Gumilev and Blok
They are people of different poetic generations. Block – a symbolist, Gumilev – the enemy of symbolism. For Blok, his poetry is a spiritual feat, inseparable from his life, for Gumilev – a form of literary activity. Blok is always a poet, Gumilev – only when he wrote poetry. Gumilev had an excellent literary taste, there was something childish in his shorn head, in his bearing, rather gymnastic. Block considered his word about Pushkin as the last. He bequeathed to society and Russian literature to preserve Pushkin’s heritage – freedom. Gumilev was well versed in poetry and appreciated Blok, his “hidden drive” and spiritual and spiritual meaning were like Gumilev alien. The block in Gumilev was touched by “emptyness, uselessness, appearance.” Acmeism seemed to Blok the decomposition of “bryusovism.” After all, Gumilyov’s influence on literary youth grew and Blok considered this influence to be pernicious. Soon enmity broke out. “The shop of poets” – originally was literally non-party. But the Acmeists took possession of it, when the acmeism ended, “The Workshop” stalled. In 1921 Gumilev wants to resurrect him. From Mandelshtam’s words, I realized that the “re-election” was arranged by some members of the “Tscheh” who wanted to embark on the path of commerce, Blok did
Moscow Literary and Art Circle
The first Tuesday is devoted to Fet’s poetry, the report was read by Bryusov. A lively part of the evening passed in the dining room. In the circle there were fights of young literature with the old. There was at the library a library with a reading room, where there were many valuable publications. Bryusov wanted to publish an “Izvestia” mug.
In 1918 I lectured on Pushkin to a student’s colorful audience. I can attest to a number of excellent qualities of the Russian working class – a genuine desire for knowledge and intellectual honesty. We began to get in the way. At Proletukly they wanted to publish the magazine “Mountains” under the editorship of students.
He was at the lecture of Anenna, where the lecturer gave a brief overview of Russian symbolism. All that was said was historically true, but the lecturer knew the symbolism from books, the symbolism was not studied and not read. The one who breathed the air of symbolism, is already already marked with something. Too much was consciously built on the roll of emotions, thoughts, themes. The writing was always or was a real life event for the Symbolists. The writer does not alienate himself from the person, part of the creative energy and part of the inner experience was embodied in the work, and some disfigured, flowed into life, just as electricity leaks out with poor insulation. This is the incompleteness of symbolism, for a symbolist a writer and a person are a circle and a polygon, simultaneously described and inscribed into each other.