INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Pags(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of die material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to die understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

Xerox University Microfilms300 North ZMbROAdAnn Afbor, MieMgwi 40106

fI77-31,821

BARSZAP, Michal, 1948-RUSSIAN LITERATURE IN POLISH LITERARY CRITICISM: 1918-1932. A DOCUMENTARYSTUDY.The Ohio State University,Ph.D., 1977Literature, Russian and East European

University Microfilms International , Ann Arbor, Michigan 46106

© Copyright by Michal Barszap

1977

RUSSIAN LITERATURE IN POLISH LITERARY CRITICISM: 1918-1932. A DOCUMENTARY STUDY

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio

By

Michal Barszap,

ft ft ft

The Ohio State 1977

Reading Committee:

Jerzy R. Krzyianowski Leon I. Twarog Mateja Matejic

State University

B.A., M.A.

ft

University

Approved By

AdviserDepartment of Slavic Languages

/ and Literatures

The fire of poetry Makes friends of hostile hearts; Through the song of joy Our mutual hatred sleeps,And blessings rise;Over the heart is spread A covering of peace.

-Aleksandr Puskin"Grafu Olizaru"

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincere thanks and to acknowledge a profound debt of gratitude to Professor Jerzy R. Krzyianowski for his patience, guidance and invaluable help in the preparation of this dissertation. I also wish to thank the other members of my Reading Committee, Professor Mateja MatejicS and Professor Leon I Twarog, for providing invaluable insights, suggestions, and aid in the preparation of this work.

Most of all, however, I am indebted to my wife, Sabina, for her inexhaustable understanding and patience and who provided a source of inspiration for this work.

VITA

April 28, 194 8 ............. Born - Waibrzych, Poland1971 ....................... B.A., Saint Peter's

College, Jersey City,New Jersey

1972-1975................... Teaching Associate, SlavicDepartment, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1973 ............... M.A. , The Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus, Ohio

197 5 - ..................... Instructor of Russian,Denison University, Granville, Ohio

PUBLICATIONS

"Boris Pilnjak in Polish Literary Criticism: 1923-1932,"Occasional Papers in Language, Literature and Linguistics, Ohio University, 1975, Series A, Number 20. “"Jan Kachanowski by David Welsh," Canadian Slavonic Papers, 2 (June 1976), pp. 212-213.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Slavic Languages and LiteraturesStudies in Russian Literature. Professor Frank R.

Silbajoris, Hongor H. Oulanoff and Mateja Mateji<^Studies in Russian Language and Methodology.

Professor Ronald R. SmithStudies in Polish Language and Literature.

Professor Jerzy R. Krzyfcanowskiiv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................. iiiV I T A .......................................... ivINTRODUCTION .................................. 1Chapter

I. THE LITERARY ENVIRONMENT INPOLAND OF THE 1920’S ............ 14

The Skamandrites................... 15Z d r o j .............................. 16Futurists and Formists.............. 19Awangarda......................... 20Kwadryga...............* .......... 22

II. THE POETRY.......................... 26192 2................................ 31192 3................................ 38192 4................................ 40192 5................................ 47192 6................................ 48192 7................................ 581928 and After..................... 73

III. THE THEATER....................... 87IV. THE P R O S E .......................... 109

192 2................................ 110192 3................................ Ill192 4................................ 112192 5................................ 116192 6................................ 118192 7................................ 129192 8................................ 1331929. ........................... 135193 0................................ 137193 1................................ 14119 32 and After...................... 143

v

PageCONCLUSION.................................... 153APPENDIX

Original Texts of Quotations............ 16UBIBLIOGRAPHY .................................. 182

INTRODUCTION

It is well known that Poland suffered for over a century from being divided between Russia, Austria and Prussia. It is also well known that the Russian yoke was the most des­potic of the three, and that, as a result, the Poles developed a very strong hatred not only for Russia, but for everything Russian. Among many other things, Russian literature was generally ignored by Polish literary criticism, not because it was considered bad, but because it was Russian.

Hostilities between Russia and Poland have a very long history. Independent Poland, which disappeared from the map of Europe after the last partition in 1795, had been a large and well populated nation. According to one source, it was the fourth most populous country in Europe after France, the Holy Roman Empire and Russia.^ However, as a result of the three partitions (1772, 1793, 1795), the country was split into three parts: Russia annexed 62% of the area andif5% of the population; Prussia 20% and 2 3%, respectively; and Austria 18% and 32%. This large, prosperous and ancient state was completely wiped out.

In the early years of bondage, under the rule of Catherine the Great, Paul I and Alexander I, life in

1

2"Russian Poland" was relatively acceptable. The liberal policies of the rulers did not hurt Polish interests greatly, and the landowning "szlachta" even prospered. But Catherine (1762-1796) placed many restrictions on the administration of courts; public offices were placed in Russian hands; higher taxes were instituted; religious persecution against the Uniates and Jews was introduced with mass forced conversions to Eastern Orthodoxy; and the Catholic clergy was strictly controlled. Under Paul I (1796-1801) and in the early years of Alexander's rule (1801-1825), the atmosphere became relaxed, with many concessions given to the Poles: Polishschools were reopened; religious persecution was curtailed; the educational system was improved; and some social reforms were introduced.

In 1815, after the defeat of Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna created the Kingdom of Poland— a constitutional monarchy with the Russian tsar as king. At first, the Constitution was followed; but after the 1820 session of the Polish Sejm (Diet), at which the tsar was present and saw manifestations of opposition to his brother Constantine, the Commander-in-Chief of the Polish army, Alexander gave his brother permission to disregard the Constitution and to run the country as he would.

As early as 1815, Poland saw the growth of secret student societies professing the ideas of preservation of

the national spirit and of Polish unity with political inde­pendence as the ultimate goal. Their activities became intensified after 1820, and many of them collaborated with the Decembrists. After Nicholas I (1825-1855), the "gendarme of Europe," introduced censorship and restriction of personal freedoms, placed restrictions on the Sejm, annulled elections, interfered with the courts, and established a very tight secret police network in Poland, military students organized an armed insurrection against Russian rule. On November 29, lf’30, Polish cadets marched toward Warsaw's old city, fight­ing on their way with Russian troops. An attempt to kill Constantine failed; but the uprising became a national struggle for independence. However, the November Insurrec­tion failed; and Nicholas' revenge amounted to total oppres­sion: all administrative and judicial posts were filledwith Russians; the Polish language was eliminated from offices and courts; many schools were closed; religious persecutions were renewed; and an intensive program of russification was started.

This state of affairs, as well as demands for the emancipation of the peasants, led to another uprising in 1863 (the so-called "January Insurrection") which was also crushed by the Tsarist forces. Retribution against the "rebels' was very harsh. About 400 people were executed; thousands were deported to Siberia; some 1600 estates were confiscated; and the very name "Kingdom of Poland" was

4

abolished and replaced by "Vistula Land" (PrivislianskijKrai). Life became unbearable. Civilians could be triedby military courts or deported without a court verdict;Russian became the compulsory language in all spheres oflife; the schools and their curricula became completelyrussified; and the Poles were living literally at the mercy

4of the Russians.

In the 1890*s, there developed a split within the ranks of the Poles themselves, as to the nature of Polish-Russian relations. This led to the formation of many political factions in Poland, with the National Democracy (Stronnictwo Narodowo-Demokratyczne, led by Roman Dmowski and Zygmunt Balicki) and the Polish Socialist Party (Polska Partia Socjalistyczna, led by Jdzef Filsudski, among others) being the largest.

Dmowski and his followers stood for the "unity and political identity of the Polish nation, regeneration of its political forces through cultural progress, and national awareness and civic integration of the m a s s e s . F o r them, statehood was the only answer. After the 1905 Revolution in Russia, they established a Polish Circle in the Russian Duma and favored cooperation with the Russian reformist and liberal parties. Dmowski believed that the greatest threat to the entire Polish nation came from Prussia; therefore, for him, "the key to the solution of the Polish question

lay in the Russian state."®

Pilsudski, on the other hand, was much more militant and saw the establishment of an independent democratic Polish republic as the result of military insurrection. He and his followers "believed that by 'agitating by means of war1 they could establish a base in the kingdom and become an impor­tant political and even military factor. Above all, Pilsudski wanted to show that, far from being a pawn in the hands of the great powers, the Poles were an active element and were determined to fight for their national goals."7

When World War I broke out in 1914, and while Dmowski was still supporting Polish independence under a Russian protectorate, Pilsudski had to make a decision: to supporteither the Central Powers against Russia, or the Allies, which meant to side with Russia, "who had brutishly oppressed her Polish subjects."8 Pilsudski chose to go against Russia. Thus on August 6, 19m, with 5 battalions of poorly armed soldiers, he crossed the border of the Russian-occupied part of Poland and took the town of Kielce "in the name of free and independent Poland."9

After many bloody battles between both Germans and Russians, and Pilsudski's "Legions" and Russians, on November 6, 1916, the Central Powers proclaimed the creation of an independent Poland. But it was a very artificial independence restricted to a very small part of Russian-

6occupied Poland. Meanwhile, seeing that the Russians would not discuss the Polish question, Dmowski went to England, where he began a campaign for an independent Poland.

Finally, on January 8, 1918, after a long campaign by Dmowski in Paris and Ignacy Paderewski in the United States, the Allies under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson promised Poland’s independence (Wilson's "Fourteen Points").Pilsudski, however, did not wait for the official proclama­tion, and on November 10, 1918, he, having just been released from imprisonment in Magdeburg Castle, arrived in Warsaw.On November 11, the Regents (who were appointed by the Central Powers to oversee the territories conquered from Russia and who, on July 22, 1917, had arrested Pilsudski, whose Polish Legions had fought on their side but who had since refused to swear the allegiance to them) handed over the army to Pilsudski, thus recognizing Poland’s independence. Three days later they asked him to assume power as Chief-of- State and Commander-in-Chief of the Republic.

Officially, Poland became independent on May 28, 1919, as the result of the Treaty of Versailles. Although the Treaty delineated the western borders of Poland, it made no mention of her frontier with Russia. The Great Powers left this dilemma for Poland and Russia to solve.

7But hostilities between the two countries had been

renewed much earlier, when, on November 16, 1918, the Soviet Western Army was created. On January 12, 1919, the Soviet Supreme Command ordered a "reconnaissance in depth" as far as the rivers Niemen and Szczera, and, on February 12, as far as the Bug (operation "Target Vistula"),10

With the withdrawal of German troops from the Oberkora- mando-Ostfront between Poland and Russia, both Soviet and Polish units moved spontaneously into the vacuum which was created. The Poles set out on February 9, when the Soviet Western Army was already on the move ("Target Vistula").They clashed on the morning of February 14, in the Belorussian town of Bereza Kartuska. The Polish-Soviet War had begun.^

12Fighting in the Polish-Soviet War was vicious. The struggle became more intensified when, on April 17, 1920, Pilsudski ordered the army to launch an offensive against Kiev. On May 3 the Polish forces took the city and on May 6 the last Soviet units left. Kiev was in Polish hands.

In Poland, the occupation of Kiev was generally hailed by all except the Polish communists. In Russia, the Party appealed to all citizens to defend Russian soil (even though the Ukraine was not Russia). Throughout May, constant fighting raged on both sides of the Dniepr. On May 25, the famous First Red Cavalry Army (Konarmija) under Gen. BudSnnyj arrived on the scene. On May 27 Soviet forces

8staged a counter-offense, and by June 5 the Polish forces were retreating. Kiev was back in Russian possession.

Meanwhile, on April 28, Gen. Mixail Tuxa^evskij was sent to the Russian Western Front in the hope of rolling through Poland. After a whole summer of preparations, the grand offensive was launched on July 4. By the last days of the month, Russians had conquered Minsk, Wilno, and Grodno; the whole Western Front was now in Russian hands. On July 23, Tuxa^evskij ordered that "Warsaw be occupied by 12 August at the latest."13

At the same time, the Soviets launched a political propaganda campaign in Poland. Communist cells were formed in each city, village, and factory. A revolutionary committee was established in each town to make Russian and Yiddish the official languages of revolutionary Poland. To most Polish citizens, this Soviet "liberation" was much worse than the military offensive. The authority to oversee this action was given to the Polish proletariat, and in particular to the Polish Communist Workers' Party under the leadership of Julian Marchlewski.

"Throughout the summer months Poland was swept by a wave of excitement. The approach of the Red Army intensified everyone's emotions. The propertied classes, fearful for their property, grew more possessive; Catholics fearful for their religion grew more religious; revolutionaries, in

9expectation of the revolution, grew more revolutionary; the police, in face of disturbances, grew more repressive; patriots grew more patriotic. Polish society polarized rapidly. Indifference was impossible. The authorities divided the nation into reliable citizens and potential traitors. In the middle of July, they launched a campaign of preventive arrests. Their main victims were communists, trade unionists, and Jews.11

On August 13, 1920, Soviet forces attacked Warsaw. But by August 18, the Polish army, which had been preparing for this invasion throughout the summer months, was gaining the upper hand. The Soviet army was forced eastward and on August 25 was defeated. The Battle of Warsaw was over and the Soviet invasion of Poland had been repulsed.

But the war was not over. The decisive battle took place on August 31 at Komardw where, in an encounter between Konarmija and the Polish forces, the Soviets received the final blow. The Polish army pursued them eastward. On October 12 an armistice was signed in Riga; and on October 18 the fighting between Poland and Russia ceased. The ratified Treaty of Riga was signed on March 18, 1921, thus officially ending two years of bloody butchery, and establishing Poland's eastern borders with Russia.

But hatred of the Russians did not cease with the signing of the armistice. The Poles could never forget the

10bloody atrocities committed by Russians on Polish soil in those two years, as well as in the 12 3 years of the exis­tence of partitioned Poland. "Every pulpit in Poland rever­berated weekly to tales of the'Bolshevik horrors,' of Soviet cannibalism, of the nationalization of women, and of the murder of priests."16

It is important to understand these events in order to comprehend the nature of Polish-Russian relations in the years that followed. While all these political and military actions were shaping the political destiny of the Polish nation, a group of similarly-minded people was shaping its intellectual future. These were people interested in the preservation and growth of inner life, including poets, prose writers, publicists, and literary critics. They watched their eastern neighbor with both caution and great interest. After all, many new trends in literature were coming out of Russia; and after the October Revolution, Polish interest in new Soviet literary forms was overwhelm­ing. Polish left-wing poets and writers, publicists and editors of literary journals were watching developments in Soviet literature very closely. Even though this interest was widespread, due to the political situation, censorship and repression in occupied Poland, it was very difficult for the critics to express their true ideas and opinions in print before independence in 1918. But when it already seemed in 1918 that the "Polish question" was solved,

11hope for peaceful coexistence with Russia was shattered to pieces by Russia’s war against Poland. New mistrusts and hatreds developed and, of course, Polish-Russian literary relations suffered as well.

It is the purpose of this study to investigate the literary criticism of Soviet literature in Poland in the years between 1918 (the achievement of Polish independence) and 193 2 (the appearance in Russia of Socialist Realism and signing of the nop-aggression treaty between Poland and Russia). A study of the critical reception of Soviet literature in Poland is long overdue. There are many scholarly studies written in the United States and in the countries of Eastern Europe dealing with Russian literature of the 1920’s. But, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a single work treating the question of the reception of the new Soviet poetry, theater and prose in Poland of that time.17

This study attempts to bridge this gap in literary research. By reporting the results of his investigation this writer hopes to prove that in spite of political hostilities and of both historical and psychological reasons for the Poles not only to ignore, but to 3trongly oppose, anything coming out of Russia, some intellectual groups were very eager to absorb the new literary concepts and to analyze them on the pages of literary journals.

12It is the hope of the present writer that this study will

make us more aware of the cultural and literary ties and tangles between the peoples of Poland and of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, due to the unavailability in the United States of some original sources, this picture will be somewhat incomplete and, perhaps to the benefit of other scholars, will leave some areas open for further research.

FOOTNOTES TO INTRODUCTION

•^Piotr S. Wandycz. The Lands of Partitioned Poland, 1795- 1918. Seattle and London”: University of Washington Press,1974, p. 3.

2Ibid, p. 11.3Ibid, p. 195.^For a more detailed description of life in the "Russian Poland," see Wandycz, op. cit.

^Quoted by Wandycz, op. cit., p. 289.6Quoted by Wandycz, op. cit. , p. 324.7Ibid, p. 331.8W. F. Reddaway, et al (ed.). The Cambridge History ofPoland. Cambridge University Press, 19i>l7 vol. 2, p. 463.

9lbid,lONorman Davies. White Eagle, Red Star. The Polish-Soviet

War, 1919-20. London: Macdonald and Co., 1972, p. 56.11Ibid, p. 27.^^For a fictionalized description of the war, see I. Babel.

Konarmiya— Odesskie Rasskazy— Pfesy. London: Letchworth, 1965.

■^Davies, op. cit. , p. 148.l^Ibid, p. 152.15Ibid, p. 162-163.16Ibid, p. 238.^However, there are studies of the reception of individual

genres or authors (see bibliography).

13

Chapter ITHE LITERARY ENVIRONMENT IN POLAND IN THE 1920'S

In the 1920's both Poland and the Soviet Union under­went tremendous social, political and psychological changes marking the beginning of a new era: that of Communism inthe Soviet Union and independence in Poland. These new developments caused the literary world in both countries to abandon the old forms and to embark upon a search for new ways of expression which would reflect that new era. Because of a great variety of interpretations and goals among the literati, there appeared a multiplicity of literary groups and movements in both countries.

In the 192Ck's, poetry becomes the chief mode of literary- expression. In the form of "short, directly-charged lyrical tensions, [poetry] signals new life relationships. However, poetry is not as capable of expressing these tensions in social terms as Is the novel. It is prose which, due to its certain distance, is capable of better noticing social problems, of trying to analyze them and of dictating some solutions. Critics tend to agree that the beginning of the 1930's marks the transition from lyrical forms to prose in Polish and Soviet literature. And drama begins to

14

15develop fully when, to quote a noted Socialist, "acting social forces begin to notice in themselves sudden contra­dictions, when thesis becomes antithesis . . . in the dialectic process."^ In other words, the social and politi­cal atmosphere in Poland became ripe for dramatic expression only toward the end of the 1920*s and the beginning of the 1930's.

In poetry, one can clearly distinguish two opposing "camps:" the "Skamander" group and groups affiliated with it on the one hand, and the avant-garde groups on the other.

The Skamandrites

The Skamandrites were young poets who in November of 1918 gathered in the Warsaw literary cafe "Picador" to read their poetry. The group included Julian Tuwim, Antoni Slonimski, Jan Lechon, Kazimierz Wierzynski and Jaroslaw Iwaszkiewicz, to name just a few of the most influential members. The beginnings of the group can be traced to 1916, when Tuwim, Lechon and Slonimski began publishing their poems in the Warsaw University periodical Pro arte et

Ostudio. In 1918 the poets from Pro arte founded the artistic and literary cabaret "Picador,” in which they and many other poets met and recited their poetry. Xn March 1919, however, "Picador" closed and it was only in December of the same year that for the first time the group performed in a

16literary concert under the name "Skamander." In January 1920 they published the first issue of their own journal, also named Skamander. The name refers to the river of ancient Troy where, according to the Iliad, the god of that river challenged Achilles to a fight in defense of certain Trojan youths being murdered by the warrior.

The Skamandrites wanted to restore normalcy to Polish poetry which until then had been forced to serve national and social causes; therefore, in their manifesto, published in the first issue of Skamander, they proclaimed their independence from any movement or ideology— ideology in the sense of some new social, moral or artistic commandments.As Czeslaw Milosz notes,

The young poets emitted a shout of triumph: they werethe first generation of free and independent Poland, but above all, they were free from commitment. Poetry, which had had to serve a cause for so long in Poland, could at last recover its lightheartedness and could perform a spontaneous dance without recourse to com­pulsive justifications.^

In their manifesto, the Skamandrites proclaimed freedom of development for all creative talent and their support for all kinds of literary expression. In their poetry they stressed contemporary issues and the perfection of form:

We want to be poets of the present and this is our faith and our whole *program.* We are not tempted by sermonizing, we do not want to convert anybody, but we want to conquer, to enrapture, to influence the hearts of man, we want to be their laughing and their weeping . . . .

17We know that the greatness of art does not appear in subjects, but in the forms through which it is expressed, in that most light and elusive game of colors, of words transforming a rough experience into a work of art.We want to be honest workers in that game, through our efforts hidden under frivolous shapes . . . .

We believe unshakably in the sanctity of a good rhyme, in the divine origin of rhythm, in revelation through images born in ecstasy and through shapes chiseled by work.®

In the early 19 20’s, Skamander and the poets associated with it exerted the most influence on the shaping of liter­ary tastes in Poland. And in 1924, when the Skamandrites founded a literary weekly, Wiadomosci Literackie, they defi­nitely became not only the most popular, but also the most read, poets and critics— for we must not forget that, besides writing poetry, they all engaged in literary criticism and followed very closely all the literary developments not only in Poland but also abroad, especially in France and Russia. In their manifesto in the first issue of Wiadomosci Literackie, they stated:

Above all, our paper sets for itself informational goals. It desires to be instrumental . . . in the reestablishment of the long-ruptured contact with European art and culture. It desires to take part in the action whose goal is demolition of the wall sepa­rating us from the centers of contemporary civilization. It desires to support in this endevor all the people of good will and faith. (1)

We must also note here that, besides the core members, there were many other literati loosely associated with the Skamander group, such as Wladysiaw Broniewski, Wilam Horzyca,

18Stefan Napierski, Leonard Podhorski-Okolow, Karol Wiktor Zawodzirfski, and others.

Zdroj

In the early years of Poland’s independence, another literary group was loosely affiliated with the Pro arte et studio group. This was the "Zdr^j" (Source) group in Poznan, which published a journal of the same name (1917-1922), edited by Jerzy Hulewicz. The members of this group were attracted by German expressionism, but their expressionist program was manifested more in visual arts than in literature. Many painters and sculptors worked together with the members of "Zdroj" in popularizing expressionism in literature and art; but after 1920, when Skamander was founded and the poets associated with it left " Z d r d j t h e latter1s activi­ties began to diminish and in 1922, due to financial problems, their journal ceased to appear and together with it the group itself fell apart.

At one time or another, the following writers were associated with nZdr<5j:" Waclaw Berent, Jan Kasprowicz,Edward Por^bowicz, Jerzy Hulewicz, Witold (Olwid) Hulewicz, Adam Bederski, Stanislaw Kubicki, Teodor Tyc, Jan Stur,Emil Zegadiowicz, Jdzef Wittlin, and others.^

Futurists and Formists19

The group directly opposing the Skamandrites was the "Awangarda" ("Avant-garde") in Krakow. Let us, however, first look at what can be called the predecessors of "Awangarda," namely the short-lived Futurist and Formist movements. We can safely say that both these groups were rather unsuccessful in Poland, although they were started on a very promising note. In 1917, Bruno Jasierfski, Tytus Czyzewski and Stanislaw Mlodozeniec founded the futurist club "Katarynka" in Krakow, where members organized evenings of poetry recitations and literary discussions. Toward the end of 1918 there was formed another center of Futurism in Warsaw with Anatol Stern and Aleksander Wat as its leaders. In 1920 both the Warsaw and Krakow groups merged, thus beginning the period of the highest activity characterized by many "concerts," public declamations, distributions of leaflets and numerous publications in such literary journals as Nowa Sztuka (New Art, 1921-1922), Zwrotnica (The Switch, 1923), Nowa Kultura (New Culture, 1922) and others.

Polish Futurists, like their Italian and Russian prede­cessors, vehemently opposed any rules of orthography, grammar or punctuation which, according to them, hamper and restrict literary creativity. They abhorred logic and plot, and accepted only rhythm and rhyme as an expression of artistic genius. But their "revolt" was chaotic and

20

disorderly and, as a result, the group fell apart in 1925.

The other predecessor of "Awangarda" was the Formistmovement (1917-1922), comprised of such poets and paintersas Tytus Czyzewski, Leon Chwistek, Konrad Winkler andStanislaw Ignacy Witkiewicz. This group collaborated withthe Krakow Futurists. In the years 1917-1921 the Formistsorganized many art exhibits and published the journalFormisci (The Formists). They espoused "pure form" as theessence of artistic expression and proclaimed completeabandonment of naturalistic tendencies in art. According tothem, an artist must completely devoid himself of externalreality and create realism through deformation and breakingaway from any logical interpretation of reality. In thisrespect, their "platform" is very similar to that of theFuturists. And, just like Futurists, the group fell apartbefore it could really exert too much influence on the

8future development of Polish literature.

Awangarda

After their respective groups disbanded, both Futurists and Formists became associated with a new group called "Awangarda" (or "Awangarda krakowska"), formed in 1922 by Tadeusz Peiper around his new journal Zwrotnica, which he founded that same year. Besides the Futurists and Formists the group included such authors as Julian Przybos, Adam

21Wazyk, Jan Brzqkowski and Jalu Kurek. They opposed the poetry of the Skamandrites for the latter’s excessive lyri­cism. They extolled the complex metaphor as the only true expression of reality ("metaforyzacja rzeczywistosci") and stripped their poetry of any syllabotonie regimentation.They professed an active union with the present and the manifestation of man against the background of a new technical civilization:

Zwrotnica desires to be the womb of the new soul. It desires to create an organ of sensory perception of the present in our man. It desires to kindle in him love for the novelty which he himself has created. . . .It desires to awaken in him faith in the enchanting epoch in which he lives and aversion to the dead epochs which live in him. From the new soul it desires to extract a new art. It desires to enlighten the ele­ments of beauty which have appeared . . . in modern life. . . . It desires to follow the style of our epoch and to sculpture its head after setting it upon its own iron ribs. And this is what Zwrotnica aspires to be.9 (2)

In their poetry they fought pathos, sentimentalism, spontaneity and emotion--all so characteristic of the poetry of the Skamandrites— in favor of rationalistic representation of the world and a disciplined, calculated construction of a literary work.

We may add here that in the 1930’s the name ’’Druga Awangarda” ("The Second Avant-garde") was associated with a loose organization consisting of many poets who differed in outlook. Here were included the members of the Vilnius group "Zagary"("Brushwood"), the poets from Lublin (Jozef

22Czechowicz, J^zef iobodowski, and others), and the Warsawpoets (Wladyslaw Bienkowski, Waclaw Iwaniuk, Henryk Donirfski,

/and Jan Spiewak). They differed widely in their literary interests, but all of them were searching for new formulae of literary expression.3-0

Kwadryga

Standing between the Skamandrites and the "Awangarda," and opposing both, was a literary group called "Kwadryga" ("Quadriga") founded in Warsaw in 192 6. It called for a socially conscious poetry and for "socialized art, social justice and dignity of work."3-3- It reproached the Skamandrites for their lack of ideology, their anti-intellectual vitality, and their admiration of biology and nature, and opposed "Awangarda" for its preoccupation with aestheticism. To this group either belonged at one time or another, or were associ­ated, Wladyslaw Sebyla, Lucjan Szenwald, Konstanty I.Galczyrfski, Mieczyslaw Bibrowski, Stanislaw Ryszard Dobrowolski

X2and J<$zef Czechowicz.

There were many other literary factions in Poland of the 19 20*s; but their role in shaping the development of the acceptance of Russian literature in Poland was marginal, if at all present, except for some Communist writers who really cannot be classified into any organized literary group. Such writers were Wladysfaw Broniewski (who was

loosely associated with the Skamandrites), Ryszard Stande and Witold Wandurski— the three poets who in 19 2 5 published a Communist manifesto in verse, Trzy salwy (Three Salvos). Of the three, only Broniewski was to become a major force in the propagandizing of Soviet literature in Poland. And of course, one must again mention here Bruno Jasierfski, who became a Communist and in 19 2 5 left Poland going first to France and then to the Soviet Union.13

To summarize, it can be clearly seen that the literary situation in Poland in the 1920*s was very similar to that in the Soviet Union,11+ and was characterized by a multiplicity of opposing literary groups, all of which were searching for new modes of literary expression. Therefore, it should be no surprise that many Polish literati turned their attention to their eastern neighbor and watched literary developments there with great interest.15

FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER I

^"Ignacy Fik. Dwadziescia lat literatury polskiej . 1918-1938 . Krakow! "Placdwka," 1949, p. 59.

2Ibid, p. 60.^Beginning in January 1919 the periodical was called Pro arte.^Czeslaw Milosz. The History of Polish Literature. London: The Macmillan Company, 1969, p. 385.5Skamander, 1(1920). Translated in Milosz, op. cit. , p. 386.6"0d Redakcji," Wiadomo^ci Literackie, 1(1924), p. 1. The number in parenthesis at the end of the quotation refers to the reference number assigned it in the Appendix. From now on all translated quotations will be assigned such reference numbers.7 For a more detailed description of this group, see Jozef Ratajczak, "Programy Zdroju," Przegl^d Humanistyczny,1 (1967), pp. 83-95.8Slownik wspdlczesnych pisarzy polskich. Warszawa: PWN,1963, vol. 1, pp. 105-109.

^Tadeusz Peiper, "Punkt wyjscia," Zwrotnica, 1(1922), p. 2.-*-8For a more extensive description of the "Second Avant-

garde," see Milosz, op. cit., p. 405, and Wiesfaw Pawel Szymartski. Z dziejrtw czasopism literackich w dwudziesto- leciu miadzywojennymT Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1970.

■^Mieczyslaw Bibrowski, "Sztuka wojuj^ca i triumfujqca," Kwadryga, 1(1927), p. 1.

12For more information about "Kwadryga," see Szymanski, op. cit.

^8For more information about the left-wing writers andcritics, see Marian St^piert. Ze stanowiska lewicy. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1974.

•^See page 76 of this study.24

25-L5For the description of other literary groups in Poland see

Slownik wspogczesnych pisarzy polskich, op. cit.

Chapter IITHE POETRY

To the skeptic for whom the Riga Agreement remains a fiction, I can finally show the first real proof of the newly-established peaceful contacts with Soviet Russia: a pile of books from there. And it is not agitational propaganda, but belles-lettres and literary criticism.Due to long separation by a military front, a Russian book has become for us as exotic as the Bible written in» the Bantu language. Because for so many years we saw Russia only as our armed enemy, and because in her actions we were searching only for intended attack, we could not pay any attention to her cultural life . . . . We even imagined that . . . all Russian litera­ture is being transplanted into emigration and that there is no sense in talking about literature in Soviet Russia. Meanwhile, contrary to all expectation, after seeing the real picture we see that, in spite of every­thing, the center of gravity of Russian literature has remained within the country. . . The majority [of authors] have remained in Russia, being led by such aesthetically and politically differing writers as Valerij Brjusov, Maksim Gorkij, Mixail Kuzmin, Fedor Sologub, Andrej Belyj, and the recently deceased Aleksandr Blok.1 (3)

With these words Karol Wiktor Zawodzirfski opens his article on Soviet poetry in the third issue (1921) of the newly founded monthly literary journal, Przeglqd Warszawski. Being the very first full-length article on that topic in Poland, it introduces to the Polish readers the masters of early twentieth century Russian poetry. We must remember that, although most Polish intellectuals were familiar with both the political and literary developments in the newly created Soviet Russia, they were very reluctant to express

26

27their opinions in print. Thus Zawodziriski’s article is a breakthrough in this direction, even though its major pur­pose was more informational than analytical. It seems that the author sets out on a personal crusade to promote Russian literature in Poland; therefore he proceeds to review the works of these leading poets, thus establishing a firm base for further discussions of contemporary Russian literature.

The reviewer starts by cautioning against an over- optimistic acceptance of all new Russian poetry for, accord­ing to him, "poetry mania" ("stichomanja") had reached colos­sal proportions in Russia due to the musicality and flexibil­ity of the Russian language, which allowed almost anyone to write poetry. Thus one has to proceed very carefully in

9separating "genuine art" from "forgery".

The critic starts his gallery of the best lyricists with the poetry of Aleksandr Blok, whom P. Gubier called "the first lyrical poet of our epoch,"3 and whom Zawodzirfski considers the teacher of the youngest generation of Soviet poets, for it was Blok who cultivated the elements of the newest poetry, including "the ham mysticism" of Andrej Belyj, the "canonization of gypsydom," and the "mysticism of the ordinary" into which enter Christ and Virgin Mary.1*

Having established Blok’s standing within the new Soviet poetry, the critic attempts to interpret his ideas vis-a-vis

28the Revolution by analyzing the poem Dvenadcat1 (The Twelve)-- an apotheosis of the Revolution. And here the critic inter­prets the meaning of the poem as "aureola raised . . . overthe monstrous countenance of Bolshevism," and the protagon­ists of the poem as

. . . the scum of the darkest urban proletariat; crimi­nals, each of whom ought to be visibly stigmatized . . . ,who in our eyes commit murder, who will plunder in orderto break the boredom of their souls which have been devastated by crime and debauchery.6 (4)

But because they march to revolutionary rhythms and guard the revolution from the enemy, Christ will not forsake them; rather, invisible to their eyes, He will march in front of them with the "bloody banner."

After explaining the meaning of the poem, Zawodzirfski continues with an analysis of its style, form, and language; and he concludes the discussion of Dvenadcat * by stressing its artistic objectivity:

There was achieved the ideal fusion of the ordinary and the fantastic, which was manifested in a simple manner, not disturbing even the most stubborn sense of veri­similitude and reality.? (5)

Having finished the discussion of Blok, the critic turns his attention to another lyric poet, Andrej Belyj. The critic wonders how such a poet could become fascinated with bolshevism, for

29, . . it is rather a spreading fog, full of disturbing sensual noctium phantasmata, while Belyj is a penetra­ting, blinding light of dawn, awakening at daybreak a new onrush of pure religious ecstasy.® (6)

From Blok and Belyj, the youngest in the pleiade of the great Symbolists, Zawodzinski moves to the older Bal'mont, Brjusov, Sologub, and Vja£eslav Ivanov. Of Bal'mont's collection Seven Poems,9 consisting of seven lyrical cycles containing

. . . masterly verses, marvelous language, a forest ofthe deepest symbols, the most poetic accessories: sun,sea waves, flowers, butterflies, bees, birds, precious stones and ores, antediluvian hairy rhinoceroses and mastodons, dragons and princesses, 0 (7)

the critic could make no sense whatsoever and admitted that the poems of the most extreme futurists written in "trans­sense language" ("zaumnyj jazyk") made often more sense as a whole than Bal'mont*s collection. In analyzing Brjusov*s poetry, Zawodzirfski spends considerable time on the new form employed by the poet: a wreath of sonnets ("wieniec sonetrfw")in which the last stanza of each sonnet becomes the first stanza of the next one; and the initial stanzas of each of the fourteen (14) sonnets form the fifteenth, crowning, sonnet ("wiencz^cy sonet"). Bal'mont had tried the same technique in one of his poems; but according to the criticit is inferior to those written by Brjusov two years earlier.

Concerning Sologub, the critic discusses his new collec­tion of poems F i m j a m y which is compared to Sologub*s

30

earlier lyrics. Since Sologub is known as a poet

. . . of excellent, restrained, and clear form, satur­ated with hardened disenchantment and disdain for decep­tion . . . [who] is somewhat upset with God, but finally. . . finds hope at the very bottom of despair,-1-2 (8)

the new poems seem to contain "a higher level of hopefulness" ("wyzszy stopie^ pogody"), in places bordering even on good humor.^

After a brief discussion of Vja£eslav Ivanov, whom Zawodzinski characterizes as

. . . an example of a lofty, great, and wise man— an ancient philosopher— who with his brow raised to the sky boldly walks among the storms and madness of human­ity, across . . the sharp stones of the road of life. **(9)

and after discussing the group connected with the University of Petrograd (Mandelstam, Zirmunskij, Gumilev, Axmatova,Georgij Ivanov, and Kuzmin), Zawodzinski concludes his article by calling on his readers to watch the literary production of the youngest generation, a generation shaped by war and revolution.

Soon after the appearance of the above article, Skamanderpublished Julian Tuwim?s translation of several of Sologub’s

15 ,poems. It is interesting to note that Zawodzinski's articleis the first— and the last— to study the poetry of Sologub,Ivanov, Mandelstam, Gumilev, and Kuzmin in the 1920* s;that the poetry of Axmatova is mentioned only once more in

311922 in Skamander by "ji" (Jaroslaw Iwaszkiewicz) in a very

isbrief note reviewing her Anno Domini MDMXXIj and that Andrej Belyj is forgotten until 1929.

Thus in spite of Zawodzinski's efforts, the Silver Age generation of poets was "forgotten" in Poland, with the exception of Bal'mont, Blok and Brjusov, whose works were closely watched by the critics, even though the main emphasis was naturally shifted to the new talents.

One year after his first article, Zawodzinski must haveconcluded that the critics had been ignoring his call forinterest in Soviet literature, for he decides to remind themabout it by reviewing the newest translations of Bal'mont's,

17Brjusov's and Blok's poetry. Zawodzinski tries to convince his readers to read these poems by stressing that

. . . it is a collection of beautiful poems (although one cannot find anything else in Brjusov), beautifully translated.18

1922

By early 1922, Zawodzinski must have realized that thecritics' interest was not in the "old" symbolist movement,but in the new emerging generation of Soviet poets, especiallyEsenin and Majakovskij. Skamander again was one of the first

19journals to publish translations of Majakovskij’s poems, and it was also first to mention Esenin in a brief note by

32o rtJaroslaw Iwaszkiewicz. Esenin was presented as a young

author of the newly-published epic poem Puga6ev. The review was intended to be of an informational nature, but the absence of biographical data suggests that the readers of Skamander must have been already familiar with this poet.The reviewer sees "the soul of Pupkin" in this poem and considers Esenin a direct descendant of Bal'mont:

• . . from the empty, . . . bombastic, but at the sametime grand, style of Bal'mont there flow Esenin's repe­titions, pleonasms, eurhythmies— the whole beauty of form. 1 (10)

It seems that Zawodzinski could not ignore the critics'interest in the new Soviet poetry; so in the summer of 1922,

22he writes an article about Majakovskij and the futurists. Before reaching the main point of his discussion, however, the critic asserts that futurism as an organized literary movement has ceased to exist: Severjanin and Burljuk haveemigrated, Kru^enyx has entered the "Writers Union" in Tiflis, where he collaborates with Gorodeckij, and only Majakovskij remains a loyal futurist, and

. . . having dyed his yellow jacket red, today as a'con-futurist,' he is the most famous and surely the most vociferous poet of young Russia.23 (11)

The critic proceeds to quote Kornej 6ukovskij who had praisedMajakovskij for his "convulsions," for his desire for thewild, and for his anarchism. For, as Zawodzirfski points out,

33The real aim of the futurists was to destroy for the sake of destroying; to destroy every culture they touched, rules of prosody, grammar, orthography, punc­tuation, reason, word meanings, woman in poetry, then beauty and poetry itself, until in place of a poem they would produce a white card, or a single word, 'nothing,' and finally they would tear out . . , the soul. 21* (12)

The critic mentions that Majakovskij is the poet of boredom and suffering, and proceeds to report on the recently trans­lated Oblako v Stanax (Cloud in T r o u s e r s ) , 2 which in hyper­bolic terms treats the suffering of unrequited love and expresses hatred of the contemporary world and its culture— the "tetraptych" is a rebellious outcry against love, art, government system and religion. This hated world slowly be-' gins to disintegrate in the poem Vojna i mir (War and Peace) in which, according to Zawodzinski,

He, Majakovskij, stands on a deadly scaffolding and screams taking upon himself the guilt for all the crimes and atrocities of humanity; he wants to become a criminal, a 'synthesis,' the 'sole cannibal,' so that upon his being drawn and quartered there would vanish the last executioner of humanity, and from then on the newly-born people would be_'real, even more compassion­ate and better than God.* (13)

Now the critic goes on to give readers a detailed synopsis of Misterja-Buff and 150 ,000,000, and concludes that in spite of many beautiful images and bright similes, he found Majakovskij*s poetry lacking "soul:"

Following iukovskij's advice . . . I tried to become Majakovskij fora moment, inertly surrendering to his poetic will. I don't regret it; I met many beautiful

34images, many bright similes, instead of worn-out meta­phors at every step real inedita. But ultimately X had to agree with Cukovskij's statement That this whole grandiose, accelerated machine of artificiality and pretentiousness lacks 'soul' or ’poetic quality’-- this common element of ^etry from the times of cave culture up until today. (14)

Two months later Zawodzinski published an article aboutSergej Esenin, which he preceded with a discussion of"Imaginists” who were, in his own words, "the latest fashion

18in Russian poetry". Reviewing the aesthetic program of imaginism, Zawodzinski bases his arguments on theoretical works of Ser^enevid, Mariengof and Gruzinov. In contrast to symbolists and futurists— who tried to synthesize the acoustical values of a word--imaginists stress the value of images (usually presented in the form of hidden metaphors). But since the word had lost its meaning, clarity and aesthe­tic value, it is necessary to create new word combinations and metaphors— a poet must try to hide a metaphor in each word. These metaphors must be of great quality:

It is necessary to avoid any stereotype: every meta­phor must be new and original; one should not be afraid of unnatural and tortured similes— even the classics could not avoid them; one also should not be afraid of polytropes— the unavoidable contradictions in the crowd of images— although monotropism is much more frequent, for it produces a concise and sharply-delineated image. It is necessary to try to compare concrete images with abstract ones (never the other way around), or, even better, although much more difficult, concrete with concrete.29 (15)

And it is this dominance of images in poetry that gives this movement its name. But was there anything really new in this

35

literary movement? Not much, according to Zawodzinski: their search for the new, shocking unnatural metaphors and similes brings them very close to the poets of the baroque. Perhaps the really new thing— and even this is very close to Futurism--are the themes of the imaginist poetry: "delightin atrocity, profanity and cruelty." But,

. . . these lewd and demented profanities, these ragesof cruelty, this wallowing in blood and excrement seem to be outcries of the heart; they Cseem to be] the truest representation of despair, emptiness and fatigue in a Russia of hunger, civil wars, and other excesses, although for authors perhaps they are only artistic tools. . . .30 (16)

Before turning his attention to Esenin, the greatestof the imaginists, the critic briefly discusses other poetsof the group. The poetry of Vadim Serlenevii, the chieftheoretician of the group, is characterized as that of"uninhibited exhibitionism of desperate emptiness of the soul--of 'rotted hollow,* of 'complete devoid of heart*"33-Anatol* Mariengof is presented as the author of "gloomy,

3?cruel and aggressively profane themes . . and AleksandrKusikov as the author who

. . . combines not only the melancholy nature of Russia with the exuberance of the exotic south, but also their fanatical, seemingly exclusive religions: Orthodoxywith Islam, and the Gospel with the Koran.33 (17)

Rurik Ivnev's poetry is described as consisting of

36. . . extraordinary severity of religious experiences;contempt and disgust with himself . . . ; desperateescape from God with blasphemy on the tip of his tongue and hopeless return to him; self-flagellation by a fanatical monk and public confession taking delight . . , in the brightness and atrocity of expression. . . . 3I+ (18)

Zawodzinski concludes his presentation of imaginists by discussing the poetry of Sergej Esenin, It is interest­ing that the critic does not allow any more space to Esenin than to the other imaginists discussed. It seem that he must have preferred to remain somewhat cautious and not to endanger his reputation by placing too much emphasis on one still not too well known young poet. Should Esenin prove to be just another insignificant figure, Zawodzinski would be "safe" from ridicule by other critics. Thus he treats Esenin in a very artificial way by reporting only what the Russian critics had said about him and limiting his own observations to some very general remarks— the critic does not analyze and does not even name individual works of Esenin. We get a bird's-eye view of Esenin's literary output which is characterized as "tying together with mysterious marriage ceremonies religion and revolution.' and contain­ing blasphemies and deep love of Christ, mystical terms having their origin in mysterious rites, and a search for understanding of the symbolism of Russian peasant village.

There are two other groups of Soviet poets which ZawodziAski discusses in the same article: peasant andSmithy poets, and political poets. Of the former he mentions

37briefly Sergej Kly^kov, Oresin, Nikolaj Kljuev and Mixail Gerasimov; of the latter he mentions Vasilij Knjazev, II1ja Erenburg and Maksimiljan VoloSin. Only Erenburg is given a more elaborate description as the author of the collection Molitva o Rossii (Prayer About Russia, 1918):

These verses, written in the free meters of ’bylina,* 'historical songs' and folk tales, created without preoccupation with artistic considerations, ‘laments over the grave of mighty Russia, full of bloody tears of indignation, make a powerful impression through the strength of the despair and anger of this citizen- patriot. . . . The bourgeois world, locked in the ivorytower of prosperity and pleasure, disappears without resistance, unable to defend the holdings, banners, and trophies of Russia. . . . And as the conclusion tothis splendidly true synopsis of history Cthere is3 a phrase about Russia addressed to [his3 contemporaries: 'You will tell your children some day: in the autumnof 1917 we crucified her.*36 (19)

The critic concludes by stressing the point that in spite of writing such an anti-Soviet work, Erenburg is not an enemy of the Soviets, but

. . . he is now the mouthpiece of conciliatory [sic3convictions, i.e. the tendency to come to terms with the present authorities in Russia for the good of the Fatherland, and not to consider them only as a band hired by Germans, but as a significant historical phenomenon. 7 (20)

And thus by late 1922, Polish readers were quite aware of the new literary developments beyond their eastern border. They were familiar with the symbolist poets as well as with the newest literary trends. It seems, however, that the interest in the new developments was somewhat temporary;

38except for Majakovskij and Esenin, the other poets would catch the critics* interest only to be forgotten in a very short time--thus the poets mentioned above disappear from Polish criticism almost as abruptly as they had appeared in it.38

1923

In 1923, there appeared a short article about Ivan Bunin,38 one anthology of Soviet poetry ,**0 and translations of one poem by Esenin, ^ one po^ma by Majakovskij and a few poems by other poets.1+3

The article on Bunin, (who by that time was already an emigr^), written by Wlodzimierz Fiszer,**** deals mainly with Bunin's prose works, but the critic also mentions his poetry. The critic presents a gallery of Russian authors who, accord­ing to him, instantly became famous but whose fame had died almost as instantly as it was kindled. In this group Fiszer includes Gorkij, Andreev, decadent poets and futurists. According to Fiszer, shortcomings of Gorkij's art were:

. . . lack of intellectual culture, lack of taste, ofthe rudiments of psychology, enslavement to revolution­ary thought— all these are the things which exclude artistic skill. . . . (21)

On the other hand, Andreev

. . . in search of loud effects, . . . stubbornly specializing in all kinds of horrors and atrocities,

39wasted his undisputed talent--and the true ghastliness of real life has overshadowed his artificial and unnatu­ral effects. " (22)

As for decadent poets and futurists ("there is no sense in talking about futurists")47— in the opinion of the critic, all these authors became famous thanks to the topical natureof their plots or to the "oddness” of the form of their poems.But Bunin, a quiet man who does not write on the popular topics of the day, is slowly emerging as the leading Russian lyricist and prose writer. Fiszer calls Bunin a "classic," since he ignored all the modernist trends and remained faith­ful to the old techniques of the PuSkin school—

He sang like a bird. His language was distinguishable by its immaculateness and richness; his style by refined simplicity; his rhythms were ordinary but strong; his rhymes, unsophisticated but not banal; there was nothing glaring or loud; his form was simple but highly elegant;. . . And his plots, too, were old, but forever new: nature and love.48 (23)

With these words Fiszer characterizes Bunin’s poetry and immediately turns his attention to his prose writings, thus leaving Bunin's poetry largely unexplained and, in a way, leaving it wide open for discussion by other critics. But other critics have ignored this invitation— except for some minor notes, Bunin's poetry is not discussed again for many years to come.

If 0

1924

The year 1924 saw a great increase in the interest inRussian literature thanks mainly to the newly founded liter-

* 49ary weekly, Wiadomosci Literackie, whose contributors wereclosely reporting on the new developments in Russian litera­ture, and whose editors took upon themselves the task of popularizing Russian literature in Poland.

In the very first issue of the journal we see a review of Julian Tuwim’s translation of Majakovskij^ Oblako v stanax.^ The reviewer stresses the point that, among the Russian futurists, Majakovskij is undoubtedly the one most artistically organized, and even though Obloko v £tanax is definitely not his best work, in no other place can we find "such ardour, such freshness of barbaric inspiration, such torrent of powerful lyricism. . . . "51 in order toexplain the content and the meaning of the poem, the reviewer makes up titles for each of the four parts of the composi­tion. They are: "Away with your love!," "Away with yourpoetry!," "Away with your society!»" and "Away with your religion!" They imply a tremendous revolt against the old order of life. It is a revolt expressed by gigantic images and by the shouts of exaggerated mataphors. As to the quality of Tuwim*s translation, the reviewer praises the Polish poet for truthful reproduction of Majakovskij* a assonances, even though the translator did not succeed in preserving the

41"massiveness" ("brylowo£(5") and brutality of Majakovskij1s expression but gave his poetry a certain lyrical melodious­ness. 52

Several weeks later, Przeglad Warszawski published Zawodzinski1s review of the same translation of Majakovskij1s poem. And whereas in 19 22, while reviewing Tuwim's transla­tion of Oblako v 5tanax, Zawodzinski was very cautious in openly supporting the then not too well known poet, now he comes out as an avowed advocate of Majakovskij's poetry. Headmits that

. . . if Majakovskij is only a hoodlum, he is the bestone; if he is only a buffoon of poetry, he is worthy of his queen: his iambs . . . make the Greek ancestorsof poetic invectives yellow with envy.®3 (2*0

There are several other articles on Majakovskij thatappeared in 1924. In one of them Julian Tuwim reviews a new collection of poems published in Berlin, and concludes that

This hysterical, convulsive, colossal, catastrophic, thundering and roaring man, this Budenny of contempo­rary poetry, is becoming a better and better Communist and a worse and worse poet.®1* (25)

Tuwim objects to Majakovskij's use of poetry as propaganda and observes that what at first used to be "fresh, young and dazzling" now appears as boring and irritating. And Tuwim's stunning conclusion is that

U2

. . . if it is the commune that transformed this bril­liant poet into a factory of copies of a great talent, then I shall scream: 'Bo£e, carja xrani!' ['God savethe TsarJ'], and cannot wish the R.S.F.S.R. off on any poet. ® (26)Not much later, there appeared a long essay by Tadeusz

Jakubowicz in which he embarked upon the task of summarizing56the achievements of contemporary Soviet literature. The

critic begins by reminding his readers that most of the avant-garde of Russian literature resides abroad in emigra­tion and that the literary production within the new Soviet Union is in a state of complete chaos; the multiplicity of new schools, groups, sects, clans and movements is the main cause of this chaos. Who can remember or distinguish among the "symbolists, neoromanticists, realists, futurists, exclusivists, centrifugists, constructivists, imaginists, acmeists, presentists, cosmists, even fuists and 'ni^evoki'"?^ Jakubowicz goes on to call all the ideas and activities of the members of these various groups as "the cacophony of a literary jazz-band" with its headquarters in Moscow, while in Leningrad, where only faint echoes of these activities were heard, the "bourgeois lyrics" of Gumilev, MandelStam,Axmatova, Kuzmin, Xodasevitf and others were still being sung.

Jakubowicz tends to agree with K. W. ZawodziAski in that he believes that, of all these "isms," only futurism and imaginism are of significant literary value. But what is most interesting is that he discusses Majakovskij as the representative of futurism and §er£enevi£ and Mariengof as

the epitome of imaginism, while completely ignoring Esenin, the best of the imaginists. Could it be that Zawodzitfski1s efforts to make Esenin known in Poland had failed? Evidently it must be so, for except for several translations of his p o e m s , t h e r e is not a single article on Esenin until 1926, and even then only because of his tragic death.

How can we explain this lack of interest on the part of critics in Esenin? The only reasonable explanation seems to be that Majakovskij with his extravagantly loud poetry had "out-shouted” Esenin. After all, Majakovskij’s poetry was much too dynamic, vigorous and exciting not to be noticed. But that is not to say that Esenin's poetry was not read in Poland: on the contrary, his poetry was widely read andhad great impact and influence on the poetry of many Polish poets, especially on that of Wiadyslaw Broniewski and Bruno Jasieitski.

Jakubowicz's survey is concluded with his mentioning the growth of proletarian poetry — the poetry of modern industrialization. He stresses the point that this new proletarian literature has developed as the antithesis of the above-mentioned avant-garde literary trends which culti­vated intellectual individualism and "revolutionary anarchy. It represents new ideological values of organized collective and thus for the first time in Russian poetry the voice of a new Soviet citizen is being heard — the voice of the worker

However, proletarian poets did not attract any further attention from the critics. Their main interests still seemed to lie in ,'modernistic,, poets and therefore the Polish literary press continued to publish articles on the poets associated with the "Lef," on Brjusov, Bal'mont and Blok.

In the Fall of 1924 futurist poetry came to the fore again with the Polish visit of Igor1 Severjanin, who gave a series of "poetry concerts" in Warsaw. Jaroslaw Iwaszkie- wicz reports on one of these recitals and presents the poet in the most favorable light. It seems that the reviewer, who also interviewed Severjanin during his stay, is enchanted with his poetry and with Severjanin as a person. Iwaszkie- wicz’s description of the recital borders on a sensuous experience, and in spite of Severjanin’s lack of any artistic or declamatory talent, his poetry seems to overwhelm the tastes of his public, and especially of "seventeen year old maidens" present in the room. The reviewer concludes that even though the poet had to cater greatly to his public’s tastes,

. . . in his poetry there is concealed a peculiarly subtle, sometimes enchanting music — a reflection of his pure soul and glowing h e a r t . (27)

and the critic foresees a great artistic future for Severjanin. Unfortunately he was wrong, for Severjanin*s poetry did not find any substantial literary following and soon his sensuous

45and opulent verse was forgotten even by his ardent listeners and readers in Poland.

The year 1924 saw several other manifestations of grow­ing interest in Russian literature, both pre- as well as post-revolutionary. Renewed interest in Russian-Polish literary contacts brought forward new investigations into the Pu^kin-Mickiewicz relationship.^ The publication in Berlin of Andrej Belyj's reminiscences of Blok brought forward new interest in the latter. Wiadomo^ci Literackie used this event to embark upon a detailed report on Blok.62 Even though one would expect some analytical and perhaps controversial conclusions (especially since the article was published unsigned), a regular reader of that paper must have been surprised to find in it only shallow observations and pre­dominantly biographical information. It is true that there was almost nothing written on either Blok or Belyj since the 1921 article by K. W. Zawodzifiski; but somehow it seems unimaginable that the person who would read such a paper as Wiadomo^ci Literackie would not be familiar with these great poets. It only stands to reason that lack of any analytical content in most of the articles was due not to lack of ability to interpret but to being careful not to "over inter­pret" and perhaps somehow sever interest on the Polish part.

The death of Valerij Brjusov in October of 19 24 brought several commemorative articles which one can safely say for

t+6

the first time analyzed his poetry from the point of literary6 3analysis rather than biographical and descriptive reporting.

And thus Tadeusz Jakubowicz, who calls Brjusov "almost thechief figure of the Russian Parnassus," describes his versesas built powerfully, concisely and logically "almost to

6 Urecreate the shape of verbal assertion."

Almost at the same time, Przegl^d Warszawski publishesa very lengthy critical article on Brjusov by Sergej Kulakov-

6 5skij. The author starts with a somewhat unexpected state­ment that even though the poet died in his prime (he was only fifty years old), his death is not lamented or mourned as much as was the death of Blok. It seem that he "became petrified in the history of Russian literature in the form as he was portrayed by the mad painter Vrubel" (i.e. "tall,

6 6clumsy, with tiny eyes and a face resembling an oriental").As the leader of the symbolists, Brjusov*s main attribute was that he together with Bal’mont, as good students of Verlaine, placed all his attention and efforts on the form of his verse, and under the influence of Verhaeren he was attracted to the city and to the poetry of urban landscape. This was of course very new in Russia before Majakovskij.His poetry lacks the beauty of Blok*s lyricism and his love poems are pale and unconvincing. This love destroys or leads into depravation: it is "Artificial erotomania side by sidewith the pose of grandeur".

47Kulakovskij believes that lack of feeling for love in

his early poetry is accompanied by disregard for nature and human events. As his poetry matures, these characteristics become intensified and his interest in the city becomes objective love for the urban setting: "The poet no longeronly grasps the urban landscape, but now he penetrates into the very essence of urban life."®® His lack of feeling for nature becomes transformed into a lyrical expression of his love for man, and his negative attitude to life is buried in the wealth of rich and masterly exercised rhymes, themes and images.

1925

The year 1925 may be considered the silent year in Poland as far as Russian poetry is concerned. Except for an exten­sive article by Aleksander Bruckner on Brjusov, the critics must have decided to wait and see if there would be any new developments in Russia. Bruckner's essay is a strong denunciation of Bolshevik terrorist tactics toward avant- garde literary talents; he accuses them of murdering Gumilev and of being indirectly responsible for Blok's death by refusing to issue him a passport so that he might go for medical treatment in the West. Bruckner's anti-Bolshevik feelings clearly come through in his very selective treatment of the poetry he discusses.

itsOf Brjusov*s collection Mea, the critic singles out the

parts which show degradation and the disastrous aftermath of the October Revolution. With this collection Brjusov seemed to compromise his talents for the sake of propaganda and, as Bruckner notes,

. . . he lacks direct, moving poetry; it was replacedby that which is pompous, erudite, and overwrought.Hardly any poem appealed to the emotions. . . (28)

Especially "distasteful" was the part which"with unheard-of7 DByzantinism . . . [praised] Lenin and the Bolsheviks. . . . '*

And to that passage in which Brjusov compares the Revolution to the powerful times of Attila, Bruckner explosively adds that this time the poet was correct, for "Lenin*s face is definitely Mongolian, and he put to death more people than Attila or Genghis Khan.11 One cannot help but notice Bruckner*s prejudice against the Bolsheviks and against any poet that praises them or the Revolution; therefore, we must accept his literary interpretations as limited in scope.

1926

There is only one more brief article on Brjusov that appears in Wiadomosci Literackie in 1926, and afterwards Brjusov’s name disappears from the Polish literary press for the period. This anonymous article tells about a letter sent to Brjusov in 1913 by the mother of an unknown poet, who asks for the poet*s opinion of her son's poetry. In his reply

49(which was never mailed) Brjusov advises the woman to dis­courage her son from pursuing the career of a poet, for evenif he were to become a master in his craft, there would beno one to appreciate it fully, for, according to the poet, no one but poets themselves is interested any more in poetry, and thus one cannot build his future on that hope:

Consequently [here is] my sincere advice: please don’ttry to convince your son to become a man of letters, especially a poet. In life we have many worthy occupa­tions, and your son will be much better off if he choosesany one of them, so long as it is not in the literaryfield.72 (29)

It seems that with this short note the editors of Wiadomosci Literackie were trying to tell their readers that as early as 1913 Brjusov was already disillusioned with his "profession” and that his poetry after that date was a reflection of his slowly deepening alienation and search for new ideals which unfortunately he never found before his death in 1924. With Brjusov*s death, the critics were once again reminded of the other two poets of the famous "triumvirate:" Bal’mont and Blok. And therefore, the years 1926-1927 can be dubbed the years of Bal’mont, Blok and Esenin, for these three poets have a virtual "monopoly" in the Polish literary criticism.

Interest in Bal’mont becomes more heightened when in June of 1926, Wiadomosci Literackie publishes an interview with the poet in Paris, in which he expounds upon his love for Polish literature. In this interview, Bal'mont announces

50that he decided to leave Paris because of its stifling air and atmosphere -- he must go somewhere where there is a "breath of nature". And he continues;

After many years of travelling around the world, . . .I have come to understand that we are all united by a single common element: a mystical sense of nature andher grandeur.^ (30)

In connection with this, the poet quotes in fluent Polishseveral lines from Mickiewicz. When asked about it, Bal'montconfessed that he was fluent in the Polish language and thatnext to Russian literature, Polish literature was the richestof all the Slavic literatures and that he "adores" Polishauthors such as Mickiewicz, Slowacki, Wyspianski, Garczyrtskiand above all, Zeromski "even though he was not. , . a Nobellaureate."71* It might be interesting to note that aboutthree months later in an interview for the Paris Comoedia,Bal'mont listed the following authors as his favorites:Dante, Calderon, Cervantes, Marlowe, Shakespeare, Shelley,Poe, Goethe, Novalis, Nietzsche, Balzac, Baudelaire, Ibsen,

7 5Strindberg, Hafiz and Lao-Tse. Note the obvious omission of any Polish authors — could it be that in the earlier interview Bal'mont only wanted to please his Polish inter­viewer?

On the 28th of December 192 5 the literary world was shocked by the news of Esenin's suicide. Wladyslaw Broniew- ski, Esenin's most ardent translator, felt that it was his

51duty to pay homage and to express his respect and admiration for the lasting value of Esenin's poetry. He starts his only article on Esenin by referring to the poet's death in such poetic terms that one is tempted to consider the article more as a literary elegy than a critical discourse:

Like candles kindled in the wind, with painful flame burn out the hearts of poets. As if intoxicated, ships wreck against the shores of ordinary lands in order to sink to the bottom of the river of our life. . . 7® (31)

In similar tone he paints the poet's personality, stressing the dual nature of his character with tendencies toward blasphemy, anger and rebellion on the one hand, and goodness, kindliness and quiet on the other. For the first time in Polish criticism Broniewski presents exhaustively Esenin's biography and the creative evolution of his works. He lists collections of poems, evaluates some ideological aspects of his creations, defines the traits of the style and the character of metaphors and language. Broniewski considers Esenin's association with the imaginist school as accidental rather than as a reflection of the poet's identification with the group's aesthetic and theoretical views — it is true that he shared their stress on image and metaphor but he definitely could not share their views on its artistic function. Rather, Broniewski includes Esenin in the grouf> of peasant poets:

52Esenin was perhaps the only true poet of the villageand the peasantry; his poems reveal a world seen through the eyes of a peasant and felt by his heart.. . . [He] waited for the victory of the village overthe technical, industrial culture of the city and believed in the messianic world mission of the Eastern peasant. He professed all this regardless of the reality of the facts of life, and this most probably was the innermost reason for his spiritual breakdown? (32)

Esenin's greatest achievements Broniewski saw in therealm of metaphor and rhyme. But, as Wiadyslaw Piotrowski

78correctly notes, the value of this publication does not lie in its analysis of Esenin's poetry (which nevertheless is done very perceptively), but in its respect for the poet, in understanding his views of contemporary conflicts, and in a strong belief in the lasting value of his poems. The article popularized Esenin's name not through sensationalism and scandal. Broniewski omitted the details of the poet's death (which filled the pages of Soviet press at that time); he omitted its political aspect. He recommended Esenin to his Polish readers as an artist whose poems could increase their awareness of the world and teach them how to feel.

The most active in popularizing Esenin's poetry in the second half of 1920’s were two periodicals: the Skamandrites*Wiadomosci Literackie which continued bringing out critical articles, biographical materials and informational notes; and the Socialist Robotnik, which published many transla­tions of his poems but only one general article on his poetry.^® It is obvious that the increased interest in his poetry was the direct result of his tragic death, the mystery

surrounding which lured many authors to investigate his biography for clues to the reasons for this unexplained occurrence. This of course required them to achieve deeper understanding of his works and biographical materials. Most publications about Esenin in the second half of the 19 20's appeared in 19 26 and 192 7, which is easy to understand — there were fresh memories of the poet's tragic fate; the Soviet press continued publishing new details connected with his death and funeral; and there began appearing numerous memoirs of Esenin's friends.

Soon after the appearance of Broniewski's article, Wiadomosci Literackie published Esenin's autobiography

80together with an extensive commentary by Pawel Ettinger.This autobiography is the first and only publication of this information in Poland and includes a wealth of material on the poet’s life until 192 3. In his commentary, after noting that Esenin committed suicide at the height of his productiv­ity and popularity, Ettinger goes on to try to find the reasonfor it, basing his arguments on knowledge of two autobio-

81graphies of the author. Although Ettinger cannot come to a decisive reason for the suicide, he is sure of one thing: the act was not committed on the spur of the moment but must have been a result of a long-existing internal conflict with himself and with the world, and suicide was the only way Esenin could resolve his conflicts. He continues that one of the causes of this conflict must have been

54. . . the contact of the primitive lyrical nature withurban turmoil and with a complex intertwining of socio­political conditions which are so acute in our times all over the world, and especially in Russia. (33)

Even though the autobiography did not reveal any unexpec­ted details of Esenin's life, it did contain information about the poet’s childhood experiences and the conditions and atmosphere of his growing up and youth; it provided information about his first literary steps, his publications, his attitude toward Soviet power and in very general terms it formulated the purpose of the imaginists’ manifesto.One tends to agree with Wladysiaw Piotrowski, who correctly notices that, for those readers whose knowledge of Esenin was based solely on Polish publications (and that included even representatives of literary circles), the value of Esenin’s new autobiography as a source of information about him surpassed anything written about him in Poland to date.The autobiography contains the chronology of the more impor­tant events in Esenin’s life and discloses, for example, that at the age of seventeen the poet left the village for Petersburg. This fact, of course, partially explains his "peasant psychology." Between the lines of the biography there was a wealth of material suitable as a starting point if not for historical and literary research, then at leastfor interpretation of those fragments of Esenin’s creative

8 3output published in Polish translations.

55The subject of Esenin's death returns to the pages of

Wiadomosci Literackie almost immediately with a very brief note about a study by one of the leading acmeists now in emigration, Vladislav Xodasevic, dedicated to Esenin. The short note does not provide any new information, but quotes a fragment of this study dealing with the then most topical problem of the poet's death:

He extolled the wooden Rus', and peasant Russia, and^ socialist Inonja, and Asiatic Russia, and he even tried to accept the U.S.S.R.; only one unfailing name never drifted into his mouth: Russia. That's where his mainmistake lay: not ill will, but a bitter mistake. Inthis resided both the nucleus and the solution to his tragedy.84 (34)

Thus it appears that in the opinion of this emigre writer, the main reason for Esenin's suicide was his inability to accept the concept of a new Russia — the ideal "peasant" Russia that the poet yearned for was just an impossible romantic utopia.

Chronologically the next publication in Wiadomosci I.iterackie was a review of Broniewski's translation of Esenin's Fugatev. I t seems that the review was only an excuse for Andrzej Stawar, the author of the article, to discuss Esenin's poetry in greater detail. The translation is treated marginally and the critic immediately proceeds to compare, or rather to contrast, Esenin's poems with those of Majakovskij. He states that Fugatfiv, and by analogy all of Esenin's poetry, is definitely more artistic

56than Majakovskij1s ; and he adds

. , * during Majakovskij1s process of creation, thelava of inspiration, shall we say the mysterious flow, of the poet's experiences remains hot; he sculptures his shapes as if they were still hot, with the risk that some things will wrinkle or crack after they dry and will lose their power and the charm of their appear­ance. Esenin's po^ma contains a certain artistic coldness and the flow [of his experiences!) seems to be much more homogeneous. ° (3 5)

He goes on to say that Esenin is less innovative; but, by being much more strongly associated with literary tradition, his poetry expresses a reaction against futurism. While Majakovskij1s poems are filled with overexaggerated, over­stylized prejudices and lack of proportion, Esenin's contain "close associations of the heart and the peasant byt, with its most essential experiences. . . ."87

It is interesting to note that Stawar discusses Esenin's poetry together with, or as a contrast to, the poetry of Majakovskij. It is interesting because in Polish criticism of the 1920*s these two names are placed very frequently together, while such was not the case in Russian criticism. Could it be that Polish critics recognized the greatness of these two poets much earlier than did their Russian counter­parts? After all, following Blok's and Brjusov's deaths, only Esenin and Majakovskij occupy the pages of Polish liter­ary journals.8® One could explain that this phenomenon was due to the Russian critics * preoccupation with too many literary groups developing in Russia, while Poles who were

57watching all this from afar could much easier synthesize these literary developments.

For that reason there continue to appear for another year or so several notes and an article on Esenin. Concern­ing the notes, all are of an informational and sometimes a gossipy nature. One reports plans (which were never carried out) to rename Konstantinovo, the village where Esenin was born, "Esenino". The same note reports that it was found that Esenin's family represents a purely Slavic race going back to the pre-Slavic tribe of Polane. Several notes list all the contenders to Esenin’s inheritance (whose value was greatly exaggerated) and also contain gossip about his three marriages, especially questioning his marriage to Sofja Tolstaja, since at the time of that marriage he did not have an official divorce from Isadora Duncan. The anonymous author concludes that the document Esenin presented as proofof that divorce actually concerned his divorce from his first

90wife, Zinaida Reich. Other notes list new publicationsQ 1of his works, and one states that

It is not true that supposedly Esenin used to write his works while in a state of drunkenness; on the contrary, while he was writing, he could not stand to see a bottle on his table . . . even if it were onlymineral w a t e r . 9 2 (36)

581927

The last article of literary value in the 1920's dis­cussing Esenin appears in July of 1927 in Wiadomosci Litera­ckie. In it one of the leading Polish futurists* Anatol Stern, synthesizes Esenin's poetry in the context of its varied artistic, social and psychological aspects. He begins by blaming the times for the poet's death:

Strange times! . . . Only in such times, in the face of such historic hurricanes and upheavals, do the people die, suffering from the terrible illness of ethical and ideological schizophrenia. They are un­able to survive the harsh dictates or questions of our time: 'Who are you? Find your own way!'®3 (37)

Stern attributes the growth of Esenin's popularity to the public's boredom with futurism (and these words come from a futurist!) and with the old symbolists. According to him, Futurism

. . . destroyed syntax, grammar, and aesthetics, . . . by dressing up in the famous yellow jacket of Majakovskij, and by walking around the city with its face made up ing^ a way that even the most painted lady would be proud of.

(38)The appearance of Esenin's poetry was welcomed, according to che critic, by enemies of both futurism and symbolism.

In discussing imaginism, Stern asserts that its source can be found in Ezra Pound, the founder of English imaginism. However, the Russian imaginists have deviated greatly from Pound's ideas. Esenin's interpretation of imaginism,

59contained in Klju^i Marii, is, at least according to Stern,

. . . the apotheosis of the village and its folk, theshepherd's byt, and finally . . . poetry [based on]mysticism and symbolism, which Esenin calls ornament?5(39)

Stern continues that there is an essential duality in Esenin's poetry, when in the same poem he can call on God and the Apostles as the only means of salvation, and at the same time he can act as a blasphemer, "conqueror of the Church, or iconoclast." And this tragic split in his ideology is a sign of the struggle within the poet's consciousness between the "old reality" with its roots in old, ritualized religion and the "new reality" of the contemporary social and politi­cal situation:

A man who is greedily held by the claws of the old world of imagination, and who in vain attempts to fight with it, with its drowsiness and its passivity — this is who Sergej Esenin is.®6 (**0)

And only this could be the reason for his suicide.

With the above article, excepting some minor notes,Esenin disappears from Polish literary criticism for a long time to come.

At the same time as they were discussing Esenin, Polish literati continued to worship Bal'mont. Their admiration reached its peak in late April of 1927, when Bal'mont visited Poland. On that occasion, the Polish P.E.N. Club organized a banquet in his honor. In an emotional welcoming address

60Julian Tuwim elevates Bal’mont’s poetry to the level of inspirational hymns and treats the poet as the source of his happiness:

When I can be with him in the same room, when I can approach the poet and shake his hand, and drink wine with him, that is . . . the pinnacle of happiness. 97(1*4)

And he continues that, upon reading Bal'mont's poetry,

. . . we will not only become intoxicated with itsharmony, color, and aroma . . . but we will also beinspired with the . . . divine magnificence of man.88

U 2 >And Tuwim concludes calling upon Russian and Polish poets to continue to cooperate and grow in their friendship:

And in the sunshine of the friendship of the two great spirits of Polish and Russian poetry, Mickiewicz and Puskin, let there shine friendship between Polish and Russian poetry. Both are capable of it!8** (43)

On the occasion of Bal’mont's visit, Wiadomosci Litera­ckie published a whole issue devoted to that poet.-*'80 This issue contains three extensive articles and a poem by Leonard Podhorski-Okolow, "Konstantemu Balmontowi.

The first article is written by K.W. Zawodzifiski, the critic who introduced Bal'mont’s poetry to Poland in 1921.It seems only right that he should be the one to present a synthesis of Bal’mont’s poetry. The critic presents a pano­rama of the poet’s themes, motifs, images, and metaphors, and concludes his long catalog with a comparison of Bal'mont

and Slowacki. According to Zawodzirtski, Bal'mont's love for Slowacki's poetry is reflected not only in the external traits of his works ("abundance, verbosity, hyperbolism"), but also, expecially, in actual psychic characteristics of both poets: "ethereality, arealism, exoticism, extraneous­ness to one's own society, [and] repugnance to ordinariness." The critic also points out that Bal'mont constantly quotes Slowacki in his books and that he has translated several of Slowacki's poetic dramas, among them "Balladyna," and "Lilia Weneda." But Bal'mont*s interests in Poland are not confined to Slowacki alone — in many of his poems he alludes to Poland. He had studied many Polish authors, including Kasprowicz, about whom he wrote an extensive study. Perhaps, as the critic concludes, Bal'mont*s interest in Poland inthe era when Russian-Polish relations were at its low point

1D3(i.e. before the 1920's) is another sign of his exoticism.

The second article of the series, written by Russian critic Sergej Kulakovskij, is a hymn to the genius of the beauty of Bal'mont's poetry. Here the critic brings before his readers a series of excerpts from the poet's works in order to demonstrate the mastery and beauty of Bal'mont's alliterations, assonances, rhythm and musicality. To prove his point, Kulakovskij quotes in the original Russian from an early poem "CSln tomlenja:"

Ve^er. Vzroorie. Vzdoxi vetra.Velicavyj vozglas voln.

Blizko burja. V bereg b"£tsjaCudnyj £aram 6ernyj celn . . .

The repetition of "v" in the first line, "vM and "1” in the second, "b" in the third, and and "r" in the fourth recreates the melody of a storm which takes place in the stanzas that follow.104 In the rest of the article the critic continues with many excerpts from later poems in order to show that Bal'mont's poetry did not cease to attract many followers and admirers.

The third article of the series is actually a list of Bal'mont's translations of such masters as Coleridge, Words­worth, Byron, Shelley, Tennyson, Blake, Poe, Whitman, Goethe, Dante, Baudelaire and Shakespeare. After listing these and many others, the critic turns to Bal'mont's translations of Krasirfski ("Nieboska komedja"), Mickiewicz ("Rezygnacja"), Slowacki ("Anhelli," "Lilia Weneda," etc.), Kasprowicz ("Moja piesn wieczorna") and Wyspia&ski {"Wesele," "Warsza-• , 105 wianka").

Another article on Bal'mont published one week after the above three praises him as "the poet of the word"("poeta slowa"), who in his youth "kindled a fire in litera­ture, gray and old from conviction, and who continued through­out his career to worship the musicality of the Russian language and to honor the power of the word:

63Bal’mont discovered unheard-of treasures of language in the virgin layers of the Russian soil — he trans­fused these gold-bearing resources after the European fashion, polished them, and then . . . showed his land its riches. (44)

At the same time as the critics were crowning Bal'mont with such literary laurels, they also kept the name of Blok alive. Side by side with those of Bal'mont, his works con­tinued to be mentioned until 1928. But the articles once again are of a general nature and do not analyze Blok's poetry in depth. With the exception of an article on Blok's father,the rest of them comment on new publications of his works.'*'®®

109One article comments on the newly published letters in which Blok discusses his philosophy and ideas with Mixail Solovev, a religiously-mystic poet, and with 6ulkov, one of the editors of the Petrograd religiously-philosophical journals Novyj Put1 and Voprosy lizni. But it seems that the commentator, Pawel Ettinger, is more interested in Blok's Polish contacts than in Blok himself. Therefore, he notes that in the correspondence between Solovev and Blok there appears several times the name of a Polish nobleman, Alek- sander Rozwadowski. It seems that Rozwadowski was a young student at the Petersburg University who frequented the literary circles gathered around Mereikovskij, Zinaida Gippius and Rozanov. Rozwadowski befriended Blok and at the poet's wedding he was an escort to the bride. According to the memoirs of Blok's aunt, Marja Beketova, this wedding affected Rozwadowski so much that immediately afterward he

64left for Poland and entered a monastery. Ettinger ends his gossipy article with the conclusion that Rozwadowski must have loved Marja Mendeleeva and that her marriage to Blok was a painful blow to him.

In an extensive and somewhat perplexing article, Sergej Kulakovskij tries to show that in spite of Blok's hatred for his Polish father (who left Blok's mother when the poet was a child) his mind was at times occupied with thoughts of the tragic fate of Poland. The critic asserts that after visiting Warsaw in 1909 for his father's funeral Blok set out to write a long poem in honor of his father and Poland. He called the poem "Vozmezdie" ("Retribution"). However, the poem remained unfinished and one can only guess what Blok's intentions were. In spite of an extensive introduction written in 1919, in which the poet tried to synthesize the plan of the poem and its ideological foundations, it is still unclear what his intentions were. According to Tlok's own words quoted by Kulakovskij,

The theme is the depiction of individual links in a single family. Its offspring grow up to a pre-determined limit and then are overtaken by the universe. However, out of each such offspring, at the cost of irreparable losses and defeats, tragedies and misfortunes, there constantly grows something new, something stronger.110(45)

Then Blok concludes:

. . . in the epilogue there is to be presented a newborn baby, held at the breast of a simple mother, lost

6 5somewhere among the wide Polish meadows of clover, unknown to anyone and herself not knowing anything.. . -111 (46)

Kulakovskij1s thesis is that in this poem Blok recognizes the harm Russia had done to Poland and that Russia must atone for its past crimes:

There is no opposition here of Russia and Poland as nations hostile to each other; there is no notion of the struggle between East and West. The central idea of the poem is that there should come the hour of retribution for Poland, which has been oppressed throughout her history. The fundamental comparison of the ’demon-father’ and the ’victim-mother’ with vulture and dove is at the same time symbolic of a Poland torn apart by Russia. H 2 (47)

Kulakovskij concludes that Blok "clearly emphasizes the113messianic role of Poland in the history of Europe."

Kulakovskij's interpretation of the above poem was met with a strong protest from K. W. Zawodzirfski, who asserts that the critic’s conclusions cannot at all be supported either by preserved fragments of Blok’s text, nor by sketched commentaries, plans, and introductions by the poet himself. Zawodzi/iski accuses Kulakovskij of "shallow and insipid polonophilism" and of doing great harm both to Blok’s memory and to Poland by falsifying literary history.

In his reply, Kulakovskij states that, even though he cannot be sure of Blok’s intentions, he still insists that, in connection with his father’s death and his trip to Warsaw, there was in Blok's soul a thought about Poland and that his

66soul was tormented by the tragic fate of "the country muti­lated to pieces and forgotten by God" — and he felt it was his duty to remind Polish readers about this attitude of Hlok to P o l a n d . U n f o r t u na t e l y , Zawodzinski failed to reply and thus this polemic ended unresolved.

If we remember, in 1921 Witold Wandurski introduced Majakovskij*s poetry to P o l a n d . I m m e d i a t e l y , at first cautiously and soon after wholeheartedly, it was supported by such critics as K. W. Zawodzinski and T. Jakubowicz, among others. Due to the original qualities of his works, such as powerful rhythm, grandiose hyperboles, original and shocking metaphors often elaborated into fantastic conceits, and shock­ing "nihilistic" tendencies of his themes, developments in Majakovskij1s poetry and life were closely watched by Polish literati. In 1926, Wiadomo^ci Literackie reported on the appearance in the USSR of a "poetry textbook" in which Majakovskij asserts that there are five prerequisites for poetic creativity: 1) "social commission," i.e. the presenceof a certain view or notion in society, which can be inter­preted only in a poetic way; 2) a thorough knowledge and feeling for the social class or group to be represented;3) material (words, both real and imagined, or newly-created); •O "organization of the enterprise" and necessary tools (pen, pencil, typewriter, clothes (necessary for "visiting lodging- houses at night"!, bicycle, umbrella ["to be able to write in rain"], pipe, cigarettes, etc.); and 5) knowledge of methods

67of working with words.

This somewhat absurd catalog was treated in Poland asan informational note of dubious value and was placed in thejournal more as a curiosity item than as literary news.Because of this, there were no printed reactions to this"news" anywhere in Polish press. As a matter of fact, therewas nothing written on Majakovskij until several months later,

118when Wladyslaw Broniewski published an article on Novyj Lef. x This was the first time this literary group and journal was brought to the attention of Polish readers. The only earlier note appeared in 1924 and in only a few lines exposed disagree­ments within the "Lef" group and predicted its imminent down­fall. The note reported that the poet N. Cu^ak had resigned from "Lef" due to ideological and methodological disagreements with the other members of the group. According to the note, £u£ak accused the group of deviating from life processes and creating a gap between theory and aesthetic practice.

Broniewski*s lengthy article reminds his readers about the demise of"Lef" and reports on the newly-created Novyj Lef. After presenting extensive quotes from the aims of the new journal included in its introduction, the critic notes that the program calls for "literary constructivism," which in his view applies more to the new Soviet prose rather than poetry, unless by "constructivism" is meant here a thorough knowledge and mastery of literary forms. He observes correctly

68that young poets like Pasternak and Aseev almost never go beyond pure lyricism and are virtuosos of poetic language, while Majakovskij reduces constructivism to utilitarianism and Tretjakov "vulgarly agitates with verses." Broniewski continues by observing those powers of Lef which attract "minds which do not give in to routine [and which arel revolu­tionary in each of their conscious and subconscious endeavors'.' 120

The group discussed is constituted not only of poets, but also of such painters as Rodienko, Stepanov and Lavinskij, the cinematographer Eisenstein, and the literary critic Sklovskij, whose article on a writer's professionalism Broniew­ski singles out and discusses in greater detail. In that

✓article Sklovskij states that in addition to literature a writer should have another profession, "not so as not to starve, but in order to learn how to w r i t e . H e asserts that Tolstoj wrote while a professional artilleryman, and Andreev, 6exov, Gorkij and Dickens were journalists. According to Sklovskij, as Broniewski reports, "the great literature is the one that takes advantage of the material of its time."'*-22 Sklovskij continues that if a writer wants to learn how to write, he must first learn everything about his profession; that is, he must watch another profession with the eyes of a master and try to understand how things are done. Only then he can understand all the intrinsic connections between words, sentences and paragraphs. Iklovskij concludes his article by calling for creating a reader, hundreds of thousands of

69readers, who will be able to evaluate the merits of a literary work and to understand its structure. And it is from these hundreds of thousands of readers that a new group of unpro­fessional writers will emerge and from among them there might

* T 9 ^be an unnoticed genius.

Broniewski concludes his article stating that the above article by Sklovskij, due to its "solidness of critical thought," is characteristic of all the other articles in Novyj Lef. This lengthy article by Broniewski served as a springboard for other critics to discuss Majakovskij and his poetry. Soon after, Anatol Stern comes out with an extensive interpretation of the poet's works. His main thesis is that in spite of what many critics and the poet himself says, Majakovskij is in many respects a traditional poet. What he means by this is that the poet's "fiery apotheosis of fight with the old and obsolete" is a sign of his romanticism. Majakov­skij , in spite of his loud pronouncements and shouts, was different from his futurist friends in that he possessed "that inner order of self-limitation" which is a sign of the real master. His; neologisms are closely tied with grammar and his own newly-created vocabulary of "trans-sense language" can be contained on a few pages. As the critic Gorlov noted, "Majakovskij1s language is not that of a salon or a townapartment, but it is a language of the revolutionary street,

12Ualive, energetic, concise and correct." The street does not need long, smooth, carefully-molded sentences — it needs

70"shock" words and such are Majakovskij's words. Stern goes on to point out that

. . . a poet employing such language and such syntaxcan be only one thing: a conqueror of old ideology. . . and bourgeois outlook and a champion of a newgospel or work and class equality. . . . This gospelis inflamed by the most passionate and violent love of man. . . . [Here this love] acts as dynamite blow­ing up ancient eternity.125 (4 8)

And this characteristic, according to Stern, makes him the unrivalled leader of the new Soviet poetry.

Stern continues his study stressing the fact that many critics have erred in accusing this poet of the working class, who prophesies the birth of the "Kingdom of Proletar­iat," of being a representative of a truly realistic poetry, poetry of materialistic understanding of events and the world. But in truth, Majakovskij is far from being realis­tic, because of the element of individualism which is the main ingredient of his creations. This element is "the soul [of his poetry], its breath, its blood." And the romanti­cism which is so much cursed by the poet himself lingers throughout all his works to a much greater extent than it can be seen in any other contemporary poet.

This romanticism is hidden, according to Stern, in his relation with God, who still exists for the poet even though he longs for the day when He will be replaced by electricity and steam:

71In his gigantic battle with God, in his hatred of divinity, in his heretical passion, one cannot see at all this bland, calm, negative approach to the idea of Divinity and the deprivation of religious feeling, of which every orthodox Marxist is so proud- For Maja­kovskij, God is the object of hatred, rage, even con­tempt, but [He is] never 'an empty place-'126 (H9)

God figures in almost every one of his works, and the only evil of which Majakovskij can accuse God is the sin of indifference — the accusation presented by most Romantics. Similarly, the poet's relation with the city, which this urbanite at first hated and feared Cas 6ukovskij had noted in his studies), is typical of a Romantic poet. Stern very convincingly draws parallels between Majakovskij*s lyrical descriptions of villages in Vojna i Mir and those of his lyrical, pastoral "enemy," Esenin.

However, in the course of the new system's being shaped and as its organization was becoming solidified, this roman­tic relation with the city undergoes change. As Majakovskij realizes that only "conscious work with a machine" can trans­form the proletariat into a ruling class, it becomes an unavoidable necessity "to free the city and machine from capitalist hands." This concept is described in 150,000,000 as a battle between Ivan and Wilson. And even here, "he perceives . . . the reality of the city by means of images drawn from village life or by means of literary forms created by country-folk" ("lud").127

72Stern concludes his long article by stating that based

on his findings, one cannot consider Majakovskij an official poet of the Soviets. It is common knowledge that "official critics," including Trockij and Luna^arskij, repeatedly criticized him and all the "constructivists," All this is, of course, due to the fact that his poetic genius will not allow him to remain "locked in narrow frames of dogmatism" and this will make his name permanent in the history of litera­ture, as one of "the creators of the gigantic epos of the present age" and one of those who "join their hands over speeding centuries."12 8

It is interesting to note that this long article is followed immediately by a four-line note stating that not long ago Majakovskij stopped in Warsaw on his way home from Germany and that the P.E.N. Club organized a breakfast and a supper in his honor. This note becomes somewhat ironic if we recall the great pomposity with which the same P.E.N.Club had received Bal'mont just a month before. Not only was there a huge banquet with speeches, but Wiadomo^ci Literackie had almost a complete issue devoted to Balmont, the "leftover" of old Russia. And here, Majakovskij, one of "the creators of the gigantic epos of the present age," gets only four lines in the same journal!

73192 8 and After

That was 1927, and until 1930, the year of Majakovskij's suicide, there is almost nothing written about him in the Polish literary journals. There are only several short notes, one announcing the publication of volume V of his Complete Works, ^ 9 another reporting his resignation from "Lef,"130 and still another relating that, according to the poet himself, when he for the first time read his poems to Gorkij, the latter started crying and told the poet that he is a genius. Majakovskij stole the handkerchief with which Gorkij wiped his tears, only to learn later that Gorkij always cried when he heard a new poet. Now Majakovskij, says the note, is willing to sell the handerchief to a pro­vincial museum.'*-31 There were many notes of that sort in publications of that time.

Not until 1930 does there appear another major article on Majakovskij; but even this one was occasioned not by literary considerations but by his suicide which shocked the literary world. The article cannot be considered as literary in nature for it does not discuss the poet's works, but is concerned with the causes of his death. Thus it reports the official government proclamation that the act was a result of solely personal problems, and speculates on many other possibilities, concluding finally that it must have been a combination of personal and socio-political factors,

74-for after all*

. . . there can be no doubt that Majakovskij, who wasdistinguished by exuberant individualism and excep­tional temperament, felt any more than anyone else the servitude to which the Soviet system had sentencedits authors. -32 (50)

With this a major chapter in Polish criticism of the new Soviet literature comes to an abrupt conclusion. For with the above article, if we disregard several minor infor­mational articles and notes,^^ the critics abandon their interests in Russian poetry. Majakovskij*s death was a sign for them of the death of individualistic, independent, free art and a definite beginning of art strictly controlled by the government. Furthermore, poetry was in a decline in Russia at that point; and with the institution of the First Five-Year Plan in 192 8 the government (i.e. the Party) took strong control of all artistic forms by making the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers (RAPP) its official agent on the literary front. Since all presses, publishing houses and the power of final editorial decisions were in Party hands, it could now exercise complete control over anything published in the USSR. Therefore, it "employed" literature to mirror the construction activity of the five-year plan in order to hasten the gigantic effort to industrialize the country. Literature became pure propaganda and those authors, especially poets, who could not accept this restraint on their creativity ceased to create. Of course, the Polish

75critics realized that situation and, therefore, neglected the Soviet literature of the 1930's.

The preceding pages lead us to several conclusions as to the nature of Polish criticism of Soviet poetry in the 19 2 0's. The evidence presented in this chapter proven that, in spite of the political hostilities that existed at that time between Russia and Poland, the Polish literary world was showing an increased interest in Russian literature.

Whereas before the 1921 Riga Treaty with the Soviet Union, or, as a matter of fact, before the declaration of Poland's independence in 1918, a meaningful relationship between the literati of the countries was almost impossible, now this situation changed. Once, after 12 3 years both countries were "friends" again, many Polish critics and poets began to observe the literary developments beyond their eastern border.

And there was much new to observe. In 1921, when the horrible austerities of the Civil War in Russia and the Polish-Soviet War had diminished, and in both countries it became possible again to think of culture, an atmosphere of creative excitement and experiment began on both sides of the border. New literary groups sprang up in both countries and the search for new literary forms became the first responsibility of many critics and writers.

76

In Russia, in the realm of poetry this was the time of the Futurists with emphasis on the "trans-sense language," and concern with pure sound as the basis of poetry; this was the time of Majakovskij and his coarse, loud and shocking poetry full of exaggerated and original metaphors, rhythms and similes; this was the time of Esenin with his nostalgic, melodious and sentimental village poetry; and this was the time of the leftist proletarian poetry supporting the Bolshevik cause and representing the aims, desires and life- conditions of the working masses.

In Poland, this was the time of the Skamandrites with their movement away from any ideology and the support of freedom of expression and form and emphasis on regular rhyme, melodious rhythm and colorful images; this was also the time of the short-lived Futurist and Formist movements, the former rejecting any logic, plot, grammar or orthography and concen­trating on unusual rhymes and rhythms, while the latter professed a complete abandonment of external reality and supported "pure form" as the basis of their art. And finally, this was the time of the socially-conscious "Kwadryga" poets and Communists.

As can be clearly seen, the literary groups in Poland and Russia were preoccupied with similar problems. The evidence shows that starting with Zawodzii^ski's article in 1921 and continuing through the 19 20's, the above-mentioned literary

77groups eagerly analyzed the news about literary output in Russia. It might seem unusual that the first half of the decade is dominated in Polish criticism by articles on Brjusov, Belyj , Bal'mont and Blok, all members of the Symbolist movement which had been "dead" in Russia after 1910. But if we recall that the Skamandrites' interests lay in aesthetic, musical poetry, full of images, colors and shapes, and in the exotic, it will be easier to understand their interest in symbolist poetry. However, we must note that in their interests in clear, concise and precise imagery they also resembled the Acmeists, whose Russian career was very short and who did not attract any attention of the Polish critics.

It should be no surprise, too, that after 1925, Polish criticism of Russian poetry is dominated by Esenin and Majakovskij. Esenin's tragic death that same year forced the critics to reappraise his literary output and they found in it a new originality, especially in his images and metaphors. The musicality of his verses, which reminded the critics of Blok's poetry, was hailed as one of his greatest achievements. At the same time the interest shown by such leftist poets and critics as Broniewski, Stawar, Stern, Wat and Jasienski in the poetry of Majakovskij should not surprise anyone. After all, Majakovskij enthusiastically accepted the Revolution, devoted himself to the Bolshevik ideology, wrote many propaganda pieces in support of the Communist cause,

78and supported their social reforms. And his shocking, loud poetry had great appeal to these critics. Only after his suicide in 1930 they realized that perhaps this support of the Communist cause might not have been as "wholehearted" as it was believed, and their interests in his work greatly diminished. Besides, poetry was on the decline in the Soviet Union and prose was becoming the prime form of literary expression of the 19 30's.

Similar circumstances, in short, produced similar literary reaction, which in turn sparked an interest among Poles in Russian literature that was only natural and com­pletely understandable.

FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER II

^K(arol). W(iktor). Z(awodzinski), nZ ruchu literackiego w Rosji," Frzeglad Warszawski, 3(1921), pp. 430-431.2Ibid, p. 431.^Vestnik Literatury, 8(1921) Petrograd. Quoted in Zawodzin- ski, op. cit., p. 431.

‘♦ibid, p. 432.5Ibid.6Ibid.7Ibid, p. 43 3. For a more detailed discussion of the Polish translations of Dvenadcat1, with strong emphasis on the 1930's and later years, see Zygmunt Zbyrowski,"Wokol dziejow poematu Aleksandra Bioka Dwunastu w Polsce," Slavia Orientalis, 2(1962): 183-200.8Ibid, p. 436.^Moscow, "Zadruga,” 1920.

^-^Zawodzirfski, op. cit., p. 438.^P e t rograd, 1920.■^Zawodziriski, op. cit., p. 440.13Ibid.ll+Ibid, p. 441.^ Skamander, 10-13(1923), pp. 394-398.

j(aroslaw) i(waszkiewicz), Skamander, 20-21(1922), p. 385. Axmatova's poem was published by "Metropolis" in St. Peters­burg in 19 21.

^K(arol). W(iktor). Z(awodzinski). , "PrzekiTady i studjaz literatur obcych," Przeglad Warszawski, 4(1922), pp. 129- 130.

79

8018Ibid, p. 129.^Wlodzimierz Majakowski, "Lew^ marsz!" tr. Antoni Sionimski,

Skamander, 16(1922), pp. 39-35. First translation of Majakovskij: "Poeta-robotnik," tr. W. Wandurski, Robotnik,306(1921).

20JarosIaw Iwaszkiewicz, Skamander, 20-21(1922), p. 386. 2llbid.2 2zawodzirfski, "Z ruchu literackiego w Rosji,” Frzegl^d Warszawski, 7(1922), pp. 151-159.

23Ibid, p. 152.24Ibid, p. 153.23Ibid, 159. Part II of "Oblako v ^tanax" was translated by Tuwim in Skamander, 19-15(1921), pp. 960-965.

26Ibid, p. 155.27Ibid, p. 158. Author's italics.28ZawodziAski, "Z ruchu literackiego w Rosji," Przegl^d Warszawski, 9(1922), p. 960.

29Ibid, p. 962.3QIbid, p. 963.31Ibid.32Ibid, p. 969.33Ibid.3^Ibid, p. 965.35Ibid, p. 967.36Ibid, p. 970.37Ibid.38Note that only Severjanin is mentioned once in 1929 (vid.

note 58) and Klyltkov in 19 31 (vid. note 121) -- others are forgotten for many decades to come.

8139wiodzimierz Fiszer, "Z literatury rosyj skiej ,,r Frzeglad Warszawski, 24(1923), pp. 406-409.

^ONowa poezja rosyjska, cz. I, Warszawa: "Watra,” 192 3.^"Lis," tr. Leonard Podhorski-Okolow, Skamander, 28(19 23), p. 41.

^Oblok w spodniach, tr. Juljan Tuwim, Warszawa: Wyd."Philobiblon," 1923.

**3”Z liryki rosyj skiej ,11 Tygodnik Ilustrowany, 35(1923), p. 560. Contains translations by Antoni Bogus^awski of poems by Budiirfev, Ognivcev, Sdepkina-Kupernik, A. Tolstoj , Nikitin and Fet.

^Fiszer, op. cit.^Ibid, p. 406.46Ibid.47Ibid, p. 407.l*8Ibid.**8For the description of this publication and its contri­butors see the chapter on literary life.

88ast [Anatol Stern?3, "Wsrod ksi^zek,M Wiadomosci Literackie, 1(1924), p. 4. Cf. note 42.

S1lbid.52Ibid.®8Zawodzinski, "Przeklady z literatur obcych," Przegl^d Warszawski, 33(1924), p. 426.

8l*Juljan Tuwim, "Sztuka czy sowiet?," Wiadomosci. Literackie, 5(1924), p. 3. (Review of Majakovskij. Ve^Ci etogo goda do 1 avgusta 1923 g. Berlin, " N a k a n u n e 1924).

88Ibid.p eTadeusz Jakubowicz, ”Pod skrzydiami R.S.F.S.R. Wspdlczesna literatura rosyjska. Prady i grupy," Wiadomosci Literackie, 14(1924), p. 1.

S7Ibid.

8258Sergjusz Jesienin, "To nie chmury, nie mgly nad doling,"

"Otworzcie mi, stroze anieli," tr. Wiadyslaw Broniewski, Skamander, 42(1925), pp. 382-384. Also, Jesienin, Pugaczow> (poematu dramatycznego cz^£6 VII i ostatnia, p.t. "Komec Pugaczowa"), tr. Wl. Broniewski, Skamander, 37(1925), pp. 60-64.

8^vid. Feliksa Lichodziejewska, "Kontakty Broniewskiego z literature rosyjsk^w dwudziestoleciu mi^dzywojennym,"Po obu stronach granicy, Wrociaw-Warszawa-Krakow-Gdai*lsk:PAN, l972. Also see Wiadyslaw Piotrowski. Sergjusz Jesienin w polskiei literaturze miadzywojennej. Wroclaw- Warszawa-Krakdw: PAS, 196 7.; and E . Balcerzan. Styl ipoetyka tworczo^ci dwujgzycznej Brunona JasieKskiego, Wroclaw, 1968.

68Iwaszkiewicz, "Siewierianin w Warszawie," Wiadomos'ci Literackie, 38(1924), p. 5.

8^Vid. "Puszkin a Mickiewicz. Historja jednego r^kopisu," Wiadomosci Literackie» 25(1924), p. 1.

62»EW0lucje znakomite^o poety. Bielyj o Bloku. Na marginesie wspomnierf," Wiadomosci Literackie, 25(1924), p. 3.

69We must remember, however, that as early as 1921, Zawodziif- ski analyzed Brjusov's "circle of sonnets." But if we look at it as an analysis of a single work, the articles in the years 1924-1925 can be considered as the first ones to analyze in detail Brjusov's entire creative output.

6**Jakubowicz, "Zgon Walerego Briusowa,” Wiadomosci Literackie, 43(1924), p. 7.

"Sergjusz Kulakowskij, "Walery Briusow," Frzeglad Warszawski, 48(1925), pp. 183-197. It might be somewhat interesting to note as the author states in a footnote to his essay that the above article was originally written in Russian, and the version published in Przeglad Warszawski was actually Zofja Biernacka’s translation of Kulakovskij's article, while the excerpts from Brjusov*s poetry cited in the article were translated by Juljan Tuwim.

66Ibid, p. 183.67Ibid, p. 185.68Ibid, p. 188.69Aleksander Bruckner, "Z literatury rosyjskiej, " Przeglad

Warszawski, 43(1925), p. 117.

8370Ibid. pp. 117-118.71Ibid, p. 118.72"Briusow o zawodzie literackim," Wiadomosci Literackie,

38(1926), p. 3.7^ap, "Balmont a Polska," Wiadomosci Literackie, 31(1926),

p. 3.7^Bal'mont refers here to the Nobel Prize awarded to Wiadysiaw

Stanislaw Reymont even th9ugh most people favored fceromski. It is probably true that Zeromski would have won had there been adequate translations of his works available.

75»uiubieni pisarze Balmonta," (Notatki), Wiadomosci Litera­ckie, 42(1926), p. 3.

76WladysIaw Broniewski, "0 tworczoSci Sergjusza Jesienina.Po zgonie znakomitego poety," Wiadomosci Literackie,3(1926), p. 3.

77Ibid.78Wladyslaw Piotrowski, op. cit-, pp. 82-84.79K. A. Jaworski, "Sergjusz Jesienin," Robotnik, 48(1926),

p. 2.®^Ettinger (commentator and tr.), "Autobiografia Sergjusza Jesienina," Wiadomosci Literackie, 17(1926), p. 2.

®^The first one was published in Russian in Novaja Russkaja Kniga, 5(1924), in Berlin, the second one which Ettinger used was still an unpublished manuscript written by Esenin in 1923.

82Ettinger, op. cit.88Piotrowski, op. cit., p. 98.8l+(Noty), Wiadomosci Literackie, 26(1926).^Andrzej Stawar, "Poemat o Pugaczowie," Wiadomosci Litera­

ckie, 33(1926), p. 2.88Ibid.87Ibid.88If one disregards several minor notes on other poets.

8489"w Jesieninie," Wiadomosci Literackie, 37(1926).""Spadek po Jesieninie," Wiadomosci Literackie, 41(1926);

"0 Jesieninie," Wiadomosci Literackie, 50(1926), p. 2.""Kronika Rosyjska," Wiadomosci Literackie, 14(1927), p. 3.;

"Pisma Jesienina," Wiadomosci Literackie, 29(1927), p. 5.92"Kronika Rosyjska," op. cit."Anatol Stern, "We wladzy czarnego czlowieka. Tragedja

Sergjusza Jesienina," Wiadomosci Literackie, 27(1927), p. 1."ibid.95Ibid.96Ibid.97"Tuwim na czes<5 Balmonta," Wiadomosci Literackie, 18(1927),

p. 6."ibid."ibid.

4

100Wiadomo^ci Literackie, 17(April 24, 1927).10^Leonard Podhorski-0kol<5w, "Konstantemu Balmontowi,"

Wiadomosci Literackie, 17(1927), p. 2.^Zawodziifski, "Na przyjazd Balmonta," Wiadomosci Literackie, 17(1927), p. 1.

103Ibid.■91fSergjusz Kulakowskij , "Poezja-sztuka czarodziejska,"

Wiadomosci Literackie, 17(1927), p. 1.^"stanislaw Pazurkiewicz, "Balmont jako tlumacz," Wiadomos'ci

Literackie, 17(1927) p. 3.^"juljan Woloszynowski, "Konstanty Balmont," Tygodnik

Ilustrowany, 18(1927), p. 351.l97Sergjusz Kulakowskij, "Aleksander Blok a Polska," Wiadomosci

Literackie, 37(1927), p. 1. (tr. W. Jakubowski).l°®"Pami^tniki Bloka," Wiadomosci Literackie, 48(1928), p, 2.

Pawet Ettinger, "Listy Bloka," Wiadomosci Literackie, 27(1926), p. 2.

85109Ettinger, op. cit.^^Translation of a part of Blok's introduction, quoted in

Kulakowskij, "Aleksander Blok . . . op. cit.1;L1Ibid.l12Ibid.■L13Ibid.li^Zawodzi/^ski, "W sprawie poematu Bloka," Wiadomosci Literackie,

38(1927), p. 4, and "0 poemat Bloka," Wiadomosci Literackie, 46(1927), p. 4.

^l^Kulakowskij, ”W sprawie artykulu 'Aleksander Blok a Polska*," Wiadomosci Literackie, 42(1927), p. 4, and "W sprawie poematu B£oka," Wiadomosci Literackie, 50(1927), p. 5.

116vid. note 19.^^"Jak siq pisze wiersze," (Notatki) , Wiadomosci Literackie,

25(1926), p. 4.118yjadyslaw Broniewski, "Nowyj Lef," Wiadomosci Literackie,

10(1927), p. 2.il9"Secesja w grupie futurystycznej 'Lef'," (Sztuka rosyjska),

Wiadomosci Literackie, 3(1924), p. 2.l29Broniewski, op. cit.12lT. . .Ibid.122Ibid.123Ibid.^-^Quoted by Stern in "Poeta stu piq<?dziesiqciu miljonow.

Wlodzimierz M a j a k o w s k i j Wiadomosci Literackie, 21(1927),p. 2.

l25Ibid.126Ibid.127Ibid.128Ibid.

86■^^"Dziela zbiorowe Majakowskiego," (Notatki), WiadomoSci

Literackie, 36(1927), p. 4.13 0**Majakowskij wystapil z 'Lefa'," Wiadomosci Literackie,

48(1928) , p. 2.; iMajakowskij ," (Kronika zagraniczna), WiadomoSci Literackie, 4(1929), p. 4.

!31hKronika rosyjska," WiadomoSci Literackie, 16(1928), p. 2.13 2KrZysztof Nienaski, "Samobojstwo Majakowskiego," Wiadomosci

Literackie, 20(1930), p. 1.133,rLenin a Majakowskij Wiadomosci Literackie, 20(1931);

Wiadomosci Literackie, 27 (1931), p". 4 . ; "Pasternak i Kly£kov," (Kronika zagraniczna), Wiadomosci Literackie, 17(1931), p. 2.

Chapter III THE THEATER

In the 1920's the avant-garde Polish theater, like its counterpart in the Soviet Union, was at the stage of infancy; and like their Soviet colleagues, Polish playwrights and dramatists were experimenting with new techniques. At that time Polish theater was under the strong influence of the theoretician and practitioner of the theater, Stanislaw Ignacy Witkiewicz, whose theory of "pure form" was the guiding principle of contemporary theater productions.

Witkiewicz's theory states that theater should be based on a play of forms divorced from their tradi­tional meanings. While in the traditional theater characters act according to the accepted norms of social law and psychological behavior, the theater of "pure form" introduces characters, props, dialogues, etc., which are completely divorced from their actual mean­ings and which are connected by trans-logical purely formal principles of association.

When leaving the theater, one should have the impression that one wakes up from a strange dream in which the most trite things have the elusive, deep charm characteristic of dreams, not comparable to anything [else!. . . X

87

Since the Soviet theater was the leader in the renovation of techniques and approaches to the art of drama— due especially to the achievements of such innovators as Meyerhold, Tairov and Evreinov--Polish dramatists had good reason to follow developments in that theater. This view is very well summarized by a literary and theater critic, Eugeniusz Iwierczewski in 1923 ;

The creative energy of the reformers of the Russian theater finds wide acceptance. Undoubtedly, besides the specifically Russian qualities of search for modernity and change, it carries within itself the source of the general transformation to which European and Polish theaters are inevitably head­ing. Reevaluation of the role of the theater and of theatrical creativity; a daring approach to the most risky solutions to the problems of directing, acting, scenography, and stage settings; connecting theatrical life with the life of the nation by knots of hidden currents of the collective psyche; forging the physiognomy of our own national theater — these are the tasks which the Polish theater slowly undertakes, but undertakes with unshaken will. These tasks must be accomplished, for upon them rests the theater*s role as one of the most important functions in the spiritual life of [our] society.^ (51)

In early 1922 there appeared in Skamander an essay in which the author used the occasion of the performance of Andreev's modernistic and symbolist play He Who Gets Slapped in the Polish Theater to express his ideas on the "new drama." His thesis was,

Absence of reality. . . is the shameful illness tormenting Europe and the hidden wound from which contemporary drama is dying. For if drama is the

89punishment for* divine or human action, how could it exist today if all the gods had died and man, as they say, had not yet been born?4 (5 2)

The essayist continues that in the modern epoch, in which abstraction is the ruler, there can not be any room for love intrigues or heroic plots:

Abstraction and heroism do not rhyme. That is why there can be no problem of the plot in our time. Plot, at the most, 'dirties' the form; it is a barely tolerated relic, and justly so: that [sic]plot which is expressed by a play sproutingout of a decaying corpse is really [sic] a relic. It wouldn't be so bad if the feeling of this inner emptiness did not assume such general shapes: each[sic] plot appears to be nowadays just rot. So there remains only the form: nobody even asks anymore; of what?® (53)

According to the critic, this is the cause of the slow death of drama as literature and of the theater having only a ''formal'1 importance, i.e. being only the point of departure for the modernistic abstract stage and lighting effects. Some people consider this phenomenon as "the power of form," but in reality,

. . . it will be only a theatrical variant of the same abstractionism, which in the world of the stage will become sooner or later the cause of the disappearance of theatrical inventiveness.Since [this formal approach] tears the theatrical forms away from the plot, away from its life-giving source, and sentences it to 'revolutionary' unrestricted and rampant development, while at the same time depriving it of all spiritual discipline, it will bring about its [the form's] annihilation.® (54)

90The above essay signalled the beginning of a wave

of critical treatises on the nature of the new theater. Although the author of the essay did not discuss Andreev's play, but only used it as the basis for his arguments on the nature of the Polish theater, the critics turned their attention the eastern neighbor, where such dramatists and directors as Evreinov,Meyerhold, Tairov and others were transforming the contemporary theater into a modernistic expression of "pure form" and reducing the dramatic contents to bare abstractions. So some Polish critics began to follow the new Soviet theater out of fear for its "negative" influence on the Polish theater, while others studied it for exactly the opposite reason: they believed thatthe new forms of Soviet stage productions could influence their theater only in a very positive way.

At the beginning of 192 3 the futurist critic Anatol Stern came out with an essay comparing Jerzy Szaniawski's Lekkoduch (A Frivolous Person) and Evreinov*s That Which Is the Most Important, both performed at

7that time in the Warsaw theaters.

The burden of A Frivolous Person is the transforma­tion of life by theatralization, the bestowal of a plot upon life by means of a theatrical lie and by means of deception artificially implanted in people.8 (55)

91In other words, Szaniawski poses a question addressed to his audience: Can theater overcome reality? Accord­ing to Stern, Szaniawski*s answer to that question is in the negative: theater is only an insignificant lie,unable to transform life - it lasts only a moment in

gorder to leave behind "a sterile emptiness of reality."

Evreinov*s play, on the other hand, proclaims the opposite view. While Szaniawski "surrendered to the most naturalistic of the theaters - life," in Evreinov*s play we encounter "the most vicious propaganda of the theatralization of life." In the Russian play "every minute is a theater!"10 Concluding his essay, Stern points out that the heroes of both plays are advocates of "eternal desire for change" which is hidden in man; this desire is a precious antidote against "the lethal poison of ordinariness." In Evreinov, "the theatrical lie" becomes life-giving and transforms the play into a reality and theater into life. "Theatricality triumphs. It triumphs by overcoming theater. It ceases to be a lie and becomes the truth.*'11 From Evreinov*s play, according to Stern,

. . . emanates the immortal power of theatraliza­tion which becomes realized in repeatedly new forms. This play rests on an unshaken foundation of faith in theatrical instinct, which according to Evreinov is not only equal to, but even more powerful than, the sex instinct or the instinct of self-preservation. The author of this play is

92

aware of the goals which he propagates for the theater of life in general, for the extremely anarchistic and individualistic theater, and for the theater in which the Aristotelean catharsis has been transformed into a refined exaggeration of 'theater for the sake of theater. (56)

Stern's positive interpretation of Evreinov*s influence on the development of the theater was soon followed in Tygodnik Ilustrowany by a general appraisal of the contemporary Soviet theater, written by Eugenjusz/ 1 3Swierczewski. The critic begins by assuring his readers that in spite of the post-revolutionary halt of many elementary functions of daily life in the Soviet Union, the theater continues to grow and shows signs of great artistic innovation. Stanislavskij1s role in contemporary production was in a decline, since it had been replaced by the new forms and techniques of Meyerhold, Tairov and others. As Stanislavskij sub­ordinated the question of form to the requirements and interests of plot, his adversaries advanced a postulate of form as the basic issue of theater, as the essence of its existence. To them, "plot is a secondary motive for revelation of all the possibilities which may be realized in forms of acting, staging and directing."^**

The author goes on to give a very short descrip­tion of each of the three major Soviet directors. He

93

characterizes Mayerhold as standing at the head of the,fleft front” of Soviet theater both in his activitiesand in his staging which "stress the active role . . .(of the Revolution] . . . in preserving the Soviet

15system." As a reaction and opposition to Stanislavskij*s "psychologism,"

. . . Meyerhold sets forth as a postulate of culture the use of the body of the actor as the basic element of the art of acting, built according to him above all on an understanding and mastery of all the possible ways of physical self-control. As an integral part of the mise-en-scene Meyerhold propagates eccentric movements and external gestures which are exaggerated in their plasticity and sharp in their artistic line. Inner life becomes plastically externalized, while the body and movement become the most important tools of the actor. Action and the dynamic moment in theatrical art have been raised by Meyerhold to the highest level. (57)

Between Stanislavskij's leaning to the "right" and Meyerhold*s to the "left," in the "center," according to ^wierczewski, stands Tairov, the director of the Kamernyj Theater. His main interest lies in the technique of acting, for he sees the decline of theater

. . . in the theaters* having lost their art and the actors' having lost their mastery. Since the existence of the theater depends on actors, the development of the theater and its quality are directly dependent on the development and quality of the art of its actors, and are in direct proportion to each other.17 (58)

9U

Having lost his art, the actor loses his power over the audience. This leads to the creation of the so- called "synthetic theater," combining in stage productions such various purely artistic elements as words, songs, pantomime, dance, etc. Abandoning the naturalistic theater, Tairov consequently strove to improve this ’’synthesizing of the actor's art," by emphasizing the elements of "fantastic realism" and plasticity in his productions. For that reason his theater is full of loud, colorful and bright "extravaganzas," "buffooneries," and "harlequinades."

Tairov*s constant changes from miracle play and tragedy to operetta and harlequinade testify to the fact that the theater is a living organism, that it is on the road to quests which have no attainable goals, which produce good results in a theatrical production, in which only during the very process of creation can the right or wrong of the chosen road be r e v e a l e d . <59)

Swierczewski concludes by mentioning some otherfollowers of "the left front" (Saxava, Forreger) andby giving a synthesis of the value of these innovationsin the theater for the whole world. He states that thetremendous advances that had occurred in the Soviettheater in the previous 25 years, "from Stanislavskijto acrobatics," are "a synthetic abbreviation of thatevolution which the theater must always go through at

19frequent intervals." Therefore it was by way of a

95natural reaction that the so-called "crisis or death

20of the theater" had occurred, which was actually, in the opinion of the critic, a simple exchange for the predominant naturalistic movement by an anti-naturalistic one -- or by an unrealistic one in its most diverse forms. Therefore,

. . . the enormous work, fervor, enthusiasm and passion put into efforts at reform guarantee that a high intensity of theatrical creativity and its extraordinary level will not pass without repercussion in the future of the Russian and European t h e a t e r . (60)

It would seem that Swierczewski1s article would suffice as a general introduction to the trends in the "new Soviet theater." But 1924 saw at least three major essays, very similar in content, in Wiadomosci Lite- rackie outlining these new trends, movements and techniques.

The first one was published by this literary weekly 22in January, 1924, as a report from Moscow. Its

author, Stanis£aw Staliriski, sketches out the repertoire of major theaters in this "capital of contemporary theater," but just as Swierczewski has done before him, he spends most of his time characterizing the art of Stanislavskij, Meyerhold and Tairov. In contrast to the indifference of Polish audiences, Stalinski was amazed at the thirst for theater on the part of the

96

Russians, whom he called "the only people in the worldready to sacrifice a dinner for an evening in the inn

2 3of imagination.'* Unfortunately, the critic does not go into any depth in characterizing the nature of the Soviet repertoire. He mentions only that Stanislavskij*s Art Theater continues staging "classical" plays in realistic tradition, while Tairov directs "old French vaudeville" and comical operas which give him excellent opportunities to make use of all kinds of effects of dance, lighting, and gymnastics. Again, just as Swierczewski did, he sees Tairov*s theater as a "centrum" between the classical theater of Stanislavskij and the revolutionary theater of Meyerhold. But Stalinski finds fault in Tairov*s conception of uniting tragedy with harlequinade:

Tairov*s mistake lies in his duality. On the one hand [there is] a full conventional balance of decorations; on the other, naive simplifications of costume; [there are] aesthetic ‘moods* side by side with extravagant circus buffooneries; [there are] elaborate voice modulations in the spoken dialogue, and at the same time naive hoarse dhadows of actors who cannot sing at all. . . .24 (61)

While finding fault with Tairov*s art, the author finds only praise for the agitational and revolutionary theater of Meyerhold, which he calls "the theater of direct reaction:"

He cast away decorations, substituting for them only machine constructions; he cast away all the secondary, background, stylized, and unclear effects, producing a precise, sharp, and purposeful theater. . . . And the cast performed perfectly;it can even be said that it 'constructed.' It moves the audience; it carries them away. The spectacle fluctuates between a circus and an agitational rally, between tragic pathos and a youthful and amusing po£ma.25 (62)

/Stalinski concludes his evaluation by stating that, in the history of theater, Meyerhold's productions will be remembered as "the ideal revolutionary theater the way the conspirators-idealists have dreamt it ought to be."26

27The second article reports Meyerhold's troubles with censorship caused by his staging of Fajko's Lake Lull, a story of an anarchist who abandons his revo­lutionary ideals and makes a great career in a

capitalist society. The play, especially Meyerhold's experiments in 'fcinematization of the theater," was warmly received by the public, but the "Glavrepertkom" accused its director of "speculating on the revolutionand of falsifying the basic intentions and aims of the

2 8theater, as an artistic revolutionary agitator." It also accused him of "anarchistic and foxtrotty style." This caused a lengthy polemic which ended with "a real Solomon's decision:" the play was found to be "objectively harmful and ideologically unsuited" for

the Theater of the Revolution, but, taking into consideration all the work and expense of staging the play, it was allowed to remain in the repertpry after some "minor corrections."

2 9The third major article of 1924, the longest of the three, is really a synthesis of all the other information on that topic already readily available in other publications in Poland. In a way then, it adds nothing new for a reader who has read the articles described above. But one must give it credit for skillfully and concisely presenting all the major trends in contemporary Soviet theater.

By the end of 1924, Polish readers were fully acquainted with the trends in Soviet drama. Having had large doses of similar descriptions, interest on the part of the critics diminishes sharply in 1925, with only one exception: Nikolaj Evreinov came to Warsaw inFebruary 1925 and stayed there for several weeks study­ing the Polish theater and supervising the productions of his plays being staged at that time. Immediately, Wiadomo^ci Literackie published a lengthy report of theinterview between the dramatist and Eugenjusz Swierczew-

30ski. The interviewer outlines Evreinovrs biography and characteristics of his works. As did most critics before him, Swierczewski fails to give any substantial

analysis or his own interpretation of Evreinov's art, but rather resorts to reporting biographical facts and data. He does however explain Evreinov*s theory of "theatricality of life" which he describes as stemming from the dramatist's conviction that within each man,together with other instincts, there is an "instinct

\of theatricality," "manifesting itself in the juxta­position of those images acquired from the outside and those consciously created by man." For Evreinov, according to the interviewer, this instinct is the basic element not only of stage play but also of life. As the result of his convictions, in his works Evreinov calls for creation of a theater in life, for the"enrichment of life not only by the ornaments of form,

31but also . . . by the contents of emotion."

From the interview proper, we learn that Evreinovis preparing a new philosophical work, Samorazoblaifenie(Self-exposure), the purpose of which is to "tear themask from man." The dramatist explains that what hemeans is that, in life, man plays millions of roles inthe "process of absolution" ("oczyszczenie"). Therefore

32man is "a series of masks on the core of our memory."

This interview is soon followed by a few minor articles, notes and reports in Wiadomosci Literackie and Robotnik about Evreinov, his activities, and performances

1003 3 ^of his plays in Warsaw. As soon as he leaves for

Paris, however, his name disappears from the literaryjournals. In the period with which this study isconcerned, Evreinov appears only once more, in 19 30,

34in a small review of one of his plays.

Between 1926 and 1932, criticism turns away fromthe theater paying more attention to poetry and prose,which were developing at a rapid pace in the Soviet

35Union, while the theater had reached its pinnacle inthe early 1920's and the following years of that decadewere marked with trials to improve techniques ratherthan to invent new ones. This of course explains thelack of any substantial criticism in the literaryjournals at that time. That is not to say that nothingwas written on the topic — on the contrary, there aremany reports on Soviet theater life, premieres of new

3 6Soviet plays in Polish theaters, etc., but all this cannot be considered literary criticism — it is merely a series of notes, theatrical reviews and even gossip.

Only in late 19 3 3 does there appear to be renewed interest in the Soviet theater; but this time it is much more subtle and the critics, having had many years to observe the Soviet theater, are much more serious and critical in their observations. Antoni S&onimski, for example, used the occasion of the staging of Bulgakov's

Zojka1s Apartment to criticize those restrictions placed on Soviet playwrights which force them to limit their creativity.

A play would begin to interest us if there appeared on the stage someone intelligent and valuable, who cannot endure the barracks atmosphere, national oppression, terror, fear, or denunciations. To the point of boredom we are shown various human wrecks, former counts and courtesans, who feel ill in the country of the liberated proletariat. At least once show us something truthful. Let it be as little as the conflict between Zinov'ev and Stalin, or the sufferings and triumphs of poets. Of little interest to us is why a former pimp wants to run away . . . but why did Esenin run away, why did Majakovskij? Where are the plays portraying the inner struggle of the people ruling Russia, where are the plays about the real world of the deciding powers? . . . The Soviet theater, which is so good as far as its actors are concerned, gasps with boredom and lifelessness. A Soviet writer more and more resembles an old, faithful servant who can even be allowed to grumble a little. He is not dangerous to anyone.3 7 (6 3)

It is interesting to note that only a few weeksafter the appearance of the above article, WiadomosciLiterackie published a whole issue devoted to theSoviet Union, most of the articles being written by

38Russians on Russian themes. Three articles in thisissue are devoted to the theater. The first one, written by Sergej Dinamov, of the staff of Literaturnaj a Gazeta, gives a general survey of contemporary Soviet drama. He begins by stating that Russians are the most avid readers and theater enthusiasts in the world. He explains it thus: "theater is tightly connected with

102our life and our customs, , . . [we have] excellentdirectors, actors and painters, and finally our theater does not develop in us low or erotic instincts, but it converts us into cleaner, better, wiser, more active [people] .

Then he goes on to divide, in a very primitive way, the repertoire of Soviet theaters into eight groups:Cl) the classics CDostoevskij, Tolstoi> Shakespeare);C2) socialist building ("building lives and reshaping people"); (3) rural life (the problem of the kulaks1 popposition to collectivization); (4) armed struggle for revolution ("pathos of death for ideology")} (5) youth, although he agrees that this theme is only beginning to be noticed by playwrights; (6) freedom of all the Soviet nationalities; (7) life of old Russia, the past; and (8) the intelligentsia ("the authors show how slowly and how difficult it is for the intelligent­sia to liberate itself from the chains of the past; how the majority of the intelligentsia ultimately

llQunites with the Revolution”).

In order not to show that the Soviet stage is "a collection of mechanical people," Dinamov quickly points out that there are human love, desire and suffering, for

103

. . . our* dramatic actors do not overlook theproblems of sex, family, love, and marriage, but understand that personal matters are a part of the collective whole, and that these problems, which are so painful to a human being, find their resolution in the system, society, and the conditions of life.41 (64)

In the same issue, on the occasion of the thirty- fifth anniversary of Mayerhold's work in the theater, Nikolaj Volkov sketches out the creative evolution of the director*s art. This rather dry and uninterest­ing article chronologically describing most of his productions is followed by a short essay by Meyerhold himself, entitled "My Creative Path." And here the dramatist himself describes his methods of scenography and acting. His system, he says, is built on the data of bioraechanics which determine "new laws of an actor's movement on stage on the principles of human behavioral norms." Thus the movements of an actor brought up in this biomechanical system are precise, clear, rhythmic, organized and expressive. But, Meyerhold concludes, all these are only "tools;" there is one goal: "mobilization of the audience in the

42struggle to preserve the socialist system on earth."

This same theme of socialist emphasis is the main point brought out by Mixail Slonimskij, who in a lengthy essay on the positive influences of socialist reality on creative process in the Soviet Union says:

101*The power of proletarian revolution brought into being an overwhelming wealth of talents hidden among the working people and gave them a wide field of action and force. . , . The profession of writeris one of the most honorable professions in the Soviet Union. . . . To re-create faithfully reality without false tendentiousness is the aim and purpose of every Soviet writer. The Soviet writer is not afraid to touch upon the most horrifying wounds of human life and psychology, because he believes in and knows the potentialities and methods of healing these wounds.43 (65)

But if we compare this statement with the words of the Polish critic Antoni Sionimski written just a few weeks earlier, and surely representing the views of the majority of Polish critics, we will understand why Russian theater and literature in general had ceased to interest the Polish critics and readers alike:

The real conflicts of Russia are closed to literature. The failure of planning, the sabotage of villages, over-production, and a thousand other matters await their writer. Hundreds of human sacrifices, made in order to cover up mistakes resulting from organizational incompetence, and all the real conflicts do not penetrate into literature, because literary output is a tool of the government and an organ of propaganda.^ (66)

This statement is a direct contradiction and refutation of the one written by Mixail Slonimskij and signifies to the Polish readers that the former most imaginative and most creative Soviet theater, which inspired Polish playwrights and audiences, has been transformed into a boring, unimaginative tool of government propaganda and therefore can be of value only to the Russian government.

105

From the discussion presented above one can conclude that interest on the part of the Polish critics was limited to the technical side of the Soviet theater, as opposed to its literary side.

This fact can be easily understood is we remember that the Polish theater of the 19 2 0's was dominated by the ideas of StanisTaw Ignacy Witkiewicz, whose theory of "pure form" was as obscure as some of the theories espoused by contempo­rary Soviet directors.

Therefore it should be no surprise that the progressive Soviet theater, an excellent example of modernistic expres­sion of "pure form," would be of great interest to Polish playwrights and directors. This is especially true of Meyerhold's revolutionary theater where theater production was the only point of departure for modernistic abstract staging and lighting effects, and of Tairov's Kamernyj Theater which brought the arts of drama, music, decor and gesture to a new rhythmic unity as a single and complete theatrical art. As long as these two gifted directors were free to experiment in their stage productions, the Polish press continued to report on their innovations. However, once their art came under the strict control of the government and was transformed into an arm of propagan­da, Polish theater critics turned their attention away from the Soviet Union, which apparently no longer interested them.

FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER III

Czeslaw Milosz. The History of Polish Literature. London: The Macmillan Company", 1969 , 417 .2Eugenjusz i^wierczewski, "Teatr rosyjski. Od Stanis- lawskiego do akrobatyki," Tygodnik Ilustrowany, 47 (1923), pp. 753-754.

qWilam Horzyca, "0 kryzysie w dramacie," Skamander,18 (1922), pp. 172-181.

4Ibid, p. 174.5 v'-Ibid, p. 178, author’s italics.6Ibid.2Anatol Stern, "Teatr," Skamander, 28 (1923), pp. 49-53. 8Ibid, p. 50.9Ibid, p. 51.

10Ibid.X1Ibid.2Ibid, p. 52.

15/Swierczewski, op. cit.llfIbid, p. 753.15T> • ,Ibid.16Ibid, p. 754.17T, .Ibid.18Ibid.19Ibid.2 QAn obvious reference to Wilam Horzyca*s article

(vid. note 3).106

on / (Swierczewaki, op. cit«, p. 7 54.107

n A Stanislaw Stalirfski, "Stolica wspotczesnego teatru.Za czerwon^, kurtyn^. sowieck^," Wiadomosci Literackie,2 (1924), p. 2.

23Ibid.2lfIbid.25Ibid.26Ibid.2 7Tadeusz Ignatowicz, "Dwie sensacje Moskwy. Rzad Rewolucji przeciw Teatrowi Rewolucji," Wiadomosci Literackie, 5 (1924), p. 2.

28,. . .Ibid.2^"Jak si% przedstawia wsp6lczesny teatr moskiewski, Wiadomosci Literackle, 37 (1924), p. 2.

3®Swierczewski, "Jewreinov w Warszawie," Wiadomosci Literackie, 7 (1925), p. 6.

31Ibid.3 2Ibid. (Czlowiek jest nawarstwieniem masek na rdzeniu naszej pami|ci.")

33In his weekly column on the theater, Antoni Slonimski very strongly criticized Evreinov for his inability to control the staging effects of his plays: "Evreinov is considered to be the master of theater and an excellent connoisseur of theatrical medium and techniques. The Ship of the Just., however, shows a complete ignorance and lack of understanding of the laws governing stage productions. Excessive accumulation of colors creates an impression of grey­ness. Evreinov heaps together immodest and unreasonable stage effects. Constantly something new, but superfluous, occurs on the stage. . . • [Antoni Slonimski, "Okrqt sprawiedliwych, sztuka w 3 aktach Jewrei- nowa," Wiadomo&ci Literackie. 17 (1925), p. 5J For another review of the same play, see K. Irzykowski, "Okr^t sprawie­dliwych, widowisko dramatyczne w 3 aktach M. Jewreinowa,,fRobotnih. 109-110 (1925), p. 2.J.E. Skiwski, "Jewreinow na scenie poznariskiej," Wiadomosci Literackie. 14 (1930), p. 5.

3^vid. Chapters II and IV.

108

Jan Hempel,are:J t v / >

Moscow theaters]; ’ ' j - - — — j ■ » — ~~Literacxie, / ua^/j , p. z. [plot outline of Meyerhold*s revised version of the Gogol classic];"S^d nad Rewizorem," Wiadomosci Literackie, 9 (1927), p. 1. [a report on Meyerhold's troubles with the censors]; "Cenzura sowiecka," Wiadoino^ci Literackie,4-3 (1928), p. 1. [a note reporting censorship of Bulgakov's Dni Turbinyx, the closing of Meyerhold's theater, the famous actor's, Mixail fiexov's emigra­tion to Berlin due to conflicts with "Glavlit" and "Repertkom," and the recall of Granovsky's theater back to U.S.S.R. due to his "overpopularity in the western ourgeois spheres"]; "Majakowskij u Meyerholda Wiadomosci Literackie, 26 (1929), p. 2. [a review of the staging of Klop]: For others see Bibliography.

37 /a(ntoni) s(lonimski), "Mieszkanie Zojki," WiadomosciLiterackie, 32 (1933), p. 6.

^ Wiadomo^ci Literackie, 47 (1933).39Siergiej Dinamow, "0 wspoiczesnej dramaturgji

sowieckiej," Wiadomosci Literackie, 47 (1933), p. 3.40Ibid.41Ibid.

Wsiewolod Mejerhold, "Moja droga tworcza," Wiadomosci Literackie, 47 (1933), p. 16.

4 3Michaii^Si:onimskij , "Zycie literatury sowieckiej," Wiadomosci Literackie, 47 (1933), p. 2.

^**a(ntoni s(Ionimski), op. cit.

Literackie, (1927),

Chapter IV THE PROSE

It is understandable that in Poland, literary criticism of Russian literature from the very beginning; of the Soviet period was subordinated to the political developments of that time. It is not an accident that after 1918, in the years of intense political tension between newly independent Poland and the Soviet Union, the main interest was focused on classical pre-revolutionary literature. Only in the first years of the 1920's, side by side with the Russian classics there appear the names of representatives of the younger literary generation which emerged after World War 1.^

As Jadwiga Urbanska correctly notes, the firstreferences to Soviet cultural life are characterized by

2"far reaching tendentiousness or outright ignorance."The main source of information for both the daily press and literary journals were reports by chance observers, by Russian emigres, or Western correspondents. A clear example of such, is one of the earliest essays on the new Russian literature. The essay, discussed by Urbanska, relates general impressions of intellec­tual life in "Russia bathed in blood." In the essay

109

1X0

the author* informed his readers about the "chaos and3deterioration of Soviet art and culture." The author

mentions several new prose writers such as Panferov, Serafimovich, Aroseev, and others. But he cannot discuss their artistic merits, for "real art has died [and is] buried under the ruins of Bolshevism."

1922

In May of 1922 Stanislawa Sawicka wrote a lengthy essay evaluating and reporting on the contents of the Russian literary journal Tvorcestvo. She wrote:

After a period of almost exclusively oral accounts, usually brought out by our repatriated citizens, the eastern border is beginning to open up; and, aside from some groundless Eyewitness’ tales, some real proofs of the state of culture and <g7) mentality in Russia begin to reach us. . . .

In a very sarcastic conclusion, Sawicka comments on Luna$arskij's statement that, in spite of the lack of education, the Russian proletarians and peasants have a tremendous thirst for knowledge and will soon show the West that the Revolution not only has preserved theartistic and scientific achievements of old Russia, but will utilize them for a better future. She says:

So far these are only empty words; so far there are no positive results. Reality contradicts these beautiful phrases.5 (68)

It is customary to divide contemporary Russian literature into emigre literature and Soviet literature Throughout the 1920's Polish literary critics treated these two groups separately, favoring generally the classics and the emigres — at least in the area of prose. Only in the early 1930's was the trend reversed However, since this study is concerned only with the reception of the new Soviet literature, the classics

gwill not be discussed here.

1923

It is only in 19 23 that the first major positive article on Soviet literature appears in Poland. It is Victor Serge's "Nowa literatura rosyjska" ("New Russian Literature"), reprinted in Kultura Robotnicza from the French Clarte. In this article, Serge discredits the works presenting "the awkward, superfluous people" of Cexov, Gorkij, Kuprin, and Andreev. The author attributes the condition of these "superfluous people" to the atmosphere of terror of the Tsarist Oxrana, to psychological pressures from the Orthodox Church, and to the fear of revolutionary action.

Among the new and promising writers Serge lists Esenin, Majakovskij, Fedin, Ivanov, and Pilnjak. He values their works because of their high stylistic

worth, conciseness of form and language, and extreme dynamism. He treats them as writers conceived by the Revolution but as yet not revolutionaries by conviction:

They passed through storms without trying to explain them, without agreeing with them in the depths of their conscience. They noticed minute manifesta­tions of the revolution, but did not penetrate its profound law: do they consciously shun ideology,or do they not have it at all?„ No fundamental position enlivens their works. (69)

192U

In 1924, as reported in previous chapters, there appear several full-lenth articles dedicated to the cultural situation in Russia, and there appears the first translation of a full-length work by a Soviet writer — II* ja Erenburg*s Neobycajnye priklju6enija Xulio Xurenito (Extraordinary Adventures of Julio Jure- nito).8

In his introduction to the translation, Juliusz Kaden-Bandrowski accused literary critics of ignoring, defaming, and slandering writers whose ideology did not conform to the prescribed norms. Concerning Erenburg, he sarcastically said:

From many sides one can hear reputable authorities saying that Erenburg is a dangerous writer who actually ought to be cursed; . . . that Erenburg is perhaps even worse than Satan, for he is a Jew, an anarchist, or a former Communist; that, finally,

113

though others may, it is certainly improper for us Poles to translate such works into our language.It is their problem, if the French or the Germans do so; but [should] we?But we [should]!^ (70)

Here the critic paves the way not only for Erenburgrs but for many other "cursed” authors* acceptance by Polish critics. He continues that, for Poles, it should not matter whether a writer is a Communist, a parasite, or a Jew — what should matter is whether he creates in the fervor of sincerity and whether his creation "resounds with the dignity of his time." Jurenito. according to Kaden-Bandrowski, fulfills the above requirements, for it is a "bill made out to humanity for its last ten years."10 He continues that Erenburg asserts in his novel that all the values established at the turn of the century have collapsed because of human baseness.

Following this somewhat ideological evaluation of Erenburg and the world of his novel, the critic turns to a more literary analysis and comments on Erenburg1s use of the word as a weapon:

Look at his cuts: short, sharp, allegedly strippedof their vigor, but full of internal force. How he masks the effort, how muscularly his concise and pure words play evenly under the smooth skin of s e n t e n c e s . (71)

Kaden-Bandrowski concludes his introduction by praising Erenburg for understanding and enduring all the lies

lit*

and baseness which the new social system has brought into his world. And for this, according to the critics, Erenburg's art is worth following.

As a result of this translation, Erenburg became very well known and his success contributed to the growing acceptance of Soviet literature in Poland. Also, if we recall that it was at the very same time, in 1924, that Wiadomosci Literackie came into being, we will understand why interest in Soviet prose grew so rapidly.

Already in the fourth issue of the weekly there appears an article by Anatol Stern, in which he not only pleads for the re-establishment of literary rela­tions between Poland and Russia, but also introduces to Polish literati the new Russian proletarian writings and announces the birth of a new cultural force, which is

. . . different from the European, more utilitarianin understanding art as the factor regulating the lives of the widest masses, and as pass^ as Western art, but at the same time containing new psycho­logical, artistic, and aesthetic values which under went dazzling transformation and magnification inRussia.12 (7 2)

In the column "Kronika zagraniczna" <"Foreign Chronicle"), appearing in each issue of Wiadomosci Literackie, the references to Russian literature become more and more frequent. Along with such popular names

115as Majakovskij, Esenin, Erenburg, and Zoscenko, a newname becomes increasingly popular in Poland — that ofBoris Pilnjak, an author "powerfully pushing his way

13towards the first row of Russian belletrists."From now on, almost every issue of Wiadomosci Literackie will contain some information concerning Russian literary developments. The main interest, it seems is directed toward

. . . the activity of a legion of young authors,who by admiring Western literature and culture slighted the social tradition of many years which characterized the old literature, and sailed out in search of the kingdom of subject matter.I1* (7 3)

The names of Nikolaj Nikolaevi^ Nikitin, Vsevolod Vja- !$eslavovi^ Ivanov, Konstantin Aleksandrovi<^ Fedin, and Boris Andreevi^ Pilnjak listed in this context clearly suggest that the main interest of Polish literary criticism of the time lies in the group of Serapion Brothers, the so-called "Fellow Travelers" who went along with the new Communist reforms without actual commitment to its cause. In the summer of 192^ there appears an article by W. Wandurski, in which he points out to the new phenomenon so characteristic of this new literary epoch — the gradual disappearance of poetic forms and a decisive turn to prose:

The literature of contemporary Russia thrives under the sign of prose. . . . The general rule is to

116

strive for simplicity, to become liberated from the spell of the baroque* . . . There disappeared theinterest in complicated entanglements of inner life, and in problems of individual psychology. . . .Today’s readers are interested in the form in which they receive the chaos of impressions which are already familiar to them. New [sic] prose.15 (74)

Wandurski names Zamjatin as "the founder of modern Soviet prose" and Pilnjak as a young writer "suffering from excess of talent." The former is described as the master of contemporary techniques of cubist paint­ing, engineering details and compositional planning, and a new prose style which already has many followers. The latter is described as "an unrestrained anarchist overwhelming his readers with his directness anduncommon juiciness in the descriptions of biological

16emotions."

Wandurski also notes the growing talent of "repent­ant emigrant," II*ja Erenburg, who has progressed from decadent symbolist to rebellious realist and whose prose "enchants with its extraordinary simplicity and

17at the same time has a fresh and human quality to it."

1925

By mid-1924, Boris Pilnjak, together with II'ja Erenburg, becomes one of the most "fashionable" writers in Poland. Generally he was acclaimed as a new

117

promising writer. However, there were also those who strongly criticized him. In early 1925, for example, Waclaw Lednicki accused Pilnjak and Babel1 of overload­ing their stories with jargon, colloquialisms, exotisms, and ignorance; each novel, Lednicki states, just like a film, consists of a series of scenes without any order in which the reality is definitely overexposed. According to the critic, Pilnjak and Babel* accumulate images in which the colors are too bright, or the contrast between black and white is definitely too sharp:

In Russia there came a fashion for course, uncouth, and rough style; and we notice the same in the realm of the plot. Literature more and more lowers itself to the environment which it s e r v e s . (75)

But if Lednicki criticized Pilnjak and Babel*, he canbe considered the discoverer of Leonid Leonov, at leastas far as the Polish critics are concerned. Whereas hegenerally criticized the new Soviet literature as written

19 -by "new people, . . . uneducated. . . ,** he singlesout Leonov as a really talented writer representing a truly high art. According to Lednicki,

. . . for Leonov the revolution is above all a catastrophe in which people lost their lives. . . .For Leonov the revolution is a huge cemetery in which while strolling he cries over the tomb of the *unknown soldier.' . . . He is jnterested in the fate of the little man, like Puskin in The Bronze Horseman. . . . But Pu&kin, the realist and positivist, justified the historical necessity

118

of the system. . . . Leonov, however, finds in himself neither the faith nor the revolutionary enthusiasm which would allow him suchjustification.20 (76)

His remarks about Leonov, Lednicki summarizes stating that,

. . . the pathos of his creative work is pity for the disappearing minority. Leonov*s Russia is a broken icon.21 (77)

In the same year, Aleksander Bruckner very strongly attacked the new Soviet prose, especially that of Aleksej Tolstoj, Pilnjak, Vsevolod Ivanov, and Erenburg:

Not satisfied with their own wealth, they reach for plots which are completely alien from them, fantastic or western — especially II'ja Erenburg. Their heads, especially Erenburg*s, were turned by Spengler; therefore they write long romances, and putative excerpts from such romances, about the decay of the West and its culture, about its deadly stench, about its forthcoming and inevitable death. We do not intend to accept such banalities and we suggest that they first sweep in front of their own gates; for no literature will be able, in the many decades to come, to clean up all Cthe garbage! that has accumulated there.22 (77)

1926

In 19 26 there appears a short anonymous article, entitled "Pilnjak w nielasce" ("Pilnjak in Disgrace").2 The article, which is actually a news report, relates Pilnjak*s "disgrace" caused by his new short story published in Novyj Mir and dedicated to a well known

119

Soviet critic, Voronskij. The article reports that the hero of Pilnjak1s story is General Frunze, who had died recently. The manner in which his death is presented in Pilnjak1s story, according to the article, suggests that Frunze had died under the same suspicious circumstances. It is interesting to note that the article does not mention the title of the story nor does it say how did Frunze die in Pilnjak's story — we must remember that the story was not available in Poland at that time. It only says that it had caused ’'rage in Communist circles." Thus it is unclear to the reader of this article why would it cause such fury among government officials. Of course, we know today that the story is "The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon," and its hero, General Gavrilov, dies as the result of a government conspiracy against him. It is also interesting to note that Pilnjak never mentioned the name of Frunze — his hero is General Gavrilov, not General Frunze, as the article reports incorrectly. The article continues with Voronskij's denunciation of the dedication, since, according to Voronskij,

. . . such as Pilnjak's depiction of a profoundly sad and tragic occurence is not only an ordinary distortion highly insulting the memory of Comrade Frunze, but also a malicious slander on the Russian Communist Party. ^ <78)

120

The year 1926 may be considered to be the crucialyear in the acceptance of Soviet prose in Poland. Inaddition to the general interest in Pilnjak*s works,there appear several interesting articles on ZoJs^enkoand Erenburg, as well as a score of minor articles andnotes on Merezkovskij, Grin, Veresaev, and Gorkij, to

2 5mention just a few.

Starting in 1926, Robotnik, the organ of the Polish Socialist Party, begins a vigorous campaign to popular­ize Soviet prose by publishing translations of short stories, humorous anecdotes, essays, satires, etc., since the editors of the paper believed that such works "much better paint the reality of today's Soviet Russia,than can a whole series of articles on Soviet economy

2 6which are inflated with impressive figures."

It should not be a surprise that the first major article on Mixail Zo^enko — undoubtedly the most popular Soviet satirist — appeared in that paper. The author of the article, Kazimierz Czapitfski, after a lengthy and detailed discussion of the satirist's life, states:

. . . [Zos£enko3 is very popular not only in Russia but also abroad. It is obvious why, describing with great humor the conflict between bureaucratic formula and life, and the victory of (predominantly petty bourgeois) life, he becomes an involuntary

121

satirist of Soviet Russia: he unmasks Soviet byt,which is dressed in optimistic bureaucratic attire. Anyway, sometimes he consciously appears in the role of satirist of even the most strict politically- conscious life.27 (79)

For Czapinski, as he is later to become for most Poles, Zo£($enko is above all a "sad satirist," the bard of Soviet reality, thanks to whom one can learn better about the new Russia and her life, or "at least a large fragment of that life."

But the most popular Soviet writer, among both thereaders and the critics, was undoubtedly Erenburg.Suffice it to say that in the years 1924-1936, twenty-two volumes of his works were published in Poland and

2 8many articles on his prose appeared in the press.

At the beginning of 1926, there appears in Wia-domosci Literackie an article on Erenburg occasionedby a translation into Polish of his novel Rva£ (Self-Seeker). The critic, Ludwik Bujalski, considersErenburgfs novels to be "collections and guides of those

29currents of storms which werepassing over humanity."

According to Bujalski, the novelist "ozonizes"(i.e. freshens) the stifling atmosphere of stale airand reduces the intensity of "doctrinaire obstinacy. . .

/ 30[,3 stupidity, and naivete." Erenburg’s satire, continues the critic, throws intense negative shadows

122

on the seemingly bright side of life and reduces it to "slush1' (Msljakot * ") . Erenburg1 s interest in the problem of mutual relationship between an individual and his surroundings and between "the lyricism and the epic of the soul and body" elevates his works to the highest philosophical level.

In Rvac, Erenburg begins his "desperate" story ofthe young Communist Mixail Lykov with the metaphor ofa blind fish. A fish was swimming in an aquarium. Ayoung boy noticed that the fish had no eyes, for itstelescoping-out eyes, which always seemed as if theydid not belong to it, but to someone else because theywere separated from the head by a long stem, were lost

31"among the civil wars of the fish world." This fish lost its alien eyes but its own eyes have not grown again yet. In the same way, young Mi^ka Lykov looked at everything through the alien eyes of imposed sub­ordination to pre-revolutionary authorities. After the Revolution had destroyed these alien eyes, the new ones had not yet grown. So the new, post-Revolutionary Mixail Lykov acts blindly and waits for his new eyes to grow again so that he can exercise his own free will.But so far, the eyes stubbornly refuse to grow.

Two weeks following the publication of Bujalski*s essay, there appears a review of another of Erenburg*s

123

novels, also just translated into Polish. It is areview of %izn* i gibel1 Nikolaja Kurbova (Life and

3 2Death of Nikolaj Kurbov), translated by Bruno Ja-sieKski.^ Here the reviewer underlines the literaryand artistic ideology of the new novel; but, moreimportantly, he characterizes Erenburg's secondarycharacters as stereotypical without even referring tothe term. He goes the long way around, describing theirtraits in negative terms and concluding by praisingErenburg for achieving "rich artistic effects colored

34by 'bachelor-type* witticism.” The reviewer does give several examples of what he means by this "bachelor- type witticism," one of which follows: There is acharacter named As, head of one of the sections of Ceka, an ideal citizen of R.S.F.S.R., who does not consider his adulterous escapades as criminal acts, compared with the terrible "felony" of his wife*s buying white bread. This kind of humor is typical of Erenburg and, according to the reviewer, it is one of the valuable tools of his art. Another tool is his use of "telegraph language” characterized by economy, use of abbreviations and beauty of expression similar to that of Belyj's Petersburg. Unfortunately, the reviewer ends his essay without explaining what he meant; here for the first time we have a partial demonstration of some of the

124

general characteristics of Erenburg*s style, but without any deep analytical interpretations*

Criticism of Erenburg*s work is continued in aHay, 1926 interview with the novelist published in

3 5Wiadomo^ci Literackie. In his introduction the inter­viewer reminds his readers that criticism of Erenburg is divided into two polarized camps, one of which extols him to the skies, while the other refuses to acknowledge his creations as purely artistic and considers his work as belonging to the new literary genre of "the grande reportage.” The interviewer asserts the truth of both opinions since Erenburg in his opinion managed to combine the two seemingly contradictory elements and this gives his work its modern character.

In the interview proper, Erenburg confirms the common belief that he writes with ease by pointing out that he completed Julio Jurenito in only one month and one day. However, he does admit that he has slowed down to about one novel a year. Turning to the conven­tion about author's rights, Erenburg notes that even though all his works were published in the Soviet Union, which does not subscribe to the convention, his author's rights were honored by all nations except Poland, which did not pay him any royalties for translations of his works. After this remark, the interviewer very

X25

cleverly turns Erenburg's attention away from this topicby asking about his opinion of the new young literaturecoining out of the Soviet Union. Erenburg replied that,in his opinion, there is much good literature there andhe is sure that it will influence the course ofliterary development in other countries, particularlyother Slavic countries, where the Russian language ismuch more easily understood than in the West. However,Erenburg is sure that these new trends will reach theWest, perhaps somewhat later; but isn't it true that itwas only in the 1920's that the French "discovered"Dostoevskij? Erenburg asserts his belief in mutualpenetration and osmosis of different literary trends

3 6within the universal literature.

In 1926-1927 Polish readers see the publication of37six separate novels and the beginning of the publica­

tion of a seven-volume edition of the Collected Works of Erenburg (published by "Roj" with the final volumes to appear only in the 1930's). Literary criticism that follows each publication is varied. All six separate editions were analyzed by Anatol Stern in an article in Wiadomosci Literackie, in which he asserts that Erenburg*s greatest achievement was in his destructive ideology and anarchism represented by the character Julio Jurenito — anarchism which is not scientific

126

following the ideology of Bakunin or Kropotkin, but3 8anarchism which protests against socialized man. In

Trest D.E. (Trust D.E.) Erenburg creates a follower of Julio Jurenito, Jan Boot, a man who desires to conquer at any cost an already demoralized Europe in the same way that Zeus once captured a beautiful Phoenician queen:

With true mastery Erenburg paints the love and longing of a modern Zeus for a Europe which doubles geometrically in size in his eyes and thoughts.He moves the spectator by means of constant unnoticed personification of the Continent, and inversely by *concretization* of a woman; he arouses admiration by the precision and subtlety of his technique.39 (80)

The critic continues that Erenburg is one of the most modern writers in the world because of his style, which is concise, synthetic and muscular. But behind all this, there is hidden "the most hysterical, the most bitter and decadent, the most sentimental heart I” For not only are Julio Jurenito and Jan Boot the great provocateurs aiming at the destruction of European culture, but also Erenburg himself is the greatest anarchist,

. . . demoralizing and corroding, like sulphuric acid, the culture of the contemporary novel. . . .With the hands of Delteiles and Joyces, he searches for an Archimedean fulcrum in today*s chaos of novelistis aesthetics, and for something creative to cast at the flatness of our culture.^ (81)

127

But not all the critics were so kind as to recognize and acknowledge Erenburg's literary talent, in spite of his ideological faults, the way Stern did.With the announcement of the writer's arrival in Warsaw at the end of 1927 and of the warm reception he had received at the P.E.N. Club from J. Tuwini and Kaden-Bandrowski, several very strong articles against Erenburg appeared in the literary press. The most significant are those by W. Wandurski in Dzwignia and St. Napierski in Wiadomosci Literackie.

Wandurski, who only three years earlier, in 192*+,H2had praised Erenburg, now strongly attacked his

ideological falsehoods and accused him of exploiting theRevolution for his own profit, for in his writings,Wandurski states, Erenburg ". . . attacks revolutionsand does not look for any trouble with the revolutionary

3authorities." Wandurski comes out very strongly against what he calls "Erenburgian fabrications" which in the form of translations of his works "flood the [Polish] market like cheap cocaine." He tries to explain, without much success,

. . . why of all the new Russian literature, of the host of new prose writers, only Erenburg succeeded not only in getting through the border which is so diligently guarded from the 'deluge of barbarity,' but also in becoming a tidbit for various shrewd suppliers of cocaine.1*1* (82)

We must note here that Wandurski, a member of the Communist Party of Poland [KPP], understandably could find Erenburg* s prose "unideological," due to the latter’s lack of commitment to the new revolutionary Soviet Union and his practically uninterrupted residence in France since 1921. Wandurski*s involvement with the KPP and Erenburg's temporary return to USSR coincided in that new opinion of Erenburg*s writings.

Whereas Wandurski*s attacks were aimed at Erenburg*s ideological weaknesses, Stanislaw Napierski’s criticism aims at the writer's aesthetic and artistic qualities, or rather the lack of these. Napierski comments on the visit of this "vagabond and swindler," whose popularity testifies only to the "distressing epidemic" among "the tastes of bourgeois mobs." In Erenburg*s works, the critic found nothing original, only poor imitations of expressionism, constructivism, and imagism:

I. Erenburg is a Paul de Kock of our epoch, an unrefined writer of nascent philistines, but Americanized and raised to the nth power . . . .[He is] the most dangerous brawTer known to post-war Europe . . . [and] . . . a waif of literature; he is an author serving the internation­al riff-raff. **5 (8 3)

But Wandurski*s and Napierski’s attacks did notdo much to hurt Erenburg*s popularity — he remained the

£___most widely read Russian writer in the 1920’s and 1930's. Second place belongs to Boris Pilnjak.

129

1927

If we recall, in 1926 Pilnjak was in trouble becauseU-6of his story about the Frunze affair. In the February

11, 1927, issue of Robotnik, a long article by K. Czapinski entitled "Zab6jstwo komendanta armji" ("The Killing of the Army Commander11) describes the above- mentioned episode in great detail. Here Czapinski assumes that the Polish reader knows nothing of the "affair" (thus disregarding the article published some five months earlier) and repeats the information about the incident. But he goes much further than the earlier article did: he tells his readers the title of thestory in question, summarizes its plot in great detail, and attempts to answer the question of the identifica­tion of Gavrilov in the story with General Frunze. Czapinski cannot prove it one way or another; but he asserts that in any case the story very faithfully conveys the "atmosphere of mysterious threads" which is so characteristic of the higher levels of the Bolshevik rule. Czapirfski concludes that he cannot prove the truth about the circumstances of Frunze*s death; but he can say one thing for certain:

. . . [in this story1 the Bolshevik system was completely unmasked. A powerful blow was struck by belles-lettres at the morality of the Bolshevik dictatorship. **7 (8*0

130Soon after, there appears a short note in '.'Notatki"

section of Wiadomosci Literackie stating that Pilnjakhas publicly announced that he had made an error and

H 8that he had committed a malicious slander.

The years 1927-1929 are very rich in Russian li­terature in Poland. There appear many translations of Erenburg, V. Ivanov, Sejfulina, Bulgakov, Fedin,Zos£< enko, and Pilnjak, among others.**9 It is interesting to note that, by 19 29, the number of copies of Russian books printed in Poland at certain times exceeded the number of copies of Polish literary works printed in the same time period.^

As more works become available to Polish readers, more and more critical material begins to appear in newspapers and journals. Several articles analyze the nature of contemporary Russian literature and, as expected, there is a wide range of interpretations. On the one hand, there is an author who signs his articles with the cryptonym t!Y", and who stongly attacks the mass of new translations from Russian with "unnecessary plots — the apotheosis of power, brutality, amorality" written by writers iaho are "boors," among whom he includes Pilnjak, Sejfulina, Zos^enko, and others. ^ But on the other hand, there is "Al" (also a cryptonym), who considers

131

Pilnjak to be "the greatest prose writer of contemporaryRussia, . * . a crystal pure talent who ought to be

52translated instead of English and French authors."

A somewhat original view is presented by St. Fr. Osiakowski, who attempts to justify the emphasis on the experimental aspect of the new Russian literature.He admits that the new literature "wallows" in local color with main emphasis being placed on peasant dialects, while plot is disregarded. This feature, according to the critic, causes the new fiction to be static and reduced to mere dialectically-stylistic experiments. But his defense of the new writers lies in the fact that

. . . this wallowing in the local mud is some sort of conscious reaction against the abstractly- declamatory prose of the first years of the revolu­tion, against the cosmic mysteries of iron and concrete. In this sense, this reaction becameprogress.®^ (8 5)

With the general trends defended, Osiakowski proceeds in describing "several leading names of the Soviet front:" Gorkij, whose stories "contain nothing new;" Erenburg, who "lately resorts to cheap sentimentalism;" PantelejmOn Romanov, whose novels remind the critic of Tolstoj's epics; Fedin, who "combines masterful control over the fabula with a deep sense of the tragedy of our

days;" and "the master of form," Babel'. But above all, the critic singles out Pilnjak as

. . . the most outstanding of young men . . . whoin 1919, upon seeing the leather jackets of the Bolsheviks, would fall into deep pathos . . . [andwho in his laterJ 'postcards’ sketched the beloved 'kingdom of peasant boorishness.'54 (86)

About at the same time, Tygodnik Ilustrowany publishes a short anonymous article praising Pilnjak's Golyj god (Waked Year) as a po£ma written with unsurpas­sed talent. In very simple terms; the article states that

Pilnjak is simultaneously a narrator and a poet.His poetic images are colorful and plastic. Him­self a child of the revolution, he is not, however, a revolutionary. He allows himself to be pulled toward that which supplies materials for his creative work, but he is always preoccupied with aesthetic problems and does not become swayed toward any specific political course. He belongs to the generation standing on the borderline between the art which is being born and the art which is dying while being propagated by emigres in both hemispheres of the world.55 (87)

About three months later, Andrzej Stawar analyzed Pilnjak's art in depth. He could afford to go into extreme details and synthesis of the famous author, since by now Pilnjak*s works were very well known by everyone. Thus on the occasion of the publication of Ivan Moskva (Ivan Moscow), the critic plunges into its pages and reveals to his readers the threads that connect all of

133

Pilnjak*s works — his historicism ("it is difficult tofind another writer so basically engrossed in some . . .historical imponderables"), and his national self-consciousness (which has the messianic quality of Esenin

5 6and Blok) -- and make Pilnjak "the most 'russe*Stawar reminds his readers about the Frunze affair,depiction of which he defends as lying "in the besttraditions of past Russian literature." And concludinghis article, Stawar traces the influences of Tolstojand Rozanov upon Pilnjak*s fiction: "From Rozanov hetook . . . his solemn, somewhat orthodox, a bit animalis-

57tic, perverted and sick sexuality." The world of Pilnjak*s fiction, says the critic, is characterized by "the fatalism of historicity and heirdom, and by the sexual fatalism which makes this world to be a circle

C Qwithout an exit."

1928

Now that Pilnjak is one of the best known Russian writers in Poland, his work is closely followed and reported by the press. In November of 1928, there appears a short note in Wiadomosci Literackie about Pilnjak*s first attempt at writing drama. His work, The Fools from the Suburbs, reports the note, depicts the effect of the new laws regulating marriage, sexual relations,

134

abortion, and child rearing upon the population of asmall town. Evidently Pilnjak’s work must have beentoo realistic, since the note ends with a sarcasticremark: "As it seems, [sic 3 Pilnjak failed in thisplay; the critics who were present at the performance

59subjected it to a crushing analysis [sic3"

In late 1928 and early 1929, the pressure upon Soviet writers to produce works of "social significance" becomes very strong. Many writers are warned by the Party to "conform." Pilnjak is one of those accused of "organically misunderstanding the revolution" which accounts for his pessimism and lack of faith in the new life. Wiadomo^ci Literackie reports that the official Soviet journal 6itatelf i pisatel* warned him to conform:"In one way or another the new times demand new words. Pilnjak ought to find them, if he does not want to become dumb."

Pilnjak must have been "deaf" to these threats, since he did not conform to the established, although not as yet official, norms of "socialist realism."And thus, just as he was warned, Pilnjak "became dumb"— he disappears from the literary scene both in Russia and in Polish literary criticism. There is no mention of him in the Polish press until his visit to Poland in early 1931.

135

1929

In the meantime, critics started to look at someother Russian authors. From now on, there appear manyarticles, mostly in the form of book reviews, analyzingone or another Russian writer, but each writer getsonly an occasional treatment and, unfortunately, noother author is to reach again the popularity once

61enjoyed by Pilnjak and Erenburg.

There are very short reviews of Zos£enko's sati­rical stories, in which he is called "the master of

6 2the instantenous humorous sketch,’1 and of Fedin’s6 3Goroda i gody (Cities and Years), and full-length

reviews of Erenburgrs Burnaja j£izn* Lazika Rojtsvaneca (The Stormy Life of Lazik Rojtsvanec) and Olela's Zavist1 (Envy).

In the review of Erenburg’s novel, Pawe3C Hulka- Laskowski praises the author for creating in the character of his protagonist — an eternal wandering Jew — "a masterpiece of tragic pathos:"

Erenburg’s book belongs to those rare works of fine art which cannot be put away until they are devoured from cover to cover. Lejzorek's anecdotes, parables, and examples, delightfully anachronistic in manner, simply enchant the reader; and the fate of the Jew, this eternal wanderer, reveals to us the whole magnitude of the Jewish problem which is so ridiculously belittled by various simplifiers.®1* (8 8)

136

It is interesting to note that "Roj,'T the publisher of the Polish translation, in an anonymous preface admitted that two chapters had been omitted by the censors — one, the so-called "Polish episode," containing a revealing picture of contemporary Poland, and the other, a Jewish anecdote about the Pope, which supposedly was removed as "not to offend the Polish Catholic society." What is ironic about this is that the complete uncut Russian text was easily available and could be read by all. Hulka-Laskowski strongly attacked the censorship:

Could the Polish reader be so narrow-minded as to be unable to bear the thought that, just as Bolsheviks or non-Bolshevisks appear funny to us, so we too might not be impressive to them in everything? It would be too bad if we were as paranoid as that. . . .If the Germans, French,English, and Bolsheviks crossed out all the passages revealing their weak sides, there would be nothing left of the b o o k . 6 5 (89)

Ole^a's Zavist*, the Polish translation of whichE 6was not published until after Wold War II, is reviewed

by Aleksander Wat. Unfortunately, he devotes three- fourths of the essay to a retelling of the plot, giving only a superficial and sketchy criticism of the novel itself. He places Olesa among the "Fellow Travellers," whom he defines thusly:

. . . For the 1poputcikE1 the revolution is *theirrrevolution, where the word *their* comprises a large scale of degrees ranging from complete

137agreement, understanding, and cooperation, to disguised animosity, sabotage, and malicious destruction.6? (90)

He does separate the late "poputci k" Olesa from the early ones (Pilnjak, Erenburg, Babel1, Kaverin):

And here we see a very characteristic phenomenon confirming all that the theoreticians of 'Lef' say about the parodistic nature of degeneration of literary forms. Namely, the technique, style, lyrical tone, psychological mood, psycho-ideology of the writers, especially of Erenburg, Vsevolod Ivanov, and A. Tolstoj -- all this is consciously represented in OleSa's novel in persiflage, in parody. In Envy one can find specimens of the styles of the above-mentioned writers, but they are ridiculed and parodied.6® (91)

Wat concludes that the positive characters are weak, while the negative ones are superbly drawn directly from Dostoevskij: Kavalerov from the Notes from theUnderground and Ivan Babicev from the devil in Ivan Karamazov’s nightmare. However,

The juxtaposition of the psychological 'climates’. . . of both camps came out excellently: thecamp of realism, activity, and health, and the camp of decay, passivity, and e n v y . 69 (92)

1930

The year 1930 does not bring anything interesting in the criticism of Soviet literature, with perhaps only one exception: I. Babel's attacks against Wiadomo/ciLiterackie for publishing a supposedly ficticious

1 ? 8

slanderous interview with the writer. The affair began in May of 1930, when there appeared a very short interview between Aleksander Dan (Aleksander Weintraub) and Babel*. According to the interview, the two met on the French Riviera, and after a short exchange of words, Babel’ said:

You. several times used the phrase 'in vain.' It is a good phrase, a terrifying phrase. I served in the Red Army. I know what a man is. I observed him, so to say, from all sides. There was no end to death all around us. I stopped distinguishing the dead ones from the live ones. Did you say 'in vain?' A terrifying phrase, a correct phrase.We tore man away from deep sleep and drew from him pails of blood. There was nothing else we coulddo with him. He was dying in our arms. I rodethe train of propaganda through huge battlefields;I wrote leaflets and scattered them about the dead areas. The earth was fat with blood and we wanted to enrich it with proclamations. We werethrown back into our stuffy dead-house. Thepropaganda ate away my lungs. It guzzled my blood . . . [Doctors] recommended that I go away toEurope. Europe I A beautiful word, a proud word.But what will I do there? . . . Of course. A bit of blue sky won't hurt. The last blue sky I saw was in 191^. Later on the sky resembled a dirty, shaggy pelt. From 1917 on it was a red flag . . . .But, but . . . [sic] do you know Gedali? He is much greater than Lenin! Lenin created the inter­national of oppressed people, but Gedali calls together M o d people [sic]. What a mad and splend-d Idea! ’Good people, unite!' Revolution of goodness! . . . 1 Be blessed, Gedali, the creator of the Fourth International, the inspired bard of the new executive!1 With lungs full of holes I cry: *Come!!!f70 (93)

Ten weeks later, there appeared a headline on the first page of Wiadomosci Literackie: PISARZ SOWIECKI

139

BABEL PRZECIWKO REDAKCJI ' WIADOMOS^CI LITERACKICH,' followed by a report on what happened after the above-discussed interview reached Russia. According to the report, Bruno Jasienski strongly attacked Babel* in Literaturnaja Gazeta for his "counterrevolutionary" and anti-Soviet remarks. Further, Jasienski accused the Polish press, together with other Western publica­tions, of "attacking the Soviets, and preparing a

71crusade agains the U.S.S.R." The report also quotes Babel*s letter to Literaturnaja Gazeta, in which he denies ever making the statements, or, for that matter, ever being on the French Riviera. In turn now, the editor of Wiadomosci Literackie, the paper that started it all, wrote A. Dan requesting an explanation. Dan apologizing for causing so much trouble, states that he did meet in 19 26 a man who said he was Babel* and told him what was reported. However, now Dan says, it is entirely possible that the man he interviewed was not Babel' at all, but "his secret admirer" who decided to play a trick on the reporter. He also states that the picture of Babel* printed in Wiadomosci Literackie, does not resemble the man he had interviewed.

The whole affair is very plausible — Babel* did spend some time in France and might have given A.Dan the statement he had reported. Now, of course,

140

under the threat of severe punishment, Babel* might have to deny the whole incident and Dan’s statement about Babel’s picture might be meant to protect both Babel' and himself.

The editor, after quoting Dan's reply, simply says:

We have truthfully presented the course of the above affair, citing objectively all the stupidities contained in Jasierfski's article and all the inventions in the commentaries of Literaturnaja gazeta. . . . The editorial staff of Wiadomosci Literackie expresses its sincere regret that, having become together with our informant the victim of some prankster, it has caused Babel1 some unpleasantness.72 (94)

Following this sarcastic remark, the editor goes on to point out, again with great sarcasm, that judging from Babel’s works one can definitely see that he is not pro-Revolution and, had he had the opportunity, he would have said exactly what A. Dan credits him with saying. And with this, the whole affair ended, and Babel' disappeared from the Polish press.

It must be added here that the above-discussed affair points only to one conclusion: the editorshipof Wiadomosci Literackie, the most prestigious literary journal, still shows contempt towards Russian writers and the Soviet Union in general. Irresponsible report­ing, as that article testifies, and the sarcastic tone

of the reply, imply that in spite of accepting Russian literature, and discussing it: in journals, the literary critics still were very suspicious and antagonistic toward the Bolsheviks.

1931

1931 sees the critics' interests turning back to the most popular Soviet writer in Poland in the 1920’s — Boris Pilnjak. This re-awakening of interest in this gifted writer was occasioned by his visit to Poland in the beginning of that year.

Most of his stay in Warsaw, Pilnjak spends with WIadys3faw Broniewski, who by now is Pilnjak's translator and the popularizer of his fiction in Poland. The visit is so enriching that Broniewski has to share the impressions of his favorite author with his readers. Thus, in a long essay, Broniewski sums up the three days spent with the author. He is not disappointed: the "real" Pilnjak corresponds exactly to the one imagined by Broniewski:

. . . the easy, though seemingly tangled, course of his narration, frequent digressions, a fondness for scientific precision side by side with a lyricism shining through his thoughts — all these characteristic traits of Pilnjak*s style are even intensified in the living word.73 (95)

142

It: is stange that Broniewski goes on to remind hisreaders who Pilnjak is and to retell his biography.After all, most of them know very well the greatauthor whom Broniewski himself called "perhaps the

74greatest living Russian prose writer."

Broniewski describes Pilnjak as the "singer of science" and thus, by analogy, of socialist building:

The scientific approach to the constant theme of transforming the existing world and forging new history by one's own will is one of the most prominent traits characterizing Pilnjak's creative work.75 (96)

Soon after Pilnjak*s departure from Poland, thereappears a short note about the dissatisfaction ofSoviet official critics with his new work, Volga vpadaetv Kaspijskoe More (The Volga Flows into the CaspianSea), which, according to its critics, does notsufficiently influence young people and is unable toactivate a reader's consciousness of the enthusiastic

7 6achievements of the new socialist epoch.

As if in answer to the above note, Broniewski, writing under the cryptonym "zc," writes a review of the above work soon to be published in his translation. He defends Pilnjak by stating:

m 3

[The novelj is woven out of contemporary economic construction in the U.S.S.R., and its real hero is the masses, the new people who, by remodeling the world around them, remodel themselves.77 (97)

In a language full of socialist cliches, the reviewer defends Pilnjak against accusations of departure from the set standards, stressing all the scientific research that went into the preparation of the book. He points to the realism of the novel:

The world of work locked in Pilnjak's novel contains all the cooperating or conflicting elements of Soviet life. Beginning with the vivacious, aims-conscious working class, through the positive and negative types of engineers, and all the way to derelicts and pests . . . this collection isundoubtedly the reflection of that war without cannon and gases which the U.S.S.R. wages for the future.78 (98)

1932 and After

To Pilnjak*s defense also comes a reviewer in Robotnik. who under the cryptonym of "Observer," [sic3 states:

The real plot of the book is again the struggle of yesterday, or rather the past, with today: theold morality with the new; the new society with old individualism; Europe with Asia and Asia with Europe. And above all that, there rules an over­whelming love of nature and life in all its varied manifestations. The book is a great hymn in praise of life triumphing over death. *The stench of frozen fish becomes repeatedly trans­formed into the smell of violets, into smells of spring.* The waters drown the ancient tower of

1 4 4

Marina, but beside her there runs little MiJaka, the symbol of the continuity and constancy of life on e a r t h . (99)

Evidently the "defense" by the anonymous critics could not help Pilnjak much. Soon to be "forgotten" and abandoned by both the Soviet and Polish critics, Pilnjak disappears from the press.

The year 19 32 marks the end of one era in respectto the reception of Soviet prose in Poland; whereasbefore that year the main interest was placed on thenon-conformist "poput^iki," now we see a sudden turn

vto the more "orthodox realists," such as Soloxov, Leonov, Gladkov, Kataev, and others. The old era of suspicion and mistrust has come to an end, and the new era of open acceptance has arrived.

To summarize, the evidence presented in this chapter shows that until about 19 26 the Polish critics were eager to observe all kinds of prose phenomena developing beyond their eastern border: from Stern's interestin the proletarian writings, Wandurski's analysis of Zamjatin's work, Czapirfski's observations on the satires of ZoStfenko, and to Lednicki's discovery of Leonov's prose, to mention just a few.

But even as early as 1924, it can be seen that the main emphasis is placed on the Serapion Brothers

ms

whose works are characterized by a great desire for freedom and variety in literature and who wanted to produce literary works divorced from political or ideological influences. Undoubtedly precisely because of those traits, their literature was widely accepted in Poland.

However, in the years 1926-1927, Polish critics begin to concentrate on the life and works of only two prose writers: Pilnjak and Erenburg. The interest onthe part of Polish critics in the creative output of those two writers overshadows that which they directed at all other writers. Thanks to the general availability of translations of Pilnjakfs and Erenburg*s works in Polish, they became the most popular of all Soviet fiction.

But it is only about 1932, when there appear trans­lations of major Soviet novels, that the general readers' interests become heightened and they begin reading Soviet prose with great interest. This is particularly true of the "lower masses" who by that time are much better educated and interested in world affairs. These readers are interested mainly in the works resembling newspaper style and relating incidents, occurrences and information on current topics and

events. However, the readers' preferences did not coincide with those of literary critics, who saw in the new, current prose nothing more than propaganda.

FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER IV

For a detailed analysis of the reception or Russian poetry in Poland, see Chapter II; for dramaturgy, see Chapter III.2Jadwiga Urbafiska. Radziecka powie^c rosyjska w Polsce w latach 1918-1923. Wrociaw-Warszawa-Krakow;, PAN, 1968, p. ll. The main emphasis of this work is on the translations of Soviet prose into Polish.3 /J. Harnisz-Smiechowski, "Literatura w krainieczerwonego terroru," Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny,339-340 (1919). Quoted in Urbaftska, op. cit., p. 11.

^Stanislawa Sawicka, "Z literacko-artystycznych wydawnictw Rosji bolszewickiej, 'Tworczestwo.' Czasopismo literatury, sztuki, nauki i zycia,"Przeglad Wspolczesny, 1 (1922), p. 94.5Ibid, p. 102.CThe most interesting articles about the "classics” are: W. Fiszer, ”Z literatury rosyjskiej," FrzegladWarszawski, 24 (1923), pp. 406-409; L. Koziowskx, "Warodzimierz Korolenko. Wspomnienie posmiertne i pr^ba charakterystyki," Przegl^d Wsp6iczesny, 3 (19 22), p. 88-103; K(arol). W(iktor)7 Z(awodziriski),"Przeklady z literatur obcych. Literatura rosyjska," Przegl^d Warszawski, 33 (1924), pp. 422-426; Pawel rfuIka-Laskowskx, "Nieznany Tolstoj," Wiadomo^ci Literackie, 10 (1928), p. 2 Sergjusz Kulakovskij, "Lieskow a Polska," Wiadomosci Literackie, 24 (1927), p. 2.7Victor Serge, "Nowa literatura rosyjska," (Przeklad z pisma Clart^), Kultura Robotnicza, 12 (1923, p. 263. Quoted in Marian St^piefi, HEcha radzieckich program6w literackich w polskiej krytyce lewicowej lat 1918-1939," in Po obu stronach granicy, Wroclaw- Warszawa-Krako w -Gdaitsk" PAN, 197 2, p. 15.oIIja Erenburg. Niezwykge przygody Julio Jurenity.Tr. Tadeusz Jakubowicz. Warszawa-Poznaft: "Ignis,"1924.

147

148Q[Juliusz Kaden-Bandrowski], Julio Jurenito' Eren- burga. Przed ukazaniem sie polskiego przekladu," Wiadomosci literackie, 44 (1924), p. 4.

10T, . ,Ibid.n Tv.,Ibid.12Anatol Stern, "Prawda Rosji a prawda Europy. Dwa programy — dwie ideologje," Wiadomosci Literackie, 4 (1924), p. 1.

13 "Prozaicy sowieccy,” (Kronika zagraniczna), Wiadomosci Literackie, 9 (1924), p. 2.T. Jukubowicz, "Pod skrzydlami RSFSR. Wsp6lczesna literatura rosyjska," Wiadomosci Literackie, 14 (1924),p . 1.

15 /Witold Wandurski, "Nowa proza rosyjska," Wiadomosci

gl^d artska,

16_.Ibid.17 TV * JIbid.18W. Lednicki, "Belletrystyka bolszewicka," Prze_ Wsp6lczesny, 44 (1925), p. 404. Quoted in Urbarts op. cit., p. 18.

19W. Lednicki, "Belletrystyka bolszewicka," Frze^l4d Wspotczesny, 44 (1925), p. 400. Quoted in Janina Salajczyk, "Proza Leonida Leonowa w ocenie polskiej krytyki," [in] Fo obu stronach granicy, Wroclaw- War szawa-Krakow^SarTslT: PAN, 1972 , pT 270.

20Ibid, p. 416.21tv,Ibid.2 2Aleksander Bruckner, "Z literatury rosyjskiej,"Przegl^d Warszawski, 43 (1925), p. 115.

23"Pilniak w nielasce," Wiadomo/ci Literackie, 38 (1926) p. 3.

24T. • j Ibid.

1492 5Czesiaw Jastrz^biec-Koz£owski, "Tajemnica trojga," Wiadomosci Literackie, 47 (1925) p. 2 and "Nowa powie^c Merezkowskiego," Wiadomosci Literackie, 2 0 (1926), p. 3; Pawei Ettinger, "Pisarze rosyjscy pochodzenia polskiego," Wiadomosci Literackie, 28-29 (1926), p. 2; "Przedsigbiorstwo Artomonowych,"Wiadomosci Literackie, 16 (1926), p. 3. For other articles, see Bibliography.

2 fiRobotnik, 127 (1926). Quoted in Tadeusz Szyszko, "Literatura radziecka na famach 1Robotnika',"*?rzegl^d Humanistyczny, 6 (1973), p. 67.

A r j

Kazimierz CzapiSski, "Nowoczesna satyra rosyjska.Piewca sowieckiej rzeczywistosci," Robotnik, 156(1926), p. 3.

28T. Szyszko, op. cit. , p. 73. For a bibliography of Russian literature of 192 7*s in Polish translations see Urba^ska, op. cit., pp. 123-125, and Po obu stronach granicy, op. cit., pp. 361-378.

9 0 / /Ludwik Bujalski, "Oslepiy ' r w a c z ' Wiadomosci Literackie, 11 (1926), p. 2.

30Ibid.31Ibid.3^Fr. Mecen, "Romantyczna powie^c Erenburga," Wiadomosci

Literackie, 13 (1926), p. 5.33 * / #IIja Erenburg. Zycie i smierc Miko3Taja Kurbowa.Trans. Bruno Jasiefiski. Lwdw: "Ateneum," 1926.

34Mecen, op. cit.33Artur Pr^dki, "Jak pracuje autor 'Rtjacza.1 U Ilji Erenburga. Wywiad wiasny," Wiadomosci Literackie,22 (1926), p. 2.

36Ibid.37 * ^ /Przygody Julio Jurenito, Rwacz, Zycie i smiercMikoJraja Kurbowa, Trust D.£., Obllcze wojny, andMi£o&c Joanny Ney. See footnote 28.Anatol Stern, "W oparach wojny; zaraza sentymen- talizmu,” Wiadomosci Literackie, 11 (1927), p. 5.

39T. - .Ibid.40t, . .Ibid.^For other minor articles directed against Erenburg

see: CzCesiaw). J(ankowski), "ijuch wydawniczy,"Sifowo, 277 (1927); Adolf Nowaczynski, "Epoka Erenburg<5w," Gazeta Foranna Warszawska, 333 (1927).

**2vid. footnote 17.43W. Wandurski, "I. Erenburg; 0 ^r^diach zatrutych,

skorpionach literackich, o mechanicznym Vitrionie rewolucji i znarowionym wyzle," Diwignia, 2-3 (1927), p. 49.

44 rv. • jIbid.U C /St. Napierski, "Wrazenia," Wiadomosci Literackie, 5 2

(1927), p. 2.**®vid. footnote 23.*7K. Czapir£ski» "Zab<Sjstwo komendanta Armji," Robotnik,

41, (1927), p. 3.^®"Grzech Pilniaka," (Notatki), Wiadomo/ci Literackie,

8, (1927), p. 3.44See footnote 28.^UrbaAska, p. 45.51 tY (pseud.), "propaganda chamstwa za posrednictwem

literatury," Gazeta Poranna Warszawska, 22 (1928),quoted in Urbaftska, p . 44".

52A1 (pseud.), "Proza za czerwonym kordonem," TygodnikIlustrowany, 16 (1927), p. 378

5 3 /St. Ft . Osiakowski, "Wspolczesna beletrystyka rosyjskaWiadomosci Literackie, 34 (1927), p. 2.

54Ibid.^"Poemat sowietow," Tygodnik Ilustrowany, 11 (1927), p. 209.

t c t tAndrzej Stawar, "Pilniak," Wiadomosci Literackie,45 (1927), p. 3.

5 7 r. ■ j Ibid.58T, . ,Ibid.5 9"Nieudana sztuka Pilniaka," (Kronika rosyjska), Wiadomosci Literackie, 48 (1928), p. 4.

60"Niezadowolenie z literat^w," Wiadomosci Literackie,2 (1929), p. 4.

61See Bibliography.82Henryk Drzewiecki, "Beletrystyka rosyjska," Wiadomosci

Literackie, 45 (1928), p. 3.C O fHenryk Drzewiecki, "Beletrystyka rosyjska," Wiadomosci

Literackie, 10 (1929), p. 4.6l*Pawe3r Hulka-Laskowski, "Nowe wcielenie 2yda wiecznego

tutacza," Wiadomosci Literackie, 34 (1929), p. 3.65Ibid.88As Urba^ska reports, the first unpublished translation

by A. Galis perished in a fire during WW II, op. cit., p. 119.

7 $Aleksander Wat, "'Zazdrosc' Olieszy," Wiadomosci Literackie, 33 (1929), p. 2.

68Ibid.63Ibid.7 fi « / *■Aleksander Dan (Weintraub), "Izaak Babel," Wiadomosci

Literackie, 21 (1930), p. 2.71 /"Pisarz Sowiecki Babel przeciwko redakcji 'Wiadomosci

Literackich1," Wiadomosci Literackie, 31 (1930), p. 1.72Ibid.7 Wiadysfaw Broniewski, "Literatura w Rosji sowieckiej.

Rozmowa z Borisem Pilniakiem," Wiadomosci Literackie,7 (1931), p. 1.

74Ibid.75Ibid.

7 fi"Niezadowoleni z Pilniaka," (Kronika zagraniczna) Wiadomosci Literackie, 17 (1931), p. 2.

7 7zc [W* Bro'^iewski], "Budownictwo soc jalistyczne w powieSci," Wiadomosci Literackie, 27 (1931), p. 2

78T l ■ jIbid.790bserver (pseud.), "Powiesc o Eurazji," Robotnik,

151 (1932), p. 2.

CONCLUSION

As the foregoing study has shown, the period 1918- 19 32 saw a stong upsurge of interest on the part of Polish literati in the work of writers of the newly- Communist Soviet Union. Such a development of interest would perhaps not appear to be so unexpected between countries which share a similar Slavic background. However, such is not the case in the literary relations which had previously existed between Poland and Russia. The reason for this was a centuries old conflict — political, religious, economic — which had existed between the two countries and which had precluded any meaningful scholarly exchange between the two peoples in spite of their commonly shared Slavic background.

The period 1918-1923, or 1924, however, brought great changes in the political life of both countries.The newly independent Poles naturally were not sure of the political relationships which would develop between them and the Communist Russians. However, literary critics were willing, hoping for the best, to investigate literary works created in the new Soviet Union, perhaps from a purely scholarly standpoint, perhaps

153

154

from the standpoint of finding in these literary works some clue as to what might be expected to be the future political relationship between the two countries. What ever the reasons for the upsurge of interest among Polish literary critics might be, the fact remains that they did begin to pay a great deal of attention to the work of their neighbors to the east of the borders established by the Treaty of Kiga,

As Kaden-Bandrowski, the most PiSfsudskian Polish writer, said in his introduction to a volume of translations of Soviet writers, perhaps it is true that the ideologies of both nations did not agree with each other, but the writers in both countries believed in the same muse and did understand each other. Kaden- Bandrowski further states:

We are divided from these people by a sea of blood spilled in hatred, by the tears, the grief, the anger of many generations. We are divided by years spent together supposedly under the same roof, but in reality spent farther apart and more separately than if they were at the equator and we at the North Pole. For we are divided by long, hard bondage, and further by the one thing which pushes people apart the most: by being next-doorneighbors. . . . Here, as a writer, as a man of that inspiration which is common to all creators,. . . I welcome these stories from across the seaof blood, from the far, steep shores of hopeless­ness. I welcome them as my own to my sympathizing heart.i C10 0)

155

Many Polish critics extended their arms wide open toward their eastern neighbor and welcomed Soviet literature into Poland. Whether it was poetry, drama or prose, they watched very closely in what directions Russian literature was developing.

In poetry in the early 1920's many critics and poets, especially the members of the "Skamander" group, were preoccupied with Symbolism and the poetic output of Blok, Belyj, Bal'mont, Brjusov, and Sologub.The more progressive literary critics watched carefully all the new developments within the avant-garde movements in Soviet literature, such as Imaginism and Futurism. Polish literary criticism in the latter part of the decade was dominated by studies of Esenin's and Majakovskij's poetry to the point of the apparent exclusion of all other poets of the time.Socialist and Communist critics were also eager to analyze proletarian poetry, which concerned itself with the problem of the working masses, although they too realized that this kind of poetry was weak as far as its literary merits are concerned. They too would rather delve into the melodious, nostalgic poetry of Esenin or the loud, shocking and original verses of Ma jakovskij.

156

In the realm of the theater, the main interest was directed toward the new drama of Andreev and Evreinov, the innovative stage techniques of Meyerhold, and the progressive acting theories of Tairov. In the dramatic pieces of Andreev they saw a modernistic expression of the conflicts in life around them; in Meyerhold*s revolutionary expressionistic theatricality they saw a reflection of the avant-garde theater as "pure form;" and in Tairov's innovations in the techniques of acting, they saw a synthesis of all contemporary pro­gressive ideas regarding mise-en-scene.

In prose, at least in the first part of the 1920*s, there was a marked interest in all types of works created by Soviet prose writers. The artistic creations of Fedin, Ivanov, A. Tolstoj, Zamjatin, ZoS^enko,Babel', Pilnjak, Erenburg, and proletarian writers, among others, were very carefully and closely observed by many literati. In the latter part of the decade, however, literary criticism on the Polish side began to concentrate mainly on two writers: Pilnjak andErenburg, whose stories and novels dominated the field of translations of Soviet literature into Polish at that time.

The years 1918-1932 were very rich in the trans-2lations of Russian literary works into Polish. Any new

Russian works of merit would be translated as soon as it was feasable and at one time, as reported in the preceding pages, the number of copies of Russian works translated into Polish exceeded that of the copies of Polish books published in Poland in the same period. Judging from the above situation, one cannot say that interest in Russian literature was small; on the contrary, it is proof of tremendous fascination with that literature.

It is true that in the years with which this study is concerned the main emphasis in Poland is placed on Russian poetry; but this is understandable if one remembers that both literatures at that time were searching for new modes of expression, which would liberate them from the old, strict rules and restraints and that poetry was the most receptive literary medium for such "liberation." Only toward the end of the 19 20's and the beginning of the 19 30's, when the situation in both countries becomes stabilized, was there more interest in prose.

In 1933 Wiadomosci Literackie published a question naire in which prominent Polish authors and critics were asked to comment on the nature of the reception of Russian literature in Poland and on the newly-signed non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union (1932). Most

158

respondents were very positive in their reflections on the nature of Polish-Soviet literary relations. Stanistaw Baczyiiski said:

. . . in spite of considerable technical andformal delays during the revolution, contemporary Soviet literature represents the most interesting and the most productive experiment in the history of culture. . . . In comparison with Europe, it will be a manifestation of a higher degree of artistic evolution and a higher level of social consciousness.3 (101)

In his reply, Pawel Hulka-Laskowski stated:

. . « Soviet literature is a chronicle of a struggle with matter, and it is a prophecy. Not everything here is artistically excellent, but the most fundamental characteristics of man is his eternally unsatisfied imperfection. It commands respect for the best works of Soviet literature.4 (102)

And Julian Tuwim concluded his reply with these words:

Until now Soviet literature has ’fulfilled its purpose' at least in one respect: it documentsthe epoch in which it exists; it is the mirror of the new generation. If it is somewhat crooked, that's too bad: 'Don't blame the mirror if yourmug is crooked' (the motto of The Inspector General) . . . . Polish-Russian detente . . . is, in myopinion, the order of the day, . . . I believe in the great future and good friendship of the two nations which have simultaneously entered a new stage in their history.5 (103)

But the general feeling among many Polish critics and authors was best summarized by Kaden-Bandrowski in1927:

159Let scientists measure each other by their brains, let soldiers fight with soldiers. Let a statisti­cian outweigh another statistician with his mind. The experience of battles, wars, and suffering tells me that it is not they who advance the world, but perhaps we?We are people of the heart who can listen to the anger of our enemies with a smile of sincere help; we can suffer when blood flows from them. , . Weare bothered by our conscience when our enemies suffer and hurt. That is why . . . I stretch my arms out to Zamjatin, Babel’, ZoJ^enko, and call to these writers across the rivers, mountains, and nations which divide us. . . . And across themisery of the horrible memories I call with the living words of friendship.Nothing can disrupt this friendship.Listen there, friends. I see that you are placing a clear mirror before your world, just as we are trying to place a clear mirror before our world.You are searching for truth in the imperceptible life of man, just as we here are searching for our truth. Where does this road lead?If we persevere, somewhere on high, at the top of a mountain, at the peak of an upward-leading spire, there awaits us a most beautiful encounter. There awaits us tremendous joy, regardless of from which side we ascend that steep scaffolding with such difficult, stunning effort.Better, happier, wiser will be he who in that moment is the first to see a human being on that other, alien, side.^ (10^)

In spite of this positive attitude, apparently Polish literati lost interest in the new Socialist Realist Soviet literature which began to appear in the period beginning immediately after that covered in the present investigation. One of the primary reasons, and perhaps the single most important reason, for that drop in interest lay precisely in its being Socialist Realist in style. Beginning in 1932 with the laying

160

down of the program of Socialist Realism, and with its strengthening in 1934 by the First All Union Congress of Soviet Writers, literature in the Soviet Union lost any value of an artistic or experimental nature. On the other hand, at the same time, Poland, free country which enjoyed a liberal press and a liberal academic and intellectual atmosphere, was sufficiently astute to realize that nothing of literary merit could come from an officially sanctioned, medievally iconographic literature, which presented not reality but fantacized reality.

Socialist realism, a government imposed canon, had no literary merit, Poland at the same time saw the production of such works of great literary merit as Maria D^browska's Noce i dnie (Nights and Days, 1932-34), Bruno Schultz's Sklepy cynamonowe (Cinnamon Stores,1934), Maria Kuncewiczowa's Cudzozienka (The Foreigner, 1931), and Witold Gombrowicz's Ferdvdurke (1938).Nothing of comparable stature was allowed to be published in the Soviet Union of the 1930's. Therefore, the Polish critics apparently felt that further commentary on such material as was being produced in the Soviet Union, was unnecessary, not because it was not interesting, not because it was not reflective of the political status of the country of the day, but simply because it was not literally worthy.

161

Perhaps here, at the conclusion of this investi­gation, a few words are in order about the direction in which the study of Soviet literature took after the period with which we are here concerned. In very general terms, one must conclude that the situation has not changed much since the 19 30fs when studies of Soviet literature were abandoned by most Polish critics and scholars.

In 19 54 Julian Krzyzanowski noted:

Unfortunately, to this day we have no book about Polish-Russian literary relations, although we realize the importance of that problem. . . .This whole problem was sketched out in Aleksander Brtickner's lecture, but since the publication of this small work, About Russian Literature and Our Relationship With It Today and Three Hundred ?ears Ago (Warsaw 1906), half a century has passed 1 I I Lsic] This period, however, saw the appearance of many works, such as the many bookson the attitude of Mickiewicz to Russia, orPuskin to Poland; but ahead there is still a long road between determining the details of these relations and synthesizing other [more recent relations]. . . [sic]7

As late as 1960 this same problem was extensively discussed by Aleksander Rogalski, who stated that, in contrast to the availability of translations of almost all Soviet literary works, there is an enormous void in the area of critical studies of those works. Onetends to agree with his conclusion that in spite ofthe existence of such institutes as the Polish-Russian

1B2

Institute (Instytut Polsko-Rosyjski) or such publications as Slavia Orientalis devoted entirely to the problems of Russian literature and language, there is still much left to be desired in scholarly studies of the

gproblem. The present writer intends in the future to pursue his investigation of these literary relationships, not only from a historical, but also from a critical, point of view, in the hope of eventually tracing literary influences as well as critical investigations.The love-hate relationship that has existed in Polish- Russian letters for decades is still worthy of investigation. These words of Adam Mickiewicz, with which the present investigation closes, uncannily prefigure the comments of Bandrowski:

They were united by a great regard.Their souls soared over earthly trials and woe.Like twin crags jutting from an Alpine peak:Though separated by a roaring creek,They scarcely hear the tumult of their foe, g While each to each their towering summits lean.

FOOTNOTES TO CONCLUSION

"Kaden-Bandrowski do pisarzy sowieckich. Wstep do torau przekiaddw," Wiadomolci Literackie, 30 (1927), p. 1. (Introduction to Zamjatin T^vgenij. Ludzie jaskiniowi. . . . Warszawa: "Rdj," 19 27).2See footnote 28, Chapter IV.3"Pisarze polscy a Rosja sowiecka. Literatura sowiecka — Eksperyment komunistyczny -- Zblizenie polsko- rosyjskie," Wiadomosci Literackie, 38 (1933), p. 3.

^"Pisarze. . . 44 (1933), p. 3.5Ibid.6"Kaden-Bandrowski. . ." op. cit.V tJulian Krzyfcanowski, "Tyrteusz Polski i dekabrysci,"Kwartalnik Instytutu Polsko-Radzieckiego, 2 (1954),p~. TV. Cited in Aleksander Rogalski. Rosia-Europa.Warszawa: PAX, 1960, p. 19.QFor a more detailed discussion of the problem see Rogalski, op. cit., pp. 9-50.gAdam Mickiewicz, "The Monument of Peter the Great," Adam Mickiewicz. Selected Poetry and Prose. Warsaw: Polonia Publishing House, 1955, p. 108.

163

Appendix ORIGINAL TEXTS OF QUOTATIONS

[The numbers before each quotation refer to the refer­ence number assigned each quotation within the body of this dissertation.]

(1) Pismo nasze stawia sobie przedewszystkiem cele infor- macyjne. Pragnie przyczynid si$ w miarq sil i moznosci do nawiq>zania zerwanego oddawna kontaktu ze sztuk^ i kultur^, europejsk^. Pragnie wzi^c udziai w akcji, maj^cej na celu zwalenie muru, ktory oddziela nas od ognisk cywilizacji wsp6lczesnej. Pragnie wesprzec w tem wszystkich ludzi dobrej woli i wiary.

(2) [Zwrotnica] pragnie bye macic^ nowej duszy. Pragnie wszyd w naszego czlowieka nerw terazniejszo^ci. Pragnie rozognic w nim milo&c do nowosci, ktdrq sam stworzyl, a w stosunku do kt6rej nie umial nie by6 o kilka wiekdw starszym. Pragnie obudzic w nim wiar% w cudotworcz^ epokq, w ktcSrej iyje, i niech^c do martwych epok, ktore zyj^ w nim. Z nowej duszy pragnie wyprowadzic now^ sztukq,. Pragnie oswietlic pierwiastki piqkna, swiezo wyrosle z miejsca, form i narz^dzi nowoczesnejgo zycia. Pragnie zaprosi<£ artystq w swiat terazniejszosci, ktory czeka oczu godnych jego bogactwa. Pragnie i£<£ za stylem naszej epoki i rzezbid jej glowq, osadziwszy je wprz6dy na jej wlasnych zelaznych lebrach.Tem pragnie by6 Zwrotnica.

(3) Niedowiarkowi, dla kt<^rego pokcSj Ryski jest fikcj^, m6glbym wreszcie pokazacS pierwszy realny dow(5d rozpo- cz^tych stosunkow pokojowych z sowieck^ Rosj^: stoS ksi^zek stamt^d, i to nie bibuZy agitacyjnej, lecz belletrystyki i krytyki. Wskutek dlugiego odeiqeia murem frontu ksi^&ka rosyjska stala si^ dla nas czems rownie egzotycznem, jak biblja w jfzyku bantu, gdy, widzac w Rosji przez tyle.lat jedynie or^Snego prze- ciwnika, lledzac w jej gescie jedynie zamierzone natar- cie, nie moglilmy zwracad naszej uwagi na jej fcycie kulturalne, do pewnego stopnia— w literaturze emigran- ckiej— dost^pne nam i przedtem. Nawet zdawalo si^ nam . . . w wyzszym jeszcze stopniu powtarza si^ znane

164

165

nam dobrze zjawisko przeniesienia calej literatury na emigracjg, fee o literaturze w Sowdepj i niema co m<5wic. Tymczasem wbrew oczekiwaniom, po odsloni^ciu prawdzi- wego obrazu, widzimy, ie, mimo wszystko, punkt cigzkosci literatury rosyjskiej pozostal w kraju . . . wi^kszosc,czy to z musu, czy to zgodnie z psycholog j 3. 1pozostaj^- cych i osiadlych a nie zbieglych i nomaddw* , podlug sl6w Wiaczeslawa Iwanowa, zostaia w Rosji, maj^c na czele tak roznych rdwnie pod wzgl^dem kierunkdw estetycznych, jak i politycznych, pisarzy jak Walery Briusow, Maksym Gorkij, Michal Kuzmin, Fiodor Sologub, Andrej Bielyj i niedawno zmarly Aleksandr Blok.

(4) m^ty najciemniejszego wielkomiejskiego proletarjatu, zbrodniarze, z ktorych kazdy powinien byd widomie pi^tnowany ('na spinie-b nado bubnovyj tuz!'), ktorzy popelniaj^ w naszych oczach morderstwo, kt6rzy b$d^ grabid, by rozerwacf nud§ dusz, opustoszonych przez zbrodnie i rozpust^.

(5) Bylo w nich osi^gni^te idealne zespolenie codziennoSci i fantastyki, kt6ra zjawiala si^ w sposdb prosty, nie obrazaj^cy absolutnie najbardziej upartego poczucia prawdopodobienstwa i rzeczywistoSci.

< 6 > Jest on raczej rozscielaj^c^ si^ mgl^ peln^, noctium phantasmata, niepokoj^cych, zmyslowych, gdy Bielyj jest przenikliwem, rai^cem swiatlem brzasku, budz^cera przy jutrzni nowy poryw religijnej czystej ekstazy.

<7) . . . kunsztowne wiersze, cudowny j^zyk, las najgl^-bszych symboli, najpoetyczniejsze akcesorja: slonce,fale morskie, kwiaty, motyle, pszczoly, ptaki, drogo- cenne kamienie i kruszce, przedpotopowe kosmate noso- rozce i mastodonty, smoki i krdlewny, . . .

(8) o doskonalej formie, suchej , wstrzemi^zliwej i przej- rzystej, przenikni^tego twardem rozczarowaniem i zjadliw^ pogard^ dla uludy wszechrzeczy i wszech- nadziei i dlatego swiadomie na zwaliskach wszelkich iluzyj buduj^cego wok6l siebie dwiat zludy poetyckiej; niepomalu urazonego na Boga, lecz ostatecznie w triumfalnej rezygnacji znajduj^cego pogod^ na samem dnie rozpaczy, . . .

166

(9) . . . peinym wznioslolci obrazem wielkiego i ludzkiegom^drca, antycznego filozofa, z pogodnem, w niebo wzniesionem czoiem, smialo przechodz^cego wsrdd burz i szaleAstw ludzko£ci, po rani^cych bose stopy ostrych kamieniach drogi zycia, . . .

(10) . . . z pustego w gruncie rzeczy, nad^tego a pysznegotalentu Balmonta wyplywaj^ Jesienina powtdrzenia, pleonazmy, eurytmje— cale pi^kno formy.

(11) . . . przefarbowawszy sw^ zdlt^ 1koft^* na kolorczerwony, jest dzi£ jako 'korafuturysta' najglosniejszym, a napewno najwrzaskliwszym poet^ najmiodszej Rosji . . .

(12) Istotnem d^ieniem futurystow bylo— niszczyc byle niszczyd: kazd^ kulturf, jakiej si$. dotkn^, prawaprozodji, gramatyki, ortografji, znaki pisarskie, rozum, znaczenie slowa, kobiet^ w poezji, potem pi^knoi sam^ poezjg, az w miejsce wiersza podadz^ biai^ kart^, lub jedno slowo, *fig§’, wreszcie wydrzec to, co jest w najpierwszej dziecigcej pr6bie artystycznej pierwot- nego cztowieka--dusz^.

(13) Staje . . . on, Majakowskij, na runsztowaniu smiertel-nem i krzyczy, bior^c na siebie win^ wszystkich zbrodni, wszystkich okrucienstw ludzko^ci; chce stac si$ zbrodniarzem--syntez^, 1jedynym ludozerc^', by wraz z rozdwiartowaniem jego zgin^l ostatni kat ludzkodci,by odt^d rodzili si$. 'prawdziwi ludzie, od samego Boga milosierniejsi i lepsi' . . -

(14) Stosuj^c si£ do rady Czukowskiego, by spelnic swe zadanie sprawozdawcy, staralem si^ sta£ si§ na chwil^ Majakowskim, bezwladnie poddaj^c si§ jego poetyckiej woli. Nie zalujq; spotkaiem niejeden piqkny obraz, niejedno jaskrawe porownanie, zamiast wytartych metafor na kazdym kroku prawdziwe inedita, lecz w koricu musialem zgodzid si^ ze zdaniem Czukowskiego, ze c^lej tej olbrzymiej, rozp^dzonej machinie sztucznosci i preten- sj onalno&ci brakuje 'duszy', czy tei 'poetycznosci1, tego wspdlnego czlonu wielomianow poezji od czasow kultury jaskiniowej az po dzied dzisiejszy.

(15) Unikad nale±y wszelkiego szablonu: kazda przenosniapowinna bye now^ i oryginaln^ nie nalezy obawiac si^ nienaturalnych i nagi^tych porownaA--nie unikn^li ich nawet klasycyj nie nalezy tei obawiac si^ politropizmu, nieuniknionych sprzecznolci w natloku obrazdw, chociai wyzszy bez w^tpienia jest monotropizm, bo daje obraz dcisiy i ostro rysowany; starad si . trzeba o porownania przedmiotdw konkretnych z abstrakcyjnemi (byle nie

167

naodwrot), lub najlepiej, bo najtrudniej,--konkretnych z konkretnemi.

(16) . . . te bluznierstwa spro^ne i op^tane, te szaly okrucierfstwa, to tarzanie si^ we krwi i kale wydaj^ si% bye krzykiem z pod serca, obrazem najprawdziwszym rozpaczy, pustki i zrn^czenia tej Rosji glodu, wojen domowych i czrezwyczajek, choc dla autorow s . moze tylko srodkiem artystycznym, swiadomie u£ytym,lub kawaleryjsk^ butad^ ludzi, ktdrzy przeszli wojn^ pewnie jako zolnierze i ktorzy z niej wyniesli niejedno zolnierskie przyzwyczajenie i ostatnie st^pienie uczuc.

(17) . . . zespala nietylko melancholijn^ przyrod^ Rosji z bujnolci^ egzotycznego Poludnia, ale i ich fanatyczne, tak zdawaioby si^ ekskluzywne religje: prawosiawie iislam, Ewangelj^ i Koran.

(18) Niezwykla ostrosc przezyc religijnych; pogarda i wstr^t do samego siebie . . . ; histeryczne poczucie napi^t-nowania przeklenstwem duszy zm^czoijej i skalanej . . . ; rozpaczliwa ucieczka od Boga z bluznierstwem na ustach i beznadziejne do Niego powroty; biczowanie si$ opgtane go mnicha i spowied£ publiczna, lubuj^ca si^ . . . w jaskrawosci i ohydzie wyrazu . . . .

(19) Wiersze te, pisane w swobodnych metrach ■bylin', a zwlaszcza 'piesni historyeznych' i bajek ludowych, tworzone bez preokupacji wzgl^dami artystycznemi, treny nad grobem Rosji mocarstwowej, peine krwawych lez oburzenia, robi^ wrazenie potgine sil^ rozpaczy i gniewu obywatela-patrjoty . . . . Zamkni^ty w wiezyz kodci sloniowej dobrobytu i uiycia swiat burzua- zyjny ginie bez oporu, niezdolny do obrony dzierzaw, sztandarow i trofecfw Rosji . . . . I jako wniosek z tego genjalnie prawdziwego skrdtu historji zwroto Rosji do wspolcze^nikow: 'Dzieciom powiecie: jesieni^ 1917roku mysmy j , ukrzyzowali' .

(20) . . . jest on teraz wyrazicielem przekonan 1primiren-czeskich1, t. j. tendencji do pogodzenia si§, w imi% dobra ojezyzny z faktycznym rz^dem w Rosji, niedopatry- wania si^ w nim jedynie bandy, nasianej przez Niemcow, lecz doniosiego zjawiska historycznego.

(21) . . . brak kultury umyslowej, brak gustu, ordynarna elementarno^c psychologji, niewolniczosc rewolucyjnej mysli,--s^ to rzeczy, wyl^czaj^ce artyzm . . .

168

(22) . , . w poszukiwaniach krzycz^cych efektow, na uslugachaktualnosci, specjalizujqc siq uparcie we wszelkich strachach i okropnosciach, zmarnowal swdj niewqtpliwy talent,--i prawdziwa groza iycia rzeczywistego zatarfa jego sztuczne i nienaturalne efekty, . . ./(23) Spiewai jak ptak. Jqzyk odznacza* siq niepokalanq czystosciq i bogactwem, styl--wytwornq, prostotq; rytmy zwyczagne a silne, rymy niewyszukiwane a nie banalne; nic raz^cego i krzycz^cego; forma skromna i wysoce szlachetna . . . I tresc taka sama— stara a wiecznie nowa: przyroda i milodd.

(24) . . . je^li Majakovjskij jest tylko ulicznikiem, to naj-genjalniejszym, jesli tylko blaznem poezji, to blaznegi godnym swej krrflowej: jego *jamby'. . . ka£q zilknqcz zazdrodci greckim praojcom wierszowanych inwektyw.

(25) Coraz lepszym komunistq, i coraz gorszym poetq jest ten histeryczny, konwulsyjny, kolosalizujqcy, kata- stroficzny, grzmiqcy i hucz^y czlowiek, ten Budiennyj poezji wspofczesnej.

(26) Jezeli to komuna zrobila z tego genjalnego poety fabrykq odbitek ze wspanialego talentu, to woiam:1Boie, caria chrani!' i nie 2yczq ereseferu poetom.

(27) W poezjach jego kryje siq dziwnie subtelna, niekiedy porywajapamuzyka,— odzwierciedlenie jego czystej duszy i gorqcego serca, . . .

(28) . . . brak w nim poezji bezpo^redniej, rzewnej; zastqpiia jq deklamacja pompatyczna, uczona, wymqczona, rzadko ktdry wiersz przemdwi£ do uczucia. . .

(29) W rezultacie raoja szczera rada: niech pani nie pomaga synowi do zostania literatem, a tem wiqcej poeta. W zyciu mamy duio godnycl^ zawoddw, i syn pani zrobi lepiej, jeieli wybierze ktorykolwiek, byle tylko nie literacki.

(30) Po wieloletnich podrdiach dookola swiata . . . zrozuraia- 4em, ze iqczy nas wszystkich jeden prawspolny pierwia- stek: mistyczne poczucie przyrody i jej wielkodci.

(31) Jak &wiece zapalone na wietrze, krzywym, bolesnym plomieniem spalajq siq serca poetow. Jak pijane statki rozbi^ajq siq o brzegi zwycza^nej ziemi, ieby giqboko osiqdc na dnie rzeki naszego zycia . . . .

169

(32) Jesienin by! jedynyn moSe prawdziwym poet^ wsi i chlopstwa, jego wier-sze odkrywaj^ swiat widziany okiem chiopa i odczuty jego sercem . . . . [On] oczekiwa£ zwyci^stwa wsi nad maszynow^, fabryczn^ kultur^ miast i wierzyl w mesjaniczne poslannictwo ^wiatowe wschodniego chlopa. Wyznawal to wszystko wbrew oczywistos£ faktow zyciowych, i to prawdopodobnie bylo najgl^bsz^ przyczyn^ jego wewn^trznego zaiamania.

(3 3) . . . zetkni^cie si^ prymitywnej natury lirycznej zezgielkiem wielkomie j skim i z zawilym splotem stosunk(4w spoleczno-politycznych, tak zaostrzonych w naszej dobie na calym ^wiecie, a szczegd'lnie w Rosji.

(34) Opiewal Rus drewnian^ i Rosj^ chio^sk^, i socjalisty-^ czn^ Inoni^, i Rosj$. azjatyck^, probowa* nawet przyj^c ZSSR— jedno tylko niezawodne imi^ nie sptyn^lo mu na usta: Rosja. Na tym wlasnie polegaf jego gSTowny bi^d,nie zla wo la, lecz gorzka pomylka. W tym tkwil zawi^zek i rozwi^zanie jego tragedii.

(3 5) . . . lawa natchnienia, powiedzmy— tajemniczy spiawprzeiyc poety, u Majakowskiego w trakcie tworzenia pozostaje jeszcze gor^ca, i ksztalty swe rzeA>i on jak gdyby na gor^co, z ryzykiem, i£ niejedna rzecz po wystygni^ciu zmarszczy si , i pop^ka i straci silq i urok nadanej formy. Poemat Jesienina ma w sobie pewien chl<5d artystyczny, i jego spiaw wydaje si§ bardziej jednolity.

(36) Nieprawd^ jest, jakoby Jesienin pisywal utwory swoje po pijanemu, przeciwnie, w czasie pisania nie mc5gl znosicf 'Tia stole butelki . . . nawet po wodzie mineralnej .

(37) Dziwny wiek! . . . W takim to wieku tylko, w obliczutakich wia^nie nawalnic i burz dziejowych gin^. ludzie cierpie^cy na straszn^ chorob^ rozdwojenia etycznego, / rozdwojenia ideologji. Nie mog^, nie potrafi^ siq. ostac wobec surowych nakazow i pytaif naszego czasu: * Kimjested? Znajdz sobie drogq!*

(38) . . . burzyl skladni^, gramatyke i estetykq, . . .ubieraj^c si| w siynny z6lty kaftan Majakowskiego i chodz^c po miescie z umalowan^ twarz^, kt^rej nie powstydziiaby siq^ najbardziej nawet maluj^ca siq dama.

(39) . . . apoteoza ludu wiejskiego i wsi, bytu pasterskiego,i wreszcie . . . poezja [oparta na] mistycyzmie i symbolu, ktory [Jesienin] nazywa ornamentem.

170

(40) CzSfowiek, ktorego chciwie trzyma stary swiat wyobraien w swych iapach i ktory prozno usiluje walczyc z nim, z jego senno^ci^, z jego bezwolnosci^,--oto kim jest Sergjusz Jesienin.

(41) Je&eli jestem z nim w jednym pokoju, jeze^li mogq podejsc do poety, zyw^, diorf jego u^cisnac i napic si§ z nim wina--to jest . . . maximum szczq,scia.

(42) . . . doznamy nie tylko oszolomienia dzwi^cznosci^,barwno^ci^ i aromatem . . . ale tchnie na nas pot^znydech nigdy niesytego widomej wspania£osc boza cz?owieka.

(43) I niechaj w sloncu przyja^ni dwuch wielkich duchow poezji polskiej i rosyjskiej— Mickiewicza i Puszkina— swieci si$ przyjazn pomi^dzy poezj^ polsk^ i rosyjsk^. Obie sta£ na to!

(44) Nieslychane . . . skarby j^zyka odkryl Balmont wdziewiczych pokladach Rosji,— przetoczyt zlotodajne surowce na modl§. europejsk^, oszlifowal, a potem, . . .pokazal swej ziemi jej bogactwa.

(45) Tematpolega na zobrazowaniu poszczeg<^lnych ogniw rozwo^u jednego rodu. Jego latorolle rozwijaj^ sie az do wyznaczonego kresu, a potem pochiania je otaczaj^cy wszechswiat. Jednakze z kazdej takiej latorosli, kosztem niepowetowanych strat i upadkrfw, tragedyj i niepowodzerf iyciowych, wyrasta coraz to cos nowego, cos silniejszego.

(46) W epilogu ma bye przedstawione niemowl^, koiysane na ionie prostej matki, zgubionej gdzie^ wsr6d szerokich polskich i^k koniczyny, nikomu nieznanej i o niczem niewiedz^cej . . . .

(47) Niema tu przeciwstawienia Rosji i Polski, jako naroddw sobie wrogich, niema idei walki mi^dzy Wschodem a Zachodem. My£l^ przewodnicz^ poematu jest, iz powinna nast^pic godzina zaplaty dla Polski, gn^bionej przez historj^. Zasadnicze pordwnanie ojea 'demona' i matki fofiary' z s^pem i gol^bic^ jest jednocze^nie symbolera Polski, szarpanej przez Rosjq.

(48) . . . poeta operuj^cy takim jfzykiem i tak^ skladni^moie byfi tylko jednem: pogromc^starej ideologji,paseistycznej estetyki, mieszczanskiego £wiatopogl^du i glosicielem nowej ewangelji pracy, r^wnosci klasowej . . . Ewangelja ta jest rozp£omieniona najbardziejzarliw^ i gwa£town^ mitofici^ cziowieka . . . . [Tutaj ta mi£o£c] jest dynamitem wysadzaj^cym w gor§ odwieczn^

171

(49) W jego gigantycznej walce z Bogiem, w jego nienawisci do B6stwa, w jego pasji bluznierczej nie widac^ bynaj- mniej tego t^pego, spokojnego, krowiego stosunku do / idei B<5stwa 1 wyzucia z wszelkiego uczucia religijnosci, kt<^rem si^ szczyci kazdy prawowierny marksista. B(Sg dla Majakowskiego jest przedmiotem nienawisci, wsciek- ioSci, nawet pogardy, tylko nie 'pustem miejscem'.

(50) . - . nie moie ulegac w^tpliwosci, ze Majakowskij, odznaczaj^cy si§, wybuja£ym indywidualizmem i wyj^t- kowym temperamentern, odczuwal bardziej niz ktokolwiek inny niewol^, na jak^ system sowiecki skazal swoich autorow.

(51) Energja tworcza reformatorow teatru rosyjskiego znajduje oddzwi^k szeroki i niew^tpliwie, ^oza specy- ficznie rosyjskiemi cechami pogoni za nowosci^ i zmian^, nosi w sobie zarzewie tej og6lnej przemiany, ku ktrfrej teatr europejski, a z nim i polski, nieuchronnie d« 2y. Przewartosciowanie roli teatru i tw^rczoS’ci w nim aktorskiej, smiale podejscie ku najryzykowniejszym rozwic^zaniom problem<5w rezyserji, gry, inscenizacji i dekoracji, sprz^gni^cie ftywota teatru z zyciem narodu najistotniejszemi wgztami podziemnych nurtow zbiorowej psychiki, wykuwanie wiasnej fizjonomji teatru narodow- ego— oto zadania, do ktc^rych teatr polski przystgpuje 0 powoli, lecz z wol^ niezachwian^, do kt<irych przyst^pic musi, gdyz od nich rozwi^zania zaleSy jego rola jako jednej z najwazniejszych funkcyj w zyciu duchowem spoleczenstwa.

(52) Nieobecnosc rzeczywistosci . . . — oto choroba wstydliwa, trapi^ca Europe, i rana ukryta, na ktc$r^ umiera wsp<Jl- czesny dramat. Gdyz jeSli dramat jest ukaraniem dziala- nia, boskiego czy ludzkiego,— jakie dzis istnie<? on moie, gdy wszystkie bogi pomarly, a czlowiek— tak raowi^— jeszcze si^ nie narodzil?

(53) Abstrakcja i heroizm nie rymuj^ si^. Dlatego dla^ dzisiejszej chwili poprostu niema zagadnienia tresci. Tresc co najwyiej 'zanieczyszcza' form§, jest ledwie cierpianym przezytkiem;— i slusznie: ta tre^c, jak^wypowiada sztuka wyrastaj^ca na rozkiadaj^cym sig trupie idealizmu, jest naprawd^ przeftytkiem. Nie byloby to niczem strasznem, gdybypoczucie tej pustki wewngtrzije j nie przybieralo zbyt og6lnych ksztaltow: kaida trescwydaje si^ dzi£ prochnem. Zostaje wi^c tylko forma; nikt juz nie pyta nawet: czego?

172

(54) . . . bqdzie to tylko teatralna odmiana tego samegoabstrakcjonizmu, ktory w ^wiecie sceny stanie si$ pr^dzej czy pdzniej powodem zaniku inwencji aktorskiej i teatralnej wogtSle, gdyz form^ teatraln^ odrywa od tre^ci, od zyciodajnego dna, i skazawszy na 1rewolu- cyjn .' dowolnosc i wybujalosc, pozbawiwszy j% wszelkiej dyscypliny duchowej, sprowadzi jej unicestwienie.

(55) Ide^ "Lekkoducha" jest przeksztaicenie zycia przez teatralnosci, nadanie tre^ci zyciu przez zainsceni- zowane klamstwo, przez sztucznie zaszczepion^ ludziom zlud^.

(56) . . . emanuje niesmiertelna pot^ga w coraz to noweformy wcielaj^cej si^ teatralnosci. Sztuka ta oparta jest na niezachwianych fundamentach wiary w instynkt teatralnosci, preestyczny, podlug Jewreinowa, i nie tylko rownorz^dny, lecz nawet silniejszy od instynktu ^Iciowego i samozachowawczego. Autor tej sztuki jest swiadomy cel6w, ktcfre propaguje: teatru iycia, teatru,kraAcowo i anarchistycznie indywidualistycznego, teatru, w ktdrym prymitywne arystotelowskie katharsis zmieniio sig w wyrafinowan^ przesad^ 'teatru dla siebie*.

(57) . . . Hejerhold wysuwa postulat kultury ciala u aktorrfw jako podstawowego elementu sztuki aktorskiej, opartej - wedle niego - przedewszystkiem na zrozu- mieniu i opanowaniu wszystkich moiliwo^ci fizyczne- go wladania sob^, Jako form^ sceniczn% Mejerhold propaguje ruchy ekscentryczne, gesty zewn^tyzne wyjaskrawione w plastyce i ostre w linji. Zycie wewn^trzne zostaje plastycznie uzewnetrznione, zas ciaio i ruch zostaj^ uznane za najwazniejsze na- rz^dzie aktora. Akc^a i moment dynamiczny zostalyw sztuce teatru podniesione przez Mejerholda do najwyzszej pot^gi.

(58) . . . we tem, £e uleciala zefi sztuka i mistrzostwoaktora. Skoro istota teatru tkwi w aktorze -rozw<5j teatru i jego stan znajduj^, si^ w bezposredniej zaleznosci od rozwoju i stanu w danej chwili sztuki aktora i s^ ze sob^ w proporcjonalnym stosunku.

173

(59) Przerzucanie si^ Tairowa od misterjum i tragedji do operetki i arlekiniady s'wiadczy, 4e teatr ten jest organizmem fcywotnym, ze jest na drodze nie- ukojonych poszukiwan, ktore maj^ blogoslawione skutki w sztuce, gdzie jedynie w procesie samego tworzenia ujawnia si^ slusznoSc czy nieprawdziwose obranej drogi.

(60) . . . olbrzymia praca, zapai, entuzjazm i pasja, wlozone w usilowania reformatorskie, sa gwarancj^,&e wysokie napi^cie teatralnej tworczosci i jej poziom niepowszedni nie przejd^ bez echa dla przyszlo^ci teatru rosyjskiego i europejskiego wogc^le.

C61) , . . Bl^d Tairowa tkwi w jego rozdwojeniu. Zjednej strony caly balans konwencjonalny dekoracyj, z drugiej - naiwne uproszczenia kostjumowe; troch^ estetycznych ’ nastrojcSw* obok szalonej buffonady cyrkowej, wyszukane modulacje glosowe w dialogach mrfwionych, a jednoczesnie naiwne chropawe duchy aktorow, nieumiej^cych spiewad * . .

(62) Odrzucii dekoracje, zast^puj^c je jedynie konstruk- c^ami raaszynowemi, odrzucii wszelkie efekty polnotow, cieni, stylizacji, niedomfiwieif, daj^c teatr wyrazny, ostry, zdecydowany . . . A zesp<5l gra idealnie. Moina o nim powiedzie^, ze jest'skonstruowany.1 Sugestjonuje wezbran^ widowni^. Porywa. Widowisko waha si . mi^fizy cyrkiem a wiecem agitacyjnym, mi%dzy patosem tragedji a mlodzienczym, szumi^cym poematem.

(63) Sztuka zacz^ffaby nas interesowac gdyby na scenie znalazl si§ ktol rozumny i wartolciowy, kto nie wytrzymuje atmosfery koszarowej, ucisku panstwa, terroru, strachu czy donosicielstwa. Az do znudzenia, pokazuj^ nam te r6zne ia^hmany ludzkie, bylych hrafci<5w i byle kurtyzany, ktore zle siq. czuj^ w panstwie wyzwolonego proletarjatu. Poka£cie nam raz col prawdziwego. Niechie to b^dzie chocby konflikt Zinowiewa ze Stalinem, niech nam poka&4 cierpienia i tryumfy poet6w. Malo nas obchodzi, czemu chce uciec . . . byly suterer - ale czerou uciekl Jesienin, czemu uciekr Majakowskij?Gdziei s , sztuki mowi^ce o walce wewn^trznej ludzi rz^dz^cych Rosj^., o prawdziwej grze sil decyduj^cych? . . . Teatr sowiecki, tak zrakomicie postawionypod wzgl^dem aktorskim, zieje nud^ i martwot^.

174

Pisarz sowiecki coraz bardziej upodabnia si^ do starego^wiernego slugi, ktoremu mo£na nawet pozwolic troch^ pozrz^dzic. Dla nikogo nie jest niebezpieczny.

(64) Nasi autorzy dramatyczni nie pomijaj^ problematu ciala i miiosci, rodziny i maizenstwa, ale rozumiej^., ie sprawy osobiste cz^dci^ zbiorowosci i 2e te m^cz^ce dla jednostki ludzkiej problematy znajduj^ swe rozwi^zania w ustroju, w spoleczerfstwie, w warunkach bytu.

(65) Si£a rewolucji proletarjackiej powolala do zycia ogromne bogactwo talentow, ukrytych wdrdd ludu, i dala im szerokie pole dzialania i rozmach . . .Zawcfd pisarza jest jednym z na j zaszczytnie j szych zawodow w Zwiazku sowieckim . . . Rzetelnieodtworzy^ rzeczywistosc, bez faiszywej tendency- jnosci, - oto cel i zadanie kazdego pisarza ,sowieckiego. Pisarz sowiecki nie boi si^ dotkn^c najstraszliwszych ran bytu i psychiki ludzkiej, bo wierzy i zna mo^liwodci i metody uleczenia tych ran.

(6 6) Prawdziwe konflikty Rosji zamkniete dla litera- tury. Upadek planowodci, sabotai wsi, nadprodukcja i tysiac innych spraw czeka na swego pisarza.Setki ofiar ludzkich, skfadanych dla przykrycia bi^dow, wynikiych z niedoigstwa organizacji, i wagystkie koflikty istotne nie wnikaja do literatury to pismiennictwo jest narz|dziem waradzy i organem propagandy.

(67) Po okresie relacyj niemal wyar^cznie ustnych, przynoszonych przewa&nie przez naszych repatr^antow, granica wschodnia poczyna si . rozluzniac i procz goloslownych opowiadati 'naocznych s'wiadkow* dostaj^. sie do nas i realne dowody stanu kulturyi umysiowosci w Rosji . . .

(68) Dot^d to tylko puste slOwa, rezultati^w pozytywnych niema iadnych. Rzeczywistolc tym pifknym frazesom kiam zadaje.

(69) Przebyli burze nie kusz^c si^ o jej wytfumaczenie, nie zgadzaj^c si^ na ni^ w g-l^bi sumienia.Zauwazyli jej drobne przejawy, nie przenikngli jednak jej prawa gf^bokiego: czy dwiadomieunikaj^ideologii, czy tez nie maja jej wcale?2adne zasadnicze twierdzenie nie ozywia ich dziel'.

175

(70) Z wielu stron mowi^ ostrozne powagi, ze Erenburg to pisarz niebezpieczny. Wlasciwie -- powinnoby si§ go wykl^d. . . , Ze Erenburg jest moze nawetgorzej, niz szatanem, bo Zydem, anarchist^, czy bylym komunist^. Ze wreszcie komu jak komu ale w kazdym razie nam, Polakom, nie przystoi takich dziel przekladac na nasz j^zyk. Ich rzecz, jefeli to robi^ Francuzi czy Niemcy -- ale my? Ale my!

(71) Patrzcie na jego ci^cia, krotkie, ">stre, rzekomo pozbawione rozmachu a peine wewn^trznej mocy.Jak maskuje wysilek, jak mi^snie jego slowa, zwifzle i czyste, graj^ rowno pod gladk^ skrfr^ zdan.

(7 2) . . . odmienna od europejskiej, bardziej utylitarna w pojmowaniu sztuki jako czynnika organizuj^cego zycie najszerszych mas, paseistyczna, jak sztuka Zachodu a zarazem o nowych walorach psychologicznych, artystycznych i estetycznych, ktore w Rosji ulegly olsniewaj^cemu przetworzeniu i wyolbrzymieniu.

(73) . . . dzialalnosc legionu mTodych tworcefw, ktrfrzy wielbi^c literature i kultur^ zachodni^, spo- stponowali wieloletni^ tradycj^ spolecznikowsk^, cechuj^c^ dawn^ literature i wyplyn^li na poszu- kiwanie kr<5lestwa tematu.

(74) Tworczosc literacka Rosji dzisiejszej rozwija si , pod znakiem prozy. . . . Zasad^ogoln^ jest d^zenie do prostoty, wyzwolenie z jjpd urokow baroku.. . . Zniklo zainteresowanie tworcow dla skompliko- wanych powiklan zycia wewn§trznego, dla problematow psychologji indywidualnej. . . . Dzis interesuje odbiorc^ ksi^zek forma, w jakiej mu podano chaos dobrze mu znanych wrazen. Nowa proza.

(75) W Rosji ustalila si^ moda na styl rubaszny, nieokrzesany i surowy i to samo obserwujemy w zakresie w^tkow. Literatura coraz bardziej zniza si^ do sVodowiska ktoremu siuzy.

(7 6) . . . dla Leonowa rewolucja — to przede wszystkim katastrofa, w ktorej gin$ ludzie. . . . Dla Leonowa rewolucja jest wielkim cmentarzyskiem, po kt<£rym przechadzaj^c si^, ptacze nad mogilami 'nieznanych zolnierzy.1 . . . Interesuje go los matego czlowieka,jak Puszkina w Jezd^cu miedzianym. . . . Tylko, ze Puszkin — realista i pozytywista, usprawiedliwiai historyczn^ konieczno^c systemu. . . . Leonow

176

natomiast nie znajduje w sobie ani wiary, ani entuzjazmu rewolucyjnego, ktore by pozwolily mu na takie usprawiedliwienie.

(77) Niezadowoleni bogactwem domowem, si^gaj-^ po w^tki im zupelnie obce, fantastyczne albo zachodnie, giownie Ilja Erenburg. Spengler im, szcze- golnie Erenburgowi, pozawracal glowy, wi^c pisz^ siq romanse, diuzsze i niby wyci^gi z nich, o gniciu Zachodu i jego kultury, o trupim ich zapachu, o rychiej , niechybnej smierci. Nie myslimy sie ucierac o podobne banialuki i radzimy, by przed wlasnemi wrotamu umiatali, bo co si^ tam nawaliio, tego i przez lat dziesi^tki literatura nie 'obczysci1.

(7 8) . . . takie [jak Pilnjaka] przedstawienie gl^bokosmutnego i tragicznego wydarzenia, jest nietylko ordynarnem wykoslawieniem wysoce obrazaj^cem pami^c towarzysza Frunzego, ale i zlolliwem osz- czerstwem pod adresem rosyjskiej partii komunis- tycznej.

(79) . . . [ZoszczenkoJ bardzo jest popularny nie tylko w Rosji, ale za granic^. Rzecz jasna dlaczego opisuj^c z humorem konflikt urz^dowej formulki z ftyciem i zwyci^stwo tego (najcz^ciej drobnobur- zuazyjnego) zycia, staje si^ mimowolnym satyrykiem Sowrosji, demaskuje ubrany w urz^dowe szaty optymistyczne,Mbyt" Sowrosji. Zreszt^ nieraz z cai^ swiadomosci^ wyst^puje w roli satyryka nawet scisle kompartyjnego zycia.

(80) Z prawdziweTu mistrzostwem maluje Erenburg miiosc i t^sknot^ nowoczesnego Zeusa do dwoj^cej si§ w jego oczach i my£li Europy. Sugestjonuje widza za pomoca ci%glego, niedostrzegalnego personifi- kowania kontynentu i, odwrotnie, 'uprzedmiotowania* kobiety — budzi wprost podziw precyzj^, i subtelnosci^ techniki.

(81) . . . demoralizuj^cy i wyzeraj^cy, niby kwas siar-czany, kultury povjiesci wspolczesn^ j, . . . szu-ka r^kami Delteilow i Joyceow archimedesowego punktu oparcia w dzisiejszym chaosie estetyki powiesciowej, tworczego rzutu artystycznego na p£aszczyzn^ naszej kultury.

177

(82) . . . dlaczego z caiej nowej literatury rosyjskiej,z calej falangi nowych prozaikdw, jeden Erenburg potrafil nie tylko dostad si$ przez pilnie strzezony przed 1zalewem barbarzynstwa' kordon, lecz stac si^ nawet lakomym k^skiem dla rozmaitych sprytnych dostawcow kokainy.

(83) I. Erenburg to Paul de Kock naszej epoki, bul- warowy pisarz rodz^cych si . filistrow, tylko zamerykanizowany i podniesiony do n-pot^gi. . . .[Jest to] najbardziej niebezpieczny maciwoda, jakiego znala Europa powojenna . . . Li] . . .podrzutek pismiennictwa — autor dla mi^jdzynarodowe j kanalii sleepingowo-kokocianej.

C84) [w tej noweli] . . . system bolszewicki zostaloswietlony znakomicie. Potgzny strzal wymierzony zostal przez literature pi^kn^ w moralnosc dyktatury bolszewickiej.

(8S) To ugrz<gzanie w lokalnem blotku jest nie jako swiadom^, reakcj^ przeciw abstrakcyjnie dekla- matorskiej prozie pierwszych lat rewolucji, przeciw kosmicznym zelazo-betonowym misterjom. W tym sensie reakcja ta stanowi post^p.

(8E) . . . najwybitniejszy z ralodych. . . , ktory tow r. 1919 na widok bolszewickich skdrzanych kurtek w patos wpadal okrotny . . . [and who in his later]’widokdwkach' szkicowal umiiowane 'krdlestwo chiopskiego chamstwa'.

(87) Pilniak jest naratorem i poet^ jednoczesnie. Jego obrazy poetyckie barwne i plastyczne. Sam dzieci^ rewolucji, nie jest wszakze rewolucjonist%. Pozwala^poci^gac si^ temu, co daje materjai jego tworczosci, zajmuj^ go jednak zawsze problemy estetyczne i nie przechodzi na strong jakichd okreslonych kierunkow w polityce i sztuce. Nalezy do pokolenia, stoj^cego na pograniczu sztuki, ktora si^ rodzi, i sztuki, ktcfra zamiera, obwozona przez emigrantdw po obu polkulach swiata.

(88) Ksi^&ka Erenburga naleiy do tych nielicznych dziear wysoklej sztuki, ktorych nie odklada si<» z r$ki przed pochloni^ciem ich od desk! do deski.Anegdoty Lejzorka, jego przypowiedzi i przyklady, anachronizowane w sposob zachwycaj^cy, po prostu czaruj^, a los tego Syda wiecznego tulTacza odslania nam caty ogrom sprawy iydowskiej, tak smiesznie pomniejszanej przez rdznych symplifi- katordw.

17 8

(89) Czyzby z czytelnikiem pc^lskim byio doprawdy tak zle, ze nie zniislby raysli o tem, iz podobnie jak bolszewicy czy nie bolszewicy wydaj^ si^ ^mieszni nam, tak i my nie we wszystkiem im impo- nujemy? Byloby £le, gdybysmy do tego stopnia mieli by<5 nerwowi. . . , Gdyby Niemcy, Francuzi,Anglicy, bolszewicy poskreslali ust^py dotycz^ce ich slabych stron, z k s i ^ k i nie zostaloby nic.

(90) . . . dla fpoputczikow* rewolucja jest ’ich'rewolucj^, przyczem sfowo 'ich' zawiera wielk^ skal^ odcieni od bezwzgl^dnej sympatji, zrozumienia i wspolpracy do zamaskowanej wrogosci, sabotazui zlosliwego szkodnictwa.

C91) I tu dostrzegamy bardzo charakterystyczne zja- wisko, potwierdzaj^ce to wszystko, co teoretycy 'Lefa' mowi^ o parodystycznym charakterze dege- neracji form literackich. Mianowicie technika, styl, ton liryczny, nastrrfj psychiczny, psycho- ideologja pisarzy tamtych, a zwlaszcza Erenburga, Wsiewoloda Iwana [sicID i A 1 . Tolstoja, to wszyst­ko w powiesci Olieszy jest ^wiadomie podane w pers^flazu, w parodji. W 'Zazdro^ci' molna znalezc probki stylu wspomnianych literatow, ale osmieszone i sparodjowane.

(9 2) . . . wspaniale wypadlo przeciwstawienie *klimatu*psychicznego . . . obu oboz<£w: obozu realizmu,aktywnosci, zdrowia, i obozu rozkladu, biernosci i zawisci.

(.9 3) Pan uzyl kilkakrotnie slowa fdaremnie. 1 Dobre slowo, straszne slowo, Bylem w czerwonej armji.Wiem co to jest czlowiek. Ogl^dalem go, ze tak powiem, z wszystkich stron. Pelno bylo smierci dokola. Przestalem odr^zniac umartych od £yj^- cych. Pan m6wil 'daremnie?' Straszne slowo, trafne slowo. Wyrwalismy z ci^zkiego snu czlo- wieka,twytoczylismy zen gorace kubly krwi. Wi^cej nie mozna bylo z nim uczynic. Gasl nam pod rgkami. P^dzilem poci^giem propagandy przez wielkie pobojowiska, pisalem ulotki i rozrzucaiem je po martwych obszarach. Tlusta byla wowcza^ zi^emia, krwi^ i proklamacjami chcielismy j . uzyznic. Wepchngli nas spowrotem w nasz duszny, martwy dom. Propaganda wyzarla mi piuca. Wyzlopala mi krew . . . [LekarzeD Radz^ jechac do Europy. Europa! Pifkne slowo, dumne slowo I Ale co ja tarn b£d$, robii? . . . Owszem. Trochg, bliekitu nie zaszkodzi. Ostatni bl^kit widzialem w r. 191^. PcJzniej niebo

179

juz byio jak brudne kudly. Od r. 1917 bylo czerwon^, flag^. Teraz juz po wojnie i po rewolucji , . .Ale, ale . . . [sic] czy pan zna Gedaljego? Onjest wi^kszy od Lenina I Lenin stworzyi. mi^dzynaro- dowkq ludzi ucisnionych, ale Gedali zwolruje ludzi dobrych. Co za obl^kany genjalny pomysl!TDobrzy ludzie, l^czcie si^! ' Rewolucja dobrocil . , . 1Pozdrowiony b^d£, Gedalje, tw6rco IV Mi^-dzynarodowki, natchniony piewco nowej egzel^utywy! * Przedziurawionemi p^ucami krzycz^: 'Przyjdz!!!1

(94) Z cal^ lojalnosci^ przedstawilismy wyzej przebieg sprawy, cytuj^c objektywnie wszystkie glupstwa zawarte w artykule Jasienskiego, wszystkie wy- mysiy w komentarzach 1Gazety Literackiej,1 . . .Redakcja ’Wiadomosci Literackich' wyraza szczery zal, ze — sama, wesgol ze swym informatorem, pa- daj^c ofiar^ jakiegos kabotyna, — narazila Babela na przykrosci.

(.9 5) Swobodny choc na pozor zagmatwany tok jegoc^powiadania, cz^ste dygresje, zamitowanie do scisiosci naukowej obok liryzmu, przeswietlaj^cego jego mysli, — wszystkie te charakterystyczne wla^ciwo^ci stylu Pilnjaka jeszcze pot^guj^. sie. w zywem slOwie.

(.9 6) Naukowe podej^cie do tema.tu, ktorym zawsze jest przebudowa istniej^cego swiata, wykuwanie w£asn^ wol^ historji, — to jeden z najwazniejszych rysow charakterystycznych tworczosci Pilniaka.

(97) [Powies<?J jest osnuta na tie wspolczesnego budownictwa gospodarczego w Z.S.R.R. . . . a istotnym bohateremutworu jest — masa, nowi ludzie, przebudowuj^cy wraz z otaczaj^cym ich swiatem — siebie samych.

(98) Swiat pracy, zamknigty w utworz^ Pilniaka, zawiera w sobie wszystkie elementy, wspotdziai’aj^ce lub £cieraj^ce sij, z soba w zyciu sowieckiem. Pocz^wszy od zywotnej, swiadomej swego celu masy robotniczej, poprzez dpdatnie i ujemne typy inzynierow, az do wykolejencow, szkodnikow . . . zbiorowosc ta jes,tniew^tpliwie odbiciem tej wojny bez arrnat i gazow, jak^ Z.S.R.R. toczy o przysz^osc.

(99) Istotn^ tre^ci^, ksi^zki jest zn£w walka dnia wczorajszego, a raczej onegdajszego, z dniem dzi- siejszym, starej moralnosci z now^, nowej spo- iecznosci, z dawnym indywidualizmem, Europy

180

z Azj^ i Azji z Europe A nad wszystkiem tem goruje ogromne ukochanie przyrody i zycia we wszelkich jego wielorakich objawach. Jest to wielki hymn na czeSc zycia, triumfuj^cego nad £mierci^. 'Odor mrozonych ryb przeksztalca si^ czestokrod w zapachy^fiotkdw, we wonie wiosniane.' Wody zatapiaj^ starozytn^, basztg, Haryny, lecz tuz obok niej bie^a^ maty Miszka, symbolizuj^cy ci^glosc i wiernosc zycia na ziemi.

C10 0) Dzieli nas od tych ludzi morze krwi, przelanej w nienawisci, Izy, zal i gniew wielu pokoleri,Dziel^ nas lata, przezywane wspolnie rzekomo, pod jednym dachem — a przecie pgdzone dalej i odr^bniej, niz gdyby oni byli pod rrfwnikiem, my zas na biegunie polnocnym. ,Dzieli nas bowiem dluga cigzka niewola, a procz

niej rzecz najsilniej ludzi na tym 5wiecie od- pychaj^ca — mianowicie — najblizsze s^siedztwo., . . Oto jako pisarz, jako czlowiek wspolnegowszystkim tworcow natchnienia, . . . opowie^ci te z za morza krwi, z za dalekich stromych brz^gow beznadziei -- przyjmujg, jako swoje, do wspolczuj^- cego serca.

(101) . . . mimo znacznych opoznien technicznych i formalnych w okresie rewolucji, obecna literatura sowiecka stanowi najbardziej interesuj^cy i ptodny eksperyment w dziejach kultury . . . . bgdzie ona wobec Europy^wyzszym stopniem ewolucji artystycznej i objawem wyzszego poziomu swiadomosci spotecznej.

(102) . . . literatura sowiecka, to kronika walki z materj^,, i proroctwo. Nie wszystko jest tu doskonaie artystycznie, ale cech^ czlowiekanajistotniejsz^ jest jego wiecznie niezadowolona niedoskonaiosd. Budzi to szacunek dla najlepszych dziet literatury sowieckiej.

(103) Jak dotychczas literatura sowiecka pod jednym conajmniej wzglgdem 'spefnita swe zadanie:' uwy- datnita dokumentalnie epokg, w ktfirej istnieje; jest zwierciadiem pokolenia — jeieli nieco krzywem, to trudno: 'Na zierkalo niecza pieniat',koli roza kriwa* (motto 'Rewizora'), . . .. . . zblizenie polsko-rosyjskie, . . . jest,

s^dz^, nakazem dnia dzisiejszego. .. . Wierzg^ w wielk^ przyszloSc i dobr^ przyjazn obu narodow, ktdfre jednoczeSnie wkroczyly w nowy etap swych dziejow.

181

(104) Niech uczeni rozuma.;.i si^ mierz^, zoinierz niech walczy z zoinierzem. Niech statysta wag^_ rozumu innego statyst^. przewazy. Doswiadczenie walk, wojen i cierpien mowi mi, iz nie oni swiat naprzod prowadz^, lecz moze wlas'nie my?My, ludzie serca, oczu tkliwie otwartych i czulej,

kochaj^cej fantazji, ktorzy umiemy sluchac gniewu naszych wrogow z u^miechem serdecznej pomocy, ktdrzy cierpimy, gdy krew z nich ulywa , * , [sic]My, ktdrych drtjpzy sumienie, gdy wrogowie nasi

cierpi^ i bolej^.. , . .Dlatego . . . wyci^gam obie r^ce do Zamiatina,

Babiela i Zoszczenki i wolam do tych tworcow gi'osem zdan wezbranych, poprzez rzeki, gory, kraje, dziel^ce nas . . . I poprzez wszystkich strasznych wspomnieii niedole, — woifam zywemi sTowami przyjazni.Nic jej przerwac nie zdoia!Sluchajciez, tarn, koledzy, Oto widz^, iz przysta-

wiacie czyste zwierciadlo swiatu swemu — jak my tu swemu swiatu staramy si^ czyste zwierciadio pokazac. Szukacie prawdy w znikomem zyciu cziowieka, — jak my tu, u siebie, swojej prawdy szukamy.Dok^d dalej ta droga prowadzi?’ Ze gdy wytrwamy — gdzies wysoko, na gorze, u szczytow wznoszonej kopuly^czeka nas najpi^kniejsze spotkanie. Czeka nas radosc ogromna, bez wzglgdu na to, od ktorego boku wchodzilismy po rusztowa- niach stromych^na tak trudn^, zawrotn^ robot^.Lepszy, szcz^sliwszy, m^drzejszy bgdzie w tej

chwili, jako i zawsze, ten kto pierwszy spostrzeze cziowieka po tamtej, obcej stronie.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Gazeta Poranna Warszawska. Warszawa, 1926-1928. (Daily)Kwadryga. Czasopismo literackie. Warszawa, 192 6-19 31.

(Monthly)Przegl^d Warszawski. Miesi^cznik poswi^ooay literaturze,

sztuce i nauce. Warszawa, 1921-1925. (Monthly)Przegl^j) Wsp&lczesny. Krakow, 1922-1932. (Monthly)Robotnik. Warszawa, 1918-1932. (Daily)Skamander. Miesiqcznik poetycki. Warszawa, 1920-192 8.

(Monthly)Tygodnik Ilustrowany. Warszawa, 1918-1932. (Weekly)Wiadomosci Literackie. Tygodnik. Warszawa, 1924-1933.

(Weekly)Zwrotnica. Czasopismo. Kierunek: sztuka tera£niejszosci.

Krakdw, 1922-1923, 1926-1927. (Monthly)

Historical Works

A scholar interested in the historical aspect of the Folish- Russian relations is referred to Piotr S. Wandycz. The Lands of Partitioned Poland. University of Washington Press, 1974. Some of the most important sources are listed below:

Askenazy, Szymon. Sto lat zarz^du w Krrflestwie Polskim 1800-1900. 2nd ed., Lw^w: H. Altenberg, 1903.

182

183Davies, Norman. White Eagle, Red Star. The Polish-Soviet

War, 1919-20. London: Macdonald, 1972.Fleischhacker, Hedwig. Russische Antworten auf die polnische

Frage 1795-1917. Munchen: R. Oldenburg, 1941.Groniewski, Krzysztof and Skowronek, Jerzy. Historia Polski.

1795-1914. Warszawa: Panstwowe Zaklady WydawnictwSzkolnych, 1971.

Kieniewicz, Stefan (ed.). History of Poland. Warszawa: Polish Scientific Publishers, 1968.

Koberdowa, Irena. Wielki Ksi^z^ Konstanty w Warszawie 186 2- 18 63. Warszawa: Panstwowe VJydawnictwo Naukowe, 196 2.

Komarnicki, Tytus. The Rebirth of the Polish Republic 1914- 1920. London: Heinemann, 1957.

Kukiel, Marian. D^ieje Polski porozbiorowe 1795-1921.London: B. Swiderski, 1961.

Micewski, Andrzej. Roman Dmowski. Warszawa: Verum, 1971.Moscicki, Henryk. Pod berlem carc w. Warszawa: Biblioteka

Polska, 1924.Pobcfg-Malinowski, Wladyslaw. Jdzef Pilsudski. London:

Komitet Wydawniczy, 1964.____________________________ . Najnowsza historia polityczna

Polski 1864-1945. London: Gryf Printers, 1963.Puzyrevsky, Aleksander K. Polsko-russkaia voina 18 31 g.

St. Petersburg: Tipografia shtaba voisk gvardii, 1866.Reddaway, William F. (ed.). Cambridge History of Poland.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1941-1950.Tokarz, Waciaw. Wojna polsko-rosyjska 1830 i 1831 r.

Warszawa: Wojskowy Instytut Naukowo-Wydawniczy, 19 30.Wandycz, Piotr S. The Lands of Partitioned Poland, 1795-

1918. Seattle and London: University of WashingtonPress, 1974.

Zoltowski, Adam. A Border of Europe: A Study of thePolish Eastern Provinces. London: Hollis andCarter, 1950.

General Works on Soviet Literature184

Alekseev, M. P. Mezdunarodnye svjazi russkoj literatury. Moskva-Leningrad: ANSSSR, 1963.

_______________. (ed.). Slavjanskie strany i russkajaliteratura. Leningrad: Nauka, 1973.

Balasova, T. V. , et al. Sovetskaja literatura za rubeSora. 1917-1960. Moskva: ANSSSR, 1962.

Balcerzan, E. Styl i poetyka twcfrczosci dwuj^zycznych Brunona Jasienskiego. Wroclaw, 1968.

Biaiek, Jozef Zbigniew. Pogl^dy krytycznoliterackie Karola Wiktora Zawodzinskiego. Wroclaw-Warszawa-Krakdw:PAN, 1969.

Bujnicki, Tadeusz and St^piert, Marian, "Krytyka poetycka wczasopismach Kultura Robotnicza, Kowa Kultura, D^wignia i Miesiecznik Literacki,'* Ruch Literacki, 2 C1961) , 76-87; 3 (1961), 135-148.

Fejgel'man, L. S., "Majakovskij v Pol'se," Kratkie soobS^enija Instituta Slavjanovedenija ANSSSR, 1 (1951), 46-68.

_________________. Majakovskij v stranax narodnoj demokratii.Moskva, 1952.

Fik, Ignacy. Dwadziedcia lat literatury polskiej: 1918-1938. Krakow: Placdwka, 1949.

Fiszman, Samuel and Sierocka, Krystyna. 0 wzajemnychpowi^zaniach literackich polsko-rosyjskich. Wrociaw- Warszawa-Krakdw: PAN, 196 9.

Xorev, Viktor Aleksandrovid. Vladislav Bronevskij. Oi^erk Sizni i tvordestva. Moskva, 196 5.

Ivanova, N. X., "0 perevodax proizvedenij Majakovskogo napol'skij jazyk," Kratkie soobStfenija Instituta Slavjano­vedenija ANSSSR. 1 (1951), 69-81.

Ksi^zka w bibljotece. Katalog informacyjny. Warszawa:Polskie Towarzystwo Wydawcdw Ksi^Aek i Zwi^zek Ksi^garzy Polskich, 1934.

Lichodziejewska, Feliksa (ed.). Wiadyslaw Broniewski.Warszawa: Panstwowe Zak3fady Wydawnictw Szkolnych,1966.

185Milosz, Czeslaw. The History of Polish Literature. London:

The Macmillan Company, 1969.Parniewski, Witold, "Pocz^tki recepcji Majakowskiego w

Polsce (1919-1923) ," Zeszyty naukowe Uniwersytetu Lodzkiego, Seria I, Zeszyt 97. -Lodz, 1973.

Pawlak, Edward. Zycie literackie Poznania w latach 1917-1939. Poznan: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza,1971.

Piotrowski, Wladyslaw. Sergiusz Jesienin w polskiej litera- turze mi^dzywojennej. Wroclaw-Warszawa-Krakdw: PAN,1967.

Po obu stronach granicy. Wroclaw-Warszawa-Krakow-Gdarisk:PAN, 1972.

Ratajczak, Jdzef, "Programy 'Zdroju'," Przegl^d Humanistyczny, 1 (1967), 83-95.

Rogalski, Aleksander. Rosja-Europa. Wzajemne zwi^zki,wplywy i zaleznosci kulturalno-literackie. Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy "Pax," 1960.

St^pieri, Marian. Ze stanowiska lewicy. Krakow: WydawnictwoLiterackie, 1974.

Szymanski, Wieslaw Pawel. Swiadomosc estetyczna polskiej awangardy (o Zwrotnicy). Krakow: PAN, 1971.

Szyszko, Tadeusz, "Literatura radziecka na lamach Robotnika (1918-1939)," Przegl^d Humanistyczny, 5 (1972) , 133- 146; 6 (1973), 67-86.

SzymaAski, Wieslaw Pawel'. Z dziejow czasopism literackichw dwudziestoleciu miedzywojennym. Krakdw: WydawnictwoLiterackie, 197 0.

Urbanska, Jadwiga. Radziecka powiesd rosyjska w Polsce wlatach 1918-1932. Wroclaw-Warszawa-Krakdw: PAN, 1966.

______ _____ . Radziecka powiesc rosyjska w Polsce wIatac)T 1933-1939. Wroclaw-Warszawa-Krakow: PAN, 1968.

186Chronology of Polish Criticism of Soviet Literature

All sources listed below come from the primary sources pre­sented earlier in this bibliography. They represent most ofthe critical material on this topic found in these sources.

General

1921

K.W.Z. (Karol Wiktor Zawodziifski) , "Z ruchu literackiego w Rosji,” Przegl^d Warszawski, 3 (1921), 430-444.

Fiszer, Wlodzimierz, "Z literatury rosyjskiej, " Przegl^d Warszawski, 24 (1923), 406-409.

. 1924

Stern, Anatol, "Prawda Rosji i prawda Europy," Wiadomosci Literackie, 4 (1924), 1.

K.W.Z., "Przeklady z literatur obcych,” Przeglqd Warszawski, 33 (1924), 422-426.

1925

Bruckner, Aleksander, "Z literatury rosyjskiej,” Przegl^d Warszawski, 43 (1925), 111-118.

1927

"Kaden-Bandrowski do Pisarzy Sowieckich. Wstep do torau przekladdw," Wiadomo/ci Literackie, 30 (1927), 1.

1871928

"Co czytaj^ robotnicy i urz^dnicy," Kronika Rosyjska, Wiadomosci Literackie, 51 (1928), 2.

"Sowiety a Tolstoj," Kronika Zagraniczna, Wiadomosci Literackie, 22 (1928), 2.

1929

"Gorkij w Rosji," Kronika zagraniczna, Wiadomosci Literackie,30 (1929), 2.

"Jarmark na ksi^zki," Kronika zagraniczna, Wiadomosci Literackie, 30 (1929), 2.

"Ku czci Czechowa," Kronika Zagraniczna, WiadomoSci Litera­ckie, 30 (1929), 2.

"Ku czci Puszkina," Kronika Zagraniczna, Wiadomosci Litera­ckie, 30 (1929), 2.

"Niezadowolenie z literatow," Wiadomosci Literackie, 2 (1929),

"Pomnik Ostrowskiego," Kronika Zagraniczna, Wiadomosci Literackie, 30 (1929), 2.

"Przeciwko Aszowi," Kronika Zagraniczna, WiadomoSci Literackie, 30 (1929), 2.

"Wspomnienie o pisarzach," Kronika Zagraniczna, Wiadomosci Literackie, 30 (19 29), 2.

1931

"Troska o j^zyk," Kronika Zagraniczna, Wiadomosci Literackie, 17 (1931), 2.

1932

Sionimski, Antoni, "Moja Podroz do Rosji - Rozmowy z Pisarzami," WiadomoSci Literackie, 32 (1932), 1.

1881933

Kirpotin, Walerij, "Literatura Sowiecka na pocz^tku drugiej piatiletki," Wiadomosci Literackie, 47 (1933), 3.

"Pisarze Polscy a Rosja Sowiecka. Ankieta WiadomosciLiterackich," Wiadomosci Literackie, (19 3 3) , 3.

"Pisarze Polscy a Rosja Sowiecka. Ankieta WiadomosciLiterackich," Wiadomosci Literackie, 39 (T9 3 3) , 2.

"Pisarze Polscy a Rosja Sowiecka. Ankieta WiadomosciLiterackich," Wiadomosci Literackie, 44 (1933), 3.

"Pisarze Polscy a Rosja Sowiecka. Ankieta WiadomosciLiterackich," Wiadomosci Literackie, 49 (1933), 1.

The Poetry

1922

K.W.Z., "Przeklady i studja z literatur obcych," Przegl^d Warszawski, 4 (1922), 129-130.

_, "Z ruchu literackiego w Rosji," Przeglad Warszawski,7 (1922), 151-159.

_, "Z ruchu literackiego w Rosji," Przeglad Warszawski,9 (1922), 460-472.

1924

"Ewolucje znak<jmitego poety. Bielyj o Bioku. Na marginesie wspomnien," Wiadomosci Literackie, 25 (1924), 3.

Jakubowicz, Tadeusz, "Pod skrzydiami R.S.F.S.R. Wspdiczesna literatura rosyjska. Prady i grupy," Wiadomosci Literackie, 14 (1924), 1.

ji (Jarosiaw Iwaszkiewicz), "Siewierianin w Warszawie," Wiadomosci Literackie, 38 (1924), 5.

"Puszkin a Mickiewicz. Historja jednego rekopisu," Wiadomosci Literackie, 25 (1924), 1.

189"Secesja w grupie futurystycznej 'Lef1 (Sztuka Rosyjska),

Wiadomosci Literackie, 3 (1924), 2.tj (Tadeusz Jakubowicz), "Zgon Walerego Briusowa," Wiadomosci

Literackie, 43 (1924), 7.Tuwim, Juljan, "Sztuka czy sowiet?Wiadomosci Literackie,

5 (1924), 3.

1925

Kulakowski, Sergjusz, "Walery Briusow," Przegl^d Warszawski, 48 (1925), 18 3-197.(Translated from Russian original by Zofja Biernacka; poetry excerpts translated by Juljan Tuwim.)

1926

ap, "Balmont a Polska," Wiadomosci Literackie, 31 (1926), 3."Briusow o zawodzie literackim," Wiadomosci Literackie,

38 (1926), 3.Broniewski, WiadysSTaw, "0 twc^rczo^ci Sergiusza Jesienina. Po

zgonie znakomitego poety," Wiadomosci Literackie,3 (1926), 3.

Ettinger, Pawel, (commentator and translator), "AutobiografiaSergjusza Jesienina," Wiadomosci Literackie, 17 (1926), 2.

, "Listy B2foka," Wiadomosci Literackie, 27 -------(1926), 2."Jak si^ pisze wiersze," Notatki, Wiadomosci Literackie, 2 5

(1926), 4."0 Jesieninie," Wiadomosci Literackie, 50 (1926), 2."Spadek po Jesieninie," Wiadomosci Literackie, 41 (19 26).Stawar, Andrzej, "Poemat o Pugaczowie," Wiadomosci Literackie,

33 (1926), 2."Ulubieni pisarze Balmonta," Notatki, Wiadomosci Literackie,

42 (1926), 3."W Jesieninie," Wiadomosci Literackie, 37 (1926).

1901927

"Dziela zbiorowe Majakowskiego,” Notatki, Wiadomosci Literackie, 36 (1927), 4.

Kuiakowskij, Sergjusz, "Aleksander Biok a Polska," Wiadomosci Literackie, 37 (1927), 1. (Translated by W. Jakubowski)

_______ ______ , "Poezja - sztuka czarodziejska,”Wiadomosci Literackie, 17 (1927), 1.

______________________ , "W sprawie artykulu 'Aleksander Bloka Polska'Wiadomosci Literackie, 42 (1927), 4.

_______ _______ _______, "W sprawie poematu Bloka," Wiadomos^ciLiterackie, 50 (1927), 5.

Pazurkiewicz, Stanislaw, "Balmont jako tlumacz,"Wiadomosci Literackie, 17 (1927), 3.

"Pisma Jesienina," Notatki, Wiadomosci Literackie, 29 (1927), 5.Podhorski-Okoi<Sw, "Konstantemu Balmontowi," Wiadomo/ci

Literackie, 17 (1927), 2.Stern, Anatol, "Poeta stu pi§c^dziesi§ciu milionow. Wtodzimierz

MajakowskijWiadomosci Literackie, 21 (1927), 2., "We wladzy czarnego czlowieka. Tragedja

Sergjusza Jesienina," Wiadomosci Literackie, 27 (1927), 1."Tuwim na czesc Balmonta," Wiadomosci Literackie, 18 (1927), 6.wb (Wladyslaw Broniewski), "Nowyj Lef," Wiadomosci Literackie,

10 (1927), 2.Woloszynowski, Juljan, "Konstanty Balmont," Tygodnik

Ilustrowany, 18 (1927), 351.Zawodzinski, K. W., "Na przyjazd Balmonta," Wiadomosci

Literackie, 17 (1927), 1., "0 poemat Bloka," Wiadomosci Literackie,

------ 4ITTI977') "if._____________ , "W sprawie poematu Bloka," Wiadomosci

Literackie, 3 8 (1927), 4.

1911928

Kulakowskij, Sergjusz, "Liryka Borisa Pasternaka," Wiadomosci Literackie, 32 (1928), 2.

"Majakowskij wystapid z 'Lefa'," Wiadomo^ci Literackie, U8 (1928), 2.

"Pami^tniki Bloka," Wiadomosci Literackie, 48 (1928), 2.

1929

"Briusow o Puszkinie" Kronika Zagraniczna, Wiadomosci Literackie, 30 (1929), 2.

"Majakowskij," Kronika zagraniczna, Wiadomosci Literackie, 4 (1929), U.

1930

Nienarski, Krzysztof, "Samobojstwo Majakowskiego," Wiadomosci Literackie, 20 (1930), 1.

1931

"Lenin a Majakowskij," Wiadomosci Literackie, 27 (1931), 4."Pasternak i Klyczkow," Kronika Zagraniczna, Wiadomosci

Literackie, 17 (1931), 2.

The Theat er

1922

"0 kryzysie w dramacie Ten, ktorego bj-jA. po twarzy.Andrejewa w Teatrze Prlskim i Ulica dziwna Czy^ewskiego w Teatrze Reduta," Skamander, 18 (.1922 ), 172-181.

"Wystawienie swietnej sztuki Jewreinowa," Skamander, 27 (1922), 611.

1921923

/Swierczewski, Eugenjusz, "Teatr Rosyjski. (Od Stanislaw3kiego

do akrobatyki)," Tygodnik Ilustrowany, 47 (1923), 753-754.

1924

aw. "Trzy ksi^zki o teatrze," Wiadomosci Literackie, 2 (1924), 2.

Ignatowicz, Tadeusz, "Dwie sensacje Moskwy. Rz^d rewolucji przeciw Teatrowi Rewolucji," Wiadomosci Literackie,5 (1924), 2.

"Jak si^ przedstawia wspolczesny teatr moskiewski,"Wiadomosci Literackie, 37 (1924), 2.

Jarosy, Fryderyk, "0 istocie rosyjskich teatrSw," WiadomoSci Literackie, 3 2 (19 24), 3.

Stalirfski, Stanislaw, "Stolica Wspolczesnego Teatru. Za czerwon^ kurtyn^ Sowieck^," Wiadomosci Literackie,2 (1924),

"Sztuka-fcunaczarskiegoKronika Zagraniczna, Wiadomosci Literackie, 9 (19 24), 2.

1925

/Swierczewski, Eugenjusz, "Przyjazd autora Tego, co najwalniej- sze! Jewreinow w Warszawie," Wiadomosci Literackie,1 Cl925), 6.

"Trockij o sztuce przyszioSci. Nie b^dzie proletariacka i klasowa. B^dzie aktywistyczna i optymistyczna. Wiadomosci Literackie, 17 (19 25), 2.

1926

Hempel, Jan, "Propaganda sztuki u naszych wschodnich s^siadow. Teatr i kino w Rosji sowieckiej," Wiadomosci Literackie,18 C1926), 3.

1931927

"Rewizor u Meyerholda," Wiadomosci Literackie, 7 (1927), 2."S^d nad Rewizorem," Wiadomosci Literackie, 9 (1927), 1.

1928

"Cenzura Sowiecka,11 Wiadomosci Literackie, 43 (1928), 1.

1929

jfr., "Teatr Meyerholda,'* Wiadomosci Literackie, 29 (1929), 2."Majakowskij u Meyerholda," Wiadomosci Literackie, 26 (1929), 2,"Sztuka Pilniaka," Kronika Zagraniczna, Wiadomosci Literackie,

4 (1929), 4.

1930

Kingeland, Z. St., "Meyerhold w Paryzu," Wiadomosci Litera­ckie, 30 (1930), 2.

Skiwski, J. E., "Jewreinow na scenie Poznanskiej,"Wiadomosci Literackie, 14 (1930), S.

1931

"0 nowy typ literata," Wiadomosci Literackie, 27 (1931), 2."Premjera u Meyerholda," Kronika Zagraniczna, Wiadomosci

Literackie, 17 (1931), 2.Tonecki, Zygmunt, "Dialektyka marxowska w teatrze,"

Wiadomosci Literackie, 35 (1931), 3.

The Prose194

1922

Kozlowski, Leon, "Wlodzimierz Korolenko. Wspomnienie pesmiertne i proba charakterystyki," Przegl^d Wspolczesny, 3 (1922), 88-103.

Sawicka, St., ,fRosja. Z literackc-artystycznych wydawnictw Rosji bolszewickiej. Tworczosc. Czasopismo litera- tury, sztuki, nauki i zycia," Przegl^d Wsp6lczesny,1 C1922), 94-102.

1924

bt. , "Ksi^zki najgorsze," Wiadomosci Literackie, 43 (1924), 8."Ewolucja znakomitego pisarza. Dwoch Gorkich," Wiadomosci

Literackie, 18 (1924), 1."Julio Jurenito Erenburga. Przed ukazaniem si§, polskiego

przekladu," Wiadomosci Literackie, 44 (1924), 4."Mlodzi prozaicy rosyjscy," Kronika Zagraniczna, Wiadomos'ci

Literackie, 9 (1924), 2."Nowa powiesS Erenburga," Kronika Zagraniczna, Wiadomosci

Literackie, 9 (1924), 2.Wandurski, Witold, "Nowa proza rosyjska," Wiadomosci

Literackie, 32 (1924), 2."Wiktor Szklowskij," Wiadomosci Literackie, 21 (1924), 1.

1925

Erenburg, IIja, "Geografja Jurenity," Wiadomosci Literackie,6 C1925), 2.

Jastrz^biec-Koziowski, Czesl’aw, "Tajemnica trojga," Wiadomosci Literackie, 47 (1925), 2.

1951926

Bujalski, Ludwik, "O^leply 'rwacz.' Na iparginesle ostatniejksi^zki Erenburga,” V.’iadoinosci Literackie, 11 (1926), 2.

Ettinger, Pawe3T, "Pisarze rosyjscy pochodzenia polskiego," Wiadomosci Literackie, 28-29 (1926), 2.

Hempel, Jan, ”Dwa muzea moskiewskie," Wiadomosci Literackie, 13 (1926), 2.

Jastrzgbiec-Kozlowski, Czeslaw, "Nowa powiesc Merezkowskiego," Wiadomosci Literackie, 20 (19 26), 3*

Mecen, Fr., "Romantyczna powiesc? Erenburga," Wiadomosci Literackie, 13 (1926), 5-

"Nieznane utwory Tolstoia," Notatki, Wiadomosci Literackie,15 (1926), 2.

"0 inscenizacj^ I d i o t v Wiadomosci Literackie, 45 (1926), 2."Pilniak w nielasce," Wiadomosci Literackie, 3 8 (1926), 3*"Powiesc o chlopach rosyjskich," Wiadomos^ci Literackie,

41 (1926), 3.Pr^dki, Artur, "Jak pracuje autor Rwacza. U IIji Erenburga,"

Wiadomosci Literackie, 22 (1926), 2."Przedsiebiorstwo Artamanowych," Wiadomosci Literackie,

16 (1926), 3."W sprawie Tolstoja," Wiadomosci Literackie, 16 (1926), 6.

1927

Czapinski, K. "Zabojstwo Komendanta Armji. Ciekawy epizod a rosyjskiego zycia i literatury. Echa smierci Frunzego," Robotnik, 41 (1927), 3.

"Erenburg w Warszawie," Wiadomosci Literackie, 51 (1927), 4.Filosofow, Dymitr, "Dwa spotkania z Arcybaszewem," Wiadomosci

Literackie, 12 (1927), 2.Janus, Edward, "Il'ja Erenburg," Wiadomosci Literackie,

48 (1927), 3.

196Kulakowskij, Sergjusz, "Lieskow a Polska/1 Wiadomosci

Literackie, 24 (1927), 2.Napierski, Stefan, "Powr6t do zrodla," Wiadomosci Literackie,

6 (1927), 3.Osiakowski, St. Fr. , "Revolucja a literatura. Wspolczesna

beletrystyka rosyjska. Kilka czolowych nazwisk frontu sowieckiego," Wiadomosci Literackie, 34 (1927), 2.

"Poemat SowietSw," Tygodnik Ilustrowany, 11 (1927), 209.Reicherowna, Regina, "Niemiecka monografja o Dostojewskim,"

WiadomoSci Literackie, 46 (1927), 2.Stawar, Andrzej, "Pilniak," Wiadomosci Literackie, 45 (1927), 3.Stern, Anatol, "W oparach wojny: zaraza sentymentalizmu,"

WiadomoSci Literackie, 11 (1927), S.MTajemnica Dostojewskiego," WiadomoSci Literackie, 28 (1927),

1.wb., "Wspolczesna beletrystyka rosyjska," Wiadomosci Litera­

ckie, 18 (1927), 5.

1928

Drzewiecki, Henryk, "Beletrystyka rosyjska," Wiadomosci Literackie, 45 (1928), 3.

Hulka-Laskowski, Pawel, "Nieznany Totstoj," Wiadomosci Literackie, 10 (1928), 2.

"Spelnione proroctwo Gorkiego," Kronika Rosyjska, Wiadomosci Literackie, 19 (19 28), 2.

Zweig, Stefan, "Tolstoj jako artysta," Wiadomosci Literackie, 37 (1928), 1.

1929

Drzewiecki, Henryk, "Beletrystyka rosyjska," Wiadomosci Literackie, 10 (1929), 4.

Hulka-Laskowski, Pawel, "Nowe wcielenie Zyda wiecznego tuiacza," Wiadomosci Literackie, 34 (1929), 3.

Koiakowski, Sergjusz, "Andrzej BielyjWiadomosci Literackie, 21 (1929), 2.

"Erenburg o Babeufie," Kronika Zagraniczna, Wiadomosci Literackie, 4 (1929), 4.

Wat, Aleksander, "Zazdrosc Olieszy," Wiadomosci Literackie,31 (1929), 2.

1930

Dan, Aleksander, "Izaak Babel," Wiadomosci Literackie,21 (1939), 2.

Kulakowski, Sergjusz, "Rozanow, 18 56-1919," Wiadomosci Literackie, 28 (1930), 2.

Rogowicz, Waclaw, "Rosyjski bies w nietzscheariskiej czapce," Wiadomoici Literackie, 7 (1930), 2.

"Zapowiedz sensacyjnego procesu prasowego w Warszawie. Pisarz sowiecki Babel przeciwko redakcji Wiadomosci Literackich, Wiadomosci Literackie, 3 (19 30), 1.

1931

Broniewski, Wiadysiaw, "Literatura w Rosji sowieckiej.Rozmowa z Borisem Pilniakiem," Wiadomolci Literackie,7 (1931), 1.

Kleinowa, Nadzieja, "Merezkowskij o Napoleonie," Wiadomosci Literackie, 20 (1931), 4.

"Lenin a Majakowskij," Wiadomosci Literackie, 27 (1931), 2.zc. (W£. Broniewski), "Budownictwo socjalistyczne w powie/ci.

Pilniak," Wiadomosci Literackie, 27 (1931), 2.

Breiter, Emil* uBorsuki Leonowa," Wiadomosci Literackie, 46 (1932) , 3.

Kulakowski, Sergjusz, "Trylogja Aleksieja Tolstoja," Wiadomosci Literackie, 44 (1932), 5.

Observer, "Powiesc o Eurazji," Robotnik, 151 (1932), 2.Wasowski, Jcszef, "Maskarada w bl^dnem kole,” Wiadomosci

Literackie, 29 (1932), 4.