Genre-Thematic Originality of F. A. Iskander's Animalistic Works

Kirova Mariya Mikhailovna ORCID: 0000-0001-5353-8312 Postgraduate student, Department of Theory of Literature, Lomonosov Moscow State University 119991, Russia, Moscow region, Moscow, Kolmogorova str., 1, p. 51, 1st academic building, room 933 mariakirova709@gmail.com

The theme of man and nature was actively developing in the Soviet literature of the 1960s and 1980s. However, animalistic aspects stand out from the general background not only by genre but also by the approach to the image of animals. The variety of Fazil Abdulovich Iskander's bestiary is most often associated with The Goatibex Constellation and Rabbits and Boa Constrictors, underestimating the originality of his small animalistic prose. This article's main purpose is to analyze the genre-semantic specificity of this particular prose. The objects of the study are four stories: Rooster, Uncle Kazim's Horse, The Story of the Old Habug’s Mule, and Broad-Brow.

In the 1950s, there was a tendency to abandon anthropocentrism—many authors began to write about nature in a natural philosophical way. By the 1970s, a direction of the same name was being formed, uniting the works of V.P. Astafyev, Ch.T. Aitmatov, V.G. Rasputin, and A.A. Kim. A. I. Smirnov describes this direction as follows: "Natural philosophical prose combines a deep understanding of ‘eternal’ issues with neo-Christian ethical concepts ... The image of an unstable state of the world, disintegrating ties, and disharmonious existence encouraged writers to look for ontological, ethical supports in myth” (this quote is taken from the textbook by A. I. Smirnova Russian Natural Philosophical Prose of the Second Half of the Twentieth Century, 2^nd ed., ster. – M.: Flint, 2012, p. 11). Iskander cannot be attributed to this group for two reasons. Firstly, when paying attention to the problem of the loss of human harmony with nature, he does not turn to religion. And secondly, according to Iskander, variability is a natural property of the world, not a sign of disharmony, so he does not use the antithesis principle favored by natural philosophers and refuses to create a "type of natural man" (pp. 41, 95). Iskander's works are distinguished by a noticeable degree of skepticism, as N. B. Ivanova writes in her famous book Laughter Against Fear: “A skeptical attitude to the ‘principles’ of the arrogantly asserted ‘morality’ is characteristic of Iskander's position" ^{[1, p. 83]}. Although, judging by the genre of animalistic works, he is not a complete skeptic.

The main format of Iskander's short prose is the novella. E. V. Komovskaya notes that there is more drama and psychology in the novella, and the author's position is also expressed weaker than in the story: "The author completely recreates reality in the story, and only significant problems are taken from reality... The reality in the novella is based on real social events refracted in personal destinies" ^{[2, p. 142]}. There are certainly novelistic features in Iskander's animalistic works, but for several reasons, they cannot be unequivocally attributed to this genre.

Firstly, Iskander's works do not give the impression of the integrity of life. As M. A. Petrovsky writes, the core of a novella’s plot "should be in a certain internal connection with both the past and the future ..." ^{[3, p. 73]}. The destruction of this connection in Iskander's works is largely due to autopsychologism. L. S. Yankovskaya, exploring the elements of introspection in the prose of the writer and natural philosopher V. Astafyev, notes: "The inability to find answers to the questions posed to each person by life forced the writer to turn to his own origins to find the fundamental principles of goodness and beauty in the tragic contradictions of modern reality" ^{[4, p. 90]}. Iskander’s heroes think a lot about the past, but at the same time, while rethinking one or another event, they do not find answers to the challenges that life throws at them in their memories. Secondly, Iskander does not show how turning to the past has changed the characters: they do not have a plan for the future, which is an important novelistic component. Instead, they only have anxiety before an unknown tomorrow.

And thirdly, there is practically no so-called point in Iskander's animalistic works. Petrovsky notes that in the novels, there is an extreme concentration of the inner world around the "main," "decisive" contradiction, an extremely pointed test, the result of which is formally realized in the so-called point, or point of highest tension ^{[3, pp. 75–76]}. A. A. Reformatsky describes the point of the novel as "ending at an unstable moment. As in music, the ending is dominant" ^{[5, p. 11]}. However, Iskander has no novelistic instability, and the contradictions in the finale of the works are not completely resolved. Considering the abovementioned features of Iskander's poetics and the recurring motif of the separation of animals and humans indicates the influence of another genre: fable.

When analyzing the works of I. A. Krylov, L. S. Vygotsky identifies two features that bring them closer to the genre of the novel: affective contradiction and catastrophe (by analogy with the point of the novel). Iskander’s effective contradiction is expressed in the fact that the rougher the rooster behaved with the chickens, the more bravely he fought and the more pitiful death he met. The beauty and outstanding abilities of Doll's horse do not provide her with a quiet life but, on the contrary, lead to the fact that she finds herself at war. The otherness and integrity of old man Habug do not prevent him from following the flow of a new life. And the power and obstinate disposition of the broad-browed buffalo do not go well with a strong attachment to the shepherd Bardusha and a calm acceptance of his death. Vygotsky describes the catastrophe in the fable as follows: "Its final place, in which both planes are combined in one act... exposing its opposite. There is a kind of short circuit of two opposite currents, in which the contradiction itself explodes, burns and resolves" ^{[6, p.178]}. In Iskander's works, conflicts are not resolved but smoothed out, which is especially noticeable in The Rooster and Broad-Brow.

Vygotsky also distinguishes between a prose fable from Aesop and a poetic one developed by J. Lafontaine and I.A. Krylov. In his opinion, the difference between these modifications of the genre lies in two points: in the presence of morality and the degree of detail. There is no pronounced didacticism in Iskander's animalistic works, which brings them closer to a novel and a poetic fable. At first glance, the increased detail refers to both genres but differs in their degree of structuring. In the novel, everything is subordinate to the creation of a strong emotional impression, so the composition and artistic means are selected in it with the utmost care. The detailing in the fable enhances the lyricism, which, however, does not contribute to the disclosure of morality. As Vygotsky notes, with reference to G. E. Lessing: "... the more poetic and picturesque the description in the fable and the more formally its story is processed, the less the fable meets its purpose" ^{[6, p. 126]}. Iskander's desire to describe his characters in as much detail as possible forms new plot branches and deprives the structure of his works of novelistic harmony.

The main difference between the short story genre and the fable is that the short story tends to the individual, inexplicable, and unique, and the fable, on the contrary, tries to explain and generalize everything. In a small episode, the novelists see a reflection of the entire universe, whereas fables have no such goal: they learn about the world slowly and gradually. Iskander portrays each animal as special to its owner and, at the same time, completely replaceable. Iskander's works combine novelistic and fable motifs, which are expressed in a combination of lyricism, drama, and epic. It can be assumed that Iskander's animalistic works are written in a synthetic format combining a novella and a fable. But to understand why there is a synthesis of these genres, it is necessary to characterize the images of animals in the writer's artistic world and the peculiarity of their relationship with man.

Among natural philosophers, animals are predominantly anthropomorphic, and this anthropomorphism has obvious totemic roots (A. I. Smirnova, pp. 143–144). The recognition of human traits in animals is explained by the awakening of the ancestral memory in the hero. Natural philosophers also use the motif of the werewolf (A. I. Smirnova, p. 56). Despite the awareness of the need for harmonious coexistence of all living beings, in their works, man remains the highest form of life and must be obeyed or at least should be respected (A. I. Smirnova, p. 41).

Iskander is closer not to an anthropocentric but a naturocentric picture of the world. The anthropomorphism of his characters is not connected with the cult of ancestors, metempsychosis, and the werewolf. His characters do not call their pets in terms of kinship. The animals in Iskander's works love people, but they live as independently as possible from them and do not consider the purpose of their lives to serve man. This applies to all individuals. Independence manifests itself, firstly, in the absence of a desire to fully understand human language. Secondly, animals build their own hierarchies of living beings, where people are far from the top. As the mule Arapka argues: "In general, according to my long observations, the mind of the average mule is much higher than the mind of the average person. And it's understandable why. Man, as a predatory animal, mainly makes his meat from meat. And a mule makes meat out of grass. Any fool can make meat out of meat. But you try to make meat out of grass—this, brother, is much more difficult" ^{[7, p. 391]}.

Broad-brow also does not extol people's mental abilities. He believes that man is not smarter than animals but only has a stronger influence on the world. The buffalo is accustomed to "obey[ing] the reasonable will of people" ^{[8, p.266]}, especially being outside the native herd. Like Arapka, Shirokoloby also puts his own kind in the center of the world picture, which is seen in his reflections: "Shirokoloby noticed long ago that the Chegem people, calling pigs or driving them into a pigsty, cannot hide their squeamish contempt in their voice. Of course, the pig does not deserve better treatment… It's one thing—a mighty buffalo, chewing delicious gum, lying quietly in a dam with a crow on its head and turtles on its back. And it's quite another thing—a grunting pig fidgeting in a dirty puddle!... Shirokoloby heartily despised pigs and in this, without knowing it, was a real Muslim" ^{[8, p. 264]}. The analogy between animals and humans is also seen in this passage. It is impossible to understand from it whether buffaloes imitate people or vice versa. The animals in Iskander's works are quite self–sufficient. Man is not at all an obligatory part of their worldview, as, for example, can be judged by this reflection of Broad-brow about people: "... people are so similar to each other! Not to mention buffaloes, two cows, even if they are of the same color, he could always tell the difference. The same goes for horses" ^{[8, pp. 263–264]}. But at the same time, a person is present in each of the four animalistic works. What kind of relationship develops between an animal and its owner?

There are three specific features of the image of the relationship between man and animal. The first of them is that the author denies the uniqueness of the described animals: many roosters are belligerent, none of the advantages of Doll's horse surprise the narrator, Habug had a mule before the Arapka, and Broad–brow is not the only buffalo that manages to escape from the slaughterhouse. Unlike natural philosophers, this does not create a cyclical effect (A. I. Smirnova, p.123). In Iskander's early animalistic works, there is no ring composition, and in the later ones, he prefers analogy to complete repetition. At the end of The Story of Old Habug’s Mule, Arapka only dreams of the basin of Sabid and the foal, although the novella itself begins with a similar exposition. In Shirokolobom, a buffalo swimming in the sea tries to repeat a sunny day from a distant memory, but to no avail. The buffalo is calm at the beginning of the story and rests in the dam and, in the end, in the sea. Iskander does not share the idealistic conviction of natural philosophers in the immutability of nature—nothing remains the same.

The second feature of the relationship between the characters and their owners in Iskander's works is the rejection of the idealization of animals, even those who claim to be the best representatives of their species. The rooster from the novel of the same name is depicted as a thief, a deceiver, and a rapist. In Uncle Kazim's Horse, Doll is very wayward—she even puts the young narrator in danger. And Broad-brow is no stranger to anger, indifference, envy, and pride. The third feature is that the characters, like the narrator, consider it quite natural to see a high level of spiritual development in animals. In the works, there is no moment of "recognition" of human traits in an animal, which often plays an important role among natural philosophers. The reaction of the old Habug is especially indicative in this regard: he was offended by the mule for being afraid of the crackling in the blueberry bushes, throwing him off. The old man considered this not a manifestation of animal unreasonableness but an insult. Habug also could not forgive the mule for dropping him in front of the donkey: "Through this damned pride, I think he decided to sell me. How is it that he fell off the mule and even in front of the donkey?" ^{[7, p.449]}. And the mule himself perfectly understood the emotions of his master: "And so I came back and saw that my old man was sitting on the ground, and the donkey (Shame! Shame! He saw everything!) calmly walks around him… Maybe if this crappy donkey hadn't turned up, he wouldn't have punished me so terribly" ^{[7, p.449]}. This clearly demonstrates the narrator's confidence in the complete similarity between the behavior of animals and people. They have an equal partnership. They treat each other as equals. Affective contradiction is also created because the animals consider people equal to themselves, and people do not. What is the reason?

Iskander's later animalistic novels are also distinguished by the fact that, in addition to people and animals, they begin to mention machines. Most natural philosophy writers reflect on the disastrous impact of industrialization on all living things. They also have a motif of people's proximity to cars (A. I. Smirnova, p. 74). Iskander doesn't have that. People can suffer from the abundance of technology as much as animals, but machines do not play a special role in general. They appear either as part of the background or as something optional, awkward, and even helpless. A vivid example of this is the tractor from the novel Broad–Brow. The buffalo calls him a “sleepy” or “stupid burly man” and sneers at his strength: "... The Broad-browed man, along with another buffalo, was driven to the slope, where the sleepy burly man groaned and groaned at the top of his lungs but could not move a huge log stuck on a steep climb" ^{[8, p.252]}.

In Iskander's works, the connection between man and animal is lost not because of the mechanization of labor. This can be seen when comparing Uncle Kazim's Horse and The Story of Old Habug’s Mule. The main characters of both works refuse their pets, but Habug accepts a mule on his return, and Kazim does not accept Doll. The person who came to get a horse for the front says that he is ready to take any horse, not necessarily Doll, but Kazim gives her to him: "I'll find you another one today... —It's inconvenient, everyone knows my Doll..." ^{[10, pp.171–172]}. And when the horse returns with "killed pride," Kazim does not even approach her, although he sees how she is waiting for him: "How cruel you are!—my aunt said one day when we gathered in the kitchen before dinner.—I would have come up at least once, I would have caressed...—One might think that you love my horse more than I do—he said mockingly..." ^{[10, p.181]}. If Kazim had been sure he was right, he would not have been afraid to approach Doll. Habug does not drive away the returned Arapka and takes care of him. At first, he tries to look cool. But when he hears about the wound on the mule's back, the old man immediately approaches him and tells his grandchildren: "... you will return his money. I’ll take the black sheep back since he can't wait to live there" ^{[7, p.463]}. The old man treated the mule as a friend, and the younger Kazim treated Doll as a thing. What provoked such a substantial difference between generations?

Unlike natural philosophers, Iskander doubts that rapprochement with nature can prevent a gap between people of different eras. Kazim, like Habug, lives in a village and is able to understand animals. It was he who told the owner of the buffalo that "the buffalo remembers an offense all his life" and thereby postponed the death of Broad-brow ^{[8, p. 280]}. But still, Kazim and Habug are completely different from each other. Apparently, this happened under the influence of the new political system established after the revolution. People of the older generation kept in touch with nature, and the younger a person is, the more difficult it is for him to do this. It is worth noting that Habug is constantly being persuaded to change from a mule to a horse, but the old man does not agree. The main trait of Habug's character is loyalty to traditions, which brings him closer to nature as he lives by the same laws from year to year. According to Iskander, people's beliefs are not as firm as the habits of animals. And the new political system forces people to be even more flexible, which is why the ideological gap between the people of the new time and the older generation is only increasing. And Habug himself is still integrated into the new world and enters the collective farm. He cannot be attributed to the type of natural person who cannot change and leaves the peasant world (A. I. Smirnova, p. 15)

The plot basis of Iskander's works is not a struggle with nature, as with many natural philosophers (A. I. Smirnova, p. 59), but a test of friendship. Iskander does not believe in kinship but in the equality of people and animals. In his works, people break their connection with nature not because of technological development but because of the lack of freedom that came with the changes of the 1930s and 1940s. As Ivanova writes: "The world of nature is a world of freedom; the world of people is a world of unfreedom, endowed with the power of destruction that is dangerous for all living things." ^{[1, p. 269]}. In another work, she continues this thought: "Iskander has his own world, his own Muhus, his own Chegem," where "the natural is transformed into the moral." ^{[9, p. 8, 12]}. Nature is a freedom-loving and harmonious element, but in the new reality, a person is forced to move away from it. Therefore, Kazim did not have the will to save Doll, and Bardusha did not have the will to save Broad-brow. This tragic discrepancy between the worldviews of humans and animals just conveys a fable-novelistic effective contradiction.

In the early works, Iskander describes the interaction of one animal with its owner; in the later ones, he seeks to increase the number of characters and give the problem of the relationship between people and animals a universal character, which increases the epicness of the narrative. However, Iskander does not portray either representatives or supporters of the new government or obvious fighters against it—the heroes only adapt. In Iskander's works, the political regime appears as an aggressive biological environment, a stage in the development of all living things. Animals are more connected to nature than humans, which is why they adapt to the new regime much worse and suffer more. The proposed interpretation differs somewhat from the opinion accepted among Iskander scholars that animals are more moral creatures. They are neither better nor worse than people, but they remain true to the natural laws people have stopped following.

The story Broad-Brow conveys the difference in the value orientations of people of different generations in the best way. In it, the gap between man and nature is more noticeable. Chegem ceases to be idyllically isolated from the influence of the new regime. Even among the locals, there are those who do not respect and do not understand animals. The previous buffalo, who managed to escape from the slaughterhouse, lived among people in honor and care, and the broad-browed one was killed, and this contrast is plot-forming. It is important that Iskander portrays what happened without condemnation. Chegem calmly observes the death of its inhabitant: "... distant, but discernible to a loving eye, spots of bare cliffs above Chegem—everything, everything was drowned in the reconciling light of the setting sun. And the same sun shone on the mighty head of the broad-browed... there was no one to look from the outside, and there are no outsiders in this world" ^{[8, p. 309]}. Chegem has become different because the time has come for another. But at the same time, Iskander did not let his hero see this change, which is why the buffalo died in quiet ignorance.

As noted earlier, Iskander repeatedly resorts to constructing analogies when describing people and animals. In some stories, the parallel occupies an important place: the tyranny of the boy and the rooster, the wisdom and pride of the Khabuga and the Arapka. In others, it is present as a detail (the horns of a buffalo and the mustache of a Chegem, the equally rude donkey and its owner). N.B. Ivanova writes that the writer "likens not only consciousness and mental structure animal and human but also the person himself to a particular animal" ^{[1, p. 269]}. M. M. Glazkova also notes that Iskander’s animalistic characters, in particular, the mule Arapka and the broad-browed buffalo, perform an analogical function, as they concentrate on the "primary human qualities" without losing the animal ^{[11, p. 144]}. Ivanova explains this feature by the influence of folklore-totemic and fable traditions, but at the same time, considers it also a unique feature of the author's poetics.

Vygotsky analyzes the functions of animalistic images in literature. He writes that animals "immediately create an isolation from reality that is absolutely necessary for an aesthetic impression" ^{[6, p. 125]}. Iskander, on the contrary, tries to describe the characters as plausibly as possible, which proves a lot of ethological and physiological observations. Discussing the characters of the fable, Vygotsky notes that "... each animal represents a previously known mode of action, an act, it is primarily an actor, not by virtue of one or another character, but by virtue of the general properties of its life" ^{[6, p. 129]}. There are typical features in the images of Iskander's animals: the pugnacity of a rooster, the zeal and loyalty of a horse, the quick temper and diligence of a bull, the endurance and perseverance of a mule—however, in general, the writer goes beyond any stereotypes. Iskander's animals have a rich inner world and arouse strong compassion in the reader, which is not typical of fables. In Iskander’s works, there is, of course, an element of allegory. The events described in them can be correlated with human life. But allegoricity is destroyed by psychologism and physiologism in the depiction of animals, so it can be assumed that there is a contact convergence not noted by Iskanderologists.

The idea of the similarity of human society to the animal world and the rejection of anthropocentrism make Iskander a supporter of organicism, which is closely related to Darwin’s evolutionary teachings. In his later story Goats and Shakespeare, Iskander himself explains the analogism of the appearance of living beings with the help of evolutionary theory: "Curly sheep grazed over curly clover, which probably made them even more curly according to Darwin's laws" ^{[12, p.230]}. Despite the humor of this remark, it by no means excludes a completely serious connection between Iskander's work and Darwin's teaching. It is not only Iskander's conviction in the analogy of the appearance of people and animals that refers to Darwinism. In his works, the mortality of individuals and the speed and quality of their reproduction affect not only animals but also people. Arapka and Shirokoloby are worried that the herds are decreasing, and Khabuga is worried that the Chegem blood is weakening under the onslaught of foreigners. The influence of the idea of evolution can be explained by Iskander's appeal to the description of the change of epochs. The author does not condemn the speed of the changes but the fact that they run counter to many years of peasant experience. Therefore, mutual understanding between man and nature is replaced by violence and consumer attitude towards animals.

According to Iskander, humanity is developing but not progressing. This opinion may also have been formed under the influence of Darwinism, thanks to which the phenomena of reversion and atavism found their explanation. The description of the walnut tree from the final chapter of Sandro of Chegem called "The Tree of Childhood" is noteworthy: "... neither earthly nor heavenly forces could kill this mighty tree. He continued to live and bear fruit" ^{[8, p. 602]}. The attitude to nature as a special, mysterious world beyond either people's or God's control also brings Iskander's worldview closer to the English naturalist. Darwin was one of the first scientists to abandon the dogma of creation in his research. According to Gillian Beer’s remark, the main researcher of the naturalist's poetics, Darwin also rejected the concept of the "Golden Age": nature has always been both abundant, even wasteful, and strict ^{[13, p. xviii]}. There is also no noticeable element of nostalgia in Iskander's animalistic works: life is changing, not getting better or worse.

The noted connection between Iskander's animalistic works with Darwin's evolutionary teaching is extremely interesting. In his book, K. Danta highlights the following features of the influence of evolutionary theory on the image of animals—firstly, interest in the metaphysical reflections of animals ^{[14, p. 63]}. The same thing was noticed in the article by K. R. Tskoliya: "The author gives his animals those qualities that would not hurt many people. His animal heroes realize and understand much more than is given to man" ^{[15, p. 172]}. M. M. Glazkova also wrote about this: "Unlike, for example, the traditional heroes of animalistic works, who are driven by natural instinct, the mule is endowed with the ability to reflect, meaningful activity" ^{[11, p. 144]}. Secondly, from the animal’s standpoint, are not only people’s vices criticized but also the form of their communication, lifestyle, etc. ^{[14, p. 86]}. Arapka and Shirokoloby repeatedly noticed the illogicality of people's behavior. Thirdly, the non-allegorical nature of animalistic images is enhanced by the author's attention to the physiology and ethology of animals ^{[14, p.191]}. And indeed, Iskander depicts in detail the peculiarities of the behavior of his heroes. And fourthly, as J. D. Archibald writes, evolutionary theory provokes the creation of alternative higher chains of being ^{[16, p. 19]}. This trait is also reflected in Iskander’s works. In Broad-brow's worldview, pigs are insignificant creatures, and horses are the embodiment of dignity, a kind of descendants of the gods. Arapka also compares mules to dogs, donkeys, people, and horses.

Animals are depicted as representatives of a special "xenocivilization," to use the term proposed by E. V. Zueva. This feature was analyzed by the researcher on the example of English animalism (the quote is taken from the abstract of a diss. by a Candidate of Philology of KSU, Genre Originality of British Animalism of the Second Half of the Twentieth Century, 2018, p.22). The researcher notes the desire of the analyzed authors to portray the inner world of animals in as much detail as possible and connects this interest with the popularity of books by Charles Darwin (E. V. Zueva, p. 8).

The works selected by Zueva are devoted to the conflict between man and nature (E. V. Zueva, p. 22), which refers instead to the traditions of sentimentalism and romanticism, but their people are hopelessly disconnected from nature because of their sinfulness. The second Copernican revolution caused by the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species was provoked by the complete debunking of the anthropocentric picture of the world. As A. Dinienko writes, Darwin's evolutionary theory "undermined the value of traditional religion and morality ... because it implied that man was nothing more than a ‘talking monkey,’ and there was no need for God to create him" ^[17].

S. P. Belogurova’s article is also devoted to the influence of Darwinism on creativity ^{[18, p. 118]}. In this work, evolutionary theory is associated primarily with the idea of the struggle for existence. The researcher focuses on the work of those writers who have animals as opposed to humans, taking into account their proximity to nature. Animals, unlike humans, cannot fully exist outside their environment, so the main value for them is freedom. For Darwinism, the idea of the equality of man and animal and the ability to adapt is more relevant. In Iskander's animalistic works, there are no free people or animals. People feel sorry for their pets, but they can neither protect them nor resist the attitudes that the social system imposes on them. Animals either die or, losing dignity, adapt to existing conditions. It is worth noting such a pattern: the survivors become mentally broken (Doll) or suffer physically (interspecies crossing, which led to infertility in Arapka). The fractured nature of these animals is also conveyed in the names of the stories: instead of their nicknames, the owners' names are indicated. Following the new historical epoch, animals and people are changing, which is most clearly seen in the Story of Old Habug’s Mule: people become more indifferent—their blood weakens. Even though Iskander refuses to overtly moralize, the ruthlessness and unnaturalness of the reality in which Iskander’s heroes are forced to live are manifested in the destinies of the animals and people.

In the UK, Darwin's legacy is highly appreciated by literary critics. The naturalist's works became bestsellers throughout Europe, and his books are interesting not only in content but also in their genre. Gillian Beer, the leading researcher of Darwin's poetics, believes that his presentation combines the features of anecdote and scientific observation ("method of anecdote and observation"): "Anecdote recognizes the interpretive role of an observer seeking to penetrate other forms of consciousness by imperfect means of one's own mindfulness." ^{[13, p. 254]}. Beer notes in Darwin's presentation "passion for creating a fable" ("passion for fabrication") ^{[13, p.25]} that the scientist presents the objects under study, on the one hand, as unique, paying attention to the smallest details, and on the other hand, groups and classifies the same objects ^{[13, p. 254]}. In Darwin's art world, everything is both simultaneously unexpected and natural. According to J. Carroll, Darwin's narrative is characterized by the alternation of four types of modes of artistry: heroic, tragic, elegiac, and ironic ^{[19, pp. 31–34]}. Describing Darwin's language, E. Ballou compares the naturalist's thoughts with corals: they are multi-layered, diverse, and grow rapidly. Darwin’s main techniques, according to Ballou, include attention to detail ("a view from a microscope"), universalism ("a view from a telescope"), and "jumping in time and space" ^{[20, p. 2]}.

One of Darwin’s main merits in philosophical terms is that he puts forward a unique concept of the asymmetry of time. According to Beer, Darwin's narrative is distinguished by the absence of a plan for the future: "... he explains the past, but not what should happen...Nowhere does Darwin give a hint of future forms: and this is correct, as it is fundamental for him that they ... arise from too many variables that cannot be predicted in advance" ^{[13, p. xix]}. Darwin formed a special attitude toward the past, thanks to the study of the phenomenon of atavism ^{[14, p. 69]}. It is impossible to predict whether reversion will manifest itself in the new generation or not, and if so, to what extent: someone will look like his great-grandmother, and someone will be born with a tail. The proximity and activity of the past inspire no less fear than the uncertainty of the future, which is manifested in the work of many Darwinian writers. Beer notes that Darwin studies the "topology of time" ^{[13, p. 81]} and promotes the idea of kinship and relativity of time. In his mind, the past is incomprehensible and endless.

Darwin's theory dealt a big blow to the Aristotelian scale with the idea of man as the unshakable crown of creation. The naturalist not only considers people to be descendants of ape-like creatures but also expands ideas about the emotional spectrum of animals. In The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals, Darwin argues that despondency, despair, hatred, contempt, and increased attention to oneself are available to animals. All this destroys the centuries-old idea of the limitations of animals and inclines to the notion that animals are much closer to people than they seemed before. Such views could not but be reflected in animalistic literature.

Beer's idea of Darwin's attraction to the genre of the fable is developed by K. Danta. He notes that authors rejected a clearly formulated morality at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Danta explains this through the fables of this period, where man's traditional philosophical and theological concepts are beginning to be questioned. ^{[14, p. 36]}. With the loss of the classical two-part structure, the fable begins to gravitate towards a larger epic form: a novella and a novel.

To varying degrees, but in all four of Iskander's analyzed works, there are features of Darwinian poetics and worldview. The influence of Darwin's works can also explain Iskander's simultaneous striving for individualism and universalism, which provokes the syncretism of the genres of short stories and fables. In his works, as in Darwin's, there is an alternation of "views from a microscope and a telescope," which leads to the formation of polynovellistics. The narration is often conducted simultaneously from the first, third, and vaguely personal person, a vivid example of which is Broad-Brow: readers look at the world through the eyes of a buffalo, and then they look at him distantly.

Iskander’s attitude to the concept of time is very similar to Darwin’s. In his animalistic works, there is no plan for the future, and the past "coexists" with the present, which is reflected in the image of reverse phenomena. Many of Iskander's animals were born at the wrong time. These include a rooster that should have been born in the distant past, as well as the broad-browed buffalo, too big for a collective farm, and Doll the horse, too wayward for war. Habug, a talented and enterprising peasant, tried with great difficulty to adapt to the planned system of the collective farm, and the strong broad-browed buffalo is trying to compete with a tractor. The combination of different modes, which Carroll speaks about, is especially evident in Iskander’s works where the animal dies: ironic, heroic, and tragic pathos are combined in Rooster and Broad–Brow—elegiac and tragic.

The analysis allows us to hypothesize that many features of not only the plot but also the form of Fazil Iskander’s animalistic works can be explained by the influence of Darwin's evolutionary theory. Like the famous naturalist, he combines individualism and universalism in his works. In essence, there is a synthesis of a didactic fable and an anti-dogmatic novel. Descriptions of Iskander's animals differ in psychology and physiology. The writer emphasizes the independence of animals from humans with the help of details closely related to evolutionary theory: each species puts itself at the center of the universe and has its own language, its own hierarchy of living beings and gods. This clearly violates the Aristotelian scale of perfection. Iskander's belief in the equality of humans and animals is confirmed by the similarity of their appearance and behavior. It is also noteworthy that he describes atavistic phenomena. Iskander's works clearly show that Darwinism gives a new impetus to the development of nature-centered ideas and leads to a new understanding of literary animalism.

I express my gratitude to N. B. Ivanova for the useful discussion and assistance in preparing the manuscript.