Abstract
The article provides a linguophilosophical analysis of theoretical approaches to the symbolism of Vyacheslav Ivanov and Andrei Bely using the predicative concept of Lyudmila Gogotishvili.
It is shown that the consideration of the category of symbol in the dimensions of the unmanifest and the manifest makes it possible to expand the problematics of symbolism into phenomenological and linguophilosophical perspectives. In this case, symbolization turns out to be associated with reference, determined by the specifics of the “participation” in it of the linguistic subject and predicate and the status of the referent as a phenomenon of consciousness.
The antinomy of the unmanifest and the manifest presupposes in symbolic reference the allocation of a special extra-linguistic category of the most real, which is fundamentally outside the field of natural language and is energetically associated with it through verbal myth. It is shown that the ratio of myth, name and the most real in the reference allows using Gogotishvili’s predicative concept to evaluate the linguophilosophical features of this or that approach to the symbol. It is concluded that the symbolism of Vyacheslav Ivanov presupposes the prevailing role of the predicate in the reference to the unmanifest most real and can be designated as mythological, while the symbolism of Andrei Bely presupposes the prevailing role of the subject in the reference to the real, manifested in language, and can be designated as metaphorical.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
There is no direct historical influence of the theology of Gregory Palamas on Wilhelm von Humboldt’s theory of language; however, it seems possible to detect an indirect influence through the Aristotelian basis; for more details on the influence of the ancient-medieval metaphysics of energies on Humboldtianism, see (Voss 1974).
This gave rise to many theoretical constructions, among which the concept of the language of Alexei Losev (Losev 2016, p. 114) should be highlighted, including its supersensible eidetic dimension and, as a consequence, the possibility of some supersensible language (cf. religious and philosophical concepts of an ideal language, “Adam’s” language, etc.).
This conceptualization of the implicit is an alternative to the linguo-philosophical descriptivism of Bertrand Russell and his followers, which is distinctive for Russian thought, distinguished by explicit platonic connotations; in the same sense, Lyudmila Gogotishvili opposes the linguophilosophy of Russian symbolism to the linguophilosophy of structuralism (Gogotishvili 2004, p. 149).
The need for a conceptual reception of Russian symbolism is substantiated in the corresponding work by Lyudmila Gogotishvili: (Gogotishvili 2004).
Yuri Stepanov notes that the early twentieth century was for European linguophilosophy a time of detailed development of the “philosophy of the predicate” (Stepanov 1985, p. 129).
The subject and the predicate are interconnected syntactically and do not have any other analytical connection (Gogotishvili 2004, p. 162).
Lyudmila Gogotishvili asserts the fundamental importance of this category for a number of Symbolists (Bely, Ivanov, Bulgakov, Florensky, Losev) (Gogotishvili 2004, p. 148, p. 153); at the same time, Gogotishvili insists in principle on the use of the term “myth” not in a religious sense, but in a philosophical-categorical one (Gogotishvili 2004, p. 150).
The use of the concept of non-conventionality, according to Gogotishvili, is a distinctive feature of Russian symbolism as a philosophy of language (Gogotishvili 2004, p. 173).
According to Gogotishvili, this feature was a common place for symbolism and name-glory (Gogotishvili 2004, p. 164), which justifies the stylistic nature of their creative approach: “Dialectics, rhetoric, symbolic poetic discourse, rhythmic form of connection of meanings, intonation form, dialogism were considered as specific variants of internally natural eidetic syntax in name-glory and symbolism” (Gogotishvili 2004, p. 162).
Lyudmila Gogotishvili affirms communicativeness as a general attitude of symbolism and name-glory (Gogotishvili 2004, p. 164).
The verb, in this case, emphasizes the operational nature of the reference.
Such a two-stage predication scheme for Ivanov serves as an expression of the artist’s work, who through the first “how” sees the world, and through the second “how” expresses it in the work (Ivanov 1979a, p. 675).
The problem of the relationship between myth and language (the question of the primacy and inclusion of one in the other) was perceived by the thinkers of the Silver Age from German philosophy (Gogotishvili 2004, p. 155), but the young symbolists were resolved in the direction of recognizing the verbal nature of myth.
At the same time, due to the synthetic nature of the mythological judgment, when expressing, there is a necessary expansion of the field of its verbal meanings, conventionally constructed depending on the context of the judgment.
For example, “the sun is born” / “the sun is dying” / “god – enters a person” / “soul – flies out of the body” (Ivanov 1987a, p. 437). It is important to note that a myth secondary to the archetypal primordial myth realizes reference through multilevel predication of various semantic layers of the language (Gogotishvili 2006a, p. 60).
It is interesting that within the framework of the theory of language of Alexei Losev of the period of “Philosophy of the Name”, such an experience was associated with the concept of intelligent ecstasy, which is also above the dialectical unity of opposites (Losev 2016, p. 176).
On the influence of Humboldtianism on the concept of the symbol of Andrei Bely in the perspective of the energy / ergon ratio: (Goering 1989, p. 84).
The analytical / synthetic opposition in this case contains a reference to the opposition of the analytical and synthetic reasoning of Immanuel Kant; the analytical symbol of Bely is a complete semantic structure; Ivanov’s synthetic symbol represents a semantic structure that expands and changes its own meaning through the expression of the most real in myth; emphasizing the originality of the linguo-philosophical solutions of domestic symbolists, Gogotishvili notes: “in Russian symbolism, a new (conditionally: “predicative-ambivalent”) version of the solution to the problem of synthetic statements and a new version of the linguistic solution of the Kantian problem of antinomy was proposed” (Gogotishvili 2004, p. 173).
Dina Magomedova even tends to compare the approach to the Bely symbol with positivist language theories (Magomedova 2017, p. 160).
Cf. “Either there is no truth, or truth is a gesture of meanings” (Bely 1991, p. 24).
Thus, Sergei Zenkin derives the energetism of Russian formalism from the concept of “dynamic form” (Zenkin 2017, p. 56), associated with “doing” (∼ energy), opposed to “done” (∼ ergon) and perceived by formalism through Alexander Potebnya’s reception of this Humboldtian opposition. The principle of operational (energetic) becoming in this case also turns out to be associated with the “metaphorical” reference of one manifest form (ergon) to another, one “what” to another (while the “energetic” reference itself (the very “how”) turns out in no way undetected).
At the same time, it turns out to be possible to fix the “secularization” of linguophilosophy in this indirect continuity.
References
Bely, A. 1991. On the meaning of cognition. Minsk: Full Cycle Printing House “Polifact”, 64 p.
Bely, A. 1994a. Why I became a symbolist in A. Bely. In Symbolism as a worldview, 418–496. Moscow: Republic.
Bely, A. 2010a. The magic of words in A. Bely. In Collected works. Symbolism. Book of articles, 316–328. Moscow: Cultural revolution; Republic.
Bely, A. 2010c. Symbolism and contemporary Russian art in A. Bely. In Collected works. Symbolism. Book of articles, 389–399. Moscow: Cultural revolution; Republic.
Bely, A. 2012b. Symbolism as a worldview in A. Bely. In Collected works. Arabesque. The green meadow. Book of articles, 169–184. Moscow: Republic; Dmitry Sechin.
Bely, A. 2019. Andrey Bely to P. A. Florensky (12.08.1904. Silver Well). In Seeking Hail. Chronicle of Russian literary, religious-philosophical and socio-political movements in private letters and diaries of their participants, 1829–1923. Anthology. Book two: 1901–1904, 498–500. Moscow: Republic; Modest Kolerov, 608 p.
Bibikhin, V. V. 2008. The internal form of the word. Saint Petersburg: Nauka, 420 p.
Biryukov, D. S. 2018. Research on the reception of palamism in Russian thought at the beginning of the 20th century: the question of the philosophical status of palamism and barlaamism, its solutions and context. In Vestnik of VolSU, Vol. 4, of History. Regional studies. International relationships. 23.5, 34–47.
Biryukov, D. S. 2020. “Synergetic revelation of reality”: observations on the background, sources and content of the concepts “symbol”, “synergy”, “energy” by P. A. Florensky in the context of the reception of palamism in Russian thought at the beginning of the 20th century. In Problems of philosophy, 103–115.
Fedotova, S. V. 2019. Linguophilosophical innovations of Russian symbolism in the interpretation of L. A. Gogotishvili (Viach. Ivanov and A. F. Losev). Studia Litterarum 4(2): 252–273.
Goering, L. L. 1989. Andrei Bely and the Humboldtian tradition of language philosophy. A Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Cornell University, 258 p.
Gogotishvili, L. A. 1997. The linguistic aspect of the three versions of the name-glory in A. F. Losev. In Name, 580–614. Saint Petersburg: Aleteya, 617 p.
Gogotishvili, L. A. 1999. Losev’s concept of predicativity in A. F. Losev. In Personality and the absolute, 684–701. Moscow: Mysl’,
Gogotishvili, L. A. 2004. Reception of symbolism in the humanities (linguistic and philosophical aspect). In Literary criticism as literature. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures, 148–175. Moscow: Progress-Tradition.
Gogotishvili, L. A. 2006a. Between the name and the predicate (symbolism of Vyach. Ivanov against the background of name-glory) in L. A. Gogotishvili. In Indirect speaking, 139–220. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures.
Gogotishvili, L. A. 2006b. Antinomic principle in the poetry of Viach. Ivanov in L. A. Gogotishvili. In Indirect speaking, 104–138. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures.
Gogotishvili, L. A. 2006d. Indirect speaking. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures, 720 p.
Gogotishvili, L. A. 2021b. Shpet and Humboldt: phenomenological variations on the theme of linguistic universalism and relativity in L. A. Gogotishvi. In Jacob’s Ladder: architectonics of linguophilosophical space, 490–501. Moscow: Publishing House Languages of Slavic Culture.
Hansen-Loewe, O. A. 2001. Russian formalism. Methodological reconstruction based on the principle of defamiliarisation. Moscow: Publishing House Languages of Slavic Culture, 672 p.
Ivanov, Viach. I. 1974a. Two elements in modern symbolism in Viach. I. Ivanov. In Collected works, Vol. 2, 536–561. Brussels: Foyer Oriental Chretien.
Ivanov, Viach. I. 1974b. Testaments of symbolism in Viach. I. Ivanov. In Collected works, Vol. 2, 588–603. Brussels: Foyer Oriental Chretien.
Ivanov, Viach. I. 1979a. Form and form created in Viach. I. Ivanov. In Collected works, Vol. 3, 675–686. Brussels: Foyer Oriental Chretien.
Ivanov, Viach. I. 1987a. Excursion: the main myth in the novel “Demons” in Viach. I. Ivanov. In Collected works, Vol. 4, 437–444. Brussels: Foyer Oriental Chretien.
Ivanov, Viach. I. 1994. Dionysus and pradionisism. Saint Petersburg: Aleteya, 344 p.
Ivanov, Viach. I. 2016. B. N. Bugaev and “Realiora”. In V. I. Ivanov: pro et contra, anthology, Vol. 1, 155–159. Saint Petersburg: RKhGA.
Khoruzhy, S. S. 1995. Hesikhasm as a space of philosophy. Philosophy Questions 9: 80–94.
Losev, A. F. 2016. Philosophy of name. Saint Petersburg: Publishing House of Oleg Abyshko (Philosophical and theological works), 672 p.
Magomedova, D. M. 2017. The theory of symbol in the works of V. M. Zhirmunsky: between Andrey Bely and Vyach. Ivanov. In The era of “defamiliarisation”. Russian formalism and modern humanitarian knowledge, 155–161. Moscow: NLO, 672 p.
Melnikova, I. V. 2006. The nature of the symbol in the mode of essential-energy unity: dis. … Cand. Philos. Sciences: 09. 00. 01. Omsk, 151 p.
Stepanov, Yu. S. 1985. In the three-dimensional space of language (Semiotic problems of linguistics, philosophy and art). Moscow: Nauka, 335 p.
Voss, J. 1974. Aristote et la théorie énergétique du langage de Wilhelm von Humboldt. Revue philosophique de Louvain, Quatrième Série 72(15): 482–508.
Zenkin, S. N. 2017. Energy intuitions of Russian formalism. In The era of “defamiliarisation”. Russian formalism and modern humanitarian knowledge, 71–84. Moscow: NLO, 672 p.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The research was carried out with the support of the Russian Science Foundation, project No. 18-18-00134, “The legacy of Byzantine philosophy in Russian and Western European philosophy of the XX–XXI centuries”.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gravin, A. Lyudmila Gogotishvili’s predicative concept and Russian young symbolism. Stud East Eur Thought 75, 543–555 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-022-09468-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-022-09468-z