PART III

THE APOCALYPSE OF PERSONAL AND SOCIAL SALVATION: MEREZHKOVSKY'S "THEOCRATIC SOCIETY" (1905-1917)

The failure of the Revolution of 1905 shattered the monolithic dogmatism of the Russian intelligentsia. The distinct flavor of the years 1905-1914 is largely attributable to their reaction of disappointment and despair as intellectuals of all camps questioned old dogmas and searched for new answers.

Political leaders drew different lessons from recent events. Lenin and Trotsky revised Marxist theory to fit Russia; other Marxists lost their revolutionary fervor. Plekhanov (1856-1918), the father of Russian Marxism argued that Russia was not yet ready for a proletarian revolution and counseled a conditional alliance with the bourgeoisie. Lunacharsky (1877-1933) the future Commissar of Enlightenment and Gorky (1868-1936), future dean of Soviet writers, consoled themselves with visions of the ideal men of the seemingly distant Communist future; their "God­Constructor" heresy, a type of Nietzschean Marxism, made the transformed people into a God and worshipped the divine spirit of human creativity.1 Responding to such trends, an old-line Marxist bewailed the "movement to the right," the "unheard-of sharpening of interest in religious questions."2 Plekhanov complained of "confusion on the social question everywhere we look ... even Gorky flirts with the idea of the Supennan."3 The liberal camp was also split; the radical wing led by Paul Miliukov tried to make the Duma into a vehicle to extract further concessions from the Tsar while the moderate liberals advocated cooperation with the government and the more conservative formed an

1 For a description of the various types of "God-Building", see Kline, Religious and Anti-Religious Thought, pp. 103-26.

2 P. Yushkevich, Novyia veianiia (St. Petersburg, 1910), pp. i and 1-3. See also Berdiaev, Dream and Reality, p. 136; he lauds the very same developments and refers to a "wholesale shift in the mood of consciousness".

3 Georgii Plekhanov, Sochineniia (Moscow, 1924), XIV, 318.

MEREZHKOVSKY'S "THEOCRATIC SOCIETY" 153

entirely new Party, the Octobrists. Aroused by the danger to the old Russia, new forces also appeared on the right-the Black Hundreds and the Union of the Russian People-both active in fomenting mob action against the revolutionaries in general and the Jews in particular.

The intellectual effects of revolution were not confined to political activists; the entire cultural scene shifted from politics to art. Social utility was no longer the criterion by which art was judged; the symbolists had won. Their tenets on art and the artist were accepted; aestheticism, idealism, mysticism, and apocalyptism became the dominant themes of art and thought. Symbolist emphasis on expressing the "inner man" led to further aesthetic experimentation; developments in painting and music paralleled their insistence on the creation of new sounds and new forms in poetry. All sought a purely sensuous effect and tried to duplicate the "spirit of music."4

In music, revolutionary innovations stressed discord and disharmony. Stravinsky's works, many based on folk themes, exemplified his belief that music should be purely sensual; he deliberately eschewed literary and pictorial associations addressed to the intellect. Petrushka (1911) and Rites of Spring (1913) were based on native myths and Firebird (1912), on a revolutionary poem by Bal'mont (1907). The title, Firebird, may allude to the spectacular phoenix of pre-Christian slavic mythology. Skriabin combined Solov'ev's mystical apocalyptism with Nietzsche's super­individualism, a combination quite typical of the age. Through the force of his music, through works such as Prometheus and The Poem of Ecstasy, he hoped to change the world. His Mystery (1908) portrayed apocalyptic revolution and collective salvation; sensuality, joy, and self­exaltation reign in the post-apocalyptic world. Skriabin often spoke of his desire to be God, to envelop the whole world in himself; at the same time he longed for an organic society.

In painting, non-objective art continued to develop along more and more abstract lines. Kandinsky argued that the task of art was to create "a new world which has nothing to do externally with reality. It is subordinate internally to cosmic laws. Kandinsky shared the symbolist yearning for spirituality. "After years of materialism," he exulted, "the soul is emerging, refined by struggle and suffering." The new artist will not depict the "cruder" emotions of fear, joy, and grief; he will arouse more

• A phrase often used by Blok. For an interesting discussion of the importance of music during the Silver Age see James Billington, The Icon and the Axe (New York, 1970), pp. 475-518, especially pp. 475-84.

154 THE APOCALYPSE OF PERSONAL AND SOCIAL SALVATION

refined ones, as yet unnamed.5 Though Kandinsky left for Germany in 1910, other painters and sculptors such as Larionov, Goncharova, Malevich, and Tatlin, perpetuated various aspects of the experimental tradition while the Mir Iskusstva group continued to project the older symbolist mood; Mikhail Vrubel (1856-1910) for example, painted icons but his favorite theme was "the Demon."

In poetry and prose, new "isms," developed from symbolism. After 1910, "clarists," and "acmeists" such as Gumilev and Akhmatova stressed form and clarity; they wished to admire a rose for its beauty, not its symbolic value and opposed the mystification of art. Apollon, founded in 1909 was their journal and Gumilev was a favorite of Briusov's. "Futurists," led by Maiakovsky experimented with the sound of words themselves; their poetry was meant to be read aloud. Bely's novel, Petersburg (1913) depicted irrationality itself; there is a plot but the main action is psychological. The city itself emerges as a surrealistic entity with effects of the increasing cacophony of Petersburg seen through the conflict of father and son. The father is a bureaucrat; his name is Apollon, symbol of order, and he loves straight lines, symbol of purposeful action. The son is a revolutionary but he bungles his assignment to kill his father. The ending is mystical. The tartar origins of both father and son, symbol of the lurking barbarian within, and an allusion to Solov'ev's pan-Mongolism, are stressed; westernization, even in the father, is a facade.

Artists' rejection of form, harmony, and objectivity, bespeak a loss of faith in rational culture and in the power of the human intellect itself. Leonid Andreev's (1871-1919) popular works King Hunger (1907) a drama depicting the anonymous masses turning against the rich, and The Red Laugh (1905) a short story about the Russo-Japanese war in Manchuria deliberately evoked metaphysical horror without even offering any hope. Though clothed in symbolist imagery, Andreev's works had clear anarchistic overtones. He himself was a disillusioned liberal; radicals and socialists, chiefly SR's, were among his close friends.

Apocalyptism became more widespread as premonitions of the

• Wassily Kandinsky, Concerning the Spiritual in Art, trans. Nina Kandinsky (New York, 1947), pp. 10-24. The Mir Iskusstva group of artists were primarily impressionists. Their position as leader of the avant-garde was quickly lost to more abstract groups such as the "Blue Rose", the "Donkey's Tail", and the "Jack of Diamonds". The "suprematist" Malevich was associated with the latter. See Alain Besan~on, "The Dissidence of Rus­sian Painting", in Cherniavsky, ed., The Structure of Russian History (New York, 1970), pp. 381-407 and Gray, chapter 3-6.

MEREZHKOVSKY'S "THEOCRATIC SOCIETY" 155

approaching cataclysmic end of the old order became more compelling. Indeed, according to Billington "nowhere else in Europe was the volume and intensity of apocalypticalliterature comparable to that found in Russia during the reign of Nicholas II." Billington argues that artists' fascination with apocalyptic literature of both the Bible and Russian folklore was partly due to the fact that it was "uniquely familiar to the new mass audience they hoped to reach and, at the same time, rich in the esoteric symbol language that they themselves admired."6

Mysticism and religious search gained new converts as growing ideological chaos and accelerating social and economic change increased the need for faith and certainty. On the philosophic level, questions of freedom and necessity led to a "return of metaphysics to its religious sources."7 A special branch of philosophy, religious philosophy developed as Russians, according to Florovsky, searched not just for new under­standing, but for "an intimate spiritual law," a "rhythm of life."8 One of the results was the establishment, in 1909, of Put' a publishing house specializing in religious works. Founded and financed by M. K. Morozova, widow of a wealthy industrialist, it grew out of discussions at her salon. Noted thinkers, including Berdiaev and Bulgakov were associated with it. Other such informal discussion groups were springing up in Petersburg and Moscow.9 But on the popular level, the influence of the revivalist preacher lliodor, who instigated pogroms, evidenced a tendency to xenophobic fundamentalism. Florovsky considers Rasputin, who was powerful as early as 1911, both a symbol and a symptom of the most ominous aspects of Russia's "spiritual time of troubles."lo

These aesthetic and mystical trends show that the symbolist revolt of the nineties had been successful. That revolt, led by a small, but determined group, had been provoked by the political repression and aesthetic stagnation of the eighties. Since the Revolution of 1905 was incomparably more cataclysmic, the reaction to it was correspondingly more pervasive. An entire generation of intellectuals was left spiritually homeless; the post-190S reevaluation of values affected almost the entire educated class.

A curious transposition of values occurred. The intelligentsia lost interest in its old social and political activism; abandoning previous

6 Billington, pp. 514-15. 7 Florovsky, p. 484. 8 Ibid., pp. 484-85. • Zemov, pp. 106-10.

10 Florovsky, p. 498.

156 THE APOCALYPSE OF PERSONAL AND SOCIAL SALVATION

commitments to "the people," many turned to idealism, religion, and culture; Petersburg alone supported four opera houses and many provincial towns had at least one. Simultaneously, many mystical aesthetes became engrossed in political and social questions. As Marc Slonim notes, "In Russia more than anywhere else, Charles Peguy's observation that la mystique conduit a la politique proved to be true."l1 Merezhkovsky, Hippius, and Filosofov described the disappointments of 1905 in their jointly written drama Makov tsvet.12 The aesthetes Briusov and Bal'mont both wrote revolutionary poetry. Fakely (Torches), a journal founded by Chulkov, formerly editor of Novyi Put' preached "mystical anarchism." According to Chulkov, mystical anarchism is the logical culmination of decadence in art; decadence rejects morality and anarchism rejects the state. Neither recognizes any laws outside the self. Fakely appeared inter­mittently from 1905-1907; Zolotoe Runo (Golden Fleece) was its successor. Though originally open to different artistic schools (Briusov was for a time its de facto editor) Zolotoe Runo came to be identified with the mystical anarchists.

The guiding spirit of mystical anarchism was Vyacheslav Ivanov. Born in Moscow, from 1905-1912 his Wednesday salons at his Petersburg apartment, "The Tower," were centers of Russian intellectual life. He was acclaimed "King of the Poets" and "Vyacheslav the Magnificent" and his oracular pronouncements were received with great solemnity. Rejecting not God, but God's creation (as did Ivan Karamazov) and refusing to accept the empirical world, both he and his followers denied the validity of any moral authority or legal bond. Stressing love as a cognitive agent, they argued that only through Eros lay the path to renewed mystical experiences and a new humanity. At once a pagan and a mystic, Ivanov considered the poet the preserver of the old mysteries and the foremost bearer of a new cult.13

11 Slonim, From Chekhov to the Revolution, p. 186. 1lI Makov tsvet portrays the effects of the Revolution of 1905 on a well-to-do

family who symbolize the spirit of Russia. The most noble member of the family is a romantic idealist who gives his own life for his beliefs. Though others in the family oppose the Revolution, after it is over, they recognize their common guilt, accept suffering, and overcome their old divisions for a future of peace and harmony. The one Marxist in the play is a Jew and is made to appear shallow and dogmatic-i.e. alien to the true spirit of Russia.

13 See Poggioli, The Poets of Russia, pp. 161-64, Maslenikov, pp. 126, 197-216, Slonim, From Chekhov to the Revolution, pp. 186-89, Holthusen, p. 38.

MEREZHKOVSKY'S "nmOCRATIC SOCIETY" 157

All the writers of Fakely were artists; they included Blok, Sologub, Bunin, and Andreev. Blok, however, denied he was a mystical anarchist. But for complex personal as well as philosophical reasons (he was in love with Blok's wife), Bely attacked Blok, Ivanov, and their group, accusing them of vulgarizing art and lacking ethical principles. Bely was spurred on by Briusov whose control of both Vesy and the Skorpion publishing house made him the virtual dictator of Russian symbolism from 1904-1909; the ambitious Briusov hoped to undermine the rival journal. Despite his personal flaws (most commentators consider him completely unprincipled), Briusov's drive and organizing ability were important for the movement; once Vesy was gone, symbolism lost its forward push.14

Bely, Blok, and Ivanov were ultimately reconciled, but the gap between the different schools of symbolism continued to widen. In 1910 there was a confrontation on the pages of Apollon. Writing on the tenets of Russian symbolism, Ivanov said, "Russian symbolism did not want to be and could not be merely art." Briusov's reply: "Symbolism wanted to be and was only art. Art is autonomous; it has its own methods and its own taskS."15

Though himself a metaphysician in his aesthetics, Merezhkovsky called the mystical anarchists "mystical hooligans, mystical charlatans."16 Part of the hostility was personal. Ivanov had emerged as the leader of the "Second Wave" of symbolists; Blok and Bely, Merezhkovsky's former proteges had moved closer to his rival and Ivanov's "Tower" was eclipsing the "Dom Muruzi." Philosophical differences were also a factor. Though Merezhkovsky shared the mystical anarchists' conviction that the artist is a prophet of revolution and also looked to the people as a source of vitality and inspiration, he objected to the vague religiosity of the "second wave," insisted on the need for more definite ethics, and continued to esteem individuality. For Ivanov, individuality was close to "individuation," a pejorative term used by Hegel and Schopenhauer to connote atomistic individualism; he advocated total immersion in a mystical whole. "Proud individualism" is dead, he said; the "superman" has killed it.17 The artist must come out of his seclusion; self-affirmation must yield to

.. Maslenikov, on p. 126 claims that Briusov had no firm principle except falling behind the times. But without his organizing drive, Russian symbolism lacked vitality. See also Erlich, p. 92. Erlich suggests that it was Briusov's lack of any ethical com­mitment that made it possible for him to accept the Soviets and quotes Mirsky to the same effect.

18 As quoted by Erlich, p. 71. 18 V tikhom omute, p. 38 . .. Vyacheslav Ivanov, Po zvezdam (St. Petersburg, 1909) pp. 95-96.

158 THE APOCALYPSE OF PERSONAL AND SOCIAL SALVATION

sobornosf; the artist must go forth "to meet the folk SOul."18 BIok (1880-1921), excruciatingly aware of the thin layer separating the educated classes from the primitive folk, was only too ready to sacrifice culture for the people. Ultimately, both he and Bely (1880-1934) espoused a mes­sianic form of socialism. Also professing union with the people, Merezhkovsky and Hippius affected peasant dress. Indeed, interest in folk art was fashionable; a school of folk art was established in Petersburg in 1911.

Ivanov was one of the many artists who realized the potential mass appeal of the theatre and who envisioned it as an agent of cultural transformation, a means of building bridges between artist and folk. (He detested the middle classes.) Popularizing the ideas of Richard Wagner (1813-1883), Ivanov advocated the union of all the arts and a "theatre of congregate action." The theurgic qualities inherent in art would evoke feelings of communion; the theatre would become the temple of a new organic society cemented by a new religion based on popular myth but created by the artist. Such, according to Ivanov, was the artist's mission. In a debate on the function of the theatre, Skriabin called for a new art in which all join in the performance and the audience ceases to be a separate and passive entity. Sologub spoke of active audiences and collective creativity.19

For Ivanov art was the supreme value; whether his intention was for deliberately conceived new myth to lead to new religious inspiration or to take the place of religion, was never quite clear.20 His emphasis on art made him less political than either Blok or Bely and after the death of his wife in 1907 the erotic component of his views was less pronounced. But he continued to believe that the highest artistic achievements are collective creations (epics, folk songs), and that a revolutionary transformation of society is necessary for the saving new beliefs to appear. His goal was a new order in which all would be artists.

For some artists, the fascination with the folk was linked to a mystique of blood and violence reminiscent of Georges Sorel. (Indeed, Sorel's

18 Ibid., pp. 196,243. See also Gusarova's description of the post-1905 disenchant­ment with individualism, pp. 61-68.

,. Marc Slonim, Russian Theatre (New York, 1962) pp. 206-208, see also his From Chekhov to the Revolution, p. 186, and Davydov, p. 185.

20 Florovsky believes that Ivanov's was an aesthetic system but that Ivanov felt a real religious thirst which he appeased with aesthetic articles. See p. 458. Masle­nikov, however, called Ivanov "the wizard" of symbolism; p. 198.

MEREZHKOVSKY'S "THEOCRATIC SOCIETY" 159

Reflections on Violence, 1906, was a product of the same distaste for peace and prosperity.) Viewing revolution as a purgative, they looked to it to release the creative powers supposedly inhibited by rational civilization. Others looked to revolution as the progenitor of a heroic and altruistic new man, the annihilator of bourgeois qualities. In "The Dagger," and "Hymns to the Revolution" (1907) Bal'mont described violence itself in aesthetic terms. For Briusov also, revolution was an aesthetic experience. "Beautiful in the splendor of his power is the Oriental King," he wrote, and "beautiful is the ocean of a people's wrath beating to pieces a tottering throne. But hateful are half measures." 21

Since many Russian artists considered themselves the interpreters of the folk soul and were so considered by others, their conversion to mystical anarchism, naive though it was, exerted an influence on contemporary thought and action. The specifics of mystical anarchism and its corollary, social apocalyptism, varied from artist to artist. But there was a common kernel; all sought to establish an organic society peopled by a new type of human being and all depended on a mystical vision to inspire the type of revolution they desired. The vision, it seems, would emerge in the course of the revolution.

The new art evoked a wide public response; popular education had created new and enlarged audiences. Responding to the changed demand, Emil Medtner (1871-1936), a music critic, admirer of Goethe, Nietzsche, and Wagner, and brother of the composer Nikolai Medtner who was setting symbolist lyrics to music, began the publication of three new series: Mussaget for literature, Orpheus for mysticism, and Logos for philosophy. Through Medtner, western mystics such as Swedenborg were popularized in Russia; his collaborators included Bely, Blok, Hippius, Peter Struve (a leading political figure), Sergei Solov'ev (nephew of the philosopher) and others. Bal'mont was at the peak of his popularity from 1904-1910; one of the idols of youth, his poems were put to music and his platform appearances were greeted with ovations. According to Florinsky, educated Russians took literature seriously, a new volume by a noted or promising writer was an event. Weidle describes young students queuing up by the hundreds, standing by the box-office all night to hear a new poem by Blok or Akhmatova or to see the famous actress Kommissarzhevskaia perform at the Moscow Art Theatre.22 Though the basic repertory of the Moscow

21 As quoted by Erlich, pp. 90-91. .. Vladimir Weidle, Russia Absent and Present (New York, 1952), pp. 90-91. See

also p. 88.

160 THE APOCALYPSE OF PERSONAL AND SOCIAL SALVATION

Theatre was the social drama of Gorky, Ibsen, Hauptmann, and Chekhov, Stanislavsky's staging of Maeterlinck's symbolist dramaThe Blue Bird was the talk of the 1908 season.23 Two years before Meierhold had staged a symbolist drama, Blok's King in the Marketplace, in Petersburg. He staged Hippius's drama The Green Ring, which prescribed "religious sociality" as the solution to Russia's problems (including the "father-son" conflict) in 1914. And the interchange with Western Europe continued. In 1906, Diaghilev's exhibition of Russian Icons at the Paris Art Exposition was a great success. Through his efforts, Chaliapin achieved fame; the music of Mussorgsky and Borodin were popularized in the West, and the Ballet Russe and the opera Boris Godunov were wildly acclaimed. The 1911 Paris season was "a Russian season."24

The few symbolist dramas actually produced in Russia (most were too abstract to be properly staged), do not indicate the true extent of the symbolists' power. Gusarova, the Soviet art historian, claims they had "a broad sphere of influence" and opened Russian culture to new ideas. 25

According to Marc Slonim, the entire aesthetic atmosphere was permeated by symbolism and aestheticism.26 By 1908 the Mir Iskusstva group were in predominant positions in the Russian theatre, the most public of the arts. Benois and Bakst did the stage settings, decorations, and costumes for the Russian Ballet and for many theatrical productions. Briusov was a member of the repertoire committees advising both Meierhold and Kommissarzhevskaia. Experiments in the anti-realistic spirit were con­ducted at the Petersburg Musical Drama and in the widely popular theatre cabarets. Symbolists and their allies were the critics and their control of the thick journals enabled them to shape public literary taste as well. Merezhkovsky headed the literary section of the influential Russkaia Mysl' until a quarrel over inclusion of a Blok poem led him to resign; his work, however, continued to appear there. Vesy, the journal founded by Briusov was allowed to die; there was no longer a need for it. In 1910 Briusov was offered a position on the editorial board of Russkaia Mys!'; symbolism had become respectable. No longer the avant-garde, newer schools were rising to challenge it. But even these newer schools couched their revolt in symbolist terms and were responses and reactions to different aspects of symbolism itself. Indeed, they can be considered

"". Slonim, Russian Theatre, p. 167 . .. Gusarova, p. 90. '" Ibid., p. 94. "" Slonim, Russian Theatre, p. 167. From Chekhov to the Revolution, pp. 185-87.

MEREZHKOVSKY'S "THEOCRATIC SOCIETY" 161

radical derivations of either the Apollonian or the Dionysian poles of the original symbolist ethos.

Alain Besan<;on argues that innovations in painting (and by implication in other arts) occurred in a "hot-house,"27 that the new art was too shocking to be accepted by the Russian public. But this must be qualified. Though perhaps misunderstood, the new art was welcomed precisely because it was shocking. To Camilla Gray the vast amount of energy expended by the "futurists" on outrageous public antics evidenced their "need at all costs to be noticed." Parodying the symbolists, the "futurists" hoped to break out of their isolation, to bring art to "the people" by speaking in a language the people would understand.28

Paintings were snapped up by private collectors; their acquisition showed the purchaser (often a bourgeois) had "arrived," and expressed his alienation from an obsolete bureaucratic system at the same time. Indeed, an entire study could be written on the role of bourgeois patrons such as S. A. Poliakov, Nikolai Riabushinsky (who financed Zolotoe Runo), Ivan and Savva Morozov who supported the Moscow Art Theatre and sundry symbolist literary ventures, and Savva Mamontov who, together with Princess Tenisheva financed Mir lskusstva and also supported experimental theatres. According to Weidle, exhibitions of both ancient and modern art could always be depended upon to draw crowds.29 The educated public was itself in a "hothouse," but that is another question.

Merezhkovsky's post-revolutionary philosophy was one of many forms of "mystical anarchism." Having decided that the Revolution of 1905 had religious significance, he turned his attention to political and social questions and worked with the Socialist Revolutionaries.

Merezhkovsky continued to shape the mood of the time, though not to the same extent as before. Ironically, with the victory of the ideas he had formerly espoused, he lost his position as acknowledged leader of the aesthetic movement. The "second wave" of symbolism, followed by even more radical art forms placed him outside the avant-garde. His "religious sociality" was only one of many schemes for an organic society. His abstract approach was too blatantly unsuited for mass consumption, the esoteric aspects of his religion were a definite handicap in attracting

27 Besan<;on, p. 394. Besan<;on, however, cites Berdiaev, who was hostile to many of the new trends in art. Besan<;on also argues that the new art "sought neither to persuade nor to spread" which was not quite the case.

28 Gray, p. 99. 29 Weidle, pp. 88-91.

162 THE APOCALYPSE OF PERSONAL AND SOCIAL SALVATION

followers, and his elaborate formulations were ludicrously inadequate as a means of reconciling conflict. His absence from Russia for long periods lent credence to charges that he had lost touch with reality.

Nevertheless, his thought of the period is significant. It belongs to the common genre of solutions offered by the former aesthetes and provides a "case-study" of the tremendous ideological impact of the revolution. Even though he was no longer the aesthetes' acknowledged leader, he remained a prominent figure and many of his aesthetic rivals shared his apocalyptism and mysticism. His pre-1905 novels and critical essays went through several printings and his post-1905 work, which contains many interesting insights on the thought of his contemporaries, was printed in the influential journal Russkaia Mysl' and the popular newspapers Russkoe Slovo and Rech'. Writing for both Vesy and Zolotoe Runo enabled him to keep a foot in two aesthetic camps. A satirical drama of the day whose main character was called "Merezh-Gippius"30 illustrates his reknown.

Thus we turn to his conception of the "Religious Revolution" and the Utopia called "Religious Sociality" which was to follow it.

30 Vladimir Weidle, interview, April 30, 1968.