The mythical bird Gamayun, sung by the people and depicted in the picture by the artist Vasnetsov, prompted Alexander Blok to write the poem "Gamayun is a prophetic bird." The poet often resorts to mythology in his work, this time can be called one of the most successful, because the lines perfectly convey the atmosphere of mystery.
Gamayun knows the answers to all questions, she appears at dawn with gusts of wind and broadcasts to those people who are able to hear her. The prophetic bird has no secrets in the future, it is an intermediary between people and God and is depicted with the face of a girl with a mysterious look.
History of writing
Blok writes a poem in 1899, when he was only 18 years old. Behind the poet's shoulders is a gymnasium and first love, a fate full of twists lies ahead. Since the author of the lines studied at the Slavic-Russian department of the university, Russian mythology is not alien to him. The second stimulus for writing poetry is the symbolism that is beginning to appear in the poet, which is great for writing mysterious, extraordinary lines.
Theme of the poem
In the poem, Blok describes the Gamayun bird from Vasnetsov's painting. Gamayun "broadcasts and sings" against the background of endless waters, clothed in the purple of the sunset. She portends many troubles - bloody executions, famine and fires, but is unable to raise her wings, since her job is to broadcast, not to protect.
She speaks and sings
Unable to raise the wings of the troubled ...
The prophecies of the bird are terrible, but at the same time, its face is illuminated with love, which Blok shows with a metaphor:
A beautiful face burns with love.
The lips of the miraculous creature are caked with blood, but the Russian truth is being broadcast from them to the earth. A successful combination, given the past, present and future suffering of Russia, which has lost the most only in civil wars.
By the way of things of a bird, Blok tries to warn Russia from difficult twists of fate and once again reminds of the past sufferings of the Russian land. The fate of Russia, according to the author of the lines, is also ambiguous, as is the image of the magical Gamayun - a face radiating love and lips that are caked with blood. Good and evil always goes next to a Russian person and its purpose life path get closer to good and move away from evil.
On the endless waters
Clothed in purple by sunset,
She speaks and sings
Unable to lift the confused wings.
The yoke of evil Tatars broadcasts,
Broadcasts a series of bloody executions,
And a coward, and hunger, and a fire,
The strength of the villains, the death of the right...
Embraced by eternal terror,
A beautiful face burns with love,
But things sound true
Mouths covered in blood!
Gatilova Olga
The work is devoted to an interesting issue of literary criticism - the interpretation of the myth.
Download:
Preview:
MOU Lyceum №82
Scientific Society of Students
Scientific work in literature
Performed
Gatilova Olga
scientific adviser
Bandina A. M.
Nizhny Novgorod
2011
Introduction 3
Chapter 4 Comparison 17
Conclusion 22
References 23
Annex 24
Introduction
Chapter 1
Sirin
Alkonost
Gamayun
Chapter 2
Sirin and Alkonost
Throwing back the waves of thick curls,
Throwing your head back
And holding my breath in my chest,
Opening the feathery camp to the rays,
Breathe in all the fragrance
Spring unknown tide ...
And the bliss of a powerful effort
A tear dims the brilliance of the eyes ...
And fly away in sheaves of rays!
The other is all powerful sadness
Exhausted, exhausted...
The whole chest is high full ...
A sob lingered in my chest,
And above her branchy throne
A black wing is hanging...
In the distance - crimson lightning,
Turquoise faded heaven ...
And from a bloody eyelash
A heavy tear rolls down...
Rhyme.
Thick curls pushing back the waves
Throwing your head back
Gamayun - a prophetic bird
On the endless waters
Clothed in purple by sunset,
She speaks and sings
The yoke of evil Tatars broadcasts,
Broadcasts a series of bloody executions,
And a coward, and hunger, and a fire,
The strength of the villains, the death of the right...
Embraced by eternal terror,
A beautiful face burns with love,
But things sound true
Mouths covered in blood!
Rhyme.
On the endless waters
Clothed in purple by sunset,
Iambic with cross rhyming ABAB (there is a pyrrhic).
4) Inversion (“the mouth sounds”)
Chapter 3
It amuses, calls from the nests,
Poisons the soul of the wonderful Alkonost.
Like seven treasured strings
They rang in their turn -
This is the Gamayun bird.
Gives hope!
So that the Lord notices more often.
Blue, spring, rye.
Horses are tied up in stirrups,
That limp, swollen from sleep.
Like seven rich moons
Gets in my way -
That bird Gamayun
Gives hope!
Soul erased by rifts -
So that the Lord notices more often!
Chapter 4
V. Vysotsky
Chapter 5
What could be so...
To us at the door
There will be a war...
I'll take over the mirrors
glass side.
Conclusion
Bibliography
- M ints Z. «
- GeleosMoscow, 2008, 496 pages.
Appendix
Glossary of terms:
Alliteration -
Antithesis - trope,
Sound recording - .
Iversion -
Metaphor
Myth
personification
Realism -
Synecdoche -
Symbolism
Symbol
Comparison
Epithet
Preview:
MOU Lyceum №82
Scientific Society of Students
Scientific work in literature
"Interpretation of the myth about the birds of paradise Alkonost, Sirin and Gamayun
In the poetry of Alexander Blok and Vladimir Vysotsky"
Performed
student 9 "A" class MOU lyceum №82
Gatilova Olga
scientific adviser
teacher of Russian language and literature
Bandina A. M.
Nizhny Novgorod
2011
Introduction 3
Chapter 1 Myths about Alkonost, Sirin and Gamune 5
Chapter 2 Analysis of A. Blok's poems 8
Chapter 3 Analysis of the poem by V. Vysotsky 14
Chapter 4 Comparison 17
4.1 Comparison of the myth with the poem by A. Blok 17
4.2 Comparison of the myth with the poem by V. Vysotsky 18
4.3 Comparison of poems by A. Blok and V. Vysotsky 19
Chapter 5 Images of birds in the poetry of the XXI century 20
Conclusion 22
References 23
Annex 24
Introduction
Myth stands at the origins of verbal art, mythological representations and plots occupy a significant place in the oral folklore tradition of various peoples. They played a big role in the emergence of literary plots. . Mythological themes, images, characters are used and revised in literature almost throughout its history. In accordance with people's ideas about the world around them, a completely new philosophical content was put into mythological plots. The literature of the 20th century is also no exception. Interest in mythology, in particular Slavic, can also be seen among poets Silver Age and among our contemporaries.
Of particular interest to me were the poems by A. Blok and V. Vysotsky, in which the myth of the birds of paradise is interpreted in different ways. How and how can one explain the different ideas about one subject in the poetry of the 20th century?
The purpose of the work is to show how the myth of the birds of paradise Alkonost, Sirin and Gamayun is interpreted in the poetry of Alexander Blok and Vladimir Vysotsky.
The relevance of the topic lies in the fact that so far it has not been fully explored. It makes it possible to assess the depth of the influence of mythology on the poetry of the Silver Age and modern, as well as to explain the reasons for turning to myths in literature.
To achieve the goal, the following tasks were set:
- To get acquainted with the texts of Slavic myths about Alkonost, Sirin and Gamayun, to reveal their ideological significance.
- Conduct a literary analysis of A. Blok's poems "Sirin and Alkonost", "Gamayun - a prophetic bird" and V. Vysotsky's "Dome", and explain the reason for the poets' appeal to myths.
- Compare the works of A. Blok and V. Vysotsky in terms of their philosophical content, language, style and proximity to myth.
In the work used methods of description, analysis, comparison.
The work consists of an introduction, four chapters and a conclusion.
Chapter 1
Myths about Alkonost, Sirin and Gamayun
Legends about mythical birds in the original version have not reached us, but many retellings and author's versions have been preserved. They do not always match, so I will try to present the most common ones.
Sirin
Sirin is a maiden bird. In Russian spiritual poems, she, descending from paradise to earth, enchants people with singing, in Western European legends she is the embodiment of an unfortunate soul, a dark bird, dark power, a messenger of the sovereign underworld. Hearing Sirin's singing, people completely lose their memory and will, and soon they are doomed to troubles and misfortunes, and even die, and there is no strength to force a person not to listen to Sirin's voice. The same sources say that Sirin is not a negative character, but rather a metaphor for the temptation of a person with all sorts of temptations.
In Slavic mythology, Sirin is a wonderful bird of joy, good luck, glory. Her beautiful singing evokes a good mood in people, disperses sadness and melancholy. At the same time, only a happy person can hear her voice. Not everyone will be able to see her: she disappears as quickly as fame and fortune.
In all sources, there is only one similarity: Sirin is one of the birds of paradise, which has a human appearance. Even its very name is consonant with the name of the Slavic paradise: Iriy. But, most likely, it comes from the Greek "siren".
Alkonost
Alkonost (alkonst, alkonos) - in Russian and Byzantine medieval legends, a bird of paradise-maiden, bringing happiness. Alkonost comforts the saints with his singing, proclaiming to them the future life. She also helps travelers: she carries eggs on the seashore and, plunging them into the depths, makes it calm for seven days. But when the chicks hatch from the eggs, a storm begins.
In Slavic legends, Alkonost is a bird of sadness and sadness. Hearing the singing of this bird forgets about everything in the world: the name, relatives, home. There is a caption under one of the popular prints depicting her: “Alkonost stays near paradise, sometimes it happens on the Euphrates River. When in singing he emits a voice, then he does not feel himself. And whoever is close then will forget everything in the world: then the mind departs from him, and the soul leaves the body. Only the Sirin bird can compare with Alkonost in sweetness.
And again, the similarity of various sources in one. Alkonost is a resident of the Slavic paradise Iriy. Always depicted as half-maiden - half-bird. And its name, most likely, also comes from the ancient Greek "Alcyone" ("kingfisher").
Gamayun
Gamayun is a prophetic bird in Slavic mythology, singing divine songs to people, foreshadowing the future and prophesying happiness to those who can hear the secret. The proverb “Gamayun is a prophetic bird” is well known. Gamayun knows everything in the world, knows how to control the weather. It was believed that when Gamayun flies from the direction of sunrise, a storm comes after her.
Flies in the sky, but lives in the sea. She has female face and chest. Sometimes she is depicted simply as a large bird taking off from the depths of the sea.
The word "gamayun" comes from "gamayun" - to lull (obviously, because these legends also served as bedtime stories for children).
Initially, the image came from Eastern (Persian) mythology. A bird was depicted with a female head and chest. In the mythology of the ancient Iranians there is an analogue - the bird of joy Humayun.
Chapter 2
Analysis of A. Blok's poems "Sirin and Alkonost" and "Gamayun - a prophetic bird"
Sirin and Alkonost
Throwing back the waves of thick curls,
Throwing your head back
Throws Sirin full of happiness,
Bliss of otherworldly full look.
And holding my breath in my chest,
Opening the feathery camp to the rays,
Breathe in all the fragrance
Spring unknown tide ...
And the bliss of a powerful effort
A tear dims the brilliance of the eyes ...
Here, here, now spread its wings
And fly away in sheaves of rays!
The other is all powerful sadness
Exhausted, exhausted...
Anguish everyday and all-night
The whole chest is high full ...
The chant sounds like a deep groan,
A sob lingered in my chest,
And above her branchy throne
A black wing is hanging...
In the distance - crimson lightning,
Turquoise faded heaven ...
And from a bloody eyelash
A heavy tear rolls down...
The poem speaks of the magical birds Sirin and Alkonost. The poem was written in 1899. The poet was 18 years old, he had just graduated from high school, experienced his first, very strong youthful love. His poetry at that time is filled with romance, youth, ease. The appeal to such images is also explained by the fact that the poet loved everything Slavic-Russian and studied at the Slavic-Russian department of St. Petersburg University. It was during this period that the work of A. Blok can be attributed to symbolism - one of the literary trends of the 20th century. Symbolists for the "construction" of the symbol attracted texts in which there is something mysterious, myths, in which there are many mysteries. It was believed that the symbol connects the earthly with the other world, the spiritual .
The poem is logically divided into two micro-themes: the first is a description of the bird Sirin, the second is a description of Alkonost. The poem is built on the principle of antithesis.
Sirin. Even for those who do not know the legend about the birds Sirin and Alkonost, it becomes clear from the lines of Blok that Sirin is a bright bird, the embodiment of happiness, joy, Have a good mood that not everyone can see it, and that it disappears as quickly as it appears (“... and it will fly away in sheaves of rays!”). Speaking about Sirin, the author uses the words "happiness", "bliss", "spring", "fragrance" and others. All these words are saturated with happiness, like the image of the bird itself.
Alkonost. Describing Alkonost, the author chooses the words “sadness”, “longing”, “sobbing”, “groaning” and others. Thus, he shows that Alkonost is a bird of sadness, that her image is saturated with sad feelings, at the sight of her "... a sob lay in her chest ..."
Rhyme.
Thick curls pushing back the waves
(…)(.i.)/(…)(.i.)/ (…)(.i.)/ (…)(.i.)/(…)
Throwing your head back
(…)(.i.)/ (…)(.i.)/ (…)(...)/ (…)(.i.)/
Iambic with cross rhyming ABAB (there is a pyrrhic).
The odd line is a feminine rhyme (the emphasis falls on the penultimate syllable), the even line is a masculine rhyme (the emphasis is on the last syllable).
The iamb, unlike the chorea, is a calmer size that allows you to describe images. The use of iambic is not accidental. So the poem resembles the old Russian epic with its melodiousness.
There are many means of expression in the poem:
1) Epithets (“thick curls”, “full look”, “unknown tide” - Sirin; “powerful sadness”, “high chest” - Alkonost).
2) Metaphors (“sheaves of rays”, “clouds with a tear”, “waves of curls” - Sirin; “chest full of longing”, “branchy throne” - Alkonost).
3) Personification (“the sobbing has fallen” - Akonost).
4) Inversions (“throws Sirin”, “a tear rolls”).
5) Sound recording. Alliteration "A sob lay in my chest." The repetition of sounds [p] and [d '] creates the effect of sobbing.
6) Vocabulary. Book style (“perfume, “daily and all-night”, “throne”, “lightning, “turquoise” and others). Polysemantic words, reference vocabulary (“outsiders”, “unknown”, etc.) as some signs of the other world.
7) There is color painting (“black wing”, “crimson lightning”, “turquoise”, “bloody eyelashes”). Thanks to her, vivid visual images, pictures are drawn.
Idea. Birds of joy and sadness are a symbol of life. In this poem, A. Blok exalts life. For him, life is something high, mysterious, enigmatic.
Gamayun - a prophetic bird
On the endless waters
Clothed in purple by sunset,
She speaks and sings
Unable to raise the wings of the troubled ...
The yoke of evil Tatars broadcasts,
Broadcasts a series of bloody executions,
And a coward, and hunger, and a fire,
The strength of the villains, the death of the right...
Embraced by eternal terror,
A beautiful face burns with love,
But things sound true
Mouths covered in blood!
The poem talks about the bird Gamayun, which broadcasts about the future.
The period of writing this poem coincides with the period of writing the previous one, so the reason for referring to the image of Gamayun coincides with the reason for referring to the images of Sirin and Alkonost. This is the desire of the poet to describe life in symbolic images. Images that have a specific historical explanation help to get closer to the secret mechanisms of life.
A poem of twelve lines describes the deeds of the Gamayun bird. Speaking about the bird, the author uses the words “broadcasts and sings”, “truth”, “beautiful face” and others. All this is like a myth.
Rhyme.
On the endless waters
(…)(.i.)/ (…)(…)/ (…)(.i.)/ (…)(.i.)/
Clothed in purple by sunset,
(…)(.i.)/ (…)(.i.)/ (…)(.i.)/ (…)(.i.)/ (…)
Iambic with cross rhyming ABAB (there is a pyrrhic).
Even line - female rhyme (stress falls on the penultimate syllable), Odd line - male rhyme (stress on the last syllable).
The following means of expression are used in the poem:
1) Emotionally rich epithets (“endless waters”, “wings of the confused”, “evil Tatars” and others)
2) Metaphors (“clothed by the sunset”, “the face burns with love” and others)
3) Synecdoche (“and a coward, and hunger, and a fire ...”)
4) Inversion (“the mouth sounds”)
5) Vocabulary. Book style ("purple", "confused", "eternal", "mouth" and others)
Gamayun is a symbol of justice in life.
Thus, the interpretation of the myth of the birds of paradise in the poetry of A. Blok is directly related to symbolism, one of the artistic movements of the poetry of the Silver Age.
The symbol is initially polysemantic, this is the most mysterious kind of generalization . This is probably why the poems about birds of paradise in the work of the young A. Blok both delight and call into a dream.
Chapter 3
Analysis of the poem by V. Vysotsky "Dome"
How will I look now, how will I breathe?!
The air is cool before a thunderstorm, cool and viscous.
What will sing to me today, what will be heard?
Prophetic birds sing - yes, all from fairy tales.
Sirin bird joyfully grins at me -
It amuses, calls from the nests,
On the contrary, he yearns, mourns,
Poisons the soul of the wonderful Alkonost.
Like seven treasured strings
They rang in their turn -
This is the Gamayun bird.
Gives hope!
In the blue sky, pierced by bell towers, -
Copper bell, copper bell
Whether rejoiced, or angry ...
Domes in Russia are covered with pure gold -
So that the Lord notices more often.
I stand, as before an eternal riddle,
Before the great and fabulous country -
Before salty - yes bitter-sour-sweet,
Blue, spring, rye.
Mud champing oily and rusty,
Horses are tied up in stirrups,
But they drag me with a sleepy power,
That limp, swollen from sleep.
Like seven rich moons
Gets in my way -
That bird Gamayun
Gives hope!
Soul, knocked down by losses and expenses,
Soul erased by rifts -
If the flap thinned to blood, -
I will patch up with gold patches -
So that the Lord notices more often!
In the poem, V. Vysotsky talks about life. It was written in 1975.
This year the first and last time Vysotsky's poem was published for life in the Soviet literary and artistic collection.
In 1975, Vysotsky was 37 years old. His poems in that period of time are filled with deep meaning, bitterness, characteristic features poems of people with great life experience. The author observes life from a realistic position.
The author writes about birds in the first three quatrains. Moreover, in the first one he points to birds in general: “Prophetic birds sing - yes, everything is from fairy tales ...”, in the second he speaks about Sirin and Alkonost (opposing them to each other), and in the third “this bird Gamayun gives hope!”
The first quatrains are dedicated to the fabulous - mysterious birds. Further, the author talks about the future, about life, comparing birds with what is happening (good + evil + hope).
The following means of expression are used in the poem:
1) Personifications (“the bell either rejoiced, or became angry”, “the power became limp”)
2) Epithets ("cherished strings", "great and fabulous country")
3) Comparisons (“I stand as before a great riddle”)
4) Metaphors (“in the blue sky, pierced by bell towers”)
5) Antithesis (“either rejoiced, or angry”)
6) Sound recording. Alliteration “Champing greasy and rusty with mud…” A picture of desolation appears.
7) Vocabulary. Conversational style (“grinning”, “sad, sad”, “angry”, “champing”, “limp, swollen” and others).
V. Vysotsky shows his heartache from the mysterious mystery of life. Expresses anxiety, anxiety for the future. And he also compares life with three birds. A realistic view of the world explains both the use of a colloquial style in the work, and a different interpretation than A. Blok's interpretation of the images of birds of paradise.
Chapter 4
Comparison of myths with poems by A. Blok and
V. Vysotsky
4.1 Comparison of the myth with the poem of Alexander Blok
As far as we have found out, the interpretation of the myth today is not unambiguous. But, if we rely on the prevailing points of view, then the description of the birds Sirin, Alkonost and Gamayun by A. Blok coincides with the myth. In general, the poet retains the content and meaning of the myth and distinctive features magical birds. As for Gamayun, Blok describes specific events predicted by the Gamayun bird (“the yoke of evil Tatars”, “a series of bloody executions” and others). That is, it adds the facts of Russian history. The myth does not specify what predictions Gamayun makes.
4.2 Comparison of myth and poem by Vladimir Vysotsky
V. Vysotsky in the song does not give detailed description birds, but only mentions them. The poem is written in a colloquial style characteristic of Vysotsky's work, but even here the very meaning of myths is guessed. The presented quotes coincide in meaning with the myth. But Vysotsky does not exalt the mythical birds, but speaks as if they are next to him.
4.3 Comparison of poems by Alexander Blok and Vladimir Vysotsky
A. Blok is a symbolist, in his verses he elevates birds, uses a book style, words of high style. The images of birds are symbols of life.
V. Vysotsky, on the contrary, is a realist, he speaks about birds in a simple and understandable language. If Blok has “Birds of Joy and Sorrow”, then Vysotsky has “Prophetic birds sing, but everything is from fairy tales ...”. Poets talk about life, seeing its embodiment in three birds. The verses of poets are united by the philosophical content of the images of birds of paradise. The differences are that Blok exalts life, and Vysotsky feels anxiety about the future, heartache from the mysterious mystery of life., That is, A. Blok looks at life as a symbolist, a dreamer, and V. Vysotsky - as a realist, an observer. Chapter 5
Images of birds in the poetry of the XXI century
Images of magical birds are also found in the poetry of our contemporaries. So the leader of the Russian rock band "Aquarium" Boris Grebenshchikov is the performer and author of poems and music for the song with the speaking name "Sirin, Alkonost, Gamayun". In the work of the bird - an inseparable whole, like life itself. Sadness, joy, hope. In three words, an enlightened listener will see a hidden symbol of life, everyday life. Grebenshchikov does not separate them and does not oppose each other. They are a single whole, they are the embodiment of life in his song. In it you can hear the sublime intonation of A. Blok, and the emotional pain of V. Vysotsky.
In housing offices forest twilight,
On the roofs of houses - lanterns with Egyptian darkness.
The ice broke, it often happens in spring
Living on the ice floes, no one said
What could be so...
How do we know what a wave is?
Midday faun, trembling of mermaids in the darkness...
The night is coming - we will begin preparations for winter;
And maybe the next one to knock
To us at the door
There will be a war...
I'll take over the mirrors
Someone else - hops and quivering loach ...
Everyone is already here: Sirin, Alkonost, Gamayun;
As we agreed, I will wait for that
glass side.
Conclusion
Analyzing the poems of Alexander Blokand Vladimir Vysotsky about birds of paradise, we can draw the following conclusions:
1. The appeal to myth in the works of poets can be explained by the possibility of philosophically comprehending life, which is personified by the images of the three birds of paradise. This explains the similarity in the interpretation of the myth in the poetry of A. Blok and V. Vysotsky from the point of view of the idea.
2. Differences in the interpretation of the myth are observed in terms of linguistic means, the style of the works of the two poets.
In the poem by A. Blok, the images of birds and the means of their description are determined by the aesthetics of symbolism, and in the poem by V. Vysotsky - by realism. That is, the differences in the interpretation of the myth are due to the peculiarities of the author's personality and the time in which the poets created their poems.
In general, mythology influenced not only the poetry of the Silver Age and modern literature. Images of birds of paradise are vividly reflected in painting: these are the paintings by V. Vasnetsov “Sirin and Alkonost. Song of Joy and Sorrow”, “Gamayun is a prophetic bird”; Avdeev Mikhail "Sirin and Alkonost", Aseeva Elena "Sirin and Alkonost"; V. Korolkov "Gamayun" and many others, which also allow you to see the images of mysterious birds in different ways. Symbolist ideas about life in creativity grow out of the conviction that reality is the embodiment of the idea of the ideal essence comprehended by the artist.
Bibliography
- Blok A. collection of poems "Poems about beautiful lady”, Eksmo 2006, 352 pages.
- Vysotsky In "Poems" author's collection, Eksmo 2005, 480 pages.
- Adamchik V. "Dictionary of Slavic mythology", AST Moscow 2010, 640 pages.
- Kalashnikov V. "Slavic mythology", White City Moscow 2002, 48 pages.
- Kvyatkovsky A. "Poetic Dictionary", Soviet Encyclopedia, 1966, 376 pages.
- Meskin V. Journal "Russian Symbolists: Theory and Practice", Russian language and literature for schoolchildren, School press 2010.
- Meshcheryakova M. "Literature in tables and diagrams", Iris-press 2009, 224 pages.
- M ints Z. « Blok and Russian symbolism. Selected works in 3 books. Poetics of Alexander Blok", Art-SPB 1999, 728 pages.
- Chernitsky A. "Big Mythological Dictionary",GeleosMoscow, 2008, 496 pages.
Appendix
Glossary of terms:
Alliteration - the repetition of identical or homogeneous consonants in a verse, giving it a special sound expressiveness (in versification).
Antithesis - trope, stylistic figure of contrast in artistic or public speaking, which consists in a sharp opposition of concepts, positions, images, states, interconnected by a common structure or internal meaning.
Sound recording - the use of a variety of phonetic techniques to enhance the sound expressiveness of speech.
Iversion - violation of the usual word order in a sentence.
Metaphor - trope, a semantic connection between the meanings of one polysemantic word, based on the presence of similarity (structural, external, functional).
Myth - a legend that conveys people's ideas about the world, a person's place in it, about the origin of all things, about Gods and heroes; certain idea of the world.
personification - trails, transferring the properties of animate objects to inanimate ones. Very often, personification is used in the depiction of nature, which is endowed with certain human features.
Realism - true depiction of reality.
Synecdoche - trope, a kind of metonymy based on the transfer of meaning from one phenomenon to another on the basis of a quantitative relationship between them.
Symbolism - literary and artistic direction of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. Symbolism sought through symbols in a tangible form to embody the idea of the unity of the world, expressed in accordance with its most diverse parts, allowing colors, sounds, smells to represent one through the other.
Symbol - in art - a universal aesthetic category, revealed through comparison with adjacent categories of the artistic image.
Comparison - a figure of speech in which one object or phenomenon is likened to another according to some common feature for them.
Epithet - Trope, figurative and expressive means of language.
Meskin V. Journal "Russian Symbolists: Theory and Practice", Russian language and literature for schoolchildren, School press 2010 - p. 43
Vladimir Nikolaev
Dostoevsky said that the poet himself creates his own life and, moreover, one that did not exist before him. Blok, without refuting Dostoevsky, thought that the root of the poet's life is in poetry, and life itself, personal life, is just somehow. Meanwhile, the root alone grows into poems from life, from the poet's personality in all its searches, finds and losses, hopes and reassurances, falls and ups. In order to create something, one must be something, Goethe observed. I wanted to capture the movement of the one and only life of the poet in time. Poetry begins when the poet goes out into the world. The work of the poet is nothing but a personal life in history. Thus, the task of the biographical narrative is to show how life becomes destiny. The personal world of Blok is huge and full of echoes of his time. The soul of a poet is the most sensitive seismograph, capable of catching the slightest fluctuation of the historical soil in an instant impression. All the storms, catastrophes, all the faith and all the despair of his complex and difficult age passed through Blok's personal world. Viktor Vasnetsov on one of his canvases depicted Gamayun as a bird of black feathers with a darkly beautiful human face, sung in ancient Russian legends as a creature prophesying about future destinies. Alexander Blok was in his nineteenth year when, under the impression of this picture, he wrote the poem Gamayun, the prophetic bird. She broadcasts and Vladimir Nikolaev - Gamayun. Life of Alexander Blok..fb2 (1.41 MB) "THE PAST LOOKS PASSIONATELY INTO THE FUTURE..."
It goes without saying that a genius lives not only in his own time, but also in the times that follow, and yet needs a guide and mediator for this life. Just in this sense, the book that is now in front of the reader is doubly long-awaited, and for the author himself in many respects the final one. What preceded it?
Decade after decade passed. Vladimir Orlov wrote about Denis Davydov and Radishchev, Griboedov and the Russian enlighteners, about Blok and his entourage, about many poets of the beginning of this century, but here's the thing: for all his undoubted erudition, you can't call him an armchair scientist. For a long time he headed the "Library of the Poet", contributed to the realization of Gorky's plan in life not with one pen, but with a living deed.
Marshak has lines about Marina Tsvetaeva:
Let your path be reckless
Lonely homeless bird:
You yourself to the last line
I managed to return to my homeland.
It is not an easy thing to return a poet to the reader.
Least of all, human destinies need smoothing and straightening. Criteria and assessments in Orlov's works are clear, and when necessary, they are harsh, but his reader is given to feel how in each life a unique, his own dramatic knot is unleashed, which feeds creativity.
Is it a coincidence that Orlov's work on Tsvetaeva has the subtitle "Fate, Character, Poetry", and the title of one of the books is "Ways and Fates" and another one is "Crossroads"? This is not trampling on the words "path" and "destiny"? No, this is an angle of view on literary phenomena. I recall Blok's "sense of the way", of his own way, without which what kind of real writer is conceivable.
And, of course, Blok, who suggested this penetrating formula, his painful path "between two revolutions" and fearless sincerity, is at the center of that collective picture of an entire era that is recreated in Orlov's articles, essays, and many books.
There was also the "Story of One Love" - the story of Blok's relationship with Lyubov Dmitrievna Mendeleeva, and the "History of Friendship-Enmity" with Andrei Bely. Blok, Orlov notes in Gamayun, not only did not reply to many of Bely's letters at a dramatic moment in their relationship, but did not even open some of them. So they survived until the end of the thirties, and one can imagine the feelings of a researcher who, "preparing correspondence for printing ... not without spiritual trepidation, cut the intact envelopes."
In the field scientific interests all this has been appreciated, but wouldn't the general reader also want to touch the secret of this difficult life. Let us remember then Blok himself, who could not stand the elitist isolation of culture - a refined and thinned man in other cases, he was obsessed with the thought of a man "from the abyss of the people" who would appear in fifty or a hundred years.
"Perhaps a merry young man in the future will tell about me..." . And how can one understand the explanation in one's gloom in front of this most "jolly" descendant, as well as the search for spiritual kinship with him without emotional tension, which is of course in this word.
So the attempt and the need to speak widely about the "transcendental" Blok is bequeathed by the very essence of his world outlook. At the same time, Blok had a fear of scientism and textbook canonization. Fear for the children who are tortured with a heap of quotes prepared for the place:
Sad fate - so difficult
So hard and festive to live,
And become the property of an associate professor,
And produce new critics ...
But just about such a Blok, living difficult, difficult, festive - frantically, - Vladimir Orlov wrote. "Shut up, damned books, I never wrote you!" Poems, and letters, and articles, and diaries - all together was life itself for Blok, and all this absorbs documentary narrative in the best possible way.
It is clear that it does not replace the science of literature, it can please with new facts and considerations, but its meaning and purpose are not exhausted by this. Here the effect of artistry comes into play - the image of a person, his character and fate
Orlov rightly complains about the somewhat predetermined image of Blok, even in the best memories of him. "Fatal features, arrogance, a frock coat, a tavern counter, women, reckless drivers, a black rose in a glass and the like - these are the indispensable attributes of the stamped image of Blok, which has already become the property of literary consumer goods." Having defined Blok's "walking mask" in this way, Orlov enters into an argument with it.
The gullible reader will be struck first of all by the book's documentary capacity.
Much is revealed not just by this or that evidence, document. Much more is revealed in the gap between them and their mutual reinterpretation. The image, as in life itself, ceases to be unambiguous, similar to a "walking mask". But where does this mask come from? Why does it live so powerfully in the minds of many people?
The pages of real life and poetry are closely intertwined, but never completely coincide. Another thing happened to Blok: the confessional nature of his poems "contributed to the fact that not only the image of his lyrical hero was transferred to the living poet, but the events of his personal life began to be perceived through the prism of his lyrical plots."
And although the reconstruction of the poet's personality from letters, diaries, memoirs is not always associated with a rigorous methodological study, there is still a certain methodological implication that must be mentioned at least briefly. Let us recall that it was precisely in connection with Blok that Tynyanov introduced the concept of a lyrical hero into literary use, a kind of barrier on the way of identifying the writer's life and the lyrical character of his poems.
But at the same time, Tynyanov went to extremes. Genuine life was cut off completely as material obscuring the purity of scientific analysis. In the meantime, you can't get her anywhere. Philology has long learned the lessons of fighting naive biographism and psychologism, and interest in the personality of the creator is becoming more and more irresistible.
If there is anything interesting about the life side of creativity, then it is its own aesthetic charge, which has not been fully exhausted in creativity. Gorky saw Yesenin's life as material for a novel. Mayakovsky was called Dostoevsky's junior character. Any, even a side branch of Blok's life carries such a charge.
* * *
We talked about the mutual reinterpretation of documents. Let's say something else. It is interesting to look at such a book as an attempt at mutual interpretation of life and verse, the life of a lyrical character and the true life of the author. Blok's early poems are a kind of mythologized diary. A rare combination of concrete feeling and symbolic abstractness of form.
Subsequently, the poet tore the mythological garments to shreds, translating the verse from conventionality into life, expressed consciously, as Orlov says, "to poverty in simple forms":
You yourself will never understand
Why does it happen sometimes
That you yourself will come to people,
And you will leave people - not yourself ...
In Blok's poems, the lights of street horns, buildings, trams and a symbolic lighthouse flickering through a snowstorm freely coexist. And on the whole, his poetry is a tense mutual reflection of myth and life's prose, which poured into poetry straight from the street.
This dual unity of the romantic tone and the realistic premises of Blok's attitude turns out to be the starting point for Orlov. "Gamayun, the prophetic bird," he recalls in his preliminary remarks to this book, and in the same remarks he speaks of the desire to show "personal life in history."
I think that the main success of this book is that history is shown through types and characters, destinies and their connections, intimate details and private life. She doesn't hover over people. She does it with them. It would be naive, however, to think that this fusion of everyday life and history is absolute. In a detailed biography, we see Blok immersed in endless daily life, and her step is incommensurable with the scope of the historical movement. Here is Blok in Shakhmatovo amid household chores, and for a while the thunderous voices of history sound muffled and from afar. A little more - and they will be combined. And so all the time.
And this dialectic of "personal life in history" is splendidly captured in Gamayun in all the zigzags of Blok's life. In Blok’s painful correspondence with Lyubov Dmitrievna in 1907, Orlov highlights such a “climax point”, when the personal completely converged with despair in the face of the dead horror of reaction - this is a call for help: “There is positively nothing to grab hold of in the world ... Understand that I, besides you, there is absolutely nowhere to find a foothold ... There were hardly worse times in Russia than this ... Look, what desolation and darkness are all around! .. Help me if you can.
All this is in the spirit of Blok's "Retribution", where history breaks through the cracks of family chronicles and private destinies. In the preface to "Retribution" Blok remarkably speaks of the "single musical pressure" of time, where the big clings to the small. And it is impossible to disengage them, because in this case the integral image of time is destroyed.
In the structure of "Gamayun" this aesthetic principle, which is so essential for Blok's worldview, is unusually accurately used. The book begins with a panorama of St. Petersburg in 1880 - the year of Blok's birth, which freely takes the reader to that distant era - the horse-tram on Nevsky and Sadovaya and the factory chimneys of the outskirts, "Dostoevsky's heroes" at every step and popular with the layman "Niva" , not yet executed Kibalchich with a scheme of a jet apparatus and a fashionable entertainment of the season - riding on the Neva ice in chairs ... Big and small, funny ads in the newspapers and underlying anxiety. But this combination gives a tangible effect of presence in those distant times, and after in St. Petersburg during the times of reaction that came after the first revolution, and in the stormy days of 1917 ...
Epochs are changing, the city and the fate of people are changing, tightly fused with them. After "Gamayun" Orlov wrote a separate book, the main character of which was the city of Blok. With regard to "Gamayun", the idea of "single musical pressure" must, of course, be understood in a broader sense. This book is densely populated by people who were Blok's contemporaries. This is a group portrait of the era through the many faces with whom Blok came into contact.
Is it possible that a poet of genius is conceivable in an airless space, and is he not revealed himself precisely in the sometimes complex and very intricate interweaving of destinies and relationships, which is a living picture of history - history in human faces. “Writing a diary, or at least making notes from time to time about the most essential things, is necessary for all of us,” Blok insists. “It is very likely that our time is great and that it is we who stand at the center of life ...”
Naturally, Blok himself is at the center of the narrative in Gamayun, but the crowded periphery of the book makes the image of Blok himself alive and embossed - mobile. Here are people who are alien to Blok and close to him, with whom, however, he had contradictory relations. At that time, not only Blok, few people neglected the diary or detailed correspondence. Any event was overgrown with many psychological versions and came down to us in a variety of perspectives - personal, genre, changing chronologically. It appears in different ways in anticipation and already in recollection, in Blok's letter and his correspondent's reply, in verse and diary entry. Therefore, other characters and destinies are a kind of novels or stories.
* * *
It is necessary, the author stipulates this, to touch on the delicate aspects of life. Needless to say, the holiday romance of the seventeen-year-old high school student Blok and the thirty-eight-year-old society lady Ksenia Sadovskaya is unusual. You flip through these pages with some trepidation. Just before that, philistine curiosity is more eager, here it is looking for food. Therefore, in a book that does not neglect the general reader, the work on such a plot is significant in many respects.
It would seem that the ring of evidence should shrink around a banal holiday romance, but the unambiguity that is dear to the heart of the layman does not work; on the contrary, the more evidence there is, the easier it is to break the circle, the wider the psychological field of the fact.
Here's how it works. A year before this story, Aunt Maria Andreevna writes about Blok: "Sashura is very tall, but a child. He is fond of horse riding and theater, Zhukovsky, loves Shakhmatovo. He has matured, but is not interested in women." In confirmation of this childishness, "Sashura's" answers to a semi-joking question; he loves Taras Bulba, Hamlet, Natasha Rostov, ice cream, beer, and in general would like to be an artist in the imperial theaters and die on stage from a broken heart.
It is not surprising that the mother, in a letter to Russia from the resort, writes in a playfully ironic tone. “Sashura courted us here with great success, captivated the mistress, the mother of three children and the real state councilor ... It’s funny to look at Sashura in this role ... I don’t know if this courtship will be useful for Sashura in the sense of his adulthood and will become whether after that he looks more like a young man. Hardly."
This is how this story looks from the outside, but it is completely different in it right there for a seventeen-year-old schoolboy, choked in unbearably banal, but equally sincere vocations: “You are everything to me; the night is coming. all the same, my whole being is then full of bliss, and the eternal storm of passion torments me.
No other style was to be expected. Orlov always pays attention to such stylistic changes, because a different style is also a different psychological perspective of the event. Soon Blok would write differently: “In a word, all this is both stupid and young, and you need to throw it in the oven ...” And three years later, and quite coldly, aloofly, to you: “Dear Ksenia Mikhailovna ...”
Something more and significant than the love story before us is a story about the maturation and maturation of Blok, not easy, like everything that happened to him. And he is not cruel in this story, but the fate of the woman into whose life Blok so unexpectedly entered is cruel and inexorable. And the meaning of this story will once again be revealed from a completely different side. After desperate attempts to maintain relations with Blok, left by him, she does not know about his poetic glory, that in twelve years a false rumor about her death will stir up Blok and respond - no more, no less - a cycle that will forever remain in the series masterpieces of love lyrics.
But we talked about the aesthetic charge of the life side of the lyrics and then we will return to it. I remember the life of Tolstoy's Anna near Karenin when I learn about Sadovskaya's life. "Life has not been very kind to the beauty," remarks Orlov. A bleak start in a bleak family in the Kherson region, and after marriage to a prominent official of venerable age. After the meeting with Blok - even worse. Extremely painful and eternally sick children. When they grew up, they scattered in all directions. Husband dies. In the hungry year of 1919, a lonely, old woman walks to Odessa, eating ears of wheat along the way so as not to die of hunger. In extreme physical and mental exhaustion, he ends up in the hospital. By chance (how could it happen?), the doctor is a lover of Blok, who guessed in her by her initials the heroine of his poems. Here she first learns about these verses. But even with her, all that remains of her life is a bunch of Blok's letters.
And if letters and poems are constantly found in Orlov's book, then this is how they met in life. You can’t invent it on purpose (yes, and the author warns in the preface to Gamayun that he writes, “without allowing the slightest invention”). It seems to be like a sugary melodrama, but life itself came up with this, and this changes a lot.
And now I’ll just cite a remark about the holiday romance, made by Blok’s aunt on fresh footsteps: “She pushed him around, flirted, behaved trashy, soulless and unworthy.” Versions, versions, version - by the way, and the aunt in the later book about Blok will say the same thing in idyllic tones. And not a single version, not a single evidence is the complete truth, and could not all be known to each other in those distant times.
And it turns out almost incredible. We, in some respects, know more about the people of that time than they knew about themselves. And only because any era flows into many sleeves, private destinies and evidence unknown to each other. And only in such a book such documentary "streams", "sleeves" for the first time merge together for a mutual look back.
* * *
I singled out this particular short story for an enlarged analysis, because it highlights the peculiarities of sculpting an artistic image on a documentary basis, which are generally characteristic of "Gamayun". Because this story is unique in terms of the clash of human destinies, but at the same time it has less of the complexity that the reader will think about for himself, delving into the relationship of, say, Blok with Lyubov Dmitrievna.
Let's just say it briefly. Blok's three loves - for Mendeleeva, Volokhova, Delmas - are drawn by Orlov as three attempts to find personal happiness, but they end in failure, Blok realized too early: the doors were wide open to a blizzard square. The blizzard whirlwinds of the Volokhov cycle and the "Twelve" differ, but they also echo each other. History grows through personal destinies, it is true, but at the same time it breaks them, drawing them into its whirlpool.
Despite the fact that every love has its own face, Orlov interestingly sees the through motive of Blok in the feeling of the female element. Delmas - just like before Volokhova - he passionately inspires the idea of her "incomprehensibility". He certainly imagines in his beloved such a reserve of elemental forces, of which she herself does not suspect. Volokhov in him "with petty slavish features and great freedom." Blok seemed to be possessed by a thirst to liberate in a woman those unheard-of inner forces that he saw. But was it really all? He inflated some real features of his heroines to exorbitance - such are the properties of his nature. For a moment they could withstand the glare of this exorbitance, but there were not enough internal resources to support it.
It was a living passion, but it was more than love, and even more than a thirst for a creative union. It was a thirst to see my aesthetic alive. Be that as it may, Blok's women were not so ordinary, but they could not and did not want to become his aesthetic concept in the flesh.
An inseparability for Blok, but also an inseparability of life and art. The perceptive Lyubov Dmitrievna was the first to notice this: “You imagined all sorts of good things about me, and behind this fantastic fiction that lived only in your imagination, you didn’t notice me, a living person with a living soul, overlooked ...”
But Lyubov Dmitrievna not only rebelled, she willingly picked up the tone of Blok's letters, and the real world was transformed for her by his poems. But life moved on rapidly. And Blok quickly moved on. Rereading the book, you see how tortuous were the relationship between life and verse. Finally, she and Lyubov Dmitrievna decided to leave from under the zealous eye of their mother, to heal on their own.
The new, uncomplicated housing and the change in life immediately respond with the cycle "Petty-bourgeois Life" - a change in the creative perspective, its obvious democratization. The same life is seen through the eyes of a raznochinny double.
Well, what about life itself? Is it too late a change? There was confusion in the soul and life of Lyuba. The "dark" Volokhova will inevitably appear in Blok's life. And it's not at all unexpected. Again, Orlov subtly notes: there is a diary entry about a premonition of the Dionysian cycle. Volokhova seems to be the call of Blok's creative will, the inspirer of the predetermined cycle, a clue for his aesthetic search at that moment.
And Delmas? Decadent ecstasy has been cast aside. Blok wants to hear the voice of popular passion. In the elemental female character, something more dawns for him - Carmen, "gypsyism", the element of the people, Russia ... That's where Blok pulls ...
* * *
It turns out again almost unbelievable. The unbridled impressionability with which Blok experiences falling in love is obvious to the reader. But this impressionability itself, as it turns out, eagerly sought fodder for a creative impulse, a new round of Blok's creative aesthetics. And if the most intimate is in Blok in the light of the worldview, then what can we say about other connections and relations of the poet.
"Gamayun" makes you feel with all your strength how Blok remained purposeful and independent in the human, life and creative stripes. The small ripples of the literary game are not for him. Not for him are circle interests and mutual responsibility. With a living instinct, he is drawn to Gorky's healthy talent, although his Chronicle has a reputation as an unfriendly journal. With the same instinct, he welcomes the young Akhmatova, sharply rejecting her comrades in the poetic workshop. He will remember the success of his Meyerhold's "Balaganchik", but he is irreconcilably harsh towards the degenerate Meyerholdism. After "Twelve" do not shake hands. He is unshakable.
But at the same time, this is what Blok wrote in his mother’s gloomy moment: “Mom, you are absolutely in vain to worry ... After all, my path is straight, like all Russian paths, and if you go from one tavern to another in zigzags, you still go along the same unknown yet, but, like an arrow, direct ... "
About zigzags here not only in the literal sense. The straightness of Blok's path - and Orlov gives a good feel for this - was nurtured in a patchwork of ideological quests. She was lost when looking a meter ahead or a year ago. But "the guiding beacon of the distant goal" invariably and immediately discovered it.
Blok, of course, breathed the poisoned air of his era and the poisons of decadence in the Petersburg salons. I should have gotten carried away before giving up. Blok lived intensively, in a spiritual overstrain. Every minute one's own word was born in a collision with someone else's. In "Gamayun" there is above all this air of time. Not just the ideological searches of Blok and around him, but what we have already called history in living faces.
Together with Blok, it was given to us once to go up for the first time to the fourth floor of the Muruzi house, known to all Petersburgers, so that, having crossed the threshold of the Merezhkovsky apartment, and for the first time to see the eccentric-looking hostess of the house, Zinaida Gippius, who was "smart, evil, fastidious, curious, adored young admirers and kept them in strict obedience." Which "charmed, quarreled and reconciled (quarreled more than reconciled), listened to and spread rumors and gossip (spread more than listened), in general - "created the atmosphere of the salon."
From one circle of ideas to another, from one salon to another: "Who hasn't climbed the Tower on Wednesdays!" - the famous Tower of Vyacheslav Ivanov: from a starched aesthete to some old folk teacher or a provincial priest. And here is the owner of the Tower himself: "He was a man without age (he seemed like an old man when he was still far from fifty), in appearance - either a German musician who jumped straight out of Hoffmann's stories, or a Scandinavian pastor, or a Russian pop heretical sects, chrysostom and charmer, with insinuating dance movements, at the same time honeyed and sarcastic, overwhelming everyone with boundless learning and convinced of his own infallibility.
Orlov sketches his portraits in the spirit of physiognomy, going, as it were, instantly from the outside into the inside of a person. These are ideological and psychological portraits.
Here we note one feature of Orlov's skill as a documentary filmmaker. He alternates the open presentation of the document with its indirect use. As a thorough connoisseur of the Blok era, he can squeeze a lot of evidence into one well-aimed characterization, giving it his own tone.
As we move to the periphery of the narrative, to episodic persons in the book about Blok, this mastery of a brief and apt characterization does not fade, but, on the contrary, becomes urgently needed. At the same time, "Gamayun" not only does not crumble into countless characteristics, but collects them together, into an integral image of the environment and era in which Blok lived. Looking more closely, you see: Orlova in "Gamayun" occupies as much an individual in people as it does a typical one. In different human variations, he explores the phenomenon of decadence in general.
* * *
Orlov very conveniently cites in the book the observations of the "evil-tongued" Vladislav Khodasevich over these people who managed to turn the game into life, and life into a game, and became entangled in these transformations and the fragility of relationships, demanding in life only "fullness of obsession." But obsession can also be played.
That's where the "walking mask" of Blok comes from. Decadence is closely related to the aesthetics of the mask. Man strives to become a literary or historical reminiscence. And if we now wander to where the "Argonauts" gathered, then here's another living face of decadence for you:
“In Moscow salons, Ellis played the role of little Savonarola, was unparalleledly importunate in spreading his ideas and intolerant of other people's opinions, “poked his nose into the lives of his friends unbearably”, treated them arbitrarily and loved to incite them against each other. He himself was completely disinterested, he lived in poverty and always got into all sorts of scandalous stories, from which all the same friends rescued him, not without difficulty.
Brief, but again ambiguous characterization. A person wants to seem bigger than he is (Savonarola!), but this makes him look funnier and pitiful. On another occasion, about Georgy Chulkov, whom Lyubov Dmitrievna became interested in after Bely, Orlov notes: "As often happens, his caricature shadow relentlessly follows the big and significant." Chulkov was a parodic shadow of Bely. The game turns a petty person into the purest parody, and then one and very unambiguous phrase is enough for him - another "Argonaut": "The" vulture "itself" - Sokolov (Krechetov) made an unfavorable impression: an external person, a bad poet, a cheap phrase-monger, a well-fed and self-satisfied barrister pretending to be a demonist."
But the wife of the false demonist, Nina Ivanovna Petrovskaya, attracts the attention of Blok and his researcher. From what? “This is also one of the most curious shadows of Russian symbolism. She wrote unimportant stories, but they are not the essence of the matter. She seemed to embody the spirit of decadence in her very personality, in her very behavior. catastrophe, she possessed a truly rare ability to complicate life - her own and someone else's. Terribly tangled romantic relationships connected her simultaneously with Andrei Bely and Valery Bryusov ... Blok felt something like sympathy for this dark and unhappy soul ... "
Why? Here it is just right to return from the gallery of decadence in faces to Blok himself. Decadence with a human face and decadence parodic. You can play demonism or "fullness of possession." You can get confused and die in this seriously. Seriously interfere with the game and life. Blok knew the latter well from his own experience.
But he knew how easily one passes into the other. Orlov recalls how, at the time of the first glimpses of Blok's lifetime glory, dubious girls from Nevsky Prospects invited random passers-by, promising to show them "enchanted distance." So life itself vulgarized and parodied "The Stranger", a recognized masterpiece of Blok's lyrics. But the ability for such vulgarization is inherent in the very nature of decadence.
A historical panorama in the faces and its focus is Blok himself! Here is the most essential thing in understanding their connection. Especially for the reader of the book, not very knowledgeable of the era. Of course, decadence was not for Blok just environment. Blok carried it in his own blood, but he also hated it. And to the point Orlov recalls Pasternak's formula:
But who is he? Which arena
Did he acquire his later experience?
With whom did he fight?
With myself, with myself.
In this, among all the zigzags, lies the directness and grandeur of the path of Blok, who said: "It is necessary, apparently, to outgrow oneself, this is the law of world movement." This raised him high above the environment, the flesh of the flesh of which he was. This is a landmark, an axial line for the reader in the difficult world of Blok.
Blok came to revolution. There is no need to bring Blok's worldview up to the canons of a modern history textbook. Orlov does not. This will not change anything in the textbook and will not change anything in Blok, for whom Bolshevism remains largely Bakunin's element. Everything is much more complicated. Even talking about the well-known rapprochement and mutual sympathies of Blok and Gorky in last years, Orlov points to the paradoxical polarity of their views.
Gorky relied on culture. Blok, in the name of the revival of life and the human race, was not even afraid of the death of culture. It turned out that "the half-blooded son of the pillar Russian intelligentsia, flesh of her flesh, renounces her, scolds her on the spot for the fact that she fearfully and mediocrely runs from the elements, from the revolution (which she herself prepared), betrayed her own covenants, and the combat artist class meant to bury old world demands from the rebellious poet love and respect for this sluggish and frightened intelligentsia".
"They had only one Russia," writes Vl. Orlov, and if each of the characters who got into "Gamayun" hinted at the contradictory and richness of Russian life in a critical era, Gorky and Blok were two essential facets of this life. Both turned out to be, in the words of Blok about Gorky, "an intermediary between the people and the intelligentsia, between two camps, both of which still do not know themselves or each other."
The last period of Blok Orlov's life is considered with special and necessary care. If there is no need to bring Blok's attitude to life and worldview up to the canons of a history textbook, then the author resolutely objects to another attempt, dear to the hearts of some Western commentators, to explain the depression that gripped Blok after The Twelve, disillusionment with the revolution.
Of course, it was not and could not be. And here Orlov shows Blok as a frantic maximalist, who, plunging into the abyss of daily affairs - whether in the theater, in Gorky's "World Literature", - rushed far beyond the limits of this daily life: "But we did not wait for these days, but the coming centuries .. And at the same time, this distance between a distant goal and everyday life, the very abyss of this daily life, burdened, moreover, often by the nonsense of what is happening, could not but oppress the romantic-maximalist.
Here is the same incommensurability of historical and biographical time - their steps are incommensurable: Blok looked centuries ahead, thought in epochs and millennia, turning points in the history of mankind, and before his eyes was that daily life in which devastation and the New Economic Policy, confusion and spiteful howling of that intelligentsia , with which Blok so decisively cut off all ties.
Incidentally, the words of Lenin to Gorky about the unfavorable spiritual climate in Petrograd of those years are mentioned here. Block lived in this microclimate. A little over a year before his death, he leaves for Moscow. His poetry is well received. It was like a breath of fresh air. Tsvetaeva listened to him, but did not dare to approach. Poems, dedicated to Blok, handed over to the poet by her eight-year-old daughter Alya, She then described this reading.
Orlov speaks of the kinship of these two poets in spirit. Probably, she is in a violent temperament, when everything is at the limit - "both disgust from life and crazy love for her" ...
Isn't this the source of thinking by antitheses, which is also mentioned? But not head-on, but similar to the frenzied swinging of the spiritual pendulum "disgust - love." But don't we then explain the last depression purely psychologically - such a buildup? Maybe the Blok should have continued, but complete nervous exhaustion and the heart stopped?
After all, what kind of life it was. Lyubov Dmitrievna sends Blok's mother to trade at the flea market for food. The strife between women reaches the point that Blok utters a cruel phrase: "Only the death of one of the three of us can help." “To what extent both of them did not know how to take care of him,” Orlov, who empathizes with Blok with all his passion, cannot restrain himself from exclamation-commentary.
After all, the trip to Moscow, following the example of last year - just two and a half months before his death - this time was like "a heavy, difficult dream, like nightmares." Nothing can lift the sick, torn, exhausted Blok...
And so the question arises: on the one hand, we are more and more thoroughly penetrating the everyday and psychophysiological causes of the end, and, on the other hand, are we not replacing with everyday thinking a broad historical view of such a profound phenomenon as Blok? Blok was able to accept the revolution, but at the same time he died, because the era he personified died. Many have said something similar, remember Mayakovsky.
Yes, and Blok himself, a few months before his death, writes the amazing “Neither dreams nor reality”, where in an elegiac tone he speaks of historical fatigue: “All our lives we have been waiting for happiness, like people in twilight long hours trains are waiting on an open, snow-covered platform. Blinded by the snow, and everyone is waiting for three lights to appear at the turn.
Here, finally, is a tall, narrow steam locomotive; but no longer for joy: everyone was so tired, so cold that it was impossible to keep warm even in a warm carriage.
The tired soul sat down at the edge of the grave. Spring is back, almonds are blooming again on the slope. Pass by Magdalene with a vessel, Peter with the keys; Salome carries her head on a platter..."
A tempting argument in favor of a historical interpretation, but ... Do not be lazy, leaf through Blok's letters, and what is it? In a letter to your soulmate Yevgeny Ivanov, dated 1910, you read: “Dear Zhenya ..! What a dull pain from boredom happens! funny and boring, and I, yawning, look after me from the "wet platform. Or - they are still waiting for happiness, like a train at night on an open platform covered with snow .."
This is when the embryo of later allegory appeared. That's when a similar state has already been experienced, and more than once. So, all the same, Blok's life was subject to this inexorable swing of the pendulum "disgust - love." So, was this pendulum invented, or is the whole essence of nature, and hence Blok's poetry, in the contrasting change of self-perceptions?
This is wonderfully captured in "Gamayun", where the very alternation of chapters and chapters conveys this natural rhythm of ups and downs, Blok's despair and inspiration. Yes, Orlov constantly talks about the dualities of Blok's nature and even about his bad heredity along both lines - maternal and paternal.
But does this mean the abolition of historicism, or is it the overcoming of what I would call forced historicism, neglecting the nature of the artist? And I would consider such overcoming one of the main merits of this book. After all, such an overcoming is long overdue in theoretical thought.
There is a naive, worldly point of view on poetry. It comes from ideas about the nature of the poet. Pushkin was de sunny, and Lermontov was gloomy. There is a historical point of view: "the days of Alexander, a wonderful beginning" demanded the sunny Pushkin, and the gloomy era of the Nikolaev reaction - the gloomy and bilious Lermontov.
It seems to me that "Gamayun" overcomes the one-sidedness of both. This book is about how difficult it is to converge the nature of the artist and history.
One should not think that the historical type of a person is like an adapter needle, obediently running along the sound track. But one should not think that even the path of the genetic matrix makes a person his slave in his historical existence. It seems to me that in "Gamayun" (although this is not formulated) a person is caught in some kind of complex and double dependence between one and the other matrix, history and his original nature.
The epoch does not give rise to and does not level neuropsychological types, but it relies on those suitable for its self-expression. For different faces -- different types. It fell to the block to be at the breaking point. At the boiling point. To live in constant spiritual and nervous strain, which exhausted his strength. So bequeathed to him by nature. And so history took advantage of this testament. This was the "personal life in history." This is shown in Gamayun.
What is left for the reader? When re-reading the book, one no longer "spreads" in one's mind its individual chapters, and hence the individual chapters of Blok's life, without losing, of course, its general perspective. For this life is boundless in spiritual richness.
Probably, modern man, sufficiently immersed in daily work and life, it is impossible and not necessary to live in that spiritual overstrain in which Blok lived, but it is necessary to know it and remember it with your heart as a moral measure of being.
As for Blok's poems, perhaps, as sometimes happens, in a letter, in a casual remark to a random correspondent, he said what he could have said to us, the heirs of his life and his work: "The last request to you: if you love my poems, overcome their poison, read about the future in them.
A FEW PRELIMINARY WORDS
Dostoevsky said that the poet himself creates his own life - and, moreover, one that did not exist before him. Blok, without refuting Dostoevsky, thought that the root of the poet's life is in poetry, and life itself (personal life) is just "somehow."Meanwhile, there is only one root: it grows into poems from life, from the personality of the poet - in all its searches, finds and losses, hopes and disbeliefs, falls and ups.
“In order to create something, one must be something,” said Goethe.
I wanted to capture the movement of the one and only life of the poet in time. Poetry begins when the poet goes out into the world. The work of the poet is nothing but a personal life in history. Thus, the task of biographical narrative is to show how life becomes destiny.
The personal world of Blok is huge and full of echoes of his time. The soul of a poet is the most sensitive seismograph, capable of capturing the slightest fluctuation of the historical soil in an instant impression. All the storms, catastrophes, all the faith and all the despair of his complex and difficult age passed through Blok's personal world.
Viktor Vasnetsov on one of his canvases depicted Gamayun - a bird of black feathers with a darkly beautiful human face, sung in ancient Russian legends as a creature prophesying about future destinies. Alexander Blok was in his nineteenth year when, under the impression of this picture, he wrote the poem "Gamayun, the prophetic bird."
It is, as it were, a headpiece to all his work: in immature youthful verses, that note of insane anxiety and rebellious passion, which is the very essence of Blok's great poetry, has already sounded.
She speaks and sings
Unable to raise the wings of the troubled ...
The yoke of evil Tatars broadcasts,
Broadcasts a series of bloody executions,
And a coward, and hunger, and a fire,
The strength of the villains, the death of the right...
Several years passed - and Blok himself became the Gamayun of Russia, its prophetic poet, who predicted "unheard of changes" that changed the whole face of our world.
Embraced by eternal terror,
A beautiful face burns with love,
But things sound true
Mouths covered in blood!
You have to die for life to become destiny. Blok died at the age of forty-one. This is not so small for a genius. Pushkin left thirty-seven, Lermontov did not live up to twenty-seven.
I tried to tell about the life of Alexander Blok, choosing a free form of presentation, but without allowing the slightest fiction. Blok's life is recreated here from his diaries, letters and writings, as well as from the testimonies of people who knew the poet well and told the truth about him.
The book is dedicated to Elena Junger.
July 5, 1977
GAMAYUN
“... there is such a person” (I) who thought more about the truth than about happiness.Alexander Blok
It is worth living only in such a way as to make immeasurable demands on life: all or nothing; wait for the unexpected; believe not in “what is not in the world”, but in what should be in the world ...Alexander Blok
Neither need, nor censorship, nor friendship, nor even love broke him; he remained the way he wanted to be.L. D. Blok
INTRODUCTION
PETERSBURG In 1880
1
2
And at the same time, it was terribly disturbing. No one could get rid of the feeling: something must happen, and very soon - from day to day.
In conversations, in the press, ominous words flashed more and more often: sedition, nihilist, underground worker, proclamation, undermining, dynamite, bomb, assassination ...
The townsfolk looked askance at young people who had taken strength in glasses and with blankets, at strict girls in neat talmochki. This was the very youth about whom Turgenev, also using a buzzword, said that she was "charged with electricity, like a Leyden jar."
A time of great turmoil and general upheaval has come.
On August 26, 1879, Narodnaya Volya pronounced the death sentence on the tsar. On March 1, 1881, the sentence was carried out. This year and a half saw the highest upsurge of the revolutionary-terrorist wave and the most severe retaliatory repressions of tsarism.
In November 1879, the Narodnaya Volya tried to blow up the tsar's train - the case fell through. On February 5, 1880, Russia was rocked by an explosion in the Winter Palace. Alexander II survived by a miracle. Stepan Khalturin managed to escape.
Dynamics in the royal palace - this has never happened before ... The court and dignitary-bureaucratic circles fell into disarray. Out of fright, it was decided to take a course towards liberalization. Established the Supreme Administrative Commission for the protection of state order and public peace. Loris-Melikov was summoned and vested with the powers of a dictator. He intended to act in a conciliatory spirit, and the program he outlined had already been dubbed "the dictatorship of the heart."
Only a week has passed - Ippolit Mlodetsky shot at Loris. He missed and was hanged two days later.
In such extraordinary, inconsistent circumstances, February 19 somehow celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of the reign of Alexander. Actually, there was everything that was supposed to be - the parade of the guards, the reception in the Winter Palace, the crowd on Palace Square, the illumination. Only not a shadow of enthusiasm was noticed.
Throughout 1880, day after day, searches, arrests, political processes and executions. Terrorists, expropriators, propagandists, underground printers are tried and immediately hanged or sent to hard labor ... And yet the authorities were not able to cope with sedition. And ministers and gendarmes lost their heads.
The tsar generally approved Loris-Melikov's idea of convening representatives from the zemstvos and cities, but he still did not dare to finally approve the project. He despaired, sank, tired - tired of the feeling of hopelessness that gripped him, of family troubles, of the fear of death that did not let go.
Emaciated, hunched over, panting, painted, with glazed eyes, a voluptuous old man, he was busy only settling the consequences of his scandalous marriage with Ekaterina Dolgoruky.
After the first, Karakozovsky, shot in 1866, there were four more assassination attempts. In April 1879, Solovyov almost shot him, but God saved him again. But the explosion in Zimny no longer left any hope. The loop tightened.
Despite police reprisals, provocations and frequent failures, Narodnaya Volya, led by Andrey Zhelyabov, is preparing a new decisive assassination attempt. The plan was developed down to the smallest detail. The routes of royal passages around the city were studied. Digging is underway on Malaya Sadovaya. In another case, prepared bombers. Alexander is surrounded on all sides.
Several months have passed and
... an explosion
From Catherine's channel,
Covering Russia with a cloud
Everything predicted from afar
That the hour will be fatal,
What will such a card fall ...
And this century is the hour of the day -
The last one is named the first of March.PUSHKIN HOLIDAY
In the midst of all this disarray, disarray, and alarming alertness, at the beginning of June 1880, Russia commemorated and honored Pushkin - forty-three years after his death.
Back in 1871, it was decided to build in Moscow the first monument to the one who became the first love of Russia. While they were collecting money by subscription, while the competition was held twice, while the monument was being cast according to Opekushin's project, the year 1880 approached.
It would seem that the authorities at that time were not up to Pushkin. But Loris-Melikov reasoned differently: perhaps a wide celebration of the poet's memory would at least partially and temporarily divert the attention of society from politics, at least somewhat defuse the thickened atmosphere. Therefore, even the mourning declared on the occasion of the death of the Empress only delayed Pushkin's celebrations for a few days.
They began on June 6, on a cloudy, windy day, with a funeral liturgy in the Passion Monastery. By 1 pm, the ceremony participants moved to the square, where a monument shrouded in a white veil stood, surrounded by national flags, wreaths and garlands.
Several thousand people gathered. In the foreground, the pure public settled down, the common people were pushed aside. In places of honor are the children and grandchildren of Pushkin, and behind them is a dilapidated old man who served as the poet's valets.
To the sounds of the anthem and the shouts of “hurrah”, the cover fell - and Pushkin, thoughtfully bowing his bronze head, stood over Moscow forever.
At that moment the sun appeared. Deputations moved with wreaths. There were many of them - from all universities, from the Moscow nobility, from theaters, newspapers and magazines, from city hospitals, from sworn attorneys, from a society of clerks and a circle of choral singing ... The "tavern deputation" brought up the rear of the procession.
Then came ceremonial meetings at the university and in the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, ceremonial dinners and literary and musical evenings. There was a lot of officialdom in all this, feigned complacency and liberal idle talk, feast orgy, music and applause, the clink of knives, forks and glasses.
And yet these Pushkin days have become a great social event.
For the first time, Russia openly honored not an autocrat, not a commander, not a dignitary, but a private person who did nothing but compose poems and stories.
Forty-three years earlier, Pushkin's obituary - a few lines in a mourning frame, written by Vladimir Odoevsky - caused a storm of indignation from those in power. “Why this publication about Pushkin? - the angry bosses reprimanded the editor of the newspaper. - What is this black frame around the news of the death of a person who is not official, who did not occupy any position on public service? Well, it's still wherever it goes! But what expressions! Poetry Sun!! Excuse me, why such an honor? "Pushkin died ... in the middle of his great field"! What kind of field is this?.. Was Pushkin a military leader, a military leader, a minister, a statesman?! Writing poems does not mean yet ... to pass great field!»
For almost half a century of Russian life that has passed since then, the situation has changed radically. At the forefront of the holiday, the foolish prince of Oldenburg, representing the person of the tsar, and the Minister of Public Education Saburov, a cold, polished official, who in six months the St. Petersburg student Podbelsky would publicly slap in the face, labored.
And yet, despite the official nature of the ceremony, it acquired the significance of a national celebration, although the people did not directly participate in what was happening. Democrats immediately drew attention to this aspect of the matter. “Establishing a monument to Pushkin,” wrote N.V. Shelgunov, “we, so to speak, raised the idea of the importance of the press into the general consciousness and strengthened it publicly, officially, by a civil act.”
Writers gathered for the celebration. Turgenev arrived from Paris. Dostoevsky, Pisemsky, Ostrovsky, Grigorovich, Polonsky, Maikov, Pleshcheev appeared.
An irritated Fet was present, but kept to himself. In obscurant blindness, he saw in the holiday the apotheosis of the nihilism he hated and burst into verses that, praising Pushkin, sounded like written " against holiday,” so it would be inappropriate to announce them publicly.
Goncharov, Shchedrin and Tolstoy avoided participation in the celebration. Turgenev went to Yasnaya Polyana to persuade Tolstoy, but he declared that all public ceremonies are one sin and idle talk.
The hero of the first days of the holiday was undoubtedly Turgenev. Each of his appearances, each mention of his name evoked delight, applause, cheers, general standing up ... The gray-haired giant in a Parisian tailcoat and plush boots (gout tortured!), With a lordly habit, easily and confidently played the role of Pushkin's blood heir offered to him by the public .
Turgenev's acknowledged leadership meant that the battlefield, this time, was left to the liberals. The Democrats kept aloof, and the retrogrades were wiped out. Enraged, Katkov broke through with a speech at one of the banquets - and then a significant scene took place. Katkov suddenly spoke about the need to reconcile the warring social forces "under the shadow of the monument to Pushkin" and, having finished, extended the glass to Turgenev with a broad gesture. He covered his glass with his hand. The liberal "Voice" wrote on this occasion: "A man who is going through his execution and thinking with a shabby speech to atone for the betrayal of twenty years makes a heavy impression."
But Dostoevsky's speech mixed all the cards.
This happened on the last day of the holiday - June 8, in the hall of the Noble Assembly, the current Hall of Columns.
"All of Moscow" was present - enlightened merchants, famous lawyers, actors, writers in tailcoats and white ties, generals, dazzling ladies. Student youth crowded between the columns and in the choir stalls.
Dostoevsky ascended the pulpit - small, unprepossessing, gloomy, with a sallow-pale face and bottomless, darkly shining eyes, in a baggy tailcoat. He was greeted with restrained applause.
He read from a notebook. He began quietly and confusedly, but after five minutes he "took possession of all hearts and souls" (as Gleb Uspensky, who listened to him, says). He descended from the pulpit in the deathly silence of the hall ...
And suddenly a storm broke out - a rumble, clatter, some cries and squeals. Everyone jumped up from their seats, rushed to the stage, someone cried out loud, someone hugged, some young man fainted from an excess of feelings. Eyewitnesses say that nothing like this has ever happened before or since. Dostoevsky himself wrote to his wife that "the audience was in hysterics."
Turgenev, enclosing Dostoevsky in a powerful embrace, exclaimed: "You are a genius, you are more than a genius!" Ivan Aksakov, a sworn Moscow orator, declaring: "A brilliant speech ... An event in our literature ...", refused the floor given to him.
Excited ladies made their way to the stage with a huge laurel wreath and kissed Dostoevsky's hands ...
On the same day, at the closing concert, Dostoevsky read Pushkin's The Prophet with gloomy inspiration. Strakhov remembered him like this: “An emaciated little body, gripped by tension. Right hand, convulsively stretched down, obviously refrained from suggesting a gesture; the voice was amplified to a scream ... "
Success stunned Dostoevsky - he was not spoiled by signs of attention, like Turgenev.
Returning to the hotel, with a burning head, hastily, straying and crossing out what was written, he shared with his wife the impressions of this best day of his. There is a striking phrase in the letter: “You must agree, Anya, that it was possible to stay for this: these are pledges of the future, pledges Total, even if I die…”
He died six months later. Pushkin's speech was his farewell to Russia, remained his testament and prophecy.
The main thing that Dostoevsky believed in and called for has been refuted by history. To his call: "Humble yourself, proud man!" Russia didn't listen. The new generation brought up in itself not humility and humility, but energy, will and passion.
Dostoevsky did not accept the revolution. But what he said in his farewell speech about the universal responsiveness of our national genius, about the Russian type of wanderer, responding to every other's grief and suffering and seeking universal happiness, about the duty of the intelligentsia to the people, - deeply sunk into Russian thought, became a commandment for Russian literature and echoed in the plans and world-historical accomplishments of the Russian revolution, which led the oppressed of the whole Earth after it.
Forty years have passed since Dostoevsky's speech, when one of his spiritual sons, the great Russian poet, who called on everyone to listen to the October Revolution with all his body, with all his heart, with all his consciousness, said his parting word - also about Pushkin, and also six months before his death.
The eighth of June 1880 and the eleventh of February 1921 are the dates in the history of our literature connected as if by a huge arc of the rainbow. rainbow name: Pushkin.START
In 1880, people who knew Pushkin personally were still living out their lives. Fyodor Glinka and Princess Elizaveta Ksaveryevna Vorontsova did not live long enough to see the Pushkin holiday. Survived the holiday Alexei Wulf, Alexandra Osipovna Smirnova ("black-eyed Rosseti"), Chancellor A.M. Gorchakov - the last lyceum student of Pushkin's graduation, Evpraksia Vrevskaya (Pushkin's Zizi), Vera Fedorovna Vyazemskaya, Delvig's widow - Sofya Mikhailovna, journalist Kraevsky, who helped Pushkin in edition of Sovremennik.
The seventy-two-year-old Alexandra Nikolaevna Karelina was also in St. Petersburg at that time, who, it seems, did not meet Pushkin himself, but in her younger years belonged to the circle of his closest friends and acquaintances.
Once in the family she was called Sashenka, and her friends at the St. Petersburg boarding house Madame Schroetter - Alexandrina.
We have received letters to Sashenka Semyonova from her closest boarding friend, Sofya Mikhailovna Saltykova (later Delvig, and still later Baratynskaya). Letters were sent in 1824 - 1837 from St. Petersburg to distant Orenburg, where Sashenka's parent, a retired guards officer, served. One of the heroes of the correspondence is Pushkin's soulmate Pyotr Aleksandrovich Pletnev, he taught Russian literature to the girls in the boarding school. (It seems that both were a little in love with him.) In the letters, the names of Pushkin, Delvig, Baratynsky, Ryleev, Bestuzhev flicker, they talk in detail about meetings with other future Decembrists - Yakushkin, Kuchelbeker, Pyotr Kakhovsky.
Sonechka sends Sashenka Pushkin's autograph received through Delvig and Pletnev - several sheets of paper with excerpts from Onegin: "Keep them, they are precious ... and only the four of us know these verses."
Sashenka herself corresponds with Pletnev. He sends her books with flattering inscriptions. In Orenburg, she meets with Pushkin's lyceum comrade Vladimir Volkhovsky, she is well acquainted with another good friend of the poet - I.E. Velikopolsky. Anna Petrovna Kern expresses his heartfelt sympathy to her in handwritten postscripts to Sonya's messages.
Sashenka was an educated girl with character. In Orenburg, she reads Jung-Stilling, studies Karamzin's "History", delves into Shakespeare and Schiller, criticizes "Eugene Onegin" (in the fourth and fifth chapters she found "weak points"), she herself composes something "about the language of the Kirghiz". Pletnev finds “something special” in her: “She, like Orpheus, animates the very stones ...”
