Petersburg. Andrei Bely

or of any other Symbolist novel, can be “literal,” for words as Symbolists use them do not have fixed meanings but instead take on a variety of meanings in the context of a work as whole. All we can hope is that our equivalents will do the same within the English context we have created. Naturally, the sound play and the rhythm of Bely’s prose are impossible to render “literally.” Occasionally there are happy coincidences between Russian and English. By and large, however, we have had to content ourselves with suggestion, sometimes even creating instances of sound play where none exist at precisely that point in the Russian text. Thus, our “jumpy Japanese ju-jitsu teacher,” or our “trashy humor rags—whose bloody covers in those days were spawned with staggering swiftness on prospects swarming with people” are alliterative where the original is not. But we hereby honor the principle of alliteration that saturates the novel and creates many passages for which no ready English equivalent could be found. As for the verse passages: they are an important part of the verbal texture of the novel. We therefore decided that simple prose paraphrases would not do.

      Bely claimed that the individualism of writers could be seen in their favorite punctuation marks. “The period is Pushkin’s mark; the semicolon is Tolstoy’s; the colon is mine; the dash is the mark beloved by the modernists.”³ In fact, Petersburg does abound in colons and dashes. They serve to break up sentences and create an effect of jerkiness or choppiness. We reproduced these punctuation marks faithfully in our first version, and discovered that the profusion proved disorienting and even baffling to a number of English readers, whereas they are not especially outlandish to the Russian eye. So we eliminated most of them, and substituted short sentences and phrases, which suggest something of the effect Bely intended. (Also, the dash in Russian often substitutes, in “normal” style as well as in Bely’s, for the verb “to be,” whereas it can rarely do that in English.) On the other hand, Bely’s system of paragraphing is not confusing to English sensibilities, and we have observed it scrupulously, even when the paragraphs are extremely brief (sometimes the result of overenthusiastic cutting of the 1916 version), or radically indented by way of setting off what Bely regards as key sections.

      A dagger (^†) in the text indicates the presence of a corresponding note in the back of the book. Bely’s own footnotes, of which there are only two in the entire novel, are marked with an asterisk.

      R.A.M.

      J.E.M.

      NOTES

      1.The following account of the origins of Petersburg (including Bely’s experiences with Russian Thought) is based largely on L. K. Dolgopolov, “Andrei Belyi v rabote nad ‘Peterburgom’ (Epizod iz istorii sozdaniya romana),” Russkaya literatura, No. 1, 1972, pp. 157–167. The complex course of Bely’s revisions or plans for a new edition of Petersburg between 1917 and 1922 is described by his widow, Klavdiya Nikolaevna Bugaeva (with A. Petrovsky) in Literaturnoe nasledstvo, Vol. 27–28, Moscow, 1937, pp. 600–603. These changes are discussed in detail in two essays on the novel by Ivanov-Razumnik, in Vershiny. A. Blok. A. Belyi, Petrograd, 1923. He is the only critic to have seen all the texts, both printed and in manuscript, and to have published his comparisons of them. He argues that the changes create a more positive image of the city and of the revolution in the 1922 version. We cannot agree.

      2.“In Place of a Foreword” (“Vmesto predisloviya”) to the 1935 edition of Petersburg.

      3.Introduction to Posle razluki, Berlin, 1922, p. 11.

       ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

      GIVEN THE SPECIAL PROBLEMS INVOLVED in this novel, any translator is well advised to avail himself of opportunities to consult other scholars who have worked in the literature and culture of Bely’s time.

      It has been our good fortune to be acquainted with several such people, who have generously agreed to share their talents and insights with us. At the inception of this project, Nina Berberova helped solve numerous problems, and she has given us constant encouragement and friendly counsel throughout. Robert and Olga Hughes read sections of the manuscript and made useful suggestions for revision. Carol Anschuetz discussed with us some aspects of Bely’s theory of language and his use of anthroposophy, and contributed to our understanding of them. Franklin Sciacca, while a student in our seminar on the novel, presented a paper on some of the anthroposophical elements, which helped us in the preparation of the notes on Nikolai’s dream in Chapter V. William E. Harkins, a sensitive translator of Russian and Czech literature, provided English readings of all the poems in the text which made our final versions far better than they would otherwise have been.

      Our greatest debt of gratitude goes to Simon Karlinsky. He took time from a busy writing and teaching schedule to subject the entire manuscript to a careful comparison with the original Russian, and made countless suggestions for improvement, most of which we have incorporated. His masterful command of Russian and English, his extensive experience as a translator, and his expert knowledge of Russian literature have all contributed to strengthening our text immeasurably.

PETERSBURG

       PROLOGUE

      YOUR EXCELLENCIES, YOUR WORSHIPS, YOUR Honors, and Citizens!

      ***

      What is this Russian Empire of ours?

      This Russian Empire of ours is a geographical entity, which means: part of a certain planet. And this Russian Empire includes: in the first place—Great, Little, White, and Red Rus; in the second place—the Kingdoms of Georgia, Poland, Kazan, and Astrakhan; in the third place, it includes. . . . But—et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.^†

      This Russian Empire of ours consists of a multitude of cities: capital, provincial, district, downgraded;^† and further—of the original capital city and of the mother of Russian cities.

      The original capital city is Moscow, and the mother of Russian cities is Kiev.^†

      Petersburg, or Saint Petersburg, or Pieter (which are the same)^† actually does belong to the Russian Empire. And Tsargrad, Konstantinograd (or, as they say, Constantinople),^† belongs to it by right of inheritance. And we shall not expatiate on it.

      Let us expatiate at greater length on Petersburg: there is a Petersburg, or Saint Petersburg, or Pieter (which are the same). On the basis of these same judgments, Nevsky Prospect is a Petersburg prospect.^†

      Nevsky Prospect possesses a striking attribute: it consists of a space for the circulation of the public. It is delimited by numbered houses.^† The numeration proceeds house by house, which considerably facilitates the finding of the house one needs. Nevsky Prospect, like any prospect, is a public prospect, that is: a prospect for the circulation of the public (not of air, for instance). The houses that form its lateral limits are—hmmm . . . yes: . . . for the public.^† Nevsky Prospect in the evening is illuminated by electricity. But during the day Nevsky Prospect requires no illumination.

      Nevsky Prospect is rectilineal (just between us), because it is a European prospect; and any European prospect is not merely a prospect, but (as I have already said) a prospect that is European, because . . . yes. . . .

      For this very reason, Nevsky Prospect is a rectilineal prospect.^†

      Nevsky Prospect is a prospect of no small importance in this un-Russian—but nonetheless—capital city. Other Russian cities are a wooden heap of hovels.^†

      And strikingly different from them all is Petersburg.

      But if you continue to insist on the utterly preposterous legend about the existence of a Moscow population of a million-and-a-half,^† then you will have to admit that the capital is Moscow, for only capitals have a population of a million-and-a-half; but as for provincial cities, they do not, never have had, and never will have a population