WHAT THE GOD -SEEKERS FOUND IN NIETZSCHE THE RECEPTION OF NIETZSCHE ’S ÜBERMENSCH BY THE PHILOSOPHERS OF THE RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS RENAISSANCE STUDIES IN SLAVIC LITE R ATU R E AND POETICS VOLUME L Edited by J.J. van Baak R. Grübel A.G.F. van Holk W.G. Weststeijn WHAT THE GOD -SEEKERS FOUND IN NIETZSCHE THE RECEPTION OF NIETZSCHE ’S ÜBERMENSCH BY THE PHILOSOPHERS OF THE RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS RENAISSANCE Nel Grillaert Amsterdam - New York, NY 2008 Cover design: Aart Jan Bergshoeff The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO 9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents - Requirements for permanence”. ISBN-13: 978-90-420-2480-9 ©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2008 Printed in the Netherlands Contents Acknowledgements ix Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1. Much ado about Nietzsche 1 2. The Nietzschean turn of the century 3 3. Definition of the problem and approach 7 4. General methodological framework 8 5. Structure of the book 12 6. Who were the God-seekers? 14 7. Note on references, translation and transliteration 17 Chapter 2 The Russian discovery of Nietzsche 19 1. How the German philosopher set foot on Russian soil 19 2. The first responses 24 3. The flexible Nietzsche 35 3.1. The aesthetic Nietzsche 35 3.2. The religious Nietzsche 36 3.3. The political Nietzsche 37 4. Looking for Nietzsche, finding Dostoevskii 37 5. Conclusion 48 Chapter 3 Dostoevskii’s philosophical anthropology 51 1. Introduction 51 2. An ongoing dialogue with God 51 3. Dostoevskii’s Christology 54 4. From ‘legend’ to anthropological ‘truth’ 65 4.1. The ontological status of the human being 66 4.2. Being what one is 67 4.3. Becoming what one is 69 4.4. The anthropology of freedom 71 5. Conclusion 76 vi Chapter 4 “Isn’t the unfortunate Nietzsche right?”: Vladimir Solov’ëv’s response to Nietzsche 79 1. Introduction 79 2. The initial response to Nietzsche: merit nor danger 82 3. Solov’ëv’s sverkhchelovek: renaming Christ 85 4. Nietzsche’s Übermensch: defying Christ 90 5. Conclusion 104 Chapter 5 “Only the word order has changed”: Bogochelovek and chelovekobog 107 1. Introduction 107 2. Bogochelovek 108 3. Prehistory of the chelovekobog 109 3.1. Nikolai Speshnev’s coining of the term 109 3.2. Dostoevskii’s Mephistopheles 112 3.3. Fictionalizing the demon 114 4. Kirillov’s “most great idea” 114 5. Ivan’s ‘anthropological’ upheaval 124 6. The Roman “ant-hill” 129 7. Conclusion 136 Chapter 6 Supplementing Christ: Dmitrii Merezhkovskii’s use of Nietzsche’s Übermensch 139 1. Introduction 139 2. A transitional figure in Russian culture 141 3. The versatility of Nietzsche’s thought in Merezhkovskii’s intellectual development 145 4. Merezhkovskii’s diagnosis: the vices of historical Christianity 147 5. Merezhkovskii’s cure: the identification of Übermensch and chelovekobog 150 6. Merezhkovskii’s new religious consciousness as a way out 159 7. Merezhkovskii’s quotation of Nietzsche: reconstructing Nietzsche’s tracks 167 8. The vicissitudes of Dostoevskii and Nietzsche 177 8.1. Towards an affirmative assessment of Nietzsche 178 8.2. Towards a new reading of Dostoevskii 183 9. The vicissitudes of Merezhkovskii’s paradigm 188 vii 9.1. Akim Volynskii: Tsarstvo Karamazovykh 188 9.2. Sergei Bulgakov: “Ivan Karamazov kak filosofskii tip” 195 9.3. The Nietzsche boom in Dostoevskii criticism 197 9.4. The further functioning of chelovekobog and Übermensch 201 10. Conclusion 203 Chapter 7 Free from God, free within God: Nikolai Berdiaev’s use of Nietzsche’s Übermensch 207 1. Introduction 207 2. Berdiaev’s background 208 3. The fruitful Nietzsche 212 4. “Idealizing” Nietzsche: the immoralist rethought 215 5. The Antichrist remodelled: proselytizing a new Christianity 217 6. Re-Christianizing the Übermensch 221 7. What Dostoevskii knew: moral freedom versus moral freedom 227 8. What Solov’ëv and Merezhkovskii failed to know: the other Übermensch 233 8.1. The antidote to Solov’ëv’s “Antichrist” 233 8.2. Re-modelling Merezhkovskii’s paradigm 236 9. Berdiaev’s quotation of Nietzsche: reconstructing Nietzsche’s tracks 237 10. Conclusion 247 Chapter 8 Conclusion 249 Bibliography 261 Index 279 Acknowledgements Many people have supported this book, which is based on the dissertation for which I was awarded my PhD. I am deeply indebted to Benjamin Biebuyck, my PhD supervisor and mentor at Ghent University. He gave me a most inspirational insight in the rich thought of Friedrich Nietzsche, enthusiastically followed me in my quest for the God-seekers’ assessment of the German philosopher and provided me with original perspectives in this complex matter. I feel very grateful for his constant encouragement, his eagerness to read, re-read and comment on my texts and for his active engagement in my work. Cooperating with him was, and still is, a most pleasant and unique experience. I want to acknowledge Thomas Langerak, who shared with me his expertise in Russian literature and read and commented on my dissertation. I would also like to thank Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal and Evert van der Zweerde for reading and evaluating an earlier version of this manuscript and giving very helpful comments and suggestions. I am also very grateful to Danny Praet for his active belief in my research, continuous support and thought-provoking conversations. I want to thank the Special Research Fund of Ghent University (BOF) and the Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO) for providing me the financial support to pursue my research for this book. I feel grateful to my colleagues of the German Department of Ghent University, who created a very congenial atmosphere to work in and whose lively interest in my research was a great support in the making of this book. A warm thanks also to the colleagues of the Department of Slavonic and East-European Studies and the Department of Philosophy at Ghent University. Special thanks are in order to Frederic Lamsens, Greet Pauwelijn, Marjolein De Wilde and Carol Richards, who put a great effort in proofreading my manuscript. x I would also like to express my deep gratitude to my parents and brother for their unconditional love and acceptance of my absorption in my work. They stand side by side with me on all the roads I take in my life and their significance for my development cannot be captured in words. I thank all my friends for being there. The final word is dedicated to Tim, whose unremitting encouragement, humour and stimulating conversations are an invaluable source of inspiration. Earlier versions of parts of this book have appeared elsewhere in academic journals. I therefore thank the publishers of Studies in East European Thought, Dostoevsky Studies and Slavica Gandensia for granting me the permission to use this material. Full references are given in the Bibliography. Chapter 1 Introduction Tell me what you need, and I will supply you with a Nietzsche citation (Kurt Tucholsky, quoted in Aschheim 1992: 274). Dostoevskii knew everything that Nietzsche knew (Berdiaev [1923] 1991: 54). 1. Much ado about Nietzsche At the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, a considerable part of the Russian intelligentsia became acquainted with the works and thoughts of Friedrich Nietzsche, which for many of them were a significant source of inspiration and an incentive for further reflection. Nietzsche’s ideas appealed to writers, artists, political radicals, and philosophers alike, who all, each in their own way, found in them some answers to their respective intellectual and spiritual quests. Nietzsche’s thought permeated fin de siècle Russia at a time when national consciousness was suffering an impasse. Late imperial Russia experienced a process of rapid modernization, war and social turmoil which plunged the country into a state of social breakdown. Philosophically and culturally, the nihilism of the 1860s and the populism of the 1870s had lost their glitter for a new generation of intellectuals and artists. Faced with the decline of contemporary mentality, these newcomers were in search of fresh and innovative inspirations to revitalize Russia’s languishing identity. Nietzsche, by 2 What the God-seekers found in Nietzsche then already lingering in mental darkness, became a transnational, still highly prolific, muse for Russia’s cultural and philosophical rebirth in the Silver Age. To quote one of its most energetic trailblazers, “Nietzsche’s influence was fundamental in the Russian renaissance of the beginning of the century” (Berdiaev [1946] 1997: 194). From the mid-1890s onwards, Nietzsche had a substantial impact on the emergence and flowering of Russian symbolism. The populist idea that art should contribute to the moral uplifting of the people had lost its attraction for the new generation of writers and artists. In search of an aesthetics that posits pure beauty and the individual’s creativity at the core of the artistic experience, they found in Nietzsche the fundament for their new aesthetic creed. The key text for these symbolists was The Birth of Tragedy (1872), which offered them the required discourse to spell out new aesthetic theories that reinstall both individualism and the celebration of earthly joys in artistic consciousness. Around 1905, as a result of the failed revolution and the consequential social unrest, attention moved to social and political issues. By then, Nietzsche was appropriated by some Marxist-inspired ideologues as they aimed to create a new proletarian culture. His ideas stirred these “Nietzschean” Marxists to delineate the ideology of Bogostroitel’stvo (God-building). The God-builders emphasized the Dionysian principle of transcendence of the individual and assimilation into a collective whole. Prompted by the anthropology of the Übermensch, they aspired to construct a secular religion that would exalt the humans’ strength and potential as well as call for self- 1 sacrifice for the sake of a collective goal.