CC BY
43
УДК 94:82-054.72 ББК 63.3(2):83-284.6
SOME REMARKS ON THE MEMORY OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION
IN É MIGRÉ CULTURE
SVETLANA GARZIANO MARGE, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, 6 cours Albert Thomas, 69008, LYON, France E-mail: [email protected]
The goal of this paper consists of analysing the work of memory in exile around the Russian Revolution, as well as the evolutionary character of the revolutionary memory in émigré culture. The task of the modern researcher therefore is to try to demythologise the Russian Revolution through the horizontal and vertical study of memory in exile. The paper primarily considers émigré works about the Russian revolution coming from France. The author also focuses on émigré critics' opinions on the literary processes occurring in Russian literature after the October Revolution and, by comparing critical essays of different émigré critics, analyses three topics: émigré critics' opinions on the «new» in 20th-century Russian literature, émigré literature's criticism and Soviet literature's criticism. Methods of literary and linguistic analysis were used, along with comparative analysis of texts, a search and sample method of working with cases and an interdisciplinary method. A considerable body of émigré periodical texts was studied. The memory of revolution in exile is examined from two points of view: firstly, according to the geographic criterion, the memory of the Revolution mainly in France, and, secondly, according to the literature theory criterion, traces of revolutionary memory and of its consequences in émigré criticism and poetics.
Key words: Russian Revolution, revolutionary memory, émigré culture, émigré criticism, the principle of the «new» in literature, Soviet literature
НЕКОТОРЫЕ ЗАМЕЧАНИЯ ПО ПОВОДУ ПАМЯТИ О РУССКОЙ РЕВОЛЮЦИИ В КУЛЬТУРЕ ЭМИГРАЦИИ
С.А. ГАРЦИАНО
Научно-исследовательский Центр французского и сравнительного литературоведения MARGE, Лионский Университет им. Жана Мулена, 6 cours Albert Thomas, 69008, LYON, France E-mail: [email protected]
Память о первой волне русской эмиграции (1917-1940 гг.) можно разделить на три составляющие: память о Российской Империи, память о русской революции 1917 года и память о самой эмиграции. Задача современного исследователя заключается в попытке демифологизировать Русскую революцию через культурологические горизонтальные и вертикальные анализы памяти в изгнании. Рассматриваются труды эмигрантов о Русской революции, написанные главным образом во Франции, а также мнения эмигрантских критиков о литературных процессах, происходящих в русской литературе после Октябрьской революции. В результате сравнительного анализа критических эссе разных эмигрантских критиков (К.В. Мочульского, В.В. Вейдле, М.А. Осоргина, Г.В. Иванова, Н.И. Ульянова, С. Черного, Г.В. Адамовича, Д.П. Святополка-Мирского, В.Ф. Ходасевича и др.) обозначены следующие три темы: принцип «нового» в русской литературе с точки зрения эмигрантс-
кой критики; критические замечания, высказанные в изгнании по поводу качества художественной эмигрантской литературы, а также критика советской литературы. С использованием методов литературно-лингвистического анализа, сравнительного метода анализа текстов, поисково-выборочного и междисциплинарного методов изучения исследован значительный корпус текстов эмигрантской и французской периодики, а также публикаций, вышедших за рубежом на русском и французском языках.
Ключевые слова: Русская революция, революционная память, эмигрантская культура, эмигрантская критика, принцип «нового» в литературе, советская литература.
What is the memory of revolution?
The year 2017 marked the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Without entering into discussions concerning commemoration, the Russian Revolution of 1917 is undeniably a historical event of global importance; it would be interesting to approach it, a hundred years later, through two themes: that of memory, and that of exile.
The revolution is a period when collective memory mutates rapidly; it produces a mnemonic 'tabula rasa, a rupture in the chains of memory which allows participants to view the past differently. If we consider the perceptual and mnemonic processes through the space-time perspective, revolutionary action itself is shown to correspond sub specie aeternitatis to an eminently short lapse of time, whereas the act of memory has the capacity to unfold over the course of centuries and fulfils itself in the duration of an extended reflexive space. If we simplify the revolutionary processes from the point of view of mnemonic processes, we can observe that the collective memory in Soviet Russia is founded on the phenomenon of sudden transformation of memories, on loss of memory on the abnegation of old memory and the creation of a new memory based on a monolithic political ideology, whereas life in exile is constructed on the conservation of the precious pre-revolution memory as well as on the multiple ideology within memory.
The revolution is a brutal fracture of the historical process, an abrupt transformation of the collective memory where the mnemonic bearings are abolished, deconstructed, and the revolted population looks to build a new memory founded on a certain ideology and a selection of facts from the past. The problem of memory is linked, in the case of our subject matter, to the singularly traumatic event that is the revolution. The experienced memory becomes a reconstructed, reimagined memory; it is also a form of imagination that associates memories and creates gateways between them in the act of remembering. As well as this, it has the ability to combine, through the imagination, semantic series that are not similar. We can cite an apt quote from Wladimir Weidle's book "Aristaeus's Bees: Essay on the Fate of the Letters and the Arts": "any memory, any inner life, and the very existence of the human person is a part of imagination, in the sense that reason alone cannot insure any degree of certainty"1. Memory creates, invents and rebuilds the past through imagination. It is also the rediscovery and the production of truth, as well as a means of transmission to future generations.
1 Cm.: Weidlé W Les abeilles dAristée. Essai sur le destin actuel des lettres et des arts. Paris: Gallimard, 1954. C. 39 [1].
Memory of the Revolution and É migré Culture
Certain historical facts require more mental rumination than others. The memory of the first wave of Russian emigration (1917-1940) in France and in other countries can mainly be divided into three branches: memory of Imperial Russia, memory of the Russian Revolution of 1917, and memory of Russian emigration itself. The present paper aims to historically commemorate the centenary of the Russian Revolution through the prism of the reconstruction of memory in exile, and in particular in émigré literature.
A Russian joke states that the Russians borrowed two things from the French: the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution. The budding Russian Revolution was indeed immediately compared to the French Revolution throughout Europe, but also served as a model for various socialist revolutions during the 20th Century. Imperial Russia found itself moving towards the first aborted revolution of 1905, the 'Liberal Revolution' in February that lasted only a few months and finally the Communist Revolution, whose regime would be established in the country for over 70 years. The October Revolution of 1917, followed by a civil war between the Reds and the Whites and accompanied by terrible famine that ravaged the country, divided Russian society into two parties: Soviet and Émigré. The Russian emigration was both massive and diverse. A great number of intellectuals managed to go into exile: politicians, scholars, philosophers, artists, lawyers, scientists, soldiers, members of the clergy, etc. The trauma of revolution and forced departure created abundant literature: memoirs, autobiographies, testimonies, novels and historical works. Multiple volumes of archives and chronicles from the Russian Revolution were edited in exile, for example "The Archives of the Russian Revolution in Twenty-Two Volumes"2 edited by Iosif Gessen.
The memory of the revolution in emigration has known surprising transformations throughout a century full of troubles. Memories of the revolution follow the exiled even after they have left the country. Accounts of the revolution are always constructed from memory association; this happens on the paradigmatic axis, where memory selects and actualises 'possibilities', as the discourse advances on the axis of enunciation. In his work "The Unknown Revolution. 1917-1921 "Voline stresses the subjective nature of memory in exile. He claims that the subjectivity specific to the human mind and body can 'contaminate' the course of memory:
In the great vortex of the revolution, a multitude of facts remain lost indefinitely, engulfed by huge crevasses that open and close again at any time. Those living through a revolution, the millions of men who, one way or another, are carried away by the hurricane, alas! care little to note what they have seen, known, thought or experienced for future generations. [...] Depending on whether the writer is a "White',, a "Democrat" a "Socialist" a "Stalinist" or a "Trotskyist" everything changes. Reality itself is shaped to suit the narrator. The more you try to fix it, the less you manage to. The authors consistently ignored facts of the utmost importance if these did not line up with their ideas, interest them, or suit them [3, c. 7].
2 См.: Гессен И.В. Архив русской революции. I-XXII. Берлин: Слово, 1922-1937 [2].
The preservation of reality is produced by the mediation of memory. Memories, always linked to a present sensation of the current body, retain and magnify, transfer and transform the perception of the past, which is never preserved unaltered. The past is constantly transformed by memory, which is a function of life. During the historical or artistic reconstruction of the past, the human mind resorts to mnemonic processes as well as imagination. Far from being a 'sarcophagus', the mind revives memories by recreating and inventing them according to an interpretative, associative and semantic model. In this way, memory shows itself to be an authentically creative faculty. It is a structure that actualises a link between the past and present state. As Bergson remarks in "Matter and Memory" this recognition "implies [...] a more or less powerful consciousness, which searches for pure individual memories within the pure general memory, in order to gradually materialise them through contact with present perception" [4, c. 268]. Two states of consciousness, past and present, interfere with the process of remembering. In "Spiritual Energy','Bergson notes that "all consciousness is memory -conservation and accumulation of the past in the present" [5, c. 818].
The exiled authors synchronise and superimpose events in their memory that belong to different eras and happened in several places. The memory-based literature of the revolution in exile is very well represented by the works of political figures (Georgy Lvov, President of the Provisional Government; Alexander Kerensky, President of the Provisional Government; Pavel Milyukov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government; the memoirs of Vasily Maklakov, Minister of Justice of the Provisional Government and Ambassador for this government in France; "The Revolution Betrayed',' "Literature and Revolution" and "Exile Journal: 1935" by Leon Trotsky; "Contemporary Annals'^an émigréreview of the Socialist Revolutionary Party; Mark Vishniak; Catherine Breshkovsky, "Grandmother of the Russian Revolution"; Grigory Aleksinsky). There is an abundant number of memoirs about soldiers and written by soldiers (the Generals Wrangel, Denikin, Kolchak, Kornilov, Golovin, the revolted Russian regiments of 1917 at "La Courtine"3.) We can cite amongst others, "The Revolution and Bolshevism in Russia"4 (1920) by Nikolai Zvorykin. Boris Mirkin-Getzevich (Mirsky), professor of Russian law in France, wrote several articles on the Russian revolution and a preface for the work of H.D Barbagelata: "The French Revolution and Latin America"5 (1936). A. Prudhomme, M. Freund and V-R. Idelson reflected on the Bolshevik Revolution and the legal status of the Russians (JDI, 1924). The Nansen Passport was created for Russian refugees and stateless people. Intellectuals exiled by Lenin by way of the 'Philosophers' Ship' in 1922 forged their own philosophical conception of the Revolution. All the émigré writers and poets who lived through the revolution describe it in one way or another in their literary texts (e.g. "Cursed Days" (1925-1927) by Ivan Bunin, "My Journal Under the Terror" and "Petrograd: Year 1919" by Zinaida Gippius, "The Sun of the Dead" (1923) by Ivan Shmelyov, "Two Revolutions: The French Revolution and the Russian Revolution" (1921) and "Lenin" (1919) by Mark Landau-Aldanov, "A Dozen Knives in the Back of
3 Cm.: Poitevin IP La mutinerie de La Courtine: les régiments russes révoltés en 1917 au centre de la France. Paris: Payot, 1938 [6].
4 Cm.: Zvorykin N. La révolution et le bolchevisme en Russie. Paris: Perrin, 1920 [7].
5 Cm.: Barbagelata H.D. La Révolution française et lAmérique latine. Paris: Sirey, 1936 [8].
126
CoAoebëecKue uccnedoeaHun. BbmycK 3(55) 2017
the Revolution" (1928) by Arkady Averchenko, "The Revolution behind the Door" by Yury Annenkov, "Seasons" by Mikhail Osorgin, "An Epilogue of Vendée" by Boris Zajtzev). Émigré writers created diverse metaphors of the revolution in their poetic and critical work. The associative shift in meaning and the transfer of connections suggests a metamorphosis of memories in the mind.
The spectre of exile includes exiles from the Russian empire and bordering countries, as well as their circle in their adoptive countries. Exile brings about multilingual writing; memorial writing on the Russian Revolution has been presented in many languages: naturally in Russian, but also in the languages of multiple adoptive countries (e.g. a bibliography of the texts in translation or written directly in French in Leonid Livak's "Russian Émigrés in the Intellectual and Literary Life of Interwar France: A Bibliographical Essay"6, 2010). In the 20's and 30's of the 20th century, the Payot editions publish in French a number of memoirs by politicians, military men, grand dukes and noble Russian émigrés (e.g. "The Russian Revolution 1917" (1928)7, "The Kerensky Experience" (1936)8 and "The Truth About the Romanov Massacre" (1936)9 by Kerensky), historical novels (e.g. "From the Imperial Eagle to the Red Flag"10 by Platon Krasnov) and investigations ("The Fall of the Tsarist Regime. Interrogations of Ministers, Advisors, Generals, Senior Civil Servants of the Imperial Russian Court by the Extraordinary Commission of the 1917 Provisional Government" (1927)11, "Inquest into the Assassination of the Imperial Russian Family: with Proofs, Interrogations and the Depositions of the Witnesses and the Accused" (1924)12 by NikolaïSokolov). Foreign writers who originated from the Russian Empire also treat the memory of the Revolution (Joseph Kessel, Irène Némirovsky, Gabriel Arout, Elsa Triolet, Vladimir Pozner, Henri Troyat, Nathalie Sarraute, Alain Bosquet, George Govy, Romain Gary, Jacques Serguine, Moacyr Jaime Scliar, etc.). "Nicholas II" by Henri Troyat or "October Harvest" by Joseph Kessel serve as examples of this phenomenon.
The study of the problem can be multi-faceted: what fractures and reconstructions of memory happen in the mind of the Russian émigré? How are imminent revolutionary figures perceived in émigré written works (Lenin, Stalin, Mayakovsky, Gorky, etc.)? How does the young émigré generation approach the theme of revolution? Can we speak of a semantic unity in the memory of the revolution? How should we think of or write about the memory of the revolution in émigré literature? How do émigré periodicals treat the question of revolutionary memory over the years? We will try to answer some of these questions from the perspective of émigré criticism.
6 Cm.: Livak L. Russian Émigrés in the Intellectual and Literary Life of Interwar France: A Bibliographical Essay. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2010 [9].
7 Cm.: Kerenski A. La révolution russe 1917. Paris: Payot, 1928 [10].
8 Cm.: Kerenski A. l'expérience Kerenski. Paris: Payot, 1936 [11].
9 Cm.: Kerenski A. La vérité sur le massacre des Romanov. Paris: Payot, 1936 [12].
10 Cm.: Krasnov P. De l'aigle impérial au drapeau rouge. Paris: Payot, 1926 [13].
11 Cm.: La chute du régime tsariste. Interrogatoires des ministres, conseillers, généraux, hauts fonctionnaires de la cour impériale russe par la commission extraordinaire du gouvernement provisoire de 1917. Préface de Vassili Maklakoff. Paris: Payot, 1927 [14].
12 Cm.: Sokolov N. Enquête judiciaire sur l'assassinat de la famille impériale russe: avec les preuves, les interrogatoires et les dépositions des témoins et des accusés. Paris: Payot, 1924 [15].
É migré criticism
The era of emigration is also a good time for new ideas and new approaches in literary theory. From 1917 onwards, Russian literature divided into two separate entities, which, although independent from each other, were still fundamentally linked. Many have reflected on the causes and consequences of this unprecedented literary split.
A brief look at the critical writings of emigration suffices to see that authors have a certain fixation on what was happening in the Soviet Union and especially on the literature generated by its regime. It is as if this helped them to understand and conceptualise their own status as it changed into an existential position. The reasons and consequences of émigré critics returning to this theme with such remarkable consistency must be considered.
The principle of the "new" in literature viewed by émigré critics
In the article "A new prose" ["Новая проза"] published in 1926 in The Link [Звено], Konstantin Mochulsky wonders if a new prose is scientifically untenable and gives the Marxist perspective that literature depends on the economic organization of society; a reorganization of this structure brought on by the revolution always generates a new literature. This theory does not convince émigré thinkers13.
Wladimir Weidle's "Old and new in Twentieth-Century Russian Literature" ["Традиционное и новое в русской литературе двадцатого века"] characterises the emigrant literature in 1972. Fifty years of existence give more clarity and methodological hindsight in critical thinking focused on the semantic union of two literatures: Soviet and émigré. According to the critic, these two literatures have to be analysed and interpreted as a whole, one giving its reason for existence to the other14.
Osorgin does not agree with Gazdanov's attitude vis-à-vis émigré literature and presents the intransigent position that emigrant thinkers take towards Soviet literature and vice versa in his article "About «young writers»" ["O «молодых писателях»"] published in Contemporary papers [Современные записки, 1924, No. 19]. According to him, the process of decline in the art is the same for both literatures and corresponds to aesthetic phenomena occurring in international literature. Weidle proposed that the split into two literatures occurred gradually, starting with the October Revolution. By Mayakovsky's death, two Russian literatures were established15.
The theme of the old and the new often appears in the pages of emigrant criticism. New values are founded on traditions and cultural heritage, and therefore it is often difficult to discern them in the present day.
13 См.: Мочульский К.В. Новая проза // Критика русского зарубежья II. М.: Олимп. Библиотека русской критики, 2002. С. 18-19 [16].
14 См.: Вейдле В.В. Традиционное и новое в русской литературе двадцатого века // Русская литература в эмиграции / под ред. Н.П. Полторацкого. Питтсбург, 1972. С. 7-12 [17].
15 См.: Осоргин М.А. О «молодых писателях» // Критика русского зарубежья I. М.: Олимп. Библиотека русской критики, 2002. С. 141-142 [18].
É migré literature's criticism
In general, émigrécritics find fault in Soviet literature and criticism of the opposite side, "their" side, is rare but still exists. In the essay "Without readers" ["Без читателя"] published in Numbers [Числа] in 1931, Georgy Ivanov notes the "triumph of virtue" in emigration16. In the article "Leskov's grandchildren" ["Внуки Лескова"] published in 1952 in Renaissance [Возрождение], Nicholas Ulyanov speaks of social order in emigration. His ideas resemble those of Georgy Ivanov17.
In the article "«A rose of Jericho»" ["«Роза Иерихона»"] published in Russian newspaper [Русская газета] in 1924, Sasha Chorny shows how Soviet literature functions and the beginning of this article demonstrates typological similarities with Nabokov's "Triumph of Virtue" ["Торжество добродетели" The Helm [Руль], 1930]18. Sasha Chorny's demonstration includes a ternary character. Thesis: Soviet literature is bad; antithesis: the defects of émigré literature are obvious; summary: Bunin, thanks to his literary gift, is above the decline observed in Soviet and émigré arts19. Examining the literary situation of the time in the article "Bryusov's «experiences»" ["«Опыты «Брюсова»"] published in Russian newspaper in 1925, Sasha Chorny considers that the true artists emigrated after the October Revolution and remained faithful to the artistic credo, without replacing it with a servile attitude to a state ideology20.
Khodasevich, at the beginning of his article "Literature in exile" ["Литература в изгнании"] published in 1933 in Renaissance, finds that the two literatures are facing different problems, but that the consequences arising from these problems lead to the same results for both literatures. According to Khodasevich, émigré artistic work is full of connotations that are not related to art21.
These examples show that the émigrécritics are critical not only of Soviet literature, but also of their own literature in exile.
Soviet literature's criticism
In the essay "In Memory of Soviet literature" ["Памяти советской литературы"], Georgy Adamovich indicates that the concept of the creative personality was destroyed in the Soviet Union, drawing a contrast between the few remaining authentic authors who defend freedom of creation and the majority of mediocre writers accommodating the Soviet regime22.
16 См.: Иванов ГВ. Без читателя // Числа. Париж, 1931. № 5. С. 150-151 [19].
17 См.: Шварц-Омонский Н. Внуки Лескова // Возрождение. Париж, 1952, июль-август. № 22. С. 164 [20].
18 См.: Набоков В.В. Торжество добродетели // Собрание сочинений русского периода в 5 т. Т. 2. СПб.: Симпозиум, 2001. С. 683-688 [21].
19 См.: Черный С. «Роза Иерихона» // Критика русского зарубежья I. М.: Олимп. Библиотека русской критики, 2002. С. 173-174 [22].
20 См.: Черный С. «Опыты» Брюсова // Критика русского зарубежья I. М.: Олимп. Библиотека русской критики, 2002. С. 179 [23].
21 См.: Ходасевич В.Ф. Литература в изгнании // Критика русского зарубежья I. М.: Олимп. Библиотека русской критики, 2002. С. 339-341 [24].
22 См.: Адамович ГВ. Памяти советской литературы // Русские записки. Париж, 1937. № 2. С. 208 [25].
Khodasevich is of the same mind as Adamovich on this point. In the article "On the topic of Soviet literature" ["О советской литературе"] published in 1938 in Renaissance, Vladislav Khodasevich criticises literary production in the Soviet Union, resorting to metaphors from the religious and mathematical fields. Khodasevich follows the logic that the writer's freedom to see the world is an axiom, and that this axiom should be applied to Soviet literature. Despite aesthetic differences, émigrécritics should be interested in and study their opponent. But according to Khodasevich this idea is nonsensical as critics have nothing left to study23.
Emigration also reflects on the role of the critic in the interpretation of historical events that influence artistic production. In the article "On the current state of Russian literature" ["О нынешнем состоянии русской литературы"] published in 1926 in The Person with good intentions [Благонамеренный], Svyatopolk-Mirsky says that the critic must detach from his experience and principles and try to understand artistic phenomena from the inside, with its internal logic24. In another article, Svyatopolk-Mirsky differentiates Moscows' poets from St. Petersburg's poets. Muscovite poets feel they are a part of Bolshevism, while poets from St. Petersburg do not belong to it. Even if they are under the yoke of Bolshevism, continues Svyatopolk-Mirsky, their status of sacred poet allows them to see the phenomenon as a whole from above; they can take enough distance from Bolshevism to remain objective. Svyatopolk-Mirsky proposes a more nuanced view of Soviet literature25.
The authors define themselves by comparing their work to Soviet literature. We can find numerous examples of various articles, book reviews, chronicles, literary chronicles and bibliographies in émigréperiodicals. Numerous reviews of Soviet books prove that émigré critics diligently read the literature produced after the October Revolution.
Conclusion
The same historical event, when subjected to deforming and transforming effects in the realm of memory, is perceived as either positive or negative depending on epochs. In conclusion, we can say that literary debates on uniqueness / duality after the revolution were reviving in exile in the 20-30s and reached their peak at the end of the 30s, coinciding with the celebration of the 150th anniversary of Pushkin's death, as well as the 20th anniversary of 1917 (e.g. Adamovich's essay "Twenty years" in The Latest News [Последние новости], 1937). Since 1945, émigré and Soviet literature have been increasingly considered as one. Despite the various ethical and political opinions expressed in emigration, émigré critics all pursued similar aesthetic purposes in the development of Russian literature, namely, conservation and renovation of artistic poetic text.
23 См.: Ходасевич В.Ф. О советской литературе // Ходасевич В.Ф. Собрание сочинений в 4 т. Т. 2. М.: Согласие, 1996. С. 421-425 [26].
24 См.: Святополк-Мирский Д.П. О нынешнем состоянии русской литературы // Благонамеренный. Брюссель, 1926, январь-февраль. № 1. С. 90-97 [27].
25 См.: Святополк-Мирский Д.П. О современном состоянии русской поэзии // Новый журнал. Нью-Йорк, 1978. № 131. С. 105 [28].
In this paper, we examined the memory of revolution in exile from two points of view: firstly, according to the geographic criterion, the memory of the Revolution in France, and, secondly, according to the literature theory criterion, traces of revolutionary memory and of its consequences in émigré criticism and poetics. But, to our mind, the memory of the Russian revolution in exile is a vast field of research that must be restudied, a hundred years after the facts, from different points of view and in various disciplines.
Список литературы
1. WeidléW Les abeilles dAristée. Essai sur le destin actuel des lettres et des arts. Paris: Gallimard, 1954. 346 с.
2. Гессен И.В. Архив русской революции. I-XXII. Берлин: Слово, 1922-1937.
3. Voline V La révolution inconnue. 1917-1921. Paris: Belfond, 1947. 432 с.
4. Bergson H. Matière et mémoire. Paris: Quadrige/PUF 2004. 281 c.
5. Bergson H. L énergie spirituelle // Œuvres. Paris: Quadrige/PUF, 1963. C. 813-977.
6. Poitevin P. La mutinerie de La Courtine: les régiments russes révoltés en 1917 au centre de la France. Paris: Payot, 1938. 200 с.
7. Zvorykin N. La révolution et le bolchevisme en Russie. Paris: Perrin, 1920. 310 с.
8. Barbagelata H.D. La Révolution française et lAmérique latine. Paris: Sirey, 1936. 84 с.
9. Livak L. Russian Émigrés in the Intellectual and Literary Life of Interwar France: A Bibliographical Essay. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2010. 542 с.
10. Kerenski A. La révolution russe 1917. Paris: Payot, 1928. 399 с.
11. Kerenski A. L'expérience Kerenski. Paris: Payot, 1936. 184 с.
12. Kerenski A. La vérité sur le massacre des Romanov. Paris: Payot, 1936. 274 с.
13. Krasnov P De l'aigle impérial au drapeau rouge. Paris: Payot, 1926. 655 с.
14. La chute du régime tsariste. Interrogatoires des ministres, conseillers, généraux, hauts fonctionnaires de la cour impériale russe par la commission extraordinaire du gouvernement provisoire de 1917. Préface de Vassili Maklakoff. Paris: Payot, 1927. 277 с.
15. Sokolov N. Enquête judiciaire sur l'assassinat de la famille impériale russe: avec les preuves, les interrogatoires et les dépositions des témoins et des accusés. Paris: Payot, 1924. 343 с.
16. Мочульский К.В. Новая проза // Критика русского зарубежья II. М.: Олимп. Библиотека русской критики, 2002. С. 18-21.
17. Вейдле В.В. Традиционное и новое в русской литературе двадцатого века // Русская литература в эмиграции / под ред. Н.П. Полторацкого. Питтсбург, 1972. С. 7-12.
18. Осоргин М.А. O «молодых писателях» // Критика русского зарубежья I. М.: Олимп. Библиотека русской критики, 2002. С. 139-142.
19. Иванов Г.В. Без читателя // Числа. Париж, 1931. № 5. С. 148-152.
20. Шварц-Омонский Н. Внуки Лескова // Возрождение. Париж, 1952, июль-август. № 22. С. 159-171.
21. Набоков В.В. Торжество добродетели // Собрание сочинений русского периода в пяти томах. Т. 2. СПб.: Симпозиум, 2001. С. 683-688.
22. Черный С. «Роза Иерихона» // Критика русского зарубежья I. М.: Олимп. Библиотека русской критики, 2002. С. 173-178.
23. Черный С. «Опыты» Брюсова // Критика русского зарубежья I. М.: Олимп. Библиотека русской критики, 2002. С. 178-182.
24. Ходасевич В.Ф. Литература в изгнании // Критика русского зарубежья I. М.: Олимп. Библиотека русской критики, 2002. С. 339-352.
25. Адамович ГВ. Памяти советской литературы // Русские записки. Париж, 1937. № 2. С. 206-213.
26. Ходасевич В.Ф. О советской литературе // Собрание сочинений в 4 т. Т. 2. М.: Согласие, 1996. С. 419-425.
27. Святополк-Мирский Д.П. О нынешнем состоянии русской литературы // Благонамеренный. Брюссель, 1926, январь-февраль. № 1. С. 90-97.
28. Святополк-Мирский Д.П. О современном состоянии русской поэзии // Новый журнал. Нью-Йорк, 1978. № 131. С. 79-110.
References
1. Weidlé, W Les abeilles dAristée. Essai sur le destin actuel des lettres et des arts [Aristaeus's Bees: Essay on the Fate of the Letters and the Arts]. Paris: Gallimard, 1954. 346 p.
2. Gessen, I.V. Arkhiv russkoy revolyutsii. I-XXII [The Archives of the Russian Revolution in Twenty-Two Volumes]. Berlin: Slovo, 1922-1937
3. Voline, V La révolution inconnue. 1917-1921 [The Unknown Revolution. 1917-1921]. Paris: Belfond, 1947. 432 p.
4. Bergson, H. Matière et mémoire [Matter and Memory]. Paris: Quadrige/PUF, 2004. 281 p.
5. Bergson, H. L énergie spirituelle [Mind-energy], in Œuvres [Works]. Paris: Quadrige/PUF 1963, рp. 813-977.
6. Poitevin, P. La mutinerie de La Courtine: les régiments russes révoltés en 1917 au centre de la France [The revolted Russian regiments of 1917 at «La Courtine»]. Paris: Payot, 1938. 200 p.
7. Zvorykin, N. La révolution et le bolchevisme en Russie [The Revolution and Bolshevism in Russia]. Paris: Perrin, 1920. 310 p.
8. Barbagelata, H.D. La Révolution française et lAmérique latine [The French Revolution and Latin America]. Paris: Sirey, 1936. 84 p.
9. Livak, L. Russian Émigrés in the Intellectual and Literary Life of Interwar France: A Bibliographical Essay. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2010. 542 p.
10. Kerenski, A. La révolution russe 1917 [The Russian Revolution 1917]. Paris: Payot, 1928. 399 p.
11. Kerenski, A. L'expérience Kerenski [The Kerensky Experience]. Paris: Payot, 1936. 184 p.
12. Kerenski, A. La vérité sur le massacre des Romanov [The Truth About the Romanov Massacre]. Paris: Payot, 1936. 274 p.
13. Krasnov, P De l'aigle impérial au drapeau rouge [From the Imperial Eagle to the Red Flag]. Paris: Payot, 1926. 655 p.
14. La chute du régime tsariste. Interrogatoires des ministres, conseillers, généraux, hauts fonctionnaires de la cour impériale russe par la commission extraordinaire du gouvernement provisoire de 1917. Préface de Vassili Maklakoff [The Fall of the Tsarist Regime. Interrogations of Ministers, Advisors, Generals, Senior Civil Servants of the Imperial Russian Court by the Extraordinary Commission of the 1917 Provisional Government. Preface by Vassili Maklakoff]. Paris: Payot, 1927 277 p.
15. Sokolov, N. Enquête judiciaire sur l'assassinat de la famille impériale russe: avec les preuves, les interrogatoires et les dépositions des témoins et des accusés [Inquest into the Assassination of the Imperial Russian Family: with Proofs, Interrogations and the Depositions of the Witnesses and the Accused]. Paris: Payot, 1924. 343 p.
16. Mochul'skiy, K.V Novaya proza [A new prose], in Kritika russkogo zarubezh'yaII[Criticism of the Russian Emigration II]. Moscow: Olimp. Biblioteka russkoy kritiki, 2002, pp. 18-21.
17. Veydle, VV Traditsionnoe i novoe v russkoy literature dvadtsatogo veka [Old and new in Twentieth-Century Russian Literature], in Russkaya literatura vemigratsii [Russian literature in exile]. Pittsburg, 1972, pp. 7-12.
18. Osorgin, M.A. O «molodykh pisatelyakh» [About «young writers»], in Kritika russkogo zarubezh'ya I [Criticism of the Russian Emigration I]. Moscow: Olimp. Biblioteka russkoy kritiki, 2002, pp. 139-142.
19. Ivanov, G.V Bez chitatelya [Without readers], in Chisla [Numbers]. Paris, 1931, no. 5, pp. 148-152.
20. Shvarts-Omonskiy, N. Vnuki Leskova [Leskov's grandchildren], in Vozrozhdenie [Renaissance]. Paris, 1952, iyul'-avgust, no. 22, pp. 159-171.
21. Nabokov, VVTorzhestvo dobrodeteli [Triumph of Virtue], in Sobraniesochineniy russkogo perioda v5t., t. 2 [Collected works of the Russian period in 5 vol., vol. 2]. Saint-Petersburg: Simpozium, 2001, pp. 683-688.
22. Chernyy, S. «Roza Ierikhona» [«A rose of Jericho»], in Kritika russkogo zarubezh'ya I [Criticism of the Russian Emigration I]. Moscow: Olimp. Biblioteka russkoy kritiki, 2002, pp. 173-178.
23. Chernyy, S. «Opyty» Bryusova [Brjusov's «experiences»], in Kritika russkogo zarubezh'ya I [Criticism of the Russian Emigration I]. Moscow: Olimp. Biblioteka russkoy kritiki, 2002, pp. 178-182.
24. Khodasevich, VF Literatura v izgnanii [Literature in exile], in Kritika russkogo zarubezh'ya I [Criticism of the Russian Emigration I]. Moscow: Olimp. Biblioteka russkoy kritiki, 2002, pp. 339-352.
25. Adamovich, G.V. Pamyati sovetskoy literatury [In Memory of Soviet literature], in Russkie zapiski [Russian Annals]. Paris, 1937, no. 2, pp. 206-213.
26. Khodasevich, VF O sovetskoy literature [On the topic of Soviet literature], in Khodasevich, VF Sobranie sochineniy v 41., t. 2 [Collected works in 4 vol., vol. 2]. Moscow: Soglasie, 1996, pp. 419-425.
27. Svyatopolk-Mirskiy, D.P O nyneshnem sostoyanii russkoy literatury [On the current state of Russian literature], in Blagonamerennyy [The Person with good intentions]. BryusseP, 1926, yanvar'-fevraP, no. 1, pp. 90-97.
28. Svyatopolk-Mirskiy, D.P! O sovremennom sostoyanii russkoy poezii [On the contemporary state of Russian literature], in Novyy zhurnal, 1978, no. 131, pp. 79-110.
РЕФЕРАТ
Память о первой волне русской эмиграции (1917-1940 гг.) зарубежом можно разделить на три составляющие: память о Российской Империи, память о русской революции 1917 года и память о самой эмиграции. Настоящая статья посвящена столетию русской революции, а именно памяти о ней в русской эмиграции.
Русская революция 1917 года сравнивалась с Великой Французской революцией, а также послужила моделью для различных социалистических революций в XX веке. Российская Империя оказалась на пороге первой неудавшейся революции в 1905 году, затем последовала либеральная революция в феврале 1917 года, которая длилась всего несколько месяцев, и, наконец, совершилась социалистическая революция, режим которой был установлен в стране уже более чем на 70 лет. Октябрьская революция, сопровождаемая гражданской войной между Красной Армией и Белой Гвардией, разделила российское общество на две части: советскую и эмигрантскую.
Многие интеллектуальные деятели покинули страну: политики, ученые, философы, писатели, художники, артисты, военные, духовенство и т. д. Созданный революцией исторический перелом и вынужденный отъезд из страны большей части ее интеллигенции повлиял на создание в изгнании литературы «человеческого документа»: мемуаров, автобиографий, воспоминаний, дневников, свидетельств, исторических романов. Многочисленные архивы и хроники русской революции были созданы в эмиграции (например, «Архивы русской революции в двадцати двух томах» под редакцией И.В. Гессена).
В своей работе «Неизвестная революция. 1917-1921» В.М. Волин подчеркивает субъективную природу памяти в изгнании. Он утверждает, что субъективность, присущая человеческим воспоминаниям, может изменить ход исторической памяти.
Авторы-эмигранты в своих воспоминаниях синхронизируют и накладывают исторические и персональные события, принадлежащие разным эпохам и происходящие в разных местах, друг на друга. Тема революции и гражданской войны в эмигрантской мемуаристике очень хорошо представлена работами политических (Г.Е. Львов, А.Ф. Керенский, П.Н. Милюков, В.А. Маклаков, Л.Д. Троцкий, журнал «Современные записки» и др.) и военных деятелей (Врангель, Деникин, Колчак, Корнилов, Головин и т.д.). Б.С. Миркин-Гецевич (Мирс-кий), профессор российсского права во Франции, написал несколько статей о русской революции и предисловие к работе Г.Д. Барбагелаты «Французская революция и Латинская Америка» (1936 г.). Западноевропейские юристы размышляли о большевистской революции и правовом статусе российских эмигрантов. Нансенский паспорт был создан именно для российских беженцев и лиц без гражданства. Видные русские философы, высланные Лениным в Западную Европу на «философском» корабле в 1922 году, выработали собственную философскую концепцию революции. Все эмигрантские писатели и поэты, пережившие революцию, так или иначе описывают ее в своих литературных текстах (И.А. Бунин «Окаянные дни» (1925-1927 гг.), дневники З.Н. Гиппиус, И.С. Шмелев «Солнце мертвых» (1923 г.), М.А. Алданов «Две революции: революция французская и революция русская» (1921 г.) и «Ленин» (1919 г.), А. Аверченко «Дюжина ножей в спину революции» (1928), М.А. Осоргин «Времена», Б.К. Зайцев «Ван-дейский эпилог» и т.д.). В своих поэтических и критических работах эмигрантские писатели используют разнообразные метафоры, символизирующие русскую революцию.
Изгнание приводит русских авторов к многоязычному выражению. Эмигрантская мемуаристика о русской революции представлена на многих языках: в первую очередь, на русском языке, но также и на языках стран, принявших изгнанников. Ярким примером этого является библиография текстов, появившихся в переводе или написанных непосредственно на французском языке, в книге Леонида Ливака «Русские эмигранты в интеллектуальной и литературной жизни межвоенной Франции: библиографический очерк», вышедшей в 2010 году. В 20-х и 30-х годах ХХ века французское издательство «Пайо» публикует на французском языке ряд мемуаров эмигрантских политиков, военных, великих князей и русских эмигрантов, принадлежащих к аристократическим кругам (например, «Русская революция 1917 года» (1928 г.), «Опыт Керенского» (1936 г.) и «Правда об убийстве Романовых» (1936 г.) Керенского), исторические романы (например, «От Двуглавого Орла к красному знамени» П.Н. Краснова) и исследования («Следственные материалы об убийстве Российской императорской семьи: с уликами, допросами и показаниями свидетелей и подсудимых» (1924 г.) Н.А. Соколова). Зарубежные писатели, бывшие родом из Российской Империи, также обращаются к этой теме в своих произведениях (Ж. Кессель, И. Немировски, Г. Ару, Э. Триоле, В. Познер, А. Троая, Н. Саррот, А. Боске, Ж. Гови, Р. Гари, Ж. Сергин, М.Х. Скляр и т. д.).
«Николай II» А. Троая или «Октябрьский урожай» Ж. Кесселя служат наглядными примерами этого литературного явления.
Тема единственности/двойственности русской литературы XX века не новая. Она занимала умы в процессе становления данного феномена после революционного 1917 года, а также и в последующие десятилетия. Русская эмиграция и ее исследователи не могли обойти эту тему. Вопрос о единственности/двойственности приводит нас еще к одному вопросу - о семантической целостности литературы русской эмиграции. Эпоха 1918-1940 годов - это противостояние двух литератур, до этого периода и после зарубежная литература на русском языке является дополнением к литературе метрополии.
1917 год и последующие годы разделили, первый раз в истории, русскую литературу на две самоцелостные, но в то же время друг от друга зависящие составляющие. Это разделение вызвало, в особенности в эмиграции, волну размышлений о причинах и последствиях этого литературного феномена. Различные точки зрения на единственность/двойственность литературных процессов в русской культуре XX века стали предметом нашего исследования первой волны русской эмиграции. Эта эпоха явилась благоприятным периодом для новых идей и подходов в теории литературы. Первая волна русской эмиграции представляет собой уникальный очаг русской литературы, похожий по своей сущности на период Серебряного века. Серебряный век - это «до», это устремления, чаяния, ожидание Революции. Эмиграция - это «после», это переживание и осознание русской революции, а также этическое и эстетическое подведение ее итогов.
Вопрос о разделении русской литературы в период первой волны русской эмиграции постоянно возникал у ее представителей. Ведущие литературные критики эмиграции В.Ф. Ходасевич и ГВ. Адамович пишут статьи отдельно об эмигрантской и советской литературе. Кроме того, нами исследуются такие темы, как: принцип «нового» в русской литературе с точки зрения эмигрантской критики, критика эмигрантской литературы и критика советской литературы. В статье сравниваются критические статьи и эссе следующих авторов: К.В. Мо-чульского, В.В. Вейдле, М.А. Осоргина, ГВ. Иванова, Н.И. Ульянова, С. Черного, Г.В. Адамовича, Д.П. Святополка-Мирского, В.Ф. Ходасевича.
