The Existential paradigm of M. Lermontov's creativity and cultural transition in Russian literature of the 1830s–1840s

Mysovskikh Lev Olegovich ORCID: 0000-0003-0731-1998 Postgraduate Student, Philological Faculty, Department of Russian and Foreign Literature, Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin 620083, Russia, Sverdlovsk region, Yekaterinburg, Lenin str., 51, office 336 levmisov@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

"I look sadly at our generation!" ^{[6, p. 299]} – with these words, the brilliant Russian poet, playwright and novelist Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov (1814-1841) begins one of his most famous – and undoubtedly the most evil – poems "Duma" (1838). Further, Lermontov angrily describes his generation, reproaching its representatives that they are "Shamefully indifferent to good and evil / (...) / Shamefully cowardly before danger, / And despicable slaves before power" ^{[6, p. 299]}. For a generation devoid of creative spirit, "the future is either empty or dark" ^{[6, p. 299]}. Deprived of both courage and creativity, his generation, Lermontov declares, will leave no trace behind. This poetic reflection of the Russian classic of the XIX century is consonant with the philosophical reflections of the German-American religious thinker-existentialist of the twentieth century Paul Tillich, who was interested in the question whether a person has enough courage to make himself what he wants. In addition, Tillich discusses what he defines as "the courage of despair in an uncreative existentialist position" ^{[14, pp. 137-138]}, calling it cynical. The poem "Duma" also traces the emerging despair of the Russian poet, about whom the founder of existentialism, Seren Kierkegaard, wrote: "despair is not just the worst of suffering, but our death" ^{[5, p. 31]}. In the Russian humanities, the beginning of the research of the existential paradigm of artistic consciousness in the works of M. Y. Lermontov in the context of Kierkegaard's theories within the framework of literary studies was laid by V. I. Mildon, who stated: "Nothing drove Pechorin crazy, and the experiences described by Kierkegaard help to understand this" ^{[7, p. 186]}. Scientists of the Ural Federal University N. B. Kirillova and N. M. Ulitina were the first to propose a culturological approach to the study of this topic and came to the conclusion that "Kierkegaard's work, proclaiming the irrationalist nature of human existence, addressed to intimate personal experiences and self-observation reflection, is inextricably linked with his personal life, which can be fairly said about the works of Lermontov" ^{[3, p. 114]}. Developing this idea, it can be confidently stated that the poem "Duma" is a harbinger of existential tragedy, which will fully manifest itself in the last two years of the Russian poet's life, when his work will be overflowing with gloomy existential concepts that allow us to consider Lermontov's latest works as an existential "message of tragedy and sorrow, the main reason for which is the absurdity of being, the impossibility of love, loneliness and alienation of the individual" ^{[11, p. 33]}.

Lermontov was an artist who identified himself with his generation, but also towered above it. He perfectly understood the existential and psychological state of the society of his day, detached from the past, adrift in the present and indifferent to the future. But he rose above his generation by defining its alienation as a historical condition, describing this condition and facing the difficulties it created. The ability to rise above his generation assigns Lermontov an unusual and insufficiently studied place in the history of Russian culture. In our opinion, this place is a symbol of the transformation of Russian culture during its transition from Romanticism to post-Romanticism. Modern research shows that "Lermontov's poetry can be considered as a vivid example of the predicament of an artist experiencing the aesthetic influence of a still authoritative current in a transitional period, when the artist simultaneously reveres, doubts and departs from an outstanding model along with the ideals of the era, which he inexorably leaves behind, plunging into the unknown abyss of a new cultural trend" ^{[10, p. 75]}.

Lermontov's place in the literary history of both Russia and the West still causes controversy among domestic and foreign literary critics, cultural scientists, and philosophers. In the mid-80s of the twentieth century, Todd ^[22] ironically described this discussion as the perpetual motion machine of Russian literary criticism. This perpetual motion machine, in fact, created two Lermontovs. The first is revered mainly as a gifted romantic poet who helped to form the modern Russian literary tradition at the stage of its formation. The second is praised as the author-innovator of fiction, first of all, the novel "Hero of Our Time", which gave this literary tradition the maturity that it later reached in the era of realism. In other words, some critics claim that Lermontov was a romantic and present him as "one of the representatives of Russian Romanticism" ^{[12, p. 148]}; others, considering Lermontov's work and his personality through the prism of existential ambivalence, prove that he left romanticism behind and became a realist, since "Lermontov's works relate to to the emotionally weakened, morally and artistically ambiguous atmosphere of post-Romanticism, which has lost the vitality and intensity that made romanticism so attractive even in its darkest manifestations" ^{[10, p. 70]}.

The Soviet literary critic K. N. Grigoryan ^[2], for example, adheres to the first point of view, arguing that Lermontov remained a convinced romantic throughout his literary activity. Grigoryan believes that Lermontov's works are monolithic and unified, tinged with sharp lyricism, which was typical of Lermontov's personality, and permeated with romanticism throughout. Lermontov embodied romantic qualities in his characters, whose aloofness, pride, love of freedom, emotional tension, attraction to nature symbolize the desire for everything noble and sublime. Although Grigoryan firmly refers Lermontov to the camp of romantics, he distinguishes the Russian classic from other Romantics, noting that Lermontov did not have faith. Consequently, hating life, Grigoryan claims, Lermontov was afraid of death. This fear indicated a lack of faith in transcendence or spiritual existence beyond the physical world, which was a distinctive feature of Romantics. Combined with his emphasis on Lermontov's consistent connection with reality, despite his repeated disappointment in it, Grigoryan, in fact, characterizes Lermontov as a kind of realistic romantic – someone who faces the ugliness of reality and opposes it, not hoping for a better form of existence in another world.

Adhering to the opposite point of view, modern researchers ^[10] argue that Lermontov radically changed the nature of his literary activity by the mid-1830s, overcoming his own existential ambivalence and abandoning the subjective emotionality and exoticism of his youthful poetry in favor of objective observations and research of the surrounding world. Numerous Russian critics, from V. G. Belinsky ^[1] to Soviet literary critics, as well as some critics in the West ^{[19; 22]} considered Lermontov's later works – from the drama "Masquerade" to the novel "Hero of Our Time" – as the first steps in the development of what would later become Russian realism. Such critics explain that Lermontov, in fact, abandoned his youthful attachment to romanticism in favor of emotional detachment, intellectual skepticism, social criticism and psychological analysis promoted by realistic literature.

In modern scientific research ^[10], Lermontov's existential ambivalence, divided between romanticism and realism, finds a stronger foundation than the claim that he was a typical romantic – it is very difficult to connect the Hero of Time with full-fledged romanticism. At the end of the twentieth century, Goldstein made an original attempt in this regard, arguing that Pechorin adheres to a special morality, including a code of honor and chivalry, which connects Grigory Alexandrovich with noble romantic ancestors, endowing him with "a heroic combination of thorough skepticism and decisive actions" ^{[18, p. 124]}. However, defending this point of view, Goldstein is forced to downplay the degree of Pechorin's self-deception regarding his own motives and actions, as well as regarding many cases when Pechorin is far from both chivalry and heroism. Nowadays, attempts are being made to interpret Pechorin's personality in the light of existential theories, showing that his "cold, disinterested manner of reasoning is only self-deception" ^{[8, p. 83]}, and complex situations requiring moral decision-making are interpreted as a borderline situation: Pechorin "makes his existential choice, having got into a borderline situation, which Karl Jaspers wrote about in the twentieth century" ^{[8, p. 81]}. This interpretation fully fits into Jasper's definition of a borderline situation, where a person "remains as himself in existence when it does not close, but all the time breaks up again into antinomies" ^{[16, p. 322]}. And yet it would be too straightforward to conclude that Lermontov simply switched from romanticism to realism. For this leaves unanswered some questions of fundamental importance for Lermontov's literary activity and his historical significance. Namely: did Lermontov consciously follow the norms and values peculiar to realists? And if Lermontov really changed his commitment to romanticism to realism, what was the dynamics of this change? How, for example, did Lermontov move from subjective lyricism, emotional tension and high expectations of romanticism to objective analysis, emotional caution – even cynicism?

One of the suggestive answers to these questions is given by B. M. Eichenbaum in his "historical and literary assessment" ^[15] of Lermontov's achievements. Although Eichenbaum does not use the terms "romanticism" and "realism", he believes that Lermontov was an artist whose main merit in the 1830s was summing up and completing the literary era in Russia. Eichenbaum concludes that, although Lermontov drew many of his literary materials from earlier sources, his talent allowed him to remain independent of these sources, since he rose above the simple Epigon eclecticism attributed to him by such contemporaries as V. K. Kuchelbecker, P. A. Vyazemsky and N. V. Gogol, and created an original art of writing. A fundamental turn in Lermontov's work takes place in 1832, when the poet overcomes his own existential ambivalence and manifests the uniqueness of his creative path in the poem "No, I'm not Byron, I'm different", which in modern science is interpreted through the prism of the philosophy of existentialism as Lermontov's acceptance of "his own unique existence, a different situation and recognition of the independence of his personality" ^{[9, p. 109]}.

Eichenbaum's conclusions about the cultural significance of Lermontov's work are quite original for their time. However, in our opinion, Lermontov marked the end of the romantic era not so much by summing up the literary achievements of the previous period, as by reflecting the sense of disintegration and loss of integrity of the prevailing totality of values and beliefs at that time. Although he strove to create a new cultural integration and integrity, uniting new values and beliefs, he was unable to imagine what forms any of them could take. In their comprehensive concern about the loss of cultural integration and integrity, Lermontov's works embody the conditions of life in a transitional era. His works do not reflect either the protracted late Romanticism or the cultural transition from Romanticism to realism, but rather embody the transition from Romanticism to the time between cultural periods – in the gathering twilight of one period and before the dawn of another. In their psychological, metaphysical, ethical and aesthetic ambiguities and existential ambivalences, Lermontov's works eloquently reflect the transition time from Romanticism to post-Romanticism.

Lermontov's post–Romanticism was characterized by an increased sensitivity to the dilemmas that arose in the era of cultural transition, which his great contemporaries – A. S. Pushkin and N. V. Gogol - left unresolved. In our opinion, it is this sensitivity that takes Lermontov's works beyond the limits of romantic irony, which denies all contradictions. The novel "The Hero of Our Time", for example, openly opposes romanticism, going far beyond romantic irony in its intensity and explicitness.

It is known that Lermontov's life changed significantly in 1837, when he unexpectedly received universal recognition for the poem "The Death of a Poet", in which the higher Petersburg society was angrily accused of Pushkin's death, which caused Lermontov's arrest and subsequent exile to the Caucasus. Pardoned, the following year, Lermontov returned to St. Petersburg. In 1839, the poet wrote the last version of the poem "The Demon", on which he worked for more than ten years, as well as some of his most famous lyrical poems. In 1840, the novel "The Hero of Our Time" was published. But soon Lermontov was again sent to the Caucasus, where on July 27, 1841, at the age of 26, he met for the last time in a duel "the brave Major Martynov as a fatal instrument of punishment" ^{[13, p. 394]}.

If Lermontov had lived at least as long as N. V. Gogol (1809-1852) or F. M. Dostoevsky (1821-1881), Mikhail Yuryevich could have become a realist or a proto-modernist, or someone else. But this was not to happen, and Lermontov's work developed in the era of cultural transition, as a result of which the Russian classic could no longer find a solid foundation in the outgoing culture, but he could not let it go either. This ambivalent state probably gave rise to an epigonic tendency in him to "re-romanticize" romanticism: it can be argued that he made such an attempt in the novel "Vadim", which he left unfinished, perhaps realizing the futility of this attempt. From our point of view, "Vadim" is a literary hybrid in which Gothic, historical and romantic traditions are primitively combined. Therefore, Lermontov's inability to complete the novel can be perceived as a tacit admission of the impossibility of combining incompatible literary ingredients. But Lermontov was exceptional. Thanks to his genius and literary sensitivity, he expressed his post–romantic transitional state in works that demonstrated an acute awareness of this state, showing, on the one hand, the need to go beyond it in order to discover a new cultural integrity, but on the other, exposing the fact that he did not know how to do it.

Lermontov was aware of his own existential ambivalence and sought to overcome this state in order to achieve cultural integrity, which should be considered as one of his main values. Lermontov greatly appreciated the integrity of his own personality and the inviolability of his moral attitudes. That is why in his works he consistently portrayed the main characters who had a similar axiological commitment, thereby trying to convince readers, and possibly himself, of the integrity of his own "I". Nevertheless, if we abstract, in fact, from the personality of Lermontov and focus directly on his work, then we can state that the works of the Russian classic reflect the concept of integrity as the integration of culture through a set of prevailing norms and ideals, as well as the feeling that this integrity was disintegrating in his transitional times. This state of affairs probably caused some sense of disintegration in Lermontov, which is similar to the borderline situation of Jaspers. According to Goldstein ^[18], the brilliant author responded to this situation by depicting artistic creativity as a force with the ability to bring redemption to the human self, otherwise torn apart by internal psychological conflicts and existential crises, that is, all the same Jasper borderline situations. However, the examples of redemption that Goldstein points out – Mtsyri in the poem of the same name, Dr. Werner in the novel "Hero of Our Time" and Tamara in the poem "Demon", in our opinion, do not at all confirm the idea of the critic, since the listed characters do not actually create works of art at all. Mtsyri and Dr. Werner only express admiration for the artistic creations of others. The issue with Tamara is somewhat more complicated… But she is, first of all, so to speak, an artist – performer – she sings and dances, undoubtedly drawing inspiration from her native customs, but still is not an artist in the full sense of the word, since she does not create choreography, music or words for songs herself, but only reproduces works created by others artists. In fact, Goldstein exposes Lermontov's lack of images of genuine artistic creativity, which, from our point of view, is another evidence of Lermontov's awareness of the creative impasse into which the culture of his era has entered.

Lermontov studies, which is almost two centuries old, nevertheless has very fragmentary information about Lermontov's life and thinking outside the context of his works. The poet left several dozen short letters touching on a wide variety of topics and revealing too little of his personality. The testimonies of Lermontov's contemporaries about his character are a little more extensive, but they also give us mainly an idea of the young Lermontov, often through fragmentary anecdotal stories that do not add up to a clear portrait. Therefore, instead of historical evidence of Lermontov's character and creative plans, many critics considered a strongly romanticized image, often manifested in his lyrics, replacing the artist's personality with an artistic image. But equating Lermontov's poetry with his personality is fraught with an erroneous identification of art and life. As the American cultural historian Jacques Barzun noted, when we apply this identification, in particular, to romantic artists (he mentions Byron and Berlioz as particularly affected), we will probably come to overestimate both life and creativity - because "we exaggerate, not romantics" ^{[17, p. 82]}. In other words, it's too easy to romanticize romantics.

Nevertheless, the biographical evidence that we have, together with some recurring themes in the works of the Russian classic, indicate that Lermontov, like many representatives of his generation, was not a true romantic, but would like to be, especially in the Byronic spirit, since "identification with Byron is at the heart of literary Lermontov's identity, especially at the stage of its formation" ^{[10, p. 60]}. Perhaps the Russian poet tried to realize this aspiration by writing gloomy poems in the spirit of Kierkegaard's existential philosophy or performing military exploits. But as an artist, unlike his epigon contemporaries, Lermontov seemed to realize that he could not be a true romantic, because the time of romanticism had already passed. He could only imitate the Romantics, being in their shadow at a time when they had lost their cultural integrity and needed to find a new one.

Of course, Lermontov created the image of a romantic in many lyrical poems. But in his main works of poetry, drama and prose, he first of all reveals his understanding of the post-Romantic culture in which he was destined to exist as an artist. This did not always manifest itself as clearly as in the novel "Hero of Our Time", but the feeling of the genius author of the era of cultural transition was always present. And it was this cultural sensitivity that gave rise to what can be described as Lermontov's transitional works, which so defiantly and at the same time so subtly reflect the existential ambivalence, aesthetic and moral uncertainty and psychological disintegration characteristic of transitional periods when cultural norms and values are declining.

Of course, Lermontov was not alone in experiencing this post-romantic transition. A number of contemporary European authors felt and, one way or another, expressed the same state. These include, first of all, the founder of existentialism, S?ren Kierkegaard, who described the human condition in transitional periods, acting as a forerunner of Jaspers' teaching about the border situation. In the treatise "On the concept of Irony with constant reference to Socrates," Kierkegaard argues that "irony is not directed against a separate phenomenon, a separate existence, but that everything that exists becomes alien to the ironic subject, and he becomes alien to everything that exists, and as reality loses its legitimacy for him, so to some extent he becomes invalid" ^{[4, p. 176]}. At the same time, according to Kierkegaard, the ironic subject appears precisely at a turning point in history. The ironic subject goes beyond the limits of his century and begins to fight against him, since for the ironic subject reality has completely lost its significance, however, the future is hidden from him. For Kierkegaard, this transitional role of the ironic subject was the role of an absolute negativist, discrediting everything around. Nevertheless, Lermontov's attitude to the outgoing culture was not as negative as that of Kierkegaard's transitional ironic subject. For Lermontov, romanticism was a fallen idol, which, however, still remained a deity – in other words, Romanticism no longer held a dominant position, but it could still be revered as a source of preserved ideals from those times when there were no clear cultural standards. In this case, all of Lermontov's work should be perceived as transitional.

Thus, Lermontov's works reflect the loss of cultural ideals with the decline of Romanticism. But rejecting the ideals of Romanticism, Lermontov conveys the feeling that post-Romantic disappointment generated cynicism and distorted thinking. The novel "The Hero of Our Time" has become the embodiment of such shortcomings. Continuing to be in awe of Romanticism, Lermontov remained an idealist in many ways, even when he realized that romanticism promises too much, and then slips into self-deception, which he may have discovered even in himself, for example, borrowing ideas from Byron, when "existential ambivalence forced Lermontov to openly accept Byronic characters and storylines that animate their" ^{[10, p. 61]}. It can be said that Lermontov's attitude to Romanticism has always been ambivalent for the very reason that Byron was the personification of the outgoing artistic trend. That is why Lermontov did not completely abandon romanticism and did not accept the new values associated with realism. In his works, Lermontov very often uses negatives, not statements. Compared, for example, with Pushkin, Lermontov created significantly more poems that begin with the negatives "not", "no" or "nobody". There are no noticeable peaks and troughs in the prevalence of negatives throughout Lermontov's creative path. The poet's predilection for negatives is noticeable already in his early work and continues to mature works, spreading to all genres. In our opinion, the explanation for this lies in Lermontov's inability to find a set of values for approval. Although realistic tendencies are evident in his later works – an appeal to fiction, a detailed depiction of certain characters and sometimes harsh social criticism – the general orientation of Lermontov's work from an aesthetic, psychological and ethical point of view is more turned back to romanticism than forward to realism. His works rely on romantic structures, themes, ideas and ideals in their form and content, even though they question all this and portend an uncertain future.

Thus, the works of Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov actually do not belong to romanticism, nor to protorealism, nor to any combination of both. Lermontov's work was too ambiguous, ambivalent and self-critical to fully embody Romanticism in both European and Russian contexts. Being neither a romantic nor a realist, having lived too short a life, Lermontov is somewhere in the middle, in the transitional period of the 1830s – early 1840s. It was a decade when no sensitive young writer could help but feel that he had joined romanticism rather late, if not missed it altogether, since many of its shining stars had already descended from the firmament – Novalis, Schiller, Hoffmann, Schlegel, Keats, Shelley, Byron, Blake, de Stael, Constant – or they should have come down very soon – Goethe, Coleridge. But Lermontov played his transitional role superbly. For he not only posed questions about Romanticism that realism would later make its own, he also shed light on Romanticism itself and how it was fading. The brilliant Russian classic showed how difficult it is for an artist who is aware of his own existential ambivalence to create and live in a transitional time devoid of a unifying sense of cultural integration and integrity, illustrating how badly a creative personality needs such integration and integrity.