چکیده (انگلیسی):

This is the first and most concise biography of a Russian émigré gay poet, Valerii Pereleshin (1913-1992). The
biographer, Olga Bakich, takes on the self-described role of an “accompanist” (xiv) to this prolific, yet understudied
poet by painstakingly illuminating the joys andsorrows of his spiritual journey over eight decades. This workcauses the
reader to reconsider how a biography could be written. The key historical events surrounding his personal life are
mentioned but not discussed in the context of historiographical theory. To do so would only distract the reader from the
humble existence of Pereleshin as a biographical figure. His unique talent, personality, and literary footprint span vast
distances from China’s northeast to Brazil. This rather atypical biography consists primarily of the artist’s aesthetically
subjective testimony- his own poetry.
As a former resident and survivor of war-time Harbin, Bakich herself is well aware of the backdrop of turbulent
historicalevents in the 20
th
century Far East: Imperial Russia’s eastward expansion, the forcedand voluntary settlement
of migrants from Eastern Europe, the Korean peninsula and Japanese archipelago, Qing China’s semi-colonization and
its subsequent collapse, the encroachment of Western and Japanese imperialism, the establishment of Japan’s puppet
state of Manchukuo, World War II and the USSR’sadvance into the region followed by civil war and the establishment
of the People’s Republic of China. The poet isa witness, survivor, and victim of these events.
Bakich lets Pereleshin speak through letters, poems and photographs, a testimony of White Russians fleeing from the
Eurasian Continent. Part One of Life of a Silkworm covers the period 1920 – 1952 in China, following Pereleshin’s
intellectual development from childhood to young adulthood. Each of the six chapters in this part is divided into
multiple subtopics, covering periods of four to five years: the noble roots of the Salatko-Petrishche family, its relocation
to Siberia amidst the chaos of revolution and horrors of civil war, education under the tsarist Russiansystem in Harbin,
and most importantly his growing love for poetry and philosophy.The personal events of Pereleshin’s early years
document the still understudied but rich history of Russian Orthodox Ecclesiastical Mission in the Far East. Pereleshin,
being sensitive and deeply religious, enrolled in the Mission’s Theological Faculty in 1937, was ordained a Monk
Herman(in honour of St. Herman of Kazan’ and Sviiaga) in 1938, and a Priest-Monk Herman in 1941.Harbin émigré
literary circle “Churaevka” and the lively interaction among its intellectuals also add new cultural dimensions to the
study of Russianémigrésociety in Asia.
Pereleshin began publishing his books of poetry in 1937.The poet, however, was rather a dissonance in his own
conservative community. For example, as a monk, his participation in public poetic activities was limited. Moreover, he
was inclined toward Catholicism and admired St. Francis of Assisi and St. Thérèse of Lisieux- a liberal expression of
his spiritual interest. He began to travel and preach in Chinese cities with foreign concessions such as Beijing,
Shanghai, and Tianjin with a determination to live his life to the fullest by serving God. But Pereleshin had difficulty
finding inner peace with his vow of celibacy. While his poetry is infused with divine inspiration, passion and kindness,
he was often tormented by the socialstigma of his sexuality.
In addition, the volatile political situation in the Far East made Pereleshin mistaken at times for a Japanese spy, a
Fascist spy, a Soviet spy, and a Communist. Adversity, however, ignited his poetic creativity, especially after his
departure to a third home, Brazil.
Part Two consists of seven chapters covering 39 years of Pereleshin’s life in Brazil during the period 1953-1992. The
main focus shifts towards his growth as a poet. As a polyglot, he engaged in translations of poetry to and from Russian,
Chinese andPortuguese languages. He also wrote some pieces in an avant-garde style, the so-called futurism, as well as
preserving his lyrical poetic style. There were some bright moments: émigré scholars and critics in the US, such as
Alexis Rannitand Simon Karlinsky recognized Pereleshin as an authentic Russian poet, and offered praise and support.
It is an important gesture by Bakich to highlight thisaspect of Pereleshin’s life. Otherwise, his portrayal as a “tasteless”
émigré poet from the east who lacked “Parisian culture” (171), according to one US literary professor, G. Struve, might
be accorded more weight than it should. Pereleshin’s animosity toward I. Brodsky is also interesting from the
perspective of literary history. Whether the result of his jealousy toward this Nobel Prize winner or his anti-Semitic
sentiment is unclear; yet in any case, a careful reading of the text reveals that the core issue originated in the poetic
language itself, not ethno-religious identity. Even the last country he could have called home offered no respite.
Pereleshin faced many financial difficulties and the pain of unrequited love. In the end,he had three homelands, and
experienced three exiles. Yet, before his departure for Brazil, he had already sensed that for him, Kitai(China in