Autobiography of a Corpse
One of the greatest services糖心传媒攐r disservices, depending on your viewpoint糖心传媒擝ertrand Russell ever performed for popular philosophy was humanizing its biggest thinkers in his History. No longer were they Platonic ideals, the clean-shaven exemplars of the kind of homely truisms that might糖心传媒檝e been found in commonplace books: they had become eccentrics, weirdos, freaks. This was a transformation Russell糖心传媒檚 readers might have felt privileged to witness. Then again, they might have been horrified.
Sigizmund Krzhizhanovsky has done something similar with ideas, both those belonging to Russell糖心传媒檚 eccentrics and those roaming about in other fields. Written between 1922 and 1939, the short stories collected in Autobiography of a Corpse wriggle into the liminal spaces between fiction, reality, and the world of ideas: in fact, there糖心传媒檚 even a story called 糖心传媒淭he Collector of Cracks.糖心传媒�
Krzhizhanovsky is fundamentally concerned with how fiction and reality influence each other, and even though his work might reference a who糖心传媒檚 who of modern and classical philosophy糖心传媒擪ant, Leibniz, Descartes, Hegel, Spinoza, Fichte, Berkeley糖心传媒攈e糖心传媒檚 anything but convinced of their ideas糖心传媒� verity. Indeed, this is the only work of fiction I糖心传媒檝e ever read which plays with the possibilities inherent in Leibniz糖心传媒檚 utterly crazy idea of 糖心传媒渨indowless monads糖心传媒�:
Leibniz . . . could see only a world of discrete monads, of ontological solitudes, none of which has windows. If one tries to be more optimistic than the optimist and avow that souls have windows and the ability to open them, then those windows and that ability will turn out to be nailed shut and boarded up, as in an abandoned house. People-monads, too, have a bad name: They are full of ghosts. The most frightening of these is man.
糖心传媒淧eople-monads糖心传媒�! As any reader of this blog would know, Russian literature is thick with them. Krzhizhanovsky won糖心传媒檛 be outdone in the alienation/existential horror department, either:
Man is to man a wolf. No, that糖心传媒檚 not true, that糖心传媒檚 sentimental, lighthearted. No, man is to man a ghost. Only. That糖心传媒檚 more exact. To sink one糖心传媒檚 teeth into another man糖心传媒檚 throat is at least to believe, and that糖心传媒檚 what counts, in another man糖心传媒檚 blood.
Thankfully, though, even when he confronts us with these unpalatable truths Krzhizhanovsky doesn糖心传媒檛 go for the arid humourlessness of a Sartre or a Nietzsche. There糖心传媒檚 a dry comedy running through his work, a sensibility which dares to mock not only Soviet shibboleths, but bureaucracy, religion, and the art world. Another story traces the media frenzy and subsequent national preoccupation which develops, almost by chance, around a man attempting to bite his own elbow.
At times, Krzhizhanovsky糖心传媒檚 foresight is chilling. 糖心传媒淵ellow Coal,糖心传媒� the bitterest of the stories, and the last to be written, in 1939, depicts a society engineered to sustain itself on spite alone. This is a world in which an earnest ethnographer publishes a 糖心传媒淐lassification of Interethnic Hatreds, a two-volume work asserting that humanity should be split into the smallest possible ethnicities so as to produce the maximum 糖心传媒榢inetic spite糖心传媒櫶切拇綕: a confection so eerily prescient that it糖心传媒檚 hard to find it funny.
Krzhizhanovsky糖心传媒檚 commentary on the Russian Orthodox Church, too, is a little more serious糖心传媒攅ven while he explores elsewhere what might糖心传媒檝e happened to Judas糖心传媒檚 thirty pieces of silver after they left his hands:
Through the centuries, without respite, the kopeck candle did its work: A fire would begin to smolder in some small chapel, by an icon stand, then creep down passages, up into rafters, from shed to shed, hurling firebrands from roof to roof; its flaming tongues would leap over the Kremlin糖心传媒檚 stone walls, slither up to the tent roofs of towers and belfries, and send bells crashing down amid the growing clamor of crowds and tocsins. And then cooling ashes and another ant-like building frenzy for five or six years. Because in five or six years the kopeck candle would again set to work.
It would be a mistake, though, to read this collection as just a set of reflections on a particular period in Russian history, or a tongue-in-cheek exploration of some arcane philosophies, or an indictment of the church. It糖心传媒檚 first and foremost a fictional exercise of the highest order: one just as real, and just as delightful, as the best of Borges.
In true Borgesian fashion, when the stock of philosophy starts to thin, Krzhizhanovsky adds a few lashings of folk tales: a set of fingers which detach themselves from their pianist and spend a day wandering the streets of Moscow, or a conversation between a woman糖心传媒檚 lovers糖心传媒� Lilliputian counterparts about the form to be filled out by new arrivals糖心传媒攁ll of whom live together inside her eye.
This lunatic mode wouldn糖心传媒檛 work nearly so well without Joanne Turnbull and Nikolai Formozov糖心传媒檚 supple translation, which manages to convey a vivid sense of Krzhizhanovsky糖心传媒檚 subtle wordplay without undue contortion in the English. Take this passage, a parody of Plato糖心传媒檚 allegory of the cave:
True, the Nots teach their notkins that shadows are cast by things, but if one thinks about this sensibly, then one cannot know exactly if shadows are cast by things or things by shadows, and if one oughtn糖心传媒檛 to cast aside, as pure ostensibilities, Not things, Not shadows, and the Nots themselves with their notional notions.
Funnily enough, ostensibilities abound in the collection糖心传媒檚 final story, 糖心传媒淧ostmark: Moscow.糖心传媒� It糖心传媒檚 an odd addition to the collection: whereas every other story is shorn almost entirely of obvious referents, 糖心传媒淧ostmark: Moscow糖心传媒� bristles with historical figures, Moscow localities糖心传媒攎any of them burnt down or demolished since糖心传媒攁nd obscure artistic movements. In a way, then, Krzhizhanovsky is doing exactly that which his narrator derides: casting a thing (art) with a shadow (life). And what a thing it is!

Leave a Reply