An earlier version of this paper was read at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Atlanta, Georgia, October, 197S. A Fordham University Faculty Fellowship made the research possible.

1. Orlov, VI., Aleksandr Blok—Andrei Belyi; Perepiska (Moscow, 1940; reprint ed., Munich, 1969), pp. xxix-xxxiiiGoogle Scholar; Orlov, VI, “Iz literaturnogo nasledstva Aleksandra Bloka,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo, vol. 27-28 (Moscow, 1937; reprint ed., Vaduz, 1963), pp. 371-80Google Scholar; and West, James, Russian Symbolism: A Study of Vyacheslav Ivanov and the Russian Symbolist Aesthetic (London, 1970), p. 134.Google Scholar

2. My discussion of mystical anarchism is limited to the theories of Chulkov and Ivanov. Similar doctrines, however, can be found in eras characterized by social upheaval and the breakdown of tradition. For medieval Western Europe, see Cohn, Norman, The Pursuit of the Millenium: Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages, rev. and enl. ed. (Oxford, 1970)Google Scholar, especially pp. 176-83; for seventeenth-century Russia, see Zenkovsky, Sergei, Russkoe staroobriadchestvo [Russia's Old Believers] (Munich, 1970)Google Scholar; for an interesting comparison to the role of eros (to be discussed in this essay), see Scholem, Gershom, “Redemption Through Sin,” The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York, 1971), pp. 78–141 Google Scholar. Recent Soviet émigérs report that documents expressing ideas similar to Chulkov and Ivanov's mystical anarchism circulate in samizdat form. The mystical anarchists’ stress on eros and on music will remind American readers of certain traits of the youth culture of the 1960s.

3. Brief descriptions of mystical anarchism can be found in Orlov, Perepiska, pp. xxixxxxiii; West, Russian Symbolism, pp. 132-34; Woodward, James, Leonid Andreev (Oxford, 1969), pp. 126–44Google Scholar, passim; and Scherrer, Jutta, Die Peiersburger Religiös-Philosophischen Vereinigungen (Wiesbaden, 1973), p. 159–67.Google Scholar

4. Strictly speaking, the symbolists’ desire to end their isolation from the people was not new; it is one of the themes of D. S. Merezhkovsky's 1892 lecture, “On the Causes of the Decline and on the New Trends in Contemporary Russian Literature.” But until 1905 the symbolists did not act upon it.

5. “Spiritual commune” is Merezhkovsky's expression,

6. Chulkov, Georgii, “Iz chastnoi perepiski, o misticheskom anarkhizme,” Voprosy zhizni, 1905, no. 7, pp. 199–204Google Scholar. The polemic began with Chulkov's article “Poeziia VI. Solov'eva,” Voprosy zhizni, 1905, na 5, pp. 101-17. Bulgakov replied in the June issue, pp. 293-303; and then in the August issue, pp. 230-37. In dispute were Solov'ev's relation to the Orthodox church and Christian attitudes toward sex. “Poeziia VI. Solov'eva” is reprinted in Chulkov, Georgii, Sochineniia, vol. 5 (St. Petersburg, 1912): 101–17.Google Scholar

7. Chulkov was appointed editor in August 1904 as a concession to the growing demand for political coverage. He in turn brought in N. Berdiaev and S. Bulgakov. The December 1904 issue of Novyi put’ was the last; Voprosy zhizni succeeeded it.

8. Chulkov, “Iz chastnoi perepiski,” pp. 199-200. For more on the Religious-Philosophical Society see Rosenthal, B. G., D. S. Merezhkovsky and the Silver Age: The Development of a Revolutionary Mentality (The Hague, 1975), pp. 80–151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Jutta Scherrer, Die Petersburger Religiös-Philosophischen Vereinigungen.

9. Chulkov, “Iz chastnoi perepiski,” p. 203.

10. Ibid. To use the term which Sidney Monas has applied to Mandelstam, Chulkov's apocalypse was also an apokatastasis, for he looked forward not only to the end but also to resurrection and renewal (see Monas, Sidney, “Friends and Enemies of the Word,” Texas Studies in Literature and Language, 17 [1975]: 373 Google Scholar).

11. Chulkov, “Iz chastnoi perepiski,” p. 202. The phrase is repeated in Chulkov's O misticheskom anarkhizme (St. Petersburg, 1906, reprint ed., Letchworth, Eng., 1971), p. 43 (hereafter cited as MA).

12. Chulkov, “Iz chastnoi perepiski,” p. 202.

13. Ibid. Chulkov insisted, however, that mystical anarchism was not a hedonistic doctrine and that struggle and sacrifice were necessary for spiritual transformation.

14. Ibid.; see pp. 201-2 for his statement that “outside the Apocalypse there cannot be a religious relation to the world” and p. 203 for his belief that the transformation of the world will begin in mystical experiences that will occur here on earth.

15. Chulkov, Georgii, “Khronika kul'turnoi zhizni, teatr-studiia,” Voprosy zhizni, 1905, no. 9, pp. 245–46.Google Scholar

16. Chulkov, , “Poeziia VI. Solov'eva,” Sochineniia, 5: 115 Google Scholar; and MA, pp. 38-39.

17. Chulkov, Georgii, Gody stranstvii (Moscow, 1930), p. 74 Google Scholar. At the time, Chulkov— like many symbolists, including the Merezhkovskys—felt closest to the anarchist Socialist Revolutionaries.

18. “Krizis individualizma” is reprinted in Ivanov, Viacheslav, Po zvezdam (St. Petersburg, 1909), pp. 86–102 Google Scholar (hereafter cited as PZ). The statement quoted is on page 98.

19. To use Ferdinand Tönnies's formulation, Ivanov and Chulkov desired Gemeinschaft (community), as distinct from Gesellschajt (society).

20. Chulkov, Sochineniia, 5: 155; and MA, p. 39. Fakely was originally to be called Ogni. Chulkov and Ivanov had planned to found a theater, also to be called Fakely, but it never materialize.

21. The date is approximate, based on letters thanking Chulkov for the publication and on when reviews of it appeared; for the letters, see Chulkov, Gody stranstvii, pp. 341, 342, 369.

22. “Predislovie,” Fakely: Kniga pervaia (St. Petersburg, 1906), p. iii (hereafter cited as Fakely I).

23. Apparently the contributors did not see the contents of the entire issue before it was published. Two of the contributors, Briusov and Belyi, turned against Fakely for personal and philosophical reasons. Briusov, writing under a pen name (Avrelii), charged in Vesy, May 1906, pp. 54-58, that Fakely was not a true literary school and that by not accepting the world the mystical anarchists were throwing overboard the very materials of aesthetic creativity. For Briusov's review of MA see Vesy, August 1906, pp. 43-47. Belyi wrote many articles and reviews on mystical anarchism, some under his real name, Boris Bugaev. For examples, see Vesy, August 1906, pp. 52-54; March 1907, pp. 57-69; May 1907, pp. 49-52;’ April 1908, pp. 38-42; October 1908, pp. 44-48; and also Zolotoe runo, July-August- September 1906 (combined issue), pp. 174-75; and January 1907, pp. 61-64. He charged that mystical anarchism existed “outside time and space,” was amoral, was devoid of real theory (coming from Belyi this was a very serious charge), and was excessively individualistic because it imposed no real duties or obligations on its followers. Blok distanced himself from the mystical anarchists in June 1907 and again in August 1907 (see Chulkov, Gody stranstvii, p. 375) but still contributed to the third issue of Fakely, published in January 1908. See also Orlov, Perepiska, pp. xxx-xxxix; and his “Iz literaturnogo nasledstva Aleksandra Bloka,” p. 378. For the personal aspects of the feud see Oleg Maslenikov, The Frenzied Poets (Berkeley, 1952), pp. 80, 180-86, 211-12.

24. Ivanov, Viacheslav, “O Fakel'shchikakh i drugikh imenakh sobiratel'nykh,” Vesy, May 1906, p. 54.Google Scholar

25. Again the date is approximate, based on letters (Chulkov, Gody stranstvii, p. 370) and on when reviews appeared. The 1971 reprint does not contain Viacheslav Ivanov's introductory essay “Ideia nepriiatiia mira,” which is, however, included in PZ, pp. 103-22.

26. Tschöpl, Carin, Vjacčeslav Ivanov, Dichtung und Dichtungstheorie (Munich, 1968), p. 25 Google Scholar. For a description of Ivanov's salons, see “The Tower,” ibid., pp. 25-48. See also Margarita Woloschin [Voloshina], Die Grüne Schlange (Stuttgart, 1954), pp. 173-80; and Makovskii, S. K., “V. Ivanov v Rossii,” Novyi zhurnal, 30 (1952): 135–38.Google Scholar

27. These concepts are explained in the first essay in MA, “Na putiakh svobody,” pp. 3-7; and the last, “Ob utverzhdenii lichnosti,” pp. 4S-SS (pagination from 1971 reprint). An extensively revised version of the latter, containing much more social and political commentary, was included in Fakely: Kniga vtoraia (St. Petersburg, 1907), pp. 1-26 (hereafter cited as Fakely II). Lichnosf is not synonymous with “individual” in the Western juridical sense; as Chulkov and Ivanov use the term, it means “person” and has a spiritual dimension, that is, it involves the soul as well as the body. Love is also discussed in Chulkov's essay “O sofianstve. “

28. MA, p. 45.

29. Chulkov, Georgii, “Genrik Ibsen,” in Sochineniia, 5: 156–206.Google Scholar

30. MA, p. 5.

31. For Ivanov, see “O liubvi derzaiushchei,” Fakely II, pp. 229-38, reprinted in PZ, pp. 369-76; see especially p. 372. See also his poem “Eros” (St. Petersburg, 1907). For Chulkov, see MA, especially pp. 35-43, where he discusses Solov'ev's “The Meaning of Love “; MA, pp. 6-7 for his critique of Tolstoy's asceticism; and “Taina liubvi” in Fakely II, pp. 209-28; the latter includes a discussion of V. V. Rozanov's views on sex and the family. See also Chulkov, Gody stranstvii, p. 74.

32. MA, p. 4.

33. Ibid., p. 46. Note his distinction between “formal freedom” and “mystical freedom “ on the same page.

34. PZ, p. 103. Bogoborchestvo is a caique of the Greek theomachia (English “theomachy “).

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid., p. 105.

37. Ibid., pp. 105-7. One of Ivanov's less known activities was translating Hebrew poetry with the aid of interlinear versions. Because he seems to have been familiar with Jewish culture, it is quite possible that he knew the famous Yiddish poem “A din Torah mit Gott” which expresses what Ivanov meant by the Hebrew “struggle with God.” Written by a famous Hasidic rabbi, Levi Yitzhak of Berdichev (ca. 1740-1810), the text represents the Jewish people as the plaintiff and God as the defendant in a lawsuit under the laws of his own Torah. The song begins with Rabbi Yitzhak, the plaintiff's spokesman, addressing God familiarly, but as he launches into his bill of charges his indignation keeps mounting until he bursts out in a thunderous protest, “I shall not leave, I shall not budge from here till there will come an end [to Israel's suffering].” Nonetheless, he concludes his “brief “ with the traditional ending of a Hebrew prayer, “magnified and sanctified be Thy great name.“

38. Ibid., pp. 107-8. Ivanov ignored (in this essay) traditional Christianity's injunction to submit to the temporal powers in the hope of rewards after death. The Hebrew insistence that even kings are subject to the law can be a powerful curb on tyranny, but Ivanov's distaste for legalism caused him to overlook it. He, however, did contribute an essay, “Concerning the Ideology of the Jewish Question,” to the anthology The Shield, edited by Maxim Gorky, Leonid Andreev, and Fedor Sologub (New York, 1917; reprint ed., Westport, Conn., 1975), pp. 125-40, in which he attacked “spiritual anti-Semitism,” the belief that since the time of Christ, Jews have nothing positive to contribute.

39. PZ, p. 108.

40. Ibid., pp. 110 and 115. See also MA, pp. 49-50, for Chulkov's claim that the “empirical person” says “Thy will be done,” but the “mystical person” struggles and refuses to accept.

41. PZ, p. 122.

42. Ibid., p. 119.

43. Ibid., p. 120.

44. Ibid., p. 118; see also pp. 121-22 for Ivanov's reference to “supra-individualism” as the “overcoming of ‘intimate art, ’ of the era of ‘private creativity.’ “

45. Ibid., p. 119.

46. Ibid., p. 120.

47. Ibid., p. 122. For an interesting aspect of Ivanov's (and his wife's) concept of eros, see Woloschin, Die Grüne Schlange, pp. 193-96, 217-18.

48. PZ, pp. 119-20. Note Ivanov's qualifying remark that mystical anarchism is “only a formal category of contemporary consciousness taken in its dynamic aspect” (p. 120).

49. Tschöpl, Vjačeslav Ivanov, p. 6; and Chulkov, Gody stranstvii, p. 63.

50. MA, p. 55.

51. Ibid., p. 54. Ivanov and Chulkov hoped to use the theater as a means to develop the new consciousness required for a society without law. For details see my “Theater as Church: The Vision of the Mystical Anarchists,” forthcoming in Russian History.

52. MA, p. 55.

53. Ibid.

54. Chulkov, “Taina liubvi,” p. 219.

55. Chulkov, Sochineniia, 5: 211.

56. MA, p. 7.

57. Ibid., p. 52.

58. Ibid., p. 53.

59. Ibid.

60. Ibid., p. 52.

61. Ibid., p. 53.

62. “Ot redaktsii,” Fakely II, p. v. The introduction stressed the diversity of views among its contributors: Chulkov, Ivanov, A. A. Meier, Lev Shestov, Sergei Gorodetskii, and others. It stated that mystical anarchism was not the complete answer but that it posed the direction in which the search for solutions to the contemporary crisis must proceed.

63. A. A. Meier, “Bakunin i Marks,” ibid., p. 121. See also ibid., pp. 99 and 133; and Barkun's, Michael discussion of antinomianism, in “Law and Social Revolution: Millenarianism and the Legal System,” Law and Society Review, 6, no. 1 (August 1971): 112–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64. Chulkov, “Ob utverzhdenii lichnosti,” Fakely II, pp. 16-19.

65. Ibid., pp. 13-14, 16-19.

66. Chulkov's hostility to rationalism transcends the specific context in which the remark was made, a discussion of the God-man. He maintained that “our culture is characterized by differentiation and fragmentation, rationality and the triumph of the mechanical principle, but the person thirsts for unity and organic development” (ibid., p. 6).

67. MA, p. 37.

68. Ibid., p. 3.

69. Ibid, p. 37.

70. Ibid, p. 47; Chulkov, Sochineniia, 5: 211; and PZ, p. 218. Indeed, sobomosf, the mystical anarchists’ social ideal, is sometimes translated as “the choral principle.” Through sobornosf, conflict becomes harmony, the differentiated elements are integrated into a beautiful whole; in their formulation, the good society and music are virtually identical. For a discussion of the concept of music during the Silver Age, see Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, “Revolution as Apocalypse: The Case of Bely,” to be published in a volume entitled, Audrey Bely: A Critical Review, ed. Gerald Janecek (Spring 1978 publication date).

71. Chulkov, Gody stranstvii, p. 74.

72. Ibid.

73. MA, p. 42.

74. Georgii Chulkov, “Pokryvalo Izidy,” Sochineniia, 5: 129.

75. Ibid. Note his remarks on the “theurgical significance of social struggle” and “the religious moment of revolutionary ascent” (p. 128).

76. “Predislovie,” Fakely: Kniga tret'ia (St. Petersburg, 1908), p. v (hereafter cited as Fakely III).

77. This is not to imply that Nietzsche and Merezhkovsky were the sole influences on mystical anarchism. Solov'ev's and Dostoevsky's views were also important as were V. V. Rozanov's views on sex and the anarchistic ideals of L. Tolstoy and Prince P. Kropotkin. Other non-Russians who influenced the formation of the mystical anarchist doctrine were Ibsen and Wagner. Nietzsche and Merezhkovsky, however, were the two most important influences.

78. PZ, pp. 95-96.

79. Ibid., p. 96.

80. Ibid., p. 99.

81. Ibid., pp. 99-100.

82. Ibid., p. 100.

83. Chulkov, Sochineniia, 5: 126.

84. The prevailing American interpretation of Nietzsche's “will to power” treats it as creative power, the power of the artist, implying spiritual struggle and a stern mastery over the self. For a contrary view, see O'Brien, Connor Cruise, “The Gentle Nietzscheans,” in New York Review of Books, November 5, 1970, pp. 12–16 Google Scholar. O'Brien argues that authoritarian politics is implicit in the transvaluation of Christian values advocated by Nietzsche. Let us note simply that Ivanov and Chulkov did recognize the dangerous ambiguities inherent in Nietzsche's concept.

85. PZ, pp. 98 and 117. Note the Nietzschean formulation “satiety or freedom” (ibid., p. 100).

86. Nietzsche discusses the Dionysian rites in The Birth of Tragedy. For Ivanov and Chulkov's attempt to re-create the Dionysian theater see my forthcoming article, “Theater as Church: The Vision of the Mystical Anarchists.” Their solution to the fragmentation and conflict of contemporary society was, in many respects, a Dionysian solution.

87. Nietzsche's concept of the “eternal return” is cyclical, whereas the mystical anarchists, especially Chulkov, thought in more linear terms, positing the end of this world and the beginning of the new world. At that point, however, history ends and a new cycle begins. See Ivanov's remark that “the moment is the brother of eternity,” PZ, p. 96. Ivanov believed that an ultimate truth can be found beyond the Dionysian flux; for Nietzsche, there was no truth, only illusions that masked the terror of the abyss.

88. In his essay “Dostoevski! i revoliutsiia,” Chulkov stated that many critics have written about Dostoevsky, but none has come as close to the central point of his world view as Merezhkovsky (MA, pp. 9-10). Compare Chulkov's interpretation of Solov'ev (MA, especially p. 41), with Merezhkovsky's concept of “holy flesh” (Rosenthal, D. S. Merezhkovsky, pp. 106-14). Like Merezhkovsky, Chulkov believed that “Historical Christianity “ was coming to an end and, also like Merezhkovsky, he admired Tolstoy's courage in defying the temporal powers but objected to his call for chastity. Chulkov's charge that Ibsen's type of individualism leads to a “fatal solitude” recalls Merezhkovsky's essay on Ibsen in Vechnye sputniki (in D. S. Merezhkovskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 17 [St. Petersburg, 1914], especially pp. 190-94). See also Chulkov, Gody stranstvii, pp. 73 and 77. Chulkov and Ivanov met at the home of the Merezhkovskys.

89. According to Merezhkovsky, a “Third Revelation” or “Third Testament” will complete the message of the Old and New Testaments.

90. Chulkov, Gody stranstvii, p. 133.

91. PZ, p. 227.

92. Belyi, reacting to this vagueness, pointedly asked which God would be worshipped in the mystery theater that Ivanov and Chulkov were planning—Apollo, Dionysus, Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, or “Satan himself” (see Vesy, October 1908, p. 47). Their vagueness recalls Nietzsche, who realized the problems which the “death of God” would pose for humanity but failed to offer an unambiguous solution.

93. PZ, p. 242. This is from his essay “Poet i chern',” first published in Vesy, March 1904.

94. See Ivanov's essays, “Kop'e Afiny” (October 1904) and “Novye maski” (July 1904), for other examples of his desire to reconcile the artist and the people and to find a new basis for social unity (PZ, pp. 43-54 and 54-64 respectively).

95. Woodward, Leonid Andreev, p. 127.

96. On Chulkov's scorn for half-measures, see Fakely II, p. 14; and Voprosy shizni, 1905, no. 9, p. 246.

97. PZ, p. 219.

98. “Predislovie,” Fakely I, p. iii.

99. Charques, Richard, The Tivilight of Imperial Russia (Oxford, 1958), pp. 161–62Google Scholar, points to “renewed rioting in the armed forces” (in Sveaborg, Kronstadt, and on board a battleship of the Baltic fleet), to the revival of terrorism, and to another attempt at a general strike in Moscow as evidence that “the possibility of a second venture in armed insurrection there could not yet be dismissed. And then followed a spate of Socialist Revolutionary murders and the first wave of terror of the extreme Socialist Revolutionary faction, the Maximalists. “ See also ibid., pp. 145-48, 176, and, for the effects of university autonomy, p. 123.

100. Chulkov, “Ob utverzhdenii lichnosti,” Fakely II, p. 25.

101. PZ, pp. 99 and 118; see also p. 101.

102. Chulkov, “Ob utverzhdenii lichnosti,” Fakely II, p. 25.

103. Ivanov's article is on pp. 229-38.

104. Fakely III, p. v.

105. Chulkov, “Pokryvalo Izidy,” pp. 125 and 127.

106. Chulkov, Georgii, “Razoblachennaia magiia,” Zolotoe runo, 1908, no. 1, p. 63.Google Scholar

107. Chulkov, Georgii, “Printsipy teatra budushchego,” in Teatr, Kniga o novom teatre, ed. Chulkov, G. (St. Petersburg, 1908), pp. 205–6.Google Scholar

108. PZ, p. 360; see also ibid., p. 307, where Ivanov contrasts choral activity with “demonic self-assertion,” and p. 325 for his statement that “critical culture is the culture of the sons of Cain. “

109. Chulkov remained in Russia until his death in 1939. Ivanov emigrated in 1924, settled in Rome, and converted to Roman Catholicism. He contributed to the now famous symposium Is glubiny.

110. One of the aims of the Dionysian theater which Ivanov and Chulkov envisioned was to develop new myths.

111. See Kline, George L., Religious and Anti-Religious Thought in Russia (Chicago, 1968), pp. 103–26 Google Scholar.

112. Zolotoe runo, 1906, no. 10, p. 59. On page 64, Filosofov argued that individual religious life is impossible without organized religion. Like Merezhkovsky he was seeking a new Christian dogma and objected to the mystical anarchists’ amoralism.

113. Woodward, Leonid Andreev, p. 144. For Lunacharskii's essay “Sotsializm i iskusstvo, “ see G. Chulkov, ed., Teatr, pp. 7-40. But also see his critique of the symbolist aesthetics, “T'ma,” in Literatumyi raspad (St. Petersburg, 1908), pp. 147-72.

114. As quoted by Woodward, in Leonid Andreev, p. 144.

115. See West, Russian Symbolism, p. 133, who alludes to an article by Filosofov declaring “that all symbolists and decadents were sufficiently alike to be classed together as mystical anarchists and that their attempts to differentiate amongst themselves were a purely domestic affair. “

116. Voprosy shizni, 1905, no. 7, p. 203; MA, pp. 43-44; and PZ, p. 99.

117. Their emphasis on love recalls the “make love not war” slogan of the 1960s, a radical derivation of Freud's views on the relation of sexual frustration and aggression. Never really an optimist, Freud became even less sanguine about the possibility of curbing human aggressiveness after 1914; his Beyond the Pleasure Principle, which asserted the existence of a “death wish” and of a perennial struggle between Eros and Thanatos, appeared in 1920.

118. Belyi, Andrei, “Vmesto predisloviia,” Arabeski (Moscow, 1911; reprint ed., Munich, ' 1963), p. ii.Google Scholar