibiii, cyMpaHHbiii 6ypjiaic! KaKHM Te6a a bfleTCTBe3Haji, TaKHM h Hbme yBHflan: Bee Ty ace necmo t h noeuib, Bee Ty ace naMKy Tbi Heceuib, B nepTax ycTajioro Jinua Bee Ta ac noxopHOCTb 6e3 KOHua ... 6 1 58

" 61

Ibid., p. 352. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 353-354. Ibid., p. 354.

102

NEKRASOV'S ART

The recitative lines, three of which begin with vse ("still, the same as before"), heighten the impression of the Volga boatman's tragic lot. Although written over a hundred years ago, "On the Volga" has lost none of its poetic beauty and force even today. Two of Nekrasov's poems, "Country News" ("Derevenskie novosti") and "The Sorceress" ("Znaxarka"), also written in 1860, show certain similarity in tone and general theme. In the first of these, the poet tells of his returning home to his estate and being met by all his serfs, who give him a detailed account of all that has happened during his absence. The idyllic note prevalent throughout the first part of the poem is set in the opening passage, which contains a description of the very landscape that unfolded itself before Nekrasov's eyes whenever the poet was nearing Gresnevo on his way back from the city. The description is both simple and charming: the traveler has just seen the familiar woods and the last hillock beyond which the village lies, and the dusty road over which he has traveled is being swept by a driving summer rain, the raindrops resembling thousands of tiny nails that "have begun to fall head downward". 62 Then the scene changes, as the peasants flock around their master on his arrival in the village. It is immediately evident that the muzhiks love and trust him, and he repays their affection and confidence with friendliness and kindness. He greets them cheerfully, and listens patiently to all the news, comments, remarks, etc., undisturbed by having to listen to dozens of people at once. They first tell him things they think he might be intetested to hear. Foremost among these is, of course, the hunt. The peasants assure the barin of their concern for the wild game belonging to him ("lots of young ones; we surely took good care of them, and did not kill even one".) Then one of them says: "Should there be a hunt, we'll go shooting!" To the landowner's remark, "If only my legs were strong enough!", another peasant replies good-naturedly, "Look at him, what a weak one!"; others chime in, agreeing that their master does not look as healthy and strong as when he was leaving for the city some time ago. He, in turn, assures them that among them he will soon regain his zest for life; and then, eager to find out how they themselves have fared, inquires: "What's new with you, brothers?" 63 The villagers, again vying with one another to give him as much information as they are able to, tell him of all the things that befell during his absence. The least of these was the death of the old Vlas, who died shortly before the master's arrival and bequeathed him his "lives of saints" (svjatcy). His fellow peasants, somewhat naively but nevertheless sincerely, express their admiration at the old man's having fulfilled his obligations to the barin all his life: "HyflHbi

He

flejia-TO

noHanpacHy

rocnoflHn!

npofljinn

3 a a K - T O >KH3Hb n e j i O B e K a : 62

63

Nekrasov, "Derevenskie novosti", Ibid., p. 340.

Ibid., p. 341.

PRE-EMANCIPATION RURAL RUSIA IN NEKRASOV'S ART CTO neT noflyuiHW

BapmHHy

npaBHJi

103

raiaTHJi, nojiBeKa!"64

The misfortune that affects the landowner directly is the theft of wood from his forest. According to the muzhiks, it was virtually impossible to prevent some unidentified persons from stealing the timber, because of lack of an adequate number of forest wardens. And, besides, who could flog all the culprits even if they were caught? In the same philosophical fashion, the peasants continue to relate to the master other occurrences in their everyday life. A baby girl was eaten alive by the pigs (a rather frequent thing to happen, later on used by Nekrasov again in Part III of Who is Happy in Russia); a woman stabbed her father-in-law with a pitchfork, and for good reason; a foolish shepherd boy out in the pasture during a storm was killed by lightning; and, last but not least, two neighboring villages burned to the ground in a fire. Referring to the last of these events, the narrating peasant tells of the vain efforts of the village priest to stop the conflagration with icon and incense, and concludes in a tone of deep conviction: "Evidently, the Lord didn't hear him!" 65 With this, the account of the peasant woes (or, as Nekrasov puts it, "country news") is brought to a close. What follows is a brief but significant scene in which Nekrasov (who is more or less clearly identifiable throughout the poem) is about to enter his manor-house and is being asked solicitously by the villagers, "Perhaps you wish to be left alone?" His answer is characteristic of his true cordiality toward the muzhik: "Oh, come on, friends, please enter!" His peasant friends do come in, crowd into his house, and finally dare ask him the crucial question — the one that is uppermost in their minds: "Well, tell us as quickly as you can, what have you heard about our freedom?" 66 These last two lines of the poem contain, as it were, the skillfully concealed denouement of the plot as well as the social point of the whole. As regards its artistic value, "Country News" is notable for its compact structure, powerful imagery, and vivid narrative. Its realistic details are well chosen, and its earthy language is well suited to the expression of the peasants' feelings. Nekrasov appears to be keenly interested in local color; this, in addition to the sheer poetry of some passages (especially the description of the storm), and exquisite musical and visual effects calculated to appeal to the reader's senses, contributes to making the poem a unique example of "village realism" at its very best. The second poem, "The Sorceress", is about a woman fortune teller in the village who had the reputation of a witch with occult powers. Whatever she predicted always came true, to the dismay of the peasants, who invariably became the victims of the misfortunes she had warned them against: 64 65 66

Ibid. Ibid., p. 343. Ibid.

104

NEKRASOV S ART

MoiiBHJia BefltMaropjiacTOMynapHio: "3h! yroflHinb tm Ha 6apcKyio ncapHio!" M — nornHflHT — iepe3 Mecau Bcero ITo Jiecy napeHb opeT: "ro-ro-ro!" JlfljK CTenaHy CKa3ana: "KHimiibCH BOJIbHO TbI CHBKOfi, & CHBKH JIHIIlHIUbCfl, JIh6o

TBoefl ronoBe nponaaaTb!"

Crann CTenaHa peKpyTCTBOM nyraTb: Bbraeji kohh Ha 6a3ap — OTKyimjica! Becb OKOJioflOK KOJiayHbe flHBHJicfl.6' Finally an old muzhik, Pantelej, decided to go to the witch and ask her a question concerning the future of all peasants. Upon entering her house, he found there a young peasant couple whom the woman was telling not to marry because the prospective husband was addicted to drink. "Eyaenib He6piiTbiii BanaTbca b H36e, HepTHKH npbiraTb y«myr no Te6e, CTaHyT rnyMHTbCfl, THHyTb b npeHcnoflHK); Tbi b ny3bipeieK HajiOBHuib hx cothk),

CraHeuib ero 3aTbiKaTb ..."6S Pantelej was so impressed by the witch's grim predictions that he rushed to the door and was about to run away, when she stopped him. The old man, though he was both frightened and angry, managed to speak up — and he told the sorceress that he would come back to hear his fortune only after the peasants had been liberated. Thus the poem, otherwise very light and amusing, ends on a serious social note. The chief value of "The Sorceress" lies in the artistry whereby Nekrasov conceals a timely social message under a wryly humorous presentation of quaint but authentic peasant superstitions in Russia. The technique here is similar to the one used by the poet in "Country News", consisting in the mystification of the reader (through a series of incidents) as to the real point of the poem. The ignorance of the muzhiks is shown by the author unobtrusively in several rather amusing scenes. Just as in the previous poem, Nekrasov's interest in local color vies with his concern over the Russian peasant's fate, the latter being poignantly expressed in the last two lines of "The Sorceress". It is a very successful blending of profundity and lightness — something that the poet was not always able to achieve. "The Sorceress" was published in the November 1860 issue of The Contemporary, " i8

Nekrasov, "Znaxarka", Ibid., p. 345. Ibid., p. 346.

PRE-EMANCIPATION RURAL RUSIA IN NEKRASOV'S ART

105

virtually on the eve of the Emancipation. The poet's reaction to the Tsar's manifesto is well known (cf. Cernysevskij's recollections). A few months later, in the poem "Freedom" ("Svoboda"), while outwardly praising the reform, he expressed his bitter disappointment with it: 3 H a i o : Ha MecTo ceTeft KpenocTHwx JIioflH npHflyManH MHoro h h m x . . . 6 9

After February 19, 1861, it became even more imperative for Nekrasov to depict the true state of things in rural Russia, to castigate the landowners for their unwillingness to help the muzhik improve his lot, and the bureaucracy for their exploitation and abuse of the peasant. His "Muse of vengeance and grief" refused to be silent.

••

N e k r a s o v , " S v o b o d a " , Ibid., Vol. II, p. 9.

X TWO POST-EMANCIPATION POEMS: "PEASANT CHILDREN" A N D "THE PEDDLERS"

On July 14, 1861, Nekrasov wrote "Peasant Children" ("Kresfjanskie deti"). The poem (first published in the literary journal Vremja in late 1861) is an example of countryside realism at its best; moreover, in it the reader gets a glimpse of a different Nekrasov — not a "repentant nobleman" or a singer of his nation's woes, but a friendly and cheerful person with a zest for life and a genuine interest in other people. The poem begins thus: Again in the country! A life full of pleasure: I shoot; I write verses in solitude deep; And yesterday, searching the moorland for treasure, I came to a cowshed, turned in, fell asleep. I woke. Through a crack in the wall had come prying The sun's joyous rays, in profusion of gold; A pigeon is cooing; some young rooks are flying Just over the roof, in a chorus they scold. Another bird raises a cry uncanny, I think by its shadow a crow it must be, But hark! There's a whisper! And lo, through the cranny A row of bright eyes gaze intently at me. Yes, grey, black, and blue eyes in earnest reflection Are mingled together like flowers in a field.1 Like all children, they are fascinated by his beard, his watch, his dog, and his gun. However (which is rather interesting), they are unable to tell whether or not he is a landowner since some time before they had seen him riding side by side with a peasant by the name of Gavrila. Nekrasov's delight at the children's remarks, as well as his love for them, are expressed both directly and indirectly: I love eyes of children, I love their expression, The message they bear to my heart is so plain, And, not to disturb the delightful impression, I lay without moving. They whisper again: 1 Nekrasov, "Krest'janskie deti", Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. LI, p. 13, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems by Nicholas Nekrasov, p. 111.

TWO POST-EMANCIPATION POEMS

107

1st 2nd 3rd 2nd

voice-. A beard! voice: He's a bar in! voice: Be quiet, you young ninny! voice: A barin does not wear a beard, I know that, But only mustaches. 1st voice: Eh, aren't his legs skinny, And long! 4th voice: There's a watch on the top of his hat. 5th voice: A fine one, a gold one. 6th voice: Eh, that cost some money! 7th voice: A chain, too, I see it. 8th voice: It shines like the sun. 9th voice: And look at the dog. What a monster! How funny, Some wet's dripping out of his mouth, — see it run! 6th voice: A gun! With two barrels! The carving that's in it! Just there, near the trigger ... 3rd voice (With apprehension): He's looking! 4th voice: All right! Be quiet now. Wait, Grisha. Let's stop for a minute. 3rd voice: He'll beat us ... The little intruders take flight Like birds from the chaff when a man comes in sight. Again they approach. I pretend to be drowsing. The row of bright eyes to the chink are glued fast, And all my possessions, so wonder-arousing, Are viewed and discussed, and then sentence is passed: "What use is a rifle to him — such a sloven! He'd better be lying asleep on the oven, He rides side by side with Gavril, so it's clear He isn't a barin at all. Hush! He'll hear." 2 F r o m the description of a specific incident the poet now passes to a discussion of peasant children in general. Ah, dear little rogues! He who troubles to learn them, The true peasant children, will love them, I know, And even, good reader, suppose you should spurn them As beings of an order ignoble and low — Be that as it may, I make open confession I've envied their lives, for I know they have such A wealth of true poetry in their possession, May God send your own pampered children as much! A fortunate race, in their childhood ignoring Both science and comfort. ... 3 H e r e Nekrasov begins t o reminisce a b o u t his own childhood, when he used to play with peasant children and t a k e p a r t in their activities. These were typical of children 2 3

Nekrasov, "Krest'janskie deti", op. cit., pp. 13-14, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 111-112. Ibid., p. 15, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 113.

108

NEKRASOV'S ART

living close to nature: in the summer they would pick mushrooms and berries, swim in the streams, catch animals for pets, and occasionally help their parents in the fields; during the other seasons they would be lazy or industrious, depending on whether their help was needed or not. Nekrasov admires their ability to take things naturally and easily; their reactions are simple and spontaneous, as when, for example, one of the children laughs at the boy's (Nekrasov's) fear of a snake. Peasant children are full of natural curiosity; they love to hear stories and watch things being done. And folk without number, some workmen among them, Pass over the road to the towns every day: A tinker, a weaver, a tailor, A merchant to pray at a shrine, A tramp from Vologda, a sailor, They pass, a continual line. Beneath our old elm trees, their pilgrimage breaking, The weary would sometimes take rest for a spell. The children would gather around them, forsaking Their games, for what wonderful tales they would tell! And Kiev, the Turk, and strange monsters portray you And one, when he's been for a drink, only wait! ... And after diverting your mind with a story He'll give you a moral: "Now, children, good-bye, And mind, above all, fear the Lord in His glory ..." ... Now a workman unpacking His bundle is spreading his tools out in rows: "See here, little rascals", the children enthralling He'll teach how to saw, how to file, how to plane, And now, fast asleep through the heat he is falling, They'll go through the whole entertainment again. The saw they will blunt; such a wreck they will make it I warrant you won't get it sharp in a day, And as for the chisel they'll certainly break it And then in a panic they'll scurry away.4 This idyllic childhood of peasant children, however, does not last long; at an early age they must learn to work and endure all kinds of hardships. In an often-quoted passage, Nekrasov tells of meeting a six-year-old boy bringing firewood from the forest on a cold winter day: One day in the depths of a winter most cruel I came from the forest. 'Twas frosty and still. I saw an old horse with a sledge-load of fuel Come painfully dragging its weight up the hill. Beside it, with ease and composure stupendous A peasant proceeds, in a sheep-skin bedight, He's holding the bridle: his mittens tremendous, His top-boots immense, and himself — what a mite! 4

Ibid., pp. 15-16, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 114-115.

TWO POST-EMANCIPATION POEMS

109

"Good day, my fine fellow. From whence is the booty?" "Stand out of the path. From the forest, of course. My father is cutting it down. 'Tis my duty To load it, and cart it away with the horse." (The axe in the neighboring thicket was striking.) "I see. Is your family big, by-the-bye?" "The family is quite big enough for our liking, And only two men-folk — my father and I." "So that's how it is! And how old are you, brother? "I'm six, newly turned." "And your name, ere we part?" "I'm Vlas." To the mare: "Now, come up, little mother," He shouts in a bass, cracks the whip, and they start.5 The poet remains pensive long after the boy and the horse have disappeared; then he directs his words again to peasant children in general: Rejoice, little children, and sport at your pleasure, For freedom and joy to sweet childhood are due; 'Twill teach you to love these poor fields beyond measure And make them seem endlessly precious to you. The bread that is made of your toil may you cherish, Preserve the inheritance gained at your birth, And may the romance of your childhood not perish, But fare with you back to benign Mother Earth ..." It is his hope that later on, toiling on the land as grown-up men, they will perhaps remember their carefree moments in the beautiful Russian countryside. In the last section of the poem, Nekrasov returns to the first scene, i.e., the one in which he saw the children staring at him through a crack in the wall. Noticing that the children have grown bolder, he delights them by having his dog Fingal do tricks for them : Fingal was a practised and deep connoisseur, And now he commences such marvels displaying The children take root to the spot, cannot stir. They wonder, they laugh, and no longer they fear me, Themselves they give orders: "Fingalushka, die!" "Let me see, Kusyaka!" "No pushing, d'you hear me?" "Look, look, he is dying!" "Here, let me come nigh!" And, stretched in the hay, I myself was infected By their noisy mirth."' A rainstorm suddenly comes, and the children scurry back to the village for shelter ("they sped on their little bare feet through the rain ..."). 8 The poet and his dog are now alone, listening to the patter of the rain on the old shed's roof. When the storm is over, they go hunting again. And with this, the poem ends. 5

•

7

8

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

p. 18, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 119-120. p. 19, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 120-121. pp. 19-20, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 121-122. p. 20, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 122.

110

NEKRASOV'S ART

"Peasant Children" is truly a delightful poem, and in it Nekrasov reveals to the reader his fondness for his little peasant friends. The poet is obviously enjoying himself while going back in his memory to the experiences of his own childhood, to familiar sights and scenes. He describes the children's behavior in a natural and effortless way. The mischievous peasant boys in the poem are true to life, and so is the little Vlas who is proud of his adult responsibilities at the age of six. Within the framework of his chance encounter with the children, Nekrasov uses a very effective technique of interspersing several vivid pictures with his own comments, thus giving them the form of personal reminiscences. Frequent references to places familiar to him on his own estate lend authenticity to his first-person account. All of this makes the poem thoroughly and inimitably Nekrasovian. In the same year (1861) Nekrasov wrote "The Peddlers" ("Korobejniki"), regarded by some critics as the most illustrative of his ability to compose poetry in the spirit and style of Russian folklore.9 This long poem is really a series of poems or "songs" about traveling peasant vendors. It is written in the typical four-line stanza of a folk song and in deliberately simple language. The very beginning of "The Peddlers" is clearly reminiscent of a folk song, as one of the peasant merchants calls out to a passing village girl : "Oh, nojma, nonHa KopoSyuixa, EcTb h CHTUM h napia. noacaneii, moh 3a3Ho6yiuica, MojioflenKoro nnena! BblflH, BblflH B pOJKb BblCOKyK)! T a M AO hohkh noroacy, A 3aBH»cy MepHOOKyK) — Bee TOBapw pa3Jioacy. ..."10

However, the girl would not take any of the gifts he proffered her, except a little turquoise ring; and she made him swear an oath that he would marry her as soon as he had sold all his merchandise. Van'ka promised to be back by Pokrov (The Feast of the Holy Virgin's Intercession) and marry her then. But, engaged in his amorous pursuits, Van'ka falls behind his traveling merchant companion, the old Tixonyc. The meeting of the two provides a conclusion to the first "song" of the six in the poem : Crapbiii T h x o h h h pyraerca : " f l yjK flyMan, t u nponan!"

BaHbxa TOJibKo yxMbiJiaeTca — fl-ae «nubi npoaaBan!11 9

Cukovskij, Nekrasov, kak xudoznik, pp. 47-48; N. Andreev, "Fol'klor v poèzii Nekrasova", Nekrasov v russkoj kritike, pp. 148-150. 10 Nekrasov, "Korobejniki", Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. II, pp. 25-26, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 87. 11 Nekrasov, "Korobejniki", op. cit., p. 27, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 88.

111

TWO POST-EMANCIPATION POEMS

W i t h this witty double-entendre

so c o m m o n in folk songs, the first part o f the poem

ends. In the second " s o n g " , which again opens with the vendors' call, we witness a very amusing scene in which village women fight one another to get the best bargains f r o m the peddlers' "sumptuous l o t " . It concludes with an ironical twist, the women being both proud o f their purchases and angry at the peddlers f o r having fleeced them o f all their m o n e y : 'TIpHHecJio ace Bac, MomefiHHKOB! B o t y'M nofljiHimo HanacTb! BHIIIb Bbl SCaflHbl, KaK KyTeHHHKH, H3 cena 6w Bac kojiom! ..." IIocMeaiiHCb Kopo6eftHHKH M noniJiH cbohm nyTeM.12 In the third " s o n g " (whose motto is taken f r o m an old ballad), old Tixonyc feels remorse f o r having sold his wares at high prices to unsuspecting housewives.

But,

he says, how else can a traveling merchant make a living? Then he tries to rationalize about the evil inherent in his trade: "OcKBepHHJi ycTa a jiohchio — He o6MaHenib — He npoflauib!" M onflTb Ha qepKOBb Eoacmo ¿Jojito KpecTHTca Toprarn. "Ka6bi b CTpoxy npHxoflHjmca Bce-TO peiH npoziaBiia, Bee flaBHo 6bi npoBanHJiHca JXo eflHHoro xynqa — CKB03b cbipyio 3eMino-MaTyuiKy npOBajHUIHCb 6bl ... 3X-3X!"13 A l l this is in the true style o f the old Russian merchant tradition, the essence o f which is expressed by Tixonyc in the adage, "ne obmanes',

ne prodas'."

Then he launches

into a long tirade on the evils o f war and o f drink, until he is finally stopped by his younger companion, w h o says to him with reproach and apprehension: — IloJiHo, otah! CTpaniHO MHe! Yac He B3aTb py6jiHiiiKa jiHiimero Ha HyjKoii-TO CTopoHe? ...14 With this curious bit o f peasant wisdom the third " s o n g " comes to a close.

12 13 14

Ihid., p. 28, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 90. Ibid., p. 29, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 91. Ibid., p. 30, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 93.

112

NEKRASOV'S ART

T h e f o u r t h part o f the p o e m is perhaps the m o s t interesting, since it is here that t h e peddlers m e e t all kinds o f p e o p l e and m a k e w i t t y remarks a b o u t them.

Their

l o u d remarks p r o d u c e even l o u d e r rejoinders f r o m those t o w h o m they allude, and t h e resultant battle o f w o r d s is v e r y a m u s i n g : Flo peKe i w y T — c 6ypjiaKaMH Pa3roBopbi 3aBeayT: "KTO Bac cnyTaji?" — H co6aicaMH H x 6yp;iaKH Ha30ByT. IIofleJiOM BaM, nepecMeinHHKH, JIBIKOM mHTbie Kynnu! ,., 15 A series o f interesting scenes f o l l o w s , the peddlers p r o v i d i n g a c o m m e n t t o each o n e : rioTaHyjiHCb orypeuiHHKH: " 3 f t ! npocbinaji o r y p q w ! " BaHbKa Bflpyr KaK 3axHXHKaeT H Ha CTaflo noKa3an: CTapaiOHKO b CTafle nptrraeT 3a caBpacKoii, —• auhhch, bhji, H Ha UbinOHKH CTaHOBHTC«, H jiyKome4K0M MaHHT — H e r ! npoicjisTbiM KOHb He jiobhtch! BoT nOflXOflHT, BOT CTOHT. CyHyn ronoBy b jiyKomeiico, —• CrapHioic 3a xojiicy XBaTb! — 3 h ! eme, eme HeMHoaceiKo! — H e r ! ypBanca KOHb onaTb M, nofl6pocHB Horn 3aflHHe, Bpw3Hyn rp«3bio b CTapnKa. — "3HaMO, b CTaae-TO noBaflHee, HeM b Kocyjie MyacHKa: 3 x Tbi, napeHOH aa BHJieHoii! Tfle Te6e ero noiiMaTb? IIOTepHJi Canor-To BanaHOii, H a a o HOBOtt noKynaTb!" H M O6O3HKH B o e H H b i e

IlonaflajiHCb HHorfla: "riornHflH-TKO, TypKH njieHHbie, 3ica necTpaa o p a a ! " BaHbKa HCKOca nornswbiBaji H a TypeuKHX ycaieii H b CBHHoe y x o CKJiaflbmaji nonbl CBHTOHKH CBOeH:

15

Ibid., p. 31, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems,

p. 93.

TWO POST-EMANCIPATION POEMS

113

" 3 H BM, HexpHCTH, Ta6aniHHicH, K a p a i y H npHXOflHT BaM!" 1 6

The reference in the second passage is to one of the many Russo-Turkish wars. This would also explain old Tixonyc's diatribe against war in Part III of the poem. Having passed still another scene, a hunt (on which they duly commented), the two peddlers sit down on a hill to eat. Their fortune that day, one of them complains, has been unsteady because they met a Russian Orthodox priest (pop) on the road. This item of Russian peasant superstition is followed by a very interesting passage in which Van'ka tries to enter a nobleman's mansion in order to sell his goods and Tixonyc (who knows better) not only scolds him but makes some pointed remarks about "fashionable" ladies: HbiHMe 6ape flepeBeHCKHe He jKHByT no flepeBHHM, H TaKHe MOflw xceHCKHe 3aBenHCb ... icyaa y» HaM! XoTb 6M Haiua: 6a6a crapaa, yrpeBaTaa jihuom, Ee3Bonocaa, noaacapa«, A oaejiacb — CTor CToroM! ToBopHTi. c TO6OH rHymaeTCH: TH My»HK, TaK Tbi HCHHCT! A TO6oh-TO npenbmaeTca? flonor XBOCT, «a He nyuiHCT! ... y Te6« Koca «^anbimiBa», HH 3y6oB, HH rpy^H HeT, Bee noflKJieeHO, noflB«3aHo!17 Then TixonyC goes on to comment sarcastically on Paris fashions which he blames for his having lost the gentry's trade. He brings in, as a contrast, a picture of "the good, old days", when the landowners and their wives treated a traveling vendor quite differently: FIpHBeziyT MeHH B cTonoByio, Bee TOBapbi pa3BepHy; BbmeT SapbiHH KpacHBa«, C HacToameio KOCOH, BAXCEBATAFL, YNTHBAA,

^eTKH Bbi6eryT rypb6ofl, /leBKH rOpHHHHbie, HHHJOIUKH, CjiyrH BbicbnunoT K «BepHM. Ha py6ameiKH ahh BamoiiiKH H Ha nnaTbH aonepHM Bee caMa pyKaMH 6enbiMH 16 17

Ibid., pp. 31-32, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 93-94. Ibid., pp. 32-33, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 95-96.

114

NEKRASOV'S ART

OrSnpaeT, He enema, M 6epeT KycKaMH iienwMH — Bot TaK 6apj.ma-flyma! "Hto B03bMeinb 3a cept>rn c 6ycaMH? H t o 3a anyio napny?" il TpflXHy KyflpflMH pyCblMH, 3anoMJiio — Hero xony! HaBanHT noKynKH Kyieio, Pa30HTeTca — B o r c t o 6 o h ! . . . 1 8

Old Tixonyc even remembers how a drunken nobleman celebrating his birthday bought the entire contents of the peddler's basket for three hundred roubles and then flung it all to the servants. He comments sententiously and sadly: "Vol tak byli gospodaV ("That is what the gentry were".) 19 Thus ends the fourth part of the poem, on a note of nostalgia for the past that will never return. In the opening section of Part V we are taken back to what happened in Part I, as the pretty Katja begins to have doubts about Van'ka's being faithful to her. However, she soon forgets her misgivings and daydreams of her future happiness. But her reverie does not last long. As time passes, her forebodings grow: y»c OBeiKa onymaeTCH, Hya 6nH30CTb x o j i o h o b ,

Kara nyme pa3ropaeTca ... B o t h npasflHHHeK I I o k p o b ! 2 0

Meanwhile Van'ka, who has already sold all his wares at a tidy profit, sings happily in anticipation of soon seeing Katja again: "Oh! nycTa, nycra Kopo6yinKa,

n0H0H aeHer Komeneic. }KflH-no»mH, flyma-3a3Ho6yniKa, He o6MaHeT MHJi-flpyjKoic!"21 His heart light and his purse heavy, "homeward speeds the eager youth". It is his companion, the old Tixonyc, who constantly worries lest someone rob them of their hard-earned money. His fears are not entirely unfounded, for there is something ominous about the uninhabited wilderness through which they wend their way from the village of Truba to the city of Kostroma: "flbHBOJi, hto jih, nonariHXHBaji 3 t h x Konex «a KopHeii? floBeflHCb nopa BenepHsw, He floiiaemb — coKfleuib c yMa! ... 18 19 20 21

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

pp. 33-34, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 96-97. p. 34, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 97. p. 36, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 99. tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 99-100.

TWO POST-EMANCIPATION POEMS

115

CnaBeH ropofl KocrpoMa, JXa jieca, neca flpeMyme, ¿Xa 6ojroTa k Heft BeayT, fla necKH, necKH cwnynHe ..." 2 2

Suddenly Van'ka hears a sound as if of someone approaching quickly; he bids Tixonyc (who has been complaining loudly about the difficult road) to be silent. Here, without any perceptible transition, begins Part VI of the poem. A forester (lesnik) and his dog come out of the woods. The peddlers ask the stranger whether they are on the road to Kostroma; he answers affirmatively and offers to accompany them. As they go on their journey the forester cunningly inquires about their business venture and soon finds out that they are returning home with the proceeds of a successful sale. He begins to act very suspiciously, fingering the trigger of his rifle and aiming now at Van'ka, now at Tixonyc. The two peddlers, who at first think the stranger is jesting, slowly become convinced that he is either a madman or a robber. Finally, in a true ballad fashion, old Tixonyc seeks to placate the man by singing "a wondrous song". 23 He first tells about the hero of the song, a well-to-do peasant, who was thrown in jail for a crime he had not committed and whose wife, Stepanida, left him for a gentleman. After twelve years he was released, with apologies from the judge that he simply had been forgotten (sic!). When he learned of his wife's unfaithfulness, saw his hut in ruins and his fields gone to waste, he went out of his mind. He took to the road, and, "as he went the song he fashioned, talking to himself the while". 24 Here begins "The Song of the Poor Pilgrim" (Pesnja ubogogo strannika) obviously interpolated by Nekrasov, with its inimitable rhythm and lamenting words that can hardly be rendered in any language except Russian. H nyraMH way — BeTep cbhluct b Jiyrax: XojlOflHO, CTpaHHHieK, xojioflHo! XOJIOflHO, pOflHMeHbKOH, XOJIOflHO! f i jiecaMH n a y •— 3Bepn b o i o t b Jiecax: r o H O f l H O , C T p a H H H i e K , TOJlOflHO! r O J I O f l H O , pOflHMeHbKOH, TOJIOflHO!

ü xjie6aMH Hfly: h t o bm toiiíh, xne6a? C xojiofly, crpaHHHHeic, c xonofly! C xonofly, poflHMeHbKoft, c xojioay! Ü cTaaaMH n a y : h t o cKOTHHxa cna6a? C ronofly, crpaHHHHeic, c r o n o a y ! C ronofly, poflHMeHMcoii, c ronofly! 22 23 24

Ibid., p. 37, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 100-101. Ibid., p. 40. Ibid., p. 41.

116

NEKRASOV'S ART Ä B

flepeBHio:

MY»CHK! TW

Tenjio

JIH a c H B e i i i b ?

X O J I O f l H O , C T p a H H H H e K , XOJIOFLHO! XOJIOflHO, pOflHMeHbKOÄ,

X0JI0flH0!

SI B flpyryio: Myscrnd xoporno JIH eins», ribeuib? rOJIOflHO, CTpaHHHHeK, r o j i o f l H o ! r O J I O Ä H O , pOZIHMeHbKOH, TOJIOFLHO!

y»c a

B TpeTbio: MYSORE! HTO T M 6a6y öbeuib? C xojiofly, CTpaHHHHeK, c xonofly! C xojioay, POFLHMEHBKOII, c xonoay!

Ä B NETBEPTY: MYACWD HTO B K a ö a K T H H f l e n i b ?

C rojioay, CTpaHHHHeK, c rojioay! C roirojiy, poflHMeHbKoft, c ronoay! Si on«Tb BO nyra, BeTep cBumeT B uyrax: XONOFLHO, CTPAHHHHEK, XOJIOAHO! X 0 J 1 0 f l H 0 , pOflHMeHbKOtt, X0JI0flH0!26

Seen through the Pilgrim's eyes, the whole of peasant Russia appears in all its misery. Its main characteristics are cold and hunger, repeated with emphatic regularity in the song in the true tradition of folk poetry. Here is what Lavrin says about it: The whole of the unhappy, neglected and exploited peasant Russia is thus reviewed, and each line ends with the refrain of either "cold" or "hungry", the slow repetition of which in Russian (holodno, golodno) suggests the moaning of the wind or the howling of the hungry beasts. The motif of desolation in the poem also prepares the reader for the tragic end of the cycle. For the two pedlars are murdered by a woodman who robs them of all their money and is, in turn, arrested the same evening, while carousing in a village inn. 26

And so old Tixonyc's song, long as it is, avails him nothing; after a brief and dramatic last attempt to stay their imminent death, both he and Van'ka are shot by the forester, who then steals their money and runs away. The crime, however, is soon discovered and punished — in a genuine ballad fashion, for a shepherd has heard the shots and cries and reported them to the elders of a nearby village. The robber is seized and bound by the villagers, who hold him until the authorities arrive. The poem ends thus: CyflbH T O T H a c Bee flOBeaanH (TonbKO fleHer He HamnH!) IIorpe6eHbio MepTBbix npeaajiH, Jlecmrea B ocTpor cBe3JiH ... 27

Much has been written about the essentially lyric character of "The Peddlers" as revealed in the various songs in the poem. The lyricism is heightened by the author's 25 88 27

Ibid., p. 42, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 107-108. Lavrin, op. cit., p. 143. Nekrasov, "Korobejniki", op. cit., p. 44, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 110.

TWO POST-EMANCIPATION POEMS

117

introduction of two motifs so typical of folk poetry: love followed by separation, and nature warning the heroes of danger that threatens them. The second motif was allegedly first used in Word on Igor's Campaign (Slovo o polku Igoreve),28 and is traditional in Slavic folk poetry in particular. The two lyrical lovers in the poem, Van'ka and Katja, are young and colorfully attractive. Katja especially, with her depth of feeling and her feminine patience, strikes one as perhaps being a variant of Dar'ja, the heroine of Nekrasov's later poem, "Red-Nose Frost" (1863). Her song in Part V of the poem, in which she expresses her love for Van'ka, is simple, earthy but finely wrought. Generally speaking, most of the imagery in "The Peddlers" is so permeated by lyricism that even narrative passages are tinged with it. The poem contains some glimpses of the seamy side of peasant life, but even these are parts of the local color whose faithful reproduction is Nekrasov's primary concern. The romance of travel is also a prominent feature in "The Peddlers", as seen in the ever-changing scenery, new people constantly being met along the way, etc. The artistic device of a real or imaginary journey proved so effective in the poem that Nekrasov used it again in his peasant "epic", Who is Happy in Russia (begun in 1863). In "The Peddlers", like in many of his earlier poems, the author at one point contrasts two different worlds. He does it indirectly in the speech of Tixonyc, whose nostalgia for "the good old days" shows clearly that he prefers the past to the present. Like the folk poetry of yore, "The Peddlers" undoubtedly rings a nostalgic note in many a Russian's heart today, as it did when Nekrasov wrote it. The social criticism found in the poem is, to be sure, of importance, but it does not overshadow the work of poetic art that "The Peddlers" is. Suffice it to say that some of the songs in the poem have since become part of Russian folklore.

28

Evgen'ev-Maksiraov, Tvorceskij put\ p. 131.

XI "RED-NOSE FROST"

Nekrasov's first long poem about the peasantry is "Red-Nose Frost" ("MorozKrasnyj nos"), written in 1863. It is universally regarded as one of his masterpieces, and it was probably the first of his poems to be translated into English.1 Structurally speaking, the poem is divided into two parts, and each part is subdivided into sections of two or more stanzas. Part I is called "The Death of a Peasant," and it tells about the death and burial of the peasant Prokel (with some flashbacks to his life). Part fl bears the title "Red-Nose Frost", and tells about the death of his widow, Dar'ja. Throughout the whole poem, almost palpably present, runs the strong current of the author's sympathy for the peasant family whose fate he describes. It is a very compact and powerful thing. The opening stanzas, simple and stark in imagery, show a roan mare (savraska) pulling Prokel's funeral sled: CaBpacKa yBJi3 B nonoBHHe cyrpo6a — Jlpe napw npoMep3Jibix Jiarrreft fl a yroji poroaceft noKpwroro rpo6a TopiaT H3 y6orax apoBHefi. Crapyxa B Scuibiimx pyKaBHuax CaBpacxy comna noHyKaTt. CocyjibKH y Heft Ha pecmmax, C Mopo3y — flonjKHO nojiaraTfa.2

We can guess that the old woman must be someone close to the deceased, since she apparently weeps for him. The dead man himself pictured only by two pairs of frozen lapti (bast shoes) that stick out of the coffin. No other detail is given, and the author's understatement and poetic implication leave it up to the reader's own imaginative power to complete the picture. In the second section the poet allows his imagination to roam as he tries to visualize in advance the mournful scene that will soon take place in the peasant hut: 1 Nekrasov, Moroz-Krasnyj Nos (Red-Nose Frost), Russian and English on facing pages (Boston, Ticknor & Co., 1887). 2 Nekrasov, "Moroz-Krasnyj nos", Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. II, p. 84, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 142.

"RED-NOSE FROST"

119

KaK caBaHOM, CHeroM oaeTa, H36YUIKA B AEPEBHE CTOHT,

B H36yuiKe — TeneHOK B noflKJieTH, MepTBeu Ha cicaMbe y OKHa; IIIyMHT ero raynbie aera, THXoHbKo pbiaaeT xceHa. CiUHBaa npoBopHoli HronKoii Ha caBaH KycKH nonoTHa, Kan floacflt, 3apaflHBiuHfl Haflojiro, Herp0MK0 pw^aeT OHa.3 It is a poetic picture of a bereaved wife's grief, given with starkly realistic detail. The tears, which were frozen (section I), are now flowing freely. Nekrasov's concern with the lot of the Russian peasant woman is nowhere more movingly expressed than in section III of the poem: Tpn TJDKKHe aojin HMena cyflböa, H nepBaa AOJIH : c pa6oM noBeHiaTbca, BTopaa — 6biTb MaTepwo cbiHa paöa, A TpeTM — flo rpo6a paöy noicopHTbca. H Bee 3TH rpo3Hbie ÄOJIH nemH Ha »enmHHy pyccKoft 3eMJiH. Beica npoTeKajiH — Bee K ciacTbio CTpeMHJiocb, Bee B MHpe no HecKOJibKy pa3 H3MeHHJiocb, OflHy TOJibKo Bor H3MeHHTb 3a6biBan CypOByiOFLOJIK)KpeCTbflHKH. M Bee Mw comacHbi, HTO ran H3Mejib4aji KpaCHBOH H MOUIHOH CJiaBHHKH.4 The last four lines perhaps best express the poet's bitterness over the continued suffering of the Russian peasant woman. The progress of the world in general, he says, has failed to affect her hopeless and slave-like position in rural Russia. Then the poet addresses her directly in tones full of sympathy and compassion: CnyiafiHaH xceptBa cyatSbi! Tbl rjiyxo, He3pHMo CTpaaana, Tbl CBeTy KpoBaBoii 6opb6bi M 3Kano6 CBOHX HE BBepana, — Ho MHe Tbi HX cicaaceiiib, MOM apyr! T b l c AETCTBA c o MHOIO 3HAKOMA.

Tbi BCH — BonjiomeHHbiH Hcnyr, T b i BCH — BEKOBAA HCTOMA! TOT KTO

3 4 6

cepaua B rpyxw HE HOCHJI, cjie3 HAFL TO6OK> He JIHJI!5

Ibid., p. 85, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 142. Ibid., tr. b y J. Soskice in Poems, p. 143. Ibid., p p . 85-86, tr. b y J. Soskice in Poems, p. 143.

120

NEKRASOV'S ART

In section I V , the poet reveals to us that the ideal peasant woman type (whom he calls " a magnificent Slav") can still be found in his time in remote villages. In the lines that follow, Nekrasov lovingly portrays an ideal Slavic woman: E c x b »ceHmHHbi B pyccKHx cejieHbflx C CnOKOHHOIO Ba»CHOCTbK) J1HU, C KpaCHBOK) CHJTOM B flBH»ceHbflX, C noxoflKoii, c o B3rjiaflOM uapuu ...

HayT OHH Toil ace floporofi, Kaxofi Becb Hapoa Ham HfleT, H o rpH3b 06cTaH0BKH y6oroft

K HHM CJIOBHO He JIHIIHeT. IjBeTeT KpacaBHua, ivmpy Ha AHBO,

PyMHHa, CTpOHHa,

BMCOKa,

B o BCflKoii oaeacfle KpacHBa,

Ko BCHKOH pa6oTe noBKa.

M rOJIOfl M XOJIOfl BblHOCHT, Bcerfla TepnejiHBa, poBHa . . . 6

T h e poet then goes on to show her in the various situations o f her daily life. She is a hard worker in the field, and glances angrily at a young swain who pulls at her long heavy braids just for fun.

But when a holiday comes, she is ready to enjoy

herself with a clear conscience. Her mirth is a comfort to others: TaKoro cepaeiHoro CMexa M necHH, h ruiacKH TaKofi 3a aeHbra He Kyrumib. — "YTexa!" — TBepaaT MyxcHKH Meac coSoii. 7 She is brave and beautiful, and also rather serious: B Hrpe ee KOHHMH He CJIOBHT, B Sefle — He cpo6eeT, — cnaceT:

KOHH Ha CKaxy ocTaHOBHT, B r o p a m y i o H36y BoflfleT! KpacHBbie, poBHbie 3y6w

HTO KpynHbie nepnw y Heii, H o CTporo pyMHHbie ry6bi

XpaHHT HX Kpacy OT jnofleft — OHa yni>i6aeTca peflKO ... Eft HeKorfla JIACM TOMHTB . . . 8 6 7 8

Ibid., p. 86, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 143-144. Ibid., p. 87, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 145. Ibid.

"RED-NOSE FROST"

121

I n her house she works as hard as she does in the field, and her family need have no fear o f want or cold: Bceraa y HHX Tennaa xaTa, Xjie6 BbineieH, BKyceH KBECOK, 3flopoBbi h cbiTW pe6$rra, Ha npa3flHHK ecTt JIHUIHHH KycoK.9 T o see such a woman proudly leading her family to church on a Sunday, concludes Nekrasov, is a sight that is dear to the heart o f every true Russian: MfleT 3Ta 6a6a k o6eflHe FTpefl Bceio ceMbeii Bnepenii: CHAHT, KAK Ha CTyne, flByxjieTHHft Pe6eH0K y Heft Ha rpyflH. PflflKOM uiecTHJieTHero ct>ma HapaflHaa Maraa BeaeT ... M no cepauy 3Ta KapraHa BceM JIK>6HIUHM pyccKHft Hapo«! 10 T h e poet's portrayal of the ideal peasant woman in section I V is very effective, perhaps because he does not limit himself to a discussion o f her traits but presents them indirectly through glimpses of her daily life where we see her in action.

Nekrasov,

whether deliberately or not, lets the reader see the peasant woman in all her dignity and grace as she moves about her appointed tasks that are so essential to her family's well-being. She is shown in her true life proportion, although her traits are idealized. In section V , Nekrasov addresses the grief-stricken young w i d o w , Dar'ja, and makes it quite plain to the reader that she is very close to his ideal o f a Russian peasant woman. Though her physical beauty has largely vanished (the reasons f o r it are given), her spiritual beauty has remained intact. T h e poet's sympathy and admiration ring clearly in these lines: H Tbi KpaCOTOK) flHBHJia, Bbiua H noBica H CHJibHa, Ho rope Te6a HCcyiHHJio, ycHysmero npoKJia aceHa! Fopfla Tbi — Tbi nuaxaTb He xoneuib, Kpeiminbca, HO XOJICT rpo6oBoft Cjie3aMH HeBonbHo TW MOHimib, CniMBafl npoBopHoft Hrnoft. Cne3a 3a cne3oft ynaaaeT Ha 6bicrpbie pyKH TBOH. Tax KOJIOC 6e33ByiHO POHAET Co3peBiiiHe 3epHa CBOH . . . N 9 10 11

Ibid., p. 88, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 146. Ibid. Ibid.

NEKRASOV'S ART

122

With this beautiful simile, section V of the poem ends. Sections VI-XV describe in detail the funeral of Dar'ja's husband, with all the traditional rites and peasant practices that Nekrasov knew so well. However, in addition to narrative and descriptive passages there are lyrical ones, too, in which the poet is at his best. Thus, in section VI, Prokel's father is so stunned by his son's death that he utters a lyrical ne complaint as he looks at the freshly-dug grave: " N e Proklu by v nej pocivaf, ProkluV' ("Not Prokel within it should lie! Not Prokel!").12 Or, in section VII, the village simpleton (by the name of Paxom) says in his "low, wailing accents" as he refers to the deceased: ... "He 6eaa! Ha Bac OH pa6oTan flOBOJibHO, H Barna npHuina nepefla! MaTt cbmy-TO rpo6 noKynana, Oreii eMy «My Konan, DKeHa eMy caBaH cmHBana —

BceM pa30M pa6oTy HaM aaji! ... l s

And in section IX, before the funeral, Prokel's survivors lament "proclaiming their anguish aloud" in the traditional folk manner: 'Tojiy6HHK Tbi Ham CH30KpHJibifi!

Kor^a Tbi or Hac yneTen? IlpHrOHCeCTBOM, pOCTOM H CHJIOM Tbi POBHH B cene HE HMCJI, PoflH rejlHM 6bIJI Tbi COBeTHHK, PA6OTHH4EK B none ILI 6HJI, FOCTHM xjie5ocon H NPHBETHHK, )KeHy H fleTeii Tbi nio6Hji ... HTO JK Mano ryjiHii I H no CBETY? ITO Hac noKHHyji, poflHofl? OflyMaji Tbi flyMyiuicy 3Ty, OayMaji c cbiporo 3eMJieft —

3a

OayMaji — a HaM ocTaBaTbca BeneJi BO MHpy, cwpoTaM, He CBE»eft BOAOH YMBIBATBCH, Cjie3aMH ropioHHMH HaM! CTapyxa noMpeT co KpyiHHbi, He »HTb H OTuy TBoeMy, Bepe3a B Jiecy 6e3 BepuiHHbi — Xo3fliiKa 6e3 Myaca B ^OMY. 12 13

Ibid., p. 89. Ibid., pp. 90-91, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 149.

"RED-NOSE FROST"

123

E e HE x a j i e e u i b TM, 6e,HHOH,

fleTeft C

He » a n e e m b

... BcraBaii!

nonocKH CBoeft 3AN0BEFLH0IT

ITo jieTy c 6 e p e u i b ypoacaft! CnnecHH, HeHarjiHflHbiH, pyicaMH, COKOJIbHM m a 3 K O M nOCMOTpH,

TpHXHH meJIKOBblMH KyflpflMH, CaxapHbi ycTa pacTBopH!" 14

The lament is traditional (going perhaps to the earliest times of Old Russia), but is given a fresh poetic form by Nekrasov. As the wailing of the widow, the in-laws and the children is heard by the neighbors (section X of the poem), these "crowd in at the door, a lamp at the shrine they set burning, bow down to the ground, and ... go silently homewards once more". Finally they all depart, and the bereaved family "sit down to their supper of cabbage and kvas and black bread". 15 Section XI describes the preparation for the burial of Dar'ja's husband on a cold, windy, and snowy winter day. As the mare, Savraska, is about to start pulling the sleigh with Prokel's coffin, the poet seems to be speaking to her and recalling how faithfully she served her master and how well she was treated in turn. This viewing of peasant life as it would appear to a horse is a deliberate artistic device, through which Nekrasov emphasizes the peasant's close contact with his working animals. It is a lyrical passage: — Hy, Tporaii, caBpacyuiKa! Tporaft!

HaTHTHBaii K p e r r a e ryxcH! CjiyJKHJI TbI X03HHHy M H o r o ,

B nocjieflHHH pa30K nocjiyacn! ...

C X03HHH0Mflpy'yfCHOc T a p a n c a , Ha 3HMyniKy x/ie6 3anacait... Kor,na xce p a 6 o T b i KOHiajmcb M CKOBblBajI 3eMJIK> M o p o 3 , C X03HHH0M Bbl OTilpaBUHJIHCb C flOMaumero KopMa B H3B03. HeMano H TyT aocTaBajiocb — BO3HJI TW TFLXCENYK) KJiaflb,

acecTOKyro 6 y p i o cnynanocb, HiMynacb, aopory TepsTb.

B

BtiflHa

Ha 6 o K a x

TBOHX

Bnanbix

K H y T a He o f l H a n o n o c a , 3 a T 0 Ha

flBopax

rioKynian 14

15

nocTOJinbix

TM BBOJIKD o B c a .

Ibid., pp. 92-93, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 150-151.

Ibid., p. 93.

124

NEKRASOV'S ART C-ffblXaJl TbI B flHBapCKHe h o ™ MeTenH npoH3HTeJibHWH b o h H BOJiHbH r o p a u n i e o h h

BHflan Ha onyniKe JiecHoii, TTpoflporHeuib, HaTepimuibca CTpaxy, A TaM — h oriHTb HHHero! }J,a BHflHo, X03HHH flan Maxy ,.. 1 6

Such is life's irony, the poet seems to imply, that the horse has survived its master. The stage is now set for the account of Prokel's death, to be found in the next section of the poem. Section XII tells in detail why and how Dar'ja's husband died. Having driven out with his sled to deliver some goods, he got trapped in a snowdrift on his return. It took him twelve hours to dig himself out of the snow, and then three more days to finally find his way home. When he arrived at his house, he was already very ill, "half-conscious, his body on fire". 17 His wife and family, applying superstitious "medical" treatments, probably made his condition worse by their efforts to "cure" him — and he soon died. All these events are related by Nekrasov in the following lines, in which an ironical tone can be easily detected: Crapyxa e r o OKaTiina

Boflofi c jieBflTH BepeTeH H b acapxyio 6aHio cBO/jmia, fla neT — He nonpaBHJica o h ! T o r f l a Bopoaceeic co3BajiH — M noflT, h meniyT, h TpyT —

Bee xyao! Ero npofleBanH Tpn pa3a CKB03B noTHbiii xoMyr, CnycKaJiH poflHMoro b npopySb, n o f l KypHiHH KJiaiiH Hacecx ... BceMy noKopajicfl, xax rony6b, — A njioxo — He nbeT h He ecr! E m e nonoacHTb n o f l MeflBea«, H t o 6 t o t eMy k o c t h pa3Mfln,

XofleSuiHK cepraneBCKHii eaii — CjiyHHBLUHMca TyT — npefljiaran. Ho flaptH, xo3HHKa 6ojibHoro, nporaajia coBeTHHKa npo: Mcnpo6oBaTb cpezicTBa HHoro 3aayMajia 6 a 6 a : h b HOHb 16

"

Ibid., pp. 94-95, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 152-153. Ibid., p. 95.

"RED-NOSE FROST"

125

IlOIIIJia B MOHaCTHpb OTflaJieHHblH OT cejia), TFLE B HeKoii HKOHe «BJICHHOH

(BepcTax B JXCCHTH

U,ejie6Haa ciuia 6bma.

Ilomjia, BopoTHnacb c HKOHOH — BojibHoii yx 6e3rJiaceH jieacaji, OaeTbiii xaK B rpo6, npHiameHHtm. yBHflen HceHy, npocTOHan H yMep ,.. 1 8

The poet quite explicitly shows that the abysmal ignorance of the village folk is at least partly responsible for Prokel's death; at the same time, the reader is almost compelled to wonder whether someone else should not bear the blame for the ignorance in which the peasants live. And indeed, Nekrasov's indirect hints in this poem could be regarded as a prelude to the outburst of his red-hot anger in the poem "A Traveler" (1874), where he openly accused the government of neglecting the education and welfare of the Russian muzhik.19 Sections XIII-XV of the poem contain a very realistic description of the funeral, in which the emphasis is on the grief of the widow and of the family of the deceased. One of the peasants (the village elder) attempts to comfort Prokel's survivors by waxing eloquent over the latter's life and deeds: ... "MHP Te6e, l i p o i d CeBacTbHHbiH, — CKa3an: — 6naroflyuieH TM 6bm, 5KHJI NECTHO, a rjraBHoe: B CPOKH, Yw: TaK Te6a Eor Bbipyran,

nuarari rocno/mHy o6poKH H noflaTb qapio npeflCTaBjiaji!" McTpaTHB 3anac KpacHopeibH,

riOHTeHHblH MyHCHK noKpaxTeji: " / l a , BOT oHa, KH3HB LENOBEIBFL!" —

ITpHSaBHJi — H mamcy Ha/ien.20

The wonder of the peasant at Prokel's having been "aided by God" to pay his taxes in full before his death, strikes one as rather naive. Nekrasov had used the same ironical twist in "Country News" (written in 1860). The funeral being over, Dar'ja returns to the cottage (section XV). Not only is it very cold inside but there are no logs for the fire. Leaving her children in the care of a neighbor, she gets into her sled drawn by the mare Savraska, and "sets 18

"

20

Ibid., pp. 95-96, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 154-155. Nekrasov, "Putesestvennik", Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. II, pp. 303-304. Nekrasov, "Moroz-Krasnyj nos", Ibid., p. 97, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 156.

126

NEKRASOV'S ART 21

off to the forest for wood". In this manner, Part I of the poem, in which the element of reality predominates, is brought to a close; in Part II, which follows with hardly any transition, the element of fantasy is going to be of primary importance. Section XVI (the opening section of Part II) begins with a poetic description of the frozen plain across which Dar'ja's horse plods laboriously pulling the sled through deep snow. The wintry landscape is silent and desolate, as if reflecting the widow's feelings. Mopo3ho. PaBHHHbi 6eneiOT noa CHeroM, MepHeeTCH Jiec Bnepe^H, CaBpacxa njieTeTca HHrnaroM,HH 6eroM, He BCTperami. flynm Ha nyra. KaK thxo! B aepeBHe pa3,aaBiiiHHCH tojioc Kax 6yflTO y caMoro yxa ry#eT, O KopeHbflpeBecHbiii3anHyBiiiHflca n0Ji03 CTyiHT H BH33KHT, H 3a CepflUe CKpe6eT. — norjwweTb HeTy mohh, PaBHHHa B ajiMa3ax 6necTHT ... y flapbH CJie3aMH HanonHHJiHCb OHM — flOJIHCHO 6bITb, HX COJIHUe cjienHT ...22 KpyroM

The stillness and loneliness become even more intense as Dar'ja enters the forest. Nature takes no heed of the poor widow's suffering, and only the birds seem sorry for her. B nOJIHX 6bIJIO THXO, HO THUie B Jiecy h xaK 6yflTO CBeTJieii. HeM flane —flepeBb«Bee Btime, A TCHH flJIUHHeii H flJIHHHeit.

flepeBbfl, h conHiie, h tchh,

M MepTBblH, MOrHJlbHblH nOKOH ... Ho — My! 3aym.iBHbie neHH, rjiyxott, COKpyUIHTeHbHHH boh! Ochjihjio XlapbiomKy rope, M nee 6e3yiacTH0 BHHMaji, KaK ctohh jiHJiHCb Ha npocTope M ronoc pBajica h flpoacan, H cojiHue, Kpyrno h 6e3xiyiiiHO, KaK acejiToe oko cobm, Tjiflflejio c He6ec paBHoayiiiHo Ha TJIJKKHe MyKH BflOBM. 21 22

Ibid., p. 98. Ibid., pp. 98-99, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 157-158.

"RED-NOSE FROST"

127

BejiHKHe rope B^OBBUM H MaTepH Manbix cnpoT rioflcnymajiH BoAbHbie TITHUM, Ho BBIFLATB He CMejm B Hapofl ...23 One can almost sense that there is something different in this particular forest, and that something unusual will soon occur there. The sound of Dar'ja's sobbing, the sun and the shadows, the silence of the forest — all these are realistic details, used by the poet to point up the fairy-tale mood of the passages that will follow. In section XVIII, a new and strange sound interrupts the forest stillness. It is Dar'ja laboriously cutting the firewood and loading it onto the sled. Cpy6HBiim, HA APOBHH 6pocaeT

Hanojimrn. 6bi HX nocKopeii,

—

M BPUFL JIH caMa 3aMeiaeT, MTO cne3bi Bee JIWOT H3 oneft ... 3Haft py6HT, — He nyBCTByeT CTyjKH, H e CJlblUIHT, HTO HORN 3HO6HT, H , nojiHaa MMCJibio o Myace, 3OBCT ero, c HHM TOBOPHT ... 2 4

In the subsequent sections (XIX-XXVIII) Dar'ja re-lives, in her thoughts, her whole past life with her husband. She is not aware that she is falling prey to Red-Nose Frost, but the reader is. While it is obviously impossible to quote at length any but the essential passages, there is little doubt that Nekrasov's ability to completely identify his feelings with those of Dar'ja and express them poignantly in verse is one of his great artistic achievements. This poetic empathy enhances the emotional appeal of sections XIX-XXVIII. For a peasant woman, Dar'ja had a happy life, a faithful, loving husband, two fine children, and a reasonably secure existence based on hard work. Now she has lost her helpmate and sees a dreary and lonely life ahead. Her disconnected thoughts wander and paint a beautiful idyl while she is actually freezing to death in the forest: YMep, He floacHJi TW Beicy, y i n e p H B 3eMJiio 3apwT! J1K>6O BecHoii HejioBeicy, CoJlHbHIIKOFLCHOTOPHT.

COKHbllHKO BCe OJKHBHJIO,

BoatbH OTKpblUHCb Kpacbl, nojie COXH 3anpocHJio, TpaByuiKH npocHT KOCH ...

(From Section XX) Grana CKOTHHyuiKa B Jiec ySnpaTbCfl, CraJia poacb-MaTyniKa B KOJIOC MeTaTtca, 23 24

Ibid., p. 99, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 158-159. Ibid., p. 100, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 159.

128

NEKRASOV'S ART

Eor HaM nocjian ypoacaa! fla He npoflUHJT Te6e Bexy, — Xoienib He xonemb, oflHa nocneBaft! ... (From Section XXI) )KaTb npHHanacb a np0B0pH0, 5KHy, a Ha ineio MOW CbinniOTCfl KpynHbie 3epHa — CJIOBHO nofl rpaflOM CTOIO! flOHrH Bbl, 3HMHHe HOHeHbKH, CKyHHO 6e3 MHJioro cnaTb,

JlHiiib 6w He njiaKajiH oieHtKH, CTaHy nojiOTHa a TicaTb. ... Kyapw caMa pacnecana a rpHiiie, KpoBb c MOJIOKOM Haui cbiHOK-nepBeHeu, KpoBb c MOJIOKOM H HeBecTa ... H ^ H ace! BnarocnoBH MOJIOAWX nofl BeHeu! ...25 (From Section XXII) In her delirious state, Dar'ja even sees her infant son, Grisa, as a grown-up man being dragged away to the army by the recruiting agents (section XXIV). Then she begins to tell about her fruitless expedition to the monastery from which she had brought the miraculous icon in a vain effort to cure her husband: HoHbio oflHa no HKOHy nyflecHyio — noiujia,

R He c p o 6 e n a

B e T e p inyMHT, HaMeTaeT c y r p o 6 w , Meciiua HCT

— xoTb 6bi nyt!

H a He6o msmeiiib — KaKHe-TO rpo6bi,

Lierai fla

rapn

BbixoflHT

H3 T y i , . . 2 6

Half-crazed with hunger and cold, Dar'ja now begins to rave more and more incoherently : Cnbimy, HeHHCTaa cHJia 3aji0T0mHna, 3aBbina, 3aronocHJia B Jiecy. HTO MHeflOCHJIbI HeHHCTOH? Hyp MeHfl!fleBenpeMHCTOtt f l npHHomeHbe Hecy! ... 3Bepb Ha MeHa He KHflaftca! JIHX

nenoBeK He Kacaaca,

,Zl,opor Hani rporn TpyflOBOfl! 27 25 26 27

Ibid., pp. 101, 102, 104, 105, tr. b y c. S o s k i c e in Poems, Ibid., p. 106, tr. by J. Soskice i n Poems, p. 166. Ibid., pp. 106-107, tr. by J. Soskice i n Poems, p. 167.

pp. 160-161, 1 6 1 - 1 6 2 , 1 6 3 , 1 6 4 , 164-165.

"RED-NOSE FROST"

129

In sections XXVI-XXVIII she returns to the account of her expedition to the monastery. She saw a raven perched on the gold cross topping the church spire (an ill omen), and on arriving at the monastery she witnessed the burial rites for one of the nuns who had just died. She interrupts her monologue, brought back to reality by the sight of logs that she has felled while working as though in a dream. Dar'ja manages to load the firewood onto the sled, but she can no longer gather sufficient strength to set off on her return trip to the village. Utterly exhausted, she leans against a pine tree, barely conscious of what is happening to her. EflBa ee Horn aepacajin, flyina HCTOMHJiacb TOCKOH, HacTano 3aTHiiibe neiajiH — HeBOHbHbiK h CTpauiHtra noKoii! nofl COCHOM iyTb acHBaa, Ee3flyMM, 6e3 CTOHa, 6e3 cne3. B necy THiiiHHa rpo6oBa« — fleHb CBeTen, KpennaeT Mopo3.28 CTOHT

Here begins section XXX, in which King Frost is shown visiting his icy domains. The fairy-tale atmosphere of this part of the poem is enhanced by the poet's presentation of King Frost as he appears in folklore: DIFLFLHT — xoporno JIH METEJIH JlecHbie Tponbi 3aHecnH, M HET JIH rfle TpemHHbi, mejra, M HET JIH RFLE TOJIOH 3EMJIH?

IlymHCTbi JIH coceH BepmHHbi, KpacHB JIH y3op HA fly6ax? H KpenKO JIH CKOBaHbl JlbflHHbl B BeJIHKHX H MaJIblX BOflaX?

HfleT — noflepeBbHMrnaraeT, TpemHT no 3aMep3JiOH BOfle. H apKoe coJiHue HrpaeT B K0CMaT0H ero 6opozie.29 This is how Deduska Moroz (Grandfather Frost) usually looks to Russian peasants. It is he, hitherto known to Dar'ja only from fairy tales, that now approaches the helpless woman trapped in his enchanted forest. flopora Be3fle napofleio, Hy! 6jiH»ce nojixoflHT cefloft. H Bflpyr oiyTHJica Hafl Hero, H a ; i caMoft ee TOJIOBOH! 28 29

Ibid., p. 110, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 170-171. Ibid., tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 171.

NEKRASOV'S ART

130

3a6paBiiiHCb Ha cocHy 6ojibiuyio ) IIo BCTOHKaM nanHueii 6beT H caM npo ce6a yaanyio, XBacTJiHByio necHio noeT.30

The song (section X X X I of the poem) is K i n g Frost's attempt to cast a spell over the young widow so that she may become his queen. He sings: "BrjiiiflHCb, MonoflHua, cMenee, KaKOB B0eB0/ia Mopo3! HaBpafl Te6e napH« cnnbHee M Kparne BH«aTb npHBenocb? MeTejiH, CHera h TyMaHW IloKopHbi Mopo3y Bceraa, noflfly Ha MOpfl-OKHflHM — ITOCTpOK) flBOpUbl H30 JIbfla. 3a«yMaio — peKH 6ojibiime Haflonro ynpaiy nofl raeT, nocTpoio MOCTbl JieA«Hbie, Karax He nocTpoHT Hapofl. ... BoraT a, xa3Hbi He CHHTaio, A Bee He CKyAeeT flo6po; % uapcTBO Moe y6Hpaio B ajiMa3bi, aceMiyr, cepe6po. BoiiflH B Moe uapcTBO co MHOIO H 6yflb Tbi uapmieio B hcm! llouapcTByeM cuaBHO 3HMOIO,

A neTOM rny60K0 ycHeM. BOHOT! npHrony6jiio, corpeio, ,fl,Bopeu OTBeay rojiy6oK ..." 31

Then King Frost waves his icy staff over Dar'ja; she yields to the spell, though still faintly aware of where she actually is and what is happening to her (section X X X I I ) . In Nekrasov's exquisite artistic treatment, the picture of a woman freezing to death in a forest becomes a poetic account of rare beauty and charm : "Tenno jih Te6e, Mojioflnua?" — C BblCOKOH COCHbl eft KpHHHT. — Tenno! — OTBeiaeT BflOBHua, CaMa xonofleeT, flpoacHT.

30

Ibid., p. I l l , tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 171.

31

Ibid., pp. I l l , 112, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 172-173

"RED-NOSE FROST"

131

MOPO3KO cnycTHJica noHH»ce, O n a T b n o M a x a n 6ynaB0ft M uienieT eft JiacKOBeft, THUIE: "Tenjio JIH?" — Teiuio, 30JIOTOH!

Tenno — a caMa KoneHeeT. MOPO3KO KOCHYJICH e e : B JIHIIO eftfltixaHHeMBeeT

M nrnbi KOJHOHHe ceeT C cepofi

6 o p o f l b i Ha Hee.

M BOT nepea Heft onycTHJica! "Tenno JIH?" — NPOMOJIBHJI onaTb, M B ripoKJiyuiKy Bflpyr o6paTHnca H CTAN OH e e UEJIOBATB. B y c T a ee, B OHH H B n j i e n n

Ceaofi napofleft uenoBaJi M Te »e eft cjia^KHe peiH, MTO MHJibift o CBaflb6e, inenTaji.

H TAK-TO JHO6O eft 6bino BHHMaTb ero cjiaflKHM penaM, HTO ^apbioiuKa OHH 3aKpwjia, Tonop ypoHHjia K HoraM, Yjibi6Ka y ropbKoft BAOBHUM HrpaeT Ha SjieflHbix ry6ax, riymHCTbi H 6enw pecHHuw, Mopo3Hbie HrjTbl B 6pOBHX ,..32 And, as she yields to the cold overpowering her, Dar'ja dreams again of work in the fields, her husband and children, and all the family happiness that was hers (sections XXXIII-XXXIV). She dies, but a rapturous smile remains engraved forever on her face. Obviously, she has at last found peace, and she is no longer suffering. The element of peace and absence of all suffering is stressed by the poet in section XXXV, where he says: KaKoft 6w ueHoft HH Aocranocb 3a6BeHbe KpecTbHHKe Moeft, MTO Hyacflbi? OHa yjibi6anacb. 5KaneTb MM He 6y/ieM o Heft. HeT rjiy6ace,TOTcuame noxoa, Kaxoft nocbmaeT HaM nee, HEFLBH»HO, 6ecTpeneTH0 CTOH ITofl X0JI0FL0M 3HMHHX He6ec. 32

Ibid., pp. 112-113, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, pp. 173-174.

132

NEKRASOV'S ART

Hnrae TaK my6oKo h bojimk) He flbiniHT ycTanaa rpyflb, H e»teJIH >KHTb HaM flOBOJIbHO, HaM cname HHrae He ycHyTb!33

The poem ends with a truly magnificent picture of the winter grandeur amidst which Dar'ja's death loses its stark and harsh quality and assumes a shape which is dreamlike and half-real (section XXXVI). H h 3ByKa! flyrna yvmpaeT JXnx ckop6h, fljia CTpacra. CroHinb H nyBCTByeuib, KaK noKopaeT Ee 3Ta MepTBaa THuib. H h 3ByKa! H b h w i i i b t m c h h h k

Cboa He6a, fla cojiHiie, «a Jiec, B cepe6pjiHO-MaTOBi>iH HHeii HapaxceHHbift, nonHbiii nyflec, BneKymHii HeBeflOMOH TaHHoii, rjiy60K0-6eccTpacTHbift ,.. 34

Mirsky regards "Red-Nose Frost" as the most ambitious of Nekrasov's poems, owing to (as he puts it) "its almost mythological idealization of the Russian peasant woman and the grand pictures of the silent and frozen forest".35 Lavrin thinks that the poem "represents the peak of Nekrasov's poetry," and calls it "a perfect blending of realism, peasant mentality and folklore". 36 Evgen'ev-Maksimov, though he points out the elements of social criticism in "Red-Nose Frost," bestows high praise on Nekrasov's artistry, especially as regards the descriptive and lyrical passages of the final portion of the poem.37 Most critics seem to agree that the poem's heroine, Dar'ja, is really the apotheosis of the Russian peasant woman at her finest: she is one of those "queenly Slavic types" that the poet describes in the opening sections of "Red-Nose Frost", and she preserves her spiritual and physical beauty to the end. Although a peasant widow's struggle for survival seems to be the leading motif in "Red-Nose Frost", the poem is really an encyclopedia of peasant life. In it, we see the Russian muzhik and his family at work and at play, in happiness and in sorrow, in the company of his fellow villagers and in the loneliness of the wintry countryside. Prokel and Dar'ja, the two peasant heroes of the poem, are an ideal husband and wife whose contentment is derived from their mutual love and companionship as well as from their family ties. They work together in the fields, try to be good parents to their children, and take care of their own aged parents and in-laws who live with them. Living, as all peasants do, in close contact with nature, 33 34 35 38 37

Ibid., p. 116, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 177. Ibid., pp. 116-117, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 178. Mirsky, op. cit., p. 231. Lavrin, op. cit., p. 144. Evgen'ev-Maksimov, Tvorceskij put', p. 157.

"RED-NOSE FROST"

133

they understand and treat well their domestic animals. It is nothing unusual for a muzhik or his wife to address a horse as if it were a human being, the way Dar'ja does in the poem. After all, it is all part of folk tradition, that curious blending of reality and fantasy whose roots are in the remote Russian past. The peasant is strongly aware of existing side by side with a world full of supernatural elements, which is revealed in his various superstitions: a hare crossing one's path is regarded as an ill omen, and so is a raven, etc. He often endows nature's powers with human traits (as, for example, in his picture of King Frost). He is, however, no impractical dreamer; his constant struggle for survival has taught him to be realistic in his approach to life. And from his religion, even if he does not always understand its tenets, he derives comfort in distress and a philosophical attitude toward death. Such is the Russian peasant, whose life in its many aspects Nekrasov described in "Red-Nose Frost". The element of realism in the description of peasant life is brought out in many vignette-like scenes, especially in Part I of the poem. Thus, in the very first section, a lean peasant horse is seen pulling a "miserable sled", which makes the reader instantly aware of the muzhik's poverty. The peasant hut in section II, with "the calf in its corner", is certainly no different from the peasant huts that Nekrasov used to see in Gresnevo. However, it is the grimly realistic detail of his descriptions of the peasant's sorrow that impresses us most of all. The picture of the young widow, Dar'ja, sewing a shroud for her husband and weeping, the grieving of Prokel's parents over their dead son, the silent tribute that the villagers pay to the memory of the deceased as they pass in a procession through his hut, the lament of Prokel's survivors, the faithful horse that has outlived his master, and the simple burial rites — all move us because they are so real. Occasionally, to relieve the grimness of some of the more sorrowful scenes, Nekrasov uses a deft comic touch, as in the picture of the Orthodox priest droning his prayers over the body all night and being answered only by the cricket behind the stove. More than a hint of subtle irony can be detected in his description of peasant "medical" practices, the "treatments" that hastened the death of Prokel; this, however, only adds to his realistic portrayal of the villagers' ignorance. On the other hand, he is full of sympathy for the Russian peasants and their wives, and respects them for their hard work. Their never-ending, back-breaking labor is depicted by him in several sections of Part II of the poem (XX-XXII), where Dar'ja dreams that she is working in the fields. It is characteristic that she, even when already overcome by the frost, still returns in her thoughts to such common peasant activities as harvesting rye, digging potatoes, and gathering sweet peas (sections X X X I I I - X X X I V ) . The peasant existence consists mostly in a constant struggle for survival — and Nekrasov, through the stark realism of many of his descriptions in the poem, has made this point abundantly clear. If some of his vignettes still seem idyllic to us, it is because of the poetry that permeates them and not because they lack realistic detail.

134

NEKRASOV'S ART

"Red-Nose Frost" is much more literary in form and style than the poems which have been discussed in the preceding chapters. We see here a blending of idyllic, realistic, and fantastic elements, and the tone of the poem is often determined by the hero's or the author's mood. This is true of both epic and lyric passages, particularly the ones in which people express their feelings. Swift changes of mood are accompanied by equally swift changes of style. The poem begins matter-of-factly, with a realistic description couched in a plain language: Savraska has sunk middle-deep in the snowdrift; Four lapti that freeze to the ledge, The top of a coffin enveloped in sacking, Peep out of the miserable sledge.38 But as soon as the poet addresses his ideal Slavic woman, his style becomes conventional and his language literary: Thou victim of tyrant Caprice! Unnoticed and dumb hast thou striven, To none hast thou cried for release, To none was thy confidence given. To me thou wilt open thy heart, It's deep, bleeding wounds thou wilt show me, Yea, anguish incarnate thou art, Prostration eternal — 1 know thee!39 In the lament of Prokel's survivors, Nekrasov strikes the note of true folk poetry, preserving the form and style of a funeral wail: "Oh, why was your stay such a short one? Oh, why hast thou left us to mourn?... Thy mother will die of her sorrow, Thy father not long will be left ... i0 The element of fantasy, common in folk poetry, was introduced by Nekrasov only in Part II of the poem, where King Frost is described in the traditional folk fashion: He BeTep 6yuiyeT Han 6opoM, H e c r o p no6e»ajiH pyibH, Mopo3-BoeBoaa ao3opoM O S x o a h t BJiaaeHbfl cboh. rjlHflHT — xoporno JIH MeTejlH JlecHwe Tponw 3aHecuH, M HeT jih rfle TpemHHbi, menu, M HeT jih rae rojioii 3eMJin?41 38 39 40 41

See See See See

note note note note

2. 5. 14. 29.

"RED-NOSE FROST"

135

Besides the element of fantasy, the usual devices of folk poetry are found in the passage just quoted; these are: 1. Negative comparison, usually at the beginning of a line: He BeTep 6yiuyeT Hafl 6opoM, He c rop no6e»cajiH pyibH ... 2. Repetition of certain words and phrases (again mostly at the beginning of a line): M HeT JIH me TpemHHbi, menu, H HET JIH RAE ronoii 3EMJIH? In keeping with the folk concept is also his boastful song, whose language is more colloquial than literary. By purposely using a realistic, down-to-earth vocabulary, Nekrasov achieves the concreteness of images that is so characteristic of folk poetry: "Their jowls without chalk I will whiten, Their noses like torches shall be, Their beards I will nail to the harness Till only an axe set them free. ,.."42 Such a style was to be expected in a folk epic like "Red-Nose Frost", even when the element of fantasy intruded upon the harsh reality of life. The poet, who had drawn his image of King Frost from folklore, knew it only too well. This long poem represents, as it were, a separate stage in the development of Nekrasov's verse. Its rhythm varies from chapter to chapter, depending on whether the style is narrative, descriptive, lyrical, or dramatic. Every now and then, the melody of the Russian folk song breaks into the conventional meter, with the result that the rhymes become dactylic. A few examples of this metrical diversity are given below. CaBpacKa YBH3 B nojiOBHHe cyrpo6a — ,ZjBe napbi npoMep3Jiwx nanTeii fla yron poroaceft noicpbiToro rpo6a TopiaT H3 y6ornx flpoBHeft.43 The meter used here by Nekrasov is amphibrachic ( - - - ) ; the feminine rhymes are also amphibrachic, while the masculine ones are iambic. For comparison, here is the opening stanza of section Iil, also in Part I of the poem: Tpn THHCKHeflOJiHHMena cyab6a, M NEPBAFL AOJIH : c pa6oM NOBEHIATBCA, BTopaa — 6biTb MaTepbio cbiHa pa6a, A TpexbH — flo rpo6a pa6y noKopjrrbca, M Bee 3TH rpo3Hbie AOJIH jieran Ha HCEHMHHY pyccKOH 3CMJTH.44 42 43 44

Nekrasov, "Moroz-Krasnyj nos", op. cit., p. 112, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 173. See note 2. See note 4.

136

NEKRASOV'S ART

Although the meter used here is the same as in the previous example (amphibrachic, with occasional iambic ryhmes), the rhyme scheme of this stanza (a b a b c c) is a bit different from the one found in Section I (a b a b). And here is the beginning of section V: H TBI KpaCOTOK) flHBHJia, Bwna h jiOBKa h CHJibHa, Ho rope Te6a nccyiimjio, YcHyBiiiero IIpoKua aceHa!45

At first glance, this stanza seems to be identical with the opening stanza of section I, but closer examination will reveal that it is written in amphibrachic trimeter (and not tetrameter, as was the case before). Such variations of one meter are very numerous in "Red-Nose Frost", especially in Part I. The dactyl, however, does not appear until section XIX, in Part II. This has been explained by Cukovskij thus: Having begun his poem in the anapaestic and amphibrachic rhythms, he turned again to the dactyl when he came to the most intimate and moving scenes in the plot. These ten dactylic chapters of the poem "Red-Nose Frost" (beginning with Chapter XIX, from the words, "They'll freely swing", to Chapter XXIX), have a diversity of rhythms that is unsurpassed by anything else in Nekrasov's poetry. Tetrasyllabic, trisyllabic, disyllabic dactyls change easily and freely from one variation to another, every emotion and every image having its corresponding variation. ... 4 6

Just two examples, taken from the poem, will illustrate this point: H jih o HeM He cTapajiacb? SI jih acajiena Hero? H eMy m o h b h t i .

6oanaei>,

Kax a jno6HJia ero! 47

(each line contains two dactylic feet, with either masculine or feminine rhymes) EfleT oh, 3fl6HeT ... a h-to, neiajibHas, H3 B0Ji0KHHCT0r0 JibHy, Cjiobho flopora ero HyaceflaJibHaa,

flojiryio HHTKy T«Hy.48

(alternating lines of four and two dactylic feet, a a lines having dactylic endings). Many similar examples can be found in sections XX-XXIX of "Red-Nose Frost". It should be borne in mind, however, that over half of the poem was composed in amphibrachs and anapaests. On the other hand, prior to "Red-Nose Frost" (1863) Nekrasov had already written a number of lesser poems in the dactylic meter: "A 45 46 47 48

See note 11. Cukovskij, Masterstvo, p. 410. Nekrasov, "Moroz-Krasnyj nos", op. cit., p. 106, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 166. Ibid., p. 107, tr. by J. Soskice in Poems, p. 167.

"RED-NOSE FROST"

137

Sleepless Night", "The Harvest Time is in Full Swing ..." (both in 1862), "The Gossip", "The Scene of a Fire", and "Thanks be to God our Lord" (all three in 1863). None of these poems, however, could be regarded as anything out of the ordinary. It should be also pointed out that the use of dactylic feet and rhymes by Nekrasov in "Red-Nose Frost" was deliberate, the poet striving to express poignantly Dar'ja's grief and suffering. Dactylic line-endings, so characteristic of the Russian folk song, became an integral part of Nekrasov's metrics only in his greatest (and most ambitious) work, Who is Happy in Russia.

XII "WHO IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

Nekrasov's longest poem about the peasantry, Who is Happy in Russia (Komu na Rusi zit' xoroso), was begun as early as 1863 and was nearing completion when its author died in 1878. Conceived as a poetic encyclopedia of Russian rural life in the period immediately following the abolition of serfdom, it is actually a folk tale narrating the odyssey of seven muzhiks wandering the length and breadth of Russia in search of a happy man. It could be also called a peasant travelogue similar to "The Peddlers," since in both poems Russia is presented as seen through the eyes of peasant travelers. Who is Happy in Russia is written in the country people's style and language, and contains numerous folk songs and proverbs as well as assorted bits of peasant wisdom. Scattered throughout it are all kinds of sociological, economic, and political observations, almost invariably made from the viewpoint of the muzhik. The author's personality remains in the background, which gives the poem an appearance of objectivity. The reader senses, however, that Nekrasov sympathizes deeply with the Russian peasants, whose lot improved but slightly after the "reform" of 1861. But the author studiously avoids bewailing the peasant's fate and even manages to communicate some of his own idealism and optimism to his readers while entertaining and amusing them with vivid and even racy accounts. Nekrasov, like Gogol, is a master of the "laughter through tears" technique : lighthearted humor and deep reflection constantly intermingle in his magnum opus. Mirsky has this to say about it: ... The poet never lets himself fall into his usual subjective lamentations, but conducts his story in a tone of keen and often good-natured shrewd satire, in a popular style, with frequent scenes of strong and simple realism, and occasionally a heroic note when speaking of the virtues of the strong Russian peasant. Full of remarkable verbal expressiveness, vigor, and inventiveness, the poem is one of the most original productions of nineteenth-century Russian poetry.1 It should be noted, however, that Who is Happy in Russia is not of a consistently high artistic quality, abounding, as it does, in splendid passages as well as mediocre ones. With some reservations, it could probably be called "an epic of the Russian 1

Mirsky, op. cit., p. 232.

"WHO IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

139

muzhik", and indeed some critics (particularly Lavrin and Evgen'ev-Maksimov) refer to it as such. Who is Happy in Russia is divided into four semi-independent parts bound together by a central idea: despite the Emancipation, the economic and social status of the Russian peasant has not changed. As Nekrasov sees it, it remains for the intelligentsia to end this impasse by educating the muzhik and helping him raise the standard of his life. The parts of the poem are, in the order in which they were written, Part I (1865), The Last One (1872), The Peasant Woman (1873) and A Feast for Everyone (1876); each part (except The Last One) is preceded by a prologue. In the prologue to Part /, seven poor but free peasants from seven different villages meet on a highway and begin to argue who is happy in Russia. B KaKOM roay — paccHHTbiBan, B KaKoii 3eMJie — yraflWBaii, Ha ctoji6oboh flopoJKeHbKe

CouiJiHCb ceMb My»HKOB:

C e M b BpeMeHHC>o6H3aHHbix,

IIoflTflHyTOii ry6epHHn,

ye3,zia TepimropeBa, IlycTonopoJKHeH bojtocth,

M3 CMOKHHXflepeBeHb— 3anjiaTOBa, JIbipaBHHa, Pa3yTOBa, 3Ho6miiHHa, ropeuoBa, HeenoBa, HeypoxcaiiKa TOK. Couijihch — h 3acnopHJiH: K o M y jKHBeTca Beceno, BoJibroTHO Ha Pycw?2

Each peasant has a different answer to the question: PoMaH cKa3an: noMemHKy, fleMb«H CKa3ajI: HHHOBHHKy, JlyKa CKa3an: nony. KynHHHe T0JicT0ny30My! — Cica3ajin 6paTbfl ry6HHbi, MBaH h MHTpoflop. CTapHK IlaxoM noTyacHJicH

M MOJIBHJT, B 3eMJIK) rjlHfltOHH: BenbMO)KHOMy 6oapHHy, MnHHCTpy rocyaapeBy. A n p o B CKa3an: uapio ...3

The peasants go on arguing until finally, unable to agree, they come to blows. Scuffling with one another, shouting and cursing, they do not seem to realize that 2

Nekrasov, "Komu na Rusi zit' xoroso" (Part I, Prologue), Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. Ill, p. 159, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy and Free in Russia?, p. 1. 3 Ibid., tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 1-2.

140

NEKRASOV'S ART

in the heat of their argument they have already wandered far away from home and are in the middle of the forest. Startled wild animals look uncomprehendingly at the seven human beings who behave so strangely. It is a highly amusing scene, with the muzhiks trying to outshout one another, the cuckoo bird teasing them, the owl fluttering about, a lost cow mooing sadly, young jackdaws squeaking in fright, the raven praying to the devil "that someone may be murdered", and the fox muttering disgustedly: "The devil himself couldn't figure them out!" 4 And even the author, having first given free rein to his poetic fancy, now feels compelled to remark dryly: "The very disputants hardly knew or remembered what the uproar was about."5 Having at last come to their senses, the muzhiks are about to settle down for the night in a forest clearing, when Paxom sees a baby bird flapping its tiny wings on the ground. As he picks it up he hears the nestling's mother speak to him in a human voice: "Let my little one free! I will pay you a big ransom for it." 6 And she promises to give the peasants a magic tablecloth which will instantly produce at their bidding all the food and drink they will need on their long journey. The muzhiks release the bird, and in return obtain from its mother the directions how to find the tablecloth of plenty. They do find it, and immediately test its magic power. Seeing that all their modest wishes are fulfilled without delay, the overjoyed peasants sit down to a feast (consisting mostly of bread and vodka) in a spirit of mutual love and comradeship. H a paflOCTH nenyioTca, flpyr flpyaoce o6emaioTCH Bnepefl He apaTbca 3pa, A c TOJIKOM flejio cnopHoe ITo pa3yMy, no-6oHcecKH, H a necTH noBecra — B flOMHinKH He BoponaThCH,

He BHaeTBc» HH c aceHaMH, HH C MAJIBIMH pe6aTaMH,

HH C cTapHKaMH cTapbiMH, noKyfla fleny cnopHOMy

PeiueHba He Hafirayr, IloKyfla He aoBeaaioT

KaK

HH HA

ecrb —

FLONOIUNMHO,

KoMy 5KHBCTCH CiaCTJIHBO, BOJIMOTHO HA Pycn?7

After making this resolution, the muzhiks fall sound asleep at last. The stage is now set for the beginning of their odyssey, in which the element of fantasy will be overshadowed by Nekrasov's realism in depicting the Russia of the 1860's and 1870's. 4 5

• 7

Ibid., p. 164. Ibid. Ibid., p. 166. Ibid., p. 169, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 14.

" W H O IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

141

At the very outset of their journey, the seven peasants come across people of what was then regarded as low social status: cobblers, artisans, beggars, soldiers, coachmen. They do not even ask the soldiers whether they live happily in Russia, and for good reason. The soldiers shave with awls, And warm themselves with smoke — What happiness is this? ... 8

Toward evening they finally meet a person of some importance, namely, an Orthodox priest riding along the road. They stop him and respectfully they ask him (after telling him of their quest) whether priests are happy in Russia. The priest thinks for a while, then defines happiness for them in three words: "peace, wealth ,honor"; but, he himself asks, does he really have and cherish all of these? And he gives them the following description of a priest's life: "Our roadways are poor, And our parishes large, And the sick and the dying, The new-born that call us, Do not choose their season: In harvest and hay-time, In dark nights of autumn, Through frosts in the winter, Through floods in the springtime, Go — where they may call you! If only the body Need suffer alone! But no, — every moment The heart's deepest feelings Are strained and tormented. Believe me, my children, Some things on this earth One can never get used to! No heart there exists That can bear without anguish The rattle of death, The lament for the lost one, The sorrow of orphans, Amen! Now you see, friends, The peace that the priests gets.9

As regards honor, he reminds them how often peasants speak disrespectfully of priests and their families and make fun of them. An uneasy silence follows; then the muzhiks speak up all at once, blaming their parents for the attitudes they inherited from them. 8 9

Ibid., p. 171. Ibid., p. 174, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 21.

142

NEKRASOV'S ART

The priest forgives the peasants, and goes on to describe the poverty in which he has been living since the time when "the landowners, like the Jewish tribe, scattered throughout Russia and foreign countries".10 He obviously refers to the Emancipation Act of 1861 whose indirect result was the pauperization of village priests, no longer supported by the landowners but dependent on the peasants' charity for their meager livelihood. But the villagers, the priest points out, are so poor that they have little or nothing to give him: "Our village is poor, And the people are sickly, The women are sad And are scantily nourished, But pious and laborious; God, give them courage! Like slaves do they toil; 'Tis hard to lay hands On the fruits of such labor!"11 All things considered, the Orthodox priest does not even remotely resemble the happy man that the seven muzhiks are searching for. Not only has he no peace of mind but he is neither wealthy nor honored. He suffers from poverty and want like any peasant, works hard all year and, in addition, he is repeatedly humiliated when his efforts to help the peasants meet with ingratitude and mockery. The next chapter of the poem contains a very interesting description of a village fair. In the motley crowd there are merchants, tavernkeepers, book and picture vendors, old women and young girls, comedians, and numerous drunken muzhiks. There is, of course, the "Petruska", a kind of folk Punch-and-Judy show. The musicians and comedians are, as they themselves say, newly-freed domestic serfs: "As serfs we used only To play for the masters, But now we are free, And the man who will treat us Alone is our master."12 The seven peasants, however, did not see any truly happy person in the throng at the fair. And so, "they strolled once more around the square and, toward evening, they left the turbulent village".13 Chapter III is appropriately entitled "A Night of Drunken Revelry" ("P'janaja noc"''), since it is full of descriptions of tipsy peasants and their behavior. The first remarkable figure noticed by the seven wanderers is that of the "populist" landowner, 10 11 12 13

Jbid., p. 177. Ibid., pp. 179-180, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 28. Ibid., p. 192, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 45. Ibid.

" W H O IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

143

Veretennikov, the same who previously gave money to an old peasant to help him buy a gift for his little granddaughter at the fair (Chapter II). Veretennikov, however, eventually antagonizes the peasants by scolding them for getting drunk on every occasion — and gets a tongue-lashing from a tipsy peasant, Jakim N a g o j (another remarkable figure in this chapter), w h o tells him some bitter truths to his face:

HeMy Tbi n03aBHfl0Ban?

H t o BecenHTCH 6eflHaa KpecTbAHCKaa a y i u a ? ribeM M H o r o m m n o BpeMemi, A 6 o n b m e m m p a 6 o T a e M ...

Pa6oTaeuib oahh, A nyTb p a 6 o T a KOHieHa,

rjMflH,

CTOHT TPH flOJIblUHKa:

B o r , u a p b h r o c n o j u m ! ...

B h h o BaJlHT KpeCTbHHHHa, A r o p e He BajiHT e r o ? P a 6 o T a He BanHT?

Myxanc

6eflbi He MepaeT,

Co bchkok) cnpaBjiaeTca,

Kaxaa hh npH/m. MyacHK, Tpyflflcb, He a y M a e T ,

Hto chum HaaopBeT, T a x HeyacjiH H a s Hapxoio

3anyMaTbCfl, hto c

jinmHero

B KaHaBy yroflHuib? A HTO TJMfleTb 3a30pH0 BaM, K a x nbHHbie BanaiOTca,

Tax norjiflflH noflH, K a x H3 6onoTa bojiokom KpecTbHHe ceHO MOKpoe,

Ckochbiiih, BOjjOKyT: T f l e He npo6paTbCH JiomaflH, T f l e h 6e3 h o u i h nemeMy OnacHO n e p e f t r a , T a M p a T b - o p a a KpecTb«HCKaa

n o xoiaM, no 3axcopnHaM H o j i 3 k o m non3eT c nneTioxaMH ...

n o f l c o u h b i u i k o m 6e3 manoneic, B n o T y , b rpn3H n o MaKyniKy,

OCOKOK) H3pe3aHbI, BOJIOTHHM raflOM-MOlUKOIO M3i.efleHHbie b xpoBb, H e 6 o c b Mbi TyT xpacHBee? ...

144

NEKRASOV'S ART H a MepoiKy rocnoacKyio KpecTbflHHHa He Mept! H e 6enopyiKH HeacHbie, A JIIOflH MM BejIHKHe B pa6oTe h b ryjib6e! ... 14

Grim as it is, this realistic picture of a peasant's toil is one of Nekrasov's greatest artistic achievements in Part I of Who is Happy in Russia. To relieve its stark impression, the poet goes on with his account of the events of the night of carousing. A reconciliation between Veretennikov and Nagoj follows, and everybody drinks and makes merry. As the revelry continues, the seven muzhiks step aside from the crowd and fortify themselves with bread and vodka provided by their magic tablecloth; then some of them again go to look for a happy man among the drunken peasants. They are eager to find one, for suddenly they have grown homesick and would like to end their quest and return to their wives and children. In Chapter IV, entitled "The Happy Ones" ("Scastlivye"), the seven wanderers promise a cupful of their magic vodka to any peasant in the crowd who can prove that he is happy. The result is rather amusing, since the offer of a free drink makes almost every peasant think up nonexistent reasons for his happiness. An ex-deacon says that he feels happy as soon as he has drunk a cupful of vodka; a one-eyed old woman pretends to be content with the huge turnip she has harvested from her small garden plot; a soldier asserts that he feels happy because he managed to survive the innumerable battles he has been through; a stone-cutter sees his happiness in his great strength. An ex-hunter considers himself a happy man because three of his fellow-hunters were killed by bears while he was only crippled. Another claims happiness because he was once a landowner's butler and could sip the leftovers of expensive foreign wines from bottles discarded after a drinking party — and the procession of allegedly happy people goes on almost endlessly, until the seven muzhiks realize that they are wasting their vodka and getting nowhere in their inquiry. Finally someone tells them the story of Ermil Girin, a muzhik who was so well loved and trusted by all the peasants in his district that they even lent him money to buy a mill. Later on they elected him bailiff of the commune, and he soon became widely respected for his kindness and justice. The wanderers, who listen to the story with rapt attention, almost decide that at last they have found a happy man. Then they learn the unpleasant truth: Ermil Girin is in jail, accused of having instigated a peasant rebellion.15 At this point the story is suddenly interrupted by the howls of the ex-butler being flogged by the villagers for stealing something at the market. When this distraction subsides, the narrator (excusing himself because of the lateness of the hour) breaks off his account of the peasant rebellion, promising to finish it at another time. He never does. Nekrasov makes his social point by artistic omission. The next chapter (V) is devoted to a very detailed characterization of Gavrila 14 15

Ibid., pp. 198, 199-200, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 53, 54, 55-57. Ibid., p. 223.

"WHO IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

145

Afanas'i5 Obolt-Obolduev, a former landowner. He is one of the few characters in the poem whose physical appearance Nekrasov took the trouble to describe: IIOMemHK 6bIJI pyMHHeHbKHH, OcaHHCTblft, npHCa/IHCTblil, IHecTHflecflTH jieT; Yew ceflwe, /WHHHbie, YxBaTKH MonofleuKHe,

BeHrepKa c 6paH«eH6ypaMH, UlHpOKHe IIITaHbl.16 Gavrila Afanas'i5 is so startled at first by the sight of seven burly peasants suddenly appearing in front of his troika that he threatens them with his pistol if they do not move out of the way; however, when he learns of their quest and is himself asked whether he is happy, he bursts into roaring though sardonic laughter. In contrast to all the landowners of Nekrasov's pre-Emancipation poems, this pomescik is a confused and unhappy human being, an uprooted and displaced landowner whose serfs have been freed; but he is a man who can still laugh at himself. Nekrasov, too, comes to his aid with wry humor. Addressing the peasants as "sirs" (gospoda) and "citizens" (grazdane), Gavrila Afanas'iC first tries to explain to them the origin of nobility. He is not very successful, since the very concept of a family tree is meaningless to his listeners. But they finally understand what he means as they stumble upon a metaphor that, for them at least, sums up the diiference between a nobleman and a muzhik: KocTb 6 e n a a , KOCTb nepHaa,

H norjuweTb, Tax pa3Hbie, — M pa3Hbiii HM noieT.'17 Seeing that they have understood him at last, the landowner then goes on to tell them about his life prior to the Emancipation. He lived in a beautiful manor-house on a large estate, amidst splendid forests and fields, and had hundreds of serfs at his beck and call. Even nature itself, he says, acknowledged him its master. He paints a very alluring picture of a nobleman's life in "the good, old days". Obolt-Obolduev speaks of himself as having been a benevolent barin, a father to his peasants: he punished them when they transgressed, but he felt responsible for their well-being. Then came the fateful year 1861: IIopBanacb uenb BenHKaa — Tenepb He 6beM KpecTbHHHHa, 3aTO y>K H OTenecKH

He MHJiyeM ero.18

These words would indicate that the dispossessed landowner is aware of a lack of 10 17 18

Ibid., p. 226, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 91. Ibid., p. 231, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 98. Ibid., p. 234, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 104.

146

NEKRASOV'S ART

cordiality in the unfamiliar relationship between the former master and the newly freed peasants. The Emancipation, it would appear, brought in its wake the displacement and impoverishment of both the peasants and the landed gentry. The old established order, however unjust, was supplanted by a chaos in which no one was happy. Gavrila Afanas'ic is so convinced of it that he compares the tolling of bells for a dead peasant in a nearby village to the death knell for the Russia of old that is no more. The former life of the Russian gentry is now a thing of the past, and OboltObolduev feels like a "superfluous man" in the new post-Emancipation society. He is painfully aware of his utter uselessness in the new social order, for he has not been conditioned by his heritage and upbringing to live in it: "A eCJIH H fleHCTBHTejIbHO

CbOHflOJirMM

JIOHCHO nOHflJIH M Harne Ha3HaneHHe H e b t o m , h t o 6 h m s apeBHee, ¿JOCTOHHCTBO

flBOpHHCKOe

IIoflflepacHBaTb o x o t o i o ,

IlnpaMH, BCHKOH pOCKOUIblO M »HTb MyiKHM TpyflOM, Tax HaflO 6 m j i o paHee

CKa3aTb ... HeMy yimica a? Hto BHfleji a Boxpyr? ... KonTHJi a He6o Boacne, H o c h j i jiHBpeio napcKyio, Copmi Ka3Hy HapoflHyio H ayMaji BeK TaK VKHTI> ... H Bflpyr ... BjiaflbiKo npaBeflHbiii! ,.." 1 9

And suddenly, unable to control his emotions any longer, the pomescik bursts into sobs. The muzhiks are also moved, and they stand in utter silence, their own thoughts echoing what he had said earlier : "IIopBajiacb uem> Benmcaa, riopBajiacb — paccKOHHuaca : OflHHM k o h u o m n o 6apHHy, /IpyrHM n o MyacnKy! , . . " 2 0

Thus the first part of Who is Happy in Russia, completed in 1865, ends on a note of futility, implying that Nekrasov put little trust in the half-hearted reform of 1861. The very last lines just quoted sum up his attitude in a way which is forceful and artistically convincing. The second part of the poem, called The Last One (Posledys), was finished by Nekrasov only in 1872. It opens with an idyllic picture of haymaking on the banks of the Volga: 19 20

Ibid., pp. 240-241, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 113. Ibid., p. 241, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 114.

" W H O IS H A P P Y I N RUSSIA"

147

Pa3MaxH ceHOKocHbie MayT npeflOK) npaBHJibHOH: Bee pa30M 3aHeceHHtie

CBepKHyjlH KOCbl, 3BflKHyjlH, Tpasa MmoBeHHo flporayjia M nana, npomyMeB! n o HH3MeHHOMy 6epery, Ha Bonre, TpaBM pocjiwe, Becenaa KocbSa.21 T h e seven peasants, however, soon find out that not everything is idyllic in that part of the country. Just as they begin to speak to old Vlas, the village bailiff, he suddenly exclaims, "Our master has gone for a boat ride!" and bids everyone in sight, including the startled seven, to behave with utmost respect. The Prince, a very old man, alights from a boat, and receives the peasants' homage and the bailiff's report on the state of things. H e seems to be satisfied, but continues to find fault with the peasants' work, and abuses them in strong language for not keeping the hay in the stacks quite dry ( " Y o u let the master's property rot? I will make you rot while laboring for me, you scoundrels!") 22 The seven muzhiks, who watch the Prince's antics in mute wonder, think for a moment that they are back in pre-Emancipation times. Vlas undeceives them, telling them that actually the peasants are working on the land that belongs to the village commune. Then, induced by the vodka with which the strangers ply him, he tells them the extraordinary story of Prince Utjatin, the last of die-hard Russian landowners. The story is both tragical and comical.

It seems that the old Prince has never

reconciled himself to the Emancipation, in spite of repeated interventions by the authorities. When the decree freeing the peasants was read to him, Utjatin became so enraged that he suffered a stroke. Since then he has been half-paralyzed, and the paralysis has apparently extended to his brain: he imagines that he still has power of life and death over the peasants, whom he believes to be still his serfs. His illusion is made complete by the meek and servile behavior of the villagers, who bow to him and obey his slightest wish. What The Last One does not know, however, is that a conspiracy to deceive him exists between the peasants and his own sons. The latter, frightened by his threat to disinherit them if they complied with the Emancipation decree, have bribed the whole village to carry on a pretense of living under serfdom. The peasants have been given food and drink, and have even been promised the fertile meadows by the river by the anxious heirs-to-be. The offer of land, more than anything else, seems to have swayed the village council in favor of "cooperating" with Utjatin's sons in their scheme of keeping the old man happy while he lives. Nekrasov, " K o m u na Rusi zit' xoroso" (Part II), op. cit., p. 316, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 117. 22 Ibid., p. 319.

21

148

NEKRASOV'S ART

Since the actual bailiff, Vlas, refused to play the game, Klim Lavin, the village drunk and idler, was "appointed" bailiff to carry out even the strangest orders of the halfinsane barin. Vlas stayed out of the old Prince's way. From that day on, "the old order was restored", 23 Vlas tells the seven muzhiks, who listen to him with amazement and disbelief. The whole arrangement between the villagers and Utjatin's sons, it seems, has provided the peasants not only with food and drink but also with a source of constant amusement. Thus, for example, the old Prince scolded a plowman in the field for laziness, not even suspecting that the land actually belonged to the peasant who worked it as he never had before the Emancipation. The peasants were still laughing (on the sly) at The Last One's stupidity when Klim Lavin (the "bailiff") came with a new order from the barin: the widow Terent'evna, living alone in a ramshackle hut, was to marry Gavril Zoxov, so that they might "repair the hut, live in it, beget children, and pay head tax!" 24 The mirth of the villagers increased, for they knew that the widow was almost seventy while her "husband-to-be" was ... six years old. Klim repeated still another order to the laughing peasants: the retired sergeant Sofronov, whose "disrespectful dog" had barked at the old Prince, was to be expelled from the village and replaced in his duties as watchman by Eremka. The villagers again roared with laughter, knowing that Eremka had been deaf and dumb since birth. Everybody seemed to enjoy playing the clown for a price; and yet, none of the peasants stopped to think of the probable consequences of letting a half-crazed old nobleman have his way with them. Vlas then tells the seven muzhiks about the tragic fate of Agap Petrov, the peasant who was caught red-handed by Prince Utjatin while stealing wood from his forest. Agap, whose patience had been worn thin by the behavior of the villagers (who refused to listen to his warnings), could not restrain himself when abused loudly by the barin, and abused him even louder in return.

23 24

"

... "y6bio! H t o 6para, pacKypamiJiHCb IloflOHKH H3 noraHoro KopwTa ... IJ,bm! Hhuikhh! KpeCTbHHCKHX ay in BJiaaeHHe lloKOHHeHO. ITocjieflwui tm! n o c j i e f l w m t h ! n o MHJIOCTH MyacHUKOii Harnett r n y n o c r a CeroflHH Tbi HaiajibCTByeinb, A 3aBTpa mw riocneflwrny llHHKa —• h k o h t c h 6aji! M«h flOMOH, noxaacHBaii, Ilo,zpKaBiiiH cboct, n o ropHHiiaw, A Hac ocTaBb! Hhuikhh! ,.." 2 5 Ibid., p. 330. Ibid., p. 331. Ibid., p. 334, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 144-145.

"WHO IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

149

Hearing a "serf" talking back to him, the old Prince almost had a second stroke; when he recovered his speech, he ordered Agap to be publicly flogged for his "effrontery". Klim knew, of course, that no one had the authority to flog peasants any more; on the other hand, Utjatin's sons (afraid of arousing the old man's anger if his order was not obeyed) begged the "bailiff" and the villagers to at least go through the motions of old-time punishment. Klim drank with Agap all night, until he finally persuaded him to feign cries of pain at nonexistent blows. The "punishment" was duly meted out to Agap the next day, the peasant moaning piteously in a stable, although in reality he was draining wine out of a bottle brought him by Klim. The old Prince was beside himself with pleasure when he heard the feigned cries of the "victim"; then he even felt sorry for Agap, when the latter — completely drunk — was being carried out of the stable by four peasants. Here Vlas grows silent for a moment, then says sententiously, "Praise the grass — in the haystack, the lord — in his coffin!" and continues: "'Twould be better if God took him ... Agapuska is no more .,." 26 The stunned listeners learn from the narrator that Agap died the very same day, most likely having drunk himself to death. Thus, a note of tragedy is added by Nekrasov to the hitherto humorous account. Just as Vlas finishes his story, a messenger summons all the villagers to gather in the square to listen to a speech by Prince Utjatin. The speech is very long and only partly intelligible, the gist of it being that the peasants are their master's property and will remain so "until the end of the world". 27 I l p a B a c b o h flBopflHCKHe, BexaMH ocBameHHwe, 3acJiyrH, h m h apeBHee IIOMemHK IIOMHHajT, LfapeBbiM rHeBOM, Bomchhm rp03HJI KpeCTMHaM, e)Kejm B36yHTyK>TCH OHH, M HaKpemco npnKa3biBan, 4 t o 6 nycTHKOB He ayMajia, H e 6ajiOBanacb BOTHHHa, A cjiymanacb rocnoa!28

Listening to Utjatin's senile rantings, one of the peasants bursts out laughing. However, when Klim orders the culprit to stand forth and face punishment, no one in the crowd moves. Finally, an old woman speaks up and blames her idiot son for this sudden and unexpected laughter. The "bailiff" is pacified, and so is the old Prince, who even begins to laugh himself. The scene ends with a boisterous feast, the villagers drinking and dancing on the bank of the Volga while Utjatin looks on. The feast continues long after the barin and his retinue have left, but is suddenly interrupted: 26 27 28

Ibid., p. 336. Ibid., p. 339. Ibid., p. 340, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 153-154.

150

NEKRASOV'S ART

the news arrives that the old Prince died of a stroke. The peasants cross themselves, and then sigh with immense relief, as though thanking God for their deliverance. Joyfully they begin to speculate how soon they will become the owners of the fertile meadows by the river. But it turned out otherwise, as told by Nekrasov in a postscript: C o CMepTHio riocjieflbima riponajia nacica 6apcKaa : OnoxMenHTbca He flann rBapaeHUbi BaxnaicaM! A 3a nyra noeMHbie HACNEFLHHKH C K p e c T b s n a M H

TararoTCfl «oflHecb. B n a c 3a KpecTbflH xoaaTaeM, >KHBCT B MocKBe ... 6bin B IlHTepe ... A TOJIKy HTO-TO H C T ! 2 9

So ends the story of The Last One (Posledys), and it ends with an ironical twist. The peasants (with the exception of Agap) were actually better off under the "tyranny" of the old Prince than they are under the "administration" of his heirs, whose feigned kindness has suddenly vanished and who refuse to surrender to the villagers the land they have promised them. The bitterly sarcastic ending could be regarded as proof of Nekrasov's growing disilusionment with the state of things in rural Russia in the period following the Emancipation. Viewed in this light, Part II of Who is Happy in Russia becomes a powerful expression of the poet's pessimism about what he considered to be grossly inadequate reforms. The status of the peasant, Nekrasov implies, actually has worsened since 1861. Part III of the poem is called The Peasant Woman ( K r e s f j a n k a ) , and it was written in 1873. In the prologue, the author restates the main idea of Part I, but with a difference. " H e Bee MOKAy MyacHHHaMH OTblCKHBaTb CiaCTJlHBOrO, riomynaeM-ica 6 a 6 ! " — PeillHJIH HaiUH CTpaHHHKH M CTa;iH 6 a 6 onpauiHBaTb. 30

The odyssey of the seven wanderers begins anew. In the first village, "StrippedNaked" (Nagotino) there is no happy woman, but the people there tell them where they can find one if they can recognize her. Then the villagers describe her, in these earthy and precise terms: " K o p o B a xonMoropcKan,

He 6a6a! ao6poyMHee 2

" Ibid., p. 350, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 168-169. Nekrasov, "Komu na Rusi zit' xoroso" (Part 111, Prologue), op. cit., p. 242, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 171.

30

" W H O IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

151

M rjiaace — 6 a 6 w HeT.

CnpocHTe Bbi Kopnanmy, M a T p e H y THMOeeBHy, O H a ace — r y 6 e p H a T o p m a , . . " 3 1

V. Avseenko, writing in The Russian Messenger in 1874, derided this passage as another example of Nekrasov's "excessive realism".32 However, it is probably easier to agree with Cukovskij, who wrote in 1938: Nekrasov ... identifies himself completely with the peasantry. What might be regarded by some as a peculiarity of his own style or a reflection of his own psychology, often turns out to be a genuine folk trait and an integral part of folk poetry. ... 33

Thus, this general description of Matrena Korcagin but reflects the folk concept of physical beauty, in which a rather stout figure and rosy cheeks (the usual signs of good health) are the prime requisites. The same traits appear further on in the poem, where Matrena's physical appearance is described in detail. The prologue also contains a description of the half-ruined estate of an absentee landowner, a truly pathetic sight. More pathetic, however, is the sight of the former domestic serfs (dvorovye), who now have to fend for themselves. Kaic npycaKH CJIOHJHOTCH I l o HeTonjieHoii r o p H H u e , Korfla HX BBIMOPAXCHBATB

HaflyMaeT MyacHK, B y c a f l b 6 e TOK CJIOHHJIHCH

rojioflHbie flBopoBbie, IlOKHHyTbie 6apHH0M H a np0H3B0Ji cyzib6bi.

Bee CTapbie, Bee XBopwe H KaK B UBIRAHCKOM T a 6 o p e

OfleTbi. ITo npyay TamHJiH 6pefleHb n«Tepo.

"Bor Ha noMoib! KaK JIOBHTCA? . . . " — B c e r o OAHH Kapacb! A 6 b i n o HX n o n p o n a c T H , JJ,a KpenKO HABANHJIHCB M H , T e n e p b — CBHIHH B Kyjiax! 3 4

The seven muzhiks watch one dismal scene after another as they walk around the abandoned estate: some peasants take the brass handles off the manor-house doors, others (accompanied by children) shake the trees in the orchard to get at the green 31

Ibid., tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 171. See Chapter II, note 57. 33 Cukovskij, "Nekrasov, kak xudoznik", Nekrasov v russkoj kritike, p. 153. 34 Nekrasov, "Komu na Rusi zit' xoroso", op. cit., p. 245, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be pp. 175-176. 32

Happy,

152

NEKRASOV'S ART

apples that taunt their hunger; still others try to sell to the wanderers various things they have taken from the nobleman's residence. The seven listen to the the story told by one of the peasants about a young Ukrainian singer whom the barin and his wife promised to send to Italy to take voice lessons. The promise was not kept: the "masters" went abroad and forgot about the boy. "Even the dogs have left the house!" 35 comments a peasant woman angrily. The visiting strangers are so depressed by the sight of the starving ex-servants that they are glad to hear the song of the harvesters who are returning to the village. They go out to meet them. The muzhiks are especially interested in meeting Matrena Timofeevna (Korcagin), who had been referred to previously as a happy woman. She indeed is among the harvesters, and Nekrasov takes pains to describe her very exactly: MaTpeHa TmviocfreeBHa OcaHHCTafl aceHiiiHHa, IilnpoKaa H nnoTHaa, JleT TpHflljaTH OCbMH.

KpacHBa; BOJIOC c npoceflbio, rna3a 6ojibiune, crponie, PecHHUbi 6oraTeftuiHe, CypoBa H CMyrna. Ha Heft pyGaxa 6ejiaa, JXa capa flepeBO, A 6bIJIO COJIOBbHHOe HaflepeBerHe3flo. T O P H T H cTOHeT .aepeBO, ropflT H CTOHyT IlTeHHHKH: "OII, MaTyuiKa! M E

TH?

A TH 6W Hac noxojiiuia, noKa He onepajiHCb MM : "

Ibid., pp. 275-276, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 220-221.

" W H O IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

157

KaK KpbUIbfl OTpaCTHM, BflOJIHHH,B poum THXHe Mbi caMH yneTHM!" floTJia cropeno aepeBO, floTjia cropejiH rrreHHHKH, TyT npHneTena MaTb. HH ziepeBa ... HH rHe3flbimica ... HH NTEHIHKOB! ... IloeT-30BET ...

IloeT, pwflaeT, KpyacHTca,

TaK 6bicTpo, SbicTpo KpyacHTC«, Mxo KpblJIblllIKH c b h c t h t ! . . . HacTajia HOib, Becb m h p 3aTHX, OflHa pbwana nTaiueiKa, JXs. MepTBbix He flOKJimcaJiacb /Jo 6ejioro yTpa! ..." She had wanted one day to take her little son, Demuska, out to the field where she was working, but her mother-in-law scolded her so severely that finally she left him at home in Savelij's care. The old man dozed off while watching the child and, by the time he woke up, stray pigs had killed Demuska. 3acHyn CTapHK Ha cojiHbiniKe, CKOpMHJI CBHHbHM fleMHflyuiKy IIpmiypKOBaTbiH flea! ... H KJiySbiinKOM KaTauaca, fl HepBblUIKOM CBHBajiaCH, 3Bana, Gy^HJiafleMyuncy— fla n03«H0 6w.no 3BaTb! ...48 Not only did Matrena lose her little son, but she had to go through a most terible ordeal besides. She vividly remembers how it all began: My! KOHb CTyiHT KonbiTaMH, My, c6pya 30Ji0ieHaji 3BeHHT ... eme 6eaa! Pe6jrra HcnyranHCH, n o H36aM pa36e»cajiHCH, Y OKOH 3aMeTajiHca CTapyxH, CTapHKH. ... Beaa! Tocnoab nporHeBancs, Hacjian rocTeft HenpomeHbix,

HenpaBeflHbix cyflett!49

This dramatic description of the authorities' raid on the village was not invented by Nekrasov but adapted by him from a folklore text he had found in E. Barsov's 47 48 49

Ibid., pp. 277-278, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 223-224. Ibid., p. 279, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 225-226. Ibid., tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 226.

158

NEKRASOV'S ART 50

collection of folk laments. In the process of artistic adaptation, the poet, first of all, abridged the text until it contained only the most essential details; then, to make the account still more dramatic, he changed the past tense used in the original to the present tense. He also added some other details (about the behavior of children and old people), so as to give his style a high emotional overtone. In "A Lament for the Elder" ("Plac po staroste"), the folk narrator Irina Fedosova had clearly hinted at the reason for an official's visit to a village: Anb Ka3Ha ero 6ecneTHa npHflepacauaca? A n b jjBeTHO ero nnaTbe npHTacJcanocH?

Ajib K03H0Bbi

c a n o r a a a npHTonTannca? ...51

The same idea appears in Chapter IV ("Demuska") of The Peasant Woman, but is expressed more laconically and, therefore, more effectively: 3HaTb,

fleHbra

n3flep»anncn,

CanoiKKH n p H T o n T a j i H c a ,

3HaTb, rojiofl pa3o6pan! ...62

The greedy officials in Fedosova's account entered the Elder's house "without praising Christ's name"; and so they do in Nekrasov's version: MOHHTBbl HHCyCOBOM

He cotbophb, ycenHca

y 3eMCKoro CTOJia ...63

Even the rough treatment that the peasants suffered at the hands of local police officials is described by the author in much the same words as those used by Fedosova. There is, however, one important difference; while her description of an official's behavior is concentrated in two or three passages of her lament, Nekrasov's is spread throughout most of the chapter in such a manner that each successive scene has a higher emotional content than the preceding one. The poet begins with the scene in which Matrena's refusal to plead guilty to the monstrous charge of having killed her own child infuriates the police official: K a K b CToiine kohl noflKOBaHHbiii 3aTonan; o KJieHOBbift ctoh Y f l a p H J i KyjiaKOM , . . 5 4

This picture appears in the text found by Nekrasov in Barsov's collection, from where he also took the description of the autopsy performed by a venal doctor on a dead child's body. Judging by Fedosova's account, such autopsies were limited to those 50 51 62 63 54

Barsov, Pricitartja severnago kraja, I (Moscow, 1872), p. 286. Ibid., p. 284. Nekrasov, "Komu na Rusi zit' xoroso", op. cit., p. 279. Ibid., pp. 279-280. Ibid., p. 280, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 227.

"WHO IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

159

dead whose survivors could not or would not bribe the officials in charge of the inquest. The moral atrophy of the officials becomes evident in the following passage, taken from her lament: H e i y AymeHBKH y hx na. bo 6ejibix rpyuax, HeTy coBecTH y hx jia bo hchwx oiax, HeT xpecTa-TO Beflb y hx aa Ha Senoii rpyzw. 56

In Nekrasov's version, this generalized folk definition of evil officials is repeated in a more laconic form: B rpynH y hhx HeT aymeHbKH, B rna3ax y hhx HeT cobccth, Ha mee — HeT KpecTa!66

The emotional climax of Matrena's story comes as she recalls how she watched Demuska's autopsy and threw curses at those who mistreated "his little white body." Matrena's curse (which is an adaptation by Nekrasov of the closing passage of "A Lament for the Elder") demonstrates clearly the vehemence of genuine folk invective: "3nofleH! nanain! IlaflHTe MOH CJie30HbKH He Ha 3eMino, He Ha BOfly, He Ha rocnoaeHb xpaM! naflHTe npaMO Ha cepaue 3nofleio MoeMy! Tbi flaii ace, Boace-rocnofln! M t o 6 TJieH npHiuejx Ha njiaraHue, Be3yMbe Ha roJioBymicy 3noflea Moero! 3KeHy eMy HeyMHyio IIoihjih, fleTeil KjpOflHBblx! n p H M H , yCJIblUIH, TocnoflH, M o j i h t b h , CJie3bi MaTepn, 3noaefl HaKaxcn! ,.." 67

Nekrasov's poetic adaptation of folklore material to the form and style of his poem has been brilliantly characterized by N. Andreev, in his comments on the passage just quoted: ... Here, Nekrasov, in accordance with his principle ("so that the words may be few"), considerably abridges the folk text while keeping the same number of lines ... As a result, the rhythm changes: Irina Fedosova's account, despite its high emotional content, moves slowly and therefore lacks intensity; in Nekrasov's account, short lines with numerous exclamations heighten the emotional intensity of the passage ,.. 5 8 55

Barsov, op. cit., p. 283. Nekrasov, "Komu na Rusi zit xoroso", op. cit., p. 281. This is a Russian folk concept of a bad Christian. " Ibid., tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 229. 58 Andreev, op. cit., p. 172. 56

160

NEKRASOV'S ART

These specific remarks could be generalized and applied to all of Nekrasov's adaptations of folklore material in Chapters I-VIII (except Chapter III) of The Peasant Woman. But let us return to Matrena's story. She gradually regained her peace of mind and, in a true Christian manner, she forgave Savelij. The old man conversed with her for a long time, comforting her and telling her to reconcile herself to God's will. Together they kept a vigil over Demuska's coffin, Savelij chanting the prayers and Matrena holding the candle. Whether intentionally or not, Nekrasov considerably reduces Savelij's heroic stature in this chapter (IV). On the other hand, he seems to use the episode to point up the spiritual strength of the Russian peasant woman. In this respect Matrena proves a worthy companion to Dar'ja, her prototype. The story continues. Savelij left on a pilgrimage of penitence and was not heard from for a long time. For Matrena, life went on as before, with a new child being born every year. She was far too busy to grieve or think too much. ... HeKoraa

H h ayMaTb, h h neiajiHTbCH, Raw E o r c pa60T0ii cnpaBHTbc« fla jio6 nepeKpecTHTb.

rioeuib — Koraa ocTaHcrcH CTapuiHX fla o t fleTOieK, YcHeiub — Kor^a 6ojibHa ,..69

Ot

New sorrows came in the wake of old ones: first her parents died, then Savelij also died (shortly after returning from his pilgrimage), leaving her no one except her husband to turn to in her troubles; a few years later, famine struck the village where she lived. And, in the same year, Filip was inducted into the army and Matrena was left at the mercy of her in-laws, who begrudged her and her children every morsel of food. Sending her children out into the street to beg, she herself would prepare meals for her husband's family and then "stand hungry at the door, like a slave".80 That was the most terrible year of her life (cf. the title of the chapter, "Trudnyj god"). Finally, Matrena recalls, she could not endure this kind of life any longer, and she set out on a long journey (on foot) to the capital of the province, hoping to induce the Governor's wife to help her. She was shortly expecting another child, and labor pains seized her just as she was entering the Governor's mansion. She lost consciousness. When she came to, she lay in a comfortable bed in a richly-appointed room, and her newborn baby was being held by a nurse who sat beside her. Later, the Governor's wife herself gave a name to the child and persuaded her husband to have Filip discharged from the army. The peasant couple, reunited at last, walked back 69

Nekrasov, "Komu na Rusi zit' xoroso", op. cit., p. 289, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 240. 40 Ibid., p. 299.

"WHO IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

161

home on a beautiful spring day, their new baby smiling at them, and nature herself (or so it seemed to them) rejoicing at their happiness. Mbl HfleM, HfleM — OCTaHOBHMCH, H a Jieca, Jiyra

riojiio6yeMCH, IloJiioGyeMca JXa nocJiymaeM, KaK myMHT-6eryT Boflbi BeuiHHe, KaK noeT-3BeHHT

5KaBopoHoieic!61

This idyllic vignette of a peasant woman's happiness is one of the few in an otherwise gloomy and pessimistic picture of peasant life as painted by Nekrasov. The habitual gloomy tone prevails in the last chapter of Matrena's story ("The Woman's Legend"). Although the villagers refer to her as "happy", there are deep scars in her soul. Even though she has five sons, she says, what of it? One of them has already been conscripted, and the same fate awaits the remaining four. Therefore Matrena tells the seven muzhiks to look elsewhere for happiness, perhaps in the lot of an official, a magnate, or even the Tsar. She concludes her story by quoting what an old woman told her: "KJHOHH OT ciacTbH xceHCKoro,

O t HaiueH BOJibHoft bojuooikh, 3a6ponieHH, noTepflHM

y Bora caMoro! ... nponajin! ayMaTb Hano6HO, CrnoHyjia pw6a hx ... Kaicoio pbi6oft crJiOHyTbi Kjiiohh Te 3anoBe«Hbie,

B KaKHX Mopax Ta pw6HHa TyjiaeT — Eor 3a6biJi! .,." 6 2 Thus, Part III of Who is Happy in Russia ends inconclusively even if poetically. On the whole, Matrena's lengthy account contains passages of great poetic beauty as well as others in which the imagery seems labored. All things considered, The Peasant Woman (except for the prologue) is markedly inferior to Parts I and II of Nekrasov's long poem. Part IV, entitled A Feast for Everyone (Pir — na ves' mir) was written only in 1876, and its tone is vastly different from that of the preceding parts (I-III). The work was not destined to be completed; the poet had been stricken with cancer, and his time was quickly running out. One of Nekrasov's friends (A. S. Suvorin) writes in his recollections: 61 62

Ibid., p. 309, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 268. Ibid., pp. 313, 314, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 273, 274.

162

NEKRASOV'S ART

... He had high hopes for his long poem, Who is Happy in Russia. Even after being stricken with illness, he once spoke animatedly of what he could do if he still had "three or four more years to live. It is the kind of thing that can have meaning only as a whole. And, the farther you get on with your writing the more clearly you imagine the further development of the plot, the new characters and scenes. When I was beginning I did not visualize how it was going to end; but now all the parts of the puzzle have fallen into place, and I feel the poem still could have an optimistic ending. I fear I may not live that long. .,." 63 This reference to the poem was probably made by Nekrasov in late 1876, when "he was confined to bed, from which he rose no more". 64 The poet had been ailing since 1868. A Feast for Everyone is the description of a feast held by the peasants from "Earthworm" village (Vaxlacina) near the Volga River; the feast is a frame for tales and songs by the peasants, and has several sections or chapters, viz.: Introduction (Vstuplenie) I. Bitter Times — Bitter Songs (Gor'koe vremja — gor'kie pesni) II. Pilgrims and God-Worshipers (Stranniki i bogomoVcy) III. Old and New ( / staroe i novoe) IV. A Cheerful Season — Cheerful Songs (Dobroe vremja — dobrye pesni) In the "Introduction", Nekrasov makes it explicitly clear that the feast is really the same one with which Part II of the poem (The Last One) closed: 3HaKOMeu Hani KJIHM .SKOBJIHH, BHflaBuiHift 6naropoflHbie Ilapbi c peiaMH, cmraaMH — 3 a T e i i m H K n n p a 6MJI.

H a 6peBHa, Tyr neacaBuine, H a cpy6 h36m 3acTpoeHHOii

YcejiHCb MyacHKH; TyT TO»ce Hanm crpaHHHKH CHflejm c BnacoM-CTapocToft ... B fleHb cMepTH KHH3A craporo KpecrbHHe He npeflBHfleJiw, HTO He nyra noeMHbie,

A TH3K6y HaacHByT.65

The seven muzhiks, as well as Vlas and Klim, two important characters in The Last One, are also present. In the four chapters that follow, songs and legends are interspersed with the poet's account of the rowdy behavior of the peasants at the feast. The poem ends with what can be regarded as Nekrasov's attempt to sum up the social message of Who is Happy in Russia as a whole. Among the mass of peasants there are but a few figures that stand out (besides 63 64 1,5

Suvorin, op. cit., p. 204. Ibid. Nekrasov, op. cit., pp. 351, 352, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 275-276, 277.

"WHO IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

163

t h e already mentioned Vlas and Klim). T h e most i m p o r t a n t of these are the deacon T r i f o n a n d his t w o sons, Savva a n d Grisa, students in a theological seminary. Grisa, w h o emerges at the end of the p o e m as a f u t u r e social hero, is thus described by Nekrasov: ... y TpHropHH JIhuo xyfloe, 6neflHoe, H BOJIOC TOHKHH, BblOmHHCfl, C OTTeHKOM K p a C H O T b l . 6 6

Both Savva a n d Grisa are "kind and simple lads", w h o help the peasants with the harvest on workdays a n d drink v o d k a with them on Sundays a n d holidays. It is Grisa, however, w h o is destined to lead the Russian people to a better future. P a r t IV (A Feast for Everyone) of Nekrasov's long p o e m is regarded by m a n y critics (Tverdoxlebov, a m o n g others) 6 7 as a sequel to Part II (The Last One). A n d indeed, these two parts seem to be closely related to each other. The Last One ends with the death of old Prince U t j a t i n ; A Feast for Everyone begins with the peasants' celebration immediately following the news of his passing away. T h e m a i n topic is the same as before, and so are the main peasant characters, like Vlas, Klim, a n d the seven wanderers. In A Feast for Everyone, just as in The Last One, the seven muzhiks are mere observers and listeners. On the other hand, Vlas, Klim, and several new characters introduced by Nekrasov (especially Grisa), become actors, storytellers, a n d sometimes spokesmen for the poet's ideas. All this contributes to m a k e P a r t IV almost as dynamic as Part II. Here, however, the similarity ends. In f o r m and style, A Feast for Everyone differs greatly f r o m the other parts of Nekrasov's long p o e m . This fact has been noted, a m o n g others, by Andreev: The poem, Who is Happy in Russia, is not entirely homogeneous in character: while the Prologue, Part I, "The Peasant Woman", and "The Last One" are meant almost exclusively for a peasant reader, "A Feast for Everyone" contains chapters and episodes written in a totally different manner ... Two different styles of Nekrasov (conventionally speaking, the "popular" and the "civic") ... are brought here into a rather sharp focus. 08 T h e "civic" style, already used by Nekrasov in the chapter a b o u t Savelij in Part III, displaces the " p o p u l a r " or " f o l k " style in Part IV whenever the a u t h o r wishes to m a k e a social point. T h e f o r m of A Feast for Everyone shows a similar dichotomy as it changes f r o m t h a t of oral folk poetry (in Chapters I-III) to that of conventional poetry (in Chapter IV, especially t o w a r d its end). F u r t h e r m o r e , content often determines b o t h f o r m a n d style in this part of Who is Happy in Russia. 66 67 68

Ibid., p. 352, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 276. Tverdoxlebov, Poema Nekrasova "Komu na Rusi zit' xoroscT (Moscow, 1954), p. 59. Andreev, op. cit., p. 168.

164

NEKRASOV'S ART

In Part IV, as in the preceding parts, the epic narrative is often interrupted by lyrical passages in which the author expresses his feelings and thoughts. Thus, after telling of the villagers' argument about "how they'll dispose of the beautiful hayfields", Nekrasov addresses the Russian peasantry in general: H e bch Tbi, Pycb, oSMepsiHH

3eMJiimeH: nonaaaioTCH ymbi 6narocjioBeHHbie, r ^ e jiaflHO oSoniJiocb. KaKoft-HH6yflb cnyiaflHOCTbio —

HeBeaeHbeM noMemHKa, JKimymero BflajiH, Onra6Koio nocpeflHHica, A n a m e H3BopoTaMH

KpecTbaH-pyKOBOflHTeJieft B H a a e n KpecTbHHaM H3peflKa n o n a n o H necKy. TaM ropfl My«HK: nonpo6yft-Ka B okoiiiko CTyKHyTb CTapocTa 3a noflaTbio — ocepflHTca!

OflHH oTBeT AO BpeMeHH: " A Tbi necKy npoflaii!" 6 9

With no transition at all, but in a matter-of-fact style, the poet goes on to tell how the peasants of the village "decided to part with the fields to the Elder for taxes." Then his style becomes conversational and colloquial as we hear the villagers talk: — A kojih noflaTb cnpaBJieHa, 51 HHKOMy He 3flpaBCTByio! OxoTa ecTb — pa6oTaio, H e t o — BanHiocb c 6 a 6 o i o , H e t o — Hay b Ka6aK! " T a x ! " — B c h o p n a Baxjiamcan H a cjiobo KjiHMa JIaBHHa OTRjiHKHyjiacb: Ha n o f l a r a ! "CorjiaceH, w a n Bnac?" — y KjiHMa penb KopoTKa« H HCHaa, KaK BbraecKa, 3oBymaa b Ka6aK, —

CKa3an inyTUHBo CTapocTa, — HaiHeT KnHMaxa 6a6oio, A KOHHHT — Ka6aKOM! " A neM ace? He ocTporoM ace K o H i a T b — Ty? JJ,eno BepHoe, H e KapKafl, n o p e i m i ! " 7 0 •* Nekrasov, "Komu na Rusi zit' xoroso", op. cit., pp. 352-353, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 278. 70 Ibid., p. 353, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 278-279.

"WHO IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

165

Nekrasov's realistic reproduction of coarse peasant speech in this passage is just another example of his consistency as an artist in making the style fit the topic. He had done exactly the same in Parts I through II of Who is Happy in Russia, notwithstanding the indignant protests of the so-called "esthetic" critics. And he was ready to defend a poet's right to use "un-poetic words", as can be seen from what he wrote to a friend of his in 1869: "In a poem, it is sometimes impossible to do without a coarse word, provided its use is absolutely necessary ..." 71 It should be noted that in the introduction to Part IV of Who is Happy in Russia the peasants are both tipsy and joyful, and therefore speak more freely than they would if they were sober. Thus, the coarse style used to reproduce some of their utterances seems to be justified by the exigencies of a particular situation. As the feast gets under way, the peasants begin to sing. Their songs, on various topics and in various rhythms, express both the dark and the bright side of their life. It is a sign of the times in which Nekrasov lived that several of these songs were removed by him from the text in a desperate last attempt to have the censor's office approve Part IV of Who is Happy in Russia for publication.72 These are: "About Serf Labor", "A Soldier's Song", and "The Song About Kalinuska". None of these appears in the 1882 one-volume edition of Nekrasov's poems (nor in any subsequent editions prior to 1917), but they do appear in Soviet editions of his works. When these missing songs are put together with the others in A Feast for Everyone, "all parts of the puzzle fall into place" (to use Nekrasov's own expression), and the result is a picture of rural Russia in the middle 1870's. It is a very somber picture, drawn in sharp black and white, with a strong overtone of hatred for the government which the poet apparently holds responsible for the continued suffering of the Russian common people. It is only toward the end of the poem that a note of hope appears in Grisa's visions and rings loud and clear in his songs addressed to "Mother Russia". In Chapter I (entitled "Bitter Times — Bitter Songs"), probably the most tragic song is the one about "the dutiful serf, Jacob the Faithful". He was a household serf of a squire by the name of Polivanov, and was treated by the latter with extreme cruelty. And yet, the harsher the barin became the greater was the affection the muzhik felt for him. ToubKo h 6bino y ilKOBa paflocTH: Eaprnia xonHTb, 6epe Toiiraa, Bonb cHJibHa. IlyjiH HeMeqKHe, IlyjiH TypeipcHe, IlyjiH 4>paHuy3CKne, IlajioHKH pyccioie! TomeH cbct,

Xne6a HeT, KpoBa hct, CMepra hct. ...94 The song is so moving that Klim stands up and makes a speech to arouse the villagers' sympathy for the old veteran's plight. Since Ovsjanikov, in his eagerness to help Klim, interrupts him constantly, the result is a very lively though bitter conversation, full of anger at the Russian bureaucrats who would not grant full pension to the wounded war hero. Cojidam Ilojmoro BMflaTb He BeneHO: Cepaue HacKB03b He npocTpeneHo! ... KJIUM BepmicaMH paHbi CMepanH H oqeHHJiH Kaxmyio HyTb-iyTb He b Me^HbiH rporn. ... Cojidam ... A Ha peayTbi KaK npbirajui! 3aiiuaMH, 6enKaMH, otkhmh xouiKaMH, TaM h npocmncH a c HoxcicaMH ... 95 The peasants, although they themselves hardly have any money to spare, feel so sorry for Ovsjanikov that they drop their kopecks into two wooden bowls until "a rouble is piled on the dishes". 96 With this, Chapter III of A Feast for Everyone is brought to a close in a manner that emphasizes the essential humaneness of the Russian peasant, to whom the Christian virtues of mercy and kindness are not alien. The stage is now set for the next scene, in which love will be the dominant motif. Chapter IV (appropriately called "A Cheerful Season — Cheerful Songs") shows a great diversity of form and style. Here we find descriptions, "civic" anthems, songs in the style of folklore, lofty lyrical passages, etc.; on the other hand, we find no dialogues. Generally speaking, it is in this chapter that Nekrasov's attempt at reconciling his "folk" style with his "civic" style seems not to have been too successful. 94 95 96

Ibid., p. 385. Ibid., pp. 387, 388. Ibid., p. 389.

174

NEKRASOV'S ART

The "civic" note rings loud and clear in the last stanza of the opening song (sung by Grisa and Savva as they walk home after the feast): fl,oiw Hapofla, CiacTbe ero, C b c t h CBo6o.ua IlpeJKfle B c e r o ! 9 7

Both seminarians, but especially Grisa, are evidently regarded by Nekrasov as future peasant leaders, since they will both be bound by their priestly vows to the service of humanity. The song is followed by the author's narrative digression about Grisa's early years. Grisa Dobrosklonov, a poor village deacon's son (like Nekrasov's friend, Nikolaj Dobroljubov), has known cold and hunger, and has learned the meaning of poverty and want. He has always been very close to country people, and has come to love them. Grisa, like any Russian peasant lad, has an inborn ability to express his feelings through a song. When he was at the seminary and sometimes grew homesick, he would sing in a low voice the songs that his mother, now dead, had taught him. He remembered especially the one called "The Salt Song" ( " S o l e n a j a " ) which she had been very fond of. H h k t o Kax E o r ! H e ecT, He nbeT MeHbUIOH CblHOK,

FnflflH — yMpeT! flana KycoK, flana flpyroft — H e ecT, k p h h h t : riocbinb conbuoii! A c o j i h neT, X o T b 6bi m e n o T b ! n o c b i n b MyKoii, — IIIenHyn T o c n o f l b . Pa3-flBa KycHyn, CxpHBHJI POTOK. Cojih eme! — KpHHHT CblHOK. OnflTb MyxoH ...

A Ha KycoK Cne3a

Iloeji 97

peicofi!

ctiHOK!

Ibid., p. 390, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 325.

" W H O IS H A P P Y IN RUSSIA"

175

XBanHnacb MaTi. — CbiHKa c n a c u a ...

3HaTb, conoHa Cne3a 6tiua!

..."

This simple but beautiful poem in the rhythm and style of a folk song is a companion piece to "The Hunger Song" in Chapter III of A Feast for Everyone. In both songs Nekrasov has drawn, in sharp and bold outlines, a picture of the hungry and povertystricken Russian peasant. It is no accident that in the first song it is the man who suffers, while in the second song it is the woman; by poetic implication, one suffers as much as the other. The bitter truth was that often in Russian villages there was neither bread nor salt and, while bread could be borrowed from the neighbors, salt (on which there was a heavy tax) had to be bought at the market with money — and money was what peasants seldom had. But let us return to Grisa. Grisa often sang "The Salt Song" when his homesickness became especially acute. A t such times he often thought of his mother, of his native village, and of his fellow peasants whom he was ready to serve after returning to the country. M cKopo b c e p f l u e ManbHHKa C jiio6obi>k> k 6eflHOH MaTepn JIk>6obi> ko Bcefl Baxjiaimre CjiHnacb — H jieT nHTHafluaTH TpHropHH TBepflo 3HaJi yace, KoMy oTflacT bcio aoonb cboio

M 3a Koro y M p e T . "

Grisa Dobrosklonov is ideally suited to be the leader of other peasants, for he has both love and understanding for them. A digression follows, in which Nekrasov utters his own thoughts on Russia's future in tones of lofty pathos: /JOBOJIbHOfleMOHHPOCTH JleTan c MenoM KapaiomHM Hafl pyccKoio iCMiieii. flOBOJlbHO pa6cTBO TJ«KKOe OflHH nyra nyicaBbie OTKpblTblMH, BJieKymHMH flepxcajio Ha Pycnl Has Pycbio oacHBaiomeH MHaH necHfl cjibiuiHTca: To aHren MHJiocepflHH He3pHMo nponeTaromHH H a f l Heio, — rtymw cnaBHbie 3oBeT Ha HecTHbiii nyTb.100 99 99 100

Ibid., p. 392, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 328-329. Ibid., pp. 392-393, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 329-330. Ibid., p. 393, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 330.

176

NEKRASOV'S ART

The call of "the angel of mercy" is replete with an almost Romantic idealism: Cpeflb Mupa AojibHoro ,ZJjm cepflua Bo^bHoro EcTbflBanyTH. B 3 B e c b CHJiy r o p f l y i o , B 3 B e c h bojik) T B e p f l y i o , —

KaKHM HflTH? OflHa npocTopHaa /^opora — TopHaH.

CTpacTeii pa6a, IIo Heft rpoMaflHaa, K co6na3Hy »aflHaH M^eT TOJina. ... flpyra a — TecHaa, .ZJopora necTHaa, Ilo Heft HflyT JlHUIbflylHHCHJIbHbie, JIio6Beo6HJibHbie, H a 6 o h , Ha Tpy/i

3a oSoftfleHHoro, 3 a yraeTeHHoro,

CTaHb b hx pafltr. HflH

K yHHJKeHHbIM,

HUH K O0H)KeHHbIM T a M HyaceH T M . 1 0 1

Grisa is one of those who have chosen "the narrow path" that only people of strong moral principles are able to tread. He is the ideal hero of Nekrasov's civic poetry. In the passage that follows, the poet depicts the idyllic beauty of the Russian countryside in the early morning when the sun just begins to shine and the air is cool and filled with the smell of freshly-mown hay. Altogether it is a most appropriate setting for Grisa's spontaneous "hymn" which represents some of the finest social as well as lyrical poetry of Nekrasov: "B MHHyry yHbiHta, o

poflHHa-MaTb!

R Mbicjibio Bnepefl yjieTaio.

Eme cyacfleHO

Te6e MHoro CTpa/jaTb,

H o tm He n o r H 6 H e o i b , a 3Haio.

101

Ibid.,

pp. 393, tr. b y J. S o s k i c e i n Who Can Be Happy,

p p . 330-331.

" W H O IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

177

E m j i T y m e HeBeacecTBa MpaK H a a t o 6 o h , yflyiruiHBeft c o h Henpo6ynHbiii. Ebuia Tbi r j i y 6 0 K 0 HeciacTHoft CTpaHoii, IloflaBJieHHOH, pa6cKH-6eccyflHOH. ilaBHO JIH Hapofl TBOtt HrpyuiKoii cjiyanui I l o 3 o p H b i M CTpaCTaM rocnoflHHa? IIOTOMOK TaTap, KaK KOHa, BbIBO.HH.rt H a pbiHOK pa6a-cnaB«HHHa, H pyccKyio a e B y b j i c k j i h Ha no3op, CBHpencTBOBan 6 h i 6 e 3 6 o h 3 h h , H yjKac Hapofla n p n cjioBe H a 6 o p n o a o 6 e H 6bin yacacy Ka3HH? ^ O B o n b H o ! O k o h h c h c npomeflniHM p a c i e x . O k o h h c h pacneT c rocnoflHHOM! C6HpaeTca c cHJiaMH pyccKHii H a p o a H yHHTca 6biTb rpaacflaHHHOM. H Homy TBOK) o G n e r i H J i a cyflb6a, ConyTHHija «Heft cjiaBaHHHa! E m e Tbi B ceMettcTBe noicyna — p a 6 a , H o MaTb yace BonbHoro c b m a ! " 1 0 2

The note of hope rings unmistakably clear in this patriotic invocation addressed to "Mother Russia" by Nekrasov, who here makes Grisa his spokesman. It is doubtful, however, whether he could f i n d such idealized popular leaders among the Russian radicals of the 1 8 7 0 ' s . Therefore, Grisa Dobrosklonov is really an embodiment of Nekrasov's poetic vision of Dobroljubov (regardless of what others made of Dobroljubov or of what he actually was). In the closing section of the poem, Grisa addresses Russia once more in a simple song that has the vigor, rhythm, and charm of folk poetry. Tbi h y 6 o r a a , Tbi H o6HJIbHaH, Tbi h Morynaa, Tbi h 6eccHJibHaa, MaTyiinca-Pycb! B pa6cTBe cnaceHHoe CepauecBo6oflHoe — 30JI0T0, 30JI0T0

C e p a q e HapoflHoe! C u r i a HapoflHaa, Crnia M o r y i a a — CoBecTb cnoKOHHaa, ripaBfla »CHByiaa! 102

Ibid., pp. 395, 396, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 332-333.

178

NEKRASOV'S ART Cima c HenpaBfloro He yacHBaeTca, 5KepTBa HenpaBfloio He Bbi3HBaercfl — Pycb He inejioxHeTCH, Pycb — KaK y6HTaa! A 3aropenacb b Heft HcKpa coKpbiTaa — BcTanH — HeSyaceHbi, BbirnnH — HenpomeHbi, aCHTa no 3epm>miKy Topw HaHOiueHti! PaTb noflbiMaeTca — HeHCHHCJiHMan, Cmia b Heft CKaateTCH HecoKpymHMaa! Tbi h yGoraa, Tbi h o6HJibHafl, T H H 3a6nTafl, Tbi h BcecHJibHaa, MaTyniKa-Pycb! ...103

Grisa's song, which must have appealed to Nekrasov's contemporaries as much as it undoubtedly still does to present-day Russians, expresses in simple but m o v i n g words his devotion to his country and his nation, whose great spiritual strength will make future progress possible. Then, in a postscript, N e k r a s o v implies that the seven peasants' quest is ended since Grisa is the happy man they have been searching for (he is happy because he looks f o r w a r d to serving his people). EbiTb 6w HaiiiHM CTpaHHHKaM nofl po/iHoio Kpbnneio, E c h h 6 3HaTt MorjiH o h h , h t o t b o p h j i o c b c TpHineio. Cjibimaji o h b rpyflH CBoeft c h j i m Heo6i>aTHbie, YcnaacflajiH cnyx ero 3ByKH 6jiaroflaTHbie, 3ByKH Jiyie3apHbie raMHa 6naropoziHoro — neji o h BonnomeHHe cnacTHa HapoflHoro! ,..104 Thus Nekrasov's long poem, Who

is Happy

in Russia,

ends on a very optimistic

note, perhaps reflecting the author's hope that the intelligentsia and the peasantry will w o r k together in order to attain their goals of social justice and improvement of economic and political conditions. A l l f o u r parts of Who is Happy

103 104

in Russia f o r m a single grand design.

Ibid., pp. 398-399, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 337-338. Ibid., p. 400, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 338-339.

Nekrasov

"WHO IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

179

already had it in mind when he said to Suvorin in late 1876: "... all the parts of the puzzle have fallen into place ,.." 105 The futile search of the seven wanderers for a happy man in Part I turns up human beings that are either resigned (the priest) or frustrated (the landowner). Part II, supposedly based on an authentic incident, 106 harks back to the dark era of serfdom; the problem of happiness is here of secondary importance. Then comes the quest not for a happy man any longer but for a peasant hero (male or female) in Part III, where the myth-like figures of Matrena and Savelij seem to captivate Nekrasov's poetic imagination. The search comes to its close in Part IV with the appearance of Grisa Dobrosklonov, a flesh-and-blood peasant hero and a future leader of his people. Grisa, like Matrena and Savelij, has matured through suffering: he has seen death, has experienced cold and hunger as well as poverty. The three heroes can be regarded as symbols of the spiritual and moral strength of the Russian peasant in which Nekrasov passionately and unswervingly believed. Their presence is what lends an optimistic note to Parts III and IV of Who is Happy in Russia. Throughout the four parts there runs also a note of deep and abiding pessimism. It is Nekrasov's belief, artistically expressed, that the Emancipation did not result in any notable improvement in the lot of the Russian muzhik. The peasant remained just as ignorant as before, paid taxes like he had before, in addition to his having been cheated out of his share of good land by many a crafty barin; he was wronged by petty officials like he had been before, and drafted into the army just as indiscriminately as he had been before. The only solace he found was in drink; and Nekrasov never condemned the Russian peasant for drinking. He passed no judgments on the ignorance, barbarism, and desperation that he exposed in rural Russia. His folk "epic", Who is Happy in Russia, is far more than just the story of the quest of the seven muzhiks for a happy man; it is a dynamic and colorful picture of the Russian peasantry and land-owning gentry in the years 1863-1876. Whether it be in narrative or descriptive passages, Nekrasov's craftsmanship is revealed time and again as one reads Who is Happy in Russia. In the following passage he describes the Russian landscape north of Moscow as it looked to him in the 1860's: n o CTOpOHaM flOpOWeHbKH MayT xonMbi nojiorae C nOJIHMH, C CeHOKOCaMH,

A name c Heyfl06H0K), 3a6poiueHHofi 3eMJieft ... Jleca, nyra noeMHwe, P y i b H h peKH pyccKHe BecHOK) xopoura. 106 106

Suvorin, "Nedel'nye ocerki i kartinki", Lit. nasledstvo, 49-50, p. 204. Tverdoxlebov, op. cit., p. 121, footnote 2 (See also N. A. Belogolovyj, Vospominanija i drugija stafilMoscow, 1898], p. 97).

NEKRASOV'S ART

180 H o bbi, n o u s BeceHHHe! H a BaniH b c x o a h 6e/iHbie HeBeceno rn$weTb! 107

The epic simplicity of this picture is matched by its lyrical overtones. Nekrasov does not merely describe the northern countryside; his love for it shines through, as does his concern over the poverty of its inhabitants. He appeals not only to the senses and imagination but to the heart as well. Many of Nekrasov's descriptions of nature sing like a Russian folk song in verbal images full of unpretentious suggestiveness. The fleeting colors in the sky are caught in the following passage: B o t n p a B a a CTopoHyuiKa OflHoft cnjioiiiHOK) Tyieio noKptraacb — 3aTyMaHHjiacb, CreMHeJia h 3annaKana: P«flaMH HHTH cepwe riOBHCJIH flO 3eMJlH. A 6jiicKe, Ha« KpecTbSHaMH, H 3 He6onbniHx, pa3opBaHHbix, Beceubix 06naiK0B CMeeTca cojiHue KpacHoe, KaK flCBKa H3 CHOnOB. H o T y i a nepeflBHHyjiacb ... BblTb CHJlbHOMy fl05KflK>. A npaBaa CTopoHyuiKa y » e cBeTJia h paaocTHa, TaM nepecTaeT. H e floacflb, TaM n y a o Boacae: T a M C 30JI0TMMH HHTKaMH

Pa3BeiuaHbi m o t k h , . . 1 0 8

Equally observant and suggestive is his description of a village pond. No translation, however accurate, can capture the delicate poetic beauty of the original, so replete is the passage with Nekrasov's exquisite verbal music. It is also one of the many variations of unrhymed iambic tetrameter found in the poem. ... B 3eneH0ft paMe 3epKano: C KpaaMH nonHbift n p y f l .

H a a npyaoM peioT nacTOiKH; KaKHe-TO KOMapHKH, npOBOpHbie H TOUJHe, BnpHnpbiacKy, c j i o b h o n o - c y x y , TyjiHiOT n o BOffe. n o 6 e p e r a M , b paKHTHHKe, K o p o c T e J i H CKpHnaT.109 107

Nekrasov, "Komu na Rusi zit' xoroso" (Part I, Chapter I), op. cit., p. 170, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 15. 108 Ibid., p. 176, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 23. 109 Ibid., p. 183, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 32-33.

"WHO IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

181

The poet's talent is likewise revealed in his vivid portrayal of groups of people of well as individuals in Who is Happy in Russia. Typical in this respect are Chapters II and III of Part I, where he describes the country fair and the night of revelry following it. His style is dynamic, robust, colorful, and colloquial. Epic and lyric elements intermingle constantly in ever-changing scenes. Here is, for example, his description of the puppet show and the behavior of the peasants watching it: KoMeflHH He Myapaa, OflHaxo h He raynaa, XoacanoMy, KBapTanbHOMy H e b 6poBb, a npaMO b rna3! Illanam noJiHHM-nojmexoHeK, Hapofl opeuiKH menicaeT, A TO flBa-TpH KpeCTbflHHHa CnoBeiKOM nepeKHHyTCH — rUHflH,flBHJiaCbBOflOHKa:

riocMOTpaT aa nonbioT! Xoxonyr, yTeuiaroTca H Macro b penb IleTpymKHHy BcTaBJiaiOT cjiobo MeTKoe, KaKoro He npHflyMaemb, XoTb n p o m o T H nepo! 1 1 0

Chapter II ends with a dramatic and dynamic description of the carousing peasant multitude. He BeTpw BeioT 6yilHbie,

He MaTb-3eMJiH KOJibimeTca — IIIyMHT, noeT, pyraeTca, AepeTcn h uenyeTca y npa3flHHKa Hapon! KpecTbHHaM noKa3aJioca, KaK BbiuiJiH Ha npHroponeK, H t o Bee ceno maTaeTca, Mto

aaace qepKOBb cTapyio

C BblCOKOft KOJIOKOJlbHeiO

UlaTHyno pa3-apyroii!111

It should be noted how the first two lines impart the tone of folk poetry to the whole passage through the use of the common stylistic device of the negative parallel (also known as the negative comparison): He BeTpbi BeioT 6yiiHbie, He MaTb-3eMJiH KOJiwuieTca

...

Chapter III presents a composite picture of drunken Russian peasantry, and contains descriptions and speeches in varying styles, tones, and intonations. Nekrasov's 110 111

Ibid., p. 191, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 44-45. Ibid., p. 192, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 46.

182

NEKRASOV'S ART

fondness for dynamic verb sequences (already evident at the close of Chapter II) is shown in the following scene: I I o Bceft n o Toft «opoHceHbKe M n o OKOJibHHM TponomcaM, J^OKyfla rna3 XBaTan, noji3nH, jieatajiH, e x a i m , BapaxTajiHca nb»m>ie, M CTOHOM CTOH CTOHJl!112

The reader sees only the shadowy figures of both sleeping and reeling muzhiks, and hears fragments of conversation that are often very amusing, as when a half-tipsy village lad complains to his girl in the dark: " K y # a ace TM, OjieHyimca? I T o c t o h ! e m e HUM npHHHHKa, Tbi, KaK 6jioxa n p o B o p u a » , H a e n a c b — H ynpbirayjia, llornaflHTb He flajracb!"113

In the same chapter (III) there is the famous passage in which a tipsy muzhik stands up and, in a fiery speech, justifies the peasants' drinking as their only means of momentarily forgetting their miseries. The idea here is similar to the one expressed by Nekrasov in his early poem, "Wine" (1848), but is clothed with a fine poetic language, showing that the poet had at long last achieved his goal of artistic perfection. In Part II of Who is Happy in Russia Nekrasov, through deliberate use of certain descriptive adjectives and similes, made the old Prince Utjatin to appear as grotesque and repulsive as some of Gogol's characters. He managed to do it without impairing the folk style of the passage: XyflOH, KaK 3aHUbi 3 h m h h c , Becb 6eir, h rnanica 6 e n a a , BbicoKaa, c OKOJibimeM M3 KpacHoro cyKHa. H o c k j i i o b o m , KaK y flCTpe6a, Y e w ceflwe, fljiHHHwe H — pa3Hbie r n a 3 a : O f l H H 3flOpOBbIH

CBeTHTCH,

A jieBbiii — MyTHbiii, nacMypHWH, KaK 0Ji0BflHHbiii rporn! 1 1 4

Some of the stylistic devices peculiar to folk poetry are abundantly exemplified in this highly descriptive passage. These are: 1. Parallel repetition of certain words: 112

Ibid., p. 193 tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 47. Ibid., p. 194, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 48. 114 Nekrasov, "Komu na Rusi zit' xoroso" (Part II, Chapter 1), op. cit., p. 318, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 120. 113

"WHO IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

183

Becb 6eji, h manKa Gejiaa ... 2. Use of certain logically related adjectives: Yew cefltie, /uiHHHbie ... A jieBbiii — MyTHbift, nacMypHbift . . .

3. Analogous comparisons (similes): Xyaoft, x a n

3 a 0 u t i 3hmhhc ... H o c k j i w b o m , xaK y acTpe6a ... ... MyTHbift, nacMypHbift, KaK ojioBHHHbrii r p o r n !

Regarding the poet's use of comparisons, S. Suvalov observed: "Nekrasov's poetry is not distinguished by any unusual wealth of analogous images, but nevertheless they occur quite often: every 65 lines we find at least one comparison, and there are more than 500 in all his poetry." 115 There is little doubt that Nekrasov considered this particular stylistic device very effective and resorted to it rather frequently. Proofs of this are found throughout Who is Happy in Russia, but especially in Parts II and III. In literary craftsmanship, Part II equals other parts of the poem. The vividness of all the scenes is remarkable. Be it Utjatin addressing the peasants, Vlas telling the story, Klim pretending to be a zealous village bailiff, or Agap talking back to his master — each scene is colorful, dramatic, and impressive. There is a clear emotional perspective. The picture grows progressively darker as the plot advances, which the poet both relieves and emphasizes with deft touches of wry and occasionally coarse humor. In the story of Agap especially, the notes of sadness and mirth are blended into an original and harmonious lay. Part III of Nekrasov's long poem differs in many respects from Parts I and II. This fact has been pointed out, among others, by Tverdoxlebov: ... Matrena's story ("The Peasant Woman") is characterized by a much greater complexity: it is a self-contained account of a peasant woman's lot from childhood to old age, an account which takes up eight chapters and abounds in numerous digressions from the main topic of the narration; finally, it is an account which includes stories by other characters. ... 116 It should be noted that Part III of Who is Happy in Russia lacks some of the dynamism of Parts I and II, since Matrena mainly tells the seven strangers what happened to her in the past and speaks very little about the present. The only truly dynamic scenes in Part III are those in the prologue and also (perhaps) in Chapter III where Savelij tells of the German administrator being buried alive by the long-suffering peasants. Many Russian literary critics are of the opinion that Nekrasov drew very heavily on folklore materials when writing Who is Happy in Russia. They also point out, 115 116

Suvalov, "Sravnenija v poezii Nekrasova", Sem' poetov (Moscow, 1927), p. 114. Tverdoxlebov, op. cit., p. 133.

184

NEKRASOV'S ART

however, that the poet never copied or adapted these materials mechanically but used them in accordance with the artistic design he had in mind. As Tverdoxlebov aptly remarks, "the poet makes frequent use of oral folk literature not for the sake of poetic ornamentation or falsely understood beauty, but to achieve maximum expression of his artistic concepts and ideas".117 This general remark applies, first and foremost, to Part III, where (according to Andreev) Nekrasov utilized at least three different genres of folk poetry (besides numerous proverbs, sayings, similes, etc.). These are: 1. Funeral laments (poxoronnye pricitanija) 2. Wedding laments (svadebnye pricitanija) 3. Lyrical songs about peasant family life. As noted by Andreev, the poet "takes mainly works of lyrical nature, for it is in such works that the moods, feelings, and thoughts of the peasantry are expressed clearly and directly".118 In the light of what has just been said, it becomes fairly obvious that the form of "a tale in verse", which predominates in Parts I and II of Who is Happy in Russia, was relegated by Nekrasov to the background in Part III (with the exception of the prologue) of the poem. In Part III, it is the folk song that determines the form, the style, the mood and the tone of the narration. Each chapter telling of Matrena's life consists almost entirely of authentic folk songs adapted by Nekrasov from the original texts found by him in the collections of Afanas'ev, Barsov, Rybnikov, and others. The result is a mosaic of forms and styles in which the original and borrowed themes are blended into one vast design. This design reflects the poet's conscious attempt to present the case of the peasant woman to a sympathetic public. Chapter I ("Before Marriage") of Part III is based to a great extent on wedding laments from P. N. Rybnikov's collection.119 At one point, Matrena recalls how her mother wept and lamented at the thought of parting with her: "Kax pti6Ka b Mope CHHee lOpKHeuib Tbi! xaK coJiOByniKO

M3 rHe3flwuiKa nopxHenib!

Hyacaa-TO cropoHymica He caxapoM nocwnaHa,

He MeflOM noJiHTa!

TaM x0Ji0flH0, TaM tojioaho,

in 118 118 120

TaM xoneHyio floneHbKy 06BeioT BeTpbi 6yfiHbie, 06rparoT nepHti bopohh, 06jiaioT new KocMaTbie, M JiioaH 3acMeiOT! ..."12° Ibid., p. 137. Andreev, op. cit., p. 169. Ibid.

Nekrasov, "Komu na Rusi zit' xoroso" (Part III, Chapter I), op. cit., p. 255, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, pp. 190-191.

"WHO IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

185

This lyrical lament, taken from oral folk poetry, has directness and intensity of feeling that conventional poetry could hardly duplicate. Even Ajxenval'd, so critical of Nekrasov as a poet, admired the sheer poetic beauty of the folk songs and laments in The Peasant Woman.121 What he said in his essay could be applied, with some reservations, also to the traditional wedding lament which concludes Chapter I. The original text, found by Nekrasov in Rybnikov's collection of folk songs,122 reads in part thus: IlepBOii pa3 a noKJiOHnnaca, Moa BomoiiiKa c rojiOByiiiKH acaTHiiaca, ¿IpyroH pa3 a noKJioHHJiaca, no6iieKJio Moe 6ejioe jihhhko, Tperaft pa3 a noKnomuiaca, IIOflpCMKaJTH MOH p e 3 B b I HOHCeHbKH . . . 1 2 3

In The Peasant Woman (Chapter I), the order of images is reversed as Matrena tells how she was given in marriage to Filip in a traditional ceremony: BnepBott a noKJiOHHuaca — B3flporHynH hoith pe3Btie;

Btopoh a noKjioHHjraca —

rio6jieKJio 6ejio jihhhko, H b Tperatt noKnoHHuaca, H BomoiiiKa CKaTHJiaca C aeBHHbeft ronoBbi ...124

The sad and apprehensive mood of a young girl about to be married to a stranger, so evident in the folk text, has been preserved intact by Nekrasov. However, the poet, in keeping with his artistic concept, emphasizes Matrena's loss of her girlhood freedom more than the original text did. He does so by simply reversing the sequence of images and thus giving the passage a stronger emotional overtone. Chapter II ("Songs") of Part III consists of several songs describing the unhappy life of a young married woman among strangers (in this case, her in-laws). All these songs are well-known examples of this particular genre of folk poetry.125 Typical in this respect is the first song which tells of the bride's arrival at her husband's house and of her subsequent treatment by her husband's family. Mojioay

aceHy

Myac flOMoft npHBe3,

A pofleHbxa-TO

KaK Ha6pocHTca! fleBepex ee — 121

Ajxenval'd, op. cit., pp. 21-22. Sokolov, "Nekrasov i narodnoe tvorcestvo", Literaturnyj kritik, No. 2 (1938). 123 Rybnikov, Pesni, III (Moscow, 1909), p. 25. 124 Nekrasov, "Komu na Rusi zit' xoroso", op. cit., p. 258, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 195. 126 Andreev, op. cit., p. 170. 122

186

NEKRASOV'S ART PaCTOHHXOIO, A 30JT0Byuiica — merojiHxoio, CBeKop-6aTK>EiKa — T o t MeflBeflimeii, A CBeKpoByuiKa — JIiofloeflHueii, K t o Hepaxoro, K t o Henpaxoio . . . 1 2 6

At least one Russian literary critic thinks that this is a free adaptation by Nekrasov of a well-known folk song whose text he could have found in several published collections of folklore materials. 127 All these possible sources, however, lack the very terseness and vividness which characterize the style of Nekrasov's version. The same, to a lesser extent, could be said of the remaining two songs in Chapter II which present an even gloomier picture of the mistreatment of the wife by her in-laws. These songs have been given by Nekrasov in essentially the same form as their folk originals, the only changes being the omission of the third stanza (in which the wife is kindly spoken to by her husband) in the song "So sleepy, so weary ,.." 128 and the shift of emphasis in the third song, "Hark! The cruel husband ..." It is interesting to note that the folklore text of this last song begins with the words, " M o j revnivyj muz ..." ("My jealous husband ..."), 129 clearly hinting that the wife's unfaithfulness is the reason why she is beaten so mercilessly by her suspicious husband. Nekrasov changed the form and style of the song so as to make it a logical sequence to Matrena's account of the rough treatment she occasionally suffered at the hands of her husband, Filip. One must say, however, that the discrepancy between what happens in the song and what actually happened to Matrena is too obvious not to be noted. This gloomy passage is followed, almost in the next breath, by Matrena's loving description of Demuska, her first-born. He is described by her in a typical folk fashion, with these simple and yet poetic words: Kaic micaHbiH 6 M J I ^eMyiiiKa! K p a c a B3HTa y co;mbuiiKa, y CHery 6ejiH3Ha, y Maicy ry6hi ajiwe, EpoBb nepHaa y c o 6 o j i h , y c o 6 o j i h cn6npcKoro, y coKona m a 3 a ! 1 3 0 126

Nekrasov, "Komu na Rusi zit' xoroso", op. cit., p. 259, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be pp. 196-197. 127 Cukovskij, Masterstvo, pp. 483-486. 128 Andreev, op. cit., pp. 170-171. 129 Quoted after Cukovskij, Masterstvo, p. 495. 130 Nekrasov, "Komu na Rusi zit' xoroso", op. cit., p. 264, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be p. 202.

Happy,

Happy,

" W H O IS HAPPY IN RUSSIA"

187

Similar folk concepts of beauty are reflected in the flattering phrases with which Sitnikov, the manager of the landowner's estate, would accost Matrena whenever her husband happened to be away: — Tbi imcaHaa Kpaneiica,

Tbi HanHBHaa aroflica ...131 All this is another proof of the closeness of Nekrasov's style in Who is Happy in Russia to that of folk poetry. In Chapter III ("Savelij, the Hero of Holy Russia") of this closeness remains not a trace. Of course, it could be argued that the peasant hero (bogatyr') Savelij resembles in some respects the legendary and half-legendary Russian folk characters of Svjatogor and Il'ja Muromec. 132 Even if this were true, the digression about Savelij seems to spoil the perfect symmetry of the over-all artistic design of The Peasant Woman. Its "civic" theme is quite obvious, and its propagandistic tone can hardly go unnoticed. The predominantly lyric note of the poem was restored by Nekrasov in Chapter IV ("Demuska"), based almost entirely on folklore materials. 133 Seeking to depict Matrena's tragedy (the loss of her first-born son) as vividly as possible, the poet turned to Barsov's collection of folk laments, published in 1872. In it he found many appropriately sad songs and wails by the already mentioned Irina Fedosova, which he eventually adapted to the style of his poem and included in the text of Chapter IV. Among these, there is another folk parallel involving a mother bird and a human mother: OK, jiacTOHKa! oii, rnyna»!

He Beii rue'ian nofl 6eperoM, n o f l 6eperoM K p y t w m ! M t o a e i i b — t o npn6aBnsieTCfl Bo,na b pexe: 3anbeT oHa fleTeHbiiueH t b o h x . 1 3 4

There is little doubt that the style and form of Part III of Who is Happy in Russia benefited greatly from the poet's consistency in using materials taken from oral folk poetry. Andreev aptly observes: "Materials which have the necessary emotional intensity are utilized by the poet almost in their original form; those which do not, are adapted and changed by him. Along with this, Nekrasov improves the artistic quality of folklore material: while using the methods of folk poetry, he at the same time strives to re-arrange the material and increase its artistic expressiveness." 135 The element of folklore does indeed permeate the style of Nekrasov's long poem, 131

Ibid., p. 265, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 204. Andreev, op. cit., p. 176; Tverdoxlebov, op. cit., p. 87. 133 Andreev, Ibid., p. 171. 134 Nekrasov, "Komu na Rusi zit' xoroso", op. cit., p. 279, tr. by J. Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 225. 135 Andreev, op. cit., p. 174. 132

188

NEKRASOV'S ART

with the notable exception of some chapters of Part IV. Even the main topic of Who is Happy in Russia, the search for a happy man, was taken by the poet from folklore. Consequently, the form and style of a Russian fairy tale (skazka) would seem eminently suited to his narrative, and were actually used by him in the prologue to Part 1 of the poem. In Part II, the element of folklore is manifest in riddles, adages or sayings, often incorporated by the author into peasant dialogue to enhance the effectiveness of the latter, as in the following example : "IlpHfleT nopa nocneflHaa: 3aefleM Bee b yxa6, H e Bbieflew HHtcaic, B KpoMeuiHbiii a« npoBajiHMca, TaK JKjieT h TaM KpecTbHHHHa Pa6oTa Ha rocnofl!" — H t o » TaM t o 6y.neT, KnHMymica?

"A 6yfleT, hto Ha3HaneHO : Ohh b KOTJie KHneTb, A Mbi «posa noflKnaflbiBaTb!" (CMeiOTCH MyXHKH.)136

The instances of Nekrasov's use of folklore are especially numerous in Part III, which is actually a story within a story: in it, a peasant woman's tale of woe is interrupted or accompanied by lyrical songs about family life, by traditional wedding and funeral laments, etc. The "folk" style is still evident in Part IV, but only through Chapter III, after which it is displaced by Nekrasov's "civic" style, used whenever the author wishes to make a social point. In this closing part of Who is Happy in Russia, however, even the folklore material (mainly songs and legends) is utilized by Nekrasov to depict the evils of serfdom, officially abolished in 1861. Among Nekrasov's works, Who is Happy in Russia stands out as a poetic but nevertheless realistic portrayal of Russian rural life in the post-Reform period, besides being a veritable treasury of Russian folklore. It is a cornucopia of folk songs, tales, beliefs, customs, sayings, and proverbs. While one could argue that most of these are not Nekrasov's original creations but his adaptations of folklore material, it was the poet that gave them artistic form in harmony with his folk "epic". His use of the authentic language of the peasant was unerring and therefore taken for granted. By its artistic subtlety it enhances the folk-tale atmosphere of Who is Happy in Russia. The muzhik, despite his humble social status, his poverty, and his human faults, seemed to be able to find (or at least it appeared so to Nekrasov) some comfort in his philosophical attitude toward life. The poet, perhaps a trifle wistfully, stressed this and other qualities of the peasant character in many of his poems written between 1846 and 1876. But the one poem in which he brought all the traits of the peasant nature into focus, is — and will remain — Who is Happy in Russia. 136 Nekrasov, "Komu na Rusi zit' xoroso", op. cit., p. 344, tr. by J .Soskice in Who Can Be Happy, p. 159.

XIII NEKRASOV'S MOTHER IN HIS POETRY

There are several reasons why Nekrasov's mother, who died in 1841, occupies a prominent place in his poetry. First of all, her love for him was the only bright reminiscence of his otherwise unhappy and gloomy childhood. She was his only friend and best teacher in those years: she read to him, encouraged him to write poetry, shielded him from his father's anger, and — contrary to the latter's wishes — urged her son to obtain a university education. And it was she who opened his eyes to human suffering around him and, by her own example, taught him to love his fellow human beings and feel compassion for them. Her romanticism and idealism, her capacity for emotion and tender passion, were the traits that Nekrasov inherited from her and, in turn, embodied in his poetry. Secondly, as some critics surmise, it was only after her death that the poet began to realize how much she had loved him and what she had done for him. Perfectly normal feelings of guilt and remorse undoubtedly entered into his poetic idealization of his mother throughout the rest of his life. To her he dedicated many of his lyrics, some of which are extremely moving, like "A Knight for an Hour". It might perhaps be interesting to examine these poems in chronological order, so as to see how different Nekrasov's portrayal of his mother is in each of them. In his strongly autobiographical "Homeland" ("Rodina"), written in 1846, the poet's mother appears to him as a helpless but patient victim of her husband's cruelty: BOT

TeMHwii, TeMHbiii caa ... Heft

JIHK B

ajiee .aajibHOft

M e J i b K a e T M«K BeTBeii, 6 o n e 3 H e H H o - n e i a j i b H b i f t ?

51 3Haio, OTiero TH njiaieiiib, MaTb MO A! KTO ?KH3Hb TBOIO cry6HJi ... o! 3Haio, 3Haio a! ... HaBeKH oTflaHa yrpwMOMy HeBeawe, He npeaaBanacb TH Hec6biTOHHOH Hafleacae —• Te6a nyrana Mbioib BoccraTb nporaB cyflbSbi, Tbi xcpe6nii CBOH Hecna B MOJiiaHHH pa6w ... H o 3Haio: He 6wna ziyura TBO» 6eccTpacTHa, OHa 6bma ropaa, ynopHa H npeicpacHa, M Bee, HTO BbmecTH B Te6e flocrajio CHJI, ripeflCMepTHHii rnenoT TBOH ry6HTenio npocTHJi! ... 1 1

Nekrasov, "Rodina", op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 68-69, tr. by O. Elton in A Book of Russian Verse, p. 69.

190

NEKRASOV'S ART

She dies, like Christian martyrs did, after forgiving him who caused her death. The contrast between the father he hated and the mother he worshiped must have been firmly engraved on Nekrasov's mind, for he used it again as a theme in 1856 in his poem, "The Unfortunates" ("Nescastnye"). The passage which is most characteristic here is the one in which the poet speaks of himself as a little boy who, hiding in a corner with his mother, is a witness to the drunken carousing of his father and the latter's companions, whom he mistrusts and hates: H 6jieflHtiH ManbHHK, y c t c h h

npnacaBniHCb, cnymaeT npnueacHO M c m o t p h t » a f l H O (y3Haio

ripHBbiHKy flercKyio mow) ... necHH yflantie nofl TonoT njiacKH yzianoii; TjiflflHT, Kax MauiH KpyroBbie IlycTeioT 6bicrpoii nepezicw; KaK Ha jieTy xycKH xBaTaroT H pot 3axjionbiBaioT new, Kax Ha TeHH pacTyT, KHBaror EOJIblHHeflHflHHblyCbl ... CMeioTCH rocTH Haa peSeHKOM, H t o cjimiuht?

H nefi-TO t o j i o c roBopHT:

"He npaBfla jib, oh Bcerfla rnaflHT KaKHM-TO TpaBneHbiM b o j i h o h k o m ?

IloflH ciofla!" BjieflHecT MaTb; 2 B o j t h o h o k c m o t p h t — h h h rnary. The boy's devotion to his mother shows clearly in his refusal to obey the wish of one of his father's friends. He clings to her, seeking comfort in her love for him, trying to forget his frightening experience. Such experiences must have been fairly common in the poet's childhood, for he refers to them in the same poem as a "depressing dream" (tjazelyj son). In "A Knight for an H o u r " ("Rycar' na cas"), written in the year 1860, Nekrasov combined his idealization of his mother with an expression of his feeling of failure and his fear of death. The poem begins with a description of the poet taking a walk in the country at night. Vainly striving to overcome his melancholy and pensive mood, he walks through fields and meadows, finally succumbing to a deep sadness. B 3Ty HOib a xoTen 6bi pwflaTb Ha Mornjie flajieKofi, Tfle jieacHT MOH 6eflHas MaTb ... 3 In his thoughts, Nekrasov sees the country church where his mother is buried; and, in his half-waking and half-dreaming state, he hears the bells of the church strike 2 3

"Nescastnye", Ibid., p. 268. "Rycar' na cas", Ibid., Vol. II, p. 61.

NEKRASOV'S MOTHER IN HIS POETRY

191

m i d n i g h t . H e c a n a l m o s t see his d e a d m o t h e r , w h o m h e a d d r e s s e s as if s h e w e r e still alive: nOBHflaftCH CO MHOK), pOflHMa«! IloMBHCb JierKott TeHbio Ha MHr! Bcio Tbi acH3Hb npoacHJia HeJiio6HMaa, Bcio t h xcH3Hb npoacHJia ana flpyrax. C rojioBoii, SypaM hch3hh o t k p w t o i o , Becb CBOH BeK no,zi rp030i0 cepflHToro n p o c r o s n a TH, — rpyflbio CBoeft 3amHmaH jho6HMHX fleieii. H rpo3a Haa TO6om pa3pa3Hnaca! Tw, He flporayB, yflap npHHHJia, 3a BparoB, yMHpaa, MOUHJiaca, Ha fleTeii MHJiocTb Bora 3Bajia.4 A n d t h e n t h e p o e t a s k s a s o m e w h a t r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n of h e r w h o c a n n o t a n s w e r h i m : HeyacenH 3a r o a w crpajiaHHH, T o t , k t o ctoju>ko to6ok> 6 h j i hthm, H e nornneT Te6e paaocTb CBHflaHH« C nora6aiomHM c h h o m tbohm? ... 5 I n t h e lines t h a t f o l l o w , N e k r a s o v s p e a k s of his u r g e t o u n b u r d e n himself t o h i s m o t h e r of his "grief o f m a n y y e a r s " , as if h e w e r e still h e r child. I t is f o r h e r , h e says, t h a t h e will sing his "last b i t t e r s o n g " . H e begs h e r f o r g i v e n e s s f o r m a k i n g h e r s u f f e r a g a i n i n s t e a d o f c o m f o r t i n g h e r , b u t h e h a s n o c h o i c e ; s h e is t h e o n l y o n e w h o c a n save h i m f r o m spiritual d e a t h . 5\ 3acTaBiuo CTpaflaTt Te6a BHOBb, H o h ra6Hy — h pa/in cnaceHHa R t b o k ) npH3biBaio juo6oBb! Si. noio Te6e necHb noicaaHHa, H t o 6 m KpOTKHe OHM TBOH Cmhjih xcapxoii cjiesoio crpaaaHHa Bee no3opHbie naraa moh! H t o 6 Ty cHJiy CBo6oflHyio, ropayio, M t o b mow 3ajioacHna t h rpyflb, YKpeiiHJia t w BOJieK) TBepfloio H Ha npaBbift nocraBHna nyTb ... 6 H e n o w sees his m o t h e r ( o r so it a p p e a r s t o h i m ) a s s h e actually w a s , " l i g h t - h a i r e d , blue-eyed, w i t h silent grief o n h e r p a l e l i p s " — a n d h e a d d r e s s e s h e r a g a i n :

4 6 6 7

a BHacy Te6a, 6jieflH0HHqyi0, M Ha cya t b o h ce6a OTflaro. He po6eTb nepea npaBfloii-uapHueio Hayrajia Tbi My3y mok> ... 7 Ibid., p. 62. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 62-63. Ibid., p. 63.

192

NEKRASOV'S ART

Having thus acknowledged his debt to his mother for instilling in him a deep sense of moral responsibility, Nekrasov abruptly turns from hope to despondency. He bewails his spiritual deterioration, the result of passion and greed. Even his mother's prayers, which so often kept him from tumbling into the abyss, could not prevent his ultimate downfall. He has sunk into "the filthy mire of petty thoughts and passions". But perhaps his mother, through some miracle, can still save him? The poet implores her once again: OT JTHKyioiUHx, npa3flHO 6oirraiomHX, 06arp«K>mnx pyKH b k p o b h , YBeflH MeHH B cTaH norH6aK>mHx

3a BenHKoe fleno jik>6bh!8

And then, in utter despair (as there seems to be no hope for him any more), he says that only one thing is left to him now: Tot, Mb» )KH3Hb 6ecn0Jie3H0 pa36HJiacH, MojKeT cMepTbio eme aojcasaTb, H t o b HeM cepaue He po6Koe 6hjioch, HTO yMen OH JHoSHTb ...9 But the next morning, all his resolution (even that of asserting himself through death) is gone in a recurring wave of depression that engulfs his soul. Nekrasov bitterly remarks that he woke up "weaker than a little child", and what he took to be the source of his strength has turned out to be the source of his fear: 3Haio: jjeHb npoBaiiaiocb yHbmo, Honbio 6ypy MHKCTypy rJioTaTb, M nyraTb mchh 6yfleT Mornna, Tfle jie»HT moh SeflHaa MaTb.10 His spiritual writhing becomes even more intense. The failure of his deeds to measure up to his ideals is extended to his whole generation. A "mocking, inner voice" says to him — and to his contemporaries: "IlOKOpHCb — o, HHHTOHCHOe mieMJl! Hen36e>KHOH h ropbKoii cyflb6e, 3axBaTHJio Bac TpyziHoe BpeMH HeroTOBbiMH K TpyflHoii 6opb6e. Bbi eme He b Morane, b h » h b w , HofljiHflenabm MepTBbi flaBHO, CyacfleHbi BaM Gnarae nopbiBM, Ho CBepuiHTb HHHero HeflaHO,.."11 8

•

10 11

Ibid., p. 64. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

NEKRASOV'S MOTHER IN HIS POETRY

193

At this point the poem ends. It ends not with the radiant picture of Nekrasov's mother but with the melancholy image of the "superfluous man" whose traits are unmistakable to anyone familiar with Russia's history of the time. Written in 1860, on the eve of the Emancipation, "A Knight for an Hour" is a poignant expression of the poet's pessimism and his inability to rid himself of a deep sense of guilt. Morbid though its moods may be, it remains one of the best lyrical poems by Nekrasov. A very interesting poem is "Mother" ("Mai"'), written in 1868. It is said that Nekrasov explained the subject with a marginal note: "I think it is obvious; the wife of a political exile or prisoner." 12 Others believe that it contains at least an indirect description of Nekrasov's mother. 13 Within her heart o'erflowing care was preying, And while her sons in noisy frolics vie, Three children round their mother gaily playing, Her lips in pensive tone made whisper, saying: "My hapless sons, why were you born, o why? However straight your way of life — o hearken, Escape is none from your appointed fate." 14

The "fate" to which the woman in the poem refers is apparently that of orphans of an executed political prisoner. It is also possible to extend the meaning of the Russian word sud'ba (fate or destiny) to the general unhappiness of the Russian people at the time. In the second part of the poem, Nekrasov addresses the grieving mother directly and gives her advice and comfort: With anxious care do not their pleasure darken, O martyr-mother, cease, thy tears abate, And let their tender youth from thee be learning, That times there are of ageless nights and morns In which we deem the goal of dearest yearning, The fairest gift on earth — a crown of thorns ... l 5

This is a far cry from "A Knight for an Hour", where Nekrasov represented himself as his mother's "lost son" in dire need of her love and comfort. In "Mother", in a sudden outburst of spiritual strength, he seems to be giving advice (in a somewhat sententious manner) to a grief-stricken woman who bears some resemblance to his mother. The poem lacks the sincerity of feeling that is so manifest in "A Knight for an Hour". The most ample reference to Nekrasov's mother is found in his "Excerpts from the Poem Mother" ("Otryvki iz poemy Mat"'), published in his last collection of 12

Nekrasov, Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. II, commentary, p. 432. Lebedev-Poljanskij, op. cit., p. 11. Nekrasov, "Mat"', Sobr. soc. v 8-mi tomax, Vol. II, p. 251, tr. by Sir Cecil Kisch in The Waggon of Life (London, 1947), p. 43. 15 Ibid. 13 14

194

NEKRASOV'S ART

poems (1877). In it, she is portrayed as her son still remembers her: a loving parent, a gentle teacher, a shining example of Christian virtue to be admired and imitated. Nekrasov is not afraid or ashamed of placing his mother on a pedestal. As he says at the very beginning of the poem, B H a c M e i m i H B O M h A e p 3 K O M H a u i e M Beice B e r a i K o e , C B H T o e CJIOBO : M a T b

He npo6y3KflaeT MyBCTBa B lenoBeice. H o h npHBbiK o 6 b i n a f t n p e 3 H p a T b . SI H e 6 0 K > C b HaCMeiDJlHBOCTH M O f l H O f t . 1 6

Moreover, Nekrasov feels his long-forgotten duty to render tribute to his mother and make others realize what a unique woman she was: A M H o r o neT cpe^H T p y a o B H neHH C nocTbiflHbiM M a n o f l y u i b e M

y6eran

n n e H H T e n b H O H , M H o r o c T p a a a j i b H o f t TCHH, fljia

n a M f l r a CBjimeHHOH . . . M a c H a c T a j i ! . . .

SI H e n i u y e f t n o 3 f l H e r o B e r n i a , H o ft KOiy,

M T 0 6 CBCT flyiHH BblCOKOft

C H H J I FLJW B a c , c p e f l b IIOJIHOHH r j i y 6 o K o i i , IL0FL06H0 eft HecnacTHbie c e p a u a ! 1 7

At this point, the poet begins to have misgivings about disturbing his mother's eternal rest, and he begs her forgiveness for doing so again. But his excuse is, he points out, the need to have the world know of a woman's cross: Ebm>

MoaceT,

a npecTynHO

nocTynaio,

T p e B O M t a COH TBOH, M a T b MOH? n p o c ™ ! H o a BCK> 5KH3Hb 3 a » c e H m H H y C T p a n a i o . K CBo6ofle eft 3aKa3aHbi

nyra;

I T o 3 o p H b i f t n n e H , B e c b y s x a c ateHCKoft

Eft a n a

6 o p b 6 b i ocTaBHJi

Mano

flojra,

CHJI,

H o T b i e f t a a u i b y p o K >Kene3H0H BOJIH . . . E j i a r o c n o B H , p o f l H a a : Mac n p o 6 n j i ! B r p y f l H KHnHT p w f l a i o m H e 3ByKH, n o p a , n o p a HM BBepHTb

Mbicnb

MOIO!

T B O I O J l K ) 6 0 B b , TBOH CBJITbie M y K H , TBOW 6 o p b 6 y —

NOFLBHJKHHUA, n o i o !

...18

This lyrical introduction (I) is followed by Part II, in which the poet goes back to his childhood and evokes long-forgotten sights and events on his family estate. Thus, for example, the linden trees remind him of his mother's fondness for walking in their shade; and the tombstone on her grave makes him recall what he would rather forget: that she died just before he came back from Petersburg. He speaks to her, as a son would speak to his mother, tenderly and without fear: 16 17

>8

N e k r a s o v , " O t r y v k i i z p o e m y Mat"', Ibid. Ibid.,

pp. 365-366.

Sobr.

soc.

v 8-mi

tomax,

V o l . II, p . 3 6 5 .

NEKRASOV'S MOTHER IN HIS POETRY y

195

t o h ruiHTbi, r « e t m j i e « H u i b , p o f l H a a ,

O p m i o M H H J i H, B O J i H y a c b h M e H T a a ,

H t o Mor e m e yBHfleTbc» c t o 6 o h , M o n o 3 f l a n ! H >kh3hh TpyflOBOft R n p e a a H 6biJi, h CTpacra, h HeB3roflaM, 3axjiecTHyT 6mji a hcbckoio b o j i h o h ... SI p a « , h t o Tbi He n o f l ceMeiiHbiM c b o a o m F I o r p e G e H a — TaM ayiiiHO, c o j m u a HeT;

H e 6yaeT TaM jieacaTb h t b o h i i o s t . . . 1 9

At this point there is a gap in the poem, the reason for which is unknown. Then Nekrasov recalls a letter that he found among his mother's papers, and again a train of recollections comes to his mind. In his imagination, he goes into the garden halfexpecting his mother to appear. She does appear to him — walking in the moonlight, a letter in her hand: R acflan ee — n He HanpacHo « f l a n ... OHa HfleT; t o MeaneHHbi, t o c k o p h E e uiarH, mtcbMo b ee pyice ... OHa HfleT ... BHHMaTejibHbie B3opbi Flo HeM CKOJib3HT b TpeBore h t o c k c . " T b i BHOBb CO MHOll!

HeBOJlbHO BOCKJlHUaiO, —

Tbi BHOBb c o m h o h . . . " K p y » H T c a r o n o B a ... My, raxHii n n a n , ny, rnenoT! f{ bhhmek> — CjroBa nncbMa — 3HaK0Mbie cuoBa! 2 0

Here follows Part III, which opens with an apparently authentic letter written to Elena Andreevna (Nekrasov's mother) by her Polish mother. The letter is replete with a mother's sorrow over her daughter's running away and becoming "a slave to a hated Muscovite" (Nekrasov's father); it ends with a final plea for Elena to return to Poland — a plea which, as we already know, went unheeded. Suddenly the vision disappears, the voice fades, and the poet finds himself alone in a moonlit garden, clutching the letter in his hand. Another fragment follows, in which Nekrasov leafs through the books that his mother brought with her "from a faraway land" (i.e., Poland). He reads the chance remarks she put in the margins, and comments in a tone of deep conviction: "A searching, penetrating mind is evident in these." 21 Suddenly he feels compelled to read the fateful letter once more — and, as he does it, a poetic image of his mother again appears before his eyes. M cHOBa njiaxaji a, h flyivian Ha« nncbMOM, M BHOBb ero n p o i e n BHHMaieJibHO c Hanana, M KpoTKaa ayiiia, Tep3aeMan b hcm, BnepBbie npeflo m h o h b Kpace cBoeft npeflCTana ... 19 20 21

Ibid., p. 367. Ibid., p. 368. Ibid., p. 370.

NEKRASOV'S ART

196

H Hepa3jryMHOfo ocTajiacb t h c Tex nop, O , MaTb-cTpaaajiHua! c t b o h m nenajibHMM c h h o m ,

Te6a, tbohx cjieflOB HCKan nosciofly B3op, flocyr mom: npeaaH 6bm npouieflinero KapTHHaM.22

In the subsequent stanzas, full of autobiographical reminiscences, Nekrasov tells how his mother awakened his interest in literature by telling him stories "about knights, monks, and kings" when he was a little boy. Later on, when he himself began to read, he understood what literature meant both to his mother and to himself: I I o t o m , K o r a a 4HTa.ii a Rama

h UleKcnapa,

Ka3ajiocb, a BCTpeian 3HaKOMbie Hep™: To o6pa3bI H3 hx »HBoro MHpa B MoeM yMe HanenaTJieJia TH. H CTan a noHHMaTb, rfle Mbicub t b o h 6jiyMCflajia,

Tae Tbi flyinoH, CTpa^ajiHua, >KHJia, K o r ^ a KpyroM HacHJibe nracoBajio ...23

Here Nekrasov's thoughts turn once more to his early childhood, when his mother was to him "a nurse and a guardian angel". He speaks with compassion of the suffering brought upon her by her decision to leave her country and to marry a stranger: B h h o m xpaio, He MeHee HecnacTHOM,

Ho MeHee cypoBbiM posmeHa, Ha ceBepe yrpMMOM h HeHacraoM B ocbMHaauaTb neT yac t h 6biJia oflHa.

T o t pa3Jiio6HJi, KOMy cyflb6y Bpyinna, C KeM b HyjKflbiii KpaftflOBepiHBOnouina, Yac OH He TBOH, HO Tbi He pa3JIK>6HJia, Tbi pa3nio6HTb flo rpo6a He Morna ... 24

Then he recalls another incident from his childhood, that of his mother playing the piano in one of her sad moods. However, she tried to appear "poised and cheerful" to others, including her son. And when comparing her own lot with that of the people of Russia, she thought that she was perhaps the less unfortunate: "HeciacTHa a, Tep3aeMaa apyroM, Ho npea to6oh, o aceHmHHa-pa6a! nepea pa6oM, corHyBiiiHMca Has nnyroM, Moa cyflb6a —- 3aBHflHaa cyflb6a! Heciacraa t h , o po^HHa! a 3Haio: Becb Kpafi b kpobh, Becb 3apeB0M o 6 m t ... Ho Kpaii, r«e a jho6jho h yivuipaio, HecnacTHee, HecnacTnee CTOKpaT! ,.."25 "

23 21 26

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 371. Ibid.

N E K R A S O V ' S MOTHER IN HIS POETRY

197

A t this point, the poet begins to realize that he has become enmeshed in a bewildering maze of disconnected recollections; his poem is turning into a chaos. Nevertheless, he has to make one final effort to accomplish the task he set before himself — that of enshrining his mother in people's memory. He hopes that his poetic art, inspired by his filial love, will not fail him this time: ft o n o 3 f l a J i ! a MeflJieHHO h p o b h o

3aBeTHbift Tpyfl He b citriax coBepuiHTb, Ho a aep3Hy b KapraHe ManocnoBHoft TBOKI cym>6y, p o f l H a a , coBMecraTb.

M a cMory! ... IIoMoaceT MHe ncKyccTBO, IIoMOHceT cMepTb — a cxopo HyaceH en ... Mana cjie3a — h o b Heii h 3 6 m t o k nyBCTBa Hto OKeaH 6e36pe»(HbiH nepea Heft! ... 2e

...

In the last section of the poem, which artistically seems to be the best, Nekrasov portrays his mother as a woman of great spiritual strength. T o him she is a heroine, who "dragged her chains with her" for twenty years until she died. In death she achieved her ultimate moral victory over those who had wronged her; her love conquered them in the end: M BcnwxHyji fleHb! Oh tboh: tm no6eflnna! y H o r t b o h x — a e T e i l t b o h x OTeu,

CeMba aaBHo bhhm tboh npocTHJia, JIo63aeT pa6 TepHOBbiii TBoii BeHeu ... Ho ... flBaauaTb jict! ... KaK cjiaaKo, yMHpaa, B3floxHyjia tm ... KaK thxo yMepjia! O, CKOJibKO chji ABHJia Tbi, poflHaa, KaKHM nyTeM k no6e«e t h npHiuna! ,.. 27 Nekrasov recognizes his mother's spiritual greatness ( " Y o u r soul glows like a diamond ...") as revealed by the way in which she lived and died. He speaks with admiration of her loving and kind attitude toward the peasants. In spite of her limited powers, she brought hope, comfort and sometimes inspiration to many a household serf in Gresnevo: 06peneHa Ha CKpoMHyio 6opb6y,

Tbi He Morjia ronoflHOMy aaTb xneSa, Tbi He Morjra CBo6oflbi nan pa6y. Ho jihuihhh pa3 He cacano nyBCTBO cTpaxa Ero ayuiH — tw t o fla^a pa6aM, — H o j i h u i h h h p a 3 H3 TpeneTa h n p a x a O h n o f l H a j i B 3 o p 6oflpee k He6ecaM ... 2 S

28 27 28

Ibid., p. 372. Ibid. Ibid.

198

NEKRASOV'S ART

The last two stanzas of the poem are extremely interesting, for it is in these that Nekrasov openly acknowledges his mother's influence on his mature attitudes. H ecu« a Jierxo crpaxHyji c roflaMH C .ayiiiH Moett TueTBopHbie cjie«H nonpaBuieii Bee pa3yMHoe HoraMH, ropflHBIIieHCH HeBOKeCTBOM cpeflbi, H ecuH a HanonHHJi >KH3Hb 6opb6oio 3a Hflean aoSpa h KpacoTw, H h o c h t necHb, c n a r a e M a « m h o m , 5Khboh jik>6bh i JryGoKHe i e p T b i —

O MaTb MOH, noflBHrayT % TO6OK>! Bo MHe cnacna »HByro ay my tm! 29 "Excerpts from the Poem Mother" was written less than a year before the poet's death. It ends on a far more optimistic note than, for example, "A Knight for an Hour". Nekrasov indeed believes that he, at long last, has been able to express how much his mother meant to him, and to render to her the kind of tribute that can only come from a grateful and loving son. Even if he exalts his mother's Christian virtues, he does not make a deliberate effort to set her up as an example for others. He does it inobtrusively through his poetry which immortalizes his mother in this unique and most personal poem. "Lullaby" ("Bajuski-baju"), also written in the year 1877 (on March 3), is the very last poem that Nekrasov dedicated to his mother. In it the poet, already on his deathbed, sees her and hears her comforting voice as she says to him: "ITopa c noJiyaeHHoro 3hoh! Ilopa, nopa noa ceHb noKoa; Y c h h , ycHH, KacaraK Moii!

IIpHiiMH TpyflOB BeHeu acenaHHbiH, y * Tbi He pa6 — Tbi uapb BeHiaHHbiH; H h h t o He BnacTHO Hafl t o 6 o h ! He CTpauieH rpo6, a c h h m 3HaKOMa; H e 6ohch mojihhh h rpoMa, He 6oiicH uerm h 6nia, H e 6 o h c h flaa h Meia,

HH 6e33aKOHbH, HH 3aKOHa, Hh yparaHa, hh rpo3bi, H h MenoBeHecKoro CTOHa, H h nejioBeiecKOH cne3bi.

Ychh, CTpaaajieu TepnejiHBbiii! CB060flH0H, rOpflOii H CiaCTJlHBOH YBHAHUIb pOflHHy CB0K3, BaK)-6aio-6aio-6aK)! "

Ibid., p. 373.

NEKRASOV'S MOTHER IN HIS POETRY

199

Eme BHepa nioflCKaa 3Jio6a Te6e oGmiy HaHecua; BceMy KOHeq, He 6ohch rpo6a! H e 6yflenib 3HaTb t h 6onbiiie 3Jia!

He 6oitca KJieBeTW, poflHMwii, Tbi 3annaTHJi eft aa.ub khboh, H e 6ohch cTyacH HecTepnHMOft: Si cxopoHio Te6a BecHoft".30

In the last stanza of the poem, the image of his mother seems to assume a superhuman proportion, that of "Mother Russia", who brings a final message of comfort and hope to her loving son: "He 6ohc» ropbKoro 3a6BeHt>H: y * stflepacyb pyKe Moeft BeHeu jiio6bh, BeHeq npomeHba, flap KpOTKOii pOflHHbl TBOeii ...

YcTynHT CBeTy MpaK ynpHMbiii, ycjibiuiHiub neceHKy cbok> Haa Bojiroft, Han Okoh, Haa KaMOii, Eato-6aio-6aio-6aio! ... " 31 And so, in an extremely moving lyric written shortly before his death, Nekrasov's love for his Polish mother and his Russian motherland became as one.

30 31

Nekrasov, "Bajuski-baju", Ibid., pp. 376-377. Ibid., p. 377.

CONCLUSION

If Nekrasov's poetry is judged solely on its artistic merits to the exclusion of its ideology, there is little doubt that Nekrasov's best poems were written between 1860 and 1865. Exception should be made here for Who is Happy in Russia (1863-1876), which stands out among his rather mediocre productions of the time as a monument to his poetic genius. With this one reservation, the following statement by Cukovskij about Nekrasov could be accepted at its face value: ... He was wholly in the power of the rising and falling tide of his peculiar gift of rhythm and singing. He was one man when it was on the rise, and another when it was on the decline. The closer his poem is to a song, the nearer it is to being perfect. This gift of pure singing had been developing in Nekrasov slowly and had reached its highest point only toward the 'sixties', when the poet was over forty. In the short period ranging from 1860 to 1865 ... Nekrasov wrote his best poems: "A Knight for an Hour", "The Peddlers", "Peasant Children", "Red-Nose Frost" ... 1

By the same token, Nekrasov's poetic production after 1865 (with the possible exception of Who is Happy in Russia) was an eloquent proof of the rapid decline of his talent in the last ten or twelve years of his life. Typical examples would be poems like "Judgment" (1868), "Recent Times" (1871), and "Russian Women" (1871-1872), all of which are nothing but prose forcibly turned into poetry. The poem "Russian Women" ("Russkie zensciny") was, to be sure, lavishly praised by Nekrasov's contemporaries as being a poetic tribute to the moral courage of the wives of the December 1825 revolutionaries. When judged in the light of its artistic values, however, "Russian Women" is another proof that artfulness rather than art was the dominant characteristic of the poet's production in the 1870's. V. Burenin, a contemporary critic, frankly expressed his opinion with regard to this work: The poem contains but two or three poetic passages, and even these are not quite sustained in tone. ... The remainder is a string of dull and trite verses.2

Cukovskij compares "Russian Women" with Nekrasov's recognized masterpieces (one of them being "The Peddlers"), and comes to the following conclusion: "... Nek1 2

Cukovskij, Nekrasov, kak xudoznik, pp. 46-57. Ibid., p. 57 (See also V. P. Burenin's article, S.-Peterburgskija vedomosti, No. 27). [1873]

CONCLUSION

201

rasov whose tune has failed him, who only writes his poems but does not sing them, is not Nekrasov." 3 This statement is applicable not only to "Russian Women" but to many other poems belonging to the last decade of the poet's life. In our present-day assessment of Nekrasov it is well to keep in mind that he was, first and foremost, a lyrical poet singing his feelings. The best among his poems are the subjective ones, in which he suffers with others or accuses contemporary society both directly and by implication. Here belong many of his poems written in the years 1845-1865: "On the Road", "Homeland", "Reflections at the Grand Entrance", "On the Volga", "The Peddlers", and "Red-Nose Frost". His poetic preoccupation with the Russian peasant shows clearly in all of them, but it reaches its apogee in his folk "epic", Who is Happy in Russia. But there is another group of poems, just as subjective and lyrical, addressed to his mother, to whom he devoted his personal lyrics, "A Knight for an Hour" and "Excerpts from the Poem Mother". Directness of feeling transmuted into lyrical singing, sometimes rough-hewn in form but often exquisite, characterizes Nekrasov's best poems. Wherever these elements are lacking, his poetry becomes a combination of bathos with rhymed journalism (which Turgenev was quick to observe). Nekrasov did not succeed in creating a school of his own: no "peasant" poets came in his wake. But he, more than any other Russian poet, made his contemporaries aware of the existence of the muzhik and his problems. To be sure, he did point out the evils of Tsarist serfdom prior to 1861 and the shortcomings of the Emancipation after 1861 ; but he rendered his most valuable service to his country in general, and to Russian literature in particular, by the artistry with which he did it. Few poets could sing of the beauty of the Russian countryside as Nekrasov did, and few knew as much as he about the Russian peasant, and still fewer could express the truth so laconically and yet so powerfully and poetically. It would be idle to deny Nekrasov's greatness despite his shortcomings as a man and as a poet. His imaginative perception, his complete artistic individuality, his poetic inspiration, and the folksong-like melody of many of his poems, were the traits that made his poetry so refreshingly different from that of the eclectics like Fet and others. As Mirsky points out, Nekrasov "was essentially a rebel against all the stock-in-trade of 'poetic' poetry, and the essence of his best work is precisely the bold creation of a new poetry unfettered by traditional standards of taste". 4 However, the poet's occasional errors of judgment as to artistic taste are more than balanced by the sheer exuberance and energy of his creative genius. V. P. Kranixfel'd, in his essay on Nekrasov, gave this apt characterization of the latter's poetic talent : ... Aside from the fact that the power of Nekrasov's poetry is per se its beauty, we should not forget that he was in full command of his poetic form. And if he at times did not master 3 4

Ibid., pp. 58-59. Mirsky, op. cit., pp. 228-229.

202

CONCLUSION

it completely, it was simply because he gave more importance to the new content of his poetry than to the search for new forms to suit that content. "My poetry was hindered by struggle," the poet stated tersely in one of his poems. However, even in the heat of the battle, he committed few errors ... The less his mood was affected by his civic conscience, the surer his handling of form became. He could mold his verse and command his form with amazing virtuosity. ...6 Writing in an age of prose, Nekrasov faced a dilemma that neither Puskin nor Lermontov had faced: how to prevent his "civic conscience" from affecting his poetic integrity. He found a way out of this dilemma by giving, in his poems, an artistic presentation of important social problems of the time.

5

Kranixfel'd, "Nikolaj Alekseevic Nekrasov", Istorija russkoj literatury XIX veka, Vol. Ill, p. 402.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary

Sources

Nekrasov, N. A., Polnoe sobrante socinenij ipisem, 12 vols,, ed. by V. E. Evgen'ev-Maksimov, A. M. Egolin, and K. I. Cukovskij (Moscow, Goslitizdat, 1948-1953). , Poems, tr. from the Russian by J. M. Soskice (London, Oxford University Press, 1929). , Sobranie socinenij v vos'mi tomax, ed. by K. 1. Cukovskij (Moscow, Izd-vo "Xudozestvennaja literatura", 1965-1966). , Stixotvorenija, 3 vols., with a n introd. by V. Druzin (Leningrad, "Sovetskij pisatel'", 1956). , Stixotvorenija, Polnoe sobranie v odnom tome, 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, Tipografija M. M. Stasjulevica, 1882). , Who Can Be Happy and Free in Russia?, tr. from the Russian by J. M. Soskice (London, Oxford University Press, 1917).

Secondary

Sources

Ajxenval'd, Ju. I., Siluety russkix pisatelej, 2nd ed. (Moscow, Izdanie T-va "Mir", 1909). Andreevskij, S. A., " O Nekrasove", Literaturnye ocerki {St. Petersburg, 1914), pp. 137-172. Avseenko, V., "Real'nejsij poet", Russkij vestnik, No. 7-8 (1874), pp. 432-459. Barsov, E. V. (comp, and ed.). Pricitarìja severnago kraja, I (Moscow, n. p., 1872). Belinskij, V. G., Polnoe sobranie socinenij (Moscow, ANSSSR, 1953-1956). Bitjugova, I. A., K. tvorceskomu portretu N. A. Nekrasova i A. P. Cexova (Stalinir, Gosizdat JugoOsetii, 1959). Bowra, Cecil M. (ed.), A Book of Russian Verse (London, Macmillan, 1947). Briickner, Aleksander, Historja literatury rosyjskiej, 2 vols. (Lwów, Ossolineum, 1922). Cernysevskij. N. G., Polnoe sobranie socinenij v 15-ti tomax (Moscow, Goslitizdat, 1939-1953). Cukovskij, K. I., Masterstvo Nekrasova, 3rd ed. (Moscow, "Sovetskij pisatel'", 1959). , Nekrasov, kak xudoznik (St. Petersburg, "Èpoxa", 1922). Corbet, Charles, Nekrasov, Vhomme et le poète (Paris, Institut d'Études Slaves de l'Université de Paris, 1948). Cornford, Frances, and Esther Salaman (tr.), Poems from the Russian (London, Faber, 1948). Dement'ev, A. G . , O c e r k i p o istorii russkoj zurnalistiki 1840-1850gg. (Moscow-Leningrad, Goslitizdat, 1951). Dostoevskij, F. M., Polnoe sobranie socinenij (St. Petersburg, Izd. A. F. Marksa, n.d.). Dubinskaja, A., N. A. Nekrasov (Moscow, ANSSSR, 1954). Egolin, A. M., Nekrasov i poèty-demokraty 60-80x godov XIX veka (Moscow, Goslitizdat, 1960). (ed.), Nekrasov v russkoj kritike (Moscow, Goslitizdat, 1944). , Principy tipizacii v poèzii Nekrasova (Moscow, Akad. Pedag. Nauk RSFSR, 1957). Erlich, Victor, Russian Formalism (The Hague, Mouton, 1955).

204

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Evgen'ev-Maksimov, V. E. (ed.), N. A. Nekrasov, 1878-1938: Sbornik statej ì materialov (Leningrad, Goslitizdat, 1938). • , Tvorceskijput' N. A. Nekrasova (Moscow, ANSSSR, 1953). , Zizn' i dejatel'nost' N. A. Nekrasova, 1 (Moscow, Goslitizdat, 1947). Gorlenko, V., "Literaturnye debjuty Nekrasova", Otecestvennyja zapiski, No. 12 (1878). Istorija russkoj literatury XIX veka, 5 vols. (Moscow, Izd-vo T-va "Mir", 1908-1910). Jakubovic, P. F., Nekrasov: Ego zizn' i literaturnaja dejatel'nost' (Kazan', n.p., 1922). Jarintzov, Nadine, Russian Poets and Poems, 2 vols. (Oxford, Blackwell, 1917). Katerli, E., Nekrasov (Kaluga, Kaluzskoe kniznoe izd-vo, 1959). Kirpotin, V., Tvorcestvo Nekrasova (Moscow, Sovetskij pisatel'", 1937). Kisch, Sir Cecil (ed.), The Waggon of Life and Other Lyrics by Russian Poets of the Nineteenth Century (London, Oxford University Press, 1947). Koni, A. F., 1821-1921. Nekrasov-Dostoevskij: Po licnym vospominanijam (St. Petersburg, Kooperativnoe izd-vo literatorov i ucenyx, 1921). Kubikov, 1. N., Poèzija Nekrasova (Moscow, "Moskovskij rabocij", 1928). Lavrin, Janko, Russian Writers : Their Lives and Literature (New York, Van Nostrand, 1954). Lebedev-Poljanskij, P. I., N. A. Nekrasov. Kritiko-biograficeskij ocerk (Moscow, Goslitizdat, 1921). Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 56: V. G. Belinskij (Moscow: ANSSSR, 1950). Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 49-50: N. A. Nekrasov, 1 (Moscow, ANSSSR, 1946). Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 53-54: N. A. Nekrasov, 111 (Moscow, ANSSSR, 1949). Mirsky, D . S., A History of Russian Literature, ed. by F. J. Whitfield (New York, Knopf, 1949). Newmarch, Rosa, Poetry and Progress in Russia (London, Lane, 1907). O Nekrasove: Sbornik statej (Jaroslavl', Jaroslavskoe kniznoe izd-vo, 1958). Panaev, I. I., Sobranie socinenij, 6 vols. (Moscow, n.p., 1912). Panaeva, A. Ja., Vospominanija, 1824-1870, 3rd ed. (Leningrad, "Academia", 1929). Peterburgskij listok, No. 107 (1878). Pypin, A. N., N. A. Nekrasov (St. Petersburg, Tipografija M. M. Stasjulevica, 1905). Rybnikov, P. N. (comp, and ed.), Pesni, 3 vols., 2nd ed. (Moscow, n.p., 1909). Severnaja pcela, N o . 236 (1845). Suvalov, S., "Sravnenija v poèzii Nekrasova", Sem' poètov (Moscow, 1927), pp. 113-130. Sokolov, Ju. M., "Nekrasov i narodnoe tvorcestvo", Literaturnyj kritik, No. 2 (1938), pp. 59-73. Stepanov, N. L., N. A. Nekrasov (Moscow, Goslitizdat, 1962). Tverdoxlebov, I. Ju., Poèma Nekrasova "Komu na Rusi zit' xoroso" (Moscow, ANSSSR, 1954). Turgenev, I. S., Polnoe sobranie socinenij i pisem (Moscow, Goslitizdat, 1960- (To be continued). , Sobranie socinenij v 12-ti tomax (Moscow, Goslitizdat, 1949-1956). Vinogradov, V. V., O jazyke xudozestvennoj literatury (Moscow, Goslitizdat, 1959). Zelinskij, V. (ed.), Sbornik kriticeskix statej o Nekrasove, 3 parts in one volume (Moscow, Tipografija E. Lissnera i J. Romana, 1886-1887).

GLOSSARY

Barin (barin) — Master, gentleman (especially when referring to Russian landed gentry). barscina — The forced labor of the serfs for their owners (before 1861). bogatyr' (pi. bogatyri) — A legendary giant, a common hero in Russian folklore. burlak (pi. burlaki) — A Volga barge-hauler (common in nineteenth-century Russia). bylina (pi. byliny) — A special type of epic folk song, often loosely connected with some event in early Russian history. lapti — Russian peasant shoes, made of bast or birch-bark. muzhik (pi. muzhiks or muzhiki) — A Russian peasant (literally: "a little man"). Pomeshchik (pomescik) — The official title of a Russian landowner prior to 1861. pop — A Russian Orthodox priest. Populists — Adherents of a radical political movement in the Russia of the 1870's, 1880's and 1890's. They considered the peasantry the active social class which would supply the motive force in an eventual revolution. posrednik — The official appointed (after 1861) to arrange terms between the landowners and their emancipated serfs. sarafan — A loose sleeveless dress, worn by Russian peasant women with a separate shirt or blouse. skaz — A narrative told by a fictitious narrator and not directly by the author. skazka — A Russian fairy tale. troika — A light carriage drawn by three horses.

SLAVISTIC PRINTINGS A N D REPRINTINGS Edited by C. H. van Schooneveld 2. 3.

The Poetry of Adam Mickiewicz, 1954. 302 pp. Cloth. Glds. 25.— Old Church Slavonic Grammar. Third edition. 1965. 157 pp. Cloth. Glds. 12.— 4. VICTOR ERLICH: Russian Formalism. History — Doctrine. Second, revised edition. 1965. 311pp. Cloth. Glds. 24.— 5. OLGA SCHERER-VIRSKI : The Modern Polish Short Story. 1955. 276 pp., 7 plates. Cloth. Glds. 24.— WIKTOR WEINTRAUB:

HORACE G . L U N T :

6. L. SADNIK a n d R. AITZETMÜLLER: H a n d w ö r t e r b u c h zu d e n altkirchenslavischen Texten.

1955. 361 pp. Cloth. Glds. 41.50 7. c. H. VAN SCHOONEVELD: A Semantic Analysis of the Old Russian Finite Preterite System. 1959. 183 pp. Cloth. Glds. 24.— 8. s. WESTFAL: A Study in Polish Morphology. The Genitive Singular Masculine. 1956. 419 pp. Cloth. Glds. 48.— 9. MANFRED KRIDL: A Survey of Polish Literature and Culture. 1956. 537 pp. Cloth. Glds. 36.— 10. DMITRIJ CIZEVSKIJ: AUS zwei Welten. Beiträge zur Geschichte der slavisch-westlichen literarischen Beziehungen. 1956. 360 pp., 8 plates. Cloth. Glds. 30.— 11. PETER BROCK: The Political and Social Doctrines of the Unity of Czech Brethren in the Glds. 24.— Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries. 1957. 302 pp. Cloth. 12. DMITRIJ CIZEVSKIJ: History of Russian Literature from the Eleventh Century to the End of the Baroque. 1960. 451 pp., 34 plates. Cloth. Glds. 38.— 13. j. VAN DER ENG : Dostoevskij romancier. Rapports entre sa vision du monde et ses procédés littéraires. 1957. 115 pp. Cloth. Glds. 10.— 14. LAWRENCE LEO STAHLBERGER: The Symbolic System of Majakovskij. 1964. 151 pp. Cloth. Glds. 20.— 16. c. A. VAN DEN BERK: Y a-t-il un substrat cakavien dans le dialecte de Dubrovnik? Contribution à l'histoire de la langue serbo-croate. 1959. 225 pp. Cloth. Glds. 32.— 17. MILADA SOUCKOVA: The Czech Romantics. 1958. 168 pp. Cloth. Glds. 15.— 18. PAVLE IVIC: Die serbokroatischen Dialekte, ihre Struktur und Entwicklung. I: Allgemeines und die stokavische Dialektgruppe. 1958. 325 pp., 27 figs., map. Cloth. Glds. 38.— 19. GEORGETTE DONCHIN: The Influence of French Symbolism on Russian Poetry. 1958. 242 pp., 7 ills. Cloth. Glds. 24.— 20. Dutch Contributions to the Fourth International Congress of Slavicists, Moscow, September 1958. 1958. 249 pp. Cloth. Glds. 24.— 21. American Contributions to the Fourth International Congress of Slavicists, Moscow, September 1958. 1958. 427 pp. Cloth. Glds. 40.— 22. NIKOLAI DURNOVO: Ocerk istorii russkogo jazyka. Photomechanic reprint. Second printing. 1962. 384 pp. Cloth. Glds. 24.— 23. PETER K. CHRISTOFF: An Introduction to Nineteenth-Century Russian Slavophilism. Volume I: A. S. Xomjakov. 1961. 301 pp., 2 plates. Cloth. Glds. 33.— 24. JOVAN BRKIC: Moral Concepts in Traditional Serbian Epic Poetry. 1961. 177 pp. Cloth. Glds. 24.—

25. josip VRANA: L'Evangéliaire de Miroslav. Contribution à l'étude de son origine. 1961. 211 pp., 10 plates. Cloth. Glds. 48.— 27. Studies in Russian and Polish Literature. In Honor of Waclaw Lednicki. Edited by Z. Folejewski, t M . Karpovich, F. J. Whitfield, A. Kaspin. 1962. 250 pp., portrait. Cloth. Glds. 36.— 28. WACLAW LEDNICKI: Henryk Sienkiewicz. A Retrospective Synthesis. 1960. 81 pp., 7 plates. Glds. 15.— 29. A. M. VAN DER ENG-LIEDMEIER : Soviet Literary Characters. An Investigation into the Portrayal of Soviet Men in Russian Prose, 1917-1953. 1959. 176 pp. Cloth. Glds. 16.— 30. HENRY KUCERA: The Phonology of Czech. 1961. 112 pp. Cloth. Glds. 18.— 31. Taras Sevcenko, 1814-1861. A Symposium. Edited by Volodymyr Mijakovs'kyj and George Y. Shevelov. 1962. 302 pp. Cloth. Glds. 32— 32. MICHAEL SAMILOV: The Phoneme jat' in Slavic. 1964. 172 pp. Cloth. Glds. 28.— 33. ROBIN KEMBALL: Alexander Blok. A Study in Rhythm and Metre. 1965. 539 pp., portrait. Cloth. Glds. 80.— 34. v. ZIRMUNSKII: Voprosy teorii literatury. Statej 1916-1926. Photomechanic reprint. 1962. 356 pp. Cloth. Glds. 28.— 35. CHARLES E. PASSAGE: The Russian Hoffmannists. 1963. 261 pp. Cloth. Glds. 30.— 36. VSEVOLOD SETCHKAREV: Studies in the Life and Works of Innokentij Annenskij. 1963. 270 pp. Cloth. ~ Glds. 32.— 38. GEORGE y. SHEVELOV: The Syntax of Modern Literary Ukrainian. The Simple Sentence. 1963. 319 pp. Cloth. Glds. 48.— 39. ALEXANDER M. SCHENKER: Polish Declension. A Descriptive Analysis. 1964. 105 pp., 38 Glds. 17.— figs. Cloth. 40. MILADA SOUCKOVA: The Parnassian Jaroslav Vrchlicky. 1964. 151 pp., plate. Cloth. Glds. 20.— 41. A. A. SAXMATOV: Sintaksis russkogo jazyka. Redakcija i kommentarii Prof. E. S. lstrinoj. Photomechanic reprint. 1963. 623 pp. Cloth. Glds. 48.— 42. CHARLES A. MOSER: Antinihilism in the Russian Novel of the 1860's. 1964. 215 pp. Cloth. Glds. 22.— 43. RENÉ WELLEK: Essays on Czech Literature. Introduced by Peter Demetz. 1963. 214 pp., portrait. Cloth. Glds. 23.— 44. HONGOR OULANOFF : The Serapion Brothers : Theory and Practice. 1966.186 pp. Glds. 26.— 45. Dutch Contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavicists, Sofia, 1963. 1963. 162 pp. Cloth. Glds. 36.— 46. American Contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavists, Sofia, September 1963. Vol. I: Linguistic Contributions. 1963. 384 pp. Cloth. Glds. 69.— 47. ju. TYNJANOV : Problema stixotvornogo jazyka. Photomechanic reprint. 1963. 139 pp. Cloth. Glds. 18.— 48. Russkaja Proza, pod redakciej B. Ejchenbauma i Ju. Tynjanova. Sbornik statej. Photomechanic reprint. 1963. 265 pp. Cloth. Glds. 28.— 49. EDWARD STANKIEWICZ and DEAN s. W O R T H : A Selected Bibliography of Slavic Linguistics, I. 1966. 315 pp. Glds. 42.— 50. American Contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavists, Sofia, September 1963. Vol. II. Literary Contributions. 1963. 432 pp. Cloth. Glds. 69.— 51. ROMAN JAKOBSON and DEAN S. WORTH (eds.): Sofonija's Tale of the Russian-Tatar Battle on the Kulikovo Field. 1963. 71 pp., 49 plates. Cloth. Glds. 20.— 52. WACLAW LEDNICKI: Tolstoj between War and Peace. 1965. 169 pp., 4 plates. Cloth. Glds. 25.— 53. TATJANA CIZEVSKA: Glossary of the Igor' Tale. 1966. 405 pp. Glds. 68.—

54. A. v. FLOROVSKY (ed.): Georgius David, S. J.: Status Modernus Magnae Russiae seu Moscoviae (1690), Edited with Introduction and Explanatory Index. 1965. 135 pp., 4 figs. Cloth. Glds. 28.— 55. FRANCES DE GRAAFF: Sergej Esenin: A Biographical Sketch. 1966. 178 pp. Glds. 36.— 56. N. s. TRUBETZKOY: Dostoevskij als Kiinstler. 1965. 178 pp. Cloth. Glds. 28.— 57. F. C. DRIESSEN : Gogol as a Short-Story Writer. A Study of his Technique of Composition. Translated from the Dutch by Ian F. Finlay. 1965. 243 pp. Cloth. Glds. 36.— 58. v. ZIRMUNSKIJ : Introduction to Metrics: The Theory of Verse. Translated from the Russian by C. F. Brown. Edited with an introduction by Edward Stankiewicz and W. N. Vickery. 1966. 245 pp. Glds. 34.— 59. DALE L. PLANK: Pasternak's Lyric: A Study of Sound and Imagery. 1966. II + 121 pp. Glds. 20.— 60. HENRY M. NEBEL, JR. : N. M. Karamzin: A Russian Sentimentalist. 1967. 190 pp.Glds. 32.— 61. KAZIMIERZ POLANSKI and JAMES A. SEHNERT: Polabian-English Dictionary. 1966. 239 pp. Glds. 48.— 62. CARL R. PROFFER: The Comparison in Gogol's Dead Souls. 1967. 230 pp. Glds. 28.— 64. THELWALL T. PROCTOR : Dostoevskij and Belinskij School of Literary Criticism. 200 pp. Glds. 30.— 65. DAVID j. WELSH: Russian Comedy, 1765-1823. 1966. 133 pp. Glds. 20.— 66. Poetika: Sbornik statej. 1966. 163 pp. Photomechanic reprint of the first edition, Leningrad, 1926. Glds. 23.— 67. p. A. LAVROV: Materialy po istorii vozniknovenija drevnejsej slavanskoj pis'mennosti. 1966. L + 200 pp. Photomechanic reprint of the edition, Leningrad, 1930. Glds. 32.—

M O U T O N & CO • P U B L I S H E R S

• THE

HAGUE