Murdering For Poetry: Stylistic and Contextual Change in the Work of Osip Mandelstam
The early twentieth century brought about a poetic movement in Russia known as “Acmeism.” The name was taken from the Greek to mean “the Height of Man.” The poets within the movement experimented heavily with classical structure, rhyme, and meter, to create a new poetry, born solitarily from Russia. Considered the most iconic of the poets was a Warsaw born man named Osip Mandelstam.
Mandelstam was considered a great nonconformist and iconoclast. While fiercely defending individualism at the dawn of the Soviet Union, Mandelstam did not cross any lines in terms of the party. That is until 1933, when, disgusted with Stalinism, he composed his “Stalin Epigram.” The poem was never officially published, nor widely read until years after his death, but recitals of the poem where given at parties and gatherings. In it, Mandelstam describes Stalin as having “executions on his tongue like ripe berries.” The poem as a whole is very unflattering of Stalin, attacking everything from his actions to his appearance. When Stalin was made aware of the existence of the epigram, Mandelstam was exiled to the Gulag for a period of time.
Upon his return from exile, the only poetry that Mandelstam published were odes to Stalin, working in complete opposition. Though many viewed Mandelstam’s post Gulag work as act of self-artistic betrayal, other’s, including Stalin himself, maintained that his opinions and art had not changed at all. In worrying that Mandelstam did not change and that he was a great threat to his power, Stalin sent Mandelstam back to the Gulag in 1937, where he died following a nervous breakdown.
Throughout his life, Mandelstam maintained that there was a great power in poetry, and that those in power must fear it, as that they were so concerned with what he wrote to the point of imprisoning him.
With this research paper I intend to show that Mandelstam’s post-Gulag work is not in line with what Stalin wanted at all, but instead continuing his attitude of individualism and anti-fascism. I will be reviewing the writings of Mandelstam prior to his exile, including the Stalin epigram, and following it, including the Stalin ode. Through an examination of the imagery, grammar, and allegory, I intend to show that Mandelstam is not at all submitting to Stalin’s will, nor changing his own mind about the leader.
To get to this issue I will be utilizing the research of David Wojahn, a noted poet and Mandelstam scholar, Nadezhda Mandeltstam’s memoir Hope Against Hope, as well as research by other poetic scholars and historians and Mandelstam’s poetry itself.
I will begin my research by exploring his early work, looking at ideas of individualism and nonconformity through his poetics. After this I will analyze and compare the post Gulag works, looking for similarities as well as significant aspects of dissent contained within the work.
Mandelstam was considered a great nonconformist and iconoclast. While fiercely defending individualism at the dawn of the Soviet Union, Mandelstam did not cross any lines in terms of the party. That is until 1933, when, disgusted with Stalinism, he composed his “Stalin Epigram.” The poem was never officially published, nor widely read until years after his death, but recitals of the poem where given at parties and gatherings. In it, Mandelstam describes Stalin as having “executions on his tongue like ripe berries.” The poem as a whole is very unflattering of Stalin, attacking everything from his actions to his appearance. When Stalin was made aware of the existence of the epigram, Mandelstam was exiled to the Gulag for a period of time.
Upon his return from exile, the only poetry that Mandelstam published were odes to Stalin, working in complete opposition. Though many viewed Mandelstam’s post Gulag work as act of self-artistic betrayal, other’s, including Stalin himself, maintained that his opinions and art had not changed at all. In worrying that Mandelstam did not change and that he was a great threat to his power, Stalin sent Mandelstam back to the Gulag in 1937, where he died following a nervous breakdown.
Throughout his life, Mandelstam maintained that there was a great power in poetry, and that those in power must fear it, as that they were so concerned with what he wrote to the point of imprisoning him.
With this research paper I intend to show that Mandelstam’s post-Gulag work is not in line with what Stalin wanted at all, but instead continuing his attitude of individualism and anti-fascism. I will be reviewing the writings of Mandelstam prior to his exile, including the Stalin epigram, and following it, including the Stalin ode. Through an examination of the imagery, grammar, and allegory, I intend to show that Mandelstam is not at all submitting to Stalin’s will, nor changing his own mind about the leader.
To get to this issue I will be utilizing the research of David Wojahn, a noted poet and Mandelstam scholar, Nadezhda Mandeltstam’s memoir Hope Against Hope, as well as research by other poetic scholars and historians and Mandelstam’s poetry itself.
I will begin my research by exploring his early work, looking at ideas of individualism and nonconformity through his poetics. After this I will analyze and compare the post Gulag works, looking for similarities as well as significant aspects of dissent contained within the work.
*************************************************************************************
Bibliography
*************************************************************************************
Poet's Page, Osip Emelievich Mandelstam. Northwestern University.
Poetic Injustice. Kirsch, Adam. Nextbook, 2004
Mandelstam, Nadezhda. Hope Against Hope.
Atheneum, New York. 1970
Coetzee, J.M. Osip Mandelstam and the Stalin Ode. Representations, vol. 35, pages 72-83.
Summer, 1991.
No comments:
Post a Comment