A Trip to the Past

In 1974, one of Abramov’s most vivid and significant works was completed—the novella “A Journey into the Past.” It was not published during the author’s lifetime; it was released only in 1989, fifteen years later. In my view, this novella surpasses the rest in its conciseness and laconic form, in the depth of its social analysis, and in the sharpness of the conflict.

Abramov focuses in the novella not on events, but on people’s consciousness and psychology—the most destructive consequences of the Party’s policy in the 1920s and 1930s, which penetrated people’s souls, shaped their characters, and determined their life orientations. The novella touches upon the most complex political, socio-historical, and philosophical problems that only very recently were voiced openly—and that still await true understanding: the tragedy of collectivization and dekulakization, the confrontation between fanatical revolutionaries and genuine humanists—guardians of universal human values—the belated insight into the roots of tragedy among people broken by the dreadful pressure of Soviet ideology, the long-term coercion of people over decades.

At the center of the novella is the life story of Miksha Kobylyn, a rural groom—an alcoholic. Miksha is a victim of his own past. All his life he believed that his uncles—revolutionary collectivizers—were honest, noble, brave people who cared for the common good. For him, the realization (the “insight”) was so terrifying that it killed him from the inside.

“Mephodiy Kobylyn, even though he’s your real uncle, a dog was a human being. How many such people aren’t there in the world? Twenty years—maybe more—and people are still crying because of him. In every village, innocent people he executed; and in our district, ten men at once,” the old Fedoseevna told Miksha.

The myth of the tragic death of his uncle Alexander turned out to be only a myth: “But actually, the drunken uncle raped the defenseless fifteen-year-old girl who cleared the commandant’s office, and the girl’s brother—the fourteen-year-old boy—killed the uncle…”

And Miksha believed what was told in the regional museum: he renounced his father to “set an example of revolutionary behavior,” and he rejected his father’s surname. Miksha learns that his father was an honest, hardworking man—but it was already too late to fix anything.