Monday, May 28, 2012

A Ukrainian in Russian Society

   A great Russian novelist, dramatist, satirist, founder of the so-called critical realism in Russian literature, is best-known for his novel Мертвые Души I-II (1842, Dead Souls). Gogol's prose is characterized by imaginative power and linguistic playfulness. As an exposer of grotesqueness in human nature, Gogol could be called the Hieronymus Bosch (1450-1516)1 of Russian literature.
  "The moon is made by some lame cooper, and you can see the idiot has no idea about moons at all. He put in a creosoted rope and some wood oil; and this has led to such a terrible stink all over the earth that you have to hold your nose. Another reason the moon is such a tender globe it that people just cannot live on it anymore, and all that is left alive there are noses. This is also why we cannot see our own noses - they're all on the moon." (from Diary of a Madman, 1835)
    Nikolai Gogol (1809-1852) was born in Sorochintsi, Ukraine, and grew up on his parents' country estate. His real surname was Ianovskii, but the writer's grandfather had taken the name 'Gogol' to claim a noble Cossack ancestry. Gogol's father was an educated and gifted man who wrote plays, poems, and sketches in Ukrainian.
    Gogol started writing while in high school. He attended Poltava boarding school (1819-21) and then Nezhin High School (1821-28). In 1828 Gogol, an aspiring writer, settled in St. Petersburg with a certificate attesting his right to 'the rank of the 14th class'. In an effort to support himself, Gogol worked at minor governmental jobs and wrote occasionally for periodicals. Although he was interested in literature, he also dreamed of becoming an actor. However, the capital of Russia did not welcome him with open arms and his early narrative poem, Hans Küchelgarten (1829), turned out to be a disaster.
    Between the years 1831 and 1834 Gogol taught history at the Patriotic Institute and worked as a private tutor. In 1831 he met Alexander Pushkin (1799-1837) who greatly influenced his choice of literary material, especially his "Dikinka Tales", which were based on Ukrainian folklore. Their friendship lasted until the great poet's death. Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka was Gogol's breakthrough work.  It showed his skill in mixing the fantastic with the macabre and, at the same time, saying something very essential about the Russian character.
    After failing as an assistant lecturer of World History at the University of St. Petersburg (1834-35), Gogol became a full-time writer. Under the title Mirgorod (1835) Gogol published a new collection of stories, beginning with 'Old-World Landowners', which described the decay of the old way of life. The book also included the famous historical tale Taras Bulba, which showed the influence of Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832). The protagonist is a strong, heroic character, not very typical of the author's later cavalcade of bureaucrats, lunatics, swindlers, and humiliated losers. One hostile critic described his city dwellers as the "scum of Petersburg". In his short stories, Gogol fully utilized the St. Petersburg mythology, in which the city was treated "both as 'paradise', a utopian ideal city of the future, the embodiment of Reason, and as the terrible masquerade of Antichrist." (Yuri Lotman in Universe of the Mind, 1990) Gogol was also the first to publish an extended literary comparison between Moscow and St. Petersburg, concluding, "Russia needs Moscow; St. Petersburg needs Russia."
    "I am destined by the mysterious powers to walk hand in hand with my strange heroes," wrote Gogol once, "viewing life in all its immensity as it rushes past me, viewing it through laughter seen by the world and tears unseen and unknown by it." St. Petersburg Stories (1835) examined social relationships and disorders of mind; Gogol's influence can be seen among others in Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground (1864) and The Crime and the Punishment (1866). Gogolian tradition continued also among others in the stories of Franz Kafka (1883-1924).
    The Nose from this period was about a man who loses his nose, which tries to live its own life. Gogol himself had a long nose, but the motifs in the story were borrowed from other writers. According to V. Vinograd's study (1987), these kind of surrealistic images were popular the 1820-1830s. It is still a puzzle since there no explanation has been found to explain why Collegiate Assessor Kovalev's nose transforms into civil servant and back into nose. The central plot circles around Kovalev's quest to recapture his runaway organ – he has arrived in Moscow to climb up the social ladder, but without a proper face it is impossible. Without an arm or leg it is not unbearable, thinks the Major, but without a nose a man is, the devil knows what...'In the outwardly crazy story lurks a serious idea: what matters is not the person but one's rank.’
    In 'Nevsky Prospect' a talented artist falls in love with a tender poetic beauty. She turns out to be a prostitute and the artist commits suicide when his romantic illusions are shattered.  The Diary of a Madman asked why is it that "all the best things in life, they all go to the Equerries or the generals?" 'Пальто' (1842, The Overcoat), one of Gogol's most famous short stories, contrasted a person’s humility and meekness with the rudeness of the 'important personage'. The central character is Akakii Akakievich, a lowly government clerk. When winter begins he notices that his old overcoat is beyond repairing. He manages to save money for a new, luxurious coat. His colleagues at the office arrange a party for his acquisition. However, his happiness proves to be short-lived. On the way home he is attacked by thieves and robbed of his coat. To recover his lost possession, Akakievich asks help from an Important Person, a director of a department with the rank of general. He treats Akakievich harshly and Akakievich dies of fright within three days. One night when the Important Person is returning home, he is attacked by a ghost, the late Akakii, who steals his overcoat. The stealing of outer garments continue, even though now the ghost is a big man with a moustache and enormous fists.
   In 1836, Gogol published several stories in Pushkin's journal Sovremennik, and in the same year appeared his famous play, The Inspector General. It told a simple tale of a young civil servant, Khlestakov, who finds himself stranded in a small provincial town. By mistake, he is taken by the local officials to be a government inspector, who is visiting their province incognito. Khlestakov happily adapts to his new role and exploits the situation. His true identity is revealed, but then the real inspector arrives. Gogol masterfully creates with a few words people, places, things, and lets them disappear into the flow of the story. Vladimir Nabokov (1899-1977) wrote: "Who is that unfortunate bather, steadily and uncannily growing, adding weight, fattening himself on the marrow of a metaphor? We never shall know – but he almost managed to gain a footing."
    Its first stage production was in St Petersburg, given in the presence of the tsar. The tsar, as he left his box after the première, dropped the comment: "Hmm, what a play! It gets to everyone and, most of all, me!" Gogol, who was always sensitive about reactions to his work, fled Russia for Western Europe. He visited Germany, Switzerland, and France, and settled then in Rome. He also made a pilgrimage to Palestine in 1848.
    While in Rome Gogol wrote his major work, Dead Souls. "The prophet finds no honor in his homeland," he said. Gogol claimed that the story was suggested by Pushkin in a conversation in 1835. Wishing to embrace the whole Russian society in the work, Gogol regarded the first volume merely as 'a pale introduction to the great epic poem which is taking shape in my mind and will finally solve the riddle of my existence'. The story depicted the adventures Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov, who arrives in a provincial town to buy 'dead souls', dead serfs. As a character, he is the opposite of starving Akakii Akakievich. By selling these 'souls' with cheaply-bought lands, Chichikov planned to make a huge profit. He meets local landowners and departs the in a hurry, when rumors start spread about him. During the last decade of his life, Gogol struggled to continue the story and depict Chichikov's fall and redemption.
    Except for two short visits to Russia in 1839-40 and 1841-42, Gogol was abroad for twelve years. The first edition of Gogol's collected works was published in 1842. It made him one of the most popular Russian writers. Two years before his return, Gogol had published Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends (1847), in which he upheld the autocratic czarist regime and the patriarchal Russian way of life. The book brought about disappointment among radicals who had seen Gogol's works as examples of social criticism. In the play ZHENITBA (1842) nearly everybody lies and the protagonist, Podgolesin, cannot make up his mind about marriage. He hesitates, agrees, then withdraws his promise.  Life is full of cheating, but when people jeer at each other, they actually tell the truth. Игроки (The Gamblers), a play about professional card-sharps, was first staged in 1843; Dmitri Shostakovich (1906-1975) based his unfinished opera upon this comedy.
  In his later life Gogol came under influence of a fanatical priest, Father Konstantinovskii, and burned sequels for Dead Souls, just 10 days before he died on the verge of madness on the 4th of March 1852. Gogol had refused to take any food and various remedies were employed to make him eat – spirits were poured over his head, hot loaves applied to his person and leeches attached to his nose. Rumors arise from time to time that Gogol was buried alive, a situation familiar from the story 'The Premature Burial', of the contemporary writer Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849).2  
   It was not until Bernard Guilbert Guerney's 1942 translation, a century after the novel's first publication, that English-language readers acquired Dead Souls that took the full measure of Nikolai Gogol's satire, with its linguistic playfulness and phantasmagoric invention. In Vladimir Nabokov's idiosyncratic 1944 study of Gogol, he forever linked  Dead Souls to the Russian word poshlost, a noun that defies easy translation but suggests the vulgar and commonplace -- ''the falsely important, the falsely beautiful, and the falsely clever.'' In this regard, Dead Souls is a novel that has less to do with Russia than with the defects of human character.3 
   In The Nose and Diary of a Madman, Gogol addressed the issues of St. Petersburg bureaucracy.  These are interesting stories.  In The Nose, the main character attempts to confront his nose which had taken on a life of its own. In Diary of a Madman, the main character slowly descends into madness and becomes convinced that he is the reigning king of Spain.  By the end of his life, Gogol appears to have also slowly descended into madness.  This can easily be seen as an example of art imitating life. 
   In both of these stories, we meet two men who are rather insignificant.  They are pieces in a machine and have lost their own identity.  In Dead Souls he has the main character say, “They don’t listen to me, they don’t hear me, and they don’t see me.”  This is very sad commentary.  He is an insignificant person whose job is sharpening pencils.  Is it surprising that they don’t listen to, hear, or see him?
    Gogol is considered one of the greatest Russian authors, but he was also dedicated to keeping his Ukrainian culture alive.  These two nations have many common factors before and after the rise of the Soviet Union; however, they also have their own histories.  In his novels, he spends a great deal of time describing life in Ukraine. His father even changed his surname in order to reflect the family’s Ukrainian Cossack background. 
   He was buried at the Donskoy Monastery, close to his fellow Slavophile Aleksey Khomyakov (1804-1860). In 1931, when Moscow authorities decided to demolish the monastery, his remains were transferred to the Novodevichy Cemetery. His body was discovered lying face down, which gave rise to the story that Gogol had been buried alive. One of the Soviet critics even cut a part of his jacket to use as a binding for his copy of the Dead Souls. A piece of rock which used to stand on his grave at the Donskoy was reused for the tomb of Gogol's admirer Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940).4 
   Gogol’s impact on Russian literature was astounding.  After writing Poor Folk, Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) was referred to as “the next Gogol” by Nikolai Nekrasov, editor of A Petersburg Collection.5   He was a product of the same generation as Mikhail Lermontov (1814-1841) and Alexander Pushkin, and made an equally valuable contribution to literature. He certainly was a Ukrainian in Russian society and his stories will be read for generations to come.
                                                           End Notes
1) “Hieronymus Boschhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus_Bosch (accessed 5/27/12)
2) “Nikolay Gogol”  http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/gogol.htm (accessed 5/27/12) 
3) “Nikolai Gogolhttp://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/g/nikolai_gogol/index.html (written 8/4/96, accessed 5/28/12)
4) “Nikolai Gogolhttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Nikolai_Gogol (accessed 5/28/12)
5) “The Poor Will Always Be With Ushttp://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2012/05/poor-will-always-be-with-us.html (accessed 5/28/12)

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Life Can Be Challenging

   Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy was born at Yasnaya Polyana, his family's estate outside of Moscow, on August 28, 1828, in Russia's Tula Province, the youngest of four sons. His mother died when he was two years old, whereupon his father's distant cousin Tatyana Ergolsky took charge of the children. In 1837 Tolstoy's father died, and an aunt, Alexandra Osten-Saken, became legal guardian of the children. Her religious dedication was an important early influence on Tolstoy. When she died in 1840, the children were sent to Kazan, Russia, to another sister of their father, Pelageya Yushkov.
   Tolstoy was educated at home by German and French tutors. He was not a particularly exceptional student but he was good at games. In 1843 he entered Kazan University. Planning on a diplomatic career, he entered the faculty of Oriental languages. Finding these studies too demanding, he switched two years later to studying law. Tolstoy left the university in 1847 without taking his degree.
    He returned to Yasnaya Polyana, determined to become a model farmer and a "father" to his serfs (unpaid farmhands). His charity failed because of his foolishness in dealing with the peasants (poor, working class) and because he spent too much time socializing in Tula and Moscow. During this time he first began making amazingly honest diary entries, a practice he maintained until his death. These entries provided much material for his fiction, and in a very real sense the collection is one long autobiography.
   In September 1862, Tolstoy married Sofya Andreyevna Bers (or Behrs), a woman sixteen years younger than himself. Daughter of a prominent Moscow doctor, Bers was beautiful, intelligent, and, as the years would show, strong-willed. The first decade of their marriage brought Tolstoy the greatest happiness; never before or after was his creative life so rich or his personal life so full. In June 1863 his wife had the first of their thirteen children.
   The first portion of War and Peace was published in 1865 (in the Russian Messenger) as "The Year 1805." In 1868, three more chapters appeared and in 1869 he completed the novel. His new novel created a fantastic out-pouring of popular and critical reaction.
    Tolstoy's War and Peace represents a high point in the history of world literature, but it was also the peak of Tolstoy's personal life. His characters represent almost everyone he had ever met, including all of his relations on both sides of his family. Balls and battles, birth and death, all were described in amazing detail. In this book the European realistic novel, with its attention to social structures, exact description, and psychological rendering, found its most complete expression.
   From 1873 to 1877 Tolstoy worked on the second of his masterworks, Anna Karenina, which also created a sensation upon its publication. The concluding section of the novel was written during another of Russia's seemingly endless wars with Turkey. The novel was based partly on events that had occurred on a neighboring estate, where a nobleman's rejected mistress had thrown herself under a train. It also contained great chunks of disguised biography, especially in the scenes describing the courtship and marriage of Kitty and Levin. Tolstoy's family continued to grow, and his royalties (money earned from sales) were making him an extremely rich man.1
     After finishing Anna Karenina, Tolstoy renounced all his earlier works. "I wrote everything into Anna Karenina," he later confessed, "and nothing was left over." Voskresenia (1899, Resurrection) was Tolstoy's last major novel, and affirmed his belief in the individual over the collective. Prince Dmitrii Ivanovich Nekhliudov has abandoned the prostitute Ekaterina Maslova with their child as a young man. The novel begins when Maslova is called to court on charges of murdering a client. Nekhliudov is a member of the jury. He realizes that he also is accused but in the court of his own conscience. Maslova is wrongly sentenced to four years' penal service in Siberia. Nekhliudov follows her convoy to Siberia and manages to obtain commutation of her sentence from hard labor with common criminals to exile with the "political prisoners". Before the emergence of the gulag fiction, the novel enjoyed vast popularity during the reign of Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) as Soviet premier. It has been claimed, that while writing the story Tolstoy relived some of his guilt-ridden memories of his youth about a girl he had seduced and abandoned. 
    In the 1880s Tolstoy wrote such philosophical works as A Confession and What I Believe, which was banned in 1884. He started to see himself more as a sage and moral leader than an artist. In 1884 occurred his first attempt to leave home. He gave up his estate to his family, and tried to live as a poor, celibate peasant. Attracted by Tolstoy's writings, Yasnaya Polyana was visited by hundreds of people from all over the world. Pilgrims and his disciples enjoyed a smooth ride on a tarmac road, which the Czarist government ordered to be built down to Tula.  In 1901 the Russian Orthodox Church excommunicated the author. Tolstoy became seriously ill and he recuperated in Crimea, Ukraine.
    In his study, What is Art? (1898) Tolstoy condemned Shakespeare, Beethoven, and Dante, but not really convincingly; his misreading of Shakespeare is deliberate. Tolstoy states that art is a conveyor of feelings, good and bad, from the artist to others. Through feeling, the artist 'infects' another with the desire to act well or badly. "Art is a human activity having for its purpose the transmission to others of the highest and best feelings to which men have risen." Tolstoy used ordinary events and characters to examine war, religion, feminism, and other topics. He was convinced that philosophical principles could only be understood in their concrete expression in history. All of his work is characterized by uncomplicated style, careful construction, and deep insight into human nature. His chapters are short, and he paid much attention to the details of everyday life. Tolstoy also refused to recognize the conventional climaxes of narrative – War and Peace begins in the middle of a conversation and ends in the first epilogue in the middle of a sentence.
   Tolstoy's form of Christianity was based on the Sermon on the Mount and crystallized in five leading ideas: human beings must suppress their anger, whether warranted or not; no sex outside marriage; no oaths of any sort; renunciation of all resistance to evil; and love of enemies. "The main feature, or rather the main note which resounds through every page of Tolstoi, even the seemingly unimportant ones, is love, compassion for Man in general (and not only for the humiliated and the offended), pity of some sort for his weakness, his insignificance, for the shortness of his life, the vanity of his desires... Yes, Tolstoi is for me the dearest, the deepest, and greatest of all artists. But this concerns the Tolstoi of yesterday, who has nothing in common with the exasperating moralist and theorizer of today." (The composer Peter Tchaikovsky in Vladimir Volkoff's biography Tchaikovsky: A Self-portrait, 1975) 2
       Throughout his life, Tolstoy struggled with the issue of the meaning of life.  This question became even more of an issue for him as he matured.  One of the most interesting statements he made was in 1875.  He wrote, “I am 47….And so I have reached old age, that inner spiritual condition to which nothing from the outer world has any interest, in which there are no desires and one sees nothing but death ahead of one.  Life really is a stupid and empty joke…and so I began to search for a view of life that could do away with its apparent senselessness.  That is the aim and content of what I am writing at present….I would like to expound this whole mass of religions and scientific views of our time, to show the gaps and—forgive my boldness—without denying anything, to fill these gaps.”3
     It is interesting that I am 47.  I do not believe that I have reached old age; however, I do understand Tolstoy’s interest regarding the meaning of life.  I try not to reflect upon this issue on a constant basis, but it is definitely part of my thoughts.  I can understand Tolstoy’s comment regarding the apparent senseless of life.  At time there seems to be no rhyme or reason to making things which take place in our lives.  I also turned to religion in order to find meaning in my life, but became somewhat discontented over time.
    His later life seemed to be consumed by his newly created religion.   In fact, he had many “Tolstoyites” who chose to follow his belief system.  His classic novels had become a thing of the past and he devoted his writing talent to works of religion and/or philosophy.  He became so dedicated to his religious beliefs that be walked away from his estate, left his family, and began a spiritual journey. 
     Russians love few things better than a good anniversary — any excuse to celebrate the country’s rich cultural history gives rise to festivals and forums, concerts and commemorative films.
     As 2010 marked the 150th anniversary of the birth of Anton Chekhov, President Dmitry Medvedev flew to the playwright’s small southern hometown and laid a bouquet of white roses. One hundred years after his death in 1837, poet Alexander Pushkin was celebrated across the country — a city was even named after him.
    Why, then, the silence in Russia around Leo Tolstoy, widely considered to be one of the greatest writers who ever lived?
   November 20, 2010 will mark 100 years since Tolstoy’s dramatic death. Having achieved world fame and acclaim with "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina," Tolstoy turned later in life to the spiritual treatises that would lead to his excommunication from the Russian Orthodox Church. In 1910, at the age of 82, he abandoned his family and his estate in Yasnaya Polyana, outside Moscow, dying days later at a nearby train station, never having recovered from the pneumonia that had long plagued him.
    It’s a dramatic end befitting a novelist who explored, with poetic realism, life’s greatest thrills: family, war, love.
    At least, that’s how he is remembered in the West. In Russia, Tolstoy’s writing is always and everywhere linked with his work as a philosopher, one who preached principles of nonviolence, simple living and brotherly love. That may be where the problem lies.
    “Lev Nikolayevich posed very uncomfortable questions,” said Fyokla Tolstaya, a great-great-granddaughter of the writer, using his Russian name and patronymic. “He is a very difficult author for today’s leadership,” she said.
    Perhaps that is why, on a government level, the anniversary is being entirely ignored.
    “We’ve received no orders to prepare for the anniversary,” said a woman who answered the phone at the Culture Ministry’s anniversaries committee, but declined to provide her name. For anniversaries honoring many of Russia’s other great writers, less well-known in the West but celebrated here, the department is given years to plan and organize. The department first received an order in 2007 to prepare for this year’s celebrations marking 150 years since Chekhov’s birth, she said by way of example.
     “The government, which is normally very proactive in organizing anniversaries seems to have put Tolstoy away on the shelf,” said Catherine Tolstoy, a 22-year-old member of the abundant Tolstoy clan.
     “He is very well respected, but he’s not useful and hasn’t got the right views,” she said. “He’s got very different values from the current government.”
     Yet other celebrated writers, including Chekhov and the great satirist Nikolai Gogol, also criticized the country for issues that remain little changed today: officials’ corruption, their countrymen’s love of vodka, treatment of prisoners.
     The government’s decision to ignore Tolstoy’s centenary is something that has surprised some of his greatest champions, yet is something they overwhelmingly choose to explain away by saying that it is births, not deaths, that should be celebrated.
   “There hasn’t been one television program dedicated to him, but that doesn’t mean we don’t value him,” said Marina Tikhonycheva, the head of the Tolstoy Institute. All 10th graders in Russia, she noted, are required to plow through "War and Peace." (She later noted that Russia’s Kultura channel recently aired a celebrated film adaptation, failing to note that it was Tolstoy’s centenary but celebrating the fact that it was the 90th anniversary of director and star Sergei Bondarchuk’s birth.)
    Others see something more deliberate in the Tolstoy void, blaming his relationship with the Orthodox Church, which expelled him in 1901 citing his repudiation of Jesus Christ and the church.
    “The church’s position to Tolstoy has not changed,” said a source inside the Orthodox Church’s committee on culture. “Tolstoy is anti-Christian. He is excommunicated and therefore presents no interest for the church.”
    Tolstoy’s family has put in several requests to have the church re-examine the writer’s excommunication. However, it categorically refuses to do so.
    “The order can only change if a person himself repents. This can’t happen after a person is dead,” the church source said.
     “The church does pressure culture, but not to such a degree,” said Boris Felikov, an associate professor of religion at the Russian State University for the Humanities.
     Some members of Tolstoy’s family disagree. “The government is very friendly with the church, as it was in pre-revolutionary times, and puts a lot of pressure on the state,” said Tolstaya. In Soviet times, his views against organized religion and in support of the country’s peasantry made him a hero of the communist regime (Lenin even published an essay titled “Tolstoy as Mirror of the Revolution”).
   “Now there’s a different approach,” Tolstaya said. “He isn’t comfortable and he isn’t needed.”
   That may be true of the Russian government and its powerful church, but not so in the West. To mark the centenary of Tolstoy’s death, new translations of his novels have been issued. A film about his last days, “The Last Station,” was released to critical acclaim, its lead actors (Helen Mirren and Christopher Plummer) both nominated for Oscars. New biographies of Tolstoy’s wife, Sophia, were released, as well as her letters.
    Inside Russia, the Tolstoy estate, as well as a handful of museums and institutes in Moscow, are organizing forums. On November 20, they will open a small museum at Ostankino, the provincial railway station where Tolstoy met his death.
    “Tolstoy is still relevant,” said Tolstaya, his great-great-granddaughter. “The question becomes: what have the people in Russia done in the 100 years since he left us? Have we managed to answer his questions? The answer is no.” 4
     There is no denying that Tolstoy is one of the greatest authors of all time.  His classic novels, War and Peace and Anna Karenina are not only read by today’s students in the former USSR, but they were even made into films in the United States.  “Anna Karenina” was also made into a miniseries by the British Broadcasting Company (BBC). These novels have been translated into several different languages and are definitely worth reading.   I would also recommend reading A Confession and Resurrection in order to understand his views regarding the meaning of life.
      Life certainly can be challenging.  The fact that Russia made no formal effort to mark the one hundredth anniversary of the death of this great novelist is proof of that.  It is true that some of his writings were considered controversial; however, how will any of us be judged one hundred years after we die?
                                                           End Notes
1) “Leo Tolstoy: Biographyhttp://www.notablebiographies.com/St-Tr/Tolstoy-Leo.html   (accessed 5/26/12)
2) “Leo Tolstoihttp://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/ltolstoi.htm  (accessed 5/26/12) 
3) R.F. Christian (trans.) Tolstoy’s Letters (NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1978) Vol. 1, p. 288
4) “Russia Snubs Tolstoyhttp://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/russia/101011/leo-tolstoy-death (written 10/12/10, accessed 5/26/12)

Friday, May 25, 2012

Viewing a Relationship from the Outside

   In Anna Karenina, Lev Tolstoy (1828-1910) stated that “every family is happy in its own way and every family is unhappy in its own way.” 1 This is a very true statement.  It is very difficult for people to understand a family or a marital relationship from the outside. 
    It is not uncommon for people to see a couple and wonder, “Why are they together?” A variety of things bring two people together.  In some cases it is love, in some cases it is money, and in some cases it is a connection which no one else may ever understand. 
   The topic of relationships has been written about by numerous people and has been examined from various standpoints, such as anthropology, religion, culture, and others.  Relationships is one of the main themes in Ivanov, a play by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov (1860-1904) which was first produced in 1887 at the Korsh Theater in Moscow. 
   The basic premise of the play is quite simple.  Nikolai Ivanov is a young estate-owner, heavily in debt, especially to Zinaida Lebedev, the wife of the head of the District Council. Ivanov used to be energetic, creative, and unconventional, the "star" of the local gentry. He married for love--a Jewish woman, Anna, whose parents disowned her after she converted to Russian Orthodoxy in order to marry Nikolai. Anna is totally devoted to him; however, Ivanov is suffering from profound depression.
    It seems to him that all his good ideas (like building a school for the poor) were for naught and he has become a "superfluous man." He spends every evening socializing at the Lebedev estate, even though he knows how this hurts his wife. Doctor Lvov, Anna's physician, is a humorless and terminally sincere young man who has no insight into Ivanov's depression.
   One night Anna gets fed up and follows her husband to the Lebedev house, where she discovers Ivanov kissing the Lebedevs' daughter, Sasha, who is hopelessly in love with Ivanov, although he doesn't reciprocate her affection. Some weeks later Anna's illness (tuberculosis) has gotten worse. Lvov condemns Ivanov for his lack of concern regarding Anna’s health.  The doctor suggests that Ivanov sent Anna to Crimea in order to get the help she needs, but he refuses to pay for the trip because he owes money to several people. After Anna dies, Ivanov and Sasha are set to be married, but at the last minute he cannot go through with it. At the end of the play Ivanov is confronted by several people who challenge him to a duel because they believe that he is marrying Sasha for the sole reason that he can get her dowry.  Instead of dueling, he retrieves a gun from one of his serfs and commits suicide. 2
    Looking at this relationship between Anna and Ivanov, it is difficult for us to understand how he can have such little regard for her health.  We do not know what is going on between them so we come to the conclusion that he is a cold and uncaring man.  However, we must keep in mind that his depression would make it difficult to think about anyone, but himself. 
    Had he married Sasha, it is possible that he would not be the same way with her as he was with Anna.  Severe depression makes it difficult for someone to enter into a healthy relationship; however, if the right person comes along he or she can be a wonderful source of support which can encourage the depressed person to get the help they need.
    This is a very challenging play since it speaks to us on many levels.  Not only is the play dealing with the relationship between Anna and Ivanov and eventually between Ivanov and Sasha, it is also a deeply political play which is addressing many of the issues which were facing low level bureaucrats in late 19th Century Russia.  The issue of bureaucracy was also discussed by Nikolai Gogol (1809-1852) and various other authors. 
    As with all Russian plays or stories, the use of surnames, especially men’s names, is very important.  The fact that Chekov chose the name “Ivanov” for his main character is significant.  Ivanov is the most popular surname in Russia and Ukraine, so there is a strong indication that Chekov was speaking to everyone, not use a chosen few.  In 1939, Frank Capra (1897-1991) produced a film entitled Mr. Smith Goes to Washington 3 which starred James Stewart (1908-1997) as the main character.  This film dealt with the impact of one man on American politics.  The name “Smith” is as popular in the US as “Ivanov” is in Russia and Ukraine.
    Relationships are always difficult to write about; however, Chekov does a wonderful job of giving us insight into this particular relationship.  If someone was writing a play or story about your relationship, what would they say?  You might be surprised to read what an outsider would say about your relationship. 
                                                       End Notes
1) "Anna Karenina" http://www.literature.org/authors/tolstoy-leo/anna-karenina/part-01/chapter-01.html (accesse 5/24/12)
2) “Ivanov” http://litmed.med.nyu.edu/Annotation?action=view&annid=1139 (accessed 5/24/12)
3) “Mr. Smith Goes to Washingtonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Smith_Goes_to_Washington  (accessed 5/24/12)

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

The Love Which Keeps Giving

   There are few holidays which have the same emotional impact on people as Christmas.  Anyone who grew up in the US would be familiar with The Night before Christmas by Charles Dickens (1812-1870).  This story tells the reader about the life of Ebenezer Scrooge, a stingy, bitter, wealthy man who dislikes the Christmas season.  He alienated himself from his family and tells his lone employee, Bob Cratchet, that if does not come to work on Christmas day he would be fired.  Cratchet has a   handicapped son, Tiny Tim, and his family is rather poor, but happy. 
   The evening before Christmas, Scrooge receives a visit from the ghost of his late partner, Jacob Marley. Marley informs him that he will be visited by three more ghosts (Christmas Past, Christmas Present, and Christmas Yet to Come).  After being visited by these three ghosts, Scrooge has a change of heart and wakes up on Christmas Day a new person.  He buys a turkey for Cratchet and   his family and reunites with his own family. 
    This is the story that most people think of when they think of Christmas.  However, there is another story which does not have the same tone, but also sends a very important message. The story I am speaking about Christmas Eve by Nikolai Gogol (1809-1852).  It opens with the devil flying above the small village of Dikanka, enjoying one last night of freedom before he must return to hell, when he decides to steal the moon and put it in his pocket in order to thwart the amorous designs of the local blacksmith, Vakula. In addition to being an excellent blacksmith, Vakula is also a talented painter, and his favorite theme is the vanquishing of Satan. His artistic triumph was a picture painted on the church wall in the chapel on the right. In it he depicted St. Peter on the Day of Judgment with the keys in his hand driving the Evil Spirit out of hell: the frightened devil was running in all directions, foreseeing his doom, while the sinners, who had been imprisoned before, were chasing him and striking him with whips, blocks of wood and anything they could get hold of.
In stealing the moon, the devil hopes that the father of Vakula’s beloved will stay at home instead of attending a Christmas Eve party at the sacristan’s. And because the father—Tchub is his name—dislikes Vakula, Vakula will be prevented from visiting the daughter.
   Things don’t turn out as the devil expects, however. Without giving too much away, Tchub goes out despite his laziness and, before the novella ends, finds himself hiding in a rubbish sack, along with the mayor and the sacristan (at whose party nobody arrives because of the darkness), all at the home of Vakula’s mother, who, for good measure, also happens to be a witch. Vakula does indeed visit his beloved (as well as St. Petersburg on the back of the devil) and outmaneuvers his scheming mother.
   The tale first appeared in Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka, and as a number of scholars have pointed out that it contains many staples of traditional Ukrainian folklore. Victor Erlich notes that the comedy of these tales “rests more often than not on unabashedly farcical, slapstick effects drawn from the traditional repertory of the Ukrainian puppet theater.” The characters of the stories—such as “the shrewish wife, the cunning gypsy, the gullible peasant, and the ‘dashing’   Cossak”—are “stock characters.”
   While Gogol wears his religious commitments somewhat more lightly in his earlier works than he does in Dead Souls, he nevertheless uses slapstick (a form of comedy) and stock characters in Christmas Eve to serious effect. He reminds us that the devil will be confounded by his own darkness and that God, in his infinite wisdom, will use simple folks, like blacksmiths, with all of their crudeness and selfishness, to participate in his vanquishing of St. Nicholas.  God does not use the self-righteous—the merely pristinely polished life—to further his kingdom. He rarely uses the elite or the religious “pundit.” Most often, He uses the simple and unrefined to accomplish His work   because they, at least, will give glory where glory is due.1
   This is definitely not a children’s Christmas story, but this does not mean that the story should not be made available to children.  Pyotr Tchaikovsky (1840-1893) wrote an opera, Vakula the Smith 2, (1874) based upon Gogol’s short story.  Nikolay Rimsky-Korsakov (1844-1908) also produced an opera (1895) entitled Christmas Eve 3 which was based upon this short story. It is true that this story includes a witch and a devil among its characters, but it makes a very important moral message   which can easily be understood by children. 
   The love of God can and will overcome any difficulty.  He may not respond in the way that we expect, but that does not mean that He is not responding.  Gogol shows us another way which God interacts with us, even though we may not realize it at the time. 
 

                                                                                  End Notes
1) “Nikolai Gogol’s The Night before Christmas” http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/12/nikolai-gogolrsquos-the-night-before-christmas (accessed 5/23/12) 
2) “Vakula the Smith” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vakula_the_Smith (accessed 5/23/12)
3) “Christmas Eve (opera)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Eve_(opera) (accessed 5/23/12)



Tuesday, May 22, 2012

The Challenges of Poverty

   Every nation in the world has poor people.  Some of these people are unable to work, some cannot find work, and others work in jobs which do not provide much income or any additional benefits.  In the US, we refer to these people are “the working poor”.  These people earn too much money to receive any additional support, but not enough money to be able to provide for all of their basic necessities.  Many of these people are forced to choose between paying rent and buying food.  In some cases they are able to receive government assistance to buy food, but if they are required to take any medication they often cannot afford that.
   This situation is certainly not limited to the US.  In Russia, this situation has also been common for many decades.  Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) wrote about this in his story, Poor Folk, and Nikolai Gogol (1809-1852) wrote about this in The Overcoat
    The plot of this story is rather simple. It is a story about a poor Russian official named Akakii Akakievich, a rather pathetic figure.  Akakii lives entirely for his duties as a copier. His co-workers laugh at him and abuse him. He often has bits and pieces of filth on his uniform due to his “peculiar knack, as he walked in the street, of arriving beneath a window when all sorts of rubbish are being flung out of it.” Akakii’s coat is threadbare and he is finally forced to have a new overcoat sewn for him by Petrovich the Tailor. The cost of the overcoat is exorbitant for Akakii, but he scrimps and saves, denying himself food and other basic necessities until he is able to purchase the coat. Overnight, he becomes respectful. His co-workers fawn over his beautiful, new coat – and even throw him a lavish party in celebration. However, disaster falls upon Akakii … his joy is short lived when the coat is stolen.
   Gogol’s short story takes an interesting twist as Akakii seeks help to recover the overcoat – going first to the police and then a “very important person.” He is lost amid a barrage of bureaucracy:
    “Don’t you know etiquette? Where have you come to? Don’t you know how matters are managed? You should first have entered a complaint about this at the court: it would have gone to the head of the department, to the chief of the division, then it would have been handed over to the secretary, and the secretary would have given it to me.” -from The Overcoat-
    The Overcoat is a story about a common man who is beneath everyone (much is made in the beginning about Akakii’s name which comes close to the Russian word kaka – translated as “poop”), but who rises in esteem simply upon the purchase of an overcoat. He falls again with the loss of this possession, and must appeal to the government for assistance – which does not come. Gogol pokes fun at those in power, showing them to be insubstantial and shallow despite their titles. He allows Akakii to come out on top – demonstrating it is not material gain which grants one power.1
    Akakii Akakievich is not an unusual character.  It is a very common experience to meet people whose job is rather mundane and who becomes overwhelmed when dealing with bureaucracy.  Gogol wrote several stories dealing with government bureaucrats.  In his stories The Nose and Diary of a Madman he wrote about St. Petersburg government officials.  These are not very flattering stories.
    One major challenge with bureaucracy is that the bureaucrats often operate as though they are taking money out of their own wallet when someone comes to them for help.  Also, they often do not think for themselves.  They often fail to take into consideration that they are dealing with human beings.  This is very apparent in regard to Akakii’s dealing with the “very important person’, a retired general.  Instead of receive the help he needed, he is attacked for not “going through the proper channels”. 
    It would have taken no effort at all for this general to offer this man some help, but he chose to scold him for some remarks that Akakii made about department secretaries. As a result of being beaten in the freezing weather and the scolding he received from the general, Akakii becomes ill with a fever and is dying. In his last hours, he is delirious, imagining himself again sitting before the VIP, who is again scolding him. At first, Akakii pleads forgiveness, but as his death nears, he curses the general.2
    While it is true that bureaucrats have to deal with numerous people throughout the day, this does not justify treating anyone that the meet as less than human.  For many people there is a certain level of embarrassment having to go to the government for help.  The fact that their sense of personal dignity has been taken away by having to go for such help is bad enough, but it is even worse when this person is then treated as almost subhuman once they ask for help.
    Gogol makes this point by informing us that Akakii’s ghost began haunting certain areas of St. Petersburg and steals the coats of various people.  Then his ghost confronts the general who is terrified at the sight. Having felt satisfied by the general’s response, this ghost is never seen again. 
    Every action does have consequences. Apparently, the general became aware of the fact that he had treated Akakii poorly and regretted it, but, by that point, it was too late.  There are many people who believe in karma. Karma is defined as an action seen as bringing upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad, either in this life or after being reincarnated.3 There is an American idiom which states, “What goes around comes around” which is the same idea as karma.  Whether a person believes in karma or not, treating someone as subhuman cannot be justified. 
  The poor have enough personal difficulties without being mistreated by those who are in a position to help them.  Nikolai Gogol was a very sensitive soul who struggled with poverty at various times in his life.  In fact, his finances were so bad that he did not leave enough money for his own funeral.  It is due to the fact that Gogol actually experienced poverty which made him particularly sensitive to the poor. 
  It is sad that Akakii becomes respectable only after buying a new overcoat.  He has not change as a person, but simply by purchasing a coat he is now considered a human being who is unworthy of being made fun of.  He is not a person because who he is, but because of what he has.  This shameful materialism is still alive and well.  Human dignity is still equated with material possessions.  This is sad dynamic of human nature which seems to be getting worse with every successive generation.  Hopefully, this trend can be eventually be reversed.
                                                               
                                                                End Notes
1) “The Overcoat by Nikolai Gogol—A Short Story Review” http://www.caribousmom.com/2008/03/01/the-overcoat-by-nikolai-gogol-short-story-review/ (accessed 5/22/12)
2) "The Overcoat” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Overcoat   (accessed 5/22/12) 
3) “Karma” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/karma  (accessed 5/22/12)  

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Jewish Leadership from Ukraine

      There are few people who more renowned in the Chasidic movement of Judaism than Rabbi Nachman of Breslov (1772-1810).  Chasidic Jews are called Hasidim in Hebrew. This word derived from the Hebrew word for loving kindness (chesed). The Chasidic movement is unique in its focus on the joyful observance of God’s commandments (mitzvot), heartfelt prayer, and boundless love for God and the world He created. Many ideas for Hasidism derived from Jewish mysticism (Kabbalah).
     The movement originated in Eastern Europe in the 18th century, at a time when Jews were experiencing great persecution. While the Jewish elite focused on and found comfort in Talmud (Jewish law) study, the impoverished and uneducated Jewish masses hungered for a new approach.
     Fortunately for the Jewish masses, Rabbi Israel ben Eliezer (1698-1760) found a way to democratize Judaism. He was a poor orphan from Opoky, Ukraine. As a young man, he traveled around to various Jewish villages, healing the sick, and helping the poor. After he married, he went into seclusion in the mountains and focused on mysticism. As his following grew, he became known as the Baal Shem Tov (abbreviated as Besht) which means “Master of the Good Name”. 
     In a nutshell, the Baal Shem Tov led European Jewry away from reliance upon rabbis and toward mysticism. The early Chasidic movement encouraged the poor and oppressed Jews of 18th century Europe to be less academic and more emotional, less focused on executing rituals and more focused on experiencing them, less focused on gaining knowledge and more focused on feeling exalted. The way one prayed became more important than one’s knowledge of the prayer’s meaning. The Baal Shem Tov did not modify Judaism, but he did suggest that Jews approach Judaism from a different psychological state.1
     The great-grandson of the Baal Shem Tov, Rabbi Nachman of Breslov (sometimes called Bratzlav, Breslau, or Bratislava) was one of the most creative, influential, and profound of the Chasidic masters and the founder of the Breslover Chasidic sect. Breslov is a town in Ukraine where Rabbi Nachman spent the end of his life, but some say the name Breslov comes from the Hebrew bris lev, meaning "covenant of the heart."
      From his youth, he followed a path of asceticism and prayer, though he warned his followers not to abuse themselves physically. He emphasized living life with joy and happiness. One of his best-known sayings is, "It is a great mitzvah (blessing) to be happy."
     He was a passionate individual, given to intense swings of emotions. These he put toward the service of God, and spoke often of how to find God even in the low states of mind, and how to serve Him during the emotional highs.
    Central to his teachings is the role of the tzaddik (righteous person), who has the power to descend into the darkness to redeem lost souls; the path of prayer as the main expression of religious life. His main work is Likutey Moharan, composed partly by himself, partly by his chief disciple, Rabbi Nosson Sternhartz (1780-1844). The book is a collection of sermons delivered by Rabbi Nachman, given mostly on the holidays when his Chassidim gathered. The lessons are long and complex, masterfully drawing on the entire body of Talmud, Midrashic and Kabbalistic literature. Ideas are connected by a poetic and intuitive grasp of the texts. In addition, Rabbi Nachman wrote thirteen “Tales” — mythical stories of kings and wizards based upon Kabbalistic thought and capturing the essence of Rabbi Nachman’s teachings. These tales were known to have influenced later authors such as Franz Kafka (1883-1924).
    Rabbi Nachman died of Tuberculosis at the age of 38. Despite the fact that there was never another “Breslov Rebbe” to fill his place, the mystery and depth of his teachings continue to attract students today, and Breslover Chassidism is one of the largest and most vibrant of Chassidic groups.2
    When people think of Ukraine in regard to religion, they would normally think of the Orthodox Church; however, Odessa has always had a very large Jewish community.  Members of the Jewish community from Russia, Ukraine, and most other countries are part of the Ashkenazic sect. Ashkenaz is the Hebrew name for “Germany”, but this sect is not limited to Germany.
   The Chasidim are known as “the chosen ones”.  This sect of Judaism is not popular with many Jewish people who are not Orthodox Jews.  Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism, is a very interesting part of the Jewish tradition.  Orthodox Christianity, Roman Catholicism, and Islam all have a mystical tradition as part of their faith.  I would recommend A Still Small Voice by Rabbi Nachman as an example of his teaching.  This small book is a collection of his most famous sayings.
    In accordance with the custom of his time, he was married at the age of 13 soon after becoming Bar Mitzvah. His wife was Sashia, daughter of Rabbi Ephraim of Ossatin, from a village near the town of Medvedevka. In their 22 years of marriage they had eight children, but four - including two sons - died in childhood. Four daughters survived, with known descendants until today.
    From the time of his marriage Rabbi Nachman lived in Ossatin with his father-in-law, continuing his studies and devotions until he attained unique levels of sanctity and holy spirit as well as being fully conversant with the entire array of Biblical, Talmudic, Halachic, Midrashic and Kabalistic literature. At first he was unknown to all except one disciple five years his senior, Rabbi Shimon ben Baer, who attached himself to him shortly after his marriage and became his life-long follower.
   At the age of 18 Rabbi Nachman left his father-in-law's home to live in Medvedevka, where he spent the next ten years. It was there that his greatness first became revealed, and he rapidly gained an ardent following including some distinguished scholars and Kabbalists and the octogenarian Rabbi Yekusiel, the Magid of Terhovitz, one of the senior leaders of the Chassidic movement. Rabbi Nachman emphasized faith, prayer and ever-renewed spiritual growth. As a result of his practice of hearing the personal confessions of his adherents, they were originally known as the Viduynikers - Confessors. 3
   The influence of Rabbi Nachman is still alive in the Chasidic community today.  This is proof that his teachings were timeless.  It is interesting that a Jewish leader from Ukraine could have so much influence of Jewish people world-wide two hundred years after he died.
   
                                                           End Notes

1) “Ultra-Orthodox Judaism” http://judaism.about.com/od/denominationsofjudaism/a/hasid.htm (accessed 5/14/12)
2) “Rabbi Nachman of Beslov” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Nachman.html (accessed 5/14/12) 
3) “The Essential Rabbi Nachman” http://azamra.org/Essential/life.htm (accessed 5/14/12)

Sunday, May 13, 2012

The Poor Will Always be with Us

   Every culture has its own unique qualities. The culture of the United States is largely a blend of many different cultures since we are a nation of immigrants. With the exception of Brazil, most countries in South America were very heavily influence by Spanish culture.  Brazil was heavily influenced by Portuguese culture.  The nations of the former Soviet Union are strongly influenced by Orthodox culture and their connection to the Orthodox Church.  This is quite obvious in the novels of the classic Russian authors. 
    While these various nations have their own uniqueness, the one thing that all of them have in common is that each nation has poor people.  The poor are often not even notice by those who have more money.  They are “invisible” people.  This was true in the late 19th century and is still true today. 
     In 1845, Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoevsky (1821-1881) wrote his first novel entitled Poor Folk.  This novel was written prior to his imprisonment. It was while he was in prison that he underwent a major conversion experience. He became a supporter of the czar and developed a great respect for the peasantry. This also seemed to be the beginning of his involvement in the Slavophile movement.
   The novel was originally published in A Petersburg Collection published. One anecdote states that the journal’s editor, Nikolai Nekrasov, declared “A new [Nikolai] Gogol has arisen!” Many literary critics, including Vissarion Belinsky, also gave this work much acclaim rocketing Fyodor Dostoevsky to literary fame.1
      It is put together in the form of a set of letters written between two people, Makar Devushkin and Varvara Dobroselova. Makar and Varvara are second cousins twice-removed and live across from each other on the same street in terrible apartments. Makar’s, for example, is merely a portioned-off section of the kitchen, and he lives with several other tenants, such as the Gorshkovs, whose son dies and who groans in agonizing hunger almost the entire story, gently crying at night. Makar and Varvara exchange letters back and forth attesting to their terrible living conditions and the former frequently squanders his money on gifts for the latter.
      The reader progressively learns about their history throughout the story. Varvara used to live in the country until her father lost his job, and then she moved into St. Petersburg, which she hates. Her father was very violent after losing his job and her mother became severely depressed. He dies and they move in with Anna Fyodorovna, a landlady who was previously cruel to them but at least pretends to feel badly for their situation. There Varvara is tutored by a poor student named Pokrovsky, whose drunken father occasionally visits. She eventually falls in love with him. She struggles to save a measly amount of money to purchase Pokrovsky the complete works of Pushkin at the market for his birthday present, and then allows his father to give the books to him, claiming that just his receipt of the books will be enough for her happiness. Povrovsky falls ill soon after, and his last dying wish is to see the sun and the world outside, which Varvara obliges by opening the blinds to grey clouds and dirty rain. In response he only shakes his head and then passes away. His father runs after the coffin during the procession, with some of his son’s books falling in the mud as he goes along alone in the rain.
     Varvara's mother dies soon after, and she is left in the care of Anna for a time, but eventually goes out on her own because of the abuse to live with Fedora across the street. Makar works as a lowly copyist, frequently belittled at his job and picked on. His clothing is worn and dirty, and his living conditions are perhaps worse than Varvara's. He considers himself a rat in society. As he and Varvara exchange letters (and occasional visits that are never detailed), they begin to exchange books. Makar becomes offended when she sends him a copy of The Overcoat, because he finds the main character to be living the life he now lives.
    Varvara considers leaving to another part of the city where she can work as a governess, but in a spot of luck, when Makar is completely out of money and may possibly be thrown out by his landlady, he comes upon 100 rubles. It happens that he miscopies a document and is brought to the head at his office, who tells him he can still copy it again and after looking at his terrible condition gives him the money so he can buy himself new clothes. He pays off his debts and sends some to Varvara, who sends him 25 rubles back because she doesn’t need all of it, and the future looks bright for the both of them because he can now start to save up money and they can possibly move in together.
    Suddenly, all of the rumors about Varvara marrying a drunk become meaningless in the face of money. Makar finds himself liked by even the writer Ratazyayev, who was using him as a figure in one of his stories because of his sad condition. Even the Gorhkovs come across money because the father’s case is won in court. With the considerable sum they seem perfectly happy, but he dies soon after anyway, leaving his family in shambles despite the money. Soon after this Varvara announces that a Mr. Bykov, who had dealings with Anna Fyodorovna and Pokrovsky’s father, has proposed to her. She decides to leave with him and the last few letters attest to her slowly becoming used to her new money.
    She has Makar find linen for her and begins to talk about various luxuries, leaving him alone in the end despite the fact that he was coming on to better times. The story ends with a final letter from him written in a desperate plea for her to come back to him or at least write from her new life. 2
    Poor Folk is an epistolary novel -- that is, a tale told as a series of letters between the characters. And oh, what characters these are Makar Dievushkin Alexievitch is a copy writer, barely squeaking by; Barbara Dobroselova Alexievna works as a seamstress, and both face the sort of everyday humiliation society puts upon the poor. These are people respected by no one, not even by themselves. These are folks too poor, in their circumstances, to marry; the love between them is a chaste and proper thing, a love that brings some readers to tears. But it isn't maudlin, either; Fyodor Dostoevsky has something profound to say about these people and this circumstance. And he says it very well. When the book was first published a leading Russian literary critic of the day -- Vissarion Belinsky (1811-1848) -- prophesied that Dostoevsky would become a literary giant. It isn't hard to see how he came to that conclusion, and in hindsight, he was surely was correct. 
   The male protagonist is the first in a long line of Dostoevskyian anti-heroes, undergound men, figures of such extreme marginality that even they are not sure whether they exist: He’s a man with a reputation what am I? Compared to him, I simply don’t exist…, an ontological uncertainty which Dostoevsky picked up from his reading of Hoffman, and which he was to develop more fully in the later tale The Double. Makar Devushkin lives behind a screen in the kitchen and works as a copyist: he has no space or original contribution of his own. His character comes to life only in and through his letters; he writes himself, creates himself through writing, and exists only in the dialogue with Varvara: when I got to know you, I began for a start to know myself better…before you came along, I was as good as asleep, I wasn’t really living in the world at all… when you came my way, you lit up the whole of my dark life so that my mind and soul were illuminated …When she leaves Petersburg to marry Bykov, the dialogue stops, Devushkin disappears, and the book ends.
   He also displays the irrational behavior which was Dostoevsky’s contribution to the philosophical picture of man. When he retrieves his button from under the feet of his boss, to his own horror, he acts against his own best interest: had I not been such a fool I would have stood to attention and kept still. But oh, no: I began pressing the button against the torn off threads, as though that would make it stay on and what’s more, I smiled and smiled again. The drunken episodes, the getting into debt for Varvara’s sake are also forms of irrational behaviour. His Dostoevskyan irascibility; however, is mediated by a tenderness towards Varvara and towards the world, a tenderness which is not present in the later loners of the Dostoevsky canon.
  The novel is as much about literature as about the urban poor. Much of the plot revolves around the acquisition of books, there are constant references to other literature: grammars, style manuals, Pushkin, excerpts from the (terrible) writings of Devushkin’s friend and hero, Mr Ratazyayev. The whole tale can be read as Dostoevsky’s dialogue with the overwhelming power of Gogol. The characters lend each other books and comment on them. Devushkin lives in fear of being lampooned in a feuilleton (Dostoevsky himself lampoons another one of his marginal folk in the darkly hilarious tale Mr. Prokharchin, where even the narrator calls the eponymous hero a fool). Although Devushkin knows he is a marginal being, he nonetheless has a fully developed sense of amour propre and is quick to take umbrage. The epistolary nature of this novel is a kind of tact on Dostoevsky’s part, in allowing these marginal characters to speak for themselves with their own voices, without the presence of a narrator to describe them, to falsify them or to mock them.
   Devushkin is struck by a quote from a style manual which is a kind of manifesto for the group around Ratazyayev: Literature is a picture, or, rather, in a certain sense, both a picture and a mirror: it is an expression of emotion, a subtle form of criticism, a didactic lesson and a document. This may also stand as a manifesto, not only for the method and subject of Poor Folk, but indeed for Dostoevsky’s entire career: the Christian didacticism of his later novels, the expressionism of his confessional stance, his picture of underground and marginal types, his criticisms of society, nihilism and other forms of philosophy, and the mirror he holds up to the modern soul.
   The characters which Dostoevsky introduces us to are not unique and can be placed in almost any culture; however, how the individuals deal with their situation is directly related to their culture.  These people are Russian and are quite familiar with daily sufferings.  Their connection to the Orthodox Church helps many Russians, both ancient and modern, to find hope in their suffering and united these sufferings to those of Jesus Christ.
   In my article “The Beauty of the Russian Soul”5 I spoke about the influence of Orthodox culture has on the Russian soul.  The Russian soul is not simply limited to those who live in Russia, but to people from Ukraine, Belarus, and various other nations where Orthodox Christianity is the predominant religion.
    Fyodor Dostoevsky’s genius can be found in all of his novels. On a personal level, he felt very connected to the poor even though his father was a medical doctor.  He spent much of his life impoverished, which is not uncommon among most artists, so he understood the experiences of the poor. 
                                                  End Notes
1) “Fyodor Dostoevsky: A Biography” http://www.egs.edu/library/fyodor-dostoevsky/biography/ (accessed 5/12/12)
2) “Poor Folk”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_Folk (accessed 5/12/12)
3) “Poor Folk” http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/67326.Poor_Folk (accessed 5/12/12)
4) “Poor Folk: Dostoevsky” http://thelectern.blogspot.com/2008/12/poor-folk-dostoevsky.html (accessed 5/13/12)
5) “Beauty of the Russian Soul” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2011/10/beauty-of-russian-soul.html

Saturday, May 12, 2012

The Man Behind the Curtain

    One of the most popular US films for both adults and children is “The Wizard of Oz”.  This 1939 film is an adaption of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz written by L. Frank Baum (1856-1919) in 1900.  The film is one of the first movies to be filmed in color (a brand new technology in 1939).  The first part of the film was film in black and white, the majority was filmed in color, and the end of the film was filmed in black and white.

    As a children’s story, the premise is very simple.  Kansas farm girl Dorothy Gale lives with her Aunt Em, Uncle Henry, and three farm hands, Hickory, Hunk, and Zeke. When Miss Almira Gulch is bitten by Dorothy's pet Cairn Terrier, Toto, she gets a sheriff's order and takes him away to be destroyed. He escapes and returns to Dorothy, who, fearing for his life, runs away with him.

    Dorothy soon encounters a traveling fortune teller named Professor Marvel, who guesses she has run away and tells her fortune. He convinces her to return home by falsely telling her that Aunt Em has fallen ill from grief. With a tornado fast approaching, she rushes back to the farmhouse, but is unable to join her family in the locked storm cellar. Taking shelter inside the house, she is knocked unconscious by a window frame blown in by the twister.

    Dorothy awakens to find the house being carried away by the tornado. After it falls back to earth, she opens the door and finds herself alone in a strange village. Arriving in a floating bubble, Glinda, the Good Witch of the North, informs her that her house landed on and killed the Wicked Witch of the East.

     The timid Munchkins come out of hiding to celebrate the Witch's demise by singing "Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead". Their celebration is interrupted when the Wicked Witch of the West (Miss Gulch) suddenly appears in a cloud of smoke and tries to claim her dead sister's powerful ruby slippers. However, Glinda magically transfers them onto Dorothy's feet and reminds the Witch of the West that her power does not work in Munchkinland. She promises Dorothy "I'll get you, my pretty...and your little dog, too!" before leaving the same way she arrived. When Dorothy asks how to get back home, Glinda advises her to seek the help of the mysterious Wizard of Oz in the Emerald City, which she can reach by following the Yellow Brick Road, and warns her never to remove the ruby slippers or she will be at the mercy of the Wicked Witch.

    On her way to the city, Dorothy meets a Scarecrow (Hickory), a Tin Man (Hunk), and a Cowardly Lion (Zeke), who lament to her that they respectively lack a brain, a heart, and courage. The three decide to accompany her in hopes that the Wizard will also fulfill their desires, although they demonstrate that they already have the qualities they believe they lack: the Scarecrow has several good ideas, the Tin Man is kind and sympathetic, and the Lion, though terrified, is ready to face danger.

    After Dorothy and the Cowardly Lion nearly succumb to one of the Witch's traps, the quartet enters the Emerald City and is allowed to see the Wizard, who appears amidst smoke and flames as a disembodied, intimidating head. In a booming voice, he states that he will consider granting their wishes if they bring him the Wicked Witch's broomstick.

   They set out for the Witch's castle, but she detects them and dispatches her army of flying monkeys, who carry Dorothy and Toto back to her. When the Witch threatens to drown Toto, Dorothy agrees to give up the ruby slippers, but a shower of sparks prevents their removal. Realizing they can't be removed unless Dorothy dies, the Witch leaves to ponder how to accomplish this.

   Toto escapes and leads Dorothy's companions to the castle. After overpowering some of the Winkie guards and disguising themselves in their uniforms, they find and free her. The Witch and the Winkies corner the group on a parapet, where she sets the Scarecrow's arm ablaze with her broomstick. Dorothy throws water on her friend and accidentally splashes the Witch, causing her to melt. The Winkies are delighted, and their captain gives Dorothy the broomstick.

    Upon their triumphant return to the Wizard's chamber, Toto opens a curtain, revealing him to be an ordinary man (Professor Marvel) operating a console of wheels and levers while speaking into a microphone. Apologetic, he explains that Dorothy's companions already possess what they have been seeking all along, but bestows upon them tokens of esteem in recognition of their respective virtues. Explaining that he too was born in Kansas, and was brought to Oz by a runaway hot air balloon, he offers to take Dorothy home in the same balloon, leaving the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion in charge of the Emerald City.

    As they are about to leave, Toto jumps out of the balloon's basket and Dorothy runs after him. The Wizard, unable to control the balloon, leaves without her. As she despairs of ever getting back home, Glinda appears and tells her that she always had the power to return home, but that she needed to learn for herself that she didn't have to run away to find her heart's desire. She bids her friends goodbye, then follows Glinda's instructions to close her eyes, tap her heels together three times, and keep repeating "There's no place like home".

    Dorothy awakens in her bedroom in Kansas, surrounded by family and friends, and tells them of her journey. Although Auntie Em assures her it was all a dream, Dorothy insists it was real, especially since she saw all the people she knows in the Land of Oz, and promises never to run away from home again.1 

    There are some differences between this film and the original novel.  For example, in the novel, Dorothy’s slippers were silver, not ruby.  Also, Glinda, the good witch, was actually a collection of three characters in the novel.  This film appears on US television annually and has been popular with numerous generations.  In fact, I saw this film several times as a child and my nieces also watched this film when they were children.  They are now 21 and 20. 

    While this novel and film can be understood as being a simple children’s story, there is also another dimension to the novel which is actually a social commentary of the time in the US.  The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is one of America's favorite pieces of juvenile literature. Children like it because it is a good story, full of fun characters and exciting adventures. Adults--especially those of us in history and related fields--like it because we can read between L. Frank Baum's lines and see various images of the United States at the turn of the century. That has been true since 1964, when American Quarterly published Henry M. Littlefield's "The Wizard of Oz: Parable on Populism." Littlefield described all sorts of hidden meanings and allusions to Gilded Age society in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz: the wicked Witch of the East represented eastern industrialists and bankers who controlled the people (the Munchkins); the Scarecrow was the wise but naive western farmer; the Tin Woodman stood for the dehumanized industrial worker; the Cowardly Lion was William Jennings Bryan, Populist presidential candidate in 1896; the Yellow Brick Road, with all its dangers, was the gold standard; Dorothy's silver slippers (in the film they were ruby red, but Baum originally made them silver) represented the Populists' solution to the nation's economic woes ("the free and unlimited coinage of silver"); Emerald City was Washington, D.C.; the Wizard, "a little bumbling old man, hiding behind a facade of Paper Mache and noise, . . . able to be everything to everybody," was any of the Gilded Age presidents.2 

   The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was no longer an innocent fairy tale. According to Littlefield, Baum, a reform-minded Democrat who supported William Jennings Bryan's pro-silver candidacy, wrote the book as a parable of the Populists, an allegory of their failed efforts to reform the nation in 1896. "Baum never allowed the consistency of the allegory to take precedence over the theme of youthful entertainment," Littlefield hedged at one point; "the allegory always remains in a minor key." Still, he concluded that "the relationships and analogies outlined above . . . are far too consistent to be coincidental."3

   It was an interesting notion, one which scholars could not leave alone, and they soon began to find additional correspondences between Populism and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Richard Jensen, in a 1971 study of Midwestern politics and culture, devoted two pages to Baum's story. He implicitly qualified Littlefield by pointing out that not all pro-Bryan silverites were Populists. But Jensen then proceeded to add two new points to the standard Littlefield interpretation, finding analogies for Toto and Oz itself: Dorothy's faithful dog represented the tee totaling Prohibitionists, an important part of the silverite coalition, and anyone familiar with the silverites' slogan "16 to 1"--that is, the ratio of sixteen ounces of silver to one ounce of gold--would have instantly recognized "Oz" as the abbreviation for "ounce."4

   A few years later, literary scholar Brian Attebery wrote that "it is too much to say . . . that The Wizard is a 'Parable on Populism,' but it does share many of the Populist concerns and biases." Like Jensen, Attebery cautioned against an uncritical acceptance of Littlefield; and again like Jensen, he went on to suggest an analogy of his own: "Dorothy, bold, resourceful, leading the men around her toward success, is a juvenile Mary Lease, the Kansas firebrand who told her neighbors to raise less corn and more hell."5  

    The most extensive treatment of the Littlefield thesis is an article by Hugh Rockoff in the Journal of Political Economy. Rockoff, who saw in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz "a sophisticated commentary on the political and economic debates of the Populist Era," discovered a surprising number of new analogies. The Deadly Poppy Field, where the Cowardly Lion fell asleep and could not move forward, was the anti-imperialism that threatened to make Bryan forget the main issue of silver (note the Oriental connotation of poppies and opium). Once in the Emerald Palace, Dorothy had to pass through seven halls and climb three flights of stairs; seven and three make seventy-three, which stands for the Crime of '73, the congressional act that eliminated the coinage of silver and that proved to all Populists the collusion between congress and bankers. The Wicked Witch of the East was Grover Cleveland; of the West, William McKinley. The enslavement of the yellow Winkies was "a not very well disguised reference to McKinley's decision to deny immediate independence to the Philippines" after the Spanish-American War. The Wizard himself was Mark Hanna, McKinley's campaign manager, although Rockoff noted that "this is one of the few points at which the allegory does not work straightforwardly." About half of Rockoff's article consisted of an economic analysis that justified Bryan and Baum's silver stance.5

     While most people in the US would never consider that a children’s novel would have a secondary theme dealing with political issues, this idea is not limited to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift (1667- 1745) was also believed to have secondary theme based upon social concerns.

    Jonathan Swift's ultimate satirical masterpiece, Gulliver's Travels, scrutinizes human nature through a misanthropic eye. More directly, it examines the bastardization English society underwent. The brilliant tale depicts the journey of Lemuel Gulliver, an Englishman, and his distorted encounters. Examining the prominent political and social conflicts of England in the eighteenth century, Swift's critical work causes much controversy. Gulliver's travels leads him to places of opposite environments and presents him with different opportunities. Through Gulliver's journey, Swift ridicules Gulliver as an individual character, and also as a product of England's social practices.

    First, Gulliver travels to Lilliput, a land of miniature humans. The culture and society of the Lilliputians is very similar to that of Gulliver's home, England. However, in this undersized environment, Gulliver's outlook is altered.6


    This secondary theme is also present in Russian literature. There are some scholars of classic Russian literature who are convinced that Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940) was not only about the relationship between the Master and Margarita, but was also a social commentary about Soviet politics during the time that Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) was the Soviet premier.  In my article “Absurdity of Reality”7 I mention that some scholars believe that Woland, the devil in Master and Margarita, was actually a representation of Stalin.  The fact that Bulgakov was unable to leave the Soviet Union by order of Joseph Stalin, even though he was very ill, seems to confirm that there is a connection between Stalin and this masterpiece.  Bulgakov died at the age of fifty-one, but he could have possibly lived quite a bit longer if he had been able to go to Paris where the rest of his family (except for his third wife who remained with her husband).  The medicine that Bulgakov needed was not available in the Soviet Union.



    Whether or not you accept the fact that these novels have a secondary theme, it is an interesting idea to ponder.  This will allow the author to express his opinion regarding very important issues while, at the same time, entertaining his readers with an intriguing or entertaining story.  If you have never read these novels, I recommend that you do so.  If you have read them, this will give you a reason to re-read them and examine them as social commentaries.

                                                                 End Notes

1)    The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wizard_of_Oz_(1939_film) (accessed 5/12/12)

2)     Henry M. Littlefield "The Wizard of Oz: Parable on Populism," American Quarterly 16 (1964): 47-58 (quotation on 54); L. Frank Baum, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (Chicago, 1900).

3)     Littlefield, "Parable on Populism," 50, 58.

4)     Richard Jensen The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896 (Chicago, 1971), 282-83.

5)     Brian Attebery The Fantasy Tradition in American Literature: From Irving to Le Guin (Bloomington, 1980), 86-87.

6)     “Gulliver’s Travels: An Altered Perspective” http://www.123helpme.com/gullivers-travels-an-altered-perspective-preview.asp?id=168678 (accessed 5/12/12)

7)     “Absurdity of Reality” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2011/06/absurdity-of-reality.html (accessed 5/12/12)