dichotomies in blok's drama "the king on the square"

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Dichotomies in Blok's Drama "The King on the Square"Author(s): Lucy VogelSource: The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Autumn, 1987), pp. 322-333Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European LanguagesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/307560 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 02:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.82 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:47:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatseel

http://www.jstor.org/stable/307560?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


DICHOTOMIES IN BLOK'S DRAMA "THE KING ON THE SQUARE"

Lucy Vogel, State University of New York, Stony Brook

"The King on the Square," the second play of Aleksandr Blok's lyrical trilogy (which includes "The Puppet Show" and "The Unknown Woman"), is among the earlier expressions of the poet's newly awakened social consciousness. It is the only one of his plays which reveals a keen awareness of the revolutionary spirit of the times and of its potential repercussions on Russia's political destiny. In the preface to the trilogy, Blok speaks of all three plays as expressing "the spirit of contemporaneity" (4:435),' but in none of them is this spirit as manifest as in "The King on the Square," in which myth is juxtaposed to reality, and symbolism suggestively points to current events and their disconcerting effect on the lives of the people.

The first draft of "King on the Square" is dated 3 August 1906. The play underwent two revisions, a major one in the fall of the same year and another one, mainly semantic, in 1916 (Medvedev, 25-26). The elimination of certain scenes and the reworking of some of the dialogue rendered the last version even more esoteric than the original and, perhaps intentionally, obscured even further its symbolic meaning. The play did not .fare well from the beginning: it received a lukewarm reception at its first reading (Verigina, 1:412) and later criticism declared it to be the most abstract and complex of Blok's dramatic works (Fedotov, 59). Neither did it pass theater censorship, which was, as can be expected, particularly sensitive to themes with political connotations. The backing of such eminent directors as F. Kommissarlevskij and V. Mejerxol'd was to no avail. "The King on the Square" was not staged during Blok's lifetime or afterwards, and thus remains the least known and appreciated of his plays. Today, however, eighty years later, when seen against the background of the historical upheav- al which radically changed Russia's political destiny, it assumes new significance for its prophetic insight and as an avant-garde dramatic experiment.

Writing "The King on the Square" did not come easy to Blok. With this, his second play, he felt even more unsure of his talent as a dramatist than with his first. He voiced his apprehension in a letter to V. Brjusov, who had

322 SEEJ, Vol. 31, No. 3 (1987)



Blok's "The King on the Square" 323

invited him to publish the play in his journal Vesy. Blok confessed to Brjusov that he was not entirely satisfied with either the form or the content of his work, and that he was especially concerned with what he perceived to be its lack of stylistic consistency. "There are places," he wrote, "that have little to do with the action itself. ... Perhaps my symbols alternate with allegories; it may be that in places I am bordering on the old 'realism"' (8:164).

In characterizing his plays as "lyrical," Blok introduced a new sub-genre of Russian drama. In the preface to the first published edition of the trilogy, he clarified his somewhat subjective use of the term: "These three small dramas are lyrical dramas, that is, works in which the experiences of the soul, its doubts, passions, failures, and falls are presented in dramatic form" (4:434). He then went on to specify that all three plays, so different in content and style, have nonetheless a basic feature in common-their heroes cherish the same dream:

Pierrot, a caricature of a failure in The Puppet Show, the Poet, a moral weakling in The King on the Square, and in The Unknown Woman, another Poet, who loses himself in dreams and drinks and fails to realize his dream-all three characters are in a sense different aspects of the soul of one and the same individual: they all aspire to a life which is beautiful, free and bright, and which alone can lift from their feeble shoulders the heavy burden of lyrical doubts and contradictions, and dispel those persistent and illusory doubles. (4:434)

As Blok intimates in the preface, the dreams and aspirations of his heroes are an externalization of his own. For him, art is an extension of life, and an artist's creation is a refraction of spiritual experiences. In Blok's words:

For all three [heroes] the beautiful life is the embodiment of the Eternal Feminine: for Pierrot it is Colombine, the radiant bride who is turned into a cardboard bride by his stupid and morbid imagination; for the Poet ["King on the Square"] it is the Architect's Daughter, a beautiful woman who cherishes a biblical dream and perishes together with the Poet; for the other Poet ["The Unknown Woman"] it is the Neznakomka who falls from above and is incar- nated, only to vanish again, leaving the Poet and the Stargazer dumbfounded. (4:434)

The conflict between life as it is and life as it should be, which Blok was trying to resolve for himself and which he objectivized in his art, was the creative force that led him from lyrical poetry to drama. If, on the one hand, by entering the public arena of the stage he wanted to break away from the isolation and eccentricities of the Symbolist poet, on the other hand, by writing plays "lyrical" by definition, he made the dramatic gesture serve the same purpose as lyric poetry: self-search and self-expression. Perceiving all social phenomena in mystic terms, Blok remained a Symbolist even when he depicted the commonplace and the prosaic sides of life. Thus, when he turned his perceptions into art and wrote a play which he consid- ered "contemporary" in spirit, the result was a work which, taking a clue from Blok's own self-image as artist, one could call fantastic and realistic at the same time.2



324 Slavic and East European Journal

The King on the Square reflects the troubled atmosphere of Russia in the years 1904 to 1906. The disastrous war with Japan had promoted mutinies, workers strikes, and peasant rebellions. The unsettling times which followed Bloody Sunday had a profound effect on Blok who, up to that point, had shown little interest in anything that had no direct bearing on his inner life. For him, however, the political significance of these events was overshad- owed by the transcendental, and he translated what he perceived into a premonition of doom for Russia's ruling classes and its privileged minority, which for centuries had abused their power over the people. He sensed that the retribution of history would fall upon the sons for the sins of their fathers. It was just a matter of time before the oppressed would rise against their oppressors, and neither wisdom nor logic would be able to restrain the elemental force of their wild onslaught. The abortive Revolution of 1905 did not turn Blok into a politically involved citizen. It did, however, signal the beginning of a new social consciousness at the center of which was Russia and its destiny. As a writer and poet, Blok felt a civic responsi- bility to express his feelings and to warn the unenlightened and complacent public of the inevitability of a forthcoming clash betwen the masses and the old order,3 for, as he stated in the preface to the Lyrical Dramas, "the reader, the Russian reader especially, always expected and still expects from literature guidelines for his life" (4:433).

The censors were justifiably suspicious of the ulterior meaning of The King on the Square. It was clearly multidimensional, rich in connotations, a fantastic tale verging on the whimsical; yet the characters and their concerns pointed directly to recent events and known personalities. Some of its realistic details could be easily associated with everyday Petersburg street scenes, while its theme of blind rebellion sounded like a foreboding of things to come.

The covert conspiracies of revolutionaries and anarchists, the dissatisfac- tion of exploited workers, the abject poverty of the unemployed, the hopelessness of the many and the complacency of the few-all are, either explic- itly or emblematically, woven into the action of the play. The seriousness of its subject is concealed beneath the fantastic scenario and the humorous intervention of the whimsical character of the Jester.4 In this unusual mix- ture of the symbolic and the social, of the poetic and the prosaic, in the striking combination of realistic and histrionic devices, the Soviet critic T. Rodina, in fact, sees influences of expressionism (6).

The plot of the drama is as follows. The inhabitants of an unnamed seashore town are awaiting the arrival of some mysterious "cheer-laden" ships. A majestic King sits strangely cold and mute on a massive throne above the main square, overlooking the town. He gives no sign of life, yet the town is ruled by his petrified countenance. All sorts of nameless incidental characters appear on the stage: workers, venders, anarchists, mon-




archists, beggars, some silently or as "voices," others as episodic characters contributing to the impression of multiplexity and confusion that the poet wants to convey. The general mood is one of hopelessness and gloom. Even the conversation between two young lovers ends on a note of sadness. For some, the only respite from despair is the expectation of some precarious happiness associated with the arrival of the ships; for others, the grim con- viction that the town is doomed brings a sort of eerie solace. The only one who professes an unshakable faith in a possible future well-being under the King's rule is the heroine of the play-the Architect's Daughter. The Archi- tect-the planner and builder of the town-is the most enigmatic character in the drama. He is a demiurge of sorts who has wisdom and authority, but not the power to change or control destinies, including that of his own Daughter. In the naive belief that faith and love work miracles, the Archi- tect's Daughter succeeds in convincing the hero of the play, a world-weary Poet, to support her in her efforts to restore the people's trust in their King. Her appeal to the people does not, however, bring about the desired results. Promises cannot impress the unemployed and the hungry. Nothing can restore their confidence except the arrival of the long awaited ships with their miraculous cargo.5 When, at last, the arrival time comes and the ships are still not in port, a raging, uncontrollable mob storms the palace. Its foun- dations crumble; the King, who turns out to be only a statue, is smashed to bits; the Poet and the Architect's Daughter perish; the Architect myste- riously disappears; the drama ends in chaos and darkness.

The play, with its confounding array of incidental characters and its lack of readily perceptible sequential connections is clearly symbolic and, as Blok himself suggests in the preface, an externalization of his own inner states; the plot is a backdrop against which his ambivalent feelings, his "doubts and contradictions" are acted out. But, at the same time, the plot can be viewed as a symbolic projection of what could happen in Russia, intuited by a poet who was keenly attuned to the paradoxes of life and who drew much of his inspiration from his bewilderment at the irrational nature of human passions and the unpredictability of social phenomena.

The symbolism of The King on the Square baffled many of Blok's readers. To the writer and poet Nadeida PavloviC, who asked Blok for a clue, the poet replied evasively: "It's Petersburg mysticism"

(Pavlovi,, 397). The play

is like a surrealistic painting, and, if examined closely, proves to be full of contradictions, seeming irrelevancies, and puzzling inferences. To search for psychological consistency is futile. It is equally unproductive to try to explain logically the recurrent alogisms. Volkov perceptively noted that "in the gradual intensification of colors and sounds, in the purely emotional sequence of words, a swarm of questions arises in which the author of the drama loses himself. Unclear from a logical standpoint, they are given as a current of contradictory feelings" (43). The characters are either "doubles"




or express abstract ideas. Their actions and utterances are often ambivalent or contradictory, leaving their literary personae wide open to interpretation.

In the preface Blok refers to the Poet as the hero of the drama. He is certainly not the hero in the conventional sense, since he does not play the leading role in the play, nor is he responsible for the denouement. His role is central, however, since he is the bearer of those "doubts and contradictions" troubling Blok and many of his contemporaries as they confronted the political, social, and moral choices constantly arising in the turmoil of those revolutionary years, choices for which life had not prepared them. The Poet's changing reactions and moods are a sign of the dichotomy that Blok felt within himself: on the one hand, the need to give way to his inspiration in whatever direction it may lead him, but, on the other hand, the urge to heed his own conscience and join the progressive writers of his time in exposing Russia's ills.6

In The King on the Square the Poet does not come on stage until the second act. His appearance is preceded by a brief monologue by the Jester, who comments that everyone in town has gone berserk. As he sees the Poet and the Architect approaching, he refers to them as "the craziest of them all." A conversation between the Poet and the Architect ensues. The Poet complains of weariness and depression. He has no passions, desires, or goals. He feels alienated from society, doomed to loneliness and vain long- ing. He questions whether the world around him is real or illusory and even expresses doubts about the actual existence of the King. Such a heretical statement causes the Architect, a loyal supporter of the King, to respond with a warning:

3 o ' qI i (npepblear) TbI 6ojeH. )KHBH npowre. TbI - nO3T - 6eccMbaiceHHOe fneByqee cylgecTBO, - H, oAHaKo,

Te6e cym)KeHO Bbipa)caTb MbICJIH ApyrHlX; OHH TOJIbKO He yMeIOT BbicKaa3Tb Bcero, qTO roBopHmUb TbI. fope Te6e, ecnIH TbI nOcKa~CKemsb JOAIIM ax TaHHbIe, cyMacmegCmue MbICJII. (4:38)

His speech is interrupted by turmoil in the square. News that ten of the workers building the pier have fallen into the water and drowned and that their families are left without support reaches the Poet's ear but fails to touch his heart. What he experiences instead is emptiness and a premonition of danger ahead. The Poet's apparent indifference angers the Architect:

30oJ'IHi Ee3yMHbIii! TbI 6Hlyemlb Hx ceMbH, TbM 6lqyemlb X nOLUJIOCTb! Ho BCe OHH nyJIye Te6f.

TbI H3JIOMaH, TbI He MO)CelIb AblUaTb HH MOpeM, HHa bIbllbo. OHH yMelOT no KpaiHeii Mepe

AbImuaTb s)KeJToi~ 3aOBOHHOii fibIJIbO - peKJsOHani Ke nepeg HHMHi KoJIeHH! (4:38)

Having succeeded in striking a live chord in the Poet's heart, the Architect goes on to urge him to direct his sensitivities to those who "struggle, hunger, and die, or else [his] heart will become deaf and barren." With a last ominous




warning that unless his advice is heeded he will turn away from the Poet, the Architect bids him farewell.

In this exchange the Architect emerges as a defender of the common people, but his position is reversed in his next encounter with the Poet. Night is falling and anxiety mounts in the square. The air is dense with dust and forebodings of storm. "Rumors," described as little red creatures darting to and fro across the square, add to the feeling of malaise and alarm. As the time approaches for the arrival of the ships, the people head for the pier. The Poet is about to follow them when the Architect appears. Seeing the Poet he expresses surprise:

30o qvHi H TbI Hgemub 3a TonnoHi?

TbI OTBeKa nperpawgaetub MHe nyTb, XOTH Haul ropoJ nornoUlaeT n pa3genmJeT Bcex.

ja, ropoq Bcex c6bIBaeT C nyTH. Ho MHe CerFKO HaxOAHTb Aopory, 60 a Sqyx) BCeM BaM. BbI )KaAHO CMOTPHTe Apyr Apyry B ria3a. I CMOTPIo qepes Barmu ronoJBbI Hn CHO BH)KY MOi cHHHI nyTb.

Te6a Ha3blBaIOT KOnAyHOM. Ilpo Te6f XOXsT pas3Hbe cjyxH.

ManieHbKHe CjnyxH nory6AT Bac. OHH po)KaIOTCA B cyxoi nH )eKnTOi nulinI H npoHHKRIOT BMeCTe C HeIO B MATeX)HbIe cepAga. CoHi"eT He6eCHaq rposa H npH6beT nbIb, H BbI nor6HeTe BMeCTe C IIbIIblO.

3ogqvHe CMOTPHT Ha KJiy6aIHnecC TySH.

AI He xoqy 6ojnmme BHneTb Te6a. 51 xoTen HayqnHTbC OT Te6a MYAPOCTH, HO TbI ropJ, H

cTap. TbI He iJo6Hmub MeHa.

TbI He BCTpeTHrI 6b MeH a, eCJIH i a He nIo6nJI Te6a.

HI 0 3 T (aoMaR pyKcu)

MTO )Ke MHe ,eJaTb?

OcTaHbcA 3sAecb. He XOIH 3a TOJInoio. He noi Ar HeeC MTe)KHbIX neceH. C HO'blO OCTaTbCA noBsenesao Te6e. 1a 6ygeT cnaceH OAHHOKHHi, npOH3HeCUmHi B TaKy1O HOb

CJIOBa o JIIO6BH. (4:50-53)

In this dialogue a contradiction becomes apparent, the kind of unac- countable contradiction that baffled critics of Blok's drama. The same Architect who in the previous act had urged the poet to feel deeply the people's anguish and pain, now admonishes him not to follow the crowd or




support its cause with "seditious songs"; in similar fashion, the same poet, who before had looked up to the Architect with respect and sought his counsel, now boldly questions his authority and wisdom. How can one explain the sudden change of heart in both the Architect and the Poet? Or is this, perhaps, another example of the inner dichotomy of those heroes through whom Blok expresses his own "doubts and contradictions?" The conversation between the Poet and the Architect sounds very much like an inner monologue, a dramatic device created to give an introspective insight into the dual nature of one and the same person: the first persona is the Poet who has just emerged from the haze of that mystic realm where he has vainly awaited the appearance of the Beautiful Lady, and, finding the world dreary and dull, feels lonely and depressed; the second persona is the Poet who, having begun to notice the harsh realities of urban life feels an obliga- tion to put his talent to use in the service of the people. The thoughts expressed by the Architect in act 2 are also contained in Blok's letters and poems between 1904 and 1906. The Architect of this act is the architect of Blok's soul, rebuilding on the ashes of what he no longer deems to be a viable world view and erecting a new structure in conformity with the liberal views of the progressive segment of Russian society.

At the end of the drama the Architect, like an Old Testament prophet, stands alone, above the ruins, all-knowing and impassioned, and addresses the crowd, which has just stormed the palace, caused the death of the Poet and his Daughter, and has now grown silent in anticipation of his words:

3 o gA q H i (noeasaemcr Hacd apydoil o6aoMKo6 u nenobu~nuHo adem, nocKa CMoAKHem moana)

I nocnan saM CbIHa MOerO BO3JUO6neHHOrO, H BbI y6aHn ero. A5 nocnaJn saM pyroro

yTemrHTenri - Ao0qb MOio. H BbI He IIno0rJIH ee. A

co3aJI BaM BJIaCTb, I O6TecaJI TBepEAbIi

MpaMop - H KaIAbli ACHb BbI Ino60BaRHcb KpacoT0oO 3THX ApeBHHX Kyipefi, sbIbIIeAuIIrlH

H3-no0 Moero pe3sta. Bbi pa36HJn MOe co03aHHe, H BOT OCTaeTCI AOM Bam l nyCTbIM. Ho

3aBTpa MHp 6ygeT no-npe)HeMy 3eineH, H Mope 6ygeT TaK x)ce cnOKO$iHO. (4:60)

Nothing has been accomplished by the mob's seditious action. Nothing, according to the Architect, will change; the lot of the people will remain just as dreary.

With this last pronouncement, the Architect's goals and symbolic role in the play become clearer: to prevent revolt and avert revolution by sustaining in the people the hope that their lives could, and would, eventually improve (hence his orders to build the pier to welcome the "cheer-laden" ships), to erect an ideological bulwark against the elemental forces which the rebel- lious crowds symbolize, and thus to hold back the otherwise inevitable retribution of history.

The Architect, as he appears in act 3, is another of Blok's doubles, an externalization of his own feelings, a means of embodying that other side of self that does not easily renounce tradition, that respects stability and order, and secretly fears the chaos that revolution engenders.




The Architect's Daughter-the heroine of the play-is also represented as a double. Her description as "a tall beauty in tight-fitting black clothes," so reminiscent of the "Unknown Woman" of both the play and the poem, immediately casts doubts on the purity of her image. Yet her words to the Poet, replete with symbolic connotations, and the loftiness and ambiguity of her metaphorical language suggest a belated encounter with the Beautiful Lady.

Like the Poet, the Architect's Daughter does not make her stage appearance until the second act, but already in the first she is introduced in a conversation between two of the anarchists:

Hep B bI Bo BceM ropoge a 3HaIO AByX )KHBblX. Bce 6OITCI cTaporo 30ogero.

BToponi H Tbi 60onbca?

H epB bI R HeT, OH He nOMelliaeT HaM. Tonna CJIHmKOM MenJIKa JIi TOrO, TO6bI CJymaIaTbcI BOJIH

THTaHa.

BTopoin KTO me Apyrofi?

H epBbI f Apyrofi? - Ero loqb.

BToponi CMeIllHO! TbI 60HUlbbCs )KCeHIIHbI! TBOfi ronoc AporHyn!

HepB bI iA He CMefiTeCb. A1 He 6o0OCb HH 3ApaBOCTH, HH BOJIH, HH TpyJa, HH rpy6oii MyCKOfi CHJIbI. IA

6oiocb 6e3yMHOfi RHaHTa3HH, HeCenIOCTH - Toro, qTO 3BanaIH KorAa-TO BbICOKOi MerTOfi.

Bropoii TbI 6olnmbcsi penIrunH, no33HH? MHp JaBHo nepeumarHyn repe3 HHX. MHp 3a6b3i o npo-

poKax H no3Tax. (4:30)

Ideally, the only forces which could hold back the retribution of history and stop events from taking their inexorably destructive course are spiritual ones, and are symbolized by all that the Architect's Daughter represents: beauty, poetry, religion, art, and "lofty dreams." Blok knows their influence, yet has little faith that injustices can be righted without violent action.

The dialogues between the Poet and the Architect's Daughter are the play's most lyrical scenes. The fact that they are in poetry (like the dialogue between the two young lovers in act 1), while the rest of the play is in prose, reveals the significance that Blok attributes to their role.

Shortly after the first conversation between the Poet and the Architect, the Architect's Daughter appears on the promontory overlooking the




square. Seeing the Poet sitting on a bench by the seashore, immersed in thought, she proceeds to join him. As she descends, mist envelops the stage. To her question, "Do you hear me?" the Poet, looking up, responds: "I hear music, I smell the salt from the sea" (4:40). The scenario is similar to the one in Blok's early lyrics. But while in his poems his vision never material- izes, here, for the first time in his art, the poet encounters his ideal image face to face, in human form, with a human voice.

The Architect's Daughter may be flesh and blood, but her words imply unearthly powers and other-worldliness. The Poet stands in awe before her, sensing her power to heal him, to rid him of that depression and loneliness which paralyzes his soul. This is the Blok of the "mystic summer" of 1901, of that period which, in his autobiographical article "On the Present State of Russian Symbolism" (1910), he was to define as "Thesis"-a time when he had felt himself to be on a threshold of a higher knowledge and when the anticipated revelation seemed near. The following exchange takes place in act 2 of the play:

I O 3 T napyc 6enbli~ TaeT BganJi.

Soqs 3olqsero MOHM BHIAeHbeM nOJIOH TM.

Ho3T

BHXy BaanH Kopa6nH, Kopa6Ji...

A oqEb 3o0qSero Knajy 3aKJiSTbe - 6yJb BepeH TbI.

II o 3 T

JI BH)Ky 6eper HOBOii 3eMIH ...

Ioqb 3o qYero CHHMaIO qapbI. CBo6oJeH TbIl. (4:41)

The sequential logic of this dialogue would remain a riddle, were one not to follow the clue given in Blok's article on Symbolism mentioned above. In describing the transition from "Thesis" to "Antithesis"-the symbolic de- scent to earth of the formerly heaven-bound poet, with his realization and reluctant acceptance of human limitations, Blok characterized the actual moment of transition from one state to another as one of unusual "acuity, brightness, and variety of emotional experiences" (5:429). Through the deafening roar of orchestral music, he hears a passionate cry: "The world is wonderful; the world is magic. You are free" (5:429). But at the very moment when the ultimate goal of spiritual unity and harmony with the cosmos seems within reach, the material world intrudes; the concept of basic unity is shattered, and duality enters the poet's consciousness: "He




who experiences all this is no longer alone: he is full of many demons (otherwise called "doubles") from which his wanton creative will arbitrarily creates constantly changing groups of conspirators (5:429).7 The poet's magical world becomes a balagan, a puppet show, where the poet plays a role alongside his "amazing dolls." Then comes the climax of the "Antithe- sis": the artist is now free to create, his "life has become art." He is also free to conjure up any vision or image he wishes, heavenly or demonic, and turn it into poetry. As though by magic, before the poet appears the Nezna- komka, the "beautiful doll, the phantom, the earthly wonder," the facsimile of what was once a heavenly vision. This is how Blok explains the "trans- formation of image" from the Beautiful Lady to the Neznakomka, a trans- formation about which his subconscious self had long since warned him. (See the 1901 poem "Prediuvstvuju tebja. .. .")

The Architect's Daughter, like all the heroines of Blok's plays is indeed a "double." She is both the Beautiful Lady and the Neznakomka, whom the Poet with his "childlike soul" takes for the Beautiful Lady. But unlike the Beautiful Lady, who expected unconditional loyalty and humble worship, the Architect's Daughter offers the Poet freedom-freedom from unrealiz- able dreams, freedom to create (arbitrarily if he so wishes), freedom from the loneliness to which, as the solitary knight of the Beautiful Lady, he was doomed.

The goal of the Architect's Daughter is to convince the Poet that his mission is of this earth and that oneness with the people is the path to true freedom. In order to dispel his gloom and yearning for a past which he could never recapture, she shares with him her "lofty dream": "to breathe life into the King" (and inspire him with her ideals). She communicates this wish to the Poet in the guise of a fairy tale:

)Ioqb 3oAqero

3Hao BeIHxKyo KHHnry o CBeTnO~i cTpaHe, Fre npexpacnas ReBa B3soIlna Ha cMepTHoe no~e laps H IOHOCTb BOXHyna B apsxnJoe cepAge!

TaM - Hag tlBeTTyUefi cTpanoHi IIpaBHT BlICOKHH Koponb!

LOHOCTb BepHynacb K HeMy! (4:43)

The sexual nuance in her words becomes more explicit in act 3 in her appeal to the King: "I give you my untouched body, King! Take it so that my youth may rekindle youth in your ancient brain!" (4:57). The sensuality concealed in a fairy-tale ambience with its aura of enchantment and mystery calls to mind the "unknown woman" whose "black silks" were "redolent of ancient beliefs and legends" and who, with all her mystique, was undoubt- edly a lady of easy virtue. Her bold speech and the dark apparel speak of the earthy side of the Architect's Daughter, while her sacrifice of self for




the benefit of her people and her identification with the common people point to her higher essence. Her message to the Poet is only by implication: the fulfillment of men's ideals does not come from distant lands on mysterious ships, but is right here, on the square, with the King, in service to the people. The Poet must be the voice of the poor, the persecuted, and the oppressed. "I sought in you a hero," she tells the Poet. He must not look back, the past is irretrievable--"only the future counts" (4:54).8

The last dialogue between the Poet and the Architect's Daughter occurs in act 3. The sunset is crimson, leaden clouds ominously roam the sky, birds cry. Everything in nature seems to portend an imminent end. The Poet, however, does not feel its threat. On the contrary, he seems in harmony with the elements and feels the passions of youth rekindling within him. The dream of the Architect's Daughter is still beyond his comprehension, but she has inspired him and stirred his emotions, his only shield against the dreaded "toska." Intimate feelings, however, are far from the Daughter's mind. Looming before her is her confrontation with the people and with the King, perhaps her last confrontation.

HT03T

3aqeM TaK spIO BCnbIxHynIa IOHOCTb? Pa3Be cKopo )KH3Hb IAOropHT? Pa3Be IOHOCTb npoIuna, KoponeBHa?

Iosqb 3ogqero

I Ha W)KH3HbIO TBoei BJIacTHa. KTO co MHOIo - 6yIeT CBO6OIeH. KoponeBHOi~ MeHSI He 3OBH, I - oqb n6e3yMHOHi TOJnbI! (4:54)

With this last statement the Architect's Daughter gives her dream a definite social thrust. She sees no contradiction in the fact that she can be the Daughter of the Architect and at the same time the daughter of the madding crowd. A few sentences later she reaffirms her loyalty to the people in even stronger terms:

joqE 3oAsero M HHKOrga He 6bina KOpojneBHOi! H KaK MHe fnblIIlHOCTb y3HaTb? AI - HHHtar

AOqb TOJInb. (4:55)

Thus the play draws to an end with yet another incarnation of Blok's vision, with another "double" of the Neznakomka, one which in future poems, plays, and articles he will call "Russia." In 1908 in the poem "Russia," Blok addresses his motherland as "destitute," and, as in "King on the Square," he associates the theme of love, sacrifice, and faith with a vision of Russia's glorious future-a theme which is dominant in his works beginning with this play and reaching its apotheosis in "The Twelve."




NOTES

1 Translations throughout the article are mine. The "spirit of contemporaneity," by Blok's definition is "that crucible of falls and contradictions which the soul of contemporary man experiences on its way toward its regeneration" (4:435).

2 As early as 1902, in a letter to his father Blok admitted that his sense of reality "borders, and is always likely to border, on the fantastic" (8:49).

3 Blok's articles "The People and the Intelligentsia" (5:318-28), "The Elements and Culture" (5:350-59), "The Intelligentsia and the Revolution" (6:9-20), "Art and the Revolution," and others, all deal with this theme.

4 The Jester is Blok's own creation. His role is manifold and completely unconventional. He is a devious and unscrupulous character, humorously portrayed, who tries to gain power over people's souls by claiming to be the personification of common sense, an allegorical depiction of reality, the parody of an opportunist, whose only talent is a glib tongue-a smooth politician.

5 The extended metaphor of ships as harbingers of happiness occurs repeatedly in Blok's writings. Pyman explains: "Born in a great port, Blok loved and drew ships all his life; in his private system of associations, they were at once harbingers of great joy and symbols of a hard-held course through life, of struggle and adventure in search of the promised land" (1:25). In Soviet Blokiana, the "image-symbol" of ships has a predominantly political connotation as in the following statment by P. Gromov: "One can say without hesitation that one of the aspects of the image-symbol of the arrival of ships is ferment in the country, the expectation of 'unheard-of changes' " (414). Also on the theme of ships, see Mintz.

6 Pyman speaks of the "uneasy turmoil" of the summer and autumn of 1906, during which the poet was faced with many personal problems. "Moreover," she writes, "the political ferment all around demanded that Blok make a political choice: declare himself for or against the Revolution; for or against terrorism; for or against the Tsar" (1:250).

7 To judge from the context, "conspirators" are those worldly enticements which conspire to lure the poet away from spiritual pursuits.

8 I am taking the liberty of translating "Ja grjadu?6emu v odi smotrju" as : "Only the future counts," for this is the meaning that I perceive in the line. The Architect's Daughter's next statement, "There is no past," confirms this interpretation.

WORKS CITED

Blok, Aleksandr. Sobranie solxinenij v vos'mi tomax. M.-L.: GIXL, 1960-63. Fedotov, A. V. Teatr Bloka i dramaturgija ego vremeni. L.: Izd-vo leningradskogo universiteta,

1972. Gromov, P. P. Geroj i vremja. L.: Sov. pisatel', 1961. Medvedev, P. N. Dramy i poemy Al. Bloka: iz istorij ix sozdanij. L.: Izd-vo pisatelej, 1928. Mintz, Z. G. "Podma A. A. Bloka 'Ee pribytie' i revoljucija 1905 goda." UWenye zapiski tartus-

kogo universiteta. Trudy po russkoj i slavjanskojfilologii, no. 6 (1963): 164-80. Pavlovi6, N. "Iz vospominanij ob Aleksandre Bloke." In Aleksandr Blok v vospominanijax

sovremennikov v dvux tomax, vol. 2, 395-404. M.: Xudol. lit-ra, 1980. Pyman, Avril. The Life ofAleksandr Blok. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1979-80. Rodina, T. M. Aleksandr Blok i russkij teatr naeala XX veka. M.: Nauka, 1972. Verigina, V. P. "Vospominanija ob Aleksandre Bloke." In Aleksandr Blok v vospominanijax

sovremennikov v dvux tomax, vol. 1, 410-88. M.: Xudol. lit-ra, 1980. Volkov, N. V. Aleksandr Blok i teatr. M.: Gos. Akademija Xudol. Nauk, 1926.



dichotomies in blok's drama "the king on the square"

Documents