The Burning Word Reflected in the Literature of the Times

Home , Anthroposophical Society, False Dmitry II, Lobnoye Mesto, Nikolay Gumilyov, Vesy, Vyacheslav Ivanov (poet)

Stockholm Slavic Papers 31 Emma-Lina Löflund The first decades of the twentieth century shook Russia to the core with war, revolution, and terror. This transformation of society is The Burning Word reflected in the literature of the times. One such work is the book Neopalimaia Kupina: Stikhi o voine i revoliutsii (The Burning Bush: History and Myth in Maximilian Voloshin's Neopalimaia Kupina Poems about War and Revolution) by Maximilian Voloshin (1877– 1932). Containing poems written from 1905 to 1924, it is a work which depicts the war years and revolutionary period as one of many Emma-Lina Löflund turning points in Russian history. This dissertation shows how The Burning Word Voloshin, a poet closely affiliated with the Russian Symbolists who had a profound interest in anthroposophy and occultism, used poetry not only to document the events of his times, but also to attempt to create theurgic art which could initiate a national revival. The dissertation examines the book’s compositional history, and outlines resurrection through death as the book’s underlying model.

Emma-Lina Löflund is a specialist in Russian poetry. She is affiliated with the Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch and German at Stockholm University.

ISBN 978-91-7911-430-5 ISSN 0347-7002

Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch and German

Doctoral Thesis in Slavic Languages at Stockholm University, Sweden 2021

The Burning Word History and Myth in Maximilian Voloshin's Neopalimaia Kupina Emma-Lina Löflund Academic dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Slavic Languages at Stockholm University to be publicly defended on Friday 28 May 2021 at 15.00 digitally via Zoom. Public link will be made available at https://www.su.se/slabafinety/

Abstract The book Neopalimaia Kupina: stikhi o voine i revoliutsii (The Burning Bush: Poems about War and Revolution) by Maximilian Voloshin (1877–1932) depicts the revolutionary period in Russia. This dissertation analyzes the work’s composition, showing how it was shaped and reshaped in response to the dramatic events of the first two and a half decades of the twentieth century, and how it remains open and mirrors the ongoing development of history. The revolutionary events are presented against the background of earlier turning points in Russia’s past. In addition to documenting contemporary events in poetry, Voloshin, who was closely affiliated with the Russian Symbolists and had a profound interest in anthroposophy and occultism, expressed a belief in theurgic art that could initiate a national revival. The analysis demonstrates that the poems in Neopalimaia Kupina are interconnected through a conglomeration of myths centering on transformation through death and resurrection. The poems also evoke a sense of recurrence connecting different layers of Russian history. By depicting episodes from a mythical as well as a historical perspective, the poems reflect correspondences which can be elucidated through Boris Uspensky’s semiotic model of a dual perception of time (linear and cyclical) as well as Zara Mints’ concept of neomythological texts. The analysis also considers performativity as a tool for life-creation in Voloshin’s work and connects it to his exploration of apotropaic genres: magic spells, incantations, prayers, and anthroposophical mantras. Against the backdrop of the Bolshevik takeover and the remolding of Russian society which was marked by war, terror and famine, these poems express a disbelief in the Communist utopia of the early Soviet period.

Keywords: Maximilian Voloshin, Russian Symbolism, poetry, Russian Revolution, neomythological texts, performativity, anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner, theurgy, life-creation, myth-creation, semiotics.

Stockholm 2021 http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-191959

ISBN 978-91-7911-430-5 ISBN 978-91-7911-431-2 ISSN 0347-7002

Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German

Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm

THE BURNING WORD

Emma-Lina Löflund

The Burning Word

History and Myth in Maximilian Voloshin's Neopalimaia Kupina

Emma-Lina Löflund ©Emma-Lina Löflund, Stockholm University 2021

ISBN print 978-91-7911-430-5 ISBN PDF 978-91-7911-431-2 ISSN 0347-7002

Cover illustration: Åke Zimmermann Bjersby The cover illustration contains images of Voloshin’s manuscripts, reproduced here with the permission of the Archive of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkinskii Dom).

Printed in Sweden by Universitetsservice US-AB, Stockholm 2021 To Seva

Contents

Acknowledgements ...... ix A Note on Transliteration and Quotations ...... xii Introduction ...... 1 Maximilian Voloshin: Life and Work ...... 4 Previous Scholarship ...... 9 Aim of the Dissertation ...... 16 History and Myth in Neopalimaia Kupina: Some Concepts ...... 17 The Apocalypse and the Anthroposophical Vision of a Slavic Cultural Epoch ...... 24 Life-Creation and the Theurgic Art of the Russian Symbolists ...... 29 Multiple Meanings in the Title ...... 33 Presentation of the Chapters ...... 38 Chapter 1. The Compositional History of Neopalimaia Kupina ...... 39 The Collected Works Edition of Neopalimaia Kupina: A Synopsis ...... 40 Laying the Foundations: Anno mundi ardentis 1915 and Demony glukhonemye ...... 49 Neopalimaia Kupina Takes Form ...... 56 Chapter 2. Neopalimaia Kupina as an Amalgamation of Myths ...... 66 The Apocalypse, the Seed, and the Resurrection of Lazarus ...... 67 The Burning Bush, the Phoenix, and Other Indestructible Characters ...... 76 Chapter 3. Times of Troubles in History and Myth ...... 84 On the Threshold of a New Time of Troubles ...... 84 Writing the Poetry of Terror: The Documentary-Protocol Style ...... 86 Corresponding Narratives: The Victim’s Perspective ...... 91 Demons and Destructive Forces ...... 96 Compositional Strategies and Auto-Quotation ...... 99 The Northeast Wind as a Leitmotif ...... 99 Auto-Quotation and the Theme of Famine ...... 101 Compositional Mirroring ...... 105 Correspondences and “Relabeling” ...... 106 Chapter 4. The Poet as Chronicler and Conjurer of Russian History ...... 109 The Poet as Chronicler ...... 110 Adaptations of Historical Chronicles ...... 119 The Poet as Conjurer and Poetry as Performance ...... 121 The Poet as a Prophet ...... 126 Exploring the Power of Words ...... 130 “Drugu” and “Molitva o gorode” ...... 132 “Zakliat´e o Russkoi zemle” ...... 135 “Khvala Bogomateri” ...... 140 “Zaklinanie (ot usobits)” ...... 146 Conclusion ...... 151 Bibliography ...... 153 Sammanfattning ...... 164

Acknowledgements

Writing this dissertation has been an exciting journey, which I have been for- tunate to share with colleagues, family, and friends who have travelled along- side me. During the past six years, they have encouraged me to curiously explore new territory, they have inspired me, and at times both pushed and pulled me towards my destination. This book would not have come into being without their support and faith in me. To my academic supervisor, Anna Ljunggren, more than anyone, I am greatly indebted. Thank you for sharing your vast knowledge, for your unwa- vering and warm support, for patiently reading yet another version of the man- uscript, and for your unparalleled Fingerspitzengefühl. Your faith in me inspired me to push my limits. I am also deeply grateful to my second supervisor, Julie Hansen. Your insightful readings, encouragement in times of doubt, and necessary critique have helped me sharpen my arguments and go much further in this work than I expected. I cherish the expertise, warmth, and eye for detail that characterize your guidance. I owe special thanks to my third supervisor, Per-Arne Bodin. Throughout the years, you have greeted me with the words “And how may I help you?” and in every situation shown enthusiasm for and curiosity about my work and offered me exactly the advice I needed at every given time. Working with all three of you has been an honor. I have also had the pleasure of receiving considerable guidance from two prominent specialists in Russian Symbolism: the late Nikolay Bogomolov, who during the past years has been a true mentor, and who gave valuable sug- gestions on my text at the final stages of the writing process, and Alexander Lavrov, who wholeheartedly helped me in the Pushkin House archive and en- thusiastically discussed my work with me. I am forever grateful to you for sharing your time and erudition with me. During my visit in Saint Petersburg, Svetlana Titarenko at the Saint Petersburg State University also showed interest in my work, recommended essential literature, and took the time to show me some of the Petersburg libraries and archives and how to gain access to them, while Roza Khruleva assisted me in the Pushkin House archive and generously gave me access to her own. Your support and encouragement have been of great help to me, and for that I am deeply thankful! Throughout the years, I have also received considerable guidance from my friends and colleagues at my home department, the Department of Slavic and

ix Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German at Stockholm University. My sincere gratitude goes to Susanna Witt and Peter Alberg Jensen: I cherish your enthusiasm and belief in my work, and the always wise, constructive, and encouraging critique you both have given me throughout the years. Mattias Ågren, thank you for always being straightforward and fair with both criticism and praise, for our team-work at the department, and for our friendship, which I value greatly. Especially warm thanks to Karin Grelz, who has not only given me constructive guidance along the way, but also offered reassurance and inspiration. You have often given me the answers I needed by asking me the right questions, and this has truly been a precious gift. Thank you Elisabeth Löfstrand and Alexander Pereswetoff-Morath for sharing your love for Slavic studies, for being inspirational scholars, and for making me believe that I could become one too; my thanks to Lisa Mendoza Åsberg for generously sharing your time and expertise, for your good humor, and for proofreading parts of my work; to Tora Hedin for always taking the time to discuss things great and small; and to Åke Zimmermann Bjersby, Alla Bernar, and Zjanna Lundman Zadorozjnaja for passionately teaching me Russian – you opened up a whole new world to me! Åke, your work with the cover illustration is a masterwork! I would also like to express my appreciation to all of my fellow doctoral students and friends who have participated in seminars and discussions and offered their comments and critique of my work. Henrik Christensen, thank you for sharing your knowledge and time with me, for your hands-on tips late in the revision process, but most importantly for being my devoted friend. Six years ago, we started our doctoral studies, and I am so happy to have had you by my side all this time. My sincere gratitude goes to Cecilia Dilworth. Thank you for eagerly reading, proofreading, and commenting on my texts, and for being such a good friend. I admire your ability to discuss intellectually chal- lenging topics with ease and enthusiasm and I am grateful for the many courses we have attended together. Thank you Larysa Korobenko, for the hu- mongous help with meticulously proofreading my text and checking all quotations in Russian, and for always being so attentive and positive, and Julia Baumann for generously checking all quotations in German, and for your long-standing and ardent work in the Doctorate Candidate Council. I want to address my heartfelt thanks to all of my colleagues at the Department of Slavic Studies for that special coziness and concord that has always been unique to our department. During my years as a doctoral student, I have also had the pleasure of meet- ing prominent and inspiring colleagues from other departments in Sweden and abroad. I wish to express my gratitude to Magnus Ljunggren, for pointing out the Symbolists’ interest in anthroposophy and for developing an ongoing discussion with me on this topic during our many lengthy café visits. Thank you Per Ambrosiani, for patiently sharing your expertise and for always showing such genuine kindness, and Lars Kleberg, for the interest you have shown in x my work and for your cheering e-mails, which have brightened up many gloomy workdays. I would also like to thank Martina Björklund and Gustaf Olsson in Åbo, for your enthusiasm and hospitality. To my far away friend Sasha Lindskog, thank you for inviting me to Chicago and the ASEEES An- nual Convention. Your knowledge inspires me, and our friendship and those several hour-long Skype conversations have enriched my life. I am also deeply grateful to father Angel for giving me access to the library at Kristi Förklarings ortodoxa kyrka, and to Rachelle Puryear and Håkan Löv- gren for your excellent effort in editing the language in the final draft of the text. Whatever errors that remain are entirely mine. Over the years, several foundations have given generous financial support to this project: Gertrude and Ivar Philipson Foundation, John Söderberg Foun- dation, Birger Calleman Foundation, and Gunvor and Josef Anér Foundation. Many thanks also to Humanistiska Föreningen for granting me the RunJanne scholarship. This work would not have been possible to write without the support of loved ones. Anna Jakobsson, Johan Lundgren, Mikael Palm, Cecilia Åminne, Lina Nyman, Jerry Jonasson, Charlotta Dahlén, Adam “Carl” Mörner, Ingrid Moreau-Raquin, and Maja Engqvist, thank you for being such unconditional friends. I sincerely thank my big and loving family for standing by me no matter what, loving me all the same whether I succeed or fail. Some thanks seem to go beyond words, but I owe so much to my mother, Vivan Löflund, and my late father Martti Vanhala, who passed away unex- pectedly a few months before this book was finished. I would not be where I am today without your endless love and support. Finally, I thank my husband and best friend Vsevolod Dovgoborets, for choosing to share your life with me, and our sons, Mikolaj and Leopold, for everything.

xi A Note on Transliteration and Quotations

Throughout the thesis I have used the Library of Congress (LOC) system of transliteration with some minor adaptations in order to make the text more accessible. In cases where a conventional English spelling of a Russian proper noun exists (e.g., Dostoevsky, Koktebel), it has been used in the main body of the text and in the footnotes. In the bibliography, names are transliterated in accordance with the LOC system (e.g., Dostoevskii, Koktebel´). All translations are mine unless stated otherwise. The Bible quotations are from the New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version.

xii Introduction

When the Russian poet Maximilian Voloshin (1877–1932) arrived in Saint Petersburg on January 9, 1905, he was quite unaware of the events going on in the capital. On leaving Moscow, he had heard vague rumors about a strike and some mention of the name “Gapon,” but he was shocked when he witnessed the bloody corpses of strikers being carted away in the morning haze. Little did he know that this very day was the beginning of mass political and social unrest, including peasant protests, workers’ strikes, and military muti- nies, which later on became known as the Russian Revolution of 1905, or the First Russian Revolution. In his subsequent account of that winter morning, which came to be known as Bloody Sunday, “La semaine sanglante à Saint- Pétersbourg. Récit d’un témoin” (1905),1 one particular detail stands out: Vo- loshin describes seeing “three suns,” shining above the city like a halo, which he interprets as a foreboding of great national suffering. Voloshin revisited this episode in a poem he wrote later that year, “Predvestiia (1905 g.).” In both texts, the optical phenomenon, called a parhelion2 in meteorological terms, is rendered as a premonition of an impending event, and Voloshin offers interpretations of its significance. The poem draws parallels to the foreshadowed fall of Julius Caesar and the death of Christ. Optical and astronomical phenomena can be read as mystical signs or rev- elations. As such, they have been used to foretell the future throughout human history, and thus have been connected to historical events of great importance. In legends, folk tales, and religious writings, these types of phenomena are often depicted as bearing supernatural or religious implications. In the Bible, signs in the sky are often noted in connection with momentous events: the star of Bethlehem, the darkening of the sun during the Crucifixion, and all the celestial signs described in the prophecies about the end of time (e.g., Joel 2,

1 The article was later translated into Russian, see Maksimilian Voloshin, “Krovavaia nedelia v Sankt-Peterburge. Rasskaz ochevidtsa,” in Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 5. Liki tvorchestva, kniga vtoraia: Iskusstvo i iskus; Liki tvorchestva, kniga tretʹia: Teatr i snovidenie. Proza. 1900–1906: Ocherki, statʹi, retsenzii, ed. V. P. Kupchenko, A. V. Lavrov, and R. P. Khruleva (Moskva: Ellis Lak 2000, 2007), 494–98. 2 Parhelion is one of several bright spots on the parhelic circle or solar halo, caused by the diffraction of light by ice crystals in the atmosphere, especially around sunset. Also called: mock sun, sundog. Collins English Dictionary, 10th ed. (Harper Collins Publishers, 2009) s.v. “parhelion,” accessed March 4, 2021, https://app.wordfinder.com/sv#/dictionary/14

1 Luke 21, Revelation 8, 12, 15). Similar examples can also be found in early Slavic literature. In the medieval Slavic epic Slovo o polku Igoreve, a solar eclipse serves to foreshadow Igor’s defeat against the Polovtsian tribes. Simi- larly, Archpriest Avvakum describes in his autobiography, Zhitie Protopopa Avvakuma, how the sun is suddenly darkened, and he interprets this as a sign of God’s wrath over the ecclesiastical reforms of Patriarch Nikon, which resulted in the schism of the Russian Orthodox Church. Several traditions lie intertwined in these examples: religion is mixed with folk superstition, and history is interpreted through symbols and myths. In his poetry, Voloshin constantly turned to myth, religion, history, and the literary canon to interpret his own times. Several scholars have noted this characteristic approach,3 and identified it as typical for Voloshin’s poetics. This practice reached a peak in the book Neopalimaia Kupina. A work of essentially Symbolist nature, it is a poetic depiction of the Russian revolutionary period as a major historical turning point, one among others, in the history of Russia. Neopalimaia Kupina includes poems of different genres, such as lyrical poetry, prayers, magic spells, and poetic adaptations of historical texts. Subtitled Stikhi o voine i revoliutsii, it is a complex and voluminous book of poetry. Yet, with all of its stylistic and thematic variety, I consider it a coherent whole. It is this multifaceted book, scarcely known outside of Russia, which is the subject of this dissertation. This dissertation will examine how Neopalimaia Kupina was created. In- cluding poems written over a long period of time, from 1905 to 1924, the book was continually adapted, re-arranged, and expanded. The structuring of the book and the selection of the poems signal a careful and intentional composition based on principles other than the chronology of the poems. Voloshin made several attempts to get the book published, yet it was banned by the censors. Although he realized that the book could never be published in its entirety during his lifetime,4 Voloshin still continued to rearrange its parts.

3 See for instance A. V. Lavrov, “Zhizn´ i poeziia Maksimiliana Voloshina,” in Maksimilian Voloshin, Stikhotvoreniia i poemy, ed. A. S. Kushner et al., Biblioteka poeta (Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka; Peterburgskii pisatelʹ, 1995), 5–66; V. I. Fatiushchenko, Russkaia lirika revoliutsionnoi epokhi (1912–1922 gg.) (Moskva: Gnozis, 2008), 142–49; David M. Bethea, The Shape of Apocalypse in Modern Russian Fiction (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1989), 110; B. A. Filippov, G. P. Struve, and N. A. Struve, “Primechaniia,” in Maksimilian Voloshin, Sti- khotvoreniia i poemy: v dvukh tomakh. T. 1. Stikhotvoreniia (Paris: Ymca-P., 1982), 475; Ivan Esaulov, “Two Facets of Comedic Space in Russian Literature of the Modern Period: Holy Foolishness and Buffoonery,” in Reflective Laughter: Aspects of Humour in Russian Culture, ed. Milne Lesley (London: Anthem Press, 2004), 73–84. 4 In a letter to the State Publisher (Gosizdat) Voloshin wrote: “«Неопалимая Купина» – книга всех стихов, написанных о войне и революции (1914–1923). […] Но т<ак> к<ак> все эти стихи оказываются, к моему удивлению, политически не цензурны, то ее едва ли удастся осуществить, т<ак> к<ак> я не хочу ни сокращать, <н>и искажать этого целостного от- ражения Революции.” (Voloshin to the State Publisher [editorial office], January 16, 1923, Koktebel´, in Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 12. Pisʹma 1918–1924, ed.

2 Since there is no final published, authorized version, the book remains open- ended. The text, however, comprises a coherent entity. The character of Voloshin’s poetry changed dramatically in response to the Russian Revolution and Bolshevik coup in 1917. For this reason, both his poetry and his biography are often divided into a prerevolutionary period and a postrevolutionary period.5 Characteristic of the first period is love and landscape poetry, as well as philosophical and mythological themes. The poems are mostly lyrical, metered, and short enough to fit on one page. In the poems of the second period, Voloshin turned to Russian history and contemporaneous times, as well as to biblical themes and prophecies. These poems are gen- erally longer, their metrical structure is freer, and the intertextual borrowings in them are more apparent. These changes in Voloshin’s poetics were caused in part by an exploration of genres which reached its climax in the later period of his authorship. In particular, Voloshin’s poetic reworkings of Old Russian texts (“Protopop Avvakum” [1918], “Napisanie o tsariakh moskovskikh” [1919]) and Ezekiel (“Videnie Iezekiilia” [1918]) made his poetics approach lyrical prose.6 The poems in Neopalimaia Kupina were written under varying circumstances. Over the course of the nearly two decades during which the poems in the book were written, the society in which Voloshin lived changed drasti- cally. After having been a tsar-ruled realm, the Russian Empire as a sovereign state ceased to exist, and was transformed into a union of Soviet republics based on the ideology of communism, promising a total renewal and a future utopian society. Many of the seventy-two poems in Neopalimaia Kupina depict the social unrest spreading across Russia during the time when they were composed. Although these poems do not follow a strict historical chronology, the events depicted in them, including World War I, the February Revolution, the Bolshevik coup and the Russian Civil War, nevertheless appear in a loose chronological order.

V. P. Kupchenko, A. V. Lavrov, and R. P. Khruleva [Moskva: Ellis Lak, 2013], 603). When discussing Voloshin’s letters, I refer to the dates provided by the editors of the collected works (Sobranie sochinenii) from which they are quoted. 5 See for instance Marianna S. Landa, Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy and the Post-Soviet Russian Identity (Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 44; Cynthia Marsh, M. A. Voloshin, Artist-Poet: A Study of the Synaesthetic Aspects of His Poetry, Birmingham Slavonic Monographs, no. 14 (Birmingham: Univ. of Birmingham, 1983), 10–13; Barbara Walker, Maximilian Voloshin and the Russian Literary Circle: Culture and Survival in Revo- lutionary Times (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005), 124. 6 Claudia Wallrafen points out this change in form: “In seiner dichterischen Ausdrucksweise nähert sich Vološin mehr und mehr der rhythmischen Prosa an; die von ihm verwendete Spra- che ist stark rhetorisch geprägt. Er selbst behauptete, ‘keine Grenze zwischen Prosa und Vers zu kennen’ und – ausgehend von der Prosa – an der Sprache so lange zu arbeiten und sie zu komprimieren, bis Gedichte entstünden.” (Wallrafen, Maksimilian Vološin als Künstler und Kritiker, Slavistische Beiträge, Bd. 153 [München: Sagner, 1982], 202).

3 Although the main body of the work (from approximately the book’s third part and onwards) was written after 1917, the book utilizes typical features of Voloshin’s poetics from earlier days, though somewhat transformed. In this way, Neopalimaia Kupina shows both continuities and an evolution of style and content. Each part of Neopalimaia Kupina is coherent due to the poems’ overriding themes, but there are also connections between the poems in the different parts. When reading Neopalimaia Kupina one is struck by the constant references to historical upheavals, crises, and death. This can partly be explained by the book’s subtitle; naturally the subjects of war and revolution are of central importance to the entire work. Many of the poems are indeed about war and revolution, but they do not express any enthusiasm for, or belief in, a bright new socialist future. Compared to some of his literary peers, Voloshin did not perceive the revolution and the subsequent Bolshevik takeover as something radically new in the history of Russia. As Chapter 3 will show, Voloshin used poetry to point to similarities between past turning points and cataclysms during his own time. Yet in the recurring discourse of perdition, the book includes poems which nevertheless breathe of hope of resurrection. Although these poems differ in style and imagery, they share a viewpoint that death and destruction will bring something good with it: in them despair is turned into hope.

Maximilian Voloshin: Life and Work Voloshin started his career as a poet during the heyday of Russian Symbolism. His first published poem, “Nad mogiloi V. K. Vinogradova,” appeared as early as 1895, but it was in 1903, after a trip to Saint Petersburg, that he became known as a poet. In the capital Voloshin immediately found himself among established and rising writers of the Symbolist literary scene, such as Dmitry Merezhkovsky, Valery Bryusov, Alexander Blok, and Andrei Bely, and his efforts as a poet were soon acknowledged with publications in the literary almanacs Severnye tsvety and Grif, as well as the journal Novyi put´.7 During the following decade, he published poetry, articles, and reviews in journals and periodicals such as Vesy, Zolotoe Runo, and Apollon. Only some of Voloshin’s works were published during his lifetime, however. There are seven books and collections of poetry (including a reprinting), in chronological order: Stikhotvoreniia: 1900−1910 (Moskva: Grif, 1910),

7 Lavrov, “Zhizn´ i poeziia Maksimiliana Voloshina,” 13; see also V. P. Kupchenko, Stranstvie Maksimiliana Voloshina: dokumentalʹnoe povestvovanie (Sankt-Peterburg: LOGOS, 1997), 42–54.

4 Anno mundi ardentis 1915 (Moskva: Zerna, 1916), Iverni8 (Moskva: Tvor- chestvo, 1918),9 Demony glukhonemye (Khar´kov: Kamena, 1919), Demony glukhonemye, second ed. (Berlin: Knigoizdatel´stvo pisatelei v Berline, 1923),10 Stikhi o terrore (Berlin: Knigoizdatel´stvo pisatelei v Berline, 1923), and Usobitsa: Stikhi o revoliutsii (L´vov: Zhivoe slovo, 1923).11 Voloshin was a multitalented person with many artistic gifts; he was known as a poet, critic, and painter. From 1901 to 1906 he lived mainly in Paris. Di- viding his time between Europe and Russia, Voloshin moved in artistic circles, where he met and befriended some of the most important representatives of the French and Russian cultural elite. Voloshin was interested in art in the word’s broadest sense, and as a part of the international Parisian scene he came into contact with some of the major representatives of the French Symbolist movement, and French decadence. A passionate autodidact, he studied art, literature, history, and religion, wrote poetry, learned painting, and devoted himself to literary and art criticism as a correspondent for the Russian periodicals Vesy and Rus´.12 His highly praised translations of contemporary French poetry, essays, and plays, notably of Henri de Régnier, Paul Claudel, and Émile Verhaeren, introduced several prominent French and Belgian writers to Rus- sian audiences. Besides his many travels and sojourns both abroad and in different cities in Russia, Voloshin spent much of his time, especially the summers, in the village of Koktebel in southeastern Crimea. In 1903 it was there he began the building of his villa, which, especially in the summers, became a hub of artistic creativity and a second home for the Russian cultural intelligentsia. In 1906 Voloshin moved back to Russia but continued to travel in Europe and spend much time in Paris. Scholars continue to debate whether Voloshin should be counted as a Sym- bolist or not.13 His first book of poetry, Stikhotvoreniia 1900–1910, appeared

8 Iveren´ (иверень) is an archaic Russian word, meaning approximately scraping or fragment. Maks Fasmer, Etimologicheskii slovarʹ russkogo iazyka. V chetyrekh tomakh, ed. O. N. Truba- chev and B. A. Larin, T. 2 (Moskva: Progress, 1986), 114. 9 Iverni was edited by N. S. Klestov-Angarskii, who made some changes in the material. The poems “Pis´mo” and “Vtoroe pis´mo” were, for instance, merged together with the title “Ot- ryvki iz poslanii.” Filippov, Struve, and Struve, “Primechaniia,” 389. 10 The publication of Demony glukhonemye (second ed.) was most likely made without the knowledge and approval of the author. V. P. Kupchenko, “Kommentarii,” in Maksimilian Vo- loshin, Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 1. Stikhotvoreniia i poemy 1899–1926, ed. A. V. Lavrov and V. P. Kupchenko (Moskva: Ellis Lak 2000, 2003), 426. 11 The publication of Usobitsa: stikhi o revoliutsii was made without the knowledge and approval of the author. Kupchenko, 426. 12 V. P. Kupchenko, Trudy i dni Maksimiliana Voloshina: letopis´ zhizni i tvorchestva, 1877– 1916 (Sankt-Peterburg: Aleteiia, 2002), 113 ff. 13 According to A. V. Lavrov, “Сам Волошин воспринимал свою связь с символистским движением как свободный творческий союз, не регламентирующий его литературного поведения: примечательно, что в 1906 году, в пору наиболее острого противостояния

5 as late as in 1910, when Symbolism was already in crisis.14 Regardless, he most definitely played an active role in the Symbolist circle because of his work and personal connections with leading Symbolist poets, and his poetics reflect some of the traits and influences which were characteristic of the movement at large. As newlyweds, he and his first wife, the painter Margarita Vo- loshina-Sabashnikova, rented some rooms one floor below the famous apartment “The Tower” of the Symbolist poet Vyacheslav Ivanov and his wife Lidiia Zinov´eva-Annibal, 15 and during the spring of 1915 Voloshin had his own room in Konstantin Balmont’s Paris apartment. However, his relationships with some of the Russian Symbolists during the early 1910s have been described as difficult.16 Early in 1907 Vyacheslav Ivanov had initiated an intimate triangular relationship involving himself, his

между символистами и писателями традиционного реалистического направления, он об- ратился с предложением к М. Горькому издать в товариществе «Знание» сборник своих стихотворений «Годы странствий» («я не хотел бы замыкать его смысл маркой Скорпи- она или Грифа»), а также напечатать свои стихи в сборниках «Знания»; при этом он не скрывал от адресата, что параллельно намерен выпустить в свет в символистском изда- тельстве «Оры» «сборник мистических и оккультных стихотворений» «Ad Rosam».” (Lavrov, “Zhizn´ i poeziia Maksimiliana Voloshina,” 16). See also A. S. Aristova, “Kniga M. A. Voloshina ‘Neopalimaia Kupina’: Problema khudozhestvennoi tselostnosti i istoriko-literaturnogo kommentariia” (Dissertatsiia na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata filologicheskikh nauk, Moskva, IMLI RAN, 2018), 6; V. V. Ivanov, “Voloshin kak chelovek dukha,” in Izbrannye trudy po semiotike i istorii kulʹtury. V semi tomakh. T. 2. Statʹi o russkoi literature (Moskva: Iazyki russkoi kul´tury, 2000), 161 ff; S. M. Zaiats, “Mifotvorchestvo i religiozno- filosofskie iskaniia Maksimiliana Voloshina na pereputíakh Serebrianogo veka” (Dissertatsiia na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni doktora filologicheskikh nauk, Tiraspol´, Pridnestrovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet im. T. G. Shevchenko, 2016), 43 ff. 14 In the article “Anri de René” (1910) Voloshin expresses his opinion that Symbolism is out- dated: “Символизм был идеалистической реакцией против натурализма. Теперь, когда борьба за знамя символизма кончилась и переоценка всех вещей в искусстве с точки зре- ния символа совершена, наступает время создания нового реализма, укрепленного на фундаменте символизма.” (Voloshin, “Anri de René,” in Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 3. Liki tvorchestva, kniga pervaia. O Repine. Surikov, ed. V. P. Kupchenko and A. V. Lavrov [Moskva: Ellis Lak 2000, 2005], 81). 15 The Tower (Башня) was the unofficial name for Vyacheslav Ivanov and his wife Lidiia Zi- novéva-Annibal’s apartment near the Tauride Palace in Saint Petersburg, where the couple (and later only Ivanov) hosted a fashionable literary salon from 1905 until around 1912. For more on the subject, see N. A. Bogomolov, Viacheslav Ivanov v 1903–1907 godakh: doku- mentalʹnye khroniki (Moskva: Izdatelʹstvo Kulaginoi: Intrada, 2009), 115 ff; N. A. Bogomolov, “Iz okkul´tnogo byta ‘bashni’ Viach. Ivanova” in Russkaia literatura nachala XX veka i ok- kulʹtizm: issledovaniia i materialy (Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 1999), 311–34; A. B. Shishkin, “Simvolisty na Bashne,” in Filosofiia. Literatura. Iskusstvo: Andrei Belyi – Viacheslav Ivanov – Aleksandr Skriabin, ed. K. G. Isupov, Filosofiia Rossii pervoi poloviny XX veka (Moskva: ROSSPEN, 2012), 305–40; A. B. Shishkin and Iu. E. Galanina, eds., Bashnia Viacheslava Ivanova i kulʹtura Serebrianogo veka: sbornik statei (Sankt-Peterburg: Sankt-Peterburgskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2006). 16 B. A. Filippov, “Poet kontrastov i miatezhei,” in Voloshin, Stikhotvoreniia i poemy: v dvukh tomakh. T. 1. Stikhotvoreniia, vi; see also Marsh, M. A. Voloshin, Artist-Poet, 4–7.

6 wife, and Voloshina-Sabashnikova, which soon failed. This caused Volo- shin’s friendship with Ivanov to cool off, and his marriage broke down. More- over, due to a series of events, Voloshin fell out with both Valery Bryusov, the influential editor of Vesy,17 and with his co-workers at Apollon. A lover of hoaxes, Voloshin created the Cherubina de Gabriak mystification during the autumn of 1909, and convinced the editorial board of Apollon that she existed in reality.18 The real person behind the fictional poetess, Elizaveta Dmitrieva, who revealed the secret after some two months, had declined the poet Nikolay Gumilyov’s marriage proposal in the summer of the same year. When the dis- appointed Gumilyov spread rumors about having had a romance with Dmitrieva, Voloshin, who was also in love with her, defended her honor and slapped Gumilyov’s face.19 The insult led to a duel with pistols on November 22. There were no casualties, but the two poets refused to make peace,20 and Voloshin was alienated by the Apollon group. Voloshin’s occupation as a literary critic for the Symbolist journals came to an abrupt end in 1913. While on exhibition at the Tretyakov Gallery, Ilya Repin’s painting Ivan Groznyi i syn ego Ivan 16 noiabria 1581 goda (1885) was vandalized by Abram Balashov, a member of the Old Believers, on Jan- uary 16. Voloshin, who at this time also gave lectures and public readings, entered a public debate and defended young Balashov. Refusing to blame the vandal, Voloshin caused a scandal by instead criticizing the painting because it provoked devastating psychological reactions.21 Subsequently, his articles

17 The falling-out concerned the two poets’ translations of Verhaeren (both were critical of the other’s efforts) and Voloshin’s review of Bryusov’s collection of poetry Puti i pereput´ia (1908). Cf. Kupchenko, Stranstvie Maksimiliana Voloshina, 111–12; Marsh, M. A. Voloshin, Artist-Poet, 5. 18 For more on the Cherubina de Gabriak mystification, see L. Ageeva, Nerazgadannaia Che- rubina: dokumentalʹnoe povestvovanie (Moskva: Dom-muzei Mariny Tsvetaevoi, 2006); Elena Pogorelaia, Cherubina de Gabriak: nevernaia kometa, Zhiznʹ zamechatelʹnykh liudei (Moskva: Molodaia gvardiia, 2020); Olga Peters Hasty, “The Cherubina de Gabriak Mystification,” in How Women Must Write: Inventing the Russian Woman Poet (Northwestern University Press, 2019), 69–91; Marianna S. Landa, “The Poetic Voice of Cherubina De Gabriak in Russian Symbolism,” The Slavic and East European Journal 57, no. 1 (2013): 49–66; see also Cheru- bina De Gabriak, Iz mira uiti nerazgadannoi: zhizneopisanie, pisʹma 1908–1928 godov, pisʹma B. A. Lemana k M. A. Voloshinu, ed. V. P. Kupchenko and R. P. Khruleva (Feodosiia; Koktebelʹ, 2009); and Maksimilian Voloshin, “Vospominaniia o Cherubine de Gabriak,” in Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 7. Kn. 2. Dnevnik 1891–1932. Avtobiografiia. Ankety. Vospo- minaniia, ed. V. P. Kupchenko, A. V. Lavrov, and R. P. Khruleva (Moskva: Ellis Lak 2000, 2008), 451–71. 19 Landa, “The Poetic Voice of Cherubina De Gabriak in Russian Symbolism,” 57. 20 After the duel, Voloshin and Gumilyov only met by coincidence in Feodosia in the summer of 1921. The two poets shook hands and made peace, but never saw each other again. Gumilyov was arrested and executed a few months later. See Maksimilian Voloshin, “Memuarnye zapisi. 1932,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 7. Kn. 2, 380–81. 21 Kupchenko, Stranstvie Maksimiliana Voloshina, 162; see also Maksimilian Voloshin, “O smysle katastrofy, postigshei kartinu Repina,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 3, 309–13.

7 were no longer accepted by most of the Russian journals and magazines, and bookstores boycotted his books. It was during this period that Voloshin began drafting a monograph on the Russian painter Vasily Surikov’s historical paintings. Although the book was never published during his lifetime, this work seems to have deepened Voloshin’s fascination with episodes from Russian history. Voloshin was also drawn to the way in which Surikov portrayed historical events. In Voloshin’s opinion, Surikov depicted them as expressions of historical elemental currents instead of conventionally focusing on costumes and properties.22 Especially scenes and persons from pre-Petrine Russia were to become important topics in his poetry of the postrevolutionary period. Later that year, the Russian Anthroposophical Society was chartered in Moscow. Voloshin, who in 1905 had been introduced to theosophy through the Russian occultist Anna Mintslova,23 showed a keen interest in the movement. During the first six months of World War I, he joined several Russians, among them Voloshina-Sabashnikova and his friend, the poet Andrei Bely,24 to take part in the building of the anthroposophical center Johannesbau (the first Goetheanum), in Dornach, Switzerland. As this dissertation will show, the esoteric philosophy impacted on both Voloshin and his poetry. After this followed a year of travels to Paris and Biarritz. In 1916 Voloshin returned to Russia, and he never traveled abroad again. During the war years and the revolutionary period, his popularity as a poet increased dramatically. In his poems, Voloshin addressed current events in an immediate way. His personal and highly emotional renderings endeared him to his readers because they were timely and expressed both anger and hope, with which his readers could identify.25 During the Russian Civil War, he became a well-known public figure, philanthropist, and one of the leading poets of his time. In this way, despite the foundering of Symbolism in the 1910s, the turmoil of war and revolution, and the changes in his poetics, Voloshin continued to carry the legacy of Russian Symbolism throughout the cultural period between Symbolism and subsequent movements later on. By dedicating many of his poems in Neopalimaia Kupina to contemporary poets and artists, such as Léon Bakst, Andrei Bely, Ilya Ehrenburg, and Marina Tsvetaeva, and

22 For more on Voloshin’s interpretation of Surikov’s approach to historical painting, see Maksimilian Voloshin, Surikov, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 3, 365–68. 23 For more on Anna Mintslova, see Bogomolov, Russkaia literatura nachala XX veka i ok- kulʹtizm, 35 ff; Maria Carlson, No Religion Higher Than Truth: A History of the Theosophical Movement in Russia, 1875–1922 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993), 90 ff. 24 For more on the anthroposophical influence on Andrei Bely and his works, see Magnus Ljunggren, The Dream of Rebirth: A Study of Andrej Belyj’s Novel Peterburg, Stockholm Stud- ies in Russian Literature 15 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell international, 1982); Magnus Ljunggren, Poetry and Psychiatry: Essays on Early Twentieth-Century Russian Symbolist Cul- ture, trans. Charles Rougle, Studies in Russian and Slavic Literatures, Cultures and History (Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2014), 98 ff. 25 For more on readers’ reception of Voloshin’s poems, see Landa, Maximilian Voloshin’s Po- etic Legacy, 60 ff.

8 to the memory of Alexander Blok and Nikolay Gumilyov, Voloshin inscribed himself and his book into the literary context of the generation that survived the revolution. In 1923 Mariia Voloshina (née Zabolotskaia), Voloshin’s second wife, moved in with the poet in his Koktebel villa. She played a vital role in hosting her husband’s guests and safeguarding his archive and library. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Voloshin wrote little poetry and instead devoted himself to watercolor painting. In February 1931, Voloshin decided to donate his home to the Writer’s Union with his expressed wish to turn it into a guesthouse for writers, and in this way preserve his house and library after his death. Vo- loshin died on August 11, 1932 as a result of asthma complicated by pneumo- nia and influenza. After his death, Mariia Voloshina maintained the Koktebel villa, which became a place of pilgrimage for the Russian literary intelligentsia.

Previous Scholarship Voloshin shared the fate of many of his contemporaries around 1924, when some of his poems became the object of censorship and were deemed un- publishable.26 Many of his poems nevertheless circulated underground as a precursor of Soviet samizdat,27 and after Voloshin’s death Mariia Voloshina continued to welcome visitors to the Koktebel house and to share her late husband’s poems with them. Especially during the first decades of the Soviet period, the publication of Voloshin’s poetry was restricted, and scholarly research on Voloshin’s poetry was partially suppressed. However, a biography on Voloshin, Evgenii Lann’s Pisatel´skaia sud´ba Maksimiliana Voloshina appeared in the Soviet Union as early as 1927. Between 1928 and 1961, not one of Voloshin’s poems was published in the Soviet Union,28 and it was only in 1977 that a tiny volume was issued.29 This volume contains a selection of poems and translations of French poetry, but it does not include the poems on the terror during the Russian Civil War. In 1978, another work on Voloshin and his poetry, I. T. Kupriianov’s book, Sud´ba poeta: Lichnost´ i poeziia Maksimiliana Voloshina, was published in the Soviet Union. In 1982–1984, G. P. Struve, N. A. Struve, and B. A. Filippov published a two-volume edition

26 Landa, 151; see also V. P. Kupchenko, Zhiznʹ Maksimiliana Voloshina: dokumentalʹnoe povestvovanie (Sankt-Peterburg: Zvezda, 2000), 298 ff; Maksimilian Voloshin, “Avtobio- graficheskaia kanva <8>,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 7. Kn. 2, 228–29. 27 Landa, Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy, 8, 95–96; Lavrov, “Zhizn´ i poeziia Maksimi- liana Voloshina,” 64; Z. D. Davydov and S. M. Shvartsband, “...I golos moi – nabat”: o knige M. A. Voloshina “Demony glukhonemye” (Pisa: ECIG, 1997), 27. 28 Lavrov, “Zhizn´ i poeziia Maksimiliana Voloshina,” 64. 29 Maksimilian Voloshin, Stikhotvoreniia, ed. L. A. Evstigneeva, Biblioteka poeta osnovana M. Gorʹkim. Malaia seriia. (Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatelʹ, 1977).

9 of Voloshin’s selected poems in Paris, Stikhotvoreniia i poemy: v dvukh tomakh, which included the postrevolutionary poems. Only during the glas- nost period did all of Voloshin’s poetry become available and the archives holding his blacklisted poems and other documents became accessible.30 Stud- ies of both Voloshin and his poetry have steadily increased ever since. With the publication of the first complete and academically annotated edition of Voloshin’s collected works, Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh (2003– 2015), essential source material has been made accessible. This has further improved the possibilities of studying Voloshin’s work internationally. The most significant studies by Western scholars will be referred to below. How- ever, only a tiny part of his poetry is available in English translation.31 It is perhaps for this reason that Voloshin, compared to some contemporaries such as Alexander Blok, Andrei Bely, or Marina Tsvetaeva, remains a little-known poet in the West. There is a growing body of scholarship on Voloshin’s biography. V. P. Kupchenko, aided by R. P. Khruleva, has conducted longstanding research on Voloshin’s production and contributed the largest body of work to this field with extensive biographical studies. Kupchenko’s books, Stranstvie Maksi- miliana Voloshina: dokumental´noe povestvovanie (1997), Zhizn´ Maksimili- ana Voloshina: dokumental´noe povestvovanie (2000), and Trudy i dni Maksi- miliana Voloshina: letopis´ zhizni i tvorchestva 1877–1916 (2002), offer detailed accounts of Voloshin’s life and the context in which he wrote his poetry. Two more recent studies of the poet’s life and works by Sergei Pinaev, Maksi- milian Voloshin, ili sebia zabyvshii bog (2005), and the reworked and extended version of it, Poet ritma vechnosti: puti zemnye i dukhovnye voznosheniia Maksimiliana Voloshina (2015), show that Voloshin’s biography continues to attract scholarly attention. Moreover, there are a large number of memoirs by Voloshin’s contemporaries which offer a more personal portrayal of the poet. Among these can be mentioned Vospominaniia o Maksimiliane Voloshine (1990), and autobiographies by his ex-wife Margarita Voloshina- Sabashnikova, Zelenaia Zmeia: memuary khudozhnitsy (1993), and by his widow Mariia Voloshina, O Makse, o Koktebele, o sebe (2003). Written by close friends and family, these works give a deepened understanding of Vo- loshin as a private person and the diverse, and at times, horrific circumstances in which he lived and worked. In her book, Maximilian Voloshin and the Russian Literary Circle (2005), Barbara Walker especially focuses on the period from the early 1910s to the first Soviet years, and she presents Voloshin’s biography against the backdrop

30 Landa, Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy, 153. 31 Landa has translated some ten poems which are published as an appendix to her book. (Landa, 193–216). Two poems translated into English are included in: Dimitri Obolensky, The Penguin Book of Russian Verse (Harmondsworth: Penguin books, 1962), 256–58. English translations of selected poems can also be found online.

10 of his role as mentor, philanthropic mediator, and host of his own influential literary circle in Koktebel. She interprets Voloshin’s problematic mentor- mentee relationship with Vyacheslav Ivanov, and the latter’s failed experi- mentation with life-creation, as a catalyst for Voloshin himself to try the role of mentor (especially for women poets such as Elizaveta Dmitrieva, Adelaida Gertsyk, and Marina Tsvetaeva). By founding his own literary circle in Kok- tebel, Walker explains, Voloshin created an environment for theatricality, sto- rytelling, costumery, and mythmaking that became an important basis for his own explorations of life-creation and myth-creation. Moreover, she shows that the dacha circle made Voloshin a local celebrity and enabled him as a traditional patron figure to develop personal networking talents, which would become crucial during the Civil War and early Soviet period.32 There are a number of studies which examine a specific theme or aspect of Voloshin’s poetry, his paintings, or his work as an art and literary critic. Two early monographs by Western scholars, Maksimilian Vološin als Künstler und Kritiker (1982) by Claudia Wallrafen, and M. A. Voloshin: Artist-Poet: A Study of the Synaesthetic Aspects of His Poetry (1983) by Cynthia Marsh, explore Voloshin as a poet-painter, and analyze the interplay of his visual art with his literary and critical work. In her book, Marina Tsvetaeva i Maksimil- ian Voloshin: estetika smysloobrazovaniia (2004), Svetlana Liutova explores the aesthetic-philosophic connections between Voloshin and Tsvetaeva and in their poetry. In Samoopredelenie v kul´ture moderna: Maksimilian Voloshin – Marina Tsvetaeva (2015), Svetlana Kornienko analyzes Tsvetaeva’s portrayal of Voloshin and his poetry on the basis of her essay “Zhivoe o zhivom.” Another category of works includes books which offer philosophical, religious, and anthroposophical interpretations of Voloshin and his poetry. For instance, in his dissertation, “Mifotvorchestvo i religiozno-filosofskie iskaniia Maksimiliana Voloshina na pereput´iakh Serebrianogo veka” (2016), S. M. Zaiats presents a reading of Voloshin’s entire oeuvre and interprets it as connected to the poet’s spiritual development towards Orthodox Christianity. Zaiats argues that mythological and biblical images and plots serve as models for the creation of Voloshin’s own myth of the world, and that the poet saw his own and Russia’s destinies as mystically connected. In this context, Zaiats identifies the Russian Civil War as a road to salvation for Voloshin:

Голгофой Максимилиан Волошин видит для России Усобицу и граждан- скую войну. Для того чтобы дойти до Воскресения, нужно пройти Гол- гофу, спуститься в преисподнюю Земли и воскреснуть «как Лазарь из гроба». В структурно-семантическом ряду всего сборника [Neopalimaia Kupina, – E-L. L.] появляются значимые и сакральные концепты: Голгофа и Воскресение.33

32 Walker, Maximilian Voloshin and the Russian Literary Circle, 117 ff. 33 Zaiats, “Mifotvorchestvo i religiozno-filosofskie iskaniia Maksimiliana Voloshina,” 326; see also O. A. Porol´, I. I. Prosvirkina, and N. M. Dmitrieva, “Motivy nachala i kontsa v bibleiskom

11 Thus, Zaiats sees Neopalimaia Kupina as reflecting one part of Voloshin’s path of spiritual development, and he interprets the many biblical intertexts, concepts, and images as an approach to a religious credo. In her dissertation, “Mythology in the Poetry of Maksimilian Volosin: The Metaphor of Con- sciousness” (1989), Natalie Roklina explores the function of mythological references which illustrate the theosophic myth of the Fall and the quest for self- realization in Voloshin’s poetry. In her analysis of selected poems, she argues that the theme of consciousness in Voloshin’s poetry can be elucidated through the Hegelian principle of the Absolute coming to self-awareness through man. Voloshin’s relation to anthroposophy is a large and complex topic which has not yet been studied extensively. In Liki tvorchestva Maksimiliana Vo- loshina v sviazi s tainoi ego vysshego “Ia” (2012), G. F. Parkhomenko analyzes Voloshin’s poetry from an anthroposophical perspective and attempts to trace impulses from six zodiac constellations in his poetic work. In “Maksi- milian Voloshin – chelovek, poet, antroposof” (2017), S. O. Prokof´iev inves- tigates Voloshin’s affinity to anthroposophy and his ties to Rudolf Steiner. He argues that Voloshin was profoundly influenced by the doctrine, but that he never imitated or illustrated anthroposophy in his poetry. Cynthia Marsh sees an anthroposophical influence on Voloshin’s poetry, and argues that “anthroposophy is sometimes responsible for portraits of a special kind,” suggesting that Voloshin in some poems depicted a person’s spiritual rather than physical traits.34 According to Kupchenko and Igor´ Levichev, several of Voloshin’s poems reflect an unmistakable influence of anthroposophy.35 More traditional literary studies of Voloshin’s poetry have appeared during the last decades. These often center around a certain theme, religious-philosophical aspects of his poetics, or a smaller body of his poetry, such as a cycle of poems. Anthologies of scholarly studies on Voloshin’s poetry, such as Tvorchestvo Maksimiliana Voloshina: Semantika. Poetika. Kontekst: sbornik statei (2009), and M. A. Voloshin: pro et contra: antologiia (2017), as well as the annual publications connected to the conference “Voloshinskie chteniia,” show the growing popularity of Voloshin’s poetry within the field of literature studies. Among these, there are several analyses and close readings of Voloshin’s poems which are of interest to the present study because they focus on poems

diskurse M. Voloshina,” Vestnik Orenburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 11, no. 172 (2014): 68–72. 34 Marsh, M. A. Voloshin, Artist-Poet, 77. 35 V. P. Kupchenko, “Maksimilian Voloshin – uchenik Rudol´fa Shteinera,” in M. A. Voloshin: pro et contra: antologiia, ed. T. A. Koshemchuk (Sankt-Peterburg: Tsentr sodeistviia obrazovaniiu, 2017), 438–50; I. V. Levichev, “Antroposofiia Rudol´fa Shtainera v tvorcheskoi sud´be Maksimiliana Voloshina,” in Maksimilian Voloshin – poet, myslitel´, antroposof: sbornik statei, ed. E. E. Toropchina (Moskva: Antroposofskoe obshchestvo v Rossii, 2007), 49–64.

12 included in Neopalimaia Kupina.36 Summarizing Voloshin’s life and work, A. V. Lavrov begins by drawing attention to the fact that Voloshin’s poetry is intimately connected to his biography, and he outlines Voloshin’s creative worldview and self-expression against the backdrop of the Symbolist theories of life-creation and myth-creation. Lavrov also emphasizes that Voloshin, besides using his own experiences as artistic material, also explored history, myth, and literary canon in his poetry. For Voloshin, Lavrov explains, historical analogies served as a key to understanding his own times.37 V. V. Ivanov argues similarly in his article “Voloshin kak chelovek dukha” (2000), that Vo- loshin’s enumerations of the same type of events and characters are intended to indicate the internal unity of all centuries of Russian history: “Когда он пишет о Смутном времени или о Дмитрии Самозванце, он тем самым повествует и о жгучей современности.” 38 Two important contributions to the field of research are studies which address Voloshin’s juxtaposition of historical events with contemporary ones. These works explore the intricate structures of Voloshin’s books and cycles of poems as important cohesive aspects which infuse them with meaning. An- alyzing Voloshin’s “Puti Rossii” cycle of poems in his article, “Cycle and History: Maksimilian Vološin’s ‘Puti Rossii’” (1985), Ronald Vroon argues that, like other Symbolist cycles concerned with the problematics of Russian history, it valorizes current events as historically significant, thus elevating them to epic status. Vroon notes that instead of ordering the events chronologically in the cycle, Voloshin uses a different approach: “His intent, rather, is to order references to historical realia in such a way that they will be seen as manifestations both of a broader cosmological vision and of the ‘history’ of the narrator’s exploration of their significance.”39 In the study “…I golos moi – nabat”: o knige M. A. Voloshina “Demony glukhonemye” (1997), Z. D. Davydov and S. M. Shvartsband express a similar view regarding Voloshin’s reluctance to order his poems chronologically in

36 See for instance Alexey Gibson, “The Image of Judas in the Work of M. A. Voloshin,” The Russian Review 57, no. 2 (1998): 264–78; Igor Karlovsky, “Maximilian Voloshin’s Classical Metres,” Sign Systems Studies 40, no. 1/2 (September 1, 2012): 211–30; Ann Marie Basom, “‘Trichiny:’ Dostoevskij and Vološin,” Russian Literature 41, no. 1 (January 1997): 1–17; Ann Marie Basom, “Destruction of the Spirit: War in Voloshin’s ‘Drugu’ and Pushkin’s ‘Arion,’” Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature 49, no. 2 (1995): 119–37; Leonid Dol- gopolov, “Poeziia i revoliutsiia: Zametki i razmyshleniia,” Literaturnoe obozrenie 11 (1987): 10–16; Duffield White, “Vološin’s Poems on the Revolution and Civil War,” The Slavic and East European Journal 19, no. 3 (1975): 297–309; Fatiushchenko, Russkaia lirika revoliutsionnoi epokhi (1912–1922 gg.); and A. N. Zinevich, “Istoriia i kul´tura Drevnei Rusi v zhizni i tvorchestve Maksimiliana Voloshina” (Dissertatsiia na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata filologicheskikh nauk, Sankt-Peterburg, IRLI RAN, 2015). 37 Lavrov, “Zhizn´ i poeziia Maksimiliana Voloshina,” 7, 26, 54 ff. 38 Ivanov, “Voloshin kak chelovek dukha,” 184. 39 Ronald Vroon, “Cycle and History: Maksimilian Vološin’s ‘Puti Rossii,’” Scando-Slavica 31, no. 1 (January 1985): 63–64.

13 the book Demony glukhonemye: “[Д]ля Волошина перемена местами при- чин и следствий была оправдана его поэтической истиной [italics in the original].”40 These interpretations of Voloshin’s approach to relating historical and current events are also applicable to the compositional strategy of the much larger work Neopalimaia Kupina. A valuable contribution to the study of Voloshin’s poems from the Civil War years, Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy and the Post-Soviet Russian Identity (2015) by Marianna S. Landa, focuses on the reader reception of Vo- loshin’s poems during the postrevolutionary and the post-Soviet periods. Landa shows that Voloshin’s poetry draws on a messianic national identity, grounded in the “Russian idea” coined by Vladimir Solovyov and Fyodor Dostoevsky.41 Discussing Voloshin’s affiliation with the Russian Symbolists, she highlights the fact that he embraced the notion of the poet as theurge, and, following his old friend and mentor Vyacheslav Ivanov, used myth-creation as method of theurgy. Discussing Voloshin’s poetic style of “Biblical Natu- ralism,”42 Landa argues that Voloshin used this in his postrevolutionary poetry to create myths intended to change contemporary reality metaphysically:

The Symbolist view of the poet theurge as a collaborator of God presumes a hierarchical but nevertheless two-way communication between collaborators […] From this perspective, the hidden religious subtext of all of Voloshin’s poems on Russia between 1917 and the 1920s represents an ongoing dialogue with God in which the poet seeks to influence Him to procure and precipitate Russia’s salvation.43

Although Landa discusses only a few selected poems from this period, her study presents several important insights. Especially Voloshin’s understanding of the role of the poet and his approach to theurgy,44 are highly relevant for a deeper understanding of Neopalimaia Kupina. There are a few detailed analyses of Voloshin’s collections of poems. An early study is Ann Marie Basom’s dissertation, “War and Revolution in the

40 Davydov and Shvartsband, “...I golos moi – nabat”: o knige M. A. Voloshina “Demony glukhonemye,” 77. 41 Landa, Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy, 29 ff. 42 “Biblical Naturalism” is a poetic style invented by Voloshin. Landa explains that “Voloshin combined the violent, accusatory, and sexually explicit discourse of the Jewish prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel (Russia as Wanton Jerusalem and Holy Whore) with the vitriolic rhetoric of Arch- priest Avvakum (Russia’s suffering as a female Fool in Christ) and telegraphic visual descriptions of mass executions (Russia as the mother of the victims).” (Landa, 8. See also 59, 80). 43 Landa, 149. 44 Landa further elaborates on Voloshin’s approach to theurgic art in Marianna S. Landa, “Sym- bolism and Revolution: On Contradictions in Maximilian Voloshin’s Poems on Russia and Ter- ror in the Crimea (1917–1920s),” The Slavic and East European Journal 58, no. 2 (2014): 217– 36.

14 Poetry of Maksimilian Aleksandrovič Vološin, 1905–1923” (1987). She presents a chronological reading of Voloshin’s collections of poetry, from Anno mundi ardentis 1915 up to Putiami Kaina. Basom sheds light on particular cycles and collections, highlighting, for instance, Voloshin’s rendering of World War I as the biblical Apocalypse in Anno mundi ardentis 1915, redemption through suffering as a central theme in Demony glukhonemye, and the influence of Dostoevsky on his work as a whole. However, Basom does not analyze how the cycles or collections were incorporated into Neopalimaia Ku- pina. Davydov and Shvartsband argue that Demony glukhonemye should be considered Voloshin’s last completed book, and therefore they do not consider Neopalimaia Kupina as a poetic book at all.45 A recent dissertation by A. S. Aristova, “Kniga M. A. Voloshina ‘Neopalimaia Kupina’: Problema khudozhestvennoi tselostnosti i istoriko-literaturnogo kommentariia” (2018), offers a different reading of the book. Her study is the first scholarly attempt to analyze this work as an organic whole. Aristova describes Neopalimaia Kupina as a work with a closed cyclical composition having the structure of a new type of large form, in which the first and the last texts assume the role of “magistral” parts that take on the role of key texts for the entire book. She highlights the image in the title, the burning bush, as a structure-forming key image which she identifies with Russia. This image, she continues, can be interpreted through the Gnostic plot of Sophia and the captive World Soul, which she also distinguishes as the underlying plot that creates cohesion and gives meaning to the entire book. Her careful study illuminates many interesting aspects of Neopalimaia Kupina and argues convincingly that the work indeed should be regarded as a whole rather than a collection of separate cycles of poems. In summary, previous scholarship has thoroughly covered Voloshin’s biography, and studies of Voloshin’s poetry have ranged from detailed readings of selected poems to analyses of cycles of poems. Studies are often devoted to a particular theme or influence on his poetry. Only a few studies analyze his entire collections of poetry.

45 Davydov and Shvartsband, “...I golos moi – nabat”: o knige M. A. Voloshina “Demony glukhonemye,” 124.

15 Aim of the Dissertation This dissertation presents a reading of Neopalimaia Kupina as a coherent book with a large form.46 My focus is on the elements which hold this complex material together – both the use of myths and compositional devices. I will argue that several aspects of Voloshin’s poetry which have been studied separately – especially his practice of interpreting episodes during his lifetime as analogous to events of the past, and his approach to theurgy and myth-creation – are interconnected and central for an understanding of Neopalimaia Kupina as a multifaceted, coherent work. I will argue further that the compositional strategy has shaped the book into an expanding text, demonstrating that the text’s growing shape creates an openness in the book which is connected to its underlying model. I will show that the revolutionary period as a major historical turning point is interpreted through a conglomeration of myths of death and resurrection. Resurrection through death serves as a conceptual model for the historical events which are depicted in the book, and this forms a common denominator that binds together the poems into a large continuum, beyond the boundaries of the sections of which they are a part. I will examine if and how the focus on different aspects of this model shifts over time in the book. I will also analyze Voloshin’s use of historical analogies and mythical models in Neopalimaia Kupina in order to show how the work evokes parallels between history and myth. Furthermore, I will examine the ways in which Voloshin studied poetry’s theurgic aspects, and how this was connected to an exploration of genres. Discussing his approach in the context of myth-creation which was characteristic of the Symbolist poets, I will show that he intertwined religious practices, anthroposophical ideas, and folkloric rituals in his quest for the divine word which he hoped would initiate a national revival after the Bolshevik takeover in 1917. However, due to the extensive amount of material, this dissertation does not offer a close reading of the entire book. This task remains for future research.

46 I have chosen to refer to Neopalimaia Kupina as a book since Voloshin himself repeatedly called it a book (книга), rather than a collection (сборник, собрание). See for instance Maksi- milian Voloshin, “Maksimilian Voloshin: Avtobiografiia <10>,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 7. Kn. 2, 235; Maksimilian Voloshin, “Maksimilian Voloshin: Avtobiografiia <13>,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 7. Kn. 2, 253–54; see also the following letters, all included in Voloshin, Sobranie sochinenii. T. 12: Voloshin to A. V. Lunacharskii, September 1921, Koktebel´, 378; Voloshin to V. V. Veresaev, November 20, 1922, Sevastopol´, 555; Voloshin to L. B. Kamenev, Novem- ber 20, 1924, Koktebel´, 861.

16 History and Myth in Neopalimaia Kupina: Some Concepts Concepts developed by Boris Uspensky, Zara Mints, and Vladimir Toporov are the theoretical cornerstones of my analysis of the structure of Neopalimaia Kupina and the myths within it which center around death and resurrection. They also help to elucidate the Symbolists’ view of the deep affinity between the world’s historical development and myth. Uspensky argues that history by nature is semiotic, because it requires interpretation. Such a semiotization of reality presupposes two conditions: 1) a disposition of episodes in a chronological order, and 2) the establishment of a causal link between them.47 This enables us to interpret history; historical events are “read” from a contemporary point of view as being connected to each other in a causal way. Thus, history is organized as a kind of “text” which needs to be interpreted and reconstructed in order to be understood. Uspen- sky’s semiotic study of Russian history formulates two cultural-semiotic approaches to perceptions of time: a historical, linear one and a cosmological, cyclical one.48 According to the historical approach, which Uspensky argues is usually applied in the natural sciences, time is seen as a linear series of events, linked together in a causal model: events happen because of an evolu- tionary process. The cosmological approach, which is characteristic of religious conceptions, stands in opposition to this. According to this approach, time is seen as a cyclical series of the same kind of events recurring over and over again due to an archetypal condition: events happen because they are predestined to happen. These models, argues Uspensky, form our perception of the past, the present, and the future. The present can therefore be seen as either a cause of future events (according to a historical approach) or as an effect of a past condition (according to a cosmological approach). However, Uspensky claims that both of these models can be applied simultaneously, on an individual as well as a societal level:

Таким образом, в жизни человека или коллектива могут одновременно присутствовать обе модели, когда актуализируется то один, то другой принцип восприятия: одни и те же события могут соотноситься как с кос- мологическим прошлым, так и с историческим будущим – та или другая ориентация определяет при этом разный тип семиозиса.49

This type of combination of historical and cosmological consciousness, con- tends Uspensky, is represented in Christian dogmatism, since Christ as true

47 B. A. Uspenskii, “Istoriia i semiotika (Vospriiatie vremeni kak semioticheskaia problema),” in Izbrannye trudy: v trekh tomakh. T. 1. Semiotika istorii, semiotika kulʹtury (Moskva: Gnozis, 1994), 11–12. 48 Uspenskii, 9–49. 49 Uspenskii, 22.

17 God and true man belongs to both a cosmological beginning and a historical process. These models can be helpful for understanding Neopalimaia Kupina given the many parallels drawn between historical episodes and events in Voloshin’s own times. In Neopalimaia Kupina Voloshin interprets events using the linear as well as the cyclical model.50 The persons and occurrences in Voloshin’s times are depicted as effects of the past historical evolution or as reflections of archetypical characters and events. Both approaches serve to highlight connections between history and Voloshin’s own place and times. The poem “Dmetrius-Imperator (1591–1613)” (1917), for instance, connects the Bolshe- vik coup in 1917 with the return of the False Dmitries, the usurpers who during the Time of Troubles all claimed to be the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible. In the poem, the phantom of the False Dmitry (or Dmitries) states that he will reappear in Russia after three hundred years. Written in December 1917, the poem can be interpreted as a response to the Bolsheviks’ claim to power. The approach of integrating mythical plots and images with depictions of current events was characteristic of the Russian Symbolists. As Mints points out, the Symbolists did not just compare myth with reality, they saw a deep affinity between the two. She considers the Symbolists’ approach of integrating mythical plots and images with depictions of current events as a striving to synthesize historical and mythical perceptions of time.51 For the Symbolists, myth was seen as an expression of original features of human culture, even its origin, and therefore myth became the universal key to understanding everything occurring in history, in the present time and in art. Mints highlights the fact that the subject matter of Symbolist works during the first years of the twentieth century included everyday social, political, historical, and national themes which were aestheticized and mythologized, and she considers this particularly striking in the Symbolist poetics from the period of the first Rus- sian Revolution, approximately 1905–1907.52 The focus on social, historical, and national themes which Mints names as characteristic of Symbolist works during this period, is represented also in Neopalimaia Kupina.53 The earliest

50 Alexey Gibson argues that Voloshin’s cyclical theory of history forms one of the underlying themes of Neopalimaia Kupina. (Gibson, “The Image of Judas in the Work of M. A. Voloshin,” 274). 51 Z. G. Mints, “O nekotorykh ‘neomifologicheskikh’ tekstakh v tvorchestve russkikh simvolistov,” in Blok i russkii simvolizm: Izbrannye trudy v trekh knigakh. Kn. 3. Poetika russkogo simvolizma (Sankt-Peterburg: Iskusstvo–SPb, 2004), 74. 52 Z. G. Mints, “Ob evoliutsii russkogo simvolizma,” in Blok i russkii simvolizm: Izbrannye trudy v trekh knigakh. Kn. 3. Poetika russkogo simvolizma, 183. 53 However, Marianna Landa points out that “the revolution of 1905 did not receive as much resonance in his [Voloshin’s, – E-L. L.] poetry as it did in the works of other Symbolists.” (Landa, Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy, 224).

18 poem in the book, “Predvestiia,” written in response to Bloody Sunday in Jan- uary 1905, for instance, depicts the here-and-now of Voloshin’s own times, saturated with symbols and references to historical events and myth. Another theoretical idea regarding the poetics of Russian Symbolism discussed by Mints, which further elucidates Voloshin’s use of myth in depicting reality, is the concept of neomythological text-myths (teksty-mify). In her studies on the poetics of Russian Symbolism, Mints outlines the specificity of a new system of symbols, developed in the works of the prominent figures of the movement. She argues that the Symbolists developed a concept of evolution “from symbol to myth,” and actively sought to create text-myths.54 The term neomythologism (neomifologizm), she explains, conveys something other than just a stylization of traditional myths or folklore: it implies the creation of text-myths of an altogether new type. Inspired by older generations and epochs (chiefly Romanticism), the Rus- sian Symbolists created a model of the world that encompassed the earthly, visible reality as well as worlds beyond the physical. With their pantheistic worldview, the Symbolists saw these worlds as united, and imagined that different layers of existence could “shine through” one other, thus disrupting the hierarchy between the divine and the material worlds.55 This aesthetic principle presented reality as a chain of endless, universal correspondences between the material and the non-material worlds.56 Just as art was comprehended as a profound analogue to the general world order, symbols were seen as reflecting these correspondences. With this view of art, the world could thereby be perceived as a gigantic unfolding work of art: “Мир оказывается универсаль- ным мифом, а разные его стороны – вариантами единого инварианта – ‘мирового мифа.’”57 Every new aesthetically created myth was thus perceived as creating a new world, and this attributed a transformative power to art. These were the concepts out of which the artistic method of Symbolism was born, and which drove its continued development. This understanding of the world and its connection to art gradually gener- ated a reevaluation of the symbol. According to Mints, this happened in part because symbols in any tradition become allegorized at some point, and thereby lose their asset of an infinite number of meanings.58 By attempting to

54 Mints, “O nekotorykh ‘neomifologicheskikh’ tekstakh,” 59. 55 Z. G. Mints, “Simvol u A. Bloka,” Russian Literature, Russian Symbolism I, 7, no. 3 (May 1, 1979): 195–96. 56 Mints, 194–95. 57 Mints, 199. 58 Mints writes: “Преимущественно семантическое различие между символом и аллего- рией постоянно приводит к тому, что система символов в том или ином искусстве по мере ее формирования застывает; символы, получая в художественном словоупотребле- нии эпохи более или менее устойчивый круг значений, ‘аллегоризируются’, утрачивая свое основное (в платоновском значении понятия ‘символ’) свойство – быть знаком ‘бес- конечных’ значений.” (Mints, 197).

19 widen and deepen the meanings of symbols, the Symbolist poetry of the early twentieth century developed a new poetic language for the creation of poetic polysemy. The Russian Symbolists affirmed a perception of time as cyclical.59 Mints argues that Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of eternal recurrence made them consider diachronic aspects of the idea of correspondences which opened new perspectives on the potential of symbols. For them, myth could be reiterated and realized a number of times in history. Discussing prophecies of historical upheavals in his article “Proroki i mstiteli. Predvestiia Velikoi Revoliutsii” (1906), Voloshin describes revolutions as occurring in rhythmic leaps, forming a continuous pulsation of catastrophes.60 In this way, symbols could encrypt correspondences to different phenomena, and they could encrypt the plot of their own development as well.61 This diachronic aspect, argues Mints, enabled the emergence of what she calls mythologemes, bearing within them a development or a plot which could be interpreted in relation to the context:

Мифологемой […] называется минимальная устойчивая единица порож- дения мифа, которая, выражаясь в словах, проявляет способность развер- тываться в целостные мифологические тексты, а будучи включена в сим- волистский текст, функционирует в нем как “чужое” мифогенное слово.62

Considering this their innate narrative, these new mythologemes, (Mints also describes them as a folded program of an entire plot [“‘свернутая программа’ целостного сюжета”]),63 include a part of a mythic plot and therefore arise as the link between symbol and myth, making them more powerful than symbols as complex metaphors.64 Mythologemes therefore allow broader possibilities for new combinations and meanings. Mints exemplifies this with Blok’s use of the name Magdalene for the heroine in his poem “Iz khrustal´nogo tumana” (1909): the poem’s heroine Magdalene is metaphorically likened to the evangelical Mary Magdalene, but metonymically the name also represents the entire story about Mary Magdalene. Lastly, it is also the source of a semantic isomorphism of plots which arise based on these two comparisons. Because of this, the entire poem is illuminated by the evangelical story and it therefore assumes important connotations that are not explicit in the text.65 In this way, the mythologeme is essentially open and can be described as an accumulator

59 For more on the Russian Symbolist’s understanding of time as cyclical see D. E. Maksimov, Poeziia i proza Al. Bloka (Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatelʹ, 1975), 75 ff. 60 Maksimilian Voloshin, “Proroki i mstiteli. Predvestiia Velikoi Revoliutsii,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 3, 281. 61 Mints, “O nekotorykh ‘neomifologicheskikh’ tekstakh,” 69–70. 62 Mints, “Simvol u A. Bloka,” 199. 63 Mints, “O nekotorykh ‘neomifologicheskikh’ tekstakh,” 70. 64 Mints, “Simvol u A. Bloka,” 200. 65 Mints, 200.

20 of plots. A mythologeme can thus link together several plots sharing the same semantic denominator.66 However, compared to the case of the name Magdalene in Blok’s poem, the mythologeme of the burning bush is, to some extent, different. Whereas the name Magdalene is firmly connected to one of the main persons in the Canonical Gospels, the mythological foundation of the burning bush is more complex. Although the title Neopalimaia Kupina clearly points to the burning bush, a mythologeme, the work as a whole embraces a number of interconnected myths that are pulled into its orbit.67 To begin with, in the Old Testa- ment, a burning bush appears as the medium through which God speaks to Moses (Exod. 3:2). In Eastern Orthodoxy, this episode is interpreted as a pre- figuration of the Virgin birth of Christ, and therefore the burning bush represents the Mother of God, “God-bearer” (Greek: Theotokos). The Theotokos can thus be seen as a realization of an image in Exodus, and interpreted as a fulfilment of the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible.68 This supports the perception of the burning bush as one thing, which is manifested in two different ways in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. In Voloshin’s poetry, neopalimaia kupina references not only the burning bush and the Theotokos, but Voloshin even transfers the mythologeme to Russia as a country enduring war and revolution. It not only describes a burning society in deep crisis, but also indicates that Russia is a god-bearing nation predestined for a messianic task. In Neopalimaia Kupina the burning bush is even amalgamated into the myth of the Apocalypse, thus incorporating several biblical plots which broaden the scope of associations even further. For instance, in the book the burning bush alludes to death and judgement by referencing the Apocalypse, and to the grain of wheat as an allegory of Christ’s transformation through death, as well as to the resurrection of Lazarus. The intricate amalgamation of several myths within the text will be discussed further in Chapter 2. Moreover, what is typical for neo-mythological text-myths, according to Mints, is that they often take place in a contemporary or historical setting. In these texts, a set of myths and mythologemes operates as a kind of “cipher- code” that explains the hidden meaning of the plot. Because two layers of time

66 Mints explains that “Становясь (уже на основе метафорических связей по сходству) обо- значениями тех или иных персонажей или ситуаций символистского текста, мифологемы актуализируют потенциально заложенные в них «сюжетные значения» и оказываются программой сюжетного поведения героев или развертывания ситуаций «текста-мифа».” (Mints, “O nekotorykh ‘neomifologicheskikh’ tekstakh,” 75–76). 67 For the sake of clarity, I will refer to the book as Neopalimaia Kupina, the poem as “Neopa- limaia Kupina,” the term as neopalimaia kupina, and the mythologem as the burning bush. 68 In traditional iconography, this is explicitly manifested in “Neopalimaia Kupina” icons which include depictions of both Moses before the burning bush in the Old Testament, and the The- otokos. See for instance V. I. Antonova and N. E. Mneva, eds., Katalog drevnerusskoi zhivopisi XI– nachala XVIII vv. V dvukh tomakh, T. 2 (Moskva: Gosudarstvennaia Tret´iakovskaia galereia, 1963), 207–8.

21 (mythical and historical) are affirmed in these texts, mythological occasions and heroes, according to Mints, appear over and over again as a chain of mys- terious correspondences.69 References and allusions to myths can be few or many and they can occupy more or less space in the text: their quantity is not important. What is important is their function to shed light on what is depicted. However, the myths do not only decipher the text, but are themselves also elucidated through it: the text and the myths illuminate each other. This enables the development of new text-myths, in which mythological archetypal occurrences and characters recur as variations of variations:

Мифологические Первособытия и Первогерои, реализуясь и конкретизи- руясь в истории, разлагаются в бесконечные ряды образов и сюжетов, ко- торые только в совокупности их частных смыслов и в соотнесении с сим- воликой мифа выявляют всю полноту своих значений.70

Mints also points out that myths in a narrower sense (mythological topics, plots, and leitmotifs) are used to strengthen the mythopoetic layer of the text- myth, or to operate as its theme(s). As discussed above, Neopalimaia Kupina was continuously exposed to al- terations by the poet, but it was never published during his lifetime. Through- out the compositional process, the book gradually became larger and larger, and its structure was repeatedly reorganized. Voloshin included and removed old and new poems back and forth, rearranged sub-cycles, rewrote poems and gave them new epigraphs and titles. In the preface to the edition of Voloshin’s selected works which included the first published version of Neopalimaia Ku- pina, the editors B. A. Filippov, G. P. Struve, and N. A. Struve describe his compositional strategy:

Волошин рассматривал книги своих стихов отнюдь не как некое случай- ное, механическое объединение стихотворений и поэм, связанных друг с другом, в лучшем случае, лишь временем их написания. Для него каждая книга была единым целым, единым организмом, и деление ее на циклы было тоже органическим, отнюдь не произвольным. Тематические раз- делы эти постоянно менялись автором, и он переносил ряд своих произ- ведений из раздела в раздел. Однако основное деление на книги и циклы оставалось из года в год неизменным, и лишь изменялось “прикрепление” того или другого стихотворения к тому или другому разделу и циклу.71

Filippov, Struve, and Struve emphasize that Voloshin composed his books thoughtfully, each as its own organism, implying that the compositional history is an essential aspect of his works. The complex and voluminous composition of Neopalimaia Kupina, taken together with the lack of an authorized

69 Mints, “O nekotorykh ‘neomifologicheskikh’ tekstakh,” 80. 70 Mints, 74. 71 Filippov, Struve, and Struve, “Primechaniia,” 389.

22 version, raises many questions about form, content, and interpretations. Ex- ploring Voloshin’s working method is therefore crucial for an understanding of the book’s (inner) development. I would like to suggest that Toporov’s examination of Alexander Blok’s influence on Anna Akhmatova’s poetry, and the theory he presents as the basis for his analysis,72 are of interest for the present study. In this work, Toporov introduces the concept of an open text when referring to Akhmatova’s poems related to Blok, which he defines as being in constant transformation. By the term open text, he means a device which allows the text to absorb new material over time, and thereby enables the reader to make new readings and to inten- sify an image in it. Toporov’s concept is consistent with Mints’ mythologeme in the way both are described as having the capacity to absorb new plots. To- porov argues that Akhmatova’s “Blokian” text remains open due to the trans- missions of episodes and facts (memories, quotes, allusions, etc.) from the real world to the poetic text. He discusses how the transformations in Akhmatova’s poetry lead to an essential changing of the borders between poetry, prose, and the outside world. These transformations, he claims, leave the poetic space maximally deepened and widened. Toporov maintains that this makes the text open since it can be argued that it has been deprived of finality, and therefore always remains in statu nascendi. Toporov uses a metaphor to elucidate the possibilities of the concept of the open text as a tool for interpretation:

Образ организуется как некое порождающее из самого себя новые образы устройство, как воронка, вовлекающая в себя новый материал и дающая возможность читателю или исследователю усвоить правила дальнейшего углубления образа.73

According to Toporov, the expansion also enables the reader to grasp the laws which govern the text’s future development. Furthermore, Toporov identifies a set of devices that Akhmatova uses in her poetry: secondary cyclization (the composition of poems into cycles at a later date), re-cyclization (the composition of new cycles), as well as secondary dating and re-dating of poems, and the introduction of new epigraphs. By using these devices, new interpretations are made possible, and through them the text acquires a feature of potential openness. What distinguishes Toporov’s open text is that it operates diachronically, enabling a text to develop over long periods of time. The concept of an open text is especially applicable in Neopalimaia Kupina, a work which was con-

72 V. N. Toporov, Akhmatova i Blok: (k probleme postroeniia poeticheskogo dialoga: “blokovskii” tekst Akhmatovoi) (Berkley: Berkley Slavic specialities, 1981). 73 Toporov, 8.

23 tinually written and re-arranged for years, and to which Voloshin applied secondary cyclization and re-cyclization, as well as the devices of retitling poems and introducing new epigraphs. The concept enables an approach to Ne- opalimaia Kupina, not as an unfinished book, but as a work where openness accords it meaning. This leads to the question of the composition’s cohesive denominator, i.e., what governs the development of the text. In his study, To- porov recognizes the legend about Akhmatova’s romance with Blok as the core of her text, which is made open. In the case of Neopalimaia Kupina, I would argue that a cluster of myths, centered around death and resurrection (or rebirth) can be identified as the common denominator which creates inner cohesion and shapes the development of the text. Through its potential bound- lessness, moreover, a mythologeme can enlarge the openness of a text. Since death, in some poems, signals a transformation rather than a conclusion, these poems express a continuation which intensifies the openness of the text even further.

The Apocalypse and the Anthroposophical Vision of a Slavic Cultural Epoch In the Russian arts of the fin-de-siècle, particularly in Symbolist literature, apocalyptic sentiments and eschatological narratives are common, and they characterize the social atmosphere of the time. The idea of an imminent end intrigued the Symbolists, notably the so-called younger generation, who were oriented towards mysticism, religious philosophy, and the ideal of sobornost´, a type of spiritual community. Notions of an approaching End, which on oc- casion manifested a type of rebirth through transformation, in a religious, mythical, or a strictly aesthetical sense, also proved to be a popular and useful narrative in many of the works of the movement’s leading writers. Apocalyp- tic symbols and eschatological narratives play an important role in Dmitry Merezhkovsky’s trilogy Khristos i Antikhrist (1895–1905), Andrei Bely’s Pe- terburg (1913–1914), and Vasily Rozanov’s Apokalipsis nashego vremeni (1917–1918) to name a few examples.74 In a wider chronological perspective, David Bethea notes that Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Idiot (1868), Andrei Bely’s Pe- terburg, Andrey Platonov’s Chevengur (1972), Mikhail Bulgakov’s Master i Margarita (1966–1967), and Boris Pasternak’s Doktor Zhivago (1957) all prominently allude to Revelation. In these works, Bethea identifies the Apoc- alypse as the underlying theme, and connects it to impulses in Russian culture that have affirmed an eschatological or even messianic view of the national identity, which provides the works with models of an end-of-time narrative.75

74 James H. Billington, The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian Culture (New York: Vintage books, 1970), 504–18. 75 Bethea, The Shape of Apocalypse in Modern Russian Fiction, xiv.

24 Voloshin’s myths about death and resurrection are thematically connected to the New Testament narrative of Christ’s death and resurrection, mirrored in the ultimate perdition during the Apocalypse and the universal salvation and resurrection of all Christendom, as described in Revelation. Intertextual references to Revelation are numerous in Neopalimaia Kupina, both as direct quotes and as subtle allusions. However, apocalyptic themes and narratives in Neopalimaia Kupina are not limited to biblical references. The term Apocalypse extends not only to the spheres of mythology and religion, but also to cultural studies, anthropology, and semiotics. David E. Aune points out that apocalyptic and apocalypticism are slippery terms, and he identifies three different implications of them: 1) as a type of eschatology, 2) as a type of collective behavior, and 3) as a type of literature.76 Apocalyptic eschatology, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, is the narrative theology concerned with the final events of history. This theology centers around the beliefs that 1) the present world order is under the temporary con- trol of Satan and his human accomplices, and 2) God will soon abolish this present evil world order and replace it with a new and perfect order corresponding to the Garden of Eden before the fall of man.77 This theology can be described as deeply pessimistic, since it usually stresses that the end of time will be characterized by fierce battles between Satan and his followers and the people of God, who will suffer greatly. It can also be seen as fundamentally optimistic, since the victory of God and the defeat of Satan are predestined. After the Last Judgement, a new world will be created, in which Edenic conditions will be restored. There are many subdivisions of apocalyptic eschatology, such as the Parousia (the Second Coming of the Messiah), the Last Judge- ment, and millennialism, which all refer to parts of the end-of-time scenario. In the Christian tradition, the Apocalypse is thus both the event which marks the end of the present world, but it also represents the beginning of a new atemporal ideal, the New Jerusalem. This notion has close parallels to other Christian dogmas, such as the sacrament of baptism (the ritual death of the old person, followed by a new birth). This shows the ontological understanding of the conception: without death there can be no resurrection. Biblical scholars draw a sharp line between eschatology, meaning a general (non-Christian) knowledge about the end (Greek: eskhaton) which can be found in many cultures and religions, and apocalypticism, which is the distinct Judeo-Christian version of the teachings about the end of history (the Apocalypse). Apocalypticism as a type of collective behavior arises from a belief in apocalyptic eschatology. For the so-called millenarian movements, a central belief is that the end of time is drawing near, and therefore it is necessary for the oppressed to prepare for the coming cataclysm. In Russia such movements

76 David E. Aune, Apocalypticism, Prophecy, and Magic in Early Christianity: Collected Es- says (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008), 1 ff. 77 Aune, 4.

25 have occurred from time to time. This can be explained by an enduring tradition of apocalyptic eschatology, which has provided an interpretative framework for people who have sought to understand their own time, place, and mission in history. A Russian example from the late seventeenth century is the movement of the Old Believers who opposed Patriarch Nikon’s ecclesiastic reforms. There are also several other events and persons which have been interpreted as apocalyptic, for instance the struggle between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Peter the Great as An- tichrist, apocalyptic movements such as the Wanderers (stranniki) and the Castrates (skoptsy), and the growing interest (and belief) in millennialism during the first part of the nineteenth century.78 Apocalypticism as a type of literature refers to something being revealed, and it is relevant both as a cultural and a social phenomenon. Some of the texts have served as an attempt to interpret and explain times of troubles, others as a comfort for present sufferings and as a promise of relief, justice, and freedom. Some apocalyptic texts can therefore be described as a model of interpretation, a way of understanding a certain situation. Thus, a certain interac- tion can be outlined between the apocalyptic text and the historical situation in which it was written. Here also lies a significant difference in the perception of the author: whether the last times lie somewhere in the future, or if they, in fact, already have begun. The term “apocalypse,” Aune argues, “has become a common designation for a type of supernatural visionary literature depicting the imminent and catastrophic end of the world.”79 But what exactly is required of a text for it to be regarded as an apocalyptic text? Elaborating on the definition stated by J. J. Collins,80 Adela Yarbro Collins defines apocalypse as

…a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial, insofar as it involves another, supernatural world […] intended to interpret present, earthly circumstances in light of the supernatural world and of the future, and to influence both the understanding and the behavior of the audience by means of divine authority.81

78 J. Eugene Clay, “Apocalypticism in Eastern Europe,” in The Continuum History of Apoca- lypticism, ed. Bernard J. McGinn, John J. Collins, and Stephen J. Stein (New York: Continuum, 2003), 628–48. 79 Aune, Apocalypticism, Prophecy, and Magic in Early Christianity, 1. 80 John J. Collins, “Towards the Morphology of a Genre: Introduction,” in Apoca- lypse: The Morphology of a Genre, ed. John J. Collins, Semeia 14 (Society of Biblical Litera- ture, 1979), 9. 81 Adela Yarbro. Collins, “Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypticism,” in Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting, ed. Collins, Adela Yarbro, Semeia 36 (Society of Biblical Literature, 1986), 2, 7.

26 Yarbro Collins’ definition relates to the social function(s) of apocalyptic genres.82 But an apocalyptic text can also have literary functions. A typical feature of apocalyptic (and eschatological) literature is the frequent use of symbols and metaphors: the text is not written in a realistic manner, but as a secret mystery that has to be interpreted in order to be understood. Neopalimaia Kupina is saturated with symbols and metaphors which reference the biblical Apocalypse with its theme of death and resurrection. These references are sometimes explicit, sometimes merely alluded to. Some poems portray an imminent approaching End in a biblical mode: a critical scenario of a society on the brink of collapse, or a reference to a mythical or literary plot with a distinct end-of-time narrative. Other poems sketch death and destruction in a different light. In them the approaching End initiates a transformation, which signals, or at least expresses, a hope in resurrection and rebirth. The prospect of personal resurrection and national revival is especially emphasized in the book’s penultimate part, “Voznosheniia.” This shows that a cataclysm can sometimes be interpreted as the initiation of a new beginning, as opposed to a definitive end. Depicting crisis and death, but also resurrection, Neopalimaia Kupina is a work which includes essential components of apocalyptic eschatology. It also reflects apocalypticism as social behavior, and references apocalyptic literature. Yet it is important to emphasize that the myths centered around death and resurrection in Neopalimaia Kupina are also connected to other models of interpretation, and therefore are not limited to a Christian worldview. Like many of his contemporaries, Voloshin showed an interest in occultism as well as in religious and philosophical movements such as theosophy and anthroposophy. In the first decades of the twentieth century, these movements were part of a larger philosophical discussion shaped by the Russian intelligentsia as well as Symbolist poets and artists. Voloshin first met Rudolf Steiner, the founding father of anthroposophy, in 1905, and he continued to take an interest in the doctrine during the following decades. Though fascinated by anthroposophy, Voloshin nevertheless felt the need to interpret its doctrines in his own way, and to translate its concepts into his own language.83 The influence of Steiner

82 David Hellholm argues that apocalypticism as a type of literature can be thought of according to three aspects – content, form, and function – which all must be considered in the definition of a genre. (Hellholm, “The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John,” in Collins, Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting, 13–64). 83 In a letter to his friend Iuliia Obolenskaia, Voloshin wrote: “И вот антропософия… По существу все принимаю… Но ведь мне все приходится переводить на свой язык, на свои образы. А для антропософов – это ересь. Мне это нужно для того, чтобы быть свободным и творческим, а они все превращают в догмат и религию. А это не мой путь. А в то же время я знаю, что и до встречи с антропософией мыслил исключительно в ее категориях и впредь буду мыслить не иначе.” (Voloshin to Iu. L. Obolenskaia, May 6/19, 1915, Paris, in Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 10. Pisʹma 1913–1917, ed. V. P. Kupchenko, A. V. Lavrov, and R. P. Khruleva [Moskva: Ellis Lak, 2011], 348–49).

27 and anthroposophy on Voloshin and his poetry has been noted by several scholars.84 They point out that Voloshin was especially intrigued by Steiner’s assertion about Russia’s special role in the spiritual development of humanity. Anthroposophy describes the evolution of human consciousness as a path of knowledge and professes the existence of a spiritual world which evolves together with the material one. Especially relevant for the present study is Steiner’s understanding of the world’s development. According to Steiner, the evolution of the world and of humanity occurs in a complex system of cycles. Steiner believed that the evolution of the world was in its fourth great phase (“Post-Atlantean phase”), which in turn was divided into seven sub-phases, or cultural epochs. He claimed that the world was in its fifth (“Anglo-Germanic”) cultural epoch which was gradually coming to an end. He predicted that the following sixth epoch would unite intelligence, reason, and spirituality, and envisioned a special role for Russia. Identifying Russians as the “people of Christ,” Steiner believed that they possessed the characteristics and morals which could unite East and West, and lead the world’s development to the next stage.85 Steiner believed that, of all nations, Russia was best fit for the task of embodying the spirit of the next cultural epoch, which he called the epoch of the “Spirit Self” (das Geistselbst). Stiner held that Christ was present in the Russians on a spiritual level, leading their thoughts and feelings in the right direction. Steiner furthermore argued that “great, tumultuous catastrophes” and “great, physical upheavals” would precede and mark the beginning of the Slavic cultural epoch.86 Transformation through death as a prerequisite for spiritual development, semantically connects the idea of the rise and decline of cultural epochs with myths of death and resurrection. Moreover, the fact that Steiner attributed a crucial spiritual significance to Russia for the future of humanity affirmed philosophical ideas of Russia as a chosen nation, which in turn revived the idea of the nation’s messianic mission, the Russian idea.87 In a letter to his friend Aleksandra Petrova, written in April 1915, Voloshin explained his attitude towards Steiner’s predictions:

84 See for instance S. O. Prokof´iev, “Maksimilian Voloshin – chelovek, poet, antroposof,” in Koshemchuk, M. A. Voloshin: pro et contra: antologiia, 472–93; Kupchenko, “Maksimilian Voloshin – uchenik Rudol´fa Shteinera,” 438–50; G. F. Parkhomenko, Liki tvorchestva Mak- similiana Voloshina v sviazi s tainoi ego vysshego “Ia” (Moskva: Novalis, 2012). 85 Rudolf Steiner, Menschenschicksale und Völkerschicksale, Gesamtausgabe 157 (Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 1981), 88 ff. See also Renata von Maydell, Vor dem Thore: ein Viertel- jahrhundert Anthroposophie in Russland, Dokumente und Analysen zur russischen und sowjetischen Kultur 29 (Bochum; Projektverl., 2005), 141–42; and Rentata von Maydell, “Anthro- posophy in Russia,” in The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture, ed. Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997), 154 ff. 86 Rudolf Steiner, Kosmogonie. Populärer Okkultismus Das Johannes-Evangelium. Die Theos- ophie anhand des Johannes-Evangeliums, Gesamtausgabe 94 (Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 2001), 123. 87 For more on the Russian idea, see for instance V. V. Alekseev, “The Russian Idea,” Russian Social Science Review 56, no. 3 (2015): 2–17; Tim McDaniel, The Agony of the Russian Idea

28 Штейнеровское учение о расах, т.е. о том, что теперь наступает эпоха гла- венства Германской расы, которая сменится VI расой – славянской – я принимаю. [...] Одно славянство несет в себе силы, которые смогут пре- обороть соблазн машинной и технической культуры.88

As I will show later on, some poems in Neopalimaia Kupina which express hope in a national revival can be connected both to the Christian view of death and resurrection, and to the anthroposophical idea of Russia’s central role in a sixth Slavic cultural epoch. In a number of poems, this is expressed by the image of the seed, which alludes to the biblical parable of the grain of wheat as an allegory for sacrifice and resurrection through death. Several scholars have noted the frequent use of the seed motif in Neopalimaia Kupina.89 Vo- loshin, as I will argue, used the image of the seed in a similar way to Steiner, namely to picture Russia as an embryonic state of the next epoch, and the nation’s role of reinforcing the Christ impulse in order to advance the spiritual development of civilization:

Так семя, дабы прорасти, Должно истлеть… Истлей, Россия, И царством духа расцвети! (“Преосуществление,” 265)

For Voloshin, the seed carried hope, and in his poetry, it symbolizes death as a transformation and a new beginning rather than an end.

Life-Creation and the Theurgic Art of the Russian Symbolists The aspiration to understand the world by creating it through art, rather than comprehending it figuratively or symbolically, was essential to the Symbol- ists’ pan-aesthetic program. Thus, artistic creation was not confined to literature; instead, life itself was made an object of art. The Symbolists embraced the concept of theurgy, which depicted art, and especially poetry, as bearing a creative force with a metaphysical dimension. Artistic creation was seen as a

(Princeton University Press, 1996); see also Landa, Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy, 29– 34. 88 Voloshin to A. M. Petrova, April 16/29–17/30, 1915, Paris, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 10, 325–26. 89 Dolgopolov, “Poeziia i revoliutsiia: Zametki i razmyshleniia,” 12–13; N. V. Sukhorukova, “Motivy semeni i poseva v knige M. A. Voloshina ‘Neopalimaia Kupina,’” in Mezhdunarod- naia nauchno-prakticheskaia konferentsiia “Sovoprosnik veka sego…” Sbornik nauchnykh statei, ed. N. M. Miroshnichenko, (Simferopol´: Antikva, 2013), 270–76; and Zaiats, “Mifo- tvorchestvo i religiozno-filosofskie iskaniia Maksimiliana Voloshina,” 310.

29 sacred act with a transformative power that was manifested in the theories of zhiznetvorchestvo (life-creation) and mifotvorchestvo (myth-creation).90 In this way, art was comprised of both aesthetic and religious aspects, and writing poetry became a way to meet the poet’s spiritual needs.91 Because of its theurgic nature, art was not only believed to have the capacity to shape the identity and individual worldview of the poet, but it was also believed that it could indeed transform both the artist’s life and all of reality. As a poet-theurge, the poet assumed the role of divine mediator. The deification of the poet was a notion which the Symbolists, with few exceptions, wholeheartedly embraced,92 and as an aesthetic idea it gave rise to a wide variety of theurgic art since every poet interpreted the creative process in his or her own way. The origin of this belief can be traced back to Vladimir Solovyov’s concept of bogochelovechestvo (godmanhood): the elevation of the artist to a semi- divine agent, and the raising of his art to an essentially religious manifestation, an attempt to unite the phenomenal and noumenal worlds. Irina Paperno summarizes the philosopher’s view on the task of art:

Like love, art also is a divine action, or “theurgy;” artistic creation is an equivalent of divine creation. The goal of theurgic art is self-creation in imitation of Christ as well as the “organization of reality” through “man’s realization of the divine principle in empirical reality, or nature.” Thus art is destined to bring about a real change. The “task” of art is not mimesis, but metamorphosis, not reflection but transfiguration of man and the world.93

Solovyov’s ideas formed an important philosophical basis for the Symbolist poets and impacted both the artistic expression and the social direction of their poetry. Vyacheslav Ivanov advocated and popularized Solovyov’s ideas on theurgy among the younger Symbolists.94 He followed Solovyov’s thought,

90 Irina Paperno explains that “In place of the dichotomy ‘art and life’ (zhizn´ i tvorchestvo), Symbolism offers a unity of art-lifehood, or zhiznetvorchestvo, a direct parallel to godmanhood, or bogochelovechestvo. The opposition between ‘word’ and ‘thing’ is resolved by advancing a concept of ‘symbol,’ a total equivalent of the ‘essence’ it connects, that is constructed by analogy with divine Logos.” (Paperno, “The Meaning of Art: Symbolist Theories,” in Creating Life: The Aesthetic Utopia of Russian Modernism, ed. Irina Paperno and Joan Delaney Grossman [Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, 1994], 22). 91 Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal calls Russian Symbolism a “surrogate religion.” (Rosenthal, New Myth, New World: From Nietzsche to Stalinism [University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002], 34). 92 Michael Wachtel, Russian Symbolism and Literary Tradition: Goethe, Novalis, and the Po- etics of Vyacheslav Ivanov (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1994), 145. 93 Irina Paperno, “Introduction,” in Paperno and Grossman, Creating Life: The Aesthetic Utopia of Russian Modernism, 7. 94 According to Michael Wachtel, Ivanov’s discussions of theurgy and life-creation are especially frequent and impassioned in his theoretical essays of 1908–1910, such as “Dve stikhii v

30 but argued that transformation, or transfiguration, was dependent on a tran- scendental imperative.95 Even though the Symbolists used slightly different terms for the aim of art (preobrazhenie, preobrazovanie, peresozdanie),96 they all believed in art’s capacity to change the world in an active sense. James West explains that “they envisaged not the transfiguration of the appearance of the world in the light of their knowledge of the relationship in which the material world stands to the ideal, but a transformation of the human world in the here-and-now [italics in the original].”97 As early as 1904, Voloshin himself had formulated the possibilities inherent in the word:

Стихия слова – будущее. Если я захочу воплотить в слове то, что я пере- жил во всей полноте, – это будет только слабым напоминанием прошед- шего. Но если я воплощаю в слове то, что живет во мне как предчувствие, как возможность, то слово само становится действительностью трепещу- щей и ослепительной.98

Two years later, in a review of Vyacheslav Ivanov’s book Eros (1907), Vo- loshin expresses a similar understanding of the poet and the power inherent in poetry: “Человек словом своим заклинает появление нового мира по- добно тому, как наш мир был создан словом Божественным. […] Каждое произведение поэзии есть заклинание.”99 Voloshin’s train of thought developed into an evaluation of the art forms. In the article “Horomedon” (1909),100 he presents a classification of the arts in which he identifies poetry as the element of the future: “Поэзия – царственная наука слова, которая творит в стихии будущего.”101 Several scholars have studied Voloshin’s approach to theurgic art, concluding that it was profoundly impacted by Vyacheslav Ivanov’s interpretation of

sovremennom simvolizme” (1908) and “Zavety simvolizma” (1910). (Wachtel, Russian Sym- bolism and Literary Tradition, 146–47). 95 Michael Wachtel, “Viacheslav Ivanov: From Aesthetic Theory to Biographical Practice,” in Paperno and Grossman, Creating Life: The Aesthetic Utopia of Russian Modernism, 152. 96 James West, Russian Symbolism: A Study of Vyacheslav Ivanov and the Russian Symbolist Aesthetic (London: Methuen, 1970), 172–73. 97 West, 177–78. 98 Maksimilian Voloshin, “Makbet zarezal son!,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 5, 468 99 Maksimilian Voloshin, “‘Eros’ Viacheslava Ivanova” (1907), in Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 6. Kn. 1. Proza 1906–1916; Ocherki, statʹi, retsenzii, ed. V. P. Kupchenko, A. V. Lavrov, and R. P. Khruleva (Moskva: Ellis Lak 2000, 2007), 34. 100 The word Horomedon is Greek and means “ruler of time.” Voloshin uses Horomedon as an epithet for the Greek god Apollo. N. V. Loshchinskaia, “Kommentarii,” in Voloshin, Sobranie sochinenii. T. 6. Kn. 1, 716–24; see also Maksimilian Voloshin, “Apollon i mysh´” (1911), in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 3, 134–57. 101 Maksimilian Voloshin, “Horomedon,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 6. Kn. 1, 301.

31 theurgy as myth-creation.102 Landa identifies myth-creation in a number of poems from the revolutionary period as Voloshin’s method of theurgy. Accord- ing to her, Voloshin used poetry to create powerful myths through which he tried to metaphysically influence not only reality and people, but also God, in order to save Russia from the atrocities of war. She argues that the poet (as well as readers) believed that the poetic word had the capacity to metaphysically affect reality.103 She furthermore maintains that Voloshin’s artistic goal of myth-creation was combined with a practical one. By reaching out to the new authorities in an attempt to raise their moral consciousness, he also turned them into his admirers, thereby protecting himself and his poems at the same time.104 I. G. Kireeva argues that Voloshin’s approach to theurgy is connected to poetry’s capacity to reveal ontological insights:

[К] концу 1900-х годов, магия творчества для него заключается в том, чтобы найти «свое освобождающее слово для каждой вещи». «Мир нужно изназвать весь – вот первая цель искусства». Назвать – значит понять, постичь суть предмета, явления, двинуться в сторону обретения истин- ного познания. […] Созидающая индивидуальность, по представлениям Волошина, проходит путь переплавки собственной жизненной энергии в творчестве, соединяет ступени мира земного и высшего. Поэт вглядыва- ется в «духовные эквиваленты», просветляет и преображает материю, осознавая ее суть.105

Other scholars interpret Voloshin’s view of theurgy as a moral-philosophical means of transforming evil into goodness not only poetically, but also through his moral courage, humanism, and his ability to act as a mediator. G. F. Par- khomenko, for instance, interprets Voloshin’s theurgic impulse in anthroposophical terms as a part of his higher self, manifested in the cosmic work (космическое дело) which comprehends his poetry as well as his ability to influence peoples’ souls as an art of social harmonization (for instance, through the Koktebel colony):

Самоотверженная, бережная любовь Волошина к людям […] изумительно раскрылась в продуктивности духовной и через силы инспирации дала ему возможность творить в сфере его истинного искусства – теургии, т. е.

102 Landa, Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy, 24–29; I. G. Kireeva, “Osobennosti otrazheniia simvolistskoi idei teurgichnosti v voloshinskikh tekstakh,” in Tvorchestvo Maksimiliana Voloshina: Semantika. Poetika. Kontekst: sbornik statei, ed. S. M. Pinaev (Moskva: Azbu- kovnik, 2009), 11–19. 103 Landa, Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy, 63, 148–49. 104 Landa, 139. 105 Kireeva, “Osobennosti otrazheniia simvolistskoi idei teurgichnosti v voloshinskikh tekstakh,” 17–18.

32 одухотворения человеческих душ, в чем он оказался среди его современ- ников непревзойденным художником. Вплоть до воздействия, влияния на души... палачей из контрразведок, из чрезвычаек, из кремлевской адской канцелярии его времени.106

The Symbolist view of theurgy and life-creation is undoubtedly central to the development of Voloshin’s poetics. The questions of how Voloshin explored theurgy, and how it is manifested in his poetry, require further study. I believe that analyzing the impact of influences outside the Symbolist circle on Vo- loshin’s poetry might elucidate his approach to theurgical art and his belief in the poet’s ability to impact the future. Like many of his coevals, Voloshin himself was receptive to a variety of influences. Among those mentioned in his autobiography are the philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov, magic, occultism, and theosophy.107 Regarding the poets and thinkers who impacted him most, Voloshin mentions Rudolf Steiner in particular.108 Despite the diversity of movements and influences, several of them advocate the power of words. I will show that some of these influences, chiefly occultism, Russian folk magic, and anthroposophy, not only chal- lenged Voloshin to write theurgic poetry, but also offered ways to approach this task. Neopalimaia Kupina includes poems of a theurgic nature (notably the poems in the part “Voznosheniia”), with roots in different traditions and genres. Against this backdrop, Voloshin’s poetic depictions of Russia in a state of transformation, soon to reach fruition, can be interpreted as an approach to theurgic art. As this dissertation will show, Voloshin’s exploration of the poetic word as a means of initiating a national revival is connected to the hope of resurrection.

Multiple Meanings in the Title As noted above, the image of a burning bush alludes to myths of death and resurrection which serve as a common denominator for the poems of the book. Yet there are even more implications in the title Neopalimaia Kupina that are of significance. As I will show, the mythologeme of the burning bush actualizes a number of potential simultaneous meanings. Furthermore, it draws several myths into its realm of associations with the implied reinforcement of its own meanings, thereby averting any fixed hierarchy of importance. Having

106 Parkhomenko, Liki tvorchestva Maksimiliana Voloshina v sviazi s tainoi ego vysshego “Ia,” 415. 107 Maksimilian Voloshin, “Maksimilian Voloshin. Avtobiografiia <12>,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 7. Kn. 2, 243–44. 108 Maksimilian Voloshin, “Maksimilian Voloshin. Avtobiografiia <14>,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 7. Kn. 2, 259.

33 expanded from the title of a single poem to designating an entire book, the title Neopalimaia Kupina also functions as an important means of creating cohesion within a large volume of text. Before moving on to explore the book’s compositional history and content, it is important to consider the additional connotations of the title, and examine what meanings they accord to the entire work. The term neopalimaia kupina is commonly recognized as a popular nick- name for the plant Dictamnus albus (Russian: iasenets). Common in southern and eastern Europe, the plant is known for its volatile oils which, in rare cases during hot weather, may self-ignite without harming the plant. The Dictamnus albus is intimately connected to Voloshin’s home region, since it grows near his house in Koktebel, on the mountain Kara-Dag.109 Voloshin knew about this plant, and it is even depicted in his poem “Pustynia” (1919). Exodus describes such a burning bush. In the third chapter, an angel of the Lord appears to Moses in a burning bush. Moses saw that although the bush was on fire, the flames did not consume it. In the story the bush functions as a medium through which God communicates with Moses; the bush is not God, but rather an instrument of God. The burning bush thus functions as a channel which conveys the Divine Word to God’s chosen people, the Israelites. The title Neopalimaia Kupina alludes to these connotations. Referencing the medium for God’s message, the title elevates the sense of Voloshin’s poetry, and even implies a special status for Russian readers, since they seem comparable to the Israelites who were the recipients of the divine Word. As already mentioned, especially in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the burning bush has become an epithet for the Theotokos, who brought God to mankind by giving birth to Jesus Christ. This is in line with the conception of the burning bush as a medium. Just like the bush, the Theotokos is perceived as God’s mediator (Mediatrix). Both the bush and the Theotokos express mi- raculous paradoxes: the bush that does not burn up, and the virgin who is also a mother. This way, the Theotokos can be interpreted as the burning bush embodied. The burning bush is also a symbol of something which cannot be described in words. It is an oxymoron like the Virgin-Mother. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the burning bush is interpreted as a revelation: Moses is shown God’s eternal glory; the burning bush is a gateway through which the boundaries of time are resolved and opened up to eternity. Though manifested in history, the burning bush affirms the existence of a reality beyond time and space. The same interpretation is used for the Theotokos, who as a mortal woman has given birth to God eternal.

109 On a photograph used for the cover of Parkhomenko’s book Liki tvorchestva Maksimiliana Voloshina v sviazi s tainoi ego vysshego “Ia,” Voloshin’s “profile” can seemingly be perceived in the contour of the mountain Kara-Dag.

34 The Orthodox tradition furthermore teaches that after her death, the The- otokos was assumed into heaven.110 In the New Testament, Christ preaches resurrection of the dead by referring to the burning bush: “And the fact that the dead are raised Moses himself showed, in the story about the bush, where he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” (Luke 20:37). Through these references, the burning bush alludes to life and resurrection. However, in the Orthodox tradition the Theotokos is also closely connected to the apocalyptic scenario of the Last Judgement, where she is believed to protect the righteous from Christ’s judgement (often depicted in the hymnography), a scene which Voloshin vividly portrays in the poem “Khvala Bogomateri” (1919), which will be analyzed in detail in Chap- ter 4. The epithet for the Theotokos, Neopalimaia Kupina (or Kupina Neopa- limaia), is thus firmly fixed in sacred Orthodox texts and icons, such as the Akathistos Hymn “Uspenie Presviatoi Bogoroditsy,” the icon of the Theoto- kos “Neopalimaia Kupina” (celebrated September 4/17), and the Akathistos hymn dedicated to it, “Akafist Bozhiei Materi pred ikonoi Ee, imenuemoi ‘Ne- opalimaia Kupina.’” In the icon, the Theotokos is traditionally depicted in the center of a dark green rhomb placed over a red rhomb, forming an eight- pointed star. The four evangelists are symbolically depicted in the points of the star as the creatures described in Ezekiel (1:10) and in Revelation (4:7–8). Moses’ encounter with the burning bush is usually represented in the icon’s upper left corner. Sometimes the icon also includes the ladder in Jacob’s dream in Bethel (Gen. 28:12), a symbol of the Theotokos as a force uniting heaven and earth. 111 Aristova has noted several extratextual connections to this icon in Ne- opalimaia Kupina, including references to the prophet Ezekiel, elemental angels as motifs, and allusions to the Canonical Gospels.112 She and Zaiats have noted the burning bush as a reference to the Theotokos in Voloshin’s poetry.113 This is one of the term’s key meanings in Neopalimaia Kupina. Voloshin ex- pressly uses Neopalimaia Kupina as an epithet for the Theotokos in two poems, “Neopalimaia Kupina (V epokhu begstva frantsuzov iz Odessy)” (1919) and “Khvala Bogomateri.”

110 The Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos (Uspenie Presviatoi Bogoroditsy) is celebrated on August 15/28. 111 Variations of the composition are connected to the different schools of icon painting (for instance, the Novgorod school and the Stroganov school). See Antonova and Mneva, Katalog drevnerusskoi zhivopisi XI – nachala XVIII vv., 30–31, 207–8, 348–49. 112 Aristova, “Kniga M. A. Voloshina ‘Neopalimaia Kupina,’” 103–43. 113 Aristova, 26; Zaiats, “Mifotvorchestvo i religiozno-filosofskie iskaniia Maksimiliana Volo- shina,” 132.

35 In the article “Proroki i mstiteli. Predvestiia Velikoi Revoliutsii,” Voloshin uses neopalimaia kupina as metaphor for mankind.114 This image is forcefully developed in the poem “Neopalimaia Kupina”. In this poem, Voloshin likens Russia and its people to the biblical burning bush. In spite of tribulations and attacks by enemies, Russia miraculously survives each time. The final stanza reads:

Мы погибаем, не умирая, Дух обнажаем до дна. Дивное диво – горит, не сгорая, Неопалимая Купина! (“Неопалимая Купина,” 294)

The poem references both the Old Testament episode (“горит, не сгорая”) and the Theotokos through the epithet Neopalimaia Kupina. Furthermore, the poem’s third and fifth stanzas can be interpreted as a parallel to 2 Samuel 6:6– 7, in which God killed Uzzah because he touched the Ark of the Covenant, the Israelites’ most sacred and cherished treasure:

Каждый, коснувшийся дерзкой рукою, – Молнией поражен: Карл под Полтавой; ужален Москвою, Падает Наполеон. […]

Кто там? Французы? Не суйся, товарищ, В русскую водоверть! Не прикасайся до наших пожарищ! Прикосновение – смерть. (“Неопалимая Купина,” 293)

By drawing a parallel between Russia and the Ark of the Covenant, Voloshin implies that the land is sacred and divinely protected. Furthermore, these stanzas also include yet another reference to the Theotokos. The Akathistos hymn “Uspenie Presviatoi Bogoroditsy” depicts how the Jewish priest Affoniia had his hand cut off by God’s angel, when he reaches out to touch the bed upon which the deceased Virgin lay before her assumption.115 With these parallels, Voloshin suggests that Russia is protected in the same way, and by the same power, as the Theotokos.

114 Voloshin writes: “[Н]енависть только тень любви, потому что ненависть только огнен- ный цветок, распускающийся на дереве любви, на неопалимой купине человечества.” (Voloshin, “Proroki i mstiteli. Predvestiia Velikoi Revoliutsii,” 283). 115 I. A. Sokolov, Akafisty Presviatoi Bogoroditse. Raduisia, Radoste nasha (Moskva: Pra- voslavnyi molitvoslov, 1998), 705.

36 In early twentieth century Russian poetry, the burning bush frequently appears as a poetic motif. Aristova has pointed out Solovyov’s “Neopalimaia Kupina” (1891), a poem alluding to Moses’ encounter with God, and Blok’s use of the word Kupina as an epithet for the Most Beautiful Lady, as intertextual references in Voloshin’s poetry.116 She also highlights the fact that both Vyacheslav Ivanov (“Tsusima” [1905]) and Andrei Bely (“Rodine” [1916]) have used the burning bush as a metaphor for Russia.117 This shows that Ne- opalimaia Kupina as an epithet for Russia was established long before Vo- loshin used it as such. The Russian Revolution triggered writers to interpret its significance, tasks, and goals. This resulted in a literary response to the Revolution in the form of poems and novels, but also diaries, such as Zinaida Gippius’ Siniaia kniga: Peterburgskii dnevnik (1914–1917) (1929), and Ivan Bunin’s Okaiannye dni (1926). Many topics and thoughts presented in Neopalimaia Kupina are not unique for Voloshin, but appeared in the works of fellow poets, especially after 1917. Like Voloshin, some writers interpreted the revolutionary events through a historical prism, drawing parallels to the Time of Troubles, such as Vyacheslav Ivanov in “Pesni smutnogo vremeni” (1918) and Marina Tsveta- eva in Lebedinyi stan (1957). Similarly, apocalyptic sentiments of an imminent end of the world, but also visions of transformation and rebirth, are present in, for instance, Ilya Ehrenburg’s “Molitva o Rossii” (1918), Vladislav Khodasevich’s “Putem zerna” (1917), “2-go noiabria” (1917), and Zinaida Gippius’ “Poslednie stikhi” (1914–1918). Voloshin hosted several of these poets at his dacha circle and was most likely familiar with their works. Although not a diary, Neopalimaia Kupina contains highly personal documentation of the period, which shares points of contact with works by Voloshin’s contemporaries. The Symbolist mythopoetic language, with the mythologeme of the burning bush as its centerpiece, constitutes the conceptual framework through which Voloshin met the dramatic changes in his own times and interpreted their historical significance. In the intersection between the depicted new reality of the postrevolutionary period and Voloshin’s retrospective and at times archaic poetic language and Symbolist imagery, a tension arises which seems to reflect both the uncer- tainty of the times and the poet’s doubt as to its novelty. In the following chapters, I will attempt to show what makes Voloshin’s book unique, and the ways in which he used the Symbolist legacy in his rendering of the revolutionary period.

116 Aristova, “Kniga M. A. Voloshina ‘Neopalimaia Kupina,’” 20 ff. 117 Aristova, 103–4.

37 Presentation of the Chapters The chapters of this dissertation explore Voloshin’s poetic interpretation of events during his lifetime in Neopalimaia Kupina, and the way in which he turned to myth when interpreting the course of events from both a historical and a metaphysical perspective. In Chapter 1, “The Compositional History of Neopalimaia Kupina,” I present the history of the formation of the book and argue that a shift in focus from the Apocalypse to the burning bush takes shape over the course of its development. In Chapter 2, “Neopalimaia Kupina as an Amalgamation of Myths,” I discuss interconnected myths such as the Apocalypse and the biblical story of the burning bush in Neopalimaia Kupina. With some specific examples, I show how they are reinforced by an amalgamation with closely related myths such as the biblical story of the resurrection of Lazarus and the myth of the Phoenix, both connected to the theme of transformation through death. In Chapter 3, “Times of Troubles in History and Myth,” I show that Vo- loshin, by affirming the Symbolist worldview of the cyclicality of the world’s development, evoked a sense of recurrence in Neopalimaia Kupina by creating correspondences in the vast material of the book. Besides pointing to a message hidden in the compositional structure of the book, I attempt to identify some of Voloshin’s key strategies and devices and examine how they suggest correspondences between poems and the historical and mythical events depicted in them. Chapter 4, “The Poet as Chronicler and Conjurer of Russian History,” explores poems in which two interconnected roles of the poet can be discerned. I investigate how the perception of time as both linear and cyclical is reflected in the dual role of the poet as chronicler and conjuring theurge. By actualizing the notion of performativity as a tool for life-creation, I examine how Vo- loshin, after the collapse of the Russian Empire, explored different genres in an attempt to create theurgic art which could initiate a national revival.

38 Chapter 1. The Compositional History of Neopalimaia Kupina

For Voloshin, the year 1919 stands out as especially productive; of the poems which would later be included in Neopalimaia Kupina, approximately a quar- ter are dated from that year. On his birthday, May 28,118 in the midst of the Russian Civil War, Voloshin completed the poem “Neopalimaia Kupina.” To- gether with several new works, he then inserted it into an eponymous cycle of poems, which gradually grew larger and larger. The first idea for a book of poetry on war and revolution arose later in the summer of that year, a few months after the completion of the poem. In a letter to his friend Liubov´ Ne- dobrovo, written in the autumn of 1919, he wrote: “Я все это время работаю исключительно над стихами: хочу написать к зиме новую книгу: ‘Неопа- лимая Купина.’”119 By this time, four of his collections of poetry had been published. As this chapter will show, the roots of Neopalimaia Kupina can be discerned in two of them, Anno mundi ardentis 1915 and Demony glukhonemye. The exact content of Neopalimaia Kupina, as well as its status as a book, has been debated by scholars. Davydov and Shvartsband, for instance, regard Demony glukhonemye as Voloshin’s final book and do not consider Ne- opalimaia Kupina to be a book of poetry per se:

Сравнение планов “Неопалимой Купины” разных годов неоспоримо до- казывает, что в отличие от напечатанных “Демонов глухонемых” неиздан- ные стихи были, чем угодно (собранием стихотворений, избранным, сбор- ником, антологией), но только не поэтической книгой. […] Можно только удивляться “игре случая” или же “высшему предопределению” вопреки воле поэта сохранившими за “Демонами глухонемыми” звание последней книги Волошина, последней – не по невозможности печати, а последней – по качеству, вершинности и художественности.120

Neopalimaia Kupina nevertheless occupies an essential place in Voloshin’s production. Celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of his debut as a poet in 1925,

118 Voloshin was born on Whit Monday, May 16/28, 1877. 119 Voloshin to L. A. Nedobrovo, August 28 / September 10, 1919, Koktebel´, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 12, 236. 120 Davydov and Shvartsband, “...I golos moi – nabat”: o knige M. A. Voloshina “Demony glukhonemye,” 124.

39 Voloshin wrote several autobiographical essays. One of these, “Maksimilian Voloshin. Avtobiografiia <13>,”121 outlines how he wanted his works to appear once they could be published again, and divides his oeuvre into four books: Gody stranstvii, Selva oscura, Neopalimaia Kupina, and Putiami Kaina. Although it does not specify which poems should be included in each book, the outline shows that Voloshin regarded Neopalimaia Kupina as a prin- cipal and coherent work. As Aristova has shown, Neopalimaia Kupina can indeed be regarded as a coherent book of poetry with the structure of a new type of “large form.” Her focus on the book’s beginning and end as keys to understanding the work, however, overlooks important connections between the parts and the poems at the center of the book. Contrary to Aristova, I regard the structure of Ne- opalimaia Kupina as neither closed nor cyclical. I would argue instead that the book is an open text pointing to the future, which is emphasized further by Voloshin’s exploration of apotropaic genres of an imperative nature, such as magic spells and incantations. Though Aristova’s analysis of selected motifs sheds light on important dynamics within the work as well as on extratextual connections, I believe that an interpretation focusing on the Sophiological myth limits the wider implications linked to the title Neopalimaia Kupina, and this risks producing a reduc- tive interpretation of this complex, yet coherent book. As I will attempt to show in this chapter, the book’s open structure is closely connected to its content and underlying model. This chapter explores the compositional history of the book and shows why Neopalimaia Kupina is not an omnibus collection of new and previously published works, but a continuum with an open structure. Furthermore, I wish to show that the underlying foundation is a conglomeration of myths focusing on death and resurrection. Before tracing its compositional history, I will present the book in its latest published edition, which serves as the primary source material for this study. Thereafter I will give a summary of its content.

The Collected Works Edition of Neopalimaia Kupina: A Synopsis Although several versions and parts of Neopalimaia Kupina were published during the second half of the twentieth century,122 the most complete scholarly edition of the book was first published in 2003. It is included in the first volume of Voloshin’s collected works, Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 1. Stikhotvoreniia i poemy 1899–1926 (eds. V. P. Kupchenko and A. V.

121 Voloshin, “Maksimilian Voloshin. Avtobiografiia <13>,” 248–56. 122 See for instance the following editions Voloshin, Stikhotvoreniia; Voloshin, Stikhotvoreniia i poemy: v dvukh tomakh. T. 1. Stikhotvoreniia; Voloshin, Stikhotvoreniia i poemy.

40 Lavrov), pp. 219–380, and it bears the title Neopalimaia Kupina: Stikhi o voine i revoliutsii, henceforth called Neopalimaia Kupina (5). The poems in Neopalimaia Kupina (5) are arranged in eight thematically cohesive parts, of which the fourth and eight constitute lengthier poems, poema:

Table 1. Neopalimaia Kupina (5)

I. Война

“Россия (1915 г.),” “В эти дни,” “Под знаком Льва,” “Над полями Альзаса,” “По- сев,” “Газеты,” “Другу,” “Пролог,” “Армагеддон,” “Не ты ли,”123 “Усталость”

II. Пламена Парижа

“Весна,” “Париж в январе 1915 г.,” “Цеппелины над Парижем,”124 “Реймская Бо- гоматерь,” “Lutetia Parisiorum,” “Парижу,” “Голова Madame de Lamballe (4 сент. 1792 г.),” “Две ступени”: “1. Взятие Бастилии (14 июля),” “2. Взятие Тюильри (10 августа 1792 г.),”125 “Термидор” (1–4)

III. Пути России

“Предвестия (1905 г.),” “Ангел Мщенья (1906 г.),” “Москва (Март 1917 г.),” “Петроград (1917),” “Трихины,” “Святая Русь,” “Мир,” “Из бездны (Октябрь 1917),” “Демоны глухонемые,” “Русь глухонемая,” “Родина,” “Преосуществле- ние,” “Европа,”126 “Написание о царях московских,” “Dmetrius-Imperator (1591– 1613),” “Стенькин cуд,” “Китеж,” “Дикое Поле,” “На вокзале,” “Русская рево- люция,” “Русь гулящая,” “Благословение,” “Неопалимая Купина, (В эпоху бег- ства французов из Одессы)”

IV.

“Протопоп Аввакум”

V. Личины

“Красногвардеец (1917),” “Матрос (1918),” “Большевик (1918),” “Феодосия (1918),” “Буржуй (1919),” “Спекулянт (1919)”

VI. Усобица127

“Гражданская война,” “Плаванье (Одесса – Ак-Мечеть. 10–15 мая),” “Бегство,” “Северовосток (1920),” “Бойня (Феодосия, декабрь 1920),” “Террор,” “Красная

123 In Anno mundi ardentis 1915 the title of the poem is “Nad zakonchennoi knigoi.” 124 In Anno mundi ardentis 1915 the title of the poem is “Noch´ vesenniago ravnodenstviia.” 125 In Demony glukhonemye the title of this poem is “Bonapart (10 avgusta 1792 g.).” 126 In Demony glukhonemye the title of this poem is “Angel vremen.” 127 This part includes poems previously published in Stikhi o terrore and Usobitsa: Stikhi o revoliutsii (though with other titles).

41 Пасха,” “Терминология,” “Голод,” “На дне преисподней,” “Готовность,” “По- томкам (Во время террора)”

VII. Возношения

“Посев,” “Заклинание (от усобиц),” “Молитва о городе (Феодосия – весной 1918 г.),” “Видение Иезекииля,” “Иуда-апостол,” “Святой Франциск,” “Закля- тье о русской земле”

VIII.

“Россия”

Each part is centered around an overriding theme or idea, which is introduced by the heading.128 The atmosphere of crisis and the portrayal of cataclysms and turning-points unite them all, creating a thematic continuum within the book. The three main settings are Russia (also medieval Rus´, the Russian Empire, and Soviet Russia), Paris, and an otherworldly location which shares explicit similarities to the metaphysical site described in Revelation. In this way, two parallel stories are portrayed – one historical and one mythical. The great fre- quency of biblical symbols and excerpts, along with Voloshin’s Biblical Nat- uralism,129 provides the book with a solemn stamp and connect the poems to violent episodes in the Old and New Testaments. The paratexts, such as titles, dates, dedications, and epigraphs, are vital parts of the poems since they place them within a historical as well as a literary context. For instance, dates are used to connect a poem to a certain time and place; in some cases, the date even comprises a formal part of the poem.130 Examples include the part “Lichiny,” in which all of the poems have years for subtitles, thus connecting them to the Russian Civil War, and the poem “Predvestiia,” written in Paris in June 1905 but dated “January 9, Saint Peters- burg” to emphasize the connection to Bloody Sunday. The fact that the poems’ settings often correspond to the locations where they were written stresses an important autobiographical aspect. Voloshin wrote several of the poems in “Plamena Parizha” in Paris during World War I, and he wrote all of the poems in “Usobitsa” in Crimea during the Russian Civil War. The unrest and danger which the poet lived through is often reflected in his poems, by references to actual violent events, historical, mythical and literary cataclysms, and the symbols and language of Revelation. The book opens with Voloshin’s artistic response to the outbreak and first years of World War I. The part “Voina” consists of eleven poems written in Biarritz, Paris, and Dornach during the period of August 1914–December

128 Instead of sub-cycle, which signals a closed structure, I have chosen to use the term part since there are important connections between poems included in the different parts of the book. 129 Landa, Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy, 59, 80 ff. 130 For this reason, when discussing Voloshin’s poems I refer to the dates he gave them.

42 1915. All of the poems, except “Rossiia (1915 g.)” (1915),131 were originally included in the book Anno mundi ardentis 1915. These poems resound with apocalyptic forebodings, shared by many Symbolists who viewed the war from the point of view of apocalyptic Christianity.132 For instance, in “Pod znakom L´va” (1914), “Nad poliami Al´zasa” (1914), “Prolog” (1915), “Ar- mageddon” (1915), “Ne ty li” (1915), and “Ustalost´” (1915), Voloshin depicts global strife through the language and symbols of biblical end-of-time scenarios. The allusions to the Apocalypse create an intimidating atmosphere and an anticipation of imminent catastrophe. Because the war is rendered in general and even symbolic terms, the poems do not appear political. Instead, Voloshin presents warfare as a result of metaphysical causes and portrays figures such as “Angel nepogody,” “Vestnik,” and “Nedobryi Seiatel´” as mes- sengers who bring hatred, death, and destruction: “Живую плоть и кровь / Недобрый Сеятель / В годину Лжи и Гнева / Рукою щедрою посеял…” (from “Posev” [1915]). Throughout the impersonal and lofty descriptions,133 the lyrical self follows the unfolding of events as a detached spectator: “Один среди враждебных ратей – / Не их, не ваш, не свой, ничей – / Я голос внутренних ключей, / Я семя будущих зачатий.” (from “Prolog”). With the exception of “Nad poliami Al´zasa,” neither locations nor points in time are specified. In contrast to the previous poems in this part, only the two last poems, “Ne ty li” and “Ustalost´,” convey the hope of a future rebirth, which is expressed through the metaphor of a thriving seed: “Дозволь увидеть / Сквозь смерть и время / Борьбу народов, / Как спазму страсти, / Извергшей семя / Все- мирных всходов!” (in “Ne ty li”) and “Будет так, как солнце в феврале / Изнутри неволит нежно семя / Дать росток в оттаявшей земле.” (in “Us- talost´”). Death as well as the prospect of rebirth are addressed in abstract terms which present the poems as highly intellectual, albeit somewhat emo- tionally detached. The events depicted in the second part, “Plamena Parizha,” take place in the French capital during two violent historical periods: World War I and the French Revolution. Six of these poems were published in Anno mundi ardentis 1915, and they center around Paris and Reims during the first years of World

131 In Anno mundi ardentis 1915, the poem was titled “Rossii” and was, according to the wish of the author, symbolically published only as dotted lines with the comment: “Седьмое стихо- творение этого цикла, обращенное к России, не должно быть напечатано теперь по внут- реннему убеждению автора.” Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 1),” 511. 132 Ben Hellman, Poets of Hope and Despair: The Russian Symbolists in War and Revolution, 1914–1918, Russian History and Culture 21 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2018), 87 ff. 133 In their reviews of these poems, D. I. Vygodskii and V. Ia. Bryusov respectively describe Voloshin’s poetic style as strict and pretentious. Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 1),” 510; see also N. M. Miroshnichenko, “M. Voloshin ‘Anno mundi ardentis. 1915’: istoriia sozdaniia i struktura knigi,” Voprosy russkoi literatury: Mezhvuzovskii nauchnyi sbornik 25, no. (82) (2013): 130–31.

43 War I. The remaining four, “Golova Madame de Lamballe (4 sent. 1792 g.)” (1906) “Dve stupeni”: “1. Vziatie Bastilii (14 iiulia)” (1917), “2. Vziatie Tiuil´ri (10 avgusta 1792 g.)” (1917), and “Termidor (1–4)” (1917), were included in Demony glukhonemye. These poems portray the storming of the Bas- tille, the abolition of the French monarchy, and the Thermidorian Reaction. Voloshin wrote the poems in this part during three periods which correspond to the repercussions of the first Russian Revolution of 1905, the outburst of World War I in 1914, and the revolutionary year of 1917. Compared to the abstract delineation of war in the previous part, the revolutionary turmoil – distinctly specified by time and location – is portrayed here with concrete and detailed images. By describing historical mass executions in the present tense, Voloshin actualizes the atmosphere of real-life terror, and moreover makes death concrete by giving it a human face. This part, unlike “Voina,” is filled with historical individuals who all experience death first hand. The final part of “Termidor,” for instance, depicts the execution of Maximilien Robespierre: “Благоговейно, как ковчег с дарами, / Он голову несет на эшафот.” “Puti Rossii” is the largest part of the book, consisting of twenty-three poems (fifteen of which were previously published in Demony glukhonemye). Here Voloshin addresses crises and turning points in the history of Russia, starting with the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the idea of Moscow as its successor as the Third Rome (in the poem “Preosushchestvlenie” [1918]). Other poems center around the Time of Troubles, and highlight the upheavals connected to the usurpations by various pretenders, known as the False Dmitries (“Dmetrius-Imperator”), and the Cossack rebellions led by Stenka Razin and Yemelyan Pugachev (“Sten´kin sud” [1917], “Dikoe Pole” [1920]). In these poems, Voloshin introduces voices from history by depicting the lyrical self as the False Dmitries and Stenka Razin, who relate their own experiences of revolt and death. A number of poems form poetic depictions of postrevolutionary Russia which Voloshin himself had experienced, for instance “Moskva (Mart 1917 g.)” (1917), “Petrograd (1917)” (1917), “Rodina” (1918), “Na vokzale” (1919), and “Russkaia revoliutsiia” (1919). This part also includes Voloshin’s first experiment with adapting an Old Russian text into a poem (“Napisanie o tsariakh moskovskikh”). Besides the historical poems, this part also includes poems written from a metaphysical perspective (“Angel Mshchen´ia [1906 g.]” [1906], “Blagoslovenie” [1923]), in which the lyrical self appears as a supernatural being who brings feuds, hardships, and suffering upon the Russian people. In the poem “Blagoslovenie,” however, the punishment is described as an act of love. The poem ends with a simile: just as coal is transformed into diamonds through pressure and heat, so will Russia will be burned and purified. Fire as a chastening element is further developed in the poem “Neopalimaia Kupina.” This poem is central to the book, both literally (it is placed roughly in the middle of the book) and figuratively, since it introduces the image of the burning bush. As a mythologeme, it adds an additional dimension of the

44 model of resurrection through death. By addressing several upheavals in the national history and naming Russia Neopalimaia Kupina, Voloshin emphasizes the nation’s survival despite critical circumstances: like an indestructible element, Russia rises after every major cataclysm. This idea is developed in several poems (“Russkaia revoliutsiia,” “Evropa” [1918] “Rus´ glukhonemaia” [1918], “Blagoslovenie”). Shifting the focus between the fates of individuals and the fate of the Russian people, Voloshin explores both the concrete and the general, thereby rethinking the model of death and resurrection on a more abstract level as decline and rise. The poems manifest a duality of individual destinies (e.g., Stenka Razin and the False Dmitries) paralleling a surrounding society on the verge of collapse. A poem comprised of fifteen stanzas, “Protopop Avvakum,” is the fourth and longest part of the book. It was originally published as the final part of Demony glukhonemye. “Protopop Avvakum” is Voloshin’s second adaptation of an Old Russian text. Comprising fifteen stanzas, it is a poetic rendition of Archpriest Avvakum’s biography from the time of the Church Schism (Raskol) in the seventeenth century.134 It is based on two literary works by the Archpriest himself: the autobiographical Zhitie Protopopa Avvakuma and his letters and petition to the tsar, Kniga besed.135 Bordering on prose poetry, “Pro- topop Avvakum” can be described as a poetic version of these writings, although Voloshin occasionally also inserted his own and other’s words.136 In general, Voloshin’s approach to working with adaptations and writing longer texts illustrates attempts to develop a new form and style in his poetry. This approach is combined with a tendency to break up the strict metric pattern, and to write in blank verse and not rhyme.137 In “Protopop Avvakum,” the lyrical self – Avvakum – summarizes his own life story, marked by constant persecution and torment, from before birth up to his execution. A. I. Mazunin highlights Avvakum’s sufferings as the core of the poem: “Вся жизнь Авва- кума трактуется Волошиным как сплошная цепь испытаний, которые по воле бога переносит протопоп с одной целью: показать людям пример

134 The Raskol was the splitting of the Russian Orthodox Church into an official church and the Old Believers movement as the result of Patriarch Nikon’s reforms in the mid-seventeenth century. For more on the subject, see for instance Geoffrey A. Hosking, Russia and the Russians: From Earliest Times to the Present (London: Penguin, 2012), 165–74. 135 A. I. Mazunin, “Tri stikhotvornykh perelozheniia ‘Zhitiia’ protopopa Avvakuma,” In Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury. T. XIV, ed. V. I. Malyshev, (Moskva, Leningrad: Izdatel´stvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1958), 408–12. 136 In stanza 15, for instance, Voloshin quotes the French writer Léon Bloy. Kupchenko, “Kom- mentarii (T. 1),” 542. 137 Overall the poems in the book get longer and longer, and it is symptomatic that Voloshin, after trying his hand at the genre of the poema in “Protopop Avvakum,” frequently also returned to it in the later period of his writing, notably in the poems “Tanob” (1926), “Skazanie ob inoke Epifanii” (1929), “Sviatoi Serafim” (1919, 1929), and the cycle of poems “Putiami Kaina” (1922–1923). For more on the development of Voloshin’s poetics in the 1920s, see for instance: Ivanov, “Voloshin kak chelovek dukha,” 196 ff.

45 ‘неослабного страдания’ за Христа и веру.”138 Yet in the poem, Avvakum not only suffers and dies for Christ but is also resurrected for Him. Thus, “Pro- topop Avvakum” conforms thematically with the preceding part in the way that it renders resurrection after persistent hardships and consuming fire. The fifth part, “Lichiny,” can be described as a gallery of poetic portraits,139 which Voloshin wrote in the summer of 1919 to depict and document some of the characters he saw as typical of the period.140 The poems are stylized descriptions of people belonging to new social categories (such as bourgeoisie and Bolsheviks), and their places in Russian society during the Civil War period. Crammed with jargon and references to phenomena specific to the place and time, these poems serve as snapshots of this period of Russian history. What unites the described characters are their attempts to come to terms with the new social structure and their own place within it. Concretely the end result of this striving is to either kill or escape execution. As a backdrop to the fates of these characters, Russia’s destiny is depicted in pessimistic terms. In the poem “Spekuliant (1919)” (1919), Russia is likened to a corpse, violated by unscrupulous hustlers: “В два года распродать империю, / Замызгать, за- плевать, загадить, опозорить, / Кишеть, как червь, в ее разверстом теле, / И расползтись, оставив в поле кости / Сухие, мертвые, ошмыганные ветром.” The sixth part, “Usobitsa,” is comprised of twelve poems which Voloshin wrote in Koktebel, Feodosia, and Simferopol during some of the darkest years of the postrevolutionary period, 1919–1923. Ten of these poems were published in Stikhi o terrore under the heading “Usobitsa.” Like the poems in “Lichiny,” they are poetic records of a period of both terror and later also the famine of 1921–1922 which struck the Volga basin and Crimea particularly hard.141 In “Usobitsa,” death is addressed on a physical as well as a philosophical level. Some of the poems are written as eyewitness accounts. These include naturalistic descriptions of mass executions, roads lined with ragged corpses, and people forced to engage in cannibalism. The vivid, violent, and detailed images make death concrete in a grotesque way. Yet the horrors of reality make death appear desirable. Voloshin articulates this with the words of a crying woman portrayed in the poem “Boinia (Feodosiia, dekabr´ 1920)” (1921): “Разве я плачу о тех, кто умер? / Плачу о тех, кому долго жить…”

138 Mazunin, “Tri stikhotvornykh perelozheniia ‘Zhitiia’ protopopa Avvakuma,” 410. 139 This type of poetic portraits resemble some of Zinaida Gippius’ poems in the collection Pokhodnye pesni (1920). See for instance the poems “Komissar,” “Tovarishch,” and “Gost´” in Zinaida Gippius, Sobranie sochinenii v piatnadtsati tomakh. T. 5. Chertova kukla: romany, stikhotvoreniia, ed. T. F. Prokopov (Moskva: Russkaia kniga, 2002), 421–28. 140 Besides these five poetic portraits, Voloshin also planned to write poems on the themes “Monarkhist,” “Terrorist,” “Tsar´,” “Naletchik,” “Dobrovolets,” and “Rasputin.” Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 1),” 542. 141 Hakan Kirimli, “The Famine of 1921–22 in the Crimea and the Volga Basin and the Relief from Turkey,” Middle Eastern Studies 39, no. 1 (January 2003): 37–88.

46 Other poems, such as “Severovostok (1920)” (1920), “Na dne preispodnei” (1922), and “Gotovnost´” (1921), express a philosophical approach to death as something inevitable which must be accepted: the suffering of the lyrical self in these poems is depicted as a sacrifice. Despite the deeply despondent situation described in these three poems, the lyrical self firmly asserts faith in resurrection. This is explicitly manifested in the poem “Na dne preispodnei,” in which the lyrical self declares that he will be resurrected like Lazarus. In the penultimate part, “Voznosheniia,” Voloshin again depicts calamities through metaphors and biblical language. More than the previous parts, the poems of “Voznosheniia” focus on death as an entryway to a regenerative transformation and rebirth. In the poem “Sviatoi Frantsisk” (1919), Voloshin glorifies the creation of God and affirms death as a natural part of it: “Смерть земная – всем сестра старшая, / Ты ко всем добра, и все смиренно / Чрез тебя проходят, будь благословенна!”142 Experimenting with styles and genres new for the book and for his entire oeuvre, Voloshin explores the performative function of the poetic word in a number of poems. In the poem “Zakliat´e o Russkoi zemle” (1919), for instance, he draws parallels to “Spe- kuliant” by once again portraying his land as a corpse, yet here the corpse is depicted as coming to life again through the power of the poem-incantation. This and other poems in this part are composed as prayers and magic spells which in metaphorical terms describe a national revival in Russia. They can be interpreted as Voloshin’s attempts to ward off evil and induce peace and prosperity through theurgic myth-creation. This part also includes adaptations of a biblical text. The poem “Videnie Iezekiilia” is based on selected chapters from Ezekiel, in which God addresses Israel as His chosen people.143 In the poem, Voloshin depicts divine intervention. The poem’s sententia brings to mind the poem “Blagoslovenie” from “Puti Rossii,” stating that God chastens those he loves. Several poems in this part allude to biblical episodes, many of which relate to the Apocalypse and Christ’s triumph over death. Inspired by the hymnographic genre of the Akathistos hymn and dukhovnye stikhi, Vo- loshin venerates the Theotokos in the poem “Khvala Bogomateri.” Neopalimaia Kupina ends with a poem of seven stanzas titled “Rossiia.” The poem is dated February 6, 1924, which makes it the latest work in the book. Voloshin himself described it with the following words: “Русское прошлое, выявленное современностью.”144 Intended as a complement to some of the other poems in the book, “Rossiia” was initially titled “Peterburg- skaia Rossiia.”145 This poem can be described as a philosophical retrospective

142 The poem is comprised of quotes drawn from some of the sermons of the monk Francis of Assisi. Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 1),” 556. 143 Kupchenko, 556. 144 Kupchenko, 557. 145 In a letter to V. V. Veresaev, Voloshin described his poem: “В ней все, что думалось о петербургской России (с Петра до наших дней) […] Это дополнение к «Китежу», «Ди- кому Полю», «Северо-Востоку», но взятое уже с петербургской точки зрения, как для

47 of Saint Petersburg’s bloody history. Starting with a review of Peter the Great’s legendary brutality, the first three stanzas summarize the historical period from the early eighteenth century up to the execution of the Romanov family in 1918. By referencing numerous historical cases of torture, executions, decapitations, hangings, executions by firing squads, mock executions, and military defeats, Voloshin pictures the capital’s past centuries as a panorama of death. The poem presents Russian history as though it was developing in a recurring pattern of cruelty, a conclusion which wraps up the penultimate stanza: “И нет истории темней, страшней, / Безумней, чем история Рос- сии.” The poem ends the book with the lyrical self expressing an all-embrac- ing guilt aimed at each and every person: “И чувствую безмерную вину / Всея Руси – пред всеми и пред каждым,” an echo of a sententia expressed in Brat´ia Karamazovy (1879–1880).146 Because “Rossiia” was completed and added almost a year after the other poems in the book, and because it summarizes earlier themes, it can be interpreted as an open epilogue of the entire work. V. V. Ivanov notes that “Ros- siia” can be regarded as a review of the historical epoch which Voloshin felt had ended: the rule of the Romanov dynasty.147 Already during World War I, Voloshin had predicted the termination of the Petersburg period of Russian history, but connected it to the hope of Russia regaining Constantinople, “Tsar´grad.”148 Instead, the end of the Petersburg period entailed the return to Moscow as the seat of power. The fall of the Russian Empire marks the close of one epoch and simultaneously inaugurates the beginning of the next. The collapse of an empire, initiating a transformation of the nation which leads to the dawn of a new society, can in a wide, sociological perspective, epitomize the pattern of death and resurrection. Yet Voloshin saw a repetition of deeply rooted regularities in the “new” revolutionary Russian society. This view highlights his understanding of correspondences in the historical development, which will be discussed in Chapter 3. As argued above, a conglomeration of myths centered around death and resurrection can be identified as the underlying foundation of the book. In “Voina” and “Plamena Parizha,” the focus on death and destruction is strongly dominant, whereas an emphasis on rebirth and resurrection only occurs from

«Китежа» перспективой была Москва, а для «Дикого Поля» и «Северо-Востока» южная степь и Крым.” (Voloshin to V. V. Veresaev, February 14–24, 1924, Koktebel´–Khar´kov, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 12, 784). 146 The lines are an inaccurate quotation of starets Zosima, who recollects the words of his brother Markel. Fedor Dostoevskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh. T. 14. Bratʹia Karamazovy: knigi I–X, ed. V. G. Bazanov, F. Ia. Priima, and G. M. Fridlender (Leningrad: Nauka, 1976), 270. 147 Ivanov, “Voloshin kak chelovek dukha,” 188. 148 Voloshin to A. M. Petrova, April 16/29–17/30, 1915, Paris, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 10, 325–26.

48 the third part onwards. This coincides with the appearance of the mythologeme of the burning bush which Voloshin uses as an epithet for Russia: the nation is described as an imperishable element which defies death and endures every critical turning point. Because I regard Neopalimaia Kupina as an open text, it is significant that the emphasis on resurrection and national revival grows stronger towards the end of the book. The poems “Protopop Avvakum” and “Na dne preispodnei” express a faith in personal resurrection, while the part “Voznosheniia” breathes the hope of a national revival. Having reviewed Neopalimaia Kupina as it is presented in the Sobranie sochinenii edition, the next step is to take a closer look at the compositional history of the book in order to show the connection between composition and content. I will now move on to chart the trajectory of the book.

Laying the Foundations: Anno mundi ardentis 1915 and Demony glukhonemye The book Anno mundi ardentis 1915 can be seen as the foundation of what would later develop into Neopalimaia Kupina. Voloshin wrote this slim collection of poetry as a response to World War I. It consists of works written in Paris, Biarritz, and Dornach, making it Voloshin’s only book completed abroad. Seven of these poems (marked in italics below) had previously been published in the journal Russkaia Mysl´.149 Anno mundi ardentis 1915 comprises twenty-four poems divided into three parts, each with an epigraph, including an additional poetic ending.

Table 2. Anno mundi ardentis 1915 (1916)150

I. Внутренние голоса

“Плывущий за руном…,” I. “Под знаком Льва,” II. “Над полями Альзаса,” III. “В эти дни,” IV. “Посев,” V. “Газеты,” VI. “Другу,” VII. […]151

149 The poems “Pod znakom L´va,” “Nad poliami Al´zasa,” “V eti dni” (1915), “Posev” (1915), “Parizh v ianvare” (under the title “Parizh”) (1915), “Reimskaia Bogomater´” (1915), and “Dies illa tam amara” (1915) were all published in the 4th issue of the journal in 1915. 150 Anno mundi ardentis 1915 is accessible online. Accessed March 4, 2021, https://archive.org/details/annomundiardenti00volouoft/mode/2up 151 As noted above, the poem “Rossii” was only symbolically published as dotted lines.

49 II. Солнечныя сплетения

“И был повергнут я судьбой…,” I. “Париж в январе,”152 II. “Реймская Богома- терь,” III. “Lutetia Parisiorum,” IV. “Парижу,” V. “Ночь весенняго равноден- ствия,”153 VI. “Весна,” VII. “Петербург”

III. Армагеддон

“Чем глубже в раковины ночи…,” I. “Пролог,” II. “Два демона (1–2),” III. “Уста- лость,” IV. “Аполлион,” V. “Армагеддон,” VI. “Левиафан,” VII. “Dies illa tam amara”

Заключение

“Над законченной книгой”154

As an epigraph to the book, Voloshin uses the verse which he had caught sight of on New Year’s Eve 1914 when he used the Bible for divination: “Вот я делаю новое. Ныне оно явится. Неужели вы этого не хотите знать?” In the context of World War I, these lines from Isaiah 43:19,155 appear as a prophecy about a new situation as a result of the war, and through his poems, Vo- loshin proffers his interpretation of what this might encompass. By connecting war-torn Europe with the biblical Apocalypse, Voloshin introduces two key topics which were to become central to Neopalimaia Kupina: Paris and Russia in wartime, and the Apocalypse as a (cultural-) historical model of interpretation, which culminate in the third part, “Armageddon.”156 The first part, “Vnutrennie golosa,” references biblical end-of-time scenarios which allude to a threat of death. The lines “Ангел непогоды / Пролил огнь и гром, / Напоив народы / Яростным вином” (from the poem “Nad poliami Al´zasa”), refer to the Apocalypse as described in Revelation, during which an angel announces that anyone who worships the beast will drink the wine of God’s wrath (Rev.14:9–10). The lines “Но грянул гром, и ветер упал, / И свет померк, и вздулись воды. […] И я, как запоздалый зверь, / Вошел последним внутрь ковчега” (from the poem “Pod znakom L´va”), reference the Genesis narrative of the flood and Noah’s ark (Gen. 6:9–9:17). The thunder and image of the ark depicted in the poem are connected to biographical episodes which occurred in the months when the poems were written. When Voloshin left Koktebel for Switzerland on July 6, 1914, the borders closed behind him as a result of the tense political situation in Europe when

152 In Neopalimaia Kupina (5), the title of the poem is “Parizh v ianvare 1915 g.” 153 In Neopalimaia Kupina (5), the title of the poem is “Tseppeliny nad Parizhem” (1915). 154 In Neopalimaia Kupina (5), the title of the poem is “Ne ty li.” 155 “I am about to do a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?” 156 For a detailed study of Anno mundi ardentis 1915 and the apocalyptic imagery used in it, see Ann Marie Basom, “War and Revolution in the Poetry of Maksimilian Aleksandrovič Vo- lošin, 1905–1923” (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin – Madison, 1987), 67–150.

50 war was being declared all around. In a letter to Aleksandra Petrova, Voloshin wrote:

[Я], как запоздавший зверь, последним вошел в двери Ковчега. Они за- крылись за мной, и вот со дня моего приезда – ни одной вести из России. Война идет рядом, и канонада в Эльзасе будит по ночам.157

Voloshin returned to this episode in his lecture “Skrytyi smysl voiny” (1918), in which he identified the anthroposophical building Johannesbau as the ark depicted in his poem.158 In the part “Vnutrennie golosa,” Voloshin depicts the threat of death by discussing the many fatal dangers of war. For instance, in the poem “Drugu” (1915), dedicated to Voloshin’s friend, the painter Konstantin Bogaevskii,159 who was drafted into the army in 1915, the lyrical self prays that his friend might avoid being killed. Another deadly threat which Voloshin alludes to in the poem “Gazety” (1915), is the deadly trichinae160 in Raskolnikov’s fever dream in the epilogue to Dostoevsky’s Prestuplenie i nakazanie (1866). With the transition from contemporary war-torn Europe to a biblical Apoc- alypse in the third part, “Armageddon,” the threat of death and destruction is manifested even more strongly through the multiple intertextual references to Revelation. In “Skrytyi smysl voiny,” Voloshin commented on some of the works which had influenced him during the composition of the book:

Перед глазами часто стояла в это время Альтдорферская «Битва Алек- сандра Великого», проститься с которой я заходил в Мюнхенскую Пина- котеку по какому-то наитию за несколько часов до начала войны. […] А сквозь облик этого патетического пейзажа вставал образ другой – Апо- калиптической битвы, когда Ангел выливает шестую чашу и реки исся- кают, из уст зверя выходят духи ЛЖИ, имеющие вид трех жаб, и собирают царей и царства вселенной на место, называемое Армагеддон, для послед- ней битвы всех времен.161

157 Voloshin to A. M. Petrova, July 28 / August 10, 1914, Arlesheim, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 10, 249–50; see also Miroshnichenko, “M. Voloshin ‘Anno mundi ardentis. 1915’: istoriia sozdaniia i struktura knigi,” 124. 158 Maksimilian Voloshin, “Skrytyi smysl voiny,” in Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 6. Kn. 2. Proza 1900–1927; Ocherki, statʹi, lektsii, retsenzii, nabroski, plany, ed. V. P. Kupchenko, A. V. Lavrov, and R. P. Khruleva (Moskva: Ellis Lak 2000, 2008), 373. 159 Konstantin Bogaevskii (1872–1943) was a painter from Feodosia, foremost known for his Crimean landscapes. 160 According to Ann Marie Basom, Voloshin took the idea of humanity infected by trichinae and transformed it into the central issue of his own work. (Basom, “‘Trichiny:’ Dostoevskij and Vološin,” 1–2). 161 Maksimilian Voloshin, “Skrytyi smysl voiny,” 379.

51 Besides the Apocalypse as described in Revelation and the painting by Alt- dorfer,162 Léon Bakst’s painting Terror Antiquus (1908) also might have served as an influence for “Armageddon.” Sharing visual resemblances to Alt- dorfer’s Alexanderschlacht (1529), Terror Antiquus depicts the destruction of the mythical Atlantis, and is thereby thematically connected to both Altdor- fer’s painting and to the biblical apocalyptic end-of-time narrative.163 Voloshin knew this work well and reviewed it in two articles.164 Bakst moreover illustrated the frontispiece of Anno mundi ardentis 1915, depicting an angel. In the poem “Apollion” (1915), the Angel of the Abyss (a reference to “the angel of the bottomless pit” in Rev. 9:11), announces that the End has come: “Снимается проклятье Вавилона! / Языков разделенью / Пришел конец!” The poem depicts the destructive forces that have invaded the world: “…из тины выползали / Огромные коленчатые гады, / Желез- ные кишели пауки, / […] В морях и реках рыбы, / Метали икру смертель- ную, / От ящеров крылатых / Свет застилался / Падали на землю / Раз- рывныя и огненныя яйца.” Written in 1915, these depictions are images of the weapons of mass destruction used in World War I, such as armored tanks, military submarines, and combat airplanes. With its intricate symbols and signs, the esoteric language of the Apocalypse offered a valuable model for describing the development of the war without any actual reporting on the state of affairs, or political positioning. Voloshin’s use of the biblical intertexts enabled the shaping of a highly personal record of the war, filtered through an apocalyptic lens. Voloshin interpreted the war as a revolt of machines and other technical devices – not as science-fiction, but as an expression of mechanical reason – that enabled intensified and effective warfare, which he also discussed in his articles.165 He expressed his view on the war in a letter to Aleksandra Petrova:

Но если б я и должен был идти на войну, я бы отказался: не из-за страха смерти […] но потому что есть для меня враги более важные, чем немцы. Это теперешние орудия разрушения, демоны взрыва, демоны машин, де- моны организации, Германия во всей своей чудовищности – только их произведение. И всякого, кто их примет, они доведут до такого же мо- рального состояния.166

162 Albrecht Altdorfer (c. 1480–1538) was a German painter who pioneered the use of landscape in his art. 163 In Steiner’s thinking, the legend of Atlantis assumed a central place, and he referred to the current cultural epoch as “post-Atlantean” in his system of the development of humanity. 164 Maksimilian Voloshin, “Kartinnye vystavki. ‘Salon’” (1909), in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 6. Kn. 1, 254–55. See also Maksimilian Voloshin, “Arkhaizm v russkoi zhivopisi (Rerikh, Bo- gaevskii i Bakst)” (1909), in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 5, 116 ff. 165 See for instance Maksimilian Voloshin, “Bunt mashin” (1911), in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 6. Kn. 1, 412–13; Maksimilian Voloshin, “Demony Razrusheniia i Zakona” (1908), in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 3, 237–259. 166 Voloshin to A. M. Petrova, August 3/16, 1915, Biarritz, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 10, 413.

52 In his poem “Dva demona” (1915), Voloshin depicts two demons as machines with rebellious spirits but also as the culmination of human intellectual and technological development:

Мне важны формулы, а не слова. Я всюду и нигде. Но кликни – здесь я! В сердцах машин клокочет злоба бесья. Я князь земли! Мне знаки и права!

Я друг свобод. Создатель педагогик. Я – инженер, теолог, физик, логик. Я призрак истин сплавил в стройный бред.167

This poem can be read as a critique of European rationalism and positivism which, during the period of industrialization, had enabled a rapid moderniza- tion of warfare. It moreover reflects a strong influence from the anthroposophical representation of the prevailing Germanic cultural epoch, which, according to Steiner, manifested itself through rationality, an increase in individual- ism, and a growing interest in the sciences and technology.168 Against this backdrop, the poem “Dva demona” as well as other of Voloshin’s poems, such as “Posev” (1915) , can be read as the poet’s interpretation of his own times as the turning point between the cultural epochs of the anthroposophical his- toriosophy. The penultimate poem, “Dies illa tam amara” (which Voloshin in his notebook titled “Strashnyi Sud,” and later on re-titled “Sud”),169 completes the apocalyptic scenario by depicting the Last Judgement. As an epigraph to the poem, Voloshin uses the line: “И отдала земля мертвых бывших в ней,” a paraphrasing of a passage in Revelation, describing the judgement of the dead: “…Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them…” (Rev. 20: 13). The poem depicts how the dead are summoned and judged at the end of time: “Небо / Разодралось, как занавес, / Изсякло время, / Пространство смор- щилось / И перестало быть… / И каждый / Внутри себя увидел / Солнце / В Зверином Круге… / … И сам себя судил…” Voloshin’s book Demony glukhonemye can be considered as the second chapter of what would become Neopalimaia Kupina. Published in 1919, Demony glukhonemye, presented twenty-three both old and new poems, of which only three had been included in the earlier collection Iverni (below marked in italics).

167 Maksimilian Voloshin, “Dva demona,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 1, 201–2. 168 Rudolf Steiner, Kunst im Lichte der Mysterienweisheit: acht Vorträge, gehalten in Dornach vom 28. Dezember 1914 bis 4. Januar 1915, Gesamtausgabe 275 (Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 1990), 21 ff; see also Maydell, “Anthroposophy in Russia,” 154–55. 169 V. P. Kupchenko, “Kommentarii,” in Maksimilian Voloshin, Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 2. Stikhotvoreniia i poemy 1891–1931, ed. A. V. Lavrov, and V. P. Kup- chenko (Moskva: Ellis Lak 2000, 2004), 658.

53 Table 3. Демоны глухонемые (1919)170

“Демоны глухонемые”

I. Ангел Мщенья

“Предвестия (1905 г.),” “Ангел Мщенья (1906 г.),” “Россия (1915 г.),” “Москва (Март 1917 г.),” “Петроград,” “Трихины,” “Мир,” “Из бездны,” “Русь глухоне- мая,” “Молитва о городе (Феодосия – весной 1918 г.),” “Родина”

II. Пламенники Парижа

“Голова Madame de Lamballe (4 сент. 1792 г.),” “Две ступени”: “I. Взятие Басти- лии (14 июля),” “II. Бонапарт (10 августа 1792 г.),”171 “Термидор”: “1. Катрин Тео…”; “2. Разгар Террора…”; “3. Париж в бреду…”; “4. Уж фурии…”

III. Пути России

“Святая Русь,” “Ангел Времен,”172 “Преосуществление,” “Dmetrius-Imperator (1591–1613),” “Стенькин суд,” “Видение Иезекииля,” “Протопоп Аввакум”: “1. Прежде нежели родиться…,” “2. Пеплом собственным одевшись…,” “3. Беды возстали адовы…,” “4. Возможно Антихристу…,” “5. Сослали меня в Сибирь…,” “6. Воняем: один по естеству…,” “7. Ин дальше побредем…,” “8. Во славу Бога …,” “9. Бог разберет в день века…,” “10. Да, обличай блудню их еретическую…,” “11. К Ратищеву ходил с отступниками спорить…,” “12. По- сланьице Царю...,” “13. Царь христианской, миленькой-то наш…,” “14. Вы – сильны, мы же – немощны.” “15. Ради Христа страданьем пострадати…”

The topic of Russia and Paris in wartime is central in this book as well. How- ever, here the topic is further explored as part of a historical continuum which reflects the poet’s contemporary situation. As an epigraph Voloshin chose a line from Fyodor Tyutchev’s poem “Nochnoe nebo tak ugriumo” (1865): “Одни зарницы огневые, / Воспламеняясь чередой / Как демоны глухо- немые, / Ведут беседу меж собой.” However, the demons in Voloshin’s poems are not only deaf and dumb; they are blind as well. Reinterpreting Tyutchev’s demons, Voloshin’s demons represent uncontrollable, recurring forces of history, causing chaos and death. In the poem “Rus´ glukhonemaia,” these demons are transferred to Russia, which is portrayed as possessed. Through intertextual references in this and other poems, parallels are also drawn to depictions of demonic possession in the Gospels. Starting with the poem “Predvestiia,” Voloshin renders the Russian Revo- lution of 1905 as a prologue to the revolutionary year of 1917. The French Revolution, seen as an analogy to the Russian one, is introduced in the second

170 Demony glukhonemye is accessible online. Accessed March 4, 2021, https://vivaldi.nlr.ru/bx000030423/view#page=1 171 In Neopalimaia Kupina (5), the title of the poem is “1. Vziatie Tiuil´ri (10 avgusta 1792 g.).” 172 In Neopalimaia Kupina (5), the title of the poem is “Evropa.”

54 part of the book. The cycle of sonnets “Dve stupeni,” dedicated to Marina Tsvetaeva, was written in November and December 1917, only weeks after the Bolshevik coup. These poems emphasize the historical parallels of cities during revolution (Paris, Saint Petersburg, and Moscow). The third part depicts several turning points, stretching back to the fall of the Roman Empire. The intimidating atmosphere of death and destruction here is at least as salient as in Anno mundi ardentis 1915. In Demony glukhonemye, the threat of war which was previously connected to Paris and the Alsace region has spread to impact Russia from within; the war has developed into a revolution. In the poem “Trikhiny” (1917), Voloshin illustrates this again by alluding to Prestuplenie i nakazanie and the deadly trichinae in Raskolnikov’s fever dream: “Исполнилось пророчество: трихины / В тела и в дух вселяются людей…” By returning to this scene, Voloshin not only refers to a famous apocalyptic fantasy, but also highlights the poem’s thematic connection to Anno mundi ardentis 1915. Thus, the poem represents a bridge between Anno mundi ardentis 1915 and Demony glukhonemye. In contrast to the poems in Anno mundi ardentis 1915, which largely focus on the anonymous poetic persona, the poems in Demony glukhonemye depict historical individuals who have made a mark on history, such as the False Dmitries, Stenka Razin, and Archpriest Avvakum. In the poems “Sten´kin sud” and “Dmetrius-Imperator,” Stenka Razin and the False Dmitries are killed but reappear in Russia as indestructible spirits. In a letter to Aleksandra Petrova, written in January 1918, Voloshin explained the general idea of the book Demony glukhonemye:

Тут не только русские бесы, но демоны истории, перекликающиеся по- верх формальной ткани событий. Мне, может, удастся выявить после и лики русских демонов, не только бесов. Пока у меня единый русский де- мон – «Дмитрий-Император». Он уже историческое выявление демо- низма, в свое время распыленного тоже между тысячами бесов («имя ему – легион»).173

By interpreting the fates of these “demons of history” in his poetry, Voloshin develops and transforms the themes of demonism and possession but also connects them to salvation through martyrdom. The historical poems are linked to two new poetic approaches, which Vo- loshin develops in Neopalimaia Kupina: the adaptation of older texts and the portrayal of historical persons. In some poems, such as “Protopop Avvakum” and “Napisanie o tsariakh moskovskikh,” these approaches overlap. The poems which address events and persons from the Russian past reflect Vo- loshin’s interest in historical Russia, and they constitute a vein of stylized archaism in his poetry. A. N. Zinevich argues that these poems can be connected

173 Voloshin to A. M. Petrova, January 15–19, 1918, Koktebel´, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 12, 46–47.

55 to Voloshin’s monography on Surikov’s historical paintings, a work he completed before starting to compose Demony glukhonemye.174 This stylistic layer of Voloshin’s book can be related to the general trend of archaism in the Rus- sian arts which thrived in the first decades of the twentieth century.175 Alt- hough archaistic aesthetics are an important feature of Voloshin’s poetry, they are just one aspect of his poetics. In the poem “Protopop Avvakum,” Voloshin continued to explore the theme of salvation through martyrdom. In the end of the poem, Avvakum is burned at the stake, thereby reaching salvation, and his ascension is depicted as a return to his heavenly home. The expiation by fire depicted in this poem parallels the poem “Angel vremen” in which Russia is portrayed as commit- ting the act of self-immolation: “России нет – она себя сожгла, / Но Славия воссветится из пепла!” Analyzing the parts of Demony glukhonemye, Basom pinpoints redemption as one of the book’s central ideas: “As Russia suffers to redeem the world, so Avvakum suffers to redeem Russia.”176 Voloshin incorporated all of the poems of Demony glukhonemye except “Protopop Avvakum” into the first version of Neopalimaia Kupina. In later versions of the book, Demony glukhonemye is included in full. This strengthens the argument that Demony glukhonemye, together with Anno mundi ardentis 1915, form the foundation of Neopalimaia Kupina.

Neopalimaia Kupina Takes Form It was in the summer of 1919, after the first publication of Demony glukhonemye, that Voloshin first came up with the idea of writing a new book on war and revolution. As shown above, he had already explored related topics in his previous collections, and the civil war which broke out after the Bolshevik coup gave new fuel to his artistic creativity.

174 Zinevich, “Istoriia i kul´tura Drevnei Rusi v zhizni i tvorchestve Maksimiliana Voloshina,” 20 ff. 175 According to I. D. Shevelenko, this was a result of an increasing interest in pre-modern and folk culture, connected to ideas of nationalism and nation-building. Shevelenko explains that “Бум интереса к народной культуре в начале ХХ века, по сравнению с предшествующим периодом, питался более ясно отрефлексированными нациестроительными идеями, с од- ной стороны, и идеями социальной трансформации, с другой. Для обеих тенденций им- ператив синтеза новой единой культуры, который должны были осуществить образован- ные слои на основе изучения и избирательного усвоения автохтонной (народной) тради- ции, оказывался центральным.” (Shevelenko, Modernizm kak arkhaizm: natsionalizm i poiski modernistskoi estetiki v Rossii [Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2017], 15). 176 Basom, “War and Revolution in the Poetry of Maksimilian Aleksandrovič Vološin, 1905– 1923,” 156.

56 In Voloshin’s archive,177 a first version of the new book titled Neopalimaia Kupina 1917−1919 with the marking “Polnyi ekzempliar” is preserved, and hereafter it will be called Neopalimaia Kupina (1).178 This version consists of three parts, comprised of thirty-eight poems.179 Most of them (twenty-two) were selected from Demony glukhonemye and Iverni (in the table below these poems are written in italics), while only the remaining sixteen poems, all composed in 1919, were compiled in a book for the first time. The period specified in the title of the new book seems therefore somewhat misleading, since Vo- loshin wrote the poems “Predvestiia,” “Angel Mshchen´ia,” and “Golova madame de Lamballe” more than a decade earlier. Neopalimaia Kupina (1) is the prototype of the book from which the much-extended versions of later periods have all evolved. All of the poems which constitute Neopalimaia Kupina (1) are also included in the later versions, such as Neopalimaia Kupina (5).

Table 4. Neopalimaia Kupina (1)

I. Ангел Мщенья

“Предвестия,” “Ангел Мщенья,” “Россия (1915 г.),”180 “Москва (1917 год. Март),” “Петроград (1915–1917),” “Трихины,” “Мир,” “Голова madame de Lamballe,” “Две ступени; I. Бастилия, II. Бонапарт,” “Термидор” (1–4), “Пла- ванье,” “Бегство,” “Гражданская война”

II. Демоны глухонемые

“Демоны глухонемые,” “Видение Иезекииля,” “Написание о царях Москов- ских,” “Dmetrius-Imperator,” “Стенькин cуд,” “Личины”; “I. Красногвардеец,” “II. Матрос,” “III. Большевик,” “IV. Буржуй,” “V. Спекулянт,” “VI. Феодосия (Весна 1918)”

177 The documents studied in this dissertation are located in the archive at Institut Russkoi Li- teratury (IRLI), RAN, Pushkinskii Dom, Saint Petersburg, Russia, Fond 562. 178 IRLI, RAN, F. 562, op. 1, ed. khr. 99. 179 The three parts are titled: “Ангел Мщенья” (with the epigraph “Выпросил у Бога светлую Россию Сатана да очервленит ю кровью мученическою. Протопоп Аввакум”), “Демоны глухонемые” (with the epigraph “Одни зарницы огневые, / Воспламеняясь чередой, / Как демоны глухонемые, / Ведут беседу меж собой. Тютчев”) and “Неопалимая Купина: Стихи Революции” (with the crossed-out epigraph “…В Россию можно только верить… Ф. Тютчев”). 180 In Anno mundi ardentis 1915 the title of the poem is “Rossii,” and in Iverni the title of the poem is “Rus´.”

57 III. Неопалимая Купина: Стихи Революции

“Святая Русь,” “Русь глухонемая,” “Из бездны,” “Родина,” “Молитва о го- роде,” “Неопалимая Купина,” “Русская революция,” “На вокзале,” “Китеж,” “Преосуществление,” “Европа,”181 “Посев,”182 “Заклятие о Русской земле”

In this first version of Neopalimaia Kupina, Voloshin develops the theme of suffering and purification through martyrdom. This is forcefully manifested in the last part, “Neopalimaia Kupina: Stikhi Revoliutsii,” in which the image of Russia as the burning bush is introduced: Even though it is perishing (“Мы погибаем”) Russia is not dying (“не умирая”). In the poem “Russkaia revoliutsiia,” the comparison of revolution to martyrdom is clearly expressed in the allusions to the sufferings of both Christ and Francis of Assisi:

Пусть бунт наш – бред, пусть дом наш пуст, Пусть боль от наших ран не наша, Но да не минет эта чаша Чужих страданий наших уст. […]

Как некогда святой Франциск Видал: разверзся солнца диск И пясти рук и ног Распятый Ему лучом пронзил трикраты – Так ты в молитвах приняла Чужих страстей, чужого зла Кровоточащие стигматы. (“Русская революция,” 287–88)

Russia’s sufferings are vividly depicted also in other poems, for instance in “Na vokzale” and “Rodina”:

Вот лежит она, распята сном, По вековечным излогам, Расплесканная по дорогам, Искусанная огнем, С запекшимися губами, В грязи, в крови и во зле, И ловит воздух руками, И мечется по земле.

[…]

181 In Demony glukhonemye the title of the poem is “Angel vremen.” 182 This poem “Posev” is dated November 11, 1919, and it should not be confused with the eponymous poem “Posev,” dated February 3, 1915, which was included in Anno mundi ardentis 1915.

58 Не всё ли и всем простится, Кто выстрадал, как она? (“На вокзале,” 286)

Но ты уж знаешь в просветленьи, Что правда Славии – в смиреньи, В непротивлении раба; Что искус дан тебе суровый: Благословить свои оковы… (“Родина,” 263)

In these poems, Voloshin connects the suffering, which he interprets as a sacrifice, to a firm hope of a national revival. In the poem “Posev” (1919), the lyrical self likens the land of Rus´ to a cropland, and he pleads to Christ to bless his sowing so that the earth might yield a rich harvest. The hope of rebirth here is expressed by allusions to biblical parables in which Christ uses the seed as an allegory of His own sacrifice and death, and the resurrection that this sacrifice enables.183 After Neopalimaia Kupina (1), the book’s composition was constantly en- larged, and both old poems from Anno mundi ardentis 1915 and Demony glukhonemye (in full), as well as new poems were included. To illustrate Vo- loshin’s working method and the complications connected to the question of the exact composition of Neopalimaia Kupina, I will now present some later drafts of the book. One such draft is a handwritten table of contents titled Neopalimaia Kupina (Stikhi Revoliutsii), consisting of three untitled parts with a total of forty-five poems, hereafter called Neopalimaia Kupina (2).184 Another is a typewritten table of contents titled Plamena (Voina i Revoliutsiia), consisting of three parts (“Armageddon,” “Demony glukhonemye” and “Neopalimaia Kupina”), with a total of fifty-four poems, hereafter called Neopalimaia Kupina (3).185 The major difference between Neopalimaia Kupina (2 and 3) and Neopa- limaia Kupina (1) is that the two later versions include several poems from Anno mundi ardentis 1915. According to Kupchenko, it is one of these versions that Voloshin referred to in a letter sent in the autumn of 1921 to Anatoly Lunacharsky,186 in which he asked for Lunacharsky’s assistance with the publication of his new book.187 The foundation of the Peoples’ Commissariat for Education (Narkompros) along with the State Publishing House (Gosizdat), and their censors, lessened

183 See for instance the parable of the weeds (Matt. 13:24–43); the parable of the sower (Luke 8:4–15; and the parable of the grain of wheat (John 12:24–26). 184 IRLI, RAN, F. 562, op. 1, ed. khr. 143, fo. 4. 185 IRLI, RAN, F. 562, op. 1, ed. khr. 143, fo. 7. 186 Anatoly Vasilyevich Lunacharsky was the first People’s Commissar of Enlightenment (Narkompros) between 1917 and 1929. 187 Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 1),” 508.

59 the possibilities for writers to get their work published by private publishers, which was the case for Voloshin. In December 1921, when aided by his friend, the poet Sofia Parnok, he sent yet another version of the book consisting of only thirty-one poems to Gosizdat, he received the reply that it could not be published.188 According to Kupchenko, another version, which consisted of as many as eighty poems, was also refused in 1922.189 Voloshin’s industrious approach initially suggests that the different versions were just the results of his attempts to get Neopalimaia Kupina published. Some of the poems in Neopalimaia Kupina (1–3) were published in the collections Stikhi o terrore and Usobitsa: stikhi o revoliutsii, but the latter was published without the knowledge of the author.190 However, Voloshin continued working on Neopalimaia Kupina after the refusals, although he realized that it would not be published coherently according to his wish.191 His keen interest in the book and his reluctance to conclude it points to a purpose beyond his ambition to get the book published. Moreover, it indicates that Voloshin considered improving a work more important than ending it, or having it published. Voloshin’s archive includes several other drafts of Neopalimaia Kupina, for instance a handwritten table of contents titled Neopalimaia Kupina: Angel Mshchen´ia (thirty-five poems),192 a typewritten version titled Neopalimaia Kupina (thirty poems),193 another typewritten version titled Neopalimaia Ku- pina: Stikhi o Rossii 1919–1923 (twenty-seven poems),194 and two tables of contents from the last of his three work-notebooks (tvorcheskie tetradi), one titled Neopalimaia Kupina (stikhi o revoliutsii) Kniga II 1919–1921 (twenty- four poems) and one titled Neopalimaia Kupina 1914–1923 (seventy poems).195

188 Which poems were included in this version of the book remain unknown. See Kupchenko, 509. 189 V. P. Kupchenko, “Primechaniia,” in Voloshin, Stikhotvoreniia i poemy, 604. 190 Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 1),” 426. 191 In a letter to V. V. Veresaev, Voloshin wrote: “Мне, конечно, желательнее всего было бы в первую голову издать все мои стихи о войне и о революции отдельной книгой под об- щим заглавием «Неопалимая Купина», но, очевидно, это невозможно по цензурным условиям, а я кромсать и сокращать эту книгу ух как не хотел бы именно потому, что из нее очень легко было бы выкроить очень лояльно-революционную книгу.” (Voloshin to V. V. Veresaev, January 7–15, 1923, Koktebel´, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 12, 598). In a letter to father Pavel Florensky, Voloshin expressed a similar resignation on the prospect of being published: “Посылаю Вам тексты двух моих книг: «Неопалимой Купины» и «Путями Ка- ина», которые, верно, не скоро увидят свет.” (Voloshin to P. A. Florenskii, September 18, 1923, Koktebel´, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 12, 701). 192 IRLI, RAN, F. 562, op. 1, ed. khr. 143, fo. 3. 193 IRLI, RAN, F. 562, op. 1, ed. khr. 100. 194 IRLI, RAN, F. 562, op. 1, ed. khr. 105. 195 IRLI, RAN, F. 562, op. 1, ed. khr. 7, fo. 311, 312.

60 An important version of the book, comprising seventy-two poems, is included in a typewritten notebook of the author with a linen cover titled Sbornik stikhotvorenii (1914–1924), hereafter called Neopalimaia Kupina (4).196 Orig- inally, this version existed in four copies (i.e., four notebooks), yet only the third one is preserved. Because of the multiple simplifications and misprints in it, Kupchenko suggests that this version was not intended for publication.197 Nevertheless, it is considered a credible authorized source since Voloshin used to recite his poems from it.198 Furthermore, the notebook is dated as late as 1925, and it also comprises the cycle of poems “Putiami Kaina”. “Putiami Kaina” includes the poems “Leviafan” (1915) and “Sud” (1915),199 which initially were published in Anno mundi ardentis 1915, and after that were included in Neopalimaia Kupina (2) and Neopalimaia Kupina (3). However, according to the disposition of Neopalimaia Kupina (4), Voloshin consoli- dated these poems as a part of the separate cycle of poems “Putiami Kaina.” For these reasons, Neopalimaia Kupina (4) was used as the main source material for the Sobranie sochinenii edition, Neopalimaia Kupina (5). Since Neopalimaia Kupina exists in so many versions, but in no published version approved by the author, Neopalimaia Kupina (5) is used as the main source material for the present dissertation, and I quote the poems as they appear in this edition. I have chosen this version for two reasons. First, Ne- opalimaia Kupina (5) conforms with Neopalimaia Kupina (4) in terms of the included poems, their order, and division into parts. Second, in recomposing the work, the editors of Neopalimaia Kupina (5) have also used other sources to establish the accurate main text of the poems and their paratexts, due to the misprints and simplifications in Neopalimaia Kupina (4). For instance, the poems which were included in Anno mundi ardentis 1915 and Demony glukhonemye have been edited according to how they are presented in these books, but with attention to later corrections made by the author.200 After tracing the trajectory of the book’s composition, the following table illustrates the composition of Neopalimaia Kupina (5), and shows the legacy of the earlier books:

196 IRLI, RAN, F. 562, op. 1, ed. khr. 141. 197 Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 1),” 510–11. 198 Kupchenko, 510. 199 In Anno mundi ardentis 1915 the poem was titled “Dies illa tam amara.” 200 Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 1),” 510–11.

61 Table 5. Neopalimaia Kupina (5)

Poems also included Poems also included Poems included in in: Anno mundi in: Demony glukhone- Neopalimaia ardentis 1915 mye Kupina (5) 1. “Россия” (1915) 2. “В эти дни” 3. “Под знаком Льва” 4. “Над полями…” 5. “Посев” (1915) 6. “Газеты” 7. “Другу” 8. “Пролог” 9. “Армагеддон” 10. “Не ты ли” 11. “Усталость” 12. “Весна” 13. “Париж в январе…” 14. “Цеппелины над…” 15. “Реймская Богоматерь” 16. “Lutetia Parisiorum” 17. “Парижу” 18. “Голова Madame…” 19. “1. Взятие Бастилии” 20. “2. Взятие Тюильри” 21. “Термидор 1–4” 22. “Предвестия” 23. “Ангел Мщенья” 24. “Москва” 25. “Петроград” 26. “Трихины” 27. “Святая Русь” 28. “Мир” 29. “Из бездны” 30. “Демоны глухонемые” 31. “Русь глухонемая” 32. “Родина” 33. “Преосуществление” 34. “Европа” 35. “Написание…”

62 36. “Dmetrius-Imperator” 37. “Стенькин суд” 38. “Китеж” 39. “Дикое Поле” 40. “На вокзале” 41. “Русская…” 42. “Русь гулящая” 43. “Благословение” 44. “Неопалимая…” 45. “Протопоп Аввакум” 46. “Красногвардеец” 47. “Матрос” 48. “Большевик” 49. “Феодосия” 50. “Буржуй” 51. “Спекулянт” 52. “Гражданская…” 53. “Плаванье” 54. “Бегство” 55. “Северовосток” 56. “Бойня” 57. “Террор” 58. “Красная Пасха” 59. “Терминология” 60. “Голод” 61. “На дне…” 62. “Готовность” 63. “Потомкам” 64. “Посев” (1919) 65. “Заклинание” 66. “Молитва о городе” 67. “Видение Иезеки- иля” 68. “Иуда-апостол” 69. “Святой…” (“Хвала Богоматери”) 70. “Заклятье о Русской земле” 71. “Россия” (1924)

63 Neopalimaia Kupina (5) includes a total of seventy-one poems in eight parts: the same as in Neopalimaia Kupina (4) except for the poem “Ia budu volit´ i molit´” (1915), which instead is merged with the poem “Drugu,” and the poem “Khvala Bogomateri.” Nevertheless, “Khvala Bogomateri” is considered a part of Neopalimaia Kupina (5), but due to publishing praxis it is published only in its later form, as a prologue to the poem “Sviatoi Serafim” (1919, 1929).201 Although Neopalimaia Kupina (5) is considerably larger than the previous versions of the book, its contents remain thematically coherent: the poems depict both the personal and social effects of cataclysms and upheavals from different perspectives and times. As the table above illustrates, the legacy of the older books is clearly apparent in Neopalimaia Kupina (5). When examining the compositional history of Neopalimaia Kupina (1–5), it becomes obvious that the evolution of the book begins not with the prototype version, but much earlier, already with Anno mundi ardentis 1915 and Demony glukhonemye, or even as far back as 1905–1906, when the poems “Predvestiia,” “Angel Mshchen´ia,” and “Golo- va Madame de Lamballe” were written. Although several poems originally published in Anno mundi ardentis 1915 were reused for the earlier versions of Neopalimaia Kupina, Voloshin ex- cluded them in later versions. For instance, the poems “Leviafan” and “Dies illa tam amara” were reworked instead and inserted as the finale of “Putiami Kaina.” Moreover, the poems written during the Russian Civil War which were not included in the book confirm that Neopalimaia Kupina was not composed chronologically. This shows that Neopalimaia Kupina in all of its versions has to be accepted as a growing and fluctuating body of poems developed over a long period of time, with its roots in Anno mundi ardentis 1915 and Demony glukhonemye. The many versions and rearrangements of the book, including the renaming and re-cyclization of poems, enable the text to remain open, thereby allowing readers to interpret the work in several ways. The fact that the book was never published as an authorized version, and thus never acquired a fixed form, proves that the work has been left without an ending. Furthermore, the openness of the book is also stressed by the poems in the penultimate part which address the future. To Voloshin’s contemporaries as well as to modern readers, they picture a Russia which is yet to come. In order to make the text more reader friendly, from here onwards I will refer to Neopalimaia Kupina (5) simply as Neopalimaia Kupina. By analyzing the book’s compositional history, it is possible to outline a progression and a shift in focus. The beginning of the book, encompassing poems from Anno mundi ardentis 1915, expresses an intimidating atmosphere, and depicts the start of World War I as the biblical Apocalypse. This part includes multiple intertextual references to Revelation. The middle parts of the

201 Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 1),” 511.

64 book, comprised of poems from Demony glukhonemye, depict historical upheavals and explore the themes of possession and demons as recurring forces of history. The suffering in historical and contemporary cataclysms is portrayed here as martyr sacrifices which are depicted both on an individual level (e.g., “Protopop Avvakum”) and on a national level (e.g., “Russkaia Revoli- utsiia”). Towards the end of the book, especially in the part “Voznosheniia,” the poems express a hope of rebirth. This culminates in the poems “Zaklinanie (ot usobits)” (1920) and “Zakliat´e o Russkoi zemle,” where Voloshin urges for a national revival by exploring the genre of the magic spell as a form of theurgic myth-creation. Although the book consists of a framework of interconnected myths, the general progression can be identified as a shift in focus from the Apocalypse through martyrdom to the hope of resurrection.

65 Chapter 2. Neopalimaia Kupina as an Amalgamation of Myths

Throughout Neopalimaia Kupina, there is a shifting of focus. Moving from the apocalyptic end-of-time scenario in the beginning of the book, the thematic focus progressively shifts away from perdition towards demonical possession. The depiction of Russia as possessed by recurring demons of history is in- creasingly connected to the theme of martyrdom, which enables a reinterpre- tation of suffering as expiation. Hope of salvation through sacrifice appears later in the book and this is developed into a vision of spiritual rebirth of the nation. In this way, Neopalimaia Kupina adds layers of the earlier texts by expanding on them and reinforcing them with myths which share a common denominator. This creates a continuity in the material, and binds together the diverse poems into a thematically coherent whole. There is also an associative connection between the myths in Neopalimaia Kupina. The Apocalypse points forward to resurrection and martyrdom represents a path to salvation through expiation. Both represent myths of transformation. Other myths of transformation, such as the resurrection of Lazarus, are interwoven in the growing mythical network. As a representation of indestructibility, the mythologeme of the burning bush is also semantically connected to immortality. Another myth connected to indestructibility is that of the Phoenix, cyclically obtaining new life by rising from the ashes of its pre- decessor. A mythical ramification is created with these related plots. In this way, myths are gradually layered upon one another, overlapping with each other in succession, which can be described as an amalgamation. Such is the case with the poem “Evropa”:

Ее провидели в лучистой сфере Блудницею, сидящею на звере… […]

России нет – она себя сожгла, Но Славия воссветится из пепла! (“Европа,” 266, 268)

Here the first two lines refer to the whore on a scarlet beast from Revelation (17:1–6), comparing Europe to Babylon, whose downfall is prophesied in chapter 18:2–8: “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! […] and she will be

66 burned with fire; for mighty is the Lord who judges her.” Russia is compared to the mythical Phoenix, which is consumed by fire, but rises from the ashes as a new transformed version. As mentioned, the Russian Symbolists created neomythological texts through mythologemes. Like Toporov’s concept of an open text, a mythologeme can accumulate meanings, widening the scope of associational possibilities. The content or hidden meaning of the neomythological text emerges from the correlations between the depicted material and the myths alluded to. In the text, several myths work simultaneously as cipher-codes complement- ing each other and expanding their total meaning. They decode the meanings of the historical and contemporary scenes depicted in the poems. The simul- taneity of possible contradictory points of view might, on first sight, rule out the authoritative position of the author. However, such a seemingly contradictory pursuit is not at all unusual for a neomythological text. Mints notes that contradiction in the form of several points of view is quite essential for a neomythological text, and can be explained by the Symbolists’ universal en- deavor to reach “synthesis” in the plot structure of the “world-myth.”202 In Neopalimaia Kupina, well-known scenes and persons from Russian and world history are interwoven with the contemporary world of the lyrical self. References to myths, such as images and characters, are introduced in the form of quotes and allusions. The references and myths can thus shed light on the work as a whole.

The Apocalypse, the Seed, and the Resurrection of Lazarus Several different influences shaped Voloshin’s worldview and aesthetic principles. Among these is the Bible, which has been identified as the most significant influence in his oeuvre.203 In particular Revelation had a profound impact on Voloshin during the war years and the revolutionary period, as the poet himself indicated in a letter to his friend Vera Kan:

Из тех книг, что Вы читаете, конечно, важнее всего Апокалипсис – он са- мая современная из всех возможных книг, и от современных событий многие образы его выявляются. С самого начала войны я его читаю каж- дый день. Его и пророков.204

202 Mints, “O nekotorykh ‘neomifologicheskikh’ tekstakh,” 67, 74. 203 Vroon, “Cycle and History,” 62; see also Landa, Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy, 80; Zaiats, “Mifotvorchestvo i religiozno-filosofskie iskaniia Maksimiliana Voloshina,” 333. 204 Voloshin to V. O. Kan, November 29, 1917, Koktebel´, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 10, 746.

67 Voloshin mentions the significance of the biblical prophets in his article “Videnie Iezekiilia” (1919): “Во время Войны и Революции я знал только два круга чтения: газеты и библейских пророков. И последние были со- временнее первых. […] Только в Библии можно найти слова, равносиль- ные пафосу, нами переживаемому.”205 In Voloshin’s poetry from this period, the myth of the Apocalypse occupies a central role. Its function in Neopalimaia Kupina is to operate as a structural- semantic cipher-code, to use Mints’ terminology. Biblical motifs and quotes, primarily from Revelation, are found throughout Neopalimaia Kupina, but are more frequent in the first parts, “Voina” and “Puti Rossii.” There are many stages of the Apocalypse as described in the New Testament, such as the Sec- ond Coming, the Last Judgement, and Christ’s thousand-year reign, which all refer to phases of the end-of-time scenario. In Neopalimaia Kupina, Voloshin draws on different stages of the Apocalypse. Several of these poems depict death and destruction. In them quotes from Revelation are used about the Last Judgement. The poem “Armageddon,” for instance, depicts the “battle on the great day of God the Almighty” (Rev.16:13–16):

«Сюда По иссохшим ложам океанов Приведут в день Страшного Суда Трое жаб царей и царства мира Для последней брани всех времен.

Камни эти жаждут испокон Хмельной жёлчи Божьего потира. Имя этих мест – Армагеддон.» (“Армагеддон,” 233)

In the poem “Prolog,” the Last Judgment is also alluded to by the depiction of otherworldly beings such as angels and seraphs who bring calamity to the world:

И с высоты непостижимой Низвергся Вестник, оку зримый, Как вихрь сверлящей синевы, Огнем и сумраком повитый, Шестикрылатый и покрытый Очами с ног до головы.

И, сводом потрясая звездным, На землю кинул он ключи, Земным приказывая безднам

205 Maksimilian Voloshin, “Videnie Iezekiilia,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 6. Kn. 2, 52.

68 Извергнуть тучи саранчи, Чтоб мир пасти жезлом железным. (“Пролог,” 230)

The winged otherworldly “Messenger” in this poem alludes to the angel “holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit” (Rev. 20:1) and the angel who “opened the shaft of the bottomless pit, and […] from the smoke came locusts on the earth” (Rev. 9:2–3). To shepherd the world, the Messenger uses “an iron rod” (Rev. 2:27). The poem “Nad poliami Al´zasa” similarly depicts an angel causing strife between peoples:

Ангел непогоды Пролил огнь и гром, Напоив народы Яростным вином. (“Над полями Альзаса,” 225)

Here Voloshin alludes to the angel who warns the people of the “wine of God’s wrath” (Rev. 14:10), but also to the first of the seven angels who brings hail and fire by blowing his trumpet (Rev. 8:7). In the poem “Videnie Iezekiilia,” Voloshin refers to two eschatological prophecies from the Bible: The Apocalypse depicted in Revelation and the vision of Ezekiel. Including a quote from Revelation, 4:8 (“Свят! Свят! Вседержитель!”), the poem is otherwise almost entirely composed of fragments from Ezekiel (chapters 1, 10 and 16),206 and might therefore be characterized as a poetic adaptation of the prophetic book. Ezekiel (chiefly the prophet’s visions) is sometimes referred to as an apocalyptic text,207 and the poem alludes mainly to the chapters which focus on the revelation mediated by God and received by the prophet:

Был я покрыт налетевшей грозою, Бурею крыльев и вихрем колес. Ветр меня поднял с земли и вознес... Был ко мне голос: […]

Буду судиться с тобой до конца: Гнев изолью, истощу свою ярость, Семя сотру, прокляну твою старость, От Моего не укрыться лица! (“Видение Иезекииля,” 356, 358)

206 Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 1),” 555. 207 See for instance Frances Flannery, “Dreams and Visions in Early Jewish and Early Christian Apocalypses and Apocalypticism,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. John J. Collins (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 109 ff.

69 Here the emphasis is on God’s judgment, and like the previous examples (“Ar- mageddon,” “Prolog,” and “Nad poliami Al´saza”) it mentions no salvation: the emphasis is altogether on doom. In other poems Voloshin refers directly to the Last Judgment without including any quotes from the Bible:

Отдай нас в рабство вновь и навсегда, Чтоб искупить смиренно и глубоко Иудин грех до Страшного Суда! (“Мир,” 259)

See also:

Мы видели безумья целых рас, Крушенья царств, косматые светила, Прообразы Последнего Суда: Мы пережили Илиады войн И Апокалипсисы революций. (“Потомкам,” 349)

The Bible is not the only literary source for the apocalyptic scenes which Vo- loshin alludes to in Neopalimaia Kupina. As mentioned above, he also refers to the epilogue in Prestuplenie i nakazanie in the poems “Gazety” and “Trikhiny.” Raskolnikov’s fever dream in the epilogue bears some traits of the apocalyptic genre, and of apocalypticism as eschatology:

Ему грезилось в болезни, будто весь мир осужден в жертву какой-то страшной, неслыханной и невиданной моровой язве, идущей из глубины Азии на Европу. Все должны были погибнуть, кроме некоторых, весьма немногих, избранных. Появились какие-то новые трихины, существа мик- роскопические, вселявшиеся в тела людей. [...] Люди, принявшие их в себя, становились тотчас же бесноватыми и сумасшедшими. Но никогда, никогда люди не считали себя так умными и непоколебимыми в истине, как считали зараженные. [...] Собирались друг на друга целыми армиями, но армии, уже в походе, вдруг начинали сами терзать себя. [...] Начались пожары, начался голод. Все и всё погибало. Язва росла и подвигалась дальше и дальше. Спастись во всем мире могли только несколько человек, это были чистые и избранные, предназначенные начать новый род людей и новую жизнь, обновить и очистить землю…208

Voloshin first alludes to this text by likening the newspaper reports to deadly trichinae in the poem “Gazety”: “В строках кровавого листа / Кишат смер- тельные трихины, / Проникновенны лезвиины, / Неистребимы, как мечта.” In a poem written two years later, shortly after the Bolshevik coup,

208 Fedor Dostoevskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh. T. 6. Prestuplenie i nakazanie, ed. V. G. Bazanov, F. Ia. Priima, and G. M. Fridlender (Leningrad: Nauka, 1973), 419– 20.

70 Voloshin refers to the epilogue again. The poem “Trikhiny” is a summary of Raskolnikov’s fever dream, which Voloshin treats as a prophecy:

Исполнилось пророчество: трихины В тела и в дух вселяются людей. И каждый мнит, что нет его правей. Ремесла, земледелие, машины Оставлены. Народы, племена Безумствуют, кричат, идут полками, Но армии себя терзают сами, Казнят и жгут – мор, голод и война. Ваятель душ, воззвавший к жизни племя Страстных глубин, провидел наше время. (“Трихины,” 256)

Besides the intertextual references to Dostoevsky’s novel, the poem also alludes to Revelation. The wording, “мор, голод и война” is a reference to Death on the pale green horse, and Hades following him: “… they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, famine and pesti- lence…” (Rev. 6:8). Another text which the poem “Trikhiny” makes a reference to is Voloshin’s own article “Proroki i mstiteli. Predvestiia velikoi revoliutsii,” in which he discusses Raskolnikov’s fever dream and the apocalyptic prophecies made by the early Latin Church Father Lactantius, and Cyprian, the theologian and bishop of Carthage.209 Through multiple intertextual references, different apocalyptic visions, all focusing on calamity and death, are brought together in Voloshin’s poem. Notions of salvation are absent in both “Armageddon” and “Trikhiny,” and the emphasis is entirely on perdition and doom. Instead, the poem “Ustalost´” depicts a scenario after the battle of the Apoc- alypse, when the Crimson rider, referring to the second of the four horsemen in Revelation (6:4), is disarmed. The end of the battle is connected to the arrival of an unnamed figure:

И тогда, как в эти дни, война Захлебнется в пламени и в лаве, Будет спор о власти и о праве, Будут умирать за знамена…

Он придет не в силе и не в славе, Он пройдет в полях, как тишина; Ничего не тронет и не сломит, Тлеющего не погасит льна И дрожащей трости не преломит. Не возвысит голоса в горах,

209 Voloshin, “Proroki i mstiteli. Predvestiia Velikoi Revoliutsii,” 276 ff.

71 Ни вина, ни хлеба не коснется – Только всё усталое в сердцах Вслед Ему с тоскою обернется. Будет так, как солнце в феврале Изнутри неволит нежно семя Дать росток в оттаявшей земле.

И для гнева вдруг иссякнет время, Братской распри разомкнется круг, Алый Всадник потеряет стремя, И оружье выпадет из рук. (“Усталость,” 236)

As an epigraph to the poem, Voloshin uses a quote from Isaiah (42:3): “Тро- сти надломленной не преломит / И льна дымящегося не угасит.” This quote, which describes the servant of the Lord, is then paraphrased in the poem. In Matthew 12:18–21, this depiction is identified as a prophetic description of Christ. Through these references, the poem delineates the coming of Christ, though not as a judge, but as a silent, peaceful wanderer. Here a parallel can be drawn to Fyodor Tyutchev’s poem “Eti bednye selen´ia” (1855) which depicts how Christ, disguised as a wanderer, blesses Russia. In “Ustalost´” the arrival of the unnamed “He” is also related to a sprouting seed. In the Bible, the seed is repeatedly used as an image or allegory for resurrection and new life.210 In John 12:24, Christ predicts His own death and resurrection through the parable of the wheat grain: “Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” In the poem, however, the focus is on growth, not death. Through the biblical references, the battle that ends, and the unnamed man referred to only as “He,” the poem can be interpreted as a portrayal of Christ’s victory over death, signifying salvation and the beginning of eternal life. The combination of references from Revelation with the metaphor of the seed is also used in the poem “Ne ty li”:

Не ты ли Смесил народы Густо и крепко, Заквасил тесто Слезами и кровью И топчешь, грозный, Грозды людские В точиле гнева? […]

210 See for instance the parable of the sower (Matt. 13: 18–23; Luke 8: 4–15), the parable of the weeds (Matt. 13: 24–43), and the parable of the mustard seed (Matt. 13: 31–32).

72 Так дай же силу Поверить в мудрость Пролитой крови; Дозволь увидеть Сквозь смерть и время Борьбу народов, Как спазму страсти, Извергшей семя Всемирных всходов! (“Не ты ли,” 234–35)

The pandemonium in the first stanza is connected to the Apocalypse by the line “в точиле гнева,” which is a reference to “the great wine press of the wrath of God” (Rev. 14:19, 19:15). (The image of a wine press reappears in the later poems “Neopalimaia Kupina” and “Boinia”). In “Ne ty li,” written as a prayer, the lyrical self prays that the fighting and the spilled blood might be understood as the spasm of a seed coming to life. However, in this context the word semia refers to both the ejaculation of semen as well as a sprouting seed. In this poem, death is presented as a precondition for new life, just as a seed must be buried in the earth in order to germinate and thrive. Although not a myth per se, Voloshin introduced the seed as a symbol or a comparison in order to reinterpret death, not as the end, but as a transformation to rebirth or resurrection.211 Although the biblical influence linked to the image of the seed in Vo- loshin’s poems is pronounced, his use of it in the poems from the war years and the postrevolutionary period can also be connected to Steiner’s rhetorical style. As mentioned in the Introductory Chapter, Steiner envisioned a special role for Russia, and believed it to be the nation best fit for leading humanity to the next step of spiritual development. He highlighted the ability to accept higher truth, serenity, and a certain antipathy towards intellectuality as characteristics typical of the Russians.212 Yet he argued that the sixth cultural epoch

211 During the war years and the revolutionary period, Voloshin was certainly not the only poet to use the image of the seed in this way. Vyacheslav Ivanov, for instance, expressed his views on World War I in the poem “Ubelennye nivy” (1914). The poem depicts the war as bringing sacred growth. In his response to the February Revolution, the poem “Tikhaia zhatva” (1917), he returned to the biblical-agricultural imagery. The poem describes that the time has come for Christ to gather the harvest. This imagery, and its mystical Christian implications, are features which unite Ivanov’s and Voloshin’s poetry and affirm the closeness of the poets’ thoughts. Leonid Dolgopolov notes that the image of the seed appears concurrently in the poetry of Vo- loshin (“Preosushchestvlenie”) and Vladislav Khodasevich (“Putem zerna” [1917]), and that it is used to illustrate the demise of the old world and the dawn of the new. In these poems, death is rendered as an unavoidable requirement for the emergence of a new world. (Dolgopolov, “Poeziia i revoliutsiia: Zametki i razmyshleniia,” 12–13). 212 Rudolf Steiner, Die geistigen Hintergründe des Ersten Weltkrieges. Kosmische und menschliche Geschichte, Gesamtausgabe 174b (Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 1994), 140–41.

73 and Russia’s spiritual development were still in an embryonic stage. To ex- emplify his argument, he would often use the shoot (der Keim) or the seed (das Samenkorn) as a metaphor.213 According to Renata von Maydell, “Steiner used the image of the ‘seed’ repeatedly to describe the state of Russia’s development: that is, the ‘embryonic, nuclear state of the East’ as opposed to the ‘hypertrophy’ of the West. The spirit of the Russian people was ‘young and fresh in its hopes’ and ‘yet to confront its task.’”214 In this way, the seed not only represented an embryonic stage, but also immanent dormant possibilities, destined to thrive under the right conditions. Like Steiner, Voloshin expressed a faith that Russia was destined for a special task. In the poem “Evropa” he articulates a conviction that the nation’s fate is predetermined: “Пойми великое предназначенье / Славянством за- таенного огня…” Affirming the anthroposophical vision of the sixth cultural epoch, he wrote in his diary as early as June 19, 1905: “У славянской расы есть особые силы. Она четвертая мировая раса, и из нее должна выйти шестая.”215 During the next decades, he continued to maintain the belief that Russia had a special destiny. This is clearly expressed in his lecture “Rossiia raspiataia” (1920): “И вот, несмотря на все отчаяние и ужас, которыми были проникнуты те месяцы, в душе продолжала жить вера в будущее России, в ее предназначенность.”216 This belief is also reflected in his poetry from the postrevolutionary period. Voloshin repeatedly compares Russia to a seed and expresses hope for the nation’s future spiritual development: “Так семя, дабы прорасти, / Должно истлеть…/ Истлей Россия, / И царством духа расцвети!” (from “Preosushchestvlenie). As already mentioned, these aspects of his work bear a resemblance to Steiner’s rhetoric. By comparing Russia to a seed, Voloshin switches focus from death to rebirth and from the end to a future, similar to what occurs in other poems by shifting from the Last Judgement to a restored Edenic realm. Within the context of his poetry, the symbol of the seed serves to connect anthroposophical predictions to the Christian promise of resurrection.217 The topic of resurrection is addressed again in the poem “Krasnaia Paskha” (1921). This poem, written in the context of terror, depicts the failure of

213 Rudolf Steiner, Geschichtliche Symptomatologie, Gesamtausgabe 185 (Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 1982), 72; Steiner, Menschenschicksale und Völkerschicksale, 279; Rudolf Ste- iner, Die Mission einzelner Volksseelen im Zusammenhange mit der germanisch-nordischen Mythologie, Gesamtausgabe 121 (Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 1982), 182–84. 214 Maydell, “Anthroposophy in Russia,” 155. 215 Maksimilian Voloshin, Istoriia moei dushi, in Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 7. Kn. 1. Zhurnal puteshetsviia. Dnevnik 1901–1903. Istoriia moei dushi, ed. V. P. Kupchenko, A. V. Lavrov, and R. P. Khruleva (Moskva: Ellis Lak 2000, 2006), 206. When discussing Vo- loshin’s diary entries, I refer to the dates provided by Voloshin himself. 216 Maksimilian Voloshin, “Rossiia raspiataia,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 6. Kn. 2, 481. 217 For more on how Voloshin uses the image of the seed in his poetry, see my article, Emma- Lina Löflund, “Russia and the Metaphor of the Seed: The Case of M. A. Vološin’s ‘Posev’ Poems,” Scando-Slavica 66, no. 2 (July 2, 2020): 247–63.

74 Christ’s expected victory over death: “Зима в тот год была Страстной неде- лей, / И красный май сплелся с кровавой Пасхой, / Но в ту весну Христос не воскресал.” The hope of resurrection, traditionally prominent in connection with Easter, is omitted in this poem which states that Christ did not rise again that spring, and the color red, which is usually associated with the fes- tivities, symbolizes blood instead. This illustrates how Voloshin rethought the idea of resurrection in a negated and inverted form. “Krasnaia Paskha” will be analyzed further in Chapter 4. Despite the ongoing crisis in Russia, Voloshin maintained a hope in resurrection. His poetry from this time expresses a faith in a national revival as well as in a personal resurrection. In the poem “Na dne preispodnei,” in memory of Alexander Blok and Nikolay Gumilyov, dated January 12, 1922, Rus´ is depicted as having her own calvary:

Может быть, такой же жребий выну, Горькая детоубийца – Русь! И на дне твоих подвалов сгину, Иль в кровавой луже поскользнусь, Но твоей Голгофы не покину, От твоих могил не отрекусь.

Доконает голод или злоба, Но судьбы не изберу иной: Умирать, так умирать с тобой, И с тобой, как Лазарь, встать из гроба! (“На дне преисподней,” 347)

The poem refers to Christ’s sacrificial death as well as the death and resurrection of Lazarus (as depicted in John 11:1–44). Thematically, both episodes are connected to resurrection and the promise of eternal life in Christ’s victory over death. As in “Preosushchestvlenie,” death is portrayed not as the end, but as a precondition for resurrection. Although depicted as a child killer (“de- toubiitsa”), Rus´ is nevertheless identified as a victim on a par with Christ via the Golgotha reference. This opens up for an interpretation of Russia’s suffering as a sacrifice, and death as a precondition for life. Such a view of Russia’s destiny can be compared to the anthroposophical vision of Russia’s special role in the development of humanity. Discussing the recent “symptoms of the time” in the context of World War I in a lecture held on October 20, 1918, Steiner described Russia’s spiritual development and stressed the important role which the nation would play in the future. He presented a destructive situation as a necessary condition for spiritual evolution, as one stage of mankind on the way towards a higher level of consciousness:

75 Weil geradezu die Keime zur Entwickelung des Geistselbstes im russischen Le- ben liegen, deshalb ist dasjenige, was äußerlich aufgetreten ist im Zeitalter der Bewußtseinsseele bis jetzt, lauter Todbringendes, lauter Verwesungsduftendes, aber etwas, was da sein mußte, gerade weil dasjenige, was sich herausbilden will als Geistleben, den Untergrund des Todes braucht.218

Depicting the demise of Rus´ by drawing parallels to Christ’s sacrifice in the poem “Na dne preispodnei,” Voloshin interprets death as the price for expiation. Yet the reference to Lazarus a few lines later, serves as a reminder that this sacrifice is also the key to the resurrection and salvation of mankind. From an anthroposophical perspective, the poem affirms Steiner’s theory about Rus- sia’s role in leading humanity in its spiritual development. As these examples illustrate, Voloshin experimented with apocalyptic components and narratives, sometimes emphasizing judgement and death, sometimes salvation and resurrection. Poems in the first parts of Neopalimaia Ku- pina depict death and destruction by referring especially to the Last Judge- ment. By gradually shifting focus, the poems in the book’s middle and later parts present the Apocalypse from a different perspective, highlighting instead the hope of salvation and resurrection. This development is emphasized further through an amalgamation of other myths and symbols of transformation through death. By rethinking war and revolution using the Apocalypse as a model, Voloshin opened up for an interpretation of death as a gateway to rebirth.

The Burning Bush, the Phoenix, and Other Indestructible Characters A number of myths of immortality and indestructability are related to myths of death and resurrection (or rebirth). In Neopalimaia Kupina, indestructibility is introduced with the image of the burning bush, representing the paradoxical continuance of two simultaneous opposites, such as destruction–continuity, virginity–motherhood, and history–eternity. In the poem “Neopalimaia Ku- pina,” Russia is likened to the burning bush which is not consumed. In the poem, immortality (“Мы погибаем, не умирая”) is connected to indestructibility (“Дивное диво – горит, не сгорая, / Неопалимая Купина!”), and thereby the biblical myth of the burning bush is fused with the promise of resurrection and eternal life. Through the quality of indestructibility, the mythical city of Kitezh can be compared to the burning bush. According to legend, Kitezh sank into the lake Svetloyar, but was not destroyed, continuing to exist under water. Voloshin’s

218 Steiner, Geschichtliche Symptomatologie, 72.

76 poem “Kitezh” (1919) begins with a description of Russia portrayed as burning for centuries:

Вся Русь – костер. Неугасимый пламень Из края в край, из века в век Гудит, ревет... И трескается камень. И каждый факел – человек. [...]

Ни Сергиев, ни Оптина, ни Саров Народный не уймут костер: Они уйдут, спасаясь от пожаров, На дно серебряных озер. Так, отданная на поток татарам, Святая Киевская Русь Ушла с земли, прикрывшись Светлояром... Но от огня не отрекусь! (“Китеж,” 279)

Continuity in the form of immortality conjoins the mythical city with the burning bush which is not consumed. In this way, the myth of Kitezh is amalgamated with the Old Testament myth of the burning bush through the continuance of indestructibility.219 In Neopalimaia Kupina, fire is an ambivalent symbol. Besides the positive connotations of the burning bush as an image of the Theotokos, the flames which try to consume the bush also represent a terrifying power. In the book’s title and subtitle, Voloshin connects war and revolution with the element of fire, an approach that he used in other works as well. Parallels can be drawn to his book of poetry Anno mundi ardentis 1915, where the metaphor of a burning world is used to symbolize World War I, and to the title of the second part of Neopalimaia Kupina, “Plamena Parizha,” which depicts the French Revolution as a parallel to the Russian Revolution. Voloshin repeatedly used fire as a symbol to connect the chaos during his lifetime to the depictions of the biblical Apocalypse. The poem “Ustalost´,” for instance, has the battle of the Apocalypse ending in flames: “И тогда, как

219 Voloshin’s rendering of the Kitezh legend is an example of the fact that analogies to Ne- opalimaia Kupina can easily be found in poems from approximately the same time. Irina Karlsohn notes that Kitezh as a theme was explored in Russian poetry especially in the first decades of the twentieth century. She shows that besides Voloshin, also poets such as Anna Akhmatova, Velimir Khlebnikov, Nikolay Klyuev, Fyodor Sologub, Marina Tsvetaeva, and Sergey Yesenin in their own way, all interpreted the Kitezh legend by, for instance, connecting it to apocalyptic forebodings of a new era, an image of the vanishing Old Russia or even an idyllic sacred realm. Karlsohn argues that Kitezh in Voloshin’s poem represents Holy Rus, an ideal that remains inaccessible without redemption through suffering. (Irina Karlsohn, Poiski Rusi nevidimoi: Kitezhskaia legenda v russkoi kul´ture. 1843–1940, Slavica Gothoburgensia 10 [Göteborg: University of Gothenburg, 2011], 306 ff).

77 в эти дни, война / Захлебнется в пламени и в лаве.” In Revelation, six angels cause the world to burn by sounding their trumpets (Rev. 8: 6–13). This image is reflected in the poem “Angel Mshchen´ia,” where the Angel of Vengeance appears in the flames: “Я синим пламенем пройду в душе народа, / Я красным пламенем пройду по городам.” In the Bible, God’s wrath is described as a devouring fire: “For the Lord your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God” (Deut. 4:24),220 a characterization which Voloshin uses as the opening line in the poem “Videnie Iezekiilia”: “Бог наш есть огонь по- ядающий.” In Voloshin’s poetry, it is usually angels, or sometimes seraphs, who bring God’s vengeance and wrath to the people with the element of fire.221 In addition to “Angel Mshchen´ia,” these kinds of angels appear also in the poems “Nad poliami Al´zasa,” and “Prolog.” Analyzing fire as an ambivalent symbol in Voloshin’s poetry, Cynthia Marsh points out that, “…fire has both an evil and a good side in both its actual and figurative existence. Fire is a source of heat and destruction; figuratively there is the ‘heart’s fire’ as a source of courage, and there is also the ‘flame of rebellion.’ Fire as a destructive element is taken as the basis of the symbol during the war and revolutionary periods.”222 In Neopalimaia Kupina, Vo- loshin explores both the positive and the negative aspects of fire. The lyrical self in “Kitezh” identifies with fire: “Я сам – огонь. Мятеж в моей природе,” an image that is repeated almost identically in the poem “Protopop Avvakum”: “Аз есмь огонь.” In both cases, the fire symbolizes the rebelliousness of the lyrical self. In the poem “Kitezh,” Voloshin alludes to the burning bush in Exodus by likening Russia (Rus´) to a bonfire: “Вся Русь – костер.” In this way, he connects the symbolic and abstract aspects of the rebellious, burning Russia, with concrete images of a bonfire and torches. However, the fire depicted in the poems does not harm Russia; rather it acquires a moral-emotional pathos: instead of destroying Russia, the flames only seem to make her stronger. From this perspective, fire can be interpreted as a purgatorial, cleansing force: “России нет – она себя сожгла, / Но Сла- вия воссветится из пепла!” (from “Evropa”). In this way, burning is equivalent to refinement, an idea which Voloshin also explores in the poem “Blagoslovenie,” where Russia is likened to coal that is transformed into diamonds: “В едином горне за единый раз / Жгут пласт угля, чтоб выплавить

220 God’s wrath is likened to a devouring fire in, for example, Exodus 24:17, Psalms 18:8, Isaiah 30:27, and Hebrews 12:28–29. 221 Marsh, M. A. Voloshin, Artist-Poet, 133–39. 222 Marsh, 125. Discussing the element of fire in Marina Tsvetaeva’s poem “Molodets” (1924), Tora Lane similarly points out that “[i]n folk symbolism, fire, blood and the colour red are strongly charged notions and linked to each other, all associated both with positive and negative forces. Red announces beauty and health, but also otherworldly forces, while blood stands for both health and passion, and fire for life, death, passion and danger.” (Tora Lane, Rendering the Sublime: A Reading of Marina Tsvetaeva’s Fairy-Tale Poem The Swain, Stockholm Studies in Russian Literature 41 [Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, 2009], 121–22).

78 алмаз, / А из тебя, сожженный Мной народ, / Я ныне новый выплавляю род!” In these examples, the aspect of fire arouses purgatorial associations, which connects Russia, symbolized by the burning bush, to transformation, and regenerative rebirth. It is noteworthy that the link between fire and rebirth is drawn in connection to the seed in the poem “Posev” (1919): “Зернь пере- полнена тяжелой, дремной жизнью / И семя светится голубоватым, тон- ким, / Струистым пламенем […] Благослови посев свой Иисусе!” Repre- senting rebirth, the seed, as discussed above, was also used by Steiner as a metaphor for Russia. Though burning, the grain in Voloshin’s poem is filled with life, and in this way, parallels are simultaneously drawn to the burning bush as well. Thus, burning is connected to both purification and expiation. In the poem “Iuda-apostol” (1919), Voloshin depicts the Last Judgment in yet another way; here the rehabilitated disciple Judas Iscariot arises from the abyss:

Боже, верю глубоко, Что Иуда – Твой самый старший и верный Ученик, что он на себя принял Бремя всех грехов и позора мира, Что, когда Ты вернешься судить землю, И померкнет солнце от Твоего гнева, И сорвутся с неба в ужасе звезды, Встанет он, как дымный уголь, из бездны, Опаленный всею проказой мира, И сядет рядом с Тобою! (“Иуда-апостол,” 360)

Like others, this poem is comprised of an amalgamation of myths. The scene references the episode in the Apocalypse when Christ returns to judge the dead according to their works (Rev. 20:12). In the poem, Judas Iscariot is raised from the dead, but he is described as a smoky ember, evoking associations to the mythical Phoenix. A parallel image appears in the poem “Evropa,” where Voloshin refers to both the biblical Apocalypse and the Phoenix. Russia is depicted as completely extinguished, yet it is an indestructible element which is revived. The image of Slaviia rising from the ashes highlights this reference. The poem also resounds with the idea of a national and spiritual revival of Russia which resembles Steiner’s predictions about Russia as the spiritual leader of the next, Slavic, cultural epoch. As in several other poems, Voloshin portrays Russia and its people as holy and chosen, and applies different images to convey this. In “Evropa,” Russia is described as having committed self-immolation. This refers to the Old Be- lievers practice of gari, also called baptism by fire, in which mass suicides and immolations were carried out in the belief that they would help individuals to escape evil. Through the image of self-immolation, “Evropa” is connected to

79 the poem “Protopop Avvakum.” The first stanza of “Protopop Avvakum” re- tells how Avvakum was created as an image of the celestial fire:

«Ти подобает облачиться в человека Тлимого, Плоть восприять и по земле ходить. Поди: вочеловечься И опаляй огнем!»

Был же я, как уголь раскаленный, И вдруг погас, И черен стал, И, пеплом собственным одевшись, Был извержен В хлябь вешнюю. (“Протопоп Аввакум,” 295–96)

This introduction plays an important role, since it presents Avvakum as a chosen religious leader, and even depicts him as being of divine origin. When Avvakum is burned at the stake, he does not experience death, but a home- coming:

Построен сруб – соломою накладен: Корабль мой огненный – На родину мне ехать. […]

И ждать не стал – Сам подпалил свечой. Святая Троица! Христос мой миленькой! Обратно к Вам в Иерусалим небесный! Родясь – погас, Да снова разгорелся! (“Протопоп Аввакум,” 317)

The poem highlights how Avvakum receives eternal life through the fire, and even though his body will be consumed in the fire, his soul will not. Further- more, the image of Avvakum burning at the stake evokes visual associations to the burning bush depicted in Exodus. The poem is dated May 19, 1918, and was thus composed in the beginning of the Russian Civil War. Connected to the Raskol in the seventeenth century, the figure of Archpriest Avvakum can be interpreted as representing a schism which divides the nation. As an indestructible element, Avvakum is depicted as cyclically descending from and returning to a heavenly kingdom.

80 The characteristic of indestructibility, which is connected to the burning bush and the Phoenix in Neopalimaia Kupina, appears in a number of historical characters: The False Dmitries, Stenka Razin, and Archpriest Avvakum. Their biographies, narrated through dramatic monologues, are not depicted as linear, from birth to death. Instead, they are reversed, so they begin with their deaths which lead up to (recurrent) rebirth: “С перерезанным наотмашь гор- лом / Я лежал в могиле десять лет […] И на зов стенящих голосов / Вы- шел я – замученный – из гроба.” (from “Dmetrius-Imperator”). In this way, Voloshin’s depiction of these characters takes them out of their historical context and inserts them into a mythical space where time is cyclical. Rising from the dead, these characters point to a mythological (cosmological) conception of time, thereby defying the conclusiveness of death and dissolving historical linearity. The circularity of Voloshin’s depiction of their biographies mirrors, on a smaller scale, repetitions in the history of revolutionary processes: usurpations, revolts, and schisms. In his lecture “Rossiia raspiataia,” Voloshin explained how, shortly after the Bolshevik coup, he started to see its affinity to earlier epochs in Russian history: “Из могил стали вставать похороненные мертвецы; навсегда ото- шедшие, страшные исторические лики по-новому осветились современ- ностью.”223 The poem “Dmetrius-Imperator” is dated December 19, 1917. In this poem Voloshin depicts the impostors and usurpers of the Time of Trou- bles224 as one and the same person, repeatedly killed and resurrected from the dead. The False Dmitry is therefore not only presented as living backwards, from death to rebirth, but he also is revived as multiple characters:

Убиенный много и восставый, Двадцать лет со славой правил я… […]

Тут тогда меня уж стало много: Я пошел из Польши, из Литвы, Из Путивля, Астрахани, Пскова, Из Оскола, Ливен, из Москвы… […]

223 Voloshin, “Rossiia raspiataia,” 467. 224 Ivan the Terrible had two surviving sons: Dmitry and Fyodor. Dmitry died in Uglich in 1591 at the age of eight. After the death of Fyodor I of Russia in 1598, several pretenders to the Russian throne competed for power by pretending to be Dmitry, the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible. Most prominent among these were the False Dmitry I (probably Grigorii Otrep´ev), and the False Dmitry II, widely known as the “brigand” (vor). Hosking, Russia and the Rus- sians, 127 ff.

81 Так, смущая Русь судьбою дивной, Четверть века – мертвый, неизбывный – Правил я лихой годиной бед. И опять приду – чрез триста лет. (“Dmetrius-Imperator,” 273–75)

In the poem, Voloshin not only emphasizes the recurrences during the Time of Troubles in the portrayal of the False Dmitries as one person, reappearing again and again in a new form, but he also implies a connection to Russia’s situation at the time: the poem ends with the False Dmitry announcing his return after three hundred years, which in time approximately coincided with the exact time when the poem was written, i.e., only weeks after the Bolshevik takeover in 1917. By correlating the new rulers to historical usurpers, Volo- shin implies that the coup was illegitimate, and he even suggests the Bolshe- viks, with their alleged “new” political order, are nothing more than another version of an old recurring force of history. On December 22, 1917, three days after completing “Dmetrius-Imperator,” Voloshin finished a poem about another historical figure, the Cossack leader Stenka Razin. In the poem “Sten´kin sud” Voloshin depicts him, like the False Dmitries, as a phantom from the past announcing his return to Russia from the dead:

Что-то, чую, приходит пора моя Погулять по Святой по Руси. […]

Рассужу, развяжу – не помилую, – Кто хлопы, кто попы, кто паны… Так узнаете: как пред могилою, Так пред Стенькой все люди равны. Мне к чему царевать да насиловать, А чтоб равен был всякому – всяк. Тут пойдут их, голубчиков, миловать, Приласкают московских собак. […]

Мы устроим в стране благолепье вам, – Как, восставши из мертвых с мечом, – Три угодника – с Гришкой Отрепьевым, Да с Емелькой придем Пугачем. (“Стенькин суд,” 276–78)

Whereas the depiction of the False Dmitry (or Dmitries) as a phantom of history can be connected to the motif of usurpation in Voloshin’s poetry, Stenka Razin represents revolt. In “Sten´kin sud,” parallels are drawn between the rebellion of Razin against the tsar and the Bolshevik coup, both advocated in

82 the name of justice for the people. The False Dmitry appears as a legion, as one of many. Stenka Razin does not return alone, but is in the company of Grigorii Otrep´ev (the False Dmitry I), and another pretender to the throne, Yemelyan Pugachev, who led the Cossack Rebellion of 1773–75. By depicting the return of these rebels and usurpers, the postrevolutionary situation in Russia is interpreted as a later variant of the feuds during the Time of Trou- bles, such as the Cossack and the peasants’ revolts. This idea is also re-emphasized in the poem “Kitezh,” where Razin and Pugachev are mentioned once again, along with Ivan Mazepa:

Анафем церкви одолев оковы, Повоскресали из гробов Мазепы, Разины и Пугачевы – Страшилища иных веков. (“Китеж,” 281)

The reappearance of these characters represents the return of indestructible forces from the past. Through their quality of indestructibility, they serve as a parallel to the image of the burning bush. The fact that they are depicted as rising from the dead, however, only falsely relates them to a Christian resurrection: instead, they constitute a negative, demonic counterpart to resurrection. Resurrection in Neopalimaia Kupina is twofold and ambivalent. In some poems, such as “Na dne preispodnei,” it represents the undoubtedly affirma- tive idea of life after death and salvation (often from a traditionally Christian perspective). Other poems, such as “Sten´kin sud” and “Dmetrius-Imperator,” depict an earthly resurrection without comfort or salvation, but rather as the rising of haunting phantoms which come to take revenge on the living. These dead have not passed on to eternity, but re-enter the present as phantoms of the past. Defying the conclusiveness of death, these characters dissolve the linearity of time, and their recurring appearances point instead towards a conception of time as cyclical.

83 Chapter 3. Times of Troubles in History and Myth

On the Threshold of a New Time of Troubles In an autobiographical note, Voloshin described Russia’s past and present as the main themes of his works during the period 1919–1926.225 In order to understand the country in all of its historical complexity, he also explored the history of other nations. Comparing experiences gave Voloshin the chance to perceive Russia from a different perspective. Written during the war years and the revolutionary period in the early twentieth century, Neopalimaia Kupina therefore not only captures the turmoil of the contemporary society, but also that of earlier turning points. Some of Voloshin’s poems from this period, such as “Protopop Avvakum,” “Sten´ka Razin,” and “Dmetrius-Imperator,” are descriptions of historical personages. These poems are written from a first-person perspective, which gives them a pronounced subjectivity. In them, characters based on historical persons speak of their emotional reactions to earlier epochs, thus allowing the reader to gain glimpses of a fictionalized past. Voloshin engaged in historical research when writing these poems. One approach which he explored ardently during this period, as will be shown, was to quote various documents in his poetry. The material he used ranges from Louis XVI’s diary, old Russian chronicles, Russian and French literature, and the Bible. By excerpting passages from these texts and then weaving them into his poems, Voloshin created a mosaic of historical reminiscences, which he merged with quotations from his own times. This appropriation contextualized Voloshin’s contemporaneous circumstances within the past, but also blurred the boundaries of his authorship. The poems repeatedly address the same type of historical junctures and some common topics. Neopalimaia Kupina juxta- poses past events with each other and with episodes from Voloshin’s own lifetime in order to point to correspondences between them, creating an impression of a recurring historical model in which time is cyclical. Voloshin’s view of historical recurrences is also expressed clearly in his letters. In a letter from December 1917, Voloshin wrote to Aleksandra Petrova

225 Voloshin, “Maksimilian Voloshin. Avtobiografiia <13>,” 252.

84 that he saw apparent parallels to the uprisings during the seventeenth century in the postrevolutionary situation:

Сейчас начинается настоящий Стенькин Суд. Самозванчество, разбойни- чество… вот основные элементы всякой русской смуты. Не думайте, что слова Стеньки в стихах об равенстве – это натяжка на современность; это точные его слова из «Прелестных писем».226

Other scholars have noted the parallels which Voloshin drew between history and his own times. V. V. Ivanov argues that when Voloshin wrote about the Time of Troubles or the False Dmitries, he also narrated the contemporary situation in Russia. Ivanov argues that Voloshin saw an intrinsic connection between events through a consistency in the laws that govern history:

Волошин не модернизирует события далекого прошлого, он прочитывает их глазами современника, который видит их внутреннюю связь и с го- раздо более поздними катаклизмами, где усматривает действие тех же за- кономерностей.227

Vroon points out how the poet underlines the historical parallel between two events in the poem “Preosushchestvlenie,” noting that it “explores the analogy between the ascension of Gregory the Great to the papal throne in 590 and the restoration of the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate228 in 1917.”229 The present chapter explores representative examples of how Voloshin highlighted what he interpreted as recurrences in history, and how he evoked a sense of correspondences by using different strategies in his poetics. Of rel- evance here is Mints’ concept of sootvetstviia (correspondences). A distinctive feature of a neomythological text is that the plot unfolds as a chain of repetitions. In such a text, events and phenomena appear as correspondences to each other, and the meaning of them and of the entire work is discernible only when they are deciphered through a set of myths which are alluded to in the text.

226 Voloshin to A. M. Petrova, December 25, 1917, Koktebel´, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 10, 767. Besides Voloshin, also Ivan Bunin in his diary Okaiannye dni drew parallels between the Bolsheviks and Stenka Razin. (Ivan Bunin, Okaiannye dni. Vospominaniia. Stat´i [Moskva: Sovetskii pisatel´, 1990], 132 ff). 227 Ivanov, “Voloshin kak chelovek dukha,” 193. 228 In 1721 Peter the Great abolished the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate and replaced it with the Most Holy Synod. Shortly after the October coup in 1917, the Patriarchate was restored and Tikhon was elected as the new Patriarch. See Hosking, Russia and the Russians, 198–99, 438– 39. 229 Vroon, “Cycle and History,” 65.

85 Writing the Poetry of Terror: The Documentary-Protocol Style In the article “Proroki i mstiteli. Predvestiia Velikoi Revoliutsii,” written in the wake of the First Russian Revolution of 1905, Voloshin explores the historical similarities between the recent events in Russia and the French Revo- lution. After the Bolshevik coup in 1917, he returned to the history of the French Revolution in order to interpret the cause of the events he was witness- ing and to discern historical analogies.230 Among the books he studied on this subject were Histoire de la Révolution française (1847–1853) by Jules Mich- elet, Les Origines de la France contemporaine (vol. 1–5) (1875–1895), by Hippolyte Taine, and the diary of king Louis XVI.231 In a letter to Iuliia Obo- lenskaia dated November 1917, Voloshin argued that he saw history repeating itself:

Если у Вас есть, раскройте последние главы «Якобинского Захвата» [Taine, vol 3], где идет речь об августе 1792 года. Это как раз тот же мо- мент, что переживаем мы сейчас: захват силою оружия власти крайними партиями. Аналогии потрясающие, несмотря на то, что л<о>зунги диа- метрально противуположны: там идет дело об войне, а не о мире, и об единстве, а не о расчленении государства. Но психология действующих лиц, характер событий, – всё совершенно тождественно.232

Voloshin saw similarities between the psychology of the persons involved and the way events unfolded in postrevolutionary Russia as compared to the revolt in France a few centuries earlier. This is reflected in a number of poems included in Neopalimaia Kupina, which are thematically connected through their portrayals of terror. Described with certain stylistic and metric features which evoke a sense of analogy, this devastating condition appears as a symp- tom of a historical correspondence. Especially striking is the use of these characteristic features in poems referring to events which happened during Vo- loshin’s lifetime. By combining thematic and stylistic analogies, the poet establishes a similarity between the historical and contemporary situations depicted. The cycle of sonnets “Dve stupeni”: “1. Vziatie Bastilii,” “2. Vziatie Tiuil´ri” and “Termidor” were written in November and December, shortly after the Bolshevik takeover. V. V. Ivanov notes that these sonnets on the French Revolution have a “restrained documentary-protocol tone”

230 Landa notes that “By strange coincidence, in the summer of 1917, both Lenin and Voloshin studied in great detail the history of the French Revolution. Lenin’s goal was to apply the les- sons of the French Revolution to his planned Bolshevik uprising while Voloshin wanted to predict the future events using the model of the French prototype.” (Landa, Maximilian Vo- loshin’s Poetic Legacy, 68). 231 Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 1),” 519. 232 Voloshin to Iu. L. Obolenskaia, November 15, 1917, Koktebel´, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 10, 720.

86 (“сдержанный документально-протокольный тон”). What characterizes this style, according to Ivanov, is that it is fact-oriented and relates episodes very succinctly.233 This style first appears in the poems written after the Bol- shevik coup, and it clearly expresses how Voloshin’s poetics changed when confronted with this momentous turning point. It represents one aspect of the poet’s search for a new poetic language which could match the changed reality, and reflect the meaning of the course of events.234 This development took several forms and can also be connected to the poetic style of Biblical Natu- ralism, which constitutes another aspect of it. This style, which will be discussed more further on in this chapter, is harsh, accusatory, including sexually explicit language and visual descriptions. Whereas Biblical Naturalism is a style which draws on the language of the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible and the Russian Orthodox defenders of the Church,235 the documentary-protocol style seems to be an influence from a different source. One likely influence on this style is the diary of Louis XVI, from which Voloshin uses the one-line entry “14 juillet 1789 – Riens” as an epigraph to the sonnet “1. Vziatie Bastilii.” The style of these sonnets is as prosaic and brief as Louis XVI’s daily diary entries which Voloshin, in the article “Dnevnik Liudovika XVI” (1906), describes as having the brevity of short- hand, noting neither feelings nor psychology, but only the events of the day which made the biggest impression on him.236 The entries are often no longer than one line per day, and in this respect they resemble notes in a logbook. Voloshin explains that: “В те дни, когда нет ни мессы, ни охоты, ни недо- моганья, он записывает кратко: ‘Ничего’ – ‘rien’. Политика его не инте- ресует и не волнует совершенно, но и это ‘ничего’ трагически оттеняет почти все великие даты революции.”237 In “1. Vziatie Bastilii” the word riens (“nothing”) in the epigraph stands in sharp contrast to the massive Paris riots depicted in the poem. However, in all of the sonnets on the French Rev- olution the revolts and killings are portrayed in the style of the king’s diary.

233 Ivanov, “Voloshin kak chelovek dukha,” 168–69. 234 The tendency towards a more restrained style after the Bolshevik takeover was not unique for Voloshin. Pit Van Puke argues that Ilya Ehrenburg was convinced that the new postrevolutionary times needed a new, more modern language. Puke notes that some of Ehrenburg’s works from 1921–1922 are characterized by their “telegraphic” style: “Предложения, которые автор строил в своих произведениях, очень похожи на телеграфные сообщения: все фразы со- кращены до самого минимума, до самой сути высказывания, и часто состоят лишь из существительного с глаголом, или из одного из этих частей речи. Все украшения нор- мального литературного языка, которые по мнению Эренбурга лишь замедляют и пере- гружают чтение, выбрасываются писателем из текста как лишний балласт [italics in the original].” (Pit Van Puke, “Telegrafnyi iazyk Il´i Erenburga,” in Iazyk, soznanie, kommunika- tsiia: sbornik statei, ed. V. V. Krasnykh and A. I. Izotov, Vyp. 9 [Moskva: Dialog–MGU, 1999], 139). 235 Landa, Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy, 80. 236 Maksimilian Voloshin, “Dnevnik Liudovika XVI,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 5, 596. 237 Voloshin, “Dnevnik Liudovika XVI,” 597.

87 Voloshin, as it were, imitates the king’s style but applies it differently. The following stanzas from “Termidor” typify this style:

Казнят по сотне в сутки. Город замер И задыхается. Предместья ждут Повальных язв. На кладбищах гниют Тела казненных. В тюрьмах нету камер. […]

Париж в бреду. Конвент кипит, как ад. Тюрьо звонит. Сен-Жюста прерывают. Кровь вопиет. Казненные взывают. Мстят мертвецы. Могилы говорят. […]

И среди них на кладбище химер Последний путь свершает Робеспьер. К последней мессе благовестят в храме,

И гильотине молится народ… Благоговейно, как ковчег с дарами, Он голову несет на эшафот. (“Термидор,” 248–50)

The brevity and restraint of the depiction of terror in the first two stanzas are contrasted to a symbolically charged style in the depiction of Robespierre on his way to the scaffold in the final two stanzas. Shifting from a description to an interpretation of the event, the last lines render the execution scene as an inverted sacred rite. The symbol of the revolution – the guillotine – is depicted here as a god to which the people pray when the church bells summon Robes- pierre to his last mass. As the high priest of the revolution, he falls victim to it himself. Although this seems like a striking critique of the revolution, V. V. Ivanov notes that Voloshin avoids generalizations and discussions of revolution and history in these sonnets, so that parallels to the present are not overt. He continues, they share this feature with the poetic depictions of Paris during World War I, with which they were later combined.238 These qualities make the sonnets fit together with the Parisian poems, but they also serve another purpose which Ivanov does not address. Because of their restrained style, their orientation towards facts, and their lack of discussions about revolution and history, the sonnets also share traits with poems pertaining to the Russian Civil War. As the examples below will show, the sheer manner as to how events are described in these poems is enough to indicate correspondences between “then” and “now” without explicitly stating them as facts.

238 Ivanov, “Voloshin kak chelovek dukha,” 169.

88 In a number of poems depicting the terror during Voloshin’s lifetime, executions are concisely depicted as matters of fact. This is especially evident in the poems written during the Russian Civil War, “Terror” (1921) and “Termi- nologiia” (1921), included in “Usobitsa.”239 In the poem “Terror,” Voloshin uses the same poetic style as in the sonnets on the French Revolution:

Собирались на работу ночью. Читали Донесенья, справки, дела. Торопливо подписывали приговоры. Зевали. Пили вино. […]

Ночью гнали разутых, голых По оледенелым камням, Под северо-восточным ветром За город в пустыри.

Загоняли прикладами на край обрыва. Освещали ручным фонарем. Полминуты работали пулеметы. Доканчивали штыком. […]

А к рассвету пробирались к тем же оврагам Жены, матери, псы. Разрывали землю. Грызлись за кости. Целовали милую плоть. (“Terror,” 340–41)

By again applying the protocol style resembling Louis XVI’s diary entries, Voloshin draws a parallel between his own times and the events depicted in the sonnets. As in the sonnets, facts are simply stated in short sentences, sometimes with only one or two words: “Зевали. Пили вино.,” “Доканчивали штыком.” In both “Termidor” and “Terror” the perpetrators are not named but are only mentioned indirectly, an undefined, impersonal group without pronouns or nouns, through their actions in third-person plural form: “Казнят по сотне в сутки [italics mine]” (from “Termidor”), and “Загоняли прикла- дами на край обрыва [italics mine]” (from “Terror”). The victims, on the

239 Lavrov describes the poems “Terror” and “Terminologiia” as written in a laconic protocol- style (лаконичная протокольность). (Lavrov, “Zhizn´ i poeziia Maksimiliana Voloshina,” 50). Landa characterizes “Terror” as a “telegraphic list of executions.” (Landa, Maximilian Vo- loshin’s Poetic Legacy, 148). I. V. Koretskaia describes “Terror” as a dry protocol recording of what is taking place. (I. V. Koretskaia, “Maksimilian Voloshin,” in Russkaia literatura rubezha vekov (1890-e – nachalo 1920-kh godov) kn. 2, ed. V. A. Keldysh and N. A. Bogomolov [IMLI RAN “Nasledie,” 2001], 278).

89 other hand, are referred to as individuals in both poems: “Казненные взы- вают. / Мстят мертвецы”; “Последний путь свершает Робеспьер [italics mine]” (from “Termidor); and “А к рассвету пробирались к тем же оврагам / Жены, матери, псы [italics mine]” (from “Terror”). Another feature from the sonnets on the French Revolution which Voloshin reuses in “Terror” is breaking up the syntax by the use of enjambment in order to create tension: “Город замер / И задыхается” (from “Termidor”) and “Читали / Донесенья, справки, дела” (from “Terror”). Although not a sonnet but a poem written in dol´nik, “Terror” is also structured in four-line stanzas, and thus visually resembles “Termidor” in its form. Finally, even the titles, “Termidor” and “Terror” are both orthographically and phonetically close, beginning with “ter-” and ending with “-or,” and with the stress on the final syl- lables. These features, as well as the fact that both poems describe terror as a result of revolution, highlight a striking connection between “Terror” and “Termidor.” While the poems share many similarities, they also diverge from one another in some ways. Compared to “Termidor,” the protocol style in “Terror” seems more restrained, which is further enhanced by the fact that the poem lacks rhymes. This style is maintained throughout “Terror,” and in contrast to “Termidor,” its ending is not symbolically charged. “Terror” deals with the same topics as “Termidor”: terror and dehumanizing, streamlined execution (by machine-guns this time instead of guillotines), but without explicitly indicating the time and place. In “Termidor” the names of historical characters (Catherine Théot, Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, Maximilien de Robespierre et al.), and the mentioning of Paris and guillotines, establish the image of the French Revolution. In “Terror” no references reveal where or when the depicted scene takes place, or who the executioners are (even though some details are given, such as the fact that the soldiers use modern weapons and sing a Russian song on their way home). Only the date, April 26, 1921, Simferopol, reveals the connection to the (Red) terror during the Russian Civil War which struck the Crimean Peninsula particularly hard. The lack of comments on, and obvious references to, revolution and civil war in “Terror” serve to strengthen its similarities to “Termidor.” The common theme of terror, presented in the titles, is illustrated in the poems which also share the same style and syntactical structure. In both “Terror” and “Ter- midor” the perpetrators remain unmentioned, whereas the victims are identified and acknowledged in the final stanzas. Through the documentary-protocol style and the devices used, the resemblances of the depicted scenes are emphasized even further. In these portrayals, Voloshin establishes a correspondence between the French Revolution and the Russian Civil War. The poems remind the reader that carnage can recur in society, and that regardless of place or time, terror always appears the same.

90 Corresponding Narratives: The Victim’s Perspective History, it is said, is written by the victors, yet in Neopalimaia Kupina Vo- loshin choses to highlight the fates of history’s victims, individuals of different social status who were killed during times of social unrest in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. As discussed in the previous chapter, Ne- opalimaia Kupina includes a collection of characters based on historical personages, whose fates are presented through dramatic monologues: Stenka Razin, the False Dmitry (or Dmitries), Archpriest Avvakum, and Princess de Lamballe. These characters – a Cossack leader, a usurper-pretender, an Old Believer Archpriest, and the decapitated head of the lady-in-waiting of Marie Antoinette – might seem to have little in common on first sight. However, their stories, as depicted in the poems “Sten´kin sud,” Dmetrius-Imperator,” “Protopop Avvakum,” and “Golova Madame de Lamballe,” share some common traits. The characters whose fates are described are all well-known in Russia (and France) and they are associated with specific historical upheavals: the Cossack rebellion, the Time of Troubles, the Raskol, and the French Revolution. They all died dramatic deaths through torture and execution. In this way, they all share the victim’s perspective. As discussed in the previous chapter, these characters continue to talk and exist in the world of myth. The first-person perspective of these lyrical subjects gives the poems a personal feature, which contrasts to the impersonal accounts of the crimes committed against them by the people, the masses. The perspective of the perpetrators is not conveyed in the poems, so the reader is only presented with the victim’s side of the story. Two of the poems quote the person depicted by insertions of long excerpts from Avvakum’s autobiography and letters and petition to the tsar in the poem “Protopop Avvakum” and by citing one of Stenka Razin’s letters in “Sten´kin sud.”240 This strengthens the subjective perspective and emphasizes that the depicted characters represent historical personages. The focus in all of these poems is the detailed descriptions of how the pro- tagonist of the historical drama has been tortured and killed, and these scenes are portrayed in a graphic, realistic manner. In the poem “Golova Madame de Lamballe,” Princess de Lamballe is killed by a mob, who then cut off her head:

Это гибкое, страстное тело Растоптала ногами толпа мне, И над ним надругалась, раздела… И на тело Не смела Взглянуть я…

240 The line “Мне к чему царевать да насиловать” is quoted from Razin’s letters (Prelestnye pis´ma). Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 1),” 533.

91 Но меня отрубили от тела, Бросив лоскутья Воспаленного мяса на камне… (“Голова Madame de Lamballe,” 244)

In “Dmetrius-Imperator,” the False Dmitry (or Dmitries), who is killed and resurrected again and again, is executed differently each time. In the second stanza, where he is depicted as the False Dmitry I, his throat is cut, but he returns from the dead. Thereafter he is tortured and burned, but seems impossible to kill:

А когда свезли меня на яму И свалили в смрадную дыру – Из могилы тело выходило И лежало цело на юру. И река от трупа отливала, И земля меня не принимала. На куски разрезали, сожгли, Пепл собрали, пушку зарядили, С четырех застав Москвы палили На четыре стороны земли. (“Dmetrius-Imperator,” 274)

Before being burned at the stake, Archpriest Avvakum in the poem “Protopop Avvakum” is described as being repeatedly persecuted and tortured for years. He too comes to life again after a fatal assault:

От воевод терпел за веру много: Ин – в церкви взяв, Как был – с крестом и в ризах По улице за ноги волочил, Ин – батогами бил, топтал ногами, И мертв лежал я до полчаса и паки оживел… (“Протопоп Аввакум,” 298)

In the poem “Sten´kin sud,” Stenka Razin is also tortured and then, like the False Dmitry I, is executed by dismemberment:

Уж по-царски уважили пыткою: Разымали мне каждый сустав Да крестили смолой меня жидкою, У семи хоронили застав. (“Стенькин суд,” 277)

In all four poems, the lyrical self gives a blunt, naturalistic, and detailed account of the moment of execution and of the preceding episodes of torture. But although these scenes are horrid and provoke distaste in the reader, they

92 also include elements which serve to amuse the spectators. The topic of executions is also discussed in Voloshin’s book Surikov (completed in 1916), in which he summarizes the painter’s biography and interprets some of his most famous paintings. The third chapter of the book includes Surikov’s recollections of some floggings and executions he witnessed as a boy. Highlighting the comical element in them, Surikov even describes these public events as farces.241 The complexity of these reminiscences as both jocular and serious might have served as an influence for the execution scenes which Voloshin pictures in the poems discussed. This element is most pronounced in the story told by Madame Lamballe’s head:

Куафёр меня поднял с земли, Расчесал мои светлые кудри, Нарумянил он щеки мои, И напудрил…

И тогда, вся избита, изранена Грязной рукой, Как на бал завита, нарумянена, Я на пике взвилась над толпой Хмельным тирсом… Неслась вакханалия. (“Голова Madame de Lamballe,” 244)

The lyrical self (de Lamballe’s head) describes the scene of a Parisian orgy during the French Revolution, during which the mob mocks her. The crowd is drinking and singing and the atmosphere is that of a bacchanalia. The dese- cration of the corpse begins with dismemberment. After the beheading, the hair is brushed and the face is powdered, then the head is put on a spike and carried around in the streets by the rumbling crowd for their own amusement. This example of realism is not only degrading but also ambivalent. It is both serious, because it de facto illustrates a murder scene, and jocular, since de Lamballe’s head is mocked in a playful manner as a part of the ritual of dese- crating her corpse. The makeup that was put on her face serves as a theatrical mask and her head, carried around on a spike, becomes a grotesque marionette at a puppet show. Furthermore, the head on a spike is compared to a thyrsus,242 which further strengthens the associations to bacchanalia. Princess de Lam- balle’s head on a spike can also be interpreted as a metaphor for the revolution:

241 One of the memories Surikov relates concerns the flogging of a woman: «Женщину одну, помню, драли. Она мужа своего – извозчика – убила. Она думала, что ее в юбках драть будут. На себя много навертела. Так с нее палачи как юбки сорвали – они по воздуху как голуби полетели. А она как кошка кричала – весь народ хохотал.» Voloshin, Surikov, 383. 242 Thyrsus, a staff, usually one tipped with a pine cone, borne by Dionysus (Bacchus) and his followers. Collins English Dictionary, 10th ed. (Harper Collins Publishers, 2009) s.v. “thyrsus,” accessed March 4, 2021, https://app-wordfinder-com.ezp.sub.su.se/sv#/dictionary/14

93 The once so privileged princess loses her place in high society, gets physically mutilated, and is thereafter literally elevated again (her head, at least). Her fate mirrors the essence of the revolutio, since it ended in a complete “turnaround.” A similar account of the mutilation and mocking of a corpse is portrayed in the poem “Dmetrius-Imperator”:

Но Москва дыхнула дыхом злобным – Мертвый я лежал на месте Лобном В черной маске, с дудкою в руке, А вокруг – вблизи и вдалеке – Огоньки болотные горели, Бубны били, плакали сопели, Песни пели бесы на реке... (“Dmetrius-Imperator,” 274)

Like the head of Princess de Lamballe, the corpse of the False Dmitry I is mocked and put on display for the crowd’s amusement. A mask is placed on his face and a dudka, a type of pipe or flute, is put in his hand to make him look like a fool. The costume is thus part of a ritual to degrade his corpse, and here a clear parallel can be drawn to Princess de Lamballe’s powdered face. A. N. Zinevich argues that in the character of the False Dmitry (Dmitries) Voloshin unites the theme of a vampire (vurdalak), the motif of the never- dying Russian insurrection, and the theme of the medieval strolling performer, skomorokh:

В стихотворении «Dmetrius-Imperator» в образе его героя соединены фольклорная тема вурдалака, ожившего мертвеца, негативное воплоще- ние древнего религиозного мотива умирающего и воскресающего бога, а также мотив бессмертного русского бунта. […] Скоморох как представи- тель игры, телесного веселья и «нечистого» поведения — своего рода «обезьяна», пародирующая мировой порядок. Обезьяной (символизирую- щей то язычника, то сатану, то грешника) по отношению к благочести- вому православному государю и являлся Лжедмитрий для убивших его заговорщиков, поэтому его тело обрядили в детали костюма скомороха.243

Although the mask and pipe evoke associations to the skomorokh, I do not agree that the False Dmitry (Dmitries) is depicted as a vampire in this poem. He is a representation of the past which keeps returning, but unlike a vampire, he does not represent one individual, but multiple individuals: “Тут тогда меня уж стало много…” He is, as Zinevich points out, a complex character. In him, I would argue, the never-dying demonized spirit that aspires to power is united with the powerless victim. The same complexity of character also applies to Stenka Razin and Archpriest Avvakum. On the one hand, they are

243 Zinevich, “Istoriia i kul´tura Drevnei Rusi v zhizni i tvorchestve Maksimiliana Voloshina,” 110–12.

94 both the victims of brutal torture and execution, yet on the other hand they represent recurring forces of revolt and schism. Kupchenko argues that Voloshin chose to give the poem the Latin title “Dmetrius-Imperator” (instead of “Lzhedmitrii”) to emphasize the foreign- ness and unlawfulness of False Dmitry I, who called himself imperator to emphasize his orientation towards Europe, and his self-declared claim to power.244 However, the poem primarily depicts the False Dmitry (Dmitries) as being tortured and killed, the last time as a three-year old child, (“Как мла- денца – шел мне третий год / Да казнили казною последней”),245 and it only briefly mentions his exercise of power. This emphasizes his role as a victim. Though not pronounced, a jocular aspect is implied in the mutilations of Princess de Lamballe’s head and the False Dmitry (depicted as the False Dmitry I), but this is expressed explicitly in the poem “Sten´kin sud.” In this poem, as well as in the two previously mentioned ones, the reader encounters the recollection of a brutal killing from the victim’s perspective. In the last stanza, the lyrical self (Razin) predicts the future by seemingly recollecting his own experiences:

Уж попомнят, как нас по Остоженке Шельмовали для ихних утех. Пообрубят им рученьки-ноженьки, Пусть поползают людям на смех. (“Стенькин суд,” 277)

The mutilation by torture leading to death is the central element also in this poem. Chopping off the arms and legs of the culprits so that they have to crawl around for the amusement of the spectators – highlighted in the rhyming of “utekh” (pleasures) with “smekh” (laughter) – is also done to mock the con- victed in this poem. It is part of a ritual humiliation which literally and physically degrades the person subjected to it. It is impossible to stand up with no hands and feet; the person is forced to crawl around on the ground instead. In these poems, referring to different historical episodes, Voloshin elucidates appalling correspondences between seventeenth-century Russia and eighteenth-century France through the first-person narrative of the murdered lyrical self. As the examples discussed above show, Voloshin depicts the deaths of these historical persons by focusing on the things which unite their fates: their lost influence and new positions as victims, their dramatic deaths, and the elements associated with the ritualized, grotesque yet playful desecra- tion of their bodies or corpses in order to indicate historical correspondences.

244 Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 1),” 531. 245 The child refers to Marina Mnishek’s son, who was killed in 1614. Kupchenko, 532.

95 It also seems significant that Neopalimaia Kupina only includes monologues by history’s losers, which seems to imply that upheavals and revolts always produce countless numbers of victims. In Voloshin’s poems, these characters not only act as bearers of recurring destructive forces, they themselves also fall victim to and are killed by these forces.

Demons and Destructive Forces Demons and spirits (besy, demony, dukhi) appear frequently in Neopalimaia Kupina. They first show up in Demony glukhonemye, which Voloshin started drafting shortly after the Bolshevik coup, and thus appear concurrently with the living dead characters discussed earlier in this chapter. As already mentioned in Chapter 1, Voloshin identified the False Dmitry (Dmitries) as a demon: “Он уже историческое выявление демонизма, в свое время распы- ленного тоже между тысячами бесов (‘имя ему – легион’),”246 and he voiced the idea that the “demons of history” were the cause of the revolts and upheavals which he maintained constantly recurred in Russia. The political and social revolts depicted in his poems are in this way identified as demonic occurrences. The earliest poem in which demons and evil spirits occur is “Petrograd.” The poem is a depiction of the Russian capital as having been possessed by demons:

Сквозь пустоту державной воли, Когда-то собранной Петром, Вся нежить хлынула в сей дом И на зияющем престоле, Над зыбким мороком болот Бесовский правит хоровод. Народ, безумием объятый, О камни бьется головой И узы рвет, как бесноватый… Да не смутится сей игрой Строитель внутреннего Града – Те бесы шумны и быстры: Они вошли в свиное стадо И в бездну ринутся с горы. (“Петроград,” 255)

Dated December 9, 1917, this poem can be read as Voloshin’s response to the Bolshevik coup, a tragic interpretation from a mythical perspective. As has

246 Voloshin to A. M. Petrova, January 15–19, 1918, Koktebel´, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 12, 46–47.

96 already been noted by Basom,247 the poem alludes to two literary sources: Dos- toevsky’s novel Besy (1871–72) and the story of the possessed man in Luke (8:27–33). The poem opens with a description of how both the Russian throne and the Russian people are invaded by demons and evil spirits. This portrayal alludes to the character Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovenskii’s comparison of Russia to the possessed man in Luke, in the seventh chapter of Besy:

[В]идите, это точь-в-точь как наша Россия. Эти бесы, выходящие из боль- ного и входящие в свиней, – это все язвы, все миазмы, вся нечистота, все бесы и все бесенята, накопившиеся в великом и милом нашем больном, в нашей России, за века, за века!248

By portraying the postrevolutionary situation in Russia in a similar way and referencing Verkhovenskii’s statement, Voloshin implies the return of these demons. However, in the five last lines the tone of the poem changes, with the reminder that the demons depicted in Luke possessed a herd of swine that then rushed down a steep embankment and were drowned. The ending of the poem again also alludes to Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovenskii’s reflections in Besy:

Но великая мысль, и великая воля осенят ее свыше, как и того безумного бесноватого, и выйдут все эти бесы, вся нечистота, вся эта мерзость, за- гноившаяся на поверхности… и сами будут проситься войти в свиней. […] Но больной исцелится и «сядет у ног Иисусовых»… и будут все гля- деть с изумлением…249

Through this double reference – the desertion of the demons and the healing of the possessed man – the poem’s ending voices a hope that Russia eventually will be free of her demons. In “Rus´ glukhonemaia,” completed a few weeks after “Petrograd,” Volo- shin again explores an episode from the Gospels to interpret his contemporary situation. In the poem, Rus´ is compared to the boy possessed by an impure spirit in Mark, chapter 9:

Был к Иисусу приведен Родными отрок бесноватый: Со скрежетом и в пене он Валялся, корчами объятый. […]

247 Basom, “‘Trichiny:’ Dostoevskij and Vološin,” 9–10. 248 Fedor Dostoevskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh. T. 10. Besy, ed. V. G. Bazanov, F. Ia. Priima, and G. M. Fridlender (Leningrad: Nauka, 1974), 499. 249 Dostoevskii, 499.

97 Не тем же ль духом одержима Ты, Русь глухонемая! Бес, Украв твой разум и свободу, Тебя кидает в огнь и в воду, О камни бьет и гонит в лес. И вот взываем мы: Прииди... А избранный вдали от битв Кует постами меч молитв И скоро скажет: «Бес, изыди!». (“Русь глухонемая,” 262)

The poem can be interpreted as an allegory of contemporary events in which Rus´ represents Russian society shortly after the Bolshevik takeover.250 By comparing Rus´ having turned deaf and dumb (an allusion to Tyutchev’s poem “Nochnoe nebo tak ugriumo”), to the possessed boy in Mark, Voloshin identifies the changes in society as symptoms of the same impure spirit. The comparison serves to establish a correspondence between a biblical event and his own times. In the biblical episode, Christ defeated the demons. By referring to it and envisioning a savior figure commanding the demons to leave Rus´, Voloshin voices the hope that the nation can be healed with the right methods. “Rus´ glukhonemaia” is dated January 6, 1918, and though it depicts the ob- session and stolen freedom of the allegorical Rus´, it strongly emphasizes the advent of a chosen savior figure: “избранный вдали от битв.” The poem was completed shortly after Christmas 1917, when the Russian Orthodox Church symbolically awaited the birth of the Christ Child. This detail signals a hope that Russia will be saved. The connection between revolts and social unrest in Russian history and demonism is even more distinctly developed in the final poem of the book. In “Rossiia” (1924), the spirit of history is portrayed as unstoppable, evoking a mindset in the Bolsheviks which is analogous to Peter the Great:

Есть дух Истории – безликий и глухой, Что действует помимо нашей воли, Что направлял топор и мысль Петра, Что вынудил мужицкую Россию За три столетья сделать перегон От берегов Ливонских до Аляски. И тот же дух ведет большевиков Исконными народными путями. (“Россия,” 377)

250 In the lecture “Rossiia raspiataia” Voloshin explicitly related demonism to the ideology of the new ruling power: “Большевизм нельзя победить одной силой оружия, от бесноватости нельзя исцелиться путем хирургическим. […] Раздавленный силой, он будет принимать только новые формы, вспыхивать в новом месте и с новою силой.” (Voloshin, “Rossiia raspiataia,”497).

98 Here the spirit is described as recurrent and acting on its own terms. In this way, it is portrayed as a mythical force repeatedly impacting history. Inter- preting the effects of it, impersonal and deaf just like the demon in “Rus´ glukhonemaia,” Voloshin draws a parallel between the politics of the first Rus- sian emperor and the Soviet regime in their attempts to radically transform Russian society. However, it is the spirit from the past which masters the Bol- sheviks, like their predecessors. By ascribing their strivings to a mythical cause, Voloshin turns the responsibility and guilt away from the persons subjected to the spirit, and they are thereby identified as victims rather than as perpetrators. The demonic forces depicted in these poems cannot be explained rationally, but only through mythical models of interpretation. In Neopalimaia Kupina, two perspectives – the historical and the mythical – coexist to illuminate the depicted events. The references to the demons in Russian literature and in the Bible strengthen the connection between unexpected, inevitable events and the occurrence of evil spirits. By depicting Russian society shortly after the Bolshevik takeover as being possessed by these notorious literary demons, Voloshin establishes a connection between Russian society and the episodes in the works in which they appear: the historical and mythical situations are rendered as correspondences. Since the cause is presented as mythical, it seems difficult to oppose it. However, by reminding the reader of Christ’s power over the demons depicted in the New Testament, Voloshin voices a hope that Russia, too, has a chance to overcome the devilish forces harassing her.

Compositional Strategies and Auto-Quotation

The Northeast Wind as a Leitmotif In many of the poems depicting social unrest and revolts in Russian history, the northeast wind stands out as an interesting and recurring leitmotif, which evokes a sense of reiteration and creates coherence. This leitmotif occurs in five poems written during the Russian Civil War, all included in the part “Usobitsa.” In these poems, the wind is not only a weather phenomenon, but also serves as a symbol. Whereas Tyutchev’s demons represent weather elements, Voloshin, in contrast, uses the northeast wind as a symbol of a destructive force: there is death everywhere it blows. The northeast wind is first introduced in the poem “Severovostok,” and it is connected to the demons that recur in many of the poems discussed above. In these poems the wind represents forces of history, and by relating them to demons they are rendered as ominous:

99 Расплясались, разгулялись бесы По России вдоль и поперек. Рвет и крутит снежные завесы Выстуженный северовосток.

Ветер обнаженных плоскогорий, Ветер тундр, полесий и поморий, Черный ветер ледяных равнин, Ветер смут, побоищ и погромов, Медных зорь, багровых окоёмов, Красных туч и пламенных годин. […]

В этом ветре гнет веков свинцовых: Русь Малют, Иванов, Годуновых, Хищников, опричников, стрельцов, Свежевателей живого мяса, Чертогона, вихря, свистопляса: Быль царей и явь большевиков. (“Северовосток,” 335)

D. M. Magomedova points out that the demons in “Severovostok” can be connected to Alexander Pushkin’s national myth about demonism in relation to the problem of the Russian insurrection.251 She finds a number of parallels between the poem and Blok’s poem “Dvenadtsat´” (1918), and recognizes the wind as a central symbol in each one. In both poems, the wind is portrayed as an element. In “Severovostok” this element, unruly and impossible to tame, represents an oppressive power, which Voloshin identifies in rulers of different centuries. The northeast wind is described as blowing across the Russian land over centuries, and in this way, it connects the past with the present. The poem is dated July 31, 1920, and it was included in the collection Stikhi o terrore with the postscript: “1920 г. Перед приходом советской власти в Крым. Коктебель.” The date, the postscript, and the northeast wind as a symbol all connect this poem to a number of poems which Voloshin wrote during the Russian Civil War. In the poems “Terror” and “Boinia” the leitmotif of the northeast wind is mentioned again, this time in connection with persecution followed by execution:

Ночью гнали разутых, голых По оледенелым камням, Под северо-восточным ветром За город в пустыри. (“Террор,” 340)

251 D. M. Magomedova, “Blok i Voloshin (Dve interpretatsii mifa o besovstve),” in Blokovskii sbornik, XI (Tartu, 1990), 45.

100 See also:

Куда их гонят вдоль черных улиц, Ослепших окон, глухих дверей? Как рвет и крутит восточный ветер, И жжет, и режет, и бьет плетьми! (“Бойня,” 338)

In “Terror” the wind is mentioned as accompanying the persecuted to the wasteland, but in “Boinia” the wind serves as a metaphor for the executioners. Here the verbs “goniat´” and “gnat´” refer to both the pursuing executioners and the blowing wind. In the last two lines of the quoted excerpt from “Boinia,” the metaphor is elucidated further through the anthropomorphic description of the wind as burning, cutting, and beating with a knout whip.252 In the poem “Na dne preispodnei,” the wind is explicitly described further as entailing death: “Смрадный ветр, как свечи, жизни тушит.” In the opening lines of the poem “Krasnaia Paskha,” it is mentioned as a detail in the description of streets lined with corpses: “Зимою вдоль дорог валялись трупы / Людей и лошадей. […] Восточный ветер выл в разбитых окнах.” The northeast wind as a symbol of destructive forces, as well as its representation in history, is established in “Severovostok.” When the wind is mentioned in no less than four subsequent poems, “Terror,” “Boinia,” “Krasnaia Paskha,” and “Na dne preispodnei,” all depicting terror, death, and misery, the association to “Severovostok” is evoked. By drawing attention to the recurring northeast wind, and moreover explicitly connecting it to times of revolts and crises, Voloshin implies the presence of destructive forces. In this way the events pertaining to the Russian Civil War seem to correspond to the earlier periods of upheavals mentioned in “Severovostok.”

Auto-Quotation and the Theme of Famine In some of the poems which link together different times of troubles, famine – particularly details indicating cases of cannibalism – is a recurring theme. The device of auto-quotation highlights the idea of historical and mythical recurrence by the use of the formal reiteration of exact wording in order to quite literally repeat the image or message. Cannibalism is first addressed in the poem “Dmetrius-Imperator,” which describes the Time of Troubles, when crop failures led to severe famine in Russia:

252 An interesting parallel in this context is Tsetaeva’s poem “Noch´– Nord-Ost. – Rev soldat. Rev voln.” Like Voloshin, she mentions the northeast wind in connection with soldiers. Her poem is dated “the last days of October 1917, Feodosia,” and was thus written shortly before her visit to Voloshin in Koktebel. Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 1),” 519.

101 Голод был, какого не видали. Хлеб пекли из кала и мезги. Землю ели. Бабы продавали С человечьим мясом пироги. Проклиная царство Годунова, В городах без хлеба и без крова Мерзли у набитых закромов. (“Dmetrius-Imperator,” 273)

A similar description of famine is given in the sixth stanza of the poem “Pro- topop Avvakum”:

Есть стало нечего. Начали люди с голоду мереть. Река мелка. Плоты тяжелы. Палки суковаты. Кнутья остры. Жестоки пытки. Приставы немилостивы. А люди голодные: Огонь да встряска – Лишь станут мучать, А он помрет. Сосну варили, ели падаль. Что волк не съест – мы доедим. Волков и лис озяблых ели. (“Протопоп Аввакум,” 302)

When read in connection with the poems “Termidor” and “Terror,” analyzed above, the same restrained and fact-oriented protocol style is also easily recognized in these two poems. Addressing the topic of cannibalism in an austere and seemingly detached manner – stating bluntly that women were selling pies made of human flesh– is an approach which Voloshin also used in poems pertaining to his own place and times. In 1923, after almost two years of severe famine in Crimea, Voloshin returned to the topic of cannibalism in three poems: “Rus´ guliashchaia” and “Golod” in January, and “Blagoslovenie” in February. The poem “Blagoslo- venie” appears to be more of a gruesome curse than a blessing when a higher power promises to hit Rus´ with famine once again:

На подвиг встанешь жертвенной любви? Очнешься пьяной по плечи в крови. Замыслишь единенье всех людей? Заставлю есть зарезанных детей! (“Благословение,” 292)

102 The poem, written in an ironic tone and in the context of the newly founded Soviet Union, can be interpreted as a response to the Bolsheviks’ communist slogan “Workers and oppressed peoples of all countries, unite!” – a propaganda line intended to bolster a sense of power and freedom among the people. The poem highlights the contrast between the promised prosperity and the deep misery of reality. As the penultimate poem of the book’s third part, “Puti Rossii,” it can also be interpreted as an explanation of “Dmetrius-Imperator” and many of the other poems in this part. Vroon argues that

The teleological summation in “Puti Rossii” begins with the penultimate poem, entitled “Blagoslovené”. It mirrors the second poem of the cycle [“Angel Mshchenía”, – E-L. L.] in terms of its position and point of view. […] In “An- gel Mščen´ja” we learn simply that a time will come when war, plague, hunger and terror will overwhelm the nation. In the intervening poems many of these predictions are verbally realized and rationalized on various grounds. In “Blagoslovené” the ultimate justification for these horrors is set forth in absolute terms that recall the Covenant between Yahweh and Israel.”253

Vroon’s article focuses on the structure of the poetic cycle “Puti Rossii” and the dynamics in force within it. Because I consider Neopalimaia Kupina an extensive and coherent entity, an open text, I believe it to be important to also examine if and how poems from the different parts interconnect. The poem “Blagoslovenie,” for instance, can be linked to the poems of the same part, as well as to a number of other poems in the book. The threat in “Blagoslovenie”; “Заставлю есть зарезанных детей,” can refer to the case of cannibalism mentioned in “Dmetrius-Imperator,” but it can also serve as an explanation of some poems in the sixth part of the book, “Usobitsa.” In the poem “Golod,” written as a response to the man-made famine in Crimea in 1921–1922, the threat given in “Blagoslovenie” is realized:

[…] На рынке торговали Дешевым студнем, тошной колбасой. Баранина была в продаже – триста, А человечина – по сорока. Душа была давно дешевле мяса. И матери, зарезавши детей, Засаливали впрок. «Сама родила – Сама и съем. Еще других рожу»… (“Голод,” 345–46)

Here Voloshin concludes that “a soul had long been cheaper than meat.” This statement pinpoints a common detail in “Dmetrius-Imperator” and “Golod,” namely the selling of human flesh as an example of the dehumanization caused

253 Vroon, “Cycle and History,” 68.

103 by famine. Moreover, the concluding lines of the above excerpt are a paraphrased remark made by a starving woman, which Voloshin related to his mother, Elena Kirienko-Voloshina, in a letter written in April 1922: “Они же умирают с голоду, имея золотые вещи, они же засаливают впрок детей, как женщина на карантине, которая убила и засолила в бочке своего 9- летнего мальчика, имея и муку, и 30 тыс<яч> романовских денег, и от- вечала на допросе: ‘Все равно бы помер с голоду. Я родила, я и съела. Рожу другого’.”254 This detail connects the poem to the famine that struck Crimea in 1921–1922. By depicting the cause and effect of famine in different poems, Voloshin connects the poems to each other, thereby creating an impression of concord- ance: what is announced as a threat in one poem is realized in another. This parallel is further emphasized by the exact wording used in the poems: “Заставлю есть зарезанных детей [italics mine],” (from “Blagoslovenie”) and “И матери, зарезавши детей, / Засаливали впрок [italics mine].” (from “Golod”). By again applying this strategy in the poem “Rus´ guliashchaia,” a similar connection is created. In the poem, Voloshin mentions cannibalism by using an auto-quotation once again: “Да ревет, завернувшись в платок, / О каких-то расстрелянных детях / О младенцах, засоленных впрок [italics mine],” with the exact wording from “Golod,” “Засаливали впрок [italics mine].” The use of auto-quotation as a device for creating cohesion as well as an impression of reiteration is also used in other poems on the topic of famine: “Из сжатых чресл рождались недоноски / Безрукие, безглазые... [italics mine]” (from “Krasnaia Paskha”) and “Голодные любились и рожали / Баг- ровые орущие куски / Бессмысленного мяса: без суставов, / Без пола, и без глаз [italics mine]” (from “Golod”). By using auto-quotation, Voloshin establishes parallels not only within, but also between the parts, thus binding them together into a coherent whole. In the concluding poem, “Rossiia” (1924), famine is recalled one last time as an allusion to previous poems:

Мы бредили, переломав машины, Об электрификации; среди Стрельбы и голода – о социальном рае, И ели человечью колбасу. (“Россия,” 376)

Here Voloshin draws parallels to the poems depicting famine which were written during the Russian Civil War. The forced (and sometimes glorified) development of the early 1920s, epitomized by the electrification of the Soviet

254 Voloshin to E. O. Kirienko-Voloshina, April 25, 1922, Feodosiia, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 12, 470–71. See also Lavrov, “Zhizn´ i poeziia Maksimiliana Voloshina,” 51.

104 Union and the dream of a socialist utopian paradise, is put in stark contrast to the reality of the period, which was marked by shootings and famine. With the appalling reminiscence of starvation leading to cannibalism (“И ели челове- чью колбасу”), one can quickly sense an association to the earlier poems on this theme, and thus a thematic correspondence is highlighted once again. The examples analyzed above show that two kinds of strategies for emphasizing correspondences can be identified in these poems: a) a thematic corre- lation between “Dmetrius-Imperator,” “Protopop Avvakum,” “Golod,” and “Rossiia” (which establishes a correspondence between famine and cannibalism during the seventeenth century and during the Russian Civil War), and b) the use of auto-quotations to draw parallels between “Blagoslovenie” and “Golod,” and between “Golod” and “Rus´ guliashchaia.” The poems present mythical causes of the famines described, and auto-quotations establish a correspondence between cannibalism in myth and in history. Famine is addressed in three parts: “Puti Rossii,” “Protopop Avvakum,” and “Usobitsa.” Of the poems written in 1923 which depict cases of cannibalism, only “Golod” is included in the sixth part “Usobitsa,” while “Blagoslo- venie” and “Rus´ guliashchaia” both appear together with “Dmetrius-Impera- tor” in the third part, “Puti Rossii.” The fact that famine and cannibalism are addressed in three of the book’s eight parts creates cohesion within the work and evokes a sense of recurrence.

Compositional Mirroring The order in which some of the poems appear in in Neopalimaia Kupina can be identified as a means of highlighting and reinforcing the correspondences discussed earlier in this chapter. This argument can be illustrated by examining the arrangement of six poems, scattered throughout the book with identical or similar titles, surrounding the poem “Neopalimaia Kupina”:

d “Россия (1915 g.)” (1915) c “Посев” (1915) b “Из бездны” (1918) a “Неопалимая Купина” (1919) b “На дне преисподней” (1922) c “Посев” (1919) d “Россия” (1924)

The poem “Neopalimaia Kupina,” which shares its title with the book, takes on the role of a centerpiece and is accordingly positioned in the center of Ne- opalimaia Kupina. In this arrangement the poems surrounding “Neopalimaia Kupina” form parallels to each other by their position, their similarity in title, and partly also by their content. Two of the poems are titled “Rossiia” and two

105 “Posev.”255 The titles of the remaining two, “Iz bezdny” and “Na dne preispodnei,” are not identical but semantically very close. Both paraphrase the de pro- fundis motif in the opening lines of Psalm 130, “Out of the depths I cry to you, O Lord.” This method of using the same or similar titles for different poems can be related to the method of auto-quotation, discussed above, although it does not establish correspondences between historical (and mythical) events or phenomena in the same way. Nevertheless, the strategy of using similar titles supports the idea of correspondences, and it also creates coherence. Aristova interprets the positions of the two poems “Rossiia” as a compositional strategy to emphasize the fact that Neopalimaia Kupina has a circular structure: the book ends in the same way that it begins.256 However, this interpretation does not explain the parallels created by the positions of the other poems. The poems mirroring each other do not unambiguously reflect a closed structure. On the one hand, they can be interpreted as conveying the principle of recurrence, and on the other as reflecting a centrifugal dynamic in relation to the central poem. Like rings on water, this arrangement creates the effect of expanding the mirroring in the book’s structure, which counteracts a closed, circular structure. In this way, the arrangement of the poems can be interpreted as serving the dual function of both emphasizing the correspondences in the book, while also highlighting the text’s openness at the same time.

Correspondences and “Relabeling” Besides using different devices, styles, and compositional strategies to establish correspondences between history and his own times, Voloshin explicitly stated from 1920 onwards that he recognized the old in the new. In his lecture “Rossiia raspiataia,” he expressed this historical-philosophical perspective on the new Russian society and its rulers:

Внутреннее сродство теперешнего большевизма с революционным рус- ским самодержавием разительно. Так же, как Петр, они мечтают перебро- сить Россию через несколько веков вперед, так же, как Петр, они хотят создать ей новую душу хирургическим путем, так же, как Петр, цивили- зуют ее казнями и пытками: между Преображенским Приказом и Тайной канцелярией и Чрезвычайной комиссией нет никакой существенной раз- ницы. Отбросив революционную терминологию и официальные лозунги, уже ставшие такими же стертыми и пустыми, как «самодержавие, право- славие и народность» недавнего прошлого, по одним фактам и мероприя- тиям мы не сможем дать себе отчета, в каком веке и при каком режиме мы живем. 257

255 For an analysis of the two parallel poems titled “Posev,” see Löflund, “Russia and the Met- aphor of the Seed.” 256 Aristova, “Kniga M. A. Voloshina ‘Neopalimaia Kupina,’” 75 ff. 257 Voloshin, “Rossiia raspiataia,” 491–92.

106 This remark is characteristic of Voloshin’s critique of the new political order, which also reverberates in his poetry from the early 1920s. In these poems, Voloshin describes events and phenomena as a repetition of essentially similar historical events that have been relabeled in order to appear as new. This idea is forcefully asserted in the poems “Rossiia” (1924) and “Severovostok”:

Все имена сменились на Руси. (Политика – расклейка этикеток, Назначенных, чтоб утаить состав), Но логика и выводы всё те же… (“Россия,” 375)

See also:

– «Буржуй здесь мой, и никому Чужим их резать не позволю». (“Большевик,” 322)

Voloshin claimed that the quotes were rephrased authentic statements that he had heard on his trip to Feodosia in the spring of 1918, and that he also reported on in the article “Molitva o gorode. (Feodosiia vesnoiu 1918 goda pri bol´shevikakh)”:

Иногда наведывался миноносец из Севастополя – «Пронзительный» или «Фидониси» – и спрашивал: «Что, ваши буржуи до сих пор живы? Вот мы сами с ними управимся». На что председатель совета Барсов – портовый рабочий, зверь зверем, – отвечал с неожиданной государственной мудро-

274 Voloshin to Iu. L. Sazonova, September 25 / October 8, 1919, Koktebel´, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 12, 252–53. 275 Voloshin to Iu. L. Obolenskaia, January 14, 1923, Koktebel´, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 12, 591–92.

117 стью: «Здесь буржуи мои, и никому другому их резать не позволю». Бла- годаря всему этому Феодосия избегла резни и расстрелов, бывших в Се- вастополе, в Симферополе, в Ялте.276

As in the case of “Na vesakh poezii” presented above, the article serves to contextualize the poems, revealing that the torpedo boat crew from Sevastopol is cited in the poem “Matros” and Barsov’s reply to them is cited in the following poem, “Bol´shevik.” Thus, the lines can be seen to form a dialogue. When the poems are read in order, they seem to address each other. In this way, meanings are disclosed through the relation of the poems to one another, giving rise to a dialogue that further unifies Neopalimaia Kupina into a coherent whole. The inclusion of rephrased quotes is used in the poem “Feodosiia” as well. The poem depicts a political banquet, organized by the local Soviet in Feodo- sia for the visiting Turkish diplomat. During the banquet, several speeches are delivered by the Soviet and each of them ends with a toast, to which the Turk- ish diplomat replies that he will relate everything that is said to the sultan:

– «Итак: да здравствует Коммуна И Третий Интернационал!» […]

– «Я вижу… слышу… помнить стану… И обо всем, что видел, – сам С отменным чувством передам Его Величеству – Султану». (“Феодосия,” 324)

The event depicted refers to an actual banquet held in Feodosia in the spring of 1918. The two quotes included in the poem – the slogan ending the toasts proposed by the Soviet, and the reply that the Turkish diplomat gives each speech – are also rephrased statements which Voloshin, in a letter to Iuliia Obolenskaia, claimed to have heard in Feodosia.277 These examples show that Voloshin negotiated the boundaries between journalism, poetry, and personal correspondence, which creates an impression

276 Maksimilian Voloshin, “Molitva o gorode. (Feodosiia vesnoiu 1918 goda pri bol´shevikakh),” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 6. Kn. 2, 48–49. 277 Voloshin wrote: “Приходил турецкий транспорт с умирающими от голода русскими пленными. Им устраивали обед: но не русским пленным, а туркам. Говорили речи: «Ска- жите Вашему пролетариату и вашей молодежи... торжество социализма… всемирное счастье… Третий Интернационал… да здравствует мир без аннексий...». Турецкое по- сольство после каждой речи вставало, кланялось и неизменно отвечало: «Видим, слы- шим, чувствуем и с отменным удовольствием передадим всё его Императорскому Вели- честву – Султану».” (Voloshin to Iu. L. Obolenskaia, February 18/25, April 2/15, 1918, Kok- tebel´, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 12, 89). See also Voloshin, “Rossiia raspiataia,” 474.

118 of documentary accuracy in his poetry. This impression is emphasized by the inclusion of rephrased authentic quotes in some of the poems. The precise dates (usually day, month, year), specific locations, and sometimes descriptive subtitles, suggest that the poems are not pure fiction, but lyrical accounts of actual events. The connections between Voloshin’s articles and poems strengthens the documentary dimension of Neopalimaia Kupina.

Adaptations of Historical Chronicles In Neopalimaia Kupina, Voloshin explores other epochs than his own. His adaptations of historical documents and chronicles bear some similarities to the poems that serve as documentations of his own times. They also depict cataclysmic periods in Russia and France. The inclusion of passages from historical documents in Voloshin’s poems creates an effect similar to that of the poems with rephrased quotations. For instance, in the cycle of sonnets “Dve stupeni,” Louis XVI’s ignorance of the riots in the city is made clear by quoting his diary in the first sonnet “1. Vziatie Bastilii”: “Но пришли / Известья, что мятеж в Париже. Помешали…/ […] И записал в журнале: / «Четыр-надца-того и-юля. Ни-че-го» [italics mine].” In this way, a passage from the king’s diary entry was included in Voloshin’s poem. As an epigraph to the second sonnet, “2. Vziatie Tiuil´ri,” Voloshin quotes Napoleon’s words as recorded in the memoirs of Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne: “Je me manque deux batteries pour balayer toute cette canaille- là.”278 This passage is then rephrased and presented as an unknown officer’s remark about the chaotic situation depicted in the poem: “А офицер, незнае- мый никем, / Глядит с презреньем – холоден и нем – […] Досадует, что нету под рукой / Двух батарей «рассеять эту сволочь» [italics mine].” The quote from Fauvelet’s memoirs explains the depicted scene in the poem: the officer refers to Napoleon, who at this time was unknown. Through these passages, pieces of historical reports are merged in Voloshin’s poems, adding a documentary feature to them. Voloshin’s approach to intertextuality bestows a polyphony of voices upon Neopalimaia Kupina which connects his own times with the past. Such voices from history appear in several poems, but they are especially dominant in two major works: “Protopop Avvakum” and “Napisanie o tsariakh moskovskikh.” The latter is almost exclusively a lyrical adaptation of the last chapter of the seventeenth-century chronicle Povesti knigi seia ot prezhnikh let: o nachale

278 Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 1),” 519–20.

119 tsarstvuiushchego grada Moskvy, traditionally attributed to prince Ivan Mi- khailovich Katyrev-Rostovskii.279 This attribution has since been disputed, however.280 According to Lavrov, Voloshin’s experience of working with Old Russian literary and linguistic material influenced his view of the current times from a historical perspective.281 By adapting the Old Russian texts with a poetic form, Voloshin explores the language and style of historical chroniclers. In these poems, Voloshin’s own passages are merged with their texts, and his poetics are adjusted to fit their style and form (although words and grammatical forms of modern Russian are occasionally also applied). For instance, in the poem “Napisanie o tsariakh moskovskikh,” Voloshin added two prominent characters to the portrait gallery: Marina Mnishek and Patriarch Filaret of Moscow, (Fedor Nikitich Romanov) – without indicating that they do not appear in the original. This approach conflates the depicted historical events with the present, since Voloshin draws no clear line between his own words and the words of the authors from the past: he is, as it were, imitating historical chroniclers. In the poem’s tenth and final stanza, the speaker in the poem takes this a step further and assumes the identity of a historical chronicler and signs it with the name Katyrev-Rostovskii:

Так видел их и, видев, записал Иван Михайлович Князь Катырев-Ростовский. (“Написание о царях московских,” 272)

This emphasizing of the lyrical self as Katyrev-Rostovskii is an example of how Voloshin conveys the narrative of Neopalimaia Kupina through a polyphony of voices, an approach which entailed not only several perspectives but also different genres, styles, and even languages, including quotations in French and Latin. Noteworthy is that the poem “Napisanie o tsariakh moskovskikh” is dated “August 23, 1919,” and it was written concurrently with “Lichiny” (June–Au- gust 1919). Both works are poetic portrait galleries which document a period in Russian history, and both include fragments from the domain of non-fiction. The many references to historical texts in Voloshin’s poetry highlight the fact that the written word is a central source of information about the past.

279 O. F. Konovalova, “Napisanie o tsariakh moskovskikh I. M. Katyreva-Rostovskogo v perelozhenii M. A. Voloshina,” in Drevnerusskie literaturnye pamiatniki, ed. D. S. Likhachev, N. F. Droblenkova, and G. M. Prokhorov, Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury, XXXIII (Leningrad: Nauka, 1979), 380. 280 See for instance G. Edward Orchard, “Chronicle in Search of an Author: The Seventeenth- Century Book of Annals,” The Russian Review 37, no. 2 (April 1, 1978): 197–203. 281 Lavrov, “Zhizn´ i poeziia Maksimiliana Voloshina,” 61.

120 The inclusion of excerpts from historical chroniclers and other texts of a documentary nature, as well as rephrased authentic quotes from his contemporaries in his own texts, can be seen as a part of Voloshin’s search for a new form of poetic expression. As these poems show, Voloshin’s use of non-fictional material from genres such as chronicles, autobiographies, diaries, and memoirs in his poetry was an important part of his attempt to chronicle his own times poetically, and to contextualize the present within the past.

The Poet as Conjurer and Poetry as Performance Numerous recollections of Voloshin from this period describe his participa- tion in poetry readings and the responses he received from audiences. Maria Izergina recalls that Voloshin’s words about Russia elicited an emotional response, and that in 1918 they were listened to with increased attention, “as those who are thirsty drink water” (“как жаждущие воду пьют”).282 Another author under the pseudonym of “Neizvestnaia,” recalls in her memoirs how Voloshin captivated his listeners at a reading:

Когда он читал о России: «Я ль в тебя посмею бросить камень? Осужу ль страстной и буйный пламень?» – голос его звучал такой искренней нежно- стью и тоской, что многие заплакали. Когда он читал «Dmetrius-Imperator» и стихи о Стеньке Разине и Пугачеве, звучавшие очень революционно, аудитория совсем взбесилась. Хлопали, кричали, стучали ногами, броси- лись к поэту на эстраду, качали его, забрасывали цветами…283

Voloshin’s popularity and his ability to affect his audiences attest to his performance skills. His eagerness to disseminate his poems (sending them to journals and friends, encouraging people to make and spread copies of them, reading them aloud, etc.)284 indicates that it was important for him to reach out to as large an audience as possible. Although Voloshin was recognized as a poet already in the early 1900s, the significance of his artistic and public role increased during the Civil War years, when he was elevated to the ranks of Russia’s national poets by his friends, i.e., the artistic, literary, and scholarly intelligentsia.285 His reputation as a poet and a popular cult figure quickly spread from these circles to the general public thanks to the many poetry readings and public lectures he gave. During the postrevolutionary period, his poetry also circulated in countless

282 M. Izergina, “V te gody,” in Davydov and Kupchenko, Vospominaniia o Maksimiliane Vo- loshine, 455. 283 Neizvestnaia, “Edinstvennaia vstrecha,” in Davydov and Kupchenko, Vospominaniia o Maksimiliane Voloshine, 364. 284 Landa, Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy, 95. 285 Landa, 60–61.

121 hand-copied versions,286 and the poems were highly praised and even used for propaganda purposes by both the Red and White Armies.287 Landa has explored Voloshin’s remarkable impact on his readers, and especially the reader receptions during the Civil War years 1917–1920.288 On April 2, 1924, Volo- shin was even invited to the Moscow Kremlin to recite his poems for Lev Kamenev, acting Deputy Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars, among others. In his memoirs, Leonid Sabaneev recalls this event which he attended as a representative of the State Academy of Art (Gosudarstvennaia akademiia khudozhestvennykh nauk):

Волошин мешковато представляется Каменеву и сразу приступает к чте- нию «контрреволюционных стихов». Это было в высшей степени забавно созерцать со стороны. «Рекомый» глава государства (он был тогда пред- седателем Политбюро) внимательно слушал стихотворные поношения своего режима, которые громовым пророческим голосом со всеми про- клятиями, в них заключенными, читает Волошин, напоминая пророка Илию, обличающего жрецов. […] Впечатление оказалось превосходное. Лев Борисыч – большой любитель поэзии и знаток литературы. Он хва- лит, с аллюром заправского литературного критика, разные детали стиха и выражений. О контрреволюционном содержании – ни слова, как будто его и нет вовсе. И потом идет к письменному столу и пишет в Госиздат записку о том же, всецело поддерживает просьбу Волошина об издании стихов «на правах рукописи». Волошин счастлив и, распрощавшись, ухо- дит. Я и Коган остаемся: ему необходимо кое-что выяснить с Каменевым относительно своей академии. Тем временем либеральный Лев Борисыч подходит к телефону, вызывает Госиздат и, совершенно не стесняясь нашим присутствием, говорит: – К вам приедет Волошин с моей запиской. Не придавайте этой записке никакого значения. Даже у искушенного в дипломатии П. С. Когана физиономия передернулась. Он мне потом гово- рил: – Я все время думал, что он это сделает. Но не думал, что так скоро и при нас.289

Sabaneev’s recollection points out that Voloshin shared his poems with anyone who wanted to hear them. Especially during the Russian Civil War people craved his poems, and Voloshin was always eager to respond to their demands. As discussed in the preceding chapter, Voloshin recognized poetry’s capacity to survive as a testimony of the times. Turning events into poetry was a way

286 Kupchenko, Stranstvie Maksimiliana Voloshina, 255. 287 In a letter to Ivan Bunin and his wife Vera, Voloshin wrote: “Кстати: первое издание «Де- монов глухонемых» распространялось в Харькове бол<ьшевицким> «Центрагом», а те- перь ростовский «Осваг» взял у меня несколько стихотв<орений> из той же книги для распространений на летучках.” (Voloshin to V. N. Bunina and I. A. Bunin, November 7/20, 1919, Koktebel´, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 12, 273). 288 Landa, Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy, 94–107. 289 Leonid Sabaneev, “Moi vstrechi. ‘Dekadenty,’” in Vospominaniia o serebrianom veke, ed. V. Kreid (Moskva: Respublika, 1993), 353.

122 for him to chronicle the period. In a letter to V. V. Veresaev from June 1923, Voloshin explained:

В эти же годы охватило чувство: надо теперь же говорить все, что необ- ходимо высказать, – позже – не успеешь. […] Катастрофичность жизни и возможность всяческой гибели меня, как Вы знаете, не пугала, но хоте- лось сохранить написанное: я торопился закончить, переписать, разослать в нескольких экземплярах друзьям, чтобы сохранить в списках.290

This shows that Voloshin spread his poems in every possible way, not only for the sake of reaching out to his fellow Russians, but also as an attempt to document the period. As a poet and public figure Voloshin gained a certain authority, which enabled him to avert the executions of several other individuals.291 Thus, his elevated position as poet and the public attention he received because of this were often of great practical use. In her memoirs, the writer Teffi (Nadezhda Lokhvitskaia) recalls how Voloshin in Odessa in the spring of 1918 used his poems as a key for getting through to people and reaching a desired goal, which often involved saving someone’s life:

Он был в ту пору одержим стихонеистовством. Всюду можно было видеть его живописную фигуру: густая квадратная борода, крутые кудри, на них круглый берет, плащ-разлетайка, короткие штаны и гетры. Он ходил по разным правительственным учреждениям к нужным людям и читал сти- хи. Читал он их не без толку. Стихами своими он, как ключом, отворял нужные ему ходы и хлопотал в помощь ближнему. Иногда войдет в ка- кую-нибудь канцелярию и пока там надумают доложить о нем по началь- ству, начнет декламировать. Стихи густые, могучие, о России, о само- званце, с историческим разбегом, с пророческим уклоном. Девицы-дак- тило окружали его восторженной толпой, слушали, ахали, и от блажен- ного ужаса, у них пищало в носиках. Потом трещали машинки – Макс Волошин диктовал свои поэмы. Выглядывало из-за двери начальствую- щее лицо, заинтересовывалось предметом и уводило Макса к себе. Уво- дило и через запертую дверь доносилось густое мерное гудение деклама- ции. Зашел он и ко мне. Прочел две поэмы и сказал, что немедленно надо выручать поэтессу Кузьмину-Караваеву, которую арестовали (кажется, в Феодосии) по чьему-то оговору и могут расстрелять.292

290 Voloshin to V. V. Veresaev, June 30, 1923, Koktebel´, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 12, 678. 291 It is a documented fact that Voloshin saved the life of several people during the Russian Civil War. See for instance Landa, Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy, 105, 120; Kup- chenko, Zhiznʹ Maksimiliana Voloshina: dokumentalʹnoe povestvovanie, 230–31, 239; Lavrov, “Zhizn´ i poeziia Maksimiliana Voloshina,” 53; Ivanov, “Voloshin kak chelovek dukha,” 186; see also Maksimilian Voloshin, “Vospominaniia,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 7. Kn. 2, 385 ff. 292 N. A. Teffi, Vospominaniia (Paris: Lev, 1980), 130.

123 Besides commenting on the poems’ prophetic tone, Teffi highlights the effects of Voloshin’s readings on his audiences. She concludes her recollection by noting that Kuz´mina-Karavaeva was released thanks to Voloshin’s and her own intervention. Voloshin’s approach of using poems to achieve a desired outcome, i.e., affirming the metaphysical aspects of the poetic word and the belief that it could impact reality, is a method which conforms to the central tenets of the Symbolist movement, life-creation and theurgic art.293 Voloshin’s role as a poet thus seems to encompass mundane pragmatism and metaphysical aspects, as well as sheer theatricality. Oral performances were practiced by many poets of the period, and some believed them to be the superior way of communicating the poetic word, since the performance added an important element to the poem which the written text lacked.294 It was a part of the theatricalized behavior and dramatized biography which was characteristic for both the Symbolists and the Russian Fu- turists, who both placed particular emphasis on the sound of poetry.295 For the Symbolists, creating art was more than producing a text, and performing poetry was more than just reading aloud. A vital part of the work was the theatrical embodiment of the poetic text itself. The style of the poetry recital varied: some poets acted out a poem like an actor with poses and stage props, thereby introducing an element of psychological interpretation into it, while others based their recitation on the rhythm of the verse, and conveyed the text in a more neutral manner.296 Before the Civil War years and the revolutionary period, Voloshin was famous for the mystifications and theatricalizations which characterized his literary circle (especially the group Obormoty [the “Idiots”]) in his Koktebel villa,297 as well as the episode involving Cherubina de Gabriak. Being a poet was an important part of Voloshin’s identity, and reciting poems was an innate

293 Explaining the Symbolists’ approach to life-creation, Michael Wachtel pinpoints that “Ra- ther than changing themselves in accordance with reality, they chose to change reality in accordance with themselves.” (Wachtel, Russian Symbolism and Literary Tradition, 144). 294 On poetic recital as a form of theatricality see for instance: Anna Ljunggren, “The Ritual of Reading Poems from the Cypress Chest: The Theatricalization of Poetry,” in At the Crossroads of Russian Modernism: Studies in Innokentij Annenskij’s Poetics, Stockholm Studies in Russian Literature 32 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1997), 62–73; and Michel Aucou- turier, “Theatricality as a Category of Early Twentieth-Century Russian Culture,” in Theater and Literature in Russia, 1900–1930: A Collection of Essays, ed. Lars Kleberg and Nils Åke Nilsson, Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis 19 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1984), 9–21. 295 Aucouturier, “Theatricality as a Category of Early Twentieth-Century Russian Culture,” 13– 17. 296 Ljunggren, “The Ritual of Reading Poems from the Cypress Chest: The Theatricalization of Poetry,” 64–65. 297 For a discussion of Voloshin’s literary circle in Koktebel see Walker, Maximilian Voloshin and the Russian Literary Circle.

124 part of his self-expression both before, but to an even greater degree after, the revolution in 1917. During the Russian Civil War, Voloshin affirmed his approach to performativity by engaging in various poetry readings and public lectures. This was an effective way of reaching out to his readers at a time when normal communication and publishing were compromised. (Even practicalities such as the shortage of writing paper and watercolor paper often complicated Vo- loshin’s work.298) But as shown above, Voloshin read his poems on all sorts of other occasions to all kinds of audiences, and his eagerness to present his work orally can therefore hardly be explained as merely the result of publishing dif- ficulties. In the foreword to Evgenii Lann’s book Heroïca, written in 1924, Voloshin forcefully advocates his attitude toward poetry as an act:

В наши дни поэзия должна перестать быть кабинетной риторикой, а, вер- нувшись к своему греческому корню, стать деланием… Творчество ста- новится актом. Раскрывая новую книгу и взвешивая на ладони каждое слово, уже судишь его не со стороны эстетики и смысла, а лишь: сколько в нем волевого заряда [italics in the original]?299

Voloshin’s strong emphasis on the spoken word and poetry as an act thus coincided with the fact that he, and many poets around him, struggled to get their poems published. Yet he continued to distribute his poems through performances. Teffi’s recollection of Voloshin as the embodiment a poetic fury (“Он был в ту пору одержим стихонеистовством”) indicates that his performances were spontaneous and charged with a strong volitional impetus. The physical act of reciting poetry was an important way for the poet to reach the public. In this way, the poet himself became the medium: by communicating his poems directly to his listeners, Voloshin embodied the idea of a talking burning bush addressing his audience, as it were. Through the poems’ biblical references, Russia’s sufferings were compared to the sufferings of the Israelites, acknowledged in the Divine Word of God and in the poetic word of the poet respectively.300

298 The shortage of paper was a recurring topic of complaint in Voloshin’s correspondence during the Civil War period. See for instance the following letters, all included in Voloshin, So- branie sochinenii. T. 12: Voloshin to Iu. L. Obolenskaia, May 20 / June 2, 1918, Koktebel´, 117; Voloshin to E. O. Kirienko-Voloshina, March 15/28, 1919, Odessa, 208; Voloshin to A. K. Shervashidze, April 5/18, 1920, Koktebel´, 299; Voloshin to A. N. Ivanova, September 9/22, 1920, Koktebel´, 334. 299 Maksimilian Voloshin and Evgenii Lann, “...Temoi moei iavliaetsia Rossiia”: Maksimilian Voloshin i Evgenii Lann: Pisʹma. Dokumenty. Materialy, ed. D. A. Beliaev and G. P. Melʹnik (Moskva: Dom-muzei Mariny Tsvetaevoi, 2007), 43. 300 Bearing similar connotations, the image of a bush is also used by Marina Tsvetaeva in the poem “Kust” (1934). In this poem the bush can be interpreted as Tsvetaeva’s inspiration incar- nated, the source of her art, urging the poet to write. For both Voloshin and Tsvetaeva the image

125 The Poet as a Prophet In many of his poems, Voloshin depicts the cataclysms of war and revolution, and at the same time he also interprets them by ascribing them to metaphysical causes, as though the unfolding of events is predestined. In key poems throughout the work; “Angel Mshchen´ia,” “Blagoslovenie,” and “Videnie Iezekiilia,” a divine being, such as an angel or God, conveys a message announced as a threat. In the first two poems, the messages are addressed to the people of Russia (or the timeless mythical Rus´). In the poem “Angel Mshchen´ia,” the Angel of Vengeance proclaims the tribulations which he inflicts upon the Russian people:

Народу Русскому: Я скорбный Ангел Мщенья! Я в раны черные – в распаханную новь Кидаю семена. Прошли века терпенья. И голос мой – набат. Хоругвь моя – как кровь. (“Ангел Мщенья,” 252)

Bloodshed and strife are the central topics in the poem, and they are inter- linked with later poems on the same topics. Because the poem was written in the wake of the Russian Revolution of 1905 – about a decade before the outburst of World War I – it can be read both as a metaphysical explanation of the bloody events and as a warning about later events which are depicted in other poems: the angel’s message thus relates to and explains both historical and contemporary cataclysms in Russia. In this way, the message in the poem can be interpreted as the cause which led to the effect of war and revolution, while at the same time, it can be regarded as a mythical circumstance, beyond the laws of causation. This and other poems made some of Voloshin’s listeners regard him as a prophet. Nadezhda Rykova likens Voloshin, along with other Symbolist poets, to an oracle in classical antiquity:

[В]от было что-то пережито, выстрадано, что-то угадывалось, в чем-то хо- телось увидеть смысл и значение, и пришел поэт, который дал вещам, со- бытиям и обстоятельствам имена, осмыслил их, обозначил. […] Вообще надо сказать, что некоторые поэты-символисты – как ни верти – были в какой-то мере пророками: Блок в «Стихах о России» и «Скифах», Андрей Белый в «Пепле», тот же Волошин в «Ангеле Мщенья», многих других стихотворениях, «Китеже». С ними дело обстояло как с античными ора- кулами: вещали они довольно темно; фабула если можно так выразиться, их предсказаний никогда или почти никогда не оправдывалась, но прозре- ния – и какие прозрения! – были. Сбывалось существеннейшее: может быть, не тогда, может быть, не так, – но сбывалось.301 of the bush in this way is intimately connected to the creative force, the Word, that is realized through the performance of the poet. 301 N. Ia. Rykova, “Moi vstrechi,” in Davydov and Kupchenko, Vospominaniia o Maksimiliane Voloshine, 512–14.

126 As both his poems and some of the portrayals of his poetic recitals show, Vo- loshin embraced the chronicling of his contemporaneous times as well as the task of presenting the era from a metaphysical or mythical perspective. In Neopalimaia Kupina, historical and contemporary depictions of Russia are juxtaposed with the biblical narrative of God’s punishment of a rebellious Israel. In this way, the poems suggest a possible causal link between them in God’s punishing love as an explanation for the calamities striking Russia. This line of argument is developed in the article “Videnie Iezekiilia”:

Не та же ли ревнивая любовь Господа проявляется и в судьбах России – поруганной, обиженной и кинутой на позор перед всеми народами? Ее об- раз стоял предо мной, когда я писал «Видение Иезекииля», стараясь быть как можно более точным и близким к библейскому тексту, только одним расположением слов и модуляциями ритма стараясь довести силу выра- жения до последней ударности.302

Voloshin’s explorations of biblical texts resemble his approach to exploring historical documents in his work. He studied and drew inspiration from old chronicles when he depicted his own place and times in poetry. He applied their language and style and merged passages of these texts with his own. For poems which can be read as interpretations of his own era, he also took inspiration from the Bible. He applied the style and language of the Old Testament prophets and wrote an adaptation of passages from Ezekiel. Both approaches add yet more voices to the polyphony in Neopalimaia Kupina. In this way, the poems including excerpts of historical chronicles approach the genre of chronicle, and the poems including passages from the Old Testament bear similarities to the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible. The latter method is explored in the poem “Videnie Iezekiilia,” written more than ten years after “Angel Mshchen´ia.” The poem is dated January 21, 1918, and was thus written about the same time as Blok’s “Dvenadtsat´.” In Voloshin’s poem, the voice of God is recognized by the words of the lyrical self (“Так говорю тебе Я – твой Господь!”) proclaiming imminent hardship upon His people as a punishment for their violations:

Буду судиться с тобой до конца: Гнев изолью, истощу свою ярость, Семя сотру, прокляну твою старость, От Моего не укрыться лица! (“Видение Иезекииля,” 358)

The poem includes a description of the people, symbolized by the image of a fallen woman. Despite the fact that the poem is a literary quotation of Ezekiel,

302 Voloshin, “Videnie Iezekiilia,” 53.

127 the female addressee, described as an adulterous and rebellious wife, is not mentioned:

Строила вышки, скликала прохожих И блудодеяла с ними на ложах, На перекрестках путей и дорог, Ноги раскидывала перед ними, Каждый, придя, оголить тебя мог И насладиться сосцами твоими. […]

Пусть тебя бьют, побивают камнями, Хлещут бичами нечистую плоть, Станешь бесплодной и стоптанной нивой… Ибо любима любовью ревнивой – Так говорю тебе Я – твой Господь! (“Видение Иезекииля,” 358)

The depiction of a nation as a fallen woman in the poem alludes to two of Voloshin’s other poems: “Sviataia Rus´” (1917) and “Rus´ guliashchaia.” In both of these poems, the land of Rus´ is portrayed as an unfaithful and recal- citrant woman:

Сквернословит, скликает напасти, Пляшет голая – кто ей заказ? Кажет людям срамные части, Непотребства творит напоказ. (“Русь гулящая,” 289)

Поддалась лихому подговору, Отдалась разбойнику и вору, Подожгла посады и хлеба, Разорила древнее жилище И пошла поруганной и нищей И рабой последнего раба. (“Святая Русь,” 258)

These two poems, written in the style of Biblical Naturalism briefly mentioned before, represent two sides of Rus´; her piety and her sinfulness. By affirming her status as chosen nation but also portraying her wickedness, the punishment voiced by God appears as a way of expiation. The punishment is severe when measured in proportion to the depth of her depravity. The depiction of Russia as a rebellious woman draws a parallel to “Videnie Iezekiilia” and allows it to be disclosed as an address to Rus´. In the poem “Blagoslovenie,” dated February 23, 1923, Voloshin once again turns to a metaphysical explanatory model to interpret Russian history. The lyrical self expresses a merciless love for his people, akin to the punishing

128 love declared in “Videnie Iezekiilia.” This love, along with the comment about receiving prayers from humans, suggests that the poem represents a message from God:

Благословенье мое, как гром! Любовь безжалостна и жжет огнем. Я в милосердии неумолим. Молитвы человеческие – дым.

Из избранных тебя избрал я, Русь! И не помилую, не отступлюсь. Бичами пламени, клещами мук Не оскудеет щедрость этих рук. (“Благословение,” 291)

In the poem, upheavals and atrocities from different historical periods, such as the Tatar yoke and the ruthlessness of Peter the Great, are portrayed as the results of the “blessing” which is bestowed upon Rus´ because of its status as a chosen nation. By echoing Bolshevik slogans from the Russian Civil War period, the poem creates an ironic summary of the promised peace and freedom, and the bloodshed, terror, and hunger that followed instead, forcibly highlighting the discrepancy between propaganda and the crude reality. In the context of the Russian Civil War, the line “Попросишь мира – дам тебе резню” from the seventh stanza, appears to allude to Lenin’s Decree of Peace, following the success of the October Coup in 1917, which was implemented a few months later in the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The decree proposed Russia’s immediate withdrawal from World War I, in order to restore peace: “…немедленный мир без аннексий и контрибуций.”303 Calling for peace also alludes to the slogan “Власть советам, мир народам, земля крестья- нам, хлеб голодающим!” which was used broadly by the Bolsheviks. Yet instead of the propagated peace, Russia became subject to even more carnage during the Russian Civil War. The line “дам тебе резню,” serves as a summary of the bloodshed and terror of this period, and the line, “Заставлю есть зарезанных детей!” as discussed in the previous chapter, alludes to the Rus- sian famine of 1921–22, when cases of cannibalism were reported. In this way, both “Golod” and “Blagoslovenie” refer to the famine, but from two different perspectives: the former through the first-person perspective of an eyewitness, and the latter through a metaphysical narrative. Portraying events from a mythical perspective makes them appear predestined and therefore inescapable. By ascribing the atrocities to mythical causes, Voloshin also turns the guilt away from individuals. In his poetry, the entire

303 As discussed above, this political slogan is also referenced in Voloshin’s article “Na vesakh poezii.”

129 Russian population has collectively fallen victim to the cataclysms shaking the nation.

Exploring the Power of Words Voloshin explored myth-creation and analyzed aspects of theurgic art in the poetry of his literary peers already around the turn of the century. In the beginning, his approach to theurgy focused mainly on his personal life and his own cultural context, but the focus shifted to Russian history after the outbreak of World War I, and especially after the revolution in 1917.304 In his work, he created myths of rebirth and salvation on individual as well as national themes. In Neopalimaia Kupina, Voloshin quotes the Bible and interprets contemporary events through biblical stories, and draws on genres of an apotropaic style, such as prayer and incantation. In the commentaries on the collected works edition of Neopalimaia Ku- pina, Kupchenko provides evidence of Voloshin’s own attitude to his work. He recounts that Voloshin had complained to Daniil Zhukovskii in the late 1920s that the situation was going from bad to worse. When Zhukovskii re- minded him of the optimistic endings in some of his poems (“Rus´ glukhonemaia,” “Iz bezdny,” “Rus´ guliashchaia”), Voloshin replied: “Когда я пишу стихи, я заклинаю.”305 This idea of conjuring was noted by other contemporaries. In his memoirs, Sergei Makovskii asserts that

Одно несомненно: бывает в стихах Волошина «риторика» такой силы, что тут грани стираются между изреченным словом и напором вдохновенного чувства. Это уже словесное волшебство, и оно убедительней всякой наду- манной мудрости.306

Voloshin’s attempts to create theurgic art and how this is manifested in his poetry will be examined in the following section. Through an analysis of several key poems, I will show how Voloshin intertwined the concept of theurgic art with folkloric rituals, religious practices, and anthroposophical theory in his work after the Bolshevik takeover in 1917. The belief in, and exploration of, poetry’s similarities to magic was typical of the Russian Symbolist movement. Mints mentions myths and spell-casting as two ways of attempting to create and shape reality through poetry.307 Vo- loshin, as I will demonstrate, explored both. The theurgic aspect is strongly

304 Landa, Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy, 29. 305 Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 1),” 537–538. 306 Sergei Makovskii, Portrety sovremennikov (Nʹiu-Iork: Izdatelʹstvo imeni Chekhova, 1955), 323. 307 Mints writes: “Именно эта – «жизнестроительная» – функция искусства открывала наибольший простор попыткам иррационального миропостижения. Характерно стрем- ление опереться на внелогические средства «заклятия хаоса» – от создания мифов до

130 manifested in a number of poems included in Neopalimaia Kupina, especially in the poems written during the Russian Civil War. Many of these are included in the penultimate part, “Voznosheniia.” I will therefore focus mainly on this part in my discussion of Voloshin’s approaches to myth-creation. “Voznosheniia” contains within it elements from a variety of genres: prayers, magic spells or incantations, and mantras. This was a new development in Voloshin’s poetics, beginning in 1915. The title “Voznosheniia” can be translated as “Offerings,” which can be read to mean a sacred rite. Whereas the poems of the previous parts are predominantly descriptive, a number of poems in “Voznosheniia” have stylistic and formal features which connect them to apotropaic genres. The term “performatives” was first introduced in a study on speech act theory in the field of language philosophy by J. L. Austin. They are utterances which imply the performance of an action, as opposed to “constatives,” which merely describe the world. Austin argues that the performative is carried out by speech acts, which he calls “illocutionary acts.”308 Although the theory’s origin lies within the field of language philosophy, it has also proved valuable for other disciplines, among them literary studies.309 A study of Neopalimaia Kupina discloses differences between the poems which can be elucidated by using Austin’s theory. Some poems are descriptive while others include a performative dimension. In poems of the latter type, Voloshin does things with words, to paraphrase Austin: he prays, casts magic spells, invokes divine intervention and spiritual transformation. This performative function is especially evident in the poems “Drugu,” “Zakliat´e o Russkoi zemle,” “Khvala Bogomateri,” and “Zaklinanie.” Voloshin is known to have recited some of these poems in public.310

«колдовства» «магическим словом» – алогизмом.” (Mints, “O nekotorykh ‘neomifologicheskikh’ tekstakh,” 65). The Symbolists’ viewpoint on magic aspects of poetry is illustrated in, for instance, Alexander Blok’s article “Poeziia zagovorov i zaklinanii” (1908), Andrei Bely’s “Magiia slov” (1909), and Konstantin Balmont’s book “Poeziia kak volshebstvo” (1915). Incantation in poetry was also explored in Futurist circles, e.g., the poem “Zakliatie smekhom” (1908–1909) by Velimir Khlebnikov is a famed example. 308 John Langshaw Austin, How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Deliv- ered at Harvard University in 1955, ed. James Opie Urmson and Marina Sbisà (Oxford: Clar- endon, 1975), 98 ff. 309 In an article devoted to pragmatic poetics, Pavel Arsenév analyzes a literary text’s function on the level of an act by taking as an example confession as both a communicative model (speech act), and a literary genre: “Как в исповеди речь идет не столько о сообщении неко- его (пропозиционального) содержания греха, сколько о (иллокутивном) высказывании самого факта виновности и принятии самой адресации, точно так же событие литератур- ной коммуникации нужно понимать не как сообщение фактов, но как событие высказы- вания.” (Pavel Arsenév, “K konstruktsii pragmaticheskoi poetiki,” Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie 138, no. 2 [2016], accessed March 30, 2021, https://www.nlobooks.ru/magazines/no- voe_literaturnoe_obozrenie/138_nlo_2_2016/article/11867/). 310 The poem “Zakliaté o Russkoi zemle” is included in the lecture “Rossiia raspiataia”. Vo- loshin, “Rossiia raspiataia,” 503–5. Voloshin recited the poem “Khvala Bogomateri” at a poetry

131 A supposition often connected to the genres mentioned is that they need to be performed to be realized: a magic spell is just words until it is read aloud. It is against this backdrop that Voloshin’s turn from poetry of a constative quality to poetry where he is carrying out an action appears particularly important. Voloshin emerged as a poet-theurge performing poems with the aim of provoking reactions as well as transformations. These poems can thus be read as attempts to change the disastrous developments during Voloshin’s own times as portrayed in the earlier parts of the book. Poems which depict Vo- loshin’s era appear throughout Neopalimaia Kupina, while the poems with a performative dimension chiefly occur towards the end of the book. The poems will be analyzed in chronological order, so as to visualize the development and the increasing use of this dimension in Voloshin’s work.

“Drugu” and “Molitva o gorode” Voloshin’s earliest attempt at performative poetry in Neopalimaia Kupina is the poem “Ia budu volit´ i molit´,” which was later merged with the poem “Drugu,” dated August 23, 1915. Although not a part of “Voznosheniia,” Vo- loshin draws on the genres of prayer and incantation in this poem, and it is therefore included in this analysis. As a tribute to their friendship, the poem was written as a prayer for the protection of Bogaevskii, who had been drafted into military service. The epigraph, “А я, таинственный певец, / На берег выброшен волною…” is a rephrased quotation from Pushkin’s poem “Arion” (1827), about a shipwreck where the lyrical self is the only survivor. Alluding to this poem in “Drugu,” Voloshin draws a parallel between the shipwreck and the battle where his friend was fighting. Voloshin’s poem includes a promise of a prayer: “Я буду волить и молить / Чтобы тебя в кипеньи битвы / Могли, как облаком, прикрыть / Неотвратимые молитвы.” Drawing on prayer as a poetic genre,311 the poem continues by addressing God. From the line “Да оградит тебя Господь” and onwards, the poem changes from a description of a prayer to an act of blessing and praying for heavenly protection from the dangers of war:

Да оградит тебя Господь От Князя огненной печали, Тоской пытающего плоть, Да защитит от едкой стали, reading in Feodosia in 1920. A. B., “Vstrecha s M. A. Voloshinym,” in Koshemchuk M. A. Voloshin: pro et contra: antologiia, 131–32. 311 For more on prayer as a poetic genre, see O. A. Perevalova, “Teoriia zhanra molitvy v sovremennom literaturovedenii,” in Aktual´nye voprosy filologicheskoi nauki XXI veka (III Vse- rossiiskaia nauchnaia konferentsiia molodykh uchenykh s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem “Ak- tual´nye voprosy filologicheskoi nauki XXI veka,” Ekaterinburg: UrFU, 2013), 300–308.

132 От жадной меди, от свинца, От стерегущего огнива, От злобы яростного взрыва, От стрел крылатого гонца, От ядовитого дыханья, От проницающих огней, Да не смутят души твоей Ни гнева сладостный елей, Ни мести жгучее лобзанье. (“Другу,” 229)

The act of prayer in this poem has been noted by other scholars as well. Com- paring Pushkin’s “Arion” with Voloshin’s “Drugu,” Basom concludes that “Voloshin’s poet focuses outward, […] and the poet, in the role of prophet, hopes to influence the future.”312 I. B. Ustiuzhin identifies an influence of traditional Russian folk magic in this part of the poem, and highlights the apparent allusion to the incantation “Zagovor ratnogo cheloveka, idushchego na voinu” from the compilation Skazaniia russkogo naroda (1885) by the Rus- sian ethnographer I. Sakharov.313 The quoted stanza includes a number of per- iphrastic expressions, which makes it resemble an obereg, a protective spoken charm in Slavic folk tradition, which was believed to magically protect a person from danger.314 The multiple circumlocutions, in this case for weapons (“от злобы яростного взрыва” instead of “bombs”; “От ядовитого дыха- нья” instead of “mustard gas”), is a stylistic device which both poeticizes the depicted and, by omitting the modern technical terms, makes the poem resemble an obereg. The influence of Russian folkloric genres is further highlighted in the poem’s structure. Apotropaic texts such as the obereg share traits and structural elements which distinguish them from everyday language and mark them as sacred, including elements of rhythmical organization, rhyme, repetition, and enumeration.315 “Drugu” is comprised of several such elements. The preposition “ot” is repeated seven times, the lines rhyme, and the poem is written in iambic tetrameter. Thus, the poem fuses the apotropaic genres of Rus- sian folklore with an elevated literary style. The poem “Molitva o gorode (Feodosiia – vesnoi 1918 g.),” dated June 2, 1918, reflects Voloshin’s double role as chronicler and conjuring theurge in a different way. Although the poem is not performative per se, it alludes to prayer as integrated in the narrative. The poem’s subtitle and date locate the depicted situation within the context of the Russian Civil War, and the title

312 Basom, “Destruction of the Spirit,” 128. 313 I. B. Ustiuzhin, “Istoriosofiia Maksimiliana Voloshina: ‘Vnutrennie golosa’ v ‘Anno Mundi Ardentis,’” Visnyk natsional´nogo tekhnichnogo universytetu “KhPI” Kharkiv, no. 9 (2009): 25. 314 E. E. Levkievskaia, Slavianskii obereg: semantika i struktura, TDKS. Sovremennye issledovaniia (Moskva: Indrik, 2002), 6. 315 Levkievskaia, 230.

133 alludes to prayer as a poetic genre. An earlier title was “Blagoslovenie o gorode.”316 By explicitly stating the time and location and also linking the poem to his article “Molitva o gorode (Feodosiia vesnoiu 1918 goda pri bol´shevikakh),” Voloshin connects the poem to his own biography. The poem is three stanzas long. The first two stanzas are poetic descriptions of the turbulent situation in Feodosia during the Bolshevik rule. The last stanza depicts the lyrical self as an eyewitness who wishes to shield the city with prayers and redeem it from its tormentors’ bitterness and anger:

Блуждая по перекресткам, Я жил и гас В безумьи и в блеске жестком Враждебных глаз; Их горечь, их злость, их муку, Их гнев, их страсть, И каждый курок, и руку Хотел заклясть. Мой город, залитый кровью Внезапных битв, Покрыть своею любовью, Кольцом молитв, Собрать тоску и огонь их И вознести На распростертых ладонях: Пойми… прости! (“Молитва о городе,” 355)

The last four lines allude to the crucifixion scene in Luke (23:34), when Christ on the cross addresses God with the words “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” In the poem, the two roles are evident; the poet describes the situation in Feodosia, but also expresses his wish to impact the situation through prayer (“Покрыть своею любовью / Кольцом молитв” and the allusion to Christ’s prayer) and incantation (“Их горечь, их злость, их муку, / Их гнев, их страсть, / И каждый курок, и руку / Хотел за- клясть”). Whereas the prayer in “Drugu” addresses only one person (Bogaevskii), the poem “Molitva o gorode” addresses an entire city (Feodosia). The poems written as prayers and charms which will be analyzed next, address the entire nation.

316 Voloshin to A. M. Petrova, May 20 / June 2, 1918, Koktebel´, in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 12, 113.

134 “Zakliaté o Russkoi zemle” The influence of the Russian folkloric tradition is also apparent in the poem “Zakliaté o Russkoi zemle.” The title presents the poem as an incantation, or a magic spell.317 Spells and incantations such as a zakliatie, zaklinanie, and zagovor are subgenres of the prigovor genre in Russian folkloric ritual poetry.318 Their function was to invoke wellbeing or protect from misfortune, and thus testify to a belief in the magical power of the spoken word. S. M. Tolstaia describes the characteristics of the zagovor genre: “Бросающаяся в глаза особенность заговоров – жесткая структура, организующая как содержа- ние, так и форму текста, сближающая их с поэтическими (стихотвор- ными) произведениями, музыкальными формами и с орнаментом.”319 What differentiates a zagovor from a zakliatie or zaklinanie is its specific structure, consisting of three major sections: 1) an introductory formula (zachin); 2) an expository section and spell (epicheskaia chast´ and zaklinanie) describing the disease or problem and the ritual actions to be undertaken; and 3) a ratification (zakrepka).320 The recitation of a zagovor would often be preceded by a short Christian prayer, such as the Lord’s Prayer, and ended with amen, since the combination of both pagan and Christian elements were believed to increase the power of the spell.321 The ritual of saying a zagovor was traditionally a strictly regulated combination of verbal and actional components,322 which implies that the oral performance was seen as a vital prerequisite for the spell’s effectiveness. “Zakliaté o Russkoi zemle” completely follows the charm structure of a traditional zagovor.323 The first two stanzas of the poem comprise the introductory formula, which serves as a declaration of the conjurer’s readiness to perform the spell:

317 According to Kupchenko, A. Vetukhov’s book Zagovory, zaklinaniia, oberegi i drugie vidy narodnogo vrachevaniia, osnovannye na vere v silu slova (1907), was a source of inspiration for Voloshin in the composition of the poem. (Kupchenko, “Kommentarii [T. 1],” 557). 318 S. M. Tolstaia et al., eds., Slavianskie drevnosti: etnolingvisticheskii slovar´: v piati tomakh, T. 4 (Moskva: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia; RAN Institut slavianovedeniia, 2009), 272–76. 319 S. M. Tolstaia, Obraz mira v tekste i rituale (Moskva: Universitet Dmitriia Pozharskogo, 2015), 314. 320 For more on the structure of the zagovor, see A. V. Iudin, Onomastikon russkikh zagovorov: Imena sobstvennye v russkom magicheskom folʹklore, Monografii 4 (Moskva: Moskovskii obshchestvennyi nauch. fond, 1997), 6–9; Tolstaia, Obraz mira v tekste i rituale, 314–32; Tolstaia et al., Slavianskie drevnosti. T. 2, 243–44; see also Joseph L. Conrad, “Russian Ritual Incantations: Tradition, Diversity, and Continuity,” The Slavic and East European Journal 33, no. 3 (1989): 425 ff. 321 Iudin, Onomastikon russkikh zagovorov, 6, 10. 322 Iudin, 4–5. 323 For a general discussion of the zagovor genre see for instance L. G. Nevskaia, T. N. Svesh- nikova, and V. N. Toporov, eds., Zagovornyi tekst. Genezis i struktura. (Moskva: Indrik, 2005); see also V. P. Petrov, “Zagovory,” in Iz istorii russkoi folʹkloristiki, ed. A. A. Gorelov (Lenin- grad: Nauka, 1981), 77–142.

135 Встану я помолясь, Пойду перекрестясь, Из дверей в двери, Из ворот в ворота – Утренними тропами, Огненными стопами, Во чисто поле, На бел-горюч камень.

Стану я на восток лицом, На запад хребтом, Оглянусь на все четыре стороны: На семь морей, На три океана, На семьдесят семь племен, На тридцать три царства – На всю землю Свято-Русскую. (“Заклятье о Русской земле,” 364)

The introductory section is constructed in accordance with the genre and includes only characteristic formulations and terminology, such as “Встану я помолясь, пойду перекрестясь” and “Стану я на восток лицом.”324 Indeed, the entire poem is saturated with elements which show that the text belongs to the zagovor genre, for instance the mentioning of powerful magical motifs, such as the clean (open) field (“chisto pole”) and the Alatyr´ stone (“bel gori- uch kamen´, alatyr´-kamen´”).325 Other elements are rituals such as praying and blessing oneself (“pomolias´,” “perekrestias´”), rhymes (“tropami,” “stopami”), repetitions and alliterations (“Из дверей в двери, / Из ворот в ворота”).326 The frequent use of numbers considered to be magical in the Slavic folkloric tradition (notably three, seven, thirty-three and seventy- seven),327 specifically highlights the influence of the genre in the second stanza. After the introductory formula follows the expository section, which describes the problem which the zagovor is addressing:

324 T. A. Agapkina, Vostochnoslavianskie lechebnye zagovory v sravnitelʹnom osveshchenii: siuzhetika i obraz mira, TDKS, Sovremennye issledovaniia (Moskva: Indrik, 2010), 33 ff; T. A. Agapkina, “Siuzhetnyi sostav vostochnoslavianskikh zagovorov (motiv mifologicheskogo tsentra),” in Nevskaia, Sveshnikova and Toporov, Zagovornyi tekst. Genezis i struktura, 247– 91; see also A. L. Toporkov, Zagovory v russkoi rukopisnoi traditsii XV–XIX vv.: Istoriia, sim- volika, poetika, TDKS. Sovremennye issledovaniia (Moskva: Indrik, 2005), 10, 119. 325 Agapkina, Vostochnoslavianskie lechebnye zagovory, 38 ff. 326 Levkievskaia, Slavianskii obereg, 230; Tolstaia, Obraz mira v tekste i rituale, 314–32. 327 Agapkina, Vostochnoslavianskie lechebnye zagovory, 59; Levkievskaia, Slavianskii obereg, 231; see also Conrad, “Russian Ritual Incantations,” 427.

136 Не слыхать людей, Не видать церквей, Ни белых монастырей, – Лежит Русь – Разоренная, Кровавленная, опаленная. По всему полю – Дикому – Великому – Кости сухие – пустые, Мертвые – желтые, Саблей сечены, Пулей мечены, Коньми топтаны. (“Заклятье о Русской земле,” 364)

The poem describes Rus´ in a cataclysmic state of war: the land is lying bloody and scorched, covered with the bones of the dead. The characterizations of Rus´ through exhaustive enumerations328 (“Разоренная, / Кровавленная, опаленная”) and all of the ways the bones have been destroyed (“Саблей се- чены, / Пулей мечены, / Коньми топтаны”) are other elements typical for the zagovor genre. Dated July 23 (August 5), 1919, the depicted scene appears as a portrayal of the Russian Civil War, an interpretation which is also strengthened by the reference to the poem “Spekuliant” (dated August 16, 1919): “В два года распродать империю, / […] И расползтись, оставив в поле кости / Сухие, мертвые, ошмыганные ветром [italics mine].” The expository section continues with a lengthy stipulation of what ritual actions will be undertaken in order to improve the situation, i.e., the actual spell. This consists of two parts, each introducing a mythological figure with a specific task.329 In the first part, an “iron Man” (often called upon to stem the flow of blood)330 hits the bones of the dead to conjure the land of Rus´ back to life, followed by an imperative part:

Ходит по полю железный Муж, Бьет по костям Железным жезлом: «С четырех сторон, С четырех ветров Дохни, Дух! Оживи кость!» […]

Как с костью кость сходится, Как плотью кость одевается,

328 Levkievskaia, Slavianskii obereg, 238. 329 Agapkina, Vostochnoslavianskie lechebnye zagovory, 55 ff. 330 Conrad, “Russian Ritual Incantations,” 430.

137 Как жилой плоть зашивается, Как мышцей плоть собирается, – Так – встань, Русь! подымись, Оживи, соберись, срастись – Царство к царству, племя к племени. (“Заклятье о Русской земле,” 365)

This section includes numerous imperatives which constitute the core of the spell. The imperatives are compared to a series of parallelisms,331 which comprise another vital part of the zagovor genre: “Как с костью кость сходится, / Как плотью кость одевается, / Как жилой плоть зашивается, / Как мыш- цей плоть собирается.” Similarly, the use of the syntactic construction “kak…tak” is a standard formula.332 Furthermore, the parallelisms include repetitions of the words “plot´” and “kost´” as well as a typical alliterative sequence with the repetition of the letters k, o, and s.333 Moreover, referring to broken bones or sprained joints is typical and, according to Joseph Conrad, this is one of the oldest syntactic formulae found in Slavic incantations.334 The depicted scene also alludes to Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones as described in Ezekiel, chapter 37. In the vision, God commands the prophet to prophesy over the bones, so they might live. This reference adds a Christian connotation to the poem and connects it to “Videnie Iezekiilia.” The structure, stylistic devices, and other elements typical of the zagovor genre are continuously used throughout the entire section. The expository section of the poem-spell concludes with a final threefold sequence which again calls for a resurrection of the Russian land, followed by the ratification formula:

Чтоб оно – Царство Русское – Рдело-зорилось Жизнью живых, Смертью святых, Муками мученных.

Будьте, слова мои, крепки и лепки, Сольче соли, Жгучей пламени... Слова замкну, А ключи в Море-Океан опущу. (“Заклятье о Русской земле,” 366)

331 Levkievskaia, Slavianskii obereg, 231–32. 332 Iudin, Onomastikon russkikh zagovorov, 8–9; see also Conrad, “Russian Ritual Incanta- tions,” 426. 333 Toporkov, Zagovory v russkoi rukopisnoi traditsii, 300. 334 Conrad, “Russian Ritual Incantations,” 426.

138 The ratification formula is a vital part of a zagovor, since it serves as a guar- antee of the spell’s effectiveness: the traditional ending, often including symbolically locking the spell and dropping the key into the Ocean-Sea, is constructed as a juxtaposition: since it is impossible to fetch the key from the bottom of the ocean, it is therefore impossible to break the power of the spell.335 Composed as a genuine zagovor, “Zakliat´e o Russkoi zemle” is a manifestation of Voloshin’s attempt to evoke a national revival through the magical power associated with the genre. By composing and performing a poem-incantation modelled on the zagovor, Voloshin emerged as a conjurer who cast a protective spell on Russia. The fact that the poem meticulously follows the zagovor structure and is written in exclusively traditional language, shows that it can be interpreted as an attempt to achieve as powerful a spell as possible. Including multiple imperatives, the poem calls for a resurrection in the Rus- sian land, which can be interpreted figuratively as well as literally. In the article “Poeticheskaia kontrrevoliutsiia v stikhakh M. Voloshina” in the 1923 No- vember issue of Na postu, B. M. Tal´ interprets the poem as a conjuration to resurrect fallen White Guard soldiers and restore the empire, and thus labels Voloshin’s poetry as counterrevolutionary.336 Landa interprets it as a poem- incantation in which Voloshin magically conjures Russia’s Fyodorovian physical salvation, and therefore sees it as an example of how the Symbolists ap- propriated Nikolai Fyodorov’s ideas of human material salvation and at- tempted to realize them through the power of theurgic art. 337 The poem, however, is written in a folkloric tradition, shaped by superstition and religious belief, and therefore such literal interpretations might disre- gard other important aspects. Although Fyodorov’s utopia of personal immortality did impact the Symbolists’ aestheticization of life as manifested through life-creation,338 I would suggest that Voloshin’s theurgic conjuring of resurrection in this poem should be viewed as a part of Neopalimaia Kupina as a whole entity. Several of the poems analyzed in this chapter express a hope, plea, or demand for a positive transformation of reality, a hope for national

335 Agapkina, Vostochnoslavianskie lechebnye zagovory, 238–45. 336 B. M. Tal´, “Poeticheskaia kontrrevoliutsiia v stikhakh M. Voloshina,” in Koshemchuk, M. A. Voloshin: pro et contra: antologiia, 220–21. 337 Landa argues that “Voloshin’s iron man comes back to a Russia, decimated by the Civil War to ‘reconstruct’ or physically resurrect in the Fyodorovian fashion all of the Russian dead. He casts a spell, and in a sweeping panorama, the bones come together, flesh grows on them, and complete people with their recovered minds gather into their old tribes.” (Landa, Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy, 169; see also 27–28, 141). 338 According to Irina Paperno, “Concrete attempts at an aesthetic organization of personal life had far-reaching mystical implications. Transformed through art, life was capable of becoming ‘life eternal’. Aestheticization of life was a way to achieve deification and to gain the kingdom of heaven, including the ‘realistic’ kingdom of heaven on earth: the social utopia and Fedo- rovian personal immortality in the flesh.” (Paperno, “The Meaning of Art: Symbolist Theories,” 23).

139 revival and divine protection against death and destruction. As shown in the preceding chapters, the myth of Russia (also Rus´ or Slaviia) as a nation that overcomes all the trials and hardships it is exposed to, is depicted in a number of poems. The image of Rus´ that will arise from ruins is repeated in the poem “Zaklinanie”: “Из крови, пролитой в боях, […] Возникнет праведная Русь.” This poem will be analyzed further on. Moreover, the subject of a national revival connects the poem to the conceptual model of resurrection through death, which reverberates in the book through a conglomeration of myths. As discussed in the previous chapters, resurrection has been negated (“Но в ту весну Христос не воскресал” in “Krasnaia Paskha”), demonized (“Вышел я – замученный из гроба” in “Dmetrius-Imperator”), and alluded to with biblical references (“И с тобой, как Лазарь, встать из гроба!” in “Na dne preispodnei”) in the preceding poems. By addressing the theme of resurrection in “Zakliat´e o Russkoi zemle,” Voloshin not only conjures up Russia’s salvation, but he also creates ties and associations to other poems in the book, thus emphasizing the thematic cohesion.

“Khvala Bogomateri” As mentioned, the influence of the genre of the Akathistos hymn is apparent in the poem “Khvala Bogomateri.” A popular hymnographic genre, Akathis- tos hymns often, but not always, address the Theotokos. The original Akathis- tos, believed to be written by Romanos Melodos,339 remained unique in the Byzantine tradition, but it has influenced other forms of liturgical texts both in the East and in the West. The translation of the Akathistos into Church Sla- vonic, for instance, has given rise to the continuation and development of the genre in Russia. Especially during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, explains Per-Arne Bodin, “hundreds of new Akathistos were written in Russia, forming a whole genre created on the pattern of the original hymn to Theoto- kos.”340 According to Bodin, the reading of the Akathistos hymn could historically serve the same function as the Jesus prayer, i.e., as a kind of Christian mantra.341 The genre remains popular despite the limited ecclesiastical use of Akathistos hymns in the Russian Orthodox Church, and the genre’s distinctive aesthetics has also influenced Russian secular literature, especially poetry.342 “Khvala Bogomateri” is dated November 27, 1919. The poem is a tribute to the Theotokos. Although it does not follow the standard compositional

339 For a general discussion of the Akathistos hymn, see: Egon Wellesz, The Akathistos Hymn, Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. (Copenhague, 1957). 340 Per-Arne Bodin, Eternity and Time: Studies in Russian Literature and the Orthodox Tradi- tion, Stockholm Studies in Russian Literature (Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2007), 98. 341 Bodin, 100. 342 Bodin, 103–9.

140 structure (an Akathistos hymn traditionally consists of twenty-five stanzas: the odd stanzas ending with alleluia are called kontakia, and the even ones, including repetitions of the word chaire, (rejoice), are called oikoi), it nevertheless shares other features with the hymnographic genre. The effect of the Akathistos hymn is established chiefly by addressing Theotokos with multiple traditional epithets (“Купина Неопалимая,” “Незакатная Звезда,” “При- снодевственная мать”) and with the salutation “Радуйся, о Благодатная.” The poem’s first three stanzas include elements which are common in the kontakia and oikoi of an Akathistos hymn:

Тайна тайн непостижимая, Глубь глубин необозримая, Высота невосходимая, Радость радости земной! Торжество непобедимое, Ангельски дориносимая Над родимою землей, Купина неопалимая!343

Kupchenko has noted that the poem includes fragments and poetic para- phrasings from both the original Byzantine Akathistos hymn, “Akafist Pres- viatoi Bogoroditse” (such as “Торжество непобедимое”), and from “Pesnia Presviatoi Bogoroditse” (such as “Херувимов всех Честнейшая”) as well as from traditional epithets used to address the Theotokos (“Незакатная звезда,” “Цвет земли неувядаемый”).344 The elevated style and other stylistic devices, such as traditional metaphors, paradoxes, oxymorons, and cosmic imagery (“Приснодевственная мать,” “Диском солнца облаченная,” “На серпе луны взнесенная”)345 distinctly connect the poem to the genre of the Akathis- tos hymn. The poem also alludes thematically to another hymn, namely “Akafist Pres- viatoi Bogoroditse pred ikonoi ‘Neopalimaia Kupina.’” This Akathistos hymn is composed as a lengthy salutation to the Theotokos, which ends with a prayer for protection during the Last Judgement. Voloshin’s poem alludes to this Akathistos hymn by the application of “Kupina Neopalimaia” as an epithet for the Theotokos, but the strongest references are the concluding stanzas which depict the scene during the Apocalypse when Christ returns to judge the world:

343 As mentioned in Chapter 1, “Khvala Bogomateri” was later included as a prologue to the poem “Sviatoi Serafim.” Maksimilian Voloshin, “Sviatioi Serafim,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 2, 98–99. 344 Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 2),” 671. 345 Bodin, Eternity and Time, 96–97.

141 В грозный час, Когда над нами – Над забытыми гробами Протрубит труба, В час великий, в час возмездья, В горький час, когда созвездья С неба упадут, И земля между мирами, Извергаясь пламенами, Предстанет на суд, В час, когда вся плоть проснется, Чрево смерти содрогнется Солнце мраком обернется И, как книга, развернется Небо надвое, И разверзнется пучина, И раздастся голос Сына: «О, племя упрямое! Я стучал – вы не открыли, Жаждал – вы не напоили, Я алкал – не накормили, Я был наг – вы не одели…»

И тогда ответишь Ты: – «Я одела, я кормила, Чресла Богу растворила, Плотью нищий дух покрыла, Солнце мира приютила В чреве темноты».

В час последний В тьме кромешной Над своей землею грешной Ты расстелешь плат – Надо всеми, кто ошую, Кто во славе – одесную Агнцу предстоят,

Чтоб не сгинул ни единый Ком пронзенной духом глины, Без изъятья, – навсегда, И удержишь руку Сына От последнего проклятья Безвозвратного суда.346

These four stanzas make up the larger part of the poem (thirty-nine of the sixty-nine lines). Although different in form, the content of this part of the

346 Voloshin, “Sviatoi Serafim,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 2, 99–100.

142 poem is essentially the same as in the hymn’s closing prayer. In this prayer, the Theotokos is addressed with a plea for salvation and protection during the Last Judgement:

Ты же, Всеблагая, простри к Нему богоприимнеи руце Твои и предста- тельствуй за нас пред благостию Его, просяще нам прощения прегреше- ний наших, благочестнаго мирнаго жития, благия христианския кончины и добраго ответа на Страшнем Суде Его. В час же грознаго посещения Божия, егда огнем возгорятся домы наша, или молниеносным громом устрашаеми будем, яви нам милостивное Твое заступление и державное вспоможение: да спасаеми всесильными Твоими ко Господу молитвами, временнаго наказания Божия зде избегнем и вечное блаженство райское тамо унаследуем […]347

Thematically “Khvala Bogomateri” corresponds to the “Akafist Presviatoi Bogoroditse pred ikonoi ‘Neopalimaia Kupina’” because both begin with a salutation to the Theotokos and conclude with a description of her protection before Christ as judge. Unlike the prayer, the stanzas in the poem which correspond to it have a rhythmic structure with ending rhymes. The poem’s stylistic features and devices are, however, characteristic of the Akathistos genre. For example, there are clusters of synonyms and several repetitions (“В гроз- ный час” […], “В час великий, в час возмездья, / В горький час, когда созвездья” […], “В час, когда вся плоть проснется [italics mine]”), a continuation of cosmic imagery (“В горький час, когда созвездья / С неба упа- дут,” “Солнце мраком обернется [italics mine]”), word-play (“Тайна тайн […] глубь глубин”), and a complicated syntax (“Ангельски дориносимая / Над родимою землей / Купина Неопалимая”). Furthermore, these and other stylistic devices used in the poem are typical of the highly ornamental style called pletenie sloves (word-weaving or word- braiding). This style is common primarily in Russian hagiography, but it also shares traits with the hymnographic genres348 due to the elevated sacred style, the numerous repetitions, and the tendency of excessive alliteration, assonance, and tautology, among other features.349 An important purpose of this style, according to D. S. Likhachev, is to create a meaning beyond the literal:

Все «приемы» орнаментальной прозы рассчитаны на различные «прира- щения смысла», на создание в тексте некоего «сверхсмысла». Этот «сверхсмысл» не противоречит «смыслу»: он углубляет его, придает ему

347 Sokolov, Akafisty Presviatoi Bogoroditse, 80–81. 348 Bodin suggests that “[p]erhaps the style of word-weaving can be understood in terms of rapprochement between the genre of hymns and the genre of the prose text of vitae, what Hébert calls the poeticization of the languages of the vitae.” (Bodin, Eternity and Time, 53). 349 For a definition of pletenie sloves, see D. S. Likhachev, Poetika drevnerusskoi literatury (Moskva: Nauka, 1979), 115–29.

143 новые оттенки, объединяет слова с разным значением, требует осознания читателем глубинного значения.350

Likhachev stresses however, that it is the unity of artistic characteristics which define this style, and not the occasional stylistic devices.351 In “Khvala Bogomateri,” the association with pletenie sloves is created through the use of multiple stylistic features, such as a propensity for abstraction, a propensity for emotionality, a repetition of words, multiple tautologies, frequent alliteration and assonance, enumerations, binarity used to illustrate synonymity or contradistinctions, and an approximation of the prosaic rhythm to a poetic rhythm. In the poem, the tendency of abstraction can be noted by the absence of markers of place and time and the lack of modern terminology, which enhances the association with sacred genres such as hymns and vitae. Throughout the poem, the language is elevated, almost ceremonial, and it includes archaic words (“alkat´,” “oshuiu”) and Church Slavonic terms (“dori- nosimaia,” “plat”), which are characteristic in both hymnography and in the ornamental style of word-braiding. The emphasized joy and tenderness of the first salutational stanzas are sharply contrasted with the awe and panic in the depictions of the Last Judgement, creating a powerful shift of emotional expression. Furthermore, the poem includes repetitions and synonyms, in particular key words such as “chas,” the enumeration of adjectives (“groznyi,” “ve- likii,” “gor´kii”), several tautologies (“Тайна тайн […] Глубь глубин […] Радость радости”), and a special focus on the euphonic aspect of language, giving the text a special musicality. This musicality is created through alliterative sequences and assonances (“…честнейшая […] славнейшая […] Очи- стилище чистейшее”) and by grouping rhythmized adjectives (“rastvoren- naia,” “prokalennaia,” “rozhdennaia,” “voznesennaia,” “oblachennaia,” “vznesennaia,” and “prosnetsia,” “sodrognetsia,” “obernetsia,” “razvernet- sia”). Moreover, binary constructions illustrating synonymity also appear, par- adoxically expressed here by the use of antonyms (“Свет во мраке, пламень зарный”). Finally, the approximation of the prosaic rhythm with the poetic rhythm is obvious throughout the stanzas corresponding to the prayer. For instance, the Theotokos’ answer to Christ is in trochaic meter: “Я одела, я кор- мила, / Чресла Богу растворила, / Плотью нищий дух покрыла, / Солнце мира приютила, / В чреве темноты.” These lines furthermore reflect an influence of the genre dukhovnye stikhi, discussed above in connection with the poem “Moskva.” A. L. Toporkov notes that among the genres of Russian folklore which were of interest to the writers of the Silver Age, the dukhovnye stikhi occupied a special place. He discusses the influence of this genre on the poetry of the Symbolist poets and argues that it is an expression of neonarodnichestvo (a rapprochement with the people’s

350 Likhachev, 118. 351 Likhachev, 116–17.

144 soul), which is often associated with an exploration of artistic form.352 The impact of this genre on “Khvala Bogomateri” is apparent in both stylistic and thematic features. Depictions of the end of the world and the Last Judgement are central themes of the genre,353 and many of these poems narrate a dialogue between Christ and the Theotokos. Christ’s words in Voloshin’s poem – a rephrased quote from Matthew354 – clearly show the impact of the genre, which can be exemplified in a comparison, for instance, with the dukhovnyi stikh “Strashnyi sud”:

Вы голодного не накармливали, Вы жаждущего не напаявали, […] Вы голого не одевывали, Вы босого не обувывали…355

According to G. P. Fedotov, few of the dukhovnye stikhi which portray the Last Judgement end with redemption: in most of them salvation appears almost impossible, and depictions of sinners being judged and banished, sometimes even by the Theotokos Herself, are much more common.356 In Vo- loshin’s poem, however, the plea to the Theotokos is transformed into a statement, a twofold ascertainment that the Theotokos must defend and answer for the faithful on Judgement Day. This constitutes a significant contrast to both the traditional dukhovnye stikhi and to the concluding prayer of the Akathistos hymn. By comparing the poem to the prayer, it is obvious that they differ re- markably in tone. Whereas the tone in an Akathistos hymn is always deeply humble and beseeching, the tenor in Voloshin’s poem is not apologetic, but very confident. The Theotokos is invoked with respect and admiration, though not with the meek style typical of the concluding prayer of an Akathistos hymn, often including the plea “vouchsafe us feeble and sinful ones.” This indicates that the poet-theurge sees no need to diminish his own status when approaching the divinity. On the contrary, his request to Her can be read as a prerequisite for her heavenly intervention: He does not plead with her, hoping for her assistance; instead, he states how she must aid the faithful.

352 A. L. Toporkov, “Dukhovnye stikhi v russkoi literature pervoi treti XX veka,” Russkaia literatura, no. 1 (2015): 12–13. 353 Fedotov, Stikhi dukhovnye, 105–16; For examples of dukhovnye stikhi depicting the Last Judgement, see for instance Iu. S. Prokoshin and L. F. Soloshchenko, eds., Golubinaia kniga: russkie narodnye dukhovnye stikhi XI–XIX vv. (Moskva: Moskovskii rabochii, 1991), 243–68. 354 “Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’” Matt. 25: 41–43. 355 Prokoshin and Soloshchenko, Golubinaia kniga, 254. 356 Fedotov, Stikhi dukhovnye, 112–14.

145 By portraying the Last Judgement and addressing the Theotokos – the burning bush – the poem connects the Apocalypse to indestructibility and thereby unites the two major themes of the book. Unlike poems which merely allude to the Apocalypse, “Khvala Bogomateri” gives a vivid description of it. Draw- ing on the genres of the Akathistos hymn and dukhovnye stikhi, the poem also includes detailed references to Revelation. These include mentioning Christ as the Lamb (“Агнцу предстоят”), an allusion to the book of life (“И как книга развернется”), and the resurrection of the dead at the signal of the trumpet (“Над забытыми гробами / Протрубит труба, […] В час, когда вся плоть проснется”).357 Moreover, the image of the resurrection of the dead is a direct reference to the conjuring of Russia’s physical salvation in the poem “Zakliat´e o Russkoi zemle” discussed above. Like the other poems in “Voznosheniia,” “Khvala Bogomateri” was written in the midst of the Russian Civil War. The poem constitutes yet another example of how Voloshin explored performative poetry in order to create theurgic art. In this poem, the poet-theurge invokes and glorifies the Theotokos as a powerful intercessor to avert eternal damnation. Also, by reciting the words ascribed to the Mediatrix, he himself emerges as the mediator who shields the people from Christ’s judgement by the power of his poetic word. With the mythologeme of the burning bush, “Khvala Bogomateri” alludes to Russia. The mythologeme’s literal meaning, a bush in flames which remains unburnt, symbolically depicts Russia’s indestructibility. The multiple meanings of the mythologeme of the burning bush are not only united but also strengthened by their integration: in the poem, “Kupina neopalimaia” refers simultaneously to the Theotokos as Mediatrix, to Russia which burns but is not consumed by fire, and to the conjuring poet-theurge that protects Russia with his poetry.

“Zaklinanie (ot usobits)” As the analyses above have shown, Voloshin would often combine genres, styles, and elements from various literary traditions in his poems. In the poem “Zaklinanie,” Voloshin again turns to genres of Russian folklore. An earlier title of the poem was “Molitva,”358 but by changing it, the poem acquired a folkloric feature. As the new title suggests, the poem is written as a magic spell against strife. It is dated June 19, 1920 and can be read as an attempt to put an end to the destruction caused by the Russian Civil War. The explanation in parentheses (“от усобиц”) is typical of the zaklinanie genre and is used to concretize the object at which the spell is directed.359 A zaklinanie constitutes

357 See Revelation, 5:6; 20:12–13. 358 Kupchenko, “Kommentarii (T. 1),” 554. 359 For examples of the zaklinanie, see for instance L. N. Maikov and A. K. Baiburin, Veli- korusskie zaklinaniia: sbornik L. N. Maikova (Sankt-Peterburg: Izdatelʹstvo Evropeiskogo Doma, 1994).

146 one part of a zagovor, but it can also be read separately.360 The stylistic devices which are characteristic of the zagovor genre are also typical for the zaklinanie genre. Several of these features are included in the first of the poem’s two sevenfold stanzas:

Из крови, пролитой в боях, Из праха обращенных в прах, Из мук казненных поколений, Из душ, крестившихся в крови, Из ненавидящей любви, Из преступлений, исступлений – Возникнет праведная Русь. (“Заклинание [от усобиц],” 353)

The first six lines include repetitions of the word “iz,” extensive enumeration (“krovi,” “prakha,” “muk,” “dush,” “liubvi”), assonance (“prestuplenii, is- stuplenii”), and an alliterative sequence (“Iz prakha … v prakh”). The reference to magic spells is continued in the second stanza in which the lyrical self states that he prays for the land of Rus´:

Я за нее за всю молюсь И верю замыслам предвечным: Ее куют ударом мечным, Она мостится на костях, Она святится в ярых битвах, На жгучих строится мощах, В безумных плавится молитвах. (“Заклинание [от усобиц],” 353)

The first, third, and fourth lines of this second stanza allude to the poem “Zakliat´e o Russkoi zemle,” in which the mythical blacksmith forges Russia back together, and the iron man conjures the bones of the dead back to life. However, despite the many strong references to the zaklinanie genre, I believe that Voloshin’s poem is modelled on an entirely different type of text. Using the poetic word to effect and transform was not limited to the circle of Symbolist poets, but it was also a practice persistently advocated by Rudolf Steiner as a powerful means of impacting the development of the world by using anthroposophical wisdom. Both the structure and the content of “Zaklinanie” show striking similarities to the so-called mantras which Steiner recited in a series of lectures starting in the autumn of 1914. The lecture series “Menschenschicksale und Völkerschicksale” was Stei- ner’s response to the outbreak of World War I. In his lectures, he presented his vision of how the war would come to impact the future on both an individual and a national level. Steiner would begin each lecture by reciting a short

360 Tolstaia et al., Slavianskie drevnosti. T. 2, 260.

147 verse, or mantra, in which he would honor all the people who had offered their souls and bodies in sacrifice on the front. With few exceptions, Steiner also concluded each lecture with a similar mantra, which forms a sevenfold structure, for those killed in war:

Aus dem Mut der Kämpfer, Aus dem Blut der Schlachten, Aus dem Leid Verlassener, Aus des Volkes Opfertaten Wird erwachsen Geistesfrucht – Lenken Seelen geistbewußt Ihren Sinn ins Geisterreich.361

The lectures were given throughout the autumn and winter of 1914 until the spring of 1915, at which time Voloshin was staying in Dornach and partici- pating in the building of the anthroposophical center, Johannesbau. In a diary entry from August 14, 1914, Voloshin recollected that Steiner had been talking about blood and reading a magic spell (“Потом говорил о крови и дал заклинание”)362 during a first aid course.363 For a poet like Voloshin who was fascinated by and engaged in the myth-creating aspects of the poetic word, Steiner’s mantras must have been compelling since Voloshin interpreted them as magic spells. In “Menschenschicksale und Völkerschicksale,” Steiner repeated the special mission he envisioned for Russia, and he often mentioned the “Slavic folk soul” and the ways in which it differed from the other folk souls of the Euro- pean nations. Stressing the importance of prayer and declaring it to be a natural act inherent in the Russian national character (“der Russe betet – und das ist natürlich”),364 Steiner emphasized the importance of “sending thoughts up into the spiritual world”: “Je mehr Sie solche Gedanken in die geistige Welt hinaufsenden, desto mehr tun Sie für das, was aus diesen Weltenkämpfen hervorgehen soll, und desto mehr tun Sie für das, was für die ganze Evolution der Menschheit notwendig ist.”365 This shows that Steiner not only ascribed a metaphysical power to the words of prayer, but he also encouraged his listeners to pray, or to repeat mantras, for a positive development of the future of mankind. These prayerlike mantras were a part of a special ritual which framed the actual lecture, and thus served a different purpose than the lecture itself,

361 Steiner, Menschenschicksale und Völkerschicksale, 50. See also 93, 115, 141, 166, 191, 213, 232, 248, 290–91, 306. 362 Maksimilian Voloshin, “Dnevniki. <1914. Dornakh>,” in Sobranie sochinenii. T. 7. Kn. 2, 172. 363 The first aid course was held between August 13–16, 1914 in Dornach, Switzerland. Steiner, Menschenschicksale und Völkerschicksale, 308. 364 Steiner, 46. 365 Steiner, 49.

148 namely to reach out to and attempt to make an impact on a higher reality. Judging from this arrangement, one can assume that Steiner did this to demonstrate the importance of reciting mantras, as well as his faith in the idea that “sending thoughts up to the spiritual world” and repeating mantras of this kind, indeed had a certain impact on reality. Yet he never claimed that the power of words was exclusive for anthroposophists, poets, or any other group. Anyone who had knowledge of the spiritual realm bore a special responsibility for humanity’s development, according to Steiner, and he stated that it was their shared duty to use their wisdom for the benefit of others.366 Steiner’s faith in the power of mantras used in this way does come close to the Symbolist theories of myth-creation and theurgic art, since it presumes an actual impact by certain selected performative utterances on the reality of the future. By comparing Voloshin’s and Steiner’s texts, the first apparent feature which is noticeable is that the structure of Voloshin’s poem shows striking similarities to Steiner’s mantra:

Из крови, пролитой в боях, Aus dem Mut der Kämpfer, Из праха обращенных в прах, Aus dem Blut der Schlachten, Из мук казненных поколений, Aus dem Leid Verlassener, Из душ, крестившихся в крови, Aus des Volkes Opfertaten Из ненавидящей любви, Wird erwachsen Geistesfrucht – Из преступлений, исступлений – Lenken Seelen geistbewußt Возникнет праведная Русь. Ihren Sinn ins Geisterreich. (“Заклинание (от усобиц),” 353)

Like Steiner’s mantra, the stanzas in Voloshin’s poem consist of seven lines. The first lines of Voloshin’s poem begin with the preposition “Iz,” which makes it resemble Steiner’s mantra visually and thematically, where the first four lines begin with the German equivalent, “Aus.” As to the wording, some of the lines in Voloshin’s poem correspond quite literally to the ones in Stei- ner’s mantra. For instance, the lines “Из крови, пролитой в боях” and “Aus dem Blut der Schlachten,” are semantically very close. The visual resemblance of the two texts is unmistakable; even a detail like the dash at the end of Voloshin’s sixth line seems to correspond to the dash at the end of Steiner’s fifth line. Both the poem and the mantra depict death as well as sacrifice and loss, and a conviction that the situation will eventually result in something good. In the poem, the substratum of sacrifice and death is portrayed as a prerequisite for development which will enable a transformative spiritual purification of Rus´.

366 Cultivating the assertion of the spiritual fruitfulness of repeating mantras, Steiner also wrote anthroposophical prayers and meditative verses, many of which were collected in Anthroposo- phischer Seelenkalender. See Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophischer Seelenkalender (Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 2006).

149 The word “Russia” does not occur at all in the part “Voznosheniia.” It is possible that the name carried controversial connotations for Voloshin, since the Russian Empire had ceased to exist a few years earlier. The name Rus´, on the contrary, symbolizes a more abstract idea, a spiritual ideal to aim for, rather than a geopolitical power. As shown in the analyses above, Voloshin pre- ferred the terms “Rus´,” “Sviataia Rus´,” and “Slaviia” rather than “Russia” to signify a historical, a contemporary and a mythical realm in other poems from this period as well.367 Both “Rus´” and “Slaviia” are applicable terms to allude to as an ideo-historical identity, and as a mythical utopian realm, while concurrently avoiding a political definition. Slavic (slawisch) was also the de- nomination Steiner used when speaking about the sixth cultural epoch which he claimed would succeed the prevailing fifth.368 The title of the poem, “Zaklinanie,” connotes both folkloric incantations and echoes of the mantras which Steiner read aloud in his lectures, and which Voloshin perceived as magic spells. Voloshin’s second stanza opens with a prayer for the land of Rus´: “Я за нее за всю молюсь.” This line emphasizes the components of the zaklinanie genre and the allusions to Steiner’s mantras, and affirms the performative features of the poem. Whereas Steiner’s mantra proclaims a general development of humanity, Voloshin’s poem emphasizes the emergence of the Righteous Rus´ and its people from the blood and the battles. While Steiner recited his mantra to impact the development of World War I, “Zaklinanie” can be interpreted as Voloshin’s attempt to put an end to the Russian Civil War. In his lectures, Steiner predicted an awakening of the Russian folk soul which would initiate the dawn of the new Slavic cultural epoch. In his poem, Voloshin proclaims that the evolution of the emerging new realm begins with a spiritual awakening in the Russian land, which is fully in line with Steiner’s predictions about Russia’s historical mission for humanity. In “Zaklinanie,” Voloshin follows Steiner’s appeal to patiently send righteous thoughts up to the spirit world in order to help bring about a positive development. He is performing a prayer, or a mantra, as it were, and in doing so he is merging the work of the poet-theurge with the task of the anthropos- ophist. Thus, the mantra is used in the same way and for the same purpose as the mantra, hymn, and magic spell in the other poems; to prevent further misery and to call for a national revival.

367 See for instance the poems “Evropa,” “Sviataia Rus´,” “Rodina,” “Kitezh,” “Blagoslovenie,” “Na dne preispodnei,” “Posev” (1919), and “Zakliat´e o Russkoi zemle.” 368 See for instance Rudolf Steiner, Zur Geschichte und aus den Inhalten der ersten Abteilung der Esoterischen Schule 1904–1914: Briefe, Rundbriefe, Dokumente und Vorträge, Gesamtaus- gabe 264 (Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 1996), 205.

150 Conclusion

Voloshin referred to Neopalimaia Kupina as the “big book.” It includes the majority of his poems from the war years and the revolutionary period (1905– 1924). The legacy of Symbolism reverberates throughout the book, while the range of stylistic variations, including Biblical Naturalism and the documentary-protocol style, illuminates the evolution of Voloshin’s poetics in the postrevolutionary period. Although the vast body of material includes representations of different genres, themes, and styles, the book in its entirety should be seen as a complex unity. Incorporating poems from earlier collections, the work reflects continuity as well as development: chronologically, the progression of Neopalimaia Kupina can be identified as a shift in focus from Apocalypse through martyrdom to the hope of resurrection. This shift in focus becomes discernible and accords the book meaning when it is regarded as a whole. Voloshin’s “big book,” shaped and reshaped over the course of two decades, remains open and thus mirrors the ongoing development of history. This openness is affirmed through poems written in apotropaic genres (prayers, incantations, and anthroposophical mantras), which reach out into the future via sentences with imperative constructions. The open structure is furthermore closely connected to the book’s underlying idea: resurrection through death serves as a conceptual model and constitutes a common denominator which binds together the poems into a coherent whole. Investigating this voluminous and multilayered work, I have used the notion of the mythologeme with a capacity to accumulate meanings. In Ne- opalimaia Kupina, the Apocalypse and the myth of the burning bush form two major interconnected threads: The Apocalypse stands for transformation through death and resurrection, and the imperishable burning bush represents indestructibility. In the book, Voloshin interprets the period of the Russian Revolution through these two myths and other myths closely related to them. Rebirth in a figurative and more general sense is also envisioned in poems that depict a future national revival of Russia. This vision can be connected to the anthroposophical doctrine of cultural epochs, according to which Russia would come to play a vital role in a future Slavic epoch as the nation which would lead the spiritual development of humanity. However, the indestructibility represented in the burning bush is an ambivalent concept. It involves the future revival of Russia, but it also has as a negative counterpart. It requires

151 the repeated return of the demons of Russian history: usurpation (in the figure of a False Dmitry), schism (represented by Archpriest Avvakum), and rebellion (personified by Stenka Razin). These characters are presented as carriers of demonic forces, yet they are portrayed as victims of the same forces as well. In addition to the amalgamated myths of transformation, compositional devices create coherence within the whole work. Conceptually, the poetic strategies and devices (auto-quotes, compositional symmetries, relabeling) reflect the concept of correspondences inherited from the Symbolists’ notion of eternal returns in history. Chronologically, we can see a progression from Vo- loshin’s use of these devices to explicitly stating correspondences between contemporary revolutionary events and earlier turning points in Russian history. Neopalimaia Kupina reflects a cyclicality in history and conceptually opposes the early Soviet regime’s utopian promise of a total transformation of society and the establishment of an entirely new world. The themes from Rus- sian history and the layer of stylized archaism in Voloshin’s poetry is put in sharp contrast to the purported progress, and express a distrust in the novelty of the times. Parallel to the twofold historical perception of time as both cyclical and linear, the role of the poet is also twofold: the poet is both a chronicler of his time and a theurge. As a chronicler and eyewitness, Voloshin recorded his contemporary society in powerful poetic descriptions, depicting the devasta- tion he had witnessed. In Neopalimaia Kupina, events of the times are set in a broad historical perspective. Extending the role of chronicler, in accordance with the concept of correspondences, Voloshin illuminates analogies to previous epochs and episodes. Authentic historical documents are integrated into his poetry, such as “Napisanie o tsariakh moskovskikh,” “Protopop Avva- kum,” and the cycle of sonnets “Dve stupeni.” Fusing the roles of eyewitness and chronicler in his poetry, Voloshin, as it were, emerged as the nation’s memory, blurring the narrow boundaries of his time and place. A poet and public figure, noted for his theatricality, Voloshin often com- municated his poems orally. His view on poetry as an act reflects the Symbol- ists’ aesthetic program of life-creation, and is, as I have shown, closely connected to his role as an interpreter of Russian history and a theurge. The performative aspect of Voloshin’s poetry led him to explore apotropaic genres: magic spells, incantations, prayers, and anthroposophical mantras. These poems can be read as Voloshin’s attempt to impact the future, prevent further bloodshed, and bring about a national revival. The title Neopalimaia Kupina alludes to a biblical revelation and affirms a poetic perspective at the intersection of history and myth. Voloshin himself emerged as the burning bush that conveyed the divine message protecting Russia, and at the same time his poems became part of the nation’s memory. Neopalimaia Kupina can thus be interpreted both as the word which shields Russia from destruction, and the word which remains in a time of destruction.

152 Bibliography

A. B. “Vstrecha s M. A. Voloshinym.” In Koshemchuk, M. A. Voloshin: pro et contra: antologiia, 130–32. Agapkina, T. A. “Siuzhetnyi sostav vostochnoslavianskikh zagovorov (motiv mifologicheskogo tsentra).” In Nevskaia, Sveshnikova, and Toporov, Za- govornyi tekst. Genezis i struktura, 247–91. ———. Vostochnoslavianskie lechebnye zagovory v sravnitelʹnom osveshchenii: siuzhetika i obraz mira. TDKS, Sovremennye issledovaniia. Mos- kva: Indrik, 2010. Ageeva, L. Nerazgadannaia Cherubina: dokumentalʹnoe povestvovanie. Mos- kva: Dom-muzei Mariny Tsvetaevoi, 2006. Alekseev, V. V. “The Russian Idea.” Russian Social Science Review 56, no. 3 (2015): 2–17. Antonova, V. I., and N. E. Mneva, eds. Katalog drevnerusskoi zhivopisi XI – nachala XVIII vv. V dvukh tomakh. T. 2. Moskva: Gosudarstvennaia Tret´iakovskaia galereia, 1963. Aristova, A. S. “Kniga M. A. Voloshina ‘Neopalimaia Kupina’: Problema khudozhestvennoi tselostnosti i istoriko-literaturnogo kommentariia.” Dis- sertatsiia na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata filologicheskikh nauk, IMLI RAN, 2018. Arsen´ev, Pavel. “K konstruktsii pragmaticheskoi poetiki.” Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie 138, no. 2 (2016). Accessed March 30, 2021. https://www.nlobooks.ru/magazines/novoe_literaturnoe_obozre- nie/138_nlo_2_2016/article/11867/. Aucouturier, Michel. “Theatricality as a Category of Early Twentieth-Century Russian Culture.” In Theater and Literature in Russia, 1900–1930: A Col- lection of Essays, edited by Lars Kleberg and Nils Åke Nilsson, 9–21. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis 19. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell Inter- national, 1984. Aune, David E. Apocalypticism, Prophecy, and Magic in Early Christianity: Collected Essays. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008. Austin, John Langshaw. How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Edited by James Opie Urmson and Marina Sbisà. Oxford: Clarendon, 1975. Basom, Ann Marie. “Destruction of the Spirit: War in Voloshin’s ‘Drugu’ and Pushkin’s ‘Arion.’” Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature 49, no. 2 (1995): 119–37.

153 ———. “‘Trichiny:’ Dostoevskij and Vološin.” Russian Literature 41, no. 1 (January 1997): 1–17. ———. “War and Revolution in the Poetry of Maksimilian Aleksandrovič Vološin, 1905–1923.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin – Madison, 1987. Bethea, David M. The Shape of Apocalypse in Modern Russian Fiction. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1989. Billington, James H. The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian Culture. New York: Vintage books, 1970. Bodin, Per-Arne. Eternity and Time: Studies in Russian Literature and the Orthodox Tradition. Stockholm Studies in Russian Literature. Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2007. Bogomolov, N. A. Russkaia literatura nachala XX veka i okkulʹtizm: issledovaniia i materialy. Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 1999. ———. Viacheslav Ivanov v 1903–1907 godakh: dokumentalʹnye khroniki. Moskva: Izdatelʹstvo Kulaginoi: Intrada, 2009. Bunin, Ivan. “Voloshin.” In Davydov and Kupchenko, Vospominaniia o Mak- similiane Voloshine, 365–74. Bunin, Ivan. Okaiannye dni. Vospominaniia. Stat´i. Moskva: Sovetskii pisatel´, 1990. Carlson, Maria. No Religion Higher Than Truth: A History of the Theosophi- cal Movement in Russia, 1875–1922. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993. Clay, J. Eugene. “Apocalypticism in Eastern Europe.” In The Continuum His- tory of Apocalypticism, edited by Bernard J. McGinn, John J. Collins, and Stephen J. Stein, 628–48. New York: Continuum, 2003. Collins, Adela Yarbro. Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Set- ting. Semeia 36. Society of Biblical Literature, 1986. ———. “Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypticism.” In Collins, Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting, 1–11. Collins, John J. “Towards the Morphology of a Genre: Introduction.” In Apoc- alypse: The Morphology of a Genre, edited by John J Collins, 1–20. Semeia 14. Society of Biblical Literature, 1979. Conrad, Joseph L. “Russian Ritual Incantations: Tradition, Diversity, and Continuity.” The Slavic and East European Journal 33, no. 3 (1989): 422– 44. Davydov, Z. D., and V. P. Kupchenko, eds. Vospominaniia o Maksimiliane Voloshine. Moskva: Sovetskii pisatelʹ, 1990. Davydov, Z. D., and S. M. Shvartsband. “...I golos moi – nabat”: o knige M. A. Voloshina “Demony glukhonemye.” Pisa: ECIG, 1997. De Gabriak, Cherubina. Iz mira uiti nerazgadannoi: zhizneopisanie, pisʹma 1908–1928 godov, pisʹma B. A. Lemana k M. A. Voloshinu. Edited by V. P. Kupchenko and R. P. Khruleva. Feodosiia; Koktebelʹ, 2009. Dolgopolov, Leonid. “Poeziia i revoliutsiia: Zametki i razmyshleniia.” Lite- raturnoe obozrenie 11 (1987): 10–16.

154 Dostoevskii, Fedor. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh. T. 6. Prestuplenie i nakazanie. Edited by V. G. Bazanov, F. Ia. Priima, and G. M. Fridlender. Leningrad: Nauka, 1973. ———. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh. T. 10. Besy. Edited by V. G. Bazanov, F. Ia. Priima, and G. M. Fridlender. Leningrad: Nauka, 1974. ———. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh. T. 14. Bratʹia Kara- mazovy: knigi I–X. Edited by V. G. Bazanov, F. Ia. Priima, and G. M. Fridlender. Leningrad: Nauka, 1976. Esaulov, Ivan. “Two Facets of Comedic Space in Russian Literature of the Modern Period: Holy Foolishness and Buffoonery.” In Reflective Laugh- ter: Aspects of Humour in Russian Culture, edited by Milne Lesley, 73–84. London: Anthem Press, 2004. Fasmer, Maks. Etimologicheskii slovarʹ russkogo iazyka. V chetyrekh tomakh. Edited by O. N. Trubachev and B. A. Larin. T. 2. Moskva: Progress, 1986. Fatiushchenko, V. I. Russkaia lirika revoliutsionnoi epokhi (1912–1922 gg.). Moskva: Gnozis, 2008. Fedotov, G. P. Stikhi dukhovnye (Russkaia narodnaia vera po dukhovnym sti- kham). TDKS. Moskva: Gnozis, 1991. Filippov, B. A. “Poet kontrastov i miatezhei.” In Voloshin, Stikhotvoreniia i poemy: v dvukh tomakh. T. 1. Stikhotvoreniia, i–xxxi. Filippov, B. A., G. P. Struve, and N. A. Struve. “Primechaniia.” In Voloshin, Stikhotvoreniia i poemy: v dvukh tomakh. T. 1. Stikhotvoreniia, 387–522. Flannery, Frances. “Dreams and Visions in Early Jewish and Early Christian Apocalypses and Apocalypticism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyp- tic Literature, edited by John J. Collins, 104–20. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2014. Gibson, Alexey. “The Image of Judas in the Work of M. A. Voloshin.” The Russian Review 57, no. 2 (1998): 264–78. Gippius, Zinaida. Sobranie sochinenii v piatnadtsati tomakh. T. 5. Chertova kukla: romany, stikhotvoreniia. Edited by T. F. Prokopov. Moskva: Rus- skaia kniga, 2002. Hasty, Olga Peters. “The Cherubina de Gabriak Mystification.” In How Women Must Write: Inventing the Russian Woman Poet, 69–91. North- western University Press, 2019. Hellholm, David. “The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John.” In Collins, Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Set- ting, 13–64. Hellman, Ben. Poets of Hope and Despair: The Russian Symbolists in War and Revolution, 1914–1918. Russian History and Culture 21. Leiden, Bos- ton: Brill, 2018. Hosking, Geoffrey A. Russia and the Russians: From Earliest Times to the Present. London: Penguin, 2012.

155 Iudin, A. V. Onomastikon russkikh zagovorov: Imena sobstvennye v russkom magicheskom folʹklore. Monografii 4. Moskva: Moskovskii obshchestvennyi nauch. fond, 1997. Ivanov, V. V. “Voloshin kak chelovek dukha.” In Izbrannye trudy po semiotike i istorii kulʹtury. V semi tomakh. T. 2. Statʹi o russkoi literature, 155– 200. Moskva: Iazyki russkoi kul´tury, 2000. Izergina, M. “V te gody.” In Davydov and Kupchenko, Vospominaniia o Maksimiliane Voloshine, 452–58. Karlovsky, Igor. “Maximilian Voloshin’s Classical Metres.” Sign Systems Studies 40, no. 1/2 (September 1, 2012): 211–30. Karlsohn, Irina. Poiski Rusi nevidimoi: Kitezhskaia legenda v russkoi kul´ture. 1843–1940. Slavica Gothoburgensia 10. Göteborg: University of Gothen- burg, 2011. Kireeva, I. G. “Osobennosti otrazheniia simvolistskoi idei teurgichnosti v voloshinskikh tekstakh.” In Pinaev, Tvorchestvo Maksimiliana Voloshina: Semantika. Poetika. Kontekst: sbornik statei, 11–19. Kirimli, Hakan. “The Famine of 1921–22 in the Crimea and the Volga Basin and the Relief from Turkey.” Middle Eastern Studies 39, no. 1 (January 2003): 37–88. Konovalova, O. F. “Napisanie o tsariakh moskovskikh I. M. Katyreva-Ros- tovskogo v perelozhenii M. A. Voloshina.” In Drevnerusskie literaturnye pamiatniki, edited by D. S. Likhachev, N. F. Droblenkova, and G. M. Prokhorov, 380–84. Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury, XXXIII. Lenin- grad: Nauka, 1979. Koretskaia, I. V. “Maksimilian Voloshin.” In Russkaia literatura rubezha vekov (1890-e – nachalo 1920-kh godov) kn. 2, edited by V. A. Keldysh and N. A. Bogomolov, 263–85. Moskva: IMLI RAN “Nasledie,” 2001. Kornienko, S. Iu. Samoopredelenie v kulʹture moderna: Maksimilian Voloshin – Marina Tsvetaeva. Moskva: Iazyki slavianskoi kulʹtury, 2015. Koshemchuk, T. A., ed. M. A. Voloshin: pro et contra: antologiia. Sankt-Pe- terburg: Tsentr sodeistviia obrazovaniiu, 2017. Kupchenko, V. P. “Kommentarii.” In Voloshin, Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 1, 425–566. ———. “Kommentarii.” In Voloshin, Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 2, 638–728. ———. “Maksimilian Voloshin – uchenik Rudol´fa Shteinera.” In Koshem- chuk, M. A. Voloshin: pro et contra: antologiia, 438–50. ———. “Primechaniia.” In Voloshin, Stikhotvoreniia i poemy, 553–672. ———. Stranstvie Maksimiliana Voloshina: dokumentalʹnoe povestvovanie. Sankt-Peterburg: LOGOS, 1997. ———. Trudy i dni Maksimiliana Voloshina: letopis´ zhizni i tvorchestva, 1877–1916. Sankt-Peterburg: Aleteiia, 2002. ———. Zhiznʹ Maksimiliana Voloshina: dokumentalʹnoe povestvovanie. Sankt-Peterburg: Zvezda, 2000.

156 Kupchenko, V. P., K. M. Azadovskii, and A. V. Lavrov. “Kommentarii.” In Voloshin, Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 6. Kn. 2, 757–1029. Kupriianov, I. T. Sud´ba poeta: Lichnost´ i poeziia Maksimiliana Voloshina. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1978. Landa, Marianna S. Maximilian Voloshin’s Poetic Legacy and the Post-Soviet Russian Identity. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. ———. “Symbolism and Revolution: On Contradictions in Maximilian Vo- loshin’s Poems on Russia and Terror in the Crimea (1917–1920s).” The Slavic and East European Journal 58, no. 2 (2014): 217–36. ———. “The Poetic Voice of Cherubina De Gabriak in Russian Symbolism.” The Slavic and East European Journal 57, no. 1 (2013): 49–66. Lane, Tora. Rendering the Sublime: A Reading of Marina Tsvetaeva’s Fairy- Tale Poem The Swain. Stockholm Studies in Russian Literature 41. Stock- holm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, 2009. Lann, Evgenii. Pisatel´skaia sud´ba Maksimiliana Voloshina. Moskva: Izd- vo Vserossiiskogo soiuza poetov, 1927. Lavrov, A. V. “Zhizn´ i poeziia Maksimiliana Voloshina.” In Voloshin, Sti- khotvoreniia i poemy, 5–66. Levichev, I. V. “Antroposofiia Rudol´fa Shtainera v tvorcheskoi sud´be Maksimiliana Voloshina.” In Maksimilian Voloshin – poet, myslitel´, antroposof: sbornik statei, edited by E. E. Toropchina, 49–64. Moskva: An- troposofskoe obshchestvo v Rossii, 2007. Levkievskaia, E. E. Slavianskii obereg: semantika i struktura. TDKS. Sovre- mennye issledovaniia. Moskva: Indrik, 2002. Likhachev, D. S. Poetika drevnerusskoi literatury. Moskva: Nauka, 1979. Liutova, S. N. Marina Tsvetaeva i Maksimilian Voloshin: estetika smysloobrazovaniia. Moskva: Dom-muzei M. Tsvetaevoi, 2004. ———. Voloshin i Tsvetaeva ot mladosimvolizma k postmodernu: mono- grafiia (Moskva: MGIMO-Universitet, 2014. Ljunggren, Anna. “The Ritual of Reading Poems from the Cypress Chest: The Theatricalization of Poetry.” In At the Crossroads of Russian Modernism: Studies in Innokentij Annenskij’s Poetics, 62–73. Stockholm Studies in Russian Literature 32. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1997. Ljunggren, Magnus. Poetry and Psychiatry: Essays on Early Twentieth-Cen- tury Russian Symbolist Culture. Translated by Charles Rougle. Studies in Russian and Slavic Literatures, Cultures and History. Brighton, MA: Aca- demic Studies Press, 2014. ———. The Dream of Rebirth: A Study of Andrej Belyj’s Novel Peterburg. Stockholm Studies in Russian Literature 15. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wik- sell international, 1982. Löflund, Emma-Lina. “Russia and the Metaphor of the Seed: The Case of M. A. Vološin’s ‘Posev’ Poems.” Scando-Slavica 66, no. 2 (July 2, 2020): 247–63. Loshchinskaia, N. V. “Kommentarii.” In Voloshin, Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 6. Kn. 1, 716–24.

157 Magomedova, D. M. “Blok i Voloshin (Dve interpretatsii mifa o besovstve).” In Blokovskii sbornik, 39–49. XI. Tartu, 1990. Maikov, L. N., and A. K. Baiburin. Velikorusskie zaklinaniia: sbornik L. N. Maikova. Sankt-Peterburg: Izdatelʹstvo Evropeiskogo Doma, 1994. Makovskii, Sergei. Portrety sovremennikov. Nʹiu-Iork: Izdatelʹstvo imeni Chekhova, 1955. Maksimov, D. E. Poeziia i proza Al. Bloka. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatelʹ, 1975. Marsh, Cynthia. M. A. Voloshin, Artist-Poet: A Study of the Synaesthetic As- pects of His Poetry. Birmingham Slavonic Monographs, no. 14. Birming- ham: Univ. of Birmingham, 1983. Maydell, Renata von. Vor dem Thore: ein Vierteljahrhundert Anthroposophie in Russland. Dokumente und Analysen zur russischen und sowjetischen Kultur 29. Bochum; Projektverl., 2005. Maydell, Rentata von. “Anthroposophy in Russia.” In The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture, edited by Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, 153–67. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997. Mazunin, A. I. “Tri stikhotvornykh perelozheniia ‘Zhitiia’ protopopa Avva- kuma.” In Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury. T. XIV, edited by V. I. Malyshev, 408–12. Moskva, Leningrad: Izdatel´stvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1958. McDaniel, Tim. The Agony of the Russian Idea. Princeton University Press, 1996. Mints, Z. G. “O nekotorykh ‘neomifologicheskikh’ tekstakh v tvorchestve russkikh simvolistov.” In Blok i russkii simvolizm: Izbrannye trudy v trekh knigakh. Kn. 3. Poetika russkogo simvolizma, 59–96. Sankt-Peterburg: Is- kusstvo–SPb, 2004. ———. “Ob evoliutsii russkogo simvolizma.” In Blok i russkii simvolizm: Iz- brannye trudy v trekh knigakh. Kn. 3. Poetika russkogo simvolizma, 175– 89. Sankt-Peterburg: Iskusstvo–SPb, 2004. ———. “Simvol u A. Bloka.” Russian Literature, Russian Symbolism I, 7, no. 3 (May 1, 1979): 193–247. Miroshnichenko, N. M. “M. Voloshin ‘Anno mundi ardentis. 1915’: istoriia sozdaniia i struktura knigi.” Voprosy russkoi literatury: Mezhvuzovskii nauchnyi sbornik 25, no. (82) (2013): 122–31. Nastol´naia kniga sviashchennosluzhitelia. V vos´mi tomakh. T. 4. Moskva: Izdanie Moskovskoi Partiarkhii, 1983. Neizvestnaia. “Edinstvennaia vstrecha.” In Davydov and Kupchenko, Vospo- minaniia o Maksimiliane Voloshine, 362–64. Nevskaia, L. G., T. N. Sveshnikova, and V. N. Toporov, eds. Zagovornyi tekst. Genezis i struktura. Moskva: Indrik, 2005. Obolensky, Dimitri. The Penguin Book of Russian Verse. Harmondsworth: Penguin books, 1962.

158 Orchard, G. Edward. “Chronicle in Search of an Author: The Seventeenth- Century Book of Annals.” The Russian Review 37, no. 2 (April 1, 1978): 197–203. Paperno, Irina. “Introduction.” In Paperno and Grossman, Creating Life: The Aesthetic Utopia of Russian Modernism, 1–11. ———. “The Meaning of Art: Symbolist Theories.” In Paperno and Gross- man, Creating Life: The Aesthetic Utopia of Russian Modernism, 13–23. Paperno, Irina, and Joan Delaney Grossman, eds. Creating Life: The Aesthetic Utopia of Russian Modernism. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, 1994. Parkhomenko, G. F. Liki tvorchestva Maksimiliana Voloshina v sviazi s tainoi ego vysshego “Ia.” Moskva: Novalis, 2012. Perevalova, O. A. “Teoriia zhanra molitvy v sovremennom literaturovedenii.” In Aktual´nye voprosy filologicheskoi nauki XXI veka, 300–308. Ekaterin- burg: UrFU, 2013. Petrov, V. P. “Zagovory.” In Iz istorii russkoi folʹkloristiki, edited by A. A. Gorelov, 77–142. Leningrad: Nauka, 1981. Pinaev, S. M. Maksimilian Voloshin, ili sebia zabyvshii bog. Zhiznʹ zamecha- telʹnykh liudei. Moskva: Molodaia gvardiia, 2005. ———. Poet ritma vechnosti: puti zemnye i dukhovnye voznosheniia Maksi- miliana Voloshina. Moskva: Azbukovnik, 2015. ———, ed. Tvorchestvo Maksimiliana Voloshina: Semantika. Poetika. Kon- tekst: sbornik statei. Moskva: Azbukovnik, 2009. Pogorelaia, Elena. Cherubina de Gabriak: nevernaia kometa. Zhiznʹ za- mechatelʹnykh liudei. Moskva: Molodaia gvardiia, 2020. Porol´, O. A., I. I. Prosvirkina, and N. M. Dmitrieva. “Motivy nachala i kontsa v bibleiskom diskurse M. Voloshina.” Vestnik Orenburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 11, no. 172 (2014): 68–72. Prokof´iev, S. O. “Maksimilian Voloshin – chelovek, poet, antroposof.” In Koshemchuk, M. A. Voloshin: pro et contra: antologiia, 472–93. Prokoshin, Iu. S., and L. F. Soloshchenko, eds. Golubinaia kniga: russkie narodnye dukhovnye stikhi XI–XIX vv. Moskva: Moskovskii rabochii, 1991. Roklina, Natalie. “Mythology in the Poetry of Maksimilian Volosin: The Met- aphor of Consciousness.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, 1989. Rosenthal, Bernice Glatzer. New Myth, New World: From Nietzsche to Stalin- ism. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002. Rykova, N. Ia. “Moi vstrechi.” In Davydov and Kupchenko, Vospominaniia o Maksimiliane Voloshine, 511–17. Sabaneev, Leonid. “Moi vstrechi. ‘Dekadenty.’” In Vospominaniia o serebrianom veke, edited by V. Kreid, 343–53. Moskva: Respublika, 1993. Shevelenko, I. D. Modernizm kak arkhaizm: natsionalizm i poiski modernistskoi estetiki v Rossii. Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2017.

159 Shishkin, A. B. “Simvolisty na Bashne.” In Filosofiia. Literatura. Iskusstvo: Andrei Belyi – Viacheslav Ivanov – Aleksandr Skriabin, edited by K. G. Isupov, 305–40. Filosofiia Rossii pervoi poloviny XX veka. Moskva: ROS- SPEN, 2012. Shishkin, A. B., and Iu. E. Galanina, eds. Bashnia Viacheslava Ivanova i kulʹtura Serebrianogo veka: sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg: Sankt-Peter- burgskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2006. Sokolov, I. A. Akafisty Presviatoi Bogoroditse. Raduisia, Radoste nasha. Moskva: Pravoslavnyi molitvoslov, 1998. Steiner, Rudolf. Anthroposophischer Seelenkalender. Dornach: Rudolf Stei- ner Verlag, 2006. ———. Die geistigen Hintergründe des Ersten Weltkrieges. Kosmische und menschliche Geschichte. Gesamtausgabe 174b. Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 1994. ———. Die Mission einzelner Volksseelen im Zusammenhange mit der germanisch-nordischen Mythologie. Gesamtausgabe 121. Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 1982. ———. Geschichtliche Symptomatologie. Gesamtausgabe 185. Dornach: Ru- dolf Steiner Verlag, 1982. ———. Kosmogonie. Populärer Okkultismus Das Johannes-Evangelium. Die Theosophie anhand des Johannes-Evangeliums. Gesamtausgabe 94. Dor- nach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 2001. ———. Kunst im Lichte der Mysterienweisheit: acht Vorträge, gehalten in Dornach vom 28. Dezember 1914 bis 4. Januar 1915. Gesamtausgabe 275. Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 1990. ———. Menschenschicksale und Völkerschicksale. Gesamtausgabe 157. Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 1981. ———. Zur Geschichte und aus den Inhalten der ersten Abteilung der Esote- rischen Schule 1904–1914: Briefe, Rundbriefe, Dokumente und Vorträge. Gesamtausgabe 264. Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 1996. Sukhorukova, N. V. “Motivy semeni i poseva v knige M. A. Voloshina ‘Neo- palimaia Kupina.’” In Mezhdunarodnaia nauchno-prakticheskaia konferentsiia “Sovoprosnik veka sego…” Sbornik nauchnykh statei, edited by N. M. Miroshnichenko, 270–76. Simferopol´: Antikva, 2013. Tal´, B. M. “Poeticheskaia kontrrevoliutsiia v stikhakh M. Voloshina.” In Ko- shemchuk, M. A. Voloshin: pro et contra: antologiia, 208–21. Teffi, N. A. Vospominaniia. Paris: Lev, 1980. Tolstaia, S. M. Obraz mira v tekste i rituale. Moskva: Universitet Dmitriia Pozharskogo, 2015. Tolstaia, S. M., T. A. Agapkina, L. N. Vinogradova, and V. Ia. Petrukhin, eds. Slavianskie drevnosti: etnolingvisticheskii slovar´: v piati tomakh. T. 2. Moskva: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia; RAN Institut slavianovedeniia, 1999.

160 ———, eds. Slavianskie drevnosti: etnolingvisticheskii slovar´: v piati tomakh. T. 4. Moskva: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia; RAN Institut slavianovedeniia, 2009. Toporkov, A. L. “Dukhovnye stikhi v russkoi literature pervoi treti XX veka.” Russkaia literatura, no. 1 (2015): 5–29. ———. Zagovory v russkoi rukopisnoi traditsii XV–XIX vv.: Istoriia, sim- volika, poetika. TDKS. Sovremennye issledovaniia. Moskva: Indrik, 2005. Toporov, V. N. Akhmatova i Blok: (k probleme postroeniia poeticheskogo dialoga: “blokovskii” tekst Akhmatovoi). Berkley: Berkley Slavic specialities, 1981. Uspenskii, B. A. “Istoriia i semiotika (Vospriiatie vremeni kak semioticheskaia problema).” In Izbrannye trudy: v trekh tomakh. T. 1. Semiotika istorii, semiotika kulʹtury, 9–49. Moskva: Gnozis, 1994. Ustiuzhin, I. B. “Istoriosofiia Maksimiliana Voloshina: ‘Vnutrennie golosa’ v ‘Anno Mundi Ardentis.’” Visnyk natsional´nogo tekhnichnogo universytetu “KhPI” Kharkiv, no. 9 (2009): 18–31. Van Puke, Pit. “Telegrafnyi iazyk Il´i Erenburga.” In Iazyk, soznanie, kommu- nikatsiia: sbornik statei, edited by V. V. Krasnykh and A. I. Izotov, 139– 48. Vyp. 9. Moskva: Dialog–MGU, 1999. Voloshin, Maksimilian. Anno mundi ardentis 1915. Moskva: Zerna, 1916. ———. Demony glukhonemye. Khar´kov: Kamena, 1919. ———. Demony glukhonemye. 2-e izd. Berlin: Kn-vo pisatelei v Berline, 1923. ———. Iverni. Moskva: Tvorchestvo, 1918. ———. Liki tvorchestva. Edited by V. A. Manuilov. Literaturnye pamiatniki. Leningrad: Nauka, 1988. ———. Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 1. Stikhotvoreniia i poemy 1899–1926. Edited by V. P. Kupchenko and A. V. Lavrov. Moskva: Ellis Lak 2000, 2003. ———. Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 2. Stikhotvoreniia i poemy 1891–1931. Edited by V. P. Kupchenko and A. V. Lavrov. Moskva: Ellis Lak 2000, 2004. ———. Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 3. Liki tvorchestva, kniga pervaia. O Repine. Surikov. Edited by V. P. Kupchenko and A. V. Lavrov. Moskva: Ellis Lak 2000, 2005. ———. Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 5. Liki tvorchestva, kniga vtoraia: Iskusstvo i iskus; Liki tvorchestva, kniga tretʹia: Teatr i snovidenie. Proza. 1900–1906: Ocherki, statʹi, retsenzii. Edited by V. P. Kupchenko, A. V. Lavrov, and R. P. Khruleva. Moskva: Ellis Lak 2000, 2007. ———. Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 6. Kn. 1. Proza 1906– 1916; Ocherki, statʹi, retsenzii. Edited by V. P. Kupchenko, A. V. Lavrov, and R. P. Khruleva. Moskva: Ellis Lak 2000, 2007.

161 ———. Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 6. Kn. 2. Proza 1900– 1927; Ocherki, statʹi, lektsii, retsenzii, nabroski, plany. Edited by V. P. Kupchenko, A. V. Lavrov, and R. P. Khruleva. Moskva: Ellis Lak 2000, 2008. ———. Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 7. Kn. 1. Zhurnal puteshetsviia. Dnevnik 1901–1903. Istoriia moei dushi. Edited by V. P. Kup- chenko, A. V. Lavrov, and R. P. Khruleva. Moskva: Ellis Lak 2000, 2006. ———. Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 7. Kn. 2. Dnevnik 1891– 1932. Avtobiografiia. Ankety. Vospominaniia. Edited by V. P. Kupchenko, A. V. Lavrov, and R. P. Khruleva. Moskva: Ellis Lak 2000, 2008. ———. Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 10. Pisʹma 1913–1917. Edited by V. P. Kupchenko, A. V. Lavrov, and R. P. Khruleva. Moskva: Ellis Lak, 2011. ———. Sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh. T. 12. Pisʹma 1918–1924. Edited by V. P. Kupchenko, A. V. Lavrov, and R. P. Khruleva. Moskva: Ellis Lak, 2013. ———. Stikhi o terrore. Berlin: Kn-vo pisatelei v Berline, 1923. ———. Stikhotvoreniia. Edited by L. A. Evstigneeva. Biblioteka poeta osnovana M. Gorʹkim. Malaia seriia. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatelʹ, 1977. ———. Stikhotvoreniia: 1900–1910. Moskva: Grif, 1910. ———. Stikhotvoreniia i poemy. Edited by A. S. Kushner, K. M. Azadovskii, V. P. Kupchenko, and A. V. Lavrov. Biblioteka poeta. Sankt-Peterburg: Peterburgskii pisatelʹ, 1995. ———. Stikhotvoreniia i poemy: v dvukh tomakh. T. 1. Stikhotvoreniia. Ed- ited by G. P. Struve, N. A. Struve, and B. A. Filippov. Paris: Ymca-P., 1982. ———. Usobitsa: Stikhi o revoliutsii. L´vov: Zhivoe slovo, 1923. Voloshin, Maksimilian, and Evgenii Lann. “...Temoi moei iavliaetsia Rossiia”: Maksimilian Voloshin i Evgenii Lann: Pisʹma. Dokumenty. Ma- terialy. Edited by D. A. Beliaev and G. P. Melʹnik. Moskva: Dom-muzei Mariny Tsvetaevoi, 2007. Voloshina, Mariia. O Makse, o Koktebele, o sebe: Vospominaniia; Pisʹma. Obrazy bylogo, 1. Moskva: Koktebelʹ, 2003. Voloshina-Sabashnikova, Margarita. Zelenaia Zmeia: memuary khudozhnitsy. Sankt-Peterburg: Andreev i synovʹia, 1993. Vroon, Ronald. “Cycle and History: Maksimilian Vološin’s ‘Puti Rossii.’” Scando-Slavica 31, no. 1 (January 1985): 55–73. Wachtel, Michael. Russian Symbolism and Literary Tradition: Goethe, Nova- lis, and the Poetics of Vyacheslav Ivanov. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1994. ———. “Viacheslav Ivanov: From Aesthetic Theory to Biographical Prac- tice.” In Paperno and Grossman, Creating Life: The Aesthetic Utopia of Russian Modernism, 151–66.

162 Walker, Barbara. Maximilian Voloshin and the Russian Literary Circle: Cul- ture and Survival in Revolutionary Times. Bloomington: Indiana Univer- sity Press, 2005. Wallrafen, Claudia. Maksimilian Vološin als Künstler und Kritiker. Sla- vistische Beiträge, Bd. 153. München: Sagner, 1982. Wellesz, Egon. The Akathistos Hymn. Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Co- penhague, 1957. West, James. Russian Symbolism: A Study of Vyacheslav Ivanov and the Rus- sian Symbolist Aesthetic. London: Methuen, 1970. White, Duffield. “Vološin’s Poems on the Revolution and Civil War.” The Slavic and East European Journal 19, no. 3 (1975): 297–309. Zaiats, S. M. “Mifotvorchestvo i religiozno-filosofskie iskaniia Maksimiliana Voloshina na pereput´iakh Serebrianogo veka.” Dissertatsiia na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni doktora filologicheskikh nauk, Pridnestrovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet im. T. G. Shevchenko, 2016. Zinevich, A. N. “Istoriia i kul´tura Drevnei Rusi v zhizni i tvorchestve Maksi- miliana Voloshina.” Dissertatsiia na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata filologicheskikh nauk, IRLI RAN, 2015.

163 Sammanfattning

I denna avhandling analyseras boken Neopalimaja Kupina: stichi o vojne i revoljutsii (Den brinnande busken: dikter om kriget och revolutionen) av den ryske poeten Maksimilian Volosjin (1877–1932). Boken omfattar ett sjuttiotal dikter skrivna under en knapp tjugoårsperiod som sträcker sig från den Blo- diga söndagen 1905 fram till 1924 och efterdyningarna av det ryska inbördes- kriget. Denna revolutionsperiod skildras – mot bakgrund av en rad omväl- vande historiska och mytiska episoder – som en av många kritiska vändpunk- ter i den ryska historien. Bokens komplexa kompositionshistoria och det faktum att den aldrig pub- licerades under Volosjins livstid har väckt många frågor kring dess form, kom- position och innebörd. I föreliggande avhandling analyseras den som en helhet, med fokus på de sammanhållande komponenterna i detta omfångsrika och mångfasetterade verk. Avhandlingen är indelad i fyra kapitel samt ett intro- duktionskapitel och slutsatser.

Introduktion Avhandlingen inleds med en översikt över Volosjins liv och verk för att pla- cera dem i deras historiska och kulturella kontext. Trots att intresset för Vo- losjins författarskap ökat under de senaste decennierna visar min redogörelse för Vololosjinforskningens aktuella läge att det finns ytterst få studier som analyserar hela diktsamlingar och böcker, i synnerhet Neopalimaja Kupina. Här formuleras vidare studiens syfte: att presentera en läsning och analys av Neopalimaja Kupina som en helhet. Jag kartlägger bokens kompositionshistoria och undersöker stilgrepp, strategier och myter som förenar dikterna. Centralt för studien är tesen att boken är uppbyggd kring ett konglomerat av myter om död och uppståndelse, som fungerar som en underliggande konceptuell modell. Den teoretiska del som studien tar avstamp i utgörs av tre centrala teori- bildningar. Boris Uspenskijs semiotiska studie av rysk historia formulerar en tudelad kultur-semiotisk perception av tid: en historisk och en kosmologisk. Uspenskijs studie förklarar hur historien kan uppfattas och skildras såväl line- ärt som cykliskt. Vidare introduceras Zara Mints två begrepp mytologem och neomytologiska texter, vilka belyser de ryska symbolisternas förståelse och tolkning av sambandet mellan historia och myt. I detta kapitel beskriver jag också hur myten om apokalypsen, som var så tongivande den för de ryska

164 symbolisterna, intar en central position i Neopalimaja Kupina, och på vilket sätt den kan kopplas till Rudolf Steiners antroposofiska idé om historiens utveckling i form av ett kontinuerligt skifte av kulturepoker. I analysen av bokens tillblivelse använder jag Vladimir Toporovs koncept öppen text, som tydliggör hur en rad kompositionsstrategier bidrar till att en text ständigt syns vara in statu nascendi och på så vis förblir oavslutad. Därutöver används To- porovs koncept för att understryka verkets underliggande modell, då det speglar historiens utveckling som ständigt pågående.

Kapitel 1. Neopalimaja Kupinas kompositionshistoria I kapitlet introduceras en översikt över Neopalimaja Kupina i den utformning boken presenteras i första bandet av Volosjins samlade verk, Sobranie sotjinenij v trinadtsati tomach. Tom pervyj. Stichotvorenija i poemy 1899–1926 (2003). Därefter kartläggs bokens kompositionshistoria med början i diktsam- lingarna Anno mundi ardentis 1915 (1916) och Demony gluchonemye (1919), via den första versionen av verket samt en rad efterföljande skisser och vari- anter, ända fram till dess utformning i nämnda Sobranie sotjinenij. I min analys visar jag att Neopalimaja Kupina har sin grund i dessa tidigare diktsamlingar, och bygger vidare på den tematik som presenteras i dem. I bokens första delar skildras första världskriget som den bibliska apokalypsen, med fokus på dom och undergång. När sedan mytologemet den brinnande busken introduceras börjar död och lidande successivt att kopplas samman med martyrskap och offer, och mot slutet av boken uttrycker dikterna ett hopp om upp- ståndelse, vilket kulminerar i delen ”Voznosjenija”. På så vis kan en gradvis progression och en fokusförskjutning skönjas i verkets underliggande modell: från död genom transformation till uppståndelse. Boken, som kontinuerligt omarbetats utan att slutgiltigt färdigställas, förblir en öppen text.

Kapitel 2. Neopalimaja Kupina som en amalgamering av myter Fokus i detta kapitel är att, med utgångspunkt i Mints teori om neomytologiska texter, undersöka centrala myter i verket och hur de förenar dikterna till en sammanhängande helhet. Analysen visar att flera myter smälter samman i dikterna, och på så sätt skapar en helhet. De myter som dikterna alluderar till är centrerade kring två huvuddrag: döden som transformation (representerad av myten om apokalypsen) samt oförstörbarhet (representerad av myten om den brinnande busken). Genom dessa tolkas historiska och mytiska figurer och episoder i dikterna. Den bibliska brinnande busken, som trots lågorna inte för- gås, blir en symbol för Ryssland, och de historiska personerna som framträder som fantomer från det förflutna presenteras som odödliga bärare av de krafter som formar historien: usurpation, schism och revolt. Genom att använda fröet som symbol för att skildra visionen om Rysslands annalkande pånyttfödelse knyter Volosjin an till Steiners retorik och den antroposofiska visionen om den ryska nationens ledande roll i mänsklighetens andliga utveckling. Kapitlet visar att uppståndelse i Neopalimaja Kupina således har en tudelad innebörd

165 och på det hela taget är ambivalent: den representerar både en positiv och livs- bejakande idé om frälsning och ett liv efter döden, men också en jordisk pånyttfödelse där de döda uppstår för att hemsöka de levande.

Kapitel 3. Orostider i historia och myt I Neopalimaja Kupina skildras omvälvande händelser i Volosjins samtid, men även episoder ur historien. Med Mints begrepp sootvetstvija (korrespondenser) som teoretiskt verktyg undersöker jag i detta kapitel hur Volosjin belyser likheter mellan skilda företeelser och episoder i det förflutna, i sin samtid samt i myter, och på så vis antyder att historien utvecklas cykliskt. Analysen visar att Volosjin skapar korrespondenser mellan dikterna och de händelser som skildras i dem med hjälp av en rad kompositionella strategier, konstgrepp och stilar. Till exempel skildras terrorn under ryska inbördeskriget och terrorn under den franska thermidorkrisen med samma kortfattade, protokollartade stil. Perioder av hungersnöd, som drivit människor till kannibalism, förenas genom självcitering, då samma formulering bokstavligen upprepar en bild eller ett budskap, trots att den refererar till olika historiska epoker. En central iaktta- gelse är att Volosjin går från att antyda korrespondenser till att explicit påpeka dem: i den sista dikten, ”Rossija”, utmålas till exempel Peter den store som den förste bolsjeviken.

Kapitel 4. Poeten som krönikeskrivare och magiker Genom hela Neopalimaja Kupina speglar dikterna två olika roller hos Volo- sjin som poet: krönikeskrivaren och magikern. Båda dessa roller korrespon- derar med den kombination av både historisk och mytisk medvetenhet som utgör ett karakteristiskt drag i Volosjins poesi. I kapitlets första del analyserar jag hur Volosjin skildrar händelser i sin samtid, men även hur han skapar po- etiska adaptioner av historiska dokument och krönikor. Här visar jag på vilka sätt Volosjin använder en polyfoni av ”röster” för att kontextualisera sin samtid mot bakgrund av det förflutna och på så vis sudda ut tidsliga och rumsliga gränser. Bibeln var en stor inspirationskälla för Volosjin, som också skrev adaptioner av gammaltestamentliga profetiska texter. I en rad dikter skildrar han omvälvande händelser ur ett metafysiskt perspektiv. Dessa dikter öppnar upp en ny dimension av hans författarskap, och tydliggör att Volosjin växlar mellan att beskriva sin samtid och att tolka vad som formar den. Volosjin var känd för sina teatraliska manér och för sitt sätt att kommuni- cera sina dikter genom att recitera dem. I kapitlets andra del analyserar jag denna performativa aspekt av Neopalimaja Kupina mot bakgrund av J. L. Au- stins teori om performativa yttranden. De ryska symbolisterna betraktade konst som en transformativ handling, vilket avspeglas i koncepten zjizne- tvortjestvo (livsskapande) och mifotvortjestvo (mytskapande). Jag visar hur Volosjin, i linje med synen på poeten som teurg, bejakar poesins performativa

166 aspekt genom att utforska genrer av en apotropeisk karaktär: böner, besvärjel- ser, magiska formler och antroposofiska mantran. Det är framför allt i dessa dikter hans roll som magiker tydligt framträder.

Slutsatser Volosjin refererade själv till Neoplaimaia Kupina som den ”stora boken”. Boken är en poetisk skildring av det ryska nittonhundratalets första årtionden, präglade av krig, revolution och terror. Den innefattar såväl delar av tidigare diktsamlingar som senare verk, och avspeglar både kontinuitet och utveckling i Volosjins poetik. Genom boken kan man skönja en progression och ett fo- kusskifte från död till martyrskap, och därefter till hoppet om uppståndelse. Analysen av bokens kompositionshistoria visar att den förblir en öppen text som speglar historiens oavbrutna kontinuitet. Den öppna strukturen är också intimt förknippad med verkets underliggande idé: döden och uppståndelsen fungerar som en konceptuell modell och gemensam nämnare som binder ihop dikterna till en helhet. I studien av denna komplexa bok har jag använt mig av begreppet mytologem, som har kapaciteten att ackumulera betydelser. I Neopalimaja Kupina utgör myten om apokalypsen och myten om den brinnande busken två huvuddrag. I dikterna refererar Volosjin till dessa och närliggande myter, genom vilka han tolkar den ryska revolutionsperioden. Idén om uppståndelse fram- förs på ett bildligt sätt i de dikter som skildrar en nationell pånyttfödelse. Denna vision kan knytas an till den antroposofiska doktrinen om historiens utveckling i epoker och Rysslands ledande roll i en framtida slavisk kulture- pok. Liksom uppståndelsen är även oförstörbarheten, representerad av den brinnande busken, ett ambivalent begrepp i Neopalimaja Kupina; den är inte bara förenad med ett hopp om nationellt återuppvaknande utan också med fantomer från den ryska historien som kommer med usurpation, schism och revolt. Neopalimaja Kupina speglar en cykliskhet i historien som konceptuellt motsätter sig sovjetmaktens utopiska löfte om upprättandet av en helt ny värld. I boken använder Volosjin konstgrepp och stilistiska variationer (självcitering, ledmotiv, kompositionella symmetrier, m.m.) som speglar idén om korrespondenser, ett arv från symbolisternas uppfattning om den eviga återkomsten genom historien. I dikterna kan man skönja en gradvis utveckling, där Volosjin går från att antyda korrespondenser till att explicit peka på dem. I likhet med tidsuppfattningen som både cyklisk och linjär, speglar dikterna även poetens roll som dubbel. I egenskap av ögonvittne och krönikeskrivare skildrar Volosjin sin samtid och sätter den i ett brett historiskt perspektiv. Ge- nom att utveckla rollen som krönikeskrivare belyser han, i enlighet med begreppet korrespondenser, analogier till tidigare epoker och episoder. Här framträder Volosjins dikter som en del av den nationella historieskrivningen, och gränserna för hans egen tid och plats suddas ut. Volosjins syn på poesi

167 som en handling återspeglar symbolisternas livsskapande som estetiskt program, och är, vilket jag visar i avhandlingen, nära kopplat till rollen som både magiker och uttolkare av den ryska historien. Volosjin prövar poesins performativa aspekter genom att utforska apotropeiska genrer såsom besvärjelser, böner och antroposofiska mantran. Dessa dikter kan tolkas som ett försök av Volosjin att skapa en teurgisk poesi för att skydda Ryssland och initiera ett nationellt återuppvaknande. Genom att alludera till den brinnande busken som biblisk uppenbarelse bejakar Volosjin ett dubbelt perspektiv i skärningspunkten mellan historia och myt. Poeten efterliknar den brinnande busken som förmedlar det gudomliga budskapet som värnar Ryssland, och hans dikter blir samtidigt också en del av nationens minne. Neopalimaja Kupina kan därför tolkas både som ordet som skyddar Ryssland från förstörelse och ordet som finns kvar i en tid av förstö- relse.

168 STOCKHOLM SLAVIC PAPERS

Redaktion: Nadezjda Zorikhina Nilsson, Maria Zadencka

1. LARS KLEBERG Teatern som handling. Sovjetisk avantgardeestetik 1917–1927. 192 s. Stockholm 1977.

2. BORIS ARAPOVIĆ Miroslav Krležas Den kroatiske guden Mars. Tillkomsthistoria, stil, genre. 184 s. Stockholm 1984.

3. LARS KLEBERG (red.) Att översätta polsk poesi. Bidrag till en diskussion. 112 s. Stockholm 1986.

4. KERSTIN OLOFSSON Utan minne inget liv. En analys av Valentin Rasputins Avsked från Matiëra och Čingis Ajtmatovs Och dagen varar längre än ett sekel. 152 s. Stockholm 1988.

5. MÄRTA BERGSTRAND & Från Königinhofer-handskriften till MATS LARSSON Novemberorkanen. En bibliografi över tjeckisk och slovakisk skönlitteratur i svensk översättning 1862–1991. 183 s. Stockholm 1992.

6. BARBRO NILSSON & EWA Nazwy barw i wymiarów. Colour TEODOROWICZ-HELLMAN and measure terms. 134 s. Stockholm (red.) 1997.

7. EWA TEODOROWICZ- Adam Mickiewicz. En minnesbok HELLMAN (red.) till tvåhundraårsdagen av diktarens födelse. 138 s. Stockholm 1998.

8. EWA TEODOROWICZ- Kvinnan i polska språket. Kobieta w HELLMAN (red.) języku polskim. 92 s. Stockholm 2001.

9. EWA TEODOROWICZ- Wizerunki mężczyzny w języku i HELLMAN & DOROTA literaturze polskiej. Images of Man TUBIELEWICZ MATTSSON in Polish Language and Literature. (red.) 136 s. Stockholm 2003.

10. EWA TEODOROWICZ- W świecie sacrum. In the World of HELLMAN & JADWIGA Sacrum. 156 s. Stockholm 2005. WRONICZ (red.)

11. BARBRO NILSSON & EWA Studies in Lexical Semantics. TEODOROWICZ-HELLMAN Colours, Measures, and Mental (red.) Predicates. 125 s. Stockholm 2005.

12. EWA TEODOROWICZ- W drodze do „Krabata”. Richtung HELLMAN „Krabat”. 160 s. Stockholm 2006.

13. DOROTA TUBIELEWICZ Ord och förändring. Den sociala MATTSSON prosan i Sverige och Polen under mellankrigstiden. 260 s. Stockholm 2006.

14. ALINA NOWICKA-JEŻOWA & Polonica w Archiwum Narodowym EWA TEODOROWICZ- Szwecji. Kolekcja Skokloster i inne HELLMAN (red.) zbiory. Polonica in the Swedish National Archives. The Skokloster Collection and Other Materials. 175 s. Stockholm 2007.

15. DOROTA TUBIELEWICZ Kultura – Polityka – Tożsamość. MATTSSON & EWA Culture – Politics – Identity. 198 s. TEODOROWICZ-HELLMAN Stockholm 2007. (red.)

16. MACIEJ EDER The Polonica Collection from Skokloster Castle. 152 s. Stockholm 2008.

17. MARIA JUDA, EWA Polonika w bibliotece katedralnej w TEODOROWICZ-HELLMAN Strängnäs. Polonica in the Library of in cooperation with RAGNHILD Strängnäs Cathedral. 130 s. LUNDGREN Stockholm 2011.

18. LUDMILA PÖPPEL Frazeologija meždu dvuch revoljucij: slovar’ idiomatiki gazety ”Pravda” 1917 g. 303 s. Stockholm 2012.

19. GENNADIJ KOVALENKO & Novgorodiana Stockholmiensia. ELISABETH LÖFSTRAND 263 s. Stockholm 2012. (red.)

20. RENATA INGBRANT Kvinnligt och manligt i Polen. Två studier om genus, kultur och politik. 131 s. Stockholm 2013.

21. DOROTA TUBIELEWICZ Representations of the Holocaust in MATTSSON (red.) Polish Literature. 130 s. Stockholm 2013.

22. EWA TEODOROWICZ- Między językami, kulturami, HELLMAN & JANINA literaturami. Polska literatura GESCHE (red.) przy współpracy (e)migracyjna w Berlinie i MARION BRANDT Sztokholmie po roku 1981. 360 s. Stockholm 2013.

23. PER AMBROSIANI, Med blicken österut. Hyllningsskrift ELISABETH LÖFSTRAND & till Per-Arne Bodin. 405 s. EWA TEODOROWICZ- Stockholm 2014. HELLMAN (red.)

24. MARIA ZADENCKA Divided Heritages. Culture in a Time of National Differentiations in the Lands of the Old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Baltic Provinces and the Kingdom of Sweden. 208 s. Stockholm 2014.

25. KIA HEDELL, ALINA Polonika muzyczne w Szwecji. NOWICKA-JEŻOWA, Cztery tańce z repertuaru dworskiej BARBARA kapeli Zygmunta III Wazy. Musical PRZYBYSZEWSKA- Polonica in Sweden. Four Dances JARMIŃSKA & EWA from the Repertoire of Sigismund III TEODOROWICZ-HELLMAN Vasa’s Musical Ensemble. 134 s. Stockholm 2014.

26. PER AMBROSIANI, PER- Да веселитсѧ Новъградъ. Må Nov- ARNE BODIN & NADEZJDA gorod fröjda sig. Hyllningsskrift till ZORIKHINA NILSSON (red.) Elisabeth Löfstrand. 237 s. Stock- holm 2016.

27. HANS ANDERSSON Något betydelsefullt: Leonid Dobyčins möten bortom orden i den sovjetiska samtiden. 332 s. Stock- holm 2019.

28. ELISABETH LÖFSTRAND, Slavica antiqua et hodierna. ALEXANDER Hyllningsskrift till Per Ambrosiani. PERESWETOFF-MORATH XXIV + 324 s. Stockholm 2019. & EWA TEODOROWICZ- HELLMAN

29. EWA TEODOROWICZ- Antologia polskiej poezji w Szwecji. HELLMAN (Wprowadzenie, Głosy poetek. 298 s. Stockholm wybór, opracowanie) 2020.

30. HENRIK CHRISTENSEN We Call upon the Author: Contem- porary Biofiction and Fyodor Dosto- evsky. 341 s. Stockholm 2021.

31. EMMA-LINA LÖFLUND The Burning Word: History and Myth in Maximilian Voloshin’s Neopalimaia Kupina. 168 s. Stockholm 2021.

Emma-Lina Löflund is a specialist in Russian poetry. She is affiliated with the Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch and German at Stockholm University.

ISBN 978-91-7911-430-5 ISSN 0347-7002

Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch and German

Doctoral Thesis in Slavic Languages at Stockholm University, Sweden 2021