Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:37:55.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nietzsche in Russia: The Case of Merezhkovsky

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Behold the good and the just! Whom do they hate most? The man who breaks their tablets of values, the breaker, the lawbreaker; yet he is the creator

Behold the believers of all faiths! Whom do they hate most? The man who breaks their tablets of values, the breaker, the lawbreaker; yet he is the creator.

Companions, the creator seeks, not corpses, not herd and believers. Fellow creators, the creator seeksâ—those who write new values on new tablets.

Thus Spake Zarathustra

Between 1898 and 1917 a massive surge of creative activity transformed the Russian cultural scene. Experimentation in all the arts was accompanied by a revival of interest in philosophy and religion. This is the era of Diaghilev and the Russian ballet, of the painters Chagall and Kandinsky, the composers Stravinsky and Skriabin, and scores of lesser-known artists and writers. Poetry, dormant since the 1840s, revived and flourished, and literature explored new themes and techniques.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , September 1974 , pp. 429 - 452
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. There is still no interpretive treatment of the period as a whole. For literary trends, Mirsky, D. S., Contemporary Russian Literature, 1881-1925 (New York, 1926)Google Scholar, is still the best treatment in English. See also Stenbock-Fermor, Elizabeth, “Russian Literature from 1890-1917,” in Oberländer, Erwin, Katkov, George, Poppe, Nikolaus, and Rauch, Georg von, eds., Russia Enters the Twentieth Century, 1894-1917 (New York, 1971)Google Scholar, and Martin Rice, “Valery Briusov and the Rise of Russian Symbolism” (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt, 1971). For painting see Camilla, Gray, The Great Experiment (London, 1962)Google Scholar; John, Percival, The World of Diaghilev (New York, 1971)Google Scholar; Stuart R., Grover, “The World of Art Movement in Russia,” Russian Review, 32, no. 1 (January 1973) : 28–42 Google Scholar; and John E., Bowlt, “Russian Symbolism and the ‘Blue Rose’ Movement,” Slavonic and East European Review, SI, no. 123 (April 1973) : 161–81Google Scholar. For music see Joan, Peyser, The New Music : The Sense Behind the Sound (New York, 1971)Google Scholar.

2. See, for example, E., V. and Maksimov, D., la proshlogo russkoi zhurnalistiki (Leningrad, 1930)Google Scholar; V., Asmus, ed., “Filosofiia i estetika russkogo simvolizma,” in Literaturnoe nasledstvo, vol. 27-28 (Moscow, 1937), pp. 1–53 Google Scholar; Trifonov, N. A., ed., Russkaia literatura XX veka : Dorevolintsionniyi period (Moscow, 1962), p. 4 Google Scholar; Istoriia russkoi literatury, vol. 10 (Moscow, 1954), pp. 607, 774; Istoriia russkoi Uteratury v trckh tomakh, vol. 3 (Moscow, 1968), pp. 12, 731. Recently there have been signs of a sympathetic reevaluation of the “Mir iskusstva” group and pleas for tolerance of different artistic schools. See, for example, A., Gusarova, Mir iskusstva (Leningrad, 1972)Google Scholar, and Sarab'ianov, D., Russkaia zhivopis’ kontsa 1900-kh-nachala 1910-kh godov (Moscow, 1971).Google Scholar

3. Otechestvennyc zapiski was closed in 1884. Although the writers eventually found positions on other journals, the nerve center of Russian radicalism was dead.

4. See Georgette, Donchin, The Influence of French Symbolism on Russian Poetry (The Hague, 1958)Google Scholar, Flekser, A. V., Bor'ba za idcalizm (St. Petersburg, 1900)Google Scholar, and Frank, Simon, ed., A Solov'ëv Anthology, trans. Duddington, N. (New York. 1950).Google Scholar

5. Andrei, Bely, Na rubezhe dvukh stoletii (Moscow, 1931), p. 469.Google Scholar

6. This is not to imply that Merezhkovsky was the only proselytizer of Nietzscheanism. Charles Birle, cultural attaché to the French Embassy, introduced Benois to Nietzsche, and the Moscow journal Voprosy filosofii i psikhnlogii discussed Nietzsche all through the nineties. See George, Kline, “Nietzschean Marxism in Russia,” Boston College Studies in Philosophy, 2 (1968) : 166–83Google Scholar, esp. p. 168, for a description of the introduction of Nietzsche into Russia. See also his “Changing Attitudes Toward the Individual, “ in Black, C. E., ed., The Transformation of Russian Society (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), pp. 606–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and chapter 4, “The God-Builders : Gorky and Lunacharsky,” in Kline, George L., ed., Religious and Anti-Religious Thought in Russia (Chicago, 1969), pp. 103–26Google Scholar. See esp. pp. 62-63 and 106-9 for Kline’s argument that “for Nietzsche, no individual has intrinsic value; individuals have instrumental value only as creators and ‘transvaluators’ of values, whose creativity serves future history” (p. 62). This aspect of Nietzsche, perceived by the Nietzschean Marxists, is only part of Nietzsche’s complex philosophy. To Merezhkovsky and his group Nietzsche was perceived as a philosopher of asocial individualism. Furthermore, the “God-Builders” were a product of a later period.

7. See, for example, Nicholas, Berdyaev, Dream and Reality, trans. Lampert, K. (New York, 1951), pp. 148–49 Google Scholar. Berdyaev credits Merezhkovsky with introducing a whole world of unknown or forgotten values into Russian culture.

8. Valerii Briusov considered the first edition of Merezhkovsky's collected works (1911) “unique in their own way as a manuscript of the search of the contemporary soul, as a diary of all that was experienced by the most sensitive part of our society for the past quarter century.” See his Dalekie i blizkie (Moscow, 1912), p. 63.

9. Merezhkovsky, Dmitrii S., “I khochu no ne v silakh liubit' ia liudei,” Polnoe sobranie sochincnii, 24 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1914), 22 : 11 Google Scholar (hereafter PSS).

10. See D. S., Merezhkovsky, “Groza proshla,” Trud, 1893, no. 17, pp. 107–45Google Scholar. The theme of this play is an unhappy marriage caused by the partner's lack of religious faith.

11. D. S., Merezhkovsky, “Sil'vio,” Severnyi vestnik, 1890, no. 2, pp. 69–90Google Scholar; no. 3, pp. 63-81; no. 4, pp. 45-58; no. 5, pp. 57-75.

12. “Flobert,” Vechnye sputniki, in PSS, 17 : 190-94.

13. “Akropol',” Vechnye sputuiki, in PSS, 17 : 14.

14. Friedrich, Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy, trans. Golffing, Francis (New York, 1956), p. 1956.Google Scholar

15. “Akropol',” Vechnye sputniki, PSS, 17 : 18.

16. “Volny,” PSS, 23 : 157.

17. “Panteon,” PSS, 23 : 159-60.

18. “Simvoly,” PSS, 23 : 5-266.

19. Valerii Briusov, Iz moei zhizni (Moscow, 1927), p. 76.

20. “Budushchii Rim,” PSS, 23 : 160.

21. “A. N. Maikov,” Vechnye sputniki, in PSS, 18 : 71.

22. For the lecture itself see “O prichinakh upadka i o novykh techeniiakh sovremennoi russkoi literatury,” PSS, 18 : 175-275. See also Ralph E., Matlaw, “The Manifesto of Russian Symbolism,” Slavic and East European Journal, 15, no. 3 (Fall 1957) : 177–91 Google Scholar. Zinaida Vengerova's article “Poety simvolisty vo Frantsii,” Vestnik Evropy, 1892, no. 9. pp. 115-43, was also important in diffusing knowledge about French symbolism. Briusov first learned about Verlaine from Merezhkovsky’s lecture; see Rice, “Briusov,” p. 29.

23. “Pushkin,” Vechnye sputniki, in PSS, 18 : 137.

24. D. S. Merezhkovsky, Smert’ bogov : Iulian Otstupnik, in PSS, 1 : 183-85. Originally published as “Otverzhennyi” (“Outcast“) in Severnyi vestnik, 1895, no. 1, pp. 71-112; no. 2, pp. 73-125; no. 3, pp. 1-52; no. 4, pp. 1-46; no. 5, pp. 1-35, no. 6, pp. 41-88.

25. Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, in Walter, Kaufman, ed., The Portable Nietzsche (New York, 1968), p. 1968.Google Scholar

26. D. S. Merezhkovsky, “Deti nochi,” as quoted by Modest, Gofman, Kniga o russkikh poetakh posledniago desiatiletia (Moscow, 1909), pp. 13–14.Google Scholar These lines are omitted from the PSS version; see 22 : 171.

27. Smert' bogov, pp. 275-76.

28. “Otverzhennyi,” 6 : 53-54. The entire passage is omitted from the PSS. The later version deletes the most blasphemous passages and de-emphasizes the joyousness of paganism.

29. Smert' bogov, pp. 335-36, and “Otverzhennyi,” 6 : 75. The last fragment is omitted from the PSS, and in the original version the sun itself was almost a god.

30. Nietzsche, Zarathustra, p. 300. Soloviev's Meaning of Love (1893), which sanctified physical love as an expression of the Divine, may also have influenced Merezhkovsky.

31. “Dafnis i Khloia,” PSS, 19 : 220.

32. Ibid., p. 219.

33. Ibid., p. 206.

34. “Mikel'-Anzhelo,” PSS, 22 : 141.

35. “Pesnia Vakkhanok,” PSS, 22 : 45-46.

36. Smert’ bogov, pp. 240-41. The reader is reminded of the death of Merezhkovsky’s mother only a few years earlier.

37. “De Profundis,” PSS, 22 : 176-77.

38. “Deti nochi,” Gofman and PSS, 22 : 171.

39. “Ital'ianskiia novelly,” PSS, 19 : 5-180.

40. “Flobert,” PSS, 17 : 189-204. The inclusion of the essay (written in 1888) in Vechnye sputniki suggests that Merezhkovsky had returned to his earlier conclusion that art alone cannot provide values by which to live.

41. “Ibsen,” Vechnye sputniki, in PSS, 17 : 240-42.

42. “Dostoevskii,” PSS, 18 : 14.

43. Ibid., p. 6.

44. “Pushkin,” PSS, 18 : 130-32, 136-37, 144, 154.

45. Merezhkovsky, D. S., Dve tainy russkoi poezii (Petrograd, 1915).Google Scholar

46. D. S. Merezhkovsky, V tikhom omute, in PSS, 16 : 54 (first published in 1908).

47. Dve tainy, p. 13. Briusov’s writings also show extreme loneliness during these years. See Rice, “Briusov,” p. 62.

48. Ibid., pp. 81-94.

49. Ibid., p. 97.

50. Ibid., pp. 95-97.

51. D. S. Merezhkovsky, Ne mir, no mech, in PSS, 13 : 84.

52. Nietzsche, Zarathustra, p. 284.

53. D. S. Merezhkovsky, L. Tolstoi i Dostoevskii, in PSS, 12 : 272.

54. Nicholas, Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance (London, 1963)Google Scholar. Note the parallel to developments in France, where the turn of the century witnessed a number of conversions to Catholicism. At that time J. K. Huysmans, author of À rebours (Against the Grain), felt he was facing a choice between Catholicism and suicide, and returned to the church.

55. Ne mir, no mech, pp. 82-83.

56. Berdyaev, Dream, p. 141.

57. Ibid., p. 155.

58. For the polemic between the artists see Victor, Erlich, The Double Image (Baltimore, 1964), pp. 70–74 Google Scholar, and Rice, “Briusov,” chap. 5, esp. pp. 133-77. In 1905 a number of artists, including Blok, Bely, and Ivanov, calling themselves “mystical anarchists, “ founded a journal. Fakely, to promulgate their views. Zolotoc Runo was its successor. For Blok’s politics see Erlich, Double Image, pp. 13-14 and 106-17.

59. Georgii Plekhanov, Sochineniia (Moscow, 1924), 14 : 318.

60. See Kline, “Changing Attitudes Toward the Individual” and “The God-Builders.“ See also his “Theoretische Ethik im russischen Frühmarxismus,” Forschungen sur osteuropäischen Geschichte, 9 (1963) : 269-79, for a description of the views of the Nietzschean Marxists Lunacharsky, Volsky, Bazarov, and Bogdanov.

61. Leon, Trotsky, Literature and Revolution (Ann Arbor, 1971), p. 1971.Google Scholar

62. Ne mir, no mech, p. 98. This passage is reminiscent of Baudelaire’s comments on being in the midst of a “human sea,” the crowds of the Paris streets. But Baudelaire was a “dandy” who used the crowd as his mirror. Merezhkovsky rarely ventured into it.