in Canadian-American Slavic Studies
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?


If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.


in Canadian-American Slavic Studies


* Except where otherwise stated, all translations in this article are my own. A.P.

short chapters on Tolstoi and Gogol' (pp. 294-303) but none on Dostoevskii; or Christo- pher Read, Religion, Revolution and the Russian Intelligentsia 1900-1912: The "Vekhi" Debate and Its Intellectual Background (London: Macmillan, 1979), which deals with the results rather than the origins of the debate; or the symposium edited by N. P. Pol- toratskii, Russkaia religiozno-filosofskaia mysl' XX veka, University of Pittsburgh, Slavic Studies, No. 2 (Louvain: A. Rosseels, 1975); or the recent Soviet study by V. A. Kuva- kin, Religioznaia filosofiia v Rossii nachala XX veka (Moscow: Mysl', 1980). Vladimir Seduro, in his extremely useful Dostoyevsky in Ru.ssian Literary Criticism 1846-1956 (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1956), does devote a whole section of part 1 to "De- cadents, Symbolists, and Mystics," pp. 39-63, and this is the place to go for a clear expo- sition of individual critical works by Merezhkovskii, Shestov, Rozanov, and Viacheslav Ivanov. The emphasis, however, is on the evolution of techniques of literary criticism rather than on the way in which Dostoevskii's views penetrated the thought and sensibil- ity of the period. This last was made the subject of a contemporary study in three books by A. Zakrzhevskii: Pod pole, psikhologischeskie paralleli (Kiev: Iskusstvo i pechatnoe delo, 1911); Karamazóvshchina, psikhologicheskie paralleli (Kiev: Iskusstvo i pechatnoe delo, 1912); and Religiia, p.sikhologicheskie paralleli (Kiev: Iskusstvo i pechatnoe delo, 1913), an interesting if lurid piece of sustained literary journalism in the impressionistic style of the period. Entirety devoted to the resonance of Dostoevskii podpol is Robert Louis Jackson's Dostoevskii's Underground Man in Russian Literature, Slavistic Printings and Reprintings, XV (The Hague: Mouton, 1958), an important study which places Dos- toevskii in line with Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus. The author looks selec- tively at the influence of "the underground man" on the works of many Russian writers, including such representatives of the Silver Age as Sologub (pp. 102-07), Briusov (pp. 113-16), and Aleksei Remizov (pp. 117-19) and, in doing so, often touches on the reli- gious theme which, nevertheless, remains peripheral. "It is Dostoevskii's paradoxicalist, the Underground Man, rather than his saintly epileptic Prince Myshkin who is the hero of these times," Jackson writes in his preface on page 8. Although much has lately been published and written about the Silver Age in the USSR, Dostoevskii's role in its devel- opment has so far only been examined in depth in relation to Aleksandr Blok (Z. G. Mints, "Blok i Dostoevskii," in Dostoevskii i ego vremia [Leningrad: Nauka, 1971 ) , a detailed and absorbing study), and to Anna Akhmatova, in relation to "Poema bez ge- roia" (see Dolgopolov's article in note 1). Since writing this article, my attention has been drawn to the appearance of a Polish book on Dostoevskii and the Silver Age which, unfortunately, I am not linguistically qualified to assess. It is Telesfor Pozniak, Dostoj- ewski w kregu syrnbulistow rosyjskich. Prace Wroetawikego Towarzystwa Nauko.wego, Seria A, Nr 139 (Wrocl'aw: Ossolineum, 1969), 212 pop. 1 owe this reference to Dr. Geor- gette Donchin of the University of London. Emigre books on Dostoevskii by such authors as L. A. Zander, B. P. Vysheslavtsev, K. V. Mochulskii, Mariia Skobstova, and r. A. Stepun, are uncomfortably placed between primary and secondary sources from the point of view of this study and have-rc:greafully-r.ot been considered here. Indeed, a special study might well be devoted to the rich emigre literature on Dostoevskii, much of which follows up lines of inquiry adumbrated in the Silver Age.

3. N. Berdiaev*sA7/r Dostoevskogo (Paris: YM(:A-Press, 1923), first pub- lished as /f7(Mu///c Dostocrskogo (St. Petersburg: Fpokha. 1921), was published in a German translation in 19�5. in French in 1933. in English in 1934, in Spanish in 1935, in Italian in 1942. and in Swedish in 1948. See C. N. Zcrnov. comp.. Russian Emigre Authors: A Bibliographical Index and Bibliography of Their Works on Theology, Reli- giolls Philosophy, Church IlislOlT and Orthodox Culturc 19211972 (Boston: G. K. Hall, 1973). p. l4. ,

4. F. M. Dostoevskii, "Podrostok," in Po/noe sobranie sochinenii v lridtsati tomakh (Leningrad: Nauka, 1972-), XIII, 378-'79.

5. V. G. Belinskii, "Peterburgskii sbornik," in Sobranie sochinenii, 3 vols. (Moscow: Ogiz, 1948), III, 72, first published in Otechestvennye zapiski in 1846; N. Mikhailovskii, "Zhestokii talant," in Sochineniia, 6 vols. (St. Petersburg: Russkoe bogatstvo, 1896-97), V, 7, first published in Otechestvennye zapiski in 1882. 6. F. M. Dostoevskii, "Brat'ia Karamazovy," in Dostoevskii, XIV, 292. 7. K. Bal'mont, V bezbrezhnosti (Moscow: Izd-vo avtora, 1895). Bal'mont's previous collection published the year before and modestly entitled I'od severnym zoom was in an altogether more sober style. The epigraph to V bezbrezhnosti marked a new departure and, in his autobiography, Bal'mont expressly states that the book which "gave him most" was The Brothers Karamazov. Cf. K. Bal'mont, "Avtobiograficheskie zametki," in S. A. V-engerov, Russkaia literatura XX veka (1890-1910J, II/I/ Okonchanie, 7 vols. (Moscow: Mir, 1914-16), I, 59. 8. Valerii Briusov to Andrei Belyi, letter of August, 1904, published in full in "Valerii Briusov," Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 85 (Moscow: Nauka, 1976), 378-79 and quoted, also, in full, by Belyi himself in l�'achalo veka (Leningrad: Gos. izd-vo Khudozhestvennaia li- teratura, 1932), pp. 147-49. 9. Aleksandr Dobroliubov (1876-1944). Briusov published two collections by Do- broliubov, the first with a preface by another poet he had much admired, Ivan Konev- skoi (real name, 1. I. Oreus, 1877-1901). These books were entitled Sobranie stikhov (Moscow: Skorpion, 1900) and Iz knigi nevidimoi (Moscow: Skorpion, 1905). In the copy in my possession, the name of the author on the title page of the book is crossed ; out and underneath is written "Zapisano Aleksandrom Dobroliubovym." This second book is very different in style from Dobroliubov's experimental early verses, including those published in St. Petersburg in his first collection Natura naturans, Natura natnrata (St. Petersburg: Izd-vo avtora, 1895), and includes prose meditations and homilies. The poems resemble chants and folk poetry of the oral tradition. For further information,

see K. 11. Azadovskii. "Blok i Aleksandr Dobroliubov." in Trurchcsmu A. A. Bloka i 1-its- skaia klll'tura XX veka: Blokol'skii shomik III, publishes in Uchcl1,rc :apiski Tartllss- kogo guslldarstJ'e/1/wgo IIl1il'ersitcta. No. 459 (Tartu: T.G.V.. 1975), pp. 121-46 and L. V. Ivanova. "Valerii Briusov i Aleksandr Dobroliubov." f:¡'cstiia Akademii nauk SSSR. Seriia literatury iiazyka. 40. 10. 3 (May-June 1981), 255-65. 10. Z. N. (;ippius. "Kritika liubvi." Mir iskusstva. No. 1 (1901). p. 34.

11. A. Blok. Letter to his mother of 19 June, from Milan, in Sobranie sochinenii v vos'mi tomakh, 8.vols. (Moscow-Leningrad: GiKhlit, 1960-63), VIII, 289. 12. F. M. Dostoevskii, "Pushkin, Ocherk. Proizneseno 8 iunia v zasedanii Obshchestva liubitelei rossiiskoi slovesnosti," in Sobranie sochinenii v desiati tomakh, 10 vols. (Mos- cow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1956-58), X, 458-59.

13. Cf. Jean Chuzeville, Dmitri Merezhkovsky. L ame russe et nous (Paris: [Private printing] , 1922), p. 17. 14. D. S. Merezhkovskii, "Khristos i antikhrist v russkoi literature," Mil' iskusstva. No. 7 (1901), p. 24.

15. But see also N. D. Gorodetskaia, Saint Tikhon Zadonsky: Inspirer o.f Dostoevsky (London: SPCK, 1951), for Dostoevskii's other source. 16. Vladimir Solov'ev, "Tri rechi v pamiat' Dostoevskogo," in Sobranie sochinenii, 9 vols. (St. Petersburg: Obshchestvennaia pol'za, 1901-07); III, 169-200. 17. Z. N. Gippius-Merezhkovskaia, Dmitrii Merezhkovskii (Paris: YMCA-Press, 1951 ), p. 175. 18. Sergei Solov'ev, Zhizn' i tvorchkaia evoliutsiia Vladimira Solov'eva (Brussels: Zhizn' s Bogom, 1977), pp. 202-03.

19. A. Volynskii. ");ritika i bibliogrJtïiJ." SCJ'crnri rcstllik. Nos. 10-11-12 (1898). pp. 206-07. 20. A. Volynskii, "Literaturnye zametki:' ihid.. No. 7 ( 1896). p. 313. 21. A. Volynskii, Tsarsmm Äarallla:oJ't'kl1 (St. Petersburg,: Trud. 1901), p. 110.

22. Cf. D. S. Merezhkovskii, Vechnye sputniki (St. Petersburg: P: P. Pertsov, 1897). 23. D. S. Merezhkovskii, "Lev.Tolstoi i Dostoevskii," Mir iskusstva, Nos. 7-8 (1900), p. 25. 24. D. S. Merezhkovskii, 0 prichinakh upadka i o novykh techeniiakh sovremertnoi russkoi literatury (St. Peter�burg: Izd-vo avtora, 1893). 25. A. P. Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem [sochineniia 17 vols. in 15; Pis'nau 10 vols.] (Moscow: Nauka, 1974-81), Pis'ma X (letter to A. S. Suvorin, 25 Nov. 1892).

26. Cf. D. S. Merezhkovskii. "O prichinakh upadka...." in Pmhtuc sohrallic sochin. mii. 24 vols. in 12 (Moscow: I. D. Sytin, 1914). XVIII, 231. whcrc he writcs: "The sub- jective artistic method of criticism can have great schularly. not unly poetic merit. The secret of genius is often more within reach uf the poet critic than of the objective scholar." 27. D. S. Merezhkovskii, "Lev Tolstoi i Dosto�vskii:' Jlir iskiissti,a. No. 2 ( 190 1). p. 103. 28. D. V. Filosofov. "Natsiunaliam i dekadentstvo." ibis.. No. 2 1-2 (1900), p. 211. 29. P. P. Pertsov. l.itcratnrpw rospolllillalliia (Moscow-Leningrad: Academia. 1933), p. 221. 30. D. S. Merezhkuwkii, "Lev Tolstoi i Dostoevskii,." llir isknsstna, Nos. 15-16 (1900), p. 56.

31. D. S. Merezhkovskii, "Dostoevskii," in Merezhkovskii, XVIII, 6, originally pub- lished as "0 'Prestuplenii i nakazanii' Dostoevskogo," Russkoe, 2, No. 3 (1890), 155-86. I have here used the translation in Vladimir Seduro's Dostoevsky in Rus- sian Literary Criticism, p. 43, and offer no apology for requoting this key passage al- ready highlighted among Merezhkovskii's voluminous writings on Dostoevskii by an earlier critic. I would, however, like to put rather different emphasis on Seduro's state- ment that "in studying the world of Dostoevsky, decadent criticism perceived no divid- ing line between object and subject," a statement which he links with the passage quoted in the text. This rather loses sight of the fact that the "decadent" approach to literature did not admit of "objective criticism." It was based on what Khodasevich called "col- lective creation" (VI. Khodasevich, "0 simvolizme," in Literaturnye stati i vospomin- aniia [New York: Chekhov, 1954] , p. 158), a combined effort to overcome decadent isolation through art; for as Gippius said in the preface to her C'ollected Verse ("Neob- khodimoe o stikhakh," in Sobranie stikhov, 2 vols. [Moscow: Skorpion," 1904, and Musaget, 1910] , I, i-v, "... until we find a common God, or at least understand that we are all seeking Him, the One, until such time our prayers-our poems-alive for each one of us separately, will be incomprehensible and unnecessary to all the rest." Merezhkov- skii undoubtedly believed that he and Dostoevskii were "seeking one God." It seems to the author of this study that every school of criticism (whether sociological, biograph- ical, psychological, formalist, or structuralist) can each provide their own insights and should not be judged by tenets other than their own. The modernist or "decadent" ap- proach, consistent all along the line, was subjective and impressionistic. "Everything that he [the critic, A.P.] reads, he reads first in the whole world," wrote a minor critic in Briusov's The Balance, "neither knowing nor wishing to know how others read it. The

Bible, a book of new poems, novels, philosophical articles-all these are written for him and from him alone await their true evaluation" (Boris Sadovskii, "0 staroi i novoi kri- tike," Very, Nos. 9-10 1904j). Diagilev, speaking for his own Mir i.rkusstva, stated cate- gorically: "Criticism does not explain a work of literature, but simply illuminates it by the individual view of the critic" (S. P. Diagilev, "Iliustratsiia k Pushkinu," Mir iskusstva, Nos. 16-17 [ 1899] , p. 36). We have already cited Merezhkovskii's view in note 26. These are criteria by which we may fairly judge modernist criticism. 32. Merezhkovskii, "0 prichinakh upadka... ," in Merezhkovskii, XVIII, 226. 33. D. S. Merezhkovskii, "Lev Tolstoi i Dostoevskii," Mir iskusstva, Nos. 21-22 (1900), p. 186. 34. D. S. Merezhkovskii, Preface to Polnoe sobranie soclrinenii, I, vi.

35. On 7 February 1901, Merezhkovskii actually delivered the first of what should have been two lectures in the Philosophical Society of St. Petersburg University on Tol- stoi's religious views, criticizing him for his "aristocratic" attitude to the Church and his rationalist critique of dogma and sacrament. The lecture was not well-received and Merezhkovskii was even criticized by a priest in the audience, who likened him and Tol- stoi to the sons in the parable, one of whom promised to go and work on his father's vineyard and did not, whereas the other (Tolstoi) defied his father, yet then went and "did his will." (See Vasilii Rozanov, "Seriia nedorazumenii," Novae vremia, No. 8970, 16 Feb./l March 1901). The announcement of Tolstoi's excommunication on 22 Feb- ruary lead to the cancellation of the second lecture in deference to public indignation. 36. D. S. Merezhkovskii, "Khristos i antikhrist v russkoi literature," Air iskusstva, No. 2 (1902), p. 104.

37. G. 1. Chulkov rightly ascribes the leadiag role in the reaction against extreme sub- jective individualism which took place at the turn of the century to the Merezhkovskiis. Cf. G. Chulkov, Aleksandr Blok i ego vremia," in l'is'ma Aleksandra Bloka (Leningrad: Kolos, 1925), p. 106. 38. Cf., for instant:; Metropolitan Antonii Klnapovitskii, Pastyrskoe izucher�ie liudei i zhizni po sacd�irre F. M. Dostoevskogo (Kazan': I2eligiozno-fiiosofskaia biblioteka, 1898).

39. Cf. Gippius-Merezhkovskaia, Dmitrii Merezhkovskii, pp. 92-93: "Yes, it was in truth two different worlds. As we came to know these new people better we went from surprise to surprise. I am not even speaking here about intrinsic difference, but simply about habits, customs, about language itself. Everything was different, almost another culture." " 40. D. S. Merezhkovskii, "Otsy i deti russkogo simvolizma," ¡"fir iskusstva, Nos. 2-3 (1901), p. 128. 41. Also published as a separate book: Zapiski Sartk.t-Peterburgskikh Religiozno-Filo- K)�!7c/! Sobranii (1902-1903) (memoirs de reunions s'occupant de Religion et Philoso- phie d Petersburg (1902-1903J (St. Petersburg: Pirozhkov, 1906). 42. At the time of the convening of the first Religious-Philosophical meetings, Merezhkovskii had been an ardent supporter of the autocracy, considering that it was better for a layman to exercise temporal power with the blessing and support of the Church than that the Church herself should wield such power. This is one reason why he was unsympathetic to the clergy's hope of restoring the Patriarchate. In the course of the debates themselves, however, his opinions began to change and after the Revolution of 1905 he attacked the whole concept of autocracy as being "of antichrist." For the diffi-

culty (and sincerity) of Merezhkovskii's changes of opinion, see V. Briusov's "Merezh- kovskii," in Dalekie i blizkie, Rarity Reprints No. 30 (Letchworth: Bradda Books, 1973; first published Moscow: Skorpion, 1912), p. 56. 43. D. D. Merezhkovskii, Le Tsar et la revolution (Paris: [Private printing] , 1907). p. 7. 44. Aleksandr Blok. Letter to A. Belyi of 1 August 1903, in Aleksandr Blok i Andrei Belyi. Perepiska, Letopis' Gosudarstvennogo literaturnogo muzeia, kniga 7, ed. B. N. Orlov (Moscow: GosLit, 1940), p. 45. ,

45. Cf. A. Benois and D. Merezhkovskii in Nuvyi pttt' (Feb. 1903), pp. 156-58 and 159-60. 46. Letter from Belyi to his mother (TsGALI, fond 53, op. 1, ed. khr. 358), quoted in a note to Belyi's letter'to Briusov of 19 February 1905, in which his ardent defense of the Merezhkovskiis from Briusov provoked the latter to challenge him to a duel (see "Valerii Briu�,ov," Li[eratumoe nasledstvq, 85, p. 381. 47. Andrew Belyi, "Ibsen i Dostoevskii," Vesy, No. 12 (Dec. 1906), p. 48. A similar

view of Dostoevskii was expressed the following year by Blok in his impressive image of the "three demons" of Russian literature-Gogol' and Lermontov leading the third, gi- gantic but blind demon, Dostoevskii: "The third was blind. That was why he wandered out to the end of the world where in reality there is nothing but marshes.... Someone had assured him that the capital of Russia was there, that all the interests of the Empire were centered on that place, that from there its destinies were governed ... and so the blind man was left to drink the dregs of the heady Petersburg mists..." (Blok, V, 78). 48. D. S. Merezhkovskii. Unpublished letter to Andrei Belyi in the Manuscript De- partment of the Lenin Library. "Arkhiv A. Belogo. Bel. 19.9."

49. A A. Blok-, "Bezvreme¡Üc," in Blok, V, 78-79. 50. Ucrek Traversi, "Dostoevskii," in Dostoevsky: A Collection o.f Critical Essays, ed. Rene Vellek (hnglewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962), p. 170. Though I would not subscribe to the view of Dostoevskii given in this article, the expression "metaphysical impatience" is undoubtedly apt. 51. N. Berdiaev, Dostoyevsky, trans. Donald A. Attwater (New York: Meridian Books, 1957: first published New York: Sheed and Ward, 1934), p. 14.

52. V. Ia. Briusov, "Respublika iuzhnogo kresta," Vesy, No. 12 (1905), pp. 25-40. 53. Lev Shestov [L. I. Shvartsman] , "Dostoevskii i Nitche, filosofiia tragedii," Mir iskusstva, No. 2 et seq. (1902), published as a separate book (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Stasiulevicha, 1903).

54. A. M. Remizov, Prud (St. Petersburg: Sirin, 1908); first published in Voprosy zlzizrii (March-April et seq. 1905). The passage on "double-think" is from the section on Dostoevskii: "Zvezda-Polyn," in Ugon'veshchei (Paris: Opleshnik, 1954), p. 205.

55. A. M. Remizov, Golubinnaia kniga (Hamburg: Rodnik, 1946), pp. 31-35; also in A. M. Remizov. Sobranie sochinenii, 8 vols. (St. Petersburg: Shipovnik and Sirin, 1910- 12), VII. Cf. also Obraz Nilcolaia chudotvortsa (Paris: YNICA-P.ress, 1931) and Vzvikh- rennaia Rus' (London: Overseas Publications Interchange, 1979; first published Paris: Tair, 1927), p. 472. 56. Viacheslav Ivanov, "Krizis individualizma," Voprosy zhizni (Sept. 1905), p. 60. '�7. Blok, whose Balaganchik (which so offended Andrei Belyi) was actually written for Meierkhol'd on the suggestion of Chulkov and first published in l'akely, kniga pervaia (1909), pp. 197-211, later, in August, 1907, under pressure from Belyi, publicly disso- ciated himself from "mystic anarchism" in Briusov's Vesy. However much the more ser- ious symbolists, particularly Belyi and the Merezhkovskiis, might later disapprove of Chulkov's "manifesto," whe whole notion of "mystic anarchism" in fact came into being in the course of conversation between Belyi, Blok, Chulkov, and Viacheslav Ivanov (to whom Belyi had introduced Blok in the first place that same winter of 1905). 58. G. 1. C'hulkov, O mistischeskom anarkhizll7e (St. Petersburg- Ory, 1906), and also in Voprosy zhizni (July 1905), pp. 199-200, elaborating his theory of the transformation of the Earth through periods of tragic, orgiastic passion. 59. Viacheslav Ivanov, "0 nepriiatii mira," preface to ibid. 60. A. A. Blok, "Da tak diktuet vdokhnovenie," in Blok, 111, 93.

61. L. Zinov'eva-Annibal, "Net," Fakely, kniga pervaia (1906), p. 195. 62. Lev Shestov, Shekspir i ego kritik Brandes (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia A. M. Men- delevicha, 1898), p. 9. 63. A curious study of Dostoevskii and Kant which appears to owe a considerable un- acknowledged debt to Lev Shestov was published under the editorship of N. K. Gudzii in the Soviet Union by Ia. E. Golosovker, Dostoevskii, Kant, razrnyshleniia chitatelia nad romanom "Brat'ia Karamazovy"i traktatom Kanta "Kritika chistogo razuma"(Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1963), 101 pp. It must be said, however, that although the basic direction and even style of this chimes with Shestov, the author works independently and with great acumen on the texts of The Brothers Karamazov and N. Losskii's 1915 translation of Kant's Kritik der reinen Vernunft.

64. Shestov, "Dostoevskii i Nitche, filosofiia tragediia," quoted here from Lev Shes- tov, Sobranie sochinenii, 4th ed., 4 vols. (Paris: YMCA-Press, 1971), III, 240, 241, 245. Shestov's Collected Works appeared in twelve volumes between 1898 and 1966. Vol- umes II, III, and IV were reprinted in Paris in 1971 and volume VII in 1974. For the var- ious printers and publishers, see Nathalie Baranoff, Bibliographie des oeuvres de Léoll Chestov (Paris: Institut des Etudes Slaves, 1978). 65. Lev Shestov, "0 knige Merezhkovskogo," Mir iskusstva, Nos. 8-9 (1901), pp. 132-36.

66. Anna Lise Crone, Rozanov and the End of Literature: Polyphony and the Disso- lutiorr of Genre in Solitaria and Fallen Leaves (Wiirzburg: jal-verlag, 1978). While I find the division into eight voices or persona somewhat arbitrary, the idea of Rozanov's style as a "polyphonic monologue" deriving from Dostoevskii's The Double and The Man from Underground is most impressive, as is the subtle contrasting of Dostoevskii's diary with Rozanov's Fallen Leaves, perceived as a deliberate further step toward the dissolu- tion of accepted literary norms. 67. V. Rozanov, "Otkry*6e pis'mo D. V. Filosofovu," Mir iskussfva; No. 2 (1899): "... the first pages I read of Nietzsche ... failed to charm me. Because of my literary epicureanism, I can only read that which exerts this quality of charm. Of Nietzsche I know that 'he was a great philosopher' and ended in a sad state of mental derangement." Cf. also V. Rozanov, Okolo tserkovnykh sten, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1906), in which he-strangely-compares the Church to the Gospels in favor of the former, and also Opavshie list'ia (St. Petersburg, 1913), p. 414: "... the Church is immeasurably more necessary to me than literature...." 68. "V svoem uglu" was the title of Rozanov's regular column in Novyi put'.

69. V. Rozanov, "Zvezdy," Mir iskusstva, Nos. 8-9 (1901), pp. 76-77.

70. V. Ia. Briusov made this note in his diaries for 29 April 1903, when he made Ivanov's acquaintance at the Russian Higher School of Social Studies in Paris where the latter was giving a course of lectures (later published in Novyi put' and Voprosy zhizni) on the religion of Dionysos (cf. "Perepiska s Viacheslavom Ivanovym, 1903-1923," in "Valerii Briusov," Literatumoe nasledstvo, 85, p. 428). 71. At Briusov's request, Viacheslav Ivanov undertook to translate "The Birth of Tragedy" for Skorpion. This was originally part of an unrealized project to publish the "Complete Works" in Russian. I 72. Viacheslav Ivanov, "Dostoevskii i roman-tragediia," Russkaia mysl', Nos. 5-6 (1911). Translated into English by Norman Cameron, Freedom and the Tragic Life (New York: Noonday Press, 1952). 73. Aleksandr Blok. Letter to Andrei Belyi of 16 April 1912, in Blok, VIII, 386-89. For Blok's revulsion from Viacheslav Ivanov at this period, see also ibid., VII, 72 and III, 141-42.

74. Andrei Belyi, Tragediia tvorchestva-Dostoevskii i Tolstoi, Russian Titles for Specialists, No. 15 (Letchworth: Prideaux Press, 1973; originally published Moscow: Musaget, 1911), p. 19. 75. Cf. D. S. Merezhkovskii, "Prorok russkoi revoliutsii," Vesy, Nos. 3-4 (1906), pp. 19-47 and "Gor'kii i Dostoevskii," Bylo i b.udet (Petrograd, 1915), pp. 26-83.

76. V. V. Rozanov, "Tsel' chelovecheskoi zhizni," Voprosy filosojii i psikhologii (Nov. 1892), p. 27. 77. Cited by Zcnkovsky, llistory of Russian Philosophy, I, 362.

78. N. Berdiaev, Russkaia ideia (Paris: YMCA-Press, 1946), p. 229. 79. V. V. Rozanov, Gegenda o velikom inkvizitore (St. Petersburg, 1894), pp. 197-98; 3rd ed. (St. Petersburg: Pirozhkov, 1906).

80. This is what the author of this article was told many years ago by both Dobu- zhinskii and Aleksandre Benois in the mid-1950s, when writing a thesis on "The Origins of Russian Decadence 1890-1905, with Special Reference to D. S. Merezhkovskii" (com- pleted 1958). 81. D. S. Merezhkovskii, "Teper' ili nikogda," lroprosy zhizni (April-May 1905).

82. V. Bazarov [V. A. Rudnevj , "Khristiane Tret'ego Zaveta i stroiteli Bashni Vavil- onskoi," in Literaturnyi raspad (St. Petersburg: Zerno, 1908). 83. Blok, VII, 51. 84.Ibid., pp. 41-42.

85. Andrei Belyi. Letter to Blok of 17 March 1918, in Aleksandr Blok and Andrei Belvi. Perepiska, pp. 335-36. 86. B. M. Gasparov, lu. M. Lotman, "Igrovye momenty v poeme Dvenadtsat'," Tezisy I vsesoiuznoi (III) konferentsii "Tvorchestvo A. A. Blok i russkaia kul'tura XX veka" " (Tartu: T.G.U., 1975), pp. 53-62.

87. "Brat'ia Karamazovy," in Dostoevskii, XIV, 285-86. 88. These words were scribbled by Blok on the margin of the first rough draft of The Twelve, together with a line of Nekrasov's ballad: "And there lived twelve robbers." The Russian word, in both cases, is Razboinik. 89. Remizov, Vzvikhrennaia Rus', p. 472. 90. Remizov, Ogon'veshchei, p. 211..

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 4 4 1
Full Text Views 9 9 9
PDF Downloads 2 2 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0