Author Archives: ptakatag

Esenin- Reflections on Tumultuous Lifestyle Change

The selected poems from Serge Esenin’s collection demonstrate a progression in the evolving attitude toward Russian lifestyle. This progression  reflects the rapid historical changes occurring during the tumultuous early 20th century. Stepping from one poem to the next, the reader can see how each next work features a shift in lifestyle, based on the contextof war and revolution.

First, the earliest poem in the collection purely praises the narrator’s pre-war countryside lifestyle. I assume it was written in 1914 still before the war. Esenin colors the traditional Russian countryside lifestyle in a pleasant way, celebrating the “never-ending land of wonder” of Mother Russia. He provides a full sensory depiction of the simple joys of this lifestyle: “Smelling of sweet honey and apples…/And the sounds of festive dancing/Fill the fields and meadows broad.” Esenin’s love for his country is rooted deeply in the countryside lifestyle, surrounded by nature.

In his next poem, “Land of mine in dire neglect…” Esenin reveals the loss of this countryside lifestyle which he so adores. I assume that this was written just months after his previous poem. Perhaps by this time, the war has begun, and the villagers have left their homes to fight in the war. He now looms sorrowfully on how the countryside lifestyle is being abandoned. It only remains as a distant “fairytale” whose remnants are only left in the feather-grass. Esenin depicts an eerie image of the disintegrating countryside and cottages that remain.

By the time Esenin writes his 1924 poem, “It can’t be dispelled…”, his tone devolves further into his feelings of loss. Whereas in the previous poem, the abandonment of the countryside lifestyle was just beginning, here he demonstrates his nostalgia for the past. He observes the decimated landscape, and laments that, “All this is familiar and close to me,/That’s why I so readily cry.” Esenin writes of post-revolution Russia, in which life as he knew it has been completely changed, and his “white linden blossom” can no-longer be revived.

Lastly, in his 1925 poem, “The disquiet of vaporous moonshine…”, Esenin takes a different approach, cautiously embracing the new industrialized lifestyle. He appears to denounce the old lifestyle: “For nothing on earth would I like now/To hear that sound [wagon wheels] ever again.” However, he continues to feel out of place in this new Russia, saying, “I’ve no place in the new life, I feel, Yet still wish to see poor drab Russia/ A prospering country of steel.” Esenin reveals his conflicted feelings, as he himself tries to abandon his love for Russia’s countryside, in favor of a new Russia.

Foreign Agent Law – Just like the Past

In “State Suppression of Baikal Activism,” Kate Pride Brown sheds light on the convoluted power play of the Foreign Agent Law. De facto, the law, enacted in 2012, essentially allows for the government to label NGOs as “Foreign Agents” if they are acting in a way contrary to the state’s agenda. Although it defines some specific parameters for what types of organizations are subject verse exempt from the law, these are misleading. On the other hand, some of the wording is intentionally broad, such that the state can selectively use the law to suppress certain organizations that it disagrees with;  Brown describes such execution of this law as a form of “legal nihilism.”

Brown shows the detailed ways in which the Foreign Agent law impacts one environmental organization in particular. In order to undergo the check (proverka), the state demands extensive documents in unreasonable time frames. If anything, even so simple as receiving money from another Russian company peaks the state’s interest, the organization can be fined or shut down. 

As Brown alludes to the ways in which the law is one example of how Putin’s Russia harks back on Soviet-era censorship and overstepping power. This idea connects directly to the ways in which many of our authors have commented on the distraught state of Russian life, living under Soviet regime. One work that particularly stands out to me in terms of its commentary on the oppression by the regime is Uncle Vanya. 

Sidenote: I am personally curious to learn more about how the Foreign Agent law impacts collaboration among scientists. Although they are listed as an exception, since so much science is done through NGOs with multiple missions, and since the state doesn’t really follow the exceptions guidelines anyway (as with the Baikal Environmental Wave organization), I am curious to know more!

Tolstoy – an Environmentalist?

While reading these short stories in particular, I wonder, how, if at all, does the commentary on human and nature in these works relate to environmentalism during the time periods that they were written? What was the context of environmentalism during these times? While the concept of environmentalism as we know it now is (as far as I’ve learned) very modern, the core of valuing nature is evidently long-lived. The fact that every poem, story, and work of art that we have read has any focus on nature demonstrates that all of these authors perceive nature to be, at the very least, worth noticing. Of course, most go further to honor nature or contemplate its complexity. Ultimately, I wonder how art that values nature relates to environmentalist ideologies through time. 

The Bear Hunt gives light to that relationship on an individual scale for Tolstoy.

While this story stands out as a nonfictional anecdote, both its context and Tolstoy’s artistic narration reveal his evolving perspective on how humans and nature should interact. As Tolstoy recounts his adventure, it is sometimes unclear whether it’s a “Bear Hunt” or a “Human Hunt.” Nonetheless, the title, and the details at the end of the story both point to Tolstoy’s pride in his victory. Every characterization of the bear depicts him as either charmingly smart, or as “mad with fright.” Tolstoy builds up a strong sense of empathy for the “huge creature,” and yet the concluding lines of the story seem to show that he feels he deserves respect and victory for dominating the animal (117). He stuffs the bear, and keeps it in his room – a constant reminder of man’s ability to dominate nature. On the other hand, the bear only left minimal scars that “can scarcely be seen” (117). Although, when the bear is attacking Tolstoy, Tolstoy is obviously inferior, by the end, he juxtaposes the damage of either player against the other in terms of their ultimate outcome.

When Tolstoy wrote this piece in 1872 reflecting on his experience from 1858, he revealed a contradictory perception of nature; he acknowledges the bear’s intelligence and emotional capacity, yet he ultimately views the bear’s purpose as to serve him. However, two decades after the incident, he decided to stop hunting on “humanitarian grounds” (108). Had Tolstoy written this work 10 years later, I presume that he would have depicted the adventure, particularly the ending, very differently.

 

Nature and Humankind- Disconnected?

In “Snakes,” Zabolotsky suggests the lack of connection or understanding between humans and nature. First of all, it’s important to note that snakes tend to represent evil in literature; however, this poem depicts an image of several snakes simply sleeping among rocks, under the sun. Even when a “bird cries out above them, or a bug howls boldly past” the snakes do not respond, and carry on in their own, motionless worlds (“Snakes,” 9-10). (Note the atypical usage of animal noise words; crying birds and howling bugs seem to have a more grim connotation than the “singing” or “fluttering” birds depicted in many of the other pastoral poems we read for today.) There is a clear distinction in the different “characters” at play in the poem: the snakes, time, the philosopher, and possibly the “fellow men” (26). It seems that the characters, particularly the snakes, do not interact with the others. The snakes are physically separated from time that “drifts by upon the air” “above them” (16, 15). When the philosopher comes upon the snakes, he asks, “What is their origin, their purpose, can they be justified?” These philosophical questions seem theoretical (even lofty), and the poem reveals nothing about the snakes interacting back with the philosopher. Again, they seem to just exist in their own separate sphere.

The very last four lines are the most interesting of this poem. The philosopher departs, “avoiding his fellow men.” It is unclear whether these men are actually the snakes, or whether they are representing the rest of human society. The first possible interpretation (fellow men as snakes) would suggest that the snakes, characterized as “indigent… enigmatic… weighty images of sleep” are a class of people. The latter interpretation (fellow men as society) would suggest that perhaps the philosopher is trying his best to connect with the snakes, however nature only serves as an oppressor, “stand[ing] above him like a cell”, remaining a mystery to him (28). This last line also further points to the disconnect between nature and the philosopher, because nature still stands above him.

This poem distinguishes itself from most other poems from today’s theme, because I believe it depicts a more negative and complex relationship between man and nature. With more space, I would delve into the connection between this poem and Pasternak’s “The Steppe,” which also portrays some of the negative interpretations of nature, relative to human sin.