University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Leonid Andreev through the prism of the literary portrait

(USC Thesis Other)

Leonid Andreev through the prism of the literary portrait

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. U M I films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UM I a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. LEONID ANDREEV THROUGH THE PRISM OF THE LITERARY PORTRAIT Copyright 2002 by Frederick H. White A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (SLAVIC) May 2002 Frederick H. White R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. UMI Number: 3073861 __ ___ __® UMI UMI Microform 3073861 Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. A il rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA The Graduate School University Park LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 900891695 T h is d isse rta tio n ; w ritte n b y Fre.cftex .L c X .- .... U . , ________ U n der th e d ire c tio n o f A.L3. D isse rta tio n C om m ittee, a n d a p p ro ved b y a il i t s m em bers, h as been p re se n te d to a n d a c c e p te d b y T he G radu ate S ch ool, in p a r tia l fu lfillm e n t o f req u irem en ts fo r th e d eg ree o f D O C TO R O F PH ILO SO PH Y 'Graduate Studies D a te May .10,. . 2002 D ISSE R TA TIO N COM M ITTEE R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Wensong Chu Solomon W. Golomb ABSTRACT OPTICAL ORTHOGONAL CODES AND CYCLIC T-DESIGNS This thesis consists of two parts and two appendices. In Part I, we present a new recursive construction for (n,u;, A a, A c) optical orthogonal codes. For the case of A a = A c = A , this recursive construction will enlarge the original family with A unchanged, and is asymptotically optimal, in the sense that it will produce a new family of asymptotically optimal codes, if the original family is. We call a code asymptotically optimal, if as the length of code n goes to infinity, the ratio of the number of codewords to the corresponding Johnson Bound approaches unity. The first objective of Part II is to establish a close relationship between optical orthogonal codes (OOC) and cyclic {-designs. The study of OOC’s is motivated by their applications in optical code-division multiple access networks and they have been studied extensively for the past two decades, {-designs are an important topic in combinatorial design theory. In Part I, we give a new recursive construction for OOC’s. In Part II. based on the close relationship between OOC's and cyclic {-designs, we are able to apply the new recursive construction to cyclic Steiner Quadruple Systems (SQS). and gain a new perspective on the structure of cyclic SQS's. As a consequence, several new recursive constructions for cyclic SQS’s are given, and many new infinite families of cyclic SQS’s are constructed. In Appendix A, motivated by their roles in the new recursive constructions for OOC’s, we introduce r-simple matrices and discuss the interactions among 1 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. r-simple matrices. difference matrices and orthogonal arrays. Furthermore* we summarize some applications of r-simple matrices in coding of FO-C’DMA systems for both one dimensional and two dimensional codes. In Appendix B. we list some new results concerning optical orthogonal codes and their connections with multiple target radar and sonar arrays. Also one new construction for multiple target radar and sonar arrays is presented. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ii Table of contents: 1: Introduction: 001 2 Boris Zaitsev: Projecting Personal Isolation 037 3 : Andrei Belyi: “He is not with them, he is with us. he is ours...” 068 4 : Nikolai Teleshov: The Importance o f Friendship and Sreda 093 5 : Komei Chukovskii: Creative Enerev and Manic Eoisodes 120 6 Georgii Chulkov: The Dark Side o f Depression and Inner Turmoil 149 7 : Aleksander Blok: A Shared Sense of Chaos 178 8 : Maxim Gorky: The Dreamer and the Mathematician 203 9 : Conclusion: 248 Bibliography: 263 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1 1 Memoir writers must manufacture a text, imposing narrative order on a jumble of half- remembered events. With that feat of manipulation they arrive at a truth that is theirs alone, not quite like that o f anybody else who was present at the same events. — William Zinsser, Inventing the Truth: The Art and Craft o f Memoir At the beginning of the 20th century, Leonid Nikolaevich Andreev (1871- 1919) was one of the best selling authors in Russia. Not only was he a popular literary figure, but he was also a celebrity in his own right. Over time, however, his fate as a writer changed. The 1917 revolution and the rise of the Bolshevik influence altered drastically the Russian literary scene. Andreev was particularly affected because of his premature death in 1919 due to a stroke at the age of forty- eight, which left his literary legacy (and personal reputation) in much doubt. Andreev’s early works sympathized with the revolutionary movement that was to topple the Tsarist regime. However, at the end of 1916 he played a prominent role in supporting Russia’s war effort in the pages of The Russian Will (Russkaia Volia). In 1917, he was bitterly against the Bolsheviks for their role in the collapse of military morale and the betrayal of the February Revolution. The fact that Andreev had spent time in two camps did not endear him to either the Bolsheviks or the Russian emigre community after his death. Andreev’s situation was further complicated by the fact that since 1908 his permanent home had been the large villa at Vammelsuu, just outside o f St. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Petersburg, along the Gulf of Finland. After the October Revolution, the borders of the newly-liberated Finnish state moved past Vammelsuu and to within a few miles of Petrograd. At this point, Andreev found himself outside of Russia, although he had not chosen to emigrate. Therefore, Andreev, at the time of his death, was neither pro-Bolshevik nor anti-revolution; he was neither an emigre nor a Soviet citizen; neither a representative of 19th century Russian Realism nor an avid supporter of the Russian Avant-garde. And yet, for over a decade he had been one of Russia’s most popular literary figures. Due to this popularity, Andreev became the subject of many memoirs.1 Arguably, the most interesting collection of literary portraits was published under the guidance of Maxim Gorky. This book, A Book About Leonid Andreev (Kniga o Leonide Andreeve), developed out of a memorial evening for Andreev, which took place in November 1919.2 This collection is interesting for the fact that the memoirs were written immediately after the subject’s death by eight important literary figures of the early 20th century. Here was the literary establishment’s first attempt at creating the posthumous Andreev, as portrayed by his contemporaries in 1919-1920. 1 K. Muratova, rstoriia russkoi literaturv kontsa XIX- nachala XX veka: Bibliographicheskii ukazatel’ (Moscow; Leningrad: 1963), No. 1358fF. 2 Kniga o Leonide Andreeve. Vospominaniia Gor’kogo, Chukovskogo, Bloka, G. Chulkova, Borisa Zaitseva, N. Teleshova, Evg. Zamiatina, A. Belogo, 2n d ed. (Berlin: Z. I. Grzhebin, 1922). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 In 1924, Alexander Kaun published the first major western study of Andreev.3 That same year, a biography of Andreev was published in the Soviet Union. N. Fatov’s The Early Years o f Leonid Andreev (Molodye gody Leonida Andreeva) also included memoirs by Andreev’s classmates and childhood acquaintances.4 Another significant book of memoirs dedicated to Andreev was published in 1930. Requiem: In memoriam o f Leonid Andreev (Rekviem: Sbomik pamiati Leonida Andreeva) contained a selection from Andreev’s diary, letters to nine friends and colleagues, memoirs by V. Veresaev, A. Kipen and V. Beklemisheva and Andreev’s play Requiem (Rekviem).5 Requiem was the last major Andreev publication in Russia until the 1950s. Exclusion from Soviet literary history made Andreev virtually a taboo subject until the Thaw period. It was due to this thaw that two memoirs were published in the Soviet Union by Andreev’s children: Childhood: A Tale (Detstvo: Povest’) by Andreev’s first son Vadim and House on the Black River: A Tale (Dom na Chemoi Rechke: Povest’)6, written by Andreev’s only daughter Vera. Over the last four decades, there has been a steady flow of text editions, archival publications, articles, monographs, candidates’ and doctoral dissertations.7 3 Alexander Kaun, Leonid Andreev: A Critical Study ( 1924: reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1970). 4 N. Fatov, Molodve eodv Leonida Andreeva (Moscow: Zemlia i Fabrika, 1924). 5 Rekviem: Pamiati Leonida Andreeva, eds. Daniil Andreev and V. Beklemisheva (Moscow: Federatsiia, 1930). 6 Vera Andreeva, Dom na Chemoi rechke: Povest’ (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1974; 1980). 7 A partial list o f the major publications would include: L. Afonin, Leonid Andreev (Orel: Knizhnoe iz-vo, 1959); Gor’ldi i Leonid Andreev: Neizdannaia pereoiska. Literatumoe nasledstvo, vol. 72 (Moscow: Nauka, 1965); James B. Woodward, Leonid Andreyev: A Study (Oxford: Clarendon R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 The major task of scholars in the last ten years has been the recovery of Andreev’s published and unpublished literary and journalistic writing, along with surviving letters and diaries, which is culminating in the publication of an eighteen-volume complete critical edition based on an on-line electronic text database in Leeds, England.8 LACE (Leonid Andreev Critical Edition) is a collaborative edition by the Institute of World Literature (IMLI), the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) (IRLI - Pushkinskii dom), and the University of Leeds Russian Archive (LRA). As a result of this endeavor, specialists have recently been rewarded with major critical works by some of the leading Andreev scholars. In 1994 Richard Davies and Ben Heilman published letters, a diary, articles and memoirs relating to Andreev’s last years in Finland.9 This same year, Andreev’s student diaries from 1891-1892 were published.1 0 V. Chuvakov has compiled and published two major Press, 1969); Josephine M. Newcombe, Leonid Andreev (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1973); Andreevskii sbomik: Issledovaniia i materialv. ed. L. Afonin (Kursk: Kurskii gos. ped. institut, 1975); L. lezuitova, Tvorchestvo Leonida Andreeva. 1892-1906 (Leningrad: Iz-vo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1976); Tvorchestvo Leonida Andreeva: Issledovaniia i materialv. ed. G. Kurliandskaia (Kursk: Kurskii gos. ped. institut, 1983); V. Bezzubov, Leonid Andreev i traditsii russkoeo realizma (Tallin: Eesti Raamat, 1984). 8 This is a significant development since Russian writers such as Andrei Belyi and Ivan Bunin have not been afforded a critical edition. 9 Leonid Andreev, S. O. S.: Dnevnikn914-1919). Pis’ma 11917-19191. Stat’i i interv’iu (19191. Vospominaniia sovremennikov (1918-19191. eds. Richard Davies and Ben Heilman (Moscow; St. Petersburg: Atheneum; Feniks, 1994). 1 0 N. Generalova, ed., “Dnevnik Leonida Andreeva,” in Literatumvi arkhiv: Materialv po istorii russkoi literaturv i obshchestvennoi mvsli. ed. K. Grigor’ian (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1994), 247- 294; N. Generalova, ed., "Leonid Andreev, Dnevnik 1891-1892,” in Ezhegodnik rukopisnogo otdela Pushkinskogo doma na 1991 god, ed. T. Tsar’kova (St. Petersburg: Akademicheskii proekt,!994), 81-141. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 5 bibliographies.1 1 In 1996, Andreev’s 125th birthday was celebrated with conferences in St. Petersburg and Orel. This led to a collection of articles entitled The Esthetics o f Dissonance (Estetika dissonansov).1 2 Most recently, V. Keldysh and M. Koz’menko edited a collection of materials and articles relating to Andreev and his works,1 3 not to mention that Andreev’s own works have been re-published in various editions.1 4 This activity has created a solid core of scholars interested in a comprehensive and balanced assessment of Andreev’s life history and significance as a literary figure. Much of this attention is concerned with reconstructing Andreev’s biography through the remaining documentation. Recently published material has given scholars an opportunity to refine and refocus their understanding. One of the few areas that has not attracted much attention, as such, is the memoir literature devoted to Andreev. Yet, a systematic critical approach to this literature is important for a comprehensive account of Andreev’s posthumous legacy. 1 1 V. Chuvakov, comp., Leonid Nikolaevich Andreev: Bibliografiia. w pusk 1: Sochineniia i tekstv. ed. M. Koz’menko (Moscow: Nasledie, 1995); V. Chuvakov, comp., Leonid Nikolaevich Andreev: Bibliografiia. w pusk 2: Literature 1900-1919. ed. M. Koz’menko (Moscow: Nasledie, 1998). 1 2 E. Mikheicheva, ed., Estetika dissonansov: O tvorchestve L N Andreeva: Mezhvuzovskii sbomik nauchnvkh trudov (Orel: Orlovskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii universitet, 1996). 1 3 V. Keldysh and M. Koz’menko, eds., Leonid Andreev: Materialv i issledovaniia (Moscow: Nasledie, 2000). 1 4 L. Andreev, Sobranie sochinenii v 6 tomakh (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1990- 1996); “Vemite Rossiiu!” (Moscow: Moskovskii rabochii, 1994). T h e re are many popular editions o f Andreev’s works available now in Russian bookstores. I have noted here only the most important critical publications. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 6 Memoir is defined as some portion of a life, as described by its author. Unlike autobiography, which usually moves from birth to fame, memoir focuses on a time in the writer’s life that was unusually vivid, such as childhood or adolescence, or that was framed by war or public service or contact with famous people and/or important historical events.1 5 In this instance, the memoirs under consideration focus on the authors’ relationships with Leonid Andreev. In 1922, A Book About Leonid Andreev was published in two editions.1 6 It consists of eight literary memoirs about Andreev by Andrei Belyi, Aleksandr Blok, Komei Chukovskii, Georgii Chulkov, Maxim Gorky, Nikolai Teleshov, Boris Zaitsev and Evgenii Zamiatin.1 7 Many of the memoirs had been read previously in public or private and a few had appeared first in periodicals.1 8 Although they were not the very first memoirs to be published, A Book About Leonid Andreev was the most influential.1 9 1 5 William Zinsser, ed., introduction to Inventing the Truth: The Art and Craft o f Memoir. Revised and Expanded Edition (Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998), 14-15. 1 6 The first edition was published in January 1922 and the second edition was published in the fall. 1 7 Belyi’s memoir only appeared in the second edition. Here Gorky is being used as the more internationally recognizable transliteration, rather than Gor’kii. 1 8 K. Chukovskii, “Iz vospominanii o L.N. Andreeve,” Vestnik literaturv. no. 11 (1919); M. Gor’kii, “Leonid Andreev,” Zhizn’ iskusstva. no. 293-294, 15-16 November (1919); A. Blok, “Pamiati L. Andreeva,” Zapiski mechtatelei. no. 5 (1922). Memorial evenings dedicated to Andreev where memoirs were read were held on 15 November 1919 in Petrograd and on 18 February 1920 in Moscow. 1 9 For example: N. Dolgov [V. Kozhevnikov], “Teatr Andreeva: Klochki vospominanii,” Zhizn’ iskusstva. no. 330, 30 December (1919); V. Azov [V. A. Ashkinazi], “Otryvld ob Andreeve,” Vestnik literaturv. no. 9 (1920); A. Belenson, “Vospominaniia (Melochi v zhizni iskusstva),” Zhizn’ iskusstva. no. 560, 18 September (1920); A. Kaufman, “Andreev v zhizni i v svoikh proizvedeniiakh,” Vestnik literaturv. no. 9, (1920); E. Chirikov, “Leonid Andreev,” in Russkie sbomiki. book 2, E. Grimm and K. Sokolov, eds. (Sofia: Rossiisko-bolgarskoe izdatel’stvo, 1921); I. Belousov, “Razdvoenie lichnosti. Iz perepiski i vospominanii o L. N. Andreeve,” Moskovsldi R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 7 A Book About Leonid Andreev was more readily accessible than newspaper articles and therefore easier to find and read. It packed “star power” with Gorky and Blok and was the first word from the literary establishment on how the posthumous Andreev would be remembered. It became the starting point, consciously or unconsciously, for anyone writing a portrait of Andreev after 1922. This literary discourse is evident in memoirs by Vadim Andreev, V. Beklemisheva, L. Kleinbort, A. Kugel’, V. Veresaev, N. Fatov’s early biography and the psychological analysis of Andreev by Dr. I. Galant.2 0 Before discussing A Book About Leonid Andreev in-depth, it is important to examine the genre of memoiristic discourse in general. George Egerton, in his discussion of the political memoir, calls it a polygenre because of its political, historical, autobiographical, biographical and literary elements.2 1 In all types of memoir, there are elements of auto/biography, chronology and retrospectivity. The author must decide what episodes will be described, how they will be depicted and ponedel’nik. no. 4, 10 July (1922); I. Belousov, “Shutki L. N. Andreeva,” Ekho. no. 3 (1922); L. Vasilevskii, “Pamiatnaia vstrecha s L. Andreevym,” Utrenniki.Petrograd. no. 2 (1922). 2 0 N. Fatov, Molodve eodv Leonida Andreeva: I. Galant, “Psikhopatologicheskii obraz Leonida Andreeva. Leonid Andreev isteronevrastenicheskii genii,” Klinicheskii arkhiv genial’nosti i odarennosti. volume 3, issue 2 (1927): 147-165; L. Kleinbort, “Vstrechi. L. Andreev,” Bvloe. no. 24 (1924); A. Kugel’. List'ia s dereva. Vosoominaniia (Leningrad: Vremia, 1926), 82-95; V. Beklemisheva, “Vospominaniia,” in Rekviem: Pamiati Leonida Andreeva: V. Veresaev, “Vospominaniia,” in Rekviem: Pamiati Leonida Andreeva: Vadim Andreev, Detstvo: Povest* (Moscow: Sovetskii pisateF, 1963). 2 1 George Egerton, “The Politics o f Memory: Form and Function in the History o f Political Memoir from Antiquity to Modernity,” in Political Memoir: Essays on the Politics o f Memory, ed. George Egerton (London: Frank Cass & Co., 1994), 3. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 8 to what other events they will be linked. It is this creative quality that blurs the boundaries between literature and history.2 2 “Memoir literature” is actually a broad classification. Within the general classification of the literary memoir, there are notes and memoirs2 3 , diaries, literary portraits and autobiographies. The literary portrait is usually a monograph and sometimes a fragment of a larger memoir. The term “literary portrait” has been explained by making an analogy to visual portraiture and sculpture. As the painter has to decide questions of lighting, composition, and background, so too, the creator of the literary portrait has similar considerations. The literary portrait works then on two levels. One is the representation of the external qualities of the subject - physiognomy, manners of speech, dress, etc. The second is the description of the internal character of the subject - social, psychological and the byt2 4 of the individual.2 5 However, unlike visual or plastic portraiture, where concrete physiognomic details of the subject are often the method for evaluating the work, the literary portrait is concerned with the depiction of the inner world of the individual, his secrets, thoughts and feelings.2 6 “ Z. Vatnikova-Prizel, O russkoi memuamoi literature: Kriticheskie analizv i hihliographiia (East Lansing: Russian Language Journal, 1978), 18. 2 3 In Russian literature, examples would include Teleshov’s Notes o f an Author (Zapiski pisatelia) or Herzen’s Past and Thoughts (Byloe i dumy). 2 4 The Russian word “6brr” is usually defined as common, everyday existence. 2 5 E. Taeer. Tvorchestvo Gor’koeo sovetskoi epokhi (Moscow: Nauka, 1964), 76-82. 2 6 V. Barakhov, Literatumvi portret. (Istoki. poetika. zhanf) (Leningrad: Nauka, 1985), 15-16. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 9 One of the specific qualities of the portrait is that often the authors of the texts are literary figures.2 7 This feature is important, of course, because these are individuals who understand and regularly employ literary techniques in their work. They have a wider range and scope of knowledge for the creation of their memoir and, therefore, their portraits may be more highly stylized and subjective than a portrait written by someone without this training or by someone who is not trying to fashion/maintain a public reputation. The author is conscious of his own reputation as well as creating a new addition to his oeuvre which should, in turn, embody his own literary talent. The literary figure is both making a statement about the subject’s influence on him, as well as demonstrating his own literary abilities. Further, tensions are created as the biographical form places limitations and restrictions on the writer that fiction does V. Barakhov, the leading Soviet critic in the study of literary portraiture, states: “The object and subject in a literary portrait are always interconnected, and to a significant degree this obvious connection completely determines the scope of 2 7 Vatnikova-Prizel, 24-39. •Barakhov creates a system o f classification for 4 types o f literary portraits: 1) The memoir- autobiographical kind that is written by a writer about another writer; 2) The documentation kind of memoir that relies on letters and other documents; 3) The critical memoir that critically examines the work and life o f an artist; 4) the “scientific-monographic investigation o f the works o f a famous individual o f literature.” Using this system o f classification, our discussion will center on the first type. See V. Barakhov, “Iskusstvo literatumogo portreta,” in Literatura i zhivopis’ (Leningrad: Nauka, 1982), 152. 2 8 Ira Bruce Nadel, Biography: Fiction. Fact and Form (1984: reprint, London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1985), 121. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the portrait, its composition, the arrangement of material, the style.”2 9 The author, when writing the memoir, becomes a part of the past and present. He is a character in the memoir and the author. He lives in, works on and thinks about events in the past, while the present continues to have an influence on the work.3 0 One of the elements that determines the “scope of the portrait” is the level or degree of intimacy between the subject and the author. After all, the writer does not capture the “being” of the subject, but the experience of “being with” him.3 1 When there are many such experiences, the literary portrait becomes more complicated. Rather than just a few episodes to describe, the writer must decide which of many events to depict. Because the literary portrait is “a mosaic of heterogeneous impressions,” there must be some cohesive internal logic holding it together. This inner logic should be the distinctive qualities of the subject, which made him or her unique.3 2 The success then of the literary portrait depends on the ability of the author to express the subject’s “inner world,” while limiting his own subjective interpretations. In order to convey the “inner world” there must be some sort of contextual narrative. In a painting, this might be the depiction of the subject on a white horse 2 9 V. Barakhov, Iskusstvo literatumogo portreta. Gor’kii o V.I. Lenine. L.N. Tolstom. A.P. Chekhove (Moscow: Nauka, 1976), 13. O & b e K T a c y 6 i> e K T b J u rre p a T y p H O M n o p T p e r e B c e r a a B 3 a a M O C B X 3 a ab i, a ara B n o jiH e o H e B a o a a t t cB A 3b b 3 H a n a T e a b H o R c r e n e a a o n p e a e / i f l e T o u b e .w n o p T p e r a , e r o c o c r a B , p a c n o j t o a c e a a e M a T e p a a a a , c r a j i b . 3 0 V. Karelin, “Segodnia o vcherashnem,” Voorosv literaturv. no. 9 (1961): 51-54. 3 1 Elizabeth W. Bruss, Autobiographical Acts. The Changing Situation o f a Literary Genre (Baltimore; London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976), 72. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. with a historical battle raging in the background. This provides the audience with a context in which to view the individual’s portrait - that of a heroic leader. Without this narrative, the portrait loses its vitality and often its message. The narrative is the reflection of the author’s artistic form, the core idea. Uniting various facts with certain modes of plot structure provides narrative in the literary portrait. Hayden White calls this “emplotment” and argues that the transformation of events into a story requires the subordination of some events and the highlighting of others by means of narrative strategies used in literature. In order to make sense of the real world the writer must impose a formal coherence that is often associated with fiction.3 3 Emplotment gives facts fictive meaning. It is the power of the ‘story’ that provides a coherent vision of life.3 4 This need to understand or to present life as a “coherent vision” can be associated with concepts of temporality and memory, as the author often wishes to convey “cause and effect” in his narrative. Events that did not seem important at the time are given special meaning in retrospect. Temporality is perceptible in the tension between memory and imagination. Memory is a delicate combination of the event experience, the process of recollection and time consciousness, which becomes the raw material for the author’s narrative imagination. The experience of 32 Barakhov, Iskusstvo Iiteratumoeo portreta. Gor’kii o V.T. Lenine. L.N. Toistom. A.P. Chekhove. 23-24. 3 3 See Hayden White, “The Historical Text as Literary Artifact” in Tropics o f Discourse. Essays in Cultural Criticism (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1978) and the introduction to Metahistorv. The Historical Imagination in 191 1 * Century Europe (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press 1973). 3 4 Nadel, 9. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 12 memory and temporality allow the autobiographical imagination to reformulate and restructure experience as a conscious act of interpretation.3 5 This process has been called “reperception.”3 6 This dissertation will be attuned to the author’s narrative or core idea to evaluate each portrait and to understand the inner world of the subject. However, as White suggests, literary strategies are often employed to convey the author’s core idea. These strategies, in turn, introduce varying levels of subjectivity into the literary portrait that are mainly associated with autobiographical intentions. Subjectivity is found in all types of memoir literature and literary criticism. However, it is the fact that the author is known outside of the portrait, as well as represented within that makes the literary portrait’s brand of subjectivity unique.3 7 In examining memoir literature, the critic must uncover the fiction of non- fiction. Unlike the theoretical concept of zhiznetvorchestvo, “life creation,” or “an artiste's self-fashioning,” this study targets the creation of an artiste’ s image by others, thus involving elements of interpretation and reception. The interaction of the memoirists’ strategies of self-creation and those of creation of the subject are at play. The published memoir establishes a set of references (a posthumous legacy) that will 3 5 Jane Gary Harris, “Diversity and Discourse: Autobiographical Statements in Theory and Praxis,” in Autobiographical Statements in Twentieth-Century Russian Literature, ed. Jane Gary Harris (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990), 26. 3 6 Jane Gary Harris, “A n Inquiry into the function o f the autobiographical Mode: Joyce, Mandelstam, Schulz,” in American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress o f Slavists (Kiev, September 1983), ed. Paul Debreczeny (Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, 1983), 202. 37 Barakhov, “Iskusstvo literatumogo portreta,” (1982), 162. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 13 be accepted, rejected, and/or repeated by readers and future memoirists for both the Author and the Subject. Therefore, in examining the literary portrait, the critic must identify each author’s core idea, which provides a means for analyzing the portrait as a whole. This cohesive idea will be both a reflection of the Subject and the Author. The role of the critic is to interpret the core ideas of the literary portrait, while being aware of the autobiographical intentions and literary devices, resulting in varying levels of subjectivity. Some of these autobiographical influences are dictated by the time in which the literary portrait is written. Understanding the political, social and cultural pressures provides insights into the creation of the memoir. During the years of War Communism (1918-1921) Gorky became the unofficial minister of culture and tried to help Russian intellectuals by creating numerous institutions and establishments that provided employment and housing. Gorky, A. Serebrov (A. Tikhonov), Z. Grzhebin and I. Ladyzhnikov established World Literature (Vsemimaia literatura) in September 1918. The aim of the group was to make world literary classics readily available to the Russian people, which would have been the most extensive translation enterprise in Europe. World Literature eventually expanded beyond translations. For this, Grzhebin was allowed by the Soviet government to establish a publishing house in Germany, where costs would be reduced and materials were more readily had. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 14 It was through Gorky’s leadership that A Book About Leonid Andreev was published. Gorky arrived at the offices of World Literature in September 1919 and announced that Andreev had recently died in Finland. He was in tears and stated that Andreev had been his only true friend. He then turned to Blok and asked him to write something about Andreev. Chukovskii notes in his diary that Gorky was in charge of collecting the memoirs for publication, but Chukovskii himself organized a memorial evening for Andreev. This took place in Petrograd on 15 November 1919. Unfortunately, the evening was not a success. Chukovskii describes it in his diary: Late evening: Again I cannot sleep. I am still thinking about yesterday evening’s “Memorial for Andreev” - 1 have had no other thought the entire night!.. It turned out stupid and awkward - and I was tortured for almost three straight hours. Beginning with the fact that it was very cold in the Tenishev School. The public sat there being glum. There were about 200 people but there was no feeling of unity. There was Belopol’skii, Otsup’s mother. Gorky’s entire retinue - Grzhebin, Tikhonov, their wives, m-me Khodasevich, her husband, Batiushkov, office staff of World Literature, two or three commissars, a group of ten students of the newest formation. [A. E.] Red’ko was there. There was my audience from the studio - Nad. Filippovna, Polonskaia, Volodia Pozner, Veksler, but they never merged and everyone remained apart. There was no literary atmosphere and the temperature never increased a degree when Alek. Blok read with a dull voice his insipid thing, where the word I...I...I...I flashed much more often than the word “Andreev.” Actually, that is how it is supposed to be when lyrical poets are involved, and for those studying the works of Blok this article is extremely interesting, but for the memory of Leonid Andreev, it does not fit the bill. Then the actors wanted to read but unexpectedly Gorky darted out onto the stage and with this he spoiled the entire matter. He, as they say, “tore apart the evening.” He read with a deep base, read long and dimly, not very distinctly. He went unnecessarily into details and jokes of little interest, - R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 15 without sincerity. He did not give any personal characteristics and he did not raise the atmosphere one degree... When he finished, six o'clock advanced and everyone began to rush for the last tram. It was then that the actors appeared to read a scene from “Prof. Storitsyn.” The outflow from the halls began - the commissars, Gorky’s entire retinue, etc., etc. This outraged me so much that when it came to my turn, I suggested to the public (there remained only about 100 people), either leave at once or listen to the reading until the end. Everyone remained, many of those who left returned. I read very nervously, loudly, first standing, then sitting (skipping over a lot) - and with great love for Andreev. My little article came out brutal, caustic in some places, but in general and mainly, Andreev was dear to me. Therefore, Damanskaia (for some reason with a black eye), really upset me when she took me to the side and said: “They say that many are dissatisfied, that it is too wicked, but I liked it.” Then Zamiatin appeared and charmingly read his funny story about Andreev and the umbrella. Everyone laughed warmly, and the temperature began to rise, - but that was the end of it.3 8 3 8 K. Chukovskii. Dnevnik 1901-1929 (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1991), 120-121. O ru iT b H e c n a i o - B ee a y M a io o B n e p au iH eM a e n e p e «naM X T H A H a p e e B a » — b c io HOHb h h o a h o R a p y r o R M b ic a n !.. B b iu u io r a y n o h H e y K J iio w e - n a n p o M y n H n c x n a c a T p n n o a p x a . H a n a T b c T o r o , h t o 6 b ia o o n e H b x o a o a H O b T e r n im . Y H H a H m e . r iy G a H x a c n a e a a H a x o x a iiB u iH C b . E b ia o H e a o B e x 2 0 0 : h o H H K aK oro eaH H eH H X H e H ycT B O B aao cb . E b ia B e a o n o a b c x H R , M aTb O u y n a . B e x c b h t 3 r o p b K o r o : r p x e 6 HH, T h x o h o b , h x xceH bi, m - m e X o a a c e B H H , e e M yxc, E a n o u iK O B , x o H T o p u u tiib i B c e M H p H o fl JlH T e p a T y p H b i, A B a-T pn K O M H ccapa, c aecx T O K cT yaeH T O B H O B eR uieR ({lopM auH H . P e a b K O . E b u iu m o h c a y u i a t e a H n o C T yaH ii: H a a . O n a n n n o B H a , Ilo a o H C K a x , B o a o a x r io 3 H e p , B e x c a e p , h o B ee 3 t o He c a iiB a a o c b , a T o p n a a o o c o 6 h x k o m . JlH T e p a x y p H o R a T M o c ^ e p u H e 6 b ta o , k T e M n e p a T y p a H e n o a H x a a c b h h H a r p a a y c , K o r a a A a e x c . E a o K MaTOBbiM r o a o c o M n p o m r r a a cb o k > B oaxH H C T yio B e u ib , r a e c a o B o x ... x ... x ... x - M e a b x a a o r o p a 3 a o n a m e , neM c a o B o « A H a p e e B » . T a x , B n p o a e M , h a o a h c h o 6 biTb y an p H H e c x H X noaT O B , h a a x H 3 y n a io iiu tx T B o p n e c T B o B a o x a 3 T a cT aT b x o n e H b H H T ep ecH a, h o b naM X Tb J le o H H a a A n a p e e B a He t o a h t c x . F I o to m x o x e a w H H T arb a ic re p b i, h o H e o a c n a a H H o B btcx o H H a H a a c T p a a y r o p b K H il - h s t h m H 3 ra a w a B ee a e a o . O h , h t o H a 3 b iB a e rc x , « c o p B a a B e n e p » . O h H H T aa ra y x H M 6 a c o M , H H Taa a j i h h h o h T y c ic a o , o n e H b h c b h x t h o , p a c r e x a a c x b n o a p o O H o c T x x h M a a o iiH re p e c H b ix a H e x a o T a x , — 6 e 3 3 a a y u ie B H o c T H , - x a p a x T e p H c n ix H H H x ax o ft He a a a , - a T M O c ^ e p a H e n o a H x a a c b h h n a r p a a y c . . . K o r a a o h k o h h h a , H a c T y n n a o m e c T b n a c o B - B ee c r a a H cT peM H T bcx x n o c a e a H H M ip a M B a x M , - h b o t x o r a a n o x B a a n c b a x T e p b i, HHTaTb c u e H y H3 « n p o ( J ) . C T o p n u b iH a » , H a n a a o c b H C T eaeH n e H3 3 a a u : x o M u c c a p o B , B c e it c b h t u r o p b x o r o , h t . a. h t . a. 3 t o T a x B 03M yT H ao m c h x , h t o x o r a a H a c r a a a m o x o n e p e a b , x n p e a x o x c n a n y 6 a H x e ( o c r a a o c b n e a o B e x c t o ) a n 6 o y f i r a c e R n a c , a n 6 o n p o c a y u i a x b HTeH H e a o x o u u a . B e e o c T a a H c b , M H o rn e H3 y x o a H B u iH X B e p H y a n c b . H n r a a x o n e H b nepB H O , rp o M x o , t o BC TaB ax, t o c a a x c b (M H o ro e n p o n y c x a x ) - h Hpe3BbiHaRHO jiio6 x A H a p e e B a . C r a T e K x a m o x B b ttn a a x c e c T x a x , b h h m x M e c T a x x 3 B H T eab H a x , h o , b o o u te M h raaB H O M , A H a p e e B MHe m w i. rio sT O M y m c h x o n e H b o r o p n u a a J ta M a H c x a x (n o n e M y -T o c noaO H TbiM ra a 3 0 M ), x o r a a O H a O T B eaa m c h x c r o p o H y h c x a 3 a a a : « M H o r n e H e a o B o a b H b t, r o B o p x r , h t o c a h iu k o m 3 a o , h o M He n o H p a B H n o c b » . I I o t o m B b ic ry n H a 3aM XTHH h n p e a e c T H O n p o H H T a a c b o R a H e x a o T 0 6 A H a p e e B e h 30 H T H x e. B e e T e n a o CM exxH C b, h x e M n e p a x y p a H a n a a a n o aH H M a T b c x , - h o s t h m h x o H H H a o c b . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 16 Interestingly, Blok also made a note about the evening. He writes: “At four o’clock was the memorial for L. Andreev in the Tenishev School. Again madness. A small group of people in fur coats and overcoats listen to Gorky, whose foot has been stomped on by a soldier.”3 9 As has been noted above, the collection of literary portraits was important and distinctive for many reasons. Each memoir is different in its own way, but because they were published together, as a book, the collective literary portrait is just as important as the individual memoirs. Some of the authors had known Andreev for most of his adult life (Gorky, Teleshov, Zaitsev); others knew him as a literary figure (Belyi, Blok, Chukovskii, Chulkov), and one barely knew him at all (Zamiatin). However, for our purposes, the memoirs have been organized into two types: biographical and psychological.4 0 These designations have been made based on the intent of the author and what is conveyed about Andreev. 3 9 Aleksandr Blok, Zapisnve knizhki 1901-1921 (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1965), 480. B 4 qaca - naM HTH JI. AaapeeBa b TeHHtneBCKOM yHtuntiue. Ororrb cyMacuiecTBHe. Kynxa jnoaefi b my6ax h uihhcjihx cjiymaeT Topbicoro, KOTopoMy cojmaT pa3aaBtui Hory. 4 0 Barakhov nukes the argument that the 19th century literary portrait, represented by Herzen, is interested in “the reflection o f history in the individual,” while the 20lh century literary portrait, represented by Gorky, is concerned with the personal characteristics of the individual. In many ways, organizing the memoirs into “biographical” and “psychological,” may reflect this difference in artistic approach along the lines o f 19th and 20th century creative perspective. See Barakhov, “Iskusstvo literatumogo portreta” (1982), 152-154. In a later study, Barakhov suggests that in the beginning o f the 20th c. the literary portrait develops into an independent genre and part o f this evolution is shown in the concentration on depicting the “character” (philosophical, psychological, sociological, etc.), rather than just the historical biography o f the individual. See Barakhov, Literatumvi portret. 146-147. Koliadich makes a similar distinction (biographical/personal) in the portraits o f Zaitsev. However, she classifies them as portrait-biography and literary portrait respectively. See T. Koliadich, Vospominaniia pisatelei. Problemv poetiki zhanra (Moscow: Megatron, 1998), 81. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 17 The literary portraits of the biographical type are written with an eye towards the historical record. They attempt to classify Andreev in a larger historical context. Teleshov talks about Andreev and the literary circle Sreda; Belyi explains Andreev’s connection to the Symbolists; Zamiatin tells of Andreev’s 1906 revolutionary activities and Zaitsev creates a framework for interpreting Andreev’s life and literary career. In each of these memoirs, the author’s subjective appraisal is clear. The role of the critic in this instance is to either support and clarify the assertions of the author or to correct the errors and offer an alternative interpretation. Most of these memoirs overlap and they show how the same event can be given various interpretations. V. Kardin notes that when literary portraits are published in a collection, there is an added dimension involved. Instead of being a single discourse concerning the subject’s life, there are numerous opinions and interpretations provided, which vie for the reader’s attention. This can result in an open “argument” between writers to try to win-over the reader and stake a certain claim on the subject.4 1 This could also be seen as creating a stereoscopic, polyphonic effect. It would be an overstatement to say that there was an open argument between writers within A Book About Leonid Andreev. However, it is fair to say that there might be a slight bit of jostling going on. More specifically, the portraits 4 1 Kardin, 44. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. by Zaitsev, Belyi and Teleshov are grouped together because of their common goal. Each author has chosen to add to Andreev’s life history. Because the claims of these authors at times clash, it is important to examine the three portraits within one theoretical context. V. Grechnev argues that the reader’s main interest in a memoir is to find the line of discourse that is independent of the author’s own life and judgments.4 2 Arguably, it is more to the point that the reader is interested in both the author’s “self-creation” and how this subjectivity affects the portrait of the subject. For example, a reader would expect Symbolist rhetoric in the portraits by Belyi or Blok, but not in the portraits by Chukovskii or Gorky. It is just such an influence that makes a portrait by Belyi different from a portrait by Gorky.4 3 Therefore, a reader approaches the Belyi memoir with certain expectations and is interested in how this expected subjectivity will influence the portrait of the subject. The reader, being aware of this subjectivity to a greater or lesser degree, then does search (possibly unconsciously) for the line of discourse that is free of the author’s judgement. It has been suggested that auto/biographies o f famous people attract more public attention or have a greater market value than the lives of the “unknown” 42 V. Grechnev, “Pisateli o pisateliakh. Zametka o memuamoi literature,” Neva, no. 8 (1961): 194. 4 3 B. Bialik suggests that Gorky and Korolenko each create portraits o f “their own Chekhov” (cBoft HexoB), because each author addresses the characteristics o f the subject, which are closest to their own. Bialik considers this a positive, ignoring the possibility o f highly subjective interpretations. See B. Bialik, “Moi Gor’kii,” Literatumoe obozrenie. no. 9 (1977): 6. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 19 because the reader is in a position to compare the “original” to the “copy.”4 4 If this is the case, then the literary portrait offers up both the Author and the Subject for comparison. L. Ginzburg writes that esthetic form is the common thread that runs through literary prose, history, memoir, biography and human documents (letters, diaries, etc).4 5 This creates a continuum, which has literary creation at one end and documentary fact at the other. The different types of memoir literature are located at various points on the continuum - some closer to fact and some closer to fiction. This allows Ginzburg, in relation to memoirs, to talk about the “reworking of factual material”4 6 and the “deformation of individual facts in the name of a higher truth, poetical and historical.”4 7 This leads L. Levitskii to argue that the reader has the right to accept certain details of a memoir and to throw some away, to agree and to disagree. He states that you cannot ask the author to deny his own experiences, his own interpretations and his own views of the world and people in favor of the objectivity of a camera.4 8 The question then for the critic is how well the author approximates historical objectivity. In a collection of portraits or when comparing memoirs, the 4 4 Evelyn J. Hinz, “Mimesis: The Dramatic Lineage of Auto/Biography,” in Essavs on Life Writing: From Genre to Critical Practice, ed. Marlene Kadar (Toronto; Buffalo; London: University o f Toronto Press, 1992), 199-200. 4 5 L. Ginzburg. O psikhologicheskoi croze (Leningrad: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1977), 6. 4 6 Ibid., 250. ...nepepadoTKa (JmKTimecKoro Maxepuana. 4 7 Ibid., 137. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 20 critic must make an objective assessment. The aim is to identify the possible subjective influences and to clarify to what degree the portrait is biased.4 9 The end result is not a radical rewrite of a literary portrait by the critic, but rather an evaluative statement based on the level of subjectivity. The aim is for a reader or fellow critic, who approaches the portrait in the future, to be able to identify more easily the author’s narrative line of discourse. It is also an attempt at identifying the source of subjective material, which may have been repeated and accepted as fact in the subject’s biography. This will ultimately lead to a more accurate understanding of the subject’s life history and the author’s auto/biographical intentions. In turn, this should cause a re-examination of the both the author and subject’s works as these portraits are often used as biographical evidence for critics’ claims. Understanding the authors’ motivations also opens a window into their “inner world” and suggests that critics reassess the authors’ relationships with others and with their creative “selves.” Such a study has a ripple effect, as much of our criticism is based (to a greater or lesser degree) on biographical “truths.” When these “truths” are changed or modified, a reinterpretation of old and new scholarship is demanded. ...aaw e Ha ae^opM auHio OT.ue.nbHi.ix t^aicroB bo hmh Bbiuieft npaBHbi, noTrwfecKoft k HCTopunecKoft. 4 8 L. Levitskii, “Gde zhe predel sub”ektivnosti?,” Voprosv Literaturv. no. 4 (1974): 109. 4 9 As a counter argument to the idea that subjectivity interferes with the historical truth, Barakhov states that subjectivity is not always in opposition to an objective description o f the individual. At times, it is this subjectivity (read here artistic freedom) that allows the artist to characterize the past and to create a faithful depiction o f the individual’s milieu. In fact, he argues that subjectivity R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 21 In Western criticism, the term “life writing” is gaining currency for texts that are considered autobiographical fragments, including journals, memoirs, letters, metafiction, etc. Critical approaches for life writing, as described by Marlene Kadar, are concerned with issues of color, class and gender and its relationship to the text (applicable to both the writer and the reader). “Life writing as a critical practice, then, encourages (a) the reader to develop and foster his/her own self-consciousness in order to (b) humanize and make less abstract (which is not to say less mysterious) the self-writing.”5 0 In this instance, the issues surrounding the creation of a posthumous Andreev involve questions of class. Social labels such as uncultured, revolutionary, bourgeoisie, wealthy, successful, and more are enmeshed in the core ideas of the authors’ literary portraits. The focus then is to humanize, as Kadar suggests, the literary portrait. This means giving perspective on both the Author and the depicted Subject. This in turn allows the critic to understand why Andreev’s biographical legacy has been bound to labels: uncultured, counterrevolutionary and/or unsuccessful. In the following three chapters, the portraits of Zaitsev, Belyi and Teleshov are examined individually. The authors’ subjective claims are identified with the goal of establishing a basis of historical fact.5 1 At the end of the fourth chapter, the expands the possibilities o f the artist to convey biographical events and facts. See Barakhov, Literatumvi portret 273. 5 0 Marlene Kadar, “Coming to Terms: Life Writing - from Genre to Critical Practice,” in Essays on Life Writing: From Genre to Critical Practice. 12. s > E. Bushkanets gives several points for working with memoirs. These points speak to the various factors that can influence a text. Bushkanets argues that the authenticity o f the memoir must be R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. portraits are compared based on levels of subjectivity, with the intention of finding the lines of discourse that are free from the author’s interpretation. This allows the critic to examine Andreev’s life with greater clarity and to understand the intentions of the author(s). In turn, this creates perspectives on the Authors’ understanding of “self’ in relation to the Subject. Zamiatin’s portrait seemingly fits thematically into the biographical group of portraits, however, upon investigation it becomes clear that Zamiatin has fictionalized the biographical portrait. There exists a designation for this kind of memoir literature - memoir-biographical literary prose. This is when an author fictionalizes his life to create a semi-biographical story. An example of this is Gleb's Journey (Puteshestvie Gleba) by Zaitsev, where the events of Zaitsev’s life are altered and presented as fiction - although a fiction that greatly resembles the historical truth. Zaitsev is Gleb, Andreev appears as Andrei Aleksandrov, but Belyi remains Belyi. On the other hand, the literary portrait attempts to be a historically accurate document. It is accepted that there exist varying levels of subjectivity, but the core of the memoir is based on fact. Zamiatin has taken the basic events of his first meeting with Andreev and, wishing to convey the writer’s lack of passion for the 1905 revolution, has created checked. Did the author actually know/meet the subject? The ideological-political stance and the character o f the author must be taken into account, as well as any changes o f opinions about events or ideology. The time frame o f when the memoir was written in relation to when the events happened and also censorship restrictions are important to consider. Documentary materials, either referred to or used in a memoir can cause gaps in time referencing. Finally, the critic must be aware R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 23 for the portrait a character representing the revolution — the Party damsel. The historical events become secondary to the situation constructed between Andreev and this woman. Although such a young lady might have existed, this literary personage has come directly from Zamiatin’s ‘The Fisher of Men” (Lovets chelovekov). The similar female characters, Mrs. Fitzgerald and the Party damsel, as well as many other striking parallels between the two texts, lead one to the conclusion that Zamiatin fashioned a highly stylized and therefore fictionalized account o f his meeting with Andreev. These fictional elements, as a result, blur the distinctions between a literary portrait and a short story. This might be explained by the fact that Andreev and Zamiatin were not close friends. Zamiatin had little to write about when Gorky asked him to contribute to A Book About Leonid Andreev and resorted to an embellished account of his first meeting with Andreev. This is a problem when scholars turn to these memoirs as a source of fact. Therefore, Zamiatin’s portrait will not be dealt with in great detail in this dissertation. The seven other portraits attempt to record and explain Andreev’s life. These portraits, when examined as one text, fashion a discourse about Andreev’s abnormal behavior and its realization in his biography. Zamiatin’s portrait is not engaged in this discourse and therefore, must be dealt with in another context, one not relevant to the dissertation at hand. o f when authors are in dialogue with other memoirs about a subject or a certain event. See E. Bushkanets, Memuamve istochniki. Uchebnoe posobie k snetskursu (Kazan: 1975). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 24 The chapters devoted to Zaitsev, Teleshov and Belyi’s portraits address biographical additions to Andreev’s posthumous legacy. The goal is to clarify Andreev’s role in the Sreda circle and with the Symbolists and to take issue with how his life history is to be understood by future readers. These chapters do not add to Andreev’s biography, but subtract or, at best, adjust certain claims and interpretations. The psychological type of memoir presents a different challenge. The literary memoir is meant to show what has heretofore been hidden, to reveal the inner world of the subject.5 2 Some authors are more successful at this than others. However, when a group of memoirs are compared, common characteristics are exposed. In the case of Andreev, his psychological condition was so extreme that it is very easy to track this line of discourse from the first writers (Blok, Chukovskii, Chulkov, and Gorky) through the following memoirs. Therefore, what results is psychoanalysis via the literary memoir. An interest in the psychological side of the individual in portraiture took root in 17th century French society as a result of a discourse on thought, philosophy and morals. The process of self-awareness and a search for the subject’s inner world in portraiture, both in literature and the plastic arts, stimulated an interest in psychology. The rationalistic and normative esthetic of writers and memoirists of the 17th and 18th centuries influenced the discourse on individualization and the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 25 depiction of the underlying essence of the subject, reflected in the works of Rembrandt and Velasquez. The further development of the portrait is found in the assertion of Realism in the arts, which attempted to characterize the real individual. In the Russian Realist tradition, theory about portraiture was greatly influenced by V. Belinskii and N. Chemyshevskii. Both argued that the portrait created a new image of the individual and expanded the boundaries of our understanding of life in images and types. As a result, the 19th century becomes saturated with socio-biographical and psychological discourse. N. Gogol was able to capture socio-psychological traits in the physical description of his characters. In the works of F. Dostoevskii, the outward description of the individual conveys the internal drama of the character. Therefore, the internal portrait is a driving force in the development of the plot. L. Tolstoi’s works exploit the psychological portrait in such a way that the slightest change of mood or state of mind is reflected in the complex relationship between the individual and the surrounding world. It is from this Realist tradition that the literary portrait develops. Barakhov argues that the basic goal o f the author, like the portrait painter, is to create an artistic image, which approximates the world of the individual - the life and biography - refracted through the individual perception of the artist.5 3 52 Barakhov, Iskusstvo literatumogo portreta (19761. 19; Literatumvi portret. 85 and Vatnikova- Prizel, 119. 5 3 Barakhov, Literatumvi portret 19-29. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 26 T. Koliadich traces the development of psychological discourse in 19th century Russian memoir-biographical literary prose. Koliadich suggests that the roots of this development can be found in the literary, semi-autobiographical works of N. Karamzin, Tolstoi and S. Aksakov. Karamzin’s Letters o f a Russian Traveler (Pis’ma russkogo puteshestvennik) were one of the first to explore the inner world of the author. Aksakov’s Family Chronicle (Semeinaia Khronika) examines the evolution of the individual within the framework of a historical novel. Tolstoi’s semi-autobiographical trilogy analyzes childhood as an explanation for adult behavior.5 4 Koliadich’s broader definition of memoir literature merges with Barakhov’s more specific examination of the literary portrait to provide the line of connection from 17th century French society to Russian memoir literature and the literary portrait. This leads to a discussion of a developing field of study known as psychohistory and/or psychobiography.5 5 Sigmund Freud, with his Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory o f His Childhood in 1910, created the study of psychobiography. As the field of psychology has developed, so too have the methods used by scholars. E. Erikson argues that psychological assumptions are embedded in the interpretation of lives and that even if a systematic psychological 5 4 Koliadich, 13-21,91. 5 5 The two have explicit or implicit implications for each other. In some sense, psychobiography can be seen as a subcategory o f psychohistory. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 27 approach is not used then an implicit psychology will be.5 6 William Runyan defines psychobiography as: ...the explicit use of systematic or formal psychology in biography. Three aspects of this definition should be noted. First, the field is defined by the use of psychology, which may or may not be psychoanalytic. Second, the use must be explicit or visible, in order to distinguish psychobiography from all those biographies which make implicit use of commonsense psychology. Third, the definition refers not to the application of personality theory but to the use of psychology, which is intended to include within psychobiography those works drawing upon the full range of resources from the field of psychology, including psychological concepts, data, and methods, as well as theory, from developmental, social, and personality psychology.5 7 Psychohistorians research the repetitions, deviant cases, and their meanings in the private and often unconscious world of their subjects.5 8 The discussion of Andreev and his psychological condition comes under Runyan’s classification of “case study.” He writes: “...the traditional case study places a relatively greater emphasis upon identifying the origins and historical course of a client’s disorder, or upon searching for the causes and meaning of a person’s problems within the contexts of his or her life history. ...[Traditional or naturalistic case studies seem relatively effective for interpreting the origins and historical course of disorders...”5 9 5 6 E. Erikson. Young man Luther (New York: Norton, 1958), 13-22. 5 7 William McKinley Runyan, Life Histories and Psvchobiogranhv. Explorations in Theory and Method (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 202. 5 8 Peter Loewenberg, Decoding the Past: The Psychological Approach (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1983), 15-16. 5 9 Runyan, 147. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 28 Understanding Andreev offers insights into his literary works and his biographical legacy. Maybe more importantly, it also offers a diagnosis. Andreev had a reputation for reckless and extreme emotional behavior. Many of the memoirs are filled with stories that read like “my adventures with Andreev.” Some, like Gorky, have used this behavior to downgrade Andreev’s artistic ability and his literary production. Others, like Chukovskii, have seen it as the source of his creative energy. A diagnosis would put this behavior and Andreev’s literary production into perspective. Andreev appears to have suffered from bipolar disorder, also known as manic-depression. This is a hereditary illness, which causes chemical imbalances in the brain and results in phasic behavior. The symptoms that Andreev experienced are actually quite common for those afflicted with manic-depression. The individual, over a course of weeks, months or years, will experience varying degrees of mania, depression, mixed states and “normalcy.” Manic states are characterized by “heightened mood, more and faster speech, quicker thought, brisker physical and mental activity levels, and more energy (with a corresponding decreased need for sleep), irritability, perceptual acuity, paranoia, heightened sexuality, and impulsivity.”6 0 Many, starting with Chukovskii, saw this behavior as the manifestation of Andreev’s creative energy. Studies have even concluded that 6 0 Frederick K- Goodwin and Kay Redfield Jamison, Manic-Depressive Illness (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 22. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 29 manic-depression is very prominent among artists.6 1 However, understanding this behavior as the root of Andreev’s creativity is not the same as recognizing the actual problem. The darker side of bipolar illness is found in the periods of depression. They are characterized by “a slowing down or decrease in almost all aspects of emotion and behavior: rate of thought and speech, energy, sexuality, and the ability to experience pleasure. As with the manic states, severity varies widely. Symptoms can range from mild physical and mental slowing, with very little distortion in cognition and perception, to profound depressive stupors, delusions, hallucinations, and clouding of the consciousness.”6 2 Depression is the condition most widely described in the Andreev memoirs. Chulkov and Blok were the first to try to characterize and explain it and with each successive memoir, the stories and the explanations increase. Rarely do interpretations take into account Andreev’s manic phases and vice versa. Therefore, in most memoirs only one side of the story is given. It is only when the memoirs are read as a body of literature that a diagnosis can be made. Gorky was one of the few people who tried to confront and possibly understand both Andreev’s manic and depressed periods. However, Gorky’s own inability to associate with Andreev on any level other than a literary one leaves him 6 1 See Kay Redfield Jamison, Touched With Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament (New York: The Free Press, 1993); “Marne-Depressive Illness and Creativity,” Scientific America. February (1995). 6 2 Goodwin and Jamison, 36. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 30 stabbing in the dark for answers. By understanding Andreev’s condition, new perspectives on the Gorky/Andreev relationship can be realized and explanations of behavior can be put into focus. Shirley Neuman discusses designations such as “feminist,” “women-of- color,” “lesbian,” etc., that both liberate and confine the users of these labels in the course of life writing. Neuman writes: “An adequate poetics of autobiography, I would suggest, would acknowledge that subjects are constructed by discourse but it would also acknowledge that, if the autobiographical self is to some extent passive before the ideological forces constructing its group identity, it also has agency...”6 3 In a similar way, the portraits of Chukovskii, Chulkov and Gorky are depictions of Andreev in the discourse of the “psychologically healthy.” What is confronted in these portraits are the categories of normal vs. abnormal behavior from the position of “normalcy,” which is indifferent to Andreev’s plight, and attempts to interpret his condition as creative energy, inner turmoil caused by historical events, or disrespect for the literary craft. Blok is the exception as he approaches the problem as an “abnormal” author and it is his portrait, once understood in this light, that possibly gives the greatest insight into Andreev. These designations of “normal” and “abnormal” are much more covert than someone writing in or being ascribed with a “lesbian” or “feminist” voice, but they are no less restrictive. 6 3 Shirley Neuman, “Autobiography: From Different Poetics to a Poetics o f Differences,” in Essays on Life Writing: From Genre to Critical Practice. 223. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Therefore, chapter five is dedicated to Chukovskii’s descriptions of Andreev’s mania and how it has been understood as an expression of his creative energy. Chapter six is devoted to the manifestation of Andreev’s depression, as introduced by Chulkov, and how this led to attempts at suicide, troubles with alcohol and added to his reputation as a “gloomy” writer. These two chapters provide a vocabulary and a diagnosis for Andreev’s mental condition. Using this as a basis, chapter seven looks at Blok’s claims of a shared sense of chaos. Blok also suffered from a form of manic-depression and his description of chaos becomes much clearer once put into context. The final chapter is dedicated to Gorky and his attempts to come to grips with Andreev’s condition and to explain for the historical record why their friendship came to an end. By simply reading the biography of Andreev in a recent Russian high school textbook, one can find many of the motifs that have developed out of the memoir literature. For example, the textbook states that Andreev’s tragic quality developed from his interest in German philosophical pessimism.6 4 This line of discourse can be traced to Gorky and Chulkov and is discussed in the respective chapters dedicated to these authors. Following the standard line of thinking, Gorky and Andreev’s troubled friendship is explained in political and literary terms.6 5 This interpretation is dealt with in chapter eight. The text then states: “From 6 4 V. Agenosova, ed., Russkaia literatura XX veka. 11 klass. Uchehnik H I in obshcheobrazovatel’nvkh uchebnvkh zavedenii. part 1 (Moscow: Drofa, 1999), 137. 6 5 Ibid., 138. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 32 Petrograd, Andreev went to Finland, which was cut off from Russia after revolutionary events.”6 6 This echoes Zaitsev’s interpretation and ignores the fact that Andreev lived in Finland for a decade before he was “cut off’ from Russia. The text indirectly quotes Blok’s literary portrait about Andreev’s feelings of solitude, which is addressed in chapter seven.6 7 A phrase such as, “Intense feelings of life compelled Andreev to be constantly tortured by sensations and a knowledge of coming death...,”6 8 comes from the confusion resulting from Andreev’s mental condition and echoes statements made by Chukovskii, the diagnosis of Dr. I. Galant and claims made by Gorky in the 1923 version of his literary portrait. These topics are addressed in chapters five and six. Within just a few pages of a short biography, this textbook repeats for students many of the core ideas found in the memoir literature devoted to Andreev. Even in a western staple such as Victor Terras’ Handbook o f Russian Literature, we find such a paragraph on Andreev: Personally, Andreev was as extravagant and contradictory as much of his writing. His nihilism and pessimism, particularly after the death of his beloved wife in 1906, were genuine, yet there was still much theatricality and pose in him. A handsome man, he wore velvet jackets and page-caps, impersonating a painter (which he partially was) of the Renaissance (to which he in no way belonged). 6 6 Ibid., 139. H 3 n e r p o r p a a a A a n p e e B y e x a n b O H u n a u a m o , o T p e 3 aH H y io n o c n e p e B o jn o u tto H H b ix c o S b m t f t o t P o c c h h . 6 7 Ibid., 139-140. 6 8 Ibid. O d o c T p e H H o e nycT B O >kh3 h h 3a c ra B J t)in o A n a p e e a a n o c ro x H H O M yH H Tbcx o m y u ie tu ie M h 3 H3h h c m r p a a y i u e f t c M e p r a ... R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 33 He loved the sea, and needed such means of stimulation as extremely strong tea and alcohol. This section just cited is a synopsis of Chukovskii’s literary portrait. Brought up in poverty, he longed for lavish decors and furnishings, and his way of life, consuming all of the great deal of money that his writings brought him. As for his writings, Andreev’s preoccupation with death and morbidity, and his perception of the vulnerability of human reason and of the futility of human endeavor in the face of the dark and irrational forces of life were all sincere. Yet much of what he published was melodramatic or unsupported by any convincing personal experience.6 9 The lavish decor is mentioned in many of the portraits, especially Zaitsev’s. Death and morbidity appear in the portraits of Chukovskii, Chulkov and Gorky. This is considered “sincere” literature because the authors’ of the portraits have linked this to the death of Andreev’s first wife, who is presented in a favorable light. The motif of a “lack of personal experience” goes back to Gorky’s claim that Andreev relied on organic talent rather than any real-life experience. This again shows that A Book About Leonid Andreev established how Andreev would be understood and reproduced. Therefore, the core ideas, of either a biographical or psychological nature, are the starting points for a discussion of the literary portraits and their interpretations. The aim is to offer perspective by giving a wider context, confronting subjective material, offering alternative interpretations and/or highlighting the memoirs and criticism that followed. The end point of our R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 34 discussion is the cumulative portrait that the book provides for Andreev. Each portrait has its own voice, but A Book About Leonid Andreev is a combination of these eight voices, which leaves the reader with a final overall impression. The impression is that Andreev suffered from bipolar illness, which affected and influenced his family, friends and literary works. The authors of the portraits lacked an adequate vocabulary for or even understanding of Andeev’s mental condition. This is why individually the memoirs concern literary circles, creative energy, etc. but read as a whole, A Book About Leonid Andreev is a description of the subject’s abnormal behavior and mental illness. How can one possibly re-examine and/or re-define Andreev’s posthumous legacy? In this sense, the dissertation at hand is as much a polygenre as the memoir itself. It includes historical, psychological, biographical and autobiographical critical approaches. The critic’s role in such an exercise is captured by the critical biographer Leon Edel: “Not having the testimony of his own eyes, he finds he must use the testimony of others; and then he discovers that the testimony is often contradictory and invariably colored by individual points of view. But again, precisely this awareness of contradictions may give the distant biographer [or critic - FHW] a marked advantage in his search for the truest picture.”7 0 It is this 6 9 Victor Terras, ed. Handbook o f Russian Literature (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1985), 21. 7 0 Leon Edel, Literary Biography C1957: reprint, Bloomington; London: Indiana University Press, 1973), 24-25. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 35 distance of both a temporal and emotional sort that hopefully provides the modem critic with the ability to offer perspective on Andreev’s posthumous reputation. Although A Book About Leonid Andreev is the starting point and main focus of the dissertation, the entire body of memoir material devoted to the subject is relevant to our discussion. This is the first systematic critical attention that the Andreev memoirs have received. It is also the first time that Andreev’s bipolar illness has been confronted. This dissertation examines both the biographical and psychological material provided by these literary portraits so as to understand the intentions of the authors and to gain a greater perspective on Andreev’s life history. Scholarly attention devoted to Andreev, especially in the last decade, has been concerned with the recovery of Andreev’s literary and biographical legacy. This has manifested itself in the publication of letters, diaries, unpublished works, etc. Scholars have done this in an attempt to broaden our understanding of Andreev, to provide new perspectives and to correct past mistakes. The following chapters address the same goals, but from a different direction. The idea is to examine the existing memoir literature, which has already created a posthumous image of Andreev, and to investigate this image so as to add (or possibly subtract) from what is currently understood and repeated as fact. The end result will be that Andreev’s biographical legacy is put into greater focus and that the genre of the memoir is appreciated as a literary, as well as a historical, text for scholarly R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. attention. Only by objectively understanding Andreev can we then gain further insight into his literary works, personal relationships and life history. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 37 Memory is the catalyst o f ...autobiographical ‘truth,’ but it is also the agent o f its impossibility (an impossibility acknowledged and explored within humanist poetics o f the genre), for what is forgotten or misremembered may be at least as important to the ‘truth’ o f the sought-for ‘se lf as what is remembered. - Shirley Neuman, “Autobiography: From Different Poetics to Poetics o f Differences” Zaitsev (1881-1972) made Andreev the subject of numerous articles and memoirs after 1919.1 He even transformed Andreev into Andrei Aleksandrov in his short novel Youth (Iunost’).2 However, unlike Gorky and Chukovskii, Zaitsev never greatly changed his basic memoir published in A Book About Leonid Andreev. Even when he wrote a new version of the memoir in 1969, the core idea and major events remained the same. This is significant, showing that over the course of fifty years, Zaitsev remained faithful to his initial memories and perceptions of Andreev. Zaitsev was bom in Orel (Andreev’s hometown). As a young writer, he was impressed with Andreev’s works and searched him out. A friendship developed after their first meeting and Andreev did what he could to help his new protege. He introduced Zaitsev to the Sreda literary circle and the two, along with Sergei Glagol’ (S. Goloushev), came to represent the “left” flank of Sreda - 1 See “Molodost’ Leonida Andreeva,” Vozrozhdenie. no. 1362, 24 February (1929): 3; “Leonid Andreev v zrelye gody,” Vozrozhdenie. no. 1380, 13 March (1929): 2-3; Moskva (Paris: Russkie zapiski, 1939). “O Leonide Andreeve,” Russkaia mvsl’. no. 180, 14 October (1949): 3; “Sud’by [O L. Andreeve i M. Gor’kom],” Russkaia mvsl’. no. 1102, 31 August (1957): 2-3; “Leonid Andreev. (Iz vospominanii),” Russkaia mvsl’. no. 2761, 23 October (1969): 8. 2 Boris Zaitsev, Iunost’ (Paris: YMCA-Press, 1950). 2 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 38 admirers of Decadent and Symbolist artistic trends. Andreev also found work for Zaitsev at the newspaper Courier (Kur’er), publishing in 1901 his first story, “On the Road” (V doroge), as well as some other early “impressionistic” and gloomy stories, which imitated Andreev’s own style.3 Zaitsev actively published his works in various periodicals and in 1906 Shipovnik issued his first collection of stories. He soon became an editor (along with Andreev) of the Shipovnik almanacs, which often brought him to St. Petersburg and expanded his literary associations. His second collection of stories was published in 1909. Although his style had changed, many critics felt that his story “Agrafena” (Agrafena) was influenced by Andreev’s play Life o f Man (Zhizn’ A cheloveka). In 1912, Zaitsev married Vera Alekseevna Oreshnikova. Four years later, he was drafted and entered the Aleksandrovskii Military Academy for officer training. He received his commission in 1917, but fell ill and was sent to his father’s estate at Pritykino to recover.5 Zaitsev identified the period 1917-1922 as his “tragic years.” During this time both his nephew and father died. His wife’s son, by her first marriage, was tried and executed for counter-revolutionary activities. Zaitsev himself was arrested and spent several days in Lubianka prison. 3 Boris Zaitsev, Sochineniia v trekh tomakh. vol. 1 (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura; Terra, 1993), 10. 4 Ibid., 18. 5 Pritykino was the family estate o f Zaitsev’s father, located in the Tula district. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 39 These “tragic years” coincide with Andreev’s death and the writing of Zaitsev’s first literary portrait. In 1922, Zaitsev contracted typhus and spent two weeks in critical condition. Due to his illness, he was given a visa to go abroad for treatment. The Zaitsevs lived for a time in Berlin, then in Italy and in 1924, they moved to France. Once in France, Zaitsev published his works in all of the major periodicals of the Russian diaspora. For a time he was the editor of the French journal Russian Thought (Russkaia mysl’). Along with publishing literary works, Zaitsev wrote several memoirs (Moskva, Dalekoe) and a series of autobiographical works (Puteshestvie Gleba: Zaria, Tishina, Iunost’, and Drevo Zhizni). Zaitsev died in January 1972, a few days short of his 91st birthday. It is to Zaitsev’s “tragic years” and his literary portrait of Andreev that we turn our attention. Like the memoirs of Gorky, Teleshov, and Belousov, Zaitsev captures Andreev from a very early stage of his literary career. Therefore, it is interesting to look at Zaitsev’s memoir for several reasons: 1) He knew Andreev both personally and professionally; 2) he never changed the basic premise of his literary portrait; 3) Zaitsev’s description of Andreev’s life and career became the standard interpretation.6 6 “Standard interpretation” here means that most biographical surveys o f Andreev’s life tend to divide his life and career into two parts and portray the second half as significantly worse than the first (see textual examples in Chapter 1). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 40 Zaitsev describes Andreev’s life as a whole created out of two halves. The first half associates Andreev with Moscow, good friends and his first wife. Finland, isolation and Andreev’s second wife represent the second half. This approach is not totally unique. Almost all of Andreev’s close friends mention the death of Andreev’s first wife as a pivotal moment in the author’s life and career. However, it is Zaitsev who organizes Andreev’s life into two distinct phases, marked by locale and family, and designates them with positive and negative judgments. “It seems, in the life of Andreev (as a writer and maybe in his personal life) the years 1901-1906 were the fullest, most joyous, most cheerful. All of his existence at this time flew forward; he was at full strength and wrote zealously. Despite the gloomiest stories, “The Abyss” and “Vasilii Fiveiskii,” he was full of hope, of successes, and a ruthless life still could not break him. He had only just married A. M. Veligorskaia, a tender and quiet girl. A bright hand was felt above him.”7 Zaitsev describes how Andreev’s financial situation improved with literary success. He associates this time with Sreda meetings, bringing together Andreev’s closest friends. The ideas contained in this section are so central to the memoir that 7 Boris Zaitsev, “Vosporainaniia,” in Kniga o Leonide Andreeve. Vospominaniia Gor’kogo, Chukovskogo, Bloka, G. Chulkova, Borisa Zaitseva, N. Teleshova, Evg. Zamiatina, A. Belogo, 2n d ed. (Berlin: Z. I. Grzhebin, 1922), 129. KaaceTca, b acrcmH AnnpeeBa (rmcaTejibCKoii, a Moacer SbiTb h jwhhoF O roabi 1901-1906 6mjih caMbiMH nojiHUMH, paaocrHbiMH, OonpuMH. Bee ero cymecrBO aeTeao Toraa Biropen; oh iiojioh 6but can, nncaa pbHHo; HeciuoTpa Ha caMbie MpaHHbie «Ee3AHbi», Ha «BaciuiHH <t>HBeRcicoro» — nonoH 6bui Haneacn, ycnexoB h 6e3acaaocTHaa actoKb He HannoMtuia eme ero. Oh Toabico hto R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 41 in a later version, Zaitsev makes this the opening paragraph.8 After Aleksandra Mikhailovna’s death, Andreev moved to St. Petersburg. Zaitsev marks this as the end of Andreev’s youth. “One period was finished and another began.”9 “From the Spring of 1908 he took up residence at his dacha in Raivola, on the Black River.... In it lived the same black haired Leonid Andreev with sparkling eyes and in a velvet jacket but already he was beginning another life. He got married, he created a new hearth, was full of new plans, more grandiose than earlier and his soul was more troubled with praise, riches and greedily intoxicating himself on the cup of life - the cup that seemed bottomless.”1 0 Zaitsev continues: “It seems that during those years, Leonid Andreev actually did not obtain any new friends and from his old friends he was estranged, located in Finland. It seems his life there was restricted to a circle (to be sure, the most important) - family. He appeared rarely in Moscow.”1 1 xceHHJicfl Ha A. M. BeawropcxoR, hoxhoR h thxoR aeByiuxe. CBernaa pyxa nycTBOBaaacb Haa H H M . 8 Zaitsev, Moskva. 9 Zaitsev, Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 137. B Heil xottHttaca oahh nepwoa, Hanaaca apyroR. 1 0 Ibid., 138-139. C BecHbi 1908 r. oh noceauacH Ha CBoeit aane y PaftBoabt, Ha HephoR Pen ice.... B He acna Bee to t ace nepHOBoaocbift, c 6aecTamHMtt raa3aMH, b 6apxaTHoR xypTxe, JleoHHa AHapeeB, ho yace HanaBuiHH anoHb HHyto: oh xeHHaca, 3aBoanaca hobmm onaroM, 6bia noaoH hobmx naaHOB, 6oaee rpaHano3Hbtx, neM paHee, h ayuia ero 6oaee 6biaa cM HTeHa caaBoii, 6oraTCTBOM, acaacaoR aoniiTb ao KOHtta KyOoK hch3hh - xySox, xa3aBuiHRcx Tenepb HeocymwvibiM. 1 1 Ibid., 143-144. KaaceTca, 3a 3th roabt JleoHtia AHapeeB h aeRcrBHTeabHO hobux apy3eR He npwoSpea, a o r crapbix OTaaaHaca, Haxoaacb b OHHaaHaHtt. Kaacerca acrnHb ero tbm orpaHMHHBaaacb xpyroM (BaacHeRoiHM, pa3yMeerca) - ceMbH. B MocxBe oh noaBaaaca peaxo. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 42 Zaitsev says that he felt that Andreev’s soul was wounded and sick. “This was another Andreev, not the one with whom I philosophized at times [in Moscow], wandered through the birches of Butovo. There was a breakdown, fatigue, a heavily beating heart, a painful irritability. And only his eyes at times sparkled like before.”1 2 However, it was the early Andreev, the Andreev of the first half of life that Zaitsev wanted to remember. He writes: “When I visualize Andreev, I always see an image of a young man, his head full of black curled hair, nervous, with sharp-sparkling, bright eyes, who existed during the years of Gruziny, Presnia street and Tsaritsyno. He talks with a fervor, smokes, drinks glass after glass of tea somewhere on the terrace o f the dacha, amidst the birch trees at dusk, the distant descending fog. With him, somewhere behind him, is the thin, wide-eyed fiance in a dark dress, with a gold chain around her neck. Young love, freshness, radiant eyes of a young woman, the flowering of their lives.”1 3 Zaitsev did not simply create this binary model for the memoir. One of his letters to Andreev in July 1909 attests to the developing rift between the two: ...I have not received any news about you for a long time. The old habit of writing letters is dying out. We do not write letters, but 1 2 Ibid., 145. 3 t o HHoft 6bui AHapeeB; He t o t , c K eM 4>ttnoco(t>CTBOBanH M bi HeKoraa Ha ITpecHe, 6poaurm cpeab 6epe30K EyTOBa. HaonoM, ycTanocTb, t jo k k o Sbiomeecx cpeaue, THrocrax pa3apaxceHHOCTb. H jiHuib raa3a SjiecrenH HHor.ua no-npeacHeMy. 1 3 Ibid., 146. Koraa M b icn e H H O x B b U b iB a io o 6 p a 3 A a a p e e B a , o h n p e f l c r a B J i x e T c x m h s m o j i o a b i m , n e p H O K y a p b iM , H epB H bIM , C O C T po6jIH C T atO IU H M H , XpKHM H rJ ia 3 a M H , K3KHM 6 b U I B rO A bl r p y 3 H H , rip e C H H , L l a p n u b iH a . Oh j iH x o p a a o H H o r o B o p H T , K ypH T , c r a ic a H 3 a c ra ic a H O M n b e r n a t t r a e - H H 6 y A b H a T e p p a c e a a n n , c p e a n B e n e p e t o i u n x 6 e p e 3 , T y M a H H O -H ex c H b tx aanefl. C h u m , r a e - T o 3 a h h m , T o n e H b K a x , 6 o J i b t u e r j i a 3 a x H e B e c r a b t c m h o m tu ia T b e , c 3 0 j i o t o H u e n o H K o R H a o i e e . M o J i o a a x jiK )6 o B b , c B e x e c r b , c H X H b e r n a 3 a e B H H e c K H x , p a c u B e T h x x h 3 h h . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 43 some kind of tiny labels. I also have not had the occasion to talk with you in earnest for a long time. I do not count the days when you were in Moscow like I do not count the shameful reading of Anathema. All of this is too absurd and offensive. I would like to see you on the bank of the river (Russian), in the region outside Moscow, roughly near Butovo. You and I would sit on the tiny bank and peacefully swear at each other. This would be more genuine. To see each other in the Literary Circle is nonsense. In general, something was wrong, something not right in our last meeting. I cannot exactly define it, but I feel it clearly. You somehow suspiciously glanced at me and said that I have an “official politeness.” But I did not feel you. It happens that you talk with a person, you see and hear him and at the same time he is absent. Maybe it was because we were in public and in a scandalous situation. However, it seemed to me and sometimes now seems that we have grown further apart from each other. How happy I would be to again see you properly in Moscow in silence.1 4 This division in Andreev’s life is realized in a two article series published in 1929. The articles are entitled “The Youth of Leonid Andreev” and “Leonid Andreev in the Mature Years.”1 5 This is Zaitsev’s memoir, republished word for word from A Book About Leonid Andreev. The end of Andreev’s “youth” comes 1 4 Boris Zaitsev, “Boris Zaitsev: Strannoe puteshestvie. Rasskazy, ocherki, pis’ma,” Nashe nasledie. no. 3 (1990): 93. . . . o T e 6 e a a a B H b tM -a a B H O H e H M e io h h k 3 k h x h 3 b c c t h h . B b iM H p a e T c r a p o e o 6 b iK H O B e H n e riH c a T b m ic b M a . r iH iu e M m m H e n n c b M a , a icaK H e-TO c H n ta T y p ic K . T o j ik o m r o B o p u r b c t o 6 o R T o x c e a aB H O H e n p t o c o f l t t n o c b . A h h , x o r a a t m 6 m j i b M o c k b c , x H e C H H T ato , Kaic H e C H tr r a io h n o 3 o p H o r o h t c h h x « A H a T 3 M b i» . Bee s t o c j ih u ik o m H e a e tto h o O i h h o . N f o e x o T e x o c b 6 b t B H a e T b T e 6 x H a 6 e p e r y p eK H ( p y c c K o f t ) , b M ecTH O C TH n o a M o c k b o B , n p n 6 x H 3 itT e jib H o o k o j io B y r o B a . M b i 6 b i c T o O o f t c a a e a a H a 6 e p e % K y h m h p h o p y r a x n a p y r a p y r a . Ho 3 t o 6 b i a o 6 m H a c T o x m e e . A B a a e T b c x b J lH T e p a T y p H O M K p y x c x e e c r b B 3 a o p . B o o 6 m e h t o - t o 6 b u i o n e e e p n o e , H e n p a B H J ib H o e b H a u i e t t n o c a e a H e f t B C T p e n e . H e y M e io t o h h o o n p e a e a a r b , h o n y B C T B y io x c h o . T m H a m c h x icax-T O n o a o 3 p n T e a b H o B 3 r a x a b i B a n h r o B o p u a , h t o y M eH x « o < t> H U H a a b H ax a io 6 e 3 H o c T b » . A x T e 6 x f i e n y e m e o e a n . B b iB a e T T a x , h t o r o B o p a u i b c H e a o B e x o M , B iia H iiib , c a y u i a e u i b — h b t o * e B peM X o h o T c y r c T B y e r . M o x c e r 6 b iT b , s t o 3 a B H c e a o o t T o r o , h t o M bt 6 b t a H H a a i o a x x h b 6 e 3 o 6 p a 3 H o f f o 6 c r a H O B K e . Ho M H e K a 3 a a o c b , h K a x c e rc x H H o r a a c e i i n a c , h t o m m c r a a H a a a b i n e a p y r a p y t y . K a x x p a a 6 b t a 6 m o tiX T b y B H a e T b T e 6 x k q k c n e d y e m , b M o c K B e , b T H U iH H e! R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 44 after the death of his first wife and a brief meeting between the two authors in Florence. Zaitsev then adds: “These are all cursory characteristics remaining with me of the ‘young Andreev.’ I also knew Leonid in the mature years of a broken and agonizingly suffering life. To this, the other half of his life, we can still return.”1 6 Andreev’s “mature years” begin with his move to St. Petersburg. The division of Andreev’s life in this case is not only thematic. In the 1969 version of the memoir, the division between the youthful years in Moscow and the isolation of Finland is much more explicit. The literary portrait has been refined to such a degree that it is the unreserved core idea of the memoir. The model for Andreev’s life is fairly accurate, as there definitely was a noticeable shift in his life after the death of his first wife. However, Zaitsev’s approach is overly simplified and too broadly stated. One can understand that it is natural to see the flowering of youth as positive, while the mature years of an individual are either a comfortable and logical stage in a successful career or a tragic and flawed end to a once promising future. In approaching this memoir then, the critic must objectively compare this core idea with Andreev’s biography. Specifically in the case of Andreev’s “broken and suffering” mature years, the critic must separate subjective claims from objective fact. 1 5 Boris Zaitsev, “Molodost’ Leonida Andreeva,” Vozrozhdenie. no. 1362, 24 February (1929): 3; “Leonid Andreev v zrelye gody,” Vozrozhdenie. no. 1380, 13 March (1929): 2-3. 1 6 3 to Bee Oerjibie H ep ra, ocraBuuucH bo M He ot «MOJioaoro AaapeeBa». R 3Han JleoHtuia h b 3pejibte roAM, HanoMJieHHoro h MyHtrrejibHo Hecuioro acn3Hb - k ctoH, ap y ro ii nonoBiiHe nynt ero mo/kho eme BepHyrbca. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 45 The literary portrait is held together by a core idea. This cohesive theory represents both the subject and the author - the core idea that is postulated about the subject by the author. If Zaitsev is correct, then there should be evidence to support the claim that Andreev’s life was qualitatively better in the years that he lived in Moscow and worse when he lived in Finland. With this in mind, we begin with the Moscow period. Andreev met Aleksandra Mikhailovna Veligorskaia in 1896 and courted her for five years. In 1897, he graduated with a law degree from Moscow University, but worked for Courier as a court reporter and later, as the newspaper’s columnist, writing under the name of James Lynch. He was very poor, often depressed and regularly turned to drink. It did not seem that he would amount to much and so Andreev was not greatly welcomed in the Veligorskii home. His first real literary success came with the publication of “Once There Was” (Zhili-byli) in 1901. D. Merezhkovskii asked whether it was A. Chekhov or Gorky who was hiding behind the name of Leonid Andreev. The first volume of Andreev’s stories, which gained wide popular acclaim, quickly followed. The dean of critics, N. Mikhailovskii, confirmed this triumph with a favorable review. For Andreev, this was a heady time. He belonged to the literary circle Sreda, which meant that he was often in the company of Gorky, Ivan Bunin, F. Shaliapin, Skitalets and many other celebrities. His name was splashed across newspapers in big cities and in the provinces. Soon Andreev and the other R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 46 members of Sreda appeared on postcards and were caricatured in newspapers. Andreev was one of the first popular figures to receive the kind of intrusive media coverage that we now take for granted for our modem celebrities. His stories, “In the Fog” (V tumane) and “The Abyss” (Bezdna) caused a national debate in 1902, sparked by Sofia Andreevna Tolstaia’s letter to the editor, in which she said that Andreev illuminated filth and vice in Russia’s youth. Kaun writes of Andreev’s literary life: “The number of Andreev’s adverse critics grew with the increase of gods he denied.... While the conservative press, notably The New Times, called Andreev a firebrand of revolution, the socialistic organs accused him of anti-revolutionary sentiments; both sides could cite abundant instances in favor of their indictments.”1 7 On 10 February 1902, Andreev and Aleksandra Mikhailovna were married. Many have written that she brought a greater degree of stability to her husband’s life. After Gorky, she is said to have had the largest influence on Andreev’s literary process. As early as 1898, Andreev wrote to her that he did not consider a work complete until she had commented on it.1 8 Aleksandra Mikhailovna’s role only increased once they were married. Much like his mother, Andreev’s wife seemed to buffer him from the outside world and from his own emotional turmoil, 1 7 Alexander Kaun, Leonid Andreyev: A Critical Study f 1924: reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1970), 75. 1 8 LRA, MS 606\G. 8. ii. Letter o f 20 November 1898. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 47 which allowed him to function with a greater level of “normalcy.” Their first child, Vadim, was bom at the end of 1902. After his marriage and while an active member of Sreda, Andreev published mainly short stories.1 9 Richard Davies suggests: “The works Andreev wrote between 1903 and 1906 reflect his new personal and professional fulfillment in their greater artistic mastery, philosophical range and psychological penetration, without losing anything of the urgency and ambiguity of earlier stories.”2 0 It was during this period of literary fame, financial success and youthful exuberance that Zaitsev met Andreev. Zaitsev writes in his memoir: He probably hypnotized me. I liked completely everything in him and his writing. In arguments over what had been read, I was always on his side. Then again, he had at that time enjoyed great success, had really excited everyone, although the mode of his writing rarely approached the style of the listener.2 1 For Zaitsev, this time represents youth and friendship - not only for Andreev, but for himself as well. One must take into consideration that the second period of 1 9 His works o f this time include: “At the Station” (Na stantsii), “Spring Promises” (Vesennie obshchaniia), “The Life o f Vasilii Fiveiskii” (Zhizn’ o.Vasiliia Fiveiskogo), “There is no Forgiveness” (Net proshcheniia), “Phantoms” (Prizraki), “The Red Laugh” (Krasnyi Smekh), “The Thief’ (Vor), “Ben-Tovit” (Ben-Tovit), “Marseillaise” (Marsel’eza), “The Christians” (Khristiane), “Lazarus” (Eleazar), “The Governor” (Gubemator), To the Stars (K zvezdam), Sawa (Sawa) “So It Was” (Tak bylo) and The Life o f Man. See V. Chuvakov, comp., Leonid Nikolaevich Andreev: Bibliografiia. w pusk 1: Sochineniia i tekstv. ed. M. Koz’menko (Moscow: Nasledie, 1995), 40-46. 2 0 Richard Davies, Leonid Andreyev: Photographs by a Russian Writer. An undiscovered portrait of Pre-Revolutionarv Russia (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1989), 13. 2 1 Zaitsev, Kniga o Leonide Andreeve. 130-131. Mewt u a B e p H O o h r a n H O T ta H p o B a ji . MHe B e e H p a B tm o c b , h 6e 3p a 3 .a e .n b h o , b h c m h e r o m ic a H H H . B cnopax o npomrraHHOM x Bcerna 6biJi Ha ero cropoHe. BnponeM, h Boo6me o h h m c j i xorna 6o/ibmoit ycnex, oneHb Bcex B036yxcnan, x o t h o6pa3 ero nncaHHft M a n o nooxoann k o ocnajiy cjiywaxenefi. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 48 Andreev’s life, which Zaitsev identifies with isolation, reflects as much Zaitsev’s own isolation from Andreev as it does Andreev’s isolation from everyone else. In February of 1905, Andreev was arrested for allowing the Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDRP) to use his apartment for a meeting. He spent some time in the Taganka jail and due to this experience, his stories of 1905-1906 expressed overtly revolutionary themes. This eventually led to a place for Andreev and his family on the death lists of the Black Hundred. To avoid an unfortunate confrontation, the Andreevs went abroad at the end of November 1905. The turning point in Andreev’s life was the death of Aleksandra Mikhailovna on 10 December 1906. The Andreevs were in Berlin and he had just completed work on the play, Life o f Man. Shura (as was her nickname) gave birth to their second son, Daniil, but died afterwards of a postnatal infection. Aleksandra Mikhailovna’s death should not be underestimated. The pain was so closely linked to Daniil that Andreev gave his son away to be raised by his wife’s family. From Berlin, Andreev went to Capri, looking for Gorky’s friendship and possible salvation. Gorky writes of this period: All his thoughts and words centered on recollections of the senselessness of Lady Shura’s death. “You understand,” he said with strangely dilated pupils, “she was still alive as she lay in bed, but already her breath smelt of a corpse. It was a very ironical smell.” Dressed in some kind of a black velvet jacket, he even seemed outwardly crushed, down-trodden. His thoughts and words were R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 49 eerily concentrated on the question of death. It so happened that he settled down in the Villa Caraciollo,... One evening, when I arrived, I found him in a chair in front of the fireplace. Dressed in black and bathed in the crimson glow of the smoldering coal, he held his little son Vadim on his knees, and in low tones, with sobs, was telling him something. I quietly entered and it seemed to me that the child was falling asleep. I sat down in a chair by the door, and listened - Leonid was telling his son how Death stalks over the earth and strangles little children.... When his grandmother took him away, I remarked that it was hardly necessary to frighten the boy with stories like that, stories about death, the invincible giant. “And if I can not speak of anything else?” he said sharply. “At last I understand how indifferent ‘beautiful Nature’ is, and I only want one thing - to tear my portrait out of this frivolously pretty frame.” It was difficult, almost impossible, to speak to him. He was nervous, irritable, and it seemed as though he deliberately rubbed salt on his own wounds. “The idea of suicide haunts me; it seems to me that my shadow crawls after me, whispering, ‘leave, die!’”2 2 2 2 M. Gor’kii, Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 58-60. Bee ero m m cah h p e n a cocpeaoTOHeHHO Bpaiaaaiicb BOKpyr BocnoMHHaHHft o SeccMbicaeHHofi radejiH «AaMbi Lliypbi». - noHHMaeuib, - roBoptui o h , C TpaH H O pacmnpaa 3paHxn, - j i o k h t OHa eiue acHBaa, a a m i i i h t ywe xpyriHbiM 3anaxoM. 3 t o oneHb HpoHimecxntt 3anax. O aeTbift b xaxyio-TO oapxaT H yio H epnyio xypTxy, o h aaace h BHeuiHe x a3 aaca H3MXTbiM, pa3aaBJieHHb!M. E ro m m cjih h p e iH 6 m ah acyrxo cocpeaoT oneH bi Ha B onpoc o C M eprn. C ayH H aocb Tax, h to o h noceaHJicH Ha BHJUie KapaHHOJiao... B tcm h m x KOMHaxax 3toH bhjuim Sm jio cbipo h MpaHHO, Ha creH ax BHcejiH He3HaKOHHeHHbie rpa3H0BaTbie xaprHHbi, HanoMHHaa o [u rra a x ruieceHH. B oaH otf H3 xoM H ar 6 m a 6 o n b u io it 3aK om eH Hbiii KaMHH, a n e p e a OKHaMH ee, 3aTewui hx, ry c r o p a3 p o cca KycTapHHK; b CTeicna co creH aoM a 3araaabiB aji ruu o u i. B 3toK KOMHaTe JleoHHa ycTpoHJi cT oaoB yio. Kax-To noa Benep, npnaa k HeM y, a 3acraa ero b xpecae npea k3m hhom . Oaerbiti b nepHoe, Becb b SarpoBbix oTCBeTax Taeioiuero yrjix, o h aepacaa Ha Koaewix cbma cBoero, BaanMa, h Bnoaroaoca, BCxaunbtBaa, roBoptui eMy h to - to . R Bouiea th x o ; M H e noKa3anocb, h to pedenox 3acbmaeT, a cea b xpecao y ABepii h cabimy: JleoHHa paccKa3MBaeT peOemcy o to m , xax cMepTb x o a h t no 3eMae h ayuiHT M aaeHbKHX aereft.... K o ra a 6 a6yaiica y B eaa e ro , a 3aM erHa, h to eaB a a n c a e a y e r nyraT b peOeHKa t3 k h m h cxa3KaMH, xaxoB a cxa3xa o C M epra, Heno6eaHMOM BeaitxaHe. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 50 Zaitsev saw Andreev, before his return to Russia, in Florence as his train was passing through. Interestingly, in the 1922 and again in the 1969 version, Zaitsev ends this section of his memoir with the sentence: “That is it, you will never see him again, not even ‘for a minute.’”2 3 This sentence is meant figuratively as Zaitsev continues to tell about seeing Andreev in St. Petersburg and Finland. Not surprisingly, it is the years that Zaitsev was closest to Andreev, which are painted in the brightest colors. When Andreev returned to Russia, he could not live in Moscow. This had been the place of his youth, where he had courted and then lived with Aleksandra Mikhailovna. Although he had moved to St. Petersburg, he was still “enslaved” by her sickness and death.2 4 The change of locale meant that Andreev had also separated himself from a majority of his friends and acquaintances. It is here that Zaitsev begins to create the dividing line of location. Moscow is associated with friends and warmth. St. Petersburg is cold and isolated. V. Puskunov argues that - A e c jin » He Mory roBopuxb o apyroM? - pe3KO cica3aji o h . - Tenepb a noH H M aio, HacK oabK o paBHoayuiHa « n p e K p ac H a a n p n p o a a » , h M H e oaHoro x o n eT cx - BbipBaTb m o K n o p T p e r H3 c toR nouuio-K pacH B eH bK ofi paMKH. ToBopHTb c h h m 6 u jio TpyaH O , noHTH H eB 03M oxcH O , - o h HepBHttnan, cepattncx H, K a3a/IO Cb, H apO H H T O p aC T paB JU L T I C B O K J 6ojib. - MeHX n p e c a e a y e T M btcnb o caM oyoH ftcTB e, MHe K axcercx, h t o TeHb m oh, n o ji3 a x 3 a m hoK , u ie rm e r MHe: yftan, yM pn! 2 3 L. Nazarov and L. Afonin, intro., “Vospominaniia B. K. Zaitseva o Leonide Andreeve” in Andreevskii sbomik: Issledovaniia i materialv. ed. L. Afonin (Kursk: Kurskii gos. ped. institut, 1975), 230. Bot h He yBHimuib ero 6ojibuie HitKoraa, aaxe «Ha MHHyncy». 2 4 Leonid Andreev, S. O. S.: Dnevnikfl914-1919L Pis’manOlT-igiOL Stat'i i interv’iuflQlOL Vospominaniia sovremennikov (1918-1919L eds. Richard Davies and Ben Heilman (Moscow; St. Petersburg: Atheneum; Feniks, 1994), 23. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 51 Zaitsev’s treatment of St. Petersburg in his literary portraits is very much in line with the Slavophile tradition. Zaitsev understands the city as a symbol of the government’s will and repression. He sees it as located outside of spiritual Russia - representing something unnatural and inorganic.2 5 At play in the portrait is both Andreev’s departure from his Moscow friends and Zaitsev’s own negative associations with the capital. Andreev had decided to stay in the northern capital for personal and professional reasons. St. Petersburg was the center of literary activity and Andreev was warmly accepted there. Andreev himself writes that he felt that he had to move to St. Petersburg for his own artistic development. He wanted to be near the capital’s theaters, publishing houses, and literary milieu.2 6 At this time, Andreev decided that he needed a secretary. He placed an advertisement and received an overwhelming response. However, he was not happy with any of the candidates and in the end, Chukovskii recommended Anna (Matil’da) Il’inichna Denisevich. At the beginning of March 1908, Andreev officially hired Anna Il’inichna as his secretary. Almost a month later they were married. Chukovskii later remembers the circumstances concerning Andreev’s second marriage, which dampen the possible impressions of love at first sight: A week ago Grzhebin and I were returning from Tikhonov’s and he was telling how Andreev, returning from Berlin, fell in love with the ** V. Puskunov, Chastvi ritm Mnemozinv ('Memuarv russkogo “serebrianogo veka” i russkogo zarubezha) (Moscow: Znanie, 1992), 39. 2 6 Andreev, S.O.S.. 38. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 52 wife of Kopel’man and she reciprocated his feelings. But, alas, at that time she was pregnant and Andreev had just proposed to the Denisevich sisters - both of them straight away. I remember this too. Tolia said that she was married (secretly!). Then, he proposed to Margarita, whom he transformed into Anna.2 7 Anna Il’inichna, bom in 1883, was 25 when she first met Andreev. She had already been married, divorced and had a daughter named Nina. Anna Il’inichna was well educated, spoke several foreign languages and was very attractive. Zaitsev refers to her as “beauty-wife” (krasavitsa-zhena) in his 1969 memoir. However, she was disliked by many of Andreev’s friends.2 8 On 7 April 1908, Andreev and Denisevich left for the Crimea. Andreev wrote to his mother from Yalta: “The more I get to know Anna, with each day, the happier I feel that I met her. This truly is a wonderful person with a beautiful soul, and I not only love her, but I am in love like only a fool can be. Aren’t I lucky once again, my sweet devil, fate is still on my side.”2 9 They were married two weeks later. 2 7 Here Chukovkii is actually mistaken. Her name was Matil’da and she changed it to Anna. K. Chukovskii. Dnevnik 1901-1929 (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’. 1991), 118. Heaenio Ha3aa mm c rpeweOHHbiM B03Bpamamtcb o t TnxoHOBa - oh paccica3MBan, K aic AaapeeB, BepHyBUiHCb H 3 EepjiHHa, BJiraOanca b aceHy KoneJibMaHa h OHa OTBenana eMy B 3aH M H O C T bK > - ho, yBbi, b to BpeMfl OHa 6biJia depeMena - h AaapeeB TOTHac we caenan npe/uioweHHe cecrpaM JJeHHceBHH - o6eHM cpa3y. 3 to noMHio h a. Tojih CKa3ajia, hto ona 3aMyaceM - (rati ho!). Tonta oh k Mapraptrre, KOTopyto nepeaejiari b AHHy. 2 8 Chukovskii states that no one could stand Andreev’s new wife and they had begun to “boycott” her. See Chukovskii, Dnevnik 1901-1929.39. 2 9 Leonid Andreev, “Polunochnoe solntse m oe...: Pis’ma Leonida Andreeva Anne Q’inichne Andreevoi-Denisevich,” Nashe nasledie. no. 39-40 (1997): 47 footnote 5. Bee 6ojtbuie y3Hara a AHHy h c KaatobiM aneM Hycreyra ce6a Bee cnacTJiKBee, hto BcrpeTHJica c Hera. 3 to noucTHHe npeicpacHbiR, KpacHBbiK oymora aejioBeic, h a He TOJibKo jnoSjno ee, a BmoOjieH, aax ceMHapuiHHHbift oypaa. rioBe3Jio M He a b 3Tot pa3, moh MHiibiR jtaaBoji, cyabOa Bee 3a MeHa. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 53 The Andreevs moved from St. Petersburg to Finland on 26 May 1908. In his diary, Andreev claims that he wanted to be near both St. Petersburg and the sea. He also gives the following reasons for their move: “ 1) to create a beautiful life 2) to become harshly impervious to tragedy. To position myself not only beyond classes, beyond mundane everyday existence, but also beyond life...”3 0 Beklemisheva argues that Andreev moved to Finland for three reasons: 1) due to a heart condition, he needed to avoid the dry heat of central Russia; 2) he did not like life in the city; 3) he had a love for the sea and motion.3 1 In the Finnish village of Vammelsuu, Andreev built a huge villa. None of Andreev’s fellow writers had built their own houses (or could probably afford to). This was a great, if not vulgar, display of wealth. Possibly, it was for this reason and because of the sheer size of the house that it became such a focal point of Andreev’s Finnish period. Zaitsev writes: When I was first approaching it in the summer, in the evening, it reminded me of a factory: pipes, an enormous roof, an absurd unwieldy mass... The trappings, for a writer, (in Russia) are luxuriant. The dacha was built and decorated in the style of northern modem; a northern steep roof with exposed beams in the ceiling and custom made furniture copied from German exhibitions. Those who love the hall and the foyer of the Moscow Art Theater would like this place.3 2 3 0 Andreev, S. O. S.. 38. 1) caejiaTb xpacueyto xctQHb, 2) cypoBO 3aMKHyrbca juist TpareaHH. Cecrb He to jii> k o BHe tcnaccoB, BHe SblTa, H O H BHe 3KU 3H U ,... 3 1 V. Beklemisheva, “Vospominaniia,” in Rekviem: Pamiati Leonida Andreeva (Moscow: Federatsiia, 1930), 204. 3 2 Zaitsev, Kniga o Leonide Andreeve. 138-139. K o r n a B n e p B b ie n o n b e a x a j i a k H eft j i e r o M , a e n e p o M , O H a H a n o M H H J ia M H e 4 > a 6 p H ic y : T p y O u , x p b i m n o r p o M H b ie , H e c y p a 3 H a a r p o M 0 3 n K o c r b . . .. O G c ra H O B K a am n n c a T e n a ( b P o c c h h ) - n b i u i H a a . f l a n a n o c r p o e H a h o r n e n a H a b c r a n e c e B e p H o r o M o n e p H a , c c e B e p H o f t K p y r o i o K p b itn e f t c OamcaMH n o n R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 54 In Finland, Andreev blended his old family with his new. Andreev’s mother, Anastasiia Nikolaevna, and his first son Vadim lived with Anna Il’inichna and their children: Saw a (b. 1909); Andreev’s only daughter Vera (b. 1910); and finally Valentin (b. 1912). The Andreevs were cut off from the bustle o f the capital, but were often surrounded by family and friends. Pavel, Andrei and Rimma (Andreev’s siblings) were frequent visitors. In his memoir, Valentin writes: “There was always a mass of people and noise in our house. They came, went, slept, ate, talked non-stop about something...”3 3 Andreev was content with his new house and family. Anna Il’inichna played an important role in his literary life. Andreev composed his literary works into the early morning with his wife often typing as he dictated. Out of this production came his only novel, Sashka Zhegulev, in 1911. However, for the last ten years, Andreev’s literary output was mainly concentrated on works for the stage.3 4 His plays were very popular with audiences, although literary critics grew increasingly negative. noTOJiKOM, c M eSe/ibio n o pncyuKaM HeiueuKHx BbicraBOK. K t o j h o 6 h t 3 a jty h 4>ofte X yao% ecTBeH Horo T e a ip a , TOMy noH paBtuiocb 6bi h raM . 3 3 Valentin Andreev, “Chto pomniu ob ottse,” in Andreevskii sbomik. 236. Y Hac b zioMe B ceraa 6btJia Macca tta p o a a h m y M a . n p n e a x a n n , yeaacann, c n a im , en tt, 6e3 KOHua o HeM-TO TOBOpHJIH... 3 4 He published Anathema (Anatema), Gaudeamus, The Ocean (Okean), Ekaterina Ivanovna, The Beautiful Sabines (Prekrasnye sabinianki), Professor Storitsyn, The Mark o f Cain (Kainova pechat’ (Ne ubii)), King, Law and Freedom (Korol’, zakon i svoboda), The Thought (Mysl’), He, Who Got Slapped (Tot, kto poluchaet poshchechiny), Dear Ghosts (Milye prizraki), Requiem (Rekviem), Monument, A Horse in the Senate (Kon’ v senate), Waltz o f the Dogs (Sobachii vals’) and Samson in Chains (Samson v okovakh)— The last two were published posthumously. See Chuvakov, 53-71. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 55 As a well-established writer and a family man, Andreev turned his exuberant energies to travel and his other hobbies. He went to Hamburg and Amsterdam in 1909, to Marseilles, Corsica and Florence in 1910 and to Italy twice again - in 1913 and 1914.3 5 Painting had been a source of income as a student and now he returned to it for pleasure. He made copies from Goya’s Capriccios and tried his hand at portraits and religious themes. Many of these paintings decorated his study. He also became fascinated with photography. A. Kipen writes of Andreev’s hobby: In the shortest amount of time, he comprehends all of the fine points of photographic art. He produces an utterly unheard of amount of pictures, large and small, common and stereoscopic, color and black and white, depicting everything that can be subjected to depicting - landscapes, portraits, interiors, still lives, genre groupings, dogs, horses, geese, etc.3 6 The sea also beckoned to Andreev. His moods were said to depend on the winds, and he spent early spring until late fall on his yacht off the coast of Finland. Andreev stated that he had loved the sea in books since childhood and that he had waited his entire life to feel the sway of a deck under his feet.3 7 3 5 Davies, Leonid Andreyev: Photographs bv a Russian Writer. 15. 3 6 A. Kipen, “Vospominaniia,” in Rekviem: Pamiati Leonida Andreeva (Moscow: Federatsiia, 1930), 179. B K paTH aftim tii cp o ic o h n o c m r a e T Bee t o h k o c t h (j)OTorpat|)HHecKott HayKH. O h npoioBOOH T coB epiueH H o H ecjibixaH H oe k o j i h h c c t b o c h h m k o b , d o jib iu n x h M anbix, odbiKHOBeHHbix h crepeocK onH H ecK H x, uBeTHbix k w ep u b ix , m o o p a x c a ro m u x B ee, h t o t o j i b k o MoxceT noonexcaT b H 3 o 6 p ax eH H io - n eib ax cH , nopT peT bi, H trrep b ep b i, H an o p -M o p T b t, xcaHpoB bie rp y n n w , c o d a x , Jio m aaeH , ry c e fi h t . a . 3 7 Kaun, 84. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 56 The change in Andreev could probably be attributed to age and financial comfort. He now had a large family to support, engaged in hobbies and enjoyed the outdoors. He was no longer the poor Moscow youth, who stumbled from tavern to tavern drinking up his last kopeck. He was now an established literary figure and celebrity. He was also tired of being constantly in the limelight. It is doubtful that Zaitsev in 1910 was the same person he had been in 1901. One must wonder if Zaitsev himself was not slightly jealous of Andreev’s life-style in Finland. He writes: It was good to leave the capital, but he did not go to Iasnaia Poliana.3 9 The capital staggered to him in the most vain and pitiful form - it agitated him, pushed him to chase the success, the fame, the applause, and then cheated him. Who does not like the seduction, the success? Andreev had already eagerly tasted it and could not forget it. He could not even live if he was not written about, praised, applauded. I do not even know if he would have been able to write for himself, out of the public eye. He hated the crowd and worshipped it. He despised the newspapermen and could not free himself from them. To promote his fame he needed these little people, who would arrive in groups and he told them about his life, his thoughts, his writing. He was mad at himself for doing this, but the next day he would do it again. They published their absurd accounts and interviews, which irritated Andreev’s friends and gave his enemies material to taunt him with. All of this newspaper nonsense, the sea of clippings containing the accounts of his plays, the reviews, the criticism with profanity, libel, the notes, leaked into him every day and poisoned his soul. It was doubtful that he felt too good about himself. Besides, critics kept talking about the degeneration of his talent.4 0 3 8 A. Maniushko, “V gostiakh u Leonida Andreeva,” N ow ia mvsli. no. 1, November (1908): 58-59. 3 9 Tolstoi’s family estate. 4 0 Zaitsev. Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 140-141. X o p o u i o 6 biJio y aajm T b C H H3 c t o j i h u m , h o o t o H e 6 b ijio y a a n e H H e M b f lc H y ro n o j u w y , c r o jiH u a n e p e K o n e B a jia k H eM y b caM OM cyeTH O M h xcam coM o& nH ice; B3 BH H H H Bana, r a a n a k y c n e x y , c a a B e , u iy M y h o S M a H b iB a n a . K t o H e j d o 6 h t o S o jib m e H iw , y c n e x a ? A H a p e e B xcanH O e r o B icy ctu i h H e M o r R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 57 In the memoir of 1969, Zaitsev’s description of this period is illuminating. The reporters and interviewers are much less predominant. Andreev’s wealth is certainly at issue. However, the most interesting motif is culturally specific to Russians - Andreev’s display of wealth and therefore, spiritual poverty: He now received a lot of money - from his plays in the theater, from the publishing house Shipovnik, where Zinovii Isaevich Grzhebin in his own almanac published Andreev’s plays and stories, and larger honorariums. But there was no emotional peace. To a large degree this depended on literature. He was quite spoiled by the early praise. Now Fortune turned in the other direction. The honorariums still came in, the press runs were large, but there was a sharp change in the criticism. Earlier they praised him to the skies, now they began to write a lot that was rude and insulting. This was annoying. Leonid became gloomy. His friends, sympathizers were in Moscow and in Finland he was quite alone.4 1 The fact is that Andreev was anything but alone in Finland. He lived with his mother, wife and four children. He had family and friends who visited. However, this was not Sreda. These were not his Moscow literary friends. For Russians, yace 3a6biTb; He Mor yac acHTb, h toobi He nHcarm, He uiyMejin, He XBantviH. He 3Haio aaace, Mor jih o h Tenepb nucaTb jitiuib nun ceoa, BHe ny6;iHKH. Oh npe3Hpan nneTHHKOB, ocBodoaHTbca ace o t h h x He Mor. Jlfln cjiaBbi HyacHbt 6bum 3t h ManeHbKHe jh o a h , HaneTaBume poaMH, k o t o p u m o h paccKabiBan o CBoeR aeraHH, 3aMbicnax, nncaHwix, cepatuica, h to paccKa3biBaeT, h Ha 3aBTpa B H O B b pa3CKa3biBan. O h h nenaTajm HeJienue c b o h OTHera, HHTepBbio, pa3apaacaBtuHe apy3efl AnapeeBa, a BparaM aaBuine MarepHan aaa H3aeBaTeabCTB. Bca 3Ta nyuib ra3eTHaa, b Mope Bbipe30K c oTHeTaMH o nbecax, OT3biBaM H, K pH TH K aM H , 6paHbio, KjieBeToil, 3aMeTKaMH, KaacauR AeHb npHTexana k ueMy h oaypMaHHBana ayuiy. Bpaa jih nyBCTBOBaji o h ce6a xopouio. TeM 6ojiee, hto Bee HacroftHHBee b xpHTHKe TBepawiH 06 ynaoxe aapoBaHHa. 4 1 Zaitsev, Andreevskii sbomik. 231. flener o h Tenepb nojiynan MHoro - h o t nbec b TeaTpe, h o t raaaTejicTBa «LIlnnoBHHK», rae b aribMaHaxax c b o h x 3 h h o b h R HcaeBHH rpace6HH nenaTaa ero nbecbi, paccxa3bt - Toace SoJibiue roHopapbt. - Ho ayuieBHoro Mttpa He 6buto. B orpoMHoft creneHit 3aBHcejio s t o o t JiHTepaTypbi. C jth u ik o m H36ajioBaH o h 6bui paHHeit caaBoR. Tenepb (PopTyHa noBopaniiBajia b apyryio cropoHy. foHopapbi etue u u ih , THpaacn HeManbie, h o b KpHTttxe pe3Kaa nepeMeHa. PaHbiue npeB03H0Ciin, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 58 wealth and especially a show of ostentatious wealth is not positive.4 2 To an extent, Zaitsev argues that Andreev’s wealth and the need for attention corrupted his inner being and that this caused his isolation. Zaitsev is not alone in his assessment. Chulkov and Blok also write about Andreev’s isolation. However, they see this isolation as an inherent problem within Andreev. The torment is not due specifically to the Finnish period or excessive material wealth. Chulkov sees Andreev’s isolation as one of the main characteristics that made him special. Andreev’s isolation defined who he was for his entire life. Much of Zaitsev’s argument is a result of his own isolation from Andreev and Moscow at this time. According to Beklemisheva, Andreev enjoyed sailing and walking in the forest alone. From these activities, he returned refreshed and relaxed. She describes a very different Finnish period: a time of family and friends, bicycle rides and croquet.4 3 The tranquility of Andreev’s life in Finland was first interrupted in 1914 with the start of the world war. It stirred an ardent patriotism in him, and he Tenepb crann nncaTb MHoro rpyooro h o6 hahoto. 3 to pa3Apa»ano. JleoHHA Mpaneji. B Mockbc 6buuf apyabH, conycTBeHHmcH, b arofi O hhabhahh oh coBceM oahh. 42 Sergeev-Tsenskii adds to this motif with his story o f Andreev’s villa. He asked Andreev why he built such a large house and Andreev answered that when a publisher came to offer him an advance for his literary works, the size o f the house would increase the amount o f the advance. Although Andreev might have said this, the reason that his house was nicknamed “Villa Advance” is because it was built with money advanced to him - not to increase the amount of future advances. See S. Sergeev-Tsenskii, “Moia perepiska i znakomstvo s A. M. Gor’kim,” in Sobranie sochinenii v dvenadtsati tomakh. vol. 4 (Mosow: Pravda, 1967), 240-241. 4 3 Beklemisheva, 195-276. Beklemisheva’s memoir is concerned with the Finnish period o f Andreev’s life and provides an excellent response to Zaitsev’s comments on this period. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 59 thought of it as both a personal resurrection and a resurrection of Russia.4 4 However, his health was deteriorating and he was hospitalized many times during the war. In 1916, Andreev returned to the capital to join the editorial staff of Russia’ s Will, a large Petrograd daily suspected of being an organ of the Ministry of the Interior. Andreev received a salary of 36 thousand rubles a year and fifteen hundred per printed sheet as head of the fiction, stage and criticism sections. Andreev thought this would allow him to write plays without worry for material concerns, as his lavish spending and gradual decline in productivity had placed his family in a dire financial situation. However, most of his friends and fellow writers were put off by the negative reputation of the paper and refused to contribute.4 5 Andreev supported the February Revolution of 1917. He thought that it would return order to the government and this would result in a more united campaign against the Central Powers. In April 1917, the Provisional Government enlisted him as a propaganda writer, but he quickly grew disenchanted. He continued to support the Russian war effort, but blamed the Bolsheviks for the collapse of the military’s morale. Russia's Will was sold on the eve of the October Revolution and Andreev lost his position as editor.4 6 4 4 Ibid., 268. 45 Kaun, 138-139. 4 6 James B. Woodward, Leonid Andreyev: A Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), 265. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 60 On 18 December 1918, Andreev suffered a prolonged heart attack.4 7 His health was severely compromised, but he continued to write anti-Bolshevik propaganda and planned to go on a lecture tour of America. He moved his family to the summer home of a friend until he could organize his trip abroad because he could no longer afford his enormous house at Vammelsuu. On 12 September 1919, Andreev suffered a brain hemorrhage. At the age of forty-eight, Andreev was dead, having reached fame and success after a youth of poverty and hardship. He died at a precarious time in Russian history, leaving not even enough money for his own burial expenses. Andreev’s last years in Finland were not happy. However, few Russians lived well during this time of war and revolution. Other artists who died during this period, Blok (d. 1921) for example, are also remembered for the tragic quality of their deaths. There is some truth to Zaitsev’s description of Andreev’s life. His youth was dominated by Moscow, literary success, the camaraderie of Sreda and his first wife, Aleksandra Mikhailovna. Andreev’s mature years, however, cannot be simply discounted as lonely and spiritually isolated. Andreev was a family man who built his dream home in the country. His time was spent on hobbies - photography, painting and boating. The issues concerning Andreev’s literary career probably would not have been remedied simply by remaining in Moscow, as Zaitsev suggests. Andreev moved to St. Petersburg (and then Finland), in part, to 4 7 Kaun, 163. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 61 be closer to the capital’s dynamic literary and theatrical societies. Andreev’s success came with works that were timely and provocative. More than most of his fellow members of Sreda, Andreev stayed at the forefront of artistic trends, although most of his attempts at symbolism were unsuccessful.4 8 Many factors may have influenced Zaitsev’s portrait: losing a close friend of youth to middle-aged family life, the isolation that Zaitsev himself felt upon Andreev’s move to St. Petersburg, Andreev’s extravagant display of wealth, the rapid disintegration of his financial, mental and physical well-being during the years of war and revolution and the natural habit of idealizing youth and understanding the death of an artist as tragic. One only has to turn to the memoir of Pavel Andreev to realize that his brother’s youth was far from ideal. Pavel tells of Andreev’s drinking, failed romances, suicide attempts, depression, and financial struggle. The stories are less than flattering, and it seems a miracle that Andreev ever made it through his Moscow period. Pavel writes: “In Moscow there were 900 thousand people and Leonid did not have one close friend out of these 900 thousand. Nights and days he spent in great anguish and in total solitude.”4 9 4 8 Here I use a small “s” to make the distinction between Andreev's attempts at symbolic art and the “official” Symbolism o f the time. 4 9 Pavel Andreev, “Vospominaniia o Leonide Andreeve,” in Literatumaia mvsl’: A l’manakh. vol. 3 (Leningrad: Mysl’, 1925), 174. B M ocK Be 6 b u io 900 t m c x h nenoB eic, h JleoHun H e H M en to 3 t h x 900 t m c h h h h oaHoro 6;m3Koro eM y H en o B eK a, a h o h h h a h h n p o B o a u n b fio jib in o ft Tocice a b nojtH O M onaHonecTBe. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Zaitsev only became acquainted with Andreev in 1901. By this time, his financial situation was much better, he was a member of Sreda and he had set his sights on marrying Aleksandra Mikhailovna. Zaitsev either did not know about Andreev’s negative Moscow experiences or chose not to write about them. The period (1901-1906) that Zaitsev calls the best of Andreev’s life, S. Elpat’evskii describes much differently. He writes: “I knew Andreev in this period of his life - then he was not genuinely happy, joyous, unclouded.”5 0 Andreev himself echoes this opinion after a trip to Moscow and Butovo in 1916: “I wandered through the woods of Butovo and, while reflecting, understood a lot about myself in my past life. I understood why I got drunk there and why it could not have been different; why outwardly the happiest years of my life were with Shura and the brilliant beginning of my career - my soul remembers and feels these moments like a continual dark downfall, despair and endlessness;...”5 1 The main factor, however, seems to be Zaitsev’s own isolation from his friends at the time of the portrait’s creation. In fact, this separation had already begun in 1916 with officer training. Zaitsev writes in his memoir that he loved 5 0 S. Elpat’evskii, “Leonid Nikolaevich Andreev: Iz vospominaniia,” Bvloe. no. 27-28 (1925): 276. 513Han A napeeB a h b o t o t n ep n o a ero actoHtt - o h h T oraa He 6bui no-HacToameMy BecejibiM, paflOCTHbIM, HeOMpaHCHHblM. 1IRLI, f. 9, op. 2, n. 4,1.43. Letter o f 18 July 1916 from Andreev to Andrei Andreev. ...Gpoami no 6yroBCKHM jiecaM - h MHoroe, pa3Mbiinjiaa, yacHHJi ce6e b cBoeft npotnnoft wjohh. nowui, noneMy a TaM ribaHCTBOBan h He Mor HHane; noneMy BHeuiHe CHacTJiHBefmwe roaa Moeft JK H 3H H c lilypofl h SjiecTaxejibHoe Hanajio icapbepbi - BcnoMtwaioxca h nycxByioxca ayuioio, icaic cnnoiuHoft TeMHbiil npoBan, xocica h 6e3btcxoaHOCTb;... R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 63 literature and Moscow and that on his first day it felt like he was put in prison. For Zaitsev, books, manuscripts and slow walks through the city no longer existed.5 2 After the revolution, Zaitsev lived on his father’s estate in the Tula district in Pritykino and felt as though he had been tom away from literary society, from Moscow, from his friends. It seems more than likely that Zaitsev projected his own feelings of isolation onto the portrait of Andreev. In June 1918, Zaitsev wrote to I. Novikov: “I have a small favor to ask of you: if something pops up in the newspapers about the almanac, where my tale (“Blue Star”) is, put it aside - 1 am totally cut-off now from communication with the outside world.”5 3 In April 1919, at the same time he was writing his literary portrait, Zaitsev writes to Chulkov in Moscow: “Is the professional union alive? Do you still dine together? Do you drink a lot of vodka without me? I do not, alas, drink without all of you - not a drop. I am rereading Lermontov’s prose, Merimee, and Turgenev. I myself wrote a novella Rafael. The rest of the time I either smoke or play solitaire. Or I drink tea. All the same, Moscow is sweet. I think about her often.”5 4 Two weeks later, 5 2 Boris Zaitsev, "Moskva,” in Sochineniia v trekh tomakh. vol. 2 (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura; Terra, 1993), 427-428. 5 3 L. Nazarova and N. Puzin, “Boris Zaitsev i Tul’skii krai,” Voskresenie: Istoriko-oublisticheskii al’manakh. no. 3 (1998): 78. E c t b y M e w t M an eH b K aa n p o c b d a k Te6 e : e c j i n n o n a n a e r c H MTo-HH6 y a b b r a 3 e T a x 0 6 a n b M a tta x e , ra e m o b n o a c e c r b ( « r o j i y 6 a x 3Be3aa»), t o o t j i o x h — n ceftnac coBceM o ip e 3 a H o t coodm eHim c BHeiUHHM MHpOM. 5 4 Iu. Zybalov, “Pis’ma B.K. Zaitseva k G X Chulkovu,” in Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1997 god (Moscow: Nauka, 1997), 303. 3 K h b j i h npo<t>eccH O H ajibH bift co k > 3 ? O O e a a e T e j i h ? M H o r o j i h b o a k h B b in trro 6 e 3 M e itx ? ft 6 e 3 B a c , yB bt, — h h Karum. F le p e m r rb tB a io n p o 3y J le p M o tr ro B a , M e p ttM e , h T y p r e n e B a . C a M n a n n c a j i H O B ejuiy «P a((> a3Ji». B o c r a jtb H o e 6 p e s u t j i h 6 o x y p io , j i h 6 o p a c fc n a a b iB a io n a c b a n c . H jih x e n b io n a f i. B c e-T aK H , M o c x B a M ttn a . B o c n o M H H a to o H eft M a c ro . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 64 Zaitsev writes: “I was glad to get your letter, like a friendly reminder from a country where there are still literature, books and a few decent people, etc. I receive very few letters nowadays, as if there was no one out there in the whole wide world.”5 5 These letters speak to many of the same issues that Zaistev describes in relation to Andreev - separation from Moscow, from friends and from an earlier (happier) way of life. Because Zaitsev and Andreev had little contact during the second period of Andreev’s life, it is only logical that Zaitsev would have to imagine what it must have been like for Andreev living in Finland. It seems that the description of Andreev’s life in Finland is very similar to Zaitsev’s “tragic years” in Pritykino.5 6 Further evidence that Zaitsev wrote the memoir while under the influence of Pritykino is found in a letter to Novikov of September 1919: “Did you read about the death of L. Andreev? I am very saddened; this, of course, is a loss of our agitated time. I found out about his death in Zakhar’ino and, while returning by foot through our fields and tiny groves already turning gold, I remembered, not paying attention to the various [plays] Life o f Man and Masks, that he was (fundamentally) a very Russian person, he was from Orel, he loved Butovo, " Ib id . riHCbMo pan 6bin nojiyaaTb, K aic apyxecKyio Becromcy U 3 CTpaabt, rue ecrb eme jurrepaTypa, khhi*h, HecKOJibKo nopsmoHHbix juoaett a r.n. it oneab Mano nojiynafo ceftnac naceM, tohho a Her aaicoro aa GejioM CBeTe. 5 6 Zaitsev was to leave Russia for good in 1922. Living abroad would have exacerbated the feelings o f isolation that Zaitsev experienced in Pritykino. This is probably why Zaitsev maintains (if not strengthens) this core idea for Andreev in his emigre publications. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 65 Tsaritsyno, birches, meadows, the smells of his motherland. I regret very much that he will never again see this, modest and earthy, - our delights.”5 7 Koliadich discusses how memoirs often begin with the archetype “Home,” which establishes a topos by which the description of the outer world defines the inner world of the individual. In memoirs, this usually means the childhood home and leads to psychological characterizations. As the individual grows, the topos becomes larger - home, garden, street, city.5 8 In Zaitsev’s portrait, Moscow is Andreev’s archetypal home, where friends, success and literary society portray positive outer and inner worlds for Andreev. The movement away from this topos disrupts the archetype and allows Zaitsev to convey the disruption of Andreev’s worlds. However, the orientation towards Moscow as the archetypal home and Finland/St. Petersburg as the anti-home is a projection of Zaitsev’s own attachment to Moscow and his sphere of comfort - not to mention his dislike (and possible distrust) specifically of St. Petersburg. In this conceptualization, feelings of isolation from Andreev are exacerbated by Zaitsev’s own separation from Moscow society. 5 7 Nazarova and Puzin, 78. Hirraji jih tm o cMepni JI. AtupeeBa? )(Cajib M He ero oneHb, aro, kohchho, xcepTBa BO JiH eH Hft BpeMeHH Hauiero. y3Han o ero CMepxH b 3axapbHHe h, B03Bpawascb neuiKOM cpejuf Haulhx nojieft h potuHit, y*e 30JioTeiomHx, bciiomhhji, h to , HecMOTpa Ha pa3Hbie <0Kh3hb HejioBeica», h «MacKH», o h 6bui (b ocHOBe) oneHb pyccKHfi HeaoBeK, opnoBCKHfi, jhoShji EyroBo, IfapHUHHo, 6epe3KH, Jiyra, 3anaxH pojtHbie. i t ero oneHb nowaneji, h to HHKoraa eMy y * e He yBHnaTb 3toR, CKpoM HOfi h 3eMHoft Haiuefi, ho - ho npejiecTH. 5 8 T. Koliadich, Vospominaniia pisatelei. Problemv poetiki zhanra (Moscow: Megatron, 1998), 113- 116. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 66 4 Puskunov writes of Zaitsev’s attachment to Moscow and how this manifests itself in his literary portraits: “Zaitsev often writes a portrait of one in the same person (A. Blok, A. Belyi, I. Bunin, L. Andreev) from one of two perspectives - Moscow or St. Petersburg - and each time it happens that Moscow appeases, comforts ‘the sick and nervous hearts,’ rounds off sharp edges, smoothes overly harsh characteristics.” The solution is simple: in Moscow and in Moscovites, there is an organic quality that leads to a natural harmony that is not found in any place other than Moscow. St. Petersburg represents in turn, the opposite o f Moscow.5 9 Each author will have his own interpretation of the life of an individual and often the role of the author in that life will dictate the description. Zaitsev does offer a very useful model for understanding Andreev’s biography. However, the tragic quality of Andreev’s life did not begin at age thirty-five and his personal happiness was not limited to the years 1901-1906. Zaitsev preferred to remember the young and energetic Andreev of Sreda meetings, rather than the “broken and suffering” Andreev railing against the Bolsheviks from Finland. This is understandable. Yet, one must be objective when reading Zaitsev’s memoir, when looking at Andreev’s life and literary career. In this case, Zaitsev’s own biases have affected his portrait. It is important to illuminate these because Zaitsev’s portrait has influenced the way in which 5 9 Puskunov, 40. 3afiueB Macro mtuier nop-rper oaHoro h to to *e jiuua (A. Eaok, A. Eenoro, H. EywiHa, JI. AaopeeBa) b flByx paxypcax - Mockobckom h rieTep6yprcKOM - h Kaxcabift pa3 nojiynaercx taic, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 67 scholars and other memoirists have understood and depicted Andreev’s life. It is the repetition of Zaitsev’s biases, while ignoring a portrait like Beklemisheva’s, that distort Andreev’s life history. Zaitsev’s portrait of Andreev was first published in 1922 in a book that was readily attainable (as opposed to newspaper or journal articles) and then republished in various forms, with the final version appearing in 1969. Beklemisheva’s portrait was published only once (as were many other portraits), in 1930, just about the time that Andreev became a taboo subject in the Soviet Union. Here, the elements of timing and Zaitsev’s relative literary freedom (resulting in the re-publication of his portrait for a half century) influenced both Western and Soviet scholars. By confronting Zaitsev’s prejudices, we are attacking the root of the distortion. If Andreev’s isolation can actually be attributed to the author’s own associations with Moscow, Pritykino and his “tragic years”, (and later his isolation from Russian itself), then it refocuses our understanding of the portrait and asks us to reassess the conclusions made about Andreev’s life based on Zaitsev’s claims. hto MocKBa yMHpoTBopaeT, yreuiaeT «6ojibHbie h nepBHbie ceprm a», cnnaxcHBaeT cjihiukom pe3KHe xapaicrepbi. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 68 3 You have to take [Andreev], as he was, with his weak technique, with his frequent disruptions, but with his enormous gift to ignite the hearts o f people even with a weak verb. — Letter of December 1944 from Ivanov-Razumik to A. Bern At the beginning of the 1920s, Belyi (1880-1934) looked back on his life and literary career. The changing political and literary landscape in the Soviet Union made it increasingly difficult for a writer to remain a mystical anarchist, Argonaut and/or Symbolist and this forced Belyi to not only redefine his literary career, but to reinterpret most of his life. Belyi’s remodeling of himself and others was accomplished by means of memoir literature. Belyi felt his first autobiographical impulse right after the completion of Petersburg (Peterburg). He planned to write a cycle of novels under the title of My Life, which would have taken up ten volumes.1 However, Blok’s death in 1921 is accepted as the main impetus for Belyi’s memoirs. He published Recollections o f Blok (Vospominaniia o Bloke) in 1922 in the final issue of The Motes o f Dreamers (Zapiski mechtatelei). That same year while in Berlin, Belyi wrote his literary portrait of Andreev, published in the second edition of A Book About Leonid Andreev. 1 Vladimir E. Alexandrov, “Kotik Letaev, The Baptized Chinaman, and Notes o f the Eccentric," in Andrev Bely: Spirit o f Symbolism, ed. John E. Malmstad (Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press, 1987), 145. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 69 Belyi returned to the Soviet Union in 1923 and found that the literary milieu had changed, trapping him between two competing forces. One was the positive appraisal of Blok as a “revolutionary,” while Belyi was seen as a “mystic.” The other was the disparagement of Russian Symbolism (and Belyi as a leader of the movement) in Soviet criticism, especially after 1925. These developments inspired the writing of his memoirs in 1929-1933.2 Belyi published On the Border o f Two Centuries (Na rubezhe dvukh stoletii) in 1930. However, a campaign had begun in the summer of 1929 to “reconstruct” Soviet literature and Belyi seemed to be in conflict with the new ideological position in vogue. When Belyi returned to the article version of “The Beginning of the Century” (Nachalo veka), begun in Berlin, he was under the influence of competing political, personal and literary agendas and had become increasingly vulnerable as people close to him were detained and arrested. Eventually, he wrote a letter to Stalin detailing his personal situation and his desire to serve the state. Although the letter was never answered, Belyi’s position in Soviet literary society began to improve.3 Belyi’s memoirs are not typically known for their historical or factual accuracy. As Fleishman states: “Often discrepancies, inconsistencies, and sharp contradictions emerge when accounts of the same events and portraits of the same 2 Lazar Fleishman, “Bely’s Memoirs,” in Andrev Belv: Spirit o f Symbolism. 229-231. •Another work o f interest is Charlene Castellano, “Andrey Bely’s Memories o f Fiction,” in Autobiographical Statements in Twentieth-Century Russian Literature, ed. Jane Gary Harris (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990), 66-98. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 70 people in various volumes of the memoirs are compared.”4 To a lesser degree, this is the case when one compares the Andreev memoir of 1922 with the one published in The Beginning o f the Century. The differences in the two versions speak to both the intentions of and outside pressures on Belyi in 1922 and especially in 1930-31. By comparing the two versions, one can find the material that was specifically relevant or timely in 1922. This material becomes important when examining A Book About Leonid Andreev as representative of its time and as the first attempt at creating a posthumous image of Andreev. Both portraits are constructed out of the same major episodes: a gathering of the literary circle Sreda, a chance meeting on the Arbat, another meeting at a mutual friend’s and later at the Moscow Art Theater. Belyi visited Andreev at the Loskutnaia Hotel in Moscow and their last meeting occurred at a masquerade party. Most of these episodes remain intact from the first version to the second, and they create the framework on which the memoir is constructed. Much of what is expressed overtly in the first version, is often less obviously stated in the second. In both versions it is significant that Belyi and Andreev belong to different literary camps. The second version begins with an expanded discussion of a Sreda meeting, which Belyi attended. However, what is missing from the second version is the direct claim that Belyi shared an unspoken understanding with Andreev on some “higher” level. In the 1922 version Belyi states: 3 Fleishman, 234. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 71 The point is that during these years we were in opposite camps. We - of Scorpion - and the writers of Znanie were supposed rivals but the writers of Znanie in the best case considered us to be “ weird, and in the worse case some kind of traitors... of tradition... of public opinion.”5... I practically did not know L. N. personally, there was a fence that existed between us, but finally through the “fence” an attentive, curious glance suddenly penetrated my soul, encouraging me to say precisely: “The literary parties and opinions about one another are such nonsense. Each one of us is similarly lonely on our last nocturnal [trip].”6 In the 1922 version, it is this “knowing glance” that becomes the main motif and signifies Andreev’s connection with Belyi on some higher plane. Reference to this connection all but disappears in the second version. Much like Blok and Chulkov, Belyi expresses in the 1922 version the idea that although Andreev belonged to a rival literary camp, there was a part of him that was in tune with the modernists.7 4 Ibid., 215. 5 Belyi’ s note: The words o f Gorky. 6 Andrei Belyi, “Vospominaniia,” in Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. Vospominaniia Gor’kogo, Chukovskogo, Bloka, G. Chulkova, Borisa Zaitseva, N. Teleshova, Evg. Zamiatina, A. Belogo, 2n d ed. (Berlin: Z. I. Grzhebin, 1922), 179-180. ...Me*ay Test: b 3th roofai mu 6mjih b npoTHBonono*HeftuiHx narepax; mm, «CKopnnoHM», micaTejiett «3HaHH«» nojiaramt npoTHBHHKaM H, a mtcaTejm «3HaHim» b /lynmeM cjiynae ttac cmmum «qy,aaicaMH, b xynmeM - new to b pone tuMeHHHKOB... TpaatnuuM... o6uiecTBeHHOCTH». J I ne 3Han noHTtt jihhho Jl. H.; Bee to Smjio 3a6opoM Me* hbmh; ho nepe3 «3a6op» Bapyr npoHHK b mok> aytny BHHMaTejibHMfi B3rjian, Jiio6onMTHMfl, Memi oSonpHfootHfl, tohho cKa3aBuinft: «JlHTepaiypHbie napTHH h mhchiw npyr o npyre - xaKoft 3to B3nop: onHHaxoBo mm O flH H O K H B nOCJienHeM, b hohhom.» 7 The term “modernists” is used in this chapter to represent all the different factions of Decadence/Symbolism. It is not meant to include the entire Modernist movement o f the 201 1 1 c. Therefore, it does not include Acmeism and Futurism, but does include Mystical Anarchism. I am also using the term realist with a small “r” to avoid associations with the 19th c. Realist tradition. This is the realist tradition that follows from Chekhov and Korolenko - the movement towards the short story and urban life - rather than the I9lh c. tradition o f the novel, as associated with Tolstoi and Dostoevskii. Many o f these classifications and titles are presently being reinterpreted and redefined, but this chapter is not meant to enter into that dialogue. A great deal o f energy has been spent discussing whether Andreev was a “realist” or a “Symbolist.” Bezzubov confronts fins issue quite well in the conclusion o f his book on the subject (see V. Bezzubov. Leonid Andreev i traditsii russkoeo realizma (Tallin: Eesti Raamat, 1984)). It is a fact that Andreev did not see himself as a strict member o f any one literary group. His early works are R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 72 Belyi writes: “We left the table, exchanging strange, barely understandable phrases. I felt that I could convey to him my thoughts about him. He answered with the sharpest, sympathetic glance - across all divisions.”8 In examining Belyi’s memoir of 1922, it is necessary to look at his assessment of Andreev prior to 1919. In this way, it can be established whether Andreev’s “modernism” was a constant view held by Belyi or simply something that he created for the memoir. Luckily, there is a large body of literary criticism that attests to the fact that Belyi did believe that Andreev was a quasi-modernist. Therefore, the discussion of Andreev’s mystical connection in the 1922 version is consistent with the literary criticism that preceded the memoir. The fact that this motif is subdued in the later version is apparently due to the negative appraisal of both modernism and Andreev by the Soviet authorities in 1930. Belyi writes: “I forgave [Andreev], more than I did Blok and Boris Zaitsev;...” Belyi originally encouraged Andreev, but “having gotten closer, I could not make out anything in him. Becoming always more and more alienated, his Shipovnik became a reservoir of cheap modernism, with which The Scales struggled; everything fashionable done by those followers of Andreev was stolen more closely related to “realistic” trends and some o f his works after 1906, especially his plays Life o f Man and Tsar Hunger, were written in the spirit o f the Symbolist movement. However, membership in these literary groups seemed to rely heavily on socio-economic background and Andreev did not fit the intellectual and social mold o f the modernists. Andreev’s personal life was connected to writers o f the “realist” camp and Andreev himself disliked the majority o f modernist works. 8 Belyi, Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 184-185. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 73 from the Symbolists.”9 This revisionism runs counter to what Belyi had written about Andreev just a decade before. The 1922 version begins, on the other hand, in a typical modernist fashion. Belyi remembers being impressed with Andreev, but he cannot recall many specific meetings. Instead, he explains them as brief flashes. He remembers attending a meeting of the literary circle Sreda and talking to Boris Zaitsev. Andreev leans on Zaitsev’s shoulder and fixes his gaze on Belyi. Later, Andreev and Belyi talk about something that is totally unimportant to both of them. All the time, Andreev’s eyes suggest a different conversation, which is meaningful. Belyi tells how Andreev tried to be an attentive host at the Sreda meeting, but the fact is that he was drawn in another direction. He was split in two. The real Andreev was somewhere else, but he made an effort to be present at the meeting. Later that evening, Belyi understood that Andreev was just striking a pose. He understood that Andreev was actually “over there” (in an alternative, lonely place) and that he passed a knowing glance to Belyi from there. Belyi declares that their relationship continued as a series of rare meetings that always originated from this alternative place. Mu o to u u ih o t crona: ooMemuiHca crpatmbtMH, ManonoturrKbiMii 4>pa3aMii; nycTBOBan; x Mory nepeaar eMy mmcjih o hcm; o h OTBernn: ocrpeftiiiHM, coHyacTBeHHbiM B3maaoM - nepe3 Bee pa3aejieHHx;... Andrei Belyi, Mezhdu dvukh revoliutsii (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1990), 179-180. .H eMy npomaji oojiee, neM Bnoicy h Eopncy 3aftueBy; noaouax Ojnixe, a pa3rjiaaeji He*rro b HeM , HaBceraa orrojiKHyBiuee; ero «1Uhiiobhhk» cran pe3eByapoM aeineBoro MoaepHH3Ma, c KOTopbiM SopojiHCb «Becbi»; Bee, h to aejiario MoaHbtMH aHapeeBiieB Sbuio hmh yapaaeHO y C H M B O JIH C T O B . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 74 The next time they met was a year or two later on the Arbat. They bumped into each other outside a mutual friend’s house. Recognizing each other after a moment of confusion, they exchanged insignificant phrases, but Belyi felt the resumption of their unspoken bond. Soon after, they met at the Dobrovs’. Andreev expressed his interest in the decadent St. Petersburg writers, especially Blok and A. Remizov. Again, this connection was expressed in “barely understandable phrases” and knowing glances. Belyi was impressed with Andreev’s Life o f Man and wrote a positive review of the play. They saw each other a couple times that fall in Moscow. One night in the foyer of the Moscow Art Theater, they talked about Ibsen and the actor Kachalov, and Belyi confided that he was worn out. Andreev suggested that he put his books aside and go fishing in Finland. Soon after this, Belyi visited Andreev at his hotel. While there, Belyi tried to express some personal ideas he had about Andreev. Andreev listened to Belyi, but later told someone that he had no idea what Belyi was talking about. This offended Belyi, but he understood it as some sort of pose since Andreev belonged to the other literary camp. Belyi decided to have no further contact with Andreev. However, they met one more time at a masquerade. No one recognized Belyi, not even his closest friends, because he acted ostentatiously. Only Andreev knew who he was; however, not wanting to ruin Belyi’s surprise, Andreev continued on, but they exchanged another significant glance. This time it was as if Andreev entered Belyi R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 75 and lived inside him. Belyi knew that they were not meant to meet again. In this fantasy setting, Andreev was no longer split in two and Belyi understood that Andreev was a modernist - using allegory instead of symbol, a futurist before there was Futurism, a unique mystical anarchist. Andreev was Don Quixote in his vivid aspiration for greatness and life. Belyi’s memoir covers roughly the period of 1904-1909. This could be considered the height of Andreev’s literary success and the point at which he most appealed to modernist critics. The core idea of Belyi’s literary portrait is that although Andreev belonged to an opposing literary camp, he was, in fact, closer to the modernist writers in spirit. In this chapter, we will not debate whether Andreev was a modernist or a realist. However, we will examine the associations that Andreev had with the modernists and especially we will follow the development of Belyi’s literary criticism so as to understand the important steps leading up to his literary portrait. By doing this, we will find that Belyi’s memoir of 1922 acts as the final statement in the development of his literary criticism. To understand Andreev’s relationship with the modernists and especially Belyi, we must first understand the literary milieu in which this took place. At the beginning of the century, modernist critics were willing to find elements in certain realist writers, such as Andreev, which could work within their own literary system. However, by the end of 1906, the boundaries between the two groups began to disintegrate — about the same time as the modernist movement was experiencing its R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 76 own internal problems. By 1908, the modernist and realist movements had become so amorphous that a polemical relationship was nearly impossible. At this time, Andreev occupied a “middle ground” between both camps.1 0 This resulted in alternating rejection and acceptance by both literary groups. In an attempt to reconcile this “middle ground,” Belyi defines Andreev as an artist who existed at one in the same time in two literary camps. Realist writers were organized by Gorky around the publishing house Znanie (Knowledge), which acted as a cooperative, in which writers held shares and received profits from their own publications.1 1 In March 1904, Znanie published its first anthology in an edition o f41,000 copies, costing only a ruble each. Between 1904 and 1907, 19 anthologies were published with a total printing of over 700,000 copies. By the beginning of W.W. I and the closing of Znanie, over 40 anthologies had been published.1 2 The modernist writers were led by V. Briusov in Moscow and by D. Merezhkovskii and Z. Gippius in St. Petersburg. In 1899 the publishing house 1 0 G. Tasteven writes to G. Chulkov in 1908 that the Golden Fleece must take a new tactic in its “argument” over Symbolism. Tasteven suggests that the discourse should move from a theoretical to a more practical basis. He wants to come out against “decadence” as a “tragic relationship with life” as represented by Andreev. However, in the same letter, Tasteven states: “You agree, don’t you, to write about Andreev, underlining the enormous moral strength o f his talent against the hooligan criticism o f The Scales." See Aleksandr Blok now e materialv i issledovaniia. Literaturnoe nasledstvo, book 3, vol. 92, eds. M. Khrapchenko and V. Shcherbina (Moscow: Nauka, 1982), 326- 327. He corjiactuiHCb j i h 6bi B u HanucaTb oo AnapeeBe, nonnepicHyB orpoMHyio cnny ero rajiatrra npoTHB xyjmraHCKoit k p h t h k h «BecoB». 111 will continue to refer to the publishing house by its Russian name as it is hardly ever translated. 1 2 Nicholas Luker, ed., An Anthology of Russian Neo-Realism: The “Znanie” School o f Maxim Gorkv (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1982), 14. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 77 Scorpion (Skorpion) was established and in the following years Scorpion issued Northern Flowers (Sevemye tsvety, 1904-1909; 1911), an almanac that published the works of both Moscow and St. Petersburg representatives of the modernist movement. In 1904 Scorpion also began to publish its own journal, The Scales (Vesy, 1904-1909). The Scales was followed by modernist journals such as the Golden Fleece (Zolotoe runo,1906-l909) and Apollo (Apollon, 1910-1917). Belyi occupied an important position in the creation of modernist theory due to his articles “About Theurgy” (O teurgii) and “Symbolism as a world-concept” (Simvolizm kak miroponimanie). With these articles and others, he attempted to construct a worldview and aesthetic that would address most of the important philosophical-aesthetic questions of the modernist movement. Belyi also wrote impressionistic articles/reviews of contemporary writers and reinterpreted the works of 19th century writers such as A. Pushkin, N. Gogol’ and F. Tiuchev. As noted by M. Mysliakova, Belyi attempted to smooth over the contradictions between modernism and realism, finding universal truths in both aesthetic systems. He considered realism as one of the main lines in the development of world art and actively sought contact with writers such as Gorky and Andreev. Belyi’s desired effect was to expand the boundaries of art and our understanding of the surrounding world, which were leftover influences of the 19th century and the growing interest in psychoanalysis. It was through a modernist worldview that he planned to go beyond the boundaries of our present existence R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 78 and to reveal the banal quality of our immediate condition. However, the true value of Belyi’s critical works comes from the revelations he makes about himself, the Belyi that is revealed in his criticism of others.1 3 In The Scales ’ second number of 1904, Belyi wrote a review of Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard (Vishnevyi sad). Belyi clearly associated Chekhov and his work with the realist tradition and, yet he argued that symbols could be found in the play.1 4 Literally, Belyi argued that there was a secret code of symbols, which was exposed for those attuned. At this stage, The Scales was not as concerned with the form (i.e. realist, modernist) as much as with the content. Briusov stated that even a realist text could have modernist content.1 5 Belyi, more than the rest, believed that true Symbolism coincided with true realism when they both expressed a genuine experience and its effect.1 6 The May 1904 issue of The Scales exhibited this concentration on content over form in V. Ivanov’s review of Andreev’s “The Life of Vasilii Fiveiskii.” According to Ivanov, Andreev had touched upon mystical problems of life through symbolic forms. Through this review and a few other pieces about “The Life of 1 3 Margarita Viktorovna Mysliakova, “Kontseptsiia tvorchestva Leonida Andreeva v simvolistskoi kritike” (Ph.D. diss., Moscow State University, 1995), 28-30. u V esv.no. 2 ( 19041:46. 1 5 A. Lavrov and D. Maksimov, “Vesy,” in Russkaia literatura i zhurnalistika nachala XX veka. 1905-1917: Burzhuazno-liberal'nye i modemistskie izdaniia. ed. B. Bialik (Moscow: Nauka, 1984), 73-74. 1 6 Ibid., 84. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 79 Vasilii Fiveiskii,” the modernists were hoping to lure Andreev to The Scales and away from the Znanie}1 In the December 1904 issue, Belyi reviewed Andreev’s story “Phantoms.” As with his review of The Cherry Orchard, Belyi appraises the work in modernist language. He begins by explaining that our life is madness. Masks cover the chaos that spills out of our souls and into our lives. Belyi says that in “Phantoms,” Andreev rips away the last mask of fraudulent sensibility. This being the case, Belyi considers Andreev a “solid talent.”1 8 Belyi returns to “Phantoms” in an article entitled “The Present and Future of Russian Literature” (Nastoiashchee i budushchee russkoi literatury), written in 1907, but published two years later. By this time, Belyi understands the story as representative of the contradictions found in Andreev himself. The real and the ghostly are realized as social and decadent literary trends. These two trends run parallel in Andreev, but do not synthesize modernism and realism.1 9 The new critical stance towards “Phantoms” shows the evolution of Belyi’s criticism and also underlines the personalized interpretations that he affords Andreev’s works. In the fourth issue of 1905, Belyi published a long article entitled “The Apocalypse in Russian Poetry” (Apokalipsis v russkoi poezii). Much of the philosophical basis for this article comes from his reading of V. Solov’ev and F. 1 7 S. Il’ev, “Leonid Andreev i simvolisti,” in Russkaia literatura XX veka (Dooktiabr’sld period). 2n d anthology, ed. N. Kucherovskii (Kaluga: Kaluga, 1970), 205. 1 8 Vesv. no. 12 (1904): 71-72. 1 9 Vesv. no. 3 (1909): 74-78. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 80 Nietzsche. Belyi argues that religion is to integrate into life what art has created in images. The idea of the religious function of art is combined with an apocalyptic vision found in images from the Russo-Japanese war. In the second section of the article, Belyi refers to Andreev’s story, “Red Laugh.” Belyi understood “Red Laugh” in the context of the modernist discourse concerning the end of the world and the arrival of an “era of the third Testament.” As with many modernists, the Russo-Japanese war was interpreted as a disruption of cosmic proportions and for Belyi, Andreev’s expressionistic representation of the war spoke to this higher, cosmic meaning. Belyi reviewed Andreev’s second volume of stories in the May 1906 edition of The Scales. In this second volume are published the stories which most appealed to the modernists - “The Thought,” “In the Fog,” “The Life of Vasilii Fiveiskii,” “Phantoms,” and “Red Laugh.” Belyi fixes on the themes that are foreign to Znanie and especially to Gorky in the continued attempt to lure Andreev away.2 0 In the review, Belyi defines mystical anarchism as an indicator of the disappointment in our decisions regarding the meaning o f life. He argues that mystical anarchism is the sole answer for everything that is not satisfying in our lives. It is a revolt. Therefore, this anarchic crisis demands that art be unusually sincere and display the power of disappointment. Belyi states that Andreev “may 2 0 IPev, 207. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 81 be the only mystical anarchist among us contemporary Russian writers.”2 1 He is also the only one to portray faithfully the formless chaos of life. It is not surprising that the majority of The Scales' attention centered on Andreev and his work. In the fall of 1904, Belyi took part in Sreda meetings to find out which of Gorky’s writers might have leanings toward the modernist mode of thinking.2 2 It was Andreev who Belyi was most taken with. He wrote of his experience: “Besides that I knew, somewhere out there, that Andreev is an enormous, still undiscovered writer. Neither Teleshov nor Timkovskii understand. He is not with them, he is with us, he is ours....”2 3 The fact that Belyi claimed Andreev for the modernist movement shows that originally the modernists were less concerned with affiliations and more interested in finding other members for their literary cause. However, the highly-charged atmosphere, following the failed 1905 Revolution took a toll on writers and relationships within both literary groups. As Gorky became increasingly involved in the revolutionary movement, many of his contemporaries felt alienated and left Znanie}* By 1907, Andreev had partially 2 1 Vesv. no. 5 (1906): 65. JleoHHA A aap eeB , MO>KeT 6bm>, eaHHCTBeHHbift mhcthkcckhh anapxHCT c p e a n coBpeMeHHbtx HaM nncaTe.neii p y ccx u x . “ Il’ev, 206. 2 3 Belyi, Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 189. Meway TeM, — 3naji a, rae-To TaM, *rro AnapeeB - orpoMHbift, euiB He pacxpbtTbiH nncaTeab: hh TeaemeBy, hh TH M K O B C K O M y He notum,: oh - He c hhmh; oh - c HaM H; oh - Ham;... 2 4 V. Keldysh, “Sbomiki tovarishchestva ‘Znanie’,” in Russkaia literatura i zhumalistika nachala XX veka. 1905-1917: Bol'shevistskie i obshchedemokraticheskie izdaniia. ed. B. Bialik (Moscow: Nauka, 1983), 256-264. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 82 broken with Znanie, publishing with Shipovnik (Wild Rose)2 5 and later editing a couple of their almanacs. One of Andreev’s main reasons for leaving Znanie was that Gorky had offered him an editorial position, an offer which was rescinded once Gorky realized that Andreev wished to include works by Blok and F. Sologub. Andreev’s move to Shipovnik created further confusion. Shipovnik published works by modernists, such as Sologub and Ivanov, as well as realists who had personal contact with Gorky, such as A. Amfiteaterov. One would expect that with Andreev’s move to Shipovnik and with the modernist influence that began to appear in his plays (Life o f Man, Tsar Hunger and Anathema) he would have been accepted by the modernists with open arms. However, this was not the case. Many modernists were worried that Andreev would again return to follow behind the banner of Gorky. K. Muratova argues that they could not forget that Andreev was “half-realist/half-decadent” and his ideology was still seen as belonging to Znanie. Even though Life o f Man was a dramatic presentation of Symbolist motifs, it was still concerned at its core with everyday life (byt).2 6 A theoretical distinction was made between symbol and allegory and the modernists almost unanimously disapproved of allegory. Andreev’s “new dramas” contained allegorical forms and the modernists saw this as a vulgarization of Symbolism and 2 5 Like Znanie, Shipovnik is rarely translated. I will continue to refer to it by its Russian name. 2 6 K. Muratova, Gor’kii i Leonid Andreev neizdannaia perepiska. Literatumoe nasledstvo, vol. 72, ed. I. Anisimov (Moscow: Nauka, 1965), 31. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 83 an appeal to the artistic sensibilities of the masses.2 7 In a review of Shipovnik’s first almanac, Gippius took issue with Andreev’s attempt to “imitate” Maeterlink and was appalled that Life o f Man received a positive review when it was staged at the Komissarzhevskaia theater.2 8 However, Blok and Belyi interpreted the play, at first, in a very positive light. Belyi’s initial comments appeared in The Pass (Pereval).2 9 Mysliakova suggests that the review is typical of Belyi’s style due to forced associations and personalized interpretations. He does not recreate the atmosphere of Andreev’s play as much as he builds his own artistic material on top ofit.3 0 Belyi wrote a second review of Life o f Man in September 1907. He took a risky critical position, considering that Briusov and The Scales had already come out against the play. Belyi claims that Andreev’s attempt at modernism is careless in form, but not in style. He is willing to admit that Life o f Man is not a work of the highest degree, but it does have a “dizzying” effect. He writes: “You can neither praise nor condemn Life o f Man. You can reject or accept it. And I am accepting it.”3 1 2 7 Margarita Viktorovna Mysliakova, “Kontseptsiia tvorchestva Leonida Andreeva v simvolistskoi kritike” (Dissertation abstract, Moscow State University, 1995), 11-12. 2 8 For a flattering article on Gippius’ vitriolic critical stance towards Andreev see Tamira Pachmuss, “Leonid Andreev as Seen by Zinaida Gippius,” The Slavic and East European Journal, vol. IX, no. 2 (1965): 141-154. 2 9 Pereval, no. 5 (1907): 51. 2 0 Mysliakova, dissertation, 83. 3 1 Andrei Belyi, “Smert’ ili vozrozhdenie?,” in Andrei Belvi: Kritika. estetika. teoriia simvolizma. vol. 2 (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1994), 446. ^Originally published in Literatumo-khudozhestvennaia nedelia. 17 September (1907). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 84 An article by V. Meyerhold entitled “From Letters About the Theater” (Iz pisem o teatre) was published in The Scales}2 In it he speaks of the “Theater of the Future,” naming the “Neo-realists”: Andreev, Blok and Briusov. The designation is important because it introduces the term Neo-realist and also combines Andreev with two major representatives of the modernist movement. Meyerhold was an entity outside of the Znanie and Scorpion circles, so his “outsider’s” view offers insight into the hazy boundaries that already existed between these movements. One of the most telling reviews regarding this situation is entitled “Common Grave” (Bratskaia mogila) by Anton Krainy (Z. Gippius). The common grave is to refer to the death, in a literary sense, of both Gorky and Andreev. Without directly naming individual writers, other than L. Zinov’eva-Annibal, Krainy attacks “hooligans in Gorky-esque rags” for their pornographic and revolutionary works.3 3 The issue of pornography could be traced back to Andreev’s “The Abyss” and “In the Fog,” published in 1902. Contemporary with this review would have been M. Artsybashev’s Sanin (Sanin), M. Kuzmin’s Wings (Kryl’ia) and Zinov’eva-Annibal’s Thirty-three Abominations (Tridtsat tri uroda).3 4 More interesting than Krainy’s review are the editorial comments that follow. The (OKtueHb H e n o B e K a » H&nua h h x B a n trrb , h h nopnuaTb. Ee m o x c h o oxBeprHyn. h jih npuHjrrb. H a npHHHMaio. 32 Vesv. no. 6 (1907): 93-98. 3 3 Vesv. no. 7 (1907): 59. 3 4 Andreev is reported to have said in response to Krainy’s article: “My heroes are terrified to be in a grave with Kuzmin’s heroes!” See Petr Pil’skii, Kriticheskie stat’i. vol. 1 (St. Petersburg: Progress, 1910), 13. M ohm reposM c repoxMH Ky3MHHa h b Monuie crpauiHo! R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 85 Scales acknowledges that Anton Krainy’s comments are often harsh, but supports all of his statements except for the allusions to Kuzmin’s fVings, which had been published in The Scales. In this instance, the loyalties to literary groups and publishing houses are clearly evident. The boundaries had become so hazy that a tribe mentality was the only way to differentiate the players - Kuzmin’s work can be grouped with Artsybashev, Zinov’eva-Annibal and Andreev’s stories, while Andreev’s plays are connected to those of Blok and Briusov. By 1907 the distinctions between the modernists and realists were no longer clear-cut. Blok defended Andreev in an article entitled, “About the Realists” (O realistakh), which dismayed Belyi and others in the modernist camp.3 5 Belyi’s own theoretical positions gave way to tactical ones, which were often dictated by the immediate situation. This resulted in further conflicts between the Moscow and St. Petersburg factions of the modernist movement.3 6 By 1908 Briusov had become a lame-duck editor of The Scales. In order to keep the allies he had, Briusov often allowed articles to be published, of which he did not approve. In the October issue of 1908, Belyi published “Symbolism and Russian Art.” In this article, Belyi attempts to separate Symbolism from the rest of the modernist movement. In defining modernism it becomes apparent that this is everything that is not related to The Scales?1 Belyi argues that Shipovnik consists 3 5 D’ev, 208. 3 6 Ibid., 210-211. 3 7 Martin Rice, Valerv Bruisov and the Rise o f Russian Symbolism (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1975), 103- 105. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 86 of two flanks. The right flank is made up of writers moving from realism to Symbolism, whom Belyi calls “impressionists.” The left flank consists of writers moving from Symbolism to impressionism. This left flank is trying to create a school of symbolic realism and mystical anarchism. Belyi says that Andreev is a part of the extreme left flank, which contains the most talented artists and Symbolists.3 8 Here Belyi seems to be strongly associating Andreev with the Symbolists who produce mystical anarchism. Belyi clarifies his position in his article, “The Present and Future of Russian Literature,” which was written prior to, but published after “Symbolism and Russian Art”: L. Andreev grew up in this epoch of struggle, reflecting in himself both tendencies of Russian literature - the social and the decadent, the real and the ghostly - not blending but shifting, not unity but parallel... L. Andreev is a talented spokesman for vagueness: as if at one in the same time he was growing in two hostile camps.3 9 About this time, Gorky wrote to Andreev from Capri: “Take a look at what all these hooligans are doing to you, your present-day comrades through collaboration: their founder, Merezhkovskii, walks around with dirty feet on your 3 8 Andrei Belyi, “Simvolizm i sovremennoe russkoe iskustvo,” in Andrei Belvi: Kritika. estetika. teoriia simvolizma. vol. 1 (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1994), 269-272. *When first published in The Scales, the article was called, “Simvolism i russkoe iskusstvo.” It was republished with the expanded title in 1910 in Lug zelenvi. 3 9 Vesv. no. 3 (1909): 74-78. B anoxy axoft 6opb6u Bbipoc JI. AunpeeB, oxpa3HBinn{i b ce6e o6e xeaaeHUHH pyccxoft jmxepaxypbt - counajibHyio h aexaaeHXCKyio, peanbttyio h npmpaMHyio; He cjitumHe, a c.vieuieHHe, He eaHHCTBO, a napajuienb... JI. AaapeeB -xanaHXJiHBbift Bbipa3nxejib HeonpeaejieHHocxH: wax oyflTo oh oitHOBpeMeHHo poc b AByx Bpaxae6Hbix Jiarepxx. *Belyi is not the only one making this claim in 1908. Filosofov argues that Gorky and Briusov represent the two extreems o f the literary scene and that Andreev stands in the middle “and drinks water from both springs. Both camps consider him theirs.” See D. Filosofov, “Dela domashnie," R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 87 face, Gippius defames you in Mercure de France, and in Briusov’s journal you have been called an ignoramus and a fool — already, this is not criticism, but an organized persecution, vile persecution, nothing seen before in our literature.”4 0 By the end of 1908, The Scales had almost come to the end of its journey. It had propagated the ideals of modernist literature and now was adrift. Briusov recognized this and left in 1909. The journal continued for the rest of 1909, but as Belyi became more involved with Ivanov and Blok, the publisher decided to discontinue publication.4 1 In this final year, Belyi reviewed Andreev’s play Anathema (Anatema). He recalls how he defended Life o f Man as a critical literary moment for Andreev. Now, Belyi understands that this critical moment was actually the end of Andreev’s literary career. He writes: “[Andreev] wishes to be a symbolist and instead of this he becomes a * maximist’: to clothe maxims in a frock- coat, to represent ‘essences' in the form of a knight in a raincoat still is not symbolism.”4 2 Belyi does not want to believe that Andreev has written this play. He argues that everything good about the play can be attributed to the Moscow Art Tovarishch. no. 373 (1908), as quoted in O. Nemerovskaia and Ts. Vol’pe, Sud’ba Bloka: Vospominaniia. pis'ma. dnevniki... (1930; reprint, Moscow: Agraf, 1999), 133. 4 0 Literatumoe nasledstvo. vol. 72, 305. T b i n o c M o rp H - h to a e n a io T c toS oR B e e 3 th x y n n r a H b i - H b m e T O B ap ttm H tb o h n o c o T p y a H H H e c T B y : ocH O B onoA oacH H K hx, M e p eacico B c ic H ii, x o a h t rp ju H b iM H H o ra M it n o T B oeM y jiH u y , T H n n n y c n o H o c tr r T eO x b « M e r c u r e d e F r a n c e » , a b x c y p n a jie E p io c o B a Tbi H a3 saH H eBe/K A H oft h A y p a x o M - 3 t o y w e n e icpnTH K a, a o p ra H to o B a H H a x r p a B n a , r a y c H a x TpaBAH, n e m o H eB H A aH H oe b H a u ie fl A trre p a T y p e . 4 1 Rice, 108-111. 4 2 Vesv. no. 9 (19091: 105. Oh acenaer 6biTb chm boahctom h BMecro ato ro c t3 h o b h tch «cenmeHifuoHUcmoM»: o6AexaeT ceH TeH U H H b ctopryxH, H3o6paacaTb «cyufHomcmu» b bhac xaBanepoB b n n a i u a x e m e He ecTb CHM BOAH3M ... R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 88 Theater and everything bad to Andreev’s text. This was Belyi’s (as well as The Scales') last critical review of Andreev’s literary work. In general terms, Andreev’s pessimism was attractive for the modernists. Stories like “The Lie,” “The Thief,” and “Phantoms,” had a foggy multi-faceted quality, which employed symbols that the early Decadents could associate with. Similarly, his post-revolutionary plays employed motifs understandable to the Symbolists.4 3 For a section of the modernist movement, stories with religious themes, “The Christians” and “The Life of Vasilii Fiveiskii,” seemed to draw Andreev into its circle of ideas. D. Filosofov argued that Andreev’s atheism and pessimism helped him to understand the Symbolist method and yet, claimed that his Symbolism was made of cardboard. They realized that Andreev was not cognizant of the “pure spirit of Symbolism.” The real problem was that the modernists believed that Andreev was talented, but found him uncultured. Andreev’s interests were narrow and his knowledge limited when compared to the modernists who came almost entirely from the well-educated bourgeoisie. It was on this basis of “culture” that The Scales could then defend Kuzmin’s Wings. Unlike Andreev and Artsybashev, Kuzmin was a cultured writer.4 4 And yet, the modernists were still intrigued with Andreev and wanted to entice him away from Znanie. In 1906, he was courted by Chulkov. This led to the publication of 4 3 T. Kulova, “L. Andreev i A. Gor’kii razmezhevanie sil russkoi literatury,” in Trudy Kafedrv sovetskoi literaturv. 7th ed., Moskovskii Oblastnoi Pedagogicheskii Institut im. H. K. Krupskoi, Uchenye zapiski vol. 16, 1966, 74-75. 4 4 Literatumoe nasledstvo. vol. 72, 31-33. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 89 Andreev’s “Once There Was” in Torches (Fakely), the almanac of mystical anarchists, along with works by Ivanov, Briusov and others. That same year, he published “Lazarus” in the Golden Fleece. The publisher of the journal asked Andreev to edit the literary section after many modernists left in 1907, but he turned down the offer.4 5 Andreev was aware of the modernists’ philosophical, literary and critical works. However, he was not willing to subscribe totally to their views on art. Other than Blok and Sologub, Andreev negatively appraised the works published by the various modernist journals and publishing houses 4 6 He was raised on Tolstoi and Dostoevskii and took V. Garshin and Chekhov as his literary mentors. However, for his own purposes, the 19th century brand of Realism was a bit boring, while the modernist alternative was too beholden to the ideas of artistic form. Therefore, Andreev seemed to pick a path between the two extremes. Critics within both movements noted his artistic originality, but also resented the synthesis of these two literary movements. Andreev wrote in 1912 to Gorky: “Who am I? For the noble-bom decadents I am a contemptible realist. For the hereditary realists I am a suspicious symbolist.” 4 7 Belyi’s memoir of 1922 is consistent with his critical stance towards Andreev. For Belyi and the modernists, Andreev was an enigma. They seemed to 4 5 Il’ev, 214-215. 4 6 Ibid, 214. 4 7 Literatumoe nasledstvo. vol. 72, 351. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 90 speak a similar language, but were unable to communicate with each other. Interestingly, Vadim Andreev met Belyi in Berlin shortly after the memoir had been published in the second edition of A Book About Leonid Andreev. Vadim told Belyi that he liked the memoir and Belyi responded: I am glad that you liked it. For me it has always been regrettable that between Leonid Nikolaevich and me there existed a misunderstanding, a lack of agreement, and a lack of complete understanding. I do not know what to call it - something was hindering us from approaching each other.4 8 Belyi’s memoir is difficult to interpret without understanding his critical stance towards Andreev’s works. For almost their entire relationship Belyi interpreted these works in a favorable, modernist light. Much like Belyi’s literary criticism, Andreev is presented in the portrait according to Belyi’s interpretation. However, in this interpretation there is a kernel of truth. Andreev made no allegiance to any one literary camp. Therefore, Belyi claims a part of Andreev for the modernists and the historical record. However, what Belyi captured so well was the duplicity found in Andreev. Belyi identifies this rift with loneliness; Blok associates it with his own understanding of chaos; Chulkov calls it a “sickness” that reflects the upheaval of Russia at the beginning of the century. For the modernists, K to h? Jlflx ftnaropoAHopoAeHHux aexaaeHTOB - npe3peHHbtft peajiHcr; aim HaciieacTBeHHbix peanticTOB - noao3pirrejii>Hbift chm bojihct. 4 8 Vadim Andreev. Istoriia odnogo puteshestviia (Moscow: Sovetskn pisatel’, 1974), 264 R pan, hto BaM noHpaBtuiocb. Mtie Bceraa 6buio aocaaHo, hto Mexcay mhoio h JleoHHaoM HmcojiaeBHHeM cyuiecTBOBajm Heaopa3yMefUM, HeaoroBopeHHOCTb, HeaonotMTOcrb, — He 3Haio, Kax H a3BaTb, — hchto MetuaBuiee HaM npn6jiH3HTbca apyr k apyry. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 91 this disruption in Andreev (consciously or unconsciously) brought him closer to them. Mysliakova argues that the modernists (Blok, Belyi and Chulkov) strongly felt the discord in Andreev and grasped the dissonance between the external and internal Andreev. She claims that Belyi captures this very well in the description of the masquerade. Here Belyi echoes many of the main motifs of his novel, Petersburg, to interpret the contradictory inner world of Andreev.4 9 However, where Blok and Chulkov use this dissonance as a starting point to explain Andreev’s psychological condition, Belyi uses it to stamp Andreev as a quasi- modernist. Like his literary criticism, Belyi is less concerned with the work at hand, but rather more interested in giving his own interpretation. In this sense, he does the same thing in the memoir of 1922. His mission is not to explain Andreev’s discord in any other way than to finally claim Andreev for the modernist cause. The modernists spent much of their creative energy in defining the theories of their literary movement. These theoreticians were often in disagreement and this ultimately (along with historical events) brought an end to their literary movement. One of the points of contention was Leonid Andreev and his artistic works. He belonged to a hostile literary camp, he was from a different social background, he was “uncultured,” and he confused allegory with symbol. Yet, like the modernists, 4 9 Mysliakova, dissertation, 183. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 92 he was influenced by “pessimism,” Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. He shared a connection with the modernists on some metaphysical level. Both Blok and Belyi believed this. Belyi describes it best, not in his memoir, but in his article “The Present and Future of Russian Literature,” when he says that Andreev was a product of his time; these competing forces lived in him without mixing - they ran parallel. These forces (or possibly Andreev’s own internal disruption) at times pulled him closer to the modernists and at times alienated him from them. However, Belyi was one of the few who seemed to consistently appreciate Andreev and his works, even after the author’s death. Therefore, in many ways the 1922 memoir can be understood as Belyi’s final attempt to claim Andreev (at least partially) for the literary category Modernist. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 93 4 The two previous chapters have examined very different biographical portraits of Andreev. Zaitsev creates a binary model for Andreev’s life and assigns positive and negative values. Belyi claims Andreev for the modernist movement and suggests that his solitude was a sign of his connection to the other (Symbolist) world. Both of these memoirs employ subjective interpretations o f Andreev’s life history. Teleshov’s memoir provides a third line of biographical discourse for A Book About Leonid Andreev. As with Zaitsev and Belyi, the first task is to examine Teleshov’s core idea and identify how closely his portrait approximates the historical facts. The second step is to compare these three portraits in an attempt to make a judgment about the level of subjectivity and the degree to which it has influenced the portrait. Once the subjective influences have been identified, the life history is refocused and the lines of subjective discourse can be traced back to their sources. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 94 Teleshov (1867-1957) published his first poem in 1884. Two years later, he participated in an anthology of poetry called A Sincere Word (Iskrennee slovo). The book was not well received by critics, but it introduced Teleshov to a wide circle of literary friends. This first led to his participation in D. Tikhomirov’s literary circle and later resulted in the creation of his own literary group. In 1886 Teleshov published philosophical stories about the meaning of life under the title of Fantastical Drafts (Fantasticheskie nabroski). In 1893, he published a collection of sketches in Russian Review (Russkoe obozrenie). Two years later these sketches were published as the book On Troikas (Na troikakh). Following the advice of Chekhov, Teleshov traveled throughout Siberia, which resulted in a book of sketches, Beyond the Urals (Za Ural), and material for two cycles of stories - The Migrants (Pereselentsy) and Through Siberia (Po Sibiri). After the revolution, Teleshov worked in the People’s Commissariat for Education and published an anthology of children’s stories. In 1925, he began work on what would be his best known text - Notes o f a Writer (Zapiski pisatelia). This memoir begins with the dedication of the Pushkin statue in 1880 and ends (in its final version) with the 85th literary anniversary of Ivan Bunin in 1955. Andreev’s death in 1919 was the impetus for Teleshov’s first memoir, published in A Book About Leonid Andreev. Seven years later, he wrote about R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 95 Sreda for Red Virgin Soil (Krasnaia nov’).1 In 1943, Teleshov published the first version of Notes o f a Writer, which included the Andreev portrait, renamed “‘Sreda’ and Leonid Andreev,” with virtually no changes to the original Andreev text.2 The new title denotes the major theme of the portrait - Andreev’s involvement in the Sreda literary circle. Gorky introduced Andreev to the circle in 1900 as an unknown writer who showed promise. Teleshov remembers Andreev’s first visit: ...Gorky came to Moscow and brought Andreev with him to the next meeting of Sreda. He was a young man, a student type, with a handsome face, very quiet and shy, dressed in a tobacco colored dress jacket. At ten o’clock, when our meetings usually began, Gorky suggested that we listen to a short story by the young author. “I heard it yesterday,” said Gorky. “I confess that I had tears in my eyes.” “Go ahead, Leonid Nikolaevich,” they suggested to Andreev. But he started by saying that his throat was sore, and he would be unable to read. In a word, he was shy and embarrassed. “Then give it to me. I will read it,” volunteered Gorky. He took the thick notebook, sat down by the lamp and began, “The story is called ‘Silence’....” The reading lasted about half an hour. Andreev was sitting next to Gorky and never stirred the entire time, his legs crossed and his eyes staring at one fixed point in a dark comer at the far end of the room. Of course, he could feel that everyone looked at him. But it was doubtful that he could feel that every new page turned brought him 1N. Teleshov, “Vse prokhodit (iz literatumykh vospominanii). Kruzhok « S r e d a » ,” Krasnaia nov’. no. 11 (1926): 218-234. 2 Some episodes have been moved to other parts o f the book, but there have been no major additions or subtractions o f material. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 96 closer to these men he knew, yet did not know, sitting among them like a new boy at school. The reading came to an end... Gorky lifted his eyes and said laughingly to Andreev, “The Devil take it, it has touched me again!” Not only Aleksei Maksimovich had been “touched.” It immediately became clear that in the person of this new boy Sreda had gained a good comrade.3 Could it be that Teleshov exaggerated Sreda’s role in Andreev’s life and literary career? After all, Teleshov’s legacy is most certainly tied to his position as organizer of the literary circle and to his memoirs. Upon investigation it becomes clear that Sreda definitely played an important role in the literary careers of Andreev, Ivan Bunin, Skitalets and many others from roughly 1900-1909. Even more importantly for Andreev, it was the bond of friendship that was established in those early years that bound him to Sreda even after he had moved away from 3 N. Teleshov, “Vospominaniia,” in Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. Vospominaniia Gor’kogo, Chukovskogo, Bloka, G. Chulkova, Borisa Zaitseva, N. Teleshova, Evg. Zamiatina, A. Belogo, 2n d ed. (Berlin: Z. I. Grzhebin, 1922), 149-150. ...ropbKHH npttexajt b MocxBy tt b nepByio ate Cpeay npHBe3 k Hast AaapeeBa. 3tom 6ma moaoaoR neaoBex, THMna CTyaetrra, c xpacHBbiM ahuom, oneHb thxhR h MOAHaattBbiR, oraeTbtft b ntiAacax Ta6atHoro UBeTa. B aecaTb nacoB, xoraa o6mhho Hananocb HTeHHe, ropbKHft npeaaoacHA BbicJiytuaTb HeOojibiuoii pa3cxa3 Moaoaoro aBTopa. - fi Bnepa era cayman, - cxa3aa ropxnft, - npH3Hatocb, y Metta Ha rjia3ax 6mjih cne3bi. - HamiHafiTe, JleoHtta HnxoaaeBHH, - npeanoacHatt AttapeeBy. Ho tot craji roBoptrr, hto ceroawt y Hero 6ojiht ropjto, hto HtrraTb oh He Moater; cjiobom, 3acKpoMHHHaa h CMymnca. — Toraa, aaBaiiTe, a ripoHHTaio, - Bbi3Baaca Topbioiti. B3hji ToneHbKyio Terpaaxy, cen k JiaMne h Hanan: - Pa3cxa3 Ha3biBaeTca «MojiHaHHe»... HTeHHe AJiwiocb M eHee noiiynaca. AnapeeB CHaen paaoM c ropbKHM, cnaeJi, Bee Bpesut He uieBejibHyBiuMcb, nojioacHB Hory Ha Hory tt H e cboab rjia3 c oahoR tohkh, KOTopyio oh BbiOpaa rae- to Baanex, b noayreMHOM yrny. Kohchho, oh nyBCTBOBaa, hto Ha Hero Bee cm otpst. Ho Bpaa ah oh nyBCTBOBaa, hto xaacaaa npoHtrraHHaa crpaHHua c6AHacaeT c hhm 3thx, xota h 3HaeMbix, ho Bce-TaxH nyanix eMy atoaeti, cpean xoropbtx ch ah t oh tohho hobhhok b uixoae. HTeHHe xoHHttaocb... ropbXHft noAHtta raa3a, aacxoBo yauSHyaca AHapeeBy h cxa3aa: - Hopr B03BM H, orurrb Metta npouiHOao! R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 97 Moscow. This is Teleshov’s core idea, which has been ignored to a large degree by scholars who wish to use the portrait as evidence for arguments about literary groupings and political allegiances. However, this connection of friendship is seen in one of Andreev’s letters to Teleshov, written in Berlin in 1906: ...I am sitting in Berlin, staying through the winter. It is comfortable to work but without my dear people it is boring. It is so very boring. When I think that there will be no more Sreda, no more brotherhood, it is so nauseating. I live here completely in isolation and for some reason do not want to strike up new acquaintances. It is the old ones that I want and I have not lost hope that I will return to them. ... Write about how you are living, about your frame of mind, what you are doing, about your work. You do not have to write a lot, it is not worth it, but just a little - you must so that we do not break the connection completely. It is a pity that all of our brotherhood - me included - do not like to write letters. Living abroad, one feels the isolation from his homeland. Persistently continuing to be a member of Sreda, I will send you my things to read and discuss. ...I beg you to tell me how Sreda responds. Their advice and opinions were always important to me,.... Tell the dear ones, as much as they care, to write a few sentences about their lives. To all of them I send the most tender greetings - it is just so boring to write! Reproach Zaitsev; why hasn’t he answered me, did he not get my letter?4 «npouiH6jio» He oaHoro Aneiccefl MaxcnMOBnna. C p u y CTano acho, hto b AHue HOBiinxa Cpeaa npnoope.ria xopoiuoro TOBapttma. 4 Ibid., 161-163. ...cHAcy b EepjiHHe, ripoxcHBy 3HMy. Pa6oTaTb Tyr yAo6HO, ho 6e3 Munoro Hapoay - cicyHHO. OneHb Aawe CKyHHo! Kaic noAyMaeuib npo CpeAbi h 6paTHK>, hto HeT hx, Tax touiho craHeT. )KnBy a 3aecb coBepuieHHO o6 oco6 achho, it xax-TO He xoneTcx o63aBOAirn>CA hobwmh 3H aK O M CTBaM H : xcaAxo crapbix, h He TepAeTCA HaaexcAa k hhm BepHyrbCA. ... HannuiH, icax Tbi >KHBeuib, xax HacrpoeHHe, aena, paSoTa; mhoto He iihiiih, He ctoht, a hcmhoacxo — Haao, hto6 bi yxce coBceM He nopBanacb cBA3b. TKajixo, hto bca Hama 6paTHA — h a b tom nucne - He jik>6ht nHcarb irticeM; npn 3arpaHHHHOM achthh nojiynaeTCA noAHax OTopBaHHOCTb ot poAHHbt. llpoAOAAcaA 6biTb HacToftHHBO H A eH O M CpeAbi, 6yAy npncbiAaTb Te6e moh BeuiH aaa npoHTeHHA h o6cy*AeHHA. ...a oneHb npouiy tc6 a, cooS uih, xax ot3obctca Cpeaa. Ee coBeTbi h mhchha Bceraa 6bL A H M He BaxcHbi,... CxaxcH M H A biM , hto K T o M oxceT, nycTb HanHtueT napy crpox o cBoeM xcHTbe. Bcex hx a ueAyto caMbiM HexcHbiM o6pa30M - npocro cxyHHO nucaTb! YnpexHH 3aiiHHKa, noneMy He OTBenaeT M He, noAyHHA ah oh Moe nncbMo? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 98 At its core the portrait is accurate regarding the role that Sreda played in Andreev’s life, although slightly embellished by Teleshov. Most of the members came to this circle at a young age and the sense of “student camaraderie” is evident. Add to this a heavy dose of fame, which many of the members experienced while participating in Sreda, and you have a very intoxicating combination. The friendships and fame that were forged at Sreda meetings provided Andreev with the support and guidance that he so desired. Teleshov organized Sreda in the fall of 1899 in Moscow. His literary circle grew out of Tikhomirov’s Saturday evening group.5 As the circle grew, it was not limited to literary figures. Teleshov’s wife, Elena Andreevna, was educated as an artist and many of her friends from the Moscow School of Art participated. Musicians, publishers and columnists also joined the meetings. Among the regulars were Andreev, I. Belousov, Ivan and Iulii Bunin, E. Chirikov, V. Ermilov, V. Giliarovskii, S. Goloushev, V. Gol’tsev, Gorky, E. Goslavskii, L. Khitrovo, A. Kuprin, V. Lavrov, V. Miroliubov, I. Mitropol’skii, V. Mikheev, A. Serafimovich, F. Shaliapin, Skitalets, N. Timkovskii, Tikhomirov, V. Veresaev and N. Zlatovratskii. Occasional participants included N. Asheshov, P. Boborykin, A. Chekhov, S. Elpat’evskii, A. Fedorov, N. Garin-Mikhailovskii, A. Golovin, A. 5 S. Malakhovym-Razumvskii loosely organized a group o f writers, artists and musicians in 1883 called “Pamas.” The “Pamas” group and Tikhomirov’s “Saturdays” group eventually joined together through the guidance o f Teleshov. The meetings for this circle were first held on Tuesdays and then moved to Wednesdays, resulting in the name Sreda Literary Circle. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 99 Gruzinskii, S. Gusev-Orenburgskii, S. Iushkevich, V. Korolenko, I. Levitan, D. Mamin-Sibiriak, S. Naidenov, S. Semenov, A. Vasnetsov, B. Zaitsev and others. The purpose of the circle was to provide an environment in which young authors could read their latest works and receive constructive criticism. The criticism at times was harsh, but this honesty was welcomed. Teleshov writes of Andreev: From that first time at Sreda, Andreev was one of us. After “Silence,” other stories followed and they all passed through Sreda. “Once There Was,” “Sergei Petrovich,” “The Wall,” and the famous “Abyss” - all of them were read to Sreda by the author himself out of his preliminary notebooks. The author listened to the most frank comments, to both praise and objections. Once he read a story called “The Little Ruffian” and received such a friendly rebuff that to this day the story has not been published anywhere. Belousov explains that new literary works were considered and criticized without hypocrisy - both good and bad were noted openly and without embarrassment.7 This allowed writers to develop a work while receiving valuable critical advice and support. Gorky’s Lower Depths is an example of the kind of support Sreda gave to its authors. In the fall of 1902, Andreev, Naidenov, Chirikov, Piatnitskii and Shaliapin went with Gorky to the Moscow Art Theater when he read his play for 6 Teleshov, Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 151. AuopeeB c nepBoro ace pa3a caenanca b Cpeae cbohm nenoBeicoM. 3a «MojmaHHeM» cneaoBanH apynte pa3cica3bi, h Bee ohh npoxoatuiH nepe3 Cpeay. H «)Ktum-6buiH», h «CepreK rieTpoBHH», it «CreHa», it 3ttaMeHirraH «Ee3fltta» — Bee 6bt.no mrraHO caMiiM aBTopoM no nepHOBbtM TeTpaaxaMH. Ojutaacobi oh npoHirranb pa3cica3 noa Ha3BaHiteM «EynHitxa» h nojtyniui Tatcoft apyacHbift omop, hto ao chx nop 3TO T pa3cxa3 HHrae He HanenataH. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 100 the first time to the cast. Gorky was very nervous and broke down twice while reading. Soon after, he gave his first “public” reading at a Sreda meeting at Andreev’s apartment and everyone came to hear it read - lawyers, doctors, artists, scientists, etc. The reading was a great success and generated publicity for the play. In attendance at the first night and at the following party at the Hermitage restaurant were Andreev, Ivan Bunin, Naidenov, Skitalets and many others.8 In this way, the Sreda group was more than just a literary circle. They were friends who supported each other in all phases of a literary career. Of all the Sreda members, Andreev was probably the most active participant. Almost all of Andreev’s works were read for the first time at Sreda.9 He even sent some things from abroad to be read. “Andreev read a lot,” writes Zaitsev. “I think more than anyone else. He read in a restrained manner, somewhat monotonously, sometimes adjusting his thick hair, falling onto his forehead. In his left hand was a 7 1. Belousov, Literatumaia sreda: Vospominaniia. 1880-1928 (Moscow: Kooperativnoe izd-vo pisatelei nikitinskie subbotniki, 1928), 110. A. Ninov, M. Gor'kii i Iv. Bunin: Istoriia otnoshenii. problemv tvorchestva (Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1973), 175-184. lulii Bunin lists 20 works read by Andreev at Sreda meetings: Silence (Molchanie), The Abyss (Bezdna), The Thought (Mysl'), Furniture (Mebel'), In the Fog (V tumane), At the Station (Na stantsii), Marseillaise (Marsel'eza), Day o f Crusifixion (Den' rapiatiia), The Life o f Vasilii Fiveiskii (Zhizn' Vasiliia Fiveiskogo), Tsar (Tsar1 ), Red Laugh (Krasnyi cmekh), Life o f Man (Zhizn' cheloveka), Saw a (Sawa), Lazarus (Eleazar1 ), Judas from Kariot (Judas iz Kariota), Christians (Khristiane), Anathema (Anatema), Phantoms (Prizraki), The Theif (Vor1 ). See RGALI, f. 1292, op. 4, ed. khr. 6. Iu. Bunin, “Doklad o deiatel’nosti literatumogo kruzhka ‘Sreda’ (1899-1918)”; see also RGALI, f. 1292 op. 2, ed. khr. 2. “Doklad i kratkii otchet o deiatel’nosti tseliakh i zadachakh kruzhka ‘Sreda’.” R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 101 cigarette - sometimes he waved it in rhythm and from under the lowered forehead he would cast quick fervent glances at the audience.”1 0 Sreda meetings, however, were not always centered on readings and literary discussions. Skitalets often brought his gusli and sang Volga songs. Teleshov remembers one special meeting when Shaliapin invited Rakhmaninov to play the piano for him, while he sang: Shaliapin set fire to Rakhmaninov and Rakhmaninov fired Shaliapin; and these two greats urging each other on, literally achieved a miracle. This was not music or singing as anyone had ever known it - it was some fit of inspiration by two great artists.1 1 All of the meetings included eating and drinking once the main presentation was made. It was usually then that music was performed. Most meetings consisted of twenty to twenty-five people. However, on special nights, there might be as many as fifty. Iulii Bunin recalls that the number of participants depended on certain factors: “If a new work was planned to be read by one of the especially distinguished writers, for example, Leonid Andreev, if the appearance was expected of an especially interesting guest at Sreda, like Gorky or Shaliapin, if in 1 0 B. Zaitsev, “Vospominaniia,” in Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 129-130. MHoro npommui AaapeeB - ayMaio, Bcex 6onbtue. Oh mrran caepwaHHO, HecxoabKO onHoo6pa3Ho, HHoraa nonpaBJuw rycrbte bojiocw, cBeuiHBaBinnecH Ha jio6; b neBofi pyice nanpoca; HHoraa noMaxHBan era b T a x , h ra-noa onymeHHoro Ji6a Bapyr Sbicrpo B3nutabiBaa ropxHHMH C B O H M H rjta3aMH. 11N. Teleshov, Zapisld pisatelia: Vospominaniia fMoscow: OGIZ, 1943), 64-65. UlajuinHH noaxttraa PaxMaHHHOBa, a PaxMaHHHOB 3aaopmi UlajumHHa. H 3Ta aBa BejiHKaua, yBJieKan oahh apyroro, 6yBanbHo TBopariH nyaeca. 3 to 6btao y>K e He neHHe h He My3biKa b o6iuenpmiTOM 3HaneHHH — 3to 6bia KaKoR-To npiinaaoK BaoxHOBemut aayx KpynHeRuinx apTHCTOB. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 102 public life some kind of major event took place, attracting to itself general attention...”1 2 Besides the regular meetings, there were special Sreda meetings where people from other literary movements were invited. These special Sreda meetings were held at either Andreev’s or Goloushev’s. Belyi writes of one of these evenings in his portrait.1 3 The meetings were also used by Sreda to initiate new members. According to Belousov, a member would first befriend a prospective candidate and then invite him to one of the special meetings.1 4 Andreev himself introduced Serafimovich, Veresaev, Korolenko and Zaitsev to Sreda.1 5 Andreev not only hosted regular Sreda meetings, but he also attempted in the fall of 1902 to form an elite Monday group out of the usual participants. He wished to attract Gorky, Skitalets, Ivan Bunin, Teleshov and a few others to discuss works in a more intimate atmosphere. He also wanted a higher level of literary competence among the participants. However, he was not successful and even more people showed up at Andreev’s Monday group than at the regular Sreda 1 2 RGALI, f. 1292 op. 2, ed. khr. 2. lu. Bunin, “Doklad i kratkii otchet o deiatel’nosti tseliakh i zadachakh kruzhka ‘Sreda’.” Also quoted in Ninov, 143. Ecjm npeanojiaranocb k npoHTetttno HOBoe npomBeaetuie KaKoro-;ni6o ocodeHHO Bunaiouierocx rmcaTejiH, HanpnMep, JleoHaaa AanpeeBa; e arn oxtuiajiocb noABJieHtie Ha «Cpeaa» ocodeHHo HHTepecHbix rocreii, Kaic MaKCHM ropbiotft turn UlaJianHH; ecjiH b oSmecTBeHHott xch3hh coBeptuajiHCb Kame-JiHdo xpyriHbie co6 bithh, npHBjieKaBuine k cede Bceodmee BHHMaHHe... 1 3 Andrei Belyi, “L. N. Andreev.” in Nachalo Veka fMoscow: Khudozhestvenaia literatura, 1990), 402-409. 1 4 Belousov, 110. 1 5 I. Vladykin, “Teleshovskie <Sredy>,” in Uchenve zapiski Moskovskoeo eosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskoeo instituta im. V. I. Lenina. Russkaia literatura XX veka. Sovetskaia literatura, no. 255 (Moscow: 1966), 28. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 103 meetings. An added problem was that it became too difficult to meet twice a week. Eventually, Andreev abandoned the idea of a “select” Sreda.1 6 Politics and social causes were important for Sreda. However, the members did not represent one political group or ideology.1 7 Many members were arrested for political reasons and spent time in jail. Gorky was the most “notorious” political activist of the group. In 1901, he was released from prison in Nizhnii Novgorod and allowed to go to the Crimea for health reasons. However, government officials decided that Gorky’s trip by train should not turn into a whistle-stop tour for revolution. Therefore, upon nearing Moscow, Gorky’s car was diverted to Podol’sk. As soon as they learned of this, Andreev, Ivan Bunin and Teleshov set off for Podol’sk to see Gorky. Along the way they met up with Shaliapin, Piatnitskii, and Gorky’s German translator, who had come to Russia to meet famous writers. Once in Podol’sk, the friends went to a local restaurant and had dinner until Gorky’s train departed. It was such meetings that brought the writers closer together and garnered the group much popular fame. In 1902, Andreev organized a charity evening to aid female students. Readings included Andreev’s “The Foreigner” (Inostranets), a scene from Naidenov’s play “The Lodgers” (Zhitsy), Bunin’s “Edge of the World” (Na krai sveta), Teleshov’s “About Three Youths” (O trekh iunoshakh) and some verse from * Serafimovich tells about this first Sreda meeting in his literary portrait o f Gorky. See A. Serafimovich, Sobranie Sochinenii v chetvrekh tomakh. vol. 4 (Moscow: Pravda. 1987), 444-446. 1 6 Ninov, 149. 1 7 Ibid., 136-137. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 104 Skitalets. The Sreda writers were rapidly gaining popularity and the event was sold out. The evening was a triumph. At the end of the program, Skitalets took the stage in a workman’s blouse and hurled rebellious verses at the audience. The police quickly brought the evening to a close. The audience stormed the stage to shake Skitalets’ hand. The police turned out the lights in the hall to force the people onto the streets. Teleshov writes: “The end of it all was that Skitalets left for the Volga, the society for the aid of female students got a good sum out of the evening, and Leonid Andreev, as the official organizer of the evening, having signed the announcements, suddenly was called in to answer to the criminal code for not hindering Skitalets from reading poems that prophesized the revolution and the anger of the masses.”1 8 Andreev was fined twenty-five rubles for “disturbing the peace” and the other participants escaped without punishment.1 9 At some of the first Sreda meetings, lulii Bunin had lectured on revolutionary movements and leaders. It was at a Sreda meeting that Skitalets and Andreev first learned of “Bloody Sunday,” the attack by government soldiers on peaceful demonstrators in the capital.2 0 After the revolution of 1905, politics gained even more currency. That year, Sreda published a volume of stories and 1 8 Teleshov, Zapiski pisatelia. 62. K oH H H Jiocb B e e 3TO TeM , h t o C K u r a n e u y e x a j i H a B o jir y , o 6 u iecT B O rto M o u u t ynauiH M C H xceH iuH H aM 3 a p a 6 o T a n o c B e n e p a x o p o y io cy M M y , a J le o H tta A n a p e e B x a x o ^ m tw a rib H b ifi y c r p o H T e jtb B e n e p a , n o A tiH caB iiiH ft a< (m iiiy, B H e 3 a rm o 6 b iJi n p tfB Jte n e H k oT B eT C T B eH H ocrn b yrojioB H O M nopstA K e 3 a t o , h t o H e B o c n p e tu rrc T B O B a n C x H r a n b tiy n p o H H T a rb c rn x o T B o p e H H e , rae n p o p o n n n a c b p e B o ju o m tx h n ie B H apoA H bifi. 1 9 Skitalets (S. G. Petrov), Povesti i rasskazv. Vospminaniia. (VstrechO (Moscow: Moskovskii rabochii, 1960), 430. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 105 gave the profits to striking postal workers. Members often got up petitions and public protests against the government, and they participated in most of the social causes of the day.2 1 The group also provided commercial publishing opportunities for its members. Sreda writers were originally published in the journal Life (Zhizn’) and grouped around the newspaper Courier. With the closing o f Life in 1901, Sreda turned to the St. Petersburg publication, A Journal for All (Zhumal dlia vsekh). However, the writers were located in Moscow and needed a sympathetic Moscow publisher.2 2 In May 1902, through the organization of Teleshov, Sreda published A Book o f Stories and Poetry (Kniga rasskazov i stikhotvorenii). In it were previously published works by Gorky, Mamin-Sibiriak, Kuprin, Ivan Bunin, Andreev, Chirikov, Teleshov, Zaitsev, Belousov and others. The book received positive reviews, which inspired Teleshov to continue his search for a way to publish Sreda writers as a group.2 3 In March 1903, Teleshov and Gorky, as a representative of the Znanie publishing house, began negotiations to publish Sreda writers. This proved 2 0 Skitalets (S. G. Petrov), “Vstrechi. L. Andreev,” Krasnaia nov*. no. 10 (1934): 166. 2t In 1900, an anthology was published and the proceeds were given to Jews suffering from a poor harvest. In 1901, Sreda defended university students in Kiev, who were drafted into the army after taking part in political activities. In 1904, Sreda produced a petition that condemned police brutality used during the 5-6 December demonstrations. In 1905, Sreda published an anthology o f stories and the proceeds went to the children o f teachers in the Nizhegorodskii province. 2 2 V. Keldysh, “Sbomiki tovarishchestva ‘Znanie’,” in Russkaia literatura i zhumalistika nachala XX veka. 1905-1917: Bol'shevistskie i obshchedemokraticheskie izdaniia. ed. B. Bialik (Moscow: Nauka, 1983), 228-232. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 106 beneficial for both because Znanie wished to expand its literary section.2 4 These negotiations led to the publication of an anthology for 1903 of Sreda writers under the banner of Znanie. This was the beginning of nearly a decade o f cooperation between Znanie and Sreda. During this time Znanie issued many anthologies and monographs of Sreda writers. By 1909, Sreda meetings had lost their intimacy. The group celebrated ten years of activity and registered as a legal circle. They moved from the comforts of Teleshov’s apartment to the general quarters of the Literary and Artistic Circle. There they were registered as the “Commission of Moscow society for aid to writers and journalists” (Komissiia pri moskovskom obshchestve pomoshchi literatoram i zhumalistam). The make-up of Sreda changed due to an influx of young poets and writers. As the new members increased, many of the original writers dropped out. Meetings became less frequent between the older members (3-5 times a year), but did take place once again at Teleshov’s or Goloushev’s apartment. The last meeting of old members was in 1916, at which time Goloushev read Samson in Chains (Samson v okovakh), a play by Andreev, who had come down from Petrograd.2 5 2 3 A. Ledenev, “Pisatel’skie ob”edineniia v russkot demokraticheskoi literature kontsa XIX - nachala XX v.,” in Iz istorii russkoeo realizma kontsa XIX - nachala XX v.. ed. A. Sokolov (Moscow: Moskovskii universitet, 1986), 61. 2 4 Keldysh, 228-232. 2 5 Teleshov claims that this was the last meeting in Zapiski pisatelia. 85. However, there is a picture entided “Last meeting o f Sreda,” which is dated 1917 in Literatumoe nasledstvo. vol. 84, book 1, 619. The “new/young” Sreda lasted as an official organization until 1919. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 107 Critics have tried to explain Andreev’s relationship with Sreda. Many, such as V. Shakurov, never get beyond the basic questions about literary camps and political loyalties, which seem to haunt earlier Andreev studies.* In this instance, critics who wish to use the portrait for their own ends have ignored Teleshov’s narrative discourse. Teleshov is not greatly concerned with defining literary genres and political ideologies, but rather suggests that Sreda provided Andreev with friendships that lasted his entire life. For Andreev, Sreda had a two-fold purpose. It provided him with help in his literary career and gave him an extended family. Teleshov describes the larger significance of Sreda: “The personal relationships of the Sreda participants were entirely friendly, at least in a majority of cases, and also very heart-felt and sincere, especially between several of us. This closeness was not only as writers, professionals or comrades, but we were close personally, our families were close, which added even more intimacy to our relationships.”2 7 Sreda represented for Andreev support and stability. He felt more comfortable in close-knit groups and Sreda acted as part o f his family. In a letter to Goloushev in 1918, Andreev writes: 2 6 V. Shakurov, "Leonid Andreev i ‘Sreda’,” in Romantizm: Teoriia. istoriia. kritikam. ed. R. Biktanov (Kazan: Kazanskii universitet, 1976), 156-173. 2 7 Teleshov, “Kruzhok « S r e d a » , ” 231. JIifH H b ie OTHOiueHHX ynacTH H K O B C p e flb i 6 b u m B n o jiH e n p y x e c K H e , b o b o t t o m c j i y n a e c p e n n 6onb u iH H C T B a, h o n e H b c e p a e H H b ie h H C K p em ie; o c o 6 e ttH O M o r a y H eK O T opbtM ti H3 H a c . B/iH3HOCTb 6 b u i a n e TOJibKO n H caT en b C K an , h o h h t o jiH H H aa h c e M e ftH a a , h t o n p u n a B a n o e u i e 6 o jib u ty io HHTHMHOCTb HaiUHM B3aHMOOTHOUieHHHMH. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 108 For me personally, Sreda was a second childhood. My first childhood was on Pushkamaia street [in Orel] - it was truly blessed. My second childhood was literary - Sreda meetings. And it is strange — just like I played all the time on Pushkamaia. I have such memories about Sreda meetings, as though we all merrily played there, merrily wrote literature and merrily read it. ... Note that, being terrible with alcohol, I was never drunk at Sreda meetings. The spirit of reverence for you, for Ivan and for the others remained in me and hither to this is a fact. And I was simply afraid of Timkovskii, he might have stuck me in the comer. ... There remains with me the feeling of a certain Wunderkind quality - as if I were the Wunderkind of Sreda... 2 8 Veresaev notes, although presented harshly, that Sreda was where Andreev felt comfortable. Veresaev writes: For me it was always a mystery why Andreev joined Sreda and not the circle of modernists (Briusov, Bal’mont, Sologub, Merezhkovskii, Gippius, etc.) coming into being at this time. I think to a large degree there were a couple factors. On one side was Andreev’s close personal relationship with the representatives of literary realism, especially with Gorky. On the other side was Andreev’s Moscow passivity, compelling him to accept life as it developed.2 9 2 8 Leonid Andreev, S. O. S.: Dnevnik (1914-19191. Pis’ma (1917-19191. Stat’i i interv’iu f 19191. Vospominaniia sovremennikov (1918-19191. eds. Richard Davies and Ben Heilman (Moscow; St. Petersburg: Atheneum; Feniks, 1994), 244-245. JIhhho ana MeHa «cpenbi» - BTopoe Moe aercTBO. [lepBoe jk tctb o - na riyuiKapHOtt, hcthhho 6jia*eHHoe; BTopoe aercTBO, jiHtepaTypHoe - «cperu>i». H crpaKHo: K aic Ha riyuiKapHOft a Bee nrpaji, TaK h o cpeaax Taxoe BocnoMHHaHHe, 6yaTo mu Bee taM Beceno Hrpanu, Becejio rmcami nHTepaTypy h Beceno ee mrrajm. ... OdpatH BHHM aHHe, hto, 6yayHn cTpacTHbtM ariKoro/iHKOM (BHUiHeBKa?), Ha cpeaax a hh pa3y He 6mji nban. Jlyx noHTetuia k rede, HBany h npyrHM coxpaHHjica bo M He h nocejie, bto < t> a K T . A Thmkobckoto a npocro 6oiocb, ho m y. Ocranocb eme y MeHa nyBCTBO HeKOToporo ByHjtepKymtcTBa: Beab a 6mji ByH.nepKHH.aoM «cpea»... * Andreev’s claim that he was always sober at Sreda meetings is not accurate. Veresaev remembers two instances after 1907 when Andreev came to Moscow and was drunk. See V. Veresaev, Sobranie sochinenii v piati tomakh. vol. 5 (Moscow: Pravda, 1961), 418-420. 2 9 Veresaev, 399. f f j w M eH a B c e r a a S b in o 3a r a a ic o io , n o n e M y A H n p e e B npH M K H yn k « C p e n e » , a He k 3a p o n H B U ie M y c a b t o B p e u a K p y acx y M onepHHCTOB (E p io c o B , EanbM O H T, C o n o r y G , M e p eacx o B C K H ft, r n n n u y c h n p .) . A y w a jo , b 6 o n b u io f t c r e n e H H T y r H rp a n H p o n b , c o a h o h c r o p o H b i, 6 jih 3 k h c jiH H H bie o T H o u ieH H a A u o p e e B a c n p e n c r a B H re n a M h jiH T e p a T y p H o ro p e a n H 3 M a, o co O eH H o c fo p b K H M , c n p y r o f t c r o p o H b t R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 109 Iulii Bunin writes: “N. D. Teleshov was his godfather when Andreev got married to his first wife A. M. Veligorskaia. S. S. Goloushev displayed a special concern for Leonid Nikolaevich, when the later was sick or worried at some difficult moments.”3 0 Andreev asked Belousov to be his godfather at his second wedding.3 1 The camaraderie of the group is shown in the tradition of nicknames. Members received street names that were to convey their personalities. This was called “giving [your] address” and was done in good fun. Upon Andreev’s arrival to the group, he was called “Grand New Project Street” (Bol’shoi Novo- Proektirovannyi pereulok). Later, Andreev argued that since he had written so much about corpses, he should be called “Vagankovo Cemetery” (Vagan’kovo kladbishche). Eventually the new nickname stuck.3 2 The literary influence of Andreev’s participation at Sreda meetings should not be overlooked. It was due to the intervention of Sreda members that Andreev had his first book published. Andreev had sold the rights to his stories to a publisher, who had no intention of publishing a book in the near future. With the expanded role of Gorky at Znanie, Sreda members went to the publisher and - M O C K O B C K a* naccuBHOCTb AnapeeBa, 3acTaBJutBiuafl ero npitHHMaTb 5K H 3H b Tax, K aic ona cjioaciuiacb. 3 0 RGALI, f. 1292 op. 2, ed. khr. 2. lu. Bunin, “Doklad i kratkii otchet o deiatel’nosti tseliakh i zadachakh kruzhka ‘Sreda’.’’ Also see Ninov, 145. H. fl. TejiemoB 6bui ero nocaaceHHbiM otuom, Kor.ua AuapeeB xettHJicx Ha nepBoii CBoeft aceue A. M. BejinropcKofi, C. C. TojioyuieB npoHBjuui ocoSbie 3a6oTbt o JleoHHae HmcojiaeBHHe Kor.ua nocrieflHHfi Sojien hjih nepeacHBan KaKHe-jmGo xjDKejibie MHHyrbi. *Goloushev was also Andreev’s bestman at his first wedding; see Literatumoe nasledstvo. vol. 84, book 1, 538. 3 1 Belousov, 144. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 110 bought back the rights for Andreev’s collection of stories. Teleshov writes: “To everyone’s delight the publisher himself was happy that he would not have to publish this Andreev somebody, waste paper and offer assistance. In moments they changed the agreements, gave back the 500 rubles, received the manuscript and went straight to the post office and sent it to the printing house in St. Petersburg.”3 3 It was at a Sreda meeting that Gorky and Andreev first discussed co- authoring the play The Astronomer (Astronom), which eventually led to Gorky’s Children o f the Sun (Deti solntsa) and to Andreev’s To the Stars. Andreev’s story “The Christians” resulted from a conversation with Elpat’evskii and Gorky about a newspaper article. In 1907, Andreev suggested to Serafimovich that they write together a play about student life. This later became Andreev’s Days o f Our Lives (Dni nashei zhizni).3 4 Andreev also wrote a book with Goloushev (under the signatures of Sergei Glagol’ and James Lynch) about the Moscow Art Theater.3 5 Andreev was an active participant in Sreda until around 1906. After the death of his first wife in Berlin, Andreev spent six months on the island of Capri. Upon his return to Russia, he rarely went to Moscow. His move to the publishing house Shipovnik caused further problems as Sreda had been closely linked to 3 2 Teleshov, Zapiski pisatelia. 68. 3 3 Teleshov, Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 153-154. K o 6 m e M y yaoB O JibC T B tuo, r a a a t e j i b caiu 6 b u t paa, hto He h\okho 6 y .n e T n e n a T a t b K a x o ro -T o AaapeeBa, TpaTHTb n a Hero 6 y M a r y h xjionoTbi. B MHHyry pa3Metuumcb aoropaMH, oxztanH Ha3aa 500 p y ftn e ft, nojiyHtum pyxorwcb h npxMbiM xohom Ha noHTy h b nerep6ypr, b THnorpacJimo. 3 4 Ledenev, 62. 35 Dzhems Linch i Sergei Glagol’, Pod vpechatleniem Khudozhestvennoeo teatra (Moscow: I. N. Kushnerev i Ko, 1902). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. I ll Znanie. This did not mean that he still did not long for Sreda and all that it represented - friendship and support. Andreev sent works to Moscow to be read and on a few occasions, he went to Moscow and participated in meetings. In 1912, the following article appeared in a Moscow daily: Yesterday, in the apartment of N. D. Teleshov, in a small group of friends consisting mainly of members of the “old” Sreda, L. N. Andreev read his play Professor Storitsyn. At the reading were present: I. A. Belousov, Iu. A. Bunin, I. A. Bunin, V. V. Veresaev, A. E. Gruzinskii, S. S. Goloushev, B. K. Zaitsev, A. A. Korzinkin, I. I. Popov, S. D. Razumovskii, I. S. Shmelev, M. P. Chekhova, the artists Pervukhin, Shanks, and others. The play made an impression and evoked a lively exchange of opinions.3 In the fall of 1907, Andreev attempted to organize a Sreda group in St. Petersburg. He even wrote to Gorky: “I have transferred the Moscow Sreda to here.”3 7 The participants at this St. Petersburg version included: Blok, Belousov, V. Tan-Bogoraz, Ivan Bunin, A. Volynskii, Zaitsev, Naidenov, S. Sergeev- Tsenskii, Sologub, N. Khodotov, Chirikov, and Chulkov. As before, participants read and discussed new literary works. However, it was not the same and Andreev 3 6 V la d y k in , 40. Q u o t e d f r o m “L. N. A n d r e e v v M o s k v e ,” S t o l i c h n a i a M o s k v a . 3 D e c e m b e r (1912). B u e p a b K B a p ritp e H . ff,. T e n e u io B a b tcchom K p y ry 3HaKOM bix, b oojib u iH H C T B e - hjichob c r a p b ix « C p e a » JT. H. A a a p e e B m r r a n cboio n b e c y « n p o ( J > e c c o p C r o p H i i b i H » . Ha htchhh npH cyT C T B O B ajm : H . A. B e jio y c o B , K ) . A. Eymw, H . A. EyH H H , B. B. B e p e c a e B , A. E. T pyiH H CK H ft, C. C. T o jio y m e B , E. K . 3 a ftu e B , A. A. K op3ttH K H H , H. H. ll o n o B , C. # . Pa3yM O BCKH it, H. C. U lM e jie B , M . n. H e x o B a , xyaoxcH H K H ITepB yxH H , U laH K C h a p y r n e . I l b e c a n p o iQ B e n a B n en aT jieH H e h B bi3B ana whboR o6 mch M H e tn tti. 371. Anisimov, ed., Gor’kii i Leonid Andreev, neizdannaia nereniska. Literatumoe nasledstvo, vol. 72 (Moscow: Nauka, 1965), 300. A c t o a a n e p e n e c mockobckhc c p e a u . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 112 was disappointed that he could not recreate the atmosphere of the Moscow meetings.3 8 If it was the camaraderie and youthful excitement that bound the Sreda members together, it is understandable why Andreev could not recreate the Sreda meetings in St. Petersburg. The dynamics were different. They were now a decade older and many had been famous for some time. Blok captures the disastrous mood and Andreev’s dilemma. He writes: In the room there is a crowd of people, almost everyone is a writer, many of whom are famous. But what they talked about is not clear. No one is connected with anyone else. Between everyone there were black gaps, like outside the window and the most apart from everyone - the loneliest - was L. N. Andreev. The more sweet, the more obliging as a host, the more alone he was.3 9 Teleshov is concerned with Andreev’s participation in Sreda. Therefore, the memoir describes the period 1900 to 1906 in greatest detail. This was when Andreev lived in Moscow and regularly attended meetings. The core idea of the portrait shows that meetings were at the center of a larger friendship that extended beyond literary boundaries. Teleshov captures this in describing Gorky’s introduction of Andreev to the group, the rescuing of Andreev’s book for 3 8 Belousov, 139. According to Belousov, Andreev also wanted to organize Sreda-type literary meetings when he lived in Finland (139-140). 3 9 A. Blok, “Vospominaniia,” in Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 98. B KOMHare - Macca juoneft, Bee noHTH nucaxejiH, m h o to mBecTHbix; h o o h cm roBopsT, KeiUBecTHo; hhkto hh c KeM He CBfuaH, M exny BceMH nepHeiOT npoBanbi, xax 3a okhom, h caMbiit oTflejieHHbifi ot Bcex, — caMbiit oahhokhh, — JI. H. A aapeeB ; h neM oh MHJiee, nest oh ju o 6 e 3 H e e tcatc xo3bhh, TeM o o j i e e oahhok. * Sergeev-Tsenskii tells about two o f Andreev's Sreda meetings in St. Petersburg. At one, Andreev read his play Tsar Hunger (Tsar* Golod) and at the second, Blok read Andreev's “Darkness” (T’ma). See S. Sergeev-Tsenskii. Radost' tvorchestva (Simferopol. Crimea: 1969), 167-169. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 113 publication by Znanie, meeting Gorky in Podol’sk, Andreev’s wedding party and the organization of the literary evening that ended in Andreev’s arrest. The second half of the portrait attempts to soften Andreev’s departure from Moscow and therefore Sreda. In this shorter section, Teleshov describes how Andreev continued to send manuscripts to Moscow to be read and how he himself longed to be with his friends.4 0 Similar to Zaitsev’s portrait, it is clear that Teleshov’s connection to Andreev is limited following his departure and therefore the memoir takes on a melancholic tone even though Teleshov continues to drive home the point that Andreev was always an important (and much loved) member of Sreda. It must be remembered, however, that Sreda (and Andreev’s participation after 1906) should be viewed in the context of a developing polarization among members. Historical events took their toll on personal relationships as political loyalties began to supersede literary ones. Sreda (as remembered fondly by Teleshov) came to an end in 1909 and friendships were tested even further following the revolution. Serafimovich left Sreda unceremoniously; Ivan Bunin, Zaitsev and Kuprin went abroad after the revolution, although Kuprin returned (in order to die in Russia); Gorky and Shaliapin became representatives of the Soviet Union, although Shaliapin went abroad in 1922 and Gorky stayed in Italy until the 4 0 Veresaev’s version o f this period is much more negative. He writes that although Andreev continued to send very heartfelt letters, he saw less and less o f Andreev when he was in Moscow. Finally, Veresaev suggested to Andreev that it would be better to quit writing such letters if they were not actually going to see each other. See: Veresaev, 420. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 114 1930s; Andreev and Chirikov found themselves in Finland once the borders were moved. More specifically, Andreev was greatly disappointed when many rejected his invitation in 1916 to publish in Russian Will. For all intents and purposes, this marked the end of his friendship with many former Sreda members. Veresaev describes the final meeting in 1916 when Andreev’s Samson in Chains was read. He tells how not a word was said about the play after its reading. “Andreev did not ask for opinions, talking all the time about extraneous things. No one thought it possible to give an opinion without his invitation. It was obvious that he did not need this, and it would be unpleasant. Looking at him, it was strange to remember the earlier Andreev, how greedily he listened to the harshest criticism from all of Sreda.”4 1 The problem with Teleshov’s core idea is that Andreev’s active participation in the circle ended in 1906 and the “old” Sreda itself lasted only three more years. Seemingly, in an attempt to solidify his own legacy as the founder of the literary circle, Teleshov has stretched the boundaries of Sreda to include the relationships that developed within the group and continued beyond 1909. In many ways, Zaitsev and Teleshov create similar portraits. However, where they diverge is in their final assessment. Zaitsev argues that Andreev lived the second half of his life in isolation. Although Teleshov also bleakly portrays 4 1 Veresaev, 420-421. A a n p e e B H e r tp o c tu i B b tc x a a a T b c * , B e e Bpe.wa r o B o p w i o n o c ro p o H H e M ; hhkto H e c n e ji bo3mo3 khmm H anaTb BbicKa3biBaTbca 6 e 3 e r o n p H n n a m e H ifx . A e s ty a x o , bhjuimo, 6b u io H e H yw H O , h 6bijio 6bi R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 115 Andreev’s life in Finland, his core idea is that the bond of friendship was never broken. This, at first, seems like a very minor difference. Nonetheless, when Belyi’s memoir is added to the collection, the interpretations become more important. Belyi had the advantage of reading the first edition of A Book About Leonid Andreev and therefore was in dialogue, to some degree, with Zaitsev and Teleshov. Belyi enters the gap between the two and argues that Andreev did not belong to Sreda completely - that his discordant life connected him with the modernists. Belyi is suggesting that this is why Andreev moved away from Moscow and formed allegiances with the writers of the other literary camp. In order to come to grips with these memoirs, we must realize that some authors are more subjective than others when writing literary portraits. Kardin writes: “Subjectivity is inevitable and imperative in memoirs. But as soon as it starts contradicting life itself or giving into reality, it stops being a virtue and turns into a shortcoming, a vice.”4 2 The memoirist’s truth is as relative as any other truth. But biographical truths are also fictions in the literal (etymological) sense of the word: in HenptMTHO h, maim Ha Hero, crpaHHo S bijio BcnoMHtm* npexcHero AaapeeBa, iaic acaaHO BbicnyuiHBaBiuero Ha Tex ace «Cpeaax» caMyto cypoByio KpHTHKy. 42 V. Kardin, “Segodnia o vcherashnem,” Voprosv literaturv. no. 9 (1961): 54. Cy(h>eKTHBHocTb Hen36eacHa h Heo6xoaHMa b MeMypax. Ho c t o h t eft BcrymiTb b npoTHBopeHHe c acH3Hbio turn cnacoBaTb nepea peanbHocTbio, ro aocroHHCTBa oHa npeBpawaeTca b HeaocraToic, b nopoK. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 116 biographical or memoir writing the subject’s image is fashioned to suit the overt or hidden, conscious or unconscious ambitions of each individual writer.4 3 This means that in a collection of portraits, the critic must make an objective assessment of which memoir best approximates the historical facts. In this case, Teleshov comes the closest when one examines the portraits as a collection of biographical statements. Belyi’s claims are based on his own interpretation of Andreev’s works in an attempt to appropriate him for the modernist movement. Zaitsev displays his own sense of alienation from Andreev/Moscow and projects this onto the memoir, while Teleshov describes the role of Sreda in Andreev’s life. He does not avoid Andreev’s movement away from the group, but uses it to show that Sreda was more than just a literary circle. He uses the difficulty of this separation to highlight the strong bonds of friendship that were created and the difficulties Andreev experienced in moving away. This assessment seems to approximate or even capture the historical facts to the greatest degree o f accuracy. From this examination of three biographical portraits about Andreev, we can draw certain conclusions: 1) Andreev’s life can be understood as a whole, made out of two halves. The first half includes Andreev’s struggles as a young writer, rise to fame, marriage to his first wife and his life in Moscow. The second half is centered on his home in Finland, his second marriage, an interest in the theater, 4 3 Justin Doherty, “The Image o f Nikolai Gumilev in the Memoir Writings o f Georgii Ivanov,” Irish R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 117 hobbies and family. However, during both parts of his life, Andreev experienced great emotional and psychological difficulties, which make it impossible to describe one part as better or worse than the other. 2) Andreev and his literary works, at times, coincided with modernist sensibilities and therefore, for certain modernists, Andreev seemed to be an unwitting comrade-in-arms. However, his social background, “lack of culture,” and allegiance to the realist literary camp precluded any serious participation in modernist circles. 3) Sreda’s role in Andreev’s life was not only literary and/or political. More importantly, Sreda provided Andreev with friendships that lasted his entire life. Even when he left Moscow, Andreev maintained these friendships, but never again was able to recreate the original camaraderie of this group. In creating the posthumous image of Andreev, these portraits have contributed to inaccuracies in Andreev’s legacy. Belyi’s memoir gives credence to a line of criticism that wants to assign Andreev to the modernist circle. As a result, Bezzubov’s entire book is dedicated to addressing this discourse.4 4 Zaitsev’s memoir has created the impression that Andreev’s life in Finland was isolated and full o f suffering. Beklemisheva and others have even refuted this claim; however, Zaitsev was the first to establish such a system of interpretation and his has become the standard for all but a few who specialize in Andreev.4 5 Teleshov’s memoir has Slavonic Studies, no. 18 (1997): 87-88. u V. Bezzubov, Leonid Andreev i traditsii russkogo realizing (Tallin: Eesti Raamat, 1984). 4 5 V. Beklemisheva, “Vospominaniia,” in Rekviem: Pamiati Leonida Andreeva (Moscow: Federatsiia, 1930). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 118 been a victim of politics. Because Teleshov remained in the Soviet Union and Gorky participated in Sreda, this memoir has been used mainly in political and literary debates. These relate to whether Andreev was a realist or a modernist; whether he was politically active (in a pro-Bolshevik sense) or counterrevolutionary. The fact that Teleshov’s portrait does not specifically address these issues has been largely ignored. Each of these inaccuracies contributes to a slightly biased portrait. Imagine a painting composed by several artists. One artist colors the sitter’s eyes blue even though they are green. The next artist ignores the fact that the sitter has a slight scar on his left cheek. The third artist decides that the sitter would look better in a gray suit, instead of the light summer shirt he is wearing. Each of these minor changes alters the portrait to such a degree that when combined, the sitter is no longer represented faithfully in the painting. The changes are minor and may not be immediately noticed. However, anyone relying on this portrait in the future will repeat these inaccuracies - blue eyes, the lack of a scar (which may be telling about the individual’s past and fiery personality) and a gray suit (which conveys something about the individual’s personality that is drastically different from a light summer shirt). In this same way, the slight inaccuracies of the literary portrait warp the overall understanding of the subject. The goal of the critic of biographical portraits is to remind the audience of the green eyes, the scar and the light summer R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 119 shirt so that the inaccuracies do not distract from the larger picture, the historically accurate parts of the picture. All three memoirs provide valuable information about Andreev. Each one approaches its subject from a slightly different angle and even the points of intersection can be interesting when read together. However, in order to make sense out of the portraits, both as single discourses and as parts of an anthology, the authors’ subjective appraisals must be identified and hopefully stripped away to provide a better understanding of Andreev for the historical record. After all, these three authors chose to write biographical portraits to add to Andreev’s life history. It is to this end that these three chapters have addressed the existence and level of subjectivity in the literary portraits of Zaitsev, Belyi and Teleshov. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 120 5 Now Leonid Andreev in my eyes divided into two: one is frightening, inquiring, suffering; the other is simple, happy, loves life, a sportsman; in a black velvet shirt with a Christ-like face he resembled more a painter. — Vasilii Kamenskii In her book on the Russian literary memoir, Vatnikova-Prizel describes the literary portrait as a fragment of a memoiristic whole, but completely independent as a text.1 If the author is to be successful in this portrait, he or she should uncover the subject’s character and “inner world,” which heretofore have been unknown.2 A chapter of this book is devoted to Chukovskii’s (1882-1969) collection o f literary portraits - Contemporaries (Sovremenniki).3 Vatnikova-Prizel identifies many o f the stylistic devices that Chukovskii uses in creating his literary memoirs. He often employs outside texts, such as articles, literary reviews, letters, memoirs of others, etc., to supplement his own portrait. At times, Chukovskii reverts to “commentary.” This is when an author not only describes an episode, but also tells why it is important or what it means. This is typical of most types of memoir literature, but in the case of the literary 1 Vatnikova-Prizel, O russkoi memuamoi Literature: Kriticheskie analizv i bibliographiia (East Lansing: Russian Language Journal, 1978), 33-3S. 2 Ibid., 119. •Chukovskii states that his goal as a literary critic was to “open in each [of my subjects] those characteristics, which have not been noticed by other cridcs’’ (onqjbiTb b K aacflO M H 3 hhx re uepTbi, K O Topbie H e 6bijni noAM eneHbi npyrHM H HccjieflOBaTejuiM H). See K. Chukovskii, “Avtobiografiia” in Russkie poetv: Antoloeiia v chetvrekh tomakh. vol. 4 (Moscow: Detskaia literatura, 1968), 710. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 121 portrait, it creates a dual narrator - the narrator that participated in the event and the narrator that is giving commentary. Specifically in the case of Chukovskii, this results in a particular double: the participant narrator and the literary critic.4 It is this duality of literary critic and participant narrator that will be the starting point for our discussion. We will first look at two works of literary criticism written by Chukovskii about Andreev. We will then juxtapose these with his literary portrait. The core ideas of Chukovskii’s literary criticism resonate in the memoir and show the development of his understanding of Andreev - beginning as criticism and ending as a portrait. Chukovskii once wrote to Gorky that for his portraits he studied both his subjects’ lives and their works to provide a “psychological conclusion.”5 This being the case, the second part of this chapter will discuss Chukovskii’s account of Andreev’s behavior, which supports a diagnosis o f bipolar disorder. Specifically, it is the manic and highly creative periods that Chukovskii has captured and placed in a positive light. For Chukovskii, these manic periods unite both Andreev’s life and his art. The two are described as one in the same. 3 Z. Vatnikova-Prizel, “‘Sovremenniki, K. Chukovskogo,” in O russkoi memuamoi literature: Kriticheskie analizv i bibliographiia. 117-127. 4 A. Tepliashina argues that this duality o f literary critic and portraitist gives Chukovskii’s memoirs an added dimension of characterization, by combining both the subject’s biography and literary style. See A. Tepliashina, “Literatumyi portret v tvorchestve Komeia Chukovskogo” in Russlrii literatumvi portret i retsenziia: Kontseptsii i poetika. ed. V. Perkhin (St. Petersburg: Iz-vo Sankt- Peterburgskogo Universiteta, 2000), 56-63. 5 “Chukovskii K. I. - Gor’komu A. M.: 1920 god,” Voprosv literaturv. no. 1 (1972): 158. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 122 In 1908, Chukovskii published a critical essay within his book of essays Leonid Andreev: Big and Little (Leonid Andreev: Bol’shoi i malen’kii).6 The central idea in this essay is that Andreev’s characters put on various ugly faces. Andreev has a different face for each story. In 1911, Chukovskii published About Leonid Andreev (O Leonide Andreeve).7 In 1914, it was republished in Faces and Masks (Litsa i maski).8 Here, Chukovskii says that he associates Andreev’s works with playbills. They are big modem colorful works of art made for the masses. Chukovskii feels that Andreev’s various themes control him and force him into playing the roles of his characters. In 1922, Chukovskii published his literary memoir of Andreev in A Book About Leonid Andreev.9 Here he describes Andreev as a man who is infected by periods of mania - first he is a sailor, then a painter and so forth. These delusional periods in turn affect Andreev’s literary works as he relies on inspiration for his art. In both Chukovskii’s literary criticism and his memoir of Andreev, he expresses the belief that Andreev’s life and art are one, not simply in the sense that Andreev draws details from his life to include in his stories, but rather that he 6 Kornei Chukovskii, “Kriticheskii ocherk,” in Leonid Andreev: Bol’shoi i malen’kii (St. Petersburg: Izdatel’skoe biuro, 1908), 19-62. 7 Kornei Chukovskii. O Leonide Andreeve (St. Petersburg: Russkaia skoropechatnia, 1911). 8 Kornei Chukovskii, “Leonid Andreev” in Sobranie sochinenii. vol. 6 (Moscow: Khudozhestvenaia literatura, 1969), 22-47. This edition gives the 1914 version o f the article. However, the reader should be aware that the core ideas were probably already existent in 1911. 9 Chukovskii’s memoir should probably be dated 1919 as there appeared “Iz vospominanii o L.N. Andreeve,” Vestnik literaturv. no. 11 (1919): 2-5. Chukovskii also notes in his diary on 28 October 1919 that he has written the memoir; see Dnevnik 1901-1929 (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1991), 117. However, the first full publication o f the memoir was in Kniea o Leonide Andreeve in 1922. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 123 becomes his art. The interesting point is that this line of thinking develops over the course of a decade from literary criticism about art to a memoir about life. “One attribute, one line, one thesis, one phrase grows and expands and swells...” writes Chukovskii in 1908. “Each one of Andreev’s characters has his own specialty, his own monopoly on some one emotional experience, which he exhausts to the end, and which none of his other characters ever repeats - his own patent on an ugly spiritual face;...”1 0 Chukovskii argues that these various ugly faces are glued to Andreev’s own personal “I,” just as an actor plays each of the roles drawn on his face. Andreev understands that all of these various characters “are one and the same face, one and the same actor, with different grease paint...”1 1 “Andreev walked about his enormous study talking seafarer’s shop: topsails, anchors, sails. Today he is a sailor, a sea-wolf. He even walks like a sailor. Instead of a cigarette he smokes a pipe. He has shaved off his moustache, his shirt is open at the neck like a sailor’s. His face is tanned. A pair of sea binoculars is hanging from a nail,” writes Chukovskii in his memoir more than a decade later. “We sail about the Gulf of Finland until late in the evening, and I cannot stop admiring this brilliant actor who for twenty-four hours has been playing such a new and difficult role, playing to himself, without an audience. 1 0 Chukovskii, Leonid Andreev: Bot’shot i malen’kii. 32-33. O flH O c b o R c t b o , o f l n a H ep -ro H ica , oflH H T e3 H C , o a a a 4 > p a 3 a p a c r e r h lU H p tr r c a ... y K a a r a o r o H3 r e p o e B A H a p e e B a c b o « c n e tu ta a b H O C T b , c b o h M O H o n o a n a H a K a K o e - H n 6 y a b o a h o n e p e x c H B a H H e , K o r o p o e o h H c n e p n a e r a o K o n u a , h K O T o p o e 6 o a b u i e h h y k o t o r a r e p o e B A H a p e e a a H e n o B T o p H T c a , — c B o f i c o d c D K e H H b ifi n a t e m - H a a y x o B H y i o p o a c y ; .. . “ Ibid., 48-49. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 124 How he fills his pipe, how he spits, how he looks at the toy compass! He sees himself as the captain of an ocean liner. Standing with his powerful legs set wide apart, he looks intently and silently into the distance; he gives a sharp command. Not a word to the passengers: since when does the captain of an ocean liner talk to his passengers!...1 2 “When you came to visit him again a few months later, you found he had become a painter. His hair was long and flowing, his beard short like an aesthete’s. He was wearing a black velvet jacket. His study had been transformed into a studio. He was as prolific as Rubens, not putting his brushes down all day.... You try talking about something else, but he only listens out of politeness. Tomorrow is the opening of an exhibition at the Academy of Arts, yesterday Repin came to visit him, day after tomorrow he is going to see Gallen-Kallela. You want to ask, “ What about your yacht?" But the family signals you not to ask. Once he is caught up in something, Andreev can only talk about that one thing, all his previous enthusiasms become hateful to him... He does not like to be reminded of them. When he is ...oaho h Toxce jimuo, O A M h h t o t we aKTep, no pa3H0My 3arpMMMMpOBaHHblti... 1 2 Kornei Chukovskii, “Vospominaniia,” in Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. Vospominaniia Gor’kogo, Chukovskogo, Bloka, G. Chulkova, Borisa Zaitseva, N. Teleshova, Evg. Zamiatina, A. Belogo, 2n d ed. (Berlin: Z. I. Grzhebin, 1922), 75-77. A a a p e e B xoaht n o orpoM H OM y CBoeiwy x a6itH eT y h ro B o p u T o mopckom: o S p a M c e n ax , a x o p a x , n a p y c a x . C ero A H a oh M opax, M o p cx o ft bojik. f la w e n o x o A x a c r a n a y H e ro M o p c x a a. O h x y p tr r He n a n u p o c y , a T p y 6 x y . Y c b i c 6 p tu i; m e a o T x p b rra n o -M aip o ccK H . JImuo 3 a r o p e n o e . Ha rB03Ae BHCHT MOpCKOit SHHOKAb. ...MbI HOCHMCa n o OHHCKOMy 3aJIHBy, H H He nepeCTaiO BOCXHUtaTbCH 3Thm reHHaAbHbiM axT epoM , xoT opbifi y w e A B aauaT b n eT b ip e n a c a n rp a e T , — 6 e 3 ny6AHKH, am c a M o ro c e 6 a - ctoji HOByio h T p y aH y io p o n b . K a x oh Ha6HBaeT T p y S x y , x a x oh c n n eB b tB a er, x a x oh B3rjiAAbtBaeT Ha H rp y m e m rb ift xo M n ac! O h u y c rB y e T c e 6 a xam rraH O M x ax o ro -T O o x e a H c x o ro cyA H a. U lH p o x o pa3craB H B M oryH wa H o rn , oh cocpeAOToneHHO h MOAHanHBo cm otpht BAartb; R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 125 playing an artist, he forgets his previous role as a sailor; in general, he never returns to his previous roles, however brilliantly he had played them...”1 3 In this selection from the memoir, we find that Chukovskii identifies Andreev as a great actor. First playing a ship’s captain and then a painter. The grease paints remain from Chukovskii’s 1908 article, but now the actor is real, the part is played on the stage of life. The subject is no longer Andreev’s characters but Andreev himself. And just as Andreev’s characters monopolize roles that will never be played again, Andreev plays a role until it becomes hateful to him. The various personalities that Chukovskii describes are consistent with manic behavior. Rather than just flights of creative fancy, these periods represent shifts in Andreev’s psychological condition that affected his family, friends and literary work. More importantly, these bouts of mania are the counter weight to the depression that is most often associated with Andreev. To have a full picture of his condition and of Andreev himself, it is important to investigate his manic behavior. Due to manic episodes, there is an increase in goal-directed activities, which often orpbiB H C T O 3 B y n n T e r o K O M an aa... Ha n a c c a a c w p o B - H ttx a x o r o BHHMaHHa; x a x o f t ace x a n tr ra H o iceaH C K o ro c y a H a p a 3 ro B a p tiB a e T c o c b o h m h n a c c a a c u p a M H L . 1 3 Ibid., 78-79. Koraa nepe3 Hecxoabxo MecaueB b m c h o b b npne3acaan k HeMy, oxa3MBaaocb, h t o o h acHBonnceu. Y Hero AJiiiHHbie BojiHHcrbte b o j io c u , HeSoabiuaa Sopoaxa 3creTa. Ha HeM SapxaTHaa nepHaa xypTKa. Ero xadHHer npeoopaaceH b Macrepcxyio. Oh ru io ao B H T xax PySeHc: He pa3CTaerca c K H CTBM H BeCb fleHb. ... B b t n p o 6 y e i e 3 a ro B o p H T b o a p y r o M , h o o h c a y u ia e T T o a b x o H3 B eacnuB ocT H . 3 a B T p a B epH H caac b A x a a e M H H X y a o a c e c T B , B n e p a n p n e 3 a c a a x H eM y P en H H , n o c a e 3 a B tp a o h e a e T x T a n a e H y . B b t x o m r e c n p o c tiT : a nmo otce svcma? — h o a o M a o iH tte a e a a i o r BaM 3 H 3 k h : H e cnpcauueaume. Y B a e x o iH C b x a x o ii-H H S y a b B e u tb io , A tta p e e B M o a c e r ro B o p H T a H u ib o H eit; B e e n p e a c H tu t e r o y B a en eH H X craH O B H T ca eM y HeHaBHCTHbt... Oh He a t o d t r r , e c a w eM y H an o M H H aio T o h h x . K o r a a o h R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 126 involve excessive planning of, and excessive participation in multiple activities. Sufferers of these episodes, “...may change their dress, make-up, or personal appearance to a more sexually suggestive or dramatically flamboyant style that is out of character for them.”1 4 For Andreev, the world is painted with one color. “When he writes about milk - the entire world is milk-like, and when he writes about chocolate, the entire world is chocolate - a chocolate sun and a chocolate sky illuminate chocolate people,” writes Chukovskii in 1914. “Give him any subject and it becomes for him air, his poetry, his cosmos, and everything else disappears for him.”1 5 “The main fascination for Andreev was that no matter what game he was playing, and he was always playing some game, he sincerely believed in it and invested himself fully in it and devoted all of himself to it, without holding anything back,” Chukovskii remembers of Andreev. “Every one of his enthusiasms turned into a temporary mania, which absorbed him totally. ... He did not simply write his things, he was enveloped by them like fire. He remained a maniac for a nrpaeT xyno>KHHKa, o h 3 a 6 b iB a e T cbokd npexcHoio pojib Mopsuca; Boo6me o h HHKoraa He B03BpamaeTCH k c b o h m npeacHHM poJUM, Kax 6bt dnncTaTejibHO o h h h 6bum cbirpaHbi... 1 4 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual o f Mental Disorders. 4th ed. (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994), 329-330. 1 5 Chukovskii, Sobranie sochinenii. vol. 6, 29. ...Koraa o h n u m e r o MojioKe - Becb M Hp y Hero m ojiohhuh, a Koraa o moKOJiaae — Becb M ttp uioKO/iaitHbiii, h moKonanHoe cojiHtte c uioKOJiajtHoro ne6a ocB etuaer moKojiaaHbix jnoaeii, — o, ztaftre eMy jno6yio TeMy, h OHa craH er ero B03oyxoM, ero CTHXneit, ero kocmocom, h Bee ocrajibHoe Hcne3HeT am Hero;... R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 127 time. He did not see anything except the work;... both in his literary works and in his life, he was excessive.”1 6 “This psychology of envelopment, of obsession is so instinctive for Andreev that he endows everyone with it,” writes Chukovskii in 1914. “His characters most often are monists. Doctor Kerzhentsev (from the story ‘The Thought’) thinks only about an idea, and talks only about it. The entire world for him is only an idea.”1 7 “And then there is the color photography,” remembers Chukovskii after Andreev’s death. “It was as if he himself was an entire factory, working ceaselessly in shifts, preparing all those masses of large and small photographs which were stacked up in his study, contained in special boxes and chests, overflowing on every table, mounted on the window panes. There was no comer in his house, which he had not photographed several times over... In the course of a month he made thousands o f photographs, as if fulfilling some colossal order, and when you visited him he made you look through all those thousands, ingenuously convinced that for you, too, they were a source of bliss. He could not imagine that 1 6 Chukovskii, Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 77-85. B t o m - t o h 6biao maBHoe onapoBaHHe AaapeeBa, h t o b Kaicyio 6 u ttrpy o h h h nrpaa, — a o h Bceraa Hrpan b Kaxyio-HHoyab arpy, — o h ucicpeHHO Bepan b Hee h oTaaBaaca eft Becb oe3 ocranca. ... K a a c a o e H3 e r o y B a e n e H H ft n p e B p a m a n o c b H a BpeM X b M aH H io, n o m o m a B i n y i o e r o uejiH K O M ___ O h H e npocro nucaa cboh B euiH , oh 6bia oxBaneH hmh KaK n o a c a p o M . O h craHOBancH Ha BpeMB M aHbHKOM, He Bitaeji H H H ero , KpoMe Hee;... n o o h b TBopnecxBe, KaK b % h 3 h h , 6bui npe3MepeH;... 1 7 Chukovskii, Sobranie sochinenii. vol. 6, 33. O r a n c H x o a o n t a oxB aneH H O C T H , oaepacH M O cT H a o T o r o n p a c y m a A H a p e e B y , h t o e io o h H a a e ju e T B c e x . E r o r e p o i i n a m e B c e ro - MOHOMaHbt. ^ o i c r o p K e p a c e H u e B (1 1 3 n o B e c n t « M b ic a b » ) a y M a e r TOJibKo o M b tc a n , T oabK O o H eft h r o B o p ir r - B e c b MHp aaa H e ro T o a b K o M b ic a b . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 128 there might be people who could find his plates uninteresting. It was touching to 1 8 hear him trying to persuade everyone to buy a camera for color photography.” It becomes difficult to distinguish which passages were written as literary criticism in 1914 and which were written as a memoir eight years later when they are mixed together. From the very beginning, Chukovskii explained that Andreev was obsessed with ideas, and his stories and characters mirrored this obsession. Understanding an author’s works and life as intertwined is not uncommon, especially at a time of active “life creation” by many Symbolists. However, Chukovskii, especially in his memoir, goes beyond the simple “decoding” of characters and motifs. This is not the same as disentangling the triangular relationship between Belyi, Briusov and Nina Petrovskaia in The Fiery Angel (Ognennyi Angel). It is not deciphering the major players in Blok’s The Puppet Booth (Balaganchik). Chukovskii picks up very early on Andreev’s mania. He understands that this mania makes Andreev artistically creative. He writes in 1914: “Andreev does not control the subjects, the subjects control him.”1 9 This is so 1 8 Chukovskii, Kniga o Leonide Andreeve. 79. A noTOM uBeTttafi 4>OTorpa4>na. Ka3aitocb, h to He oanH neaoBeK, a KaKaa-TO orpoMHaa 4>a6pnKa, paSoTaiomaa 6e3ocraHOBOHHO b HecKOJibKO cMeu, inroTOBuna B ee 3t h HencnucaiiMbie rpyaw 6ojibuiHX h ManeHbKHX 4>oTorpa<t>H<iecKHX c h h m k o b , KOToptie 6buiu CBaneHM y Hero b Ka6HHeT, xpaHHJiHCb b ocoGbix aapax h KopoGxax, BttceaH Ha oxuax, 3arpoMoacaarm c t o jim . H e 6biao Taxoro ym a b ero aane, xoTopbift o h He cHaa 6bi no Hecxoabxy pa3_ _ B TeneH H e M e c au a o h c a e a a a tb ic x m h c h h m k o b , — c jio b h o B btnoiiH aa xaKoii-TO KOJioccaribHbift 3aKa3, — h , K o ra a Bbi npnxoiuum k HeMy, o h 3 a c ra B jia jt Bac pa3CM aTpnBaTb B ee 3 t h T bicanH , n p o c ro a y u iH O ysep eH H b tii, h t o h aim B ac o h h — h c t o h h h k GiiaxceHCTBa. Oh He M o r B oo6pa3H Tb, h t o e cn > jnoitH , a n a KOTopbix 3 t h creio ib tu iK H HeHHTepecHbi. Oh T poraT enbH O y n p a im tB a ji K aacao ro x y n iiT b c e 6 e uB eTH yio (^ o ro rp a ^ H io . 1 9 Chukovskii, Sobranie sochinenii. vol. 6, 31. H e A H ap eeB B a a a e e r TeMaMH, a TeMbi B a a a e io r h m . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 129 much the case that Chukovskii argues in this article that he is afraid that he does not know the real Andreev.2 0 Chukovskii’s literary portrait is a montage of various impressions from his meetings with Andreev in Finland. He had written literary criticism about Andreev as early as 1902, but they did not share a close relationship until several years later.2 1 The two met for the first time face to face in 1903, while Chukovskii was visiting Moscow. Andreev showed him around the city and introduced him to Moscow literary society. They did not meet again until after Chukovskii’s returned from England in 1904. Chukovskii was a frequent guest of Andreev’s in St. Petersburg and the two spent part of the summer together in Kuokkala, Finland in 1907. It was during this time, that Chukovskii was instrumental in introducing Andreev to Tolia Denisevich, which led to his marriage to Anna in 1908. In 1912, Chukovskii and his family moved their permanent residence to Kuokkala, where he was in close contact with I. Repin and Andreev. Chukovskii does not date any of the encounters described in his portrait, being more interested in capturing Andreev’s inner world; therefore, the portrait lacks a strict line of chronology.2 2 However, it is from this Finnish period of Andreev’s life, beginning as early as 1908, that Chukovskii depicts their various meetings. 2 0 Ibid., 38. 2 1 See Odesskie novosti. no. 5567,21 June (1902): 1; Odesskie novosti. no. 5570, 24 June (1902): 1. 22 From various sources (Chukovskii’s diary, “Letters o f Leonid Andreev” and his notebook Chukokkala). some o f Chukovskii’s visits to Vammelsuu can be attested to: 31 May-02 June 1909, a boat ride in 1910, 09 June 1914,08 August 1914,08 August 1915. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 130 When he began to write his literary portrait in 1919, Chukovskii returned to the same core ideas found in his literary criticism. In fact, he mentions twice in his diary during 1919 that he does not feel that Andreev is dead and that he has written the memoir as if Andreev were alive.2 3 This is evident upon reading a later version of the Andreev memoir in Contemporaries. Chukovskii has added a section entitled “Letters of Leonid Andreev” (Pis’ma Leonida Andreeva). The tone of this section is much different, and it is clear that Chukovskii is writing about Andreev for the historical record. If it is the case that Chukovskii was refining his portrait of Andreev for a decade, first as literary criticism and later as a literary memoir, then his portrait should reflect a coherent line of discourse connecting seemingly random episodes. If Chukovskii could not imagine that Andreev was dead, then his memoir should tell about the living man. Chukovskii has captured Andreev’s creative moments, revealing the degree of his mania. Someone who suffers from bipolar disorder will move between periods of depression/inactivity and mania/hyperactivity. For creative people, these periods of mania are often their most productive periods. Kay Jamison writes: “My manias, at least in their early and mild forms, were absolutely intoxicating states that gave rise to great personal pleasure, an incomparable flow of thoughts, and a ceaseless energy that allowed the translation 2 3 Chukovskii, Dnevnik 1901-1929. 118 and 121. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 131 of new ideas into these fast-flowing, high-flying times,...”2 4 Andreev certainly suffered periods of depression, but Chukovskii reveals the world of Andreev’s high-flying mania, his creative periods, the part of his illness that made him a successful literary figure. A review of some basic literature highlights many of his traits: Manic symptoms in bipolar disorder tend to be extreme, and there is significant impairment of occupational and social functioning. A person who experiences a manic episode has a markedly elevated, euphoric, and expansive mood, often interrupted by occasional outbursts of irritability or even violence - particularly when others refuse to go along with the manic person’s antics and schemes. ...A notable increase in goal-directed activity may occur, which sometimes may appear as an unbelievable restlessness, and mental activity may also speed up, so that the person may evidence a “flight of ideas” or thoughts that “race” through the brain. Distractibility, high levels of verbal output in speech or in writing, and a severely decreased need for sleep may occur.... Many highly creative people are believed to have had bipolar disorder, going through intense productivity in their creative medium during manic phases, and often through unproductive periods when clinically depressed.2 5 Andreev is not the first creative person to suffer from extreme mood swings and some may even argue that genius and insanity are entwined. Artists such as William Blake, Lord Byron, Sylvia Plath, Vincent van Gogh, Georgia O’Keeffe, Cole Porter, Tennessee Williams, Virginia Woolf and many others have suffered from “that fine madness.” Interestingly, Edgar Allan Poe, a favorite of Andreev’s, also belongs in this group. One percent of the general population 2 4 Kay Redfield Jamison, An Unquiet Mind: A Memoir o f Moods and Madness (London: Picador, 1996), 6. 2 5 Robert C. Carson, James N. Butcher, Susan Mineka, eds., Abnormal Psychology and Modem Life. 10th ed. (New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1998), 210-212. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 132 suffers from bipolar disorder and five percent from major depression or unipolar disorder. Bipolar disorder afflicts equal numbers of women and men, and more than a third of all cases surface before the age of twenty. A large majority of adolescents and adults who commit suicide have a history of bi or unipolar illness. “It would be wrong to label anyone who is unusually accomplished, energetic, intense, moody or eccentric as manic-depressive. All the same, recent studies indicate that a high number of established artists - far more than could be expected by chance - meet diagnostic criteria for manic-depression or major depression... In fact, it seems that these diseases can sometimes enhance or otherwise contribute to creativity in some people.”2 6 This is not to say that Andreev, by being bipolar, was constantly either manic or depressed. Manic-depressives can go through long periods of time without symptoms or even with milder (almost unnoticeable) expressions of the illness. Even more confusing may be the mixed states. This is when both elements of mania and depression exist at the same time. For example, Andreev writes to his future second wife Anna Il’inichina: “I wrote something insane to you - forgive 2 6 Kay Redfield Jamison, “Manic-Depressive Illness and Creativity,” Scientific American. February (1995): 64. Also, Arnold Ludwig finds: “Those in the creative arts not only experience emotional difficulties earlier in life and over a longer time span but they also display greater rates o f alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, mania, somatic problems, anxiety, psychoses, and adjustment disorders and, consequently, undergo most forms o f psychiatric therapy more often.” See Arnold M. Ludwig, “Creative Achievement and Psychopathology: Comparison among Professions,” American Journal o f Psychotherapy, vol. 46 (1992): 330-356. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 133 me. For some time now, especially the last couple days in St. Petersburg, I have found myself in such a melancholic and wild condition.”2 7 Jamison writes: Madness or psychosis, represents only one end o f the manic- depressive continuum, however; most people who have the illness, in fact, never become insane. Likewise, work that may be inspired by, or partially executed in, a mild or even psychotically manic state may be significantly shaped or partially edited while its creator is depressed and put into final order when he or she is normal. It is the interaction, tension and transition between changing mood states, as well as sustenance and discipline drawn from periods of health, that is critically important; and it is these same tensions and transitions that ultimately give such power to the art that is bom in this way.2 8 Extremes in a person are easier to describe than the intricate play of emotions that are usually found in individuals. Just as Blok and Chulkov choose to highlight the darker side o f Andreev’s character, Chukovskii has described the creative exuberance of mania. However, both of these extremes, as well as periods of “normalcy”, were possible in the chemical cocktail of Andreev’s brain. Andreev wrote to A. Izmailov at the end of August 1902 about his illness: “I sit and am in despair about something invisible. Either it is because I am sick (without an abrupt attack) all of the time and my nerves are like that of a hysterical woman’s, or because somewhere, sometime, by some strange turn of events, I have lost and cannot seem to find myself.”2 9 2 7 LRA MS 606\ G .ll.i. Letter o f 26 November 1907. i t B aM H a n a c a n h t o - t o 6 e 3 y M H o e — n p o c T tr r e M e tu i. B e e n o c jie a H e e BpeM X, o c o S e u H O n o c Jie a H H e a h h b CnE., x h o x o a h jic x b TaKOM n en an b H O M h h h k o m c o c t o x h h h . 2 8 Kay Redfield Jamison, Touched With Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament (New York: The Free Press, 1993), 5-6. 2 9 RGALI, f. 11, op. 1, ed. kh. 34,1.3. Letter o f 30-31 August 1902 from Andreev to A. Izmailov. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 134 During these periods of mania, mood and self-esteem are elevated. The sufferer is more productive, has abundant energy and sleeps less. Speech is rapid, excitable, intrusive and thoughts move quickly and fluidly from one topic to another. One is often convinced that he or she is right and that his or her ideas are important. This results in grandiose and impulsive behavior.3 0 Chukovskii writes in his memoir: You sit listening on the couch, while he walks about delivering monologues. He always delivers monologues. His speech is rhythmical and flowing. Every so often he stops, pours himself a glass of strong, cold, black tea, knocks it back in one go, like a glass of vodka, feverishly swallows a caramel and carries on talking, talking... He talks about God, about death, about all sailors believing in God and how, surrounded by chasms, they feel the closeness of death throughout their lives; contemplating the stars every night, they become poets and sages. If they could express what they feel while on watch somewhere in the Indian Ocean beneath the enormous stars, they would eclipse Shakespeare and Kant... But at last he grows tired. His monologue is interrupted by long pauses. His step becomes listless. It is half past five. He drinks another couple of glasses, picks up a candle and goes to bed: “Tomorrow we will go out in Sawa [his boat -- FHW].” A bed has been made for you nearby, in the tower. You lie down but cannot fall asleep. You think to yourself: “How tired he must be! After all, tonight he covered at least twelve miles walking about his study, and if what he said tonight had been written down, it would make a sizeable book. What a crazy waste of energy!”3 1 CH%y h TOCKyio HeBtuoM O o qeM b. To jih o to m , h t o x Bee BpeMX 6 o n e H (6 e 3 T B ep a o ro 3Tatca) h HepBbi y MeHx, KaK HCTepHHHoft AaMbi; t o jih o to m , h t o m e t o , K o m a t o , n o KaKOMy t o crpaH H O M y c jiy n a io x n o x e p x ji caM o ro c e 6 x h h h k 3 k He M o ry H a irm . 3 0 Jamison, “Manic-Depressive Illness and Creativity,” 65. 3 1 Chukovskii, Kniga o Leonide Andreeve. 75-76. Bbi CHAHTe Ha AHBaHe a c a y u ia e T e , a o h x o a h t h ro B o p trr M O H oxora. O h B c e m a r o B o p a r MOHOAoni. Penb e r o parM UHHHa h T e x y n a . H n o m a o h ocraH aB A H B aercx , HanHBaeT c e 6 e craK aH R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 135 Mania tends to result in a decreased need for sleep and an aggressive desire for human contact.3 2 Virginia Woolfs nephew describes the results of his aunt’s sleepless nights: “After such nights the days brought headaches, drilling the occiput as though it were a rotten tooth; and then came worse nights; nights made terrible by the increasing weight of anxiety and depression.”3 3 Andreev was a creature of the night (he generally wrote into the early hours of the morning) and often suffered from headaches.3 4 Valentin Andreev remembers the constant refrain, “...children, quiet, papa has a headache.”3 5 Similarly, Vadim Andreev writes that Kpetmaftuioro, nepHoro, xononHoro qaa, BbimiBaeT ero 3aruioM, K aK ptoMKy boakh, jiHxopaaoqHO rjioTaeT KapaMeiibKy, — h cHOBa roBoptrr, roBopHT... roBopuT o Bore, o CM epTH, o tom, hto Bee MopsKH BepHT b Bora, hto, OKpyxceHHbie 6e3/iaHaMH, bcio > K H 3H b oiuyuiaioT frnmocrb CM epTH; eaceHoutHO co3epuaa 3Be3abi, ohh craHOBflTCfl mrnaMH h MyapeuaMH. Ecjut 6bi ohh mohih Bbipa3HTb to, hto ohh otuyiuaioT, Koraa rae-Hn6yab b HhahR ckom oxeaHe ctoht noa orpoMHbiMH 3Be3aaMH, ohh 3aTMHan 6m UleKcnupa h Kama... Ho b o t, H aK O H eu, o h ycTaa. MoHoaor npepbiBaerca anH H H biM H nay3aM H . IloxoaKa C T a H O B H T c a B suioft. IloaoBHHa mecroro. Oh B b iriH B aeT eiue aBa C TaxaH a, 6epeT CBenxy h yxoaHT k ce6e: — 3aBTpa yrpoM M b i eaeM H a «CaBBe». BaM nocraaaHo paaoM, b oauiHe. Bbt aoxcHTecb, ho He MoaceTe 3acHyTb. Bbt ayMaeTe: xax oh ycraab! Bea b 3Ty hohb oh npouiea no CBoeMy xa6HHeTy ne Memuie eoceMHadifamu eepcm, h, ecatt 6bt 3amtcaTb, hto oh roBoptta b ary H O H b, Bbtuiaa 6bt He ManeHbKax totnra. Kaxaa 6e3yMHaa TpaTa can! 3 ' Jamison, Touched With Fire. 32. 3 3 Quentin Bell, Virginia Woolf: A Biography (London: Hogarth Press, 1972), 11. 3 4 Fatov gives an interesting explanation for Andreev’s headaches. He claims that as a young child, Andreev once was playing on the floor with a girl his same age. The young girl began hitting Andreev over the head with the lid of a samovar. Andreev’s cries eventually brought help but Fatov suggests that this may be the reason for Andreev’s headaches, which he points out, doctors never could explain. See N. Fatov, Molodve godv Leonida Andreeva (Moscow: Zemlia i Fabrika, 1924), 39. Ol’gin suggests that these headaches could be traced back to an event when Andreev and his friends got into a fight with the local police. Andreev, as one o f the main instigators, received a large amount o f physical punishment. See L. Ivanova, ed., “Vospominaniia Mikhaila O-na <01’gina> o Leonide Andreeve. (Devianostye gody proshl<ogo> stoletiia chasti moskovskogo studenchestva)” in Leonid Andreev: Materialv i issledovaniia. eds. V. Keldysh and M. Koz’menko (Moscow: Nasledie, 2000), 156. 3 5 Valentin Andreev, “Chto pomniu ob ottse” in Andreevskii sbomik: Issledovaniia i materialv. ed. L. Afonin (Kursk: Kurskii gos. ped. institut, 1975), 234. ...iteTH, noT H iue, y n a n b i 6 o jih t ro n o B a. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 136 the disappearance of his father always meant that he was sick and that the children must be quiet.3 6 Vera Andreeva writes that her father increasingly suffered from headaches and insomnia, which drove him into a separate part of the house, where he could draw the shutters and rest.3 7 According to Jamison, these periods of mania are highly conducive to original thinking and often result in sharpened and unusual creativity with increased productivity. Expansive and grandiose moods may also lead to increased fluency and frequency of thought. The illness may allow one to function on only a few hours sleep, causes one to experience a depth of emotions and increases focus and intensity. It causes an alert and sensitive state. “In a sense, depression is a view of the world through a dark glass, and mania is that seen through a kaleidoscope - often brilliant but fractured.”3 8 Chukovskii writes: “Every one of his enthusiasms turned into a temporary mania, which absorbed him totally. A whole period of his life was colored by his love for gramophones - not just love, but mad passion. It was as if he had fallen ill with gramophones, and it took several months for him to be cured of his illness. No matter which trifle he was keen on at any given moment, he completely blew it out of proportion every time.”3 9 3 6 Vadim Andreev. Detstvo: Povest* (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1963), 41. 3 7 Vera Andreeva, Pom na Chemoi rechke: Povest* (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1980), 64. 3 8 Jamison, “Manic-Depressive Illness and Creativity,” 66-67. 3 9 Chukovskii, Kniga o Leonide Andreeve. 80. K aacnoe H3 e ro yBJieneHHft npeB pam anocb n a BpeMS b MaHwo, norjiotuaB utyio e ro uejittKOM. Llejiaa n o n o c a e ro hcidhh 6 w ia OKpauietia jh o S o b b k ) k rpaMO<t>oHaM, — He jik>6obe>io, a OemeHoft R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 137 It is during these times of mania, that manic-depressives exhibit pronounced combinatory thinking. They are able to sort, combine and categorize vaguely related concepts as well as experience more elaborate cognitive operations. Studies have found that rhyming, punning and sound associations increase as well as problem solving capabilities. Manics report their greatest degree of creativity during these periods due to an increased speed of associations, original thinking, and expansiveness.4 0 During times of mania, however, there are various degrees of affliction. There is hypomania, which is a less severe form of mania. The individual is ebullient and self-confident with an irritable underpinning. Acute mania is more psychotic. Cognition and perception become fragmented, paranoia and grandiose delusions are common, and incoherence and rapid thinking are prevalent. This may lead to bizarre, impulsive and grossly inappropriate behavior patterns. Delirious mania is a grave form of mania and is less common. Moods change very quickly and the individual seems highly disturbed. Chronic mania is the same as acute mania, but the individual does not recover from the manic phase 4 1 Chukovskii was not the only person to witness these manic periods. A. Kipen writes: ‘This amazing ability to catch fire, to concentrate all thoughts, all crapcTbio. Oh KaK 6bt 3a6ojieJi rpaM O(J)OHaM H, h HyacHO 6ujio HecKOiibKO MecaueB, 4To6bi oh H 3JieH H JIC H O H 3TOfl 6oJie3HH. (C aK H M 6bt nyC TH K O M O H H H yBJieKCfl, O H A O B O flH JI ero JtO K O JIO CCanbH btX pa3MepOB. 4 0 Jamison, Touched With Fire. 107-108. 4 1 Frederick K. Goodwin and Kay Redfield Jamison, Manic-Depressive Illness (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 22-25. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 138 feelings, and sensations on what occupied him at the given moment, was displayed by Andreev not only in the course of his literary work, but in just about everything that he did.”42 Chulkov gives a similar description: “I see now how he walks about his office with a cigarette burning constantly in his hands, with sparkling eyes, with a bitter smile and he continually relates a story about himself or something he has made-up — and always he is in some kind of fever, as if expecting something frightening and final.”4 3 P. Pil’skii writes of Andreev: “In Andreev’s artistic perception an element of mania is constantly present. ... If we were to talk, not about an exceptional artist, but simply about a person, it would be possible to diagnose this gravitation towards themes of the night, and of the darkness as a persecution of mania.”4 4 A. Kugel’ writes that Andreev did not bum the candle at two ends but ten. He drank strong tea and smoked hundreds of cigarettes. “There was something feverish in him, like a cloud of hashish - in his sudden flashes of thought, in brilliant, 4 1 A. Kipen, “Vospominaniia,” in Rekviem: Pamiati Leonida Andreeva (Moscow: Federatsiia, 1930), 178. 3 r a y a H B trre jib H a fl c n o c o 6 H ocn> 3 a ro p a T b c x , c o cp ea o T O H H B aT b B ee m m c jih , Bee nyB C TB a n outymeHtui H a to m , h t o 3aH H M ajio e r o J u rre p a T y p H o ii p a 6 o T b t, h o h B o o O u te b o B ceM , h t o o h a e jia ji. 4 3 G. Chulkov, Kniga o Leonide Andreeve. 111. ft K ax c e f i n a c B iix cy e r o u ia ra io m H M n o C B oeM y K adH H eT y c H e y r a c a io m e f t n a n u p o c o t t b p y x a x , c S n ecT H m n M H rn a 3 a M ii, c ro p b K o ft y jib id K o fi h B en h o n o B e cT B y io m H M o 3anyM aH H O M p a 3 K a a e h jih o caM OM c e d e — h B c e r a a b K aK oii-T o jin x o p a o K e , KaK 6 y i r r o oxititax n e r o - T o c r p a u i H o r o h n o c n e f lH e r o . 4 4 Petr Pil’skii, Kriticheskie stat’i. vol. 1 (St. Petersburg: Progress, 1910), 32. B x y a o /K e c T B e h h o m B o c n p w m m A a a p e e B a B c e r n a H ea3 6 b iB H 0 n p n c y T C T B y e T an eM eH T M aHHaKajibHOCTH. E c jih 6 bt p e n b t u n a H e 0 6 H CK ntoH trrejibH O M x y ao acH U K e, a n p o c r o o H e n o B e x e , MOHCHO ObUlO 6 bl 3TO THTOTeHHe K HOHHbIM TeMXM, H TeM , H M paK y itHaTHOCTHpOBaTb, KaK MaHHIO n p e c jie a o B a H H X . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 139 sometimes witty comments, in the way he jumped from subject to subject like a grasshopper-musician. And then he would become quiet.”4 5 One cannot assume that Andreev’s literary works were created only during manic periods. He developed his stories internally over a period of time. Vera Andreeva tells how her father would dictate his stories as though they had already been written and formalized in his head.4 6 As Jamison suggests, a work may be carried through periods of mania, depression and normalcy. Each of these phases provides an alternative sensibility and/or possibly allows for a different task to be accomplished. However, it is not difficult to find that frenzied, manic pace in stories like “The Thief,” “The Lie ” (Lozh’) or “Red Laugh.” Andreev wrote “Red Laugh” in just nine days. Afterwards he was physically and mentally exhausted and felt as though he was near a breakdown. For nearly six months following “Red Laugh” Andreev could not find the energy to write. Here is a possible instance where Andreev’s manic phase had a direct and tangible influence on one of his stories. S. Iasenskii, in an article dealing with the psychological aspects of Andreev’s prose, argues that due to socio-historical pressures Andreev’s characters display “sharp” and “unexpected” changes in their inner worlds. It is this motif, he 4 5 A. Kugel’ (Homo Novus), List’ia s dereva (Leningrad: Vremia, 1926), 84. H t o - t o ropsmeHHoe 6bijio b hcm , KaK odriaKO rauiiuna - b 3apHHuax m m cjih , b GjiecTxuiHX, nopoto ocxpoyMHMx 3aMeqaHH«x, b nepecxaicHBaHHH c npeaMeTa Ha npejiM er, xax y xy3HeKHKa- My3MKaHTa. H 3areM Hacrynajia TirxocTb. 4 6 Vera Andreeva, 73. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 140 argues, that occupies the central position of Andreev’s works from 1907 to 1911.4 7 However, one might suggest that these “sharp” and “unexpected” “revolutions” in the inner worlds of these characters actually reflect Andreev’s own phasic and variable mental condition, rather than some personal reaction to external historical events. An example of this sudden change in Andreev is found in one of his letters to G. Blokh in 1919. Andreev writes: “I throw myself into either [my book Diary] o f Satan, or into Evening Conversation, and I write for two or three evenings - and then suddenly I fall into debility and despair.”4 8 Interestingly, Dr. I. Galant published two articles in 1927 concerning Andreev’s mental condition. The first article was entitled, “A Psychopathological Image of Leonid Andreev. Leonid Andreev, a hysteric-neurasthenic genius” (Psikhopatologicheskii obraz Leonida Andreeva. Leonid Andreev isteronevrastenicheskii genii). Dr. Galant begins by saying that Andreev’s history of suicide, bouts of alcoholism, debauchery and mental breakdowns would normally lead one to a diagnosis of neurasthenia. However, Dr. Galant argues that 47 S. Iasenskii, “Osobennosti psikhologizma v proze L. Andreeva 1907-1911 godov,” in Tvrochestvo Leonida Andreeva: Issledovaniia i materialv. ed. G. Kurliandskaia (Kursk: Kurskii gos. ped. institut, 1983), 35-44. 4 8 Leonid Andreev, S.O.S.: Dnevnikfl914-1919t. Pis’ma (1917-19191. Stat'i i interv’iu (1919). Vospominaniia sovremennikov (1918-19191. eds. Richard Davies and Ben Heilman (Moscow; St. Petersburg: Atheneum; Feniks, 1994), 282. Epocaiocb t o Ha «CaTaHy», t o Ha «HoKHofi pa3roBop», nBa-Tpa B e n e p a numy - h Bnpyr Bnaaato b 6eccnnne h Tocicy. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 141 this diagnosis ignores the “energetic” periods of Andreev’s life. Therefore, he describes Andreev as suffering from hysteric-neurasthenia.4 9 Dr. Galant begins with Andreev’s early childhood and blames the death of his father and material hardship on his “gloomy pessimism.” He then states: Reading the testimonies of his mother about the mental life of her son in the early years of childhood and adolescence, one might think that in the early years of his life Leonid may have suffered from something like manic-depressive psychosis. This suspicion would seem even more justified if we take into account the fact that Leonid’s melancholy states of mind were pathological in nature and were accompanied by a sense of horror and an intensified thought process, while the manic states of mind were characterized by uninhibited childish excitement. But of course it is too difficult to arrive at such a diagnosis, not having access to more accurate data, not knowing if the “melancholy” and “manic” states alternated in a strict cyclical pattern, how long each lasted and how and what ended this “manic-depressive psychosis.” I am rather inclined to see in these “melancholy” and “manic” states the highlights of the abnormal fluctuations of the mental life of the young Andreev, which had a tendency towards pathological, or to be more accurate, neurasthenic passivity and weakness. The proof for this conclusion can be easily deducted from an analysis of the future development of Leonid’s psychological life. 4 9 This is not necessarily a new diagnosis. Other doctors bad diagnosed Andreev as a neurasthenic (see following chapter) and Fatov suggests that people were aware o f Andreev’s “hysterical- nervous” condition (see N. Fatov, Molodve godv Leonida Andreeva (Moscow: Zemlia i Fabrika, 1924), 65). The awareness and understanding o f mental illness at the turn o f the century was very limited. Mental disorders were only vaguely understood, and conditions such as depression were considered to be the result o f nervous exhaustion. It was believed that the expenditure o f and/or the depletion o f bodily energies as a result o f excessive living caused emotional problems. This condition o f mental deterioration, resulting horn a depleted nerve force, came to be referred to as neurasthenia. “Neurasthenia involved pervasive feelings of low mood, lack o f energy, and physical symptoms that were considered to be, in part, related to ‘life style’ problems brought on by the demands o f civilization.” See “Nineteenth Century Views o f the Causation and Treatment o f Mental Disorders” in Abnormal Psychology and Modem Life. 1998 Update. 10th ed., 47. Today neurasthenia has no formal clinical status and is not a diagnostic category in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual o f Mental Disorders. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 142 “Uninhibited excitement,” obviously, played a very insignificant role in this development. Only “the melancholy state of mind” kept developing, acquiring new fonns and deepening its roots in the ever more gloomy soul of Leonid.5 0 According to Dr. Galant, it is Andreev’s fear of death and the horror of life that are at the core of his melancholy. Using passages from Andreev’s stories and relying heavily on Gorky’s literary portrait, Dr. Galant tells of Andreev’s heavy drinking and attempts at suicide. Often citing V. L’ov-Rogachevskii, he makes the claim that Andreev’s literary works betray this hysteric-neurasthenic condition, reflected by a quality of hysterical shrieks and fits of madness in his texts. Neurasthenia is defined as a nervous debility, which is caused by a weakness or exhaustion of the nervous system.5 1 The term “hysteria” can be used in many different ways. However, the mental symptoms include “amnesiae, 501. Galant, “Psikhopatologicheskii obraz Leonida Andreeva. Leonid Andreev isteronevrastenicheskii genii,” Klinicheskii arkhiv genial’nosti i odarennosti. vol. 3, issue 2 (1927): 148. q t r r a f l 3t h C B itneT enbC T B a M a x e p n o o y u ie B H o ft jkh3hh e e c b m a b p a H H tte r o r u i neT C T B a it O T poH ecT B a MO>KHO 6 b u io 6 b i n o a y M a tb , hto J le o H tia c r p a n a n b p aH H ite r o w > kh3 hh n y T b jih He M aH iiaK ajib H o -a en p eccH B H b iM hchxo30 m. 3 to n o n o 3 p e H ite H M e e r re M d o n e e o c H O B a m ie , earn y n e c T b to t (()aKT, hto c o c ra n H H e M en aH x o n H H y J le o H im a hochjih T a w e n o n a ro n o rH H e c x H ii x a p a ic r e p , c o n p o B o x n a n c b nyBCTBOM y x c a c a h H an p a n c e H H o ft p a d o x o f l M b ic n n , b to BpeMX x a x M aH H icanbH bte co cto h h iu n p en cT aB JU tn it c o d o f t d y p u b ie n e T c x n e B 036y x cn eH H o cT H . Ho, kohchho, o n e H b T py n H O p e u iH T b c n H a T a x o it n n a r H 0 3 , He H M ex b p y x a x d o n e e to h h m x C B eneH H ii, H e 3H ax CM eHJtnHCb n i t coctohhhk « M e n aH x o n H H » h «M aH H H », b c i p o r o U H pxynnpH O M n o p n n x e , c x o n b x o BpeM eH H H n p o n o n x c a n c n h x a x h neM K OHHiincn 3to t « M a H H a x a n b H O -n e n p e c c H B H b ilt n c n x o 3 » . f t c x o p e e c x n o H e H B itn eT b b y n o M B H y rb ix coctobhhhx « M e n a H x o n iiH » it «M aH H H », n o n n e p x H y T b ie d o n e 3 H e H H b te x o n e d a H H Jt n y tu e B H o il xch3hh M o n o n o r o J le o H H n a , c x n o H H o d x n a T o n o rim e c K o f i, TOHHee H e B p a c re H H H e c x o ft naccitB H O C TH h c n a d o c T H . Hto 3to HMeHHO Tax n e rx o y 3 p erb H3 B cero n an bH eiiuiero pa3BHTnn ncHXHHecxoil jkh3hh JleoH H na. «BypHbie uianocTH » bhahmo itrp a n a BecbMa HttHTOJKttyto p o n b b stom pa3BHTHH, h oaho Tonbxo M enatixonttH ecxoe n an an o npononxcano pa3BHBan.cH, npHHHMatt Bee HOBbie h HOBbie (fiopMbt h y rn y d ju u i cboh Koprnt bo Bee d o n ee O M panaiotuytocn nyuty JleoH H na. 1 Leland E. Hinsie and Robert Jean Campbell, eds., Psychiatric Dictionary. 4th ed. (New York; London; Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1975), 495. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 143 somnambulisms, fugues, trances, dream-states, hysterical ‘fits’ or ‘attacks,’ etc.”5 2 Many of Dr. Galant’s ideas seem to echo certain elements of Chukovskii’s literary portrait. It is possible that Dr. Galant chose information selectively from the memoir. Chukovskii writes: But often this gaiety, like everything else with Andreev, was excessive and resembled an attack. It made you feel ill at ease and you were glad when it finally passed. After one o f these attacks of gaiety he became gloomy and usually began delivering monologues about death. This was his favorite topic. He pronounced the word death in a special way - very distinctly and sensually: death, just like some voluptuaries pronounce the word “woman.” Here Andreev displayed great talent: he was better than anyone else at fearing death. It is no easy matter to fear death; many try; but they do not achieve anything; Andreev succeeded splendidly; that was his true vocation: to experience the despair and horror of death. This horror can be felt in all his books, and I think it was precisely this horror he was trying to escape from when he grasped at color photography, gramophones, painting. He needed something or other to screen himself from his sickening bouts of despair. In his second article, Dr. Galant relies heavily on Fatov’s biography of the author’s childhood to research the basis for Andreev’s condition. Dr. Galant maintains his diagnosis of hysteric-neurasthenia, but also seems to give some 5 2 Ibid., 367. 5 3 Chukovskii, Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 87-88. Ho Macro 3Ta Becejiocn, 6una, — icaic h Bee y AaapeeBa, Mpe3MepHan, KMejia xapaicrep npwiaiuca, o r nee BaM craHOBunocb He no ce6e, n bm paaoBaniicb, Korna OHa, HaKoueu, npoxoanna. riocjie 3Toro npHnazuca Becejiocra oh craHOBtuicx MpaneH h name Bcero HaMHHan mohojio™ o auepmu. 3 to 6buia ero jnoCiiMax TeMa. Cjiobo auepmb oh npotoHociui ocodeHHO — OM eHb Bbinyicno h MyBCTBeHHo: cMeprb, — aeno Hejiencoe; MHorne npoSyioT, ho y hhx HHHero He BbixoflHt: AHflpeeBy oho yAHBajiocb otjihmho; Tyr Sbuto hcthhhoc ero npimaHHe: HcnbiTMBaTb CMeprejibHbtii OTM axHHbifl y * ac. 3 t o t y*ac nycTByeTcx bo Bcex ero xmirax, h h ayMaio, h to R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 144 further credence to a diagnosis of manic-depression. He writes: “Leonid’s ‘gloomy mood’ periods, alternating with periods of carefree bubbling happiness, could, of course, give one reason to think that Leonid suffered from ‘manic- depressive psychosis,’ even more so because of his physical build. He belonged to a cyclical type (as defined by Kretschmer5 4 ), which is disposed to manic-depressive psychosis.”5 5 However, Dr. Galant argues that although Andreev exhibits cyclical moods, his periods of depression do not fit the requirements for manic-depression. He then recounts how Andreev threw himself under a train at the age of sixteen, while returning from a party with friends. Dr. Galant understands this as “impulsive” behavior, rather than cyclical. He also regards this as the first sign of Andreev’s hysteric-neurasthenic condition, which further results in Andreev’s heart condition, drinking, suicide attempts and fear of death. Dr. Galant also recounts the episode found in Fatov of Andreev being struck on the head with a samovar lid as a possible cause of Andreev’s headaches and later mental condition. HMeHHO o r 3T oro y araca o h cnacancsi, XBaTaacb 3a UBerHyio 4>OTorpa<t>Hio, rpaiwocjioHbi, acHBomicb. EMy HyttCHO SblJlO XOTb HeM-HlidyAb 3arOpOAHTbCJt o r TOUlHOTBOpHbtX npttJIHBOB OTHaBHHH. 5 4 Ernest Kretschmer was a German psychiatrist who developed theories about types o f personalities based on body type (somatotype). He wrote in 1921 that among his patients a frail body build as well as a muscular physique were characteristic o f schizophrenic patients, while a short, rotund build was found among manic-depressives. Slim and delicate physiques are associated with introversion, while rounded heavier and shorter bodies tend to be cyclothymic. See Ernest Kretschmer, Physique and Character: An investigation o f the Nature o f Constitution and o f the Theory o f Temperment. trans. W. J. A. Spratt (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1925). 5 5 I. Galant, “Evroendokrinologiia velikikh russkikh pisatelei i poetov. L. N. Andreev,” Klinicheskii arkhiv genial’nosti i odarennosti. vol. 3, issue 3 (1927): 231. «M pa4H bie HacTpoeHHJi» JleoH H /ta qepeztyacb c TaxoBbiMH 6e33a6oT H oro d y p ju m te ro Becejibn M oran 6bi, KOHeHHO, n a rb noBOA nyiwaxb hto JTeoKHA c rp a a a ji «MaHHaicanbHO-AenpeccHBHbiM ncHX030M» TeM d o n e e hto o h nocxpoeH iao T ena npnH aanex<aji k THny, n o K pem uepy, «UHicjioHAHOMy», pacnonoxceHHOMy k MaHHaKanbHo-nenpeccHBHOMy n cn x o 3 y . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 145 Neurasthenia was first described by the American neurologist George Beard in 1869 and was already in use at the beginning of the 19th century. Physicians in continental Europe rapidly accepted the diagnosis. During World War I, neurasthenia was so frequently diagnosed that the British Army instituted a program to train “neurasthenic experts.” In 1922, Shoma Morita, a Japanese professor of psychiatry, published a treatise entitled “The Nature of Shinkeishitu (Neurasthenia) and its Treatment.”5 6 Gradually, neurasthenia fell into disrepute, mainly due to its overly inclusive description. What once was neurasthenia would C * T probably be diagnosed as depression, anxiety or fatigue today. “Many of the symptoms listed by Beard would now be seen as part of definable psychiatric disorders (e.g., phobias, panic disorder, affective illness, psychosis) or as organic diseases or psychophysio logical symptoms” (italics mine - FHW).5 8 Dr. Galant’s diagnosis of hysteric-neurasthenia is unique and suggests that he wished to account for Andreev’s manic phases as well as his depression. Freud distinguished two forms of psychoneurosis: hysteria and obsessional neurosis. Hysterical symptoms could appear as phobias, which Freud classified as “anxiety hysteria” or as types of “conversion hysteria,” which includes motor paralysis, 5 6 Jorge Alberto Costa e Silva and Giovanni DeGirolamo, “Neurasthenia: History o f a Concept” in Psychological Disorders in General Medical Settings, ed. Norman Sartoriua, et al (Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, 1990), 69. 57 Ibid., 75-76. 5 8 Susan E. Abbey and Paul E. Garfunkel, “Neurasthenia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: The Role o f Culture in the Making o f a Diagnosis,” American Journal o f Psychiatry, no. 148, 12 December (1991): 1639. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 146 involuntary contractions and hallucinations.5 9 However, Dr. Galant’s use of the term “hysteric” is not consistent with psychiatric terminology.6 0 Instead of describing some element of hysterical neurosis, Dr. Galant wishes to account for Andreev’s “energetic” phases - his manic behavior. Nearly seventy-five years after Dr. Galant’s diagnosis, Andreev’s granddaughter wrote the following in her memoirs: “Leonid Andreyev had evidently been a manic-depressive. Through my father’s book about his childhood I gained an awareness of this affliction, which often affects highly creative individuals.”6 1 Olga Carlisle does not give further support for this claim in her book and no such claim is made directly by Vadim Andreev in his memoir, so I asked Carlisle to elaborate on the subject of Andreev’s manic-depression and she responded: Having closely observed 2 people (including R. Lowell, with whom I had a long and wonderful relationship) and studying L[eonid] A[ndreev]’s Letters to Gorkv. published by Columbia University in the sixties... I came to the following conclusion (based also on familiarity with family data, some of which cannot be discussed openly at this time) that L[eonid] A[ndreev] clearly suffered from what was known until recently as manic-depressive illness — the kind against which lithium is so very effective. It often affects highly creative individuals (Lowell) and may have affected also D[aniil] L[eonidovich] A[ndreev], though I’ll never be familiar enough with his life story to make such an assertion. But I know 5 9 Gerald Levin, Sigmund Freud (Boston: Twayne Publishers), 44. 6 0 See “Conversion Disorder (or Hysterical Neurosis, Conversion Type)” in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual o f Mental Disorders. 3rd ed. (The American Psychiatric Association, 1980), 244- 247. * The term “Hysterical Neurosis” is no longer used in the fourth edition (1994). 6 1 Olga Andreyev Carlisle, Far From Russia. A Memoir (New York: St. M artin’s Press, 2000), 147. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 147 enough about L[eonid] Nfikolaevich] A[ndreev]’s daily life through letters, journals, my father’s recollections, etc. to make this claim.6 2 % Carlisle’s letter suggests that a history of manic-depression exists in the Andreev family tree, which will be discussed further in the following chapter. It also provides a more contemporary diagnosis. Dr. Galant followed the prevailing diagnosis of the time, neurasthenia, which is mainly associated with depressive disorders today. The additional diagnosis of “hysteric” elements is an attempt to describe Andreev’s “energetic” or manic fits or attacks. Dr. Galant’s comments can easily be understood in our present day as manic-depression, rather than the outmoded diagnosis of “hysteric-neurasthenia.” Chukovskii experienced Andreev’s manic attacks. He describes these highly obsessive and energetic periods in his memoir and understands them as the source of Andreev’s creative energy. The fact that Chukovskii places them in a positive light, is a much needed counter-balance to descriptions of Andreev’s depression and Gorky’s scorn for his “unprofessional behavior,” which will be discussed in following chapters. Chukovskii’s desire to find a “psychological conclusion,” the fact that he wrote his memoir as if Andreev were still alive, the familiarity that Chukovskii had with both Andreev and his literary works, all add to the portrait and do, in fact, open the “inner world” of Andreev to the reader. Understanding the effects of these manic periods on Andreev’s life and works is the next step for critics in realizing this “inner world” in some tangible way. Mania 62 Olga Andreyev Carlisle, Letter to author, Labor Day 2000. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 148 does not mean crazy. Mania often results in high levels of combinatory thinking, a greater degree of artistic sensibility and, at times, debilitating headaches and excessive mental activity. To understand Andreev and his literary works, one must understand manic-depression. In this sense, Chukovskii was correct in connecting Andreev’s mental condition, as manifested in his life, with his literary legacy. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 149 6 I became insane with long periods o f horrible sanity. During these fits of absolute unconsciousness, I drank - God knows how often or how much. As a matter o f course, my enemies referred the insanity to the drink rather than the drink to the insanity. - Edgar Allan Poe Chulkov (1879-1939) writes in his literary portrait that he first met Andreev in the editorial office of Courier in 1899. At the time, Andreev was the newspaper’s columnist and court reporter. Chulkov was publishing his first story, “To the Other Shore” (Na tot bereg). The two met frequently in 1901 and Chulkov talks about Andreev in relation to Moscow literary society. In 1902, Chulkov was exiled to the Iakutsk region for political activities, but a year later was allowed to move to Nizhnii Novgorod under police supervision. At this time, Andreev came to see Gorky and to participate in a literary evening. While in Nizhnii Novgorod, Andreev also met with Chulkov. They spent most of the evening in a tavern and in the morning Chulkov saw Andreev off at the train station. In 1906, Andreev published “So It Was” in Chulkov’s almanac Torches. However, Andreev did not like the heavy Symbolist feel of the collection and did not participate in the following two issues. Chulkov claims that they met often while both were living in Finland, either at V. Serov’s or at the Chulkovs’.1 They would often take walks in 1 The chronology for this claim is hard to fix. Andreev spent the summer of 1905 in Vammelsuu. In 1906 he lived outside o f Helsinki in the Frisians. He rented a summer home in Kuokkala in 1907. In 1908, he built his house in and moved to Vammelsuu. In the literary portrait, Chulkov says that R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 150 the environs and Chulkov remembers Andreev talking and smoking incessantly. Chulkov describes visiting Andreev in St. Petersburg some time around 1907-08. At this meeting, Andreev was still grieving the loss of his first wife. Chulkov makes reference to Andreev’s house in Vammelsuu and claims that he saw Andreev eight months after the start of the world war. Chulkov states that he and Andreev were friends for nearly twenty years, with large gaps of time between meetings. His portrait is light on concrete details and specific meetings, which makes it hard to determine the true degree of their friendship. There is scanty historical material to link the two together. Chulkov and Andreev were both active in the circle of modernists and realists that mixed in journals and in the publishing house Shipovnik after 1906. At times, modernist critics called Andreev a mystical anarchist; however, he never claimed to follow they met often during the two summers before Andreev moved into his house. In a later publication, Chulkov says that they met regularly while in Finland in 1908. Published letters between the two come from 1906, when Andreev was in the Frisians. See Georgii Chulkov, ed. and intro., Pis’ma Leonida Andreeva ('Leningrad: Kolos, 1924), 9, 25-30. N. Chulkova states more specifically that it was 1907. Andreev’s dacha was near the station Kuokkala and the Chulkovs’ dacha was at the following station Raivola. However, it seems that Andreev was less interested in seeing Chulkov, who was often in St. Petersburg working, and more interested in spending time with the attractive guest o f the Chulkovs’ — Liubov’ Ivanovna - wife o f the professor F. E. Rybakov. See ORBL, f. 371, kart. 15, ed. khr. 2 ,1 .4 ,4 8 . N. Chulkova, “Vtoraia giava, 1906-1908: Leonid Andreev,” in Vospominaniia o moei zhizni s G. I. Chulkowm i o vstrechakh so mnogomi ?amechatel’nvmi liud’mi. 1 Liubov’ Blok writes in September 1907: “Georgii Ivanovich visited us the third day—it’s not good, he puts on airs, he scorns L. Andreev, but what would he be without him now? Andreev is the only one that supports him.” See Literatumoe nasledstvo. Aleksandr Blok now e materialv i issledovaniia. book 3, vol. 92, eds. M. Khrapchenko and V. Shcherbina (Moscow: Nauka, 1982), 306. r e o p n if t HBaHOBtn 6bin y Hac T p e rb e ro ah* - He x o p o u io , BaacmmaeT, npeH eoperaeT JI. AHApeeBbtM, a h t o 6 m o h 6 m a 6e3 H ero Tenepb? H m xonbxo h AepKcmrc*. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 151 Chulkov’s religious-philosophical and esthetic theories.3 The published correspondence between the two consists of nineteen letters and in Andreev’s diary from 1914-1919, there is no mention of Chulkov.4 The vague quality of Chulkov’s memoir probably attests to the incidental quality of their relationship. One can say that Chulkov knew Andreev and sporadically met with him during the course of nearly two decades. If nothing else, this contact provided Chulkov with a certain insight into Andreev - as one of the few people who knew Andreev through most of the major phases of his adult life. Chulkov wrote his portrait of Andreev in January 1920. It was published in A Book About Leonid Andreev and then again in 1924 and 1930.5 About twenty- five years later, Chulkov’s wife, Nadezhda Grigor’evna, included a chapter on Andreev in her unpublished manuscript, A Memoir About My Life With G. /. Chulkov and About Meetings With Many Famous People.6 In this she writes: “Georgii Ivanovich wrote memoirs about [Andreev], where he lovingly and 3 In a letter to Chulkov, Andreev even states that he wants no part o f literary programs, including that o f the mystical anarchists. See Chulkov, Pis’ma Leonida Andreeva. 14. 4 For published letters see Chulkov, Pis’ma Leonida Andreeva and I. Anisimov, ed., Gor’kii i Leonid Andreev neizdannaia perepiska. Literatumoe nasledstvo, vol. 72 (Moscow: Nauka, 1965), 514. For Andreev’s diary see: Leonid Andreev, S. O. S.: Dnevnik (1914-19191. Pis’ma (1917- 19191. Stat’i i interv’iu (19191. Vospominaniia sovremennikov (1918-19191. eds. Richard Davies and Ben Heilman (Moscow; St. Petersburg: Atheneum; Feniks, 1994), 23. At RGALI, there are 3 letters from Chulkov to Andreev (f. 11, op. 1, ed. kh. 225) and 34 letters from Andreev to Chulkov (f. 548, op. 3, ed. kh. 6). At IRLI, there is one letter from Chulkov to Andreev (f. 9, op. 3, n. 62). 5 Chulkov, Pis'ma Leonida Andreeva. 31-47. This second publication is a reprint o f the 1922 version except that the last three paragraphs have been omitted. Georgii Chulkov, Gndy stranstvii Iz kniei vospominanii (Moscow: Federatsiia. 1930), 108-120. 6 ORBL, f. 371, kart. 15, ed. khr. 2 , 1.4, 46-52. N. Chulkova, Vospominaniia o moei zhizni s G L Chulkowm i o vstrechakh so mnogomi zamechatel’nymi liud’mi. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 152 respectfully described [Andreev] as a gifted man, but one who internally is tragically unsettled, which caused him to suffer enormously throughout his life.”7 Chukovskii describes Andreev’s creative mania. Blok explains their mutual connection through Dionysian chaos. Chulkov has chosen to highlight Andreev’s dark side: the depression, alcoholic behavior, and isolation that is part of bipolar disorder. Chulkov remembers: Once I visited Andreev, when he lived in St. Petersburg, in a large house on the St. Petersburg side. His mother met me and said with a whisper that Leonid was “sick.” This meant that he was intoxicated. I wanted to leave but Andreev heard my voice, came out and drew me into his office. Before him stood a bottle of cognac, and he continued to drink. It was obvious that he had already been drinking for about three days. He said that life in general was the “devil’s joke” and that his life had died: “she has left, that which was for him a star.”8 - “Deceased!” he said in a whisper, secretly and gloomily. Then he placed his head on the table and began to cry. And again there was that mysterious whisper and nonsense. Suddenly he became silent and began to listen, having turned to the glass door, which, it seems, led out onto the balcony. “Do you hear?” he said. “She is there.” And again he began that tortuous nonsense, and it was impossible to understand. He indeed hallucinated or he needed all of this, in order to express somehow this mystery, this incomprehensible thing, which was for him then in his soul.9 7 Chulkova, “Leonid Andreev,” 52. r e o p n tf t HBaHOBitH H am icaa o HeM BocnoMHHaHne, m e modoBHO h noHTHTeabho HapHcoBan e ro Kaic HejioBeica oaapeH H oro, ho BHyrpcHHe Tpanm ecK H H eycrpoeH H oro a o t 3T oro MyHHTejibHo h MHoro c rp a a a B iu e ro b CBoeft jkh3 h h. 8 The following refers to Aleksandra Mikhailovna, who had recently died o f a postnatal infection. 9 G. Chulkov, “Vospominaniia,” in Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. Vospominaniia Gor’kogo, Chukovskogo, Bloka, G. Chulkova, Borisa Zaitseva, N. Teleshova, Evg. Zamiatina, A. Belogo, 2n d ed. (Berlin: Z. I. Grzhebin, 1922), 121-122. O a H a x c a b i a n p m u e j i k A m t p e e B y , K o r a a o h hchji b r i e T e p 6 y p r e , b 6oji&uiom a o M e H a n e r e p 6 y p r c K o i i c r o p o H e . M e w t B C T p e r a n a e r o M a ry u iK a h m o n o T O M c o o d u u u i a , h to J l e o H n a < a a d o a e a » . 3 t o 3 H a m u io , h to o h bo x M e ju o . R x o T e a d b u i o y fiT H , h o A u a p e e B y c j i b i t u a n M o il r o n o c , B b im e J t h n o B j i e x M e w t k c e d e b K a S itH e T . r i e p e a hhm c r o a j i a d y r b i n i c a K O H baicy, h o h n p o a o m K a j i n m - b , h d u n o b u s h o , h to o h n b e T y a c e a h h T p n . O h r o B o p t u t o to m , h to a c t o u b B o o d m e « a b a B O J ib C K a a t u y r K a » , a h to e r o a c to H b n o r n d a a : « y t n a a T a , K O T o p a a d b i a a ana H e r o R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 153 At the beginning of the memoir, Chulkov attempts to explain, or at least to understand, Andreev’s condition as a reflection of the changing political, cultural and social climate. It is as if his internal turmoil was a reflection or a premonition of Russia’s eventual upheaval. However, as Nadezhda Grigor’evna wrote, her husband was really describing a man who was simply suffering inside. Chulkov writes: “From the outside it seemed that his life had worked out well: many fhends, a loving family, literary success. But in Andreev, in Andreev himself, in his soul there was no happiness. And this terrible uneasiness, the excruciating anxiety and something like a rebellion, ‘a discord in everything’ - that was what was new and original in Andreev.”1 0 Chulkov’s explanation for Andreev’s behavior betrays his modernist interpretations. For many modernists, Andreev’s inner turmoil seemed to coincide with both historical events and their own sense o f revolt, but his lack of cultural sophistication precluded participation in their literary circles. In retrospect, Andreev’s manic-depression was reinterpreted as some sort of intuitive, and 3B63AOIO». - « riO K O flH tm a !» - rOBOpHJt OH UlOnOTOM TBHHCTBeHHO H MpaHHO. FlOTOM OnyCTHJI rojioBy na cto ji h 3aiuiaican. H orwTb t o t ace TaHHCTBeHHbift uienoT h 6 p ea. Bnpyr o h 3aMOjinaji h cra n npiicnyuiHBaTbCH, ooepHyBuincb k creioiHHHofi aB epn, KOTopaa, Kaacerca, Bbixoamia Ha SanicoH. «CjibiuiHTe? -CKa3art oh : - OHa Tyr». H CHOBa Hananca MyHHTejiHbiii 6 p ea, h Henb3a 6buio noHaTb, rajuiKDUHHHpyeT o h b caMOM aejie, m m 3To Bee noHaaoOnnocb e.wy, htoSbi Bbipa3HTb KaK-HH6yflb t o 3araaoHHoe h ana Hero caMoro HenoHaTHoe, h to 6bi.no y Hero T oraa b ayoie. 1 0 Ibid., 109. C BHeuiHeR cropoH bi icaic 6yaTO e ro acH3Hb caoacnnacb foiarononyH H o: MHoro npy3eif, m o 6 a tu a a ceM ba, jiHTepaTypHbitt y c n e x . Ho b A nnpeeB e, b caMOM A u ap eeB e, b e r o a y u te He Obino O narononyH H a. H 3Ta crp au iH aa TpeBora, MyHHTenbHoe 6ecnoK oR crB o h KaKoft-To 6yHT, «H ecornacH e b o BceM» — b o t h t o 6bino b A napeeB e h o b u m h HeoObinaRHbiM. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 154 possibly mystical, connection to the modernist cause, which unfortunately has clouded the issues concerning his mental health. With this in mind, it is significant that Chulkov makes a connection between Blok and Andreev. Blok suffered from a milder form of manic-depression - cyclothymia - and himself felt some bond with Andreev. Just as interesting, Chulkov attempts to wed Andreev’s condition with his interest in philosophical “pessimism” and the reading of Schopenhauer. Gorky makes a similar argument in his introduction to the English version of Andreev’s novel, Sashka Zhegulev.ll However, the truth of the matter is that Chulkov did not have the vocabulary or the experience with mental illness to properly express Andreev’s condition. Therefore, he describes Andreev’s manic-depression with the modernist discourse of feelings, signs and intuition. Chulkov highlights a few episodes of possible mania, but for the most part, it is the mind-numbing depression and internal strife that he has chosen to describe. Therefore, we will mainly fix our attention on Andreev’s inner turmoil and how it manifested itself in the context of bipolar disorder and only briefly touch on Chulkov’s modernist explanations. Bipolar disorder is a genetic illness. Those that suffer from it can usually trace the disease backward and forward through their family tree. Tell-tale signs are first-degree relatives (parents, siblings, or children) who committed suicide (or attempted to), were committed to mental asylums, showed pathological behavior R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 155 patterns (alcoholism, gambling problems, repeated financial reversals) and/or displayed signs of extreme swings in emotional behavior.1 2 Chulkov argues that Andreev’s unhappiness was in his soul. Andreev himself believed that he had inherited the illness.1 3 His father was a heavy drinker and died at the age of forty- two from a stroke. Andreev’s siblings displayed various problems as well. Zinaida died in a mental institution at the age of twenty-one.1 4 Vsevelod died in a mental institution at the age of thirty-three.1 5 Pavel had a drinking problem1 6 and was described as suffering from “constant distress and alarm.”1 7 It seems that Andreev’s children were also affected. Carlisle’s letter in the previous chapter suggests that manic-depression has been diagnosed in Andreev’s descendents. All of this would suggest that Andreev’s family tree is littered with victims of bipolar illness. Andreev himself shows all of the classic signs o f manic-depression. He attempted suicide several times in his youth; had a break-down and was institutionalized in 1901; exhibited extreme emotional mood swings and trouble with alcohol; acted at times in a very grandiose manner; engaged in reckless 1 1 Leonid Andreyev, Sashka Jieouleff. trans. Luba Hicks, ed. and intro. Maxim Gorky (New York: Robert McBride & Company, 1925). 1 2 Kay Redfield Jamison, Touched With Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament (New York: The Free Press, 1993), 58-59. 1 3 Skitalets (S. G. Petrov), “Vstrechi. L. Andreev,” Krasnaia nov’. no. 10 (1934): 161. 1 4 Pavel Andreev, “Vospominaniia o Leonide Andreeve” in Literatumaia mvsl’: Al’manakh. vol. 3 (Leningrad: Mysl’, 1925), 203. 1 5 V. Katonina, “M oi vospominaniia o Leonide Andreeve,” Krasnii student no. 7-8 (1923): 23. 1 6 V. Beklemisheva, “Vospominaniia,” in Rekviem: Pamiati Leonida Andreeva (Moscow: Federatsiia, 1930), 225. 1 7 Katonina, 23. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 156 behavior; made great amounts of money and spent it just as rapidly. His medical history highlights some of the confusion surrounding his condition. Andreev himself complained of various illnesses - mainly headaches and heart pains. However, it was the mental conditions - depression and mania - which seem to always be the underpinning for most of his physical illnesses. Rimma Andreeva writes that Andreev was hospitalized under the care of Professor Chemikov from 25 January to 22 March 1901 for “acute neurasthenia.”1 8 V. Azov claims that friends had to convince Andreev to check into the university clinic. Soon after, a rumor spread around Moscow that he had gone completely insane. Azov, upon visiting his friend, found Andreev in a sublimely clean ward, in a white robe and slippers. On a little chalk-board was written in Latin letters: Neurasthenia. “What’s that for?” asked Azov. “Are the doctors afraid they will forget?” “No, they are afraid I might forget,” Andreev answered. Azov continues: “He left the clinic renewed and energetic, got himself a bike and started to exercise. But only a month later the same Andreev was facing me, with the inextinguishable flicker of despair and doubt in his beautiful eyes, with a grimly set mouth.”1 9 riocTOHHHbiM 5Ke oropHetoteM h TpeBoroft e ro - Shuia 6ojie3Hb 6paxa ITaBJia,... 1 8 Rimma Andreeva, “Trudnye gody,” Orlovskaia pravda. no. 275, 21 November (1971): 3. “ocrpaa HeBpacTetntx” 1 9 V. Azov, “Otryvki ob Andreeve,” Vestnik Literaturv. no. 9 (1920): 5. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 157 In a medical certificate from 1905, G. Pribytkov (junior member of staff at the clinic for nervous illnesses in Moscow) notes Andreev’s bouts of depression and anxiety, migraines and fear of going insane. He writes that the periods of despair and anxiety are so tortuous that Andreev is led to thoughts of suicide and to seek solace in alcohol, nearly qualifying as pathological drunkenness. Such periods result in drunken unconsciousness, anxiety and insomnia. Pribytkov writes that Andreev has not followed his advice of checking into a sanatorium, but has shown signs of improvement after following his instructions given that winter. The final diagnosis is acute neurasthenia and nervous shocks of anxiety.2 0 Andreev spent part of October 1914 under the care of Dr. Gerzoni in a Petrograd clinic.2 1 Andreev writes to his brother from the hospital: “The first couple days 1 began to feel better, but suddenly something unexpectedly snatched my head and heart and I began to feel bad.”2 2 A couple months later, Andreev writes: “Lately the pains rifle in my head with particular strength... I have begun to take a cure with a new, good doctor, perhaps things will turn out well.” In a letter from May 1915, Andreev writes that he has been in a “difficult and vague mood.” Oh Bbitueji H3 k jih h h k h o6HOBJieHHbifi, Sonpbifi, 3aseji ce 6 e Bejiocanea h c r a n 3aHHMaTCH cnopTOM. Ho n p o m eji M ecau h nepe.no m hoio c iu e ji TOT-ace A tu p eeB c HeyracHMOio jiaM nannoio to c k h h coMHeHHH b npeicpacHbix rjia3ax, c o CKoptmo cxaTbiMH ycraM H. 1 0 LRA, MS 606\G. 1. ii. c. Medical certificate o f 12 Feburary 1905. 2 1 V. Chuvakov, “Perepiska L.Andreeva i E.Chirikova,” in Leonid Andreev: Materialv i issledovaniia (Moscow: Nalsedie, 2000), 83 footnote for letter 26. 22IRLI, f. 9, op. 2, n. 4 1.20. Letter o f 07 October 1914 from Andreev to Andrei Andreev. IlepB bie a h h H asan nonpoB jurrbca, ho B ttpyr h to t o BHe3atiHo npaxBaTHJio ronoBy h c e p n u e , c ra n o tu io x o . 2 3 Ibid., 1 . 30. Letter o f 31 December 1914 from Andreev to Andrei Andreev. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 158 He cannot do anything in particular, but can only “exist.” He claims to have recently finished treatment with Dr. Gerzoni. Part of his treatment was a strict diet of semolina (Mamm Kama) and no more than 4 glasses of weak tea a day. However, Andreev claims that the diet has not had a noticeable affect. He still suffers from a “gloomy mood” and feels like a partial-invalid.2 4 Andreev discussed his illness with friends and he also turned to them for treatment. Goloushev was one of Andreev’s closet friends. He wrote as a drama critic under the pen-name “Sergei Glagol’” and was a member of Sreda. Goloushev was an obstetrician/gynecologist by profession. He also studied psychiatry and Andreev was his ongoing patient (more than likely on an unofficial basis).2 5 In April 1915, Andreev wrote to Goloushev about his treatment with Dr. Gerzoni, mentioning his stomach, head and hand. His hand was injured in childhood and remained a problem. However, he writes: “...the real reason [for my illness] is known to you alone.”2 6 In his following letter Andreev writes that his hand is not the real problem, “but my stomach and soul...”2 7 Andreev then writes rioc.rieflHee BpeM * 6o/ih b rojicme CBepncrByioT c ocoGoft ctuiofi... Hanan jiemrrbcx y ttoBoro xopouioro Bpana, aBocb o6pa3yeMTCx. 2 4 Ibid., 1 . 32. Letter o f 25 May 1915 from Andreev to Andrei Andreev. 2 5 Iu. Sobolev, “Leonid Andreev: Vstrechi i pis’ma (K 5-letiiu do dnia smerti),” Khudozhnik t zritel’. no. 6-7 (1924): 126. 2 6 LRA, MS 606\F. 24. i. (18). Letter o f 14 April 1915 from Andreev to S. Goloushev. Also see Rekviem: Pamiati Leonida Andreeva. 111. ...; H CTHHHax nptiHHHa H3Becrtia te6e oattoMy. 2 7 Ibid., (19). Letter o f April 1915 from Andreev to S. Goloushev. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 159 that his hand is better. “However, the permanent essence o f my illnesses is a nervous-pysche,...”2 8 From February to April 1916 Andreev was under the care of Dr. Abramov for fatigue.2 9 Andreev was again prescribed semolina and electric therapy.3 0 He writes: “Physically, according to the doctors, I am recovered and my liver has returned to normal, but my nerves play devilish games, the devil knows it.”3 1 In December 1916, Andreev wrote to Goloushev: “Simply and thoroughly, I am unhealthy. ... There does not seem to be any visible reasons; the invisible ones are somewhere deep in my soul. My soul is unsatisfied and sick...”3 2 Surprisingly, the memoir literature about Andreev is filled with various anecdotes about his tormented behavior, but few connect this to mental illness. 2 8 Ibid., (20). Letter o f 29 April 1915 from Andreev to S. Goloushev. Also see Rekviem. 113. ...,h o ocTaercx nocTaxHHax c y T b M o e ii 6oiie3HH b HepBO-ncMxiixe... 2 9 V. Chuvakov, ed., “L. N. Andreev: Pis’ma k A. P. Alekseevskomu” in Ezheeodnik rukopisnoeo otdela Pushkinskoeo Doma na 1977 god (Leningrad: Nauka. 1979), 192, footnote I. “HeBpaJinmecKHX HB/iemifi Ha non Be nepeyroM/ieHnx” 3 0 In a letter to Golushev o f May 1915, Andreev talks about electric therapy so he may well have undergone this treatment with Dr. Gerzoni as well. See LRA, MS 606\F. 24. i. (22). Also see Rekviem. 115. ♦Modem shock therapy can be traced back to 1848 when an English newspaper, the Lancet. published a lengthy defense o f the use o f galvanic electricity as a therapeutic technique. It was a popular treatment in the late 1860s and 1870s in America and England. G. Beard published in 1874, Medical and Surgical Uses o f Electricity which included cases o f patients suffering from “neurasthenic collapse’’ who were cured with electrical shock. See Anson Rabinbach, “The Body without Fatigue: A Nineteenth-Century Utopia,” in Political symbolism in modem Europe: Essavs in honour of George Mosse. eds. S. Drescher, D. Sabean and A. Sharlin (London: Transaction Books, 1982), 55-56. 31IRLI, f. 9, o p . 2, n. 4,1. 59. Letter o f 21 March 1917 f r o m Andreev to Andrei Andreev. <t>H3HMecKH, no cnoB aM jiOKOTopoB, x n o n p a B u n c x h n e n eH b B o u u ia b HopM y, h o HepBbt BblKOMapHBaiOT n e p T 3 H a er. 3 2 LRA, MS 606\F. 24. i. (30). Letter o f 15 December 1916 from Andreev to S. Goloushev. Also see Rekviem 131. llpocTO, x He3nopoB, h ocHOBaxejibHo.... B hahmmx npHHHH xax 6y;rro h HeT; HeBnaiiMbie - rae-To rjiy6oxo b aym e. Mox a y u ia neaoBoabHa h SoabHa... R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 160 Chulkov was the first to dedicate an entire memoir to Andreev’s turmoil, but maybe because he did not offer a reasonable explanation, subsequent memoirs are full of stories and possible rationale for these destructive intervals and illnesses. Andreev may very well have shared with Chulkov such vague expressions regarding an “unsatisfied and sick soul,” leaving Chulkov to guess at the reason. Just as Andreev suffered from mania, he was afflicted with cycles of depression. Major bouts of depression in manic-depressives result in prolonged periods of apathy, lethargy, hopelessness, sleep disturbances, slowed physical movements and thinking, impaired memory and concentration, and a loss of pleasure in typically enjoyable events.3 3 In a diary entry of 11 August 1898, Andreev writes: Again meaningless, endless suffering, again aimless complaints. Terrible days, horrible nights, when the entire world is far from you and you are alone with this insane, dismal head. ... It is insane, death-like despair. It is terrible when one awaits a death sentence in the morning. But to be sentenced to death; to live despairing and crying, while torturing yourself like a sinner in hell; to live, recognizing the entire emptiness and absurdity, the endless, cheerless anguish of life; to live, everything is to live, to live. Oh, if I were to die. To freeze in silence and immobility. The heart does not despair; thoughts, which seem to tear apart my head, do not beat in it. These are terrible, painful thoughts, which are impossible to put into words.... Yes, the sorrow is endless and deep, like the sea. And the deeper I plunge into it, [the more] I know that I still have not reached the bottom, that still more horrible nights await m e.... People find hope in life, but I search for hope in death.”3 4 3 3 Jamison, “Manic-Depressive Illness and Creativity,” 64. 3 4 LRA, MS 606\G. 8. ii. A diary entry, which was given to A. M. Veligorskaia and remained with her letters from Andreev. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 161 One o f the first problems of bipolar disorder, is the issue of medication. Most manic-depressives do not like the idea of losing the sensations of everyday life, especially the intense periods of mania. The medication can slow the patient down and make the entire world seem fuzzy. For Andreev, the issue of prescribed medication was not a problem. Instead, Andreev tried to self-medicate at various times with cigarettes, strong tea, and alcohol. Andreev even makes reference to this self-medication in a letter to Belousov, calling his tea, alcohol and cigarettes “anesthetic.”3 5 E. Khantzian writes of the habit of self-medication: “The drugs that addicts select are not chosen randomly. Their drug of choice is the result of interaction between the psychopharmacological action of the drug and the dominant feelings with which they struggle.”3 6 Chulkov notes in his memoir: I remember only that we were in some kind of a cheap restaurant, that when Andreev had arrived there, he was already somewhat drunk, and that evening remains in my memory as a nightmare. The thing is that until the last years, until the eve o f the war with Germany, Andreev experienced attacks of deep despair, and during such periods he would seek alcohol, with gloomy and painful O n x T b 6 eccM b ic.n eH H b ie, 6 e c x o H e H H b te c r p a a a H H * , o r u r r b 6 e c u e jib H b te a t a a o 6 b i. C r p a u m b i e a h h , y a c a c H b te h o h h , x o r a a B e c b M » p a a n e x o t T e6 « h tb i o a h h c 3 to R 6 e 3 y M H o ft to c k jih b o H r o a o B o i l . ... E e3yM H aB , C M epT H aa T o c ic a . C rp a o iH O , x o r a a H a y r p o o a o ta a e T M y H trre a b H a a K a3H b. A 6 biTb np itro B O p eH H b iM k M ynH T eJibH oft h c io h h ; a c irrb T o c x y a h n a a n a , M y n a a c b x a x rpeuiHHK b a o y ; jk h tb , c o 3 H a a a H b c io n y c r o T y h H e jie n o c T b , 6 e c x o H e H H y to , 6 e 3 0 T p a a H y to M ynH TeJibH O CTb 3 T o ti x ch 3hh, jk h tb , B ee acHTb a * H T b . O, e c jiH 6 bi y M e p e T b . 3 a c r b iT b b t h u i h h c h H enoaB H acH O C TH . He x o c x y e T c e p a u e , He 6 bioTC fl b M 0 3 ry m u c jih , o t K O T opbix x a a c e rc H p a 3 p b tB a e T c x r o a o B a . C ip a u iH b i, M yH H TeaH bi 3 t h m u c jih , K O T opbix H eab3H n e p e a a T b c a o B a M H .... Ra, r o p e 6 e c x o H e H H o k r n y 6 o K o , x a x M o p e . H B e e r a y d a c e a n o r p y a c a io c b b H e ro h 3 H aro, h t o H e a o c r r a a eme a h o , h t o eme 6 o a e e y a c a c H b ie h o h h o a c a a a io T M e w i . ... J L o a h a o b h t H a a e a c a y H a acH3Hb, a a H iu y H a a e a c a b t H a CM epTb. 51. Belousov, Literatumaia sreda: Vospominaniia. 1880-1928 (Moscow: Kooperativnoe izd-vo pisatelei nikitmskie subbotniki, 1928), 159. 6 E. J. Khantzian, ‘T h e self-medication hypothesis o f addictive disorders: Focus on heroin and cocaine dependence,” American Journal o f Psychiatry, no. 142 (1985): 1259. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 162 insistence. He was not a rake. Nor was he a binge drinker. But sometimes, his misery, after reaching a certain limit, resulted in a two or three-day drunken haze.3 7 All o f this painful intoxication was justified by the fact that in his heart there always rang out some kind of song “not from this world.”3 8 Studies have found that alcohol and drug abuse are quite high in people suffering from bipolar disorder. Although it might seem that alcohol would be linked to the periods of depression, it is actually more frequent in periods of mania or mixed states. One of the reasons may be an attempt by the individual to heighten or prolong the euphoric condition. If the manic period becomes too severe, it may also be an attempt to deaden the hyper-activity of the brain. Jamison writes: Excesses of all kinds characterize mania, and intemperate drinking may be just the one aspect of this general pattern; however, self- medication of painful or uncomfortable mood states no doubt accounts for some of the association as well. To an extent, alcohol does provide relief from the irritability, restlessness, and agitation associated with mania; not surprisingly, alcohol use often increases dramatically during mixed states as well.3 9 3 7 Chulkov, Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 115. riOMHK) TOJlbKO, HTO MbI CHAejIH C HHM BflBOeM B KaKOM-TO TpaKTHpe, ... AHSpeeB y * e HeTpe3Bblfl, h 3to t Benep o cran cst b Moeft n a n u m i icaic oa hh H3 xouiM apHbix BenepoB. fle jio B TOM> ‘•to ao caM bix nocneaH H x jie r,... y A nap eeB a GbiBann npiinaaKH o c rp o ft tockh, h b T aiote c p o x n o h TBHy jica k xw ejuo Heyaep/KHMo, c MpanHoto h 6ojie3HeHHoro HacTofinHBocTbio. O h bobcc He 6but KyTHiioio. ...rpycT b e ro , nepexoaH BU iax H H oraa n p eaen , pa3 p em an cb o6biKHOBeHHo AByMfl-TpeMX zwhmh XMeJibHoro aypM aHa. 3 8 Ibid., 116. B e c b e r o 6 o jie 3 H e H H b ifi X M ejib o n p a B A b iB a a c x TeM , hto b c e p a u e y H e r o B c e r a a 3 B y H a n a Kaxax-TO necH X « H e o t M H p a c e r o » . 3 9 Jamison, Touched With Fire. 39. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 163 It is hard to say whether Andreev’s mania or his depression brought on his drinking.4 0 One study has found that “chronic excessive drinking predominated in the manic phase; whereas, periodic excessive drinking during depression.”4 1 Andreev was a binge drinker and far from a “happy” drunk. It is said that Aleksandra Mikhailovna, his first wife, brought sobriety to her husband’s life; however, Andreev’s drinking was curtailed, but never totally stopped.4 2 His alcoholic behavior was so prevalent and persistent that it seems to have affected every relationship he had. This is significant in a culture that accepts heavy drinking as a national trait. The fact that Andreev’s alcoholic behavior was such a persistent theme in the memoir literature, illustrates the degree to which he did abuse alcohol. It is important, however, that Andreev was never identified as an alcoholic. Almost always, his drinking has been associated with some inner turmoil and is described as episodic.4 3 Beklemisheva seems to describe Andreev’s drinking as a direct result of mania: “When [Andreev] began to drink, this he could not give up, the drunken period continued several days. He could not sleep and drank without a break. ... 4 0 Most associate Andreev’s drinking with depression. However, few would have been sensitive to the cyclic nature o f Andreev’s mood swings. See Pavel Andreev, 151. 4 1 Frederick K. Goodwin and Kay Redfield Jamison, Manic-Depressive Illness (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 220. 42 Pavel Andreev states that although his brother gave up alcohol in 1903 (Leonid married in 1902), he still drank “sometimes.” However, his drinking was not as severe and his attitude drastically changed for the better. See Pavel Andreev, 152. 4 3 Dr. I. Galant classifies Andreev’s drinking as “dipsomanic,” which he describes as intervals o f uninterrupted drunkenness, lasting a period o f several days in what is, essentially, a sober life. See I. Galant, “Psikhopatologicheskii obraz Leonida Andreeva. Leonid Andreev isteronevrastenicheskii genii,” Klinichesldi arkhiv genial’nosti i odarennosti. vol. 3, issue 2 (1927): 156. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 164 He wore out everyone around him, that is, not wishing to drink alone he demanded that we drink with him and not leave.... Usually he began to drink when there was something especially weighing on his soul.”4 4 Andreev’s brother, Andrei, gives a similar description of these highly active drunken periods. He argues that Leonid was often more profound when he drank. His ideas were deeper and more meaningful. Andrei even goes so far as to say that he remembers looking forward to the “genius” that would appear when Leonid was drunk.4 5 It very may well have been that Andreev drank during his manic periods and only stopped when he had shifted into a state of depression. Anna Andreeva, his sister-in-law, describes how Andreev could not drink alone and preferred to drink with his brother Pavel. She tells how Andreev had no sense of time when he drank, how he did not sleep or even take a nap, and how he drank either cognac or wine all day, for days on end. During these times, the Andreevs’ family-life was destroyed. They would not eat together, there was total silence in the house and Andreev’s mother would lock herself away in her room and cry. “L. N. drinks for the third day in a row. He walks, talks, and is in motion the entire time. He is tired, but does not want to lie down. In a struggle with himself, he feels the strong, 4 4 Beklemisheva, 211. (Corna HamtHaji nirrb, t o He Mor ocraHOBHTbcn, h nbHHbiii nepiion npononacanca HecKonbKo AHefi. ripiiHeM He Mor cnaTb h nun HenpepuBHo. ... Y to m ju u i Bcex oKpyncatouiHX, t . k. lie /Kenan rum. o .h h h , Tpe6oBan, 4 t o 6 m nunu c h u m h H e yxonunn. ... OfibiKHOBeHHo HanuHan nun., Korna 6bino ocoGeHHo TH*eno H a nyme. 4 5 Andrei Andreev, “Iz vospominanii o L. Andreeve,” Krasnaia nov’. no. 9 (1926): 212. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 165 nervous tension.... The worse days for L. N. were the days he sobered up - the return to life and to people. He stopped drinking, but he would still not come out of his room - only his mother went in to see him. His first appearance at the dinner table was difficult for everyone who knew his mental condition.”4 6 Some tried to explain Andreev’s behavior as a natural condition of student life and poverty. Chukovskii writes in his diary: About eight years ago, [Andreev] told Brusianin and me that when he was a Moscow student, he once had a five-ruble note in his pocket. He decided to sail around-the-world, meaning that he twirled along the alleys and streets, stopping along the way at every bar and tavern and in every one he had a shot. The entire goal of this navigation consists of not missing even one establishment and conscientiously arriving in a circular route to the place from which you started out. “At first everything went well, I was under full sail, but in the middle o f the trip each time I ran into a sandbank. The problem is that in a certain side street there were two pubs situated so that one door was across from another door. Leaving one pub, I immediately entered the other, and then returned to the first one. Every time I left one pub, I was not clear if I had already visited the other, and since I am a conscientious person, every single time I kept going from one pub to the other for a couple of hours until I was dead drunk.”4 7 4 6 L. Ken, intro., “Leonid Andreev v vospominaniiakh Anny Ivanovny Andreevoi,” Russkaia literatura. no. 2 (1997): 85. JT. H. nbeT Tpen>H cyrKH. Oh xoaht, roBoptrr, Bee BpeMa b abhjkchhh. O h ycraji - ho nenb He xoneT. B 6opb6e c cawitM co6ofi HycrByerca ctutbHoe HepBHoe HanpaxceHHe.... CaMbiMH CTpaUlHblM H A H ftM H JI. H. 6bIJIlt A H H 0Tpe3BJieHHft - B03Bpa U teH H H K 5 K H 3 H H H JH O O B M . O h riHTb nepecraBaji, ho He Bbixojuui eme H 3 K O M H aTbi - k neMy Bxoaana toubxo MaTb. riepBbifl ero Bbixoit k oomeMy crony 6btn TS*enbtM aim Bcex, kto 3Han ero aymeBHoe coctohhhc. 47 K. Chukovskii, Dnevnik 1901-1929 (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1991), 120. Jler BoceMb Ha3aa oh paccxa3biBan M H e h EpycaHHHy, hto, 6yflynn mockobckhm cTyneHTOM, oh, 6biBano, c tumtpy&neBKoft b xapMane coBepman no MocKBe xpyrocBerHoe nnaBaHHe, t. e. xpyacHit no nepeynxaM ti ynauaM, 3axoax no aopore bo Bee xa6axn h TpaKTHpbi, h b xaacAOM BbinHBari no pioMxe. Bca uejib xaxoro ruiaBaHHX 3axmoHariacb b tom, htoSbi He nponycrHTb hh OAHoro 3aBeAeHHH h AoSpocoBeTHO npHATH xpyroBbiM nyreM, OTxyAa Bbtmen. - CnepBa Bee umo y Mena xopomo, a ruibut Ha Bcex napycax, Ha ho b cepeaHHe nyrtt bcxkhA pa3 HaTbtxancx Ha Menb. Jleno b tom, hto b oahom nepeyAxe ABe nHBHbie noMemanncb BH3aBH, ABepb npoTHB ABepn; BbtxoAH H 3 oAHofi, a men b Apyryio h orryAa ororrb B03Bpamanca b nepByio: bchkhK pa3, xorAa a bbixoaha h3 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 166 Although Andreev liked to joke about his student days, his brother Pavel tells of how Andreev’s drinking and depression led to suicidal tendencies. Suicide and drinking go hand in hand for many with manic-depression. Goodwin and Jamison write: It is important for clinicians to detect substance abuse in manic- depressive patients because it is a particularly strong predicator of lethality in suicide, especially in males. Alcohol and illicit drugs diminish impulse control, impair judgement, and worsen the course of the affective illness. These substances often are used as an attempt by the patient to lessen the severe anxiety and panic associated with suicidal depression. The combination greatly increases the risk of suicide.4 8 Pavel writes that Andreev’s young siblings (he included) were quite afraid of these periods. When Andreev’s mother saw that Andreev was returning home drunk, she would hide all the sharp objects in the house.4 9 Andreev’s suicidal tendencies and depression were exacerbated by his drinking, poverty and failed romances. Pavel tells of how one evening Andreev returned home drunk and argued with his mother about killing himself. He left again very upset. At midnight, Andreev’s mother and oldest sister went out to look for him. Pavel soon joined the search. Pavel found a policeman who said that a student had tried to shoot himself with a revolver, but had only been wounded. Friends had taken the student to a nearby apartment. After finding Andreev, Pavel went home to tell his mother that Leonid OflHOft, MeHH 6 p aJIO COM HeHlie, 6bU I AH H BO BTOpOtl, H T . K . S HejIOBeK A o6pO C O B eTH btft, TO H H xo A H ii A B a n a c a M e acay AByM n 3aBeaeHHXM H, n o ic a H e n o n t 6 a n o K O H n arejib H O . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 167 was wounded, but alive. “At about 3 or 4 in the morning, they brought Leonid home totally drunk... Leonid shot himself in the chest and the wound would have been fatal, if the bullet had not struck a copper button on his double-breasted jacket...”5 0 The idea to kill himself was not new. Even before his student days, Andreev had attempted suicide. Vera Andreeva writes: “...he was young, healthy and attractive and here he wanted to die.”5 1 Fatov tells of another time when heavy drinking and a failed romance led Andreev to a suicide attempt. One evening Andreev found himself in the company of two students who were also drunk and broken-hearted. All three decided that they would kill themselves. One tried to hang himself, another threw himself under a train and severed both his legs, while Andreev tried to cut himself with a razor. A friend found Andreev and talked him out of it, even as Andreev threatened to kill him.5 2 The fact that Andreev’s adolescence and university years were so violently suicidal is quite consistent with manic-depression. “Evidence suggesting an increased risk of suicide early in the first episode of effective illness is fairly consistent. Tsuang and Woo Ison found that an increased risk for suicide in patients 4 8 Goodwin and Jamison, 226. 4 9 Pavel Andreev, 152. 5 0 Ibid., 165-166. A n a c a b 3 - 4 hohb, co B ceM rib H H o ro , n p n B e 3JW h J l e o H n a a a o M o fi,... J le o H H a c r p e ju u ic f l b r p y jib h p a H a 6 b u ia 6 bi c M e p ie jib H a , e c n H 6 bi n y ju t H e y a a p n n a c b o M e a H y to riy ro B H iiy T y acy p K H ,... Vera Andreev. Dom na Chemoi rechke: Povest’ (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1980), 73. ...o h 6btJi mojioa, 3AopoB h K pacH B h bot - xoTeji yMepeTb. 5 2 N. Fatov, Molodve godv Leonida Andreeva (Moscow: Zemlia i Fabrika, 1924), 88. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 168 with manias and depressions were largely limited to the first decade following first admissions...”5 3 For the most part, Andreev only became seriously suicidal once more during his life and that was after the death of his first wife. Even then, he did not take action, but only contemplated it. Gorky notes rather callously that during this period, Andreev would talk about suicide, only so that his friends would talk him out of it.5 4 It is important to remember that being bipolar does not mean that the individual is constantly in a state of mania, mixed, or depression. The fact that there are periods of “normalcy” is a distinctive quality of manic-depression (Remember Azov’s conversation with Andreev in the university clinic). Jamison argues: “Lucidity and normal functioning are... perfectly consistent with - indeed, characteristic of - the phasic nature of manic-depressive illness. This is in contrast to schizophrenia, which is usually a chronic and relatively unrelenting illness characterized by, among other things, an inability to reason clearly.”5 5 Therefore, Andreev’s drinking, melancholy or grandiosity would surface for a time and then disappear. The duration of these states varied. In 1906, Andreev wrote to Chulkov: “I feel bad, my head hurts. Soon it will be two months already that I have had this relentless pain.”5 6 In a letter to Belousov, Andreev complains of a “two week migraine” that has left him unable to work.5 7 5 3 Goodwin and Jamison, 239. 5 4 M. G or’kii, Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 60. 55 Jamison, Touched With Fire. 154. 5 6 Chulkov, Pis’ma Leonida Andreeva. 29. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 169 The changes in Andreev’s emotional states could also come in degrees so that the transitions were sometimes more or less dramatic. Beklemisheva gives a description of the range of Andreev’s depression. She writes that sometimes, he would play cards during his depressed periods and joke ironically that he felt “terribly gloomy.” When his depression was more serious and caused headaches, he would sit and write comic letters in verse. However, during his most severe episodes, he would lock himself in his bedroom. This is when the illness could be seen on his face, when he grew pale and irritated. Pavel Andreev tells how Leonid’s dog, Moisei Moiseevich, was his faithful friend when he was sick and locked in his room for a couple days.5 9 Like with mania, there are recognized levels of depression. There is nonpsychotic depression, which is characterized by suicidal thinking, psychomotor retardation, self-denigration, guilt, confusion, marked fatigue, morbid obsessions and irrational fears. Psychotic depression results in the same conditions, although more severe, plus delusions and hallucinations.6 0 In 1898, Andreev recorded in his diary: “Right now I have no sorrow - why does everything in me groan and weep? Despondency.”6 1 Andreev wrote to his H ycT B yio c e 6 a CKBepHO, (Jo jih t rojiO Ba. Bor yace CKopo ABa M ecx u a 3 to h n o « m t H en p ep u B H o ft 6ojih. 5 7 RGALI, f. 66, op. 1, ed. kh. 471,1.24. Letter o f 18 March 1913 from Andreev to Belousov. 5 8 Beklemisheva, 233. 5 9 Pavel Andreev, 194. 6 0 Goodwin and Jamison, 37-40. 6 1 Pavel Andreev, 190. C e f tn a c y M en a H e r r o p a , — n o n e M y ace Bee b o M H e c r o n e r h n jia n e T ? T o c ic a . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 170 fiancee, Aleksandra Mikhailovna of his depression: “It is not just a word - melancholy, not only a mental awareness of this or that lacking in your life that could make it complete and happy. It is this torturous state of mind, when you cannot do anything, when it is revolting to be with people, and it is too frightening to be alone, when all thoughts and everything you see seem to be wrapped in funeral crepe.”6 2 Beklemisheva goes so far as to say that Andreev had a split personality. She claims that one half was introspective, while the other was grandiose.6 3 Andreev himself believed that he had various personalities and discussed them with Belousov.6 4 I. Sevast’ianov went to school with Andreev in Orel and lived with him during their student days in Moscow. He remembers many times during their years at the university when Andreev’s mental condition deteriorated, when all his ideas were “broken” and his mind was “abnormal, sick.” Sevast’ianov states that two people lived inside of Andreev. One was normal and wrote works like Days o f Our Lives and “The Seven Who Were Hanged” (Rasskaz o semi poveshennykh), while 61 Leonid Andreev, “Pis’ma k neveste: Iz neizdannoi perepiski Leonida Andreeva,” Zvezda. no. 1 (1968): 189. 3 t o He oflHo c jio b o — TocKa, He to jib k o oaHO ronoBHoe co3H3Hne, h t o b o t Toro-To h t o t o - t o He xBaTaeT am n o jiH o r o Moero cnacTba - 3to MyHHrejibHoe c o c to h h h c , Koraa onycicaiOTCJi p y ic n , c ju o a b m h SbiTb npoTHBHO, a oitH O M y — CTpauiHO, Koraa Bee m u c jih h Bee, h t o b h jih t ma3a, 3aBOJiaKHBaeTcx xpaypHbiM 4>jiepoM. 6 3 Beklemisheva, 266-267. 64 Belousov, 159. * A f o n i n q u o t e s t h e f o llo w in g p a s s a g e f r o m A n d r e e v : “ K aic 6 y a x o p a 3 A e jm n c H a H a a a e n o jio B H H b i. O flH a c M e e T c a , c K y n a e r , r o B o p ir r, y x a * H B a e T , u e n y e T c a , a a p y r a a H e c b o a h t c H ee r a a 3 h exceM H H yTH o c n p a u iH B a e T : «Hy, h to , Kaic, B e c e n o ? A 3 a n e M 3 to ; k n e M y ? » L . A f o n i n , L e o n i d A n d r e e v ( O r e l : O r l o v s k o e k n i z h n o e i z d a t e l ’s t v o , 1959), 31. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 171 the other was psychologically disturbed and wrote Tsar-Hunger, “Red Laugh,” Life o f Man and Anathema.6 5 Accordingly, another friend believed that Andreev’s depression helped him to successfully tap into the prevailing mood of the time. Chirikov had known Andreev as a member of Sreda in Moscow and then later he lived in the same area of Finland. Chirikov writes that Andreev covered his pain with jokes because he did not like to show his wounds to his friends. It was this despair that allowed Andreev to be, as Chirikov argues, the son of the “twilight” epoch. He sees Andreev’s depression in works like “Once There Was,” “The Grand Slam” (Bol’shoi shlem), “Petka at the Dacha” (Pet’ka na dache) and “Little Angel” (Angelochek).6 6 V. Katonina, like Chirikov, saw this facade of laughter give way to depression on various occasions. “[Andreev] was joking, smiling, and seemed to be in a good mood, but once in a while he would suddenly become quiet, his face - gloomy. Something unconsciously sad, plaintive, would fill his soul at these moments. You could feel some hidden grief in his smile then.”6 7 Also, Katonina found that Andreev’s works reflected his mental condition. Once, when she asked him why his stories were so full of tragedy and gloom, Andreev answered: “I do 6 5 Fatov, 228-229. 6 6 E. Chirikov, “Leonid Andreev,” in Russkie sbomiki. book 2, eds. E. Grimm and K. Sokolov (Sofia: Rossiisko-bolgarskoe izdatel’stvo, 1921), 62-63. 6 7 V. Katonina, 15. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 172 not aim for this, Vera Borisovna, so as to weigh down life, but simply I pour everything out of my soul. It is the outcome of everything that I have experienced.’ Vadim Andreev writes that his father’s jokes were a shield from depression. “Grandmother was never offended by father’s jokes. She knew that with the laughter and gaiety, like a shield, he protected himself from the constant melancholy, from the solitude, from the agonizing images, which he created in his books.”6 9 Most associate Andreev’s condition with an unspecified inner turmoil. As with his mania, many argue that Andreev’s depression had a significant influence on his literary work. This is certainly the case for “Once There Was,” which was written by Andreev while recovering in a mental institution in 1901.7 0 Maybe more significantly, understanding Andreev’s depression offers an explanation for his problems with alcohol and suicide, not to mention his morose behavior, for which he was so famous. In a letter to Serafimovich, Andreev wrote: ... my head was hurting so much that I became depressed and fell into deep despair. I started hating my life, and I cursed it with the O h u iy r H ji, y jib id a n c H h , K u a jio c b , S b iji xopouio HacipoeH, h o Bapyr, MHHyraMH, HeoxctiaaKHO yMOJiKan, jih u o ero craHOBitnocb MpanHbiM H h to - to 6ecco3HaTe/ibHo rpycTHoe, xanocnioe, 3aj1er.no Toraa b ayiuy b 3th MHHyrbt... Kaicax-TO 3araeHHaA nenanb nycrBOBanacb b ero yjibi6ice... 6 8 Ibid., 21. «5t He crpeMJiKicb k TOMy, Bepa EopHCOBHa, hto 6 m OTaromarb ant3Hb, a npocrro rax Bee H3JiHBaerc)i H3 aymii Moefi, h cx o ah t H 3 Bcero, h to a nepeHyccrBOBan.» 6 9 Vadim Andreev, Detstvor Povest’ (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1963), 40. E a S y m x a H H x o rjia H e o 6 n w a n a c b H a u iy r x H o m a - OHa 3 H a n a , hto cM ex o M h B e c e jib e M , x a x iuhtom, OH npH K pblB aeTC H OT nOCTOAHHOfi TOCKH, OT OJIHHOHeCTBa, OT MyHHTeJIbHbIX o 6 p a 3 0 B , C03JtaHHbIX hm b e r o K H iira x . 7 0 Ivarskii, “Zhili-byli. O Leonide Andreeve,” Iuzhnoe slovo. no. 35, 1/14 November (1919). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 173 damnation of a neurasthenic. I imagined charging a revolver and killing myself; and after having killed myself, I imagined burying myself and mourning over myself; and after having mourned over myself, I went to see a doctor, and then to another, and finally that evening I assembled several of them for a consultation.7 1 For some, like Gorky and later Soviet critics, it was easier to discount Andreev’s literary production by criticizing his behavior. Gorky held the literary profession in high regard and felt that Andreev’s conduct showed contempt for the profession and had a negative influence on his stories and plays. In the light of bipolar disorder, Gorky’s interpretation seems callous and self-centered. In many ways, Chulkov simply opened the door to a discussion of Andreev’s condition. His description of Andreev’s state is vague and can only be understood if read in conjunction with the Andreev portraits by Blok and Belyi. Significantly, A. Etkind argues: “...Russian symbolism was filling the same roles and performing roughly the same sociocultural and psychological functions that psychoanalysis had come to fill in German and English-speaking countries around that time.”7 2 Chulkov writes: “L. N. Andreev never belonged to their [“Scorpion”] circle and could not belong. He was for them ‘provincial,’ not ‘refined’ enough, and he 7 1 RGALI, f. 457, op. 1, ed. kh. 251,1.5. Letter from Andreev to Serafimovich some time after 1911. ...CTana SojieTb rojioBa, h t o Brian a b nom toe oTHaxHae h nance yHbimie, h B03HeitaBHnen nciuHb Moro h npoxnnn ee npoKJurraeM HeBpacTemca, a MbicneHHO 3apnnan peBonbBep, a Mbtcnemio yfian cefis, a y6HBUia, noxpotran, a noxpoHaBtua, onnaxan, a onnaxaBuia, nom en k noicropy a erne nouien, a HaxoHeu Toro Benepa co3Ban KOHcnnayM. 72 Alexander Etkind, Eros o f the Impossible. The History o f Psychoanalysis in Russia, trans. Noah and Maria Rubins (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1997), 76. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 174 did not like or respect these people. However, in his sub-conscious and in his essence, belied by his exterior, he was a ‘bird of the feather.’”7 3 In evasive modernist language, Chulkov continues by suggesting that Andreev felt the advance of historical upheaval. Chulkov, like other modernists, argues that Andreev was too concerned with wages and newspaper work to engage in ideas. However, it was Andreev’s inner turmoil that made-up for his lack of knowledge: “Whether his style was successful or not, his ideas deep or not, altogether it was him, his personality, the unruly behavior of his mind, his bad heart; they were like prophetic signs of our fate.”7 4 Chulkov connects Andreev to Blok and the eternal feminine, but suggests that Andreev had an avoidance of the truth and could not follow the path forged by the modernists. As with Belyi, Chulkov argues that Andreev did not belong to any literary circle and that he was a “chance guest” wherever he appeared. Notably, Chulkov suggests: “He rebelled like a Decadent, but his rebellion was somehow feminine, hysterical and sentimental. Less subtle than the Decadent poets, he was nevertheless more characteristic and definitive for our cultural void than they were. As a personality, Andreev always represents for me not so much someone who 7 3 Chulkov, Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 108. JI. H. k hx Kpyxcicy He npeoneacan h He Mor nptiHaoneacaTb. O h 6mji anx h h x «npoBHHUnatieH», HeaocTaTonho «pa4>HHHpoBaH», h o h He juoOhji h He uetnut o th x jnoaefl, ho b cBoeft 6e3co3HaTeaE>HoR h bhcuihhm h aaHHbiMH HeonpaBaaHHoft cytuHocTH o h 6but «nx nojw aro a a.» 7 4 Ibid., 113. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 175 poisoned the modem generation, but a victim. He himself was poisoned and tortured by the strange, dark forces, which invisibly penetrated our life and corrupted it.”7 5 In this way, Chulkov introduces readers to Andreev’s depression, but then, like Blok and Belyi, becomes entangled in modernist interpretations. However, Chulkov goes further than Blok in defining Andreev’s inner turmoil and he avoids simply claiming Andreev for the modernist movement, as does Belyi. Possibly, Chulkov did not know Andreev well enough to make a serious attempt at explaining the basis for his problems. Pavel Andreev does a much better job in his memoir published three years after A Book About Leonid Andreev. However, even then, Andreev’s behavior is explained by sociological factors: poverty, the stress of student life, failed romances, etc. Only once Andreev’s depression, alcoholic behavior, suicide attempts, etc. are understood as reactions to a biochemical disorder, can scholars begin to fill-in certain holes in Andreev’s life history. Bipolar disorder must be taken into account when discussing Andreev’s life and/or literary works. It is a disease that results in brain-numbing depression, alcoholic behavior, suicidal thoughts/actions, flights of fancy, high levels of YiiaHeH turn HeyaaneH 6bui ero cthji, rjiy6oKa hjih Herny6oKa ero Mbicrib, Bee paBHO caM oh, ero jiHHHocrb, ero 6yftCTBo yiua h ero 6oJibHoe cep/me 6ujih K aic Bemne 3H3kh Hatuefi cyobdu. 7 5 Ibid., 123. Oh 6yH TO Ban K aic aeKaaewr, ho 6ytrr ero obui K aK oit-T O xeHCKHft, HcrepHHHbifi h caHTHMeHTaribHbitt. Menee tohkhR, hcm noarbi-aeKaaeHTbi, oh 6bui, noacajiyft, 6oJiee xapairrepeH h onpeaejiHTeiieH on* Hauiero KyjrrypHoro 6e3BpeMeHb*, neM ohh. H, K aK jihmhoch., AaapeeB M H e Bceraa npeacTaBJueToi HecTOJibKo cnpaBHTejieM coBpeMeHHoro eMy noK O JieHH M , cko/ibko R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 176 combinatory thinking, abundant levels of energy and much more. It comes in cycles and affects everyone in contact with the sufferer. For a couple months Andreev might sleep very little, sail all day, write all night and be full of energy. He is fun to be around, is constantly joking and radiates enthusiasm. This gives way to a week in which Andreev paces about his study drinking cognac all day. Life in the house comes to a stop and everyone must listen to his theories on Life, Death, Temptation and the Devil. By the fourth day of total drunkenness, Andreev disappears into his room and will not come out for another three days. Time stands still. When he does come out of his room, Andreev complains of headaches and the children are told to be quiet while their father drinks cup after cup of strong tea and smokes one cigarette after another. He is sullen for a month and says little, playing cards and going on long walks. This gives way and gradually Andreev is again “normal” for a couple months. This is the kind of life that Andreev, his family and friends led. Anna Il’inichna wrote to Goloushev in May of 1916: [Andreev] fell into such despair that from general advice, he is smoking again. Last night he spoke very gloomily. He spoke about how a person loses his willpower and is ready to grab a gun and shoot himself, for example. His head aches. ... It is truly unlucky that we never happened to meet an intelligent, real doctor.7 6 a c e p T B o io : e r o c a M o r o o T p a B tu n t h 3 a M y H tu iH T e c r p a H H b i e x e M H b ie c m i b i , K o r o p b i e He3pnMo b o u u ih b H a m y H a i3 H b h p a 3 Jio a c H JiH e e . 7 6 R G A L I , f. 734, o p . I , e d . k h . 7,1.6-8. L e t t e r f r o m A. I. A n d r e e v a t o S. G o l o u s h e v o f M a y 1916. B r i a n b T a rc y io M e n a H x o n m o h to c o o r u e r o c o B e T a , o t u r r b rc y p r r r . B n e p a H O H bio r o B o p w i o n e t r b M p a H H o . H o to m , KaK y n e n o B e K a n p o n o n a e r bojix. B3XTb p e B o jib B e p h B b i c r p e j i a e u i b H a n p . b c e 6 x . T o j io B a 6 o jih t. . .. H e c n a c r b e B o r r c r o H y to , h to H e n p H u u i o c b T O JiK O B oro H a c r o x m e r o B p a n a B C T peT H T b. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 177 Manic-depression is not temporary. It is not like a philosophical, political or literary influence that lasts for a couple years. It is not a reaction to historical events, as Chulkov has suggested. This was how Andreev lived his life. It is a persistent and intrusive illness. Even with all the negatives, bipolar illness has been linked to artistic people and probably enhanced Andreev’s literary career. Understanding this condition and the demands that it made on Andreev, his family and friends is essential to understanding Andreev’s life history. Although it may not be as easy to conceptualize as the influence of the 1905 Revolution or the death of Aleksandra Mikhailovna, manic-depression was more powerful in shaping Andreev than any other singular event in his life. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 178 There are tidings o f doom and disaster In your secret melodiousness, The damnation o f all that’s held secret, The defilement o f all happiness. - Blok, To the Muse The relationship between Blok (1880-1921) and Andreev is difficult to comprehend. It may best be termed a situation of mutual understanding but nothing more. That is to say that there was a common bond that they were unable to develop into a relationship, either as a genuine friendship or on the level of literary collaboration. Blok makes this point at the beginning of his literary portrait: “...L. Andreev and I were connected. During rare meetings we declared this connection to each other with annoying tongue-tiedness and awkwardness, which immediately cooled us down and mutually alienated us from each other.”1 According to Blok, this is a story of two people who connected on an alternate plane, not on the plane of normal social or literary interaction, but on a plane Blok identifies with chaos. They came from different social backgrounds and moved in different social and literary circles. By the time that Blok established himself on the literary scene, Andreev had already attained popular fame and had 1 Aleksandr Blok, “Vospominaniia,” in Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. Vospominaniia Gor’kogo, Chukovskogo, Bloka, G. Chulkova, Borisa Zaitseva, N. Teleshova, Evg. Zamiatina, A. Belogo, 2n d ed. (Berlin: Z. I. Grzhebin, 1922), 95. ...CBH3aHbi c JI. AmtpeeBbiM m u 6 u j ih , ti npn pertKHX Bcrpenax 3anBJUuiH ap y r itpyry 0 6 ctoR c b ju h C flOCaflHblM KOCHOH3blHHeM H He JIOBKOCTblO, KOTOpbM HeMeOHeKHO OXJiaXCAajIH Hac H B33HM HO o T *ty*flajiH H ac n pyr ox apyra. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 179 removed himself to his house in Finland. Blok argues that a contributing factor to their uncommon relationship was due to the period’s “spiritual solitude.” Everyone was guilty in the interval between the two revolutions, at which time it seemed that society was functioning properly, but in fact was not. Even with the solitude, Blok claims that his association with Andreev was something special: “My connection with L. Andreev was immediately established and defined long before our acquaintance. Our real acquaintance did nothing to enrich it.”2 Blok felt that this special connection was a shared sense of chaos: ...I had something in common with him - more precisely, not with him, but with the chaos, which he carried in himself. Not carried, but dragged; somehow he trailed it behind himself, teasing himself with it. He was capable of demonstrating sometimes this complete genuine chaos as one would a parrot or a lap dog, so that all the straight-laced people, surrounding him (and the intelligentsia was very straight-laced because it had not yet chopped firewood and had not carried a pail of water to the seventh floor), had completely ceased to believe in this complete chaos.3 They were drawn to each other by this chaos. However, the first time they met, Blok could find no trace of it. The meeting did not go well, but still Blok was 2 Ibid., 96. CBX3b m o x c JI. A H apeeB biM ycTaH O B tuiacb h o n p e a e ju u ia c b c p a 3 y 3 a a o jiro no 3HaKOMCTBO c h h m ; HHHero k Heii He npH oaB H Jio 3 t o 3 H 3 k o m c tb o ; 3 Ibid., 97. ...x n epew iH K H yjicx c h h m , — B e p n e e He c h h m , a c TeM x ao co M , K O Topuii o h b c e o e h o c h j i ; He h o c h ji, a xacK an, icaic-To b o jio h h ji 3a c o fx m , a p a 3 H a n c x h m , c n o c o o e n 6btJi H H o raa AeMOHCTHpoBaTb 3 t o t noAJiHHHbifi x a o c Kaic n o n y r a x h k KOMHaTHyio co 6 am cy , T ax h t o Bee n o n o p H b ie jik x h h , o x p yxcaiotuH e e r o (a HH TeJuiH reH iuix 6 b u ia o n eH b H o n o p n a x , noxoM y h t o a p o B o H a T o r a a e tu e He p y 6 H Jia h B eaep c b o a o h Ha ceab M b ie 3T axot He T a c x a n a ), oKOHHaTejibuo n e p e c ra B a jiH BepttTb b 3 t o t n o ajiH H H b iit x a o c . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 180 invited to Andreev’s a couple days later.4 Blok visited on a cold and rainy night. He tells of big bay windows that looked out towards the Gulf of Finland. There, Blok found many famous writers, but says that even so, Andreev seemed the loneliest person there. Andreev did not display the chaos on this night either, but this made Blok even more aware of it. “[The chaos] is terrifying precisely because if you were to see it you would not be frightened, but without seeing it, you feel it.”5 Around this same time, Blok went to see Andreev’s play, Life o f Man. He liked the production and writes, “Even the quite weak actors succeeded in waking in themselves this chaos, which relentlessly followed [Andreev].”6 Blok claims that Andreev’s strength came from the ability to ask “Why?” Not the “Why?” of the simply inquisitive, but the “Why?” that challenges, the “Why?” of frustration. Blok writes: ...in him was this valuable, untouched, chaotic, murky depth, from which someone seated in him asked “Why?” “Why?” “Why?” and banged his head against the wall of the big, fashionably furnished, repellently huge suite, in which lived the famous writer Leonid Andreev, among furniture of the new style.7 4 Liubov’ Blok writes o f their first meeting: “L. Andreev was at the theater. Sasha met him and I saw and heard how [Andreev] talked with Sasha. I did not like him, there is something about him that is similar to Chulkov.” See Aleksandr Blok now e materialv i issledovaniia. Literatumoe nasledstvo, book 3, vol. 92, eds. M. Khrapchenko and V. Shcherbina (Moscow: Nauka, 1982), 304. B TeaTpe 6bui JI. AuapeeB, Catua c hhm no3HaKOMiuica, a a Biiztejia h cjibituarta, Kaic o h roBopirr c Cauieft. He noHpaBtuica M He, h cm -to Ha HyjiKOBa noxoxc. 5 Ibid., 99. ...crpauiH a, h to , x o rn a ee yBHmmib, He n c n y ra e u ib c a , a HeBtutHMyio — HyBCTByeuib. 6 Ibid. ...aaace cjiaSbiM hobojibho aicrepaM yztanocb pa36yflHT b c e 6 e to t x a o c , KOTopbifi Tax HeoTcrynHO cnenoB aji 3a hh m. 7 Ibid., 100. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 181 Blok recounts their history, highlighting the fact that they never seemed to make a real or personal connection. He states that if Andreev were still alive, they would even now only talk about the most mundane things. However, chaos somehow united them in spite of the fact that they never became much more than acquaintances. It was the chaos and everything that comes with it, turmoil and loneliness: [He] was endlessly alone, unrecognized and always directing his face into the portal of the black window, which goes out in the direction of the islands and Finland, in the damp evening, in an autumn downpour, which he and I loved with the same love. Through this window entered his last guest in a black mask - death.8 In reading the memoir, there actually appear two chaotic planes on which Blok and Andreev met. There is the plane of literary output, into which this chaos is harnessed and something is produced. There is also the plane of personal chaos. This is the dark side of these writers’ private lives. This is the side that never allowed them to become intimate friends, but did allow for some sense of mutual understanding. ...b HeM 3Ta aparoueHHan, HenoHataa, xaoTtnecKafl, MyrHaa raySb, H3 KOTopofi k to - to b KeM cnoaiiiHft cnpauiHBan: «3aaeM?» «3aneM?» «3aneM?» h S h a c h rojioBofi o cren y Gojibtuofi, m oaho o6CTaBJleHHOH, nOCTbtJlOft XOpOMHHbl, B KOTOpoft 3KHA H3BeCTHblft nHCaTCAb JleOHHA AtutpeeB, cpe/w MeSeaeft Hcmoro c th jia . 8 Ibid., 103. ...6but 6e3KOHeHHo o a h h o k , HenpmHaH it B ceraa oSpameH a h u o m b npoBan nepH oro OKHa, KOTopoe BblXOAHT B CTOpOHy OCTpOB H OhHAAHAHH, B CbipyiO HOM b, B OCeHHHtt AHBCHb, KOTOpblft Mbt C HHM a k jS h a h oah o B Aio6oBbio. B Taxoe o k h o h npHuuia k HeMy nocaeAHAH rocTba b nepHott Macxe - CMeptb. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 182 Grasping what Blok means by chaos and determining how this memoir translates into something that can be understood are the tasks of this chapter. The language of Blok’s memoir is typical o f Symbolist prose texts in its elusiveness. The Symbolists believed, in accordance with Plato’s Book VII of The Republic, that most of us live in a cave with our backs to a fire. Because of this, the only world we know is a shadow world on the walls in front of us. There are only a few select people who have been out of the cave, whose eyes have gotten used to the sun and who have seen the world as it really is. In returning to the cave, these select few have a hard time explaining what they have seen outside o f the cave because we do not have the language to explain what is not on the wall of shadows. Therefore, these select few must use a symbolic language to try to get those of us in the cave to understand what is outside, to understand that our world is based on shadows. The Symbolists felt that they were the select few and so they used a special language that those of us who still live in the cave must interpret. Therefore, the task in reading Blok’s literary portrait is to understand what he means by chaos and how this impinges on both his literary and personal relationship with Andreev. To understand Blok’s use of the term chaos, we must first turn to the philosophy of Vladimir Solov’ev and Friedrich Nietzsche. Solov’ev’s theory of chaos is found in articles such as “The General Meaning of Art” (Obshchii smysl iskusstva) and “Beauty in Nature” (Krasota v prirode), where chaos is a state o f the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 183 material world - the dark power. Beauty reigns over chaos and together they form the cosmos. The two are dependent on each other so that beauty cannot exist without chaos. Therefore, it is the role of the artist to subjugate chaos, in order to realize fully beauty in art. Based on this philosophy, many modernist critics described Andreev as a writer who captures “the formless chaos of life.”9 Belyi and Blok saw in Andreev’s works the archetypal Dostoevskian internal struggle of chaos and cosmos. Their accent was on the “chaos of the human soul.” This understanding of chaos became conflated with psychological issues of the individual’s internal conflict with a seemingly orderless and fractured world. “It was not by accident,” argues Mysliakova, “that the category ‘chaos’ was often used by them for characteristics of the internal world of the individual,...”1 0 As Blok’s artistic vision evolved, Solov’ev’s philosophy became less influential in modernist circles and the ideas of Nietzsche commanded a dominant role.1 1 Blok embraced Nietzsche later (ca. 1906) than most Symbolists. He never accepted the philosophy in whole, but chose certain ideas that were interesting to him. Blok participated in V. Ivanov’s literary circle and was influenced by his 9 Margarita Viktorovna Mysliakova, “Kontseptsiia tvorchestva Leonida Andreeva v simvolistskoi kritike” (Ph.D. diss., Moscow State University, 1995), 151-153. 1 0 Ibid., 153. He cnyHatiHo KaTeropmt "xaoca" Macro Hcnojib30Banacb h m h ojih xapaicrepHCTHKH BHyrpeHHero Miipa nejioBeKa,... 1 1 For a more in-depth discussion o f Blok’s shift from Solv’evian to Nietzschian philosophy, see Evelyn Bristol, “Blok between Nietzsche and Soloviev,” in Nietzsche in Russian, ed. Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal ( Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986), 149-160. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 184 host’s own reading of Nietzsche, which concentrated on the Dionysian elements.1 2 Ivanov himself interpreted Andreev’s works in Nietzschean terms and regarded the negative conditions - fear, madness and despair - found in Andreev’s works as emotional-psychopathological aspects, which promoted a “chaotic” essence in the world-order.1 3 Possibly under the influence of Ivanov, Blok’s concept of chaos takes on elements of Nietzsche’s The Birth o f Tragedy, in which Nietzsche identifies the Dionysian and Apollonian forces in life and artistic creation. The Dionysian is the wild, orgiastic, uncontrollable force and the Apollonian, the staid, plastic, controlled elements. Nietzsche felt that both forces were necessary and integral parts of life and art. Blok seemingly reinterpreted Nietzsche’s philosophy and replaced the terms Dionysian and Apollonian with chaotic and cosmic. Blok understood this Dionysian force as chaos, or the uncontrollable and corporeal elements of life that create art. In an article entitled “On the Poet’s Destination” (O naznachenii poeta), Blok writes: What is harmony? Harmony is the agreement of world powers, an order of the world life. The order is the cosmos, in opposition to the disorder — chaos. Ancient philosophers taught us that from chaos is bom the cosmos, the world. The cosmos is related to chaos like resilient waves of the sea are akin to the mass o f ocean water.... Chaos is primeval, poetic anarchy. Cosmos is ordered harmony, culture. From chaos is bom cosmos.1 4 1 2 V. Papemyi, “Blok i Nitsshche,” Uchenve Zapiski Tartuskoeo Gosudarstvennoeo Uni vers iteta. vol. 491 (1979): 84-89. 1 3 Margarita Viktorovna Mysliakova, “Kontseptsiia tvorchestva Leonida Andreeva v simvolistskoi kritike” (Dissertation abstract, Moscow State University, 1995), 20. 1 4 Aleksandr Blok, Sobranie sochinenii. vol. 6 (Moscow; Leningrad: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1962), 161. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 185 In a letter of 1909, Blok tries to explain to his friend, Evgenii Ivanov, how chaos and cosmos interact with the artist, Art is only cosmos - the creative spirit, which gives form to chaos (the emotional and corporeal world). There is no need to elaborate on the fact that the world of corporeal and emotional phenomena is only chaos - this must be known to the artist (as it was known to Aeschylus, Dante, Pushkin, Bellini, Leonardo, Michelangelo and will be known to future artists). Our great writers (primarily I have in mind Tolstoi and Dostoevskii) built everything on top of chaos (they “valued” it), and therefore chaos emerged multiplied tenfold, that is, they were bad artists. One can build cosmos only out o f chaos.1 5 David Sloane characterizes Blok’s theory as such: “Where life translates directly into art and imposes its own orders on the latter, the poet relinquishes control over his creation and defers to the authority of chance and chaos. Where the poet separates art from life and imposes his own purely esthetic orders on his creation, he serves design and cosmos.”1 6 Since chaos for Blok was the uncontrollable, discordant forces in life and art, it is understandable why Blok perceived chaos in Andreev’s literary work. H to Taicoe rapMOHax? rapM oaaa ecTb coraacae MapoBbix can, nopxaoK MapoBoft jk h3hh. riopxaoK — kocm oc, b npoTHBonojioxHOCTb SecnopaaKy - xaocy. H3 xaoca poacaaeTcx kocm oc, Mnp, y n aaa apeBHHe. K ocm oc - poaHofi xaocy, xax ynpyrne BOJiHbi Mopx - poaHbie rpyaaM OKeaHCKHX BanoB.... Xaoc ecrb npeBoSbiTHoe, craxafiHoe 6e3Hanane; kocm oc — ycrpoetutax rapMOHHX, KyabTypa; H 3 xaoca poxcaeaTcx kocm oc. 1 5 Blok, Sobranie sochinenii. vol. 8, 292-293. HcxyccTBO ecrb to jib k o kocm oc - TBopnecKHii ayx, o^opMaaBajoiuaa xaoc (aymeBBbift a TeaecHbUl Map). O to m , h to Map XBJieHafi Teaecabix a aymeBHbix ecn> mojibtco xaoc, aenero pacnpocrpaHXTCH, o to aoaxcHO 6bm> b 3 b c c th o xyaoacaaKy (a 6biao iDBecTHo 3cxaay, flaaTy, riyuiKaay, EeaaaHa, JTeoaapao, Maxeab-AHaxeao a 6yaeT h 3 b c c th o 6yaymaM xyaoacaaKaM). Hama Beaaxae nacaTeaa (npeitMytuecTBeaHO o ToacroM a ^ o c to c b c k o m ) crpoaaa Bee ua xaoc, t . e. ouu 6biaa tuioxaMa xyaoacaaKaMa. CipoaTb kocm oc m o x h o T oabxo ta xaoca. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 186 Bezzubov has covered many of the literary connections in his chapter on the two authors.1 7 Blok was introduced to Andreev through the author’s works: “The Life of Vasilii Fiveiskii,” “Red Laugh,” and “The Thief’ (Vor). Blok liked Andreev’s image of the “terrible world” and created such a world himself in his third volume of poetry. While reading “Red Laugh,” Blok wrote to Sergei Solov’ev that he, “had come close to madness.”1 8 According to Bezzubov, the problems touched upon in these three stories and “Little Angel,” “not only interested the poet, but they played a large role in the formation of his thought and mood during the period of the 1905 revolution.”1 9 O f even more importance was Andreev’s play, The Life ofMan. Blok highly regarded Meyerhold’s production of the play at the Komissarzhevskaia theater in 1907. In reaction to this play, Blok wrote a letter to the actress V. Verigina, in which he states, “...I am with L. Andreev - alone, and we are both despairing and desperate.”2 0 The Life o f Man was one of the major influences on Blok’s article “About the Realists” (O realistakh), in which he defended Andreev 1 6 David A. Sloane, Aleksander Blok and the Dynamics o f the Lvric Cycle (Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, 1988), 275. 1 7 V. Bezzubov, “Leonid Andreev i Aleksandr Blok,” in Leonid Andreev i traditsii russkoeo realizma (Tallin: Eesti Raamat, 1984), 156-250. 1 8 Ibid., 160. «6jih3hjicx k cyMacmecTBaHHofi» 1 9 Ibid., 180. ...6bma ne t o jib k o O jiim a nooTy, h o h c b irp an a S onbuiyio pojib b o<t>opMJieHHH e ro Mbtcjieft h H acrpoeHH ii b n e p n o n peBoniouHH 1905 ro.ua. 2 0 Ibid., 182. - a c JI. AaapeeBbiM — o o h o , h o6 a mm OTHasBimiecH h oTHasHHbie. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 187 from other writers in the Symbolist literary camp. Blok also defended Andreev in an article entitled “About Drama” (O drame). In these two articles, Blok not only defended Andreev’s play, but also his unapologetic gloominess and constant pessimism - “Yes, there is darkness, despair. But there is a light from the darkness.”2 1 Andreev learned of Blok through the poet’s review o f “The Thief.” However, they did not meet face to face until September 1907. They saw each other five days later (20 September) at a performance of the Komissarzhevskaia production of The Life o f Man. On the 26th , Blok came to Andreev’s St. Petersburg version of Sreda. Blok was one of the few Symbolists who Andreev valued artistically and he had plans for the organization of a “new theater,” in which he wanted Blok to play a major role. For this, Andreev asked Blok to contribute his play Song o f Fate (Pesnia sud’by) in 1909. In 1907-1908 a relationship between Blok and Andreev developed both personally and on a literary level. Yet quite unexpectedly at the end of 1908, this relationship changed due to Andreev’s play Days o f Our Lives (Dni nashi zhizni). Blok felt that the play had been written for the provincial stage and for the petty bourgeoisie. He did not see it as a realistic portrayal of student life or as being critical of social vices. For Blok, Days o f Our Lives was a travesty when compared to Life o f Man and King Hunger. This caused Blok to re-evaluate everything that 2 1 Ibid., 188. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 188 Andreev had written. And yet, the two continued to correspond into 1909. However, Blok soon left for Italy and cut himself off from most of his friends. Blok’s attitude again changed towards Andreev and in 1912-1913 they began to meet. The friendship, however, never reached the closeness of the earlier years. At the time, both were interested in psychology. Andreev liked the psychological elements in Blok’s play, The Rose and the Cross (Roza i Krest), and attempted to convince V. Nemirovich-Danchenko to stage the play at the Moscow Art Theater. Andreev wanted to strengthen their friendship, but Blok was unwilling because he felt that Andreev was uncultured. Blok searched for what it was about Andreev that attracted him. He decided that it was a “non-human connection,” a connection of the “intimate horrors of a mystical order.”2 2 Their friendship finally came to an end in 1916. Andreev invited Blok to contribute to The Russian Will. Blok declined and Andreev took offense. At this point, Blok and Andreev were polar opposites politically. Andreev supported the war effort and attacked the Bolsheviks for undermining the military’s fighting morale. Blok was anti-war and supported the Bolsheviks’ revolutionary activities. The two did not speak again before Andreev’s death in 1919. «fla - TbMa, OTMaxHte. Ho - c b c t m n ,M b r.» 22 Ibid., 242. «...6jih3khx yacacoB MHCTHMecKoro nopauKa,...» R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 189 Bezzubov states that Andreev’s death caused Blok to reassess his feelings about the author and that he became decidedly more positive toward Andreev following 1919. Bezzubov also suggests that Blok’s literary portrait is more than just mere lip service. Rather, it betrays the connection that Blok and Andreev shared and suggests that Andreev had a larger influence on Blok’s art than one might think.2 3 What remains to be discussed is where Blok and Andreev intersected on a personal level. During the period of their acquaintance, Blok wrote his third volume of poetry (1907-1916). The volume begins with the poetic cycle “Terrible world” (Strashnyi mir) and is concerned mainly with the concepts of chaos and cosmos. The poems of this volume were influenced by F. Tiutchev’s poem “About what do you howl, night wind?” (O chem ty voesh’, vetr nochnoi?...) This poem is concerned with the chaos that inhabits and unites the natural elements and the human soul. Blok’s preoccupation with chaos was not limited to philosophical interests and literary theory. As an adult, Blok was diagnosed as suffering from cyclothymic disorder, which is a milder form of bipolar disorder.2 4 Cyclothymia is defined as “a 2 3 Ibid., 250. * Petrovskii makes further connections between Andreev’s works and Blok’s poem “The Twelve.” See M. Petrovskii, ‘“ Dvenadtsat” Bloka i Leonid Andreev” in Aleksandr Blok now e materialv i issledovaniia. Literatumoe nasledstvo, book 4, vol. 92, eds. I. Zil’bershtein and L. Rozenblium (Moscow: Nauka, 1987), 203-232. 1 4 Avril Pyman, The Life o f Alexander Blok: Volume II. The Release o f Harmony 1908-1921 (Oxford; London; New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 130. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 190 chronic, fluctuating mood disturbance involving numerous periods of hypomanic symptoms and numerous periods of depressive symptoms.”2 5 In the sense that life imitates art, Blok’s personal life was very chaotic during this period as well and may have exacerbated his cyclothymic condition. In his poem ‘The Double” (Dvoinik) is written: “I am tired of stumbling,// Of breathing the dank fog,// Of being reflected in other people’s mirrors,// And kissing the women of others...//2 6 Chukovskii wrote o f Blok: “He was a double, and all of his themes, and all of his works were doubles,...”2 7 Like Andreev, Blok suffered from manic-depression and at times felt like he was split in two. In the spring of 1908, Blok’s wife, Liubov’ Dmitrievna, was on tour with Meyerhold and his theatrical company in the provinces. Blok was depressed and drinking heavily. Liubov’ Dmitrievna came to see him at times, but this did little to reassure the poet. He wrote to his mother: “I am going to bed only every other night and am wasting much energy on wine, boating on the sea, wandering about the fields and forests, women.”2 8 In July, at a point of desperation he wrote to his wife: “I am writing to you absolutely ill and exhausted by drunkenness. All this time I am being eaten up by some inner sickness of the soul, and I can see no 2 5 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual o f Mental Disorders. 4th ed. (Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994), 363-365. *Cyclothymic disorder is a less severe form o f manic- depression and results in periods o f depression and intense, fast paced manic periods without the psychotic elements. ' 6 Blok, Sobranie sochinenii. vol. 3, 13-14. ycTarc a inaxaTbCH// ripoM03nu>iM xyMattOM flbtmaxb// B nywnx 3epicajiax oxpaxaxbcx// H xenixum HVttHx ueJtoB aT b-.y/ K. Chukovkii, Kniga o Aleksandre Bloke (St. Petersburg: Epokha, 1922), 43. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 191 reason whatsoever for going on living as everybody else does as though they could count on a long life.... I need you to take some part in my life and even in my work; to find some means to heal me of this hopeless depression which is my ► « 2 Q permanent state just now... This letter did, in fact, bring Liubov’ Dmitrievna back. However, she arrived home pregnant, having conducted an affair with one of the young actors in her troupe. Blok and Liubov’ Dmitrievna agreed that they would raise the child as their own. Blok’s mental state began to stabilize, but the couple was devastated when their child died shortly after birth. In January of 1910, Blok was diagnosed as suffering from an advanced form of neurasthenia and it was suggested that he should check into a sanatorium.3 0 A month later, the poet’s mother, Aleksandra Andreevna, was sick and came to live for a time in St. Petersburg. She was suffering from one of her bouts of depression, for which she had been hospitalized many times. The move brought mother and wife together, which was unpleasant for all involved. Blok’s mother was described as “night and darkness....that swallowed up the light of day.” While Liubov’ Dmitrievna was described as opposed to the gloom of night, “and in her soul she Oh 6bui HBofiHoft, it Bee ero TeMbi, it Bee ero npoH3BejteHiw 6bui ABOHHbie,... 2 8 Pyman, 7. 2 9 Ibid., 14. 3 0 M. M. Sbcherba and L. A. Baturina, “Istoriia bolezni Bloka,” in Literatumoe nasledstvo. book 4, vol. 92, 730. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 192 wanted to tear the mother away from the son like a weed, as the root of the inborn dark double that was growing within him.”3 1 Due to her depression, Aleksandra Andreevna returned to the sanatorium and only joined the Bloks at Shakhmatovo in July. By this time, it had become clear that her condition was chronic and that her recovery was superficial. Blok sank into a gloomy silence and was a “nervous wreck,” due to his mother’s condition, his relationship with Liubov’ Dmitrievna, and strenuous work renovating their summer home.3 2 In January 1911, Blok was again advised (by another doctor) to check into a sanatorium. The doctor claimed that Blok was physically fit, but suffered from a nervous condition. That summer Blok went to see a neurologist, who confirmed the diagnosis. During the fall of 1911 and on through 1913, Blok continued to suffer from bouts of nerves and depression.3 3 Blok’s extra-marital affairs and his indulgence in the “elemental gypsy excitement of Petersburg nightlife” exacerbated his domestic problems.3 4 His continual debauchery was physically and mentally exhausting. In January, he fell very ill and a doctor was consulted. According to A. Pyman, syphilis was the diagnosis. Blok was depressed and ashamed of his disease and its origins. During his long convalescence, he spent much time with his mother and wife (the two had 3 1 Pyman, 83. 3 2 M. Beketova, “Shakhmatovo. Semeinaia khronika,” in Literatumoe nasledstvo. book 3, vol. 92, 781-782. 3 3 Shcherba and Baturina, 730-731. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 193 struck a truce during Blok’s illness). He would also quote from Andreev’s “Darkness” (T’ma) on the shame of being good.3 5 Somewhat humbled, Blok agreed that Liubov’ Dmitrievna should return to the stage for the summer of 1912. However, he quickly regretted it and felt abandoned. At first, he kept busy with work, but soon he began to spend time with his friends. Interestingly enough, he spent one June evening with Andreev and the artist N. Sapunov. He describes it as “one of the most dreadful nights of my life.”3 6 Both Andreev and Sapunov were known for their heavy drinking and one can only imagine the debauchery that led to Blok’s quote. Liubov’ Dmitrievna spent thel9l2-1913 theatrical season with a new lover, while Blok was undergoing an intensive course of treatment for his illness. One result was that he decided that he was through with drink and prostitutes. That season, Blok experienced another bout of depression and Liubov’ Dmitrievna returned for a short time, until there was no longer a threat of suicide. Interestingly, at this time both Blok and Andreev fell in love with Carmen during a run of the opera in the capital. Blok courted the singer Liubov’ Aleksandrovna Andreeva-Del’mas, sending roses and unsigned notes after each performance of Carmen. At the end of March 1914, Blok confessed to being her admirer. Soon after, they started a passionate love affair and began to be seen in 3 4 Pyman, 146. 3 5 Ibid., 156. 3 6 A. Blok. Dnevnik (Moscow: Sovietskaia Rossiia, 1989), 148. ...c oahiim H3 yxacHefiuiHX BenepoB Moeft hciuhii... R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 194 public together. Their relationship was interrupted when Blok left for war service in the summer of 1916. In 1915, Andreev became infatuated with Maria Samoilovna Davydova, who alternated with Del’mas in the lead role. Davydova was invited to Andreev’s house in Finland and accompanied him to various events in the capital. In her memoir, Davydova calls their relationship a “tender friendship.”3 7 For the years that Andreev and Blok were acquainted (1907-1916), there was much that was “chaotic” in Blok’s life. This was the chaos of Dionysus, not simply on the level of philosophical statements about art, but on the level of real life. Interestingly, Chulkov writes of Blok: Blok had two lives - not a comfortless life, the domestic life, the quiet life and the other - not an everyday life, the street life, the intoxicated life. Blok had order in his home, measure, and an outward well being. It is true that there was no real well being there, but he treasured its appearance. Under the mask of correctness and pedantry lurked the terrible stranger — chaos.3 8 Andreev was also no stranger to chaos in his personal life. Like Blok, he probably suffered from manic-depression, which often led to persistent and uncontrollable mood swings between deep depression and mania. He had been hospitalized and his depression resulted in drinking binges and outrageous behavior 3 7 Mariia Davydova, “Vstrechi s L. N. Andreevym,” Russkaia mvsl’. no. 3084, 1 January (1976): 10. ...o nauie neacHoit apyxSe,... 3 8 Georgii Chulkov, “Aleksandr Blok i ego vremia,” in Aleksandr Blok v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov v dvukh tomakh. vol. 1, ed. V. Orlova (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1980), 363. Y EnoKa 6buio ABe w h 3 h h — 6biTOBas, AOM aiuHAx, t h x b h h npyraa — 6e36biTHas, yjiHMHan, XMejibHax. B A OM e y Bnoica 6but nopaaox, pa3MepeHHOcrb h BHemtiee SjiarononynHe. lIpaBAa, SjiarononynHfl noAJiHHHoro h 3Aecb He 6bi;io, h o o h Aopoacart ero BHAHMocTbio. rioA Macicoio KOppeKTHOCTH H neA3HTH3Ma TatUICX C TpantHblii He3H3K0MeU - xaoc. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 195 that garnered him quite a reputation. “Andreev was never an alcoholic in the usual sense of the word: he drank very rarely, his entire life he struggled with what he thought was a hereditary defect, displaying a great force of will,” writes Skitalets. For a couple years he did not drink at all, but sometimes due to his personal life he “broke loose and then the defect appeared grandiosely, sickly, with some kind of terribly tragic beauty of the soul’s fire.”3 9 Belousov remembers a conversation when Andreev agreed that he seemed to have a split personality. “Yes, exactly, in me exists all kinds of anesthetic, not talking about alcohol, but even if I smoke a lot or drink strong tea, I feel that I am cut in two: in me lives two people, not similar to one another.”4 0 Later Andreev wrote to his friend that for the past few months, he had been strangely unnerved. He claimed that it was not just a case of a splitting in two, but splitting in ten directions. This problem was affecting him both emotionally and physically. “I have searched for a long time for an explanation for this strange and torturous 3 9 Skitalets (S. G. Petrov), “Vstrechi. L. Andreev,” Krasnaia Nov’, no. 10 (1934): 161. A ttn p e e B H M c o ru a H e 6 m ji nbX H H uefi b oObiHHOM C M bicne a x o r o c a o B a : n a n o n e H b p e a x o , b c io H CH 3H b SopOJICX C 3THM, KaK OH a y M a rt, HaCJieACTBeHHblM nopO K O M , npOXBJlXX 6oJIb U iy iO CHJiy b o h h :........ cpbiBancx, h xoraa nopoK npoxaaxacx rpaHAH03HO, 6one3HeHHO, c KaKoii-TO rpo3Ho- iparHMecKoil KpacoToft aytneBHoro noxcapa. I. Belousov, Literatumaia sreda: Vosnominaniia. 1880-1928 (Moscow: Kooperativnoe izd-vo pisatelei nikitinskie subbotniki, 1928), 159. — Jla, aecTBHTenbHO, — Ha M en a aeflcT B yeT bcxkhH HapK0 3 , He TOBopx o BHHe, h o a ax c e, e c n n x M H oro icypio h jih n b to KpenKHfi nail, x nyBCTByio, h t o x p a 3aB o x io c b : b MHe xcHByr a B a neaoB eica, He noxoxcH x o a n n Ha a p y r o r o . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 196 occurrence. At present, I have not met an exhaustive explanation in an encyclopedia.”4 1 Andreev once wrote to his fiance: “Yesterday I looked through my diaries and was horrified. Before me stood my life, wasted on the pursuit of ghosts, drowning in vodka, full of unconscious lies. ...I have moments when despair and rage grip me, when I am not able to say words; aren’t there moments when I appear bored, uninterested, despondent, sick? ... And so as a result o f these moments, when you need more than anything a loving person, you sit alone and write a disgusting diary [entry], or you are silent, and you furiously suck down vodka.” 4 2 Blok understood the effects of depression and mental illness. Both he and his mother had suffered from extreme bouts of depression4 3 and Blok worried 4 1 Ibid. The original letter o f IS March 1917, quoted by Belousov in his memoir, can be found at RGALI, f. 11, op. 1, ed. kh. 471,1.60. Aojiro a H C K aji o6t>H C H eH H » oroMy crpaHHOMy ii MymrreJibHOMy ABJieiwio, noKa b aHtuiKJionejtHH He BCTpemnocb M H e H c n e p rib iB a io m e e oomcHeHiie. 42 LRA, MS 606\G. 8. ii. Letter to A. M. Veligorskaia on 06 November 1897. B n e p a n p o c M O T p e n c b o h jm eBH H K H it n p n m e j i b y x c a c . r i p e n o m h o H B c r a jia m oh 3KH3Hb, n o T p a n e H H a ft H a n o r o H io 3 a n p ro p a K a M H , y r o n a i o m a a b B o n n e , n o n H an 6 e c c o 3 H a T e jib H o ft jixch. ...y M etut M H HyTbi, K o n ia M e n u o S y p e B a e T T o cK a h i n o c r b , K o r a a n c n o B a H e M o r y CK a3aTb, M iiH y rb i, K O raa fl HB/IJHOCb CKyHHbIM, H eH H TepeC H bIM , yHbUIblM , S ojlbH blM ? ... H BOT B p e 3 y jIb T a T e B MHHbiTbi, K o rn a 6 o n e e B c e ro tty x ceH Ju o 6 fltu H ft n ejio B eic, C H ju m ib o a iih h jih c rp o H H U ib npoT H B H bitt AHeBHHK, HJIH MOJIHa, a TO S y p H O c o c e u i b BOflKy. 4 3 Avril Pyman, The Life o f Alexander Blok: Volume I. The Distant Thunder 1880-1908 (Oxford; London; New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 47-49. *Khodasevich writes: “Aleksandra Andreevna was very sickly.... Hysteria began to reveal itself since adolescence and from around 1908-1909 it took on a very severe and difficult form. Several times it happened that Aleksandra Andreevna needed to stay in a sanatorium. ... Fits o f unhealthy melancholy were particular to her.” See V. Khodasevich, “Blok i ego mat’,” Coglasie. no. 8, August (1991): 177. A n e x c a H jip a A n a p e e B H a 6 b m a o n e H b 6 o n e 3 H e H H a .... H c r e p i u i b H eft H a n a n a n p o x B J u rrb c n c O T p o n ecT B a h n p ii6 iiH 3 H T e jib H o c 1908-1909 r o a a n p n i u u i a o n e H b o c r p y i o h T jo x e jiy io <)>opMy. A j i e x c a n n p y A n o p e e B H y H e c x o jib K o p a 3 n p u x o a i u i o c b n o M e u ta T b b c a H a T o p u f i.... Eft CBoftcTBeH Hbi 6 b u in n p n n a jtK H 6 o n e 3 H e H H o ft M ejiaH x o jtH H . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 197 greatly about his mother’s deteriorating mental condition.4 4 In a letter of 24 June 1911, Blok’s mother characterizes her son’s cyclothymia as periodic, affecting all those around him and states that she could always tell “when it had started.” She writes that Blok’s illness had reached the “peak” of this particular cycle; that Blok and his wife had planned to go to the dacha, but now he did not want to do anything.4 5 It is significant that Andreev and Blok suffered from a similar condition. Jamison writes of this illness: “Manic-depressive, or bipolar, illness encompasses a wide range of mood disorders and temperaments. These vary in severity from cyclothymia - characterized by pronounced but not totally debilitating changes in mood, behavior, thinking, sleep, and energy levels - to extremely severe, life- threatening, and psychotic forms of the disease.”4 6 Maliciously, Ivan Bunin calls both Andreev and Blok “abnormal.” He says that Andreev was tragically addicted to drink. Of Blok, Bunin writes: “[Blok’s] grandfather (on his father’s side) died in a psychiatric hospital, his father ‘with oddities that bordered on mental illness’ and his mother ‘more than once recovered ♦ B ek eto v a w rite s o f B lo k 's m o th e r: B aercT B e h kjhocth o tta 6 buia caMbiM BecejibiM h *H3HepaaocTHbiM co3flaHHeM, Kaicoe TOJibKo mojkho ce6 e npeacraB H Tb, ho h eft CBoftcTBeHHbi 6biJiH Te K anptnbi h HepBHOCTH, K o ro p u e npoxBtuiHCb noTOM y cbm a. See M. B e k e to v a , “Mat’ A lek san d ra B lo k a : V liia n ie m a te ri n a sy n a” in A le k sa n d r B lo k v v o s p o m in a n iia k h so v rem en ik o v . v o l. 1,62. 4 4 M. Beketova, Aleksandr Blok. Biografichesldi ocherk. 2n d ed. (Leningrad: Academia, 1930), 78. 4 5 RGALI, f. 55, op. I, ed. kh. 536(2), 1 . 57. Letter o f A. Kublitskaia-Piottukh to M. Ivanovna on 24 June 1911. 4 6 Kay Redfield Jamison, Touched With Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament (New York: The Free Press. 1993), 13. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 198 in a hospital for the mentally ill’.”4 7 Bunin continues by describing Blok’s own mental health problems. In 1908, Blok wrote an article entitled “Irony” (Ironiia). He calls irony a disease that begins with a provocative smile and ends with blasphemy. The smile represents an internal laughter that, figuratively, drowns the soul. In reality, people drink vodka in an attempt to drown “their joy and their despair, themselves and those close to them, their creative activity, their life and finally their death.”4 8 However, Blok believes that there is a way to treat this disease - “an illness of identity, an illness o f ‘individualism’.”4 9 This treatment is to separate oneself from one’s own egoism. On one level, “Irony” is a reaction to the literary trends and politics of Blok’s contemporaries in St. Petersburg.5 0 On another level, irony is described as a disease that sounds a lot like manic-depression. The illness manifests itself in either a joyless laughter or anger and leads to one’s own destruction through drunkenness in an attempt to drown the effects of the illness. In his discussion of irony, Blok writes: “Andreev not only struggles with the “red laugh,” he, in the 471. Bunin, Vospominaniia (Paris: Vozrozhdenie; La Renaissance, 1950), 43. ...nen no oTuy yMep b ncHxtiaTpimecKoft OojibHHue, oxen «co crpaHHOcxxMh Ha rpaH nyuieBHofi 6ojie3HH», Maxb «HeoitHOKpaTHO jienttnacb b OojibHHue orut nyuieBHo-6oJibHbix»;... 4 8 Blok, Sobranie sochinenii. vol. 5, 346. ...Mb! B H A H M JUOflett, OflepJKHM blX pa3Jia2aiOU(UM C M eX O M , B K O T O pO M TOnjtT O H H , KaK B BOilKe, C B O iO paaocTb h cBoe oxnaxHbe, ce6a h 6jih3khx cbohx, CBoe xBopnecxBo, cboio acn3Hb h, HaicoHeu cboio CMepTb. 4 9 Ibid., 349. ...6 o n e3 H b JIHHHOCTH, 6oJie3H b «HH^HBHflyaJIH3Ma». 5 0 A. Lavrov, “Perepiska G.I. Chulkova s Blokom,” in Literatumoe nasledstvo. book 4, vol. 92, 379- 380. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 199 unconscious depths of his chaotic soul, loves the Double {Black Maskers), loves the national provocateur {Tsar Hunger) loves that ‘cosmic provocation,’ which penetrated Life o f Man, that ‘icy wind of endless space’, which causes the yellow flame of the candle of man’s life to waver.”5 1 Here, Blok identifies Andreev’s chaotic soul with this illness of laughter, anger and drunkenness. On a certain level, Blok could surely understand Andreev because he suffered from similar mood swings and depressive symptoms. His own course of treatment, like Andreev’s, was to self-medicate through alcohol. His response, like Andreev’s, was chaotic. Close friends blamed Andreev’s problems on his pessimism and the philosophy of Schopenhauer.5 2 Blok understood it as chaos, with Solov’ev and Nietzsche as his guides.5 3 Blok’s understanding of chaos combined at the same time with his interest in the “human document.” In the spring of 1918, Blok wrote an article about O. Sokolova’s Diary o f a Woman No One Loved (Dnevnik zhenshchiny, nikto ne liubil). He suggested that this work was an important autobiographical document for the new epoch. This in turn led to Blok’s own personal interest in the human 5 1 Blok, Sobranie sochinenii. vol. 5, 348. A ttapeeB He tojibko M ynaerc* «KpacHbiM CMexoM», oh, b 6ecco3H aTeabH bix rny6H H ax CBoeft xaoTHnecKofi a y uih, m o 6 h t a b oHhhkob («MepHbie MacKn»), aio6H T B ceH apoaH oro npoB axaTopa ( « lfa p -r o a o a » ), jhoS h t r y «KocMHHecKyio npoB oxaTopa», xoTopofi npoHHKHyra <0KH3Hb H eaoB exa», to t «aeaxH oft B erep oe3rpaHHHHbix npocrpaHCTB», xoTopbift xoaetiaeT w enToe ruiaMx CBemi HeaoaeHecKoft x o q h h . 5 2 See Gor’kii’s introduction in Leonid Andreyev, Sashka Zhigouleff. trans. Luba Hicks, ed. and intro. Maxim Gorky (New York: Robert McBride & Company, 1925). 5 3 Surely, Blok was aware that Dionysus was the son o f Zeus and a mortal mother, was afflicted with madness while young and subjected to both great rapture and terrible suffering. He was the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 200 record and how it would relate to him.5 4 His literary portrait of Andreev, therefore, displays the various influences of Solov’evian and Nietzschean philosophy, personal concerns relating to the human document and his own conceptualization of his mental condition. In an article about Shakespeare’s Othello, written shortly before the Andreev memoir, Blok interprets the play within his philosophical framework of chaos, cosmos and harmony. Blok believes that only Desdemona can save Othello from the chaos of Iago. Iago is the “dark power” from which the world is built and Desdemona represents harmony. Through Desdemona, Othello finds his own soul, order and harmony.5 5 This means that Iago then represents disorder and discord. Two weeks later, Blok wrote that it was on the level of chaos that he and Andreev had a special connection. Often people with variable mood swings look for companions who are emotionally stable and constant. Combining two people with manic tendencies can exacerbate the abnormal behavior. If anything, Blok and Andreev were equivalent to fire and gasoline and somehow they both probably knew it. The one night that we do know about, was the “worst” of Blok’s life. Coming from a man who spent much time in the taverns and bordellos of St. Petersburg, this night out may have taken on epic proportions. God o f wine; induced frenzied ecstasies, madness and savage brutality in those around him. He was worshiped for rebirth and creation out o f chaos and destruction. 5 4 A. Zablotskaia, ‘“ Avtobiograficheskii dokument’ v tvorchestve A. Bloka 1918-1921 godov,” in Aleksandr Blok: Issledovaniia i materialv (St. Petersburg: Iz-vo “Dmitrii Bulanin”, 1998), 179-180. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 201 The chaos that Blok saw in Andreev existed on two planes. On the literary plane it was the dark pessimistic qualities for which Andreev was famous and which Blok interpreted as the elemental, corporeal force of Dionysus. On the personal plane, it was the dark moods of depression, the loneliness, and the escapes into wine and women that were the expression of their manic-depression. As a result of Blok’s portrait, Andreev has been characterized as a dark, lonely figure, which neatly coincides with many of the pessimistic motifs found in his literary works. In a review of A Book About Leonid Andreev, V. Iretskii writes that both Blok and Andreev were lonely; that Blok was closer than the other memoirists to the “solitary enthusiastic soul of Andreev and said the most important things about him as a person.”5 6 On a psychological level, this was probably the case. Suffering from severe depression, one often feels alone even when surrounded by friends and family. The following chapter, dedicated to Gorky’s literary portrait, further supports this idea, although Andreev’s solitude is portrayed in a very different way. Andreev needed stabilizing forces in his life - from his mother, friends and two wives - to combat his variable mood swings. In this light, Teleshov’s portrait gains added significance. Rather than a gloomy, lone individual (as described by Blok), 5 5 Blok, Sobranie sochinenii. vol. 6, 384-389. 5 6 V. Iretskii, “Retsenzii. Kniga o Leonide Andreeve,” Letopis’ Doma Literatorov. no. 3 (7), I February (1922): 8. ...o flH H O K o B o c r o p a c e H H o f i a y i u e A t t o p e e B a , h C K a 3 a n c a M o e n n a B H o e o n e M , icaic o H e n o B e x e . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 202 we find an Andreev, who craved companionship and made great emotional demands on the people around him. Blok’s description of solitude is more romantic and meshes with Andreev’s literary style. It is also a description of chaos by someone who is personally acquainted with loneliness and depression. We will find that Gorky could never understand Andreev’s condition; Blok seemingly could. Blok’s description is not from someone who was required to be a stabilizing force in Andreev’s life, but from someone who recognized Andreev’s condition and avoided an intimate relationship. Blok gives a glimpse of Andreev’s chaos from the inside. Although he never established a lasting friendship with Andreev, Blok may have provided one of the better insights into his psychological condition. The two literary figures were possibly too alike to be friends. However, a mutual connection existed and according to Blok, the connection was their shared experience of chaos. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 203 I, too, keep a diary and I know how it is done. Memoirs, confessions, and such are excrements o f the soul that is poisoned by bad food. — Andreev’s reported comments to Gorky Gorky (1868-1936) wrote his memoir of Andreev during a period in his literary career occupied by autobiographical subjects. This period began after the disappointing failure of the Capri School. The school, founded along with A. Bogdanov and A. Lunacharskii, was meant to train Bolshevik party workers in revolutionary theory. However, it was opposed and eventually undermined by V. Lenin and the party center in Paris. This disappointment came at a bad time for Gorky as he was sick and, it was believed, did not have long to live. In 1912 Gorky wrote “An Incident from the Life of Makar” (Sluchai iz zhini Makara), ‘The Boss”(Khoziain) and began work on the first stories for Through Russia (Po Rusi). He wrote Childhood (Detstvo) in 1913 and Among People (V liudiakh) in 1915. The revolution of 1917 slowed down his literary production, however, he did write literary portraits of Tolstoi and Andreev. In 1921Gorky began work on My Universities (Moi universitety) and by 1924 he had completed Notes from My Diary. Recollections (Zapiski iz dnevnika. Vospominaniia). Andrew Barratt calls this period of 1912-1924 as, “one of the 8 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 204 most extensive experiments in narrative self-representation by a single writer in the history of any literature.”1 He also notes that during this period, Gorky gave up almost completely the writing of plays and fiction.2 An abbreviated version of the Andreev memoir first appeared in Life o f Art (Zhizn’ iskusstva).3 Gorky publicly presented his portrait on 15 November 1919 in Petrograd and again on 18 February 1920 in Moscow. A Book About Leonid Andreev appeared in two editions in 1922. The second edition included a memoir by Belyi as well as hastily prepared changes to Gorky’s memoir.4 At the same time an abbreviated version of the Andreev memoir appeared in French translation in the journal Clarte.5 Gorky re-worked his memoir for the last time in 1923 for a publication entitled Recollections (Vospminaniia).6 There is evidence that in the period 1928-1936 he planned to add two more episodes to the Andreev memoir, which did not make it to publication. Both of these episodes were subsequently published after Gorky’s death.7 1 Andrew Barratt, “The Forgotten Gorky: Notes from My Diary," in After the Watershed: Russian Prose 1917-1927 selected essavs. ed. Nicholas Luker (Notingham: Astra Press, 1996), 5. 2 Andrew Barratt, “Maksim Gorky’s Autobiographical Trilogy: The Lure o f Myth and the Power o f Fact,” a/b: Auto/Biographical Studies Special Issue: Rethinking Russian Autobiography, vol. 11, no. 2, fall (1996): 26. 3 Zhizn’ iskusstva. no. 293-294, 15-16 November (1919). 4 L. Zhak, “Portet-polemika: Ocherk ‘Leonid Andreev,”’ in Ot zamvsla k voploshcheniiu: v tvorcheskoi masterskoi M. Gor’kogo (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1963), 99. 5 Clarte. no. 15, 15 July (1922). 6 M. Gor’kii, Vospominaniia (Berlin: Kniga, 1923). For a more detailed discussion o f changes in the text and their ramifications, see Zhak. 71. Anisimov, ed., Gor’kii i Leonid Andreev: Neizdannaia pereniska. Literatumoe nasledstvo, vol. 72 (Moscow: Nauka, 1965), 644-646. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 205 O f the eight authors who participated in A Book About Leonid Andreev, Gorky had been Andreev’s closest personal friend. However, Gorky’s portrait seems the most critical and subjective of the eight. Zhak states that the leitmotif of the Andreev memoir is the dissolution of their friendship.8 Beklemisheva writes that the best thing about the memoir is Gorky’s comments on Andreev’s natural literary talent.9 In fact, Gorky argues that Andreev’s waste of his natural talent and his depression were to blame for the demise of their friendship. The problem is that two Gorkys appear in the memoir: the Gorky who witnessed the life o f Andreev and the Gorky of 1919-1922, who was fighting his own literary and political battles. Koliadich argues that these two Gorkys create a polemical dialogue. This results in two voices within the portrait, which often clash and give irreconcilable opinions. Koliadich believes that this creates a “complete” image of Andreev.1 0 Zhak states that most of Gorky’s reported conversations with Andreev over literature and politics are particularly relevant for 1922. She notes that in one argument with Andreev, Gorky is actually expressing “the principles of the esthetic code for revolutionary proletarian art” which would be extremely important for the first years of the revolution.1 1 In this chapter we will avoid the political and literary arguments which were offered by Gorky to deflect attention away from the important issue of their 8 Zhak, 100. 9 Beklemisheva, “Vospominaniia,” in Rekviem: Pamiati Leonida Andreeva (Moscow: Federatsiia, 1930), 251. 1 0 T. Koliadich, Vospominaniia pisatelei. Problemv ooetiki zhanra (Moscow: Megatron, 1998), 79. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 206 personal relationship. It is the literary and political lines of discourse that scholars have followed without realizing that Gorky was deceiving himself (and therefore the reader) in his literary portrait. Their friendship was built on a weak foundation to begin with due to Andreev’s emotional demands. This problem was exacerbated by Gorky’s inability to deal with people who could not play the role he assigned to them. Therefore, this chapter examines the personal problems that were the real source of their friendship’s demise and how Gorky’s own coping mechanisms alienated him from Andreev and resulted in a literary portrait that lays blame at Andreev’s feet in literary and political terms. With the exception of Muratova and Grechnev, little attention has been paid to the two writers as human beings.1 2 V. Kholopova does examine the Andreev memoir in the context of their personal relationship, but does little more than highlight what already exists in the literary portrait.1 3 The one exception is Barratt, who examines both the personal and literary tensions in his doctoral dissertation.1 4 Literary and ideological differences played no small part in the authors’ relationship, but these must be combined with personal issues to get at a comprehensive understanding. In fact, it is the personal factors that are the ‘‘ Zhak, 155. 11K. Muratova, “Maksim Gor’kii i Leonid Andreev,” in Literatumoe nasledstvo: V. Grechnev, Zhanr literatumogo portreta v tvorchestve M. Gor’kogo fVosoominaniia o pisateliakh) (Moscow; Leningrad: Nauka, 1964). 1 3 V. Kholopova, “ Masterstvo khudozhestvenno-publitsisticheskoi polemiki (Ocherk M. Gor’kogo ’Leonid Andreev’),” in Trudy Samarkandskoeo universiteta. 1974. issue 254, new series, Voprosy teorii i istorii literatury, 133-139. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 207 underpinning for a majority of their problems and therefore, essential for putting the literary and political disagreements into context. Problems such as Andreev’s emotional demands and Gorky’s emotional avoidance existed from nearly the beginning of their relationship, and it is these problems that are actually reflected (or possibly deflected) by Gorky in his portrait of Andreev. The events of their relationship are usually summarized as follows: Gorky discovered Andreev in 1898. Publication of Gorky’s local newspaper, Nizhegorodskii Sheet (Nizhegorodskii listok), had been suspended by the authorities and in the meantime, Gorky was getting his news from other sources - one of which was Courier, a Moscow publication. It was Andreev’s Easter story, “Bargamot and Garaska,” that caught Gorky’s eye, causing him to write to V. Miroliubov to recommend Andreev for publication in Journal for All. Gorky continued to follow Andreev’s literary career and a year later, he wrote to N. Asheshov asking for an official introduction. Their friendship grew out of a correspondence and the two eventually met face to face at a train station on 12 March 1900. Gorky was only three years older than Andreev and had himself just become a “literary figure” with the publication of his Sketches and Stories (Ocherki i rasskazy) in 1898. It is true that he had published his first short story, “Makar 1 4 Andrew Barratt, “Personal and Literary Relations o f Maksim Gorky and Leonid Andreyev, 1898- 1919, With Particular reference to the Revolution o f 1905” (Ph.D. diss., University o f Durham, 1976). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 208 Chudra,” in 1892.1 5 However, Gorky and his works were hardly noticed until the publication of his collected short stories. With his newfound success, Gorky was quick to help other young writers. He found work for Andreev at two popular journals and organized the publication of Andreev’s first collection of stories in 1901. Andreev showed his appreciation by dedicating his first book to Aleksei Maksimovich Peshkov Critics usually fix 1904 and the publication of Andreev’s “Red Laugh” as the first indication of problems between the two writers. Gorky did not appreciate Andreev’s expressionistic description of the Russo-Japanese war. These problems were complicated in 1905 with the publication of Gorky’s Children o f the Sun and Andreev’s To the Stars. Originally, the two had planned to write a play together on the theme of astronomy and revolution. However, Gorky wrote his version while imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress. Gorky then read and criticized Andreev’s version, causing him to rewrite the play three times. In 1906, Andreev’s wife died after giving birth to their second son. Consumed by grief, Andreev went to stay with Gorky on the island of Capri for six months. While on Capri, it was suggested that Andreev edit the anthologies of Gorky’s Znanie publishing house. Andreev wanted to broaden the scope of the publication by including the works of Blok and Sologub. This did not meet with 1 5 Andreev’s first attempt at literature also came in 1892 with the story “In Cold and Gold” under the signature L.P. He published “He, She and Vodka” and “The Riddle” in 1895, and “The Eccentric” in 1896. However, Andreev himself marked the beginning o f his literary career with “Bargamot and Garaska.” R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 209 Gorky’s approval and in the end Andreev turned down the position.1 6 As a result, Andreev went to the literary house Shipovnik, where he became both a literary contributor and editor. Soon after, Gorky took issue with Andreev’s King Hunger and “Darkness,” using them as the reason for the dissolution of their friendship. In 1911, Andreev tried to engineer a reconciliation. He felt sure that he could repair their relationship through literature. Unfortunately, Gorky responded negatively to Andreev’s novel, Sashka Zhegulev, and to another story entitled “My Notes,” suggesting that Andreev had advocated a passive approach to life.1 7 In the following years, the two authors made a few more unsuccessful attempts to repair their friendship.1 8 The outbreak of WWI caused further ideological disagreements. In 1916, Andreev was offered a position with The Russian Will. Andreev was willing to overlook the journal’s dubious qualities in order to have a platform from which he could state his position, in opposition to that of Gorky’s journal, the Chronicle (Letopis’). Andreev now saw Gorky as a literary enemy. 1 6 Barratt argues that Gorky was forced by K. Piatnitskii into a tactical retreat over the issue o f the Znanie anthologies and in fact, Gorky had little intention o f turning the editorial position over to Andreev. See Andrew Barratt, “Maksim Gorky and Leonid Andreev: At the Heart o f ‘Darkness’,” in The Short Story in Russia 1900 —1917. Nicholas Luker, ed. (Nottingham: Astra Press, 1991), 76- 77. 1 7 Literatumoe nasledstvo. 42. 1 8 Andreev writes to his brother in 1915: “Maksimych [Gorky] visited and spent the night. What can I say - it seemed that he quite loves me, like o f old,... It is hard to grasp, and I sincerely do not understand.” See IRLI, f. 9, op. 2, n. 4,1. 37. Letter from Andreev to Andrei Andreev o f 07 December 1915. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 210 After the revolutions of 1917, Andreev lived in Finland. Gorky often appears in Andreev’s diary of this period, but there were no further developments in their friendship before Andreev’s death in 1919. In order to investigate the personal relationship between the two authors, we must first understand something about each writer individually. Gorky’s own version of his life is well known thanks to his autobiographical trilogy. From this we know that Gorky was forced to grow up quickly. He was self-educated and self-made in the truest sense. He was not given to extreme swings of emotion and was rather self-confident. Gorky’s self-reliance led him to be emotionally distant and it was only on rare occasions that he could warm up to his friends.1 9 His trials and tribulations as a young man had made him a very businesslike and serious adult. He also did not deal well with weakness or pessimism in other people. Andreev understood this quality in Gorky and once told his brother: “...Gorky cannot stand weak people. He does not even take them into consideration.” Andreev, his first wife and Gorky were returning home one evening. As they stood at the door, an old man, who looked “lost and pathetic,” greeted Gorky and asked after his health. Gorky lowered his head between his shoulders and hissed through his teeth, “Greetings.” “We were both terribly shocked,” said Andreev. “This was simply rude. I understood that one can grow ripoBeji y Metui Benep h HoqeBati MaKCHMbm. Kaic Te6x cK a3aicrb — no Buoy o h cobccm ju o 6 h t M eH H , Kax B<rrap... TpyaHo 3t o nowrn>, h x HHCTocepaeHHo He noHHMaio. 1 9 Literatumoe nasledstvo. 518 and footnote 1 for letter 79. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 211 tired of the constant admiration, this could bore the hell out of you, but to forget who you are dealing with - it is not proper. And this old man... it was clear what it meant to this person. He was truly touched by this meeting with Gorky... with Gorky himself.”2 0 V. Khodasevich saw this same characteristic in Gorky: He never refused to help financially or by making efforts on someone’s behalf (khlopotami). His charity had a distinctive feature: the more bitterly the petitioner complained and his spirits fell, the more Gorky became inwardly indifferent towards him - and this was not because he wanted fortitude or restraint from people. His demands went much further: he could not endure despondency and demanded that a person hope for whatever it may be. This is how his peculiar and stubborn egoism revealed itself: in exchange for his involvement he demanded for himself the right to dream of a better future, for the person he was helping. And if the petitioner, did not give him a chance to dream by his despair, Gorky would become angry and would help reluctantly, without concealing his annoyance?1 Dislike for the weak was only one small part of Gorky’s self-delusion in an attempt to fashion his own worldview. He engaged in self-deception when 2 0 IRLI, f. 9, op. 4, n. 14,1.6-7. From a diary entry o f Andrei Andreev. ...ropbKHii TepneTb He Moxcer juoaeft cjia6bix. C hhmh oh cesepuieHHo He cmrraeTCx.... Hac o6 ohx 3to crpauiHO noKopdmio - roBopirr JleoHiia - sto 6 mao npocro rpy6o. R noHHMan, mto mo>kho ycraTb o t BeHHoro npeicnoHeHtui, s to mojkct Haaoecrb no nepra, ho 3a6biBaTb, c xeM HMeeuib aeao - He caeayeT. H craptiK s to t... bhaho * e Bcaea 6buio, mto 3to 3a MeaoaeK. Beab oh 6bui HcicpeHHO npoHyrb BcrpeHeK c ropbKHM... c c o m h m ropbKHM! 2 1 Vladislav Khodasevich, Sobranie sochinenii v chetvrekh tomakh. vol. 4 (Moscow: Soglasie, 1997), 170-171. B noMouiH aeHbraMH hjih xnonoTaMii oh He oncaabiBan Htucoraa. Ho b ero 6 aaroTBopHTeabCTBe Sbuia oco6 eHHocn>: neM ropuie npocHrejib xaaoBaaca, neM 6 ojiee naaaa ayxoM, TeM ropbKHii 6 bia k HeMy BHyrpeHHe paBHoayuiHee, - h 3to He noxoMy, mto x o tea o r aioaeii ctoR kocth hah caepxcaHHocTH. Ero TpedoBaHHX man ropa3ao aaabtue: oh He bbihocha yHhiHtum Tpe6 oBaa o t MeaoBexa naaexcabi - bo h to 6 bi to hh crano, h b 3tom cKa3btBaacx era cBoeo6pa3HbiR, ynopHbiR 3roH3M: b oSmch Ha CBoe ynacrHe o h mpeooean dm ce6n npaea .uenmamb o JiynuieM SyayuieM Toro, KOM y oh noMoraer. Ecjih xce npocHrenb cbohm OTnaaHHeM 3apaHee npecexan Taxne MeHTbi, ropbKHii cepaHJicH h noMoraa y * e HexoTx, He cxpbiBaa aocaabi. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 212 •yj dissatisfied with the realities that life presented him. Gorky often cast off those individuals who could not conform to this alternate reality so that he could maintain some sort of personal equilibrium. Therefore, Gorky’s portrait of Andreev must be read as delusional depiction and not as an accurate assessment of their relationship. Andreev, as the oldest son, also grew up quickly due to the death of his father and the resulting financial responsibilities for his family. Unlike Gorky, Andreev was constantly surrounded by familial warmth (his mother lived with him his entire life). The security that Andreev felt, however, was often broken by persistent and uncontrollable mood swings. Not only was Andreev probably bipolar, but he craved praise and acceptance from other people.2 3 In 1898, Gorky and Andreev were a perfect match. Gorky took pride in his “discovery” and Andreev was elated with Gorky’s praise and help. The first years of their correspondence are filled with Gorky’s advice and his self-satisfaction in recognizing Andreev’s talent. Gorky’s belief in Andreev’s talent was the one constant in their relationship.2 4 At first it was a source of pride for Gorky and later he regretted that Andreev never realized his full potential. This was probably 2 2 Zholkovsky explains Gorky’s concept o f “truth” (istina) and “illusion/deceit” (obman), by claiming that Gorky covered reality with literary decoration, which promoted an orientation towards the “ennobling illusion/deceit” (vozvyshaiushchii obman). This played into his self-generated cultural images o f the literary hobo, bearer o f the proletariat bitterness, stormy petrel and shaped his autobiographical trilogy. See A. K. Zholkovskii and M. B. Iampol’skii, Babel’/Babel (Moscow: “Carte Blanche”, 1994), 159-166. 2 3 V. Bezzubov, Leonid Andreev i traditsii russkoeo realizma (Tallin: Eesti Raamat, 1984), 228. 2 4 Andreev said o f Gorky: “No one searches for new talent with such faith and passion as [Gorky]. ... No one is so gladdened, I think, by the appearance o f a good, new literary piece or a new, talented writer.” See Petr Pil’skii, Kriticheskie stat’i. vol. 1 (St. Petersburg: Progress, 1910), 21. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 213 because Gorky felt that he had a lack of natural talent and was always attracted to those with this natural gift.2 5 Because of this talent then, Gorky was willing, in the beginning, to overlook Andreev’s other problems. Gorky wrote to A. Aleksin in 1904, “Let’s talk about Leonid - your opinion of him is too harsh, though in essence you are right - alcohol plays a powerful role in his psyche. But the talent - it remains talent - don’t lie...”2 6 Upon meeting face to face, Gorky was greatly satisfied with Andreev’s sense of gratitude. Bezzubov notes this characteristic as important in the development of their relationship.2 7 Andreev’s gratitude was genuine and he remained appreciative even after their friendship had come to an end. Yet, it was not only help with career advancement that Andreev appreciated. In the beginning of their relationship, Andreev also felt that Gorky had a positive effect on his emotional state. In letters to K. Piatnitskii of 1902 and to the critic V. Botsianovskii of 1903, he credits Gorky for his new and positive outlook on life.2 8 This said, Andreev was not totally happy with their relationship. As Muratova notes, Andreev constantly questioned whether Gorky appreciated him as a friend or simply as a “talent.” H hkto He HiueT c Taicoft Bepofi h crpacTbio hobbix ranatrroB, icaic oh. ... H hkto Tax He paaoBajio, a AVMaio, noHBJieHHe hoboA xopouieft JiHtepaTypHofl Benin, hjih HOBoro TanaHTJiHBoro riHcaTejia. lu. Iuzovskii, Maksim Gor’kii i eeo dramaturgiia (Moscow: Isskustvo, 1959), 424. 2 6 Literatumoe nasledstvo. 416. IloroBopHM o JleoHiiae— TBoe M HeHHe o H eM - pe3KO, xoTa — b cymecrBe— tbi npaB - anxorojiB HrpaeT ctutbHyio poab b ero ncHXHxe. A TanaHT — ocraeTca TanaHTOM - He BpH... 2 7 Bezzubov, 257. 2 8 Literatumoe nasledstvo. 494 and 502 respectively. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 214 Critics have fixated on 1904-1905 and the issues relating to “Red Laugh” and then Children o f the Sun and To the Stars as the beginning of their troubles. However, there is evidence that the first problems arose much earlier and were of a personal nature. As early as May 1902, Andreev asked Gorky whether they were really friends because Andreev was of the opinion that they were not.2 9 The first hint of trouble appears only four years into their relationship and two years before “Red Laugh” is an issue. The letters of 1902-1903 show that Andreev pleads for Gorky’s acceptance, emotional support, stability and friendship. While Gorky is ready to accept the role of literary patron, his emotional avoidance is clear and will ultimately be a main factor in the demise of his relationship with Andreev.3 0 During a bout of depression and admittedly drunk, Andreev articulated his misgivings about their friendship in a letter of January 1903: There was a time when I tried to become your friend. To that end I mounted several attacks on your person - and was repelled with losses... But this passed and I reconciled myself with the inevitable: to be for you only a comrade at arms, to serve honestly under your 2 9 Ibid., 149. Ee3 Te6a Mens He 6bi.no 6 u - 3 to (fiaicr. Ho 6bi.no BonpocoM h oco6eHHo crajio hm: apyr tm M H e hjih HeT? T b i caM j ie n c o BoccraHOBHiub B e e t o m hojkcctbo Atenoneu, K o x o p b ie n p n B o ju iT M e w i - noMTH H a B e p w iK a - k O T p m taT ejib H O M y o T B e ry . 3 0 Barratt writes: “Gorky’s personal feelings towards Andreev during this period were by no means unambiguous. In his self-appointed role o f mentor to his protege, he was prepared to sacrifice both time and energy, in the belief that he was furthering the cause o f democratic literature.... Despite his considerable efforts to promote Andreyev’s career as a writer, Gorky was unwilling to allow their relationship to transcend the professional level. ... Having consciously sacrificed his personal life to his social duty as a writer, Gorky was understandably reluctant to allow the personal affairs o f others to distract him from his work.” Barratt, “Personal and Literary Relations o f Maksim Gorky and Leonid Andreyev,” 17-18. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 215 banner and not to flatter myself with the hope for a close, personal relationship.. . . And so, our relationship is friendly — I am the same for you as are Bunin, Teleshov and others. You love me for what you consider is my talent. If my talent weakens, dies - so will your friendship also die. In a word, you only value me as a writer. Gorky’s response dismisses Andreev’s letter and recommends that he not write such “gluposti” in the future. In the only attempt to explain his position, Gorky writes the following: My feelings for you have changed a little, this is true. There are two reasons for this: first, I do not want to prevent you from living your new life, which you have not yet started enjoying.3 2 Second, is my exhaustion. So many people interfere in your life that I consider myself in this matter superfluous. You live badly - there are too many empty and insignificant people around you. That is why, I think, you get into these moods. Like the one that forced you to write that absurd huge letter. You are a strange person.3 3 Gorky did little to alleviate Andreev’s doubts and all but said that he was not interested in taking part in Andreev’s personal life. This said, one could also understand that Gorky probably had grown tired of Andreev’s volatile emotional 3 1 Literatumoe nasledstvo. 173. Ebuio BpeMfl, xoraa g nbrrancg craTb Te6e apyroM, coBepuitui b stom cMbicne Hecxojibxo HanaaeHttft Ha tb o io oco6y - h 6bui c ypoHOM o t6 h t... Ho s to npouuio, h h npHMnpuncs c TeM , h to HemdexHo: SbiTb rede TO jtbK O TOBapttuteM no opyxctuo, uiyacirrb necrHO n o d m e o u M 3Ha\tene.\t h He odojibuiaTb ce6g Haaewaott Ha daH3XHe anHHbie oTHomeHttg.... Hrax, Haunt OTHOuieHHg npHgTejibCKHe - a t o * e mvt Teda, h to h EyHHH, TeaemoB, apyrne. Jlto6Huib Tbi MeHg 3a to , h to CHHTaeuib mohm TaaattTOM; ocaadeeT 3 to t TariaHT, yMpeT - yiuper h tb o x npag3Hb. 3 2 Andreev had been married only 11 months. 3 3 Ibid., 177. M oh oTHouieHHg x Te6e H3MeHHjmcb HeMHoro, 3To BepHo. ripHHHHbi 3TOMy aBe: nepBaa - He xoneTcg MHe MeuiaTb Te6e xchtb xrcw bio hoboh, bo Btcyc KOTopoft tm euxe eaBa an h Bomea, BTopaa — mok ycraaocTb. Tede Tax m hoto atoaeii NiemaioT jkhtb, h to g b otom aeae cntcraio ce6g anuiHHHM. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 216 behavior. Literature was the one area where Gorky could relate to Andreev and even this was becoming a bone of contention. In February of 1903 Andreev and some others were visiting Gorky in Nizhnii Novgorod. Towards the end of the night, Gorky upbraided Andreev for being so drunk and suggested that he should go to sleep. Instead, Andreev said that he was leaving. Gorky hid his boots since it was four in the morning. Andreev became very angry and attempted to stab Aleksin with a knife, striking only the door. Andreev was then allowed to leave.3 4 Andreev wrote a long letter to apologize and to accept responsibility for his alcoholic behavior. Gorky’s response was very warm and he outlined his feeling for Andreev compassionately. He refers to Andreev’s problem as an “illness” and asks: “What can I do? How can I get across to you how important it is to get treatment?”3 5 Therefore, two years before any discussion of literary or political differences, there already existed serious problems in their relationship. On numerous occasions, Andreev effusively wrote to tell Gorky how much he valued Tbi - ruioxo acHBeuib, oneHb MHoro Boxpyr Te6a tc6h nycrbtx h He3H3MHTejibHbix jnoaeft, oxxoro M He Kaacexca - h B03HmcaioT y te6a HacipoeHtut, noao6Hbie TOMy, Kcrropoe no6yamio xe6a Hamicaxb Hecypa3Hoe XBoe nucbMnme. Hynaic xbt. 3 4 Ibid., 501-502, footnote 1. 3 5 Ibid., 182. O t 3TOtt npoKjiBToii 6jie3HH b Te6e poiuuiacb 6ox3Hb nero-TO, HeKtiit, HenotMTHbifi M He, cxpax. SI — HHHero He 6oiocb h CTpacxHO xoTen 6w nepeaaTb Te6e Moe MyxcecTBo... H to caejiaTb, xax BHyuiHTb xe6e Heo6xoaHMOCTb jietHTbcx? Tepmocb. A Bnxcy - 3TO bo3m oxcho. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 217 their friendship.3 6 Gorky did not return the favor. Gorky wished to encourage Andreev’s career and keep their friendship within the confines of literary concerns. Andreev was looking for acceptance from Gorky not only as a talented writer, but also as a good friend. Andreev attempted to explain one o f his drunken episodes to Gorky: When I was preparing to go to Nizhnii, I had already stopped drinking. It began when I could not sleep all night in the train because of my teeth and because I felt lousy. When I was in your company I did not want to be miserable, and so I began to cheer myself up. Do you understand? I wanted you to think better of m o 3 7 me. By 1904, Gorky had been witness to many of Andreev’s mood swings and his destructive behavior. He was also confronted with Andreev’s ever-present physical and mental ailments. Gorky begins a letter of 1904 with the following: Having read your letters, filled with an enumeration of all known illnesses which are mining you, I began with animosity to wait for your telegram with a notification of death and the signature, ‘Recently Deceased Leonid.’ But as it turns out, today you have changed your mind and will go to the Crimea instead of to Hell. Obviously, you prefer the place that is more boring.3 8 3 6 For example in Literatumoe nasledstvo. 180, 203, 204 and 209. 3 7 Ibid., 179. K o r n a a c o G n p a n c a exaT b b H ic k h h R , a y * e O p o c tu t r u m .; H a n a n o c b c T o ro , h t o b B aroH e bck> HOHb H e c n a a o t 3y6oB tt p a c x n c . A n e p e a t o 6ok> MHe He x o T e a o c b SbiTb k h cjim m , a h Ha<tan c e 6a n o a S a ap H B aT b . rio H H M aeuib: x o tc ji, h t o 6m t m Jty n u ie 060 MHe a y M a n . 3 8 Ibid., 206. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 218 At this same time, Andreev makes an interesting assessment of Gorky: Do you know how you will die? You will lie alone, and the moment will come, when your life will depend on a gulp of water. The glass will stand so that you cannot reach it. You will look at the glass, will look at the door, behind which there are people and you will die. You will not call anyone. And, while dying, you will know that this is Gorky dying, and on one side of the scale you will put Gorky, all that that means, and on the other a simple plea for help - and you will not ask anyone for help.3 9 This gloomy prediction speaks to Gorky’s emotional inaccessibility and, unfortunately, foreshadows his death at the hands of Stalin due to his own self- delusion. One o f the issues at hand was simply that Gorky was unable to place himself in a vulnerable emotional position. Interestingly, Gorky addresses this issue in his memoir dedicated to Blok. During a conversation, Blok asks why Gorky did not write on subjects such as life, human happiness or death. Gorky replies: n p o H H T a s t b o h riHCbM a, H an o jiH eH H b ie nepeH H C JieH H eM B c e x c y u te c T B y io u tH X h p a 3 p y u ia io iu H X Te6>i 6 o Jie 3 H e ft, c r a n c 0 3 Jio 6 jie H tie M a c a a T b T ejie rp a M M b t T B o e it c H 3B em eH n eM o C M e p rit h n o .a n n c b K > - « H o B o n p e c ra B jie H H b iA JIeoHHfl.» Ho OKa3anocb, h to HbtHe t m pa3oyMaji exaTb b a a h eaeuib b KpbiM, - oneBHitHO, Tbt ayMaetub, h to jtynuie Ta.M , me - cicyHHee. 3 9 Ibid., 241. B T B oeM B e c e jib e e c T b T p a n tn e c K tie h o t k h - h 3to x o p o u i o , a r o n e n e B e H H o , s t o n p n o d m a e T k BeMHOCTH. 3 H a e u ib , x a x Tbi y M p e u tb ? T b t S y a e itib jie a c a T b ozuih, h H a c ry riH T M O M etrr, K o r a a a c to H b t b o b 6 y a e r 3 a B ttc e rb o r r j to n c a BOitbt. C T a x a H ace 6 y a e T c to h t T a x , h to T bt caM e r o H e a o c r a H e u ib ; - H T bt nOCM OTpHUIb H a C T axaH , tlOCMOTHIUb H a O B epb, 3 a KOTOpOK) JltOAH, - H y M p e tU b . Ho 3B aTb H H K o ro H e c T a H e o tb . H, yMHpati, Tbt 6 y a e u tb 3HaTb, h to 3to yM epaer TopbRHft, h Ha o tu ty Hauttcy BecoB Tbt nojioacHtub T o pbR oro, c o BceM, h to b HeM e c rb , Ha a p y ry to - n p o c ro fi tcpHK o noM otuH — h Tbt h h k o to He n onpocH iub o noMOtiut. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 219 ...questions of the meaning of being, of death, of love - were strictly personal, intimate questions for myself alone. I do not like to air them in public, and if, from time to time, I do so involuntarily, then the result is always clumsy, awkward. ‘To speak of yourself is a subtle art, I do not possess it.’4 0 These playful quotes above capture the two sides of the argument - Andreev’s destructive behavior and Gorky’s inaccessibility. Both of these quotes are found in letters predating their conflicts over “Red Laugh.” At the end of 1905, there were further doubts for Andreev. Following a meeting in Finland, he asks Gorky if their relationship had changed. In response, Gorky takes Andreev to task for his constant misgivings about their relationship. He concludes the letter with the following analogy: “If there are two trees in the forest, taller than the others, no matter how far they are from each other, they will acknowledge each other in a storm. They will see one another also in calm weather. Day and night.”4 1 Until this time, many had thought Gorky a tutor for the young writers associated with Znanie. However, with the publication of “Red Laugh,” Andreev became more than just a Znanie writer. He had stepped out of Gorky’s shadow and had established himself as a literary figure in the reading public’s estimation. This 4 0 M. Gor’kii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Khudozhestvennye proizvedeniia v dvadtsati piati tomakh, vol. 17 (Moscow: Nauka, 1973), 224. ...B o n p o c b i o CM bicjie 6 b r o w , o C M epru, o jho6 b h , - B o n p o c u c r p o r o jiHHHbie, HHTttMHbie, B o n p o cw TojibKo am M etui. K He juo6 jiio BbiHOCHTb h x n a y jiH u y , a ecjiH , m p e a ic a , HeBOiibHO a e jia io oto - B cer.ua u ey M eJio, HeyicmoHce. ro B o p trrb o c e 6 e — TOHKoe HcicyccrBO , a He o 6 jta ita io h m . 4 1 Literatumoe nasledstvo. 266. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 220 shifted the balance of power between the two writers. Although Andreev still wanted Gorky’s input, he was now willing to publish works against his friend’s protestations. The reference to two trees taller than the rest may reflect this new tension in their relationship as well as their incredible fame. The quote certainly highlights Gorky’s growing dissatisfaction with having to constantly reassure Andreev about their friendship. Andreev’s behavior and over-all mental health, however, had improved with his marriage to Alexandra Mikhailovna Veligorskaia in 1902. There were then two people in Andreev’s life, who had a calming effect - Gorky and his wife. Gorky liked very much Lady Shura (as he called her) and appreciated the emotional support that she could give. However, all of this came to an abrupt end in 1906 with her death. After some time, Andreev was convinced to go to Capri and stay in a villa near Gorky. If there was any time that Andreev needed a friend, it was now. However, Gorky wrote to Grzhebin of Andreev’s arrival, “Andreev’s wife passed away. In ten days he will be here and I will try to compel him to work...” 4 2 and this is exactly what he did. In fact, it was one of the most productive times in Epocb ayM arb 06 «oTHoiuetuuix». Ecjih b Jiecy c to h t nBa aepeB a Bbiuie apyrroc - icaic 6bt aaneico ohm cto ju ih a p y r o t a p y ra - Bee paBHo o h h S y a y r KtiBaTb oaHo apyroM y ronosaMH b Sypio, o h h o y a y r BxaeTb a p y r a p y ra h b THxyio n o ro ay . H aneM, h Honbio. 42 Literatumoe nasledstvo. 424 see footnote. y A ttapeeBa yM epaa aceHa. Ho nepea a e o rrb AHeft o h 6y a e r 3aecb, h h e ro nonpoSyio 3acraBHTb pa6oTaTb... R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 221 Andreev’s literary career, but as before, Gorky was emotionally distant and could not give to his friend what was really needed.4 3 Andreev arrived with his mother and first son, Vadim, in December of 1906 and stayed until the spring of 1907. While there he wrote or outlined such works as: “Judas Iscariot and Others,” “Darkness,” Sashka Zhegulev, “My Notes,” Black Maskers, The Ocean, and a caustic satire “Love of One’s Neighbor.”4 4 Although Andreev was able to process some of his grief into creative energy, it was a very dangerous time for him. His sense of loss was compounded by Gorky’s coldness. Andreev wrote to many of his friends about his distress: to Chirikov, to Serafimovich and to Veresaev: How this will seem strange to you, that there is one person on Capri, with whom I can speak openly. Gorky — he is like a good book with its contents set in advance or a picture gallery. Behind the super or overman, the simple man has slipped away from him. He does not see it, does not feel it or know it. Though he has intellect, nobility and purity of spirit, he is sometimes lower than a normal man - and exactly at those moments, he thinks that he is higher...”4 5 4 3 Barrat writes: “Gorky’s expectations, however sincere, reveal his total inability or unwillingness to appreciate Andreyev’s nature. Always prone to instability, Andreyev had immediately lost confidence in his literary ability following the death o f his wife and hence was a thoroughly unsuitable subject for Gorky’s ‘work therapy’.” See: Barratt, “Personal and Literary Relations o f Maksim Gorky and Leonid Andreyev,” 293. 4 4 M. Gor’kii, "Vospominaniia,” in Kniga o Leonide Andreeve. Vospominaniia Gor’kogo, Chukovskogo, Bloka, G. Chulkova, Borisa Zaitseva, N. Teleshova, Evg. Zamiatina, A. Belogo, 2n d ed. (Berlin: Z. L Grzhebin, 1922), 61-62. 4 5 Literatumoe nasledstvo. 523. Bot, - xax hh crpaHHo B aM 3to, - eAHHCTBeHHbtfi HenoBex Ha Kanpu, c kotopum moxcho roBopim, no ayuiaM. ropbiutit - to t, xax xopoinaa KHHra c 3apaHee onpenejieHHbiM coaepxatuieM mm xapTHHax ranepea. 3a cBepx- turn noBepx-uenoBeqecKHM npocro uejioBeuecKoe o t Hero ycxojiuaer, oh ero He bhaht, He KycxByeT, He 3HaeT. O t aroro npH BceM cBoeM y\ie, 6naropoACTBe, hhctotc ayuieBHoft oh HHoraa StiBaeT Httxce nejioBexa - h xax pa3 b Te M H H yrbi, Koraa jtyMaeT, hto Bbiuie... R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 222 To Andreev’s relief, Veresaev came to Capri to spend a month with his friend. He tells of how Andreev had returned to his destructive behavior - drinking binges, depression, talks of death and suicide, etc. For Andreev, the pain of losing his wife and being unable to speak to his best friend about it was terribly difficult. It was not until 1912 that Andreev addressed this problem with Gorky. He wrote: You would never allow me and still do not allow me to be open with you... I have never met anyone, who would so stubbornly and brutally kill off personal life, personal conversation, personal sufferings. For almost half a year I lived side by side with you on Capri, I lived through unbearable and dangerous storms and stresses, searched for sympathy and advice specifically in my shattered personal life - and I talked with you only about literature and politics. It is a fact that while living along side of you, I was waiting for Veresaev to arrive, so that I could ask his advice about whether I should kill myself or not!4 6 Although, Gorky had considered Andreev’s visit a success on the level of literary production, it ended in typical fashion with Andreev getting drunk and causing a scene. Therefore, one could view Andreev’s period in Capri as the starting point for the definitive rupture in their relationship. Most scholars fix this major rupture with Andreev’s publication of “Darkness” in 1908; however, the already existent problems in their relationship were revisited and exacerbated in Capri. Not to mention that “Darkness” and other works, which Gorky strongly disliked, were started there as well. Andreev’s volatile behavior had returned and he was moving 4 6 Ibid., 324. Tbi Htucoraa He no3BOJUui h He no3BOJiaeuib obiTb c to 6 o k ) otKpoBeHHbiM fl He BCTpenan HenoBeica, KOTopbift ta n ynopHo k acecToico yMepiuBJUui 6bi jihhH yio acroHb, jihhhuR pa3roBop, jiHHHbie CTpaaaHtui. IT ohth nonroaa npoanui a Ha KanpH 6 o k c 6 o k c to 6 o k > -rojibico o jurreparype R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 223 stylistically closer to the Symbolists. By 1912, Gorky had come to the conclusion that all was lost. In a letter to Tikhonov, Gorky told of how he had suggested to Andreev that they end their correspondence: “It seems to me that [Andreev] has not climbed out of this pit, into which he has squeezed himself up to his ears. He has not climbed out because he does not want to. In reality, he likes it in this pit...”4 7 Gorky’s highly critical behavior was not limited to Andreev alone. Khodasevich tells of how at a celebration for H. G. Wells’ arrival in Russia in 1920, Gorky sat, speaking with others about the opportunities the proletarian government had developed in the arts and sciences. “Unexpectedly A. V. Amfiteatrov, whom Gorky had particularly liked, stood and said something opposite to the preceding conversation. From that day onwards Gorky had a deep hatred for him, not at all because the writer came out against Soviet power, but because he had disrupted the celebration, trouble fete.”4 8 There was no one event, which marked the end of the relationship between Andreev and Gorky. Andreev understood that his behavior was to blame. In a letter of February 1908, he tells Gorky about his depression and how he tried to drink it away. He then claims that he has given up drinking and that Gorky is his h o6mecTBeHHOCTH. 3 to 4>aicn ach b a c to6ok> psiaoM, a xcaan npne3aa BepecaeBa, hto6 m c h hm nocoBeroBaTbCH - K O H H aT b M H e c codoR hjih Her! 47 Literatumoe nasledstvo. 452. MHe KajKeTca, h to o h He B buie3er m to R amm, Ky.ua 3aTHcxan ceSa no yum, He BbiJie3eT, noTOMy h to He xoneT . B cyuiHocTH - eM y npaBHTCA b a m c-to ... 4 8 Khodasevich, 171. BHe3anHO A.B. AM<j)HTearpoB, k KOTopoMy roptKHft othochjich oneHb xopouio, bctba h cxa3an HeHTO npoTHBononoACHoe npeobiayiUHM penaM. C 3Toro aha fopbKuR ero B03HeHaBnaeji - h BOBce R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 224 only remaining friend.4 9 However, the basic problems remain. Andreev needs emotional support and Gorky cannot give it. After 1908, there is virtually no correspondence between the two until 1911.5 0 In 1911, Andreev made an attempt to repair the relationship, but this attempt only led to an acrimonious exchange of letters in 1912. However by 1912, Andreev was able to put his finger on what it was that was missing from their relationship. This then gave Gorky the chance to reply to certain charges and all of the fundamental problems in their relationship rose to the surface. Gorky writes: You write: “You would never allow me and still do not allow me to be open with you.” I think this is untrue.... I have never allowed anyone to touch upon my private life and I do not intend to start now. I am I, and it is no business of anyone else where I hurt, if indeed I do hurt. To reveal one’s wounds to the world, to scratch them in public, to bathe in pus, to squirt one’s bile into people’s eyes, as many have done... is a vile occupation, and a harmful one, of course. “Brotherhood” is not at all a matter of revealing one’s inner dirt and filth to a comrade - even though this is how we Russians understand it; it is a matter of at least maintaining a bashful silence about such things, if you are unable to destroy them. You and I drifted apart - and will continue to drift even further - not because there never emerged between us a personal relationship but because it never could appear.... We are too different.5 1 He 3 a t o , h to riH caTejib B b ic ry n tu i npoTMB coB ercK H ft B Jia cra , a 3 a t o , h to o h O K a3anca p a 3 p y im rre jie M npa3AHecTBa, tr o u b le fe te . 4 9 Literatumoe nasledstvo. 302. 5 0 During this interval, Andreev told Pil’skii o f his relationship with Gorky: “Naturally it would be desirable [for Gorky] to re-educated me or to re-make or, at the least, to change my direction a little bit.” See Pil’skii, 21. EcrecTBeHHo dbuio 6bi xenaHHe nepeBocmrraTb Metut, h jih nepeae/iaTb, h jih , no KpafiHeti Mepe, H y T b -H y n . H3MeHiiTb Moe HanpaBJieHHe. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 225 Gorky and Andreev were “too different” in what each wanted from this relationship. However, Gorky is unable to accept partial responsibility for this and instead uses the portrait to prescribe a reading of their relationship that works within his paradigm of self-delusion. Gorky begins the memoir with his discovery of the unknown writer. He talks of Andreev’s “Bargamot and Garaska,” saying that it was like “a strong breeze of talent.”5 2 It is this word talent, which Gorky uses as a double-edged sword. Talent is only positive if one lives up to expectations and, according to Gorky, this was not the case with Andreev. Gorky briefly tells about following Andreev’s career and their subsequent correspondence. He then recounts their first meeting face to face. Of great interest is Gorky’s comment that Andreev “seemed to me a healthy, unearthly happy person, capable of living while laughing at the adversity of life.”5 3 Gorky makes this comment in the very beginning of the portrait because the rest of the text will show that Andreev was not happy, healthy or able to laugh at adversity. 5 1 Ibid., 327-328. «Tbt HHKoraa He n03B0Juui h He no3BOJixeuib SbiTb c to6ok> oTxpoBeHHbiM», - rm uieuib tm , - x ayMaio, h to 3 to HeBepHo:... KacaTbcx ace Moett jihhhoR hch3hh x HHKoraa HHicoMy HeT a e a a a o Toro, h to y MeHX 6 o jih t, e a r n 6 o jm t. IIoKa3biBaTb Miipy cboh uapamiHbi, necaTb h x rtydjiHHHo h oSjiHBaTbcx rHoeM, 6pbi3raTb b rna3a nroaxM aceanbic CBoefi, Kate 3 to aeaaioT MHoroe,... s to ntycH oe 3aHXTHe h BpeaHoe, kohchho. «EpaTCTBO» — o n n o a b He b tom , hto6m - icaic s to noHHMaioT y Hac - noKa3biBaTb SpaTy BHyrpeHHioio CKBepuy cbojo h rpx3b, ho b tom , h to 6 m x o tb cTbtnrtHBO MoanaTb 06 3tom , ecjin yac He Moaceuib yHHHToacHTb 3Toro. Pa30iunHCb ace - h pacxoaw M cx Bee a a n e e - mm c toG oR He noTOMy, h to y Hac He bo 3 h h k jih JIHHHbte OTHOUieHHX, a nOTOMy, HTO OHH He MOrJIH B03HHKHyTb CJIHIUKOM pa3JIHHHbt M M . 5 2 M. Gor’kii, Kniga o Leonide Andreeve. 7. KpetiKHM ayHOBeHHeM Tanatrra,... 5 3 Ibid., 8. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 226 Gorky proceeds to tell about Andreev’s power of intuition: “I saw that this person knew reality badly, he was little interested in it. Even more I was surprised by the power of his intuition, by the fertility of his fantasy and by the persistence of his imagination.”5 4 The first mention of his intuition is presented as a positive characteristic and will be used as proof of Andreev’s “organic talent.” Gorky was not alone in describing Andreev’s ability to grasp the essence of a situation or idea with the slightest bit of information.5 5 The first hint of Andreev’s depression is introduced with the theme of suicide. Gorky makes note of a scar on his friend’s hand. To a question about the scar, Andreev replies: “The ambiguity of youthful romanticism. You yourself know, that a person who has not tried to kill himself, is not worth much.”5 6 Rather than entering into a discussion of suicide and the dark side of Andreev, Gorky sidesteps the issue and tells about the child’s game of lying between railroad tracks as a freight train passes above. M H e n o K a 3 an o cb , h to dto 3aopoB bifi, He3eMHo B ecenbifi nejioB eK , c n o co 6 H b iR w trrb , nocM eiiBaBCb H an HeB3roaaM H 6 b m w . 5 4 Ibid., 9. H BH aeji, h to 3t o t ne/ioB eK ru io x o 3HaeT aeRcTBH TejibH ocTb, M ano H H T ep ecy ercx e io , - Teiw 6 o jie e VflHBJWJI OH MeHJt CtUIOR CBOeft HHTyHLUlH, riJIOAOBHTOCTblO (^aHT33HH, UenKOCTbK) BOO dpaxeHH fl. 5 See Beklemisheva, 251-253; S. Elpat’evskii, “Leonid Nikolaevich Andreev: Iz vospominanii,” Bvloe. no. 27-28 (1925): 280-281; L. Kleinbrot, “Vstrechi. Leonid Andreev,” Bvloe. no. 24 (1924): 168. 5 6 Gor’kii, Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 10. 3 k h b o k lO H O iuecK oro p o M a tm n M a . Bbi c b m h 3 H a ere - HenoBeic, k o to p m R He n p o S o B a it y6trrb ce6 ff, — aetneB o c t o h t . •Pavel Andreev claims that the injury to his brother’s hand actually happened while ice-skating. See Pavel Andreev, “Vospominaniia o Leonide Andreeve,” in Literatumaia mvsl’: Al’manakh. vol. 3 (Leningrad: M ysl\ 1925), 152-153. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 227 Why does Gorky not use this as the first chance to introduce Andreev’s pessimism and depression? For one, Gorky avoids having to confront a serious discussion of his own youthful attempt at suicide. By making light of it, he shrugs it off as juvenile. However, intentionally or unintentionally, Gorky is setting up the argument that suicide is common among boys caught-up in the romantic fervor of youth, but unacceptable in adults. When Gorky does begin to talk of Andreev’s depressed behavior, he refers to Andreev as a child and strikes the pose of a disappointed teacher. Evidence of this is found in Gorky’s introduction to the 1925 English translation of Andreev’s novel Sashka Zhegitlev.5 1 Gorky follows a discussion of Andreev’s depression with a more detailed description of this train experience. Here, Gorky does not mention that he has had a similar experience or that he has also been affected by suicidal tendencies. In this instance, the train incident is not child’s play, but an early indication of Andreev’s pessimistic outlook on life. The exact same incident is presented in two different ways, the only difference being Gorky’s association with that activity. Gorky continues to frame his argument. After telling of his own incident with trains, Gorky suggests that maybe children like testing the power of their wills or simply prefer dangerous games. Andreev replies: “No, it must not be like that. 5 7 Leonid Andreyev, Sashka Jieouleff. trans. Luba Hicks ed. and intro. Maxim Gorky. (New York: Robert McBride & Company, 1925). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 228 Almost all children are afraid of the dark....”5 8 This is the first glimpse into Andreev’s pessimistic outlook. More importantly, Gorky is foreshadowing one of his most critical moments of Andreev’s depression - when he scares his own son, just before bedtime, with stories of death and darkness. Having eased into the subject of Andreev’s depression, Gorky begins to list his issues with Andreev in rapid succession. First, Gorky addresses the difference in their personalities and then begins his assault on Andreev as a writer. He characterizes Andreev as lazy and not committed to creating literature: He was lazy, though he possessed a lively and sensitive imagination: he preferred to talk about literature, rather than create it. The joys of late-night solitary work, in silence, with abandonment, in front of a white, empty sheet of paper were beyond him. He did not appreciate the process of covering it with a pattern of words.5 9 Each writer had his own method for writing. Khodasevich tells of Gorky’s rigorous, unchanging daily schedule and makes the comment that Gorky did not sleep much and did not like laziness.6 0 Andreev, on the other hand, would go through long periods of inactivity and then would become consumed by his work. He asked both of his wives to assist him in his creative process, which meant long 5 8 Gor’kii, Kniga o Leonide Andreeve. 11. - Her, 3t o , a o jra c e H S b iT b , He T a x . FIo h t h B e e aera (Jo h t c h t c m h o t u ... 5 9 Ibid., 13. 0 6 a a a a a 4>aHTa3HeR x c h b oR h h>t k o R, o h 6 m ji a c k h b ; ro p a 3 a o 6 o jib iu e jik >6h ji roB opH T b o jiH T e p a iy p e , neM a ejiaT b ee. EM y o b u io n o n x H H e a o c ry n H o H acaaacaeH H e h o h h o H noABtoKHHHecKoft p ao o T b i b THuiHHe h OAHHOHecTBe H aa 6eJiu M , HHCTbiM jiiicTOM 6 y M a n i; OH iu io x o ueHHji p a a o c r b noxpbiB aT b o t o t j ih c t y3opoM c jio b . 6 0 Khodasevich, 157. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 229 nights and feverish literary creation.6 1 Andreev may not have been an “ascetic” in the way that Gorky pictured himself, but this characterization is not exactly fair. Gorky continues to create an unattractive picture of Andreev. He states that Andreev wanted to strike the pose of a thinker, but that his knowledge was poor and he did not like to read. He makes it seem that Andreev simply got by on his natural intuition and talent. Beklemisheva writes that Andreev never saw himself as a thinker or philosopher.6 2 Andreev did read Schopenhauer and von Hartman and he took an interest in Nietzsche. He was an avid reader as a child and “adventure” writers forever remained his favorites. Vadim Andreev’s strongest memory was of his father sitting and reading in the library.6 3 Andreev held a law degree from Moscow University and although he might not have been as erudite as Viacheslav Ivanov, he certainly was not as ignorant as Gorky made him out to be. Gorky himself was self-educated and had an incredible memory for things that he had read. However, one must wonder if Gorky was not still sensitive about his lack of formal education. He writes: “For you a book is a fetish, like for a savage,” [Andreev] said to me. “This is because you have not rubbed holes in your pants on the benches of the gymnasium, because you have not come in contact with university learning.”... I too often heard these familiar words about the influence of school on one’s attitude to literature, and they had long ago sounded to me unconvincing, for one felt in them the prejudice begotten by Russian laziness.... But while regarding books and knowledge casually, heedlessly, and sometimes with 6 1 See V. Veresaev, Sobranie sochinenii v piati tomakh. vol. 5 (Moscow: Pravda, 1961) 401-402 and Alexander Kaun, Leonid Andreev: A Critical Study (1924; reprint, New York: AMS, 1970), 85-86. 62 Beklemisheva, 256. 6 3 Vadim Andreev. Detstvo: Povest* (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1963), 203. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 230 hostility, [Andreev] was constantly and keenly interested in what I was reading.6 4 Gorky continues by recounting how Andreev was able to grasp the very essence of a particular book with only a few lines read to him. This returns to the positive characterization made earlier of Andreev’s natural intuition. However, after Gorky’s comments about laziness and lack of interest in learning, the reader finds it difficult to appreciate Andreev’s gift. This leads to Gorky’s main argument - that Andreev wasted his natural talent. It could be said that Gorky took the literary calling more seriously. One of Gorky’s main concerns in writing literary portraits was to capture the high demands of the literary profession.6 5 He overcame great obstacles and books were his tools for success. Rather than presenting the facts as such, Gorky takes his own positive characteristics and presents them as negative characteristics in Andreev. Because Gorky did not see himself as a naturally gifted writer, he again projects this characteristic onto Andreev in an inverted way: “Leonid Nikolaevich was talented by nature, organically talented, his intuition was astonishingly keen.”6 6 Later, he 6 4 Gor’kii, Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 14-15. - fln * T e6a KHHra - 4>ernm, Kaic a n a anicapa, - roB opttn o h MHe. - 3 t o noxoM y, h to rb i He noTHpaa cb o h x uiTaHOB Ha CKaMbax rHMHa3HH, He conpH K acanca H ayxe yHHBepciiTeTCKofi.... fl camiiKOM Macro cjibim aji 3 t h o6biMHbie caoB a o BanaHHH uiKoabi Ha OTHOiueHHe k HHTepaType, h o h h aaBHO yace 3BynaaH aaa m chx Hey6eaHTeabHO, - b h h x nycxBOBaaca npeapa3cyaoic, poacaeHHbiil pyccicoft a e H b io .... Ho oxHocacb k 3HaHHio h k h h t 6e33a6oTHO, HeSpeacHO, a HHoraa - BpaacaeSno, o h nocxoaHHO h acHBOHHTepecoBaaca TeM, h to a annuo. 6 5 V. Grechnev, Zhanr literaturnoeo portreta v tvorchestve M. Gor’koeo (Vospominaniia o pisateliakhf (Moscow; Leningrad: Nauka, 1964), 7. 6 6 Gor’kii. Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 16. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 231 makes the point even more bluntly: “I calmed him down, having said that I did not consider myself an Arabian stallion but only a dray horse. I know that I am indebted for my successes not so much to natural talent as to the ability to work, to my love of labor.”6 7 Gorky’s interpretation of much of Andreev’s behavior is that it was juvenile. In quick succession, Gorky will introduce this idea, at first peripherally, by characterizing Andreev’s happiness as “the lively and comfortable state of a baby, which has been hungry too long and now thinks it has eaten enough to last forever.”6 8 The reference becomes more personal when Gorky states: “To sum it up, you are a baby who does not want to be breast-fed.”6 9 A few lines further down, Gorky makes the next step to actually characterize Andreev as childish: “Despite his gravitation towards pessimism there was in him something ineradicably childish — for instance, his childishly naive boasting about his verbal agility, of which he made much better use in conversation than on paper.”7 0 Finally, JleoHHA HttKOJiaeBHH 6biji TajiatmiHB no npim pose CBoefi, opram m eciat TajiaHTJittB, ero Hmyimtui 6buia (oyMirrejibHo Hynca. 6 7 Ibid., 43. R ycnoKOHJi ero, cica3aB, h to He cmrraio ce6a apaScKHM kohcm , a - TOJibKO - jiom oboR jiouiaobio;tt 3Haio, h to o6«3aH ycnexaMH m ohm h He crojibKO nptiposHoft TajiatrrjiHBocTH, ck o jibko yiueHbio padoTaTb, sio 6 b h k Tpysy. 6 8 Ibid., 19. E ro pasocT b H anoM tm ajia oxcHBJieHHoe djiaronojiyH ne pedeHtca, KOTopuft cjihidkom s o jiro ro jio sa n , a T enepb sy M aer, hto H aB cersa cbrr. 6 9 Ibid., 21. - O ahhm cjiobom, — Tbt pe6eHOK, KOTopbift He x o n e r nttTaTbca rp y s b io KopMtuiHUbt... 7 0 Ibid., 21-22. HecMOTptt Ha e ro TttroTeHHe k neccttMH3My, b HeM xchjio hchto HettcKopeHttMO seT cx o e, — HanptiM ep peSxnsH Bo HattBHoe xb3ctobctbo cjiobcchoR jtoBKOcrbto, KOTopoK oh nojib30Baricx ro p a 3 so JtyHtne b 6 e c e s e , neM Ha SyM are. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 232 Gorky weaves the motifs of talent and childishness together to subtly solidify the characterization of Andreev: “With these words he defined, with almost perfect exactness, the character and even the habits of the person, about whom I was speaking-the woman did not take care of herself. I told him this. He was delighted and with childish sincerity began to boast.”7 1 All of the time, Gorky is taking on the guise of either the amused, disappointed or patient older brother. However, it was not only Andreev’s childishness at issue. The real problem was Andreev’s manic-depression and the demands it put on their relationship. The first mention of his depression comes mid-way through Gorky’s characterization of Andreev as juvenile. He tells about a time when their jokes about poetry led suddenly to a change in Andreev and a morbid joke about Robert Bums. Gorky then states: “I did not really like this much. I was always seriously perturbed by Leonid’s sudden and sharp fluctuations of mood.”7 2 In the next section of the memoir, Gorky begins to deal with the question directly: I think that in each one o f us, the embryos of different personalities live and fight. They fight until, as a result of this fight, the strongest one develops - or the one who can better adjust to the pressure of different influences, which form the final spiritual identity of a person, thus creating a more or less complete psychological individual. 7 1 Ibid., 22. 3 t h m h cjioB aM H o h noH T H co B ep m eH H O t o h h o o n p e a e jiH J i x a p a ic r e p ti u a a c e npHBbiHK H H en o B eica, o k o t o p o m a r o B o p tu i, — x e H iu iiH a G b u ia H e 6 p ea cH a k c e d e , f l cic a 3 a ji eiw y u t o, o h o n e u b o d p a a o B a n c a h aercK H -H C K peH H O c r a j i x B a c ra T c a . 7 2 Ibid., 20 M H e 3t o He o n eH b H paBK iiocb, - M ena B cer.ua T aacao TpeB oxcurm pe3K ne h d b t c r p u e K O Jiedam ta H acrpoeH H H Jleo H H u a. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 233 Leonid Nikolaevich’s personality would split in two in a strange and painfully abrupt way; within the same week he could sing “Hosannah” to the world and pronounce “Anathema” against it. This was not an external contradiction between the bases of his character and the habits or demands of his profession; no, in both cases he was equally sincere. And the louder he proclaimed “Hosannah!” the stronger resounded the echo: “Anathema!”7 3 This is Gorky’s attempt to understand Andreev’s bipolar illness and severe mood swings. Gorky would not have had the clinical vocabulary to describe Andreev’s condition. His talk of embryos of personalities, Hosannas and Anathemas are the best that Gorky can do to come to grips with the chaotic behavior with which he had been forced to deal. At the end of the discussion on Andreev’s psychological condition, Gorky states: “We argued more and more often, more and more intensely.”7 4 Within the text itself, this is the first statement of open conflict. It comes after the portrait of Andreev’s psychological condition and is followed by their disagreement over “thought.” The discussion over “thought” is simply an explanation of Gorky’s 7 3 Ibid., 23. fl a y M a io , h to b x a a c a o M H3 H ac a cH B y r h 6 opK >Tcx 3 a p o a b iu iH H ecK ojibK M x JiH H H O crefi, - c n o p s r r M e a c a y c o 6 o io a o n o p b i, n o ic a H e p a 3 0 B b e T c a b 6 o p b 6 e 3 a p o a b tu i H a n 6 o a e e C H itbttbiR h jih y M e io u u iR H a H Jiy n u ie n p H c n o c o o H T b c a k p a3 H o o 6 p a 3 H b iM a sb jich h am B nen aT JieH b ift, K O T o p u e 4>opM H pyioT O KOHH aTejibHbifi a y x o B H b iii o 6 jih k n e jio B e ic a , c o 3 a a B a x H3 H e ro 6 o jie e h jih M eH ee u e n o c n i y i o ncH X H H ecicyio o c o o b . JleoH H fl HHKOJiaeBHH crp aH H o h MyHHTejibHO pe3KO juih c e 6 x pacK ajibiB ancx Ha-ABoe: - Ha o ah o R h to R * e H e ae jie o h Mor neT b M iipy — « O caH H a» ! h n p o B 0 3 rjiam aT b eM y - «AHa(()eM a»! 3 t o He 6buio BHeuiHHM npoTHBopemieM Meacay ocHOBaMH xapaTepa h HaBbixaMH h jih TpeSoBaHHHMH npo4>eccHH, — Her, b o 6 o h x cjiynaxx o h nycTBOBaji o a h h 3 k o b o HcxpeHHO. H, < teM 6ojiee rpoMKO o h B03rjiauiaji «OcaHHa»! - TeM dojiee CH JibH biM dxom pa3aaBaaacb - «AHad>eMa»! 7 4 Ibid., 24. C n o p H JiH Mbi Bee n a m e , Bee H a n p x a c e H H e e . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 234 opposition to Andreev’s pessimism. Here Gorky does not mention “pessimism” per se, but by the time that he wrote the introduction for Sashka Zhegulev, Gorky was sure that it was Andreev’s allegiance to the philosophies of Schopenhauer and von Hartmann that had led to this pessimistic outlook.7 5 Most have accepted the idea of Andreev’s philosophical pessimism without delving too deeply into what this means. It is doubtful that one remains totally under the sway of any one philosophy for his/her entire life. Therefore, to say that Andreev was simply pessimistic because he read Schopenhauer is an oversimplification. Like “embryos of personalities,” it seems that Gorky’s discussion of Andreev’s “thought” or “pessimism” is only another way of trying to put into words the bipolar disorder that haunted Andreev and that was visited upon his friends. Andreev did probably have an affinity for Schopenhauer in his own search for answers, but one must be careful in dismissing Andreev’s “pessimism” as being only the influence of German philosophical trends. It is not Schopenhauer that causes mental illness, but mental illness that causes an interest in Schopenhauer. 7 5 The first mention o f this comes from Chulkov, in his portrait o f Andreev. Gorky may very well have developed his own ideas about Andreev and German pessimism from these comments by Chulkov. Fatov also suggests that Andreev’s interest in Schopenhauer and von Hartman in the sixth form played an important role in his psychological condition and brought about a “hysterical- nervous” reaction. See N. Fatov, Molodve eodv Leonida Andreeva (Moscow: Zemlia i Fabrika, 1924), 65. 7 6 Grechnev does speak o f Andreev’s pessimism in ways, which sound as though he is referring to Andreev’s depression and emotional difficulties, but he never truly defines what he means by the use o f the term. See Grechnev, 97. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 235 Gorky gives a very short description of Andreev’s drinking problem and, interestingly, refers to it as hereditary. This leads to the account of Aleksandra Mikhailovna’s calming influence. Gorky does not focus on Shura’s effect on Andreev’s drinking or literary career as do most others. He highlights Andreev’s psychological weakness and Shura’s strength while also absolving himself to a degree. Unlike Shura, Gorky could not be expected to be mother or mistress for Andreev. He is able to grasp what Andreev needed - an emotionally stabilizing force - while excusing himself from this role. Following in more or less chronological order, Gorky discusses Andreev’s political and literary evolution. This is followed by a long section about Andreev’s stay on Capri. Here, it is apparent that Gorky still has not come to terms with what Andreev had really wanted from him at this time - emotional support and sympathy. His presentation of the facts is somewhat like: Andreev’s wife died, he was very upset, the clean air did him some good, he started to write again. The most disturbing episode of the memoir is a description of how Andreev held his son on his lap just before bedtime and frightened him with a story about death.7 7 This section depicts Andreev as cruel. In creating a literary portrait, the artist has the option of what episodes he will depict in order to convey his artistic vision. Here Gorky captures Andreev’s tormented state; however, he also shows that Andreev’s emotional pain is visited upon everyone else as well. Significantly, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 236 Gorky chooses to show how this affected the most defenseless - Andreev’s young son. It is not by chance that the most damning section of the memoir addresses the emotional toll that those around Andreev were forced to endure. Just as telling, although probably unintentionally so, are Gorky’s comments that Andreev pretended to be suicidal to create anxiety in his friends and to hear them defend life.7 8 Seemingly, Gorky still could not grasp Andreev’s fragile condition, making it sound as though Andreev was only playing a game. One is reminded of Andreev’s letter to Gorky in 1912 concerning his anticipation of Veresaev’s arrival on Capri so that he could discuss his thoughts of suicide. This is especially callous of Gorky, considering that Andreev had attempted suicide more than once in his youth. However, one must return to the ground rules that Gorky has created: suicide is simply the sport of overly romantic juveniles. Gorky’s inability to grasp Andreev’s predicament is exacerbated by the following paragraphs in which the fresh air washes away all of Andreev’s problems and literature fills his emotional void: But the cheerful scenery of the island, the caressing beauty of the sea, and the genial attitude of the Caprians to the Russians, quite quickly drove away Leonid’s gloomy mood. After about two months he was seized, as by a whirlwind, with a passionate desire for work.7 9 7 7 Vadim Andreev says that he does not remember this particular incident, but does admit that it, or something like it, does remain in his subconscious. See Vadim Andreev, 24. 7 8 Gor’kii, Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. 60.. 7 9 Ibid. Ho BeceJiafl npupona ocrpoBa, JiacKOBax icpacoTa Mopx k Mttnoe oTHotueime KanpniiueB k pycciatM AOBonbHo 6bicrpo pa3cexjiH Mpanuoe HacTpoetute JleoHtma. Mecxua nepe3 oBa ero tohho BHxpeM oxBaTtuio crpacTHoe xenaHHe paOoTaTb. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 237 Never before or since did I see him in such a mood - such a high degree of activity, so unusually industrious. He renounced, as if it were forever, his dislike for the process of writing; and he could sit at his table all day and all night, half-dressed, unkempt, cheerful. His imagination blazed wonderfully bright and productive; nearly every day he told me the plan of a new tale or story.8 0 We can understand why Capri was so detrimental to the authors’ relationship. Here is displayed Andreev’s depression (and possibly an episode of mania) and Gorky’s emotional vacuity. Gorky wished to limit the relationship to the area of literature and once Andreev had begun to write, Gorky was satisfied. If Gorky had not understood it in 1907, by 1912 it should have been clear that Andreev’s discussion of suicide was quite dire. Andreev had expressed himself fully and still Gorky shows how he is unable to grasp the demands that Andreev was making on their friendship or how his self-deception protects him from such realizations. There is no note of compassion, no admission that possibly he had not understood his friend’s grave situation, no regret. Gorky tells of another episode: “And instantly [Andreev] began — easily and quickly - to weave a humorous story of two friends: one a dreamer, the other a mathematician. The one spends his whole life in the clouds, while the other, by carefully calculating the expense of these imaginary travels, decidedly kills once 8 0 Ibid., 63. Hmconia, kh paaee, hh nocne, h He BHAan ero HacrpoeHHMM no TaKoft BbicoKOii creneHii atcntBHO, TaKH M HeoobiHHO TpyaocnocoSHbiM. Oh K aK oyflTo HaBcema OTpeamnca o t CBoeft HenptuuuH k npoueccy nncaHtui h mot caaeT 3a ctojiom neHb h hohb, nojiyoaeTbiil, pacpenaHHbift, Becejibift. Ero 4>aH T a3H X pa3ropejiacb ymiBHTejibHo apico it ruioaoTBopHO, — iio k t h Kaacobifi AeHb o h cooStuan nnaH HOBoii noBecTH h jih pa3CKa3a. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 238 and for all the dreams of his friend.”8 1 Ironically, the mathematician does not only kill the dreams of his friend. He also kills the friendship. In some sense Gorky must have understood this paradox since he has chosen to add it. However, it is told in such a whimsical fashion that Andreev is again portrayed as the guilty party since he is here depicted as the dreamer, when in fact it is Gorky, in the retelling, who is involved in the process of self-deception. If you have killed the dreams of the dreamer, have you not killed the dreamer himself? For Gorky it is regrettable that the dreamer cannot become a mathematician (or, at least pretend to be one). Even though Andreev had begun to write again, much to Gorky’s satisfaction, he was still plagued by the same problem - a careless disrespect for the writing profession. Gorky notes: “He behaved towards his talent like an indifferent rider treats a superb horse...”8 2 Of course, Gorky is ignoring the fact that Andreev was forced to use his writing as an emotional catharsis in the absence of friendship. Even more importantly, Andreev probably used it as an expression of his chaotic and variable mental health. Here Gorky is continuing the theme o f Andreev’s wasted talent, but he is also displaying his own insensitivity. The friendship had come to an end because of personal problems, although Gorky goes on to discuss Andreev’s “Darkness,” which he understands as the reason for the failure of their 8 1 Ibid., 61. H TOTHac, — Jienco h 6bicnpo, cruieji k d m o p h c t h h c c k h h pa3cxa3 o AByx npy3bax, MenTaxejie h MaTeiuaTHK, — o a h h H 3 h h x b c k > pBe-rcjt b HeSeca, a apyroil 3a6oTJinBo noacHHTbraaeT (oaepxKH Boo6paacaeMbix nyreuiecTBHit h 3t h m peuiHTejibHO y6nBaeT m c m t h apyra. 8 2 Ibid., 64. Oh o t h o c h j i c b k c B o e M y Tanamy, icaic ru io x o ft e3aosc k n p e w p a c H O M y k o h i o ... R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 239 relationship. One of the problems was that Gorky could not relate to Andreev in many areas other than literature, so it is understandable why Gorky would look for the demise of their friendship in this context. Even when Gorky tried to be self- reflective about their relationship, he was blind to anything outside the boundaries of literature. Afterwards, Gorky quickly moves through the last death throes of their friendship. He states: It was only in 1916 ... we both deeply felt again how much we had gone through together and what old comrades we were. But we could only talk about the past without arguing; the present erected between us a high wall of irreconcilable differences. I shall not be violating the truth if I say that to me that wall was transparent and permeable. I saw behind it a prominent, original man, who for ten years had been very near to me, my sole friend in literary circles. Differences of outlook ought not to affect sympathies; I never allowed theories and opinions to play a decisive role in my relationships with people.8 3 Gorky has addressed the problem indirectly. It was not literary or political theories that had divided them, but a difference in outlook. It was Andreev’s pessimism (read depression) and Gorky’s constant optimism (remember Khodasevich), which 8 3 Ibid., 71. ...TOJibKo b 16-m roity,... mu o6a CH O Ba h myooico nonycTBOBajiH, rax mhoto 6buio nepeacHTO hbmh, h xaKHe mu crapue TOBaptuoH. Ho mu Monm, He cnopa, roBopHTb xojibxo o npouutOM, Hocramee ace B03ABnrano Mexay HaM H Bucoxyio creHy H enpH M H pH M bix pa3HopesHfl. 51 He n a p y r n y n p aB O b i, e c j i n cicaxy, hto ana M eH a crreHa 3 T a 6 u n a npo3paHHa h npoH im aeM a, — a B H aeJi 3 a H e ll H e jio B e x a K p y tm o r o , c B o e o 6 p a 3 H o r o , o n e H b 6 jn i3 K o r o MHe b T e n e H H e acchth J ie r, eiiH H C T B eH H oro A p y r a b c p e a e JiH re p a T p o B . Pa3HorjiacHH yM03peHHil He AOJixHbi 6 u BjiwiTb Ha CHMnarHH; a HHKoraa He aaBan TeopaaM h M H eHHaM pemaromeft pojia b mohx otho uie hhbx k juooaM. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 240 created this “transparent” wall. For all of Gorky’s statements about politics and literature through the memoir, he admits that it was simply a difference in outlook. In a long section, added to the 1923 version, many of these motifs (mental illness, drunkenness, disrespect for his organic talent, etc.) are repeated. There are specifically two very telling episodes. The first involves a conversation about a fire in St. Petersburg. Both Gorky and Andreev agree that fires are more exciting in provincial towns, where everything is made of wood. St. Petersburg is made of stone, so the fires are not as fantastic. Andreev then says that Gorky himself is like St. Petersburg - made of stone-like darkness and emptiness. Andreev states, “I hate you sometimes because of that.” Gorky replies that he senses this. “Yes,” [Andreev] confirmed, putting his head in Gorky’s lap. “You know why? I want you to feel my pain - then we would be closer. You already know how lonely I i «84 am! This leads to a story of how Gorky and Andreev met three women and how Andreev (not Gorky!) proceeded to get drunk with them. Eventually, Gorky’s admonishments result in the following from Andreev: You think that I am drunk and do not understand that I am talking nonsense? No, I simply want to make you angry. I, brother, am a decadent, a degenerate, a sick person. But Dostoevskii was also sick, like all great people. There is a book - 1 do not remember whose — about genius and madness, in which it is proven, that 8 4 M. Gor’kii, “Vospominaniia,” in Literatumoe nasledstvo. 375-376. Hnoraa x xeoa 3a 3To HeHaBtray. R CKa3ati, h to nycTByio 3to. fla - noflTBepanri, o h , yxjiaabiBaa ronoBy Ha xojieHH MHe. - 3Haeiui> - noneMy? XoneTca, h to 6 t o 6ojieji Moeft 6ojn.ro, - x o raa mm 6m jih 6m 6jiHace a p y r k apyry, - tm Beat 3Haenib, xax x o a h h o k I R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 241 genius is a psychological disease! This book ruined me. If I had not read it, I would be simpler. But now I know that I am almost a genius, but I am not sure if I am crazy enough? Do you understand, I am pretending for myself that I am crazy to persuade myself that I am talented - do you understand?8 5 Gorky underlines their love-hate relationship and blames it on Andreev’s loneliness. He also addresses Andreev’s talent/illness and then rejects this idea as “badly thought out and incorrect.”8 6 Gorky is not willing to excuse Andreev’s behavior. He also is not willing to connect this organic talent or Andreev’s problems to some psychological illness.8 7 Certainly, this addition by Gorky must be seen in the context of a dialogue with or response to Chukovskii, Chulkov and Blok. Gorky is rejecting out of hand that Andreev suffered from any real illness and continues to depict Andreev as childish, “a decadent and a degenerate.” Gorky maintains his status as a sober, stone-like, older brother, while Andreev remains the drunken waster of talent. In this section, there is an underlying dialogue with A Book About Leonid Andreev. In response to Blok: Andreev’s chaos is simply chaos. In response to Chukovskii: there is no creative spark in Andreev’s wild extravagance. In response to Chulkov: 8 5 Ibid., 378. Tbi ayMaeuib, a m an h He noHHMaio, hto roBopio nenyxy? H e T , a npocTo xony pa303jurrb Te6a. A , 6 p a T , A e x a a e H T , B b ip o a o x , S o jib H o f t n e jio B e K . H o A o c T o e B c io tf t 6m ji T o a c e d o jib H o f i , x a x B e e B eJiH K H e jikxuh. E c r b K H io K x a, - H e n o M H io , H b a , - o r e m m h 6 e 3 y M H H , b H e ft a o x a 3a H o , h to re H H a n b H O C T b - n c H X H H e c x a a 6 o jie 3 H b ! 3 r a K H iira - H c n o p m n a M e H a . E cjih 6 b i a H e H H T an e e , - a 6b u i 6 u n p o r n e . A T e n e p b a 3 H a io , h to n o H T H re H H a n e H , ho H e y B e p e H b to m , - a o c r a T O H H O a n 6 e 3 y M e H ? I I o H H M a e u ib , — a c a M c e d e n p e a c r a B J i a i o c b 6 e 3 y M H b iM , h to 6 y d e a H T b c e 6 a b C B o e ft T ajiaH T jiH B O C T H , - n o H H M a e u ib ? 8 6 Ibid. 8 7 Interestingly, it is partially based on this section o f Gorky’s literary portrait that Dr. I. Galant makes his diagnosis o f hysteric-neurasthenia. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 242 Andreev’s turmoil is not an illness. To all three: Andreev’s actions are nothing more than an often-repeated drama of booze, women, and debauchery, which D Q ruined a friendship and wasted his organic talent. Gorky felt justified in making the argument that he had been Andreev’s good friend. He had recognized Andreev’s talent and tried to encourage the use of this natural gift. However, it was Andreev’s laziness, pessimism and disrespect for the literary trade that had brought their friendship to an end. Gorky does not seem willing to accept that Andreev may have needed the emotional support and kindness of a friend, rather than the grimace of a disapproving older brother. For Gorky, Andreev’s literary concerns represented the limits of his friendship. To understand Gorky’s behavior, one might recall his relationship with Grigorii as described in Childhood. Grigorii had worked for Gorky’s grandfather for many years, but was rapidly losing his eyesight and would no longer be needed in the dye shop. The young Gorky - Alesha - promised that he would leave with Grigorii (once blind) and help him beg for food. But Alesha did not leave and even hid from Grigorii when he called out for help during the dye shop fire. Later, when Alesha saw his old friend on the streets, he did not help him, but followed behind him and watched him beg. 8 8 Understanding this section as a response to A Book About Leonid Andreev gains further support when, at the end o f this section, Gorky and Andreev have a discussion about the Decadents, Vesy and the modernist publishing house Scorpion. Here, Andreev claims that he does not like them and their “drunken” words. They “rape” Schopenhauer, which he hates (Ibid., 380). This must be understood as a response to Chulkov, Blok and especially Belyi, who made the claim that Andreev R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 243 Why is Gorky so averse to human frailty? In Childhood we turn to the moment when Alesha lays face down in bed after being beaten by his grandfather. The old man tries to convince his grandson that suffering will result in salvation. Grandfather even tells about his own suffering as a boy with the “implication that suffering explains and excuses imparting further suffering of those weaker than A Q [oneself].” However, Alesha does not forgive his grandfather or accept his explanation. Erikson writes in a chapter devoted to Gorky’s novel that Alesha has eluded identification with his tormentor, avoiding a moment of pity for himself and for his grandfather.9 0 This psychological response could have later led Gorky to identify with Nietzsche’s Obermensch.9l Erikson notes this characteristic in Gorky’s relationship with Grigorii when he writes: “To leave the ruins of men and systems behind seems to be a job which does not call for any expenditure of emotion.”9 2 Mary Loe also writes how Nietzschean philosophy gave form to Gorky’s own sense of self. Nietzsche offered Gorky not only confirmation of was, in fact, an unwitting modernist. The conversation does not follow a logical progression from what has come before, but rather feels like Gorky is tying-up lose ends. 8 9 Erik H. Erikson, Childhood and Society. 2n d ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1963), 370-371. 9 0 Ibid. 9 1 Forman writes: “Both Nietzsche and Gorky have in common an interest in the individual personality, the affirmation o f man - as Gorky would later observe, ‘Man with a capital M,’ Both glorify strength, pride, will and beauty in the exceptional individual, despite his criminal or apathetic stance vis-a-vis the larger society. Liberated from ordinary morality, strength is to be revered.... The rejection o f Philistinism by Nietzsche parallels the hatred o f Gorky for meshchanstvo, the self-serving complacency which saps the strength from life.” See Betty Y. Forman, “Nietzsche and Gorky in the 1890s: The Case for an Early Influence,” in Western Philosophical Systems in Russian literature, ed. Anthony M. Mlikotin (Los Angeles, California: University o f Southern California Press, 1979), 161. 92 Erikson, 383. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 244 grandfather’s beliefs, but also specific reasons for the weakness and effeminacy of male intellectuals. Like Nietzsche, Gorky associated weakness with effeminacy, and condemned intellectuals for not demonstrating the masculine traits of aggressiveness and strength.9 3 More specifically relating to Andreev, Loe notes the contempt Gorky felt for the drunken and violent behavior of his uncles and the disappointment he experienced in finding that many Russians behaved in similar ways, “lacking the ability to control their desires and passions and pursuing their immediate selfish needs without any higher personal goal. Gorky was repelled by this lack of self-control and direction, reflecting an asceticism in him which had a strong affinity to Nietzsche’s own, and which became more pronounced as he matured.”9 4 Theories of the Ubermensch and the theatricality of life are only descriptive ways of explaining Gorky’s behavior. The fact of the matter is that for all of the warm-hearted qualities of his grandmother, it was Gorky’s brutal grandfather who seemed to have had the greater influence on his relations with others. Just as Gorky reneged on his promise to help Grigorii beg for food, Gorky withdrew his help from those whom he deemed weak. If the weak could not put a “brave face” on the situation then Gorky felt contempt for them, for their weakness, for their inability to deceive themselves. 9 3 Maiy Louise Loe, “Gorky and Nietzsche: The Quest for a Russian Superman,” in Nietzsche in Russia, ed. Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986), 260. 9 4 Ibid., 261-262. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 245 Gorky’s coldness is linked to self-deception and the creation of his own reality. Khodasevich tells of how Baroness V. I. Ikskul’ asked Gorky to procure an exit visa for her from Soviet officials to travel abroad. Gorky, having returned from Moscow, told the baroness that she would have her exit visa in a few days. The baroness sold or gave away all of her possessions in expectation of her departure. However, it soon became apparent to Khodasevich that there would be no visa, and he was left to deal with the baroness’ disappointment. Upon later learning that Gorky had received a definite denial in Moscow concerning the baroness’ matter, Khodasevich questioned Gorky as to why he would blatantly lie to the old woman. Gorky was unable to explain his actions and it is based on this event (as well as others) that Khodasevich argues that Gorky often deceived himself and others when life did not conform to his own self-styled reality.9 5 Finding a prototype for life and actually living that life is a different matter. It is this disjunction that led Gorky to lie to himself and to others; to play the role of Zarathustra; to “live up to” his status of proletarian cultural hero. D. S. Mirsky once wrote of Gorky: “For cold-blooded Gorky is to the last; and free-minded, if he chooses; never checked by reverence or emotion.... But in him there is an inherent vice which cripples him. With an enormous insight into reality, Gorky has no love of truth. And he has no motive to restrain him from telling half-truths and 9 S Khodasevich, 172-175. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 246 insinuating untruths, his essays more often than not become grotesque distortions of reality.”9 6 With this being the case, it is clear that Gorky’s portrait of Andreev is at one in the same time a search for answers, an act of self-delusion and an attempt at absolution. The reality of the situation was that Andreev demanded a great deal from his friendships due to his manic-depression, especially in the case of his closest friends. He was unable to play the role of Ubermensch, but instead reminded Gorky of his drunken uncles. Eventually, Gorky cast Andreev aside because he could not overcome his condition, he could not find that “brave face.” When Gorky looked back on their relationship, he was as unable to explain his own actions regarding Andreev, as he had his actions in the baroness’ matter. Gorky’s deep-seated self-delusion contradicted his self-image as a hardheaded realist that he cultivated vis-a-vis Andreev and this disrupted his personal equilibrium. Therefore, he created a portrait that blamed Andreev for the demise of their friendship. It was in this way that Gorky could continue to deceive himself. Unfortunately, due to his authority in the Soviet Union, Gorky’s portrait deceived many others as well. The reality is that Gorky did not want or was unable to understand that Andreev suffered from manic-depression. This illness led to heavy drinking, depression and erratic behavior. It also resulted in bursts of energy that made Andreev buoyant, enterprising and promoted his highly creative artistic 9 6 D. S. Mirsky, Uncollected Writings on Russian Literature, ed. and intro. G. S. Smith (Berkeley: R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 247 periods. However, Gorky’s portrait depicts Andreev in less than sympathetic colors. It is for this reason that Andreev has been remembered by most as a pessimistic, unprofessional writer, who wasted his natural talent and destroyed his friendships due to drink and debauchery. Berkeley Slavic Specialties, 1989), 70. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. I am a melancholic, a hypochondriac, a neuropath and a psychasthenic.1 — Andreev to Goloushev in 1916 9 On a July afternoon, guests enjoy the sunny weather on the terrace of Andreev’s home in Finland, reading newspapers and journals. One friend quotes a St. Petersburg newspaper, in which it is written that Andreev suffers from a nervous condition and that his friends are worried about his mental health. Smiling, Andreev asks everyone to attest to his madness - how he howls at the moon and chases them around like a mad dog. V. Brusianin, telling this story in 1911, suggests that Andreev is healthy and that such articles are simply a result of sensational journalism.2 In 1903 Andreev wrote an open letter to the Stock Exchange News (Birzhevye vedomosti) after it was suggested that his story “The Thought,” reflected Andreev’s own experience in a psychiatric hospital. Andreev states that his stay in the hospital was not for psychiatric treatment, but for an internal illness 1 Andreev might be playing with the final two terms - neurasthenic and psychopath - conveying the absurdity o f the various treatments and diagnoses given for his illness. This quote is found in an unpublished letter in LRA, MS 606\F. 24. i. (35). .H - MejiaHxojmK, HnoxoHnpmc, ueBponaT h ncHxocreHHK. 2 V. Brusianin. Leonid Andreev: Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo (Moscow: K. F. Nekrasov, 1912), 5. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 249 - suggesting some sort of heart condition associated with fatigue. He writes that he was willing to ignore gossip about his madness, but now that it has been reported in a publication and connected to his literary works, he wants to state for the record that he is not mentally ill.3 The question here concerns Andreev’s hospitalization in 1901 for “acute neurasthenia” and Dr. I. Ivanov’s article “Leonid Andreev as artist-psychotherapist.”4 In 1908, Andeev published the following open letter: Recently there have appeared a whole series of articles, which give information about my life, as if they had received real statements from me about various events and people. I need to state in print, once and for all, that I do not take responsibility for such articles. Very often, they appear without my knowledge and agreement and almost always distort the facts beyond recognition. They even distorted my opinions - on one occasion to such a degree that the information was arbitrary. Another time, the authors of an article simply attributed their own ideas and views to me. I beg of you readers that you take into consideration only that which is signed with my name. Leonid Andreev 5 3 Birzhewe vedomosti. no. 103, 27 February (1903). 4 Dr. I. Ivanov, “Leonid Andreev kak khudozhnik-psikhopatolog,” Birzhewe vedomosti. no. 90, 20 February (1903). 5 Rech’. no. 300, 7 December (1908): 4; Obozreme teatrov. no. 602, 10 December (1908): 8. B n o c jie z u ie e B peM a n o a B H a c a p a n c ra T e fi, b K o x o p u x a a io T c a c B e a e m ta o Moefl a o u H H h n p H B o a a x c a w ax 6bi n o a a H H H b ie OT3biBbi m o h o p a 3 H b tx c o 6 b m t a x h a i o a a x . BbiHyacaeH 3aaBHTb nenaxHO, h t o pa3 h HaBceraa CHHM aio c ce6a Bcaxyio OTBercTBeHHocTb 3a noiioSHbie cTaTbH. OneHb nacro o h h noaanaioTca 6e3 BeaoMa Moero h coraacaa h noHTH aceraa HCKaacaior ({laicm ao Hey3HaBaeMocrH. Tamce HCKaacaioTca h OT3biBbi m o h b oaHHX caynaax KpaftHeft HeroKHOcTbio h npoH3BoabHocTbK) nepeaanH, b apyrwx ace — aBTopbt cTaxefi npocxo- nanpocTo c b o h MbicaH h B3maabi npHmicMBaiox MHe. Y6eaHxeabHO npouiy Huxaxeaeii CHHxaxbca ToabKO c xeM, h t o noanucaHo m o h m HM eHeM . JTeoiiud Andpeee R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 250 In 1910, three articles appeared claiming that Andreev had gone mad and was suffering from an acute nervous disorder.6 Andreev answered these articles in an open letter entitled, “The Madness of L. Andreev.” He writes: “I am fed up with questions about my health. But all the same, I support this gossip that I have gone mad; now everyone will fear me, as a madman, and will finally give me some peace to work.”7 For all of this energy in defense of mental health, however, Andreev wrote to his best friend in 1915 of what sounds like a manic, followed by a depressive episode: It happens that you do a lot of work, make a lot of noise, talk a lot and talk a lot with yourself, race on your nerves at something like a gallop for a week or two - and suddenly you start to mope. That is how I am now. At first, from the middle of August, I worked without sleep and without rest, then two weeks I turned somersaults in St. Petersburg, while taking the largest dose of people and telephone calls, aspirin and the theater. I arrived home, still quite stirred-up, like a parrot after a bath, with an ardent intention to quickly write a huge story and a huge comedy. For still three days I showed off and sang the high octave note “doe” - but now there is weakness and languor, like a newborn kitten. I do not like anything; do not want or wish for anything; ideas have faded; and I think with sorrow, that I am an actual secret idiot.8 6 See Obozrenie teatrov. no. 1159, 30 August (1910): 17; Penzenskie vedomosti. no. 188, 2 September (1910): 3 and no. 191, 5 September (1910): 4. 7 Utro Rossii. no. 242, 5 September (1910): 3. Nine H a n o e jiH B o n p o c a M tt o 3 a o p o B e . Ho B e e p a B tto , n o a e p x n s t o t c n y x , 6 y a x o n c o u i e n c y M a; KaK c y M a c w e a i u o r o , B ee 6 y a y r O o aT b ca M e ttx n a a a y r M H e, H a x o H e u , c n o K o f m o p a 6 o T a r b . 8 LRA, MS 606\F. 24. i. (26). Letter from Andreev to S. Goloushev on 30 September 1915. E b tB aeT : H a p a o o T a e u ib , H am yM H U ib, H a S o n T a e u ib h Ha6 o jn a e u ib C f t, n p o c x a n e i n b H a H e p B a x 3Tbk h m r a n o n o M H e a e ju o h jih i w e - h B a p y r cK yK H U ibca. T a x b o t h c e R n a c . C n e p B a , c n o a o B H H b t a B r y c r a , 6 e 3 c o H H o h 6 e3 0 T iu > iu iH o p a S o T a ji, h o to m a B e n e a e a H K yBbipxaiiC H b n e T e p O y p r e , npuH H M ax o rp o M a a K e ftn iH X a o 3 j n o a e f t h T e n e ^ o H a , aH TH rm piiH a h x e a T p a . r i p n e x a n a o M o ft, B e e e n t e B 3 6 y a o p a c e H H b tti, x a x n o n y r a f t n o c n e x y n a H b Jt, c nbuiK H M H aM ep em ieM H eM e a n e H H o n n c a t b o rp o M H b itt p a c c x a 3 h o rp o M H y io K O M eam o, a m t T p n e n t e 4 > o p c n n h S p a n i p e T b e a o , a b o t T e n e p b - R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 251 It is quite clear that Andreev was concerned about his public image and realized that his fame was connected to his “personality” as much as to his literary works. In letters to Goloushev from 1915, Andreev jokes about a self-portrait he has painted. It is clear that the joking tone betrays a concern about his posthumous image. Andreev states that his self-portrait, at the moment, is just “pure shit” and not much more than “the fruits of an idiot’s leisure.” However after 25 years, Andreev jokes, people will write about how interesting he was. The critic K. Arbazhin (whom Andreev strongly disliked) will have written a psychoanalysis of him. Then, it will be important that Andreev painted a self-portrait. A portrait that shows his “anxious thoughts” and the “zig-zags of his soul.” Then the portrait will be worth something, suggests Andreev to his friend.9 These incidents show that even during Andreev’s lifetime, there existed a discourse about how Leonid Andreev, the popular figure, would be represented and portrayed, a discourse in which Andreev himself participated and in which he tried to deflect interest in his mental health. In our modem age, this would be the domain of Andreev’s agent and spokesman. We could argue, therefore, that A Book About Leonid Andreev was an unauthorized biography of sorts. Today, Andreev’s estate might enter into a legal battle with World Literature to present the Andreev that would best preserve his literary and personal legacy. c jia o o cT h TOMHOCTb, KaK y poAH Biueft k o u ik h . Bee He HpaBHTca, HHHero He xo<ty h He xcejiaio, MbICJIH BblUBeJW H C TOpeHbK) JiyMaiO, HTO X fleftCTBHTejIbHblft TaftHbtfi tUHOT. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 252 Instead, A Book About Leonid Andreev is a combination of eight different portraits by eight very different people, written at a turbulent time in Russian history. It is the combination of these portraits, even with their contradictions and competing agendas that created a posthumous image of Andreev. Mel’nikova- Papoushek writes in 1922 that the memoirs of Blok and Gorky hold particular interest because they tell as much about the authors as they do about Andreev. Gorky’s memoir, she feels, is unexpected and unnecessary. “We do not plan to accuse Gorky of anything - each person writes as he sees fit and as he can, but it is all the same sad and unpleasant to read an obituary that not only sounds like an accusatory document but also as a political pamphlet. All of this would have been better said while Andreev was alive and could defend himself. It is not surprising therefore that [Andreev] was so lonely, since his close friend, and fellow writer, would treat him like this.”1 0 The critic feels that the other memoirs offer only minor glimpses of Andreev. Nina Petrovskaia in emigration writes that the literary establishment has produced a very depressing book. Like Mel’nikova-Papoushek, she finds the “stamp” of each author on the portraits. Quoting mainly the 9 Ibid., (13). Letter from Andreev to S. Goloushev o f 25 February 1915. 1 0 N. M. P. [Nadezhda Mel’nikova-Papoushek], Volia Russia, no. 3 1 (1922): 81-82. M b i H e c o d H p a e M c a hh b n eM o d B H tu rrb r o p b x o r o , xaacA biti rm iu e T , x a x c m r r a e T n p aB ttn b H b tM h KaK yiw eeT , h o B ee ace n e n a n b H o h H e n p tu r r a o m rra T b H e x p o n o r , H M e io u m ft b h a H e tojieko oo B H H H T e;ib H o ro a ic ra , ho h n a M c Jm e ra . Bee 3to J iy q n ie 6 b u io c x a 3 a T b , n o x a A a n p e e B a c iu i it M o r aau tH iu aT b C H , h H e y n ttB trre jib H o n o a r o M y , hto oh 6 mji T a x oahhok, e c n t t 6ah3khK n e n o B e x , c o 6 p a T n o n e p y T a x x H eM y noAXOAHJi. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 253 disheartening passages, Petrovskaia comes to the conclusion that Andreev died as he lived — alone — repeating Blok’s conclusion.1 1 As we have suggested, the portraits, taken on their own, can be divided into two groups — biographical and psychological. However, A Book About Leonid Andreev exists as a singular text, with Andreev as its focal point. Koliadich correctly states that often an anthology of literary portraits develops its own internal logic that presents a complete and instantaneous image of the subject.1 2 It is the sum total of eight portraits that creates A Book About Leonid Andreev, eight voices that combine to form one harmony or, rather polyphony. It has been argued in this dissertation that the memoirs can be split into two groups; however, it might be suggested that the unifying theme - the harmony - of all the portraits (excluding Zamiatin’s) is an attempt to depict Andreev’s bipolar disorder. Zaitsev wishes to argue that Andreev’s “broken and tormented” life was limited to his Finnish period. Belyi, Blok and Chulkov, sensing Andreev’s “internal discord,” use modernist sensibilities to come to various conclusions about his condition. Teleshov claims that Sreda provided Andreev with the friends and support that long remained a stabilizing force in his life. Chukovskii sees his extravagant behavior and bursts of energy as the creative impulse for his various projects: literature, painting, and photography. Finally, Gorky clears the record about their friendship, claiming that it was destroyed by Andreev’s drinking and emotional demands. Taken 1 1 Nina Petrovskaia, Nakanune. no. 27, 19 June (1922): 11. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 254 individually, the core ideas of the portraits deal with chaos, literary classifications and circles, creative energy, etc., but read as a whole, the book speaks about Andreev: his mania, despair, anxiety, drinking and torment. The reason that the psychological group of portraits set the tone for the book as a whole is probably due to the fact that the first four memoirs are of the psychological type. One reads the portraits by Gorky, Chukovskii, Blok and Chulkov (124 pages) before confronting Zaitsev’s explanation of how to conceptualize Andreev’s life. Already, the reader has been introduced to Andreev’s drinking, suicide attempts, creative energy, “chaos,” and inner turmoil, before reading the first biographical portrait. Teleshov’s portrait and finally Zamiatin’s do little to contradict the tales of mental illness. Belyi’s was added in the second edition and also addresses Andreev’s inner discord, although he interprets it as an allegiance to modernist literature. The portraits do exist outside of A Book About Leonid Andreev and this is why they were addressed individually. However, as a text about Andreev, it must also be understood as the first collective statement about Andreev, in which his controversial behavior is the core idea o f a majority of the portraits. The fact that many of the memoirs that followed this collection are in direct discourse (and possibly open confrontation) with the portraits in A Book About Leonid Andreev, speaks to the book’s influence in shaping Andreev’s life history. 1 2 T. Koliadich, Vospominaniia pisatelei. Problemv noetiki zhanra (Moscow: Megatron, 1998), 84. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 255 Beklemisheva, Belousov, Skitalets and Pavel Andreev address Andreev’s illness in a much more concrete fashion in memoirs after 1922, picking up where the earlier portraits left off. Pavel goes the farthest in suggesting sociological factors: poverty and the stress of supporting his family after their father’s death. The fact that a vast majority of the memoirs after 1922 address Andreev’s tormented state (often depicted as creative energy or inner turmoil) supports the idea that the internal logic of this collection and the following discourse were explications of Andreev’s abnormal behavior. Even today these portraits are influencing how Andreev and his works are perceived. V. Belianin quotes Chukovskii’s portrait to help support his theory that Andreev suffered from clinical depression and, therefore, wrote “sad” texts.1 3 In this instance, Belianin’s theories of psycholinguistics as applied to literary texts, are supported, if not shaped, by Chukovskii’s depiction of Andreev’s inner world. It is therefore very important that Andreev’s illness as well as the portraits that first attempted to describe his condition, are explored. This exploration eventually leads back to the authors themselves. In this sense, A Book About Andreev is also the starting point for the authors’ own internal struggles with historical, political, social, cultural and/or personal pressures. A byproduct of looking at each portrait is that the authors themselves come into greater focus. Belyi continued to claim Andreev for the modernist movement, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 256 letting go of this impulse to make Andreev “one of us” only in the 1930s. Zaitsev projected his feelings of isolation onto Andreev while at his father’s estate in the Tula district and continued this interpretation into emigration. Blok understood Andreev from a distance because of his own bouts with cyclothymia, not to mention his mother’s struggles with severe depression. Teleshov knew that his legacy was connected to Sreda and made sure that Andreev’s was too. Chulkov’s relationship with Andreev was superficial and his ideas about Andreev’s inner turmoil were vague and suggest a modernist influence. Chukovskii was the constant literary critic, who saw Andreev’s life in literary terms. Finally, Gorky was playing the role of a Russian Zarathustra, unable to deal with the human frailty and/or emotions that interfered with his own self-created world. The insights we gained into the authors and their portraits have allowed us to re-evaluate their contributions to Andreev’s posthumous legacy. Edel, in discussing the role of the literary biographer, touches upon Henry James’ literary portrait of Russell Lowell: ...we, from our distance, more than half a century later, and many years after James’ death, find that time has further summarized Lowell and made him more remote. A certain staleness pervades his writings - they seem bookish and derivative; he has stepped into a greater shadow; at moments he seems to us, in our twentieth-century sophistication, a figure naive and parochial; he lives for us vividly only in some of his essays and lectures and largely when a writer, like James, succeeds in making him vivid for us. The figure of James, along with other of Lowell’s contemporaries, has moved into 1 3 V. Belianin, Q snow psikholingvisticheskoi diagnostiki: Modeli mira v literature (Moscow: Trivola, 2000), 140-142. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 257 the records of Lowell’s life; and the biographer, his task more complex than ever, must himself move among these shadows and documents and “points of view,” called upon to sift, to evaluate, to re-create.1 4 This dissertation has, therefore, been an exercise in sifting, evaluating and re creating. In much the same way as with Russell Lowell, some may argue that Andreev’s literary works today seem parochial. However, it is important to remember that Andreev was the most popular and successful literary figure in Russia at the turn of the century. The eight literary portraits, which constitute A Book About Leonid Andreev, capture this fact. However, they convey much more than Andreev’s significance as a popular figure. They create a discourse for how Andreev was and will be remembered. Nietzsche once wrote: “If a temple is to be erected a temple must be destroyed...”1 5 The portraits have been examined and subjective material has been identified and stripped away. The chapters dealing with the biographical portraits may especially seem like little more than the elimination of what are perhaps the most interesting aspects of the memoirs: their culturally influenced myth-making. However, this is the first step in building a new understanding of Andreev. The destruction of this subjective material allows for the examination of Andreev’s life history in the discourse of bipolar disorder. A discourse that will ask critics to look at Andreev’s literary works in a new way; will offer new insights into his 1 4 Leon Edel. Literary Biography ( 1957: reprint, Bloomington; London: Indiana University Press, 1973), 14-15. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 258 relationships with literary figures, and will suggest that Andreev scholars reinterpret their approaches to Andreev’s social, historical and literary biographies. Only by stripping away the old mythologies can we look again at Teleshov’s memoir and realize that his core idea is relevant because we now understand that Andreev made great emotional demands on the people close to him due to his manic-depression. This means that the friendships offered by Sreda were very important for his psychological stability, highlighting the idea that Sreda’s role in Andreev’s life was not strictly literary or political. We gain further insight into Zaitsev’s claim that only the second half of Andreev’s life was tragic. The modernists’ interpretations are also refocused and possibly better understood. Each of the portraits can add to our understanding of Andreev’s condition, when viewed in the light of mental illness. Virginia Woolf, Robert Lowell, and Sylvia Plath are just a few examples of authors whose history of mental illness is well documented and understood as a contributing factor to their literary legacy. Comprehending manic-depression and the demands it made on these writers’ lives has expanded not only our understanding of their literary works, but of who they were as people. Until now, Andreev has not been afforded the same opportunity. For the most part, much of the discourse has been mired in questions about literary camps, the influence of German philosophical ideas, political allegiances, sociological factors and much !5 Friedrich Nietzsche, “The Genealogy o f Morals,” in Basic Writings o f Nietzsche, trans. and ed. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 259 more that was relevant and yet, at the same time, slightly off the mark. This dissertation has tried to disrupt those interpretations in order to interject a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, which the portraits seem to suggest. Once the issues of bipolar disorder are discussed, then the issues of literary camps, philosophical and sociological influences gain a new relevance. It is difficult to imagine a discourse involving Plath that would ignore her manic-depression. Hopefully, this too will be the case for Andreev. Bipolar disorder and its effects are unavoidable. It is an intrusive illness, which caused Andreev and those in contact with him much suffering. It also probably enhanced his literary career and can be felt in the manic frenzy and deep pessimism of many of his works. A Book About Leonid Andreev was the first attempt by the literary establishment to define a posthumous Andreev. The influence of the authors made this the primary and most significant statement about him, possibly to this day. The fact that Zaitsev and Zamiatin republished their portraits in the West; that Blok, Chukovskii, Gorky and Teleshov were accepted Soviet writers; that Belyi and Chulkov are caught-up in Russia’s renewed infatuation with modernist writers today, has meant that the portraits of Andreev have been regularly read and reread by scholars in the West, in the Soviet Union and now in present-day Russia. It is also significant that Prideaux Press chose to reprint A Book About Leonid Andreev Walter Kaufmann (New York: The Modem Library, 1992), 531. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 260 in 1970 (although without the Belyi portrait), providing Western scholars with an easily available text.1 6 With the revived interest in Andreev studies, especially in Russia, it is important to reexamine Andreev’s posthumous reputation, just as scholars are doing for Gorky and many others. It may come to pass that other scholars will offer a different explanation for Andreev’s behavior, but the desired effect is an evolution of thought regarding Andreev, his life and his works. A major task of interested scholars in the last ten years has been a comprehensive and balanced assessment of Andreev’s life history and significance as a literary figure. Arguably, in order to reexamine Andreev’s posthumous legacy, scholars must begin with the text that created the discourse on this topic. This dissertation, in addressing A Book About Leonid Andreev, has stripped away many of the interpretations that are highly subjective, has confronted the tales of Andreev’s abnormal behavior and has suggested a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. This is a new image of Andreev, a more refined insight into the man and popular figure, which is offered as a further step in the task of recovering an objective understanding of Andreev’s life history. More than that, it causes scholars engaged in Andreev studies to confront the author’s biography and the tales of his abnormal behavior in a new way. In a country that accepts a greater degree of alcoholic and chaotic behavior in its 1 6 Kniea o Leonide Andreeve: Vospominaniia M GorTcoeo. K Chukovskoeo. A Bloka. Georeiia Chulkova. Bor[isa] Zaitseva. N Teleshova. Evgreniial Zamiatina. [1st ed.] (St. Peterburg; Berlin: Izdatel'stvo Z. I. Grzhebina, 1922), (Reprinted — Letchworth, UK: Prideaux Press, 1970). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 261 creative artists, it is a challenge to discuss behavior that is usually seen as “acceptable” for writers, without searching for a plausible reason for such conduct. Once the issue of Andreev’s mental condition is addressed scholars can return to their theories of sociological, philosophical and historical factors in order to further illuminate Andreev’s life history. Understanding and accepting such a diagnosis causes a fundamental shift in how scholars must deal with Andreev. Should “Red Laugh” be read as a text created during a manic phase? Could Andreev’s clinical depression cause a highly personalized reading of Schopenhauer’s pessimistic philosophy? Can we continue to identify Andreev as a lonely, gloomy writer without considering what that means in the context of bipolar disorder? Is it not relevant when researching Daniil Andreev to consider that his father suffered from a hereditary mental illness? The refocusing of Andreev’s posthumous legacy and the diagnosis of bipolar illness is the first step.1 7 It is a shift in Andreev studies, which suggests that scholars reconsider their past and future scholarship in this new context. Logic states that manic-depression is so pervasive that it affects and influences every aspect of the individual’s life. The fact that this component of the author’s biography has been 1 7 Papemo writes: “Individual predispositions and psychological potentialities are converted into the structure o f personality that is intimately related to a certain society and culture. Viewed in this way, the individual psychological process appears as an integral part o f culture. It can thus become a legitimate object o f semiotic research.” See Irina Papemo, Chemvshevskv and the Age o f Realism: A Study in the Semiotics o f Behavior (Stanford. California: Stanford University Press, 1988), 3. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 262 ignored in scholarship suggests that there is an axiomatic terra incognito in Andreev studies that begs to be further explored. This dissertation acts as the first comprehensive examination of the memoir literature dedicated to Andreev and shows that what was said after Andreev’s death and how we read this literature is just as important for the recouping o f Andreev’s legacy as the recovery of published and unpublished documents. Once scholars engaged in this process confront Andreev’s bipolar illness and begin to look at the memoir literature in a new light, then hopefully the discourse will be reinterpretive, beginning and ultimately ending with A Book About Leonid Andreev, which provided our first posthumous glimpse at the most popular writer in Russia at the turn of the century. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 263 Bibliography: Abbey, Susan E. and Paul E. Garfunkel. “Neurasthenia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: The Role of Culture in the Making of a Diagnosis.” In American Journal of Psychiatry, no. 148, 12 December (1991). Afonin, L. Leonid Andreev. Orel: Knizhnoe iz-vo, 1959. Agenosova, V., ed., Russkaia literatura XX veka. 11 klass. Uchebnik dlia obshcheobrazovatel'nvkh uchebnvkh zavedenii. part 1. Moscow: Drofa, 1999. Andreev, Andrei. “Iz vospominanii o L. Andreeve.” In Krasnaia nov’. no. 9 (1926). Andreev, Daniil and V. Beklemisheva, eds. Rekviem: Pamiati Leonida Andreeva. Moscow: Federatsiia, 1930. Andreev, Leonid and Sergei Goloushev [Dzhems Linch and Sergei Glagol’, pseuds.] Pod vpechatleniem Khudozhestvennogo teatra. Moscow: I. N. Kushnerev i Ko, 1902. Andreev, Leonid. Sobranie sochinenii v 6 tomakh. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1990-1996. ---------- - Sashka Jieouleff. Translated by Luba Hicks. Edited and introduced by Maxim Gorky. New York: Robert McBride & Company, 1925. ---------- - “Pis’ma k neveste: Iz neizdannoi perepiski Leonida Andreeva.” In Zvezda. no. 1 (1968). ----------- S. O. S.: Dnevnik (1914-19191. Pis’ma (1917-1919). Stat’i i interv’iu (1919). Vospominaniia sovremennikov (1918-19191. Edited by Richard Davies and Ben Heilman. Moscow; St. Petersburg: Atheneum; Feniks, 1994. ---------- - “Polunochnoe solntse moe...: Pis’ma Leonida Andreeva Anne Il’inichne Andreevoi-Denisevich.” In Nashe nasledie. no. 39-40 (1997). Andreev, Pavel. “Vospominaniia o Leonide Andreeve.” In Literatumaia mvsl’: Al’manakh. vol. 3. Leningrad: Mysl’, 1925. Andreev, Vadim. Detstvo: Povest'. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1963. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 264 ---------- - Istoriia odnoeo puteshestviia. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1974. Andreev, Valentin. “Chto pomniu ob ottse.” In Andreevskii sbomik: Issledovaniia i materialv. Edited by L. Afonin. Kursk: Kurskii gos. ped. institut, 1975. Andreeva, Rimma. “Trudnye gody.” In Orlovskaia pravda. no. 275, 21 November (1971). Andreeva, Vera. Dom na Chemoi rechke: Povest’. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1974; 1980. Anisimov, I., ed. Literatumoe nasledstvo. Gor’kii i Leonid Andreev neizdannaia perepiska. vol. 72. Moscow: Nauka, 1965. Azov, V. [V. A. Ashkinazi], “Otryvki ob Andreeve.” In Vestnik literaturv. no. 9 (1920). Barakhov, V. Iskusstvo literatumogo portreta. Gor’kii o V.I. Lenine. L.N. Tolstom. A.P. Chekhove. Moscow: Nauka, 1976. ----------- “Iskusstvo literatumogo portreta.” In Literatura i zhivopis’. Leningrad: Nauka, 1982. ----------- Literatumvi portret. (Istoki. poetika. zhanri. Leningrad: Nauka, 1985. Barratt, Andrew. “Personal and Literary Relations of Maksim Gorky and Leonid Andreyev, 1898-1919, With Particular reference to the Revolution of 1905.” Ph.D. diss., University of Durham, 1976. ----------- “Maksim Gorky and Leonid Andreev: At the Heart of ‘Darkness.’” In The Short Story in Russia 1900 - 1917. Edited by Nicholas Luker. Nottingham: Astra Press, 1991. ----------- The Early Fiction of Maksim Gorkv. Six Essays in Interpretation Nottingham: Astra Press, 1993. ----------- “The Forgotten Gorky: Notes from My Diary” In After the Watershed: Russian Prose 1917-1927 selected essays. Edited by Nicholas Luker. Notingham: Astra Press, 1996. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 265 ---------- - “Maksim Gorky’s Autobiographical Trilogy: The Lure of Myth and the Power of Fact.” In a/b: Auto/Biographical Studies Special Issue: Rethinking Russian Autobiography, vol. 11, no. 2, fall (1996). Beketova, M. Aleksandr Blok. Biograficheskii ocherk. 2n d ed. Leningrad: Academia, 1930. Belenson, A. “Vospominaniia (Melochi v zhizni iskusstva).” In Zhizn’ iskusstva. no. 560, 18 September (1920). Belianin, V. Osnovv psikholingvisticheskoi diaenostiki: Modeli mira v literature. Moscow: Trivola, 2000. Bell, Quentin. Virginia Woolf: A Biography. London: Hogarth Press, 1972. Belousov, I. “Razdvoenie lichnosti. Iz perepiski i vospominanii o L. N. Andreeve.” In Moskovskii ponedel’nik. no. 4. 10 July (1922). ---------- - “Shutki L. N. Andreeva.” In Ekho. no. 3 (1922). ---------- - Literatumaia sreda: Vospominaniia. 1880-1928. Moscow: Kooperativnoe izd-vo pisatelei nikitinskie subbotniki, 1928. Belyi, Andrei. “Vishnevyi sad.” In Vesv. no. 2 (1904). ---------- - “Prizraki Khaosa.” In Vesv. no. 12 (1904). ---------- - “Apokalipsis v russkoi poezii.” In Vesv. no. 4 (1905). ---------- - “L. Andreev. Rasskazy.” In Vesv. no. 5 (1906). ---------- - “Literatumo-khudozhestvennyi al’manakh izdatel’stva ‘Shipovnik’, kn. 1-ia.” In Pereval. no. 5 (1907). ---------- - “Nastoiashchee i budushchee russkoi literatury.” In Vesv. no. 3 (1909). ---------- - “Anatema.” In Vesv. no. 9 (1909). ---------- - Mezhdu dvukh revoliutsii. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1990. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 266 ---------- - Nachalo veka. Moscow: Khudozhestvenaia literatura, 1990. ---------- - Smert’ ili vozrozhdenie?” In Andrei Belvi: Kritika. estetika. teoriia simvolizma. vol. 2. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1994. ---------- - “Simvolizm i sovremennoe russkoe iskustvo.” In Andrei Belvi: Kritika. estetika. teoriia simvolizma. vol. 1. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1994. Bezzubov, V. Leonid Andreev i traditsii russkoeo realizma. Tallin: Eesti Raamat, 1984. Bialik, B. “Moi Gor’kii.” In Literatumoe obozrenie. no. 9 (1977). Blok, Aleksandr. “Pamiati L. Andreeva.” In Zapiski mechtatelei. no. 5 (1922). ----------- Sobranie sochinenii. Moscow; Leningrad: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1962. ----------- Zapisnve knizhki 1901-1921. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1965. Brusianin, V. Leonid Andreev: Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo. Moscow: K. F. Nekrasov, 1912. Bruss, Elizabeth W. Autobiographical Acts. The Changing Situation of a Literary Genre. Baltimore; London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976. Bunin, Ivan. Vospominaniia. Paris: Vozrozhdenie; La Renaissance, 1950. Bushkanets, E. Memuamve istochniki. Uchebnoe posobie k spetskursu. Kazan: 1975. Carlisle, Olga Andreyev Far From Russia. A Memoir. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000. Carson, Robert C. James N. Butcher, Susan Mineka, eds., Abnormal Psychology and Modem Life. 10th ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1998. Castellano, Charlene. “Andrey Bely’s Memories o f Fiction.” In Autobiographical Statements in Twentieth-Centurv Russian Literature. Edited by Jane Gary Harris Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 267 Chirikov, E. “Leonid Andreev.” In Russkie sbomiki. book 2. Edited by E. Grimm and K. Sokolov. Sofia: Rossiisko-bolgarskoe izdatel’stvo, 1921. Chukovskii, Komei. Leonid Andreev: Borshoi i malen’kii. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’skoe biuro, 1908. O Leonide Andreeve. St. Petersburg: Russkaia skoropechatnia, 1911. ---------- - “Iz vospominanii o L.N. Andreeve.” In Vestnik literaturv. no. 11 (1919). ----------- Kniga o Aleksandre Bloke. St. Petersburg: Epokha, 1922. “Avtobiografiia” in Russkie poetv: Antologiia v chetvrekh tomakh. vol. 4. Moscow: Detskaia literatura, 1968. ----------- Sobranie sochinenii. Moscow: Khudozhestvenaia literatura, 1969. ----------- Dnevnik 1901-1929. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1991. Chulkov, Georgii, ed. Pis’ma Leonida Andreeva. Leningrad: Kolos, 1924. Chuvakov, V., ed., “Iz pisem L. Andreeva - K. P. Piatnitskii.” In Voprosv literaturv. no. 8 (1971). ----------., ed. “L. N. Andreev: Pis’ma k A. P. Alekseevskomu.” In Ezhegodnik rukopisnogo otdela Pushkinskogo Doma na 1977 god. Leningrad: Nauka, 1979. ----------., comp. Leonid Nikolaevich Andreev: Bibliografiia. vvpusk 1: Sochineniia i tekstv. Edited by M. Koz’menko. Moscow: Nasledie, 1995. ----------- comp. Leonid Nikolaevich Andreev: Bibliografiia. vvpusk 2: Literatura 1900-1919. Edited by M. Koz’menko. Moscow: Nasledie, 1998. Costa e Silva, Jorge Alberto and Giovanni DeGirolamo. “Neurasthenia: History of a Concept.” In Psychological Disorders in General Medical Settings. Edited by Norman Sartoriua, et al. Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, 1990. Davies, Richard, ed. Introduction to ‘“I am writing from the depths of Scandinavia.’ Leonid Andreev’s Unpublished Correspondence with his First Wife in 1906.” In Scottish Slavonic Review. Special Issue: Russian Modernism, no. 14, spring (1990). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 268 ----------- Leonid Andreyev: Photographs by a Russian Writer. An undiscovered portrait of Pre-Revolutionary Russia. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1989. Davydova, Mariia. “Vstrechi s L. N. Andreevym.” In Russkaia mvsl’. no. 3084, 1 January (1976). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994. Doherty, Justin. ‘The Image of Nikolai Gumilev in the Memoir Writings of Georgii Ivanov.” In Irish Slavonic Studies, no. 18 (1997). Edel, Leon. Literary Biography. 1957; reprint, Bloomington; London: Indiana University Press, 1973. Egerton, George. “The Politics of Memory: Form and Function in the History of Political Memoir from Antiquity to Modernity.” In Political Memoir: Essays on the Politics of Memory. Edited by George Egerton. London: Frank Cass & Co., 1994. Elpat’evskii, S. “Leonid Nikolaevich Andreev: Iz vospominaniia.” In Bvloe. no. 27- 28(1925). Erikson, Erik. H. Young man Luther. New York: Norton, 1958. ---------- - Childhood and Society. 2n d ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1963. Etkind, Alexander. Eros of the Impossible. The History of Psychoanalysis in Russia. Translated by Noah and Maria Rubins. Westview Press, 1997. Fal’kovskii, F. “Predsmertnaia tregediia L. Andreeva. (Iz vospominanii).” In Pozhektor. no. 16 (1923). Fatov, N. Molodve godv Leonida Andreeva. Moscow: Zemlia i Fabrika, 1924. Forman, Betty Y. “Nietzsche and Gorky in the 1890s: The Case for an Early Influence.” In Western Philosophical Systems in Russian literature. Edited by Anthony M. Mlikotin. Los Angeles, California: University o f Southern California Press, 1979. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 269 Galant, I. “Psikhopatologicheskii obraz Leonida Andreeva. Leonid Andreev isteronevrastenicheskii genii.” In Klinicheskii arkhiv genial’nosti i odarennosti. vol. 3, issue 2 (1927). ----------- “Evroendokrinologiia velikikh russkikh pisatelei i poetov. L. N. Andreev.” In Klinicheskii arkhiv genial’nosti i odarennosti, vol. 3, issue 3 (1927). Generalova, N., ed., “Dnevnik Leonida Andreeva” in Literatumvi arkhiv: Materialv po istorii russkoi literaturv i obshchestvennoi mvsli. Edited by K. Grigor’ian. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1994. ----------- “Leonid Andreev, Dnevnik 1891-1892” in Ezheeodnik rukopisnoeo otdela Pushkinskogo doma na 1991 god. Edited by T. Tsar’kova. St. Petersburg: Akademicheskii proekt,1994. Ginsburg, Mirra, ed. and trans. A Soviet Heretic: Essays by Yevgeny Zamyatin. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press, 1970. Ginzburg, L. O psikhologicheskoi proze. Leningrad: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1977. Gippius, Zinaida [Anton Krainii, pseud.]. “Bratskaia mogila.” In Vesv. no. 7 (1907). Goodwin, Frederick K. and Kay Redfield Jamison. Manic-Depressive Illness. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Gor’kii, Maksim. “Leonid Andreev.” In Zhizn’ iskusstva. no. 293-294,15-16 November (1919). ----------- “Leonid Andreev.” In Clarte. no. 15,15 July (1922). ---------- - Vospominaniia. Berlin: Kniga, 1923. ---------- - Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Moscow: Nauka, 1973. Grechnev, V. “Pisateli o pisateliakh. Zametka o memuamoi literature.” In Neva. no. 8 (1961). ---------- - Zhanr literatumoeo portreta v tvorchestve M. Gor’kogo (Vospominaniia o pisateliakhl. Moscow; Leningrad: Nauka, 1964. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 270 Harris, Jane Gary. “An Inquiry into the function of the autobiographical Mode: Joyce, Mandelstam, Schulz.” In American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists. (Kiev, September 1983). Edited by Paul Debreczeny. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, 1983. ---------- - “Diversity and Discourse: Autobiographical Statements in Theory and Praxis.” In Autobiographical Statements in Twentieth-Centurv Russian Literature. Edited by Jane Gary Harris. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990. Hinsie, Leland E. and Robert Jean Campbell, eds. Psychiatric Dictionary. 4th ed. New York; London; Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1975. Iezuitova, L. Tvorchestvo Leonida Andreeva. 1892-1906. Leningrad: Iz-vo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1976. Il’ev, S. “Leonid Andreev i simvolisti.” In Russkaia literatura XX veka (Dooktiabr’ski periods 2n d anthology. Edited by N. Kucherovskii. Kaluga: Kaluga. Iretskii, V. “Retsenzii. Kniga o Leonide Andreeve.” In Letopis’ Doma Literatorov. no. 3 (7), 1 February (1922). Iuzovskii, lu. Maksim Gor’kii i ego dramaturgiia Moscow: Isskustyo, 1959. Ivanov, I. “Leonid Andreev kak khudozhnik-psikhopatolog.” In Birzhewe vedomosti. no. 90, 20 February (1903). Ivarskii. “Zhili-byli. O Leonide Andreeve.” In Iuzhnoe slovo. no. 35,1/14 November (1919). Jamison, Kay Redfield. Touched With Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament. New York: The Free Press, 1993 ---------- - “Manic-Depressive Illness and Creativity” in Scientific American. February (1995). ---------- - An Unquiet Mind: A Memoir of Moods and Madness. London: Picador, 1996. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 271 Kadar, Marlene, ed. Essays on Life Writing: From Genre to Critical Practice. Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press, 1992. Kardin, V. “Segodnia o vcherashnem.” In Voprosv literaturv. no. 9 (1961). Katonina, V. “Moi vospominaniia o Leonide Andreeve.” In Krasnii student, no. 7-8 (1923). Kaufman, A. “Andreev v zhizni i v svoikh proizvedeniiakh.” In Vestnik literaturv. no. 9, (1920). Kaun, Alexander. Leonid Andreev: A Critical Study. 1924; reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1970. Keldysh, V. “Sbomiki tovarishchestva ‘ZnanieV’ In Russkaia literatura i zhumalistika nachala XX veka. 1905-1917: Bol'shevistskie i obshchedemokraticheskie izdaniia. Edited by B. Bialik. Moscow: Nauka, 1983. Keldysh, V. and M. Koz’menko, eds. Leonid Andreev: Materialv i issledovaniia. Moscow: Nasledie, 2000. Ken, L., intr. “Leonid Andreev v vospominaniiakh Anny Ivanovny Andreevoi.” In Russkaia literatura. no. 2 (1997). Khantzian, E. J. ‘The self-medication hypothesis of addictive disorders: Focus on heroin and cocaine dependence.” In American Journal of Psychiatry, no. 142 (1985). Khodasevich, Vladislav. “Blok i ego mat’.” In Coelasie. no. 8, August (1991). ---------- - Sobranie sochinenii v chetvrekh tomakh. Moscow: Soglasie, 1997. Kholopova, V. “ Masterstvo khudozhestvenno-publitsisticheskoi polemiki (Ocherk M. Gor’kogo ‘Leonid Andreev’).” In Trudy Samarkandskoeo universiteta. 1974. issue 254, new series, Voprosy teorii i istorii literatury. Khrapchenko, M. and V. Shcherbina, eds. Literatumoe nasledstvo. Aleksandr Blok now e materialv i issledovaniia. book 3, vol. 92, Moscow: Nauka, 1982. Kleinbort, L. “Vstrechi. L. Andreev.” In Bvloe. no. 24 (1924). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 272 Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. Vospominaniia Gor’kogo, Chukovskogo, Bloka, G. Chulkova, Borisa Zaitseva, N. Teleshova, Evg. Zamiatina, A. Belogo. 2n d ed. Berlin: Z. I. Grzhebin, 1922. Koliadich, T. Vospominaniia pisatelei. Problemv poetiki zhanra. Moscow: Megatron, 1998. Kretschmer, Ernest. Physique and Character: An investigation of the Nature of Constitution and o f the Theory of Temperment. Translated by W. J. A. Spratt. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1925. Krysin, L., ed. “Chukovskii K. I. - Gor’komu A. M.: 1920 god.” In Voprosv literaturv. no. 1 (1972). Kugel’, A. List’ia s dereva. Vospominaniia. Leningrad: Vremia, 1926. Kulova, T. “L. Andreev i A. Gor’kii razmezhevanie sil russkoi literatury.” In Trudy Kafedrv sovetskoi literaturv. 7th ed., Moskovskii Oblastnoi Pedagogicheskii Institut im. H. K. Krupskoi, Uchenye zapiski vol. 16, 1966. Kurliandskaia, G., ed. Tvorchestvo Leonida Andreeva: Issledovaniia i materialv. Kursk: Kurskii gos. ped. institut, 1983. Lavrov, A and D. Maksimov. “Vesy.” In Russkaia literatura i zhumalistika nachala XX veka. 1905-1917: Burzhuazno-liberarnve i modemistskie izdaniia. Edited by B. Bialik. Moscow: Nauka, 1984. Ledenev, A. “Pisatel’skie ob”edineniia v russkoi demokraticheskoi literature kontsa XIX - nachala XX v.” In Iz istorii russkoeo realizma kontsa XIX - nachala XX v. Edited by A. Sokolov. Moscow: Moskovskii universitet, 1986. Levin, Gerald. Sigmund Freud. Boston: Twayne Publishers. Levitskii, L “Gde zhe predel sub”ektivnosti?” In Voprosv Literaturv. no. 4 (1974). Loewenberg, Peter. Decoding the Past: The Psychological Approach. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1983. Ludwig, Arnold M. “Creative Achievement and Psychopathology: Comparison among Professions.” In American Journal of Psychotherapy, vol. 46 (1992). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 273 Luker, Nicholas, ed. An Anthology of Russian Neo-Realism: The “Znanie” School of Maxim Gorkv. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1982. L’vov-Rogachevskii, V. Dve pravdv. Kniea o Leonide Andreeve. St. Petersburg: Protemei, 1914. Malmstad, John E. Andrev Belv: Spirit of Symbolism. Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press, 1987. Maniushko, A. “V gostiakh u Leonida Andreeva.” In Novvia mvsli. no. 1, November (1908). N. M. P. [Nadezhda Mel’nikova-Papoushek]. “Book review.” In Volia Rossia. no. 31(1922). Meyerhold, V. “Iz pisem o teatre.” In Vesv. no. 6 (1907). Mikheicheva, E., ed. Estetika dissonansov: Q tvorchestve L N Andreeva: Mezhvuzovskii sbomik nauchnvkh trudov. Orel: Orlovskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii universitet, 1996. Muratova, K. Istoriia russkoi literaturv kontsa XIX- nachala XX veka: Bibliographicheskii ukazatel’. Moscow; Leningrad: 1963. Mirsky, D. S. Uncollected Writings on Russian Literature. Edited and introduced by G. S. Smith. Berkeley: Berkeley Slavic Specialties, 1989. Mysliakova, Margarita Viktorovna. “Kontseptsiia tvorchestva Leonida Andreeva v simvolistskoi kritike.” Ph.D. diss., Moscow State University, 1995. Nadel, Ira Bruce. Biography: Fiction. Fact and Form. 1984; reprint, London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1985. Nazarov, L. and L. Afonin, intro. “Vospominaniia B. K. Zaitseva o Leonide Andreeve.” In Andreevskii sbomik: Issledovaniia i materialv. Edited by L. Afonin. Kursk: Kurskii gos. ped. institut, 1975. Nazarova, L. and N. Puzin. “Boris Zaitsev i Tul’skii krai.” In Voskresenie: Istoriko-publisticheskii al’manakh. no. 3 (1998). Nemerovskaia, O. and Ts. Vol’pe. Sud’ba Bloka: Vospominaniia. pis’ma. dnevniki... 1930; reprint, Moscow: Agraf, 1999. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 274 Newcombe, Josephine M. Leonid Andreev. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1973. Ninov, A. M. Gor’kii i Iv. Bunin: Istoriia otnoshenii. problemv tvorchestva. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1973. Orlova, V., ed. Aleksandr Blok v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov v dvukh tomakh. vol. 1. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1980. Pachmuss, Tamira. “Leonid Andreev as Seen by Zinaida Gippius.” In The Slavic and East European Journal, vol. IX, no. 2, (1965). Papemo, Irina. Chemvshevskv and the Age of Realism: A Study in the Semiotics of Behavior. Standford, Calirofnia: Stanford University Press, 1988. Papemyi, V. “Blok i Nitsshche.” In Uchenve Zapiski Tartuskoeo Gosudarstvennoeo Universiteta. vol. 491 (1979). Petrovskaia, Nina. “Book Review.” Nakanune. no. 27, 19 June (1922). Pil’skii, Petr. Kriticheskie stat’i. vol. 1. St. Petersburg: Progress, 1910. Primochkina, N. “M. Gor’kii i E. Zamiatin (k istorii literatumykh vzaimootnoshenii).” In Russkaia literatura. no. 4 (1987). Pukhov, Iu. “Andreev i Skitalets v revoliutsii 1905 goda.” In Revolutsiia 1905 goda i russkaia literatura. Edited by V. Desnitskii and K. Muratova. Moscow; Leningrad: 1956. Puskunov, V. Chastvi ritm Mnemozinv (Memuarv russkogo “serebrianogo veka” i russkogo zarubezha). Moscow: Znanie, 1992. Pyman, Avril. The Life of Alexander Blok: Volume I. The Distant Thunder 1880- 1908. Oxford; London; New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. ---------- The Life of Alexander Blok: Volume n. The Release of Harmony 1908- 1921. Oxford; London; New York: Oxford University Press, 1980. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 275 Rabinbach, Anson. “The Body without Fatigue: A Nineteenth-Century Utopia.” In Political symbolism in modem Europe: Essays in honour of George Mosse. Edited by S. Drescher, D. Sabean and A. Sharlin. London: Transaction Books, 1982. Reisner, M. Proletariat i meshchanstvo. Dve dushi russkogo naroda v ucheniiakh L. Andreeva i M. Gor’koeo. Prague: R. Belopol’skii, 1917. Rice, Martin. Valerv Bruisov and the Rise of Russian Symbolism. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1975. Richards, D. J. Zamyatin: A Soviet Heretic. London: Bowes and Bowes, 1962. Rosenthal, Bemice Glatzer, ed. Nietzsche in Russian. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986. Runyan, William McKinley. Life Histories and Psvchobiographv. Explorations in Theory and Method. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. Serafimovich, A. Sobranie Sochinenii v chetvrekh tomakh. Moscow: Pravda, 1987. Serebrov, Aleksandr [A. N. Tikhonov]. Vremiai liudi. Vospominaniia. 1898-1905. Moscow: 1966. Sergeev-Tsenskii, S. Sobranie sochinenii v dvenadtsati tomakh. Mosow: Pravda, 1967. ---------- - Radost' tvorchestva. Simferopol, Crimea: 1969. Serova, O. “Leonid Andreev, Lev Tolstoi, Leskov.” In Vospominaniia o moem ottse V.A. Serove. Moscow; Leningrad: Isskustvo, 1947. Shakurov, V. “Leonid Andreev i ‘Sreda’.” In Romantizm: Teoriia. istoriia. kritikam. Edited by R. Biktanov. Kazan: Kazanskii universitet, 1976. Shane, Alex M. The Life and Works of Eveenii Zamiatin. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968. Skitalets [S. G. Petrov]. “Vstrechi. L. Andreev.” In Krasnaia nov*. no. 10 (1934). ---------- - Povesti i rasskazv. Vospminaniia. (VstrechO. Moscow: Moskovskii rabochii, 1960. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 276 Sloane, David A. Aleksander Blok and the Dynamics of the Lvric Cycle. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, 1988. Sobolev, Iu. “Leonid Andreev: Vstrechi i pis’ma (K 5-letiiu do dnia smerti).” In Khudozhnik i zritel’. no. 6-7 (1924). Tager, E. Tvorchestvo Gor’kogo sovetskoi epokhi. Moscow: Hauka, 1964. Teleshov, Nikolai. “Vse prokhodit (iz literatumykh vospominanii). Kruzhok « S r e d a » .” In Krasnaia nov*. no. 11 (1926). ----------- Zapiski pisatelia: Vospominaniia. Moscow: OGIZ, 1943. Tepliashina, A. “Literatumyi portret v tvorchestve Komeia Chukovskogo.” In Russkii literatumvi portret i retsenziia: Kontseptsii i poetika. Edited by V. Perkhin. St. Petersburg: Iz-vo Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta, 2000. Terras, Victor, ed. Handbook of Russian Literature. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1985. Troinov, V. “M. Gor’kii i L. Andreev. Iz vospominanii sovremenika.” In Literatumaia gazeta. no. 42, 5 August (1937). Vasilevskii, L. “Pamiatnaia vstrecha s L. Andreevym.” In Utrenniki.Petroerad. no. 2 (1922). Vatnikova-Prizel, Z. O russkoi memuamoi literature: Kriticheskie analizv i bibliographiia. East Lansing: Russian Language Journal, 1978. Veresaev, V. Sobranie sochinenii v piati tomakh. Moscow: Pravda, 1961. Vladykin, I. “Teleshovskie <Sredy>.” In Uchenve zapiski Moskovskoeo eosudarstvennoeo pedaeogicheskoeo instituta im. V. I. Lenina. Russkaia literatura XX veka. Sovetskaia literatura, no. 255. Moscow: 1966. White, Hayden. Metahistorv, The Historical Imagination in 19th Century Europe. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press 1973. ------------------ . “The Historical Text as Literary Artifact.” In Tropics of Discourse. Essays in Cultural Criticism. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1978. Woodward, James B. Leonid Andreyev: A Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Ill Zablotskaia, A. ‘“Avtobiograficheskii dokument’ vtvorchestve A. Bloka 1918- l921godov.” In Aleksandr Blok: Issledovaniia i materialv. St. Petersburg: Iz-vo “Dmitrii Bulanin,” 1998. Zaitsev, Boris. “Molodost’ Leonida Andreeva.” In Vozrozhdenie. no. 1362, 24 February (1929). ---------- - “Leonid Andreev v zrelye gody.” In Vozrozhdenie. no. 1380,13 March (1929). ---------- - Moskva. Paris: Russkie zapiski, 1939. ---------- - “O Leonide Andreeve.” In Russkaia mvsl’. no. 180, 14 October (1949). ---------- - Iunost’. Paris: YMCA-Press, 1950. ---------- - “Sud’by [O L. Andreeve i M. Gor’kom].” In Russkaia mvsl’. no. 1102, 31 August (1957). ---------- - “Leonid Andreev. (Iz vospominanii).” In Russkaia mvsl’. no. 2761, 23 October (1969). ---------- - “Boris Zaitsev: Strannoe puteshestvie. Rasskazy, ocherki, pis’ma.” In Nashe nasledie. no. 3 (1990). ---------- - Sochineniia v trekh tomakh. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura; Terra, 1993. Zaitsev, B., ed. Rukopisnve pamiatniki. issue 3, parts 1 and 2, Rukopisnoe nasledie Evgeniia Ivanovicha Zamiatina. St. Petersburg: Russkaia natsional’naia biblioteka, 1997. Zamiatin, Evgenii. Izbrannve proizvedeniia. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1989. ---------- - Iaboius’: Literatumaia kritika. Publitsistika. Vospominaniia. Edited by A. Galushkin. Moscow: Nasledie, 1999. Zhak, L. “Portet-polemika: Ocherk ‘Leonid Andreev.’” In Ot zamvsla k voploshcheniiu: v tvorcheskoi masterskoi M. Gor’koeo Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1963. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 278 Zhenevskii, A. [A. F. IF in]. “L. Andreev, kak politicheski neblagonadezhnyi. (Novye dannye o Leonide Andreeve).” In Krasnaia gazeta, verchemyi vypusk, no. 76, 1 April (1925). Zil’bershtein, I. and L. Rozenblium, eds. Literatumoe nasledstvo. Aleksandr Blok novve materialv i issledovaniia. book 4, vol. 92. Moscow: Nauka, 1987. Zinsser, William, ed. Inventing the Truth: The Art and Craft of Memoir. Revised and Expanded Edition. Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998. Zybalov, Iu. “Pis’ma B.K. Zaitseva k G.I. Chulkovu.” In Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1997 god. Moscow: Nauka, 1997. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Russian metahistorical imagination and Russian fiction of perestroika

PDF

The debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky in early Soviet Russia

PDF

Pushkin's taste and taste for Pushkin: Toward a reconstruction of taste mechanisms

PDF

Natan Altman and the problem of Jewish art in Russia in the 1910s

PDF

The friendly epistle in Russian poetry: A history of the genre

PDF

Sophia, the wisdom of God conceptions of the divine feminine in Russian culture, 1880--1917

PDF

Terrible screeching: Adaptation of Pushkin's "Queen of Spades" in theater, opera and film

PDF

Two plays and a film: The Meyerhold /Faiko collaboration

PDF

"Master of many tongues": The Russian Academy Dictionary (1789--1794) as a socio -historical document

PDF

Children in transition: Popular children's magazines in late imperial and early Soviet Russia

PDF

A cut above: Fashion as meta -culture in early -twentieth -century Russia

PDF

Impostors, antichrists, and satanists: Textual strategies of the central and eastern European fin de siecle

PDF

Words pictured, pictures read: Imagination, literary language and visuality in Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Sartre

PDF

The aesthetics of performance in experimental Russian culture of the 1910's

PDF

Metropolis to necropolis: The St. Petersburg myth and its cultural extension in the late 1910s and 1920s

PDF

The grammaticalization of present and past in Basque

PDF

The effect of stress and foot structure on consonantal processes

PDF

Painting as text: Developments in Russian art during the second half of the nineteenth century

PDF

Re -imagining the site of the feminine: A rediscovery of Zhang Ailing's fictional works

PDF

A necessary epigone: The fantastic and "dvoeverie" in the works of A. K. Tolstoi

Asset Metadata

Creator White, Frederick Hal (author)

Core Title Leonid Andreev through the prism of the literary portrait

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Slavic

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Biography,Literature, Slavic and East European,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-235071

Unique identifier UC11339325

Identifier 3073861.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-235071 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3073861.pdf

Dmrecord 235071

Document Type Dissertation

Rights White, Frederick Hal

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA