The "Apollo" Magazine as the Field of the Last Battle of Symbolist Manifestos

Riabchenko-Shats Valeriia Dmitrievna ORCID: 0000-0003-4940-6207 PhD in Cultural Studies Educator, Department of International Journalism, Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia 119454, Russia, Moscow region, Moscow, Prospekt Vernadskogo str., 76 ryabchenko.v@inno.mgimo.ru Other publications by this author

The art magazines of the Silver Age occupy a special place in the history of Russian journalism, as well as in the history of Russian symbolism. They became a special phenomenon of the culture of the Silver Age, reflecting the struggle of ideas of the turn of the epoch, the evolution of the artistic discourse of the late XIX – early XX centuries.  Despite the impressive body of research of the XX century ^{[16],[24],[27],[40]}, symbolist periodicals devoted to symbolist journalism remain an actual subject of study for many modern scientists, including A. A. Kholikov ^[35],[36], N. A. Bogomolov ^[5], O. V. Kalugin ^[23], as well as such foreign researchers as A. Payman ^[31], M. Shruba ^[39], D. Stone ^[41]. In our study, discourse analysis was applied: using the continuous sampling method, journalistic materials from 68 issues of the Apollo magazine were collected and analyzed during the study. This allowed us to study in detail the cultural discourse of the period we are interested in.

"Apollo was born, and Libra hides before his radiant face in darkness," S. Polyakov wrote to M. Voloshin in November 1909 ^[32]. Russian Russian "new art", the new St. Petersburg monthly "Apollo", which began publication in October 1909, was destined not only to replace "Libra" as the main printing organ of the Russian "new art", but also to mark a completely new stage of artistic and aesthetic searches within Russian modernism. It should be noted that the magazine was created after the "battle for symbolism", and therefore quite calmly managed to designate its place in the literary and artistic life of the beginning of the century. In this regard, Chulkov wrote: "So, when the battlefield was cleared of fallen bodies and broken guns, Apollo built its temple on it. This magazine came ready. He was no longer hounded and hushed up. ^{[38, p. 200]}. The organizer and editor of the magazine was the art critic S. Makovsky, whom the artist Ostroumova-Lebedeva considered a kind of "new Diaghilev": "In recent years, a new figure has appeared on the artistic background of St. Petersburg, which partly assumed some of the functions of S. P. Diaghilev," she wrote about Makovsky ^{[30, p. 108]}. One of the ideologists and creators of the magazine, who took an active part in shaping the image and program of the literary department, in the last months of his life was In. Annensky. "It is unlikely that the Apollo would have appeared if my meeting with Innokenty Fedorovich had not happened," Makovsky recalled ^{[28, p. 252]}. Makovsky saw the future magazine as a direct heir to the "World of Art" in the sense that "after Diaghilev's "World of Art" Petersburg needed an artistic and literary magazine "molodykh", which is why he attracted A. Benois to the creation of "Apollo" and even asked him to write an introductory article ^{[28, pp. 205, 252]}. "Apollo" really let into its pages young poets-innovators who worked in line with new non-symbolist trends, which, of course, qualitatively distinguished it from the same "Libra". In addition, unlike the "World of Art", which placed more emphasis on painting, "Apollo" focused on literature, attracting Vyach to work on the magazine. Ivanov, N. Gumilyov, M. Kuzmin, M. Voloshin and E. Znosko-Borovsky as the closest collaborators. Also published in the "Apollo" were A. Akhmatova, G. Adamovich, A. Blok, A. Bely, K. Balmont, V. Bryusov, S. Gorodetsky, G. Ivanov, F. Sologub, V. Khodasevich, S. Auslander, G. Chulkov, O. Mandelstam and others. The young members of "Apollo", united in a certain group, called themselves "the young editorial board" ^{[28, p. 276]}. According to Makovsky, "it was only thanks to them that the magazine could find its face" ^{[28, p. 205]}. Nevertheless, artists, theater figures, and art critics also played a significant role in the magazine. The magazine was designed by the same miriskusniki – A. Benois, L. Bakst, M. Dobuzhinsky, K. Somov, D. Mitrokhin, C. Chekhov – which caused the external similarity of the publications (however, "Apollo" was still decorated more modestly and strictly).

In the spirit of the educational aspirations of the "World of Art" Apollonians organized exhibitions, literary and musical evenings with the participation of A. Scriabin, I. Stravinsky, S. Prokofiev in the editorial office. "... young talented composers, exquisite poets and very elegant talkers of the era performed here," Chulkov wrote about the Apollo evenings, "here, by the way, I met Scriabin and heard him play his masterpieces himself" ^{[38, p. 201]}. The Apollonians also established at the editorial office a "Society of Zealots of the Artistic word" or "poetry academy", as the staff themselves called it. As Makovsky recalled, in 1909, Vyach. Ivanov decided to interrupt the traditional meetings in the "tower" and move them to the premises of the "Apollo", giving them "a more professionally poetic character" ^{[28, p. 274]}. So "Apollo" became the successor of the "association of St. Petersburg poets" ^{[28, p. 276]}. The board of the society included A. Blok, M. Kuzmin, V. Piast and N. Nedobrovo. At the meetings of the society, senior Apollonian comrades (Viach. Ivanov, I. Annensky, V. Bryusov) read lectures on aesthetics and literature for their young colleagues. A. Tolstoy recalled the meetings within the framework of the "academy": "Closed readings on versification, begun <...> at the "tower" of V. Ivanov, were transferred to the "Apollo" and turned into an Academy verse. Innokenty Annensky appeared, tall, in a red vest, a straight old man with the head of Don Quixote, with difficult and unusual poems and all sorts of eccentricities. Scriabin played. Bely came from Moscow with a thousand–page theory of poetics" ^{[34, pp. 10-11]}. However, the "Society of Zealots of the Artistic Word" was short-lived and soon ceased to exist due to a split within the editorial office, which will be discussed later.

The structure of "Apollo" was also consonant with the "World of Art". So the content of the magazine included: articles on the history of painting, music, theater, articles on aesthetics and art criticism; reviews and reviews of new books, performances, concerts and exhibitions. Of particular interest is the literary department called the Literary Almanac, whose fiction was very motley.  So next to the spiritual lyrics of Vyach. Ivanov was juxtaposed with O. Dymov's very naturalistic prose; with the homage poem by Musset "New Rolla" by Kuzmin, Chulkov's story "Silence", worked according to the canons of the "New Way". In the prose of "Apollo", as well as in "Libra", retrospective stylization prevailed (this is especially felt in the works of Sadovsky and Auslander). The English adventurous novel, the Byzantine chronicle, the scenes of the "capital and manor" of Pushkin's time were imitated. However, recreating a specific setting in the works of Apollonians often became an end in itself, which significantly distinguished them from the work of Bryusov and the artists of the "World of Art", whose historical stylizations were filled with a deep analysis of the past and present. So the Apollonians' prose largely corresponded to the magazine's program, which focused primarily on skill, and not on ephemeral inspiration – their works were masterfully constructed things, often not inspired by real art.

The poetry published on the pages of "Apollo", without any doubt, was more significant than prose. The magazine featured lyrics by A. Blok, V. Bryusov, K. Balmont, In. Annensky, A. Bely, Vyach. Ivanov, F. Sologub, M. Voloshin, A. Tolstoy. It was here that Anna Akhmatova and Osip Mandelstam performed with their later textbook poems. The poetry of "Apollo" was marked by a curious case. In 1909, a whole cycle of poems by a certain Cherubina de Gabriak was published in the magazine. Her epigonic lyrics in a compartment with a mysterious image (the author was presented as a rich, well-born and beautiful Spaniard who was brought up in a Catholic monastery) aroused not only feverish interest among the staff (according to Makovsky's memoirs, "all the Apollonians fell in love with her" ^{[28, p. 339]}), but also a public outcry: the critic-pamphleteer of the "New Time" Burenin devoted more than one caustic feuilleton to Cherubina, calling her "Akulina de Pissagnac", and the young poet of the humorous magazine "Satyricon" Lev Nikulin later even took the pseudonym of the poetess ^{[28, p. 335]}.  Later it turned out that Cherubina was only a clever invention of M. Voloshin and the poetess E. I. Dmitrieva, who caused one of the most high-profile duels of the turn of the epoch, held between M. Voloshin and N. Gumilev. The duel, fortunately, got a successful outcome, and the episode with Cherubina went down in history as the brightest hoax of the Silver Age.

The name of the magazine was deeply symbolic, as with all art magazines of the turn of the century, and went back to Nietzsche's emblematics, which was very popular among the intelligentsia of that time. In his early work, The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music, Nietzsche talked about the essence of ancient Greek culture, which he saw in the dialectic of the irrationally mystical, uncontrollable, ecstatic "Dionysian" principle and "Apollonian" harmony and moderation based on spiritual enlightenment. Ironically, it was this dialectic that marked the main ideological rift between the editorial staff.

"The split began already from the first year of the Apollo," wrote Makovsky, "although it did not go beyond a purely literary dispute and did not violate the comradely solidarity of the Apollonians" ^{[28, p. 276]}. In the first issue of "Apollo", its editors immediately identified the main vector of the new magazine, which they saw in "Apollonism" – the desire to move "from disparate experiences to natural skill, from vague effects to style", to "slender and clear", "strong and vital" art that lies "beyond painful disintegration of the spirit and pseudo-innovation" ^{[7, p. 3, 4]}. In their first declaration, the authors also emphasized that they pursue purely aesthetic goals, freed from all "ideological shades", which was a common place for modernist manifestos ^{[7, p. 4]}. The magazine's program was also reflected in a half-joking "boring conversation" placed in the "Bees and Wasps of Apollo" section. The remarks of the "professor", who broadcasts the main goals of the publication, go back to the statements of Annensky (this is evidenced by the white autograph of his text ^{[17, p. 227]}). Thus, under the guise of a "professor", Annensky insists that "this "Apollo" has no priests and there will be no sanctuary," clearly speaking out against God-seekers from art ^{[33, p. 79]}. Moreover, in his article "On Modern Lyricism" Annensky interprets symbolism not as a life-building truth, but as a literary school, the merits of which he did not deny. The importance of the artistic discoveries of symbolism, according to Annensky, was paramount in relation to his ideology ^[33]. Thus, Vyach. From the very beginning, Ivanov was a stranger to the politics of the new edition, focused on purely aesthetic and professional tasks, however, despite Annensky's dissatisfaction, he was invited to the leadership core of Apollo. "The whole St. Petersburg young writer's world considers him very much," Makovsky wrote to Annensky, "To make him "their own" would be a real acquisition. But their own in quotes, of course" ^[37]. In fact, another thinker was much closer to the idea of "Apollonism", but by that time he was already losing his former popularity – Akim Volynsky ^[28]. According to Makovsky's memoirs, before the publication of the first issue of the magazine, Volynsky was considered one of the members of the editorial board, until he made a philippic towards all the employees of Apollo, accusing them of "decadent corruption" ^{[28, pp. 281-282]}. After all, with the apologists of the "new art" Volynsky was not on the way.

However, with Vyach. The Apollonians had contradictory relations with Ivanov.  In the first issue of Vyach. Ivanov made an article "On the problem of Theater", in which he broadcast his vision of theatrical productions of the future as a "collective action" in the spirit of his concept of "conciliarity" ^{[18, p. 78]}. At the same time, in the same issue Gumilev published a poetic suite "Captains", in which he spoke on behalf of the "young editorial board" and which outlined the first contours of a new worldview and aesthetics, which will then be called "acmeism". "Thus, the youth immediately found themselves in opposition to one of the "pillars" of the magazine — Vyacheslav Ivanov," Makovsky wrote ^{[28, p. 282]}.

In the fourth issue of Apollo in 1910, M. Kuzmin's article "On Beautiful Clarity" was published, in which the author launched a struggle for the purity of the form of the artwork. In this article, Kuzmin tries to return literature to its normative boundaries and overcome artistic adogmatism, which has become the banner of symbolism. "... let it be told in the story, let them act in the drama, save the lyrics for the verses," Kuzmin writes ^{[25, p. 10]}. The author also calls for a clear, pure syllable, freed from symbolist layers, a distinct form, which corresponds to the "appropriate language"; he wants to see the writer as a "skilled architect" – this is the secret of "beautiful clarity" or "clarism" ^{[25, p. 10]}. Kuzmin also divides creators into "bringing chaos to people, bewildering horror and splitting of their spirit" and into "healing" ones who give the world their "harmony" ^{[25, p. 5]}. Kuzmin considers one of the main tasks of the artist, as well as of every person, to find "peace with oneself and with the world", which, of course, sounded strange and not entirely appropriate in the turbulent inter-revolutionary decade ^{[25, p. 6]}. It is noteworthy enough that N. Berdyaev, even before the publication of Kuzmin's article, caught the anti–catasrophic and anti-eschatological orientation of "Apollo" - in his article about "Apollo", published in the newspaper "Morning of Russia" on February 27, 1910, the philosopher wrote: "... "Apollo" is primarily a reaction against Dostoevsky and his catastrophic, ultimate spirit. This spirit was also in the “World of Art” (the literary part), and in the “New Way”, and in “Questions of Life”, and in “Libra". Apollo does not want Dostoevism, is alien to maximalism, turns away from the abysses of Nietzscheanism and decadence" [Cit. according to: 24, p. 222]. In Kuzmin's article, the ideological attitudes of the acmeism that has not yet taken shape are already heard: the rejection of shaky forms, the call for clarity of thought, the rejection of mystical and metaphysical reflections, the emphasis on understanding creativity as a "skill" that can be honed or acquired through teaching.

The formation of Acmeism into an aesthetic school was facilitated by the crisis of symbolism, which by the end of the 1900s was felt by all participants of the movement. This crisis was caused, first of all, by the deepening gap between the literature of the romantic type and the theurgic ideology of symbolism, which from year to year became more and more complex and acquired additional meanings. However, symbolist literature itself experienced its heyday during these years: the talent of Blok, Bely, Bryusov, Vyach. Ivanov was at his zenith in the early 1910s. Nevertheless, 1910 was a time of deep discussions about the future of symbolism. Bryusov, who defended his long-standing ideal of autonomous pure art, remained in the minority, while Vyach. Ivanov, Blok and Bely, despite a number of discrepancies, agreed in recognizing the "life-creating" functions of symbolism and in understanding the artist's mission as prophetic and theurgic. All this lively controversy unfolded on the pages of "Apollo" and in the walls of its editorial office. 

In 1910, the famous article Vyach was published in the Apollo. Ivanova's "Precepts of Symbolism", which most fully reflected the ideological attitudes of the second generation of Russian symbolists and outlined the genesis, history and prospects of the movement. In it, the author asserts the religious foundations of art. "A poet is always religious, because he is always a poet," the thinker writes ^{[19, p. 11]}. In the view of Vyach. Ivanova, the poet is a "religious organizer of life", a "clairvoyant" and a "secret maker", an "organ of the world soul", and poetry is, first of all, the "language of the gods", which has a powerful creative force ^{[19, p. 12]}. Symbolism, according to the author, is nothing but a memory of this language and of the time when the lyrics played the role of "conjuring magic, <...> mediating between the world of divine entities and man" ^{[19, p. 12]}. Viach. Ivanov also emphasizes the special importance of Russian symbolism, highlighting its national rootedness. Western influence on the development of symbolism on Russian soil was very superficial and little fruitful – it barely glided through the national literary tradition without touching its true essence. The author considers F. I. Tyutchev to be the ancestor of "our true symbolism", designed to express "the cherished shrine of our national soul" ^{[19, p. 13]}. By the way, in the article Vyach. Ivanov was one of the first among the symbolists to introduce the "folk" element, repeatedly referring to the "soul of the people", which is probably a consequence of the strong influence of the ideas of unity and conciliarity of V. S. Solovyov. The task of the "newest symbolic school", according to the thinker, is to simplify its system, to find invisible connections between disparate symbols, to create a whole symbolic worldview. Viach. Ivanov urges to discover a symbolist in yourself, and not to wish to be one and, having discovered it, accept it as a sacred gift and a great responsibility. Acmeism (not yet named at that time) was evaluated by Ivanov as a kind of variant of Parnassism, which became a by-product of the evolution of symbolism and led to "the graces of polished and jewelry craftsmanship, lovingly erecting "into the pearl of creation "everything that is beautiful" ^{[19, p. 17]}. However, this parnassism, according to the author, distorts the very effective nature of poetry, turning it into contemplative. Ivanov considers poetry to be life-making, not icon-making ^{[19, p. 17]}. Thus, in his article, Ivanov recognized the need for stylistic rearmament and simplification in view of the fact that "the old cliches of the school have worn out," however, with the help of a new style, he assumed to protect the former mystical and religious values ^{[19, p. 20]}.

Following Vyach. Ivanov A. Blok published a report "On the current state of Russian symbolism", which he read in 1910 in the "Society of Zealots of the Artistic Word". The purpose of this work, according to its author, is "to concretize what V. Ivanov says, to reveal his terminology, <...> because I belong to those who know what reality lies behind his words, at first glance abstract" ^{[3, p. 425]}. According to the idea of A. Blok, the article was supposed to become a kind of baedeker for the reader in the world of symbolism and its theoretical foundations. Revealing one of the main theses of Vyach. Ivanova says that "symbolism did not want and could not be "only art"" ^{[19, p. 16]}, A. Blok states: "The symbolist is already a theurgist from the beginning, that is, the owner of secret knowledge, behind which there is a secret action" ^{[3, p. 427]}. By "secret knowledge" the poet, first of all, means the knowledge of the split "between this world and "other worlds"" ^{[3, p. 427]}. The "secret action" is closely connected with letting into life "the wind from the worlds of art, completely unlike this world, only terribly affecting it", to make "one's own life an art" ^{[3, pp. 433, 429]}. The main sin of the symbolists A. Blok considers treason to the "Shrine of the Muses", violation of its secrets, substitution of the "living language of the gods" with "slave speech" or, in other words, only poetry in its purest form, which does not carry any secret knowledge, a reflection of the "purple worlds" ^{[3, p. 433]}. The priceless gift received by the symbolists, according to Blok, they "dissolved into the world", surrendering to the beauty of the new abysses they contemplated, but without performing a real spiritual feat ^{[3, p. 435]}. The poet sees a way out in returning to the original sense of symbolism, full of religious awe before the "purple twilight of the vast world", and in preparing himself for the feat that the service of a symbolist requires ^{[3, p. 429]}. Blok expressed his attitude to the emerging acmeism in the following lines: "... they offer us: sing, have fun and call to life, but our faces are burned and disfigured by a purple twilight" ^{[3, p. 432]}.

The dispute about the goals and objectives of symbolism on the pages of "Apollo" was completed by A. Bely, who published the article "A Wreath or a Crown" in the same 1910. In it, Bely argues with the idea of self-directed creativity, which Bryusov expressed earlier in the manifesto "About the "slavish speech" in defense of poetry."  Bely recalled that in his article "Sacred Sacrifice" from 1905, Bryusov put the crown of the prophet above the laurel wreath of the master, but now, according to the author, Bryusov betrays old ideals, reducing symbolism to a literary school. Bely considers art to be the "salvation of mankind", and the artist to be the "creator" of a new life that art will generate ^{[2, p. 3]}. Real art, according to Bely, is born in "torments of conscience, in the struggle for the distant horizons of life" ^{[2, p. 3]}. Despite the fact that the internal contradictions of symbolism have not been resolved, Bely's article became the last manifesto of symbolism on the pages of Apollo. After that, the symbolists only occasionally appeared in the magazine with critical articles and poems. They have already been replaced by "seekers of new ways" ^{[13, p. 59]}.

In 1911, in the "Society of Zealots of the Artistic Word", disagreements between supporters of mystical symbolism, led by Vyach, escalated. Ivanov and the "clarists", headed by Gumilev. In October of the same year Gumilev and Gorodetsky organized the "Workshop of Poets". The name itself emphasized the orientation of the poets to the literary craft. Makovsky recalled: "... symbolist poets, more or less believed in this mission of art, beauty. We can say that they passionately dreamed of turning mystical aesthetics into a religious accomplishment (Scriabin dreamed of the same for symphonic music). This "Luciferianism" of our symbolists, which is very typical for the beginning of the century, was, in my opinion, the main reason for the split between them and the "Guild of Poets"." ^{[28, p. 278]}. The "Workshop of Poets" also included Akhmatova, Mandelstam, G. Ivanov, G. Adamovich and others. At the same time, Bely and E. Medtner, a literary and music critic, created a new symbolist organ "Works and Days". Thus, the rift between the symbolists and the "clarists" – the future Acmeists increased. In 1912, Gumilev became the editor of the literary department of Apollo, and the magazine acquired a clear Acmeist orientation.

In the same 1912, a recent enthusiast of "mystical anarchism" Gorodetsky read his report "Symbolism and Acmeism" in the literary cabaret "Stray Dog", and then published it in the first book of "Apollo" for 1913 under the title "Some trends in modern Russian poetry". In his work Gorodetsky states the decline of symbolism and analyzes the causes of its collapse, among which the author calls the invasion of symbolism in all spheres of thought. So, according to the author, Chulkov introduces symbolism into the political and social theories of his time, Viach. Ivanov – into religion, mysticism and theosophy. Gorodetsky also emphasizes the internal fragmentation of symbolism, in which Bryusov's "combination of the principles of French Parnassus with the dreams of Russian symbolism" is adjacent to Blok's "lyrical-magical" creativity, and Sologub's "solipsism" is with Balmont's lively lyrics ^{[11, p. 47]}. "No one's vassals entered into such endless combinations of quarrels and peace – in the sphere of theories, as vassals of symbolism," Gorodetsky writes ^{[11, pp. 46-47]}. In addition, Gorodetsky claims that the main flaw of symbolism was that he failed to become an "exponent of the spirit of Russia": "nor "Dionysus" Vyacheslav Ivanov, ni “telegraphist” Neither Andrei Bely nor the "troika" of the Bloc turned out to have a measure in common with Russia" ^{[11, p. 47]}. The author contrasts symbolism with "the latest poetry", namely the writers of the circle of the "Workshop of Poets" fighting for Acmeism and Adamism. According to Gorodetsky, symbolism "detracted from the high self-worth of the world", turning it into a phantom, while for Acmeists, "the rose became good in itself <...> and not with its conceivable likenesses with mystical love or anything else", "the troika was bold and good with its bells, coachman and horses, and not a policy drawn under its cover" ^{[11, p. 48]}. Thus, unlike symbolism with its rejection of the world, Acmeism fully accepts reality "in the totality of beauty and ugliness" ^{[11, p. 48]}.

In the same issue, right before Gorodetsky's article, another "throne speech of Acmeism" was published – Gumilev's work "The Legacy of Symbolism and Acmeism". Gumilev was less radical in his judgments and sought to preserve a certain continuity of the two schools, calling symbolism a "worthy father" ^{[15, p. 42]}. Moreover, symbolism appears to the author as a lion, followed, like hyenas, by futurism and ego-futurism. However, unlike its predecessor, acmeism, according to Gumilev, should abandon the "unknowable". "Always remember the unknowable, but not offend your thoughts about it with more or less probable guesses – this is the principle of acmeism" ^{[15, p. 44]}. Gumilev calls Shakespeare, Ramblay, Villon and Theophile Gautier the main professional landmarks of acmeists.

After the appearance of the manifestos of Gumilev and Gorodetsky, "Apollo" became unambiguously perceived as the mouthpiece of acmeism ("from the word "asme" — the highest degree of something, color, blooming time" ^{[4, p. 178]}). Indeed, the negative part of the Acmeist program was expressed very vigorously at the beginning of 1913, but the positive aspirations were more than modest. "Acmeism only said "Down with it!”, – wrote the symbolist poet Sunnerberg, - And in the name of what is it “Down with!" – I could not say" [Cit. according to: 24, p. 246]. Indeed, the declarations of Gumilev and Gorodetsky, which are rather weak in theory, were harshly criticized in the press.

In the article "New trends in Russian poetry: Acmeism", published in the journal "Russian Thought" in 1913, Bryusov defeated the aesthetic concept of the movement and questioned its innovation. Moreover, Bryusov clearly indicated that he sees the meaning of discussing acmeism only because "several poets, undoubtedly talented, have become under his ghostly banner" ^{[6, p. 393]}. The author sees acmeism itself as a "greenhouse plant", which was not prepared in the past and has no connection with the present ^{[6, p. 393]}. Bryusov assessed the theoretical basis of acmeism and the criticism of symbolism in the articles of Gumilev and Gorodetsky as very weak: "S. Gorodetsky and N. Gumilev, both undoubtedly interesting and gifted poets, have never been good theorists, and their attacks on symbolism are childishly helpless. It is clear that they have never understood the essence of symbolism and do not know from which side it is possible to inflict sensitive blows" ^{[6, p. 394]}. Bryusov also believes that Gumilev, Gorodetsky and Akhmatova should abandon their "fruitless claims" to form a school of acmeism, the viability of which he frankly doubts.: "Most likely, in a year or two there will be no acmeism left. His very name will disappear, as, for example, the name of "mystical anarchism", a movement invented 6-7 years ago by G. Georgy Chulkov, has been forgotten" ^{[6, p. 400]}.

V. Hippius was also merciless to acmeism, who immediately saw in its occurrence on the pages of "Apollo" "one of the symptoms of a decrease in public tone" ^{[9, p. 3]}. In addition, in 1915, he assessed Acmeism and Apollonism as primarily reactionary phenomena: "The last decade — before our eyes — has given a young reaction — in dalkrosists, Acmeists, Apollonists, tangists, etc., etc. That grimacing, barely babbling human words, touching in all the zucchini and "miniatures" — the soul of reaction, which I noted two years ago ..." ^{[10, p. 3]}.

A similar point of view was supported by other critics.  Makovsky, retrospectively assessing the Acmeist movement, also saw an internal contradiction in it: "This "school" was created in the Apollo environment as a counteraction to the mystical symbolism headed by Vyacheslav Ivanov. Gumilev demanded “sharpening” of verbal expressiveness, regardless of any vague ideologies. But even he, in such poems as "The Dragon", for example, remained faithful to the language of symbols" ^{[28, pp. 386 – 387]}. The critic of the journal "Chronicle" D. Vygodsky also noted in the article "Poetry and Poetics" that the work of Acmeists radically diverges from their theory. So, according to Vygodsky, Gumilev's book "The Quiver" is remarkable, first of all, because "it is the direct opposite of the theoretical views of the author" ^{[8, p. 251]}. "Instead of the expected spontaneity of the first person, simplicity, not yet violated by culture, everything that the manifestos warned us about," writes Vygodsky- we immediately find ourselves in an exotic garden, where the artistic achievements of many centuries and countries are collected" ^{[8, pp. 251-252]}. Gumilev's lyrics, according to the critic, completely expose "a man of the twentieth century, today, living in the air of libraries and the sun painted on canvases of old paintings" ^{[8, p. 252]}. Vygodsky passes the same sentence on Mandelstam's work, "cold and dispassionate", in which "the smell of an old book is indestructible" ^{[8, p. 252]}. The flowering of Acmeism as a whole seems to the critic artificial, short-lived, deprived of the possibility of growth ^{[8, p. 253]}.

Indeed, the debate about Acmeism quickly dried up. Later, even Gorodetsky had to admit on behalf of the Acmeists that "we saw reality on the surface of life, in admiring dead things, and in fact turned out to be only an addition to symbolism and were just as far from living life, from the people. I wanted to attract Blok to our circle, but he responded with a murderous article "Without divinity, without inspiration"" ^{[12, p. 325]}. In this article, which was waiting for publication until 1925, Blok discusses the aesthetic and theoretical emptiness of acmeism, devoid of internal dynamics: according to the poet, acmeism "reflected absolutely nothing in itself, because it did not carry any birthmarks of "storms and onslaughts"" ^{[4, p. 181]}. According to Blok, acmeism was a local phenomenon that did not attract much attention and did not interfere with anyone, since, unlike symbolism, it always remained "within the limits of "purely literary"" ^{[4, p. 181]}. Blok also notes that acmeism did not have to make its way – it was never "vigorously objected to", because contemporaries were busy with "thoughts of a completely different kind: there was a terrible decomposition in society, there was a thunderstorm in the air, some big events were brewing" ^{[4, p. 177]}.

"Big events" were approaching Russia quickly and inevitably. The double issue of the Apollo, which was published in August 1914, informed the reader about the outbreak of war. At the beginning of hostilities, the authors of "Apollo" (especially Makovsky and Kuzmin) took an officially patriotic position with a touch of Slavophile nationalism. However, the moods of the staff differed: for example, the tragic poems of Blok, imbued with eschatological premonitions, "The Voice from the Choir" and "Born Deaf in the year", were rejected by Makovsky as inconsistent with the views of Apollonians on current events. The voice of Akhmatova, whose poems "July 1914" and "Consolation" presented the war as a national tragedy, did not merge with the bravura chorus. The struggle against nationalism on the pages of Apollo was launched by Mandelstam in the article "Peter Chaadaev", in which the poet contrasts the official military bravado and nationalism, "this beggary of the spirit" with a deep vision of the history and nationality of Chaadaev, who, according to Mandelstam, "brought moral freedom" and was able to organically combine the "gift of the Russian land" and the centuries-old culture of the West ^{[29, p. 61]}. Already by 1915, the mood had changed, and the arguments about nationalism on the pages of Apollo had dried up. In the articles of 1915-1916, G. Ivanov negatively assessed the "patriotic" creativity, calling it "combat "waste paper"". "Bad–tone bravado, the presentation of political programs in poorly rhymed stanzas, the depiction of "German atrocities" have become the property of street leaflets," wrote G. Ivanov, recognizing, however, a number of worthy military-themed poems ^{[21, p. 82]}. For example, G. Ivanov highly appreciated the "military" collection of the Block "Poems about Russia": "In the "Poems about Russia" there is not a single "epic" image, no good fellows and "goy esi". But in them – Russia <...> How fake our poets' forgeries sound next to these authentic folk poems for folk poetry" ^{[22, p. 99]}.

After the February Revolution, literary issues faded into the background. The magazine aimed at professional problems of art criticism, such as the preservation of cultural heritage, acts of vandalism committed during revolutionary events, aesthetic education, state leadership of art, and the like. Among other things, "Apollo" covered the activities of the Commission on Arts organized by Gorky under the provisional government, which included some employees of the magazine. It was already a completely different magazine, retaining only the name from the previous one. However, Apollo did not last long in its new role – the last issue of the magazine was published in the summer of 1918.

 "Apollo" crowns a galaxy of modernist magazines, summing up symbolism and putting forward acmeism on its pages. The magazine clearly shows the evolution and confrontation of the ideas of "new art" and the ways of their interpretation in the turbulent inter-revolutionary decade. In the Apollo circle, completely diverse artists have formed and declared themselves, often outgrowing the framework of formal associations. Of course, "Apollo" was no longer a carrier of lively and combat dynamics, a creative impulse, which distinguished the "World of Art" and "Libra". According to the memoirs of Ostroumova-Lebedeva, the magazine rather "went down the beaten path of the "World of Art"" ^{[30, p. 108]}. Indeed, "Apollo" did not overcome almost any resistance even at the time when acmeism was postulated in it, perhaps because the mechanics of modernist thought itself, always in opposition to tendentiousness and creative search, was discovered and conquered by symbolists or because much more radical futurists became carriers of the fighting spirit at that time. The ancient moderation of "Apollo" looked escapist and did not reflect the rhythm of the era, unlike the work of the futurists, whom the Apollonians never fully accepted, despite the fact that it was Russian futurism, according to Blok, "was the prophet and forerunner of those terrible caricatures and absurdities that the era of war and revolution revealed to us; he reflected in his foggy mirror a kind of cheerful horror that sits in the Russian soul and about which many "visionary" and very intelligent people did not guess" ^{[4, p. 181]}. So the refined and seasoned "Apollo", whose existence is absolutely impossible to imagine in the "fun and terrible" atmosphere of the twenties, completed the tradition of artistic periodicals of the Silver Age. The "new Art", having left the pages of symbolist magazines forever, continued its paradoxical path.