Vs. Dmitriev. Review: Bar. N. Wrangel. "Wreath Dead"

JL  Apollo (HL),  1913. No. 6

Bar. N.N. Wrangel. “Wreath of the Dead” is an artistic and historical article. SPB.1913. 2 p. 25 k.

"Wreath" Bar. N. Wrangel differs significantly from those that were laid over the past decades on the altar of Russian painting of the HUSH century - he with thorns: I am not guilty if the wreath I bring to my dead friends is a wreath with thorns (page 6). But, Perhaps it is the thorns that the author was not afraid to preserve that make the wreath so alive, so special and extremely convincing.

Bar. N. Wrangel, apparently, ardently loves the Russian Khush century, but this does not prevent him from clearly realizing and strikingly revealing the absurdity, even the ugliness of the then culture: It is difficult to imagine a more childish idea than the one invented by Asian-Russians, mocking foreigners. But as talented actors, they not only convinced many that they were playing seriously, but even believed that theatrical stage was the same thing. (p.83)

Concise characteristics, a careful analysis of the various influences that covered our artistic life in those days, perfectly help us to understand the era when "French fashions, Dutch furniture, Samoyed jesters, Jewish trade, African arapes, and Thalian art, German drinks and swearing" (p.107).

But the final conclusions that the author draws from his studies seem especially important to us; they expose the thorns, which, giving the wreath a special thrill and life, can inflict deadly injections on the eyelid, which until recently caused our “golden”. In old Russia there were moments in which the Russian people were able, with the help of their own and others' hands, to create an art almost equal to that of the West.And even the sceptical foreigners, who in the CUP called the century and now call the Russians barbarians, in the HUSH century unanimously recognized the ability of these savages to pretend to be cultured to the point of deception.” (p.69).

Of course, such a characterization can only induce us to renounce this “golden age” with all our might, to exert all our efforts in search of our “most precious,” our true tradition; for to be content with the fact that we were at one time “before deception” like Europe, and to imitate this period would not be a sign of spiritual poverty?

Bar. N. Wrangel makes the following conclusion: "The whole retrospectiveness of literature and art, showing some remarkable talents, testifies to the exceptional poverty of modern Russia. For only he who has no personal life can speak of the lives of others. It is very good to lay wreaths on the graves of the dead, but this is not the only thing to do.” (page 6)

With a number of convincing examples, the author shows how from the end of the Khush century our “deliberate” culture falls like a mirage, and to our days it dissipates completely, and therefore “as people”. Peter the Great had to be the new builders of life, so we see only oases of the past in the new desert” (page 86), and equally convincingly – here the pricks of a wreath – insists throughout the collection that “all this “deliberate untruth” of the past life order will never again be revived.” (page 12)

It seems no coincidence that the collection is called “The Wreath of the Dead” (and not the dead, for example.) Is it not emphasized here that the HUSH century has become dead to us, has revealed itself to us as a naive and fruitless game that we no longer want or are able to play?

And is not this wreath destined to be the last funeral wreath, for its pricks are as dangerous as roses?

                                                           V. Dmitriev.