Enigma of Heroism in Lermontov's «Песня про царя Ивана Васильевича, молодого опричника и удалого купца Калашникова»

Vladimir Golstein*

I cannot and will not retract anything, for it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me. Martin Luther

In Russian literature, the 1820s and 1830s were the high point of Romantic involvement with folk culture and poetry, with national roots and national history. Among numerous works which appeared as the result of such involvement, Lermontov's 1837 poem «Песня про царя Ивана Василь- евича, молодого опричника и удалого купца Калашникова» (further referred to as "The Song") is one more example and, typically for Lermontov, a belated one. Western scholarship has basically ignored the poem,1 while Russian

* Vladimir Golstein, born in Moscow and educated at Columbia and Yale Universities, now teaches at Oberlin College. His article on Pushkin's Mozart and Salieri has been published in Russian Literature (Feb. 1991). 1 The only examples I know are John Mersereau Jr.'s article "M. Ju. Lermontov's 'The Song of the Merchant Kalashnikov': An Allegorical Interpretation," California Slavic Studies, vol. I (1960) and John Garrard's Mikhail Lermontov (Boston, 1982). I shall contest a number of Garrard's observations on "The Song" which are contained in his subchapter devoted to it (pp. 113-119). For example: "Kalashnikov stands out among Lermontov's narrative poems for its consistent narrative viewpoint" (p. 114), or "For once, we need not filter a work of Lermontov's through his personality" (p. 116), or "Far from being rebellious, Kalashnikov is a devoted subject of the Tsar" (p. 118). John Mersereau, on the other hand, is correct to insist that

29 scholars have restricted themselves to a discussion of folkloristic elements in the poem.2 A sensitive and provocative attempt to see the work at its own merits has been recently made by Sergei Lominadze in his book Поэтиче- ский мир Лермонтова (1985). His analysis contains many first-rate observations, but as far as Lominadze's conclusions are concerned one can hardly agree with any of them.3 "The Song" should by no means be taken simply as a brilliant linguistic exercise in folklore imitation. Lermontov's narrative poem begins a very carefully selected collection of his poetry, the only collection published in his lifetime (1840) and prepared by the poet himself.4 Apparently, this rather simple tale was quite important to Lermontov. Set in the time of Ivan the Terrible and written in the form of bylina, "The Song"is the story of the merchant Kalashnikov who kills his wife's attacker, the oprichnik Kiribeevich, and is then executed by the tsar for his refusal to disclose the motives of his action. What is there in this story that merits such attention from Lermontov? 1 take a threefold approach in order to answer that question: first I analyze the structure of "The Song," then I discuss it in the light of pertinent biographical data, and finally I view the poem as Lermontov's meditation on the nature of heroism and on its place in Russian history. Although Kalash- nikov fought for truth and can be said to gain spiritual victory, he is executed,

Pushkin's duel is related to the genesis of "The Song." But Mersereau's conjecture that "The Song" is an allegory of Pushkin's death and the motives he attributes to Lermontov for wanting to write such an allegory do not seem to be convincing. 2 See the following articles: H.M. Мендельсон, «Народные мотивы в поэзии Лермонтова», Венок Лермонтову: Юбилейный сборник (Москва, 1914); М. Азадов- ский, «Фольклоризм Лермонтова», Литературное наследство (Москва, 1941), тт. 43-44; М. Штокмар, «Народно-поэтические мотивы в творчестве Лермонтова», Литературное наследство (Москва, 1941), тт. 43-44; Вадим Вацуро, «М.Ю. Лер- монтов», Русская литература и фольклор (Ленинград, 1976). 3 That's how, for example, Sergei Lominadze justifies the execution of the poem's protagonist, Kalashnikov: «Словом, 'святой Руси' нужны живые Калашниковы, но во имя ее же блага они с роковой неизбежностью время от времени должны быть казнимы» (Поэтический мир Лермонтова [Москва, 1985], р. 157). 4 The organization of poems in this selection is not chronological, although all the poems date from 1836. Apparently, we are dealing with a plan or a message alluded to in the organization and selection of the material. Strangely, the content and order of this collection are neglected in all editions of Lermontov, the complaints of scholars such as Vacuro or Lominadze, notwithstanding. In fact, even those who complain, fail to give the table of contents of the collection. The organization of the collection should become an important tool in Lermontov research. Even if the editor, Kraevskii, had contributed to the organization of the collection, credit for the bulk of the selection and organization belongs to Lermontov. Thus, to approach his poetry chronologically, drawing the main conclusions from the early poetry that Lermontov never intended to publish is more than a venial sin.

30 leaving no tangible sign of victory behind. Lermontov questions the meaning and relevance of such a victory; he also questions the world's inability to accommodate such heroism and nonconformism.

I

The title of the work is ironic. Although the poem's uncontested hero is the merchant Kalashnikov, the title introduces the characters according to an earthly gradation of power: the song is about the tsar, his servant, and the merchant. The poem's introduction echoes the order of the title:

Ox ты гой еси, царь Иван Васильевич! Про тебя нашу песню сложили мы, Про твово любимого опричника, Да про смелого купца, про Калашникова.5 Nothing is said about the relationship of these people to one another and the tragic outcome thereof. The earthly gradation of power is ironically observed in a similar manner throughout the poem. The singers seem unable to grasp the tragic side of the confrontation. But one should not be misled by this epic narrative with its professed purpose of entertaining some unknown boyar and his fair-faced wife: «Ай, ребята пойте, только гусли стройте! /... / Уж потешьте вы доброго боярина / И боярыню его белолицую.» The singers' seemingly objective tone, nonchalant toward Kalash- nikov and reverent toward the tsar, is indicative of the laws that govern the world of "The Song." There are three parts to "The Song," each centered on a dialogue, or rather on an interrogation, a verbal confrontation. Let us consider these dialogues in greater detail. The first part of "The Song" begins with a description of a feast in the presence of Ivan the Terrible. Everyone is joyful except oprichnik Kiribee- vich: «И все пили, царя славили. / Лишь один из них, из опрични- ков, / Удалой боец, буйный молодец, / В золотом ковше не мочил усов.» The tsar gets very angry at him for not participating in the general joyful mood of the ruler and his followers.6 Kiribeevich is so preoccupied that he doesn't even pay attention to the tsar. But when finally Ivan's "angry word"

5 М.Ю. Лермонтов, Собрание сочинений в четырех томах, под ред. И. Анд- ронникова, В. Вацуро, И. Чистовой (Москва, 1983), т. 2, стр. 7. All other quotations of Lermontov's poetry are from this edition. 6 The violation of the established order and mood will also form the basis of the next two confrontations: the wife is not at home after church and thus fails to perform her duties, and Kalashnikov destroys the festive mood by killing Kiribeevich and turning a holiday entertain- ment into a personal vendetta.

31 reaches him, Kiribeevich is willing to accept the cruel punishment for his lack of attention: «А прогневал я тебя — воля царская: / Прикажи каз- нить, рубить голову.» Kiribeevich is characterized by the tsar as "a faithful servant." He is not supposed to behave so disrespectfully. Kiribeevich bows to the tsar and then confesses his unrequited love for a beautiful woman. He knows, however, that the woman is married, but does not disclose this fact to the tsar. After the interview is over the singers interrupt the narration and accuse Kiribeevich of lying. He is called by the singers «лукавый раб» — their strongest accusation in the text. Ivan forgives the oprichnik and advises him to take a straightforward approach: to send some gifts with a matchmaker and not to be upset in the event of failure. Thus, through deception, Kiribeevich reestablishes himself in the order of things, in the rank of those who enjoy the tsar's grace. As a fair master, Ivan does not merely unleash his rage: he inquires into the reasons for his servant's misbehavior (something he would not do, however, in case of Kalashnikov). In the second part, the merchant Kalashnikov, returning from his store, does not find his wife Alyona home:

И дивится Степан Парамонович: Не встречает его молода жена, Не накрыт дубовый стол белой скатертью, А свеча перед образом еле теплится. Her absence endangers not just a family custom, but also a religious one. When the wife finally appears, confused and disheveled, Kalashnikov ac- cuses her of unfaithfulness and reminds her that they were married in front of the "holy icons." Like Kiribeevich, who, before answering, bows to his sole ruler, she falls to Kalashnikov's feet and says that she is not afraid of death or gossip but only of his rage. She is to her husband as Kiribeevich is to his tsar. She even addresses her husband as "my sovereign." Like Kiribeevich before her and Kalashnikov after her, Alyona is willing to accept the severe punishment for her misdemeanor, but is hopeful to be given a chance to justify herself: «Государь ты мой, красно солнышко, / Иль убей меня или выслушай.» Kalashnikov accepts his wife's word, summons up his brothers, tells them of the outrage, and prepares for a revenge: he is going to challenge Kiribeevich to a fistfight. Alyona, like Kiribeevich, temporarily angers,the ruler and falls out of grace, but is reestablished again through her truthful confession. Since she was wrongly accused, she could have acted with pride and challenge, but she does not. Instead, she appeals to her husband to defend her. Both she and

32 Kiribeevich use their rulers for help and protection. But, as we shall see in the third part, Kalashnikov does not. Throughout the poem Lermontov plays with the traditional folkloristic device of exploiting the number "three." The third event is always different from the first two. It is only after the third call that Kiribeevich answers the tsar and Kalashnikov comes to the ring for the fight. Thus we can expect that the third interview will be different from the previous two. The third interview occurs after Kalashnikov has killed Kiribeevich in the fistfight and is taken to the enraged tsar to explain his action. Two previous interrogations have resulted in forgiveness and benevolent actions of an enraged ruler. It is reasonable to conclude that Kalashnikov could have saved his life by following the route taken by those previously accused. Why didn't he? Kalashnikov feels outraged by the action of Kiribeevich and wants to punish him personally. He fights against what he perceives as a violation of a "sacred truth" and asks his brothers to do the same:

Буду на смерть биться, до последних сил; А побьет он меня — выходите вы За святую правду-матушку, Не сробейте, братцы любезные! In the exchange with Kiribeevich he calls the latter "busurman" and accuses him of violating the divine laws. But Kalashnikov's way of defending such laws is far from Christian. He is willing to kill Kiribeevich. Ivan the Terrible of "The Song" seems to be a fair enough ruler, and most critics agree that Kalashnikov could have been forgiven had he told the whole story to the tsar. Kalashnikov, however, denies the tsar even the possibility of administering justice. He picks up the worst possible defense by admitting that he had deliberately killed the oprichnik, but refuses to say why: «Я убил его вольной волею, / А за что про что не скажу тебе, / Скажу только Богу единому.» The similarities of the three interrogations are striking. In all three dialogues, the participants are unevenly matched: there is an accused and an interrogator with a higher authority and power. In the first part it is the tsar who questions his oprichnik; in the second part the merchant Kalashnikov questions his wife; and in the third — the tsar questions the merchant. All three interrogators feel a God-given authority to question and accuse. In all three cases the accused have violated a certain law, thus angering their rulers. However, they have a chance to justify themselves and in the first two cases they succeed: Kiribeevich through deception; Kalashnikov's wife by the truth. Both manage to mitigate the wrath of their accusers and to reestablish

33 themselves in their good graces. In the third confrontation, however, Kalash- nikov not only fails to pacify the rage of the tsar, who is angered by the murder of his favorite servant, but even increases the tsar's wrath by his haughty answer, or rather by his refusal to give an explanation. Thus the thrust of such three-part structure of "The Song" is to put Kalashnikov's rebellious answer in a high relief. After observing a rather common behavior under pressure by Kiribeevich and Alyona in the first two parts, we are forced to contemplate Kalashnikov's unusual actions. Why did he act in such way? What are the meaning and results of his challenging answer to the tsar? To fully appreciate his heroic act and its significance, let us analyze the circumstances surrounding the genesis of "The Song."

II

There is no extant manuscript of "The Song," and the date of its execution is uncertain. It was first published in April 1838 in «Литератур- ное приложение к Московскому Инвалиду,» & magazine edited by Kraevsky, the person responsible for introducing most of Lermontov's poetry to the public. Most editors of Lermontov's works agree now that the poem was written in 1837 in the Caucasus during Lermontov's exile there.7 Although in its setting "The Song" seems to be far removed from the events of Lermontov's life, it has been observed that a link exists between the events of the "The Song" and the events surrounding Pushkin's death in 1837: the challenge to an enemy caused by a desire to defend the honor of one's wife; the ensuing duel; the tsar as a participant and partial cause of the outcome. The similarities are indeed striking. Even the care which Nicholas I showed for the welfare of Pushkin's widow is similar to the care promised by Ivan the Terrible to the family of Kalashnikov.8 There is no doubt that the dynamics of the Pushkin affair coincide with, and partly inspire, the outcome of Kalashnikov's story. But "The Song" is more than just a paraphrase of the Pushkin's affair, and one can hardly agree with John Mersereau who sees in the work only a "veiled account of Pushkin's tragic duel and the circumstances surrounding it" rendered in the form of a talented imitation of folk song.' What would be the purpose of such a roman a 7 See the discussion of problems connected with dating of "The Song" in Andronnikov's commentary to "The Song" in Lermontov, vol. 2, p. 490-491. 8 On his deathbed Pushkin wrote Nicholas I a letter asking for material help for his family, and the tsar quickly promised such help. The tsar also very generously rewarded the widow of another victim, the Decembrist Ryleev. (Cf. Patrick O'Meara-, K.F. Ryleev [Princeton, 1984], p. 309.) 9 John Mersereau and David Lapesa, "Russian Romanticism," Romanticism in National Context, ed. Roy Porter and Mikulas Teich (Cambridge, 1988), p. 298. As we see, professor Mersereau returns here to the idea he first expressed in his 1960 article on "The Song."

34 clef once Lermontov had expressed his feelings about Pushkin's death in "The Death of the Poet"? Would he do it again in such an elaborate fashion? I submit that it is not so much Pushkin's duel as Lermontov's own rebellious response to Pushkin's death and the consequences of this response that form an important part in the genesis of "The Song." Let's start, however, with one relevant event which occurred in St. Petersbuig in April of 1836 and which, according to the diaries of a Russian censor, Nikitenko, occupied everyone at the time. It is the story of an official, Pavlov, who murdered a certain Aprelev on the steps of a church just before Aprelev's wedding was to take place. This bizarre murder was Pavlov's revenge for his sister who had borne two children as the result of her affair with Aprelev. Despite Pavlov's pleas and threats, Aprelev had decided to marry another person. All of this was not known at the time, since Pavlov refused to disclose his motives for the killing and thus dishonor his sister. Like Kalashnikov, Pavlov pledged to reveal his reasons only to God. This is how Nikitenko describes Pavlov:

Еще благородная черта его. Во время суда от него требовали именем государя, чтобы он открыл настоящую причину своего необычай- ного поступка. За это ему обещали снисхождение. Он отвечал: «Причину моего поступка может понять и оценить только Бог, который и рассудит меня с Апрелевым».10 Lermontov himself underwent a similar interrogation "on behalf of the tsar." His own behavior on this occasion is even more telling for our appreciation of the thrust of Kalashnikov's answer. Lermontov was arrested and interrogated after his poem, "The Death of the Poet," became known to the authorities. According to Benkendorf's report to Nicholas I, Lermontov at first refused to name his accomplice: «По словам Лермонтова, эти стихи распространяются в городе одним из его товарищей, которого он не захотел назвать.»11 But, being threatened later with a cruel punishment and fearing its effect on his grandmother, Lermontov identified his friend S. A. Raevsky. He was tormented by this betrayal and blamed himself for the fate of Raevsky for a very long time. That is how he describes the situation in a letter to Raevsky:

Я сначала не говорил про тебя, но потом меня допрашивали от государя: сказали, что тебе ничего не будет и что если я запрусь, то меня в солдаты... Я вспомнил бабушку и не смог. Я тебя принес в

10 А.В. Никитеико, Дневник (Москва, 1955), т. 1, стр. 183-184. Emphasis in the text. 11 Quoted from Виктор Мануйлов, Летопись жизни и творчества М.Ю. Лермон- това (Москва, 1964), стр. 72.

35 жертву ей... Что во мне происходило в эту минуту, не могу сказать, но я уверен, что ты меня понимаешь и прощаешь и находишь еще достойным своей дружбы.12 Both Pavlov and Lermontov were subjected to the interrogation "on behalf of the tsar." Lermontov, however, gave in and, as a result, experienced the psychological trauma of denouncing his friend. Undoubtedly, it haunted him and was in the back of his mind when he put in the mouth of Kalashnikov the bold answer he himself did not dare to state. One should note that Kalashnikov was interrogated not just "on behalf of the tsar," but by the tsar himself. Thus the courage of his answer is even more pronounced. The world of "The Song" is dominated by the presence of the tsar. Indeed, it is the tsar's world. Kiribeevich, for example, in his seduction of Alyona, appeals to his service to the tsar as to his main weapon. The very word "tsar" occurs at least twenty five times, and is by far the most frequent word in the poem. The events of "The Song" seem to emanate from the tsar. Thus the expression «Богу единому» used by Kalashnikov in his refusal to answer the tsar is more than an idiom. There is only one God, and the tsar with all his power, does not partake of divinity. Kalashnikov's answer challenges the notion of a ruler's divine right, a notion that was alive in Russia even at the time of Nicholas I.13 Two of Lermontov's poems, namely, "The Death of the Poet" (1837) and "Borodino" (1837) are relevant to the genesis of "The Song." The connection between "Borodino" and "The Song" had already been noticed by Belinsky who saw that both works contrast the heroic past with the mundane present. Another obvious and often observed connection is Lermontov's masterful imitation of the byliny style in "The Song" and of the speech of a simple soldier in "Borodino." The connection between the poems goes, however, much deeper. Pushkin's shadow towers over these two poems which do not contain direct references to his name. "The Death of the Poet," "Borodino," and "The Song" form a cycle of

12 Мануйлов, Летопись, стр. 77 (emphasis in the text). In Lermontov's defense one must add that Raevsky was already arrested and had admitted to his participation in the spreading of the poem. He even wrote a letter to Lermontov advising him on what to admit. The letter, however, was intercepted and became the main cause of the tsar's anger against Raevsky. Lermontov knew nothing of that for a while, and thus continued to write and ask forgiveness of Raevsky. Lermontov's grandmother, who knew of the poet's torijient, tried to use her influence to ameliorate Raevsky's situation and finally succeeded. 13 On Russian attitudes toward the tsar see M. Cherniavskii, Tsar and People: Studies in Russian-Myths (New Haven, 1961) and a very informative recent article by Живов and Успенский, «Царь и Бог. Семиотические аспекты сакрализации монарха в России», Языки культуры и проблемы переводимости (Москва, 1987).

36 intricately connected poems, united in their attempt to come to grips with the fate of Pushkin.14 The poems share a common theme: in all three of them an attacker, perceived as a cultural and religious invader, even though he is harmed or killed, still succeeds in destroying a local hero or heroes. The puzzling name of Kiribeevich underscores this point. The name of Kalashnikov does occur in a number of folk songs that describe fistfights, including one recorded by Peter Kireevsky, but the origin of Kiribeevich's name is unclear. I believe that the name "Kiribeevich" can be traced to Lermontov's tale "Ashik-Kerib," also written during Lermontov's 1837 exile in the Caucasus. "Kerib" in Turkish means "wanderer." Such a name clearly puts Kiribeevich in the group of other invaders, like the French soldiers in Borodino or d'Anthes in "The Death of the Poet." (Cf. «И что за диво? ... издалёка, / Подобный сотням беглецов, / На ловлю счастья и чинов / Заброшен к нам по воле рока».) There is another common theme that characterizes the three poems: the villains exhibit a lighthearted attitude toward the serious questions of life. In "Borodino," the poet states that before the decisive battle the French soldiers were merrymaking («И слышно было до рассвета, / Как ликовал француз»), while the Russian camp was quiet. In "The Death of the Poet" we observe a similar situation of the evil court irresponsibly pursuing "fun" (потеха), and taunting the poet just for the sake of it: «Не вы ль сперва так злобно гнали / Его свободный вольный дар / И для потехи раздува- ли / Чуть затаившийся пожар?». The fistfight which takes place in "The Song" is also supposed to be entertaining («Ой, уж где вы, добрые молодцы? / Вы потешьте царя нашего батюшку!»), and Kiribeevich participates in the fight for the sole purpose of entertaining the tsar («Так и быть, обещаюсь для праздника, / Отпущу живого с покаянием, / Лишь потешу царя нашего батюшку»). The courts of Ivan the Terrible and Nicholas I seem to be governed by the word «потеха,» that is, by moral irresponsibility, by a playful attitude toward life.

14 The exact date of composition of "Borodino" is not known. Traditionally it was thought that the poem was written before Pushkin's death. See, for example, Manuilov whose similar opinion is based solely on "the mood and the tone of the poem." (Лермонтовская энциклопедия [Москва, 1981], стр. 68). On the sole basis of these two features it would be more correct to draw the opposite conclusion. In fact, in the latest edition of Lermontov's works Andronnikov places "Borodino" after "The Death of the Poet." In support of his view Andronnikov refers to the draft of Raevsky's explanation to the authorities in which Raevsky writes that Lermontov, inspired by the success of his "Death of the Poet," also composed "Borodino." {Lermontov, Vol. 1, p. 326). The fact that "Borodino" was published in Pushkin's Современник (May 1837), in the second issue after Pushkin's death, also suggests that Lermontov meant the poem as a response to Pushkin's death.

37 The attitude of Kalashnikov, on the other hand, is similar to that of the soldiers of "Borodino." He sees the point of the festivity but rejects it: «He шутку шутить, не людей смешить / К тебе вышел я теперь, бусур- манский сын, / Вышел я на страшный бой, на последний бой!». What is this moral seriousness that makes Kalashnikov break the festive mood by murdering the tsar's favorite and then by refusing to explain his motives to the tsar himself?

Ill

Opposed to the notion of "fun" and the attitudes it implies is that of "truth" (правда). The word occurs in key moments of the poem. With all the complexity of the concept of truth for any writer, in the case of Lermontov one thing is clear: truth is always something deeply personal and internal. According to his 1831 poem «Мой дом,» "there is a sense of truth in the heart of man and this sense is the sacred seed of eternity" (Есть чувство правды в сердце человека, / Святое вечности зерно). Here Lermontov states what is to remain his ultimate conviction throughout his life. The sense of truth does not depend on external concepts of morality, law, or science, but on the voice of the heart." Hence it can be ambiguous, contradictory, and shifting as the reasons of our hearts are, but it is still preferred to the external concepts because this sense of truth partakes of eternity. The glorification of inner impulses is typical for many Romantic poets. As Blake observed: "Jesus was all virtue and acted from impulse, not from rules" (Marriage of Heaven and Hell, Plates 23-24). Kalashnikov follows the inner voice of his heart. Being outraged by Kiribeevich's actions, he announces to his brothers that such an insult is too much for his heart and soul to bear: «А такой обиды не стерпеть душе,/ Да не вынести сердцу молодецкому.» And then, in the same breath, he adds that in the event of his failure his brothers have to go on fighting for "the sacred truth." Kalashnikov clearly equates an external notion of "sacred truth" with the voice of his heart and soul. But how "sacred" can such personal truth be? Even though the voices of their hearts do seem sacred to many of Lermontov's rebellious characters, they do not correspond to the sacred in the

13 Cf. Пусть монастырский ваш закон Рукою Бога утвержден, Но в этом сердце есть другой, Ему не менее святой: Он оправдал меня — один Он сердца полный властелин! «Боярин Орша» (Лермонтов, т.2, стр. 331.)

38 traditional sense. Kalashnikov, for example, manifests very unpious traits in his rage and pride. Not only does he challenge the tsar but also the tenets of Christianity. Here we are at the heart of Lermontov's paradox: his protagonists do challenge the earth and its rulers, but on the grounds of their adherence to something other than external religious tenets. This paradox is symbolically rendered in the way both contenders address the tsar before their battle: while Kiribeevich bows only to the tsar, the merchant bows in succession to the tsar, the Kremlin, the churches, and the Russian people. Kiribeevich has only one law above himself: the law of the earthly power he serves and manipulates, while Kalashnikov does not differentiate among the external powers. Com- parison to Pushkin is revealing: in Boris Godunov, the iurodivyi refuses to pray for Boris on the grounds of his religious convictions: «Нельзя молить- ся за царя Ирода — Богородица не велит.» In Lermontov, the situation is more painful; the merchant, as well as Mtsyri, Demon, and even Pechorin challenge the whole world order, both heaven and earth, on the grounds of some deeply felt personal vision of truth. It is because of such vision that many of Lermontov's characters find themselves being equally estranged from both realms.16 It is significant that only once in the course of the poem are we allowed to glimpse the mental process of any protagonist. Right before he strikes his fatal blow, Kalashnikov thinks of nothing else but his adherence to the truth: «Чему быть суждено, то и сбудется; / Постою за правду до послед- нева!». In the already quoted explanation to the tsar regarding the composition of "The Death of the Poet," Lermontov expresses a similar integrity. He appeals to the truth as his only defender before both the tsar and God:

Отрекаться от них [стихов — V.G.] я не мог: правда всегда была моей святыней, и теперь, принося на суд свою повинную голову, я с твердостию прибегаю к ней как единственной защитнице благород- ного человека перед лицом царя и лицом Божиим."

" То exemplify Lermontov's stance vis-^-vis earthly and heavenly domains, Lominadze makes an ingenious comparison between two verses of Lermontov and Pushkin:

Pushkin Lermontov He для житейского волненья, He кончив молитвы, Не для корысти, не для битв. На звук тот отвечу, Мы рождены для вдохновенья, И брошусь из битвы Для звуков сладких и молитв. Ему я на встречу.

Lominadze correctly observes that in Pushkin, prayers are preferred and opposed to battles, that is: the divine realm is preferred to the worldly; in Lermontov, on the other hand, something else (sounds of speech in this case) is opposed to the realms of prayer and battle (Lominadze, p. 85). 17 Мануйлов, Летопись, стр. 73. Emphasis is mine.

39 Truth is presented here as something opposed to both God and a tsar, as the "only defense of a noble man" against the demands of both domains. The personal vision of truth is inspired by God, but it does not correspond to external religious teachings. Claiming that God is his sole authority, Kalashnikov expresses the hope of being understood and appreciat- ed for his inner truthfulness, but there is no secure feeling of having God on his side. He commits murder and revenge, two rather ungodly actions. As his references to his "sinful soul" and "guilty head" testify, he understands that his unorthodox defense of truth violates the laws of both God and tsar.18 But even if Kalashnikov is guilty as the tsar's or God's subject, as a free human being he feels justified in the unorthodox defense of his human dignity. What is more, by taking the law into his own hands, and by refusing to answer the tsar, he takes away both God's and the tsar's right to administer justice. It is clearly not enough to see in his answer to the tsar («Я убил его вольной волею, / А за что, про что — не скажу тебе, / А скажу только Богу единому») only the echo of Christ's answer to the Pharisees: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matt. 22:21). By his rebellious answer and actions, Kalash- nikov seems to add to Christ's maxim: "But I shall also render unto me the things which are mine." He knows that he cannot do otherwise, no matter what God or tsar think of his actions. This is the core of his heroism and of his understanding of "sacred truth."19

IV

Lermontov's universe, however, is the universe that punishes rather than rewards heroism. It appears to have been created by an unjust or even evil creator. Such perception of the world lies at the core of the problematics of "The Song" and should be explored more thoroughly. In one of its versions, the poem "The Death of the Poet" has an epigraph. It was taken from a Russian translation of the French tragedy by Rotrou (1609- 1650) and contained an appeal to the tsar for revenge and the execution of a murderer. A week later, Lermontov, who realized that his hopes for the tsar's swift action did not materialize, added the last sixteen lines. They contain a bitter attack on the tsar's court and express Lermontov's belief in divine

18 Having decided to fight, Kalashnikov has to ask his brothers to challenge Kiribeevich in case of his failure, since they are less sinful and thus stand a better chance to be spared by God. («На вас меньше грехов накопилося, / Так авось Господь вас помилует»). Before the execution he asks them to pray for his "sinful soul." He also acknowledges his guilt before the tsar: «Прикажи меня казнить — и на плаху несть / Мне головушку повинную.» 19 Curiously, Kalashnikov's patronymic "Paramonovich" comes from Greek and means "decisive, unbending." And he does, in fact, refuses to bend or yield.

40 judgement which the culprits in high places won't be able to escape. Even if the tsar is incapable of administering justice, a fair judge above is. But in "The Song," belief in divine justice is absent. Lermontov has moved far from his previous conviction best summarized by Pushkin's lines from Boris Godunov: «И не уйдешь ты от суда земного, / Как не уйдешь от Божьего суда.» "The Song" demonstrates the inability of both tsar and God to administer justice. Thus it is not surprising that "The Song" begins Lermon- tov's first and only collection of poetry published in his lifetime. It marks the beginning of his new period, the period of rebellious stance vis-a-vis heaven and earth. The inspiration for such stance comes from a personal understand- ing of truth and justice which neither domain can satisfy. Apparently, the actions of Kalashnikov are heroic. Confronted with power, Kalashnikov, unlike Lermontov and many a Decembrist before him, acts according to his convictions and inner calling. Such understanding of heroism is not surprising for the period plagued by a disunity of thought and action, by the infamous «рефлексия.» Lermontov often criticized his contemporaries for their inability to defend their convictions, beliefs, or passions. In his celebrated «Дума» (1838), for example, he describes the generation in the following words:

К добру и злу постыдно равнодушны, В начале поприща мы вянем без борьбы; Перед опасностью позорно малодушны, И перед властию — презренные рабы.

И ненавидим мы, и любим мы случайно Ничем не жертвуя ни злобе, ни любви. The ability to sacrifice oneself and stand by one's own word makes Russian soldiers of "Borodino" heroic: «И умереть мы обещали, / И клятву верности сдержали / Мы в бородинский бой.» But what is the outcome of this heroic sacrifice of Russian soldiers? What is the outcome of Kalashnikov's actions and how is his heroism rewarded? The archetypal confrontation between a bragging, powerful champion and a righteous contender is the Biblical battle of David and Goliath. Goliath represents a brutal, pagan, self-reliant force, while David firmly believes that God is with him and will help him. This confrontation is a clear antecedent to the fight of Kiribeevich and Kalashnikov. Both the bragging Kiribeevich and Goliath are killed by modest God-fearing contenders. The representatives of a proud brutal force are dead, but while David goes on to become a king, Kalashnikov is executed. Nothing intercedes and saves the merchant from the wrath of Ivan the Terrible.

41 In "The Songllthe winner is promised a reward by the tsar and the loser is expected to be forgiven by God: «Кто побьет кого, того царь награ- дит, / А кто будет побит, того Бог простит.» But the outcome is the opposite of what was promised: the loser, Kiribeevich, is killed and thus can hardly be said to be forgiven by God; the winner, Kalashnikov, is not rewarded by the tsar but is executed. It is important to note that in the song "Mastruk Temrukovich" from Kirsha Danilov's collection, the Russian folklore antece- dent to "The Song," Ivan is very happy about the victory of the Russian brothers over Mastruk and admits to his wife that he would have rewarded Russian fighters had they even killed Mastruk.20 Lermontov, obviously, does not share the optimism of the folk song. In his universe, heroes are bound to repeat the fate of Pushkin, the eternal fate of rebels described in "The Death of the Poet" as: «Восстал он против мнений света / Один как прежде... и убит!». The universe of Lermontov's poetry is a tragic one: its rulers are incapable of forgiving. Here again the parallel with Pushkin might be useful. In his Angelo, the culprit Angelo is forgiven by the ruler: «И дук его простил.» In The Captain'slaughter, Grinev has refused to use Masha's name for his own defense. Like Kalashnikov, he doesn't want to drag the name of his beloved through mud. But Masha appeals to the empress and saves Grinev, while no one intercedes for Kalashnikov. In Lermontov's universe, even the chosen beings, like the poet-prophet of "The Prophet," or Napoleon, or the poet of "The Death of the Poet," are endowed with special gifts from above only to cause additional suffering,

20 Of a number of other literary and historical sources discussed by scholars (there is an excellent survey of them in Shtokmar's article in Литературное наследство), the song "Mastruk Mastrukovich" from Kirsha Danilov's collection of folk songs, Древние Россий- ские стихотворения (1818), appears to be the most relevant .This song tells us of a fistfight organized by Ivan the Terrible. The proud and seemingly unconquerable champion Mastruk, the brother of a Tartar wife of the tsar, does not participate in the joy of the tsar's feast. He is bored because nobody dares to challenge him. Finally he is challenged by two Russian brothers who beat him unconscious and take his clothes. After the tsar's wife complains to the tsar of such a treatment of her brother, Ivan answers that he is proud of the Russian fighters and would have rewarded them had they even killed the Tartar champion:

А не то у меня честь во Москве, Что татары-те борются, То-то честь в Москве,^' '• Что русак тешится! Хотя бы ему голову сломил, Да любил бы я, пожаловал Двух братцов родимыех, Двух удалых Борисовичев. Древние Российские стихотворения. Собрание Кирши Данилова, под ред. А.П. Евгеньева (Москва, 1977), стр. 32.

42 degradation, and destruction. Similarly, in his celebrated poem, "Three Palms," the trees' complaint to God about their uselessness is immediately answered: their loneliness is interrupted, the travellers whom they can help do arrive. But on the next day the same travellers mercilessly destroy the hapless trees. Nothing but ashes are left to' commemorate their sacrifice. The dynamics of Kalashnikov's challenge is similar: his desire is fulfilled — Kiribeevich is delivered to him, but, ultimately, the merchant's heroism is rewarded with an execution and "a nameless grave." A glimpse of such a tragic outcome can already be seen in the fight scene. Kiribeevich is the first to strike. He hits Kalashnikov in the chest. The blow is so powerful that it bends Kalashnikov's copper cross. The blow is thus a symbol of Kiribeevich's actions: it is directed against the faith, but it fails; it only bends the cross. But there is an additional, rather sardonic, meaning to the cross episode. The cross adds to the pain which is experienced by the merchant. It is stated that the blood begins to drip from beneath the bent cross: «И согнулся крест и вдавился в грудь; / Как роса из-под него кровь закапала.»2^ The question which opens "Borodino" («Скажи-ка, дядя, ведь неда- ром / Москва, спаленная пожаром, / Французу отдана?») never gets answered in the course of the poem. Critics, beginning with Belinsky, prefer to concentrate on Russian spirit, realism, and other undeniably important features contained in the answer of a Borodino veteran, but the question of the first speaker remains open. Moscow was surrendered to the French after all. Wasn't the heroic sacrifice of Russian soldiers, then, just a futile exercise of self-destruction? People remember the battle at Borodino as they do many other heroic sacrifices of the Russian people, but what is the purpose of such heroism? Such questions underlie "The Song," as well as "The Death of the Poet" and "Borodino." At the end of each poem the defenders of higher truths against brutal forces are dead and defeated: Pushkin, Russian soldiers, Kalashnikov. The predicament of many of Lermontov's heroes can be succinctly described by his own line from «Памяти А.И. Одоевского» (1839): "And the world did not have mercy and God did not save" («И свет не пощадил — и Бог не спас!») Already his 1831 poem «Поле Бородина» shows Lermontov trying to come to grips with the problem of historical and theological evil. In this poem he admits the futility of the heroic sacrifice of Russian soldiers, but makes it, in a paradoxical turn, their main claim to glory. The futile deaths at Borodino

211 do not agree with critics who believe that the cross actually protected Kalashnikov. In his article on folkloristic motives in Lermontov, Vacuro writes that the cross saves Kalashnikov: «Калашникова спасает медный крест... висевший у него на груди.» (В. Вацуро, «М.Ю. Лермонтов», в сб. Русская литература и фольклор [Л., 1976], стр. 231). It is physically impossible and symbolically implausible. Kalashnikov is not protected, but rather additionally hurt by the cross.

43 speak louder to a Russian soul than do the victories at Poltava and Rymnik. The memory of the soliders' suffering is more permanent than promises of heaven:

Мои товарищи, вы пали! Но этим не могли помочь. Однако же в преданьях славы Всё громче Рымника, Полтавы Гремит Бородино. Скорей обманет глас пророчий, Скорей небес погаснут очи, Чем в памяти сынов полночи Изгладится оно.

V

Pushkin's Salieri states perfectly the painful conclusion that tormented not only Lermontov and his characters but many other rebels in Russian literature: «Все говорят: нет правды на земле. / Но правды нет и выше.» In his portrayal of Salieri, Pushkin was obviously responding to the romanticist glorification of rebellion and nihilism and warning of the dangers of such an attitude. Salieri turns into a selfish, envious murderer. Romantic poets have resurrected a heroic dimension of rebellion and negation, as testified, for example, by their fascination with Milton's Satan. Their sympathies were clearly on the side of the heroic rebels like Satan, Cain, Manfred, Napoleon, or Prometheus. Lermontov, who by all accounts was extremely influenced by Pushkin, could not help but be skeptical toward a one-sided glorificaton of rebellion. Thus, he came to see heroism not so much in the rebel's victory, but in his defeat. Prometheus, the suffering titan, is the figure most congenial to Lermontov; but Lermontov's Prometheus is never Unbound, he remains chained to the rock. This aspect of Lermontov's thought has been neglected in criticism; it has been overshadowed by innumerable comparisons of Lermontov's characters with Byronic rebels. But the main source of Lermontov's sympathy for rebels is precisely the fact that they are defeated. In the already quoted explanation to the authorities concerning the composion of "The Death of the Poet," Lermontov refers to an "inborn feeling of [his] inexperienced heart to defend any wrongly condemned person."22 In his compassion toward suffering and misfortune, Lermontov clearly prefigures Dostoevsky. As the poet put it in his 1831-poem: «И сном никак

22 «Врожденное чувство в душе неопытной защищать всякого невинно осуж- даемого.» Quoted from Мануйлов, Летопись, стр. 73.

44 не может быть / Всё, в чем хоть искра есть страданья!» («11 Июля»). Suffering is an ultimate test of reality and thus of value for any event, for any action. But Lermontov appears inconsistent in his sympathy for his charac- ters. He often changes his attitude toward them depending on whether they are winning or losing. Hence it is difficult to pinpoint his and, consequently, our attitude toward such characters. The verdict is still out as far as his rebels Mtsyri, Demon, or Kalashnikov are concerned. What saves them from being purely demonic creatures is the fact that they all fail. The moment Demon claims Tamara's soul he loses all Ms appeal:

Но, Боже! — кто б его узнал? Каким смотрел он злобным взглядом, Как полон был смертельным ядом Вражды не знающей конца, — И веяло могильным хладом От неподвижного лица.

Demon is portrayed with sympathy until he wins Tamara's love. But the minute he is victorious, he is no longer Lermontov's hero. Conversely, Kiribeevich, at the moment of his sudden death, receives a note of tenderness from Lermontov:

И опричник молодой застонал слегка, Закачался, упал замертво; Повалился он на холодный снег, На холодный снег, будто сосенка, Будто сосенка, во сыром бору Под смолистый под корень подрубленная.

The shift in point of view is especially noticeable at the moment of Kalashnikov's execution. Before the execution, the situation is described in an objective, almost upbeat manner as: «Палач весело похаживает, / Уда- лого бойца дожидается, / А лихой боец, молодой купец, / Со родны- ми братьями прощается.» But then, from the objective description of the heroic merchant we switch to a tone full of pity, tenderness, and compassion: «И казнили Степана Калашникова / Смертью лютою, позорною; / И головушка его бесталанная / Во крови на плаху покатилася.» "The Song" ends with a reference to folksingers who sing their songs as they pass by the nameless grave of Kalashnikov. But if the grave is unnamed, what is the subject of their songs? Apparently, it is precisely that: a nameless grave, unknown sorrow, doomed courage. Had Kalashnikov been as victori- ous and glorious as the biblical David, Lermontov would not have had his

45 singers sing of him.23 When all is said and done, there remains only one tangible result of Kalashnikov's heroism — it is the song, the song sung by the singers and the poet himself.

VI

So far I have analyzed the death of Kalashnikov from two perspectives — as a manifestation of his personal heroism and what it tells us of the world he inhabits. I suggest that in Lermontov's universe the Kalashnikovs are bound to be executed, otherwise we would have Pushkin's "and-the-Duke- foigave-him" world. But how then can one describe the universe of "The Song," the universe in which heroism, dignity, and courage are doomed to fail, and evil destined to triumph? Such an outlook points to a feature of Romanticism which only recently became the subject of scholarly attention, namely, gnosticism. Gnosticism offers an answer to the question of theodicy, an answer which is rather appealing to a religious mind: the god who is responsible for such an unfair world is evil. Lermontov's cruel and macabre world in which the ruler, in the words of Lermontov's Demon, "can forgive, but won't" («Простить он может, хоть осудит!»), does fit a gnostic description of the universe. Obviously, there is nothing uniquely gnostic in the view of an evil or unfair God. Camus in his 1951 book on rebellion (L'Homme revolte) analyzes such a view and calls it "metaphysical rebellion." I prefer to characterize it as gnosticism, since the term seems to describe the metaphysical outlook of Romanticism more fully.24 The moral subjectivism manifested by Kalashnikov is another very important feature of romanticist ethics. Many a Romantic hero is ready to

23 A nameless grave often functions as a source of inspiration for Lermontov. Many heroes of his poetry like Napoleon or Alexander Odoevskii, are buried in unknown graves. In his translation of Byron's "Lines Written in an Album at Malta" (1809) Lermontov changes Byron's lines: "As o'er the cold sepulchral stone some name arrests the passer-by" into «как одинокая гробница вниманье путника зовет.» Instead of "some name" on a gravestone Lermontov's wanderer is attracted by the "lonely grave." Lermontov's choice between the anonymity of grief of a lonely grave and the name on the stone is obvious. 24 On the subject of gnostic thought in Romanticism, see works by Harold Bloom, Poetry and Repression (1976), and most recently by Paul Cantor who explores the relationship of gnosticism and English Romanticism in his book Creator and the Creature (Cambridge, 1984). In my discussion I follow Cantor who uses the term "gnosticism" to describe a general heretical outlook which now and again resurfaces in the history of religious thought, as opposed to "Gnosticism" as the teachings of the original Gnostics. The classic book on Gnosticism is by Hans Jonas: The Gnostic Religion (Boston, 1963). The recent work which incorporates Nag Hammadi discoveries is Kurt Rudolph's Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, tr. Robert M. Wilson (New York, 1987); first published in German in 1980.

46 challenge the whole world order on the grounds of personal convictions. Such subjectivism points to another key aspect of gnosticism, that is, the belief in the salvation value of a personal vision or knowledge (gnosis) of certain religious secrets that some souls acquire or retain regardless of their degrada- tion in this world. This aspect has found its proponents in most Romanticists, including Lermontov and his mentor, Byron. The metaphysical views of Lermontov presented in "The Song" share two key tenets of gnosticism: that the earth is controlled by an indifferent or evil ruler, and that the personal vision of truth is the source of action and salvation. To explore the origin of such views is unrealistic; suffice it to observe the presence of two important influences on Lermontov. The influ- ence of English Romantic poets, like Byron, who were interested in gnosti- cism, is obvious.25 There is also a Russian tradition of religious rebellion which Berdiaev in his book, The Russian Idea, often calls "marcionism." According to Berdiaev, this gnostic belief in the evil creator is caused by the inability to solve the problem of theodicy: «Русским свойственен своеобразный маркионизм. Творец этого мира не может быть добрым, потому что мир полон страданий, страданий невинных.»26 The rebellion of Ivan Karamazov, who prefers to denounce God and his world, rather than negate God's existence, is Berdiaev's example of Russian "marcionism." But how do critics interpret the death of Kalashnikov? Most critics are unwilling to grant that the world depicted by Lermontov is the world created by an evil creator, that is, a world of gnosticism. Hence those who are troubled by Kalashnikov's execution try very hard to explain, justify, or reconcile the fate of Kalashnikov in terms of some providential plan.27 As typical examples of such justification, let us consider two such attempts: a recent one by Lominadze, a Soviet scholar, and an earlier one by Dostoevsky. Lominadze observes the main contradiction of "The Song" in the fact that God's providence saves Kalashnikov in the battle with Kiribeevich but fails to save him from the execution ordered by a wrathful tsar.28 To solve the contradiction, Lominadze posits the concept of "sacred Russia" (святая Русь) used in the text by Kiribeevich, and claims that the very existence of Russia as a saintly state demands the execution of such lawless merchants as

25 On Byron and gnosticism see Cantor, especially pp. 135-155, 214-216. 26 Николай Бердяев, Русская идея (Париж, 1971), стр. 81. 27 Many critics, especially Soviet ones, do not see in the poem anything but a masterful imitation of folklore and thus tend not to question the events of the song. Garrard in his book also dismisses the problem: "Theirs is a society in which certain things are done and others are not, in which authority is accepted" (Garrard, p. 116). a Lominadze, p. 91.

47 Kalashnikov.29 Lominadze then backs off and tries to hide behind the notorious term "dialectics" which, according to him, should sustain the two contradic- tory claims: the tragedy of Kalashnikov's death is not dissolved, but Russia nevertheless remains sacred. Obviously, Lominadze is trying to have his cake and eat it too: «С лютою, позорною смертью Степана Калашникова примириться невозможно, но пятна на образ 'святой Руси' она не кладет.»30 It is highly doubtful that Lermontov was either a thinker of a Stalinist mold or such a masterful Hegelian as Lominadze wants him to be. Why should Lermontov even try to justify the sacred status of Russia? The world "sacred" (святой) occurs often in the text of "The Song"; the singers and Kalashnikov use it in connection with truth, churches, or icons, but never with the word "Russia." It is the liar Kiribeevich who utters the expression «на святой Руси.» In fact, the word «Русь» occurs only once in the text, that is, much less frequently than even the word «Москва,» let alone the word «царь.» The tsar's figure dominates the world of "The Song." Thus, if there is an opposition along the lines of Lominadze, it is not between Kalashnikov and Russia but between Kalashnikov and the tsar. Lominadze seems to confuse Russia with its ruler. But it is precisely the fairness of such substitu- tion, that Lermontov questions. Curiously, Dostoevsky is also impatient to resolve the tragedy of Kalashnikov's fate into a harmonious vision so detested by his own Ivan Karamazov. In 1877 Dostoevsky wrote:

У Лермонтова сказка о Калашникове. Белинский под конец жизни совсем лишившийся русского чутья (талантливейший из западников) думал в словах Грозного: я топор велю наточить — навострить—видеть лишь издевку, лютую насмешку тигра над своей жертвой, тогда как в словах Грозного именно эти слова означаю^ милость. Ты казнь заслужил — иди, но ты мне нравишься тоже, и вот я и тебе честь сделаю, какую только могу теперь, но уж не ропщи — казню. Этот лев говорил сам со львом и знал это. NB. Вы не верите? Хотите удивлю вас еще дальше? Итак, знайте, что и Калашников остался доволен этой милостью, а уж приговор о казни само собой считал справедливым. Этого нет у Лермонтова, но это так.31

Dostoevsky's insight that Kalashnikov is happy with the sentence and

M Ibid, p. 156. 30 Ibid, p. 166. 31 Ф.М. Достоевский, Полное собрание сочинений (Ленинград, 1986), т. 24, стр. 298.

48 execution might be correct. Presumably Kalashnikov did not remain immune to the horrible disease diagnosed in Russia by Marquis De Custine: "The tyrant's dementia spread(s) so easily to the men who submit to tyranny; the victims become the zealous accomplices of the executioners. "32 Better than anyone else Dostoevsky explored this horrible phenomenon resulting in the mutual satisfaction of both victim and victimizer. Dostoevsky is also correct in noticing a certain benevolence in Ivan the Terrible toward the merchant. The tsar allows the merchant to go to the execution block on his own, gives him time for a farewell, and promises to take care of his family. He also shows respect for his victim; he praises him for his honesty and tenderly calls him «детинушка.» Obviously Kalashnikov knows what to expect for his haughty answer. Along with a number of Dostoevsky's heroes, he is also convinced of his own sinfulness and manifests a desire to suffer. But even granted that Kalashnikov is resigned to march to his death, why can't Lermontov question such a cruel arrangement under which a hero is content with his own execution? Why does the tsar who is called "orthodox" in the text want to kill and not to forgive? What is so "orthodox" about him? The last sentence of Dostoevsky's statement is very telling. What does he mean by "it is not in Lermontov" («Этого нет у Лермонтова»)? That Lermontov, although he means it, simply fails to state in the text that Kalashnikov is satisfied with the tsar's justice? Or, maybe, that Lermontov means something totally different and more painful, which he, Dostoevsky, has to modify since he knows the truth better? For those who can be beguiled by a friendly exchange between Kalashnikov and the tsar in which the tsar, praising the merchant and promising to reward his relatives, demonstrates his "autocracy with a human face," Lermontov adds a brutally realistic denoue- ment: «И казнили Степана Калашникова / Смертью лютою, позо- рною; / И головушка его бесталанная / Во крови на плаху покати- лася.» In terms of the tsar and his world the sharp axe can mean grace, but why should it mean grace for Belinsky and the reader? Dostoevsky also states that there is a reason for Belinsky's lack of understanding: he lacks Russian intuition, he is a Westernizer. He cannot see that a cruel execution can have another side. But this other side is also not the whole story. Why try to turn Kalashnikov into a propagandist of Russian ideals of humility and obedience? Is it because it is too disconcerting and unsettling to grant Lermontov and his heroes their right to face the cruel and unfair universe?

32 Journeyfor our Time: The Russian Diary of Marquis de Custine, ed. and tr. Phyllis Penn Kohler (Chicago, 1951), p. 313. 49