გრიგოლ რობაქიძის ესსე „Мережковский“, 1909

ანოტაცია

In 1923 in his letter "Pro domo sua" Grigol Robakidze noted the great im­portance of symbolism for his work of the 1910s-20s. Today, the focus of our atten­tion is on Robakidze's opinion of the philosophical-aesthetic concept of Dmitry Merezhkovsky.

Robakidze published an critical article-essay "Merezhkovsky", which was prin­ted (in Russian) in two issues of the newspaper „Закавказье“ ("Zakavkaz'ye") in 1909 (April 25 - № and April 26 - № 66)). The letter is dedicated to Merezhkovsky's trilogy "Christ and the Antichrist," but for Robakidze these texts became an excuse to talk about Merezhkovsky's symbolic vision of history and the probable future of humanity: the essay consists of five parts, each of which reflects Robakidze's point of view on various aspects of Merezhkovsky's philosophical-aesthetic principles.

In the first part, Robakidze discusses the trilogy's "scheme of artistic symbols". The opposition of two symbolic "reality" emerges: cold, "dead" marble « "alive" but disembodied spirit. Since one lacks a soul and the other lacks a body, both are imper­fect and they strive towards each other. The "real doubling of world the existence of the world" is presented as a struggle between two world powers. In their struggle, the "religious salvation of the meaning of world history" is read. Their reconciliation in the “highest religious synthesis” is inevitable. Then the “third revelation, the reve­lation of the Spirit” will appear and a “new heaven and a new earth” will emerge. Accor­ding to Robakidze, this is precisely the symbolic meaning of the trilogy. The second part discusses the “mysticism” of Merezhkovsky’s trilogy. Robakidze charac­terizes Merezhkovsky as a “deep mystic and gentle poet.” In the third part of the let­ter, Robakidze focuses on the symbolic perception of history and the “sense of infi­nity.” The fourth part substantiates Merezhkov's vision of the crisis of conscious­ness and spiritual duality. Robakidze speaks about Merezhkovsky's vision of the future of humanity in the fifth, concluding part of his letter. Robakidze's letter does not men­tion the last novel of the trilogy. It seems that the writer was less interested of its prob­lematic (the issue of the compatibility of the church with the interests of the state).

Speaking about the prophetic talent of the Russian thinker, Robakidze again returns to the issue of his mysticism, but in Robakidze’s opinion, Merezhkovsky himself “has less ability to act than anyone else.” As a rule, the background of the text is the events that exist outside the text, and if we compare Robakidze’s letter and the chronology of historical events, it becomes clear that in “Action,” Robakidze conveys his dissatisfaction with the practical results of Merezhkovsky’s "Religious-Philosophical Societys" activity.

In his critical assessments, Robakidze was far ahead of the criticism of the time, but it is no less important that for him Merezhkovsky's trilogy became an occa­sion to talk about the importance of a symbolic vision of history and the probable future of humanity.