Rozanov and the word

Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doct o r of P h i losophy

at the

Univ e r s i t y of London by

Liza Lucasta D i m b l e b y

School of Slavonic and East Europ e a n Studies London

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

uest.

ProQuest 10106664

Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC

789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346

List of A b b r e v i a t i o n s I ntroduction

Part One Chapter I

Chapter II

Chapter III

The Tradi t i o n of the W o r d in R u s sian Thought : R o z a n o v and Bakhtin

Forms of Expression and U n d e r s t a n d i n g in Rozanov's A p p r o a c h to the W o r d Intimate Genres and the Reader

Chapter IV; Letters, Manuscript, Print and the Press

22

109 205 239

Part Two

Chapter V: R o z a n o v and the 'L iteraturnye izgnanniki' 2 94

Chapter VI: R o z a n o v and D e cadence 382

Chapter VII: L iterary Secta r i a n i s m and A p o c a l y p s e 426 Chapter VIII: Rozanov, Writ i n g and Religious Belief 462

Conclusion 484

Notes

Selected B i b l i o g r a p h y

The f ollowing abbreviations are u s e d for references within the text :

Ued. Uedinennoe, 1912

Smertnoe, 1913.

Opavshie list'ia, 1913. S m e r t .

0. 1. I

0. 1. II

A p o k .

Lit. izQ.

Opavshie list'ia. Korob vtoroi i poslednii, 1915.

Apoka l i p s i s n a s hego vremeni, 1917-1918

Literaturnye izgnanniki, 1913.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, as one of the first c onsequences of the campaign of g l a s n o s t' in the Soviet

Union, Russians were free, and even encouraged, to rediscover m u c h of their national literature w h i c h had been p r e v i o u s l y u n p u b l i s h e d and difficult to obtain. A n important area of rediscovery was the Russ i a n religious and p h i losophical tradition, anathema to the Soviet canon. The new interest in p r e v i o u s l y suppressed religious thinkers was found b o t h in academic and p o p u l a r e n v i r o n m e n t s . The brea d t h of style and format of the new publications, in books, journals and pamphlets, and even on television programmes, bears witness to this b r o a d interest.^ Alth o u g h the almost fashionable early e n t h u s i a s m has b e g u n to wane, the w o r k of publication, r e publication and analysis of R u s sian thinkers remains assiduous. The c irculation of Rozanov's w r i t i n g has b e n e f i t e d g r e atly from this activity.

Rozanov's w r i t i n g was q u i ckly exclu d e d from Soviet literary study, as Fateev writes, 'b coBeTCKoft Pocchh hmh

PosanoBa Gtmo BHTecHeno cnauana m b neuaTu, a noTOM m b

Golle r b a k h ' s small b o o k on R o z a n o v was p u b l i s h e d in Russia in 1918, just before Rozanov's death/* G o l l e r b a k h also p u b l i s h e d articles on Rozanov's w r i t i n g in B e rlin journals, in the e arly 1920s.^ He was angered at the lack of response to Roza n o v ' s d eath from literary organizations and in the press. G o l l e r b a k h was active in the o r g a n i z a t i o n of a R o z a n o v study circle in Petrograd. In S e ptember 1921 an a nnouncement was p u b l i s h e d in V e s t n i k l i t e r a t u r y . stating the aims of the group.® These included the collection of all p r i n t e d and m a n uscript materials relating to Rozanov, the c o m p i l a t i o n of extensive bibliogr a p h i e s of Rozanov's work and of c r i t i c i s m of his work, the collection of Rozanov's letters, a R o z a n o v section to be instituted in the m u s e u m of 'Dom l i t e r a t o r o v ' , the p u b l i c a t i o n of collections of articles and memoirs and the h o l ding of evenings d e v o t e d to d i s cussion of the writer. Sadly, these large intentions were not all realized. At the first m e e t i n g in O c t ober 1921 a committee was formed that included G o l l e r b a k h and Khovin, the critic Volynskii, and no t a b l y A n d r e i Belyi, later so p u b l i c l y dismissive of

R o z a n o v . 7 The group soon became part of the V o l 'noi

filosofskoi assotsiatsii (V o l 'f i l a ) study circle of which Belyi and K h ovin were also founding members. This was an a s s o c i a t i o n of general philosophical, spiritual, and political inquiry w h i c h continued until 1924. A f t e r this time, references to Roza n o v w i t h i n R u ssia become i n c r e a s i n g l y rare.

rules and suggests that this is a valua b l e area of r e s e a r c h .

Remizov, like Rozanov, deve l o p e d a powerful 'physical' p honetic language that could be seen b o t h as a defiance of

s l o v a ' . ^ Both R o z a n o v and R e m i z o v were also at the centre of the p r e - r e v o l u t i o n a r y religious and aesthetic renaissance, u s u a l l y characterized b y the terms 'decadence'

and ' symbolism' in literary history. At one time Rozanov was closely connected to the leading decadents,

M e r e z h k o v s k i i and Gippius, and he had c o ntinuing links with religious thinkers, notably Florenskii. But the titles 'symbolism' and 'decadence' do not do full justice to the range of Remizov's and Rozanov's work. A certain m i s c h i e v o u s n e s s and play in their w r i t i n g and life set them apart from their contemporaries; as Slobin notes, they were the only two of the leading figures of the time to approach the current religious and philosophical themes with any degree of h u m o u r . T h e i r talent and humo u r gave them a fr e edom that ensured a more lasting v i t a l i t y to their w r i t i n g than that of m a n y of their contemporaries. Even mo r e than Remizov, Rozanov's w ork has connections w i t h m a n y v a r i e d and even contradictory literary p h e n o m e n a in Russia. While he can be interpreted as an innovator on a par with the futurists, seeking to overcome, even to destroy, t raditional literature, he was at the same time the p a i n s t a k i n g p r e s e r v e r of obscure and u n k n o w n conservative writers. However, in both his radical and conservative stances R o z a n o v remains constant in his a p p r o a c h to and value for the word.

v a r i e d an influence at this important transitional time. The range of his enthusiasms and the infectious strength of his language was powerful enough to encompass these many-v a r i e d inspirations and influences, w h i c h hamany-ve continued to have effect on R u s sian w r i t i n g until the present day. Nevertheless, Soviet ideology succeeded in c o m pressing this m u l t i p l i c i t y and condemning it as a retrograde subjectivity. The active study and p u b l i c a t i o n of Rozanov was e f f e c t i v e l y suppressed from the middle of the 1920s to the late 1980s.

p u b l i s h e d b e fore the recent renaissance.^'^

The p u blic p r o m o t i o n of R o z a n o v remained the work of emigre w r i ters and scholars during the Soviet period. lurii Ivask was perhaps the most p rolific R u s sian R o z a n o v scholar at this time. He p u b l i s h e d the first p o s thumous Russian collection of Rozanov's work, in 1956, w i t h an extended i n troductory a r t i c l e . ^ He also wrote about Rozanov's relationship w i t h Pavel Florenskii and Konstantin L e o n t ' e v . Novyi zhurnal in N e w York was the most consistent p u b l i s h e r of Rozanov's w r i t i n g and related materials; V e s t n i k Russkogo Khristia n s k o g o Dvizheniia p u b l i s h e d important correspondence. W e s tern writers also b e gan to take an interest in Rozanov's work, n o t a b l y Renato Poggioli, w i t h his b o o k on R o z a n o v for W e s t e r n readers, p u b l i s h e d in 1 9 5 7. The study of R o z a n o v by G e r m a n readers was p r o m o t e d b y Heinr i c h Stammler, who has w r i t t e n several articles in b o t h G e r m a n and English and a book, devoted to Rozanov's religious p h i l o s o p h y . ^ A t t e n t i o n to R o z a n o v in England was earlier and less academic. Selective translations of U e d i n e n n o e . Opavshie list'ia and A p o k a l i p s i s nashego vremeni by Kotelianskii were p u blished in 1924 and 1929, and R o z a n o v was d rawn to the a t tention of D. H. L awrence and W. H. A u d e n amongst o t h e r s . ^

Rozanov's sense of b eing suffocated in literature while it remains his only possible w a y of breathing.

Recently, the area of R o z a n o v studies has opened up greatly. There is m u c h more accessible material, b oth in archives and in the m a n y p ublications and republications in R u s s i a n books and journals. There are m a n y committed new R o z a n o v scholars in Russia. As well as two extensive c o llected works in progress, several books have been p u b l i s h e d on Rozanov, including those b y Fateev, N o s o v and Pishun and P i s h u n , ^ and theses are b e i n g written. A s ociety for the study of Roza n o v has once again b e e n formed and has h e l d R o z a n o v conferences.^”^ Rozanov's w o r k touches on so m a n y different and important aspects of Russian thought and w r i t i n g that this increased attention, d i s c u s s i o n and p u b l i c a t i o n should be e xciting and p r o d u c t i v e .

b r e a k w i t h the limitations of stagnant liter a r y style by repro d u c i n g living speech, they gave this speech new and pu r e l y liter a r y tasks, and in this i n t e raction b e t ween artifice and life they regenerated the l a n g u a g e . ^

This thesis is an attempt to indicate some of the links b e t w e e n the religious and l iterary implications of Rozanov's work. The first half concentrates on Rozanov's w o r k in the context of Russ i a n traditions of thought and the word, through the w r i t i n g of Bakhtin, Mandel'shtam, A v e r i n t s e v and religious thinkers c o n t e mporary or n e a r ­

work is d i s c u s s e d as a form of Bakhtin's intimate genre, c hal l e n g i n g and even replacing p r e v i o u s l y recei v e d literary canons and assu m e d authorities in exis t i n g writing. Rozanov's p r i n c i p l e d s e l f - c o n tradiction was a d e f l a t i o n of false certainties, received ideas and l iterary pomposity. It d e m a n d e d a new active response to reading, and thus to writing, and B a k h t i n and R o z a n o v w o u l d b o t h argue, towards life. I look at Rozanov's relation to the reader in the context b o t h of B a k h t i n i a n ideas and of M a n del'shtam's prose writing. M a n del'shtam's p r ose essays, similarly to Bakhtin's writing, can be read in the t r adition of thought about and concern for the w o r d in Russ i a n c u l t u r e . T h e final chapter of part one looks at the use of letters, ha n d w r i t i n g and manuscripts, print and the press in relation to Rozanov's literary b a ttle for a l i ving word.

to overcome this and speak spontaneously, free from reference or consciousness of example. Yet in his opavshie list'ia genre, R o z a n o v himself created a form that has p e n e t r a t e d d e e p l y into the Russ i a n l iterary consciousness.

I look at the conflict b e t w e e n this self-conscious literariness and the sense of constant utterance, and constant writing, as a religious need, or as the only possible w a y of living w h e n G o d remains silent.

PART ONE

C HAPTER I: THE T R A D I T I O N OF THE WORD IN R U S S I A N THOUGHT: RO Z ANOV AND B A K HTIN

ASPE C T S OF THE T R A D I T I O N OF THE WORD IN LATE N I N E T E E N T H AND EARLY T W E N T I E T H CENTURY RUSSIA

R o z a n o v was w r i t i n g at a time w h e n the debate on the word was carried on w i t h intensity in Russia. In the late n i n e t e e n t h and early twentieth centuries, the word c o ntained p o t e n t i a l l y far more than a p u r e l y stylistic function, it was fraught w i t h implications. The word in Russian, sloyo, itself had a resonance b e y o n d the mere indication of a vehicle for the t r a n slation of meaning. It had religious, philosophical and political resonance. Writers and thinkers emphasized the need to restore this living word, in religion, literary and political life. There was a call for an active and true use of the word that was free of cliche and hypocrisy. A n y debate on w r i t i n g could not avoid engaging w i t h the broader p h i l o s o p h i c a l tradition of the word. In Russia, this meant enga g i n g w i t h the word's sacred inheritance.

secular usage. M a n d e l ' s h t a m claimed that this strength of the R u s s i a n language lay in its Hellenic origins:

P y C CKHH H 3 H K - 5Î3HK 3JIJlKHHCTKUeCKHK. B CKJiy qeJIOFO paga H C T o p H u e c K H x ycjiOBKÔ, acHBHe c h j i h b j u i k h c k o h KyjiBTypn, ycTynHB 3anan jiaTHHCKHM bjihhhkhm k ne Hanojiro 3aram#BaacB

B 6e 3 n e T H O H BH3aHTHK, yCTpeMHJlHCB B JIOHO p y C C K O H peUH, cooônpîB eâ caMoyBepeHHyio Tatiny BJuiHHHCTuuecKoro MKp0B033peHH5î, T B H H y CBOÔOflHOrO B O n n O m e H H H , H H O S TOMy p y c c K H K H3ÏIK CTaji H M e H H O B By^am^H H r o B o p a m e È nnoTBK).^

M a n d e l ' s h t a m emphasizes the word's phon e t i c prese n c e as tangible and resonant flesh. A v e r i n t s e v has also described the central role of the w o r d in Hellenic and N e a r Eastern verbal traditions as formative of the R u s s i a n verbal trad i t i o n . 2 He contrasts the supremely l iterary and written culture of the Greeks w i t h the Near Eastern, Judaic traditions of p r o p h e c y and prayer, w h e r e energy is c o n c e ntrated in the moment of utterance, not in written vestiges. Yet for b o t h cultures the living w o r d is the centre of attention: 'KoneuHO, r p e u e c K u S n u e T e T nepen jTKTepaTypHOH KJiaccHKOH H rmeTeT n e p e n CBHiqeHHHM n K c a n n e M -Bemn paBJiH^HEie, h o u t k npoTHBonojioacHiie ; h o h t b m h 3qecB b qeHTp KyjIBTypH H 3CH3HH CTaBHTCH TO, U T O BEETOBOpeHO B

cjioBe. ' ^

a c c o u n t a b i l i t y to the use of language in the here and now. M a n d e l ' s h t a m claimed that a separation from this living

sense of language w o u l d m e a n historical death: 'c t oj i b

o p r a H H u e c K H H h s h k He t o j i b k o asepB b HCTOpmo, h o h cawa H C T O p H H . flJIH POCCHH O T H a g e H H e M OT HCTOpHKE < > ÔEEJIO 6h

OTnaneHKEe o t HSiiKa. «OneisieHHe» H s y x , T p e x noKOJienpiH m o f j i o

6ei n p H B e c T H k H C T O p H u e c K O H CMepTH.'* He d escribes language as an active event: '9jLnHHncTHuecKyK) n p H p o n y p y c c K o r o HBHxa MOaCHO OTOîKneCTBJIHTB C erO ÔHTHHCTBeHHOCTBK) . CjIOBO B 3JUIHHHCTHHeCKGM H O H H M a H H H eCTB HJIOTB fleHTeJTBHaH, paspemaiomaHCH b coÔHTne.'® Mandel's h t a m ' s w r i t i n g on the

and yet h a v i n g b e e n uttered, it suffers a loss of life, a completion, through words, in definition. For the w o r l d to live in the fullness of ever p o s s i b l e n e w interpretations, there must be a continual recr e a t i o n of e x istence in new words, or in a reutterance of old words, in order to revivify this completed existence. B a k h t i n w a r n e d against the t y r anny of finalizing words or concepts, he d e m a n d e d a constant reinterpretation, a constant verbal activ i t y that it was our duty to engage in. A r g u i n g from a basis of Neo-K antian concepts of givenness, he calls for a repeated enactment on the g iven w o r l d in words, to overcome the h opelessness of the present w o r l d and open it up to new poss i b i l i t i e s and various futures. In the e ssay A v t o r i aeroi v esteticheskoi d e i a t e l ' n o s t i . B a k h t i n speaks in terms that have a religious p h i l o s ophical resonance. Like Mandel'shtam, he puts the w ord in the b iblical context of the W o r d m a d e flesh. The present w o r l d in its finalized u t terance is a 'dead flesh' w h i c h must be renewed b y a constant incar n a t i o n through utterance:

< . . . > n e â c T B H T e j i B H H H M H p (b OTBJieueHHEi [o t ] npeflCTOHn^ero

H sanaHHoro, eiqe He nspeuennoro) ecTB yace H s p e u e H H H H , yace

B H C K a S a H H H H CMHCJI C O Ô E T T H H Ô H T H H , M H p B C B O B H H a J I H H H O C T H

e c T B B E E p a a c e H H O C T B , y»ce C K a s a n H o e , yace r r p o s B y u a B m e e c j i o b o .

<. . . > n o K a c j i o b o H e 6h j i o C K a s a n o , MoacHO 6h j i o B e p H T B h

H a n e a T B C H - b b h b n p e n c T O H J i a T a x a a H y n H T e j i B H a n n o j i H O T a

CMBicjia < . . . > . Yace C K a s a n n o e c j i o b o S B y u H T b e a n a n e a c H o b C B o e n

CMEicjia. BHTHe, yace najiH^Hoe b nponinoM h HacTonmeM, - t oj ib k o

CMepTHan i utotb npencTOim^ero CMEicjia c o ô h t k s î ôhtpisî

aôcojiiOTHoro ô y a y q e r o . ®

N e w u t t e r a n c e re-enacts the W o r d m a d e flesh and opens up n e w p o s s i b i l i t i e s of meaning, in response to the original incarnation. B oth M a n d e l ' s h t a m and Bakhtin's writings on the W o r d quot e d here, w r i t t e n in the 1920s, show the influence of R u s sian religious traditions, in w h ich there had b e e n a resurgence of interest in the late n i n e t e e n t h and early twentieth centuries. Such an intense focus on R u s s i a n traditions of language and thought was at least in part an attempt at national self-definition: to a f f i r m the specific features of R u s s i a n thought in the face of E u r o p e a n philosophy, w h i c h was seen to have reached a crisis point. It was stimulated b y a d i s e n c h a n t m e n t with the limitations of an overly rationalist European philosophy, and a n e w u r g e n c y about the n e e d to stake out a s p e c i f i c a l l y R u s s i a n w a y of thinking.

E u r o p e a n languages were limited b y their f inished forms and u n y i e l d i n g to innovation in words or thought. The Russian language p o s s e s s e d immense potential for the expr e s s i o n of as yet u n r e a l i z e d thoughts. It thus offered a w a y out of the intellectual and linguistic impasse of European culture. Dost o e v s k i i d e scribed the R u s s i a n language as a p a r a d i g m proof of the nation's historic potential:

BeflB C T p amHO cxasaTB, u t o espon e H C K H â flyx, MoaceT - ônrB ^ ne T a x MHoropasjiHuen h donee saMKHyTO-CBoeodpaseH, u e M nam, H e c M O T p n naace na t o, u t o yac necoM H e H H O s a K O Huennee h

O T ueTJTHBee BHpasHJicn, u e M nam. Ho ecjiH 3t o CTpamno cxasaTB, TO, no K p a H H e n Mepe, nejiBSH ne npusHaTB, c H a g e æ n o n h c

B ecejineM nyxa, u t o namero-TO a s nxa n y x - descnopno MHoropaBJiHuen, doraT, BcecT o p o n e n h B c eodteMJuoiq, udo b

H e y c T p o e H H H x eme ^ o pnax c b o h x, a yace M o r nepenaTB flparoqeHHOCTH h coxpoBHma meicjih e B p o n e n c x o n , h met

uyBCTByeM, u t o n e p e n a n n o h h t o u h o h Bepno.*

M a n d e l ' s h t a m also describes E u r o p e a n languages as c o n s t r a i n e d b y the boundaries and formal limitations of the W e s t e r n cultural tradition. He insists on the immense v i t a l i t y of the R u s s i a n language:

Ecjih sanaflHHe xyjiBTypn h h c t o p h m saMEixaiOT h b h x nsBne,

oropaacHBaiOT ero CTenaMH rocyflapcTBeHHOCTH h qepxoBHOCTu n

n p o H H T H B a i o T c n H M , u T o d H MefljieHHO T H H T B H s a q s e T a T B B

CTopoH OMEira K onoHcana rposHOH

6e36peacHOH CTHXHeâ

pyccKoro HSiiKa, ne BMemaiomerocH

KaKne rocynapcTBeHHHe

Both w r i ters identify the limitations of E u r o p e a n languages w ith those of Europ e a n culture; the d e g e n e r a t i o n of the language is i nextricably b o u n d up w i t h that of the culture. By the late n i n e t e e n t h century Europe's role as a symbolic source of p rogress and innovation for R u s s i a seemed threatened. R u s s i a n writers p e r c e i v e d in Europe a sense of intellectual and spiritual pessimism, a loss of d i rection and a threat of decline. These anxieties w ere e mbodied by characters in D o s t o e vskii's writing, such as V e r s i l o v in the novel P o d r o s t o k . He describes the educa t e d R u s s i a n as a w a n d e r e r (s k i t a l e t s ) in E u r o p e . ^ D o s t o e v s k i i beli e v e d that the R u s s i a n had one advantage from subsi s t i n g always on b o r r o w e d cultural and intellectual ideas; he remains free from the c u s hioning habits that e n t r e n c h e d cultural tradition can become, and he can perc e i v e m o r e sharply the crisis that it conceals. The R u s s i a n w a n d e r e r not only becomes the consciousness (and conscience) of Europe, but feels this crisis, the conflict b e t w e e n ideals and formal stagnation, most a c u tely in himself.

and religion was an a f f i rmation of national individuality from w i t h i n a country that has itself b e e n d e s c r i b e d as p u r s u i n g an adolescent quest for identity, exem p l i f i e d in the title of D o s t o e vskii's book, P o d r o s t o k .

V l a d i m i r Solov ' e v a chieved a turning point for Russian thought with his Kritika otvle c h e n n y k h nachal of 1880, a critique of the limitations of W e s t e r n p h i l o s o p h y and indication of Russia's original potential inspired in part by the early Slavophiles, Kireevskii and Khomiakov. The interest in Russia's own philosophical tradi t i o n became p a r t i c u l a r l y intense at the turn of the century. The p h i l o s o p h e r V l a d i m i r Ern was p a r t i c u l a r l y r e p resentative of the R u s s i a n attempt at intellectual self-definition. Ern argued that the intense involvement of R u s s i a n thought with We s t e r n European p h i l o s o p h y was not an imitative dependence, but a stimulus to the development of original Ru s s i a n traditions of thinking and of the word:

Ern characterized the distinctive nature of Russian philosophical thought by three fundamental tendencies :

1. The avoidance of abstract concepts and systems that falsify life and thought:

C o p M a K c o n e p æ a H H e mhcjih H e p a s n e j i B H E i . Mbicjtb, K O T o p a a

H F H O p H p y e T C B O H COflep^KaHHa, CHJiaCB O T H H X O T B J i e U B C H , < . . . >

B n a n a e T b jioacHyio O T B J i e u e H H O C T B o t a n 3 H n < . . . > . P y c c K a a

$ K J 1 0 C 0 $ C K a a M H C J I B B n p O T H B O n O J I O a C H O C T B 3 T O M y

p a U H O H a J M C T K U e C K O M y CTpeMJieHHIO K n y p H O H O T B J i e u e H H O C T H ÔEUia

Bcerna cymecTBeHHO KOHKpeTHa <...>. Ona îKe oôycjiOBJiHBaeT

jiioôonHTHyio uepTy: OTcyTCTBHe CKCTeM. <...> PyccKne

MHCJTHTejiK sanaTH caMOH mhcjibk), a He ee HCKyccTBenHEiM

obpawjieHHeM.

2. In the West, while philosophers themselves may be deeply religious, philosophical enquiry is restricted to the intellectually ascertainable. Russian thought is based on a premise of religious faith. Language is God-given:

'OcoBHaHHe Jloroca ecTB cosnaHHe BoacecTBa. Bcaxoe ocosnaHHe

Jloroca nosTOMy cymecTBenHO p ejmrHOSHO. OTCiOfla BTOpOH

OCHOBHOH uepTOH pyccKOH $HJioco$CKOH MHCJIH aBJiacTca rnyôOKaa H KOpeHHaa pejinrHOSHOCTB.

l iving and should likewise affect one's life: 'BCHKoe, ^aace caMoe O T n a n e H H o e h npHÔjmaceHHoe, cosH a H n e Jloroca npennojiaraeT KaK CBoe neoôxoflHMoe ycjiOBHe CBepxoôEraHyio Hanp5îaceHHOCTB j u t i h o h acusHU, noBiimeHHoe OHTOJiorHuecKH-acHBHeHHoe caMOC o s H a H n e '

In R u s s i a n thought man's use of the w o r d is closely linked to his individual existence, w h i c h was sacred. The q u e s t i o n of language and individual identity was important to thinkers w h o were contemporaries and n e a r contemporaries of Rozanov. D i v e r s e thinkers such as Ern, Losev, Florenskii and B a k h t i n shared a common prem i s e about the relation b e t w e e n individual nature, words and responsibility. The ideas of L i k , l i t s o , and lichina are crucial for any d i s c u s s i o n of the R u s s i a n t r adition of the word. They d emo n s t r a t e e m p h atically the i mpossiblity of separating w o r d from flesh, of m a k i n g words into concepts abstracted from their specific embodiment and situatedness. For R o z a n o v and B a k h t i n this tradition of the w o r d m a kes itself felt in an insistence on the u n r e p e a t a b l e natu r e of each existence and the indefinable nature of m a n and of his

are l i m ited to a false face, or l i c h i n a , a m a s k that stifles our d i v i n e l y created image. V alue for the word, w hose o r i g i n is in the divine Word, para l l e l s this idea: the original divine word. L o g o s , and the original divine image, L i k . are made manifest in transitory, everyday incarnations of human lives and language. Our r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to this original source is to complete our nature t h r ough acts of language. In the t r adition of R u s s i a n thought, we are responsible to our n a ture in our deeds, our physical and verbal incursions on the world. In speaking we answer, or fail to answer, to our origin, and to the o r i g i n of all speech. All utte r a n c e is thus in some w a y a recko n i n g w i t h the supreme source of words, w h i c h is God. The w o r d litso is used b o t h to indicate the face, the p art of the b o d y most closely b o u n d to G o d since it is the centre of verbal and emotional expression, and the entire i n d i v i d u a l . Ern writes of the connection b e t w e e n the divine W o r d and the individual :

M y n p o c T B CnoBa He Moacem 6h t b nana h o m k m o j i h h h o c t h. Ona p a c K p H B a e T C H u epes j i h h h o c t b h b j i h h h o c t h .

<

. . .

> JMHHOCTB

aTMOC$epe

, eCTeCTBeHHO, SaHHMaeT

qeHTpajiBHoe MecTO <...>.

B norHSMe Bor

-

,

BcejieHHan

gepxoBB

uejiOBeK

JIh u h o c t b . <. . . >

uejiOBeK

rjiybouaHmeH Tanne CBoero

MHpa, ^ e M n p K M e H H H n e p H ^ e p i n e c K o e , c o B epmeHHO ôeccMBicjieHHoe H OTBJie^eHHoe n o H HTHe M e p T B e H H O H Ben^HOCTK.

Ern e m p hasizes our r e s ponsibility to the p a r t i c u l a r i t y of our exist e n c e in the i n dividuality of our w o r d s . T h e R uss i a n tradi t i o n recognizes the specific task of each life, as expr e s s e d in words, physical expressions, and actions, a task that is b o t h a resp o n s i b i l i t y and freedom. Losev d e s c r i b e d the importance of these ideas in Russian thought, and illustrates his argument w i t h extensive qu o t a t i o n from E m ' s b o o k on S k o v o r o d a . E r n , Losev indicates, v a l u e d Skovoroda's transferral of eternal and abstract meta p h y s i c a l qualities to the u n r e p eatable indiv i d u a l i t y of man. In D i a l e k t i k a m i f a . L o s e v describes the central importance of expre s s i o n in the formation of one's true character or lichnost' . Like Ern he maintains that true individual existence develops in a constant process of physical and verbal expre s s i o n in response to the original source of the Word, Logos, and the divine image, L i k . In the physical expressions of his face, his gestures a n d his speech, m a n attempts to overcome the i mprisonment of a p u r e l y subjective existence b y expressing himself to the outside world. H uman expression, b o t h bodily and verbal, reveals the tension of inner and outer existence that m a kes up the active life of every individual ;

BH flaBHO SHaeTe, bh oÔHsaTenBHO BKjiHTe He npocTO BHemnocTB

jiHqa <...>. Bh BHRHTe 3#ecB oÔHsaTejiBHO neHTO BHyTpeHHee,

-OflHaKO TaK, HTO OHO flaHO TOJIBKO H0pe3 BHBIIIHee, H 3TO

HHCKOJiBKO He MemaeT HenocpegCTBeHHOCTH TaKoro coeepi^aHUH.

PîTaK,

JiHHHOCTB

ecTB

Bcer%a

BHpaaceHHe,

a

noTOMy

npnHLÇHnHajiBHO

H

caMoe rnaBHoe

J T H H H O C T B 0 C T B 0 6 H 3 a T e J l B H 0 O C y H ^ e C T B J i e H H H H CHMBOJl H

ocymecTBJieHHaH HHTejuinreHqHH

ecT $ a

Ona cyrqecTByeT b

Ona acHBeT, ôopeTca,

nopoacnaeTCH,

pacqBeTaeT

h yMHpaeT.

Ona

ecTB

Bceraa

065I3aTejIBH0 aCH3HB, a He HHCTOe nOHHTHe .

^HCTOe nOHHTHe

HOJiacHO

ocymecTBJieHO,

OBemecTBJieHO, MaTepHaimeoBano.

Oh o

flOJiacHO npeacTaTB c acHBHM

opranaMH.

ecTB

Bcerjia

TejiecHO

Bannaa

HHTejumreHHua,

TejiecHO

OCymeCTBJieHHHH CHMBOJl.

Rozanov's

writing is at

times

a very specific

interpretation of this Russian tradition of the physical

incarnation of the Word.^ In the Russian tradition the

living language can be as spontaneous, diverse, robust and

prolific as creation itself, but this does not deny its

God-givenness.

The

world

is

seething with immanent

linguistic potential through which man can respond to God's

world in speech. The religion of the Word is unlike Western

philosophical systems in that it demands individual effort

which is not merely intellectual.

One is accountable with

one's whole existence, as Bakhtin emphasized: '

eflHHOM

V l a d i m i r Ern had d e s c r i b e d this situation thus :

B caMOflOBOJiBCTBe npeÔHBaiOT Te, k t o nyMaeT, u t o m e i c j i b

n e S c T B H T e j i B H a t o j i b k o 3a K a Ô H H e T H H M CTOJiOM. Korna Cj i o b o, n p o H H K a a b h y t p b, s a B J i a n e B a e T B c e â h o j i h o t o h u e j i O B e u e c K H x

nepeacHBaHHK, o h o BHpaacaeT ce6a He n e p o M h ne o h h h m h ycTaMH, a ôoacecTBeHHOH rjiyÔHHOH h m y k o h HCKannH, copasMepnoro

s n a H H T e j i B H O C T H MEICJIH - HHflHBHflyajiHSHpyiomero S T y m e i c j i b h

HBHacymero Bceio acHSHBio HsbpaHHHKa.

Ot SToro m h c j i b ne saTeMHaeTca, k b k nyMaiOT pauHOHajiHCTH, a yrnyônaeTca, ne rHÔneT, a pacTeT.^s

In the essay of 1918, 'Russkaia filosofiia', Losev claims that R u s s i a n p h i l o s o p h y demands i m a g ination and individual engagement. Russ i a n p h i l o s o p h y is inextricably b o u n d up w i t h real life, and this is why it o ften appears in the form of j o u r n a l i s m that parti c i p a t e s in the spirit and chaos of the time:

PyccKaa

nepaspEiBHO CBHsana

gencTBHTenBHOH

!)KH

3

HBK), H

03

T

0

My OHa UaCTO HBJIHeTCH

BHfle nyÔJIHEÇHCTHKH

KOTopaa ôepeT nauajio

oômeM nyxe BpeMenn,

BceMH ero

nOJIOaCHTeJIBHEIMH H OTpHqaTeJIBHEIMH CTOpOnaMH,

BCeMH ero

paflOCTHMH H CTpanaHHHMH, CO BCOM erO nOpHflKOM H XaOCOM.

n o s T O M y c p e j m p y c c K H x o u e u B Majio $h j i o c o$o b p a r

e x c e l l e n c e : o h h e c T B , o h h r e H H a j i B H H , h o B a u a c T y i o h x

n p H X O f l H T C H H C K a T B CpeflH $ e J I B e T O H H C T O B , J I H T e p aTypHEIX

L o s e v adds that literature is also integral to the Russian ph i l o s o p h i c a l tradition. The insights o b t a i n e d in Russian literature go far b e y o n d m e r e l y liter a r y or artistic considerations. Philosophy and literature are closely linked in the R u s s i a n tradition. A secular literature was itself a recent development. W r i t i n g h a d e m e r g e d from a p r e d o m i n a n t l y sacral tradition. In the n i n e t e e n t h century secular literature did not lose this aura of sanctity, of p o s s e s s i n g transformative powers. B o t h in the r e v o l u tionary and religious traditions in Russia, the sacred nature of the w o r d is vital to an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the ways in which m a n y writers in Russia in the late n i n e t e e n t h and early t w entieth centuries u n d e r s t o o d their task. Anato l i i N a iman has argued that Russia's dependence on the w o r d is rooted in these sacred origins of its w r i t t e n language. W r i ting not only h a d a transformative potential, but could create its own liter a r y reality, distinct f rom the reality of life:

ROZANOV'S W R I T I N G A N D THE R U S S I A N T R A D I T I O N OF THE WORD

' u n l i t e r a r y ' , and was accused of a shameless e g o i s m and triviality. However, it is not a case of serious spiritual intent b e t r a y e d b y capriciousness or i n n ovation for its own sake. E v e n Rozanov's most flagrant d efiance of literary taste, his lack of moral princ i p l e and unort h o d o x ec c entricities can be u n d e r s t o o d w i t h i n the context of the R u s sian religious tradition of language and attitude towards God. M i r s k y defends Rozanov's stylistic innovations, but also writes that Rozanov's insight into religion and h u m a n character was m o r e p r o f o u n d even than D o s t o e v s k i i ' s . R o z a n o v fuelled the t radition of language as spiritual e x p ression and opened up new p o s s i b i l i t i e s for this expression. His w r i t i n g revealed a d a r i n g new approach to G o d and to one's own spiritual questioning, and ways of addre s s i n g the problems of man's r e l a t ionship to G o d and to his w o r l d that appear remote from traditional forms of prayer. Yet R o z a n o v u n d e r s t o o d his w r i t i n g as b o t h prayer and prophecy. The p o ssibilities for expression, rooted far more in the individual, the fragmentary and everyday, were p a r t i c u l a r l y powerful at a time w h e n the d ifficulties of belief h a d b e come increasingly fraught.

be l i m ited to writing, but that it should p e n e t r a t e the whole of m a n's conscious existence. In a review of a book b y Pobedonostsev, R o z a n o v criticized the theoretical appro a c h of the intellect that shuts out the creative power of emotive instinct. This instinct was b o t h religious and rooted in life:

K h c t h h k t - B e p H T , n o T O M y u t o o h e c T B ; y M - H e B e p u T , n o T O M y

H T O o h t o j ibko BHflHT, H T O K T O - T O e C T B , H H S S H a e T T O H H H X

r p a H H i ; S T o r o « e c T B » < . . . > . !SCh3hb, h c t o p h h - H e n p e M e n n o

T B o p H T C H BepoK); 0 0 3 B e p H - H H m a r y < . . . > . SI n o B T o p n i o , h t o

B e p a e c T B n p o c T O B e j i H K o e o m y m ^ H n e c e p n u e M H B Ô E i T K a b c e 6 e

6 h T H H - T O r O H T O O H O n p o c T O e c T B < . . . >.

R o z a n o v rarely u s e d language in an abstract way. His thought and w r i t i n g exemplify the d y n amic sense of existence (b y t i i s t v e n n o s t ' ) of the R u s s i a n trad i t i o n of the Word. As the R u s s i a n p h i l o s o p h e r Frank wrote:

P o 3 a H O B o ô n a g a e T n e n o n p a j K a e M E i M n a p O M c o B e p m e n n o

6 e 3 B H C K y c T B e H H o r o , n e n p o H B B O J i B H o r o , s a M e u a T e j i B H o r o

H e j T H T e p a T y p H o r o B H p a a c e H H H M H C J i e H . Cj i o b o e c T B y n e r o n e H C K y c c T B e H H o e o p y q n e B H p a a c e u H H O T B J i e u e n H o r o c o n e p a c a H U H

MHCJIH, a K a K 6h üKHBoe a n e K B a T H o e B o n j i o m e n n e K O H K p e T H o r o

R y m e s H o r o n p o q e c c a M H m j i e H H H b o B c e S e r o

HenocpeflCTBeHHOCTH.

u n c o n s t r a i n e d b y conventional literary organization. This was the b a sis of his innovations in the lite r a r y language, and in form, as in the opavshie list'ia genre. The r adi c a l l y m o d e r n results can nevertheless be u n d e r s t o o d in the context of the R u s s i a n p h ilosophical a p p r o a c h to the W o r d .

ROZANOV. B A K H T I N A N D THE R U S S I A N T R A D I T I O N OF THE WORD

The R u s s i a n religious tradition of the w o r d was an important part of Bakhtin's early experience. He was highly aware of this tradition. He had b e e n d rawn to religious and p h i l o s o p h i c a l groups such as V o s k resenie and V o l f i l a . where he was e n g a g e d w i t h religious thinkers such as Meier, A s k o l ' d o v and F e d o t o v . T h e influence of R u s s i a n religious ideas is p a r t i c u l a r l y evident in Bakhtin's e arly work, A v t o r i aeroi v esteticheskoi d e i a t e l ' n o s t i . Yet thoughts about language from this w o r k persist in B a khtin's last writings, and still have a certain religious resonance:

' Cjtobo K a K c p e q c T B O (hbeik) h cjiobo K a K o c M H C J i e H H e .

O c M H C J i H B a i o m e e cjiobo npuHajiJieacHT k q a p C T B y qejieS. Cjiobo K a K

nocjienHüJî ( B H c m a a ) qejiB.'^^

throughout his w o r k , ^ p a r t i c u l a r l y in the central idea of his e arly w r i t i n g of language as e xisting in acts (deeds) of speech b e t w e e n people in a s pecifically situated context that is e n c o m p a s s e d and guar a n t e e d b y an a l l - c o m p r e h e n d i n g God. B a khtin's early w o r k c oncentrated on m an's linguistic a c t i v i t y as a continual a n swering to God. In it, the use of language to further thought is n ever far from prayer. Man m a y be in d ialogue w i t h himself, w i t h another, but he is also c o m m u n i c a t i n g to God, the ulti m a t e goal. C lark and Holquist call it 'an attempt to u n d e r s t a n d and describe a w o r l d in w h i c h p r a y e r makes s e n s e ' I n Bakhtin's c o m b i n a t i o n of religious and N e o - K a n t i a n approaches to the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the subject and the world, words are a central deed: 'Human consciousness enters the w o rld t hrough deeds in the form of acts that define values, or t h r ough 'outgoing words' (iskhodiashchie s l o v a ).'^* The w o r l d w h i c h B a k h t i n describes is one in w h i c h the sense of G o d as interlocutor, addressee or referent and witness is always p r e s e n t .

Dostoevskii, who was a formative influence in his e x p l o r a t i o n of the v a r i e d forms of religious verbal expression, located in an e x p licitly literary, aesthetic context. T hese categories of verbal e x p r e s s i o n are valuable for an a p p r o x i m a t i o n of the nature of R o zanov's own genre, that of the opavshie l i s t ' i a , as a l iterary activ i t y that n e v e r t h e l e s s seeks to go b e y o n d the limitations of literature, that is closer to p r a y e r or prophecy, that appeals to G o d and sets itself apart from the traditional lite r a r y audience.

A religious approach to Rozanov's lite r a r y genre was ma d e b y contemporaries and later generations. Rozanov's w r i t i n g has b e e n v a r i o u s l y desc r i b e d as confession, prayer,

of R o z a n o v and who was influenced b y his liter a r y example. C lark and Holquist m a i n t a i n that there are significant para l l e l s b e t w e e n the thought of B a k h t i n and F l o r e n s k i i . ^ However, the differences b e t w e e n the two are also important. Bakhtin's emphasis on the physical world, the here and now, feasts and the body, continual utter a n c e and the resistance of final d e f i n i t i o n are far closer to R o z a n o v than to the o t h e r -worldly Florenskii. Bakhtin's emphasis on outsideness and otherness was in direct contrast to Florenskii's a i m at an ulti m a t e union, where 'two will be one'. B a k htin celebrated the m u l t i p l i c i t y of immediate every d a y experience and was suspicious of u l t i m a t e transcendence/*^ R o z a n o v had a t t a c k e d Florenskii for his indifference to human, earthly love.*'* Like Rozanov, B a k h t i n was suspicious of all forms of dogma and a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m that could detract from the immediate e x p erience of life, and this included Orthodoxy. B oth m e n were d r a w n to the transient details of life itself and the p o w e r of the p a s s i n g word. Bakhtin's w ritings are of course a i m i n g at something quite different than R o zanov's opavshie l i s t 'i a , he was far more scholarly and c o s m o p o l i t a n in his erudition. Bakh t i n was w a r y of the 'free-thinking' religious q u e s t i o n i n g of Russ i a n thought,*^ but the two m e n shared fundamental approaches to life and words. Bakhtin had met R o z a n o v but he spoke little of his impressions and de c l a r e d o nly that in appearance R o z a n o v was the most ordi n a r y looking 'm e s h c h a n i n '

the sacred forms of verbal expression, the n e e d to speak to s o mething b e y o n d the immediate h u man p r e s e n c e . He r e c o g n i z e d the pers i s t e n c e of the h u man n e e d for appeal, for prayer, s e l f -accounting and utterance, as a part of the life of consciousness. B a k h t i n shows h o w the isolated c o n sciousness that speaks is an impossibility. He is explicit about its religious origin: 'Bne 6ora, nne noBeptiH K aôcojTiOTHOH n p y r o c T H HeBOSMoacHO c a M O O c o s H a H H e h

caMOBHCKasEEBaHHe <. . . > flOBepHe k B ory - H M M a n e H T H H S K O H C T H T y T K B H H H M O M B H T U H C T O F O CaM00C03HaHH5I H CaMOBEipa»CeHH5I . ' 4*

t r a d i t i o n that he borrows from allows h i m to b r e a k with e x i s t i n g p atterns of literary form and address to produce w r i t i n g that is e x tremely modern, b o t h in its formal and o r g anizational freedom and in its intimate and i n t r o s pective reply to living in words.

'UEDINENNOE' - SPEAKING IN SOLITUDE

B a k h t i n describes solitary s e l f -accounting as a b i d to get to the truth of oneself b y d e n y i n g an immediate interlocutor. Yet this process cannot be carried on in self-referential isolation. B a k htin writes that the denial of an immediate audience pushes the subject out towards an absolute other. By speaking, even for a distant other, the subject breaks free from the confines of his subjectivity and enters into the fray of life. U t t e r a n c e is the point at w h i c h the subject lays bare his s u b j e ctivity for evaluation and comp l e t i o n b y an other:

OTppiqaHKe s gemnero o n p annaHHH n e p e x o n u T b Hyacny b

o n p a B f l a H H H pejiHrtiosHOM; o h hojtoh hv^khh b n p o m e n H n h

H C K y n n e H H H x a x abcojnoTHO h h c t o m flape <. ..> 9 t o on p aB^aHHe He H M M a n e H T H O caMOOTueTy, h o neacHT sa r p a H H q a M H ero, b

In a v e r y similar w a y Emmanuel Levinas states that: 'By o ffering a word, the subject p u t t i n g himself forward lays himself o pen and, in a sense, p r a y s . S o l i t a r y self-a c c o u n t i n g self-and p r self-a y e r is self-a form of this s e lf-exposure w hich attempts to p reserve the highest degree of subjectivity, seeking refuge in an other who is the r e p ository of ultim a t e values, but who will n ever speak. S olitary self-a c c o u n t i n g is self-an evself-asion of the intrusion of the rself-andom evalu a t i o n of another consciousness. The other's immediate prese n c e can act as a completing of the utterance, a defining. A v o i d a n c e of the immediate other is an attempt to prese r v e one's own indefinability, to m a i n t a i n a continuous c r eativity of speech, without h a v i n g to reckon w i t h the listener's judgement. Thus the attempt at self-u n d e r s t a n d i n g is best carried on w h e n words are self-u t t e r e d for an absolute other, at w h o m one can p i t c h one's words without fear of an immediate evaluation. At this degree of introspection, the immediate other's e v a l u a t i o n becomes an imposition, clouding the process of self-elucidation. In the process of s elf-accounting B a k h t i n descr i b e s a wilful d i s t a n c i n g from the immediate conte m p o r a r y audience w h i c h constitutes a potential threat to the p u r i t y of the writer's r e l a t ionship to himself, and thus to the truth of his words: '^ncToe qeHHOCTHO ogHHOKoe O T H o m e H n e k cede caMO M y - TaKOB npeneji, k K O T O p O M y CTpeM K T C H caMOOTueT-HcnoBeflB, npeonojieBan Bce T p a H c r p e n n e H T H H e m o m o h t h

his reader on the opening page of U e d i n e n n o e is an attempt to free himself from any oblig a t i o n to the immediate addressee, to attempt a pure self-exploration, free from the p o s s i b l e evaluations of other imagined onlookers or judges ;

<. . . > Ax, flobpEM uHTaTejiB, 5Ï yace g a sHO rramy «des UHTaTejui», - n p ocTO n o T O M y u t o HpasHTca. Kax «Ces uHTaTejiH» n HSflaio. . . <...>.

Hy, UHTaTejiB, He qepeMOHiocB h c t o6o h , - MoacemB h tee He q e p e M O H H T B C H co m h o h :

- K

uepTy...

- K

uepTy!

H a u - r e v o i r no BCTp e u H na t o m cseTe. C u H T a T e n e M r o p asno CKyuHee, u e M onnoMy.

ru e d . : 36]

judge and witness of his solitude, towards G o d . ^ Without this u l t i m a t e source of appeal, u t t e r a n c e w o u l d be senseless. Desp i t e what he claimed, R o z a n o v was never w r i t i n g p u r e l y for himself. Yet the r e n u n c i a t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the immediate reader created a m u c h n e e d e d f r e e d o m for speech, in w h i c h the emphasis in Rozanov's w r i t i n g can shift to the 'unknown' but intimate readers in time, and to God. Rozanov's emphasis on his extreme subjectivity, his lack of a sense of a reader, and his just i f i c a t i o n in G o d can all be read in relat i o n to the B a k h t i n i a n analysis. R o z a n o v describes an acute sense of separation and isolation from the w o r l d and his c o n t e m p o r a r y readers, w h i c h is the source of the 'subjectivity' that he later claims is his 'method':

^To 6h H H K nejiaji, Koro 6h h h B H n e n - ne M o r y h h c k o m

cjiHTfcCH. «He coBOKymu n o m n H C H uejiOBex» n y x o B H O . HejiOBex -« s o l o » .

Bee 3TO H BHpasHJi CJIOBOM « H H O C T p a H e q » , KOTO p o e y Mens: npomenTajiocB x a x B e j muaHmee ocy^KneHne cede, k b k BennuaHmaii rpycTB o ce6e, b cede.

9T0 - TG3Ke poK.

rued. :90]

H e B O S M O a C H H M K HeJienEESl, H O 3 T O - T a K .

ru e d . : 1 0 6 ]

Yet Rozanov's intense sense of 'subjectivity' frees him, he claims, from any accountability to others in his writing. It is a matter for himself and God:

rjTyôouaâmaH m o h cyôteKTHSHocTB (na$oc cyb’BeKTHBHOCTu) cnejiajia t o , h t o h t o h h o b c i o s c h b h b

npoactui

CK) CTopoHy

, -

3Toro,

r i o s T O M y M H e u a c T O » : e K a s a j i o c B ( h M o a c e T G h t b , T a K b t o

H e C T B ) , H T O H C aM BIH H p a B n H B H H H H C K p e H H H H H H C a T e J l B : X O T H

T y T H e c o n e p ^ n T C H h h C K p y n y j i a H p a B C T B e H H O C T H .

«TaK M e n a ycTpoHJi Bor» .

ru e d . : 98]

YMen HCKaTB yeflHHeHUH, yMen HCKaTB yentineHiui, yMen HCKaTB yeflHHeHHH.

Y e n H H e H H e - jiyHmHH CTpaac nynra. 51 x o u y CKasaTB - ee Anreji XpaHHTejiB.

0 3 y e n H H e H H H - B c e . 0 3 y e n u n e n t i H - c h j i h, h3 y e n H n e n n n

Y e f l H H e H K e - «co6paH c y x » , b t o - h oiihtb « q e j i e H » .

rO. 1. I : 275-76]

This sense of spiritual isolation cannot find and does not seek outlet in the traditional forms of address to the reader. Rozanov claims that the only truth he can speak of is intensely subjective and private. The innate sense of isolation from others that Rozanov describes becomes his artistic freedom, a defence against the possible intrusion

of another's judgement, obligation towards, or

self-consciousness before, the other. He claims that he has no obligation to others because of a life-long loneliness and distance from them. Yet he also claims to draw a sense of spiritual strength and invincibility in God from his isolation. The reader is a remote witness to the process of self-uncovery that is undertaken before God. Yet solitary self-accounting, the first stage of this approach to God, is an address seemingly sufficient to itself, although it is dependent on a sense of God's surrounding presence:

TyT, B KOHqe kohi;ob. Ta Taôna (rpamiuamaH c ôesyMHeM) ,

UTO 5Ï CaM C COÔOH rOBOpK): HaCTOJIBKO n0CT05IHH0, H

BHKMaTeJIBHO, H CTpaCTHO, UTO BOOÔ^e, KpOMB 9TOFO, HKUerO HB cjcBimy. <...> B caMOM nejie, flEiMHmaHCH rojiOBennca (uacTO b

neTCTBe BErracKHBaji h s neun) - noxoæa na m b h h: ee c o b c b m He BHflHO, He BHflHO ItHHI^OB, KOTOpHMH ee flepaCHmB .

H rocnoflB HepacHT mbhh mtinqaMH. «TocnogB nagEiMHJi mhok)

W r i t i n g is a spiritual self-exploration, b a s e d on the p u r i t y of a s e lf-uncovery without external evaluation. It m ust be w r i t i n g p u r e l y for oneself, an attempt to express in words for one's own understanding.^^ R o zanov's sense of the 'unreality' of a w o r l d of others, his claims of detachment, are an attempt to m a i n t a i n this absolute puri t y of r e l a t ionship to himself. Yet even this stance, w hich m ust be seen at least in part as a literary stance, for the books were p u b l i s h e d and sold, does not r e main completely s ufficient to the self. The dynamic of self - q u e s t i o n i n g is o nly s u stained b y some form of outward relationship. W r i t i n g m a y be for oneself but it m a intains an awareness of the other, w h i c h for R o z a n o v was acute. W h ile claiming solitude, R o zanov's writings b e a r witness to this inability to r e main an eternal subject, sufficient only to oneself.

THE NEED FOR C O NTINUAL UTTERANCE

For Bakhtin, utte r a n c e is a need as constant and continual as h u m a n growth, and this growth, or life of consciousness, is impossible without utterance. Like Bakhtin, Roza n o v e m p h a s i z e d a continual process of verbal crea t i o n in man's f r e e d o m of utterance, a c cording to the demands of his life: ' MOJlHTBBHHOe TBOpueCTBO, MOJlHTBeHHOe COBKflaHHe IlepKBH He KOHHeno, He saneuaTano. 0 b c h k o h CKopÔH h b o b c h k o h Myxe

MOaCHO MOJIHTB Bora, H MOJIHTB He OÔiqHMH, a OCO6 0

needs of the moment. This form of spontaneous address is a g u arantee of man's freedom from the constraints of dogmatic forms. B a k h t i n e m p hasized the importance of a constant p o tential for new meaning, and new u t t e r a n c e as a source of new life:

CBoeio saBepmeHHOCTBK) h saBepmeHHOCTBio c o6h t k5î »m t b nejiBSH,

HejiBSH nocTynaTB; u t o6h »h t b , nano 6h t b HeaaBepmeHHHM,

OTKpEETHM HJIH CeG# - BO BC5ÎKOM CJiyuae, b o

Bcex

MOMeHTax acHSHH, - Haflo qeHHOCTHO erne npegCToaTB cede, ne coBnanaTB c CBoeio najiHUHOCTBio.

In particular, B a k h t i n claimed that one's own self-a c c o u n t i n g could n e ver be self-a definitive, lself-ast word. The 'non-coincidence' of one's living self w i t h the sum of utte r a n c e s about oneself was the dynamic of life and speech:

< . . . > Moe codCTBeHHoe c j i o b o o cede npHHqHriKajiBHO He MoaceT

dHTB nocjienHHM, saBepmaiomHM MeHH c j i o b o m; Moe c j i o b o njia m b h h

caMoro ecTB m o h nocTynoK, a o h :k h b t o j i b k o b ej^HHOM h

egHHCTBeHHOM COdHTHH dHTKLH ; a HOTOMy HH OflHH nOCTyOOK He MoaceT saBepniHTB c o d c TBenHOH acusHH, ndo o h CB H S H B a e T î k h b h b

c OTKPHTOH deCKOHeUHOCTBK) COdEETtUI dHTHH . CaMOOTUeT-HCnOBegB

He HBOjmpyeT ceda h s b t o f o ejjHHoro codHTHH, OTCiona o h

The p r o cess of self-definition, as B a k h t i n emphasizes, is a continual succession of unique utterances. No last word, or definition, can be made. R o z a n o v had r e c o g n i z e d this as an important feature of D o s t o e vskii's w o r k b e f o r e Bakhtin. C o n t r a s t i n g D o s t oevskii w i t h Tolstoi, he writes:

<. . . > OH anajiHTHK H e y c T a H O B H s m e r o c H b uejiOBeuecKOH aoHSHu h

B uejioBeuecKOM n y x e .

<. . . > BTO ecTB anajiHS uejiOBeuecKOH n y n m B o o b m e , b ee pasjiHUHEEx cocTOHHHHx, CTaflHHx, nepexoflax, HO He anajiHS HHflHBHjtyajiBHOH, oôocoÔJieHHOH, H s a B e p mHBmeHCH BHyTp e n n e H 3KH3HH (xax y rpa$a Jl. H. TojiCToro)

Rozanov's w r i t i n g likewise sought to avoid a final i z i n g definition. This was a m o t i v a t i o n for his re p e a t e d u t t e r a n c e and self-contradiction. R o z a n o v called his opavshie list'ia writings, 'my s o u l ' H e emphasized the continuous nature of his writing, in constant response to his own c hanging thoughts. He c o ntinued w r i t i n g these 'leaves' until his death, as he wrote in the introduction to the second b o o k of Opavshie l i s t ' i a . in 1913: 'Hen C T apee nepeno, T e M bojiBme nanaeT c nero jiHCTBeB. ' It is the irrepressible n e e d to give words to feeling that fuels the constant process of w r i t i n g that he claims constitutes his life: