INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell &. Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

THE “ AFRICAN-ARISTOCRAT” :

ALEXANDER S. PUSHKIN’ S DUAL POETIC PERSONA

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State U niversity

By

Raquel Ginnette Greene, B.A., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State U niversity 1999

D issertation Committee: Approved by Professor Irene Masing-Delic, Adviser

Professor George Kalbouss ^ \ __

Professor Lyubomira Parpulova-Gribble Adviser

Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures Graduate Program UMI Number: 9931601

Copyright 1999 by Greene, Raquel Ginnette

All rights reserved.

UMI Micrororm 9931601 Copyright 1999, by U M I Company. All rights reserved.

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, M I 48103 Copyright by

Raquel Ginnette Greene

1999 ABSTRACT

My dissertation examines the extent to which Alexander

S. Pushkin (1799-1837), the Russian poet, inscribed in his writing the contrasting self-images that in part were brought on by his dual ethnic heritage. A member of one of the oldest aristocratic families of Russia on his father’s side and a descendant of Ibragim Cannibal, a native of northern Africa, on his mother’s, Pushkin produced many works which, upon close examination, reveal an ambiguous, but ultimately positive attitude towards both sides of his lineage.

The issue of Pushkin’s ancestry has been repeatedly addressed by scholars, most of whom concentrate on genealogy or the family’s historical impact. The literary significance of his dual heritage has attracted less attention. Therefore,

I examine the symbolic impact of Pushkin’s ancestry on his oeuvre, as well as on his concept of the poet. Using the

Nietzschean terms of “Dionysiac” and “Apolline,” I assert

II that Pushkin welcomed what has been perceived as

“ irre c o n c ila b le ” legacies o f his lineage. N a tu ra lly unaware of Nietzschean terminology, Pushkin nevertheless perceived his “duality” in terms of “Dionysiac” inspiration and

“Apolline” form, with the African heritage belong to Dionysus and the Russian to Apollo. The basic division between

“visionary” and “craftsman” is, after a ll, as ancient as the two gods.

Although affirming both lines of his heritage in the personal myth of the divinely inspired and formally masterful poet, Pushkin also had negative reactions to his lineage. The

“black” Pushkin is an Othello figure who falls prey to emotions. The “white” aristocrat is a Don Juan, the souless dandy. I begin with a resume of Pushkin’s family history, and then examine both the positive and negative perceptions of

Pushkin’s dual ancestry (e.g., Othello versus Don Juan) in his publistic and historical writings, prose and poetry - with particular reference to his Egyptian Nights.

I l l Dedicated to my father

IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank my dissertation advisor, Irene Masing-

Delic, for the support and guidance given over the years. My

dissertation committee, George Kalbouss, Lyubomira Parpulova-

Gribble and Stephen Summerhill, offered many helpful

suggestions, and I thank them for the stimulating

conversation.

Dean James Upton has been a constant source o f

inspiration and sanity during my years at OSU. Friends and

colleagues Iona Dickerson and Susan Walton have always been encouraging and supportive.

I would also like to express my deep gratitude to Susan

Pitcock who has provided invaluable help in matters big and

sm all.

I am especially grateful to Mary Allen Johnson who

graciously aided in the final editing of this dissertation. I extend heartfelt gratitude to Grinnell College and its

Department of Russian. I would not have been able to finish my degree in such a timely fashion without their support and encouragement during th is past year.

I would also like to thank my parents, Hyman and

Katherine Greene, who have always shown unconditional love and unwavering support.

Finally, I would like to thank my son Kellen, who has always been able to make me smile.

VI VITA

August 9, 1968...... Born - Bronx, New York

1989...... B.A. Slavic Languages and L ite ra tu re s /

International Relations, University of

V irg in ia .

199 1...... M.A. Russian, University of Arizona.

1992 - 1998...... Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio

State University

1998 - present ...... CSMP Fellow, Grinnell College

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field:

Slavic and East European Languages and L iteratures

Vll TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A b stract ...... i i

D edication ...... iv

Acknowledgments ...... v

V ita ...... v i i

Chapters:

Introduction ...... 1

1. Family H isto ry ...... 44

2. Othello versus Don Juan ...... 87

3. Publistic Writing ...... 114

4. Historical Writing ...... 129

5. Egyptian Nights...... 160

6. Poetry ...... 177

Conclusion...... 233

Bibliography ...... 240

VI 1 1 INTRODUCTION

One of the numerous facets of Alexander Pushkin’s (1799-

1837) “protean” genius is his acknowledged ability to introduce new themes, and one of the most innovative of the novel themes introduced to Russian literature by him is that of “the African.” Pushkin reflected upon his own African ancestry in the development of this theme and this personal reflection is manifested throughout his oeuvre. I have chosen to investigate this theme in my dissertation since it has not yet been perceived as an important element of Pushkin’s “life creation,” despite the many studies on the “African” Pushkin; nor has i t been examined in in te ra c tio n w ith what I term the

“ a r is to c r a tic ” theme in Pushkin’ s l i f e and work, a theme that, like the “African” one, pertains to his family history.

To define what I mean by the term “life creation,” I rely on Irina Paperno’s introduction to Creating Life: The

Aesthetic Utopia o f Russian Modernism (1994). Paperno defines “life creation” Czhiznetvorchestvo"), as the principle of fusing art and life as practiced by Russian symbolists in the

1890S-1910S.Though the word **zhiznetvorchestvo** itself is somewhat untra nsla tab le, Paperno presents an explanation o f the term: ‘*tvorchestvo refers to artistic creation; when combined w ith the word zhizn* (“life ”), it suggests both the a rtistic modeling of life and a synthesis of the two elements

- creation and l i f e . ” ^ Paperno fu rth e r states th a t contempo­ rary critics mostly use the concept zhiznetvorchestvo to mean aesthetic organization of behavior.^ The concept of zhiznetvorchestvo is however not limited to the symbolist period. It was already presented in Boris Tomashevskii's groundbreaking article, “Literature and Biography" (1923).

Although, in his article, Tomashevskii does not use this exact term, he states that for certain writers:

...th e knowledge th a t th e ir biographies were a constant background for their works compelled [them] to dramatize certain...motifs in their own lives and, furthermore, to create for themselves an a rtific ia l legendary biography

' Ir in a Paperno and Joan Delaney Grossman, eds., Creating L ife : The Aesthetic Utopia of Russian Modernism (Stanford, CA: Stanford U niversity Press, 1994) 2.

2 Paperno and Grossman 2. composed of intentionally selected real and imaginary events...His [the poet’s] life ms poetry../"

With specific regard to Pushkin, Tomashevskii states, “We must assume that Pushkin...fostered certain facts of his life .”^ It is Pushkin’s fostering of certain “facts” of his life , i.e. the incorporation and synthesis of his African as well as his aristocratic ancestry, into the creation of a

“personal myth” that I deal with in this dissertation.

Undoubtedly, Pushkin regarded his African ancestry as a vital part of his being, both as a private person and as a writer - he approached it as a “life creator,” integrating it into his personal myth and “aesthetic organization of behavior” (Paperno) and, concurrently, into his oeuvre. His

African heritage (the Cannibal line of his family), especially when juxtaposed with the heritage of his Russian nobility (the Pushkin ancestry), provided him with

“materials” out of which he could shape a personal myth to be incorporated into his oeuvre, as well as acted out in his life . This dual myth of the “African” and the “aristocrat”

' Boris Tomashevskii, “Literature and Biography,” Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views, eds. Ladislav Matejka and Krystyna Pomorska (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1978) 49.

‘ Tomashevskii, “Literature” 50. begs examination, and the “African aristocrat” is the subject

of my dissertation. Pushkin’s autobiographical myth of “the

African aristocrat” ultimately served him as the basis for

his primary myth, namely his “myth of the poet,” where the

poet is seen as a creature of both “elemental Africa,” as well as aristocratic “European Russia.”

Pushkin’ s “ myth o f the poet” has been examined by

various creative writers such as Marina Tsvetaeva and Andrei

Siniavskii, who wrote essays on “their Pushkin.”^ The issue

has been addressed less frequently in literary criticism [it

is, for example, the subject of an essay in Victor Erlich’s

book The Double Imaae: Concepts of the Poet in Slavic

Literatures (1964)]. In examining Pushkin’s perceptions of

h is ethnic id e n tity , as w ell as the images forming the “ myth of the poet” in his writing, I demonstrate the potency of the

“African aristocrat myth” in Pushkin's creativity. The

“African aristocrat myth” and the “myth of the poet” inform

' Marina Tsvetaeva’s provocative essay, Mofl IIvmKHH/ Mv Pushkin (.England; Prideaux Press, 1968), and Siniavskii's controversial nporvAKH c IIviiiKHHHM [(London: Overseas Publications Interchange, in association with Collins, 1975); English translation - Strolls with Pushkin. trans. by Catharine Theimer Nepomnyashchy and Slava I. Yastremski with introduction by C. T. Nepomnyashchy and notes by S. I . Yastremski (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1993)1 each incorporate perceptions of the “African" Pushkin and w ill be discussed below. each other in Pushkin’s work. In fact, the second cannot be fu lly understood without the firs t.

While Pushkin’s life stands as one of the richest sources o f Russian c u ltu ra l mythology,® the w r ite r ’ s own myths about himself have attracted less critical attention. Yet in many of his works, as well as in his “life text,” Pushkin inscribes the often contradictory self images that in part were brought on by the diversity found within his ethnic heritage. Pushkin produced a large number of works which, upon close examination, reveal the author’s ambiguous, but ultimately positive attitudes towards both the paternal and maternal sides of his ancestral lineage, at least when perceived in terms of a synthesis.

Certainly Pushkin had a rich heritage in regard to both of these lines. On the paternal side, the Pushkins belonged to one of the oldest aristocratic families in Russia, and, as the w riter mentions himself, the great Pushkin name appeared

' See Boris Gasparov’s “Introduction," Cultural Mythologies of Russian Modernism: From the Golden Age to the S ilv e r Age, eds. Boris Gaspgrov et al., introduction trans. by Eric Naiman (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992). on many a page in the annals of Russian h istory/ Pushkin’s maternal ancestry however, presented a striking contrast to the paternal. This line begins with his maternal great­ grandfather Ibragim Cannibal, probably a native of modern-day central Sudan.® Cannibal was brought to Russia at the behest of Peter the Creat, and subsequently, under Peter’s protection, became a man of considerable social stature and significant professional achievements. Indeed, the family of

Ibragim Cannibal is the only family of African origin to have had any lasting significance in czarist Russian history.®

P ushkin's A fric a n ancestry has been discussed, to varying degrees of detail, by numerous scholars, and there

' Pushkin w rites: “ .. .Hma npeaxoB mohx BCTpeMaeTCH noMHHyTHO b Haaieft HCTopHH...” (...my ancestors’ name comes up constantly in our h is t o r y ...) . See A. C. IIvmKHH. noAHoe cogpaHHe coMHHeHHg. Tom 12: KpHTHKa. aBT o6horpa»hh,/Complete C ollectio n of Works. Volume 12: C ritic is m . Autobioargphv. (MocxBa: Maa-BO AxaaeMMH aayx CCCP. 1949) 311,

* Until recently, it was generally accepted that Ibragim Cannibal was of Abyssinian o rig in . However, Dieudonne Gnatnmankou’ s 1997 a r tic le “New Research on Pushkin’ s A fric a : Hannibal’ s Homeland” o ffe rs strong evidence that the Cannibal clan actually originated from south of Lake Chad in modern-day Sudan. See Research in A frican L ite ra tu re s . 28.4 (1997): 220-223.

’ For a discussion of Ibragim Cannibal’s life as well as a history of African blacks in Russian history and cultural life, see Allison Blakely’s Russia and the Nearo: Blacks in Russian Historv and Thought (Washington, D.C.: Howard University Press, 1986) and Dieudonne Cnammankou’ s “Pushkin Between Russia and A fr ic a ,” Dioaenes (F ieso le, Italy), 179.45/3, (1997): 211-229. are several genealogical accounts and historical surveys of the Cannibal family. In the genealogical category we find, fo r example, I.L . Feinberg's A6paM neTposHM TaHHHSaA. npaaea nviiiKHHa: PasucKaHHfl H MaTepHaAU/ Abram Petrovich Cannibal.

Pushkin's Great-arandfather: Findinas and materials (1983),

George Leets* A6paM nerposHM raHHH6aA: BHoroaaHMecKoe

HccAejosaHHe/Abram Petrovich Cannibal: Biographical research

(1980), and M. Vegner's npeaxH nvuiKHHa/Pushkin's Ancestors

(1937). They present well-researched genealogical surveys and assessments of the historical role played by Pushkin's

African ancestors. As genealogical histories and family histories, these works naturally do not address the literary significance of the w riter’s African heritage. Nor is this done in Vladimir Nabokov’s, "Pushkin and Cannibal: A

Footnote" (1962), although one might expect attention to this aspect from a fellow writer discussing genealogy and himself obsessed with family history^®. Nabokov offers only a brief discussion of the often contradictory facts surrounding the major events in the life of Ibragim Cannibal. Illuminating as this discussion is in its clarification of certain historical

One need only recall Nabokov’ s Speak. Memory and Other Shores.

7 facts, Nabokov does not discuss the literary significance of

Cannibal’s heritage in Pushkin’s oeuvre.

In th e ir a r t ic le 'TaHHMÔaA, MHxaÉAOBCKoe, nyiuKHH” /

“Cannibal, Mikhailovskoe, Pushkin” (1988), A. and la. Cordin approach the subject when they discuss the literary productivity of the years Pushkin spent on his mother’s estate of Mikhailovskoe. In this Mikhailovskoe period, from

1824 to 1825, a tim e th a t amounted to e x ile , Pushkin was pro lific in his writing, as has often been noted. This period was also a time when he significantly developed his

“ancestral myth.” Some 78 years earlier, in 1746, Empress

Elizabeth Petrovna had given the estate to Ibragim Cannibal.

Pushkin, using a biography (in Cerman) of Cannibal written by

Cannibal’s son-in-law as a source, theorized that his great­ grandfather spent some time in exile on the same Pskov estate during his time of leave from m ilitary service. Pushkin was quick to draw s im ila r itie s between his own unfortunate fa te and that of his great-grandfather. He made subtle reference to these sim ilarities in various works written at the time, fo r example in EsreHna OnerHH/ Euaene Onegin, as w e ll as in his personal correspondences and notebooks. The Cordins examine but a brief moment in Pushkin’s biography however. and their discussion only serves as a transition to the main purpose of the article, that of shedding light on what is considered to be an "obscure period" in the life of Ibragim

Cannibal, namely the years 1746-1752.

Another a r tic le e n title d “ 06 oScTOflTeAbCTBax OTcraBKH A. n. raHHH6aAa”/ “0n the Circumstances of A. P. Cannibal’s

Retirement” (1962), by E. S. Paina, deals with a similar topic; it clarifies some of the murky details surrounding

Cannibal’ s retirem ent from m ilita ry service in the 1760s. The a rticle does not touch upon the question of what impact these events could have had on Pushkin’s creative imagination, since this is not the author’s goal or task. This is also not the case in N.A. Malevanov’s “ K 6Horpa$H% A. n. raHHH6aAa”/ “A

Contribution to the Biography of A.P. Cannibal” (1962), and

“nerpa nxToweg A. n. TaHHH6aA”/ “Peter’s Protege, A. P.

Cannibal” (1972). While both articles discuss newly discovered archival materials on the life of Cannibal, like most studies of Cannibal’s life , they are entirely devoid of literary assessments of the oeuvre of his descendent,

Pushkin.

However, Pushkin scholars, as opposed to h is to ria n s and genealogists, have addressed some aspects of the Cannibal heritage in Pushkin’s life and oeuvre in various contexts. Of those studies that do examine the heritage, many are problematic. One category of studies which may be dismissed immediately as irrelevant to the present discussion is the category which examines the complexities of Pushkin’s personality in strictly racial terms, pointing to the w riter’s African heritage as the genetic source of his

“jealous” and “self-destructive” temperament. V.Ia. Stoiunin, fo r example, in his book nvuiKHH/Pushkin (1880), asserts th a t the key to understanding Pushkin’s personality lies in racial fa c to rs . He w rite s o f Pushkin’ s “ HecqacTHoe HacAeacTBo, aocTaBineeca ewy o t ero npaaeaa no waTepn, apaGcxaa xpoBb,

KOTopaa npeBpaTHAa b B y A x a a h u a k h ô TeMnepaMear reaaaABHoA

HaTypsi”/ “unfortunate legacy inherited from his maternal great-grandfather, the Arab blood, which transformed the passionate temperament of a brilliant nature into a volcano.”*' Professor I.A. Sikorskii, in his book A a r p o n o A c - raaecKaa a ncaxoAorHMecKaa reaeaAoraa IIvmKHHa/ An Anthro- poloaical and Psvcholoaical Genealoav o f Pushkin (1912), also

" V.Ia. Stoiunin, as quoted by Andrei Bukalov in PoMaH o uapcKOM apane: OqepKH HCTOpHH ojHoro nvuiKHHCKoro mejespa/ Novel About the Tsar's Moor: Essavs on the Historv of a Pushkin Masterpiece (MocKsa: HpoweTea, 1990) 36.

10 poses the question of how Pushkin’s descendence from two races impacted his “emotional disposition.”^^ He views

Pushkin’s ancestry in these terms:

npexae Bcero, c aHTponoAorHHecKoïi t o m k h speHHfl, b nyiUKHHe nopaxaeT BeAHMaôiUHÈ opran m m c a h , BAOxeHHOft b HeyKAIOXHâ h HeKpaCHBMÔ atpHKaHCKHft tyTAHp. B THHHqecKOM HerpHTflHCKOM qepene h T&Ae coaepxaAca Moar caMoro BucoKoro KanecTBa, CBOftcTBeHHUâ HaaSoAee paaBHTUM npeacTaBHTeASM qeAOBeqecKoro poaa.'^

First and foremost, from an anthropological point of view, Pushkin possesed a superior organ of thought, which was placed in an awkward and unattractive African frame. In his ty p ic a l Negro s k u ll and body there was a brain of the highest quality, such as is found in the most developed representatives o f the human race.^'*

Sikorskii and Stoiunin are not alone in their racial approach; other scholars from the same time period have offered assessments of Pushkin’s personality based solely on racial factors. It should be noted that the above works, written in 1880 and 1912 respectively, reflect a time when

H. A. CHXopcKH», AHTponoAorHMecKag h ncMxoAorHqecKaa reHeaAoma nvmKHHa/An Anthropological and Psvcholoaical Genealogy of Pushkin (KHeB. Tan. C. B. KyAxeœco, 1912) 7.

" Sikorskii 17-18.

’* I have provided all translations unless indicated otherwise.

11 such theories were widely accepted; one may assume that this

“biological” approach is now relatively rare.

Racial theories o f Pushkin’ s temperament did not however disappear before well into the 20th century, as might be expected in view of the fact that this was the century that bred Fascism. As the well-known Pushkin scholar of the 1930s and 40s, Ernest J. Simmons, states, genealogical concepts s till abounded in literary studies of the poet at that time.

He w rite s:

W ith amusing abandon, c r it ic s allow th e ir im aginations to run w ild on the fetching question o f the Negro blood which Pushkin inherited from his mother. Few tra its of his life or poetry have failed, at one time or another, to be subjected to the argument ethnological. A rare flamboyancy in imagery and an unfailing sense of poetic rhythm must re fle c t the Negro in him. Or, his nature is passionate — again a positive indication of hot African blood. If on occasions he grows insanely jealous, affects garish clothes, or changes sw iftly in mood from deep melancholy to childlike gaiety, then these traits, to o , become the in d u b ita b le stamp and seal o f the blackamoor. Nor is there lacking that chauvinistic type of biographer who attributes a ll the faults of Pushkin’s nature to his Negro strain and all the virtues to his pure Russian ancestry. More pardonable, perhaps, but none the less biased, are those American Negroes who

12 claim Pushkin for their own and see in his genius a glorious expression of his ultimate African origin.^

Simmons subsequently provides an ethnological/ anthropological explanation as to why “it would be profitable to d is m is s .. .the whole muddled question o f (P u shkin 's) negro blood.Due to the “polyglot nature” of Ethiopians, given their largely Hamitic and Semitic origins, with only a negro admixture, it is impossible to know just how much negro blood

Ibragim Cannibal had in his lineage. Although Pushkin did possess some negro characteristics (darker skin, fu ll lip s), as Simmons states, “these characteristics did not make

Pushkin a Negro any more than the other possible s tra in s in the mixed blood of Abram Petrovich made the poet a Hebrew or

" Ernest J. Simmons, Pushkin (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U niversity Press, 1937) 10-11.

'* Simmons, 11.

13 an Arab or a Somali.Simmons based his opinions on the then widely accepted view that Cannibal was of Ethiopian origin.

Dieudonne Gnammankou’s recent findings continue the discussion of Cannibal’s ethnicity.“

Simmons rightly protests against the genetic tracing of certain characteristics of Pushkin’s personality and oeuvre to his African heritage. While the aforementioned critics have recognized the significance of Pushkin’s African heritage, they have drawn inappropriate conclusions, relying on the but rudimentary knowledge of the subject of genetics available at their time. Naturally Pushkin’s passionateness is not “explained” by his African genes, nor is his

“ c h ild lik e n e s s ,” nor his “garish clothes” (Simmons). However, amazingly, as recently as 1995, one c ritic suggested a racial explanation for certain aspects of the poet’s personality.

Simmons 12. Simmons statements were met with c ritic is m on the part of certain African-American critics who felt that he sought to dismiss the right of people of African descent to honor Pushkin as one of their own. One such c r it ic was Guichard Parris who, in a June 1937 a r tic le that appeared in The Crisis: A Record of the Darker Races fthe journal of the NAACP) entitled “Pushkin’s Negro Blood,” wrote, “we must in these United States consider the Abyssinians as Negroes... Today we s till have within our ranks those who, like Mr. Simmons, would deny us the right to honor men like Pushkin...As the world honors the memory of the greatest Russian poet, le t us as descendants of the African do a ll our share to join in the celebration of him through whose veins there coursed some African blood.” IThe Crisis. 44.6 (June, 1937): 175.]

'• See footnote 8.

14 A.p. M o g ilia n s k ii, in h is book AHMHocTb OvmKHHa/ Pushkin*s

Personality (1995), writes:

BHeuiHocTb H MaHepa aepxaTbca ("BepTAflBocTb") b 60 A bine A wepe aaBHceAH o t MaTepHHCKoro poaa. Or SToro xe poaa uiah: TeMnepaweHT, npHcrynu SemeHCTBa, saTMeBaBiUHe aeflTeAbHocTb paccyana. Ho oaapeHHocTb h CKAOHHocTb k naccHBHOCTH B ÇoAbuieô Mepe saBMceAH o t oTgoBCKoro poaa. 0 6 % a a c A a 6 ocTb ah^hocth IlymKHHa h ckaohhoctb ee k AaBHpoBaHHio aoAXHH 6 iiT b oTHecoHM Qa CMOT poaa ero OTya.'^

...[Pushkin’s] Physical appearance and manner ("fidgetyness”) for the most part, resulted from his maternal line. From this line came: his temperament, and fits of rage that eclipsed his ability to reason. His talents and tendency towards passivity, however, came from his paternal line. [The] general weakness of Pushkin’s personality and his aptitude for manuevering was derived from his paternal line.

It would seem that the “fascist” traits of Soviet ideology, i.e. its crude genetic thinking, s till mark the scholarship o f the 1990s when Soviet power had already collapsed. I t is true that Mogilianskii distributes negative and positive features fa irly evenly between the poet’s lineages, but the direct cause - effect type of genetic linking is still

" A. n. MorHAaHCKHft, AH^HocTb IIvmKHHa (C -neTepGypr: H 3a -B 0 'E A M o p / 1995) I l ­

l s distinctly there, as well as very firm opinions about what genes of a given race carry what qualities.

Inappropriate as the racial theories are (there is no direct and unmediated correlation between genes and character, nor do “ A frica n ” or “ Russian” genes have c e rta in immutable qualities), the African heritage is not irrelevant to understanding Pushkin. On the contrary, it is important in the sense th a t one must examine what the poet h im se lf made out of it. Simmons rightly notes the immense psychological impact that Pushkin's African heritage had on his self­ perception. He writes:

...Pushkin took his African ancestry very seriously.. .He thought and dreamt about the block founder of his family in Russia, traced his physical appearance to him, and fe lt that this strain of African blood gave him a unique position in society. In short, Pushkin’s so-called Negro ancestry had a deep psychological influence on him... 20

This is an assumption adopted in this dissertation also, but

“psychological influence” is seen as but a part of the wider concept of “life creation” discussed below.

Simmons 11-12.

16 J. Thomas Shaw is a later Pushkin scholar who has perceived the literary importance of Pushkin's African ancestry in terms of the poet’s self-perception and self- expression. In his article "Pushkin on His African Heritage;

Publications during His Lifetime” (1993), Shaw presents an overview of Pushkin’s published works which make direct or implied reference to the Cannibal family line. Shaw points to

"the paradoxical relationship between the public and private question of Pushkin and his African heritage.”^ According to

Shaw, “one of the most complex problems with regard to

Pushkin, the ‘African,’ has to do with the type and amount of self-revelation, or apparent self-revelation, he would allow to be reflected in a poem he would publish. Poems offered to illu stra te this paradigm include “Moa poaocAOBHaa”/"My

Genealogy” (1830), a two-part poem widely circulated in the

1830s (it was never officially published in Pushkin’s lifetim e, but did circulate in manuscript form), the latter part of which ardently defends Pushkin’s African forbears against a specific literary attack on them made by F.

" J. Thomas Shaw, “Pushkin on His African Heritage: Publications during His Lifetime,” Pushkin Today, ed. David Bethea (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993) 134.

" Shaw, “Pushkin on His African Heritage” 129.

17 Bulgarin. It also includes “HDpbeBy”/ “To lu r’ev” (1820), a friendly poetic epistle which reveals Pushkin’s negative self-perception with regard to his African heritage

(especially in regard to his looks), and whose publication

Pushkin objected to. Thus, public attacks on the poet’s

“negro line” call forth his ardent defense of his African strain, but in private, the poet’s attitudes are more ambivalent. Shaw begins an important discussion of the discrepancies in the “public” and “private” Pushkin with regard to his African ancestry. He points to the fact that

Pushkin was engaged in creating a personal myth based on th is ancestry, but he does not take the next step of recreating the myth its e lf. Nor does Shaw demonstrate an interest in the poet’s white, aristocratic lineage or the interaction of the

African and the aristocratic lineages.

To fu lly assess the poet’s life creation it is necessary to examine both his lineages, however. C e rta in ly, the African line is the one that raises the heritage issue in the firs t place, but it is a theme fu lly understood only when seen in interaction with the “white-aristocratic” heritage. In transforming his African-aristocratic ancestry into verbal texture, Pushkin reveals the complexities and creative

18 tensions of his poetic persona, the tensions between two id e n t it ie s , one “ e x o tic ,” the o th e r “ c iv iliz e d , ” one

“Dionysiac,” the other “Apolline.” Based upon the symbolism of classical Greek mythology, the Apolline stance represents r e s tr a in t, form and harmony, w hile the Dionysiac experience is one of great intensity - rapturous, but also terrifying.

Pushkin did in fact perceive his “doubleness” very much in terms of “Dionysiac” inspiration and “Apolline” form, as evidenced in one of his poems from the year 1830.

In the poem “ B Ha^aAe jkhshh lUKOAy noMHio a ” / “ I Recall

School During My Younger Days” (1830), the poet reflects upon his years at the Lyceum, his strolls in the Lyceum park and specifically recalls two statues there that left a particularly strong impression on him:

apyrne asa wyaecHsie TBopeHta BAeKAH Mena BOAUieSHOio xpacoA To 6hah asyx Gecos HsoGpaaceHsa.

OaHH (2eAb$HftcKHô aaoA) a h k M A a a o ft — Bh a raeBea, noAOH ropaocra yxacHoft,

H Becb aHuiaA o h c h a o A HeseMHOÈ.

apyroft xeHooGpasHuft, CAaaocTpacTHUft, CoMHHTeAbHUÈE H a x h b u H M a e a A - BoAuieGHHA aoMOH — AXHBUâ, HO npoKpacHuâ.

19 Hpea HHMH caM ce6a a . aaSusaA; B rpyaH MAaaoe cepage Shaocb — xoAoa BexaA no mho h Kyapn noüHMaA. (34-45)

Two other miraculous creations Attracted me with their enchanting beauty. They were the images o f two demons.

One face (the Delphic idol's youthful one), Was wrathful, fu ll of terrible pride, And i t exuded an unearthly power.

The other, a feminine, voluptuous. Dubious and false ideal was An enchanting demon, deceitful, but beautiful.

Before them I used to forget myself; My young heart would beat in my breast - a ch ill Would run over me and set my h a ir on end.

Pushkin describes the statues as “6ecK’’/ “demons, ” i.e. as representations of forces that, in spite of their negative features, s till possess an enchanting beauty and powerful attraction. The firs t image, that of Apollo, is compelling in the strength that it exudes, a superhuman strength th a t is unknown to mortal man. His youthful face is terrifying in its

“pride.” The other statue represents Dionysus as an effeminate deity. His image is “AXHBHâ”/ “false, ” yet enchanting. It is important for the subject of my research that this poem deals with an early impression of duality, one

20 found already during the Lyceum period. I see this poem’s theme as dealing with the “birth of the poet’s myth- creation,” as an important facet of Pushkin’s “statuesque myth."^ In these early fantasies of the Tsarskoe Selo period linked to the statues of the antithetical Greek gods, the images of “exotic sensuality” and “disciplined power,” of

“ moorish la s c iv io u s charm” and the “ c o n s tru c tiv e power o f harmony” are born. In fact, Apollo somewhat resembles Tsar

Peter o f the fu tu re poem “ MeaHwA Bca/iHHK” / “ The Bronze

Horseman” (1833), and the seductive Dionysus, the sensuous

“blackamoor” of Apan nerpa BeAHKoro/The Moor of Peter the

Great (1827). It w ill be recalled that, like Apollo’s,

Peter’s statue in “The Bronze Horseman” is “te rrifying ” and

“proud,” and the famous statue is also referred to as an

“ id o l. ”

One c ritic who has understood Pushkin’s creative genius in terms of this Dionysiac/Apolline contrast (and synthesis) is Andrei Siniavskii. In his essay Strolls with Pushkin, he states that the poet embraced both lines of his ethnic

" Roman Jakobson deals with this issue in his essay entitled Pushkin and His Sculptural Mvth (The Hague: Mouton, 1975).

21 heritage, both his Russian “cultivation” and his African

“primitiveness.” He writes:

Since youth he (Pushkin) had regarded his black otherness in society, inherited from his great­ grandfather Ibrahim, with great enthusiasm, rightly viewing his wild pranks as a sign of the elemental force raging within him. Whereas the white bones of his aristocratic kin gave Pushkin legitimacy in the national fam ily...his Negro blood took him back to the primordial sources of art, nature and myth. The black race...is more ancient than the white one, and inspired by it the poet plunged into Dionysian games.

Apollo, on the other hand, is a symbol of formal perfection,

and therefore represents the Russian nobility of which

Pushkin was a member. In co ntra st, Dionysus, as a symbol o f

creativity, is representative of Pushkin's African heritage.

Siniavskii, speaking in reference to Pushkin and the traditional symbolism of the gods’ mythological images, w rite s:

. . . it was customary for Dionysus to unleash passions, to le t loose the elements, and to plunge the bacchante into a state of ecstasy - which is in fact the act of creation in its primordial, chaotic form - until such time as her frenzy passes over into its luminous d e riv a tiv e and madness is transformed in to harmony. The Siniavskii, Strolls 121.

22 ancients used to say of such transitions; “Dionysus fled to the Muses,” suspecting, perhaps, the union between the two demons - Apollo and Dionysus - who were opposite in th e ir q u a litie s but equal in th e ir prophetic powers and seemingly rivaled one another in the mysteries of a r t.^

Although Siniavskii’s approach to Pushkin's heritage perhaps demonstrates some traces of the “racial” approach (e.g. he writes “rightly viewing his wild pranks as a sign of the elemental force raging within him”), it is “mythological” above a ll. Herein lies the value of this essay in regard to the “heritage” question: Siniavskii understands how Pushkin symbolized his heritage(s).

It is also my contention that Pushkin’s myth of himself as the poet includes both his Apolline aristocratic heritage, and his Dionysiac African one, as well as their ultimate complementariness. While embodying co n tra stin g values, the two gods and the poet’s two lineages do not preclude, but rath e r presuppose, an ultim ate harmony when harmony is seen in terms of a final synthesis, a delicate balance, forever upset and forever renewed. Pushkin, instead of resisting the spell of either force, affirms the need for their coexistence, interdependence and equal value. In my

” Siniavskii, Strolls 127.

23 discussion of the topic I differ from Siniavskii in one important regard only; the ultimate harmony is not just the final Apolline form given to chaotic Dionysiac inspiration, a simple sequence, as it were, from chaos to harmony. The creation of art is a more d ifficu lt birth than indicated by simple progression; it is one that is the end result of complex d ia le c tic s between p o sitive and negative q u a litie s in each symbolic deity. The harmony finally achieved is precarious - a momentary triumph before new conflicts challenge a harmony achieved. This concept is discussed in d e ta il below.

Returning once more to Siniavskii, the c ritic notes that

Pushkin did not confine himself to the factual genealogy of his ancestors. Siniavskii states:

But Pushkin had already torn himself away from the solid genealogy of his ancestors. He treated their real and imagined accomplishments without the necessary seriousness and understood their merits quite loosely. Fate rewarded his kinsmen w ith memorable drubbings, and a ll to Pushkin’s greater delight...Pushkin derived no less profit from the forefather who had been hung than from the forefather who had had a hand in the ruling dynasty. What was more important to him was that time had baptized and marked his ancestors, but how and what for wasn’t a ll that important. What he valued was not honor in the precise sense o f the word, but the trace a

24 man le ft on history, and the fateful traces it, history, le ft on the narrow path of the man, 26

Here Siniavskii alludes to Pushkin’s creation of personal

myths - to his “life creation.” In tearing himself away from

the historical facts surrounding the triumphs, tragedies and

legacies of his ancestors, Pushkin follows a path towards

creating what he believed to be the relevant mythologies made

out of the “stuff” that his heritage offered. There is only

one point on which I differ from Siniavskii. In my view,

Siniavskii’s vision of the poet’s life creation is a too

“sunny” one. Siniavskii does not see the tragic side of the

poet’s Apolline-Dionysiac myth. Although ultimately brothers,

the two gods are also enemies. Their reconciliation is never

easy, however often it occurs.

Siniavskii overemphasizes the unclouded significance of

the African ancestry to Pushkin when he writes the following:

“Pushkin seized upon his Negroid appearance and African past, which he perhaps loved more dearly than his aristocratic

ancestry.”^ In short, Siniavskii’s assessments constitute an

important contribution to an examination of the relevance of

"Siniavskii, Strolls 100.

” Siniavskii, Strolls 120.

25 Pushkin’s African heritage in his myth and life creation.

However, in formulating my own thesis, I would assert that the perceptions that Pushkin held in regard to his African heritage more strongly reflect a tension between Pushkin - the African “other” and Pushkin - the Russian aristocrat, than Siniavskii’s assessment indicates. I posit that

Pushkin’s “love” for his African ancestry often more closely resembles fascination than love, a fascination that reflects a simultaneous pride in, attraction to, and repulsion from the ramifications surrounding that heritage. My vision of this issue is, in other words, less simplistic.

In developing my central thesis of the co-existence of the “Dionysiac” and “Apolline,” I propose that Pushkin’s a ll- pervasive personal myth, inextricably linked to his “myth of the poet,” was centered both around his African

( “ p r im itiv e ” ) , and h is European a r is to c r a tic ( “ re fin e d ” ) heritage, since these were perceived by him as mutually determining each other. His personal myth evolved out of his self-image as both a “jealous moor” and a “ European dandy,” as both a “Dionysiac lover” and “Apolline family man,” as both an “ecstatically inspired poet” and “master of the craft.” To this end, I examine the perception that Pushkin

26 had of his “double ancestry” in a ll its facets and the impact it had on his oeuvre and the myth of the poet behind it. It is my intention to show that Pushkin's African-aristocratic myth and its ramifications are relevant for a proper understanding of his writings as well as his life - not in the sense of his biography, but as his life text - in short, his “life creation.” Pushkin’s self-perception, as both

“belonging” to his European-aristocratic society and civilization, and as an exotic outsider, feeds his personal mythology and is transposed into his aesthetics and his oeuvre, reflecting the strong feelings that he held with regard to his “elemental” and creative African ancestry in relation to his Russian/European aristocratism and formal perfection.

Pushkin's dual self-perception as both an African

“moor”, and a European aristocrat is linked to other dualities that appear throughout the w riter's oeuvre, as a lre a d y sta te d above. The theme o f the “ d ivid e d s e lf , ” including the African-European opposition, is one that has not escaped critical notice. It is the subject of Richard

Gregg’s insightful article “Pushkin’s Narratives and the Hex of Darkness” (1989). Here, Gregg quotes Dim itrii

27 Merezhkovskii’s statement that, “among the great poets of the world, Pushkin was the firs t to express with such power and

passion, the eternal opposition of the cultivated and the

p rim itiv e man.” ^® Gregg expounds on th is notion, arguing th a t

for Pushkin, this opposition often manifests itse lf as a

struggle between characters who symbolize the motifs of light and darkness. He also points out that in a remarkably large body o f Pushkin’ s fic tio n ,

the four most salient features of its ill-fated protagonist, namely, alien blood, dark complexion, rebellious conduct and passionate nature regularly mark the Pushkinian protagonist-antagonist and oppose him (or her) to a character who.. .exemplifies more conventional or conservative values...A common denominator w ill be seen to unite a ll these confrontations...In Pushkin the is always negatively, tragically defined.^

In most of Pushkin’s fictional works, Gregg states, the power of darkness, of the primitive “other,” ultimately yields to the forces of civilized conventionality. To highlight his understanding of this opposition, he examines several works.

” Richard Gregg, “Pushkin’s Narratives and the Hex of Darkness,” Slavic Review 48.4 (Winter 1989): 547.

" Gregg 548.

28 a ll of which demonstrate the basic contrast between primitiveness and civilization/cultivation. In some of these works, such as “ KaBKascKHô nAeHHHK*V“ The P risoner o f the

Caucasus” ( 1 8 2 1 ) and “Bax^HcapaôcKHâ * 0 HTaH”/ “The Fountain of Bakhchisarai” ( 1 8 2 3 ) , there is a binary structure that clearly illustrates this contrast. In others, such as

"nHKOBaa aawa ” /"The Queen o f Spades” ( 1 8 3 3 ) , and "The Bronze

Horseman” ( 1 8 3 3 ) , a binary structure is lacking, according to

Gregg, but, in his words, "...a t the core of each we may

recognize a more or less thinly disguised variation on this same conflict.

Gregg additionally notes that this "light/dark” opposition clearly reflects important facets of Pushkin’s own life . He writes:

...Like the Dark Brother, he [Pushkin] inherited a physiognomy (swarthy complexion, fu ll lips, curly black hair) that betrayed his exotic ancestry. Like that brother he was quick-tempered, clashed frequently with his parents, was viewed as a troublemaker by his teachers and went on to lead a libertine life in the capital city where his incendiary poems earned him imperial disfavor and banishment.. .Only a stroke of luck in December 1825 prevented him from jo in in g the rebellion and suffering the fate of the insurgents.

” Gregg 551.

29 Eleven years later, however, the prediction of the soothsayer that he would die at the hands of a “white man” came true...A fter a sequence of events too fam iliar to need rehearsal here he was...killed in a duel by a blond aristocrat and protege of the regime. 31

Gregg, however, cautions against concluding that this “dark”

protagonist sums up Pushkin’s spiritual essence, for Pushkin

embodied important aspects of the “ligh t” protagonist as well. Thus, the “light/dark” contrast which Gregg observed in

Pushkin’s oeuvre reflects biographical realities which have d e fin ite significance fo r lite r a r y themes. Gregg, in my view,

is correct in his assessment of the light/dark contrasts as

p re c a rio u s ly balancing each o th e r, and he is a lso very

illuminating in his tracing of the autobiographical motifs in

Pushkin’s works. However, he does not discuss how these motifs are sublimated into the w riter’s “myth of the poet” ; how the “moor” is elevated to the status of Dionysus and the

“civilized man” to the status of Apollo, and how their complex interaction nourishes life creation and an a ll- pervasive myth-making derived from “life ” - both individual and ancestral life .

" Gregg 549-550.

30 The underlying dualities in Pushkin’s writings have also

been discussed by Monika Greenleaf in Pushkin and Romantic

Fashion: Fraament. Eleav. Orient. Ironv (1994). Greenleaf

notes that the presence of ethnic polarities reflects certain

aspects of Orientalist discourse, which has at its core the

c o n flic t between western “ im p e ria lis t” values, and those o f

the “orient.G reenleaf’s discussion of Pushkin’s “Southern

Poems” points out that each work can be read as a meditation

on the problematic question of Russian identity.”

Specifically, each of the three completed “Southern Poems”

[“The Prisoner of the Caucasus” (1821), “The Fountain of

Bakhchisarai” (1821-1823) and “ UwraHe”/ “The Gypsies” (1823-

1824)], enacts a basic plot, which in Greenleaf’s terms

consists of a love affair with a “native g irl,” set against

the distant rumbles of Russian political domination. She

states: “The interior world of the Russian outcast, which

[Pushkin] attempts to redefine outside his own culture through an immersion in a * foreign* passion, is always

reclaimed by the advancing border of his own culture.””

" Monika Greenleaf, Pushkin and Romantic Fashion: Fraament. Eleav. Orient. Ironv (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994) 109.

” Greenleaf 109.

” Greenleaf 109.

31 Although an in-depth examination of the “Southern Poems” lies beyond the scope of this dissertation, the underlying premise of Greenleaf's discussion is relevant for my purposes. The completed “Southern Poems” display a binary structure that

contrasts two natures, invariably at odds with, yet dependent on, each other, one “exotic” and/or “prim itive” , the other

“civilize d.” The further schematization of binary oppositions between east and west, includes, among other things,

“irrationality” versus “rationality.” In my estimation,

Greenleaf's assessment of the “orientalism” (or, in this case, “africanism”) in Pushkin’s oeuvre may be more broadly applied. I argue that the oppositions observed therein

r e fle c t c o n flic ts in Pushkin’ s own psyche, and are embodied in the w r it e r ’ s personal myth o f the poet, as the one who must immerse him self in “ chaos” in order to “ tame” i t in to a superbly harmonious perfection. This view tallies with

Gregg’s notion of the “white and the dark brothers,” but develops his notion into an all-embracing myth of creation.

I have chosen to examine Pushkin’ s A fric a n -a ris to c ra tic myth as one th a t culminates in his visio n o f the poet as the synthesis of seemingly irreconcilable opposites, and to set the myth within the context of a paradigm. The foundation of

32 this paradigm lies in the symbolic significance that Pushkin attributed to the maternal (Dionysiac) and paternal

(Apolline) lines of his family and ancestryIn mythologizing these lineages in his literary creations, both

the Dionysiac and Apolline elements assume varied, yet

distinct forms. Their patterns may be systematically observed

in works such as ErnneTCKHe HOMH/ Eavptian Niahts (1830),

KaMeHHBia rocTb/ Ihe Stone Guest (1830) and KanHTaHcxaa joMKa/Ihe Captain's Daughter (1835). However, not only

Pushkin’s fiction and drama are carriers of the myth - so are

his letters and above all his poetry. By examining the

contrasting aspects of Pushkin’s self-projection in his poetry, prose and letters, as expressed in the myth about himself as the “Poet,” and determining the nature of his

“ personal myth” as a product of life creation, I hope to add to the understanding of the emotional/psychological and aesthetic complexities in Pushkin’s art. To this extent, my study w ill be both literary and psychological, oriented towards both the text and life creation that yield the “myth

” The fact that Dionysus is presented as a “feminine” deity is perhaps also related to the fact that it was his maternal lineage that was linked to Dionysus.

33 o f the poet as a dual creation,” of a double, divine heritage.

This myth, to state it once more, is not simply reducible to the double image of the “prim itive” Moor versus the “refined” aristocrat, the primordial versus the civilized, as presented, for example, by Gregg. Further examination reveals that each part of the image is comprised of both negative and positive aspects. A presumably positive aristocratic “Apolline” persona, which brings with it a sense of order, intellectualism and form-conciousness, also betrays a static or even “frozen” conventionality, devoid of intense emotion, even a basic humanity. The African “Dionysiac” persona, while “ugly,” jealous, and irrational in nature, has at its core a pure emotional essence th a t defies tra d itio n a l, conventional understanding of experience. For the purpose of this dissertation, I w ill focus my attention not only on the tension between the two opposites, but also on the tension between the two images w ith in each image - the am biguity o f both the dark and light aspects of the poet's persona as evidenced in Pushkin’s personal myth. In so doing, I reveal the complexities of this inter-relationship, and demonstrate its relevance to Pushkin’s poetic myth which is, to borrow

34 the title of one of Tomas Venclova’s collection of essays

HevcTOH^HBoe pasHOBecHe (1986). one o f “ precarious balance."

Since Pushkin’s personal myth emerges not only in his poetry and fiction, but also in his documentary writings, personal correspondence and interactions with contemporaries, these texts w ill also be analyzed in this study. For this reason, my approach is heterogeneous and syncretic, drawing upon a large variety of sources and integrating various methodologies such as the biographical, psychological, and textual analysis approaches. Chapter 1 presents a close examination of Pushkin’s family history and presents aspects of Pushkin’s biography relevant to his life creation. The reason for including these materials, in spite of my dismissing the genealogical approach as irrelevant to my purposes, is to compare “fact and fictio n .” In other words,

Pushkin’s perceptions of his ethnic heritage, and resulting persona are placed in a relevant factual context. Following the factual presentation of Pushkin’s family history, I discuss the knowledge of this history that was available to

Pushkin during his lifetim e, since this history, rather than the objective facts, determined the creation of his ancestral myth. Pushkin’s perceptions of his heritage are analyzed, as

35 they are reflected through his personal correspondence and interpersonal relationships including his well-known fatal marriage. In subsequent chapters I examine Pushkin’s perceptions of his ethnic heritage as reflected in selected works, and conduct a close reading of relevant literary texts. I w ill examine his works on the basis of genre which I consider to be the most effective and logical approach since each genre gives us a variant of the myth. In the broadest sense, I propose that Pushkin's lyrical, prosaic and quasi- biographical works CThe Moor of Peter the Great. 1827), i.e . his belles-lettres, afforded him the greatest opportunity to create, develop and perpetuate his personal myth. Pushkin's personal myth, centered as it is around his double heritage, emerges most c le a rly in these works, most in tim a te ly in his lyrics, most objectivized in historical prose ("The Captain’s

Daughter, 1835). Pushkin’s lyrical and fictional works reveal varying feelings of pride in and fascination with his double heritage, and his simultaneous revulsion against it. These ambiguities are repressed in his “o ffic ia l” autobiography, presumably for the sake of creating an acceptable public document. In short, I would assert that the African myth emerges in different forms and different stages of

36 confessionalism according to genre. Inner truth is conveyed most convincingly in literary texts, however much factual truth is distorted. Among the non-fictional genres, Pushkin's le tte rs also convey much o f his innermost a ttitu d e s .

My examination of Pushkin’s oeuvre entails constructing what is known in translation theory as a “textual profile” where tra n s la tio n s are compared to th e ir o rig in a l source texts, according to a set of parameters, including genre. A textual profile is useful in establishing how Pushkin's

“objective” biography is distorted in different genres that constitute, as it were, “translations” of the “source texts” : ancestral history, biography and autobiography. The textual profiles created for the purpose of this dissertation are to be seen as a type o f lite r a r y m irror image, the goal o f which is to determine the extent of true reflection, or distortion of the original “object”, namely Pushkin's ancestry. The final analysis of all textual profiles reveals a myth of the a rtist as a synthesis of two contrasting double (positive- negative) natures, which is presented in varying degrees of confessionalism according to genre.

Finally, an examination of Pushkin's oeuvre for the presence of the myth of “African aristocrat” reveals that the

37 themes of jealousy and erotic conquest are an integral component o f i t . Central to the jealousy theme are Pushkin’ s perceptions of Othello, as reflected in Shakespeare’s eponymous tragedy. The genealogical and, ultim ately, psychological connection that linked Pushkin with Ibragim

Cannibal in his life creation is supported by the reading

Pushkin gave his notable forefather’s life text through the prism of William Shakespeare’s famous tragedy. The erotic conquest theme in Pushkin’s oeuvre centers on his interpretation of the literary character Don Juan as represented in the " l i t t l e tragedy” The Stone Guest (1830).

To this extent. Chapter 2 w ill define what I term Pushkin’s

"Othello” and "Don Juan” complexes. Don Juan forms the

Apolline opposition to Othello’s dionysiac nature. The opposition Othello-Don Juan forms part of the paradigm

Dionysus-Apollo, and is, like the other members of the series, marked by a profound ambivalence.

Chapter 3 examines autobiographical references which

Pushkin made to both lines of his ancestry in his documentary works, such as "Ha^aAo aBTo6Horpa$HH”/"The Beginning of My

Autobiography” C1832), and in poems such as "My Genealogy”

(1830). In these types of “public” texts in different genres,

38 Pushkin does not reveal the fu ll range of self-perception

that is seen in other works by him that belong neither to an

o fficia l, factual, nor to a polemical public genre. In short,

Pushkin’s public works provide either a positive (the poem)

or, at the very least, neutral evaluation of the facts

surrounding his ancestry, especially his “dark” one. It is in

moving away from “factual” towards “mythological” texts that

more varied and complex references are found.

Chapter 4 moves to the genre of historical novels and

examines The Moor of Peter the Great and The Captain’s

Dauahter. Each work, offering a variation of the historical

novel genre, demonstrates aspects of Pushkin’s personal myth

in terms of the balance drawn between two contrasting

natures. The Moor of Peter the Great develops the myth on the

basis of genealogical data, namely the life of Ibragim

Cannibal, but offers interesting inversions of and deviations

from not only Cannibal’s factual biography, but also from the one known to Pushkin. The Captain’s Daughter offers the same

“nucleus myth” (here too the “light” and “dark” brothers

confront each other), but is divorced from any genealogical or autobiographical material. Both works on the mythological

level, deal with two aspects of the poet’s psyche, myth and

39 racial - national identity. In one case CThe Moor of Peter the Greats i t does so d ir e c tly , in the o th e r case (The

Captain's Dauahter'). it does so indirectly.

Chapter 5 examines the prose fragment Egyptian Niahts. including the lyrical sections. Eavptian Nights, in my estimation, represents the peak of Pushkin’s symbolization of both his African and aristocratic heritages in his “myth of the poet.” In Egyptian Nights we perceive the clearest evidence of a merger of dualities, since the motifs of divine inspiration as well as final artistic forming dominate this te x t.

In Chapter 6, haying explored the traces of the “Othello myth” as found in Shakespeare’s play, and the “Don Juan myth” as re fle c te d in The Stone Guest (in Chapter 2), I w ill discuss their significance with regard to Pushkin’s poetry in which genre “life ” and “art” mix most intimately. The jealousy theme assumes d iffe r e n t form s, but u ltim a te ly r e fle c ts feelings of insecurity and self doubt, based on Pushkin’s perception of himself as a “moor.” The jealousy theme is counterbalanced by a conquest theme, howeyer. Together they giye the crystallization of Pushkin’s African and aristocratic personae as complementary aspects of the poet’s

40 self. Chapter 6 w ill offer a full tracing of the “Othello” and “Don Juan” themes in a ll of their variants, as reflected in Pushkin’s poetic works.

In the Conclusion, I w ill briefly survey the writings of select authors who have presented their perceptions of the

“Pushkin” myth, specifically with regard to his African heritage, and their idiosyncratic readings of Pushkin. This includes the work o f poets such as Marina Tsvetaeva. These

Pushkin myths are significant in that they spin on the threads already given by Pushkin, continuing his life creation by adding their own based on identifications with h is.

To summarize my contribution to the field: firs tly I relate Pushkin’s myths of duality (“black” and “white”) to

(poetic) creativity, via the “genealogical myth.” This has not been done before, except in passing (Shaw, S in ia v s k ii).

Secondly, Pushkin’s “Othello complex” is manifested in several genres of his work, but especially his lyrics, and no c r itic is m has f u lly examined th is theme, although i t would appear to be a rather obvious strain in Pushkin’s oeuvre.

Equally significant however, is what I term a “Don Juan complex,” for along with a diffident, jealous nature, came a

41 perhaps compensatory need to pursue many love affairs,

several of which occurred concurrently. Thus, Pushkin’s

“moorish passion” also manifests a “Western” conquest

syndrome (that can be related to imperialism and empire

building) that together form a complex, contradictory yet

complementary whole. This I see as a third distinct

contribution to Pushkin studies. The discussion of Pushkin’s

personal myth in conjunction with both an "Othello” and Don

Juan” complex presents a novel way of examining a w riter who

has been so thoroughly examined and analyzed in v ir t u a lly a ll

other regards.

By presenting the contrasts and conflicts of identity

that constitute such an integral part of Pushkin’s personal myth and thematics in this dissertation, Pushkin w ill perhaps

be revealed as a writer balancing between “Western

classicism” (Apollo) and "exotic Romanticism” (Dionysus), for more reasons than hitherto considered.* The examination of a

personal myth in the context of Pushkin’s dual heritage, and all of the dualities that spring from it, serves as a point

” Generally speaking, Pushkin reached his romantic height in the early 1820’s, during his “Byronic” period. Following this “Byronic” period, his writing began to reflect a move towards what Soviet critics like d to re fe r to as “realism .” Perhaps the most correct assessment is the one th a t sees a synthesis between romantic themes and c la s s is is t form, between “Dionysus” and “A pollo.”

42 of departure for interpretation and, hopefully adds a meaningful contribution to the vast field of Pushkin studies.

43 CHAPTER 1

FAMILY HISTORY

Any discussion of the impact of Pushkin’s African heritage on his psyche, and subsequent creation of his personal and literary myths, necessitates a presentation of his family history; for it is in this history that Pushkin found the raw materials for his life and myth creation

Czhiznetvorchestvo and mifotvorchestvo). It must be noted that Pushkin, in studying his African heritage, drew upon family lore and other materials, including a biography of

Cannibal that contemporary scholarship has shown to contain numerous inaccuracies. Therefore, there is a considerable g u lf between Pushkin’ s understanding o f his A frica n ancestry and the factual truth about this ancestry that scholarly research has revealed. To first present an accurate historical account of Pushkin’s African heritage, I follow some of the genealogical studies mentioned in the

44 “Introduction” to this dissertation, specifically the chapter on Ibragim Cannibal in Allison Blakely’s Russia and the

Nearo: Blacks in Russian History and Thouaht (1986), Georg

Leets’ Abram Petrovich Cannibal (1980) and M. Vegner’s

Pushkin’s Ancestors (1937). In addition, I draw on a very

recent study by the African scholar Dieudonne Cnammankou.

Pushkin’s African heritage can be traced on his maternal side. Nadezhda Osipovna, Pushkin’s mother, was the grand­ daughter of Ibragim Cannibal, “the Negro of Peter the Great,” as he was known after the publication of Pushkin’s unfinished novel The Moor of Peter the Great (1828). While there is some question surrounding the social position of Cannibal’s family, recent research has apparently been able to solve the question of his family’s homeland. Contrary to the longstanding opinion that the Cannibal family originated from

Ethiopia, the African scholar Dieudonne Cnammankou has been able to make a plausible case for the origins of the family being from the region south of Lake Chad in central Sudan.

Since this is a controversial topic (cf. the Introduction) further research may be needed to settle the question once

Cnammankou, “New Research on Pushkin's Africa: Hannibal's Homeland."

45 and for a ll. Certainly Cannibal’s family, regardless of its firs t origins, is the only African one to have had any major significance in tsarist Russian history. Cannibal rose through the m ilitary ranks to become one of the most highly educated, and well-regarded men in a ll of Russia. Above a ll, it was his many technical achievements that made him the f i r s t outstanding modern engineer in Russian history.^®

Cannibal’s m ilitary fame and career were a source of great pride to Pushkin, as demonstrated by the fact that he wanted to write his very firs t prose work, a biographie romancee, on his illu strio u s ancestor. The reasons why he never completed it are discussed below.

Only a youth when he arrived in Russia around the year

1706, Ibragim Cannibal’ s l i f e before becoming a part o f Peter the Creat’s court remains somewhat nebulous. As mentioned above, the perhaps most cre d ib le , and c e rta in ly most recent, evidence suggests that Cannibal originated from central

Sudan. He was the son of a Muslim prince who had several wives and a countless number of children. Cannibal was the youngest son of the last wife. In spite of the exceptionally la rg e number o f c h ild re n in his fa m ily . Cannibal gained

“ Blakely 24.

46 special favor in his father’s eyes, and invoked the jealousy

of his older half-siblings and the other wives. It is widely

believed that these siblings and wives arranged his capture

by the Turks, and subsequent journey to Constantinople along with other African youths. After approximately two years in

Constantinople, Cannibal found his way to Russia as part of a

group of Africans taken to Russia from the Sultan’s court by

Shepelev, the Russian emissary to Constantinople.” Peter the

Great had expressed a desire to have African youths at his

court, for as M. Vegner, a biographer of Cannibal, notes:

neyp HMeA ropecTb BHaeTb, mto noaaaHHSie ero ynopcTBOsaAH npocBeigeHHio. >KeAaa noxasaTb hm npHMep Haa coBepmeHHo Myxaoio nopoaoio Aioaea, hhcba k cBoewy nocAaHHHKy HleneAesy, oh npncAaA ewy apannHxa c xopoiuHMH Cn0C06H0CTflMH.‘'°

Peter was distressed to see that his subjects resisted enlightenment. Wanting to show them an exemplary experiment on people of completely alien races, he wrote to h is envoy Shepelev, asking him to send him a young negro with good abilities.

” M. Bernep, npeaxx nviiiKHHa/ Pushkin’ s Ancestors (MocxBa: CoBeTCKHfl RHcaTeAb, 1937 ), 15-17.

Vegner, Pushkin’s Ancestors 17.

47 Discussing Peter the Great’s pleasure at the arrival of his new “acquisitions,” Vladimir Nabokov, quoting Cannibal’s son- in-law, whose biography (in German) has been mentioned above, notes :

...he (Peter the Great) wished to make examples of them (the Africans)...and put (Russians) to shame by convincing them that out of every people, and even from among wild men - such as Negroes, whom our civilized nations assign exclusively to the class of slaves - there can be formed men who by dint of application, can obtain knowledge and learning (and thus) become helpful and useful to their monarch...A no mean connoisseur of mankind, the emperor investigated in advance the inclinations of his newly arrived objects. He destined Hannibal, who was a quick, keen and fiery young fellow, for a m ilitary career../"

The foundation for the friendly protege relationship that subsequently developed was formed.

The details of Cannibal’s life in the years after his arrival in Russia are more thoroughly documented than his obscure beginnings. In 1707, the Muslim youth was baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church. The tsar was his godfather, and Christina Ebergardina, wife of King Augustus II of

*' Vladimir Nabokov, “Pushkin and Cannibal: A Footnote,” Encounter. 19.1 C1962): 20.

48 Poland, was his godmother. Nabokov suggests that this was only a mock ceremony:

The ceremony performed on the young blackamoor, a t the P y a tn its k i church, in la te September or e a rly October, 1707...was conducted in the rowdy and slapstick atmosphere of Peter's court and smacks of mock marriages between freaks of the elevation to the rank of governors.. .There seems to have been an attempt by some zealous courtiers, a few months before, to marry the blackamoor: in a letter from Poland...the tsar writes... that he does not wish to have the arap conjugated with, presumably, the daughter of some grandee’s Negro servant, or a dwarf, or a Russian female house fool. This was a critical moment for the gene that participated in the making of Pushkin, and thetsar should be thanked for directing the course of chance. 42

Whether i t was a mock ceremony or not, the event nonetheless had real benefits for the young man. From that time on.

Cannibal was trea te d as the ts a r ’ s godson, and began h is meteoric rise in Russian society. This was a remarkable occurrence, fo r as Vegner notes, i t was q u ite common to fin d young Africans in the ruler’s palace, and in the homes of the aristocracy. None of these Africans reached such high social

" Nabokov, “Pushkin and Cannibal” 21.

49 standing as Cannibal however, and none became such a large- scale landowner as he did, although some others did well.^

Cannibal entered Peter the Creat’s service in 1705.

In itia lly , the boy was only a manservant, but Peter, soon made Cannibal his personal assistant and secretary. In 1717

Cannibal accompanied Peter on a trip to Paris. Cannibal, along with other Russian students, remained in France to begin his studies in engineering. This seven-year period of

Cannibal’s life offers the basis for the events depicted in

Pushkin’s incomplete novel The Moor of Peter the Creat

(1828), which is discussed below. In 1718, Cannibal joined the French army where he received his education in m ilita ry engineering, which was the field of speciality Peter chose for him. Cannibal saw action in France’s war with Spain, and was wounded during his time of service. He was taken prisoner of war in Catalina, Italy in 1719, and released upon the war’s conclusion." He was promoted by the French to the rank of lieutenant, and in 1722 enrolled in a new m ilitary school for engineers at Metz, France. Ordered back to Russia in

1723, he was in itia lly assigned an engineering post at

Vegner, Pushkin's Ancestors 11.

Blakely 20-21.

50 Kronstadt, and later was appointed a mathematics teacher in

one of Peter’s personal guard units. At this point Cannibal was one of the most highly educated men in Russia. He brought

a library of about four-hundred volumes from France,

including philosophical and technical works. Among the

authors of his library were Euclid, Machiavelli, Racine, and

Corneille. Cannibal’s career surpassed a ll expectations, but

the death of Peter the Creat in 1725 caused his fortunes to

s u ffe r a considerable decline."^

Peter was succeeded by his w ife C atherine, whose most

influential advisor was Prince Menshikov. In this capacity,

Menshikov was one of the most powerful figures in Russia;

like Cannibal he had been raised from common status with the

tsa r’s support. Relations between Cannibal and Menshikov were

not good however, perhaps due to jealousy on the part of the

latter. In any case, in 1727 Cannibal was assigned to a post

in southeastern Russia and removed from the c a p ita l.

E v e n tu a lly he would be removed as fa r as S ib e ria . As

expressed in his personal correspondence, he perceived this

as a kind of internal exile. Cannibal had been involved with

a circle of people led by Princess A. P. Volkonskaia, who

Blakely 21.

51 were hostile to Menshikov’s power. Cannibal had also tutored

Peter the Great’s grandson - the future Peter II - in mathematics, and was quite possibly considered a rival by

Menshikov. One of Peter the Great’s closest friends,

Menshikov too aspired to influence over the future tsar. To avoid competition, just before the succession of Peter II to the throne, Menshikov sent Cannibal to inspect fortifications in Kazan’ . The other members of the Volkonskaia circle were dispersed from the capital in a similar manner.*

A fte r fo r ty - fiv e days in Kazan, Cannibal was ordered to continue to Tobolsk to build a fort there. Upon his arrival however, he was directed to the Wall of China to await further orders. Menshikov’s own fa ll from power and his exile at the end of 1727, after the death of Catherine I, and the accession of Peter II, did little to improve Cannibal’s plight. The succeeding power clique, the Dolgorukiis, were equally suspicious of Cannibal and his friends. Consequently, he spent three years in Siberia, mainly in Selinginsk, where he helped design and build a fortress. 47

** Blakely 21.

Blakely 21-22.

52 It was only upon the sudden death of Peter II, and the ascension of Anna Ioannovna in 1730 that Cannibal was

released from his Siberian isolation. In 1731, soon after

returning to Petersburg from Siberia, he married Eudoxia

Dioper, the youngest daughter of a poor Greek sea captain who believed that a family connection to Cannibal would improve his social standing and financial situation. The bride however, in love with another man, was apparently hesitant and unwilling to marry a Negro, justifying her feelings by the consideration that “the arap is not of our race".'* After much pressure however, she acquiesced to her father's wishes, but maintained an affair with her preferred lover.

Shortly after their marriage, while Cannibal was on m ilitary assignment, Dioper took another lover, Iakov

Shishkov. In te re s tin g ly , h is to ric a l documents cast Shishkov in the role of a “Don Juan," handsome and notorious for his flirtations with women.^ Before his liaison with Dioper,

Shishkov had promised to m arry another woman, but subsequently broken the engagement. In response to complaints that his jilte d fiancee made to authorities, he received

** O.S. Mirsky, Pushkin, introduction by George Siegel (New York; E.P. Dutton & Co., 1963) 4.

** Vegner, Pushkin's Ancestors 73.

53 corporal punishment. Perhaps Pushkin viewed Shishkov as playing a role in Cannibal's life that paralleled the one which Baron George d’Antes played in his own. However, the former case lacks the tragic ending of the latter - no lethal duels were fought over Dioper. S till there was plenty of drama here too. Cannibal eventually initiated divorce

proceedings against Dioper which would take over twenty years to become final. In his in itia l complaint he accused her of marital infidelity and conspiring with Shishkov to poison him. At one point, Eudoxia was sentenced to five years

imprisonment for her infidelity after Cannibal brought

charges against her, and obtained her confession through torture/* While the divorce proceedings dragged on, she was,

fo r the most p a rt, fre e . In 1753, when the fin a l separation was awarded, she was sentenced to seclusion in a remote

convent where she eventually died.

In 1736 Cannibal illegally married his longstanding m istress, C h ristin a Regina von Shoberg, who bore him eleven

c h ild re n and remained his companion fo r l i f e . Perhaps th is

happy union inspired Pushkin to pursue his marriage to

Natal'ia Goncharova, in spite of dark forebodings and great

“ Vegner, Pushkin’s Ancestors 75-76.

54 doubts. Like his great-grandfather, he too hoped to find marital bliss with a white woman, in spite of the shadow cast

by an African heritage which, at this stage of his life , had

inspired a distinct “Othello complex” in him. In Pushkin’s

case, the dream of lasting happiness did not come to

fruitio n, and some elements of the Eudoxia Dioper - Ibragim

Cannibal marital drama were replayed (with variations to be

sure) in his own life .

Cannibal’s professional career reached new heights in

its post Siberian stage. Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, Peter

the C reat’ s second reigning daughter, who ascended the throne

after Anna’s death, continued Anna’s rehabilitation of him.

In 1741 she bestowed the rank o f lieutenant colonel upon him,

and in 1742 he was made a major general. Elizabeth granted

him a number o f estates in Pskov and Petersburg provinces,

and it is to one of these estates, namely Suida, near St.

Petersburg, that he retired in 1762. His lifestyle there

became so reclusive that the exact year of his death is

unknown. Some sources say th a t he died around 1781 in h is

early nineties.^ Family history held that he kept a diary in

French, but burned a ll of his notes in one of his morbid fits

” Blakely 24.

55 o f fe a r, the psychological consequence o f h is many years o f misfortune and exile. In any case, what would have perhaps been an excellent source of information on his life was destroyed - if the diary existed indeed. Fortunately, those who have studied the life of this extraordinary man have had access to other useful documents such as the biography of

Cannibal written by his German son-in-law, and based on

Cannibal's own recollections.

Quite a few o f Cannibal’ s biographers have depicted him in a la rg e ly negative lig h t. Vladim ir Nabokov, in his work on

Pushkin’s ancestry, for example, notes that Cannibal was excessively cruel to his unfaithful firs t wife. According to a document described by Stepan Opatovich (in PvccKaa CTaoHHa/

Russian Antiauitv 1877), I. Cannibal, in 1732:

...rigged up at his home a p riv a te to rtu re chamber complete with pulleys, iron clamps, thumbkins, leathern whips, and so forth. An obstinate and form alistic man, he then managed to have h is v ic tim imprisoned by the state for marital betrayal.*

” Nabokov, “Pushkin and Cannibal” 24. Perhaps in setting up his torture chamber he emulated his own godfather, Peter the Great.

56 Perhaps, in developing his personalized torture chamber,

Cannibal decided to put his talents as an engineer to good use. However, perhaps th is to rtu re chamber never existed.

The Cannibal of Nabokov’s historical account stands in great contrast to the fictitious image of the independent yet humble and amiable personality of Pushkin’s historical romance. The Moor of Peter the Creat (1828). Nabokov writes:

...although Abram Cannibal used to refer to himself, in humble letters to grandees, as “a poor Negro,” and although Pushkin saw him as a Negro with “African passions” and an independent b rillia n t personality, actually...Abram Cannibal was a sour, groveling, crotchety, timid, ambitious, and cruel person; a good m ilitary engineer, perhaps, but humanistically a non­ entity; differing in nothing from a typical career- minded, superficially educated, coarse, wife-flogging Russian of his day...*

Nabokov’s assessment appears to be extreme to me. Cannibal, in a ll likelihood, would not have reached such high professional heights had he been entirely devoid of positive human attributes. Even more importantly, I would point to the fa c t th a t Cannibal’ s second w ife was apparently very happy with him. He must therefore have been a reasonable father (11

“ Nabokov, “Pushkin and Cannibal” 26.

57 children) and husband, when given the opportunity of being so.

While relatively little information exists on the lives of Cannibal’s many children, biographers have been able to piece together in some detail the life of Cannibal’s son Osip

Ibragim ovich. Osip was the fa th e r o f Nadezhda Osipovna

Pushkina, who gave b irth to Aleksandr Pushkin in 1799. Born in 1744, the third of Ibragim Cannibal’s children, Osip

Cannibal is said to have possessed his father’s explosive temperament, which Pushkin termed "atpHKaHCKHft xapaKTep"

/ “African character,"^ and attributed to himself also. This perception of an inherited “fiery temperament” is certainly part of Pushkin’s myth-creation.

Osip’s life in many ways paralleled his father’s. While he had a less brilliant, yet s till quite impressive, official career, his personal life was no less complicated. Osip stood out as the most physically attractive of all his brothers, but the favor that he gained from his good looks did little in terms of affording him any degree of personal happiness.

His disorganized, irrational and extravagant nature.

AxeKcaHap nyuiKHH, CoMHHeHHX A.C. nyimcHHa b o jH o a k Hare/ Complete Collection of Works in One Volume (MocKBa: 1993) 314 All subsequent references from Pushkin w ill be taken from this volume unless indicated otherwise.

58 contrasted to his father’s severe, demanding and m is e rly

personality, and this made for a strained relationship

between the two. Osip’ s m a rita l l i f e was as disastrous as his

fa th e r’ s i n i t i a ll y had been, and as his grandson’ s was to be.

He married Mar’ia Alekseevna Pushkina in 1773, without his

fa th e r’ s consent, and the union proved to be on unhappy one.

M. Vegner characterized th e ir rela tion ship thus:

...C oaHoA cTopoHU, 6ua hmakhA ctoah^huA ujeroAb h AK»6e8HHK, o6AaaaBuiHA BHeuiHeA npHBAeKareABHocTbio, cnoco6HLiA HpaBHTbCfl xeHujHHaM H aaxe npHBaausaTb hx k ce6e H He oneHb paaayMaBuiHA o t o m , h t o aeAaer. C apyroA- npoBHHynaAbHaa GapsiiuHa, sacHaeBiuaacH b aesHgax. Ona, no- BHaHMOMy, yBAOKAacb CBOHM KaBaAepoM H BHaaaAe HeCOMHeHHO HHTaAa K HOMy npHBflSaHHOCTb.”

...O n one hand, there was a passionate, urbanized dandy and flatterer, who, being physically attractive, pleased women and even could make them attached to him w ithout re a lly considering what he was doing. On the other hand, there was a provincial maiden, who had been single for a long time. She apparently was taken with her admirer and at the outset undoubtedly harbored tender feelings for him.

” M. Beraep, “IIp^aKH nymxHHa"/“Pushkin’s Ancestors,” Po.g h IIpeJK H A. C. nvmKHHa/Pushkin’s Family and Ancestors. nyiUKHHCKaH 6H6AHoreKa, pea. C. A. Hh k h t h h (MocKBa: Haa-BO "BacaHTa,' 1995) 2 l6 .

59 Pushkin, relying on the German biography by Ibragim’s son-in-

law, wrote in his “The Beginning of My Autobiography” :

H ceA Gpax 6ma Hec^acTAHB. PeBHOCTb xeHM h HenocToancTBo Myxa 6u AH npHHHHOK) Hey^OBOAbCTBHft H ccop, KOTOpue KOHHHAHCb pasBOiioM. A$pHKBHCKHA xapaKTep Moero aeaa, HHAKHe CTpacTH, coeaHHeHHHe c yxacHHM AerKOMUCAHeM, 56 BOBeKAH ero b yaHBHTeABHtie 3a6Ay*

And this marriage too was an unhappy one. The w ife’s jealousy and husband’s in fid e lity were the reasons for dissatisfaction and arguments, which resulted in divorce. My grandfather’s African character, his fiery passion, combined w ith te r r ib le f r iv o lit y , led him in to incredible aberations.

Mar’ia ’s difficulties in adjusting to her husband, and Osip’s emotional inconstancy (Don Juan complex), caused an

irre p a ra b le gap to develop between the two. In 1776, a fte r three years of marriage, fathering two children - a boy who died in in fa n cy and Nadezhda - and com m itting va rio us infidelities with local farm girls, Osip abandoned Mar’ia

Alekseevna. Mar’ia Alekseevna wrote to him:

... Koraa yxe HeAK>6oBb Bauia ko mho tbk yBeAHHHBaAacs, hto BH X H T b CO MHO A HO xoAaoTe, TO yxo H peuiHAacb GoAee BaM cBoeio 0006010 rarocTL bbm ne aeAaTS, a paccTaTbca na bok h Vegner, Pushkin's Ancestors 314.

60 Bac OCTaBHTb OT MOHX npeTeHBHÔ BO BCeM CBOGoaHa, TOABKO c T0M, m t o 6h Hama MHe oTaana SMAa...^’’

Since your in d iffe re n c e toward me has grown to such an extent that you no longer wish to share my life , I have decided not to be a burden to you any longer but to separate from you forever, on condition, however, that you give my daughter to me. 58

To this Osip replied:

3a T O M XeAaK) nOABSOBaTbCH saw SAaTOIO BOAbHOCTblO, H B nocAeaHHe HasuBaiocb Myx Bam Hoch$ fanhh6aa...”

I hope th a t you w ill take advantage o f your golden liberty and I herewith sign myself, for the last time, your husband Iosif Cannibal...’ 60

Osip, having “resolved” the problem of his marriage, did not apply for a divorce; instead he left his wife and daughter and moved to Pskov where he met another young woman whom he decided to marry. Henri Troyat, in his biography of

Pushkin, assessed the s itu a tio n in these terms:

” Vegner, “Pushkin’s Ancestors” 217.

” The translation from Henri Troyat, Pushkin: A Biography . trans. by Randolph T. Weaver (New York: Pantheon, 1950), 26.

" Vegner, “Pushkin’s Ancestors” 217.

The translation is from Troyat 26.

61 After a ll, his father, that general nuisance Abraham, had been a bigam ist and could not be said to have suffered unduly from the irregularity of his position; his example was enough to silence any qualms of conscience his son might have had.' 61

Although Troyat may not be the most reliable of biographers, his psychological assessment of this incident appears convincing to me. In a scenario almost identical to that of his father's, in 1799 Osip married (ille g a lly) a second time under the premise of unsubstantiated reports that his firs t wife had died and his motivations may well have been close to those assumed by Troyat.®^ Osip’s irresponsible personal behavior and overly emotional disposition reveal a simultaneously “Don Juan” and an “Othello” complex which

Pushkin may have perceived. P.I. Liublinskii, in his article

“ Hs ce Me AH or 0 npouiAoro npeaxoB nyuiKHHai " / “ From Pushkin’ s

Ancestral Archives” (1995), has offered this assessment of

Osip’s marriage:

Troyat 17. Troyat is well-known for his popular biographies which qualify almost as biographies romancees in that their author takes many liberties. For example, as above, Troyat claims to know the feelings and thoughts of Osip Ibragimovich.

** Vegner, “Pushkin’s Ancestors” 220.

62 Mh y *e yKa3UBaAH, ^to 6pax Mexay 0. raHHH6aA0M h M. A. nyiuKHHOft 6ua 3aKAK»MeH 6e3 ak>6bh. BnoAHe sepoHTHO, mto, cAeaya ToraauiHHM BOBspeHHaw a a 6pax, raHHH6aA h nocAe saKAioaeHHa ero ae cahuikom crecaaA ce6a cynpyxecKHM aoAroM BepaocTH xeae. Ho BMecTe c Tew, saaa acTopaio nepBoro 6paaa CBoero oTga, A 6paMa ra a a a 6aAa, a coxpaaaa e%e npexaae BsrAaaw aa noaaeaoAbaoe noAoxeaae a aaTBopaaaecKyio xaaab xeati, oa c oco6oA noao3 pare Ab­ ac cTbio a peBBasocTbio oTBocaAca k ee noBeaeaaio... Mapaa AAeKceeBaa, o6AaaaBuiaa, Kaa 3To Baaao aa Bcero ee aa Aba earn ero noaeaeaaa, xapaxTepoM npaMbiM a aeaaaaca- MHM, He xeAaa MapaTbca c TaKHM noAoxeaaeM: oaa araopapoBaAa cTecaeaaa, KOTopae *eAaA aaAoxarb aa aee M yx.'’^

We have already shown that the marriage between 0. Cannibal and M.A. Pushkin was carried out without love. It is highly likely that given the view of marriage at that time, Cannibal, even after his marriage wasn’t too confined by the marital obligation of fid elity to his wife. But besides this, knowing the history of his father, Abram Cannibal’s, firs t marriage, and main­ taining traditional views on the dependent position and confined life of a wife, he related to her behavior with particular suspicion and jealousy. Mariia Alekseevna, having, as was apparent by her behavior, a straight­ forward and independent character, and not wanting to become reconciled to this situation, ignored the re s tra in ts th a t her husband wanted to place on her.

Apparently Osip Ibragimovich combined the liberty and libertism of a Don Juan with the jealousy of an Othello.

" n.H. A k >6a h h c k h 1ï , “H3 ceMeflHoro npoiiiAoro npeaxoB nyuiKHHa”/ “From Pushkin’s Ancestral Archives,” Poa h npejKH A. C. nvmxaaa/ Pushkin’s Family and Ancestors. IlymKHHCKafl ^aCAHOTexa, pea C. A. Hh x h t h h (Mocxea; H3a-Bo 'BacaHTa,” 1995) 216.

63 O sip’ s second marriage was denounced by h is f i r s t w ife , and subsequently declared invalid by Catherine II. Mar’ia

Alekseevna retained the title and all the rights of a lawful spouse. Osip was sent “on a long voyage...to atone by service and penitence for the crime he had committed.” A quarter of his estate was placed in trust for his daughter Nadezhda’s maintenance. Osip le ft Russia for four years; upon his return however, his troubles resumed when his second “wife” demanded the return of 27,000 rubles he had received from her dowry.

The case was s till pending when Osip died in 1806, “from theconsequences of a dissolute life .” He had not seen his firs t wife since their separation in 1776.*

At this point it is useful to examine briefly some of the relevant marital relationships on Pushkin’s paternal side, fo r Pushkin was also w ell aware o f them and used them too in the creation of his personal myth of the “African- aristocrat” which included the predisposition to failure in marital relations. Let us begin with the same generation as the one of Pushkin’s African lineage, namely Aleksandr

Petrovich Pushkin. The poet’s paternal great-grandfather, married Eudoksia Golovina, daughter of a favorite of Peter

” Troyat 18.

64 the Great’s, in 1720, or 1721. The marriage was not a success: according to family documents, in 1725, in a f i t o f rage and jealousy, A.P. Pushkin cut his pregnant wife’s throat. He was imprisoned and died in prison in the same year. Pushkin’s paternal grandfather. Lev Aleksandrovich was also a “ MeAOBeK h u a k h ô h *ecTOKHft” / “ a passionate and cruel man."^ He was married twice; the firs t time in 1739, at the age of sixteen, to a woman who, as Pushkin alleges in his account of his paternal genealogy, “died on a straw pallet, locked by her husband in a dungeon on the estate fo r having an affair, real or imagined, with his sons’ French tutor, who was hanged in the courtyard by his order."** Lev

Aleksandrovich also had a domineering relationship with his second w ife , who, as Pushkin w rote, “aoBOASHo o r H e ro

HaTepneAacb”/“suffered more than enough at his hand.”

Although Pushkin acknowledges the unreliability of his sources and the fact that his father never discussed his grandfather’s alleged crimes and misdemeanors, there was an awareness of these events and they must have had an impact upon his genealogical mifotvorchestvo. It is interesting to

« Pushkin 311.

" Troyat 19.

65 note that while much has been made of the marital dramas of

Ibragim and Osip Cannibal, none of their relationships culminated in the death of their spouses, due to physical violence or neglect, as possibly was the case with Pushkin’s paternal grandfather and great-grandfather. Clearly, the

Pushkin line, in spite of a history checkered with a violence no less, but rather more, “African” than that found on the

Cannibal side, has not received the same attention. Neither biographers, literary critics or even the poet himself discussed the tragedies of the Pushkin line. One can only speculate as to the reasons fo r th is seeming inconsistency.

Since the Pushkins were white members of the aristocracy, perhaps the violence they exhibited was perceived more as

justifiable “righteous indignation” and a proper defense of

family honor, rather than senseless inhumanity. The black

Cannibal lineage, which was distinctly less aristocratic than the Pushkin line, in spite of its professional accomplishments, is not given the benefit of this

interpretation, and the behavior of Ibragim and Osip Cannibal

is viewed through the prism of racial stereotypes by critics and the poet alike.

6 6 As stated above, Pushkin, in learning about his African heritage, relied on varied materials that contemporary s c h o la rs h ip has shown to co n ta in in a c c u ra c ie s and exaggerations. The nature of the available information, no doubt impacted Pushkin's views, assessments, values and hence

“myth-” and “life-creation.” Pushkin’s most important source was a manuscript of approximately 4000 words which comprised a biography of Cannibal, the author of which was Cannibal’s son-in-law. The biography, written after Cannibal’s death, contains certain details that only Cannibal could have remembered, which indicates th a t he dictated the document. I t also includes a number of passages that are, according to

Vladim ir Nabokov:

...contradicted either by historical documents...or by plain logic, that were obviously inserted by the biographer with a view to pad the story, to span its gaps and to give a eulogistic (but actually absurd) interpretation of this or that event in the hero’s life .. .Whoever spun this grotesque fabric had before his or her eyes some autobiographic notes le ft by Cannibal h im s e lf.^

This biography of Cannibal grotesquely romanticizes his life , claiming, among other things, that he was a direct descendant

Nabokov, “Pushkin and Cannibal” 12.

67 of the great second-century B.C. African warrior Hannibal.

Pushkin claimed that Peter the Great gave Cannibal the name when Cannibal was baptized into the Russian Orthodox faith in

1707. In fact, Ibragim Petrovich, as he was s till called at his baptism, selected and adopted this name himself only several years later, as historical documents attest.

While most of the inaccuracies found within the biography have little intrinsic significance for Pushkin's perception of his African heritage, a few do warrant mention.

One major error, as reflected in Pushkin’s “The Beginning of

My Autobiography,” contends that early in Ibragim Cannibal’s firs t marriage, his wife gave birth to a child by her lover

Shishkov. Pushkin used, but inverted, this storyline in The

Moor of Peter the Great, in which Ibragim’s married French lover gives birth to a black child, who is later sent to live in a distant province in France. Although Eudoksia Dioper did give birth to a daughter, it was not until the latest stages of their divorce proceedings, after her relationship with a man who was not her firs t lover and after Cannibal’s illegal second marriage.

With regard to his maternal grandparents, Pushkin, in

“The Beginning of My Autobiography,” stated that the marriage

68 of his maternal grandparents ended in divorce. The two in fact, never officially divorced. Until she died, Mar’ia

Alekseevna remained Osip’s legal wife. Also, Pushkin understood his grandmother's jealousy to be the main cause fo r the break-up o f the marriage, but h is to ric a l documents do not support this claim.

In determining the extent to which family events may have had a psychological effect on Pushkin, at the time he pondered marriage and during his unhappy marriage to the much younger and beautiful Natal’ia Goncharova, one must look to the facts known to Pushkin about his family history and to reliable personal documents concerning himself. Pushkin’s incessant jealousy was a continual source of discord throughout his marriage.®* While it is doubtful that Natal’ia

Goncharova ever was unfaithful to Pushkin, it is clear that the flirtatio us relationship she maintained with her admirer

Baron George D’Antes, evoked strong feelings of jealousy and injured self-esteem on the poet’s part. The fact that D’Antes was a physically attractive man contributed to a feeling of in f e r io r it y on the part o f Pushkin, i.e . enhanced an already

*• The compelling history of Pushkin’s marriage and fatal duel is presented by Walter N. Vickery in his book, Pushkin: Death o f a Poet (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968).

69 existing “Othello complex.” In view of the great interest

Pushkin took in his family history, especially on the

Cannibal side, it seems likely that Pushkin viewed his marital plight as an extension of the marital misfortunes suffered by Ibragim Cannibal and Osip Ibragimovich as well.

As Cannibal was betrayed by his firs t wife with a man who was physically more attractive than he himself (at least by

“European criteria”), as Mar*ia Alekseevna had to tolerate many infidelities, it is reasonable to suspect that Pushkin projected these unfortunate situations on to his own life , casting D’Antes in the role of a Shishkov, and his wife in that of Mar’ia Alekseevna (since he himself was far from faithful). This theory is discussed in greater detail below.

It also seems reasonable to believe that this unstable and often turbulent family history on both sides played a role in Pushkin’s cultivation of his personal myth of himself as the African aristocrat - passionate and jealous as

Othello, yet also unstable as Don Juan. In light of his strong preoccupation with Cannibal family lore, Pushkin quite possibly saw himself as the natural extension of what appeared to be a pattern of marital discord, due to a large extent (at least in the maternal line) to racial factors.

70 Knowledge of the extremely unfortunate plights of his maternal forbears in all likelihood compelled him to perpetuate the belief that he too would somehow be unsuccessful in his marital pursuits, and at least partly for the same reason: his “exotic” heritage.

The sto ry o f Pushkin’s courtship o f N a ta l’ ia Goncharova, their marriage and his untimely death in a duel, is one which reveals the extent of Pushkin’s personal insecurity and self­ doubt. Pushkin met and fe ll in love with his future wife in

Moscow in 1828. Natal’ia was a beautiful sixteen-year old g irl who was enjoying her firs t season in Moscow society.

In itia lly , their courtship was less than a success; Pushkin’s firs t marriage proposal in 1829, though not rejected, was met with evasion. Although Natal’ia had been specifically brought to Moscow for the purpose of being married o ff, Pushkin, in spite of his fame as a writer, was not considered a good enough catch, due, in part to his precarious financial situation. It was only a year later, after Natal’ia failed to secure a better suitor - her family was poor, that Pushkin’s proposal was fin a lly accepted, 69

Vickery 26.

71 By all accounts, it is clear that from the very beginning, Pushkin and his wife were unequally matched.

Goncharova, twelve years Pushkin’s junior, had no emotional maturity and did not appreciate her husband’s artistic genius. Her greatest satisfaction came in circulating among the highest levels of court society. She had many admirers,

Tsar Nicholas I among them, and she reveled in the attention that she received. Her love of the aristocratic social scene was equaled only by her husband’s dislike of the same.

No less significant were the physical disparities between the couple. On at least two occasions the couple were likened to Vulcan and Venus.^ Certainly, Pushkin’s sexual vanity was satisfied by the catch of a well-known beauty, for he was well-aware of the “prize” that he had secured. Yet his w ife’s beauty, so cherished by him, combined with his own perceived physical unattractiveness (caused by his African heritage, as he believed), ultimately served as an additional source of destructive jealousy. Hints of this insecurity were displayed even before Pushkin’s marriage. In a letter to his

lOpHfl T m h a h o b , nviiiKHH H ero coBpeMeHHHKH/ Pushkin and his Con­ temporaries (MocKBa: 'HayKa/ 1969) 84.

72 future mother-in-law, written in 1830, Pushkin asked whether his fiancee would:

be able to preserve her tranquility of heart in the face of the admiration, homage and temptations surrounding her? She w ill be told that only ill luck prevented her from making a different match, more equal, more b rillia n t, more worthy of her - and perhaps the people who say such things w ill be sincere, at any rate she’ll think they are. Won’t she have regrets? Won’t she look on me as an obstacle to her happiness, as someone who won her by deceit? Won’t she be repelled by me?' >71

His worst misgivings appear to have been realized in the person o f Baron George D’ Anthes, whom the couple met in 1834.

Tall, blond, young and attractive, D’Anthes attempted to in itia te an affair with Goncharova. Goncharova, on her part, did not repel his attentions. Although there is no concrete evidence to suggest th a t Goncharova was ever u n fa ith fu l to her husband,^ Pushkin nonetheless took great offense at

" Vickery 32.

" Pushkin never suspected his wife of being unfaithful. Shortly before his fa te fu l duel, however, he remarked, “There are two sorts of cuckolds: those who are cuckolded in fact, and they know very well what they have to do; the position of the others who are cuckolds through the kind offices of society is more difficult. I belong to that category.” In other words, Pushkin knew that his wife’s purported infidelity was sheer fabrication.

73 D’Anthes’ advances. In January 1837, Pushkin challenged

D’Anthes to a duel, in which the poet was mortally wounded.

Also, Pushkin’ s biography reveals th a t he was exposed to an environment that fostered feelings of jealousy and inferiority that would later become an integral part of both his personality and personal myth. By a ll accounts, a large degree o f emotional estrangement existed between Pushkin and both of his parents; neither cared much for him. Pushkin’s father, Sergei L’vovich was a cold, distant and frivolous man whose primary interests lay in realizing his societal ambitions. These interests le ft little time for his children, and there was never any emotional intimacy between the father and them. Pushkin’s sister and younger brother fared slightly better with their mother, for it appears that she had a genuine affection for these two children.^

The relationship that Pushkin had with his mother, however, was as empty as the one w ith h is fa th e r. I t is documented th a t Nadezhda Pushkina was a s tr ik in g ly b e a u tifu l woman, known as “ Zo belle creoZe."" Perhaps, Pushkin, in

Troyat 21.

Troyat 19.

74 looking like “on ill -bleached blackamoor,possessed physical qualities that were a constant reminder of a heritage that she did not feel a great degree of pride in, or simply wished to ignore. The fact that her father, Osip

Gannibal, had abandoned her mother when she was but a small child, may have further reinforced negative feelings about a child so obviously negroid. Whether consciously, or unconsciously, Nadezhda Pushkina clearly rejected her middle child, and only in the last months of her life did any emotional closeness develop between she and the poet.*

Thus, when one looks at the array of supporting evidence, it may be argued that Pushkin constantly sought the confirmation of himself which he never received as a c h ild from his mother, a fact he may hove linked to his “African ugliness." During his adult years, seemingly in response to numerous attem pts to moke h is dreams o f being loved and accepted come to fruition, he perpetuated the “Don Juan”

" Troyat 21.

" There is some evidence to suggest th at the estrangement between Pushkin and his mother may not have been rooted solely in ra c ia l issues. A letter written by Nadezhda Pushkina to her daughter Olga on the birth of Olga’s son, suggests the former’s neutrality on the matter. She wrote: "...your older brother, it seems, dreamed that your baby would be black like Abraham Petrovich; you te ll me he is neither light nor dark, which is more plausible and more n a tu ra l.”

75 aspect of his persona, maintaining intimate relationships with scores of women. No amount of erotic conquests could rid him of the incessant sense of insecurity, however, which was to plague him until the end of his life . The other side of his identity was the self-assured, charming, Don Juan personality. In this role Pushkin identified with his aristocratic lineage.

Pushkin used his maternal lineage to develop a persona that displays a broad and contrastive range of emotional tendencies including insecurity and self-abasement. If we turn to the w riter’s personal correspondence and interaction with contemporaries, this aspect of Pushkin’s biography emerges with great clarity. Often, these emotions find similar expression in specific literary passages, which w ill be indicated where appropriate.

Pushkin displayed a marked sensitivity to the

“ strangeness” o f being an “ A fric a n ” , even as a youth. V.S.

Listov, in his a rticle, “Aerenjiu o qepHOM npeaxe’’/ “Legends about the Black Ancestor” (1994) notes:

76 CnepBa, b m o a o ü o c t h , nyuiKHH, no b h^ h m o m y, oujyujaeT qepnoro npaaeaa xax neKyio cTpaHHOcTL, xax Kyptes, oTAH^aioujHâ ero poji no MaTepHHCKofi ahhhh.’’

At f i r s t , as a youngster, Pushkin apparently perceived his African ancestor as a c e rta in p e c u lia r ity , as a curiosity, that distinguished his family along the maternal line.

Much of Pushkin’s psychological connection to his African ancestry centered around the reinforcement of negative racial stereotypes. One such stereotype associated “Africanness” or

“blackness” with certain animals, especially apes or monkeys.

This association Pushkin encountered when he was a student at the Lyceum during the years 1812-1818. lu. Tynianov has noted that during his school years, Pushkin had three nicknames, namely “ tpaHgya” / “ Frenchman, ” “oGeasaHa’’/ “ monkey” and “ THrp”

/ “tig e r.” As Tynianov explained the latter two, “ IlymKHH h m o a cKAOHHOcTb K nptixKaM, rpu3 nepbfl h Koraa oh cepaHAca, ero noxoaxa cTaaoBHAacb nAaBHaa, a marn pacTarHBaAHCt ’’/ “ Pushkin was in c lin e d to leap around, gnaw q u ills and when he became angry, his walk became gliding, and (his) stride fully

” B.C. A hctob, “Aereaaa o m& phom npeaxH"/“Legends about the Black Ancestor,” AereHüa h mh»ij o nvmxHHe/ leaends and Myths about Pushkin (CaHKT-nerepCypr; FyMaHHTapHoe areHTCTBo 'AKaaeMH^ecKHfl nposKT/ 1994) 62.

77 extended. *”® The nickname “monkey” was widely used by Pushkin’ s circle of friends at the Lyceum, to refer to the poet’s physical appearance. Although apparently o friendly nickname, it presumably was offensive to the youth nevertheless. One of

Pushkin’ s Lyceum classmates, S. Komovskii noted:

...no cTpacTH nyiUKHHa k tpaHyyscKowy aaiiKy HaasaAH ero b HacMeuiKy $paHyy30M, a no * h 3h o h o m h h h h o k o t o p m m npHBMMKaM o6e3bflHOio HAH ^a*e CMecbio o6e3bHHU c THrpOM.^

...because of Pushkin’s love of French...we called him “ Frenchman” to mock him, and because o f h is physiognomy and some monkeyish features we called him a monkey or even the combination of a monkey with a tiger.

In his personal correspondence, Pushkin made a passing reference to the nickname “monkey,” which c ritic J. Thomas

Shaw views as being indicative of the poet's exaggerated opinion of his own ugliness.®* A letter written to Madame

Maiguine in 1823, a woman Pushkin had known w hile e x ile d in

l u r i i Tynianov, os quoted from Bukhalov 23.

BaaHM 3. Bayypo K S.p, a. C. nvniKHH B SOCnOMHHaHHgX COSp^MeHHHKOB: B JBVX TOMax/A.S. Pushkin in the Remembrances of His Contemporaries: In TwoJ/olumes (MocKBa:'XyaoxecTBeHHaa AHTeparypa,* 19Ô5) 163.

J. Thomas Shaw, The Letters of Alexander Pushkin (Madison: U niversity of Wisconsin Press, 1967) 171.

78 Kishinev, implores the woman to attend a ball in Odessa,

where Pushkin was at the time. To convince Maiguine to

attend, Pushkin writes,

...Come in heaven’ s name; to lu re you we s h a ll have balls, Italian operas, concerts, cicisbe i, admirers, everything that w ill please you; I shall imitate a monkey, I shall slander, and I shall draw for you 81

Apparently Pushkin’s tricks of imitating an apish character

and poking fun at himself were well-known to and well-liked

by Madame Maiguine. This fam iliarity would point to Pushkin’s

own preoccupation with a perceived physical resemblance to an

ape manifested in clownish “monkey-behavior.” Again, although on the surface young Pushkin does not seem to have minded

being a “monkey” - ever ready to amuse admired women by his

“ monkey tr ic k s ” - on some le v e l there could w ell have been a

sense o f offense nourishing an “ O thello” complex.

At the annual reunion with his Lyceum classmates in

1828, Pushkin recorded notes of the meeting. All of those

present were called out by their childhood nicknames. The

f in a l e n try on the l i s t read: “ ...IlymKHH - $paHgy3 (cMecb

*' The translation is from Shaw, Letters 145.

79 o6eQHaHLi c THrpoM)” / “ Pushkin - Frenchman (m ixture o f a monkey w ith a tig e r).T h e childhood nicknames that were given him as a youth were s till very much alive in his memory some ten years later. That he chose to identify with them confirms the

suspicion that he sought to reinforce negative self­

perceptions of his physical appearance, perhaps in order to

reconcile himself to it through self-parody and laughter. One

could argue that in this instance, Pushkin was not actually

perpetuating a myth about himself, rather he was simply

reflecting others’ perceptions of him. Yet in his willingness to identify with the nickname, and not challenge it in any apparent way, he consciously, or unconsciously reinforces a persona that has internalized negative racial stereotypes. In a ll likelihood, as already stated, the names were meant to be

“friendly” since a ll present were very close. Yet there was a sense of hurt and slight on Pushkin’s part, it seems, and it le ft a definite imprint on the poet’s psyche. At least the

“monkey aspect” was seen as negative when the love of his beautiful wife was at stake.

Certainly there are contexts in which Pushkin did not only voice “humorous” feelings about his “apishness.” One

As quoted from Bukalov 22.

80 such context is relayed in the “CeMeftHaa xpoHHKa” / “ Fam ily chronicle” of L.N. Pavlishchev, Pushkin’s nephew. Pavlishchev records a story told by his mother, the poet’s sister, Olga

Sergeevna. According to the “chronicle” , she witnessed a conversation (the date of which is not given), between her brother and a French woman, which transpired as follows:

- KcTaTH, r-H nyuiKHH, B BaiuHX xHAax H cecTpM same* reqer HerpHTflHCKaH XpOBb? - PaayMeeTCfl, - OTBewaA nosT. - 3 to Bam aea 6 u a nerpoM? - Hex, OH yxe hm He 6 m a . - 3HaHHT, 3T0 6 u a Bam npaaea? - Z a , Moft npaaea. - Tax 3T0 OH 6 ma nerpow. .aa, aa . Ho b raxoM cAynae, xto * e 6tiA ero oTey? - 0 GesLHHa, waaaM, - oTpesaA naxoney AAexcanap Cepre- esHH.®^

“By the way. Mister Pushkin, do you and your sister have negro blood in your veins?” “Certainly,” replied the poet.” “Was i t your grandfather who was a negro?” “ No, he wasn’ t anymore.” “Then it was your great-grandfather?” “Yes, it was my great-grandfather.” “ So he was a Negro. Yes, th a t’ s i t . , but then, who was his father?” “ A monkey, Madame,” Aleksandr Sergeevich f in a lly snapped back.

” As quoted from Bukalov 27.

81 Again, Pushkin, however ironically, reinforces a persona that views his African ancestry in terms of negative racial stereotypes, or at least reflects an awareness of being regarded as a “curiosity.” Clearly he views his interlocutor as an ignorant and stupid person, yet his response testifies to his sensitivity about his “Africanness” and its equation with “monkishness.”

There are other instances in which Pushkin draws the general connection between “Africanness” and “ugliness.” In a letter to his wife, written in 1836, Pushkin stated:

3aech xoTflT AenHTb moô 6ioct. Ho a. He xony, Tyr apancKoe 6e3o6pa3He npeaaHo Gyae? SeccMepTHio bo Bceft cBoeâ MepTBOÉ HenOÜBHXHOCTH.

Here they want a bust of me to be sculpted. But I don't want it. My negro ugliness would be committed to immortality in a ll its dead immobility.' 84

This self-perception of physical unattractiveness, this important ingredient of his “Othello complex,” found similar expression in Pushkin’ s ly r ic s , such as “ To l u r ’ ev” (1820) and “To Dawe, Esq.” (1828; see Chapter 6).

The translation is Shaw, Letters 767.

82 Self-deprecation was thus not a rare motif in Pushkin's myth-making, life-creation and his “real life .” Yet another instance of this negative self-perception is seen in a letter

Pushkin sent to his friend Vera Viazemskaia, after the birth of his daughter Maria in 1832. Pushkin wrote:

...Apropos of self-abnegation: just imagine, my wife has had the maladroitness to give birth to a little lithograph of me. I am in despair, in spite of a ll my self-conceit.“

Beyond African looks, Pushkin perceived other a ffin itie s with his African ancestry; he believed that they manifested themselves not only in his physical appearance, but also in an emotional, psychological make-up that presented a predisposition to excessive passionateness. One reference to this is seen in a letter he wrote while writing The Moor of

Peter the Great (1828). In 1826 he wrote to V.P. Zubkov regarding his amorous feelings towards S ofia Pushkina, a distant relative with whom he contemplated to be married:

...Mho 27 AOT, aoporoA apyr. Ilopa x h t s, to ecrs nosHars cMacTbe...*H3Hb MOfl, zioceAe Taxaa KoqyK>gaa, raxaa 6ypaaa, xapaKTep moô - aepoBHHA, peBHHBHô, noaospHTeAbHsia, pesK aA H CAaÔHÈ oaaoBpeMeHHo - bot 'ito HHoraa HasoaHT aa “ The translation is Shaw, Letters 552.

83 Mena rarocTHMe pasaywba. CaeayeT ah mho csasaTb c cyaGoa cTOAb neaaAbHoA, c raKHM aecqacTHUM xapaKTepoM - cyabGy cyujecTBa, TaKoro aexHoro, TaKoro npeKpacaoro?

...I am 27 years old, dear friend. It is time for one to begin to live, i.e ., to know happiness...My life up to the present, so wandering, so stormy; my character, crochety, jealous, touchy, violent, and weak, a ll at the same time - this what gives me moments of painful reflection. Ought I unite to a fate so sad, to a character so unfortunate, the fate of a being so sweet, so beautiful?*®

This correspondence has echoes in the letter which, Ibragim,

the central character of The Moor of Peter the Great writes

to his mistress, the Countess D., upon leaving France.

Pushkin’s letter (similar to that of the character Ibragim)

betrays its author’s insecurity. When Pushkin actually met

h is d is ta n t re la tiv e in November1826 she was already

engaged. This fact may well have reinforced his notion that

he was undesirable, not "fated” for marriage, "wrong” in various ways due to his “African” temperament, “African”

looks and “African” family history. As already mentioned, the

behavior of his Pushkinian ancestors affected him far less in his innermost psyche. Here he found no nourishment for his

” The translation is from Shaw, Letters 337.

84 “inferiority complexes,'* but rather his compensatory

“reckless aristocrat” behavior.

A similar self-deprecatory attitude is displayed in a letter which Pushkin wrote to his future mother-in-law, in

A p ril 1830.

...TOAbKO npHBH^Ka H aAHTeAbHaa 6AH30CTb MOrAH 6bl noMOMb MH6 aacAyxHTb pacnoAoxeHHe Baiueft aoqepM; fl Mory Ha.aeaTbca sooGyaHTb co BpeweHew ee npHBflsaHHOcTb, ho HHHeM He Mory eft noHpasHTbCfl; ecAH ona corAacHTca OTaaTb MHe CEO 10 pyKy, a ysHxy b stom ahiub aoxasaTeAbCTBo cncKoftHoro GespaaAHMHa ee cepaga...

...Only habit and long intimacy could win for me your daughter's a ffe c tio n . I can hope to make her become attached to me in the course of time, but I have nothing to please her with. If she consents to give me her hand, I shall see only the proof of the calm indifference of her heart.*'

Pushkin projects himself as a man who has resigned himself to the erotic indifference of a woman whom he loves, and who, he is convinced, cannot love him because she is beautiful and he is not. Once again, he presents himself as devoid of the qualities that would naturally be attractive to members of the opposite sex, especially such a “fa ir” one as Natal’ia

" The translation is from Shaw, Letters 407.

85 Goncharova. Pushkin's personal correspondence and in te r­ personal relationships indicate clearly that in his myth about himself, he acted a persona that embodied the negative attributes which popular cliches connected with “Africanness” in general and his African heritage in particular. The other contexts in which this was done w ill be discussed below.

86 CHAPTER 2

OTHELLO VERSUS DON JUAN

As stated in the Introduction to this dissertation, an examination of Pushkin’s oeuvre for the presence of the

“ A fric a n -a ris to c ra tic ” myth reveals th a t both the themes o f jealousy and erotic conquest, however contradictory, form an in te g ra l and inte g ra te d component o f i t . P e rtin e n t to the discussion o f the jealousy theme, are Pushkin’ s perceptions of William Shakespeare’s tragedy Othello (1604), and the extent to which Pushkin drew upon the drama as an important literary source for his own texts, both the life-text and the literary texts. It may safely be stated that Shakespeare’s

Othello was crucial to Pushkin’s personal myth; here, in fact, he found and reduplicated virtually a ll the parameters of his “Othello complex” already found in his genealogy.

Pushkin acknowledged the great tradition of English literature early in his professional career. In itia lly, much

87 of his writing was impacted by Byron, but later he took a strong interest in the work of Shakespeare. It was this interest in Shakespeare, along with Pushkin’s interest in

Russian history, that resulted in the firs t significant

“Shakespearean” play in Russian literature, his BopHc roüVHOB/ Boris Godunov (1825). In Shakespeare, Pushkin saw a writer who developed the fu ll potential of his characters unlike any writer he had read before, including Byron.

Pushkin wrote:

...What a man this Shakespeare is! I am simply overwhelmed! How petty Byron the tragedian looks if compared with him, the same Byron who in summa understood one character only. Byron simply divided his own personality among his heroes: one o f them he endowed with his own pride, another with his hatred, a th ir d w ith h is melancholy, and so on. In th is manner he created out of one complete sombre yet energetic character a number of insignificant characters. This however is not really tragedy...The characters created by Shakespeare are not types of such-and-such a passion or such-and-such a vice: they are living beings with many passions and many vices. Their many qualities are developed before the spectator by the circumstances which confront them.“

'* The translation is from Janko Lavrin, Pushkin and Russian Literature. (New York: Russell and Russell, 1969) 142-143.

88 Pushkin integrated the Shakespearean principle of creating heterogeneous characters in his own w riting and subsequently

created some of the most emotionally complex characters in

Russian literature. At the same time, the influence of

Shakespeare is not merely aesthetic; he also holds additional, specific significance, for Pushkin’s life

creation, for his personal myth. There can be no doubt that

it was one character in Shakespeare’s vast gallery that

particularly attracted Pushkin: the Moor Othello.

In determining what psychological traits constitute

Pushkin’s “Othello complex,” it is essential to examine closely Shakespeare’s play devoted to the story of the Moor, and certainly well-known to Pushkin. As J. Thomas Shaw states in his article, “Pushkin on His African Heritage:

Publications during his Lifetime,” it is not surprising that the theme of Othello would be in Pushkin's consciousness.**

The exact date of Pushkin’s firs t reading of Othello is not known, but it has been noted that during his time of Southern exile Pushkin read Shakespeare’s works through a French translation by P. Leturner, and continued reading during his

** Shaw, “Pushkin on His African Heritage” 129.

89 exile in Mikhailovskoe/® In his memoirs, Pushkin’s friend

Vigel’ wrote that while in Odessa (sometime in 1823-1824) he once told Pushkin jokingly, “ ^ to no ajpHKaHCKOMy ero npoHcxoxiieHHio ero see mho xoqeTca cpasHHTfc c Otoaao, a

PaeBCKoro c HOBepHUM apyroM 3ro”V “ in regard to his African ancestry, I wanted to compare him with Othello, and Raevskii with his disloyal friend lago.” Pushkin only laughed in response, yet, at least from 1823-1824 on, he displayed an awareness of the literary theme of jealousy in relation to the love of a blackamoor and a white womanAdditionally, another of Pushkin’s friends from his Odessa period, I.P.

Liprandi, recalled that upon recommending Othello to Pushkin, the w riter stated: “ 7 Mena AeacHT k newy ayma; kto snaer,

MoxeT 6HTb, Moa aea c ero npeaxoM 6 uah 6ah3koô po

B.a. Pax, “nyuiKHH H *paHgy3CKHA nepesoa OTeAAO" / “Pushkin and the French Translation of O th ello.” The Pushkin Journal: The Journal of the North American Pushkin Society 1.1 (1993): 36.

" As quoted from Shaw, “Pushkin on His African Heritage” 129.

" Shaw, “Pushkin on His African Heritage” 129.

” Vatsuro 1:352.

90 Another significant reference to the Othello theme occurs in Pushkin's notes to IIoATasa/ P oltavo (1828), when the writer refers critics who objected to Mariia’s love for

Mazepa as im plausible and unnatural, to Desdemona and her

“blackamoor.” Pushkin wrote:

OHM, BO-nepBHX 06 BHBHAH MHe, HTO OTpOiiy HHKTO He BH4MBaA, HT 06 xenujMHa BAio6HAacb B crapHKa, h hto, cAeacTBeHHo, aîo6obI) Mapnn k crapOMy roTMany (HB: HCTopHHecKH aoKaaaHHaa) He MorAa cyujecTBOBaTb. .51 He Mor aOBOABCTBOBaTb 3THM 06 bflCHeHHeM: AK> 60 Bb eCTb CaMBH cBoenpaBHafl cTpacTb. He roBopio yxe o 6e3o6pa3HH h FAynocTH, ex eaHeBHO npeanoHHTaeMUX MOAoaocTH, ywy H KpacoTe. BcnoMHHTe npeaaHHH MH^oAorHHecKHe, npeBpaujeH- Hfl ÜBH4 HeBH,... IlHrMaAHOHa - H npH3HaÔTeCb, HTO BCe CHH BHMHCAu He Hyx^Bi HOBSMM. A ÛTeAAO, CTapHô Herp, nAeHHBiuHô ZIe3aeM0Hy paccKa3aMH 0 cbohx cTpaHCTBHXx h &HTBaX?^

They, firs t of a ll, told me that no one would ever believe that a woman would fa ll in love with an old man and that, accordingly, Mariia’s love for the old man (Note: it was historically proven) could not e xist...! could not be satisfied with this explanation: love is the most w ilful passion. I ’m not even talking about ugliness and ignorance, that are constantly being prefered youth, brains and beauty. You w ill recall the ancient tales of myth, and Ovid’s transformation,... (and) Pygmalion - and you must admit that none of these stories are foreign to poetry. And what about Othello, the old Negro, who captivated Desdemona with stories of his wanderings and battles?

’* Pushkin 800-801.

91 In discussing th is reference, c r it ic John Bayley has noted that it is significant given the heroic atmosphere of the play, and the dramatic contrast between its two main protagonists. He states:

It is the tragedy of Othello to play a part unsuited to him: he should lead us into “the stately tent of war” not to an in trig u e in a marriage chamber; and yet the tented field is always in the background of the action and the decisions proper to it fatally determine the domestic issue. Poltava too makes war the background of love, and though the two have little dramatic interplay, the dark figure of Mazepa is set against the b rillia n t Peter, duped by Peter as Othello by lago. 95

There are indeed certain parallels which may be drawn between the f ic t itio u s tragedy o f the Moor, and the real l i f e circumstances which claimed the life of Pushkin via the route of “life creation.” The writer himself did seem to perceive such parallels, and this perception had very concrete and

“ John Bayley, Pushkin: A Comparative Commentary (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1971) 120-121. The sim ilarities to be drawn between ce rta in aspects of Othello and Poltava may be seen on another level as w e ll. When one examines Poltava in the context of the struggle between the “light” and “dark” elements in human nature discussed in the introduction to th is d issertation, the presence of the “hex” of darkness becomes evident. As Gregg has noted, although the “dark” Mazepa triumphs for a time, ultimately he is defeated, and the forces of the “light” establishment, represented by Peter, emerge victorious.

92 personal manifestations, which are reflected in Pushkin's myth of himself.

The “Othello complex” as I define it, springs from the violent jealousy which grips the Moor in his relationship with his wife Desdemona, a jealousy that is based on the perceived racial incompatability between them. In itia lly

Othello displays a strong sense o f se lf-co nfid e nce when he confronts the racial objections that have been raised by his father-in-law Brabantio, with regard to his marriage to the lovely blond Venetian Desdemona. Othello states, “Let him do his spite; My services, which I have done the signiory. Shall out-tongue his complaints... fOthello. I, ii, 17-19).” In

Othello's mind, the exceptional skill that he has displayed in his m ilitary endeavors makes him a s u ita b le husband fo r even the loveliest white woman. Furthermore, it is these m ilitary feats that endear him to Desdemona, for he has lived through the perils of war and has a life experience that attracts the young woman. Othello's statement, “She lov’d me for the dangers I had pass'd, and I lov’d her that she did pity them f Othello. I, iii, 167-168),” while indicating that

Othello believes in Desdemona’s love, also intimates that he

93 may suspect she could be more in love with the aura and

mystique surrounding him, rather than with himself as a man.

It is this perception which provides an in itia l glimpse

in to a potential source of Othello’s self-doubt. Othello

loves Desdemona for the fact that she sympathizes with his

struggle-filled past. He wants to believe that she sincerely

loves him for himself also, yet there is a seed of doubt in

h is mind even in th is happy phase o f th e ir lo ve , which

u ltim a te ly grows in to a tragedy. At the root o f th is seed o f

doubt in Othello’s mind lies the fact that he is a “Moor.” As

lago theorizes:

...Her eye must be fed, and what delight shall she have to look on the devil? When the blood is made dull with the act of sport, there should be again to inflame it, and give satiety a fresh appetite, loveliness in favour, sympathy in years, manners and beauties; a ll which the Moor is defective in: now, for want of these requir’d conveniences, her delicate tenderness w ill find its e lf abus’d, begin to .. .disrelish and abhor the Moor, very nature w ill in s tru c t her to i t , and compel her to some second choice, fO th e llo . I I , i , 224-34.)

According to lago, Othello’s ethnicity, which he deems to be

characterized by a lack of beauty and gracefulness, w ill

e v e n tu a lly be the source o f Desdemona’ s d is c o n te n t and

94 disappointment. Othello yields to this assessment, despite an in itia l display of confidence, and reveals an inferiority complex which causes him to doubt the s in c e rity and f id e lit y of his wife. He says:

Haply, for I am black, And have not those soft parts of conversation. That chamberers have...She’s gone, I am abus’d, and my relief Must be to loathe her: 0 curse of marriage. That we can call these delicate creatures ours. And not their appetites! (Othello, III, iii, 267- 274.)

Additionally, as Kim F. Hall notes in her book Thinas of

Darkness: Economies o f Race and Gender in E a rlv Modern

England (1995):

...when Othello, after suspecting Desdemona, claims, ([O thello,] 3.4.46-47), he hints at his suspected loss of Desdemona’s love by suggesting that their marriage bond (signaled by the joining of hands) is now purely legal and ceremonial rather than affective.*

“ Kim F. H a ll, Thinas of Darkness: Economies of Race and Gender in Eorlv Modern England (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995) 210.

95 It is this deep-seated and ineradicable sense of insecurity and inferiority which causes him to believe the falsehoods proposed by lago.

The fa c t th a t Desdemona’ s supposed lo v e r, Cassio, is an attractive man of a distinctly “European” type only intensifies Othello’s feelings of mistrust. Othello comes to believe that Desdemona could not possibly prefer him, a Moor, when she could be with someone “fa ire r,” (a “fa ir devil,”

Othello. Ill, iii, 485) and more “attractive.” He fails to defend his wife’s honor, and instead chooses to believe the worst about her actions. In an impulsive, yet calm act of resignation he kills her, only to later realize that the accusations against her were entirely false. Realizing his error, he commits suicide, but not before expressing what he hopes w ill be his legacy, not only in Venice, but perhaps also in history. He says:

. . . I have done the s ta te some s e rv ic e , and they know’t... I pray you in your letters, When you shall these unlucky deeds re la te , speak o f them as they are; nothing extenuate. Nor set down aught in malice; then must you speak of one that lov’d not wisely, but too well: Of one not easily jealous, but being wrought, Perplex’d in the extreme... fOthello. V, ii, 340-347.)

96 Pushkin echoed this sentiment in his “Table-Talk” (1835-1836)

(a series of anecdotes), in which he states: “OTeAAo ot npnpo^H He peBHHB - nanpoTHB: oh aoBepMHB...’’/ “ O th e llo by nature isn’t jealous - on the contrary: he is trusting....’” '

Othello, in his emotional confession, puts forward the notion that he himself believed lago’s deception because he shared logo’s views of himself. It was because he too thought himself “ugly” that he “trusted” logo and was seduced into y ie ld in g to the pangs o f jealousy th a t lead to Desdemona’ s demise and his own end. He does not concede his racial insecurities or the fatal jealousy that ultimately arises from these.

Pushkin, in his assessment o f the tragedy, also embraces the psychological denial which gripped the Moor in his final moments. Unlike Othello, Pushkin created a counter-image of himself, however - that of Don Juan. In his aggressive pursuit of women, his developing “Don Juan” complex, Pushkin acts upon the self-denigration inherent in the Othello complex, and asserts erotic conquest as a means of self­ legitimization.

*' Pushkin, Complete Collection 12:157.

97 In confronting his African heritage, establishing an affinity with the character of Othello, and creating his personal myths of identity and creativity, Pushkin identified with the “passionate” side of his African heritage. As the

“Othello complex” reveals, this passionate nature, which gave him an exotic appeal, also instilled feelings of inadequacy, alienation, or even inferiority due to the “exotic” strand in his genealogy. Pushkin’s African heritage set him apart from the norms of his society, and endowed him with certain less- than-ideal qualities, at least by his own perception. I have proposed that this perception constitutes an “Othello complex,” and this complex, in turn, contributed significantly to the self-destructive aspect of Pushkin’s personality and life creation.

It is not to be concluded of course, that Pushkin’s actual personal history w ill in all aspects parallel the f ic t it io u s sto ry o f the Shakespearean Moor; i t does not. L ife is certainly not bound to repeat literature. Also, their characters differ in terms of naivete and sophistication.

P.K. Guber, in JoH-acvaHCKHft c h h c o k IIvmKHHa/Pushkin’ s “ Don

Juan List” (1923), poses the issue in this way:

98 PesHOCTb nyuiKHHa HeAtaa conocraBAflTb c pesHocTLio OTOAAO, KaK 3T0 Heo^HOK paTHO ^eAaAocb. BeHeynancKHâ wasp 6h a aoBepqHB h cAen. CnepBa BepHA b aio Cobb cBoeô *eH H , noTOM noBepHA b eë HSMeHy. üyuiKHH, HanpoTMB, npn HeO^HMaÔHO peBHHBOM HpaBe H ÇOAbUIOÔ noaOGpHTeABHOCTH, He iionycKaA mhcah, hto HaTaAba HHKOAaeBHa HSMeHHAa ewy c aaHTecoM. Ho oh He Mor ne BHaeTb, mto oHa aepxHT ce6a ae aOCTaTOHHO TaKTHHKO H OCTOpOXHO C aepSKHM MOAOaaiM KaBaAepoM.’®

Pushkin’ s jealousy cannot be compared to O th e llo ’ s jealousy, as has repeatedly been done. The Venetian moor was trusting and blind. First he believed in his wife’s love, then he believed in her betrayal. Pushkin, on the contrary, although he possessed an unusually jealous nature and great suspiciousness, did not entertain the thought that Natal’ia Nikolaevna betrayed him with Dantes. He could not help but see however, that she was not handling herself tactfully and discreetly enough w ith her impudent young admirer.

Nevertheless, there is overlap regardless of the character and “plot” : both the fictitious Othello and the real Pushkin were jealous because of their being moors facing the real or imagined threat of a white rival. Pushkin chose to relate to the character of Othello in terms of a shared “Africanism,” incorporating Shakespeare’s literary creation into his texts and into his life. How could he act otherwise when life

** n. K. ryGep, aoH-acvaHCKHft c h h c o k nvaiKHHa: rAasu hs gHorpaiHH c <3-k> nopTp^TaMH/Pushkin’s Don Juan List: Chapters from a Biography with 9 P o rtra its (neTep6ypr; H3;i-bc "n^Tpcrpa^,' 1923) 230.

99 brought him his "Desdemona” - the beautiful and (outwardly at least) virtuous Natal’ia Goncharova?

As Othello in itia lly considered Desdemona the ultimate symbol of beauty, purity and perfection, so too did Pushkin often elevate his wife, to goddess-like stature (as he had also done in the past in regard to some of his lovers), p o rtra y in g her as an angel or as a Madonna. In numerous instances, Pushkin’s wife (and his former lovers) is (are) portrayed as an incarnation of perfect beauty and a source of spiritual perfection. Alone, the poet is an unworthy being; it is through his love of this perfect woman that he gains value, since she inspires his creativity and stoops to his

“deformities.” Also, in the often presumed absence of re c ip ro c a l fe e lin g , the theme o f love in fa c t o fte n d id assume a spiritual or contemplative nature in Pushkin’s works. While Pushkin may not have placed great intrinsic value on amorous yearning and e ro tic s u ffe rin g , fo r h is persona, they were a common consequence o f numerous fa ile d romantic pursuits - failed because the poet was not

"beautiful” enough for his fa ir beloved.

As previously indicated, the compulsive pursuit of women forms a compensatory "Don Juan complex” to the just discussed

100 O thello complex.*' I t is a complement to the O th e llo m o tif, one that reveals the compensatory need for erotic conquest in

response to internalized perceptions of unworthiness. The drama The Stone Guest, presents this compensatory symbolic archetype and is examined next.

Pushkin's variant of the Don Juan story is one in a series of masterpieces and minor works devoted to the famous archetype of seduction and romantic conquest in world literature; a superficial reading of the “little tragedy” might suggest that it simply represents the w riter’s reworking of a love theme treated frequently in 18th and 19th century European literature. Henry Kucera, in his article

“Pushkin and Don Juan,” notes that from earlier adaptations o f the Don Juan theme, Pushkin was undoubtedly acquainted with at least two, Moliere’s Dorn Juan ou le Festin de Pierre, and with Mozart’s opera Don Giovanni, for which Lorenzo Da

'* Pushkin, in lin e with th is complex, composed his famous “Don Juan l i s t ” in the album of the Ushakov sisters sometime in 1829. The “l i s t ” (actually, it was two separate lists, one serious, the other, non- serious ioves), contained 36 firs t names of women with whom the poet had been romantically involved at some point. Critics have theorized how many of Pushkin's romantic successes were owed p rim a rily to his poetic reputation. In short, just as Othello may have worried what exactly a ttra c te d Desdemona to him - his fame or him self, so Pushkin may have wondered a t times what role his poetic fame played in bis amorous conquests.

101 Ponte wrote the libretto/** Pushkin’s variant, one of his so- called “little tragedies,” consists of four scenes which altogether yield mere 542 lines. It includes the main character, Don Juan, who has led a life spent on an indiscriminate pursuit of women. Ironically, the one love which may potentially redeem him, is ultimately the cause of his destruction. In the context of Pushkin’s poetic mythology, the Don Juan archetype emerges above a ll in relation to its opposite: the Othello archetype. We are dealing with a transfer that operates on several levels, and reflects dualities in Pushkin’s myth of himself.

Pushkin’s “Don Juan complex” as I define it, springs from internalized perceptions of unworthiness and physical unattractiveness; it constitutes a reaction. Part of being a

“ moor” in Pushkin’ s mythology is sexual power - in it s row and “primitive” form. This is where he perceives his

“negative appeal.” It lies in the raw sexual energy he exudes, energy that satisfies the most “elemental” and basic needs of the women he attracts. Perceiving his physical

Henry Kucera,“Pushkin and Don Juan,” Russian Literature and Psychoanalysis, ed. Daniel Rancuor-Laferriere (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1989) 126. Moliere’s Dorn Juan was played in Russia as e a rly as 1816 under the t i t l e XysH h a ii KaueKHU^ rocTb, hence a possible source for the the title of Pushkin's work.

102 undesirability in terms of “good looks," there is an attempt to gain acceptance through his sexual “magic.” Numerous conquests of even the most desirable women, however, do not decrease the poet’s constant perception that his attractiveness to women is reducible to a “low” common denominator - sex without love. As this awareness reinforces an internalized sense of inferiority, the desirable and victorious “Don Juan” ultimately hides the insecure, jealousy ridden “Othello.” Pushkin, in emphasizing his erotic prowess in his conquest of women (in his Don Juan role), reveals himself to be s till a kind of “Moor,” one who is inferior and must conquer by appealing to the basic sexual needs o f h is lovers. Erotic conquests prove to be hollow victories therefore, however pleasant, for they are devoid of the emotional refinement that is ultimately desired. Also significant in the Don Juan myth is the fact that, in spite of the quantity of Juan’s conquests there s till is a s in c e rity th a t accompanies each. In other words, in regard to

Pushkin and his persona, there is always the hope that love may follow “mere sex.” Clarence Manning in his article

“Russian Versions of Don Juan” (1924), states:

103 ...th is type of loving and lovable immaturity is found again and again in the poetry of Pushkin, for we must consider Don Juan not as a gay deceiver deliberately ruining the women who allure him but a young man who is sincere a t the moment he speaks, however changeable he may be in his feelings. 101

The character o f Don Juan as portrayed in The Stone

Guest embodies the d u a litie s th a t are seen in the personal myth that Pushkin created of himself and his life . Juan's f i r s t appearance reveals th a t he has been e x ile d , and is

returning to the city of Madrid in disguise, under ris k o f capture. Here, also an “inverted orientalist" dialogue may be detected as Juan, a man of the “south” with his passion and desire, is temporarily displaced as an e x ile in P aris. Juan states that he a ll but died of boredom there, fo r he soon tired of Parisian women with their blue eyes and white skin.

Ultimately, he finds that they have no life in them. For a short period of time, Juan is enamored of the “northern” beauties, but the novelty of this attraction soon fades, and he is drawn back to his southern origins and the women of his own culture. Juan, the “dark” character comes to despise the

“fa ir” women that his counterpart “Othello” loves.

"" Clarence Manning, “Russian Versions of Don Juan,” PMLA 38 (1924), 482-483.

104 Ironically, he is given the opportunity to reject the kind of women “ Othello” adored.

Juan has slain Donna Anna’s husband, and en route to

Madrid, ste als in to a convent where he sees the widow o f the dead man praying at his grave. Declaring his intention of g e ttin g acquainted w ith Donna Anna, Juan is chastised by

Leporello, his servant and “pimp,” for his shameless behavior. When firs t told of Anna’s daily visits to the grave of her husband, Juan responds: “^to sa crpaHHaa saosa? H He aypHa?”/ “What a curious widow. And is the lady pretty?” In other words, the firs t explanation that occurs to him of such fidelity to a dead husband’ s memory is th a t the woman may be too unattractive to find herself a lo v e r.It is in defying fid e lity and the emotional attachments that accompany it that

Juan asserts and reinforces his own sense of desirability and attractiveness, which, as we already know, really is based on a yearning for those same q u a litie s . Pushkin’ s Don Juan mocks fid e lity because the Othello in him yearns for it.

"" The tran slatio n is from Avrahm Yarmolinsky, e d .. The Poems. Prose and P Iq v s of Alexander Pushkin (New York: The Modern Library, 1936) 442.

Frank Friedeberg Seeley, “The Problem of Kamennyi Cost' (sic),” The Slavonic and East European Review. 41.97 (June 1963): 345-367.

105 upon seeing Donna Anna, Juan immediately f a lls in love w ith her, becoming an “ O th e llo ” in the process. The second encounter with the widow at the convent affords him the opportunity to confront her with his emotions, while not yet revealing his true identity. I disagree with A.D. Hope who, in his a rtic le “ Pushkin’ s Don Juan” , states:

It is the prospect of the most daring affair he has ever planned - one in which he w ill not only woo the widow of the man he has k ille d but avow the fa c t - she does not know him by sight - and win her, that is perhaps the c h ie f a ttra c tio n o f Donna Anna.

I believe that already now Don Juan is being transformed into his opposite, Othello. In itia lly Donna Anna resists his advances, but eventually yields to her feelings. She suggests that it is improper for them to meet at the convent, and the decision is made to meet at her home. As he leaves the convent for his rendezvous, Don Juan implores the statue of the dead Commander to come and stand watch at the door of his widow’s home during his planned seduction of her, which “i t ” does. Don Juan finally reveals his love and true identity to

Donna Anna, who, while in itia lly repulsed, reveals that she

A.D. Hope, “Pushkin’s Don Juan,” Melbourne Slavonic Studies 1.1, (1967): 9.

106 too harbours reciprocal feelings for him. Juan is confronted by the stone statue which comes to l i f e to p rotect his widow, and “the stone guest” causes her pursuer to perish. Don Juan departs for hell, but perhaps his most severe punishment is the realization that erotic conquest is a poor substitute for love and, yes, even m arital b lis s .

The aforementioned scholar Hope also suggests that the tragedy can be looked at in relation to Pushkin’s own experience, and not only to literary traditions. He proposes that Pushkin might well have stood as the model of his own

Don JuanI agree on this point, although, as already stated, I believe that Pushkin’s Don Juan is determined by an even stronger archetype - that of Othello. Henri Troyat, in his biography o f Pushkin, has also remarked th a t in 1826, the year in which The Stone Guest was firs t projected, Pushkin, exiled to Mikhailovskoe and longing to return to Saint

Petersburg became involved in a series of love affairs w ith the mother, the daughters and the cousins of the neighboring family at Trigorskoe. Madame Osipov was compelled to remove her daughter Annette, either for Annette’s own good, as she

Hope 8.

107 claim ed, or because she wanted Pushkin fo r h e rs e lf, as

Annette declared. Of Annette, Troyat wrote:

In 1826 it was the gentle Annette who was to alleviate his [Pushkin’s] boredom. Adored and deified by the g irl, he amused himself by caressing her, tormenting her, bewildering her, repelling her and returning to the attack, as the fancy moved hinf*

While a ll this was transpiring, Pushkin was also carrying on courtships with other women by correspondence and poetry, and had the daughter of one of his serfs as a mistress in his own house until she became pregnant. P.K. Guber, in his aforementioned book Pushkin’s Don Juan List, has noted that

Pushkin’s eroticism and sexual proclivity were obvious to a ll of his contemporaries, and also that they saw the compulsive side of his erotic pursuits.^®’' The poet himself once said:

Troyat 242-243.

One of Pushkin’s Lyceum classmates S.V. Komovskli said of the poet,

n y u iK H H a » 6 h a npHHocHTfc xepTBii Baxycy aBeHepe .ÆOAOMHAca sa XOpomeHbKHMH aKTpHCaMH.., npH npOilBHAHCb B HOM BCA nUAKOCTb X CAaaocTpacTxe a#pxKaHCKOfl npxpoüH. (Vatsuro 1:62.)

Pushkin loved to bring s a c rific e s to Bacchus and V enus...he tr a ile d a fte r good actresses.. . , in which case a l l o f the passion and sensuality of his African nature arose in him.

108 BoAee HAH Menee a 6bia BAio6AeH b o Bcex xopomeHbKHx XeHUJHH, KOTOpUX 3HaA. B c e OHH HOpaaHO HaüO m h o H nOCMeHAHCb; BCe sa OÆHHM eaHHCTBeHHUM HCKAIOMeKHeu, KOXeTHHHaAH CO MHOA/**

More or less, I fell in love with all of the pretty women that I knew. They a ll laughed at me quite a b it; a ll of them, with one single exception, merely flirted w ith me.

Pushkin was w ell aware th a t he was not regarded a serious suitor by many women and this no doubt intensified his drive and desire to prove his sexual prowess. Again we see however th a t beneath the poet's Don Juanesque escapades there was the anxiety of an Othello. This is a facet that the poet Anna

Akhmatova perceived in her well-known c r it ic a l a rtic le s on

Pushkin. She saw the oxymoron of “jealous seducer,” of the

Othello and Don Juan aspects side by side. In her article,

"KaweHHBiÉ rocTb IlvmKHHa'V“ Pushkin's The Stone Guest" (1958),

Akhmatova estimates th a t The Stone Guest which was w ritte n shortly before Pushkin’s marriage, reflects Pushkin’s fear, or foreboding, of retribution. Given the fact that, in his youth, he played the role of “Don Juan,” the poet now fears that he might find himself in the position of playing the role o f Don Alvaro, i.e . Donna Anna’ s husband, she states. He

A.s. Pushkin, as quoted from Guber 25.

109 now sees the prospect of having to protect the honor of his young and beautiful wife against her own inexperience, and the suaveness of other younger Don Juans. He foresees, in other words, how his Don Juan role is bound to be replaced by th a t o f O th e llo . This assessment is supported by numerous letters which Pushkin wrote to his wife after their marriage, letters which reflect the concerns and fears of a jealous husband. In Akhmatova’s view, Pushkin realized that his attempts to guard his wife’s honor may cost him his life

(which, of course, is precisely what happened), and although he was not afraid to die, he was afraid to lose his happiness, and leave Natal’ia a b e a u tifu l young widow, fre e to rem arry whomever she m ight choose. A d d itio n a lly ,

Anna Akhmatova, “KaMeHHHfl TocTb nyiUKHHa”/ “Pushkin’ s Stone Guest. ” nyiiiKHH: MarepHaAH H HccAeiioBaHHg/ Pushkin: M aterials and Findtnas 2, no^ pea. M. n. AAexceeB, (MocKsa: H a a -B o . AxaaeMMH Hayx CCCP, 195Ô), 195 Interestingly, Pushkin’s contemporary, A.N. Vulf noted on the eve of the poet’s marriage to Natal’ia Goncharova: “I wish him happiness, but I don’ t know i f th is can be hoped for with his morals and manner of thinking. If the law of mutual responsibility obtains, then he’s going to be well and truly cuckolded. This is all the more likely, because the firs t thing he’ll do w ill be to debauch his wife. I hope I ’m completely wrong. ”

”® In an 1830 letter to his future mother-in-law regarding Natal’ia Goncharova Pushkin wrote: “God is my witness th at I am ready to die for her, but that I should die to leave a dazzling widow, free to choose a new husband tomorrow - this idea is hell.” As quoted in Shaw, The Letters 406.

110 N a ta l’ ia , lik e Donna Anna, m arried a man whom Akhmatova believes, she did not love. Thus, in The Stone Guest. Pushkin

is in a sense punishing himself - his younger, carefree,

s in fu l selfAllowing the “Stone Guest” to punish him, he allows “Othello” to take his revenge on the “fair Don Juan.”

There are additional sim ilarities that may be drawn

between the types o f women th a t Pushkin and Don Juan have

chosen to pursue. Henry Kucera has noted th a t the women whom

Don Juan has chosen to court are in v a ria b ly forbidden to him.

Thus, in his courting and seduction, Juan conflicts with the taboos of his society. Donna Anna is clearly a “forbidden” woman; Juan’s passion for her invokes the feeling that there

is something wrong about Don Juan’ s passion fo r the widow o f the man whom he had killed.H ence, it is not surprising that

Don Juan (much like Pushkin)^* finds little inner security in spite of his various conquests:

Pushkin’s Don Juan, more than his predecessors, seeks the “ sole and to ta l” possession of the women who arouse his imagination. He is constantly plagued by jealousy.

Akhmatova 195.

Kucera, 131.

N ata l’ ia Goncharova was a “forbidden” woman in the sense th a t she was innocent, young and “too beautiful” for a “moor.”

I ll He even reproaches the flighty Laura for her suspected unfaithfulness during his exile. When he is with Donna Anna the image o f her “ fortunate dead” husband gives him no rest. The Commander tortures him “even in his grave.

Pushkin thus developed the theme of an insatiable love for a “forbidden” object which violates the restrictions of society and is punishable by death in The Stone Guest." This excess is the hallmark of the Dionysiac “other” - the “dark brother,” the Othello type who desires what society denies him. Don Juan proves to be not a conquerer but a victim as obsessiveness proves to be rooted in existential insecurity.

It is this hidden Othello side of Don Juan that causes him to so blatantly transgress societal rules of propriety and that lead to his destruction. Yet for all of his “transgressions,”

Juan is sincerely oblivious to the suffering he causes. It is this need to compensate for his Othello-complex that brings out the haughty “aristocrat”: the ruthless but elegant, the cruel but irresistable seducer and conquerer.

However, the “ A frican” is hidden beneath the cloak o f the

Kucera 134.

"* Kucera 138.

112 disdainful aristocrat who stands above the laws of convention.

While Pushkin’s family history offered important raw material for the creation of his personal myth, clearly there were other important sources as well, namely the literary characters of (Shakespeare’s) Othello and (world lite ra tu re ’s) Don Juan. The means by which Pushkin tangibly wove these characters, and the inevitable tensions that arise as a result of their interaction, into the tapestry of his oeuvre are examined below.

113 CHAPTER 3

PUBLISTIC WRITING

As already stated, Pushkin’s perceptions of his African ancestry emerge differently according to the genre context in which he discusses it. In producing documentary works,

Pushkin maintained a high degree of objectivity, presumably because he fe lt he was writing an historical document in which there was no room for subjectivity. Also, in other genres of “public” writing, for example, in his polemics, he did not engage in mythmaking, but stuck to facts as he knew them, however impassioned his tone could get. Undoubtedly, the dictates of “public” writing and the occasion of having to defend his family name against libelous pronouncements, determined the nature of several instances in which Pushkin discussed his African ancestry. When publicly attacked as a

“Negro,” Pushkin’s writing took on a defensive tone, and he responded with declarations of identification and solidarity

114 with his African heritage. This chapter examines Pushkin’s documentary and public writings on the topic of his African ancestry and the extent to which they reflect his feelings about his African ancestry and aid in understanding his personal myth. Pushkin’s documentary works discussed here include “The Beginning of My Autobiography” (1830). Among his publistic writings may be included the poem “My Genealogy”

(1830) and the note to Chapter 1 of Euaene Oneain. I firs t turn to his documentary w ritin g s .

The accomplishments of Ibragim Cannibal represent a great achievement when placed in the context of Russian h is to ry . That the young A frican could reach the so cia l and m ilitary heights to which he rose, and gain subsequent fame was an indisputable and objective cause to be proud of his accomplishments. Yet, in his autobiography, Pushkin displayed a high degree of objectivity in relaying the history of the

African branch of his family tree. A close reading of the autobiography shows that the perceptions of the persona perpetuated in other modes of writing are repressed in his biographical discussion of Cannibal, presumably in the interest of maintaining authorial objectivity and historical factuality. Thus, the outstanding characteristic of these

115 passages is not the impassioned relaying o f Cannibal’ s varied achievements, but rather the calm, even-toned manner appropriate to a document.

When Pushkin discusses his family history in "The

Beginning of My Autobiography” (1834), he is aware of the often turbulent, and violent past of Ibragim Cannibal,^* yet virtually ignores these facts; neither praising accomplishments nor condemning negative behavior, opting

instead to present non-controversial facts in a neutral tone.

The Ibragim Cannibal of Pushkin’s biography is neither a larger-than-life figure whose many accomplishments afford him a special place in Russian history, nor as Nabokov c ritica lly phrased it "...a sour.. .ambitious, and cruel person.” The

Cannibal we meet is the o fficia l man. Pushkin wrote:

...a e a eé (waTb nyiuKHHa) 6ma Herp, chh BAaKa. PyCCKHÔ nOCAaHHHK B KOHCTaHTHHOnOAe KaK-TO aocraA ero h3 cep a A a, rae coaepxaAca oh aMaaaTOM, h OTOCAaA ero IleTpy nepsowy ...Tocyaapt KpecTHA MaAenbKoro H6parHMa b Ehabho b 1707 roay h aaA eny taMHAHio raHHHÔaA. JIo 1716 roay TaHHMÔaA aaxoaHAca HeoTAyano npH ocoSe rocaapa, cnaA b ero TOKapae, conpoBoxaaA ero bo Bcex noxoaax; noTOM nocAaa 6ma b Ilapax.-.rocyaapb noxaAOBaA TaaaSaAa b BoMSapaapcxyio pory IIpeo6pa-

"" Pushkin had Cannibal’s biography, written by his son-in-law, at his disposal.

116 xeHCKoronoAKa KanHTaH-AeâTeHaHTOM .STO 6 m a o b 1722 roay npH He rep I I I buuioa o h b oTcrasKyh ywep $HAoco$ow (roBopHT ero HewegKMA G%orpa$)b 1761 roay, Ha 93roay CBOea *H8HH../^'

...Her grandfather [Pushkin’s mother] was a Negro, the son o f a wealthy p rin c e lin g . The Russian ambassador in Constantinople, having gotten him from a se ra g lio where he was kept as a chieftain, sent him to Peter I...The Czar had the little Ibragim baptized in Vilnius in 1707 and gave him the surname C annibal.. . T i l l the year 1716, Cannibal remained constantly in the presence of the Czar, slept in his turnery workshop, accompanied him in a ll his campaigns; then he was sent to Paris...The Czar bestowed on Cannibal the honor of being a captain- lieutenant enlisted in the bombardment company of the Preobrazhenskii company.. .During the reign of Peter III he retired and died as a philosopher (says his German biographer) in 1781, at the age of 9 3 ...

In failing to eulogize Cannibal’s achievements, Pushkin possibly believed that any praise of Cannibal’s accomplishments also necessitated an honest disclosure of the negative aspects of his biography. Presumably he did not want h is fa m ily h is to ry to be examined by unkind eyes. Pushkin minimized both aspects, and presented a bare minimum of neutral facts instead.

Obviously Pushkin also viewed his biography as an historical document for posterity. In this case, in order to

" Pushkin, Complete Collection 12:311-313.

117 make it credible it needed to be as objective and verifiable as possible, certainly not look like a “myth.” A

“dithyrambic” characterization of his forefather, one that clearly showed the high regard of the author could easily be dismissed as biased, and overstated, i.e. as a myth. At the opposite extreme, negative characterizations would allow a reader to dismiss Pushkin's claims to his ancestor’s importance and confirm rocial prejudices. A neutral biography allowed Pushkin to maintain his credibility as a historian, and leave his more subjective perceptions for his aesthetic works. Of course there is the clear parallel of Pushkin as

Pugachev’s historiographer and Pushkin the w riter creating the lite r a r y , “ m ythic” fig u re o f Pugachev in The C aptain’ s

Daughter.

Pushkin’s African heritage was an essential aspect of his personal myth, yet his autobiography provides virtually no hints of the elements that were incorporated into it and that were revealed in other works, especially his lyrics.

Rather than an outstanding figure of Russian history, the

Ibragim Cannibal to whom the reader is introduced lacks any degree of personal depth. He is but an “encyclopedia entry,” a man who presumably lived, raised a family and died without

118 the great glamour and turbulence of which we are made aware through subsequent historical and subjective studies such as those mentioned in the Introduction to this dissertation.

Pushkin does not make any assessments o f character or express any pointed emotions as to his genealogy.

Pushkin also makes reference to Cannibal in different versions of his “npHMeqaHHe”/ “note” to Chapter 1 of Euaene

Oneain."* Based prim arily on the German biography written by

Cannibal’s son-in-law, the note reads in part:

ABTOP CO CTOPOHH MBTepH npOHCXOXaOHHA a^pHKaHCKOFO. EFO npaaea A6paw IleTpoBHM AHHH6aA na ô roay cBoero BoapacTa 6ua noxHujoH c GeperoB A^pxKH h npHBeaen b KOHCTaHTHHOnOAB. POCCHÔCKHâ nOCAaHHHK, BfcipyHHB OFO, nocAaA B noaapoK Herpy BeAHKOuy, KOTopwA xpecTHA ero b BHABHe . ..B PoccHH, Fae naMflTb aaMeqaTeABHsix Aioaeô cKopo HcqesaeT, no npHMnne HeaocraTxa HCTopHMecxnx aanncox, cTpaHHaa xH3Hb AHHHGaAa nsBecTHa toabxo no coMeacTBeHHiiM npeaaHHHM."®

I believe it is noteworthy that Pushkin includes such ancient history in his “autobiography” at all. This, in my opinion, attests to the fa c t th a t Pushkin sees himself as a lin k in a chain, as well as an individual.

"* There is another reference to Africa found in Chapter 1, stanza 50 o f Eugene Onegin. Pushkin imagines h im e lf “noa neCoM AjpxKX Moe«”/ “under the skies of my Africa.” Here, one may sense Pushkin’s deeply personal, emotional connection to Africa, and hence. Cannibal.

Nabokov, “Pushkin and Cannibal” 11.

119 The author, on his mother’s side, is of African descent. His g re a t-g ra n d fa th e r, Abram P e tro v ic h Annibal, in his eighth year was kidnapped on the coast of Africa and brought to Constantinople. The Russian envoy, having rescued him, sent him as a g if t to Peter the Great, who had him baptized in V ilno...In Russia where the memory of eminent men is soon obliterated owing to the absence of historical memoirs, the bizarre life of Annibal is known only through family tradition.^^

Perhaps it is to be expected that no mention is made of

Cannibal’s turbulent personal history in this footnote. After a ll, the main purpose of the note was to explain Pushkin’s reference to Africa in the poem. This necessitated a discussion of Pushkin’s genealogical African connection, rather than a close examination of Cannibal’s personal triumphs and defeats.

Pushkin’s objectivity was challenged however, for much to his chagrin, over the course of his literary career, he amassed enemies who not only attacked him p e rso n a lly, but

The tran slation is from Nabokov, “Pushkin and Cannibal” 11-12.

Pushkin does however, also refer to “fam ily lo re ” in the note, the source from which he drew his fiction. One more aspect of the note deserves attention: Pushkin deplores that in Russia “oblivion” so rapidly engulfs the memory of “great men.” He clearly counts his African ancestor among the “greats,” although he does not explicitly say so.

120 also maligned his genealogical origins. As discussed above,

Pushkin’s autobiography states that Cannibal was of noble descent, the son of a sovereign African prince. For many years, the most popular theory held that Cannibal found his way to Russia as part of a small group of “aropy” obtained for the tsar from Constantinople. This assertion was met with strong skepticism on the part of many of Pushkin’s enemies, one of whom was Faddei Bulgarin, a native of Poland, “the most unsavory figure in Russian nineteenth-century literary life."^^ It was Bulgarin’s method to attack, often using a pseudonym, so as to circumvent a law against mentioning a

“personality” without the “personality’s” consent. The second of these attacks against Pushkin, published in 1830, refers transparently to the w riter’s African ancestry:

The anecdote is told that a certain Poet in Spanish America.. .the offspring of a mulatto man or woman, I don’t remember which, began to contend that one of his ancestors was a Negro Prince. In the town h a ll o f the city it was discovered that in antiquity there was a la w su it between a skipper o f a ship and an a ssista n t o f his for this Negro, whom each of them wished to claim as his own, and that the skipper contended that he brought the Negro for a bottle of rum. Who would have thought

’Shaw, “Pushkin on His African Heritage” 130.

121 that G versifier would acknowledge connection with that Negro? Vanitas vanitatum !’I 124

Obviously, Pushkin acknowledged connection with “that

Negro" in several works which w ill be discussed below. In response to this barely camouflaged denunciation, he wrote

“My Genealogy” which was not o fficia lly published in his lifetime, but circulated in manuscript form. It is interesting to note the manner in which Pushkin presents both the Cannibal and the Pushkin lines of his ancestry in “My

Genealogy.” The firs t part is a discussion of Pushkin’s paternal lineage, which the writer contrasts to the “new” eighteenth-century aristocracy which benefited so greatly from Peter the Great’s reforms. In an ironic tone, the status and the significance of the “new aristocracy” - to which

Bulgarin belonged - is played down. In response to general accusations that he is an “aristocrat,” i.e. proud, Pushkin counters with the affirmation that he is in actuality a

“humble” man unlike the “new aristocrats” of humble origins.

This sentiment is reinforced in the last line of each stanza which comes before the “Post scriptum.** Note the use o f numerous disclaim ers th a t form a kind o f re fra in : “ H npocTo

'“ Quoted from Shaw, “Pushkin on His African Heritage” 130.

122 pyccKHô Me®aHHH’V“I am simply a Russian petty bourgeois,” “H,

SpargH, MeAKHâ MeujaHHH” / “ I , b ro th e rs , am a p e tty

bourgeois,” cAasa Bory, MeigaHHH’’/ “ Thank God I am a p e tty

b o u rg e o is,” “ H a po^iHAca MeujaHHH” / “ And I was born a p e tty

bourgeois,” and finally “H caw 6oAbuioâ: H we g aHHH” / “ I can

stand by myself: I am a petty bourgeois.”

Pushkin disavows the pretentious labeling which had

become commonplace among the aristocracy “ nouveau,” embracing

instead a heritage that can speak for its e lf in the annals of

Russian history. He does not adhere to the significance that

is placed on one’s social standing, but upholds the notion

that “noblesse oblige.” Certainly his ancestry had

represented that position. This proud, yet humble, stance

enables him to heed the voice of his own conscience without

fearing social or political retribution.

The subtleness which characterizes the firs t part of “My

Genealogy” which discusses the notion of nobility’s true

essence, is replaced with a direct attack on the “denouncer”

in the “Post scriptum. ” Here Pushkin directly responds to the

attack made by Bulgarin. He writes:

123 PeiuHA HrAHpHH, cH^a aoMa, Hto aepHHft aea Moa raHHH6aA Bua KynAea sa ÔyTtiAKy powa H B pyxy lUKHnepy non a a

Cefi iiiKHnep 6 h a to t lUKHnep CAaBHUfi, KeM Hama aBHrnyAacb somah , Kto npaaaA mo^ ho 6er aep*aBHHfl PyAK) poaHoro ko pa 6 a h .

CeA mKHnep aeay 6 ma aocTynAOH, H cxoaHo KynAeHHBia apan Bospoc ycepaeH, HenoaKynAen, ijapio HanepcHHK, a He pa 6.

H 6ma OTeg oh FaHHHGaAa, npea K6M cpeab aecMencKHX nyaHH rpoMaaa Kopa&AeA BcnuAaAa, H naA BnepBHO HaBapan.

Figljarin decided, sitting at home, That my black granddad Cannibal Was bought for a bottle of rum And fe ll into a skipper’s hands.

That skipper was the glorious skipper By whom our land was set in motion, Who in mighty fashion set the course of state To the rudder of his native ship.

That skipper was accessible to [my] granddad. And the blackamoor purchased cheaply Grew up diligent, unpurchasable, A confidant to the tsar, and not a slave.

And he was the father of the Cannibal Before whom, amid the Chesma b illo w s.

124 The armada o f ships flamed up, And Navarino firs t fe ll

While Pushkin assumes the tone of a dignified response

in regard to his paternal lineage, the maligning of his maternal great-grandfather warranted an aggressive response.

The greatness of his maternal lineage is clearly asserted when Pushkin s k illfu lly inverts the image of Cannibal falling

in to the hands o f an o rd ina ry skipper by s ta tin g th a t in actuality, he fe ll into the hands of the glorious "skipper,"

Peter the Great, who mightily led the "ship” of the great

Russian nation. That skipper was accessible to Cannibal, who was an "unbribable” confident to the tsar and not a slave.

Pushkin found it necessary to justify his writing of "My

Genealogy" in a le t t e r to Count Benkendorf, head o f the secret p o lice , due to the scrutin y which persisted because o f his previous close association with some of the Decembrist

rebels, and continued reputation as an "unreliable" element.

In fact the Tsar himself had protested. In justifying his

responses and feelings, Pushkin wrote:

'“ The tra n s la tio n is from Shaw, “Pushkin on His A frican Heritage” 1 3 1 -1 3 2 .

125 About a year ago in one of our journals was printed a satirical article in which a certain man of letters was spoken of, who manifested pretensions of having a noble origin, whereas he was only a bourgeois gentleman. It was added that his mother was a mulatto whose father, a poor pickaninny, had been bought by a sailor for a bottle of rum. Although Peter the Great little resembled a drunken sailor, I was the one referred to clearly enough, since no Russian man of letters besides me may number a Negro among his ancestors...I believed it my duty to answer the anonymous satirist, which I did in verse, and very sharply...! confess that I pride myself on what are called prejudices...lastly, I greatly pride myself on my ancestors’ name, since it is the only heritage which they have le ft me.^

Here Pushkin is clearly on the defensive, reacting to the Tsar’s criticism of “My Genealogy” ’s biting attack on

Bulgarin - Figliarin. He also took the occasion to respond to

Bulgarin’s attack in various literary outlets. The following passage from Pushkin’s publicistic “OnuT orpaxeHHa

HOKOTopMx HeAHTeparypHHX oÔBHHeHHÉ” / " Attem pt to Refute

Several Non-literary Accusations”^^ expresses the same sentiments as those found in the statement above, but exhibits stronger feelings, due perhaps to the lack of need for restraint. In one passage he writes:

Quoted from Shaw, “Pushkin on His African Heritage” 132.

The exact date of this response is not known.

126 B oaHoA rase Te (no^TH o$HgHaAbHoa) cKaaaHo 6 u a o , h t o npaaea m o A AÔpaw IleTpoBHM raHHH6aA. ..6 i j a KynAen uiKHnepoM sa 6yTMAKy poMy. Hpaaea MoA, ecAH 6 u a KynAeH, To BepoHTHo aemëBo, h o aocTaAca o h mxHnepy, Koero h m h b c h k o A pyccKoa npoHSHOCHT c yBaxeHHeM h ne Bcye. IIpOCTHTeAfcHO BUXO^Hy He AIOÔHTB HH pyCCKHX, HH POCCHH, HH HCTopHH eë, HH CABBU eë. Ho ne noxBaABHo ewy sa pyccxyio Aacxy MapaTb rpasBio cBsujenHue cTpanHyti naiiiHX AeTonncea, h o h o c h t l AyMiuHx corpaxaan h , ne aoBOAbCTByacb coBpeMeHHHKaMH, HsaeBaTbca naa rpoGawH npaoTgeB.'^*

In one journal (almost official) it was stated that my great-grandfather Abram Gannibal. . .was purchased by a skipper for a bottle of rum. My great-grandfather, if he was purchased, it was probably cheaply, but he had access to the skipper, whose name every Russian utters with respect and not in vain. It is a forgivable offense not to love Russians, or Russia, or her history, or her glory. But it is not laudable for him as a Russian weasel to smear the holy pages of our chronicles with dirt, to slander the best citizens, and, not being content with his contemporaries, to mock the graves of our forefathers.^”

The fe rv e n t tone o f th is passage reveals the pride Pushkin held in regard to his ancestry and the offense he took when this family history was maligned. In the public genres just discussed, Pushkin either assumed a detached or polemical

Pushkin 795.

It is interesting that in this passage Pushkin thinks his Negro ancestors more Russian than the Pole Bulgarin. Also, Pushkin views himself as a chronicler, one whose responsibility it is to present history objectively, with factual accuracy.

127 tone. In neither case is there room for ambiguity or ambivalence. Only fa c ts as Pushkin knew them are stated dispassionately or passionately.

To gain deeper insight into the complexities of

Pushkin’ s personal myth embodied his A frica n h e rita g e , one must examine Pushkin’s lyrical and prosaic creations. It is his lyrics perhaps, that reveal the clearest emergence of

Pushkin’s personal myth. A thorough examination of his lyrics is conducted below. F irs t I turn to his prose however.

128 CHAPTER 4

HISTORICAL WRITING

The Moor of Peter the Great (1828), the biographie romancee based on the life of Ibragim Cannibal, represents

Pushkin's firs t attempt at writing a novel. It is interesting to note th a t th is departure from poetry would be marked by the “genealogical theme.” The embarking on a new genre and a new theme marks his increasing preoccupation w ith personal myth-making, specifically the African aspect of it. He began w ritin g the novel in June 1827; by the beginning o f 1828

Pushkin abandoned work on it, leaving it unfinished.

Nonetheless, The Moor of Peter the Great is significant in that it - among other aspects - represents the firs t instance in Russian literature where an African is the main character of a literary work.

Varying explanations exist for Pushkin’s decision to make Cannibal the subject of his firs t novel. One critical

129 view finds the answer in Pushkin’s acute awareness of the significant role which the gentry, and in particular, his ancestors, both maternal and paternal, played in the shaping of Russian history.”® In addition, the relationship that existed between the writer and Nicholas I, in many ways

parallel the period in which the novel is set. Pushkin’s

relationship with his monarch impacted his portrayal of the

re la tio n s h ip between Ibragim and Peter the Great in terms o f

contrasting the two.However, perceived sim ilarity may also

have played a role.

It is very possible that Pushkin developed the final

plan for the novel after his return from banishment, and more

exactly, after the famous conversation which he had with Tsar

Nicholas on September 8, 1826. Pushkin, o p tim is tic about the

possibility of an amicable relationship with the new Tsar, in

fact began to see traits of his great ancestor, Peter the

Great, in him.”^ Another c ritic has noted:

r.A. AanKHHa, PoMan A.C. nviuKHHa 'Apan IleTpa BeAHKoro*: Abto- peaepar/A.S. Pushkin’ s Novel “The Moor o f Peter the Great” : Abstract (AeHHHrpaa: nyUIKHHCKHa aOM, 1952) 17.

Lapkina 17.

Bukalov 67.

130 HecoMHeHHO, nyiUKHHy ero repoft 6 u a m o m - t o OMeHb 6 a h 3o k , H, BepoflTHO, y Hero He pas BosHMKSAa m m c a b o KaKOft-ro BO3M0XH0CTH aHaAOrHH M e*/[y BSaHMOOTHOmeHHflMH Ilexpa BeAHKoro h H6parHMa b poMane h ero co6cTBeHHUMH, hmho cKAaaHBaioujHMHca oTHoiueHHHMH c HOB MM rocy^apeM.

Undoubtedly, Pushkin’s hero was very close to him, and probably, on more than one ocassion the thought arose of the possiblity of drawing an analogy between the relations between Peter the Great and Ibragim in the novel and his own, hiterto developing relations with the new monarch.

As stated above, Pushkin incorporated the subject of

Cannibal into several works before the appearance of The Moor of Peter the Great.e.g. the already discussed “My Genealogy”

(see previous chapter). In addition, in 1824, during the time of his isolation at Mikhailovskoe, he wrote of Cannibal’s marriage in the poem “KaK xeHHTtcH saayMaA yapcKH& apan”/ “When the Tsar’s Moor Decided to Marry.” At roughly the same time (October 1824), Pushkin wrote the author’s note to the firs t stanza of the firs t chapter of Euaene Oneain.

Additionally, in 1824 Pushkin wrote “K HsMKOBy ”/ “To lazykov.”

A ll of these works are discussed above with the exception of

C. A . A 6p aM 0BH^, “K Bonpocy o craHOBA^HKH noBecTBOBareAbHofl npoaii nyuiKHHa”/ “A Contribution to the Question of the Development of Pushkin’s Narrative Prose,” PvccKaa AHTeparvpa: HcTopHKO-AHTepaTvpHUfl acypHaA 1974 (2): 55

131 “To lazykov” and “When the Tsar's Moor Decided to Marry,” which w ill be discussed below.

When operating within the parameters of creating a textual profile (as discussed in the Introduction), it is clear that in The Moor of Peter the Great. Pushkin’s perceptions of his African ancestry are in keeping with the myth he perpetuates in his lyrics, personal correspondences and interpersonal relationships. It is only the degree of identification which varies, in the sense of a greater or lesser degree of objectification. Clearly the novel is more objectified than the lyrics. Also, naturally, the novel deals with an ancestor, who - however close - is not the poet him self.

As noted above, Pushkin in his public statements presents a very clear-cut picture of his African ancestry without ambiguities and nuances. Whether forming a part of his o fficia l autobiography or the impassioned attack of “My

Genealogy,” Pushkin speaks from a “public” position

(chronicler, biographer, polemicist). In the novel a step towards identification and intimacy has been taken. The Moor of Peter the Great is significant in the perpetuation of

Pushkin’s personal myth when given the nature of the w riter’s

132 strong identification with his ancestor. Pushkin sees himself as a “descendant,” even as a “reincarnation” of sorts in this n o ve l, even though the p a ra lle ls between h is ancestor and himself are never formulated.

Pushkin’s portrayal of Ibragim Gannibal reveals a character easily prone to disparagement and self-deprecation.

These feelings firs t arise when Ibragim becomes aware of the fact that he is perceived as “exotic” and as a “curiosity.”

In Chapter 1, as a novelty on the Parisian aristocratic circuit, Ibragim is dismayed at the attention he is receiving. To be sure, he is aware that the Parisian women are fascinated by him, but he also registers that this is fascination akin to what spectators at a freak-show might experience. It is Countess D’s indifference to his

“moorishness” that attracts Ibragim to her, above a ll. The narrator writes:

rpa*HHfl npHHHAa H6parHMa yHTHBo, ho Seao b c h k o f o ocoÇeHHoro BHHMaHHa; 3t o noAtcTHAo ewy. 0 6 h k h o b ©h h o CM OTP eAH Ha MOAoaoro Herpa xax na qy.ao, OKpyxaAH ero, OCHnaAH npHBeTCTBHHMH H BOnpOCaMH, H 3T0 AIoConUTCTBO, xoTfl H npHKpHToe BHaoM GAarocK AOHHOCTH, ocKop$AHAO ero caM0AK>6He. CAaaocTHoe BHHMaHHe xennjHH, h o h t h eaHHCTBeHHaa yeAs naiuHx ycHAHft, ne t o a b k o ne paaoB&Ao ero cepaya. He aaxe h c h o a h h a o rope%K> h HeroaoBanHeM. Oh HyBCTBOBaA, HTO OH 5AH HHX poa XaKOro-TO peaKOrO SBepfl,

133 TBopeHbH ocoGeHHoro, Myxoro, cAy^aôHo nepeneceHHoro b

MHp, H HMeioujHô c HHM HH^ero oG%ero. Oh aaxe saBHaoBaA AIOaflM, HHKeM He BaMeneHHLIM, H nOHHTaA HX HHHTOXeCTBO 6 a a r o no A y n hom .

The Countess received Ibragim courteously, but without any particular attention: this flattered him. Generally the young Negro was regarded in the light of a c u rio s ity ; people used to surround him and overwhelm him with compliments and questions - and this curiosity, although concealed by a show of graciousness, offended his vanity. Women’s delightful attention, almost the sole aim of our exertions, not only afforded him no p leasure, but even f i l l e d him w ith b itte rn e s s and indignation. He fe lt that he was for them a kind of rare beast, a peculiar alien creature, accidentally brought into a world, with which he had nothing in common. He even envied people who remained unnoticed, and considered them fortunate in their insignificance.^^

Ibragim’s physical appearance sets him apart from the norms of society, but in a negative way - at least by his own perception. In contrast to the Gannibal of Nabokov’s study, the Gannibal o f Pushkin’ s novel is humbled by the treatm ent given to him; he is devoid of all self-assertiveness and conceit, and becomes introverted in response to negative self-perceptions. However, his reaction may not be entirely

Pushkin 494,

The translation is from Yarmolinsky 748.

134 accurate from the point of view of the Countess, for the

Countess has developed genuine feelings fo r him:

MHCAb, MTO npupoaa He cooaaAa ero a ah BaayMHoft cTpacTH, H36aBHAa ero o t caw OHaaeaa HocTH h npHTHsaHHô caMOAio^HH, HTO npnaaBaAO peaxyio npeAecTt o6paujeHHio ero c xenujHHaMH. PaaroBop ero 6bia npocT h Bax en: oh nonpaBHAca rpa$HHe 21., KOTopoft naaoeAH BeaH&ie myTKH h tohkho naMOKH tpaaijyacKoro ocTpoyMHH. H6parHM nacTo 6uBaA y He A. MaAO- noMaAy ona npHBMKAa k HapyxHocTH MOAoaoro Her pa h aaxe CTaAa HaxojjHTb HTO-TO npHHTHoe B 3ToA KypqaBoA roAOBe, wepHeiogeA nocpeaa nyapeaHX napHKOB ee rocxHHoA. (nèparHM 6ua panen b roAOBy, h BMecTo napaxa hocha noBaaxy.) SMy 6hao 27 Aex ot poay; oh 6ma bmcok h cxpoeH, H He 0 4 aa xpacaBHya aarAaaMBaAacb aa Hero c ayBCTBOM 6oAee AecTHHMH HexeAH npocToe Aio6onMTCTBo, ho npeaySexaeHHMA H6parHM hah HHMero He aaweaaA hah BH40A 04 HO KOKOTCTBO. Kor4a X e BBOpM erO BCTpeqaAHCb CO BaopaMH rpa$HHH, H040BepHHB0CTb ero HcneaaAa. Ee rAaaa BM pax a AH TaKoe MHAoe 4o6po4yiiiHe, ee o6xox4eHHe c hhm 6hao Tax npocTO, Tax HenpHHyx4eHH0, hto neBoaMoxno 6mao B HeA no4oapeBaTb h tohh xoxexcTBa hah HacMeuiAHBocTH

The thought, that nature had not created him to enjoy requited love, saved him from self-assurance and vain pretensions, and added a rare charm to h is behavior toward women. His conversation was simple and dignified; he pleased Countess D-, who had grown tired of the eternal jokes and subtle insinuations of French wits. Ibrahim frequently visited her. Little by little she became accustomed to the young Negro’ s appearance, and even began to find something agreeable in that curly head, that stood out so black in the midst of the powdered perukes in her reception room (Ibrahim had been

Pushkin 494.

135 wounded in the head and wore a bandage instead o f a peruke). He was twenty-seven years of age, and was ta ll and slender, and more than one beauty glanced at him with a feeling more flattering than simple curiosity. But the prejudiced Ibrahim either did not observe anything of this or merely looked upon it as coquetry. But when his glances met those of the Countess, his distrust vanished. Her eyes expressed such winning kindness, her manner toward him was so sim ple, so unconstrained, that it was impossible to suspect her of the least shadow of coquetry or raillery. 137

Ibragim is viewed in a positive light by the Countess (over

time); indeed she loves him, but the pervasiveness of his

negative self-image obscures this fact to him. Similar to

Pushkin’s persona, Ibragim exhibits many tra its of a fear-

ridden Othello. In another pertinent connection with Othello;

Ibragim , wounded in a European war, was loved by the Countess

for this fact, as Othello was loved by a woman who empathized w ith “ the dangers he had seen.”

Nevertheless, in spite of Ibragim’s “tim idity and jealousy” an affair develops. Self-deprecation does not vanish however. It is revealed again upon his decision to leave Paris after the birth of his illegitim ate son with the

Countess. His relationship with the married Countess resulted in her pregnancy, and in the event th a t she gave g ir th to a

The translation is from Yarmolinsky 748.

136 black child, or to one who possessed physical tra its other than those of a European, her in fid e lity would have been exposed. To avoid the scandal that could ensue, prior to the birth it was arranged with a poor, pregnant g irl to switch babies immediately after the birth of Cannibal’s child. The arrangement was a well-founded one, for Cannibal’s baby son was indeed black. The child was raised in a distant province, and - as far as can be judged by the extant fragment - never met either one of his natural parents.

The a ffa ir resumes a fte r the babies have been exchanged.

Yet Ibragim became convinced that the Countess’ husband would become aware of her in fid e lity, ensuring her ruin. Even more importantly he believed his happiness could not last. Thus he resolved to leave Paris:

Oh ak >6h a cTpacTHO h Tax x e 6 u a aio 6hm; ho rpafHHfl 6uAa cBoeHpaBHa h AerKOMUCAeHHa. Ona Aio6HAa ne b nepBuA paa. ÛTBpaujeHHe, HenaBHCTB mofah aaMOHHTb b ee ce paye nyBCTBa caMue HexHBie. H6parHM npeaBMaeA yxe Mnnyry ee oxAaxaeHHH; aoceAe oh He BeaaA peBHOcTH, ho c yxacoM ee npeanyBCTBOBaA; oh Boo6paxaA, hto cTpaaaHHH pasAyxH aoAXHU SuTb Me nee MyMHTeAbHu, h yxe HaMepeBaAca paaopBaTb necMacTHy CBHGb, ocraBHTb Ilapn* h ornpaBHTbca b POCCHIO . . . "^

Pushkin 495.

137 He loved passionately and was passionately loved in return, but the Countess was w ilful and frivolous; it was not the firs t time that she had loved. Disgust, and even hatred might replace in her heart the most tender feelings. Ibrahim already foresaw the moment when she would cool toward him. Hitherto he had not known jealousy, but with dread he now fe lt a presentiment of it; he thought that the pain of separation would be lessdistressing, and he resolved to break off the unhappy connection, leave Paris and return to Russia...™

Reenacting the scenario of Othello, Ibragim “foresees” the time when the Countess would become in d iffe re n t to him. He is convinced that her in itia l passion would turn cold, presumably because she would suddenly see that he was a

“blackamoor” and wished to replace him with a fairer lover.

Rather than facing “inevitable rejection,” he decides to leave Paris and return to Russia.

The depth of Ibragim’s negative self-image may be observed in his farewell letter to the Countess. Plagued

“ sometimes by tim id ity , sometimes by je a lo u sy,”™ he sincerely believed that no lasting bond would ever result from their

The tran slatio n is from Yarmolinsky 751.

The quote is from Pushkin’s famous poem “fl sac a k >6h a ”/“I lo v e d y o u ” (1829) - “To poCocTbio, t o peBHOcTb» TOMHM”/ “tormented sometimes by tim idity, sometimes by jealousy.”

138 relationship. Perhaps he also experienced guilt about abandoning his child. I would posit that mostly, Ibragim’s departure is caused by his “Othello” complex. Having a negative self-perception he believes that he must leave in order to spare the Countess and himself the consequences of their "unnatural” liaison. Ibragim, in his farewell letter, w rite s:

3 eay, MHAaa AeoHopa, ocraBAflio HaBceraa. IlHiiiy Te6e, noTOMy qTo He HMeio cha HHane c to 6ok > oGtacHHTBCH. C^acTHe Moe He motao npoaoAscHTbCH. H HacAaxaaACH hm BonpeKH cyabGe h npnpoae. Tu aoAxna 6uAa Mena pa3AK>6HTb; onapoBaHHe üoaxho 6uao HcnesHyTB. STa mucab Mena Bceraa npecAeaoBaAa, a axe b Te MHHyru, Koraa, KasaAocB 8a6uBaA a Bce, Koraa y tbohx hot ynHBaAca a tbohm CTpacTHUM caMOOTBepxeHMeM, TBoeio HeorpaHHMeHHOK) HexHocTHio... AerKOMUCAeHHUfl cBeT 6ecnoujaaao fohht Ha caMOM aeAe, to hto aosBOAaeT b TeopHH: ero xoAoaHaa HacMeuiAHBocTB, paHo HAH HOsaHO, Ho6eaHAa 6u Te6a, cMHpHAa 6u TBoio nAaweHHyio ayiny h t u naKoneij ycTuaHAacB 6u cBoeA cTpacTH... noaywaA: aoAxen ah a noaBepraTB Te6a aoAee Tew xe BOAHeanaM h onacHocTaM? 3a Hew CHAHTBca coeaHHHTB cyab6u ctoab a ex nor o, ctoab npexpacHoro cosaaaaa c GeacTBeaaoA cyaB6oK> aerpa, xaAKoro TBopeaaa, eaaa yaocToeaaoro aasBaaHa HeAOBeKaf"^

I am going away, dear Leonora; I am leaving you forever. I am w ritin g to you because I have not the strength to te ll it to you otherwise. My happiness could not last: I have enjoyed it in spite of fate and nature. You were Pushkin 496.

139 bound to stop loving me; the enchantment was bound to vanish. This thought has always pursued me, even in those moments when I have seemed to fo rg e t everything, when a t your fe e t I have been in to x ic a te d by your passionate self-denial, by your unbounded tenderness... the frivolous world unmercifully persecutes in fact that which it permits in theory; its cold mockery sooner or later would have vanquished you, would have humbled your ardent soul, and a t la s t you would have become ashamed of your passion.. .Think: ought I to expose you any longer to such agitations and dangers? Why should I endeavor to u n ite the fa te o f such a tender, b e a u tifu l creature to the miserable fate of a Negro, of a pitiable creature, scarce worthy of the name of man?"^

Ibragim ’ s self-abasing farew ell has echoes in Pushkin’ s personal correspondences of 1826-1827. In a letter written in

1826 to V.P. Zubkov regarding his fe e lin g s towards S of’ ia

Pushkina - a society g ir l he was wooing - he wrote:

...Mne 27 AeT, aoporoA apyr. no pa to ecTb noanaTb cMacTbe.... )KH3Hb MOfl, aoceAe Taxaa Ko^yioujaa, Taxaa Gypaaa, xapaxTep mo A - aepoBHuA, peBHHBuA, noaospHxeAbHHA, peSKHA H CAaGtlA OaHOBpeMOHHO -BOT ATO HHOraa HaBOaHT Ha MOHH TarocTHwe pasayMba. CAeayex a h mho cBasaxb c cyaGoA cTOAb nenaAbHoA, c xaKHM necHacTHBiM xapaxxepoM - cyabGy cygecTBa, xaKoro nexcHoro, xaxoro npexpacHoro?

...I am twenty-seven years old, dear friend. It is time for one to begin to live, i.e. to know happiness.... My life up to the present, so wandering, so stormy; my

The translation is from Yarmolinsky 754.

140 character, crotchety, jealous, touchy, violent, and weak, a ll at the same time - this is what gives me moments of painful reflection. Ought I unite to a fate so sad, to a character so unfortunate, the fate of a being so sweet so beautiful?"^

Pushkin’s letter, like Ibragim’s, expresses an all-pervasive sense of erotic insecurity on the part of the author. Clearly,

Pushkin’s disparaging remarks about himself reveal a self- deprecation which presents him as undesirable, due in large p a rt to h is “ A frican temperament” marked above a ll, i t would appear, by jealousy, i.e. a sense of inferiority. Pushkin seems to see it as inevitable that Sof’ia and he would reenact the Othello drama in some form or other. Thus we can see th a t he repeatedly makes the Shakespeare tragedy a feared scenario and that perhaps, the obsession with acting ot out increases.

Realizing the finality of Ibragim’s departure, the

Countess writes to him in Russia, and implores him to maintain a correspondence with her at the very least, even if there is no hope of them ever seeing each other again. The letter ends with passionate assurances of the Countess’ love.

Ibragim finds short-lived solace in her letter, for he soon

The translation is from Shaw, Letters 336-337.

141 hears from an acquaintance that the Countess has taken another lover. Distraught and viewing this as a confirmation of his suspicions and fears rather than his own doing (after a ll, what else could she do knowing he would never return?),

Ibragim’s already marginal self-confidence is further dismantled. What he fails to realize is that the fin a lity of his departure le ft the Countess no choice. As Ibragim’s lack of self-confidence brings about his departure, the Countess’s inevitable response to that departure further erodes his self-confidence and intensifies his feelings of rejection.

If the sincere love of the Countess for Ibragim could not overcome his “Othello-complex,” then the racial attitudes that are disclosed further on in the story can only reinforce

Ibragim’s low self-esteem. On account of his being a moor,

Ibragim is viewed as someone to be feared and regarded with great caution and suspicion. The height of this negativity on the part of Russian society is displayed when Peter the Great decides that it is time for Ibragim to get married. The family of his chosen fiancee Natasha Gavrilovna, the

Rzhevskiis, is clearly horrified at the thought of their beloved child being married to a black man. The g irl’s aunt declares;

142 BaTK>mKa-6paTeH, He noryGn t h c B o e ro p o ü h m h f o ^ h t h t h, n e

aaA TH HaTaiueHbKH b k o f t h nepnoMy anaBOAy/*^

My dear brother.. .do not ruin your own child, do not deliver poor little Natasha into the clutches of that black devil

For society, Ibragim’s only redeeming quality is the fact that he is professionally accomplished, and has a high social standing. One sentiment expressed by the Rzhevskiis is,

“...xaAb, HTo apan, a Aynuiero xeHHxa rpex nan h xeAari»”/" ...it i s a pity that he is a moor, as we could not wish for a better bridegroom.

Even Korsakov, Ibragim’s friend, who presumably likes

Ibragim (in spite of his being a blackamoor, of course), believes that he should give up the idea of matrimony altogether. A union with a white woman, he thinks, would definitely be unsuccessful. Because of his “hideous” looks he could not expect a wife to be faithful to him:

nocAymaa, H6parHM, nocAeaya xoTb p a s Moewy coBeyy .... Bpocb 3Ty ÔAaxnyio MUCAb. He xenHCb.... HeAbsa HaaeaTbca

Pushkin 504.

The tran slatio n is from Yarmolinsky 775.

'** Pushkin 507,

143 Ha XeHCKyiO BepHOCTb, CWaCTAHB, KTO CMOTpHT Ha 3 TO paBHoayuiHo! Ho tu!...C tbohm ah hmakhm, aaayMHHBHM h no aoap HTe A BHH M xapaxTepoM, c tbohm cnAioujeHHHM ho com, BsayTHMH rySaMH, c 3to ô mepmaBoft mepcTbio SpocaTBca bo Bce onacHOCTH xeHHTÔH?...

Listen, Ibrahim, follow my advice this time Get this foolish idea out of your head - don’t marry There is no dependence to be placed upon a woman’ s f id e lit y ; happy is he who can regard it with indifference. But you!.... With your passionate, pensive and suspicious nature, with your fla t nose, thick lips, and coarse wool, to rush into a ll the dangers of matrimony! 148

Ibragim, however, is not entering marriage with unrealistic hopes. He asserts his right to be married, yet realizes his betrothed’s apprehensions. His musings on the eve of marriage reflect those apprehensions:

>KeHHTBCH! - ay Ma A ajpHKaneg, - aaneM *e neT? VxeAH cyjKaeHo MHe npoBcCTH xhshb b oanHo^ecTBe h He sHart AynuiHx HacAaxaeHHft h cBxgeHHeAuiHX oSaaaHHocTeô HeAOBOKa, noTOMy toabko, hto a poaHAca noa naTnaayaTHM rpaaycoM?.... Ot sceau a ae cTaay TpeGoBarb ak> 6 bh, Gyay aoBOAbCTBOBaTb ee BepHocTHio, a a p y x G y npaoG peTy nOCTOHHHOa aeXHOCTHIO, aOBepeHHOCTHK» H CHHCXOSCaeHHeM.“‘’

Pushkin 506.

'** The tran slatio n is from Yarmolinsky 782.

Pushkin 505.

144 Get married?” thought the African: “why not? Am I to be condemned to pass my l i f e in s o litu d e , and not know the greatest pleasure and the most sacred duties of man, ju s t because I was born in the to r r id zone?... From my wife I shall not require love: I shall be satisfied with her fidelity; and her friendship I w ill acquire by constant tenderness, confidence and indulgence.^*

A similar attitude is seen in a letter which Pushkin wrote to his future mother-in-law, in the months before his marriage:

...TOAbKO npHBMMKa H jJAHTeAbHafl 6AH30CTb MOP AH 6u noMOHb MHe 3acAy*HTb pacnoAoxeHHe sa me A aonepn; a Mory HaaeaTbCH BooGyanTb co BpeueneM ee npHBaaaHHOCTb, ho HHHeM He Mory eA nonpaBHTbca; ecAH oaa corAacHTca oraaTb MHe CBOK» pyxy, a yBHxy b btom a hiub aoxaaaTeABTBo cnoKoAHoro 6e3pa3AHHHa ee cepaga. ..”

...Only habit and a long intimacy could win for me your daughter’ s a ffe c tio n . I can hope to make her become attached to me in the course of time, but I nothing to please her with. If she consents to give me her hand, I shall see only the proof of the calm indifference of her h e a rt..

Thus, Ibragim’s perceptions and beliefs appear to reflect feelings which Pushkin himself experienced and enacted in his life and expressed in the myth of himself as the “African

The translation is from Yarmolinsky 779.

" The translation is from Yarmolinsky 405-406.

145 aristocrat” that determined his “life-creation.” The Dioper story, as discussed in Chapter 1 is also clearly a source for the novel.

Clearly the overall dynamic of Othello forms an important moving force in The Moor of Peter the Great. It is an ever-present subtext while also reverberating with

Pushkin's personal myth of himself as a “descendant of

Ibragim.” Cannibal, the “alien” , finds a degree of happiness

(however short-lived) in an alien country. Yet, like Othello, he becomes apprehensive when happiness lasts, convinced as he is of an eventual catastrophe he deems inevitable because of h is being a moor. It is upon returning to Russia (where he should have fe lt the strongest social ties), that he most clearly fails to find acceptance. Similarly, Pushkin experienced some of his most personally satisfying years as a civil servant in southern Russia, interacting with distinctly non-Russian cultures. It was upon returning to Russia in

1823, and during his Mikhailovskoe period in particular, that

Pushkin experienced an intense estrangement, and began to identify closely with Cannibal's various misfortunes.

Cannibal, like Pushkin, was most “foreign” in the element th a t should have been closest to him - Russian so cie ty - and

146 this consequence of his African ancestry is clearly seen in

Pushkin’s personal myth of being an eternal African, however much he also was a Russian aristocrat.

I now turn to another historical novel by Pushkin - his

The Captain’s Daughter. 1835. It seemingly has nothing to do with the author’s genealogical concerns. No moor is playing any role in it and whatever jealousy dramas take place are resolved in a happy white marriage. Nevertheless, this novel too sheds light on the African theme by offering the perspective o f the opposed, yet closely lin ke d , a ris to c ra tic , white brother and African dark brother. There indeed is a

“moor” in this novel also, albeit in this context he is represented by a leader of the “TeMHua Hapoa’’/ “dark people”

- the leader of the mass rebellion Emel’ian Pugachev.

Pushkin’s The Captain’s Dauahter. provides an historical-fictional account of events surrounding the

Pugachev Rebellion of 1773-1774, focusing on the Cossack rebel leader and his complex relationship with the young aristocratic officer Grinev. The work transposes the

Apollonic-Dionysiac paradigm to a Russian-Russian historical context. Here the “elemental people” and their leader

Pugachev oppose the ruling classes, above a ll the aristocracy

147 and their ruler, the Empress Catherine the Great. She, in her turn, is represented by Grinev who stands for the values of her reign. At the same time, the conflict reflects more personal facets, namely Pushkin's divided African- aristocratic cultural heritage. As already demonstrated above in the discussion of The Moor of Peter the Great, seemingly objective narratives of "historical interest" reflect deeply personal issues on both plot and characterization levels. It is in the characteristics which Pushkin gives to his protagonists that the w riter’s personal myth is revealed above a l l . In The Captain's Daughter Grinev and Pugachev oppose each other as "elemental dark brother” and "civilized white brother,” to use Gregg's terminology.

C ritic Irina Reyfman notes that Grinev's authorship of the memoir is an effective literary device, that aids in identifying Pushkin with his characters. It follows that since the voice behind every character in The Captain's

Daughter, including Grinev's, is ultimately Pushkin's, it is perfectly natural for him to occasionally disregard the difference between himself and his characters. There are, however, indications that Pushkin did more than just endow

Grinev with his narrative ability. He actually "tried on” a

148 variety of roles within the work, giving them aspects of his own p e r s o n a lity .T h u s Pugachev and G rinev, as w e ll as

Shvabrin represent different aspects of the author's own character, at least as this character is perceived in his own myth. I now proceed to a discussion of these three personages as emanations of the “dark” and the “ligh t” brother.

Grinev would at firs t glance not qualify for being a representative of “Pushkin” himself. Although he writes, and of course, as we can see, is an excellent writer in the genre of the family chronicle (his poetry is probably not so good), he is a rather limited personality intellectually. A loyalist, he has arrived at his stance by his strongly developed sense of honor, not by philosophical or ideological concerns. Nevertheless, it is this well-developed sense of honor that makes Grinev and “Pushkin” compatible. In spite of his close encounters with Pugachev who tempts him to switch sides, Grinev remains loyal to the legitimate sovereign. It has been noted th a t Pushkin based the conversation between

G rinev and Pugachev ( in chapter 8 o f the w ork), on the circumstances of his own meeting with Nicholas I in 1826.

Irina Reyfman, “Poetic Justice and Injustice: Autobiographical Echoes in Pushkin’s The Captain’s Daughter.” Slavic and East European Journal. 38.3 (1994): 473.

149 Reconstructions that have been made of Pushkin’s conversation with Nicholas reveal sim ilarities in the two discussions. In each, a monarch, or an alleged monarch, poses a dangerous question that is answered daringly but sincerely. The monarch then displays magnanimity and rewards the candidness of his conversation partner. However, there is a c ru c ia l d iffe re n ce between the conversations also: Grinev declines Pugachev’s invitation to pledge loyalty to him, whereas Pushkin, albeit with hesitation, accepted Nicholas’ invitation. In rewriting the situation in his novel, Pushkin ensured that his alter ego retained his independence.^” For Grinev, remaining within the boundaries of “Apollonic” order, does not yield to any compromise of his personal convictions. He belongs whole heartedly to Apollo’s well-ordered realm. Rejecting

Pugachev’s offer in favor of the legitimate sovereign does not diminish him morally in any way, whereas Pushkin’s compromise w ith his monarch could be seen as doing ju s t th a t.

Grinev secures not only his life , but also his place in a system to which he truly belongs. Pushkin’s loyalty to those societal elements which should be closest to him as

“aristocrat,” takes away his independence however. The

Reyfman 474.

150 “Dionysiac” elements of rebelliousness, spontaneousness and creativity that exist within him alongside with his “lighter” legacy demanding th a t he not compromise h is p oe tic freedom, are clearly violated. Thus, physical independence is retained, but at the expense of sacrificing at least some inner convictions and psychological harmony. Nicholas' aristocracy, after a ll, had no place for an “African.” The creation of Grinev presents a persona which retains its freedom without compromise. However, Grinev is a purely

“Apollonic” character, one who embodies conventionality in its best aspects, namely in terms of contributing to social harmony, and “form.” Pushkin is broader than Grinev, his

“light brother.” In him, as we know, there is not only Apollo but also the “African” Dionysus.

It is true that for all of his “Apollonic” characteristics, there is also s till a certain degree of ambiguity in the character of Grinev himself. This perhaps is seen most c lo s e ly in G rinev’ s well-known nightmare. Grinev envisions a man whom he assumes to be his father, rising out of his mother’s bed. The man proves to be Pugachev. Though the fig u re threatens him w ith an axe and engages in murder and bloodshed, and although Grinev abruptly awakes in a cold

151 sweat, a degree of identity with Pugachev has been suggested.

Pugachev emerges not o nly as a “brother” but also as a

“father,” though this paternal image provokes a certain amount of anxiety. It is this degree of identity and subsequent anxiety that succinctly encapsulates the tension between the two aspects o f Pushkin’ s personal myth o f lig h t and darkness. Pugachev is, of course, a figure of the dark, an imposter who must ultimately be conquered. But the appearance of Pugachev in Grinev’s mother’s bed lends the rebel an air of legitimacy. Assuming the role of the father, he becomes legitimate and illegitim ate at the same time, since he is not the true father, but an imposter in his mother’s bed as he is an imposter in regard to his monarch.

Yet Grinev, w ith his Apollonic essence, is drawn to Pugachev, a man who symbolizes anarchy as well as the creation of something new, and who has the power to destroy as w e ll as save him. Pugachev, in other words, is the “ god” Dionysus to

Grinev - a god he fears but also is attracted to.

Clearly Grinev’s “Dionysiac” counterpart is the character o f Pugachev. Pushkin’ s pointed ch a ra cte riza tio n o f

Pugachev, which emphasizes Pugachev’s “blackness” , has not gone unnoticed (Gregg, Tsvetaeva, etc.). When Pugachev firs t

152 appears, Grinev exclaims, “Bapyr a BHaeA h to -to Mepaoe. EA hmujhk! , saxpHMaA a. CMOTpa, mto-to Taw aepaeeTca ’’/ “ Suddenly I caught the sight of something black. ‘Hey driver!’ I cried.

‘Look, what is that black thing over there?’"^" This black rebel clearly represents the dark “other” in his relation to the establishment. He is a destroyer of that which is. Unlike

Grinev, he has no spiritual link to “conventional” society and i t s set lim ita tio n s - no love fo r “ form” and norm.

Pugachev knows that to usurp power he cannot present his true self, but must become an imposter claiming legitimacy which is why he assumes the id e n tity o f deceased Emperor Peter I I I .

Perhaps it is this imitation of a “legitimate” figure that ultim ately brings about Pugachev’s downfall. The “Apolline” guise of the monarch Peter III just does not fit the

“Dionysiac” Pugachev. The imitation of an alien character

(Peter III) spells disaster. Pugachev may have fared better as Emel’ian I, but then clearly he would have found no support. Perhaps Pugachev too is divided: he is not content with simply being what he is - he yearns for “form,” and assumes a ro le th a t does not s u it him. Yet fo r a ll o f

Pugachev’s “Dionysiac” characteristics, his brutality and

The translation is from Yarmol insky 611.

153 destructiveness, he also exhibits a consciousness of genuine

“form” in the civility that he displays towards Grinev.

Pugachev is quite the aristocrat in his honoring of his word,

really living up to the notion of “noblesse oblige.” Thus,

there is some degree of ambiguity in his nature also, as

there is in Grinev’ s. The need to complement each other seems

to be a prevailing “message” of the novel, regardless of whether Pugachev is seen as a father or brother figure.

I believe that it is also beneficial to examine the

character of Shvabrin within the context of the “Apollonic” -

“Dionysiac” contrast. Rather than creating only one

psychologically complex character to contrast with Grinev’s

relatively “straight-forward” one, Pushkin decided to develop

two characters. Irina Reyfman notes:

The outlines and rough drafts for the novel show that in itia lly Pushkin intended to portray a single p ro ta g o n is t, a young nobleman who had sided w ith Pugachev, who was court-martialled after the uprising’s suppression, and who then was forgiven (or partly fo rg iv e n ) by the Empress. Pushkin s p lit his o rig in a l character, the renegade nobleman, in two -- into the virtuous Grinev and the scoundrel Shvabrin.^^

Reyfman 469.

154 Another c ritic has suggested that Shvabrin and Grinev are antipodes, feeding the conjecture

that they form the bright and the shadow side of a single implied character; that the author, perhaps on a deep level, identified more closely with the character of Shvabrin than with that of the insipid and too-good- to-be-true hero.

An examination of Shvabrin reveals a complex character.

It has been noted that although Pushkin’s “kinship” with the cad Shvabrin might seem unlikely, it is nonetheless unmistakable, for Pushkin lends the traitor his own appearance.^' I would even state the point more strongly than

Reyfman, and say th a t the s im ila r itie s which e x is t between

Pushkin and Shvabrin are not just physical, but psychological and temperamental as well. To determine these sim ilarities, it is useful to re-examine Richard Gregg’s

“Pushkin’s Narratives and the Hex of Darkness.”

As Gregg points out, in terms of Shvabrin’s aristocratic birth, privileged education, and status as an army officer.

Sidney Monas, “‘Self and ‘Other’ in Russian Literature,” The Search for Self-Definition in Russian Literature, ed. Ewa M. Thompson (Houston: Rice University Press, 1991) 80.

Reyfman 474,

155 he undoubtedly belongs to the establishment. These are only superficial labels, however, and te ll us nothing of the

“twisted soul" (Gregg) that is revealed to the reader further in the work. Shvabrin is a violent, volatile, swarthy-cheeked young man, who eventually yields to “Dionysiac” impulses in the sense of putting himself above the “law” and

“convention,” both within himself, and by allying himself to

Pugachev, defecting to the enemy camp as he does. The young aristocrat is, as Gregg states, an unbalanced Pushkinian

“ double” :

Closer inspection reveals an aristocrat of smallish stature, with a dark complected, ugly, but expressive face; an exile to Russian southeastern parts for gross insubordination; a caustic critic of bad poetry, who is witty, vivacious, clever, frenchified and quarrelsome. This is no farrago. Before us stands a satirical portrait of Pushkin himself, the only self depiction in his fictional oeuvre.^

As stated above, Pushkin originally intended to create a single young nobleman as his protagonist in this novel with a single antagonist - Pugachev - facing him. Instead he created three major figures with Shvabrin balancing between the

Gregg 555.

156 Apolline establishment figure Grinev, and the Dionysiac rebel

Pugachev. Reyfman has asserted that the very fact that this in itia l protagonist in The Captain's Dauahter gave birth to both the vicious Shvabrin, as well as the virtuous Grinev affirms that Pushkin's inserting the figure of the renegade nobleman Shvabrin exempted Pugachev from to ta l condemnation.

Rather, he wanted to create a personality with whose social and psychological make-up he could id e n tify and in whose shoes he could imagine himself, as Reyfman claims.^* However much he identified with Shvabrin, he is nevertheless the only real villa in of the novel. Grinev is loyal, Pugachev honors a code o f honor, usually a wrong one, but occasionally a rig h t one. At least he has one. Shvabrin does not - he is therefore rejected by both “gods” and by both society and the rebels.

It is Shvabrin’s character that offers perhaps the clearest example of how the “Apollonic” and “Dionysiac” elements strongly conflict when they co-exist within one single character. Choosing to defect to the renegade enemy camp, Shvabrin commits the ultimate act of rejecting aristocratic societal boundaries, an act from which there is no turning back. Ultimately, Shvabrin is destroyed, since in

Reyfman 475.

157 Pushkin’ s world there may be a way from Dionysus to Apollo, but not the other way around. When last seen, Shvabrin is a grungy, haggard prisoner in chains, doomed to share

Pugachev’s fate. As one of aristocratic birth, Shvabrin’s defection clearly represents betrayal. On the surface, at least, Shvabrin has no innate psychological tie to the

“other.” His defection arises from the cowardly impulse to

‘save his own skin,” rather than any deep, emotional convictions. Or was there a deeper impulse that drove

Shvabrin to the rebels - as once young Pushkin had been drawn to the gypsies and his Aleko actually led their life (in the poem “The Gypsies”)? Whatever the case, Shvabrin is the loser. Pushkin, for all of his conflicts with Russian society, was proud of his noble ancestry and its constructive role in shaping history. He therefore remained loyal to

“ order” throughout his l i f e , however much “ chaos” drew him to its “edge.”

Thus, the contrasts th a t we have examined c le a rly emerge as sta ble ingredients o f the myth Pushkin created around his persona. The dark and the light brother constantly struggle for supremacy both within the self and in interpersonal relations. Chaos and order struggle for supremacy on a ll

158 levels, including those of rebellion versus empire. Pugachev

represents the force that would destroy empires, Catherine,

the principle that unites them. Yet dichotomies also prevail

on a ll levels in the texts discussed. The “wild” Ibragim is a

“meek” creature who is treated by “civilized” society with a measure of cruelty no “prim itive” society would accord.

Grinev meets with c iv ility from the “brutal” Pugachev.

Catherine may be aimable and even forgiving but she does not

abstain from her revenge on Pugachev (quartering him). There

is never “divine harmony” in Pushkin's world (contrary to

traditional perceptions), only a tension-filled “precarious

balance.”

159 CHAPTER 5

EGYPTIAN NIGHTS

Egyptian Nights (1830) is one of those texts in Pushkin's oeuvre that very clearly is constructed around the Dionysiac

-Apolline antimony in regard to poetic creativity. It is a metapoetic text that deals with the “two faces” of the poet - his Dionysiac inner self and Apolline (formal) outer self.

Since the “poet” constitutes the very essence of the “self” in Pushkin’ s case - the bridge between the A frica n and the

Aristocrat - in Pushkin’s myth of his character and fate,

Egyptian Niahts is a key text for any discussion of the

“African aristocrat” as poet. Egyptian Niahts clothes the

Dionysiac-Apolline opposition and the perpetual tension between the two d e itie s in Pushkin’ s l i f e and myth creation in the garb of an “ e x o tic ,” Ita lia n , bohemian Im provisor and an aristocratic, form-conscious, Russian poet by the name of

Charskii. Both are “foreigners” however, since the Russian is

160 quite alienated from the context in which he finds himself, namely the aristocratic salon. In fact, the Italian may be more at home in the salon and in Russia than Charskii, since he is at home everywhere and also alienated everywhere.

Pushkin began work on Eavptian Niahts in 1830, yet it was not until 1835 that the work assumed its final form of three short chapters in prose and two poems, which though not actually attached to the prose parts, have traditionally been

incorporated in the work because of their thematic

relevance.^* It is significant that Egyptian Niahts. similar to The Moor of Peter the Great, was never completed. David

Herman in his article, “A Requiem for Aristocratic Art:

Pushkin's Eavptian Niahts." has suggested quite convincingly that the reason for this lies in the fact that Eavptian

Niahts depicted a predicament that Pushkin encountered in his own literary life , and that he could not resolve. The impasse

he had reached, could not be captured even in a fictionalized

form, because he lite ra lly could not imagine a way out. To this extent Eavptian Niahts may be read as an allegory that.

Paul Debreczney, The Other Pushkin: A Study of Alexander Pushkin's Prose Fiction (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1983) 289.

161 in Herman’s words, “does nothing less than predict Pushkin’s demise as a w rite r and a human being.

It has been noted that three major themes are intertwined in the narrative and verse of Eavptian Niahts two of which are clearly metapoetic: the reaction of the poet to the crowd, the creative experience or moment of inspiration

(when “ the god approaches” ) , and the d iffe re n c e between the exotic (Alexandrian) past and contemporary society. Critics have cautioned against examining these themes independently of each other, but for the purpose of this discussion, I would draw a tte n tio n to the second o f the three themes and how it holds significance for a discussion of the tension between “Apollo” and “Dionysus” within the realm of poetic creation.

As discussed above, Pushkin displayed a pointed interest in the issue of form, associated with convention, as well as its opposite, “fe rtile chaos” associated with “raw emotions.”

He did so not only in the purely literary sense of raw

David Herman, “A Requiem for Aristocratic Art: Pushkin's Egyptian N ia h ts . ” The Russian Review: An American Q uarterly Devoted to Russia Past and Present 55/4 (October, 1996): 662.

Ralph E. Matlaw, “Poetry and the Poet in Romantic Society as Reflected in Pushkin’s Egyptian Niahts.” The Slavonic and East European Review. 33 (1954-1955): 103.

162 material versus final product, but also in a kind o f creative-psychological sense. As articulated in Gregg’s article, it is the conventional characters in Pushkin’s oeuvre, those who submit to, and assimilate within society, that eventually prevail over those characters who exhibit traits of “exoticism” in the sense of transgressing boundaries. As applied to the poet, this means that inner

“ overflow ing wealth” must be contained by form. However, i t is not simply a matter of fusing the aristocratic Charskii w ith the e x o tic Im provisor (who never is given any name), since the matter is more complex than that. Charskii is a poet whose aesthetics are predominately formal, as is his lifestyle. The Italian is all feeling that finds form spontaneously without an apparent effort. So the dichotomy between “conventionality” and “exoticism” in actuality becomes a “quadra-chotomy.” The “lig h t” poet-brother has his

“dark” side (overemphasis on convention) and the dark brother is illuminated by his genius in the moment of creation while his life text is devoid of appeal.

I w ill firs t examine the character of Charskii, both w ith in the dynamic o f the work, and as i t re fle c ts p a ra lle ls with Pushkin’s own life . It has been noted that Pushkin’s

163 portrayal of Charskii incorporates many attitudes and attributes of the writer himself, in a sheer biographical sense, and th a t he shows Pushkin as he was in 1830. The firs t paragraph of the work illustrates this:

Em y He 6 h a o euje TpnagaTH a o t ; oh ne 6 h a JKenax; cAyxcGa ne o6peM eHHAa ero. JKHSHb e ro M orA a Sm t l oneHL npHHTHa; ho OH HMOA HecHacTHe HHcaTb h nenaTaTb c t h x h. B xypnaAax 3BaAH ero nosTOM, a b AaxeftcKHX coHHHHTeAeM.^®*

He was not yet th irty years of age; he was not married; the service did not burden him....His life was an agreeable one, but he had the misfortune to write and print verse. In the journals he was called poet, and in the servants' quarters scribbler.

Monika Greenleaf has proposed that although the narrator's angry sarcasm reflects a long standing personal sense of injury, the author here speaks about the poet exclusively in the third person, at worldly ironic arms length. Furthermore, the more intimately the narrator goes into the details of Charskii's life , the more we suspect that the narrator is describing his own experience even if it is

MatIaw 103.

Pushkin 642.

The tran slation is from Yarmolinsky 876.

164 a t an ironic distance/®® Thus, Charskii may be a projected

alter-ego of Pushkin himself. In the present context, he is

Pushkin’s "light brother.” The fact that he represents but

one aspect of Pushkin "explains” the ironic distance the

author displays towards Charskii. He is a projection of

himself, but only of the “Aristocrat.” The "African” is found

in the figure of the Improvisor.

Charskii denies that there are "privileges” to the

poetic profession, for beyond the "right to use the

accusative case instead of the genitive,” and other aspects

of poetic license, he fails to see any great benefits.^®'

However, this attitude may well derive from Charskii’s

conventional (Apolline) nature which values propriety too much. Charskii fears being associated with any "bohemian sub­

culture,” attempting instead to assimilate into mainstream

society. When not writing (at night), Charskii’s goal is to

o ffic ia lly disassociate himself from his secret passion and merge with the "salon” culture he is so familiar with,

keeping his night activity a secret. Thus Charskii values

Greenleaf 331.

Pushkin 642.

165 “form” more than “chaos” which is why inspiration visits him more rarely than his “dark brother.”

Oh HsSeraA oSujecTBa cBoea 6paTbH AHTepaTopoB h npeanoMHTBA hm cBeTCKHX AioaeA, aaxce hbmux nycTux. PaaroBop ero 6 h a caMUft nom AH A h HHKoraa He KacaAca AHTepaTypH. B CBoeft oaexae oh Bceraa Ha6AK>aaA caMyio nocAeanyio Moay B KaSnHeTe ero...HHHTo He nanoMHaaAo HHcaTeAa . He 6hao Toro Gecnopaaxa, KOTOpuft o6AHHaer npHCyTCTBHe My3H....MapCKHA 6hA B OTHaaHHH, eCAH KTO- HH6yat> H3 CBeTCKHX ero apyaeft aacTasaA ero c nepoM b p yxax ...OaHaKo * e oh 6 u a near, h crpacTfc ero 6uAa HeoaoAHMa.''’*

He avoided the society of his literary brethren, and preferred to them men of the world, even the most shallow minded. His conversation was of the most commonplace character, and never turned upon literature. In his dress he always observed the latest fashion ___ In his study...nothing recalled the w riter There was none of that disorder which denotes the presence of the Muse....Charskii was in despair if any of his society friends found him with a pen in his hand.. .For all that he was a poet, and his passion was invincible.**

Attempts at assimilation into conventional society are fu tile

however, for nothing can restrain the forces of the Muse and

the passion which compels Charskii to create. Thus, in s p ite

Pushkin 643.

The translation is from Yarmolinsky 877-878,

166 of his conventionality, he is a true poet. He too knows

“Dionysus,” although he pays too much tribute to “Apollo.”

Charskii makes desperate attempts to merge with his salon culture, but ultimately fails. He is able to reconcile his aristocratic, formally elegant way of life with his creativity only if he keeps his poetic endeavors secret from the aristocratic salon. Since inspiration ultimately derives from “Dionysus,” however, “Apollonic” form cannot protect him forever. As David Herman’s states in the aforementioned a rtic le :

The s to r y ’ s hero is both a r is to c r a t and p o e t, simultaneously embracing both poles of an old and thorny Romantic dichotomy as an artist who flees the uncomprehending crowd and yet is also a full-fleged member o f th a t crowd.

Charskii is made to face the Dionysian “subtext” of all creativity in his meeting with the Improvisor, a meeting

Greenleaf termed “the return of the repressed se lf.” ^^ It is in this meeting, Greenleaf notes, that Charskii confronts the embodiment of his worst fears: the poet as the visible other.

Herman 662.

Greenleaf 333.

167 the foreign body in a conventional society, the man not

'^comme-il-faut.” The manner in which the Improvisor makes his appearance is significant in that he seemingly comes out of nowhere. Leslie O'Bell, in Pushkin's Eavptian Niahts: The

Biography of a Work, states that the Improvisor's appearance may be called a psychological event, for it occurs on the heels of Charskii's fit of inspiration. She writes:

The stru c tu rin g o f th is sequence makes him m ateralize on the scene out of Charskii's imagination. After the characterization of Charskii's life in society, when the inner and poetical side of it begins to be illustrated, a t a moment of heightened perception and released expression, the stranger crosses the threshold of C h a rs k ii's room.

Thus, Charskii's psychological alter ego is incarnated in the

Improvisor.

After informing the Improvisor that he has arranged a performance, and assuring him that at the very least, the

Improvisor w ill see a monetary profit, Charskii realizes with dismay that for the Improvisor, monetary gain is the primary concern with regard to his performance:

Leslie O'Bell, Pushkin's Eavptian Niahts: The Biography of a Work (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1984) 105-106.

168 HenpHflTHO 6 hao ^apcKOMy c bucotu nossHH Bapyr ynacTb noa AaBKy KOHTOpujHKa; ho oh oneHb xopomo non MM a A XMTeHcKyio Heo6xoaHMOCTb h nycTHAca c HTaAbHHgeM b MopKaHTHAbHue pacHOTu. MTaAbHHeg npH COM cAynae o^HapyxHA Tax y 10 ziHKyio xa^nocTb, xaxyio npocToaymnyio AK>6oBb K npHGWAH, HTO OH OnpOTHBOA MapCKOMy

It was very disagreeable for Charskii to fa ll suddenly from the heights of poesy down to the bookkeeper’s desk, but he understood worldly necessities very well, and he plunged into commercial calculations with the Italian. The latter, during this part of the business, exhibited such savage greed, such an a rtle s s love o f gain th a t he disgusted Charskii.

It has been observed, that the Improvisor, like Charskii

(since the Improvisor is Pushkin’s “dark brother”), also exhibits some Pushkinian tra its - which, indeed, he does. He is, like Charskii, about thirty years old, with a swarthy complexion, and, like Pushkin’s African ancestors, a foreigner on Russian soil. Like Pushkin, he exhibits a strong concern about his financial affairs and clearly suffers from a chronic lack of money. Above all, he is a “divinely inspired poet” like the genius Pushkin himself. Ultimately,

Charskii realizes that the Improvisor may sell his performance, but th a t he does not compromise h is sacred

Pushkin 646.

The tran slation is from Yarmolinsky 884.

169 inspiration. Thus we again find a reference to typically

Pushkinian concerns. It w ill be remembered that in his poem

“PasroBop KHHronpoaasga c hobtom’’/ “Conversation between a

Bookseller and a Poet” (1824), it is stated that “inspiration

cannot be sold, but that a manuscript is for sale.” David

Herman has astutely noted that the Improvisor’s art is

dependent upon his a b ility to assume any personality, any

point of view, i.e. he has the same protean quality as the

Pushkinian “ Echo” (in “3xo”) . This a b ility to become anything

to anyone “ stands in d ire c t contradiction to C h a rs k ii’ s other wold, ruled by known aristocratic names and a fix e d

order...Charskii’s dismay with the Improvisor’s concern

for money may in fact above all be related to the fact that

the Improvisor’s greed denotes a transgression of aesthetic

norms which demand that a rtistic creation be independent of

public taste.

As stated above, the characters of Charskii and the

Improvisor present a “quadra-chotomy” in terms of their

natures; each character embodies both p o s itiv e and negative

characteristics of the Dionysiac-Apolline axis. To motivate

this concept of a “quadra-chotomy” , I would propose that the

Herman 665.

170 character o f C harskii, when examined by i t s e lf represents a type of duality, as does the Improvisor. The firs t paragraph of Egyptian Niahts informs the reader of Charskii’s desire to fit into mainstream aristocratic society, and reveals the great lengths to which he goes to disassociate himself from the trappings of the poetic calling. However, when confronted with the attitudes of the Improvisor, Charskii comes to embrace the view th a t the poet should remain “ above” those triv ia l concerns which occupy society. Matlaw’s observation th a t

Charskii...denies his art, he hides it. His external actions are a ll directed towards placating society, towards assuring his position in it. Thus in romantic society, or at least the society of the 1820’s and 1830’s represented in Egyptian Niahts. inner impulse yields to social decorum.. 176 applies only to the Charskii we see in the beginning. The

Improvisor teaches him to despise shallow social convention.

Charskii actually learns to liberate himself from the society that would stifle his “Dionysiac” nature. This aspect of his nature manifests itse lf not only in the form of attempted independence from society, but also in the form of his

Matlaw 117.

171 creative process, a process which is the sole source of his tru e pleasure. Though he concedes to both his “ A p o llin e ” and

“Dionysiac” impulses, it is clear that in the beginning it is his sense of “form conciousness” that ultimately drives him to reconcile his secret poetic passions to the constraints of his social position. To him form in art and life coincide. As stated above, Charskii mainly exhibits traits of the “light b ro th e r,” yet lik e O thello he possesses one major flaw . He is

“trusting” ; trusting of society and its opinions in the sense that he accepts them as valid. Charskii’s failure to confront h is in s e c u ritie s does not grow to tra g ic proportions as i t does for Othello; instead the writer takes flight into his secret private life . Perhaps he even eventually liberates himself from the conventions instead only of cultivating artistic form.

It is this sensitivity to form that makes the appearance of the Improvisor so unsettling to Charskii. Robert Matlaw has assessed the relationship between Charskii and the

Improvisor in this way:

.. .whatever the poetic differences between C harskii and the Italian may be, they recognize each other as practitioners of the same cult: within the framework of

172 the story, they represent the private and public components o f a creature that, in a pre-romantic age that was able to contain both aspects harmoniously. 177

I would argue that the public “practitioner,” at least from

Charskii’s point of view, is more in tune spiritually with the Dionysiac essence of the poet that he himself fears to display. As David Herman states,

The story of Charskii’s attitude toward the Italian is a constant give-and-take of identification and alienation, in which Charskii is alternately seduced and repelled by the Italian and a ll he stands for.^’^

This being the case, I would assert that the Charskii/

Improvisor contrast is symbolic of a broad duality in

Pushkin’s own nature and aesthetics, and that this contrast is the core of his myth. To the degree that we assume a kinship between Pushkin and each of his alter egos, we can appreciate the w riter’s persona as one that simultaneously struggles to find conformity in society, while seeking freedom from it, and ultimately finds satisfaction only in

Matlaw 112.

Herman 671.

173 the process that w ill always ensure his estrangement, the process without which he can not exist.

Thus, in examining the "self" - "other” contrast in

Eavptian Niahts I would say that the development of this theme occurs on two le v e ls . One le v e l draws upon inn e r conflicts that occur within the character of Charskii, who exhibits traits of both the “self” and the "other.” The second le v e l deals w ith contrasts drawn between C harskii, and the Improvisor. Here, Charskii takes issue with the

Improvisor's open display of inspiration - his obedience to the “approaching god” . There is a hint of hypocrisy in this for it is this very aspect of creation that Charskii envies him. The Improvisor experiences in public what Charskii so vehemently confines to his private moments. Yet for a ll of his unconventionality, the Improvisor is actually the superior artist, though he is obviously inferior as social outcast to conventional society’s standards. As Herman s ta te s ,

Charskii. . .begins to understand that he cannot deny the superiority of the Italian’s gift, even though the association with what is low w ill endanger ties to high society and confound his secure identity.^*

Herman 676.

174 The Improvisor is the essence of poetry, but his life is

“chaotic,” for he does not care for life creation in the sense which Charskii does. Furthermore, he does not strive for lasting loftiness. His time measure is the moment.

Charskii, however, we surmise yearns for “ raising a monument to himself.” Thus again we see the two aspects of the poet as dominated by their respective gods, Dionysus for the

Italian's ecstatic moment, Apollo for Charskii’s monument

“outlasting bronze.”

Matlaw views Charskii and the Improvisor as

“practitioners of the same cult, private and public components of a creature that was able to contain both aspects harmoniously.” Indeed, Egvptian Niahts brillia ntly illustrates that sacrificing the content of art for the display of elegant salon form is detrimental to the human personality. As usual, it also makes an opposite claim, namely the claim for capturing the moment of inspiration in lasting form. Pushkin postulates the synthsis of the two opposites as the ideal: form, content, life and art merge to make the great poet. But is synthesis possible? As stated above Eavptian Niahts was never completed. As proposed by

Herman, Pushkin set up the theme of “loving the low,” i.e.

175 the vulgar Improvisor, but hesitated at the point when this love would begin to take the upper hand over social order and aristocratic pride. The writer “could not imagine his way beyond this impasse."^* Drawing somewhat different conclu­ sions, I would say that for Pushkin's persona, these creative conflicts leading to temporary disharmony were essential to the passion of creation.

Herman 678.

176 CHAPTER 6

POETRY

As already stated above, Pushkin reflected the “Othello complex” of his personal myth most clearly in his lyrics, s p e c ific a lly in the development o f the theme o f jealousy.

This chapter examines the body of Pushkin’s lyrics that incorporates a cluster of motifs centered around this theme.

Such lyrics include those which contain direct mention of jealousy, and his African heritage, i.e. a direct statement of the “jealous moor” situation, as well as those which incorporate certain “moorish” physical and psychological features of the persona, for example, ugliness, passionateness, and awkwardness. The compulsive pursuit of women, the compensatory “Don Juan complex” is likewise included in this examination, as the complement to the

Othello motif.

177 Pushkin’s “Othello complex” comprises a cluster of separate and overlapping motifs such as:

a) the motif of “African ugliness” by itse lf;

b) the contrast between the “ ugly” A frica n persona and someone more desirable, either physically or psychologi­ c a lly , male or female;

c) the motif of the persona as the unsuccessful rival of a more fortunate male and its psychological effects on the persona’s “exotic” nature. “Ugliness” is not mentioned, but im plicit in view of the contexts established previously;

d) rejection by the lover and elevation of the persona’s beloved to almost “divine” status resulting from a lowering of the self.

While I can begin with fa irly clear distinctions, they later w ill be blurred.

In regard to Pushkin’s Othello myth, the question arises of how direct the art - life linkage may have been - how much was actual experience, how much was “ lite r a tu r e ” and how much was imaginative invention. I would state that certain poems

178 do in fact reflect circumstances which the poet confronted in his own life . This may be gleaned from information such as correspondence and recorded interactions with contemporaries.

These same sources also reveal instances in which events occurring to the persona of the lyrics do not derive from actual circumstances. In these instances Pushkin may have

“reworked” certain incidences out of his own life experience in the light of the Othello text and other literary sources, as w ell as h is own myth gathering momentum. Thus the a rt - life linkage varies from poem to poem. Where relevant, the information available on this linkage has been included.

a) “African ugliness”

Let us now turn to the categories of the “Othello- cluster” given above, and examine Pushkin’s lyrics for these motifs. The first motif it w ill be recalled, includes

Pushkin’s reflections on his “African ugliness.” We find this motif as early as 1814 in the poem with the French title

“ Mbn Portrait.The firs t seven stanzas contain physical and

Pushkin wrote the original poem in French; it was subsequently translated into Russian.

179 temperamental descriptions of the autobiographical persona

(who even mentions himself by his own name Pushkin).

Summarizing the features he has dealt with prior to this stanza, the poet writes:

Cyu^Hô 6ec b npoKasax, Cyujafl o6e3tflHa AHgow, MHOrO, CAHIUKOM MHOFO BeTpeHHOCTH - Zla, Tax OB nyiUKHH. (2 9-32)

A veritable devil in mischief A v e rita b le monkey in appearance Much, far too much friv o lity - Yes, th is is Pushkin indeed.

The persona is presented as a “devil” both in looks and in behavior, ape-like in physical appearance and unstable in p erson a lity. As P.K. Guber notes in Pushkin's Don Juan L is t:

AnyoM HacTOflujaa oGesbaHa xapaKTepasoBaA oh ceGa b lOHomecKOM ipaayyacKOM cthxotbopohhh Mon portrait. KAHHKa oGeabHHH aoAFo npecAeaoBaAa ero b cBere. noBHaHMOMy, no3T cHAbHo cTpaaaA BpeMenaMH o t coanaHHa COGCTBOHHOA ypoaAHBOCTH

Pushkin, in his youthful French poem Mon portrait, characterized himself as having a real monkey’s face. The nickname “monkey” stuck with him for a long time.

Guber 19.

180 Apparently, over the years, the poet suffered a great deal from the awareness of his own unattractiveness.

This self-perception of not just ugliness, but, specifically

“Moorish ugliness," surfaced in other contexts also, such as

Pushkin’s personal correspondence and interactions with contemporaries (see Chapter 1).

A negative self-perception linked to his African ancestry is alluded to in “When the Tsar’s Moor Decided to

Marry” (1824), Pushkin’s firs t experimentation with Russian folk song. Although the stated subject of the work is Ibragim

Cannibal, given the degree to which Pushkin identified with his ancestor, the work very likely ultimately reflects perceptions that Pushkin had of himself:

Kax xeHMTbca aaaywaA ^apcKHfl apan. M e * 6oapuHb apan noxaxHBaeT, Ha SoapumeH apan norAaaHsaeT. ^To BÈi6paA apan ce6e cyaapymxy, HepHHft BopoH 6eAyio AeGeayuixy. A KaK OH apan HepHemeHOK, A oHa-To ay ma GeAemeHBKa. (1-7)

When the tsa r’s Negro decided to marry, The Negro s tro lle d amongst the boyarynias. The Negro looked at the boyaryshnias. The Negro chose him self a lady. Like the black raven choosing a white swan,

181 And how black the Negro was. . . And how white she was, the sweet soul.*^

Here a distinct black/white contrast is drawn. The

predatorial imagery invoked in the choosing of a “white swan” wooed by a “black raven” is similar to imagery used by

Shakespeare's lago in his reaction to the marriage between

the Moor and Desdemona. logo t e l ls Desdemona’ s fa th e r

Brabantio, “Even now...an old black ram is tupping your white

ewe (Othello, 1, i, 88-89).” The symbolism in logo’s

statement is two-fold. First, it encompasses obvious racial and physical disparities important to logo. Second, it

reflects a perceived contrast between the coarse, and

unrefined nature of the Moor and the purity, and innocence of

Desdemona. Similarly in Pushkin's folk song, in addition to

the physical imagery that is invoked, the raven symbolizes a

predatory nature as opposed to the gentleness and purity of a

swan.

The negative presentation of physical manifestations of

Pushkin's African heritage reaches an apogee in “To Dawe,

Esqr.’* (1828). Written in response to a painter who wishes to

paint the persona's portrait, the lyric incorporates pointed

The tran slatio n is from Blakely 53.

182 physical contrasts between the poet’ s own "Moorish ugliness’

and the superb beauty of the society lady Olenina:

SatieM TBOÔ aMBHHA KapaH

PHcyA OAeHHHoft qepTH. B acapy cepae^Hsix BaoxHOBeHMA, Ahuib iohocth h KpacoTU nOKAOHHOM 6hTB aOAJKOH rOHHA.

Wherefore does your wondrous pencil Draw my Moorish profile? Though you w ill hand i t down to the the ages, Mephistopheles w ill hiss at it.

Draw the features of [Miss] Olenina. In the glow of the heart’s inspiration(s), Only of youth and beauty Genius ought to be adherent.*"

The mention of Mephistopheles suggests that the persona can

not be transformed into someone attractive, as was Faust who

was changed into an attractive young man from an aged

scholar. As an “incorrigible case,” Pushkin’s untransformable

ugliness w ill be hissed o ff the stage by Mephistopheles. Only

The translation is from Walter Arndt, Pushkin Threefold: Narra­ tive. Lvric. Polemic, and Ribald Verse, the originals with linear and metric translation by Walter Arndt (New York: E.P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1972) 221.

183 youth and beauty, as represented by Olenina, deserve the homage of the painter’s genius, the persona asserts. Although this poem may have complimenting the beautiful Olenina as its main purpose, it also testifies to Pushkin’s never-healing

“ wound” caused by being a “ moor.” b) Contrast between “African ugliness” and “fa ir European beauty”

Comparisons between him self and another male are another prominent aspect of Pushkin’s personal myth, as already seen in lyrics of the type “to lur’ev” This situation can be further developed by the rivalry theme. Just as in Othello, where the Moor views his “rival” Cassio as a “fa ir devil,” who “ must” be more a ttra c tiv e to Desdemona than he him self, so Pushkin fe lt his rivals were destined for success in romantic pursuits, while he, the “monkey,” was not. As a married man, Pushkin viewed the handsome Baron George D’ Antes as someone to whom his wife could not help but be attracted.

Thus, comparisons drawn between h im s e lf and a more fortunate friend should also be considered within the context of the “Othello complex.” One of the earliest lyrics to reflect this situation is “Khasio A. M. ropHaKOBy” / “ To Prince

184 Gorchakov” (1817). Written in honor of a classmate, at the time of Pushkin's 18th birthday, and his graduation from the

Lyceum, the persona of the lyric speculates about the years that lie ahead of them. He does not expect those years to be happy ones fo r him self:

Moft MHAuft apyr, mm exo^hm b hobmS cbot ; Ho TBM yaoA HaoHaqeH xaM He paBHHft, H p03H0 Ham OCTaBHM B *H3HH CAOJ. Te6e pyx oft topTyHM cBoenpaBHOft VKa3aH nyTb h cnacTAHSMft, h cAaBHMft, MoH CTe3fl nenaAbHa h TOMHa; H Hex Han xpaca Te6e aana. (emphasis is mine - RG) H HpaBHTbCfl SAecTHU^Hft gap npHpOBM, H SHCTpMft yM, H BepHMft, MHAMft HpaB; Tm coTBopen a AH cAaaocTHoft cBoGoaM, 21 AH paaocTH, a AH cahbh, aAH 3a6aB... (7-17)

My dear friend, we are entering a new world; But the fates determined for us there are not equal. The traces we w ill leave in life are not the same. The capricious hand of fortune Has shown you a happy and glorious path. My path is sad and dark; You have been given tender beauty. And to please, that glorious g ift of nature. And a quick mind, and a stable, kind character; You were created fo r sweet freedom. For happiness, for glory, for amusements.

185 In an unevenhanded manner, fa te w ill lead Gorchakov down

a fortunate path, one which is “happy and glorious,” while

doling out “sadness” and “darkness” to the persona.

Gorchakov's blessings are two-fold; physically, he has been

given “a delicate beauty” and temperamentally he possesses a

“steady, pleasant character.” Pushkin’s persona presumably

does not possess either quality, for, in contrast to

Gorchakov’s “b rillia nt g ift of nature," the path which the

poet is destined to travel is “mournful and dark.” In other words, Gorchakov is clearly blessed by Apollo, whereas the

persona is cursed by Dionysus.

Though Gorchakov w ill find happiness in the future, it w ill come at the expense of the women who love him. The

persona foresees the heartache that his friend, as an

a ttra c tiv e pursuer o f women, w ill cause:

0, cKOAbKHX CAes, npeziBHxy, t h bhhobhhk ! HsMeHU apyr h seTpenuft aio 6obhhk, Byat BepeH Bcew - nAeHHftca h nAeHafl... (24-26)

Oh, how many tears I foresee, (with) you as the culprit! A treasonous friend and flighty lover, Be faithful to a ll - captivated and captivating.

186 Gorchakov’s romantic successes stand in sharp contrast to the persona’s envisioned fate:

A MOÔ yaeA...HO nacwypHMM TyManoM... 3aneM * e m h o rpH

But my fate...Why should I veil the future by a somber mist? My entire life - is the sad gloom of stormy weather...

In retrospect, the persona’s past is as problematic as his future is certain to be:

H 3HaA AK»6oBb, HO HO 3HaBaA Haaexc^H, OrpaaaA oæhh, b 6e 3MOABHH ak>6ha... Ho MpaHHue a rpeau ne 3a6uA. (43-44, 46)

I knew love, but did not know hope, I suffered alone, I loved in silence... But I did not fo rg e t my gloomy dreams.

Although he has himself loved intensely, those feelings were not reciprocated - presumably because of (perceived) lack of

“European” attractiveness. Thus, unrequited love le ft a deep imprint on the persona’s soul. In particular, I would point to lin e 44, “ CrpaaaA ozihh, b 6e3MOABHH aio6h a”/“I suffered alone, I loved in silence.” This line “anticipates” the well-

187 known lin e in “H sac ak )6h a ”/ “I loved you” (1829), namely “a sac a k )6ha 6e3M0ABH0, 6e3Haae)KHo” / " ! loved you s ile n t ly ,

hopelessly,” which is followed by “to po6ocTi>io to peBHocTbio

TOMHM”/ “tortured sometimes by tim idity, sometimes by

jealousy,” a confession of tim id ity and jealousy. The theme

of unrequited love and jealousy that is dealt with in rather

verbose terms in the early lyric “To Gorchakov” finds its

perfect, “bare” expression in the poem written some ten years

la te r.

A negative self-image due to African physical traits is also revealed in “To lu r’ev” (1818). Here, these traits are

presented in contrast to lu r’ev’s appearance. This addressee

has been endowed with those very physical attributes that the

persona does not have. The work begins with a description of

lu r’ev’s physical beauty and charm:

A k >6hm©h BeTpeHHBix Aanc, npeAeCTHHfi GaAOBCHb KHnpHÆBI... Ona aaAa KpacH wAaaoA Te6e b yaeA oqapoBaHse, M MepHMÈ yc, H B3rAfl6bh yAMSxy h MOAwaHte. C Te6fl aoBOABHO, m h a u A apyr. (1-2, 6-9)

Favorite of frivolous Laissas, Charming pet o f Venus...

188 She gave you the enchantment o f youthful beauty As part of your lot in life And a black mustache, and a liv e ly glance The smile of love and its silence as well, Dear frie n d , you got a ll you need indeed!

The persona, however, has not been blessed physically, and illustrates this by drawing a stark contrast:

A a, noBeca BeMHo-npaoaHtiA, noTOMOK HerpoB 6e3o6pa3HBifi[, B3p01geHHUft B aMKOA npOCTOTe, A k >6bh He Beaaa cTpaaaHHft, H HpaBAiocb iohoA k pa core BeccTuaHUM 6emeHCTB0M xeAaHHA; C HeBOAbHHM HAaJMeHeM AaHHT YKpaaxoA HHM*a woAoaaa, CaMa ce6fl He noHHMaa, Ha $aBHa HHoraa rAfl^HT. (22-31)

But I, an eternally idle rake Ugly descendant of Negroes Brought up in wild simplicity Not knowing the sufferings o f love I please young beauty With the shameless frenzy of desires [Thus] sometimes, w ith involuntary flame on her cheeks A young nymph Not understanding herself Looks s te a lth ily a t a faun.'185

'** The tran slatio n is from Shaw, “Pushkin on His A frican Heritage” 129.

189 In “To lur'ev," as in the previous poem, “ugliness” is an important aspect of the persona's self-assessment. Here too, his negative self-image is directly linked to the physical manifestations of his African heritage. Although the African legacy would seem to hopelessly disqualify the young poet from any amorous success, we have a humorous tw ist in lines

26-31, however, as the persona states that women may

“ in v o lu n ta rily ” be drawn to him, because physical beauty may not be the only quality that attracts them. They may also be attracted to him because of the “prim itive,” “intense,” “raw” quality of his passion, i.e. he appeals to their “baser” emotions, and is sexually attractive. Here the nymph - faun imagery conveys a “happy” resolution to the poet’s “African dilemma.” Although she does not know why, the young nymph is indeed attracted to the faun. This twist clearly also offers the foundation for Pushkin’s “Don Juan” myth. Albeit “ugly,” the “faun” encounters no difficulties in the realm of purely sexual conquest and can be a happy Don Juan - u n til he meets his fateful “Donna Anna,” of course.

“IIpHflTeAK)”/“To a Friend” (1823), also contains comparisons between the poet and a more fortunate man:

190 He npHTBopaAca, m h a u A apyr, ConepHHK MOÔ lUHpoKonAe^HuA! Te6e ae C T p a m e a a h p H S B y x , He SAerHHecKHe pean. a a A pyx y Mae: th ae peaaB, H CAHUIKOM BeTpea a AeaaB. TBoa Kpacaaaga ae ay pa; H BHxy Bce a ae cepxycb; Oaa npeAecTaaa Aaypa, 2a a B nerpapxa ae roxycb.

Do not pretend, dear friend My broad-shouldered rival Neither the call of the lyre, nor elegaic talk are frightening to you. Give me (your) hand; you are not jealous, I am too flighty and lazy. Your beautiful lover is no fool ; I see everything, but am not angered: She is a charming Laura, But, I am not fit for the role of Petrarca.

The persona’s friend/competitor is broad-shouldered, and presumably generally attractive in a more “manly” way than the poet. Furthermore, he has a beautiful lover, and is not jealous, in contrast to the persona who presumably usually is

(here he claims that “laziness” prevents him from experiencing this emotion in this case). The persona, by his own admission, has a flig h ty nature, a fa c to r which sometimes helps in overcoming jealousy. Here, as in the poem “To

191 lu r’ev” there is an ironic twist however. It appears that the lover of the poet’s fortunate rival, expects to be glorified by the poet and extolled in his verse. The poet refuses to

render th is “ p la to n ic ” service, however. He is no “ P e trarca ,” he states. In other words, his muse is dedicated to the physical love his friend enjoys; in this case, he w ill seek another object for his lyre, leaving his friend to enjoy happiness with a woman the poet leaves without regret.

c) the psychological effects on the unsuccesful persona

In other lyrics, jealousy is revealed when a lover is rebuked for behavior that the persona deems inappropriate in him self. “ npocTHiub ah MHe peBHHBHe MeHTBi” / “ W ill you fo rg iv e my jealous dreams” (1Ô23), addresses Amalia Riznich, a married lover who, while conducting an a ffair with Pushkin, also had affairs with other men:

npOCTHlUb AH MHe peBHHBHe MeHTH, MoeH ak>6 bh ÔesyMHoe BOAHeHse? Th MHe Bepna; saneM ixe AK> 6Hmb th Bceraa nyraTb Moe Boo 6 paxeHbe? OKpyxena hokaohhhkob TOAnoft, SaneM 4 ah Bcex KasaTbCH xoneuiB mhaoô

192 H Bcex aapMTb Haaexcaoio nycToô TBOÔ B30p, TO HeXHMÔ, TO yHHAHft? (1-&)

W ill you forgive my jealous dreams, the mad agitation of my love? You are faithful to me: then why do you love to Constantly frighten my imagination? Surrounded by a croud o f admirers, Why do you tr y to be nice to them a ll, (Why does) your marvelous glance, tender and mournful Give them a ll empty hope?

Presumably this lover is "faithful" to him (" t u mho Bepna ” ) - or so the persona wants to believe seeking to reassure himself, but her behavior is disturbing, for others (other men than her husband) have begun to display feelings of jealousy:

CKaxH eujë: conepHHK BennuA mo A, Ha eaMHe sacTaB Mena c to 6 0 A, 3aneM r e 6 fl npHBercTByeT Ayxaso?... Mto x e oh TeGe? CxaxH, xaxoe npaBO HMeeT OH GAeaneTb h peBHOBaTb?... (21-25)

T e ll me once more: why does my ch ie f r iv a l. Finding me alone with you the other day. Greet you so slyly?... What is he to you? T e ll me, what rig h t Does he have to turn pale and become jealous?

193 Certainly his lover is aware of the pain that she is inflicting:

Te 6 e CMeuiHH moh.. Moft MHAUÔ apyr. He wynb Mena, moak >: He 3Haeii£i> t h, k 3k chabho h ak >6ak >. He anaeuib t h, xax th xk o h cTpaaaio. (33, 35-3?)

My torments are amusing to you... Nty dear friend, do not torment me, I pray: Don’ t you know, how intensely I love. Don’ t you know, how gravely I su ffe r.

The decision to love someone whom he knows is "e m o tio n a lly unavailable” and who he believes is indifferent to his pain, reflects the persona’s own sense of inadequacy. The beloved should realize how intensely she is loved, and how much the persona has suffered because of this love; the fact that she laughs at him is evidence that she cannot be unaware of this fact. P.K. Guber assessed Pushkin’s relationship with Riznich in this way:

HyBCTBo nyiUKHHa K Ambahh PH3HHH 6hao XeCTOKO OTpaBAeno peBHocTbio, KOTOpan zaaaAacb Tax ocTpa h MyHHTeAbHa, HTo BHocAeacTBHH, KOF^a AK>6oBb yracAa, naMHTb 0 nepexHTHX CTpaaaHHax ne MorAa M3rAaaHTbca.

194 OnHCMBaa b mecToô rAase OnerHHa peBHHsyio BcntiiiiKy AeHCKoro, noBT aapyr bchomhha Phbhhm/®®

Pushkin’s feeling for Amalia Riznich was cruely wrought with jealousy, which appeared to be so sharp and torturous, that later, when the love had ceased, the memory of the sufferings (he) endured could not be obliterated. Describing Lenskii’s jealous outburst in the sixth chapter of Onegin, the poet suddenly recalled Riznich.

Guber views Pushkin’s rebuke of Riznich in “W ill you Forgive my Jealous Dreams” as a reflection of some of the general attitudes which Pushkin held about women, and offers this assessment:

Koraa npHBUMKa k peBHOcTH yxopeHaeTca b apaBCTBeHHOM MHpe aeAOBexa, to bto BAeaer sa co 6 oô - b BHae ecrecTBeHHoro cAeacTBHa - ay pace a npeae 6 pexHTeAtaoe Maeaae o xeaujaaax BooÔge. CAosao b oTMOCTKy sa HcnHTaaaue Myxa peBaasey dm Baer cxAoaea npeacTaBAaxb ce 6 e xeargaay cyujecxBOM aasuiero nopaaxa, ajkhbhm, sahm, KOBapHHM a ayiueBao rp y6 HM.‘*’

When the tendancy towards jealousy is rooted in a man’s moral world, then it brings with it - in view of natural

'*• Guber 107. It is interesting to note that Lenskii, with his “black curls down to his shoulders” is endowed with irrational jealousy. Among the “dark brothers” of Pushkin’s “portrait gallery” he belongs to the trusting and naive Othello type.

Guber 28.

195 consequences - a negative and scornful view o f women in general. Specifically, in revenge for endured torments, the jealous one is inclined to view women as a creature of the lowest type, lying, evil, treacherous and crude in s p ir it.

I actually believe that in spite of many negative

experiences, Pushkin never took that stance. When he does, it

is only in the form of a joke:

YMHa BocTOMHaa CHCTewa, H npaB o6uMaft cTapHKOB: One poziHAHCb a AH rapewa MAS a AH HeBOAH TepeMOB.

The o rie n ta l system is a wise one and the custom of old men is right: They were born fo r harems Or the captivity of women’s quarters.

Perhaps the awareness of his Othello-complex made him see

that not the women, but his own insecurities were “at fa u lt.”

d) The unattainable and/or divine beloved

Several works of the Lyceum period (1812-1818), present a persona who is drawn to one who is u n a tta in a b le . These

196 works often fa ll into the category of elegies, which was

Pushkin’s favored genre at the time, and the predominant

genre of the early 19th century, of course. It was in the

late eighteenth century that the elegy developed into a genre

of lyric poetry, one characterized thematically by melancholy

philosophic meditation.^" It persisted as the dominant lyrical

genre throughout the “Golden Age.” Pushkin perhaps was not

only drawn to the elegy because of fashion and convention

however. It was also a genre that suited his Othello-complex.

One of the earliest poems to deal with the “elegaic” issue of

unrequited love is an “epistle” however. “IIocAaHHe K

HaTaAbe” / “ E p is tle to N a ta l’ ia ” (10 13) deals w ith Pushkin’ s

love for a young serf actress. The poem details a

relationship not founded on purely human interaction, but

rather on the obsessive thoughts of the poet and his

interaction with a phantom.

Brett Cooke’s article “Pushkin and the Pleasure of the

Text: Erotic and Anal Images of Creativity,” presents

“Epistle to Natal’ia” as a male sexual fantasy, one which

borders on a wet dream. Cooke notes:

V ic to r Terras, ed ., Handbook of Russian L itera tu re . (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985) 119

197 The poem is addressed to a g ir l whom he dreams to be near his bed in light attire. In the confusing lines which ensue, the persona and his addressee become more and more impassioned, excited... - only to have the titilla tin g dream broken off to the bitter frustration o f the persona. This rude awakening does save him from offending public sensibilities with the likely conclusion, namely, ejaculation.^*

The firs t few lines of “Epistle to Natal’ia” reveal a love that exists primarily in the persona’s mind; for the object of his affection does not reciprocate his feelings ( it seems to be his “firs t love” and an erotic awakening we are reading about). The persona is emotionally consumed with his beloved yet satisfaction is not achieved through “real” human contact; but only in a dream:

Tax, HaraAbfl! IIpH 3HaiocH H TO6010 nOAOHOH, B nepBMft pa 3 egë, cTHxyca, B xeHCKH npeAecTH BAio6AeH... AHUIb T0 6 0 K) SaHHT fl; Homb npHjier - h ahiub Te6a Bnxy a b nycTOM MeqTaHba, BHxy B AerxoM oaeaHSH ByaTO MHAaa co MHOft... (23-26, 20-32)

Brett Cooke, “Pushkin and the Pleasure of the Text: Erotic and Anal Images of Creativity,” Russian Literature and Psychoanalysis. Linguistic and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe 31, ed. Daniel Rancour-Laferriere (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1989) 202.

198 Yes, N atal’ ia ! I confess I am fu ll of you, It is the firs t time s till, I am ashamed to confess, I am in love with feminine charms... I am occupied only with you; Night comes - and I see only you in an empty dream, I see (you) in light attire As i f you were w ith me as my m is tre s s ...

The persona’s gratification takes place in a dream which represents the unattainable object of his desire;

Po&KO, CAaaocTHO üuxaHbe 5 eAoô rpyaM K 0Ae 6 aHfce... BHxy . ae BCTse HHy a h Aeio , Tpenegy, TOMAiocb, Heweio... (33-34, 40-41)

Timidly, sweetly breathing, (Her) white bosom vibrating... I see.. .something immediately grows within me, I quiver, I yearn, I am speechless...

This dream state suddenly changes, and upon awakening, the persona is confronted with reality:

H npocHyACfl...BHxy wpax Bxpyr nocTOAH oühhoko0!... HcKycKaio Baaox rAyGoxoA .. CrpacTb CHAbHee cTanoBHTCH H AK>60BbK> yTOMHCb, H CAaGeio bchko A nac... (42-44, 47-49)

199 And I awoke...I see darkness Surrounding my solitary bed!... I release a deep sigh... (My) passion becomes stronger And being exhausted by love I grow weaker with each hour...

Realizing that this love is not and w ill not be reciprocated

in " r e a lity ," the persona concedes:

Ho c t o 6ok> pasAy^eHHMfl Bceft HaiiejK4H a AHUien (7 7 -7 8 )

But when I am separated from you I am devoid of a ll hope

The sexual release that occurs in the form of a wet dream hinted a t in the poem, marks the absence o f genuine physical fulfillm ent, for it comes not through actual sexual contact, but through sexual fantasy. The psychological underpinnings of "Epistle to Natal'ia" point to Pushkin's “Don Juan” complex. The fact the Natal’ia becomes accessible only through the persona’s sexual drives, suggests that sex is, in fact, his solitary recourse in finding any degree of satisfaction. The absence of physical contact in the dream may be symbolic of the absence of "emotional” contact in

200 reality. In both instances sexual release is the viable alternative.

“ K HaTame” / “ To Natasha” (1815) presents an a d d itio n a l experience of unrequited love for the persona. The elegy was w ritten for Countess Natasha Kochubei (1801-1855) with whom

Pushkin was enamored when they were fourteen and fifteen respectively. Although Natasha did in fact reciprocate

Pushkin’s feelings, for the persona, true love is unattainable:

CB0T - Hajama! rae tm Hune? HTO HHKTO Te6fl He 3pHT? HAb He xoMeiub Hac eannsiA C apyroM cep ay a paaaeAHTb? He BCTpenaiocb a c T0 6 0 A. (9-12, 16)

Natasha - (my) lig h t! Where are you now? That no one may behold you? Is it that you do not want for a single hour To shore your heart with another? I am not with you.

In h is beloved’ s absence, and feeling alone and abandoned, the persona perceives himself as being confined in a cage, unable to release the depth of his feelings. These feelings are reflected in the natural surroundings (“winter-like cold”).

201 The memory of Natasha can therefore only awaken feelings of g rie f:

CKOpO, CKOpO X0A04 3HMHHÜ Poujy, noAe nocexHT; OroHeK B AaMyxKe auMHoft CKopo flpKO 3a6AecTHT; He ysHxy h npeAecTHoft H, KaK qH*HK B KAexe XeCHOa, ZIoMa 6yay ropeBaxb H Haxamy BcnoMHHaxb.( 17-24)

Soon, soon w in te r’ s cold Will settle upon the grove and field; The small fire in the smoky hut W ill soon shine brightly; I w ill not see (my) charming one And lik e a bird in a cramped cage, I w ill sit at home and grieve And re c a ll my Natasha.

Though the poem illustrates the persona’s belief that his love is unrequited, it also points to his jealousy. In lines

9 - 1 2 , the persona questions whether or not there is someone else in his beloved’s life . It is not simply that she does not reciprocate his feelings; the underlying sentiment is that there must be another lover, one who prompts rejection fo r him, e lim in a tin g the persona’ s chances o f being loved by the one he loves.

202 In “ HacAax^eHLe” / “ Pleasure” (1816), Pushkin reinforces the image of himself as someone not destined to experience true happiness:

C MHHyT 6ec^yBCTBeHHMX pox

From the moment o f my numbed b irth T ill the tender years of my youth I have not known pleasure at a ll, And there is no happines in my languid heart.

203 Beginning with his mother, from the moment of what he terms a

“numbed b irth ,” the persona has continually encountered women

whom he believes display an emotional indifference to him/^

In “K***”/ “To***” (1817), once again, the persona is

portrayed as one for whom lasting love is not destined. He

w rite s:

He cnpauiHBaô, aa^iew jiymofi o c t h a o ô H pa3AK)6HA BeceAyio Aio 6 oBb H HHKoro He nasuBaio MHAoft: Kto paa ak)6 ha, yx ne noAK> 6 HT bhobb;

As stated above, much has been made of Pushkin’s distant relationship with his mother. The theory persisted that the reason for this estrangement is that Pushkin, by having even more prounced African features than his mother (both physical and temperamental), was a constant reminder of a heritage she wished to forget. Pushkin expressed such a perception himself, when he wrote:

0 AyMUie, ecAH 6 M art m o h Mexa poaxAa b KipTe sjOAHoti

H a h b KaBKaacKOM TaOyme H nperpaau Becb MHe OTXpMACH MHp rOCTenpHHMHHH.

Oh, i t would have been better i f my mother Had given birth to me in a smoky tent Or Caucasian grazing flock And if an hospatible world Would have been revealed to me without any obstacles.

The idea that his l i f e would have been better i f he had been born in a “smoky tent” suggests that Pushkin is better suited to an “elemental” environment. Thus, he may have fared better as one of the ethnic m inorities th a t comprised part o f the Russian empire of his day.

204 K t o CMacTbe 3HaA, y x He yanaer cnacTbH. Ha KpaTKHË MHF 6 AaxeHCTBo HaM aaHO: Ot io h o c t h, o t Her h cAa

Do not ask why, with a frigid soul I have abandoned merry love And no longer c a ll anyone dear - He who has loved once, w ill not love again;

He who has known happiness, w ill not know happiness again. We are given bliss for a brief moment: From youth, from joy and sensuality Only dejection w ill remain...”

In this instance, the persona has experienced happy love, but for a reason that he does not disclose, this kind of love has lost appeal to him. It may be conjecture that “merry love” is equated with purely sexual experiences and that the poet yearns for a relationship with great emotional complexity.

Serious love is inaccessible, only dejection remains. The persona clearly was the rejected one wherefore he states that

“ a pa3AK»6HA BeceAyio AK) 6oBb” / “ I have abandoned merry lo v e .”

Insecurity and anticipation of rejection probably once again were contributing factors. Thus, in spite of previous happiness, only dejection remains, for inner doubts have become s e lf-fu lfillin g prophesies.

205 Certain lyrics, such as “2IopHzie’V“To Dorida” (1820) reveal the persona’s attempt to convince himself of his lover’s fid e lity. Though he has doubts, he cannot bear the feared truth and closes his eyes to it. As for Othello, so for the persona, the shattering of his ideal is too overwhelming:

H Bepio; a a k >6h m; a a h cepaya nyxHo sepHTb. HeT, MHAaa Moa He MoxeT AHyeMepHTb; Bce HenpHTBopHo b neft: xeAaHHô TOMHHft «ap, CTM^AHBocTb po6xaa, XapHT 6ecyeHHUô aap, HapaaoB h peneft npnaTnaa He 6 pexHocTb H AacKOBHX HMen MAaaennecKaa HescHOCTb.

I believe: I am loved; my heart needs to believe this. No, my dear one can not be h y p o critica l ; Everthing about her is unfeigned: the languid glow of desire, (Her) timid bashfulness, the priceless g ift of the Charités, The pleasant, casual nature of (her) a ttire and speech And youthful tenderness of affectionate names.

The persona needs to believe that he is loved, for his beloved has come to embody an ideal without which he cannot exist and whose approval he needs for emotional security. In this sense the poem may be seen as a text of self-persuasion aimed at overcoming doubt.

206 In “AHAe”/ “To L ilia ” (1817-1820), the persona appeals to a lover who is not reciprocating his feelings:

A h a h ! AHAa! 51 crpaaaio BeaoTpaüHoio TOCKOA, H TOMAiocb, a yMHpaio racHV HAaMeHHOft jvmoft: Ho AK)6oBb MOfl HanpacHa: Tu CMeeiubCH Haao m h o. C M e ftc a , A h a h : t u n p o K p a c n a H 6ecMVBCTBeHHoft Kpacoft.

Lilia! Lilia! I am suffering With a dreary anguish, I am pining, I am perishing (My) ardent soul is fading; But my love is in vain: You are laughing at me. Laugh, L ilia : you are splendid Even in your unfeeling beauty.

Here the contrast is drawn between the poet’s “fiery soul” and the beloved’s “insensitive beauty.” Once again, passion is met with indifference. A “fiery” temperament, of course is

“typical” of the African, and perhaps one of the factors that frighten his “European” (“insensitive”) beloved.

In “MoA apyr, aaBuTu m h o A cAeau MHHyBiuHx AeT” / “ My friend, I have forgotten the traces of past years” (1821),

Pushkin once again employs the method o f drawing co ntra sts.

207 in this instance between himself and a former lover.

In itia lly , the persona does not want to discuss his trouble-

filled past:

Mofl  p y r. 3a6uTH mhoü cAe/iu MHHyBuiHx a o t U MAaaocTM Moefl MHTexHoe TeqeHbe. He cnpauiHBaft Me Ha o tom, aero y * H er, ^ ^ o 6uao MHe aaHO b nenaAb h b nacAaxaeHbe... (1-4)

My friend, I have forgotten the traces of past years And rebellious path of my youth. Do not ask me about th at which is no more. That which was given to me in sadness and in pleasure.

The persona then extolls to the virtues of his beloved:

Ho TH, HeBHHHaa! t u poxaena a ah cnacTbH... ay ma tboh *HBa aah apyxSu, hah ak >6bh, 3AH noyeAyeB cAanocTpacTbH; ayma tboh "-mcTa; ynunte nyxHO eft; CBeTAa KaK Hcnuft aenb, MAaneuMecKan coBecTb. (7, 9-12)

But you are innocent! You were born for happiness... Your soul exists for friendship, for love. For kisses o f sensuality; Your soul is pure; dejection is foreign to it; (Your) youthful conscience shines like a clear day.

The innocence and purity of his beloved is presented to

highlight the persona’s own inadequacies. This bolsters the

208 conclusion that the thought of being loved by someone like the persona is potentially horrifying to most women the poet adores:

H TH MO ©ft AK»6BH ...6HTb MO*©T yxacHeiiifcCfl. BuTb MO*©T HaBceraa H©T MHAaa Moa, AHuiHTbca a Boiocb nocAeaHHX aacAaxaeHHft. He TpeByft ot m ©hh onacHHX oTKpoB©HHft: Ceroana a ak »6aio , ceroaaa chbctahb a. (16-22)

And perhaps you are horrified by my love. Possibly, forever...No, my dear, I am afraid to lose these last delights. Do not demand perilous confessions from me: Today I love, today I am happy.

The persona is aware o f his beloved’ s m isgivings, ye t, the momentary happiness o f being in love is s u ffic ie n t to sustain him. His willingness to accept a lesser kind of love is indicative of a lack of self-confidence. Although Pushkin does not make direct mention of his African heritage, its trademarks are implied as the reason for his beloved’s expected “horror.” The persona’s “dangerous revelations” may very w e ll be post excesses, excesses which caused pain fo r the women he pursued, as well as “excesses” “typical” of an

A frica n.

209 ‘TpeqaHKe’V “ To a Greek Woman” (1Ô22) evolves around the themes of doubt and jealousy. Written for Calypso PoUchroni, who was rumored to have been Lord Byron’s mistress, Pushkin was intrigued by the idea of possessing a woman whom Byron had known only a few years earlierP oU chroni, the object of his love, is described as:

Th poxjiena BocnAaMeHHTS Boo6pa*eHHe noBTOB... Tu poiKaeHa 4 ah Hern tomhoô, ZlAH ynoeHHH cTpacTefl... (1-2, Ô-9)

You were born to inspire The imagination of poets... You were born for languid joy, For the ecstasy of passion...

Later it is revealed that his beloved has somehow, through the magic of art, and against her own volition (as the persona rationalizes), been drawn away from him:

BUTt MOXeT, AHpOIO CHaCTAHBOft Te 6 H BOAUieBHHK HCKyuiaA; HeBOABHUa TpeneT BOSHHX a A B TBoea rpyau caM0AK>6 HBoô, H TH, cKAOHflCb K ero nAeqy... (2 1-25)

Troyat 189

210 Perhaps, with a fortunate lyre A magician tempted you; And unwillingly, excitement arose In your vain breast. And you, leaning on his shoulder...

The fortunate lover (B 0Aiue 6 HHK) is probably Byron. There is

here then, jealousy for a dead r iv a l who is seen not only as a greater poet, but also as a “ fa ir e r man” who must have attracted the “Greek Woman” more than Pushkin. With this, the

persona is forced to concede th a t he has lo s t the object o f

his affection.

HeT, H 0 T, MOÔ apyr, Me^TU peBHHsoft IlHTaTb fl HAaMH H 0 xo^y: MHe aoAFo cHacTbe nyxcao 6 &1A0 , MHe HOBO HacAaxztaTCfl hm, H, TaftHoft rpycTHo tom hm, Boiocb: HesepHo Bce, hto mhao. ( 26 - 31)

No, no, my friend, the fire of jealous thoughts I do not want to be fed: Hoppiness was foreign to me for so long, Delighted by it again. And tortured by a sorrowful secret, I fear. Everthing that is dear is unfaithful.

The persona does not want to entertain jealous thoughts, yet h is jealous nature in v o lu n ta rily compels him to do so even

211 across the border of death. By suffering again, he develops an inherent fear and suspicion of everyone that becomes dear to him, and suspects that in all likelihood he w ill e ve n tu a lly loose them to someone more worthy, be i t even a shadow.

In “Bcë KOH^ieHO...”/“All is finished...” (1823), a romantic relationship is severed upon the persona’s realization that his beloved has rejected his feelings.

Bcë KOHMeHO: Me* HaMH CBfl3H HeT. B nocAe 4 HHft pas o6hhb tboh koaohh, npOH3HOCHA fl ropeCTHBie neHH. Bcë KOHHeno - fl CAumy tboô otbot. OSMaHUBaTb ce 6 fl He cTany ( s i c ) , Te 6fl TOCKOÔ npecAeaoBaTB He 6yay, npo (s ic ) Shtb MoxeT no3a$yay, He ziAfl MeHfl coTBopena a k >6o b b . (emphasis is mine - RG) Tm MOAoaa: ay ma t b o h npexpacHa, M AiHoriiAiii AK>6 Hwa Gyaemb th . ( 1- 10)

Tis finished now! No ties, alas, remain. No more before you shall you see me kneeling, No more your eyes shall hear my voice appealing. ‘Tis finished now! I hear your answer plain. My self-deception now I clearly see. Nor shall I more disturb with vain regretting Your tender heart. The past, may be, forgetting, I s till may learn that love is not for me.

212 But you are young; your soul is pure and lovely, Any many more w ill o ffe r you th e ir love. 192

As is the case in other lyrics, the persona draws a s ta rk

contrast between himself and his lover. She is young, and

possesses a b e a u tifu l soul, which he, by im p lic a tio n , does

not. Line 10 points to the jealousy motif, for the persona

believes that his beloved w ill be loved by many others, while

he doubts that he w ill ever be in a similar situation.

Similar to “My friend, I have forgotten the traces of past

years” , “All is finished” reveals the persona’s personal

insecurities, due in large part to the ramifications of a

heritage that render him an unworthy lover. The persona’s

suffering is intensified by the knowledge that his beloved w ill , no doubt, be loved by many other men.

“ npH3HaHHe’’/ “Confession” (1824), again reflects feel­

ings of hopelessness, albeit in a more jocular vein than

usual:

H sac a k ) 6 a io , - x o t b a 6emycb, XoTb 3 TO Tpya H cTua HanpacHuô, H B 3 T 0 È TAynOCTH HeCMaCTHOft y BauiHX Hor a npHsaaiocb!

The translation is from Aleksandr Sergeevich Pushkin’s Poems of Pushkin (Riding M ill, Northumberland, England: Henry Jones, 1963) 23.

213 Mne He k ahuv h He no A eT aM ... Temphasis is mine - RG) nopa, nopa MHe 6 m t i> yMHeft!... (1-6)

I love you - though I rage, Though i t is useless t o il and shame, And to this luckless folly At your feet I confess! It does not suit me or befit my years... It's time, i t ’s time for me to be more sensible! 193

The persona is aware that his feelings are not being

reciprocated, and knows that he must be more rational about whom he chooses to love, more realistic about who he is.

Further, the story of his unfortunate circumstance is disclosed, and the reason for his very Othellian “jealous sorrow”/ “peBHHBaa ne^aAb” - a beautiful oxymoronic image - is

revealed;

C K aaaTb a h saw Moe HecnacTte, M ok ) peBHHByio ne Ma At... He CMeio TpeSoBaxb a k >6b h . BbiTb MOxeT, 3a rpexH woH, Moô aH re A , a a k >6b h He c t o io ! (26-27, 35-37)

Shall I te ll you (of) my unhappiness. My jealous sorrow... I dare not demand love.

The translation is from Arndt 209.

214 Perhaps, fo r my sins, My angel I am not worthy of love!^*

Again, it is his past transgressions (rpexH), very likely of the “African” kind, that make him unworthy of love, in his own view. Thus, love undeserved cannot be demanded, even i f momentary self-deception is welcome.

Ho npHTBOpHTeCb ! STOT BBFAflZl Bcë MOXOT BHpaSHTB T3K qydHo ! Ax, o&waHyTB MOHfl He TpyaHoL H caM o^MaHBiBaTCfl paa! (3Ô-4 I)

But pretend! That gaze Can express anything so wondrously! Ah, to deceive me is not hard!... I ’m glad to be deceived myself!^*

Lacking the opportunity of being genuinely loved for himself

(and not just for his sexual prowess), yet deeply infatuated, the persona is content to be deceived, conceding that this is perhaps the only way in which his need for love w ill be fu lfille d . The persona accepts deceit, if his beloved is w illing to give it. Already this delusive happiness by an

“angel” (as opposed to the wild bacchante who appreciates his

The tran slation is from Arndt 209.

The tran slation is from Arndt 209.

215 “faunish” love - cf. above) is a blessing to one constantly r e je c t e d .

“Bcë B xepTBy nawaTM TBoe8"/“A ll is sacrificed to your m em ory" ( 1 8 2 5 ) offers yet another varation on the theme of je a lo u s y .

Bcë B acepTBy naMATH TBoefi: H rOAOC AHpU BAOXHOBeHHOA, H CAesH aeau BOcnaAennoA. H TpeneT peBHOCTH woe A, H cAaBU 6 a 6CK, h Mpax HorHaHba, H cBeTAMX MUCAeA K pacoTa, H MujeHte, Sypnaa weqTa OacecTo^eHHoro CTpaaaaba.

All is sacrificed to your memory: The voice of an inspired lyre, And tears of a feverish maiden And the tremor of my jealousy And the splendor of glory, and the gloom of exile, And the beauty of bright thoughts. And vengeance, and the tempestuous thought Of embittered suffering.

The persona has sacrificed everything to the memory of his beloved. His “g ifts,” or sacrifices, include his “jealous thoughts” which perhaps explain why the love relationship is over. The end result of a ll the emotions “offered up” to the beloved is but one, however: excruciating pain. Perhaps it

216 has emerged by now th a t the jealousy m o tif is what gives

Pushkin’s love elegies, epistles and other lyrics, their personal and unique note, however conventional the genre.

As the persona ages, his intensity in romantic matters, and subsequent predisposition to enduring emotional injury, does not diminish. As “All is sacrificed to your memory” well illustrates, the persona is ultimately unable to repress those feelings which feed his insecurity. These feelings are openly conceded to in “KaxoBa npexae 6ma. . . ’’/ “ The Man I was of Old” (1828):

KaxoB a npexae 6 ua, TaxoB h huho a: BecneMHUft, bak) 6 mhbmô. Bh saaeTe apysta, Mory Ab Ha xpacory BsnpaTb Gea yMHAeaba, Bea poBxoH HexHocTH h TaôHoro BOAHenba. y»C MaAO AH AK>60 Bb HPpaAa B * H 3HH MHO A? y * MaAO Ab $HAca a, xax acrpeB MOAoaoii, B o6MaHMH6BHX ce Tax, pacKHHyTHx KnnpHaoA, A HeHcnpaBAeHHHft CTOxpaTHOio oGaaoA, H HOBMM HaOAaM HOCy CBOH MOAbBu ...

The man I was of old, that man I s till remain: Lighthearted, soon in love. You know my friends tis vain To think I can behold the fair without elation. And timid tenderness and secret agitation. Has love not played with me and teased me q uite enough? In Cytherea’s nets, wrought of sturdy stuff. Like a young hawk have I not struggled long and striven?

217 Unchastened by the pangs whereby I have been driven, Unto new idols my old entreaties bring, 196

Here the persona’s “Don Juan” nature emerges as

a compensatory figure towards the end of the poem, whereas

the epithet “timid” (line 4), s till points to the “Othello

complex.” He confesses that his innate passionate nature has

not lost its intensity; he is s till perpetually in love, and

unable to see beauty w ithout becoming enraptured by i t . Yet

these tra its have not ensured him any emotional contentment

or fufillm ent. Line 5 poses the question, “hasn’t love done

enough (in a negative sense) in the persona’s life ? ” He has

attempted to get his emotions under control, yet is compelled

to apply an old “modus operandi” of compulsiveness to the worship of his new “idols,” his new objects of affection. In

fact, it is d ifficu lt to separate the Othello and the Don

Juan complex in th is poem.

“ M Bac a k >6h a ” / “ I loved you” (1829), was written with

N a ta l’ ia Goncharova in mind a fte r Pushkin was led to believe that his marriage proposal had been rejected:

a sac ak»6 ha: ak>6 obb ege, 6 uTb Moxer, B a y me Moeft y ra c A a He coBceM;

The translation is from Yarmolinsky 65.

218 Ho nycTb OHa Bac 6 oAbme He TpeBOXHT; H He xoMy nenaAHTb sac HHHeM. H Bac ak >6ha GesMOABHO, GesnaaexHo, To poSoCTBK), TO peBHOCTbK) TOMHM; H Bac a k »6h a Tax HcxpeHHo, Tax n e * h o, Kax aaA B a n Bor a k »6h m h ô Bm t b a p y r x M . (1-Ô)

I loved you once, nor con this heart be quiet: For it would seem that love s till lingers here: But do not you be further troubled by it; I would in no wise hurt you, oh my dear. I loved you without hope, a mute offender; What jealous pangs, what shy despairs I knew! A love as deep as this, as true, as tender, God grant another may yet offer you.' 197

Here, the persona as so many times before, must acknowledge that his feelings for his beloved are not reciprocated. From the outset, his love for his future wife was accompanied by an inventory of complex emotions that betray his insecurity expressed through his persona in this and other poems: he speaks o f a muteness caused by hopelessness, tim id ity and ultimately jealousy. This jealousy (as in “All is finished..."), springs from the knowledge that his beloved w ill no doubt be loved by someone else while he w ill have to watch her happiness with a rival. In this famous poem one may observe the beginning of the Othello - Desdemona - Cassio

The translation is from Yarmolinsky 68.

219 tragedy in the Pushkinesque variant of the Pushkin - Natal’ia

- Danthes tria n g le .

As stated above, one of the distinct features of

Pushkin's “Othello complex” is the elevation of the persona’s beloved to almost “divine” status partly resulting from a lowering of the self. Phrases using the superlative degree such as “ purest grace” and “most pure exemplar” (used in one and the same line) reveal the high esteem in which the persona holds his idealized beloved. In “ MazioHHa’’/ “Madonna”

(1830) Pushkin writes:

HcnoAHHAHCb MOH xeAaHHfl. TBopey

Te6fl MHe HMcnocAaA, Te6a, m o h M a a o H H a , ^HCTeômeô npeAecTH HHCTeôuiHô oGpasey. (13-15)

My wish is granted: God has shown thy face To me; here, my Madonna, thou sh alt throne: Most pure exemplar o f the purest grace.

The vision of the “Madonna” of the lyric is inspired by

Natal’ia Goncharova, Pushkin’s fiancee at the time.

Reflecting the tradition of courtly love, this poem elevates the beloved to the highest human level possible, to that of the mother of God.

”* The translation is from Yarmolinsky 72.

220 The perceived superiority of his wife is expressed again in “KpacaBHya’V“A Beauty” (1832), likewise dedicated to his

“ Desdemona,” by now his w ife:

Bee B HeA rapMOHHfl, Bce anBo, Bee BHme MHpa h cTpacTeft: OHa noKOHTen eTU^AHBo B Kpaee TopsceeTBeHHOft eBoeA; OHa KpyroM ce6a BanpaeT; EA Hex eonepHHg, Hex noapyr; KpaeaBHy naiuHX GAeantiA xpyr B ee eHHHbe Heneaaex. (1-Ô)

All in her is harmony, all marvel. All higher than the earth and passions; She bashfully remains sequestered In her triumphant beauty; She gazes about her: She has no riv a ls , has no frien ds; The pallid circle of our beauties In her radiance vanishes/^

The beloved is placed on a superhuman plane; she has no equals or competitors, and transcends earthly boundaries. In spite of her clear superiority, she retains her modesty and h u m ility , enriching the image o f a “Madonna,” discussed p rio r to “A Beauty.” The most important aspect of this glorification is how it relegates the “worshiper” (the

The translation is from Arndt 251.

2 2 1 persona) to a p o sitio n marked by debasing co ntra sts. She is harmony; by implication, he is disharmony, she is beautiful, th e re fo re he is ugly, and so fo rth . The hidden image o f the

“idolizer” is ultimately that of a dark persona, a “dark s in n e r” (which is the image he painted p re vio u sly when he initiated “dark excesses” (of a sexual, i.e. “African” nature). The line “All higher than earth and passions;” is particularly revealing in that it posits an absolute contrast between “ c e le s tia l lig h t ” and the “ dark world o f passions and turbulence.” She is free in her total self-containment, the poet is ensnared however, above a ll, by his “passions.” We already know that their origins are partly found in the

“African temperament.”

Certain lyrics however, such as “Koraa b oÔ taTHa

MOH”/ “When in my arms” (1831), reveal the emotional coldness and sexual frigidity that accompanies the beauty of the beloved, - the negative indicators of her self-containment:

K o ra a b o G ta T M a moh iBoa cTpoôHMô cTan a aaKAmaio H pOHH HexH&ie aio6bh Teèe c BocToproM pacTonaio, BeoMOABHa, o t CTecaeHHUX pyx OcBo6oxaaa cTan cboô fhBkoô, Til oTBOHaeiuB, mhamS a p y r ,

2 2 2 Mne HeaoBepqHBoA 7 am 6ko0; IIpHAeJKHO B naMHTH XpaHfl H3MeH ne^aAbHMe npeaaHba, Tu 6 ea ynacTba h BHHMaHba Y h u a o cAymaeuib Mena .X 1-12) KAHHy KOBapHue CTapaHta IlecTynHoft iohocth Moeâ H BCTpeM yCAOBHUX OXCH/iaHHa B qaaax, b 6e 3MOABHH Ho^eft. KAflHy peaeA a k >6o b h u x menoT, CTHXOB TaHHCTBeHHUA HanoB, H AacKH AerKOBepHUx aeB, H CA03U Hx, H nosaxHA ponoT.

When in my arms your slender beauty Is locked, 0 you whom I adore, And from my lips, between the kisses, Love's tender words d e lig h t to pour. In silence from my tight embraces Your supple form you gently free. And with a skeptic’s smile, my dear one You mockingly reply to me; The sad tradition of betrayal You have remembered a ll too w ell; You listen dully, scarcely heeding A s y lla b le o f what I t e ll. I curse the zeal, the crafty ardors, I curse the criminal delight Of youth, and the appointed meetings, The garden trysts in the hushed night; I curse the whispered lovers’ discourse, The magic spells th a t lay in verse. The gullible young g irls ’ caresses. Their tears, their late regrets I curse.^

The translation is from Yarmolinsky 77.

223 Pushkin’s beloved does not respond sexually to him, and

instead silently attempts to free herself from his embraces.

This characterization of the sexual aspect of his marriage to

Natal’ia Goncharova is in stark contrast to Shakespeare’s

drama where Desdemona is portrayed as an intensely sexual woman whom Othello does not need to “conquer.” While the

persona ultimately has his sexual victory over his beloved,

it is not without resistance and this must certainly feed underlying feelings of “unworthiness.” While he is elevated by her “pure” embrace, he is also saddened by her indifference. Here he is the “faun” who desires the love of a pure maiden and hardly can believe his ultimate conquest, finding something incongruous in it. The persona’s repeated

rejection of his sexual advances also prompts recollections of his younger years as a “Don Juan” figure. Perhaps his wife’s coldness is a form of retribution for which he must u ltim a te ly accept blame. Perhaps she does not wish to be lik e the other women whom he possessed in his younger years. Thus she draws a clea r lin e between “ higher” and “ baser” forms o f love, relegating her “Negro lover” to the baser “spheres.”

Similar to “When in My Arms,” “Her, a He aopoxy

MHTexHHM HacAa»caeHbeM” / “ No, never th in k ” (1830) reveals

224 the sexual passivity of the beloved and its effect on the

persona:

H er, a He aopoxy MHTexHUM HacAaxaenbeM, BocToproM HyBCTBeHHHM, SesyMCTBOM, HccTynAeHbeM, CTenaHbeM, kphkbmh BaxxaHKH moaoüo H, Koraa, b h h c l b m o h x o Si h t h a x SMHea, nopUBOM nUAKHX AaCK H H3B0I0 A063aHH0 Ona TopoHHT MHr nocAeaHHx corpora h hA! 0, KaK MHAee th , cMHpeHHHija moh! 0, KaK MyHHTeAbHO TO 6010 CHaCTAHB H, Kora a, CK AOHaaca Ha aoArne mo a enta. Ta npeaaembca mho aexna 6 0 3 ynoeaba, CruaAHBo - xoAoana, BocTopry MoeMy Easa OTBeTCTByeiiib, ae BHeMAeuib HHHeMy H 03K HBAaeuibca h o t o m see 6 o a o , 6 0 a o - H aoAHUib HaKOHey m o H nAaMOHb noneBOAe !

No, never think, my dear, that in my heart I treasure The tumult of the blood, the frenzied gusts of pleasure. Those groans o f hers, those shrieks: a young Bacchante’ s c rie s . When writhing like a snake in my embrace she lie s , And wounding kiss and touch, urgent and hot engender The fin a l shudderings that consummate surrender. How sweeter fa r you are, my meek, my q uiet one. By what tormenting bliss is my whole soul undone When, after I have long and eagerly been pleading. With bashful graciousness to my deep need conceeding, You give yourself to me, but shyly, turned away. To a ll my ardors cold, scarce heeding what I say. Responding growing warm, oh, in how slow a fashion, To share, unwilling, yet to share at last my passion!”^

The translation is from Troyat 356.

225 Written after Pushkin’s marriage, the persona’s “African,” passionate nature is evident. As an attempt to convince himself that he loves Natal’ia for her coldness, the persona asserts that he prefers the subdued, almost resistant nature of his beloved’s responses to passionate ones of “Dionysiac” shrieks and groans. In so doing he denies his own inability to e lic it those responses. As in the previous poem, he “can hardly believe” that his pure “beauty” can really stoop to sharing “African” fires.

Pushkin was certainly disappointed over his wife’s lack of passion in “real life ,” and was tempted to look elsewhere for physical satisfaction. In the poem "To***” (1830), the persona expresses his “African” yearnings to set his heart on fire (nuAaTb) and rationalizes his adulterous thoughts:

H o t, h o t . He a o A x e n a . He cwieio, He M o ry BoAHeHHHM a k )6bh 6e3yMHO npeaasaTbCH CnoKoâcTBHe Moe a cTporo Sepery H cepagy He aaio nuAaTb h aaGsiBaTca HeT, noAHO MHe AK»6HTb; HO noMeMy x nopoB He norpyxyca a b MHHyTHoe MeHTanse, Kora a HenaaHHo npoHaer nepeao mhoH MAaaoe, nacToe, aeSecHoe coaaaHse, UpoAaeT H cKpoeTca? YxeAb He m o xh o MHe, A io 6yH C b aeBOK) b neaaAtnoM cAaaocrpacTbe, TAaaaMH cAeaosarb aa neA, h b THUinne

226 BAarocAOBAüTL ee Ha paaocTb h Ha cqacTbe H cepayeM eft xeAarb Bce 6Aara x h s h h ceft... (1-13)

No, no, I must not, dare not, cannot now surrender Myself to love, its mad, its feverish unrest. Strict is the watch I keep over my peace, I w ill not Let th a t consuming flame be kindled in my breast. No, I have loved enough; but why, upon occasion. May I not plunge in to a momentary dream. When, exquisitely pure, a young and lovely creature Appears before me, shows and passes lik e a gleam? It is forbidden me, as I admire the maiden. The sadness of desire pervading me, to watch Her go, and silently to wish her joy and bless her?^^

I see th is poem as p art o f the “ re sig n a tio n ” and “yielding” to new l i f e (new generations) th a t marks many ly r ic s o f his later years. This is a man who renounces a ll aspirations of a

Don Juan, who abstains, not wanting anything for himself. All he s t i l l allow s him self is a “ momentary dream” - but h is desire is rather free of “crude" sex (not a wet daydream anymore).

E.V. S lin in a , in her a r tic le “ Bpewa b AnpHKe nyiUKHHa:

CTHxoTBopeHHH 20-30-x FoaoB Ha AHyeAcxyK) Tewy” / “ Time in

Pushkin’ s L y ric s : Poems from the 20s and 30s on the Lyceum theme,” has characterized Pushkin’s lyrics of the 1830s as

The translation is from Troyat 357.

227 reflecting his desire to “escape” to private life , to find peace and independence.If such were the case, indeed m arriage in 1831 and the presumed f id e lit y o f a b e a u tifu l spouse might have been the haven the poet dreamed o f. But as usual, happiness was threatened. It has been noted that

Pushkin’s ability to experience bouts of jealousy for the most triv ia l reasons, or for no reason at a ll, did not lessen over the years. On the contrary, it intensified after his marriage to Goncharova. This is evidenced by a le tte r which

Pushkin’ s s is te r, O l’ ga Sergeevna Pavlishcheva wrote to her husband soon after her brother’s marriage:

Bpar roBopHA MHe, h to HHoraa HyBCTByer ce6a caMUM HecHacTHUM cygecTBOM - cyujecTBOM 6 a h 3KHm k cyMamecTBHio, Koraa b h ^ h t cbok» *eay pasroBapHBaiogeA h Taayyiog eA aa 6a a ax c KpacHBUMH MOAoaHMH AioasMH; yx e oaHo npHKOcHOBOHHe ayxcHX wyaccKnx pyx k eë pyxe npH^HHaeT eMy npHAHBH xpoBH k roAOBe, h Toraa aa aero aaxo^HT MUCAb, ae ^aioujaa eMy noKoa, hto xeaa ero ocTaBaacb eMy Bepaoft, MOxeT asMeaaTb eMy MHCAeaao.^”^

E B. CAHHHHa, “BpeMa B A H p H X e nyniKHHa: CTHXOTBOpeHHH 20-30-x ro aO B a a AHgeacxy» TeMy”/ “Time in Pushkin’s Pushkin’s Lyrics: Poems from the 20s and 30s on the Lyceum Theme,” AxTepaTvpa b niKOAe /Literature in school 6 (19Ô2). 17.

Guber 27.

Guber 27-28.

228 CMy) brother to ld me, th a t sometimes he fe e ls as i f he were the most unfortunate creature - a creature on the brink of insanity, when he sees his wife conversing and dancing at balls with attractive young people; only one touch o f foreign male hands to her hand causes his blood to rush to his head, and then the thought comes to his mind, that does not give him peace, that his wife, remaining faithful to him, may betray him in her thoughts...

Natal'ia Goncharova’s increasing awareness of her acclaim in a ris to c ra tic c irc le s , was accompanied by increased flirta tio n . This certainly dismayed her husband, as evidenced by the correspondence over the course of their marriage.

Rather than reassuring Pushkin, marriage only reinforced an inherent sense of insecurity. In the lyric aywaA, cepaye no3a6uAo”/ “I Thought the Heart Had Forgotten” (1835), the persona reflects upon his current emotional state. His belief that he has seized control over the demons that have haunted him in his post is proving premature. Pushkin writes:

H aywaA, cepage nosaCuAo Cnoco6HocTb AerKyio cTpaaaTb H roBopHA; TOMy, ^To 6h a o , y * He 6MBaTb! y * He GsiBaTb! npoiuAH BOCToprH, H newaAH, H AerKOBepHMe MeHTH.... Ho BOT oHHTb saTpeneTaAH npea MOUJHOft BAaCTbK) KpaCOTH.

229 I thought my heart had quite forgotten I t ’ s easy aptitude fo r pain, I used to say: what was before Shall be no more! Shall be no morel Gone are the raptures, and the sorrows. And dreams too easily believed.... But here again they’re set aquiver At beauty’ s sovereign command.^*

Pushkin himself may have expected that marriage would somehow ease his suffering, yet for his persona, the captivating beauty of his beloved, only inspired a more intense desire not to loose it, i.e. ultimately fear to be deprived of it.

In one of his undated poems (1830-1836), Pushkin wrote:

Sa'ieM fl eio oqaposaH? Sa^eM paccTaTbcfl aoAxeH c HeA? Koraa 6 h He 6 u a HSÔaAOBaH UurancKoH x h s h h io M o eâ...

Why am I charmed by her? Why must I part w ith her? As if I had not been spoiled By my gypsy l i f e . . .

Here the persona reflects upon his married state, expressing discontentment and disappointment. He recalls a time when he led a carefree existence, a time that was also marked by

The translation is from Arndt 257.

230 rejection and indifference but which is now idealized. The epithet “gypsy” may be read as a synonym for “African” just as the Improvisor’s Italian nationality functions as a

“synonym” for “African” in Egyptian Nights.

“nopa, Moft apyr, nopa”/ “Tis time, my friend, tis time”

(1834) reveals the emotional to ll that varied personal crises have exacted on Pushkin. He expresses a desire to remove himself, and his wife, from the sources of their strife, but realizes that true happiness may always be elusive:

n o p a , M o ft apyr, nopa! noKoa cepage npocHT AeTHT 3a aHHMH aHH, H K ax aw A nac y hoc h t MacTHHKy 6 u t h h , a m h c t o 6 oA B asoew npeanoAaraeM *h ti> ...h r A f l a t - k ax pas - yMpeM. Ha CBere cnacTtfl hot, ho ecTt no xo A h b o a h . ZtaBHo saBHaHafl MenTaoTCfl mho a o A fl - aaBHo, ycTaAMft pa 6, saw HC AH A a no6er H o6HTeAb aaAbHyio ypyaoB, h h h c t h x H e r.

Tis time, my friend, tis time! The heart for rest is crying The days go by, each hour bears o ff as i t is fly in g A shred of our existence - we two, we plan to live. But death may come, how soon? And jo y is fu g itiv e . Not happiness, but peace and freedom may be granted On earth: th is is my hope, who by one dream am haunted A weary slave, I plan escape before the night To the remote repose o f t o i l and pure d e lig h t.^ ’’

The translation is from Yarmolinsky 84-85.

231 P.K. Guber has stated, that ultimately, Pushkin never found inner peace, for the entire history of his life as a married man is, in essence, a long tale of agony, never-ending suffering and jealousy, which in the end had a bloody outcome.^®® This image o f a man who, to a large extent, caused his own agonies and therefore had to seek refuge from the emotions which should have provide human solace is strongly embedded in Pushkin’s personal myth.

I believe that the above examination illustrates the specific relationship that exists between the theme of jealousy in Pushkin’s lyrics (and all the ramifications of it), the African strand of Pushkin’s ethnic heritage, and the projection of a an “Othello complex” and a “ Don Juan” complex in Pushkin’s personal myth. I would say that in this instance, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, for the complex interworking of these themes is lost when the above works are examined individually. It is their examination as a totality that reveals that complexities of

Pushkin’ s personal myth and o ffe rs perhaps one o f the most important keys to his genius.

Guber 28.

232 CONCLUSION

With regard to his double heritage of the African and the Aristocrat, and the personal and psychological ramifications of their influence, the personal and fictional writings of Alexander Pushkin, encompass a broad range of emotions and perceptions. Conflicting with each other, they nevertheless a ll form part of Pushkin’s personal myth of the poet as a creature that encompasses irreconcilable opposites and yet reconciles them. A consideration of the co-existing respect, fascination and repulsion with which Pushkin regarded both his African and his Russian heritage does perhaps not hold the key to the mysteries of Pushkin’s p e rs o n a lity as re fle c te d in his w ritin g , but i t does shed some lig h t on them.

The complexity and ambiguity of Pushkin’s myth of the

“African-aristocrat” in various contexts no doubt presents considerable challange to the reader. Monika Greenleaf has

233 theorized that, if narrative is the expression of the self's wish to be heard, recognized, understood, the kaleidoscopic diffusion of the self in an infinite series of representations, prevents the to ta lity of that understanding:

Pushkin’s self wants to be understood “ h o no KOHya” / “ not completely.”^*® It is this elusiveness of "kaleidoscopic diffusion” that releases many strands which hold possibility for new interpretation and scholarship.

The complex and archetypal q u a lity o f Pushkin’ s myth has appealed to the readership of many generations, not least to readers who were themselves poets. Among creative writers, those from the Silver Age took particular interest in the

"Pushkin myth” from the Golden Age. Pushkin held special appeal for Modernists, for it is in his personhood that

Modernists discovered a combination of Dionysiac and Apolline principles, "a harmonious blend of creative spontaneity with logical ordering.

Among the many writers who were attracted to this aspect of the “Pushkin myth,” Marina Tsvetaeva was perhaps the most fascinated. To her, Pushkin’s African heritage was a

Greenleaf 346.

Gasparov 7.

234 potent symbol of the w riter’s “otherness” in conventional society. It was Tsvetaeva’s belief that she and a ll genuine poets were fated to be “negroes.” In a cycle of poems e n title d “C t h x h k n y iu K H H y ’’/ “Poems to Pushkin” (1931),

Tsvetaeva embraced Pushkin’ s “ Africanness” as an im portant symbol o f the universal enmity between the poet and society at large. In preparation fo r the centenary o f Pushkin’s death in 1937, Tsvetaeva wrote two articles. The firs t is entitled

“nyiUKHH H nyraMeB”/ “ Pushkin and Pugachev,” the other, “ Moft nyiUKHH”/ “My Pushkin.” Like her poems to Pushkin, the articles emphasize the significance of Pushkin’s African heritage. Her assessment o f the African-Russian poet in clear black/white terms, but on her scale of values “black” is

“white” and “white” is “black.” The essay begins with

Tsvetaeva’s firs t encounter with the painting “The Duel,” by

A.A. Naumov (1884). The background of the painting, black sapling branches against the snow, merge with the silhouetts of people taking a third “black man” off to a sledge. A fourth, Baron George D’Anthes, walks away, his back turned.

His figure is not black. He does not belong to the positive realm of blackness.

235 It is seeing the Pushkin monument sculpted by A.M.

Opekushin that marks Tsvetaeva’s firs t encounter with the

“black” Pushkin. It makes her see conventional whiteness as in f e r io r and even rid ic u lo u s . As a child, Tsvetaeva would hold a finger-sized white china doll up to the pedestal of the monument, to compare the height of each. Paul Debreczeny has aptly noted that the white doll represented everything that was expected of a good little g irl, including looking forward to a happy life , and conforming to the conventional female role.^“ Believing that it was necessary to embrace only one aspect o f the monument, Tsvetaeva chooses Pushkin’ s blackness, that of his somber thoughts, his tragic fate and his African blood. The further rejection of the white china doll and all that it symbolizes is evidenced by Tsvetaeva’s unconventional marital life , and eventual suicide. It is precisely the blackness of the monument which she loves because it stands in contrast to the “whiteness” of the tra d itio n a l images which she has encountered,^^^ images such as

Paul Debreczeny, Social Functions of Literatu re: Alexander Pushkin and Russian Culture (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997) 64.

Marina Tsvetaeva, Captive A Spirit: Selected Prose (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1980) 324.

236 a bust o f Zeus found in her fa th e r’ s study, which exude an austere coldness.

Furthermore, Tsvetaeva views the monument to Pushkin as a monument against racism, and living evidence of the baseness and ignorance of racist ideologies. She writes:

The Pushkin Monument is a living proof of the baseness and moribundness of the racist theory, a living proof of its exact opposite. Pushkin is a fact that overturns the theory. Racism, before its coming to birth, is overturned by Pushkin at the very moment of his birth. But no - earlier: on the day of the wedding of the son of Peter the Great’s Blackamoor, Osip Abramovich Hannibal, to Maria Alexeevna Pushkina. But no - s till earlier: on the day unknown to us, in the hour when Peter for the firs t time fixed a black, bright, happy, and frightening glance on the Abyssinian boy, Ibrahim. That glance was the order to Pushkin to

Pushkin’s very existence is a fact which refutes racist theories, theories which were destroyed even prior to

Pushkin’s birth, on the day the Peter the Great first expressed favor with Ibragim Gannibal. It was this favor and

Gannibal’s subsequent social rise which paved the way for

Pushkin’s eventual existence.

Tsvetaeva, Captive 325.

237 The Pushkin monument stands as a symbol for time and

eternity, withstanding the forces of nature such as rain and

snow. Tsvetaeva visualizes the shoulders of the monument

loaded down w ith snow, A frica n shoulders loaded down and

overwhelmed with a ll the Russian snows. The implied meaning

here is two-fold. Logically speaking, native African

shoulders would be overwhelmed with any, not just Russian

snows, the premise being that they are within a foreign

element, unaccustomed to the physical coldness o f th e ir new

environment. On another, more significant level, Pushkin, as

an "A fric a n " (and as a poet), is overwhelmed and loaded down

by his estrangement from Russian society, with a ll of its

conventions and expectations. The snow failed to destroy the monument, just as Russian society failed to destroy Pushkin’ s

greatness. It endures for all posterity. Clearly, for

Tsvetaeva, Pushkin’s African heritage offered a potent

symbolism which she could embrace in the reflection of her own professional and personal struggles. For Tsvetaeva, the

standard values associated with blackness and whiteness are

reversed. She comes to embrace blackness as the true essence

of the poet. Her myth of the African Pushkin is one of the

238 most powerful developments of the myth Pushkin created of himself as the “African aristocrat.”

It is not my task to trace a ll further developments of

Pushkin’s African image in Russian literature. I have mentioned Tsvetaeva’s continued myth-creation to offer a perticularly striking example of its vitality. As already discussed, it also inspired Siniavskii’s Pushkin essay. Like everything else Pushkin wrote, so too have his “African” m otifs found ric h resonance.

My own task, of course was not to continue myth- creation, but rather to unearth some of the components that went into its creation: personal anxieties, divided loyalties, family lore, as well as the literary expression the legacy of the African and aristocrat found in some of

Pushkin’s most important works. Studying this particular strand of his oeuvre, I am convinced that the African heritage constitutes an essential component of Pushkin’s singularly persistent appeal within Russian culture. He is such an integral part of it because he made the alien

(Myxoe) entirely Russian (cBoe) without changing its alienness. Precarious, yet perfect, balance is the hallmark o f Pushkin’ s a rt in the African theme, as i t is elsewhere.

239 BIBLIOGRAPHY

A 6paM0BHM, C. A. “K Bonpocy o craHOBAeHHH noBecTBOBaxeAbHoa npoGH nyuiKHHa.” PvccKan AHxepaxvpa: HcTopHKo-AHxepaxvp- HUft iKVpHaA 1974 (2); 54-73.

AxMaxoBa, AHHa. “KaMeHHua rocxb IIvmKHHa.” nviUKHH: HccAejOBaHHg h MaxepHaAU. tom 2. Hoa p e a . M. II. A A e x c e e B . MocKBa: Hsa-Bo. AKaaeMHH Hayx CCCP, 195Ô. 1Ô5-195-

Arndt, Walter. Pushkin Threefold: Narrative. Lvric. Polemic and Ribald Verse. The originals with linear and metric translation by Walter Arndt. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1972,

Aycock, Wendell, M. “Pushkin and the Don Juan Tradition." The Contexts of Aleksandr Sergeevich Pushkin. Studies in Russian and German 1. Ed. Peter I. Barta and Ulrich Goebel. New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1988. 85-95.

Bayley, John. Pushkin: A Comparative Commentary. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1971.

Blagoy, Dmitry. The Sacred Lvre: Essavs o f the L ife and Work of Alexander Pushkin. Trans, from the Russian by Alex M ille r. Moscow: Raduga Publishers, 1982.

240 Blakely, A llis o n . Russia and the Nearo: Blacks in Russian History and Thought. Washington, D.C.; Howard University Press, 1986.

Bloom, Harold, ed. W illiam Shakespeare's O th e llo . Introduction by Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1987.

Brown, William Edward. A History of Russian Literature of the Romantic Period. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1986.

ByKaAOB, AHapeA. PoMan o qapcKOM apane: OqepxM HCTopHH oaHoro nviiiKHHCKoro mezeBoa. MocKBa; HpoweTeA, 1990.

BypcoB, BopHC HBanoBHM. CvasGa IIvmKHHa. AeHHHrpaa: CoBeTCKHâ

H M c a T e A B , 1966.

Cook, Brett. “Pushkin and the Pleasure of the Text: Erotic and Anal Images of Creativity." Russian Literature and Psychoanalysis. Linguistic and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe 31. Ed. Daniel Rancour-Laferriere. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1989.

Dangulov, Sawa, ed. “ Reminiscences o f the Poet’ s Contemporaries” . Soviet Literature 1987, no. 1 (466); 139-150.

Debreczeny, Paul. “The Blackamoor o f Peter the Great: Pushkin’s Experiment With a Detached Mode of Narration.” Slavic and East European Journal 18/2 (Summer 1974): 119- 131.

241 The Other Pushkin: A Study of Alexander Pushkin's Prose Fiction. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press, 1983.

Social Functions of Literature: Alexander Pushkin and Russian Culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997.

Emerson, Caryl. Boris Godunov: Transpositions of a Russian Theme. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.

E rlic h , V ic to r. The Double Image: Concepts o f the Poet in Slavic Literatures. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1964.

$e&H6epr, H. A. A 6paM IleTpoBHq TaHHHSaA. npaaea IIviiiKHHa: PaaticKaHHfl h MaTepHaAu. MocKsa: Hayxa, 19Ô3.

Gasparov, Boris, Robert P. Hughes, and Irina Paperno, eds. C ultural Mythologies o f Russian Modernism: From the Golden Age to the S ilve r Age. Introduction by B. Gasparov. Introduction trans. by Eric Naiman. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.

Gnanmankou, Dieudonne. “ New Research on Pushkin’ s A fric a : Hannibal’ s Homeland.” Research in African L iteratures 28.4 (1997): 220-223.

“ Pushkin Between Russia and A fric a .” Diogenes (Fiesole, Ita ly) 179.45/3 (1997): 211-229.

242 rop^HH, A , H H . ropaMH. ‘TaHHH6aA, MHXaftAOBCK oe, nyUIKHH.” Hesa: opraH Coiosa cosercKHx nHcareAeft CCCP 6 (1988): 191 195.

Greenleaf, Monika. Pushkin and Romantic Fashion: Fragment. Eleav. Orient. Ironv. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994.

Gregg, Richard. “ Pushkin’ s Narratives and the Hex o f Darkness.” Slavic Review 48.4 (Winter 1989): 547-557.

Grubel, Rainer. “Convention and Innovation of Aesthetic Value: The Russian Reception of Alexandr Pushkin.” Convention and Innovation in Literature. Eds. Theo D’ haen, Rainer Grubel and Helmut Lethen. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1989. 181-223. rySep, n. K. JoH-xcvaHCKHft chhcok IIvmKHHa: rAasu ho GHorpatMH c 9-k> nopTpeTaMH. DeTepGypr: Haa-BO "IleTporpaa/ 1923.

Hall, Kim F. Things o f Darkness: Economies o f Race and Gender in Earlv Modern England. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995.

Herman, David. “A Requiem for Aristocratic Art: Pushkin’s Eavptian N iahts. ” The Russian Review: An American O uarterlv Devoted to Russia Past and Present 55/4 (October, 1996): 661-680.

Hope, A.D. “ Pushkin’ s Don Juan.” Melbourne Slavonic Studies 1.1 (1967): 5-10.

243 Jakobson, Roman. Pushkin and His Sculptural Mvth. The Hague: Mouton, 1975.

HKySoBH^, a. n. “Apan IleTpa BeAHKoro dly^AHKayHfl A. C. CMaaKOBa)." üviiikhh: HccAejoBaHHg h MaTepHaAU. tom 9. Hoa pea. M. n. AAeKceeB h ap. MocKBa: Haa-Bo. AKaaeMHH Hayx CCCP, 1979. 261-293

KH6aABHHK, C. A. “06 aBTo6Horpa#H3Me nyuiKHHCKoft ahphkh lOHoro nepHoaa.” PvccKaa AHTepaTvpa: HcTooHKo-AHTepaTVOHHft )KVpHaA 19Ô7 (1): 89-99.

Kucera, Henry. “Pushkin and Don Juan.” Russian Literature and Psychoanalysis. Ed. Daniel Rancour L a fe rrie re . Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1989.

Lambert, Lydia. Pushkin: Poet and Lover. Trans, from the French by Willard R. Trask. London: F. Aldor Publications Limited, 1947.

AanKHHa, f. A. PowaH A. C. IIvmKHHa *'Apan IleTpa BeAHKoro*’: A bto - peaepaT. y\eHHHrpaa; IlyuiKiiHCKHâ a o M , 1952.

Layrin, Janko. Pushkin and Russian L ite ra tu re . New York: Russell and Russell, 1969.

Aeeg, Teopr. A6paw neTpoBHM r&HHMÔaA: BHorpaaHMecKoe HCCAeaoBaHHe. laAAHH: Haa-BO "EecTH paawaT/ 1980.

A hctob, B.C. “Aerenaa o MepnoM npeaxe" Aerenau h wHasi o nvuiKHHe. CaHKT-neTep6ypr: TyMaHHTapHoe areHTCTBO "AKaaeMHMecKHô IIposKT," 1994.

244 Ak>6ahhckhô, n. H. “H3 ceMeôHoro npouiAoro npejKOB nyuiKHHa.” Poj H npeüKH A. C. nvmKHHa. IlyiUKHHCKafl 6H6AHOTOKa. Pea. C. A. Hhkhthh. MocKBa: Hsa-B O "BacaHTa/ 1995- 2 43-334.

AoTMaH, KD. M. nvuiKHH. AeHHHrpaa: IIpocBegeHue, 19ôl.

MaAesaHOB, H. A. “K 6Horpa*HH A. n. raHHHÔaAa." IIvmKHH: HccAeaoBaHHfl h MarepHaAU. to m 4 Iloa pea. M. n. AAexceeB h ap. MocKBa: Haa-BO. AKaaeMHH Hayx CCCP, 1962. 40Ô-411.

. “nerpa IlHTOMey A. n. raHHHGaA" Hena: opran Coiosa coBeTCKHX nncareAeft CCCP 2 (1972): 190-193

Manning, Clarence. “Russian Versions of Don Juan.” PMLA 38 (1924): 479-493.

Matlaw, Ralph E. “ Poetry and the Poet in Romantic Society as Reflected in Pushkin's Egyptian Niahts.” Slavonic and East European Review 33 (1954-1955): 102-119.

Mirsky, D.S. Pushkin. Introduction by George Siegel. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1963.

MorHAHHCKHft, A. II. AHHHocTb IlvmKHHa. C.-IIeTepGypr: Haa-Bo "EAMop," 1995

Monas, Sidney. “ S e lf and Other in Russian L ite ra tu re .” The Search fo r S e lf-D e fin itio n in Russian L ite ra tu re . Ed. Ewa M. Thompson. Houston: Rice U niversity Press, 1991. 76-92.

245 HaSoKOB, BAaaMMHp. Jpvrne Sepera. MocKBa: Msa-BO "KHHXHaa naAara/ 19Ô9.

. “Pushkin and Cannibal: A Footnote.” Encounter 19.1 (1962): 11-26.

.. Speak. Memory: An Autobiography R evisite d . Rev. ed. New York: Putnam, 1966.

O’Bell, Leslie. Pushkin's Eavptian Niahts: The Biography of a Work. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1984. nanHa, E. C. “06 oGcToaTeABCTBax oTCTaBKH A. n. raHHH^aAa.” IIvmKHH: HccAejoBaHHfl H MaTepHaAti. to m 4. Boa pea. M. n. AAOKceeB h ap. MocKBa: Haa-BO. AKaaeMHH Hayx CCCP, 1962. 412-414.

Paperno, Irina and Joan Delaney Grossman, eds. Creating Life: The Aesthetic Utopia o f Russian Modernism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994.

Parris, Guichard. “Pushkin’s Negro Blood.” The Crisis: A Record of the Darker Races (The Journal of the NAACP) 44.6 (June, 1937): 175.

P ritc h e tt, V.S. The Mvth Makers: L ite ra ry Essavs. New York: Random House, 1979.

Pushkin, Aleksandr Sergeevich. Poems of Pushkin. Riding H ill, Northumberland, England: Henry Jones, 1963.

246 HoAHoe co 6 paHHe co^HHeHHH. 16 tt. MocKBa: Msa-so AKaaeMHH nayx CCCP, 1949.

.. The Queen o f Spades and Other S to rie s. Translated by Mrs. Sutherland Edwards. London: Croome & Co., 1892.

. Secret Journal 1836-1837. Trans, of Taftntie aanncKH 15^6-16^7 roaoB. Minneapolis, Minn.: MIR Company, 1986.

CoHHHeHHH A C. nvmKHHa B oaHoa KHHre. MocKBa: MMHaac, 1993

Pax, B. a. “nyiUKHH h tpaHyyacKHA nepeBoa OTeAAo.” The Pushkin Journal: The Journal o f the North American Pushkin Society 1.1 (1993): 36-44.

Reyfman, Irina. “Poetic Justice and Injustice: Autobio­ graphical Echoes in Pushkin’s The Captain’s Dauahter.” Slavic and East European Journal 38.3 (1994): 463-478.

Richards, D .J., and C.R.S. C ockrell, eds. Russian Views o f Pushkin. Oxford: Willem A. Meeuws, 1976.

Seeley, Frank Friedeberg. “The Problem of Kamennyy Cost' (sic).” The Slavonic and Eastern European Review 41.97 (June 1963): 345-367.

Shakespeare, William. Othello. Introduction by Ivor Brown. London: The Folio Society, 1955

247 Shaw, J. Thomas, ed. and trans. The Letters o f Alexander Pushkin. Madison: U niversity o f Wisconsin Press, 1967.

Pushkin: A Concordance to the Poetrv: Volumes 1 and 2. Columbus, OH.: Slavica Publishers, 1985.

.. “Pushkin on His African Heritage: Publications during His L ife tim e .” Pushkin Today. Ed. David Bethea. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993. 121-135.

CHKopcKHô, H. A. AHTponoAorH^ecKafl h ncHxoAorHMecKafl reHeaAorHfl IIvmKHHa. KHes: Tan. C. B. KyAxeHKO, 1912.

Simmons, Ernest J. Pushkin. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1937.

CHHüBCKHïi, A. a. lASpaM Tepg ] IIporvAKH c nvuiKHHUM. London: Overseas Publications Interchange, in association w ith Collins, 1975.

_ . S tro lls With Pushkin. Trans, by Catharine Theimer Nepomnyashchy and Slava I. Yastremski. Introduction by Catharine Theimer Nepomnyashchy; notes by Slava I. Yastremski. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1993.

CAHHHHa, E. B. “BpeMH B AHpHKe nyUIKHHa: CTHXOTBOpeHHfl 20-30-X roaoB Ha AHgeftcKyio Tewy.” AHTepaTvpa b uikoaq 6 (19Ô2).

CMHpHOB, H. n. “ KaCTpagHOHHMâ KOMHAOKC B AHpHKe IlymKHHa: MeTOAorHHecKHe aaweTKH.” Russian. Croatian and Serbian.

248 Czech and Slovak. Polish L ite ra tu re 29.2 (February 1991): 205-228.

Terras, V ic to r, ed. Handbook o f Russian L ite ra tu re . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.

Todd, William M. Fiction and Societv in the Aae of Pushkin: Ideoloav. In s titu tio n s and N arrative. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986.

Token, Leona. “ Fact and F ictio n in Nabokov’ s Biography o f Abram Cannibal.” Mosaic: A Journal for the Interdisci- plinarv Studv of Literature 22/3 (Summer 1989): 43-56.

Tomashevskii, Boris. “ L ite ra tu re and Biography.” Readinas in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views. Eds. Ladislav Matejka and Krystyna Pomorska. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1978. 47-55.

nvniKHH. Ü3A. 2-e. MocKBa. "XyjioxecTBeHHaH AHTepaTypa/ 1990.

Troyat, Henri. Pushkin: A Biograohv. Translation by Randolph T. Weaver. New York: Pantheon Books, 1950.

Tsvetaeva, Marina. A Captive S pirit: Selected Prose. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1980.

Moft nviiKHH. England: Prideaux Press, 1977,

Thhhhob, KDpna. nvufKHH. MccKBa; npaBaa, 19Ô1.

249 IIvmKHH H ero coBPeMeHHHKH. MocKsa: "Hayxa," 1969.

Bagypo, BajUHM 3 , h ap. A. C. IIvmKHH b BocnoMHHaHHflx cospe- MeHHHKOB: B a s v x TOMax. MocKBa: "XyaoxecTBeHHan AHTepaTypa," 1985

BerHep, M. IIpeaKH IIvmKHHa. MocKsa: CoBercKHft nncareAB, 193?

“npeaKH IlymKHHa ” Poa h npejKH A. C. IIvmKHHa. IlymKHH- cKaa ÔHÔAHOTeKa. Pea. C. A. Hh k h t h h. M ockbh ; Haa-Bo "BacaHTa," 1995 109-241.

Vickery, Walter N. Pushkin: Death of a Poet. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968

Wolff, Tatiana, ed. and trans. Pushkin on Literature. London; Methuen & Company L td ., 1971.

Yarmolinsky, Avram, ed. The Poems. Prose and Plavs o f Alexander Pushkin. New York: The Modern Library, 1936.

250 làiAr'C“ r^/AI I lATI/^kl iivim v7 l_ L. V M L .U M I IWIN TEST TARGET (QA-3)

1.0 If 1^ llllg i- ill 2-2 Il lié Il 2.0 11 1.8

1.25 1.4 1.6

150mm

V

% /A P P L IE D A IIVMGE . Inc 1653 East Main Street ^ Rochester. NY 14609 USA ■/. .S S S r ^ E Ptrône: 716/482-0300 ■ Fax: 716/288-5989

O 1993. Applied Image. Inc . Ail Rights Reserved

'/