How does Yevgeny Zamyatins We, and the works of Osip Mandelstam and Anna

Akhmatova convey the feelings of Russia as a nation between 1921 and 1941?
Conducting a study of Russian Literature from the years I have chosen with a view to
attaining an insight into the feelings of the Russian people at the time is a very difficult
task. Between the years of 1921 and 1941 Russia experienced a great deal of censorship
of the arts. An organisation called Glavlit (General Directorate for the Protection of State
Secrets in the Press) censored all literature published in the Soviet Union and therefore as
a result it is difficult to be absolutely sure that the Literature one reads expresses the true
sentiment of the writer. For this study I have chosen to look at Yevgeny Zamyatins We,
and a selection of poems by both Anna Akhmatova and Osip Mandelstam. It was with
careful consideration that I chose these writers, as I had to consider their circumstances
when writing in order to gauge why they might write what they wrote. I looked at a number
of articles from literary critics, and studied the lives of a number of writers before choosing
these three, as I feel that the works I have chosen from them perhaps remain some of the
most untouched pieces of literature from the Soviet era. Whilst Glavlit continued their
onslaught to implement Socialist Realism across the arts, these writers strove to keep their
work honest, and all suffered personally for that.
Akhmatova wrote poems of patriotic sentiment (Poetry Foundation, 2015) and did
not want to leave her country as many of her fellow poets and writers did when Stalin
came into power. Akhmatova wrote that by 1935 every time she went to see someone off
at the train station as they went into exile, she'd find herself greeting friends at every step
as so many of St Petersburg's intellectual and cultural figures would be leaving on the
same train, (Wikipedia, 2005.) She began a 1922 poem Im not of those who left their
country, for wolves to tear it limb from limb, (Anna Akhmatova, 2009.) I believe it was this
hardy element of her character that makes her such an excellent source of literature to
contribute to this project. Whilst many exiled writers were free to write as they wished,
they of course werent actually present in Russia during these years and truly experiencing
and comprehending the subjects and events on which they were writing. Akhmatova
wrote a number of savage criticisms on Stalins rule during his time as leader of the Soviet
Union, and remained in Russia throughout. Rappaport writes, nothing, it seemed could
destroy Akhmatovas dogged determination to transcend the nightmare of Stalinism in
order one day to reveal its horrors, (Rappaport, 1999) and she was further described by
Norris and Sunderland as a martyr against tyranny and preserver of prerevolutionary
culture, a symbol of persecuted genius, and an example of moral courage. (Norris &

Sunderland, 2012.) Despite suffering the personal tragedy of the arrest and execution of
her husband Nikolay Gumilev in 1921 for, as Rappaport writes fabricated charges of
counterrevolutionary activity, (Rappaport, 1999.) It is also important to note that through
all the years of persecution, her only artistic compromise, brought on by her desperation to
get her son out of the Gulag, had been to write, in 1950, a trite cycle of verses, In Praise
of Peace, lauding Stalin as The true master of life, / The sovereign of mountains of
rivers. (Rappaport 1999.) However considering the contradictory nature of a plethora of
her other works, I personally feel there is a rather sarcastic tone to these particular works.
Nonetheless, they clearly worked as her son Lev was released from the Gulag two
months later. Norris and Sunderland (2012) write that Akhmatovas speaker voices the
suffering of the whole Soviet Union, and Bayley (1984) further asserts that she refused to
be melted to a state hymn. Norris and Sunderland write Anna Akhmatova is one of
Russias best loved and most talented lyric poets. Yet her preeminent position in Russian
cultural history rests more on the quality of her writing. Through a combination of her
poetry, the shape of her biography, and the force of her personality she has acquired a
legendary status, becoming even during her own lifetime- a larger than life, monumental
figure, matryr against tyranny and preserver of prerevolutionary culture, a symbol of
persecuted genius, and an example of moral courage. In short she is a cultural icon,
(Norris and Sunderland 2012.) Therefore, she is clearly an almost invaluable source of
Russian literature to contribute to this project in order to attain the true sentiment of the
Russian people between 1921 and 1941.
Akhmatova writes in a poem published in 1921 as a part of her collection Anno
Domini Everything is looted spoiled, despoiled, (Akhmatova, 1921.) We know from
Poetry Foundation that Anna Akhmatova typically produced poems of patriotic sentiment,
and so to begin the first poem in a collection entitled The Year of the Master with a line
sounding so hopeless really conveys a sense of what life in Russia was like in 1921.
Akhmatova was a true patriot: despite the arrest and execution of her husband Nikolay
Gumilev that year at the hands of the government that the Russian people had fought to
put into power she still writes in the very same poem This, always so dear to us,
(Akhmatova, 1921) regarding Russia. Akhmatova, unlike some of her poet acquaintances
such as Alexander Blok and Vladimir Mayakovsky, was steadfast opposed to Bolshevism
and the Revolution, but like them she chose to remain in her homeland. She seems to
have regarded this as her moral duty, (Norris & Sunderland, 2012.) Therefore we can
infer that someone so devoted to her nation, despite the fact it was imposing on her a

government she didnt agree with, forcing her contemporaries out, executing her husband,
and imprisoning her son on fabricated charges, that stayed in the country throughout this
period, is a true patriot. When she refers to Russia as an old peasant, killing his meat, in
another poem from the same year in the same collection, we can really begin to affirm
Akhmatovas feelings regarding the country she loved throughout this period. In Russia in
1921, there was a huge divide between the rural farming classes and those who lived in
the cities. With Russia being such an enormous nation, news of current affairs and
technological advances took a long time to spread from the major cities to the furthermost
reaches of the East, and seeing as these areas were largely inhabited by the peasant
classes, that line really resonates. A peasant is defined by Dictionary.com as a coarse,
unsophisticated, boorish, uneducated person of little financial means. A peasant lives to
provide for themselves, often by farming, and thus when Akhmatova refers to Russia as a
peasant, killing his meat, she implies that Russias people are merely meat to it, she
portrays them as animals. The fact she refers to it as a peasant also conveys her political
views to a certain extent, Akhmatova was a poetess of the aristocracy, (Rappaport, 2011,)
and therefore, Russia was being lead by, in some respects, peasants in comparison to
those who has previously led in (in social status anyway.) As I previously wrote,
Akhmatovas husband Nikolay Gumilev was executed, and therefore this conveys the
sense that Nikolay was treated as an animal, and conveys the sheer brutality of 1921
Russia and the culture of denunciations, and the secret police state they lived in.
In Zamyatins time, when the Russian Bolsheviks were consolidating the revolution
they had just taken over, human perfectability was being talked about with utterly deadpan
faces by platoons of well-meaning or malicious imbeciles, (Brown 1992.) It is this very
alarming idea that Zamyatins We, centers around. Cavendish asserts that Zamyatin
also respected and loved the Orthodox cultural tradition, (Cavendish 2000) and therefore,
having read We, I can state almost without doubt that Zamyatins We, acted as a
warning for what Russia was becoming under Comminism. Rudy corroborates this idea,
When the modern totalitarian states proved how meticulously they could refine and
organise that apparatus of control, then history finally began to catch up with We. The
mathematical precision of life in Zamiatins glass paradise was no longer an improbable
nightmare. We seemed almost like an early blueprint for what was now happening in the
world, an advanced textbook for the regimentation of mankind. Rudy writes that following
his hard work and suffering so that the revolution might take place, Zamyatin was quick to
notice the alarming tendencies that were developing in the new society and in his writing

he boldly pointed out the impending dangers. (Rudy, 1959.) In Zamyatins We, the
fictional future society he writes of is called Onestate, or , in the
originial Russian. This is a clear warning about the spread of Communism and the
Eastern Bloc that was beginning to form; Stalin was invading many Eastern countries and
turning them into Soviet States. This demonstrates the growing concern in the Russian
people regarding the spread of Communism and the loss of identity of Eastern coutries. In
the novel the leader of Onestate, is the , the Benefactor, a particularly
interesting term to use to refer to someone that he so clearly abhorred. It is this satirical
edge to Zamyatins work that led to the Soviet Cultural Authorities pronouncing it a
travesty of the regime, (Brown, 1992.) Even when writing a letter to Joseph Stalin himself
to ask for permission to leave the Soviet Union, Rudy writes that the letter, far from being
an abject plea, it displayed an unruffled dignity underscored by an ironical tone, (Rudy
1959.) The Benefactor controls almost every aspect of human life. Citizens of Onestate
must obtain tickets for sex, they have curfews, their apartments are made of glass so that
the Benefactor can constantly observe them; it truly acts as a genuine warning to the
Russian people as to what the Soviet Union will become. One element of human
perfectabillity is of course conformity, a concept that We, entertains to a considerable
extent. Brown writes that the Benefactor rules over a human society that is deemed to
have achieved with only negligible exceptions, absolute perfection, All the messy
inconvenience of freedom has been eliminated. In We, all the characters are simply
numbered with a single letter preceeding their number. D-503 narrates the novel in a
journal style format. He is the chief engineer building the Integral, the space ship set on
reaching and conquering other planets, which in 1924 seemed an impossible concept to
the average Russian person. However only 23 years later, Sputnik 1 did launch into an
elliptical low orbit, so Zamyatin was particularly ahead of his time. D-503 falls in love with
the Benefactors opponent, I-330. I-330 is everything the Benefactor rules against. She
drinks, smokes, enjoys sex and leads a revolutionary underground group called Memphi.
She further asserts the main philosophy of the book, in her speech in Record (Chapter) 30
that change is not singular, but constant. Zamyatin writes that their exchange goes as
follows: I-330 begins:
So do this for me: tell me the final number? You know- the last one, the top, the
absolute biggest.
But, I-330 thats stupid. Since the number of numbers is infinite, how can there be
a final one?

And how can there be a final revolution? There is no final one. The number of
revolutions is infinite. The last one- thats for children. Infinity frightens children, and its
essential that children get a good nights sleep.
(Zamyatin, 1993)
I struggled to shorten that quote and still retain the original sense of what it was
saying. In criticism, fiction and drama that showed his constantly maturing satirical and
analytical abilities, Zamyatin fought to preserve his vision of the Revolution, (Rudy, 1959)
thus effectively, in this philosophy conveyed to us by the character of I-330, Zamyatin is
showing the Russian people who appear to be suffering the atrocities of totalitarian
government in silence, that this revolution does not have to be final; that they can revolt
again and achieve the implementation of Communism that they originally sought to
achieve. The theme of human perfectability reaches its climax when Zamyatin introduces
the concept of The Great Operation, which is described by Brown as a sort of lobotomy
for the removal of Mans last imperfection, the Imagination, (Brown 1922.) I suppose that
whilst this extremity does have a level of ridiculousness to it, it does highlight the anxiety of
the Russian people regarding Russias fate. Seemingly everything was controlled, yet
Stalin always strove to control more, could it get to the stage where humans were being
physically changed to make them emotionless machines rather than men? By posing this
question in the readers mind Zamytain really conveys incredibly the sentiment of the
Russian people regarding the fear and the uncertainty about their future as Russian
citizens. Of course, one might argue that Zamyatins work would be considered entirely
unbelievable, a work of fiction, and Onestate was in no way a parallel of the Soviet Union.
However, if this was the case, why were publishers and theatres intimidated into ignoring
him and libraries forbidden to circulate his work (Rudy, 1959) ? Zamytins novel, We, is
absolutely essential in this project, as he produced so little work due to his persecution
within the Soviet Union, but as Rudy puts it, the ability was there, but the opportunity was
not. Zamyatin once said himself, There are books of the same chemical composition of
dynamite. The difference lies only in the fact that one stick of dynamite explodes once,
but one book explodes thousands of times. We, exploded the anxieties and feelings of
the Russian people oppressed within their own union into the global literature market. It
is the example of how mans imagination can intuitively grasp the essence of his own
future problems, (Rudy, 1959.)

The Stalin Epigram, written by Osip Mandelstam in 1933 is another superb poem
from which we can infer the feelings of the Russian people at the time. Mandelstam
suffered two exiles and eventually his life for this poem, Probstein writes, The dictator,
who used to say that vengeance is best when served cold, never forgave the poet.
(Probstein, 2014.) Something particularly notable about this poem is the person it is
written in; the first person plural- We, or , in Russian. This makes it particularly clear
that this epigram is not merely the words of Mandelstam, but echoes the sentiments of
Russia as a nation, making it invaluable to this project. The poem begins with a
particularly powerful image: Our lives no longer feel ground under them, (Mandelstam,
1974) which truly demonstrates the way that the people of Russia felt about their country.
The ground that they knew, the Russia that they knew, was no longer the Russia under
their feet. They were silenced, oppressed; you cant hear our words, (Mandelstam,
1974.) The poem then progresses to take a vehement approach towards the Soviet
Unions leader Josef Stalin. He uses particularly graphic images of his physicality to
simply convey his sheer detest of the man: the ten thick worms his fingers, the huge
laughing cockroaches on his top lip. (Mandelstam, 1974.) In Stalins cult of personality,
Stalin was glorified as an attractive, tall, military hero and personal friend of Lenin. This
poem shows us that this was not in fact the way he was truly perceived by the Russian
people. Not only does this poem condemn Stalin, but it also passes judgement upon the
rest of his government: ringed with chicken-necked bosses, (Mandelstam, 1974.) It then
further points out Mandelstam and Russias unhappiness at the totalitarian state of Stalins
dictatorship: He pokes out his finger and he alone goes boom, He rolls the executions on
his tongue like berries, (Mandelstam, 1974.) The technical aspects of the poem reflect the
way of life lost in Russia. The meter is alternating anapest, and the poem is filled with
colloquialisms and idioms, which Probstein (2014) writes remind that of folk couplets.
Considering this poem was written after a visit to the Crimea in which Madelstam saw the
effects of Stalins collectivisation, we can infer that Mandelstam uses the poems form to
invoke in the reader an element of nostalgia of the style of poetry lost to Soviet Realism
and censorship of the arts, which parallels the style of life lost to Stalins policies. By the
summer of 1917 Mandelstam had conceived an intense dislike for the Bolsheviks, (Brown,
1978.) Mandelstam really uses this poem to mount a savage criticism on Stalin and
demonstrate his, and the whole of Russias discontent with his character, his physicality,
and his manner of leadership, portraying him as a brutal, uncaring man who had taken the
Russia they knew from under them. A vehemence towards Stalin notably reminiscent of
that conveyed in my interview with [REMOVED].

Akhmatovas poem The Last Toast, written in 1934 is another important example of
a poem conveying the feelings of the Russian people, and echoing the sentiments
expressed in poems I have previously mentioned. The poem opens I drink to our
demolished house, to all this wickedness, (Akhmatova, 2009,) a line which very poignantly
demonstrates the wicked state of affairs in Russia. It further emphasises Akhmatovas
aforementioned patriotism as she refers to Russia as a house, and thus draws
connotations of a home. Perhaps the most poignant phrase of the poem is, our loneliness
together. This really conveys the culture of denunciations in Russia that was rife during
the Stalinist terror; something commented upon and affirmed in my interview with
[REMOVED]. The Soviet Union demonstrated this the faade of unity that Zamyatin
conveys in his Onestate. However in reality it was a state of loneliness where people
feared false accusations of conspiracy against the state. In fact, Rappaport notes that the
authorities kept detailed files on Akhmatova, amounting to some 900 pages of
denunciations, reports of phone taps, quotations from writings, confessions of those close
to her. (Rappaport 1999.) Therefore, we know that Akhmatova was not writing of a fear
that others experienced, but one that she in fact fell victim to, but luckily escaped due to
her dogged determination to transcend the nightmare of Stalinism. (Rappaport, 1999.)
Whilst the importance of the aforementioned works by Akhmatova is indeed
notable, the real crux of the contribution to her work to this project rests on her collection:
Requiem. Her son Lev Gumilev was arrested, solely because of his fathers name; sent
from Siberia to fight in the war, he was then rearrested and not finally released till after
Stalins death. At the time of his first arrest Akhmatova joined every day for months the
queue waiting outside the prison for news of relatives, and from this experience came the
poem Requiem. (Bayley, 1984) As previously mentioned Norris & Sunderland write that
Akhmatovas speaker voices the suffering of the whole Soviet Union, (Norris &
Sunderland, 2012.) Akhmatova writes, There where unhappily my people were,
(Akhmatova, 2009.) This line itself speaks volumes; no metaphor, no drawn out analogy, it
simply states it as it is. The Russian people were in a discontent in their home country.
Akhmatova further details this pain that Russia is suffering at the hands of Stalins terror in
her Dedication. Akhmatova (2009) writes The mountains bow before this anguish, the
great river does not flow. It is as if the very land of Russia itself is wounded by Stalins
inflictions. The following line brings up a theme that is of course extremely prevalent in
this collection; that of those imprisoned in the Great Terror: In mortal sadness the convicts
languish, (Akhmatova, 2009.) That appears such a dense sentence that it almost appears
to convey the weight of this sadness upon the Russian people. Akhmatova (2009) further

writes Leningrad city swayed like a needless appendix to its prisons. This almost
conveys the sense that the heart of the city had really shifted from it being a home to its
inhabitants to simply a lifeless area surrounding packed prisons. It is easy to see that this
is perhaps an exaggeration, Akhmatova would be absolutely distraught having lost one
husband to execution, to have her son imprisoned facing the same risk daily. All she had
left in the world was within that prison, so to her, that prison would have appeared the
heart of the city, and thus, whilst this line does convey the Russian peoples unhappiness
at the level of imprisonment, it is fair to say the extent to which this discontent is expressed
is perhaps tainted by Akhmatovas own personal circumstances. Another line in the
prologue reads innocent Russia writhed under bloodstained boots. A really powerful
image, which conveys a sense of the desperation and helplessness of the Russians. They
writhe as they are being crushed and oppressed by Stalins bloodstained boot, which we
can infer is stained with the blood of his own people. She continues with the idea that this
pain is a result of Stalins actions in the following poem, which finishes with the powerful
line I shall go creep to our wailing wall, crawl to the Kremlin towers, (Akhmatova, 2009.)
This idea that the place where the Russian people have to voice their lamentations is in
fact their government building is a very powerful one. It really, truly emphasises just how
much of the suffering of the Russian people is as a result of the actions of Stalin their own
leader. Akhmatova (2009) once again brings up this sense of loneliness in her own nation:
of a woman stretched alone. This really conveys the sense of loneliness that she
suffered in this culture of denunciations, and without her husband, son, and all her literary
contemporaries who as previously mentioned she incessantly bumped into on trips to the
train station as they left Russia. The general tone of her poetry has changed also, the
vehemence which we saw in some of her earlier poetry turns to self pity (quite
understandably.) Son in irons and husband clay. Pray. Pray. (Akhmatova, 2009.) This
final powerful line where she urges the reader to pray for her really conveys just how
broken she is at the hands of the acts of her leader. This once feisty woman we saw,
urges us somewhat pathetically to pray for her. In the final poem of the collection there are
a particular few lines which really convey just how much Stalins leadership of the Soviet
Union affected the Russian people. Akhmatova, the patriot wrote:
And if ever in this country they should want
To build me a monument
I consent to that honour,

But only on condition that they

Erect it not on the sea-shore where I was born:
My last links there were broken long ago,
Nor by the stump in the Royal Gardens,
Where an inconsolable young shade is seeking me,
But here, where I stood for three hundred hours
And where they never, never opened the doors for me.
Lest in death I should forget
The grinding scream of the Black Marias,
The hideous clanging gate, the old
Woman wailing like a wounded beast.
And may the melting snow drop like tears
From my motionless bronze eyelids,
(Akhmatova, 2009)
It is hard to omit parts of this quote and still gain its full sentiment. Whilst
Akhmatova, still patriotic would consent to a monument of her being erected in the country,
and it is notable that she still considers it an honour, all these places which she once
regarded with fondness are now tainted by Stalins acts. The Russia this patriot once
knew and loved is no more, and what she will remember is this prison gate where she
stood, and the grinding scream of the Black Marias, (prison vans,) The hideous clanging
gate, and The old woman wailing like a wounded beast, (Akhmatova, 2009.) The Russia
Akhmatova knew, loved and fought to preserve in her work is now dead, and there is a real
sense of hopelessness in this collection, and in the Russian people between 1935 and
1940.
During his exile, in 1935 Mandelstam wrote a select few Stanzas of poetry, and one
of them exhoes a very similar sentiment to Akhmatovas Requiem. Mandelstam writes,

Once my country talked with me, indulged me, scolded me a little, never read me. But
when I grew up and was a witness she noticed me all at once, and like a lens set me alight
with one flash from the Admiralty, (Mandelstam, 1935.) This idea that he has lost the
affinity that he once had with his country is a clear re-echoing of Akhmatovas idea that he
had lost the love of his country he once held. He described his country with a motherlike
quality. His country indulged, him, scolded, him a little however when he grew and bore
witness, he was set alight with one flash from the Admiralty, (The Russian Naval
Headquarters in St. Petersburg.) This idea conveys a sense that Mother Russia had
turned on its own people, a feeling also expressed in Mandelstams earlier poem The
Stalin Epigram. Mandelstam (1974) writes he has to live, breathing and bolshevescent,
as if life has become a chore under Bolshevism and Stalins rule. It just contains that
profound sense of hopelessness that we also find in Akhmatovas poetry in this time that
all is lost, and their country is in ruins.
In the interview I conducted with a Russian work colleague, [REMOVED], in which
many of the ideas regarding the thoughts of the Russian people which I had drawn from
the literature I had read were confirmed. [REMOVED] was born in Novosibirsk but moved
to Moscow age 10. Whilst her Grandmother, with whom she is still in contact, was only
born in 1946, she remembers many things that her mother; [REMOVED]s Great
Grandmother told her about living in Russia at this time. [REMOVED] attended the Lyce
Alexandre Dumas in Moscow where she studied both French and Russian Literature,
however never Akhmatova, Mandelstam or Zamyatin. Our initial interview was
unsuccessful as she had to go and contact her Grandmother in order to gain a better idea
about the specific period that I wanted to know about. However when we met again a
week later the information which she provided me with was incredibly useful to my project.
[REMOVED]s Grandmother told her that she was always told how lucky she was to have
grown up when she did, despite the fact she lived in a time of hardship in Russia. She
was always told of the sufferings of those before her, and the fear that Russians felt during
the Stalinist terror. [REMOVED] described Russia as , at the time. A
particularly interesting word as it expresses an idea of loneliness and solidarity which is
prevalent in both Akhmatova and Mandelstams later poetry in the period, and also in the
earlier parts of Zamyatins We. [REMOVED] told me how her Grandmother had told her
of the constant fear of denunciations that the Russian people suffered, and the fatal risks
associated with speaking out against Stalin. When I pushed with my line of questioning
and asked [REMOVED] whether there was an element of hopelessness in the Russian
people at the time, she understandably defended her people, but did notably say that it

was difficult to find hope in that sort of situation. [REMOVED]s Grandmother regards
Akhmatova as a legendary, literary figure, and moreover, a highly
influential figure in Russian history. This is something that Norris & Sunderland comment
on: Akhmatova, in a somewhat idiosyncratic and grandiose fashion repeatedly expressed
to others her firmly held belief that she and Berlin were responsible for the onset of the
Cold War, (Norris & Sunderland, 2012.) Perhaps it is this meeting between Akhmatova
and Isaiah Berlin that [REMOVED]s Grandmother is alluding to here, [REMOVED] herself
was unsure. When presented with Mandelstams The Stalin Epigram, [REMOVED]
agreed that it was an accurate representation of the feelings of the Russian people, and
notably pointed out the significance of the person it is written in. There was an element of
disgust in the way in which [REMOVED] spoke about Stalin, and she appeared to speak
on behalf of all Russians when she told me that they were not proud he was their leader.
Thus, the feelings of the Russian people between 1921-1941 do appear to be very
accurately presented in these works of literature. In early poetry, we see the pride of the
Russians despite their disagreement in the implementation of Communism upon the
Soviet Union. In Zamyatins We, we see their apprehension regarding the future of
Russia as a nation and the alarming tendencies, that they had noticed. We see their
worries regarding the extent to which control will spread, the powers of Stalin as a leader,
and of course, the dominant theme, human perfectability. In later work by Akhmatova, we
see the feelings of the Russian people grow gradually more hopeless, in poems such as
Akhmatovas The Last Toast, and Requiem. We further see in Mandelstams The Stalin
Epigram, the vehemence with which the Russian people regarded their own leader, and
how they placed sole blame for the hardships they were suffering on him and his chicken
necked bosses. We see how in Mandelstams later stanzas, Russia had turned on its own
people, and was using its power against them. Furthermore we see in both these stanzas
and in Akhmatovas Requiem that lost affinity with the country which these poets once had.
Once patriots, they now appear to have lost the love they once held for their nation, to
have accepted the new Russia. This really does echo the feelings of hopelessness that I
mentioned to [REMOVED], and as she said herself regarding the Russian people, It is
difficult to find hope in a situation like that.
To conclude this project I would like to finish with a quote from a book used in this
project- Yevgeny Zamyatins We.

Happiness without freedom, or freedom without happiness. There was no third

alternative.
(Zamyatin, 1993)

This was the ultimatum the Russian people during Stalins leadership of the Soviet
Union, and this sentiment is the one so very clearly conveyed to us in the orthography of
these three writers.
5063 words.

Bibliography
1) RAPPAPORT, H. (1999) Joseph Stalin: A Biographical Companion : ABCCLIO
2) NORRIS, M AND SUNDERLAND, W. (2012) Russias People of Empire: Life
stories from Eurasia, 1500 to the Present : Indiana University Press
3) BAYLEY, J. (1984) Selected Essays : CUP Archive
4) WIKIPEDIA. (2015) Anna Akhmatova. [Online] Available from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Akhmatova
[Accessed: 9th December 2014]
5) BROWN, C. (1978) Mandelstam : CUP Archives
6) CAVENDISH, P. (2000) Mining for Jewels: Evgenii Zamiatin and the Literary
Stylisation of Russia : MHRA
7) RUDY, P. (1924) We, Introduction : E. P. Dutton
8) DICTIONARY.COM. (2015) Peasant [Online] Available from:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peasant
[Accessed 23rd July 2015]
9) JACKET2. (2014) Three Translations of Osip Mandelstams Stalin Epigram
Ian Probstein [Online] Available from: http://jacket2.org/commentary/ianprobstein-mandelstam-stalin-epigram
10) AKHMATOVA, A. (2009) Selected Poems : Vintage Books London
11) ZAMYATIN, W. (1993) We : Penguin Books

12) MANDELSTAM, O. (1974) Selected Poems : Athenum Macmillan Publishing

Company