Pushkin & Philaret
 

This is a poetic conversation between Pushkin and Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. The first poem is dated May 26, 1828 (O.S.), Pushkin’s twenty-ninth birthday.


Gift of chance, O gift so senseless,
why, life, were you given me?
Why is death the final sentence
of a hidden destiny?

Who, imbued with power and malice,
from oblivion drew me out,
filled my soul with passion’s madness,
then disturbed my mind with doubt?

Burdened with a heart that’s barren,
mind without a use or aim,
I find wearisome, past bearing,
life’s monotonous refrain.


Edits
S2L1: What uncanny force, in malice, > Who, imbued with power and malice,
S3L3: weary, beyond bearing, > wearisome, past bearing,


Crib

Vain/purposeless gift, chance gift,
life, why [were] you given to me?
Or why by a secret destiny
[were] you condemned to execution?

Who, with malevolent power,
from nothingness/insignificance summoned [me],
filled my soul with passion,
agitated [my] mind with doubt?

There’s no goal before me:
[my] heart is empty, mind is idle,
and life’s monotonous noise
wearies me with melancholy.


Original

Дар напрасный, дар случайный,
Жизнь, зачем ты мне дана?
Иль зачем судьбою тайной
Ты на казнь осуждена?

Кто меня враждебной властью
Из ничтожества воззвал,
Душу мне наполнил страстью,
Ум сомненьем взволновал?..

Цели нет передо мною:
Сердце пусто, празден ум,
И томит меня тоскою
Однозвучный жизни шум.


Emory professor Oleg Proskurin argues that the usual identification of the malicious force with God would have been a dangerous blasphemy and that Pushkin must have meant, and his contemporaries understood, a demonic force.

In early January 1830, Philaret was acquainted with Pushkin’s elegy by Elizaveta Khitrovo, the daughter of Field Marshal Kutuzov. Within a few weeks, she showed Pushkin a poem of the same length and meter in which Philaret, using many of Pushkin’s own words, had turned his elegy into a spiritual ode. There are several versions, of which this is the most popular:


Not a simple chance, not senseless,
is the life God gave to man;
life receives its deadly sentence
not without a hidden plan.

It was I, from murky chasms,
summoned evil in my pride,
I who filled my soul with passions
and with doubt disturbed my mind.

Pierce the dusk, and be remembered
in forgetfulness; abide
in my thoughts until I’m rendered
pure of heart, serene of mind!


Edits
S2L4: who > and


Crib

Not in vain, not by chance
life from God to me [was] given,
not without God’s secret will
[was it] also to execution condemned.

I myself, with willful power,
summoned evil from dark abysses,
myself filled [my] soul with passion,
agitated [my] mind with doubt.

Be remembered to me, [you who’ve been] forgotten by me!
Shine forth through the dusk/gloom of thoughts,
and [be] made by You
a pure heart, a bright/serene mind!


Original

Не напрасно, не случайно
Жизнь от Бога мне дана;
Не без воли Бога тайной
И на казнь осуждена.

Сам я своенравной властью
Зло из темных бездн воззвал;
Сам наполнил душу страстью,
Ум сомненьем взволновал.

Вспомнись мне, забытый мною!
Просияй сквозь сумрак дум,
И созиждется Тобою
Сердце чисто, светел ум.


Pushkin’s reply was dated January 19, 1830 (O.S.). Many scholars believe that he was deeply moved, while some detect a subtle irony. Oleg Proskurin argues that the language is too elevated even for a church hierarch and could have been addressed only to God, with the seraph standing in for Philaret. (A friend of Pushkin’s related that Philaret’s name appeared in the original text, but was replaced with “seraph” before the poem appeared in print.)


In hours of merriment and leisure,
I oft confided to my lyre
indulgent notes of idle pleasure,
of madness, passions and desire.

And yet, despite myself, I halted
and stilled the lying strings I strummed
when suddenly your voice, exalted,
came over me and left me stunned.

I wept unlooked-for tears in torrents,
and, for the wounds my conscience feels,
your fragrant words would come as sources
of purest oil that soothes and heals.

And from a sacred height above me,
you now extend your hand to guide
my steps with power meek and loving
and tame the dreams that ran so wild.

My soul, now singed, abhors the darkness
of vanities; it feels your flames,
discerns the seraph’s harp and harkens
in holy terror to the strains.


Edits
S1L2: commended > confided
S2L3: voice exalted > voice, exalted,
S3L3: speeches > words would
S5L2: vanity > vanities


Crib

In hours of amusements or idle boredom,
to my lyre I would entrust
delicate/pampered sounds
of folly, laziness and passions.

But even then I would interrupt,
despite myself, the hum of a false/wicked string
when your majestic voice
suddenly stunned me.

I would shed streams of unexpected tears,
and for my conscience’s wounds
the pure oil of your fragrant discourses
was comforting.

And now, from a spiritual height,
you extend your hand to me
and, with meek and loving strength,
subdue [my] turbulent dreams.

My soul, singed by your fire,
has rejected the darkness of worldly vanities,
and the poet harkens to the seraph’s harp
in holy terror.


Original

В часы забав иль праздной скуки,
Бывало, лире я моей
Вверял изнеженные звуки
Безумства, лени и страстей.

Но и тогда струны лукавой
Невольно звон я прерывал,
Когда твой голос величавый
Меня внезапно поражал.

Я лил потоки слез нежданных,
И ранам совести моей
Твоих речей благоуханных
Отраден чистый был елей.

И ныне с высоты духовной
Мне руку простираешь ты,
И силой кроткой и любовной
Смиряешь буйные мечты.

Твоим огнем душа палима
Отвергла мрак земных сует,
И внемлет арфе серафима
В священном ужасе поэт.

https://www.ablemuse.com/erato/attac...5&d=1700990832
Archimandrite Zinon (Theodor), Pushkin and Metropolitan Philaret (from an icon painted after Philaret was canonized in 1994)

I wonder if this exchange consciously echoed the Book of Job? It is similar: Pushkin-Job’s despairing nihilism, his interlocutor’s affirmation of divine intervention and design, and P.’s resolution-acceptance at the end. Taken in this light, I’m not sure that Oleg Proskurin’s speculation is accurate. The Bible is full of the dangerous God.

One reaction right off, with more to come about the nuts and bolts of your translation: Do the originals reflect the trochaic meter of your translations for Pushkins’ first poem and Philaret’s response, with the iambic measure for Pushkin’s second poem?

About the (as far as I can tell) repeating rhyme schemes of poems 1 and 2, knowing your meticulousness, I’m sure they’d be in your translations if that were possible. You do echo some of it, though, which is what made me notice it.

The parallel with Job is quite interesting and worth exploring. Pushkin was already in a precarious position, having been investigated that same year for an outrageously blasphemous long poem that he’d written years earlier. Proskurin argues that he wouldn’t have risked referring to God as malicious, and if the poem had been understood that way by others, it wouldn’t have passed censorship. This is only one point in Proskurin’s much longer argument, and I’m still trying to decide how much of it I buy, but it’s extremely well reasoned and substantiated.

Yes, I’ve followed the original meters and rhyme schemes exactly, including the alternation of masculine and feminine rhymes, which is traditional in Russian verse (presumably taken over from French).

Ah, you’re looking at the Cyrillic! Yes, Philaret has used all of Pushkin’s rhymes in the first two stanzas. I only managed to repeat senseless/sentence. Another thing I regret losing is the exact parallel between Pushkin’s L10 (“heart empty, idle mind”), which I’ve divided between two lines, and Philaret’s L12 (“heart pure, serene mind”).

Carl,

I’m curious about the meter in the original, since I know nothing about Russian prosody. When you say you replicate the meter of the Russian poems, does that mean that trochaic meter and iambic meter work the same in Russian as they do in English? Is Russian verse accentual-syllabic in the same way?

About your translations here, my first suggestion is for S2 of the first poem by Pushkin, where “Who” has to be inserted somehow. When I read it the first couple of times, without the crib, I thought “uncanny force” was referring to a kind of Bergsonian impersonal energy, which is quite far from the Pushkin and from the dialogue with Philaret. For the discussion to make any sense, the personified God has to be explicit. Besides that, S2 seems very solid.

S1 reads very well in both sound and sense (matched up to the crib), and I like the “senseless / sentence” rhyme.

For S3, I’d consider reworking it to emphasize the absence of goals, which the crib has as the opener, with the mind/heart part as an explanation. Your version does convey the sense of romantic ennui, but taking two lines to say the heart is barren and the mind is inactive or listless is rather fillerish. Also, is “I find weary, beyond bearing” close enough to being weary with melancholy? It seems quite different to me.

Your version of Philaret’s poem reads nicely overall. For a simple tweak in S1, “by simple chance” instead of “in simple chance” would be more idiomatic and clear. Perhaps also change “a hidden plan” to “God’s hidden plan” (again, playing up the personification / Christian content). The original repeats “God” there, according to the crib.

In S2, I’d prefer “and with doubt . . .” etc. to “who with doubt.”

“be remembered / in forgetfulness” in S3 is a lovely phrase, but does it really work in this context? A particular person’s forgetfulness seems to be the point here. Philaret is saying that he needs to remember God more, whom he forgets on a regular basis.


That’s all for now. I’ll be back later for the second Pushkin poem.

Yes, Russian meter is accentual-syllabic in the same way as English. What makes it a little different is that words tend to be longer and there are no secondary stresses, so promotions are ubiquitous. Demotions, on the other hand, are pretty much forbidden. Every word stress must fall on a metrical beat. Reciters tend to chant, and poetry is written to be chantable, so substitutions are not generally welcomed.

I doubt an impersonal energy would act “in malice,” but Pushkin does have “Who,” so I’ve tried a change that also does without the filler word “uncanny.”

BTW, “called me out” would be closer to the original, but I was dissuaded by the idiomatic usage of “calling someone out.” What do you think?

Pushkin is wearied with “toska,” a very Russian word that can be translated by anything from “boredom” and “melancholy” to “anguish” and “despair,” depending on context. Another problem here is that I’m pretty sold on the last line, and it’s hard to get a preceding line to connect with it grammatically. My original translation (you have it, in fact) rhymed “barren” with “despair in,” but I had misgivings about directly naming the mortal sin of despair. I’ll think more on this.

That aside, what do you think about “beyond bearing” strictly in metrical terms? An acquaintance of mine says “beyond” clashes with the trochaic meter and suggests “wearisome, past bearing.”

You may be confusing the crib with the translation: “by simple chance” would require a rewrite of L2. I had considered “God’s hidden plan,” but “not without a” seemed more idiomatic to me. I’ll keep it in mind as a possibility.

I keep teetering back and forth on that. For now, you’ve tipped me back towards “and.”

This was far and away the hardest bit to translate. English is generally more compact than Russian, but here “Remember yourself to me, you who have been forgotten by me” is done in four words in one line. I doubt I can get much closer, but I’ll give it more thought. Scholars I’ve read think Philaret is speaking in Pushkin’s voice, but I read it the way you do: Philaret speaking of his own sinfulness, from which Pushkin can draw conclusions about his own situation.

Take your time. I cheated by throwing three poems at you in one post, but their interrelatedness is what interests me most of all.

Okey dokey. On to Pushkin poem #2.

I do enjoy most of it, and I so admire your project of giving readers a sense of Pushkin’s formal characteristics.

Here, though it reads well overall, I felt there were some spots where antiquarianism sneaks in more than it needs to (the subject matter itself is obviously not likely to found in a poem in say, The New Yorker, so already has an antique feel). E.g., I don’t necessary object to “oft” (which you have in line 2), but where it seems like an easy solution where others were possible, I view it skeptically. For instance, “I used to turn to my old lyre” might keep a more felt sense of Pushkin’s turning to his medium, poetry, to write about what he was feeling/thinking. “Commended to my lyre” is an awfully stuffy thing for a poet to say about his poetry, especially a poet as great as P.

In the same stanza “passions and desire” are rather redundant, and laziness or sloth is left out. I think “passions” could go to get that back in.

In S2, the inverted word order of “voice exalted” is really distracting, and makes P. sound stuffy rather than romantic and passionate. I’d fix it.

S3 reads nicely, but a couple of tweaks would be good in my opinion. “Unlooked-for tears” is a bit of clunky expression. Is a better one available? “Fragrant speeches” would sound warmer and more heartfelt as “Fragrant speaking” (speeches evoke political campaigns, etc.).

In S4L4, change “the dreams” to “my dreams”?

In S5L2, “of vanity” leaves out “worldly” so could refer to P. liking himself in the mirror. How about “of worldly pomp” or “of worldly cares”?

I like it. A little more idiomatic flavor helps the medicine go down, and there is nothing vulgar about it. The stanza is so much better with "Who" back in there.

I have a neighbor named Tosca (like Puccini’s), and she is very operatic. :-)

I agree with your friend about “beyond bearing” for metrical reasons, but also because the phrase felt forced anyway (and so does his), shoehorned in for syllable count. Would this work?

Burdened with a heart that’s barren,
mind without a use or aim:
this is more than I can bear in
life’s monotonous refrain.

What I meant is when “calling someone out” means “challenging or calling critical attention to them.” It’s a North American idiom according to an online dictionary, but if it didn’t occur to you, perhaps I shouldn’t worry about it. I’ll be back later to deal with your other comments.

My first version was “oft entrusted.” For the moment, I’m trying out “oft confided,” though “often trusted” would be a de-archaicized option.

I tried to sneak Pushkin’s “laziness” back in with “idle.” Another word, as far as I know, is used for the sin of sloth.

A fix is in place. See what you think. UPDATE: Hmmm, marginally better, but one inversion for another isn’t much of a fix. Needs more thought.

I don’t know about “unlooked-for,” but I’ve reverted to my previous “fragrant words would.”

I tried it just now and don’t think I like “my” appearing in three consecutive lines when there’s not even one “my” in the original lines. (That’s not always a good argument, because possessives are more easily omitted in Russian.)

I see what you mean, but I’m reluctant to replace “vanity” in order to sneak back in an adjective that’s fairly obvious. For now, I’ve made it plural. Does that help?

That leaves out “wearied/oppressed by melancholy/ennui” altogether, though it captures the mood well enough. I’ll think on it.

Many thanks, Andrew, for your provocative and productive criticism!

I like “confided” more than “trusted,” for its assonance with nearby words, and “oft” just about squeaks by my “fey” register. However, I think it would go down more easily if “merriment” in line 1 were the more idiomatic “happiness.” “Hours of merriment” spikes the fey meter again.

“Passions and desire” are still redundant, though I see what you mean about “idle” getting the sense of laziness.

“Tones exalted” still has the problem of inverted word order, forced for the rhyme. How about changing that line to “and then, in tones that were exalted”? Or perhaps you could revert to “voice” with “when suddenly, your voice, exalted, / [two iambs] and left me stunned.” “Your voice range out” is overkill after the exalted voice or tones, imo.

I like “fragrant words would” in S3.

The plural “vanities” does solve the problem I noted earlier.

The word here literally means “amusements.” I guess today we’d say “fun,” but that sounds too modern and/or banal to me. Maybe I’m wrong.

You’re right about the overkill, and I’ve taken your neat comma suggestion.

Thanks again, Andrew, and I’d still be interested in your take on my post #7.