John Malmstad, un des plus grands connaisseurs de la poésie russe, des arts novateurs dans l’Empire Russe et en URSS, ainsi que du ballet, est mort à Boston d’une pneumonie. L’université de Harvard, dont il était un des éminents professeurs, lui rendra hommage dans les jours qui viennent.

John Malmstad a été un des étudiants préférés de Nina Berbérova à Princeton. C’est à l’Université de Columbia à New-York qu’il nous avait invités Valentine et moi en 1977 comme senior fellows et nous avons pu faire des conférences en russe dans différents centres universitaires new-yorkais, à Standford, Berkeley, à Los Angeles, Valentine sur l’art russe et le théâtre, moi sur Leskov, Malévitch et l’art des icônes. Nous avons visité avec lui le Nouveau Mexique, la Virginie, l’Arizona, la Caroline du Nord, la nouvelle Angleterre. Et lors de ses séjours chez nous, à Paris et dans les Landes, nous lui avons fait visiter la Bretagne et plusieurs régions de l’Occitanie.

John Malmstad était un des grands spécialistes d’Andreï Biély dont il a été, entre autre, un des premiers traducteurs en anglais du roman Pétersbourg, une des œuvres majeures du XXème siècle. Il a écrit non seulement sur la poésie de Mikhaïl Kouzmine et publié sa biographie (traduite en français), mais aussi sur la poésie, les critiques littéraires, les monographies et les mémoires de Vladislav Khodassévitch, le premier époux de Nina Berbérova. C’était un scientifique d’une grande exigence  dans l’établissement textologique des  œuvres russes, en particulier symbolistes, et leurs annotations. Il a travaillé dans ce domaine avec ses collègues russes, dont l’académicien pétersbourgeois, spécialiste du modernisme littéraire russe du début du XXème siècle, Alexandre Vassiliévitch Lavrov

John Malmstad faisait partie de notre vie familiale, il était plus qu’un ami, il était à nos côtés dans les turbulences de la vie intellectuelle.Il a dirigé avec moi l’édition des lettres d’Alexandre Smirnov à Sonia Delaunay écrites dans le premier quart du XXème siècle.

C’est donc tout un pande notre vie qui disparaît.

ARCHIVES – POÉSIES

À LIALIA, 6 février 1959

Chante, chante mon cœur,

Chante, chante mon sang,

Chante, chante ma joie

D’être à ta chair de ma chair.

Je t’ai emmenée aujourd’hui

Dans les régions connues de nous

Avec de telles délices…

Nous avons survolé notre cité,

Nous avons volé dans notre ciel,

Nous avons tout laissé

Pour davantage nous retrouver,

Nous avons tout quitté,

Nous sommes partis, accordés enfin,

Laissant la méchanceté,

La vilenie, les désespérances,

Et j’ai baisé ta main,

Et nos anneaux se sont réunis

À LIALIOUCHA, 24 août 1959

Les arbres roulent, roulent, roulent

au même rythme que mon cœur,

mon âme pleure, pleure, pleure,

sa mélodie et sa langueur.

Ma Bien-Aimée telle une brise

ou comme l’aile de l’oiseau

s’éloigne… mon cœur se brise,

se brise…

il n’est plus que lambeau.

Je te sens , toi, ma Joie,

je te sens, mon Amie,

ton cœur bat

tout près du mien,

tout empli de clartés

À LIALIA, 18 octobre 1959

Tu es là

Tu rayonnes

Tu resplendis

Chaque chose te chante

Mélodie triste de l’absence,

Jouée sur un cor anglais

         Aigre, sur une grève

Le son se meurt

Et va se fondre

Avec le glauque ondoiement

De la mer

Qui n’en finit pas de finir

Et de recommencer.

Une chevelure automnale

A vogué

Sur le champ tourmenté.

Le crépuscule a fini.

Vénus commence

Et sur les flots

Deux yeux

Roulent sans cesse :

Deux yeux d’automne

Ou bien deux astres ?

Vania

Quelques amis fin décembre 2025 – début janvier 2026

 

 

 

 

 

 

Francis Bacon. (1561–1626).  Essays, Civil and Moral.

OF ATHEISM

I HAD rather believe all the fables in the Legend, 1 and the Talmud, 2 and the Alcoran, 3than that this universal frame is without a mind. And therefore God never wrought miracle to convince 4 atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity. Nay, even that school which is most accused of atheism doth most demonstrate religion; that is, the school of Leucippus and Democritus and Epicurus. For it is a thousand times more credible, that four mutable elements, and one immutable fifth essence, duly and eternally placed, need no God, than that an army of infinite small portions or seeds unplaced, should have produced this order and beauty without a divine marshal. The Scripture saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it. For none deny there is a God, but those for whom it maketh 5 that there were no God. It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this; that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted in it within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others. Nay more, you shall have atheists strive to get disciples, as it fareth with other sects. And, which is most of all, you shall have of them that will suffer for atheism, and not recant; whereas if they did truly think that there were no such thing as God, why should they trouble themselves? Epicurus is charged that he did but dissemble for his credit’s sake, when he affirmed there were blessed natures, but such as enjoyed themselves without having respect to the government of the world. Wherein they say he did temporize; though in secret he thought there was no God. But certainly he is traduced; for his words are noble and divine:Non deos vulgi negare profanum; sed vulgi opiniones diis applicare profanum [There is no profanity in refusing to believe in the gods of the people: the profanity is in believing of the gods what the people believe of them]. Plato could have said no more. And although he had the confidence to deny the administration, he had not the power to deny the nature. The Indians of the West have names for their particular gods, though they have no name for God: as if the heathens should have had the names Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, etc. but not the word Deus; which shows that even those barbarous people have the notion, though they have not the latitude and extent of it. So that against atheists the very savages take part with the very subtlest philosophers. The contemplative atheist is rare: a Diagoras, a Bion, a Lucian perhaps, and some others; and yet they seem to be more than they are; for that all that impugn a received religion or superstition are by the adverse part branded with the name of atheists. But the great atheists indeed are hypocrites; which are ever handling holy things, but without feeling; so as they must needs be cauterized in the end. The causes of atheism are: divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division addeth zeal to both sides; but many divisions introduce atheism. Another is, scandal of priests; when it is come to that which St. Bernard saith, Non est jam dicere, ut populus sic sacerdos; quia nec sic populus ut sacerdos [One cannot now say the priest is as the people, for the truth is that the people are not so bad as the priest]. A third is, custom of profane scoffing in holy matters; which doth by little and little deface the reverence of religion. And lastly, learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion. They that deny a God destroy man’s nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts by his body; and, if he be not of kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature. It destroys likewise magnanimity, and the raising of human nature; for take an example of a dog, and mark what a generosity and courage he will put on when he finds himself maintained by a man; who to him is instead of a God, or melior natura [better nature]; which courage is manifestly such as that creature, without that confidence of a better nature than his own, could never attain. So man, when he resteth and assureth himself upon divine protection and favor, gathered a force and faith which human nature in itself could not obtain. Therefore, as atheism is in all respects hateful, so in this, that it depriveth human nature of the means to exalt itself above human frailty. As it is in particular persons, so it is in nations. Never was there such a state for magnanimity as Rome. Of this state hear what Cicero saith: Quam volumus licet, patres conscripti, nos amemus, tamen nec numero Hispanos, nec robore Gallos, nec calliditate Pœnos, nec artibus Græcos, nec denique hoc ipso hujus gentis et terræ domestico nativoque sensu Italos ipsos et Latinos; sed pietate, ac religione, atque hac una sapientia, quod deorum immortalium numine omnia regi gubernarique perspeximus, omnes gentes nationesque superavimus [Pride ourselves as we may upon our country, yet are we not in number superior to the Spaniards, nor in strength to the Gauls, nor in cunning to the Carthaginians, not to the Greeks in arts, nor to the Italians and Latins themselves in the homely and native sense which belongs to his nation and land; it is in piety only and religion, and the wisdom of regarding the providence of the immortal gods as that which rules and governs all things, that we have surpassed all nations and peoples].

 

Note 1. “The Golden Legend,” a 13th century collection of saints’ lives. [back]

Note 2. The body of Jewish traditional law. [back]

Note 3. “The Koran,” the sacred book of the Mohammedans. [back]

Note 4. Refute. [back]

Note 5. Profiteth. [back]