Page:Knight (1975) Past, Future and the Problem of Communication in the Work of V V Khlebnikov.djvu/194

186 (Andreyev's, Kuyrin's, Kuznin's, and others) are Khlebnikov's expressions."

According to this version, Khlebnikov at first refused to sign unless Kuzmin's name was omitted ("I will not sign this... Kuzmin must be crossed out—–he is sensitive"), but later relented. Livshits, who was not present during the composition but would otherwise be regarded as perhaps a more reliable source, writes:


 * I could never find out from David who composed the notorious manifesto. I know only that Khlebnikov did not take part in it (he may have been away from Moscow at the time).

It should be mentioned, however, that Livshits had "an axe to grind". He was anxious to shield Khlebnikov, whom he admired almost beyond measure as an artist, from the ignominy of association with what he (Livshits) regarded as a wholly tasteless piece of writing.

Markov provides perhaps the most plausible reconciliation of these incompatible versions of history: in his View, Khlebnikov was present during the discussions which preceded the writing of the manifesto, but absent when it was actually written. Be that as it may, what concerns us for our present purposes is a slightly different question: not whether or not Khlebnikov actually did help write the manifesto, but whether or not he could or would have done—–whether or not the manifesto's contents and tone were compatible with his attitudes and views.

The manifesto's theme was anything but primitivist. The same can be said, however, of many of Khlebnikov's own manifestos written at a somewhat later date: his "Martian Trumpet", for example. In the preceding pages we have seen