Acmeist Mythopoetics: Nikolai Gumilev, Viacheslav Ivanov, and "Eidolology"

Yüklə 81.15 Kb.
ölçüsü81.15 Kb.

SEEJ Author 11-28

Acmeist Mythopoetics: Nikolai Gumilev, Viacheslav Ivanov, and “Eidolology”

Recalling her first husband Nikolai Gumilev, Anna Akhmatova once said, “Vsego nuzhnee poniat’ kharakter Gumileva i samoe glavnoe v etom kharatere: mal’chikom on poveril v simvolizm, kak liudi veriat v Boga” (cited in Davidson, 64).1 Indeed, to understand Nikolai Gumilev’s conception of Acmeism, it is essential to examine his relationship to the Symbolists, and in particular with Viacheslav Ivanov, who acted as his mentor in a brief but important period before the beginning of this movement.2

The foundations of Acmeism lie in the famous rift that occurred between Gumilev and Ivanov in 1911. Before this conflict, Gumilev had begun moving away from his former mentor, Valerii Briusov, turning instead to Briusov’s rival Viacheslav Ivanov and his Petersburg circle. Briusov himself had introduced Gumilev to Ivanov’s poetry, suggesting that he study it to improve his understanding of metrics. Gumilev admired Ivanov’s command of the qualities he most feared his own poetry lacked, formal virtuosity and sophisticated philosophical content. He also enjoyed the bohemian society his charismatic new teacher kept. Despite reassurances to Briusov, the young poet quickly came under the sway of “Viacheslav the Magnificent” (Gumilev, NiN, 253-261).

Ivanov’s diaries from the year 1909 note that the young poet was a frequent visitor to his “Tower” apartment, which served as an important gathering place for the literary avant-garde. He writes of Gumilev with affection: “Den’ byl sovershenno besplodnyi dlia raboty, rano prervannoi priezdom Gumileva, kotoryi ostalsia obedat’. Ia liubliu ego i okhotno govoril s nim o mnogom i chital emu stikhi” (SS, II, 782).3 In turn, when Gumilev and Sergei Makovsky organized the Obshchestvo Revnitelei Khudozhestvennogo Slova (The Society for the Adherents of the Artistic Word), known informally as the “Academy,” Gumilev proposed that Ivanov assume a leadership role in the group (Pyman, 324). Ivanov took the young poet's side against his friend Maksimilian Voloshin during the conflict over Cherubina de Gabriak (Ivanova, 407). Correspondence from this period suggests that Ivanov had even planned to join Gumilev on one of his famous journeys to Africa (Gumilev, NiN, 253-261).

Gumilev and Ivanov’s friendship during this period did exhibit signs of strain, however. Though Ivanov expressed admiration for Gumilev as a poet, the issues plaguing his interactions with the younger generation of writers during this period – mainly relating to the Symbolist master’s theoretical intractability and authoritarian attitude – began to affect his relationship with Gumilev as well. A case in point is the set of “response sonnets” they exchanged in 1909, Gumilev’s “Sudnyi den’” (“Judgment Day”) and Ivanov’s “Sonetto di risposta” (“Response Sonnet”). These sonnets were part of a literary game, a variation of one played by thirteenth-century Italian poets in which one wrote a sonnet with the rhyming words left blank, and the second guessed the rhyming words and wrote them into a second sonnet. As Mikhail Gasparov points out, Ivanov’s response to Gumilev subtly corrected one of his rhymes (209-210). This reminder of his teacher’s prowess in the technical realm, an area in which Gumilev was obviously insecure, highlighted the somewhat manipulative nature of Ivanov’s relationship to the younger poet.

This editorial incident was hardly isolated. Ever since the 1907 death of Lidiia Zinovieva-Annibal, Ivanov’s second wife, artistic collaborator, and muse, the poet had been seriously depressed. Though generally a patient mentor, Ivanov permitted himself more frequent ideological criticisms of new poets and their poetry, as he did in the spring of 1911 when Gumilev presented his newly composed “Prodigal Son” (“Bludnyi syn”) to the audience at the Tower. By this point, Gumilev and Ivanov’s relationship had undergone a number of strains, though Gumilev had tried to remain on good terms (Gumilev, NiN, 253-261). This incident, however, essentially ended those efforts. Michael Basker records that Ivanov responded to the new work with “unprecedented ferocity” (502).4 “Though no details are available,” he writes, “it is known that the issue under debate was ‘the limits to the freedom with which a poet might work traditional themes’” (502). Gumilev’s poem made some key changes to the Biblical story of the Prodigal Son when he replaced the titular character’s brother with a sister, who presents him unexpectedly with a bride, as well as a feast, at the very end.5 By exchanging the jealous brother for a mysterious sign of divine grace in female form, Gumilev appears to adjust the original parable to make it more consistent with Ivanov’s conception of human salvation through Dionysian submission to the divine, which, following Soloviev’s conception of Sophia, sometimes took on the appearance of a woman. By re-reading this parable in terms of the Dionysian principle, Gumilev tried to emulate his new mentor.

From Ivanov’s point of view, however, Gumilev had overstepped the bounds of artistic license into the realm of heresy. The older poet regarded canonical myths as unique phenomena that allowed access to mystical truths. While certain changes might preserve or enhance a sacred story’s theurgic potential, others could destroy the religious value of a given work.6 Ivanov recognized that antiquity produced many valid versions of particular myths. However, he did not always approve of those adjustments that contemporary writers, whose goals were aesthetic rather than theurgic, introduced to ancient myths, and presumably he placed Gumilev’s changes under this category. Ivanov’s censure struck a serious blow to Gumilev. It was not long after this event, and probably in response to it, that he and Sergei Gorodetsky, another of Ivanov’s estranged protégés, began to organize the Acmeist movement.

It makes sense, then, to interpret their first manifestos in terms of this polemic with Ivanov. A case in point is the word “eidolologiia,” or “eidolology” in English, a term coined by the Poets’ Guild (Gumilev, PSS, VII, 495).7 Gumilev used it repeatedly over the course of his career, beginning with a 1913 review in the journal Apollon and continuing up to the last year of his life, 1921, where it appears in two manuscripts that were later published as articles (“The Reader” (“Chitatel’”) and “Anatomy of a Poem” (“Anatomiia stikhotvoreniia”)) as well as in his lecture notes and in the unpublished notes for a book, Theory of Integral Poetics (Teoriia integral’noi poetiki),. While it is clear that he considered eidolology important – in his later writings, he consistently lists it together with rhythmics, stylistics, and composition as one of the four essential components of poetry – its exact meaning has puzzled both Gumilev’s contemporaries and later critics. The brief explanation he offered at the beginning of his lecture notes – “the study of images” (“nauka obrazov”) (495)– seems simple, but it later became clear that eidolology meant more than that. “Anatomy of a Poem” explains that “eidolologiia podvodit itog temam poezii i vozmozhnym otnosheniiam k etim temam poeta” and “neposredstvenno primykaet k poeticheskoi psikhologii” (242)8 The notes to his Theory of Integral Poetics complicates this term even further: “Poniatie eidolologii: obrazy, vybiraemye poetom, i otnosheniie k nim. Poznanie poeta: dvenadtsat’ bogov i dve pauzy. Dionis i Budda. Tri podrazdeleniia: golova, serdtse, chrevo. Chetyre kasty (shest’ vidov). Otnosheniie k miru, vytekaiushchee takim obrazom” (SVTT, 229).9 The section on eidolology that appears later in his notes for his curriculum of lectures is no less mystifying, repeating many of the elements mentioned in the notes for Integral Poetics and introducing new concepts, like “vremia i prostranstvo i bor’ba s nimi” and “vozmozhnost’ poeticheskoi mashiny” (230).10

Scholars have elucidated some of the ambiguous elements of Gumilev's eidolological project – the system of gods and castes, for example, refers to an elaborate schema Gumilev developed for categorizing poetic personalities (330) – but its general meaning and origin have remained unclear. Part of the reason for this may be that Gumilev's opponents, and in particular Blok, considered eidolology the epitome of Gumilev's Salieri-like efforts to destroy poetry by reducing it to a pseudo-formalist systematization (PSS, VII, 495). Such opponents were unlikely to devote much effort to the elucidation of their enemy’s program. Another source of confusion was the artificiality of the word itself. Blok described eidolology as “dlia menia neponiatno, kak nazvanie chetvertogo kushan’ia Truffal’dino v komedii Goldoni” (Schwarzband, 379).11 Some conflated it with the German phenomenological term “eidology,” in spite the fact that Gumilev’s German was famously terrible (Eshelman, 62). Even Gumilev’s friends made mistakes with this awkward word. In his description of the literary studio where Gumilev used it with his students, Kornei Chukovsky spells “eidolology” both with and without the second “lo” syllable (cited in Fokin, 418).

Of course the etymological root of “eidolology,” as several have now pointed out (see, for example, Doherty, 127, Gumilev, PSS, VII, 495, and Selkonikov, 9-10), is not “eidos” – Greek for “idol” or “image,” the root of “eidology” – but a similar word, “eidolon,” which also means image, but carries a secondary meaning of “spirit” or “shade.” This term was used widely in the Silver Age, especially among Theosophists and Symbolists, to refer to powerful or iconic images.12 It was also important to one of their touchstones, Plato, who gave the word negative connotations by using it to refer to falsified images propagated by sophists in The Sophist. 13 In The Birth of Tragedy, one of the period’s most influential texts, Nietzsche notes that “the Platonic distinction and evaluation of the ‘idea’ and ‘idol,’ the mere image, is very deeply rooted in the Hellenic character” and goes on to recognize the same distinction in his argument (73).14 Moreover, the Greek authors Stesichorus, Herodotus, and Euripides used it to describe the false Helen created by Hera to take the place of the real one during the Trojan War (Nagy, xi-xii).

While Gumilev might have encountered this word in a number of places, I propose that his direct source for “eidolology” was Viacheslav Ivanov’s programmatic essay “Two Elements in Contemporary Symbolism” (“Dve stikhii v sovremennom simvolizme”), first published in 1908 and later republished several times. Robert Bird points out that it was in this essay that Ivanov “made the greatest impression on contemporaries and subsequent critics,” and it certainly could not have escaped Gumilev’s attention (SE, 238). It was in this article that Ivanov first drew the distinction between theurgic symbols, which could give rise to myths, and their non-theurgic, individualistic equivalents, assigning them to two opposing trends in art that he calls Realistic and Idealistic Symbolism, respectively. Realistic Symbolism, which is receptive art, presents the world as it truly is in a mystical sense, and Ivanov calls it “realistic” for this reason. Idealistic Symbolism, on the other hand, shows an individual artist’s idea of the world, and in doing so presents a transformed vision of reality. At one point, Ivanov concedes that this transformation is not always necessarily problematic: “Khudozhnik-idealist ili vozvrashchaet veshchi inymi, chem vosprinimaet, pererabotaia ikh ne tol’ko otritsatel’no, putem otvlecheniia, no i polozhitel’no, putem prisoedineniia k nim novykh chert.” But he quickly returns to his former position by adding that Idealistic Symbolism “ili zhe daet neopravdannye nabludeniiem sochetaniia, chada samovlastnoi, svoenravnoi svoei fantazii” (PZ. BiM., 183).15 Since by definition the individualistic perspective of Idealistic Symbolism estranges it from the essence of reality, art following this tendency necessarily falls short of Ivanov’s religious goals.

It is with reference to Idealistic Symbolism that Ivanov follows Plato by using the term “eidolon” negatively. For Ivanov, the distinction between Idealistic and Realistic Symbolism was analogous to the one Plato drew between sophists and philosophers. The poet uses an episode from Faust, a scene that refers to the stories about Helen’s eidolon, as a metaphor to illustrate his point:

“Эпоха Возрождения поняла античную древность, в которой искала освобождения от средневекового варварства, идеалистически: вызванная из обители Матерей волшебным ключом Фауста прекрасная Елена была призраком (εἴδωλον), тенью Елены древней, и магическим маревом стал для человека весь озаренный ею мир.” (186)16

While Realistic Symbolism – which contained real myths accepted as such by the common people – was founded on mystic truth, Idealistic Symbolism presented ghost-like approximations of these myths as the real thing and revealed nothing more profound to its audience than magicheskoe marevo, “a magic haze.”17

One recalls that Ivanov had accused Gumilev of creating precisely this sort of myth during their dispute over “The Prodigal Son.”18 While there is no documented evidence that Ivanov specifically used “Realistic Symbolism” or “eidolon” to describe the younger writer’s poetry or poetics, I propose that the context of Gumilev’s subsequent use of “eidolology” to describe a positive element of Acmeism as he conceived it, and as one of four essential elements of poetry in general (PSS, VII, 242), indicates that he coined the term as a polemic response to Ivanov.

In writing, Gumilev first uses “eidolology” in a review of Sergei Gorodetsky, whose 1906 collection Iar’19 was once one of the Symbolist leader’s models for the resurrection of mythopoeism in contemporary literature. Indeed, in “Two Elements in Contemporary Symbolism,” Ivanov describes how aptly one of the poems from Iar’ conveys the essence of Realistic Symbolism:

В «Яри» С. Городецкого есть несколько не лучших в книге стихов, в которых молодой поэт, предчувствуя тайну мифа, метко очерчивает его происхождение («Великая Мать»): [Here Ivanov cites the poem.] <…> Реальное мистическое событие — в данном случае брак Деметры и Диониса, — событие, свершившееся в высшем плане бытия, сохранилось в памяти хлебных колосьев, так как душа вещей физического мира… есть поистине причастница тайновидений и тайнодеяний плана божественного; и человек, причащаясь хлебу, делается в свою очередь причастником тех же изначальных тайн, которые и вспоминает неясною, только ознаменовательною памятью потусторонних событий: в этой смутности воспоминания — глубочайшее существо мифа. <…> Так верит поэт, так он познает интуитивным своим познаванием. Мифотворчество — творчество веры. Задача мифотворчества, поистине, —  «вещей обличение невидимых». И реалистический символизм — откровение того, что художник видит, как реальность, в кристалле низшей реальности. (PZ. BiM., 199-200)20

When Andrei Bely wrote a series of polemical responses to Ivanov’s article, Gorodetsky himself published a response in 1909 entitled “Idolotvorchestvo” (“The Creation of Idols”), and in this article, he repeats Ivanov’s classical terminology in his defense of his teacher’s distinction between Realistic Symbolism and Idealistic Symbolism:

“…Idea [sic] (ens realissimum) или εἴδωλον? Для многих поэтов вопрос этот является роковым. Куда направить творческую энергию: к ознаменованию ли сущего, или к преображению видимостей, к созданию хрупких образов, не имеющих за собой бытия, а только распростаняющих бывание?” (808)21

Here, Gorodetsky associates “idea” with true reality (“bytie” and Realistic Symbolism) and “eidolon” with the transitory world of appearances (“byvanie” and Idealistic Symbolism”). His use of “eidolon” here underscores the importance of this term for Ivanov with regard to this particular polemic, as well as his own status as the latter’s protégé.

Thus, when Gumilev came to the word “eidolology” to distinguish between Symbolist and Acmeist uses of myth in the poetry of the renegade Symbolist Gorodetsky, he was obviously confronting Ivanov. In Gumilev’s 1912 review of Gorodetsky’s Willow (Iva), he does not yet employ this specific word, but he does associate Gorodetsky’s developing sense of image with his recent departure from Symbolism. Gumilev writes that “[s]tikhi simvolicheskie, v kotorykh obraz po sravneniiu s ritmom igraet chisto sluzhebnuiu rol’ – slabee drugikh” (PSS, VII, 136).22 Later, he adds, “Sergei Gorodetskii chuvstvuet, chto mera stikha est’ ne stopa, a obraz, kak v russkikh pesniakh i bylinakh, i kak by ni bylo sil’no perezhivaniie, gluboka mysl’, oni ne mogut stat’ materialom poeticheskogo tvoreniia, poka ne obleklis’ v zhivuiu i osiazatel’nuiu plot’ samotsennogo i deesposobnogo obraza” (136).23 This discussion of the self-sufficient image is clearly related to the concept of “eidolon,” which, one recalls, encompassed not only the image, but also the individual artist’s unique use of the image. Gumilev then goes on to explicitly connect this concept of the image with myth:

Мифотворческий период Сергея Городецкого весьма многознаменателен и, прежде всего, потому что поэт впал в ошибку, думая, что мифотворчество — естественный выход из символизма, тогда как оно есть решительный от него уход. Миф — это самодовлеющий образ, имеющий свое имя, развивающийся при внутреннем соответствии с самим собой, — а что может быть ненавистнее для символистов, видящих в образе только намек на «великое безликое», на хаос, Нирвану, пустоту? <…> Мечтающий о мифе Сергей Городецкий понял, что ему необходима иная школа, более суровая и плодотворная, и обратился к акмеизму. (136) 24

Openly polemicizing with Ivanov’s conception of myth as an essentially religious phenomenon, this review reinvents myth as an artistic practice valid on its own literary terms, and implicitly places mythopoeism under the Acmeist category of eidolology.25 In other words, it presents the sort of mythopoeism that Gumilev practiced in “The Prodigal Son,” which subverted the original story to the poet’s personal artistic vision, as the only correct model of mythopoeism. Later, in a review of Gorodetsky’s next collection, Flowering Staff (Tsvetushchii posokh), Gumilev explicitly commends the poet’s eidolology (ORP, 142).

Another significant use of “eidolology” occurs in a review from 1913 in which Gumilev treated Ivanov alongside several lesser-known poets. This review is also structured polemically.26 While here Gumilev calls his old teacher one of the two more significant Russian Symbolists (along with Sologub) and offers nothing but praise for the volume Tender Mystery (Neznaia taina), he nevertheless calls him a “young poet” (“poet molodoi”) and concludes this section of the review with these challenging words: “No kak dalek etot individual’nyi, odinokii rastvet ot togo ravnovesiia vsekh sposobnostei dukha, kotoroe teper’ grezitsia mnogim… Mezhdu Viacheslavom Ivanovym i akmeizmom propast’, kotoruiu ne zapolnit’ nikakomu talantu…” (PSS, VII, 153).27

Then Gumilev goes on to denigrate Ivanov further by discussing clearly inferior poets in almost the same breath. He calls Vadim Gardner and Aleksei Skaldin, both Ivanov protégés (see Magomedova and Tsar’kova) a “dilletant” (“diletantom”) and a “poor, shabby double [of Ivanov]” (“bednyi, zakhudalyi dvoinik”), respectively (PSS, VII, 153). Then he continues to Aleksandr Roslavlev, known as an epigon of Briusov’s (see Molodiakov), and Ia. Liubliar and Vsevolod Kudriumov, two poets who seem to have been known in 1913 for their distinctively poor work. According to Gumilev, Liubliar, who debuted with three books at once, “does not know most of the most elementary laws of versification” (“ne znaet… bol’shinstva samykh elementarnykh zakonov stikhoslozheniia”) and Kudriumov’s volume is “one of the most unpleasant books of the season” (“odna iz samykh nepriiatnykh knig sezona”) (154-155). Vadim Shershenevich is the only poet other than Ivanov to receive actual praise, and while Gumilev does not mention Ivanov’s name explicitly in his discussion of Shershenevich’s work, he does include strong hints that Realistic Symbolism is the issue at hand:

В эйдолологии (системе образов) он ученик Александра Блока, иногда более покорный, чем это хотелось бы видеть. Но уже проглядывает в его стихах стремление к четкости и договоренности, как бунт против настроения раннего немецкого романтизма в русской поэзии. Мне кажется, идя по этому пути, он может воплотить многое из того ценного, что уже брезжит в «Carmina». И, может быть, тогда только он освободится от устаревшей литературности, которая иногда холодит его лучшие стихи (155).28

In addition to using the word “eidolology,” Gumilev makes reference to Ivanov’s ideological ally Blok and mentions German romanticism, a movement associated with both Blok and Ivanov.29 Gumilev also discusses this German influence in another article from the same year, the even more overtly polemical manifesto “The Legacy of Symbolism and Acmeism” (“Nasledie simvolizma i akmeizm”), in which he disparagingly associates it with Symbolism: “…eta zhe simvolicheskaia sliiannost’ vsekh obrazov i veshchei, izmenchivost’ ikh oblika, mogla rodit’sia tol’ko v tumannoi mgle germanskikh lesov” (147).30 While Shershenevich was not an Acmeist, Gumilev casts him in the terms of his own manifesto as a post-Symbolist ally, and indeed, at this point in time Shershenevich was polemicizing with the Symbolists himself in his critical writings. Futurism Unmasked (Futurizm bez maski), also published in 1913, begins with a brazen challenge to Symbolism written in verse: “…Pochti okonchena postroika / I nam zamenit dlia chudes / Simvolisticheskuiu troiku / Futuristicheskii ekspress” (3).31 Moreover, in another sign of semi-allegiance to Acmeism, “Carmina” also includes a playful complimentary poem dedicated to Gumilev himself.32

Gumilev continued to discuss eidolology and to polemicize with Symbolism even after the war, when the Acmeist and Symbolist movements had both effectively ended. Notes for Theory of Integral Poetics, as well as the articles “The Reader” and “Anatomy of a Poem,” which he may have intended to include in this book, show that he continued to develop his ideas about poetic personalities and their relations to images. Chukovsky, noting the important role that eidolology played in Gumilev’s lectures on writing poetry, describes the term (and the rest of Gumilev’s critical apparatus) as polemical: “Vsia eta naivnaia skholastika byla ot nachala do kontsa polemichna. <…> V te gody [ ] vrazhdebnye Gumilevu predstavleniia o poezii s osoboi siloi byli vyrazheny v tvorchestve Bloka. <…> I vse eti tablitsy s anzhambemanami, pirikhiiami i eidolologiiami byli vyzovom Bloku” (cited in Fokin, 418).33

Chukovsky’s reminiscences here do not offer us a complete understanding of the situation at hand. While he recognizes that Blok was Gumilev’s opponent (and he was indeed Gumilev’s major rival at that point), the first usage of “eidolology” dates back to the early days of Acmeism, when Gumilev still hoped that Blok might be an ally.34 The Literary Studio at the House of Arts in which Chukovsky participated was not organized until much later, after the Revolution, when Blok and Ivanov were firmly allied with one another. At that point Ivanov’s prominence in the St. Petersburg (now Petrograd) literary scene had eroded, while Blok’s had increased, so Chukovsky’s focus on the younger poet makes sense in this instance. In the wider context of Gumilev’s earlier uses of the term, however, the real target must not be Blok specifically, but Ivanov’s school of Realistic Symbolism in general. Another hint that Ivanov was still on his mind at this point is the reference to “poetic psychology” in the definition of “eidolology” in “Anatomy of a Poem” (PSS, VII, 242).. Ivanov connected psychology to individualism, and considered it a barrier to the universalist mindset necessary for engagement with real myths. Moreover, in “The Reader,” Gumilev attacks Ivanov’s concept of the myth-creating poet as the masses’ spiritual guide by explicitly distinguishing between the collective religious experience and poetry, which engages individuals (235-236). Up to the end of his life, Gumilev was still framing his poetics in opposition to his erstwhile mentor.

Eidolology’s original connection to mythopoeism also continued to be important. While explicit references to mythopoeism in Gumilev’s critical texts became rare toward the end of his life, myth becomes increasingly important to him as an artist. Here, the plainly derivative pseudo-Symbolist myths of his early verse give way to the more distinctive and compelling use of myth that characterized his mature period. The preponderance of mythic elements in Gumilev’s late poetry, especially in longer works like “Stellar Terror” (“Zvezdnyi uzhas”) and “Poem of the Beginning” (“Poema nachala”), have led some readers to attribute a “return to Symbolism” to the one-time Acmeist leader.35 However, Gumilev’s unceasing polemics with Symbolism show us that his late poetry represents a continuing development of his own movement.36 Gumilev did not abandon his earlier positions, but rather refined them in his period of maturity. Eidolological mythopoeism was always a part of Acmeism as Gumilev conceived it, and it accounts for many aspects of the last and greatest poetry that he wrote. This “mature period” responded to Symbolism by divorcing myths from their theurgic purpose and original context to express Gumilev’s individual poetic vision.

Works Cited

Basker, Michael. “Gumilyov’s ‘Akteon’: A Forgotten Manifesto of Acmeism.”

Slavonic and East European Review 63 (October 1994): 498-517.

Blinov, Valerii. “Viacheslav Ivanov i vozniknovenie akemeizma.” In Kul’tura i

pamiat’. Tretii mezhdunarodnyi simpozium posvashchennyi Viacheslavu Ivanovu. II: Doklady na russkom iazyke. Ed. Fausto Malcovati. Florence: La nuova editrice, 1998. 9-12.

Blok, Aleksandr. Dnevnik. Ed. A. L. Grishunina. Moscow: Sovetskaia Rossiia,


Davidson, Pamela. “Gumilev’s Review of Viacheslav Ivanov’s Cor Ardens:

Criticism as a Tool in the Polemics of Literary Succession.” In Russian

Writers on Russian Writers. Ed. Faith Wigzell. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1994. 51-65.

Doherty, Justin. The Acmeist Movement in Russian Poetry. Oxford: Clarendon,


Eshelman, Raoul. Nikolaj Gumilev and Neoclassical Modernism. Frankfurt: Lang,


Fokin, Pavel, ed. Gumilev bez gliantsa. St Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo amfora, 2009.

Gasparov, Mikhail. Russkie stikhi 1890-x – 1920-go godov v kommentariakh.

Moscow: Vysshaia shkola, 1993.

Gorodetskii, Sergei. “Idolotvorchestvo” in Viacheslav Ivanov. Po zvezdam.

Borozdy i mezhi. Ed. V. V. Sapov. Moscow: Astrel’, 2007. 806-808.

Gumilev, Nikolai. Neizdannoe i nesobrannoe. Ed. M. Basker and Sh. Greem.

Paris: YMCA, 1986.

-------. On Russian Poetry. Trans. David Lapeza. Ann Arbor, MI: 1977.

-------. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v desiati tomakh. Tom sed’moi: Stat’i o

literature i iskusstve. Obzory. Retsenzii. Ed. N.N. Skatov, Iu. V. Zobnin, V. P. Muromskii. Moscow: Voskresen’e, 2006.

-------. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v desiati tomakh. Tom vtoroi.

Stikhotvoreniia. Poemy. (1910-1913). Ed. N.N. Skatov, Iu. V. Zobnin, V. P. Muromskii. Moscow: Voskresen’e, 1998.

-------. Sobranie sochinenii v trekh tomakh. Tom pervyi. Stikhotvoreniia.

Poemy. Ed. Nikolai Bogomolov. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1991.

-------. Sobranie sochinenii v trekh tomakh. Tom tretii: Pis’ma o russkoi

poezii.. Ed. Roman Timenchik. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1991.

Ivanov, V. V. and Toporov, V. N. “Iarila, Iarilo, Iarylo.” In Mifologicheskii

slovar’. Ed. E. M. Meletinskii. Moscow: Sovetskaia entsiklopediia, 1990.

Ivanov, Viacheslav. Po zvezdam. Borozdy i mezhi. Ed. V. V. Sapov. Moscow:

Astrel’, 2007.

-------. “Retsenziia. S. Gorodetskii. Iar'. Stikhi liricheskie i miroepicheskie.”

Kriticheskoe obozrenie 2 (1907): 47-49.

-------. Selected Essays. Ed. Michael Wachtel. Trans. and commentary

Robert Bird. Evanston, IL: Northwestern UP, 2003.

-------. Sobranie sochinenii. Tom II. Ed. D. V. Ivanov and O. Deschartes.

Brussels: Foyer Oriental Chrétien, 1974.

Ivanova, Lidiia. Vospominaniia. Kniga ob ottse. Ed. John Malmstad. Moscow:

Kul’tura, 1992.

Magomedova, D. M. “Gardner, Vadim Danilovich.” In Russkie pisateli 1800-

1917: biograficheskii slovar’. Tom I: A-G. Ed. P. A. Nikolaev. Moscow:

Sovetskaia entsiklopedia, 1989. 523.

Molodiakov, V. E. “Roslavlev, Aleksandr Stepanovich.” In Russkie pisateli 1800-

1917: biograficheskii slovar’. Tom V: P-S. Ed. P.A. Nikolaev. Moscow:

Sovetskaia entsiklopediia, 2007. 356-357.

Nagy, Gregory. “Forward.” In Norman Austin, Helen of Troy and Her Shameless

Phantoms. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1994. xi-xii.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Birth of Tragedy. Ed. and trans. Walter Kaufmann. New

York, NY: Vintage, 1967.

Pyman, Avril. A History of Russian Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994.

Ronen, Omry. “A Functional Technique of Myth Transformation in Twentieth-

Century Russian Lyric Poetry.” In Myth in Literature. Ed. A. Kodjak, K.

Pomorska, S. Rudy. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers. 110-123.

Rusinko, Elaine. “Nietzsche’s Influence on Acmeism.” In Nietzsche and Soviet

Culture: Ally and Adversary. Ed. Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP, 1994. 84-106.

Savs’ian, K. A. Problema simvola v somvremennoi filosofii. Erevan: Izdatel’stvo

AN Armianskoi SSR, 1980.

Schwarzband, Samuil. “Aleksandr Blok and Nikolaj Gumilev.” Slavic and East

European Journal, 32(Autumn 1988): 373-389.

Selkovnikov, A. Iu. Integral’naia poetika N.S. Gumileva. Semiotika akmeizma.

Barnaul: BGPU, 2002.

Senelick, Laurence. “Vera Kommisarzhevskaya: The Actress as Symbolist

Eidolon.” Theatre Journal. 32:4 (December 1980): 475-487.

Shershenevich, Vadim. Futurizm bez maski. Letchworth: Prideaux Press, 1974.

-------. Stikhotvoreniia i poemy. Ed. A. A. Kobrinskii. St. Petersburg:

Akademicheskii proekt, 2000.

Struve, Gleb. “Tvorcheskii put’ Gumileva.” In Nikolai Gumilev, Sobranie

sochinenii v chetyrekh tomakh. Tom vtoroi. Ed. G.P. Struve. Moscow: Terra, 1991. V-XL.

Tsar’kova, T. S., “Aleksei Skaldin.” In Russkie pisateli 1800-1917:

biograficheskii slovar’. Tom V: P-S. Ed. P.A. Nikolaev. Moscow: Sovetskaia entsiklopediia, 2007. 624-626.

Venclova, Tomas. “Shade and Statue: A Comparative Analysis of Fedor Sologub

and Innokentii Annenski.” Russian Review 41:1 (January 1994). 9-21.

Wachtel, Michael. Russian Symbolism and Literary Tradition: Goethe, Novalis,

and the Poetics of Vyacheslav Ivanov. Madison: University of Wisconsin

Press, 1994.

1 “It’s most necessary of all to understand Gumilev’s character and the most important element of this character: as a boy he came to believe in symbolism the way people believe in God.” (All translations are my own unless otherwise noted.)

2 Some preliminary work has already been done by Michael Basker, Pamela Davidson, and Valerii Blinov.

3 “The day was completely fruitless for work, [which was] interrupted early by the arrival of Gumilev, who stayed for lunch. I love him and gladly spoke with him at length and read him poems.”

4 Basker quotes the very brief minutes of this meeting published by V. A. Chukovskii in Russkaia khudozhestvennaia letopis’. The original text can be found in Gumilev, SVTT, I, 509. Nikolai Bogomolov, the author of this commentary, also discusses Akhmatova’s record of the event.

5 Bogomolov notes that Gumilev conflated narratives from different books of the Bible in this piece (509). Further discussion of this poem, including summaries of several intriguing interpretations that cast Gumilev as the prodigal son and Ivanov as his father, may be found in PSS, II, 231-235.

6 Later, in 1913, Ivanov would adjust his position somewhat in “O granitsakh iskusstva” (“On the Limits of Art”).

7 Gorodetsky used the term too, defining it in a speech as “sistema obrazov, prisushchaia kazhdoi vyrazivsheisia poeticheskoi individual’nosti” (“a system of images inherent in every poetic individuality that expresses itself”). (Gumilev, PSS, VII, 495).

8 “Eidolology sums up the themes of poetry and the potential relations of the poet to these themes” and “directly adjoins to poetic psychology.”

9 “Understanding of eidolology: the images chosen by the poet, and [his] relationship to them. Knowledge of the poet: twelve gods and two intervals. Dionysus and Buddha. Three subdivisions: head, heart, womb. Four castes (six kinds). The relationship to the world that thus ensues”

10 “Time and space and the battle with them” and “the possibility of a poetic machine.”

11 “Incomprehensible to me, like the name of Truffaldino's fourth dish in the Goldoni comedy.”

12 See, for example, Senelick, Venclova, and especially Ronen. This last article goes so far as to use the word “eidolon” to discuss mythopoeism and Acmeism, but it does not make reference to “eidolology” or to Ivanov’s use of the word; rather, the sentence about “eidola” refers to Annensky, who to the best of my knowledge did not use this word in his writing, although he did engage with the concept of the shade/image.

13 See Savs’ian, 100: “It's interesting that in Plato, as a rule, this word is used as invective; 'manufacturer of images'… – in [Plato] the sophist, the poet, and the artist earn this description.” (“Interesno, chto u Platona slovo eto nosit, kak pravilo, brannyi kharakter; ‘fabrikant obrazov’… – takuiu kharakteristiku zasluzhivaiut u nego sofist, poet i khudozhnik.”) Savs’ian goes on to cite The Sophist.

14 It is worth noting here that the young Gumilev was very influenced by Nietzsche. For more on this, see Rusinko.

15 “The idealist artist either returns things different from how he received them (having reworked them not only in a negative sense, through abstraction, but also in a positive sense, by endowing them with new features…), or else he provides combinations that are not justified by observation, the offspring of his autarchic, capricious fantasy.” (Translation by Bird from SE, 19.)

16 “The Renaissance had an idealistic understanding of classical antiquity, seeking in it emancipation from medieval barbarism: beautiful Helen, summoned from the palace of the Mothers by Faust’s magic key, was a phantom (eidolon), a shadow of the ancient Helen, and the whole world she illuminated became for man a magic haze.” (Translation by Bird from SE, 19.) Venclova points out that the image of “haze” is closely related to the “shadow” of “eidolon.”

17 Ivanov utilized the term “eidolon” in other essays as well, many of which were written well after Gumilev formulated “eidolology.” “Goethe na rubezhe dvukh stoletii” (“Goethe on the Boundary between Two Centuries”), published in 1912, refers to the same scene from Faust discussed in «Dve stikhii.» “Drevnii uzhas” (“Ancient Terror”), which first appeared in 1909, also refers to “eidola” negatively as a shade or covering that hides the truth (this time explicitly referencing Democritus's conception of the term). Bird notes that Ivanov's characterization of “eidola” is not universally negative (SE, 290), but for the period in question, the poet primarily uses “eidola” the same way he does in “Dve stikhii,” and Gumilev most likely responded to this usage of it.

18 Basker points out that Ivanov must have recognized Gumilev’s poem as an example of Idealistic Symbolism, but goes on to argue that Gumilev lost interest in mythopoeism after publishing “Akteon.”

19 This title, which comes from the name of the ancient Slavic god of fertility, spring, and male sexuality, Iarila (also called Iarylo and Iaryla), is difficult to translate. It refers to “vyssh[ee] proiavlen[ie] proizvoditel’nykh sil, obespechivaiushchem maksimum plodorodiia, pribytka, urozhaiia.” (“the highest manifestation of productive powers, enabling a maximum of fertility, profit, harvest”). Some render it in English as “Vital Sap.” See Ivanov and Toporov, 672.

20 “In Sergei Gorodetsky’s Iar’, there are certain poems – not the best – in which the young poet, anticipating the mystery of myth, perspicaciously sketches its origin (‘The Great Mother’). <…> A real mystical event, in this case the marriage of Demeter and Dionysus, has occurred on a higher plane of being. It is preserved in the memory of the ears of wheat because the soul of the things of the physical world… is truly a communicant of the secret visions and deeds of the divine plane. And the man who communes of the bread becomes in turn a communicant of those same primordial mysteries that he recalls with the vague and merely signifying memory of otherworldly events: this vagueness of recollection is the most profound essence of myth.<…> Thus does the poet believe, thus does he know with his intuitive cognition. Mythopoesis is the creation of faith. The task of mythopoesis is truly the ‘evidence of things unseen.’ And Realistic Symbolism is a revelation of what the artist sees as reality in the crystal of lower reality.” (Translation by Bird from SE, 31.) Ivanov also places a discussion of myth at the center of his brief 1907 review of Iar’.

21 “The idea (the supremely real being) or eidolon? For many poets this question is crucial. Where to direct one’s creative energy: toward the commemoration of that which is real, or toward the transformation of outward appearances, toward the creation of fragile images having no real existence [bytiia] in themselves, that are only diffusing the phenomenon of temporary being [byvanie]?”

22 “The symbolist verses, in which the image in comparison with rhythm plays a distinctly auxiliary role, are weaker than the others.”

23 “Sergei Gorodetsky feels that the measure of verse is not the foot, but the image, like in Russian songs and byliny, and however powerful an experience may be, or [however] deep a thought, they cannot become material for poetic creation until they have arrayed themselves in the living and tangible flesh of the image that is self-sufficient and capable of functioning independently.”

24 “Sergei Gorodetsky’s mythopoetic period is quite significant, and first of all because the poet fell into error, thinking that mythopoeism is the natural outcome of symbolism, whereas it is a decisive departure from it. Myth is the self-sufficient image, having its own name, developing in internal accordance with itself – and what could be more hateful to the symbolists, who see in the image only a hint of “the great facelessness,” of chaos, Nirvana, emptiness? <…> Dreaming of myth, Sergei Gorodetsky understood that a different school was indispensable for him, one more rigorous and fruitful, and he turned to acmeism.” (Translation adapted from Gumilev, ORP, by Lapeza, 121).

25 Basker shows how in his short 1913 play Gumilev reworked the myth of Akteon not only to better relay his Acmeist message, but also to show how an Acmeist could use myth. After describing how Gumilev deliberately changed aspects of Ovid’s original work while preserving others, making his source obvious, Basker returns to the previously discussed conflict with Ivanov over “Bliudnyi syn.”

26 Davidson discusses how Gumilev’s earlier reviews of Ivanov were even more overtly polemical. She argues, however, that Gumilev had abandoned his combative attitude by the time he reviewed Tender Mystery.

27 “But how far away is this individual, lonely flowering from the balance of all the possibilities of the spirit that many now dream of… Between Viacheslav Ivanov and acmeism [lies] an abyss that no talent can fill.”

28 “In eidolology ([his] system of images) he is a student of Alexandr Blok, sometimes more obedient than one would like to see. But an attempt at concision and agreement can already be found in his verses, like the rebellion in Russian poetry against the mood of early German romanticism. It seems to me that [by] going along this path, he can give form to much of that which is valuable that already glimmers in [his collection] “Carmina.” And, maybe, only then will he free himself from the antiquated literariness that sometimes makes his best verses cold.”

29 The reference to early Romanticism was especially directed toward Ivanov, and in particular his project of translating all of Novalis’ poetry and pleading his cause as a proto-Symbolist. See Wachtel, 120–122.

30 “…this symbolist muddling of all images and objects, the mutability of their appearance, could be born only into the shadowy haze of Germanic forests.”

31 “The construction is almost finished / And miraculously for us / The Futurist express / Will replace the Symbolist troika.”

32 “N. Gumilevu posvashchaetsia.” (“Dedicated to N. Gumilev.”) This poem appears in a section devoted to Shershenvich’s translations and pays homage to Gumilev’s own accomplished rendering of Theophile Gautier. (SiP, 43)

33 “All these naïve scholastics were polemical from the beginning to the end. <…> In those years [the] notions about poetry that were hostile to Gumilev were expressed with particular force in the work of Blok. <…> And all these tables with enjambements, pyrrhics and eidolologies were a challenge to Blok.”

34 Georgii Ivanov claims that Blok was present at early meetings of the Tsekh poetov (cited in Fokin, 324). Ivanov is certainly not the most reliable source of information, but Blok himself, in a diary entry from October 20, 1911 (69), mentions attending an evening hosted by Gorodetsky at which Akhmatova and Gumilev were present.

35 Struve suggests that Valerii Briusov may have originated this opinion by articulating a slightly different variation of it after Gumilev’s death, claiming that his former student had always been a symbolist. Struve goes on to acknowledge that in this specific context, Briusov’s categorization of Gumilev as “symbolist” probably reflected his allegiance to the new Soviet state, which was little interested in the distinctions between pre-revolutionary poetic schools (XXXV-XXXVI).

36 It is even possible that in this category of works Gumilev deliberately reprises the working method of “The Prodigal Son” by refashioning famous myths and stories. Michael Basker points out that he does so quite intentionally in “Akteon.”

Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur © 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə