Vladimir Nabokov

Bustle & Vanity of World in Pale Fire

By Alexey Sklyarenko, 29 June, 2022

According to Kinbote (in VN’s novel Pale Fire, 1962, Shade’s mad commentator who imagines that he is Charles the Beloved, the last self-exiled king of Zembla), Shade began writing Canto Two of his poem on July 5, 1959, and on the same day Gradus (Shade’s murderer) traveled from Onhava (the capital of Zembla) to Copenhagen:

 

Line 181: Today

 

Namely, July 5, 1959, 6th Sunday after Trinity. Shade began writing Canto Two "early in the morning" (thus noted at the top of card 14). He continued (down to line 208) on and off throughout the day. Most of the evening and a part of the night were devoted to what his favorite eighteenth-century writers have termed "the Bustle and Vanity of the World." After the last guest had gone (on a bicycle), and the ashtrays had been emptied, all the windows were dark for a couple of hours; but then, at about 3 A. M., I saw from my upstairs bathroom that the poet had gone back to his desk in the lilac light of his den, and this nocturnal session brought the canto to line 230 (card 18). On another trip to the bathroom an hour and a half later, at sunrise, I found the light transferred to the bedroom, and smiled indulgently, for, according to my deductions, only two nights had passed since the three-thousand-nine-hundred-ninety-ninth time - but no matter. A few minutes later all was solid darkness again, and I went back to bed.

On July 5th, at noontime, in the other hemisphere, on the rain-swept tarmac of the Onhava airfield, Gradus, holding a French passport, walked toward a Russian commercial plane bound for Copenhagen, and this event synchronized with Shade's starting in the early morning (Atlantic seaboard time) to compose, or to set down after composing in bed, the opening lines of Canto Two. When almost twenty-four hours later he got to line 230, Gradus, after a refreshing night at the summer house of our consul in Copenhagen, an important Shadow, had entered, with the Shadow, a clothes store in order to conform to his description in later notes (to lines 286 and 408). Migraine again worse today.

 

July 5 is Shade’s, Kinbote’s and Gradus’s birthday (while Shade was born in 1898, Kinbote and Gradus were born in 1915). In a letter of Oct. 31, 1838 (Dostoevski’s seventeenth birthday), to his brother Dostoevski twice uses the word gradus (degree):

 

Философию не надо полагать простой математической задачей, где неизвестное - природа... Заметь, что поэт в порыве вдохновенья разгадывает бога, следовательно, исполняет назначенье философии. Следовательно, поэтический восторг есть восторг философии... Следовательно, философия есть та же поэзия, только высший градус её!..

 

Philosophy should not be regarded as a mere equation where nature is the unknown quantity… Remark that the poet, in the moment of inspiration, comprehends God, and consequently does the philosopher’s work. Consequently poetic inspiration is nothing less than philosophical inspiration. Consequently philosophy is nothing but poetry, a higher degree of poetry!..

 

Друг мой! Ты философствуешь как поэт. И как не ровно выдерживает душа градус вдохновенья, так не ровна, не верна и твоя философия. Чтоб больше знать, надо меньше чувствовать, и обратно, правило опрометчивое, бред сердца.

 

My friend, you philosophize like a poet. And just because the soul cannot be forever in a state of exaltation, your philosophy is not true and not just. To know more one must feel less, and vice versa. Your judgment is featherheaded – it is a delirium of the heart.

 

Dostoevski’s first novel, Bednye lyudi (“Poor Folk,” 1846), is written in epistolary form. In a letter to her sister Miss Peggy Whitaker, a character in Robert Bage’s epistolary novel Barham Downs (1784), says that her sister, Annabella, sent into the world for an example to all virtuous maidens in still life, is engaged in the very hurry and bustle of Vanity-fair:

 

And here am I, Margarete Whitaker, spinster, confined to my solitary hut, with the Practice of Piety in my heart – hand, I would say, and in my head a coach with a coronet; whilst her sister, Annabella, sent into the world for an example to all virtuous maidens in still life, is engaged in the very hurry and bustle of Vanity-fair.

 

Barham Downs was included in “The Novels of Swift, Bage, and Cumberland, with prefatory notices, & c.” (Ballantyne's novelist's library ; Vol. IX). 1824. Jonathan Swift is the author of On Stella's Birth-day 1719:

 

Stella this Day is thirty four,

(We shan't dispute a Year or more)

However Stella, be not troubled,

Although thy Size and Years are doubled,

Since first I saw Thee at Sixteen

The brightest Virgin on the Green,

So little is thy Form declin'd

Made up so largely in thy Mind.

Oh, woud it please the Gods to split

Thy Beauty, Size, and Years, and Wit,

No Age could furnish out a Pair

Of Nymphs so graceful, Wise and fair

With half the Lustre of your Eyes,

With half your Wit, your Years and Size:

And then before it grew too late,

How should I beg of gentle Fate,

(That either Nymph might have her Swain,)

To split my Worship too in twain.

 

In a discarded variant (dated July 6) Shade mentions poor old man Swift:

 

A beautiful variant, with one curious gap, branches off at this point in the draft (dated July 6):

 

Strange Other World where all our still-born dwell,
And pets, revived, and invalids, grown well,
And minds that died before arriving there:
Poor old man Swift, poor —, poor Baudelaire

 

What might that dash stand for? Unless Shade gave prosodic value to the mute e in “Baudelaire,” which I am quite certain he would never have done in English verse (cp. “Rabelais,” line 501), the name required here must scan as a trochee. Among the names of celebrated poets, painters, philosophers, etc., known to have become insane or to have sunk into senile imbecility, we find many suitable ones. Was Shade confronted by too much variety with nothing to help logic choose and so left a blank, relying upon the mysterious organic force that rescues poets to fill it in at its own convenience? Or was there something else—some obscure intuition, some prophetic scruple that prevented him from spelling out the name of an eminent man who happened to be an intimate friend of his? Was he perhaps playing safe because a reader in his household might have objected to that particular name being mentioned? And if it comes to that, why mention it at all in this tragical context? Dark, disturbing thoughts. (note to Line 231)

 

At the beginning of his novel Besy (“The Possessed,” 1872) Dostoevski compares Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovenski to Swift’s Gulliver:

 

Скажу прямо: Степан Трофимович постоянно играл между нами некоторую особую и, так сказать, гражданскую роль и любил эту роль до страсти, — так даже, что, мне кажется, без неё и прожить не мог. Не то чтоб уж я его приравнивал к актёру на театре: сохрани боже, тем более что сам его уважаю. Тут всё могло быть делом привычки, или, лучше сказать, беспрерывной и благородной склонности, с детских лет, к приятной мечте о красивой гражданской своей постановке. Он, например, чрезвычайно любил своё положение «гонимого» и, так сказать, «ссыльного». В этих обоих словечках есть своего рода классический блеск, соблазнивший его раз навсегда, и, возвышая его потом постепенно в собственном мнении, в продолжение столь многих лет, довёл его наконец до некоторого весьма высокого и приятного для самолюбия пьедестала. В одном сатирическом английском романе прошлого столетия некто Гулливер, возвратясь из страны лилипутов, где люди были всего в какие-нибудь два вершка росту, до того приучился считать себя между ними великаном, что, и ходя по улицам Лондона, невольно кричал прохожим и экипажам, чтоб они пред ним сворачивали и остерегались, чтоб он как-нибудь их не раздавил, воображая, что он всё еще великан, а они маленькие. За это смеялись над ним и бранили его, а грубые кучера даже стегали великана кнутьями; но справедливо ли? Чего не может сделать привычка? Привычка привела почти к тому же и Степана Трофимовича, но ещё в более невинном и безобидном виде, если можно так выразиться, потому что прекраснейший был человек.

Я даже так думаю, что под конец его все и везде позабыли; но уже никак ведь нельзя сказать, что и прежде совсем не знали. Бесспорно, что и он некоторое время принадлежал к знаменитой плеяде иных прославленных деятелей нашего прошедшего поколения, и одно время, — впрочем, всего только одну самую маленькую минуточку, — его имя многими тогдашними торопившимися людьми произносились чуть не наряду с именами Чаадаева, Белинского, Грановского и только что начинавшего тогда за границей Герцена. Но деятельность Степана Трофимовича окончилась почти в ту же минуту, как и началась, — так сказать от «вихря сошедшихся обстоятельств». И что же? Не только «вихря», но даже и «обстоятельств» совсем потом не оказалось, по крайней мере в этом случае. Я только теперь, на днях, узнал, к величайшему моему удивлению, но зато уже в совершенной достоверности, что Степан Трофимович проживал между нами, в нашей губернии, не только не в ссылке, как принято было у нас думать, но даже и под присмотром никогда не находился. Какова же после этого сила собственного воображения! Он искренно сам верил всю свою жизнь, что в некоторых сферах его постоянно опасаются, что шаги его беспрерывно известны и сочтены и что каждый из трех сменившихся у нас в последние двадцать лет губернаторов, въезжая править губернией, уже привозил с собою некоторую особую и хлопотливую о нем мысль, внушенную ему свыше и прежде всего, при сдаче губернии. Уверь кто-нибудь тогда честнейшего Степана Трофимовича неопровержимыми доказательствами, что ему вовсе нечего опасаться, и он бы непременно обиделся. А между тем это был ведь человек умнейший и даровитейший, человек, так сказать, даже науки, хотя, впрочем, в науке… ну, одним словом, в науке он сделал не так много и, кажется, совсем ничего. Но ведь с людьми науки у нас на Руси это сплошь да рядом случается.

 

I will say at once that Stepan Trofimovich had always filled a particular role among us, that of the progressive patriot, so to say, and he was passionately fond of playing the part—so much so that I really believe he could not have existed without it. Not that I would put him on a level with an actor at a theatre, God forbid, for I really have a respect for him. This may all have been the effect of habit, or rather, more exactly of a generous propensity he had from his earliest years for indulging in an agreeable day-dream in which he figured as a picturesque public character. He fondly loved, for instance, his position as a “persecuted” man and, so to speak, an “exiling.” There is a sort of traditional glamour about those two little words that fascinated him once for all and, exalting him gradually in his own opinion, raised him in the course of years to a lofty pedestal very gratifying to vanity. In an English satire of the last century, Gulliver, returning from the land of the Lilliputians where the people were only three or four inches high, had grown so accustomed to consider himself a giant among them, that as he walked along the streets of London he could not help crying out to carriages and passers-by to be careful and get out of his way for fear he should crush them, imagining that they were little and he was still a giant. He was laughed at and abused for it, and rough coachmen even lashed at the giant with their whips. But was that just? What may not be done by habit? Habit had brought Stepan Trofimovich almost to the same position, but in a more innocent and inoffensive form, if one may use such expressions, for he was a most excellent man.

I am even inclined to suppose that towards the end he had been entirely forgotten everywhere; but still it cannot be said that his name had never been known. It is beyond question that he had at one time belonged to a certain distinguished constellation of celebrated leaders of the last generation, and at one time—though only for the briefest moment—his name was pronounced by many hasty persons of that day almost as though it were on a level with the names of Chaadaev, of Belinsky, of Granovsky, and of Herzen, who had only just begun to write abroad. But Stepan Trofimovich's activity ceased almost at the moment it began, owing, so to say, to a “vortex of combined circumstances.” And would you believe it? It turned out afterwards that there had been no “vortex” and even no “circumstances,” at least in that connection. I only learned the other day to my intense amazement, though on the most unimpeachable authority, that Stepan Trofimovich had lived among us in our province not as an “exile” as we were accustomed to believe, and had never even been under police supervision at all. Such is the force of imagination! All his life he sincerely believed that in certain spheres he was a constant cause of apprehension, that every step he took was watched and noted, and that each one of the three governors who succeeded one another during twenty years in our province came with special and uneasy ideas concerning him, which had, by higher powers, been impressed upon each before everything else, on receiving the appointment. Had anyone assured the honest man on the most irrefutable grounds that he had nothing to be afraid of, he would certainly have been offended. Yet Stepan Trofimovich was a most intelligent and gifted man, even, so to say, a man of science, though indeed, in science. . . well, in fact he had not done such great things in science. I believe indeed he had done nothing at all. But that's very often the case, of course, with men of science among us in Russia. (Part One, chapter I)

 

According to Kinbote, Shade listed Dostoevski among Russian humorists:

 

Speaking of the Head of the bloated Russian Department, Prof. Pnin, a regular martinet in regard to his underlings (happily, Prof. Botkin, who taught in another department, was not subordinated to that grotesque "perfectionist"): "How odd that Russian intellectuals should lack all sense of humor when they have such marvelous humorists as Gogol, Dostoevski, Chekhov, Zoshchenko, and those joint authors of genius Ilf and Petrov." (note to Line 172)

 

In his humorous story Temperamenty (“Temperaments,” 1881) Chekhov says that the phrase Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas (translated by Chekhov as “the nonsense of nonsenses and all nonsense”) was invented by a phlegmatic:

 

Флегматик. Милый человек (я говорю, разумеется, не про англичанина, а про российского флегматика). Наружность самая обыкновенная, топорная. Вечно серьезен, потому что лень смеяться. Ест когда и что угодно; не пьет, потому что боится кондрашки, спит 20 часов в сутки. Непременный член всевозможных комиссий, заседаний и экстренных собраний, на которых ничего не понимает, дремлет без зазрения совести и терпеливо ожидает конца. Женится в 30 лет при помощи дядюшек и тетушек. Самый удобный для женитьбы человек: на всё согласен, не ропщет и покладист. Жену величает душенькой. Любит поросеночка с хреном, певчих, всё кисленькое и холодок. Фраза «Vanitas vanitatum et omnie vanitas» (Чепуха чепух и всяческая чепуха) выдумана флегматиком. Бывает болен только тогда, когда его избирают в присяжные заседатели. Завидев толстую бабу, кряхтит, шевелит пальцами и старается улыбнуться. Выписывает «Ниву» и сердится, что в ней не раскрашивают картинок и не пишут смешного. Пишущих считает людьми умнейшими и в то же время вреднейшими. Жалеет, что его детей не секут в гимназии, и сам иногда не прочь посечь. На службе счастлив. В оркестре он — контрабас, фагот, тромбон. В театре — кассир, лакей, суфлер и иногда pour manger актер. Умирает от паралича или водянки.

Женщина-флегматик — это слезливая, пучеглазая, толстая, крупичатая, сдобная немка. Похожа на куль с мукою. Родится, чтобы со временем стать тещей. Быть тещей — ее идеал.

 

Chekhov has divided human temperaments into four major categories – Sanguine, Choleric, Phlegmatic, and Melancholic – further bifurcated into male and female varieties. According to Kinbote, the King was persuaded to take a wife by the Bishop of Yeslove, a sanguineous and saintly old man:

 

John Shade and Sybil Swallow (see note to line 247) were married in 1919, exactly three decades before King Charles wed Disa, Duchess of Payn. Since the very beginning of his reign (1936-1958) representatives of the nation, salmon fishermen, non-union glaziers, military groups, worried relatives, and especially the Bishop of Yeslove, a sanguineous and saintly old man, had been doing their utmost to persuade him to give up his copious but sterile pleasures and take a wife. It was a matter not of morality but of succession. As in the case of some of his predecessors, rough alderkings who burned for boys, the clergy blandly ignored our young bachelor's pagan habits, but wanted him to do what an earlier and even more reluctant Charles had done: take a night off and lawfully engender an heir.

He saw nineteen-year-old Disa for the first time on the festive night of July the 5th, 1947, at a masked ball in his uncle's palace. She had come in male dress, as a Tirolese boy, a little knock-kneed but brave and lovely, and afterwards he drove her and her cousins (two guardsmen disguised as flowergirls) in his divine new convertible through the streets to see the tremendous birthday illumination, and the fackeltanz in the park, and the fireworks, and the pale upturned faces. He procrastinated for almost two years but was set upon by inhumanly eloquent advisors, and finally gave in. On the eve of his wedding he prayed most of the night locked up all alone in the cold vastness of the Onhava cathedral. Smug alderkings looked at him from the ruby-and-amethyst windows. Never had he so fervently asked God for guidance and strength (see further my note to lines 433-434).

After line 274 there is a false start in the draft:

 

I like my name: Shade, Ombre, almost "man"
In Spanish...

 

One regrets that the poet did not pursue this theme--and spare his reader the embarrassing intimacies that follow. (note to Line 275)

 

Swift was Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin. During the American War of Independence Richard Cumberland (the dramatist, 1731-1811, whose novel Henry was printed in Ballantyne's Novelists' Library) acted as a secret negotiator with Spain in an effort to secure a peace agreement between the two nations. Cumberland is the author of The Sibyl, or The Elder Brutus (afterwards amalgamated with other plays on the subject into a very successful tragedy for Edward Kean by Payne). Edmund Kean (1787- 1833) was a celebrated British Shakespearean stage actor who performed, among other places, in London, Belfast, New York, Quebec, and Paris. He was known for his short stature, tumultuous personal life, and controversial divorce. Kean, ou Désordre et Génie (1836) is a play by Alexandre Dumas. An American actor, poet and playwright, John Howard Payne (1791-1852) brings to mind Duchess of Payn, of Great Payn and Mone (Queen Disa’s title). Sibyl is a poem by Payne:

 

THIS is the glamour of the world antique:  
The thyme-scents of Hymettus fill the air,  
And in the grass narcissus-cups are fair.  
The full brook wanders through the ferns to seek  
The amber haunts of bees; and on the peak  
Of the soft hill, against the gold-marged sky,  
She stands, a dream from out the days gone by.  
Entreat her not. Indeed, she will not speak!  
Her eyes are full of dreams; and in her ears  
There is the rustle of immortal wings;  
And ever and anon the slow breeze bears  
The mystic murmur of the songs she sings.  
Entreat her not: she sees thee not, nor hears  
Aught but the sights and sounds of bygone springs.

 

Describing the King’s luxurious captivity in the South West Tower, Kinbote mentions a picture that once hung in the nursery and that shows blurry shapes of melancholy sheep:

 

One August day, at the beginning of his third month of luxurious captivity in the South West Tower, he was accused of using a fop's hand mirror and the sun's cooperative rays to flash signals from his lofty casement. The vastness of the view it commanded was denounced not only as conducive to treachery but as producing in the surveyor an airy sense of superiority over his low-lodged jailers. Accordingly, one evening the King's cot-and-pot were transferred to a dismal lumber room on the same side of the palace but on its first floor. Many years before, it had been the dressing room of his grandfather, Thurgus the Third. After Thurgus died (in 1900) his ornate bedroom was transformed into a kind of chapel and the adjacent chamber, shorn of its full-length multiple mirror and green silk sofa, soon degenerated into what it had now remained for half a century, an old hole of a room with a locked trunk in one corner and an obsolete sewing machine in another. It was reached from a marble-flagged gallery, running along its north side and sharply turning immediately west of it to form a vestibule in the southwest corner of the Palace. The only window gave on an inner court on the south side. This window had once been a glorious dreamway of stained glass, with a fire-bird and a dazzled huntsman, but a football had recently shattered the fabulous forest scene and now its new ordinary pane was barred from the outside. On the west-side wall, above a whitewashed closet door, hung a large photograph in a frame of b lack velvet. The fleeting and faint but thousands of times repeated action of the same sun that was accused of sending messages from the tower, had gradually patinated this picture which showed the romantic profile and broad bare shoulders of the forgotten actress Iris Acht, said to have been for several years, ending with her sudden death in 1888, the mistress of Thurgus. In the opposite, east-side wall a frivolous-looking door, similar in turquoise coloration to the room's only other one (opening into the gallery) but securely hasped, had once led to the old rake's bedchamber; it had now lost its crystal knob, and was flanked on the east-side wall by two banished engravings belonging to the room's period of decay. They were of the sort that is not really supposed to be looked at, pictures that exist merely as general notions of pictures to meet the humble ornamental needs of some corridor or waiting room: one was a shabby and lugubrious Fête Flammande after Teniers; the other had once hung in the nursery whose sleepy denizens had always taken it to depict foamy waves in the foreground instead of the blurry shapes of melancholy sheep that it now revealed. (note to Line 130)