In this paper I discuss the notion of a proper
versus improper
wife of a cultural figure as
exemplified by the constellation of famous Russian widows, including
L. D. Blok, Axmatova, Nade&zhachek;da Mandel&soft;&shachek;tam and
&Chachek;ukovskaja. As Beth Holmgren demonstrated, in Soviet society
(particularly at the time of Stalin's purges) gender distinctions
became strongly emphasized amongst intellectuals. In the absence of
their dead or prosecuted husbands, brothers and fathers, it
fell to women to preserve the cultural artifacts—the
texts, images and practices.
Both Nade&zhachek;da
Mandel&soft;&shachek;tam and Lidija &Chachek;ukovskaja chose to live
in the shadow of, respectively, the deceased husband
(Mandel&soft;&shachek;tam) and the revered poet
(&Chachek;ukovskaja). L. D. Blok and Axmatova, however, did little to
promote the cultural legacies of their late husbands but concentrated
primarily on the advancement of their own professional careers. In
fact for almost thirty years Axmatova played the role of a
deceased
husband to Lidija &Chachek;ukovskaja. The
latter voluntarily undertook to preserve Axmatova's legacy for
posterity. While Axmatova was quickly elevated to the position of a
cultural icon, a martyr and a model for many women to follow, it
became the fate of L. D. Blok to be portrayed as an outcast and the
totally useless wife of a great poet.
Although not published at the time, L. D. Blok's recollections of
her relationship with Aleksandr Blok were widely circulated among
intellectuals and were criticized especially by Axmatova and her
companions. What these women might have found particularly upsetting
about L. D. Blok's memoirs was the very private
quality
of her life and writing. By the 1930s—when L. D. Blok embarked
on writing her memoirs—memory (and memoirs) were no longer
regarded as purely private phenomena. Instead they became a powerful
weapon in social, political and cultural struggles (viz. memoirs of
Belyj, G. Ivanov, Trotskij, Xodasevi&chachek;, to name but a
few). Thus Nade&zhachek;da Mandel&soft;&shachek;tam's memoirs—in
which, unlike L. D. Blok, she was less preoccupied with telling the
truth
than with manipulating
the
reader—quickly acquired the status of not only an objective
historical document but also a means of deconstructing Stalinist
institutions. Thus, paradoxically, while bemoaning the loss of their
privacy that was imposed on them by the Soviet regime,
women-intellectuals were, in fact, engaged in recycling their very
private affairs in order to re-present them later as deeds of public
importance. In this cultural, social and political climate both
L. D. Blok herself and her ways of remembering inevitably fell outside
accepted literary, ethical and aesthetic norms.
I will conclude by discussing more recent works such as Viktor
Erofeev's