An Analysis of Elizaveta Bam

Russian Literature XVII (1985) 319-352 North-Ho Iland

AN ANALYSIS

JENNY

OF ELIZAVETA

BAM

STELLEMAN

INTRODUCTION In his article on the Russian avant-garde A.Flaker comes to the conclusion that absurdistic elements do not form an essential component of avant-garde works. A notable exception to this are the works of the Obgriu-group (0b"edinenie Real'nogo Iskusstva), which is sometimes called the last avant-garde group in the Soviet-Union.' In this article I will have a closer look at one specific Obsriu-product. Though the word 'absurdistic' has been mentioned, I do not intend to try and denote the exact implications of it. Neither did the exponents of the avant-garde themselves. What they had in mind with 'absurdism' were the incongruous relations between facts from reality or the realization of illogical things, etc. For the ObZriu-group 'the absurdistic' was also a means to evoke realistic effects. I will therefore try to give a description of the absurdistic devices they made use of in order to actualize this realistic effect. For this description I have chosen ELizaveta Barn by Daniil Charms. This play, I think, is the most remarkable, incomprehensible and intriguing play of the 1920s. Another reason to choose this play is the statement in the Obsriu manifest that in Elizaveta Barn Charms has realized the objectives of ObZriu. In order to see whether these objectives have indeed been realized in this play it seems first of all necessary to analyze certain aspects of it. These aspects are: 1. the scenic system: 2. the changes in the ident'ities of the characters; 3. the characterization; 4. the 'Leitmotive'; 5. the language/ After having analyzed these five aspects communication. I hope to be able to come to some conclusions about the 0 304-3479/85/$3.30 0 1985 ElsevierScienceF'ublishersB.V.(North-Holland)

320

Jenny

SteLLeman

form and meaning of Elizaveta Barn as a whole, this, of in close relation to the objectives of Ob&iu. course, In the manifest the Obsriu objectives concerning drama are thus formulated: "... cto naga zadaca - dat' mir konkretnych predmetov na scene v ich vzaimootnosenijach i stolknovenijach" (297).' This explains the word 'real'nyj' in the name of the group: they do not intend to alienate art from life, on the contrary, they want another approach to life, to reality. Thus objects and situations, swiftconcrete, real subjects, ly succeeding one another, are represented in simple, everyday language. It is the succession without any discernible connection or coherence that renders the in themselves recognizable, everyday subjects, objects and situations unrecognizable. A general comparison with an important credo of modernism, viz. the 'montage principle', could be made. 'Reality' is approached differently, which, however, does not make it 'unreal'. In the manifest is said that "... ono [i.e. Ob&iu, J.S.] iScet organiceski novogo mirooscuscenija i podchoda k vescam" (289). This was the principal concept of the group as a whole. The spectator, used to a logical development of the theme in traditional plays, is therefore thwarted in his expectations. The Obgriuty give him the following advice: "Pridja k nam, zabud'te to, Zto vy privykli videt' vo vsech teatrach (... ) vy chotite najti tu privycnuju logiceskuju zakonomernost', kotoruju - vam kaZetsja - vy vidite v &izni? No ee zdes' ne budet." In the conclusion I will come back to this (296-7). advice and its purport. 1.

The

scenic

system.

A striking aspect of Elizaveta Barn is its division into rather short scenes, each of which has its own caption. Strictly speaking, the word 'scene' is not the right term to denote the segments of this play. Elizaveta Barn certainly does not have the traditional subdivision into acts and scenes. Hence I would prefer to say that Charms has divided his play into nineteen 'pieces'. At times he himself uses the word 'kusok' in the captions.3 Because of the confusion that may arise with the use of the word 'piece' - which in English may denote either a part of a play,,or the play itself - it is perhaps better to adhere to the term 'scene'. The captions of the scenes are an essential component of the play and therefore deserve ample attention.+ In George Gibian's introduction to ELizaveta Barn these captions are more or less equated with stage directions.5

An AnuZysis

of

“ELizaveta

Barn”

321

the captions are not only In my opinion, however, meant for the stage-manager, but are first of all directions to the public.6 In this chapter I will examine whether the captions are realized in the scenes, whether there is a system in their sequence and what their possible impact on the public is. Scene 1 is called 'Kusok RealistiEeskaja melodrama'. "K pogtike melodramy" S.Baluchatyj has In his article listed the structural features of the melodramas written at the end of the 19th century.' We find very much the same structural features in the first scene: the strong appeal to the spectator's feelings and his compassion by presenting a situation heavily loaded with The most frequently occurring emotions and sentiments. situation in that respect is that of 'the innocent accused'. Melodrama has moralizing tendencies, one of its recurrent themes, therefore, is a protest against violations of civil rights and the defense of those rights. Another characteristic is the peculiar 'pateticeskaja ret" and the 'avto8kspozicionnaja ret", which the hero(ine) uses to react to the situation and to formulate the depth and the quality of the emotions involved. The expressive use of the language is also set forth stylistically in an abundance of exclamations, lively intonational patterns, pauses, incomplete senThe main characters in melodramas often tences, etc. manage to effect a change to the good in their unfortunate situations, usually at the end of the play. These changes tend to be highly improbable. Elizaveta Bam's solution (an appeal to the conscience of her persecutors), though conceivable, is yet highly implausible in view of the mentality of her persecutors. 'Realisticeskaja melodrama' may mean that the structural characteristics ofmelodrama have been fully realit may also be possible thnt 'realisticeskaja' ized, rather refers to the realistic situation: the heroine's arrest. With its caption '?C!anr realisticeski komedijnyj' scene two maintains the central notion 'realistic'. The ending -ski indicates that the komedijnyj-elements have been amply realized. One such an element is, for instance, the verbal fight between Petr NikolaeviE and Ivan IvanoviE. The fact that the heroine succeeds in sowing discord between her persecutors seems to indicate that she will manage to avert the threatening outcome. This, too, is a comedy-element: the hero(ine) often overcomes all the external obstacles in an amusaspect here is that what seemed ing way. The amusing implausible at the end of scene one has now become reality.

322

Jenny

SteLLeman

The third scene continues the comedy-elements, though comedy is not explicitly mentioned in its caption: 'Nelepo komiceski-naivnyj /Zanr/'. The initial threatening situation has by now progressed in such an absurd and comic way that even one of the characters himself (Ivan IvanoviE:) does not know any longer in which quality (viz. a government official) he is present in this situation. The naive element in this scene is probably the childlike behaviour of the two perse-' tutors. The fourth scene 'Realisticeskij Zanr bytovoj-komedijnyj' reverts with 'realisticeskij' to scenes one and two; it is, however, realized in a differentway. It is not the situation, but the topic of conversation that is realistic, and above all 'bytovoj'. The contrast between the situation of one of the characters (MamaSa is tied to her chair) and the topic of conversation (to go for a walk) could supply the comedyelement. In the first four scenes there are, as we have seen, references to two different dramatic sub-genres, accompanied by specifications as 'realistic', 'absurd', etc. In scene one the concrete designation of melodrama is also concretely realized. The designations of scenes two, three and four are less concrete: references to literary tradition are given only attributively: e.g. 'komedijnyj', instead of 'komedija'.* Consequently it is more difficult to explore the realization of the caption. For example the word 'realistiEeskij': should it be connected with melodrama ('real' melodrama) or does it refer to the realistic situation in scene one? The same problem arises in scenes two and four. These examples show that the reader is constantly pressed to try and discover how and to what extent the caption is realized in the text. The familiar literary traditions to which the reader is referred raise in him certain expectations as to what will be presented to him.g It is, of course, no coincidence that the very first scenes refer to literary tradition: the traditional, the normative and the archetypal can be opposed only then, when they have first been referred to. As Flaker says: "ES klingt paradox, aber gerade die Avant-Garde sein will, zwangslsufig muss, wenn sie avant-garde die kulturelle Tradition in Erinnerung rufen" (Flaker: 167). After the reader has been reminded of the existence of a literary,system in the first four scenes, something new is introduced, the 'Radiks'. The reader can hardly have any expectations now, because it,is not clear, what exactly 'Radiks' is. In the captions of scenes five and six 'Radiks' is accompanied by the

An AnaLysis

of

“Elizaveta

Bum”

323

(5) and 'byspecification 'ritmiceskij', 'ritm avtora' tovoj' (6). The caption of scene seven reestablishes the connection with literary tradition: 'TorHestvennaja melodrama pod6erknutaja Radiksom', tradition being framed, or, as the caption says, underlined by 'Radiks'. It was the name of the What exactly is 'Radiks'? theatrical company founded in 1926 by a.o. Charms and Vvedenskij, before their Ob&iu-period." Surprisingly - as far as I know - has as yet ventured enough no-one a possible explanation of the notion 'Radiks'." The word means 'root' (of a plant or tree) and 'origin', 'source', and may in both meanings be replaced by the In their manifest the Obsriuty do exword 'koren". plain their concept of "koren": "My esEe ne do konca ponjali tu besspornuju istinu, (...>, cto ego [proletariata, J.S.] ChudoZestvennye principy idut gorazdo glubZe i podryvajut staroe iskusstvo do samych kornej" (287). The foundations of traditional art must be uprooted, its roots should be laid bare. These roots then will form the origin of the new art that will spring from them. This description does justice to both the meanings of 'Radiks' (the 'origin' and the 'root'-asis pect). The name 'Radiks' and - if my interpretation correct - the concept of the artistic procedure to be followed might be ascribed to the influence of V.Chlebnikov, who used to coin words with the help of roots and suffixes." The caption of scene five 'Ritmiceskij Radiks' and seems to be connected with the the added 'Ritm avtora' 'rhythm' with which the stage directors Mejerchol'd and Tairov were experimenting. Particularly the latter had all the aspects of his productions (the sets, costumes, movements, etc.) dominated by one, all-comprising, harmonious rhythm.13 The stage directions 'taktoindicate the rather unusual vyj stich' and 'napevno' rhythm of the dialogue; its contrast with the (trite) substance of the dialogue makes it impossible to speak of a harmonious rhythm here. In scene six 'Bytovoj Radiks' everyday situations are predominant: Elizaveta Bam's playing hide and seek, the appearance of 'Niscij' (a very 'bytovoj' element) and Ivan Ivanovic's clowneries and jokes. Though the word 'rhythm' is absent in the caption to scene 6, we may say that here, we have a very restive rhythm. This rhythm contrasts with that in scene seven, which is 'torHestvenno'. 'Festive' and 'solemn', both the meanings of 'torZestvennyj' are actualized: solemn is the way Petr NikolaeviE tells his story, festive is the word 'ura'." 'Melodrama' here is twofold: it can be understood 1) as melodrama, because the theme of the

324

Jenny

SteLLeman

innocent accused is taken up again and 2) as 'melodious ' drama. As we have seen in these three scenes, 'Radiks' can be connected not only with rhythmical principles, but also with elements of music. The 'podcerknutaja Radiksom' certainly has something to do with the sound of the piano and the whistle from backstage, which at times interrupt and/or underscore Petr Nikolaevic's speech. The musical element will again be present in the other 'Radiks' -scenes (12 and 13) in the form of a chorus and instrumental music. In the first seven scenes we were first presented with literary tradition, then with the opposition against it. In the three scenes following now, the captions touch on other aspects of theatrical art. Scene eight 'Peremescenie vysot' shows the movements in space of Elizaveta Barn and Ivan Ivanovic. She reaches higher and higher by climbing a chair, while he crouches lower and lower and gradually comes to lie down on the floor. Implicitly this may refer to their social relations: she determines the topic of conversation, he obeys, adapts himself to her. (See for further particulars the chapter on language/communication, 339ff.). The caption to scene nine 'Kusok pejzagnyj' emphasizes the change in the stage scenery, which is enforced by the pastoral motifs in the scene itself. Whereas the captions of scenes eight and nine had to do with the choreography and the sets/the art of painting respectively, the caption to scene ten 'Monolog v storonu' with the added 'Kusok dvuchplannyj' introduces a characteristic feature of the classic theatre, viz. the communication with the public. In an aside a character can supply the public with information which the other characters do not have. In this respect such a monologue is always 'dvuchplannyj'. Papasa's aside does not give any information, he tells a fairy talelike story which takes place in a 'bolee otkrytoe mesto' (a reference to the space, created by the change of the sets?). 'Dvuchplannyj' is, I think, used in a purely ironical sense here. may be looked upon as a transiScene eleven 'Spi8' tional scene. No specific theatrical and/or dramatic aspects are accentuated here. The scene is connected with the preceding ones to the extent that it offers a new variety of a monologue that is public-oriented, yet is not included in the dramatic sequence. The cap'SpiZ5' is a word-play which functions at differtion ent levels. It does not primarily refer to the 'speech' held by Ivan Ivanovi?!, but to a habit of his, viz. the

An Analysis

of

"ELizaveta

Bum"

325

striking of matches (spicka). When we write the Russian word as 'spic-ka' we see that its meaning 'little is realized in the scene. speech' In the caption to scene twelve 'Kusok cinarskij' the reader is once more presented with an unfamiliar notion. -Charms and Vvedenskij use'd to sign their earlier works as 'Einar'-vziral'nik' and 'cinar' avtoritet bessmyslicy' respectively. Like the word 'Radiks', 'Einar" should perhaps be taken literally. 'Cinit" means 'to repair' and in an obsolete meaning 'to begin' (cf. also 'zacin'). The suffix '-ar" often indicates a person pursuing a certain trade or profession (cf. 'slesar"). Radiks is the beginning, the startingpoint of the new theatrical art of ObBriu, 'Einar" may very well indicate the person whose trade it is to apply himself to this 'beginning' of the new development. 'Kusok Einarskij' (scene 12) and 'Radiks' (scene 13) are, terms connected with the ObSriuas we have seen, theatre. Since no further specifications are added (as in scenes 5,6 and 7), we may conclude that in these two scenes we are presented with ObZriu-theatre 'pur'. At this point it will suffice to say that it is striking that in these very scenes the fabula (including that which is yet to come) is reiterated and predicted in rather enigmatic phrases. In scene twelve the chorus (a constituent combining theatrical with musical elements) narrates the fabula in a three-stanzaic song.15 In scene thirteen Ivan Ivanovic refers to the fabula in even more enigmatic terms. The caption word 'radiks' reappears in the text of this scene in a rather unexpected way, viz. as 'sikuraja' (193). This word has been coined with almost the same letters as 'radiks', the Cyrillic 'ja' having been changed into its graphical reverse, the Latin 'RI! It is difficult to establish here whether Ivan IvanoviE speaks to himself, whether he addresses Petr Nikolaevic or whether he functions as the voice of Petr NikolaeviE who is the only one standing in the limelight in this scene (I will come back to this in the chapter on the characterization). After this, three scenes follow, in which 'pathos' functions as an important component of the tragic fabula (this pathos-sequence is interrupted by scene sixteen 'Kuranty'). Pathos is respectively specified as classic (scene 14), ballad-like (scene 15) and physiological (scene 17). 'Pathos' implies the use of stilted, lofty speech, at the same time it may also be expressed in very emotional speech.16 In both forms it is used especially

326

Jenny

Ste Lleman

in the tragedy. 'Klassiceskij pafos' (scene 14) is therefore reminiscent of literary tradition. At the same time, however, 'pafos' is connected with scenes nine and ten in which we were presented with a type of speech, whereas here we are confronted with a mode of speech. In scene fourteen the lyrical description of the little house and the ode to Petr Nikolaevic display on the one hand the lyrical-pathetic style, on the other hand the declamatory-pathetic style, both of which are connected with the classic tragedy. (The -oof the chiasmatic anaphora in 'on' and 'odnim' possibly refers to the -o- in 'oda', 196). In scene fifteen the 'Baladnyj pafos', a kind of play-in-a-play, is connected with an element from the byliny, viz. the 'bogatyr", an extension of Ivan IvanoviE's replication at the end of scene fourteen. In the byliny the bogatyr' is the conquering hero, in Elizaveta Barn he perishes. We could say that the byliny-elements (also present in the use of language, cf. pust', etc.) realize the folkloristic component of the E",%l:17 The real ballad hero in this case is not Petr Nikolaevic, but PapaSa: he defends Elizaveta Barn's honour as an 'acte de justice'. As a rule the ballad hero meets his fate in the course of the story, this is not the case here. The ballad concentrates first of all upon the dramatic culmination of the hero's conflict." Petr Nikolaevic's report of the battle gives an inspired representation of it. The lyrical, stilted speech (pafos) is another ballad constituent; what is actually talked about, however, does not belong to the bylina, nor to the ballad ("chvala Zelezu" seems to be a sneer at the Futurists).'g The 'Fiziologiceskij pafos' of scene seventeen is manifest in MamaSa's speech ('mavo' instead of 'moego'; 'ukokosila' instead of 'ukoko8ila'; 'evonnaja' instead Of 'ego'). Characterizing someone by his speech is a comedy-element; it is, however, also reminiscent of the so-called 'Fiziologiceskie ocerki' from the NatuIt was first of all Ostrovskij, who inralist school. troduced this device into drama and turned it into a system. On the other hand, 'Fiziologiceskij pafos' may also refer to MamaSa's physiological change: her face petrifies and she says she is a cuttlefish.20 The scene interrupting the pathos-sequence, scene sixteen, is headed 'Kuranty'. "Kolokol zvenit na kry6e bim i bam", Petr NikolaeviE's last sentence in scene may tie in with this heading. The chiming of fifteen, bells is often associated with something important being about to happen. Here it might herald the turning in Elizaveta Barn's fate, her destruction. In that case

An Analysis

of

"Elizaveta

Bum"

327

this scene is 'pathetically' more adequate than the '-scenes. 'Kuranty' may also refer to the ver'pathos bal tick-tacking between Elizaveta Barn and Ivan Ivanovie (for a detailed discussion of this aspect see p. As far as theme and setting are concerned this 342). scene forms a strong contrast with the preceding one, time seems to have moved forward enormously (scene 15: "SraZen'e dvuch boqatyrej" w scene 16: "Ja tol'ko cto byla v kooperative") . By its very heading 'Realisticeskij sucho' scene eighteen contrasts with the preceding 'pathos'-scenes. It seems to be identical with scene one (they also have the same decor), but it is more realistic, a.o. because here the word 'arrest' is explicitly uttered. The caption is fully realized. The same holds for the last scene 'Koncovka opery. DviEenie kulis, predmetov, zadnika i ljudej'. In the caption Charms already mentions the structural constituent 'opera'. We might therefore put a colon after 'opery' in view of the fact that the end of an opera is often characterized by a great many turbulent movements. The principal characteristics of the opera, vocal and instrumental music are not at all realized here. Together with other elements of the theatre, however, they were manifest throughout the play, which gives sufficient grounds for the use of the word 'opera'. The preceding discussion shows that the captions of the scenes have always been realized, often in an unexpected way. In the course of the play the expectations the captions raise in the public (particularly those of the first four scenes) become more and more the subject of a conscious play on the part of the author. This happens on the part of the public, too, because a caption always has a possible realization at different levels (see e.g. 'realisticeskij' in scenes 1,2 and 4). A consequence of this free play with literary traditions is a certain degeneration or 'Dehierarchisierunq' of these traditions.21 This is effectuated not only by an incomplete or an unexpected realization of the various genres and/or their specific manifestations, it is also effectuated by the juxtaposition of specific literary and non-literary designations, such as for example 'melodrama' and 'peremeSEenie vysot' or 'Kuranty', etc. The subdivision into scenes, which is particularly emphasized by the various captions, has the effect of more or less compelling the reader to view them as separate entities. That this autonomy of the scenes is only relative, and can only be so, is something which

Jenny

328

StelZeman

I hope to show in the discussion of the 'Leitmotive' and the changes in the identities of the characters. In spite of the differences and contrasts that may exist between subsequent scenes, they often appear to be connected - though very much implicitly so - as far as meaning is concerned. So far the following quotation from Flaker seems to be fully applicable to Elizaveta Barn: "Die Verschiebung verschiedener thematischer und semantischer Reihen und der Aufbau eines Werkes 'auf dem Prinzip der Verbindung unvereinbarer Elemente' (...), setzt die stsndige Bestatigung eines kiinstlerischen Systems in der Erinnerung des Lesers und die Stiirzung dieses Systems durch den Text voraus" (Flaker:166). The following analyses will demonstrate this system of 'construction and demolition' at the other levels. 2.

The

Changes

in

the

Identities

of

the

Characters.

Elizaveta Barn is difficult to understand, because the relations in which the characters stand to one another seem to be ever-changing. This makes it difficult to establish the identity of each separate character. The difficulty is enhanced, because Charms never tells the public explicitly what exactly are the relations Each reader or viewer has to between the characters. distil the identity of a character from his/her behaviour and utterances. interesting to know whether there It is, of course, is a system behind these identity-changes: do all the characters change or only some of them? Towards whom do they change? What kind of relations among the characters can be established? IS there a possible connection between the changing scenes and the changing identities? It appears that the identity of every character in his/her relation to Elizaveta Bam is inconstant. Ivan Ivanovic assumes the greatest variety as to his identity, sometimes due to manipulations of Elizaveta Bam, sometimes independent of her. Petr NikolaeviZ?'s identihe is subsequently the persecutor, the ty also changes: victim, the killer and the husband of Elizaveta Bam. Papasa speaks about her as if she were his mistress and not his daughter. Mamaga is mother, persecutor, and, at the end of the play, prosecutor. Elizaveta Bam, on the is constant in her identity towards the other hand, others. She acts capriciously towards Ivan Ivanovic, solely because she wishes to manipulate him, it is her stratagem to make him forget to arrest her. Elizaveta Bam herself never and nowhere supports the suggestions

An Analysis

of

"Elizaveta

Barn"

329

of the chorus and of Petr Nikolaevic that she is the latter's wife. Once or twice Elizaveta Bam seems to be interchangeable with PapaSa: the fight in scene fifteen is reminiscent of the fight as it is described by Ivan Ivanovic in scene seven. In her remarks towards Papasa and Mamasa Elizaveta Barn always remains the daughter, whatever those two may say about her. The interrelations of the other characters are very curious. The relation between MamaSa and Papasa is in fact only suggested by their names and possibly by their joint appearance on the stage (scenes 3 and 12). The actions and/or speeches of the one are never diPapaSa has a relation with rected towards the other. Petr Nikolaevic: he sees in him the murderer of his daughter and his rival. Mamasa has no relation with Petr Nikolaevic, she may have one with Ivan Ivanovic, since she knows his children by name (scene 11). Between PapaSa and Ivan IvanoviE there is no relation. Petr NikolaeviE and Ivan Ivanovic form a kind of pair, friends or colleagues. Sometimes they are even identical (scene 7, possibly scene 13). Their relation is primarily based upon their mutual dependence on each other (see also 3. The Characterization, pp.331,335).. It is only their interest in Elizaveta Bam that seems to connect these four characters. Two types of relations are suggested in this play: the characters may have both a family and a social relation with one another. Sometimes, for instance, the impression is created that Elizaveta Bam is Mamagals and Papasa's daughter, that she is Ivan Ivanovic's sister (scenes 9 and 12) or Petr Nikolaevic's wife. At the same time, however, Ivan IvanoviE and Petr Nikolaevic may be her persecutors and Mamasa then takes their side (scene 18). In a traditional play the identities of the characters and their interrelations would be part of a static system; this is obviously not the case in Elizaveta Barn. Apart from the family and the social relations there is still another kind of identity system which functions throughout the play, a system which might be called a dramatic-dynamic one: murderer Elizaveta Bam Petr Nikolaevic

In

the

action

victim Elizaveta Bam Petr NikolaeviE

on the

stage,

i.e.

prosecutor Elizaveta Barn Petr NikolaeviE Papasa Ivan IvanoviE Mamasa scenically

realized,

330

Jenny

Stellemun

there is actually only one 'real' murderer (Papasa) and one 'real' victim (Petr NikolaeviE). The curious thing is that none of the characters draws any conclusions from what has happened. In other words: they are apparently susceptible to words, not actions. What the characters say determines or is the real situation (see also cat.e of 4. Language/communication). Throughout the text occur utterances of the prosecutors, showing this basic model: A says that B has killed C. This may be varied as: A dreams that B has killed C (this may be applicable to scene 7); A makes believe that B has killed C (this might be applicable to scene 15). The time may also be varied, it may be referred to as past or future. As has been shown above, each of the characters is cast as prosecutor once or more than once, and those that are cast as murderers are identical with those cast as victims. (Excluding Papasa: nobody accuses him.) When I apply the above model to all the accusations in the text there appear to be two groups of accusers: 1. Petr Nikolaevic and Ivan Ivanovic (with the possible inclusion of Mamasa) say that Elizaveta Bam has killed Petr Nikolaevic. 2. Elizaveta Barn, Petr Nikolaevic and later on PapaSa say that Petr Nikolaevic is going to kill Elizaveta Barn. Elizaveta Bam was thus the murderer and Petr Nikolaevic the victim; she is going to be the victim of her resurrected victim. As long as her victim keeps resurrecting, the change from murderer to victim can go on eternally. Elizaveta Barn's ultimate death could mean a disruption of this vicious circle. The paradox of a person being both dead and alive, both victim and murderer makes a further elaboration of this identity scheme impossible. Therefore I think it better to consider the accusations as either false (and consequently inherent to the genre 'melodrama', see also p.321) or nothing but utterances unrelated to facts. With the exception of Elizaveta Bam, everybody more or less accepts everybody else's pronouncements. It may be that this non-acceptance is the reason why Petr Nikolaevic, Ivan IvanoviE and Mamasa explicitly (Papasa possibly implicitly) want to destroy her. There does not seem to be any system in the relation between the scenic changes and the identity changes. As the play goes on, however, certain developments can be distinguished. The initially official relation between Ivan Ivanovic and Petr NikolaeviE on the one hand and Elizaveta Bam on the other becomes more and more per-

An Analysis

of

"Elizaveta

Barn"

331

sometimes even comes to resemble a family relasonal, Connected with this are the gradual fading away tion. of the threatening arrest and the violent death. At the end of the play, however, the relations are once more official and even have more businesslike undertones than in the beginning. It is then that the components of arrest and threatening execution come to function again. The family relations, too, change. When Papasa looks upon Elizaveta Barn as his beloved, this indicates a personal, rather than a family relation. And when at the end of the play Mamasa does not recognize or acknowledge Elizaveta Barn as her daughter, can we then still speak of a family relation? The identity changes seem to take place mechanically and arbitrarily. There is one exception, however, viz. in scene seven, where everyone consciously tries to resemble Elizaveta Barn. It is rather puzzling why the very people who want to destroy Elizaveta Bam are trying to resemble her. It may be that Elizaveta Barn's steadfast identity and her non-conforming evoke the admiration of the others. At the same time, these qualities could represent such a threat that they had rather do away with her. 3.

The

Characterization.

I will now try to give a description of the individual characters on the basis of their actions and speech. Certain characteristics might be discovered, which could explain their actual behaviour and their identity changes. The order in which I will discuss themis based upon the frequency of their presence in the play.

Ivan

IvanoviE. About him we learn a number of concrete details: he is married, has ten children and is thirty eight years old. When Ivan IvanoviE appears on the scene together with Petr Nikolaevic, the stage directions tell us that he is using crutches." The crutches or Ivan Ivanovic's possible difficulties in walking are no further mentioned in the directions, but they crop up in Ivan IvanoviE's speech and in his actions, e.g. "Tut negde uperet'sja" (183), "Cha-cha-cha-cha, u menja net nog" (1831, "Oj, ruki ustali" (190), etc. In scene eight, 'Peremescenie vysot', he is the one who is 'lower'. Both Elizaveta Barn and Petr NikolaeviE seem to refer to his invalidity once: "Vstan'te na cetveren'ki" (178) and "A, ty na Zetveren'kach" (183). Why is it that Ivan Ivanovic's invalidity is so much emphasized? Physical inferiority may suggest mental inferiority.

332

Jenny

StelLemun

Because of his invalidity Ivan Ivanovic is dependent on the people around him, most of all on Petr NikolaeviE. He is always the inferior person (the second voice), the humble man and the clown who does not have to be taken seriously. A second characteristic of Ivan IvanoviE isthe striking of matches. Five times the stage directions tell us that he strikes a match (186,189,195,202 and 204) and twice he refers to this himself: on page 179 in connection with his children (identifying them more or less by means of the matches) and on page 194: "A kto Ze lampu zaZigaet?". When Petr Nikolaevic answers that the lamp just burns by itself, Ivan firmly refuses to acknowledge this. Apparently he takes the remark as a rejection: he is no longer needed (to lightthe.lamp). In my opinion the striking of matches in the play occurs rather arbitrarily. This characteristic might be taken as a kind of display of power, compensating Ivan Ivanovic's feelings of inferiority.23 Ivan Ivanovic demonstrates a comparable display of power in a number of pronouncements forecasting Elizaveta Barn's destruction. E.g. "Vy vse ravno ot nas ne ujdete" (174), or "Pogublena na veki" (186). The reference to the cockroach in Elizaveta Barn's patronymic (178-9) refers to her destruction, too.24 In his relation with Petr Nikolaevic Ivan Ivanovic is the inferior person throughout the play. He himself characterizes his relation with Petr Nikolaevic thus: "On povelitel' mne i drug . .." (196), forgetting one thing, however, viz. the fact that sometimes he is indistinguishable from Petr Nikolaevic. This is indicated by a great many allusions in the text: "Ivan IvanoviE opjat' tolkaet tumbu, a Ivan IvanoviE opjat' ikaet" the stage directions tell us. Instead of 'a', (177), tit should have been used, 'opjat", too, is used wrongly; Ivan Ivanovic does this for the first time, whereas Petr Nikolaevic is the one who did it before. What seems to be wrongly used language at first glance is in fact a prelude to the overlapping of Ivan Ivanovie and Petr Nikolaevic. This happens in scenes seven and thirteen and possibly also in scene seventeen, when MamaSa speaks about "Iich, iich, iiich" (202). Later their being identical is exon, in scene eighteen, pressed in their clothing, too: both are dressed up as This uniform has a great psychological influfiremen. ence on both of themselves and on Elizaveta Bam: they can no longer be manipulated as was the case in scene one.

An Analysis

of

"Elizaveta

Bum"

333

ELizaveta Barn. As I have said before, in chapter two, Elizaveta Bam is the only character in the play whose identity This fact is of great imremains the same throughout. portance for the interpretation of her behaviour and her utterances (which are no less absurd than those of The difference between her and the other characters). the others is that her behaviour, though not less she tries to divert her persestrange, is motivated: cutors in order to escape from them. Like Ivan IvanoviE she has a prophetic quality. She will come to get her (scenes 1,2 and knows that "they" her shoulder forward (stage directions 18) i she pushes p.173) even before Petr Nikolaevic orders Ivan Ivanovie to force the door; she knows "they" are going to kill her; she knows the identity of the second voice, viz. Ivan Ivanovic. The fact that it is Ivan Ivanovic she chooses to divert attention from herself, shows her insight into human character. Actually, Elizaveta Bam is continuously trying to escape. In scene four she goes for a walk; in scene six she walks away just when Petr Nikolaevic has found her; in scene twelve she openly talks about her flight: "Otorvalas' otovsjudu" (190) and she literally flies from her mother who is running after her. In scene sixteen she tries to send off Ivan Ivanovic (unsuccessfully); escape is, of course, on her mind in scenes one and eighteen when she checks the possibilities for escape which her room offers her. However, though Elizaveta Barn clearly toys with plans to escape, it remains a question whether she genuinely wants to. For, whereas the possibilities to escape from her room proved to be nil, endless possibilities turn up when in scene eight the room changes into a landscape. Yet, she makes no use of them whatsoever! This might be, because she equates fleeing with a confession of guilt. At the end of scene eighteen the alternative 'fleeing' is no longer there: "Ja v vaSej vlasti" (204). A final word now about the name 'Elizaveta Barn'. Her first name could simply be meant as an ordinary Russian name; it could, however, also be an allusion to the so-called 'Elizabethan drama', about which Reaske says the following: "By the late sixteenth cendrama had become the best in the tury , Elizabethan history of world literature. (...> This is the beginning of new kinds of plays, the romantic comedies, the revenge-murder drama's, the great cycles of history the court comedies, and the pastorat plays" plays, 1966:10, italics J.S.). Elizabethan drama was the

334

Jenny

SteZleman

origin from which various new forms of drama developed. Charms may have had an analogous development in mind when he wrote Etizaveta Barn. A number of allusions to the genres in italics in the above quotation can be found in Charms's play. The strange family name 'Barn' is probably connected with the chiming of a clock: bimbam.25 A number of passages in the text seem to support this interpretation: "Ja ne lisena. Vy moZete proverit' po Easam" (176), in other words: when the clock strikes you will hear that I am not deprived of my voice. The time indications, on page 180 "pjat' bez pjati", on page 195 "Eetyre . . . II seem to remind Petr Nikolaevic of Elizaveta Bam. He himself explicitly connects her name with the chiming of a clock: "Ty slysig', kolokol zvenit na krySe bim i barn. Prosti menja i izvini Elizaveta Bam". (200) The caption of scene sixteen 'Kuranty' could thus be taken to authenticate Elizaveta Barn's pronouncement "Vy moZete proverit' po casam": she is very much present in this scene.26 Petr

NikolaeviE. He is a kind of guide in the play and reminds the reader again and again of the fact that something is going to happen with Elizaveta Bam. Whatever situation he may be in, whatever ruses detract him, he is always the one who remembers his assignment and acts accordingly. In other words: he always comes back to the purpose of his presence: Elizaveta Bam must be killed, but why this is so is not clear to him, either. This can be seen in scenes one, two and three (the beginning), five, six, fourteen, fifteen, eighteen and nineteen. These destructive feelings towards Elizaveta Bam form a contrast with the passages (scenes 12 and 15) in which there is the suggestion of an intimate relation between It is very well possible, of course, that them both. the destructive feelings are the very result of that faintly suggested intimate relation. Unlike Ivan IvanoviE, Petr Nikolaevic is the active whereas Ivan only passively one. He is the fighter, announces the fight (scene 15). Twice this fighter has to acknowledge defeat, first in scene seven, then in scene fifteen. It is only in scene nineteen that he is the victor; he is stopped by no-one or nothing. As I have already said under Ivan IvanoviE, he and Petr Nikolaevic are at times identical and in their manner at times complementary: Ivan Ivanovic - the

An Analysis

of

"Etizaveta

Barn"

335

humble man, Petr NikolaeviE - the authoritative one. In scene two Petr Nikolaevic condemns his partner's vulnerability: "Vam skazali slovo, a vy u8e na stenu lezete. Kto Ze vy posle etogo? Prosto idiot!" (175). His condemnation of Ivan Ivanovic's behaviour implicitly expresses his respect for Elizaveta Barn's steadfastThe question arises of course, what exactly ties ness. Petr Nikolaevic to Ivan Ivanovic. It seems that Petr Nikolaevic is very well able to handle his affairs on his own and is only hampered by Ivan Ivanovic. Though their being identical already provides a reason for their staying together, the complementary function of their relation is the more essential one: the one can only be strong, when the other is weak. Thus Petr Nikolaevic is probably as dependent upon Ivan Ivanovic as the latter is upon the former. The fact that he is now dead, then alive again makes his accusation of having been murdered by Elizaveta Bam questionable. It also makes his insistence upon having Elizaveta Bam killed a mysterious and puzzling thing. Papaga.

In the play the word 'otec' instead of 'Papasa' is used only once, viz. in scene three, when he forbids Elizaveta Bam to flirt with Ivan IvanoviE with the authority of a father. The authority displayed here springs mainly from jealousy, as will appear in scene fifteen. The incestuous relation suggested there gives a totally different colour to the word 'PapaSa'. Papasa is willing to sacrifice himself in order to prevent the immediate death of his daughter/mistress. He takes up arms on behalf of a woman, whereas twice he displays a rather low opinion of women: in scene ten he speaks of women in general and in scene sixteen, where his opinion is more specifically connected with Elizaveta Bam, he says: "Oni v ponjatijach imejut pustotu" (202). The fact that he does not take women too seriously could explain his unconcern when his wife (scene 17) accuses his daughter of murder. His little dance may be taken to express indifference, but also joy. Joy, because her 'son' is now gone forever, or because it is not he, but Elizaveta Bam, who will have to answer to the charge,of murder. Papasa sometimes puts forth remarks which do not seem to bear on the context atall (therefore he is, indeed, the right person for the lengthy aside in scene ten), cf. scene six and the end of scene twelve. These remarks turn him more or less into an outsider, and consequently his 'sudden' involvement with Elizaveta Bam later on in the play (scenes 14 and 15) is the more striking.

Jenny

StelLemun

Mamaga.

The endearing 'Mama3a' rather strongly contrasts with the attitude she displays towards her daughter. In scene three, when she enters the stage, she keeps completely aloof from the others, she starts to sing, walks away, etc. Perhaps Elizaveta Barn wants to involve her some more in what is going on by tying her to the leg of her chair, but then Mamaga still walks dangling behind her. When in scene away, the chair four Elizaveta Bam mentions how much she would like to go for a walk, the very fact that she wants it so much seems to be a reason for Mamasa to refuse to accompany her. Another good reason for her to decline could be that she is possibly still tied to her chair. In scene twelve MamaSa runs after her daughter, a pursuit which seems to precede the accusation in scene seventeen. Mamagals initial indifference towards her daughter gradually changes into deep hatred (expressed by her siding with the persecutors and by the fact that she no longer recognizes [n]or acknowledges her daughter). Some reasons can be given for Mamasa's accusation of Elizaveta Barn: Mamasa accuses Elizaveta Bam of the murder of her son as a kind of vengeance in return for the suggested incestuous relation with Papasa; she accuses her to protect her own husband (this is less since we cannot speak of any emotional ties probable, between the parents); she may also be accusing Elizaveta Bam to save her own skin: the situation scares her and she does not want to become involved. Her fear may be apparent in her words: "Ja karakatica" (202): scared, she emits her ink ( =the accusation) in order to become invisible behind that screen (=to prevent retaliations). The stage directions at this point state: "Kulisy poglosEajut Papasu i Mamasu" (202). NiSL'ij. He is present only in one scene (six) and he is an The fact that he stammers isolated, solitary character. and the remark that he will have more experience next time should, in my opinion, be taken quite literally. It is probably an inexperienced actor who is supposed to play NisEij (as is usual with such a small part) and the words can be taken to be spoken by the actor, not by the character 'Niszij': a disruption of the illusion of the reality of the stage events. The 'bytovoj' element of his appearance is emphasized by his acting slightly out of character. It plete

appears sketch

to be impossible to give of any of the characters.

a clear and Ivan IvanoviE

com-

An Analysis

of

"Elizaveta

Barn"

337

may be the one who is endowed with more characteristic features than the others, but they cannot all be exIt is his sometimes being identical with Petr plained. Nikolaevie in particular that makes it difficult to determine his personality. This identification could be interpreted as childish, wishful thinking: to be like Petr Nikolaevic, the man whom he sees as his lord and master. His inferiority complex on the one hand and his display of authority on the other make this interpretation a plausible one. Elizaveta Barn seems to be the clearest character, probably because the reader thinks he knows the reasons for her strange behaviour. Petr Nikolaevic's undisguised threats that he is going to kill Elizaveta Barn are not supported by any motivation. The accusation that Elizaveta Bam has killed him is based on nothing, since he is not dead the question whether his threats at all. It is, indeed, will ever be substantiated: after all he had to pay with his life in scene fifteen for all his boasting in scene fourteen. Papasa's fluctuations between involvement and uninvolvement cannot be explained. Though some explanations can be found for Mamasa's role of accuser, it remains an unexpected and bizarre feature. Even Niscij, the smallest part, cannot be completely pinned down as a result of his duality: he is both the actor and the character. 4.

The

'Leitmotive'.

In Elizaveta Barn we find a number of 'Leitmotive', recurring motifs or words. An examination of the context in which they occur may provide an interpretation of them. a.

topor. All the passages on 'the chopping of wood/axe' are connected with death. For instance after death has been talked about (181,196), after death has been inflicted (201,202) or when death is imminent (204,205). The image of 'chopping wood/axe' could therefore have the symbolic meaning of 'death/killing'. b. dver'. In the (visible) room of Elizaveta Bam and the (invisible) hut of Petr Nikolaevic about which he starts to tell in scene seven, the element 'door' is strongly emphasized. Apparently the door is very important. Though not every character is aware of it, the door

338

Jenny

Stelleman

plays an important part in the life of everyone of them. The door is a kind of illusion, separating priElizaveta Bam has the illusion. vate from social life. that once she closes her door, she can lock out evil. Petr NikolaeviE thinks the same: he has nothing to fear any more once he closes his (creaking) door. Ivan IvanoviE robs Elizaveta Bam of her illusion by brutally forcing the door. Doom enters Petr Nikolaevic's hut, too. When later on, in scene fourteen, he describes his hut, it seems to symbolize paradise, possibly because no outside force (society) 'dver' ne rastvorjaet' (194): can disturb the order inside. c. domik, tarakan, mysi. The hut has its inalienable attributes, the 'taraIt seems that the hut is (was) kan' and the 'myBi'.27 owned by Petr Nikolaevic and that only he, Ivan Ivanovie and Elizaveta Barn know of its existence. Death often crops up in connection with the hut: on page 184 Petr Nikolaevic is killed there, on page 203 when Elizaveta Barn indicates that death will be her due by It is only on page 194 that using the word 'topor'. the house is being spoken of as if it were paradise. My attention was directed to the fact that the words 'tarakan' (in a family name) and 'mySit also occur in the short story "Perepoloch" by A.P.Cechov.28 Because the theme of this story shows correspondences with Elizaveta Barn, I feel justified to say some words about it. The story is about a governess who, coming back from a walk, finds that the rooms of the servants, including her own, have been searched, because a brooch (In the of the mistress of the house has been stolen. end the husband appears to be the thief.) The governess feels humiliated by the suspicions against her. At the same time she realizes that her subordinate position in the household precludes her from asking for help or support. That is why she decides to leave, to run away. Before taking this decision, however, she considers the alternative, i.e. to stay and perhaps be arrested: "Esli ee mogut zapodozrit' v vorovstve, to, znaEit, mogut teper' arestovat', razdet' dogola i obyskat', potom vesti pod konvoem po ulice, zasadit' v temnuju, cholodnuju kameru s mySami i mokricami, toc'-vtot' v takuju, v kakoj sidela knjaHna Tarakanova".2g Though the master of the house tries to persuade her to stay, she does leave eventually. Charms may well have taken both the images 'tarakan' (used twice in Elizaveta Barn's patronymic, 178,179) and 'mysi' and the theme of 'the innocent accused' from

An Analysis

of

"Elizuveta

Barn"

339

In Elizaveta Barn, too, there is a woman this story. who is accused, but knows herself to be innocent: she, considers the alternative of running away, though too, in the end she either cannot do so, or does not want In this respect Elizaveta Barn differs from "Pereto. poloch". It is possible that Charms decided to make full use of the alternative which Eechov only hinted at (there is no further mention of knjaZna Tarakanova in the story!), and stresses its reality with this 'Leitmotiv'. A combination of the image as it is used in Eechov's story and the images of 'death' and 'paradise', added to this 'Leitmotiv' in Etizaveta Barn, leads to the following interpretation. 'Domik' is probably a euphemism A cell is a cubicle in which cockroaches for 'cell'. and. mice can be found, in which one can feel insecure, because death is near, but also secure, in the sense that there is peacefulness and. order ('Dver' ne ras194) and that one is free from society: tvorjaet', paradise. These may be the two conflicting emotions Elizaveta Bam wants to express with this 'Leitmotiv' at the end of the play. It is especially Petr NikolaeviE, Elizaveta Barn and-, to a lesser extent,Ivan IvanoviC,, who make use of the 'Leitmotive'. Mamasa and Papaga use only one 'Leitmotiv' each, i.e. 'aver" (scene 12: Mamasa seems to mention a way of escape, overlooked by Elizaveta Barn in scenes 1 and 18) and 'topor' respectively. The function of the 'Leitmotive' in the text is one of cohesion and all three can be said to herald the certain death of Elizaveta Barn. 5.

Language/Communication.

The dialogues in the play mostly consist of rather short sentences in which simple, everyday language dominates. The inexplicability of their utterances is thus not the result of, for instance, a complex syntax, but of the situation in which they are spoken and of their sequence. Sometimes it seems as if the characters a0 not communicate at all, a0 not respond to one another and do not act according to any convention. In short, the rules regulating people's behaviour and their communication are frequently violated. Such violations sometimes occur in traditional plays, too; there they are meant to evoke the laughter of the public and/or of other characters in the play. In EZizaveta Barn the violations of the interaction rules seem to be the leading principle of the structure of a great many scenes. Whereas in traditional

340

Jenny

SteZLeman

plays the characters ridicule or correct the person violating the rules, in Elizaveta Barn they do not react at all. They do not seem to be conscious of any transgression or violation of the rules: never and nowhere do they protest. Dina Sherzer's article "Dialogic Incongruities in the Theater of the E,bsurd" deals with the various techniques employed by Beckett, Ionesco, Diaz and Pinter to produce such incongruities.30 She describes the devices; in addition to that I will also try to describe their possible effects on the reader, and I will try to establish which characters cause the incongruities. Not all Sherzer's categories are applicable to Etizaveta modifications, some of them Barn, some of them needed did not. I can only illustrate the categories listed below with the most striking examples. A complete list would far exceed the scope of this article. a. This category covers those utterances which succeed one another without any logical connection or obvious transition. The best examples of this category are Papasa's stray remarks which I have already mentioned in the chapter on the characterization. Another good example is Petr NikolaeviE's "ProgEu menja ne tys", followed by Ivan IvanoviZ's "Vat vam funt, basta, pjat' bez pjati" (180). This exchange of words exactly answers to the following description of Sherzer: “... no communication is established between the characters; there is just mere coexistence" (Sherzer:274). However, the description does not cover some other examples (from scene 8) which I feel inclined to classify in this category. In scene eight Elizaveta Barn's and Ivan IvanoviE's words succeed one another without any logical or semantic coherence. Yet, considering communication a form of interacting, I think we can speak of communication here.31 There is certainly interaction: Ivan IvanoviE does react to Elizaveta Barn's sounds and words. he reacts in a peculiar, personal way and at However, various levels: he reacts to sound, content, to only one word of the preceding utterance, to a syntactical construction or to an association the preceding words evoke. Thus the characters themselves determine at which level they will react and their reaction is accepted by the others. The effect of this device is a growing COnfuSiOn of the reader. He thinks he must have missed something or failed to understand something; Moreover, the two exutterances connected associaamples given above, i.e. tively, will intrigue the reader: is a particular re-

An AnaZysis

of

"Elizuveta

Barn"

341

mark really an isolated one or is it at some level connected with the preceding text? b. Repetition is a device frequently used in EZizaveta Barn. The characters repeat their own remarks and sounds and those of others. Remarks are often repeated verbatim. Sometimes, however, the preceding text is slightly paraphrased. This may result in a different meaning. In these cases, the other characters do not seem to notice the change. A good example of this is Ivan IvanoviE's story about his meeting Kol'ka (scene version of his story the perspective 9). In the third changes: Ivan Ivanovic has faded away, Kol'ka says on his own accord that he has bought the apples and not stolen them. There is no-one who draws Ivan IvanoviE's attention to the change in his story. The exact repetitions, such as "l&o ja mosennik?" or "Ja po-vasemu moZennik?" (175) or the four times repeated announcement that scene fifteen is going to present a "SraZenie dvuch boqatyrej" (197) often not only have a comic effect, but also one of slow-motion. On the other hand, "Vy ligeny vsjakoqo qolosa" (176) or the repeated "niEeqo" (184) evoke a totally different emotion in the reader, viz. a feeling of suspense. Different again are the repetitions in scene fifteen: Petr Nikolaevic's "the-e-el'" (198) and Papasa's "Chvala Zelezu ( . ..> slava per'jam" and "Terzaet do smerti vraqa" (199,200).32 These are repetitions falling within the boundaries of the genre (bylina, ballad). Here the curious effect is that the reader does not experience them as dialogic incongruities, but as a device belonging to the genre. Sherzer does mention repetition, but her examples are of a kind that does not occur in Elizaveta Barn (Sherzer:277). c. Sherzer describes this category as follows: "It is common in conversation for one of the participants to use a cliche, a proverb, or sentence built like a proverb to prove a point, to comment, or even to make a joke ( . ..> This stacking of proverbial expressions or of relatively synonymous cliches makes the interaction resemble a ping-ponq game. It is a type of verbal game during which the characters are suddenly no longer interested in what is going on, in their predicament, but are carried away by the rhythm of speech, are busy inventing utterances. During these moments, verbal virtuosity and creativity replace pragmatism, resulting in a sort of verbal skidding" (Sherzer:276,2.3). In the case of Etizaveta Barn the characters cannot be said to be carried away by their verbal virtuosity,

342

Jenny

Ste I Lemun

having lost their interest in what is going on. Before illustrating this with an example I would like to point out that in Charms's play there is no question of proverbial expressions or cliches, but of simple, ordinary, rather trite sentences. In scene twelve, for instance, four characters are playing such a verbal pingpong game as is mentioned in the above quotation. MamaSa starts with "Chleb es'?" The others take over this construction, each substituting for 'chleb' another Then Mamasa starts again word referring to victuals. with another sentence: "Oj, nogi ustali" and this may very well refer to the actual situation: she is, in truth, running after Elizaveta Barn. Ivan IvanoviE then follows the previous pattern by substituting "ruki", this in its turn again refers to the actual situation. Then Elizaveta Barn slightly changes the pattern: the sentence structure remains, but she substitutes a noun that is no longer related to the meaning of the initial 'nogi' (denoting a part of the body), but one related to its sound: "noZnicy". At first reading and in this context it can be taken for a kind of diminutive of 'nogi'. Papaga follows this example, but takes Ivan IvanoviE's 'ruki' as his starting-point, changing it into 'prufiny'. It is again MamaSa who introduces yet Ivan IvanoviE now no longer another sentence structure. follows her example. He does, however, elaborate onthe meaning of her sentence by saying that he would like to jump upwards to the fourth floor. Elizaveta Barn also but she does so in her own repeats this flight motif, words which are a repetition of her first utterances in this scene. PapaSa, the last one to speak, then discontinues the repetitive character of the meaning of the preceding sentences. It appears that the characters do take each other's that they do respond to each utterances into account, other by some kind of mutual agreement. An agreement, however, which is observed to a lesser and lesser extent towards the end of the scene. In scene sixteen something similar happens. Here Ivan IvanoviE and Elizaveta Barn are fooling around with Elizaveta Barn begins the game: "schodite v polsyntax. Ivan IvanoviE corrects her, but by pivnuju..." (201), using another syntactically impossible construction "v Elizaveta Barn makes him understand she is goroch idti" IvanoviE enthusiastically playing a game. When Ivan joins the game, but immediately starts breaking its rules (by adding other words) she puts an end to it: Ivan Ivanovi? did not understand "ne nado . .." (202). or did not want to understand the message or the hint, it.

An AnaLysis

of

NElizaveta

Barn"

343

"The manner of speech does not correspond with the subject matter" (Sherzer:281). Scene five shows this device very clearly: Petr Nikolaevi?z and Ivan IvanoviE say ordinary, trite things to each other, first in 'taktovyj stich', then 'napevno' (180,181). In scene fifteen we see almost the same Papaga recites a kind of ode to iron and feathers. thing: The dignified style of this genre here clashes with uncommon subject matter. In both cases the non-serious, the device produces a kind of distance. e. The characters describe the situation in which they were or are, not as it was or is. A character may also state something which is subsequently contradicted, An example of this is scene three, by word or deed. where Elizaveta Bam says: "... Mama! Pojdi sjuda. Fokusniki priechali. SejEas pridet Mama (...) Poznakomltes' Petr NikolaeviE, Ivan IvanoviE. Vy Eto-nibud' nam pokazite". Elizaveta Bam calls Ivan Ivanovi? and Petr NikolaeviE 'fokusniki': they do not protest against the profession apportioned to them, but act accordingintroduction to Petr Nikolaevi?? and Ivan ly. MamaSa's IvanoviZ takes place at a moment when she has not appeared on the stage yet. The use of 'nam' has no connection with the reality on the stage, Elizaveta Barn is probably playing a game. When somewhat later not only Mamasa, but also Papaga appear on the scene, there is no introduction at all: both sit down silently and look on. In the same scene the stage directions say at some point that Mamaga stops singing, whereas she has not even started singing yet. We find the same device in scene fifteen: "Ty slyz%iZ.', kolokol zvenit..." (200). It is only after Petr Nikolaeviz has finished speaking that the stage directions mention the chiming of a blell. In scene sixteen Papaga answers to Elizaveta Barn's question about what he has done: "Da (...> ja drova ko101" (201). These examples show how Lhe characters create a new situation, a different reality, by their speech, and how they start acting accordingly. The effect on the reader is one of confusion: every bit of information must be viewed with distrust as regards the concrete details. f. This device is somehow the reverse of e.: the characters explicitly state something which is clear enough in itself. Cf. for instance page 183: "Ja, chacha-cha, v .?,tanach"; "U menja na golove volosy" and "Ja ves' 1eHu na polu". Also on page 200: "Ja pal na zemlju, porafen, . ..I). d.

344

Jenny

SteLLemun

The effect of this device is rather comical. Particularly the last example is reminiscent of an opera (Charms himself uses this word in the caption of scene 19): dying - if not singing - the hero is able to describe his situation. When looking at the characters causing the dialogic incongruities, we see the following. It is Ivan IvanoviE in particular who contributes most to the violations of the rules as mentioned under a, with Elizaveta Barn as a good second. Category a itself is the one under which most of the incongruities can be listed. Category b comes next. Here, too, it is first of all Ivan Ivanovic - and to a much lesser extent Elizaveta Bam and Petr Nikolaevic - who makes use of the device of repetition. For the most part these three characters repeat their own words, and when they repeat the words of another character, it is always those of one of the other two (with the exception of Elizaveta Bam, who once repeats Papaga: 188). It is noteworthy that the only characters using the device of repetition are the ones appearing in the 'duplicate' scenes one and eighteen. In category c again Elizaveta Barn and Ivan 1vanovi.E are predominant. The fact that in scene sixteen Ivan Ivanovic refuses to play another of these games is significant: his complete indifference towards Elizaveta Barn in scene eighteen seems to have its origin here. It is mainly the male characters who are represented in the categories d,e, and f. Petr Nikolaeviz and Ivan Ivanovic in particular are guilty of incorrect descriptions of situations (cat.e). This might tell us something about the initial situation (scenes1 and 18). In these scenes there is hardly any violation of the interaction rules. Among other things, this is one of the reasons why the reader will experience them as 'realistic'. The knowledge provided by cat.e makes me very doubtful of the 'realism' of these scenes. If the utterances establish the truth, reality, then what is the 'real' reality? Just as in scene three Elizaveta Bam pretends that her mother is present, so in scenes one and eighteen Ivan IvanoviE and Petr NikolaeviE could be pretending that Elizaveta Barn is a criminal Perhaps the make-believe (the fictiand a murderess. tious reality) is a necessary foundation for reality itself and perhaps at the end Elizaveta Bam plays the game because by her actions she has thwarted only the make-believe game? Or was that not a game after all, but reality, constructed upon a fake/fictitious accusation?

An AnaLysis

of

"ELisaveta

Barn"

345

CONCLUSION. We have seen how subtly Charms plays a game with literary traditions by heading the scenes with different captions (literary and non-literary) and by explicitly wholly, partly or not realizing these captions in the scenes themselves. In particular he plays with the expectations of the public: sometimes these expectations are substantiated, more often, however, they are not. The latter holds true for most of the aspects discussed in the above. It is most of all through the 'haphazard' identity changes of the characters that the public does not gain a clear insight into them. Elizaveta Barn's behaviour could be understood (distracting manoeuvres), the motivations of the other characters, however, remain obscure. Due to a lack of information about the reason for their behaviour many interpretations remain open. The so-called 'Leitmotive', too, can be interpreted in more ways than one. Particularly the 'Leitmotiv': 'domik, (not to be confused with Ivan tarakan, my.%i' IvanoviE's which evokes a domestic 'doma u menja . ..I. atmosphere and hence contrasts with this 'Leitmotiv') is endowed with more and more antithetical modifications as the play moves on. The language/communication level shows more or less the same: sometimes a normal communication pattern is established, but there is also partial communication (e.g. interaction based upon sounds, associations) or no real communication at all, which makes us even doubtful of the apparently 'normal' communication in the 'realistic' scenes one and eighteen.33 The same thing can be seen even at word level: sometimes a word stands in quite appropriate a context (e.g. 'ura' in scene ll), sometimes in a context which is not appropriate to its meaning at all (e.g. 'ura' in scene 7). For the public such a word, sentence, utterance, action, and also the characters themselves, may have a specific meaning, but it will always be one that is puzzlingly uncommon. The particulars provided by the five discussed aspects fully justify the public's orientation towards a reality that is uncommon, 'made strange'; they can, I think, be headed under the denominator 'play with the expectations of the public'. By using this approach Charms has accomplished the assignment "aat' mir predmetov na scene v ich vzaimootnogenijach i stolknovenijach" (297) very cleverly. He never gives the public the time or the chance to discover a specific pattern. He never even gives the public a chance to get accustomed to the use of a speci-

346

Jenny

Ste 1 Leman

fit word, because in a next scene he will use that word differently, often antithetically. This device occurs throughout: what is set up one moment is pulled down the next. This technique will be of great help to the public, which, after all, hasthus been advised by ObGriu: "Pridja k nam, zabud'te vse to, cto vy privykli videt' vo vsech teatrach". "Vy chotite najti tu privycnuju 1ogiEeskuju zakonomernost', kotoruju - vam kaZetsja - vy vidite v Zizni? No ee zdes' ne budet" (296-7). I assume that Elizaveta Barn is meant to be presented at a good pace. And, imagining myself a spectator, I think everyone in the audience will be so overcome that he will not even have time or occasion to remember, let alone forget, what he is used to see on a stage. This advice can therefore be followed without any problems. The second advice, however, presents greater difficulties. What ObSriu here asks from the spectator is that he must observe in a different way, or better, must deal with his observations differently. Normally man orders his experiences and observations in a way that enables him to discover some pattern or system in them. The search for and the discovery of that pattern gives him something to go by in life, gives life meaning. In short, the spectator is allowed to look for some pattern, but he should not look for that 'privycnuju logiceskuju zakonomernost". The technique used in the play and the structure of the play help him with this difficult task: he will not easily find such a 'zakonomernost". We have seen that this is primarily due to the aspects 1,2,3 and 5. logiceskuju zakonomernost" can That a 'privy6nuju still be found in Etizaveta Barn is primarily due to the use of the 'Leitmotive' (aspect 4) and to the dynamic-dramatic system, which may be seen as the principal 'Leitmotiv' (but which I thought could be better discussed together with 2, viz. the identity changes), and to Ivan IvanoviE's predictions. Again and again these three elements make it clear that Elizaveta Barn is irrevocably doomed to death. At the same time, however, these very elements function to keep the public (hnd Elizaveta Bam) from believing in that evil end, i.e. up to scene eighteen. They do so, because for instance the 'Leitmotiv' 'tarakan, etc.' has its positive connotations (paradise); because up to scene eighteen the accusations do not have any consequences (for instance arrest/execution); because the genuine murder of Petr Nikolaevic by Pap&a does not even result in an accusation; because in view of his clownlike behaviour Ivan Ivanovic's prophecies need not be

An AnaLysis

of

"Elizaveta

Barn"

347

taken seriously. The shock to the public is therefore just as severe as it is to Elizaveta Bam: doom is inBy substantiating this expectation, which evitable. had always been rejected by both the public and Elizaveta Barn, Charms concludes his play with expectations Death is the only 'privycnuju, surprisingly as ever. 1ogiEeskuju zakonomernost" life knows, but it is the one man prefers not to see. This may be the psychological reason why the public - and Elizaveta Barn - attaches greater importance to the utterances and/or the actions denying her destruction than to those confirming it. It might be interesting to compare the conclusion of ELizaveta Bum with that of Eechov's story "Perepoloch". On page 338 I have already said that Charms may haue taken the theme of 'the innocent accused' from this story. When comparing the two, we find a very striking difference in their endings. In "Perepoloch" the heroine's perseverance leads to a successful escape from her precarious situation, whereas Elizaveta Barn's perseverance only leads to her destruction. The question arises why Charms chose such an unfavourable ending. He may have wanted to convey that under the newly established Soviet regime life was more difficult for a non-conforming individual than it was under the czars. He may have wanted to express the fear predominant in his days: the fear of suddenly being arrested for something one did not do but of which others say one did; the hope of managing to escape from the arrest by beguiling the government officials, by playing up to them or by playing them off against each other. It may also have been only a dream (scene 7) or a game (scene 15). Besides, there is always a missing element in the accusations: in scene one it is the nature of the crime that is unclear; in scene seven it is the identity of the criminal, because the victim himself is able to expose the nature of the crime. The same happens in scene eighteen. It is the very groundlessness of the accusation that provides Elizaveta Barn with the possibility to distract her accusers. It is, however, only a limited possibility: the repetition of the initial scene (scene 18) makes this clear: doom cannot be averted. The intervening scenes (2-17) could be taken as the incorporation of a stay of execution, viz. the attempt to prevent the arrest. Such an interpretation based upon the social and political reality of the late 1920s is possible, though Charms did not indicate either the time or the place of the action in Etizaveta Barn. Nothing prevents the reader from abstracting the notions of time and place and interpreting

348

Jenny

SteLLemun

the aspects of arbitrariness and the resulting fear as a permanent potentiality of life. There is an additional element in the interpretation, actuated by the questionable credibility of both the accusations and the arrest: Ivan IvanoviE and Petr Nikolaevic (with MamaSa's and PapaSa's - to a greater or lesser extent explicit - collaboration) may be assumed to want to do away with Elizaveta Barn for reasons of their own (see also p.331 - identity changes and p.343 Language/communication, cat.e). The so-called arrest seems to be a set-up, a kind of official justification, a camouflage for their personal ambitions. What I intended to do in this article was to try and gain some insight into the devices and techniques Charms used in Elizaveta Barn. The description of these also provided some explanation for the intriguing and incomprehensible quality of the play. Actually, 'elusive' would be a better word than 'incomprehensible': the play is elusive, because at every level it offers many possible interpretations. It is, therefore, obvious that the last word about the purport of Etizaveta Barn has not been said yet and may even never be said.

University

(Translation:

Loes

Visser)

of

Utrecht

An

AnuLysis

of

"ELizaveta

Barn"

349

NOTES 1.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

"Vijllig unmotiviertes Geschehen, 'schwarzen Humor', irrationale Groteske und Absurditdt gibt es iiberhaupt kaum in der Groteske erscheint sovetischen Avantgarde. <... > Die absurde in der sovetischen avantgardistischen Literatur erst bei ihrem Ausklingen - im Schaffen der Gruppe OBERIU, vor allem bei Daniil Charms - als spezifische Entsprechung zu dem, was wir aus dem europaischen Surrealismus kennen - doch hauptsachlich ausserhalb der gedruckten Literatur". See A.Flaker, "Das Problem der Russischen Avantgarde", in: Von der Revolution zum Schriftstellerkongress, Hrsg. G.Erler, R.Griibel, K.MBnickeGyongydsi, P.Scherber (Berlin 1979), 188. All the quotations from the Oberiu-manifest and Elizaveta Barn are taken from D-Charms, Izbrannoe (Wiirzburg 1974). This edition is based upon that manuscript of Elizaveta Bam, which up till now is considered the most complete one. Before this text was published, there was another version in print, which, however, appeared to be incomplete: it did not have the division into scenes, nor the captions of the scenes, nor the final scene. It is conceivable, however, that the Wiirzburg edition will eventually appear to be incomplete as well. A discovery of a yet more complete version may very well undermine part of my conclusions. In spite of this possibility, however, I am convinced that this remarkable play deserves attention even now. V.E.Mejerchol'd preferred the term 'epizoda' for the subdivision of a play into small units: "... he divided the original five acts into thirty-three episodes, shuffling them into a pantomime interludes for the sake of new order, and inserting effective contrasts of mood and tempo" (Meyerhold on Theatre, ed. by Edward Braun [New York 19691, 191). The literary meaning of 'epizoda', however, is not realized, the term 'kusok' would have been a better one, here too. Compare for this the incomplete version of Elizaveta Barn, as edited by George Gibian in an English translation (in; Russia's Lost Literature of the Absurd [Ithaca 19711) with the edition as mentioned under Introduction, note 2. See Gibian, Introduction, 169. I imagine the caption of each scene to be either heralded as in cabaret or street theatre or made known to the public thus: "Each episode was announced by the now familiar title projected on a screen above the stage . . . (italics J.S.). (Meyerhold on Theatre, Edward Braun [New York 19691, 191). See: S.Baluchatyj, "K postike melodramy", in: PoStika III (Leningrad 19271, 63-86. Ibid.: "Zabotjas' o vosprijatii zitatelem-zritelem vsego dramatiEeskogo vesa dannoj p'esnoj zavjazki ili dannogo sjuZetnogo epizoda, opredelennogo aktovymi granicami, melodramaturg special'no razrabatyvaet naimenovanie p'esy i otdel'nych aktov, napravljaja vnimanie Eitatelja afigi na Eerty dramatizma, skrytye v etich zaglavijach. NaliEie aktovych zaglavij - dramatiE-

Jenny

350

Ste tteman

nychpo temei vyrazitel'nych po stilju - specifizeskaja Eerta afigi melodramy" (75). Since Charms begins with 'melodrama' this may have been a justification to add captions to the subsequent scenes as well. 9. See also M.Pfister, "Gattungserwartung und Titel als Vorinformation", in: Das Drama (Miinchen 19771, 68-69. 10. See also Mejlach's Introduction to: A.Vvedenskij, Polnoe sobranie soc'inenij (Ann Arbor 19801, tom 1, XV,XVIII and XX. 11.

Ibid.,

XX.

too, mentions the influence of V.Chlebnikov on D. 12. V.Kaverin, Charms, particularly in connection with Elizaveta Barn. See: V.Kaverin, Sobesednik (Moskva 19731, 71-75. in 13. On Tairov and rhythm see also N.GorEakov, The Theatre Soviet

Russia,

224.

14. 'Ural is a verbal expression of triumph; in this context, however, it is incongruous with the situation. 15. My interpretation of the choral song is the following: The first stanza more or less repeats scene seven, in which was told how Petr Nikolaeviz woke up at night and saw a woman (Elizaveta Barn?) in his room, who then killed him. The word 'sosna' (191) should therefore, I think, not be understood as 'fir tree' but as some kind of derivation from the verb 'sosnut", 'to sleep'. The husband then is Petr Nikolaevir, his wife might be Elizaveta Bam (see on this also chapter 2, the identity changes). In this first stanza not a word is said about murder. The stanza ends with 'Do svidanija'. This may suggest that we will be meeting the 'murdered' man again (i.e. in scene 13). Stanza two may refer to the initial situation: Ivan Ivanovi? and Petr Nikolaeviz did enter a 'Beskoneznyj dam', i.e. Elizaveta Barn's room, which is to change into a landscape later on. The 'molodoj starik' might be Papaga, who in scene fifteen crosses swords with Petr Nikolaevif as with a rival (and therefore must be young here) and eventually kills him. The "DO svidanija' here again refers to the fact that the one who is killed comes to life again (scene 18). The third 'stanza' consists of only one sentence which remains unfinished: the outcome is apparently a surprise. What is probably meant here is scene eighteen and the 'pokazalis": Petr Nikolaevir and Ivan Ivanoviz. 16. H.Lausberg distinguishes two types of pathos: "das grossartigerhabene und das leidenschaftlich-heftige", in: H.Lausberc, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (Miinchen 1973),S.l073, 3f. 17. Cf. Cyril Kraus: "L'evenement et le heros dans la ballade", in: Zagadnienia rodzajdw literackich (E6di 1967) (181, 10.2.1, pp.El-94,p.84. 18. Ibid. 19. See also note 26. 336. 20. See also 3. The Characterization,

An

21.

See A.Flaker, Von

22.

23. 24. 25.

26.

27.

28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

der

Analysis

of

"ELizaveta

351

Bum"

"Das Problem der Russischen Avantgarde",

Revolution

zum Schriftstellerkongress

(op.cit.),

in: 163-4.

Ivan Ivanoviz's crutches and Petr Nikolaevir's bandaged cheek could also be interpreted as the physical injuries resulting from the unrealized "Ja vas sejzas skinu s lestnicy" (174). This 'characteristic' may very well have been introduced for the word-play with IspiE-ka' (see also p.324). See for a further discussion of 'cockroach', the 'Leitmotiv': dom, tarakan i my.%i, 338,339. See also M.Mejlach's Introduction to: A.Vvedenskij, Polnoe sobranie soc'inenij, XXI. There Mejlach tells that the performance of Elizaveta Barn was part of an ObQriu evening programme which was called 'Tri levych Easa'. Elizaveta Barn was presented during the second hour. though rather far-fetched explanation for Another possible, the name 'Barn' is the following: Barn may refer to BAM (Bajkalo-Amurskaja Magistral'). At the end of the 1920s plans for this gigantic project were already being made. (BAM - strojka veka, as the present-day publications call it). Charms may have wished to deal in his own way with the demands of the day that writers should write on industrial themes, this in keeping with the 'building of socialism'. There is but one passage in the text that might substantiate this view, viz. in scene fifteen when Papa;, is fighting for Elizaveta Barn's life: "Chvala ielezu - karborundu Ono skrepljaet mostovye I, elektriEestvom sijaja, Terzaet do smerti vraga. Chvala ielezu! Pesn' bitve!" (199) These are to be distinguished from "U menja doma iena" and its variations (178,179 and 189). The function of this motif seems to be one of contrast. The utterance itself is very reminiscent of similar utterances of the character 'Verginin' in Tri Sestry of A.P.Eechov, to whom another utterance of Ivan Ivanoviz: "govorju, Etoby byt'" (185) might very well apply (see also note 33). It was Mrs.Prof.Dr.H.Schmid-Tempelhoff who drew my attention to this story. Quoted from: A.P.Eechov, Izbrannye proizvedenija v trech tomath, tom I: Povesti i rasskazy 1880-1888 (Moskva 1970), 165. See Dina Sherzer, "Dialogic Incongruities in the Theater of the Absurd", in: Semiotica 22, 3/4 (1973), 269-285. See also P.Watzlawick et al., De pragmatische aspecten van de menselijke communicatie (Deventer 1970), 4. This utterance resembles some magical formula which may be connected with PapaSa's calling him 'zarodej' in scene fourteen. It may also refer to 'zaum". See also George Ivask, "Russian Modernist Poets and the Mystic Sectarians", in: Russian Modernism, eds. G.Gibian and H.W.Tjalsma (Ithaca/

352

Jenny

StelLeman

London 19761, 85-106 (see especially 99-105, where the writer states interesting influences of the so-called Glossolalia on the Russian "zaum'"). 33. The key-words of this phenomenon may be delivered by two repetitive utterances of Ivan IvanoviE: "Govorju, Etoby byt"' (185).

*