Chapter IX
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd641/fd641240b4a4141e37870eb3f341cfa7be15a95a" alt="146"
The old neglected palazzo, with its lofty
carved ceilings and frescoes on the walls, with its floors of
mosaic, with its heavy yellow stuff curtains on the windows, with
its vases on pedestals, and its open fireplaces, its carved doors
and gloomy reception-rooms, hung with pictures—this palazzo did
much, by its very appearance after they had moved into it, to
confirm in Vronsky the agreeable illusion that he was not so much a
Russian country gentleman, a retired army officer, as an
enlightened amateur and patron of the arts, himself a modest artist
who had renounced the world, his connections, and his ambition for
the sake of the woman he loved.
The pose chosen by Vronsky with their removal into
the palazzo was completely successful, and having, through
Golenishtchev, made acquaintance with a few interesting people, for
a time he was satisfied. He painted studies from nature under the
guidance of an Italian professor of painting, and studied mediæval
Italian life. Mediæval Italian life so fascinated Vronsky that he
even wore a hat and flung a cloak over his shoulder in the mediæval
style, which, indeed, was extremely becoming to him.
“Here we live, and know nothing of what’s going
on,” Vronsky said to Golenishtchev as he came to see him one
morning. “Have you seen Mihailov’s picture?”1 he
said, handing him a Russian gazette he had received that morning,
and pointing to an article on a Russian artist, living in the very
same town, and just finishing a picture which had long been talked
about, and had been bought beforehand. The article reproached the
government and the academy for letting so remarkable an artist be
left without encouragement and support.
“I’ve seen it,” answered Golenishtchev. “Of course,
he’s not without talent, but it’s all in a wrong direction. It’s
all the Ivanov-Strauss-Renan attitude to Christ and to religious
painting.”2
“What is the subject of the picture?” asked
Anna.
“Christ before Pilate. Christ is represented as a
Jew with all the realism of the new school.”3
And the question of the subject of the picture
having brought him to one of his favorite theories, Golenishtchev
launched forth into a disquisition on it.
“I can’t understand how they can fall into such a
gross mistake. Christ always has His definite embodiment in the art
of the great masters. And therefore, if they want to depict, not
God, but a revolutionist or a sage, let them take from history a
Socrates, a Franklin, a Charlotte Corday, but not Christ.4 They
take the very figure which cannot be taken for their art, and then
. . .”
“And is it true that this Mihailov is in such
poverty?” asked Vronsky, thinking that, as a Russian Mæcenas,5 it was
his duty to assist the artist regardless of whether the picture
were good or bad.
“I should say not. He’s a remarkable
portrait-painter. Have you ever seen his portrait of Madame
Vassiltchikova? But I believe he doesn’t care about painting any
more portraits, and so very likely he is in want. I maintain
that...”
“Couldn’t we ask him to paint a portrait of Anna
Arkadyevna?” said Vronsky.
“Why mine?” said Anna. “After yours I don’t want
another portrait. Better have one of Annie” (so she called her baby
girl). “Here she is,” she added, looking out of the window at the
handsome Italian nurse, who was carrying the child out into the
garden, and immediately glancing unnoticed at Vronsky. The handsome
nurse, from whom Vronsky was painting a head for his picture, was
the one hidden grief in Anna’s life. He painted with her as his
model, admired her beauty and mediævalism, and Anna dared not
confess to herself that she was afraid of becoming jealous of this
nurse, and was for that reason particularly gracious and
condescending both to her and her little son. Vronsky, too, glanced
out of the window and into Anna’s eyes, and, turning at once to
Golenishtchev, he said:
“Do you know this Mihailov?”
“I have met him. But he’s a queer fish, and quite
without breeding. You know, one of those uncouth new people one’s
so often coming across nowadays, one of those free-thinkers you
know, who are reared d’embléebk
in theories of atheism, scepticism, and materialism. In former
days,” said Golenishtchev, not observing, or not willing to
observe, that both Anna and Vronsky wanted to speak, “in former
days the free-thinker was a man who had been brought up in ideas of
religion, law, and morality, and only through conflict and struggle
came to free-thought ; but now there has sprung up a new type of
born free-thinkers who grow up without even having heard of
principles of morality or of religion, of the existence of
authorities, who grow up directly in ideas of negation in
everything, that is to say, savages.6 Well,
he’s of that class. He’s the son, it appears, of some Moscow
butler, and has never had any sort of bringing-up. When he got into
the academy and made his reputation he tried, as he’s no fool, to
educate himself. And he turned to what seemed to him the very
source of culture—the magazines. In old times, you see, a man who
wanted to educate himself—a Frenchman, for instance—would have set
to work to study all the classics and theologians and tragedians
and historians and philosophers, and, you know, all the
intellectual work that came in his way. But in our day he goes
straight for the literature of negation, very quickly assimilates
all the extracts of the science of negation, and he’s ready. And
that’s not all—twenty years ago he would have found in that
literature traces of conflict with authorities, with the creeds of
the ages; he would have perceived from this conflict that there was
something else; but now he comes at once upon a literature in which
the old creeds do not even furnish matter for discussion, but it is
stated baldly that there is nothing else—evolution, natural
selection, struggle for existence—and that’s all. In my article
I’ve...”
“I tell you what,” said Anna, who had for a long
while been exchanging wary glances with Vronsky, and knew that he
was not in the least interested in the education of this artist,
but was simply absorbed by the idea of assisting him, and ordering
a portrait from him; “I tell you what,” she said, resolutely
interrupting Golenishtchev, who was still talking away, “let’s go
and see him!”
Golenishtchev recovered his self-possession and
readily agreed. But as the artist lived in a remote suburb, it was
decided to take the carriage.
An hour later Anna, with Golenishtchev by her side
and Vronsky on the front seat of the carriage, facing them, drove
up to a new ugly house in the remote suburb. On learning from the
porter’s wife, who came out to them, that Mihailov saw visitors at
his studio, but that at that moment he was in his lodging only a
couple of steps off, they sent her to him with their cards, asking
permission to see his picture.