Specific of artistic world modeling in the Russian symbolism fiction: theory, trends, transpersonal models

Cover Page

Cite item


The article is devoted to the study of the peculiar properties of artistic world modeling in the Russian symbolism fiction with an emphasis on the anthropological and ontological concepts of Man and Being, structuring the “world-like” novel model. The ability to identify the evolutionary dynamics of both the aesthetic and ethical-philosophical paradigm of the modernist type of artistic consciousness, identified in the context of existentialization and neo-mythologization trends, determines the relevance of the research problem. The novelty of this research is in the analysis of the author's transpersonal models of myth in Russian modernist novels at the beginning of 20th century, in terms of knowledge of the “aesthetic imperative of integrity” integrating text consciousness (the world as a text), personal consciousness (I-being) and ontological consciousness (being-in-me). Mythological-cultural concepts of Christological philosophy of D. Merezhkovsky, the semiosphere of V. Bryusov’s novel “The Fiery Angel”, mythological codes of the anti-utopian novel-myth L. Andreev, reflecting the most important categories and attitudes of the transpersonal anthropological and religious-philosophical concepts of the “new religious consciousness” of Russian symbolism became the object of this study.

Full Text

Introduction: strategy of world modeling in the prose of Russian symbolism The modern artistic consciousness, opposed to the realistic one, appeared at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century and organized a non-classical paradigm of artistry with a tendency to anti-mimesis, polyphony, palimpsest, with access to the estesis of intertextuality, receptivity and referential integrity. The new non-classical paradigm determined the dynamics and evolution of the literary process during the 20th century and transformed literary artistry. Artistic and philosophical models of Man and Being represents a symbolic semiosphere to retransmit the principle of “the world as a text” (Roland Barthes) into a literary text through the aesthetics of game strategies of artistic world modeling. The text becomes “reality” and acquires a qualitatively new feature - a dichotomous, which reflects the socio-chronotropic invariant “the real outside world” and breeds in the context of art polylogue (being - consciousness - text) variable codes of artistic forms of “being - conscious” realities (text - consciousness, text - being of consciousness, text - intuition, the world as text, chaosmos, oneirosphere, etc.). The multidimensional reality models text-generating polyreality, which demarcates reality and identifies multiple chronotope of “possible worlds” (inner consciousness, textual reality, subconsciousness, outside world, etc.) in their equivalent and equal parallel “alternative” coexistence. The paradigm of “possible” poly-realities defines a non-classical narrative strategy of nonlinear nondeterministic architectonics of the “labyrinth universe” (on the principle of “The Garden of Forking Paths” by Jorge Luis Borges - original Spanish title: “El jardín de senderos que se bifurcan”). Due to such strategy, the novel texts of symbolists create the effect of an existential text (that emphasizes the given Consciousness) despite the actively organized event plot. In this case, the levels of personal, existential and textual consciousness form and generate an artistic model of polyreality, the semiosphere of which is synergistic. Based on the aesthetics of polyreality A. Bely founded the system of noospheric symbolism (in the context of irrational and mystical poetics), which integrates the existential levels of the “matter” of art and other metaphysical reality, symbolized by art. The purpose of artistic symbolism was to eliminate the dependence of form on content. Principles of artistic world modeling in the prose of Russian symbolism The situation of the “multidimensional dialogue” of the 20th century (the theory of M. Kagan) significantly expanded the theoretical propositions of Galileo “Dialogue about the two main systems of the world” (latin - “Systema cosmicum”) and led to the reformation of the criteria of novel genre, which primarily affected the modernist novel. The classical novel, perceived as an organically generated integrity, appears in the invariant of some analog of an ordered, integral being, providing a harmony of personal and ontic. The author of the modernist novel structures the artistic model of man and being based on “world-like” [1. P. 155] architectonics of the “labyrinth” polyreality interfering with the personal and ontological levels - ASС (Altered States of Consciousness) “Parallel-Worlds” and the chronotope of “Parallel-Worlds”. The hero simultaneously lives in different “parallel” worlds gaining a special “threshold thinking” which characterizes the world of the “border zone” (K. Frumkin). This zone expands the concept of “second reality” in the Russian non-classical paradigm of art and brings out a special metabolic model of the world, built on the principle of interference of formative antinomies “real-irrational” and meaningful existential concepts “being consciousness - personal consciousness - text consciousness”. The principle of interfered world modeling becomes the metabola - “a poetic image in which there is no distinction between ‘real’ and ‘illusory’, ‘direct’ and ‘portable’, but there is a continuity from one to the other, their true relationship... the image of the twofold and yet one reality” [2. Pp. 166, 167] - removes the distinction between “primary” and “secondary” reality in synthetic “world-like” integrity. The metabolic model of representation the meaning of the text on the one hand allows for metaphorical interpretation, at the same time actualizes symbolic polyphony. This form of concordia discors organizes “a set of contextual points of correlation that characterize the context of interpretation, the conceptual environment in which the meaning of the text is formed” [3. P. 68]. The intertextuality of the semiosemantic paradigm of the artistic modernist text determines an interpretative set of contextual semantic meanings. The world-like character of the symbolist novel allows to detect the semantics of possible worlds in the inner metabolic structures of the “labyrinth” architectonics. This model predetermines not only the form transformation of the genre but also the content and extends the classical novel problem of “man and reality” to “person and being (all that exists)”. The text acquires a being status (corporeality of the text) and has an independent consciousness (textual consciousness). Integration of the trends of existentialization and mythologization of artistic consciousness We should consider heterogeneity the process of existentialization and mythologization of artistic consciousness in the Russian literary process of the early 20th century. In prose of the first half of the 20th century, mythological consciousness interfered with the tendencies of existentialization and manifested itself most vividly in symbolism. The existential “situation of catastrophe, crisis, destruction, death” (V.V. Zamanskaya) becomes the basis for mythological semantic innovations in the field of artistic world modeling. Mythological forms are ways of conveying the meanings of the existence of being; mythological epistemology (“the only possible knowledge”, as defined by O.M. Freidenberg [4. P. 16]) reflects the modernist aspirations of polyphonic “synthetic” cognition of being. In our opinion, two factors determine the actualization of the existential type of artistic consciousness in the Russian literature of the 20th century. First of them is connected with the influence of the Nietzschean theory in particular and Western European existential philosophy in general, in many ways reflecting the actual national searches of Russian modernist prose of the early 20th century. Conceptualization of the polymodality palimpsest (a special way of organizing writing, according to the theory of Gérard Genette, including the principles of intertextuality, paratextuality, metatextuality, hypertextuality, architextuality) identifies the second factor. It has made its logic of construction of the text not only in its aesthetic structures but also in the ideological and thematic features correlate with the philosophy of existentialism referential - through philosophical writings of theorists, or receptively - through the artistic mediator: for example, existential views of F. Dostoevsky, D. Joyce et al. The deformation of the classical artistic form of the text has become the method to realize the epochal sensation of the destruction of the harmony of “man in man” and “man in the world”. This provoked a trend to the transformation of the evolutionary concepts of personality (the classic model of the artistic image of man in the development of the dialectic of consciousness I) into involutional concept of the human (deep fixation image at a certain point, ASС, dialectics of the I - Ego - Super-Ego). The evolutionary model of personality that realism unfolds (progressive or regressive) is not interest to modernists who aim to analyze the psychological “deepness” of human mind, consciousness, subconsciousness, unconscious. The involutional model of personality becomes the code of the existential hero, whose involution consists in psychological self-absorption of “being-in-it/himself” and closure to the self. The involutional character of the modernist model of personality is due to the neutralization and later destruction of the moral component of the artistic concept of man. Thus, the characteristic of classical thinking personal map of consciousness “Me-in-the World” - from I (egocentrism) to We (ethnocentrism) and then to All We (worldcentrism) - which determines the ethical and philosophical development of the individual (progressive I - All of Us or regressive All of Us - I), is replaced by an existentially conditioned egocentric model (from I to Ego and then to Being-in-Me). It should be noted one more important feature for existentialism of any type (philosophical, artistic) - tendency to “ontologization <...> of the non-objective, which is given the status of Being” [5. P. 27]. This explains the desire of modernists, who took this thesis as a message to aesthetic innovations to give the categories “text”, “language”, “consciousness”, “body” a semi-sign of being, or to correlate with the existential categories (M. Heidegger’s term) “being-in-the-world”, “being-with-others”, “nothing”, “emptiness”, “completeness”, “corporeality”. Thus, in accordance with Heidegger’s task of existential analysis of “here-being” (Dasein), the “man-world” model is formed. For example, the fiery angel-Madiel, the incarnated man-made Satan, Christ-Antichrist in the mythopoetic of the novels of V. Bryusov, D. Merezhkovsky, and L. Andreev is a product of an analysis of such myth-existential synergy. Existential trend leads to the actualization of new anthroposophical theories in modernism, but (neo)mythological trends played an important role in the formation of the artistic model of being. Their gain was the cause of the formation of neo-mythological and artistic thinking with a tendency towards utopian or anti-utopian philosophy of history. Modernists refused to attempt to build a universal picture of the world, but their individual author’s ontological projections clearly contained elements of the “collective unconscious” (K.G. Jung), the origins of which are universalized by syncretic mythologemes. Mythological epistemology reflects the modernist aspirations of polyphonic cognition, and mythological forms represent the meanings of existential knowledge of the meaning of being. V.P. Rudnev notes that it is the phenomenon of neo-mythological consciousness that has led to the fact that the dominant for the classical picture of the world “opposition of being and consciousness ceased to play a defining role in the 20th century” and was replaced by “fundamental opposition <…> text-reality” [6. P. 94]. Symbolism aspired to a certain dissolution of intertextual elements in the text field of the work, to the merging of the “stranger” and the author’s own consciousness into an artistic innovation. However, the aesthetics of the intertext becomes conceptual in the late postmodern period of development of Russian literature. R. Barth’s theory of structuring the author’s Self through the codification of “stranger's consciousness” correlates with the statement of subjectivity of the artistic picture of the world in symbolism as true as it is conditional, since subjectivity is based on the codification of a new model at the expense of “equal stranger consciousnesses” (M. Bakhtin). The strategy of transference of literary codes into the artistic consciousness of the text determines the logic of the mechanism of abstract modeling of “possible worlds” (secondary reality - the virtual world, illusion, irrationalism, world of the subconscious, somnological sphere and other forms-images). The semiosphere of such world models are embedded in the aesthetic and philosophical paradigm of symbolism and is conceptually developed already in postmodernism. Transpersonal models of man and being in the prose of Russian symbolism The author’s consciousness and text consciousness are axiologically equal in symbolism and acquire the nomination of equivalent “life worlds”, which form any literary text as a fact of culture through “a set of contextual points of correlation”: “if there is a text within the culture that allows to use of different conceptual contexts in its interpretation, it represents as many meanings as different sets of correlation points were actually used <...> by different interpreters” [3. P. 68]. The hermeneutical circle, reinforced by a textual symbolic polylogue, permits interpretive dissipation, in which the artistic concept of a work through “a set of contextual points of reference” will relay the author’s transpersonal models with all possible intertextual intentions. V. Rudnev emphasizes, “the pathos of the philosophy of possible worlds is that there is no absolute truth, it depends on the observer and witness of events” [6. P. 260]. Thus, the reader’s perceptual consciousness is included in the ontology of the text as an equivalent life world. Thus, the theory of dialogism by M. Bakhtin (the dialogue between “someone else” and “your own”) it becomes fundamental in the prose of Russian symbolism and as an aesthetic theory and worldview setting. Moreover, symbolism initially equates the author’s and reader’s consciousness as equally personal and significant in the text: “We can speak of symbolism only by studying the works in their relation to the perceiving subject and to the creative subject as integral individuals” [7. P. 69]. V. Ivanov puts forward the thesis that “symbolism is associated with the integrity of the personality of both the artist and the experiencing artistic revelation” [7. P. 69]. Symbolists tried to identify different levels of internal synthetic intersection of the presented perceptual-receptive levels of text and context. According to L.A. Kolobaeva, this aspiration to “aesthetic imperative of integrity” [8. P. 289] is the national identity of Russian symbolism. Despite the fact that symbolism proclaimed the primacy of creativity over knowledge in the manifestations of its direction, epistemological aspirations prompted them to vary “synthetic” programs integrating textual consciousness, personal consciousness and ontological consciousness into a single stream of symbolization. The anthropological character of Russian symbolism is emphatically psychological. The human problem defines all the key artistic and philosophical positions of Russian symbolism and determines the development of trends of (neo)mythologization and existentialization of artistic consciousness. Writers develop anthroposophical concepts in the context of religious-philosophical and historical-philosophical constants of the epistemological paradigm. Symbolists believe that a person in his knowledge does not deal with the objective world “in itself”, but with a world that a man intuitively feels and conceptually perceives. An important role in the construction of the artistic concept of man and being is assigned to the idea of knowledge, in the development of which symbolists use the metabola “sensory world - reality”, highlighting the forms of sensory knowledge - sensation, perception, representation, psychedelic experience, and forms of rational knowledge, reduced to scientific philosophical categories - concept, judgment, inference, logical conclusions. The basis of disputes is the problem of the criterion of truth: if a person is not directly in contact with the world “in itself”, but with the sensually perceived world, then it is essential to know how he can check whether his statement corresponds to the most objective world. In the artistic prose system of Russian symbolists, the prose of V. Bryusov, F. Sologub, and D. Merezhkovsky acquires the most vividly anthroposophical character. In this regard, L. Andreev is also close to the symbolists. Bryusov in the story “The Fire Angel” models the main artistic concept of man and being on the principle of simultaneous coexistence and opposition of two ontological spheres of being - metaphysical and rational. He puts a Man between them. The concept of Bryusov’s anthroposophical transpersonal model is “ontology of living corporeality” (V.I. Moiseev) which according to the principle metabolic semiology constitutes axiology of intra-wholeness of body and mind, breaking the boundaries of system “world - consciousness - text”. The category “corporeality” identifies the world-like nature of this model, which reflects the marginality of our consciousness: “a certain type of organization for structuring experience (both individual and collective), the ‘mechanism’ of consciousness and the ‘matter’ of thought, which is primary in relation to the thought itself and determines the way it unfolds. < ... > Corporeality here is the fact of direct presence in the world, given long before its division into ‘internal’ and ‘external’ ” [9. P. 297]. The polylogue of “life worlds” forms the spectrum of the marginal consciousness of the hero Renata. Bryusov centers the reflection of corporeality in the experience of Renata’s “consciousness”. The psychedelic experience of wandering through these “worlds” also determines Ruprecht’s path of knowledge, which is also emphasized as marginal due to the system of borderline chronotropic images. The category “external reality” as a philosophical concept is opposes with “corporeality” (a metabola of consciousness). The worldview originality of the Bryusov’s concept lies in the solution of the central question of being (which is not identical only to existing) in unity with metaphysical epistemology. Metaphysical knowledge, according to M. Heidegger, is associated with going beyond the existing, with questioning on top of existing, and rational-scientific knowledge. Metaphysics does not contradict the rational; it makes up for scientific experience and “builds a consistent worldview on the basis of the general scientific consciousness of a certain era” [9. P. 182]. N. Berdyaev, for example, directly connects the theme of creativity and metaphysical knowledge with a question of God and man - that has become conceptual not only for Bryusov, but all Russian symbolism: “My theme of creativity is close to the Renaissance, but not close to most philosophers of that time, there is no topic about the creation of culture, about the creation of man ‘in the sciences and art’, it is a deeper, metaphysical topic, the theme of man continuing his peacemaking, of man’s response to God, which can enrich the very divine life itself. <...> My thought is oriented anthropocentrically, not cosmocentrically” [10]. The philosopher positions the question of creativity as a question of a person’s knowledge of the metaphysics of divine being. Following Bryusov A. Bely, exploring various types of philosophical teachings, concludes that “the unity of knowledge and being” in a situation of peacemaking [11. P. 41]. The concept of synthetic personal-ontological world-modeling becomes text-forming; there is no shift of emphasis towards anthropological or existential interpretation - it creates an integral model of personal-ontological modes of being (for example, the image of “Petersburg-consciousness” becomes an analog of Heidegger’s “man-world”), equally analyzing the spectrum of anthropological and ontological consciousness. Consideration of the concept of man and being in Bely’s prose is relevant in the system of his utopian concept of “conscious spatiality”, which is most globally reflected in the novels “Silver Dove” and “Petersburg”. Bely gives the aesthetic forms of genre and style ontological (being) and epistemological (cognitive) content at the same time based on Plato’s teaching, according to which “the reduction of cognitive forms to the cognitive norm gave the forms an independent being”. Criticism postulates Andreev’s novel “The Diary of Satan” as evolutionary not only in the development of the writer’s artistic system in the transition from realism to the existential branch of modernism, but also in general for Russian literature of the early 20th century. Zamanskaya in this regard even introduces the scientific definition of psychological existentialism [12], which brings, in our opinion, the layer of the subconscious to the plane of the “primary reality” of the text. The investigator E.V. Kamanina emphasizes the importance of this later novel for understanding Andreev’s general artistic concept: “But it was in his later work that the writer formulated the concept of cathartic history, in which sacrifice only doubles the national sin, and implemented the principles of modernist poetics - style polymorphism, ‘criticism of myth’, ethical and dramatic genre form” [13. P. 151]. As a result of the plot transformation of the religious mythology “the creation of the world according to the plan of God” into the social world image “the re-creation of the world according to the plan of Man-Satan”, ethical catharsis nonsense is revealed - the salvation (attempt!) of the divine world according to the plan of Satan. The Adversary Satan (the archetypal concept of sin) is personologically transformed into a sacrifice - the Redeemer Satan (one of the archetypal concepts of the religious-Christian triad, God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit). By analogy with the prototype of the redeemer of Jesus Christ, who is physically suffering in the name of the future happiness of Mankind, the Andreev Redeemer “humanized Satan”, spiritually suffering in the name of the same goal, is the unity of human, earthly “physicality” and heavenly “spirituality” (even anti-God), but in a fundamentally direct opposite. For example, while Bryusov clearly correlates the “physicality” of Heinrich-Madiel with the mythologically designated “appearance” of Jesus, Andreev chooses the “body” (the billionaire of Vandergood) that is in no way correlated with the image of the God-man. Russian symbolism tried to create some kind of modernization of Christian postulates (in a certain sociology system of the modern era) and destroy interpretative dogmas in evaluating biblical images. This was most vividly embodied in the work of D. Merezhkovsky, who strives to create the “new religious consciousness”, conceived of as “the first prophetic the word of the great Russian religious revolution is a word not without reason coming precisely from us, the followers of Dostoevsky...” [14. P. 345]. Disputing Andreev’s concept, Merezhkovsky nonetheless develops precisely his system of “evidence of love through betrayal”, but only in a different metabolic metaphor of “evidence of Christ through the adoption of the Antichrist”. Merezhkovsky carries out a kind of “inverted” initialization of the Andreev’s epistemological method of searching for truth. He tried to implement an artistic and philosophical synthesis, or rather the interference of Christ and the Antichrist. However, prophesying the coming of the future Absolute, he did not express the true essence of the “third” Existence - “the revelation of the third divine hypostasis - the religion of the Holy Spirit” [14. P. 345]. But while Andreev sought to escape into the "irrational" from the eternal confrontation of the two principles in man, then Merezhkovsky went along the path of Dostoevsky, who at the same time contrasted and united Christ and the Antichrist in the space of the “inner man”. Berdyaev comes to his ideas of “Christian ontology” and “Christological self-consciousness” (in the work “Philosophy of Freedom”) precisely after communicating with Merezhkovsky in 1907-1908 (in Paris). The philosopher believes that only gaining a true “pure” being is a way of gaining true knowledge. Moreover, true being is a synthesis of personality (“concrete personalism”) and universal (“cosmic universalism”). In our opinion, Merezhkovsky has an impact on the formation of a new Christology at the level of the context that is built in the philosophical and ethical field of the opposition “Christ - Antichrist”. It becomes the core system-forming line of the writer’s entire artistic work. The broadest interdependence of Berdyaev’s noospheric “Christian ontology” and Merezhkovsky’s utopian “artistic anthropology” can be traced in the reference contexts of N. Berdyaev’s “Philosophy of Freedom” and “Sense of Creativity” and Merezhkovsky’s first trilogy “Christ and Antichrist”. The principle of binarism becomes the most important structure-forming principle modeling the plot-compositional and figurative-metaphorical levels of the Merezhkovsky trilogy. Binarism implements the semantic-structural strategy of the “vertical” centering of all novel textual and contextual planes around the semantic-axiological opposition “Christ - Antichrist”, through which dual mythologemes interact: for example, flesh - spirit, earthly - heavenly, real - mythical, etc. The writer violates the principle of architectonics of the classical linear, “horizontal” deployment of the text, illustrating the paradigm orientation to the “tilted hierarchy” (according to the formulation of J. Derrida), and models the dynamic structure of the “labyrinth universe” due to the numerous religious and mythological intersperses of Christian and pagan parables, legends and myths that expand the scope of author historiosophy to the global philosophical neo-myth. A multi-level ethical and philosophical concentrator organizes the integral unity of the three novels around the semantic core - the key mythoconcept “Christ and the Antichrist”, complicates and systematizes the interpretation text field of the trilogy. Merezhkovsky removes the subject-object stiff opposition of the figurative binary constants “Christ - Antichrist”, designating them as dual, but authentic characterological signs of this or that hero. The model of such subjective organization varies in different artistic images of the trilogy through integral remithologization, demythologization, neomythologization of the pagan, biblical, cultural, philosophical, and historical past. The duality of mythoconcept gives rise to two anthropologically significant types of imagery - the physical bifurcation of Christ and the Antichrist in different images and the physical union of the two principles (as spiritual hypostases) in one “corporeality”. Moreover, the unfolding of all key images in the trilogy corresponds to the principle of chain sequence - if in Julian (the hero of the first novel “Death of the Gods”) a unity is realized - a synthesis of Christ and the Antichrist, then in Leonardo da Vinci (the hero of the second novel “The Resurrected Gods”) there is an internal separation with the dominance of the beginning of “Christ”, and in the third novel “Antichrist” the transition to his antithesis through the emphasized definition of Peter as Antichrist is indicated. The logic of the inverted triad “thesis - antithesis - synthesis” is intended to indicate a new way of searching for Merezhkovsky - he does not see it in the synthesis of two principles of human existence, personifying Good and Evil, and not even in the synthesis of the religion of the Father (Old Testament) and the religion of the Son (New Testament), provoking chaos in the “inner religiosity” of man, but in some new religion of the Holy Spirit. Faith as the only condition for the very Harmony of the world, which not only all Symbolists, but also the entire Russian intelligentsia was engaged in the search for at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries: “The Russian public was baptized with religious fire in its infancy, and the same fire will descend upon it at the time of maturity, it will break out on her forehead, as it were, ‘a divided tongue of fire’ in the new descent of the Holy Spirit on the living spirit of Russia. <...> This, after all, is the path not only of the Russian intelligentsia, but of the whole of Russia - from Christ, who came to Christ to come” [14. P. 69]. The historical-philosophical collision of Merezhkovsky is contained in the third constant - the Antichrist, which is equally opposed to both the Christ, who came and the Christ to come. Researcher O. Volkogonova notes, “Merezhkovsky was characterized by a peculiar ‘schematic’ dialectic: he saw opposites everywhere, the triad, which he built (sometimes purely outwardly, verbally) into the thesis - antithesis - synthesis schemes. The history of philosophy presented in him, for example, as ‘dogmatic materialism’ (thesis) and ‘dogmatic idealism’ (antithesis), the synthesis of which should be ‘mystical materialism’. The same is true in anthroposophy and philosophy of culture: the flesh is the thesis, the spirit is the antithesis, the synthesis should be ‘spiritual flesh’ ” [15]. The middle link of the God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit triad is conceptual opposition. Jesus Christ, in essence, is the initial embodiment of the synthesis-interference of man and God, earthly and heavenly, bodily and spiritual, sacrifice and Savior. “Antichrist” is a variant of synthesis of a different order based on the logic “thesis - antithesis - synthesis”. If Christ is presented as a metaphorical designation of the God-Man, then the Antichrist is rather a metaphorical modeling of the image of the Man-God (and not Satan) as the constants of the Superman. In our opinion, it is precisely to emphasize a subtext that Merezhkovsky chooses the genre of a historiosophical novel in which historical figures represent the type of superman invested with power. The way of gaining freedom by the Antichrist is the way of overcoming God within himself, understood as power over him. In contrast, Christ defines God as love, which is the Absolute of freedom. In addition, if we follow the logic of the same triad, then the Antichrist (the third novel “Antichrist”) is a synthesis image in which “all the Gods died” (the first thesis novel, “Death of the Gods”) and “resurrected new gods” (the second antithesis novel “Death of the Gods”). Thus, Merezhkovsky destroys, decodes the basic religious and biblical understanding of the Antichrist and fills it with a new synthesized meaning. It is “not God”, it is “not Christ”, but it is also “not Man” in the usual sense - it is something else to which, to be exact, all the Symbolists sought in their search for the Soul of the World. The image of the “other” Christ and the “other” Antichrist merge in Merezhkovsky’s anthroposophy in the meaning of the “coming” Savior. The metaphysics of Merezhkovsky’s artistic and philosophical anthropology is largely clarified in the context of “Christological anthropology” by Berdyaev, who had a tremendous philosophical influence on the literary process of the entire 20th century: “The impending and menacing image of Antichrist will force the Christian world to creatively uncover the true, Christological anthropology. The higher self-consciousness of a person, anthropological consciousness, therefore, should already be revealed that a person is threatened to fall into the power of human antichristology, a false anthropology that destroys a person. Man is faced with a dilemma: either to realize himself Christologically or to recognize himself anti-Christologically, to see the Absolute Man in Christ, or to see him in Antichrist” [16. P. 324]. In contrast to Daniel Andreev, who creates a saving way for humanity in utopian interfaith and cosmopolitism, Merezhkovsky, following Berdyaev, tries to create a new model of Christianity. In essence, it is also utopian, since the logic of Merezhkovsky’s Christology related to a system of contradictions, dialectically precisely expressed by Berdyaev’s thesis-antithesis: “The weakness of a person’s Christological self-consciousness strengthens his anti-Christological self-consciousness” [16. P. 325]. The congeniality of these two concepts explains the attempt to find a way out of the internal anthropological contradictions inherent in human nature itself. This puzzled the entire “cultural” 20th century - to find a certain balance between Chaos and the Harmony of human consciousness and to know the Soul of the World: “The insoluble contradiction of the earthly and heavenly, carnal and spiritual, which is why and filial - this is the limit of Christianity, only Christianity. The final resolution of this contradiction, the last union of the Father and the Son in the Spirit - such is the limit of the Apocalypse” [14. P. 345]. The concept of man and being in the works of Merezhkovsky has a clearly expressed religious epistemological character. Whereas Andreev’s anthroposophy puts a conceptual emphasis on the problem of cognition of man and his inner world, Merezhkovsky insists on understanding the religious and epistemological component of man as part of the world, which correlates with his concept of a “new religious consciousness” of being as a whole. Merezhkovsky saw the hypothetical peacemaking of the “new religious kingdom” in a synthesis of consciousness or spirit, which is possible through the unity of consciousness of the Russian intelligentsia (the “living spirit of Russia”), the “living soul of Russia” of the Church and the “living flesh of Russia” of the people (in this system it again showed itself Merezhkovsky’s penchant for triadic concepts). However, Merezhkovsky did not answer the question of how to carry out such a synthesis not only in his novels, but also in philosophical works. This reinforced the feeling of utopian bankruptcy created by the writer of a model of the future “spiritual rebirth” of the world. Conclusion The concept of “the trinity of being” (as a rule, implemented according to the “thesis - antithesis - synthesis” scheme) determined the historiosophical concept not only of Merezhkovsky’s work, which anticipated key trends in the development of the entire Russian Silver Age, but also of many other writers (Z. Gippius, V. Odoevsky, A. Platonov et al.) and philosophers of the turn of the 19th-20th centuries (P. Florensky, V. Rozanov, S. Bulgakov, V. Solovyov, N. Berdyaev). A sacred, mystical triplicity dating back to the religious tradition of the Holy Trinity of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” seemed the only possible Harmony of the world in the historical and spiritual “chaos” of pre-revolutionary and revolutionary being. Symbolists, through the artistic remodeling of the “threefold” invariants, tried to find other alternatives to the “new being”, to discover another harmony of the century. Not only the Symbolists were engaged in the search for a “new being” in various forms of its manifestation in the human world, but most of the writers of other directions of the 20th century. The modernist vector of these searches, as a rule, bore the character of an idealistic utopia or dystopia. Artistic world-modeling of the 20th century set out to structure the chaos of being, realized at the level of chaos of historical reality and human consciousness, by creating various invariants of idealistic world models.


About the authors

Gulchira T. Garipova

Vladimir State University named after Alexander and Nikolay Stoletovs

Author for correspondence.
Email: ggaripova2017@yandex.ru

Doctor of Philosophy (in Philology) (PhD), Associate Professor of the Department of Russian and Foreign Philology

1 Nikitskaya St, Vladimir, 600000, Russian Federation


  1. Khalizev, V.E. (1999). Teoriya literatury [Theory of literature]. Moscow, Vysshaya shkola Publ.
  2. Epshteyn, M. (1988). Paradoksy novizny. O literaturnom razvitii ХIХ–ХХ vekov [Paradoxes of novelty. About the literary development of the 19th–20th centuries]. Moscow.
  3. Shneyder, V. (2017). Smysl teksta. Nekotoryye filosofskiye prilozheniya semantiki vozmozhnykh mirov [Meaning of the text. Some philosophical applications of the semantics of possible worlds]. Moscow, Ekaterinburg, Kabinetnyi uchenyi Publ.
  4. Freydenberg, O.M. (1998). Mif i literatura drevnosti [Myth and literature of antiquity]. Moscow, Vostochnaya literatura RAN.
  5. Khrestomatiya po istorii filosofii (zapadnaya filosofiya) [Reader’s book concerning history of philosophy (Western philosophy)]: Textbook for universities (part 2). (2001). Moscow, VLADOS Publ.
  6. Rudnev, V.P. (1997). Slovar’ kul’tury ХХ veka. Klyuchevyye ponyatiya i teksty [Dictionary of culture of the XX century. Key concepts and texts]. Moscow, Agraf Publ.
  7. Ivanov, V. (1988). Borozdy i mezhi: Opyty esteticheskiye i kriticheskiye [Furrows and boundaries: Aesthetic and critical experiments]. Poeticheskiye techeniya v russkoy literature kontsa ХIX – nachala ХХ veka [Poetic trends in Russian literature of the late XIX – early XX century]: Chrestomathy (p. 69). Moscow, Vysshaya shkola Publ.
  8. Kolobayeva, L.A. (2000). Russkiy simvolizm [Russian symbolism]. Moscow, Moscow University Publishing House.
  9. Sovremennaya zapadnaya filosofiya [Modern Western philosophy]: Dictionary. (1991). Moscow, Izdatelstvo politicheskoy literatury Publ.
  10. Berdyayev, N. (n.d.). Russkaya ideya. Osnovnyye problemy russkoy mysli XIX veka i nachala XX veka [Russian idea. The main problems of Russian thought of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century]. Retrieved April 11, 2020, from http://philologos. narod.ru/berdyaev/berd-rusidea.htm
  11. Bely, A. (1994). Simvolism kak miroponimaniye [Symbolism as world understanding]. Moscow, Respublika Publ.
  12. Zamanskaja, V.V. (2002). Jekzistencialnaja tradicija v russkoj literature ХХ veka: Dialogi na granicah stoletij [Existential tradition in Russian literature of the 20th century: Dialogues on the borders of centuries]. Moscow, Flinta Publ., Nauka Publ.
  13. Kamanina, E.V. (2002). Filosofsko-esteticheskiy aspekt literaturnogo soznaniya XX veka [Philosophical-aesthetic aspect of the literary consciousness of the 20th century]. Vestnik moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 9. Filologiya [Herald of Moscow University. Series 9. Philology], (5), 149–151.
  14. Merezhkovskiy, D.S. (1991). V tikhom omute. Stat’i i issledovaniya raznykh let [In a quiet pool. Articles and research from different years]. Moscow.
  15. Volkogonova, O. (n.d.). Religioznyy anarkhizm D. Merezhkovskogo [Religious anarchism of D. Merezhkovsky]. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from http://www.philosophy.ru/library/ volk/merez/html
  16. Berdyaev, N.A. (1989). Filosofiya svobody. Smysl tvorchestva [Philosophy of freedom. The meaning of creativity]. Moscow, Pravda Publ.

Copyright (c) 2020 Garipova G.T.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies