Иосиф Бродский и Варлам Шаламов: межтекстовые сближения

Скачать:

PDF

Для цитирования:

Шунейко А.А., Чибисова О.В. Иосиф Бродский и Варлам Шаламов: межтекстовые сближения // Studia Litterarum. 2022. Т. 7, № 2. С. 204–219. https://doi.org/10.22455/2500-4247-2022-7-2-204-219 

Автор: Шунейко А.А.
Сведения об авторе:

Александр Альфредович Шунейко — доктор филологических наук, доцент, профессор, Комсомольский-на-Амуре государственный университет, ул. Ленина, д. 27, 681013 г. Комсомольск-на-Амуре, Россия.

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5467-2214

E-mail: Адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. Для просмотра адреса в вашем браузере должен быть включен Javascript. 

Автор 2: Чибисова О.В.
Сведения об авторе 2:

Ольга Владимировна Чибисова — кандидат культурологии, доцент, Комсомольский-на- Амуре государственный университет, ул. Ленина, д. 27, 681013 г. Комсомольск- на-Амуре, Россия.

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2709-2465

E-mail: Адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. Для просмотра адреса в вашем браузере должен быть включен Javascript. 

Дата поступления: 26 ноября 2020 г.
Дата публикации: 25 июня 2022 г.
Номер журнала: 2022 Том 7, №2
Рубрика: Русская литература
Страницы: 204–219
DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22455/2500-4247-2022-7-2-204-219 

EDN:

https://elibrary.ru/DLZYNA 

Индекс УДК: 821.161.1.0
Индекс ББК: 83.3 (2Рос=Рус)52
Ключевые слова: Варлам Шаламов, Иосиф Бродский, интертекстуальные связи, семантика текста, творческая рецепция.

Аннотация:

Предметом статьи являются интертекстуальные связи между художественными текстами В. Шаламова и И. Бродского. Анализируются научные исследования взаимоотношений обоих литераторов, обосновывается вероятность знакомства Бродского с творчеством Шаламова. Цель работы заключается в доказательстве того, что переклички различных текстов Шаламова и Бродского не являются случайными совпадениями. Выявлено, что три стихотворения Бродского — «Осенний крик ястреба», «Представление» и «Тихотворение мое, мое немое…» — содержат отсылки к написанным ранее стихотворениям Шаламова. Сделано несколько выводов о типе координации между художественными мирами Бродского и Шаламова. Бродский обращается к наследию Шаламова при трансляции принципиально важных для него содержательных характеристик внешнего и внутреннего мира. В то же время тексты Шаламова для Бродского — только малая часть аккумулируемой им отечественной поэтической традиции. Бродский использует поэтический голос Шаламова, чтобы подчеркнуть осведомленность и преемственность и противопоставить на базе этого единства свою эстетическую позицию.

Полный текст (HTML)

 

 

Studia Litterarum /2022 том 7, № 2 204 ИОСИФ БРОДСКИЙ И ВАРЛАМ ШАЛАМОВ: МЕЖТЕКСТОВЫЕ СБЛИЖЕНИЯ © 2022 г. А.А. Шунейко, О.В. Чибисова Комсомольский-на-Амуре государственный университет, Комсомольск-на-Амуре, Россия Дата поступления статьи: 26 ноября 2020 г. Дата одобрения рецензентами: 03 апреля 2021 г. Дата публикации: 25 июня 2022 г. https://doi.org/10.22455/2500-4247-2022-7-2-204-219 Аннотация: Предметом статьи являются интертекстуальные связи между художественными текстами В. Шаламова и И. Бродского. Анализируются научные исследования взаимоотношений обоих литераторов, обосновывается вероятность знакомства Бродского с творчеством Шаламова. Цель работы заключается в доказательстве того, что переклички различных текстов Шаламова и Бродского не являются случайными совпадениями. Выявлено, что три стихотворения Бродского — «Осенний крик ястреба», «Представление» и «Тихотворение мое, мое немое…» — содержат отсылки к написанным ранее стихотворениям Шаламова. Сделано несколько выводов о типе координации между художественными мирами Бродского и Шаламова. Бродский обращается к наследию Шаламова при трансляции принципиально важных для него содержательных характеристик внешнего и внутреннего мира. В то же время тексты Шаламова для Бродского — только малая часть аккумулируемой им отечественной поэтической традиции. Бродский использует поэтический голос Шаламова, чтобы подчеркнуть осведомленность и преемственность и противопоставить на базе этого единства свою эстетическую позицию. Ключевые слова: Варлам Шаламов, Иосиф Бродский, интертекстуальные связи, семантика текста, творческая рецепция. Информация об авторах: Александр Альфредович Шунейко — доктор филологических наук, доцент, профессор, Комсомольский-на-Амуре государственный университет, ул. Ленина, д. 27, 681013 г. Комсомольск-на-Амуре, Россия. ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5467-2214 E-mail: Адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. Для просмотра адреса в вашем браузере должен быть включен Javascript. Ольга Владимировна Чибисова — кандидат культурологии, доцент, Комсомольский-на- Амуре государственный университет, ул. Ленина, д. 27, 681013 г. Комсомольск- на-Амуре, Россия. ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2709-2465 E-mail: Адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. Для просмотра адреса в вашем браузере должен быть включен Javascript. Для цитирования: Шунейко А.А., Чибисова О.В. Иосиф Бродский и Варлам Шаламов: межтекстовые сближения // Studia Litterarum. 2022. Т. 7, № 2. С. 204–219. https://doi.org/10.22455/2500-4247-2022-7-2-204-219 Научная статья / Research Article https://elibrary.ru/DLZYNA УДК 821.161.1.0 ББК 83.3 (2Рос=Рус)52 Русская литература / А.А. Шунейко, О.В. Чибисова 205 JOSEPH BRODSKY AND VARLAM SHALAMOV: INTERTEXTUAL CONVERGENCES © 2022. Alexander A. Shuneyko, Olga V. Chibisova Komsomolsk-na-Amure State University, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Russia Received: November 26, 2020 Approved after reviewing: April 03, 2021 Date of publication: June 25, 2022 Abstract: The subject of the article is the intertextual connections between the literary texts of V. Shalamov and J. Brodsky. The paper analyzes scientific researches on the relationships of both writers, substantiates the likelihood of Brodsky’s actual acquaintance with Shalamov’s work. The aim of the article is to prove that the overlap between the various texts of Shalamov and Brodsky is not a random coincidence. It was established that three of Brodsky’s poems “Osenniy krik yastreba,” “Predstavleniye” and “Tikhotvoreniye moye, moye nemoye…” contain references to previously written poems by Shalamov. There were drawn several assumptions about the type of coordination between the artistic worlds of Brodsky and Shalamov. Brodsky refers to the legacy of Shalamov when broadcasting the substantive characteristics of the external and internal world that are fundamentally important for him. At the same time, Shalamov’s texts for Brodsky are only a small part of the national poetic tradition accumulated by him. Brodsky uses Shalamov’s poetic voice to emphasize awareness and continuity and to contrast his aesthetic position on the basis of this unity. Keywords: Varlam Shalamov, Joseph Brodsky, intertextual connections, text semantics, creative reception. Information about the authors: Alexander A. Shuneyko, DSc in Philology, Associate Professor, Professor, Komsomolsk-na- Amure State University, 27 Lenin Str., 681013 Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Russia. ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5467-2214 E-mail: Адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. Для просмотра адреса в вашем браузере должен быть включен Javascript. Olga V. Chibisova, PhD in Cultural Studies, Associate Professor, Komsomolsk-na-Amure State University, 27 Lenin Str., 681013 Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Russia. ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2709-2465 E-mail: Адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. Для просмотра адреса в вашем браузере должен быть включен Javascript. For citation: Shuneyko, А.А., Chibisova, О.V. “Joseph Brodsky and Varlam Shalamov: Intertextual Convergences.” Studia Litterarum, vol. 7, no. 2, 2022, pp. 204–219. (In English) https://doi.org/10.22455/2500-4247-2022-7-2-204-219 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Studia Litterarum, vol. 7, no. 2, 2022 Studia Litterarum /2022 том 7, № 2 206 The names of Joseph Brodsky and Varlam Shalamov are often found written in close proximity to each other. But these convergences are of a different nature and far from equivalent. There are three types of them. In the first case, Brodsky and Shalamov are perceived as units of a whole (literature, its period or direction), where, in addition to them, dozens or even hundreds of names are presented. In the second case, a specific similarity is established between writers in one respect or another. The third explores real unity at the textual level. Mentions of the first type fix the stages of a literary process. Along with N.V. Gogol, F.M. Dostoevsky, A. Blok, A. Akhmatova, I. Brodsky and V. Shalamov belong to the writers without whom there is no way of conceiving Russian literature [9, p. 71–72]. Together with O. Mandelstam, B. Pasternak, Yu. Trifonov, V. Makanin, they were representatives of post-realism, a literary trend aimed at restoring the Cosmos in the cruel reality which opened up to the consciousness which survived the apocalyptic catastrophes of the 20th century [8, p. 880]. Like O. Mandelstam, M. Tsvetaeva, V. Vysotsky, they accepted the ontological challenge of absurdity and chaos, and their poetry became a form of personality being [14, p. 70–71]. Banned at home, their works were published together with the works of A. Solzhenitsyn, V. Maksimov, V. Voinovich, B. Akhmadulina, B. Okudzhava in the socio-political journal Possev contacts with which were considered to be evidence of dissidence and anti-Soviet views [2, p. 64]. Like A. Solzhenitsyn, V. Voinovich and A. Zinoviev, they were the first to support a culture of resistance which gave rise to a literature of disobedience and critical rejection of the dominant party ideology [18, p. 371]. The second type includes statements that note a general thematic similarity in one respect or another. I. Brodsky and V. Shalamov were equally concerned Русская литература / А.А. Шунейко, О.В. Чибисова 207 with the problems of evil, totalitarianism, arbitrariness and death. Shalamov and Brodsky are in antagonism with violence regardless of where and in what form it is carried out. With his work, Shalamov struck a precisely calculated blow to evil, one of those that, as Brodsky believed, had to be inflicted on the existing world order after Kotlovan by A.P. Platonov [19, p. 75]. They are brought together by a common anthropological optics which consists in the understanding that the GULAG is not a scoundrel’s mischief but a tectonic shift in a person, and it is impossible to write about it as was customary in Russian literature [14, p. 116]. They condemned A. Solzhenitsyn for seeing the camp as a finger of God or a literary task, but not as a defeat of a person or the end of an experiment to implement the communist equalization of everyone in a death camp [20, p. 152]. Brodsky has repeatedly expressed the thesis which goes back to Claudius Aelianus’s Varia Historia that the choir dies in a real tragedy with the hero receding into the background. The creation of a real tragedy is precisely the artistic task that Shalamov solves throughout his entire career. The isolation of prisoners in the camp from the world of the “living” and their loss of humanity are tantamount to dying. To transfer the experiences associated with this process into the language of the “living,” Shalamov develops special methods of translation from the language of the “dead.” This is consonant with Brodsky’s assertion that only the deceased himself can be a true witness to death [16, p. 153]. They were both stoics who did not allow external acts of submission to become internal: Brodsky’s stoicism manifests itself in the crooked smile of a person who knows something that his killers do not know; in Shalamov’s case it becomes apparent in maintaining internal dignity in conditions when “it becomes a luxury” [15, p. 22]. Few studies of the third type state unity at the textual level. According to E. Hoffman [4, p. 117], the reflections of Dobrovoltsev, a character from Nadgrobnoye slovo, reveal adjacency with the thoughts of Brodsky that are set out in the essay Aktovaya rech’, which consists in the understanding by both individuals that the uncompromising firmness of the spiritual attitude is a paradoxical form of confronting Evil “in the situation where a person is in a hopelessly losing position, where there is no chance to fight back, where the opponent has an overwhelming advantage” [22, vol. 5, p. 278]. In 1972, Shalamov in Literaturnaya Gazeta and Brodsky in The New York Times published letters with similar theses: they defended their right to privacy and opposed to their names being used as an instrument of big global politics [5, p. 148]. Their views on the role of language in literary Studia Litterarum /2022 том 7, № 2 208 creativity also coincide: like a value and thinking substance, it controls the poet and uses him to continue its existence. That is why a poet, starting to compose a verse, usually does not know how it will end [7, p. 263]. But the works of the third type listed above cannot characterize all the points of interaction between the texts of V. Shalamov and I. Brodsky, because the legacy they left behind is large and multifaceted. This work adds to the already identified intertextual connections a number of others which make it possible to look more fully at the nature of literary continuity between two very different and extremely similar writers. It is advisable to start by considering the possibility of I. Brodsky’s actual acquaintance with V. Shalamov’s oeuvre. The following speaks in favor of I. Brodsky’s awareness of the work of V. Shalamov. In the 1960s and beyond, the name of Shalamov in the literary and dissident environment was meaningful, and his work for its representatives (as for poetry, for a wider audience) is available. Kolymskiye rasskazy actively circulated in samizdat, as a rule, they were retyped in small portions — 2–3 at a time [1, vol. 1, p. 101]. They were regularly published in emigre magazines and newspapers (in total, in 1966–1973, 33 stories and essays from the book were published) [1, vol. 2, p. 368]. V. Shalamov’s public speeches became a public event (for example, in May 1965, he read the story Sherri-brendi at an evening in memory of O. Mandelstam) [1, vol. 1, p. 101]. In addition, the magazine Grani, which was published in Germany and published works that went beyond the Soviet censorship, including Brodsky’s poems (No. 56/1964) and Shalamov’s stories (No. 77/1970), illegally transported to Russia two-thirds of its circulation (about 2000 copies). Beginning in the 1960s, the staff of the magazine, risking their freedom, and even their lives, came to the country, establishing personal contacts with opposition-minded Soviet writers. In total, about 1,500 manuscripts and documents were taken out of the country and returned to their homeland in printed texts called “tamizdat” [1, vol. 3, p. 263]. L.E. Ulitskaya recalls that, starting in the 1960s, there was developed a kind of underground reading system: books had to be read and handed over to a friend as soon as possible, but not shown to strangers, since the repression for the production and storage of samizdat was cruel [21]. R.D. Orlova and L.Z. Kopelev compare the circulated verses with Masonic signs, since the “fellow believers” recognized each other with the help of a few lines of their favorite poets [11, p. 31]. Русская литература / А.А. Шунейко, О.В. Чибисова 209 People were drawn to each other, home circles were formed, some of which were later transformed into salons. Such a salon was in the Tarusa house of Elena Golysheva and Nikolai Otten where I. Brodsky lived in the winter of 1963–1964 [11, p. 21] and where, among other works, V. Shalamov’s poems were read. D. Nich also provides evidence of a close indirect contact between Shalamov and Brodsky caused by the unity of the Moscow dissident environment in the 1960s – 1980s. One of their mutual acquaintances was Natalya Ivanovna Stolyarova whose social circle was practically unlimited [10, p. 92]. The other two were Natalya Vladimirovna Kind and her husband Ivan Dmitrievich Rozhansky who has a salon and audio recording studio [10, p. 94]. Nadezhda Yakovlevna Mandelstam had her own “kitchen” [10, p. 156]. But this indirect contact did not develop into a personal one. D. Nich mentions that V. Shalamov met Joseph Brodsky at N.Ya. Mandelstam and felt “cold antipathy” for him. The name of Brodsky is mentioned by Shalamov only once in the Notebooks of 1966 [24, vol. 5, p. 295] where from the perspective of an eyewitness he conveyed a dialogue between I. Brodsky and N.Ya. Mandelstam. Brodsky was characterized by him rather disapprovingly since he casually spoke of F.A. Vigdorova. The latter had recorded a transcript of his trial and placed it in influential foreign publications which made him famous far beyond the borders of Russia. V. Shalamov believed that Vigdorova in Brodsky’s case “acted as a major writer, eternal defender and courageous accuser” [24, vol. 6, p. 422], while I. Brodsky, in a conversation with S. Volkov, said that he did not consider these records to be an outstanding document, especially since they had been reprinted a thousand times [3, p. 74]. In contrast to Brodsky, Shalamov feels connected with F.A. Vigdorova “personally and forever” with an act of immeasurably less significance: her understanding reader’s response to his poems [24, vol. 6, p. 422]. In turn, Brodsky never said a single word about Shalamov anywhere [10, p. 78]. One assumption explaining this silence is that, according to I. Brodsky, the problematics of the Kolymskiye rasskazy had lost their relevance, or that I. Brodsky did not want to bother himself with the fruitless occupation of evaluating the “ethics-aesthetics” of Shalamov’s works [10, p. 87]. For another assumption, one can take the idea that I. Brodsky considered important in poetry only the works which had been written before 1914. In this case, the twentieth year with its wars, revolutions and camps simply did not exist, and if it did exist, it was not poetry but prose. If it was prose, then Shalamov was right, asserting that there was the 20th Studia Litterarum /2022 том 7, № 2 210 century, and the USSR, and the camps, and Brodsky is wrong. Hence, it is very important for Brodsky to ignore Shalamov and not pronounce his name [17, p. 111]. Be that as it may, the reality of acquaintance with oeuvre is much more important than personal acquaintance. The single context of the circulation of dissident texts was not just a medium that, in one way or another, fed the creativity of both writers. This context set a single symbolic language, a single set of themes that arose not from emptiness, not by themselves, but from the similarity of destinies and familiarity with the work of the participants in the literary process. There are several circumstantial arguments in favor of the fact that I. Brodsky was familiar with V. Shalamov’s poems and that the links between the poets’ texts were intentional. In some cases, such an argument is a local image that attracted the attention of the poet; for example, a cloud like cotton swollen from some liquid in Brodsky’s Predstavleniye: “Glyan’ — nabryakshiye, kak vata iz neskromnyya lozhbiny, / razmnozhayas’ bez rezona, tuchi l’nut k arkhitekture (Look — swollen like cotton from an immodest hollow / multiplying without reason, clouds cling to architecture)” [22, vol. 3, p. 298]. This strong, visually accurate and bold metaphor is not individually author’s and contains an intertextual reference to Shalamov’s poem Vsya zemlya, kak pole brani… (The whole earth is like a battlefield ...): “I vysokuyu kogda-to / Sinevu nebes / Obernut nabukhshey vatoy, / Zatsepiv za les (And once high / Blue of the sky / Will be wrapped with swollen cotton wool / Hooked on the forest)” [24, vol. 3, p. 214]. The clouds of Brodsky and Shalamov not only have a single “wadding” nature, they behave the same way: they cling to architecture and cling to the forest, that is, they hang low enough and actively interact with the landscape. They create a feeling of a low oppressive sky, which, like a ceiling, limits the space, turns it into a closed one. As a result, the whole world or its described segment narrows, becomes a semblance of a room or a chamber and is identified with them. In other cases, it may be a single word, as in one of Predstavleniye’s dialogues: “Raz chuchmek, to verit v Buddu.” / “Sukoy budesh’?” “Sukoy budu” (If a wog, he believes in Buddha.” / “Will you be a bitch?” “I’ll be a bitch”) [22, vol. 3, p. 298]. It literally refers to the bitch war described by Shalamov which was between those who adhered to the thieves’ law and those who exchanged their term for the front line during the war (“bitches”). Already in transit prisons, the prisoners were asked what “suit” they were, since the administration of the camps used the “bitches” for their own purposes. Русская литература / А.А. Шунейко, О.В. Чибисова 211 Sometimes there is a clear textual analogy with Shalamov’s texts. So, in the poem Mne nedolgo poblednet’… (It won’t take long for me to pale ...) one reads: “Ya k lyubomu podoydu, / Budto gde-nibud’ v sadu, / Krepko za ruku voz’mu / I skazhu v litso yemu: / Ya, tovarishch, invalid. / U menya dusha bolit (I will approach anyone, / As if somewhere in the garden, / Hold his hand real tight / And say to his face: / I am, comrade, disabled ... / My soul hurts)” [24, vol. 3, p. 250]. Brodsky writes: “Dozhd’ idet. Sobaka layet. Svesyas’ s pechki, dryan’ kosaya / s golym zadom donimayet invalida, gvozd’ kusaya: / ‘Invalid, a invalid. / U menya vnutri bolit’ (It is raining. The dog is barking. Hanging from the stove, a slanting rotter / with a bare bottom is pestering a disabled person, biting a nail: / ‘Disabled, listen, disabled. / It hurts inside me’” [22, vol. 3, p. 300]. In addition, the famous text Osenniy krik yastreba by Brodsky [22, vol. 3, p. 103–106] can be considered a continuation of Shalamov’s poem Yastreb: “S toskoy pochti chto chelovech’yey / Po dal’ney skazochnoy zemle / Glyadit tot yastreb uzkoplechiy, / Sutulyashchiysya na skale (With an almost human longing / For a distant fairy land / That narrow-shouldered hawk is looking / Hunching its back on a rock)” [24, vol. 3, p. 243]. Both poets endow their birds with human characteristics: Shalamov’s hawk slouches, looks longingly, Brodsky’s hawk clenches his claws into a fist, like fingers, his heart beats with a tremor. In both poems, next to the hawk, the semantics of iron are actualized: an old metal shield and a mechanical, unbearable sound, the sound of steel digging into aluminum. The bird is a symbol of overcoming space and mastering height, guided by its instinct for survival to a better place. Shalamov’s hawk is numb, it looks like a carving on a knight’s shield although at any moment it is ready to flap its wings and take off. Brodsky’s hawk flew, its dream of a distant fairy land came true, from an unnatural world where even it is doomed to immobility; it falls into complete freedom and cries out with joy. The texts are opposite in their main markers: statics — dynamics, closedness of the picture — open panorama, absence of people — presence of them, etc. But it is against this background that the personified hawk appears as a person who has gained freedom. It is also possible to detect a sequential chain of associations, a number of poems on a common theme, combined into a single text. So, Brodsky’s poem Tikhotvoreniye moye, moye nemoye… (My quiet poem, my dumb...) [22, vol. 3, p. 209] and several Shalamov’s poems include a mass of meaningful parallels that firmly link them together. Studia Litterarum /2022 том 7, № 2 212 The very word “tikhotvoreniye”, a neologism named by M.B. Kreps “a lucky find” of Brodsky [6, p. 252], ten years earlier was used by Shalamov as Brodsky’s poem was written in 1973 [22, vol. 3, p. 308] and Shalamov’s one in 1963 [24, vol. 3, p. 396]. The poems have one theme: the creative process, its realization, its results, the emergence from silence, from the author’s work of the text which is at the same time a fact of literature and / or life creation. In covering this topic, authors implement a single set of views. The creative process requires silence and creates silence. Both Shalamov and Brodsky consider silence to be a priority quality of poetic speech which guarantees a close correlation between the language and the subject being described. This is fixed in two ways. First, the word “tikhotvoreniye” has an ambivalent semantics. It can be understood as “quiet creation” due to its muted verbal instrumentation [6, p. 253]. Or to personify silence (“my dumb”) which takes the poem beyond the natural language, emphasizes its other-being nature compared to the usual speech forms. It is also the driving force causing “v mire vzryvy tishiny (explosions of silence in the world)” [24, vol. 3, p. 388]. In addition, “tikhotvoreniye” can mean ‘born in silence’ or ‘born by silence’. Secondly, the texts contain direct indications of the time of realization of the creative process: in Brodsky’s poem: “Kak pozdno zapolnoch’… ( How late it is after midnight...)”, in Shalamov’s one: “I trebuyut tishiny (And they demand silence)” [24, vol. 3, p. 396]. The idea of deep night includes an obligatory associative component that is silence. The creative process requires a lot of effort and a wide variety of actions. Brodsky calls his “tikhotvoreniye” draught, that is, he identifies it with a draft horse, simple, strong and tireless, used for heavy transportation. The horse image is completed with a yoke (a wooden horse’s collar) and reins. But not only cattle can be draft, a person imposed by a quitrent (tax, collection) is also draft; moreover, the word “yoke” has a second meaning “load, burden”. The use of the verbs “povedayem (shall tell),” “pozhaluyemsya (shall complain),” “provodim (are passing away)” in the first person plural indicates the speaker’s involvement in the action. It turns out that the poem is loaded with meaning to the limit of what is permissible “na strakh povod’yam (for fear of the reins),” and the author works to the limit of his capabilities, honestly pulls his strap. Similarly, for Shalamov, the creation of a poem requires “tonkosti izmereniya, / Dliny, vysoty, shiriny (the subtlety of measurement, / of length, height, width)” [24, vol. 3, p. 396], “Drozhit ruka, nemeyet telo, / I krov’ kolotitsya v viski, / Kogda staratel’skoye delo / Gotovo vylit’sya v stikhi Русская литература / А.А. Шунейко, О.В. Чибисова 213 (The hand trembles, the body grows numb, / And the blood pounds into the whiskey, / When the artisanal business / Is ready to pour into poetry)” [24, vol. 3, p. 307]. What is written simply will not become a poem “yesli krov’ ne vystupit na strochkakh, / Dusha ne obnazhitsya nagolo (if the blood does not appear on the lines, / the Soul does not become naked)” [24, vol. 3, p. 388]. It is impossible without incredible physical and mental stress and maximum dedication. Night, the moon, loneliness and madness are closely intertwined in the following lines of Brodsky: “Kak pozdno zapolnoch’ ishcha glazuniyu / luny za shtoroyu zazhzhennoy spichkoyu, / vruchnuyu stryakhivayesh’ pyl’ bezumiya / s oskolkov zheltogo oskala v pischuyu (How late it’s after midnight, looking for the glaze / of the moon behind the curtain with a lighted match, / manually shaking off the dust of madness / from the shards of yellow grin into writing” [22, vol. 3, p. 210]. The meaning of temporary “quiet insanity” is already embedded in the very name of the action “quiet creation” which characterizes the creative process as a means of helping not to go mad [6, p. 253]. And vice versa, the state of semi-madness “u rassudka na krayu (at the edge of reason)” [24, vol. 3, p. 7] helps in creativity. The moon may have a yellow grin because it has yolk eyes; and a wild beast that bared its yellow teeth may have it too. In the second case, it is possible to compare the author with a lone wolf, ready to howl from longing to the moon [12, p. 92]. In the minds of many individuals, yellow is a colorful expression of madness, and psychiatric institutions are often called the “yellow house.” Shalamov, like Brodsky, brings together loneliness, creativity and insanity: “I v ugol iz ugla stikhi / Shagayut, tochno v odinochke. / I ne mogu podnyat’ ruki, / Chtoby svyazat’ ikh krepkoy strochkoy. / Chtob ottashchit’ ikh v zheltyy dom… (And into the corner from the corner my poems / are walking, as if in the one-man cell. / And I can’t raise my hands, / To tie them with a strong line / To drag them to the yellow house...” [24, vol. 3, p. 149]. By both poets loneliness is expressed in a veiled way without complaints about the absence of any kind of feedback: “odinochka (prison cell for one prisoner)” [24, vol. 3, p. 149]; “no s kem v kolene i / v lokte khotya by <…>? (But with whom in the knee and / in the elbow at least ?)” (knee and elbow imply a lack of physical intimacy) [22, vol. 3, p. 210]. Their only listener is a poem that arises from under their pen, but it cannot be a full-fledged interlocutor, because it is “nemoye (dumb).” The immediate implementation of the creative process is very far from perfect: “I ostorozhnyye shtrikhi / Yego ruki / Kak neumestnyye stikhi — / Chernoviki Studia Litterarum /2022 том 7, № 2 214 (And careful strokes / Of his hands / Are like inappropriate poetry — / Drafts” [24, vol. 3, p. 417]. A draft is a transitional working object unworthy of prying eyes: “Popravok, dodelok — t’ma! (There is a mass of corrections and finishing work” [24, vol. 3, p. 396]. Both Shalamov and Brodsky treated the technical side of literary work with great responsibility. To convey the meaning of the poem to the reader, it is necessary to decipher, reformulate and expand in volume everything what was written in a hurry in cursive in order to capture a successful thought: “Kak etu borzopis’, chto gushche patoki, / tam ne razmazyvay… (Whichever way you spread this cursive which is thicker than molasses …)” [22, vol. 3, p. 136]. It is necessary to choose from the multitude of words prompted by memory the only true one: “I pobegut slova navstrechu, / I otognat’ ikh ne uspet’, / I nado mnogikh iskalechit’, / Chtoby odno zastavit’ pet’ (And the words will run to meet, / And there is no time to drive them away, / And many of them must be crippled, / To make one sing)” [24, vol. 3, p. 307]. Both poets are convinced that the process of writing a poem does not consist in finding the necessary, but in discarding the unnecessary [7, p. 264] which comes to mind at the call of rhyme or sound repetition in the line: “Sor legkomyslennogo slova, / Klochki zhiteyskoy shelukhi / Vzletayut kverkhu, kak polova, / Kogda slagayutsya stikhi (The rubbish of a frivolous word, / Shreds of everyday husk / Fly up like chaff / When verses are composed)” [24, vol. 3, p. 257]. After creation, the text gains independence and is isolated from the author. Both Shalamov and Brodsky talk about their poems as parents about their own children: “Takiye oni s rozhdeniya, / S yavlen’ya na belyy svet (They are like that from birth, / From the appearance to the world)” [24, vol. 3, p. 396]. The grown-up children who, having separated from the family, begin their own independent life: “…lomot’ otrezannyy, tikhotvoreniye (...a cut off hunk, quiet creation)” [22, vol. 3, p. 136]. The expression “sliced hunk” is synonymous with the word “alien.” Poetry is superior to the poet who serves as its servant; the poem is “nemoye” because it is “not mine” [13, p. 199]. Art lives by its own laws, and the spoken word is recognized by poets as the fundamental category of the entire world process. But for each of them, poems are the most important component of life which determines its character: “Ot tochnosti izmereniya / Zavisit i zhizn’ sama (Life itself depends on the accuracy of measurement)” [24, vol. 3, p. 396], “…komu povedayem, kak zhizn’ provodim? (...to whom we shall tell how we spend our lives?” [22, vol. 3, p. 136]. The poem supports the author by pulling him out of difficult conditions like draft animals [12, p. 92]. Poetry opens ways of salvation; it is a medicine for pain, an addiРусская литература / А.А. Шунейко, О.В. Чибисова 215 tional degree of human passions: “Sredi vsevozmozhnykh razryvov i bedstviy / S oblatkoy dezhurit poet (Among all kinds of ruptures and disasters / A poet is on duty with a pill)” [24, vol. 3, p. 432]. Creativity is primary in relation to life, through the verses “Zhizn’ o zhizni govorit (Life speaks of life)” [24, vol. 3, p. 422]. Three poems by I. Brodsky Osenniy krik yastreba, Predstavleniye and Tikhotvoreniye moye, moye nemoye… reveal intertextual links with various works of V. Shalamov. These texts have many things in common. They are among the title, well-known, recognizable works. In them, in various proportions, a single set of relevant topics is presented: personal and / or social freedom, creativity in a procedural and productive sense, historical heritage and its translation into modern times, the diversity of the world, united by the specificity of the author’s view. This set of themes is generally characteristic of Brodsky’s work, but in this case it appears in complex interaction and is accentuated in different ways. If one proceeds from this, it turns out that Brodsky refers to the legacy of Shalamov when broadcasting substantive characteristics of the external and internal world that are fundamentally or paramount to him. But at the same time, one should not forget that Brodsky, being a poet of an epic national scale, accumulates in his heritage many poetic traditions and guidelines, among which Shalamov’s texts are far from the only and not the main ones. On these grounds, one can conclude that the name of V. Shalamov may be replaced by somebody else’s name. For example, it can be assumed that Tikhotvoreniye moye, moye nemoye… contains references not to V. Shalamov’s poems, but to “Silentium!” by F. Tyutchev [23, vol. 1, p. 123]. Written in silence and being silence, Brodsky’s tikhotvoreniye is similar to high silence and directly corresponds to the maxim formulated by F. Tyutchev: “Mysl’ izrechennaya yest’ lozh’ (A thought once uttered is untrue).” Tyutchev also points to night as the time of the creative process: “Bezmolvno, kak zvezdy v nochi <…> Ikh oglushit naruzhnyy shum… (akin to stars in crystal skies that set before the night is blurred that might be drowned in the noise of day)”. He also believes that the creative process consists of many activities: “Molchi, skryvaysya i tai <…> Lyubuysya imi — i molchi (Speak not, lie hidden, and conceal <…> delight in them and speak no word)”. According to Tyutchev, the poem also determines the nature of life: “Lish’ zhit’ v sebe samom umey — Yest’ tselyy mir v dushe tvoyey (Live in your inner self alone — within your soul a world has grown).” Nevertheless, for the topic under consideration, it is important that there are three more connections between Shalamov and Brodsky, Studia Litterarum /2022 том 7, № 2 216 and their texts are semantically narrower and more closely related to each other than with their common predecessor. Shalamov and Brodsky talk about the immediate products of poetic creativity, while Tyutchev dwells on a broader theme. He reflects on the creation of life or thought creation in general which as a result may include a poem, essay, novel, or conclusion that a person will never tell anyone, but leave it for himself. The same is the case with other intertextual convergences described above. Taken separately, they can be found elsewhere in the world literature, but in their totality they are certain to confirm their coincidence with Shalamov’s works. From this position, V. Shalamov for I. Brodsky is rather a voice in a huge chorus of predecessors. Brodsky uses this voice with multiple targets. He emphasizes the unity of perception, continuity, awareness, pays tribute to the literary tradition. And, at the same time, he opposes his aesthetic position on the basis of this unity. References to Shalamov’s texts and the use of his images are the basis for aesthetic and ideological polemics, opposing his view of reality. Список литературы Исследования 1 Антология самиздата. Неподцензурная литература в СССР. 1950е – 1980е.: в 3 т. / под общ. ред. В.В. Игрунова; сост. М.Ш. Барбакадзе. М.: Международный ин-т гуманитарно-политических исследований, 2005. 2 Байбатырова Н.М. Ростки «Посева»: издательские инициативы русских эмигрантов «третьей волны» // Вестник Новосибирского государственного университета. Серия: История, филология. 2015. Т. 14. Вып. 6: Журналистика. С. 62–67. 3 Волков С. Диалоги с Иосифом Бродским / вступ. ст. Я. Гордина. М.: Независимая Газета, 2000. 328 с. 4 Гофман Е. Загадка «Надгробного слова» // Закон сопротивления распаду. Особенности прозы и поэзии Варлама Шаламова и их восприятие в начале XXI века: сб. науч. тр. / сост. Л. Бабка, С. Соловьёв, В. Есипов, Я. Махонин. Прага; Москва, 2017. С. 111–119. 5 Есипов В.В. Варлам Шаламов и его современники. Вологда: Книжное наследие, 2007. 272 с. 6 Крепс М.Б. О поэзии Иосифа Бродского. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1984. 273 с. 7 Кротова Д.В. В. Шаламов и И. Бродский: представления об искусстве // Культура и цивилизация. 2017. Т. 7, № 4 А. С. 261–272. Русская литература / А.А. Шунейко, О.В. Чибисова 217 8 Лейдерман Н.Л. Теория жанра: науч. изд. Екатеринбург: Урал. гос. пед. ун-т, 2010. 904 с. 9 Надольская И.В. Зеленые пространства современных университетских комплексов — от исторической традиции к инновационному опыту // Культурная жизнь Юга России. 2019. № 3. С. 70–73. 10 Нич Д. Московский рассказ. Жизнеописание Варлама Шаламова, 1960–80-е годы. Личное издание, 2011. 454 с. 11 Орлова Р., Копелев Л. Мы жили в Москве 1956–1980. М.: Книга, 1990. 451 с. 12 Плотников И.В. Метафорические модели и их переводческие трансформации в художественном тексте: лингвокогнитивный аспект: дис. … канд. филол. наук. Екатеринбург, 2019. 277 с. 13 Ранчин А.М. О Бродском: Размышления и разборы. М.: Водолей, 2016. 248 с. 14 Смирнов С.А. Автопоэзис человека. Философские очерки по антропологии стиха. Новосибирск: Офсет, 2011. 389 с. 15 Bethea David M. Joseph Brodsky and the Creation of Exile. Princeton University Press, 2014. 340 р. 16 Mikhailik Elena. Dostoevsky and Shalamov: Orpheus and Pluto // The Dostoevsky Journal. 2000. № 1 (1). P. 147–157. DOI: 10.1163/23752122-00101011 17 Milner Jean-Claude. Prose Redeemed / transl. by John Cleary // S: Journal for the Circle for Lacanian Ideology Critique. 2010. Vol. 3. P. 106–113. 18 Palavestra Predrag. Before 1989: Literature as a Criticism of Ideology in the Slavic World and Serbian Literature // Serbian Studies. 2004. Vol. 18 (2). P. 371–381. 19 San Vicente Ricard. Shalamov’s Miracle // Anuari de filologia. Llengües i literatures modernes. 2018. № 8. P. 67–78. DOI: 10.1344/AFLM2018.8.6 20 Städtke Klaus. Sturz der Idole — Ende des Humanismus? Literaturmodelle der Tauwetterzeit: Solženicyn und Šalamov // Osteuropa. 2007. № 6. P. 137–168. 21 Ulitskaya Lyudmila. Reading as a heroic feat: the intelligentsia and uncensored literature // Russian Journal of Communication. 2018. № 10 (2–3). P. 262–272. DOI: 10.1080/19409419.2018.1533426 Источники 22 Бродский И. Сочинения Иосифа Бродского: в 7 т. СПб.: Пушкинский фонд, 2001. 23 Тютчев Ф.И. Полн. собр. соч. Письма: в 6 т. / сост. В.Н. Касаткина. М.: Изд. центр «Классика», 2002. 24 Шаламов В.Т. Собр. соч.: в 6 т. / сост., подгот. текста, примеч. И. Сиротинской. М.: Книжный Клуб Книговек, 2013. Studia Litterarum /2022 том 7, № 2 218 References 1 Igrunova, V.V., editor. Antologiia samizdata. Nepodtsenzurnaia literatura v SSSR. 1950e–1980e: v 3 t. [Anthology of Samizdat. Uncensored Literature in the USSR. 1950s–1980s: in 3 vols.]. Moscow, International Institute for Humanitarian and Political Research Publ., 2005. (In Russ.) 2 Baibatyrova, N.M. “Rostki ‘Poseva’: izdatel’skie initsiativy russkikh emigrantov ‘tret’ei volny’.” [“Sprouts of ‘Possev’: Publishing Initiatives of ‘the Third Wave’ Russian Emigrants”]. Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Istoriia, filologiia, no. 6, 2015, pp. 62–67. (In Russ.) 3 Volkov, S. Dialogi s Iosifom Brodskim [Dialogues with Joseph Brodsky]. Moscow, Nezavisimaia Gazeta Publ., 2000. 328 p. (In Russ.) 4 Gofman, E. “Zagadka ‘Nadgrobnogo slova’.” [“The Riddle of the ‘Gravestone’.”]. Zakon soprotivleniia raspadu. Osobennosti prozy i poezii Varlama Shalamova i ikh vospriiatie v nachale XXI veka [The Law of Resistance to Decay. The Specifics of the Prose and Poetry of Varlam Shalamov and Their Perception at the Beginning of the 21st Century]. Prague, Moscow, 2017, pp. 111–119. (In Russ.) 5 Esipov, V.V. Varlam Shalamov i ego sovremenniki [Varlam Shalamov and His Contemporaries]. Vologda, Knizhnoe nasledie Publ., 2007. 272 p. (In Russ.) 6 Kreps, M.B. O poezii Iosifa Brodskogo [About the Poetry of Joseph Brodsky]. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1984. 273 p. (In Russ.) 7 Krotova, D.V. “V. Shalamov i I. Brodskii: predstavleniia ob iskusstve” [“V. Shalamov and I. Brodsky: Ideas of Art”]. Kul’tura i tsivilizatsiia, vol. 7, issue 4 A, 2017, pp. 261–272. (In Russ.) 8 Leiderman, N.L. Teoriia zhanra [Theory of the Genre]. Yekaterinburg, Ural State Pedagogical University Publ., 2010. 904 p. (In Russ.) 9 Nadol’skaia, I.V. “Zelenye prostranstva sovremennykh universitetskikh kompleksov — ot istoricheskoi traditsii k innovatsionnomu opytu” [“Green Spaces of Modern University Complexes — from Historical Tradition to Innovative Experience”]. Kul’turnaia zhizn’ Iuga Rossii, no. 3, 2019, pp. 70–73. (In Russ.) 10 Nich, D. Moskovskii rasskaz. Zhizneopisanie Varlama Shalamova, 1960–80-e gody [Moscow Story. Biography of Varlam Shalamov, 1960–80s]. Lichnoe izdanie Publ., 2011. 454 p. (In Russ.) 11 Orlova, R., Kopele, L. My zhili v Moskve 1956–1980 [We Lived in Moscow 1956–1980]. Moscow, Kniga Publ., 1990. 451 p. (In Russ.) 12 Plotnikov, I.V. Metaforicheskie modeli i ikh perevodcheskie transformatsii v khudozhestvennom tekste: lingvokognitivnyi aspect: dis. ... k-ta filol. nauk [Metaphorical Models and Their Translation Transformations in the Artistic Text: Linguo-cognitive Aspect: PhD thesis]. Yekaterinburg, 2019. 277 p. (In Russ.) 13 Ranchin, A.M. O Brodskom: Razmyshleniia i razbory [About Brodsky: Reflections and Analyzes]. Moscow, Aquarius Publ., 2016. 248 p. (In Russ.) Русская литература / А.А. Шунейко, О.В. Чибисова 14 Smirnov, S.A. Avtopoezis cheloveka. Filosofskie ocherki po antropologii stikha [Human Autopoiesis. Philosophical Essays on the Anthropology of Verse]. Novosibirsk, Offset Publ., 2011. 389 p. (In Russ.) 15 Bethea, David M. Joseph Brodsky and the Creation of Exile. Princeton University Press, 2014. 340 р. (In English) 16 Mikhailik, Elena. “Dostoevsky and Shalamov: Orpheus and Pluto.” The Dostoevsky Journal, no. 1 (1), 2000, pp. 147–157. DOI: 10.1163/23752122-00101011 (In English) 17 Milner, Jean-Claude. “Prose Redeemed,” transl. by John Cleary. S: Journal for the Circle for Lacanian Ideology Critique, no. 3, 2010, pp. 106–113. (In English) 18 Palavestra, Predrag. “Before 1989: Literature as a Criticism of Ideology in the Slavic World and Serbian Literature.” Serbian Studies, no. 18 (2), 2004, pp. 371–381. (In English) 19 San Vicente, Ricard. “Shalamov’s Miracle Anuari de filologia.” Llengües i literatures modernes, no. 8, 2018, pp. 67–78. DOI: 10.1344/AFLM2018.8.6 (In Catalan) 20 Städtke, Klaus. “Sturz der Idole — Ende des Humanismus? Literaturmodelle der Tauwetterzeit: Solženicyn und Šalamov.” Osteuropa, no. 6, 2007, pp. 137–168. (In German) 21 Ulitskaya, Lyudmila. “Reading as a Heroic Feat: the Intelligentsia and Uncensored Literature.” Russian Journal of Communication, no. 10 (2–3), 2018, pp. 262–272. DOI: 10.1080/19409419.2018.1533426 (In English)

Список литературы

Исследования

1 Антология самиздата. Неподцензурная литература в СССР. 1950е – 1980е.: в 3 т. / под общ. ред. В.В. Игрунова; сост. М.Ш. Барбакадзе. М.: Международный ин-т гуманитарно-политических исследований, 2005.

2 Байбатырова Н.М. Ростки ≪Посева≫: издательские инициативы русских эмигрантов ≪третьей волны≫ // Вестник Новосибирского государственного университета. Серия: История, филология. 2015. Т. 14. Вып. 6: Журналистика. С. 62–67.

3 Волков С. Диалоги с Иосифом Бродским / вступ. ст. Я. Гордина. М.: Независимая Газета, 2000. 328 с.

4 Гофман Е. Загадка ≪Надгробного слова≫ // Закон сопротивления распаду. Особенности прозы и поэзии Варлама Шаламова и их восприятие в начале XXI века: сб. науч. тр. / сост. Л. Бабка, С. Соловьёв, В. Есипов, Я. Махонин. Прага; Москва, 2017. С. 111–119.

5 Есипов В.В. Варлам Шаламов и его современники. Вологда: Книжное наследие, 2007. 272 с.

6 Крепс М.Б. О поэзии Иосифа Бродского. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1984. 273 с.

7 Кротова Д.В. В. Шаламов и И. Бродский: представления об искусстве // Культура и цивилизация. 2017. Т. 7, № 4 А. С. 261–272.

8 Лейдерман Н.Л. Теория жанра: науч. изд. Екатеринбург: Урал. гос. пед. ун-т, 2010. 904 с.

9 Надольская И.В. Зеленые пространства современных университетских комплексов — от исторической традиции к инновационному опыту // Культурная жизнь Юга России. 2019. № 3. С. 70–73.

10 Нич Д. Московский рассказ. Жизнеописание Варлама Шаламова, 1960–80-е годы. Личное издание, 2011. 454 с.

11 Орлова Р., Копелев Л. Мы жили в Москве 1956–1980. М.: Книга, 1990. 451 с.

12 Плотников И.В. Метафорические модели и их переводческие трансформации в художественном тексте: лингвокогнитивный аспект: дис. … канд. филол. наук. Екатеринбург, 2019. 277 с.

13 Ранчин А.М. О Бродском: Размышления и разборы. М.: Водолей, 2016. 248 с.

14 Смирнов С.А. Автопоэзис человека. Философские очерки по антропологии стиха. Новосибирск: Офсет, 2011. 389 с.

15 Bethea David M. Joseph Brodsky and the Creation of Exile. Princeton University Press, 2014. 340 р.

16 Mikhailik Elena. Dostoevsky and Shalamov: Orpheus and Pluto // The Dostoevsky Journal. 2000. № 1 (1). P. 147–157. DOI: 10.1163/23752122-00101011

17 Milner Jean-Claude. Prose Redeemed / transl. by John Cleary // S: Journal for the Circle for Lacanian Ideology Critique. 2010. Vol. 3. P. 106–113.

18 Palavestra Predrag. Before 1989: Literature as a Criticism of Ideology in the Slavic World and Serbian Literature // Serbian Studies. 2004. Vol. 18 (2). P. 371–381.

19 San Vicente Ricard. Shalamov’s Miracle // Anuari de filologia. Llengues i literatures modernes. 2018. № 8. P. 67–78. DOI: 10.1344/AFLM2018.8.6

20 Stadtke Klaus. Sturz der Idole — Ende des Humanismus? Literaturmodelle der Tauwetterzeit: Solženicyn und Šalamov // Osteuropa. 2007. № 6. P. 137–168.

21 Ulitskaya Lyudmila. Reading as a heroic feat: the intelligentsia and uncensored literature // Russian Journal of Communication. 2018. № 10 (2–3). P. 262–272. DOI: 10.1080/19409419.2018.1533426

Источники

22 Бродский И. Сочинения Иосифа Бродского: в 7 т. СПб.: Пушкинский фонд, 2001.

23 Тютчев Ф.И. Полн. собр. соч. Письма: в 6 т. / сост. В.Н. Касаткина. М.: Изд. центр ≪Классика≫, 2002.

24 Шаламов В.Т. Собр. соч.: в 6 т. / сост., подгот. текста, примеч. И. Сиротинской. М.: Книжный Клуб Книговек, 2013.