.... / SIAN --FUURM: AHISDRY BY IJLADIMIR MARKO I' UNIVERSITYOFCALIFORNIAPRESS. BERKELEYANDLOSANGELES,1968 UNIVERSITYOFcALIFORNIAPRESS I ! 1968BYtHEREGENTSOFTHE UNIVERSITYoFCALI,FORf:llPtr oFcpNGREsscATALoGcARD .'.,.NUMBER:68-14975 0 'DESIGNJ:DDAVID.COMSTOCK PRINTEDIN'THEUNITED I STATESOFAMERICA "J / rol / / REFACE This isthefirsthistoryofRussianfuturisminany language,thoughIknowofat leastfivepersons-scholars,critics,futuristpoets-whohaveunder-takensimilarprojectsatdifferenttimes.1 Twoor threesuchhistoriesmayexistinstatearchivesor in private deskdrawersin Russia,but the possibil-ity of their publication isstill very remote,and will remain sa for several years.Despite the fact that the poetsandartistsoftheRussianavant-gardewere moreenthusiasticinwelcomingtheCommunist Revolutionandmorewillingtoserveitandthe youngSovietstatethanany other group,their aestheticsand mostof theirpoeticpracticeshavenearlyalwaysbeenofficiallyrejectedin 1 I!l March, '1918,AleksejKrueenyx gavea lecture entitled "Istorija russkogo f':turizma"atthenightclub"Fantallticeskijkabacok"in Tillis..Healsowrote "Zizn'ismert'Lefa"infreeverse(seehisGovorja5eeekino[Moscow,1928], pp.51-62),whichisactuallytheentirehistoryofthe"Hylaea"groupina nutshell.Thereisevidence thatKamenskijwaswritingahistoryoffuturism, whichremainedamonghisunpublishedMSS.ThescholarsV.Trenin,N. XardZiev,andT.Gricplannedasimilarproject,plusthreemonographson individualfuturists(seeK.rasnajaS t r e ~ , p.3). vii PREFACE Russia.Futurismwasthepioneerofthisavant-garde,andit stilloc-cupiesa placeofhonorintheSoviet"rogues'gallery."Thiscolorful, complex,andinfluential movement wassystematicallydenigratedand belittled,considered "a harmful influence"or "a bourg_eoiserror,"and, since approximately1930,thought unworthy of any seriousconsidera-tion. Suchasituationled,ofcou:.;se,topredictableresults,theworst beingadistressingignoranceofwhatRussianfuturismwas,even amongthosewantinganaccuratepicture.2 SpecialistsinRussianlit-erature have,asa rule,a one-sidedideaof what really happened,who belongedtothemovement,whattheywanted,andwhatthey achieved.The veryword"futurism"isoftenusedincorrectly,asare other terms connected with it, such aszaum.rn short,this book had to bewritten. Paradoxically,thisfirsthistol:)jof.Russianfuturis!lliswrittenin English,althoughsomuch9fits, -goetryis not' onlyuntranslated,but untranslatableaswell,andisstillconsideredincomprehensibleby manyRussians.Hence,the ofpoetryquotationsinthisbook. Nevertheless,Iwroteitnot-onlyforthosewhostudyRussianlitera-tureand thosewhoknowsomethingaboutit,butalsowithaneye toward those \yho want toenlarge their picture of the European avant-gatde, but lack fundamentalsin the Russianarea.It wasa hard thing to do,because futurism isonly a part of a larger and equally neglected literq,ryand culturalcontextof contemporary andIcouldnot write"afamousleaderofRussiansymbolists,who..."eachtime thatImentionthenameof, fo,rinstance,ValeryBryusov.SoIhope 2Anexamplefromtheprefacetotherecentedition of V.Kamenskij'sprose nakamenke[Perm',1961!],p.12)willsuffice.Theauthor,S.Cine, writesthatthe ,firs.tSa4oksudej''begantooverthrowliterarytraditionsand begantoannouncefuturistslogans,"thusprovingthathehasneverse:n Sadoksudej.Hefurthercredits'Kamenskijwithorganizingthecubo-futunst group,wb,ichpublishedSadoksudej,notknowingthatbothissuesofSadok sudejhadappearedbeforetheterm"cubo-futurism"wasinCine alsocallsthe firsteditionofKamenskij'snovelStepan(not Sten'ka,as1treally is) Razin.. Thegeneralknowledgeofthehistoryofmodemliteraturefaresnobetter .intheSovietUnion' nowadays.OnthepagesofVoprosyLiteratury,Ihave comeacrossstatementsthatZinaidaCippiuswasanAcmeistandthatthe imagistswereaprerevolutionarygroup. viii 6 ' .t! i I l ' l I lt Il PREFACE that anyone who has difficulties withthe Who's Who of modem siawillreadafewpagesfromthestandardEnglish-languageworks onRussianli_teraturebyMirskyorSlonim,oi willresorttothewell-knowndictionary byHarkins. This book isbotkambitious and limited in its aims. I had the unique opportunitytoacquaintmyselfwithmorethan90percentofevery-thing(in theoriginals;orin microfilmor xeroxcopies)that theRus-sianfuturistspublished,andwithverymucliofwhatwaswritten aboutthem.(Thetitlesofunobtainableworks:trebyan asteriskinthetext.)Iwanted to.includeeverysignificantfactand madeit a pointtodiscuss, ,evenif briefly,everybookor important ar tide byafuturist,orbyacontemporary,onthesubjectoffuturisnr. Evenimitationsbycranksarenotneglected,becausetheybelongto this history ho lesS' than doma'sterpieces.Iwanted to IMPRESSIONISM HYLAEA EGO-FOTURISMANDTHE MEZZANINEOFPOETRY CUBO-FUTURISM THEYEARSOFFLOWERING THECENTRIFUGE DECLINE CONCLUSION NOTES BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX' I' 1 29 61 117 164 228 276 380 387 421 451

pisyvainemudrstvuyalukavo .. [Give me the facts, ma'am.] -Pushkin as a united, well-defined movement did not exist in Russia before the October. Revo!u'tion. -Mayakovsky would say that there 'as no point at which the term "futurism" really characterized our movement. -Livshits / / S ON MPRES SM This book could perhaps begin like a traditional Russiannovelin the manner of Turgenev or GOncharov:"On suchand suchanautumnal dayof 1908,about tenin the morning,atall blond youth in a university student's uniform timidly o_pened the door to the office of the managing editor of the short-lived Petersburg magazinewhich printed anything -written by anybody. Tlie name of the youth was Victor Khlebnikov; that of the editor, Vasily kamensky. Kamensky was a young man abouttwenty-four,dressedin..."This meetingwasthefirstonetotakeplacepetweerr thepoetslaterassociatedwithfuturism. Moreover,it resultedinthefirstpublication by Khlebnikov of a piece of writing which eventhencouldhavepassedasa"futurist'' work,hadthewordexisted 1 (andhadanyone paidattentiontothe work). But to begin the boo'k in this manner would 1 IMPRESSIONISM bearbitrary.ThehistoryofRussianfuturismhasmorecomplexbe-ginnings,thoughtopinpointthemwouldbeimpossible.It hassev-eralsources,andatleasttwoofthesesourcesmustbementioned brieRy beforethe tangible history beginstounfold.One sourceisthe formidablephenomenonofRussiansymbolism(or"decadence"),a fascinatingmovementinRussianpoetrywhichbeganinthe1890's and changed the literary climate of Russiabeyond recognition.It dealt amortalblowtothealreadydisintegratingrealism,turnedRussia's facetowardEurope,wherenewideashadbeenrampantforsome time,and made poets form-consciousagain after decadesof stagnation. Evenmoreimportantwasthefactthatsymbolismprbducedmany importantpoets,suchasValeryBryusov,ConstantineBalmont,Zi-naidaHippius,FyodorSologub,lnnokentyAnnensky,Vyacheslav Blok,AndreiBiely,andMikhailKuzmin,whose namesappear,time' andagain,onthepagesofthisbook.Itwasa magnificent .spectacle.Ahandfuloferuditeanddifficultpoets,writ-ing forthe few, 'made a complete reappraisalof aestheticvalues.They becameadominantandvictoriousforceinthecountrywherethe reading audiencesincethe1840'shadbeenledbypolitically minded intellectuals,whousedliteratureonlyasillustration-fortheirverbose andmonotonous,thoughnodopbtwell-intentioned,socialcriticism, and whooftenhadlittle' useforpoetry. Thosewho weretocallthemselvesfuturistS'couldnotwithstand the impact oftheir symbolist"fathers";2 individual futuristsand whole futuristgroupsmadetheir debutsasimitatorsof symbolismorasnee-symbolists(orneodecadents). ofthemwereencouragedor evensponsoredbyseniorsymbolists.8 Buttheliterarysituationwas transformedby suddenbolismbec'ame complexitiesofitsowntheory,spent itself in fratriciqalstruggles,gavebirthtosecond-rate literature which caricatured symbolist ideals,and, most important, lost itsfeelingof the limitsofart.Allthisbroughtaboutacrisisin1909-10,afterwhich symbolismceasedtoexistasaliteraryschool,with eachofitspartici-pants going his own way.4 The other mainsourceofRussianliteraryfuturismwasdoubtless contemporary Russianavant-garqepainting.5 The ideasof Frenc:;hill!-pressionismandpostimpres$ipnism,especially_ofcubism,engendered manyand varleCrgroups St.Petersburg,whichmade 2 IMPRESSIONISM alliancesarldquarreledsooften that tofollowthetwistsandturnsof their relationsisthedespairofahistorian.Futurists .tookpartinthe painters'publicdiscussionsandpolemics,madeandbrokealliances with them;some of the paihters even tried toinHU:enceliterature."Arr artistofthewonlalwayshastheabilitytopaint," 6 saidNikolai Kulbin,aJeaderoftheRussianavant-gardeiritheseconddecadeof thetwentiethcentury.Futurists,earlyandlate,presentagoodillus-trationofthisstatement.Thereputationoftwoofthem(David BurliukandLeonZack)ismuchbetterestablishedinpain tinthan_\\ inoe.Manfuturistswereroessiona . artistsuro,Mayakov-sy,Kruchenh,Borov );racticallyalltheotherscoanI amtor 7 Someoftheimportan__bt futunsts,\ in polemics was DorroweCTtrompainting (SJVlg,r'Ci'ftUraJ.__arul futurists consistentlyandfrequentiytrieCF toadd thevisualele-menttotheirpoetry,usingdifferenttypefaces,introducing'offbeat illustrations,employingtheauthor'shandwriting.Moreimportant, however,weretheattemtsofsomeofthemtoaItherinciles of poegy(Khlebnikov,8 Mayaovsky,Livshits).Forone ofem mDaern painting was "not only a new vision of the world in all itssensuousmagnificenceandstaggeringvariety...,it wasalsoa newphilosophyofart,aheroicaesthetics,whichshatteredallestab-lished canons and opened...breathtaking perspectives." 9 In additiontothe symbolist origin ofRussianfuturismand itssym-biosisavant-gardepainting,onecouldpossiblypointtoacon-nection betweenwesternEuropeanpoetry. and Russianfuttirism,10 or tie the latter tothe past of Russianliterature (which would have made someofthe futuristssquirm)Y These are,however,relativelyunim-portant.The majorelementtobe consideredinthispreliminarydis-cussionisimpressionism.Somefuturistpoetsbegantheirartisticca- \\ asimpressionist artists;12 what ismoreimportant,manyofthemv at firstpreferredto term"impressionist"toliteraryproduc--tion as well. Thereisnothingparticularlyunclearaboutimpressionismasa movementinart,but in literatureit isstillvagueandhasbeenlittle investigated.Basically,it isIseeit at moment,"but one caneasilyimaginetwodifferentandalmostmutuallyexclusiveroads leadingfromthissimplestartingpoint.Oneofthemwouldbethe desiretopresentamomentofexternalrealitywith the Utmostobjec-3 IMPRESSIONISM tivity-andthisisexactlyhowitwasinFrenchpainting,especially withthat"classical"impressionist,ClaudeMonet("Justaneye,but whataneye!"exclaimedGezanne).Thereis,however,anotherroad goingintheoppositedirection.If onestresses"I"ratherthan"see" in 'as Iseeit,". objectivityisindanger.It isthissubjectiveemphasis thatusuallycharacterizesimpressionisminliterature.Of course,one can findin literary impressionism featuresthat it shares with itsname-sakeinart,suchasvagueroutlines,broadstrokes(noticethatina literarycoritextthesewordsbecometoometaphoricaltobeused suc-cessfully),the"accidental"intheforeground,andsoon;13 butitis only asimilarityof secondaryaspects.Other aspects,onthecontrary, may not besimilar at all.For instance,it isgenerallythat impressionism in 1iterature concentrates ondetails,whether expressive oftliewholeornot,whereas' inpaintingthestressisonthewhole. Basically,impressionisminpaintingisanattempttopresent?nature inthe open,toshow the realcolorof light andshadow,topaint such things as the density of air. In literature (as far as Russia is concerned), moreoftenthannot,impressionismcanbeequatedwithlyricalreal-ism, whichmayhavecarriedinitselftheseedsofdestructionofthe usualrealisticmethod,assomecriticssuggest,andthushavebeen oneofthepredecessorsofsymbolisminRussia.Theword"impres-sionism"begantobeusedinRussianliterarycriticismlongbeforeit becameafac.tinRussianart.Chekhov,Garshin,Fet,Fofanov,and LokhvitskayahavebeenmentionedasRussianimpressionists.Itis not myaimtoinvestigatewhatthesepoetsandwritershave incom-mon(althoughone maysuggestthatatleastoneoftheancestorsof lyricrealisminRussiawasTurgenev). What interestsusisthefact thatimpressionismnotonlyprecededRussiansymbolism,butalso accompanieditandbecameoneofitsfacets,almostaningredient. Thus V.Bryusov,in1906,sawinRussianliterature"symbolism,im-pressionism,anddecadence,"inthatorder,andheconsideredCon-stantineBalmont,anotherprominentsymbolistpoet,"asmuchan impressionistasVerlaine." 14 But impressionismwasnotalwaysiden-tifiedwiththesymbolistmovement.Itscentralfigure,BorisZaitsev, definitelystoodapartfromsymbolisminhiscontinuationofthe Turgenevtradition. The earlyfuturistsdidnotsidewithZaitsev.15 Theyformed,how-ever,a definitely impressionist groupat first,in whichthequietGuro 4

andtheloud Kamenskyfitthe wordbetter thananyoneelse,nomqt-terhowone interpretsit.Butthewordhasbeenappliedtoother futurists(Khlebnikov16), sometimesevenwithaderogatorymeaning (Mayakovsky17). There wasan actual struggle futurismtoget ridofimpressionistel;ments;therewasevenafuturistperiodical (theEnchantedWanderer;seechap.3)which bedescribedas impressionist inoutlook. Among the figureswho stood closetofuturismandthefuturistsin the Russianartisticworldofthesecond decadeofthetwentiethcen7 turywerethecolorfultheatricaldirector-playwright-theoretician-his-torianNikolaiEvreinov(1879-1953),andNikolaiKylbin._ Both iea::.." our specialattention.Without ever belongingtoaspecificfuturistgroup, Kulbinidentifiedhimselfsocloselywiththeavant-gardemovement ofhistimethatonecontemporarylatercreditedhimwithbeinga genuinefuturistwhogaveexpressiontotheirprogramlongbefore there wasafuturistgroup.18 Dr.NikolaiIvanovichKulbin(1868-1917)wastheleastlikely persontobefoundamongtheBohe,nl.ianmodernists.Aprofessorat the Military Academy,a physicianfor theGeneralStaff,andaRight State Councillor(the civilianrankthat correspondedtoamajorgen-eralinthe militaryservice);he wasalsoanartist,afanaticalsponsor ofavant-gardecauses,organizerofmanmodernistartexhibitiop.s C h "I" '1" "Sh")d.amongtem.mpresswmsts,nang e,tepan_9s,ananm-defatigableroaandist ofnew idealsin art,mainlthrouhhislec-Hisowneffortsinpaintmgwereraterec ecticandetrayed someinfluenceofcubism,Gauguin,andRussianicons.,Kulbin preacheda"freeart"andcalledhimselfanimpressionistand"in-__juitivist:_' but he should rather be described as the avant-garde's eclectic individualist.Hisimpressionismwasprobablythemostsubjectiveof allRussianvarietiesofthismovement.Hismaintenetwas:"Except itsownfeelings,the self doesnotknow an_ything,and,while---mfthesefeelings,itcreatesitsownworld." 19 VasilyKamenskyre-'calfsln his rnemOfrShowKUlbmexpiainedtotheaudienceatan exhibition:"Weareimpressionists,wegiveourimpressionsonthe canvas .... Everything isrelativeinthe world;eventhe sunisseen by someasbeing golden,by others,gray,by stillothers,pink,andby some,colorless." 20 The famousformalistcriticVictorShklovskylater 5 IMPRESSIONrSM called'him '"the -manwhobuilthisartonchance," 21 and'another critic saw in Kulbin's fdea"a kulbination"after which there isnoway togo.22 Kulbinwasgenerally respectedandeven-lovedbythosewho surroundedhim,perhapsbecauseheconsideredeverybodyagenius. The futuristsalsoappreciatedKulbin'sabilitytoannouncethehigh-lights of their lectures on posters in soeffective a waythat a fullhouse wasguaranteed.In1912Kulbinwashonoredwithabook,23 which, in additiontosomebiographicaldataandalistof hispaintings,with reproductionsofsomeofthem,containsappreciationsofhisartin three short essays by the painter Sergei Sudeikin,by Nikolai Evreinov, andbySergeiGorodetsky,apoetwhowasthenpopular(andwho alsoprintedinthe bookapoem t6Kulbin).Livshits,whoalsowrote a poetn,anacrostic,toKulbin,did not think veryhighlyofhimasa, theoretician and called his aesthetics "a salad of Bergson,Ramsay,and Picasso:" 24 The outsiders considered Kulbin "confused and strange," 25 andthepoetGeorgeIvanov,who,uponhisentra;nceintoliterature, consideredhimself,briefly,afuturist,leftinhisfascinating,though unreliable,bookofmemoirsacaricature'portrayalofKulbinasa complete madman.26 It was' in Kulbin'sStudiya impressiortistov("The Studio ofImpres-sionists")thatsomeleadingfuturistsmadetheirfirstnoticeableap- ' pearance.Thisbook waspublished- inSt.PetersburginFebruary, 19l0,aoouttwomonthsbeforeSadoksudei("A TrapforJudges"), and socan beconsidereda kindof .prologuetothehistoryofRussian futurism.Thevolume witl1anarticlebytheeditorhimself entitled"Svobodnoeiskusstvokakosnoyazhizni"("FreeArtasthe Basisofthises;yKulbinemphasizestheimportanceof dissonance,chforhimisthemanifestationoflife,andfindsex" a'mpleso"f. iinSophocleTheIgorTale,andHamlet.He doesnot rejector denyharmony,eventheabsolute which Deathisliferesting,notlifeabsent,saysKulbin,andheconcludes: no No [Netd net]." Further,Kulbinspeaksabout the neces-sityofhavinga"theoryofart"tohelpcreativepeopleandheeven tries,rather confusingly,todraft suchatheory,seeingthesourcesof artinnatureandinthepsychologyoftheartist(forwhomartis revelation).Kulbin'sessay,clearandrathercoherentat_firs_tbutbe-coming progressively more rambling and chaotic,turns at last to music andpointsoutspecificwaystoachievenoveltyinit:quarter-tone 6 IMPRESSIONISM music,"colored"music,andthe"abolishmentofstaves." The restof thebookconsistsmostlyofamateurishpoetrywrittenbycompletely unknownmenandwomen,chieflyinthesymbolisttradition,some-timesdisplaying -acertainnaive .experimentalism(e.g.,apoemthat playsonthepastense Therearealso withthemes rangingfromtheavappettheatertopaintinginmusic,and a"monodrama"(describedbytheauthoras"themostperfectform ofruama")bL_ NikolaiEvreinov.Entitled"Predstavlenielyubvi" ("The Performance of. Love"), it wasobviouslyintended asthepiece de 'resistance.Finally,therearefiveshortpoemssignedwithnames thatlaterbecamewellknownorfamousinthehistoryofRussian futurism.The t:WopiecesbyDavidBurliuk,. areincoherentanddis-appointinglysymbolistinsound.Qnlyonepoem :byDavid'sbrother Nikolaiwasincludedinthevolume.lt soundsassymbolistasthe twobyDavid,but displaysat leastsomefeelingforlanguage,ifnot forstyle.Two poemsbythethen. unknownVelimir Khlebnikovare the realhighlight ofthe book.One ofthem, naglneny zvukom trushchoby"("TheThicketsWereFilledwithSounJs"),showsa completemasteryof prll?itivist technique;theother, .''!ncantation _y hasremained Khlebnikov'smost famouspoem eventothis ay,oftenobscuringmanyofhis'othermoreoutstandingachieve-ments.It isapoeticexplorationofthepossibilitiesofmorphological derivations inherent in tile Russianlanguage, based onadding various prefixesand suffixestotheRussianroot ("laugh"). T.heresult canonly be suggested in English asL trytodu inthefollowingtrans-lation, which doesnot aim at fidelity;in rendering t:liewean-ing,butratherdemonstratestheprinciplewhiletryingtokeepthe metricalschemeoftheoriginal: G you laughniks, laugh it out! 0you laughniks, laugh it forth! You who laugh it up and down, Laugh along so laughily, Laugh it off belaughingly! Laughters of the laughing laughniks, overlaugh the laughathons! Laughiness of tqe laughish laughers,counterlaugh the Laughdom'slaughs! Laughio! Laughio! Dislaugh, relaugh, laughlets, laughlets, Laughulets, laughulets. 1 IMPRESSIONISM 0you laughniks, laugh it out! 0you laughniks, laugh it forth! The poemwas,ofcourse,ridiculedinnumerousreviewsandarti-cles,especiallylater,whenMayakovskybegantoreciteitduringhispublicreadings;butsomecriticswereenchanted. Chukovskywasoneofthem,exclaiming,afterquotingthepoemm toto:"WhatbountyandwhatsweetspellthereareinourSlavic idiom!" 27 ForChukovsky,theappearanceofthe"Incantationby Laughter"meantthebeginningoffuturismin Russia.It isa curious factthat,ofthethousandsofwordscreatedbyKhlebnikov,only smekhach, which could be translated as "laughnik," ever became a part ofspokenRussian;iteven thetitleofashort-livedsatirical Soviet magazine in the1920's. The realappearanceofRussianfuturistsasa groupwastheirpl.lb-licationofthe"almanac"(asRussianscallnonperiodicliterarymis-cellanies) entitled Sadok sudei. It appeared in the second half of April in1910,a yearafter the birth of Italianfuturism.The factoffuturism'spriorexistencewasobviouslyunpleasanttotheRussmns whentheylaterappliedtheterm"futurism"totheirownworkand begantopublicizetheir independence fromthe Italians.On occasion, theyeventriedtoprove theirpriority.bookwas Khlebnikov'sinvention,andonecouldtellitfromtherichnessof sound:the .identityofconsonantsisjuxtaposedtothechangein vowelswhichalmostsuggestsKhlebnikov' stheoriesabout"internal declension."Themeaningofthetitle,however,isslightlyobscure andambiguous,whichisalsocharacteristicofKhlebnikov.Asit stands, it may be translated as"A Trap forJudges,"meaningthatthe traditionalcriticsaresuretomisjudgetheappearanceofnewlitera-ture,lackingcriteriabywhichtoit;but anothertranslation, "AHatchery of Judges,"isalsopossible,andthenthebookbecomes a cradle containing new judges of Russian literature,thejudges being theparticipantsthemselvesinthisinstance.Giventhisdoublemean-ing,whichisfurtherobscuredgrammatically,itisnothat even a fellowfuturist,VictorShklovsky,later foundthet1tleshghtly puzzling." 28 It isinterestingthata leading writerofthe.Alexei Remizov,whowaspersonallyclosetosomeofthepartlcrpants,sug-gestedtothemanothertitle,"Pesyegolovtsysedinymokom"("The 8 .. IMPRESSIONISM DogheadedMenwithaSingleEye"),whichbringstomilidtile dreadedoprichnikiwhowereusedbyIvantheTerribleinhisfight againsttheRussianaristocracy.Allthesedetailsshowthatthe bookwasreallymeanttobe"ashocker"andthattheSddokpeople wanted"tothrowabombshellintothejoyless,provincialstreetof thegenerallyexistence,"asKamenskylateradmitted.29 Ka-mensky wasoneof the editors of Sadoksudei,andthebookwaspre-paredinhisapartmentinSt.Petersburginanatmosphereofyouth::....-ful exuberance and fun. The appearanceofthisfirstpublicationhasaprehistorythat leads asfarback as1908(the year,incidentally,of the originofcubismin France),whenDavidBurliuk,alreadya veteranofseveralmodernist artexhibitionswithafewalliancesandafewsplitsonhisrecord, cametoSt.PetersburgandmetfirstKulbinandthen Kamensky,whoalreadyhadmetKhlebnikovbythattime,became acquaintedwiththeKulbinartgroup,whichincludedElenaGuro and her husband, MiEiail Matyushin. This group,which at that time borethename'Teventually madeanalliancewiththetau-tological"VenokStefanos"("TheWreathStephanos")towhich DavidBurliukandhisbrotherVladimirbelonged(andwhichwas a fragmentremainingafter asplit inanother artistic groupexhibiting inMoscowunderthesimplernameof"Stephanos").Theresultof the new alliance in St. Petersburg wasanother exhibition in February, 1910,heldatthetimeTheStudioofImpressionistsappearedand Sadok sudei wasbeing prepared.-Among the main participants in Sadoksudei wasQavid Davidovich &urliuk80 (1882-1967), an artist and a poet.He wasthe man without whom there probably would have been noRussianfuturism.A genius of organization,he inspiredthe otherstoaction,madeimportantde-cisions,andfoundnewpoeticforcesatthecrucialmomentsthe historyoffuturism.Hewasresponsiblefortheofsuch landmarksoffuturismasbothvolumesofSadoksudei(ATrapfor Judges"),Poshchechinaobshchestvennomuvkusu("ASlapinthe FaceofPublicTaste"),Dokhlayaluna("TheCroakedMoon"), Molokokobylits("TheMilkofMares"),andPervyiZhurnalRus-skikhFuturistov(''The First JournalofRussianFuturists").Hewas publisher of early books Khlebnikov, Mayakovsky,and Livshits .. To somefuturists,he wasalsoa mentor,especiallytoKamenskyand 9 -------------------------------IMPRESSIONISM Mayakovsky.HewasbornonafarmcalledSemirotovshchinanear Kharkov31 inapatriarchalfamilyofafarmingmerchantwholater became' amanageroflargeestatesinthesouthofRussia.He began towrite' poetrywhenhewasfifteen,makinghisliterarydebutina Kherson paper, Yug,and started writing ve:rsestegularly in1902.His firstopus wasprinted by him "for history"muc}1later,32 whel).he was livingintheUnitedStates.Itisadreadfulanddrearyimitationof run-of-the-millpoetryofthe1880's,whichwasdreadfulanddreary initsownright.Inpainting,Burliuk'sbackgroundwasmuchmore substantiaP3 After1898,hestudiedalmostcontinuouslybothin Russia(Kazan,Odessa,laterMoscow)andabroad(Munich,Paris). He alsoexhibited inKiev,Moscow,andSt: Petersburg with artistswhose namesnow read like ahistoryoftwentieth-century Russianpainting.In1911Burliuk enteredthehistoryofEuropean modernartbybecoming apartof"DerblaueReiter"andlaterof "Der Sturm."Equipped withsucha background,t};lisenergeticman, a born fighter,wasdetermined to leavehismarkin literature,too. David had two brothers, and both took pa:rt in the movement. Vladi-mir(l888-1917),ahealthy,good-naturedgiant,neverwrotepoetry, but he illustrated someofthe futuristeditions.Nikolai(1890-1920), ontheotherhand;wrotepoemsandprose.Livshitsdescribeshim as "shy,genuipe,havinghisowtloriginalworld,which,however,could not beexpressedinhisricketyverse." 34 VasilyVasilyevichKamensky,(1884-1961.2,beforehejoinedthe Sadoksudei group,hada variedandtolorfullife whichhe described in detailin fiveautobiographies.Born intothe tamily ofaforemanat agoldmineintheUrals,he becameanorphanearlyandspenthis childhood in his uncle'shouseinPerm,onthe riverKama,where he lateuworkedasabookkeeperintherailroadoffice.He wastwicein Turkey(1902,1906)andonceinIran(1906)forbriefvisits,and wasimpressedbythefairy-talesplashesofcolorthatcharacterized-bothcountries.Infurtherflightfromhisdrabprovincial Kamenskybecameamemberofatravelingactors'company.Anton Chekhovhimselfcameoncetoseeaperformancewhentheyplayed in Yalta,but later VsevolodMeyerhold,thenayoungandunknown director, persuaded Kamensky to give up the stage.In 1905, Kamensky tookanactivepartintherevolutiona.samemberoftheSocialist-Revolutionary party in Perm and wasjailed after the revolutionfailed. 10 IMPRESSIONISM Then he movedtoSt.Petersburg tostudy agronomyattheuniversity extension.Hisoccupationsatthistimerangedfromlecturingonsex ,problemsto ancienticons. It wasinSt.Petersbtirg,in1908,thatKamensky,whoseliterary activitiesprior tothistimewere limitedtowritingtopicalarticlesand "civic" verse forthe local paper inPerm,a contributor to,and the managing editor of,Vesna publishedb:yN. C::. f playing withaccentualverse; but hiscupidsand Chloes,aswellastheadolesc-entme1ancholyand affectedaestheticismofhispoems, soonwearthin.Thebookwas favorablyreceived:Bryusovfoundit' unoriginal, 'but promising;and GumilevdescribedIvanov'sverseas"preCipitous[?] 'and" refined." 13 Ivanovhimself reprintedin later collections some ofthis poetry in new versions,and he usedthe same title forone of hislater books. Hehis ego-futurist episode mockingly in his Peters-burg Winters. Graal-Arelsky (1889--), an astronomer, had in real life the much moreprosaicname('(Graal" =the Grail)ofStepanStepanovich Petrov.Asearly as1911hepublishedprivatelyabookofverse entitled Goluboiazhur("Blue Ajoure"), which was fullof imitations ofBalmontandBryusov.Laterpoemsshow,thedistinctimprintof Severyanin.Hisismostlyanoleographicpoetrywith slavewomen, Egyptianpriests, burned at and;monkspassionately kissingthelipsof madonnas.Ar'elsky,together:with''GeorgeIvanov, paid a visit Alexander Blok, who hoted Arelsky's face," but" later came tothe observatory tbdiscussstal:i With}lipl.Blok' even wrote Arelsky a letter; in which he praised Blue Ajoure.fot its pohrayal ofthestars,but expressedhis dislikeforthe. author'spen'lmd the title of llis -bookY cumilev praiseathe book foritSgood' tasteand versificatio:tl:/5 but pn!fhred tooverlook absurd s"tylisticblundel'l!(e.g., akkordy After apdArelskyleftego{uturism andjoinedtheAcmeistGuild of Poei:s;thelatterpublislied. therein 1913anotherbook,Leteiskiihreg("The BankofLethe':),in' which therewerenonewdevelopments,thoughhisverseimproved.After-ward,thenameJ\relskyappeared severaltimesinmagazines,futurist and nonfuturist/6 and in1925. hepublishedabookofsciencefiction underthetitlePovestioMarse("TalesfromMars"),consisting of three separatebut interconnected stories,the lastof whichendswith 67 II: I Ii il.l "III, Ill Iii 'IIII' ,I I \ 'EGO'-FUTURISM a successfulrevolution of. Martian workingmenagainsttheir capitalist oppressors. Ego-futurism would hardly have beeh noticed had not Ivan Ignatyev joineditstanks.IvanVasilyevichIgnatyev(1882-1914)welcomed Severyanin and his PrologEgo-Futurizm in the newspaper Nizhegoro-dets,published by a relative of his for businessmen who participated in thefamousNizhni-Novgorodannualfair.Beforehemettheego-futurists,Ignatyevwaswriting,amongotherthings,literaryandthe-atricalcriticismformotethanadozennewspapersandmagazines. In1912 someof hiswork fromthispre-ego-futuristperiodwaspub-lished by himin a' book Okoloteatra("Aroumlthe Theater"), which consistedofstoriesreminiseentoftheearlyChekhov,humorous sketches,parodies;andoftenpretentiouspoetry.Judgingbyhisan-nouncement' inthisbook,. heplannedmanym'Orebooks"aroundthe theater":poetry forrecitation, an operetta, and a play. -Ignatyevhadsomemoneyandwasa goodorganizer.He playedin ego-futurismapproximatelythesamerolethatDavidBurliukplayed in the Hylaean group.His activities began with publishingtwoissues ofthe newspaperPeterburgskiiGlashatai("PetersburgHerald"),one onFebruary12,1912,ahdanotheronMarch11,1912.Thepaper chieB.y consisted of essays oil art (mostly theater)and reviews of books andtheatricalperformances,almostexclusivelywrittenbyIgnatyev under numerouspseudonymsandunderhisrealname,Kazansky. Despite the author's generous use of neologisms b)lilt onFrench roots, mostofthesecolumnswereintheworsttraditionsofthecheappre-revolutionarypress.17Therewasalsopoetry,innoticeablequantity, byallsignatoriesof "TheTables"and bythepublisher himself.The only new name wasthat of Ivan Lukash, whowrotepoetry under the nameof Oredezhandlaterbecameanemigrenovelist.Lukash's poetry wasanimitationof Walt Whitman withcuriousanticipations ofMayakovsky; he waspreparingabookofpoetry,Tsvetyyadovitye ("Flowers Poisonous"),!If one ignorestlie bulk of the printed material (i.e.,Ignatyev'spretentious and vaguemeditations onBeautyin close proximitywithvulgarattacksonvariouspersonalities),onecanstill gleanafewinterestingdetailsfromthePetersburgHerald.Forex-ample, there is a sentence about "the new impulse of the future" which is.Speed,betrayingsomeacquaintancewithMarinetti,andanan-nouncement oftheforthcbmingpaper,"Futura." The secondissueof 68 EGO-FUTURISM thePetersburgHeraldopenedwithanarticleunderthepromising title"Futuristy ifuturizm"("Futuristsand Futurism"),which,how-ever,isnothing but an immoderate glorificationofSeveryaninas"the fatherofRussianego-poetryandthecoreofnativefuturism,""the wingedColossus,""!}leChosen One markedbyGod,"and"our high priest." The essay does not, however, give any clue asto what futurism meanstoIgnatyev,butitdoesannounce"thevictoriousprocession, begun[onachalennoe]bythesocietairesoftherectorateofthe AcademyofEgo-Poetry."Ignatyevlateradmittedthatthenewspaper was"timidandindefinite,"but claimedthat itsappearancefoundan echo in citiesthroughout the wholeofRussia,includingVladivostok, Kostroma, and Rybinsk.18ln November he resumed publication of the paper withthe commentthat ego-futurismwouldnot bediscussedin it and had tobefoundin the almanacs.But thepaperseemstohave beenafterthefourthissue. -The Ego publishing enterprise continued itsactivities,bringi,ngout ConstantineOlimpov'sAeroplannyepoezy("AirplanePoesas")*in 1912.19 Severyaninwentonpublishinghisbroch)lresandplanneda three-volumeeditionofhisverse.Amiscellany,Ego,wasbeing planned withthe participationofSeveryanin,Arelsky,Olimpov,and IvanLukash.Ego-futurists also pr:intedtheir a!ticlesinNizhegorod,ets in strange proximitytostock market charts9cnd commercialand financialitems.IgnatyeveventriedtoorganizeinNizhni-Novgorod an ego-futurist groupandt,opublishthereajoint miscellanyentitled "I." 20 Simultaneously,Ignatyevarrangedseveralbanquetsqn,derthe auspicesofthePetersburgHerald,whichwouldbeginasaesthetic gatheringsofhalf-bakedOscarWildes,but wouldoftenendingen-eral drunkenness with guests leaving the party withtheir headspartly shaved.Thissocialaspectofego-futurismwasanimportantpartof itssnobbishattraction,especiallyinthe provinces.InthePetersburg Herald,there wereitemstothe effectthat in viewofthe largenum-ber21of visitorstothenewspaper officetheyshouldfirstregisterwith the "majordomo." These visitorswererequired toappear in tails.from 10:00until11:30A.M.Inthealmanacs,onecancome acrosssuch announcements("annoncettes")asthatQlimpov wasleavingforAr-bonier,22orthathewearscollars"Toreador,"orthatSeveryanin spendthe summer inPyatigorye,preparing his"Elegant Mod-els"for"estampage"' in the spring. Then Severyanin wouldsend a let-69 EGO-FUTURISM ter to the editorand saythat he had changed hismindand wouldgo tothe (!Stareof Princess Obolensky. instead.It was particularly well ex-pressedin the programdrawn upfortheirpoesaconcertplannedfor spring,1912, in the suburbs of St. Petersburg, but never.held: EGO EstateIvanovka Stq_tiopPudost, Baltic railroad, Gatchino Mill., In the park surrounding the .Hunting, Palace oI,the Estradenear the marble urns, in theq May,19.12-ThefirstSpringConcertof Futurism,organizedunderthe Direction of the Heraltl.

Igor-Severyanin, I. V.Ignatyev, Constantine Olimpov, I. S.Lukash. The begfnriing is' precisely 'at midnight. In:the park, belilacillumination.Aeolianbells.Invisible ocarinas and pipes.Pavilions ofSedusion, of Ego-books,ofMilk and Black Bread. Chalet of Cupid."..BuffetattheeasternverandaofthePalacenexttotheEstrade.Wines .. .".... '. fromPljnceYusupqJf'sgardens;ligueurCremedeViolettt:sfromthe Cusenierfirm.Gatchinppinktrout;.umbers.Boribons-Violettesfrom Gourmet.'teaf:r;o!Jlof 'Heurao!ange.Gondolastocrosstheriver Makhalitta:"La Princesse Lointaine"and "Ala vie." Access by invitation vergette523.'only: Return train afS A.r.d... The day of the Conl:eit' will be announced in at}publications of the capital. The Newspaper Director I. V. Ignatyev Abandoning the poesa concert and thepaper, begantop'ublish miscellahies {almanakhi),usingthenameof .the paper-asthatof 'tlie' publishingertterprise.The firstofthesemiscel-lanies,thefour-page .OfanzhevayaUrna ("TheOrangeElm"),was published in -1912and dedicated to the tnemory ofFofanov.Fofanov wasgl3rified irl the.:poems by, Severyaninand Dimitri. Kryuchkovand in the article !!Tsm:stvenn)ri solovei"("A RegalNightingale"),. written by olimpov.Therewasalsothe .poem"Yaslavlyu". ('-'IGlorify");WJ;ittenIvanOtedezh(I.Lukash),againinimita-, 111:EGO-FUTURISM tionof Walt Whitman.24 The.main j:pterest was,however,ihticipationofValeryBFyusov,whomego-futuristsmanagedtoattract asacontributor.Heprovidedthem..withtwopoems.Oneofthese: soundedlikeSeveryanin;whilethe, oilierwasmildlyego-futuristic,. with itssingle neql9gism,one foreignword,andmeta,phorof"the airportofthesky."Verypreten.tiouswas.Ignat)rev's"Miniatyura," which, in rhythmic prose with numerous words. beginning with capital letters,describedthesuicideofawidower.Thereweretwoarticles onego-theory.One of them,"Egoizm,"written by Peter Mikhailovich Fofanov(probablythepoet'sbrother),assertedthatalllifeisbased on egoism,though it clearly comes tothe. foreonly in art and business. He appeale_dforrecognitionof thisfact,whichwouldleadtoatruer altruismthantheonenow preached in society.Graal-Arelskythe authorof"Ego-poeziyavpoezii"("Ego-PoetryinPoetry"),which repeatedsomeoftheideas ,ofPeterFofanovand,aftersurveyinghu-manhistoryfromancientEgyptto,Christ,proclaimedthat"the.aim ofego-poetryistheglorificationofegoismasthesoletrueandvital intuition."ArelskyalsoaffirmedtheexistenceofaBeauty. tha.tis beyond morality and consistsof harmony and dissonance,and,toward theend, called fora merging withNature.Neither essaycanbecon-sidered a masterpiece of prose. TheOrangeUrnwasfollowedinthe. sameyearbySteklyamiye Tsepi("GlassChains"),anothersliinalmanac,containingpoetryby SeveryaninandLeonid Afanasyev(the latter never becamean .active memberofthegroup),prosebyIgnatyev,andsome"intuitivist"re-views.Ofmorehistoricalimportancewasthe. third,iniscellany,en" titled Orly nadpropastyu("Eagles overthe Abyss"),whichappeared inthe fallof1912,thistimegrowingtosix.largepages.Amongthe famousguestcontributorswere'Bryusov,whoseacros"ticsonnetad-dressedtoSeveryaninwasincluded,andanothergreatfigure .ofRus-siansymbolism,FyodorSologub,.whobythat timehad. sur-prisingly,a great admirer of Severyanin's poetry.25 Severyanin himself printedinthisbookhisfamous"Morozhehoeizsireni"("IceCreani MadewithLilacs").Thelessernamesoccupiedthelastpage,amongthemonenotethenotverygiftedPavel. Kok.orin.' chap.5) andPaveLDmitrievich Shirokov(1893-1963);:'. Shirokovbecameoneoftheego-futuristimiercirclea:qdaclose friendof.whdhad published :Shirokov's firstbook of poefryi, 71 'I EGO-FUTURISM Rozyvvine("RosesinWine"),afewmonthsbefore.26 Eventhe titleofthiseight-pagecollectionbetraysSeveryanin'sinfluence,and in much of his poetry Shirokov remained little morethananimitator. Most of hispoemscontain neologismsand French words;intheman-ner ofSeveryanin,he callshispoemstriolets,virelays,romances,and thelike.Usuallytheyreproduceego-futuristsalon-likemotifs(the desiretobeamarquis,imagesofPierrot).Therearealsoechoesof Lokhvitskaya,andShirokovfollowsFofanovintothelandofbeauti-fulprincesses.Insomeofhispoenis,however,Shirokovistryingto be "futurist"(i.e.,topresent aspectsof modern urban life).Thus one ofhistrioletsisaboutanairplane,andhissonnetdescribesmeeting a womanona streetcar (tram).Inthefinalpoem,"Tsvety bezvolya" ("FlowersofWill-lessness"),Shirokovpaystributetoego-futurist ideologybyremarkingthat "the meaningofvozdroblenie returntounity'';seep.65,"The Tables"]isdear andcleartohim." Rosesin WinewasfollowedinJanuary,1913,byamuchlesssuc7 cessfuland,strangelyenough,lessfuturisticbook,which,neverthe-less,hadamuchmoreavant-gardetitle,Vivne("InsideandOut-side").This book,publishedduringthetimeego-futurismturnedto-wardmoreradicalverbalexperimentation,isdisappointingnotonly becausetheFofanov-Lokhvitskaya,ladies'journalmotifs(lilies, princessin .aforest,Columbines),areintensifiedinit,butalsobe-causeitischaracterizedbyslipshodversificationandincorrectword There is,however,an attempt at urbanismin one poem (rather inconsistent,sinceit endswithanadmonitiontoleavethe city if one isfedup with it), and in the last poem,"ltog"("Sum Total"),Shiro-kov somemanifesto-like gestures,denouncing the criticsofego-futunsm and extolling moderntimeswhicharefullof progressevery: where except in poetry.His own baok isa goodillustration ofthelat-terpoint. PoetryprintedinEaglesovertheAbyssisnotasinterestingas lgnatyev'ssurveyofego-futuristactivitiesandtheories.Itisentitled "Pervyi god ego-futurizma"("The First Year of Ego-Futurism");and, whileit iseasytomocktheattempttowriteone'sownhistoryafter barely ayearof existence,ascholarcanonlybe grateful,becauseno one else tried to write such a history afterward and there are fewmen-tionsof ego-futurists in memoirs.(An exceptionisSeveryanin'sKola-kolasoborachuvst1J["The Bellsofthe Cathedral of Feelings,"1925], 72 EGO-FUTURISM a "novelin verse,"inthetime-honoredtraditionofPushkin'sEugene Onegin,whichspeaksmostlyoftheperiod. afterthepoethadclonedtheego-futuristgroup.)lgnatyev,inhissurvey,writesinde-tailabouttheeventsalreadymentionedinthischapter,butalsoin-dulgesinpolemicswith critics.He citesthetextofthe"Doctrinesof UniversalEgo-Futurism,"printedasaleafletbyEgoinSeptember, 1912.Thedoctrinesare(1)recognitionofEgo-God(unionoftwo contrasts);(2)finding[obret]ofuniversalsoul(all-justification); (3)extollingEgoismasone'sindividualessence;and( 4)limitless-nessof artistic[iskusswovye]and spiritual searchings[izyskaniya]. Afterdefending.ego-futurismagainstpossibleaccusationsofalack oforiginality("ego-futurismisthequintessenceofallschools"), lgnatyevsaysthat"the aimofeveryego-futuristisself-affirmationin the future"and that the basis of ego-futurism isintuition. Toward the end of hissurvey,he alsoattacks"the GuildofPoets,whichhadjust t_Wo'ego-futurist renegades, and G.Ivanov,and says, FortheImpotentsofsoulandverse,thereisthe'GuildofPoets,' where cowardsand freaksof modernismfindshelter."It isalsoneces-sarytonotelgnatyev'scasualmentionofMarinettiandItalianfu-turism.Atthebeginning ofhisarticle,heregretsthatthe"universal ego-futurism"thathasgrownonRussianterritoryis.constantlycon-fusedwiththe.three-year-old"Italo-Frenchfuturism."Attheend, whileaccusingtheGuildofPoetsofhavingnosoul,headds,"just liketheforeignfuturistswhodeathified[osmertivshie]thepronoun 'I' and who do not know all-justification[seethe "Doctrines," item 2]." lgnatyevwasstatingthecaseforRussitnego-futurismin suchstrongterms,the movement wasstrugglingthroughitsfirstseri-ouscrisis,whichalmostbrought!ttoanend.InOctobermanySt. Petersburg newspapers received a protest leaflet written by Constantine Olimpov, whoremindedthe editorsthat he wasthe coauthor of "The Tables"andtheinventor ofthe imprint oftheEgopublishingenter-prise(whichconsistedoftheword"Ego,''written,inLatinletters, insideatriangle)andpracticallyaccusedSeveryaninofplagiarism. The ideasexpressedinthe"Doctrines,"Olimpovinsisted,weretaken fromhisinterviewaboutego-futurismpublishedinanobscurelocal paper.Severyaninansweredthisclaimwithhisletter totheeditorin whichhesimultaneouslycalledOlimpovaslandererandgenerously forgavehim."I considermyego-futuristmissioncompleted,"hecon-73 EGO-FUTURISM tinued;"Iwishtobealonetoconsidermyselfjustapoetandam sunnilygladaboutit.My intuitiveschool,UniversalEgo-Futurism, isthewaytoself-affirmation.Inthissense,itisimmortal.Butmy ownego-futurismexistsnomore:Ihavealreadyaffirmedmyself." This announcement meantSeveryanin's break withthe group,whose support he no longer needed since he was rapidly becoming a celebrity. Olimpovansweredwithanother letter,entitled"Declaration,"which reiterated his plagiarism charges.Severyanin made his break withego-futurismfinalwhenhewrotealettertotheeditorofthepopular BirzhevyeVedomostiandwhenhepublished,inNovember,1912, hislastbrochure(no.35),EpilogEgo-Futurizm.Thiswell-known poemoeginswiththeline"I,Igor-Severyanin,agenius,"thenpro-ceedstodescribethehistoryoftheego-futuristmovementinanut-shell.Thepoetdoesnottrytohidehisconvictionthathewasthe onlyrealpoetinthegroup,callsOlimpovaJudas,and,inthelast part,hintsatachangeinhisorientation:"beingattractedbythe primitive,"heisgoingtothecountry.ThusSeveryaninsealedhis breakwitharejectionofego-futuristurbanism,andthusendedthe firstphaseofRussianego-futurism,inwhichSeveryaninhadbeen theleadingfigure.Themovementcontinuedtoexist,change,and developundertheleadershipoflgnatyev;therefore,thecustomary total identification of the entire ego-futurist movement with Severyanin isfarfrombeing historically correct. In the critical inoment of Severyanin's "resignation,"lgnatyev gave a new formulationtothe group's ideology and energetically continued publishing:in1913heissuedsixalmanacs,atleastasmanybooks ofpoemsbyindividualpoets,andonetheoreticalpamphlet.He tire-lessly,thoughnot verycoherently,explainedthe essenceof ego-futur-isminarticlesandbooks,madeconnectionswithsomeMoscowfu-turists,and began polemics with theHylaeans,whoat thistimewere assaultingcontemporaryliteraturewithonepublishedvolumeafter another.Without breaking withthe "intuitive"ego-philosophyofthe earlierstage,lgnatyev,inhistheoreticalstatements,hispoetry,and hiseditorialpractice,begantoemphasizeandsingleoutverbalex-periment, thus coming closetothe ideas of his enemies,the Hylaeans. AssuccessortoSeveryanin's"intuitive schoolofUniversalEgo-Futur-ism,"lgnatyev establishedthe"intuitive association"whichpublished in January,1913,a "charter"(gramota)withthe followingtext: 74 EGO-FUTURISM I.Ego-Futurism=The incessant striving of every Egoist forthe achieve-ment of the possibilities of the Future in the Present. II.Egoism =Individualization,awareness,worship,and praiseoftheI. III.Man=Essence. Deity =Shadow of Man in the mirror of the Universe. God= Nature: Nature =Hypnosis. Egoist=An Intuitionist. Intuitionist =A Medium. IV.Creation of Rhythm and Word. Areopagus:IvanPavel Shirokov Vasilisk Gnedov DmitriKryuchkov Oneeasilynoticesthatnotasingle"Areopagite"belongedtothe that signed"The' Tables."Eventhe nameof Olimpovis m1ssmg. ConstantineOlimpov(ConstantineConstantinovichFofanov neverbrokewiththelgnatyevgroup(thoughhemamed aloof fora few months), and even published in1913hismost notablebookundertheimprintofthePetersburgHerald.Itwas Zhonglery-nervy("Nerves,theJugglers"),whichalmostsimultane-ouslyappearedinitsentiretyintheseventhego-futuristalmanac Vsegdai("The Alwayser").The firstpageofthebookcarriesacallyOlimpovianquasi-cabalisticchart: AirplanePoems NerveCenterI[nervnik]WindowofEurope BloodI & 1912,Spring Theoriginoftheriver UniversalEgo-Futurism Immediately below,Olimpov goes ontoexplainthe origin of the term :universal, ego-futurism"asfollows:"ImmortalityinEternityplus Alter Ego, ofFofanov plusFuturism and-as a generalization-'Uni-versalEgo-Futurism.'"BelowthisisfoundapoembyOlimpov'sfa-75 EGO-FUTURISM ther,C.M.Fofanov,addressedtohisson,inwhichthe sonispraised forcombining in himself a scholar anda poet.The restofthe book is occupiedbysevenshortpoems.Judgingbythestatementsofthose whoknewOlimpovandbymuchofhispoetry,he wasamadman.27 Asapoet,though,hewasnotdevoidoftalent,andascholarwill appreciateinhisworkwhatprobablyisthemostsuccessfulmerger ofego-futuristmysticismandpoetics.Infact,hemaybethemost typicalego-futurist poet.In hispoetry,Olirnpov expressesadesirefor madness,proclaimshimselfagenius,worshipsFofanovandLokh-vitskaya,andglorifiesaviation(e.g.,thepoem"Shmeli"["Bumble-bees"]). His diction is characterized, as is that of Severyanin and Shiro-kov, by a wide use of neologisms and foreign words; his metrics include boththeold-fashionedanapestsofthe1880'sandsomemetricforms madepopularbySeveryanin;andhemoderatelyexperimentswith dissonantrhyme.In"Troikavtroike"("AThreeinaThree")he accumulates wordswiththe rootkolokol- ("bell")and playsondiffer-ent meaningsof the wordtroika,sothatthefinalresulthasaremote resemblancetoKhlebnikov'slaughterpoem.In"Amuret"("Amou-rette")OlimpovimitatesthesalonmannerofSeveryanin,andin "Esquise" he isaltogether nonfuturist.When he ceasestoimitate and speakswithhisownvoice,hisworkbecomesnothingbutachaotic verbalconglomerationechoing hisocculterudition,asinthesewords from"Interlyudiya"("Interlude"): Empirei-emblema feurgii, Siluet sabeizma fetisha. V rodnike vdokhnovennykh val'purgii Ishchet lunnoe serdtse finisha. (The empyreansarethe emblemoftheurgies, A silouette of the Sabaism of a fetish. In a spring of inspired walpurgies The lunar heart looks a goal line.) After1913Olimpovbegantopublish,oneafteranother,books28 markedbyhisgrowingmaniagrandiosaandfullofcosmicvisions, hyperbole,self-glorification,andcapitalletters.Anexampleofthese books isFenomenalnaya genialnaya poema T eoman velikogo mirovogo poetaKonstantinaOlimpova("ThePhenomenalPoemofGenius 76EGO-FUTURISM CalledTheomanbytheGreatWorldPoetConstantineOlimpov"), inwhichtheentireevolutionoflifeintheuniverseispresentedas strivingfortheideal,whichis,ofcourse,Olimpov.Thepoemwas published in1915andpromptlyconfiscated,probablybecauseofthe poet's self-identification with God.Thoughit istoolongand itsgran-diosemanner isoftenannoying,onecanfindinitmagnificentlines, especiallywhereOlimpovtriestoassimilatethelanguageofscience into poetry.Finally,the poem developsintoanodetohimself,which soundsvery muchlikeRussianeighteenth-century odes.It ispossible toviewTheomanasanamplificationofego-futurism;butthelast vestigesofego-futurist influencehavefadedby1922,ascanbeseen inOlimpov'spoemTretyeRozhdestvovelikogomirovogopoetatita-nizmasotsialnoirevolyutsiiKonstantinaOlimpova,RoditelyaMiroz-daniya("The Third Nativity oftheGreatWorldPoetoftheTitan-ismof theSocial Revolution,Constantine Olimpov,theParent of the Universe"),publishedinthatyearandperhapshislastpublished work. This isbotha paeantodestruction and a crazy,belatedattempt toselltheSovietgovernment,whichthenforashorttimetolerated avant-garde art, a new kind of futurism,the "Universal Ego-Olimpism, theFuturismofCommunism."HereOlimpovdeclareshimselfa "proletarian,wanderinginbeggar'sclothes,"andshoutshurrahsto theSeventhofNovemberandtotheInternational."Downwith Christ!Longliverobbery,"heexclaimsinapossibleresponseto Alexander Blok's The Twelve(where Christprecedesthemarauding patrolinthestreetsofPetrograd).Inthesameyear Ohmpov,surroundedbycompletelyunknownpoets,organizeda group,Koltsopoetov("A RingofPoets"),namedafterC.M.Fofa-nov.They publishedarequestformemoirsabout,andunpublished worksof,Olimpov'sfatherandplannedajointpublicationwhich didnotmaterialize.29 Shortly afterward,Olimpov'snamedisappeared fromliterature. .himself sawthe beginning of a new phaseinego-futurism m1tsfourthalmanac,DaryAdonisu("GiftstoAdonis"),published atthebeginningof1913,andsubtitled"PublicationoftheEgo-Fu-turistAssociationIV."Theusualcrowdedformatemployingtwo-columll:, pages i.s .g?ne, _andeach poem beginsona separatenewpage. There ISnocntic1smmthe book,onlypoetryandprose,whichwas probably planned asa demonstration of the movement'sabilitytosur-77 EGO-FUTURISM viveanycrisis.Thebookbeginswithafive-page"ego-prose"piece datedRostov-on-Don,1911,andwrittenbyVasiliskGnedov,anew futuristgeniusdiscoveredbyIgmityev.Thispiece,entitled"Zigzag pryamoi sred'mimyi"("The Straight World-Piercing Zigzag")iswrit-teninsemirhythmic,lyric,remotelyNietzscheanprosewithmany capital letters,someneologisms,and special punctuation.It boldly but withoutmuchresulttriestobe"metaphysical"andtoportraythe situationofthe"egointheuniverse."AllremainingAreapagitesare representedbypoetrythatisnotverydistinguished.Thevolumeis furtherwatereddownbyguestcontributors,ofwhomonlyonede-serves mention, VadimShershenevich fromMoscow,whowastoplay anotableroleinthehistoryofRussianfuturism.The puzzlingfinal "poemofpauses,""GurebkaProklenushkov," 30 signedbytheenig-maticJosephineGanted'Orsaille,wasobviouslymeantasahoax, probably inspired by the famousCherubina deGabriachoax in Apol-lon in1909.31 Gifts toAdonis closeswitha photographofthe Areop-agus(Ignatyev wearingatophat sits;theotherthreesolemnlystand behindhim).ItwasannouncedthatMarinettiwouldparticipatein the-next almanac,but he did not. Arealchangeihego-futuristorientationbecamenoticeableinthe group'sfifthmiscellany,Zasakharekry.Thetitlewasmeantbothto shockandtodemonstrateverbalexperiment:itconsistsofthefirst halvesofzasakharennayakrysa,whichmeans"acandiedrat,"atitle scarcelyin harmony withthe romantically languorousladydrawnby LeonZackon .thecover.32 The centralworkinthebookisanambi-'tious,thoughpoorlywritten,criticalessaybyIgnatyev,"Ego-Futur-ism,"in which he attemptsa new formulationof the movement'sphi-losophy.Civilizationisdeclaredamortalenemyof" self,erasingits immortalelement.Thosewhorecognizedthistruthmakeanimpres-sive list:Buddha,JeanJacquesRousseau,Nietzsche,Herzen,Maxim Gorky, Ibsen, Evgeny Solovyev (Andreevich), Fichte, Tolstoy. Finally, Ignatyevcomestotheconclusionthat,asChristianitywasareligion ofslaves,directedagainstRomancivilization,andsocialismisare-ligionoflabor,soegoismisareligionof"spiritualserfs,"slavesof civilizationandthe city.The factthat here heunderminesurbanism, an important aspect of ego-futurist aesthetics;does not dismay Ignatyev he goesonwith incoherent;but sublime-sounding wordsuntilhe concludesbyofferingyetanotherhistoricalsurvey ofego-futurism; 78 EGO-FUTURISM whichthistimeincludesthewholestoryofSeveryanin'sbreakwith the _group. Severyaninofself-glorification,inconsist-contnbuung tothe movement nothing but the word"ego-futunsm,andassertsthatitsmeaningwasnevercleartohim.The roleofSeveryanininthehistoryofego-futurismisnotdenied,but reducedtothatofNewton's appleinphysics. Verseis tn ZasakharekrybyShirokov' s ratherinept at-temptatwntingIdeologicalpoetryandShershenevich' smannered aestheticismwithitsPierrotsandColumbines;butthemostradical worksarethose. presentedby(Vasily (1890--),thisKhlebnikovofego-1uturism.Histrademarkis folksyneologism,andhetendstoshockthereader withcoarseorun-?leasa?tandimages.ThoughhispoemsarefilledtooverBow-mg Withcm_nedwordsthat are often indecipherable,the generalback-of _hispoetry can be easily recognized-it isnature, and, in con-tradistinctiOntotheother ego-futurists,thismakesGnedov sometimes soundVasilyKamensky.Sincehispredilectionforepaterles bourgeotsmakes.similartoKruchenykh,manycriticswon-deredwhythis}omedtheego-futuristsandnottheHylaeansin theplace.Livshitssaysin hismemoirsthat Gnedov wasactually consideredformembershipinHylaea,but hadtoleaveforthesouth reasons of

In tothree poems, Gnedov also printed mkryaof futunst prose,whichisstrongly rhythmic and ISbmlt on neologisms and exclamations. BythetimeZasakharekryappeared,Gnedovwasalreadytheau-thoroftwobooksofbothpublishedin1913byIgnatyev'sPe-tersburgHeraldpubhshmg enterprise.In Gostinetssentimentam("A forthethereisafamiliardisplayof rusticneolo- andpnmitiVIsticshouts;however,intheoverlong"Skachek ?gne-Lavy" ("A Jump of Longing-A Victory of Fire- ),ISalmostdevoidofneologismsandfullofwordsbe-Withacapitalletter,Gnedovparadesagainasahalf-baked Nietzschean,indulginginsymbolismoftheworstkind.Whenhe somehispoetrywithrapsodaoreskizev,theclumsyat-tachmg ?f Russian suffixes or endingstoforeignrootsand wordslooks almost hkea a: thefavoritedevicesof. his fellowego-futurists. Much more radical m conception wasGnedov's secondbookSmert iskusstvu ("Death toArt"),witha preface in whichIgnatyev 79 I: I , I I \ \ EGO-FUTURISM siedthe extinctionofthewordinthefutureand its by ahighlyorganizedintuition.OffifteenpoemsGnedov,nm\are one-line poems, most ofthem consisting of neologisms.One P?en;no. 6)usesseeminglymeaninglesssyllables;another(no.9)SimpY _re-peatsaword(oraname?)threetimes;twopoems,though neologistictitles,useknownRussianwords.Oftherest,two of oneneologistic word each,andtwoofjust oneletter each.ae 8,whichisalsothe back coverofthe book,has,only tle 0 pgb15"PKontsa'' ("Poem of the End). The mtended poem numer,oemah effectisspoiled,however,by the factthat the stampofthe prmts 0[ withtheaddressandtheyearofpublication,isdownbelow

te samepage.ThispoemmadeGnedovacelebrity,at ap-earances,he wasoften askedtorecite it.A memomstsuch ;recitation asfollows:"[This poem]had no wordsandonly ofone gesture,the arm' being quicklyraisedfrontof then sharply dropped, and then moved to the right. mpreface toDeathtoArt,givesadifferentdescription:J:Ie[thispoem] witha rhythmic movement.Tlie hand was drawmgahne:fromleft toright and vice versa(the secondone canceled the first,asplusan: minus result in minus). 'Poem of the End' isactually 'Poem ofNot-dh.ll"34 ing,'a zero,as it israwngrapIcay ... This prefacebyIgnatyevisinterestingmItselfforItsstyle,tone, andcontent.Allthat he hadwrittenbeforeisaparagonincomparisonwiththisexerciseinprophecy,crowdedw1thcapita I'thtt isin agonyand one letters and neologisms.gnatyev s pomt ISaar'. signofthisisthe excessiverefinement ofthe wordandthe vanetyof languagesatman'sdisposal.Theword,however,isneededby peoplelivingcollectively;but wheneveryoneistransformedmtoan "individualizedego-self"therewillbenoneedofwords _and lost paradise ofthe past,when Man spoke God,once again. The preface alsocontains attacks onway-out frontlmgs(pere-dunchiki)ofour literature,whouse"individual words,syllabl:s,and letters."IgnatyevobviouslymeanstheHylaeans,m .1hohe obviously feels,had become dangerous nvals.He tnes tiCUar, w,,h1at todiscreditthembycallingthem"ourimitators, o _onY shockingtheaudienceanddestroywithout constructmg.It ISabout timeforthemtoknow,"he continues,"that everyletterhasnot only soundand color,buttasteaswell,andalsoweight,surfacethatcan 80 EGO-FUTURISM befelt,extension,anditsownmeaningwhichiscloselytiedtothe restoftheletters.Forexample,howmuchonecanexpressbyonly onedisyllabicword, ["spring"].Thereisasunnyqualityin 's,' the letter 'a' expresses a joy after achieving something long awaited, etc."/ Gnedovappearedonce,in1914,inajoint publicationwithShiro-kov,the slimKniga velikikh("Book of the Great").It contained only his"Poemanachala"("APoemoftheBeginning"),aratherlyric work, containing no neologisms. This technically most traditional poem byGnedovisperhapshisbestone.Ontheotherhand,Shirokov showed in this book a desire towrite in a new manner.He abandoned his usual salonpieces withFrenchified wordsand hissaccharinefairy-tale pictures, and devoted one poem,"Da zdravstvuet reklama"("Long LivePublicity"),toself-aggrandizement,whilewritingabouthouses, street lights,crowds,and prostitutes in accentual verseinanother,the urbanistic"Shopotstalnykhtrub"("TheWhisperoftheSteel Stacks").In"Boi"("The Battle")hewroteaboutwarinanexpres-sionistic manner slightly reminiscent of Mayakovsky,and inthethree remainingpoemshedidwhatMayakovskyneverdidinhisprerevo-lutionarypoetry,namely,wroteaboutthelife,work,andrebellious intentionsofRussianworkingmen(allinveryold-fashionedverse). BothGnedovandShirokovlaterparticipatedinpublicationsofthe Moscowfuturists(of boththeMezzanineofPoetryandCentrifuge) but never published any books.35 Shirokovsoondisappearedfromlit-eratureandisnowforgotten.36 Gnedovwasaroundforsometime, attractingtheattentionofmemoiristsasapersonalityratherthanas apoet.He wasoneofthe"presidents"intheSocietyofPresidents oftheGlobe,laterorganizedbyKhlebnikov.37 lgnatyevcontinuedpublicationofalmanacswitharrestingtitles suchasRei("Strike!").Thistitleisprintedinlargelettersonthe almanaccover,buttheeffectisunexpectedlysoftenedwiththecon-tinuationofthesentenceonpage1,insmallprint,"novyslushai" C''buthearme"),sothatitbecomesaquotationfromThemistocles. The bookopenswithIgnatyev'sphotograph,andIgnatyevisthefea-turedpoetoftheeditionwithfiveworks,ineachofwhichhetried to extrem_es."Onan," withalmosteverywordprintedasasepa-ratehne,acqmredsomenotoriety;veryambitiousalsowas"Tretii vkhod"("ThirdEntrance"),whoseprintedtextisinterspersedwith 81 EGO-FUTURISM notesof musicand angular symbols.Afootnotestatesthat this"rnelo-letera-grapha"combinesword,color,melody,andmovement.Prob-ablythemostsuccessfulpieceisIgnatyev'sattempttowritefuturist E la "Sld"("Fllh")..prose.ntlt eeomza...oowmgte...,ItISa stream-of-consciousnessfragment in whicheachsentence,ratherthan ending,becomesanother,withpunctuationeitherlackingorpres-ent wherenot expected,but eachmarkisusedatleastonce.Besides regularRussianprint,ChurchSlavonic,Latin,andGermanGothic letterswereused.Intranslation,with. typographicdetailsomitted,it might sound like this: FOLLOWINGTHE ... hearthasacoldWaitI'll showyou.wouldlikethebillIsfalling Asinelevatorgoorno.Iwant.To givemyself.To Dominic;Youwrite and write,and they don't paySay,what a creep worksforboth sidesTurn onelectricity-"Yours Truly"doesn'tthink;knowntomeherepudigood breeding will always chevalier!!!Cavalier'Ca ma'am be please fourhundred Schopenhauerinshagreenforty-fourtwentynineTwentytentwenty eleventwen...Cavalier Cav enough'i Keepthechange.... There wasonly one essay inthe book,"Sirnvolicheskayasirnfoniya" ("SymbolicSymphony"),inwhichtheauthor,VsevolodSvetlanov, spokeabout asynthesisof light andsoundandgavethetableofcor-respondences between musical tonesand colors.Ignatyevonly twopoets were representedinStrike!:Shershenevich,withtwosalon Kryuchkov.DmitriAlexari'drovichK chkov (1887-?), thefourthAreopagite,hadeenassociatedwithego-futurismsince thepublicationofitsfirstalmanac,TheOrangeUrn,and displayed feweravant-gardefeaturesthananyofhiscolleagues.38 Hismain occupationseemstohavebeenjournalism.Thereisasmoothness,a lilt,and sometimesa kindof energyinhisrather conventionalverse. Onlyseldomdoeshe resorttoneologisms;otherwiseonehearsinhis linesechoesofmanysymbolistpoets,suchasBalrnont,Sologub,and Blok.Two characteristicsthat particularly sethimapart fromthe rest ofthe ego-futuristsarehis preoccupation withlandscapeand hiscon-stantreligiousthemes.Inhisfirstbookofverse,Padunnemolchnyi C'TheIncessantFaller"),perhapsonlythetitle,withitsneologism, suggestsfuturism.Otherwise,itispoetryofmoodsandlandscapes, 82 EGO-FUTURISM often with religious overtones. One poem,"Chitaya Zharnrna"("Read-ing Jarnrnes"),suggeststhat Kryuchkov probably hadtheambitionof becomingtheRussianFrancisJarnrnes.Ayearlater,in1914,Kryu-chkovpublishedanotherbook,Tsvetyledyanye("IcyFlowers"), which developed the same themes,the only difference being the exclu-siveuseofwinterklndscapes.ThisbookwaspublishedbytheEn-chanted Wanderer(hisfirstbookhadbeenpublishedbythePeters-burgHerald),afuturistperiodicaltowhichKryuchkovcontributed not only poetry, but his impressionistic criticism as well. Theseventhego-futuristalmanaccarneoutundertheoutlap.dish, neologistictitle, "\0gdai("The Alwayser")built on the Russian word vsegda("always"}.It was much bigger than the previous miscellanies, which were at firstfour- or six-page publicationsand later grewtosix-teenpages.TheAlwayseropenedwithJgnatyev'sfirstfull-scaleat-tack on the Hylaeans in the article,"An Ego-Futurist about Futurists," printedunderanotherpseudonym,Ivei.He accusedtheMoscowfu-turists of being indistinguishable fromthefirstRussiandecadentsand impressionistsand foundtoomany inconsistenciesintheirtheoryand In additiontothe familiarpoeticexercisesofIgnatyev himself,Olm1pov,andKryuchkov,onefindsinTheAlwaysersome newnames.RurikIvnev,thefutureimagist,printedhereoneim-pressionisticpoemanticipatingthe. favorite 9fhislaterpoetry (suffering,death,sin). PavelKorotov,a 'poetfromKharkov,not.only contributedapoem,but alsoan"intuitive"essayin linesde-fendingtheideaofanego-theater(i.e.,thetheaterofoneactorin four walls) against the unnecessarily complicated conventionaltheater. qualityisnoti(eablein severalpoemsbyShershenevichprinted mthisbook.He clearly beginsheretodevelophisownbrandoffu-turism,which exhibits an Italian orientation mixed with the influence ofthepoetesmaudits.He ,experirnent.swithdissonantrhyme.The bookendswithananonymousessay(laterevidenceshowsthatit waswrittenbyIgnatyevhimself),"0novoirifrne"("AboutNew Rhyme"),inwhichmany typesofrhymesinusebeforeareenumer-atedwithexamples.Ignatyev'sforthcomingbookofpoetryisinen-asintroducing anewtypeof"vowel"and"consonant"rhyme, whichseemstobebasedontheidentityorphoneticsimilarityofthe last phoneme of a word. Ignatyevdidnotcontributeanythingtothenextalmanac,which 113EGO-FUTURISM also_inunderthetitle("The_Sky_:Qig-gers"),butheopeneditwithanotherofhisphOtographs.Thistime neeiitrusted others withthe literary polemics.AnastasiyaChebotarev-skaya,Sologub's wife,unexpectedlyturned up hereinafuturistpub-licationwithher"Zelenyibum"("AGreenBoom"),arathermild criticismoftheHylaeans(amongwhomshereallylikedonlyLiv-shits).Her conclusionwasthattheHylaeanswerenotoriginal,hav-ingborrowedmuchfrom"themoremodestandmoretalentedego-futurists,"butweretobewelcomedasfightersagainstacademicism and vulgarity.Curiously enough,it wasChebotarevskaya,a nonfutur-ist, who preached here a united front of all futurists.The other critical essay,"ModernizirovannyiAdam"("A ModernizedAdam"),wasan attackonAcmeismwrittenbyVictorKhovin,whoneverbecame apartofthelgnatyevgroup,butcontinuedego-futurisminanew shape theoriginalgrouphaddisintegrated.The Acmeists'fight against symbolism was,forKhovin,a dishonestattemptofpoorlyedu-catedpeopletodistorttheideasoftheirenemy.Theirpoetrywas judgedasunoriginalandsecond-rate,andApollonwascriticizedfor taking the Acmeistsunder its. wing. There wasalsoan interesting let-tertotheeditorbyShershenevichexposingthe"illiteracy"ofA. Redko,acriticfromtheliberalmagazineRusskoeBogatstvo.Redko hadconfusedtheHylaeansandego-futuristsinoneofhisarticles, which seemed an unpardonable sin to Shershenevich, because, he said, Kruchenykh,Khlebnikov,andtheUnionofYouthwere"theworst enemiesofego-futurism"andtheirworkwas"illiteratedaubing" (hezgramotnayamaznya).Shershenevichalsonotedthat,contraryto Redko, zaum was never invented or used by the ego-futurists,to which the publisher,Ignatyev,madea correctingfootnote,claimingthat the Hylaeansdidborrowzaumfromtheego-futurists,butpresentedit "inadifferentsauce,"astheydidwithmanyotherideas. VasiliskGnedovmonopolizedthepoetrypagesofTheSkyDig-gers;infact,his poetry openedand endedthe book.The maindevice usedbyhiminthesepoemswasplacingthetwoRussiancharacters, hard signand softsign(in bothexistingwordsandoneshecoined), aftervowels,thusrenderingthewordsunpronounceable.Healso printedsomewordswithoutspacesbetweenthem,whileblending themwithmeaninglesssyllables,andcontinuedhisirrelevantuseof capital letters. The datesunder the poemsaredeliberatelyabsurd,for 84 EGO-FUTURISM example:"secondyearaftermydeath,"or"1915"(i.e.,twoyears later),oreven"A.D.2549"and"A.D.38687."Here isoneshortpoem entitled"Segodnya"("Today")(theapostropheisusedforthesoft signandquotationmarksf9!thehardsign): Nebokopytoprivol'ya' luzhapri"bet'moryakakh babushkakulikazelen nashi' gorokhishutakh One of Gnedov'sworkswasin proseandusedspacesbetweenwords, but it wasanillogicalmelangeof meaningfulandmeaninglesswords with anadmixtureofexisting wordstypographicallydistortedinvari-ous ways.There wasalsoa piece entitled "Pervovelikodrama"("First-greatdrama"),whichactuallydidnotcontainanysuggestionofdra-matic form,being written exactly like most of Gnedov'spoemsin The Sky Diggers (i.e., without spaces between words and using typographi-cal incongruities). It ended (and this is Gnedov's favorite device) with twoperfectlyunderstandablelinespourepaterlesbourgeois:"isper-formedwithoutanyhelpfrommediocreStanislavskysetal."Atthe endofthebook,therewasGnedov'spoem"Ognyannasvitka"("A FieryCoat"), whichcalleditself,somewhereinthe middle,"the first ego-futuristsonginUkrainian,"andtriedtoimitate,withoutmuch consistencyorknowledge,thesoundandspellingoftheUkrainian language and attacked some of theUkrainian greats. Toward the end, GnedovswitchedovertohisvarietyofRussianandendedhispoem withthestatement:"ShakespeareandByrontogetherused80,000 words-thegeniuspoetofthefuture,VasiliskGnedov,usesevery minute 80,000,000,001squared words." The ninth(andlast)jointappearanceoftheSt.Petersburgego-futuristswasthealmanacRazvorochennyecherepa("Shattered Skulls"),likewisepublishedin1913.Ithadonitscoveradrawing by the famousartist,IlyaRepin,ofConstantineOlimpovreadinghis poetry.Almostallego-futuristpoetswererepresentedinthisfinal publication:Gnedov,lvnev(withveryunfuturistpoems),Kryuch-kov,andOlimpov.Ignatyevprintedherehismostradicalpoems, suchas"Opus-45,"whichwasatreelike,verticalandhorizontal interlacing of words. At the end, Ignatyev informed the reader that the mo.stdaring experiment of all,his"Lazorevyilogarifm"("AzureLog-85 EGO-FUTURISM arithm"),couldnot be reproducedinthebookbecauseofthe"tech-nicalimpotence"ofcontemporarytypographicaltechnology.There was in ShatteredSkullsan essay,"Muzyka slov"("Music ofWords") byVsevolodSvetlanov,subtitled"LinguisticSketches,"whichdealt infantasticwordetymologies.Svetlanovsawinchelovek("man") "chelo,ukrashennoevekami"("aforeheadadornedwitheyelids"); related theLatin vitatothe Russianvitat'(one ofwhosemeaningsis "toinhabit");connectedtheRussianwordsgrudi("breasts"),ud ("member"),udit'("tofish"),andgruda("heap");foundinsidethe word krasota("beauty") not only krasnyi("red"), but alsosoty ("hon-eycomb"),rasa("race"),and evenoty("0 you").But the mostsig-nificantfeatureofthepublicationwastheparticipationofSergei Bobrov;thefuture leaderoftheMoscowfuturistgroupTsentrifuga ("Centrifuge").Bobrov'scontributionconsistednotonlyofpoetry (largely inthesymbolisttradition),but alsoofacriticalessay"Chu-zhoi golos"("Somebody Else'sVoice"),whichcontainedallthe main featuresof hisfuturecriticism:deliberatedemonstrationofhiserudi-tion,glitteringaphorisms,andviciouslydestructivecriticismofene-mies.InhisattacksontheHylaeans,hefoundsomevalue,though nooriginality,inKhlebnikovandMayakovsky,butuncompromis-inglydeclaredthatalltherest,especiallyKruchenykhandBurliuk, werebeyondthelimitsofartandshouldbeconsideredforgers.In hisfi'nalverdict, BobrovanticipatedthelaterSovietcondemnationof futurismasdecadentbourgeoisliteraturewhenhewrote:"The Rus-sianreaderusedtobepreoccupiedwithrevolution,thenwithsex, wrestling,football,Verbitskaya.39 Nowhesimplycannotfind anything todo,so,toamuse his bored stomach,the 'art'ofbudetlyane comes." In the fallof1913,lgnatyevpublishedhismostambitiousattem,Pt. toexplain and outline his movement. It was histreatise Ego-Futurism, printedonsixteenelongatedpagesofapamphlet.Asusual,itcon-taineddetailsonthehistoryofthemovement,mostofwhichwere not new.What wasnew wasan efforttominimizethehistoricalrole ofSeveryanin(forwhom,lgnatyevsays,"thedoorsofego-futurism areclosedforever").lgnatyevevensuggestedthatthefirstphaseof themovementbeconsiderednotego-futurismbut"ego-Severyanin-ism,"fromwhichthemovementtookonlyunimportantthings.The present phase,it wasstated,wassomething completelynew, basedon 86 EGO-FUTURISM theideaoffight,whereasSeveryanin'sfoundationwas"all-justifica-tion."Compared with other theoretical writings oflgnatyev,there was littleemphasishereonthephilosophicaltenets,butratherastrong tendencytodemonstrateaspecificcontribution ofego-futurismtothe enrichment ofpoetictechnjque.Ego-futurismwascredited withsuch innovationsasmovementofatheme inprose,asillustratedbylgnat-yev's"Followingthe...";andGnedov,"thegreatmasterofego-futuristprose,"wascitedasonewhorepresented"theignoringof themeinprose."Ego-futurismwasalsocreditedwiththerenovating ofortheignoringofversemeterandwithnewventuresinrhyme. The other three achievements, which were named but not exemplified, were"ego-prism,""contemporaneity,"and"mechanicalquality."The firstoneistheoldego-futuristtenetofindividualismasreflectedin thepersonalstyleofapoet;thesecondreferstothecontemporary urbanistthemesintheworksofego-futurists;andthethirdprobably meanstheirattemptstowriteinillogicalsequencesofwordssimilar tolatersurrealistpracticeof"automaticwriting."Therearemany interestingstatementsinlgnatyev'sessay,whichis,asusual,chaotic and fullofcontradictionsofwhat he saidinhispreviouswritingsor eveninthisverywork.Hesays,forinstance,thattheSeveryanin phasewasa productofforeigninfluences,not,though,aswascus-tomary tosay,ofItalian and Frenchfuturism,but ratherof Whitman andVerhaeren.Inaddition,lgnatyevwrotethat"ego-futurismdid not deny its connectionswithsymbolism,"that "there ismore'ego'in it than'futurism,'andthat therearetwokindsof ego-futurists,some tryingto'unify the fraction'"(see "The Tables"),othersstenograph-ing speech.Only Gnedov,andpartly lgnatyev himself,could be con-sidered "stenographers of speech," but anyone could qualify asa "frac-tionunifier,"soevenKryuchkovand lvnev could belegitimately con-sideredtrueego-futurists.Theessayendedwiththeimageof"an intuitivetragicpoetwhofacesself-immolationinthenameofEgo." lgnatyev'snextbook,Eshafotego-futury("TheSc,affoldofthe Ego-Futura,"or "The Scaffold:Ego-Futuras")appearedin1914and, forthe most part,consisted of poemspreviously published in hisnine almanacsthatborethePetersburgHeraldimprint.Theycanbe roughly divided into obscure metaphysical poems,which developsome ofthetenetsof ego-futurism,and verbalexperiments.Theironlyvir-tue isbrevity;otherwisetheyare almost painful reading,soclearlydo 87 ,,!,EGO-FUTURISM theyshowlgnatyev'spretentiousnessandutterlackofpoetictalent. Theexperimentalpoems,whicharenevercompletelydevoidofide-ology,aremoreinterestingintheirintentthanintheirexecution. lgnatyev wasnot destinedtoseethisfirstcollectionofhispoems.On January 20,1914,theseconddayafterhiswedding,heattackedhis wifewith a razor,andwhenshemanagedtoescape,slashedhisown throat.BobrovandShershenevich,theleadersoftwodifferentMos-cow futurist groups, always mentioned him with respect;the Hylaeans neverattackedhimpersonally,andafragmentbyKhlebnikovhas beenpreservedinwhichlgnatyev'ssuicideisusedasanimage.40 Withlgnatyev'sdeath,hisgroupdisintegrated,thoughsomeof them continuedtocollaborateinMoscowfuturistpublications.Soon theirnameswereforgotten,andgraduallycriticsbegantoidentify RussianfuturismwiththeHylaeansalone.Althoughego-futurists partlydeservedthisoblivionbecausetheyneverproducedanything artistically successful,it isdifficult todenythem historicalimportance. Withoutthisgroup,thepictureofRussianprerevolutionaryliterary lifeandstrugglesisone-sided.Distortionistheusualresultofsuch ignoringofawholegroupinliteraryhistory.Thus,itiscustomary nowtoidentifyego-futurismwithSeveryanin,whichisanexcellent example of a dangerous half-truth. It istrue that Severyanin continued to influencethe workof someego-futuristsand ofthe poetswho were closetothem(Shirokov,Shershenevich),but thisproblemstillneed!< investigation:oftenwhatseemsapersonalinfluence,is,atleastin part,amanneracceptedbythegroupasawhole.Moreover,such active poets of ego-futurism aslgnatyev and Gnedov did not make any use at allof what isconsideredthe Severyaninmanner. Itisdifficulttosumupego-futurism.Certainthingscannotbe elucidatedpartlybecause,incontradistinctiontotheHylaeagroup, thereisalackofmemoirsaboutthemovement.Besides,itsmain components-the urbanisttheme,thephilosophyofextremeindivid-ualism,andpoeticexperiment-donoteasilyadduptoawhole.As earlyas1912ValeryBryusovwrotethattheego-futuristswantedto giveexpressiontothesoulof contemporaryman,whowasabig-city dweller.UItiswellknownthatBryusovhimselfwasprobablythe firstrealurbanist in Russianpoetryandthat hetookthisthemefrom Verhaeren.AlexanderBlokmadeuseofthistheme,too,following Bryusov.IntheworkoftheHylaeanpoets,thecitythemewasnot 88 EGO-FUTURISM dominant(thoughonecandiscoveriteveninKhlebnikov ).Only Gurodevelopedit extensively,andlater,Mayakovskymadefulluse ofit.Withtheego-futurists,urbanismimmediatelytookonasalon coloring:theywroteaboutthe c).tyofdrawingrooms,ratherthanof streets.Forthisreason,theywerefondoftheFrenchlanguage,in contrastwiththeHylaearis whowenttothesourcesoftheRussian language.And it wasnot original,formuchofthisatmospherecame fromthepoetryofKuzmin,whowasforsometimeconsideredthe leader of the Russian aesthetes.lgnatyev wasnever capable of creating any kind of theoretical foundation forthis urbanism.In hisEgo-Futur-ism he became entangled in contradictions,assertingin one placethat contemporaneousnesswasoneofego-futurism'svirtues,and,inan-other place, that the city was important for the movement not because it wascontemporaryand modern,but becauseit wasindependentof nature(thus,unwittingly,disqualifyingsuchpoetsasKryuchkov ). lgnatyev obviouslyforgotherethat onlyafewmonthsearlierhe had complainedthat modern civilizationtookmanawayfromnature,and thereforeawayfromGod.Devoidofanaestheticfoundation,ego-futuristurbanismbecameamannerism. UnliketheHylaeans,ego-futuristsattachedmuchimportanceto metaphysicalquestions,andthefirstpartoftheirnameforcedthem todoso.Forthem,their movement could bedescribedasdiscovering andrevealingoneselfbycreatingpoetry,andthusitwaseasyfor Severyanin to vulgarize it by finally declaring that,since he had estab-lished his poetic reputation and thus affirmed-hisego,he didnot need themovementanyfurther.Allothermanifestations,includingthe ego-futurists'grandiloquent pronouncementsaboutGod,ego,andthe universe,werenothingmorethanexternaltrappingsdedicatedtoa childishdesiretobemore"profound"thanthesymbolistsandtoa-naive beliefthat onecouldbuild aphilosophicalsystem afterreading a few popularizing books.Anyone who looks into Opyt {tloso{tirusskoi literatury("Essay in a Philosophy ofRussianLiterature")by Andree-vich(Evgeny Solovyev)willfindthat lgnatyev tookmostof his ideas fromthisauthor.Extremeeclecticismandatendencytobroaden everything extensively resulted in the creationof soflexibleafounda-tionthatanyonecouldenterthemovementandconsiderhimselfa futurist.Severalcritics(Chukovsky and Shershenevich,forexample) notedthatGnedovshouldhavebeenaHylaean,ratherthananego-89 EGO-FUTURISM futurist,andoneofthem(Tasteven)actuallyconsideredhima Hylaean.42 On theotherhand,onecouldimagineLivshitsasanego-futurist,and he wouldhavemadea much better leaderofthe move-ment than either Severyaninor Ignatyev;however,Livshitshad little patience with ego-futurist philosophy:" ... theirtheoriesmake little sense. Try asone may,onecannot findinthemasingleclear,devel-opedidea."He sawinthese"helplessnessandamechanical combinationofhaphazardlycollectedideas[ideiki]or,perhaps, merelyfashionablewords....Evenwiththeutmostattention,"he continued,"onecannotunderstandwhatitisthattheywant,after all,andwithwhomandinthenameofwhattheywanttd ISryme,e pronouncecaueurasIItwerecaumre,an evenformednewRussianwordsinthismanner(grezerfromgreza, 93 EGO-FUTURISM "adream"). Thispracticemadeonejournalistsaymockingly .thathe didnot understandSeveryanin'spoetrybecauseit waswritteninRu-manian.48It iswhenSeveryanin isinebriatedwithforeignwordsand namesthathesometimesbetrayshislackofeducation,forexample, by makingGreek hetaeraslookfromthe logesoftheparterre.He in-ventsthestrangekoktebli(anunconsciouscontaminationof"cock-tail"withKoktebel,a placein Crimea),whichseemtobe somekind ofsongs.ButhealsocanmakealineofRussianverseburstwith barbarismsandstillbepoeticallyconvincing,asin"Garson,s'impro-viziruiblestyashchiifaiv-o-klok"("Garc;on,improviseabrilliantfive-o'clock [tea]"). Historically, Severyanin's short alliance with the ego-futurists' "worst enemies" should be noted. Kulbin persuaded the Hylaeans to enter into thisalliance,and soonMayakovsky had tocompetewithSeveryanin' s successwiththewomenpresent attheirjoint publicpoetryreadings. Atthebeginningof1914SeveryanintouredtheCrimeawithDavid BurliukandMayakovskyinpoetryrecitalsorganizedbyhisadmi!er andimitator,VadimBayan(Sidorov ), wholivedinSimferopol.Be-forethethird recital,Severyanin quarreledwithMayakovskybecause of money and refused to continue the tour; in Odessa he gavean inter-viewinwhichhedeclaredthattherewerenopointsincommonbe-tween ego-futurism and the cuba-futurists(asthe Hylaeans had come to be called by that time). After that he wrote two anti-Hylaean poems, oneofwhich("Poezaistrebleniya"["PoesaofDestruction"])was especiallyviolentinitsattack.InithecondemnedtheHylaeansfor mockingallthatwassacred,calledthempseudoinnovators,andsaid that, instead of throwing Lermontov(sic)overboardfromthe ship- of modernity, one should exile the Burliuks tothe island of Sakhalin, 'the penal colony of the czarist government.Later,when livingabroad,he published (in Menestrel,Berlin,1921) "Poema dopolneniya"("Poem ofAmplification"),inwhichheaccusedBurliukandhisfriendsof contributing to the Russian Revolution.Later, however,in Bellsof the CathedralofFeelingshedescribedtheCrimeantourwithmildand, good-naturedamusement.Severyanin'sshort-livedalliancewiththe Hylaeansalsofoundexpressioninhiscontributingonepoemtotheir MilkofMaresandthreetoRoaringParnassus;inthelatterhealso signed .a manifesto (see chap. 4). Despite this break with the Hylaeans, Severyanin continued to be on good terms with Vasily Kamensky. ' 94 EGO-FUTURISM No other book by Severyanin ever equaled the success of his Goblet. Slowly, his audience dwindled,perhaps disappointed in the poet'sfail-ure togrow and change poetically.Allthe restofhisprerevolutionary bookswererepetitionsqfthefirst.YetZlatolira("Goldilyre,"1914) wentthroughfiveeditions,eventhoughIgnatyevsarcasticallyre-marked:'We are afraid that Severyanin's goblet has been emptied." 49 EvenlessinterestingwasAnanasyvshampanskom("Pineapplesin Champagne," 1915), which, moreover,included much of Severyanin's earlypoetry,goingbackasfaras1903.Victoriaregia,publishedin thesameyear,showedat leastsomevariety,becauseitcontainedhis poetryconnectedwiththewar.Hisanti-Germanpoemswerecrude, butthecontroversialpoemsinwhichhedefendedhimselfagainst accusationsof leadinga safe lifefarfromthefrontlineswerenotde-void of interest. His worst book of all wasPoesoentracte(1915), which ofnothingbutearlier,immaturepoemsthatcouldfindno place in Pineapples in Champagne. These poems reveal, however, how closeSeveryaninwastotheRussianpoetryofthesecondhalfofthe nineteenthcentury.Inadditiontotheseotherworks,therewas,in 1916,thedullYostbezotvetnyi("AToastwithoutResponse"). Severyaninalsoparticipatedinjointpublicationswithlittle-known poetslikeMassainov,Tolmachev,andA.Vinogradov(Ostrova ocharovanii["Islands of Enchantment"],1917;Mimozylna["Mimosa ofFlax"],1916;Vintik["LittleScrew"],1915). Interest in Severyanin continued,however,judging bythe publica-tionin1916ofa book,KritikaotvorchestveSeveryanina("Criticism ofSeveryanin'sWork").The bookopenswithautobiographicaldata; thenBryusov,in anessay,repeatsthat Severyaninisatruepoet,but adds a chapter about his shortcomings,such aslack of tasteand educa-tion and an inability tothink.Next, Sergei Bobrov supplies a thorough surveyofthecriticismofSeveryanin'swork,followedbynumerous examples.AnarticlebyProfessorRomanBrandtaboutSeveryanin's poetic language closes the book. In1919. SeveryaninemigratedtoEstonia,wherehewasheldin esteembyEstonianpoets(hepublishedseveralbooksoftranslations from Estonian).50 In addition to two books of selections from previously published poetry,51 he published twelvebooksof poems,52 and several moreremainedinmanuscriptform.Severyaninoftentraveledand read his poetry wherever he could findRussiansin Europetolistento 95 EGO-FUTURISM it,but lackofthekindofappreciationhewasaccustomedtoduring the timeof hisfamemade him bitter,and heaccusedhiscompatriots in some of his verseof inability tounderstand finethings.Most ofhis poetrypublishedabroadischaracterizedbyfamiliarSeveryaninisms andbyaconstant deteriorationinquality-and the poethadthede-plorable habit of publishing even hi'smost atrocious lines. Toward the end, however,he almost got rid of hisneologisticand barbaristic man-nerisms,andbegantowriteinatraditional,neoclassicalvein.Some of his best emigre poetry waswritten inthis manner,and most of this best can be found in Klassicheskierozy("Classical Roses"),published in1931inBelgrade.PerhapsSeveryanin'smostinterestingbookof this time was Medalyony("Medallions";1934), consistingofnearlya sonnetsabout,oraddressing,avarietyoffamouspersons fromBeethoventoJules Verne and fromPasternak tohimself.When the SovietsoccupiedEstonia in1940,Severyanin beganto ,publishin Sovietmagazines.HewasaskedtowriteapoemaboutStalin,but claimed he was ill. When the Germans started their war against Russia, Severyanin was desperate and telegraphed the Soviet government about evacuation.He died on December 20,1941,during the German occu-pation.53 It is possible to speak of a third period in the history of ego-futurism, aperiodconnectedwiththeEnchantedWanderer,amagazinefirst published whileIgnatyev wasstill alive,in thefallof1913.Begunas a monthly, it soon became a quarterly. The last issue (no. 10) appeared at the beginning of 1916. Starting with number 5,the magazine to designate itself officially on its cover asego-futurist. The importance of the Wanderer liesin itsstressingthatego-futurism was a contmuat:Ionofthe decadent movementstartedatthebeginningof the century and in its crusading fora return to the ideals of that move-ment.TheeditorofthisperiodicalwasVictorRomanovichKhovin, whooncefor_SkyDiggers.Thefirstissue hadthesubtitle,Kntik-mtmt(Critic-Intuitionist")andcontained onlycriticalessaysandreviews,but Khovinbegantoprintpoetryin thesecondissue,andchangedthesubtitleto"AnAlmanacofIntu-itivistCriticismandPoetry."Despite hisverboseand sometimesman-nered style,Khovinwasan able and seriouscritic who wasconvinced that,after the initial floweringof Russiandecadent poetry,there came a period of stagnation and popularization, and he made a futile attempt -96 EGO-FUTURISM torefreshthe atmosphere,while fightingthe symbolists,the Marxists, andthe"NewChristianity"ofMerezhkovsky. The other leadingfigureassociatedwiththeEnchanted Wanderer was the former Areopagite of ego-futurism, Dimitri Kryuchkov, who, in additiontopoetry,published criticism,oftenunderthe pseudonymof Keleinik. Among his articles, one should note the one about Innokenty Annensky asa critic,that about Francis Jammes,and Kryuchkov'sat-tackonMaximGorkyinthemagazine'sfirstissueafterGorkyhad made his assault on the production of the stage adaptation of Dostoyev-sky'sThe PossessedintheMoscowArtTheater.Kryuchkovdeclared Gorky'scriticismamountedto"anopenwaragainstartandreligion" andsaidthat"thesouloftheRussianpeoplewasaclosedbook"to Gorky. In 1915 Khovin and Kryuchkov were joined by the young critic BorisGusman.AnastasiyaChebotarevskaya,Sologub'swife,wasalso associated with the magazine. The cornerstone of the magazine's program was a return to the ideals of Russiandecadence,whichincluded pure art,unlimitedfreedomof creation,andspiritualsearch.Extremeindividualismandseparation fromtheworldwereconsideredthebasicprerequisitesoftruedeca-dence.Thus,onthepagesoftheEnchantedWanderer,onecould come across not only Fyodor Sologub,but alsoZinaidaHippius-both leadingfiguresoftheso-calledearlyRussiandecadentmovement.54 FofanovwasforVictorKhovinalsoadecadent."Decadenceisa golden gate leading into the mysterious world of the poet's free wander-ingsontheexhausting,butjoyful,waysofrealizingone'screative self,"wroteKhovin(EnchantedWanderer,no.1).Theidealdeca-dent forhimwasOscar Wilde,whowashonoredintwoarticles(in nos.1 and 9) and whom he considered tobe "a genius of intuitivism." Oscar Wilde,incidentally,wasdeemedtobea criticofgenius,rather thanapoet(evenThePictureofDorianGraywascalledacritical work). The quotationfromWilde about lieforlie'ssake,whosehigh-est formisart, adorned every issue of the magazine asa motto.Earlier decadentidealswere,toKhovin'smind,betrayedbyBalmont'sand Bryusov'shavingturned"academic,"byMerezhkovsky'sembracing thepublic(obshchestvennost)onhiswaytotheNewChristianity, andthesymbolists'comingdangerouslyclosetoactualityanddog-matism. ThoughtheEnchantedWandererconsideredRussiansymbolism 91 EGO-FUTURISM themostimportantmovementofmoderntimes,therecentdevelop-mentsinit,undertheleadershipofVyacheslavIvanovandAndrei Biely,were,forKhovin,anabandonmentofthatmostsacredthing, theintuition,andasubmissiontorationalityandschematism.He asked,inthethirdissue:"Havewegonethroughthetemptationsof decadenceinvain,inordernow,fromstormy,violet-coloredworlds and fromtheinner worldof arestlessindividuality,tocomeagainto aschool-likedogma?"TheonlysolutionforKhovinwasareturnto thespiritualundergroundinordertopurifytheidealsofdecadence. Such an underground was ego-futurism. ThoughKhovinhadlittleuseforGnedov'sverbalexperimentsor theshockingtitlesof someof the ego-futuristalmanacs,he welcomed eventhisasawaytodisturbthestagnantswampofcontemporary literature."Ego-futurismaloneisloyaltoRussiandecadenceinits faithfulnessto art and tocreative freedom,"wroteKhovininthethird issueoftheEnchantedWanderer.Thatsameissuecarriedawhole pagedevotedtomourningIgnatyev'sdeath.Khovin'sattitudetoward themembersofShershenevich'sfuturistgroupinMoscow,which called itself Mezoninpoezii("The MezzanineofPoetry"),wasfavor-able, though he deplored their lack of spirituality and called them "Hip-pant clownsof modernity with atragic twisttotheir lips"(Enchanted Wanderer,no.2).Khovinwas,however,againsttheHylaeans, thoughhehadahighopinionofMayakovskyasapoet.Tliey were,forhim,"insolent Muscovites,"whowerenot onlypreoccupied with loud eccen.tricities,but were alsotootheoretical.Khovinaccepted the"vandalistic"characterofcontemporaryfuturismonlywithdiffi-culty,but he dreamedofthecomingfuturism,whichwould' becon-structive,andhedividedthefuturistsintothefalse9nes,whowere toobusy destroyingthe past,and the genuine ones,whowereaccept-ing"themarvelousfuture."Thetaskofthedayforhimwasnot creating schoolsandtheories,but being inoppositiontotheprevalent literature.Forhim,Marinettiwasarealfuturistandrebel,whe'reas theRussianfuturistsweretoofondof applauseandpreferredteasing to a real war. KhbvinorganizedtheEnchanted Wandererpublicdiscussionsand even thought of opening hisown literary cabaret.In the magazine,he triedtoproducethe impressionof a movementratherthanofasmall sectariangroup.ThepoeticstarswereKryuchkovandSeveryanin. 98 EGO-FUTURISM Kryuchkovcontinuedtopubli?hhissmooth,buthardlyoriginal, poetry,in which one can findechoesof allprevioustwentieth-century poetryfromBalmonttoSeveryanin.Interestingishis. poemtoT re-diakovsky(EnchantedWanderer,no.4),thepoetoftheeighteenth century,inwhichKryuchkovrefusestoconsideraspoetsthosewho mock Trediakovsky./ In hiscriticalessays,,.KryuchkovpraisedSeveryanin,whosecareer, "changeableascitynoise,is,likeademimondaine'swhims,... in-toxicatedbytheliqueurofmodernity"(no.1).Beginningwiththe second issue, Severyanin's poetry was printed in the magazine regularly almost to the very end.From Moscow,Ivnev and the ubiquitousSher-shenevichsenttheir verses;but the mostarrestingfactwastheprint-ingof worksbyKhlebnikov,Kamensky,andGuro,whichwas. nota maneuvertosplit the Hylaeans,but rather anothereffortonthepart ofKhovintobroadenhisconceptoffuturism.Moreover,Khlebnikov andKamenskybecamecontributorsin1915,bywhichtimetheir Moscow group had practically ceasedtoexist.Kamensky washonored withacriticalessaywrittenbyBorisGusman,inwhichthe"wise nai:veteof his soul" waspraised(no. 8). Nikolai Evreinov,the famous theatrical figureofthe period,wasoften givenopportunitytocriticize thecommercialtheaterandtopropagandizehis"theaterforoneself" inthe Enchanted Wanderer.One canfindon .its pagesthenamesof suchlittle-knownpoetsasMikhailStruve,MikhailKozyrev,Alex-anderTolmachev,andAlexeiMassainov,aswellasthoseofseveral woman poets (Princess Shakhnazarova, V. Solntseva, Vera Werther55), among whom the most talented was Ada Vladimirova,56 the poetessof the Guro school. Khovintriedtoestablish"intuitivistcriticism,"whichwastobe irrationalist, nonpopularizing,andalientosystemsand blueprints. For him this wasa return tothe "idle dreams"of the decadents.But it was alsoareturntotheimpressionismofearlyfuturism.Thatiswhy Innokenty Annensky, one of the most impressionistic of Russian critics, wassomuchpraisedonthepagesofthemagazine("Annenskydoes not analyze,he doesnot evaluate,hegiveshimselftothework,"En-chanted Wanderer,no.3). For Khovin,a critic"depictshisownself" inhiscriticism,andhisenemieswerethehistoryofliteratureand scholarlycriticism.Intheworksdiscussed,changeabilityandatwo-facedqualitywereparticularlyappreciatedassignsofindividualism 99 EGO-FUTURISM (forexample,hedonismandapologiaofsufferinginOscarWilde). For this reason,Kamensky and Guro,the most impressionisticofRus-sianfuturists,werereadilyaccepted by Khovin.There wasa genuine cult ofGuro,whowasextolledasanidealpoetintwoissuesofthe Enchanted Wanderer (nos. 5 and 10). Toward the endKho