Andrei Siniavskii. a Hero of His Time?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SCHOOL OF SLAVONIC AND EAST EUROPEAN STUDIES ANDREI SINIAVSKII. A HERO OF HIS TIME? Eugenie Markesinis DISSERTATION SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY at UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON 1 I, Eugenie Markesinis, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in my thesis. Eugenie Markesinis 18 March, 2010 2 Abstract This thesis is an artistic biography of Andrei Siniavskii (1925-1997) as a writer in and of his time, showing how this subtle and complex author found his way in a society polarised into heroes and villains, patriots and traitors; how he progresses from identification with the value system and ideology of his time to reaction against it, his dissidence expressed in literary terms. Beyond this, I hope to show how he moves to a new conception of the writer in the fusion of his creative and critical selves that is dominated neither by the voice of the collective ‘we’, nor by the voice of the individual ‘I’ but which leaves space in the text for engagement by the reader. Individual readers, passing manuscripts from hand to hand or reciting texts orally had assured the continuity of the Russian literary tradition during the long bleak years when literature seemed to mark time under the strictures of Soviet ideology and Socialist Realist aesthetics. Siniavskii’s work is motivated by the passionate belief that the way forward for Russian literature lay in this same spark generated between individual reader and text. My thesis is organised chronologically and is based on a close reading of Siniavskii’s work. It explores the way his art does not simply reflect the circumstances of his life and times but is actively shaped by an intricate commerce between the two. I intend to show how Siniavskii’s distancing himself, first ideologically then physically, from the Soviet system is counterbalanced by his creative reintegration with Russia through literature. 3 Acknowledgements This thesis is dedicated to Vassili, Julietta, Spyro and Andreas with my love and gratitude. My heartfelt thanks go also to my supervisor, Jane Grayson, who has given unstintingly of her expertise, her time, and her friendship. Without her this thesis would never have been started, much less completed. 4 Table of Contents Declaration 2 Abstract 3 Acknowledgements 4 Table of Contents 5 Introduction Argument and objectives 8 Biographical Background 14 Art and Dissidence 27 The Writer 30 Methodology 35 Breakdown of Chapters 37 Chapter I 40 University years. Evolution of a method 47 Gor ΄kii and Maiakovskii 50 The critic and the writer 62 Biography as spectacle. Biography as life lived 74 The writer as thief and conjuror 80 The writer as medium 85 Liubimov 88 5 Chapter II 99 The writer 105 The reader 109 Art 119 Fantastic literary criticism 135 The artist as impostor 144 Pasternak and Maiakovskii 147 Death / Not death 152 Chapter III 159 Sintaksis 169 The writer as enemy 171 Siniavskii and Tertz. The writer and the reader 175 Fantastic Autobiography 180 Spokoinoi nochi 187 Chapter I, ‘Perevertysh’ 189 Chapter II, ‘Dom svidanii’ 192 Chapter III, ‘Otets’ 199 Chapter IV, ‘Opasnye sviazi’ 204 Chapter V, ‘Vo chreve kitovom’ 211 Chapter IV 230 ‘Puteshestvie na Chernuiu rechku’ 238 6 Koshkin dom 252 Conclusion 278 Appendix 288 Bibliography 289 7 Introduction ‘Может быть , некоторые читатели захотят узнать мое мнение о характере Печорина ? – Мой ответ –заглавие этой книги . – “Да это злая ирония !” – скажут они . – Не знаю .’ 1 In a landmark trial in 1966, Andrei Siniavskii, the respected Soviet scholar and literary critic, was sentenced to seven years hard labour for nothing more nor less than the content of his fictional work, written under the name of Abram Tertz. Siniavskii’s prosecution, intended by the authorities as a post-Stalinist show trial to signal the end of the brief Khrushchev thaw and a crackdown on Russian cultural life, misfired as both Siniavskii and his co-defendant Iulii Daniel ΄ declined to play along with the script and denied any wrong-doing. The trial gave focus to the nascent dissident movement in Russia and is widely recognised as having launched it in earnest. Catapulted to overnight fame and notoriety, Siniavskii’s fate illustrates the difficulties that have long bedevilled the relationship between the writer and society in Russia, a society that, on the one hand, could raise up its writers as heroes but could just as easily damn them as villains and traitors. At the same time, as transcripts of the trial show, his experience reveals the difficulty of communication between writer and reader in a society in which the control of 1 M. Iu. Lermontov, Geroi nashego vremeni , in Lermontov, Sobranie sochinenii v desiati tomakh , Moscow, 2000, 6, pp. 212-366 (p. 262) 8 language was vested in the organs of authority: the trial amounted to nothing more nor less than a dialogue of the deaf. My thesis is an artistic biography of Siniavskii as a writer in and of his time. My line of enquiry will follow the way in which this subtle and complex author finds his voice and his path in a polarised, alien world of heroes and villains, patriots and traitors, how Siniavskii progresses from identification with the value system and ideology of his time to reaction against it, his dissidence expressed in literary terms. Simultaneously, I hope to show how Siniavskii’s distancing of himself, first ideologically then physically, from the Soviet regime is counterbalanced by a creative reintegration with Russia through literature. Through this approach to literature he moves towards a new conception of the role and identity of the writer in the fusion of the creative and critical selves that is dominated neither by the voice of the collective ‘we’ nor the voice of the individual ‘I’ but which leaves open space in the text for engagement by the reader. This progress evolves naturally from his circumstances, from the organic interaction between art and life, culminating in his little-known, posthumously published work, Koshkin dom (The Cats’ House, 1998) to which the final part of my last chapter is devoted. This is the reason for my choice of title, with its obvious reference to Lermontov’s Geroi nashego vremeni (A Hero of Our Time, 1840). Though Lermontov and his novel will have little direct part in this narrative, it is there to make a dual point, Siniavskii’s point: writing is not about heroes or villains, establishment or dissident authors, positive or negative character judgements. 9 Unlike Tolstoi, for example, or Solzhenitsyn, Siniavskii’s hero is not ‘Truth’. In Siniavskii’s writing there is no hero, no objectively perceptible truth. What there is, is a passionate belief in the spark generated whenever a reader genuinely engages with a text. Try finding a hero here, at this invisible point of engagement – ‘Ishchi vetra v pole ’. 2 It was the reader’s engagement with the text that had secured the continuity of the Russian literary tradition during the Stalinist purges and through the long, bleak years when literature seemed to stagnate, stifled by the prescriptions and proscriptions of Soviet dogma and the aesthetic demands of Socialist Realism. Sometimes orally, sometimes in manuscript form, literature was handed on from one person to the next. Here, Siniavskii is demonstrably a child and man of his times. The Russian response to Siniavskii’s work has been dominated by the polemics of Soviet, post-Soviet and émigré literary politics, sparked in particular by his unorthodox treatment of Pushkin, which does little to enlighten the reader about the creative merits of Siniavskii’s writing. 3 Not only has this led to some tendentious interpretations of his work but at times a dis-inclination to discuss it 2 Abram Tertz, Progulki s Pushkinym , London, 1975, p. 178. English translations from Strolls with Pushkin , trans. Catherine Theimer Nepomnyashchy and Slava I. Yastremski, New Haven CT and London, 1993 (p. 148). 3 As Petr Vail ΄ put it, ‘Siniavskii’s uniqueness lies in the fact that his sharp and daring books drew retribution [kary ] from the Soviet authorities, curses [rugan ΄] from post-Soviet Russia and, in between, the hostility and malice [nepriatie i zloba ] of the anti-Soviet emigration’. Petr Vail ΄, ‘Abram Tertz, russkii flibuster’, Sintaksis , 36 1995 (1998), pp. 7-22 (p. 12). Translations throughout, unless otherwise stated, are my own – E.M. The page references to the Russian original will be followed by page reference to the translation, separated by a forward slash. 10 altogether. 4 Siniavskii remains for many a difficult and contentious subject so one could say that on the whole his work suffers from a kind of gentle neglect. This is not to say that sympathetic and scholarly interpretations of his work do not exist. Sergei Bocharov, for example, has written in appreciation of Siniavskii’s idea of pure art, while Georgii Gachev has produced a somewhat whimsical interpretation of Spokoinoi nochi (Goodnight!, 1984), supposedly in the Tertzian spirit. 5 However, the most rewarding contributions on him have come from Russian émigré critics and writers such as Alexander Zholkovsky, Petr Vail ΄, Alexander Genis and Natal ΄ia Rubinshtein. Early on, at the height of the furore over Progulki s Pushkinym (Strolls with Pushkin, 1975), in 1976, Rubinshtein gave a subtle reading of the work and Siniavskii’s views on art. 6 Vail ΄ and Genis’ perceptive appreciation of Siniavskii’s work, avoiding the well beaten track of the Progulki s Pushkinym controversy (though they have spoken on this also) looks at him in a wider cultural context, acknowledging his considerable creative input. 7 It may be that the perspective from another shore, 4 Alexander Zholkovsky cites a personal example from the mid-1990s.