Advertisement

Nietzsche and Russian Symbolism

  • Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal

Abstract

Nietzsche’s apotheosis of the aesthetic vision, glorification of creative activity, exaltation of individualism and hatred of the Philistines made his philosophy enormously appealing to Russian artists. The prophetic posture of Thus Spake Zarathustra, its aphorisms and epigrams, made the author appear a fellow poet and seeker. Nietzsche had foreseen the malaise which was gripping the European world; his entire philosophy was an attempt to overcome nihilism. Influential in France, in Russia his effect was even greater. The traditional Russian tendency to live by ideas made Nietzscheanism into a philosophic rationale for the symbolist attempt to find new truths through art.

Keywords

Existential Activity Eternal Life Criminal Thought Aesthetic VISIon Grand Inquisitor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    According to Hippius this is what brought them together. Merezhkovsky’s friend Minsky was also a Nietzschean of sorts; his most famous work In the Light of Conscience (1890) was a Nietzschean critique of morality.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vechnye, XVII, 190-94 and passim.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ibid., p. 14.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Merezhkovsky, “Panteon”, PSS XXIII, 159-60.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Merezhkovsky, Vechnye, XVII, 18.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Merezhkovsky, “Volny”, PSS XXIII, 157.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Merezhkovsky, “Rim”, Ibid., p. 159.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Merezhkovsky, “Budushchii Rim”, Ibid., p. 160.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vechnye, XVIII, 71.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Merezhkovsky, Smerf bogov: Yulian Ostupnik, PSS I, 183-85. On p. 185, the hero admits, “I fear life”. Originally entitled “Outcaste”, (Otverzhennyi) it was serialized in Severnyi Vestnik 1895 I-VI (Jan.-June).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Merezhkovsky, “Deti nochi”, as quoted by Modest Gofman, Kniga russkikh poetakh posledniago desiatiletiia (Moscow, 1909), pp. 13-14. The lines “for the new beauty—we will break all lawsvtrespass all limits—” are omitted from the PSS version, see PSS XXII, 171. The PSS do not include all his poems, only those he considered significant. Thus he deleted or altered the poems written during his Nietzschean period because they clashed with his later religious views.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vechnye, XVIII, 134.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ibid., p. 137.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ibid., 131-38.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smerf bogov, pp. 275-76.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    “Otverzhennyi”, VI, 53. This is omitted from the PSS. By 1914 Merezhkovsky retracted his earlier views. In 1895, he thought that Christianity and Paganism were two halves of a greater whole. But by 1914 he considered his previous views “dangerous blasphemy”, for both are combined in the Person of Jesus Christ. PSS I, v. Thus he deleted the more shockingly blasphemous statements in Julian and downplayed the joyousness of paganism.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ibid., p. 54. Also omitted from the PSS.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smerf bogov, pp. 335-36. The last sentence is omitted from the PSS, however. Moreover, in the original version, the sun itself was almost a God. See p. 75 in “Otverzhennyi”, VI. For Nietzsche’s statement “learn to laugh”, see W. Kaufman, ed. Thus Spake Zarathustra, p. 408.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    “Dafnis”, p. 220.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ibid., p. 219.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Breaking the old tablets of values is an allusion to Zarathustra, see pp. 135-36.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    “Dafnis”, p. 206.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Merezhkovsky, “Mikel’Anzhelo”, PSS XXII, 141.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Merezhkovsky, “Pesnia Vakkhanok”, PSS XXII, 45-46.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    “Smerf bogov”, pp. 240-41. The reader is reminded that Merezhkovsky’s mother had died only a few years earlier.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Merezhkovsky, “De Profundis”, PSS XXII, 176-77.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    “Deti nochi”, Ibid., p. 171.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    N. Minsky, Na obshchestvennyia temy (St. Petersburg, 1909), p. 206.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vechnye, XVII, 190-94.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ibid., pp. 190-91. See also p. 202.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vechnye, XVII, 240-42.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ibid., XVIII, 14.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ibid., p. 6.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ibid., XVII, 168-69. See also p. 176, “each must love himself”. Note Merezh-kovsky’s apolitical orientation.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Merezhkovsky, “Pushkin”, Vechnye, XVIII, especially pp. 130-32, 136-37, 144, 154.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ibid., pp. 111, 140. According to Merezhkovsky, Pushkin was more than a poet; he was a giant of world culture whose works could be placed alongside those of Goethe and Dante.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ibid., pp. 122, 134. Note Merezhkovsky’s remarks on “democratic barbarism”, p. 93.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ibid., pp. 97, 122-23.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ibid., p. 168.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ibid., pp. 160-62, 167-68.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
  43. 43.
    Merezhkovsky, Dve tainy russkoi poezii (Petrograd, 1915).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Merezhkovsky, V tikhom omute, PSS XVI, 54.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dve tainy, p. 13. These were difficult years for Briusov also. See Rice, p. 62.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ibid, pp. 81-94 passim.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ibid., p. 97.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ibid., p. 95.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ibid., pp. 95-97.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Merezhkovsky, Ne mir no mech, PSS XIII, 82-84.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ibid. As Merezhkovsky later used the terms, decadents are those who stress art and sensual experience for the pleasure involved whereas symbolists value art and sensuality as a means to spiritual truth. By this definition, both he and Hippius (often considered the quintessence of decadence) ceased to be decadents in 1899 when they turned to Christ.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
  53. 53.
  54. 54.
    Ibid., p. 84. Ne mir no mech was first published in 1908. Upon reading this passage, Bely remarked, “that titmouse wants to set his own sea afire; he is a decadent himself!” Nachalo, p. 69. The Nietzsche statement is in W. Kaufman, ed., Zara-thustra, p. 284.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Merezhkovsky, Lev Tolstoi i Dostoevsky (PSS IX, X, XI, XII), XII, 272.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nicholas Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century (New York, 1963). For Kantian Marxism see George Kline, Religious and Anti-Religious Thought, p. 91 and his “Theoretische Ethik im russischen Frühmarxismus”, Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte, 9 (1963): 270-4. Ivanov’s “The Hellenic Religion of the Suffering God” was serialized in Novyi Put’ in 1904. Father George Florovsky regards the ideological ferment of the fin de siecle as entirely religious. To him it can not at all be explained either psychologically or sociologically as the product of the disintegration of the bourgeois order. See his Puti russkago bogosloviia (Paris, 1937), pp. 455, 484.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ne mir, p. 98. Reminiscent of Baudelaire’s views on the human seas of the city, both were reacting to the new urban society. But Baudelaire often posed as a dandy and thought of the crowd as his mirror; Merezhkovsky avoided the crowd altogether.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations