M. I. Tsvetaeva, according to the researcher of her work A. A. Sahakyants, " treated her letters as if they were prose. The most important ones were usually entered first in a draft notebook, in the form of diary entries, and the further fate of these entries was already dictated by circumstances: some were used in essays..., others became the content of letters" (Saakyants A. A. Letters of the poet / / Tsvetaeva M. I. Sobr. soch.: In 7 vols. Moscow, 1995. Vol. 6. P. 5; then only p.).

However, it would be unfair to consider the entries from the "Summary Notebooks" only as rough drafts for letters. The concept of "notebook" had a collective and generalizing meaning for Tsvetaeva: due to the integrity of her nature, the poetess did not differentiate her notes into everyday, business, analytical, intimate, and rough ones. "What will happen to me will be in the notebook. What will not happen to me - it will not be in the notebook-or rather: it will be-in the notebook " (Tsvetaeva M. Unpublished. Consolidated notebooks, Moscow, 1997, p. 328). "Notebook" served as a diary for Tsvetaeva. In one of her letters from 1935, the poetess says:: "By myself (soul) I was only in my notebooks...". This is evidenced by a comparative analysis of her letters to Pasternak and Bachrach in 1922-23 and parallel entries from the "Consolidated Notebooks": synonymous substitutions, grammatical variants, periphrases, development of thoughts and syntax changes not only reveal the process of working with a prose word in the epistolary genre, but also demonstrate the transition of the poetess ' thought from one genre system (diary) to another (letter).

Belonging to the primary discourse, the diary and the letter have similar features, but they also have a fundamental difference: the diary belongs to the type of autocommunication, the letter is sent to a real addressee (Another). Why did the appeals to Pasternak and Bachrach first appear in the form of diary entries? Not just because,

page 16

that this was required by the complex, intimate nature of Tsvetaeva's lyrical feeling. Addressing them in her diary, Tsvetaeva addressed herself, boldly looking into the depths of her soul and selflessly giving herself up to the impulses of the spirit. Some fragments of notes that were personally significant remained only in notebooks and were not included in emails. On the other hand, the emails show a number of places that were not present in the original entry. Due to their everyday, extremely specific (addressable) nature, they were superfluous in the context of a notebook-diary, and not only superfluous - they could not appear there, because in the case of a diary entry-address, the addressee is not the real, but the created image of the beloved, the image that the addressee lives by. This internal image also speaks about the act of autocommunication. It is no coincidence that when it gets into the genre of writing, it becomes more specific and real details.

The difference in style is also clear. In the "Consolidated Notebooks", the poetess writes :" In love, we are deprived of the main thing: the opportunity to tell (show) another how we suffer from it " (p. 124). Diary - "notebook" for Tsvetaeva is an attempt to tell. Hence the installation to speak yourself, and as much as the feeling requires, in its continuity, chaos and verbosity. In letters, however, with their lexical identity to the notes, Tsvetaeva smooths out the intonation, trying to tame the feeling, giving it narrative and logical coherence. This is especially noticeable in the syntax: expression and impulsiveness of thought in a diary entry-address are expressed by an abundance of dashes (generally characteristic of Tsvetaeva's style) and a peculiar, "spontaneous" word order, whereas in a letter the dashes are replaced by commas or removed altogether, and the word order is neutral. Here are examples from the " Consolidated notebooks "(abbreviated T.) and " Letters "(abbreviated P.). "You, whenever you think about me, know what you think in response: my whole house is halfway to you..." (T. p. 121). - " My house is always halfway to you. Whenever you write, know that your thoughts are always answered" (p. 233).

"At one time I often went to Prague, and now, at our tiny station - waiting for the train. (...) I just called you here, and long side-by-side conversations, never sitting down, always on my feet "(T. S. 118). - " I once often went to Prague, and here, waiting for the train at our tiny damp station. (...) I called you here." And long conversations side by side, wandering " (p. 229).

"You have already disappeared like this once - on the Maiden's Field, in the cemetery: you have withdrawn yourself from ... Simply: You are gone" (T. S. 120) - " You have already disappeared like this once - in the Devichy Field, in the cemetery: you have withdrawn yourself from. You just didn't exist" (P. S. 232).

"Friend, I'm not a little girl (although, in some ways - I'll never grow up) - I burned, burned, burned, suffered-everything happened! - but to break up like this

page 17

how I broke down about you... "(T. S. 206) - " Friend, I'm not a little girl (although I'll never grow up in something), I burned, burned, burned, suffered-everything was! "but to break up like I broke up against you... "(p. 584).

Changing the construction of the phrase also serves the task of moderating the" immensity " of feelings. In the diary entry-an appeal to Pasternak: "And now it's simple: I'm a LIVING person and I'm in a LOT of pain. Somewhere on the heights of yourself-no, in the core - pain "(T. p. 127). In the letter: "And now just: I'm a living person and I'm in a lot of pain. Somewhere on the heights of oneself-ice (detachment!), in the depths, in the core - pain!" (p.239). In the first phrase, word selection was removed, in the second, not only did a new semantic shade appear - "ice (detachment!)", but with it the phrase acquired internal parallelism, symmetry, and the intonation of a statement, whereas in the diary version, the intonation of the phrase was characterized by instability in Tsvetaeva's aspiration to self-understanding through self-expression.

A small letter to Bahrakh dated August 17, 1923 vividly illustrates the difference in stylistics in the genres of diary and letters. Tsvetaeva is angry, but rigidly restrained-in a notebook: "If my letters have reached you, any explanation of your silence is superfluous. Likewise, all your further concerns about my earthly affairs are gratefully dismissed "(T. S. 202). In a letter that requires more formality, Tsvetaeva softens the sharpness of the emotion, removing the dash, and extinguishes the categorical, combining both phrases into one long: "If my letters have reached-any explanation of your silence is superfluous, as well as any further concerns about my earthly affairs, with gratitude, rejected" (p. 582).

The same transition from free expression of thought to conventional politeness is found in a fragment of a letter to Pasternak dated November 19, 1922. Cf. in "Consolidated Notebooks": "I don't like meetings in life: they knock heads together. Two blank walls. (...) But still-run-down. God-forsaken (remembered!) cafe-better in the port (if you want! (Nordsee!)), with wooden tables drenched in smoke-elbow and forehead.

But I also leave my temptations in the spirit (T. p. 148); in the letter, "my temptation" is modestly paraphrased: "I will not hide that I would be glad to sit with you somewhere in a God-forsaken (remembered) shabby cafe, in the rain. - Elbow and forehead. - "And added:" I would be glad to see Mayakovsky ... "(p. 226-227).

This way of neutralizing speech during the transition from a diary entry-address to a letter is not uncommon for Tsvetaeva and is sometimes carried out by a simple deployment of an ellipsis and incomplete constructions: "Now they are parting for too long, so I want-in clear and sober words: - for how long and when" (T. p. 148) and in the same letter to Pasternak:"But now they're breaking up for too long, so I want to make it clear

page 18

and soberly: how far you have arrived, when you are going" (p. 227); or: "... and for this I need only one thing: the truth, whatever it may be" (p. 191), in a letter to Bachrach dated July 25,1923: "... and for this I need only one thing: the truth, whatever it may be " (p. 191). whatever it is! "(p. 572).

In general, the question of brevity/prevalence of speech when comparing the style of a diary ("notebook") and letters is ambiguous. In some cases, a diary entry can only indicate the author's train of thought in a synopsis, and in a letter the frame becomes overgrown with flesh (in the notebook, in one of Pasternak's notes, there is a paragraph: "Craft. "Well done. - "Female nothingness" - A conversation with your genius about you "(Vol. p. 120), in a letter on February 10, 1923. it will be developed into a whole fragment). In other cases-and they are more common in Tsvetaeva's case - writing in a notebook, reflecting the act of autocommunication, serves to clarify the author's understanding of himself, and the process of opening-revelation (and searching for the right word) is accompanied by long reflections and explanations, while for letters Tsvetaeva tries to "squeeze out" the text, choose a ready-made result. Cf. explanation of the thought to the addressee? "no, for yourself! - in the notebook: "I want you to be perfect, and perfection is not the absence of a reason for reproaches: free submission ( exposing yourself) to reproach: - reproach! (if you can, and I certainly can't.) There is a degree of pride and truthfulness of the soul, where there is no longer self-love ( ... ) that is, truthfulness and pride enough to go under reproach like a soldier under fire: you will not kill my soul "(T. p. 191) and the laconic wording in the letter to Bahrakh: "I want you to be blameless, that is, proud and free enough to go under reproach, like a soldier under shots: you will not kill my soul!" (P. S. 572).

Thus, a comparative analysis of some of Tsvetaeva's letters and parallel entries to them in notebooks, firstly, once again demonstrates the great importance of syntax for the poet's style, and secondly, gives grounds to change the view of the relationship between notebooks and letters. They do not correlate according to the draft-prose principle, but according to the diary-letter principle, when both genres have an independent and full-fledged stylistic system.

Permanent link to this publication: