European literature flourished following the fall of absolute monarchies. The English Civil War in the 1640s and the French Revolution of 1789 ushered in a period of greater creative and intellectual freedom, allowing European writers to openly challenge those in power. In contrast, Russia remained for centuries under the autocratic regimes of, first, the Russian Empire and, later,the Soviet Union. As the rigid constraints of censorship made the public expression of political and social ideas impossible, Russian writers were forced to disguise commentary within their works, resulting in a literary canon deeply intertwined with the political realities of its time. In this essay I will explore four key authors as part of the evolution of commentary in Russian literature.
In the narrative poem Медный Всадник[1], Pushkin communicates a tension between the state’s needs and the individual's desires through the central conflict between the humble and tragic figure of Evgeny, the story’s ‘маленький человек’[2], and the imposing Peter the Great - “горделивым истуканом”[3]. Evgeny bravely challenges the statue: “Ужо тебе! ...”[4], but this proves a futile rebellion. The menacing statue of Peter appears to represent the dominance of autocratic rule, which often disregards the well-being of its citizens for grand imperial ambitions. This is conveyed in Evgeny’s descent into madness and the flood’s devastation of the city. Pushkin challenges the cost of social change and the state's indifference towards the common people. He pre-empts Alexander Herzen’s[5] description of Peter I as “призванный к жизни гений-палач, для которого государство было все, а человек ничего”[6]. However, Pushkin still recognises the great act achieved by Peter “дум великих полн”[7], praising him with this Romantic figure of a creator-god in the odic introduction. To this end Pushkin “conveys his love for the city and his ambivalence—his feelings of fascination and fear—toward Peter as the epitome of a ruler”[8]considering that the establishment of St. Petersburg came at a significant human cost[9].
Pushkin had already delivered a comparable examination of the individual’s place in society in his novel in verse, Евгений Онегин[10], where the protagonist embodies the archetype of the ‘лишний человек’ [11] – a figure that Lermontov later intensifies in his novel Герой Нашего Времени[12] through the even more psychologically complex Pechorin. Both characters reflect the political alienation and moral ambiguity that pervaded the upper classes of Russian society and are fundamentally criticisms of Russia’s contemporary political landscape. They are manifestations of the impotence felt by the intelligentsia under the prevailing autocratic conditions of the time. As, for example, when Catherine the Great became Empress in 1762, the nobility was officially relieved of its function within the courts and government[13]. The Russian critic, Vissarion Belinsky, argued that it was the lack of opportunity for these noblemen to enter into politics under Nicholas I’s reign and the “discredited government service”[14]that led to the proliferation of this existential plight among the upper classes of society. In this regard, the superfluous man is an expression of the fact that his country offered him no governmental role; with no public outlet for political debate, due to the stringent censorship of the news journals, he has no purpose beyond squandering his money and idling away the hours. Additionally, the radical critic Nikolay Dobrolyubov considered the superfluous man a uniquely Russian burden and a consequence of serfdom. He argued that because the aristocracy had become so isolated from the peasant population's struggles, they were detached from the majority of the populace and so could not act effectively in society. He considered it a kind of intellectual stagnation. This profound sense of dissatisfaction among the intellectual and noble elite was heightened in the wake of the Decembrist Uprising of 1825. Both novels, written subsequently, reflect the deepening disillusionment that followed this failed revolt against autocratic rule.
The author who coined the term ‘superfluous man’ in his 1850 novel Дневник Лишнего Человека[15], Ivan Turgenev, is also well-known for incorporating social commentary in his writing. Turgenev was strongly opposed to крепостное право[16], having witnessed first-hand his mother’s cruel treatment of her serfs. He reflects this view in his рассказ Муму[17], which drew great national attention to the cruelties of serfdom. When the spiteful, and rather eccentric, landlady orders for Mumu (the dog) to be killed Turgenev creates a mockingly derisive depiction of serf owners. Following Gerasim’s disappearance she comically “разгневалась, расплакалась, … уверяла, что она никогда не приказывала уничтожать собаку”[18], which strengthens this portrayal. She dies soon after, which strikes me Turgenev enacting a degree of poetic revenge Turgenev’s poetic revenge. Turgenev’s magnum opus, the novella Отцы и Дети[19], explores the complex reality of the abolition of serfdom through his depiction of Nikolai's internal struggle with the consequences of the liberation of thirty-one million serfs. Nikolai recognises the ethical importance of emancipation but struggles with its practical implications and disruptions to his estate. This inner conflict illustrates the moral ambivalence felt by many landowners at the time.
However, at the core of the novella are the opposing generations - the reactionary fathers of the 40s and the revolutionary sons of the 60s. Nikolai and Pavel adhere to the values of the Russian nobility and the Enlightenment ideals of the 18th century: respect for cultural pursuits and the arts, along with a moral code grounded in honour and tradition. By contrast, the stout Nihilist, Bazarov, dismisses these values and shows deep scepticism towards all established institutions and beliefs. The sons directly challenge the older generation's respect for and reverence of art and literature, as seen when Bazarov and Arkady recommend Nikolai to substitute Pushkin for the book Stoff und Kraft[20]– a moment which struck me as being particularly comedic. Turgenev expresses concern for the youth’s apparent rejection of Romanticism and literature when Bazarov claims “Порядочный химик в двадцать раз полезнее всякого поэта”[21]. Eerily this could be a slogan from the Soviet era. The generational conflict is further demonstrated in the ideological debates between the characters. Bazarov’s radical views on societal norms and his rejection of authority starkly contrast with Pavel's more conservative stance. This dynamic strikes me as being an exhibition of Turgenev’s critical commentary on the divide, due to the almost whimsical melodrama he employs throughout, but especially upon concluding their relationship with a duel, which Pavel loses. Pavel is the antithesis of Bazarov, not only as the representative of a generation at odds with his, but also as his social superior. His defeat at the hands of Bazarov is symbolic of both the surpassing of the older generation by the younger and the demise of the dvoryanstvo[22]class in favour of the raznochintsy[23]. Turgenev recognises that this shift in society is inevitable.
Anton Chekhov depicts a comparable societal shift in his comedy Вишнёвый Сад[24], written some forty years later. Chekhov portrays the displacement of the landed gentry by the bourgeoisie in the early 1900s through Lopakhin’s purchase of the estate at auction. Being the grandson of a former serf who grew up as a “мужичок” [25]and now the wealthiest character, Lopakhin symbolises the ascent of the burgeoning middle class over the upper classes. The noble family’s inability to retain the orchard, as a result of their perfunctory efforts, reflects the aristocracy’s weak grip on their wealth during a time of rapid social and economic change. Ranevskaya’s failure to adapt speaks to the aristocracy’s stunned response to these shifts, while the cherry orchard’s destruction by Lopakhin’s workers, with the family still home, signifies the upper class’ forceful unravelling.[26]Lopakhin, once mindful and respectful toward the family, quickly shifts to a boastful attitude after acquiring the estate as he celebrates that “Вишневый сад теперь мой! Мой! (Хохочет.) Боже мой, господи, вишневый сад мой! Скажите мне, что я пьян, не в своем уме, что все это мне представляется”[27]. He also haughtily proclaims “за все могу заплатить”[28]as he demands the band keep playing - paying no mind to Ranevskaya crying. I interpret this shift in Lopakhin's behaviour as Chekhov’s commentary on how it is part of human nature to become arrogant and act superior when given power, thus the aristocracy are not entirely at fault for their behaviour, as the rising classes will do the same.
It is in the play’s domestic and ostensibly ordinary plot that Chekhov enacts his true literary genius. As is typical of Chekhovian drama, there is a general lack of overt action in the play. Instead, the drama derives from the psychological exploration of his characters and their interactions. It is this subtle approach which allows Chekhov to weave sharp social and political critique into the fabric of everyday life, exhibiting a form of commentary ‘in disguise’, where the characters’ personal struggles reflect broader social issues without directly addressing them.
The orchard comes to represent the past, a past which Chekhov comments as being a simpler and clearer time. This is voiced by Firs, the ancient family manservant, when he says “В прежнее время, лет сорок–пятьдесят назад, вишню сушили … И сушеная вишня тогда была мягкая, сочная … Способ тогда знали... Никто не помнит”[29]. This is how the estate was originally sustained financially but now these old ways of life have been forgotten and with them the possibility of retaining the house.[30]This is reinforced by Firs’ longing for a return to the days of serfdom when the estate was grander and the relations between master and servant were clearer. This is made more poignant as it comes from a former serf, who, ironically, feels uncomfortable with what should be an improvement for him. Chekhov has his characters repeatedly check their watches and includes comments such as “человечество идёт вперёд”[31]and “Да, время идëт”[32]to reinforce this theme of the passage of time.
Bazarov and Trophimov particularly interest me for their similarities as characters, due to their hypocrisy. Turgenev’s allegiance to his own ideological stance in the generational debate—between nihilists and Romantics, as well as the broader conflict between Slavophilism[33]and Westernism[34]shines through in his criticisms of the hypocritical nature of the young intelligentsia class through his portrayal of Bazarov’s extreme apathy. Bazarov’s declaration that “Мы ломаем, потому что мы сила”[35]epitomises Turgenev’s perception of the arrogance of the youth. This degree of hypocrisy carries over into Chekhov’s portrayal of Trophimov. He criticises the indolence of the high-class intelligentsia when he himself is described as a “вечный студент”[36], having never fully completed his university studies and not entering the workforce or political circles.
An interesting parallel exists between Chekhov’s depiction of class realignment and the social upheaval seen in Bulgakov’s Собачье Сердце[37] set a decade later during the Russian Revolution. Bulgakov spitefully parodies the Soviet revolution through the protagonist’s sexual rejuvenation surgeries, meant to improve lives but resulting in an abomination of nature by transplanting human organs into animals, and vice versa – which seems to only heighten their darker instincts. This serves as an allegory for the Revolution in the sense that it empowered the darker elements of Russia leading to widespread corruption and immorality. The final appearance of Sharikov reflects the abominable disgrace that was Soviet Russia. Bulgakov is also famed for immortalising resistance to censorship with the quotation “Рукописи не горят”[38]in Мастер и Маргарита[39]. Said by Woland, it symbolises the idea that truth and ideas are capable of transcending physical destruction. It reflects Bulgakov’s own experiences with Soviet censorship, as he burned an early draft of the novel for fear of his safety. However, he rewrote it from memory, and the novel was eventually published in 1967, some 40 years after its initial conception. Its delayed publication further emphasises Bulgakov’s ideas.
However, it can be argued that commentary was not the sole purpose of Russian writing. To this end we can consider the ambivalence Chekhov demonstrates towards characters and social class, as opposed to Bulgakov’s explicit criticism towards the Proletarian’s new place in society. Chekhov portrays the gentry’s displacement by the emerging bourgeoisie in The Cherry Orchard as an inevitable shift with a tone of melancholic acceptance. He conveys a sense of nostalgia for the past, but, at the same time, acknowledges a necessity for this new order. I believe that he refrains from passing overt judgement on the transition and leaves his own position deliberately ambiguous. This ambiguity reflects Chekhov’s focus on simply depicting the emotional and psychological impacts of these societal changes, as an examination of human nature, rather than advocating for or against them.
Additionally, we should consider the contention between Turgenev and Chernyshevksy[40], following his criticism of the characters in Turgenev’s stories and outspoken Utilitarian view on literature, criticising the aesthetic motivations of other writers. [41]Turgenev argued against this notion that all writing should be primarily focused on enacting political and social change or else it would serve no purpose. Although Turgenev himself did include social commentary in his stories he still possesses an even greater aesthetic sensibility – renowned for his striking prose, deep character studies and his fascination with human complexity and the beauty of nature. As such, one can conclude that while Turgenev does address social issues, he does so through a lens that places greater value on the artistic and emotional depth of his characters and narratives.
It is unmistakeable that Russian literature and social commentary are inextricably linked. Russia’s authors were shaped by the authoritarian nature of both imperial and Soviet regimes. As a critique of its socio-political environment, Russian literature seeks to respond to the difficulties of its time, as such, it has come to be characterised as “the voice of social conscience for the Russian people”[42]. The very ‘bad things’ that oppressed these writers also fuelled their art, and without this social and political turbulence the profound depth of Russian literature would not have emerged in the way it did. However, these works are more than mere commentary ‘in disguise’ - their beauty and complexity enduring far beyond their political context. The genius of Russian literature ultimately lies in its ability to turn adversity into art. The impressive degree of universality within Russian literature is evident in the fact that it is accessible to readers from all cultures and backgrounds, who can still today identify with its topics and characters.
Bibliography
“My Country Is Russian Literature”: History and Literary Development in the Golden Age by Kathleen Conti
Russian Politics in the Russian Classics by Jacques Barzun
"Letter to a Friend Residing in Tobolsk by Duty of His Office" by Alexander Radishchev
The History of Polish Literature by Czesław Miłosz
Chances, Ellen (2001). "Ch. 10: The Superfluous Man in Russian Literature". In Cornwell, Neil (ed.). The Routledge Companion to Russian Literature.
Peter Forster’s introduction to A Hero of Our Time translated by Reginald Merton. The Folio Society
The Economist: “The Bloody Founding of St. Petersburg”
"страшен царь Петр": образ Петра Великого в культуре пореформенной России (1860 1880-е гг.)
Fathers and Sons: The Principle of Love in Turgenev’s Liberalism
Introduction by John Bayley to One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Everyman’s Library
Introduction by Richard Freeborn to First Love and Other Stories Oxford World’s Classics
Wordpress: Writing Advice From Anton Chekhov: Part Three – Ambiguity
InterpretIng Chekhov by Geoffrey Borny. The Australian National University
[1] The Bronze Horseman
[2] ‘The Little Man’ – Russian literary archetype
[3] “Proud statue”
[4] “Just you wait!...”
[5] Russian writer and thinker (1812 – 1870 ). Pushkin was his literary predecessor
[6] Trans: “the genius-executioner called to life, for whom the state was everything, and the person nothing”
From "страшен царь Петр": образ Петра Великого в культуре пореформенной России (1860 1880-е гг. )
[7] “full of great thoughts”
[8] The History of Polish Literature by Czesław Miłosz
[9] 30,000 people died according to the Economist article “The Bloody Founding of St. Petersburg”
[10] Evgeny Onegin
[11] лишний человек: The Superfluous Man (lit. extra person). Character type from Russian literature politically and socially contrasted with the great man. Often portrayed as a young aristocrat who is acutely aware of social and ethical issues yet finds himself idle and burdened by a sense of uselessness. This existential boredom manifests itself in a disregard for social values and deep cynicism. He spends his time in love affairs, duels, gambling and drinking. Defined by an awareness of his own characteristics. This character type from Russian literature originated in Евгений Онегин (1833), and the term was then popularised in Turgenev’s novella “The Diary of the Superfluous Man” in 1850.
[12] A Hero of Our Time
[13] Russian Politics in the Russian Classics by Jacques Barzun
[14] Wikipedia: Superfluous Man
[15] The Diary of a Superfluous Man
[16] ‘Serfdom’ had been dominant form of relation between peasants and nobility in Russia from the 17th century
[17] Mumu (The name the protagonist gives to the dog - being one of the few words he can pronounce)
[18] “flew into a temper, shed tears, … avowed that she’d never ordered the dog to be destroyed”
[19] Fathers and Sons
[20] The title was actually Kraft und Stuff (Force and Matter)
[21] “a good chemist is 20 times more useful than a poet”
[22] Дворянство: Russian nobility
[23] разночинцы (those of different ranks) as they were neither part of the peasantry nor the landowning class. Singular: разночинец (raznochinets)
A growing proportion of the Russian intelligentsia of the 19th century were raznochintsy and so this served as another piece of social context which led to the growing support for emancipation. Turgenev represents this class in the character of Bazarov as he is the educated son of a country doctor.
[24] The Cherry Orchard
[25] “little peasant”
[26] Sparknotes: The Cherry Orchard
[27] “And now the cherry orchard is mine. Mine! [gives a loud laugh.] Great God in heaven, the cherry orchard’s mine! Tell me I’m drunk or crazy, say it’s all a dream.”
[28] “I can pay for everything”
[29] “In the old days, forty or fifty years ago, they used to dry cherries... And the dried cherries were soft, juicy... They knew the method then… No one remembers [now]”
[30] Litcharts: The Cherry Orchard
[31] “Mankind marches on”
[32] “Yes, time marches on”
[33] Slavophilism was an anti-Western, ultra-patriotic, politically conservative movement which flourished in Russia between 1840 and 1880.
[34] Turgenev had spent much of his adult life travelling and living in Europe and greatly admired European values. He has often been attributed as “the un-russian russian”.
[35] “We smash things because we are a force”
[36] “an eternal student”
[37] Heart of a Dog
[38] “Manuscripts don’t burn”
[39] The Master and Margarita
[40] Nikolai Chernyshevsky (1828 - 1889) was a Russian literary and social critic and novelist. A socialist philosopher, who often identified as a utopian socialist and leading theoretician of Russian Nihilism.
[41] Introduction by Richard Freeborn to First Love and Other Stories Oxford World’s Classics. For the debate about aesthetics and utilitarian literature.
[42] “My Country Is Russian Literature”: History and Literary Development in the Golden Age by Kathleen Conti
