"The babbitry of professors' humble abodes": Representation of Everyday Life of the "Positivist Father" in Memoirs of Russian Symbolism

Kuzmina Yuliya Alekseevna Graduate student, Department of Culturology, Russian State University for the Humanities 109544, Russia, Moscow region, Moscow, 21 Vekovaya str., building 1, 3 kuzminaulia983@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Introduction

Russian symbolism took shape at the turn of the XIX-XX century around a fundamentally new idea of the possibilities of intuitive cognition ^{[1, p. 55]}. Partly symbolist epistemology was constructed under the influence of V. S. Solovyov's ideas about "mystical intuition" ^[2]. It was based on the destruction of the boundaries of subjectivity in "immanent unity with the theme" (Bely, 1989). This kind of cognition, implying a super-subjective position of the knower and comprehension of the "essence" of the object due to unity with it, stood in opposition to Russian academic positivism with its ideas about the unknowable essence of things (instead of which it was necessary to concentrate only on phenomena accessible to experience) ^{[3, p. 168]}, as well as strict differentiation of objects ("phenomena existing outside of man") and the subject ("the person observing and confirming them") of cognition ^{[3, p. 174]}.

The uniqueness of the confrontation between the two concepts was manifested in the fact that the generational conflict of "fathers and children" was added to the philosophical dispute about the essence of knowledge. "If a catalog list of symbolists were compiled (who are their fathers, from what environment they are, and so on), a very curious fact would be noted; the fathers of most symbolists are educated positivists; and symbolism in this case is an interesting phenomenon in its "decadent" separation from the fathers" (White, "At the turn of two centuries", 1989, p. 203). Thus, describing the pedigrees of the symbolists, A. Bely concludes: "I am the son of a major mathematician [note: N. V. Bugaev], I came out of apartments crowded with conversations about Darwin, Spencer, Mill; Blok is the son of Professor [A. L. Blok], grandson of the most famous botanist, professor [A. N. Beketov], married to the daughter of professor [D. I.] Mendeleev; Ellis is the bastard son of the most famous Moscow teacher [L. I. Polivanov]; S. M. Solovyov is the grandson of the famous historian [S. M.] Solovyov (professor) [...] Shershenevich is the son of Professor [G. F. Shershenevich]; Shervinsky is the son of Professor of Medicine [V. D. Shervinsky] and so on" (Bely, 1989, p. 204).

Of course, there were people from merchant families in the symbolist environment, but the intellectual fashion of the late XIX century dictated standards not only to professors. The most striking example is the son of the "merchant—father" V. Ya. Bryusov, whose childhood is vividly represented in his memoirs: "I had only reasonable toys... My parents put fantasy very low... I've never been read fairy tales... I knew Darwin's name and, being three years old... — preached in the yard... his teaching... Since childhood, I have been attracted to natural history... My favorite pleasure was going to the Zoological Garden..." (Bely, 1989, p. 206).

The symbolist "separation from the fathers" took place not only in questions about the realization of cognition, but also in everyday culture and practices. Therefore, the philosophical aspect is not the only one in the formation of the epistemological paradigm of Russian symbolism. The formation of artistic and theoretical principles at the initial stage did not proceed in the formation of their own positive program, but apophatically to the discourse of the "positivist fathers": "our "no" was thrown at the turn of two centuries - to the fathers" (Bely, 1989, p. 35) and their "life". The same is evidenced by the work of researchers of symbolism. In particular, we note the position of A. Zherebin, stating that both Viennese and Russian symbolism "originated as a filial rebellion, as a youth counterculture" ^{[4, p. 287]}. Or let us recall the concept of N. A. Khrenov, representing symbolism by an alternative culture and considering the relationship of two generations as a clash of anthropomorphism (in symbolism) and deanthropomorphism (in positivism) ^[5].

The struggle of the two discourses for supremacy proceeded in different ways. First of all, it unfolded in the figurative and plot systems of literary works of "children". The images of fathers in the literary texts of young symbolists have repeatedly become the subject of research ^[6-9], therefore in this article we will allow ourselves to omit them. Instead, let's turn to the area that has been left without proper research attention. We are talking about those figures of "fathers" that "children" designed in their own memoirs. On their pages, symbolists retrospectively used childhood memories of the real everyday culture of parents and created constructs of their everyday life by "othering" and representation of otherness. Thus, the social and cultural field of Russian positivism was deliberately distorted, transformed and, as it were, translated into the language of symbolist discourse for the sake of constituting one's own "self". 

Representation of otherness in the optics of translation turn

Within the framework of the article, an attempt will be made to consider ways of othering the "positivist fathers" in symbolist discourse by referring to the research optics that was formed around the ideas of the translation turn. In the 1980s, the concept of translation in the cultural sciences was significantly expanded and conceptualized due to its correlation with such concepts as "cultural representation and transformation, alienness and dissimilarity" ^{[10, p. 284]}. Thus, as a result of the "reorientation from text to discourse" ^{[10, p. 289]}, it began to be applied not only to the translation of speech, but also to the transition from one way of implementing cultural practices to another ^[11-13], as well as to representations in the language of one's own culture of life forms, personalities, practices and thoughts of another culture ^{[10, p. 316]}. At the same time, the emphasis was increasingly placed on the fact that such transition processes occur as a result of an asymmetric distribution of power. The translation takes place "between interest groups and discourses that compete for supremacy" ^{[10, p. 303]}. The privileged discourse, in this case, gains primacy through the transformation of another discourse, within the framework of its alleged "translation" (but in fact only representation) into its own language and method of organization. In fact, when the symbolists described the behavior of the "fathers", they did it, firstly, in their own discursive space (memoirs, joint creative evenings) and, secondly, in the language of their own categories, and therefore the transformation of the content of such behavior became inevitable.

Optics, built with a translation twist, examines cultural phenomena (in our case, scenes from memoirs) as "intermediate spaces" ("third space"), "areas of intersection" or "contact zones" of opposing discourses ^{[10, p. 286]}. Ultimately, such spaces are the places of implementation of "representative practice" ^{[14, p. 5-6]}. In a situation where translation is carried out asymmetrically, representation aims at constructing the Other and demonstrating its otherness. Moreover, the feeling of otherness arises from the fact that someone else's discourse is represented only by the usual means of one's own. Therefore, the nature of alienness is paradoxical here: otherness is built up through discursive unification.

The Otherness of the "fathers" in the Memoirs of Russian Symbolism

First of all, we will try to reproduce the content of the everyday life of the "fathers", which is constructed in the memoirs and diary notes of A. Bely, G. I. Chulkov, V. Ya. Bryusov, N. Petrovskaya, B. M. Runt and Z. N. Gippius. It is a construct obtained as a result of the translation of real everyday practices of academics into the language of symbolists, which has passed through numerous stages of transformation by the dominant discourse. Such a construct will be revealed as a hierarchically ordered structure consisting of iconic elements and a set of principles of their organization.

Let's describe the portrait of the "positivist father" constructed by memoirists. In the representation of symbolists, this "father" is often not directly connected with the real parent and represents a generalizing mythologeme. He is always a poor intellectual, a native of the "educated raznochintsy" of the sixties or "seedy nobles who have long forgotten about their nobility" (Bely, 1989, p. 204). His worldview is expressed as "positive liberalism and liberal positivism" (Bely, 1989, p. 149), and his career is most often built around the University. The rejection of personalization and the reduction of real people to a single generalizing figure is the same violent discursive unification that creates the image of the non-separable, and therefore the absolute Other. In addition, such unification creates the structure of a clear binary (We — They), which is the most important feature of asymmetric translation ^{[10, p. 304]}. Binary thinking, as a rule, is revealed as thinking by "entities" ^{[10, p. 304]}. The claim to understand the "essence" of the Other, in turn, provides the translator with primacy over the translated in the discursive field.

The household culture of such a "father" was constructed by memoirists as "the life of professorial apartments" (Bely, 1989, p. 45) and "the triumph of vulgarity" ^{[15, p. 94]}, where the humiliation of the everyday life of parents was traced already at the level of the chosen terminology (including the active use of diminutives). Summarizing numerous remarks about the "vulgar" everyday life of the "fathers", we note that its basis was the principle of inviolability and immutability: "the epoch that gave birth to us was static" (Bely, 1989, p. 200). The consequence of immutability was boredom as the main mentality of the era: "So monotonous. So boring" (Gippius, "Petersburg Diaries", 1982, p. 64). Systematizing the memoir notes, we can conclude that the construct of the inviolability of the "life of professorial apartments" was built on four different levels of organization: 1) visual environment, 2) social regulation, 3) the principle of validity of any everyday practices and 4) certain rules of behavior.

The first level is the principle of visual immutability. It concerned both the arrangement of the apartment of the "fathers" and the appearance of the rest of its inhabitants. The arrangement of household items and furniture did not allow even the smallest changes. If the mythological "father", for example, hung portraits of any cultural figures in his office, then they "remained hanging until his death" ^{[15, p. 30]} untouched. The symbols of the immutability of the appearance of the inhabitants of such an apartment were a man's black tailcoat and women's prunel shoes. In addition, a special place was occupied by a woman's petticoat, which, as a sign of the cleanliness of the hostess, had to be white and starched. The inviolability of the costume and the furnishings of the "apartment" required a special way of preserving them. Symbolist discourse painted fetishism in this way. "It was necessary to hold on to a thoroughly rotten life; there were no idols inside, "traditions" got by under the guise, and only a fetish could support them from the outside" (Bely, 1989, p. 113). The fetishism of the fathers was constructed by symbolists as a form without content, endlessly reproducing itself and closed on itself: "There was no culture, but there was life" (Bely, 1989, p. 113). In addition, inviolability and immutability were read in the extraordinary visual "regularity" of life, in which "unhurriedness", "silence and serenity" prevailed (Chulkov, "Years of Wandering", 1930, p. 5), "philistine boredom" (Chulkov, 1930, p. 6).

The second level of the principle of inviolability was the routine of social behavior. "Outings to people" and conversations of "fathers" were represented by "children" strictly regulated: "the philistine-room took its toll, drowsily rocked, attracted by inertia, [...].   Theaters, streets, maps, a seat at tables bursting with food that no one wanted to eat, liqueurs, wines, fruits, flowers, gatherings of elegant and carefully disguised people. [...] all this vulgarity of Russian life at that time, decorated on the edge of the abyss, was the basis not only of my existence" (Petrovskaya, "Memoirs", 1989, p. 20).

The life of the "fathers" in the transformation was depicted by the symbolist discourse as taking place according to a certain routine. It culminated in visits, card games and weekend tea parties. In the routine of social ties and everyday practices associated with them, the "positivist father" had to find guarantees of the inviolability of the foundations of his being. Therefore, the routine was conducted solemnly and extremely seriously. It was built as a magical ritual, and with its pathos it proclaimed and ensured the steadfastness of everyday culture: "the seriousness and pretentiousness of everyday life proclaims the sanctity and inviolability of common places of everyday life:  the inviolability of the conversation about the beautiful weather and the inviolability of the cake sent by him [Professor N. A. Umov]; he appeared to us as if the greatest cosmic event had happened; sat down and fell silent; and then proclaimed:

— The weather is beautiful!" (Bely, 1989, p. 84).

Seriousness and solemnity as the main characteristic of the everyday practices of the "fathers" required appropriate cultural examples. For this reason, they allegedly turned to pretentious, but understandable "serious art", referring to the samples of the past: "the art glorified by this apartment: with a Mast and a Potapenka, with Clover and Konstantin  Makovsky, with academician Beklemishev and with Nadson instead of Pushkin" (Bely, 1989, p. 91).

The third level of the organization of the everyday culture of the Russian intelligentsia of the late XIX century in the symbolist construct was the principle of scientific conditionality of any everyday practice. He regulated any actions taking place in the "apartment", because for each of them there was a sample determined by science: "He had his own method for everything: the method of pouring sugar, the method of pouring tea, the method of holding a croquet mallet, pencil points, brewing boric acid, memorizing, dusting, etc." (Bely, 1989, p. 91). The symbolist discourse endowed the rationalization of everyday practices with the meaning that the very "positivist method" lost mobility in the hands of the "fathers" and became a rigid dogma. This position provided the symbolists with a certain intellectual snobbery and confidence that it was their generation that truly deeply understood Comte, Spencer, Mill and Darwin. The "fathers", being held hostage by dogma, are no longer able to carry out true knowledge. Thus, the representation of scientific conditionality is aimed at building a powerful discourse and an asymmetric translation of the real behavior of the fathers and grandfathers of Russian symbolists for the sake of constructing the "self" of the speaker.

Finally, the last level of the organization of inviolability, "the main canon of the Russian intelligentsia": "to be like everyone else" and behave "as it should" (Bely, 1989, p. 67). These canons were expressed in the principle of inheritance by children from their fathers of what was supposed to be. First of all, a certain worldview — positivism and liberalism: "I sucked it all into myself from the beginning: that's why "we" are a professorial circle, so that the babies of "us" do not crawl like everyone else, but constitutionally and positivistically" (Bely, 1989, p. 107). The second stage of inheritance was the choice of faculty. Bely also noticed how few "wordsmiths" are among the symbolists: "I am a natural scientist; Baltrushaitis is a natural scientist; the publisher of the Scorpion is a mathematician by education; Ellis is an educated economist" (Bely, 1989, p. 201). The succession of positions at the University continued: "Positivists," Blok and I used to say in our youth; and the "type" got up, not so much "daddies" as Pasha, Arkasha, Nikolasha [children of positivists], or whatever his name is; also with "daddies" I struggled; with the Arkashas, with the Nikolashas — never; I knew them too well in their "status of the nascendi", they went into service at the university; and were hired as pedels guarding dad's achievements." The inheritance ended with the final transfer of the traditions of the "bytik" in the form of the "professor's apartment" itself.

Symbolists constructed the conventional image of the mythological "father" — a native of the academic environment of Russian positivists. Having considered the principles of its representation, it should be noted that most of them are based on the postulate of immutability. Thus, a situation typical of the mechanics of otherization is created, in which the Other One acts as a permanent, timeless, and therefore non-historical being, always equal to himself. In the end, such mental operations lead to "denial of the ability of [the Other] to be a contemporary" ^{[10, p. 199]}. In a discursive attitude, such a position creates an additional distance and removes the status of a competitor from another discourse. The rivalry for hegemony "here and now" is thus declared complete.

Note the simpler mechanics. The construction of a binary style of thinking by the discourse of "children" invariably leads to the fact that symbolists in the eyes of readers of memoirs begin to acquire qualities opposite to the qualities of "fathers". They become, as it were, a priori 1) mobile subjects of historical time, 2) spontaneous in the manifestations of sociality, 3) devoid of a tendency to philistinism, philistine vulgarity and comfort, 4) capable of frivolity of everyday behavior, 5) deeply understanding positivist philosophy, 6) free and independent of reliance on the past, 7) putting culture above everyday life and 8) independent of the financial and social assets of the "fathers". Thus, the representation of the otherness of the Other fulfills the task of constructing one's own identity. 

Representation of representation

As is known, the culture of the Silver Age was built around the ideas of life creation ^{[16, pp. 10-57]} and the theatricalization of everyday life ^[17]. Together, these phenomena have led to a high prevalence of gaming behavior among Russian symbolists. Therefore, in the memoirs of the era, there are often memories of creative evenings where "children" in their gaming practices parodied the everyday behavior of "fathers". Of course, the structure of the games also subjected him to transformation. By itself, the device of a mimetic game, where the player plays the "father" with his own body, compels personification and imitation of individual traits (facial expressions, gestures, intonations, etc.). However, it should be noted that such personification is superficial. After all, the narrative of the game itself, as we will see, was built based on the general idea of the mythological "positivist father".

It should be noted that such scenes are interesting from the point of view of the translation turn also because they represent a representation of representation. Its first level unfolds directly in the game and is revealed as a representation of the image of the "father" due to the use by the player of those categories and representations that can be correctly read by a narrow circle of symbolists present at the evening. Its second level is found in the structure of the memoir itself, where the narrator presents a game representing the image of the "father", using the language of symbolist discourse and making his own adjustments to the description of the game. Thus, in the memoirs, a kind of double translation of one culture into the language of another is carried out.

As an example, consider the memory of Ellis's gaming practices: "Ellis's most magnificent number was a lecture by Professor V. M. Khvostov, allegedly read in a psychological department: sitting down baggily on a chair, wrinkling his forehead, loudly smacking his lips in Khvostovsky, he became the spitting image of V. M. Khvostov, buzzing:

— Dear ladies and gentlemen! Some respected thinkers say that there is no free will, while others, no less respected, claim the opposite; there is a group of equally respected thinkers who first assert that there is no free will, and then, falling into a clear and screaming contradiction with themselves, comes to the conclusion that there is free will; and there is a group of respected and equally remarkable thinkers who first claim that there is free will, and then fall into an equally obvious and no less blatant contradiction, coming to the conclusion that there is no free will. Dear ladies and gentlemen: if there is free will, so it is; and if it is not, so it is not. Let's analyze these groups and subgroups in their relations to the problem of free will and so on.   Cool laughter; Ellis, completely reincarnated in V. M. Khvostov, unfolds an hour-long lecture on freedom of will entirely consisting of a set of words" (Bely, "The Beginning of the Century", 1990, p. 297).

Let's describe the mechanics of the first level of representation (the Ellis game practice itself). It is not difficult to see that the same generalized principles of the culture of the "fathers" that we described above are hidden behind the apparent personification. First of all, we note the player's desire to convey the dogmatism and ossification of the positivist's thinking, as well as his faith in authorities. The professor's monologue is constructed in such a way that the concepts of thinkers (essential phenomena) are not important. The only important thing is that the thinkers themselves are "respected", who have earned a name for themselves. We can assume that in this way Ellis "translated" into the language of symbolism the positivist attitude to "accumulation of positive knowledge". In addition, we note that in the structure of this game, such knowledge has no value, because it is 1) actualized as a "set of words", 2) does not seek to comprehend the essence of the phenomenon ("if there is free will, so it is; and if it is not, so it is not"), 3) closes on to himself (it is not the essence of free will that is important, but what opinions exist on this issue: "let's analyze these groups and subgroups").

The second level of representation (the narrative of the memoirist) is revealed first, in the afterword: "it was told later [...] V. M. Khvostov did take and read a lecture on free will in the Psychological Department, which was an amazing repetition of Ellis's parody." The description of the professor's real lecture is omitted in this discourse, because the essence and degree of such "repetitions" cannot be verified. Such silence, typical for asymmetric translations, creates the illusion that the game and real lectures are identical, and therefore the image of the professor is not a construct. Secondly, the narrator adds a significant "cool laugh", which sets the binary, because if "We" laugh at Him, then "We" are not "He" and have the opposite qualities to Him.

Another striking example is the buffoonery of S. M. Solovyov, drawing the principles of the scientific work of imaginary professors from the future: "we appeared in parodies in front of us as a "blok sect"; the contours of the sect are sought out by a hardworking professor of culture from the XXII century; S. M. invented his name: it was an academician, philosopher Lapan, who put forward the most difficult question: did there exist a “sect” like ours — based on: poems by A. N., works by Vladimir Solovyov and “Confessions” by A. N. Schmidt. Lapan came to the conclusion: S. P. X. [S. P. Khitrovo], a friend of Vladimir Solovyov, of course, has never been; S. P. X. is a symbolic sign, a cryptogram similar to the first Christian one: S. P. X. is Sophia, the Wisdom of Christ. “Sofia Petrovna“ is an allegorical sign: Sofia, or the Third Testament arising on the stone of the second, on the stone ”Peter": that's what “Sofia Petrovna” meant, from the biography of Solovyov: it is a legend compiled by the philosopher's disciples. We were laughing. Then, S. M., who had gone off in jokes, announced: Lapan's student, a very, very learned Pampan, continuing the Lapan method, came to the conclusion that A. A. [A. Blok] never married: a spouse named “Lyubov Dmitrievna” did not exist; and this is the legend of the “blokists”: Blok has Sophia Wisdom it becomes a new "Love", which is from the Eleusinian mystery in honor of Demeter, "Dmitrievna" — Demetrovna" (Bely, Memories of Blok, 1995, p. 68).

The positivists Lapan and Pampan, fictional by S. M. Solovyov, and their scientific activities are the "intermediate space" for representation, to which "children" resorted in the process of constructing the image of "fathers". Binary as a mechanism of "otherization" in this cultural practice is expressed most vividly. At the first level of representation (S. M. Solovyov's games) it manifests itself in the structure of game practice, where positivists are directly opposed to "blokovites". In addition, the very positivist ("Lapanov") method "in the game marks the type of cognition that leads to incomplete understanding" ^[18]. Unlike the Blokists, the game positivists do not realize the very essence of the subject of their research: existing in reality and embodied by S. P. Khitrovo and L. D. Blok. The second level of representation (the memoirist's description of the game by S. M. Solovyov) continues to form a binary by providing the reader with the only correct reaction within the framework of this discourse to the images of Lapan and Pampan: "we laughed." 

Conclusion

The formation of their own theoretical and aesthetic concepts by Russian symbolists took place in opposition to the philosophical views and everyday life of the "positivist fathers" and often acquired the features of a conflict of "fathers and children". In the struggle for the establishment of a new symbolist discourse, the "children" transformed and distorted the culture of the "fathers". In particular, they used childhood memories of the everyday life of their parents to construct in their memoirs a type of representation of "fathers" that would put them in a losing position. The everyday culture of the Russian intellectual of the late XIX century was drawn by memoirists standing on the principle of inviolability and immutability. Symbolists attributed to her such categories as the routine of everyday life, seriousness and pathos, regularity and unhurriedness, the principle of scientific conditionality, nepotism and heredity, as well as the principle of "as it should be".

The construction of such a construct in memoirs was carried out in the practices of "otherization" and representation of otherness. According to the results of the analysis, the article highlighted such mechanics of "otherization" as: unification and generalization, binary and asymmetry, giving the Other the status of timelessness and non-historicity, the use of pejorative categories and diminutives, the narrative technique of double representation and silence. Since at the initial stages of the formation of a new direction, Russian symbolists did not yet have a positive program, the goal of the "otherization" of the fathers was to construct personal identity and their own "self", an attempt to define themselves through Another.