The Theme of Change in 20th Century Russian Literature

by

Hugh R. Whinfrey

The nature of change itself is the subject of countless human contemplations. Things change, yet they stay the same. Change is cyclical. History repeats itself. Fashions come back into style. Change is progress. Change is for the better. Things change over time. You can't change the past. And so on. In general, thoughts about the nature of change fall into four broad categories: the chaotic aspect of change, the predictable aspect of change, the inescapable aspect of change, and the synthesis of these aspects as a consciousness higher than our own.

Valentin Rasputin's Farewell to Matyora and Andrei Bely's Petersburg both argue that the independence of the chaotic aspect of change is an illusion caused by the observer's lack of underlying perspective, and that the chaotic and predictable aspects are really the same thing. The settings for these arguments are that portion of time during a social upheaval in which the old world exists prominently alongside the new world. The contrasts between the younger generation and the older generation, each living in their respective worlds, form many of the points in the debate.

The younger generation is depicted as having a lack of perspective: Apollon Apollonovich's already finished career in the government is ended when his son Nikolai bombs their house, Katerina's already finished career in her house is ended when her son Petrukha burns it down. Neither act of violence accomplishes anything in the long-run. The tall stories of Petrukha and domino-clad adventures of Nikolai accentuate the immaturity of the short-sighted younger generation.

Both Rasputin and Bely use unusual omniscient characters to represent the antithesis of a lack of perspective. In Farewell to Matyora the tsar larch towers "over everything else, like a shepherd above his flock spread over grazing lands"(FTM 182). In Petersburg, the bronze horseman has "been galloping through periods of time right up to this very instant"(P 213).

Rasputin's argument depicts the new world as attempting to create lasting order from what in their near-sightedness appears to be meaningless chaos: Andrei brags "When they finish the hydroelectric power plant, it'll stand for a thousand years"(FTM 106), and asserts "You can't give in to fate, you have to rule it"(FTM 104). Yet this chaos is in fact the natural order of a higher-level consciousness, which the new world cannot see. Darya admonishes Andrei: "People have forgotten their place under God-and I'll tell you why. We are no better than those who lived before us."

Bely follows a different path to conclude his argument. In the epilogue to Petersburg, Nikolai, now living in Egypt, loses his near-sighted perspective: he "sits on a pile of sand. Before him is an immense moldering head that is on the verge of collapsing into sandstone thousands of years old. Nikolai Apollonovich is sitting before the Sphinx"(P 292). Nikolai comes to realize that "he is himself a pyramid"(P 292). Thus Nikolai comes to understand chaos as the natural, eternal, order of things.

While both novels argue the futility of man-made lasting changes, they are subjective about the the fact. The optimistic Petersburg ends with Apollon Apollonovich, the father, in a fog looking for his religious son, Nikolai, who doesn't want to be found. The pessimistic Farewell to Matyora ends with Pavel and Petrukha, the sons, in a fog looking for Darya and Katerina, their religious mothers, who don't want to be found. One novel points with optimism to the future, the other with pessimism to the past.

Eugene Zamiatin's We also argues the futility of lasting man-made changes, but focuses the argument around the point that man cannot escape from the cycles of change. The society described in the novel believes that they have created the perfect human abstraction, beyond the laws of nature in their enclosed city. This man-made world of We, according to D-503, is the superior wisdom and summit of the pyramid around which people have been fighting for centuries(We 110).

Zamiatin presents mathematics as an unusual omniscient character in the same way Bely uses the bronze horseman, and Rasputin uses the tsar larch. D-503 is persued throughout the novel by the avenging square root of minus one.

Zamiatin borrows from physics the concept of entropy, the tendency of the universe towards chaos, to equate the futility of lasting man-made change with the natural order of a higher-level consciousness: "the Christians, worshiped entropy like a God"(We 154). Mathematical arguments that man cannot escape change pervade We and are best summarized with I-330's question to D-503: "And why then do you think there is a last revolution...their number is infinite, how can there be a last one?"(We 162).

The prophesy of We is that man cannot escape into his abstractions, because doing so would be to escape from the higher-level consciousness of which we are a part. In Farewell to Matyora, Darya lectures Andrei on the same point: "Do you want to get out of your human skin? Ah, no, Andrushka, you can't. It's never happened. People have forgotten their place under God..."(FTM 104).

The endings of We and Farewell to Matyora are remarkably similar. In We, the old world blows up the Green Wall and unleashes nature upon the new world's perfect city (We 205). In Farewell to Matyora, the new world unleashes nature on the old world by flooding Matyora.

Mikhail Bulgakov's The Master & Margarita also argues that man cannot escape from the cycles of change, but focuses the argument on the nature of the encompassing higher-level consciousness. When Ivan Homeless asserts that "There is no devil!"(M&M 46), he is implying the antithesis of Bulgakov's argument. The balance of the novel proves Ivan's assertion wrong, hence the antithesis is false and thus Bulgakov's argument is validated by induction, which is probably the only format a man in Bulgakov's situation would have dared to use.

The omniscient character of Wolland, is at first glance an evil character, yet he causes bad things to happen to the characters who are short-sighted and good things to happen to both the Master and Margarita, the characters who have a perspective. In fact, the Master and Margarita do escape from the cycles of change, which can only be possible with the consent of the encompassing higher-level consciousness. Wolland must then be that consciousness, yet our expectation is that this higher power must be good rather than evil. "Who art thou, then?", Bulgakov quotes as he begins his novel, "Part of that Power which eternally wills evil and eternally works good"(M&M xiii).

Mankind is eternally attempting to escape into his abstractions, and is eternally denied. The elders on Matyora understood the escape attempts as evil. The rebels in We understood the denial as good. Nikolai Apollonovich understood eternity itself. Citizen Homeless knew the truth of it all, but didn't understand any of it.

Seattle, June 1991.

Endnotes