Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 2020.

№ 63

UDC 821.161.1
DOI: 10.17223/19986645/63/15

Seung Moo Paik

VALERY BRYUSOV’S THE EARTH AS AN EXPERIMENT

OF SCIENTIFIC POETRY

This paper describes that Bryusov’s The Earth is a representative work of scien-
tific poetry, and as such, any analysis or interpretation of this work must also adhere
to the rules of scientific poetry. Bryusov believed that only the interaction of art and
science is capable of manifesting modern culture, and the true function of art, the ex-
pansion of cognition, is achieved through scientific poetry; in other words, the con-
vergence of these two fields forms an analogical relationship. The paper argues that
The Earth develops a new cognitive methodology of scientific poetry that, while based
on realistic concepts, also maintains an alternative perspective from reality.
Keywords: scientific poetry, science fiction, symbolism, tragedy, eschatology,
trans-boundary aesthetics.

Humans must leave Earth

in the next 200 years
if we want to survive
Stephen Hawking

1. Introduction

Valery Yakovlevich Bryusov (Валерий Яковлевич Брюсов) was one of the

first theorists of symbolism and the first writers to craft works of symbolism in
Russian literary history. Not only are his achievements far-reaching as a poet,
playwright, novelist, literary theorist, publisher, translator, critic, and arguably
other professions, but the general perceptions and evaluations of him are perhaps
even more diverse. Despite laying the theoretical foundations for symbolism,
Bryusov was careful not to fall into the trappings of dogma and mysticism, and
while he did pave the way for the development of future symbolism, he chose
not to walk the very path he established. The writer’s conviction to avoid the
trappings of symbolism alienated him, making him the subject of criticism from
both schools of thought, that is, symbolists and critics of symbolism [1. P. 18];
however, Bryusov never balked or withdrew from his artistic ideology. For ex-
ample, consider his declaration regarding his writing style: “I have never fa-
vored symbolism and I do not believe symbolism is the ‘poetics of the future’ as
some fanatics say. My belief is that the poetics of symbolism bears a unique
meaning regarding existence” [2. P. 29].
Bryusov opposed symbolistic excess as he believed it corrodes life and art,
by opposing other symbolists who attempted to signify art as religious mysti-
 Valery Bryusov’s The Earth as an Experiment? 265

cism or to erase any trace of reality by over-saturating life with art. By embra-
cing the mantra “symbolism longed to be art and was always art” [2. P. 200] as
his creed, he attempted to limit the scope of symbolism to only the domain of
art. As his confession makes clear, “Although I am a symbolist, unfortunately, I
am not a real symbolist” [1. P. 18]. Bryusov, stood on the border that divides
symbolism, differing slightly with the tendencies of symbolism, yet, on the other
hand, he crossed many other boundaries to integrate all characteristics of sym-
bolism into his work.
Bryusov’s career as a playwright makes his tendency to embrace symbolist
views clear. The Earth (Земля, 1904) plainly shows the writer to be a man
standing on the border of symbolism, which is obvious from the fact that the
work is a science fiction play based on both scientific knowledge and the power
of prediction. The Earth is rich with controversial and experimental ambivalence
crossing the boundaries of symbolism, which emerge in opposition to scientific
positivism combined with scientific imagination, confrontation between symbol-
ists and humanists, and a subtle mix of hope and despair.
The purposefully ambivalent nature of the play has left the scholarship of the
work divided in opinion. Of The Earth’s finale Brodskaya said, “the death of the
liberator is a reference to a praiseworthy and longed for moment for symbolists,
namely a moment of sublime happiness on the eve of global integration and de-
struction” [3. P. 39], and the finale emphasizes the symbolistic nature of the play.
However, as the current work will show, it may be too much to say that The Earth
represents symbolistic eschatology. In opposition to Brodskaya, Strashkova claims
The Earth expresses “the hope that the Earth will achieve a new height of civiliza-
tion” [4. P. 14]. Such an optimistic conclusion is also doubtful. Gerasimov, who
best captures the true essence of the playwright’s work, mentions the science fic-
tion aspects of The Earth in his paper, “Bryusov’s Science Fiction”, but even here
does not fully identify the core principles of the play, such as the characters’ per-
sonalities and the conflict structure. In addition to an analysis of The Earth’s char-
acters and genre, the current work argues that Bryusov’s boundary crossing aes-
thetics defines his creative principles, which the writer realized as his own novel
creation, namely, scientific poetry (Научная поэзия).

2. Triangle of Contradiction: Nevatl’, Teopikski, and Teotl’

The play is set in an underground city many centuries in the future, where the
human race has created a subterranean artificial environment due to an oxygen
depletion of unknown origins. Additionally, a water shortage occurs as a vast
reservoir supplying water begins to run dry, and the play opens with this back-
ground of humanity plunging towards their own destruction.
The human race, taking refuge underground, possesses advanced technical
skills, and, although they capable of exception scientific feats, such as artificial
oxygen production through chemical engineering, sophisticated architecture in
the form of multi-storied underground living areas, and mechanical engineering
that can encapsulate their entire society beneath a massive roof-feats well be-
266 Seung Moo Paik

yond the reach of the early 20th century, the level of civilization found in this
underground world, hidden from the sun, has regressed much further into the
past. Rather than overcoming crisis or making crisis a new opportunity to excel,
this subterranean humanity has reverted back to a bygone era of undemocratic
“enslavement” (“рабство”) [5. P. 70] under the dictatorship of the Consul. The
space is described as a bleak living area, much like an ant hill. The roof of the
city isolates its people and resembles a glass coffin housing corpses [6. P. 150].
Above all, historical degeneration is prominent as the achievements of human
civilization, such as democracy, learning, and art, have all but vanished; in a
place where the primary goal for each day is survival, there is no room for such
pursuits. The reason being that “the fatal emotional feeling known as meaning-
lessness and the end of existence suffocates the human desire to feel, work, and
reason” [7. P. 136]. To Bryusov, the destruction of culture and art was death
itself. Political setbacks and the absence of artistic development, in juxtaposition
to excellent scientific and technological progress, make it clear that such a com-
plete imbalance in the world and life results in disharmony.
With the setting firmly in place, the two leaders, Teopikski and Teotl’, en-
gage in an ideological struggle throughout the narrative. Fierce debates rage
based on the means by which destruction might be realized, and these are the
key topics that populate the first half of The Earth. While the story of The Earth
unfolds in an abstract space and time designed by symbolism, the characters and
actions do not adhere to the conventional formula of symbolism, but rather func-
tion in a manner of opposition or betrayal. The fuse of these two characters’
conflict is lit by the appearance of Nevatl’, the messenger of hope.
2.1. Ideological confrontation between Teotl’ and Teopikski
With the backdrop of impending doom firmly established, Nevatl’, the first
of his people to see the Sun with his own eyes, appears and proposes that the
roof be opened and that the people should return to the surface to live as the an-
cients lived, those who had worshiped the Sun. Without hesitation, Teopikski
agrees with and actively supports Nevatl’ because he believes he has found a
way to realize the end of humankind in the form of Nevatl’’s grand proposal. At
this juncture, the mindset of Teopikski, a man who seeks a dignified end for
humankind, and the mindset of Teotl’, leader of the Order of Liberators (“Орден
освободителей”) who defines life itself as indignity, mark a clear divergence in
motivation. Despite ultimately working toward the same result, the end of times,
the ideological and philosophical chasm that separates these two characters is
vast. This difference lends the power of suspense to the play and provides the
driving force behind the plot all the way to the end.
Teotl’ rejects all reasonable judgment or historical progress owing to a deep
belief in decadent eschatology. This character believes death is the only way to
escape all irrationality and fault, and it is his mission to help humankind free
itself of the confines of life through death: “Death and darkness are two great
principles. <. . .> The love of death calms all souls and all men become utterly
obedient to that love!” [5. P. 85].
 Valery Bryusov’s The Earth as an Experiment? 267

Teotl’’s exaltation of a decadent death is an ideological disposition common-

ly seen in the works of early symbolists. These artists, who yearned for a tran-
scendental world to replace the injustices of the real world and who were deeply
immersed in religious mysticism rather than intellectual rationalism, thought
death was an inevitable phase and fate leading the human race toward symbolis-
tic purification and rehabilitation, and, as mortal beings, these symbolists
revered death as an absolute truth that cannot be denied. Similarly, Teotl’ rejects
all aspects of life and claims that death, which ends all irrationalities, is the op-
timal state when compared to the difficulties and pointlessness that infest life.
People are unable to embrace the freedom of death due to fear and ignorance,
and ultimately, they are doomed to inherit and repeat a life of suffering and
shame for all time. As such, Toetl’ invokes the rite of massacre by organizing
his Order of Liberators as a means by which to “liberate” the people from their
state of timidity and ignorance. Therefore, Nevatl’ provides a fitting end for all
of humankind in which the prophecy of the liberator—death—might be realized,
and this collective initiation rite forms a passage of eternal peace for all people.
On the other hand, although the character Teopikski shares a common goal
with Teotl’, as he too wishes to hasten the destruction of humankind by mislead-
ing Nevatl’, his perception of reality and worldview is in stark contrast to that of
Teotl’. First, consider Teopikski’s historical philosophy which comments on the
historical ontology of humankind: “We are intellectual beings of Earth and are
standing on the edge. Thousands of years of history have passed, but we are es-
sentially frozen in prehistoric times. <. . .> The super humans, who our ancestors
longed for, never came. Humankind has remained merely human” [5. P. 80].
According to Teopikski, humans play the role of mediator linking the heav-
ens and the earth. Although the history of humankind is a journey of procession
to ascend to divinity with the help of some super human race, humankind lost
this opportunity to advance and ultimately never evolved beyond the level of
prehistory. However, despite such a failure, Teopikski claims the dignity and
value of humanity must never be compromised. This is where the character’s
humanistic perspective of humankind being the metric by which all creation is
evaluated reveals itself: “If I mean anything to you, fulfill my only dying wish:
‘Stay human.’ <. . .> If only a single person proudly shouts ‘It is I’ knowing ful-
ly of their own greatness in the face of immortality, then, believe me, the Earth
will survive!” [Ibid. P. 70].
While Teotl’ views life as something that has always been and always will be
irrational, believing that happiness is nothing more than a “fairy tale” (“сказка”)
[Ibid. P. 79], Teopikski acknowledges the impressive achievements made by our
ancestors and demands that such achievement be respected and recorded as sig-
nificant, additionally claiming that the dignity and value of human life must
never be forgotten. Based on such awareness of reality, Teopikski’s alternative
perspective on the final days of humankind is thus derived:
Just as the Earth’s animals and birds perished, so too will humanity. It is a
truly pitiful and detestable end! The only thing I want is to save people from in-
dignity [Ibid. P. 82].
268 Seung Moo Paik

Humanity can be saved with one swift motion. Yes, humanity will not perish
like abandoned corpses and decaying debris. Let us fire up the funeral firewood!
The primary duty fate passed on to man is to become the executioner! [5. P. 83].

For Teopikski, for humanity to accept their pitiful end complacently is an in-
dignity; the character dreams of a realistic alternative where we voluntarily be-
come our own executioners and honorably face our demise. Teotl’’s goal is to
discard the deception of life and leap to his eternal death, while, on the other
hand, the goal of Teopikski is to fight against the destructive power of death and
secure eternal life; a collective mercy-killing is the only way to save humankind
from indignity. The following table summarizes the contrasting ideas of these
characters who form a clear dichotomy of “destruction for the sake of life” and
“destruction for the sake of death”:

Teopikski Teotl’
Goal Eternal life Eternal death
Diagnosis of Reality Eventual indignity Inevitable indignity
To become the destroyer in the
Duty of Humanity To elevate humankind
name of natural law
Realization Method Transfer of knowledge the Order of Liberators
Origin of the The Sun which is the power of Death and darkness which are
Universe creation and development the two great principles
Classification
Destruction of life Liberation from life
of Death
View of History Progressive Retrogressive
Emphasis on individuals and Emphasis on anonymous mul-
View of Humanity
individuality titude with erased individuality
Alternative Collective mercy-killing Acceptance of death-savior

Although the two characters, who are clearly in mutual opposition in terms
of their views on the cosmos and humanity, maintain a palpable conflict through
the play as the physical manifestations of life and death, the composition of their
conflict begins to dissolve in Act 3. Here, Teopikski and Teotl’, obvious mortal
enemies, come to the same conclusion regarding “the end of humankind”. Teo-
pikski favors the destruction of man when the same character had previously
advocated humanity and human history, the foil to Teotl’’s terrible admiration of
death. This shift in attitude plays a crucial role in the conflict structure of
Bryusov’s play, which comments on the fate of the Earth. As Teopikski profess-
es to ignite the funeral pyre under the influence of Nevatl’’s claims, Nevatl’ then
quickly rises as a symbol of hope, and the people’s attention turns to him.
Teopikski, depicted as being delusional, and Teotl’ stand on opposite sides of
the same spectrum, yet they ultimately arrive at the same conclusion, albeit for
different reasons. Teopikski’s commanding voice demands the people become
the “executioners” of humankind and “raise the sword of ancestral rite that will
slay your brothers”, which is not terribly different from Teotl’’s own demands.
 Valery Bryusov’s The Earth as an Experiment? 269

The collapse of the initial, tense conflict structure between the two characters,
present through Act 2, is the destruction of the conventional (in particular, the
destruction of “unity of action’) which is impossible to view as traditional dram-
aturgy. Along with the suppression of the struggle between good and evil and an
awakening to the “plurality of truths”, this alignment of Teopiksi’s and Teotl’’s
goals is the product of a boundary crossing or boundary suppressing experiment
which Bryusov sought at the time:

There are many truths. Those truths can also contradict each other. <. . .> My
dream is to become the temple where all gods gather. Let us pray day and night
to both Mitra and Adonis, and to both Christ and the Devil as well. “I” am the
center point where all differences cease to exist and all boundaries dissolve away
[8. P. 77].

Teopikski and Teotl’, in spite of their opposing ideologies, reach the same
conclusion, which then leads to an unconventional unfolding of the core conflict
transferring to Nevatl’, and this in turn demonstrates Bryusov’s boundary cross-
ing exploration that defies traditional symbolism. The playwright becomes a
limitless house of coexistence for all gods by simultaneously summoning Christ
and the Devil to his body.

2.2. Is Nevatl’ the messenger of hope?

Teopikski, a symbol of intellect and learning, ultimately aligns himself with

the pessimism of the strict eschatologist, Teotl’, and turns the foundation of the
play’s conflict structure on its head. As the downfall of humanity waxes, the
confrontational structure of good and evil wanes, and starting in Act 4, Nevatl’’s
personal journey rises as the main thread in the story’s plot. After the emergence
of Nevatl’, the play’s structure, previously based on a confrontation between
good and evil substantiated by Teopikski’s humanitarianism and Teotl’’s deca-
dence, is then reborn as an ontological discussion on destruction and rehabilita-
tion. Interestingly, Nevatl’, the only hope for human survival in the face of im-
pending doom, stands in a position of power laughably weaker than the dramatic
strength wielded by Teopikski or Teotl’. Observe Nevatl’’s first realization of
the reality of the situation:
We are one step away from extinction. The human race cease to be after our
children’s generation. <. . .> We have covered the sky with a roof, installed arti-
ficial lights to compensate for the lack of a sun, and are breathing artificial air in-
stead of free air. Our life has become a grotesque monster, and everything has
been upturned and distorted [5. P. 82].

Nevatl’’s perception of reality is not so different from Teopikski’s. Accord-

ing to Nevatl’, the human species has already reached a state of mental and
physical collapse. What separates these two characters, however, is how they
choose to respond to their inevitable future. To prevail over this so-called mon-
270 Seung Moo Paik

ster-like grotesque life, Nevatl’ walks the path of the hero and sets out on an ad-
venture, cradling the only remaining hope. This type of character, who embraces
challenge, is rare among the works of symbolists, who instead view death as ines-
capable and hope as futile. Humanity’s collective suicide seems all but certain, yet
there remains a slight chance for hope [9. P. 435]. As Act 4 makes plain, however,
this hero may not be up to the task, as Nevatl’’s message of hope is denounced as
merely reckless heroics and his dramatic role only fuels the determination of Teo-
pikski to fulfill his plan. This act solely centers on Nevatl’, and, through his meet-
ing with Tlan and the Consul, Nevatl’ reveals his inadequacy as the savior of hu-
manity not only in character but also in philosophy.
The moment Nevatl’ meets Tlan, the young lady rebukes our hero for his un-
timely delusions of grandeur. Nevatl’ dismisses this remonstration by saying
that people’s admiration and praise mean nothing to him because loneliness is an
innate part of his being. Although the young man had assumed that his own pes-
simism was overcome by the passion of the lover’s relationship, witnessing the
vastness of the universe convinces him of the triviality of such love, and he
claims that passion and love are no longer of any interest to him, being over-
shadowed by his new goal of saving humanity. In response to Nevatl’’s logic,
which discards love for the sake of salvation, Tlan responds by saying that it is a
fallacy to attempt to save the human race when you are incapable of love:
Ahh! How lifeless are your words! This must be how you impressed the
mob! You are going to preach of life? You should cure your own disease first!
<. . .> When the people follow you, what will they do in your new Eden? If that
place is only filled with unearthliness, devoid of love, anger, or despair, then we
have no need for that kind of life. Rather than the Earth becoming an asexual
ghost in the universe, it would be better to simply disappear! [5. P. 89].

This scathing attack, admonishing worlds that revere only sublime ideas and
diminish human emotion to meaninglessness, exposes Nevatl’’s soteriology to be
nothing more than foolish adventurism woefully lacking any humanistic founda-
tion or thought. Nevatl’’s claims are indeed absent of any denial or confirmation
concerning the oxygen shortage as well as lacking any strategy or countermeasure
should his plan fail. Nevatl’ glamorizes his own paradoxes as the “will of destiny”
(“воля судьбы”) [Ibid. P. 90], using this to his advantage to justify the hero’s
dangerous challenge. However, Tlan has pinpointed the greatest weakness of Ne-
vatl’’s claims which is that they are in direct contradiction with each other.
Through his inability to provide a valid and objective reason for opening the roof,
and through his inability to understand the ultimate purpose of life, Nevatl’, the
hero, opposes himself and demonstrates ineligibility to become the protector of
hope capable of challenging Teopikski and Teotl’ who wish for destruction.
The flaws of Nevatl’ are accentuated further in the scene with the couple
Katontli and Yatla in Act 5. Unlike the cold-hearted Nevatl’, Katontli appreci-
ates and understands the value of love and the meaning of life. Considering the
content and context, the short dialogue between Katontli and Yatla create a
sharp contrast when compared to Nevatl’ and Tlan:
 Valery Bryusov’s The Earth as an Experiment? 271

That was the happiest moment of my life. You were mine and my love for
you was also different then. My love for you at the time was based on bliss, and
the happiness of the passion you gave me. <. . .> My love for you now is purer
and more truthful. [5. P. 96].

Katontli’s avowal, emphasizing his love as more sublime than death, coun-
ters the love of Nevatl’, who puts duty before love, relinquishes the lovers’ first
meeting, and emphasizes biological life over spiritual life. Katontli waits for the
end of days but maintains the ethical and mental character of a human, marking
a world of difference with Nevatl’’s naiveness, blinded by excitement and an
immature obsession to save humankind, a folly doomed to conclude in failure.
In this way, Teopikski’s true disciple is Katontli rather than Nevatl’.
An additional personality flaw of Nevatl’ is revealed through his conversa-
tion with the Consul. Nevatl’ claims the Consul should resign as it is the will of
the people, and the Consul dismisses this claim by stating that only truth is pure
and objective, and that the fickle nature of people cannot be truth: “I have one
sacred value that surpasses all truths, and it is called my ‘self’. Whether I accept
a truth or not depends on whether I am sure of the truth. <. . .> The only thing
that remains constant is the moment” [Ibid. P. 92].
The logic of the Consul seems to dissuade Nevatl’ from making a counter-
argument, and the young man backs down from the debate. Despite being a
scholar in pursuit of truth, in truth, Nevatl’ sorely lacks sublime ideas or lofty
intellect to show for the station he is afforded by the story. Interestingly, the phi-
losophy of the Consul, who is nothing more than a dictator fallen into obstinacy
and prejudice, repeats verbatim the philosophies of “the absoluteness of subjec-
tivity” and the “moment”, ideologies Bryusov adhered to in his younger days.
However, Bryusov maintains a safe distance from antisocial decadent aestheti-
cism by acknowledging the existence of other subjectivities and claiming the
inevitability of communication with them. Although a mature mind and senti-
ment based on steadfast subjectivity have become a source of new language and
reason through contact with others, the Consul does away with Bryusov’s dia-
lectical theory of the other, known as “self-sufficiency–loneliness–
communication”, and instead merely follows narrow-minded solipsism to justify
his own political power and self-righteousness.
The Consul’s absolute subjectivism, despite mimicking Bryusov’s subjectiv-
ism, is only solipsistic and dogmatic sophistry, owing to the fact that this
worldview completely lacks communication with others and empathy. Similarly,
the essence of the “moment”, for which the Consul advocates, is little more than
a justification for maintaining power and his twisted ego, quite unlike Bryusov
who emphasized truth and the potential of the “moment”. After his confrontation
with Tlan, Nevatl’’s inability to appropriately respond to the Consul’s sophistry
is quite telling, indicating that the young man is also trapped in subjective isola-
tion, unable to achieve solidarity with others. Moreover, this is why the Consul’s
mocking blow is especially painful for Nevatl’: “You are as garrulous as a true
orator. You look just like an ancient sculpture” [Ibidem]. Here, Nevatl’’s exami-
272 Seung Moo Paik

nation is nothing more than a talk, and, just like a sculpture, his sophisticated
attitude is stony, artificial, and unnatural.

3. Bryusov’s Artistic Theory and Scientific Poetry

The dramatic focus in terms of The Earth’s structure undeniable shifts to

Nevatl’, yet is it difficult to claim that he has earned the status of the protago-
nist. The protagonist in a drama bears certain requisite qualities, such as lofty
ideas, thorough self-analysis, a boundless sense of obligation to one’s actions,
and an awakening to his or her faults; however, none of these traits can be seen
in Nevatl’. Moreover, the elements of the conflict, which traditionally end in
tragedy, fall short of common dramatic structure, where instead of facing Teotl’,
the obvious ideological antagonist, our hero argues with the Consul and Tlan.
Most importantly, the three core protagonists of this work exist in complete
isolation from each other; Teotl’ never meets Nevatl’ or Teopikski, and even
though Teopikski treats Nevatl’ favorably, this is a mere ruse. As such, the three
never directly interact with one another, denying the audience of the expected
relationship of conflict through traditional interaction. Furthermore, the conflict
between these three characters resolves itself in the finale, and all three are de-
lighted and resolved to their fates, free of pain or repentance. Just as Nevatl’ and
Teopikski die proud knowing they have succeeded in saving humanity from the
underground tunnel, Teotl’ too faces death, savoring his moment of liberation
for which he so longed; all three joyfully face their end because they have all
accomplished their goals.
Here, the dramatic tension built by the characters throughout the story sud-
denly deflates, and fearing for the future of humankind is a burden passed onto
the reader/audience. As Bryusov turns his back on customary, literary expecta-
tion and destroys the formulaic ending, the reader/audience, now faced with an
unfamiliar finale, is then swallowed whole by this vacuum. In the vacuum, the
reader knows only confusion and shock, while researchers respectively jump to
both optimistic and pessimistic conclusions. Dramas might predictably end by
alleviating tension and inducing a feeling of catharsis, yet Bryusov obviously
intended for this absurd and unexpected crisis to raise only more questions and
perhaps be a little painful for his audience.

3.1. Bryusov’s epistemic theory of art: trans-boundary aesthetics

To completely understand the playwright’s design and setting, it is necessary

to consider the epistemic theory of art and scientific poetry, topics that captivat-
ed Bryusov during the 1900s. True art, as Bryusov claims, is the only methodol-
ogy capable of capturing that which our sensory organs cannot perceive, cannot
be identified objectively, and cannot be expressed in language. Therefore, “Art
begins from the moment when the artist attempts to clarify his/her secret emo-
tions. Without such clarification, there is also no artistry. If there are no secrets
within emotion, there is also no art” [5. P. 86].
 Valery Bryusov’s The Earth as an Experiment? 273

In short, art is a comprehensive process of perceiving meaning, discovering

and observing secret phenomena within oneself, and finally revealing them to
the world. While mystical symbolists severed communication with the world
and cloistered themselves away with their inner secrets, Bryusov was not only
interested in the transcendental world beyond intellect and reason, but also be-
lieved that bringing such secrecy back to the stage of objectivity was an artistic
goal to strive for. A notable point is the concept of a “boundary”, which contin-
uously emerges in Bryusov’s artistic theory. To expand one’s cognition, con-
templation is necessary, and contemplation is only amplified when one
acknowledges a “plurality of truths”. Therefore, the “plurality of truths” is es-
sential to expand one’s thinking [5. P. 50], and the countless boundaries that
exist among multiple truths are targets of subjugation. In other words, Bryusov
believes that only those who are courageous enough to explore beyond their own
cognitive limitation and expand their boundaries are capable of being artists:
A person who perceives all things in the world as simple and comprehensible
cannot be an artist. Art is where courage crosses boundaries, within the thirst to
drink even a single drop of “alien, transliminal elements,”1 and art is beyond the
boundaries of the cognitive realm [Ibid. P. 86].
Bryusov’s “escape beyond the boundaries” is an epistemic exploration of
delving into the essence of things, into an unfamiliar and foreign domain outside
the limits of the current confined and superficial conditions. As the writer puts
it, to do such a thing is no easy task and is perhaps as dangerous as breaking out
of prison; it requires boldness, courage, and decisiveness.
We are not hopelessly locked up in the “blue prison,”2 the imagery used by
Fet. We do have an exit and a ray of hope to escape from prison toward freedom.
The ray of hope is the moments of ecstasy and moments of supersensible intui-
tion, beyond the shell of the phenomenal world, piercing into the essence and en-
abling us to understand the phenomenal world differently [Ibidem].
If art is a ray of hope and an exit, art is then also the activity of penetrating
the secret soul of the artist by breaking our shackles in the prison of convention,
and after colliding with “secret, vague emotions” (“тайные, смутные
чувствования”) [Ibid. P. 56], and, realizing their meaning and value, a true art-
ist must then “give shape” to them in some artistic form3. Bryusov’s desire to
oppose all obstacles which interfere with free and higher-dimensional cognition,
such as tradition, custom, rationality, and normalcy, in other words, “the desire

1
This is an excerpt from Afanasy Fet’s poem “Swallows” (“Ласточки”).
2
This “blue prison” from Afanasy Fet’s poem “In Memory of N. Ya. Danilevskii’ is an illuso-
ry nature of phenomena, which refers to the natural destiny of a person who is in dependent on the
senses and consciousness [10. P. 56–79]. According to Bryusov, due to science, humanity is
trapped in a “blue prison” of visible things and physical senses, and the act of obtaining epistemic
freedom and ensuring limitless cognition should be the clear orientation of humanity, whereas the
purpose of art is to implement the existential task of expanding our cognition.
3
“Art is the embodiment of things that can’t be defined or put into words. Art defines and
speaks through images” [5. P. 205].
274 Seung Moo Paik

to reach an infinite expansion of one’s creative scope” [11. P. 10] is an attempt

to once again combine science and art which, due to symbolism, were in direct
opposition with each other:
Only the interaction between art and science can create the true culture of our
times. Poetry must complement science, and science must complement poetry.
<. . .> Art must start from scientific knowledge, and science must discover the
breath of life in art [5. P. 157].
Bryusov attempted to combine science and art for two reasons. First, the play-
wright wished to realize “the possibility of objectively rationalizing the demand
and necessity for illogical and irrational things” [12. P. 95]. Second, rather than art
being stuck in an eternal conflict with science, just as “poetry should become the
metaphysics of man and the universe, related to one another through science” [5.
P. 156], integrating science would provide the only opportunity to ascend to a
metaphysical state of a higher-dimension. In Bryusov’s mind, as is dictated by
scientific logic, the act of systematically revealing the illogical, the irrational, and
intuition was the definition of poetry. To Bryusov, art was already “science” with
a different name, where the only discrepancy between the two was that science
utilizes “analysis” and art uses “synthesis.” Consider: “If poetry is a form of cog-
nition just as science is, how can we distinguish between scientific cognition and
cognition of poetic composition? This typically is based on methodology. The way
of science is analysis and the way of poetry is synthesis” [Ibid. P. 502].
If art is a cognitive means by which to probe the self, reveal one’s internal se-
crets, and then express these ideas externally, then science is a means by which to
explain those things external to the self and to determine the relationship between
all things: “Science does not claim to penetrate the essence of things. Science
knows only the correlation of present conditions and compares and contrasts them.
Science cannot contemplate anything without the relevant relationship to other
things” [Ibid. P. 80]. Given that science is a cognitive methodology of forging
relationships based on cause and effect, art delves into these relationships, re-
moves their shell, exposes bare and vulnerable skin, and finally translates these
internal secrets into human language. In other words, art is both experiment and
adventure, revealing the aesthetics of crossing boundaries by breaking through,
knocking down, and climbing over the walls of the so-called “blue prison”.
Bryusov’s artistic theory frequently incorporates aggressive images, which shatter
barriers and expand space, such as the imagery of breaking through or crossing
boundaries from outside to inside and vice versa. Such imagery makes clear the
dynamic nature of boundary crossing aesthetics, which attempts to destroy and
dismantle the stagnate system of existing concepts and social norms.
Bryusov’s artistic conception of epistemology leads to the acceptance of sci-
entific poetry1. Bryusov, who from the very beginning opposed all things mysti-

1
Accepting French poet R. Ghil’s theory of scientific poetry, Bryusov earnestly incorporates
this concept in his paper “The Literary Life of France: Scientific Poetry” (1909). Here, scientific
poetry is used as a concept for describing general poetics such as the rules, principles, and methods
needed to create poetry. Therefore, it is safe to understand scientific poetry as “scientific poetics”.
 Valery Bryusov’s The Earth as an Experiment? 275

cal related to cognitive objects, believed the scientific task of differentiation,

work that divides and classifies all worldly phenomena into categories, was an
epistemic activity sorely needed in the creative work of artists.
Of course, poetry must not play the role of a simple mirror, which indiffer-
ently reflects all the phenomena of the current reality, because to reflect, to re-
peat does not mean to perceive. Poetry must interpret reality, establish its rela-
tionship to the permanent laws of history and sociology [5. P. 157].
By combining the analytic activity of science with the intuitive synthesis of
poetry, the so-called scientific poetry acquires “integrity which is unobtainable
from the fragmented fields of science” [Ibidem], and then only poetry can pre-
dict the future, and the poet will have earned his ancient name—vates, “the
prophet’. To Bryusov, scientific poetry was a cognitive activity of reasoning, an
ideal artform intimately related to the demands of the time. As Bryusov himself
stated “a paradoxical combination of words”, the concept of scientific poetry is a
good explanation of the paradox inherent to Bryusov’s aesthetics, which at-
tempts to utilize reason and logic to objectify the subjective in the domain of
inspiration and intuition. Being in direct opposition to mysticism and finding
himself an outsider to such art, Bryusov discovered science and incorporated it
into his work, expanding his own artistic repertoire and thereby expanding the
field itself and creating a new artform though this interdisciplinary convergence.
When art embraces science, this too can be interpreted as a boundary crossing
activity that merges the two fields. For the playwright, such unity and synthesis,
pursued by art, was the essence of communication: “Art expresses the soul of
artists and satisfies the desire of twofold communication: solidarity with others
and revealing of one’s true self” [Ibid. P. 47].
When examining the evolutionary path of Bryusov’s epistemic theory of art,
which embraces the unfamiliar domain of science and led to scientific poetry, it
is essential to consider the writer’s experimental spirit, which not only juxtapos-
es customs and cultural norms, but also includes its own paradoxes and contra-
dictions. Bryusov’s extraordinary view of artistic expression (see “Truths” [Ibid.
P. 49–55]) acknowledges “a plurality of truths” and is comparable to an infinite
circuitry working to repudiate absolute truths and endlessly pursue change and
improvement: “The potential to become aware of oneself is infinite, and the road
to perfection is endless” [Ibid. P. 39]. The Earth is a work filled with the exper-
imental spirit of scientific poetry, and the play recalls the necessity of cognitive
expansion and discussion in literature. The Earth strives to walk “the endless
road to perfection” as it induces cognitive expansion through the dynamics of
boundary crossing aesthetics realized by the shock and intellectual awakening
unique to Bryusov’s carefully crafted paradoxes.
3.2. The Earth as scientific poetry
The Earth is not a two-dimensional mixture of various themes and motifs
such as symbolic eschatology, cyclical ideas of cultural development, and alle-
gories related to the political chaos on the eve of revolution; instead the work
276 Seung Moo Paik

has a three-dimensional structure that specifically warns against a future society

by penetrating the essence of the reality of the times based on a novel cognitive
methodology known as scientific imagination. The creation of Bryusov’s fu-
turological works is based on the principles of scientific poetry [7. P. 136]. Be-
cause the “future” is impossible to demonstrate through experience and bears the
uncertainty of having to make predictions based solely on the power of imagina-
tion and intuition, only a hybrid artform, which combines science and poetics, is
capable of permeating such uncertainty. Portrayals of the future, an unknown
and murky domain, are a zeitgeist of the times fused with anxiety and hope; this
is the domain Bryusov ventures into through the epistemic adventure of crossing
temporal borders via his own boundary crossing aesthetics. Therefore, The
Earth embodies a complex and intellectual entanglement which cannot seen
from a conventional point of view, traditional poetics, or from generic cultural
customs. The play must rather be approached from a scientific poetry perspec-
tive, characterized by innovative interdisciplinary combinations and an aware-
ness of where each discipline’s boundary lies.
Though The Earth is centered around an end-of-the-world theme, whose al-
legorical nature is related to cultural destruction on the eve of revolution, it is
clear that this theme is borne of a longing for future society flourishing with cul-
ture, a longing that forbids the decline of culture as this leads to the downfall of
humanity. Herbert George Wells was another science fiction writer who, in his
novels, predicted world war, economic depression, global warming, and abomi-
nable weapons such as nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, and lasers, yet he was
also an idealist longing to describe a better future that integrated all of humanity
into one nation. Bryusov, clearly influenced by the imagination of earlier sci-
ence fiction writers, such as Wells, subtly contrasted themes of hope, salvation
and cultural development against the grim background of the Earth’s destruc-
tion. In The Earth, Bryusov made logical and empirical inferences regarding
future society by utilizing imagination grounded by specific, realistic examples
such as water and oxygen shortages. The writer was the first to caution the Rus-
sian literary world of the dangers of natural resource depletion, and this was
seen as “foresight regarding environmental disasters which truly began in the
1960–70s” [13. P. 24]. In particular, the idea of oxygen depletion seemed to
have stemmed from the new scientific finding of oxygen thinning outside the
troposphere after the discovery of the stratosphere1, and, at the time, not only
was this prediction realized in the form of the Great Smog of London in 1952,
revealing the dangers of air pollution, but we can notice additional predictions
made in The Earth that appear even in the modern era, issues such as low birth
rates and the destruction of nature. Considering the fact that “many of his ideas
were later actually realized” [14. P. 41], ideas that appear in additional scientific
poetry works, it is not too much to say that Bryusov’s scientific poetry presented
many accurate and reasonable theories that hold true in reality.

1
French physicist Teisserenc de Bort discovered the stratosphere in 1900, and it is regarded as
one of the most striking discoveries in the evolution of meteorology.
 Valery Bryusov’s The Earth as an Experiment? 277

The Earth is a work of fiction but also an experiment analyzing what impact
a collision between literature and the ethics of life and existence has on human
thought. Based on the characters of Teopikski, Nevatl’, and Teotl’, strategically
placed in roles meaningful to the story, we see what is possible and impossible,
what is right and wrong, what is necessary, and what is important. The narrative
functions as a probe and challenge of humanity’s past, present, future, hope, and
despair through these three characters’ actions which occur purely of their own
volition without compromise with or interference from others. Accordingly, The
Earth cannot be properly understood through a conventional reading dependent
on a generic expectation or a unilateral interpretation based on simple, cultural
norms because The Earth is a novel experiment designed to deconstruct such
customs. Accordingly, the mystery behind the genesis of The Earth, a wholly
unique drama characterized by the destruction of traditional dramaturgy and an
absence of tragic characters, is partially revealed. Bryusov’s experiment intend-
ed to expand the audience’s attention to the larger fate of the Earth and humani-
ty, rather than focus on the fate of individual characters; it forced the narrative to
consider the bigger picture that ignores “conflict” between characters who face
their end after either failing or achieving each of their ideological goals. The
story does this by utilizing characters who are never in direct conflict with each
other. Instead of putting the weight of the world on one character, incident, or
conflict, the play centers around the dilemma at hand, that is, the fate of the
Earth and humanity, in order to expedite the reason for dramatic catastrophe. It
is the Earth’s explicit intention to dismantle the traditional tension structure be-
tween characters1 and story-idiosyncratic conflict in order to emphasize more
important and general ideas regarding the future and cognitive reasoning.
Bryusov believed that the truth is relative, and he asserted this belief in order
to stimulate cognitive expansion, allowing for ambiguous interpretations of the
story’s conclusion. To analyze this play where “pessimism caused by mental
fatigue, soaring fantasy, passionate dreams about the future appear simultane-
ously” [15. P. 25], one must take a “boundary crossing” approach capable of
overcoming even symbolic pessimism and hopeful optimism. To Bryusov, any
and all boundaries which limit perception are the target of subjugation, and such
boundaries existed between symbolism and realism, art and science, present and
future, and between tradition and experimentation. The Earth incorporates and
breaks down many aspects of these boundaries. In the preface of the Czech
translation (published in 1911) of The Earth, Bryusov noted that “Instead of
portraying contemporary life, I tried to explain the timeless question, namely the
relationship between existence and dream, fantasy and reality, through poetry”
[14. P. 39]. The Earth’s shocking finale is derived from “the relationship be-
tween existence and dream, fantasy and reality,” an oppositional and contradic-
tory but yet converging and mutually inclusive relationship. Andreasyan reached

1
At this point we notice Voloshin’s analysis of people not seeing or hearing their own voices.
“In The Earth, people are not visible, only principles shouted by various humans can be heard”
[16. P. 425].
278 Seung Moo Paik

the following conclusion: “The Sun is the source of life, but also the source of
death. Here, the heavens and the earth joins, the light and the darkness joins, and
life and death are mutually connected and conditioned. Death is the justification
of life, and life is the justification of death” [6. P. 154]. The finale of The Earth
provides new and expansive thought by transcending the boundaries of art and
science and by combining them into one discipline. Scientific poetry can be
viewed as cognitive expansion resulting from Bryusov’s melding of these fields,
two areas in seeming opposition with each other, and while this amalgam is not
viewed as “synthesis between realism and idealism,”1 it shows the potential of
scientific poetry as an experiment striving for higher-dimensional poetics of the
future. Through his scientific poetry-like writing, Bryusov earned a name for
himself as one of the greatest writers in the popular genres of the temporal fanta-
sy and space science literature [18. P. 165], being hailed as a “pioneer of early
Russian science fiction and the first theorist” [15. P. 34].
Symbolic eschatology inherently risks pointless anxiety rather than inducing
a clear understanding and analysis of a situation. This ideology depends on men-
tal and sentimental aspects of anxiety and fear instead of taking a rational ap-
proach, which results in an abdication of and disregard for reality, not leading
readers toward symbolic truths. However, as scientific poetry, The Earth pre-
sents various logical inferences and reasonable possibilities concerning the des-
tiny of humanity and society by actively imagining a future based on reason and
well-founded concepts, in turn broadening the cognitive horizons of its audi-
ence. Above all, unlike the passivism of other eschatological narratives, The
Earth uniquely demonstrates active eschatology, that is, human beings choose
the end of their own accord. Passive eschatology emphasizes there is nothing
that can be done except be silent, but humankind, choosing its own destruction,
forces us contemplate and reconsider the legitimacy and necessity of our actions.
The audience’s shock and the narrative’s mystery, brought about by active es-
chatology, induce a cognitive vacuum, foreshadowing an expansion of aware-
ness.

Conclusion

In order to dismantle boundaries artificially segregating the world, cognitive

stimulation is required. Mentally crossing these boundaries and thinking uncon-
ventionally are made possible through the use of intellectual and psychological
energy, namely shock and contemplation. The setting of another Bryusov’s play,
The World of Seven Generations, written in 1923, takes place as a comet nar-
rowly misses a collision with the Earth, yet in a letter to Morozov, the play-
wright wrote that if Halley’s Comet in 1910 had collided with Earth, it would
have greatly helped humankind [15. P. 54]. Here, the author means that such a
catastrophe was capable of destroying all obstacles that prevent humans from

1
In the 1910 journal Russian Thought (No. 7), Bryusov wrote, “The future clearly belongs to
some synthesis of realism and idealism not yet found” [17. P. 359].
 Valery Bryusov’s The Earth as an Experiment? 279

reaching their full cognitive potential. In the paper “Secret Key” (“Ключи
тайн”), Bryusov says the following on artistic potential subjugating the cogni-
tive limits of science: “The iron bars of science and axes of sociology do not
have the power destroy the door or the walls that have confined us, but art is
ferocious dynamite capable of breaking down these walls” [5. P. 87]. The key to
our cell doors in the “blue prison” of custom and tradition is art, which leads us
toward eternal freedom. Art is the first and only hint that provides any clue to
salvation, impossible to find in our distressed lives and civilization. The Earth is
a distress signal from an intellectual unable to find a solution or logical exit on
the eve of revolution, a literary and scientific warning regarding the confusion
and despair caused by a complete lack of alternatives. The play exemplifies this
in the political backwardness of the Consul, the citizens unwilling to resist their
fate, intellectuals who are unable to present a novel solution to the current disas-
ter, and religions thick with dogmatism and hatred.
Although The Earth imagines a hypothetical world of an unknown future and
its social structure and psychological atmosphere, Bryusov’s scientific poetry-
like cognitive expansion delivers knowledge and new life to the society and hu-
manity of the time. New scientific discoveries, discourse, and foresight of the
future rearrange daily experience and understanding of reality-based ever-
changing methodologies. Predictions regarding the end of days activate alterna-
tive possibilities to inspire a novel means to survive in spite of Armageddon.
The Earth allegorizes the brutal political situation in the 1905 Russia, actively
intervening in and commenting on the tragic reality. In addition, the work devel-
ops a new cognitive methodology called scientific poetry, which, while based on
realistic concepts, also maintains an alternative perspective from reality. The
Earth analyzes the ontological stature of human beings by restructuring the
theme of cultural crisis into a drama, achieving a new level of science,
knowledge, and cognition.

References

1. Lyukov, K. (2017) Valeriy Bryusov. Khudozhnik na rubezhe [Valery Bryusov. Artist at

the Turn]. Izdatel'skie resheniya.
2. Bryusov, V. (1987) Sochineniya v 2 t. [Works in 2 Vols]. Vol. 2. Moscow:
Khudozhestvennaya literatura.
3. Brodskaya, G.Yu. (1976) Bryusov i teatral'nye iskaniya nachala XX veka (1902–1908)
[Bryusov and Theatrical Searches of the Early Twentieth Century (1902–1908)]. Abstract of
Philology Cand. Diss. Leningrad.
4. Strashkova, O.K. (2016) Valeriy Bryusov – dramaturg [Valery Bryusov, a Playwright].
In: Bryusov, V. Dramaturgiya [Plays]. Moscow: Sovpadenie. pp. 5–26.
5. Bryusov, V. (2016) Dramaturgiya [Plays]. Moscow: Sovpadenie.
6. Andreasyan, N.G. (1992) Drama “Zemlya”. Stseny budushchikh vremyon [Drama “The
Earth”. Scenes of the Future]. In: Amirkhanyan, M.D. et al. (eds) Bryusovskie chteniya
1986 goda [Bryusov Readings, 1986]. Erevan: [s.n.] pp. 146–155.
7. Strashkova, O.K. (2002) Valeriy Bryusov – dramaturg-eksperimentator [Valery
Bryusov, an Experimenter Playwright]. Stavropol': Art.
8. Bryusov, В. (2002) Dnevniki. Pis'ma. Avtobiograficheskaya proza [Diaries. Letters.
Autobiographical Prose]. Moscow: Olma-press.
280 Seung Moo Paik

9. Strashkova, O.K. (2011) Modernistskaya drama Serebryanogo veka [The Modernist

Drama of the Silver Age]. Мoscow: Lambert Academic Publishing.
10. Soshkin, E. (2010) Mezhdu mogiloi i tyur'moi (Stat'ya pervaya) [Between the Grave
and the Prison (Article One)]. In: Pild, L. (ed.) Blokovskii sbornik XVIII: Rossiya i Estoniya v
XX veke: Dialog kul'tur [Blok Collection XVIII: Russia and Estonia in the 20th Century: Dia-
logue of Cultures]. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kiryastus. pp. 56–79.
11. Maksimov, D. (1987) Bryusov-kritik [Bryusov, a Critic]. In: Bryusov, V. Sochineniya
v 2 t. [Works in 2 Vols]. Vol. 2. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura. pp. 5–26.
12. Salma, N.K. (1982) K voprosu o meste V. Bryusova v russkom simvolizme [On the
Place of V. Bryusov in Russian Symbolism]. Dissertations Slavicae. XV. pp. 85–104.
13. Danielyan, E.S. (2002) Valeriy Bryusov. Problemy tvorchestva [Valery Bryusov.
Problems of Oeuvre]. Erevan: Lingva.
14. Gerasimov, K.S. (1973) Nauchnaya fantastika Bryusova [Bryusov’s Science Fiction].
In: Ayvazyan K.V. (ed.) Bryusovskie chteniya 1971 goda [Bryusov Readings, 1971]. Erevan:
Ayastan. pp. 33–57.
15. Andreasyan, N.G. (1988) Dramaturgiya V.Ya. Bryusova (1907–1917)
[V.Ya. Bryusov’s Plays (1907–1917)]. In: Al'tshuller, A.Ya., Ninov, A.A. & Smirnov-
Nesvitskiy, Yu.A. (eds) Russkii teatr i dramaturgiya 1907–1917 godov [Russian Theater and
Plays of 1907–1917]. Leningrad: LGITMIK. pp. 21–36.
16. Voloshin, M. (1988) Liki tvorchestva [Faces of Creativity]. Leningrad: Nauka.
17. Gumilyov, N. (2000) Nikolay Gumilyov: Pro et Contra. St. Petersburg: Russian Chris-
tian Institute for the Humanities. (In Russian).
18. Heller, L. & Niqueux, M. (2003) Utopiya v Rossii [Utopia in Russia]. Translated from
French by I.V. Bulatovskiy. St. Petersburg: Giperion.

«Земля» В.Я. Брюсова как эксперимент научной поэзии

Пэк Сынму
Ключевые слова: научная поэзия, научная фантастика, символизм, трагедия, эсхатоло-
гия, трансграничная эстетика.

В статье описывается «Земля» В.Я. Брюсова в качестве выдающегося произведения

научной поэзии, а также проводится анализ данной пьесы. Финал пьесы, предвещаю-
щий смерть человеческого рода, и мрачная атмосфера, которой пронизана вся драма,
напоминают типичную символистскую трагедию. Однако при более пристальном рас-
смотрении структуры пьесы можно заметить, что она выходит за рамки символистской
драматургии. В основном мотив научной фантастики, дополненный технологическими
деталями и предсказаниями будущего, резко контрастирует с символизмом с его ми-
стическими и религиозными мотивами. Кроме того, эсхатологический персонаж Теотль
и гуманист Теопикски, несмотря на противоположность идеологий, приходят к одному
и тому же выводу, приводящему к нетрадиционному развертыванию основного кон-
фликта, центром которого становится Неватль. Это, в свою очередь, демонстрирует
эксперимент трансграничной эстетики Брюсова, бросающий вызов традиционному
символизму.
Более того, Неватль, который появляется в качестве посланника надежды на вос-
кресение, имеет слишком много недостатков, чтобы стать ключевым героем трагедии.
Неватль, единственная надежда на выживание человека перед лицом надвигающейся
гибели, находится на позиции силы, которая, к сожалению, слабее, чем драматическая
сила, которой обладают Теопикски или Теотль. Во время встречи с Тланом и Консулом
Неватль обнаруживает, что он несостоятелен как спаситель человечества не только по
характеру, но и по философии.
Брюсов полагал, что только взаимодействие искусства и науки способно создать
истинную культуру данной эпохи, а «расширения познания» в качестве подлинной
функции искусства можно достичь посредством научной поэзии, т.е. сближения поэзии
 Valery Bryusov’s The Earth as an Experiment? 281

и науки, которые равноценны. «Земля» анализирует онтологический статус человека,

превращая тему культурного кризиса в драму и достигая нового уровня науки, знаний и
познания. Хотя «Земля» представляет собой гипотетический мир с неизвестным буду-
щим, его социальной структурой и психологической атмосферой, когнитивная экспан-
сия Брюсова, основанная на научной поэзии, дает знания и новую жизнь обществу и
человечеству того времени.
В статье обосновывается утверждение, что «Земля» создает новую когнитивную
методологию научной поэзии, которая, основываясь на реалистичных концепциях,
также поддерживает альтернативную реальности перспективу.