Russian Literature XLIX (2001) 43--67 North-Holland

www.elsevier.nl/locate/ruslit

CHILDREN'S WORLD VIEW AS A SUBTEXT OF O. MANDEL'~TAM'S 'PUTESESTVIE V ARMENIJU'

WOLF IRO

HaTKny~rlCb, ry~a~, Ha Ma.rlbqHlllKy, KOTOpblfi CHile] B apblKe, tlTO Jilt, CJIOBOM, B rpfl3rI. MaH~e~bmTaM 06O- ~a.rl ~IeTefi, a Ha qepHOF.lla3blX )KHBHHKOB ApMeHHH He MOF Ha.rllO6OBaTbCJ1.

1. Although as an autobiographical account of his journey to Armenia in 1930 Osip Mandel'~tam's 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju' stands at a prominent place in the personal history of his development as a poet, little critical attention has been paid to it, and it is only recently that its indubitable importance has been acknowledged. In Boris Gasparov's (1992a) seminal article on the cultural-historical paradigms in Mandel'~tam's later works as well as in Andrew Wachtel's (1992) study on the genre of the travelogue Pu~kin's 'Pute~estvie v Arzrum' has been identified as a model of Mandel'- ~tams 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju', undertaken approximately a century later. 2 While Wachtel bases his claims on formal considerations mainly, comparing both works with traditional examples of the genre, Gasparov's analysis is a study of the themes and structures of the book, and he contends that Mandel'- ~tam accommodates various different subjects within a general paradigm of two opposed philosophies in their respective epochs. In early post- revolutionary Russia one of the common notions of the nineteenth century was that of an iron age. Urbanization, industrialization and positivism (in the natural sciences) were all viewed eschatologically as symptoms of an ulti- mate, albeit negative stage of human development. However, the animated

0304-3479/01/$ - see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S0304-3479(00)00078-8

44 Wolf Iro

intellectual climate of the Twenties gave rise to an alternative, altogether different feeling of a new beginning. Along with it a cultural myth arose, which rested on the perception of historical times as being syncretic. As a direct result of this specific treatment of history former epochs were no longer seen to be removed in time, but instead links with the present were discovered on all possible levels, including the biographical one. The be- ginning of the nineteenth century in particular became the focus of attempts to construe contemporary events in historical terms, and the beginning of the twentieth century thus came to be interpreted as a second romantic age. Gasparov argues that toward 1930 Mandel'gtam had made a conscious choice against an eschatological conception of his period as an iron age and in favour of an interhistorical approach of the cultural myth allowing for a far- reaching equation of his time with the end of the romantic epoch. The beginning of this end had been the crushing of the Decembrists' movement, which came to serve as a basis for an analogy with the first years of revolutionary/post-revolutionary Russia. The focal point of the romantic myth, however, was the figure of Pugkin, "seen as an ideal synthesis of life and art, in which the artist-creator-demiurge surmounted the split between his human and divine natures" (Gasparov 1992a: 7). His death, more than anything else, became the romantic symbol of the epoch that was to be superseded by its realist successor, the iron age. In its conscious replication of Pugkin's journey to the Caucasus in 1829 and due to certain coincidental parallels (Pugkin's encounter with the cart bearing the body of the murdered Griboedov/the news of Majakovskij's suicide - incidents which may well have been viewed as ominously prophetic by Mandel'gtam himself) 'Pute- gestvie v Armeniju' becomes a work of symbolic romantic undertones. Thus Gasparov, in terms of the fundamental opposition of romanticism and rea- lism, refers to the contrast between Lamarck and Darwin, the juxtaposition of attributes of the French/German world on the one hand and of the English world on the other hand, the musical paradigm as well as linguistic aspects personified by Marr and Cha~aturian. In the following analysis of Mandel'- gtam's 'Putegestvie v Armeniju' we shall put forward an interpretation of the text which, while falling into the paradigmatic frame espoused by Gasparov, nevertheless follows an independent line of inquiry. The text will be analysed as a series of episodes textually and subtextually exemplifying what has been termed "children's world view" in the title of this article. Although some of the individual elements of this new approach to reality, which Mandel'gtam became interested in around the time of his journey to Armenia, have been pointed out in the above-mentioned literature already, their connection with a specific children's view has not yet been recognized. The latter, however, seems fundamental to an adequate reading of 'Putegestvie v Armeniju' and will be the subject of closer examination. The poet's belief that the various fields of human knowledge are all interlinked is of prime importance to the

Children's Worm View in 'Putegestvie v Armeniju' 45

structure of 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju', which on this basis attains a consist- ency it could otherwise be seen as lacking. In a letter to M.S. Saginjan Man- del'gtam himself hinted at possible overall themes of the book when he point- ed out its similarities with his 'Egipetskaja marka':

KaK ri " l l l [yM] B[peMenH]", "H[yTemecTmm s] A[pMeHHm]" asTo6rio- rpa~rtqHO, HO KOMnO3taUHOHnO "H[yTemecTsne s] A[pMeHmo]" 6nri~e He K "H_I[yMy] B[peMeHn]" c ero s;ryrpeHHe ue~bm, iMH, CaMOCTO~I- TeZbabIMn rzasKaMa, a K "E[rHnewc~ofi] M[apxe]" c ee qbparuenTaMrt, CMbICJI KOTOpbIX Mo~KeT 6blTb BHO.rlHe yCBOeH 3arimb Ha ypOBHe npor i3 -

Be~eHH~ B ueJIOM. (1990, II: 423) 3

In accordance with our claim that in the book the author-narrator 4 only gra- dually attains a full awareness of an alternative view of the world (presented by the children) the analysis will follow in its interpretations the basic se- quential order of the chapters in the text and highlight key passages to explain their function within the proposed approach.

2. The first chapter of 'Putegestvie v Armeniju' is set on the island of Sevan. Essential features of the particular world view which the author ascribes to the Armenian children are established immediately, thus setting the tone for what is to follow. After a short introduction children are described pursuing a characteristic activity:

He MeHee CeMH~eC~ITt, I IlpoUeHTOB rlaceJleHM~l OCTpOBa COCTaB.rlgrll, l

~eTH. OHH, KaK 3BepbKH, na3HnH n o rpo6HmlaM MOHaXOB, TO 6OM6ap- ~HpoBa.a;t Mripny~o KOp~ry, npHH~B ee CTy~eHbm cy~oporH Ha ~He 3a Kopqn MOpCKOrO 3Meal [...], TO FOH~I.rlH B3a~ H Bnepe)a o6eByMeBmero 6apaHa [...]. (100-101)

Whereas the author from the very beginning uses comparative expressions ("kak budto", "slovno"), the children simply take one phenomenon - the "korjaga" - for another - a "morskoj zmej". In doing so they transgress the limits of a comparison and create a temporary identity of the metaphorized (physical) object and the metaphor in question. This realization of the meta- phor leads to its natural inclusion into the children's world who set out to bombard the sea snake. Curiously, in the next sentence the author expresses his tacit, yet unfulfilled wish to follow their example: "Roslye, stepnye travy na podvetrennom gorbu Sevanskogo ostrova byli tak sil'ny, so6ny i samo- uvereny, 6to ich chotelos' ras6esat' 2eleznym grebnem." By comparing the children with "little creatures" in the above-mentioned example the author hints at their proximity to nature. Elsewhere they are "~.estkovolosye", "dra6- livye", their tongues are compared to "lomtiki medve~'ego mjasa" (all 103) and thus they notably differ from the "blagonravnye deti" in the texts of, say,

46 Wolf Iro

Goethe (114). Mandel'~tam here seems to suggest (and his subsequent treatment of the plein-airist French painters corroborates this reading) a link between such proximity to nature and an approach to reality resulting in an unusual degree of metaphorical immediacy. In noting the playful and almost arbitrary character of the children's game the author puts emphasis on the momentary character of the new image. This corresponds to remarks in other texts by Mandel'~tam. In his famous 'Razgovor o Dante', for instance, he speaks about the poetic voice, which "sozdaet svoi orudija na chodu, i na chodu ~e ich uni6to~aet" (1990, II: 246). Momentariness, playfulness, chance - many a time Mandel'~tam refers to children in terms which are polar op- posites to Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific idea of causality in general. 5 In the third chapter 'Moskva', partly a reminiscence of native Russia, the author describes the felling of two lime trees, to which he ascribes human qualities. At first "oni ni6ego ne sly~ali i ne ponimali", then their respective "soznanie vemulos'" and "ono preziralo svoich oskorbitelej". Wit- nessing the scene, the children (juxtaposed with the "sover]ennoletnie mu- ~.6iny" who are felling the trees) react in their own way: "E~6e mgnovenie - i

, , 6 k podver~.ennomu istukanu podbOali deti (all 108). An interesting aspect of this description is connected with the difference in metaphorical radicality between author and children: the author describes the lime trees in human terms, but the pronoun used ("ono") never leaves any doubt about their actual status as trees. The children's way of thinking, on the other hand, carries a transformative force; for them the trees are predominantly deities. 7 The contrasting effect to the author's position is further marked by their mode of behaviour. While the author ultimately disinterestedly beholds the scene through the window of his room, the children run up to the hewn trees. It seems, then, no coincidence that children in Mandel'~tam's account always run, climb, hunt and play. In 'Razgovor o Dante' a creative act is frequently described in terms of motion and is almost seen as tantamount to being on one's way: "U Danta filosofija vsegda na chodu, vsegda na nogach" (1990, II: 217). At a later point in 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju', and under the impression of Signac's account of Delacroix's Journey to Morocco, it seems to the author as if he has changed his urban shoes for "musul'manskie 6uvjaki" (106). Much like Delacroix, Mandel'~tam does not just want to travel around but strives to immerse himself in the country of his visit, penetrate into its culture and take everything in with a real traveller's eye, a "pute]estvennik-glaz" (120), 8 with the eye becoming a means of cognition that possesses other qualities in addition to the visual abilities. 9 Later on in the chapter 'Moskva', enraptured by the sight of a poppy field, the author starts comparing the petals with "nesgoraemye, polorotye motyl'ki", yet in an instant becomes aware of their "protivnye, volosatye stebli" (both 112). In other words, he wants to perceive them as butterflies only, yet his vision structures reality in a way that undermines the intended association: the hairy

Children's Worm View in 'PuteJestvie v Armeno'u' 47

stems of the flowers, to which he momentarily draws attention, connect the buds with the earth and return him, lost in the realms of his imagination, back to the "earthly" reality. In contrast the children in the same scene are able to hunt for the "makovye kryl'ja" in pursuit of a metaphor whose realization proved impossible for the author. Consequently, the latter admits: "ja poza- vidoval detjam" (ibid.), turning out at odds with himself, for he simultane- ously acknowledges both the children's imaginative approach to reality and his own inability to adopt and implement such an approach for himself. This state of internal division is reflected in the sentence concluding the scene: "U~e v rukach ogon', slovno kuznec odol~il menja ugljami" (ibid.). As the children have just been subject of the discussion, it becomes difficult for the reader to refer the first part of the sentence unambiguously to either of the characters involved. Only the second part of the sentence, beginning with the already familiar comparative particle "slovno", establishes a definitive modality. The reader, then, has to draw the conclusion that the author himself started "taking part" in the children's game and stooped for the petals. This "child-like" mood of the author accounts for the first part of the sentence, which fuses the children's instinctive appropriation of the world with his own observation of it. In the second part of the phrase, however, his original state of mind predominates again. The shift in the author's consciousness is but a momentary one. In his later poetry in particular Mandel'gtam frequently draws on phonetic similarities as a basis for a comparison of otherwise unrelated words. In 'Razgovor o Dante', Mandel'gtam's poetological con- fession, he remarks that "semanti~eskie cikly dantovskich pesen postroeny takim obrazom, ~to na6inaetsja, primemo, - 'med', a kon~aetsja - 'med"; na6inaetsja- 'laj', a kon6aetsja- ' led'" (1990, II: 223). It would thus become possible to argue in favour of the phonetic similarity of "mak" and "motylek", giving rise to the association of one with the other. Precisely this, however, accounts for a contrast of the author and the children on a further level. Where the children's imagination leads them to a direct identification of the petals with butterflies the author has to resort to linguistic means in order to try and establish an associative connection of the two elements. The example of the bombardment of the stump of the tree is another case in point. Again, the author's attempt to emulate the children gives rise to a chain of phonetically related words. Shortly after witnessing the children's effortless transformation of the "korjaga" into the "kor6i" of a sea snake he discovers a "koro6ku ot 6'ej-to 6erepnoj korobki" (102 - our emphasis). It does not seem too far fetched to infer that in a manner similar to our previous example he thereby expresses his tacit wish to take part in the children's game. Or, in Mandel'~tam's own words, the comparison is built in such a way, that it begins with "korjaga" and ends with "korobka". Such a literary device, not uncommon in Mandel'gtam's poetry l° and indeed in poetry in general, is rarely found in prose texts, and Wachtel (1992: 139) with some justification

48 Wolf Iro

calls this passage "an excellent example of the way Mandel'~tam can trans- form an observation of reality into a poem in prose". However, notwith- standing its overall poetic character the passage effectively actualizes the author's inability to turn descriptive prose into a fusion of life and poetry. Thus Wachtel (ibid.) arguably ignores a subtextual dimension to the text when, failing to point to a precise referent, he remarks that "suddenly [...] the poppies are metaphorically transformed into moths" (our emphasis)) 1 Rather, it is the children who carry out the metaphorization while the author, unable to effect an identification of poppies with butterflies, can only as far as possible try to reproduce the link linguistically. As a consequence, in his treatment of the text Wachtel is at a loss to explicate the author's envy of the children, and confines himself to taking note of the flouting of the genre: "an activity not permitted the travelogue writer, who is supposed to record [...] but not to admire" (ibid.). In 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju' the author's specific situation is aptly expressed by his admission that "za vsju moju dolguju £izn' j a n e videl bol'~e, ~em ~elkovi6nyj 6erv'", i.e. he never realized his meta- phors in the way the children were able to experience the poppy petals as butterflies. Clues to a specific children's world view are dispersed in numerous passages in the book. We shall for the purpose of the discussion proceed to give a provisional definition of it as being an approach to reality characterized by the transformation of the latter into independent time-bound metaphors which are directly realized by the children as part of their self- sufficient world. Charles Isenberg (1987: 68), in his discussion of 'Sum vre- meni', espouses a similar view of children's thought, drawing on the classic studies by Vygotskij and Piaget:

Child thought is highly syncretic; it does not recognize barriers between different conceptual orders and it translates freely and spontaneously from one cognitive or sensory code into another. Because it transcends conventional distinctions between entities, child logic constructs a world which is highly metaphoric.

Throughout the book the children present a leitmotif serving as an index of an individual approach to reality contrasted on various levels with the author himself and with other adults, but also with other representations of children in literature. Thus Mandel'~tam ironically recalls a boy named Felix in Goethe's Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre who keeps a herbarium and perma- nently asks Wilhelm Meister to explain to him certain natural phenomena. The difference emerging from a comparison with the Armenian children is not based on origin or milieu but stems - according to Mandel']tam - from a systemic failure in Goethe's writings: "U Gete voob~6e o6en' sku6nye, blago- nravnye deti. Deti v izobra~enii Gete - eto malen'kie eroty ljuboznatel'nosti s kol~anom metkich voprosov za ple6ami..." (114). Incidentally, this contrast

Children's World View in 'Putegestvie v Armeniju' 49

constitutes a curious, if anecdotal counterexample to Gasparov's claim (1992b: 167) that "olicetvoreniem etoj roli [i.e. the role of Schelling's artist- genius] u Mandel'~tama slu~at figury Pu~kina i Gete [...]". In our case Mandel'~tam's view of the children overrides the admiration which he un- doubtedly felt for Goethe. 12 His critique of Goethe takes up a theme which was introduced obliquely into the text before, when the author reflected on his own childhood. Immediately preceding the episode of the children at play in the poppy fields, the examples of his early impressions suggest an idea of the author as a child curiously opposed to the general view of children put forward in the book. He recalls how, when going past "tolstobrjuchie izby" heaps of cabbages "otdalenno [mne] napominali piramidu ~erepov na sku~noj kartine Vere~agina" (111). In nearly every respect this recollection contrasts with the approach to reality the Armenian children are seen to display. On the whole, one essential property of the children's metaphors is what can loosely be described as animating the lifeless or, rather, animating what has been formerly alive: stumps in the water wriggle like snakes, felled trees become idols and petals on the ground turn into butterflies. Only prima facie Nade~da Mandel'~tam's (1987: 190) comment on the 'Cetvertoe vos'misti~ie' contra- dicts such an approach to our last example. In it she writes: "Babo6ka vsegda slu~.it dlja O. M. primerom ~.izni, ne ostavljaju~ej nikakogo sleda: ee funk- cija - mgnovenie ~.izni, poleta i smert'. Ob etom sm. v 'Pute~estvii v Arme- niju'." In fact this remark is very much in keeping with the characteristics of children's behaviour throughout the book. Their metaphorization creates momentarily living objects, so that the moment the attention focuses onto something else these objects lose their imaginary properties again (= "smert'"). The image of the heap of skulls conveys the author's conscious- ness of death even in his early childhood. However, it is not so much this consciousness as the contrast with the "animated" objects which has a bearing on our present discussion. The difference is both striking and obvious: the author in his childhood was only ever able to associate with the cabbage a dead image on the basis of a "boring painting". The contrast of proximity and distance accounts for a further difference between the two modes of perception at hand. The heaps of cabbage only vaguely remind the author in his childhood of Vere~agin's painting. However, as has already been noted, the metaphors of the Armenian children are characterized pre- cisely by the intensity with which they are experienced. A reading of the passage in a similar vein could also focus on the contrast in strictly physical terms. As the author watches the heaps of cabbage from the inside of a car ("avtomobil'nye poezdki"), he is deprived of the possibility of looking at the object of his comparison from close distance, while in all given examples highlighting the children's particular approach these are physically close to what constitutes their instantaneous reality. Finally, the referential point for the image of the cabbage as skulls is neither nature (as with the children in

50 Wolf fro

the case of the imaginary butterflies) nor pure fantasy (as in the case of the sea snake), but an already metaphorized reality (Vere~agin's painting). The comparison thus becomes an artistic reiteration. For an exegesis of the key sentence: "teper' ne tak, no perelom pri~el, po~aluj, sli~kom pozdno" (111) we propose two related readings, emanating from the ambiguity of the word "perelom". Enough evidence has been adduced above to treat the sentence as the author's confession that although he has become aware of his short- comings concerning the realization of metaphors he is in doubt whether this awareness has not come too late to be used as a basis for the development of a new poetics. Such a reading is corroborated by the function of the sentence as concluding the section of the author's reminiscence of his childhood. ~3 An alternative interpretation would hinge upon a specific meaning of "perelom" as a marker of the cultural myth prevalent at the time and thus closely follow Gasparov's argument. 14 "Perelom" would then be construed as part of the expression "perelom veka", denoting first and foremost the end of the ro- mantic epoch, and allude to the fact that only at that time Mandel'~tam was willing to subscribe unequivocally to the historical analogue and look at his own existence as an anachronistic vestige of a second romantic age, doomed to perdition by the arrival of a new iron age, which was personified by Stalin. However, these two readings appear to be complementary rather than alter- native if the permanent heritage of romanticism with its crucial emphasis on the concepts of individuality and subjectivity is borne in mind, for in view of this many of the principal features Mandel'~tam endows the children with in 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju' are but romantic attributes. A rejection of compara- tive expressions in favour of distinctly subjective realizations of different metaphors on the part of the children does indeed constitute an affirmation of individuality and subjectivity. In an essay outlining his poetics Mandel'~tam unambiguously states: "Poezija est' soznanie svoej pravoty" (1990, II: 147). II'ja Serman (1994) identifies the question of presence or absence of the author in poetry as a touchstone of literary discussion at the time. He goes on to investigate Mandel' ~tam's poetry in respect to this problem and concludes that a rough bipartite division of the work into a pre-1930 and post-1930 Mandel'~tam holds true. Whereas earlier poems are characterized either by a notable absence of a lyrical I or else by a lyrical I which Serman in reference to R. Jakobson describes as a purely grammatical unit, and can be sum- marized aptly by the early line "Ja zabyl nent~noe Ja" (1990, I: 76), the later Mandel'~tam seems to be affirming precisely what he formerly rejected. The presence of the author, not necessarily in the first person singular, is overwhelming and, moreover, memories of his childhood attain a particular significance. A poem like "Ne govori nikomu" (166), written in October 1930 directly after his journey to Armenia, may serve as an illustration of this point:

Children's Worm View in 'Putegestvie v Armeniju' 51

He roBOpH HHKOMy, Bee, qTO Tbl BH2~eJ'I, 3a6y,al, - FITrmy, cTapyxy, TmpbMy H_an etue qTO-nn6yab...

1,4_.rlH OXBaTHT Te6~l, TOabKO ycTa pa3OMKHenIb, I-lpn HaCTyrtaennn ,arts MeaKas, xsofinas ,apo~b.

BCHOMHHIIIb Ha ,aa,-Ie ocy, ,~eTCKI, I~ qepHI4JIbI-IbI~ neHan, I4_mt qepnnry a ~ecy, qTO nnKor~a He c6npaa. (1990, I: 166)

Constructed as a soliloquy the poem harks back to the author's reflection on his childhood in 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju' and, resting on an implicit condi- tion, thematizes the inevitability of confronting one's past. Rather than opting for an explicit "esli" Mandel']tam chooses two imperatives at the beginning which seem to presuppose the possibility of actually being able to obliterate one's memories.IS The threefold usage of the word "ili", although each with a (slightly) different meaning, seems to add yet more force to the impression that such a choice indeed exists. However, if the mere idea of an autobio- graphical tabula rasa did not in itself seem impossible the poem demonstrates the latter by implication, as it does contain precise memories. The apparent attempt at the end of the first stanza to put paid to further recollections with a general "ili e]6e 6to-nibud'" misfires and only calls forth yet more memories in the last stanza, ending with an observation already made in 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju' (cf. note 13). With the content remaining overtly autobiographi- cal 16 it invites conjecture why in the poetic variant Mandel'~tam uses the more distant second person singular and in the last line even entirely refrains from the use of any personal pronoun. An explanation in keeping with 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju' could be based on Mandel'~tam's unwillingness to regard history as discrete and the past as irretrievable. Thus the failure to pick berries (which has to be seen in opposition to the Armenian children stooping for the poppy petals) could be made up for if the author adopted the children's approach for himself. It will be shown in conjunction with an analysis of the following chapters of the book that the author indeed wishes to effectuate an imaginary return to his childhood in order to rectify it. In this case, however, a possible line "6to ja nikogda ne sbiral" (disregarding rhyth- mic considerations) would have been too definitive a statement for the author, who objectifies himself ("ty") as a precondition for future changes -

52 Wolf Iro

of the past. Or, in other words: if the author does stoop for the berries at some point in the future he will effectively render the last line untrue.

3. We have argued a case for a special treatment of the children's ap- proach to reality within the general paradigm of a cultural myth of the romantic epoch. The latter also embraces the problem of the author as a function within his work and we maintained that the realization of a metaphor constitutes a particularly subjective act which in a wider context can have the object of asserting one's individuality. Isenberg (1987:155), though failing to acknowledge the specific origin of it, correctly comments that Mandel'~tam "needed to elaborate a voice and a vision that would be potent against the destructive force of the Cultural Revolution [...]". This need of a personal voice finds an explicit reflection in the fourth chapter of the book, 'Fran- cuzy', where the paintings of various impressionist and neo-impressionist artists are judged on the basis of their potential therapeutic effect on the author's vision recuperating from the plague of realism ("(,uma naivnogo realizma"). Mandel'gtam proposes a tripartite programme for an approach to a picture, starting with a brief glance to familiarize the spectator with the exhibit. He then wants to remove that layer of the painting which "soedinjaet ee, kak vsjakuju ve~ ' , s solne~noj [...] dejstvitel'nost'ju" (120). Once this process has been executed successfully, a "cholodnyj dogovor" between spectator and painting sets in, which is qualified as "cholodnyj" because the painting arguably only constitutes a representation of reality but not reality itself. The third stage consists of a direct confrontation ("o~naja stavka s za- myslom") with the deep structure of the painting. This approach presupposes a notion of a work of art in accordance with our previous remarks on the metaphor where for its realization confidence in one's individual approach had been said to be a prerequisite. Jane Gary Harris (1994: 76) identifies as one of Mandel'gtam's sources the art critic Sergej Makovskij: the latter maintained that instead of reproducing nature in a realist fashion, "chudo~nik dolmen peredavat' ne res, ne ve~6' v sebe, a svoe vpeEatlenie ot ve~ri". Although Harris suggests as a possible time of the formation of Mandel'- gtam's ideas the year 1913, which in view of much counterevidence seems too early, the author's position in 'Putegestvie v Armeniju' defining painting as "v gorazdo bol'~ej stepeni javlenie vnutrennej sekrecii, ne~.eli appercepcii, to est' vnegnego vosprijatija" indeed ties in with Makovskij's own position. In proposing such a programme 'Francuzy' marks an important stage in the re-assessment of the author's self image, who is now not merely stating his envy (of the children) but actively tries to adopt a world view that would - inter alia - be founded on a rejection of the traditional notion of realism. Having experienced certain aspects of the children's behaviour as operative in the works of French artists, who with the notable exception of the urban painter Matisse ("pari~skij metr"), much disliked by the author, can all in one

Children's Worm View in 'Putegestvie v Armeniju ' 53

way or another be seen to adhere to plein-airist principles, Mandel'~tam subsequently embarks on the task of similarly laying open parallels and common features with the works of the naturalist scientists. The underlying objective of the chapter 'Vokrug naturalistov' consists in nothing short of debunking any system that leaves no room for discontinuity (like, for instance, Darwin's theory of evolution), as well as adducing evidence for the author's deeply felt belief that all fields of human knowledge are interlinked. It is the latter objective which will account for an accommodation of characteristics of the children's world view within the scientific frame offered by the naturalists. For a deeper understanding of the conceptual background of the chapter it is inevitable to draw on Mandel'~tam's essayistic work in which he explains at length his sceptical attitude towards Darwin's scientific theories and their consequences. Reflecting on the French philosopher Bergson Mandel'~tam remarks: "Nauka, postroennaja na principe svjazi, a ne pri~innosti, izbavljaet nas ot dumoj beskone6nosti evoljucionnoj teorii, ne govorja u~e o ee vul'garnom prichvostne - teorii progressa" (1990, II: 173). Needless to add that his objections are of a literary, rather than scientific nature: "Dlja literatury evoljucionnaja teorija osobenno opasna, a teorija progressa prjamo-taki ubijstvenna" (174). Much has been written about the broader implications of the opposition of the Darwinist concepts and various non-mechanist schools of thought, ~7 and we shall return to this question at a later point of the discussion. For the moment it suffices to say that in 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju' Mandel'~tam espouses a non-Darwinist outlook precisely because it allows for discontinuity in natural evolution. He is particularly attracted by Lamarck's system, ~ which is founded on the principles of mutability, refining the species as a result of external influences on the one hand, and a certain inner striving of the organisms toward perfection on the other hand. Establishing evolutionary principles as general laws of living nature, Lamarck nevertheless did not discover the true causes of evolution, which according to Darwin are mutability, heritability and natural selection. Accessibility of the chapter 'Vokrug naturalistov' to a large extent depends on the readiness on the part of the reader to follow the author in his distinctly subjective interpretation of the naturalists' theories. Thus he construes the difference between Lamarck and Darwin in such a way that Lamarck, having formulated the stepping stone of evolution, becomes his own opponent: "On ne pro~al prirode pustja6ka, kotoryj nazyvaetsja izmen~ivost'ju vidov" (121). Since Lamarck is seen as not being able to reconcile himself with his own theories, he becomes the "edinstvennaja ~ekspirovskaja figura" (122) among the naturalists. The dependence of the organism on evolutionary forces is superseded in Mandel'~tam's world view by those ideas of Lamarck, which leave scope for unpredictability and chance. The latter's concept of the organism as some- thing defining itself rather than being defined ("sreda dlja organizma - pri-

54 Wolf Iro

gla~aju~aja sila" - ibid.) 19 is closely linked with another one of Man- del'~tam's most deeply held principles, the rejection of linearity: "Lamark ~uvstvuet provaly me~du klassami. On sly~it pauzy i sinkopy evoljuciormogo rjada" (ibid.). This is also the underlying idea of the poetic variant 'Lamark' where the battle for the "honour of nature" mentioned in the first stanza is shown to be won at the end of the poem. Lamarck's ladder, informing the complex of different images of biological classes, turns out to represent a discontinuous system; nature lays down the sword in view of the lowest class of beings, which is disconnected from the rest and thus cannot be accounted for in purely evolutionary terms:

]~blfl cTaptIK, 3aCTeHqHBbI~ KaK MaYlbtlHK, Heyr.aro~i4~, po6ra4fi narpHapx... ](TO 3a qecTb npnpo~u ~eXTOBa.rlI, LRrlK. 9

Hy, KoHeHHO, rtnaMenm, lfi .rlaMapK.

EcHM Bee )KHBOe JIHlllb lloMapKa 3a KOpOTKri~ BUMOpOqHbl~ llem,, Ha nOllBmKHO~ aecTHmte IlaMapKa 5I 3afiMy noc:le~HtOlO cTynem,.

K KOJlbtleUaM cnymycb n K yCOHOFHM, l-lpomypmaB cpe~b zmeprlu n 3Mefi, Ho ynpyrriM CXO~HaM, no ria~oraM Coxpamycs, ncqe3wy, KaK HpoTe~.

POFOByIO MaHTttK) Ha,nelly, OT ropaqefi KpOBrI OTKa~ycb, O6pacTy npncocraMrt ri B nelly OKeaHa 3aBMTKOM BOnbloCb.

Mbl npotttan pa3pedlbi HaceKOMBIX C HaJIMBHblMM plOMOqKaMH F.rla3. OH cKa3aJI: HpHpo~a BC~I B pa3flOMaX, 3peHb~l HeT, -- Tbl 3pFllllb B rloc.rle~HMfi pa3.

OH cKa3aJl: ,/]OBOJIbHO llO.rlHO3Byqb~l, -- Tbl HanpacHo MouapTa am6an, HacTynaeT rJlyxoTa nayqb~, 3)xect, npoBa:i crtnsriee namax can.

I/I OT Hac nprfpo~ta OTCTyHH~]a Tax, KaK 6y~tTO MI,1 eft He Hy~KHbI, Id npo~o~bHbIfi MO3F OHa B~O)Kri~a, C.rIOBHO UlHar'y, B TeMHble HO~KHbl.

Children's World View in 'Putegestvie v Armeniju ' 55

I/I Ho~eMI-II~IH MOCT OHa 3a6btna, Ono3jxana OrlyCTH'rb ,/],.rlll TeX, ~,yr KOFO 3eyleHarl MOrH.rla,

KpacHoe jlblXaHbe, FH6KH~ CMeX...

(1990, I: 186)

We have reasons to believe that Mandel'gtam read Lamarck less against his better judgment than in full consciousness of the latter's methods: "Lamark prikazyval prirode" (Roginskij 1990: 44), the author apparently stated, and in his recollections on several conversations with Mandel'gtam the biologist Roginskij (ibid.) considers this remark a key to the imperative in the sixth stanza. This harks back to a discussion of the significance of an affirmation of individuality in a work of art, which can only be executed on the premise of "authoritativeness". Emphasizing an aspect that has already been noted above as part of the children's world view Mandel'gtam writes:

Ho BCS 6e~aa B TOM, tITO B aBToprrreTe, rtari, TOqHee, B aBToprrrapHOCTH, Mbl BI4~HM JIHIIlb 3acTpaXOBaHHOCTh OT OLIIH60K H COBCeM He paa6n- paeMca B TO~ rpartanOaHO~ My'3mKe ~oBepqnSOCTn, ~o~eprI~, Tonqafi- mnx, ~:aK ~bnn~ci~aa pa~yra, moancax BepO~THOCTH, KOTOpblMH pac- nopa~aerca ~arrr. (1990, II: 238)

Further on in the chapter the reader encounters an analogy which puts into perspective Lamarck's tendency to claim as scientific fact rather than actually prove certain laws: "On byl iz porody starych nastroj~ikov [...]. Emu raz- re~alis' li~' chromati~eskie krju~ki i detskie arped~io" (123). Here Mandel'- ~tam's peculiar reading of Lamarck's system and the children's world view are eventually brought into harmony on the basis of one of the numerous musical references in the chapter. "Chromati6eskie krju6ki" alludes to the crucial image of the ladder in Lamarck's works, representing a natural- philosophical concept of the hierarchical order of all existing structures: God - man - quadrupeds - birds - fish - snakes - insects - aphids/transition to plants - plants - stones - salt - sulphur - earth. 2° "Arped~io", on the other hand, denotes the playing of the notes of a chord in consecutive order, usually starting from the deepest one. In 'Putegestvie v Armeniju' all evolutionary leaps are mapped up with corresponding musical irregularities ("pauzy", "sinkopy" etc.) producing an impression of incongruity related to the non- causality of the children's associations. It is precisely in conjunction with Lamarck's "chromatic scales", replicating his concept of the ladder, that the mental step from poppy petals to butterflies recalls a "detskoe arped~.io". By a similar token the transformation of a "korjaga" (plant) into "morskoj zmej" (snake), too, becomes a correlate for the rather abstract event of an evo- lutionary leap suggested by the naturalist. Now the deeper meaning of the comparison of Lamarck with a "mal'~ik" at the very beginning of the poem,

56 Wolf Iro

attributing child-like qualities to the scientist, becomes clear and can be said to propose a view of Lamarck as not only defending the honour of nature but human imagination in general. 21 This also invites a reading of the descent of the lyrical ~2 to the last rung of the ladder ("ja zajmu poslednjuju stupen'") as a conscious choice in favour of non-causality premising any form of imaginationY Viewed against this background some of the most unexpected analogies of the chapter about various naturalists read as a natural extension of the image of Lamarck as a boy. The characterization of the naturalist Linnaeus, for example, is drawn from his fascination with the circus when he was a child: "Linnej rebenkom v malen'koj Upsale ne mog ne pose~at ' jarmarok, ne mog ne zaslu~ivat'sja ob"jasnenij v stranstvuju~6em zverince." The implication of an affinity between a naturalist's mentality and that of a child comes as no surprise in a book which is replete with underlying refer- ences to children and childhood. All the same the author insists on explicitly rejecting a possible negative reading of his treatment and simultaneously locates the origins of the naturalist's profession in childhood experiences:

C6~rb'Ka~ aagHbIe TBopeHH~ mae~cKoro HaTypanncTa c KpaCHopeqHeM 6aaapHoro roBopyHa, a OTHIO]Ib He HaMepeH npl, IHH3i, rrb J-IHHHe~I. xoqy numb HanoMHrrrb, qTO HaTypa.q~tCT -- npoqbeccnoHaabnbi~ pac- CKaaqnK, ny6JmqHbI~ )IeMOHCTpaTop HOablX nrrrepecHbiX ari~aoa. (124)

In the beginning of our analysis of the chapter 'Vokrug naturalistov' refer- ence had been made to potential wider implications of the contrast between Lamarck and Darwin. Subsequently it was shown that Mandel'~tam's treat- ment of the naturalists in 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju' as well as in the corres- ponding poem 'Lamark' in its allowance for non-causality, imagination and individuality suggests parallels with the children's approach. Gasparov, whose theory of the cultural myth as a paradigm has been applied by the author to Mandel'~tam's later work in general, offers an explication of the poem (and the whole chapter dedicated to the naturalists) within the meta- physical frame of Schelling's treatise on free will. In it the artist-genius is viewed as the single human force capable of overcoming the gulf between nature and mankind and, by dint of his creative imagination, of restoring an organic unity of both. Again we find a concurrence of some of the philo- sophical foundations of romanticism and the children's world view as pre- sented in 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju'.

4. Thus, after putting forward his notion of the children's specific ap- proach Mandel'~tam successively transfers prominent features of it onto other cognitive disciplines in an attempt to illustrate their interdependence. How- ever, the implicitly desired change does not consist in an awareness of such an approach on a rather abstract level but as an artistic method modelled on

Children's Worm View in 'Putegestvie v Armeniju ' 57

it. Hitherto in 'Putegestvie v Armeniju' such a method has only been stated but not implemented by the author. A change can be said to take place, albeit in a rudimentary form, in the penultimate chapter of the book, 'Agtarak', which becomes a stage for the display of tensions in the author's voice, momentarily fragmenting it into several individual ones. Geared towards an adequate rendition of different voices the relevant paragraph is divided into three parts and structured around the description of the small chapel in the village Agtarak. The first part starts on a descriptive note similar to the very beginning of the book ("Agtarakskaja cerkovka samaja obyknovennaja i dlja Armenii samaja smirnaja"; 127), while the author subsequently suggests a comparison of the chapel with a priest's head ("gestigrannaja kamilavka", "verevo6nye brovi", "usta ~6elistych okon", etc.). The comparative nature of the passage is emphasized by disclosing the actual referent before introducing its metaphorical codification: first the author mentions the chapel itself and only afterwards speaks of a "kamilavka", before speaking of "verevo6nye brovki" he informs the reader of the existence of "kanatnye ornamenty". The second part of the description of the chapel is a curious example of a change in voice on the part of the author who is now standing on his toes in order to peek inside: "No tam ~e kupol, kupol!" (ibid.). What at first sight merely reads like an apostrophe in awe turns out to be fascination with an imagined cupola, thus serving as a figure for the children's approach to reality. From the general image of the cupola there follows the possibility of a cluster of associations and metaphorizations that barely hark back to their origin:

HacToamrifi! Kax B PriMe y FleTpa, no~ KOTOpblM TblC~lqHble TO]nbl, rI nanbMbl, n Mope cBeYe~, n HOCrtai<n. TaM yr:ly6Jlennbie cqbepI, i ancrta paKoannaM~ HOIOT. TaM qeTblpe xJ]eroneKa: ceaep, 3ana~, ~or, BOCTOK - c BbmOZOTbIMn raaBaMn TbI'ayTCS B BOpOHI<OO6paBHble HmUn, o6tuapnBaPOT o,mra n Meaqayoqaxhs n He HaxoztST ce6e MeCTa. (ibid.)

The fourfold repetition of the adverb "tam" in the passage as a whole effects a gradation of metaphorical intensity leading to the eventual discovery of the cupola to be a sham: "Komu ~e pri~la ideja zaklju~it' prostranstvo v etot ~alkij pogrebec, v etu ni~uju temnicu - 6toby emu tam vozdat' dostojnye psalmopevca poresti?" (ibid. - our emphasis). In every respect Mandel'~tam here flouts the reader's traditional notion of the author's unity with the latter wavering between childlike rapture and bitter rejection of what he beheld. It becomes impossible to judge which voice the author is to be identified with, a problem further enhanced by the fact that definite pronouns seem to be purposefully omitted ("vstal na cypo~ki i zagljanul vnutr'"). The momentary fragmentation of the author's voice is complemented by a subsequent visit to the schoolteacher of the village where the author's consciousness seems to coalesce with the figure of the teacher, who is ostracized by the community.

58 Wolf Iro

It is illuminating that the latter should keep in a chest of drawers his "diplom universiteta, attestat zrelosti i vodjanistaja papka s akvarel'nymi risunkami - nevinnaja proba uma i talanta. V nem byl gul nesover~ennogo pro~edgego" (128). Given the recurring motif of children's drawings in the corresponding cycle of poems 'Armenija' a legitimate exegesis of the "akvarel'nye risunki" in question could identify them as children's watercolours, possibly the teacher's own drawings as a child. Not only would such a reading seem dramatically appropriate in the light of the last chapter but it could also plausibly account for the next sentence in the quotation as further evidence of the contraction of the author's consciousness with the figure of the teacher: "gul nesover~ennogo pro~edlego", then, arguably becomes a neat pun para- phrasing the title of Mandel'~tam's own autobiographical account 'Sum vre- meni', while the epithet "nesover~ennoe" indicates an ongoing preoccupation with his own childhood. The fragmentation of the author's voice as well as the reflection of the author in the character of the teacher seems to contradict our former interpretation of the text as a renewed attempt at authorial self- definition. However, as a precondition for a return to his childhood the author first has to dissolve the boundaries of his own identity. This takes place on a personal level (fragmentation of author's voice), a physical level (teacher as author's reflection) and a temporal level. The latter one is referred to at the beginning of the last chapter, 'Alagez', when the author asks himself: "Ty v kakom vremeni cho6e~' fdt'? - Ja cho~u ~it' v povelitel'nom pri~astii bu- du~ego, v zaloge stradatel'nom - v 'dolf~enstvujug~em byt .... (128). The answer to a question implying the possibility of its presupposition (i.e. the transfer in time) is only partly intended humorously, for it serves to define the time dimension in linguistic (grammatical) terms and thus makes the past capturable. This is bound up with a heightened effect of the dissolution of the author, made explicit as a result of the soliloquy: "Takuju re6' ja vel s samim soboj, edu~i v sedle po uro~i~am, ko~evbi~am i gigantskim pastbi~6am Ala- geza." The full function of such a dissolution discloses itself in the broader context of the chapter as a whole. In the fourth paragraph, without any prior reference to it, the author is implied to be living (or at least being) in a school: "V ~kole k nam prisoedinilsja stranstvuju~ij plotnik - 6elovek by- valyj i provomyj" (129). Evidently the reader is asked to impute to the sentence the idea that the author has found a place to rest, possibly over- night, on his joumey on horse 24 to the mountain Alagez. This fact, however, simultaneously prepares for the author's enactment of the role of a child in the second half of the chapter. It calls to mind one of the most radical statements in 'Razgovor o Dante', providing for yet an additional slant to the scene: "V dantovskom ponimanii u~itel' molo~e u6enika, potomu 6to 'begaet bystree'" would then point to the school in 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju' not as a conventional educational institution but as a "gkola bystrej~ich associacij" (1990, II: 217), and his visit to the teacher's house where the latter turned out

Children's Worm View in 'Putegestvie v Armeniju' 59

to keep his university diploma and children's drawings in the same drawer can in this context be said to signal precisely the shift from "u6itel'" to "u6e- nik". Not unexpectedly, this idea receives its elaboration in the form of an illustrative example in the following part. After introducing the object which is to be metaphorized in plain terms first, "v B'jurakane ja kupil bol'Kuju glinjanuju solonku, s kotoroj potom bylo mnogo vozni" (129), the author then performs its subsequent metaphorization, putting emphasis on the imagin- ative faculties involved by means of the initial injunction: "Predstav'te sebe grubuju paso6nicu - babu v fi£rnach ili robrone, s ko~a6'ej golovkoj i bol'~im kruglym rtom na samoj seredine roby, kuda svobodno zalezaet pjaternja" (ibid.). The reverberations of the children's approach, underscoring the trans- formation of the salt-cellar, are spelt out explicitly in the next sentence: "S6astlivaja nachodka iz bogatoj, vpro6em, sem'i predmetov takogo roda. No simvoli6eskaja sila, vlo~ennaja v nego pervobytnym voobra~eniem, ne us- kol'znula d ~ e ot poverchnostnogo vnimanija goro£an" (ibid.). The ensuing invocation of the Armenian way of life reaches a metaphorical independence hitherto unattained by the author, for whom the fairytale-like dimensions of the tomb of a giant Kurd can suddenly become an utterly normal pheno- menon. In addition death seems to have lost its terrible connotations and thus the thrust of the passage, based on animal imagery mainly, is that of an animated worm governed by the force o f the author's imagination. Having replicated in his treatment of the Armenian village as far as possible the children's world view the author subsequently seeks accommodation for the night: "Bezdetnye starik so staruchoj prinjali nas na no6' v lono svoego ~atra" (131; our emphasis). 25 In reflecting the author's desire to return to his childhood the sentence marks the culmination of a development which traces to the very beginning of the book where the children's world view is illus- trated by numerous examples. An analysis of the adaptation of the historical legend of Armenia will demonstrate how the organization of the book presents a spiral structure with the author relating back to his starting point, but on a different empirical level.

5. In his adaptation of the Armenian chronicle given in the form of an enumeration Mandel'~tam in parts significantly deviates from the original folklore legend. In the course of the paragraphs 6-8, in which Ar~ak's own thoughts are reproduced, the perspective changes from an external point of view to an intemal one, thus preparing for an identification of the author with the prisoner: "Car' Sapuch - kak dumaet Ar~ak - vzjal verch nado mnoj i - chu£e togo - on vzjal moj vozduch sebe" (131). In the seventh and eighth paragraph the author's fusion with the figure of Ar~ak, which has been prepared by the adoption of Ar~ak's own perspective, gradually takes shape through a repeated use of personal pronouns and is consummated by the phrase: "[...] ~to ja nacho~'us' zdes' - v kreposti AnuS" (ibid. - our empha-

60 Wolf Iro

sis). Once this operation is finished attention can be focused on facts in the life of Argak which undercut the identification of the author with the im- prisoned tsar on a biographical level. 26 In the fourteenth paragraph the past is dealt with in terms of a loss of authority: "On [i.e. Drastamat] byl guber- natorom provincii Andech v te dni, kogda Argak barchatnym golosom otdaval prikazanija" (132), which is closely related to the fifteenth paragraph evoking the image of the womb: "V~era byl car', a segodnja provalilsja v ~e l ' , skrju~,ilsja v utrobe, kak mladenec, sogrevaetsja v~ami i nasla~daetsja ~,esotkoj" (ibid.)Y The similarity between author and tsar here ("v lone" - "v utrobe") is to be understood in the sense that the author returns into the womb precisely in order to re-invent his childhood, to which he had consigned such negative connotations in 'Sum vremeni':

Becb CTpO~HbI~ MHpam IIeTep6ypra 6hi Jl Tor~la TO.rlbKO COH, 6JInCTa- weJIbHbI~ noKpOB, HaKHHyTbI~ Ha~t 6e3~lHO~, a KpyroM npocTripancn xaoc nyge~cTBa, He poJIrtHa, He )IOM, He oqar, a rtMeHHO xaoc, He- 3HaKOMbI~ ympo6H~f~ Mup, oaxyga n Bb~IneJ1, KOTOpOro ~ 60~nCS, 0 KOTOpOM CMyTHO ]IOFa~blBaJlCfl -- H 6e~Kaa, Bcer~ta 6e~ran. (1990, II: 13; our emphasis)

This leads to the last paragraph punctuated by the author's desire for a return to his childhood and echoes the ideas most closely associated with the chil- dren's approach to reality in 'Putegestvie v Armeniju'. In it Drastamat asks Sapuch:

Koraa aotuno ao Harpa.n~eHHfl, ~paCTaMaT BJ'IO)KH.rl B OCTpble ymn accrlpn~tta npocb6y, ttteKo~rytuym, KaK nepo: ~a~ Mne nporlycr B Kpe- nOCTb AHytU. ~1 XoLIy, HTO6bI AptuaK npoBen O~HH )Io6aaOqHbI~ ~eHb, nOnHbI~ CSIbltUaHrlS, BKyca rt O6OHaHrm, KaK 6bmaao paHbine, Korzta OH pa3BJieKancs OXOTO~ H 3a6OTHnCZ O apeBoHaca,'KaeHHH. (ibid.)

In terms of the paradigm proposed in this article "ochota" here harks back to the children's "ochota za makovymi kryl'jami" while the planting of trees constitutes the antithesis of the "sover~ennoletnie mu~iny" felling the lime trees, z8 Nancy Pollack (1987: 459) contends that 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju' displays the structure of a geode, making it "a literal realization of the concentric construction characteristic of Dante's three realms". However, our analysis of the last chapters seems to argue in favour of the image of a spiral as an adequate iconographic representation of the overall design of the text. The echoing of what stood at the beginning of the journey takes the author back but implies a higher state of authorial consciousness. This development in a helixal progression may also afford an explanation why Mandel'~tam did not include in the final version of the book a revealing comparison, appearing in an earlier draft of the chapter entitled 'Moskva'. The significance of the

Children's Worm View in 'Putegestvie v Armeniju' 61

analogy emerges in particular in view of the mirror not being used by the little boy to reproduce external reality: "Po spravedlivosti, ja upodobilsja ozorniku-mal'~i~ke, kotoryj zabralsja v va£noe [?] mesto s [pobitym] karmannym zerkal'cem v rukach, [kogda on veselo chitrit i navodit im kuda ni vzdumaetsja] [chitrit i puskaet napravo i nalevo]" (1990, II: 355). Mandel'~tam could only meaningfully include this sentence in the book in conjunction with the general discussion of the official function of a travelogue. Since the latter, however, is part of the third chapter (and in the final version even there only in its most rudimentary form) the sentence would have had to appear at a stage in 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju' where an acquisition of the children's approach can by no means be said to have taken place (yet) and thus would have denoted what is partly to become true in the process of the whole book only. As we have shown, in the end the author has rudimentarily reproduced the children's metaphor-based approach to reality and given a literary rendition of his yet to be fulfilled wish to return to his childhood. 29 In the remaining years of his life the poet will be seen to create a body of poetic work distinctly different in both its metaphorical content and the presence of the author from his poems up to 1930. 30 These aspects of his post-1930 poetry as well as Mandel'~tam's continuing desire for a re- assessment of his self in terms of a child is typified in a poem that had been given the provisional title 'Reims-Laon' but appears to have been left untitled in the definitive version of spring 1937:

BH~eJI o3epo, CTOflBlllee OTBeCHO, -- C pa3pe3annolo po3o~ B KoJtece Hrpanri pbI6bl, ~IOM noc+poHB npecnbl~. JInca H J~eB 6opoJmcb B qeJIHOKe.

FJm3eJtrl BHy'rpb Tpex JmtOtttrlX nopTanOB He~Iyrn - He~xpyrrl ~tpyrHx HeCKpblTblX ~yr. OrianKOBbI~ npoJ1eT ra3eJ1b nepe6egana, H 6atUH~Mri cKana BB~IoxHyYla B)xpyr, --

I/I BJIaFO~ HarloeH, BOCCTaJ1 rlecqaHHK qeCTHbl~, Id cpe]ll, peMecJIeHnoro ropo/la-cBepqKa Ma.nbqrltuKa-oKean BcTaeT ri3 peqKri n p e c n o ~ H qatuKaMn BO~lbI tUBblpaeT a o6aaKa. (1990, I: 246-247)

To a large extent, accessibility of the poem to critical discussion rests on the title subsequently discarded. In her comments on Mandel'~tam's later poetry Jennifer Baines (1976: 203) construes "ozero" in the first line as "the torrent of light from the rose window of L a o n ' s razrezannoju rozoj v kolese' - Laon, because Reims's rose window of 1235 is contained in a pointed arch,

62 Wolf Iro

unlike that of the earlier cathedral of Laon (1178-1190) which is set in a rounded arch." However, without the clue afforded by the provisional title such detailed background knowledge would remain entirely speculative with but a few key words ("portaly", "dugi") serving as markers of the image of the cathedral. The poem itself thus becomes a prime illustration of a meta- phorization barely harking back to its origin, a technique shown above to be at work in the associative chains generated in the children's minds. 31 The commentary in the two volume edition of Mandel'ltam's collected works points to the opening sentence of 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju' as a comparison: "Na ostrove Sevan [...] ja pro~.il mesjac, nasla~dajas' stojaniem ozemoj vody na vysote 6etyrech tysja6 futov [..,]" (100). A synoptic arrangement of the two sentences automatically captures the fundamental change that has taken place in the poet's approach to reality since embarking on the journey to Armenia seven years before the creation of the poem. Whereas in the sen- tence from 'Putegestvie v Armeniju' "stojanie" in quite a literal sense denotes the stillness of the mountain lake, the "stoja~ee ozero" of the poem refers to a metaphorically transformed window of a cathedral. The abundance of ani- mal imagery, which Baines (1976: 204) explicates as "carved stone figures" on the facade of the cathedral, as well as several "lifeless" objects being momentarily animated ("laju~ie portaly", "skala vzdochnula", "vosstal pes- 6anik 6estnyj") help to strengthen the basis for an underlying, possibly sub- conscious replication of the children's approach to reality. In the last stanza the image of a "mal'6i~ka-okean", a little boy as an ocean throwing water into the sky, is introduced. However, this spirals back to the beginning where the properties of the lake have been defined in such a way ("stoja~6ee otvesno") that it effectively becomes a mirror and the boy rising from it a reflection of the lyrical I. It can thus be inferred that the poem in fact presents a lyrical I trying to revert to a child-like state by following the children's approach to reality and generating a series of metaphorizations. Such a reading would neatly explain the introductory clause "ja videl ozero". Nikita Struve (1990: 251) maintains that by means of this introduction the poet emphasizes the "individual nature of his creation". However, this rather seems a metafunction of first-person expressions in Mandel'~tam's later poetry in general. Unless we assign the lyrical I a meaning within the parti- cular poem its existence would in this case remain unaccounted for. Our proposed reading of the poem, it seems, does this.

6. In our analysis we have shown how many aspects of 'Putelestvie v Armeniju' can be attributed to the children's world view characterized most importantly by an unusual degree of sensitivity to metaphors transforming the external image of the world into an individualized, subjective one. In several stages the author's voice is shown to adopt this world view. The approach taken can readily be accommodated within Gasparov's all-embracing para-

Children's Worm View in 'Putegestvie v Armenij'u' 63

digm of a conflicting romantic and realist age, which we outlined in its broad implications in the course of the article. In their self-sufficient treatment of reality as part of a non-mechanist, imaginative way of life in natural sur- roundings the Armenian children represent one constituent of yet an addi- tional paradigmatical pair, the second element of which is the author himself at the beginning of a journey, by the end of which he has at least partially acquired child-like abilities. In an analysis of "S mirom dertavnym ja byl li~' rebja6eski svjazan" Iosif Brodskij (1994:11) comments on the general nature of Mandel'~tam' s poetry:

He x o , ~ e r c . 3aHHMaTbC~I CTaTHCTHKO~, C K a ~ y H a y r a ~ : B ~eBffHOCTO

C.rlyqa,qx H3 CTa nripHgM CTrlXOTBOpeHH~ MaHJIenbmTaMa O6SlgaH BBe-

,/IeHHIO aBTOpOM B CTMXOTBOpI--IyIO TKaHb MaTepHa.Jla, CB~I3aHHOFO C ./Ie'I'-

CKMM MnpOOII1yUleHHem, 6y,/Ib TO o6pa3 H.rIH -- qa I~e - HHTOHa~H,q.

We will never know with absolute certainty whether Mandel'~tam's return to poetry at the time of his journey to Armenia was the result of a development stretching over several years, or whether the change took place primarily in those months. However, Mandel' ~tam's autobiographical account of the jour- ney unequivocally points to a children's world view as one of the contri- buting factors of the poet's "vtoroe dychanie".

NOTES

See Nade2da Mandel'~tam (1987:131). See, e.g., Gasparov (1992b: 153): "Poeti6eskoe palomni6estvo Mandel'~tama sovergaetsja kak by po stoletnym sledam pugkinskogo putegestvija na Kav- kaz." The Roman number in the reference designates the respective volume of the Mandel'gtam edition. As far as quotations directly from 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju' are concerned, these will henceforth be indicated by a page reference only, leaving out both the year of the publication, i.e. 1990, and the volume number, i.e. II. As in all the literature on 'Putegestvie v Armeniju' we shall henceforth not make a distinction between the author and the narrator in this overtly autobio- graphical work. For further discussion see, e.g., Brown (1973). Not only in his discussion of the naturalists, but already in the chapter 'Mos- kva' Mandel' gtam expresses his negative attitude to any form of determinism - be it Darwin's theory of evolution or Marx's ideas on the influence of the

64 Wolf Iro

16

17

18

19

20

environment on the individual: "Rastenie v mire - 6to prois~estvie, strela, a ne sku~noe borodatoe razvitie" (114). Note, incidentally, the momentary character of the description. It is of course the author who notes and records their particular mode of behaviour, and one could argue that therefore some of the utterances ascribed to the children are in fact more neutral than we claim. This is an obvious illustration of the paradox: how does the literary rendition of the author's inability to describe things become literarily possible? It is evident that, if applied rigorously, the underlying general objection that language is used to talk about language would effectively invalidate many metaliterary examples in literature. Space does not permit a discussion of various literary theories addressing this problem. Harris (1994: 73) draws a parallel between the two journeys: "In his second paragraph Mandel'~tam claims that Signac's references to Delacroix's Jour- ney to Morocco are essential, suggesting that his own 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju' is a kind of analogue." Compare with Mandel'~tam (1969: 169): "Kni~&a moja govorit o tom, 6to glaz est' orudie my~lenija [...]." See also, e.g., Pollack (1987) and Gifford (1979: 27-30). See as a striking example his poem "Zil Aleksandr Gercevi~", where the hero's name changes twice on the basis of (not exclusively) phonetic asso- ciations. The Russian word "motylek" can mean either moth or butterfly. Goethe's Italienische Reise is the only book Mandel'~tam took with him on his journey to Armenia. It is left open to speculation why the author in his childhood did not conceive of reality the way the Armenian children do. The only hint the text affords refers to the author's remark that "iz glupogo samoljubija, iz lo~noj gordyni, ja nikogda ne chodil po jagody i ne nagibalsja za gribami" (111). This is evidently contrasted by the Armenian children stooping to pick up the poppy petals. Presumably it is likewise not fortuitous that the author as a child is said to prefer "goti~eskie ~i~ki". In them he feels "na6atki architektury, demon kotoroj soprovo~al menja vsju ~izn'" (ibid.). The associations are invariably urban ones, whereas the other children are taken to be part of nature itself. Cf., e.g., Gasparov (1992b: 152): "Perechod ot 1920-ch godov k 1930-m osmysljalsja v celom rjade tvor6eskich koncepcij kak perelom, znamenovav~ij soboj okon6anie predydu~6ej i nastuplenie novoj epochi." The poem reads like a negative echo of Mandel'~tam's own 'Silentium' from the collection Kamen ': "Da obretut moi usta / Pervona6al'nuju nemotu, / Kak kristalli6eskuju notu, / Cto ot ro2denija 6ista" (1990, I: 70-71 ). Cf. Baines (1976:10-11) and also Mandel'gtam (1990, I: 505). See, e.g., Ivanov (1994), Serman (1994) and especially Rayfield (1987). Cf. Mandel'~tam (1990, II: 432) and also Ivanov (1994). Which is, of course, a less than disguised reference to Marx. Cf. the commentary in Mandel'~tam (1990, II: 432).

Children's World View in 'Putegestvie v Armeniju' 65

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

29

Tynjanov (in Ger~tejn 1986: 62), incidentally, read the poem quite differently: "[...] tam predskazano, kak 6elovek perestanet byt' 6elovekom." Gasparov (1992b: 164), on the other hand, supports a positive interpretation: "Uchod iz mira 6elovereskogo su~restvovanija okazyvaetsja vysokoj i pozitivnoj mis- siej ." Ivanov (1994: 286) suggests a connection with the first person singular in Lamarck's own writings: "The form of ich-Erzdihlung [of Lamarck's works - W.I.] seems particularly close to the same formal feature in Mandelstam's poem." Compare also with the author's wish in 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju' to behold reality through the eyes of a butterfly in one of Lamarck's books: "I vdrug ja pojmal sebja na dikom Zelanii vzgljanut' na prirodu narisovannymi glazami etogo ~udovi~a." Referring to classic examples taken from Pu~kin and Gogol', David M. Bethea (1992:110) draws attention to the image of the horse and its specific functions in Russian literature: "[...] the horse is a powerful visual tool in the hands of various verbal artists precisely because [...] its inherent qualities [...] make it an ideal symbol [...] for the tumultuous ride from one space-time into another." This may point to a possible interpretation of Mandel'~tam's journey on horse as tapping a literary tradition for an additional marker of his intended return in time. Nade~da Mandel'~tam (1987:131), interestingly, uses the same expression in a similar context: "Dlja Mandel'~tama priezd v Armeniju byl vozvra~eniem v rodnoe lono - tuda, gde vse na~alos', k otcam, k istornikam, k isto~niku. Posle dolgogo mol~anija stichi vernulis' k nemu v Armenii i u2e bol'~e ne pokidali." Compare, e.g., with the 'Cetvertaja proza' in Mandel'~tam (1990, II: 91-92): "Nor' ju Cekubu zapirali, kak krepost', i ja stural palkoj v okno. [...] Kogda ja pereezZal na druguju kvartiru, moja ~uba lehala poperek proletki, kak 6to byvaet u [...] vypu~ennych iz tjur'my." Note also the conspicuous shift from the past to the present tense here. It seems surprising that Gasparov (1992b: 169) invokes the romantic myth of the artist sacrificing the powers of hearing or seeing in the name of a transcendental mission to overcome the rift between humanity and nature, but makes no mention of the author himself taking over this role in 'Pute~estvie v Armeniju'. Such a return to childhood, however, should be distinguished from any desire to turn into a child again. What Mandel'gtam is interested in is an acquisition of the particular features of a children's view enabling them to create metaphors in a most natural way. Only this reading will do full justice to the scope of Mandel'~tam's poetic image of the child which can furnish poems as different as 'Ro~lenie ulybki' and "Ja bol'~e ne rebenok" (1990, I: 221-222 and 181 respectively). Whereas the former draws a comparison between a child's smile and poetic creation in general, the latter angrily rejects the state's patronizing treatment of the individual.

66 Wolf Iro

30 Ju. Levin (1990: 406) writes with respect to Mandel'~tam's later poetry: "V ka6estve klju6evogo slova, mnogoe ob"jasnjaju~6ego v etom svoeobrazii, my vybiraem termin 'nekonvencional'nost"." Compare also, e.g., with 'Razgovor o Dante' (1990, II: 223): "Udlinjajas', poema udaljaetsja ot svoego konca, a samyj konec nastupaet ne~ajanno i zvu~it kak na6alo."

LITERATURE

Baines, J. 1976

Bethea, D.M. 1992

Brodsk~,I.A. 1994

Brown, C. 1973

Gasparov, B, 1992a

1992b

Ger~t~n,E.M. 1986

Gifford, H. 1979

Harris, J.G. 1994

Isenberg, C. 1987

Mandelstam: The Later Poetry. Cambridge.

'Remarks on the Horse as a Space-Time Image from the Golden to the Silver Ages of Russian Literature'. Cultural Mythologies of Russian Modernism." from the Golden Age to the Silver Age (Ed. B. Gasparov et al.). Berkeley, 109-127.

"S mirom der~avnym ja byl li~' rebja6eski svjazan". Stoletie Man- del'~tama: materialy simpoziuma (Eds. R. Aizlewood and D. Myers). Tenafly, New Jersey, 9-17.

Mandelstam. Cambridge.

'The Golden Age and its Role in the Cultural Mythology of Russian Modernism'. Cultural Mythologies of Russian Modernism: from the Golden to the Silver Ages (Ed. B. Gasparov et al.). Berkeley, 1-16. 'Tridcatye gody - 2eleznyj vek'. Cultural Mythologies of Russian Modernism: from the Golden to the Silver Age (Ed. B. Gasparov et al.). Berkeley, 151-179.

Novoe o Mandel'gtame. Paris.

'Mandelstam and the Journey'. Journey to Armenia (Trans. S. Monas). San Francisco.

'Mandelstam and Signac'. Stoletie Mandel'~tama: materialy simpo- ziuma (Eds. R. Aizlewood and D. Myers). Tenafly, New Jersey, 72- 83.

Substantial Proofs of Being. Osip Mandelstam's Literary Prose. Columbus.

Children's Worm View in 'Putegestvie v Armeniju' 67

Ivanov, V.V. 1994

Levin, Ju.I. 1990

'Mandelstam and Biology'. Stoletie Mandel'gtama: materialy simpoziuma (Eds. R. Aizlewood and D. Myers). Tenafly, New Jersey, 280-298.

1969 1990

Pollack, N. 1987

'O nekotorych osobennostjach poetiki pozdnego Mandel'~tama'. Zizn' i tvordestvo O. E. Mandel'gtama (Ed. S.S. Averincev et al.). Vorone~, 406-416.

Mandel']tam, N.Ja. 1987 Kniga tret'ja. Paris.

Mandel'~tam, O.l~. Sobranie sodinenij v trech tomach. New York. Sodinenija v dvuch tomach. Moskva.

'Mandel'~tam's Mandel'shtein. Initial Observations on the Cracking of a Slit-Eyed Nut OR a Couple of Chinks in the Shchell'. Slavic Review, 3/4, 450-470.

Rayfield, D. 1987 'Lamarck and Mandel'~tam'. Scottish Slavonic Review, 9, 85-101.

Roginskij, Ja.Ja. 1990 'Vstre6i v Vorone2e'. Z, izn' i tvordestvo O. E. Mandel'gtama (Ed. S.

S. Averincev et al.). Vorone£, 43-46. Serman, I.

1994

Struve, N. 1990

Wachtel, A. 1992

'Osip Mandel'~tam v na~ale 1930-ch godov'. Stoletie Mandel'- gtama: materialy simpoziuma (Eds. R. Aizlewood and Diana Myers). Tenafly, New Jersey, 268-279.

Osip Mandel'gtam. London.

'Voyages of Escape, Voyages of Discovery: Transformations of the Travelogue'. Cultural Mythologies of Russian Modernism: from the Golden Age to the Silver Age (Ed. B. Gasparov et al.). Berkeley, 128-149.