No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2017
“I will certainly stipulate in my will that my letters never be published.”
Ivan BuninThe phenomenon called the “First Wave” of Russian emigre literature made its appearance in the West under unique circumstances. Disoriented and defensive, this distinguished group of cultural and literary figures had to start over, straight from the throes of the October Revolution. Émigré literature never became a “movement” in the way Symbolism was. It had too much variety, too many factions, and too few consistent platforms to fit into any “ism.” But what it did share, and what, in the absence of a viable Soviet literature, gave it a certain birthright and moral authority, was the political fact of exile. Reworked and refined in a multitude of literary permutations, the theme of exile was the émigré writer's idée fixe, always hovering at the edge of consciousness. This fact needs stressing from the outset because rarely in the course of world literature has there been so vivid an example of extraliterary causality on such a scale. And since the “birth” and “death” of the First Wave coincide neatly with events outside it, namely the Revolution and World War II, perhaps something like a biological metaphor for this phenomenon would be, in terms of literary history, not merely decorative or iconographic but bizarrely realized. The fate of Russian émigré literature between the wars suggests, in almost Spenglerian terms, that something as large and diverse as a national literature can have a life and death. One aim of this study is to show how the politics that gave the First Wave life were, mutatis mutandis, the politics that led to its eventual demise. After briefly establishing a context, I will turn to the years immediately following World War II and to the case of Ivan Bunin, a writer who was known, ironically, for his fastidious avoidance of politics. My central thesis is that the postwar years were marked by controversy and that a leading figure in this controversy was Bunin.
1. An earlier version of this paper was delivered as a talk at the Central Slavic Conference on November 12, 1982 in Lawrence, Kansas and at the national Convention of the American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages on December 28, 1982 in Chicago. I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Professor Gleb Struve, who answered certain of my questions about Bunin and gave me his assessment of Bunin's role in the postwar, “pro-Soviet“ phase of émigré literature, and especially of Nina Berberova, who provided much needed source material, answered numerous questions, and read the present study in its preliminary stages.
2. Simon Karlinsky, “Foreword: Who are the Émigré ’ Writers?” in Karlinsky, Simon and Appel, Alfred Jr., eds., The Bitter Air of Exile: Russian Writers in the West (Berkeley : University of California Press, 1977), pp. 6–7 Google Scholar.
3. Vladislav, Khodasevich, “Literatura v izgnanii,” Literaturnye stat'i i vospominaniia (New York: Chekhov, 1954), p. 257 Google Scholar; “Pered kontsom,” Vozrozhdenie, no. 4040 (August 22, 1936).
4. See, for example, Nabokov's letter of February 23, 1948 to Wilson, Edmund in Simon Karlinsky, ed., The Nabokov-Wilson Letters, 1940-1971 (New York: Harper and Row, 1979), pp. 194–98Google Scholar.
5. Gleb Struve, Russkaia literatura v izgnanii (New York: Chekhov, 1956), p. 394.
6. Struve, Russkaia literatura, p. 5.
7. James Woodward, Ivan Bunin (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980), p. ix.
8. Woodward, Ivan Bunin, p. 17.
9. Serge Kryzytski, The Works of Ivan Bunin (The Hague: Ḿouton, 1971), p. 7.
10. A. K. Baboreko and A. N. Teleshov, eds., “Pis'ma I. A. Bunina N. D. Teleshovu (1941-1947),” Istoricheskii arkhiv, 27, no. 2 (1962): 160.
11. Woodward, Ivan Bunin, p. 17.
12. Vtoroi Vsesoiuznyi s“ezd sovetskikh pisatelei. Stenograficheskii otchet (Moscow, 1956), p. 503.
13. Vladislav Khodasevich, Nekropol’ (Brussels: Petropolis, 1939; reprint Paris: YMCA Press, 1976), p. 62.
14. On the collaboration of Russian émigrés in Paris with Hitler's forces see Aronson, G. la., “Parizhskii vestnik,” Novyi zhurnal, 18 (1948): 330–41Google Scholar.
15. “Emigranty u Bogomolova,” Novyi zhurnal, 100 (1970): 270-72. See as well N. P. Vakar's account in Novyi zhurnal, 10 (1945): 343-48, and Gul, R.', “la unes Rossiiu,” Novyi zhurnal, 136 (1979): 118–19 and 145 (1981): 32-33Google Scholar. This visit to Bogomolov was also covered in Novoe russkoe slovo: see “Posle visita V. A. Maklakova k Bogomolovu,” Novoe russkoe slovo, no. 12005, March 9,1945; Grigorii, Aronson, “Kto oni?” Novoe russkoe slovo, no. 12008, March 12, 1945 Google Scholar; and la. Kobetskii: “Mitr. Evlogii i V. A. Maklakov posetili sov. posla Bogomolova,” Novoe russkoe slovo, no. 12003, March 7, 1945; “V russkom Parizhe,” Novoe russkoe slovo, no. 12004, March 8, 1945.
16. “Emigranty u Bogomolova,” p. 278.
17. Nina Berberova, Kursiv moi (Munich: Fink, 1972), p. 296.
18. Nina Berberova has suggested to me in private correspondence that there is a good possibility that Stupnitskii, along with la. B. Polonskii (who does not show up on the transcript), was one of the initiators of the visit.
19. “Emigranty u Bogomolova,” pp. 269-79.
20. Vakar, p. 343, and Berberova (see n. 18).
21. Both Berberova (Kursiv moi, p. 296) and Struve (“O torn, kak I. A. Bunin porval znakomstvo so mnoi” and “Eshche o Bunine i Bogomolove,” Novoe russkoe slovo, August 12 and September 6,1973) state that Bunin was present at Maklakov's visit to Bogomolov on February 12, 1945. Yet in his published correspondence with Mark Aldanov (Landau) (“Pis'ma M. A. Aldanova k I. A. i V. N. Buninym,” Novyi zhurnal, 81 [1965]: 119-25), and Sedykh, Andrei (Tsvibak) (Dalekie, blizkie [New York: Rausen Bros., 1962], p. 217 Google Scholar) Bunin speaks only of a visit that took place in fall 1945. (See also A. Baboreko, Materialy dlia biografii [Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1967], p. 237.) No visit—either in February or the following fall—is mentioned in Bunin's published diaries. Furthermore, Bunin's name does not figure in any of the accounts in Novyi zhurnal and Novoe russkoe slovo (see n. 15). One circumstance that seems to rule out Bunin's presence at the first meeting is geographic: the Bunins moved back to Paris from Grasse only in May 1945, that is, several months after that meeting. Nevertheless, we will be able to exclude for certain Bunin's name from those that went “to Canossa” with Maklakov only when more archival research is done. The papers and correspondence of Berberova, Zaitsev, Kerenskii, M. S. Tsetlina, M. M. Karpovich, V. M. Zenzinov, B. I. Nikolaevskii, V. F. Zeeler, and N. V. Vol'skii need to be consulted.
22. Quoted in Georgii, Ivanov, “Konets Adamovicha” Vozrozhdenie, September-October 1950, p. 179 Google Scholar.
23. It should be mentioned, in fairness, that to contribute to Russkie novosti was not the same as to contribute to the slavishly pro-Soviet Sovetskii patriot. Many of those who contributed to the latter, including Antonin Ladinskii, had “burned their bridges” and committed themselves to repatriation. (Remizov and Sergei Makovskii are interesting exceptions in this regard.) By contrast, those who contributed to Russkie novosti tended to be “pro-Soviet” but were still (like Bunin) keeping their options open. Well-known contributors to Russkie novosti included Adamovich, Bakhrakh, Berdiaev, Bunin, A. Damanskaia, A. Ginger, N. Roshchin, Teffi, and Metropolitan Evlogii.
24. R. Gul', “la unes Rossiiu,” Novyi zhurnal, 145 (1981): 32-33.
25. Ivanov, “Konets Adamovicha,” pp. 179-86.
26. Adamovich subsequently admitted that the visit to Bogomolov was a “mistake” on the part of the emigration: Even in Russia, on the authority of numerous sources, there spread the feeling that, following victory, the [Soviet] regime would have to make concessions, that the people, after all of their sacrifices, could not have their hopes deceived, and that the army would turn out to be more powerful than the party. Yes, all of this was a delusion. The visit to Bogomolov was a mistake. But there are mistakes that are difficult to avoid, if one is to live otherwise than as a snail in its shell, without risk or passionate feeling. ( Georgii, Adamovich, Vasilii Alekseevich Maklakov [Paris: Izdanie druzei V. A. Maklakova, 1959], p. 225 Google Scholar).
27. These cartes d'identité were especially important in establishing one's work status as an émigré. At this time (November 1945) there were three “categories” of foreigners living in France: (1) “temporary,” (2) “ordinary,” and (3) “privileged.” The first category could receive an identity card only for a period of a year or less, the second for a period of three years, and the third for a period of ten years. See “Novyi dekret o polozhenii inostrantsev vo Frantsii,” Russkie novosti, no. 60 (July 5, 1946).
28. Other associations or unions, usually made up of groups of workers (for example, Russian chauffeurs in Paris, Russian engineers in Paris), were discussed regularly and singled out for their “solidarity” in Sovetskii patriot and Russkie novosti.
29. About the fears and realities of forced repatriation see “Akt 14 iiunia i Frantsiia,” Russkie novosti, no. 61 (July 12, 1946); “Nelepye slukhi,” Sovetskii patriot, no. 90 (July 12, 1946); Novikov, V, “Vstrechi s sovetskimi poddannymi” Novyi zhurnal, 12 (1946): 207–22Google Scholar; S., Popandopulo, “Ob emigrantskikh trevogakh” Sovetskii patriot, no. 99 (September 13, 1946)Google Scholar; and especially Nikolai, Tolstoy, Victims of Yalta (London: Hodden and Stoughton, 1977), pp. 373–78Google Scholar.
30. See, for instance, “Akt 14 iiunia,” Russkie novosti, no. 58 (June 22, 1946); “Chto dumaiut ob akte 14 iiunia vidnye predstaviteli emigratsii,” Russkie novosti, no. 59 (June 28, 1946); “O prave na sovetskoe grazhdanstvo: Izlozhenie vystupleniia posla SSSR vo Frantsii A. E. Bogomolova,“ Sovetskii patriot, no. 89 (July 5, 1946); “Posol SSSR vo Frantsii A. E. Bogomolov o prave na sovetskoe grazhdanstvo,” Russkie novosti, no. 60 (July 5, 1946); A. St[upnitsk]ii, “Ukaz 14 iiunia i polozhenie emigrantov vo Frantsii,” Russkie novosti, no. 58 (June 22, 1946).
31. It is interesting to compare what Aldanov, one of Bunin's most loyal supporters, said when he learned that his friend had paid a visit (in fall 1945) to Bogomolov: I wrote you long ago (when you informed me that you were thinking over [the possibility of] returning) that my love for you cannot diminish for any reason. If you do return, they will, I think, force you to write what is appropriate [chto polagaetsia]— and I “forgive” you that sin beforehand. I might add that, the older I become, the more indifferent and forbearing I become toward politics. Don't say that there is no politics in your case. That's not so: your visit [to Bogomolov], whatever form it took and whatever aim it had, becomes, in spite of your will, a political act (“Pis'ma Aldanova k Buninym,” p. 122).
32. See Baboreko, Materialy dlia biografii, pp. 223-37; Aleksandr, Bakhrakh, Bunin v khalate (Munich: Tovarishchestvo zarubezhnykh pisatelei, 1979), p. 28ffGoogle Scholar; M., Grin, ed., Ustami Buninykh, 3 (Frankfurt/Main: Possev, 1982), pp. 27–180 Google Scholar; and A. Zveers, ed., “Pis'ma I. A. Bunina k B. K. Zaitsevu,” Novyi zhurnal, 136-38 (1979-1980): 127-40, 124-41, and 155-75.
33. Letter of May 25, 1944 in “Pis'ma Bunina k Zaitsevu,” Novyi zhurnal, 137 (1979): 136.
34. Bakhrakh, Bunin v khalate, p. 40.
35. Letters of December 30,1943 and March 9,1944 in M., Grin, ed., “Pis'ma B. K. Zaitseva k I. A. Buninu” Novyi zhurnal, 146 (1982): 126,131Google Scholar; and letter of May 10,1944 in Berberova, Kursiv moi, p. 302.
36. Letter of July 11, 1944 in “Pis'ma Bunina k Zaitsevu,” Novyi zhumal, 137 (1979): 139.
37. Bakhrakh, Zurov, and Roshchin were contributors to Stupnitskii's Russkie novosti. Roshchin was apparently later exposed as a Soviet agent, who sent reports on Bunin to Soviet authorities throughout his residence in Grasse. About Polonskii's role in this period of Bunin's life see p. 12 and n. 46, as well as Berberova, Kursiv moi, p. 296, and the letter of January 14, 1945 in “Pis'ma Zaitseva k Buninu,” Novyi zhumal, 140 (1980): 164-65.
38. Compare Woodward, Ivan Bunin, pp. 17-18; Kryzytski, Works of Ivan Bunin, pp. 34-35; and Baboreko, Materialy dlia biografii, pp. 237-39; Literaturnoe nasledstvo: Tom 84. Ivan Bunin, 2 (Moscow: Nauka, 1967), p. 399ff.
39. Baboreko, Materialy dlia biografii, pp. 218-20; Bakhrakh, Bunin v khalate, p. 28.
40. Woodward, Ivan Bunin, p. 17.
41. “Pis'ma Zaitseva k Buninu,” Novyi zhumal, 146 (1982): 115-42.
42. One might argue plausibly that Bunin was either tremendously naive or egocentric. His behavior in these postwar years recalls a similar incident in the early 1900s when he tried to publish his works in the opposing “Skorpion” (Briusov) and “Znanie” (Gor'kii) camps simultaneously. Then as now, the irritation of former colleagues (that is, the Symbolists) hurt and puzzled him. Nevertheless, almost fifty years later, with the political climate considerably more sensitive, one wonders how Bunin could proceed the way he did (read Polonskii's letter, contact Bogomolov, publish in Russkie novosti, and so forth) and still believe that his alliances were without political ramifications. See pp. 12-13 and n. 51.
43. Zurov, L. F., ed., “Pis'ma N. D. Teleshova k I. A. Buninu,” Novyi zhurnal, 85 (1966): 129–40Google Scholar; and “Rassypannyi nabor [vyderzhki iz pisem I. A. Bunina 1946 goda],” Novyi zhurnal, 86 (1967): 135-38.
44. Letter of September 7, 1947 in “Pis'ma Teleshova k Buninu,” p. 138.
45. Not only did Bunin write Teleshov and speak personally with Bogomolov about the proposed Soviet publication of his works, he corresponded with Fedin as well. See his letter of March 15, 1946 to Fedin in “Rassypannyi nabor,” pp. 137-38. That Bunin considered the option of repatriation from spring 1945 through fall 1946 (if not longer?) can be seen in the already cited correspondence with Aldanov (p. 120ff).
46. Quoted in Literatumoe nasledstvo, 2:399. Emphasis added.
47. Baboreko, Materialy dlia biografii, pp. 238-39; Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 2:400; “Pis'ma Teleshova k Buninu,” p. 139n.
48. See n. 21. One should add once again on Bunin's behalf that this separate visit to Bogomolov was by no means unique for the emigre literary community during the early postwar period. Aleksei Remizov, another well-known figure, had a private meeting with Bogomolov and V. M. Molotov on June 2, 1947. See Nataliia, Kodrianskaia, Aleksei Remizov (Paris: Coop. Etoile, 1959), p. 190 Google Scholar.
49. “Chto dumaiut ob akte 14 iiunia vidnye predstaviteli emigratsii.“
50. Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 2:400. Zurov wrote Baboreko in 1966 (see Materialy dlia biografii, p. 298n) that Bunin was not present at the first public gathering on June 30, 1946 at the Salle Iena when Bogomolov distributed Soviet passports to returning émigrés before an audience of several hundred onlookers. He does not mention, however, the second gathering on July 21, at which several thousand were present (including apparently Bunin).
51. Bakhrakh ignores Bunin's pattern of behavior from fall 1944 on when he states categorically in Bunin v khalate that Bunin's withdrawal from the association was “a biographical fact of utter insignificance” (p. 124). Andrei Sedykh (in Dalekie, blizkie, pp. 218-20) also stresses that Bunin's flirtation with the pro-Soviet faction was brief and grossly overblown by the emigration. But these “revisionist” interpretations do not accord with the views of Zaitsev and Aldanov, both of whom were known for their moderate natures and for their high opinions of Bunin. Perhaps it is worth recalling Aldanov's judgment (see n. 31): “Your visit to Bogomolov, whatever form it took and whatever aim it had, becomes, in spite of your will, a political act” (my emphasis). Bunin may have wanted to ignore the consequences of his actions, and this may be what Bakhrakh has in mind when he speaks of the “utter insignificance” of the withdrawal from the association for Bunin's biography, but Aldanov, Zaitsev, and others would not let Bunin forget.
52. In an unpublished letter of March 12, 1948 Nina Berberova wrote to Mar'ia Tsetlina: Today B. K. Z[aitsev] paid me a visit and brought along for me to read your letter to Bunin regarding his withdrawal from our association. I can't tell you how I was moved when reading it: it's not enough to say that not only was it terribly supportive of both Zaitsev and me on a personal level, but also publicly it was of great assistance to us. I wrote you what we lived through when Bunin left the association—that was in the fullest sense a “knife in the back” to us and all of our work here. Zaitsev said straight out that “for me Ivan is dead” and told us that he didn't sleep that night. Any sort of sympathy toward us (and of course there was some) was especially dear to us at that moment. But it was also important what you and other American friends would say—especially you, as an old friend of Bunin. And then your letter came… . You know of course that after we expelled the Soviet patriots from the association some twelve members withdrew in sympathy: Adamovich, Varshavskii, Stavrov, Gazdanov (but this last one without a letter to the editor of Stupnitskii's newspaper), and many others. I think that a number of these were beside themselves [with fright] when five days later they learned that the French are sending Soviet patriots out of France—precisely those we expelled (not all of course). One has reason to suppose that a portion of the sympathizers will return to the association … but perhaps not immediately… . Sometimes I ask myself why he did this [left the association]. Can it really be that they [the pro-Soviets surrounding Bunin] have such power over him in the person of Zur[ov]? Or can it be that he still dreams of being published in Moscow? Or is it his dotage? Or is it bitterness toward everyone and everything? But it's simpler to say that I understand nothing. … (Courtesy of Nina Berberova. The original of this letter is located in the Tsetlins' archive in Jerusalem.) For the Bunins’ private reaction to Tsetlina's letter see Ustami Buninykh, 3:186-88.
53. Bakhrakh (Bunin v khalate, p. 122) errs when he states that “the main tactlessness in sending [the letter] consisted in [the fact that] the sender, knowing perfectly well Bunin's address in Paris, posted it in open form to Zaitsev who was appointed to pass it on [dlia peredachi po naznacheniiu —Zaitsevu].” At this time (October 1947) Bunin was not in Paris but in Juan-les-Pins.
54. Pis'ma Zaitseva k Buninu,” Novyi zhurnal, 140 (1980): 174.
55. Ibid., p. 175.
56. “Pis'ma Bunina k Zaitsevu,” Novyi zhurnal, 138 (1980): 172-73.
57. “There were no ‘scandals’ in the association, there was [only] a wild and chaotic General Meeting, something that happens in every public undertaking. It's untrue that certain members were 'selected’ at the last minute. Our enemies have been spreading this lie with the aim of smearing the association. All accepted candidates must go through me—I sign [them in as members]… . Shmelev was supposed to leave the association long ago because he collaborated with the Germans. Zeeler suggested this to him personally, and he is no longer on our rolls, just as Surguchev, Meier, and Unkovskii are not” (letter of January 26, 1948 in “Pis'ma Zaitseva k Buninu,” Novyi zhurnal, 140 [1980]: 175-76.
58. Letter of August 18, 1947 to Andrei Sedykh (Tsvibak) in Sedykh, Dalekie, blizkie, pp. 217-18.
59. Alexis Rannit, ed., “Pis'ma I. A. Bunina k M. E. Veinbaumu,” Novyi zhurnal, 133 (1978): 177-88.
60. See [ Iablonovskii, Sergei], “Emu, velikomu,” Russkaia mysl', no. 83 (November 10, 1948)Google Scholar; i Sergei, Iablonovskii, “Po povodu odnogo pamfieta” Russkaia mysl, no. 91 (December 8, 1948 Google Scholar); I Struve, “O torn, kak I. A. Bunin porval znakomstvo so mnof” and “Esche o Bunine i Bogomolove“; and Sedykh, Dalekie, blizkie, pp. 215-20.