Русское зазеркалье

[Сноска через несколько страниц.]

Dear students, today’s talk is about war songs in both Soviet and contemporary Russia. With one of these songs we shall deal at some more length. Before we look at the song in question I guess I shall say a few words about the genre itself.

What do you imagine is a military song? Is it a march inspiring you as a soldier to keep pace when marching, something like the ‘British Grenadiers March’? Or is it a cheerful piece of folk music, something like ‘Soldier, Soldier, Will You Marry Me’? Or is it a sentimental composition, something like ‘We’ll Meet Again,’ a 1939 British song made famous by singer Vera Lynn, something that resonates with soldiers going off to fight as well as with their families and sweethearts? Or is it an anti-war song, revealing to us how cruel each war is, something like ‘War Child’ by the Cranberries?

Both Soviet and Russian musical culture gives you all that: it provides you with a rich variety of both marches and sentimental melodies, both official anthem-like compositions inspiring Soviet citizens to fight their enemies and folk tunes, all of which refer to war this way or another. How do all of them fit into our course? Even though all these old, very old songs were heart-warming for our great-grandfathers, how would they suddenly become relevant for someone who lived in the 90es of the 20

century? And – another important question – do they still have a chance to become relevant for us now?

For a Russian, this last question is absurd—because of the simple fact that Russia is a state that is permanently at war. Pacifism, philosophy of nonviolence, ‘Make love, not war’—all these concepts and slogans may be attractive for an average European citizen or for Leo Tolstoy, indeed, but not for an average Russian. I am well aware of the fact that what I am saying sounds very provocative as it is. I would go even further and ask you a question: Why don’t most Russians share Leo Tolstoy’s pacifistic views? (You can note it as a question for our discussion, even though I was actually going to answer it by myself later on.)

‘Because he was a civilised person unlike most of us who are bloodthirsty barbarians’—isn’t this the answer that you want me to give? I am honestly afraid this answer would miss the point. You see, when considering Leo Tolstoy and his being a ‘civilised person,’ I cannot help recalling a Russian joke which seems to me very funny—I am not sure that it will make the same impression on you, though. Here it is.

A refined old lady complains, ‘What would Leo Tolstoy say if he only knew that Russian troops are in the Crimea and that Russia is at war with all civilised nations?’

A man replies, ‘Strange as it happens, the sub-lieutenant Leo Tolstoy used to say “Battery, fire!” precisely in the circumstances that you have described.’

Hopefully, you had time to go over the article on the Crimean war I sent you before. I think I must add that Leo Tolstoy served as a young artillery officer during the Crimean War and was in Sebastopol during the 11-month-long siege of Sebastopol in 1854–55. He was recognised for his courage and promoted to lieutenant—which is probably why we Russians grant him the right to be a pacifist and why we don’t bear him any grudge for his being one.

The Crimean war is recorded in the Annals of English poetry, The Charge of the Light Brigade by Alfred, Lord Tennyson being one of its reflections. The poem reflects on a failed military action involving the British light cavalry led by Lord Cardigan against Russian forces during the Battle of Balaclava on October 25, 1854, otherwise known as the massacre at Balaclava, and praises the courage of the British light dragoons.

Flashed all their sabres bare,

Flashed as they turned in air

Sabring the gunners there,

Charging an army, while

All the world wondered.

Plunged in the battery-smoke

Right through the line they broke;

Cossack and Russian

Reeled from the sabre stroke

Shattered and sundered.

Then they rode back, but not

Not the six hundred.

And so on it goes. A masterpiece as this poem is, I would be very puzzled if asked to teach it to Russian students (not that I have any). I do see it as an important literary and human effort, providing some consolation for grief-stricken mothers of the deceased soldiers. And yet, I would have to face the difficulty of explaining why my would-be Russian students should admire the heroic six hundred, the reasons of this difficulty being obvious. People in general don’t easily admire those who invade their country in order to kill them or their nearest ones. But let’s stop with sarcasm for the time being. In my opinion, honest confrontation is still better than dishonest harmony or mutual ignoring each other, as it provides us with an opportunity to learn something about the person or the nation that we confront. You see, people sometimes quarrel even with their beloved ones. To be certain, such conflicts may produce violence which is obviously detestable. I hope I don’t sound as someone who justifies domestic violence when I say that, erm, even hitting your partner in the eye still delivers to him or her a message of some sort and still gives him or her a chance to understand something; whereas your polite refusal to discuss the issue simply ‘makes you both face a blank wall’ which is the end of any relationship. You are free to disagree with me; please explain the reasons of your disagreement if you do.

I cannot recall any particular period in Russian history completely devoid of wars and conflicts of any sort. In the 80es of the last century, it was the war in Afghanistan; in the 90es, it was the Chechen war; now, we have Syria and the Donbass region which is at war with the rest of the Ukraine. Please allow me, firstly, to use the definite article with both the Crimea and the Ukraine; allow me, secondly, not to pass political judgments of any sort: I am as little inclined to justify any military conflict as I dread the idea to feel sorry for my country, especially when considering that all these conflicts, whichever way they are presented to the Western audience, are seen by Russians as acts of self-protection. The concept of a patriotic war, meaning a war that is fought against the enemy who has invaded your own country and endangers the very survival of your nation, a war which is, therefore, highly justifiable, definitely is a part of the Russian genetic code. (Please look up the historical reasons by yourselves and explain them during the second part of our meeting.) I am in no way trying to make this concept a part of your own world-view: you are still very welcome to say how much you detest war and dread violence; you may even try a pilgrimage to Yasnaya Polyana to perform a thanksgiving puja on the tomb of Leo Tolstoy, the godfather of pacifism, whom the great-great-grandfathers of some of you might have encountered in the battlefield as the sub-lieutenant of the enemy (how ironical it is, don’t you find?). What I was trying to say is that military songs in Russia are something you live with. They are a part of your school education; they are a part of national holidays when you hear a lot of them on the radio or in public gardens; they are a part of your everyday life when, say, you go through an underground passage and see a guy in a camouflage uniform with a guitar in his hands. It is not just some poor ex-soldiers who sing them, though; Russian pop- and rock singers love to perform songs of WWII and occasionally write songs about recent conflicts. (‘How disgusting!’ I almost hear you whisper. ‘A real North Korea!’ In this case, please direct your indignation against Alfred, Lord Tennyson whom you, after James Joyce, might also want to call ‘only a rhymester’ or maybe a lousy propagandist. You are free to call everyone by whatever name and so to voluntarily destroy what is left from your classical heritage.)

When thinking of a song we would discuss this time I had a big variety of very good songs to choose from. Consider, for instance, the ‘Battalion Commander’ by Nikolay Rastorguyev, or ‘No Birds Sing Here’ by Bulat Okudhzava, an overwhelmingly powerful work in its simplicity; or some inspiring songs by Vladimir Vysotsky (he was not a combatant but was able to very artfully recreate the atmosphere of the front line); or, more recently, some songs by Yulia Chicherina, a Russian rock- and pop artist who is an active supporter of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic in their war to breakaway from the Ukraine. (You may well say that these two republics do not legally exist, as they have never been recognised by the international law. But does such a thing as the international law exist these days? The question is of course a rhetorical one, but what makes me ask it?)

After much consideration, I have decided to share with you my vision of ‘In a Frontline Forest,’ a song composed by Matvey Blanter in 1943. Its lyrics were written by Mikhail Isakovsky. The song was featured in the late 90es by Oleg Pogudin, a Russian singer, TV presenter, and artist. Please do not see it as an old and long-forgotten tune that then suddenly is featured by a media celebrity in order to maintain his or her favourable public image. To begin with, Oleg Pogudin, even though he is the bearer of the title of People’s Artist of Russia, is not a pop star; secondarily, his interpretation, while being a very good one, is not unique, given that the song was performed by an impressive number of both Soviet and Russian artists in the 60es, the 70es, the 80es, and the 90es of the last century; in fact, it has never stopped being performed.

My (more or less clumsy) translation of the lyrics was sent to you before. Let me quickly summarise the plot for those of you who have not received it (‘the plot,’ I am saying, because this song, much like the previous one, also tells us a story, as perhaps any military song does). Somewhere in the front line, an amateur accordionist plays an old waltz. The rest of the platoon are sitting around and listening to him ‘as though in a trance.’ They are recalling their beloved ones, their wives or maybe their girlfriends. And then comes the fourth verse which probably is the climax of the text. Let me please cite it at full length.

Let light and joy of prior dates

Shine while these trying times,

And if it's time to lay in earth,

Then, well, it is only once.

But even death—in fire, in smoke—

Shall not intimidate,

And what each one's supposed to do

Let each one to achieve.

I anticipate your disappointment: some of you, even if being touched by this soldier’s philosophy, would still ask me, ‘What is there to reflect upon, to analyse, to talk about?’ Others would deprecatingly characterise this poetical text, inspiring common soldiers to go and fight the Nazis even at cost of their own lives, as a banal piece of the official Soviet propaganda. It is a piece of the official Soviet propaganda, but not only that. And what is propaganda, by the way? The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines propaganda as ‘ideas or statements that may be false or present only one side of an argument that are used in order to gain support for a political leader, party, etc.’ Propaganda is, in other words, political brainwashing, an attempt at manipulation, something that produces ‘emotional rather than rational response,’ as Wikipedia formulates it, and that tries to channel our energy in the politically desired direction. Now, is anything inducing people to do the right thing a piece of propaganda? For instance, is ‘We’ll Meet Again’ a piece of propaganda in the same way, as it presumably tries to strike the same chords within its audience?

You know, I would prefer ‘In a Frontline Forest’ over ‘We’ll Meet Again’ if I were a soldier, and this not because of my nationality, but only because the Russian song sounds less manipulative. It doesn’t really say that I (in my capacity of a soldier, that is) would necessarily meet my sweetheart again; instead of it, it very coolly warns me that anything, including my own death, can happen, which is of course less comforting, but more honest. The song doesn’t tell lies, the only comfort that it gives being the idea that everyone can die only once—which is completely true, by the way. So why do we still want to see it as an attempt at manipulation?

Would you also like to regard, say, St Luke’s Gospel, the whole of it, as a single piece of propaganda, just because it appeals to our emotionality rather than to our intelligence? Some of you would probably answer affirmatively which then would allow me to say that the Russian song we are talking about is in a good company.

As for this song being ‘too simplistic,’ in terms of its philosophy, in particular, and ‘soldier’s philosophy’ in general, I would give you a lengthy quotation from A Christmas Sermon by Robert Louis Stevenson, a Scottish novelist and travel writer of the 19

century.

An unconscionable time a-dying—there is the picture (“I am afraid, gentlemen,”) of your life and of mine. The sands run out, and the hours are “numbered and imputed,” and the days go by; and when the last of these finds us, we have been a long time dying, and what else? The very length is something, if we reach that hour of separation undishonoured; and to have lived at all is doubtless (in the soldierly expression) to have served. There is a tale in Tacitus of how the veterans mutinied in the German wilderness; of how they mobbed Germanicus, clamouring to go home; and of how, seizing their general's hand, these old, war-worn exiles passed his finger along their toothless gums. Sunt lacrymae rerum [Latin for ‘There are tears for things’]: this was the most eloquent of the songs of Simeon. And when a man has lived to a fair age, he bears his marks of service. He may have never been remarked upon the breach at the head of the army; at least he shall have lost his teeth on the camp bread.

Our live, when seen from this perspective, is not much more than a long term that we serve in the army, at the end of which term there is time for us to ‘lay in earth’ (and this is precisely what the Russian song promises that we will do). Sunt lacrymae rerum,indeed (the phrase itself derives from Book I, line 462 of the Aeneid by Virgil; I would be happy to hear your own interpretation of it). Even things have their tears, much more us humans; but even so, it still makes sense to live, because—allow me to repeat it—‘[t]he very length is something, if we reach that hour of separation undishonoured.’ (Does it sound as Mandarin Chinese to you, I wonder?)

Let me dwell upon three or maybe four essential details of this song before we finish, the first of them being the musical genre it belongs to. Technically speaking, it is a waltz, and a very quiet one: it calms you down, it gives you a few minutes of deep relaxation that I guess a soldier in the frontline needs so much. Let me please share with you some personal, very personal details: twice in my life, I was very close to ‘deserting the army,’ to use the metaphor by Robert Louis Stevenson. It was some very calm and soothing songs that helped me go through these periods both times, ‘In a Frontline Forest’ being one of them. I do say that the song has an almost psychotherapeutic effect—on me, at least.

Do you know that its melody originates from Songe d’Automne, a waltz written in 1908 by Archibald Joyce, an English light music composer? This is exactly Songe d’Automne that the unnamed accordionist is playing and his comrades are listening to. The waltz in question was very popular in Soviet Russia before WWII, the Great Patriotic War, or simply the War, as Russians often call it. This brings me to my second thought, namely, that of the importance of music that literally builds bridges between cultures. I know that the thought has long become a banality—which fact doesn’t make it less true. The unknown Soviet soldiers were fighting to restore peace on earth that would allow them to go back to their beloved ones whom they first met when they went dancing along Songe d’Automne; it is, therefore, not very wrong to say that the waltz, written by a British composer, was a part of what they were fighting for. Is culture—or art—valuable in itself? What or whom would you rescue from a burning house: a Nazi, a Rembrandt, or a cat? A great question which is falsely attributed to Marseille Proust—in fact, it was Alberto Giacometti who authors it. I will be happy to learn your answers to it in less than twenty minutes.

Whichever way you answer it, the very fact that the unknown Soviet soldiers were eager to sacrifice their own lives for the sake of a waltz—this fact may take your breath away. Things are not that Kafkaesque, of course: this waltz requires a world where waltzes, written by British composers, still can be played, this world being exactly what the soldiers were fighting for. We are completely unable to empathise with their state of mind, to reflect it in our mind as long as we refuse to deal with the concepts of duty and sacrifice. It is precisely the readiness to sacrifice your own life that makes even your death—‘in fire, in smoke’—a relatively simple matter. Can we still deal with this concept, though, ‘over-intelligent’ as we are? Are we up to it? The world we live in has become a very safe place over the last fifty years. In the world of today, it is no longer needed to sacrifice one’s own life, and the idea that each human life is invaluable has long become a commonplace with us. What if it is not? What I mean to say is: aren’t there some things that are still more valuable than the life of an individual?

Duty is another very important word whose meaning we probably are unable to understand as long as we do not reject our individualism, as long as we pretend that it is this very individualism that is ein feste Burg, a mighty fortress of our weltanschauung. Over the last century, the word duty became somewhat pale: we do not use such phrases as ‘your sacred duty is to give up your life for the sake of your own country’ any longer. We instinctively feel that there is too much pathos in them. We are simply not up to this pathos, so we just call such phrases ‘pathetic’—forgive the unintentional pun. We seem to fully misinterpret the very concept of duty which we see as something external, as a task that can be forced upon a person. When a teacher says that an essay is ‘due tomorrow’ he or she means that he or she is able to academically penalise those students who won’t submit their compositions by tomorrow and that he or she most certainly will do so. It works very nicely with things that are less important than your life, but this reading of the concept becomes impossible when it is your life that is asked from you. You absolutely cannot force a person to sacrifice his or her life for whichever sake because you have no means of coercion, the most severe punishment that you can impose on this person being his or her execution—but you have asked for his or her life, anyway. Strange as it seems, duty, in the loftiest sense of this word, is based entirely on our free will to transgress the boundaries of our personality—of our individualistic self, rather. (Please give some examples of people who you think have transgressed the boundaries of their selves.) ‘Jeder stirbt f?r sich allein’, ‘Every Man Dies Alone,’ or, maybe, ’Dies for His Own Sake,” to remember the title of Hans Fallada’s famous novel. But ‘we do not live alone’ (I am quoting a character from An Inspector Calls, a meaningful play by John Boynton Priestley who was an English novelist, playwright, screenwriter, broadcaster and social commentator), and we cannot possibly live for our own sake only, however much the mainstream mass media would try to convince you in the opposite. Some of us, who fully understand that they do not live alone, are lucky enough to dispose of their own death, making it either a death ‘f?r sich allein,’ for their own sake, or a meaningful death for the sake of other human beings.

The world of today has become a very secure place (I believe I have already said that) which is sort of an aquarium with glass walls being either police ensuring public security or modern medicine protecting us from any diseases long into our old age. It is precisely this aquarium that gives birth to some very bizarre forms of hedonistic life (such as homosexualism en masse, for instance). I am afraid these glass walls will be torn down, sooner or later. We are—and here comes another quotation from the same play by J. B. Priestley—

… members of one body. We are responsible for each other. And I tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish.

And if it ever comes to the destruction of this aquarium it will be the Soviet soldiers listening to Songe d’Automne whom we can learn valuable things from.