众所周知,在帕斯捷尔纳克的诗歌、散文和书信中有许多谈论马雅可夫斯基的地方。首先,人们就会想到他的诗歌《致马雅可夫斯基》、《诗人之死》和自传体散文《安全证书》、《人与事》里的一些章节。在帕斯捷尔纳克不同时间、不同体裁、不同风格的言论中始终贯穿着同一种思想,其实质大致是:在俄国诗坛上,马雅可夫斯基是一位天才的诗人、悲剧性的诗人。诗人的不幸在于他未能充分地发挥和表现自己的天才。他在历史、社会、政权面前竭力追求个性的自我肯定妨碍他做到这一点。这里还有一篇帕斯捷尔纳克谈论马雅可夫斯基的文稿。它就是帕斯捷尔纳克1933年4月12日在莫斯科大学纪念马雅可夫斯基逝世三周年晚会上的讲话(纪念晚会未经校正的速记记录稿保存在苏联中央国家文学档案馆内。在这次发表之前,仅对女速记员明显的错误进行了改正)。正如在两年前出版的《安全证书》里所写的那样,他在讲话中谈到了这样一种看法:诗人对主要是作为诗人生活的浪漫主义认识和浪漫主义想象是不能令人信服的。照帕斯捷尔纳克的话来说,这种浪漫主义的想象支配了布洛克,而在马雅可夫斯基和叶赛宁身上反映更加突出。但是,在帕斯捷尔纳克的这次讲话里,象《安全证书》中提出的那种过分严厉的批评有所缓和。在谈论诗人创作个性的作用超出于他在作品中所描写的一切时,帕斯捷尔纳克已经没有以前那种否定意味了。大家知道帕斯捷尔纳克后来的命运,就会得出结论,即使对他本人来说这种观点也是完全正确的。按照帕斯捷尔纳克的想法,马雅可夫斯基作为一个诗人其本质就是革命的。然而,他的革命性并非与某种政治纲领等量齐观,而是表现在他的诗歌创作才能上,这种才能本身实质上就是悲剧性的。仿佛从一面镜子里凝视着在许多方面与其对峙的另一位大诗人,帕斯捷尔纳克在思索着自己的命运,思索着自己的人生战略。 It is well-known that many of Mayerkowski’s addresses in Pasternak’s poetry, essays and letters are well known. First of all, people will think of some chapters in his poems, “To Mayakovsky,” “The Death of a Poet,” and Autobiographical Prose “Security Certificate,” and “Man and Things.” In Pasternak at different times, different genres, different styles of speech always runs through the same kind of thinking, in essence, roughly: in Russian poetry, Mayakovsky is a talented poet, tragic Poet. The poet’s misfortune is that he failed to fully play and show his genius. His self-affirmation of his pursuit of individuality in the face of history, society and government prevented him from doing so. There is also an article by Pasternak about Mayakovski’s presentation. It is the speech of Pastanak on April 12, 1933, at Moscow University commemorating the third anniversary of the death of Mayakovski (an uncorrected shorthand note for the party was kept in the Central Soviet National Archives of Literature Prior to this announcement, only the obvious errors of the stenographers were corrected. As he wrote in the “Security Certificate” published two years ago, he spoke in his speech about the poet’s unconvincing view of romanticism and romantic imagination, primarily as a poet’s life. According to Pasternak, this romantic imagination dominates Bullock, which is more pronounced in Mayakovsky and Yesenin. But in Pastznake’s speech, the overly harsh criticism of “security credentials” eased. Pasternak has no previous denial of meaning when it comes to talking about the poet’s personality more than he describes in his work. As we all know, Pasternak’s subsequent fate, we will conclude that even for himself this view is entirely correct. According to Pasternak, Mayakovski, as a poet, is essentially revolutionary. However, his revolutionary nature does not coincide with some kind of political program, but rather his performance in his poetry, which in essence is tragic. As if gazing in a mirror at another great poet confronting him in many ways, Pasternak is pondering his fate and contemplating his own life strategy.