Inn the Poetic Universe of Velimirr Chlebnikov

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

Writing and the 'Subject'

Greve, C.

Publication date 2004

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA): Greve, C. (2004). Writing and the 'Subject'. Pegasus.

General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)

Download date:26 Sep 2021 33 WRITING AS AN "IMAGETEXT" INN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF VELIMIRR CHLEBNIKOV

Unlikee his fellow futurists, Krucenych and Majakovskij, Chlebnikov took no apparentt interest in the visual realization of his work and had no decisive in- fluencefluence on the design of his poetry.1 However, both his theoretical writings and hiss poetic work are abundant with speculations on, references to and images of writingg as a material visual sign system. In certain ways, this interest differs con- siderablyy from that of Krucenych as described in the previous chapter. The demandd for a visual language expressed in Chlebnikov and Krucenych's early manifestoo The Letter as Such' is embodied in every letter and on a meta-level, inn the mytho-poetic structure of Chlebnikov's poetic universe. In this universe, handwritingg is an important element both as a poetic image and as a concept; it iss closely connected to his idea of a universal language. Thiss idea is a very complex one. It is interrelated with Chlebnikov's theories of "innerr flexion", "word-creation", %aum\ fate and a universal mathematical code. Moreover,, in focusing partly on sound and partly on the visual shape of letters, Chlebnikov'ss conception of a universal language differs from most previous at- temptss to assign a symbolic meaning to sound. As Janecek points out, "Chlebni- kovv comes closest of anyone to shifting the emphasis away from sound toward sight,, and thus of reflecting the standard Symbolist-Futurist shift of emphasis" (1985:: 172). Yet, the visual aspect of the written word has largely been ignored orr described merely as a secondary, somewhat curious phenomenon. Thus, in thee otherwise very important papers The Language of the Stars' (1985) by Du- bravkaa Oraic Tolic, and "'Azbuka uma" Chlebnikova' (1988) by Carla Solivetti, thee focus is exclusively on the ontologization of sound, and the "mathematical code",, of the universal language respectively. Partt of this can be explained by the complexity of the universal language: it is a "neww paradigmatic inventory of indexical signs" (Griibel 1986: 434), and a set

85 5 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT' off written characters whose forms seem to correspond to their inner idea or imagee (i.e. to an iconic code of representation). According to Griibel, the in- dexicall signs offer an "existential link between sign-vehicle and object", and yet, theirr function in the word is that of opening up potential meanings of and cor- respondencess between words. The meanings of these signs are distilled from lexicallexical units of the existing Russian language and projected back on these again inn a subjective act of creation (1986: 434); and yet, Chlebnikov's universal languagee is constructed on an abstract idea of an inner objective geometrically de- finedd form. Inn this chapter, I will argue that the graphic aspect of writing was a major con- cernn of Chlebnikov's. The focus of this chapter will be in placing the visual writtenn sign within the overall context of Chlebnikov's poetic universe. I will regardd writing as a continuous process involving subjective as well as objective forcess of symbolization, and as an expression of the relationship between the writingg subject and the world. The way in which Chlebnikov regards writing as aa continuous process is most precisely formulated in 'Nasa osnova' ('Our Fun- damentals'): :

CAOBOTBOpHeCTBOO — BpaT KHHJKHOrO OKaMeHeHHfl fl3MKa, H, OIIHpaHCb Ha TO,, HTO B AepeBHe OKOAO peK H AeCOB AO CHX nop H3hIK TBOpHTCfl, Ka>KAoe MraoBeHHee co3AaBafl CAOBa, KOTopwe TO VMHpaioT, TO noAynaiOT npaBo öeccMepTTM,, nepeHocHT STO npaBo B >KH3Hb miceM. HoBoe CAOBO He TOAbKOO AOAJKHO ÖMTb Ha3BaHO, HO H GiTTb HanpaBAeHHMM K Ha3hIBaeMOH BeiHH.. (1972: 223)

(Wordd creation is hostile to the bookish petrification of language. It takes as its modell the fact that in villages, by rivers and forests, language is being created to thiss very day; every minute sees the birth of words that either die or gain the right too immortality. Word creation transfers this right to the world of literary creativity [literallyy "the life of writing" C.G.]. A new word must not only be uttered, it must bee directed toward the thing it names.) (1987: 382)

Languagee theory Chlebnikov'ss theory of the sign is constructed on the assumption that "pure" languagee should be differentiated from everyday language. In 'Our Fundamen- tals',, he claims that the word has a double identity as an everyday word and a

86 6 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV

"pure"" word: "Slovo delitsja na cistoe i bytovoe" ("A word contains two parts: puree essence and everyday dross"; 1972: 229 [1987: 377]). He differentiates be- tweenn an everyday word and a "self-sufficient word", or a word encapsulating thee reason of daylight and a word encapsulating the reason of a starry night. The everydayy word is a "self-evident falsehood" which swallows up or hides its po- tentiall meanings and leaves only one interpretation, that of the everyday meaning withh its direct link between signifier and signified. Hee compares everyday language with "playing with word-dolls." A boy uses a chairr as a horse, believing while playing, that it is a real horse. Consequently, twoo rags can replace two human beings complete with hearts and passions:

[MJrpafll B KyKAH, peÖeHOK MOJKCT HCKpeHHe 3aAHBaTbCfl CAe3aMH, KorAa eroo KOMOK TpHnoK yMHpaeT, cMepTeAbHO 6OACH; ycTpairaaTb cBaAböy AByx coGpamiHH TpanoK, coBepmeHHO HeoTAHHHMHX Apyr oT Apyra, B AynnieM CAynaee c IIAOCKHMH TynHMH KomjaMH TOAOBH. BO Bpernfl HipM 3TH TpanoHKHH — >KHBMe, HacTOJuuHe MOAH, c cepAueM H crpacTflMH. QrcioAa noHHMaHHee H3HKa, KaK nrpM B KyKAH; B HCH H3 TpanoneK 3Byxa CIUHTM KyKAMM AAA Bcex BemeJi MHpa. (1972: 234)

(AA child playing with dolls may shed heartfelt tears when his bundle of rags and scrapss becomes deathly ill and dies; or may arrange a marriage between two rags figuress indistinguishable one from the other, except perhaps for their blunt flat heads.. While the child is playing, those rag dolls are live people with feelings and emotions.. So we may come to an understanding of language as playing with dolls: inn language, scraps of sound are used to make dolls and replace all the things in thee world.) (1987: 383)

Thee words are like dolls that substitute real things due to a convention, which is commonn to all the involved "players" (i.e., to the people of a certain language community).. According to the distinction between everyday language and "pure"" language, a distinction must also be made between the everyday sound andd the "pure" sound. In Chlebnikov's poetics, the sounds in everyday (practical)) language seem to be defined according to the concept of the phoneme. He doess not appear; moreover, to separate the function of the letter from that of thee phoneme; and therefore, a distinction must also be made between everyday writingg and "pure" writing, and between an everyday letter and a "pure" letter.

87 7 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT'

Inn his theoretical writings, Chlebnikov alternately talks of letters and sounds: "zvuko-vescestva"" [sound elements] (1972: 228), "éti zvukovye oceredi - rjad [...]] mirovych istin" ("these sound sequences constitute a series of [...] universall truths"; 1972: 225 [1987: 370]), "azbucnye istiny" [alphabetic verities] (1972: 228)) and so forth.2 Both the sounds and the letters, or, to use more modern termss the phonemes and the graphemes of everyday language are negatively de- finedfined by their difference from other units in language and are isolated from the contextt of relations in language. They do not have a meaning. The meanings of thee words "big" and "dig" differ because of the difference between the letter 'b' andd 'd*. Accordingly, the phonemes as well as the graphemes can only signify in combinationn with other phonemes or graphemes. Chlebnikov gives an example off two words which change meaning just by changing the initial consonant: "dvorjane"" [courtiers] becomes "tvorjane" [creatiers] when 'd' is substituted by 't'.. In principle, the same can be said about Chlebnikov's theory of inner flexion.. In the words "bobr" [beaver] and "babr" [tiger] the two words differ in meaningg due to the different vowels 'o' and 'a'. In the poetics of Chlebnikov however,, these letters have an additional grammatically connoted meaning. The letterr 'o' signifies something that must be followed or chased, whereas die letter 'a'' signifies something from which one has to flee. According to Chlebnikov, thee two vowels represent the accusative and genitive case respectively. In the samee way, the difference in meaning between "lesina" [tree trunk] and "lysina" [baldd spot] lies in the flexion of the words' stem. The word "les" [forest] means thee presence of something (trees) identified as the meaning of the dative case, whilee "lysyj" [bald] means the absence of something identified as the meaning off the genitive:

Aecc ecTb AaTeAbHUH naAOK, AHCHH - poAirreAbHUH. KaK H B ApyrHx CAynaaxx e n u cyn> AOKa3aTeAi>CTBa pa3HMX naAOKeiï OAHOH H TOH >Ke OCHOBW.. Mecro, rAe Hcne3HyA Aec, 30BeTca AHCHHOH. (1972: 172)

(Les(Les is the dative case, lysyi is the genitive. Here, as in other examples, the letters e andd j prove the existence of two different cases for an identical stem. A place wheree the forest no longer grows is called a bald spot.) (1987: 278)

Inn the above-mentioned case of "dvorjane" and "tvorjane", the replacement of

88 8 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV

'd'' by V creates the neologism "tvorjane". Here, the new word keeps the memory off the öfirgrWword in its grammatical form and aquires an additional meaning byy way of the verb "tvorit"' [to create]. Similarly, when changing the letter 'p' to aa letter 'n' in the neologisms "nraviteFstvo" and "nravitel'" (bringing to mind thee words "nravit'sja" [to like, to love] and "nravstvennost"' [morality]), the letterr 'n' has replaced the letter 'p' in the word "pravitel'stvo" [government] (1972: 232)) and two neologisms are created. The words "tvorjane", "nravitel'stvo", andd "nravitel"' have no definite meaning. Thee substituting of one letter or sound with another opens up new potential meanings.. Therefore, the words no longer belong to the category of everyday language,, but to what Chlebnikov calls "slovotvorcestvo" [word-creation]. In thee poetic creative act, in the word "boec" [warrior] the initial letter 'b' can be isolatedd and substituted by the letters 'p\ 'n', or 'm' to create the neologisms "poec",, "noec", and "moec". While retaining the semantic meaning of "boec", thiss meaning is at the same time crossed over and replaced by the meanings "pet"' [too sing], "nyt"' [to ache or moan], or "myt"' [to wash]. Such a creative act meanss that the signifier and signified are no longer direcdy linked. In Chlebni- kov'ss terminology, this represents a shift from the "silent" or "deaf-dumb" languagee to a "speaking" one:

CAOBOTBOpHeCTBOO eCTb B3pHB H3HKOBOrO MOAHaHHfl, TAyxO-HeMMX nAacTOBB A3HKa. 3aMeHHB B crapoM CAoBe OAHH 3BVK ApyruM, MM cpa3y co3AaeMM nyn. H3 OAHOH AOAHHW H3MKa B Apyryio H KaK nyTeHUM npoAaraeMM nym cooömeHiw B crpaHe CAOB nepe3 xpeÖTM H3MKOBoro MOAMamwi.. (1972: 229) (Wordd creation is the blowing up of linguistic silence, the deaf-and-dumb layers of language.. By replacing one sound in an old word with another, we immediately createe a path from one linguistic valley to another, and like engineers in the land off language we cut paths of communication through mountains of linguistic silence.)) (1987: 377)

Thiss is very close to Potebnja's distinction between the poetic and the prosaic word.. The poetic word still contains the inner form (the representation or image), whichh links meaning to sound in the word. The prosaic language has lost this thirdd element of the triadic sign-structure. Chlebnikov gives the two words

89 9 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT'

"ziry"" and "zen"' as examples, which according to Chlebnikov mean both stars andd eye, and eye and earth respectively. According to Chlebnikov, there is a thirdd meaning uniting the meanings of the two words which are neither the real earthh nor the nWeye, but the reflecting surface of a mirror:3

TaKK CAOBO «3HpW» 3HaHHT H 3Be3AH, H TAa3J CAOBO - «3eHb» H TAa3, H 3eMAK>,, Ho HTO oGiqero Me>KAy rAa30M H 3eMAefi? 3HaHHT, 3To CAOBO 03HanaeTT He HeAOBenecKHH rAa3, He 3CMAHD, HaceAeHHyio HCAOBCKOM, a HTO-TOO Tperbe. H 3TO Tperbe noTOHyAo B 6MTOBOM 3HaneHHH cAOBa, OAHOMM H3 B03MO>KHWX, HO CaMOM 6AH3KOM K HeAOBCKy. Mo>KeT 6bm>

(So:: the word %iry means both stars and eye; the word %en'means both eye and earth.. But do eye and Earth have anything in common? Evidendy, for this word signifiess not the human eye, and not the Earth we humans inhabit, but some third entity.. This third entity has been covered over by the everyday meaning of the word,, in merely one of its possibilities but the one most obvious to mankind: perhapss %en\ used to mean a mirrored device, a reflecting surface.) (1987: 377)

Fromm this it is clear that the entire meaning of a word cannot be contained within aa notion of referentiality. Evidendy, there is a third element that not only re- vealss hidden correspondences between words, but is also able to reveal the hid- denn semantic meanings of words. This third element is uncovered on the level off a word-to-word relationship rather than on the level of an everyday word- thingg relationship. The essence of things can be revealed through the sound- letterss of words, and new possible real things can be created through language:

Bo3bMeMM CAOBO Ae6eAj>. 3TO 3ByKoimcb. AAHHHafl men AeöeAfl HanoMH- HaeTT nyTb naAatoineH BOAH; uiHpoKHe KpMAbJi - BOAy, pa3AHBaioiiryiocH noo 03epy. TAaroA Airrb AaeT Ae6y - npOAHBaeMyio BOAy, a Koneit CAOBa - AAbb HanoMHHaeT nepHWH H nepHHAb (Ha3BaHne OAHoro BHA^ yroK). OaAO 6brrb,, MH MoxceM nocrpoHTb — He6eAH, HeGjDKecKHH «B 3TOT Benep 3a AecoMM AeTeAa neTa HeöeAeü» (1972: 233)

(Considerr the word lebed' [swan]. This is sound writing. The swan's long neck re- mindss us of the arc of falling water; its wide wings recall the water that forms the flatflat surface of a lake. The word lit' [to pour] furnishes leba, meaning poured water, whilee the ending of the word recalls cbernyi [black] and cherniad' [a kind of duck].

90 0 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV

Consequently,, from mbo [sky] we can form mbed' [skyan, skygnet] and nebia^heskji. "Overr the forest that evening flew a pair of nebedi [skyans]".) (1987: 381)

Thee image of the swan is reflected in the sounds of the word just as black is re- flectedflected in it and generates the negatively connoted word "nebedej". Conse- quently,, the sounds of the words can no longer be defined according to the conceptss of phonemes and graphemes whose meaning is only constructed accordingg to a relation of difference. On the contrary, the sounds have and gener- atee meaning according to etymological, grammatical, emotional, or semantic meaning.. Accordingly, the sounds of %aum'language are motivated. Inn Chlebnikov's terminology, a rearrangement of the sound-letters of a "sound- doll"" creates a new word with no immediate meaning. Such words resist refer- entdalityy (i.e. the representation of or substitution for a real thing), and present themselvess as "things as such". For a child, rags can play the role of dolls which substitutee real people. In the "game of dolls", in which the rules are defined due too a convention common to the players, the rags themselves do not mean anything,, they do not "give us the sun" (1972: 235). However, Chlebnikov claims thatt outside the "game" the rags do mean something. Accordingly, the word "ass such" (isolated from the conventional and representational meaning) is still recognizedd as a word, but does not have a conventional meaning; its immediate meaningg is motivated and irrational:

ECAHH pa3AnnaTb B Ayme npaBureAbCTBO paccyAKa H 6ypHMH HapoA HVBCTB, TOO 3aroBopM H 3ayMHHH A3MK ecn> oGpameHHe nepe3 roAOBy rrpaBtrreAb- cTBaa npHMO K HapoAy nyBCTB, npflMofl KAHH K cyMepxaM Aymn HAH BMC- mafll TOHKa HapoAOBAacraa B >KH3HH CAOBa H paccyAKa, npaBOBOH npneM, npHMeHJieMHHH B peAKnx CAynaflx. (1972: 225)

(Iff we think of the soul as split between the government of intellect and a stormy populationn of feelings, then incantations and beyonsense language are appeals overr the head of the government straight to the population of feelings, a direct cry too the predawn of the soul or a supreme example of the rule of the masses in the lifee of language and intellect, a lawful device reserved for rare occasions.) (1987: 370) )

Accordingg to Chlebnikov, %*um' words are composed of an arbitrary combina-

91 1 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT' tionn of minimal units of language which are a few fundamental units of the alphabet. . Too recall Potebnja's definition of the sign, the poetic word consists of an outer form,, a meaning (or content), and an inner form (or representation) which mo- tivatess the relationship between outer form and meaning. In Chlebnikov's interpretation,, there is a hidden image or representation in the words, which can unitee the disparate meanings of words beginning with the same consonant. This innerr form or representation is a semantic unit that differs from the word's ref- erentiall meaning because, unlike the everyday word, it does not refer to an ob- jectt outside the word ("dingticher be^ug' in Jakobson's words). It is connected to aa third unit, which is direcdy and existentially linked to the sound of the initial letterr of a word. Chlebnikov locates this inner form or representation in the words'' initial consonant. Certain distinctive indexical signs consisting of a sound-letterr and an inner form are constructed. Furthermore, according to Po- tebnja,, the inner form functions in the word as a generator of potential meaning.. The only certainty for a person confronted with a new word is the sign of meaningg (the representation) which has to be compared to what is already knownn in the mind of this person. To him or her, the etymological meaning (or representation)) and the articulated sound are the only objective elements of the poeticc word. In this triad, the sign of meaning designates the meaning of the word.. Therefore, the meaning (the third unit of the sign) is not fixed but is gen- eratedd in the perceiver as a potential, rather than a given. Inn Chlebnikov's interpretation of %aum\ language relies on two prepositions: 1. thatt the initial consonant governs the rest of the sounds in a word. 2. that words,, which begin with one and the same consonant, are united by one and thee same idea and "kak by letjat s raznych storon v odnu i tu ze tocku rassudka" ("ass if they were drawn from various directions to a single point in the mind"; 1972:: 236 [1987: 384]). Chlebnikov also calls this common semantic unit an areaa or category ("oblast'") (1972: 203) in which a number of different words withh the same initial letter(s) converge. This is vividly illustrated by means of a sun-likee figure with the syllable "so" in the middle and various words emanat- ingg from it like sunbeams (1940: 332). "So" unites the different words "son"

92 2 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV

[dream],, "solnce" [sun], "süy" [powers], "svjatoj" [holy], "slovo" [word], "slad- kij"" [sweet], "sad" [garden], "sol"' [salt], "suchoj" [dry], "syn" [son], and so on. Commonn semantic ground explains the connection between the words. Like- wise,, the sound-letter 'C, which can be found in the words "culok" [stocking], "coboty"" [a kind of boot], "cereviki" [high-heeled boots for women], "cuvjak" [slipper],, "cuni" [rope shoes; dial.], "cupiki" [felt boots], "cechol" [underdress], andd "casa" [cup], unite the meaning of these words:

Hoo ecAH coGpaTt Bee CAOBa c nepBHM 3ByKOM H (nania, nepen, naH, HVAOK HH T.A.), TO Bee ocraAbHue 3ByKH Apyr Apyra yHHHTOMcaT, H TO o6mee 3Ha- Hemie,, KaKoe ecn> y STHX CAOB, H 6yACT 3HaneHHeM M. CpaBHHBaH 3TH CAOBaa Ha H, MH BHAHM, HTO Bee OHH 3HanaT OAHO TeAO B oöoAOHKe Apy- roro;; H - 3H2MMT oÖOAOHKa. (1972: 235)

(Butt if we take every word that begins with the sound ch — chasha, cerep, chan, chulok, etc.. [cup, skull, vat, stocking] - then the common meaning that all these words sharee will also be the meaning of ch, and the remaining letters in each word will cancell each other out. If we compare these words beginning with ch, we see that theyy all mean "one body that encases or envelops another"; ch therefore means casee or envelope.) (1987: 284)

Kamenskijj wrote in his autobiography, "Kazdaja Bukva - strogo individual'nyj mir,, simvoliceskaja koncentracija kotorogo daet nam tocnoe opredelenie vnu- trennejj i vnesnej suscnosti" ("Every letter is a stricdy individual world, whose symbolicc concentration gives us a precise definition of the inner and outer essence";; 1918: 124). Just like Chlebnikov, Kamenskij isolates the individual letterss and applies a semantic meaning to them:

ECAHH BCTpeTHTCH K) B TWCHHaX CAOBaX H Ha KaKHX VTOAHO H3MKaX - K) BcerAaa npHHeceT CAOBy >KeHCTBeHHOCTb, 3ByHaAbHocn>, po3oyTpeHHOCTb, raÖKOCTb,raÖKOCTb, B036y>KAeHbe. ByKBa K AaeT CAOBy TBepAO-xoAOAHo-ocTpyio MaTepHaAbHOCTb:: KOpeHb, KAHHOK, KaMCHb, KHpKa, KOCTb, CyK, KOBKa, KOA, KHCTeHb.. ByKBa M - 30B >KHBOTHHX: MMY — KopoBa, MM3 - oBna, MiïY —— Koiinca, — MA MA 30B peöeHKa, MOS, MM, MOAHTBa, MHASLSI, npHMaHKa — oiuymeHbee TenAa >KH3HI>. ByKBa O — KOAeco npocropa, B03Ayx, He6o, BH- COKO.. ByKBa H - MHCTHHHOCTb: HHKTO, HeBeAOMHH, HOHb, HanaAO, KaHyH, —— oTpHuaHbe: Her, He, HHKorAa, HCMOH. (1918: 124)

(Iff one encounters 'Ju' in a thousand words and in whichever language, 'Ju' will

93 3 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT'

alwayss bring the word femininity, sonority, a rose-colored dawn, flexibility, and excitement.. The letter 'K' induces the word with a hard-cold-sharp materiality: ko- ren'ren' [root], kiinok [blade], kamen' [stone], kirka [church], kosf [bone], suk [bough or root],, kovka [forging], kol [stake], kisten' [bludgeon]. The letter 'M' is the cry of animals:: MMU [moo] of the cow, MMÈ [baa] of the sheep, MJAU [miaow] of the cat,, - MA MA is the cry of a child, mo/a [mine], my [we], molitva [prayer], milaja [dear],primankaa [bait], are the feeling of warmth in life. The letter 'O' is the koleso prostoraprostora [wheel of space], voyducb [air], nebo [sky], vysoko [height]. The letter 'N' is mysticism:: nikto [nobody], nevedomyj [unknown], not' [night], nacalo [beginning], kanunkanun [eve]; it is negation: net [no], nikogda [never], nemoj [deaf].)

Byy isolating the fundamental sound-letters ("osnovnye zvuki azbuki") of the alphabett and freeing them from referential meaning (as in the yaum' words), the semanticc meaning of the sound-letter can be distilled from words with the same initiall letter to a set of names ("prostye imena"). On the basis of a letter's semantic meaning,, a universal language (an inventory of indexical signs) is constructed.

Universall language Thee basic principle behind the construction of Chlebnikov's universal language iss the isolation of every single letter-sound and die elevation of these letters to thee status of an independent sign. According to Chlebnikov, these signs consist off sound and some kind of representation or idea. The representation is not di- recdyy connected to any object or meaning, but functions in die word as a des- ignatorr of meaning or mediator between sound and meaning. The idea of die representationn as a part of the letter-sign has developed over a period of some 155 years. In the initial phase, this representation, it seems, was emotionally charged.. In die declaration 'Perecen'. Azbuka uma' ('A Checklist: The Alphabet off the Mind') (1916), the letter 'z' was characterized dius:

33 — co3ByMHe KOAe6aHne oTAaAeHHbix cTpyn. Pa3AeAeHHue Apo>KaHHfl OAHoroo npoHCxo>KAeHiM H HHCAa KOAe6aHHH. Orpa)KeHHe. 3epKaAO, 30H (axo),, 3w6b (oTpajKemi» 6ypa), 3MeH, ABHraioinHHCfl oTpajKaacb. 3BaTb, 3Be3Abi,, 3opbKa, 3apH, 3apHHua (oTpaïKeHHe MOAHHH), 3em>, 3paK, o3epo, 3yAA - 6OAB 6e3 npHHHma, OTpaaceHHan. (1972: 207)

(33 [^ is the resonant vibration of distant strings. Separate vibrations with one sin- glee origin and with an identical number of vibrations. Reflection. Zerkalo [mirror],

94 4 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV

%pi%pi [echo], (echo) %yb' [ripple] (the reflection of a storm), %mei [serpent], which movess by vibrating. Zvat' [to call],, %ve%dy [stars], %>r'ka [dawnlight], %aria [dawn], ârnitsaârnitsa [heat lightning] (lightning's reflection), %en' [earth; dial.], %rak [the look of something],, oêro [lake], %ud [itch], a pain without any origin, reflected pain.) (1987: 314-315) )

Inn a later version, the same letter was characterized in almost the same way, ex- ceptt that the emotional associations were substituted by a geometrical form: "Ctoo Z znacit otrazenie dvizuscejsja tocki ot certy zerkala pod uglom, ravnym ugluu padenija. Udar luca o tverduju ploskost"' ("3 (z) means the reflection of a movingg point from the surface of a mirror at an angle equal to the angle of incidence.. The impact of a ray upon a solid surface"; 1972: 217 [1987: 365]). This developmentt is even more apparent where it concerns the letter 'b\ By 1908- 1909,, Chlebnikov had already listed the meanings of sounds including the con- sonantt 'b': "B: basa / bajat' / baba / b. nacala radosti baloven' [...] b. ob"- edinjaett nacala blag zizni." ("'B': base / talk / old woman / 'b'. the source of joyy a spoilt child [...] 'b'. unites the sources of life's blessings"; Percova 2000: 365).. In 'Artists of the World!' the same consonant is characterized in the fol- lowingg way: "Cto B znacit vstrecu dvuch tocek, dvizuscijsja po prjamoj s raz- nychh storon. Bor'ba ich, povorot odnoj tocki ot udara drugoj" ("B (b) means thee meeting of two points moving along a straight line from opposite directions.. Their clash, the reversal of one point by the impact of the other"; 1972: 2188 [1987: 366]). In this way, subjective emotional associations are translated intoo an objective geometrical form. Based on these geometrical forms, an in- ventoryy of indexical signs can be construed - comparable to a Mendeleev's law inn science (Chlebnikov 1972: 228). Thee sound-letters of the universal language are then constructed according to threee principles. Oraic Tolic identified them as decomposition, logization, and ontologization:: 1. the consonants are freed from the context of the syntagmatic sequencess of everyday language and are isolated as "autonomous alphabetic paradigms";; 2. to these isolated sounds, an abstract "volume of meaning" is at- tached;; the sounds are transformed into noetic categories; 3. these categories of meaningg are turned into ontological entities, "hyperstasized" abstract truths

95 5 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT'

(Oraicc Tolic 1985: 46). In the third phase of ontologization, the sounds are transformedd into cosmic entities governing the universe. Accordingly, the spa- tiall inner form of sound is explained in 'Zangezi' as a constellation of moving points,, lines, surfaces and so forth: "Ploskosti, prjamye ploscadi, udary tocek, bozestvennyjj krug, ugol padenija, pucek lucej proc' iz tocki i v nee - vot tajnye glybyy jazyka" ("Planes, the lines defining an area, the impact of points, the god- likee circle, the angle of incidence, the fascicule of rays proceeding from a point orr penetrating it - these are the secret building blocks of language"; Chlebnikov 1968c:: 333 [1989: 345]). The lines, points, and planes move in relation to each otherr and are, therefore, unstable. They do not imply the arresting of time in a purelyy spatial form. They exist both in a spatial and a temporal dimension.4 Moreover,, the letters are connected to what Chlebnikov calls "destiny" or "worldd truth". The initial letter of countries ('g' for Germany, 'r' for Russia), historicall persons, or events acquires independent existence and functions like a "name".55 These letters are governed by an inner representation, which is con- nectedd to "World truth" or destiny: "V pervoj soglasnoj my vidim nositelja sud'byy i put' dlja vol', pridavaja ej rokovoj smysl" ("In the initial consonant we seee the bearer of destiny and the path of forces that give it a fateful significance";; 1972: 188 [1987: 293]).6 Thee indexical signs should have a graphic form, created by artists, which corre- spondss to the representation of the sound. An attempt was made to conceive off a new system of written characters, which was based on the geometrical representationn of the sound-letter. In 'Chudozniki mira' ('Artists of the World!'), Chlebnikovv gives the artists more or less clear instructions as to the creation of aa few letters of the universal language. The abstract form of the sound 'c' he definess in the following way: "C oznacaet pustotu odnogo tela, zapolnennuju ob"emomm drugogo tela, tak cto otricatel'nyj ob"em pervogo tela tocno raven polozitel'nomuu ob"emu vtorogo" ("H (cb) means the empty space of one body containingg the volume of another body, in such a way that the negative volume off the first body is exacdy equal to the positive volume of the second"; 1972: 2177 [1987: 366]) and the letter: "C v vide casi" ("H (cb) in the form of a goblet"; 1972:: 219 [1987: 367]). The letter *V' he imagines as a circle with a point in its

96 6 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV middlee corresponding to the definition of its semantic meaning: "V na vsech jazykachh znacit vrascenie odnoj tocki krugom drugoj ili po celomu krugu ili po castii ego, duge, werch i nazad" ("B (v) in all languages means the turning of onee point around another, either in a full circle or only a part of one, along an arc,, up or down"; 1972: 217 [1987: 365]). The letter 'L' he imagines as a circular planee with a vertical axis corresponding to its definition as a form of upwards movementt along a vertical line, as well as to the spreading of "waves" on a wide surfacee (1972: 218). Thoughh it has already been noted a number of times, it remains interesting to notee the similarity between the proposed characters of the new universal languagee and the existing Russian alphabet.7 By comparing Chlebnikov's ideas of thee geometrical form of letters in the universal language with those in the Rus- siann alphabet, it is evident that the forms of the Russian alphabet have influ- encedd Chlebnikov at least in respect to the forms of characters in the universal language.. This is consistent with the nature of Chlebnikov's "scientific" investi- gationn into the essence of initial letters of the language. Accordingg to Chlebnikov's idea of the inner representation of the letters, the commonn denominator functions in the word like a passage in a canal system. It uncoverss hidden correspondences between the words, discovers their semantic potential,, and opens up a free passage between them. However, these words are usedd as the basis for a comparison between the initial letters in order to isolate thee common denominator, the representation. For instance, the word "cerep" [skull]] is a very important poetic image in Chlebnikov's poetry and is at the samee time used as an example of the meaning of 'c'.8 Moreover, as Vroon pointss out, Chlebnikov's poems are often extended proof of his propositions (Vroonn 1983: 176). For instance, most of the words mentioned in 'Our Fun- damentals',, from which the common denominator of words beginning with T iss derived, are parts of the poem 'Slovo o El"' ('A word about 'L"): "lodka" [boat],, "lyzi" [skis], "lad'ja" [boat], "ladon"' [palm of the hand], "lapa" [paw], "list"" [leaf or sheet of paper], "lopast"' [blade, vane], "lasty" [flippers], "luc" [ray],, "log" [broad gully], "lezanka" [stove-bench], "prolivat"' [to pour out] (Chlebnikovv 1972: 237 and 1968c: 70-72), and the phrase "luza livnja" [a puddle

97 7 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT' afterr a cloud burst] (1972: 230 and 1968c: 71). It can be assumed that the words whichh are used as "scientific material" in order to construct a "Mendeleev's law"" of sound-letters are indeed derived from the poetic vocabulary of the writerr himself. Consequently, there is a movement from poetic practice to the universall language. However,, the contrary movement is more evident. The language of the stars is partt of Chlebnikov's poetry in the poem 'Carapina po nebu' ('A Scratch in the Sky5).. The poem has the sub-title, "Proryv v jazyki. Soedinenie zvezdnogo jazykaa i obydennogo" ("A breach in languages. A combination of the language off the stars and the ordinary"; 1968c: 75). In 'Zangezi', the following lines pre- cedee an almost identical poem:

3p,, Ka, 3AI>, HT3- BOHHMM a36yKH, - BMAHH AeHCTByiOmHMH AHIjaMH 3THX ACT, BoraTMpflMHH AHefi. (1968c:: 330)

(R,K,I,G-- Alphabett war-makers — theyy were the actors in the drama of those years, warrior-heroess of those days) (1989:: 342)9

Itt is not my intention here to analyze the character and the function of the languagee of the stars, but merely to emphasize the interactive relationship between thee "scientific" investigation of Chlebnikov into the semantic meaning of the letters,, the isolation of the common denominator, and the poetic practice of "word-creation".. Chlebnikov, as the creator of the evidence and proof of his own scientificscientific investigation, becomes at one and the same time, the scientist and the ob- jectject of the investigation. Consequendy, the subjective and objective aspects of word-creationn merge in Chlebnikov's idea of a universal language. The script hass its own life which is fed by and feeds language, and creates new words. The semanticc meanings of the initial letters are isolated on the background of these words.. In the same manner, the existing Russian alphabet undoubtedly influ-

98 8 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV encedd the abstract geometrical inner form of the language of the stars. The pro- posedd new letterforms differ litde from the Russian alphabet. Thee emotional-geometrical form, therefore, inscribes itself into the very letter off the already existing alphabet. The letter can be seen as a kind of ideogram, as aa visual expression of the inner geometrical form. This is often interpreted as accidental,, a paradoxical mistake on Chlebnikov's part, yet, he did appear to applyy a certain iconic meaning the letters, especially to the hand-written ones. Thee characters of the new universal alphabet must be conceived of as an alphabett on another level. There is an iconic relation between the outer form of the letterr (its shape) and the inner form (the geometrical abstract form). This idea is veryy similar to the ideas of Kandinskij, who claims: "form is the external ex- pressionn of inner content":

Iff the reader of these lines looks at one of the letters with unaccustomed eyes,, i.e., not as a customary sign for a part of a word, but rather as a thing, thenn he will see in this letter, apart from the practical-purposive abstract formm created by man for the purpose of invariably indicating a particular sound,, another corporeal form, which quite independendy produces a certainn external and internal impression - i.e., independent of its abstract formm already mentioned. In this way, the letter consists of: 1. Its principal formm (^overall appearance), which, very crudely characterized, appears "gay",, "sad", "striving", "striking", "defiant", "ostentatious", etc., etc. 2. Thee letter consists of individual lines, bent this way or that, which on each occasionn also produce a certain internal impression, i.e., are likewise "gay," "sad,"" etc. As soon as the reader has sensed these two elements of the letter,, there arises in him a feeling that this letter produces as a being with its ownn inner life. (1994: 245)

Att the time, such interest was indeed prevalent and can be seen in the manifestoo 'Cto est' slovo' CWhat is the Word') by Kul'bin:

BB CAoBe — HAea (nepBoe AHUO neAOBeKa H BceAeHHOH — co3HaHne). Pa3- raAKaa CAOBa — B 6yKBe. ByKBa — aAeMeirr CAOBa KaK TaKOBoro. Oiia — CHM- BOA,, coAep>KaumH HACK) CAOBa, (HMA), (|)OHHHecKyio 4>opMy H HanepTa- TeAbHyro.. CAOBO - UMA (HapeneHHe). TeAo CAOBa - GyKBa. 3HaneHHe Ka>K- AOHH GyKBH — cBoeo6pa3Hoe, HenpeAOJKHoe. KajKAaa 6yKBa — y>Ke WMA. CAOBecHOCTbb — TBopnecKoe coneTaHHe HMCH. CAOBecHoe TBOpnecTBO — öpaHHann 6opb6a AHCcoHnpyiomnx SAeMeHTOB CAOBa, yAOBAeTBopjuomaa

99 9 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT'

C03ByMHMMM peilieHHCM HAH AaJOUiafl 3CTeTHHeCKyiO HeyAOBACTBOpeH- HocTb.. (2000: 45)

(Inn the word is the idea (what comes first to man and to the universe is con- sciousness).. The solution of a word lies in the letter. The letter is an element of thee word as such. It is a symbol, which contains the idea of a word (the name), its phoneticc and its graphic form. The word is a name (naming). The body of the wordd is the letter. The meaning of each letter is distinct, unalterable. Every letter is alreadyy a name. Literature is the creative combination of names. Literature is the conjugall fight between dissonant elements of the word, which is either supple- mentedd with a harmonious solution or is failing to give aesmetic satisfaction.)

Kul'binn clearly states a direct relationship between meaning, sound, and the vis- uall materialization, the letter.

Writingg and painting Throughoutt the ages movements of thought have for various reasons rejected thee phonological alphabetic system. In end of 19th and beginning of 20th cen- turyy Russia, there emerged a renewed interest in the creation of new languages andd new graphic systems. The common solution to this was most often seen to bee the creation of graphic signs which were modeled on an ideographic or pic- tographicc system (although such ideas were rarely reali2ed). In 1914, Nikolaj Burljukk wrote about the limits of the existing phonological alphabet:

MHH HeMH AAH MHomx nyBCTB, MM nepepocAH KOpCeTM fleTpOBCKOH a30yKH.. rio3TOMy H 3aKaHHHBaio CBoe Kpantoe o6o3penne 3aAan HOBoro HCKyCCTBaa npH3HBOM K C03AaHHK> HOBOH a3ÖyKH, AAA HOBfalX 3ByKOB. MHoraee HAen MOIVT 6brn> nepeAami AHHUJ HAeorpadDHHecKHM nncbMOM. (2000:: 58)

(Wee are dumb to many feelings; we have grown out of the corset of the Petrine alphabet.. Therefore, I close my short overview of tasks for the new art with a call forr the creation of a new alphabet, an alphabet for new sounds. Many ideas can onlyy be communicated with an ideographic script.)

Similarly,, because of its limiting expressive qualities Chlebnikov considered completelyy rejecting the known graphic system. In a letter to Chlebnikov, Ja- kobsonn refers to a conversation in which the former had evidently expressed

100 0 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV doubtss about the efficacy of the alphabet: "Pomnite, Viktor Vkdimirovic, go- vorilii Vy mne, cto nasa azbuka sliskom bedna dlja poézii i kak by s bukvennymi stichamii ne zajti v tupik" ("Do you remember, Viktor Vladimirovic, that you toldd me that our alphabet is too poor for poetry and how it is possible not to reachh a deadlock with letter-poems"; 1999: 57). Mostt radically of all the futurists and the constructivists, Aleksej N. Cicerin re- jectedd the hierarchization of the graphic system into different stages in an evo- lutionaryy process that concluded in a phonological alphabet. Instead, Cicerin saww each graphic system as parallel and equal systems to answer different needs:

riepeoueHHBB 3HaneHHe HCTopuHecKofi nepcneKTHBbi AANBIJT COHAH CAeACTBHeMM pa3BHTHH npeAinecTBOBaBiiiHx craAHH cMMCAOBoro rpaqV AeHHfl;; CTaAHH: miKTorpaqbHHecKyio, HAeorpaqbtrHecKyio H qboHorpaMM- Hyioo pa3AO>KHAH no BepTHKaAH, OAHy HaA Apyroii, O&WICHHB HX, xaK OAHy H33 ApyroH, He o6pamaa BHinnaHiM Ha TO, HTO HCAH H Ha3HaneHHfl HX He npoTHBopenaTT Apyr Apyry H He 3aMeHJiioT Apyr Apyra, MTO Bee STH CTaAHH BcerAaa H Be3Ae cocymecTBOBaAH H cocymecTByioT, oneHb noAe3HM H iieAecoo6pa3HH,, nrpaioT o^ieHb öoAbuiyio poAb B HameM 6bny, CTOA CnAOIHbb H pHAOM B AOKa3aTeAbCTBe npaB, KaK Hanp., B pa3AHHHHX yAocro- BepeHHflx,, rAe Tencr corAacyeTca c o6«3aTeABHMM CKpenAeHHeM ero iirraMnoM,, nenaTbio H npon. (1988: 196)

(Firstt the importance of a historical perspective was overestimated, and then the alphabett was considered a result of a development of previous stages of graphic signn drawing). The stages (pictographic, ideographic, and phonographic) were ar- rangedd on a vertical line one on top of the other after having explained them as onee from the other without paying attention to the fact that their aim and purpose doo not contradict one another and are not interchangeable, that all these stages alwayss and everywhere have co-existed and co-exist, that they are very useful and expedient,, and that they play a very significant role in our everyday life — always standingg as evidence of rightfulness, for example on various certificates where the textt corresponds to the obligatory authentication of a stamp, a seal and so on.)

Thee mistrust towards the phonological alphabet was connected to a more gen- erall mistrust towards language as a fulfilling medium for poetry. In his 1913 bookk Explodity, Krucenych wrote: "Perezivanie ne ukladyvaetsja v slova (zasty- vsie,, ponjatija) - muki slova - gnoseologiceskoe odinocestvo. Otsjuda stremle- niee k svobodnomu jazyku" ("Experience cannot be kept within the words (the

101 1 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT' stiffened,, concepts). The torments of the word are its gnoseological loneliness. Fromm this emerges the aspiration to a free %aum'language"; 1913a). In 1913, in thee declaration 'New Ways of the Word' (with reference to Fet and to Tjutcev's poemm 'Silentium'), he wrote:

«OO ecAH 6 6e3 CAOBa CKasaTbca AymeH 6HAO MO>KHO?» (<ï>eT). «MucAb H3- peneHHafll ecn> AO>KI>» (TioTHeB) TpiCKAM rrpaBHÏ JTloHeMy >Ke 6MAO He yirmm OT MHCAH, H nucaTB He cAOBaMH — noHflTMMH, a CBOGOAHO o6pa30- BaHHHMH?? H60 eatu xydomwK óeccuAen 3Hauum OH He oejiadeji MamepuajioMi. (Krucenychh 1967: 67)

("Oh,, were it only possible for the soul to express itself without words?" (Fet). "Ann expressed thought is a lie" (Tjutcev) — they are threefold right! Why should it nott be possible to reject thought, and write not with word-concepts, but with freelyy created words? For if the artist is powerless it means that be didn 't master the materi- als'.^ als'.^

Inn his 1926 declaration 'Kan-Fun', Cicerin (again most radically of all) declared thatt the word was unfit to serve as a poetic sign:

BcflKHHH H3HKOBOH pJIA, KaK CaMHH rpyÖblH, TaK H yTOHHeHHeHIHHH, IIOA- pa3yMeBaeTT ropa3AO GoAbnie Toro, neM xoneT CKa3aTb. MaTepHaAOM AAJI 3HaKaa ri033HH AOAMCeH ÖHTb HHOH, 5eCCAOBeCHMH MaTepHaA, nOAHHHfl- IOHÏHHCHH ocHOBHOMy 3aK0Hy KoHCTpyKTHBH3Ma. [...] Co3Hamie HeecTecr- BeHHOCTHH npHBeAerHH CAOBa Ha opraHH3amno 3Haica I1O33HH Ha3peBaAO AaBHO;; Il03Ty AaBHO «HyBCTBOBaAH» H 60H3AHBO XOTeAH «CKa3aTbCH 6e3 CAOB».. (1988: 195).

(Anyy linguistic sequence, no matter how coarse or refined it may be, implies a lot moree than what it wants to say. The material for a poetic sign must be a different one,, a non-verbal material, which obeys the fundamental law of constructivism. [...]] The acknowledgement of the unnatural privilege of the word in the organiza- tionn of the Poetic sign matured a long time ago. The poet has long "felt" and tim- idlyy wanted to "express himself without words".)

Here,, both Krucenych and Cicerin refer more or less direcdy to Potebnja's languagee theory. Although the aforementioned quote by Krucenych was no doubt aa polemic attack on Potebnja (and his proposition of poetry as a special kind of thinking),, Potebnja was undoubtedly crucial in the futurists' rejection of the

102 2 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV supremacyy of literature over other semiotic sign systems.10 Because Potebnja understoodd language and art as having a cognitive function, he (with a direct quotee from Tjutcev's 'Silentium') characterized the inherent quality of language ass consisting exactly of the speaker/writer's inability to fully express his or her ideas.. Likewise, the listener/ reader is unable to fully understand the ideas ex- pressedd by the speaker/writer: "Every comprehension is at the same time in- comprehension". . Thus,, the distrust towards the already known script was also an attack on the supremacyy of linguistics over other means of expression. For the poets, one possiblee solution was to emphasize the literally visual aspect of writing and to diminishh the relation of the letter to sound. A new interest emerged in the pic- toriall values of the graphics of writing, rendering the reader approach writing as aa sensory object similar to a picture. Cicerin expressed this turn towards visual languagee in the following statement: "Zakon konstruktivnoj poétiki predopre- deljaett vosprijatie znakov ee putem zrenija - posredstvom glaza" ("The law of constructivistt poetics implies a perception of its signs through sight - by means off the eye"; 1988: 197). Similarly, in 1925, G.O. Vinokur wrote about the meaningfull nuances of the graphic sign that the connection between graphics andd phonetics is not at all a principal one. He uses the Chinese or Egypt script ass evidence:

BB nocAeAHeM y6e>KAaeT XOTH 6M OAHO TO oöcrojrreAbCTBo, HTO cymecr- ByioTT Taicne rpa

Thiss is what Derrida calls "the Chinese/hieroglyphist prejudice" (i.e. the refusal too understand the real nature of Chinese script). To the Chinese script is desig- natedd a certain function within our own Western culture as a modell for a uni-

103 3 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT' versall (philosophical) language, and it is thus removed from history (Derrida 1997:: 76). Contained in the notion of the Chinese character was and still is (to somee extent) the belief that the Chinese written character had first of all been inventedinvented and second of all, that there existed no link to the phonetic spoken sound. . Thee Chinese written character was introduced into Western philosophy with thee discovery of China in the 16th century and came to play a tremendous role in thee poetics of the beginning of the 20th century. The Chinese written character wass the graphic system par excellence which actualized the image-text relations of writing.. However, the function of the Chinese written character has changed sincee its coinage in the 16th century. In 1585, the first publication appeared in thee West in which characters from the Chinese script were reproduced, and in 1615,, the publication De Christiana expedition apud Sinas ab Societate leus suscepta appeared.. It was claimed that in the Chinese script there was a one-to-one rela- tionn to the thing signified, and that all Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans could understandd it. Because of these qualities, the Chinese script came to serve as a modell for an international language (Eco 1995: 158). The Jesuit Athanasius Kircherr collected and studied Chinese culture and language arriving at the con- clusionn that the Chinese written character had originally been iconic. Despite thee fact that Kircher found this iconic relation only when the characters signi- fiedfied concepts, and that he considered such a one-to-one relation a limitation for thee usefulness of such a script (because of the large amount of characters that mustt be memorized), these were the qualities which appealed to the minds of thee 17th and 18th Century Enlightenment philosophers. Inn the Enlightenment period, the interest in the creation of an international languagee had first and foremost commercial reasons. At the beginning of the 17thh century, the dominant international language was Latin; however, Latin was losingg ground giving way to speculation about the creation of a new interna- tionall language. The interest of Francis Bacon and later, the German philoso- pherr Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz served purely philosophical purposes. Their interestt in Chinese script was first and foremost because of the graphic sign's abilityy to denote concepts. Bacon did not seem to know of the possible iconic

104 4 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV aspectt of the Chinese character. He was merely interested in the prevalent idea thatt both Chinese and Japanese could understand these graphic signs regardless off the differences in the spoken languages (Eco 1995: 211-213). Similarly,, die Chinese written character does not seem to appeal to Leibniz as ann allegorical writing or iconic script, but rather for its intellectual i.e., its arbitraryy qualities.11 Leibniz was in search of a logical language which would be similarr to algebra and in which the individual signs would function like numbers: : Chinesee characters are perhaps more philosophical and seem to be built uponn more intellectual considerations, such as are given by numbers, or- ders,, and relations; thus there are only detached strokes that do not culmi- natee in some resemblances to a sort of body. (Quoted in Derrida 1997: 79)

Thee quality of the Chinese script was praised by Leibniz. This was not a languagee mediated by language; it had an arbitrary relation to the object (concept) signified.. Accordingly, a stage could be skipped in the transmittance of thought: Speechh is to give the sign of one's thought with an articulated voice. Writ- ingg is to do it with permanent characters on paper. The latter need not be referredd back to the voice, as is obvious from the characters of the Chi- nesee script. (Quoted in Derrida 1997: 79)

Inn modern times, the. function of the Chinese script was to be a model for a poeticc language in which the premier quality is the likeness to an image. This is mostt evident in Ernest Fenellosa's 1936 account: Chinesee poetry has the unique advantage of combining bom elements [spacee and time C.G.]. It speaks at once with the vividness of painting, and withh the mobility of sounds. It is, in some sense, more objective than either,, more dramatic. In reading Chinese we do not seem to be juggling mentall counters, but to be watching things work out their own fate. (1936: 9)

Thiss reveals a fascination with the supposed unique ability of the Chinese writtenn character to instantaneously reflect a "verbal idea of action" via "shorthand picturess of action". In reading, we watch things act out a drama between an agent andd an object. Contrary to the phonetic alphabet (based on "sheer convention"), thee Chinese written character "follows natural suggestion" (1936: 8).

105 5 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT'

Inn Russia, this idea of the Chinese written character's visual appeal also had reso- nance.. More than twenty years before Ernest Fenollosa's praise of the Chinese writtenn character, Vjaceslav Egor'ev and Vladimir Markov had given similar praisee in the book Svirel' Kitajer.

KuraHCKafll rracbMeHHocrb npoH3BOAHT GoAee CHAbHoe BnenaTAeHHe, neM CAOBa;; ÖAaroAapH accomiairnH, CBH3aHHHx c H«O HACK, BoenpHHHMae- MMXX c AeTCTBa, c OAHOH CTopoHM, H ÖAaroAapfl ee HCHBOUHCHOH cym- HOCTH,, c ApyroH, oHa oÖAaAaeT CHAOH H KpacoTOH, Ha KOTopyio He MOHCCT paccHHTMBaTfaa Haiua 3ByK0Baa cucreMa nHCbMeHHOcra. yiGiBonHCHbiH ee 3AeMeHTT AaeT HOBbie KpacoTbi; HeKOTOpbie no3THHecKne npoH3BeAeHHH npeACTaBA«ioTT H3 ce6fl Hacrofliime >KnBonHCHbie KapTHHH; 3Aecb MM BHAHMM AepeBo, TaM irnnry, UBCTM, nAomaAb, crpeMHmHHca pyHefi; Aocra- TOHHOTOHHO MHMOAeTHoro B3rA«Aa, HTO6M «yBHAerb» TeMy cmxoTBopeHHfl. (Egor'evv 1914: IX)

(Thee Chinese written language creates a stronger impression than the words. Thankss to the associations - the ideas - which are tied up with it from childhood, onn the one hand, and thanks to its painterly quality, on the other hand, the Chi- nesee written language possesses a power and beauty, on which our written language,, which is based on a sound system, cannot count. Its painterly element gives itt new aspects of beauty: some of the poetic works present themselves as veritable paintings;; here we see a tree, there a bird, flowers, a square, a rushing stream; just aa fleeting glance is enough to "see" the theme of the poem.)

Thus,, in the Chinese character, Markov suggests, we are able to see the object referredd to. Againstt this background it is instructive to discuss Chlebnikov's fascination withh the Chinese written character. It seems to be fed by the same ideas that fuell his fascination with numbers. Regarding the Chinese characters, he wrote: "Zivopis'' vsegda govorila jazykom, dostupnym dlja vsech. I narody kitajcev i japoncevv govorjat na sotne raznych jazykov, no pisut i citajut na odnom pis'mennomm jazyke" ("Painting has always used a language accessible to every- one.. And the Chinese and the Japanese peoples speak hundreds of different languages,, but they read and write in one single written language"; Chlebnikov 1972:: 216 [1987: 364]). In 1919 he wrote about his preoccupation with numbers: :

106 6 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV

BB nocAeAHee BpeMfl nepemeA K HHCAOBOMY roicbMy, KaK xyAO>KHHK HHCAa Be^HOHH TOAOBH BceAeHHOH, TaK, KaK u ee Bjracy, H onyAa, oncyAa ee BiOKy. 3TOO HCKyccTBO, pa3BHBaiomeecH H3 KAOHKOB coBpeMeHHtix HayK, KaK H o6wKHOBeHHa«« «oiBonHCb, AocrynHO KaacAOMy H ocy^AeHO norAoirrrb ecrecTBeHHHee HayKH. (1968b: 11) (Recentlyy I have begun writing with numbers, as Number-Artist of the eternal headd of the universe, how I see it and where I see it from. This art form is now beingg developed out of bits and pieces of modern science, just like contemporary painting;; it is accessible to all and is destined to swallow up me natural sciences.) (1989:: 8)

Andd in 1916:

OcoöeHHOO yAo6eH JBMK HHCCA AAH paAHOTeAerpaMM. HncAOpeHH. YM OCBOÖOAHTCfll OT ÖeCCMMCAeHHOH paCTpaTH CBOHX CHA B nOBCeAHeBHbTX penax.. (1972:157) (Thee language of numbers is especially suited to radio telegrams. Number-talk. Thee mind will free itself from the meaningless waste of its strength in everyday speech.)) (1987: 329)

Thesee were evidently thoughts that he discussed with Roman Jakobson. A letter fromm Jakobson to Chlebnikov testifies: "Kogda ja sprosil vas, k cemu novomu prisell vy, otvet byl - k cislu" ("When I asked you, at which new discoveries you arrived,, the answer was: to the number"; 1999: 57). Though, Jakobson did not sharee this same fascination with numbers he did discern certain qualities that weree both contrary to and ideal for poetry:

HHCAOO — AByocrpMH Men, KpaÜHe KOKKperao H Kpairae OTBACHCHHO, npo- H3BOAbHOO H dDaTaAbHO TOHHO, AOITCHHO H ÖeCCMHCACHHO, OrpaHHHeHO HH GecKOHeHHO [...] BaM BCAOMM HHCAa, a noTOMy, ecAH BM no33Hio nnceA rrpH-3HaeTe,, XOTH 6H coBepnieHHO HenpHeMAeMbiM napaAOKCOM, HO oc- TpbiM,, nonMTaeTecb Aarb MHe xoTb HeöoAbinoH o6pa3HHK TaKHx CTHXOB. (1999:: 57)

(Thee number is a double-edged sword; extremely concrete and extremely abstract, arbitraryy and fatally precise, logical and meaningless, limited and infinite. [...] You aree already familiar with numbers, and therefore, if you acknowledge poetry of numberss - even by some unacceptable but pointed paradox - please try to give mee at least a small example of such verses.)

107 7 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT'

Furthermore,, Chlebnikov compares the sounds of his universal language with moneyy ("zvucnye den'gi"): "Zadacej vasej, chudozniki, bylo by postroit' udob- nyee menovye znaki mezdu cennostjami zvuka i cennostjami glaza, postroit' set' vnusajuscichh doverie certeznych znakov" ("Your task, you artists, would be to constructt a suitable instrument of exchange between auditory and visual modes, too construct a system of graphic signs that inspires confidence"; 1972: 220 [1987:: 368]) or "mute graphic signs": "[P]is'menny[e] znak[i] - nemye den'gi na razgovornychh rynkach" ("[Wjritten signs, soundless currency for the market- placee of conversation"; 1972: 220 [1987: 368]).12 Att first glance it seems that the quality of the Chinese written characters, in whichh Chlebnikov assigned the highest value, was not an iconic resemblance to thee thing signified, but — closer to the philosophical language of Leibniz - a writtenn language that can be understood by all peoples, which is arbitrarily con- nectedd to sound. The universal language is an inventory of indexical signs very muchh like numbers and has, therefore, striking similarities with Leibniz's idea of aa philosophical language. Chlebnikov's intention was to create a universal languagee (a "language of the stars"), which could be understood by all peoples re- gardlesss of their spoken tongue:

HaHTH,, He pa3pwBafl Kpyra KopHeü, BOAineÖHMH KaMem, rrpeBpameHbH BCeXX CAaBHHCKHX CAOB, OAHO B ApyTOe — CB060AHO nAaBHTb CAaBflHCKHe cAOBa,, BOT Moe nepBoe OTHOinemie K cAOBy. 3TO caMOBHToe CAOBO BHe 6bITaa H >KH3eHHHX nOAi>3. YBHAfl, MTO KOpHH AHIHb IipH3paK, 3a KOTO- pMMHH CTOHT CTpyHW a30yKH, HaHTH eAHHCTBO BOo6lU,e MHpOBHX «3HKOB, nocTpoeHHoee H3 CAHHHII a30yKH - Moe BTOpoe oTHorueHHe K CAOBy. Ltyrb KK MHpOBOMy 3ayMHOMy H3MKy." (1968b: 9) (Too find — without breaking the circle of roots — the magic touch-stone of all Slavicc words, the magic that transforms one into another, and so freely to fuse all Slavicc words together: this was my first approach to language. This self-sufficient languagee stands outside historical fact and everyday utility. I observed that the rootss of words are only phantoms behind which stand the strings of the alphabet,, and so my second approach to language was to find the unity of the world's languagess in general, built from units of the alphabet. A path to a universal beyon- sensee language.) (1989: 7)

108 8 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV

AA similar thought was expressed in the programmatic essay 'Artists of the World!': :

3T&3T& ueAi> — co3AaTb O6IU;HH imcbMeHHbm H3MK, OÖIUHH AAH Bcex HapoAOB TpeTberoo cnyTHHKa CoAHija, nocrpOHTb nucbMeHHue 3HaKH, noHHTHbie H npHeMAeMhiee AAH Been HaceAeHHOH HeAOBenecTBOM 3Be3AH, 3aTepflHHOH B MHpe.. (1972: 216)

{Thee goal is to create a common written language shared by all the peoples of this thirdd satellite of the Sun, to invent written symbols that can be understood and acceptedd by our entire star, populated as it is with human beings and lost here in thee universe.) (1987: 364)

However,, Chlebnikov evidendy also assigned some significance to the outer formm of writing, the merging of the eye and the ear:

«Xopomo!! — noAyMaA a, — Tenepb a OAHHOKHH nrpoK, a ocraAbHbie — Becb OOAbinOHH HOHHOH TOpOA, HbIAaK>IH.HH OrHflMH, — 3pHTeAH. Ho OVACT Bpe- ivw,, KorAa a 6yAy eAHHCTBeHHbiM 3pirreAeM, a BH — AnueAeflMH». - 3TH GecKOHeHHbiee TOAJIH ropoAa H IIOAHHHK) CBoeü BOAC BoAHyiomirii pa3yM MaTepHKa,, KaK noGeAHTeAb BMe3>KaiomHH H3 TymiKOB HapenHH, noöeAa TAa3aa HaA CAyXOM, BHXpb B OAHH y3eA MHpOBOÜ >KHBOnHCH H HHCTOrO 3ByKa,, y»ce CBfl3aBuiHH B OAHH y3eA rAa3a H yniH MaTepmca, H Apy»f6a 3eAeHO-HepHbTXX KHTaHCKHX AyÖKOB H MHAOBHAHblX KHTaHHOK C TOHKHMH 6pOBHMH,, BCerAa nOXOJKHX Ha rpOMaAHblX MOTblAbKOB, C TeHflMH MTaAHH Haa OAHOH H TOH MC naCMypHOH CTCHe ropOACKOH KOMHaTbl, H HOITH, AK)6OBHOO xoAHMHe CAaBflHKOH, Bee roBopHAo: nac 6AH30K! (1968d: 301- 302) )

("Veryy well! — I thought, — as of now I am a lonely gambler, and the rest — the wholee big nighdy city, glowing with fires, - are the beholders. But there will come aa time when I will be the only beholder, and you will become the actors". I will placee these endless masses of the city under my will. The worrying mind of the continent,, who as a conqueror is leaving the dead ends of dialects, the victory of thee eye over the ear, the whirlwind in one knot of world painting and pure sound, alreadyy binding the eyes and the ears of the continent, and the friendship of the green-blackk Chinese lubki and the pretty Chinese girl with the thin eyebrows (alwayss similar to enormous moths) with the shadows of Italy on one and the same gloomyy wall of a room in the city, and the nails, lovingly cared for by a Slavic girl, —— all of this was saying: the time is upon us!)

109 9 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT'

Yet,, Chlebnikov also understood writing as a direct conveyer of feeling and universall truth. Such an idea was expressed in the declaration The Letter as Such'' (1913), which was co-signed by Krucenych and Chlebnikov.

Handwriting g Inn the declaration The Letter as Such', Chlebnikov and Krucenych direcdy ad- dresss for the first time the question of writing as an "imagetext". This declara- tionn reflects the Russian avant-garde distinction between (fundamental to them) practicall everyday language and poetical language. On the one hand, there exist wordss written with standardi2ed letters similar to stamps: "Vy videli bukvy ich slovv — vytjanuty v rjad, obizennye, podstrizennye, i vse odinakovo bescvetny i seryy - ne bukvy, a klejma!" ("You've seen the letters of their words - strung out inn straight lines with shaved heads, resentful, each one just like all the others - gray,, colorless - not letters at all, just stamped-out marks"; Chlebnikov and Krucenychh 2000a: 49 [1987: 257]). On the other hand, there exist letters written byy hand during a moment of inspiration. The fascination with handwriting is a directt expression of a wish to merge the alphabet with painting. Ass I mentioned in the previous chapter, the Russian philosopher and priest N. Federovv no doubt influenced Krucenych and Chlebnikov's ideas about handwriting.. In the article The Written Characters', Fedorov declares: "[PJis'mena sut'' tol'ko graficeskoe izobrazenie progressa togo suscestva, kotoroe odareno slovomm [...] a mezdu tem éti formy bukv govorjat gorazdo bole iskrenne ich, formyy bukv nepodkupnee slov" ("The written characters are only the graphic illustrationn of the progress of the individual, who is endowed with the word [...]] and these letterforms speak much more sincerely than the words, the let- terformss are more incorruptible than words"; 1914: 3). Continuing to speak aboutt the science of the letterforms, Fedorov states that this science "daet poli- graflii vozmoznost' opredeljat' character épochi, t.e. delaet ee iskusstvom, ume- niem,, sledja za izmeneniem pocerka, - otkryvat' peremeny nastroenija v duche pokolenij"" ("gives graphic letterforms the possibility to define the character of ann epoch i.e., it makes writing an art, the ability to discover the changing mood off a generation by watching the changes in handwriting"; 1914: 3). Thus, Fedo-

110 0 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV rovv proposes a view on handwriting as an image. This image of the script is di- rectlyy linked to the subject, but also to the epoch in which the subject lives. Therefore,, the handwriting can reveal both the subjective feelings of the person writingg as well as the objective forces of a changing society.13 Ass late as 1921, in his comments on the poem 'Ispanskij verbljud' (The Span- ishh Camel'), Chlebnikov repeats propositions which are similar to those ex- pressedd in The Letter as Such': "Pocerk pisatelja nastraivaet dusu citatelja na odnoo i to ze cislo kolebanij" ("The author's handwriting tunes the heart of the readerr on one and the same number of vibration"; 1968c: 379). This view cor- respondss to Fedorov's idea of the possibility of handwriting to convey both subjectivee relationships between reader and writer, as well as yield insight into thee historical situation of the writer. The handwriting is not only connected to thee mood of the writer, but also to a "number of vibrations". This rather cryp- ticc notion should be seen in connection with Chlebnikov's idea of a law of eternallyy recurring historic events:

ripHcymeee Ka>KAOMy H3 STHX HapoAOB - ceoe noHHMamie 3ByKOBofi Kpa- coTHH OCO6HM 3ByKopaAOM coeAHHfleT KOAe6aHHe crpyH. Bee >Ke 6oroM KajKAoroo 3ByKOpHAa 6HAO HHCAO. Tajvcvia GyAeTAHH OCOÖMM 3ByKopnAOM coeAHHfleTT H BeAHKne KOAeöaHHfl HeAOBenecTBa, BM3hraaiomHe BOHHW, H yAapMM oTAeAbHoro HeAOBenecKoro cepA«a. (1972: 237) (Eachh one of these peoples has its own distinctive conception of what constitutes aa beautiful sound and uses a particular musical scale to unite the vibration of strings.. But the deity that governs all of these scales is number. The scale of the Futurianss uses a particular register to unite both the great vibrations of humanity thatt call forth war and the beats of each individual human heart.) (1987: 386)

Seenn in this light, writing is the testimony of historical events, which are gov- ernedd by a common law for all peoples of the earth. The materialized written signn seems to have a double nature in Chlebnikov's poetics: as a container of subjectivee emotions, which can be transferred via the sensory materiality of handwriting,, and a testimony of historical events, which are governed by a kind off objective universal law of numbers. Thus, although the declaration was co- signedd by Chlebnikov and Krucenych, the two authors' conceptions of the rela-

111 1 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT' tionshipp between the subject and handwriting diverge. While Krucenych's use off handwriting in the early lithographed books seemed to be guided by the awarenesss of the capacity of handwriting as a sign of "subjectivity" (which can bee manipulated and varied according to whatever purpose the artist/writer wishedd for it to serve), Chlebnikov's interest is clearly much closer to Federov's conception.. He seems to insist on some kind of middle route of breaching the gapp between pure abstraction and living creation, and between absence and presence. . Writingg is a recurrent image in the poetry of Chlebnikov, which is most often identifiedd as handwriting. In the third plane of 'Zangezi', a list of paper with Zangezi'ss handwriting is found with the Tables of Destiny'. The list is found byy the root of a pine, by a Passerby: "2-j prochozij: A éto cto? Obryvok rukopi- sii Zangezi. Pril'nul k kornju sosny, zabilsja v mysinuju noru. Krasivyj pocerk. 1- jj prochozij: Citajte-ze vsluch!" {Second Passerby - Wait a minute, what's this? A piecee of Zangezi's writing by the root of this pine, stuck in a field mouse's hole. Thee handwriting is very beautiful. First Passerby - Well? Read it! Read it loud!"; 1968c:: 322 [1989: 336]). The characters relate sceptically to the recendy read Tablee of Destiny'. They remark:

TeMHOO H HenoHHTHO. Ho Bee Tarn BHACH KoroTb AbBa! MyBCTByeTCfl. 06- pbiBOKK 6yMara rAe 3aneHaTAeHM HapoAOB cyAfcöbi AAA Bbicmero BHACHHH! (1968c:: 323)

(Obscure.. None are too comprehensible, either. And yet - the lion's claw is visible inn all of this! You can sense its presence somehow! A scrap of paper and on it en- gravedd the fates of nations for someone possessed by superior vision!) (1989: 337)

Itt is clear that although obscure, the writing does contain some kind of ontologi- call truth.14 Similarly, flyers fall from heaven with the list of alphabetical para- digmss explaining the language of the stars applied in 'A Song in Star-Language'. Thee Passerby exclaims: "Smotrite, sverchu letjat letucki. Proctem odnu. (...) S svoimii letuckami, on delaetsja svirepym, étot Zangezi!" ("Look up there - those flyerss flying overhead. What do they say? (...) He's getting a little out of hand withh these flyers of his, that Zangezi!"; 1968c: 332 [1989: 344]). 'Zangezi'is similarr to a virtual space where writing is seen through the eyes of the character

112 2 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV off the text, commented upon and read out loud. But (hand-)writing is not only presentedd to the characters of the text as a kind of meta-text, it is also incorpo- ratedd into the poetic imagery. Inn the sixth plane of 'Zangezi', Zangezi compares himself to a butterfly, who is trappedd behind a window in a living room: "Mne, babocke, zaletevsej / V kom- natuu celoveceskoj zizni, / Ostavit' pocerk moej pyli / Po surovym oknam, pod- pis'juu uznika, / Na strogich steklach roka" ("I have come like a butterfly / into thee hall of human life / and must spatter my dusty coat / as signature across its bleakk windows, / as a prisoner scratches his name / on fate's unyielding win- dowpane";; 1968c: 332 [1989: 337]).. To this the Third Passerby mockingly remarks:: "Miljaga! Kakaja on babocka... baba on!" ("A pretty poor prophet, if youu ask me. A butterfly? He looks more like an old lady!"; 1968c: 334 [1989: 338]),, and the Believers exclaim: "Spoj nam samovitye pesni! Rasskazi nam o ÈI\ÈI\ Procti na zaumnoj reci. Rasskazi pro nase strasnoe vremja slovami Azbuki!" ("Recitee us some of your self-sounding poems! Tell us the story of L! Speak to uss in that beyonsense language of yours! Describe the horrors of our age in the wordss of Alphabet!"; 1968c: 334 [1989: 338]). It may be that this is a parody on metaphoricc poetry, but the image of the butterfly that slowly but unavoidably diess (by losing the dust on its wings essential for it to fly) while dreaming of the freedomm of numbers outside, is an allegory of the writer's condition.15 The dust leftt on the window is comparable to the indexicality of handwriting, a signature. Thee space of the room is equalled to culture and death, while the numbers out- sidee are equalled to nature and eternity. The writer is caught within the limits of everydayy language. To him, the physical trace of everyday language is exterior to himm and is therefore foreign. Accordingly, in the world of human beings, writingg is nothing more than decorative wallpaper - a mechanized, mass-produced, deadd art, where there is no room for the "hand of the maker". Thus, the writing off everyday language cannot place the writer in relation to the world (Nature), andd cannot bridge the gap between the written and the subject. AA completely different image of writing is to be found in the poem 'Poéticeskie ubezdenija'' ('Poetic Convictions'). In this poem, the image of a plowman, who plowss the fields of heaven, is derived from a postcard with a picture by L. O.

113 3 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT'

Pasternakk (Al'fonsov 1982: 210). The poem is an allegory of writing: "Kljac gonjuu sivych, v sbrue prostoj, / Tocno Tolstoj borodatyj, sedoj / na izvestnoj otkrytke"" ("I drive the gray horses forward, in a simple harness, / Just like the beardedd Tolstoj, gray / on the well-known postcard"; Chlebnikov 1972: 108). Thee field and the furrows are compared to the deep fissured surface of the brainn of a deadly sick god: "Za carapinoj carapiny po mozgu cachotocnogo boga,, / zirnych cervej lovjat graci - russkaja pasnja vesnoj" ("One scratch after anotherr on the brain of a consumptive god, / rooks catch thick worms — this is thee Russian plowed field at spring"; 1972, 108). In the poem, the lyric "I" iden- tifiess himself with Tolstoj, the writer-plowman, and plowing is a metaphor of writingg in which the furrows created by the plow are a metaphor for the lines onn a piece of paper, i.e., an indexical sign of writing. Thee scratches created by the plow/pen on the surface of the brain of the dying god/field/paperr are an image of writing as a continuous process (i.e. the renewall of nature/language by the plowman/poet). It is an image of the continu- ityy of time, and the constant changing of the seasons/the necessary continuous renewall of language. Furthermore the word "carapat"' [to scratch or scrape] containss the meaning of writing: "pero carapaet" [the pen scratches] and "carapat'' bukvy na stene" [to scratch letters on a wall]. The word also denotes writingg as a kind of index or gesture: the scratching on a surface. This is the meaningg of the word in the poem 'Carapina po nebu' ('A Scratch in the Sky*). This is aa song written in the language of the stars. To the almost identical song in 'Zangezi',, Zangezi remarks: "poskoblite jazyk - i vy uvidite prostranstvo i ego skuru"" ("Scrape the surface of language, and you will behold interstellar space andd the skin that encloses it"; 1968c: 333 [1989: 345]). It is the act of the writer/plowmann that awakens the word and reveals its hidden potential. A similarr image is the image of writing as sowing in 'Our Fundamentals':

CAOBO-TBOpHeCTBOO yHHT, HTO BCe pa3HOo6pa3He CAOBa HCXOAHT OT OCHOBHhIXX 3ByKOB a30yKH, 3aMeHHK>mHX CCMeHa CAOBa. M3 3THX HCXOA- HMXX TOHeK CrpOHTCfl CAOBO, H HOBhIH CeHTCAb H3HKOB MO>KeT IIpOCTO HanoAHHTbb AaAOHb 28 3ByKaMH a36yKH, 3epHaMn s3MKa. (1972: 228)

(Wordd creation teaches us that all the enormous variety of words derives from the

114 4 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV

fundamentall sounds of die alphabet, which are die seeds of words.. From these basicc elements the word is formed and a latterday sower of languages can easily fill hiss palm with the twenty-eight sounds of the Russian alphabet, the seeds of language.)) (1987: 376)

Itt is clear that die lyric "I" of the poem 'Poetic Convictions' is a writer who in- scribess himself in a temporal as well as a spatial dimension of die world, and whoo manifests himself as the creator of this world. However,, this world-text also creates itself. In 'Zangezi', a pine writes a book in thee sand: "V volnach pescanych / Morja kacalis', sinej priceske, / Sosen za- nozy.. / Pocerkom sosen / Byla napisana kniga peska, / Kniga morskogo pevca"" ("See the patterns of waves of sand / and the curly hair of die sea — / diee beach, the branches, the debris. / Pinetree branches move a hand / and a bookk is written on the sand - / The book of die pine, die shore, the sea"; 1968c:: 357-358 [1989: 366]). Hansen-Löve shows the double function of Chlebnikov'ss words on the one as hand a cultural, pragmatic and communica- tivetive "thing-ness" (predmetnost5) and on the other hand, a natural "matter-ness" (vescnost*)) that functions in a "World", which is textualized as a World-text. Thiss World-text is substituted by a number of metonymie signifiers: the "world"" as "language", "'word", "text", "alphabet", "book" "letter" "handwriting"" and so forth (Hansen-Löve 1985b: 27).16

Anagramm and permutation Thee image of die sower/poet filling his fist with seeds/letters and spreading themm on the field is a recurrent image in the poetics of Chlebnikov. It is an imagee of the anagrammatic pulsion that lies at the foundation of Chlebnikov's universall language.17 It is present in the isolation of the phonemes/graphemes, theirr semantization, and their function in the word-creation of Chlebnikov. Thiss is evident from die mutative formation of neologisms in the words "tvorjane",, "bobr" and "babr", and "lesina" and "lysina". This is also evident in Chlebnikov'ss theoretical speculations about die sign. Using ^aum'as an example inn which the sounds in everyday words are shuffled and rearranged, he derived hiss theory of the semantic essence of the initial letters of words.

115 5 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT'

Thiss anagrammatic pulsion was most clearly expressed in the quoted passage by Kul'binn in which he claimed that literature is the creative combination of dis- tinctt letters: "Telo slova — bukva. Znacenie kaidoj bukvy — svoeobraznoe, ne- preloznoe.. Kazdaja bukva — uze Imja. Slovesnost'— tvorceskoe soktanie imen" ("The bodyy of the word is the letter. The meaning of each letter is distinct, unalterable.. Every letter is already a Name. Literature is the creative combination of names"; 2000:: 45 [my italics^). In Chlebnikov's writings, this is expressed (on an ontologi- call level) by means of the old mythological image of the God/sower/poet, who creates/sows/writess the world/field/book:

ECAHH Bbl HaXOAHTeCb B pome, BH BHAHTe AyOH, COCHbl, eAH, COCHbl C XOAOAHMMM TeMHHM CHHeBaTMM OTAHBOM, KpaCHafl paAOCTb eAOBbTX niHineK,, roAy6oe cepe6po 6epe30Boü namn TaM, BAaAH. Ho Bee STO pa3- HOo6pa3Hee AHCTBbI, CTBOAOB, BeTOK C03AaHO rOpCTbK) nOHTH HeOTAUHH- MWXX Apyr OT Apyra 3epen, Becb Aec B GyAymeM - noMecTHTca y Bac Ha AaAOHH.. [.. .] [M] HOBblH CeHTeAb H3MKOB MO>KeT rTOOCTO HanOAHHTb AaAOKbb 28 3ByicaMH a3ÖyKH, 3epHaMH «3HKa. (Chlebnikov 1972: 228) (Supposee you are in a forest You see before you oak trees, pine trees, spruces thee pines mottled with cold dark blues, the wonderful delight of spruce cones, and theree in the distance the bluish silver of a clump of birches. But all this variety of leaves,, of tree trunks and branches, was created from a handful of seeds, each one practicallyy indistinguishable from the next; an entire forest of the future can fit in thee palm of your hand [...] [A]nd a latterday sower of languages can easily fill his palmm with the twenty-eight sounds of the Russian alphabet, the seeds of language.) (Chlebnikovv 1987: 376)

Thee 28 sounds of the alphabet are the 19 consonantal letters of the universal languagee (except 'f) and a number of other letters (not specified). Here, the analogyy between nature, the book, the creator-God and the poet is evident. Moreover,, in 'O stichach' ('On Poetry'), the image explains the mysterious workk of %aum' poetry in the reader's unconscious:

Penbb Bbicniero pa3yMa, Aa>Ke HenoHflTHan, KaKHMH-TO ceMeHaMH naAaeT B nepH03eMM Ayxa H no3AHee 3araAo*iHNMH rn/THMH Aaer CBOH BCXOAM- Pa3Be noHHMaerr 3eMAJi nHCbMena 3epeH, KOTopbie öpocaeT B Hee naxapb? Her. Hoo oceHHHH HHBa Bee >tce BbrpacraeT OTBCTOM Ha 3TH 3epHa. (1972: 226)

116 6 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV

(The(The speech of higher reason, even when it is not understandable, falls like seed intoo the fertile soil of the spirit and only much later, in mysterious ways, does it bringg forth its shoots. Does the earth understand the writing of the seeds a farmer scatterss on its surface? No. But the grain still ripens in autumn, in response to thosee seeds.) (1987: 371)

Justt like %autn' poetry, the mysterious letters of the universal alphabet are com- parablee to a book of revelation. Veryy similar to the image of the plowman and the sower is the image of the alphabett as building blocks in a world-construction. This is an idea, at the crux of certainn kabbalistic interpretations. According to these interpretations, the Torah appearedd as a disordered heap of consonantal letters. However, the coming of thee Messiah disposes of letters in a new way: "For the kabbalist, God will abol- ishh the present ordering of these letters, or else will teach us how to read them accordingg to a new disposition, only after the coming of the Messiah" (Eco 1995:: 26). The anagrammatic is evident in The Book of Creation, Sefer Yet^rah. Ac- cordingg to this work, the letters of the Hebrew alphabet were conceived of as thee building "stones" of the world:

Twenty-twoo foundation letters: He ordained them, He hewed them, He combinedd them, He weighed them, He interchanged them. And He cre- atedd with them the whole creation and everything to be created in the future.. (II, 2) (Eco 1995: 29)

Thee world was created from the 22 letters (or stones) of the Hebrew alphabet andd the ten Seflrots, which were the ten hypostases of divinity. From this finite numberr an endless number of combinations were possible:

Howw did He combine them? Two stones build two houses, three stones buildd six houses, four stones build twenty-four houses, five stones build a hundredd and twenty houses, six stones build seven hundred and twenty houses,, seven stones build five thousand and forty houses. Begin from heree and think of what the mouth is unable to say and the ear unable to hearr (TV, 16). (Eco 1995: 29)

Chlebnikovv no doubt had the kabbalistic tradition in mind, when he named the differentt parts of 'Zangezi' a "koloda ploskostej slova" [A stack of word planes].18

117 7 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT'

Perhapss he also had it in mind when he referred to the structure of the narrativee as an architectural structure built of stones:

rioBeCTbb CTpOHTCH H3 CAOB, KaK CTpOHTeAbHOH eAHHHITM 3AaHHfl. EAHHH- UeÜÜ CAyïKHT MaAHH KaMeHb paBHOBeAHKHX CAOB. [...] TaKHM 06pa30M Ha- xoAirrcfll HOBMH BHA pa6oTu B oÖAacTH peneBoro AeAa. PaccKa3 ecn> 3OA- necTBoo H3 CAOB. 3oAHecTBo H3 «paccKa30B» ecrb cBepxnoBecTb. rAHÖOH xyAO^CHHKyy CApKHT He CAOBO, a paccKa3 nepBoro nopflAKa. (Chlebnikov 1968c:: 317)

AA story is made of words, the way a building is made of construction units. Equivalentt words, like minute building blocks, serve as the construction units of a story.. [...] Thus do we discover a new kind of operation in the realm of verbal art. Narrativee is architecture composed of words; an architecture composed of narra- tivess is a "supersaga". The artist's building block is no longer the word, but the first-orderfirst-order narrative. (Chlebnikov 1989: 331)

Moreover,, Chlebnikov refers to the letters as building blocks: "tajnye glyby jazyka"" ("secret building blocks of language"; 1968c: 333 [1989: 345]). He refers too speech as an architectural structure of spatial blocks: "Reci - 2danija iz glyb prostranstva"" ("Speech is an edifice built out of blocks of space"; 1968c: 333 [1989:: 345]), and to the letters in the alphabet as spatial entities: "Prostranstvo zvucitt cerez azbuki" ("Alphabet is the echo of space" 1968c: 325 [1989: 338]). Consequendy,, language is the space in which writing occurs as a constant per- mutationn and anagrammatization; writing is a kind of "cosmic permutation" (Ecoo 1995: 28), a constant process of writing and re-writing:

BarpaMHH MopoB 6yAyr pa36HpaTb crapoe crpoeHHe HapoAOB, HepHHAaMHH xBOpeii 6yAy HcnpaBAjrn> nepHOBHK, HeAOBenecKHH AHCTOK pyKonHCH H KpioHijHMHH nyM nocAe ncmcapoB 6yAy BMÖHpaTb 6peBHa H CBan HapoAOB AAMM HOBoro cpy6a HOBOH H36M. TOHKOHH nHAOH HaXOTKH ByAyy BHTaHHBaTb HOBoe 3Aaroie, BtinHAio HOBHH HapoA, rpySofii IIHAOH CMIIHflKa BbiAepHyy rB03AH H3 creH, HTO6M paccunaAocb a, seAHKoe a, Too HaAeBaiomee nepcrHeM Baine STO coAHne, Too CMOTpamee nepe3 creKAo CAe3 co6anoHKH. (Chlebnikovv 1972: 100)

118 8 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV

Withh the grabhooks of wholesale slaughter I I will pull down the old order of nations, withh the ink of disease I will proof the rough draft, the pages of human manuscript; withh the crowbars of epidemics that follow great fires I will roll out the ridgepoles, thee foundation-pilings of nations, and frame up a new dwelling. II will fashion a new edifice with the hacksaws of tuberculosis, II will cut out a new nation. II will wrench nails from the walls with the ripsaws of typhoid fever, andd thus I shall extend myself, my great self, andd wear this sun of yours as a ring on my finger, andd examine it all through the lens of a puppy dog's tears. (Chlebnikovv 1997:101)

Inn this poem, sickness is spread, buildings are burnt down, history is re-written andd the wood for a new building is chosen; i.e. the foundation for a new world. Inn 'Edinaja kniga' ('The One, the Only Book'), the old books/worlds, including itss religions, are burned down to give way to a new book/world written by the lyricc "I":

CAOHCHAHH Kocrep HH caMH AerAH Ha Hero. BeAHee BAOBH B oÖAaice AHMa cicpwBaAHCb, HTOÖbll yCKOpHTb ITpHXOA KHHrHH eAHHOH. [...] ] poAA HeAOBeHecrea — KHHIH HHTaTeAb! HH Ha o6AO>KKe — HaATIHCb TBopna, MMM Moe, iracbMeHa roAyöue. (1968c:: 68)

II have seen them go to the fire, liee down in a heap and vanish whitee as widows in clouds of smoke inn order to hasten the coming off the One, the Only Book, [...] ] Racee of Humanity, you are Readers of the Book whosee cover bears the creator's signature, thee sky-blue letters of my name! (1997:: 77)

119 9 WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT'

Thus,, in the poetic world of Chlebnikov, the world is a book or a poem: "Mir kakk stichotvorenie" ("The world as Poen"; 1968c: 259 [1987: 338]), and the crea- torr is the poet: "Chocu byt' glagolom - / 'Azm est' bog'" ("I want to be a verb —— / 'I am God"'; 1968c: 168). But the poet is at the same time a book: "Ja kniga zasochsichh morej" ("I am a book of dried out oceans"; 1968c: 169), which also hass to be destroyed in order to be written again: "Smert'! Ja - belaja stranica! / Cegoo ty choces' — napisi!" ("Death! I am a white page! / Write whatever you want!";; 1968c: 263). On this ontological level, the process of writing is an age- oldd mythic process of sacrifice and redemption:

riosTT — aBTop «ocHOBHoro» MHqba H ero repoii-JKepTBa H repoH-noGeAH- TeAb,, cyOT^eKT H o6i>eKT TeKcra, acepTByiomHH (ïKpeu.) H >KepTByeMMH (>KepTBa),, BHHa H ee HCKynAeroie. OH — ycTaHOBHreAb HMCH: HeMyio u 6e3AejrreAbHyK)) AO Hero BceAeHHyio OH coTBopuA B cAOBe, coGpaB ee no nacTHM,, KOTopwe OH OTOJKACCTBHA (T.C npHAaA HM 3HaneHHe, HaineA HX TaHHHH,, CKpHTWH HAH yTpaHeHHMH CMMCA) H BMpa3HA B 3ByKC BceAeH- Hafll co3AaHHoro TaKHM o6pa30M nosTHHecKoro TeKcra «CHAtHee» H Hpne, HeMM Ta >Ke BceAeHHaH, B3ffraH BHe omicaHiifl, AO Hero. (Toporov 1987: 215- 216) )

(Thee poet is the author of the "fundamental" myth and his hero-sacrifice and hero-conqueror,, the subject and the object of the text, the sacrificer (the priest) andd the sacrificed (the sacrifice), the guilt and its redemption. He is the disposer of names:: the dumb and inactive universe before him he creates in the word, after havingg collected its parts, which he identified (i.e., he gave them significance, foundd their secret, hidden or lost meaning) and expressed in sound. The universe off the poetic text created in this way is "more powerful" and brighter than the veryy same universe outside of description, before him.)

Thus,, the visual aspect of writing is an integrated part of writing and cannot be separatedd from Chlebnikov's conception of a universal language or from his poetryy as a whole. Chlebnikov did not seem to be particularly interested in the actuall graphic aspect of his published poetry, nor did he actively take any part in thee publication of handwritten lithographed books. Neither did take active steps towardss an actual realization in the characters for his universal language, nor was hee likely to have thought that these characters would ever actually come into being.. And yet, writing as a literally visual language (as letters, handwriting, sig

120 0 WRITINGG AS AN "IMAGETEXT" IN THE POETIC UNIVERSE OF CHLEBNIKOV naturess and so forth) was an integrated part of his poetic universe. Onn all levels of this universe, in his poetry, essays, manifestos, and Utopian prose, writingg seems to be a major concern. It is looked at, commented upon, read aloud,, written and re-written continually. It functions on several language levels: everydayy language, "word-creation" or %aum\ and universal language. Some- timess the sign can best be described according to Saussure's theory of the signi- fierr and signified, and sometimes it should be regarded as a peculiar "sign of meaning",, best described according to Potebnja's triadic sign structure. More- over,, the universal language consists of signs that can be characterized as sym- bolss (names), indexical signs (similar to a number), and as an iconic material signn (a kind of ideogram). Handwriting, on the other hand, functions as both an imagee (a kind of signature piece), and an element of language, and thus is a con- tingentt of History or Logos. These functions of the written language are all in- terrelatedd and should be regarded as important in the poetic universe of Chleb- nikov. .

121 1