1. “LESSONS OF OBSERVATION”

“The Cherry Pit” obviously occupies a special place in Olesha's oeuvre. Robert Russell, for example, describes it as “transitional” and “valedictory”; linked with Envy, at the same time it points forward, “… indicating in the displays of neuroses and in the desperation of the optimistic ending, the bleakness of Olesha's future.” Structurally and linguistically he connects the story with No Day Without a Line (Ni dny biz smrоcкi, 1956), perceiving this kinship to lie “… in the characteristic conversational, hortative language, in the apparently fragmentary nature of the story, in the observation of fleeting similarities and, above all, in the open display of neuroses and fears for the future.”¹

One can, of course, read “The Cherry Pit” as a prelude to No Day Without a Line. However, all of the narrative devices and thematic features which link the story to the “autobiographical” work (its impressionistic structure and the subjective first-person narrator involved in an inner monologue on the nature of art and its situation in the new society) can be found already in Envy. “The Cherry Pit” summarizes the metapoetics of the novel, for it is here that Olesha for the last time enunciates his aesthetics and attempts to secure approval for his specific vision of reality.

In this sense “The Cherry Pit” is certainly a “transitional work” in Olesha's oeuvre. It is a boundary also in that it marks his definitive transition from fiction to artistic autobiography. This evolution is reflected, among other things, in the use of narrative perspective. “The Cherry Pit” is told by a first-person narrator who is identical with the main character, as in the first part of Envy and the stories “The Legend” (“Liginda,” 1927) and “The Chain” (1928). Although most of the stories before “The Cherry Pit” (e.g. “Liompa” (1927), “Love” (1928), and “The Prophet” (“Prоrок,” 1929)) are written from an “inside” position close to first-person narration, the author has attempted to maintain a distance to events through the use of the third-person form. Most of the stories written after or at the same time as “The Cherry Pit,” however, abandon both forms, and the fictive “I” yields to the author's personality, which now becomes the subject of the narrative. For example, in “I Look into the Past” (“Я smоtry v prоslоi,” 1929), “Human Material” (“Cilоvicisкij matirial,” 1929), “My Friend” (“Mоj znaкоmyj,” 1929), “In the World” (“V miri,” 1930), “Something from the Notebooks of Fellow Traveler Zand” (“Kоi-ctо iz siкritnyk zapisij pоputciкa Zanda,” 1932), and “A Conversation in the Park” (“Razgоvоr v parкi,” 1933), the author and the first-person narrator are identical. Of course, the transition to artistic autobiography is signaled already in “The Legend” and “The Chain”; in the latter story this occurs through an unexpected shift in point of view at the end, where the author openly appears as the boy's (main character's) adult self. Olesha's abandonment of fiction was evidently dictated by his increasing resistance to fantasy and his unwillingness to “depict” (izоbrazats), that is, to re-create reality in impressionistic images.² This evolution, which seems to have culminated as Olesha was writing “The Cherry Pit,” derived above all from his ambivalent aesthetic values (see above on Envy) and was thus artistically predetermined. His attempt to adapt himself to the utilitarian demands of five-year-plan literature was a manifestation of his hesitant attitude and a driving factor in his abandonment of fiction.

Significant in this context is a remark by Olesha in Kornei Chukovskii's Chukokkala (1930):

Tipirs glavnоi: samym risitilsnym оbrazоm v etоj znaminitоj кnigi utvirzday: billitristiкa оbricina na gibils. Stydnо sоcinyts. My, tridцatilitnii intilliginty, dоlzny pisats tоlsко о sibi. Nuznо pisats ispоvidi, a ni rоmany.³

Not least by virtue of its religious connotations, the word “ispоvids” is associated with an intimate personal confession in the midst of a spiritual crisis. The confession thereby includes the meaning of a boundary crossing, marking the transition to two poles of reality: rebirth or doom (cf., for example, Stavrogin's confession in The Possessed). It is against this background that one should view Olesha's appeal for the confession as a new genre. It is an adequate form of expression for an age that denies the cultural heritage of the past and advocates a total transformation of humanity and society. What is meant here, however, is not a “confession” in the Dostoevskian sense, but rather an account of the author's own artistic biography, that is, the genesis of his or her creative endeavor. An illustrative example of the first-person narrator's identification with not only Russian but also European cultural history is verbalized in a draft of the story “Al'debaran” (1931):

Я mnоgо lit zivu na sviti. Ocins mnоgо. Я byl v Parizi, i pil v Parizi kоlоdnyj napitок ciriz sоlоminкu v ti gоdy, коgda isi plysali кanкan. Я nоsil silкоvyj цilindr […] i galstuк, sirокij, кaк mic. […] Я Turginiv, y Mоpassan, y Santоs-Dymоn, y dilо Drijфusa, y Kоrоliva Viкtоriy …⁴

Thus understood, “confession” also serves to revive the cultural heritage, to maintain literary and linguistic continuity, and to underscore the unbroken context of time (in the Bergsonian sense). Such “documentation” became necessary in view of the break the Revolution made with the values and ideals of the past.

The synthesis of the “confession” is expressed in the thematic variety of Olesha's stories written in 1929-1930. Their intertextuality is another significant device that can be traced in the extant drafts of the works. These “autobiographical” texts provide a penetratingly delineated psychological, social, and political background to the author's fate and reveal the sources of the creative impulses behind his fiction. They consist of a mosaic of fragmentary scenes from his personal life, memories, sensations and literary impressions filtered through the aesthetic consciousness. “The Cherry Pit” can also be read as a “confessional story,” albeit on another level. Here it is still the impressionist's artistic confession that is the focus.

Olesha's prophecies about the doom of fiction, however, do not promise a renewal of the narrative tradition in the new genre of the “confession,” but instead sound a note of disaster (cf. Osip Mandel'shtam's 1922 article “The End of the Novel” (“Kоniц rоmana”)). They are an expression of the fellow traveler writer's reaction to the politicization of literature, but they also seem to communicate Olesha's own premonitions of an imminent artistic “death.” These were already verbalized in the theme of fate in Envy, while in “The Cherry Pit” they are present in the subtext in the central image of the cherry tree.

“The Cherry Pit” is a product of Olesha's artistic compromise. The “I” of the story is anxious to incorporate the “invisible land” of poetry with the pragmatism of social reality. His pessimistic premonitions that his vision is superfluous in the new society and that he himself is doomed (a feeling incarnated in his unrequited love for Natasha) vividly contrast with his conviction that the cherry tree he has planted—a symbol of his creative power—will bloom in the middle of the Five-year-Plan housing development. At the end of the story, his defeat is unexpectedly transformed into victory.

“The Cherry Pit” is marred by more than this rather unconvincing ending, and suffers throughout from a lack of aesthetic coherence. Its impressionistic mode of narration is less a consciously employed artistic device than a reflection of Olesha's hesitant approach to composition, theme, and language. There is also a striking incongruence between the fragmentary structure of the work and its descriptive theme of the triangle drama (Fedia is in love with Natasha, who loves Boris Mikhailovich). The thematic disharmony of the narrative (love, the Five-Year Plan, and the technique of poetic perception) arises from the author's split aesthetic consciousness, which oscillates between two disparate artistic outlooks.⁵

The drafts of “The Cherry Pit” reveal that the story was not written with the same creative ease as, for example, “Liompa” or “The Chain,” but was laboriously pieced together. To all appearances, it grew out of another, never completed story entitled “Lessons of Observation,”⁶ parts of which are included in it. Nor can we exclude the possibility that Olesha was writing the two works simultaneously. Thus “Lessons of Observation” not only provides essential background material for “The Cherry Pit,” but also demonstrates Olesha's artistic method.

The two contradictory artistic strategies that can be observed in the different variants of “Lessons of Observation”⁷ betray Olesha's aesthetic ambivalence. On the one hand, he is anxious to satisfy the demands of society for Socialist Realist art by attempting to ground his vision in empirical reality. Laying bare the artistic device is here taken to its extreme conclusion. The very title of the story points to its didactic intent: as the first-person narrator declares, the story is composed as a textbook, which consequently contains numerous examples of and exercises in the poetic perception of reality. It is divided into chapters, each of which is dedicated to presenting a different element in the creative process and demonstrate the conditional aspect of the generation of the image. This “textbook” story reflects Olesha's aspiration to make his unique vision intelligible and accessible to all. By revealing the secrets of creation he is attempting not least to demystify his impressionistic perception and show that it can be mastered by anyone.

Olesha's exposure of the technological aspect of artistic creation should of course be viewed against the background of the then typical tendency to dissect the anatomy of the work of art. As is apparent from the titles of works such as “How ‘The Overcoat’ is Sewn” (1919), “How Don Quixote is Made” (1925), and “The Technique of the Mystery Novel” (1925) by Boris Eikhenbaum and Shklovskii, respectively, literary technique was a main focus of the Formalists, who viewed the artistic organization of the work as a product made in a definite way. Shklovskii, for example, defines the work of art as the sum of different devices or technical resources which constitute its structure. The late Futurists similarly expose the technology of artistic material and form. Vladimir Maiakovskii's article “How to Make Verses” (1926), for example, lays bare the poetic “production process” and initiates the reader in the “supposed” secret of art. The Futurists thought that revealing the conditionality of art (оbnazinii priima) and transferring “artistic work” from the artist-producer to the receiver would bridge the age-old gap between art and life. Olesha's “Lessons of Observation” expresses a similar viewpoint, removing artistic creation from its former pedestal and presenting it as an everyday and even utilitarian activity. Like the Futurists, Olesha explains the generation of metaphorical images in rational rather than intuitive terms. The title of the story is significant here, as it stresses observation, that is, purely visual perception, as the central ingredient in the creative process. Fedia also repeatedly urges his readers to sharpen their attention in order to be able to discover the “invisible” similarities between disparate things and phenomena:

Naprimir: vоt rоyls, zastavsti vnimanii rabоtats i uviditi, ctо rоyls—pоkоz na фraк.

Vоt sidit vasa mama. Na nij platsi s cirnym stiкlyrusоm na grudi. Vy zazgli lystru i na grudi u nii оbrazоvalass lunnay dоrоga.⁸

The “invisible” land is similarly described merely as “the land of observation.” This is in contrast to “The Cherry Pit,” where the narrator is guided on his journey through the still undiscovered landscape by “two sisters,” “Observation” (Vnimanii) and “Imagination” (Vооbrazinii). In that story, the unconscious intuitive and the rational principles are allotted equally self-evident roles in artistic perception.

The title of Fedia's book in the story, “A Textbook of Magic” (“Samоucitils vоlsibstv”), points toward a similar rationalization and demystification of the creative act. As was noted above, the word vоlsibstvо (“wizardry,” “magic”), which is used here in the sense of the creation of illusions and images, derives from Three Fat Men. In the novel it refers to Doctor Arneri's magic tricks, which, however, have nothing supernatural about them, but are grounded in reality. Parallel to this, in “Lessons of Observation” the word designates the generation of an image which is not fantastic but based on reality. (Cf. the drafts of Envy, where Ivan is called pоslidnij vоlsibniк zimli.)

On the other hand, “Lessons of Observation” is metapoetic in nature. It discusses the inner essence of art and its situation in the revolutionary society, demonstrates the poetics of the moment for its own sake, and allots to every image an autonomous artistic value that transcends social reality.

The textbook character of the story serves in fact to conceal and at the same time justify its montage composition. The individual “chapters” include widely divergent and thematically unconnected sense impressions. What unites the majority of them is their origin in the visual perception of reality. In fragment 3, one of the variants of the beginning, this montage structure appears in its most extreme form. It consists of detailed observations of the material world which the first-person narrator captures in transient impressions and then jots down daily in his notebook. The text is divided into short, autonomous paragraphs labeled with the days of the week, and each paragraph concludes in a striking impression expressed in an original metaphor or simile.⁹ The structure of the text is reminiscent of a diary (cf. No Day Without a Line), but it is obviously intended to “discipline” and organize the expansion of the visual impressions. Most of the images in “Lessons of Observation” are taken from concrete reality and reveal a landscape, an everyday object, or a prosaic scene. They have no symbolic function, although certain of them are imbued with a deeper meaning which illuminates the entire context.

Thus “Lessons of Attention” was to be structured as a “catalogue of images,” a poem in prose, albeit in a didactic form, that is reminiscent of the technique employed by the Russian Imaginists.¹⁰ It stresses image rather than plot as the nucleus of the narrative text. The story communicates through images which lay bare the essence of things or reveal a dimension of reality which—it is underscored—is as essential as the social or political ones. “Lessons of Observation” may be viewed as Olesha's attempt to rejuvenate the genre of the short story through Imaginism in prose—the Imaginist movement had ceased to exist in 1928—although at the same time he made an effort to adapt it to the current demands for utilitarian literature.

These two contrasting artistic strategies, the one impressionistic and the other didactic and realistic, are implied in the very titles of the “chapters” of the intended story:

1. Cilоviк, pоtоrоpivsijsy brоsits кamins.

2. Garmоniy.

3. (Vоzniкnоvinii ditali.)

4. [Burzuaznоi vоspоminanii.]

Priznaк niscastiy.

5. Divusкa s apilssinоm.

6. Visna.

7. аnaliz vоzniкnоviniy ssоry.

8. Zavtraк na travi.

9. Brоdyga.

10. Nisij.

(Words crossed out are indicated in brackets […], while (…) marks Olesha's own parentheses.)

The “chapter” titles can be divided into two different groups. The first points toward a more descriptive form and a linear spatial and temporal evolution (Cilоviк, pоtоrоpivsijsy brоsits кamins, Burzuaznоi vоspоminanii, Priznaк niscastiy); here events were to be described in a sober, analytical, almost scientific manner (Vоzniкnоvinii ditali, аnaliz vоzniкnоviniy ssоry). The second group suggests a mise en scène, a still-life or an impressionistic/naturalistic painting (Garmоniy, Divusкa s apilssinоm, Visna, Zavtraк na travi, Nisij) which captures the eternity of the moment. As I shall show below, at least three of these texts (Zavtraк na travi, Divusкa s apilssinоm, Nisij), have originated in an intermedial interplay of iconic signs. The first two are verbal variations of themes in Edouard Manet's “Luncheon on the Grass” (“Le déjeuner sur l'herbe” (1863)) and Valentin Serov's “Girl with Peaches” (“Divоcкa s pirsiкami,” 1887), while the last one is inspired by religious painting.

It is evident that the montage-like structure of the texts is mixed with another compositional principle, in which the author creates a narrative frame which introduces and comments upon the origin of an image or series of images. One of the variants of the beginning of “Lessons in Observation” “Man Hurrying to Throw Stone” (“Cilоviк, pоtоrоpivsijsy brоsits кamins” (text 1)), which is included in revised form in “The Cherry Pit”, opens with the “teacher” (Fedia as a boy) and the “pupil” (an older, unnamed man) taking a walk in “the land of observation.” Fedia has himself recently discovered this country and, as it is suggested, is going to write a “travel guide” about it. Another variant is structured on the Chinese boxes principle: the first-person narrator enters into a dialogue with his implicit readers, informing them that his friend Fedia is working on a book entitled A Textbook of Magic, and going on to cite selected passages from the manuscript (see text 4).

Fedia gives lessons in “observation,” demonstrating for the older man the art of viewing reality through the eyes of the child and the poet. (This device was in fact already used in Envy, where there is a “teacher-pupil” relationship between the “wizard” Ivan Babichev and his “apprentice” Kavalerov.) This exercise in aesthetic perception may be regarded as an illustration of Shklovskii's 1913 article “Resurrection of the Word” (“Vоsкrisinii slоva”).

The narrative frame creates the illusion of an act whose course will be described, whereas in fact it is states which are shown. This can be seen in text 9 (“A Textbook of Magic”/“A Luxurious Life”), which evidently was to be included in “Lessons of Observation” but was not among the section rubrics.¹¹ The beginning of the fragment, which describes Fedia's visit to the Shlippenbakh family on Masha's birthday, serves only as a cohesive component in a basically associative text structured around a series of stills. Fedia's confrontation with Masha and her brother Boris, therefore, fulfills no thematic function, for what is shown are not the psychological relations among them, but rather a collection of “still lifes” (Boris standing at the grand piano with a cigarette in his fingers, Fedia in various poses holding a rose). The title of the following unfinished fragment, “Origin of a Quarrel” (“Prоiskоzdinii ssоry”), does seem to promise some psychology, but it proves to be misleading. It is apparent from a series of short texts that “Madam” Shlippenbakh merely provides an effective background against which—as in a painting—can be used to throw into striking relief various details in her apparel (for example, her black glass beads; cf. the quotation on p. 71 above).

The object on which description primarily focuses here is the rose. Olesha playfully varies this “still life” by putting the rose in different settings and associating it in its vase with different forms (an implied wine glass, a wooden sculpture, a question mark).

Logically enough, the visual texture of the portrayal is consistent with its theatricality. Except for the more descriptive, informative beginning, most of the sentences render a series of mises en scène consisting of frozen gestures/movements and states. They are rather like stage directions—note the short, truncated nominal phrases in the paragraph describing Masha's entrance—and it is no coincidence that the text contains graphically marked dramatic elements (direct speech, use of the present tense of descriptive verbs). Dramatic dialogue also occurs in “The Cherry Pit.” Images are expressed in original metaphors and similes which impart an ironic note to the entire work. The text has the hybrid structure typical of impressionistic prose.

2. THE ROSE VS. THE CHERRY TREE

As is evident from the discussion above, the plot intimated at the beginning of the text is not developed, but is instead “frozen” as the author proceeds to “paint” a series of physical gestures and states and verbalize motifs borrowed from painting such as the rose and the grand piano. This appears even more clearly in fragment 10, another variant of the above, which is also the most hybrid and fractured of all the texts in “Lessons of Observation.”

The passage presents a triangle drama in which the first-person narrator is in love with Masha, who has left him to marry Boris Mikhailovich Shlippenbakh. He fantasizes about visiting her on her birthday and giving her a rose. The semantic center of the text, however, is the image of the rose. The drama and this image, of course, use a number of classical themes, including love as the source of artistic creation, the conflict between the romantic and the realist, the artist as outsider, and the theme of sacrifice, which are touched upon in the fragment on the subtextual level as well. The principal reason Olesha introduces the motif of the rose in connection with love, however, is quite different; what he is doing is playing with the traditional mythology of the image itself by demythologizing it and making it sensuous. The metaphors Kusty stоyli piridо mnоj, кaк ryцari. Vооruzinii ik bylо razlicnо. Etо byla vоjna alоj i bilоj rоzy are one striking example. The playful irony in the anthropomorphization and “androgynization” of the rose is manifested not least in the intertextuality of the image. It refers to the historical War of the Roses which broke out in 1455 between the English houses of Lancaster and York, so called because of the red and the white rose, respectively, which appeared in the families' coats of arms.

The sentences above containing the image of the rose, which the narrator describes as a ryd pysnyk фraz also illustrate Olesha's impressionistic aspiration to autonomize completely the individual word, expression, paragraph or image. A similar aspiration can be discerned in his rendering of the totality of sense impressions (cf. the description of the bedroom paraphernalia in Envy).

The visuality of the image of the rose is combined here with the new, physical sense impression of pain as the narrator is stung by a bee he at first took to be a thorn. The motif of “the greedy bee” creeping into a cave ironically hints at martyrdom symbolism (unrequited love for Masha, if we set the fragment in its narrative context), but its real purpose is to maximalize the sense impressions. In the symbiosis of both visual and physical perceptions the word “literally” becomes flesh. Communicated through this aesthetic process, in which sensuous totality presupposes linguistic totality, is an ecstatic experience of life.

The rose, of course, is a common motif in Romantic and Symbolist poetry and literature. The first-person narrator himself reveals in the text that his comparisons with roses are intended to deromanticize Romantic imagery. By using everyday words (the simile rоza-кubars) and military vocabulary (vоjna alоj i bilоj rоzy, vооruzinii ik bylо razlicnо, skvatкa) he will renew this imagery and demonstrate the potential of rendering the poetic mode of expression sensuous.

It is obvious, however, that in his play with the Romantic code the narrator is referring to a concrete object, namely Afanasii Fet's poems about roses. His image of the rose is linked intertextually to Fet's in especially “He who Wanted me to Go Mad” (“Mоigо tоt bizumstva zilal …”):

Mоigо tоt bizumstva zilal, кtо smizal
Etоj rоzy zavоi, i blistкi, i rоsy;
Mоigо tоt bizumstva zilal, кtо svival
Eti tyzкim uzlоm nabizavsii коsy.
Zlay radоsts kоty by vsy radоsts vzyla,
а dusa mоy taк zi, prid samym zaкatоm,
Prilitila b sо stоnоm syda, кaк pcila,
Okmilits, upivayss taкim arоmatоm.
I, sоznanii scastsy na sirdцi krany,
Stanu bujstva y zizni zivym оtgоlоsкоm.
Etоt mid blagоvоnnyj—оn mоj, dly miny,
Pusts drugim оn оstanitsy tоnкim liss vоsкоm!(12)

Olesha's simile “rоza-кubars” (“rose-child's top”) is a degraded version of Fet's “rоza-коsa.” The words zavоi in etоj rоzy zavоi and svitок in Яrкij svitок svоj rasкryla in the poem “The Rose” (“Rоza”) signify twisting, curving, winding and scroll, and refer to the shape of the rose petals, which are “twisted” or twined around each other. The same principle of “twisting” and twining underlies the simile “rоza-кubars.” The word “кubars” also phonetically resembles the word “кudirs,” which indicates yet another comparison between the rose and a lock of hair. This simile is consistent with the hair motif (коsy) linked with the rose in the poem cited above. Both the “rose” and the “top” have the rotundity which, as was noted earlier, symbolizes for Olesha sensuousness and perfection and is in general characteristic of the architecture of his object world. The bee motif in the fragment refers to a similar context in Fet. Olesha metaphorically calls the rose bushes “knights.” In Fet's poems about roses, e.g. “The Rose,” “Autumn Rose” (“Osinnyy rоza”), and “September Rose” (“Sintybrssкay rоza”), the apposition цariцa is repeated several times as an attribute of the rose. The rose, after all, is a traditional symbol of femininity. By “androgynizing” the flower (note that ryцari partially coincides phonetically with цariцa), Olesha both plays with the Romantic cliche and renews the repertory of images associated with the flower.

In other words, by creating an everyday mythology of the rose, Olesha further reinforces the sensuousness of the image. As was noted above, the fragment culminates in a description of the sensuous experience of reality (text 9 is significantly titled “A Luxurious Life,” an expression that recurs in the last sentence of text 10) which at the same time communicates a state of poetic inspiration taken to its maximum. Fet describes a similar state of creative ecstasy in the text cited above.¹³

The sensuous qualities imparted to imagery are accentuated not least by a series of phonetic coincidences. The words associated with the state denoted by the expression rоsкоsnay zizns are rоza, prоtubiraniц, кubars, rоmantiкa, ryцari, pcila, pisira, кrоvs, sip, all of which phonetically resemble the title. Rоza can be discerned in rоsкоsnay zizns, and the combination rо occurs in a number of words (prоtubiraniц, rоmantiкa, кrоvs; note also the alliteration in оgrоmnay rоzоvay rоza). Striking here is the repetition of the r-sound, which we have observed is associated with the sensuous and physical. Rоsкоsnay is similarly phonetically linked with pisira, sip, and pcila through repetitions of the fricative and explosive consonants.

The triangle drama which is merely intimated in the fragment analyzed above is developed in “The Cherry Pit.” The rose, however, has been replaced by another plant, the cherry tree, which is the central image in the semantics of the story. Masha has also been given another name: Natasha. Both names are meaningful and relevant to the semantic pattern which can only be glimpsed in the fragment but is clearly established in the story. Masha is a nickname for Mariia, which in the Christian tradition is associated with the rose. In Catholicism, however (Olesha grew up in a Catholic milieu), the rose is an attribute not only of Mary but also of Christ. The creative powers of the first-person narrator, which are symbolized by the rose with its connotations of life and death, Mary and Christ, are thus marked by the same duality of creativity and destruction (the sacrifice theme).

Natasha derives from Nataliia, which denotes birth (from the Latin natalis). In the “A Luxurious Life” fragment it is the first-person narrator who gives Masha a rose, while in “The Cherry Pit” it is instead Natasha who treats him to cherries. Fedia's ironically theatrical gesture is replaced in the story by Natasha's symbolically inspirational one. The name change which the narrator's object of affection undergoes is a consequence of this inversion.

The narrator's unrequited love for Natasha releases his creative imagination (nor is it insignificant that Natasa bears a phonetic resemblance to visny). This is declared explicitly in one draft of “The Cherry Pit” in which the narrator's philosophizing monologue on the essence of art and the situation of the artist in the new society is allotted considerably more space than in the final text. The paragraph in the opening fragment ending Ona mоrgala. I y pоdumal, кaк niкrasivyi u ptiц glaza—bizbrоvyi, nо s silsnо vyrazinnymi viкami is followed by the following reminiscence:

Tipirs vspоminay, y udivlyyss кaк etо y mоg vidits v pоdrоbnоstyk glaza etоj malinsкоj ptiцy. Dоlznо byts, nicigо y ni vidil na samоm dili, a prоstо оt radоsti, ctо y prоvоzu vrimy vmisti s Natasij, dijstvitilsnоsts mоigо sоznaniy strasnо оzivilass, i stali v nij prоyvlytssy zabytyi znaniy о miri, о raznyk visak: y prоstо vspоmnil glaza кuriцy—mоrgaysii i bizbrоvyi.

Bоris Mikajlоvic кaк-tо ciriкnul i ptiцa ulitila. Я prоdоlzal gоvоrits о tоm, кaк prоkоdit zizns, i mnоgоi, ctо v susnоsti ligко uznats, оstaitsy niizvistnym dly nas: my ni umiim razlicats ptiц, dirivsy—i ctо v izvistnyj srок zizni rabоta vnimaniy nacinait оslabivats, iscizait оkоta naprygats vnimanii i cilоviк ni uspiv vоsprinyts zivоj vid, dоvоlsstvuitsy usluzlivо pоdvirgnuvsimsy iminim. V nasim sоznanii оcins mnоgо imin, a v pamyti оcins malо zivyk prisstavlinij. Mоi rassuzdiniy Bоris Mikajlоvic prirval zamicaniim о tоm, ctо ni stоit фilоsофstvоvats. Я sкazal:—Ni stоit. а Natasa vzyla miny za ruкu i sprоsila: Pravda, Фidy?¹⁴

The title of the story is ambiguous and consists of several intertextual associations. “The Cherry Pit” or “The Pit/Stone” (one of the variants of the title) designates above all life in its embryonic form and can therefore also be interpreted to symbolize the essence of the thing. Herein is contained the key to Olesha's aesthetic perception: the artist's task is to penetrate the thing with all senses and liberate its inner essence. The passage quoted above illustrates this phenomenological peering into things: love has so broadened Fedia's ability to see the “invisible” that he becomes capable of perceiving the inner form of not only surrounding objects but also of words (cf. Shklovskii's “Resurrection of the Word”).¹⁵

It is significant that the cherry pit should take the narrator back to the child's sense perception of the world. Natasha offers Fedia some cherries. Out of “childhood habit” he holds a cherry pit in his mouth, sucking it clean to contemplate its structure (Я vynul ii,—оna imila vid dirivynnоj). Like the child, the adult narrator and all his senses “literally” fuse with the object in this spontaneous act of perception.¹⁶ In Olesha's artistic world, the stones of fruit are in general associated with the creativity and playfulness of the child. In Three Fat Men, for example, Suok plays on whistles she has learned to make from apricot stones, demonstrating her skill in Grandfather Brizak's balagan.¹⁷

Olesha formulates this aesthetic perception more explicitly in the image of the stone, an archetypical object equivalent to the pit. The narrator holds a stone in his hand—a stone that “should” land in a niche. He throws the stone but misses the niche, and the moment he is free of the stone he hears its “voice”:

—Pоdоzdi!—кriкnul кamins.—Pоsmоtri na miny! I dijstvitilsnо, y pоspisil. Nuznо bylо pоdvirgnuts кamins оsmоtru. Vids, biz sоmniniy zi, оn pridstavlyl sоbоj zamicatilsnuy viss. I vоt оn v кustak, v zarоslyk—isciz! I y, dirzavsij v ruкi viss, ni znay dazi, кaкоgо оna byla цvita. а кamins, vоzmоznо, byl lilоvat; vоzmоznо, ni mоnоlitin, a sоstоyl iz nisкоlsкik til: кaкay nibuds окaminilоsts, vоzmоznо, byla zaкlycina v nim—оstanкi zuкa ili visnivay коstоcкa; vоzmоznо, byl кamins pоrist, i, naкоniц, mоzit, vоvsi ni кamins pоdnyl y s zimli, a pоzilinivsuy коsts.¹⁸

It is no coincidence that Olesha should use the image of the stone to demonstrate the artistic perception of reality. According to Carl Gustav Jung the stone symbolizes the innermost core or Self, which is absolute in nature.¹⁹ Humans have since primeval times collected “sacred” stones believed to be the vehicle of the vital force. Jungians associate the stone with the human perception of time and the feeling of immortality and immutability which accompanies experience of the eternity of the moment.

It is against this background significant that the stone motif should occur already in Envy. As was mentioned earlier, among the “useless things” Ivan has made himself is a box with 12 shining, colorful, flat and oval stones. It is evident that the stones here as in “The Cherry Pit” are bearers of the mystery of life and are intended for the sensuous penetration in perception which Olesha links to the experience of the eternity of the moment. As his stone symbolism illustrates, the archetypical functions of stones are eminently suited to be projected onto those of artistic creation.

The title of the story, then, derives from the experiences of childhood and—as is evident from the variant in text 12—of the world of the fairy tale. The image of the cherry pit/cherry tree has doubtless been inspired by one of Baron Münchhausen's stories mentioned by the narrator in a literary reminiscence. In that story, the Baron shoots cherry pits at a deer. When he meets the deer ten years later, he discovers a cherry tree growing between its antlers. (It may be noted that the book edition of the tales of Baron Münchhausen was illustrated by Gustave Doré, and one of the pictures is of a deer with a cherry tree between its antlers. It is quite possible that Olesha knew this edition as a child and that the picture etched itself in his memory.)

“The Cherry Pit” evokes associations with especially Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard (Visnivyú sad), in which the doomed trees symbolize the inexorably approaching end of the previous age. The negative parallel with the cherry tree—as an incarnation of the narrator's creative imagination it belongs to the past, but it will survive in the new society—is an obvious allusion to the play.

The narrator, however, explicitly anchors the cherry tree in Japanese mythology, where the color of the cherry blossom, as he tells us, designates the male soul. He also calls his cherry tree a “Japanese” tree, and this is important for understanding the polysemous semantics of the image. In Japanese culture the cherry blossom is as central as is the rose in the Christian tradition. In Japanese mythology—for example, in the legend The Holy Cherry Tree of Musubi-No-Kami Temple—the cherry tree is inhabited by a holy spirit which sometimes appears in human guise as a handsome young boy. In the basement of the temple in Kagami there is a centuries-old grave of a saint which is dedicated to Musubi-No-Kami, the god of love, and which has been erected in honor of an ancient cherry tree. In the legend a young girl falls in love with a boy she meets near the tree who gives her a blooming cherry branch each time she passes it. When she discovers that she loves the holy spirit she decides to dedicate her life to the monastery of the temple.²⁰

A similar semantic pattern of symbolic gestures, albeit inverted, is reproduced in the love theme in “The Cherry Pit.” The spiritual dimension of the “giving of the cherry branch” in the legend is made sensuous in Olesha's story in the form of a “giving of cherries.” Physical love is never realized in “The Cherry Pit,” but remains as Platonic as the love in the legend. Both gestures, however, are fraught with a fateful content. The girl's love for the holy spirit dooms her to withdraw from life and spend the remainder of her years in the monastery. Fedia's love of the earthly Natasha—a representative of pragmatic society—liberates his imagination, but despite the narrator's assurances at the end of the story, the fruit of this creation (the cherry tree) is still relegated to a sphere of nonexistence. (Note that in his vision of the future it is at the foot of the cherry tree that Fedia meets Natasha—the same as in the legend.) The presence of doom in the central image of the story derives from the specific character of the Japanese cherry tree. There is a cult around the cherry tree in Japan, not for its fruit (it has none) but for its beautiful pink blossoms. Its flowering season is very short but intense and rich in incomparable sense impressions. Thus the cherry blossom can be said to be tragic, as the explosive elegance of the flower is in reverse proportion to its transitoriness. It is no coincidence that the cherry blossom symbolizes not only love but also bravery and courage, and that it is the favorite flower of the samurai. Both love and war are boundary states associated with life and death. This dichotomy is highly relevant to the first-person narrator's fruitless “Japanese” cherry tree, as the semantics of the image contains a meaning of creative ecstasy but also of the inescapable “death” of the creative imagination. With this in mind, we can see that the cherry tree is an adequate symbol for the narrator's/author's tragedy.²¹

3. IMPRESSIONISTIC VISION

It was noted above that Olesha's artistic strategy has points in common with the aesthetics of Impressionism. Zh. El'sberg, for example, pointed in one of the first reviews of Envy (1928) to the affinity between Olesha's and Jean Giraudoux's narrative manners.²² The narrative technique employed in the fragments of “Lessons of Observation” and in “The Cherry Pit” are highly impressionistic, although the fractured composition of the story is instead artificial in nature. Every attempt to sketch an epic context or to delineate the psychology of the characters is crowded out by the autonomous value of the fragment and individual image. (Compare the musical impressionism of, for example, Maurice Ravel and Claude Debussy, which dissolved Classical-Romantic harmony in favor of tones assembled on the basis of their absolute, acoustic value.)

Significantly, Olesha's memory is also associative and impressionistic rather than epic in nature. The personally subjective element is manifested not in the aspiration to tell his own life story, but in his attempt to reproduce his special sense perception of things. What the narrator of “Lessons of Observation” remembers is not the adventures of Baron Münchhausen or Don Quixote (text 12), but an isolated visual impression. His reading of these works is reduced to and grounded in the sensory sphere by pleasurable tastes and smells. This impressionistic mode of perception appears not least in the lyrical first-person narrator's attempt to recreate his artistic biography, that is, to reconstruct the various components or original sources of the aesthetic process. There are many striking examples of Olesha's impressionism in Not a Day Without a Line; the author recalls some of the persons in his childhood not as personalities but as free compositions of colors and shapes (Я ni pоmny, кaк vyglydil Vоlоdy Dоlgоv. … Pоmny igо v vidi vysокоgо gоlubоvatоgо iytna; Vikrs кlоuna—bilо-malinоgо-zоlоtоj vikrs s nipоdviznym кamnim bilоj masкi sridi etоgо vikry …).²³

Olesha's impressions are the result not only of the “state” of his “eye,” but also of his imagination, taken to an absolute. The fragmentation of the narrative reflects that of the objects, and simile captures the phenomenological moment of perception.

This mode of perception appears especially clearly, although in different ways, in two fragments: one is a variant of the beginning of “The Cherry Pit” (text 11), and the other is the final opening of the story. The first paragraph begins with the first-person narrator buying cherries from a street vendor, a scene that is seemingly banal but is heavily loaded with sense impressions. The narrator's perception of the vendor, the scale, the cherries, and the landscape are almost absolute, involving all his senses in the act. Visually, the dark red cherries harmonize with the black balances of the scale. The vendor is drawn metonymically in the same spectrum: the only two exterior details noted are his (evidently) dark stubble and his palms, which have been stained lilac by the cherries. The figure of the vendor contrasts with the light of the landscape, which emanates from the greenery and the sunset. There is also a tactile sense response to the cone of cherries the narrator holds in his hand and the “graininess” he perceives in its contents. Audially, there is the sound of the chain of the scale, and implicitly there is taste, for the narrator eats the cherries as he walks along.

The most active sense is vision, but auditory impressions as well generate a series of associations: the sound of the chains of the scale and the bald ring on the vendor's head bring to mind a hame and through it a horse, and these combine with the vendor's dark stubble to suggest a gipsy. The totality of sense perceptions awakens the narrator's memories, as visual images from childhood fairy tales (Tom Thumb and the adventures of Baron Münchhausen) unite with the impressions of the moment in a dense synthesis reminiscent of Proust.

As was noted earlier, the other fragment, titled “Breakfast on the Grass” in “Lessons of Observation,” quotes Manet's painting and translates its contents into words. The text begins the definitive version of “The Cherry Pit” and gives the entire story an impressionistic flavor:

V vоsкrisinsi y pоbyval na daci v gоstyk u Natasi. Krоmi miny, bylо isi trоi gоstij: dvi divusкi i Bоris Mikajlоvic. Divusкi s Natasinym bratоm Erastоm оtpraviliss na riкu кatatssy v lоdкi. My, tо ists Natasa, Bоris Mikajlоvic i y, pоsli v lis. V lisu my raspоlоziliss na pоlynкi; оna byla yrко оsvisina sоlnцim. Natasa pоdnyla liцо, i vdrug ii liцо pокazalоss mni siyysim фarфоrоvym blydцim.²⁴

The passage is a paraphrase of the picnic theme of French Impressionism. Outdoor scenes showing people in a state of tranquillity and repose against the background of forests, water, and green fields were of course among the Impressionists' favorite subjects. The time and place of “Breakfast on the Grass” are indicated in the very first sentence, since the narrator is visiting Natasha in the countryside on a Sunday, the picnic in the woods takes place on a day of rest.

Manet's painting shows three figures—two men and a naked woman—sitting in a clearing in the forest, and the contours of a boat. In the background there is a partly clothed woman swimming in the lake. The woman and one of the men are sitting close together looking in the same direction, out into the distance toward the spectator. The other man is in profile opposite the couple; his hand is outstretched in a lively gesture, but he is evidently involved in a monologue rather than a dialogue, for the woman and the other man seem distant and deep in an inner silence. The painting breathes calm, harmony, and repose.

The composition of the scene in the prose fragment corresponds to that of the painting. On the basis of the psychological relations between the three characters, we can imagine that they have the same positions vis-à-vis each other as the figures in Manet. The lovers Natasha and Boris Mikhailovich are sitting next to each other, and the intruding narrator is opposite them. It is the narrator who is the verbally active party trying to engage the others in conversation. It is interesting to note in this context that in one variant of “The Cherry Pit” the first-person narrator delivers long monologues which irritate the lovers. This emotional tension between the three persons is manifested in the following passage from the story:

—Ctо etо?—sprоsil y sipоtоm.—Drоzd? Etо drоzd?

Niкtо ni оtvicait mni. Я pоvirnulsy к nim spinоj. Mоj zadnyj vzglyd ni slidit za nimi. Oni naslazdaytsy оdinоcistvоm. Я smоtry na ptiцu. Oglynuvsiss y vizu: Bоris Mikajlоvic gladit Natasu pо siкi. Igо ruкa dumait: pusts оn smоtrit na ptiцu, оbizinnyj mоlоdоj cilоviк! Uzi y ni vizu ptiцy, y prislusivayss: y slysu rasкliivaysijsy zvuк pоцiluy.²⁵

This “picnic scene” in Olesha's work evokes a landscape with a river and a boat (Divusкi s Natasinym bratоm Erastоm оtpraviliss na riкu кatatssy v lоdкi), which also seems to refer to Manet's painting.

Manet's “Luncheon on the Grass” is apsychological. The figure of the naked woman (which shocked contemporary critics and viewers) is not at all erotic; the whiteness of her body merely serves as an autonomous compositional element which contrasts with other color areas.²⁶ Olesha attempts to fill the “picnic scene” with psychology, but his primary purpose is obviously not to depict the triangle between Natasha, Boris Mikhailovich and the narrator, but to present what the senses register and the imagination fabulates in a state of emotional tension. The epic evolution promised by the first sentence is of course misleading. The narrative frame merely creates a realistic background which motivates and justifies the impressionism of the scene.

The opening fragment ends with a sentence which contains a visual impression. In the bright sunshine Natasha's facial contours dissolve for a moment before the narrator's “eye” and assume the abstract form of a shining white porcelain saucer. Her face appears as a neutral and independent object, an area of white which like the white body in Manet's painting contrasts with other surfaces in the color composition such as the green of the landscape. The temporal adverb vdrug accentuates the transitoriness of the impression, and the indefinite verb pокazalоss underscores its vague intangibility. This associative phenomenological comparison emphasizes the emotionality and intensity of the narrator's perception of Natasha's face. She herself is never described in the story, and proves to be as abstract as this shining patch of white.

Olesha's impressions are not only visual, but are also auditory, tactile, and gustatory in origin. The fragment cited above concludes with an auditory impression (rasкliivaysijsy zvuк pоцiluy) which is a variant of a synesthesic image from a textual variant of Envy in which Kavalerov describes Valia: … y smоtril vniz, nо mni pокazalоss, ctо y slysu ii ulybкu: zvuк rasкliivaysiksy gub.²⁷ Both images belong to a type of simile which is characteristic of impressionistic prose and which Hermann Pongs calls dinghaltig.²⁸ Connected with the moment of perception, they communicate the tension and intensity in the impression of a thing. Both impressions are described in the prosaic language of everyday life, which reinforces the abstraction of the depicted objects.

Another type of impression with symbolical depth occurs—logically enough—in the description of the cherry tree, which in “Lessons of Observation” was evidently intended to be included in the “chapter” entitled “Spring” (“Visna”). A series of images provide a synthetic impression of color, movement and sound whose atmosphere of nature and melancholic tone recall Haiku poetry. This “poem in prose” is a tribute not only to the cherry tree, but also to spring at its flowery climax. The text concludes with a summarizing commentary which like the title of a painting explains the essence of the images (Etо кalijdоsкоp visny …). The “music” of the tree, its uninterrupted transformation in a symphony of sounds, colors, and shapes in the bright sunlight and the transparent air, communicates the beauty of the landscape but also the transitoriness and perishability of beauty. We can note in this context that trees are in general a common motif in the works of the Impressionists, not least Van Gogh's:

—Natasa, yrок i svitil dins, duit vitir, isi bоlii razduvaysij svit dny. Vitir кacait mоi dirivо, i оnо sкripit laкirоvannymi castymi. Kazdyj цvitок igо vstait i snоva lоzitsy, i оttоgо оnо stanоvitsy tо rоzоvym, tо bilym. Etо кalijdоsкоp visny, Natasa.²⁹

One variant of this paragraph reads: Vоt цvitit, svirкait i pоcti zvinit visnivоi dirivо, where the sound repetitions цvi-, svi-, and zvi- evidently are intended to render the “music” of the tree. In musical Impressionism there was a similar attempt to combine moving effects of light, sound, and mood. Titles such as “Skies,” and “Bells through the Leaves” by Debussy and “Water …” by Ravel are examples.

“Breakfast on the Grass” is followed by another fragment in “The Cherry Pit” which appears to figure in the rubric list of “Lessons of Observation” as “The Vagabond” (“Brоdyga”). It contains several successive impressions generated in a play of light and shadow as the narrator strolls eastward at sunset. It is worthwhile noting here that the term Impressionism derives from Claude Monet's painting “Impression” (1872, exhibited in 1874), which depicts a sunrise with ship masts in the Le Havre harbor in the foreground. The fragment begins with a sentence that stands as an autonomous paragraph: Я putisistvuy pо nividimоj strani:

Vоt y idu—vоzvrasayss s daci v gоrоd. Sоlnцi zakоdit, y idu na vоstок. Я sоvirsay dvоjnоj puts. Odin mоj puts dоstupin nablydiniy vsik: vstricnyj vidit cilоviкa, idusigо pо pustynnоj ziliniysij mistnоsti. Nо ctо prоiskоdit s etim mirnо idusim cilоviкоm? On vidit vpiridi siby svоy tins. Tins dvizitsy pо zimli, daliко prоtynuvsiss; u nii dlinnyi blidnyi nоgi. Я pirisiкay pustyrs, tins pоdnimaitsy pо кirpicnоj stini i vdrug tiryit gоlоvu. Etоgо vstricnyj ni vidit, etо vizu tоlsко y. Я vstupay v коridоr, оbrazоvavsijsy mizdu dvumy коrpusami. Kоridоr bisкоnicnо vysок, napоlnin tinsy. Zdiss pоcva gnilоvata, pоdatliva, кaк v оgоrоdi. Navstricu, vdоls stiny, zaranii stоrоnyss, bizit оdicalay sоbaкa. My razminuliss. Я оglydyvayss. Pоrоg, оstavsijsy pоzadi, siyit. Tam, na pоrоgi, sоbaкu mgnоvinnо оkvatyvait prоtubiraniц. Zatim оna vybigait na pustyrs, i liss tipirs y pоlucay vоzmоznоsts оpridilits ii цvit—ryzij.³⁰

Contrasted here are two depictions, the one realistic and the other impressionistic. The stroller passes an empty green space at sunset, crosses an unbuilt area, and walks along a brick wall to enter a corridor formed by two blocks of houses. Here in the corridor he runs into an abandoned dog. To the eyes of the impressionist, however, this landscape is far from clear and palpable. The surface or color of objects are hardly an immanent property, but are instead determined by atmospheric conditions. The Impressionists often painted one and the same motif in different light (cf., for example, Monet's “Rouen Cathedrals”). Consequently, the narrator asks himself: “What is happening to this peaceful stroller?”³¹

Unlike events in the realistic land, what is happening in the “impressionistic” one is very dramatic. The contours of physically tangible objects dissolve. In the play of the light the walls of the houses, the stroller, and the dog are deprived of their substance and weight and become materially almost indiscernible. The stroller loses his physicality and is transformed into a shadow. As transparent as the light itself he/the shadow enters into a tense conflict with the green landscape and brick wall, losing his head in the clash with the latter. The houses seem as immaterial as the shadow which fills the corridor between them. The abstraction of space is intensified by its endlessness (Kоridоr bisкоnicnо vysок). Objects change incessantly in this play between light and shadow, generating ever new impressions. In the corridor both the stroller and the dog fuse with the light of the shadow. At the end of the corridor, on the threshold of open space, the dog assumes a new guise: now it is entirely swallowed by the “protuberance” and is transformed into a bright abstract patch of light. This transitoriness of the impression is accentuated—as in “Breakfast on the Grass”—through the adverb “momentarily” (mgnоvinnо).

In order to mark a distance to the “invisible land” the narrator fictionalizes himself, appearing both as the “realist,” the “peaceful stroller” who only perceives what is visible, and as the “impressionist,” who becomes dramatically entangled with the interpenetrating material and atmospheric spaces.

The entire fragment is in the historical present tense, a narrative form which impressionistic writers use to remove the distance between the reader and the states they are exposing and create an illusion of participation in the moment of perception. The text has a realistic style, lacking the typical similes by which Olesha captures the inner structure of objects in a momentaneous phenomenological perception. The exception is the ironically playful image of the shadow (a materialization of the abstract) which occurs in the variant of the beginning of “The Cherry Pit” analyzed above (Я sil na vоstок, vidy svоy dlinnuy na blidnyk nоgak tins).

The realism of the text is connected with the dual visual perspective (in the device of fictionalization), which significantly reduces the intensity, tension, and immediacy of the first-person narrator's perception. The structure of the fragment once again demonstrates Olesha's aesthetic ambivalence, which is expressed explicitly in his comment on the expression sоbaкu mgnоvinnо оkvatyvait prоtubiraniц. Olesha evidently felt that the scientific term “protuberance,” which is borrowed form the vocabulary of astronomy, was the most adequate word to render the impressionistic, abstract quality in the image of the dog. (The term occurs earlier in different contexts in the drafts of Envy; for example: Ivan stоyl na plоsadкi […] pysnо окruzinnyj sоlnicnym prоtubiranцim.³²) In a speech at a meeting of writers in Moscow in March, 1936 dedicated to the struggle with formalism and naturalism in literature and art, Olesha firmly repudiated this expression as “formalistic” (what it actually illustrates is the device of “estrangement” (оstraninii)) and reported a conversation he had had on the subject with Maiakovskii:

U miny v оdnоm rassкazi ists mistо, gdi y gоvоry о sоbaкi, коtоray iz yrко оsvisinnоgо sоlnцim mista vbigait v timnyj коridоr. Я gоvоry: «Sоbaкu оkvatil prоtubiraniц». Mayкоvsкij, коtоrоmu y prоcil rassкaz, sprоsil: «Ctо etо znacit»?

Я nacal ctо-tо оbhysnyts—etо tо оgninnоi коlsцо, коtоrоi pоyvlyitsy vокrug sоlnцa vо vrimy zatminiy i t.d.

—Vоt i nadо bylо napisats,—prоrycal Mayкоvsкij,—sоbaкu оkvatilо оgninnоi коlsцо, glupо iminuimоi nauкоj—prоtubiraniц.

Mayкоvsкij taкim оbrazоm rugal mni za фоrmalizm, pоtоmu ctо, v samоm dili, кaк mоznо dоpusкats v rassкazi slоvо, tribuysii pоdstrоcnоgо оbhysniniy i, tim bоlii, upоtriblinnоi nipravilsnо, pоtоmu ctо prоtubiraniц, vоvsi ni оgninnоi коlsцо, a оgninnyj vikrs gazоv, a коlsцо, о коtоrоm y dumal, nazyvaitsy sоlnicnоj коrоnоj. Tim bоlii, bylо by glupо gоvоrits, ctо sоbaкu оkvatila sоlnicnay коrоna.

Etо i ists cistyj фоrmalizm.³³

In the analyzed text, the narrator leaves the countryside and sets off for town. The other fragment (which is marked graphically in the book edition) shows the narrator in the midst of a crowd in the center of the city. He is waiting for Natasha, who does not show up. In the meantime his “eye” registers numerous different shapes, movements, and sounds, and he himself undergoes a dramatic metamorphosis. This description as well seems to refer to the other main theme of the Impressionist painters (such as Monet, Auguste Renoir, and Edgar Dégas), namely the boulevards of Paris with their teeming crowds, often composed around an individual who blends in with the mass.

A variation of an impression of a city combined with the wandering motif occurs already in Envy. In the first-person narrator's vision, a young boy perceives the city in the greenish fog at sunrise:

Ynоsa, оziraysij gоrоd. Niкоmu ni izvistnyj ynоsa uzi prisil, uzi blizок, uzi vidit gоrоd, коtоryj spit, nicigо ni pоdоzrivait. Utrinnij tuman tоlsко rassiivaitsy. Gоrоd кlubitsy v dоlini zilinym mirцaysim оblaкоm.³⁴

Like the Impressionist painters, Olesha works with light effects—the sun is present in all impressions in “The Cherry Pit”—and shows concrete objects illuminated by other shapes in specific atmospheric conditions, including daylight, artificial light, weather, the consistency of the air, and open versus closed space. The fragment “The Birth of Detail” (“Vоzniкnоvinii ditali,” text 4) in “Lessons of Observation,” which in “The Cherry Pit” is included in the context of the “invisible land” (followed by the text “Man Hurrying to Throw a Stone”) demonstrates the origin of another impression which is also dependent on sunshine. The object perceived by the first-person narrator is logically enough a prosaic pair of stockings:

Strana vnimaniy nacinaitsy u izgоlоvsy, na stuli, коtоryj, razdivayss pirid оtkоdоm ко snu, vy pridvinuli к svоij кrоvati. Vy prоsypaitiss rannim utrоm, dоm isi spit, коmnata napоlnina sоlnцim. Tisina. Ni sivilitiss, ctоby ni narusits nipоdviznоsti i yrкоsti оsvisiniy—vdrug zamicaiti vy v коricnivоj tкani оtdilsnyi, vsysiisy pо vоzduku raznоцvitnyi sirstinкi: punцоvuy, gоlubuy, оranzivuy.³⁵

Unlike the impressions discussed above, here the narrator is exposing the technical aspect of impressionistic vision. In order for the light effect and the impression to arise—the stockings are transformed into a quivering rainbow of bright red, sky blue, and orange—a number of conditions must be satisfied: there must be silence, the observer must be still at the moment of perception, and he must maintain the correct distance to the object being viewed. The description shows the mutual relations between light and color and demonstrates how light can change the surface and color of objects.

Like the beginning of “Breakfast on the Grass,” the fragment concludes with an impression which is likewise preceded by the adverb “suddenly” (vdrug) signalling the moment of perception. “The Birth of Detail,” however, is didactic—note the second-person form of address—and the phenomenon of light is analyzed and explained in rational terms.

The drafts of “The Cherry Pit” contain several explanatory comments on the origin of various visual impressions. In one fragment cited in part above on p. 79, for example, the narrator presents the background to his perception of a bird's eye, which has the sharpness of detail of close-up photography.

“Girl with Orange” (text 4), the other prose fragment inspired by painting (but not included in “The Cherry Pit”) alludes to Serov's “Girl with Peaches.” The indoor setting of the painting is composed of various objects: a girl is sitting at a table holding a peach between her palms. On the table are peaches, leaves, and a knife. The room is bathed in bright sunlight. Serov captures an impressionistic moment of the girl's contemplative stillness just as she is about to move, at which time all the objects will mix together. The portrait of the girl is apsychological, and the entire composition is mainly intended to show youthful beauty, love of life, and sensuality.

The structure of the scene in Olesha's fragment is similar to that in Serov's painting, although it contains different objects. A girl is (implied to be) sitting at a table. On the table is a vase full of oranges, a plate in front of the girls, and beside it a napkin. The crucial difference, however, is that Olesha's scene begins where Serov's ends, namely at the moment of movement. The text consists of a series of sense impressions which describe different stages in the physical process of the peeling and eating of the oranges. It is thus a thematic continuation of Serov's work. Olesha's further detailed depiction of an event which has a beginning and an end communicates not only movement and dynamism but also the sensuality of life. This unites him with Serov. It is not a coincidence that he should choose to describe a process in which, like the eating of the cherries, several senses are involved. The impressions here are not only visual, but also tactile, gustatory, and auditory. The portrait with the girl has the same central position in Olesha's composition as the “still life” with an orange which in several fleeting impressions is associated with a globe of the earth (Pоlys apilssina; apilssin stal raspadatssy pо miridianam).

“Girl with Orange,” however may have had yet another source of inspiration, namely Manet's painting “Young Man Peeling a Pear” (“L'Éplucheur,” 1869). It shows a young man sitting facing to the right and peeling a yellowish-green pear. To his right in the left-hand half of the picture is another unpeeled pear on a pewter plate. The man's face and his hand holding the pear are illuminated by the light. His gaze is thoughtful and he appears to be listening to something outside the picture. Manet includes here an element of movement, which we have seen to be central to Olesha's depiction.

The fragment is called an “etude,” a genre which is most relevant in the non-verbal art forms. The designation evidently refers to painting: the text is merely an exercise which presents the basic material, a series of concrete but transitory observations, which will serve as the starting point for one or more impressionistic “sketches” of “Girl with Orange.”

4. PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST

As was noted above, the chapter list for “Lessons of Observation” includes the titles “The Vagabond” and “The Beggar.” The former is found among the drafts to which I have had access, but there is no fragment with the latter. The autobiographical story “In the World,” however, contains parts of the first chapter of the novel The Beggar in which the hero is depicted in a series of naturalistically impressionistic tableaus. A beggar is sitting on the steps of a pharmacy; all that can be seen from the street is the form of a body illuminated by a greenish light. The description of the beggar continues:

Pirvоi, ctо brоsilоss v glaza, byl кartuz, nadvinutyj dо siridiny usij, zavirnuvsiksy iz-pоd nigо mоcкami кvirku. Etоt spоsоb nоsiniy gоlоvnоgо ubоra pridaval cilоviкu zalкij i pоstydnyj vid.

Kartuz, pridnaznacinnyj dly litnigо vrimini, byl ssit iz svitlоj parusiny, оdnaко оt dоlgоgо upоtribliniy vо vsi vrimina gоda оn pоtimnil, pокrylsy pоdtiкami i priоbril bisфоrminnоsts оcirtanij, blizкuy к коnicisкоj puzyrcatоsti pоvarsкik коlpaкоv.

Cilоviк byl tоlst, nо vidimо, nibоlssоgо rоsta. Vsy gruznоsts sоsridоtоcilass v tulоvisi, коtоrоi оn кaк by pоddirzival na samоm sibi ruкami, sоidininnymi nad zivоtоm.

Gоlоvu оn dirzal vtynutоj v plici i ni mоg dirzats ii inaci, pоtоmu ctо zirnyi plici igо navalivaliss na zagrivок, оtcigо gоlоva prignulass i кaк by lisilass sii, i glazam raz i navsigda оpridilinо bylо smоtrits ispоdlоbsy.³⁶

Olesha himself places this depiction in a realistic narrative tradition. This is significant in the context, for the fragment illustrates his attempts to make the transition to a new, epic, psychologically charged and naturalistically colored prose. He does not develop this form of narration, however, and his Impressionism evolves toward Socialist Realism instead (on which more below).

Olesha gives a similar but more coarsely naturalistic description of the beggar in his fictionalized self-portrait in the article “The Theme of the Intelligent” (“Tima intilliginta”, 1930):

Nynci yrci vsigо pridstavlyy y svоi budusii v tоm vidi, ctо vоt y stоy nisij, na stupinsкak, v aptiкi mizdu dvumy dvirsmi,—nabryкsij, s navalivsimisy plicami, s pоdbоrоdкоm, коtоryj lizit na grudi, кaк val,—zirnyj, gryznyj cilоviк priplysyvait bоsymi nоgami na dirivynnyk stupinsкak sridi zanоz i razdavlinnyk tramvajnyk bilitоv, ruкi igо slоziny pоd zivоtоm, кartuz pоstydnо nadvinut na siridinu usij. Etо vsi оtnоsitsy к оblasti billitristiкi.³⁷

It is uncertain which of these “human still-lifes” Olesha intended to incorporate into “Lessons of Observation.” It is obvious, however, that “The Vagabond” and “The Beggar” refer to two diametrically opposed yet semantically related portraits of the artist. The “vagabond” he depicts in “The Cherry Pit” (and in “Lessons of Observation”) represents the aesthete, the impressionist and insatiable collector of sense impressions, wandering through the “invisible land.” The “beggar” is reduced to a living corpse, an amorphous and disintegrating body shape or a petrified statue (see below).

That Olesha should want to incorporate these incompatible portraits of the artist into “Lessons of Observation” is not as surprising as it may seem at first glance. The story was evidently to be in the form of an artistic testament, a function which was instead assumed by “The Cherry Pit.” The extant fragments indicate, after all, that “Lessons of Observation” was to deal with the author's failed attempts to unite art and life. In the late 1920s, moreover, Olesha was obsessed with the theme of the beggar, as can be seen not only from the planned novel The Beggar, which he conceived as early as 1928, but also in his journalistic writing.

“The Beggar” was to introduce an extremely personal, autobiographical element into “Lessons of Observation” and also bring out the universality of the artist's portrait. The image of the beggar, of course, is related to the classically Romantic hypostasis of the artist. It also carries connotations of Christ and a texture obviously inspired by religious painting.³⁸ Olesha himself seeks the origin of the image in the lubki he remembers from his childhood, and icon painting is another possible source of inspiration:

Obraz nisigо vоlnuit miny s ditstva. Mоzit byts, pоrazila lubоcnay кartinкa кaкay-tо, ni pоmny. Suss, sоlnцi, pustynnyj landsaфt, кtо-tо v laptyk—niкij Dmitrij Dоnsкоj—prоtygivait ruкu к nisimu, коtоryj stоit na коlinyk. Pоrazili slоva: rubisi, mytars. Ktоtо pоzalil mytary. Isцilinii.³⁹

When Olesha reports a confrontation with a real beggar in “In the World,” he associates him with both a statue and an icon of a saint:

Etоj zimоj prоkоdil кaк-tо pо Nivsкоmu. Nisij stоyl na коlinyk na virsini listniцy, ukоdysij v pоdvalsnyj, yrко оsvisinnyj magazin.

Я uvidil nisigо ni srazu. Я prоnis кists ruкi na urоvni igо gub, кaк budtо kоtil, ctоby ruкa mоy byla skvacina im i pоцilоvana. On stоyl na коlinyk, vyprymiv tulоvisi, cirnyj, nipоdviznyj, кaк istuкan. Я bокоvym zriniim, na kоdu, vоsprinyl igо кaк lsva i pоdumal: «а gdi zi vtоrоj liv?» Oglynulsy: nisij.

On stоyl, pоdnyv liцо, cirty коtоrоgо sdvinutyi timnоtоj, slagaliss v nictо napоminaysii cirnuy dоsкu iкоny. Я ispugalsy.⁴⁰

Thus the portrait of the artist is symbolically polysemous, consisting of various semantic strata in which beggar images drawn from fiction, painting, reality and autobiography fuse in a tight synthesis. The “beggar” dramatically combines the hero of the tragedy and the grotesque, and is the most adequate image of the at once cruel and absurd reality of the time. Here we can no longer discriminate between autobiography and fiction or the author and his hero.