title: ARevolutionoftheSpirit:CrisisofValueinRussia,1890-1924author: Rosenthal,BerniceGlatzer.;Bohachevsky-Chomiak,Martha.;Schwartz,MiriamG.

publisher: FordhamUniversityPressisbn10|asin: 0823212866printisbn13: 9780823212866

ebookisbn13: 9780585195308language: English

subjectCommunismandintellectuals--SovietUnion--History--Sources,Intellectuals--SovietUnion--History--Sources.

publicationdate: 1990lcc: HX528.R481990ebddc: 320.53/2

subject:Communismandintellectuals--SovietUnion--History--Sources,Intellectuals--SovietUnion--History--Sources.

Pagei

ARevolutionoftheSpirit

Pageii

Therevolutionofthespiritisacometflyingtowardusfrombeyondthelimitsofreality.ANDREIBELYRevolutionandCulture

Pageiii

ARevolutionoftheSpiritCrisisofValueinRussia,18901924

EditedbyBerniceGlatzerRosenthal&

MarthaBohachevsky-Chomiak

TranslatedbyMarianSchwartz

FordhamUniversityPressNewYork1990

Pageiv

Copyright1990byFORDHAMUNIVERSITYAllrightsreserved.LC90-81779ISBN0-8232-1285-8(clothbound)ISBN0-8232-1286-6(paperback)

Firstedition1982byOrientalResearchPartnersSecondedition1990byFordhamUniversityPress13579108642PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica

Pagev

CONTENTSPrefacetotheSecondEdition vii

Acknowledgments xv

Introduction 1

1VladimirSolovyov 41

TheEnemyfromtheEast 43

TheRussianNationalIdeal 53

2NikolaiGrot 61

OntheTrueTasksofPhilosophy 63

3SergeiDiaghilev 81

ComplexQuestions:OurImaginaryDecadence 83

4VasillyV.Rozanov 91

OnSweetestJesusandtheBitterFruitsoftheWorld 93

5NikolaiBerdiaev 105

SocialismasReligion 107

6SergeiBulgakov 135

AnUrgentTask 137

7ViacheslavIvanov 161

TheCrisisofIndividualism 163

8 175

GeorgiiChulkov

OnMysticalAnarchism 177

IThePathsofFreedom 177

IIOntheAffirmationofthePersonality 180

9DmitriS.Merezhkovsky 187

RevolutionandReligion 189

TheJewishQuestionasaRussianQuestion 222

10GeorgiiFlorovsky 225

IntheWorldofQuestsandWanderings 227

Pagevi

11PavelNovgorodtsev 247

TheEssenceoftheRussianOrthodoxConsciousness 249

12PetrStruve 265

TheIntelligentsiaandtheNationalFace 267

13AndreiBely 271

RevolutionandCulture 273

14AleksandrBlok 291

Catiline:APagefromtheHistoryofWorldRevolution 293

15EvgenyTrubetskoi 321

TheBolshevistUtopiaandtheReligiousMovementinRussia 323

Afterword 339

SelectBibliography 345

Pagevii

PREFACETOTHESECONDEDITIONThepurposeofthisbookistofamiliarizethereaderwiththoseaspectsofRussianthoughtthatseektoilluminatetheintersectionofphilosophy,religion,thearts,andpublicpolicy.Wehavefocusedonthenon-radicalthinkersandwriterswho,thoughlesswellknownthantheirradicalcounterparts,wereneverthelessinterestingandinfluential.Thesepersonsshiedawayfromregimentationandavoidedconsideringthemselvesasagroup.ThelackofasinglenamewithwhichtocharacterizeallofthemhascontributedtotheirbeinglesswellknownthanthemoreidentifiablycohesiveLeft.(SomeofthemareknownastheGod-seekers,butthistermdoesnotcharacterizethemall.)BecausethematerialisgenerallynewtotheEnglishreaderandbecauseitsscopeisalreadybroad,wehavelimitedthepresentationtoRussianthinkersandhavemadenoattempttoincluderepresentativesoftheequallyinterestingnon-RussiannationalitiesthathadmadeuptheRussianEmpireandnowconstitutetheUnionofSovietSocialistRepublics.

Amongthemanyarbitrarydivisionsthatemerge,eitherasgenerallyacceptedorasameansofbuildingsomestructureintoalargeamorphouspicture,isthedichotomybetweentheactivistintelligentsiaandscholars,writers,andthinkers.ThepoliticizedintelligentsiainRussia,byitsowncontention,argueditsprimacyinthefieldsofsocial,political,andculturalcriticismandmaintainedthatitaloneofferedsolutionstothemyriadofproblemsfacingsocietyandstate.Philosophers,writers,andreligiousthinkerswereconsideredtobeimpracticalintellectuals,withnointerestinthemundaneeventsofdailyexistence.Actuallythiswasnotthecase.Theintelligentsiaengagedinphilosophicalpolemics,andtheartistsandscholarsattemptedtodevisepracticalsolutionstothecrisesRussiansocietyfaced.Inthisvolumewehavechosenarticles,byphilosophers,writers,jurists,andtheologians,thatassessthepoliticalandculturalcrisisinRussiaandarguethatreorientationofthoughtalongspiritualandreligiouslinesisthepreconditionofeffectiveaction.Theircommonconcernsandprofoundanalysesofferasliceoftheculturalhistoryoflatenineteenth-andearlytwentieth-centuryRussia.Thesewriters,moreover,havehadaprofoundimpactontheSovietintelligentsiasincethe1970sintherevitalizationofspirituallifeandinbreakingthroughtheencrustedlavaofStalinism.

Onecannowarguewhatwehadonlysurmisedwhenthefirsteditionwentintoprint:ideassimilartothoseillustratedinthisanthologyneverceasedtointriguetheRussians.Theseideasbecamesubmergedonlybecauseofpoliticalpressure.Theyre-emergedandcontinuedtobediscussedassoonasa

Pageviii

modicumoffreeexpressionbecamepossible.Ourbriefafterword,whichcallsattentiontotheaffinitiesinspiritualandphilosophicalthought,ismeanttostimulatefurtherstudyofthephenomenon.

Indeed,thebookisevenmoretimelytodaythanwhenitwasfirstissued.Whenwebeganworkingonthefirsteditioninthelate1970s,thestudyofRussianhistoryhadfewscholarswhowerecomfortablediscussingsuchintangiblesasreligion,Zeitgeist,mentalities,orcultureasaspiritualphenomenon.Thestudyoftheliteratureandpoetryoftheperiod18901924wasdominatedbyscholarswhoexaminedaworksolelyintermsofitsstructuralform.Muchthesamecanbesaidforstudiesofpaintingdoneinthe1970s.Historians,acutelyawareofthegeneralitiesthathadsoofteninthepastmasqueradedashistory,weredubiousaboutanalyzingconceptsthatwentbeyondtheclearlydocumentable.MusingsofearliergenerationsontopicssuchastheRussiansoulorthepeculiaritiesoftheRussiannationalcharacterkeptscholarsawayfromacloserstudyofphilosophyandreligionandofevenbroaderculturaltrends.FewscholarscrossedtheboundariesoftheirrespectivedisciplinestoprovideacomprehensivepictureoftheperiodofculturalefflorescenceinallareasofthoughtandartknownastheSilverAge.Russiaseemedtohavefallenintoamodecircumscribedbyapositivist,rationalist,radicalworldviewthatnotonlydiscouragedbutactuallypreventedthelifeoftheunregimentedspirit.BothSovietandWesternhistoriansofRussiadiscountedthoseaspectsofthepastthathadnotbeendirectlyconnectedwiththerevolutionarymovement.Thesurvivalofnon-radicaltendencieswasconsideredtohavebeenlimitedtomarginalindividuals.

Inthelastdecadethesituationhaschangedconsiderably.Thesignificanceofintangiblesisagainclearlyrealized,butwithaconsciousattempttoavoidvaguecharacterizationsandglibclichs.Inliterature,theimportanceofthenewhistoricismisgenerallyrecognized.Inhistory,scholarshavebeguntodemonstratetheimpactofreligiousbeliefsonmovementspreviouslyconsideredsecular,e.g.,theFrenchRevolutionof17891793,eighteenth-andnineteenth-centuryEnglishradicalism,andtheRussianRevolutionsof1917.Manyhistorianshavebeeninfluenced,directlyorindirectly,bytheFrenchAnnalesSchoolandtheEnglishCambridgeSchool,whichhavemovedthestudyofculture,includingreligiousculture,symbols,rituals,andmentalities,fromtheperipheryofhistorytothecenter.Theenduringpowerofreligion,therecurrentsearchforspiritualmeaning,theabidingquestforphilosophyandinnermeaningtoexplainifnottojustifyeventshaveforcedustolookattheviewsnotonlyofpeoplewhoemergedintheforefrontofevents,butalsoofthosewhowereovershadowedbytheevents.IntheSovietUnion,thepre-RevolutionarypastofRussia,aswelloftheotherSovietrepublics,hasrefusedtoremainsubsumedunderasocialist-realistpresent.TheMoscow-Tartuschoolofsemioticshas

showntheenduringimpactofreligioussignsandsymbolsonRussiancultureandhasinturninfluencedWesternstudents

Pageix

ofRussianliterature.NewstudiesofTolstoi,Gogol,andevenChernyshevskyhavedisclosedthereligiousunderpinningsoftheirrespectiveworldviews.

AdecadeagothisbookofreadingsfocusedonwritersandissuesthatwereconsideredmarginaltothecourseofdevelopmentofRussianhistory.TodayweseethatmanyoftheideasarticulatedbythesewritersandphilosophershadadirectbearingonthedisillusionmentwithpositivismandMarxismthatisamajorcharacteristicofcontemporaryRussia.Ourheresyhasbecomeaccepteddogma.ThecentralityofthesymbolistsandidealistsinthisvolumeinshapingtheculturalclimateofthedecadesprecedingtheRevolutionsof1917waswidelyaccepted,asistheirroleinposingtheissuesdebatedbytheintelligentsia.ScholarshiphasdeepenedourknowledgeofthedialoguebetweentheGod-seekerstreatedinthisvolumeandtheMarxistGod-builders.TheGod-buildersattemptedtocombatthegrowinginfluenceoftheGod-seekersbycreatingarivalideology,asocialistreligion,basedonthepremissthatGodiscreatedbyhumanitytoexpressitsownaspirations.TheleadingGod-builderswereAnatoleLunacharsky,futureBolshevikCommissarofEnlightenment,andMaximGorky,thefamouswriter.EventhemorescientificallymindedAleksandrBogdanovwasconvinced,duepartlytoidealists(especiallyNikolaiBerdiaev,withwhomhedebatedattheturnofthecentury)andthesymbolists,oftheneedformythsthatinspireaction.AnotherGod-builder,StanislavVolsky,thoughaMarxist,spokeofeachcreativeindividualasaJohntheBaptistwhoprecedestheMessiahandoftheestablishmentoftheKingdomofGodonearth.Radicalsofallhues,includingChristianradicals,secularizedtheApocalypse,associatedcapitalismwiththeforcesofevil,secondedNewTestamentcondemnationsofwealth,greed,andegotism,andbelievedthatinthecrucibleofrevolutionanon-materialisticandunselfishnewmanandnewwomanwouldbeforged.WenowknowthatthefuturistpoetVladimirMayakovskywaspreachinghisownrevolutionofthespiritandthatthepeasantpoetsSergeiEseninandNikolaiKluievdevelopedtheirownversionofit,asdidtheScythians,agroupofwriterslooselyclusteredaboutthecriticIvanov-Razumik(RazumnikVasilevichIvanov),withwhomEsenin,Kliuev,AndreiBely,andAleksandrBlokwerealsolinked.Recentscholarshiphasalsoshownthatoccultdoctrines,especiallyHelenaBlavatskaya'sTheosophyandRudolfSteiner'sAnthroposophy,hadamajorimpactonthereligioussearchoftheperiodandweremanifestedinitspainting,literature,andmusic.

TherevolutionofthespirittookdifferentformsaftertheBolshevikRevolutionandwasexpressedintherevolutionaryutopianismoftheCivilWarandearlySovietperiod.Agroupofclergymen,theRenovationists(Obnovlentsi),triedtocombinesocialismandChristianityinanewRussianOrthodoxChurch.SimilarmovementsdevelopedamongJewsandMoslems.Symbolists,futurists,andProletkult(proletarianculture)activists

organizedculticPeople'sTheatersandritualizedmassfestivalsasoutletsforemotionsfor-

Pagex

merlyvestedinreligion.Lenin'smonumentalpropagandacampaign,announcedin1918(monumentstosymbolizetheRevolution,itsfallenheroes,andthegreatmenofthepast),wasaresponsetothesameneedforvisiblesymbolsofinspiration.Duringthe1920sand1930s,theteachingsofNikolaiF.Fyodorovontheconquestofnature,includingtheresurrectionofthedeadbyscientificmeans,gainedmanyconverts.Atthesametime,thenon-Russiannationalitieswereelaboratingculturallygroundedformsofideology,politics,literature,andreligion.Insomefashion,allthesespiritualquestswerereactionstotheemotionallyunsatisfyingnatureofpositivism.

Currently,thereisagainatremendousinterest,inboththeSovietUnionandtheWest,inthepersonsandapproachestreatedinthisvolume.SocietiesforthescholarlystudyofBely,Ivanov,andFlorenskyhavebeenorganizedintheWestandmeetregularly.ThereisbynowasubstantialbodyofSovietliteratureonsymbolismandidealism,notallofithostile,asSovietscholarssetaboutfillingintheblankpagesoftheirhistoryandreappropriatingtheirlostculturalheritage.ThemillenniumoftheChristianizationofRus'(1988)hasreinforcedthistendency.LiteraryclassicsandentirephilosophicalschoolsareagainbeingpublishedandstudiedintheSovietUnionitself.

ThedebatesillustratedbytheselectionspresentedinthisvolumearebeingperpetuatedincontemporarySovietsocietynotonlythroughspecializedpublicationsbutinthemassmedia.Forexample,anarticleinMoskovskienovosti(MoscowNews),onApril3,1988,onthepublicationofBorisPasternak'sDoctorZhivagonotedthattheherowasinfluencedbyBerdiaevandsuggestedthatBerdiaevbepublishedaswell.OnMay14,1988,PravdaannouncedplanstopublishtheworksofVladimirS.Solovyov,SergeiN.Trubetskoi,SimeonL.Frank,LevShestov,PavelA.Florensky,NikolaiO.Lossky,SergeiN.Bulgakov,NikolaiA.Berdiaev,AleksandrA.Bogdanov,VasillyV.Rozanov,andNikolaiF.Fyodorov,inaseriesdevotedtoRussianphilosophersscheduledtobeginin1989.Accordingtotheannouncementthirty-fivetofortyvolumeswillbepublishedinthenextthreetofouryears.DisillusionwithMarxismhasledtoatremendousinterestinreligion.TwoconferencesonthemillenniumofChristianityinRus'havebeenheldintheSovietUnion,andSovietscholarshaveattendedWesternconferencesonthetopic,includingthoseheldattheKennanInstituteandtheUniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeleyinMay1988.AconferenceatBergamo,Italy(January1988),onthescientist-priestPavelFlorensky(whohasawidefollowingintheSovietUnion)wasattendedbySovietscholarsofthehighestcaliber,includingV.V.Ivanov(winneroftheLeninPrize).TherecentSovietfilmRepentanceconcludeswiththerhetoricalquestionWhatisastreetwithoutachurch?OnJune11,1989,MoskovskienovostipublishedanarticleTheMadRussianIdeadescribing,positively,therelevanceoftheattemptsatspiritualrenewalandChristianpoliticsofSolovyov,Berdiaev,Merezhkovsky,Shestov,Florensky,Frank,and

Fedotov,andannouncedplanstopublishtheirworksinimportantjournals

Pagexi

suchasVoprosyliteratury(ProblemsofLiterature),Voprosyfilosofii(ProblemsofPhilosophy),andLiteraturnaiaucheba(LiteraryStudies).Exhibitionsofpaintingsofthelong-suppressedRussianavant-gardehavebeenheld,includingoneentirelydevotedtoKazimirMalevich.He,VasilyKandinsky,andothersweredeeplyinfluencedbyGod-seekingandoccultphilosophies.D.S.Merezhkovsky'sapocalypticismwasparticularlyimportantforVasilyKandinsky.AnewmagazineVybor(Choice),conceivedasacontinuationanddevelopmentofthetraditionofRussianChristianthoughtoftheearlytwentiethcentury,hasrecentlybeenfoundedintheSovietUnion.AlexanderSolzhenitsynwasreadmittedtotheUnionofSovietWritersinJuly1989,andhisbookAugust1914hasbeenscheduledforpublicationintheSovietUnion.

Similardevelopmentscharacterizethenon-RussianpopulationoftheSovietUnion.Ukrainians,Jews,theBalticnationshaveagainplacedastrongerstressonthestudyoftheindigenousrootsofthespiritualandculturaldevelopmentoftheirpeoples.

Itisnotonlydisillusionwithmaterialisticphilosophiesthathascreatedanaudienceforthethinkerstreatedinthisvolume.Thewritersrepresentedherecontinuetoelicitinterestbecausetheyweretreatingissuesof,andcreatingexplicitlyChristianOrthodoxanswersto,theproblemsoflifeinthisworldthattheofficialChurchfailedtoaddress.Bulgakov'sandBerdiaev'sChristianSocialismhasbeenreplicatedinvariousformsbycontemporaryliberation-theologiansintheThirdWorld.IntheUnitedStatesboththeleftandtherightinvokereligionfortheirownends.ThescholaranddiplomatGeorgeKennan,inhistestimonybeforeCongressonthecurrentsituationintheSovietUnion,onApril6,1989,quotedCharlesBohlen'sstatementthatcommunismcannotsucceedbecauseitdoesnotsolvethequestionofdeath(reportedinTheWashingtonPost,April7,1989).Religion,forbetterorforworse,isamajorelementinthequestofpreviouslycolonializednationsfordistinctnational/culturalidentities.TheissueofChristianattitudestosex,debatedatTheReligious-PhilosophicalSociety,remainstopicalandisstillcontroversial.Thesearchofthemysticalanarchistsforasocietythatwouldcombineindividualfreedomandlovingcommonalitystillgoeson,andthequestionofwhatexactlyconstitutesaChristiansociety,Christianpolitics,aChristianeconomycontinuestobediscussed.Thestressupontheinnerlifeoftheindividualhasrenewedtheinterestinnationalities,inculturalcharacteristics,andintheenduringtraditionofthepast.Weagainseeaninterestinphilosophyforitsownsake,notasablueprintforchange.

Sometimes,thediscoveryburstsforthwithavigorthatcanbesomewhatblinding.Forinstance,itisnowbeingargued,intheSovietUnion,bothpubliclyandprivately,thatiftheseideashadprevailed,StalinismandtheGulagwouldnothavehappened.Thatisnotnecessarilythecase.Religioncanfosterintoleranceandfanaticismaswellaskindness

andlove.Indeed,somewouldarguethatthevirulenceofStalinismderivedfromitsreligious

Pagexii

ratherthanitsmaterialisticbase,becausesocialismbecameareligion,withitsownsaintsandsinners,savedanddamned,anditsownInquisition.NotallmovementstorecapturetheRussianpastarebenign.Solzhenitsyn'sidealizationofRussia'sauthoritarianpastisnoteasilycompatiblewithWesternidealsofindividualfreedom.SolovyovwasquitepropheticinhisfearofRussianzoologicalnationalism.TheplaceofRussianOrthodoxyinwhatPetrStruvecalledthenationalfacehasbynomeansbeenresolved.Solovyov,inoneofthearticlesincludedinthisselection,warnsofthedangersofreligiousblindnessandnationalchauvinism.ThenationalitiesissueisamongthemostemotionallychargedintheSovietUniontoday.GreatRussiannationalismhasrevivedinmovementssuchasPamiat,whichisopenlyandmilitantlyanti-Semitic.InLithuaniaandUkraine,nationalchurches,suppressedformostoftheSovietperiod,havebecomevehiclesofnationalidentity,ashastheSolidaritymovementinPoland,closelylinkedwiththeCatholicChurchthere.NationalconflictsintheArmenianandAzerbaijanianSovietRepublicsarepartlyreligiousinnature.Ukrainians,placingrenewedemphasisontheirlanguageandculture,areactivelylobbyingfortherestorationoftheUkrainianCatholicandtheUkrainianAutocephalousOrthodoxChurches.TherevivaloftheHebrewlanguage(bannedfromthe1920stolate-1988,asthelanguageofprayerandofZionism),andtheresurgenceofinterestinJewishhistoryandculture,andinIsrael,aremajoraspectsoftheSovietJews'searchforanational/culturalidentity.Theissuesposedbythethinkerstreatedinthisvolumearemorerelevantthanever.

Thesecondeditioncorrectsminortypographicalerrors,addsSolovyov's1891essayTheRussianNationalIdeal,andreplacesMerezhkovsky'sessaySwordwithhisRevolutionandReligion(1907)wethoughtthattheassociationofreligionandrevolutionalloverthecontemporaryworldmadethisessayespeciallyrelevantforcontemporaryreadersandabibliography.Ourvolumedoesnotpretendtocompleteness.ConsiderationsoflengthprecludedtheinclusionofessaysbyShestov,Frank,Gershenzon,Fyodorov,orFlorensky.

Likeanyattempttoplaceintellectualdevelopmentswithinachronologicalframework,oursissomewhatarbitrary.Thebeginningdate,1890,must,ofcourse,belooselyconstruedtomarktheonsetofthereorientationinsomeaspectsofEuropeanthoughtofwhichtheRussianswerealsopart.Theclosingdate,1924,shouldbeequallylooselyconstruedtomarktheendofthespiritualandphilosophicalquestsoftheearlierperiod.Theirchiefproponentswerenolongerinthecountry,theirinstitutionshadbeenshutdown,andtheBolshevikswereembarkedonamilitantanti-religiouscampaign.ManyopponentsofBolshevismMerezhkovsky,Struve,andTrubetskoi,forexamplehademigratedsoonaftertheRevolution.Twenty-fiveidealistphilosophers,includingBerdiaevandBulgakov,hadbeenexpelledearlyin1923,andViacheslavIvanovleft

voluntarilyforItalylaterthatyear.Thewritersofthe

Pagexiii

Russianemigration,someearlyexamplesofwhichareincludedinthisvolume,continuetheargumentscarriedoninRussiaandreplicatetheintellectualclimate.Vol'fila,TheFreePhilosophicSociety(agatheringplaceforSt.Petersburgsymbolists,theosophists,andanthroposophists),wasdisbandedearlyin1923;itsMoscowcounterpart,TheFreeAcademyofCulture,hadbeenclosedtheyearbefore,andboththeTheosophicalandAnthroposophicalSocietieshadbeenforcedtodisband(thoughundergroundcirclescontinuedon).Alsoin1923,NadezhdaKrupskaia(Lenin'swife)removedbooksconsidereddangerous(e.g.,worksbyNietzsche)fromthePeople'sLibraries.TheBolsheviksconsideredreligionthemajorideologicalpropofthebourgeoisorder,butduringtheCivilWartheyattackedtheChurchratherthanreligionperse,partlybecausemanyreligiousradicalssupportedthemandpartlybecausetheydidnotwanttoantagonizethepopulace.Typically,anti-clericalmeasureswerejustifiedonpoliticaloreconomicgrounds.Moreover,manyBolsheviks,includingLenin,assumedthatbourgeoisculture,values,andattitudes,includingreligion,woulddieoutnaturallyinasocialistsociety.Marxisttheoryregardedreligionandcultureaspartofthesuperstructurethatgrowsoutofandisdeterminedbytheeconomicbase.Thus,mostBolsheviksbelievedthatasocialisteconomywouldengenderitsowndistinctiveculture,includinganewproletarian,ratherthanbourgeois,morality.Inthespringof1921,however,theNewEconomicPolicy(NEP)wasinstituted.NEPlegalizedsmall-scalecapitalism(allprivatetradewasillegalduringtheCivilWar),inordertoprovideincentivesforproduction.TheBolsheviksfearedthattherevivalofcapitalismmightalsoleadtoastrengtheningoftheverybourgeoisvaluesandattitudesthattheyhadhopedwoulddieout,valuesandattitudesthatcouldundermineBolshevikpower,particularlysincethepeasants,whomtheyregardedasapotentiallyhostileclass,werebenefittingmorefromNEPthantheproletarians.Hence,in1922,theBolshevikstooktheoffensiveinmattersofculture;thisoffensiveentailedadirectattackonreligion,whichwasstrongerinthecountrysidethaninthecities.Lenin'sarticleOntheSignificanceofMilitantMaterialism(March1922)statedthatthefirstandforemostdutyofacommunististodeclareasystematicoffensiveagainstbourgeoisideology,philosophicalreaction,andallformsofidealismandmysticism.InJune1922allexistingformsofcensorshipwasputinthehandsofaMainPressCommittee,andinAugust,anewbody,Glavlit(Glavnoeupravleniepodelamliteraturyiiskusstva),wasgiventhepowerofcensorship,priortopublication,ofliteratureandart.Thefirstshowtrial,oftheSocialistRevolutionaries,anexperimentinorchestratedhate,wasalsoheldin1922.ThepublishinghouseBezbozhnik(TheGodless)wasformedin1922;itsnewspaper,alsotitledBezbozhnik,beganpublicationin1923.WorksdebunkingChristianityasamythwerepublishedin1923and1924,includingR.Vipper'sVozniknoveniekhristianstva(TheEmergenceofChristianity),ArthurDrews'TheChristMyth,andJohnRobertson'sGospelMyths,thelattertwoinRussiantranslation.

Pagexiv

ComparedtotheStalinera,the1920swereyearsoftolerance;variousschoolsofartandliteraturewerepermitted,aslongastheydidnotexpresscounter-revolutionaryideasorsentiments.Nevertheless,astruggleforpower,patronage,andfundsamongdifferentliteraryandartisticschoolsbeganintheearly1920sandbecameallthemorebitterafterLenin'sdeath(January21,1924)asitbecameentwinedinthefightforpoliticalpowerandpatronagethatfollowedandculminatedinStalin'svictory.

IntheIntroductionwepresenttothereadertherichandvariedculturalclimateofthelatenineteenthandearlytwentienthcenturiesinRussia.Theselectionsthatfollowillustratethewritingsofsomeofthemajorfigures.Eachselectionisprefacedbyabriefdescriptivenote.

Pagexv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSTheeditorswishtothanktheNationalEndowmentfortheHumanities,FordhamUniversity,andManhattanvilleCollegefortheirsupportofthisprojectatitsvariousstages,andProfessorMarcRaeffofColumbiaUniversityforhisactiveinterestinourwork.ThetranslatorwishestothankIgorSinyavinforhisassistance.

TransliterationfollowstheLibraryofCongresssystemexceptforthecustomaryspellingofcertainpropernames.

Intheinterestsofclarity,allbutafewessentialfootnoteshavebeenomittedfromthetranslatedarticles.

Page1

INTRODUCTIONINTHEEARLY1890s,asmallbutimportantgroupofartistsandthinkerslaunchedafrontalattackonthematerialism,positivism,andrationalismthathaddominatedtheRussianintelligentsiasincethe1860s.OpposingPisarev'sdictumthatbootsaremoreimportantthanShakespeare,disillusionedwithpopulistsolutionstoRussia'sproblems,andrebellingagainsttheinjunctionthatartmustservethepeople,afewartistsandthinkersbegan,firstindependentlyandtheninsmallgroupsoflike-mindedindividuals,tosearchfornewvaluesandideals.Chafingunderthelimitationsonartandthoughtimposedbytheintelligentsia,theysetgoalsatoncemorediffuseandfar-reaching,fortheybypassedthepoliticalandeconomicspheresofhumanexistencetofocusonman'spsychological,emotional,andspiritualneeds,includinganeedforfaith.Seekingtotransformlifeonearth,theyadvocatedarevolutionofthespirit,aninternaltransformationofthehumansoulorpsyche,and,inthefirstdecadesofthetwentiethcentury,theyexertedaninfluenceoutofproportiontotheirnumbers.Theirgoalwasanewkindofhumanbeing,spiritual,aesthetic,sensitive,andlovingtheveryoppositeofrationallycalculatingeconomicmanandanewsocietybasedontheidealofsobornost'(acollectivebodyinwhichtheelementsretaintheirindividualityandthuseliminatethetensionbetweenindividualfreedomandsocialcohesion).

Theirsecessionfromtherevolutionaryintelligentsiaresultedfromseveralfactors,includingpurelypersonalones.Mostimportant,however,wasthatpopulism,theideologyoftheintelligentsiasincethe1860s,hadlostitsvitality.NotonlyhadtheassassinationofTsarAlexanderIIin1881failedtotriggertheexpectedmassuprising,butitgalvanizedtheusuallylethargicbureaucracyintohuntingdownsuspectedradicals;withinafewyears,leadingradicalswereeitherinjailorinexile,andwhenthejournalOtechestvennyezapiski(NotesoftheFatherland)wasclosedin1884,thenervecenterofRussianradicalismwasdead.Peacefulpropagandainthevillageswassimplynoteffective.Withpoliticalreformabortedandindependentthoughtandactivityheldinsuspicion,itseemedthattherewasnochannelforyouthful

Page2

idealism.HerbertSpencer'sformofpositivismdominatedtheuniversities,butfailedtosatisfythosewhodesiredamissioninlifeoranultimateanswertoreligiousquestions.Schopenhauer'sphilosophyofpessimismgainedmoreandmoreadherents,stimulatinginterestinartasameanstopenetratetheveilofphenomenaandasaconsolationforlife'sdisappointments.

Theideologicalbasisofpopulismwasfurthererodedbythedriveforindustrializationinthe1890s.CapitalismwasindeedcomingtoRussia;thedisintegratingmircouldnotserveasthebasisforadirecttransitiontosocialism.Russia,itseemed,wasfatedtoturnintoacopyofthebourgeoisWest.

Animportantdebateofthe1890swithintheranksoftheintelligentsiawaswagedbetweentheso-calledlegalMarxistsandlegalpopulists,Marxistsandpopulistswhopublishedtheirviewsinlegalratherthanclandestinepublications.Bythen,Marxismhademergedasaninfluentialphilosophicalandscholarlytrend.LegalMarxistsconsideredtheproletarianizationofthepeasantrythatsodisturbedthelegalpopulistsanecessarypriceofprogress,ridiculedthepopulistemphasisontheindividual,andlambastedthesubjectivesociologyofNikolaiMikhailovsky;fortheyconsideredprogressalawofhistoryandwerenotatallambivalenttowardtheWestortowardmodernization.Crusadingagainstthecommunalromanticismbuiltintopopulistsocialthought,theysoughtscientificobjectivelawsofdevelopment.AmongthelegalMarxistsofthetimewereStruve,Berdiaev,andBulgakov.EvenaftertheybecamecriticalofMarxism,theinspirationremainedtheWesternEuropeans,especiallytheneo-KantiansMach,Avenarius,andRudolfStammler.Broadlyspeaking,neo-Kantiansemphasizedethicalandmoraldimensionsoflawandassumedanepistemologicalunityofscienceandknowledge.Theinfluenceofneo-KantianswasnotconfinedtoformerMarxistsforwhomKantianethicsturnedouttobeaway-stationontheirpathfromMarxismtoidealism.Neo-KantianismalsoinspiredtheoristsofnaturallawsuchasNovgorodtsevandsociologistssuchasBogdanKistiakovsky,whocontributedtoVekhi.Neo-Kantanism,therefore,hadbroadimplicationsinpolitics,sociology,andeveninart.Strikingadvancesinthesciences,especiallyinphysics,underminedempiricismandcalledintoquestionconceptsofcauseandeffect,spaceandtime,thathadprevailedsinceNewton.Scholarlyresearchinotherfieldsmadeneo-Kantianism,withitsstressonknowledge,cognition,andlaw,moreacceptable,therebyunderscoringthelimitationsofpopulistsociologyandstimulatinginterestinformalphilosophy.

Page3

Durkheim'svalue-freesociology,whichdiscountedtheimportanceofindividuals,alsoservedtounderminepopulistsociology.

Populism,whichwastoosubjectiveforMarxistsandneo-Kantians,provednotsubjectiveenoughforanothergroupyoungartistsandthinkerswhosoughtdeliverancefromthepopulistdictumthatartmustservethepeople.Interestedinpurelypersonalandpsychologicalissues,theysoughttodevelopnewmeansofexpressioninartandliterature.Some,mysticallyandspirituallyoriented,insistedthatscienceandscholarshipcouldneverleadtothehighertruthstheysought,truthsdealingwithbasicvaluesandgivingmeaningandpurposetolife.

Thecarriersofthenewideaswereyoungintellectualsandartistswhowerenotsimplyabstractthinkersbutthemselvesbedeviledbythekindofpersonalproblemsthatcometotheforeinaneraoftransition:definingone'sidentity,developingnewrolemodels,findingmeaningandpurposeinlife.Bytheturnofthecentury,newpoliticalgroupswereformed(SocialDemocratsin1898,SocialistRevolutionariesin1902,liberalsin1903),butthesewererevivalsandreinterpretationsoftraditionalintelligentsiaideology,differencesindegree,notdifferencesinkind.Thesecessionofyoungintellectualsfromtheirrevolutionarymissionwasfarmoreradical.Turningtheirgazeinward,focusingonpersonalratherthansocialquestions,discussingmetaphysicsratherthanpoliticsandsociety,theytriedtodivorcereligionfromitsassociationwithreactionandpursuedphilosophicinquiryforthesakeoftruth.Disoriented,sufferingfromaspiritualmalaise,theywerereceptivetoforeignphilosophicandaestheticinfluencesassourcesofinspirationandrenewal.PerceivingtheimminentdemiseofoldRussia,theylookedtohistory,especiallyclassicalGreeceandRomeandtheRenaissance,forguidanceintheirownpersonalandnationalsituations.Hostiletomaterialism,theylookedforsomethinghigher,foremotionalandpsychologicalgratification,self-expression,creativity,and,insomecases,leadershipstatusinanewspiritualorintellectualelite.

Workingaloneorinsmallgroups,thesecessionistsofthelate'80sandearly'90sexaltedbeautyandaestheticcreativityasthesupremehumanvaluesand/orphilosophizedaboutethics,naturallaw,andtheabsolutemeaningofbeauty,goodness,andtruth.Bythemiddleandlate'90sthesepeoplehadfoundeachotherandwereworkingtogetherinsuchgroupsastheMoscowPsychologicalSociety(foundedin1885),theWorldofArtmovement(itsfirstissueappearedin1899),andTheReligious-PhilosophicalSocietyofSt.Petersburg(19011903),thelastofwhichwasespeciallyimportantinpopularizingasearchfora

Page4

newreligiousconsciousnessamongtheeducatedsocietyofSt.Petersburg.Between1900and1905symposia(i.e.,Problemyidealizma[ProblemsofIdealism],1903),miscellanies(Severnyetsvety[NorthernFlowers]),andjournals(Novyiput'[NewPath],Vesy[TheBalance],Voprosyzhizni[ProblemsofLife])werepublished,allcenteringonthenewspiritual-aesthetic-idealistictendenciesinartandthought.By1907,asaresultoftheRevolutionof1905,theseartistsandphilosophersweremovingintothemainstreamofRussianculturallife.DisillusionwiththeresultsoftheRevolutionof1905renderedpoliticalactivistsmorereceptivetoexistentialandphilosophicalquestionsas,after1907,economicgrowthopenednewcareerpossibilitiesforeducatedyouth.Anewmiddleclassdevelopedthatwasappreciativeofartandcultureandaffectedbyanewsensibilityandanewconsciousnessofself.Atthesametime,otherworldlysymbolistwritersacknowledgedtheneedtofeedthehungry,toshapepoliticalandsocialtrends,toendtheirwithdrawalfromsocietyandtrytoreachthepeople.Nowabletopublishinjournalsformerlyclosedtothem(Russkaiamysl'[RussianThought])andtheKadet(ConstitutionalDemocraticparty)newspaperRech(Speech),theyalsofoundednewjournalssuchasZolotoeruno(GoldenFleece)andentirelynewpublishingfirmssuchasMusaget.

Especiallyprominentinthetheater,symboliststriedtodevisenewmeansofreachingaudiencesthatwerestillilliterate.In1909,popularthinkersamongtheintelligentsiaandsomephilosophersissuedasymposiumVekhi(Landmarks)thatbecameacauseclbreofRussiansociety.1Accusingtheintelligentsiaoffosteringamystiqueofrevolution,ofneglectingconstructiveactivity,ethics,andlaw,theyineffectblamedtheintelligentsiafortheillsofRussiaandcalledforareturntoreligionandeternalvalues.Leadingradicalsfeltobligedtoissuecritiquesofit,andargumentsproandconsplittheeducatedworld.

Themovementforarevolutionofthespiritwasactuallyquiteheterogeneous.Unitedinoptingforspiritualityovermaterialism,artoverutility,religionoveratheism,andmysticismoverpositivism,artistsandphilosophersfocusedonpsychologicalratherthansociologicalfactors.TheydebatedissuessuchastherelevanceofChristianitytothepoliticalandsocialorder,sexandChristianity,philosophyandlaw,artandmeaning,individualandsociety,thefunctionofphilosophy,religionandrevolution,mysticismandreasoninChristianity,andMarxismasareligion,andtriedtodefineanewanddistinctlyRussiannationalconsciousness.Nonetheless,importantdifferencesexistedamongthem,

Page5

andtheyhadverydifferentattitudestowardmodernization.Arguingoverthesameproblems(intelligentsiaandpeople,Christianityinthemodernworld,personalandnationalintegration),andoccupiedinacommonsearchfornewvalues,theytended,particularlyafter1907,todivergesointheirapproachthattwogroupscrystallized.Thefirstgroupconsistedprimarilyofphilosophers:theformerMarxistsNikolaiBerdiaev,SergeiBulgakov,andPetrStruve,andtheliberalprofessoroflawPavelNovgorodtsev;thesecond,ofsymbolistwritersDmitriS.Merezhkovsky,AndreiBely,AleksandrBlok,ViacheslavIvanov,andthebiologicalmysticVasillyV.Rozanov.

Thefirstgroup,influencedbyneo-Kantianidealismandbytheoriesofnaturallaw,triedtobepractical.Acceptingeconomicgrowth,ifitbeguidedbywhattheyconsideredethicalnorms,theywereessentiallyreformersattemptingtodevelopaliberalpositionthatwouldsuitRussianconditions.Insistingontheimportanceoflawandethicsinachievinganorderlyandjusttransitiontomodernity,theyemphasizedself-disciplineandasenseofresponsibilityforone'sactions.Astimewenton,theybecamemoreandmoredeeplyChristian.ThesecondgroupwasinfluencedbyNietzsche,Ibsen,Wagner,Frenchsymbolists,andcontemporarymodernists.Incontrasttothefirst,theirprimaryconcernswereart,self-expression,andpersonalfreedom,especiallysexualfreedom;oncetheybecamepoliticized(after1905),theyexpoundedvariousschemesofanarchism.Expectinganapocalyptic(i.e.,revolutionary)solutiontoRussia'sproblems,theycametoviewWorldWarIandtherevolutionaryupheavalthatfollowedaspartoftheapocalypticprocessthatwouldusherinthenewheavenandthenewearthprophesiedintheBookofRevelation.Theycanbeviewedasexamplesofmysticismandirrationalisminpolitics.

Although,forpurposesofanalysis,itisconvenienttotreateachgroupseparately,itmustberememberedthatthesegroupshadnoformalstructure,thattherewasmovementbetweenthetwogroups,andthatdifferencesexistedwithineachgroupaswell.Bely,forexample,disapprovedofBlok'seroticpoetry;Berdiaevdevelopedaveritablemystiqueofthecreativeact;BelydefendedVekhiwhileMerezhkovskyattackedit;andIvanov,afounderofmysticalanarchismin1904,contributed,in1919,totheVekhigroup'sbittercritiqueofBolshevism,Izglubiny(FromtheDepths).

Beforetreatingeachgroupindetail,wemustturntothethinkerwho,morethananyotherindividual,canbeconsideredtheprecursorandtheprophetoftherevolutionofthespirit:VladimirS.Solovyov.

Page6

ThedynamismofSolovyov'sthoughtmakesitverydifficulttosummarizehisphilosophyorhislife.Solovyov'simpactonRussianthoughtwasmanifold.Someacceptedhisviews,andsomeusedthemasaspringboardfortheirownphilosophies.OfalltheRussianphilosophersoftheidealistorientation,Solovyovhasbeenthemoststudiedandthemostdiscussed.Interpretationsofhisworkandtheassessmentofhislifevary.Itwouldbepresumptuousofus,inthisbriefessay,toaimateithercompletenessororiginality.

OursketchofSolovyovislimitedtothoseaspectsofhislifeandthoughtthatcontributedtothedevelopmentoftheviewsrepresentedinthisanthology.PrimarilywemustcreditSolovyovwithhelpingtoreconcilepoliticalliberalismwithphilosophicalidealismandreligionwithpatriotisminRussia.Aboveall,heinspiredsomemembersoftheRussianintelligentsiatorealizethedangerofmaximalismandthelimitationsofpoliticalinvolvement.HehasgonedownintheannalsofRussianthoughtasaphilosopher,apoet,andaprophet.Hisoriginalityinthesethreeareas,underscoredbythedramaticeccentricityofhislifestyle,madehimandhisviewsalandmarkinthereorientationofRussianthoughtattheturnofthecentury.

SolovyovcouldbecomeaprophetbecausetheclimateofopinionintheChurch,amongcertainphilosophers,andamongthesociallyandpoliticallycommitted,waschanging.ReformerswithintheChurch,pseudo-Slavophileswhowerecriticalofitschauvinistbent,andphilosopherswhobeganchafingunderthelimitationsoftheoreticalpositivism,welcomedandencouragedSolovyov.ContrarytoBerdiaev'swidelyknownstatementthatphilosophywasmoribundinRussia,andtoSolovyov'sowncomplaintsabouthislonelystatus,interestinphilosophyandintheissuesraisedbySolovyovwasgrowinginRussiaattheendofthenineteenthcentury.

Historically,philosophyinRussiahadneverbeenapurelyacademicdiscipline,butwasalwaysdefinedinrealandpersonalterms.UnlikeitsWesterncounterpart,itdidnotdevelopfromtheologybutwasimportedfromtheWestduringthevariousstagesofmodernization.Norwasthestudyofphilosophylimitedtoacademia;non-academicthinkerswerebothmoreoriginalandmoreinfluentialthanuniversityscholars.Becauseofitsconnectionwithmodernization,thegovernmentdistrustedphilosophyintheRussianEmpire,somuchsothatthedisciplinewasbannedfromthecurriculumbetween1826and1863,anduntil1889couldbetaughtonlythroughcommentariesonselected

Page7

textsofPlatoandAristotle.Thiswasenoughtoensureinterestinphilosophyanditscontinuedpopularityamongtheeducated.

Inthe1830sand'40s,theyformedphilosophiccirclestostudytheideas,first,ofSchellingand,then,ofHegel,andeventriedtolivebytheseideas.Hegel'sphilosophyoftheAbsoluteprovedtobeparticularlyattractivetotheRussianintelligentsia.ForatimeconservativeinterpretationsofHegel(allthatisrealisrational)fosteredareconciliationwithreality,anacceptanceofthestatusquo,inthehopeoffutureprogress.Inthe1840s,however,leftHegelianssuchasMikhailBakuninandAleksandrHerzen,stressingthedialecticalaspectsofHegel'sschema(antithesisratherthanthesis),consideredHegelianismthealgebraofrevolution.Thisinturnledtothephilosophicalmaterialism,positivism,andout-of-handrejectionofmetaphysicsthatcharacterizedtheradicalsofthe1860sandtheirsuccessors,includingtheMarxists.Thisostensiblyrationalstancewascombinedwithaquasi-religiousmaximalismandasenseofurgencythatbecamethehallmarksoftheRussianintelligentsia.

ThisisnottheplacetodiscusstheturbulentroleoftheuniversityanditsstudentsinthedevelopmentofpublicopinionintheRussianEmpire,butitisimportanttoemphasizethatRussianuniversitieswerenotivorytowers.Politicalconsiderationsofteninfluencedastudent'schoiceofcourses.Studyofthenaturalsciences,forexample,couldsignalastudent'spreferenceforascientific/materialisticratherthanChristianworldview,whileenrollmentinchemistrycoursescouldbemotivatedbyadesiretolearnhowtomakebombs!Therewerecasesofexpelledstudentsbeingpermittedtore-enrollonconditionthattheychangetheirmajorsfrompoliticallysuspectcourses,e.g.,chemistry,tolaw.

Whenphilosophywasreintroducedintotheacademiccurriculumin1889,itlostitsovertpoliticalcoloration.Butinterestinphilosophicalissueswhetheraspoliticalideologyorasasearchfortheexistentialmeaningoflifedeepenedwitheachsucceedingdisappointmentineitherreformorrevolution.Russiahadahighlydevelopedtraditionofpublicdebateandjournalisticdiscussion.Theinterestgeneratedbydiscussionsintheuniversitieswasoftengenuinelypublic.Thus,whenyoungSolovyovdeliveredapublicdefenseofhismaster'sthesis,subtitledAgainstthePositivists,inthe1870s,theinterestinitwentbeyondtheconfinesofacademia.

Solovyov,thesonofaprominentRussianhistorian,grewupamidstagroupoffamilieswhohadbeenabletoreconcileRussia'spastwitha

Page8

genuineknowledgeofEurope.HisupbringingwasquiteVictorian,andhisrebellionagainstthevaluesofhischildhoodwaspredictableandnotinteresting.LikemanyeducatedRussians,hemadethesuddenchangefromtheobligatorycatechismofPhilarettotheequallyobligatoryoneofBchner.2Likeagoodintelligent,hesignedupforthefacultyofnaturalscienceintheUniversityofMoscow.Butunlikethecontemporaryintelligentsia,Solovyovcouldnotfindsatisfactoryanswerstohisexistentialquestionsandwasplungedintosuchmorbiddespairthatyearslateritstillhurttoremembertheabysmalhopelesscondition,thatabsoluteinternalvoid,thedarkness,deathinlifewhenreasonitselfrationallyproveditsincompetence.3ItwasthiscrisisofyouththatledSolovyovtothestudyofphilosophy,bothonhisownandwiththehelpoffacultyandolderfriendsinMoscow.4Asfaraspossible,Solovyovresolvedthecrisisofyouthbyacceptingman'slimitationsinlearningandbyconcludingthatthehigher,thetrue,goalinlife,forwhichlearningservedasoneoftheavailablemeans,ismoralorreligious.5Withadeterminationthathesharedwiththemostcommittedintelligent,Solovyovsetouttostudyphilosophy,religion,literature,andspiritualism.Althoughhehimselfhadmysticalexperiences,Solovyov,unlikethenextgenerationofRussianpoetsandwriters,wasnevercomfortableinpublicdiscussionsofthesephenomena.6

Neitherphilosophy,whichbecamehisprofession,norreligion,withwhichheagainbecamereconciled,providedSolovyovwithafullycrediblejustificationoflife.Althoughtheintelligentsiapresumedthatonlythosewhosharedtheirmaterialisticpresuppositionscouldhavethepublicgoodastheirgoal,andthatscholarlyactivitywastantamounttodesertionofthecommonpeople,that,ofcourse,wasnotthecase.Solovyov,forallhismysticalandmetaphysicalterminology,wasinterestednotsomuchindescriptionasinablueprintforchange.Thetimehascomenottorunawayfromtheworld,buttochangeit,hewrotetothewomanheloved,unconsciouslyrecapitulatingMarx'swell-knowndictumonthetaskofthephilosopherstochangetheworld.7Hespentmostofhisadultlifetryingtodevelopanall-encompassingphilosophythatwoulddetermineandjustifythefuturecourseofhumanityandfulfillitscosmicpurpose.

Solovyov'smajorwork,whichremainsunfinished,wasdirectedatjustifyingthefaithofourfathers.8InallhisworkSolovyovalertedhisaudiencetothenon-rationalneedsofman,whichheconsideredessentialandwhichhetendedtocallreligious,andtotherational-materialdemandsofprogressivepoliticalandsocialideologies.Histerminology

Page9

waseffectiveamongtheRussiansbecauseitwasfamiliar.Itjustifiedthereturntotradition,totherootsthataresoessentialinachangingsociety.

Inhisfirstphilosophicalworks,SolovyovtriedtoformulatevagueSlavophiletrendsasclearscientificstructures.Beginningwithhisunder-graduatethesisMythologicalProcessinAncientPaganism(firstpublishedinPravoslavnoeobozrenie[TheOrthodoxReview]in1873),throughhismaster'sthesis,TheCrisisinWesternPhilosophy:AgainstthePositivists(publishedin1874),andtheunfinishedPhilosophicalFoundationsofIntegralKnowledge(publishedin1878),hesystematizedtheSlavophiletheoryofcognition,whichheldthatweknowbecauseweshareintheactualsubstanceoftherealworld.ThereisnoKantiandichotomy,forallisallinthediversityofeach.Weknowinequalmeasurethroughreason,throughempiricalevidence,andthroughintuition(faithorperceptionofextrasensoryreality).LiketheSlavophiles,SolovyovbelievedthatWesternEuropeplacedtoomuchemphasisonreasonandthusomittedothersourcesofknowledge,andslightedtheemotionalandspiritualaspectsofthehumanexperience.HecriticizedtheRussianintelligentsiaashavingshallowlyassimilatedallthatwasone-sidedinEurope,callingthemaclassofemptyheadswithpretensionstointellectualstatus,whiletheymechanicallyonlyrepeatallthecurrentphrases.OnSunday,November24,1874,duringthepublicdefenseofhismaster'sessay,attheUniversityofSt.Petersburg,hechallengedtheviewoftheclasstowhichIhavethemisfortunetobelong,whichinsteadofmanifestingtheimageandlikenessofGodcontinuestosportthatoftheape.9

Thedefensewasasocialandpoliticalevent.Thetwenty-one-year-oldSolovyovbecameacelebrityovernight.Thepressdebatedthedefenseforweeks,butastheliterarycriticandpublicistNikolaiStrakhovnotedruefullyinGrazhdanin(TheCitizen):Thedisputewasastrugglebetweentwopartiesthedefendersofpositivism,whoopposedthecandidate,andtheopponentsofpositivismwhosupportedhim.LittlewassaidoftheideasofSolovyov.10Thesignificanceoftheeventwasthatanattackhadbeenmadeonthepositionsoftheintelligentsiabyonewhoconsideredhimselfamemberofit.AlthoughSolovyov'ssubsequenttriptoWesternEuropereinforcedhisdisillusionmentandledhimtoseekthetruthinpatristicandAlexandriantheology,thesestudiesledhimtoseethelimitationsofSlavophilism,itsexclusiveness,itschauvinism,itsrigidity.YetheneverceasedhiscriticismofpositivismandoftheintellectuallimitationsoftheintelligentsiainRussiafromthepositionofaninsider.Hisstudies,travels,

Page10

andvisionsstrengthenedhisresolvetoreconcileChristianitywithmodernphilosophy.

Hislifereflectedhisstrivings.Heneglectedappearances,dressedwithcompletedisregardforconvention,andwasavegetariangiventoperiodicgourmetfeastslesthisvegetarianismbecomeanasceticfetish.Heseriouslyconsideredmarriagethreetimes.Although,accordingtohisfriendEvgenyTrubetskoi,helivedmostofhislifeinastateoferoticexaltation,hewithdrewfromeachprospectiverelationshipatthelastminute.11Solovyov'sreasonsforrejectingmarriageandasettledlifeweremostclearlygiventohisfirstlove:

Iamgivingyouadirectanswer:IloveyouasmuchasIcanlove.ButIdonotbelongtomyself;IbelongonlytothetaskwhichIshallserveandwhichhasnothingincommonwithpersonalfeelingorwiththeaimsofprivatelife.Icannotgivemyselftoyouentirely.Myvocationbecomesmoredefinite,moreinsistentdaily.12

SolovyovtaughtattheUniversityinSt.PetersburgandworkedattheMinistryofEducation.ButwhenhedecidedtopresenthisbuddingphilosophicalviewsontheChristianidealofthefreeunityofthewholeofhumanityandonGodmanhooditscentralconceptionhechoseaseriesofpubliclecturesinordertoreachaninfluentialaudienceoutsideacademia.Dostoevsky'sdeaththatyearprovidedtheimpetus.

Solovyovviewedtheuniverseasanorganicwhole,ofpotentiallythesamesubstanceasGod.Theself-realizationofeachperson,freelyexpressed,resultedintheactualizationofthewhole,whichwouldinevitablybecomeperfectforitwassuchinessence.ThefirstdraftsofSolovyov'splanenvisagedRussia,itsgovernment,anditsChurchasthreemanifestationsofGod'sgranddesign.ThiswasbynomeanstantamounttotheacceptanceofthestatusquoinRussia;onthecontrary,itmeantchangeinconformitywithhisideals.

SolovyovconsideredthetsarprimarilyaChristianmonarchwhowasthefirsthopeforestablishingGod'sgranddesign.WhenAlexanderIIwasassassinated,SolovyovpleadedforChristianpardonfortheassassins,againinapubliclecture.BothAlexanderIIIandtheintelligentsiamisconstruedhisargumentandreadleftistsympathiesintoit.Inanexplanatorylettertothenewtsar,Solovyovarguedthathislecturehadbeenmisinterpreted,thatwhathehadsaidwasintendednottocondonetheterrorismbuttoannouncethatthehorribledeedprovidedtheRussianmonarchwithanunprecedentedopportunitytoproclaimtheforceoftheChristianvirtueofforgivenessandtoshowbythatactthedivinemeaningofthetsar'spower.13

Page11

ThetsarfailedtograsptheintricaciesofSolovyov'stheocraticphilosophy,andSolovyovwasforbiddentolectureinpublic.SolovyovalsoresignedfromhispositionintheMinistryofEducation.AlthoughSolovyovwaslatermadeanumberofteachingoffers,accordingtoTrubetskoi,heturnedthemdown,preferringtoliveasaphilosophicalfreelance,supplementinghismeagerfundswithoddwritingjobs,suchaseditingthephilosophicalsectionoftheBrockhaus-EfronEncyclopedia,andbydoingtranslations.SeveralfactorsledtoSolovyov'sidentificationwiththeliberalcauseandactiveparticipationintheliberaljournalVestnikEvropy(MessengerofEurope).Difficultieswithcensorship,hispro-Catholicviews,andhisbreakwiththeSlavophileswereforemostamongthem.

SolovyovbrokewiththeSlavophilesbecausehefoundtheirpoliticsinconsistentwiththeirphilosophy.UnliketheintelligentsiacriticsoftheSlavophiles,whoquestionedthevalidityoftheirphilosophicalpre-suppositions,SolovyovheldontocertainbasictenetsofSlavophilism,andespeciallytoreligiousOrthodoxy,accusingtheSlavophilesofcompromisingtheseviewsbytheirintolerantexclusiveness.Solovyovhadalwayspointedouttheinterdependenceoftheindividualandthewhole,providedneitherwassuppressed.But,heargued,thestateandtheChurchinRussianotonlyfailedtoliveuptotheirexaltedcallingofprovidingmeansforthebettermentoftheindividualbutbecameinstrumentsofoppression.TheofficialOrthodoxChurchparticularlyinRussiacouldnotbeaspokesmanforuniversalmoralvaluebecause,asSolovyovsetouttodemonstrateinaseriesofscathingarticles,itbecameasimpleadjunctoftheRussianstate.14

TheRussianpeopleremainedthevehicleoftheideaofGod'sgranddesignthroughthecenturies.AlthoughSolovyovdefendednationalism,hewascarefultodifferentiatebetweenpatriotismandchauvinistnationalism,anditwasatthispointthathehadtobreakwiththeSlavophiles.Russia'smission,afterall,wastopointthewaytothepracticalrealizationofChrist'sdemandsfortheentireworld.TheSlavophileslosttheiroriginalpurpose,strengthenedchauvinism,justifiedRussification,andcontributedtotheclimateofanti-Semitism.Notonlydidtheycompromisetheirundefinedideal;theycouldnotbethespokesmenforhumanity.15

SolovyovattackedtheSlavophilesfromtheirownpositions;hencehiscriticismwasinstrumentalinmakingliberalismacceptabletomoderateandtraditional-mindedRussians.HisquarrelswiththeChurchandwiththeSlavophilesspilledoverintopolitics.Evenhisreligious

Page12

activityhadpoliticalovertones.Solovyovworkedatunitingthechurchesasthefirststeptowardunitingmankind.HispleasforunderstandingtheWestandhiscontactswiththepapacybroughtchargesofanti-Russianactivity,andmadehimpersonallyawareoftheimportanceoffreedomandliberalism.Bydivorcingreligionfromconservatism,hemadereligionandmetaphysicsintellectuallyrespectablefortheRussianintelligentsia.

TheidealoftotalintegrationforwhichSolovyovworkedwasbasedonthemoralregenerationofmankind.Hearguedthatmodernmalaise,loneliness,aggression,evenpovertycouldbeovercomeonlywhentheimplicationsoftheIncarnationofGodbecomingmanwerefullyrealized.Fornotonlywasmangood,hecouldbecomeperfectinhisabilitytochoosethegoodvoluntarily.Theproperchoicecouldbeencouragedbyorganizinghumanityintoadivinelyfoundedchurchthatwouldbeacontinuouslydevelopingorganismcomposedofmorallycommittedactivists.SolovyovwantedtodevelophisidealandhisplanofactioninTheHistoryandtheFutureofTheocracy:AStudyintheUniversalHistoricalPathtoTrueLife.Oftheoriginalthree-volumestudy,onlythefirstvolume,devotedtothehistoryoftheocracyinancienttimes,waswritten.Itwaspublished,inpartinPravoslavnoeobozrenie(TheOrthodoxReview),andthen,in1885,asaseparatebook,inRussianintheSouthernSlavpartoftheAustro-Hungarianmonarchy.Becauseofcensorshiprestrictions,lackoffunds,andthediminishingenthusiasmoftheauthor,theideasthatweretoformthebasisofthesubsequentvolumeswerepresentedbrieflyintwobooksfirstpublishedinParisinFrenchandlatertranslatedintoRussian:TheRussianIdea(L'Iderusse)in1888andRussiaandtheUniversalChurch(LaRussieetl'gliseuniverselle)in1889.ThedetailsofSolovyov'splansandhisfutileattemptstoputsomeofthemintoactioncannotbediscussedhere.ButtheintendedpracticalityofhisthinkingfoundaresponsivechordamongbothRussianphilosophersandtheRussianintelligentsia,evenafterSolovyovhimselfhadbecomedisenchantedwithhistheocraticplans.

Afterthedisastrousfamineof1891,whichhe,alongwithmostoftheRussianmoderates,triedtoalleviate,onlytobefrustratedbythegovernment,SolovyovpinnedhishopesforrationalreforminRussiaonthemoderateintelligentsia.Hefearedarevolutionofthemassesbecauseheconsideredthem,unliketheindividualwhocouldperfecthimself,incapableofdistinguishingbetweengoodandevil.Solovyovtriedtoprovidetheintelligentsiawithajustificationfortheirpoliticalinvolvement,whileavoidingpoliticalradicalism.

Page13

Thetaskoftheeducatedtowardthepeopleconsistsinbringingthemrealandeffectivebenefit,notinworryingabouttheirlackofvotingrightsorintryingtopreservetheirunspoiledsimplicity.Weshouldtrytomakethembettereducatedandhappier.Forthisreasonwemuststrivetowardthebroaddisseminationofgeneralhumanisticknowledge,withoutwhichthebestqualitiesofthenationalspiritwouldbeunproductive.Wemustsystematicallydefendthisviewfromtheobscurantismpressinguponitfrom[thereactionariesandtherevolutionaries].16

Hecriticizedthegovernmentinnouncertaintermsbutdidnotsparetheintelligentsia.HisaccusationsagainstthemwereasstrongasthosethatwouldlaterbeleveledbytheVekhigroup:

IconsideritmyrightandmydutytosayonceagaintotheRussianeducatedpublic:Repentnow,forsoonitwillbetoolate.YourejectedChristianityandinsteadofhealingtheillswhichrendhumanityasunder,youaddednewones.YoudidnothingtoeducatethepeopleintheChristianfaithortoensuretheirdailybread.Yourfirstdutyistorepent;yoursecondistodemonstrateyourrepentancebyorganizingforthegood,asyouhavesocapablyorganizedforharmfulordubiouscauses.17

Solovyovdifferedfromtheintelligentsiainhisacceptanceofphilosophicalidealism,hisrealizationoftheneedfororganizedstatepowerandofthepossibilityofajustwar,hisstressuponthecityasaculturalforce,andhisunwillingnesstoseedemocracyasapanacea.HewasalsomorecriticalofRussia'sexpansionismanditspoliciesofRussificationthanmanyofthem.Aphilo-Semite,hespokeoutagainstpogromsandagainstRussia'spersecutionofitsJewishminority.Hefoundthepoliticalpreoccupationoftheintelligentsiaquestionableandtheirmaximalismabhorrent.Buthisexperienceswithorganizedpower(Church,state,andpublicopinion)werebitterenoughtomakehimawareoftherightsoftheindividualandtodefendthem.Hespokeofeveryman'sbeingamoralautocrat18and,thus,forallhiscriticismoftheintelligentsiasharedtheirviewsofbasichumanrights.HisobsessionwiththeYellowPerilanditsthreatforRussiahearguedthatChinashouldbedismemberedbeforeitbecamemodernizedandthreatenedallEuropemadehispleastotheintelligentsiamoreinsistentandhiscooperationwiththemmoreopen.

Solovyovremainedsteadfastinhisattemptstoexpoundonthemeaningoflife.In1897hepublishedTheJustificationoftheGood,whichhededicatedtotheliberaljuristBorisChicherin,whohadatonetimecriticizedhim.19Thebookbecamerequiredreadingamongtheyoungwhowerebecomingdisillusionedwithsimplisticpositivism.InthisnewbookSolovyovtriedtopresentasystemthatwouldpermitmodern

Page14

mantoexperienceGod.Hestressedtheinevitabilityofmoralchoice:amoralitywaspossibleonlyforanimals.Onlymanhadthefreedomtobegoodortobeimmoral.Theconsciousnessofgoodandevilwasinherentinmankindandnotdependentonreligiousupbringing,Solovyovmaintained.Progresswasbasedonmoralfreedom,whichcouldbegainedonlybylaboriousandslowexperience.Solovyovconsideredthatthemajormalaiseoftheeducated,thealienationoftheindividualfromsociety,wastheresultofthefaultyperceptionoftheeducated,notthereflectionofreality.Hetriedtoprovethatthesocialorganizationofmankindwasanextensionofitsphysicalmakeupandthateventuallyhumanitywouldbeabletotranscendhumanityitself.Furthermore,heargued,ourconsciousnesswasdependentnotonlyuponourpresentsociety,whichconditionedus,butalsouponourancestorswhocontinue,inasense,toliveinus.Deathoftheancestorswhoboreus,Solovyovmaintained,makesmanashamedofsex.

Inaseparatework,TheMeaningofLove,Solovyovexpoundedonhissexualideal,androgyny.Sincehedidnotexpectittobeachieved,hearguedforarecognitionandacceptanceofhumansexuality.Hisviewsontheexpressionsofit,however,weresomewhatambiguousandhaveledtovaryinginterpretations.Somemaintainthathearguedforconventionalmoralityinunconventionalterms:thesublimationofsexualityintomorallyproductiveactivity,itsusetotransformtheloveobjectintoaforetasteofthetransformedworld,andtheuseoflove/agapetoexperienceGod.Theystresshisattackonthesymbolists(whowereinfluencedbyhisphilosophyandhispoetry,andwhomheconsideredlibertinesbecauseoftheirprofessedamoralism)inwhichheadvocatedakindofsublimation,thecontrolofsexualitytoharnessforcesnecessarytoestablishasocietythatcoulddestroyevil.Othersstresshisstatementsonsexasameansofovercomingtheisolationoftheindividualego,andmaintainthatSolovyovconsideredsexualpleasureagoodinitself.

Solovyovdefendedlawandconsidereditanagentthatmediatedbetweengeneralwelfareandindividualfreedom.Hedefendedsocialism,theinterventionofthestateineconomicmatters,buthecondemnedeconomicmaterialismasbeingphilosophicallyindefensibleandmorallyevil.Forallhismodernterminology,hisidealorganizationofthestateremainedthemedievalChristianone:controloftheeconomicenterpriseforthegeneralgood,limitationofpropertyandtrade,andtheobligationofalltosocialserviceforthecommongood.

ThepracticalresultsofSolovyov'sphilosophicalandreligiousmean-

Page15

deringsweretwofold:thedefenseofpoliticalliberalismandthedefenseofintellectualautonomy.Bytheendofthecenturybothpositionshadarticulateandorganizedsupporterswhowerelesseccentric,evenifalsolessbrilliant,thanSolovyov,andwhowerethereforemoresuitedtothetaskhehadsetforhimself.TheyhadnoneedforwhatNovgorodtsevcalledthekingdomofEdenonthisearth.TheycouldeasethetraumaofthefinalcrisisinSolovyov'sthought:therealizationthattheexistentialproblemofmancannotberesolved,thevulnerabilityoftheindividualbeforethegreatvoid,andthefailureofall-encompassingrationalsolutions.ThefactthathisclosefriendsexperiencedthehumanconditioninasimilarfashionmadethelastyearsofSolovyov'slifeeasier;italsoledhimtoanewinterpretationofChristianity,whichwasaptlyappropriatedbyLevShestov.

Shestov,oneoftheveryfewmajorRussianphilosophersnotunderSolovyov'sinfluence,maintainedthatSolovyov,inhislastdays,questionedonlyastructuredtheocracy,notthevalueofreasonitself:InthelastdaysofhislifeSolovyovrejectedintellectualtruthandintellectualgood,forhefeltthatitisnotbythinkingbutwiththunderthatoneacquireseternalandfinaltruth.therecanbenodoubt:onlyhewhodoesnotknowwhereheisgoingreachesthePromisedland.20Othersargue,however,thatSolovyovrealizedthatanall-encompassingphilosophythatwouldsolvetheproblemofmankindonceforallwasimpossiblebutthatreasoncouldstillguidehumanity.TrubetskoireferredtothefinalperiodofSolovyov'sthoughtasthecollapseoftheocracyinSolovyov,nottheabandoningofrationality.21

TheworkthatlendsitselftosuchaninterpretationisSolovyov'sconsciouslyambiguousTrirazgovora(ThreeConversations).Althoughwrittenin1899,ithadbeenmaturinginhimforanumberofyears,onboththepoliticalandthepsychologicallevels.Politically,SolovyovbecamedisillusionedwithRussiaitself,thefinalhopeforhistheocracy.Psychologically,hebecameobsessedwiththerealityofevil,whichhecouldnolongerviewastheabsenceofgood.Devilsappearedtohim,andtheconsciousnessoftheendpursuedhim.

Hebecameconvincedthathedidnothavetimetowriteaseriousphilosophicalworkexplaininghischangedviews.Inanyevent,hewantedtofindamediumthatwouldnotonlybeintelligibletoalargepartoftheeducatedpublic,butjoltthemintochangingtheirviews.HethusdecidedonaseriesofconversationssetinaSouthEuropeanresort;thispermittedhimnotonlytobringintoplaycontradictoryviews,butalsotocallattentiontomattersthathecouldnotexplain,

Page16

suchashisconvictionthatpollutionwasasignoftheimminentendoftheworld.CriticismbyfriendsledSolovyovtoadd,inmonologueform,thestoryoftheAntichrist,whichfurtherexpoundedhisposition.Theprotagonistswereaworldly-wisesocietywoman,amiddle-agedpolitician,asimple-mindedbutwell-meaningcountwhosupportedLevTolstoi,andamysteriousZ,whoactedasSolovyov'sspokesman.

Initseschatologicalformandcontent,thisisaworkaboutTheEnd,anditsargumentisdirectedagainsttheTolstoianpositionthatmanisgoodbuttheexistenceofGodcanbeneitherprovednoraccepted.NotonlydidtheinconsistencyofthisthesispromptSolovyovtolosehistemperwiththewell-meaningcount,butSolovyovwasafraidoftheimplicationsofahumanismthatexcludedreligion.HisAntichrist,anuncannyprototypeofthecharismatictotalitarianleader,hadthewelfareofhumanity,asheconceivedit,atheart.TheAntichrist,afterhehaddefeatedallhisenemies,instituteduniversalpeace,introducedextensivesociallegislation,unitedthechurches,andusedtechnologyandextrasensoryperceptionforhisownpurposes.Hiswisdomandstrength,withthejudicioususeofforce,destroyeddivisionswithinsocietyandwithintheindividual.ItwastheTolstoiannon-resistancetoevil,theuncompromisingstandagainstallwar,thatpreparedthewayfortheAntichrist.Theshallowandboringpolitician,withhisstandardviewsonprogressandtheneedfortheEuropeanizationoftheworld,thelikesofwhomSolovyovhadcriticized,nowbecameforhimthedefenderofthevalidfunctionsofthestate,ofculture,andofhistoricism.

Thesocialandpoliticalgoodthatemergedfromthisworkwasarelativeone,limitedtoman'snecessarilycircumscribedexistenceintheworld.Manremainedman;hewasnotpotentiallyagod.Incontrast,hoperadiatedfromSolovyov'sreligiousworks,suchasTheSevenEasterLettersandtheSecretofProgress.TheseweremoderninterpretationsofChristiandoctrineandoldRussianfolktalesthatjustifiedanactiveandboundlessfaithintheindividualbecauseChristisrisen.22

AnimportantroleinthesearchfornewvaluesamongtheRussianintelligentsiawasperformedbyagroupofprofessionalphilosophersclusteredaroundtheMoscowPsychologicalSociety,Russia'sfirstlastingformalpsychologicalandphilosophicalassociation.Manyofthephilosophershadsufferedadevastatinglossofreligiousfaithfollowedbydisillusionmentinpositivistphilosophicalsystems.Thiscommonexperiencepredisposedthemtounderstandandworkwellwithone

Page17

another,andtheirorganization,publications,andactivitiesstrengthenedthegropingtowardchangeamongtheintelligentsia.Amongthemostsignificantpublications,markingthestagesoftheoreticaldevelopmentoftheintellectualeliteinRussia,wereVoprosyfilosofiiipsikhologii(ProblemsofPhilosophyandPsychology),Problemyidealizma,andVekhi.ThesewerereinforcedbythejournalsNovyput',Voprosyzhizni,andothers,aswellasbythepublicationsofPut'.

MostinstrumentalinorganizingtheRussianphilosopherswasNikolaiIakovlevichGrot,23whofoundedandfortenyearseditedVoprosyfilosofiiipsikhologii(VFP),Russia'sfirstsustainedphilosophicalperiodical.Drawinguponabroadsegmentofintellectuals,heincreasedthemembershipoftheSocietyfromtheoriginalfifteenin1885tomorethanonethousandbytheendofthecentury.BoththeSocietyandthejournalpopularizedacriticalapproachtometaphysics,andservedastemporaryhavensfortheintelligentsianowbecomingdisillusionedwithpositivismandmaterialism.ThejournalbroughttogethertheintellectualsandtheintelligentsiaofRussia,andattimesevenservedasaforumfordiscussionsbetweenflamboyantliteratiandstaidacademics.Itprovidedaforumfornon-politicalwritingwhich,ironically,asaresultofthedifficultiesitencounteredwithcensorship,furtheredthepoliticalcommitmentoftheacademics.Inanattempttobreakoutofthetraditionofthelike-mindedcirclesoftheRussianintelligentsia,GrotpersonallyencouragedpeoplewithvaryingworldviewstojointheSociety.Inanotherinnovativemove,GrotavoidedhavingtheSocietyappearoppositionaltothegovernment;wheneverheencountereddifficultieswithcensorship,heusedhisfamilyconnectionswithhighlyplacedofficialsinSt.Petersburg,whomhemetthroughhisfather,atutortoRussianroyalty,andanunclewhoheldhighadministrativeposts,toironoutthedisagreement.ThismaneuverpermittedagreatfreedomofexpressionintheSociety-sponsoreddiscussions,providedopenlypoliticalmatterswerenotadvertised.ThoughtheSocietywasaffiliatedwithMoscowUniversity,whereGrotwasonthefaculty,itsmembershipwasnotlimitedtoacademics,anditsopenmeetingsbecamefashionableamongMoscow'selite.

Grot'snotionofphilosophywasreflectedinhisideasonthefunctionoftheSociety;hesawbothasfactorsinRussia'senlightenment.AcolleaguecharacterizedGrot'sactivityasphilosophicalproselytism.24Thejournal,whichGrothadbegunplanningasearlyas1886,would,heconfidedtofamilyandfriends,disseminateinterestinphilosophyandtherebyhelpshiftthethrustoftheideologicalpresuppositionsof

Page18

theintelligentsia.Thecontemporaryoppositionalintelligentsia,aswellaslatercritics,accusedhimofengaginginidealistpoliticsandofabettingreaction.25Grotsawtheissueinadifferentlight.

Themosturgentandmostpressingtaskofcontemporaryhumanityistoestablish,onthebasisofthephilosophicalcriticismofscientificdataandwiththehelpofcreativementalworkbaseduponlogic,adoctrineaboutlifethatwillinturngivenmanpurerandclearerbasesforhismoralactivitythanthosecurrentlyavailable.ThisisparticularlyimportantfortheRussianswhohavenotyetlivedtheirownlifeinphilosophy.Forthispublicreason,wehaveembarkeduponthepublicationofaseparateRussianjournaldealingwiththeproblemsofphilosophyandpsychology.Ourtaskisnewandmostdifficult.26

Thisargumentgavehimacommonlanguagewiththeintelligentsia.Ashemaintained,defendingthejournalinthepopularorganoftheliberals,Russkaiamysl',modernphilosophy,usingpsychologyandhistory,shouldprovidethemeansoffindingthehealthy,individualexperienceoflifethatmodernmanhaslost.27

Thejournal,financedinlargemeasurebytheAbrikosovs,awealthymerchantfamily,wasopentoallcontributors.Grotattractedabroadrangefromthegrandoldmanofmoderateintellectualliberalism,BorisN.Chicherin,tothestormypetrelsofintellectualMarxismPetrB.Struve,SergeiN.Bulgakov,andNikolaiA.Berdiaev;fromtheidealistSolovyovtothepositivistMiliukov;fromthepsychologistA.A.Tokarsky,withhisexperimentallaboratory,toV.F.Chyzh,withhispsychologicalanalysesoftheculturecrisis.ThetopicsinthejournalrangedfromtheKabbalatocriminalanthropology,andin1890therewasevenanattemptatpsychoanalyzingthepoetLermontov.

TheSocietydidnotlimititselftothejournalintryingtoreachouttotheintelligentsia.In1894acommissionwasformedtodeviseprogramsforthehomestudyofphilosophy.Ateacher-traininginstituterequestedthattheSocietypublishworksonpedagogicalpsychology.Therewassometalkofestablishingastudentaffiliate,butwiththeturbulentconditionsintheuniversities,thisventurewasnotrealized.

Yetbeyondattemptstoinfluencetheviewsoftheintelligentsia,neitherGrotnorhisconfrereshadanypoliticalambitionsassuch.Theirinterestandinvolvementinpoliticsdevelopedoutoftheirviewsonthefunctionofphilosophyandweretranslatedintopublicinvolvementundertheirritatingbutnotconsistentlystiflingmeasuresofthegovernment.

Thefamineof1891broughthometotheintellectualsthedegreeofpovertyamongtheRussianmasses.Someofthephilosophersfollowed

Page19

othereducatedRussiansintryingtoalleviatethehungerinthecountrysidebyworkinginreliefcommittees.ThoughGrotpreparedaspecialissueoftheVFPwitharticlesbyRussia'sleadingmoralists,TolstoiandSolovyov,andhimselfwroteanarticleontherelationshipofthefaminetoethics,thecensorsobjected,forthediscussionofthefaminewasconsideredapoliticalaction.

AttimesthejournalandtheSocietyranintodifficultieswiththeChurch.TheRussianOrthodoxChurch,whichwasunderthedirectcontroloftheRussiangovernment,hadinthelatterpartofthenineteenthcenturybeguntocastoffitsgarbofobscurantism.Buttheprocesswasaslowone,andtheestablishedChurchhierarchyfeltitselfandtheOrthodoxyoftheEmpirethreatenedwhenthephilosophersexpressedaninterestinreligiousmatters.ThuswhenRev.AntoniiKhrapovitsky(laterthebishopofVolynintheUkraine)discoveredthatTolstoihadbeenmadeamemberoftheSociety,heresignedinprotest.WhenSergeiTrubetskoi,professorofphilosophyatMoscowUniversity,publishedhisMetaphysicsinAncientGreece(1890),astudyoftheclassicalantecedentsofChristianity,hewasviciouslyattackedbyinfluentialclericswhoobjectedtoanylinkingofChristianitywithpaganphilosophy.In1891SolovyovdeliveredapubliclectureundertheaegisoftheSocietyinwhichhearguedthattheMiddleAgesdonotofferagenuineexampleofaChristiansociety,thatreligiouslytheexperienceoftheMiddleAgeshadbeenafalseone.28Thegovernmentchosetointerpretthelectureasanattackonorganizedreligion.TheclosingoftheSocietywasavertedonlybytheinterventionofPavelKapnist,atrusteeofMoscowUniversityandarelativeoftheTrubetskois'.TheconservativeMoskovskievedomosti(MoscowNews)attackedtheSocietyforharboringhereticsandrevolutionaries.TheattacksubsidedonlywhenGrotprevaileduponhiscolleaguestorefrainfromengaginginpublicpolemics.

ThefollowingNovember(1892),theeditorsofVFPriskedthepublicationofalengthyarticleonFriedrichNietzsche:TheCriticismoftheMoralityofAltruism.TheyprefaceditwithawarningaboutthestrictanddeservedpunishmentoftheatheistwhoimaginedhimselfGod,butmaintainedthatthestudyofNietzschewasnecessarytoillustratethatstrangeandsickphenomenonthatgrowsoutofthewell-knowndirectioninWesternEuropeanculture.29V.P.Preobrazhensky,theauthorofthefirstarticleintheseries,hadnosuchqualms.HewasattractedtoNietzschebytheboldnessandaestheticbeautyofhisphilosophy.HetriedtobringNietzscheclosertotheRussiansbypointing

Page20

outthatHerzenhadbeeninterestedinproblemssimilartothosetroublingNietzsche.P.E.Astafiev,whoalsoworkedasacensor,dismissedNietzscheasadecadent.LevN.Lopatin,disturbedasmuchbyNietzsche'sstyleasbyhisideas,triedtodemonstrateweaknessesinhisthought.Grot,awarethattheOrthodoxChurchhadbeentoyingwiththeideaofexcommunicatingTolstoiforheresysinceatleast1888,artfullyportrayedhimasthedefenderoftraditionalChristianvalues,vis--visNietzsche,whomhedepictedasarepresentativeofpaganculture.

TheNietzschediscussionboostedthecirculationofthejournaltoitshighestlevelmorethan2,000copiesweresoldandboreoutGrot'scontentionthattherewasaninterestinethics.Diversifyingthejournalfurther,heopenedituptopracticalphilosophers,suchasTolstoi,whopublishedanarticleonfreewillwithinpredeterminedalternatives,andtoaself-mademagnatewhodiscussedhissimpleviewsonreligion.30GrotencouragedMiliukovtousetheSocietytocriticizetheSlavophiles,andattractedthethenKiev-basedMarxistsBerdiaevandBulgakovtopublishintheVFP.LaterheinvitedthewriterMerezhkovskytousetheSocietyasaforumforhisviewsonthereconciliationoftheintelligentsiaandtheChurch.

Withgrandiosehopesfortheeffectivenessofthiscooperation,andencouragedbytalkofdisarmament,oftheabolitionofinternationalespionage,andoftheameliorationoftheilleffectsofcapitalisteconomics,GrotinDecember1899inauguratedaseriesofdiscussionsonthedefinitionoftrueprogress.Hislecture,aspublishedintheVFP,consistedinaseriesofconcretestatementsandminutelystructuredpropositions.Heaskedforhelpfromallreaders.

ThesuccessoftheMoscowSocietyledtothefoundingin1898oftheSt.PetersburgPhilosophicalSociety.ItnolongerhadthepioneeringfunctionsoftheMoscowgroup,andinasensethisfactwasdramaticallyunderscoredbythedeaths,withinayearofthesummerof1899,ofGrot,Solovyov,andPreobrazhensky.TheireffortshadcontributedtothedisillusionmentoftheRussianintelligentsiawithpositivismandMarxism,aturntowardphilosophicalidealism,andthecultivationofinterestinreligion.Struve,Berdiaev,andBulgakov,activeamongthefoundersofMarxisminRussia,wereamongthefirsttobeginthetrekthatBulgakovin1903called,inthetitleofhiscollectedarticles,FromMarxismtoIdealism.Thephilosophersweretheirfirst,andnatural,alliesintheprocess.Aconcreteresultofthatcollaborationwasthepublicationin1903,ofthesymposiumProblemyidealizma.Thiscol-

Page21

lectionclearlymarkedthegreaterpopularity,boldness,andinfluenceoftheintelligentsiawhohadjoinedthephilosophers.Thelatterthenrevertedtotheiracademicroles.Theintelligentsia,asspokesmenforthenewconsciousness,baskedintheirrelishedpositionastrailblazersontheintellectualfrontierandassumedthetaskofpopularizingphilosophicalidealism,religion,andpoliticalliberalism.

AnimportantlinkbetweenthephilosophersandtheintelligentsiawasPavelNovgorodtsev,alegalscholaronthefacultyofMoscowUniversityandactivepoliticalliberal,organizer,andconciliatorwellawareofthepoliticalinterestsoftheacademicsandofthegrowingmoderationoftheintelligentsia.

Theideaofeditingasymposiumthatwouldcountertheintelligentsia'spositivismwithanidealistWeltanschauungbelongedbothtoNovgorodtsevandtoPetrB.Struve,aneconomist,formerMarxist,andactiveLeftLiberal.31NovgorodtsevprobablysuggestedtheuseoftheMoscowPsychologicalSocietyassponsorofthebook,inwhichtheintelligentsiaandagroupofidealistphilosophersappearedsidebyside.ThebookwasfinancedbyD.E.Zhukovsky,whohadsponsoredanumberofbooksonphilosophy.LevLopatin,onbehalfoftheSociety,carefullydivorcedtheviewsoftheSocietyfromthoseexpressedinProblemyidealizmainordertostressthatthemembershipintheSocietywasnotlimitedtoidealistphilosophers.

Thepurposeofthebookwastopopularizetheviewsofthosewhohadexperiencedthelimitationsofpositivistthinking.Positivismwasdefinedveryloosely.Bulgakov,forinstance,wrote,bypositivismImeanbroadlyalltrendsofthoughtthatrejectmetaphysicsandtheautonomousrightsofreligiousfaith.32Thishadpoliticalrepercussions:challengingthevalidityofmaterialisminphilosophymeantquestioningthedesirabilityofrevolution.

Thatcertainlywasthemannerinwhichthecontributionsofthethreemajormavericksoftheintelligentsiawereinterpreted.Struve(writingunderapseudonym,forhewasoutsideRussiapreparingOsvobozhdenie[Liberation]forpublication,ajournalofthenewliberalmovement),Berdiaev,andBulgakovargued,indifferentways,thevalidityandrelevanceofmetaphysicsformankind.TheargumentoftheothercontributorswasdirectedagainstthesociologyofthepopulistMikhailovsky,againstComte,andinpartagainstRenan.D.E.Zhukovskydiscussedthemoralelementsinthecreativeprocess.Thephilosophers,representedbyS.A.AskoldovandSergeiandEvgenyTrubetskoi,wroteontherelationshipofwilltoreason,andontheissuesoflaw,con-

Page22

sciousness,andphilosophy.Intheintroductiontothebook,Novgorodtsevstressedthecategoricalimperativeofmorality,whichplacesasthecornerstoneofallphilosophytheabsoluteimportanceoftheindividual,33and,inhiscontributiontothesymposium,lawasanormandprincipleofindividualitywhich,inthelightofRussia'spast,wassomethingofaninnovation.

Fortheintelligentsia,rediscoveredmetaphysicsprovidedtheunderpinningofapoliticsbasedonthesanctityoftheindividual.Theyrealizedthedangertotheindividualfromtherevolutionaryleft,aswellasfromthepoliticalright,andurgedmoderation,law,andreformastheimmediateprograminRussia.TheyalsopopularizedSolovyov'spositionthatreligionandmetaphysicswerenotidenticalwithpoliticalreaction.

Itscritics,andtheintelligentsiaitself,accusedtheintelligentsiaofmaximalismandimpatience.Thatwastrueofalargenumberofthegroup,butwemustnotoverlookthefactthatintheRussianEmpireontheeveoftheRevolutionstherewasamoderateintelligentsia,politicallyconsciousandnotmaximalist,andthatitsnumbersandaudienceweregrowing.

Itsexistencewasforcefullymanifestedbythepublication,in1909,ofanothermajorsymposiumoftheintelligentsia,Vekhi.NotonlydidVekhibecomeaninstantbestseller,goingrapidlythroughfiveprintingsinayear,butithasgonedowninhistoryandinRussianpolemicsasapropheticandperspicaciouscriticismofthedangersoftheextremepoliticizationoftheintelligentsia.Vekhiwarnedoftheexcessesofrevolutionariesandsensedtheabuseofpowerbyalimitedgroupostensiblyworkinginthenameofthepeople.Thesymposiumunderscoredtheabilityoftheintelligentsiatochange.Conceivedandwrittenbytheveryintelligentsiathatwassomuchtheproductoflimitedideologicalthinking,Vekhinotonlytranscendedthatself-imposedlimitationbutalsowarnedofthedangersimplicitinsuchlimitation.

ThetopicsandwritersinVekhiBerdiaev,Bulgakov,Izgoev,Kistiakovsky,Struve,Frank,andGershenzonensureditspopularity.Vekhididnotsimplycriticize;itcondemned,warned,deplored,cajoled,abhorred,urgedrepentanceforthesinsoftheintelligentsia:itsintolerance,itspresent-mindedness,itslackofunderstandingofproductivework,itspenchantforself-centeredrighteousness,itsglorificationoftheheroicsofradicalyouth,itsblindnesstothedangersofrevolutionandtotheterroroftheleft.Theauthorssquarelyblamedtheintelligentsiafortheproblemsofthecountry,stressingtheirresponsibilityforboththepoliticalandthesocialstructure.

Page23

Thetragiceventsafter1917haveprovedtheVekhiargumentcorrect.ButwhatisinterestingisthatintheirzealtopointoutthefailingsoftheintelligentsiatheVekhiauthorsneglectedtocallattentiontothedifficultiesofcooperatingwithanintransigentregime.Themoderates,includingthosewhohadparticipatedinProblemyidealizma,whohadhadpersonalexperienceswiththetsarandhisadministration,were,ironicallyenough,inabetterpositiontounderstand,thoughnottocondone,theexasperationoftheintelligentsiawiththeregime.EvgenyTrubetskoi,forinstance,triedtorestrainthepenitentialardoroftheneophytestoidealism,whosepassionatebreast-beating(Iamthegreatestsinner)heconsideredavariantoftheirself-centeredness.34

Yetitwasitssenseofurgency,itsdramaticcalltochangetowhichsomeofthephilosophersobjectedthatmadeVekhiwhatitis:aland-markinthedevelopmentoftheintelligentsiaandproofofitsgrowingheterogeneity.

AftertheRevolutiontheargumentofVekhiwascontinuedinIzglubiny,acollectionofarticlesconceivedbyStruveasaresponsetothefailureofthedemocraticrevolutionofMarch1917.ThegrislypredictionoftheunreadinessoftheRussianpeoplefordemocracyandthedangersofthemaximalistinterpretationinherentintheviewsoftheprogressiveintelligentsiahadbeenpainfullyborneout.Theissuefacingthecontributorstothissymposiumwasonenolongerofwarningbutoftheallocationofresponsibilityandguilt.35

IzglubinyillustratesthecommitmentoftheparticipantstoRussia,totheirnotionofliberty,andtothediversityofthethoughtamongtheintelligentsia.AsinProblemyidealizma,thereisawiderangeofintellectualviews.Novgorodtsev,forinstance,whohadobjectedtoVekhibecausehefelttheproblemsdiscussedwereexclusivelyRussian,wroteanarticlecomparingtheVekhiof1909withEduardBert'sLeMfaitdesintellectuals,whichappearedin1914.AccordingtoNovgorodtsev,bothworksillustrateacrisisofutopianthinking.OthercontributorstoIzglubinystressedpatriotismandapassionateattachmenttoRussia.Someevenwroteinsuchdeeplyemotionaltermsoftheforcesofethnicityandraceastoforeshadowproto-fascistrhetoric.ViacheslavIvanov,aliteraryscholaractiveinthestrugglesoftheintelligentsiaforanewreligiosity,wroteabriefarticleexhortingtheuseofapureRussianliterarylanguage,devoidofforeignadmixtures.Struveturnedtothestudyofhistoryasameansoffindingatraditionthatwouldjustifyconstructive,notoppositional,involvementwithgovernment.Berdiaevwroteabrilliantessayofliterarycriticism,discoveringinGogolnot

Page24

onlyaconsciousnessofevilbutelementsofcubisminthewaythewriterdissectedlifearoundhim.BulgakovsawtheBolsheviksasdefendersofaunitedRussia,despitetheirrhetoric,andarguedthattheirtortuouspolicieswouldleadthemtothepursuitofpatrioticRussiangoals.YethealsosawandhepresentedthesemusingsinaseriesofdiscussionspatternedonSolovyov'sTrirazgovora(ThreeConversations)theRussiaofChristbeingsaved.TheredemptionfromBolshevismcarriedinitthesparkoffaith,thereflectionoftheGodoftheRussianpeople,whichwouldresultinapurifiedreligionaftertheBolsheviksfell.

OneoftheissueswithwhichtheRussianintelligentsiacouldnotcometogripswasthatofthenationalismofthenon-RussianpopulationoftheEmpire.Theyviewedanti-Semitisminsocialandcultural,notpolitical,terms.TheirrediscoveryofRussiaasanhistoricalentityenkindledapassionatepatriotismtothelandthatmadethemblindtotheculturalandpoliticalaspirationsofnationalitiesotherthantheGreatRussians.Whenthechipsweredown,theintelligentsiaactivelysupportedacentralizedregimeforthepreservationoftheGreatRussianstate.AtbesttheyaccededtothedemandsofonlytheFinnsandthePoles;theothernationalaspirationstheyregardedasquaintregionalismorGermanintriguetodismemberRussia.Hencetheirnewlyfoundphilosophy,withitsbasisinuniversaltruths,strengthenedintegralRussiannationalism,failedtoattracttheimportantnon-Russiangroups,andinthelastanalysisweakenedthealreadyweakliberalisminRussia.

ThetopicshighlightedbythethreesymposiacontinuedtotroubletheRussianintelligentsia,butthediscussionofthemwaspossibleonlyoutsidetheSovietUnion.In1921,whenagroupofRussiansdecidedtoreturnhome,theyjustifiedthemselvesinasymposiumentitledSmenavekh(ChangeofLandmarks).Thelabelisstillinusetoday.

ButinRussia,underthebouldersofStalinism,theaccursedquestionsoftheintelligentsiadidnotvanish;theymerelylaydormant.AtthefirstopportunitytheyemergedascentraltoanothergenerationofRussiansconcernedabouttheirpastandtheirresponsibilityfortheirsociety.Thetraditionofthecollectionofpolemicalarticleswascontinued,alsodramatically,byAlexanderSolzhenitsynwiththepublicationin1974ofIzpodglyb(FromUndertheRubble).Theauthors,inadditiontothestandardconcernsoftheintelligentsia,hadtoconfrontbothtotalitarianismandthelegitimatestrivingsofthenon-Russians.TheRussianscannolongeroverlooktherightsofthenon-Russiannation-

Page25

alitiestotheirownexistencewithoutjeopardizingtheirowncommitmenttoliberty.

IntheSolzhenitsynsymposiumasinotherwritingsofthecontemporaryRussianintelligentsiaoneisstruckbythesimilarityoftheissuesraisedwiththoseraisednotonlybeforetheRevolutionbutraisedfrequentlybyitspredecessors.Thediscoveryofthepastismarkedbythezealoftheneophyte;thediscussionsoftheimplicationsofGodarephrasedinthecontextofmodernscienceandpsychologicalinsight.OnlyinthediscussionoftherelationshipoftheRussianintellectualdevelopmenttothatoftheWestisthenoteofdefinitesuperiorityofexperienceclear.Whattheirpredecessorshadfeared,thisgenerationknows:progressiveideologies,likeconservativeones,canbeusedforpurposesdestructiveoftheindividual.

Forthesymbolistsandtheirconfreres,arevolutionofthespiritentailedanewsetofvaluescenteringincreativityandpersonalfreedom.ChallengingthematerialismandpositivismoftheatheisticintelligentsiaandtheasceticismandhumilitypreachedbytheRussianOrthodoxChurch,anddetestingthebourgeoissocietyoftheWest,thesymbolistshadavisionofanewman,idealistic,sensitive,emotionallyfree,aprogenitorofanewculturecharacterizedbyfreedom,beauty,andlove.Russiansymbolismwasneveranart-for-art's-sakemovement.UnliketheirFrenchprecursors,Russiansymbolists(exceptforBriusov)regardedartasatheurgy,apathofhighertruths,eventoanewfaith.Disregardingempiricalreality,theyexploredtheouterreachesofthecosmosandtheinnerdepthsofthehumansoul,trustinginintuitionandinthepropheticpowertheybelievedwerevestedintheartist.Theyhadanaturalaffinityformysticismandpsychology.Deliberatelyeschewingthesocialdidacticismofthepopulistswhopreachedthatartmustservethepeople,symbolistartiststreatedsuchpersonalthemesasloveanddeathandthemeaningandpurposeoflife,topicsthatVladimirSolovyovhadtreatedinhisphilosophyandinhisproto-symbolistpoetry.Vehementlyapolitical,theywerenonethelessawareoftheincursionsindustrializationwasmakingintotraditionalRussiancultureandhatedthepragmaticorientationofthemachineage.Insistingthatmanneedsfaith,higherideals,somethingtoworship,theyfoundtraditionalRussianOrthodoxytooconstrictingbecauseoftheasceticismandself-abnegationitpreached.YetChristologicalimagesandChristianthemesofeternallife,personalimmortality,apocalypse,andresurrectionwereprominentintheirworks(exceptforBriusov's).Bytheturnofthecen-

Page26

tury,inspiredbyMerezhkovsky'sconceptionofanewreligiousconsciousness,thesymbolistswereseekingsomesortofnewfaiththatwouldenablethemtoretaintheaspectsofChristianitythatappealedtothemandsupplanttheaspectsthatdidnotwithnewtruths,newideals,newvalues,centeredonthecreationofbeautyandtherightofself-expression.Onlyin1904,andbecauseofincreasingsocialturbulence,didthesymbolistsandtheirconfreresbegintonoticethedesperateconditionofthepeople.Aswillbeseen,theirsolutionstosocialconflictweremerelyextensionsofthesolutionstopersonalconflictthattheyhaddeveloped.TheythoughtthatsomesortofnewfaithcouldbeenunciatedanddevelopedbytheartistandthatitwouldreconciletheconflictingsectorsofRussiansociety(justas,theythought,anewpersonalfaithwouldreconcileheartandmindorfaithandreason)andachievesobornost'.Hatingbourgeoissociety,detestingconstitutions,parliaments,andlaws,rejectingallformsofexternalauthorityovertheindividual,symbolistschampionedvariousformsofChristiansocialismandChristiananarchism,trustingthatoutofacommonfaith,anewcommunitywouldbeborn.

Symbolismaroseoutofthedoldrumsofthe1880s.Bythen,thegreatageofRussianliteraturewasover.Dostoevskywasdead,Tolstoihadpassedhisprime,andonlyChekhovcarriedoninthegreattradition.Civicpoetry,aweakderivativeofNekrasov'sdictumthatonemustbeacitizenbeforebeingapoet,hadnotproducedanygreatworks,andpopulism'slossofvitalitydeprivedtheartistoffaithinhisownmessage.Turninginward,exploringhisownfeelings,theyoungartistfeltaneedfornewtruths,newideals,butneithertheRussianpastnorthecontemporaryWest,besetbysocialconflict,seemedtooffermuchguidance.Thedifficultyyoungwritersexperiencedinpublishingworksthatwentcountertopopulistdidacticismdeepenedtheirsenseofalienationfromtheworldaroundthem.

Merezhkovsky'sessayOntheCausesoftheDeclineinRussianLiterature(1892),sometimesconsideredthemanifestoofRussiansymbolism,attackedthecensorshipoftheleftinRussianliterature.Arguingthatthethickjournalsweredebasingthelanguageandrenderingitincapableofconveyingsublime,elevated,orcomplexideas,heinsistedthatliterature,asanexaltedcalling,shouldnotbesubjecttothevagariesofthemarketplace,andpropoundedamystiqueinwhichthesymbolistartistbecameaprophetandaseer,holderofthekeytoultimaterealityandhighertruths.36

TheRussiansymbolistmovementthatMerezhkovskyinitiatedwas

Page27

moremetaphysicalthanFrenchsymbolismsincethelattersoughtprimarilytoconveyamood,todepictanemotionalstate,andtoapproximate,inpoetry,thesoundofmusic.Merezhkovsky,bycontrast,heldthatsymbolistpoetrywouldleadtohighertruths,toworldsotherthanours,inaccessibletomerereason,andinspirethereligiousfaiththatwouldbridgethegulfbetweenthesecularintelligentsiaandthedeeplyreligiouspeasant,therebycreatingaunifiednationalidentityandstimulatingaRussianrenaissance.Bytheturnofthecenturyhewaspropagatinganewreligiousconsciousnessandattemptingtoleadtheintelligentsia'ssearchforanewformofChristianitybasedontheApocalypse.Bal'montandBriusov,themajorpoetsofthefirstwaveofRussiansymbolism,didnotshareMerezhkovsky'sreligiosity,butfollowedhisemphasisontheinnerman,sharedhishostilitytorationalismandpositivism,andlookedtosymbolismtoinducemorerefinedsensations,heightenedsensitivity,andgreaterappreciationofbeautyandcultureallhallmarksofthenewman.Thesecondwaveofsymbolists,AleksandrBlok,AndreiBely,ViacheslavIvanov,consideredartatheurgy,ameanstohighertruths,or,inIvanov'swords,toanewreligioussynthesisoflife.

Symbolistswrotenovelsandessays,butpoetrywastheircharacteristicmedium,forpoetryenabledthemtobeeruditeandesoteric,tosuggestratherthanstate,topaintamoodwithwords,inwaysthatthenoveloressaydidnot.Earlysymbolistpoetryfocusedonloveanddeath,andonfeelings,especiallysex,i.e.,onpersonalratherthanpoliticalandsocialissues.Rozanov,anallyofthesymbolists,thoughnotapoet,advocatedakindofsexualmysticismakintotheSongofSongsandopposedtheChristianexaltationofvirginityandchastity.DmitriS.MerezhkovskyandZinaidaN.Gippiusalsograppledwiththeproblemofsexualityintheirpersonallivesaswellasintheirwritings.Allusionstonecrophilia,eroticlittleboys,brandishedwhips,andvampirewomenpunctuatetheworksofBriusovandSologub,partlyforshockvalue,partlyasareflectionofthesymbolistdesiretoshattertheoldtabletsofvaluesasenjoinedbytheirfavoritephilosopher,FriedrichNietzsche.37

SymbolistsparticularlyappreciatedNietzsche'sviewsoftheartistasasuperman,hisexaltationofculturalcreativity,andhiscondemnationofotherworldliness,humility,andasceticism.Letusbelikethesun,Bal'montproclaimed,38andGippiusexulted,IlovemyselfasIloveGod.39Merezhkovsky'snovelJuliantheApostate(1896),writtenattheheightofhisNietzscheanperiod,contrastedthelife-affirmingpagan-

Page28

ismoftheRomanemperorwiththelife-denyingstanceoftheChristiancrowsofGalilee.BriusovandBal'montwrotepaeanstoindividualismandregardedthepoetasGod.InterpretingNietzsche'sconceptofbeyondgoodandeviltomeanamorality,BriusovwroteapoeminwhichhepraisedtheLordandtheDevilalike.40

Meanwhile,aestheticindividualismwasalsodevelopinginotherquarters.Intheearly'90s,threeUniversityofPetersburglawstudents,DmitriFilosofov,AleksandrBenois,andA.Nuvel,alsochafingunderpopulistdidacticisminartandseekingnewmeaninginlife(andlikewiseinfluencedbyNietzsche)beganadiscussiongroupthatturnedouttobethenucleusofthejournalMiriskusstva(TheWorldofArt).SergeiDiaghilev,thefutureimpressariooftheBalletRusse,wrotetheleadarticleofthefirstissue.Declaringartisticcreativitytheexistentialactivityofman,theexpressionofthedivineonearth,Diaghilevproclaimedthatmaterialconcerns,socialandpoliticalquestions,aresimplyunworthyoftheexaltedstatusoftheartist.41

Miriskusstva,thefirstRussianjournaldevotedexclusivelytoartandthefirsttopayattentiontovisualappearances,spotlightedthevisualartsandprovidedashowcaseforthenewsymbolistliterature.Merezhkovsky'sTolstoiandDostoevskywasfirstpublishedthere,aswereimportantarticlesbyMinsky,LevShestov,andV.V.Rozanov.MiriskusstvafeaturedRussianaswellasnon-Russianpainters.ArticleswithillustrationsonRussia'sartisticpast,includingfolkartandcrafts,appearedalongsidearticlesonthenewmodernisticcurrentsstemmingfromtheWest.Thiswasadeliberateattempttobalanceoldandnew,EastandWest,andcreateanewRussianculturalidentity,onethatwouldbeonequaltermswiththerestratherthanconstantlyborrowingandadapting.ButalthoughtheMiriskusstnikiagreedonthedesirabilityofshatteringtheoldtabletsofvalues,theywerefarfromunitedonwhatnewvaluesshouldreplacethem.ConflictsdevelopedbetweenMiriskusstnikiwhowishedtoemphasizepaintingandthosewhowishedtoemphasizeliteratureand(whatwasfarmoreserious)betweenthosesuchasMerezhkovskywhosoughtanewreligiousconsciousnessandthosesuchasDiaghilevwhoseorientationwassecular.

Despitethesedifferences,whichweretowreckthejournalby1904,earlysymbolismmadeasearchfortheselfandapreoccupationwiththedevelopmentofone'sownconsciousnessandone'sownidentityrespectableamongtheintelligentsia.Anappreciationofthepast,ofotherculturesespeciallyGreece,Rome,andRenaissanceItalyofartandbeauty,culture,erudition,andknowledge,wereforthefirst

Page29

timeinmanydecadesesteemedasvaluesinthemselves,notasmeanstoutilitarianends.Acrackhaddevelopedinthemonolithicworldviewoftheintelligentsiawhichenjoinedtheindividualtodevotehisorherlifetoservingthepeople.Thevalueoftheindividual,thesupremacyofaesthetic-spiritualovermaterialistic-utilitarianconsiderations,andtheexaltationofculturalcreativityovereconomicprogressconstitutedthemaintenetsofsymbolismasthetwosetsofconcernstendedtomerge.Onapersonallevel,symbolistssoughttoachieveanintegratedpersonality,nolongertornbetweenreasonandfeelingorbetweenfaithandreason,whileonasociallevel,theyhopedtocreateanewdistinctivelyRussianidentitybyobliteratingthegulfbetweenartistandpeople.Butuntil1905theyconcentratedonthefirst,avoidingsocialinvolvementandexploringtheirownsoulsorpsyches.

Asalreadyindicated,forsomesymbolistssuchasBriusov,artwasagoalinitself,butotherssuchasMerezhkovskysoughtanewfaith.Inthe'90s,Nietzschewastheirprophet;around1900MerezhkovskyandGippiusturnedtoChrist.TheirChristwastheChristoftheApocalypse,theChristoftheSecondComing,whowouldshowhumanityhowtomakeChristianityintoareligionoflife.TheysoughttodivorcetheirChristianityfromHistoricalChristianity(Merezhkovsky'sterm)andtheasceticismitpreached.Desiringtocombinethejoyousself-affirmationhefoundinpaganismwiththeloveandpromiseofpersonalimmortalityheassociatedwithChristianity,Merezhkovskymaintainedthattheneedsofthehumansoulcannotbeignoredandthatfaithisasnecessarytothesoulasfoodistothebody.SeekinganewformofChristianity,MerezhkovskyandGippiusproclaimedanewreligiousconsciousness42andtriedtodevelopanewchurch.HopingtoenlisttheOrthodoxclergyinhisreligioussearchandtoreconciletheclergywiththeatheisticintelligentsia(heinsistedthattheintelligentsiawasmotivatedbyunconsciousreligiousstrivingsandhewasfondofsayingTheyarenotyetwithChrist,butChristiswiththem),heandGippius,in1901,foundedTheReligious-PhilosophicalSocietyofSt.Petersburg,andin1902,arevue,Novyiput'(NewPath),publishedfromJanuary1902toDecember1904,todisseminatetheirviews.TheimportanceofTheReligious-PhilosophicalSocietyisgenerallyrecognized.Fewmembersoftheintelligentsiahadmetwiththecl