"Vesy" magazine as an indicator of the maturity of Russian Symbolism

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 article is based on the materials of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of cultural studies "Ideas of "new art" and the image of Russia (on the example of art magazines of the turn of the XIX-XX centuries)" (URL: https://mgimo.ru/upload/diss/2022/ryabchenko-shacz-diss.pdf). Symbolist magazines became an important part of the cultural paradigm of the Silver Age, focusing on their pages all the brightest stages and trends of the frontier discourse.

Therefore, despite a number of worthy studies of the XX century ^{[13],[16],[18],[30]}, periodicals of symbolists still remain an actual object of scientific interest as domestic ^{[5],[15],[19],[20]}, so do foreign scientists ^[23],[31]. In turn, the Libra magazine is one of the flagships of symbolist journalism and thought and reflects the evolution of the ideas of Russian symbolists at the turn of the century. Russian Russian symbolism is rightfully considered to be the "mainstay" of Russian symbolism among researchers ^[20], since it was this periodical that played a major role in the self-knowledge of Russian symbolism and the deepening of its methods and theories. It is worth clarifying that in the work the journal "Libra" is considered as an indicator of the maturity of Russian symbolism in connection with the crisis tendencies revealed during the analysis of its materials, indicating the beginning of the transformation of the original ideas of the current – it is the study of this transformation, the evolution of the ideas of symbolism that is the main task of this work. In the course of the study, using structural-functional, discursive, narrative and philosophical analysis, journalistic materials from 72 issues of Libra were studied, which made it possible to trace the development of symbolist thought in the period from 1904 to 1909. 

From 1904 to 1909, in "these stormy days" when, in Chulkov's words, "the demons of war and revolution were leading their dances", the outpost of symbolist aesthetics and thought was occupied by the magazine "Libra" ^{[27, p. 205]}. Russian Russian scientific-literary and critical-bibliographic journal "Libra" was created as a Russian version of the periodical format popular in Europe at that time, publishing a "review" of the most interesting and resonant articles from Russian and foreign periodicals. However, Libra was by no means a hostage to this format: for example, since the end of 1905, in addition to critical materials, fiction and poetry have appeared in the magazine. V. Y. Bryusov, the actual leader and ideological inspirer of Libra, defined his brainchild as a "journal of ideas" (in the sense that the publication, first of all, aims to observe new ideas that possess the minds of mankind, reflect pan-European trends in the development of scientific and philosophical thought and evaluate them). Bryusov's defining role in the fate of Libra was recognized by both contemporaries and subsequent literary historians. Chulkov noted: "Libra of the first period (and in the history of Libra it is necessary to distinguish between two periods) became the organ of Valery Bryusov. <...> for two or three years we had a magazine, if not with a certain face, then at least with a certain physiognomy. But such a magazine is almost a living being, almost a person" ^{[27, p. 206]}. 

"The history of Libra can be recognized as the history of Russian symbolism in its main channel," N. S. Gumilev wrote in his "obituary" article about Libra ^{[11, p. 44]}. The magazine really united under its shadow all the main figures of Russian symbolism: the above-mentioned V. Bryusov, A. Bely, A. Blok, Vyach. Ivanov, K. Balmont, Y. Baltrushaitis, Ellis and others. "Libra is very, very dear and close to me," wrote Blok, who has been criticized more than once on the pages of the magazine, "now this is the only place where I feel "not at home"" ^{[4, p. 217]}. 

The magazine defended the principles of the "new art" in a combative tone — it was on the pages of Libra that the literary current of symbolism finally took shape. Bryusov's program article "Keys of Secrets", which was published in the first issue of the magazine, published in January 1904, had a great influence on the self-knowledge of Russian symbolism. In it, the poet reflected on the definition of art and its purpose. Only art, according to the author, is able to lift the veil of eternal lies, which we take for an objective perception of the world. "A study based on the testimony of our external senses," writes Bryusov, "gives us only approximate knowledge. The eye deceives us by attributing the properties of the sunbeam to the flower we are looking at. The ear deceives us, considering the vibrations of the air as a property of the bell" ^{[6, p. 19]}. Science only systematizes these false ideas without revealing their true meaning, only art based on intuitive, inspired guessing is able to show us moments of divine enlightenment, Bryusov believes.   The main task of the artist, according to the author, is to express the immaterial in the material. For many centuries, art has been subordinated to various theories and only now, when it has freed itself from the yoke of tradition, we realize, writes Bryusov, its true purpose, which consists in "being a cognition of the world, beyond rational forms, beyond thinking by causality" ^{[6, p. 21]}. "Art, can maybe the greatest power possessed by mankind," Bryusov writes.  "While all the crowbars of science, all the axes of social life are unable to break down the doors and walls that close us, art conceals a terrible dynamite that will crush these walls" ^{[6, p. 21]}. In his subsequent theoretical works (e.g. "On the "slavish speech" in defense of poetry") Bryusov consistently asserted the right of art and symbolism, in particular, to autonomy and complete freedom from any extraneous tasks and obligations. Thus, he called for rejecting the prejudice that symbolism should serve public benefit, science or religion, and insisted on giving him the opportunity to "develop exclusively in the field of art" ^{[6, p. 33]}. In connection with these beliefs, Bryusov became the main ideological opponent of Vyach. Ivanov and A. Blok, who defended the theurgical tasks of the symbolist poet. 

Libra cultivated one of the main principles of symbolist journalism – a clear, recognizable imprint of the author's personality. A creative approach to non-fiction works becomes a conscious editorial policy. Bryusov wrote: "If you have to choose one thing: either interesting reviews or reviews of interesting books, I finally decided to choose the first" [Cit. according to: 16, p. 184]. Critical articles by Bryusov, Bely, Blok, Vyach. Ivanov are imbued with mysticism, philosophy and poetry – criticism in their performance has turned into a special genre of verbal art. 

According to contemporaries, the magazine was incredibly holistic in its content and design. Chulkov wrote: "... the Libra magazine was aimed not ideologically, but aesthetically, because even without believing in the "unshakable truth", one can remain true to oneself" ^{[27, p. 207]}. Libra magazine owes much of its immaculate appearance to its permanent editor-publisher, philanthropist S. A. Polyakov, who took over the financial and organizational side of the publication. It was to him, "gentle as a mimosa", that Balmont, along with Bryusov, Baltrushaitis, Durnov and others, dedicated the book "We will be like the Sun" ^{[1, p. 1]}. He was an amazingly and comprehensively educated man: a mathematician, a polyglot who knew more than a dozen different languages – from Oriental to Scandinavian – an expert and a fine connoisseur of art. In addition, Polyakov was sincerely devoted to symbolism and even printed several notes on the pages of Libra under the pseudonym S. Eschboev, as well as a number of translations. Polyakov personally selected the graphics for the publication. 

Libra became a kind of diary of the epoch, reflecting the search of Russian symbolists: analyzing the materials of the magazine, one can draw very exhaustive conclusions about the moods that possessed the creators of the Silver Age.  For example, the feeling of the "end of the century" that was in the air was formulated and expressed by Diaghilev on the pages of the fourth issue of Libra from 1905. His speech of March 24, the day when the circle of Moscow admirers of the talent of the great entrepreneur on the initiative of P. S. Ostroukhova arranged a small celebration in honor of Diaghilev, which was published in the magazine under the title "In the Hour of Results". 

In this speech Diaghilev states a turning point in Russian art and life. In his opinion, the brilliant, but, alas, "dead" life of the past centuries has come to an end – "it's time for the results" ^{[12, p. 46]}. Having traveled all over the "vast Russia", Diaghilev was convinced of this grandiose turning point in the culture of the country ^{[12, p. 46]}. In his speech, we are again confronted with the image of an empty manor house, which here also becomes a symbol of the outgoing, old Russia. "Deaf boarded–up majorates, palaces terrible for their dead splendor <...> It's not people who live here, but everyday life that lives," says Diaghilev ^{[12, p. 46]}. However, in the speech of the entrepreneur, in addition to pessimistic sentiments, there is hope for the renewal and resurrection of culture through the inevitable death of the past. "We are condemned to die in order to allow a new culture to resurrect," exclaims the founder of the World of Art, "<...> we are witnesses of the greatest historical moment of results and ends in the name of a new unknown culture that will arise by us, but will also sweep us away" ^{[12, p. 46]}. 

It is worth noting that the apocalypticism permeating this speech will become one of the central themes of Libra and the symbolist movement as a whole – the authors and staff of the magazine will actively broadcast this paradigm throughout the entire existence of the publication. As M. V. Silantieva notes, apocalypticism at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries became a "special philosophy", and it was more often presented "not as catastrophism, but as soteriology" ^{[25, p. 109]}. It is also curious that the "withering away" of the old way of life, with which the symbolists fought so fiercely at the beginning of their journey, causes increasing anxiety in their circle, and the images in which this old way of life is reflected become very important, both in creativity and in publicistic performances of adherents of the "new art".

 There are also materials in Libra that demonstrate how social and political changes began to gradually penetrate into the "new art". It has become increasingly difficult to adhere to the principle of pure art, which was originally declared in Libra, free from any social obligations, over the years.

In this regard, of particular interest is the harsh review of the collection of poems by Balmont, written by Bryusov and published in the ninth issue of Libra from 1906. In it, the poet notes a sudden bias into social issues in the work of his colleague. This critical note clearly indicates a significant shift in the life and culture of Russia. 

Starting with a concise description of Balmont's work, Bryusov argues that the main strength of his poetry lies in the ability to express purely intimate and individual experiences, and therefore it is very strange to see him in the role of a civic poet speaking on behalf of an abstract and collective "we". According to Bryusov, the appearance of Balmont in the political arena only led to the chagrin of his admirers. "At what an unfortunate hour it occurred to Balmont that he could be a singer of social and political relations, a "civil singer" of modern Russia!" the critic is indignant ^{[7, p. 53]}.

Being out of his element, Balmont, according to Bryusov, created a cycle of frankly helpless poems, the rhymes of which are extremely "pale and sloppy", and the images are banal ^{[7, p. 53]}. The very language of the Social Democrats is not given to Balmont: "Balmont babbles with sweet naivety words from newspaper feuilletons: "Capital", "Autocracy", "Workers", "Freedom", "Freedom", "Freedom" - but nothing shows that he combines conscious ideas with these labels" ^{[7, p. 55]}. So Balmont's civic lyrics, from Bryusov's point of view, are limited only to very superficial slogans, as seen by the critic. 

However, most of Bryusov's form is concerned about the content of Balmont's poems. Calling for freedom, the poet with all the fury of a neophyte attacks everyone who does not agree with this call – so freedom becomes a privilege only for adherents of social democratic views. "What about "freedom for all", if only "those who do not believe" in the victory of the "conscious" workers are called dishonest, and those who do not join them are also "corrupt"? What kind of freedom is this in general and what kind of freedom of speech in particular, if it exists only for those who are "with us"?", – Bryusov is indignant ^{[7, p. 55]}. In addition, the critic considers it unworthy to use abuse in a polemic with ideological opponents. 

The threats of "red terror", sounding in Balmont's poems, completely terrify the critic. In particular, Bryusov quotes Balmont's line "Remember France. Remember the sound of guillotines!" ^{[7, p. 55]}. The critic claims that the "red terror", during which, among others, the poet and journalist A. Chenier died, was the darkest side of the Great French Revolution and it is simply madness to call him to Russia ^{[7, p. 55]}. Nevertheless, the poet hopes that such a phrase was thrown by Balmont "in childish carelessness, not knowing what he is doing" ^{[7, p. 55]}.

So the poems about the revolution, according to Bryusov, turned out to be completely non-revolutionary in terms of their artistic value. For us, this note is interesting, first of all, because it exposes a turn towards social issues, even in the circle of symbolists who were initially emphasized to be isolated from public issues. Symbolism is gradually beginning to emerge from the closed concept of escapism, it wants to respond to the irreversible processes that are maturing in the depths of Russian society. However, Bryusov is still trying to adhere to the concepts once developed by senior symbolists. 

As we can see, in the symbolist brotherhood, which has never been homogeneous without that, more and more serious disagreements and contradictions are gradually beginning to grow – it is becoming increasingly difficult for the participants of the current to adhere to their original principles. Some symbolists are embarking on a large-scale revision of their beliefs, adopting revolutionary pathos and advocating, among other things, the democratization of art, which was completely impossible to imagine a few years ago.  

As an example, let us turn to a curious note by Andrei Bely about cinematography, published on the pages of the seventh issue of Libra from 1907. This short article was written as part of the journalistic cycle "On the Pass" – a kind of chronicle of the transitional period of Russian culture. 

In this work, Bely contrasts the simplicity and accessibility of cinematography with the complex theoretical constructions of contemporary writers and theater directors. According to the author, cinematography is a sign of a certain simplification of culture. He returns to humanity "simple truths captured by dirty hands; returns human mercy, kindness without any theory —simply, smilingly" ^{[10, p. 50]}. Moreover, cinematography is democratic because it unites people of all classes, professions and views. However, what is even more important, cinema unites people who are "disappointed" in life and current culture – the poet will return to this idea more than once, emphasizing the need for at least some ground for unification in an extremely divided society ^{[10, p. 50]}. 

The author believes that cinematography gives the soul "purification, enlightenment" and pays special attention to the fact that this enlightenment takes place under very modest circumstances, far from the crystal dreams of symbolists ^{[10, p. 51]}. Bely writes that the mystery in the soul "does not occur to the accompaniment of shouts about "daring, beauty", no, to the sounds of a broken piano, over which some loser-a taper, or a taper with a tied cheek (most often an old maid) bent over" ^{[10, p. 51]}. This is how the "chaste breath of life" breaks through the meager environment ^{[10, p. 51]}. 

Recalling the theory of conciliar individualism, actively preached by some symbolists, Bely argues that cinematography, "preserving a person's individuality," introduces him to the general action much more effectively than any theoretical treatise or manifesto ^{[10, p. 51]}. Thus, considering cinematography to be the "democratic theater of the future", the poet places great hopes on it as the last conductor of artistic and philosophical truth ^{[10, p. 53]}. "... Away from all mysteries; less mysteries, more Cinematography!" exclaims Bely ^{[10, p. 53]}. 

The note demonstrates an interesting trend towards simplification: symbolist thought is moving from dark, wordy, confused theories to simple, accessible truths. More recently, supporters of the "new art" spoke about creativity as a secret, about symbolists as a privileged caste of theurgists: "you can only be born a symbolist," wrote Blok ^{[3, p. 432]}. In this regard, the emphasis on the democratization of art seems to be a very unexpected and paradoxical turn on the path of symbolist thought. The accents were clearly beginning to shift – there was a need for renewal within the current, and the beginning of the crisis was realized by all symbolists who were hypersensitive to any fluctuation of moods.  

Thoughts about the crisis of symbolism are heard in Ellis's review of the collection of articles "The Crisis of Modern Theater", published in the ninth issue of 1908. In it, the author analyzes the current stage of the development of symbolism.

First of all, Ellis questions the very concept of "crisis", which is widely used by the authors of the collection. Thus, he interprets the crisis not as death or degeneration, but as only a "turning point" in the development of the movement ^{[28, p. 63]}. Ellis writes: "In every disease, the concept of crisis means only a turning point, where is unknown, but more often to recovery. The crisis is a serious issue and only" ^{[28, p. 63]}. 

Recognizing that at this time symbolism, not only in Russia, but even in the West, is going through a stage of acute crisis, Ellis is sure that this artistic movement is not afraid of any temptation, since symbolism "lives passionately, searches madly, is not afraid of self-examination, reassessments and does not get tired of self-immolation" ^{[28, p. 63]}. Even at its very beginning, this trend was tempered by an unequal struggle with the forms of culture that prevailed before it, it has always been an unheard-of audacity, a kind of counterculture, as Ellis sees it.   

Symbolism, according to the author of the article, due to its diverse and heterogeneous structure, is extremely difficult for the uninitiated to understand the history of its development. Therefore, it is a mistake to draw conclusions about the crisis of symbolism only by its individual manifestations, without taking into account all the diversity of its forms and internal currents. For Ellis, symbolism is "the new religion of mankind", and he does not doubt its viability ^{[28, pp. 63-64]}. In his opinion, the inner core of symbolism remained at the same "esoteric height" despite the fact that numerous epigones largely vulgarized this direction ^{[28, p. 65]}. However, Ellis sees in this vulgarization a natural development of any new idea, and it is difficult to disagree with him.  

The reason for the crisis of symbolism, Ellis sees his rapprochement with life, his adaptation to the level of society. "The crisis of symbolism," the author believes, "is that he coveted the footlights and the stage, the roaring hall and... that, forgetting the chastity of solitude, the duty of rejection and the "pathos of distance" bequeathed by F. Nietzsche, he humiliated himself to the shameful thought of the connection between the priest of Dionysus and the first casual spectator sitting closer to others to the stage" ^{[28, p. 66]}. Therefore, Ellis welcomes the crisis of symbolism – for the author, this indicates that the "disease of diseases (vulgarization)" has reached its highest point, after which a new stage is coming ^{[28, p. 66]}. So, we see that Ellis is actually arguing with White – he opposes the democratization of art, because, as it seems to him, it was she who led symbolism to a crisis. The author considers it necessary to maintain the status quo, not considering it necessary to ideologically update the current.

The review is also interesting because in it Ellis repeatedly compares socialism with symbolism: in his eyes, these currents go through similar stages: socialism, which went to the masses, was also vulgarized. The difference that Ellis emphasizes between these two phenomena is that the symbolists "cannot limit the thirst for the immeasurable (gout de l'infini) burning our breasts to the framework of the evolution of social (i.e., always dictated by the "average person") conditions," which the socialists demand ^{[28, p. 66]}. (Let's pay attention to the phrase "average person" used by Ellis – he still believes in the exclusivity of the symbolists, their specialness, privilege in relation to the layman). The poet considers "mystical anarchism" to be the result of an unthinkable fusion of distorted symbolism and falsely interpreted socialism, the author of which (G. Chulkov) Ellis considers a false symbolist.

Ellis returns to his reflections on the crisis of the "new art" in his review of the almanacs "Peaks", "Surf", "Ears" and "Creativity", published in the fifth issue of 1909. The poet believes that after the recent period of aestheticism, which has reached its extreme limit, the era of "timelessness, social reaction and ideological crisis began at the same time", in which "the crisis of Marxism met with the crisis of symbolism" ^{[29, p. 70]}. At the same time, both public and individual vulgarity has become widespread, and a reassessment of the conquests of the "new art" has begun. Ellis developed this idea in the last article, but this time the poet notices an interesting paradox – the sudden interpenetration of two primordial enemies – Marxism and symbolism. Thus, according to Ellis, the jaded epigones of symbolism begin to flirt with social ideas, and the "free Marxist" plunges into the study of decadence ^{[29, p. 70]}. As Ellis sees it, such mixing creates chaos, giving rise to a struggle of "all against all". Curiously, this mutual influence of Marxism and symbolism was reflected in Ellis' language itself: so he begins to call literary trends and groups "literary parties" ^{[29, p. 71]}. 

In this review, we see features not only of the beginning crisis of symbolism, but also of a certain "sagging" of time, a political reaction that has shackled the whole country. Russian art is inevitably entering a period of peculiar "downtime" caused by disappointment in the revolutionary ideas that swept both social and cultural spheres at the turn of the century. The revolution of 1905 – 1907, as well as innovative aesthetic ideas, failed to radically change life.  The reaction that began led to a general feeling of apathy, frustration and confusion. 

Thus, we see that Libra failed to maintain the initially taken course on art for art's sake – it was absolutely impossible in the seething reality. The ideals of the older symbolists about free art, outside of any extraneous ideas, functions and tasks, have lost their force - the "new art" inevitably joined the very veins of Russian life, which was entering an extremely turbulent period of its history. Symbolism began to be included in the public agenda of his time, striving to become a participant in all the events that befell his contemporaries. We can also observe the brewing trend of the destruction of a certain mystical halo around symbolism, characteristic of the younger symbolists. 

The analysis shows that Libra reflected the internal split of the symbolist brotherhood, the ideological split of symbolism, internal contradictions associated with the painful process of self-discovery of the Russian "new art". The crisis of symbolism, captured on the pages of Libra, largely testifies to the achievement of a certain stage of maturity by Russian symbolism, the readiness of this trend for rebirth and transformation. 

The magazine "Libra" was an important stage in the history of Russian symbolism. It was a real, according to Blok, "solid and fighting" magazine that defended the ideals of the symbolists with captivating grace ^{[4, p. 206]}. Libra experienced all the twists and turns on the path of Russian symbolism, in which, as the analysis shows, by 1909 a turning point was already brewing. In the editorial's farewell address to readers, published in the last issue of Libra from 1910, it was said: "Few words are given to burn and shine in the great historical night. Few words are given to be slogans, to lead and illuminate. Undoubtedly, this power is given to modern “symbolism". However, the words-slogans burn with a different light in each epoch <...> Here we have won! … But tomorrow the same word will become a different slogan, it will light up with a different flame, and it is already burning differently above us!" ^{[22, p. 191]}.