Андрей Белый: автобиографизм и биографические практики

Through animal comparison the laws of the father are described – or rather the transfer of a patrimony through blood and body. So is their violation, i.e. the «crime» committed by the son, who tries to get out of the family’s sick dynamics, out of the pact of conscious integration, of the heritage of ancient rules demanded by the fathers, which is at the base of the political redefinition of fatherhood. The violation occurs on his autobiographical body, torn apart by the struggle between «the Scythian and the Persian» (BC 154–155). It gives way to characters created by the literary invention, an I—not-I who Belyj comments and defines in mystifying ways at a paratextual level. Under this point of view, «The Baptized Chinaman» recalls the structure of autofictional works as outlined by Samé.

This device is also widespread in the two subsequent novels, which are the first two volumes of the trilogy «Moscow» («Moskva»), i.e. «The Moscow Eccentric» («Moskovskij čudak»)[697] and «Moscow in Jeopardy» («Moskva pod udarom»).[698] Belyj considered them as first and second part of the first volume of a work of five volumes. In addition to the first two novels Belyj wrote only a third volume, «Masks» («Maski»), which Belyj considered as the second volume of the project that will remain unfinished. These two works also contain a rather strong autobiographical subtext. Therefore, in order to test the interpretative hypothesis proposed in this article, it is useful to compare them to «The Baptized Chinaman» in order to determine whether Belyj used the same rhetoric strategy also in the two works written in the mid-twenties, and how it evolved.[699]

In «The Moscow Eccentric» an ever higher number of animals are mentioned than in «The Baptized Chinaman». They are more than thirty, and they usually are mentioned only once (some of them are the tiger, canary, rooster, turkey, insects, dove, hare, cat, bat, chameleon, ermine, horse, fox, swallow, eagle, etc.). This marks a difference to the previous novel, in which less species were represented repeatedly. The species that marked the protagonists of «The Baptized Chinaman» are all present and recurring more frequently, creating a subtext of parallels between the two works.

Firstly, there are many similarities between the novel’s protagonist, Professor Korobkin, and his antecedent Nikolaj Letaev. Korobkin is also associated with the fly from the very first page of the book: his studio is invaded by flies (ME 9, 10, 11), as well as the staff room at the university, where, like him, also his colleagues spend their time catching flies with their hands (ME 198). The combination reminds us of Nikolaj Letaev, which Korobkin is easily assimilated to because of his profession, character and habits, which in turn evoke Belyj’s father, a renowned professor of mathematics at the University of Moscow. Here, however, the symbolic meaning of the fly hunt, – which in «The Baptized Chinaman», recalls the mother, i.e. the captured fly – disappears. Even Korobkin’s study is like Letaev’s, covered with cobwebs (ME 44, 155, 197, 218) just as the rest of the house of his antagonist, the diabolical Mandro (ME 78) and also the entire city, which is defined as «a network of spider webs» («set’ paučinaja»), in which the characters (e.g. Mandro’s helper Gribikov) are large spiders in the center of the web (ME 219). Applying again the strategy of intensifying the use of the device as already happened in «The Baptized Chinaman», towards the end of the novel the climax of horror is reached. Mandro’s personality is revealed in all its horror and, as it will happen in «Moscow in Jeopardy», begins to take over the city in a diabolical way. Here again the image is made through the representation of the webs and spiders. From a conversation between Madame Evikajten (Ewigkeiten, Mandro’s employee) and Madame Vulevu (an acquaintance of Mandro’s) the incestuous relationship between Mandro and his daughter Lizaša emerges. Kierko, a friend of Korobkin becomes involved in the dialogue between the two and prophetically imagines the «spiders’ spiders» devoured by the most diverse «mandraški» (ME 227).