NOTES

Introduction

1. M. J. Lasky, “The Birth of a Metaphor: On the Origins of Utopia and Revolution,” Encounter, XXXIV, 2 (February 1970), p. 39; J. L. Talmon, Political Messianism: The Romantic Phase (New York, 1960), pp. 35, 77.

2. R. Poggioli, The Theory of the Avant-garde, trans. G. Fitzgerald (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), pp. 66-67.

3. Ibid., pp. 65-66.

Chapter 1
Innovation, Revolution, and the Russian Avant-garde

1. On the history of the concept and term “avant-garde” see R. Poggioli, The Theory of the Avant-garde; D. Egbert, “The Idea of ‘Avant-garde’ in Art and Politics,” American Historical Review, LXXIII, 2 (December 1967), pp. 330-36. On the use of the word in French journals see R. Estivais, J.-C. Gaudy, and G. Vergez, L’Avant-garde (Paris, 1968). Also H. E. Holthusen, “Kunst und Revolution,” Gestalt und Gedanke, XI (1966), pp. 7-44; M. de Micheli, Le avanguardie artistiche del Novocento (Milan, 1959) ; P. Cabanne, Vavant-garde au XX^e siecle (Paris, 1969).

2. M. Cantor, Max Eastman (New York, 1970), p. 83; A. R. MacDougall, Isadora: A Revolutionary in Art and Love (New York, 1969), p. 194; H. Carter, Spiritualism (London, 1920), p. 12. Huntley Carter was a British journalist and drama critic who became an outspoken Soviet sympathizer in England in the 1920s and 1930s; his sometimes mystical language reflected his prewar interest in theosophy and spiritualism. See his The New Theatre and Cinema of Soviet Russia (New York, 1925) and his later The New Spirit in the Cinema (London, 1930).

3. R. Fueloep-Miller, The Mind and Face of Bolshevism (New York, 1927), pp. 2, 6, 24, 104, 120, and 132.

4. J. Billington, The Icon and the Axe (New York, 1966), pp. 517, 48485. 486, 505, 547, and 476, respectively.

5. R. Jakobson, Selected Writings (The Hague and Paris, 1971), pp. 30-31; C. Gray, The Russian Experiment in Art 1863-1922 (New York, 1970), p. 94; S. F. Starr, in the catalogue of the Hutton Gallery, New York, Russian Avant-garde: 1908-1922 (New York, 1971), pp. 6, 8; J. Berger, Art and Revolution (London, 1969), pp. 28, 30-31; J. Bowlt, in Russian Avant- garde, pp. 10-13.

6. L. Trotsky, Literature and Revolution (1924) (Ann Arbor, 1960), pp. 157, 184, 224, 229.

7. See, for example, the excellent monograph by K. Rudnitsky, Rezhisser Meierkhold’s (Moscow, 1969); A. D. Alekseev et al., Russkaia khudozhest-vennaia kultura kontsa XlX-nachala XX veka, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1968); D. Sarab’ianov, Russkaia zhivopis’ kontsa 1900-kh-nachala 1910-kh godov (Moscow, 1971).

8. An exhibit of Malevich paintings was held at the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam in 1968, and another on El Lissitzky at the Van Abbe museum in Eindhoven the same year. Other exhibits include: “Avantgarde Osteuropa 1910-1930” in Berlin, (1967); “Russian Avant-garde: 1908—1922” at the Hutton Gallery in New York (1971); “Art in Revolution: Soviet Art and Design since 1917” at the Hayward Gallery in London (1971), and later in Frankfurt, Stuttgart, and Köln; and “Search for Total Construction: Art, Architecture, and Town Planning: USSR, 1917-1932,” shown first at the University of Delft and then at Harvard University in 1971.

9. See Poggioli, Avant-garde, passim.

10. P. Gay, Weimar Culture (New York, 1968), p. xiv.

11. G. Tasteven, Futurizm (na puti k novomu simvolizmu) (Moscow, 1914) ,PP.19-20.

12. On early Soviet architecture see especially A. Kopp, Town and Revolution (New York, 1970); O. A. Shvidkovsky, Building in the USSR 1917- 1932 (New York, 1971); E. Lissitzky, Russia: An Architecture for World Revolution (1930), trans. E. Dluhosch (Cambridge, Mass., 1970); E. A. Borisova, T. P. Khazhdan, Russkaia arkhitektura kontsa XlX-nachala XX veka (Moscow, 1971); V. Khazanova, Sovetskaia arkhitektura pervykh let Oktiabria (Moscow, 1970).

13. P. Klee, The Diaries of Paul Klee; 1898-1898 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1964), p. 313.

14. W. James, Human Immortality (Boston and New York, 1898), pp. 12, 27.

15. J. Choron, Death and Western Thought (New York, 1963), p. 269.

16. B. Spinoza, Ethics (New York, 1955), p. 277.

17. G. Groman, “A History of Ideas about the Prolongation of Life,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series Vol. 56, Part 9 (December 1966), pp. 85, 88, 89.

18. C. Becker, The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers (New Haven, 1932), pp. 149, 150, 153.

19. E. Boutroux, Science and Religion in Contemporary Philosophy (London, 1909), pp. 149, 150, 153.

20. A. Radishchev, “On Man, his Mortality and Immortality,” trans. F. Gladney, G. Kline, in J. Edie, J. Scanlan, M. Zeldin, eds., Russian Philosophy, I (Chicago, 1965), pp. 80, 99.

21. P. Pomper, Peter Lavrov and the Russian Revolutionary Movement (Chicago and London, 1972), p. 161; The Communist International, No. 30 (1924). P. 4.

22. B. Rosenthal, Dmitri Sergeevich Merezhkovsky and the Silver Age: The Development of a Revolutionary Mentality (The Hague, 1975), pp. 66, 92, 175

23. G. Kline, Religious and Anti-Religious Thought in Russia (Chicago and London, 1968), pp. 112-14, 121.

24. E. Mechnikov, The Nature of Man (Paris, 1903), pp. 265, 302; see also his The Prolongation of Life: Optimistic Studies (New York, 1908).

25. N. Mandelshtam, Hope against Hope (New York, 1970), p. 165.

Chapter 2
From Positivism to Collectivism: Lunacharsky and Proletarian Culture

1. A. V. Lunacharsky, Sobranie sochinenii, II (Moscow, 1964), p. 230. Hereafter Lunacharsky, Sobranie. The previous quote in the paragraph is from S. Fitzpatrick, The Commissariat of Enlightenment: Soviet Organization of the Arts under Lunacharsky (Cambridge, England, 1970), pp. 1-2.

2. Fitzpatrick, Commissariat, p. 111.

3. M. Hitch, “Dietzgenism,” International Socialist Review, VIII, 5 (November 1907), p. 298.

4. On the pre-1914 “intellectual revolution” see inter alia H. S. Hughes, Consciousness and Society: The Reorientation of European Social Thought 1890-1930 (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), and J. Weiss, ed., The Origins of Modern Consciousness (Detroit, 1965).

5. H. Bergson, Creative Evolution (1907) (London, 1960), p. 271.

6. On positivism see especially the survey by L. Kolakowski, The Alienation of Reason: A History of Positivist Thought, trans. N. Guttermann, (New York, 1968).

7. Cited in J. T. Blackmore, Ernst Mach (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1972), p. 20.

8. E. Mach, The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical (Chicago and London, 1914), pp. 3-4, 10-12, 23-25.

9. G. Fechner, Zend-avesta, oder über die Dinge des Himmels und des Jenseits, 2 vols. (Hamburg and Leipzig, 1901).

10. K. Pearson, The Grammar of Science (London, 1900), p. 191.

11. Blackmore, Mach, p. 237.

12. M. Maeterlinck, The Blue Bird (London, 1920), pp. 62, 69, 168, 186.

13. E. Verhaeren, Les Aubes (London, 1898), pp. 81, 94, 99-100, 103.

14. A. Comte, The Positive Philosophy (New York, 1954), II, p. 221.

15. A. Goldman, and E. Sprinchom, eds., Wagner on Music and Drama (New York, 1964), pp. 60, 66, 74.

16. J. Dietzgen, Some of the Philosophical Essays on Socialism and Science, Religion, and Ethics, Critique-of-Reason and the World at Large (Chicago, 1906), pp. 90, 91, 101.

17. N. V. Os’makov, Russkaia proletarskaia poeziia 1890-1917 (Moscow, 1968), p. 13.

18. On European developments in industry and art see R. Banham, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age (London, 1960 E. and C. Paul, Proletkult (London, 1921). On the Darmstadt colony see A. Koch, ed., Ernst Ludwig und die Ausstellung der Künstlerkolonie in Darmstadt von Mai bis Oktober 1901 (Darmstadt, 1901).

19. The best source on Lunacharsky’s life is the series of autobiographies which he wrote, beginning in 1907: (1) “Avtobiograficheskaia zametka” (Florence, 1907) in “A. V. Lunacharsky: Neizdannye materialy,” Litera- tumoe nasledstvo (Moscow, 1970), pp. 550-53; (2) Velikii perevorot (Petro- grad, 1919), reprinted in N. A. Trifonov, ed., Vospominaniia i vpechatleniia (Moscow, 1968); (3) “Avtobiografiia” for the Lenin Institute in 1926, published in “V. I. Lenin i A. V. Lunacharsky,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo (Moscow, 1971), pp. 736-43; (4) his 1932 recantation entitled “K voprosy 0 filosofskoi diskussii 1908-1910 g.g.” in “Neizdannye,” pp. 494-502. For a popular Soviet biography see A. Elkin, Lunacharsky (Moscow, 1967).

20. Vospominaniia i vpechatleniia, p. 19.

21. On the Vologda years of exile see especially I. P. Kochno, “Vologd- skaia ssylka Lunacharskogo,” in “Neizdannye,” pp. 603-20.

22. The best summary of Bogdanov’s views may be found in D. Grille, Lenins Rivale; Bogdanov und seine Philosophie (Köln, 1966).

23. N. Berdyaev, Dream and Reality (New York, 1962), pp. 130-31.

24. Ibid., p. 125.

25. A. V. Lunacharsky, Etiudy kriticheskie i polemicheskie (Moscow, 1905), pp. 189-90, taken from his article “Russkii Faust” in Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, May-June 1902, pp. 783-95.

26. Ibid., pp. 199, 206, taken from his article “Tragizm zhizni i belaia magiia,” Obrazovanie, 1902, No. 9, pp. 109-28.

27. “V. I. Lenin i A. V. Lunacharsky,” p. 739.

28. On Gorky’s career at about this time see B. Wolfe, The Bridge and the Abyss: The Troubled Friendship of Maxim Gorky and V. I. Lenin (New York, 1967), pp. 43-49

29. M. Liadov, Iz zhizni partii v 1903-1907 godakh (Moscow, 1956), pp. 71, 112; M. Karelina, Bol’shevistskaia gazeta “Novaia zhizn’ ” (1905 g.) (Moscow, 1955); Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva A. M. Gorkogo. I. 1868-1907 (Moscow, 1958), pp. 436-635, passim.

30. Piatyi (Londonskii) s"ezd RSDRP Aprel’-mai 1907 goda: Protokoly (Moscow, 1963); A. P. Dudden, Joseph Fels and the Single-Tax Movement (Philadelphia, 1971), pp. 126-37; M. Gorky, Days with Lenin (New York, 1932), PP- 1 20.

31. N. A. Trifonov, “A. V. Lunacharsky i Maksim Gorky (K istorii litera- tumykh i lichnykh otnoshenii do Oktiabria),” in K. D. Muratova, ed., Maksim Gorky i ego sovremenniki (Leningrad, 1968), pp. 124, 127, 133.

32. A. Bogdanov, Empiriomonizm, III (St. Petersburg, 1906), p. viii; V. D. Dubinsky-Mukhadze, Shaumian (Moscow, 1965), p. 156, on Stalin; V. I. Lenin, Materializm i empiriokrititsizm (1909), in his Sobranie sochinenii, Vol. XIII (Moscow, 1935), p. 98.

Among Dietzgen’s translated writings were Budushchee sotsial-demokratii (St. Petersburg, 1906); Religiia sotsial-demokratiia (St. Petersburg, 1906); Zavoevaniia (akvizit) filosofii i pis’ma o logike: Spetsial’ no demokraticheskaia proletarskaia logika (St. Petersburg, 1906). Plekhanov attacked Dietzgen as an idealist in his “Iosif Ditsgen,” Sovremennyi mir, No. 8 (1907), pp. 59-75; his views were defended by N. Andreev, “Dialekticheskii materializm i filosofii Iosifa Ditsgena,” Sovremennyi mir, No. 7 (1907), pp. 1-35, and by I. Gel’fond in “Filosofiia Ditsgena i sovremennyi positivizm,” in Ocherki po filosofi marksizma: Filosofskii sbornik (St. Petersburg, 1908), pp. 243-90. See also Ortodoks (L. Aksel’rod), “Osnovnye elementy filosofii Iosifa Dits- gena,” Nasha zaria, No. 9 (1913), pp. 1-9, and the translation of Emst Unter- mann’s Antonio Labriola i Iosifa Ditsgen (St. Petersburg, 1907).

33. “K voprosu o filosofskoi diskussii 1908-1909 g.g.,” pp. 497-98.

34. A. V. Lunacharsky, “Zadachi sotsial-demokraticheskogo khudozhe- stvennogo tvorchestva,” Vestnik zhizni, 1907, No. 1, pp. 120-39, reprinted in Kriticheskie etiudy (Russkaia literatura) (Leningrad, 1925), especially pp. 6, 13-14, 17.

35. A. V. Lunacharsky, “Vystavka kartin ‘Soiuz russkikh khudozhnikov,’ ” Vestnik zhizni, 1907, No. 2, reprinted in A. V. Lunacharsky, Ob izobrazitel’-nom iskusstve (Moscow, 1967), I, pp. 381-84; quotation from p. 381.

36. A. V. Lunacharsky, “Sotsializm i iskusstvo,” in “Teatr”: Kniga o novom teatre (St. Petersburg, 1908), pp. 26-27, 29.

37. Ocherki po filosofi marksizma: Filosofskii sbornik (St. Petersburg, 1908); V. A. Bazarov, “Mistitsizm materialisticheskii i realizm nashego vre- meni,” ibid., pp. 38, 56, 66, 71.

38. Ibid., pp. 125, 155, 157, 159.

39. A. V. Lunacharsky, Religiia i sotsializm (St. Petersburg, 1908, 1911), I, p. 40; II, pp. 26, 139, 385.

40. A. V. Lunacharsky, Three Plays, trans. L. Magnus and K. Walter (London, n.d.), p. 134.

41. A. V. Lunacharsky, “Literatumyi raspad i kontsentratsiia intelligent- siia,” Kriticheskie etiudy, p. 121; originally “O XXIII sbomike ‘Znanie,’ ” in Literatumyi raspad, (St. Petersburg, 1909), II, pp. 84-119.

42. “V. I. Lenin i A. V. Lunacharsky,” p. 39.

43. A. M. Gorky, Pis'ma k pisatel’iam i l.P. Ladyzhnikovu (Moscow, 1959) , p. 190; Arkhiv Gorkogo, Vol. VII; also B. Kremenev, Krasin (Moscow, 1968), pp. 162-64. See also the April 1, 1909, report of the Paris section of the Okhrana to the Ministry of the Interior in St. Petersburg, reporting the plans for the Capri School (including Lenin as a lecturer) ; Okhrana Archive, Hoover Institution, Stanford, Calif., Box XXIVj, folder 2.

44. Elkin, Lunacharsky, pp. 44-46, 96.

45. Lenin to A. I. Elizarova, December 6, 1908, cited in Elkin, Lunacharsky, p. 87.

46. On the Bologna school of 1910 see Vospominaniia i vpechatleniia (pp. 48-49). According to the Okhrana, Aleksinsky was able to obtain 10,000 francs from the party for the school; see the reports dated Darmstadt, October 28, 1910 (No. 952); Paris, March 6, 1911 (No. 258); and Paris, April 17, 1911 (No. 469); in the Okhrana Archive, Box XVIb(2), folder C. See also S. F. Lifshits, “Partiinaia shkola v Bolon’e (1910-1911 g.g.),” in Pro- letarskaia revoliutsiia, Vol. III, No. 50 (1926), pp. 109-44.

47. A. Haskell, Diaghileff: His Artistic and Private Life (London, 1935), p. 161.

48. Vospominaniia i vpechatleniia, p. 49.

49. Vpered: Sbornik statei po ocherednym voprosam, 1 (July 1910), p. 1; 2 (February 1911), pp. 73, 82; 3 (May 1911), passim. See also Proletarskoe znamia, Nos. 2/3 (May/June 1910), p. 4. Both journals were published in Paris; copies of these issues are in the Houghton Library, Harvard University.

50. On Syrmus see S. Dreiden, Muzyka revoliutsii (Moscow, 1970), pp. 497-505. Syrmus once told Lenin he wanted to “help free the proletariat with my violin” (p. 499). Lunacharsky wrote an article about him for Parizhskii vestnik, No. 47 (November 23, 1912), republished in Sovetskaia muzyka, 1963, No. 11, pp. 46-48.

51. “Neizdannye,” p. 288.

52. A. V. Lunacharsky, Ob izobrazitel’nom iskusstve (Moscow, 1967), Vol. I, pp. 160, 183, 185.

53. On “La Ruche” see Marevna (Vorubeva), Life with the Painters of La Ruche (London, 1972); J. diapiro, La Ruche (Paris, 1960); I. Ehren- burg, Men, Years, Life. I: Childhood and Youth 1891-1917 (London, 1962), pp. 86, 121, 143; J. Kessel, Kisling 1891-1953 (Paris, 1971); J. Lipschitz, My Life in Sculpture (New York, 1972); M. Chagall, My Life (New York, 1960), pp. 106-16.

54. Marevna, Painters, p. 51; Ehrenburg, Men, Years, Life, p. 147.

55. A. V. Lunacharsky, "Molodaia Rossiia v Parizhe,” Kievskaia mysl’, 1914, No. 37, republished in Ob izobrazitel’nom iskusstve, pp. 407-22.

56. A. Bogdanov, Iskusstvo i rabochii klass (Moscow, 1918), p. 78.

57. Fitzpatrick, Commissariat, p. 106.

58. On Altman see M. Etkind, Natan Altman (Moscow, 1971), and A. Efros, Portret Natana Altmana (Berlin, 1922).

59. F. Meyer, Chagall (New York, n.d.), p. 268.

60. For Lunacharsky’s ideas on culture in the mid-1920s see especially his Chemu sluzhit teatr (Moscow, 1925), and Desiatiletie revoliutsii i kultura (Moscow and Leningrad, 1927).

61. A. V. Lunacharsky, Sobranie sochinenii, V (Moscow, 1965), pp. 334, 360, 388.

62. A. V. Lunacharsky, Pochemu nel’zia verit v boga? (Moscow, 1965), p. 106, from his lecture, “Idealism or Materialism,” given on September 21, 1925, in Moscow.

63. Ibid., p. 25.

Chapter 3
Antagonism and Political Satire: The Cartoon and the Poster

1. On the World of Art circle see V. N. Petrov, "Mir iskusstva,” Istoriia russkogo iskusstva (Moscow, 1968), X, 1, pp. 431-44; N. P. Lapshina, “Mir iskusstva,” in Russkaia khudozhestvennaia kultura kontsa XIX-nachala XX veka (1895-1907) (Moscow, 1969), II, pp. 129-62; J. Bowlt, “Synthesism and Symbolism: The Russian World of Art Movement,” Forum for Modern Language Studies, IX, 1 (January 1973), pp. 35-48, and his “The Early Years of Sergei Diaghilev,” Transactions of the Association of Russian-American Scholars in the USA, VI (1972), pp. 94-114.

The origins of the founding members, mainly students at the May School in St. Petersburg who called themselves the “Nevsky Pickwickians,” are indicated in Table IV. It was a close-knit group: Diaghilev’s father and Filosofov’s mother were brother and sister; Benois was Lanseray’s uncle; Benois, Diaghilev, Filosofov, and Nuvel all studied together at the Law Faculty of St. Petersburg University; only two studied at the Academy of Arts—Bakst and Benois —while Somov was an occasional auditor.

On the “left wing” of the World of Art see S. V. Golynets, ed., I. Ya. Bilibin (Leningrad, 1970); O. I. Pobedova, E. E. Lansere 1875-1946 (Moscow, 1961) ; V. M. Lobanov, Knizhnaia grafika E. E. Lansere (Moscow, 1948); “Braz, O. E.,” in Khudozhniki narodov SSSR: Biobibliograficheskii slovar (Moscow, 1972), II, p. 58; O. I. Pobedova, I. E. Grabar (Moscow, 1964); I. E. Grabar, Moia zhizn’: Avtobiografiia (Moscow and Leningrad, 1937); O. I. Pobedova, D. N. Kardovsky (Moscow, 1957). Braz, Grabar, and Kar- dovsky all studied at the Academy in the 1890s and worked under Repin, as did Bilibin independently; except for Lanseray, the entire “left wing” studied in Munich with Ažbe or Holločy.

2. A. G. Rashin, Naselenie Rossii za 100 let, 1811-1913 (Moscow, 1956), pp. 93-96; W. Parker, An Historical Geography of Russia (London, 1968), p. 308. On education see N. Hans, History of Russian Educational Policy (1701— 1917) (London, 1931), Tables 32, 34, 35, and P. Alston, Education and the State in Tsarist Russia (Stanford, 1969), pp. 160, 167. On the Academy see N. Moleva, E. Beliutin, Russkaia khudozhestvennaia shkola vtoroi poloviny XlX-nachala XX veka (Moscow, 1967), p. 162.

3. The exodus of Repin’s students from the Academy is discussed in O. I. Pobedova, D. N. Kardovsky, and in the collection D. N. Kardovsky ob iskus- stve: Vospominaniia, stat’i ipis’ma (Moscow, 1960), pp. 63-82.

4. A. A. Rylov, Vospominaniia (Leningrad, 1960), p. 85.

5. K. S. Petrov-Vodkin, Khlynovsk: Prostranstvo evklida; Samarkandiia (Leningrad, 1969), pp. 393, 395.

6. L. Schneider, “Die russische Studentenkolonie und das Echo des revo- lutionàren Russlands in München vor 1914,” in K. Bösl, ed., Bayern im Um- bruch (Munich, 1969), p. 78.

7. The statistics are from B. Brachmann, Russische Sozialdemokraten in Berlin 1895-1914 (Berlin, 1962), pp. 101-2, 196-97, and the Okhrana Archive, Hoover Library, Palo Alto, California, Box 191, XVIb(3), folder 5e. On the Ažbe and Holločy schools see N. Moleva, and E. Beliutin, Shkola Anton Ashbe (Moscow, 1958), and A. Tikhimirov, “Shimon Kholloshi i ego russkie ucheniki,” Iskusstvo, 1957, No. 8, pp. 49-52.

8. Moleva and Beliutin, Shkola; see note 7.

9. On Russian graphics at the turn of the century see A. A. Sidorov, Russkaia grafika nachala XX veka (Moscow, 1969). Sidorov was a student of the art historian Heinrich Wölflin in Munich in 1912, and has written widely on graphics. See also his Russkaia grafika za gody russkoi revoliutsii (1917-1922) (Moscow, 1923), and Istorila oformleniia russkoi knigi (Moscow, 1964). Sidorov concludes that “Russian artistic culture in the nineteenth century did not know graphics in its precise or specific sense” (Russkaia grafika nachala, p. 39). The graphic artist A. P. Ostroumova-Lebedeva also admits that “graphics as an art form did not exist in Russia at that time” (Avtobiograficheskie zapiski [Leningrad, 1935], p. 209).

10. On Russian satirical graphics in 1905, the best work is still P. Dul’sky, Grafika satiricheskikh zhurnalov 1905-1906 g.g. (Kazan, 1922), who concludes (p. 85) that “Russian graphics in the period 1905-1906 joined with politics for the first time, choosing satire for this goal.” Other works on the subject include V. Botsianovsky and E. Gollerbakh, Russkaia satira pervoi revoliutsii 1905-1906 (Leningrad, 1925); E. P. Gomberg-Verzhbinskaia, Russkoe iskusstvo revoliutsii 1905 goda (Leningrad, 1960); A. A. Sidorov, “Otrazhenie v iskusstve pervoi russkoi revoliutsii,” Russkaia khudozhestven- naia kultura, II, pp. 239-56.

Those Russian satirical journals which did exist in the nineteenth century were modeled after such European journals as Punch, Fliegende Blatter, and La Caricature; see N. Yu. Zograf, “Satiricheskaia grafika 1860-kh godov. P. M. Shel’kov,” in Istoriia russkogo iskusstva (Moscow, 1968), IX, i, pp. 43-75.

Finally, a contemporary artist, N. K. Kuzmin, noted in 1913 that “ ‘Grafika’ was still a new word associated with the names of Alexander Benois, K. Somov, E. Lanseray, M. Dobuzhinsky, I. Bilibin, with the journal Mir iskusstva where they all published, and also with the militant satirical journals of 1905-1906—Zhupel and Adskaia pochta—in which many of them participated”; S. V. Golynets, ed., I.Ya. Bilibin (Leningrad, 1970), p. 173.

11. The major source concerning Dobuzhinsky’s life is his autobiography, published in the émigré journal Novyi zhurnal as follows: “Derevnia,” 26 (1951), pp. 107-28; “Novgorod,” 15 (1947), pp. 249-60; “Iz vospominanii,” 52 (1958), pp. 109-39; “Sluzhba v ministerstve,” 71 (1963), pp. 156-69; “Krug ‘Mir iskusstva,’ ” 3 (1942), pp. 312-36; “O khudozhestvennom teatre,” 5 (1943), pp. 23-62; “Vstrechi s pisateliami i poetami,” 11 (1945), pp. 28296. (I have arranged these chronologically in terms of Dobuzhinsky’s life.)

See also S. K. Makovsky, F. F. Notgaft, Grafika M. V. Dobuzhinskogo (Berlin, 1924), and V. N. Petrov, “Mir iskusstva.”

12. Dobuzhinsky, “Derevnia,” p. 107.

13. On Munich life at the turn of the century see L. Hollweck, München (Munich, 1968); W. Rukwid, ed., Geliebtes Schwabing (Munich, 1961); G. Fuchs, Sturm und Drang in München um die Jahrhundertwende (Munich, 1936).

14. Dobuzhinsky, “Iz vospominanii,” pp. 112, 114, 130.

15. On Simplicissimus see Rolf von Hoerschelmann, Leben ohne Alltag (Berlin, 1947), pp. 112 ff.; D. Gulbransson-Björnson, Olaf Gulbransson: Sein Leben (Pfullingen, 1967). Gulbransson noted (p. 57) that “the people of Simpl were all young—all under thirty—and all unmarried.”

On Simpl’s influence in Russia, opinion is divided. Dul’sky argues that “almost all of the most interesting Russian satirical journals in 1905-1906 were printed and edited under the influence of the Munich organ” (Dul’sky, Grafika, p. 9). Botsianovsky and Gollerbakh (Russkaia satira, p. 149) concluded only that Zhupel followed Simpl “to a significant degree” but was “clearly independent.” But Sidorov in his recent work (Russkaia grafika nachala, p. 108) admits that the whole Munich experience played a “special role” in the development of Russian graphics at this time. In general, Soviet historians are loathe to admit the importance of foreign influence in this, as in other matters.

16. Dobuzhinsky, “Iz vospominanii,” p. 121.

17. Ibid., p. 130.

18. Dobuzhinsky, “Sluzhba v ministerstve,” pp. 160-61.

19. L. K. Erman, Intelligentsiia v pervoi russkoi revoliutsii (Moscow, 1966), pp. 51-57. 60-62.

20. Zritel, Vol. I, Nos. 2, 4, 5, 12, 18, 19, 21, 23; Vol. II, No. 1; Maski, I, 3 (February 16, 1906); Signal, January 8, 1906, p. 4. On file at the Houghton Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

21. Simplicissimus, Vol. 10, No. 12 (June 1905), p. 141; Vol. 10, No. 13 (June 27, 1905), p. 154; Vol. 10, No. 19 (August 8, 1905), p. 225.

22. The best account of the organization of satirical journals in 1905 is M. Z. Karasik, “M. Gor’kii i satiricheskie zhumaly ‘Zhupel’ i ‘Adskaia pochta,’ ” in Akademiia Nauk, M. Gor’kii v epokhu revoliutsii 1905-1907 godov: Materialy, vospominaniia, issledovaniia (Moscow, 1957), pp. 357-87. See also the previously cited works by Dul’sky, Sidorov, Botsianovsky, and Gollerbakh.

23. Dul’sky, Grafika, p. 38.

24. L. Evstigneeva, Zhurnal “Satirikon” i poetry-satirikontsy (Moscow, 1968), p. 25; Sidorov, Russkaia grafika nachala, pp. 167-72.

25. J. Bowlt, “The Early Graphic Works of Mstislav Dobuzhinsky,” Transactions of the Russian-American Group of Scholars in the USA, No. 9 (1.975), pp. 264, 279; Lunacharsky’s comment appeared in Vestnik zhizni, 1907, No. 1, p. 109.

26. The most complete collection of material on early Soviet posters is B. S. Butnik-Siversky, Sovetskii plakat epokhi grazhdanskoi voiny 1918-1921 (Moscow, 1960). See also N. M. Chelodaeva, “Plakat,” in I. Grabar, ed., Istoriia russkogo iskusstva, XI (Moscow, 1957), pp. 54-78.

27. On Moor’s life and work see R. Kaufmann, D. S. Moor (Moscow, 1937); I.I. Khalaminsky, D. Moor (Moscow, 1961); D. Moor, “Ya-Bolshe- viki” Shornik statei (Moscow, 1967) ; M. Ioffe, Desiat’ ocherkov o khudozhni- kakh-satirikakh (Moscow, 1971), pp. 28-55.

28. Khalaminsky in Moor, “Ya-Bolshevik!”, p. 117. On Gulbransson see D. Gulbransson-Björnson, Gulbransson, passim.

29. Moor, Bolshevik, p. 124.

30. Ibid., p. 127.

31. On the agit-trains see I. Bibikova, “Rospis’ agitpoezdov i agitparo- khodov,” in E. A. Speranskaia, ed., Agitatsionno-massovoe iskusstvo pervykh let Oktiabria (Moscow, 1971); see also V. N. Dokuchaeva, Ivan Ivanovich Nivinsky (Moscow, 1969).

32. On the ROSTA windows see Ioffe, Desiai’ ocherkov, pp. 56-83; O. Sabostiuk, B. Uspensky, M.M. Cheremnykh (Moscow, 1970); N. A. Cheremnykh, Khochetsia, chtoby znali i drugie . . . : Vospominaniia o M. M. Cheremnykhe (Moscow, 1965); W. Duwakin, Rostafenster (Dresden, 1967).

33. Moor, Bolshevik, p. 142.

34. Ibid., p. 146.

35. Butnik-Siversky, Sovetskii plakat, p. 23.

36. V. Polonsky, “Die russische revolution?re Plakat,” Russische Korre- spondenz, 2 (July-December 1922), p. 841; on the wartime posters see M. Rickards, ed., Posters of the First World War (London, 1968), and B. Hil- lier, Posters (New York, 1968).

37. Hillier, Posters, p. 11.

38. Moor, Bolshevik, p. 152.

Chapter 4
From Naturalism to Symbolism: Meyerhold’s Theater of the Future

1. The best single source on Meyerhold’s early life is still N. D. Volkhov, Meierkhol’d, 2 vols. (Moscow and Leningrad, 1929). Like Volkhov, Ya. Brukson, in his Teatr Meierkhol’da (Moscow and Leningrad, 1925), emphasized the influence of new developments in European theater (Fuchs, Craig, and Appia) on Meyerhold before World War I. Other studies of Meyerhold include: Teatral’nyi Oktiabr: Sbornik (Moscow and Leningrad, 1926); A. A. Gvozdev, Teatr imeni Meierkhol’da (1920-1926) (Leningrad, 1927); B. V. Alpers, Teatr sotsial’noi maski (Moscow, 1931); Yu. Elagin, Temnyi genii (Vsevolod Meierkhol’d) (New York, 1955).

On February 2, 1940, Meyerhold was executed by the NKVD, or “illegally repressed,” as Soviet historians now put it (Teatral’naia entsiklopediia [Moscow, 1964], III, p. 773). Since the publication of his correspondence with Chekhov in Literaturnoe nasledstvo in 1960 (Vol. 68), he has been rehabilitated, and a wealth of new material has appeared on Meyerhold. See A. A. Gladkov, “Meierkhol’d govorit,” Novyi mir, 1961, No. 8, pp. 213-35; A. Fevral’sky, “Stanislavsky i Meierkhol’d,” Tarusskie stranitsy (Kaluga, 1961); Vstrechi s Meierkhol’dom: Sbornik vospominanii (Moscow, 1967); A. Fevral’sky, Vsevolod Emelianovich Meierkhol’d: Stat’i, pis’ma, rechi, be- sedy, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1968), hereafter Fevral’sky, VEM.

Since the publication of these new materials, a number of important Soviet monographs on Meyerhold have also appeared, notably: B. I. Rostotsky, “Modemizm v teatre,” in Russkaia khudozhestvennaia kultura, I, pp. 177217; K. Rudnitsky, Rezhisser Meierkhol’d (Moscow, 1969); G. Khaichenko, “Tri stupeni k Meierkhol’du,” Teatr, 1969, No. 4, pp. 81-86; P. Gromov, “Stanislavsky, Chekhov, Meierkhol’d,” Teatr, 1970, No. 1, pp. 83-89.

In the West Meyerhold’s writings have been translated and edited by E. Braun, Meyerhold on Theater (New York, 1969). See also J. M. Symons, Meyerholds Theater of the Grotesque (Coral Gables, Fla., 1971), which focuses on the 1920s.

2. Symons, Grotesque, pp. 25, 28; Rostotsky agrees that “in Blok’s Bala- ganchik Meyerhold for the first time expressed in a precise manner a conception of the tragic grotesque”; see his “V. E. Meierkhol’d i ego literaturnoe nasledie,” in Fevral’sky, VEM, p. 13.

3. B. Hewitt, History of the Theatre from 1800 to the Present (New York, 1970).

4. A. Dukes, The Scene is Changed (London, 1942), p. 24. For an even more critical Russian view of Munich theater life see Z. Ashkinazi, “Miun- khenskaia teatral’naia zhizn’,” in Ezhegodnik imperatorskikh teatrov, 1914, No. 3, pp. 98-117. For a more favorable view see N. V. Drizen, “Po Miun- khenskim teatram,” Apollon, 1910, No. 11, “Khronika,” pp. 4-17. The poet Andrei Belyi describes Munich life in 1906 in his Mezhdu dvukh revoliutsii (Leningrad, 1934), PP. 101-39.

5. On Fuchs see his Sturm und Drang, passim; also H. Kindermann, Thea- tergeschichte Europas (Salzburg, 1968), VIII, pp. 180, 231-33.

6. G. Fuchs, Die Schaubühne der Zukunft (Berlin and Leipzig, n.d.) (1906), pp. 34-36.

7. Ibid., p. 98.

8. G. Fuchs, Die Revolution des Theaters (Munich and Leipzig, 1909), translated by C. C. Kuhn as Revolution in the Theater (Ithaca, N.Y., 1959), P.139

9. Volkhov, Meierkhol'd, I, p. 21.

10. Ibid., p. 34.

11. V. Nemirovitch-Dantchenko, My Life in the Russian Theatre (Boston, 1936), p. 133.

12. Ibid., p. 122.

13. A. Chekhov, Best Plays by Chekhov, trans. Stark Young (New York, 1956), p. 81.

14. C. Stanislavski, My Life in Art (London, 1967), p. 332.

15. Fevral’sky, VEM, I, pp. 74, 77, 443; also “Chekhov i Meierkhol’d,” in Literatumoe nasledstvo, Vol. 68 (Moscow, 1960), p. 442, letter of Meyer- hold to Chekhov dated Moscow, April 18, 1901.

16. “Chekhov i Meierkhol’d,” p. 429. On the Society for New Drama in Kherson see also Volkhov, I, pp. 152 ff.; E. Krasniansky, Vstrechi v puti (Moscow, 1967), pp. 37 ff.; K. Rudnitsky, Rezhisser Meierkhol’d, pp. 28—42.

17. Rudnitsky, Rezhisser, p. 29. The actors quoted were F. K. Lazarev and I. N. Pevtsov.

18. Stanislavski, My Life, p. 400.

19. Ibid., p. 401.

20. On the Moscow Art Theater Studio of 1905 see especially N. P. Ulia- nov, Moi vstrechi (Moscow, 1959), pp. 131-37; M. N. Pozharskaia, Russkoe teatral’no-dekoratsionnoe iskusstvo kontsa XIX-nachala XX veka (Moscow, 1970), pp. 153-66; Rudnitsky, Rezhisser, pp. 43-69.

21. Stanislavski, My Life, p. 404.

22. Vesy, II, 1 (January 1905), pp. 42-43; III, 1 (January 1906), pp. 72-75. Remizov had introduced St. Petersburg readers to the Society for New Drama as early as the spring of 1904; see Vesy, I, 4 (April 1904), pp. 36-39. On Komissarzhevskaya see especially Rybakova, Yu., Komissarzhevskaia (Leningrad, 1971).

23. A. Blok, Sobranie sochinenii, VIII (Moscow, 1963), pp. 146-52.

24. Fevral’sky, VEM, I, pp. 93-94.

25. Volkhov, I, p. 240.

26. F. Reeve, Alexander Blok: Between Image and Idea (New York and London, 1962), p. 24.

27. G. Donchin, The Influence of French Symbolism on Russian Poetry (The Hague, 1958), pp. 91-92.

28. Reeve, Blok, p. 29.

29. C. Tschöpl, Vjaceslav Ivanov (Munich, 1968), pp. 25-48.

30. Volkhov argues that Fuchs’s book made conscious and theoretical what Meyerhold had been working toward on his own; see Volkhov, I, pp. 240-44. Yurii Elagin (Temnyi genii, p. 110) claims that the book was a “real discovery” for Meyerhold, providing him with an “organizing principle” which “crystallized his own style in the art of the theater.” Eduard Braun (Meyerhold, p. 21) concludes that “the extent of Meyerhold’s quotations from Fuchs is proof of the influence which this work exerted on him. As well as corroborating his own rejection of naturalism and his efforts to reveal the hidden ‘sub-text’ of a play, it opened his eyes to the significance of the proscenium stage, the lessons to be learned from the Oriental theater in the use of rhythmical movement, and the inherent contradiction between the twodimensional scenic backcloth and the three-dimensional figure of the actor.”

Soviet historians tend to deemphasize the influence of Fuchs on Meyerhold. For example, Rudnitsky (Rezhisser, p. 77) does not analyze this influence but merely notes that the book “produced a strong impression on Meyerhold.”

31. On the conception and production of Balaganchik see T. Rodina, Aleksandr Blok i russkii teatr nachala XX veka (Moscow, 1972), pp. 127 ff. The author concludes that the play was “the kernel of Meyerhold’s future directing” (p. 275). Also see N. Gorchakov, The Theater in Soviet Russia (New York, 1957), pp. 60 ff.

32. A. Blok, Zapisnye knizhki 1901-1920 (Moscow, 1965), pp. 78-84.

33. A number of actors in Meyerhold’s Society for New Drama followed him from the provinces to the capitals. Ten of them formed the nucleus of the Moscow Studio Theater of the MAT in 1905; nine actors and actresses from the Kherson seasons were still with Meyerhold during his second year with Komissarzhevskaia in St. Petersburg in 1907-1908. On this movement of theater people from province to city see Volkhov, Meierkhol’d, Vol. I, pp. 153, 169, 183-184, 199-200, 208, 255, 323-324; also his memoirs Vstrechi s Meierkhol’dom, pp. 32, 44.

34. Fevral’sky, VEM, p. 176; cited from Meyerhold’s pamphlet O teatre (St. Petersburg, 1913), reproduced here on pp. 101-229. Meyerhold refers to both Die Schaubühne der Zukunft and to the more recent Revolution des Theaters (Munich and Leipzig, 1909). Fuchs’s ideas were available to Russian readers in translation as well; see “Miunkhenskii khudozhestvennyi teatr,” Apollon, 1909, 2, pp. 47-53, and 1910, 11, pp. 43-51, translated from Revolution des Theaters; also Ezhegodnik imperatorskikh teatrov, 1913, 4, pp. 81-93, and A. Dolinov, “Teatr khudozhnikov v Miunkhene,” Teatr i iskusstvo, 1910, 2, pp. 32-34.

35. N. Volkhov, Teatral’nye vechera (Moscow, 1966), p. 61.

36. Fevral’sky, VEM, p. 310. Taken from an autobiography written by Meyerhold in 1921 in connection with an early party purge. Meyerhold joined the Bolsheviks in 1918 and received party membership number 225,182.

37. N. Berdyaev, Dream and Reality (New York, 1962), p. 142.

38. Rudnitsky, Rezhisser, p. 69; from Meyerhold’s diary for December 1905.

Chapter 5
Theosophy and the Fourth Dimension: Malevich’s Suprematism

1. S. Lissitzky-Küppers, El Lissitzky (London, 1968), p. 327.

2. Ibid., p. 330.

3. E. Fry, Cubism (London, 1966), p. 137.

4. C. G. Jung, The Collected Works. IV. Freud and Psychoanalysis (1932) (Princeton, 1961), p. 326; Two Essays on Analytical Psychology (Princeton, 1953), p. 77; Civilization in Transition, (Princeton, 1964), p. 90.

5. The literature on theosophy is enormous. An excellent guide is R. Gal- breath, “The History of Modem Occultism,” Journal of Popular Culture, V, 3 (Winter 1971), pp. 98—126. The essential theosophical work on art is A. Be- sant, and C. Leadbeater, Thought Forms (London, 1901).

6. On Steiner see A. P. Shepherd, Scientist of the Invisible (London, 1954) , and G. Wachsmuth, The Life and Work of Rudolf Steiner (New York, 1955) . Steiner’s writings are voluminous. A good summary of “anthroposo-phy” may be found in K. Galling, ed., Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegen- wart (Tübingen, 1957), Vol. I, pp. 426-32. See also R. Galbreath, “Traditional and Modem Elements in the Occultism of Rudolf Steiner,” Journal of Popular Culture, III, 3 (Winter 1969), pp. 451-67.

7. Steiner, R., Macrocosm and Microcosm (London, 1968), pp. 11, 36, 57, 163. A translation of eleven lectures given by Steiner in Vienna between March 21 and 31, 1910.

8. R. Steiner, Life between Death and Rebirth, trans. R. M. Querido (N.Y., 1968), pp. 14, 18, 28, 39, 48-49. 64, 82, 296.

9. Helena Pisareff, “Brief Sketch of the Theosophical Movement in Russia (1903-1918),” unpublished manuscript (Udine, 1933), in the Archives of the Theosophical Society International Headquarters, Adyar, Madras, India.

10. F. Bowers, Scriabin (Tokyo and Palo Alto, 1969), II, pp. 52, 63, 266.

11. A. Turgeneva, “Andrei Belyi i Rudol’f Shteiner,” Mosty, 1968, p. 245.

12. M. Woloschin, Die grüne Schlange (Stuttgart, 1954), pp. 143-48, 158, 212.

13. On the theosophical origins of Kandinsky’s abstract painting see S. Ringbohm, The Sounding Cosmos (Abo, Finland, 1970), and R. C. Williams, “Concerning the German Spiritual in Russian Art: Wassily Kandinsky,” Journal of European Studies, I (1971), pp. 325-36. Also Rose-Carol Washton- Long, “Kandinsky and Abstraction: The Role of the Hidden Image,” Art-forum, X, 10 (June 1972), pp. 42-49.

14. V. Kandinsky, Concerning the Spiritual in Art (New York, 1947), pp. 24-26, 29-31, 33-35. 39-40. 50.

15. V. Kandinsky, “O dukhovnom v iskusstve (zhivopis’),” Trudy vseros-siiskago s”ezda khudozhnikov v Petrograde dekabr igii-ianvar’ 1912 (St. Petersburg, 1912), I, pp. 47-76.

16. E. Abbott, Flatland (London, n.d.), p. 3.

17. Ibid., dedication.

18. Letters from Hinton to William James are in the Houghton Library, Harvard University; the citations come from Hinton’s letters of Oct. 8, 1892, Oct. 18, 1895, and July 10, 1897.

19. C. H. Hinton, A New Era of Thought (1888) (London, 1900), p. 86; The Fourth Dimension (New York, 1904), p. 2. See also the collection of Hinton’s stories and essays entitled Scientific Romances (London, 1884). Hinton edited Chapters on the Art of Thinking (London, 1879) and wrote Stella, and an Unfinished Communication (London, 1895) and An Episode of Flatland (London, 1907).

20. Fry, Cubism, p. 119.

21. C. Bragdon, Projective Ornament (1915) (New York, 1927), p. 6; also his Architecture and Democracy (Freeport, N.Y., 1918) and The Frozen Fountain (Freeport, 1924). Bragdon also wrote a fascinating autobiography entitled More Lives than One (New York, 1938).

22. His Chicago lectures of 1909 were later published as C. Jinarajadasa, First Principles of Theosophy (Adyar, 1956). See also his Theosophy and Modern Thought (Adyar, 1915), where he noted that the painter “seizes on a supreme moment” when he creates, and the viewer “sees not only with his eyes but senses with his intuition” (p. 111).

23. C. Bragdon, A Primer of Higher Space: The Fourth Dimension, to which is added Man the Square, A Higher Space Parable (1913) (New York, 1923), PP. 30, 68.

24. C. Bragdon, Four Dimensional Vistas (New York, 1916), p. 95.

25. Art historians have only recently begun to recognize the importance of Hinton and Uspensky, but not Bragdon, for Malevich’s art and work. Charlotte Douglas in her article “Birth of a ‘Royal Infant’: Malevich and ‘Victory over the Sun, ’ ” Art in America, Vol. 62, No. 2 (March-April 1974), pp. 45-51, mentions Hinton only in a footnote. S. Compton, in “Malevich and the Fourth Dimension,” Studio, Vol. 187, No. 965 (April 1974), pp. 190-95, cites Uspensky’s Tertium Organum as an influence, but notes that “by itself it seems unlikely to have led to the use by Malevich of simple, geometric forms” (p. 191). Compton does not identify Bragdon or theosophy as a source of influence on either Uspensky or Malevich. For a more general consideration of Hinton’s influence on “cubism” see L. D. Henderson, “A New Facet of Cubism: ‘The Fourth Dimension’ and ‘Non-Euclidean Geometry’ Reinterpreted,” The Art Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1971), pp. 410-33.

26. T. Andersen, Malevich (Amsterdam, 1970), p. 61. Camilla Gray, in her pioneering study The Russian Experiment in Art, 1863-1922 (London, 1962), concluded that “it is probable that Malevich began working out his Suprematist system in 1913, as he claimed” (p. 160). For a more recent sketch of Malevich, see John E. Bowlt, “The Semaphors of Suprematism: Malevich’s Journey into the Non-Objective World,” Art News, December 1973. PP. 16-22.

There is no biography of Malevich, but Troels Andersen has collected some of his voluminous writings in K. S. Malevich, Essays on Art 1915-1933, 2 vols. (New York, 1971). See also Malevich’s later theoretical work, The Non-Objective World (Chicago, 1959), originally published in 1927 by the Bauhaus.

Articles on Malevich include: E. Kallai, “Kasimir Malewitsch,” Das Kunst- blatt, II, 10 (1927), pp. 264-66; P. Habesque, “Documents inédits sur les début du suprématisme,” Aujourdhui, I, 4 (September 1955), pp. 14-16; M. Welish, “The Spiritual Modernism of Malevich,” Arts Magazine, November 1971, pp. 45-48; D. Judd, “Malevich: Independent Form, Color, Surface,” Art in America, Vol. 62, No. 2 (March-April 1974), pp. 52-58; D. Kuspit, “Malevich’s Quest for Unconditioned Creativity, Part I,” Art- forum, Vol. XII, No. 10 (June 1974), pp. 53-58.

27. B. Lifshits, Polutoraglazyi strelets (Leningrad, 1933), p. 70; T. Andersen, Moderne Russisk Kunst 1910-1925 (Copenhagen, 1967), p. 63.

28. V. A. Nikolsky, P. P. Konchalovsky (Moscow, 1936), p. 38; on Konchalovsky see also M. L. Neiman, P. P. Konchalovsky (Moscow, 1967). Konchalovsky himself later recalled that visiting Frenchmen “noted the national ‘Slavic’ character of my painting, which in Moscow then had a reputation of being purely French. I could certainly be ‘French’ only from a Muscovite point of view” (Nikolsky, p. 59).

29. L. F. Diakonitsyn, Ideinye protivorechie v estetike russkoi zhivopisi kontsa 19-nachala 20 v.v. (Perm, 1966), p. 204. On Russian painting of the time see also V. Marcade, Le Renouveau de Part pictural russe (Lausanne, 1971).

30. Malevich, Essays, I, p. 148; O. Matiushina, “Prizvanie,” Zvezda (March 1973), p. 148.

31. A. Gerasimov, Zhizn’ khudozhnika (Moscow, 1963), p. 68. On the Moscow School see N. Dmitrieva, Moskovskoe uchilishche zhivopisi, vaianiia, izodchestva (Moscow, 1951).

32. On the Blue Rose movement see J. Bowlt, “Russian Symbolism and the ‘Blue Rose’ Movement,” Slavonic and East European Review, LI, 123 (April 1973), pp. 161-81. Also Diakonitsyn, Protivorechie, pp. 132-33; Marcade, Renouveau, pp. 113, 281-82, Grabar, Istoriia, pp. 88 ff. Monographs on individual members of the Blue Rose include: A. Rusakova, V. E. Rorisov-Musatov, (Moscow, 1966); A. G. Romm, P. V. Kuznetsov (Moscow, 1960); M. V. Alpatov and E. A. Gunst, N.N. Sapunov (Moscow, 1965); M. Saryan, Iz moei zhizni (Moscow, 1970).

33. On the emerging “southern” avant-garde see W. George, Larionov (Paris, 1966); M. Chamot, Goncharova (Paris, 1972); K. Dreier, Rurliuk (New York, 1944); Survage: Exposition Retrospective (Paris, 1966). The Garland and Link painters were slightly younger (mean age, 26) than the Blue Rose (eight of whom also exhibited), and they came mainly from the towns of southern Russia. (See Table VII.)

34. The Munich Russians of the Neue Künstler-Vereinigung (New Artists’ League) were generally of the older generation of aesthetes; in 1909 Kandinsky was 43, M. V. Verefkina was 49, and Aleksei Yavlensky was 45.

35. Marcade, Renouveau, p. 325. On Léger see R. L. Delovoy, Léger (Paris, 1962).

36. The Union of Youth was organized in 1910 in St. Petersburg by Nikolai Kulbin, an army doctor, and the violinist Mikhail Matiushin. It sponsored painting exhibits in 1910 (Riga and St. Petersburg), 1911 (St. Petersburg), 1912 (Moscow), and 1913-1914 (St. Petersburg). See Marcade, Renouveau, pp. 242-53.

37. V. Kandinsky, F. Marc, eds., Der Blaue Reiter (1912) (Munich, 1965). PP.279, 282.

38. H. Beminger and J.-A. Cartier, Pougny (Tubingen, 1972), pp. 12-13.

39. Ibid., p. 42.

40. Bowers, Scriabin, II, p. 254; P. Uspensky, In Search of the Miraculous (New York, 1949), pp. 3, 6. During World War I Uspensky became a follower of another mystic philosopher, George Gurdjeff, in Moscow. In 1919 he became the Russian correspondent of A. R. Orage’s journal The New Age-, Orage was a former theosophist and leading literary critic and editor whom Uspensky met in London in 1913-1914. In exile in England after 1917 Uspensky and Gurdjeff were enormously popular among some British intellectuals, among them the writer Katherine Mansfield. See W. Martin, The New Age under Orage (New York, 1967), p. 268; P. Mairet, A. R. Or age: A Memoir (New York, 1966), p. 80. Paul Selver of the New Age circle described Uspensky as “monumentally boorish” in his Orage and the New Age Circle (London, 1959), p. 72.

Another New Age member, Carl Bechofer-Roberts, knew Uspensky from theosophical circles in England, India, and Russia and described him more sympathetically as “an authority on such subjects as the fourth dimension”; C. E. Bechofer, In Denikins Russia and the Caucasus 1919-1920 (London, 1921), p. 81. Bechofer had apparently accompanied Uspensky to Petrograd in 1914; see C. E. Bechofer, “The Forest Philosophers,” in The Century, 108, 1 (May 1924), p. 67.

Rom Landau dates Uspensky’s interest in theosophy back as far as 1907 and says that Uspensky spent six weeks at Adyar in 1913, where he met Annie Besant; R. Landau, God is my Adventure (New York, 1936), p. 214. According to another Englishman with Russian interests, Stephen Graham, there was also an active concern with India among Moscow theosophists in 1914-1915 (Part of the Wonderful Scene [London, 1964], pp. 88—89).

Such evidence suggests that while Uspensky’s early life is as vague and mysterious as that of Malevich, he derived the bulk of his mysticism from English theosophy prior to World War I.

41. P. Ouspensky, Tertium Organum (1911) (New York, 1970), p. xv. Uspensky was bom the same year as Malevich, 1878, and grew up in Moscow. In 1915 he translated Hinton’s The Fourth Dimension from English to Russian as Vospitanie voobrazheniia i chetvertoe izmerenie (Petrograd, 1915)-

42. P. Uspensky, A New Model of the Universe (1931) (New York, 1969). PP.10, 72, 86, 375, 376.

43. Ouspensky, Tertium Organum, p. 31.

44. Ibid., p. 103.

45. R. Bucke, Cosmic Consciousness: A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind (New York, 1901), pp. 3-4, 10-11.

46. Beminger and Cartier, Pougny, pp. 51-52, 57.

47. K. Malevich, Ot kubizma i futurizma do suprematizmu: Novyi zhivo- pisnyi realizm, 3d ed. (Moscow, 1916), p. 28.

48. Beminger and Cartier, Pougny, p. 74. Cited in a review of the exhibit in the newspaper Den, January 14, 1916.

49. F. Bowers, The New Scriabin: Enigma and Answers (New York, 1973), pp. 92, 96-97, 122, 125. Scriabin was also in London in the spring of 1914 with his young theosophical follower, Alexander Brianchaninov. Scriabin himself performed yoga exercises, and may have derived his idea of a great Mysterium in India from the London theosophists.

50. The reference to Uspensky came in a letter to Alexander Benois; the quotation is from Malevich’s article “Secret Vices of the Academicians” (1916); see Malevich, Essays, I, p. 17.

51. Ibid., pp. 68, 118. The art program was announced in Vitebsk on November 15, 1919, after Malevich had replaced Chagall as director of the local art school.

52. Malevich manuscript dated January 25, 1924, in the Van Riesen Archive, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, entitled “Iz knigi o Bezpredmetnosti.” Adolf Van Riesen was a Russian-German friend of Malevich who inherited many of his papers when the artist came to Germany in 1927. He donated them to the Stedelijk Museum in 1970.

53. Undated manuscript by Malevich entitled “Suprematist mir,” Van Riesen Archive.

54. Volkhonsky’s remark was recorded in Trudy vserossiiskago s”ezda khudozhnikov v Petrograde, dekabr 1911-ianvar 1912 (St. Petersburg, 1912), Vol. I, p. 75. Matiushin cited Hinton and Uspensky in his essays in Obshche-stvo khudozhnikov ‘Soiuz molodezhi’, Nos. 1-3 (St. Petersburg, April 1912, July 1912, and March 1913); see especially No. 3, pp. 16, 25-34. on Ma- tiushin’s interest in Uspensky and Tertium Organum, see John E. Bowlt, “The ‘Union of Youth,’ ” in G. Gibian and H. W. Tjalsma, eds., Russian Modernism: Culture and the Avant-garde 19oo-1930 (Cornell, 1976), p. 176.

Chapter 6
Immortalizing the Revolution: The Poetry of Mayakovsky

1. I. Franko, Sochineniia, VII (Moscow, 1958), pp. 7-8. “Vechnyi revoliutsioner—/Dukh, stremliashchii telo k boiu/Za progress, dobro, za voliu,—/On bessmertiia primer.”

2. Translated from Alexander Blok’s “Dances of Death” (1912-1914) by Franklin Reeve in Alexander Blok: Between Image and Idea (New York and London, 1962), p. 131.

3. From N. F. Fedorov, Vopros o bratstve (St. Petersburg, 1906), as cited in J. Edie, J. Scanlan, and M. Zeldin, eds., Russian Philosophy (Chicago, 1965), Vol. III, p. 26. Translated by A. E. Moorhouse and G. Kline.

4. Ibid., p. 45.

5. K. Chukovsky, Sobranie sochinenii, II (Moscow, 1965), pp. 349-50. On the influence of Whitman on Mayakovsky see also K. Chukovsky, Moi Uitmen (Moscow, 1966), pp. 252-66; S. Stepanchev, “Whitman in Russia,” in G. W. Allen, ed., Walt Whitman Abroad (Syracuse, 1955), pp. 144-55; D. Petersen, “Mayakovsky and Whitman: The Icon and the Mosaic,” in Slavic Review, 28, 3 (September 1969), pp. 416-25. Chukovsky continually emphasized that Whitman was the “first futurist poet” and “transformed democracy into a universal cosmic force”; see M. Petrovsky, Kniga 0 Kornee Chu- kovskom (Moscow, 1966), pp. 92-93, 97. Petersen emphasizes the differences between the two poets, and E. J. Brown, Mayakovsky: A Poet in the Revolution (Princeton, 1973), provides the most balanced assessment (hereafter Brown, Poet). On Whitman himself see inter alia R. Asselineau, The Evolution of Walt Whitman (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), and J. E. Millar, Walt Whitman (New Haven, 1962).

6. A. A. Mayakovskaia, “Detstvo i iunost’ Vladimir Mayakovskogo,” Mayakovsky v vospominaniakh rodnykh i druzei (Moscow, 1968), p. 10.

The literature on Mayakovsky is extensive. E. J. Brown’s biography emphasizes literary criticism, but is also excellent in describing the events of the poet’s life. W. Woroszylski, The Life of Mayakovsky (New York, 1970), is a useful collection of the most important source materials about Mayakovsky, with judgment suspended. The important primary sources are V. V. Mayakovsky, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Moscow, 1955-1961), and the collection “Novoe o Mayakovskom,” Literatumoe nasledstvo, LXV (Moscow, 1958), hereafter “Novoe.” Memoirs about him are in V. Shklovsky, Zhizrí s Maya- kovskym (Moscow, 1940), translated by L. Feiler as Mayakovsky and his Circle (New York, 1972), and on his early years, V. V. Mayakovsky: Ma- terialy i issledovaniia (Moscow, 1940), hereafter Materialy.

7. Woroszylski, Mayakovsky, p. 24.

8. B. Lifshits, Polutoraglazyi Strelets (Leningrad, 1933), p. 57.

9. Woroszylski, p. 37.

10. N. Khardzhiev, “Mayakovsky i zhivopis’,” in Materialy, p. 343 ff.

11. Woroszylski, p. 79.

12. Shklovsky, Circle, p. 28; Brown, Poet, pp. 253-56.

13. G. Daniels, trans., The Complete Plays of Vladimir Mayakovsky (New York, 1968), pp. 21-38.

14. N. Khardzhiev, “Tume kubo-futuristov 1913-1914 gg.,” Materialy, pp. 401-27.

15. A. A. Mgebrov, Zhizn’ v teatre (Moscow and Leningrad, 1932), II, p. 188. On life at the Stray Dog see also Lifshits, Strelets, pp. 257-79.

16. Woroszylski, p. 161.

17. Ibid., p. 168.

18. Ibid., p. 176.

19. The best account of Mayakovsky in 1917 is E. A. Dinershtein, “Mayakovsky v fevrale-oktiabre 1917,” in “Novoe,” pp. 541-70. The author indicates (p. 551) that Mayakovsky received 1,625 rubles in payment for six lubki done for Z. I. Grzhebin’s publishing house between March and August 1917.

20. Shklovsky, Circle, p. 95.

21. V. V. Mayakovsky, “Ya sam,” in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, I, (Moscow, 1955), p. 25.

22. A. Fevral’sky, Pervaia sovetskaia pesa “misteriia-buff” V. V. Maya- kovskogo (Moscow, 1971), pp. 18, 20, 52. Quotations from the play itself are taken from Daniels, Plays, pp. 39-139.

23. Ibid., pp. 63, 66,96.

24. Iskusstvo kommuny, 1 (December 7, 1918), p. 1; 2 (December 15, 1918), p. 1; 3 (December 22, 1918), p. 1; 4 (December 29, 1918), p. 1; 5 (January 5, 1919), p. 1.

25. Ibid., 6 (January 12, 1919), pp. 1-2; 9 (February 2, 1919), P. 1; 17 (March 30, 1919), p. 1.

26. Woroszylski, pp. 272-75.

27. Ibid., pp. 296-97.

28. On Vkhutemas see especially E. Semenova, “Vkhutemas, LEF, Mayakovsky,” in Uchenye zapiski tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, IX (1966), “Trudy po russkoi i slavianskoi filologii,” pp. 288—306.

29. On the Berlin colony in 1922 see R. C. Williams, Culture in Exile (Ithaca, N.Y., 1972), pp. 242-81. The Van Diemen Gallery exhibit included 704 works by 157 Russian artists; see Vystavki sovetskago izobrazitel’nogo iskusstva. Spravochnik. I. 1917-1932 gg. (Moscow, 1965), pp. 107-8. On Pougny in Berlin see E. Steneberg, Russische Kunst Berlin, 1919-1932 (Berlin, 1969), p. 14.

30. Veshch, Nos. 1-2 (March-April 1922), passim.

31. H. Kliemann, Die Novetnbergruppe (Berlin, 1969); H. Richter, Dada: Art and Anti-Art (London, 1965), pp. 101-35.

32. R. Hausmann, Am Anfang war Dada (Giessen, 1972), p. 45; see also J.-F. Bory, Raoul Hausmann (Paris, 1972).

33. F. de Graaf, Sergej Esenin (The Hague, 1966), p. 117; also Woro- szylski, pp. 334-38.

34. Steneberg, Kunst, p. 23; S. Lissitzky-Küppers, El Lissitzky (London, 1968), p. 25; A. Uschakow, “Majakowski und Grosz,” Sinn und Form, XX, 6 (1968), pp. 100, 109.

35. “Novoe,” pp. 129-30.

36. “Pro eto” first appeared in LEF, No. 1 (March 1923), pp. 65-103. For a careful analysis of the poem as literature see Brown, Poet, pp. 219-59. A translation is given in H. Marshall, ed., Mayakovsky (New York, 1965), pp. 157-230.

37. V. Pertsov, Mayakovsky, I, p. 179.

38. LEF, No. 1 (March 1923), p. 9.

39. Woroszylski, p. 368.

40. Ibid.,pp. 410, 418, 421, 425.

41. S. Bojko, New Graphic Design in Revolutionary Russia (New York, 1972), p. 22; from Rodchenko’s personal archives.

42. In 1923, for example, Mayakovsky was thirty as was Shldovsky; Aseev was thirty-four, Brik thirty-five, Rodchenko thirty-two, and Pasternak thirty-three.

43. Woroszylski, p. 472.

44. Ibid., p.501.

45. Ibid., pp. 392, 526, 530.

Chapter 7
Constructivism: Tatlin ’s Monument and Eisenstein’s Montage

1. On the geometric tradition in art see M. Ghyka, The Geometry of Art and Life (New York, 1946); E. Moessel, Die Proportionen in Antike und Mittelalter (Munich, 1926); J. Hambidge, The Elements of Dynamic Symmetry (New York, 1926).

The Golden Section was a division of a line into two segments, a and b, such that (b/a)² = b/a + 1, an equation solved for b= 1 and a=i.618. Put in another way, “the ratio between the greater and the smaller part is equal to the ratio between the whole and the greater part.” (Ghyka, pp. 3-4.)

2. On Semper see H. Winkler, ed., Gottfried Semper: Wissenschaft, Industrie und Kunst (Mainz, 1966). On Peter Behrens, see F. Hoeber, Peter Behrens (Munich, 1913), and the exhibition catalogue Peter Behrens (18681940) (Kaiserslautern, 1966-1967).

3. M. Franciscono, Walter Gropius and the Creation of the Bauhaus in Weimar (Urbana, Chicago, London, 1971), pp. 90, 93, 95; E. Mendelsohn, Briefe eines Architektur (Munich, 1961), p. 36; also S. King, The Drawings of Eric Mendelsohn (Berkeley, 1969).

4. P. Scheebart, Glasarchitektur (Berlin, 1914), edited and translated by D. Sharp (New York and Washington, D.C., 1972), pp. 52, 74. Also K. Jung- hans, Bruno Taut 1880-1938 (Berlin, 1970).

5. The earliest account of Tatlin and his work is by his friend Nikolai Punin, Tatlin (Petrograd, 1921); this pamphlet, appropriately laudatory, credits Tatlin with anticipating cubism, while telling us almost nothing about him. The best account of Tatlin’s life and art is Troels Andersen, Vladimir Tatlin (Stockholm, 1968). See also the more recent exhibition catalogue Tatlin’s Dream (London, 1973), compiled by Andrei B. Nakov, and the section on Tatlin in C. Gray, The Russian Experiment in Art: 1863-1922 (London, 1970), pp. 167-83. On the monument see J. Elderfeld, “The Line of Free Men: Tatlin’s ‘Towers’ and the Age of Invention,” Studio, 178, 916 (November 1969), pp. 162-67.

6. Gray, Experiment, p. 168.

7. A. G. Chiniakov, Brat’ia Vesniny (Moscow, 1970), p. 38.

8. V. Manin, “Front khudozhestvennoi revoliutsii,” Prometii, 1967, 4, pp. 394-406.

9. On revolutionary festivals see especially E. A. Speranskaia, Agita- tsionno-massovoe iskusstvo pervykh let Oktiabria (Moscow, 1971). Tatlin was chairman of the Moscow section of IZO-Narkompros and S. D. Dymshits- Tolstaia was secretary. Beside the painters Falk, Mashkov, Kuznetsov, and Kandinsky, the group included four of Tatlin’s compatriots from his prewar days (Malevich, Morgunov, Udaltsova, and Olga Rozanova), the sculptors B. D. Korolev and S. T. Konenkov, and four other artists. Korolev, who had studied with Rodin in Paris in 1913, saw his cubist monument to Bakunin tom down; see L. Bubnov, B. D. Korolev (Moscow, 1968), p. 65. The list of artists is given in Speranskaia, p. 126, n.90.

10. H. Wölfflin, Principles of Art History (New York, 1932), p. 234; originally the Munich, 1915, compilation of his prewar lectures. See also Gabo (London, 1957), p. 54, and N. Gabo, Of Divers Arts (Princeton, 1962).

11. Andersen, Tatlin, p. 57.

12. Ibid., p. 51. The manifesto was signed by Tatlin, Shapiro, Meierzon, and Paul Vinogradov, a student who worked on the model.

13. Ibid., p. 58; A. V. Lunacharsky, “Neizdannye materialy,” Litera-tumoe nasledstvo (Moscow, 1970), p. 241, n. 35. Taken from Izvestiia, November 29, 1922.

14. S. Eisenstein, Notes of a Film Director (1939) (New York, 1970), p. 61.

15. Y. Bama, Eisenstein (Bloomington, 1973), p. 73; N. Gomitskaia, ed., Iz istorii Lenfil’ma, II (Leningrad, 1970), p. 249. On the cinema in its early years see R. Stephenson and J. Debrix, The Cinema as Art (Baltimore, 1969), and L. Jacobs, ed., Introduction to the Art of the Movies (New York, 1960) ; also D. Talbot, ed., Film: An Anthology (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967).

16. Kinomatograf: Sbornik statei (Moscow, 1919), p. 7. For Lunacharsky’s later views on cinema see his pamphlet Kino na zapade i u nas (Leningrad, 1928). On Soviet cinema the best survey is Jay Leyda, Kino: A History of the Russian and Soviet Film (London, 1960). For the Soviet view see the first volume in the series Istoriia sovetskogo kino 1917-1967 (Moscow, 1969), covering the period 1917-1931 and edited by the Institute of Art History of the USSR Ministry of Culture. Also U. Gregor, “Der sowjetische Film der Zwanziger Jahren; ‘Revolution des Auges’ und ‘Poesie der Fakten,’ ” in Kunst und Revolution (Frankfurt, 1972). More recently L. and J. Schnitzer, eds., Cinema in Revolution, trans. D. Robinson (London, 1973), a collection of Soviet memoirs.

17. On Dziga Vertov see S. Drobashenko, ed., Dziga Vertov: Stat’i, dnevnik, zamysli (Moscow, 1966); N. A. Abramov, Dziga Vertov (Moscow, 1962); M. Enzensberger, “Dziga Vertov,” Screen, 13, 4 (Winter 1972-1973), pp. 90-107.

18. S. P. Hill, “Kuleshov: Prophet without Honor?” in Film Culture, Spring 1967, p. 10.

19. The best biography of Eisenstein is by a Rumanian scholar, Y. Bama, Eisenstein (Bucharest, 1966), translated by Lise Hunter (Bloomington, 1.973). The older biography by Marie Seton, Sergei M. Eisenstein (London, 1952), combines personal knowledge with considerable speculation. A recent Soviet biography-memoir by a man who knew Eisenstein well is Viktor Shklovsky, Eizenshtein (Moscow, 1973). Eisenstein’s voluminous writings and lectures on film have been collected as Izbrannye proizvedeniia, 6 vols. (Moscow, 1964-1971), hereafter IP, and include some “autobiographical notes” written during and after World War II (IP, I, pp. 203-540).

20. Sovetskii teatr: Dokumenty i materialy (Leningrad, 1968), p. 450.

21. Seton, Eisenstein, p. 479; taken from Eisenstein’s brief autobiographical note published in Internatsional’naia literatura (Moscow, 1933), No. 4.

22. On Proletkult and the theater see Sovetskii teatr, passim, and P. Gor- sen, “Der revolutionáre Kulturkampf der Ubergangsgesellschaft in Sowjet- russland (1917-1922),” Kunst und Revolution (Frankfurt, 1972).

23. On Meyerhold’s early productions for the First RSFSR Theater see Vstrechi s Meierkhol’dom (Moscow, 1967), p. 184; N. Volkhov, A. M. Ripel- lino, Maiakowski et le théâtre russe d’avant-garde (Paris, 1965).

24. E. Dobin, Kozintsev i Trauberg (Leningrad and Moscow, 1963), p. 10.

25. According to Yutkevich, in Schnitzer, Cinema, p. 32.

26. Bama, Eisenstein, p. 60.

27. S. Eisenstein, “Montazh attraktsionov,” LEF, 3 (June-July 1923) pp. 70-75; reprinted in IP, II, pp. 269-73. In the article Eisenstein makes specific mention of Grosz, Rodchenko, and photomontage, as well as the Théâtre Guignole (pp. 71-72).

28. On Shklovsky and the linguistic contribution to montage, see his Eizenshtein (pp. 136-45). See also Shklovsky’s memoirs, Zhili-byli (Moscow, 1966), where he notes (p. 450) that “montage was created in the American cinema, but it was understood in the Soviet cinema.”

29. Yutkevich in Schnitzer, Cinema, p. 17.

30. Shklovsky, Eizenshtein, p. 136.

31. Leyda, Kino, p. 164.

32. E. Shub, Krupnymplanom (Moscow, 1959), p. 67.

33. P. M. Jensen, The Cinema of Fritz Lang (New York, 1969), pp. 34-46.

34. Shub, Krupnym planom, p. 69.

35. Bama, Eisenstein, p. 83.

36. Ibid., p. 84.

37. Bronenosets "Potemkin” (Moscow, 1969), p. 24. On the making of Potemkin, see also I. G. Rostovtsev, Bronenosets “Potemkin” (Moscow, 1962) ; Bama, Eisenstein, pp. 90-113; IP, I, pp. 122-35.

38. Bronenosets “Potemkin” (1969), pp. 24, 50-51.

39. Ibid., p. 79.

40. Bama, Eisenstein, p. 104.

41. S. Eisenstein, Film Sense, p. 7; in Film Form: The Film Sense (Cleveland and New York, 1957).

42. Bama, Eisenstein, pp. 126-27; from a letter to Leon Moussinac.

43. Ibid., p. 151.

44. Film Sense, pp. 251-52.

45. Bama, Eisenstein, p. 185.

46. Ibid., p. 199.

47. Ibid., p. 241.

48. Ibid., p. 240; from unpublished manuscript in the Eisenstein archive in Moscow.

49. Written by Eisenstein in 1934 and reprinted in Film Essays (New York, 1970), p. 74.

50. S. Eisenstein, “Charlie the Kid” (1945), in ibid., p. 121.

51. Bama, Eisenstein, p. 264.

Chapter 8
The Russian Avant-garde and the Victory over Death

1. A. Shevchenko, Neo-primitivizm (Moscow, 1913); cited in J. Bowlt, Russian Art of the Avant-garde: Theory and Criticism 1902-1934 (New York, 1976), pp. 47, 54

2. K. Clark, Provincialism (London, 1962), p. 3.

3. K. Malevich, Essays on Art 1915-1933, ed. and trans. T. Andersen (New York, 1971), Vol. II, pp. 141-44.

4. Maeterlinck was immensely popular; there were eleven editions of Monna Vanna, nine of Blue Bird, and four of Tintagiles by 1918 in Russia. See R. Brucher, Maurice Maeterlinck: L’Oeuvre et son audience; essai de biblio- graphie 1883-1960 (Brussels, 1972), p. 41. On Walt Whitman in Russia see S. Stepanchev, “Whitman in Russia,” in G. Allen, ed., Walt Whitman Abroad (Syracuse, N.Y., 1955), pp. 145, 150. Also K. Chukovsky, “Russkaia Uit- maniana,” Vesy, 1906, No. 10, pp. 43-45. On Steiner see the translations of his Iz letopisi mira (Aus der Akasha Khronik) (Moscow, 1914), and Razmy- shleniia 0 Gete (Moscow, 1914).

5. A. Haskell, Diaghileff (London, 1935), p. 161.

6. Letter of Maxim Gorky to Leonid Andreev; cited in P. Yershov, ed., Letters of Gorky to Andreev, 1889-1912 (New York and London, 1958), p. 86.

7. V. Shklovsky, Mayakovsky and his Circle (New York, 1972), p. 55.

8. J. Rye, Futurism (London, 1972), p. 9.

9. P. Klee, The Diaries of Paul Klee 1898-1910 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1964), p. 240.

10. There is a large amount of literature on the “mid-life crisis” or “gen- erativity crisis” among males. With respect to artists, see especially E. Jacques, “Death and the Mid-Life Crisis,” International Journal of Psychoanalysis, No. 4 (1965), pp. 502-14; reprinted in H. Ruitenbeek, ed., The Creative Imagination (Chicago, 1965). Also E. Erikson, Identity: Youth in Crisis (New York, 1968), p. 138; Young Man Luther (New York, 1958), p. 243; Gandhi’s Truth (New York, 1969), p. 395.

A number of writers have associated innovation with the aging process and with an awareness of death. C. Lengyel in The Creative Self (Hague and Paris, 1971) speculates that “your weapon against death is your creative self” (p. 98) and that “the urge to create a durable work is part of the urge to survive, to create a degree of immortality” (p. 100). J. A. M. Meerloo, in his book Creativity and Etemixation (Assen, 1967), notes that “the creative process is also a form of regeneration; it is an unconscious re-creation” (p. 15). “Art,” he concludes, “is often one huge struggle with the shape of death” (p. 2). An intriguing psychohistorical case study of psychoneurosis in the lives of creative people (Darwin, Proust, Freud, inter alia) is George Pickering, Creative Malady (New York, 1974). An older and more statistical approach to creativity in both the arts and the sciences is H. C. Lehmann, Age and Achievement (Princeton, 1953), which concludes (p. 330) that “superior creativity rises relatively rapidly to a maximum which occurs usually in the thirties and then falls off slowly.”

11. Andreev to Gorky, St. Petersburg, February 11, 1908; Letters, pp. 96-97

12. E. Mechnikov, The Nature of Man, p. 129.

13. Cited in “Freud/Jung: Letters,” Encounter, XLII, 6 (June 1974), p. 22.

14. O. Rank, “Life and Creation” (1932), in Creative Imagination, pp. 75, 79

15. On the architect Konstantin Melnikov and his concern with death and immortality see S. F. Starr, Melnikov: Solo Architect in Mass Society (Princeton, 1977).

16. E. Semenova, “Vkhutemas, LEF, Mayakovsky,” in Uchenye zapiski tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, IX (1966), p. 294; L. and J. Schnitzer, eds., Cinema in Revolution (New York, 1973), p. 13.