Sie sind auf Seite 1von 303

Pavel Florensky

Beyond Vision
Essays on the Perception ofArt
Nicoletta Misler
Wendy Salmond
Published by
79 Farringdon Road
London ECIM 3JU, UK
First published 2002
Introductory material and essays on Florensky Nicoletta Misler 2002
English-language translation ofFlorensky's e s s y s ~ Reaktion Books 2002
All rights reserved
No part ofthis publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of
the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
F1orenskii, P. A. (Pavel Aleksandrovich), 1882-1937
Beyond vision: essays on the perception of art
1. Art criticism
I. Title II. Misler, Nicoletta
ISBN 1 86189 130 x
Preface and Acknowledgements 7
Notes to the Reader 9
Translator's Note 12
Pavel Florensky: A Biographical Sketch 13
Pavel Florensky as Art Historian 29
Essays by Pavel Florensky:
The Church Ritual as a Synthesis of the Arts (1922) 95
Celestial Signs (1922) 113
On the Efimovs' Puppet Theatre (1925) 123
The Stratification of Aegean Culture (1913) 137
On Realism (1923) 175
Explanation of the Cover (1922) 183
Reverse Perspective (1920) 197
References 273
Bibliographical Sources 307
Index 311
Choosing the seven essays here has been a difficult assignment, for Floren-
sky wrote a great deal on the history and theory of art, especially during
the 1910S and 1920S, often in response to the cultural, social and political
events of his time. Among the principal criteria governing the selection
have been originality and actuality of idea and previous inaccessibility of
the text in English. However, the essays are organically connected to the
many other facets of Florensky's career and should be read as comple-
ments to his researches into ecclesiastical history, geology, mathematics,
engineering, physics and archaeology, all of which could provide equally
fascinating anthologies of critical and theoretical essays. Such intellectual
versatility was characteristic of Florensky, of his generation, and of the
evanescent synthesis that distinguished Russia's cultural renaissance in the
first decades of the twentieth century.
Verifying Florensky's copious bibliographical references to both humanistic
and scientific literature (he was a voracious reader), following his intellectual
sallies into his numerous and often opposing fields ofresearch (from the Ital-
ian Renaissance to industrial Bakelite, from the Orthodox liturgy to Aegean
culture) has been a daunting and exacting task, and many people and insti-
tutions have helped bring the project to fruition
Above all, I must express my deepest thanks to Wendy Salmond, trans-
lator of the essays. Without her linguistic expertise, constructive advice,
common sense and constant good humour, this book would not exist.
I am also very grateful to the immediate members of Florensky's family,
Pavel V. Florensky, Igumen Andronik (Aleksandr Trubachev) and Mariia
Trubacheva, who have now transferred his archival legacy to the Florensky
Foundation in Moscow (The Centre for the Study, Preservation and Restora-
tion of the Legacy ofFather Pavel Florensky). They have been unhesitating in
their support of this project and generous in furnishing information about
Florensky's life and work, and in allowing me to consult original documents,
photographs and other archival materials.
The following individuals and institutions have also rendered invaluable
help in issues oflanguage, cultural context and bibliography:
Alexander and Lia Barschevsky, Miriam Beck, John E. Bowlt, Elizabeth
Durst, Adrian Efimov and his family, Marisa Emiliani Dalai, Carol Emerson,
Oleg Genisaretsky, Frank Goodwin, Vyacheslav Ivanov, Mark Konecny, Liud-
mila Kova!, Ira Menchova, Avril Pyman, Bernice Rosenthal and William G.
Casa del Libro, Rome; Galart, Moscow; Getty Research Institute, Los
Angeles; Institute of Modern Russian Culture, Los Angeles; Russian State
Library, Moscow; Russian State Archive of Literature and Art, Moscow; State
Russian Museum, St Petersburg; and State Tretiakov Gallery, Moscow.
Unless stated otherwise, photographs and artworks are in the possession
of The Center for the Study, Preservation, and Restoration of the Legacy of
Father Pavel Florensky (The Florensky Foundation, Moscow), and are repro-
duced here with kind permission ofthe Foundation. In most cases the identity
of the photographer(s) of Florensky and his family and friends has not been
The transliteration follows the Library of Congress system. However, many
Russian writers and artists spent part of their lives in Western Europe or the
United States and often spelt their names in ways that diverged from or even
contradicted standard systems. When a variant of this kind has long been
established and recognised, e.g., Alexandre Benois, not Aleksandr Benua; El
Lissitzky, not Lazar' Lisitsky, this has been retained in the main text.
Dating the Essays
Dates in parentheses on the Contents page refer to date of public lecture,
actual publication or intended publication.
Names and Titles
The flrst name and surname ofan individual are given in full when he or she is
first mentioned in a given section or essay. Subsequent references to the indi-
vidual are by surname.
Titles of books, catalogues, journals and newspapers are italicised; titles
of articles, manuscripts and exhibitions are in quotation marks, but names of
societies and institutions are not. When first mentioned in the main text, the
title of a Russian book, exhibition catalogue, journal or newspaper is provided
in the original language with English translation in brackets; subsequent refer-
ences in the main text are in English only; those to a journal or newspaper are
in the original language.
Florensky's own endnote References are often schematic or incomplete.
Where appropriate, in the interests of clarity and accessibility I have updated
and amplified his bibliographical references.
Times and Places
Dates referring to events in Russia before January 1918 are in the Old Style.
Consequently, if they are in the nineteenth century they are twelve days
behind the Western calendar, whereas if they are between 1900 and 1918 they
are thirteen days behind.
The city of St Petersburg was renamed Petrograd in 1914, Leningrad in
1924 and St Petersburg again in 1992. However, both the names Petrograd and
Petersburg continued to be used freely in common parlance and in publica-
tions until 1924. As a general rule, however, Petrograd has been retained here
as the official name of St Petersburg for the period 1914-24.
The following abbreviations have been used:
d. de10 (archival dossier or item)
ed. khr. edinitsa khraneniia (archival unit of preservation)
f. fond (archival fund)
GAlS Gosudarstvennaia Akademiia istorii iskusstv (State Academy of
the History of the Arts, Leningrad)
GAKhN Gosudarstvennaia Akademiia khudozhestvennykh nauk (State
Academy of Artistic Sciences, Moscow), from 1921-5 known as RAKhN
GEEI Gosudarstvennii eksperimental'nyi elektrotekhnicheskii institut
(State Experimental Electrotechnical Institute)
GlavELEKTRO Glavnoe upravlenie ekektrotekhnicheskoi promyshlen-
nosti (Chief Administration for the Electrotechnical Industry)
Glavnauka Glavnoe upravlenie nauchnykh, muzeinykh i nauchno-
khudozhestvennykh uchrezhdenii (Chief Administration of Scholarly,
Museum and Art-Research Institutions)
GOELRO Gosudarstvennaia komissiia po elektrifikatsii Rossii (State
Commission for the Electrification of Russia)
GOKhRAN Gosudarstvennoe khranilishche (State Depository)
INKhUK Institut khudozhestvennoi kul'tury (Institute of Artistic
Culture, Moscow)
I. list (sheet)
MIKhIM Moskovskii institut istoriko-khudozhestvennykh izyskanii i
muzeevedeniia (Moscow Institute of Historical and Artistic Researches and
NARKOMPROS Narodnyi komissariat prosveshcheniia (People's
Commissariat for Enlightenment)
op. opus (archival corpus)
RAKhN Russkaia Akademiia khudozhestvennykh nauk (Russian
Academy of Artistic Sciences, Moscow), after 1925 known as GAKhN
RANION Rossiiskaia assotsiatsiia naucho-issledovatel'skikh institutov
obshchestvennykh nauk (Russian Association of Scientific-Research
Institutes of the Social Sciences)
RGALI Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv literatury i iskusstva
(Russian State Archive of Literature and Art, Moscow)
RGL Russian State Library, Moscow (formerly Lenin Library, Moscow)
RM State Russian Museum, St Petersburg
SVOMAS Svobodnye gosudarstvennye khudozhestvennye masterskie
(Free State Art Studios)
TG State Tretiakov Gallery, Moscow
VEl Vsesoiuznyi e1ektrotekhnicheskii institut (All-Union Electro-
technical Institute, Moscow)
VKhuTEIN Vysshii gosudarstvennyi khudozhestvenno-tekhnicheskii
institut (Higher State Art-Technical Institute, Moscow)
VKhuTEMAS Vysshie gosudarstvennye khudozhestvenno-tekhnich-
eskie masterskie (Higher State Art-Technical Studios, Moscow)
Florensky's style of writing, his grammatical constructions and often oblique
vocabulary make translation into any language a challenging task. His use of
language reflects a deep erudition and diverse interests, ranging from the Bible
and the classical repertory to the latest sciences of non-Euclidean geometry
and psycho-physiology. Mixing archaisms and mathematical formulae,
Florensky is by turns lyrical and stringently logical.
The distinctive rhythm of Florensky's prose relies in part on the unusual
length and density of his sentences, with their long secondary clauses, paren-
thetical digressions and idiosyncratic repetitions. I have attempted to retain
the sense of his voice, particularly in those essays originally presented as
public lectures. Thus, in their original Russian the published texts adopt a
complex system of emphasis (underlining, italics) to convey the degrees of
importance which Florensky wished to give specific words and phrases and,
whenever possible, this method of emendation has been maintained. Where
the complexity of Florensky's language threatens to make his ideas inaccessi-
ble to a non-Russian reader, however, exceptionally long and unwieldy
sentences have been divided into more manageable lengths.
Nicoletta Misler
Pavel Aleksandrovich Florensky (1882-1937), priest, philosopher, historian and
mathematician, was one of the most paradigmatic and influential scholars of
the Russian Silver Age.
In spite of his erudition and expertise in many disciplines, the full meas-
ure of Florensky's impact on the culture of his time has still to be determined
and assessed. True, the rediscovery of Florensky's philosophical, literary and
art historical a;uvre began in the late 1960s with the publication of his writings
in the Soviet Union, at first with hesitancy and then with increasing boldness;
and as these writings became better known (thanks to the courage of his
family, most of the texts had been preserved throughout the Stalin era), their
intimate connection with the most diverse fields of the humanities and
sciences also became apparent.
Florensky's rich intellectual and spiritual legacy is intricate, contradictory
and often confusing, something manifest in the very iconology of Florensky
that has come down to us; and since this book concerns his perception of the
fine and applied arts rather than his status as a representative of the Orthodox
church, visualising this iconology might help us to understand the complexity
of the living person. On the one hand, for example, we have the 1934 memoir
by Andrei Bely, poet and philosopher, who refers to the 'angular and nosey'
Florensky 'galvanised to your socks with his perspicacious gaze' and 'babbling
away through the nose' - certainly, a sarcastic, if not caricatural portrait.
the other hand, there is the affectionate and reverent description that Floren-
sky's friend and fellow priest, Sergei Bulgakov, penned in emigration: 'For me
Father Pavel was not only a phenomenon of genius, but also a work of art, so
harmonious and beautiful was his image. We would need the words, the brush
or the chisel of a great master to tell the world about him.'2 In fact, several
artists did take up their tools to try and evoke the emblematic image ofFloren-
sky, especially those who were in close contact with him throughout the
1920S, such as Vladimir Favorsky (illus. 1) and Aleksandr Uittengoven (illus. 2).
Other artists 'engraved' Florensky in the ecclesiastical robes so characteristic
of his distinctive profile - as in the profile silhouette by Nina Simonovich-
I Vladimir Favorsky, Pavel Florensky, 1922, pencil on paper, State Tretiakov Gallery,
2 Aleksandr Uittengoven's ex-libris design for Florensky, 1924, woodcut. Collection of
Marina Chuvanova, Moscow
Efimova 0f'1926 (illus. 48). Such images, together with the extensive collection
of family photographs preserved in the Florensky Foundation in Moscow,
provide a very human and concrete image of Florensky's personality: here is
the dashing young man in a kaftan sporting a Caucasian dagger in his belt and
the young father carrying his baby daughter (illus. 3); here is the family man in
Sergiev Posad in 1922 sitting on the wooden steps leading from his home into
the garden (illus. 4);3 here is the humiliating police ID photograph taken after
his arrest in 1928 together with his colleague Pavel Kapterev (illus. 5).
The eldest of six children, Florensky was born on 9 January 1882 in the
village of Evlakh in Azerbaidjan, into an educated and united family. From his
father, Aleksandr !vanovich, a railroad engineer, Florensky inherited a posi-
tivist passion for science, while his more artistic talents derived from his
mother, Ol'ga Pavlovna (nee Saparian), an intelligent and cultivated woman of
ancient Armenian lineage. Florensky's two brothers also inherited their
father's more practical nature, Aleksandr (1888-1938) becoming a professional
geologist and Andrei (1899-1961) a shipbuilder and rocket engineer. Their
mother's penchant for the arts manifested itself in the activities ofFlorensky's
3 Florensky and his daughter Mariia (Tinatin) in the garden oftheir home in Sergiev
4 Florensky, his wife Anna
Mikhailovna, and their
children Vasilii, Kirill, Ol'ga
and Mikhail sitting on the
wooden steps oftheir home
in Sergiev Posad, 1922
5 Police ID photograph of
Florenskyand Pavel
Kapterev, Camp Freedom,
Eastern Siberia, 1928
6 Ol'ga Florenskaia,
Pavel Florensky, 1907,
oil on cardboard.
Private collection
three sisters, all painters, Elizaveta (1886-1959), Ol'ga (1890-1914: her portrait
of Florensky is illus. 6) and Raisa (1896-1932), the latter two achieving solid
reputations in the 1920S. For Florensky the family was the essential nucleus in
the history of any individual, and throughout his life he gathered and
preserved genealogical materials, even the most casual detail, which he
intended to pass on to future generations. The Florensky Foundation, estab-
lished in 1996 by Florensky's grandchildren in the family apartment on
Burdenko Street in Moscow, is living testimony to this familial continuity, as
his descendants have also made commendable contributions to their particu-
lar fields: Florensky's grandson, Aleksandr Trubachev (Igumen Andronik,
Father Andronik), also serves the cause of the Orthodox Church; his grand-
daughter, Mariia, is a specialist in Russian icons, another grandson, also Pavel,
is a celebrated mineralogist, while some of the younger and perhaps less rever-
ent progeny are members of the Mit'ki group of avant-garde artists and poets
in St Petersburg.
Florensky maintained that his real schooling derived not from institu-
tions oflearning, but from nature, and later on he recalled with great fondness
the walks or 'expeditions' that he and his father used to undertake in the envi-
rons ofTiflis in their search for shells, stones and fossils. The young Florensky
would observe and study these natural phenomena, even drawing and photo-
graphing them, something that stimulated his lifelong interest in geology and
meteorology. True, Florensky attended the Second Classical Gymnasium in
Tiflis between 1892 and 1900 (at various times the philosophers Aleksandr
El'chaninov and Vladimir Ern and the artist David Burliuk were also enrolled
there), where he received the traditional grounding in languages, literature
and the sciences, but he preferred to read and think outside of the school
curriculum and never regarded his tenure at the Gymnasium as fundamental
to his intellectual formation.
Florensky regarded life as a constant experiment, and to this end recorded
countless facts, major and minor, that he then annotated in the form of the
'objective' diaries he began to write in 1916, as well as in the many letters to
members of his family.4 Every detail in this chronicle is related to an ontologi-
cal reality, but a reality perceived within a context that is both universally
accessible and very private. An illuminating example ofFlorensky's 'detailisa-
tion' is his childhood reminiscence ofVenetian glass beads offered by Turkish
merchants in Batumi, Georgia,5 which left such a vivid aesthetic impression
on him that he later used it as a graceful image to explain the concept of space
and time in a work of art.
Indeed, in his memoirs, Florensky recalled Batumi
and Tiflis, the cities of his youth, with extreme vivacity, rendering them even
more exotic in their temporal remoteness. In reconstructing the psychology
of his childhood, Florensky demonstrated an exceptional sensibility, which
later manifested itself in his relationship to his own five children, Vasilii
(1911-56), Kirill (1915-82), Ol'ga (1918-97), Mikhail (1921-61) and Mariia (b. 1924,
nicknamed Tinatin). For his beloved Mikhail, Florensky composed and illus-
trated a historical saga while he was in prison camp during 1934-7, the poem
'Oro' dedicated to the Orochony (a people ofthe Russian Far East). His death left
the poem unfinished?
In 1899, poised between infancy and manhood, Florensky experienced a
profound spiritual crisis, after sensing the inadequacy of what he called the
'knowledge of physics'. This was the first of three crises that signalled major
turning-points in his life, the others occurring in 1909-10 on the eve of his
marriage to Anna Mikhailovna Giatsintova (]889-1973) and in 1924 (a private
episode that he never really clarified).
Florensky's family regarded his sudden decision to embrace Orthodoxy as
a very radical conversion. He recalls that for his laical, if tolerant, family, reli-
gion was an embarassing, almost taboo, subject, like any other non-scientific
truth,S even if for Florensky proximity to religion did not entail rejecting
science. Graduating from the Gymnasium in Tiflis in 1900, he enrolled in the
Department of Physics and Mathematics at Moscow University. In attending
the courses offered by the mathematician Nikolai Bugaev, Florensky hoped to
resolve the apparent contradiction between his scientific interests and his spir-
itual quest. Bugaev supported the theory of discontinuous or discrete func-
tions in mathematics, even extending this idea to other fields of enquiry and,
not surprisingly, became supervisor of Florensky's graduating thesis 'Ob
osobennostiakh ploskikh krivykh kak mestakh narushenii preryvnosti' [On
the Peculiarities of Planar Curves as Loci of Disruptions of Continuity] (1904).
During this period Florensky also attended Sergei Trubetskoi's lectures on
philosophy and became especially close to Andrei Bely, Bugaev's son, a liaison
reinforced by their common interest in new and controversial mathematical
ideas or, rather, the philosophy of mathematics, and their common devotion
to Bugaev's arithmology. True, the Bely-Florensky friendship was of rather
short duration,9 although, in spite of intermittent silences, their intellectual
exchange and spiritual consonance lasted many years. Both made sure, for
example, to send each other congratulatory letters on the publication of their
respective books, Bely's Simvolizm [Symbolism] in 1910,10 and Florensky's Stolp
i utverzhdenie istiny [The Pillar and Ground of the Truth] in ]914,11 and both
frequented the Symbolist literary circles of Valerii Briusov, Konstantin Bal'-
mont and the eccentric couple Dmitrii Merezhkovsky and Zinaida Gippius.
Florensky's commitment to Orthodoxy did not diminish, and in 1904, after
debating with Elder Antonii (Bishop Antonii of Donskoi Monastery), whether
or not to take monastic vows, he decided to enrol in the Moscow Theological
Seminary (actually located in Sergiev Posad), which he did in September of
that year (iIIus. 7). Florensky graduated in 1908 and entered the priesthood;
four years later he submitted his thesis for Master ofT'heology, and in May1914
received the degree.
Once embarked on his religious quest, Florensky met a number of idealist
and Orthodox philosophers, including EI'chaninov and Ern (his old class-
mates from Tiflis) and especially Sergei Troitsky, the friend to whom he dedi-
cated the twelve fundamental letters of his theological dissertation - which
7 Florenskyat the MoscowTheological Seminary, Sergiev Posad, 1912
then developed into The Pillar and Ground ofthe Truth. At this time Florensky was
much influenced by the eschatological beliefs and philosophical constructs of
Vladimir Solov'ev and other cultural heroes of the time, such as Nietzsche and
Wagner. Myth and primitive culture, the correlation between good and evil,
Gesamtkunstwerk and similar concepts were the subjects of long and ardent
discussions among the Symbolists, especially at Viacheslav Ivanov's sixth-
floor apartment, the so called 'Tower' in St Petersburg, where every Wednes-
day between 1905 and 1907 the Symbolist intelligentsia would meet. As
Ivanov's daughter, Lidiia, recalls, 'Another memory - a young student in a
worn uniform with brown hair and a very long nose. He kept silent, concen-
trating intensely on his thoughts, with his nose down near his plate. 'Through-
out the meal he never raised his head. This was Pavel Florensky.'12 But not all
ofFlorensky's friendships were enduring, and after 1906 he distanced himself
from Ern and Vladimir Sventsitsky of the 'Apocalyptic Troika', dissatisfied
with their politically committed Christianity.
The Symbolists were driven by a consuming desire to discover the essen-
tial meaning of religion, literature and art, and Florensky drew his philosoph-
ical inspiration from the same sources. Florensky's intellectual curiosity and
spiritual exploration informed his intense pedagogical activity as a lecturer
both in mathematics and cosmography at the Women's Gymnasium in
Sergiev Posad, 1908-9, and in philosophy at the Moscow Theological Semi-
nary there, 1908-19. As far as his ecclesiastical duties are concerned, between
1912 and 1921 Florensky served as priest to the Sergiev Posad Church of Mary
Magdalene attached to the shelter for Nurses of the Russian Red Cross. For
three years (1914-17) he was also chief editor for the journal Bogoslovskii vestnik
[Theological Herald] in which he published several of his fundamental essays
such as 'Razum i dialektika' [Reason and Dialectics] (II/9, 1914) and 'Privedenie
chisel' [Induction of Numbers] (II/5, 1916). The year 1914 also saw the publica-
tion of his book Smysl idealizma [The Meaning ofIdealism].
With the onslaught of the Great War and the Revolution, Florensky, like
many other Russian writers and artists, heard the trumpets of the Apocalypse
sounding through the noise oftime - just as the writer and philosopher Vasilii
Rozanov was compiling his pamphlets on The Apocalypse ofOur Time with their
millenarian interpretation of the revolutionary events.
We can understand
why, in that fateful year of1917, Florensky was especially supportive of the sick
and sorrowfull Rozanov,1
and why Bely still referred to him jokingly as a
active member of the 'Apocalyptic Troika'.15 Aleksei Losev recalled:
At the beginning of the Revolution innumerable voices spoke of
the fall of the whole ofEuropean culture [...] At the beginning of
the Revolution [...] the Orthodox and mystical Florensky used to
deliver public papers and lectures whose principal idea was of an
imminent and inevitable catastrophe. In a muffled and hardly
audible voice, his eyes eternally cast down, this engineer
predicted that nothing would remain in place, that everything
would lose its structure and form and everything would disinte-
grate, be destroyed and atomised completely. Until the old was
liquified in total chaos and reduced to dust, it would be impossi-
ble to speak of new and stable values. I myself attended these
terrifying lectures.
It is difficult to reconcile the apocalyptic turbulence of war and revolution
with the intimate domestic photographs showing Florensky in the bosom of
his growing family - his wife, Anna and their three young children - not to
mention the various aunts, babies and other relations. The house in Sergiev
Posad that Florensky acquired in 1910 was a haven of peace and apparent
immutability, and it remained his even after the October Revolution. Ofrather
modest proportions, but with a large kitchen garden, the house has not
changed to this day and the street in front still leads off to the golden cupolas
of the Churches of the Lavra (illus. 8).
After the Revolution Florensky intensified his pedagogical activity, plac-
ing his scientific qualifications at the service of the new Soviet regime, a prac-
tical application that saved him, at least temporarily, from the first repressive
measures, arrests and summary executions that the Bolsheviks took against
the Church and its supporters. In 1920 he collaborated with the biologist Ivan
Ognev on the development of a special ultramicroscope at the Istological
Institute in MoscowP As a specialist in electricity, in January 1921 he began to
work for GOELRO (Soviet Electrification Plan) and then for GlavELEKTRO at
the Karbolit Works, developing new insulation materials (illus. 9).
From 1918 to 1920 he served on the Commission for the Preservation of
Monuments and Antiquities ofthe Lavra ofthe Trinity and St Sergius,18 where,
with militant zeal and side by side with art historians, restorers and conserva-
8 The Florensky home in Sergiev Posad, near the Church ofthe Trinity at the Troitse-
Sergieva, photographed in 1996
9 Nina Simonovich-
Efimova's cover design
for Florensky's book
Karbolit (published in
1928); indian inkand
crayons on paper.
Efimov Archive,
tors, he tried desperately to safeguard the spiritual values and precious mate-
rial treasures of the Orthodox faith from atheist dictatorship and ruthless
nationalisation. Thanks to this connection he was invited to teach Byzantine
art at MIKhIM. One of the most significant results ofFlorensky's involvement
in the Commission and his preparations for the Byzantine course was his cycle
of publications on early Russian art, including the fundamental essay Ikonostas
Florensky's close collaboration with the Commission and his previous
contacts with the Moscow Symbolist milieu - and with young art historians
such as Aleksei Sidorov and Aleksandr Larionov - heightened his interest in
the visual arts and in particular artists such as Favorsky, who shared Floren-
sky's vision of a Holy Russia, one that was Orthodox, humble and immacu-
late. Like Florensky, Favorsky was interested in howthe practising artist could
benefit from the exact sciences such as physics, mathematics and psycho-
physiology. Not surprisingly, in his capacity as Chairman of the Department
ofPolygraphy, he invited his friend to teach a course at VKhUTEMAS during
(1921-24),2 Moscow's progressive art school, which had substituted and inte-
grated the pre-Revolutionary schools of fine and applied arts. This course
ignited a passionate polemic between the more moderate artists such as Niko-
lai Chernyshev and Konstantin Istomin on the one hand and the Construc-
tivists such as Liubov' Popova and Aleksandr Rodchenko on the other.
Incidentally, the former were closely associated with the Makovets group of
writers and artists, a curious and disparate assembly of rightists and leftists
(Natal'ia Goncharova and Mikhail Larionov were also members, even though
by then they were living in exile) who insisted both on the messianic purpose
of art and on the artist's right to personal expression, a cultural claim that, of
course, appealed to Florensky.
From 1921 onwards Florensky was also associated with the Russian (later
State) Academy of Artistic Sciences (RAKhNjGAKhN) in Moscow, an institu-
tion that attempted to stimulate interaction between scientific thought and
artistic creativity by bringing together art historians, physicists, philosophers,
psychologists and mathematicians. Initiated by Vasilii Kandinsky, RAKhN
attracted the pre-Revolutionary intelligentsia, especially the apologists of
Symbolism such as A. Larionov, with whom Florensky projected a dictionary
of symbols or 'Symbolarium', one of the many theoretical endeavours that
RAKhN sponsored in the field of the artistic sciences.
In the mid- and late 1920S Florensky devoted even more time and energy
to his scientific investigations, contributing 127 entries to the Tekhnicheskaia
entsiklopediia [Technological Encyclopedia] between 1927 and 1934,21 and work-
ing as an insulation specialist in various institutions, especially for GEEI (later
VEl; illus. 10). But his unabating religious commitment, reflected in the priest's
cassock and cross that he still wore to work, made him an easy and constant
target for ideological attack, leading to his exile to Nizhnii-Novgorod for three
months in 1928 (illus. ll). Even there, however, he continued to work as a
researcher for the Vladimir Bonch-Bruevich Institute of Radiology. Returning
to Moscow, he was reinstated at GEEI, even becoming deputy director in 1930.
He continued to participate in scholarly conferences and to publish (illus.
12 and 13), his last professional publication, 'Fizika na sluzhbe matematiki'
['Physics in the Service of Mathematics'] appearing in 1932 in the journal
Sotsialisticheskaia rekonstruktsiia i nauka [Socialist Reconstruction and Science].
But in spite of his prestigious reputation as a scientist, Florensky was arrested
on 26 February 1933, accused of criminal conspiracy and other fictitious acts
10 Florensky in his office at the State Experimental Electrotechnical Institute (GEEJ),
Moscow, 1925
11 Florenskyin exile, Nizhnii-Novgorod, 1928
and condemned to ten years in a prison camp, first at Camp Freedom in East-
ern Siberia and then (early in 1934) at the Experimental Permafrost Station in
Skovorodyno. The cruel deprivations notwithstanding, Florensky pursued his
scientific investigations, his only formal complaint being a written protest to
the OGPU (secret police). In this poignant petition Florensky requested that
the library and manuscripts that had been confiscated during the search of his
house be restituted to him or his family:
For me the confiscation of my books and of my scholarly and
philosophical researches [...] has been a severe blow, depriving
me of any hope at al1 for the future and reducing me to total
apathy in my work.... For me the destruction ofthe results of my
life's work is far worse than physical death.
The absence of his library and of the barest necessities notwithstanding,
Florensky never hesitated in his devotion to religion and science. With the
biologist Pavel Kapterev, for example, his old friend and colleague from the
Commission days, Florensky even wrote two essays on 'How Water Freezes'
12 Florenskyin the family house, Burdenko Street, Moscow(nowthe premises of
the Florensky Foundation), 1931
13 Florenskycollecting mushrooms near Sergiev Posad, 1932
and delivered lectures on the subject. But despite his scientific utility and pres-
sure from Ekaterina Peshkova (Maxim Gorky's ex-wife), in November 1934,
after seeing his family for the last time, Florensky was denied further visitor
rights and sent to Solovki, the ancient monastery now transformed into a
concentration camp. Here he courageouslygave lessons in mathematics to the
camp's Mathematical Circle and worked on scientific issues such as the prop-
erties of iodine, analysing them in the camp's own iodine factory and
discussing them in his lectures to the iodine workers there.
The terrible
circumstances in which he lived are manifest from the letters that he wrote
home to his wife or children, sometimes to the entire family, each one long
and intense as if to make up for the imposed infrequency. This amazing corre-
spondence, which continued until 3-4 June 1937, radiates with Florensky's
unremitting memories and, as with all his texts, published and unpublished, is
an integral part of a cohesive whole, drawing purpose and strength from the
single denominator of religious faith.
On 25 November 1937, the NKVD (secret police) reconfirmed Florensky's
guilt and condemned him to death. He was transferred to Leningrad Region
and on 8 December 1937 was executed by firing squad at Levashovo, near
Nicoletta Misler
Beyond Vision is the first English-language collection of statements on art by
Pavel Florensky. The book, consisting of seven essays, reflects Florensky's
fundamental attitudes to the vital questions of construction, composition,
chronology, function, and destination in the figurative work of painting,
sculpture and design.
The essays are grouped thematically rather than chronologically,
although they could be arranged in a variety of sequences. The first two, 'The
Church Ritual as a Synthesis of the Arts' and 'Celestial Signs', even if written
after the October Revolution, forge an immediate link with the Symbolist
movement to which Florensky was strongly indebted for his intellectual and
philosphical formation. Symbolist concepts such as the inner perception of
the wholeness of a work of art and the transcendental nature of things lead us
into Florensky's examination of the Efimovs' puppet theatre, which, for him,
was both an organic aesthetic performance and an attempt to recapture the
fantasy and spontaneity of childhood. In this light, 'The Stratification of
Aegean Culture' of 1913 (the earliest of the contributions here), with its assess-
ment of pre-Christian artefacts, assumes particular importance for under-
standing Florensky's philosophical world view. It relates, in turn, to the wider
discussion of the 'primitive' among artists in early twentieth-century Europe
and Russia, from Picasso to Kandinsky, and also enters Florensky's succinct,
but provocative discussion of Realism. In turn, elements of Symbolism and
the avant-garde, as well as new mathematical and geometrical concepts, also
inform Florensky's explanation ofVladimir Favorsky's book cover, a complex
imagery that, consciously or unconsciously, Florensky opposes to the abstract
and mechanical forms of the Moscow Constructivists. The last essay presents
Florensky's analyses of linear and reverse perspectives, while subsuming and
developing some of the ideas set forth in the preceding statements.
Beyond Vision is concerned with the complex and simultaneous applica-
tion of optical vision, intellectual reason and historical experience with
which, inevitably, we approach the work of art. Like all of us, Florensky
possessed this faculty of synthetic perception, but it is the sharpness of focus,
clarity of argument and open inquisitiveness with which he embellished his
evaluations of religion, the natural sciences and cultural monuments, that
astonishes and intrigues today. Florensky's ideas appeal to many audiences-
philosophers, theologists, Slavists, scholars of political and cultural ideology,
and art historians.
Why this selection?
Erudite in many disciplines, Pavel Florensky has often been described as the
Leonardo of his time, a comparison which, however forced, emphasises his
relevance to both the sciences and the humanities, especially the visual arts.
But what makes Florensky unique in the field of art history is that in some
sense he was an intruder, being first and foremost a fervent believer in the
Christian faith and an Orthodox priest - as well as a stellar contributor to the
development of Soviet science.
At the same time Florensky's theoretical positions and professional duties
ofthe 191OS-20S are also distinguished by a profound interest in art history, art
appreciation and art education (witnesses to which are his supervision of the
Commission for the Preservation of Monuments and Antiquities of the Lavra
in 1918-20,1 and his professorship at VKhuTEMAS in Moscow in 1921-4).
Making a summary judgement of his various fields of endeavor towards the
end of his life, Florensky once affirmed that in art history he had established '1)
A methodology for describing and dating ancient Russian artifacts; and 2) A
theory of spatiality in the work of art, especially visual art.'2 These two
achievements can be regarded as the guiding force of his entire academic
career - surely reason enough for devoting this book to Florensky's study of
the figurative arts and the problem of artistic space.
Several anthologies of Florensky's writings on art have already been
published, but this particular collection brings together the essays that pertain
specifically to the meanings and modalities of aesthetic perception, ranging
from the synaesthetic contemplation in the church rite ('The Church Ritual as
a Synthesis of the Arts') to symbolic apperception of the colours of a sunrise
('Celestial Signs'). The collection also contains Florensky's interpretations of
the mathematical concept of a particular engraved representation ('Explana-
tion of the Cover'), a recomposition of the archaeological relics of Aegean
culture into a philosophical treatise on the matriarchate in early historical
times ('The Stratification of Aegean Culture'), perspective as 'symbolic form'
('Reverse Perspective'), the intimate ritual of puppet theatre ('On the Efimovs'
Puppet Theatre') and a programmatic essay on the term Realism ('On Real-
ism'). True, Florensky considered the ideal model or synthesis of the visual arts
to be the Russian and Byzantine icon, an identification that is crucial to any
understanding of Florensky the art historian and one that cannot be empha-
sised enough. However, Florensky's several essays on icons and other Ortho-
dox artistic and architectural objects have been excluded from the current
collection either because - as in the case of lconostasis - they are already acces-
sible in English translations or because in their thematic coherence they would
constitute a complementary, but independent, anthology. The focus of this
collection, then, is on Florensky as an art historian rather than on his more
familiar role as priest and religious philosopher.
Indeed, Florensky's art historical writings demonstrate a keen awareness
of the latest European scholarship: his analysis of spatiality betrays a close
resemblance to the theories ofErnst Cassirer, Erwin Panofsky and Alois Riegl;
his investigations into iconography and anthropology bring to mind the
conclusions of Fritz Saxl and Aby Warburg, while his personal elaboration of
what could be called a Formalist methodology indicates a clear recognition of
Conrad Fiedler, Heinrich Wolfflin and Wilhelm Worringer. Even in the field of
museum studies Florensky was at the forefront, arguing, for example, for the
establishment of the living and organic museum in his desperate bid to save
the Lavra of the Trinity and St Sergius, the great monastery in Sergiev Posad
near Moscow. These fine thematic intersections, constant cross-references
and rich strata of bibliographical sources prove that Florensky, like many
other Russian philosophers, writers and artists of the 1900S through to the
1920S, lived and worked not in isolation, but in a well-equipped and efficient
laboratory of cultural enquiry and experiment that turned late Imperial and
early Soviet Russia into a unique incubator of original ideas, utopian projects
- and sometimes cataclysmic applications.
Moreover, studying Florensky's written ceuvre on the visual arts prompts
us to correct the serious misapprehensions and prejudices that often accom-
pany our conventional understanding of culture and the October Revolution.
Florensky and other thinkers and artists of his time constitute an 'alternative
tradition' in the 1920S that coexisted with and, in some measure, countered the
louder claims of the avant-garde on the one hand and the proto-Socialist Real-
ists on the other. At the twilight of the Symbolist era, Florensky and his
colleagues were the last representatives of the Russian Silver Age: adducing
scientific criteria, he pleaded for the retention of the Orthodox ritual; recog-
nizing Cubism and abstract painting, he championed the values of figurative
art, and at a time of state nationalization and confiscation, he argued for the
preservation oficons, ofchurches and ofthose who served the Christian faith.
Discussing reverse perspective, pictorial deformation and primitive folklore-
the very issues that also excited the avant-garde - Florensky came to conclu-
sions diametrically opposed to those ofthe new and anarchical artists who, in
turn, censured him for his alleged mysticism and idealism.
Florenskywas able to indulge in such varied exercises not only because of
his factual knowledge in many disciplines, his creative fantasy, his intellectual
acumen and his captivating combination of wisdom and ingenuity. He was
able to move effortlessly from art history to biology, or from Futurist litera-
ture to linguistic etymology, because he regarded all these conditions as inter-
related parts of a single whole, over which presided God. Until his tragic death
in 1937, Florensky was an Orthodox priest, an unflinching supporter of the
Christian church and a seeker of the divine truth, whither for him all branches
of knowledge and cognition led. He interpreted the arts and humanities as
celestial signs and elements ofa cultic act pointing to the ulterior Realism and
the luminous vision that, for him, existed beyond the visible.
An extraordinary knowledge of diverse arguments notwithstanding,
Florensky was a cultivated dilettante rather than a professional art historian -
a status shared by other intellectuals of Russia's cultural renaissance just
before and after the October Revolution, including close friends such as the
poet Andrei Bely, the semiotician Aleksandr Larionov,3 the icon specialist
Yurii Olsuf'ev (illus. 14),4 the biologist Pavel Kapterev (illus. 15),5 and the art
and military historian Pavel Muratov.
Of course, the word 'dilettante' is being
used here in the sense that Florensky intended it, for in applying a wide array
of professional instruments to investigate a specific art-historical subject he
did not hesitate to transcend the immediate boundaries ofa discipline in order
to reach a thematic intersection of broader resonance. The result is always a
synthetic investigation reflecting Florensky's own aspiration to approach his
subject fi-om many points of view. Consequently, while following a single line
of enquiry, each of the essays presented in this volume may touch upon
'peripheral' problems or develop into a rich alloy of personal experiences and
observations, which Florensky - being a scientist and a philosopher - often
transmutes into an 'experiment. Remarks such as 'Suppose we went out into
the open, preferably at sunrise' ('Celestial Signs', p. 119 or 'The lambent green
ofgroves in spring stirs unease in the heart' ('Explanation of the Cover', p. 190)
serve both to engage the reader and the live audience (after all, Florensky was
a brilliant teacher and preacher) and to demonstrate that he was interpreting
reality in the tradition of the great scientists of his time. Like Hermann Weyl,
14 Yurii Olsuf'evin the late 1920S
15 Florenskywith his son Kirill and
Pavel Kapterev in the garden at
Sergiev Posad, 1917
for example? Florensky was eager to replace the objective and passive ob-
server with the subjective and active one who integrates and retains the data of
consciousness as the true point of departure for interpreting reality.
In fact, Florensky the scientist recorded both visual and physiological
reactions. He accentuated, for example, the sensory undertones of the
Symbolist world viewin his description ofthe physical pleasures embedded in
the Orthodox ritual (smell, touch, hearing, taste); the delight experienced in
touching an ancient medallion; the intensity of the restrained gesture; the
tactility of brushing the surface of an object; the acute physical sensation of
the density of space on a cold winter's day or the almost hypnotic state
induced when we look at something while standing absolutely still.
their varied subjects and approaches, his writings often evoke a sense of frag-
mentation, and such attention to minutiae might produce the impression of a
randomness of thought. But abstract speculation was foreign to Florensky, for
whom reference to the isolated fact of an event or a phenomenon within the
discussion of a particular artistic theme could often become the integral part
of a long and involved theoretical text.
Many portions of the essay on perspective, for example, as well as Floren-
sky's references to his favourite bibliographical sources, are encapsulated in
his long treatise called Ana(ysis of Spatiality and Time in the Works of Visual Art
(published posthumously in 1993). Likewise, ideas and concepts that Floren-
sky explored in these essays return in a more 'didactic' form in the course on
perspective that he conducted at VKhuTEMAS.
Consequently, some essays
in the collection, such as those on reverse perspective and Realism, carry
more concrete references to Florensky's pedagogical and theoretical activities.
Others such as 'Celestial Signs', 'The Church Ritual as a Synthesis of the Arts',
and the examination of Aegean culture are linked more immediately to
Florensky's Symbolist evolution during the 191OS, in spite of their variety. All
seven essays should be read as an organic totality, because, ultimately, the
thread that interconnects these statements is the symbol, the true meaning of
which - logical, mathematical, artistic, literary, philosophical, spiritual and,
above all, religious - Florensky sought throughout his life.
For him the
symbol was a 'gaze into the mystery: because 'the mystery ofthe world cannot
be veiled by the symbol, but, on the contrary, manifests itself in its authentic
substance, i.e., as mystery'(illus. 16),12
The Symbolist Aura: Sophia and the Gesamtkunstwerk
Florensky developed his concept ofthe symbol in concert with the ideas of the
16 Ol'ga Florenskaia,
Pavel Florensky, 1907,
pencil on paper.
Private collection
Symbolist poets and thinkers, and in the early 1900S especiallywas supportive
of their desire to link aesthetic enquiry to the establishment of newspiritual-
read Neoplatonic - values. While a student, he attended meetings of the vari-
ous religious and philosophical societies that flourished in Moscow, St Peters-
burg and Kiev in the 1900S, and was in touch with Zinaida Gippius and
Dmitrii Merezhkovsky. He even published his ground-breaking essay 'The
Symbols of Infinity' in their journal Novyi put' [New Path], wherein he
proposed a philosophical interpretation of the symbol on the basis of the
mathematical theory of discontinuity,I3 a tenet that reinforced the editors'
wish to promote discussion between the intelligentsia and the Church.
Florensky's efforts to use scientific knowledge as a tool with which to
fashion a new philosophical and spiritual consciousness brought him espe-
cially close to Bely, with whom he explored other important avenues of
research favoured by the second generation of Russian Symbolists. Chief
among these was the Wagnerian notion of the synthesis of the arts which lies
at the basis of 'The Church Ritual as Synthesis of Art', and the philosophy of
Sophia which assumes its conclusive elaboration in 'Celestial Signs'.
It was the philosopher and poet Vladimir Solov'ev who had turned to the
theme of Sophia in the late nineteenth century, accepting the doctrine of the
Holy Wisdom (as formulated by the Eastern Church) as being crucial to the
universal love and eschatalogical rebirth promised by the new millennium.
Many Symbolists, from Bely and Aleksandr Blok to Valerii Briusov and Viach-
eslav Ivanov, then offered their own personal interpretations ofSophia, partic-
ularly as a key to the enigma of the Eternal Feminine. For the religious
thinkers, too, Sophia represented a specific field of theological investigation
within the Orthodox Church, Sergei Bulgakov, friend of Florensky and fellow
priest, for example, emphasising the direct relevance of Sophia to the Russian
Over the long course of his own research into Sophia, Florensky stud-
ied two aspects in particular, the religious and the iconological, and merged
both of them in the basic argument of his 'Celestial Signs'. Meditation on the
subject of Sophia was also Florensky's real departure-point in his Pillar and
Ground ofthe Truth, a synthetic work of vast scientific and humanistic erudition
in the form of a collection ofletters to a friend written between 1908 and 1914.
Letter No. Xwas dedicated entirely to Sophia and contains the results of the
painstaking iconological, theological and philosophical researches that
Florensky had been conducting in the preceding years.
Just as other Russian Symbolists such as Blok and Briusov were also
discerning the genesis of Sophia in the then fashionable doctrines of theoso-
phy and anthroposophy, so, in The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, Florensky
commented on the coloured auras surrounding Sophi a in the icon of that
name]) - not only because anthroposophy was a major subject that he had
been discussing with Bely, but also because he manifested a strong intellec-
tual curiosity about the various fashionable brands offin-de-siec1e mysticism.
With its cultural references to anthroposophy and to 'the magnificent colour
reproductions' in Annie Besant's and Charles W. Leadbeater's theosophical
treatises,16 Florensky's description of Sophi a extended the Symbolist debates
on the Divine Feminine, which from the standpoint of Orthodoxy must have
seemed impious, to say the least. Even in its more strictly theological aspect
the intense engagement with the image and meaning of Sophia was some-
thing new in the Orthodox doctrine and not altogether welcome. In fact, the
letter on 'Sophia' was omitted from the first publication of The Pillar and
Ground ofthe Truth in 1908 under ecclesiastical pressure because of its alleged
The rough notes that Florensky jotted down in the summer of 1904
towards a full review of Bely's cycle of poems, Gold in Azure, highlight the
motif of the sunset so prominent in 'Celestial Signs' and evoke the nostalgic
reminiscence of his own 'We loved the autumnal sunset .. .'.18 Three years
later, in 1907, Florensky dedicated an entire book of poetry entitled In Eternal
Azure to this celestial colour - a belated response to Bely's book.
In his
further writings, Florensky paid attention to the symbolism of the colour
azure in the halo of Sophia, for in the icon of the Sophi a the concentric
spheres around the female image are all azure, each with a different gradation
indicating 'air, sky and the world above',20 while azure and gold are the domi-
nant tonality of the 'Woman Clothed in the Sun' ofSolov'ev's vision, to which
Florensky is alluding in 'Celestial Signs'. Solov'ev identified this spiritual
colour as a halo surrounding the female image, 'As azure filled my soul and
fills the air. Transpierced throughout by rays of golden azure.'21 Florensky
sawan anticipation of this vision in the evocations of Mikhail Lermontov, the
early nineteenth-century Romantic poet, to whom he assigned a prophetical
The sun is setting: it is twilight in the park . ..
Her eyes are beautiful, befilled with azure light.
Her smile is luminous, as roseate and bright . ..
As brilliant sunrays in the morning. 22
For Florensky, azure, as captured in Lermontov's transparent luminosity of a
sunset, was also the dominant tonality of the icon of the Trinity, perhaps the
noblest monument of Russian icon painting (which Andrei Rublev had
painted specifIcally for the Church of the Trinity at the Trinity and St Sergius
Lavra), because azure imparted a special tone to its religious interpretation:
Here is the inexplicable world that flows in a vast torrent straight
into the soul ofwhosoever contemplates Rublev's Trinity. Here is
an azure that has no equal on earth, it is more celestial than the
very sky of our earth, it is verily a celestial azure, the unspoken
dream of Lermontov who so yearned for it.
In 'Celestial Signs' Florensky also contended that the physical conditions
of a sunrise in Sergiev Posad confirmed that the real meaning of phenomena
lay beyond phenomena themselves and that the correlation of physics and
metaphysics (or, rather, metaphysics and physics) was intimate and profound.
According to him, the entire chromatic scale is accommodated within the
relationship of Sophia to the Creator and it is the metaphysical aspects of
colour that determine psychological perception - which becomes, in turn,
psycho-physiological perception.
In many other aspects, Sophi a, which to a Western reader might seem an
esoteric and elusive image in 'Celestial Signs', represented the interweaving of
many different approaches to Russian culture of the Silver Age. From an art-
historical viewpoint, Sophia even served as the aegis for the rediscovery ofthe
patrimony of Ancient Russian art and indicated an urgent need to readjust
hierarchies in art historical evaluation. In fact, it was the aesthete Pavel Mura-
tov, an eminent Russian cultural historian and a pioneer in the serious study
of the Russian icon,2
who in 1914-15 edited Sofiia [Sophia], one of the most
important and relevant journals of the time (illus.17l. Sofiia was an elegant and
elitist periodical that in format and design followed the graphic fin-de-siecle
traditions of the deluxe art journals Mir iskusstva [World of Art] and Zolotoe
runG [Golden Fleece], even if its focus was on very different subjects and
methodologies. Unlike those reviews, however, Sofiia granted a cultural
primacy to Early Russian art, a central subject which it promoted vis-a-vis East-
ern archaeology, the art ofthe Italian Renaissance and even the latest trends in
contemporary art, such as Cubism and Picasso's paintings.
In his art-histor-
ical discussions, Florensky often mentioned Muratov, connoisseur of the Ital-
ian Renaissance and champion of the radical cleaning that had revealed the
true splendour of icons at the grand 'Exhibition of Ancient Russian Art' organ-
ized by the Moscow Archaeological Institute in 1913.26 For his part, Muratov
held Florensky in high regard, encouraging him to accept an academic apoint-
ment at MIKhlM and attending his lecture on perspective there in 1920.
Certain aspects ofFlorensky's essay on 'The Church Ritual as a Synthesis
of the Arts', above all, the concern with artistic synthesis, would seem to be in
sympathy with the current 'art historical' appreciation of the religious rite and
it could well have been published in Sofiia. Yet Florensky was fully aware of the
dangers of a purely aesthetic approach to the artefact, because for him the
ideal perception and reception of the Orthodox religious rite was a 'childish'
and oblivious immersion, one with which he endowed both the simple Russ-
ian folk and himself. Here was the childhood perception of mystery that
Florensky's well-intentioned and positivist father had denied his children.
17 Nikolai Ul'ianov,
Cover design for the
journal Sofiia [Sophia],
Describing a mass, conducted by Bishop Gavriil Golosov, to his friend
Aleksandr El' chaninov, 27 Florensky once exclaimed:
Well, you know my opinion of [Golosov]. All sounds so false and
theatrical ... He knows the church service well and loves it. He
pronounces the words, but you feel that the tone of his diction is
affected and that he is waiting to see what impression it makes.
But this sense ofrank, this artificiality, is not the Orthodox way of
doing things.... On the contrary, to us the church service is near
and dear, and in just the way it's conducted everywhere in Russia
- ugly, with people stumbling around, ete. We like the way slaves
look, whereas you want even their rags to have a lining, to be
unreal. What I'm saying is evangelical and not just Orthodox.
In 'The Church Ritual as a Synthesis of the Arts' Florensky reinforced his pref-
erence for the humble, awkward, but sincere participation in the liturgy (both
by the faithful and the clergy), affirming that there was an undeniable differ-
ence between the liturgical style of the simple 'black' or celibate monks, even
'bad monks' , and that of the more suave 'white' or married priesthood. While
we should take account of the special context, Florensky's declaration would
seem to be in striking contradiction to the general aestheticism that, nonethe-
less, pervades 'The Church Ritual as a Synthesis of the Arts'. The Orthodox
liturgy itself was an aesthetic action that, for example, prompted Florensky to
try and establish a parallel between the perceptual, consubstantial 'accidents'
of icons, such as the smoke ofincense and the dark interior of the church, and
the analogous 'accident' of rose petals scattered upon a classical statue that
Muratov described in his Images of Italy ('The Church Ritual as a Synthesis of
the Arts: p. 103).
Yet in the same essay Florensky seems to be casting aspersions on his
Symbolist colleagues when he mentions that in the recent past aesthetes had
pooh-poohed the Russian icon, whereas now they had opened their eyes to
the purpose and meaning of religious art ('The Church Ritual as a Synthesis
of the Arts', p. 107) - those very aesthetes who had also experienced a revela-
tion at the 'beauty' of the icons after the tentative efforts to analyse and
exhibit them as 'works ofart' within the World ofArt group (we think of Igor'
Grabar's early appreciations and Sergei Diaghilev's inclusion of icons in his
Russian section for the 'Salon d' automne' in Paris in 1906) and especially
after their cleaning in 1913. On the other hand, and still in the spirit of the
Symbolist tradition, Florensky was eliciting their notion of the theurgical
function of art.
Of course, the synthesis of the arts had long been a favourite topic of
discussion among European and Russian Modernists, not least Franz Kupka
and Vasilii Kandinsky.2
But the fact that after the October Revolution Floren-
sky ventured to place this concept at the very foundation of the religious
performance, to demonstrate its theatrical totality, and thereby to argue for its
survival and perpetuation, was an extremely provocative gesture toward the
new regime. In fact, in order to reach a broader consensus from both the
simple populace and the sophisticated intelligentsia, the Soviet government
had encouraged the latter to organise so-called mass-actions (theatrical re-
enactments of grand social events), which depended at least implicitly on the
mystical involvement of the audience. In one of the typewritten versions of his
lecture on 'The Church Ritual as a Synthesis of the Arts' (missing in the defin-
itive text) Florensky concluded with a direct appeal to such intellectuals: 'I do
hope that the refined instinct of our contemporary specialists in this or that
branch of art has already penetrated to the very core of Art as a primordial
unifying activity.... Perhaps the mob has need of such a pointer, but not the
enlightened organiser of Russian art.'3
Florensky was also underlining the ritualistic aspects that integrate spec-
tators and officiators. In his opinion, in prehistoric times, when art and reli-
gion were not differentiated, there had been a theurgical, theatrical gesture
that emotionallyinvolved all the senses (visual, olfactory, aural and tactile) and
which could have constituted the Prefatory Act (or Action) that the composer
Aleksandr Skriabin had envisioned as the first step in his unfinished
MisteriumY That Florensky invoked Skriabin in his appeal to preserve the
cultic act is not surprising, given the composer's proximity to V. Ivanov with
whom skriabin had discussed the first draft of his Prefatory Act,32 and we
should remember that in the Revolutionary Petrograd of 1919 Ivanov himself
served as consultant to the organisation ofthe mass actions or, from his stand-
point, misteria)3
Again, the reference to Skriabin, crucial to 'The Church Ritual as a
Synthesis of the Arts', seems curiously out ofplace because, although Skriabin
was highly esteemed by most of the Symbolist poets and philosophers,
Florensky professed a dislike for his music, preferring that of the 'infantile',
and for that reason authentic, genius of Mozart. Discussing Skriabin and
Tchaikovsky in a letter to his daughter Ol'ga, Florensky called the two
composers equal in their 'unreality', however major their differences: 'Both
live in illusoriness. Undoubtedly, these ghostly shadows are attractive, but I
cannot call them beautiful, for the beautiful is not only attractive, but also
sincere.'34 He spoke disparagingly of the 'illusionism' and 'magic' of their
approaches, terms that he would use later on in a similar argument against the
pseudo-scientifIc baggage of the theosophists, the pentacles of the occultists
and the anti-Realism of the avant-garde)5 He was curt in his judgement of
This is not music. skriabin was wrapped in his dreams. He
proposed creating a composition that was to have been
performed somewhere in the Himalayas and would have
produced such a concussion in the human organism that a new
being would have come forth, and he composed a rather pathetic
libretto for his world shattering Misterium. But that's not the
point. What is important is that he did not wish to reckon with
the reality of the musical element as such.3
This passage is a clear demonstration of how Florensky was ready and willing
to examine fashionable phenomena, while refusing to accept them mechani-
cally as sincere, true or essentiaL For him Skriabin's music was little more than
a mere play of outward device that lacked substance and originality whether
as 'musical element' or as a path to the world beyond.
Sanctuary ofthe Sacred or Repository ofthe Profane?
Museology and the Preservation of Spiritual Values
Like the essays 'Reverse Perspective' and 'Celestial Signs', 'The Church Ritual
as a Synthesis of the Arts' represents yet another path leading us to Sergiev
Posad, the Lavra and Makovets - 'not a geometrical centre and not an arith-
metical intersection of various trends, but a living bond, its threads stretching
forth')7 Makovets and this entire ambience were crucial to Florensky's private
and professional life in Sergiev Posad during the years immediately following
the October Revolution.
The 'spiritual revisiting' of the holy site that Florensky undertook with
such earnestness was closely connected to his fervent campaign within the
Commission for the Preservation of Monuments and Antiquities of the Lavra
to protect its values and valuables. At a time when the new Soviet regime was
launching a concerted drive to eradicate religion, Florensky's call to prag-
matic action carried a special resonance among the Orthodox believers and
intellectuals who were living in or near the Lavra. For many of them the
Commission represented a last chance to safeguard the world of Old Russia
with its ancient and profound religiosity, and each brought to the Commis-
sion a particular expertise or skill. In ]9]8-20 the Commission hastened to
inventorise the sacred objects of the Lavra, trying desperately to preserve
both its material and spiritual/historical values. But for his part and true to
his character, Florensky dedicated his time and energy not only to the urgent
and practical task of saving the monastery from enforced closure and requi-
sition of property, but also to developing an appropriate theoretical system
of art historical appreciation, and even to composing lyrical compositions
such as 'Celestial Signs'.
With his multifaceted approach Florensky found a sympathetic supporter
in Yurii Olsuf'ev, especially in their collaboration on the scholarly inventory
and assessment ofthe Russian icon. Like Florensky, 0 lsuf' ev, a leading member
of the Commission, was conducting rigorous and methodical analyses of the
icon, while also regarding it as an intersection or synthetic formula that
expressed the spiritual world view and perception of an entire people.3
sooner had the first inventory of the LaVTa icons been published in 1920, than
olsuf'ev and Florensky embarked upon an essay on simvolygornego [symbols of
the beyond], also based on the analysis of icons.3
In 1918 Olsuf'ev and Floren-
sky had also elaborated their topical 'iconic scheme',4
with the aid of which it
was possible to identify the personal styles of more than one hundred icon
painters. That, at least, is what Olsuf'ev boasted in a letter to Petr Neradovsky,
one of the curators at the Russian Museum in Petrograd, appending a copy of
Florensky's lecture on 'The Church Ritual' with an enthusiastic appreciation.
Certainly, Florensky needed this kind of support, since the apparent contradic-
tions within his lecture for the Commission must be seen in the light of his
zealous defence against the anti-religious campaigns being mounted by the
new regime. As a result of the Government decree of 23 January 1918, 'On the
Separation ofChurch and State', most ecclesiastical seminaries and elementary
schools were closed down. Furthermore the decree generated a rapid sequence
of anti-clerical measures that permitted the confiscation of monasteries and
Church lands, precious objects and monetary funds. In this way, between 1918
and 1922, more than half of all of Russia's monasteries (722) were nationalised.
This was accompanied by the arrest and frequent execution of monks, priests
and other Church workers.
It is important to remember, however, that the Commission for the
Preservation of Monuments and Antiquities of the Lavra was one element of a
much broader and more complex Government mechanism intent upon the
inspection, nationalisation and re-evaluation of works of art in institutional
and private collections throughout Soviet Russia. For example, from the very
first, Grabar', the highly respected art historian, played a vigorous role in the
various state institutions devoted to the practical aims of registering, inven-
torising and restoring - and, therefore, of resolving what exactly constituted a
monument or work of art.
Enforced nationalisation often led to a former
owner being appointed director of a collection, as was the case with Aleksei
Bakhrushin, Ivan Morozov and Sergei shchukin.
As far as the physical place
and environment in which the saved object had to be preserved, Soviet muse-
ology was less certain, for even more progressive opinion regarded the
museum as a mirror of the past and not as a living entity. For example, in his
Muzei kak proizvedenie iskusstva [The Museum as a Work of Art] of 1923 Boris
Shaposhnikov declared that the single aim of a museum was 'to demonstrate
the life-style of a bygone era' and that even 'the museum of everyday life ...
strives to show objects of the past in the settings for which they were
It was against this harrowing background that Florensky gave his lecture,
mustering all the logical arguments at his disposal without accepting political
compromise in order to justify the preservation of the icons and liturgical arts
in the 'natural' environment of the religious rite and the everyday life of the
monastery. But in spite of all the tactical expediencies, Florensky's museolog-
ical conception of the Lavra was not subordinate or secondary to his obvious
will and desire to save the faith and the artefacts ofOrthodoxy as organic parts
of a very specific place rich in spiritual value. To fulfil its aim of preserving
Sergiev Posad as a whole territorial entity and as the core and quintessence of
the real Russia, the Commission operated on an interdisciplinary level, even
taking account of the surrounding hills, the skyline, the general topography of
the landscape and the geological and stratigraphical qualities of the terrain
itself as major components of this unique potential museum.
The various
activities performed in situ - from the religious service to the painting of icons
and the production of carved wooden toys and souvenirs - were also deemed
essential elements.47 In turn, this concern with the habitat of the object
prompted Florensky to propose his audacious comparison with the revolu-
tionary design for the Hagenbeck Zoo in Hamburg, where for the first time the
beasts were allowed to wander freely in a landscape imitating their real habitat
('The Church Ritual', p. 102).
The idea of rooting the collections of the Lavra in their own 'territory' was
also supported by the biologist Kapterev, one of Florensky's immediate
colleagues in the Commission, who co-signed the plan for a new Museum of
the Lavra (one of the Commission's many unrealised projects). Kapterev's
formative role in the Commission has yet to be evaluated, but the fact that he,
a biologist, worked in close collaboration with Olsuf'ev, a self-taught art histo-
rian, and with Florensky, a priest, philosopher and mathematician, demon-
strates the extent to which the Commission members were interdisciplinary
and how significant a common religious faith was to their enterprise. Son ofa
noted church historian who had also been a leading figure in the elite circle of
Sergiev Posad Orthodox intellectuals, Kapterev moved closely with Florensky,
thanks to mutual interests in the natural sciences, especially biology,4
cosmos,49 and more exotic fields such as dreams50 and hypnotismY Before
the Revolution Florensky had dedicated a copy ofhis book The Meaning ofIdeal-
ism to 'Dear Pavel Nikolaevich [Kapterev], from one who always remembers
him with a sense of pleasure and joy at his progress. 1915. Ill. 2. Sergiev
Posad'Y Discussing his ideas with Kapterev the naturalist, Florensky
compiled his museological project, whose 'guiding principle [was that it
should] conserve, if possible, each object in its concrete relationship with the
locus in which it had started life, according to the principle of the organic
wholeness of the Lavra.'53
Florensky's impassioned appeal to continue the celebration of the divine
liturgy as an essential part ofthe Lavra also found support in the endeavour to
undertake a systematic inventory of the sacred objects there. True, the
Commission was fulfilling a government mandate to identify and preserve
works ofart, but Florensky and his colleagues were driven by much more than
a bureaucratic directive. 'We [the members of the Commission] remember so
well howwe had to crawl up stepladders in order to examine this or that icon,
to rummage in old clothes so as to draw forth a sometimes first-class piece of
embroidery, to come across really interesting monuments after going through
a pile ofjunk, and to drag out portraits, icons, embroideries, utensils, ete. from
the dusty attics, mouldy lumber-rooms and darkest corners of the Lavra.'54
But it was far more than some kind of'retrospectivism' or Symbolist nostalgia
that inspired Florensky and his colleagues to bring out the icons and other
precious artifacts from the Lavra attics and to catalogue them55 - and to do so
with a dedication and scrupulous attention that helped prevent not only
vandalism and theft, but also official sale and export,s6
This process was soon followed by the pressing need to publish cata-
logues of the vast collections of the Lavra, and it was fortunate indeed that
Olsuf'ev was able to offer his experience and knowledge. Working closely with
Florensky, Olsuf'ev (who also fell victim to the Stalin purges in the 1930S)
deemed his mission to be the scholarly registration, systematic selection and
publication of the objects at the Lavra and he manifested a remarkable energy
in this endeavour, compiling and editing most of the twelve catalogues
published between 1920 and 1926.57 Perhaps the speed with which Olsuf'ev
and Florensky produced their inventory was dictated by the rapaciousness
with which GOKhRAN was trying to appropriate the treasures of the Lavra
between 1918 and 1922.
In March 1922, in response to the famine which ravaged the Volga region,
a special subcommittee was convened by the Lavra Commission and charged
with the task of examining the vexed questions of appraisal, estimate and
acquisition within the complicated procedure of the state's confiscation of
church valuables. That the issue of apportioning valuables to GOKhRAN was
an especially acute one can be seen from Mikhail Gorev-Galkin's booklet enti-
tled Tserkovnye bogatstva i g%d vRossii [The Treasures of the Church and Famine
in Russia]. Gorev-Galkin, legal executive for Sergiev Posad, assessed the over-
all quantity of gold and silver in the Lavra at 'several hundred poods' [several
thousand kilograms], including, for example, the sixteenth-century gold riza
of Andrei Rublev's Trinity with its host ofprecious stones. 58 Florensky's timely
reference in 'The Church Ritual '(po 104) to those who on past occasions had
evaluated the artefacts in the inventory of the Lavra Sacristy according to their
material value (a certain quantity of marble equals a certain monetary value)
was no less applicable to GOKhRAN. 'Nomine mutato de te fabula narratur'
[under a different name the story tells of you] was Florensky's wistful
comment in the same essay.
In spite of the valiant battle that Florensky and his immediate colleagues
waged within the Commission to keep the Lavra intact, all ecclesiastical activ-
ities there were suspended in November 1919, just one year after he had deliv-
ered his lecture 'The Church Ritual as a Synthesis ofthe Arts',59 Early 1920 saw
the reorganisation ofthe Commission itself, a move that stripped it of admin-
istrative authority, though members such as Florensky and Olsuf'ev were
retained for the general reorganisation of the Lavra into a state museum, the
former as a specialist in metals, the latter in miniatures and painting. Later on
the Lavra was indeed transformed into a conglomerate of museums, but
according to very conventional criteria. The most precious icons and related
artefacts were distributed between national institutions such as the Moscow
Kremlin and the State Tretiakov Gallery.
The fact that in 1920 Florensky was already on the MIKhIM faculty as a
Byzantine specialist might explain why he delivered his third lecture there -
on perspective - and not to the Commission. With its ambitious teaching and
research programmes and brilliant faculty (including art historians Muratov
and Nikolai Shchekotov, soon destined to be replaced by self-seeking bureau-
crats), MIKhIM was typical of many early Soviet 'think tanks'. The first Russ-
ian centre devoted specifically to the science of museology, MIKhIM drew
upon the invaluable knowledge and experience that the Lavra Commission
had already acquired and, obviously, Florensky played a vital role in this
Florensky and the World ofthe Primitive
In his approach to museology, Florensky anticipated many ofour own current
interpretations. He considered the work of art in its ontological reality,
destroying hierarchies and placing together - on the same level- the rags and
tambourine of a shaman,60 precious ecclesiastical objects from the Lavra and
Sergiev Posad, and wooden toys made by Russian peasants (sold during the
Lavra festivities). Fascinated by the popular crafts, Florensky even referred to
this kind ofwooden toy in his treatise on spatiality in the work ofart (illus. 18).
He offered it as a model for a space-time unit, noting that its
hypercylindrical forms can be compared to the blocks ofwood in
the form of irregular cylinders whence figurines of people and
18 Page demonstrating the various stages in making a wooden toy,
from Nikolai Bartram's Igrushki (1910)
animals are obtained by transverse cutting - a process common
to the mass production [methods] used by toy-makers ... the
customary scenes ofpeople and animals [that are obtained] from
carving blocks of wood render these sections closer and more
comprehensible to us than the actual cylinders hom which they
are cut.
Florensky felt a close bond with what he regarded as the spiritual authen-
ticity of the Russian people - the peasant, the craftsman, the monk and the
country priest - and he expressed this sympathy from many standpoints and
on many occasions. Not surprisingly, then, Florensky was especially fond of
Abramtsevo (Savva Mamontov's artistic retreat near the Lavra) since it was
closely linked to Sergiev Posad by its geographical proximity and its eager
promotion of popular arts and crafts.
Established in the 1880s by the rail-
road tycoon Mamontov as an artistic retreat, Abramtsevo had developed into
a centre for the rediscovery and refurbishing of media such as woodcarving,
pottery and icon painting. Abramtsevo also attracted professional artists such
as Il'ia Repin and Mikhail vrubel' who studied local folk art and often applied
its methods to their paintings and designs, a confluence that distinguishes
much of early twentieth-century Russian art. Indeed, before the Revolution
many of Russia's new artists drew inspiration from the proximity of Abramt-
sevo to the Russian folk and folklore, so that by the time Florensky was serv-
ing in the Lavra Commission, Abramtsevo had become an organic part of the
artisan and peasant tradition. Sharing a common landscape and spiritual
mission with Sergiev Posad, Abramtsevo, then, needed to be protected no less
than the Lavra did. On 30 July 1917, Florensky wrote to Aleksandra Mamon-
tova, Savva Mamontov's daughter:
What's going on around us is, ofcourse, agonising. However, I do
believe and hope that once this Nihilism has exhausted itself and
has demonstrated its impoverishment and everyone is fed up
with it, our hearts and minds will then turn to the Russian idea,
to Russia, to Holy Russia, after the collapse of all this abomina-
tion. But they will do so not as they used to do sluggishly and
circumspectly, but with keen appetite ... 'Abramtsevo' and your
Abramtsevo [in particular] will then be valued and appreciated.
People will go and take care of even the tiniest log in the Aksakov
house, of every painting, of every behest of Abramtsevo and of
the Abramtsevans.... Worse: if Abrarntsevo were to be physi-
cally destroyed and, in spite of the enormity of such a crime, the
idea of Abramtsevo were to continue to live, well, not everything
would be lost for the Russian people.
The Mamontovs viewed Abramtsevo as an attempt to create a haven of
genuine peasant creativity. Florensky too, was aware of the continued threat
of Russia's new industrialisation and urbanisation: 'The railroad, factories,
technological improvements, libertarian ideas and the pernicious influence of
newspapers - these factors are putrid microorganisms that are decomposing
everyday life with ever greater rapidity'.6
Florensky's desire to defend the
Russian soul was no less sincere - and scientifically serious - than his desire to
defend the Russian icons and rituals. In fact, between 1905 and 1908 Florensky
had made several trips to the environs of the village ofTolpygino in Kostroma
Region together with a curiously motley group of people, including his close
friend from the Theological Academy, Sergei Troitsky, folklorists, the local
priest and a peasant. The goal of these expeditions was to record chastushki
(improvised quatrains often sung in factories), some ofwhich he then used for
a professional ethnological publication. Even here Florensky's approach was
not that of a mere dilettante, but of an involved scholar. To some extent, his
brief critical essay, 'On the Efimovs' Puppet 'Theatre', can be interpreted as a
practical extension of his research on chastushki:
This is precisely the way to study popular life monographically.
Here we are confronted with the task of trying to understand the
processes of popular life within life itself and not from external
and alien phenomena or, similarly, from the simple verification
ofisolated cases. Reading a vital phenomenon within the context
oflife, understanding its sense and meaning for life not hom the
general tenets of science (which do not in themselves need to be
verified) and not in the light of subjective interpretations, but in
life itself. Herein lies the task of studying everyday life mono-
graphically. However, for this we need to study this or that corner
oflife, one that is more or less typical, and to study it with all our
heart right down to the finest interlacings of the fabric oflife and,
moreover, comprehensively. This is a micrology of popular life. 65
One such 'micrology of popular culture' was the world of the puppet
theatre directed by Ivan Efimov and Nina Simonovich-Efimova, to which the
latter dedicated her 1925 collection of essays dealing with their experiences in
this field. For Simonovich-Efimova, especially, the puppet theatre was a major
activity parallel to, and perhaps even more important than, her career as a
studio painter. The initiative came from a public appeal issued by TEO NKP
(Theatre Section of the People's Commissariat for Enlightenment) for help in
establishing a new kind of puppet theatre under Natal'ia Sats.
The appeal
generated a ready response from other artists close to Florensky, such as
Vladimir Favorsky, Konstantin Istomin and Pavel Pavlinov, although their
involvement was more marginal. 67 The most intense period of this new voca-
tion was 1918-24, when the Efimovs organised more than 600 puppet produc-
tions in Moscow and other cities.
As he implies in his brief essay, Florensky's intention was to try and
comprehend from within the life of the simple folk, children and adults alike,
by surrendering to the mystery, the magic and the secret ritual of a puppet
show. Identifying magic and mystery with the foundations of religious faith,
aesthetic perception and scientific intuition, Florensky claimed that an inno-
cent gaze and a mystical disposition were the prerogatives of all great artists
and scientists:
The secret of creativity lies in the preservation of youth. The
secret ofgenius lies in the preservation ofsomething infantile, an
infantile intuition that endures throughout life. It is a question of
a certain constitution that provides genius with an objective
perception of the world, one that does not gravitate towards a
center: a kind of reverse perspective, one that is, therefore, inte-
gral and real.
It was Simonovich-Efimova herself who spoke of the mystery of the mari-
onette theatre, contending that the genre was an artistic manifestation of
'high' theatre, and she did all she could to raise it to a more professional status.
She herself made the puppets, often of enormous dimensions and of the most
diverse materials and forms, depending upon the character that each puppet
was supposed to embody (see illus. 38). Besides this, she studied the technique
of the puppeteer's gestures and took lessons in declamation. The Efimovs'
puppet theatre found itself at the crossroads between the automaton or the
self-reconstructing organ that so fascinated Florensky on the one hand,69 and
the simple ritual of the popular spectacle implemented with the barest means,
on the other: 'The few beautiful scraps of old fabric which the Efimovs had
tenderly brought to the puppet theatre from the chests of grandmothers ...
dolls made of rags, pieces of wood and papier machf' acquired a soul and
came alive ('On the Efimovs' Puppet Theatre', p. 133). For all its good inten-
tions, the Efimovs' puppet theatre, however, was not 'folk art', but rather a
measured, intellectual revival that drew inspiration from the folk tradition,
while creating something new - much in the way that Blok borrowed and
adjusted the chastushka in his poem 'The Twelve' of 1918.
But ritual, even the simplest one, needs a space within which it can be
conducted, and one separated from the everyday world - as in the shamanis-
tic circle where the kamlanie - the seance - takes place. That Florensky culti-
vated an anthropological interest in popular rituals, whether derived from
shamanism or from the deep antiquity of pre-Christian civilisation, is shown
by his articles on these subjects in the journal Bogoslovskii vestnik while he was
its chief editor. A specific example of this kind of research is his scientific
description of a phallic monument close to the Kotakhevi Monastery near
Tiflis, Georgia, where he hypothesised that ancient pagan fertility rituals had
continued into local folklore rituals of phallophories and had allied, in turn,
with the Orthodox faith.7 Ofcourse, the meaning which Florenskyattributed
to the term anthropology is rather distant from the conventional one. He even
spoke of a philosophical anthropology: 'Anthropology is not a self-assured
and independent knowledge, but a concentrate ... reflecting the being of an
enlarged totality; the microcosm is just a small image of the macrocosm and
not something in itself: 71
For Florensky the event that unfolded during the Efimovs' spectacle at
Sergiev Posad assumed the dignity of a popular micro-liturgy similar, in its
wholeness, to the mystical totality of the religious liturgy and to the 'orgies' of
antiquity. V. Ivanov had referred to the latter a decade before,72 and Florensky
himself alluded to them when he remarked that the spectators had turned into
actors, thus implementing the original form of Greek tragedy. Simonovich-
Efimova also asserted that in her puppet theatre the animals played primary
roles, just as in ancient Dionysian rites where the goat, for example, was often
the protagonist.7
Florensky appreciated Efimova as a painter, too, so much so that he
allowed her to make several oil and pencil portraits and silhouettes of him, in
which she succeeded in capturing his physical resemblance and personality.
In turn, Florensky appreciated her faculty for expressing the souls of the
'simple people' with the same kind of dedication with which he had gathered
his chastushki:
In N. Y. Ef[imova] there is a love of Russia, of the land, of the baby
[peasant women], and of nature. It is a love that is free of any
tendentious imposition of concepts from outside (as with the
peredvizhniki [nineteenth-century Realist painters]), an under-
standing of the Russian man and woman not as ethnographical
material for scientific study and not as material for social experi-
ments, but [as material] of their very own life itself. What I see in
the works ofN.Y. E[fimova] elicits not sorrow for our people, but
rather recognition ofour people as it is. For Russia to be loved she
does not have to be cosmeticised.7
In Florensky's opinion, Efimova demonstrated an analogous attitude towards
the artefact and its ambience. In fact, he was so taken by Efimova's creativity
that he even donned the mantle of the art critic to analyse one of her pictures,
The Tavern on the Volga River, 1915 (present whereabouts unknown), once again
vis-a-vis the symbolics of colours:
Your paintings are always symbolic. Apart from what they depict
they also contain another meaning ofwhich you may not even be
aware. Here we have the symbolics of colours. In general, all
colours mean something, apart from their conditional designa-
tions. They do, indeed, mean [something].
Pink chairs. Pink means kindness, hospitality, something that
is peculiar to you, to this room, a shelter.
Blue (wallpaper) [means] loyalty to an ideal, faithfulness.
Again this is very appropriate. At the same time, perhaps the
populist ideals ofyour parents, the ideal ofserving the people, are
coming through here.
Brown - the colour of the doors - [means] weariness, but not
in a negative [sense]. No doubt, that's how the person coming in
The sunlit room in the background - good thing that it's
yellow, not white. Good that it doesn't take up much space in the
picture. Even so, it's central.
Orange is a stable colour. In general, it's a colour that
summons [attention], marking a desire to show off to its advan-
tage and force you to accept it.
You have compressed all these colours, because, after all, this
is a tavern and these properties occupy a lower section.
All this makes your painting symbolic, but not in a superficial
sense (as, for example, we have with Maeterlinck), but, rather, in
genuine substance.
Florensky remained friends with the Efimovs, especially with
Simonovich-Efimova, throughout the 1920S and at least until 1932 before his
fatal arrest/
In a letter to her husband of 1931, Simonovich-Efimova spoke of
Florensky's ongoing scholarly interest in the archaeological specimens of the
Russian steppes,77 and in the kurgany (burial mounds). Over these archaic
monuments watched the mysterious and inscrutable kamennye baby [stone
women] (illus. 19) - the distant Urmutter of those same Russian baby that
Simonovich-Efimova represented in the bright colours of her own pictures.
The incorporeal Sophia had long ceased to preoccupy Florensky, but he was
19 Grave monument:
the so-called 'Stone
Woman' (kamennaia
baba), Barlyk steppes,
T'uva, fifth to seventh
century AD
still fascinated by the Mother figure, the prototype of the Mother and the
Platonic idea of the Mother, subjects that never ceased to intrigue him.
Mother Earth
Florensky touched upon the image of the Mother as Platonic idea in The Mean-
ing ofIdealism, where he discussed the existence of a four-dimensional percep-
tion of the world. According to Florensky, the philosophers of antiquity had
come to this conclusion, as demonstrated by the myth of Plato's cave: 'But
Ideas - the Mothers ofeverything existing -live in the depths, i.e., in the direc-
tion which in our three-dimensional world, is depth. Consequently, any
discourse about them, however distinct, is a mere buzzing in our three-
dimensional ear.'7
F10rensky had formulated his conception of the Platonic
idea through his reading of Goethe's Faust, in which the 'dark corridor' (at the
end of which is the abyss where the Mothers stand) is the Platonic grotto:
Goddesses throned in solitude, sublime
set in no place, still less in anytime ...
I mean the Mothers.7
In the chthonic image of Plato's grotto/abyss and in Goethe's use of the prim-
itive Mothers Florensky saw the obscure and unknowable bond forged
between maternity and nature,80 the encounter of two myths and perhaps -
on an unconscious and private level - his own unease with the mystery of
motherhood in his relationship with his mother as a child.
The text on Aegean culture included in this collection revolves around the
meaning of the matriarchy and female power (to use current terminology
which, however, is not especially appropriate to what Florensky had in mind)
and also constitutes the introduction to his more general essay, Pervye shagi
.filosofii [The First Steps of Philosophy] (1917).82 Florensky asserted that the
archaeological discoveries on Crete were central to our understanding of the
birth of Greek culture and were a last link with the mythical Atlantis. Once
again Florensky called upon the intuition of a visual artist - Lev Bakst - to
illustrate his synthesis: 'It is not surprising that for one of the most cultured of
Russian artists, Lev Bakst, the destruction ofAtlantis became a source ofinspi-
ration for his painting Terror Antiquus, surely the most significant work that our
history painting has produced in recent years' (iIIus. 20).8
In 'The Stratification of Aegean Culture', too, Florensky uses an approach
that is at once historical, culturological, anthropological and philosophical.
The theme of stratification with its various semantic levels and viewpoints as
20 Lev Bakst, Terror Antiquus, 1908, oil on canvas. State Russian Museum, St Petersburg
a philosophical departure-point is also a vivid metaphor. In fact, each of
Florensky's essays could be interpreted and analysed as a constant layering of
different attitudes and angulations - which may not always form a single
chronological sequence. Towards the end of his life, Florensky meditated on
his intellectual career, wondering, 'What have I been doing all my life?' His
response was:
I investigated the world as a whole, as one picture and one reality.
More precisely, at each given moment or at each step of my life I
made this investigation and from a particular angle of vision. I
would investigate the relationship of the world by dissecting it in
a particular direction, on a particular plane, and would strive to
understand the makeup of the world and from the plane that
interested me. Each plane was different, but one did not contra-
dict the next. One simply enriched the other. This resulted in a
perpetual dialectic of thought, an exchange of planes of observa-
tion, while at the same time the world was still being viewed as
Florensky is also articulating an ulterior stratification here, the rhythmical
alternation of nocturnal and diurnal epochs in human culture,85 an interpre-
tative model that other religious thinkers of Russian culture would also come
to apply. Georgii Florovsky, for example, referred to this specific combination
of two cultures in his argument that 'day cultures are the cultures of soul and
intellect ... night cultures are the regions of dreams and imagination.'86
Within the framework of such an intricate philosophical deliberation
Florensky could surprise his reader not only by the breadth and topicality of
his knowledge of a particular subject (indicated by his rich bibliography on
Mycenean archaeology and his copious Greek sources), but also by the eccen-
tricity, broadmindedness and unexpected turns in his discourse. In 'The Strat-
ification of Aegean Culture' he approaches, for example, the subject of female
fashion (not fortuitously, woman is the discrete, but constant, protagonist
here) in a 'feminine' manner, demonstrating competence and expertise in his
use ofthe various terms for items offemale clothing. Once again we recognise
Florensky's unf1agging intention to detect a deeper or at least psychological
meaning even in the most frivolous ofsubjects. Several years earlier, for exam-
ple, Florensky had established a parallel between hypnotic procedures and the
'bridal veil of innocence' in a discussion with his friend EI'chaninov on
Kapterev's hypnotic experiments: 'Did I tell you about Kapterev's experiments
on suggestion? Sometimes it turns out that to hinder the hypnosis all you need
is a thin veil. Herein lies the profound meaning of theJaw [Russian bridal veil]
- a woman wearing aJata cannot tempt.'8
Florensky goes still further in his identification of various forms of cloth-
ing, especially women's, with the Zeitgeist of a particular era: 'Ladies' fashions
are one of the most subtle reagents of any culture: he affirms ('The Stratifica-
tion of Aegean Culture', p. 149). From these lighthearted remarks on the fash-
ions of Minoan ladies (recent archaeological discoveries had brought them to
public attention), Florensky plunges into the primordial depths of civilisation
and to the ancient images of (presumed) female fertility - the kamennye baby
rooted firmly in the earth, the petrified presence of archaic and immortal
cults. Florensky's cardinal reference to the German philosopher Jacob
Bachofen places the discussion of the stone women in a scientific context, one
that differs markedly from how the artists of the avant-garde regarded them.
For Natal'ia Goncharova, for example, the kamennye baby were the source to
which the 'newbarbarians' of her generation were to return,88 while the critic
Yakov Tugendkhol'd identified them with The Dryad (1908, Hermitage
Museum, St Petersburg),8
the wild feminine figures of Picasso in the collec-
tion of Sergei shchukin in Moscow. Tugendkhol'd saw them as a universal
stylistic metaphor corresponding to the canons of both primitive monumen-
tality and Cubism, and recognized this in Picasso's paintings such as Peasant
Woman (La Fermiere) and Three Women (Trois Femmes. Etude pour le grand tableau de
Stein) (both 1908, now in the Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg).9
But in
developing a philosophical criticism still based on the Symbolist tradition,
Tugendkhol'd censured The Dryad for its total absence of metaphysical cohe-
sion and spiritual sanctity - the qualities that kept the African idols erect,
those same idols that Picasso favoured and that graced the Picasso room in the
Shchukin collection (illus. 21).9
Florensky, too, encountered the Picasso paintings in the Shchukin collec-
tion and the trenchant, if succinct, observations that he made in The Meaning of
Idealism concurrently with his essay on Aegean culture are essential for under-
21 The Picasso Roomofthe Shchukin Collection, Moscow, in the 1910S
standing his attitude towards the extreme artistic trends of his time - and for
avoiding facile generalisations about the philosopher's alleged proximity to
the Russian avant-garde. At first glance, Florensky's unexpected approach to
Picasso might seem arbitrary and remote, but he often undertook such excur-
sions so as to accommodate a specific argument within a larger philosophical
Florensky, Picasso and the Russian Avant-Garde
Even though shchukin's collection had been accessible to the public since
1907, when he established his open 'Sundays', welcoming artists and critics to
examine his latest acquisitions,92 Tugendkhol'd's curatorial listing evoked an
immediate response, especially among critics and philosophers of the
Symbolist persuasion. The chronological coincidence of the exhibition of
ancient icons at the Archaeological Institute in Moscowand the publication of
the Tugendkhol'd catalogue with all the Picasso works did not pass unnoticed
and prompted intellectuals to embark upon the most diverse interpretations
and collocations of the antique and the modern. It was Muratov's journal,
Sofiia, that commenced the debate with Nikolai Berdiaev's article on Picasso,93
to which Florensky's remarks on Picasso in The Meaning of Idealism of 1914 can
be construed as a timely response.
The Idealist philosopher Berdiaev and the
critic and writer Georgii Chulkov identified a common emblem ofthe crisis of
their time with Picasso's demonic ability to destroy the integrity of the human
body, because Picasso was swayed by 'Satan himself' and by the idea that
'woman is an idol and what an idol! Here is woman in the lap of nature with a
savage cynicism and presented as flesh only.' 95 Bulgakov went on to describe
Picasso's nudes as 'corpses of beauty' that elicited both an 'atmosphere of
mystical terror verging on horror'9
and an apocalyptic prediction of the First
World War.
Berdiaev, Bulgakov and Chulkov were especially disturbed by Picasso's
works of 1907-9, in which they saw a violence done to the human body
created by God, to the female body in particular and to the Eternal Feminine,
universal symbol of Sophia and the divine wisdom. As Berdiaev said, 'Beyond
the captivating beauty of woman [Picasso] sees the horror of decomposition
and pulverisation. Here are the demonic grimaces of bechained spirits of
nature.'97 No less explicitly, he also underscored the perverse fascination of
the Cubist works, associating them with what he regarded as the crisis of
Western civilisation, senile and corrupt. Perhaps taking the disturbing Dryad
as the model for what he called a 'black icon', Bulgakov rejoined that in the
Picasso room in the Shchukin villa, you 'find yourself in front of black icons
that emit a blinding and almost physically tangible light'.9
But it is to Floren-
sky that we should turn for a more sober and articulate argument against
In contrast to other Symbolist voices, Florensky, in The Meaning ofIdealism,
limited his discussion to Picasso's paintings of musical instruments of 1912-13,
arguing that such geometric experiments 'transmitted the images of a four-
dimensional perception from the poisoned soul of a great artist'.99 Accord-
ingly, these experiments also signified that Picasso was trying to follow
Charles Hinton's theory of the fourth dimension automatically and that this
visual representation wrought violence upon an act of contemplation that
strove to accommodate the work of art as an organism within a transcenden-
tal whole.
In Florensky's opinion, Picasso, for all his genius, was to be cen-
sured for the mechanical and cold rationality with which he undertook his
four-dimensional deconstruction of the object of representation. Actually,
Florensky was making conscious use of the same sources on which the avant-
garde artists were also relying. i.e., Hinton and Petr Uspensky (Mikhail
Matiushin referred to Uspensky in his 1913 review of Du Cubisme,lOl and
Kazimir Malevich placed similar ideas at the basis of his theory of Suprema-
tism), except that Florensky was now negating the 'ontological' validity of the
Cubist experiment.
At the same time and still in the context of Picasso,102 Florensky referred
to Aleksei Grishchenko's fundamental essay of 1913 on the relationship of the
new art of Russia to the art of Byzantium and the West (illus. 22), in which the
author examined the formal qualities of the new Russian painting in the light
of its indigenous tradition (especially the icon) - and the formal revolution in
\Vestern art.
While acknowledging the importance of the icon for Russian
Cubism and selecting the same Picasso works in the shchukin collection that
Florensky was discussing, Grishchenko, nevertheless, refused to adopt a more
radical position, avoiding, for example, Goncharova's rejection of the West
and her nationalist stance.
In fact, Grishchenko even went so far as to assert
that, in his 'musical instruments', Picasso was actually a Realist painter: 'The
'Realism' of Picasso's violin merely displaces inherent, new potentialities;
similarly, Realism is now being sustained by principles no less profound and
authentic than those of Cezanne, El Greco and the ancient Roman [sic] artist
(Giotto): In turn, Grishchenko examined Picasso and the Cubists from a tech-
nical, professional standpoint, analysed their formal procedures, and
concluded that 'Picasso is not a supernatural phenomenon. He is simply a
22 Cover ofAleksei
osviazakh russkoi
zhivopisi sVizantiei i
Zapadom XIlI-XXv.
Mysli zhivopistsa (On
the Connections of
Russian Painting,
Byzantiumand the
West: Thoughts ofa
Painter), Moscow, 1913
talented artist who has painted anumber ofgenuine paintings that, in the first
place, correspond profoundly to our conception of painting and, secondly,
Picasso's painting is the natural fruit of the organic growth and evolution of
the artistic consciousness.'105
One of Grishchenko's immediate colleagues, the philosopher Pavel
Popov, brother ofthe avant-garde painter Liubov' Popova, hosted weekly gath-
erings in their Moscow home from 1912 to 1914. Regular visitors included
artists Grishchenko, Vera Pestel', Vladimir Tatlin, Nadezhda Udal'tsova, Alek-
sandr Vesnin and critics and philosophers Fedor Stepun, Boris Ternovets,
Aleksandr Toporkov, Boris Vipper - and Florensky.106 However, the fact that
Florensky attended these meetings does not mean that he accepted their inter-
pretations of the Cubist idea. Rather, he expanded Berdiaev's and Chulkov's
critical template and, while also speaking of the fragmentation of form in
contemporary art - for example, in his Iconostasis and Reverse Perspective -
emphasised that it derived from Impressionism. Curiously enough, their
censure of the destructive force of the avant-garde (from Impressionism
onwards) would return in the ]930S-50S in the Socialist Realist critique of
artistic experimentation: 'Behind the mathematical conceptions outlined
above and quite independent of mathematics, it is easy to discern the 'princi-
ples' ofdivisionism, complementarism, etc., discovered by leftist art. With the
help [of these principles] leftist art has destroyed the forms and organisation
of space, sacrificing this to volume and thingness' ('Reverse Perspective', p.
258). In the second edition of his book on the fourth dimension (]9]4), Uspen-
sky also dismissed the pictorial endeavours of the 'Futurist' artists to rely upon
an intuitive capacity so as to divine a superior order (in his Tertium Organum he
called this quality artistic intuition).
To suggest that Florensky exerted any significant influence on the avant-
garde, even from the standpoint ofa hypothetical relationship between the new
geometries or new mathematics and artistic perception - is a grave error. What-
ever the ostensible proximity, it can be explained away by coincidence, intersec-
tion and even personal acquaintance. In The Meaning of Idealism, for example,
Florensky relied on the same esoteric sources that we find in Kandinsky's
personal library. He refers to Johann Carl Friedric Zollner's Die transcendentale
Physik of 1878, to the chemist and spiritualist Aleksandr Butlerov, and, as we
might expect, to Annie Besant and Rudolph Steiner.
Florensky's intense
curiosity aside, there is no real evidence to assume that his theories were central
to the investigations into abstraction of those years. There are many analogous
situations, such as the bewilderment that Wilhelm Worringer voiced when he
discovered that his Abstraktion und Einfiihlung had became a manifesto for the first
generation of German Expressionist painters or Uspensky's sharp rejection of
any immediate association with the Russian Cubo-Futurists.
Though Florensky used a formal methodology in his structural analysis
of the work of art (both mathematical devices and ones drawn from German
Kunstwissenschaft and Gestalt theory), he not only failed to see any spiritual
coherence in the visual experiments of the avant-gardists, but also accused
them of simply doing conjuring tricks and fooling around with magic. He
concluded that their endeavours were oriented toward the following:
things that are not things in a physical sense. In its own way, any
work of art like this is a machine, a magic machine, an instru-
ment for diffusing a magical influence on reality. But this kind
of instrument already exists. For example, the political mani-
festoes of propaganda are conceived precisely so as to egg on
anyone looking at them to certain actions and, indeed, to force
people to look at them. In this case, the effect on those present
and the [resulting] change in their spiritual life should come
about not via meaning, but via an immediate presence of
colours and lines. In other words, these manifestos are basically
suggestion machines and suggestion is the lowest rung [on the
ladder] of magic ... There's absolutely no point in enquiring
how well or adequately these machines fulfil their function in
reality. Such a test is no more an exigency than a testing of the
technical quality of mechanical machines invented by an artist.
Good or bad, a machine is always a machine and not a repre-
sentation. Let us suppose that it doesn't even work, well, it will
still not be a representation, but merely a machine, albeit a
useless one. In the same way, a magic machine - whether it
functions or not - confers the title of magician, but certainly
not of artist, upon its inventor powerful and powerless. Unwit-
tingly, the Suprematists and other artists who follow the same
direction are conducting experiments in the field of magic and
were these experiments more successful, their works would be
the effective stimulus to spiritual vortices and tempests. They
would engulf and twirl the spiritual organism of all who
entered the sphere of their activity and would prove to be
centers of potent unions. Magic machines of this kind can be
expanded rationally in power and effectiveness and we can
imagine them (beyond physics) as infernal machines. Neverthe-
less, they will always be merely machines and not works of art,
and the activity that creates them is a magic technique and not
Between Realism and Symbolism: The Case ofMakovets
If Florensky's attitude towards the abstract geometry of Suprematism and
the machine aesthetic that came to be identified with Constructivism was
less than enthusiastic, he enjoyed a much closer bond with the association of
artists and writers known as Makovets, active in the early 1920S. Favouring
more traditional styles, Makovets celebrated the values of Realism and
Symbolism and the function offigurative art, rather than highly experimen-
tal or abstract approaches. It was in the two issues of the group's journal,
Makovets (iIIus. 23), that Florensky published his two fundamental articles on
the church rite and its fitting sequel on the symbolics of colours: he also
prepared a brand new essay, 'On Realism', for the third, unpublished issue.
When the makovchane founded their society in December 1921, their first
impulse had been to call the group 'Art-Life'. In 'On Realism', too, Florensky
emphasised that his particular conception of Realism in art was inseparable
from the realism of life. All three essays, included in this collection, testify to
Florensky's organic connection with the Makovets artists in particular.
Florensky's sympathy for the Makovets group and its journal is reason-
able ifwe take into account his radical philosophical juxtaposition ofillusion-
ism and realism as the two conceptions of the world that he outlined in his
essay on The Meaning of Idealism and in his brief passage on Picasso. Not that
Florensky dismissed the artistic avant-garde out of hand, for he seemed espe-
cially tolerant of literary experiment: for example, he met the poet Velimir
Khlebnikov in Sergiev Posad before the Revolution, listened to his poetry and
acknowledged his manipulations of words as being childish perhaps, but still
parallel to his own free lexical interpretationsYo Khlebnikov also contributed
to the poetical section of both issues of Makovets,11l and the poet and critic
Amfian Reshetov prepared an article on him for the third, unpublished issue-
which was also scheduled to contain F1orensky's short but dense essay on
A frequent visitor to the Makovets gatherings, Florensky was invited to
serve on the literary board of the journal,11
and thus was very much aware of
the various suggestions for the title which reflected, by and large, the spiritual
orientation of the journal: Seraflm [seraphimJ proposed by Sergei
Romanovich, Muzei [museumJ and Syny [sonsJ by Vasilii Chekrygin and
Kovcheg [arkJ by Konstantin Zefirov and Artur FonvizinY4 But the ultimate
choice fell on Makovets, because of the immediate Orthodox association with
the Lavra of the Trinity and St Sergius (St Sergius of Radonezh had founded
the Lavra on the hill called Makovets in the fourteenth century). Florensky
liked the reference to the physical location of the Lavra, for it emphasised how
strong this magnet still was for much of Russian culture and howrich it was in
symbolic value. That a group of writers and artists, steeped in the tradition of
Russian religious and philosophical thought, gravitated towards the hill of
H3,QATE.i1bCTBO M J1 E ',I H hI tl n Y T b
23 Viktor Bart, The Milky Way, cover design forthe journal Makovets, I, Moscow, 1922
Makovets suggests an analogy with the magic attraction that the Monte Verita
near Ascona in Switzerland in the early 1900S had for intellectuals of mystical
inclination such as writer Hermann Hesse, artist Heinrich Vogeler and dancer
Rudolph von LabanY5 Florensky himself seemed to be aware of this parallel:
Makovets has taken possession of the hill of Makovets, has
assumed the correct position and desires to retain this ... Anyone
else who desires a unity ofculture must proclaim Realism, and at
that point, even if he be a great genius, that person will have to
join Makovets, because, I repeat, the position of the true recogni-
tion of the summit oflife has already been seizedy6
Taking the brief text on Realism as a departure-point, we can better
understand Florensky's affiliation with the heterogeneous group of artists
associated with Makovets, even if their aesthetic levels were uneven and their
ideologies various - from the Realist Sergei Gerasimov with his solid muzhiki
to the visionary Chekrygin (iIIus. 24) who, prompted by the ideas of the
24 Vasilii Chekrygin,
Self-portrait. 1918.
pencil. State Tretiakov
Gallery, Moscow
philosopher Nikolai Fedorov, intended to reconstruct his cosmic VISIons
within the rational equilibrium of Renaissance frescoes, from Nikolai Cherny-
shev and Istomin with their representations of Victorian young ladies now
dressed in the tattered uniforms of Communist students and pionerki, to Lev
Zhegin (iIIus. 25), a more theoretical artist fascinated by the relationship of art
to mathematics, who later on returned to Florensky's ideas on perspective.
Zhegin's close friends, Goncharova and Larionov, by then ensconced in Paris,
were also listed as members of the journal's editorial board.
Certainly, Florensky was thinking of Realism neither as unembellished
representation of the social achievements of the new regime, nor in terms of
nationalist revival, and the fact that for Florensky the meaning of Realism
coincided neither with figurative art nor with naturalism is demonstrated by
the critical remarks that he made about Mikhail Nesterov's painting In Russia
(Soul of the People) of 1914-16 (iIIus. 26). Nesterov worked on this subject for
almost ten years, attempting to synthesise the spirit of Christian Russia into a
grandiose historical and religious fresco, which was to have borne testimony
to the burgeoning self-consciousness of the Russian people. Here we see a
young peasant lad, a group of women surrounding a holy man, a Metropoli-
tan, a Patriarch, a Great Prince or Tsar, ete., figures, in other words, who in
Nesterov's opinion, embodied the 'adolescence' of Christian Russia. The
choice of imagery, Nesterov's own Neo-Nationalist stance and the fact that he
was preparing to paint his double portrait of Florensky and Bulgakov, might
lead us to assume that Florensky would have been pleased with In Russia, but
he was not. Using the picture as a model for discussing the representation of
time in a work of art, he criticised it for an apparent failure to integrate the
different personae in a temporal unity inasmuch as each of them seemed to be
functioning in a separate time-frame in spite of Nesterov's emphasis on the
communality of spiritual symbols. Florensky contrasted In Russia (Soul of the
People) not with icons (which would have been an obvious reference for this
exercise in temporal integration), but with the frivolous Arcadian image of
Antoine Watteau's Pilgrimage to Cythera (1718-19, Charlottenburg Palace,
Berlin), offering this and not In Russia as an authentic poetical representation
of the temporal dimension in art and as a more tangible representation of his
own perception of Realism.
For Florensky the real 'soul of the people' drew nourishment from the
primitive world of folklore and from its proximity to nature, evident in the
pre-Christian and simple Christian rites, so distant from Nesterov's descrip-
tive narrative. In this particular case, as in his approach to Picasso's works,
25 Tatiana Aleksandrova, Lev Zhegin, 1928, oil on canvas. Private collection
26 Mikhail Nesterov, In Russia (Soul ofthe People), 1914-16, oil on canvas. State Tretiakov
Gallery, Moscow
Florensky was expressing the sobriety and independence of his own ideologi-
cal convictions and personal aesthetic preferences. However, Florensky's
judgement ofNesterov's picture was an exception within his intellectual circle
at Sergiev Posad - his friend Vasilii Rozanov, for example, identified Nesterov
as a 'religious phenomenon', referring to In Russia (Soul of the People) with
particular delight.
'The diffidence with which F10rensky approached the reli-
gious painting of Nesterov and Viktor Vasnetsov contrasted with the enthusi-
asm that he manifested towards the apocalyptic work of Chekrygin (a fellow
member of Makovets) - alhough he often polemicised with him. Zhegin
remembers bringing Florensky a portfolio of Chekrygin's drawings after the
latter's death in 1922 in the hope that Florenskywould write an appreciation:
Florensky suggested laying out the drawings on the table, while
he climbed up on to a stool and illuminated them with the elec-
tric light hanging from the ceiling. As always, he was in his white
cassock with a large silver cross on his breast, all in all, a rather
unusual spectacle. Difficult to tear yourself away from Chekry-
gin's drawings, they engulf you. At the same time you want to
break loose from this captivity. Such was the sensation that I also
had, even though I had already seen them several times. 119
F10rensky used the term 'Realism' philosophically rather than aestheti-
cally but, considerations of private taste aside, what did it mean for him? In his
own words, he was juxtaposing Realism with illusionism, subjectivism and
psychologism, because he equated it with a 'trans-subjective reality of being, a
being that reveals itself spontaneously to knowledge'.120 Indeed, Florensky
intended his essay on Realism to be a statement of ideological intent and of
solidarity with the Makovets group as a whole, even if it did relate more to the
visual arts than to literature, since for him Realism was both in tandem with,
and in opposition to, illusionism. That is why the most diverse approaches
could converge within a single conception of the world that revolved around
these two antithetic poles. Accordingly, Florensky found it quite in order to
contrast the Efimovs' puppet theatre (essentially anti-illusionistic inasmuch as
puppets do not claim to be 'the real thing') with the perspectival illusionism of
Ancient Greek scenography. He also opposed the linear perspective of the
Renaissance with its aspiration to represent the third dimension ('Reverse
Perspective'), the perceptual illusion of the naturalistic work of art 'just as it is
in reality' ('On Realism', p. 181) and the claim - made by Picasso and other
avant-gardists - to be able to represent the fourth dimension. At first glance,
these conditions may seem very different but, according to Florensky, they
derive from the single notion that we are all prisoners of the Platonic cave and
that we all confound our subjective perception ofthe shadows cast on the wall
with the 'true' perception of reality.
It is a specific kind of disintegrated culture, whether the Renaissance, the
late Minoan age or his own contemporary Western culture (as in the case of
the avant-garde), that Florensky equates with this subjective perception. In
contraposition he places the 'reality' or the realism of a culture expressed by
the Middle Ages: 'The pathos of medieval man is an affirmation of reality both
within himself and without, which is, therefore, objectivity. I11usionism is
characteristic of the subjectivism of modern man' ('Reverse Perspective; p.
217). For Florensky the Middle Ages meant medieval Russia, while the ideal
work ofart was the icon, the result ofan aesthetic exercise inspired by a collec-
tive religious impetus. Subservient to iconographic canons and, therefore, to
the most abstract of representations, the icon was also the most Realist work
of art inasmuch as it adhered to a transcendental and objective truth (istina).
Given the authority that Florensky enjoyed among the Makovets group,
his essay on Realism carried a special resonance among them, the more so
since the second issue of the journal published an article on Realism by Sergei
Romanovich,12l in which the author, albeit more schematically, demanded
that Realism should first and foremost be identified with a search for the truth:
'Ultimately, the struggle for Realism is the struggle for the truth' (i.e., a religious
truth). However, Romanovich went on to affirm that a 'love of reality can also
be present in abstract art',122 an attempt on his part to reconcile the figurative
preference of most of the makovchane with that of their less moderate (if now,
more distant) colleagues such as Goncharova and Larionov. The latter, with
Chekrygin, Romanovich and Aleksandr Shevchenko, had been among the
most militant of the avant-gardists during the 191OS. In 1914, for example,
Chekrygin had elaborated his theory of Centrism, contributing highly experi-
mental works to Larionov's 'No. 4' exhibition in Moscow.
Romanovich had
also taken part in Larionov's exhibitions, sometimes with Rayonist works, and
had co-signed the statement on 'Futurists, Rayonists, the Primitive' in 1913P4
Shevchenko, too, had published his two manifestos on Cubism and Neo-
Primitivism in 1913,12
and in 1919 co-founded Zhivskul'ptarkh (abbreviation
for 'Paint[ing] Sculpt[ure] Arch[itecture]'), one of the more serious experi-
ments in artistic synthesism.
(As a matter of fact, the other leaders of
Zhivskul'ptarkh - Anton Lavinsky and Aleksandr Rodchenko - were among
the most ardent opponents of Florensky and of his supporters at
VKhUTEMAS). Also relevant to the avant-garde phalanx within Makovets was
Pestel', who had started her career as a Cubist painter, frequenting the meet-
ings in Popov's apartment and those in Tatlin's studio and taking part in the
radical exhibitions '0.10' (1915-16) and 'Store' (1916) - only to return to Realism
or, at least, to the new figuration of her colleagues within MakovetsP7
Theirs was a kind of Realism that, even at its most delirious (as in Chekry-
gin's drawings of Apocalyptic orgies), bordered on the conventions of figura-
tive painting as opposed to the non-figurative experiments of the avant-garde.
One of the more conservative makovchane, Chernyshev, recalled that the group
hoped to find a common language in the practice of painting, without engag-
ing in purely formal and theoretical research. Chernyshev and his colleagues
wished to find
a way out of the cuI de sac, but without the scandals that were so
fashionable in those years.
A group of individuals emerged, united beneath [the
banner of] realism and by the [need] to create an objective art
that would represent objects as we understood them ... Their
consensus was to commence with their mutual attitude towards
the world - with reality before anything elseP8
Obviously, the realism that the makovchane were seeking was neither the natu-
ralistic mimesis of the Heroic Realism supported by the politicised Associa-
tion of Artists of Revolutionary Russia,12
nor the more provocative defini-
tions that the Constructivists Naum Gabo, Anton Pevsner and other avant-
gardists bestowed upon the term.
Makovets may have welcomed repentant avant-gardists, but its roots still
lay in the second wave of Russian Symbolism, represented by the Blue Rose
group of Moscow Symbolist artists closely allied with the journal Zolotoe runG
in the mid-1900S. Makovchane such as Petr Bromirsky and Fonvizin had been
members of the Blue Rose and their evanescent, almost immaterial visions had
much in common with the early Symbolist paintings of Larionov and
1and while at VKhUTEMAS, Raisa Florenskaia (illus. 27), Floren-
sky's youngest sister, studied under Pavel Kuznetsov, leader of the Blue Rose.
For his part, Florensky dissociated his brand of Realism not only from Natural-
ism, but also from Symbolism, thereby anticipating objections that his Realism
was a vehicle for understanding 'realities that are inaccessible to our senses'
27 Raisa Florenskaia,
Self-portrait, 1931, oil
on canvas.
('Realism', p. 181) - not that these realities were any less concrete, just that they
could no longer be identified with the fleeting realiora of the Symbolists.
In any case, Florensky believed that his generation had attained a new,
post-Kantian and post-Euclidean conception of life and art, one that corre-
sponded more closely to the vision of the Ancient World and the Middle Ages
than to that of post-Renaissance Europe, including nineteenth-century Real-
ism. Florensky's mission, therefore, was to discard the remnants of the
mimetic convention and to draw on the most varied sources if they were
genuinely new and potential and reinforced his own perspective, even on the
ideas of the avant-garde.
The Emblematics ofa Book Cover
The Symbolist legacy endured well into post-Revolutionary Russia, witness to
which was the continued influence of Fedorov on the art of Chekrygin, Blok's
transsubstantiation of his Beautiful Lady into Christ in 'The Twelve' (1918), and
Bely's eschatological identification of the Bolshevik coup with total revolu-
tion; not surprisingly, the publishing-house responsible for the journal
Makovets also bore a cosmic title, Milky Way (Mlechnyi put').1
2 Moreover, in the
early 1920S Florensky and colleagues such as Favorsky and A. Larionov
continued to elaborate Symbolist ideas in their theoretical and creative
endeavours. At the new Soviet institutions Florensky approached his teaching
and research from a Symbolist standpoint, presenting his course on perspec-
tive at VKhuTEMAS as a 'symbolic form' and collaborating with A. Larionov
at RAKhN (Larionov was also a professor at VKhUTEMAS) on an ambitious
dictionary of symbols or'Symbolarium'.
Many of the makovchane were professors or students at VKhUTEMAS, so it
is difficult to separate Florensky's involvement in the journal from his own
research and teaching. Chernyshev, for example, taught monumental paint-
ing, Romanovich painting and drawing and Istomin colour theory for the
Basic Course at VKhUTEMAS,133 while Raisa F10renskaia was a student,
Florensky's connection with VKhuTEMAS became even closer with the
promotion of his friend Favorsky, then Secretary of the Department ofPolyg-
raphy, to Chairman of the Department ofXylography in 1921 and to Rector of
VKhUTEMAS in 1923 (a post that he held until 1926).135 The cover of the third
issue of Makovets that Favorsky designed the same year, with its compact
aggregate of symbols, became another visual emblem of their friendship and
collaboration and also of their continued engagement with pre-Revolutionary
culture. The symbolic content of the cover that Florensky explained is also a
key to his worldview, cryptic, but decipherable (illus. 44). Here the might of
the Urmutter occupies the entire space within the frame, subsuming the
protoimages and/or ideas, horse, dove, sun, tree and thistle - which are dupli-
cated in the 'real' world outside. The man issuing forth from the Urmutter rests
divided between the two spaces, an allusion to his double engagement with
the world of abstract ideas and the world of material things.
The intricacy of Florensky's philosophical discourse notwithstanding, the
concreteness of the images that he suggested for Favorsky's cover indicates a
neworientation in his research on the symbol. It was, after all, also in 1923 that
Florensky and A. Larionov embarked upon their 'Symbolarium'.13
dictionary was to have embraced the various writing systems in their histori-
cal evolution from the symbological sign system of the Christians of the cata-
combs down to the commercial logo, the numismatic emblem and the plastic
language of gesture, in other words, all the essential ideographic signs of
human communication. During their tenure at RAKhN, Larionov and Aleksei
sidorov developed this sign system in their researches on the gestural expres-
sion of the body,137 while much later Aleksei Losev elaborated their initial
investigations into his ideography of the symbol, even of the political
But in the 'Symbolarium' Florensky also signalled his detachment
from the aesthetics and definitions of the Symbolists, which he regarded as
being limited to the field of literature and poetics, arguing that their symbols
were mere mental constructs or 'individual expositions of indefinite mystical
disturbances'.139 For Florensky the symbol was a transparent intermediary
between the antinomies that dominate the reality of being as well as the
central platform for his theory of cognition.
Florensky in Perspective: Teaching at VKhUTEMAS
In his essay on Realism, Florensky describes the cover of a book or journal as
being analogous to a coat of arms that guides and edifies the bearer in all
circumstances oflife. The same could be said of the ex-Iibris design - for what
else is an ex-libris design if not a dedicatory coat of arms, a symbolic image of
the patron to whom the artist is addressing himself? This 'genre' was espe-
cially popular with Florensky's immediate circle of artists and art historians.
His colleagues, the artist Favorsky and the art historian Sidorov, both
produced ex-libris designs for him, with almost identical contents, represent-
ing, like a coat of arms, the iconic quintessence of the owner with their
semblance of a medieval horseman, an arrow in his heart (illus. 28 and 29).
Sidorov even entitled his accompanying sonnet 'Coat of Arms', suggesting,

28 Vladimir Favorsky, ex-libris
design for Pavel Florensky, 1922,
29 Aleksei Sidorov, ex-libris
design for Pavel Florensky, 1922,
albeit in a symbolic and initiatory language, that the image was the horseman
and protector of Christ/
presumably, an allusion to the chivalric order that
Florensky and his young friends had dreamed of establishing in 1904.]4
Florensky's order was also to have founded a journal dedicated to religion,
'which we can approach from different standpoints with philosophical, mysti-
cal, scientific or historical opuses and even include poetry'.]43
Although never implemented, the primary intent of this order still
retained its validity in the 1920S, echoing the call to 'conduct a synthesis of
ecclesiastic and profane culture, to integrate with the church, but without
compromise and with honesty, to apprehend the positive doctrine of the
church, the scientifk and philosophical worldviews, art and so on'.]44 Floren-
sky, of course, must have appreciated the image of the medieval knight, given
his self-identification as a 'man of the Middle Ages' who, as we read in
Zhegin's memoirs, supported a 'medieval world view'.145 That both Favorsky
and Sidorov dedicated ex-libris designs to Florensky also tells us ofother asso-
ciations: his mutual alliance with two very important cultural institutions of
the early Soviet period - VKhuTEMAS and RAKhN - of which, respectively,
Favorsky and Sidorov were leading members.
A strategic bridge interconnecting Florensky's activities in both
VKhUTEMAS and RAKhN is his monumental essay 'Reverse Perspective',
which derived from his course at VKhUT'EMAS on the theoretical analysis of
perspective (as opposed to its practical application). A unique innovation in
the history of the teaching of art, Florensky's provocative concept of perspec-
tive was discussed avidly by colleagues at RAKhN/4
which also sponsored
lectures on other issues that Florensky was investigating at that time, includ-
ing art and biology, space and time in the work of art and portraiture. To the
latter Florensky dedicated an important section of his 'Analysis of Spatiality
and Time in Works of Visual Art' and at least one of his lessons at
VKhUTEMAS; while RAKhN also published a collection of essays on the
As in the case of other specialists at RAKhN and VKhUTEMAS,
Florensky based his approach on recent German publications on the theory
and methodology of art (in fact, many Russian art historians had trained in
German universities in the 191OS), such as Wilhelm Worringer's Abstraktion und
Einfuhlung, Heinrich Wolfflin's formal analyses (which Sidorov advocated with
particular zeal)/4
Adolf von Hildebrand's Das Problem der Form in der bildenden
Kunst (translated by Favorsky in 1914)/49 and the latest discoveries in the
psycho-physiology of perception such as Hermann von Helmholtz's and
Ernst Mach's studies of optical response.
The bibliographical sources that both Favorsky and Florensky used for
their respective courses at VKhUTEMAS bear strong witness to their aware-
ness and appreciation of German scholarship. A case in point is 'Reverse
Perspective', published here.
As far as language and the analysis of the work of art are concerned,
F10rensky not only borrowed concepts from other thinkers, but also modified
or even 'reversed' their interpretations.
For example, in the connection that
he established between the graphic arts, gesture and tactility, Florensky, with
his Symbolist sensibility, went beyond the schematicism which German
scholars had used to develop their own conceptual pairs of Pure Visibility -
Hildebrand (visual/motor representation), Riegl (tactile/optical) and Wolfflin
(linear/pictorial). In his emphasis on tactile value, F10rensky always under-
lined his own persistent attention to the perceiver, the body and physiological
processes and, in general, allied his acute sensuality with the objective record-
ing of the scientist.
Florensky delivered his course on perspective in the Department ofPolyg-
raphy at VKhuTEMAS between 1921 and 1924 and his first lectures on the
analysis of perspective in 1921-2 (iIIus. 30). Concurrently, Favorsky was
commencing his own course on the theory of composition,!5
which, together
with A. Larionov's history of the visual forms of writing,!5
constituted the
theoretical nucleus of a newly restructured curriculum at VKhUT'EMAS. In
other words, Favorsky, Larionov and the engraver Pavel Pavlinov were
members of a group ofinstructors that had much in common with Florensky,
one that Favorsky, as department chair, tried to forge into a single, integrated
instrument of teaching. In turn, this professorial bloc was to have counter-
acted the more radical tendencies of the Constructivists and Productivists in
the same school. The VKhUTEMAS archives contain a number of syllabi
(undated, unfortunately) for the students of the Department of Polygraphy,
which demonstrate that the three mandatory courses offered by Favorsky,
F10rensky and Larionov made up a unit of theoretical disciplines. That F1oren-
sky's lessons on perspective and Favorsky's on composition were closely
interrelated is indicated further by the fact that they taught back to back on the
same days and that in 1923 both courses were open to the Department of
Monumental Art within the Department of Painting, where Chernyshev,
Mikhail Rodionov and other makovchane were also teaching.
F10rensky avoided assuming an openly 'political' position, the young leftists of
VKhuTEMAS regarded his lectures on perspective as the reflection of an
idealist and reactionary tendency. Quite reasonably, critics also referred to the
If. 200.
y JJ: 0
---1 - ,. n.,
,C.v.v.P. . ITpOJIeT3plHl BCeX' CTp8H K 0 n H il. .':' ,
, COS,llllHilli'I'oc:r,. ---:.--------- , .
CKllS MaCTepCKlle.
r 5/'1 -1924-r., , ,-
MOCRB!l , I I .',
npo<Pecc !/iOCKOl'CKlIX BUCmllX POCY,llap-
C'l'BeHaux XY,llOSeC'l'BeHHD-TeXHllqeCKllX MaC'l'epCKlIX,nOJIyq!lOT
no 17 P!lSPRAY B cyMMe 2,2 p.40 R. B Mecau.
3a ceHTilop:r,
'BIiI\!lHO ,llJlil npeACT8BJIeHllil II )loMovnp8BJIeHlIet\
TIpopeKTop /Hep83000Q'ABO/ \(ltih \:
39 38B. CTOJIOI!.
\' )J.." , ifb-
.' I;
..:....-. .. .:._..:.. ..:....:. ..1 _
P.8 .. .. r.
.v.!lHO I!8BJIy AJIeKC8HI1POBHQ:' gJfOPtH:'::;{OMY
R TOM, '1'1'0 OH COCTJllT ne'l8THO-

llLlClIme rocYli8pcTBeHHble
XyI\OlFeCTBeHHo-":'exHlI '1eCl<lI e
fu 3 C T e p C K 'A e
r [5 ceHTROpJi I92.I r.
N? 6460.
Ileq!lTll PeKTOp /Hep9S0'JpQMJJ

30 Two ofFlorensky's ID passes forVKhuTEMAS, 1921 and 1924
eccentricity ofFlorensky's philosophical position and to the fact that students
found it difficult to follow. But paradoxically and for these very reasons,
Florensky's courses continued to attract an intimate group of devoted
students and professors, so that the leftists were soon condemning him for the
mystique and charisma of his teaching methods. Increasingly, Florensky was
forced to defend himself against such attacks, claiming that his starting-point
was always realism and that his arguments were meant to be logical and lucid.
Actually, in his essay on reverse perspective he even forestalled the accusation
ofmysticism by adducing the testimony oHrnst Mach, that 'most positivist of
positivists' ('Reverse Perspective', p. 253).
Construction and Composition
That Florensky discussed 'construction' and 'composition' in his course at
VKhUTEMAS must have seemed especially provocative to the hotheaded
Constructivists for, albeit unwittingly, Florensky was contributing to the
ardent discussions that Rodchenko, Varvara Stepanova and their Working
Group of Objective Analysis had been conducting from January to April
These radicals formed the initial core ofthe Constructivist and produc-
tivist camp, attracting converts to the faith at their theoretical and practical
centres, INKhUKh and VKhUTEMAS (illus. 31). However, from the very first,
differences in interpretation of the meanings of 'composition' and 'construc-
tion' forced the camp to split into two factions - headed by the Rationalist
architects (Nikolai Dokuchaev, Nikolai Ladovsky, etc.) and by the produc-
tivists (Aleksei Gan, Rodchenko, etc.).1
Advocating the death ofstudio paint-
ing, the Productivists published a fierce attack against the Department of
Polygraphy in the journal Lef in 1923, accusing it of being at the centre of a
'mystical Productivism':
A curious subgroup of 'mystical Productivists' has formed
among the 'decorative' painters (Pavlinov, Favorsky and the priest
Florensky). This intimate company has declared war on all other
groups and claims to be the only authentic group ofProductivist
art. They go around the Department of Polygraphy, filling the
heads of students with the following kind of problem: 'The spiri-
tual meaning of the images of letters of the alphabet' or 'The
struggle ofwhite and black spaces in graphics'.1
In a second and even more virulent attack the Productivists concluded that the
only thing distinguishing Florensky and his disciples from the old Stroganov
31 The third exhibition ofthe oBlvloKhu Constructivists (SocietyofYoung Artists),
Moscow, 1921. The Rodchenko- Stepanova Archive, Moscow
Institute of Applied Art was their mystical interpretation of artistic laws.
The debate soon assumed the proportions of a partisan and cruel
vendetta inasmuch as the professors in the Department of Polygraphy, espe-
cially the 'mystic' Florensky, were now being attacked for undermining the
integrity of VKhuTEMAS and causing it to 'collapse'. That the Productivists
did, indeed, regard the Department ofPolygraphy as a closed and esoteric sect
is clear from the Rodchenko caricature (illus. 32) in which Rector Favorsky, as
Father Vladimir, is wearing a cassock (at a time when Florensky was still wear-
ing his cassock). Another, even more explicit, caricature that Rodchenko drew
for the VKhuTEMAS in-house journal Nash gaz [Our News[paper]] shows a
priest with the Bible and a halo in the form of an '0' ('0' for Otets, 'Father'),
holding the initial 'F' (clearly, Florensky) in the palm of his hand (illus. 33). In
his capacity as Rector, an indignant Favorsky responded to the second attack,
soliciting a letter of formal apology from the co-signatories.
included, incidentally, the avant-gardist Popova, whose home in the 1910S had
been the scene of many an affable meeting for Florensky. She now seemed to
regret her involvement, lamenting: 'Florensky- 'well known for his metaphys-
32 Aleksandr
Rodchenko, The
Real Rectoris Father
Vladimir. Caricature
forthe vKhuTEMAS
in-house journal
Nashgaz, 1923.
Both mus. 32 and 33
are courtesyofThe
Rodchenko -
Stepanova Archive,
icallectures'! - \Vhat an unfortunate, vulgar, obtuse, anti-artistic and defama-
tory leaflet' (even though she also signed the second LEF attack of 1924).159
Florensky tried hard not to become too involved in these acrid polemics
and chose not to attend the various organisational initiatives ofVKhuTEMAS
(his name is missing from the minutes of the general and departmental meet-
ings). However, such reticence does not mean that he was deaf to these objec-
tions or was shirking his responsibilities, for he did react to the accusations
and without fear ofcompromising the integrity of his own ideas. For example,
on 24January 1924 he jotted down: 'Explanation regarding LEF on the mystical
interpretation ofartistic law'.160 In his essay on perspective - and just as curtly
- he again anticipated the criticism of the radicals, censuring them for having
33 Aleksandr Rodchenko, Rector Favorsky as Father Vladimir Holding the Initial 'F
for Florensky, a caricature forthe vKhuTEMAS in-house journal Nashgaz, 1923
'destroyed the forms and organisation of space, sacrificing them to volume
and thingness' ('Reverse Perpective', p. 258) and he continued to hammer
home this viewpoint in his essay on iconostasis. As if responding to what the
Productivists were promoting, he even dedicated an entire lesson to the
subject of 'construction' and 'composition' in his VKhUTEMAS course.
The general issue of'composition' in the work ofart was of major concern
to the Department of Polygraphy and, in particular, to Favorsky and Floren-
sky, who imbued the concept with a much broader sense than the one
accepted by the traditional academies of art. They did so because they wished
to emphasise the importance ofthe painting, the engraving and the drawing-
in contrast to the Productivists - as being a virtual image on a two-dimen-
sional support, an autonomous semantic structure, a model and departure-
point for examining the figurative work of art 'as such'. In this way, Florensky
would invite his students to consider 'construction' and 'composition' as inde-
feasible components of the work of art - intended as objects of experimental
analysis - and as physical 'fields' in which the viewer and the viewed interacted
in reciprocal correlation, constituting a dynamic unity.
In the dialectic between the perceived object and the subject that
produces the work ofart, the reality of the object (the section of the world that
is expressed in the work ofart) acts upon the artist by superimposing a certain
structure or 'construction'; while, in turn, the artist also superimposes his
own design - the 'composition'. Regarded from this standpoint, the produc-
tivists' concept of 'construction' was reductive, for they maintained that
studio painting per se could not create 'construction' and, therefore, had to be
rejected, whereas a functional structure such as an object designed by an engi-
neer expressed 'construction', at least aesthetically and, therefore, was the
only acceptable artistic embodiment. In his classes Florensky contended that
the artist could, indeed, create 'things that do not exist in nature, i.e.,
machines', although in this context the artist was merely 'competing with the
engineer' and 'working in the capacity of engineer rather than of artist'.162
Here Florensky, the theoretical engineer, supported by the artist Favorsky,
was polemicising with artists pretending to be professional engineers. This
was certainly a logical conclusion to Florensky's rejection of the notion of
linear perspective and the Renaissance artist-engineer whose 'bitter Kantian
fruits' ('Reverse Perspective', p. 216) had matured into Productivism and
Constructivism. Florensky's polemic with the Contructivist 'engineers' was
destined to last several years, for even as late as 1926 Favorsky was still assert-
ing that students in the Department of Graphics should graduate with artistic,
not technical, expertise: 'No more engineers at VKhUTEMASl If we do need
engineers (and there is such a need), then we should go and find them at
MVTU [Moscow Higher Technical Institute]!'16
Looking back at the
VKhUTEMAS interlude in 1932, Favorsky identified one of the reasons for the
pedagogical failure as the vain attempt to play the role of engineer and 'purely
mechanically to transfer all the practical standards of industrial production,
ete. from technical institutes to an art institute'.164 Florensky also argued that
what he defined as a 'Productivist methodology' - claSSifying the arts according
to technique alone -was totally inadequate.
Of course, this does not mean that Favorsky and Florensky were indiffer-
ent to the material aspect of the work of art, its mode of production, the tech-
nique of artistic production, or the need to overcome the distinction between
the fine and the applied arts. Once again for Florensky the ideal model here
was the icon and its metal cover and the requirement that the icon painter be
first and foremost a craftsman. During his preservation work for the Lavra
Commission Florensky had the chance to study innumerable objects of reli-
gious art, including illuminated manuscripts, metal utensils, tapestries,
textiles and wooden sculpture.
In his preliminaryclass notes for VKhUTEMAS
he listed technical details about the production of niello and enamelling that
were no less erudite than his pedagogical observations on graphic technique.
Florensky's minute attention to both technique and material was reflected in
many of the entries that he published for the Tekhnicheskaia entsiklopediia [Tech-
nical Encyclopedia] in 1927-34 on the latest plastic and industrial products
such as Bakelite, linoleum and insulation materials. 'The science of materials is
linked to histology: declared Florensky in 1925-6: 'The science of materials as
a field ofapplication in the study of manifolds and the theory offunctions can
be linked to the histology of materials.'168
Looking Through a Book Cover
In the 1920S Favorsky and Florensky were united by a close friendship as well
as by mutual interests in particular intellectual and spiritual issues. Emblem-
atic of their long and intricate dialogue was Favorsky's endeavour to visualise
Florensky's philosophical and mathematical ideas in three synthetic images
or, more exactly, three engravings for cover designs. These were for the
unpublished third issue of Makovets, for the unpublished treatise Chis!o kak
forma [Number as Form] (illus. 46) and for the booklet Mnimosti geometrii [The
Imaginaries of Geometry] published in 1922 (illus. 45), which Florensky
wrote just after Favorsky (by then chairman of the Department of Polygra-
phy) had invited him to join the faculty. In concert with Favorsky and
Sidorov, Florensky argued that the book was a special artistic form with its
own intrinsic and organic unity/6
and Favorsky intended his cover for The
Imaginaries of Geometry as an illustration of this concept. Florensky's attentive
response to this cover design bears a direct relationship to this personal and
creative interconnection.
Commenting on the Favorsky cover design in the appendix to The Imagi-
naries of Geometry, Florensky addresses the question of a new non-Euclidean
geometry that derived from the 'real' and 'imaginary' sides of a plane and that
could be represented by graphic means. Florensky proceeded to analyse
Favorsky's image on the basis of its congruence with the theory elaborated in
the book itself, offering it as a concrete visualisation. Florensky seems to be
hypothesising that a new bidimensionality can be conceived if not duplicated
in its front and back sides. True, it is a space whence the perspectival illusion
of the third dimension has been banished, but, in spite of this and like the
Ptolemaic system, it is neither limited, nor closed. The archetype of this space
is, once again, the plane of the icon.
Favorsky's woodcut engraving for The lmaginaries of Geometry and Floren-
sky's explanatory text constitute an implicit manifesto ofthe intrinsic value of
two dimensions in the work ofart, in the sense that the figurative work cannot
but occupy a plane, whether the concrete plane of an engraving, the board of
an icon, or the virtual plane upon which the image is represented symboli-
cally. On this level the rigorous medium of the woodcut was especially rele-
vant inasmuch as it proscribed any fanciful flight into the iridescent charm of
colour or any potential delight in the refined texture that a different engraving
technique would have allowed. Florensky dedicated an important part of his
course at VKhUTEMAS to the engraving technique, identifying it as a specific
medium that expressed the artist's will to organise space on a plane (in
contrast to the hedonistic passivity of the painting). This will manifests itself
in the formal autonomy of the graphic work, which is the representation of a
pure gesture or movement in space, one that is abstract and, by its very nature,
intellectual. Such severity coincided with the predilections of Favorsky
himself, who was drawn to 'composition' precisely because of its aesthetic
articulation oC and restriction to, white and black. He felt that the rough, but
regular grain of the wood allowed for a manipulation of the hatching, the
preferred expressive medium that accentuated the movement of the handYo
That Favorsky's graphic art illustrated Florensky's appendix was especially
clear from his specific use of white, of the background and the empty spaces
as an element ofcolour, so that the density of the background (what Florensky
called the 'filmy space of the representation' in 'Explanation of the Cover', p. 193)
is perfectly integrated to the extent that both the real side and the correspon-
ding 'imaginary' side are completely exposed. Here again, Florensky is
constructing his entire argument via the apparent contradictions or, to use his
own term, antinomies, so typical of his thought process.
Florensky commences his essay by examining 'transparent' vision, a
vision that passes through a spyhole in the wall, the pane of a window, a glass
object, water or the visual fluidity of a multitude of blades ofgrass. But while
looking through the concrete realia, Florensky reaches the converse conclu-
sion that to viewa work ofart is to viewan opaque body in its essence, and this
opaque body can become transparent only via our spiritual consciousness.
The work of art, the pictorial plane, acquires the qualities of a signifying
diaphragm between the internal and external worlds, between linear and
reverse perspectives and, in this immediate context, between the real and the
imaginary sides of geometry (imaginary in the mathematical sense). 'The
transparent is apparitional' - it is a ghostly image and an illusion ('Explanation
of the Cover', p. 190). As he points out in 'Celestial Signs' (p. 121), Sophia,
symbol of the cognition of God, is also opaque, even if she is 'not the crude
inertness of matter, she is not matter's crude opacity', for that is also imper-
meable and transparent. In this regard, the icon, in its physicality and in the
formal, but symbolic abstraction of what it represents, becomes the ideal
screen upon which we focus our gaze, but which separates and/or unites the
believer and the world beyond.
In 1922 Florensky was also busy writing Iconostasis, in which he concen-
trated on the diaphragmic role - both concrete and abstract - that the iconos-
tasis played in the Orthodox church.
From an anthropological standpoint,
the iconostasis was the threshold separating terrestrial from celestial space
while the icon was the window open to the higher world. But the gilded opac-
ity of the iconic plane was nowcountering the transparent glass ofthe Renais-
sance aperture, the illusionist window on to space that had been created by
linear perspective.
Reverse Perspective
While fulfilling his duties as a member of the Commission for the Preservation
ofMonuments and Antiquities of the Lavra, Florensky explored the iconostasis
and the perception of the icon via religious rite and also elaborated his treatise
on reverse perspective. Florensky's conceptual inversion - according to which
'pure painting' as opposed to the linear perspective of stage design, is a
'window opened wide on reality' ('Reverse Perspective', p. 210) - is highly
significant. In Florensky's opinion, Alberti's 'window' and Euclid's geometric
opening on to the world were reversed into a passage through reality, both
empirical and spiritual, a process, however, that was not abstract inasmuch as
it was founded on ulterior certainties. Florensky was identifying two opposing
conceptions of perspective (reverse versus linear and realist versus illusionist)
with alternating historical epochs (medieval versus Renaissance) that had
always used these conceptions, albeit as symbolic manifestations.
Although Florensky had prepared his lecture on reverse perspective for
the Commission, he opted instead to accept Shchekotov's invitation to deliver
it at MIKhIM in 1920. The audience was distinguished, comprising eager and
erudite representatives of the fledgling discipline of Russian art history that
included Mikhail Fabrikant (a specialist in the Renaissance and German
Expressionism), the ethnologist and archaeologist Boris Kuftin, the psycholo-
gist Nikolai Lange (who had studied perception psychology under Wilhelm
Wundt at Leipzig and had organised one of the first laboratories of experi-
mental psychology in Russia), Muratov, Nikolai Romanov (founder of the first
Department of Art History in Russia at the University of Moscow in 1907-8
and then director of the Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow, 1923-6),172 and
Sidorov. Unfortunately, some of those present were about to emigrate and by
extension to become 'traitors to the motherland', while others were to fall
victim to the Stalinist repression, a fact that undoubtedly hindered the timely
publication of Florensky's lecture. Even so, the manuscript was saved, circu-
lated widely and continued to be a subject of ardent discussion among art
historians during the following decades.
For those who attended Florensky's lecture at MIKhIM, therefore, or his
lessons on perspective at VKhuTEMAS -which extended to the larger issue of
spatiality and temporality in the work of art - the topic of perspective was
pivotal in determining the meaning of a work of art and its relationship to the
real world. The attitude of the European avant-gardes to the issue of canonical
perspective, for example, was one of abrupt rejection. In debating the
academic model, they questioned the traditional teaching of perspective, the
application of linear perspective in their own works and, above all, the very
concept of Euclidean space whence the notion of linear perspective derives.
Florensky voiced similar objections against linear perspective, although he
reached very different conclusions.
In his text on reverse perspective Florensky limits himself to stating that
the theory of linear perspective consists of a long list of justifications for the
need to digress from basic norms, to go beyond the oneness of the point of
view, the oneness of the horizon and the oneness of the scale of proportion.
Florensky chooses not to analyse the technical or historiographical aspects of
so-called reverse perspective or even the idea itself but, rather, tries to elabo-
rate the 'ethical' value of the work of art, calling for the rejection of linear
perspective altogether. In contrast to the avant-garde, he offers his arguments
not in support of the new artists who were identifying their genesis with the
formal and 'primitive'language ofthe icon, but in defense ofthe artistic autonomy
of the icon against the anti-religious vandalism threatening the Lavra of the
Trinity and St Sergius.
Hitherto, Florensky had confined himself to 'describing' the perspectival
process - and with an encyclopedic knowledge and competence that over-
shadowed his occasional factual errors. Nonetheless, openly receptive in his
use of sources, he anticipated key discoveries, including the assumption that
the first scientific application of linear perspective was to be found in the
cartographic theory of the projection of a sphere on a plane that Ptolomeus
had proposed in his Geography (considered to be a principal departure-point
for subsequent developments in Renaissance perspective even today).173
Remarkable for its time is the observation that theoreticians such as Biagio da
Parma could have influenced Brunelleschi in his researches on perspectiveP4
As for the historical dimension, Florensky's selective bibliography is of
major importance, since, for example, it contains the very same citation from
Vitruvius on the birth ofscenography that Erwin Panofsky used later on in his
own comprehensive analysis of perspectivey5 Strangely enough, however,
Florensky disregards Oskar Wulff who, in Die umgekehrte Perspektive und die
Niedersicht (1907), was the first to develop a clear and reasoned explanation of
the concept of 'inverted perspective', a publication that was well known in
Russia at that time.
One reason for this bibliographical omission may be that Florensky felt it
more important to discuss the two most recent Russian manuals on perspec-
tive, Nikolai Rynin's Nachertal'naia geometriia. Metody izobrazheniia [Descriptive
Geometry: Methods of Representation] and Nachertal' naia geometriia. Perspek-
tiva [Descriptive Geometry: Perspective], both of which dismissed the
constructions of spatial depth in ancient icons as being 'perspectival aberra-
tions'.m Rynin's assertion was categorical:
Under exceptional circumstances one may use more than one
viewpoint or horizon so as to draw objects placed on a given
plane (a floor, ceiling, wall) as long as one realises that such devi-
ations from the rules of perspective do not correspond to the real
conditions of visionp8
For Florensky such conclusions were a source of both inspiration and
contention and he was quick to challenge them. Other critics, too, hastened to
pronounce on the issues of perspective, not least Anatolii Bakushinsky,179
who responded to Florensky with a long essay- 'Linear Perspective in Art and
in the Visual Perception of Real Space' - that he published in the first issue of
Iskusstvo [Art], the RAKhN art-historical journaJ.180 In concert with an uniden-
tified mathematician friend, Bakushinsky delineated a new conception of an
organic and synthetic perspective - 'profane' as much as 'spiritual' - that was
to become the basis for new researches towards an integration of linear
perspective (the expression of a monocular perception germane to Western
cultures) and reverse perspective (the expression of a binocular perception
germane to Eastern cultures). In defining his own linear (or synthetic)
perspective, Bakushinsky was pursuing a rather subjective approach to the
idea of integration, although he both criticized Rynin's limited technical
approach and questioned the scientific value of Florensky's affirmations on
the basis of the same criticisms that had been levelled at Wulff.
! As far as
Bakushinsky was concerned, Florensky had summarised Wulff's 'paradoxical
conception' founded on the 'theory of empathy'. He continued:
The observer is, as it were, transferred to the position of the
central figure in the picture and perceives space from his view-
point. Via this transfer Wulff tries to transform reverse perspec-
tive into linear perspective.
Which is not to mention the great complexity, in a purely
Ptolemaic sense, and the artificiality of this theory that would
require a radical and inexplicable restructuring of the observer's
Presumably, Bakushinsky's Ptolemaic allusion was to the justification of
Dante's interpretation of the cosmos that Florensky had discussed in his
Imaginaries in Geometry the year before. But Bakushinsky also implied that
there was a direct political thrust underlying the 'mystical' aspects of Floren-
sky's opinions:
With his formulation of reverse perspective as the empirical and
illusory projection ofspace from the viewpoint of the world situ-
ated on the other 'side', P. Florensky is developing Wulff's opinion
and bringing it to a significant conclusion. Florensky's mystical
interpretation corrects the weakness of Wulff's position and
establishes a single and continuous point from which the projec-
tion departs. This point transports Wulffbeyond the picture in a
direction contrary to the viewer, which makes the perspectival
construction arise from the earth ofchance and chaos and which
each time must redefine itself vis-a-vis the principal figure in the
Even though he did not attend the lecture on reverse perspective at
MIKhIM, Bakushinsky did audit Florensky's course at VKhUTEMAS and, of
course, as fellow members ofRAKhN theywere personally acquainted. But by
1923, as the Bolshevik government consolidated, RAKhN began to lose its
political autonomy - and to 'relieve' some of its most important members of
their duties only a few months before the Bakushinsky publication.
included Berdiaev, Bulgakov, Semeon Frank and Fedor Stepun,18
philosophers and among Florensky's acquaintances who had been exiled
from Russia in the fall of 1922 in the wake of the first systematic, repressive
measures taken against the intelligentsia by the new regime. Consequently,
Bakushinsky had to perform intellectual acrobatics so as to dissociate himself
from Florensky's radical, religious affirmations, so dangerously close to those
of the philosophers now in emigration. Specifically, he attempted to reconcile
idealist philosophy, the academic support system of realism and the methods
used by primitives and children to render artistic representation by bringing
them under a single theoretical rubric. At the same time, although nowspeak-
ing from a Soviet platform, Bakushinsky still reaffirmed the superiority of
Russian culture with its spirituality to the corrupt materialism of the capital-
ist West, a juxtaposition that echoed the earlier philosophical debates on
Picasso conducted by Berdiaev, Bulgakov and Florensky:
This crisis [in the visual arts] has led us to an inevitable revision
of the laws of artistic perception and expression of space ... New
ideas of construction and composition have come forth, espe-
cially in contemporary art ... On the other hand, the logical need
for a truly synthetic perspective is a striking echo and presenti-
ment that resounds across the centuries, one reflected in the art
of certain great cultures. It can render great help in the organiza-
tion of the artistic design of the imminent rupture in the spiritual
and material world of human kind.
Bakushinsky undertook yet another convoluted compromise so as to
justify 'moderate' experimentation in art: on the one hand, he proposed what
he called a 'synthetic' perspective that was the objective and rational expres-
sion of visual perception and that could still allow deviation from the norm;
on the other hand, he censured the avant-garde artists who had destroyed
linear perspective and thus the spatial unity of the work ofart, an opinion that
Florensky had also expressed in his VKhUTEMAS lectures. Florensky had
done so in the name of the organic nobility of icon painting and, therefore, of
'reverse perspective'. Now, however, Bakushinsky developed his mandatory
accusations against Florensky into a discourse subtler than that of the young
champions of Constructivism (Rodchenko and his disciples) so as to highlight
the curious mix of mystical and positivist elements in the philosopher's
perspectival theories.
Acoda to this polemic is to be found in the paper on 'Eccentric Space and
Hyperspace in Painting' that the art historian Nikolai Tarabukin gave to a
meeting of the Theory Subsection of the Spatial Arts Section at RAKhN on 2
November 1927. Here he mentioned Bakushinsky's and Wulff's articles, but
avoided any reference to Florensky, either because of his personal sympathy
with the Constructivists and Productivists or because the authorities were
becoming ever more suspicious ofFlorensky's philosophical position. Even if
Tarabukin was not the most extreme of critics, he did underline the formal
possibilities offered by reverse perspective, relating it to Oriental art in general
and to what he defined from an avant-garde position as 'eccentric space':
We are deleting the term 'inverted perspective' and, in Oriental
art, are calling space eccentric, because it unfolds from within
outwards in contradistinction to perspectival space, which folds
inwards. Eccentric space is constructed according to radiuses in
all directions. It is centrifugal and intense.
Bakushinsky's 1923 statement anticipated Panofsky's essay on 'Perspective
as Symbolic Form' - by a year, although from a philosophical viewpoint Floren-
sky's 'Reverse Perpective' (conceived in 1919) was even closer. In any case,
Bakushinsky and, after him, Tarabukin were maintaining the new and fashion-
able Russian interest in the philosophy of perspective - an interest, however,
that transcended the academic discipline to assume ideological or political
connotations to the effect that traditional Russian art was nobler or more
authentic than its Western counterpart. Conversely, for Western critics such as
Panofsky, the question of reverse perspective was hardly one of ideology or
science, but rather a technical and secondary one.
In any case, theywere quite
unaware of the specific nature of the Russian approach to reverse and linear
perspective, even ifPanofsky did quote El Lissitzky's essay on 'A[rt] and Pange-
ometry' published in Potsdam in 1925/
which reflected the spirit of the Russ-
ian debate. Panofsky refers to this as a model of the 'most modern scientific
citing Lissitzky's assessment ofMalevich's Suprematism.
Panofsky could not have done much more for, as with most of his Euro-
pean colleagues, he was unfamiliar with the proud emphasis that the Russian
academic community had placed on the autonomous value of the language of
the Russian (Byzantine) icon before the Bolshevik coup. This particular inter-
pretation had constituted a true Copernican revolution amongst both schol-
ars of Russian art such as Florensky, Grabar' and Muratov (not necessarily
advocates of the avant-garde) and Russian artists, especially of the avant-
garde, such as Goncharova, Grishchenko and Larionov, even if the points of
aesthetic contact between the two factions were few and far between. The
points of ideological contact, however, were much more numerous, if
complex and oblique, indicating an alliance wherein the common rejection of
linear perspective served as a primary intersection of ideas. This alliance may
not have been entirely involuntary for it was imposed very much by the Zeit-
geist, the polemics were acerbic and many of the avant-garde turned either to
applied art or photography or to figurative painting - not, however, a tradi-
tional Realism, but a more stylised and 'iconic' form. In other words, Floren-
sky communicated with the avant-garde, but their conclusions were very
First and foremost, there was the idea of the division of the Orient and the
Occident and the proximity of Russian culture - via Byzantium - to the East
rather than to the West (from the standpoint ofreligious ideology). For Floren-
sky, the foundation of the centre of Russian Orthodoxy, the Lavra of the Trin-
ity and St Sergius, contained the emblematic and chronological coincidence
of the life of its founding saint, Sergius, with the final cultural flowering of the
Palaeologos dynasty and the fall of Constantinople - which, traditionally,
marked the departure-point for the history of Russian culture.
sky, too, opened his essay on linear perspective with an analogous assertion -
that the culture of the Occident, mercantile and positivist, had become stifled
and stifling. That is why Russia was manifesting (or should have been mani-
festing) an ever deeper concern with the Orient, whence came everything that
bore the imprint of spiritual strength and autonomy.1
Tarabukin, represent-
ing a more leftist position, also turned to reverse perspective as a 'distinctive
form ofspatial organisation' related to the East.
Presumably, this attitude was also influenced by the ideas of Oswald
Spengler, for his fundamental text on the decline of the West in its relation to
the figurative arts had just been introduced into Russia by Viktor Lazarev, a
specialist in Russian and Byzantine icons and a member of RAKhN.
95 Spen-
gler's conjecture that Kant's a priori Euclidean space was merely one ofinfinite
possible spaces was essential both to Lissitzky's essay on pangeometry and to
Florensky's on reverse perspective, which he then developed in his Analysis of
Spatiality and Time in Works of Visual Art.
Moreover, Spengler affirmed the
importance of the invention of zero in mathematics, a concept that Lissitzky
elaborated in his deliberation on perspective, arguing that, for the twentieth
century, Malevich's discovery of the black square - a 'plastic value as 0 in the
complex body of art' - had been tantamount to Cardano's and Tartaglia's
discovery of the value of 0 as a number in the sixteenth century.1
The semantic value of the mathematical zero, nowattributed to the picto-
rial plane, represents a third point of contact between the academic theorists
and the artists of the avant-garde. Malevich had also emphasized this new
meaning of the pictorial plane, announcing that he had transformed himself
in the zero of form via the black square,19
and, as if to prove this, contributed
blank canvases to two public exhibitions.
On the other hand, Florensky
attributed a perverse dimension to a device (linear perspective) that he consid-
ered too rational and abstract, the child of an immanent and laical conception
of the world that had generated the mechanistic experiments of French
Cubism and Russian Suprematism and Constructivism. For Florensky the
vanishing-point was a zero, a 'disembodied punctum',lOO that bifurcates into
two valences, one positive, the other negative, in both the mathematical and
the spiritual sense:
In particular, the vanishing-point tends to be presented as a
negative point and at this point the schemes fundamental to
perspectival representation converge - which becomes the
compositional center of the picture. [The viewer] thinks that the
composition is extending and growing. However, for its spatial or
depictive function the vanishing- point is not the source of repre-
sentation, but its conduit, not the beginning, but the end. The
surface perpendicular to the central visual ray is seen as sucked
into the endless depth of the Euclidean extension, always
constant in its monotone movement without hold, arrest, or
obstacle. In receding, the surface rakes over everything that it
encounters in its path, cleansing the space of any possible reality.
The latter seems to rush headlong along the tracks of non-being,
along the lines of escape until it reaches the point, i.e., until the
fullness and diversity that fill space concentrate in a zero - a
homogenous and isotropic space, beyond quality, and indifferent
to its own content, remains empty and, in turn, transforms into a
pure zero. Linear perspective is a machine for annihilating reality, an
infernal yawn that swallows everything wherein the vanishing-
point functions. Conversely, reverse perspective, like a fountain of
reality spurting into the world, serves to generate reality, extract
it from non-being and advance it into reality. Point of darkness
and point of light - such is the correlation of the centers of
inverse [and linear] perspective.
This quotation comes from Florensky's entry on 'Point', his first and only
surviving entry for the 'Symbolarium', and demonstrates that, statements to
the contrary notwithstanding, his aesthetic was still closely linked to that of
the Symbolists. The apocalyptic tones so dear to the Russian Symbolists and
to Florensky himself now return in the metaphor of science, so that the
perspectival vanishing-point becomes a 'black hole' that swallows up and
destroys reality. For Florensky the 'Point' is antinomically a monadic and
closed whole and is also its opposite, nothing, absence, zero, emptiness, which
is perversely active like a vanishing-point.
The Church Ritual as a
Synthesis ofthe Arts
Florensky wrote 'The Church Ritual as a Synthesis of the Arts'} in October
1918, as the text of a lecture he was invited to give to the Commission for the
Preservation of Monuments and Antiquities of the Lavra. This Commission
had been organised immediately after the October Revolution by the new
government in an effort to counteract the vandalism and pillaging that
threatened the property and treasures of the Lavra, the vital centre of Russian
Orthodoxy.2 In spite of its Bolshevik initiative, the Commission owed much
to the participation of Orthodox believers and art historians, a combination
of forces that reflected the ambiguity of the revolutionary regime towards
religious matters. But, inevitably, the Commission was short-lived, and as
soon as the Party decree 'On the Confiscation of Church Valuables' was
issued in 1922, it became apparent that the Lavra would cease to exist in its
current form, one reason why Florensky hastened to publish his essay as
soon as he could, in the first number of the journal Makovets, in 1922.
By then life in the Lavra had changed dramatically: in March 1919 the
Moscow Theological Academy, located in Sergiev Posad, was discontinued;
on 3 November 1919 the monks' dormitory was also closed; and on 31 May
1920 the Cathedral of the Trinity was closed down and sealed off. How curi-
ous, then, that just a short while after these disastrous measures, the Makovets
group of artists and writers, champions of the spiritual in art, took up the
banner of Orthodoxy, invoking the name of Makovets, the hill on which St
Sergius of Radonezh had built his cell and founded the Lavra of the Trinity in
the fourteenth century. That Florensky decided to publish both 'The Church
Ritual as a Synthesis of the Arts' and 'Celestial Signs' in the journal Malwvets
gives them special emblematic import.
As with many of Florensky's other essays, the title of 'The Church Ritual
as a SyntheSis of the Arts', Khramovoe deistvo kak sintez iskusstva, contains
nuances and references that challenge the expertise and ingenuity of any
translator and commentator. A case in point is the word 'act' (deistvo), the
normal word for 'action on stage', which Florensky seems to be using here for
its immediate connotation with the catharsis of ancient tragedy. In this way,
34 Aleksandr Skriabin, Untitled drawing (sketch forthe Misterium) ,c. 1914
Florensky is implying that the liturgy is a religious ritual, the enactment of a
religious performance. At the same time, he is evoking the 'Prefatory Act[ion]'
(Predvarite!'noe deistvie) of the composer Aleksandr Skriabin, whom F10rensky
mentions at the end of his text. skriabin's 'Prefatory Act' is an experimental
opus that he developed just before his death in 1915, parallel to his grandiose
Misterium, a mystical ritual of poetry, declamation, mime, dance, light and
colour play that was to have taken place beneath a 'Temple [khram ] of Cele-
bration'} (illus. 34) Similarly, 'The Prefatory Act' was intended to be a total
ritual and Florensky appears to be deliberately substituting the word 'action
on stage' (deistvo) for 'act' (deistvie) as in 'Act Ill', because, according to the Skri-
abin critic Leonid Sabaneev, 'in his search for a method of realising the
Misterium, Skriabin came to the idea of the final step, to the Prefatory Action
(deistvie) which, however, should have been performed not in the form of a
concert, but as a kind of act (deistvo) for the initiated.'4
There also seems to be a reference to skriabin in the very title of Floren-
sky's lecture and publication, the adjective khramovoe ('cultic', 'ecclesiastical',
'liturgical' - from the word khram [temple]). Presumably, Florensky was trying
to supplement the strictly religious connotations of the Orthodox rite and
liturgy, even if the word khram does relate to the building where these events
take place, a church. Indeed, 'khramovoe deistvo' could well be translated as
'cuitic act', especially if we recall a telling sentence that Florensky included in
his lecture notes, but excluded from his definitive version:
I am talking now in the name not of religious, but of cultural
interest, since, from a purely religious viewpoint, it might be
more useful, speaking somewhat aphoristically, to liquidate the
Lavra and to organise a museum inside its empty walls: there is a
profound truth to what the late Metropolitan Vladimir said,
again, aphoristically, in response to the deep concern about
church antiquities - thatthey ought to be gathered up and burnt. 5
Indeed, intellectually Florensky distinguished religion or cult (kul't) from
culture (kul'tura) since the former 'can be fathomed from top down and not
from bottom up'; on the other hand, 'a cult that is examined from bottom up
is a kind of human activity, yes, a type of activity that coexists with other
kinds'.6 Even so, and despite these very strong reverberations, the primary
emphasis of Florensky's title seems to be on the components of the Orthodox
Church service and, for this reason, the translation 'Church Ritual' rather than
'Cultic Ritual' or 'Cultic Act' has been used throughout.
I would like to share with you some thoughts of a rather general nature. Once
ideas are taken out of the vital context that produced them, however, they are
easily misinterpreted. Think of my remarks as just 'random' thoughts, there-
fore, speculation both theoretical and concrete on what may well be the single
most important living museum of Russian culture, and of Russian art in
particular. At the same time, we can only arrive at a systematic solution to the
problems which historical reality has bequeathed to us by properly exposing
their general principles - and most importantly, only after we have a reached
consensus in defining the basic characteristics of cultural, as well as more
specifically artistic, activity. It is absolutely essential that colleagues involved
in agiven project develop their practical work hand in hand while paying close
attention to theoretical refinement and elaborating theoretical questions
about art on site, at the very heart of artistic production. It must be admitted,
moreover, that in the area that concerns us - namely, religious art conceived as
the highest synthesis of heterogeneous artistic activities - theoretical ques-
tions remain virtually unexplored. If it were permissible to leave our immedi-
ate tasks aside and allow our imagination to stray in the realm of possibilities
- and not particularly remote ones, incidentally - I would lay before you an
idea about the need to create a total complex of research and teaching institu-
tions attached to the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra. This would be a model institution
as well as a truly miraculous and historic attempt to bring into being that ulti-
mate synthesis of the arts for which our modern aestheticians yearn.
I imagine the Lavra as a type of experimental centre, a laboratory for the
study offundamental problems in contemporary aesthetics, a kind ofmodern
Athens, for example, where the theoretical discussion of the problems of reli-
gious art would occur, not in isolation from the actual realisation of these
artistic goals, but in the presence of the very aesthetic phenomenon that
controls and nurtures such discourse. In the ensuing discussion it will perhaps
become apparent that a museum - to bring my idea to its conclusion - a
museum that functions autonomously is false and essentially pernicious to
art, because although the work of art is classified as an object, in no sense is it
merely an object. It is not an E'pyov, an immobile, stagnant, dead mummy of
artistic production. It should be understood as an unquenchable, eternally
beating flow of creativity itself, as the creator's living, pulsating activity. Even
though it is removed from the artist in time and space, it remains inseparable
from him. It still radiates and plays with the colours of life, it still flows with
the EVEpyELCi of the spirit.
Awork of art is a living entity and requires special conditions in which to
live and particularly in which to flourish. Detached from these concrete
conditions of its existence, specifically its artistic existence, it dies, or at least it
enters a state of anabiosis. It ceases to be perceived, and at times it even ceases
to exist, as a work of art. And yet the museum's aim is precisely to isolate the
work ofart, which it misrepresents as an object that can be removed or trans-
ported at whim from place to place and installed anywhere, and ultimately to
destroy it as a living entity (I am taking this idea to the extreme). Metaphori-
cally speaking, the museum substitutes a mere outline for the finished paint-
ing, and we can count ourselves lucky if even that is not distorted.
wherever possible in their natural habitat, concerned himself exclusively with
collecting beautiful plumage? The natural scientists of our day have clearly
understood the importance of studying nature as much as possible under
concrete natural conditions. Wherever feasible, the actual museums of natural
history are being transformed into zoological and botanical gardens equipped,
as far as possible, with natural living conditions instead of cages, to the degree
that this can be achieved. The famous zoological garden in Hamburg comes to
mind here? But for some reason this same concept, which is of infinitely
greater importance for the study of mankind's spiritual activity, has hardly
been put into practice by the disciplines in question. A few museum rags or a
shaman's tambourine are essentially just that - rags and a tambourine - and
have as little value for the study of shamanism as Napoleon's spur for modern
military history. The loftier the human activity and the more definitively it
involves an element ofvalue, the more prominent does a functional method of
comprehension and study become and the more futile the homegrown collect-
ing of rarities and freaks. These ideas are as incontrovertible as they are rarely
mentioned when the time comes to apply them. I realize that I am trying your
patience with these overly simple truths, but I feel compelled to do so in viewof
a far from rare inability or unwillingness to grapple with them that is encoun-
tered all too frequently - that elementary artistic and archaeological predatori-
ness, that rabies museica, that seems prepared to carve offa piece ofa painting, all
for the sake of installing it in one particular building on one particular street,
called a museum. Verily, lucus anon lucendo.
But the Muses cannot be forced to wear flounces. In the interests of
culture a protest should be made against attempts to tear a few rays from the
sun of creativity, stick a label on them, and put them under a bell-glass. This
protest, it must be hoped, will not be without repercussions - if not now, then
in the future - because museum affairs are clearly moving in the direction of
concretisation, of saturating the work of art's environment with life and the
plenitude of life's wholeness. In the writings of Pavel Muratov I find some
pages that I would be prepared to include in a legislative codex on museum
The author of Obrazy Italii [Images of Italy] writes:
Perhaps it is not in the light of the museums at all that one must
seek the source of a genuine enthusiasm for the ancients. Who
would be prepared to claim that he truly appreciated Greece within
the four walls of the British Museum and retained its image in his
soul once he had gone out into the eternallywet Strand, or down to
the dreamy, romantic, smokygroves of Hyde Park, so typical ofthe
North? The genius loci of London is clearly alien to the genius of
those places where the marbles ofthe Parthenon and ofDemeter of
Cnidus first saw the light of day; nor is it any more like the air on
which these beings of the ancient world sustained their invisible
life, the air that each one ofus breathes in the spacious courtyard of
the Museo delle Terme, despite its lack offirst rate objects.... As he
inspects the ancient reliefs here, the visitor can sometimes hear an
overripe pear fall to the ground, or the paw-shaped leaves of a fig
tree tapping on the windowas it sways in the wind. Among the old
cypress trees in the middle of the yard a fountain plays, and ivy
entwines the sacrificial white bulls. The abundance of fragments
and sarcophagi that have been placed here are flooded with
sunlight that turns the travertine blue and transparent, the marble
warm and vibrant. Give me the splendid existence of these objects
any day, rather than the perfection of a masterpiece carefully
preserved in a stuffy room. The scattered rose petals that have
become lodged in the folds of a woman's dress, sculpted who
knows when and bywhom, are a far greater adornment than all the
connoisseurs' opinions and scholars' arguments. These petals,
these shadows cast by leaves and branches across the marble, these
lizards scurrying among the fragments, are as it were a link
between the ancient world and our own, the onlyway in which our
heart can come to know it and believe in its life.
Further on Muratov writes of a superb idea on the part of the Keepers of the
British Museum, to display part of its ancient collections out of doors in the
A museum is more destructive to antique sculpture than a
picture gallery to the paintings of the Renaissance.... Sculpture
needs light and shade, the expanse of the sky and the tonal
contrast of vegetation, perhaps even spots of rain and the move-
ment oflife flowing past nearby. For this form of art the museum
will always be a prison or a cemetery.... A profound emotion
grips the traveler in a quiet corner ofthe Forum near the spring of
Iuturna, where the Dioscuri watered their horses.
But, we ask ourselves, would the stones from this same spring be as precious
if they were transplanted to the Berlin Museum and arranged on shelves along
the walls, however well dried those walls might be?
Is it not the way life goes on around these stones, the functional contem-
plation of them, that disquiets and ennobles our soul? What frightens me
most about the activity of our Commission and all other commissions and
societies alike, regardless of their country of origin, is the potential for trans-
gressing against life, for sliding on to the oversimplified, easiest path of stifling
and soul-destroying collecting. For isn't that what happens when an aesthete
or archaeologist regards the signs of life in some organism, a functionally
unified whole, as self-sufficient objects, severed from the living spirit, outside
of their functional relationship to the whole.
In the Inventory of the Lavra sacristy we are already encountering
attempts at such stifling. Thus, in discussing the famous chalice of reddish-
yellow marble donated by Grand Duke Vasilii Vasil'evich Temnyi, the
compiler of the Inventory has made the note: 'And the marble weighs this
many pounds at so much per pound, a total of 3 rubles 50 kopeks.' Let's not be
deceived by the naive candour of this note: nomine mutato de te fabula narratur.
Even when it appears in a more complex and refined form, the formula
'marble valued at 3 rubles 50 kopeks' may be considered canonical for those
who support the abstract collecting of objects that have no, or almost no,
meaning outside the totality of specific conditions oflife. In the words ofPavel
Muratov, 'We can only dream that some day all the reliefs and statues that have
been found in the Forum and on the Palatine will be returned here from the
museums of Rome and Naples. Some day we will understand that, for an
ancient object, an honourable dying at the hands of time and nature is better
than lethargic slumber in a museum: 11 Decentralising the museums, bringing
the museum out into life and bringing life into the museum, creating a living
museum for the people that on a daily basis would educate the masses that
streamed about it (and not the collecting of rarities for art gourmets only); a
thorough assimilation of human creativity into life, for all the people, not for
isolated pockets of one or two specialists, who often have a weaker under-
standing of the artistic whole - these are the slogans of museum reform that
should be set against what was worst in the culture of the past, against what
truly deserved the title 'bourgeois'.
But let us return to our theoretical discussion.
In one of his lectures Yurii Olsuf'ev defines gxkas the result ofamassing
homogeneous artistic perceptions (I would add to this our own creative reac-
tions) from a given epoch. 'Therefore', he says, 'the pledge of true artistic
worth, that the art of that period is genuine, lies in the harmony between style
and content:
In this way the vitality of art depends on the degree of unity
between impressions and the means by which they are expressed. True art is a
unity ofcontent and the means ofexpressing that content, but these means of
expression can easily be understood simplistically, by excising some single
facet from the content-laden function of embodiment. Then just one side of
an organic unity, one side alone, is taken as something self-sufficient, existing
in seclusion from the other facets of embodiment, even though it is really a
fiction that has no reality outside of the whole, just as paint scraped off a
painting or the sounds of an entire symphony played all together are not an
aesthetic reality. And if on the basis of this simplistic insensitivity the aesthete
attempts to sever the threads or, more accurately, the bloodbearing arteries
linking that facet of the work of art under examination to those other facets
which the aesthete fails to notice, then he destroys the unity between the
content and the means of expression, he annihilates the style of the art object
or distorts it, and in distorting or annihilating style, in de-styling that work, he
thereby deprives it ofgenuine artistic content.
Let me repeat that a work of art is artistic precisely by virtue of the
completeness of the conditions essential for its existence, on the basis of
which and in which it was engendered. By removing a part of these condi-
tions, by rejecting or replacing some of them, the work of art is deprived of its
vital play, it is distorted and even made an anti-work of art. The traits of
heterogeneous styles introduced into a work with a specific style are often
repulsive, unless a new creative synthesis is effected. Aphrodite in a farthin-
gale would be as insupportable as a seventeenth-century marquise in an aero-
plane. But if the wholeness of a work of art expressed in this primitive form is
generally acknowledged, the general binding force and scope of this precondi-
tion for artistic content is by no means so clear to everyone. Of course, every-
one knows that the aesthetic phenomenon of a painting or statue needs light,
that music needs silence, and architecture space. But not everyone remembers
with an equal degree of clarity that these general conditions should have in
addition several qualitative determinants and that these determinants in no
way constitute a service beyond the call of duty, or an act of charity on the
viewer's part. Rather, they become a constitutive part of the actual organism
of the work of art and, having been foreseen by its creator, they form its
continuation, although that too lies beyond the bounds ofwhat we call, for the
sake of brevity and simplicity, the work of art proper.
A painting, for example, should be illuminated by some specific sort of
light, diffuse, white, sufficiently bright, uniform and not coloured or mottled,
ete. Outside of this required illumination it does not live as a work of art, i.e.,
as an aesthetic phenomenon. If a picture was painted for white lighting, then
illuminating it with red light means killing the aesthetic phenomenon as such,
for the frame, canvas and paint are in no way the work of art. Similarly, plac-
ing a piece of architecture in a foggy space, or listening to a piece of music in
an auditorium with poor acoustics also means distorting or destroying the
aesthetic phenomenon.
But more than that, there are conditions for perceiving works ofart that are,
so to speak, negative. One cannot, for instance, listen to a symphony or look at
a painting in a setting filled with unbearably stinking gases. These negative
conditions, if not kept within certain tolerable bounds, burrow their way into
the style of the work, annihilating the unity of form and content, and thereby
destroying the work as such. For better or worse, the work of art is the center of
an entire cluster ofconditions, which alone make possible its existence as some-
thing artistic; outside ofits constitutive conditions it simply does not exist as art.
In the case of studio painting we choose the frame and setting, for a statue it is
the drapery, for a building the totality of colour patches and airy spaces, for
music the overall character ofthe impressions simultaneously experienced with
it. The more complex the conditions in which a particular work lives, the easier
it is to distort its style, to make a wrong move that would imperceptibly lead
away from the plane ofgenuine artistry towards absence ofstyle.
This general condition applies particularly to religious art. In the recent
past [upholders] of aesthetic standards felt justified in looking down on the
Russian icon. Now the eyes of the aesthetes have been opened to this aspect of
religious art. But this first step, unfortunately, is so far only the first, and one
frequently finds an aesthetic shallowness and insensitivity that perceives the
icon as an independent object usually found in a church, located by chance in
a church, but capable of being successfully transferred to an auditorium,
museum, salon, or who knows where else. I permit myself to label as shallow-
ness this isolation of one of the aspects of religious art from the whole organ-
ism of church ritual as a synthesis of the arts, that artistic environment in
which alone the icon possesses its true artistic meaning and can be contem-
plated in its true artistic nature. Even the briefest analysis of anyone of the
aspects of religious art will show that this aspect is connected to others - I am
personally convinced, to them all- but for the moment it is enough to point
out just a few interdependent facets ofreligious art, selected almost at random.
Let us take, for example, this same icon. Of course, the way it is lit is by no
means irrelevant and, of course, for the icon's artistic existence its illumina-
tion should be exactly that under which it was painted. In this instance, the
illumination is quite unlike the dispersed light of the artist's studio or the
museum gallery, rather it is the uneven and irregular flickering, one might
almost say winking, light of the icon lamp. Calculated [to be seen] in the play
of a flickering flame that moves with every breath of wind, making allowance
ahead of time for the effects of coloured reflections from the bundles of light
passing through coloured, sometimes faceted glass, the icon can be contem-
plated as such only in the presence of this current, only in this flood of light,
fragmenting, uneven, seeming to pulsate, rich in warm prismatic rays - a light
which all perceive as alive, warming the spirit, emitting a warm fragrance.
Painted under more or less the same conditions, in a half-darkened cell with a
narrow window, lit with several kinds of artificial lighting, the icon comes to
life only in corresponding conditions. Conversely, it grows numb and
distorted in conditions which, in abstract and general terms, might seem the
most favourable for works ofthe brush - I am speaking of the even, calm, cold
and strong lighting of the museum. And many peculiarities of the icon which
tease the sated gaze of modernity - the exaggeration of certain proportions,
the accentuation of lines, the profusion of gold and gems, the frame and the
haloes, the pendants, the brocade and velvet veils sewn with pearls and
precious stones - all this, seen in conditions natural to the icon, exists not at all
as piquant exoticism, but as the essential, absolutely unremovable, one and
only means of expressing the spiritual content of the icon, Le., as the unity of
style and content, in other words - as authentic artistry. Gold, which by the
diffused light of day is barbaric, heavy and devoid of content, comes to life in
the flickering light of the icon lamp or candle, for it sparkles with a myriad
flashes in every direction, conveying a presentiment of other, unworldly
lights, filling a heavenly space. Gold, which is the conventional attribute of the
celestial world and which in a museum is something contrived and allegorical,
in a church with flickering icon lamps and a multitude of burning candles is a
living symbol, it is representation. In exactly the same way the icon's primi-
tivism, its at times bright, almost unbearably bright colouring, its saturation
and insistency, are most subtly calculated on the effects of church lighting.
Here, in the church, all of this exaggeration is softened and conveys a power
unattainable by ordinary methods of representation. In this church lighting
we can make out the faces of the saints, their countenances, i.e., heavenly
aspects, living phenomena ofanother world, proto-phenomena, Urphiinomena
we would call them, following Goethe's example. In a church we stand face to
face with the platonic world of ideas, whereas in a museum we see not icons
but merely caricatures of them.
But let us go further, and move from the art of fire, an indispensable
component of the synthesis of church ritual, to the art of smoke, without
which once again this synthesis does not exist. Need we point out that the
finest blue veil of incense dissolved in the air brings to the contemplation of
icons and frescoes a softening and deepening of aerial perspective, such as the
museum neither knows nor can dream of. Need we recall that, through this
constantly moving atmosphere, this materialized atmosphere, this atmos-
phere visible to the gaze, like some very fine granularity, absolutely new
achievements in the art of air are introduced into icons and frescoes? They are
new, however, only for secular art that is abstracted and isolated, not for reli-
gious art, whose creators took them into account ahead of time, and conse-
quently without them their works cannot help but be distorted.
No one will deny that electric light kills colour and destroys the balance of
colour masses. IfI say that icons should not be looked at in electric light, with
its wealth ofdark blue and violet rays, few people would argue with me. Every-
one knows that, like a burn, electric light also destroys psychic receptivity.
This is an example of a negative condition for the artistic content of religious
art. But if there are negative conditions, there are even more positive ones,
which in their totality define not only church ritual as something whole, but
also each aspect ofit as organically coordinated to all the others. Style requires
that the circle ofconditions be in some degree complete, that the special world
that is the artistic whole be in some sense self-contained. Its infiltration by
alien elements leads to the distortion ofboth the whole and the separate parts
that have their centre and source of equilibrium in the whole. Generally
speaking, in a church everything is interlinked: church architecture, for exam-
ple, takes into account even so apparently minor an effect as the ribbons of
bluish incense curling across the frescoes and entwining the pillars of the
dome, almost infinitely expanding the architectural spaces of the church with
their movement and interlacing, softening the dryness and stiffness of the
lines and investing them with movement and life, as if melting them.
But we have been talking so far only of a small part of church ritual, and
one that is comparatively very homogeneous. Let us recall the plastic, rhyth-
mic movements of the officiating priests, as when they swing the censer, the
play and modulation offolds in the precious fabrics, the aroma, the particular
fiery waftings of the atmosphere, ionised by thousands of burning flames. Let
us further recall that the synthesis of church ritual is not just conflned to the
sphere of the visual arts, but encompasses the art of singing and poetry, all
kinds of poetry, church ritual being itself a musical drama on the aesthetic
plane. Here everything is subservient to a single goal, to the supreme effect of
this musical drama's catharsis, and so everything here that is coordinated to
everything else does not exist if taken separately, or at least it exists falsely.
Therefore, leaving aside the mysticism and metaphysics of the cult and focus-
ing exclusively on the autonomous plane of art as such, I am nevertheless
astonished when I happen to hear speeches about preserving a monument of
high art such as the Lavra, in which attention is limited to one single aspect
while remaining anti-artistically and anti-culturally indifferent to another.
If the lover of vocal music started pointing out to me that in church
melodies, so closely linked to the ancient world, we have high art, and perhaps
even the highest vocal art, comparable in the instrumental realm only with
Bach; if in the name of this cultural value he began demanding that the vocal
component of the liturgy be preserved, referring particularly to the distinctive
local chants preserved by Lavra tradition, then to be sure I would shake his
hand. But I would find it difficult to refrain from bitterness in reproaching
him: 'Is it really all the same to you that the vaults of outstanding architectural
achievements are going to ruin, that frescoes are flaking off and that icons are
being repainted or plundered?' Similarly, I could not but contrast to the lover
of singing and also the connoisseur of the visual arts my own concern about
the preservation of works of ancient church poetry, which up to now has
preserved the characteristics of the ancient chanting manner of singing and
ancient scansion, and about the preservation of manuscripts from bygone
centuries, full ofhistarical significance, which have brought to perfection the
composition of the book as a total object. I could not help reminding all these
connoisseurs of the arts that have been forgotten or half-forgotten by the
modern world, those arts that are even more auxiliary and yet are absolutely
essential to the organisation of this ritual as an artistic whole: the art of fire,
the art of smell, the art of smoke, the art of dress, etc., up to and including the
utterly unique Trinity holy bread (pmifora) , with its mysterious and secret
recipe, the distinctive choreography that emerges in the measured move-
ments of the priests as they come in and out, in the converging and diverging
of their countenances, in their circling around the throne and the church, and
in the church processions. He who has tasted the charm of antiquity knows
well how ancient all this is, how it lives as an inheritance and the only direct
branch of the ancient world ta have survived, particularly of the sacred
tragedy ofthe Hellenes. Even such details as the specific, light touching of vari-
ous surfaces, of holy objects made of various materials, of the icons anointed
and saturated with oil, fragrances, and incense - and touching besides with
the most sensitive parts ofour body, the lips - become part of this total ritual,
as a special art, special artistic spheres, as for example the art of touch, the art
ofsmell and so on. In eliminating them we would deprive ourselves of the full-
ness and completeness of the artistic whole.
Iwill not discuss the occult element that is characteristic ofany work ofart
in general, and of church ritual in particular. This would take us into a realm
that is too complex. Nor can I talk here about the symbolism that is inevitably
present in any art, particularly the art oforganic cultures. For us even the exter-
nal, we might say the superficial consideration ofstyle as a totality ofall means
of expression is enough to speak of the Lavra as an entire artistic and historical
monument that is unique anywhere in the world and that requires infinite
attention and care. The Lavra, considered in a cultural and artistic context,
should, like a single entity, be a real 'museum' without losing a single drop of
the precious liquid ofculture that has been gathered here with such style, in the
very midst of the stylistic multiplicity of epochs, throughout the Moscow and
Petersburg periods of our history. As a monument and a centre of high culture,
the Lavra is infinitely necessary for Russia, and in its entirety, what's more, with
its day-ta-day existence, its very special life that has long since disappeared into
the realm of the distant past. The whole distinctive organisation of this
vanished life, this island of the fourteenth-seventeenth centuries, should be
protected by the state with at the very least no less care than the last bison were
protected in the Belovezh Forest.
If an institution for Muslims or Lamas
comparable to the Lavra came within the state's purview, even if it was alien to
our culture and remote from our history, could the state resist the idea of
supporting and protecting such an institution? How much more attentive,
then, should the state be towards this embryo and centre of our own history,
our own culture, both scholarly and artistic?
For all that, I consider the idea of transferring use of the Lavra from the
monks to parochial societies to be thoroughly lacking in empathy and
aesthetic sensitivity. Anyone who has thoroughly investigated the incommen-
surability and qualitative difference between the life-style, the psychology,
and finally the liturgical style of monks - even bad monks - and people who
live outside the monastery - even though they be extremely virtuous - cannot
but agree with me that it would be a great breach ofstyle to grant service in the
Lavra to the white priesthood.
Even in terms of colour, the patches ofcolour
in the churches or on the grounds of the Lavra, the substitution of black
figures, with their distinctive monastic gait, with any others, whether different
in style or entirely lacking in style, would immediately destroy the totality of
the Lavra's artistic impression and would transform it from a monument to
life and creativity into a dead storehouse for more or less random objects.
I could understand a fanatical demand to destroy the Lavra and leave not
a stone standing, made in the name of the religion of socialism.
But I
absolutely refuse to understand a Kulturtriiger who, on the basis of nothing
more than a fortuitous overabundance of specialists in the visual arts in our
day, fervently protects the icons, the frescoes and the walls themselves, and
remains indifferent to other, no less valuable achievements of ancient art. But
most importantly he doesn't take into account the highest goal of the arts,
their ultimate synthesis, so successfully and distinctively resolved in the
church ritual of the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, and sought with such insatiable
thirst by the late Skriabin.
It is not to the arts but to Art that our age aspires, to the very core ofArt as
a primordial unifying activity. And for Art it is no secret, where not only the
text, but the entire artistic embodiment of the Prefatory Action
is concealed.
Sergiev Posad
24 October 1918
Celestial Signs
This is the second essay that Florensky published in 1922 in the journal
Makovets (second and last issue) following 'The Church Ritual as a Synthesis of
the Arts'. Just as the written version of the latter antedates the actual publica-
tion by four years, so Florensky also wrote 'Celestial Signs'} three years before-
hand, developing it as the organic, if metaphorical, extension of a concrete
location, the small town of Sergiev Posad, physically and spiritually close to
the Lavra.
At dawn and dusk Florensky would stroll on and around the hill of
Makovets, exploring, observing, contemplating, and in the introductory essay
entitled 'On Makovets' that he wrote for his unpublished collected works At the
Watersheds of Thought, he offered an analysis of his spiritual responses to this
special place. For him there were two different, but complementary, sensa-
tions that the unicity of the Evening Star and the Morning Star symbolised-
'two names, but one star, birth and death - beginning and end - but yet a
single star'} Only there, on that sacred hill, and at those two special hours of
the day that so appealed to the Symbolists could Sophia, the Wisdom of God,
have appeared in all her splendour (illus. 35). Florensky also imbues his 'Celes-
tial Signs' with this mood, even if his description of the colours of the spec-
trum during a sunrise or sunset might appear at first glance to be merely an
analytical and scientific observation which any textbook on the physics of
light could have provided. But Florensky maintains that, according to the
particular perspective of our visual contemplation of colour changes, Sophia
appears as the 'fourth hypostasis' of God which assumes one or another
In fact, the very title, 'Celestial Signs', bears an immediate reference to reli-
gious apparitions, a mystery that, from the initial use of znameniia (heavenly
bodies or phenomena) rather than znaki (semiotic indicators), pervades the
whole text. The Russian Znamenie Presviatoi Bogoroditsy, for example, means the
'miraculous apparition of the Virgin Mary' and connotes one of the different
visages of Sophia - of Sophia, the 'true sign of Mary Full of Grace in Her
Virginity, the Beauty of Her soul'.4 Consequently, the word 'signs' could also
35 Anonymous, St Sofiia, needlework, late 15th century. State Historical Museum,
encompass the different apparitions of Sophia to which Florensky refers in his
footnotes to 'Letter No. X' on the concept of Sophia in The Pillar and Ground of
the Truth. 5 The experience of these religious apparitions was long, starting with
the Holy Fathers and ending with the Symbolist philosophers and poets such
as Vladimir Solov'ev and Viacheslav Ivanov, and the theme of Sophia fasci-
nated Florensky, too, inspiring his recourse to religious meditation in the 1910S
and the thesis of his magistral dissertation, a major contribution to Orthodox
theology.6 Originally, Florensky subtitled 'Celestial Signs' 'Meditation'.
As early as 1905 Florensky had begun to gather materials pertaining to the
image and meaning of Sophia. As his correspondence with Bely reveals, in his
initial approach to the idea of Sophia he emphasised her link not only with the
Apocalypse, but also with the Symbolist identification of her as the Beautiful
Lady and specifically with Liubov' Blok (Mendeleeva) who inspired Aleksandr
Blok's 'Verses about the Beautiful Lady' and was revered by Bely and Sergei
Solov'ev in particular:
Over recent times I have been collecting materials on Sophia. It's
not easy to collect them, because I have to read through a pile of
rawmaterial, examine lots oficons, drawings, etc. so as to catch a
few pearls. But I do have a totally apocalyptic icon (and that's one
of my pearls), i.e., The Woman clothed in the Sun, the Mother of
God, the beast and the abyss, ete. It will still be a while before I
finish my research ... Recently, I finished [working on] types of
growth. This is preparing me (mathematically and psychologi-
cally) for the issue of individuals enjoying the special patronage
of S[ophia], as, for example, your Lady and the other Lady that I
know from Aleksei SergeevichJ
This kind oficonological research, and 'Celestial Signs', contains specific refer-
ences to the Beautiful Lady, even though by the time the essay was published
in 1922 the intimacy ofFlorensky's friendship with Bely had waned. Neverthe-
less, the subtitle of 'Celestial Signs', 'Reflections on the Symbolics of Colours',
elicits the Symbolist vocabulary, especially that of Bely, who, in his own
considerations of sacred colours, had subjected 'colour correspondences' to a
very personal interpretation.
(Reflections on the Symbolics of Colours)
Suppose we went out into the open, preferably at sunrise or at least when the
sun is almost at the horizon, and made a note of the correlation of colours.
Directly opposite the sun is violet, lilac and, above all, sky blue. On the
side of the sun is pink or red, and orange. Overhead - transparent emerald
Let us be aware ofwhat we are actually seeing. We see light and only light,
a single light from a single sun. Its varied colouring is not its own intrinsic
attribute, but rather results from its correlation with that terrestrial, and
perhaps in part with that heavenly environment, that is filled with this one
Undivided light, continuous light, is in truth continuity. In a space filled
with light it is impossible to single out an area that does not communicate
with any other region. It is impossible to isolate part of the light space, impos-
sible to excise I2Mt. of the light. (This is a beautiful example of the fact that
extension is not a sufficient condition for divisibility and that divisibility does
not follow analytically from extension.) But when opaque bodies intercept
light in space, this isolation always occurs one-sidedly, from one side, and is
thereby incapable of enclosing a separated light mass.
And so, light is continuous. But it is not the optical environments, filled
with light and transmitting light to us, that are continuous. They are granular,
they consist of some sort of extremely fine dust, and they themselves contain
another dust, so fine that no microscope can detect it, yet nevertheless consist-
ing of separate granules, separate particles of matter. Those gorgeous colours
that adorn the vault of heaven are none other than the means by which insep-
arable light and fragmented matter interact. We can say that the colouration of
sunlight is the foretaste, the modification that inserts the dust of the earth into
the sunlight. It is the very finest dust on earth and perhaps it is the even finer
dust of heaven. The colours violet and light blue are the darkness of empti-
ness, yet a darkness that is softened by the reflection of a veil of the finest
atmospheric dust seemingly cast over it. When we say that we see a violet light
or the azure of the firmament, we are seeing darkness, the absolute darkness
of emptiness, which sheds no light and is not iIlumined by any light. But we
see it not in and of itself, but through the finest, sunlit dust. The colours red
and pink are the same dust, but seen not against the light but from the same
side as the light, not softening the darkness ofinterplanetary spaces with their
illumination, not diluting it with light, but on the contrary subtracting a
portion oflight from the light, shading the light from the eye, and because this
dust stays between the light and the eye and is not illuminated, it adds dark-
ness to the light. Finally, the colour green, perpendicular in orientation, the
greenness of the zenith, is the balance oflight and dark, it is the lateral illumi-
nation of the dust particles, the illumination as it were of one hemisphere of
each speck of dust, so that each one of them could just as well be called dark
on a light ground as light on a darkground. The green colour above one's head
is neither light nor dark.
And so there is only the energy of illuminating light and the passivity of
the matter that is illumined and that therefore does not absorb light, i.e., does
not allow light to pass beyond itself. And finally there is that about which we
can say that it exists only in a grammatical sense, for it is nothing, an empty
space, i.e., it is light, whose intensity is conceived as equal to zero, a pure
potential of shining light that is not, however, there. These two principles, and
the third that is nothing, define all the manifold colours of heaven. From these
sensory images thought is directed of its own accord towards their symbolic
meaning. But here, once and for all and with the utmost insistence, it must be
stated that the metaphysical meaning of this symbolics, like any other authen-
tic symbolics, is not built upon sensory images but is contained within them,
defining them through itself. These sensory images are themselves rational,
not simply as physical, but specifically as metaphysical images, bearing these
latter ones in themselves and being enlightened by them. In this particular
instance, their continuous transition from the sensible to the supersensible is
so gradual that, in saying the words light, darkness, colour, matter, you really
don't know to what degree at this very moment you are involved with the
physical and to what degree with the metaphysical. For all these words are in
essence primordial words, from which physics and metaphysics alike - or
more accurately metaphysics and physics - develop and ascend as from
common roots, all the while remaining parallel and all the while maintaining
a vital correlation. Indeed, the correlation described here between the origins
of the physical world possesses their complete correspondence in the correla-
tion between the principles of metaphysical being. Both analogous correla-
tions are exact repetitions ofeach other, like a form and the casting made from
it, or like two impressions from a single stamp. Hence there is also established
the symbolic meaning in the supersensible world, of that which is the result of
the correlation of the origins of the sensible world, i.e., the symbolics of
'God is light.'9 God is light, and not in a moral sense, but as a judgement
established by perception, a spiritual, yet concrete, direct perception of the
glory of God. In contemplating it we behold one continuous, indivisible light.
Light has no further definition other than that it is unalloyed, pure light, in
which 'there is neither darkness nor singleness'. The definition of light is only
that light is light, containing no darkness, for in it all is made bright, and all
darkness from long ago is vanquished, overcome and enlightened.
In relation to colours we call light white. But white is not a positive defini-
tion, it refers only to its unalloyed nature, to the fact that it is 'neither this, that,
nor another colour', just that it is pure, unalloyed light. 'White light' is only a
designation of light as such, a purely analytical emphasis on its integrity.
Whether it be light or God, it is fullness, not one-sided, for any sort of one-
sidedness arises from obstacles. It contains no curtailing, no limitation. Only
a limitation, a curtailing, an obstacle, a dilution of the pure energy of light
with an alien passivity could force light to be not simply light, not simply itself,
i.e., one-sided, inclining to one side or the other, the side of one or other
colorations. 'This passive medium, in its finest and most tender manifestation,
is a creature, not however a crude earthly creature, crudely destroying the
spirituality oflight, but a most lofty and delicate creature, a creature which, so
to speak, in its original state serves as the medium that adds colour to light.
This metaphysical dust is called Sophia. She is not the actual light of the Divin-
ity, she is neither the Divinity itself, nor what we usually call a creature, she is
neither the crude inertness of matter, nor its crude opacity. Sophia actually
stands on an ideal border between divine energy and creature passivity. She is
as much God as not God, as much creature as not creature. One can say of her
neither yes nor no - not in the sense of strengthening one or the other as
antonyms, but in the sense of her liminal ability to pass between the two
worlds. Light is the activity of God, while Sophia is the first thickening of this
activity, its first and finest work, but one which nevertheless breathes her, and
is so close to her that, if one does not take them in correlation to one another,
not even the finest line can be drawn between them. And we wouldn't be able
to distinguish between them, if it weren't for the correlation: light as the activity
of the Divine, and Sophia as the ur-creature or the ur-mother. Only from the
correlation of the two principles do we establish that Sophia is not light, but a
passive supplement, while light is not Sophia, but illumines her. This correla-
tion defines colouring. Contemplated as a work of divine creation, as the first
clot of being, relatively independent of God as the darkness of nothingness
moving forward to meet the light, i.e., contemplated as moving from God
towards nothing, Sophia appears as blue or violet. Conversely, when contem-
plated as the result of divine creation, as inseparable from the divine light, as
the foremost wave of divine energy, as the power of God moving to overcome
darkness, i.e. when seen [moving] from the world towards God, Sophia
appears as pink or red. she appears pink or red as God's image for his creature,
as the manifestation of God on earth, as that 'rosy shadow' to which Vladimir
Solov'ev prayed. Conversely, she is seen as blue or violet as the world soul, as
the spiritual essence of the world, as a blue veil that curtains off nature. In
Viacheslav Ivanov's vision she is like the fundamental element ofour existence
in the mystical immersion of the gaze within itself: our soul is like a blue
Finally, there is also a third metaphysical direction, neither
towards nor away from the light, Sophia outside of her definition or self-defi-
nition towards God. It is that spiritual aspect of being, one might call it a
paradisaical aspect, according to which there is as yet no knowledge of good
and evil. There is not yet a direct aspiration either towards God or away from
him, because these very orientations do not yet exist, neither the one nor the
other, there is only movement around God, a free playing in the presence of
God, like the little greenish-gold snake in Hoffman,ll like the Leviathan,
'whom thou hast made to play therein' [Psalms 104:26], like the sea playing in
the sun. And this is also Sophia, this aspect of Sophia appears golden-green
and translucent emeraldY It is that aspect which was fleetingly glimpsed, but
could not find expression in, the initial projects ofLermontov. The three prin-
cipal aspects of the Urkreatur are defined by the three primary colours of the
symbolics of colours, while the meaning of the others is established as being
intermediary. But no matter how diverse, these colours speak of the relation-
ship, however different, of one and the same Sophia to one and the same
divine Light. The sun, the finest of fine dust, and the darkness of emptiness in
the sensory world, are also God, Sophia and the infernal darkness, the dark-
ness of metaphysical nonbeing in the spiritual world. These are the principles
on which the variety of colours depends, both here and there, always in
perfect correlation to each other.
Sergiev Posad
11 December 1919
On the Efimovs' Puppet Theatre
Florensky wrote 'On the Efimovs' Puppet Theatre'l in the form of an essay-
cum-letter as the introduction to Nina Simonovich-Efirnova's Zapiski
Petrushechnika [Notes of a Puppeteer] published in 1925 (iIlus. 36), the account
of her practical involvement in the puppet theatre? Florensky's text was not
published either then or in the later edition of Simonovich-Efimova's book,
H. R. CI!fiJMOHO B VI ... -

36 Vladimir Favorsky's cover for Nina Simonovich-Efimova's Zapiski petrushechnika
[Notes ofa Puppeteer], published Moscow, 1925.
37 Florensky with his daughter Mariia and Ivan Efimov with his son Adrian in the
Florenskygarden in Sergiev Posad, 1932
but appeared - almost surreptitiously - in 1977 in a monograph on
Simonovich-Efimova's husband, the sculptor Ivan Efimov, also a good friend
ofFlorensky (illus. 37).
Florensky met the Efimovs, Nina Yakovlevna Simonovich-Efimova (illus.
38) and Ivan Serneonovich Efimov, at VKhUTEMAS in 1921, where Efirnovwas
teaching sculpture. Frequenting their home in Moscow, Florensky sat for
several pencil and oil portraits by Simonovich-Efimova, meetings that
inspired her to keep a vivid record of their informal conversations (illus. 39,40
and 41).3
Once the entire Florensky family attended a one-off performance of the
marionette theatre that the Efirnovs staged 'in a grove in Sergiev Posad' on 27
August 1922.
In the following text Florensky reminds us of the 'terror' and
'chaos' of those years, but in spite of such inclemency, the Efimovs gained
practical experience from the intense tournees of their little theatre and were
even inspired to develop and refine their new artistic language - and thus to
build a psychological defense against the violence and famine of those terrible
years. They also gave philanthropic presentations, for example, in children's
38 Nina Simonovich-Efimova
holding her Baba-Yaga marionette,
early 1920S. Efimov Archive, Moscow
39 Nina Simonovich-Efimova,
Florensky in his Study in Sergiev Posad,
1925, pencil on paper. Efimov
Archive, Moscow
40 Nina Simonovich-
Efimova, Florensky and his
Daughter Mariia in his Study
in Sergei Posad, 1928,
silhouette, paper on
board. Efimov Archive,
Moscow. Mariia is holding
a wooden toy.
41 Nina Simonovich-
Efimova, Pavel Florensky
Wearing aFelt Cloak after
ReturningfromExile in
pencil on paper. EHmov
Archive, Moscow.
hospitals and even, in 1921, in a lunatic asylum. In this way Simonovich-
Efimova maintained a family tradition (and Florensky refers to this) inasmuch
as both her parents - the father as a doctor, the mother as a schoolteacher -
had dedicated much time and money to philanthropic causes, especially to
healthcare and primary education.
Dear Nina Yakovlevna,
I did want to make a contribution to your book along with many others
pinned [sic] into your collection. But the more I thought about the proposed
preface, the more difficult its realisation seemed. What I want to say about the
puppet theatre is too much for a preface and, without keeping to the mould of
your book, involuntarily I would begin to hinder the author and to speak to
the point. Yet if I am not to speak in this way, I find it difficult to assume a
formal tone in relation to the subject, as such, and to the book about it, both of
which, as I see it, are indisputable in their own right, without me. The puppet
theatre in general and your activity in particular, just like your book, speak for
themselves, and they more than suffice to make any external recommenda-
tion seem ridiculous. You yourself are quite aware of the success of your
puppets, I have no doubts at all about the success of your book - so let us
acknowledge that the preface is superfluous.
However, I still wish to make a written response to your book. To this end,
therefore, I enclose the following reflection concerning one of your perform-
ances. I leave it to you to do whatever you wish, to publish it at the beginning,
middle or end of the book, or not at all. One reservation must be made,
however: I wanted to be lavish in expressing my delight, but I'm afraid that my
subtle praise has proved too subtle. What if some simple-minded person were
to think I was delighted, not by you, but by the little grove of trees in Sergiev
Posad. So I hasten to explain to you without any subtlety whatsoever that this
entire reflection must be understood allegorically, to wit: that the Efimovs
have been able to make use of the pond and the grove in their performance,
turning all the spectators into actors, that the original form of Greek tragedy
has been realised here, that it's not at all a question of trees, but of the ability to
make people look at an enclosed patch of nature as they would a holiday
orchestra and that, in short, the Efimovs have succeeded in overcoming the
crisis of the theatre towards which our era is heading, and in introducing the
theatre into the daily life ofordinary people. I hope this will be clear.
And now to what is not clear.
Asummer rain was spitting. \Ve began to think that the planned open-air
puppet show wouldn't take place. Nevertheless, those who had been invited,
including ourselves, pushed their way between the beds of the small kitchen
garden. Then we had to climb down to a deep ditch with slippery, clayey sides
and cross over it using a pole. But, in fact, it was essential to overcome these
difficulties. An abandoned garden with a birch avenue and a little pond had
been selected for the performance, situated on a slope and secluded, virtually
cut off, from the already isolated Krasiukovskaia Street, cut off from the
general life of Sergiev Posad. Children and adults thronged the slope, and in
the clusters ofall age groups, from babes in arms to old folk, one felt some sort
offestiveness, expectancy, such as happens on the eve ofextraordinary days in
families with a settled rhythm of domestic habits.
One's cheery excitement - the wine of unexpected freedom - is related to
this isolation from normal conditions and living habits. Walking along the
streets of an unfamiliar town, being alone with nature or in war - this too is a
holiday, when it is recognised as being a qualitatively new and blessed time-
all this acts in a similar way. It breaks the fetters of the countless petty cares of
everyday and opens the way for the unrestricted lines by which life, even in its
naturalistic sluggishness, is transformed into art. And then the deeper forces
of our existence, usually overloaded with trivia, and too significant and
perhaps just as hostile to the tedium of everyday, declare themselves. Holiday
(prazdnik) comes from the word prazdnyi, which means 'empty, idle'. And very
frequently it is enough to remove the load of usual and trivial everyday things
for there to appear the face of prophetic knowledge, suffocated by trivia and
the sense of a deep-rooted connection with the world, and a joy in being that
verges on the aesthetic. Contrary to what people usually think, as they
torment themselves, a holiday doesn't need cares, but rather freedom from
them. And this freedom first and foremost is achieved through a strict isola-
tion from the workday world. By now all peoples have forgotten about the
commandment concerning the sabbath and the impenetrable divisions
between sabbath and the other six days have been removed. On the other
hand, only the frame, the border, and the immaculate edge can reveal the
distinctive space ofartistic creativity. This space is idle in the evaluation ofexter-
nal space, which is, however, saturated with joy and important meaning and
which every working day pulsates with the springs oflife. Out of humaneness
we do not stone people for breaking the sacred precinct ofthe sabbath, but out
of vapidness we have preferred to replace the stone wall with an uncommit-
ting string rope. On the other hand, we have ceased to see the sun, life has
grown dim and dried up and the world has become poisoned with boredom.
So we all turned up here in this fenced off space and discovered an isolat-
ing frame. It is true that man needs very little to experience thrilling joy. Afew
dozen trees and a sturdy high fence, together with a ditch and places to cross
it, proved an adequate isolation from all kinds of terrors, the weariness of life,
and the countless cares of existence in these difficult times. The Revolution,
the ruin of the year 1922, the poverty and unreliability oflife in all its aspects-
all this remained on the other side of the fence. And when the sky suddenly
cleared and the washed sun, descending into evening, lit up the birch trees, the
brightly coloured crowd, and a few beautiful scraps of old fabric that the
Efimovs had tenderly brought to the puppet theatre from the trunks ofgrand-
mothers, a living fairytale lit up in the consciousness like a sunbeam. The
puppet booth, the puppets and the children surrounding the theatre, every-
thing together was fashioned into a single art form, one that was more than an
art form, because apart from the pre-existing intention of the performers
there sounded the prophetic voices of the soul, and the mysterious forces of
nature crept in. Words, which in other circumstances would probably have
gone unnoticed, when spoken in this setting by the puppets acquired an unex-
pected weight, and the popular sayings really did sound like the condensed
wisdom oflife. Dolls made of rags, pieces of wood and papier mache came to
life as clear as can be and acted independently. They no longer followed the
movements of the hand that directed them, but on the contrary they them-
selves directed the hand, they had their own desires and tastes, and it became
perfectly obvious that in a certain setting special forces were acting through
them. This performance started out as a game, but later on it grew into the
very core oflife and verged on either magic or mystery.
Of course, the puppeteers, who bear a crusading responsibility and are
carried away by the whirlwind of the action, have no time to think about what
is happening, and it would be a hindrance to split themselves in two, in order
to compare their puppet consciousness with their usual one. But as the pres-
ent book shows, even they recognise the puppets as 'wanting' or 'not wanting'
this or that, as 'approving' or 'disapproving' the setting in which they have
turned up. As for the spectators, or more precisely the co-participants in this
puppet ritual, for them it is even more patently evident that the puppet theatre
is something incomparably greater than the Eflmovs plus the puppets, that in
this ritual some third element takes part, and this third is the thing for which
theatre itself exists.
Cut offfrom everyday existence by a fence, together with their choir made
up of spectators, the puppeteers raise higher still the potential of mysterious
forces acting within them, through a second isolation, their own puppet
booth. And finally, in clothing their hand with the persona of the puppet and
permitting the reason oftheir hand to take on an independent face, they liber-
ate it [the reason of the hand] from its subservience to intellectual reason,
which conversely becomes a subservient organ of manual [reason]. Thrice
removed from the external world by three successive degrees of isolation, the
hand becomes a body, a transmitter and organ for the influence offorces other
than those that are known in our everyday consciousness. In the puppet
theatre there appear the principal devices of imitative magic, which always
begins with play, with imitating, with teasing, to make way later for the other
forces that have thus been attracted, which accept the challenge and fill the
receptacle that has been offered them.
No one, of course, is taken in by the illusion. The puppet theatre has the
great virtue ofnot being illusionistic. But while they are not 'like the real thing'
and make no claim to appear so, the puppets do in fact bring to life a new real-
ity. It enters into the space it has liberated and fllls the holiday frame of life.
The choir of spectators is united by the puppet and the choir itself nurtures it,
via the puppeteer, with its own profound emotions, which have no place in the
everyday world. Most profound and cherished for us is our childhood, which
lives in us, but is tightly screened off from us. We have forgotten about it,
about this primordial proximity to all existence, when we still nestled close to
the life of nature. We have forgotten it, but it continues to live in us and it
declares itself unexpectedly at certain times.
So, American psychology has elucidated well enough that the psycholog-
ical process of religious conversion is nothing less than a return to childhood,
the surfacing of the most profound strata of the personality that have formed
during the very early years. 'If you don't convert yourself (Le., do not overturn
your personality) and do not become as children (i.e., not just children in
general, but precisely as the children you once were), then you cannot enter
the Kingdom of Heaven.'5 Indeed the Kingdom of Heaven is 'peace and joy
through the action of the Holy Spirit'.6
So, the spiritual harmony, which is suddenly revealed in religious conver-
sion, lives in those same layers of the personality that the puppet awakens in
us. The puppet theatre is the hearth that is nourished by the childhood
submerged within us and which in turn awakens within us the slumbering
palace of the childhood fairytale.
Once united in this 'paradise', now we are divided from one another,
because this 'paradise' has become hidden from the eye. But through the
puppet theatre we see once more this lost Eden, even if only dimly, and so we
embark upon an intercourse with one another in what, like a secret, we cher-
ish most, what each of us guards within ourselves - and guards not just from
others, but from ourselves too. Shining in the rays of the setting sun, the
theatre opens like a window onto an eternally living childhood.
The Stratification ofAegean Culture
Florensky wrote his essay 'The Stratification of Aegean Culture' as part of the
cycle of lectures he delivered on the philosophy of antiquity to the Moscow
Theological Seminar between 1908 and 1918, specifically, for the academic
year 1909-10. The text was published in Bogoslovskii vestnik in 1913.
This essay is a vector along Florensky's path to issues concerning art, since
it is his first autonomous text to treat of the artistic object and initiates the
philosophical thread that he would develop into his more general assessments
of the visual arts. A philosophical approach to the concrete analysis of partic-
ular visual forms is the common denominator of Florensky's art-historical
methodology, and in his preparatory notes for the course on the philosophy
of antiquity he even provides a factual motivation for his topic, emphasising
that the latest excavations at Knossos and Mycenae had quite changed our
vision of the philosophy of the ancients. Florensky accompanied his argu-
ment with numerous illustrations from a variety of sources that he repro-
duced mechanically or copied by hand, creating the visual and verbal dialogue
repeated here. Referring to the most disparate images and drawing on a broad
arsenal of figures and details was a characteristic strategy of his art-historical
writings, and the Florensky archive (Florensky Foundation) has many exam-
ples of the drawings, designs and photographs he collected as potential illus-
trative material for this essay.
That Florensky considered this essay to be especially important for him is
shown by the fact that he soon republished it, together with two other lectures
('Lectia and Lectio' and 'Forefathers of PhilosophyV as a separate book, Pervye
shagi fllosofii [The First Steps of Philosophy]. Printed by the Lavra in 1917, The
First Steps ofPhilosophy carried a dedication to his friend oflong standing, Sergei
Bulgakov,3 a spiritual bond that was immortalised by the Neo-Nationalist
artist Mikhail Nesterov in his celebrated double portrait of Florensky and
Bulgakov of the same year (illus. 42). After The First Steps ofPhilosophy Florensky
hoped to continue publishing all the lectures that he had delivered at the Theo-
logical Seminary. Unfortunately, by force of political circumstances, this and
many other good intentions remained unfulfilled.
42 Mikhail Nesterov, Philosophers (Double-portrait ofPavel Florensky and Sergei Bulgakov),
1917, oil on canvas. State Tretiakov Gallery, Moscow
Why is the study of Aegean culture essential for the historian of ancient
philosophy? - The vertical cross-section of layers in Aegean culture. - The
unity of Aegean culture. - Ceramics. - Clothing and fashion. - Portrait paint-
ing. - Realism. - Archaism. - Religion. - Stone women. - 'The Naked
Goddess.' - The interaction ofancient cultures with Aegean culture. - 'Double
vessels.' - Homer's bETTOC;- c'LPcPLKUTTEAAOV. - The Nautilus ornament.
Why is the study ofAegeanculture essentialfor the historianofancient philosophy?
\Ve have now seen that the age of Homer coincides with the end of the Greek
Middle Ages, while that which until recently was considered the beginning of
Greek history corresponds to the early Greek Renaissance.
In the cultural position it occupies and in all the conditions under which it
emerged, Ionian Naturphilosophie is vividly reminiscent of the philosophy of
the early Italian Renaissance that began twenty centuries later (6th century BC
- ]4th century AD). As we proceed you will have numerous occasions to satisfy
yourself that the former is vividly reminiscent of the latter in essentials too.
Having noted this similarity in advance, we can ask ourselves the following
methodological question. Philosophy is, in its essence, the fruit of 'daytime'
consciousness, a matter of the incisive clarity of daylight. Should we not
conclude, therefore, that the philosophy ofevery period continues the work, not
of the period immediately preceding it, i.e., that of 'nocturnal' consciousness,
but of the period before that one, also a period of 'daytime' consciousness?
Rising from our nocturnal couch, our thoughts turn not towards the
dreams we have only just experienced in our sleep, but towards the ideas and
concerns of the day, the past, swaddling into one big whole the thread of
daytime consciousness and seeming not to notice the snatches, zones and
regions of night-time consciousness that have been cut out of life. Life goes
by in two parallel sequences - days and nights - which, though they alternate,
seem oblivious ofeach other, compacting into two parallel lines oflife - black
and white. This is what the Singer of Psalms meant when he wrote: 'Day unto
day uttereth speech and night unto night sheweth knowledge' (Psalms ]8:3).
This is precisely how it is in history. The zones of daytime consciousness
'uttereth speech', Le., they possess the continuity of tradition, the one reason
of culture. They are contiguous, not with the zones of night-time conscious-
ness, but with other zones cut off from it by a nocturnal culture. Nocturnal
culture, too, 'sheweth knowledge' directly to a nocturnal culture, and not to
the adjacent daytime culture.
In particular, the philosophising of a cultural 'age', the entire life-under-
standing of a cultural eon, borders not upon the age of night that preceded it,
but upon the age of day two ages removed, and compacts all days into one
sequence as nearly continuous as possible. Here 'day unto day uttereth
speech'. Thus is the thread of philosophy spun.
This is why there is some point to the tendency of historians to ignore the
philosophy of the entire Middle Ages - a branch of culture, it has been said,
that is essentially nocturnal. I say this, not because the Middle Ages lacked
culture - a fantasy that objective investigators ofideas have long since rejected
- but because it is other-cultural, because it has its own culture and its own
life-style. The beginning of a new philosophy, that of the Renaissance, is asso-
ciated, not with medieval thought, but with the twilight of thought in antiq-
uity. It is in Alexandrine philosophy - Neo-Platonism, Neo-Pythagoreanism
and so on - that we must seek its origins. By contrast, the ensuing twilight of
thought that clearly is already blowing chill above our own heads, and the
evening shadow of a new culture that is swiftly approaching us obviously
represent a break with the traditions of the daytime culture of the New Age
that directly preceded it. Society's invisible arteries and nerves are being nour-
ished and stimulated by the thought of the Middle Ages, which until quite
recently was thought dead and buried.
The restoration of Thomism in the West, the search for a new ways of
adhering to the church here in the North, the resurrection of medieval
disputes about energy and the essence of the Deity in the East, the general
revival of religious interests and the growing general fascination with mysti-
cism, the inexorably advancing destruction of rationalism in all realms, along
every avenue, and in all its fundamentals, and finally the disillusionment with
exact science as a system for understanding life, the doubts expressed
concerning humanism, ete., ete. - surely all of this demonstrates the rise of
something new, absolutely new- but something that has long existed. And in
fact the work that has been done in systematising the knowledge we have
accumulated, the efforts made to create reference books on all branches and
spheres ofscience, the very consolidation ofwhat has been gained - surely it is
nothing but the accumulated results ofa culture that is over, an inventory tally
that points to a feeling of death spreading everywhere, a sense that a culture is
dying. All of these encyclopedias, reference books and dictionaries - are they
not just the deathbed wishes of that culture which emerged in the fourteenth
century? To comprehend the life-understanding ofthe future, we must turn to
its roots, to the life-understanding of the Middle Ages; the Middle Ages of the
West and especially the East. To understand the philosophy of the New Age,
we must turn to the philosophy of Antiquity.
If, in turn, we wish to understand the rise of the philosophy of the
Ancients, if we intend to penetrate the philosophy of the Ionian renaissance,
then we must turn our thoughts, not to the receding night of the Greek Middle
Ages, but to the guttering day of pre-Antique Alexandrism. Of course, the
forebears of the Thalesians and Anaximandrites were not the Achilles and the
Agamemnons, but the distant, half-ghostly shades of the Minoses and
Pasiphaes, the shades of those who bore the most ancient daytime culture of
the pre-Hellenic world. It is to them that we turn now.
The vertical cross-sectionoflayers in Aegeanculture
We have already discussed how the excavations at Troy, Mycenae, Tiryns,
Knossos, Phaestos, Hagia-Triada and many other centres of the most ancient
layers of Greek culture, have revealed layer upon layer of epochs of ever
greater antiquity. But in our present survey we will move in an opposite direc-
tion, beginning with the most ancient layers and those remains that were last
to be found, specifically those of the Neolithic period. We will then examine
consecutive stratifications of the Minoan period, subdivided into three
distinct layers, or ages, those of the Early Minoan, Middle Minoan and Late
Minoan periods. As you will see from the attached table (illus. 43), which
shows a schematic vertical cross-section of these cultural stratifications, the
thickness of the Neolithic deposits extends to 6-43 metres, although in
Phaestos it is 2.07 metres less. As for the timespan of this Neolithic culture,
which left such thick deposits on the virgin cliff of Crete, researchers admit
they don't have the information to determine it. In any case it lasted for over
two thousand years, judging by the growth of deposits from the Minoan
period. According to Evans, the Neolithic culture of Crete and Greece dates to
the eighth-sixth millennium BC, while Carl Vollgraffbelieves it to be younger.
But all of these numbers are fantastical.
This is why the sallies ofsome individuals, quick to make use of this unde-
fined chronology to mock the Bible, and who let fly observations about
Middle Minoan
Neolithic Age
43 The stratification ofCretan Culture (according to Evans)
'Cretan princesses contemporary with Jehovah's creation of the world', are
premature, to say the least.
The total height of the Minoan remains that follow extends to 5.33 metres,
while the period in which they were formed can be dated with greater
certainty than those ofthe preceding layer. According to Evans, the total dura-
tion of Minoan culture is about 2,500 years. This would put its beginning in
the fourth millennium BC, the epoch of the first dynasties of the Egyptian
Pharaohs, and its end, i.e., the Mycenaean Age - to around 1450 BC. But even
these dates should be accepted only with the greatest caution. I cite them, not
as being in any way trustworthy, merely as a basis for comparison in estab-
lishing the antiquity of various stratifications.
The deposit of the Early Minoan period reaches a depth of 1.32 metres,
that of the Middle Minoan period 1.50 metres, and that of the Late Minoan
period 1.50 metres.
The unity ofAegean culture
Given our immediate purpose, which is historical and philosophical, there is
no need for us to engage in more detailed subdivisions ofthe Minoan cultures,
or to relate them to other, analogous cultural layers in other regions of the
Mediterranean. Suffice it to point out that, thanks to the works of Christos
Tsountas, Wilhelm Dorpfeld, William Ridgeway, Joseph Holle, Evans,
Salomon Reinach, Gaetano De Santis and others, and, following in their foot-
steps, thanks also to more recent researches sufficient to stock an entire
decent library, these questions have been carefully investigated. Despite a few
isolated, feeble voices of protest (Thomas E. Peet, Alan Wace, M. S. Thomp-
son), the oneness of Aegean culture, which encompassed the vast territory
'from Crete to Kiev, from the Jordan in the East of Asia Minor to the shores of
Spain', can be taken as generally agreed upon. It is true that the process of its
dissemination is unclear. Whereas Hubert Schmidt and Ernst von Stern
suggest that this culture moved south from Central Europe, Vosinsky posits a
reverse movement, while Evgenii Kagarov thinks that the similarity ofcultural
remains can be explained, not by an actual movement, but merely by 'the
identity of the creative apparatus, i.e., the psychology and aesthetics of primi-
tive man'.6 On the other hand, a formal similarity has been established
between these corresponding layers hom different localities. The beginning
of the Bronze Age in Crete, according to Evans, dates to the first half of the
third millennium, and coincides in time with the very ancient culture of the
Cycladic Islands and the first and second Trojan layers in Asia Minor. The
Middle Minoan age corresponds to the latest Cycladic culture, and so on.
We will turn now to an archaeological description ofthe different epochs.
We will deal first with the material culture, in order to gradually penetrate its
beliefs and general world view.
The Neolithic layer, it has already been pointed out, is approximately 2 metres
thicker than all the rest put together. Thus, a 6-metre layer of soil, full of the
remains of Neolithic bucchero utensils, formed and settled on the site of a
prehistoric stone settlement before the potsherds of pre-Mycenaean
kamares(as the ceramic wares of the most ancient Greek cultures are called)
appeared. In this amazing layer we will find neither evidence ofstructures, nor
traces of metals. The crude bucchero ware made of black clay shows no famil-
iarity with the potter's wheel. Modelled by hand, it is painted with a so-called
geometric ornament, consisting for the most part of various combinations of
broken lines incised on the unfired pot and encrusted with white paste.
Yet, however primitive these decorations on pottery shards may be, the
incredible uniformity of patterns throughout the whole Mediterranean and
beyond establishes the fact that there was a lively exchange with Egypt.
The Aegean (in the narrow sense ofthe word) or Early Minoan (also called
Old Trojan and Island) culture that followed the Neolithic Age can be
described as the Calcolithic - Bronze-Stone - culture. It stands midway
between the Stone Age and the Bronze Age. Vases and bowls found in struc-
tures belonging to the Pre-Mycenaean annex of the Palace at Knossos already
exhibit extraordinary subtlety and refinement of form and a delicate
coloration that, to quote Evans, 'have probably never been surpassed in the
entire history of ceramics? On the subject of ceramics from this ancient
period Duncan Mackenzie claims that, in their delicacy and colour effects,
they are more perfect than old Venetian wares. We can trace a gradual transi-
tion from Neolithic vessels decorated with a crude geometric pattern ofwhite
encrustations on a black, hand-polished ground, to these perfect examples of
ceramic manufacture.
An intermediate stage can be seen in the first attempts at polychrome and
animal reliefs on vases, characteristic of the beginning ofthe Minoan Age. The
term kamares or kamaress, pertaining primarily to the Middle Minoan Age and
derived from the name of the Kamaress cave on the southern slope of Mount
Ida, characterises the flowering of ceramics which we have just discussed.
Examples ofNeolithic shards with geometric ornament, shown life size,
and white incrustations.
The colours red, cinnabar or carmine, orange and white are combined
with great success on the blackish ground of the vases. 'If this full-bodied
combination of colours seems a little affected: notes one scholar, M. ].
Lagrange, 'then we can unreservedly admire several bowls - white on black or
black on white - a creamy white on a brilliant black - the taste for which was
supplanted. Several cups, probably in imitation of metal objects in the style of
gold goblets from Vaphio, are so delicate that they can be compared to the
finest Chinese porcelain. There are all manner of shapes, sometimes strange,
but in the main enchantingly graceful. The broken geometric lines have
completely disappeared, giving way to spirals, rosettes, fat little crescents, and
This is the period of the destruction of the First Palace. The palace proba-
bly fell as a result of some sudden catastrophe and was replaced only after a
considerable period had elapsed, in the third period of the Middle Minoan
Age. Quite significant changes take place in ceramics with the appearance of
the Second Palace.
Knossos Vase in the 'Palace style', with white ornament on a mauve ground.
Polychrome has almost completely disappeared, but the art has
advanced in terms of the imitation of nature. In the same period the Second
Palace is erected at phaestos. The culture of this period differs quite dramati-
cally from that of the preceding era. In the Late Minoan period all the vases
have a bright yellow ground, with a rust or reddish ornament of amazing
realism. To decorate a one-metre tall vase the potter needs only a row oflilies
or papyri, or perhaps an octopus whose tentacles seem to be alive. Leaving
our survey of ceramics aside for a moment, it must generally be said of this
realistic art that both the best frescoes of the period and its admirable steatite
vases were found in Hagia Triada. Steatite, or soapstone, is a variety of talc
and its softness makes it ideal for the creation of sculptural objects, even
small relief details being executed consummately. Thus a small vessel ofblack
soapstone, the so-called 'reapers' vase,' depicts 'a happy procession and the
end of field work. Evidently, the procession signifies religious thanksgiving,
as we can see for example from the rattle (sistrum), which one of the partici-
pants in the procession holds in her hand. The details of the costumes, the
head-dresses, the short aprons, the three-pronged pitchforks are all
portrayed with extraordinary clarity and expressiveness. The represention of
the sistrum
points to dealings with Egypt.'12 We may also add that several
archaeologists claim to see a phallophoria in this procession.
Such is the
realistic tendency of the archaic artist.
But little by little, art loses its naturalness. Flowers and octopi are treated
as conventionalised ornaments. Vases ofthat period recall the 'decadent vases'
fashionable among us today. But be that as it may, here from a technical point
ofviewthe art ofvase making reaches its height. Then suddenly, it disappears,
swept away by some catastrophe. The Palace was systematically pillaged, then
razed. All the wooden parts fell victim to the flames. The last period ofthe Late
Minoan Age can be described by its burial grounds. Ceramics are clearly in
decline. The clay is coarse, the ornament highly conventionalised, consisting
of separate or concentric circles and broken, interwoven, parallel or other,
tangled variations oflines. The Iron Age emerges. The ornamentation of vases
once more becomes geometric, the so-called Dipylon style, named after the
vase's original location at the Athenian cemetery of the tl.LTTlJAOV or Double
Gate. 'In vases of this type even people and animals are stylised. The endlessly
varied and whimsical lines of nature move closer to geometric design.'1
is proto-Hellenic Gothic. The Greek Middle Ages have begun.
The study of vases again shows a revival of dealings between Crete and
Egypt. In Abydos Petrie found vases that were not Egyptian in origin, but
which were uncannily similar to vases from Knossos in their colour, their red
decoration and even their shape. Conversely, Egyptian-made vases were found
in Knossos. It has been established that exchange occurred in later periods as
well. An opinion has been expressed that Crete was the site of extensive vase
production for the entire Mediterranean. The undoubted similarity in style
has been explained variously, with some insisting on the cultural hegemony of
Egypt, others that of Crete, and still others conciliatorily agreeing with both
camps by relating the claims of the first to a more ancient period, and the
claims of the second to a more recent time.
Clothing andfashion
As we have just seen, ceramic remains from the various layers of the excava-
tions that interest us provide a quite precise picture of the overall course of
history in Aegean culture. And by examining these ceramics, we have already
had an opportunity to satisfy ourselves that some of the culture's stratifica-
tions - especially that of the Minoan period - reveal a degree of technical
excellence and a highly developed appreciation for elegance that bear no
resemblance to current opinion on the 'crudity' of ancient culture. But I will
take the liberty of presenting my thesis regarding the refinement of this
culture in the most decisive way possible. Taking as my point ofdeparture the
proverb 'clothes don't make a man' I will support my thesis with an example
taken from material culture, from that aspect of culture where refinement or
coarseness are most directly observed and are judged, so to speak, almost
palpably. You will probably have guessed that I have clothing in mind. Ladies'
fashions are one of the most subtle reagents of any culture. It is enough just to
glance at a woman's dress to understand the dominant spirit and tone of the
entire culture in which such a fashion is permissible. The link between the
wigs, beauty-spots, farthingales and refined affectations of the age of Louis
XIV, on the one hand, and the rationalism, artificiality and elegant atheism of
this century, on the other, is as firm as it is between the pseudo-antique, chilly
and simple costume of the Directorate and the similarly pseudo-antique
enthusiasm for universal citizenship. The bustles of the 1880s definitely show
the deformity of soul that developed in this moribund era, weighed down by
the censorship of positivism; and so on, and so on.
And if, bearing in mind this correspondence between the spirit of a
culture and female costume, we turn to the miniature frescoes and statuettes
discovered on Crete, we will see something quite unexpected in the remnants
ofdaily life that they reveal. As early as the fifth century BC women were wear-
ing a simple chiton, covered by a noble hymation - the simplest kind of cloth-
ing, the only alternative to which would be to go without clothing entirely. But
as an artist who specialises in the costume of different epochs puts it, in more
ancient times archaic princesses 'wore corsets, skirts with flounces, jackets
open at the breast, with long leg-of-mutton sleeves, and short tails behind like
on a half tail-coat. Their hair they wore slightly frizzed on their forehead,
hanging long down the back and tied with wide ribbons.'15
Look, for example, at this fragment ofa female statuette - probably votive,
i.e., dedicatory in function - which has magnificently preserved for us the
image of one of these dresses.
Votive garment found in the Second Knossos
Palace and dating to the third period of the
Middle Minoan Age.The figurine is flat and has
an opening from which it can be suspended
(after Evans).16
'The Snakes Goddess' or according to others
'The Bayadere'. The statuette was found by
Evans in the Second Knossos Palace and
dates from the third period ofthe Middle
Minoan Age. Height: 0.342 m (from a
It is not a female figure [from which the head and arms have been] broken off,
but an actual dress. Flat and with an opening at the top, this image was
intended to be hung up. You probably feel that it could easily be passed off as
a pattern from a fashion magazine. Such a dress could only be made using
extremely complicated patterns and a variety of expensive materials, while
more than one contemporary follower of fashion would break the tenth
commandment for the sake of its magnificent embroidery in the Egyptian
style, depicting lotus shoots. This is just one example of this kind ofdress. You
can see others like it in the hall of Greek archaic art in the Alexander III
Museum in Moscow.
Or here we have the so-called 'Knossos Snake Charmer' (charmeuse de
serpents de Knossos) as some have called her,18 the 'Berlin Bayadere' (bayadere de
Berlin) as she has been christened by others,19 or by others still the 'Snakes
Goddess' (deesse aux serpents).20 We will not debate the actual significance of
the statuette, since all we require here is a simple and quite incontrovertible
description of her toilette. The statuette is 0.342 m tall. On her head you see a
tall hat that seems to be made of cloth, which you definitely feel is stretched
over a spiral frame beneath. Researchers have called it a tiara, but of course
that is too inflated a title, and clearly, if it were a tiara - ifit were made of metal
or wood, that is - it would be unbearably heavy to wear on the head, and even
more so while dancing. In short, this tiara is constructed the way any woman's
hat would be. On the dancer's neck is a necklace. The jacket of this well-
dressed personage is richly embroidered and is worn over a tightly laced
corset, while the skirt, which falls in narrowfolds and has a criss-cross 'edging'
around the hem, is provided with a double, embroidered, oval 'apron', which
ladies call a 'polonaise'. The sleeves of the jacket, known as 'Japanese' sleeves,
are seamless and very short, leaving the arms half bare. The breasts of this
fashion-plate are also bare and thrust forward, lifted by the corset. The hair,
gathered at the front and concealed by the tiara, at the back falls to the shoul-
ders. This is not visible in the drawing included here, however, which shows
the statuette en face. In her right hand she holds the head of a snake that
climbs up her arm, falls from her left shoulder, encircles her hips, rises up once
more and again descends so that its tail ends in the elegant creature's left hand.
Two intertwined snakes form her belt, the head ofone in front of her body and
its tail around her right ear. The head of a third snake rises above the tiara. But
fear not, these are imaginary terrors, no more terrifying than ladies' boas,
muffs and winter hats trimmed with the snarling jaws of polecats and other
wild beasts. It is true that Eastern itinerant or temple dancers do on occasion
drape themselves with snakes, for the most part tame and defanged, and
sometimes actually magnetically subdued. Far more often, however, snakes
used in dances are made of fine silver wire. I fancy the snakes of our bayadere
are equally harmless.
Below is an image from a small engraved piece of soapstone. The stone
was first published by Evans and was subsequently rendered with greater
accuracy by P. Savignac, in a reproduction published by Dussaud. It is his
drawing which is reproduced here.
Soapstone gem (from a drawing by P. Savignac published by Dussaud).21
We will not go into the content of this image now and will deal only with the
appearance ofthe richly dressed female shown here in profile. You see that her
skirt consists ofwhat look like two parts, the upper part wrapped tight around
the body while the lower half is arranged in a broad flounce whose plentiful
folds create an effective contrast to the upper portion. Her coiffure is arranged
very low in a 'Greek' knot. But the stone's most remarkable feature is the quite
unnatural pose of her whole torso. However, this is surely not an acrobatic
caper, but a particular kind of corseting, much in vogue among ladies several
years ago, incidentally, and even now not entirely disappeared from use, espe-
cially under 'Directoire' dresses. Just take fashion store catalogues or illus-
trated advertisements for 'anti-corsets' that brighten up many newspapers and
popular journals, and you will see numerous devices designed to give the
body exactly this distinctive pose.
Simply by leafing through any fashion magazine one can easily be
convinced of how much this figure, with its characteristic twist, its clothing,
its whole spirit of cultural refInement and even affectation, tallies with the
figures of our contemporary women. But not trusting my own eyes and
judgement, on several occasions I showed this and similar drawings to various
ladies and, without explaining their source, asked where they were from and
what they meant. Invariably I received the same answer, that this was a rather
badly done illustration from a fashion magazine - 'some decadent miss or
other' and so on. But to a significant degree our fashions resemble those ofthe
eighteenth century. And here, in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries BC
we come up against the fashions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
AD. One cannot but recall Nietzsche's speech on 'the eternal return' of every-
thing that has ever happened in history. On the subject of these outfits one
modern scholar has written: 'What archaeologist or artist, imagining to
himselfPhaedra or Pasiphae, would think ofconnecting her image with that of
his grandmother in a ball dress, dancing at the court of Charles x or Louis
Portrait painting
But if clothing and all that the French call 'tournure', ifthe very deportment of
the figures in the period under study testify to the maturity and, so to speak,
the ultra-refinement of the culture it produced, and consequently, to the state
of the soul as it then was, so far from primitive simplicity and patriarchal
naivete, then the face - 'the mirror of the soul' - demonstrates those same
qualities even more definitively and precisely. We will not even begin to
attempt to survey and understand the many artefacts that have survived. Such
an undertaking would be both too lengthy and too complex in terms of the
methods needed to carry it out. We will confine ourselves to just one small
fresco miniature depicting a female of indeterminate age. This fresco was
discovered in the palace at Knossos, the palace which archaeologists have
compared to Versailles. Who is she, this personage shown here? Her profile, to
quote S. Reinach, 'is so modern in treatment that we should hesitate to attrib-
ute it to the sixteenth century BC, if there were any room for doubt in the
But, nevertheless, that is in fact where it belongs. We have before us,
scholars maintain, 'une demoiselle de la Cour - a lady-in-waiting at the
Minoan Court'. In this careless and hastily made sketch the artist succeeds in
conveying a vivid impression of his elegant model. There is no doubt that it is
a portrait, a living person, not a schema, and in the very defects of the drawing
one can scarcely help recognising the peculiarities ofthe original, exaggerated
in the pursuit of stylisation to the point of caricature. Before us is the bust-
length portrait of some lady. The folds that fall in two opposite directions hint
at a train falling from the neck. She is evidently dressed in what seems to be a
careless, 'princesse'-cut peignoir. One can see that the train ends in a magnifi-
cent bow, gathered at the neck like a noose that continues further down,
whether as an embroidered collar edging, or as a biais (bias) it is difficult to
'A Lady-in-Waiting at the Minoan
Court.' Fresco from Knossos (after
This costume, despite the scant suggestions we have given, produces a very
specific impression of consummate refinement. Note that, though rich, it
remains within the bounds of a certain simplicity. The lady is decollete, but
within the bounds of decency; she is well-dressed, but not blatantly so. Every-
thing else reinforces this impression. Undoubtedly, the hair of the female in
question is frizzed, but not tastelessly so, and the elegant curl that falls care-
lessly in front like a 'bang' leaves no room for doubt that this apparent negli-
gence has been produced through the efforts of the court hairdresser and a
lady's maid, after many consultations, considerations and long hours before
the mirror. If I am not mistaken, the effect of this refined hairstyle is enhanced
by two snakes - artificial, not real, of course - twined among the snake-like
curls and lifting their heads above the lady's crown. The hair above her ears is
cut in short curls. The thinly pencilled eyebrows, extended out to the temples,
are meant to make the eyes seemgreatly enlarged and wide-set. The enormous
eye, also outlined, the aristocratic nose with its slight hook, the painted lips,
pursed into a little heart shape, the impeccably straight, almost unusually
straight forehead, the somewhat unnaturally shaped and excessively smooth
line of the neck without the slightest angle at the collar-bone - all are addi-
tional features of this female, who is able to seem incomparably younger and
fresher than she in fact is. At first glance anyone would put her age at about 20,
but on closer inspection would raise it to 25 and perhaps even 30. This female
seems naive and simple-hearted, but ... don't be taken in. She is a thoroughly
experienced and cunning temptress. Her toilette, her face, her expression, her
entire look all show that we have before us the representative of a culture with
a great past, a culture that is refined and in its ultra-refinement already headed
towards decline, a culture of the 'decadence' type. There is no doubt that this
female belongs to an old-world aristocratic family and that she combines an
outward elegance with frivolity and lax morals. The plump lips of this archaic
marquise are accustomed to furtive kissing, the eyes to darting sideways
glances. 'There is in this Cretan culture that refinement of forms and that
consciousness of the sweetness of living that link it to the French eighteenth
century: it has been said. 'With this waning of prehistoric day the smallest of
corners is slightly lifted from some, perhaps only local, golden age, of a coun-
try that has already lived for centuries in the lull of a profound peace, forget-
ting the existence of warriors and weapons, because in the images of Crete
there is never the slightest allusion to soldiers and arms.'25
In another miniature fresco high society is depicted. 'Having gathered, appar-
ently in front of the temple, the women sit and chat among themselves. Their
relaxed poses, their irregular but charming faces, their frizzed hair caused
first amazement, then joy among the important archaeologists who saw this
fresco. Underneath classical art, so simple in its forms, was found the
contemporary world with its elegance that was at once more ordinary and
more artificial.'26 No less amazing is the realism we find imprinted on the
many complex compositions that depict processions, various kind of
combat, hunting and other forms of sport to which the inhabitants of the
Minoan kingdom gave themselves. The observer is astonished by the
outstanding modelling of limbs and muscles, the vitality and naturalness of
poses, the handling of details, the profound knowledge of the animal world
and finally the training of the slim-waisted male bodies, represented here.
The art of this period is the ultimate synthesis of many separate trends. And
while the bearers of Neolithic culture were tribes of non-Greek origin - the
so-called Mediterranean race - the Mycenaean culture was in fact developed
by the Greeks, who had absorbed a former population and culture, and had
been stimulated by the East. 'The flower of Mycenaean art could only have
flourished in soil fertilised by the East: wrote Furtwangler. 'Contact with the
East was essential for the European spirit to acquire its full artistic expres-
sion.'27 Mycenaean art, by which we can judge the spiritual culture of the
people who created it, is Greek art that already possesses all the distinctive
features, all the intimate peculiarities that distinguish it from Eastern art -
freedom and spontaneity, creative freshness and the absence of stylisation.
Whether we look at ceramics or glyptics, architecture, the rudiments of
painting and sculpture, artistic jewellery or metal goods of artistic quality-
everywhere these peculiarities are manifest. The assimilation from the East
of technical inventions, while preserving complete spiritual independence, is
again a purely Greek quality that became a condition of Greek art's perfec-
tion. 'No matter what the Greeks borrowed from the Barbarians: writes
Filipp Opuntsky, 'they surpass them, carrying their borrowings to perfec-
tion.' 'Here is quite a different spirit from that ofthe East', continues Furtwan-
gler. 'Here there reigns a joy in life and a joy in representing and reproducing
reality. The heavy, dulling atmosphere of the East has given way to pure, clear
air. If in the East only symbolic types could be engendered, full of inner
significance, but for all that untruthful and tied to conventions, here the life-
like communication of reality flourishes. Even the demonic and the divine
are depicted here, not in exaggerated supernatural form, but in simple
human terms. Here man does not stand before the powers of heaven and
earth in fear and trembling, in mute obedience, as in the East. His gaze is
trusting and free, taking pleasure in the joy oflife and reflecting it.'28
But one feature in particular characterises this period of ultra-refinement. It
cannot but seem strange to find, in the vast Cretan palaces with their highly
complex architecture, objects ofan unexpected coarseness alongside things of
the finest workmanship, and stranger still, very crude depictions of highly
refined products of the culture. If one comes across such a blatant contradic-
tion in exactly the same site in exactly the same cultural layer, it is impossible
not to discern a certain premeditation, an intentional dissonance capable of
making exhausted perceptions more acute. The crude workmanship of the
figures one comes across is a premeditated archaisation, a stylisation based on
antiquity, and it should be viewed as a raffine sophistication. Ifyou examine the
'primitive' objects from this period of culture more closely, you will sense
beneath their crudeness a spiritual disquiet very similar to that which left its
mark on the late nineteenth century of the new history.
And so, having elucidated the complex and highly developed nature of
this Aegean (broadly speaking), or Cretan culture, let us turn nowto an exam-
ination of its inner content.
What were the religious and philosophical ideas that this multi-layered and
centuries-old culture espoused? How can archaeology help us to comprehend
the spirit of this period so distant from us, yet so similar in the external forms
of peoples' lives? And is it not natural to ask ourselves whether their under-
standing of life was in fact as distant from ours as the contemporary philistine
might assume before he has made any study ofthe matter, naively thinking his
century and his decade the summit ofcultural progress?
Stone women
Each of you may have seen more than once the so-called 'stone women'
(kamennye baby) - or Steinmiitterchen in German - brought from the steppes of
Russia. These naked female figures, squeezing their breasts, or holding
between their breasts a bird (probably a dove) in one hand and with the other
pointing towards their lap, or again holding a small bowl-shaped vessel near
their navel or lower down - were erected on burial kurgans by the populations
of the South Russian steppes and were obviously a religious symbol
connected in the closest and most intimate way with the idea ofdeath. Where
we erect a cross on a grave, these prior inhabitants of our land, who were also
perhaps our ancestors, placed these 'women' on their graves. The region in
which this symbol was used is vast - from the foot ofAltai and the basin of the
Enisei and Ob river sources, right up to the Volga and the Caspian Sea. The
majority are found in the steppes around the Don and Azov rivers, and in
Galicia. In Ekaterinoslav province alone some 428 such figures are known.
\Vhen they were erected and by whom remains to be explained.
It is very
probable that many of them are by no means as ancient as some archaeolo-
gists would like to believe. At least, several peoples preserve almost identical
customs up to the present day. One French traveller, who in 1253 was sent
among the Tatars as the ambassador of Saint Louis, had this to say about the
Kumans: 'Comani faciunt magnum tumulum super defunctum et erigunt ei
statuam tenentem scyphum in manu sua ante umbilicum' [The Kumans
construct a large mound above the deceased and erect a statue that holds a cup
in front of its navel].30 (In antiquity the word scyphus or CTKUcPO:; was used to
describe a two-handled bowl for drinking wine, but it most closely resembles
our tea-cup with a small base.)
It would scarcely be premature to identify this statue as the 'stone
woman'. Indeed, several ethnographic observations have provided grounds
for thinking that the vessel which she holds in front of her bosom or below,
deliberately associated with the idea of birth, was intended to contain part of
the cremated deceased's ashes, the rest of which were placed at the foot of the
In other words, the symbol signifies that the deceased is entering the
bosom of the mother, who squeezes her breasts to release milk to suckle her
newly presented child. This mother holds a bird, a dove, between her breasts.
It is well known that the bird in general, and the dove in particular, is a univer-
sal symbol for the soulY
Who is this mother, who adopts, feeds and warms the soul of the
deceased? Clearly she is the Earth, Mother Earth," or in the language of Greek
mythology, Gaia-Earth who gave birth to everything living and is the great-
mother of all mankind; it is she who once again takes to herself everything
living when the period of earthly existence is over for each of US.'34 In the
words of Hesiod,
fdl 'ElJpUCTTEpVOc;, TTavTCW E8oc; cWcPaAEC; aLd.3
Broad-breasted Gaia, the secure lap ofall
Not one of the stone women's features noted above is fortuitous. Holding
a vessel in front ofthe lower half ofthe lap is a very ancient religious motifthat
occurs as early as the Bronze Age in Scandinavia,36 Squeezing the breasts and
holding a bird to the bosom are even more widespread motifs, even more
canonical, so to speak, for Mother Earth. She is Death and she is also Birth. She
is generatrix and also destroyer. From her broad bosom she produces every-
thing living and everything returns there. She brings forth the shoots of life
and hides its seeds. Such is the one universal goddess, Aphrodite-Nature, 'the
bee with her honey and her sting'}7
Whether in the Scythian steppes, in sultry India or the tragic Illiad, the
cult of chthonic divinities, no matter what they are called, always combines
'the idea of the blessed birth of Mother-Earth with the idea of the horror of
death, whose place is likewise in the depths of the earth',38 'These ideas are
woven together in an extraordinary way: says Preller, 'such that, from the very
beginning, this interweaving could not be clearly and definitely understood
and so of its own accord must have lead to mystic searches for explanations in
a secret conception disguised by symbolism.'39
Homes calls the cycle of ideas that grew out of this fundamentally dualis-
tic core of the Mother 'Geotropism' or 'Chthonism'.4
'This mother, generatrix,
nurturer and, conversely, devourer of her own offspring, could take only one
form, that of a woman. It is one of the surprising, but understandable,
phenomena in primitive religious thinking that in all forms oftradition woman
enjoys a certifiable superiority over man in the spiritual world. The material
basis for the cult of the mother is maternal right (Miitterrecht) - succession
through the maternal line in primitive tribes. Just as the souls of the deceased
are generally thought to remain the same after death as they were in life, and as
a man who was well-to-do during his lifetime becomes just as powerful in the
kingdom of the dead, so, if a woman occupies first place as a mother on the
known scale of the social structure, it is only natural that a higher being in the
world of the spirits would also be imagined as a woman and a mother. It is on
this level that woman stands, as the generatrix at the beginning of things, as the
nurturer who feeds people with plants, as dominatrix of the soil in which the
dead are interred, the dead whom she considers her own. The hierarchy of
souls and spirits in the underground world, led by the Ur-Mother, is replaced by
the anarchic demonism of the hunting period, which is in turn replaced by the
heavenly hierarchy, with Father-Heaven at its head.'4
But whether this concept ofthe One World Goddess emerges from a form
of human life or from something else, one fact at least is certain: 'Any investi-
gation of the history of female deities, by whatever name the Many-named is
called, whether Artemis or Aphrodite or Athena or Astarte or Isis, puts us on
the trail of the original thelymonotheism, a female monotheism. All female
divinities are in essence facets of the one goddess, and she is the female princi-
ple of the world, one sex elevated to the absolute.'4
Understandably, the male principle is trampled, lost, and disappears. 'The
male correlate to the absolute goddess acquires the features of the suffering
god, such as Dionysus and Osiris. The martyrdom and murder ofthe male god
is a fundamental motif in female religions (such as the religion of Dionysus),
which have their roots in the everyday structure of those forgotten societies
where woman was both mother and empress.'43 In their essence, our stone
women are that same all-victorious Aphrodite.
she wings her way through the air; she is in the sea
in itsfoaming billow; ji-om her everything,
that is, is born. For she engenders us
and sows the seeds ofdesire whereofwe're born,
all we her children, living on the earth
- Euripides testifies, citing an instance of her unlimited power. Yes, in the
ancient interpretation she is twice omnipotent, twice triumphant over all -
passion and death - and twice she receives into herself each man - at birth and
at burial.
But in ancient belief there was no such splitting of the Earth into Death-
destroyer and Love-generatrix. She was at once one and the same. Vvith her
eternal smile, mysterious and sweet, Earth was both at once - in short, she was
Fate, universal Necessity, Time.
Know me, so sang Death. I am Passion.
Now, however, only the sensitive souls of poets clearly comprehend this dual-
ity in nature, understanding that Generatrix-nature conceals death within her,
while Temptress-death conceals destruction.47
The nakedgoddess
This same idea also lay at the core of the religious and philosophical belief
system of the bearers of Aegean culture.
Tombs from the Aegean culture contain an abundance of statuettes,
which explorers have called 'the naked goddess'. In composition, crudeness of
Idol ofthe 'naked goddess' found on the island
ofAmorgos (after Perrot and Chipiez).48
workmanship and finally in body-type, they vividly
recall the stone women, although they are considerably
smaller in size. They have been found over a wide-rang-
ing territory that stretches from upper Egypt above the
Eastern basin of the Mediterranean, including both
Malta and Greece, and encompassing the Thracian-IIIyr-
ian Northern Balkan peninsular as far as the Ukraine and
Western Galicia. Researchers acknowledge their great
antiquity, dating back to the early Iron Age in the South
and in the North to the pure Stone Age - according to
some - or to the Chalcolithic Age according to others. If
we were to name this whole area of culture and the race
that created it, Hornes considers it should be called 'die
jungere Steinzeit' (the earlier Stone Age), or approxi-
mately the 'Neolithic Period.' i.e., the culture should be
called 'the Bronze-Stone' Age and those who created it
the 'Mediterranean race.'5
Let us take a closer look at this statuette ofthe 'naked
goddess.' First ofall one notices the preference for female
Image ofthe 'naked
goddess' with doves in
gold leaf, found by
Schliemann in Shaft
Grave III on
Idol ofthe 'naked goddess', found near Sparta
(after Permt and Chipiez).52
Archaic Aphrodite
of Cyprus, Le., from
the island ofCyprus
(after Roscher).49
figures over males in creating idols that are placed in the tombs of the dead or
erected in sanctuaries. But not only do we see a pronounced inclination to use
female figures for idols. In these figures the female characteristics - breasts,
thighs and adjacent areas - are emphasised, even exaggerated, so emphatically
that there cannot be the slightest doubt that this exaggeration is not fortu-
What might at first seem simply the result of the sculptor's lack of
technical finesse is in fact a completely conscious effort to express a particular
idea - that of woman as generatrix. So-called steatopygia, 54 an extreme accu-
mulation of fat in the area of the buttocks, is also characteristic of the vast
majority ofstatuettes of'the naked goddess'. Ethnic parallels showus that this
is a particular conception of female beauty and that this peculiarity, which is
highly characteristic of modern-day Hottentots, was probably also an attrib-
ute of the Mediterranean race that left numerous depictions of steatopygic
At times the accentuation of the female characteristics even exceeds the
bounds of caricature, so that the statuette represents a headless female torso
Ut ~ 1 I t . ~
I t : ~ : ~ -:;r
Neolithic idols ofthe 'nakedgoddess'. 1,2,3,4,5, found on Knossos (from
a sketch by Lagrange made in the MuseumofCandia; 556, figurine from
Laugerie (after Mortillet).56
in which the thighs and breasts are especially singled out. The ultimate degree
ofsimplification is the statuette that consists entirely ofbreasts - the pure real-
ity of birth and nurturing, without the slightest reference to thought. This is
the most ancient manifestation of the idea of 'the eternal feminine'.
: , ' '.' to.
\' . .
\. \
\ .
Neolithic idols ofthe 'naked
goddess' found in the grave of51
Onufrius near rhaestos (froma
sketch by Lagrange made in the
Candia Museum)Y
Claystatuette ofBabyIonian
Astarte (after Roscher).58
The interactionofancient cultures with
A comparison of statuettes of the 'naked
goddess' from the Archipelago and Crete
with those from Egypt once again
confirms the interaction of the Egyptian
and Cretan cultures. But more striking still
is their similarity to Babylonian statuettes
of Astarte. Moreover, the more refined
elaboration of the Astarte type suggests
that Babylonian art was the original source
from which Mediterranean art produced
pale and anaemic copies. At the very least,
the methodological practice of accepting
more refined work as earlier and original,
and more corrupted work as derivative, is (in spite of evolution) often used in
archaeology with as much success as in exegesis, which requires that the more
difficult reading be preferred to the more simple in an explanation of variant
readings. 'And if', writes one researcher, 'we compare this to the extraordinary
diffusion of the cult of the Great Mother, which migrated from millennium to
millennium, from people to people, then it is highly probable that in the stat-
uettes of the 'naked goddess' we have one of the crests of the migrational wave
of religion that came from Babylon.'59
Afurther argument for Babylonian influence, albeit at a later period, is the
striking similarity in the clothing of the Cretan and Babylonian goddesses.
Both have a distinctive skirt of wide flounces that are sometimes thickly
pleated. Sometimes we also find on the Babylonian figures noose-shaped
ribbons at the back of the neck, similar to the one we saw on the 'court lady'
from the court at Knossos.
Linguistic facts have also been cited as proof of the existence of cultural
interaction between the Indo-Europeans and the Semites 00hannes Schmidt).
For example, parallels have been drawn between the ancient Indian and
the Greek TTE AE KUS', the Sumerian balag and the Babylonian-Assyrian pillaku-
meaning an axe; between the ancient-Indian laMs, 10ham - copper - and the
Slavic rouda, the Latin raudus and the old-Scandinavian raudu, the Sumerian
urud - copper. The importance of the number sixty in the counting system, as
a dividing line between and Er38o
lT]KOVTCi, can also be considered a
reflection of the Babylonians' system ofcounting in sixties.
But in any event,
we do not knowexactly what epoch these influences date from, although they
are certainly extremely ancient.
All of the above makes it even more probable that the 'naked goddesses'
are in fact some prefiguration of the Great Mother, already discussed above,
whose cult flourished in the Near East. And ifit is permissible to construct out
of these analogies between the goddesses an analogy between their cults, then
we must conclude that the cult of our goddesses was full of abrupt contradic-
tions between unbridled behaviour and self-torture.
'This goddess [the Great Mother] is the embodiment of nature's genera-
tive powers - natura naturans, as the ancient peoples of Asia might have imag-
ined her in a concrete divine image, as the goddess of sexual love,
reproduction and fruitfulness. In the elemental life of nature, life and death,
summer and winter, the periodic dying and reviving of vegetation, alternate.
And, accordingly, in the cult of the Great Goddess joyful and funereal rites
alternate, sacred prostitution and cruel self-torture; more than that, self-
castration, as the extreme contrast to sexual orgies, as the highest sacrifice to
the goddess ofelemental orgiasm.'62 Numerous other features common to all
cults are joined together here. The most noteworthy is the finding ofstatuettes
of the 'naked goddess' in tombs and their association with burial, which
perhaps is in some way related to the myth of Ishtar's journey into Hell in
search ofThammuz.
Among the sacred symbols of the Chalcolithic culture, the beginning of the
Early Minoan Age, is one whose meaning researchers have to this day been
unable to fathom. We know neither its name nor its function. It seems to me,
however, that we will be able to attach some name to this nameless cult object,
a name that till nowhad no object attached to it; a name whose corresponding
object has been lost in the depths of time, and was apparently already
unknown in the age ofAristotle. 64 We may suppose that this lost object, while
not identical to our nameless symbol, is nevertheless related to it and physi-
cally resembles it.
'Double vessel' from the village ofVeremia,
Kiev Province and district. (Collection om. I.
and V. I. Khanenko).65
By nameless object I mean a vessel of a particular shape that is frequently
found in the tombs of the so-called Ukrainian cultural group,66 or again of the
Tripol'e culture in the Dnepr river region, and conventionally called a 'double
vessel' or 'binocular-shaped vessel'. In the Kiev Museum there are examples of
objects that go under the generic title of'vesselsJomritual burial pise structures'. 67
Vessels from ritual and burial pise structures in the Dneprriverregion (sketches made in
the Kiev Museum). 68 1. Example ofa crudely made 'double vessel'; 2. Example ofa
single 'vessel'; 3. Example ofa more finely made 'double vessel' with ornamentation and
thinner walls.
There is also a specimen of such a vessel among the Bronze Age finds in the
Moscow History Museum.
All of these objects, moreover, were discovered
in the environs of Kiev and Tripol'e. What exactly does 'double vessel' mean?
It is a vessel consisting of two identical glasses in the shape of hyperboloid
rotations or, if you like, approximately reminiscent of two bobbins standing
side by side. They are joined together at the upper edge by a linking and lower
down by either a small cylinder or a plate with holes cut in it, in some form or
another, evidently so that the fingers of the hand holding the vessel can fit
between the two parts. It is 1 to 2 times taller than a tea cup, or of about the
same height. But the most remarkable feature of these 'vessels: if we may so
call them, is that they have no base, nor did they have from the very beginning,
to judge from the undamaged condition of both rims. Made of clay, these
vessels are in varying degrees ungainly. In general, their handiwork is crude,
although according to one archaeologist 'they do have a characteristic expres-
siveness?O The surface of the 'double vessels' is decorated with a geometric
ornament consisting of a linear incision in a dark colour on a red ground. We
should also add that sometimes 'vessels' come to light that are similar in shape
and in other particulars, but are single not double, with two small handles.
This shows that what we in fact have here is the doubling of a single vessel.
What then is the vessel's function? It is undoubtedly sacred, and specifically
associated with the cult of a subterranean deity. The chthonic meaning of the
cult in which the 'double vessel' was used is also confirmed by the discovery of
such vessels along with clay statuettes of the 'naked goddess'. It is worth
noting that, in these Ukrainian statuettes, steatopygia and particularly a sexual
emphasis is even more significant than in the statuettes from other regions.
'In all probability', the cataloguer of B. 1. and V. 1. Khanenko's collection
of antiquities concludes, 'these vessels had a votive function and were used
during burial?l But even this meagre conclusion seems unconvincing to
Homes, who writes of the double vessel, which he called 'ein binokelfor-
miges Gerat' as an object 'of unknown determination' - unbekannter Bestim-
Let us try to explain, to the best of our ability, the significance of this
enigmatic object. First of all we note that two vessels, that would normally be
used separately, are joined into one. The doubling of religious symbols is a
clear sign of their particular sacredness. Here, for example, are several
symbols which parallel the 'double vessel': a double ax, double hammer,
double thunderbolts, a double layer of fat on sacrifices, ete. The double
dordzha of the Buddhists also belongs here, and so on.7
But there seems to be
a deeper connection between the 'double vessel' and the Egyptian double
dudu or djed that closely resembles it.7
The doubling of an ideographic sign in Assyrian cuneiform, and in
Mayan, Mexican, Indian and other hieroglyphs, signifies plural, and some-
times double. But this plumlis is not always a separate quantity; for in religion
it signifies, rather, plumlis majestatis, plumlis magnitudinis, plumlis dignitatis. In
symbolics doubling generally indicates a plenitude of creative potentialities,
the multiplicities of what is being generated, the plenitude contained in
creative force and, finally, simply multiplicity.
I will even hazard a guess that doubled symbols are chiefly associated
with those cults whose basic idea is that of the feminine, while tripling char-
acterises the male. It should be noted that in symbology even numbers,
especially the number two, are essentially female, while the uneven numbers
are male.7
I won't insist on this conjecture, the more so since it would be difficult to
prove. But that notwithstanding, there is no doubt that the sacred 'double
vessel' was used in the cult of a female chthonic deity. How exactly it was used
remains unknown.
Homer's bEnGe; cql<plKlmE!\!\ov
The double vessel is so characteristic of the early Bronze Age, at least in certain
areas of its dissemination, that it would seem extremely strange if Homer's
poems made no mention ofit. It is true that the culture depicted there is a later
one. But can such an important aspect of the cult really have disappeared with-
out a trace? No. It is plausible that this trace is none other than the bETTae;
CtpeplKlJTTE!\!\ov,77 which Homer frequently mentions and which remains a
mystery for researchers. This term occurs in both the Iliad and the Odyssey,
though more frequently in the former, perhaps because the culture depicted
there is more archaic in nature. bErTae; a peplKlJTTEAAov is clearly a sacred vessel,
and it is mentioned in connection with especially important actions of both
gods and men. Thus Hephaestus, in comforting Hera whom Zeus had insulted,
brings her a bETIoe; CtfleplKUTIEAAOV (cl. 1. 584), which further on Homer simply
calls a KUTIEAAov (11. 1. 596). With this goblet Hephaestus 'serves sweet nectar
ladled from a bowl' - oLv6xoEL yAVKl vEKTap, c'm() aepu(J(Jwv
(I1. 1. 598). At the suggestion of Pisistrata, son of Nestor, Athena disguised as
a wanderer performs a libation to Poseidon with 'honeyed wine' ([lEAl TlbE-
'oc; o'lvou, Od. 3.46) or 'sweet wine' (1]8fOC; Ql"VOU, od. 3. 51), from just such a
oEmiS' Homer calls this same OETIas' afl1)lKlmEAAov simply a
obae; (Od. 3. 46,53). In other words, OfTIae; CtfleplKUTIEAAOV is evidently just an
aspect contained in the genus bfTIae; and the genus CtflepUCUTIEAAOV, and can also
simply be called by those names. There are also names which are apparently
synonymous,78 such as a goblet (cham), and UflepCtHOV UAEl00V, a two-handled
or, more accurately, a double-handled goblet.
This same vessel was used during burial rites. Before the fire flared up
during the cremation of Patroclus' body, Achilles, in order to propitiate the
winds and persuade them to inflame the fire, made numerous libations of
wine, 'XPUCJE4l OETfaL', with a gold goblet (I/. 23- 196). Finally, the fire burst into
o OE mlvvux0S' (;)KVS" AKLAAEVS'
mOl! G<pl!CJCJawvoS' XUflaOLS' XEE, OElJE OE yalav,
And all nightfieet-jooted Achilles
ladles wineji-om agolden vessel with atwo-bottomed [I] cup
he made a libation around and . ..
still summoning the soul ofhis poorfriend Patroclus (I1. 23- 218-21)
Both the cup and the OETfaS' ufl<PLKlmEAAov are described here as gold
while the name of the vessel that interests us, KaAOV OETfCLS' Ufl<PLKlmEAAOV
(Od. 3. 68), probably refers to its ornamentation. At the sacred games in
memory of the deceased Patroc!us, as fifth prize for speed in the chariot race
Achilles places among the other awards a 'ufl<PL6nov <pLaAT]V' of which it is
said that it has not yet been in the fire (11. 23- 270). This same 'UP<PL6noS' <pLaAT] ,
(11. 23- 516) was given by Achilles to the elder Nestor. What kind of vessel was
it? Apparently, it too was in some way double, like the goblet mentioned
above. It was this OETfaS' Gfl<PLKUTrEAAOV (11. 23- 656, 563, 699) that was awarded
to the defeated Euryalus for his participation in a fist fight, while the victorious
Epeius took a sturdy mule.
Finally, Homer also describes a 'oEmIS' of Nestor' which perhaps in part
resembles an Ufl<PLKUTfEAAov. This vessel was so large that only Nestor could
lift it when it was full of wine. It was decorated with gold studs and had four
handles with two gold doves perched atop each one (let us not forget that
doves are the birds of Mother-Earth):79 'ouw 0' 1mG ITu6flEVES' - from
below it had two bottoms (11. 11.635).
So the Homeric 'OEITOS' (lP<PLKUITEAAOV is undoubtedly some kind of
sacred vessel from which the gods drink; moreover, libation to the gods was
thought ofspecifically as drinking by the gods.
What was the shape of this
vessel? Even in antiquity various suggestions were offered. Thus Aristotle,
writing of honeycombs, calls their cells 'ufl<Pl CJTOflOL', 'mutually-mouthed',
and explains his definition thus (obviously using the preposition ufl<Pi: in an
unorthodox sense): 'TrEPl pLOV yap r3amv ovo 6UpLOES ELCJLv (;)CJITEP T(;)1'
Ufl<PLKVITEAAU)]), Tj flEv EVTGS' Jl 0' EKioS",s! 'because the sides of a single
base have two openings, like the openings of the al-lq)LKl!1TEAA0W, one on
each side'. It has often been concluded from this that the OElTUC; apcpLKu-
'm.\.\ov was a vessel created by joining together two cups that leaned against
each other at the bottom, so that one of the cups acted as a receptacle for the
wine, the other as the base, like that of chalices or so-called 'Roman'
The most powerful argument against this idea is the impractical-
ity of such a vessel. After all, they ladled wine or nectar out of the bowl. If it
was in fact chalice-shaped, then the ladler would have to plunge his hand
sloppily into the wine, with the high base interfering with the immersion.
Undoubtedly, a vessel for ladling should not have a high base and should
have a handle on the upper rim. Referring to the practical function of the
ClflcPLKUlTEAAOV, namely ladling wine, A. May suggests that it would certainly
have had a handle or handles,83 and in support of his view points to the
synonymous expression d'\HCJOV dpcPOTOV - a two-handled cup (Od. 12.
9.]7). Furthermore, despite Aristotle's interpretation, to call both the base
and the cup by the same name, as if they were equivalent parts, is extremely
strange. Most important is just how fantastic this explanation is. To the
present day there has been nothing resembling this hypothetical chalice,
either in representations of vessels or among those that have been found.
Finally, the non-historical nature of Aristotle's explanation is borne out by
the very different interpretations of other ancient authors. Thus,
Aristarchus takes OElTac; al-lcPLKUlTE.\.\OV to be a two-handled cup,8
others a
concave or simply a round cup, 'af1q)LKUPTClV ou
H; mpLq)EpEC; -with
a curled rim'.86 Winckelmann read both OElTUC; apcPLKUTIEAAOV and Ul-lcPL8E-
TOc;' cPLCi.\Tl to mean a bowl encircled by another.
In short, the diversity of
opinions weakens each of them to such an extent that they can all safely be
disregarded. Nothing prevents us from thinking that the clPcPLKum'\'\(llV is in
some way similar to the 'double vessel' described above. This similarity is
further confirmed by an etymological analysis of the word apcPLKUlTE.\.\CuV.
Af1cPL', a co-root with the Latin ambo and the Russian oba,88 which strictly
speaking means on both sides, then from all sides, and finally around. But in
contrast to lTE PL'; which chiefly implies circumference in a vertical plane, or
sometimes the whole surface, al-lq)L '; signifies symmetry in a horizontal
plane, or a complete horizontal circumference.
'AVcPLKUlTE.\.\OV could mean
what Aristotle thought it to mean, only in a horizontal position, a position
unnatural for a goblet. And in fact, objects whose names contain the prefix
al-lcPL are symmetrical in regard to the vertical, not the horizontal plane.
Examples of these are:
-lame in both legs; ali<PdlEeLOc;' - ambidextrous;
aIL<p'mvli0c;' - with a double exit; ali<PL-EAWCJC! and aIL<pL-KVPTOc;' -
declinate at both ends (of a ship); ali<PL-(EvKTOc;' - unified on both
sides (by a bridge); ali<PL-Elvpoc;' - double-doored with front and
back entry (subsequently, ali<PL evpa is how the draw-curtains
above the altar under the cupola were called); aP<PLl<:pavoc;' and
ali<PLl<:E<paAOc;' - double-headed (hence ali<PhE<paAoc;' KAlV - an
ottoman with cushions at both ends; ali<PLITVAOc;' - double-gated or
a double folding-door); CJp<pLITUpy0c;' - bearing a torch in either
hand (one of Artemides' epithets); ali<PLvaLva - a species of snake
that can slither backwards and forwards, with head or tail; aI1<pl-
CJTOIWS' - double-mouthed; also of two-handled drinking-vessels;
ali<Pl-<paAoc;' - with a double peak. used of a helmet that has a peak
in front and behind; ap<pL-<P0PElic;' and GF<PUJTOc;' - a vessel with two
handles. etc., etc.
In conclusion, we will mention once more that 8ETwc;' ali<PLKlmEAAOV must
be recognised as something akin to 'double vessels', but of a somewhat later
period and more carefully worked - perhaps even made ofgold. if only Homer,
that restorer of an antiquity not of his own time, was not making a rather epic
But though related to approximately the same culture and serv-
ing the same religious idea, the 8ETTCIc;' CIIi<PLKUTTEAAOV and the 'double vessel'
were of course used in different ways.
Some might ask whether it is possible to find traces of the 8ETwc;'
(11l<PLKUTTEAAOV in the life oflatertimes. New influences drove both the ancient
cult of Mother-Earth and her double vessels underground. Representatives of
the new patriarchal religion openly broke with antiquity which, for them, and
from their point of view (because they had already completely ceased to
understand even the possibility of a female enotheism
), was embodied in
OUK aEL8u) Ta TTaAEa. KaLVa yap Ella KPELCJCJU).
VEOc;' Cl ZEDc;'
TCJ mlAaL 8' Kp6voc;' apXiJJV.
aTTLnj llovCJa TTaAaLeX.
I do not sing the old songs - mine are younger and stronger.
Young Zeus is our sovereign
but ofyore chronos was king
Flee, old-time muse!93
the admirer of the new religion sings defiantly. Only in the Orphic myster-
ies, a remnant of female enotheism, do we seem to find some hint of the
double bowl of Mother-Earth. 'In the Orphic mysteries two bowls (KpaTT]p)
and a mirror were used as symbols of the fall and restoration of the soul. To
partake of the drink of oblivion from one cup was a sign that the soul, look-
ing at the sensual world reflected in its consciousness as in a mirror,
becomes enamoured of its seductive images, loses its memory of the heav-
enly and sinks into the bonds of the body. Drinking from the other cup, as it
were, restores and acts as a token of the soul's resurrection, [to recapture] a
lost bliss.'94
The Nautilus ornament
The idea of the 'naked goddess' is intimately intertwined with yet another
symbol from a later period, one that is chiefly widespread in the culture asso-
ciated with half of the Minoan Age. Specifically, one of the distinctive hall-
marks of the Mycenaean style is the nautilus ornament
that entwines vessels
and all manner of utensils - gold, glass vessels, vases. Its chief element is 'the
scroll of a sea-wave' or, more accurately, the tentacles of a purpura mollusc.
Here are examples of this ornament, distributed in time throughout the
entire Aegean sea and reaching as far as Egypt [see illustration overleaf].
These examples show once again the oneness ofculture that corresponds
to the periods of these great dominions.
However, as we have already noted, something more can be seen in the
nautilus ornament - a phenomenon which to some extent is equivalent to the
idols of the 'naked goddess'; a phenomenon which, even more accurately,
defines exactly where the productive power ofFate was destined to coincide in
the consciousness of the ancient proto-Hellenes.
In fact, the nautilus mollusc, or argonaut, from a stylisation of which the
ornament is derived, was called in antiquity 'the shell of Aphrodite', 'Veneris
concha', and was considered a sacred animal dedicated to Aphrodite. In some
regions it was sacred to Poseidon, a modification of chthonic Zeus, 'the
hospitable Zeus ofthe dead' - ZdJS' TliJV KEK[lTlKOTOV 96 - in
whose vast dwelling-place there is room for all. Thus, Poseidon, to whom the
Examples ofnautilus ornament in
Mycenaean art and, for comparison,
depictions ofthe nautilus mollusc
(chart compiled after Ttimpel),97
:':::' f
....... .
purpura was dedicated, was a male, a later aspect or offshoot of that same
Nautilus-Nauplius (TTOl-lTTLAOS-) is Homer's LEpbs- LX8vs-, to judge from Aris-
tonikos' interpretation oftheIliad, 2.407 - KaL alJTbs- (EU'Tl) yEyovOS- be TOU
oupavl 'ou a'(11aTOS- Gfla n( Ac/JpOOLT1], fun 0' b TTOIl1TlAOS- (00v EpUlTIKOV
(And he himself being sprung from the blood of Uranus together with
Aphrodite, the pompilus [the argonaut] is an animal of love.)' Ancient myth
has it that, when Zeus castrated his father Uranus, the severed sexual organs fell
into the sea and a foam formed around them, from which Aphrodite emerged.
From that same blood, spattering the sea, there emerged her kindred Tbv ~ V
EpUlTlKOV - her love animal, the sacred nautilus.
Aphrodite-Fate is essentially associated with the sea, and the sea is
perceived as the birth-giving womb oflife, that same womb which accepts the
fructifying power of the Heaven-Father. Aphrodite born of the foam is, as it
were, the soul of the birth-giving sea, and the argonaut molluscs are her
sisters, of one womb and one blood. In the words of Euripides in his tragedy
Hippolyrus, the work closest to the Cretan themes, Cypraeda is 'Lady of the sea
The same should be said of Astarte, whose connection with the sea is
usually shown on coins by the fact that her left foot tramples on the stern of a
ship.99 On Tyrian coins her connection with the shell is shown by the fact that
a murex shell and a small figure of Silenus with another murex on his shoul-
ders is placed next to Astarte with her cuirass and civic crown.
And so, in fact, the nautilus is an animal of Aphrodite and a symbol of
Aphrodite. But ancient ornament was never merely ornament. It had a magi-
cal and religious significance, it protected from evil powers, warned of misfor-
tune, and promoted happiness. Thus, the nautilus ornament is not decoration,
but a sacred symbol oflife, and perhaps its dissemination is one further proof
of the widespread cult of Aphrodite-Astarte, Fate or Time.
Such is the most ancient understanding of the primordial origins of all
being. It forms a substratum in the thickness ofstratifications on which Greek
philosophywas later to emerge. Our future task will be to understand the next
layer, to move from the universal proto-environment of the female to the
universal primal power of the male.
May 1913
On Realism
44 Vladimir Favorsky, Unpublished cover forthe journal Makovets, Ill, 1923, woodcut.
Russian Museum, St Petersburg
After 'The Church Ritual as a Synthesis of Art' and 'Celestial Signs', 'On Real-
ism' was the third article Florensky wrote for the Makovets journaJ.!
Announced in the second issue as forthcoming, 'On Realism' did not appear
since the journal ceased publication, even though the contents for no. 3 were
ready and Vladimir Favorsky had again been invited to design the cover.
The first lines of 'On Realism' indicate that Florensky intended to discuss
the topic much in the same way as he had done in his 'Explanation ofthe Cover',
because a 'cover is obliged to be the seed of the journal' ('On Realism', p. 179)
Florensky may well be alluding to the symbology of the new cover which
Favorsky, with his cooperation, was projecting for Makovets no. 3 (illus. 44),
although Favorsky admitted to not having fully understood Florensky's
conception: 'I wanted to show the outer and the inner man and the way in
which external objects internalise. Nevertheless, the result is not very clear.
Pavel Aleksandrovich [Florensky] is guilty of [possessing] a knowledge which
he has expressed in words, but which I am not capable ofexpressing.'2 Presum-
ably, the cover for Makovets no. 3 was to have illustrated Florensky's notion of
Realism, a metaphorical representation of Platonic ideas, the 'real' entities
which stand behind the transient reality of the human being.
Obviously, there could be many interpretations of the cover and of its
relationship to Realism as understood by Favorsky and Florensky. What
exactly is 'internalising' and 'externalising' is not entirely clear, altough the
Urmutter in the frame would seem to be the central image to and from which
all the symbols of life (tree, flower, bird, fish, man) proceed. In any case, it is
important to remember that Favorsky and Florensky were very close at this
time and their individual ideas were nourished by each other's attitudes, espe-
cially towards the art of the book and the printed page. Both disliked the
mimetic and illusionistic attributes of Realism and called for a deeper, if more
metaphorical, application - as in the cover for Makovets no. 3. The fervent
discussions of style, form, composition and construction that the two friends
conducted at VKhUTEMAS, worthy of a separate appreciation, relate directly
to this specific elaboration of Realism.3
The cover of a journal should in some respect be organically linked to the
[actual] issue of the journal as an integral work of book art. But the content of
separate issues is fluid and cannot, moreover, be predicted, even by the editor.
To express that content through the cover would mean satisfying the require-
ments of a separate issue, perhaps even several of them, but in any event not
those ofthe journal in all its facets. What is needed here is to express the actual
connection between the issues of the journal, regardless of how many there
are or what their contents are. This connection is the fundamental goal which
the journal serves and the 'direction' that this goal assumes. Then the cover of
a periodical will be a schema of its unity. If well conceived it can and should
become a visible first-embodiment of the vital impulse that unfolds in the
rhythm of the publication. One may say that the cover is the journal itself. Just
as a seed already contains the complete cycle of living phenomena of the tree
that grows from it, so the cover is obliged to be the seed of the journal. For
then it brings about a living connection between the separate articles that, if
taken separately, may be in utter disagreement, may polemicise with each
other. In it we are contemplatively confronted with the journal's spiritual
form with all its multifaceted content. The cover elucidates with one [content]
and suggests with the other. Are we not familiar with the full-blooded power
ofgraphic symbols that nurture us as we meditate on them? Do we not know
the wisdom of symbols, which frequently turns out to be immeasurably
greater and more profound than that which the artist was able, and
consciously desired, to invest in it? Do we not know the wisdom of the
Ancients, which invariably produced something new, a wisdom consolidated
in the pictures of tarot cards? As for coats-of-arms, they were supposed to
accompany their owners in all the circumstances oflife, on campaigns and at
feasts, in the bosom ofthe family and at church. Every object was emblazoned
with the coat-of-arms, so that the owner, in ceaselessly gazing at it, would
reflect on his own edification and be guided by it. Why then might the cover of
a journal not provide a similar passage into the depths, as the undertaking of
an entire group of people's most cherished aspirations? It seems natural to
demand that a cover be an internal authentication for a specific tendency of
thought and the source of new projects.
The journal Makovets is, or at least wishes to be, an organ of realism - realism
in art, to the extent that it is concerned with questions of the arts. But art is
inseparable from the make-up of an entire culture, and an understanding of
art cannot be established outside a general understanding of life. Realism in
art and a realistic understanding of art necessarily develop in the general
organism of realistic culture, and outside it they vegetate and die like sickly
shoots. A realistic journal of the arts must not omit, even peripherally, the
realism oflife and the realism of culture.
And so, just what is realism? But this term itself is too valuable for the
most varied tendencies of thought and creativity not to be tempted to
encroach upon it.
What sensible person does not want to be, and to be considered, a realist?
But when you take a closer look at just what lays claim to this quality, it most
frequently transpires that such claims are in direct contradiction to the most
natural meaning of the word 'realism', which derives from res, realis. Thus,
one quite often finds the terms realism and naturalism confused, and even
realism and illusionism, just as on the other side of the coin realism and ideal-
ism, realism and symbolism, realism and mysticism are normally contrasted
to each other.
Obviously, realism is in any event a kind of tendency that affirms some
kind ofrealia or realities - in contrast to illusions - in the world, in culture, and
particularly in art. In realism that which genuinely exists is opposed only to
what seems to exist, the ontologically solid to the spectral, the essential and
stable to the easily scattered conglomeration of random encounters. Law and
the norm on one hand, whim and caprice on the other.
If this opposition does not exist, then nor does realism, although the
plane of existence on which realities are acknowledged may be quite diverse,
and, depending on this realism, it itself acquires a diverse character. We can
speak even less of realism when the phenomenon ofauthentic reality is gener-
ally rejected in art; yet exactly how can it [art] exist if there is no real existence
in the world? Realism in art has as its necessary prerequisite the realism of an
entire world-understanding.
But to go further, can we express a worldwide reality, if we ourselves
stand outside it and do not come into contact with it? Obviously our living
remoteness from reality must again destroy realism in art as well. There are
realities in the world; one comes to knowthem by coming into living contact
with them through work in the worldwide sphere. This cognition may be
expressed by means of art; works of art can unite us with realities that are
inaccessible to our senses - such are the formal prerequisites of any artistic
realism, and a tendency that rejects even one of them thereby forfeits its right
to be called realism.
The prerequisites for realism I have outlined may seemso natural and formally
to be taken for granted that it would seem scarcely anyone would object to
them. But this holds true only until we look more carefully at them. Viewed
point blank they are by no means so neutral and indifferent. After all, for most
people a work ofart in and ofitselfstands side by side with images ofthe imag-
ination and, far from leading us to reality, takes us away from it, creating an
illusion ofreality. From this point ofviewthe activity ofart, or at least ofvisual
art, which we will primarily be discussing, tends specifically towards the
creation of simulacra, of 'aesthetic appearances' (Schein), that are devoid of
material essence, but that appear to be essential. That the essence of art is a
hoax is a conviction held by far more than just one individual.
'Just as it is in reality' - this usual praise for a naturalistic work of art
surely bears witness to the fact that 'like in reality' is something that, without
being reality, wants to stand beside the phenomena of reality. The illusion
that comes closest to reality is in essence the furthest removed from it. 'You
want to reach out and touch it; when what is before us is a flat canvas - isn't
this triumph of naturalism a fraud that temporarily succeeds and shows what
does not in fact exist? And why arouse in the spectator an unsatisfiable desire
to take hold of the painted apple, when this can successfully be done with a
real one? Illusionistic art wants to be a match for, only a match for, sensory
reality, but for all its tricks it never attains reality and at best, if it did attain it,
it would become unnecessary as art. It only attempts to deceive us that it is a
match for reality.
It is a strange thing that the tendency which is always shouting about
truthfulness is permeated with falsehood in its own tasks. These naturalists
wanted to present unembellished reality ... and therefore they painted
from models or mannequins posed into tableaux vivants. They mechanically
combined studies from various locations, without taking into account the
organic character of the landscape. They depicted sincere feelings accord-
ing to roles that were performed, and falsified reality twice over - the first
time with objects, models, artificially imparted poses etc., the second by
creating an illusory image of this riffraff. And after this they dared to talk
about truth to life. They were only concerned in life with what was on
show, with what purported to be reality itself- winning roles, high-faluting
noble words, artificial feelings. There is nothing further removed from real-
ism that these tendencies and others like them that also, even exclusively,
lay claims to be realistic.
Meanwhile, this deception of naturalism runs far deeper than I have just
outlined, although in a general context ofdeception, the former may seem less
noticeable. For naturalism usually pits the artist's activity against the process
of cognition. Whereas the scientist exposes the unreality of perceptible
images as subjective, the artist on the contrary strives to secure them in their
subjectivity. Consequently, art does not express a cognition of the truth of
things, it obscures it. Furthermore, cognition of reality is made available,
possibly, to a passive, cold and indifferent attitude to the world, that takes
nothing from the individual, whereas a vital attitude, one that is personal and
fiery, is subjective. Finally, in the world itself reality is denied by this tendency
of thought. There is nothing genuinely essential, everything in the world is
illusory, everything merely seems, all is conventional and deceptive.
Ifthis is so, then ofcourse it is not reality- which doesn't exist - that is the
subject of art, nor the cognition of reality - which is hostile to the practice of
representation - that achieves visible form in artistic images. Between art and
the actual concept of reality a deep fissure opens wide, after which the terms
'realism' and 'naturalism' can only be combined as a form of word-play.
But on the basis of positivism and materialism and, in general, oftrends of
thought that reject the essential reality of form, there is no place for realism.
28 March 1923
Explanation ofthe Cover
(J)J1 0 PEHCK.Lo1I11
~ V I M O T V
45 Vladimir Favorsky, Cover design for Florensky's Mnimosti vgeometrii
[The Imaginaries ofGeometry], Moscow, 1922
Florensky appended his succinct and scientific 'Explanation of the Cover' to
his book Mnimosti vgeometrii [The Imaginaries of Geometry] (Moscow, 1922;
iIIus. 45), convinced it could extend the concept of 'imaginary numbers' to
the field of geometry.l As for the content of The Imaginaries of Geometry,
Florensky regarded it not as an independent unit, but as an organic part of a
theoretical tract that was to have been published under the auspices of
GlavELEKTRO, the chief Soviet administration for electricity. Drawing upon
the latest discoveries in physics and mathematics (illus. 46), especially in
topology and electromagnetic theory, Florensky once again confronted the
issue ofspace and spatiality and, as the subtitle indicates, sawthe real subject
of the book as 'An Extension of the Field of the Two-Dimensional Images of
Geometry (An Attempt at a New Interpretation of the Imaginaries)'. After a
rigorous scientific explanation, he reaches an unexpected philosophical
conclusion: from the viewpoint of the theory of general relativity, the
immobile earth within the rigid and solid universe can be assumed to be a
system of reference, the Ptolemaic system, central to the cosmology of
Dante's Divine Comedy. This is not as incongruous as it might seem because,
in the context of the ultraspeed of light, the Ptolemaic and Copernican
systems are of equal validity.2
Florensky invited the artist Vladimir Favorsky (illus. 47), his close friend
and fellow teacher in the Department of Polygraphy at VKhuTEMAS (illus.
48), to design the cover of the book. A unique achievement, the cover won not
only the high praise of the Department, but also a Silver Medal at the 'Exposi-
tion des Arts Decoratifs' in Paris in 1925, for which it was reproduced in the
catalogue) In other words, the cover was a strategic link in the collaboration
between Favorsky - artist, teacher, and theorist of composition - and Floren-
sky- historian, philosopher and mathematician.
As a sign of appreciation and as further witness to this creative dialogue,
Florensky included 'Explanation of the Cover' in the very book for which
Favorsky designed the cover. The philosopher comments on the artist's
imagery and 'explains' it as a summation of the kind of iconic, but highly
46 Vladimir Favorsky, Unpublished cover design for Florensky's Chislo kakforma
[Number as Form], 1923, woodcut. State Russian Museum, St Petersburg
47 Nina Simonovich-
Efimova, Vladimir
Favorsky, 1920,
silohuette, paper on
board. Efimov Archive,
48 Nina Simonovich-
Efimova, Pavel Florensky at his
Desk, 1926, silhouette, paper
on board. Efimov Archive,
abstract, structure that the Department of Polygraphy was promoting in
opposition to - or, rather, beyond - the more radical graphic designs of the
Constructivists and Productivists such as El Lissitzky and Aleksandr
The cover to the present book was engraved on wood by Vladimir Andreevich
Favorsky. It is characteristic of the artist that even here his engraving does not
simply decorate the book, but is an integral part of its spiritual makeup. There-
fore, this work by Favorsky is an art steeped in mathematical thought,4 and is,
perhaps, the first experiment of its kind in the art of engraving, which has
undergone such a revival in our era. Incidentally, here is an artistic trend that
promises a rich harvest in the culture of the future, with its general synthetic
bent. Out of gratitude to the artist for his sensitive collaboration, but also to
address the very essence of the cultural aspirations of our era, the author of
this book thought it might be useful to provide some explanation ofthe cover
in question, together with certain suggestions as to the possible meaning of
the proposed theory of the imaginaries as applied to art, set forth [in this
Let us review some of the phenomena of the psychology of vision.
If you look at a space through an aperture that is not too wide, while
standing to one side of it, especially if the wall with the aperture is not too
brightly lit, then the plane of the wall will also fall within your field of vision.
But the eye cannot adapt itself simultaneously both to the space seen through
the wall and to the plane of the aperture. Therefore, by concentrating on the
illuminated space, in relation to the actual aperture, the eye both sees and does
not see it at the same time. It saw it when it peered through it into the space
beyond, but once it had penetrated it the eye ceased to see it, yet the memory
of what it had seen could not leave the consciousness. A vague, almost tactile
impression of this wall ceaselessly conjures up in your consciousness what
you had seen earlier. Your consciousness is inevitably split between a direct
visual image and an indirect, passively indirect, visual image, conveyed by
something akin to the sense of touch. Under these conditions of perception
two elements, or two layers of elements, are available to the consciousness,
homogeneous in content but essentially heterogeneous in their position in the
consciousness, and in this sense uncoordinated and mutually exclusive.
The view through a pane of glass produces this same dichotomy even
more cogently. Together with the actual landscape, we also have available in
the consciousness the glass which we sawbefore the landscape, but which we
no longer see, even though it has been perceived by our tactile vision or even
simply by the sense oftouch, for example when we brush our forehead against
it. I--Ience the painterly and architectural problem of the modern-day, the
glazed window, as a sort of pseudo aperture and pseudo wall. In buildings that
have large glass coverings and even glass walls, this problem has become quite
\Vhen we examine a transparent body of considerable thickness, such as
an aquarium full of water, a solid glass cube (an inkwell), and so on, the
consciousness is split with an exceptional sense of unease between the
perceptions of both facets of the transparent body, which occupy different
positions in the consciousness, but are homogeneous in content (this last
circumstance being the cause of the unease). The body fluctuates in the
consciousness between a reading ofit as something, a body, and as nothing, visu-
ally nothing insofar as it is transparent.
This nothing to vision is something to
the touch; but this something is transformed by visual memory into some-
thing that seems visual. The transparent is apparitional.
The lambent green of groves in spring stirs unease in the heart, not only
because it appears ;in early spring', but also for a simple optical reason - its
transparency. By providing a stereoscopic spatial depth with the points of its
leaves, tiny though by no means ;viscous', this foliage suggests deep points in
space and, since it is thickly distributed, it does so with appreciable psycho-
logical forcefulness. As a result, the entire space is substantiated and acquires
the visual character of a glass-like thickness. Again: it both is and is not, truly-
the Platonic TO !iT] QV is presented visibly. Here is one more example that is
particularly vivid. I once happened to be standing in the Sergiev Posad Church
of the Nativity, almost directly facing the closed royal doors. Through their
carving the throne was clearly visible, while I could see the gates themselves
through a fretwork brass grille on the pulpit. Three layers of space, but each of
them could be clearly seen only by a special accommodation of vision, such
that the two others would then acquire a special place in the consciousness,
and in consequence would be considered half-existing by comparison with
the one clearly visible.
So, in the visible representation of the world it is essential to distinguish,
side by side with images that are actually visible, images that are abstractly-
visual, yet that are insurmountably present in perception through peripheral
vision, touch and other perceptions that are not available to pure visuality, yet
lead to it and allude to it. In other words, in visual perception there are both
visual and also apparent visual, images. It is not difficult to recognise in this
duality of visual perception the dualistic nature of a geometric plane'!
whereby the intrinsically visual images correspond to the real side of the
plane, and the abstractly visual images to the imaginary.8 For the two-sided-
ness of a geometric plane is also a symbol of the bi-differentiated positions
that visual images have in the consciousness, but only considered to the
utmost limit, when the thickness of the separated layers of space is infinitely
small, and the disunity of those and other images is great within limits. If we
see the front side of the plane, then we only know about its reverse side
But to know in the abstract about some visible image whose essence actu-
ally lies in its visibility means to perceive it by some other, non-visual method,
adapted to visuality through an abstract concept or a mnemonic image. Real-
ity, in this sense, is the embodiment of the abstract in the visible material
whence the abstract was obtained, whereas the imaginary is the embodiment
ofthat same abstract [concept], but in a visible, heterogeneous material. Real-
ity, if you like, is the adequacy of the abstract and the concrete (tautology),
while the imaginary is the symbolical (allegory). In this sense it is also neces-
sary to speak of concepts of sensations as imaginary sensations or sensations of the
imaginary. This is the imaginary taken to its limit. In fact, the only content of
sensation is its own sensory presence. Conceivable sensation, however, is not
simply nothing, but yet another sensation (because every concept is connected
with some sensory substratum which is the point of its application), perceived
as a heterogeneous concept. It is appropriate to recall Meinong's term Pseu-
doexistenz,9 without however alluding to its particular significance for
Meinong. These sensory elements and imaginary figures that have been in a
specific way established in the consciousness fully conform to the imaginary
geometric figures of a surface. Indeed, the presence of imaginary perceptions
in every concrete experience prompts the art historian to consider the imagi-
naly. Consequently, it behoves the theory of the fine arts to somehow say its
piece on the proposed interpretation of the imaginaries in geometry. Let us
nowturn to Favorsky's attempt to utilise the distinction between two kinds of
visual images, in order to express the theory ofimaginaries in artistic terms.
The first task facing the engraver was to preserve and confirm the
integrity of the fundamental plane, because without an intact plane it would
have been impossible, not only to depict images on its sides, but also to distin-
guish the sides themselves. This first task was realised by inscriptions that
restrained the fundamental plane of the depiction on the surface of the page,
as well as by designating the axial coordinate points by the letters x, 0, Yand a
vertical passing through X. The actual letters X, 0, Ywere weighty enough to
serve the same purpose. The stability of the main vertical was further rein-
forced by the raising up, compared to the author's first name, of his surname
located above the vertical.
The page as such is not of course white, but colourless. It is an abstract
potential for representations. It would be a mistake to see in this page a sheet
of paper, a substance which in itself is neither a plane nor anything else
geometric. The page must be understood as an infinitely thin representational
space, like a transparent film laid on top of the sheet. In itselfthis film is not yet
this or that side of the representational plane, but the entire plane, including
both its sides and its entire thickness, even if in reality it is infinitely thin. This
surface is created by the artist.
Now the artist must show visibly both sides of this film-like space and
their qualitative tonality. Since it is immediately visible, the front side of the
plane possesses the warmth of a sensory perception and projects forward, yet
in no way is it closer to the viewer than the basic plane of the inscriptions. [It
is] the large black-hatched rectangle [that] conveys the image of the front side
of a plane, of something warm, because of the blackness of the hatching
rendered horizontally. On the rectangle, projecting outwards, are shown a
half-ellipse and a small solid black rectangle, as purely real images - the
warmest and most prominent parts of the film-like space. The thin white
edging demonstrates their thickness and in the process makes them project
still further towards the viewer. All are strictly visual images. Contrasted to
them is the side of the drawing to the right of the vertical, engraved almost
entirely with white hatching. This is the imaginary side of the plane, the
reverse ofthe film-like space, and not just any random place on it, but that very
spot that lies beneath the hatched rectangle on the left portion. The principal
line on the imaginary side is the arc of the straightened-out hyperbola - the
imaginary appendage of the actual ellipse, which appendage must be imag-
ined to be tangential to the ellipse at its top.
To convey the chromatic value of this line, the engraver has squeezed it
within a series of horizontal white strokes - and on the abstract colourless-
ness of the film-like space there appears a cold white line. Such a colour in
contrast to the warm black of the front side of the plane represents the reverse.
The white colour of this reverse side is successfully shown at top right, where
the white lattice is placed.
One might ask why the reverse side is white. Of course, since it had to be
some residual trace ofthe sensorially perceived - ofthe black- it was essential
that it be white, as a complementary image or a residual trace. Moreover, visu-
ality, as a substratum of the real images, is expressed through the presence of
warm black. Consequently, the absence of visuality, i.e., some other perception
formulated as visual, is necessarily to be imagined as a negative - both visually,
by its form, and non-visually, by its content. The white hatching is called upon
to express this. It is like a hatch stroke, a black one, but without its blackness,
empty inside, at once a stroke and not a stroke. In this way this first part is
depicted, not as if it were drawn, but as if it were pressed out, in relief,
presented not to the sight as such, but to the touch. The impression of the
reverse which this right side represents is compounded by the letter 0, drawn in
mirror-image and also with white hatching, in its lower right corner. This is
not some new letter, but that same black-hatched 0 visible in the lower left
corner, only perceived through the plane. The interrelationship between the
right and the left 0 can be explained as follows: let us imagine that an 0 that
would stand out in relief on the other side of the sheet was written in pencil on
the paper. This letter would consequently be both visual and tactile. Further,
suppose this sheet is stationary. If someone was then invited to draw this
sheet, looking at it from in front and touching it from the back with his hand,
then the result would be a drawing similar to Favorsky's cover, and with the
same layout. For after gauging the width of the sheet from 0 to Xwith his eye,
the draftsman would continue his observations with his hand, and specifically
from the point where his eye refused to function, i.e., he would move his hand
from the point Xto O. Consequently, the points of the plane, gradually moving
away from the vertical which passes through X, would appear in the drawing
also to be moving away from the vertical, but this time not to the left but to the
right. The movement of the hand over the sheet would be recognised as an
extension of the movement of the eye. Therefore the point 0, being tactile,
would appear in the representation as furthest from the point 0, being visual.
The interrelationship of them both would be approximately in mirror-image-
approximately, because the measure of tactile space is not identical to the
measure of visual space.
The same should be said of the entire drawing, which on the right gives a
visual mirror transposition ofthe tactile structure ofthe reverse side ofthe plane.
In other words, one is obliged to think of the filmy space of the representation as
ifit were splintered into two sides, with a rotation from underneath the plane like
the page ofa book, at 180
near the vertical axis, passing through X.
And now begins the solution to the engraver's main difficulty - to show
clearly that both sides of the drawing, right and left, are not simply abutted to
each other, even if they are qualitatively different, one purely visual, the other
visually tactile, but that they actually constitute the two sides of a single plane.
It fell to the engraver to showvisibly that the right side of the drawing is only a
cognitive, and not a material splitting of the plane. This is achieved in the first
place because each of the two separated sides contains an indication of the
other - in the form of a small breach to the other side - and through these two
breaches the mutual connection between the sides is once more restored. The
breach through to the front side of the plane is produced in the place where it
projects out the furthest, where it is most convincingly real. This is achieved
visibly, through some sort of clairvoyant transference of the perceiving center
of consciousness over to the other side of the plane. Then we perceive there
this same negative-white colour of the reverse side, which has depicted on it in
relief the mirror symbol of the imaginary i, similar to the mirrored 0. From
that side this i would evidently be drawn right way round, but from here it is
perceived in mirror-image. From here this is a visual representation of the i
traced there, or from there the tactile trace in release of the i traced here.
Rendered by a white stroke, this i is clearly another character than the letters x,
0, Yon the front of the plane and, besides, it is whiter than the white reverse
side ofthe plane, i.e., it is even more abstract. This breach to the front is a view,
or a visually transposed relief, of the reverse side, that same side that is repre-
sented by the right half of the drawing. But this breach is not coordinated with
the front of the plane and is at once closer than the black rectangle and further
away from it. It is impossible to coordinate something homogeneous but
which occupies an opposite position in the consciousness.
Both sides of the plane are linked together on the right side of the drawing,
too, by a reversed breach from the imaginary to the reaL But the nature of the
breach here is no longer visual, but abstract, not an exact clairvoyance, but a
vague memory ofan abandoned visual space, surfacing in the first moments of
its entry into a tactile space. As just such a memory the section of the narrow
black-hatched ellipse is represented against the black-hatched background, but
one that is diagonally hatched. Such is the scrap of the real side, although it is
also on the border with the imaginary side. Though it is situated amidst an
imaginary space it is not coordinated with it. This scrap, combined with the
white-hatched filling-in of the ellipse on the white-hatched ground, conveys
the fluctuation of the geometric figure in its fall through the plane, when it has
not yet been defined, being both imaginary and real at the same time.
Let us return to the breach on the left side of the drawing. The sharp
contrast between the grounds, black and white, makes this i the visual centre
ofthe entire page, irresistibly focusing the gaze upon it, as a result ofwhich the
whole left side of the drawing is contemplated through direct vision and there-
fore stands on the page and in its plane with extreme stability. But then the
right side of the representation, especially its edge, is inevitably seen very
vaguely, with the peripheral vision that is extended by the breach on the left.
The entire right side, which is essentially abstract, by the way the wood is cut,
finally loses its concreteness and stability. The hazy plane of the right side of
the representation, separated from the plane of the page, sways as it rotates
around the main vertical, and comes up against the viewer, like a book
slammed in his face with its left cover stationary. This impression that the
right side is mobile is extraordinarily enhanced, in the first place by the three
levels of its plane (the lattice, above it, closer to the viewer, the horizontal
hatching, and higher still the second lattice inside a square), and secondly by
an apparently perspectival merging ofthe parallels ofboth grids with the hori-
zontal hatching beneath to the left, which again raises the idea that the entire
right section is leaning, as if the sheet of the cover were bent back along the
vertical and had begun to open all by itself. Thirdly, this same compositional,
and at the same time functional, idea is assisted by a certain broadening of the
whole right side of the engraving, as ifby dint of bringing its right edge closer
to the eye.
Finally, a few more words remain to be said about the inscriptions. We
began by pointing out that it is they that establish the actual plane of the repre-
sentation. But they could not have established the plane if they had been only
on its front side, for then the space of the page, excised from the front side, i.e.,
bounded from the front, would recede limitlessly into the page and there
could be no mention of the reverse side of the plane. Consequently, the
inscriptions ought to establish not only the front boundary of the plane, its
front side, but also the lower boundary, its reverse side, gathering into itselfthe
whole flat space, as if squeezing it between two sheets ofglass. It is the inscrip-
tions that must define the whole thickness ofthe plane. Favorsky achieves this
by assigning the letters or their elements to different sides of the plane, so that
MH, for example, is clearly located on the front side, as is also shown by the
horizontal hatching that unites the space of these letters to the left rectangle of
the composition. M, T and I in the word 'geometriia' (geometry) are related to
the reverse side, since they are drawn with white strokes, while l, T and I in the
word 'mnimosti' (imaginary) fluctuate, partly turned to the front, partly turned
inside out, as if they were sewing or quilting together the thickness of the plane.
The last letter of the word 'mnimosti' is especially expressive in conveying this
But the cover would not have entirely attained its prescribed purpose if
the inscriptions only served the purpose of graphics, while their actual graph-
ics were foreign to their meaning. Obviously, the graphic peculiarities of the
inscriptions should not only hold the plane, but also convey the sound space
of the voice's intonations and express the sound coordination of the words.
One example of how Favorsky approaches this goal is the placement of the
author's surname above his christian name, to convey a corresponding into-
national emphasis. Furthermore, in the word 'mnimosti' its first, stressed part is
emphasised, while the stressed part in 'v geometrii', which has an e1ucidatory
meaning and is pronounced in an undertone, falls in the cover on the imagi-
nary, the semi-visual part of the plane.
Such, in its basic outlines, is the interpretation of Favorsky's geometric
29 August (11 September) 1922
Reverse Perspective
As Florensky mentions in his first footnote, the essay on 'Reverse Perspective'
derives from a lecture that he had intended to give to the Commission for the
Preservation of Monuments and Antiquities of the Lavra in October 1919.1
However, invited by Pavel Muratov, director of MIKhIM, Florensky ended up
delivering the lecture in 1920 to its Byzantine Section where he was already
teaching the history of Byzantine art.
Florensky borrowed not only the title
and the concept of reverse perspective, but also two key examples, Raphael's
Vision oJEzekiel and Michelangelo's Last Judgment from Oskar Wulff's essay 'Die
umgekehrte Perspektive und die Niedersicht'.3
Essentially, Florensky's lecture was related to the study of icons within the
Russian Church and drew upon his practical experience as a member of the
Commission. Starting with the issue of reverse perspective in general, Floren-
sky developed his ideas on space and spatiality in the work ofart -which were
to become the main topic of his three years of classes at VKhUT'EMAS in
1921-24. That is why substantial parts of 'Reverse Perspective' are also to be
found in his treatise 'Analysis of Spatiality and Time in works of Visual Art'.4
As a matter of fact, Mlechnyi put' [Milky Way], the Moscowpublishing-house
of the journal Makovets, announced the forthcoming publication of Floren-
sky's VKhUTEMAS lectures on the analysis of perspective as a book - and as
being the most comprehensive treatise on space and art to date.
Florensky held 'Reverse Perspective' in high regard and, not surprisingly,
listed it as the primary essay on his cover design for the proposed first volume
of his magum opus, At the Watersheds oJThought, in 1922.
Sad to say, this proj-
ect was not implemented, Florensky was denied the publicity that he
deserved, and the fruits of his brilliant research remained out of reach so that
as late as 1971, for example, a contemporary Western study of reverse perspec-
tive still omitted reference to the essay.
'Reverse Perspective' appeared in
print in the Soviet Union only in 1967, and even then the official censure of
Florensky's religious and philosophical legacy was still so strong that the
publication did not enjoy wide circulation.
Full restitution and recognition of Florensky's lecture came with the
publication of Lev Zhegin's treatise, Yazyk zhivopisnogo proizvedeniia [The Language
of the Work of Painting] in 1970. A close colleague of Florensky within
Makovets, and much indebted to him, Zhegin developed his own ideas on
perspective and spatial representation in art, specifically within the context of
the Russian icon? Subsequent discussion of Zhegin's The Language of the Work
of Painting in Soviet intellectual circles also initiated a broader appreciation of
Florensky's own ideas and his name now came to be mentioned publicly both
by protagonists and antagonists, especially in the context of the essay on
Interestingly enough, the ideological arguments that were
advanced for and against Florensky in the 1920S and 1930S continue to recur in
Russian culturology, irrespective of the prevailing political regime, and can
still be found in contemporary Russian studies on perspective in Byzantine
and Western art, such as those of the mathematician Boris Raushenbakh.
Drawing a parallel between the concept of reverse perspective and that of
'perceptual perspective' (Byzantium and Medieval Russia), Raushenbakh
asserts that this category (in contrast to linear perspective) is 'freer' from the
inevitability of projective geometry, it is also more 'scientific', because it
expresses, albeit unconsciously, the artist's conception of non-Euclidean
space (especially as formulated by the celebrated mathematician, Nikolai
I Historical Observations
Those who become acquainted with Russian icons of the fourteenth, fifteenth
and part of the sixteenth centuries for the first time are usually astonished by
the unexpected perspectival relationships, especially in the depiction of
objects with flat sides and rectilinear edges, as for instance buildings, tables
and chairs, and especially books, specifically the Gospels which the Saviour
and the saints are usually shown holding. These particular relationships stand
in glaring contradiction to the rules of linear perspective, from whose view-
point they can only be considered examples of crudely illiterate drawing.
On a closer scrutiny of icons it is easy to note that bodies bounded by
curved surfaces are also rendered with foreshortenings that are ruled out by
the laws of perspectival representation. Whether the bodies depicted are
curvilinear or faceted, the icon often shows parts and surfaces which cannot
be seen simultaneously, as one can easily find out from any elementary
manual on perspective. So, given a viewpoint perpendicular to the facade of
the buildings depicted, both lateral facades are apt to be shown simultane-
ously. Three or even all four sides of the Gospel are shown at the same time. A
face is depicted with the crown of the head, the temples and the ears turned
forward and, as it were, spread out on the surface of the icon, while the planes
ofthe nose and other facial features, which should not have been depicted, are
turned towards the viewer, and, moreover, while planes that should have been
turned forward are turned backward. Also characteristic are the hunched
backs of the stooping figures in the Deesis row, the back and chest of Saint
prochoros shown simultaneously, as he writes under the direction of Apostle
John the Theologian, and other analogous instances where the surfaces of a
profile and a face view, the back and frontal planes, are combined, and so on.
In regard to these supplementary planes, lines that are parallel and do not lie
on the plane of the icon, or lines that are parallel to it which should be shown
converging on the horizon, are instead shown in an icon diverging from each
other. In a word, these and similar infringements of the perspectival unity of
what is represented on the icon are so evident and explicit that even the most
mediocre pupil with just a cursory, third-hand experience of perspective will
immediately point them out.
But it is a strange thing that these 'illiteracies' ofdrawing, which apparently
ought to throw any viewer who understands the 'obvious absurdity' of such a
depiction into a rage, on the contrary arouse no such feelings ofannoyance and
are perceived as something fitting, even pleasing. Nor is that all: when the
viewer has the chance to put two or three icons from about the same period
and painted with approximately equal skill side by side, he perceives an enor-
mous artistic superiority in that icon which demonstrates the greatest viola-
tion of the rules of perspective, whereas the icons which have been drawn
more 'correctly' seem cold, lifeless and lacking the slightest connection with
the reality depicted on it. It always transpires that the icons that are the most
creative in terms of immediate artistic perception are perspectivally 'defective',
whereas icons that better satisfy the perspective textbook are boring and soul-
less. If you allow yourself simply to forget the formal demands of perspectival
rendering for a while, then direct artistic feeling will lead everyone to admit the
superiorITy of icons that transgress the laws of perspective.
It may be suggested here that it is not actually the means of depiction as
such that are found pleasing, but the naivety and primitive quality of the art,
which is still childishly carefree in regard to artistic literacy. There are even
connoisseurs inclined to proclaim that icons are charming childish babbling.
But no: the fact that icons which violate the laws of perspective are actually the
work of first rank artists, whereas a less extreme transgression of these same
laws is primarily characteristic of second- and third-rate artists, prompts one
to consider whether the opinion that icons are naive is not itself naive. On the
other hand, these transgressions against the laws of perspective are so persist-
ent and frequent, so systematic I would say, and so insistently systematic
moreover, that the thought involuntarily arises that these transgressions are
not fortuitous, that there is a special system for the representation and percep-
tion of reality as it is represented in icons.
No sooner has this thought arisen than the firm conviction is born and
gradually strengthens in the minds of observers of icons that these transgres-
sions of the rules of perspective constitute the application of a conscious
method of icon painting, and that for better or worse they are entirely premed-
itated and conscious.
This impression that the aforementioned transgressions of perspective
are conscious is immeasurably strengthened by the emphasis placed on the
particular foreshortenings under discussion - to which particular coloured
glazes (rastsvetki) or, as the iconpainters say, raskryshki,12 are applied. In this case
the peculiarities ofdrawing, far from slipping past the consciousness through
the application of neutral colours in corresponding places, or of colours
muted by the overall colour scheme, on the contrary issue a challenge as it
were, almost shouting against the general painted ground. So, for instance, the
additional planes of the buildings, far from hiding in the shade, are on the
contrary often painted in bright colours that, moreover, are quite different
from the planes of the facades. The most insistent in declaring itself on such
occasions is the Gospel- (illus. 49) the object which, even without this, pushes
itself closest to the foreground by various devices and attempts to be the
painterly center of the icon. The Gospel's edge, usually painted cinnabar, is the
brightest spot on the icon and thereby
emphasises its additional planes with
exceptional sharpness.
Such are the methods used for
emphasis. These methods are all the more
conscious in that they are, as it were, at
odds with the usual colouring of objects
and, consequently, cannot be explained as
the naturalistic imitation of things as they
normally are. The Gospel did not usually
have a cinnabar edge, while the side walls
of a building were not painted in colours
different from the front, so that it is
impossible not to see in the diversity of
their colouration on icons an aspiration
to emphasise the fact that these planes are
supplementary and that they do not
submit to the foreshortenings of linear
perspective as such.
49 Anon., St Nicholas the Miracle Worker, 1425-7,
tempera on board. Deesis ofthe Iconostasis ofthe
Trinity Church, Lavra ofSergiev Posad
The methods mentioned above are generally termed reverse or reversed perspective,
or sometimes also distorted or false perspective. But reverse perspective does not
exhaust the varied peculiarities ofan icon's drawing and also of its chiaroscuro.
The closest dissemination of the methods of reverse perspective to be noted is
the use ofpolycentredness in representations: the composition is constructed as if
the eye were looking at different parts of it, while changing its position. So, for
example, some parts of buildings are drawn more or less in line with the
demands of ordinary linear perspective, but each one from its own particular
point of view, with its own particular perspectival centre; and sometimes also
with its own particular horizon, while the other parts are, in addition, shown
using reverse perspective. This complex elaboration of perspectival foreshort-
enings occurs not only in the depiction ofbuildings (palatnoe pis'mo), but also in
countenances, although it is usually applied without any great insistence, with
restraint and moderation, and can therefore be passed off as 'mistakes' in draw-
ing. And yet in other cases all the school room rules are overturned with such
daring, their violation is so masterfully emphasised, and the resulting icon
conveys so much about itself and its artistic achievements to a spontaneous
artistic taste, that there can no longer be any doubt: the 'incorrect' and mutually
contradictory details of drawing represent a complex artistic calculation
which, if you wish, you may call daring, but by no means naive. What will we
say, for instance, of the icon of Christ Pantocrator in the Lavra sacristy (illus.
50)/3 in which, although the head is turned slightly to the right, the right side
has an additional plane, and the foreshortened left side of the nose is smaller
than the right, and so on? The plane of the nose is so obviously turned to one
side, and the surface of the crown and temples so opened out, that it would be
easy to reject such an icon, if it were not for its astonishing expressiveness and
completeness, in spite of its 'irregularities'. We become fully and definitively
aware of this impression if we examine another icon of this appellation in this
same sacristy,14 similar in design, transcription, dimensions and colours, but
painted much more correctly and pedantically, almost without the deviations
from the rules of perspective noted above. Compared to the first, this second
icon proves to have no content, to be expressionless, flat and lifeless, so that
there can be no doubt that, for all their striking general similarity, the trans-
gressions against perspectival rules are not a permissible weakness on the icon
painter's part, but are his positive strength. They are precisely what makes the
first of the icons examined immeasurably superior to the second, the incorrect
superior to the correct.
50 Christ Pantocrator, 16th century, tempera on board. State Museumofthe Lavra of
Sergiev Posad
Further, if we turn to chiaroscuro, here we also find in icons a distinctive
distribution of shadows that emphasises and singles out the icon's lack of
correspondence to a representation demanded by naturalistic painting. The
absence ofa definite focus oflight, the contradictory illuminations in different
parts of the icon, the tendency to project forward masses that should be in
shadow - these factors are once again not accidental, not the blunders of a
primitive painter, but artistic calculations which convey a maximum of artis-
tic expressivity.
To the number of similar methods used in icon painting must also be
added the lines of the so-called razdelki, which are painted in a colour different
from that used to paint the corresponding place on the icon (raskryshka), most
often using metallic paints - a gold or very rarely a silver assist, or slaked gold.
By thus emphasising the colour of the lines of the razdelka, we wish to say that
the icon painter pays conscious attention to it, although it does not corre-
spond to anything physically seen, to any kind ofanalogous system oflines on
clothing or a seat, for instance, but is only a system of potential lines, a given
object's structural lines, similar, for instance, to the lines of force ofan electric
or magnetic field, or to systems of equipotential, isothermic or other such
curves. The lines of the razdelka express a metaphysical schema of the given
object, its dynamic, with greater force than its visible lines are capable of,
although they are themselves quite invisible. Once outlined on the icon they
represent in the icon painter's conception the sum total of the tasks presented
to the contemplating eye, the lines that direct the movements of the eye as it
contemplates the icon. These lines are a schema for reconstructing the
perceived object in the consciousness, and if one were to look for the physical
bases of these lines, they would be force lines, tension lines, in other words,
not folds formed under tension, not folds, but potential folds, in potential
only - those lines along which folds would lie, if they were to begin to fall into
folds at all. The lines of the razdelka that are outlined on the additional plane
reveal to the consciousness the structural character of these planes. Conse-
quently, without limiting one to a passive contemplation of these planes, they
help one to understand the functional relationship of such lines to the whole.
This means that they provide the means for noticing with special acuteness
that such foreshortenings are not subject to the demands oflinear perspective.
We will not discuss other, secondary methods used in icon painting to
emphasise its immunity from the laws of linear perspective and its conscious-
ness of its perspectival transgressions. We will mention only the contour that
outlines the design and thereby emphasises to an extreme degree its peculiar-
ities, the ozhivki, the dvizhki and otmetiny, and the probely, too, that reveal areas in
relief and thus accentuate all the irregularities that should not have been visi-
ble, etc.
I have said enough, one may suppose, to remind all who look closely at
icons, and who already possess a store of impressions, that these deviations
from the rules of perspective are not fortuitous and, moreover, that such
violations are aesthetically fruitful.
And now, after this reminder, we are confronted by the question ofwhat these
transgressions mean and whether they are legitimate; in other words we are
confronted by the related question of the meaning of perspective and the
limits of its application. Does perspective in actual fact express the nature of
things, as its supporters maintain, and should it therefore be always and every-
where viewed as the unconditional prerequisite for artistic veracity? Or is it
rather just a schema, and moreover one of several possible representational
schemas, corresponding not to a perception of the world as a whole, but only
to one of the possible interpretations ofthe world, connected to a specific feel-
ing for, and understanding of, life? Or yet again, is perspective, the perspecti-
val image of the world, the perspectival interpretation of the world, a natural
image that flows from its essence, a true word ofthe world, or is it just a partic-
ular orthography, one of many constructions that is characteristic of those
who created it, relative to the century and the life-concept of those who
invented it, and expressive of their own style - but by no means excluding
other orthographies, other systems of transcriptions, corresponding to the
life-concept and style of other centuries? Transcriptions, furthermore, that
are perhaps more connected to the essence of things by the vital truth of the
experience they expound - in any case, such that a violation of this perspecti-
val transcription interferes with the artistic truth ofimages to the same incon-
sequential degree that grammatical mistakes do in the letter of a holy man.
To answer our question, let us provide first of all some historical refer-
ences; let us prove historically to what extent representation and perspective
are in fact inseparable from each other.
Babylonian and Egyptian low reliefs show no evidence of perspective or,
incidentally, show what would be called reverse perspective. However, it is
well known that the polycentrism of Egyptian representations is exceptionally
great and is canonical in Egyptian art. Everyone remembers Egyptian reliefs
and wall paintings where the face and feet are in profile, with the shoulders
and chest turned front ally. But in any event they contain no linear perspec-
However, the astonishing veracity of Egyptian portrait and genre sculp-
ture demonstrates the Egyptian artists' enormous powers of observation, and
if the laws of perspective do actually form part of the truth of the world, as its
proponents claim, then it would be completely incomprehensible why the
refined eye of the Egyptian master did not notice perspective. On the other
hand, the celebrated mathematical historian Moritz Cantor points out that the
Egyptians already possessed the basic geometric understanding necessary for
perspectival representations. Specifically, they knew about geometric propor-
tionality, and furthermore had advanced so far in this respect that they were
able, where necessary, to apply a variable scale of magnitudes. 'One can
scarcely fail to be amazed that the Egyptians did not take the next step and
discover perspective. As is known, in Egyptian painting there is not a trace of
it, and although religious or other reasons can be adduced for this, the
geometric fact remains that the Egyptians did not make use of this method of
conceiving of a painted screen as if it were placed between the observing eye
and the object depicted, and of using lines to connect the intersecting points
of this plane with the rays directed towards this object.'16
Cantor's passing remark about the religious bases for the lack of perspec-
tive in Egyptian depictions deserves our attention. In fact, Egyptian art, with a
past that spans millennia, became strictly canonical and set in immutable
theoretical formulae, not too far removed in their internal meaning, perhaps,
from hieroglyphic inscriptions, just as the inscriptions were in turn not too far
removed from metaphysical representational meaning. Of course, Egyptian
art had no need of innovations and gradually became increasingly self
absorbed. Even if they had been noticed, perspectival relationships could not
have been permitted within the self-contained circle of canons that consti-
tuted Egyptian art. The absence oflinear perspective among the Egyptians, as
also in a different sense among the Chinese, demonstrates the maturity of
their art, and even its senile overripeness, rather than its infantile lack of expe-
rience. It demonstrates the liberation from perspective, or a refusal from the
very beginning to acknowledge its power - a power which, as we will see, is
characteristic of subjectivism and illusionism - for the sake ofreligious objectivity
and suprapersonal metaphysics. Conversely, when the religious stability of a
Weltanschauung disintegrates and the sacred metaphysics of the general
popular consciousness is eroded by the individual judgement of a single
person with his single point of view, and moreover with a single point of view
precisely at this specific moment - then there also appears a perspective,
which is characteristic of a fragmented consciousness. But besides, this
initially happens not in pure art, which is essentially always more or less meta-
physical, but in applied art, as an element of decoration, which has as its task
not the true essence ofbeing, but verisimilitude to appearance.
It is noteworthy that Vitruvius attributes the invention of perspective to
Anaxagoras, the same Anaxagoras who tried to turn the living divinities, the
Sun and Moon, into burning hot stones, and to substitute for the divine
creation of the world a central whirlwind in which the heavenly bodies
emerged; and that he locates its invention specifically in what the Ancients
called scenography, Le., theatre decoration. According to Vitruvius,17 when
Aeschylus staged his tragedies in Athens around 470 BC, and the famous
Agatharcos provided him with sets and wrote a treatise about them, the
Commentarius, it was this that prompted Anaxagoras and Democritus to
explain the same subject - the painting of stage sets - scientifically. The ques-
tion which they posed was how lines might be traced on a plane such that,
given a centre in a definite place, the visual rays conducted towards them
corresponded to the rays conducted from the eye [ofsomeone standing] in the
same place to the corresponding points of an actual building - so that the
image of the original object on the retina, to put it in modern terms, would
coincide completely with the same image representing this object on the
And so, it was not in pure art that perspective arose. According to its very first
task, far from expressing a vital artistic perception of reality, it came out of the
applied art sphere, or more precisely the field of technical theatre, which
enlisted painting in its service and subordinated it to its own purposes.
\Vhether these purposes correspond to the purposes of pure art is a question
that need not be answered. For the task of painting is not to duplicate reality,
but to give the most profound penetration ofits architectonics, ofits material,
of its meaning. And the penetration of this meaning, of this stuff of reality, its
architectonics, is offered to the artist's contemplative eye in living contact with
reality, by growing accustomed to and empathising with reality, whereas
theatre decoration wants as much as possible to replace reality with its
outward appearance. The aesthetics of this outward appearance lie in the
inner connectedness ofits elements, but in no way is it the symbolic signifying
of the prototype via the image, realised by means of artistic technique. Stage
design is a deception, albeit a seductive one; while pure painting is, or at least
wants to be, above all true to life, not a substitute for life but merely the
symbolic signifier of its deepest reality. Stage design is a screen that thickens
the light ofexistence, while pure painting is a window opened wide on reality.
For the rationalising mind of Anaxagoras or Democritus representational art
as a symbol ofreality could not exist and there was no demand for it. Which is
what the 'Wanderers'19 thought, too, - if I may make an historical category out
of this minor phenomenon of Russian life - for they demanded not the truth
to life that provides penetration, but an external likeness, pragmatically useful
for the most immediate functions of life; not life's creative foundations, but
the imitation oflife's surface. Before that, the Greek stage was simply sketched
out by 'pictures and fabrics;'20 now people felt the need of illusion. And so,
presupposing that the spectator or the stage deSigner was chained fast, like the
prisoner of Plato's cave, to a theatre bench and neither could nor should have
a direct vital relationship to reality, these first theoreticians of perspective
provided rules for a deception that ensnared the theatre spectator as ifhe were
separated from the stage by a glass barrier and there were just one immobile
eye, observing without penetrating the very essence of life and, most impor-
tant, with his will paralysed, for the very essence of a theatre that has become
mundane demands a will-less looking at the stage, as at some 'untruth', some-
thing 'not really there: some empty deception. Anaxagoras and Democritus
replace the living man with a spectator, paralysed by curare, and so they
thereby make clear the rules for deceiving this spectator. Now there is no need
for us to contend that, in order to create a visual illusion for this ailing specta-
tor, almost totally deprived of the general human feeling common to all men,
these methods for the perspectival truly have their own meaning.
Consequently, we should take it as given that, at least in fifth-century BC
Greece, perspective ~ known, and if on this or that occasion it was still not
applied, then obviously this was not at all because its principles were
unknown, but because of some other, more profound convictions, arising
from the loftier demands ofpure art. And it would be highly unlikely and incon-
sistent with the state of the mathematical sciences and the advanced geomet-
ric powers of observation which the Ancients' refined eyes possessed, to
suggest that they did not notice the perspectival image of the world that is
supposedly an intrinsic part of normal vision, or were unable to deduce the
corresponding simple applications from the elementary theorems of geome-
try. It would be very difficult to doubt that, when they did not apply the rules
of perspective, it was because they simply did not want to apply them, consid-
ering them superfluous and anti-artistic.
Indeed, in his Geography,21 written around the second century AD, Ptolomeus
examines the cartographic theory of the projection of a sphere on a plane. In
his Planisphere he discusses various ways of making projections, primarily the
projection from a pole to the equatorial plane, the projection which in 1613
Aquilonius dubbed stereographic, and also solves other difficult projective
problemsP Can it possibly be imagined that, given such a state of knowledge,
the simple methods of linear perspective were unknown? And indeed, wher-
ever we are dealing not with pure art but with theatrical illusions, applied
deceptively to enlarge the space ofthe stage or to break up the flat surface ofan
interior wall, we are invariably confronted with the use oflinear perspective as
a response to the task in hand.
In particular this is observed in those instances when life, distancing
itself from its deep-seated sources, flows through the shallowwaters of frivo-
lous Epicureanism, in the atmosphere of bourgeois frivolity that surrounded
the Greek manikins - the graeculori as the contemporary Romans called them,
diminished men lacking the noumenal depth of the Greek genius who failed
to attain the majestic scale of the Roman people's moral and political thought
with its universal scope. What I have in mind here are the elegantly vapid
decorations in the houses of Pompeii, the architectural wall decorations of
Pompeiian villas (illus. 51),23 Transplanted to Rome primarily from Alexan-
dria and other centres of Hellenistic culture in the first and second centuries,
this barocco of the ancient world was preoccupied with purely illusionistic
tasks and strove specifically to deceive the viewer, who as a consequence was
assumed to be more or less immobile. This sort of architectural and land-
scape decoration is perhaps clumsy, in the sense that it cannot be realised in
but it nevertheless wishes to deceive, as if playing with and teas-
ing the viewer. Other details are rendered with such naturalism that the
viewer can only convince himself of the optical illusion by touch. This
impression is aided by the masterly use of chiaroscuro, applied so as to coin-
cide with whatever light source illuminates the room, whether a window, a
hole in the ceiling, a door.
The notable fact that even from this illusionistic
landscape there once again extend the threads connecting it to the architec-
ture of the Graeco-Roman stage merits the closest attention.
Perspective is
rooted in the theatre not simply because historically and technically perspec-
tive was first used in the theatre, but also by virtue ofa deeper motivation: the
theatricality of a perspectival depiction of the world. For in this consists that
facile experience of the world, devoid of a feeling for reality and a sense of
51 Architectural
wall decoration in
the Tricliniumof
the House ofVettii
at Pompeii, IV Style,
responsibility, that sees life as just a spectacle, and in no sense a challenge.
And that is why, if we return to Pompeii, it is hard to discover in these deco-
rations authentic works of pure art. Indeed, the technical glibness of these
house decorations still cannot make art historians forget that what we are
looking at is 'just the work of virtuoso craftsmen, not of true inspired
artists'Y It is exactly the same with the landscape backgrounds in genre
paintings, which are painted 'always very approximately', quickly and skil-
fully sketched out. 'Whether the backgrounds in the famous paintings of the
masters were painted in this way remains open to question.'28 These artifacts
'suffer from the artist's approximate way of solving perspectival goals, goals
that he confronts as if in an exclusively empirical way,' writes Benois. Never-
theless, the question is an important one. 'Do these traits mean that the laws
of perspective really were unknown to the Ancients? Do we not see at the
present time this same forgetting of perspective as a science? The time is fast
approaching when we too will reach "Byzantine" absurdities in this area and
will leave behind us the lack of skill and the approximations of late classical
painting. Will it be possible on these grounds to deny that the preceding
generation of artists knew the laws of perspective?'2
Indeed, in this semi-accuracy of perspectival accomplishments one can
make out the embryonic disintegration of perspective, which soon begins in
the Eastern and Western Middle Ages. But it occurs to me that these inaccu-
racies in perspective are a compromise between essentially decorative goals-
illusionistic painting - and synthetic goals - pure painting. For it must not be
forgotten that a residence. no matter how fi-ivolous its interiors, is still not a
theatre, and that the inhabitant of a house is by no means as chained to his
place and as confined in his life as is the spectator at the theatre. If the wall
painting in some House of the Vettii complied with the rules of perspective
accurately, it could claim successfully to be a deception or a playful joke only
if the spectator did not move and. moreover, stood in a strictly defined place
in the room. Conversely, any movement on his part or even more, a change in
his position would produce the repulsive feeling of an unsuccessful decep-
tion or an unmasked stunt. It is specifically to avoid crude violations of the
illusion that the decorator refuses to apply it with uncompromising obtru-
siveness to each separate viewpoint and therefore provides a certain
synthetic perspective. something approximate. for each separate point of
view, a solution to the problem, yet one that expands out into the space of the
entire room. Figuratively speaking, he resorts to the tempered order of a
keyboard instrument that is sufficient within the limits of accuracy required.
To put it another way. he partially rejects the art of simulacra and embarks. if
only to an extremely small degree. on the path of a synthetic representation
of the world. Le.. from being a decorator he becomes something of an artist.
But, I repeat, the artist in him is recognisable not because he clings. and even
clings in great measure, to the laws of perspective, but because and to the
extent that he deviates from them.
Beginning in the fourth century AD illusionism breaks down and perspectival
space in painting disappears. Rejection of the rules of perspective becomes
evident, and proportional relationships between individual objects, and
sometimes even between their separate parts, are ignored. This break-down of
the perspectival essence oflate classical painting (which is essentially perspec-
tival) proceeds with extraordinary speed, and then with each century grows
deeper, right up until the early Renaissance. Mediaeval artists
have no conception of making lines converge towards a single
point, or of the significance of the horizon. It is as iflate Roman
and Byzantine artists had never seen buildings in nature, but
were acquainted only with flat, toy-like cut-outs. They were
equally unconcerned with proportions and, with the passage of
time, became even less so. No relationship existed between the
height of the figures and the buildings intended for them. To this
must also be added the fact that, with the centuries, a growing
retreat from reality is noticeable even in details. Some few paral-
lels between real architecture and painted architecture can still be
discerned in works of the sixth, seventh and even the tenth and
eleventh centuries, but beyond that date that strange type of
'building painting' [palatnaia zhivopis] where all is arbitrariness
and convention asserts itself in Byzantine art.
This characterisation of medieval painting was taken from Alexandre
Benois' History ofPainting, but only because I happened to have it to hand. It is
not hard to catch the devaluation of medieval art in Benois' complaints, espe-
cially as regards its 'blindness' to perspective, that we have long since grown
tired of. This view can be found in any book on the theory ofart, with its usual
references to the depiction of houses 'with three facades' in mediaeval art, as
children draw them, to the conventionality of its colours, its parallel lines
diverging towards the horizon, its lack of proportion, and in general to every
perspectival and other spatial ignorance. To complete this characterisation of
the Middle Ages we should add that, from this viewpoint, matters were no
better in the West, and were even significantly worse: 'Ifwe compare what was
being created in the tenth century in Western Europe with what was taking
place at the same time in Byzantium, the latter will seem the pinnacle of artis-
tic refinement and technical magnificence.'3
It goes without saying that this
way of understanding Byzantium can be reduced to the following resume:
'The history of Byzantine painting, for all of its fluctuations and temporary
upsurges, is a history ofdecline, ofregression to a state ofsavagery and numb-
ness. The models of the Byzantines grow further and further removed from
life, their technique becomes more and more slavishly traditional and crafts-
manlike.'32 It matters little whether this summing up is done by Benois or by a
host of others. We're already thoroughly sick of its countless repetitions,
which go hand in hand with even more wearisome shouts from the cultural
historians about the 'gloom' of the Middle Ages.
It is well known that, beginning with the Renaissance era and almost up
until our own day, the schema of art history and of cultural history in general
has remained invariably the same and, what's more, exceptionally simplistic.
It is rooted in an unwavering belief that the bourgeois civilisation of the latter
half of the nineteenth century (an orientation that is Kantian though not
directly derived from Kant) has unconditional value and represents ultimate
perfectibility, and could, so to speak, be canonised in a way that verges almost
on the metaphysical. In truth, ifit is possible to speak of the ideological super-
structures on the economic forms of life it is surely here, with the cultural
historians of the nineteenth century, who blindly believed in the petit bour-
geoisie as an absolute value and reevaluated universal history according to
how closely its phenomena paralleled those of the latter half of the nineteenth
century. So it was in the history ofart: everything that resembled the art of this
period, or that moved towards it, was acknowledged as positive, while all the
rest was decadence, ignorance, savagery. In the light of such an appraisal, the
delighted praise frequently bestowed by respected historians becomes under-
standable: 'utterly contemporary', 'they couldn't have done better even in such
and such a time', said with reference to some year close to the historian's own
time. Indeed, having come to believe in contemporaneity, for them complete
faith in their contemporaries was inevitable, much as provincials in matters of
science are convinced that this or that book is 'recognised' as the ultimate
scientific truth (as if there were some ecumenical council for formulating
dogmas in science.) And one can then understand why ancient art, in its tran-
sition from the holy archaics via the beautiful to the sensual and, finally, to the
illusionistic, appears to such historians to be developing. The Middle Ages,
which made a decisive break with the goals ofillusionism and took on the task
of creating, not simulacra, but symbols of reality, seems a decline. And finally,
even here the art of the New Age, that began with the Renaissance and
straightway decided, by a silent wink and by some current of mutual agree-
ment, to substitute the construction of simulacra for the creation of symbols,
this art, having led by a broad avenue to the nineteenth century, seems to
historians indisputably moving towards perfection. 'How could it possibly be
bad if, by an immutable inner logic, it led to us, to me?' - this is the true think-
ing of our historians, if they were to express it without coyness.
And they are profoundly right in recognising a direct, transcendental link
between the premises of the Renaissance age and the life-understanding of the
most recent past, a link, moreover, that is not only externally historical, but
also internally logical. In precisely the same way they are most profoundly
right in their feeling that mediaeval premises are completely irreconcilable
with the Weltanschauung I have just described. If one sums up every charge that
is leveled against mediaeval art on formal grounds, it amounts to the criticism:
'There's no understanding of space,' and this criticism, if openly expressed,
signifies that there is no spatial unity, no Euclidean-Kantian schema of space
leading, within the limits of painting, to linear perspective and proportional-
ity, or more precisely, to a single perspective, for proportionality is merely a
corollary of it.
On this basis it is suggested (and what's most dangerous is suggested
unconsciously) as quite self-evident or absolutely proven somewhere or by
someone, that no forms exist in nature, in the sense of each form living in its
own little world, for in general no reality exists that has a centre within itself
and is therefore subject to its own laws. Therefore, it is suggested, everything
visible and perceptible is only simple material for filling in some general regu-
latory schema imposed on it from without, a function fulfilled by Euclidean-
Kantian space. Consequently, all forms in nature are essentially only apparent
forms, imposed on an impersonal and indifferent material by a schema of
scientific thought, Le., they are essentially like squares on the graph paper of
life, nothing more. And finally, what is logically the first premise posits a space
that is qualitatively homogeneous, infinite and boundless, a space that is, so to
speak, formless and devoid of individuality. It is not hard to see that these
premises reject both nature and man in one fell swoop, although by an irony
ofhistory they are grounded in the slogans called 'naturalism' and 'humanism'
and crowned by the formal proclamation of'the rights of man and nature'.
This is not the place to establish or even to clarify the connection between
the sweet Renaissance roots and their bitter Kantian fruits. It is fairly well
known that Kantianism, by virtue of its pathos, is actually a more profound
form of the Renaissance's humanist and naturalistic life-understanding, and
in its grasp and profundity represents the self-awareness of that historical
background that calls itself 'the new European enlightenment', and that with
some justification still quite recently preened itself on its virtual supremacy.
But in recent years we are already beginning to understand the imaginary
completeness of this enlightenment and we have discovered that, in science
and philosophy, as well as in history and especially in art, all those mock
horrors with which they scared us away from the Middle Ages were invented
by the historians themselves. In the Middle Ages there flows a deep and
substantive river of genuine culture with its own science, its own art, its own
system of governance, in general with everything pertaining to culture, but
specifically its own kind, and one that, moreover, comes close to the genuine
spirit of antiquity. And the premises that are considered indisputable in the
life-understanding of the New Age, now, as in ancient times (yes, even as in
ancient times!) are not only disputable, but are even rejected, not because ofan
insufficient awareness, but essentially by an effort of will. The pathos of
modern man is to shake off all realities, so that 'I want' establishes the lawof a
newly constructed reality, phantasmagoric even though it is enclosed within
ruled-out squares. Conversely, the pathos of ancient man, and of mediaeval
man too, is the acceptance, the grateful acknowledgment, and the affirmation
of all kinds of reality as a blessing, for being is blessing, and blessing is being.
The pathos of medieval man is an affirmation of reality both in himself and
outside himself, and is therefore objectivity. Illusionism is characteristic of the
subjectivism of modern man, whereas nothing could be further from the
intentions and thoughts of medieval man, with his roots in antiquity, than the
creation of simulacra and a life spent among simulacra. For modern man -
let's take his frank acknowledgment as expressed by the Marburg schooJ33 -
reality exists only when and to the extent that science deigns to allow it to
exist, giving its permission in the form of a fictitious schema. This schema is
bound to advance special pleading to prove the totally admissible right of this
or that phenomenon to existence according to an established graph oflife. As
for a patent on reality, it can be ratified only in the office of H. Cohen, and
without his signature and seal it is invalid.
That which the Marburgians express openly constitutes the wirit of
Renaissance thought, and the whole history of the enlightenment [spirit] is to
a significant degree preoccupied with a struggle against life, its goal being to
completely stifle it with a system of schemas. But it is worthy of note and of
the most profound inner laughter that modern man forcibly palms off this
distortion, this corruption of a natural human way of thinking and feeling,
this re-education in the spirit of nihilism, as a return to naturalness and as the
removal of some kind of fetters, supposedly imposed on him by someone or
other, whereas in actual fact, in trying to scrape the characters of history off
man's soul, he pierces the soul itself.
Ancient and medieval man, on the contrary, knows above all that, in order
to want one must be, be in reality and moreover among realities in which one
must be grounded. He is profoundly realistic and stands firmly on the earth,
unlike modern man who considers only his own desires and, of necessity, the
most immediate means of realising and satisfying them. Hence it is under-
standable that the prerequisites for a realistic viewoflife are and always will be
as follows: there are realities, i.e., there are centres of being, something in the
nature of concentrates of more intense being, that submit to their own laws,
and each of which therefore has its own form. Therefore, nothing that exists
can be seen as indifferent and passive material for fulfilling whatsoever kind of
schemas, still less taking into account the schema of Euclidean-Kantian space.
And so forms should be apprehended according to their own life, they should
be represented through themselves, according to the way they have been
apprehended, and not in the foreshortenings of a perspective laid out before-
hand. And, finally, space itself is not merely a uniform structureless place, not
a simple graph, but is in itself a distinctive reality, organised throughout,
everywhere differentiated, possessing an inner sense of order and structure.
And so: the presence or absence of perspective in the painting of an entire
historical period can in no sense be considered equivalent to the presence or
absence ofartistic skill, but rather lies far deeper, in the decisions made by a radi-
cal will possessing the creative impulse towards one or the other side. Our
thesis, to which we will frequently return, maintains that, in those historical
periods of artistic creativity when the utilisation of perspective is not apparent,
it is not that visual artists 'don't know how' to use it, but that they 'don't want to'.
More accurately, they want to make use of a representational principle other
than perspective, and they want this because the genius of the age understands
and feels the world by a means that also includes, immanent within itself, this
method of representation. Conversely, during other periods people absolutely
forget the meaning and significance ofnon-perspectival representation and lose
their feeling for it, because the life-understanding of the age, having become
utterly different, leads to a perspectival picture of the world. In both instances
there is an internal consistency, a compulsory logic that is essentially very
elementary, and if it does not come to full strength with exceptional speed, it is
not because this logic is complex, but because the spirit of the age fluctuates
ambiguously between two mutually exclusive self-definitions.
For in the final analysis there are only two experiences of the world - a
human experience in a large sense and a scientific, i.e., 'Kantian' experience,
just as there are only two attitudes towards life - the internal and the external,
and as there are two types of culture - one contemplative and creative, the
other predatory and mechanical. All of which amounts to a choice between
one or the other path - between mediaeval night or the enlightened day of
culture; and thenceforth everything proceeds as it has been written, according
to a total sequentiality. But as they alternate in history, these polarities can in
no sense be immediately distinguished from each other, because ofthe fluctu-
ating condition of the spirit itself in the corresponding ages, having already
grown tired of the one while not yet taking hold of the other.
Without dealing for the present with what the violation of perspective
means - we will return to an assessment of this question later with greater
psychological cogency-let us mention with regard to mediaeval painting that
the violation of perspective by no means emerges at different periods, now
this way, now that, but is subject to a defInite system. Receding parallel lines
always diverge towards the horizon, and the more obviously they do so the
more clearly the object they outline must be singled out. If we see in the pecu-
liarities of Egyptian reliefs not the randomness of ignorance, but an artistic
method, since these peculiarities occur not once or twice, but thousands, tens
of thousands of times, and are consequently premeditated, then for similar
reasons we must also admit precisely a method in the characteristic violation
of a perspectival system in mediaeval art. It is psychologically inconceivable,
moreover, that in the course of centuries strong and thoughtful people, the
builders of a distinctive culture, would have been incapable of recognising
such an elementary, indisputable, and one might say glaringly obvious fact as
the converging of parallel lines toward the horizon.
But if this does not suffice, here is further evidence. The drawings of chil-
dren, in their lack of perspective and especially their use of reverse perspec-
tive, vividly recall mediaeval drawings, despite the efforts of educators to instil
in children the laws of linear perspective. It is only when they lose their spon-
taneous relationship to the world that children lose reverse perspective and
submit to the schema with which they have been indoctrinated. This is how all
children behave, independent of each other. This means that it is not mere
chance, nor a wilful invention by one of them putting on Byzantine airs, but a
representational method that derives from a characteristic perceptual synthe-
sis ofthe world. Since the way children think is not weak thinking but a partic-
ular of thinking
which, moreover, is capable of unlimited degrees of
perfection, including genius, and indeed is primarily akin to genius, it must be
admitted that the use ofreverse perspective to depict the world is also far from
being an unsuccessful, ill-understood, imperfectly learned linear perspective,
and is rather a distinctive grasp of the world that should be reckoned with as a
mature and independent representational method. One can perhaps hate it as
an alien method, but at all events it cannot be spoken of with patronising
condescension or compassion.
Indeed, in the fourteenth century a new worldview was adumbrated in the
West and with it a new attitude towards perspective.
As we know, the first faint whiffs of naturalism, humanism and the Refor-
mation were emitted by that innocent 'lamb of God', St Francis of Assisi, who
was canonised as a form of immunisation, for the simple reason that it didn't
occur to them in time to burn him. But the first instance of Franciscanism in
art was Giottism.
The art of Giotto is usually associated with the concept of the Middle
Ages, but this is a mistake. Giotto looks in a different direction. His 'happy,
even gay genius of the Italian order', fruitful and light, was inclined towards a
superficial outlook on life in the spirit of the Renaissance. 'He was very ingen-
ious: writes Vasari, 'very agreeable in his conversation and highly skilled in
sayings of wit, the memory of which is still preserved in this city.'35 However,
those ofhis witticisms that are repeated to this day are indecent and crude, and
many are impious into the bargain. Under the cover of religious subjects can
be discerned a secular spirit, satirical, sensual and even positivistic, hostile to
asceticism. Nurtured by the mature past that preceded his era, he nevertheless
breathes another air. 'Although born in a mystic century he was not himself a
mystic, and if he was the friend of Dante he did not resemble him: writes
Hippolyte Taine of Giotto)6 Whereas Dante smites with sacred anger, Giotto
ridicules and censures, not the destruction of the ideal, but the ideal itself. The
man who painted St Francis' Betrothal to Poverty in his poem ridicules the very
ideal of poverty. It is hard to believe that a friend of Dante could openly prefer
worldly power to self-discipline. But so it was, and in addition to Dante he also
had friends who were Epicureans, who rejected God. Giotto created for
himself an ideal of universal and humanitarian culture, and imagined life in
the spirit of the free thinkers of the Renaissance, as earthly happiness and the
progress of mankind, with the subordination ofeverything else to a dominant
goal, the complete and total development of all natural forces. Pride of place
goes here to those who invent what is useful and beautiful, and he too wishes
to be one of them, a prototype for the most typical genius of the period,
Leonardo. 'He was very studious', Vasari writes of Giotto, 'and always
wandered about contemplating new objects and inquiring of nature, so that
he merited to be called the disciple of nature and of no other. He painted
diverse landscapes full of trees and rocks, which was a novelty in his day.'37
Still full of the noble juices of the Middle Ages and not himself a naturalist, he
already experienced the very first, dawning breeze of naturalism and became
its herald.
The father of modern landscape, Giotto emerged with a method for
drawing architecture that 'fools the eye' and solved bold perspectival prob-
lems by sight with a success that is astonishing for his time (illus. 52). Art
historians have their doubts about Giotto's knowledge of the rules of
perspective. If this is true, it proves that, when the eye began to be controlled
by an inner search for perspective, it found it almost immediately, though not
in a clearly elaborated form. Not only does Giotto not make crude perspecti-
val errors, but on the contrary he seems to play with perspective, setting
himself difficult perspectival problems and solving them shrewdly and
completely, particularly the converging of parallel lines towards a single
point on the horizon. On top ofall this, in the frescoes of the upper church of
San Francisco in Assisi Giotto begins with the assumption that his painting
has 'the significance of something independent from, and even in competi-
tion with, the architecture'. Fresco is 'not wall decoration with a subject', but
'a view through the wall onto all manner of activities',38 It is noteworthy that
in later life Giotto rarely resorted to this, for its time overly daring method,
and the same is true of all his closest followers, whereas in the fifteenth
century this kind of architecture became the rule, and in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries endowed flat and simple apartments lacking any kind
of real architectural fixtures with trompe l'cri1 architectural painting.
quently, if the father of modern painting did not subsequently resort to a
similar method, it was not because he was ignorant of it, but because his
artistic genius, fortified, made aware of itself in the realm of pure art, recoiled
from illusory perspective, at least from its obtrusiveness, just as his rational-
istic humanism subsequently was tempered.
But what was Giotto's point of departure? Or in other words, where did his
ability to use perspective come hom? Historical analogies and the inner
meaning ofperspective in painting suggest an answer we already know. When
the certainty of theocentrism becomes suspect, and along with the music of
the spheres there sounds the music of the earth (I mean 'earth' in the sense of
the affirmation of the human '1'), then begins the attempt to replace realities
that are growing muddied and obscured with simulacra and phantoms, to
52 Giotto di Bondone and studio, Legend ofSt Francis, Confirmation ofthe Rule, 1297-9,
fresco. Upper church, San Francesco, Assisi
replace theurgy with illusionistic art, to replace divine actions with theatre.
It is natural to think that Giotto acquired his habit and taste for perspecti-
val optical illusions by working on theatre decoration. We have already seen a
precedent for this in Vitruvius' report about a staging of Aeschylus' tragedies
in which Anaxagoras took part. The transition from theurgy, such as the
Ancient Greek tragedies had, to a secular vision, progressively abandoned the
mystical, or more exactly the mysterial reality of the tragedy of Aeschylus,
then 50phocles and, finally, Euripides. The mystery plays emerged in the
evolution of the theatre of the New Age, and out of this thorough airing the
new drama was produced. Art historians think it likely that Giotto's landscape
did in fact develop from decorations for what were then called 'mysteries', and
so could not but conform, I would add, to the principle of illusionistic decora-
tion, perspective. 50 as not to make unfounded allegations, let us confirm our
idea by citing the opinion of an art historian whose way of thinking is alien to
ours. 'In what way was Giotto's landscape dependent on mystery play decora-
tions?' Alexandre Benois wonders, and replies: 'In places this dependence is
expressed to such a degree (in the form of tiny prop-like houses and pavilions,
and cliffs like flat stage flaps neatly cut out of cardboard) that it is simply
impossible to doubt that his painting was influenced by productions of reli-
gious spectacles. In some of his frescoes we are probably seeing scenes from
these spectacles captured directly. It must be said, however, that in the paint-
ings which undoubtedly belong to Giotto's hand, this dependence is less
pronounced, and each time it appears in a radically reworked form, according
to the conventions of monumental painting.'4
In other words, as he matures as a pure artist, Giotto gradually moves
away from decorations which, being done by a bottega, could scarcely have
been the work of a single hand. Giotto's innovation was, consequently, not in
the use of perspective as such, but in the painterly application of this method,
borrowed from the applied and vernacular branch of art, much as Petrarch
and Dante introduced the vernacular into poetry. The conclusion can be
drawn that the knowledge of, or at least the ability to use, perspectival meth-
ods, what Diirer called 'the secret science ofperspective',4
already existed, and
perhaps always had existed among the painters of mystery play decorations,
although painting strictly speaking shunned these methods. Or could it have
not been aware of them? The contrary is hard to imagine, once Euclid's
'Elements of Geometry' were known. As early as his Unterweisung der
published in 1525 and containing a study of perspective, Durer
begins the first book of his treatise with a statement clearly showing that the
theory of perspective is far from new compared to elementary geometry, and
far from new in the consciousness of people at that time. 'The most sagacious
thinker, Euclid, has assembled the foundation of geometry', Diirer writes.
'Those who understand him well can dispense with what follows here.'43
And so: elementary perspective had been long known of, although it had
progressed no further than the entrance hall of high art.
But, as the religious Weltanschauung ofthe Middle Ages became more secu-
lar, pure religious ritual reinvented itself as the semi-theatrical mystery plays,
while the icon became so-called religious painting, in which the religious
subject increasingly became just an excuse for depicting the body and the
landscape. From Florence there emanated a wave of worldliness, and it was in
Florence, too, that the Giottoites found and later propagated the principles of
naturalistic painting as artistic maxims.
Giotto himself, Giovanni da Milano after him, and especially Altichieri
and Avanzo, created daring perspectival constructs. It is natural that these
artistic experiments, just like the traditions borrowed in part from the works
of Vitruvius and Euclid, should form the basis of the theoretical system in
which the study of perspective has been required to be fully expounded and
well grounded. Those scientific foundations which, after a century ofelabora-
tion, produced 'the art of Leonardo and Michelangelo' were discovered and
elaborated in Florence. The works of two theoreticians from that time - Paolo
dell'Abbaco (1366) and later Biagio da Parma - have not come down to us. But
it is possible that it was theywho in the main prepared the ground for the prin-
cipal theoreticians working on the study of perspective from the early
fifteenth century on:
Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446) and Paolo Uccello
(1397-1475), then Leon Battista Alberti, Piero della Francesca (c. 1420-1492)
and, finally, a number of sculptors, most notably Donatello (1386-1466). The
influence and impact of these experimenters was determined by the fact that
they not only developed the rules of perspective theoretically, but that they
also applied their achievements practically, in illusionistic painting. Instances
of this are the wall paintings in the form of monuments that were executed
with an extensive knowledge of perspective on the walls of the Florence
Duomo, painted in 1436 by Uccell0
(illus. 53) and in 1435 by Castagno (illus.
A further instance is the stage-like fresco by Andrea del Castagno
(139047-1457) in Sant'Apollonia in Florence (illus. 55).4
'Its whole severe decor
- the chequered floor, the coffered ceiling, the rosettes and panels on the walls
- are depicted with an obsessive precision designed to convey a complete
impression of depth (we would say, "stereoscopic vision"). And this impres-
sion is so successful that the entire scene looks, in its frozenness, like a group
from a panopticon - a brilliant panopticon, it goes without saying',49 as one
supporter of perspective and the Renaissance ironically notes, with a slip of
the tongue. Piero also left a manual on perspective, entitled De perspectiva
In his three-volume treatise De Pictura, written in 1446 and
published in Nuremberg in 1511,5
Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472) developed
the bases of the new science and illustrated them through their application in
architectural painting. Masaccio (1401-1429)52 and his pupils Benozzo
Gozzoli (1420-1498) and Fra' Fillippo Lippi (1406-1469) aspired to utilise the
same science of perspective in their painting, until finally these same prob-
lems were taken up in both theory and practice by Leonardo da Vinci
(1452-1519), and Raphael Sanzio (1483-1520) and Michelangelo Buonarotti
(1475-1564) brought the development of perspective to its close.
We will pursue no further the stages in the theoretical and practical develop-
ment of perspective in the era immediately preceding our own, the more so
since its study passed primarily into the hands of mathematicians and became
far removed from the immediate interests of art. The few facts I have briefly
sketched out here are intended not as generally known historical facts as such,
but as something quite different. Specifically, their purpose was to recall how
complex and long that development had been, brought to completion only in
the seventeenth century by Lambert, and later as a branch of descriptive
geometry in the works of Loria, Aschieri and Enriques in Italy; Chasles and
Poncelet in France; Staudt, Fiedler, Wiener, Kupfer, Burmeister in Germany;
Wilson in America; and others who formed part of the general current ofthat
extremely important and widespread mathematical discipline, projective
From this it follows that, however much we might appreciate perspective
in essence we have no right to understand it as some simple, natural way of
seeing the world that is directly related to the human eye as such. The fact that
over several centuries many great minds and very experienced painters, with
the participation of first-class mathematicians, found it essential to hammer
out a study of perspective, even knowingly after the principal indications of a
perspectival projection of the world had been noted, forces one to think that
the historical elaboration of perspective was in no way the simple systemati-
sation ofsomething already pre-existing in human psycho-physiology, but was the
forcible re-education ofthis psycho-physiology in the sense ofabstract demands made by a
new worldview, essentially anti-artistic, essentially outlawing art, especially the
visual arts.
But the soul of the Renaissance, of the New Age in general, was frag-
mented and divided, dualistic in its thinking. In this respect art was at an
advantage. Fortunately, vital creativity was still not subject to the demands of
reason, and in actual fact art followed guite a different path from those
53 Paolo Uccello, Monument to Giovanni Acuto (John Hawkwood), 1433, fresco transferred to
canvas. Church ofSanta Maria del Fiore, Florence
54 Andrea del Castagno, Monument to Niccolo da Tolentino, 1456, fresco transferred to
canvas. Church ofSanta Maria del Fiore, Florence
55 Andrea del Castagno, The Last Supper, 1455-6, fresco. Refectory of the Convent o[St
Apollonia, Florence
proclaimed in abstract declarations. One circumstance deserves our attention
and our laughter. Even those artists who were theoreticians of perspective, as
soon as they stopped talking about the laws of perspective they had
prescribed - even though they already knew its secrets and surrendered to a
direct artistic feeling in their representation of the world - would make crude
'mistakes' and 'blunders' against its requirements, every single one of them!
But a study of the corresponding paintings reveals that their power lies
precisely in these 'mistakes' and 'blunders'. This is when, truly, 'und predigen
offentlich Wasser',54
There is no time here for a detailed analysis of works of art, and we must
be content with just a few typical examples, pointing out the idea expressed
and treating them superficially, without explaining the specific aesthetic
meaning of their nonconformity to a perspectival schema. But, for the sake of
complete clarity, let us recall (and in the words ofanother, moreover) what the
purpose of perspective is - the much vaunted 'perspectival unity'.
In the 1870S, at the height of the faith in, and reverence for, perspective,
Guido Schreiber compiled a primer on perspective, the second edition of
which was edited by the architect A. F. Viehweger, a professor ofperspective at
the Leipzig Academy of Arts, and with a forward by the Academy's director,
Professor Ludwig Nieper.
Seemingly all very solid and authoritative! But this
is what the primer contained in the chapter on 'perspectival unity':
Any drawing that pretends to a perspectival effect should start
with the specific position of the draftsman or the viewer. The
drawing should therefore have only one viewpoint, only one
horizon, only one scale. All receding perpendicular lines, more-
over, that run into the depth ofthe representation, should also be
directed towards this single viewpoint. Similarly, the vanishing
points ofall other perpendicular lines should also lie on this single
horizon. The correct proportion ofmagnitudes should dominate the
entire representation. This is what we should understand by
perspectival unity. If a painting is done from nature, only a little
attentiveness to these conditions is needed, and everything will
follow more or less of its own accord. 56
This means, then:
A violation of the single viewpoint, the single horizon, the single scale, is
a violation of the perspectival unity of the representation.
If anyone was a practitioner of perspective it was Leonardo. His Last Supper
(illus. 56) an artistic ferment from the latest theological Lives of Christ, aims to
remove the spatial demarcation between that other, Gospel world, and this
secular one, to show Christ as having only a specific value, but not a specific real-
ity. What we see in the fresco is a stage set, not a particular space that cannot be
compared to our own. And this stage is nothing more than an extension of the
room's space; our gaze, and with it our entire being, is drawn by this receding
perspective that moves towards the right eye of the principal Persona. We are
not seeing reality, but we are experiencing a visual phenomenon; and we spy
on it as if through a chink, with cold curiosity, with neither reverence nor pity,
even less with the pathos that distance lends. The laws of Kantian space and
Newtonian mechanics reign on this stage. Yes. But if it were only that, then
finally there would be no Supper. And Leonardo indicates the special value of
the unfolding event by violating the unity of scale. A simple measurement is
enough to showthat the chamber is barely the height oftwo men and the width
of three man-lengths, so that the space cannot possibly accommodate the
number of people in it or the grandeur of the occasion. However, the ceiling
does not seem oppressive and the cramped space of the room gives the paint-
ing a dramatic saturation and fullness. Imperceptibly yet accurately, the master
56 Leonardo da Vinci, Last Supper, 1495-7, tempera on plaster. Refectory ofthe Convent
ofSanta Maria delle Grazie, Milan
resorts to the violation of perspective,5? well known since Egyptian times. He
applies differing units of measurement to the inscriptions and to the setting
and, by reducing the proportions ofthe latter differently in different directions,
he thereby magnifies the people and imparts to a simple farewell meal the
significance of an historic, universal event, and the centre of history to boot.
Perspectival unity is violated, the dualism ofthe Renaissance soul revealed, and
yet the painting acquires an aesthetic persuasiveness.
We knowwhat a magnificent impression is produced by the architecture
in Raphael's School ofAthens (illus. 57).5
If we were to pinpoint from memory
the impression made by these vaults, we would want to compare them, for
example, with the Moscow Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. The vaults appear
to be equal in height to those of the church. But measurement shows that the
pillars are only a little more than two man-lengths, so that the whole build-
ing, which appears to be so splendid, would be quite insignificant and negli-
gible if it were actually built. The artist's device in this case is also quite
He selected two viewpoints placed on two horizon lines. The
floor and the entire group of people are painted from the upper
viewpoint, the vaults and the whole upper portion of the paint-
ing from the lower one. If the figures of the people shared the
same vanishing point as the lines of the ceiling, then the heads of
those positioned further back would be lower down and would
be covered by the people standing in the foreground, to the
painting's detriment. The vanishing point of the ceiling lines is
centered in the right hand of the central figure (Aristotle), who
holds a book in his left hand and with his right seems to be
pointing to the ground. If we trace a line to this point from the
head of Alexander, the first figure to the right of Plato (with the
raised hand), it would not be hard to notice how much the last
figure of this group must have been reduced. The same goes for
the groups to the viewer's right. To conceal this perspectival
57 Raffaello Sanzio, School ofAthens, 1509-10, fresco. Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican,
58 Raffaello Sanzio, The Vision ofEzekiel, 1518, oil on panel. Galleria Palatina,
Palazzo Pitti, Florence
inaccuracy, Raphael also placed characters at the back of the
painting, thereby masking the lines of the floor that converge on
the horizon. 59
Of Raphael's other paintings we might recan The Vision ofEzekiel (inus. 58).
Here there are several viewpoints and several horizon lines. The space of the
vision does not coincide with the space of the earthly world. It was absolutely
essential to do this, for otherwise He who is seated among the cherubim
would seem a mere mortal who, despite the laws of mechanics, does not fall
from the heights. (In this, as in other paintings by Raphael the balance of two
principles, the perspectival and non-perspectival, corresponds to the calm co-
existence of two worlds, two spaces.) This soothes rather than stuns us, just as
if a curtain had noiselessly opened on another world to reveal not a stage, an
illusion in this world, but a genuine other reality, though one which does not
encroach on our own. Raphael alludes to this aspect of his treatment of space
with the parted curtains in his Sistine Madonna (illus. 59).60
As an instance of the complete opposite to The Vision ~ f z k i l one might
cite, for example, Tintoretto's painting in the Accademia in Venice, The Apostle
Mark Uberating aSlave from a Martyr's Death (illus. 60).61 St Mark's apparition is
presented in the same space as all the participants, and the heavenly vision
seems to be a bodily mass that might fall at any minute onto the heads ofthose
witnessing the miracle. Here one cannot help but recall Tintoretto's naturalis-
tic working methods, hanging wax figurines near the ceiling, so as to convey a
naturalistically accurate foreshortening. And the heavenly vision did in fact
turn out to be nothing more than a wax cast on a hanger, like a Christmas-tree
cherubim. This is the kind of artistic failure that occurs when heterogeneous
spaces are merged together.
But the simultaneous use of two spaces, perspectival and non-perspecti-
val, is also encountered, and by no means infrequently, especially in the repre-
sentation of visions and miraculous occurrences. Such is the case in several
works by Rembrandt, although we can only speak of perspectival systems and
their components with many reservations. This device was a hallmark of
Domeniko Theotokopolus, called El Greco. The Dream ofPhilip If (illus. 61), The
Burial of the Count of Orgaz (illus. 62), The Descent of the Holy Ghost (illus. 63), A
View ofToledo (illus. 64) and other works by him are each manifestly broken up
into at least two spaces, such that the space ofspiritual reality is definitely kept
apart from the space of sensory reality. It is this that imparts to El Greco's
paintings their particular persuasiveness.
59 Raffaello Sanzio, Sistine Madonna, 1512-13, oil on canvas. Gemaldegalerie, Dresden
60 Jacopo Robusti (Tintoretto), The Miracle ofSt Mark (The Apostle Mark Liberating aSlave
from aMartyr's Death, 1547-8, oil on canvas. Galleria ofthe Accademia, Venice
61 DomenikoTheotokopolus (El Greco), Adoration ofthe Holy Name ofJesus (Allegory ofthe
Holy League; The DreamofPhilip 11), 1577-80, oil on canvas. San Lorenzo Monastery,
Escorial Museum, Madrid
62 DomenikoTheotokopolus (El Greco), The Burial ofthe Count ofOrgaz, 1586-8, oil on
canvas. Church ofSan Tome, Toledo
63 Domeniko Theotokopolus (El Greco), The Descent ofthe Holy Ghost
(Pentecost), c.1600, oil on canvas. Prado Museum, Madrid
64 Domeniko Theotokopolus (El Greco), AViewand Map oJToledo, 1610-14, oil on
canvas. El Greco Museum, Toledo
However, it would be wrong to think that only mystical subjects require
the rejection ofperspective. Let us take, for example, Rubens' Flemish Landscape
(iIIus. 65) in the Uffizi Gallery.62 The central section is approximately perspec-
tival and its space draws one in, while the sides are in reverse perspective, their
spaces pushing away the perceiving eye. As a result, two powerful visual
vortices are created that marvellously fill the prosaic subject.
There is the same balance between two spatial principles in Michelan-
gelo's Conversion of the Apostle Paul (iIIus. 66). But this same artist gives an
entirely different spatial treatment in his Last Judgment (iIIus. 67). The fresco
represents a slight slope: the higher up on the picture a particular point is, the
further away the image depicted in it is from the viewer. Consequently, the
higher the eye travels, the smaller the figures it encounters become, in accor-
dance with the law ofperspectival shortening. Incidentally, this can be seen by
the fact that the lower figures obstruct those higher up. But as for their propor-
tions, the magnitude of the figures increases as they appear further up the
fresco, Le., the further away they are from the viewer. This is a characteristic of
that other, spiritual space: the further away something is, the bigger it is; the
closer it is, the smaller. This is reverse perspective. Examining it, especially
65 Peter Paul Rubens, Landscape. Returningfromthe Fields, 1632-4, oil on canvas. GaHeria
Palatina, Palazzo Piui, Florence
66 Michelangelo, Conversion ofthe Apostle Paul, 1542-5, fresco. CappeHa Pao!ina, Vatican,
67 Michelangelo, Last Judgment, 1536-41, fresco. Sistine Chapel, Vatican, Rome
when so consistently applied, we begin to experience its complete incommen-
surabilitywith the space ofthe fresco. We are not drawn into this space; on the
contrary, it repels us, as a mercury sea would repel our bodies. Though visible,
it is transcendental to us, who think according to Kant and Euclid. Although
he lived in the Baroque era, Michelangelo belonged to a Middle Ages that was
neither entirely of the past nor of the future; he was contemporary with, yet
certainly not a contemporary of, Leonardo.
When people first come across deviations from the rules of perspective, they
regard this absence of perspectival unity as a chance slip-up on the artist's
part, a kind of sickness in his working. But even the most cursory attention
quickly reveals a similar transgression in almost every- work, and absence of
perspective now begins to be valued not as the pathology, but as the physiol-
ogy of visual art.
Inevitably, the question arises: can art actually dispense with the trans-
formation of perspective? After all, its purpose is to convey a kind of spatial
wholeness, a specific, self-contained world that is not mechanical, but is
contained within the confines of the frame by internal forces. Whereas a
photograph, being a sliver of natural space, a piece of space, cannot in
essence avoid leading us beyond its borders, the limits ofits frame, because it
is a P.ilil mechanically separated from something larger. Consequently, the
first demand made of the artist is to reorganise the sliver of space he has
selected for his material into a self-contained whole, to abrogate perspectival
relationships, whose primary function is the Kantian unity of experience as a
totality, manifested in the necessity for each single experience to turn into
others, and in the impossibility of encountering a self-sufficient realm.
Whether perspective exists in actual experience is another question, and one
that cannot be debated here. But whether it exists or not, it has a definite
purpose that essentially contradicts the practice of painting, so long as paint-
ing does not sell itself to other activities that require an 'art of simulacra', that
require illusions of the imaginary prolonging of sensory experience, when in
truth it does not exist.
\Vith these points in mind, we will now no longer be surprised when we
see two points of view and two horizon lines in Paolo Veronese's Feast in the
House ofSimon (illus. 68), at least two horizons in his Battle ofLepanto (illus. 69),
several viewpoints placed along a single horizon line in Horace Vernet's paint-
ing The Capture of the Smala of Abd-El-Kader, numerous perspectival inconsis-
68 Paolo Veronese, Feast in the House ofSimon, 1560, oil on canvas. Galleria Sabauda,
tencies in a landscape by Swanevelt, as well as by Rubens, and in many other
paintings. And we will understand why clever primers on perspective even
give advice on how to destroy perspectival unity without making it too obvi-
ous (evidently for its more enthusiastic supporters?), and in what instances it
is essential to resort to such 'lawlessness'.63 In particular, it is recommended to
place the vanishing points of lines perpendicular to the picture plane on a
slight curve, for instance, along the line of a normal surface to a certain
And artists, even those who are far removed from the goals which
intrinsically authentic art sets itself, have long applied similar deviations from
perspectival unity.
An example of this is the celebrated Marriage at Cana by Paolo Veronese
(1528-1588) in the Louvre (illus. 70). According to specialists, this painting has
seven viewpoints and five horizon lines.
Fr. Bossuet has attempted to give a
sketch of the architecture in this painting from a 'correct', i.e., a strictly
perspectival representation, to find that it retained 'essentially the same order
and the same beauty'.66 What a fine concept offirst class works ofart, that can
be so easily 'corrected'! Would it not be more correct to check and adjust oneli
69 Paolo Veronese, The Battle ofLepanto, 1573, oil on canvas. Gallerie dell' Accademia,
70 Paolo Veronese, Marriage at Cana, 1563, oil on canvas. Musee du Louvre, Paris
own aesthetic views in accordance with historically existing works of art? But
if in actual fact the strict submission to perspective of a non-perspectival
painting does not in itself destroy its beauty, does this not mean that both
perspective and its absence are, in aesthetic terms at least, by no means as
important as the supporters of perspective presume it to be?
It will be recalled that, towards the end of 1506, Albrecht Durer rushed
from Florence to Bologna to find out about the 'mysterious art of perspec-
tive'.67 But the secrets of perspective were jealously guarded and, after
complaining about the reticence of the Bolognese, Durer was obliged to
leave, having found out precious little, thereafter to busy himself at home
with the independent discovery of those same methods and to write a treatise
on them (which did not, however, prevent him from falling into perspectival
Without embarking on an evaluation of Durer's oeuvre in general, let us
recall his most accomplished work, of which F. Kugler writes
(in an essay
described by a Durer scholar as 'the most complete and successful descrip-
0f the work) that 'an artist who had completed such a work might take
his leave of the world, having attained his goal in art. This work indisputably
places him in the ranks of the greatest masters the history of art justly prides
itself on.' The work in question is, of course, the diptych known as The Four
Apostles, painted in 1526 (illus. 71), after the publication of his Underweisung der
Messung and two years before his death in 1528. And so, in this diptych the
heads of the two figures in the background are bigger than those of the fore-
ground figures, as a result of which the basic ground of the Greek relief is
preserved, although the figures are not detached from this ground. As one art
historian has correctly pointed out, 'Clearly, we are dealing here with so called
'reverse perspective: according to which objects further back are shown as
bigger than those in front.'7
Of course, this application of reverse perspective in the Apostles is not an
oversight, but the courage of a genius who intuitively overturns the most
rational theories, even his own, inasmuch as they demand a completely
conscious illusionism. In actual fact, what could be more definite than his
instructions on chiaroscuro, which begin, 'If you wish to paint paintings in
such relief that vision itself might be deceived .. .'7
Such is his illusionistic
theory, but his art is not illusionistic. This contradiction in Diirer (a character-
istic one for people living in a transitional age!) between theory and artistic
practice prefigured his general inclination for the mediaeval style and mediae-
val turn of spirit, for all the new structure of thinking.
All this notwithstanding, even the theoreticians of perspective did not
observe, or consider it necessary to observe, a 'perspectival unity of represen-
tation'. How then after this can one speak of a perspectival image of the world
as natural? What kind of naturalness is it that must be obeyed, to then avoid-
despite the most extraordinary efforts and constant alert vigilance - [making
mistakes against] the rules that have been unlearned? Are these rules not
rather reminiscent of a convention-bound conspiracy against a natural
perception of the world, undertaken in the name of theoretical concepts, a
fictional picture of the world which, according to a humanistic Weltanschau-
ung, one is required to see, but which, in spite of all its training, the human eye
doesn't see at all, while the artist blurts out his ignorance as soon as he moves
from geometric constructs to that which he actually perceives.
The extent to which a perspectival drawing is not something directly
understood, but is on the contrary the product of many complex artificial
71 Albrecht Durer, The Four
Apostles, 1526, oil on paneL
Alte Pinakothek, Munich
conditions, can be seen with particular persuasiveness in the devices of that
same Albrecht Diirer, as he marvellously depicted them in the woodcuts to his
Underweisung der Messung. But, as good as the actual engravings are, with their
confined, constricted space, the meaning of the instructions they provide is
anti-artistic in equal measure.
The purpose of the devices is to make it possible for the most unskilled
draughtsman to reproduce any object in a purely mechanical fashion, without
an act of visual synthesis and, in one case, without using the eye at all. With-
out ambiguity the candid Diirer demonstrates with his devices that perspec-
tive concerns everything but vision.
One of these devices is as follows (illus. 72). 7
At the end of an elongated
rectangular table a quadrangular frame with a pane ofglass is attached perpen-
dicular to the surface. On the opposite, narrow end of the table, parallel to the
frame, a wooden bar is attached to the table, the middle of which is hollowed
72 Albrecht Diirer, Man Drawing aSeated Figure, reproduced from Underweisung der
Messung, Nuremberg, 1525
out and contains a long screw, With the aid of this screw a perpendicular bar
can be moved and into it is inserted a wooden rod with ratchets that allow one
to adjust it at various heights. and with a small board in which a small hole [has
been drilled, attached] on the upper end. It is quite clear that such a contraption
provides to a certain extent a model of perspectival projection from the hole in
the board onto the surface of the glass pane, and that by looking at an object
through the aforesaid hole one can trace its projection on the glass.
In another device (inus. 73)73 a fixed point of view is established, also by
using a special pointer, where the plane of the projection is realised by a
[frame with a] grid of threads that intersect at right angles, and the drawing is
transferred to a squared-off sheet of paper that lies between the pointer and
the vertical grid on the table. By using the squares to measure the coordinates
73 Albrecht Diirer, Man Drawing aRecliningWoman, reproduced from Underweisung der
Messung, Nuremberg, 1538
of the projection points, the corresponding points can also be found on the
A third Di.irer device (illus. 74)74 no longer has any relationship to sight.
The centre of projection is now established not by the eye, however artificially
reduced to a motionless state, but by a certain point on a wall in which a ring
with a long string tied to it has been attached. The string almost reaches the
frame containing the pane of glass that is fixed vertically on the table. The
string is stretched tight and a scanner attached to it, directing the 'visual ray' to
that point of the object that is projected from the spot where the thread is
anchored. Then it is not hard to mark on the glass with a pen or brush the
corresponding point of projection. By successively viewing various points of
the objects, the draughtsman will project them on the glass, not however
'from the point of vision' but from 'the point on the wall'. Vision, then, plays
an auxiliary function.
Finally, with the fourth drawing device (il1us. 75)75 there is no need for
vision at all, because touch is sufficient. It is constructed as follows. A large
needle with a wide eye is hammered into the wall of the room in which a given
object is to be traced. A long, stout thread is threaded through the eye and a
plumb bob attached. Atable with a quadrangular frame installed vertically on
its surface is placed against the wall. To one side of the frame is hinged a small
door that can be opened and shut, and [two] intersecting threads that can be
tightened in the frame opening. The object to be depicted is placed on the table
in front of the frame. The first thread is passed through the frame and a nail
attached to the end of it. That is the device. The apparatus is used as follows.
An assistant holds the nail, and stretches the long thread, with instructions to
74 Albrecht Diirer, Man Drawing aJug, reproduced from Undenveisung der Messung,
Nuremberg, 1538
touch with the point of the nail all the prominent spots on the object to be
depicted one after the other. Then the 'artist' moves the [two] crosswise
threads in the frame until they coincide with the long thread and he marks
with wax the point where they intersect. Then the assistant relaxes the tension
of the long thread while the 'artist' closes the door of the frame and marks on
it the spot where the threads intersect. By repeating this action many times the
principal points of the required projection can be marked on the door.
After examining these devices, need we offer any further proof that a
perspectival view of the world is not in the least a natural method of observa-
tion? It has taken more than five hundred years of social training to accustom
the eye and the hand to perspective. But without deliberate schooling neither
the eye nor the hand ofa child, or ofan adult for that matter, will submit to this
training and reckon with the laws of perspectival unity. Even those with a
specialised education make stupid mistakes as soon as they are deprived of
their auxiliary geometric schema and trust their own vision, the conscience of
their own eyes. And finally, entire artistic movements consciously express
their protest against submitting to perspective.
After this unsuccessful experiment over five hundred years of history, it
remains only to be admitted that picture of the world is not aJact of
perception, but mereho ademand made in the name ofcertain considerations which, while
they may be very are absolutely abstract.
And if we turn to psycho-physiological data, then it is essential to
acknowledge that artists not only have no basis for depicting the world
according to a perspectival schema, but that they dare not do so, once they
admit that their aim is truth to perception.
75 Albrecht DUrer, Man Drawing aLute, reproduced from Underweisung der Messung,
Nuremberg, 1525
2 Theoretical Premises
In the preceding sections I compared a number of historical interpretations. It
is time now to sum up and speak more to the point, although I will leave for
another book the elaboration of related questions concerning the analysis of
space in visual art.
So then, both historians of painting and theoreticians of the visual arts
aspire, or at least did so until recently, to convince their audience that a perspec-
tival depiction of the world is the only correct one, since it is the only one that
corresponds to actual perception, because natural perception is presumed to be
perspectivaL According to such a premise, deviation from perspectival unity is
thereupon regarded as a betrayal ofthe lawofperception, a perversion ofreality
itself, whether because the artist lacks training in drawing, or because drawing
has been consciously subordinated to decorative, ornamental aims or, in the
best case scenario, compositional aims. Either way, according to this estimation,
deviation from the norms of perspectival unity appears as unrealism.
However, both the word and the concept reality are too weighty for
proponents of this or that world view to be indifferent to, whether [reality]
remains theirs or passes to the adversary. A good deal of thought is required
before making such a concession, should it prove inevitable. The same applies
to the word natural. who does not find it flattering to consider his own self real
and natural, i.e., resulting from reality itself, without deliberate intervention?
Proponents of the Renaissance view of life seized on these cherished words,
stolen from Platonism and its mediaeval heirs, and bandied them about. But
this does not give us grounds for leaving the precious values of language in
mouths that misuse them. One must demonstrate reality and naturalness by
actions, not declare one's naked pretensions to them. Our goal is to restore
them to the grandchildren of their rightful owners.
As I explained above, in order to draw and paint 'naturally', i.e.,
perspectivally, it is essential that one learn to do so. This applies both to
entire peoples and cultures, and to individuals. A child does not draw in
perspective, nor does the adult who picks up a pencil for the first time,
without being trained on specific models. But even a person who has stud-
ied a great deal can easily fall into error, or to put it more accurately, the
prim proprieties of perspectival unity are overcome by the sincerity of
spontaneity. In particular, hardly anyone will depict a sphere as an elliptical
outline or a receding colonnade that runs parallel to the picture plane as
progressively widening pillars, although this is precisely what perspectival
projection demands,76 Do we so seldom hear even great artists criticised
for making mistakes in perspective? Such errors are always possible, espe-
cially where the composition is complicated, and they can really only be
avoided when drawing is replaced by technical drawing done with the aid
of auxiliary lines, or in other words when the artist depicts not what he sees
outside or inside himself - images that while they may be imaginary are
nevertheless visible, rather than abstractly conceived images - but what in
his opinion, supported by an inadequate knowledge of geometry, is
demanded by the calculation of geometric constructions - the natural, and
therefore the only permissible calculation. Can we really call natural those
methods of representation that even those who have spent many years
stringently training their eye and world view with, cannot master without
the crutches ofgeometrical drawing? And do not such mistakes in perspec-
tive show at times not the weakness of the artist, but on the contrary his
strength, the strength of his authentic perception, breaking the fetters of
social pressure?
The study of perspective is precisely that, training. Even when the begin-
ner voluntarily endeavors to submit his drawing to its rules, this in no way
always indicates that he has understood the meaning, the artistic, inventive
meaning, of perspectival requirements. Looking back to their childhood, will
not many people recall that they perceived perspective in drawing as some-
thing incomprehensible, though also for some reason as a generally accepted
convention, an usus tyrannus to which they submitted not at all on the strength
ofits truthfulness, but because everyone does it that way?
An incomprehensible, frequently ridiculous convention - that is how
perspective appears to a child's understanding. 'You think it's child's play
looking at a painting and detecting its perspective', writes Ernst Mach. And yet
it took thousands of years before mankind learned this trifle, not to mention
that many of us arrived at this point only under the influence of education. 'I
remember clearly,' Mach continues, 'that at the age of about three all perspec-
tival drawings appeared to me as distortions ofobjects. 1could not understand
why the painter depicted a table so wide at one end and so narrow at the other.
A real table seemed to me just as wide at the far end as it did closest to me,
since my eye made its calculations without my help. The fact that the repre-
sentation of a table on a plane surface was not to be looked at as a surface
covered with colours, but signified a table and should be presented as receding
- this was a trifle 1did not understand. 1comfort myself with the knowledge
that entire peoples haven't understood it either.'77
Such is the testimony of the most positivist of positivists, one it would
seem who could never be suspected of a weakness for'mysticism'.
Thus, the whole matter comes down to the fact that the representation of
an object is not the same object in its representational capacity, it is not a copy
of a thing, it does not duplicate a little corner of the world, but points to its
original as its symbol. Naturalism, in the sense of external truthfulness, as the
imitation of reality, as the manufacture of doubles of things, as an apparition,
is not only not necessary for life, to quote Goethe's phrase about the beloved
dog and its representation, but is also simply impossible. Perspectival truth-
fulness. if it exists, if it even is truthfulness, is so not on the strength of its
external resemblance, but by virtue of its deviation from resemblance, Le., its
inner meaning - in so far as it is symbolic. And what resemblance can there be
between, for example, a table and its perspectival depiction, if outlines which
we know to be parallel are depicted by converging lines, right angles by angles
that are acute and wide, if the segments and angles which are equal are repre-
sented by unequal sizes, and unequal sizes by equal ones? A representation is
a symbol, always, every representation, whether perspectival or non-perspec-
tival, no matter what it is, and works of art differ from each other not because
some are symbolic and others are ostensibly naturalistic, but because, since all
are equally non-naturalistic, they are symbols of various aspects of an object,
of various world perceptions, various levels ofsynthesis. Different methods of
representation differ from each other, not as the object differs from its repre-
sentation, but on the symbolic plane. Some are more crude, some less so;
some are more or less complete; some are common to all mankind, some are
less so. But all are symbolic by nature.
Moreover, the perspective of representations is not by any means a prop-
erty of things, as vulgar naturalism might make us think. It is just a method of
symbolic expression, one of the possible symbolic styles, whose artistic value
is subject to a specific judgement, but specifically as such, outside of terrifying
words about its truthfulness and claims to a patented 'realism'. Consequently,
in discussing the question of perspective, whether linear or reverse, with one
or many centres, from the outset one must absolutely proceed from the
symbolic tasks ofpainting and the other visual arts, in order to understand the
place which perspective occupies alongside other symbolic methods, what
exactly it signifies, and to what spiritual feats it leads. The task of perspective,
as with other artistic methods, can only be a certain spiritual excitement, a jolt
that rouses ones attention to reality itself. In other words, perspective too, if it
is worth anything, should be a language, a witness to reality.
What then is the relationship between the symbolic tasks of painting and
the geometric premises of its possibilities? Painting and the other visual arts
must submit to geometry, to the degree that they deal with extended images
and extended symbols. So here, too, the question is not whether linear
perspective is apriori acceptable by means of a simple deduction -
If geometry is true, then perspective is indisputable.
Geometry is true -
It follows that perspective is indisputable - in which both premises raise
millions of objections. Rather, the question is: what sort of demarcations in its
applicability and interpretations of its activity are essential to precisely estab-
lish the geometric premises of painting, ifwe want lawfulness, inner meaning
and a limit to the application of one or another method and representational
means to find grounds for their foundation?
Putting aside a more in-depth examination for treatment in a specialised
book, for the moment let us merely note the following about painting's
geometric premises. Painting has at its command a certain slice of a plane
(canvas, panel, wall, paper, etc.) and paints, i.e., the possibility of endowing
various points on the surface with various colourations. On a scale of signifi-
cance, [colouration] may not have a perceptible meaning and should be
understood abstractly. In an engraving, for example, the blackness of the
printer's inks is not read as black, but is just a sign of the engraver's energy or,
conversely, his lack of energy. But in psycho-physiological terms, i.e., on the
basis of aesthetic perception, it is colour. For the sake of simplicity of argu-
ment we can imagine that there is only one pigment - black - or pencil. The
painter's task, then, is to depict on a given surface with given colours the real-
ity that he perceives or that he imagines he perceives.
Just what does it mean in geometrical terms to depict a certain reality?
It means drawing points of a perceived space to correspond with the
points of some other space, in this instance a plane. But reality is at least three
dimensional, even if we forget about the fourth dimension, time, without
which there is no art. But a plane is only bi-dimensional.Is such a correspon-
dence possible? Is it possible to make a four-dimensional or, let's say for the
sake of simplicity, a three-dimensional image on a bi-dimensional surface?
Does the latter have enough points to correspond to the points of the former
or, in mathematical terms, can the power of a three-dimensional image and
that of a bi-dimensional image be comparable? The answer that immediately
comes to mind is 'Of course not.'
'Of course not, because in a three-dimensional image there is an infinite
number of two-dimensional sections and consequently its power is infinitely
greater than that of each individual section.' But a close investigation of the
question as presented in point set theory shows that it is not as simple as it
seems at first glance and that, moreover, the apparently natural answer prof-
fered above cannot be considered correct. To be more precise, the power of
any three- and even multi-dimensional image is exactly the same as the power
of any two- and even one-dimensional image. It is possible to depict a four- or
three-dimensional reality on a plane, and not even just on a plane but on any
segment ofa straight or curved line. Moreover, the resulting map can be estab-
lished by an infinite number ofcorrespondences, arithmetical or analytical, as
well as geometrical. Georg Cantor's method may serve as an example of the
arithmetical/analytical correspondence, Peano's curve or Hilbert's curve as an
example of the geometrical.7
To explain the essence of these investigations and their unexpected results
as simply as pOSSible, we will confine ourselves to the case of depicting a
square using one ofits sides as a unit oflength, on a rectilinear segment, equal
to the side of the above-mentioned square, i.e., depicting the entire square on
its own side. All other cases can easily be examined on the basis ofthis model.
This is just how Georg Cantor demonstrated the analytical method by means
ofwhich the correspondence between each point ofthe square and each point
of its side is established. This means that, if we designate the position of any
point on the square by the two coordinates x, y, then, using an analogous
method we will find the coordinate z defining a certain point on the side of the
square, i.e., the depiction of the aforementioned point on the square itself.
And conversely, if an arbitrary point is marked on the segment - the depiction
ofthe square - then we will also find the point on the square itselfthat is repre-
sented by this point. Consequently, not a single point on the square remains
unmapped and not a single point of the depiction will be void and correspon-
ding to nothing. The square will be projected on its own side. In a similar
manner a cube, hypercube and in general a quadrangular geometric figure
(polyhedron, prism) of any number of dimensions, even an infinitely great
number, can be represented on the side ofa square or on a square itself. Gener-
ally speaking. any continuous figure of any number of dimensions and with
any perimeter, can be mapped on any other figure also with any number of
dimensions and with any perimeter: anything you like in geometry can be
depicted on anything you like.
On the other hand, to return to our initial case, different geometric curves
can be constructed in such a way that the curve passes through any randomly
selected point of the square, and the correspondence between the points of
the square and the points of the curve are thereby geometrically established. It
will now be quite easy to bring the points of the latter into correspondence
with the points of the square as one-dimensional spaces, so as to project these
points of the square on its side. Peano's curve and Hilbert's curve have one
essential advantage over the innumerable number ofother curves with similar
properties (for example. the trajectory of a billiard ball launched fi'om the
corner to the edge which is incommensurable with a straight line; open epicy-
c1oids, where the radii of both circumferences are incommensurable;
Lissajous' curves; matrixes, ete., etc.) They bring about a correspondence of
points between a two-dimensional and one-dimensional image on a practical
level, such that the corresponding points can be easily located, whereas the
other curves establish a correspondence in principle only, and it would be
difficult to actually find just which point corresponds to which. Without
going into the technical particulars of the curves of Peano, Hilbert and others,
let us merely note that such a curve fills in the entire surface ofthe square, with
its meander-like bends, and that illJ,Y point of the square, given this or that
finite number of meanders for this curve, systematically accumulated, Le., in
accordance with a specific method, will unfailingly be touched by the bends of
the curve. Analagous processes can be applied to projection, as explained
above, using whatever you like on whatever you like.
Thus, continuous sets are equipollent. But while they possess an identical
power, they do not have the same 'mentally attainable' or 'ideal' numbers in
Cantor's sense, they are not 'similar' to each other. In other words, one cannot
be used to map the other without affecting its structure. In establishing a
correspondence, either the continuity of the image represented is broken (as
when there is a wish to maintain a one-to-one correspondence between the
thing represented and the representation) or the one-to-one correspondence
of both (as when the continuity of the thing represented is maintained).
With Cantor's method the image is conveyed point for point, such that
any point of the image corresponds to only one point of the representation
and, conversely, each point of the representation corresponds to only one
point ofwhat is represented. In this sense the Cantorian correspondence satis-
fies the accepted conception of representation. But another of its properties
places it very far from this latter concept. Like all other one-to-one mappings
in the area under discussion, it does not preserve relationships of contiguity
between the points, it does not spare their order and connections, i.e., it
cannot be continuous. If we move even a little inside the square, then the
representation of the path we have travelled can no longer in itselfbe continu-
ous, and the representing point will jump around the whole area of the repre-
sentation. The impossibility of providing a one-to-one yet continuous
mapping between the points of a square and its side
was proved by Thome,
Netto and G. Cantor, and as a result of several objections by Liiroth in 1878, it
was demonstrated anew by E. Iurgens.
Jurgens relies on the postulate on intermediate value: 'Let points P of a
square and P of a rectilinear segment correspond to each other. Then the
whole connected segment on the linear segment that contains the point P'
should correspond to a certain line AB on the square that contains the point
P. Therefore, on the strength of the supposed one-to-one correspondence
between the remaining points of the square, in the vicinity of the point P, no
point on the line bordering the point P' can correspond to it any longer.
From this it obviously follows that a one-to-one and continuous mapping
between the points of the line and the square is impossible.' Such was
Jurgens' proof.
On the other hand, as Luroth, Jurgens, and others showed,sI the corre-
spondences of Peano, Hilbert and others cannot be that of one-to-one
mapping, so that a point on a line is not always represented by a single point
on the square and, moreover, this correspondence is not entirely continuous.
In other words, the representation of a square on a line, or of a volume on
a plane or a line, really does communicate an points, but it is incapable of
communicating the form of the thing represented as a whole, as an object
whose structure is internally defined. The content of space is transmitted. but
not its organisation. In order to represent a given space with all of the points
that comprise its content, figuratively speaking one must either grind it into
the flnest of powders and then, having carefully stirred it, sprinkle it over the
depicted surface so that no trace ofits initial organisation remains. Or else one
must cut it up into many layers, so that something of its form remains, but
position these layers with repetitions of those same elements ofform, while at
the same time mutually interpenetrating these elements among each other,
causing several elements of the form to become embodied in the same points
of the representation. It is not difficult to discern behind the mathematical
conceptions outlined above, quite independent of mathematics, the 'princi-
ples' ofdivisionism, complementarism etc. discovered by leftist art. With their
help leftist art has destroyed the forms and organisation of space, sacrificing
them to volume and thingness.
To sum up. It is pOSSible to represent space on a surface. but only by
destroying the form ofthe thing represented. Yet it is form, and only form, that
visual art is concerned with. Consequently, the final verdict is proclaimed for
painting, as for the visual arts in general, to the degree that it claims to provide
a likeness of reality: naturalism is once and for all an impossibility.
Then we immediately embark on the path ofsymbolism and renounce the
whole content of points extending in three directions, the stuffing, so to
speak, of the forms of reality. In a single blow we renounce the actual spatial
essence of things and concentrate - inasmuch as we are discussing the rendi-
tion of space through points - only on their skin. Henceforth, by things we
mean not the things themselves, but only the surfaces that demarcate regions
ofspace. In the naturalistic order ofthings this is, ofcourse, a decisive betrayal
of veracity's motto. We have substituted for reality its rind, which has only a
symbolic significance, one that only alludes to space without in any way
presenting it directly, point for point. Is it now possible to represent such
'things', or rather the skin of things, on a plane?
Whether we answer yes or no depends on what we mean by the words to
represent. It is possible to establish a one-to-one correspondence between the
points of the form and the points of the representation, so that the continuity
of both will by and large be maintained. But only 'by and large: i.e., for the
'majority ofpoints' - it would hardly be appropriate here to discuss the precise
meaning of each expression in detail. But given this correspondence, regard-
less of how it has been devised, certain ruptures and certain infringements of
the one-to-one correspondence of the connection are inevitable in points that
stand in isolation, or that form certain continuous configurations. In other
words, the sequence and relation ofthe majority ofpoints on the image will be
maintained in the representation. But this is still very far from indicating the
permanence of all properties belonging to the object represented, even simply
its geometric properties, when the object is transferred by correspondence to
a plane. It is true that both spaces, both the represented and the representing
space, are two dimensional, and in this respect resemble each other. But their
curvature is different, and even in the represented space it is impermanent,
changing from point to point. It is impossible to place one over the other, even
bybending one of them, and any attempt to bend themwill inevitably result in
rupturing and creasing the surface ofone of them. There is simply no way that
an eggshell, or even a fragment of it, can be laid over the surface of a marble
table. To do so we would need to obliterate its form by grinding it into the
finest powder. For the same reason it is impossible to represent an egg, in any
exact sense of the word, on paper or canvas.
The correspondence of points on spaces of different curvature certainly
presupposes that some of the represented object's properties - of course we
are speaking here only of its geometric properties - are sacrificed for the
sake of communicating certain others on the representation. There is no
way that the sum total of the represented object's geometric attributes can
be available in the representation, and while it may in certain respects
resemble its original, the representation inevitably differs from it in a great
many other ways. The representation is always more unlike the original than
like it. Even the simplest case, the depiction of a sphere on a plane, which is
the geometric schema of cartography, proves to be extremely complex and
has provided grounds for inventing many dozens of the most varied meth-
ods, both projective, using rectilinear rays proceeding from a certain point,
and non-projectional, implemented by means of more complex construc-
tions or based on numerical computations. And yet, each of these methods,
intended to communicate on a map some property of a territory to be
reproduced, with its description of geographical objects, neglects and
distorts a great many others that are in no way less important. Each method
is good as applied to a strictly defined problem and inappropriate as soon as
other problems arise. In other words, a geographical map both li and is not
[a representation]. It does not replace the original image of the Earth, not
even as a geometrical abstraction, but only serves to indicate a certain token
of it. The map represents to the extent that through it and by means of it we
turn in spirit to the actual thing depicted, and does not represent if it does
not carry us beyond its own confines, but instead detains us in itself as in
some pseudo-reality, in a likeness of reality, if the map lays claim to a self-
sufficient significance.
The case mentioned here was a very simple one. But the forms of real-
ity are infinitely more varied and complex than a sphere, and the methods
for representing each of these forms are correspondingly infinitely more
diverse. Ifwe take into account the organisational complexity and diversity
of this or that spatial realm in the real world, the mind becomes lost in the
innumerable possibilities for communicating this realm through represen-
tation. It becomes lost in the abyss of its own freedom. To normalise the
methods for representing the world mathematically is a task of insane
presumptuousness. And when such a normalisation, which also adduces a
mathematical proof, and even worse the only, the exclusive proof, is
adapted without any further examination to a single case of correspon-
dence, the most particular of the particular, then it seems that perhaps it is
done for a joke. A perspectival image of the world is nothing more than one
of the methods of technical drawing. If it pleases someone to defend it in
the interests of composition or some other purely aesthetic meaning, then
the discussion will be a particular one. I might note in passing, however,
that it is precisely in this arena that not a single voice has been raised in
defense of perspective.
But there is no point citing either geometry or psychophysiology in its
defense. There is nothing to be found here but the refutation of perspective.
And so, regardless of the principle by which a correspondence is established
between the points of the thing represented and the points of the representa-
tion, inevitably the representation only signifies, indicates, alludes, leads to an
idea of the original. But in no way does it present this image as a sort of copy
or model. There can be no passage from reality to a picture, in the sense of
resemblances. There is a yawning gulf here that is bridged in the first instance
by the creative intellect of the artist and then by the intellect that co-creatively
reproduces the picture in itself.
I repeat, not only is this picture not a duplication of reality in its entirety,
but it is incapable even of providing a geometrical likeness of the skin of
things. It is necessarily the symbol of a symbol, insofar as skin itself is only the
symbol of a thing. From the picture the beholder moves on to the skin of a
thing, and from thence to the thing itself.
For all that, an unlimited field of possibilities opens up to painting, in
principle. This breadth of scope depends on the freedom to set up, on
extremely varied grounds, a correspondence between the points on the
surfaces ofthings and the points on the canvas. There is not a single principle
of correspondence that produces a representation, even geometrically
adequate to the thing represented. Consequently, a variety of principles, not
one of which possesses the single possible advantage of being a principle of
adequacy, is each applied in its own way, with its own benefits and its own
shortcomings. Depending on the inner need of the soul, however, a certain
principle of correspondence is selected by an epoch, or even by an individual
creator, no longer under forced external pressure, but in correspondence with
the problems of a specific work, and then all of its peculiarities, positive and
negative, will automatically follow. The totality of these peculiarities forms
the first layer of what we call in art style and manner. The primary character
that defines the creating artist's attitude to the world, and thus the innermost
depth of his philosophy and perception of life, are expressed in his choice of
the principles of correspondence.
A perspectival representation of the world is one of the countless meth-
ods possible for establishing the aforesaid correspondence, but it is a method
that is extremely narrow, extremely limited, hampered by a host of supple-
mentary conditions that define its potential for application and the limits to
which it can be applied.
To understand that orientation in life from which the perspectival treat-
ment of the visual arts must necessarily derive, requires an itemization of the
perspectival artist's premises that are silently implied in each movement of his
pencil. This is the essence of them:
First: a belief that the space of the real world is Euclidean space, i.e.,
isotropic, homogeneous, infinite and boundless (in the sense of Riemann's
differentiation),82 with zero curvature, three-dimensional, affording the
pOSSibility oftracing one and only one parallel to any straight line through any
of its points. The perspectival artist is convinced that all the geometrical
constructions he learned as a child (and has since happily forgotten) are in
essence not simply abstract schemas (moreover, some of many possible, but
essentially realisable, constructions ofthe physical world), but on the contrary
exist as such and are also observable. An artist of this mindset believes that the
rays which travel in a bundle from the eye to the outline of an object are
straight - a notion that derives, incidentally, from a very ancient view that
light travels not from the object to the eye, but from the eye to the object. He
also believes in the immutability of a measuring rod when transported in
space from place to place and when turned from one direction to another, ete.,
ete. In short, he believes in the construction of the world according to Euclid
and in its perception according to Kant. That's the first premise.
Second: this time, out of Euclid's absolutely equal points in an infinite
space, the artist conceives ofa single, exclusive, so to speak, monarchical point
of particular value, its only defining feature being that this point is occupied
by the artist himself, or more precisely by his right eye - the optical centre of
his right eye. What is even worse is that the artist attains this in the spirit of a
Kantian worldview with its transcendental subject reigning over the illusory
world of subjectivity - in spite of Euclidean logie. According to this concep-
tion, all positions in space are essentially lacking in quality and are equally
devoid of colour, with the single exception of this absolutely dominant one,
because in it resides the optical centre of the artist's right eye. This position is
declared to be the centre of the world; it claims to reflect spatially the Kantian
absolute, gnoseological significance of the artist. Truly, he looks at life 'from a
point of view', but without any further definition, for this point, elevated into
an absolute, is definitely no different from all the other points of space, and its
elevation over the rest is not only unjustified, it is unjustifiable, given the entire
world view under discussion.
Third: this 'from his own point of view', this tsar and lawgiver of nature, is
imagined as being monocular like the Cyclops, for the second eye, competing
with the first, destroys the oneness, and consequently the absoluteness, of the
point of view and thereby exposes the fraudulent nature of a perspectival
picture. Essentially, the whole world is related not even to the observing artist,
but only to his right eye, conceived, what's more, as a single point, its optical
centre. It is this centre that legislates the universe.
Fourth: the above-mentioned lawgiver is thought of as for ever inseparably
chained to his throne. Ifhe quits this absolutised place or even stirs slightly on
it, then the whole unity of the perspectival construction is immediately shat-
tered and the whole perspectival system falls apart. In other words, in this
conception the viewing eye is not the organ of a living creature, who lives and
labours in the world, but the glass lens of the camera obscura.
Fifth: the entire world is thought to be completely static and wholly
immutable. In a world subject to a perspectival depiction there can be neither
history, nor growth, nor dimensions, nor movements, nor biography, nor
development of dramatic actions, nor the play of emotions - nor should there
be. Otherwise the perspectival oneness of the picture disintegrates yet again. It
is a world that is dead, or gripped in eternal sleep, invariably one and the same,
a picture frozen in its ice-bound immobility.
Sixth: all psycho-physiological processes in the act of vision are excluded.
The eye looks motionlessly and dispassionately, the equivalent of an optical
lens. It does not stir itself, it cannot, it has no right to stir, in spite of the funda-
mental condition of vision, its activeness, the active reconstructing of reality
in vision as the activity of a living creature. Moreover, this looking is accom-
panied by neither memories, nor spiritual exertions, nor recognition. It is an
external-mechanical process, at the most a physio-chemical one, but in no
way is it that which is called vision. The whole psychic element of vision, and
even the physiological one, are decisively absent.
And thus, if the six aforesaid conditions are observed, then and only then
does that correspondence which a perspectival picture wants to convey
between the points on the skin of the world and the points of a representation
become possible. But if even one of the aforementioned six conditions is not
observed in its entirety, then this aspect of the correspondence becomes
impossible and the perspective will then inevitably be destroyed to a greater or
lesser extent. Apicture approaches perspectival correctness inasmuch as, and
to the degree that, the aforesaid conditions are observed. And if they are not
observed even partially, if the legitimacy of even their local violation is admit-
ted' as a result the perspective too ceases to be an unconditional demand
hanging over the artist and becomes just an approximate method of convey-
ing reality, one among many others. Moreover, the degree of its application
and the place of that application in a given work are defined by the special
aims of the given work and its given place, but by no means generally for any
work as such and under all circumstances.
But let us suppose for a moment that the conditions of perspective are
satisfied completely, and, consequently, that an exact perspectival unity is also
achieved in the work [of art]. The image of the world conveyed under such
conditions would resemble a photograph, momentarily imprinting a given
correlation between the photosensitised plate and reality. Digressing from the
question of the properties of space itself and of the psycho-physical processes
of vision, we can say that, in relation to the actual observation of real life, this
instantaneous photo is a differential, and a differential of a higher and, to a
lesser extent, a second order. To receive a genuine picture of the world there-
from, it is essential to integrate it several times, using the variable of time, on
which both changes in reality itself and the processes of observation also
depend, and also using other variables like the changeable mass of appercep-
tions, etc. However, even if all this were done, the resulting integral of the
image would still not coincide with a truly artistic image, as a consequence of
the disparity between the concept of space that it implies and the space of the
work of art, which is organised as a self-contained, complete unit.
It is not hard to recognise in such a perspectival artist the embodiment of
a thought that is passive and doomed to every kind of passivity, that for an
instant, as ifby stealth, furtively spies on the world through a chink between
subjective facets, that is lifeless and motionless, incapable of grasping move-
ment and laying claim to a divine certainty, specifically about its own place
and its own instant of peeking out. He is an observer who brings nothing of
his own to the world, who cannot even synthesise his own fragmentary
impressions; who, since he does not enter into a living interaction with the
world and does not live in it, is not aware of his own reality either, although in
his proud seclusion from the world he imagines himselfto be the last instance.
Yet on the basis of his own furtive experience he constructs all of reality, all of
it, on the pretext of objectivity, squeezing it into what he has observed of real-
ity's own differential. This is precisely how the world view of Leonardo,
Descartes, and Kant grows out of the soil of the Renaissance; this is also how
the visual art equivalent to this world view- perspective - arises.
Artistic symbols should be perspectival here, because perspective is a
method for uniting all notions about the world, such that the world is under-
stood as a single, indissoluble and impenetrable net of Kantian and Euclidean
relationships, having their focus in the I of the observer of the world, but in
such a way that this I is itself inactive and mirror-like, a certain imaginary
focus on the world. In other words, perspective is a method that of necessity results
from aWeltanschauung in which the rea! basisfor half-real, things-notions is admitted to
be a certain kind of subjectivity, which is itself devoid of realit):. Perspective is an
expression of meonism
and impersonalism. And this trend of thought is
usually called 'naturalism' and 'humanism' - the trend that emerged with the
end of mediaeval realism and co-centrism.
But, one asks, in what measure is it possible to doubt the soundness of the six
premises of perspective listed above? I.e., while a perspectival representation
is one of many methods for representing the world that are possible in the
abstract - this is irrefutable! - is it in actual fact the only one, given the viable
presence of the demonstrated conditions which make it possible? In other
words, is the Kantian, Renaissance world view vital? If it transpired that the
conditions of perspective were violated in actual experience, then the vital
significance of this concept would be refuted along with it.
And so, let us examine step by step the conditions we have laid out.
First: on the issue of the space of the world it should be said that, in the
actual concept ofspace, we can distinguish three layers that are quite distinct
from each other. They are: abstract or geometric space, physical and physio-
logical space, which can in turn be subdivided into the space of vision, the
space of touch, the space of hearing, the space of smell, the space of taste, the
space of a sense generally organic, ete., each with their own more subtle
subdivisions. In abstract terms one can think in a totally different way about
each of these designated divisions of space, the large and the minuscule. To
imagine that an entire series of extremely complex questions can be deflected
simply by referring to a geometric doctrine about the similarity of figures in
three-dimensional Euclidean space would mean not even touching on the
difficulties of the issue here. First and foremost, it should be noted that the
answers given to various aspects of the posed question of space turn out,
quite naturally, to be extremely diverse. In abstract geometric terms, Euclid-
ean space is just a particular instance of diverse, utterly heterogeneous
spaces, with the most unexpected characteristics vis-a-vis the elementary
teaching of geometry, characteristics that are highly revealing for a direct
relation to the world. Euclid's geometry is one of countless geometries, and
we have no foundation for saying that physical space, the space of physical
processes, is specifically Euclidean space. It is just a postulate, a demand that
we think of the world thu;;. and adapt all other notions to this demand. The
actual demand itself arises from an a priori belief in physico-mathematical
science of a specific stamp, involving the principle of continuity, absolute
time, absolute solid bodies and so on.
But let us suppose for a moment that physical space does in fact satisfy the
geometry of Euclid. It still does not follow from this that the direct observer of
the world perceives it to be just like that. No matter howhe would like to think
of the physical space he inhabits, no matter how essential he thinks it is that
the construction of all his other notions should fit the main one - the Euclid-
ean composition of external space, subsuming physiological space within a
Euclidean schema - nevertheless physiological space cannot be made to fit
within it. Leaving aside the olfactory, gustatory, thermal, aural and tactile
spaces that have nothing in common with Euclidean space, so that they're not
even subject to discussion in this sense, we cannot overlook the fact that even
visual space, the least removed from Euclidean space, turns out on closer
inspection to be profoundly different from it. And it is in fact [visual space]
that lies at the core of painting and the graphic arts, although in various
instances it can be subject to other aspects of physiological space too, in
which case a picture will be a visual transposition of non-visual perceptions.
'If we now ask just exactly what physiological space has in common with
geometric space, we will find only a very few points in common,' says Mach.
'Both spaces represent a three-dimensional manifold. For every point A, B, C,
D of geometric space there is a corresponding A', B', C', D' of physiological
space. If C lies between Band D, then C also lies between B' and D'. We can
also say that, for a continuous motion of some point in geometric space, there
is a corresponding continuous moment of a corresponding point in physio-
logical space. That this continuity, chosen for convenience sake, should in no
way be obligatorily real and unalterable for the one or the other we have
already demonstrated elsewhere: 'And ifwe accept that physiological space is
innate to us, it displays too few resemblances to geometric space to allowus to
see in it sufficient basis for a developed apriori geometry (in the Kantian sense).
On this foundation we can at the very most construct a topology:8
'If this
dissimilarity between physiological and geometric space doesn't seem obvi-
ous to people who do not specialise in such investigations, if geometric space
doesn't seem to them somehow monstrous, a kind of falsification of innate
space, then this can be explained by an intimate examination ofthe conditions
under which man lives and develops:8
But, 'even given its greatest approxi-
mation to Euclidean space, physiological space still differs from it substan-
tially. A naive person easily overcomes the difference between right and left,
before and behind, but it is not so easy for him to overcome the difference
between above and below, on account of the resistance shown by geotropism
in this regard:
In another work the same thinker outlines some of the characteristics of
this difference. 'We have already repeatedly had occasion to notice how very
different the system of our space-sensations - our physiological space, if we
may use the expression - is from geometrical (by which is here meant
Euclidean).... Geometrical space is of the same nature everywhere and in all
directions; it is boundless and (in Riemann's sense) infinite. Visual space is
bounded and finite, and what is more, its extension is different in different
directions, as a glance at the flattened "vault of heaven" teaches us. Bodies
shrink when they are removed to a distance, when they are brought near
they are enlarged and in these features visual space resembles the many
constructions of the metageometricians rather than Euclidean space. The
difference between "above" and "below", between "before" and "behind",
and also, strictly speaking, between "left" and "right", is common to tactile
space and visual space, but in geometrical space there are no such differ-
ences.'87 Physiological space is neither homogeneous, nor isotropic, and this
is expressed in the varying estimation of angular distances at varying
distances from the horizon, in the varying estimation oflengths, subdivided
and not subdivided, in the varying sensitivity of perception on varying parts
of the retina, and so on.
And so, we can and should have doubts that our world exists in Euclidean
space. But even if we were to dismiss this doubt, nevertheless we probably do
not see, and in general do not apprehend, the Euclidean-Kantian world; we
only talk about it as a theoretical requirement, as if it were something visible.
Whereas the artist's task is to paint pictures, not abstract treatises, to depict
what he really sees. What he sees, given the structure of the seeing organ, is
not at all a Kantian world, and consequently he must depict something that in
no way obeys the laws of Euclidean geometry.
Second: there is not a single person in his right mind who thinks that his point
of view is the only one and who does not accept every place, every point of view
as something ofvalue, as giving a special aspect ofthe world that doesn't exclude
other aspects, but affirms them. Some points ofvieware more full ofcontent and
characteristic, others less so, each in its own respect, but there is no absolute
point of view. Consequently, the artist attempts to examine the object he depicts
from various points of view, enriching his observation with new aspects of real-
ity, and acknowledging them as more or less ofequal meaning.
Third: since he has two eyes, Le., since he has at one and the same time at least
two different points ofview, the artist possesses a constant corrective to illusion-
ism, for his second eye is always suggesting that perspectival vision is a deception,
and what's more an unsuccessful illusion. In addition, the artist sees more with
two eyes than he could with one, and with each eye he sees in a particular way, so
that the visual image takes shape in his consciousness synthetically, like a binoc-
ular image. In any event it is a psychological synthesis, but it can in no way be
likened to a monocular, single-lens photograph on the retina. Nor is it for the
defenders of perspective and the supporters of Helmholtz's theory of vision to
cite the negligible difference between two pictures produced by the left and right
eye. This difference, according to their own theory, happens to be sufficient [to
create] a sensation ofdepth, and without it this sensation would not be registered.
Consequently, by pointing out the difference between representations made with
the right and the left eyes, they destroy the reason that would explain why space
is perceived as three dimensional.
However, this difference is by no means as small as it might seem at first
glance. Let's take as an example a calculation I made. Asphere 20 cm in diam-
eter is viewed from a distance of half a metre, with the distance between the
pupils of the eyes being 6 cm. Assuming that the centre of the sphere is at eye
level, then the addition of the sphere's equatorial arc that is perceived by the
left eye not by the right, is equal to approximately one third of that same arc's
equator, seen by the right eye. On a closer examination of the sphere, the
proportion of what is seen by the left eye, when added to what is seen by the
right eye, will be even greater than one third. These are quantities we must
deal with under the usual conditions of vision, for example, when looking at a
human face, and even at the smallest degrees of accuracy they cannot be eval-
uated as quantities that we can afford to disregard.
So in general, if s is the main distance, r is the radius of the sphere under
examination, and 1is the distance of the sphere's centre from the midpoint of
the interocular distance, then the relationship x of the additional equatorial
arc, added by the left eye to the same arc of the right eye, to the arc seen by the
right eye, is expressed with sufficient accuracy in the equation:
x= _
2 1arc cos rll
Fourth: Even when he sits in one spot an artist is always moving. He moves
with his eyes, his head, his torso, and his point of view is ceaselessly changing.
This is the visual artistic image as it should be called. That is, the psychic synthe-
sis ofinfinitely many visual perceptions from various points ofview, and double
ones at that, is an integral of such two-in-one images. To think of it as a purely
physical phenomenon is to have no conception of the processes ofvision and to
confuse quadrata rotundis - the mechanical and the spirituaL He who has not
assimilated the spiritual-synthetic nature ofvisual images as axioms, has not yet
even embarked on a theory of vision, still less ofartistic vision.
On the other hand, and fifth, objects change, move, turn their various
sides towards the viewer, grow and shrink. The world is life, not frozen stasis.
And consequently, here again the creative spirit ofthe artist should synthesise,
forming integrals of the partial aspects of reality, of its instantaneous cross-
sections along the coordinate oftime. The artist depicts not an object, but the
life of the object, according to the impression he receives of it. And thereby, in
general terms, it is a great prejudice to think that one should contemplate, in a
state of immobility and while the object being contemplated is motionless.
For the issue is, just what perception of an object needs to be depicted in a
given situation - that from a chink in the prison wall or from [the window] of
an automobile. In itself, not a single means of relating to reality can be rejected
in advance. Perception is defined by a vital relation to reality, and if the artist
wishes to depict the perception he receives when both he and the object are
mutually moving, then he must summarise his impressions while in motion.
Moreover, this is actually the most common and most true-to-life perception
ofreality- as one goes along. It is this perception that gives the most profound
cognition of reality. The painterly expression of such cognition is the artist's
natural goal. Is it a feasible one?
We know that movement [can be] conveyed, if only that of a galloping
horse, the play offeelings across a face, the developing action ofevents. Conse-
quently, there is no basis for acknowledging that the vital perception of reality
cannot be depicted. This differs from the more usual situation, in that the
artist is moving relatively slowly and objects are more often depicted in
motion, whereas here the movement of the artist, too, is also considered
significant, then reality itself can be almost or entirely motionless. As a result,
we have depictions of houses with three and four facades, heads with extra
surfaces, and suchlike phenomena familiar to us from ancient art. This kind of
depiction of reality will correspond to the unmoving monumentality and
ontological massiveness of the world, activated by the cognising spirit that
lives and labours in these strongholds of ontology.
Children do not synthesise even the instantaneous image of a person,
placing the eyes, nose, mouth and so on separately and uncoordinated on the
paper. The perspectival artist is unable to synthesise a series of instantaneous
impressions and places them in an uncoordinated way on the various pages of
his sketchbook. But in both cases this demonstrates only the passivity of a
thought that comes unravelled into elementary impressions, is incapable of
grasping in a single whole act of contemplation - and consequently in a corre-
sponding single form - any kind of complex perception, and of cinemato-
graphically distributing it into instants and moments. However, there are
instances when such a synthesis cannot but be produced, and then the most
zealous perspectivist rejects his own positions. There's not a single naturalist
artist who can stop a spinning top, the wheel of a speeding train or a skidding
bicyclist, a waterfall or a fountain in his representation, but he can convey in
summary form a perception of the play of impressions fading into and criss-
crossing each other. However, an instantaneous photograph or the sight of
these processes illuminated by an electric flash reveals something quite differ-
ent from what the artist depicted. Now it becomes evident that a single
impression halts the process, provides its differential, while a general impres-
sion integrates these differentials. But if anyone would agree with the legiti-
macy of such an integration, then what is there to stop us applying something
equivalent in other situations too, when the speed of the processes is some-
what less relevant?
And finally, sixth: The defenders of perspective forget that artistic vision is
an extremely complex psychic process of merging psychic elements, accom-
panied by psychic resonances. In the image reconstructed in the spirit there
accumulate memories, emotional echoes of inner movements, and around
the dust motes of all the above the effective psychic content of the artist's
personality is perceptibly crystallised. This clot grows and acquires its own
rhythm, and it is this rhythm that expresses the artist's response to the reality
he depicts.
In order to see and examine an object, and not only to look at it, it is
essential progressively to translate its depiction on the retina in separate
sections to the retina's sensible macula. This means that the visual image is
not presented to the consciousness as something simple, without work and
effort, but is constructed, pieced together from fragments successively
sewn one to the other, such that each of them is perceived more or less from
its own point of view. Furthermore, facet is synthetically added to facet by a
particular act of the psyche, and in general the visual image is shaped in
succession, not produced ready-made. In perception the visual image is not
viewed from a single viewpoint but, in accordance with the very essence of
vision, it is an image of polycentric perspective. In uniting together here the
additional surfaces as well, combining the image from the left eye with the
one from the right, we should acknowledge the resemblance of any visual
image to the buildings in icons. Henceforth we can debate the degree and
desired extent of this polycentric perspective, but no longer that it should
be allowed in principle. Thereafter begins either the demand for an even
greater degree of mobility in the eye, for the sake of an increasingly intense
synthetic vision, or the demand for anchoring the eye, to the degree possi-
ble, when a 'scattered' vision is sought. In this case, perspective stands on
the path of this visual analysis. But man, as long as he's alive, cannot be
completely accommodated within a perspectival system, and the very act
of seeing with a motionless, fixed eye (ignoring the left eye) is psychologi-
cally impossible.
People will say, 'But all the same now, you can't see three walls of a
house at once!' If this objection were correct, one would have to continue it
and be consistent. It's impossible to see not just three, but two walls, and
even one wall of a house all at once. All at once we see only a minutely small
fragment of the wall, and even that we don't see all at once. All at once we
see literally nothing. But not all at once we definitely receive an image of a
house with three and four walls, as we conceive the house to be. A continu-
ous pouring, overflowing, changing, struggle takes place in the living
conception. It is continuously playing, sparkling, pulsating, but never does
it founder in the inner contemplation of a thing like a dead schema. And it
is just with such an inner pulsing, sparkling and play that a house lives in
our imagination. The artist should and can depict his idea of a house, but he
absolutely cannot transfer the house itself to canvas. He grasps this life of
his idea, whether it be a house or a human face, by taking from the various
parts of the idea the brightest, the most expressive of its elements, and
instead of a momentary psychic fireworks it provides a motionless mosaic
of its single, most expressive moments. During contemplation of the
picture, the viewer's eye, passing step by step across these characteristic
features, reproduces in the spirit what is now an image extended in time
and duration of a scintillating, pulsating idea, but now more intense and
more cohesive than an image deriving from the thing itself, for now the
vivid moments observed at different times are presented in their pure state,
already condensed, and don't require an expenditure of psychic effort in
smelting the clinkers out of it. As on the incised cylinder of a phonograph,
the sharp point of the clearest vision slips along the picture's lines and
surfaces with their notches, and in each spot arouses in the viewer corre-
sponding vibrations. And these vibrations constitute the purpose of the
work of art.
That is the approximate path of thought that travels from the premises of
naturalism to the perspectival peculiarities of icon painting. It may be a quite
different understanding of art from that which applies in naturalism, one that
derives from the fundamental precept of spiritual independence. For the
author personally this latter is closer. But on the basis of this understanding
the question of perspective doesn't come up at all, and remains just as remote
from creative consciousness as do the rest of the forms and methods of tech-
nical drawing. In this present analysis the limited nature of naturalism had to
be overcome from within, showing howfata volentem ducunt, nolentem trahunt-
to liberation and spirituality.
PaveIFlorensky: A Biographical Sketch
Andrei Bely, Nachalo veka (Moscow and Leningrad: Khudozhestvennaia literatura,
1933), p, 63,
2 Sergei Bulgakov, 'Sviashchennik Pavel Florensky', in Struve (1985), p, 7,
Renamed 'Zagorsk' by the Soviets, the small town of Sergiev Posad now bears its
original name, Sergiev Posad is used throughout this book,
4 Florensky, Detiam moim,
5 ibid" pp, 59-61,
6 Florensky, Analiz prostranstvennosti, pp, 166-70, 81-2, 239,
7 Pavel Florensky, Om Liricheskaia poema, Zabaikal'e 1934, Solovki 1934-37, eds Pavel
V, Florensky, and Aleksandr Oleksenko (Moscow: Paideia, 1998),
8 See 'Religiia', in Florensky, Detiam moim, pp, 115-89,
9 Various scholars have touched upon the subject of this relationship, although
particular reference should be made to Evgeniia Ivanova and Liudmilla Il'iunina,
eds, 'Iz naslediia P, A. Florenskogo. Kistorii otnoshenii s Andreem Belym', in
Kontekst 1991 (Moscow: Nauka, 1991), pp. 3-99. This detailed description also
includes excerpts from the Florensky-Bely correspondence.
10 Bely, Simvolizm (Moscow: Musaget, 1910).
II See Ivanova and Il'iunina, 'Iz naslediia P. A. Florenskogo', pp. 44-52.
12 Lydia Ivanova, 'Reminiscences', in Robert Louis Jackson and Lowry Nelson Jr.,
eds, Vyacheslav Ivanov: Poet, Critic, and Philosopher (Columbus, OH, 1986), p. 401,
13 This short essay was published in the form often small pamphlets sent to
subscribers in 1917-18. See Vasilii Rozanov, Apokalipsis nashego vremeni (Sergiev
Posad, 1917), nos 1, 2; (1918), nos 3-10.
14 Mariia Trubacheva and Igumen Trubachev, 'Sergiev Posad v zhizni P. A. Floren-
skogo', in Hagemeister and Kauchtschischwili (1995), p. 24.
15 Bely, Nachalo veka, p. 270.
16 Aleksei Losev, 'GibeI' burzhuaznoi kul'tury i ee filosofii (posleslovie)', in Artur
Khiubsher, Mysliteli nashego vremeni (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo inostrannoi literatury,
1961), p. 17
17 Ivan Frolovich Ognev a professor of biology at Moscow University,
moved to Sergiev Posad in 1919. Florensky dictated many of his texts, including
'On the Efimovs' Puppet Theatre', 'On Realism' and 'Analysis ofSpatiality', to
Ognev's wife, Sofiia Ivanovna Ogneva (1857-1940).
18 See Mariia Trubacheva, 'Iz istorii okhrany pamiatnikov v pervye gody sovetskoi
vlasti. Komissiia po okhrane pamiatnikov stariny i iskusstva Troitse-Sergievoi
Lavry 1918-1925 gg.', in Muzei, 5(1984), pp. 152-64.
19 Written between 1918 and 1920, lconostasis was published only in 1972. For English
translations see John Lindsay Opie, ed., 'Archipriest Pavel Florensky: "On the
Icon"', Eastern Churches Review, vIlI/1 (1976), pp. 11-37; Sheehan and Andrejev,
lconostasis (1996).
20 Florensky exhibition (1989).
21 For bibliographical details of Florensky's entries for the Tekhnicheskaia entsiklo-
pediia see Andronik, 'K 100-1etiu' (1982), pp. 299-306.
22 The original petition is in the Florensky Foundation. Whether it was sent is
unclear. See Pavel V. Florensky, 'Pamiati o. Pavla Florenskogo. Istoriia ego gibeli
v pis'makh i dokumentakh', Russkaia mysl',3908 (13 December 1991), p.13.
23 Florensky's nephew, Pavel Vasil'evich, has published a detailed account of the
imprisonment and execution. See Pavel V. Florensky et aI., P. A. Florensky, Arest i
gibel' (Ufa: Grado-Ufimskaia Bogorodskaia tserkov', 1997).
Pavel Florensky as Art Historian
In 1918-20 Florensky was Secretary for Academic Affairs and Curator ofthe
Sacristy within the Commission. In this capacity he wrote the opening essay
'Troitse-Sergieva Lavra i Rossiia' for the collection Troitse-Sergieva Lavra.
2 Letter from Florensky to his son Kirill, dated 13 May 1937, in Sochineniia, IV, p. 702.
After graduating in mathematics and physics, A1eksandr Illarionovch Larionov
(1889-1958) cultivated a serious interest in many academic disciplines and
subjects - Indo-European languages (learning Sanskrit, for example), archae-
ology, ethnography, art history, creative literature, linguistics, gymnastics and
choreography - and he even offered a course in cinematography for NARKOM-
PROS. Like Florensky, Larionov was much indebted to the Moscow Symbolists.
For an English translation of one of his texts and commentary see Nicoletta
Misler, 'Aleksandr Larionov', Experiment, 3(1997), pp. 267-8.
4 Count Yurii Aleksandrovich Olsuf'ev (1878-1939) was a connoisseur of early
Russian icons. With Florensky he played a critical role in the Commission for the
Preservation of the Lavra, preparing catalogues raisonnes ofthe icons and other
ecclesiastical objects in the Lavra collections. For information on Olsuf'ev see
Gerol'd Vzdornov: 'Zabytoe imia', in Pamiatniki Otechestva, 2 (16) (1987), p. 85.
Pavel Nikolaevich Kapterev (1889-1953), son of the theological historian Nikolai
Kapterev (1847-1917), graduated in biology in 1911 and in philosophy in 1916. In
1924 he was appointed Director of the Hypnosis Society in Moscow and the
following year Director of the Commission for the Study of Artistic Creativity at
RAKhN. Kapterev also worked in the Psycho-Physical Laboratory there, conduct-
ing research on' artistic creativity under hypnosis'. In the late 1920S he gave
increasing attention to the natural sciences. See Pavel Kapterev, 'Lichnoe delo',
RGALI, Call No.: f. 941, op. 10, ed. khr. 268; also his 'Iz istorii Troitskoi Lavry',
in Florensky, Troitse-Sergieva Lavra i Rossiia, pp. 30-45.
6 After graduating as an engineer in 1903, Pavel Pavlovich Muratov (1881-1950)
volunteered for the Russo-Japanese War and subsequently for the First World
\Var. Along with creative writing, criticism, translating, and art history, military
history was one of his principal interests. During his long sojourns in Rome and
Florence in 1908 and 1911 he wrote the first and second volumes of his Obra0' ItaW
(published by Nauchnoe slovo, Moscow, in 1911 and 1912 respectively) The book
was published in its entirety (three volumes) only in 1924 (Berlin: Grzhebin) and
then again in 1993 (vo!. I) and 1994 (vols 11 and Ill) by Viktor Grashenkov with
Galart, Moscow. After the October Revolution Muratov assumed important
responsibilities in the new institutions that Lenin established for the protection
of antique monuments and art objects. In1922 he emigrated to Berlin and later
on to England and Eire.
7 Boris Biriukov refers to Weyl in the immediate context of Florensky. See Yurii
Danilov, ed., German Veil, matematicheskoe myshlenie (Moscow: Matematika, 1989),
pp. 337-9, 345, 349-52, 358.
8 Florensky, Analiz prostranstvennosti, pp. 166-70, 81-2,239.
9 As Aleksei Losev asserted, 'Florensky was an enemy of pure logic ... Florensky
could not bear pure logic ... Florensky was not at all fond of abstract philoso-
phy.' Aleksei Losev, 'Vspominaia Florenskogo.. .', in Literaturnaia ucheba, 2
(March-April 1988), P.176.
10 The Russian texts of the eleven lectures which Florensky delivered at
VKhUTEMAS in the academic year 1923-24 are published as 'Prilozhenie 1).
Lektsii P. Florenskogo. Analiz perspektivy (zapis' Verevinoi-Stroganovoi
1923-24', in Andronik (2000), pp. 296-386. For an Italian translation of eight of
the lectures see Misler (1995), pp. 241-331.
11 For a comprehensive analysis ofFlorensky's idea ofthe symbol see Vyacheslav
Ivanov, 'Florensky: ASymbolic View', in Elementa, 11 (1995), pp. 1-22.
12 Florensky, Detiam maim, p. 158.
13 Pavel Florensky, '0 simvolakh beskonechnosti (Ocherk idei G. Kantor)', in Novyi
put', 9 (1904), pp. 173-235.
14 Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov (1871-1944), priest, philosopher and economist.
Born into a priest's family, he studied at the Theological Seminary in Orlov
where he also moved closely with the Social Democrats. However, in 1903, with
the collection of essays Ot marksizma kidealizmu [From Marxism to Idealism] (St
Petersburg: Obshchestvennia pol'za, 1903), he declared his new-found religious
and philosophical orientation. Close to Nikolai Berdiav, Bulgakov published in
the Symbolist religious journal Put' in 1911. Ordained in 1918, he was exiled from
Russia in1922. In emigration he lived in Prague and then Paris and was one of the
very few Russian intellectuals to keep the memory of Florensky alive. For an
overview of his religious ideas see Catherine Evtuhov, The Cross and the Sickle:
Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate ofRussian Religious Philosophy (Ithaca, 1997). Bulgakov
published his early ideas on Sophia in his book Svet nevechernii. Sozertsaniia i
umozreniia (Sergiev Posad: Put', 1917), which he then developed in emigration.
15 Florensky, The Pillar and Ground, pp. 400-401.
16 Ibid., p. 583.
17 In 1908 parts of The Pillar and Ground were published as two offprints of the
journals Voprosy religii and Religiia i zhizn'. Three years later the letter in question
appeared separately as 'Sofiia (Iz pisem k drugu)' [Sophia (From Letters to a
Friend)] in Bogoslovskii Vestnik, I1/5 (1911), pp. 135-61; I1/7/8, pp. 582-613. For
commentary on the sequence of the first publications of these letters see
Andronik (]982), pp. 284-91.
18 Florensky neither elaborated nor published this brieftext. See Pavel Florensky,
'Zoloto v lazuri Andreia Belogo. Kriticheskaia stat' ia', in Sochineniia, I, pp. 695-9.
Bely's book, Zoloto v lazuri, was published by Skorpion (Moscow, 1904).
19 Pavel Florensky, Vvechnoi lazuri. Sbornik stikhov (Sergiev Posad: Tipografiia Sviato-
Troitskoi Sergievoi Lavry, 1907).
20 Pavel Florensky, The Turquoise Environment of Sophia and the Symbolism of
Sky-Blue and Dark-Blue' (Appendix XXIV in The Pillar and Ground, pp. 391-406).
This citation is on p. 398.
21 Judith Deutsch Kornblatt, trans. and intro., 'Vladimir Solovyov, 'Three Encoun-
ters', in The Silver Age. Russian Literature and Culture ]88]-]92], vo!. II (Idyllwild, CA,
1999), p. 33. Solov'ev had three visions ofthe Divine Sophia - one in Russia when
he was nine, the second in the Reading Room of the British Museum in London,
and the third in the Egyptian desert.
22 Mikhail Lermontov, untitled poem (dated 1January 1840), in Anatoly Liberman,
trans. and intro., Mikhail Lermontov, Major Poetical Works (Minneapolis, 1983), p. 183.
23 Florensky, Troitse-Sergieva Lavra i Rossiia, p. 230.
24 See, for example, Pavel Muratoff, Thirty Five Russian Primitives (Paris: A la Vieille
Russie, 1931).
25 For commentary on Sofiia see Vasilii Sakharov, 'Zhurnal sobiratel'stva i okhrany
pamiatnikov '''Sofiia''', in Pamiatniki Otechestva, 1(1983), pp. 152-5; and V. Vel'ia-
shev, '''Sofiia.'' Po stranitsamstarykh zhurnalov', in Nashe nasledie. 4 (1988), pp.
26 Pavel Muratov, intra., Vysfavka Drevne-russkago iskusstva (Moscow: Tipografiia P.P.
27 According to Nikita Struve, who published EI'chaninov's memoirs, the bishop in
question was Bishop Gavriil Golosov of Omsk (1839-1916). See Aleksandr
EI'chaninov, 'Iz vstrech s P. A. Florenskim', in Vestnik russkogo Khristianskogo
dvizheniia, 11I/142 (1984), pp. 68-77.
28 Ibid., p. 74. Also see Sol' zemli (Sergiev Posad: Tipografiia Sviato-Troitskoi
Sergievoi Lavry, ]908) translated into English by Richard Betts as Salt ofthe Earth
(Platina, CA: St Hermann Brotherhood ofAlaska, 1987).
29 See Nicoletta Misler, 'Per una liturgia dei sensi: 11 concetto di sinestesia da
Kandinskij a Florenskij', in Rassegna Sovietica (March-April 1986), pp. 37-44. For a
valuable survey ofthe concept ofthe Gesamtkunstwerk see Waiter Scheel et aI., Der
Hang zum Gesamtkunstwerk. Europiiische Utopien sdt 1800 (Aaran, 1983).
30 Pavel Florensky, '0 khramovom deistve kak sintez iskussstv.' Manuscript
Section, GTG, Call. No.: f. 31/1130.
31 The Misterium remained unfinished because ofthe composer's sudden death in
April 1915. See Boris de Schloezer, 'Acte prealable', in Nicolas Slonimsky, trans.,
and Marina Scriabine, intro., Scriabin, Artist and Mystic (Berkeley and Los Angeles,
1987), pp. 291-306.
32 Viacheslav Ivanov appreciated Skriabin and his theories. See 'Vospominanie 0 A.
N. Skriabine. Pamiati Skriabina', in Viacheslav Ivanov: Svet Vechernii (Oxford,
1962), pp. 51-52, 92-3.
33 See Viacheslav Ivanov, 'Mnozhestvo i lichnost' v deistve', in Vestnik teatra, 62
(1920), p. 5.
34 Pavel Florensky, Letter to Ol'ga Florenskaia, dated 23 March 1937, in Sergei
Trubachev, 'Muzykal'nyi mir P. A. Florenskogo', Sovetskaia muzyka, 9 (September
1988), pp. 99-102. This quotation is on p. 99.
35 Florensky, Analiz prostranstvennosti, p.127.
36 Trubachev, 'Muzykal' nyi mir P. A. Florenskogo', p. 100.
37 Pavel Florensky, 'Pis'mo v dostokhval'nyi "Makovets"', in Mira Nemirovskaia and
Evgeniia Iliukhina, eds, Makovets 1922-1926. Sbornik materialov po istorii ob'edineniia,
catalogue ofthe exhibition at the Tretiakov Gallery, Moscow (1994), p. 60. For
further detailed information on the history ofthe Makovets group and its journal
see Vladimir Lapshin, 'Iz istorii zhizni khudozhestvennoi Moskvy 1920-kh
godov. "Makovets''', in Vadim Polevoi et aI., eds, Sovetskoe iskusstvoznanie '79, 2
(Moscow: Sovetskii khudozhnik, 1980), pp. 355-n
38 Yurii Olsuf'ev, Ikonopisnyeformy kakformuly sinteza [Iconic Forms as Formulae of
Synthesis] (Sergiev Posad: Izdanie Gosudarstvennogo Sergievskogo istoriko-
khudozhestvennogo muzeia, 1926).
39 The essay was never published. See Vzdornov, 'Zabytoe imia', p. 85.
40 'Skhema opisaniia ikony vyrabotannaia chlenami Komissii po okhrane Troitskoi
Lavry', in Florensky, Ikonostas (1995), p. 222-3.
41 Letter from Olsuf'ev to Neradovsky dated 14 December 1918, Manuscript Section,
TG, Call No.: f 31/1130, 1.J.
42 Igumen Damaskin (Orlovsky), 'Goneniia na russkuiu pravoslavnuiu tserkov' v
sovetskii period', in Pravoslavnaia Entsiklopediia. Russkaia Pravoslavnaia tserkov'
(Moscow, 2000), pp. 179-89.
43 Under the aegis of the Committee for the Preservation of Artistic Treasures,
Grabar' published the pamphlet: Dlia chego nado okhraniat' i sobirat' sokrovishcha
iskusstva i stariny (Moscow: Kushnerev, 1919).
44 Viktor Kuchin, ed., Iz istorii stTOitel'stva sovetskoi kul'twy 1917-18 (Moscow, 1964). For
useful contextual discussions of such collectors and their collections see Beverly
Kean, All the Empty Palaces (London, 1983) and Nadezhda Polunina and Aleksandr
Frolov, Kollektsionery staroi Moskvy (Moscow, 1997).
45 Boris Shaposhnikov, 'The Museum as a Work of Art', Experiment, 3 (1997), p. 233.
46 The idea of a museum centred in the Lavra was crucial to the project that the
Sergiev Posad Society for the Study of the Local Region entertained in 1918: 'It
would be a mistake to viewthe Lavra simply as a museum. The Lavra is a living
diamond, the foundation of which is the whole territory in question. The Lavra
lives as an enormous historical and artistic organism.' In addition, the Society
planned a Natural Sciences Section so as to study the 'topography ofthe region,
its water system, tables of meteorological data, and so on; geographical materials
in general, the geological structure of the region ... its 110ra and fauna'. The
mandate encompassed the local woods, birds, reptiles and even butterl1ies. See
Pavel Kapterev, '0 zadachakh Sergievo-posadskogo Obshchestva Izucheniia
mestnogo kraia. Sostavleno po porucheniiu Obshchestva' (25 October 1918) in
Trubacheva, 'Komissiia po okhrane', p. 160. See also Florensky, 'Stat'i i doklady
po okhrane pamiatnikov i organizatsii muzeinnogo dela', in Andronik (2000),
pp. 47-78.
47 'Proekt muzeiia Troitse-Sergievoi Lavry, sostavlennyi chlenami Komissii po
okhrane Troitse-Sergievoi Lavry, professorami P. A. Florenskim i P. N.
Kapterevym po porucheniiu Komissii', in Trubacheva, 'Komissiia po okhrane',
pp. 161-2.
48 In 1933 Pavel Kapterev, his brother Sergei and Florensky were arrested simultane-
ously, accused of being members ofthe same (fictitious) anti-Soviet organisation.
See Pavel V. Florensky, 'V.!. Vernardsky i sem'ia Florenskikh. Pis'ma Florenskogo
iz ssylki', Novyi zhurnal, 186 (1992), pp. 226-61. At the Skovorodino camp Floren-
sky and Kapterev still managed to collaborate on research into the permafrost
and their findings were even published (but without Florensky's name as co-
author). See Pavel Kapterev and Nikolai Bykov, Vechnaia merzlota i stroitel'stvo na nei
(Moscow: Tranzheldorizdat, 1940).
49 During his last months Florensky wrote from prison camp: 'No, and even if!
were in Moscow I would not take part in the contemporary research in the field
ofphysics. Rather, I would study cosmophysics and the general principles ofthe
structure of matter as it manifests itself in real experience and not as it is recon-
structed abstractly from formal premises.' See Florensky's letter to his family
from the Solovki camp, dated 23-25 April 1936, in Sergei Trubachev, 'Blizhe k
zhizni mira', in Sovetskaia kul'tura (3 November 1988), p. 6. Kapterev also discussed
the infinity of the universe in several popular pamphlets. See, for example, his
Vselennaia i ego zhizn' (Moscow and Leningrad: Doloi negrafnotnost', 1927).
50 Florensky was interested in the perception of time during the dream process.
Referring to the investigations of Du Prel, he alluded to the possibility of a
reverse direction in time experienced during dreams. See Karl Du Prel, Die
Philosophie der Iviystik (Leipzig: Giinther, 1887). See also F1orensky, Ikonostas (1995),
p. 38; and Analiz prostranstvennosti, p. 222.
51 See Pavel Kapterev, 'Programma eksperimental' noi raboty nad problemami
khudozhestvennogo vospriatiia i tvorchestva pri primenenii gipnoza i
vnusheniia', in RGALl, Call. No.: f. 941 (GAKhN), op. 12, ed. khr. 10, 1. 4.
52 Now in the possession of the Florensky Foundation.
53 'Proekt muzeiia Troitse-Sergievoi Lavry', in Trubacheva, 'Komissiia po okhrane',
54 Pavel Florensky, 'Doklad v Komissiu po okhrane pamiatnikov iskusstva i stariny
Troitse-Sergievoi Lavry. Ob izdanii katalogov Lavrskogo l11uzeia', in Trubacheva,
'Komissiiu po okhrane', p. 162.
55 Alexandre Benois once accused his colleagues of'going around in gladrags that
they had dug out from their grandmothers' chests'. See il'ia Zilbershtein, Alek-
sandr Benua razmyshliaet (Moscow, 1968), p. 131.
56 For information on these sales see Ol'ga Vasil'eva and Pavel Knyshevsky, Krasnye
konkvistadolY (Moscow, 1994).
57 Vzdornov, 'Zabytoe imia', pp. 83-9.
58 Trubacheva, 'Komissiia po okhrane', p. 157.
59 Mikhail Gorev (Galkin), Troitskaia Lavra i Sergiei Radonezhsky. Opyt istoricheskogo
issledovaniia (Moscow: Izdamie narodnogo Komissariata lustitsii, 1920), pp. 37-9.
60 For a list of sources that Florensky may have consulted see Vladimir Basilov,
Shamanstvo unarodov Srednei Azii i Kazakhstana (Moscow, 1992). For a comprehen-
sive examination ofshamanism in Russia and the Soviet Union see Marjorie
Maldelstam Balzer, ed., Shamanism. Soviet Studies ofu'aditional Religion in Siberia and
Central Asia (NewYork, 1990).
61 Florensky, Analiz prostranstvennosti, pp. 197-8.
62 See Wendy Salmond, Arts and Crafts in Late Imperial Russia (Cambridge, MA, 1996);
and Alison Hilton: Russian Folk Art (Bloomington, IN, 1995).
63 Pavel Florensky, 'Pis'mo A. S. Mamontovoi', Sochineniia, n, pp. 4 9 ~ 1 O Florensky
wrote the letter, dated 30 July 1917, in response to her letter of the day before.
64 Pavel Florensky, Sobranie chastushek nerekhtskago uezda (Kostroma Kostromskaia
Gubernskaia Arkhivnaia Komissiia, 1909), p. 62. Some ofthe chasrushki that
Florensky recorded in ]908 have been included in a recent collection. See Fedor
Selivanov, ed., Chastushki (Moscow: Sovetskaia Rossiia, 1990). Achastushka is a
secular folk lyric, sometimes coarse, sometimes political, formed by a two or
four-line rhyming ditty often on a humorous theme and often interpreted in the
form of dancing, dialogue, duetto, monologue or a combination thereof. Floren-
sky listed the chastushki that he had found and discussed them in his Sobranie chas-
tushek nerekhtskago uezda. Bely also researched primitive rituals as subjects for his
novels, for example, drawing upon the rites and traditions of the khlysty (a self-
flagellating religious sect) in his novel, Serebrianyi golub' (Berlin: Epokha, 1922).
65 Florensky, Sobranie chastushek nerekhtskago uezda, p. 61.
66 Natal'ia I1'inichna Sats (1903-1993), niece by marriage of Anatolii Lunacharsky,
then head of NARKOMPROS, was the Director of the Moscow Children's
67 Of the three artists, Vladimir Andreevich Favorsky (1886-1964) was especially
close to Florensky. Both members ofthe Makovets group and professors at
VKhUTEMAS in the early 1920S, Favorsky and Florensky shared a common belief
in the 'Realist' function of the figurative arts, regarding the experiments of the
avant-garde with suspicion. Trained in Moscow and Munich, Favorskyachieved
his reputation as a book illustrator and theorist ofthe graphic arts, contributing
much to the development of the Russian and Soviet school ofthe printing arts.
For information on Favorsky in English see Yurii Molok, ed., and Mikhail Alpa-
toy, intro., Vladimir Favorsky (Moscow, ]967), trans. Avril Pyman.
68 Letter from Florensky to his daughter Ol'ga, sent from Solovki on 13 May 1937, in
Florensky, Detiam moim, pp. 438-9.
69 Pavel Florensky, 'Organoproektsiia', in Dekorativnoe iskusstvo SSSR, 145 (1969), pp.
39-42. Written in 1922, this was one of several chapters that Florensky planned
for his unpublished collection, At the Watersheds ofThought.
70 Pavel Florensky, 'Fallicheskii pamiatnik Kotakhevskogo 1110nastyria', in Zhivaia
starina, 1(1908), pp. 56-8. See also Andronik (2000), pp. 49-50.
71 Pavel Florensky, 'Filosofskaia antropologiia', in Sochineniia, m/I, p. 41. Also see his
'Zametki po antropologii' and 'Filosofskaia antropologiia v dukhe Baadera', ibid.,
pp. 44-5.
72 'The spectator must become the actor, a coparticipant in the action - the crowd
of spectators must fuse into the choral body, like the mystical community of the
ancient "orgies" and "mysteries'" (Viacheslav Ivanov, 'Predchustviia i predvestiia.
Novaia organicheskaia epokha i teatr budushchago', in his Po zvezdam [St Peters-
burg: Ory, 1909], pp. 205-6).
73 Nina Simonovich-Efimova, Zapiski petrushechnika (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe
izdatel'stvo, 1925), p. 162.
74 Pavel Florensky, 'Pis'mo v dostokhval'nyi "Makovets"', p. 61. The peredvizhniki,
known in English variously as the Wanderers, the Ambulants or the Itinerants,
because of their link with the Association of Wandering [or Travelling] Exhibi-
tions, were artists who countered the classical traditions ofthe Academy of Arts
in the 1870S onwards by emphasising the social obligations of the work of art.
The most celebrated peredvizhnik was the painter Il'ia Repin.
75 Adrian Etlmov et aI., eds, N. Ya. Simonovich-Efimova: 'Zapiski khudozhnika' (Moscow,
1982), p. 65.
76 In a letter to her husband dated 22 November 1932, Simonovich-Efimova
mentions having seen Florensky at a meeting of the Central Museum of Folk
Studies in Moscow. See Efimov, N. Ya. Simonovich-Efimova, p. 143.
77 Letter from Simonovich-Efimova to her husband dated 6 August 1931, ibid., p. 142.
78 Florensky, Smysl idealizma, pp. 46-7.
79 Viktor Lange, ed., Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust (New York, 1994), Part n, Act I,
p. 165.
80 Florensky, Smysl idealizma, pp. 47-8.
81 In his memoirs Florensky admits to possessing a neurotic hypersensitivity and,
as a child, to having maintained a reverent 'distance', almost unease, towards his
mother. See Florensky, 'Mat', in Detiam moim, pp. 36-8.
82 Pavel Florensky, Pervye shagi filosofii (Sergiev Posad: Tipografiia Sviato-Troitskoi
Sergievoi Lavry, 1917).
83 Pavel Florensky, 'Forefathers of Philosophy', Sochineniia, 11, p. 84. Bakst's painting
is in the Russian Museum, St Petersburg.
84 Pavel Florensky, letter to his son Kirill from Solovki, dated 21 March 1937, quoted
in Slesinki (1984), p. 12.
85 Florensky provides a synthetic explanation of this world view in the autobio-
graphical data he wrote in 1925-6. See Pavel Florensky, 'Po Florensky. Avtoreferat.
Biograficheskie svedeniia', in Sergei Polovinkin, P. A. Florensky: Logos protiv khaosa
(Moscow, 1989), pp. 4-11.
86 Georgii Florovsky, Puti russkogo bogosloviia (Paris: YMCA, 1937). Quoted in Valerii
Mil'don, 'GAKhN and the Legacy of Russian Culture', Experiment, 3 (1997), p. 31.
87 El'chaninov, 'Iz vstrech s P. A. Florenskim', p. 70. Struve, editor ofthese memoirs,
assumes that the initial 'P' denotes Petr Fedorovich Kapterev, cousin of PaveI
Nikolaevich, but the more probable reference is to Pavel Nikolaevich Kapterev to
whom Florensky was very close at the time.
88 Natal'ia Goncharova, 'Kubizm' (1912) in Benedikt Livshits, Polutoroglazyi strdets
(Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo pisatelei, 1933), pp, 80-81, Another, longer, version ofthis
text has been published by Thea Durfee as 'Nataliia Goncharova: Two Letters',
Experiment, 1(1995), pp, 159-68,
89 The first title given to this painting was Paysage avee une nueflminine, See Yakov
Tugendkhol'd, 'Katalog kartin frantsuzskikh khudozhnikov iz sobraniia S, L
Shchukina', Apollon, 1-2 (1914), pp, 38-46, Also see anon" Katalog kartin sobraniia
Sergeia Ivanovieha Shehukina (Moscow: Levinson, 1913), The current title of this
painting, Dryade (Nue dam laforet), seems to have been first used in the Shchukin
catalogue published in 1923 after the nationalisation of the collection. See
Tugendkhol'd, Pervyi muzei novoi zapadnoi zhivopisi (Petrograd, 1923). Also see
Georg-W. Koltzsch et aI., Morosow und Sehtsehukin - Die Russisehen Sammler. Monet
bis Picasso, catalogue ofthe exhibition at the Museum Folkwang (Essen, 1993).
90 Tugendkhol'd, 'Frantsuzskoe sobranie S. L Shchukina', Apollon, 1-2 (1914), pp. 5-37.
91 See Vilgel m Mirimanov, Iskusstvo tropicheskoi Afriki (Moscow, 1986), iIIus. Ill, XIl,
92 Pavel Muratov, 'Shchukinskaia galereia (Ocherk iz istorii noveishei zhivopisi)',
Russkaia mys!', 8 (1908), pp. 116-38.
93 See Nikolai Berdiaev, 'Pikasso', in Sofiia, 3 (1914), pp. 57-62. For a German trans
lation see Felix P. Ingold, ed., Picasso in Russland (Zurich, 1973), pp. 39-47.
94 Florensky, Smysl idealizma, pp. 44-6.
95 Georgii Chulkov, 'Dell1ony i sovrell1ennost' (mysli 0 frantsuzskoi zhivopisi)',
Apollon, 1-2 (1914), p. 67. Shchukin himself attempted a 'Mephistophelian' reading
of Picasso's work, his wife's death in 1907 prompting him to acquire the artist's
most radical and 'diabolical' works. For information see Anatoly Podoksik,
Picasso. The Artist's Works in the Soviet Museums (New York, 1989).
96 Sergei Bulgakov, Trup krasoty', in Russkaia mys!', 8 (1915), pp. 91-106.
97 Berdiaev, 'Pikasso', p. 58.
98 Bulgakov, 'Trup krasoty', p. 93.
99 Florensky, Smysl idealisma, p. 45. Florensky was referring to nos 178, 226, 227, and
228 in the 1913 Shchukin catalogue, Le violon, 1912 (now Pushkin Museum,
Moscow), La guitare, 1912, Les instruments de musique, 1912 and La flute, 1912-13 (all in
the Hermitage, St Petersburg).
100 Charles Hinton, ANew Era ofThought (London, 1888) and The Fourth Dimension
(London, 1904). For commentary see Linda Dalrymple Henderson, The Fourth
Dimension and Non-Euclidean Geometry in Modern Art (Princeton, NI, 1983).
101 Mikhail Matiushin, '0 knige Metsanzhe-Gleza 'Du Cubisll1e', in Soiuz molodezhi, 3
(1913), pp. 25-34. For a detailed account of the sources relevant to Matiushin's text
see Henderson, The Fourth Dimension, pp. 368-75.
102 F1orensky, Smysl idealisma, p. 46.
103 Aleksei Grishchenko, 0 sviaziakh russkoi zhivopisi s Vizantiei i Zapadom XIII-XX v.
1v1ysli zhivopistsa (Moscow: Gorodskaia tipografiia, 1913).
104 In 1917 Grishchenko described Goncharova's anti-\Vestern declarations of1913 as
a 'national-demagogic buffonade'. See Aleksei Grishchenko, 'Krizis iskusstva' i
sovremennaia zhivopis' (Moscow: Gorodskaia tipografiia, 1917), p. 23.
105 Ibid., p. 11.
106 See Lev Zhegin, 'Vospominaniia 0 P. A. Florenskom (1959-nachalo 1960-kh. gg.)'.
in Nemirovskaia and I1iukhina, Makovets 1922-1926, pp. 99-108; also see Ekaterina
Drevina and Vasilii Rakitin, eds, N. A. udal'tsova. zhizn'russkoi kubistki. Dnevniki,
Stat'i, Vospominaniia (Moscow, 1994), p.172.
107 See Petr Uspensky, Chetvertoe izmerenie. Quoted in Henderson, The Fourth Dimen-
sion, pp. 278-80.
108 See Sixten Ringbom. 'Art in The Epoch of the Great Spiritual: Occult Elements in
the Early Theory of Abstract Painting', Journal ofthe Warbwg and Courtauld
Institutes, XXIX (1966), pp. 386-418, and The Sounding Cosmos. A Study in the Spiritual-
ism ofKandinsky and the Genesis ofAbstract Painting (Abo, 1970).
109 Florensky, Analiz prostranstvennosti, pp. 127-8
110 Steven Cassedy, 'Florensky and Philosophy ofLanguage in the Twentieth
Century', in Hagemeister and Kauchtschischwili (1995). pp. 289-94.
111 Velimir Khlebnikov, 'Noch' v Persii', in Makovets, 1 (1922), p. 7, and untitled poem
in 2 (1922), p.18.
112 Pseudonym of Nikolai Nikolaevich Bariutin (1889-1961). Nikolai Khardzhiev
published Reshetov's article as 'V Khlebnikove est' vse!', Literaturnaia gazeta, 27
(1 July 1992) pp. 540-44.
113 See Pavel Florensky, 'Pis'mo N. N. Bariutinu' (1922) in RGALl, Call no.: f. 2283
(Nikolai Bariutin [Amfian Reshetov]), op. 1, ed. khr. 107, 1.1.
I14 Vladimir Lapshin, ed., N. M. Chernyshev (Moscow, 1978), pp. 176-8.
115 See I--larald Szeeman et aI., eds. Monte Verita, catalogue ofthe exhibition at Casa
Anatta and elsewhere, Ascona, Switzerland (Milan, 1978).
116 Florensky, 'Pis'mo v dostokhval'nyi "Makovets"', in Nemirovskaia and I1iukhina,
Makovets 1922-1926, p. 60.
117 For a discussion ofthe two paintings see Florensky, Analiz prostranstvennosti, pp. 252-3.
I18 Vasilii Rozanov, 'Vechnoe preobrazhenie', Minuvshee, Istoricheskii aI' manakh, 6
(1988), pp. 207-12; 'M. V. Nesterov', in N. K. Gavriushin, ed., Filosojlia russkogo reli-
gioznogo iskusstva. Sokrovishchnitsa russkoi re1igiozno:fi1osofskoi mysli (Moscow, 1993),
pp. 151-63.
119 Zhegin, 'Vospominania 0 P. A. Florenskom'. p. 105.
120 Florensky, 'Po F1orensky. Avtoreferat', p. 7.
121 Sergei Romanovich, '0 realizme', Makovets, 2 (1922), pp. 28-9.
122 Ibid., p. 29.
123 Vasilii Chekrygin and Lev Zhegin, 'Khronologiia', in Lev Zhegin, 'Svedeniia 0
khudozhnike Chekrygine V. N.', in Manuscript Section, Tretiakov Gallery. Call
number: f. 9/761. ed. khr. 1, I. 4.
124 Mikhail Larionov et aI., 'Budushchniki i luchisty. Manifest', in Mikhail Larionov et
aI., Oslinyi khvost i mishen' (Moscow: Miunster, 1913), pp. 9-48. The presence of
Romanovich in the group photograph accompanying the manifesto would indi-
cate that he was one of the co-authors. See Natal'ia Romanovich and Viktor
Skvortsov, eds, S. M. Romanovich. Sbornik materialov. KlOo-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia
khudozhnika. Zhivopis', Grafika. catalogue of exhibition at the Tretiakov Gallery
(Moscow, 1994), p.17.
125 Aleksandr Shevchenko, Printsipy kubizma i drugikh sovremennykh techenii vzhipovisi
vsekh vremen i narodov (Moscow, 1913); Neo-primitivizm. Ego teoriia. Ego vozmozhnosti.
Ego dostizheniia (Moscow, 1913). For an English translation of the latter see John E.
Bowlt, Russian Art ofthe Avant-Garde. Theory and Criticism 1902-1934 (London, 1988),
pp. 41-54.
126 In May 1919 NARKOMPROS established 'Sinskul'ptarkh', a commission to
explore the possibilities of a synthesis between painting, sculpture and archi-
tecture. Composed initially of one painter and seven architects, it became
'Zhivskul'ptarkh' at the end ofthe year after other painters joined. See Selim
Khan-Magomedov, 'Pervaia novatorskaia organizatsiia sovetskoi arkhitektury
(Sinskul'ptarkh i Zhivskul'ptarkh 1919-1920 gg.'), Problemy istorii sovetskoi arkhitek-
tury, 2 (1976), pp. 5-9; and Zhivskul'ptarkh (1919-1920) - Pervaia tvorcheskaia organizat-
siia sovetskogo arkhitekturnogo avant-garda (Moscow, 1993).
127 Boris Berman, 'Zhivopis' i grafika V. E. Pestel' v muzeinykh sobraniiakh', Muzei, 2
(1981), pp. 76-81.
128 Nicoletta Misler, interview with the art historian Vladimir Kostin, Moscow, 24
February 1977. Kostin was quoting Chernyshev's remarks from notes that the
critic had made shortly before the artist's death.
129 The Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia (AKhRR), founded in 1922 by
artists such as Isaak Brodsky and Evgenii Katsman, favoured a simple, narrative
style of painting and sculpture that gave prominence to the achievements of the
Revolution, the proletariat, the peasantry and the Red Army.
130 See, fClr example, Naum Gabo and Noton Pevzner (Anton Pevsner), Realisticheskii
manifest (Moscow, 1920). English translation in Bowlt, Russian Art ofthe Avant-
Garde, pp. 207-14.
131 Zhanna Kaganskaia et aI., eds, Aleksandr Schevchenko. Sbornik materialov (Moscow,
1980); Nina Barabanova, Aleksandr Schevchenko. 1883-1948. Catalogue of exhibition
at the Tretiakov Gallery, 1978.
132 Directed by Aleksandr Chernyshev, brother of the painter Nikolai, the publish-
ing-house Milky Way derived its name from the homonymous journal (1914-16).
In tone and purpose Mlechny put' had much in common with Makovets.
133 See Konstantin Istomin, 'Metodika prepodavaniia na Osnovnom otdelenii po
zhivopisi VKhUTEMASA', in Miuda Yablonskaia, K. N. Istomin (Moscow, 1971),
pp. 135-53
134 Florensky exhibition (1989).
135 Natal'ia Adaskina has written extensively on the Department ofPolygraphy at
VKhUTEMAS. See, for example, 'VKhUTEMAS, Poligraficheskii fakul'tet', Voprosy
russkogo i sovetskogo iskusstva, 3 (1974), pp. 350-55; 'V. Favorsky pedagog-teoretik
(0 kurse teorii kompozitsii)', Sovetskoe iskusstvoznanie '17, 2 (1978), pp. 210-32; 'V.
Favorsky i proizdvostvenniki', Tekhnicheskaia estetika, 7 (1980), pp. 17-n ;
'Stankovoe i proizvodstvennoe v poligrafii', Sovetskaiagrafika, '79/80,6 (1981), pp.
298-370; and 'RAKhN, VKhUTEMAS and the Graphic Arts', Experiment, 3 (1997),
pp. 76-90 .
136 See Ekaterina Nekrasova, 'Neosushchestvlennyi zamysell920-kh godov
sozdaniia "Symbolarium'a" (Slovaria simvolov) i ego pervyi vypusk "Tochka''', in
Iraklii Andronikov et aI., eds, Pamiatniki kul'tury. Novye otkrytiia, 1982 (Leningrad,
1984), pp. 100-115
137 Aleksei Alekseevich Sidorov (1891-1978), artist, art critic, art historian, poet and
balletomane, played a major role at RAKhN in the early 1920S. For more informa-
tion on him see Aleksei Sidorov, 'The Artistic Creativity of Dreams', Experiment, 3
(1997), pp. 176-80. On Larionov's and Sidorov's investigations into movement
and gesture see Nicoletta Misler, 'A Choreological Laboratory', ibid., 2 (1996)
pp. 169-99.
138 Aleksandr Larionov, for example, analysed the colour red and the hammer and
sickle. See his 'Coats of Arms', Experiment, 3 (1997), pp. 271-2.
139 Pavel Florensky and Aleksandr Larionov, '''Symbolarium''. Predislovie. Tochka',
in Nekrasova, 'Neosushchestvlennyi zamysel1920-kh godov', p. 103.
140 On Florensky's philosophical idea ofthe symbol see Aleksandr Kazarian's valu-
able commentary on the 'Symbolarium', Sochineniia, 11, pp. 795-6.
141 Sidorov designed his ex-libris emblem in 1918, Favorsky his in 1922. Both designs
and Sidorov's sonnet are published in Andronik (1982), p. 277. The critic and
bibliophile Pavel Ettinger wrote of Favorsky's ex-Iibris, ' Among the four ex-libris
designed in 1922 [by Favorsky] we are particularly drawn to the exceptionally
refined and skilfully engraved plate for the philosopher and mathematician Pavel
Aleksandrovich F1orensky, the only one, I believe, in which Favorsky has used a
heraldic motif: Quoted in Pavel Ettinger, Knizhnye znaki v. A. Favorskogo (Moscow:
Kniga, 1933), p. 28.
142 I.e., Aleksandr EI'chaninov, Vladimir Ern and Vladimir Sventsitsky. Bely was also
invited to join the group. See Ivanova and i1'iunina, eds, 'Iz naslediia P. A. F1oren-
skogo', pp. 5, 9, 24-5
143 Letter from Florensky to Andrei Bely dated 21 May 1904, ibid., p. 24.
144 Ibid., p. 5.
145 Zhegin, 'Vospominaniia 0 P. A. Florenskom', p. 99.
146 See, for example, Anatolii Bakushinsky, 'Lineinaia perspektiva v iskusstve i
zritel'nom vospriiatii real'nogo prostranstva', Iskusstvo, 1(1923), pp. 213-61.
147 Aleksandr Gabrichevsky, ed., Iskusstvo portreta (Moscow: GAKhN, 1928).
148 Sidorov was already well known in the 191OS, pursuing his diverse interests in
philosophy, art history, the psychology of visual perception and psychoanalysis.
Together with Aleksandr Larionov, Sidorov co-directed the Choreological Labo-
ratoryat RAKhN and headed the Section of Polygraphic Arts there. In his unpub-
lished memoirs, 'Iz vospominanii sovetskogo iskusstvoveda i knigoveda' [From
the Memoirs of a Soviet Art Historian and Book Lover], Sidorov mentions
Florensky, Kandinsky and other 'unorthodox' individuals who were excluded
from the Soviet appreciations of Sidorov.
149 Adolf von Hildebrand, Das Problem der Form in der bildenden Kunst (Strasburg:
Heitz, 1893).
150 Steven Cassedy, 'Pavel F1orensky's Philosophy ofLanguage', Slavic and East Euro-
peanJournal, xxvj4 (1991), pp. 537-52.
151 Vladimir Favorsky, 'Lektsii po teorii kompozitsii', in Elena Murina and Dina
Chebanova, eds, Vladimir Favorsky. Literaturno-teoreticheskoe nasledie (Moscow, 1988),
pp. 71-195.
152 Aleksandr Larionov, Konspekt kursa 'Tstoriia pis'men' (chitannogo V 1920-21 uchebnom
godu) (Moscow; VKhUTEMAS, 1921).
153 This is borne out by the schedules of the two courses dated 7 December 1923. See
RGALI, Call no.: f. 681 (VKhUTEMAS), op. 2, ed. khr.n8, 1. 48 (verso).
154 For a comprehensive discussion on Productivism and Constructivism see
Christina Lodder, Russian Constructivism (New Haven, 1983); Richard Andrews
et aI., Art into Life. Russian Constructivism 1914-1932. Catalogue of exhibition at the
Henry Art Gallery, University of Washington, Seattle (1990).
155 Selim Khan-Magomedov, 'Rabochaia gruppa ob'ektivnogo analiza INKhUKa',
Problemy istorii sovetskoi arkhitektury, 4 (1978), pp. 53-6; 'Diskussiia v INKhUKe 0
sootnoshenii konstruktsii i kompozitsii (yanvar'-aprel', 1921 g.)', in his INKhuK
i rannii konstruktivizm (Moscow, 1994), pp. 36-88.
156 Anon., 'VkhUTEMAS', in Lef, 2 (April-May 1923), p. 174.
157 Osip Brik et aI., 'Razval VKhUTEMASa', Lef, 4 (1924), p. 27. The Central Stroganov
Institute of Technical Drawing, Moscow (also known as the Stroganov Art and
Industry Institute) was one of Russia's leading design schools. After 1917 it
merged with the Moscow Institute of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture to
form SVOMAS and then VKhUTEMAS.
158 See Vladimir Favorsky, memo dated 31 January 1924, in RGALl, Call no.: f. 681
(VKhUTEMAS), op. 2, ed. khr. 86, 1. 20. In their letter the group of'Productivist'
professors declared that they saw no infractions of the VKhUTEMAS disciplinary
rules in the Lefarticle. See letter dated 6 February 1924 in RGALI, Call no.: f. 681
(VKhUTEMAS), op. 2, ed. khr. 86, 1. 28.
159 Liubov' Popova, undated note in Manuscript Section, TG. Call number: f. 148
(L. S. Popova), ed. khr. 60, 1.1.
160 Oleg Genisaretsky, 'Konstruktsiia i kompozitsiia v ikonologii P. A. Florenskogo',
Trudy VNIITE, 59 (1989), pp. 44-58. This quotation is on p. 56.
161 This was his ninth lecture for the academic year 1923-4. In Andronik (2000),
pp. 359-69. For an Italian translation see the seventh lecture in Misler (1995),
pp. 307-15
162 Florensky, Analiz prostranstvennosti, pp. 126-7.
163 Murina and Chebanova, Vladimir Favorsky, pp. 457, 565.
164 Vladimir Favorsky, 'Zabyt' igru v inzhenera', Brigada khudozhnikov, 4/5 (1932),
165 Florensky, Analiz prostranstvennosti, p. 69.
166 On wooden sculpture see Pavel Florensky and Yurii Olsuf'ev, Amvrosii, troitskii
rezchik XVveka (Sergiev: Izdanie Gosudarstvnnogo Sergievskogo istoriko-
khudozhestvennogo muzeia, 1927).
167 Archive of Florensky Foundation.
168 Florensky, 'Po Florensky. Avtoreferat', p. 9. Florensky made fundamental discover-
ies in this area. See his Karbolit. Ego proizvodstvo i svoistva (Moscow: Izdanie
nauchno-tekhnicheskogo upravleniia VSNKh, 1928).
169 In his treatise on spatiality Florensky explained his idea in the context of the 'art
of the book' and the meaning of time. See Florensky, Analiz prostranstvennosti.
170 A. Vetrov (David Arkin), 'Favorsky-graver', Teatr i studiia, 1-2 (1922), pp. 48-50.
171 For a detailed discussion ofthe concept of the iconostasis in the Orthodox
Church see Aleskei Lidov, ed., Ikonostas. Proiskhozhdenie, razvitie, simvolika (Moscow,
172 See Viktor Lazarev, 'Nikolai Il'ich Romanov', in Polevoi, Sovetskoe iskusstvoznanie
'75 (1976), pp. 312-28.
173 See Samuel.Y. Edgerton Jr., The Renaissance Rediscovery ofLinear Perspective (New
York, 1976), pp. 91-123.
174 See Alessandro Parronchi, 'Le due tavole prospettiche del Brunelleschi', Paragone,
107 (1958), and 109 (1959), pp. 3-32, 3-31.
175 See Note 19 in Erwin Panofsky, 'Die Perspektive als "symbolische Form"', Vortriige
der Bibliothek Warburg 1924-25,6 (1927), pp. 258-330. For an English translation see
Christopher S. \Vood, ed. and trans., Perspective as Symbolic Form (New York, 1991),
pp. 100-101.
176 Oskar Wulff, 'Die umgekehrte Perspektive und die Niedersicht. Eine rauman-
schauungsform der altbyzantinischen Kunst und ihre Fortbildung in der Renais-
sance', in Heinrich Weizsacker, ed., Kunstwissenschaftliche Beitriige, August
Schmarsowgewidmet zumfunfzigsten semester seiner akademischen Lehertiitigkeit
(Leipzig: Hiersemann, 1907), pp. 1-40.
177 Nikolai Rynin, Nachertal'naiageometriia. Metody izobrazheniia (Petrograd: Kollins,
1916); Nachertate/'naia geometriia. Perspektiva (Petrograd: Kollins, 1918).
178 Rynin, Perspektiva, p. 89.
179 Anatolii Vasil'evich Bakushinsky (1883-1939) was close to Kandinsky during the
formation ofRAKhN, sharing his interest in primitive and children's art. After
Kandinsky left for Germany at the end of1921, Bakushinsky replaced him as
Director ofthe Psycho-physiological Department there.
180 I.e., Bakushinsky, 'Lineinaia perspektiva v iskusstve i zritel'nom vospriiatii
real'nogo prostranstva.'
181 See Richard Hamann, 'Kunstwissenschaftliche Beitrage: August Schmarsow
gewidmet, Leipzig 1907. Die umgekehrte Perspektive und die Niedersicht von
Oskar Wulff', Zeitschrift flir Aesthetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft, v (1910), pp.
469-75; and Karl Doehlemann, 'Zur Frage der sogenannten "umgekehrten
Perspektive''', in Henry Tode, ed., Repertoriumfur Kunstwissenschaft, XXXIIl (1910),
pp. 85-7
182 Bakushinsky, 'Lineinaia Perspektiva', p. 227.
183 Ibid., p. 228.
184 The RAKhN Presidium ratified this decision at the session for 17 August 1922. See
RGAL!, Call No. f. 941 (GAKhN). op. 1, ed. khr. 5.1. 42.
185 Semeon Liudvigovich Frank (1877-1950); Fedor Avgustovich Stepun (1884-1965).
On Frank see Yu. Senokosov, ed., Semeon L. Frank. Sochineniia (Moscow, 1990).
186 Bakushinsky, 'Lineinaia Perspektiva', p. 260.
187 Nikolai Tarabukin, 'Eksentricheskoe prostranstvo i giper-prostranstvo v
zhivopisi', in RGAL!, Call No.: f. 941 (GAKhN ), op. 3, ed. khr. 98, 11. 3-4. For an
English translation see Experiment, 3 (1997), pp. 288-94. This quotation is on
p.290 .
188 Panofsky reduced Wulff's article on reverse perspective to a footnote, deeming it
sufficient simply to mention Doehlemann's objection. See Panofsky, Perspective as
Symbolic Form, p. n4, note 30.
189 El Lissitzky, 'K. und Pangeometrie', in Carl Einstein and Paul Westheim eds,
Europa Almanach (Potsdam: Kiepenheur, 1925), pp. 103-13. For an English transla-
tion see Sophie Lissitzky-Kiippers, El Lissitzky: Life. Letters. Text (London, 1968), pp.
190 Panofsky, Perspective as Symbolic Form, p. 71. Also see Larisa Zhadova, 'El Lisitskii,
Iskusstvo i pangeometriia', TJ'udy VNlITE, 17 (1978), pp. 62-76.
191 Panofsky, Perspective as Symbolic Form, p. 154, note 73.
192 Florensky, Troitse-Sergieva Lavra v Rossii. However, Florensky also saw Byzantine
civilization as the ultimate expression of Hellenic culture.
193 Bakushinsky, 'Lineinaia perspektiva', pp. 213-14.
194 Tarabukin, 'Eksentricheskoe prostranstvo', p. 290.
195 Viktor Lazarev, Osval'd Shpengleri ego vzgliady na iskusstvo (Moscow: Mironov,
196 See Yves-Alain Bois, 'From - 8 to + 8. Axonometry or Lissitzky's Mathematical
Paradigma', in El Lissitskij. Architect, Painter, "1ypographer, Photographer, catalogue of
exhibition at the Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven (1990), pp. 27-34.
197 El Lissitzky, 'A.and Pangeometry', in l.issitzky-Kiippers, El Lissitzky: Life. Letters.
Texts, p. 350. Lissitzky returned to the idea in 1922 in his lecture New Russian Art:
'In 1913 [sic] Malevich exibited a black square on a white canvas. Here a form was
displayed which was opposed to everything that was understood by "pictures" or
"painting" or "art". Its creator wanted to reduce all forms, all paintings, to zero.
For us, however, this zero was the turning point. When we have a series of
numbers coming from infinity ... 6, 5,4,3,2,1,0 ... it comes right down to the 0,
then begins the ascending line 0, 1, 2,3,4, 5, 6.', ibid., pp. 333-4.
198 Kazimir Malevich, at kubizma k suprematizmu. Novyi zhivopisnyi realizm (Petrograd,
1915,1916 on the cover). Republished in Aleksandra Shatskikh and Dmitrii
Sarab'ianov, eds, Kazimir Malevich. Sobranie sochinenii v piati tomakh (Moscow, 1995),
vo!. t, pp. 27-34
199 This according to Aleksandra Shatskikh in her 'Kazimir Malevic. La vita e le
opere', in Kazimir Malevic. Una retrospettiva, catalogue of exhibition at the Palazzo
Strozzi, Florence (1993), pp. 245-61.
200 Norman Bryson, Vision and Painting: The Logic ofthe Gaze (New Haven, 1983), p. 107.
201 F10rensky and l.arionov, 'Symbolarium', p. n2.
The Church Ritual as aSynthesis ofthe Arts
Pavel Florensky, 'Khramovoe deistvo kak sintez iskusstv', in Makovets, 1 (1922), pp.
28-32: republished in Naslednikov (1993), pp. 283-90: in Struve (1985), pp. 41-55:
in Andronik (1996), pp. 201-15: and in Sochineniia, n, pp. 370-82. The latter gives
indications regarding the various sources for the original typescript entitled '0
Khramovom deistve kak sintez iskusstv' and dated 'Sergiev Posad, 1918,24/25
October, 617 November during the days of the anniversary ofthe October Revo-
lution', This translation is from the text published in Makovets, An Italian transla-
tion, '11 rito ortodosso come sintesi delle arti', is in Misler (1983), pp, 57-67, For
two French translations see 'Le spectacle liturgique, synthese des arts', in Troels
Andersen et aL, Art et poesie russe 1900-1930, Textes choisis (Paris, 1979), pp, 110-17:
and 'La liturgie comme synthese des arts', in Lhoest (1992), pp, 54-66, For
German translations see 'Die Kirchliche Liturgie als Synthese der Kiinste', in
Sikojev (1989), pp, 111-25: and 'Der Kultakt als Synthese der Klinste', in Bubnoff
(1991), pp, 107-12. For a Japanese translation see 'Geijutsu no sogo toshiteno
seidogirei', in Kuwano (1998), pp. 113-34.
2 Three ofthe Commission members, Sergei Durylin, Mikhail Ivik and Sergei
Mansurov, were ordained. Florensky even requested Patriarch Tikhon's benedic-
tion for the success of the Commission. See Igumen Andronik's commentary on
Florensky, Troitse-Sergieva Lavra i Rossiia, p. 237.
Nicoletta Misler, 'The Religious Ritual as Social Event', in Stephen C. Foster, ed.,
'Event' Arts and Art Event (Ann Arbor, 1987), pp. 159-74.
4 Leonid Sabaneev, A. N. Skriabin (Moscow: Rabotnik prosveshchnii, 1922), p. 25.
On Skriabin, Florensky and Sabaneev see Dmitrii Sarab'ianov, 'Kandinsky i
russkii simvolizm', in Akademiia nauk. Seriia literatury i yazyka, LIH/4 (1994),
pp. 16-26.
From Igumen Andronik's commentary on Florensky's 'Kramovoe deistvo kak
sintez iskusstv', Sochineniia, H, p. 770.
6 Ibid.
7 The Hagenbeck Zoo, founded in 1907 by Carl Hagenbeck in Hamburg, pioneered
in the use of the natural habitat as opposed to the traditional enclosed cage for its
8 See Reference 6 ofMisler, 'Pavel Florensky as Art Historian'.
9 Muratov, Obrazy Italii, vo!. 2 (1994), pp. 27-8.
10 Ibid., p. 28.
11 Ibid., p. 29.
12 Olsuf'ev wrote the first scholarly catalogue raisonne of the icons of the Lavra
even before the opening ofthe Historical and Art Museum of Sergiev Posad
(April 1920). See Yurii Olsuf'ev, Opis' ikon Troitse-Sergievoi Lavry do XVIII veka i
naibolee tipichnykh XVIlI i XIX vekov (Sergiev Posad: Komissiia po okhrane pamiat-
nikov iskusstva i stariny Troitse-Sergievoi Lavry, 1920)
13 The veneration of icons (ikonopochitanie) or, rather, the particular ritualistic form
that this assumes is a vital part of the Russian Orthodox liturgy, t<:Jf the icon,
unthinkable without the wooden board, is venerated both as a thing in itself and
as an object indivisible from the cultic totality. The iconic image is incorporated
into the liturgy, kissed by the faithful on arrival and departure, blessed by the
incense, and physically present in many ritualistic events. For further informa-
tion see Sergei Bulgakov, Ikona i ikonopochitanie: dogmaticheskii ocherk (Paris, 1931);
George Galavaris, The Icon in the Life of the church: Doctrine, Liturgy, Devotion (Leiden,
1981); and Waiter Christopher, Art and Ritual ofthe Byzantine Church (London, 1982).
14 The Belovezh Forest, covering parts of Lithuania, Poland (today a national park)
and Russia was the habitat of the last European bison.
15 The reference is to unmarried Orthodox monks, who wore black, as opposed to
married Orthodox priests, such as Florensky, who wore white cassocks.
16 At this juncture ofthe original typsecript Florensky had included the passage
quoted in the introduction to this essay (see note 5 above), which, however, was
omitted in the published version.
17 The reference is to Aleksandr Skriabin's composition ofthe same name. See
Sabaneev, Skriabin, p. 25.
18 The end ofthe first typewritten version is slightly different. See Reference 30 of
Misler, 'Pavel Florensky as Art Historian'.
Celestial Signs
Pavel Florensky, 'Nebesnye znameniia', in Makovets, 2 (1922), pp. 14-16. This text
corresponds to the original typescript preserved in the Florensky Foundation
where it is dated and titled '1919 x. 7,11 [sic]. Ksimvolike tsvetov (meditatsiia)'
(Towards a Symbolism ofColors (Meditation)). Also see Naslednikov (1993), pp.
307-16. The essay was republished in Struve (1985), pp. 57-62, in Andronik (1996),
pp. 279-84; and Sochineniia, 11, pp. 414-18. For an Italian translation see 'Segni
celesti', in Misler (1983), pp. 68-71. For a French translation see 'Les signes
celestes', in Lhoest (1992), pp. 63-66. For a German translation see 'Himmlische
Zeichen. Gedanken iiber die Symbolik der Farben', in Mierau (1995), pp. 288-92.
For a Japanese translation see 'Ten no araware', in Kuwano (1998), pp. 135-44.
2 Mariia Trubacheva and Sergei Trubachev, 'Sergiev Posad v zhizni P. A. Floren-
skogo', in Hagemeister and Kauchtschischwili (1995), pp. 17-37. See also Aleksandr
Grekov, 'Khudozhestvennaia zhizn' Zagorska', Pamiamiki otechestva, 2 (1987), pp.
33-43; and 'Favorsky v Zagorske', Dekorativnoe iskusstvo SSSR, 8 (1986), pp. 17-19.
3 Florensky, 'Na Makovtse', Sochineniia, !Il/l, pp. 28-33.
4 Florensky, The Pillar and Ground, p. 253.
5 Ibid., pp. 540-63.
6 The debate regarding Sophia and sophiology is highly complex both in the world
of Orthodox scholarship and among Slavists, and its theological aspects in
particular lie outside the scope of this book. For a general discussion see Jean-
Claude Marcade, 'La Sophie chez le pere Florensky', in Le combat pour l'dme du
monde. Urgence de la sophiologie. Cahiers de l'Universite Saint Jean de Jerusalem,
vo!. 6 (Paris, 1980), pp. 101-16. For essential bibliograhical references in English
see Gustafson and Jakim (1997), p. 230.
7 See Ivanova and Il'iunina, 'Iz naslediia P. A. Florenskogo', pp. 37-8.
8 Andrei Bely, 'Sviashchennye tsveta' (1903) in his Arabeski (Moscow: Musaget, 1911),
pp. 115-29. Also see Samuel D. Cioran, 'A Prism for the Absolute: The Symbolic
Colors of Andrey Bely', in Gerald Janacek, ed., Andrey Bery. A Critical Review
(Lexington, 1978), pp. 103-14.
9 John 1:5
10 Viacheslav Ivanov, 'Pokrov', in his Cor Ardens (Moscow; Skorpion, 1911), p. 77.
11 Florensky is referring to E.T.W. Hoffmann's story Del' Goldene Topf (The Golden
Pot) (1814).
12 For a theological intepretation see note 7* to Florensky, 'Troitse-Sergieva Lavra',
in Sochineniia, H, p. 766.
On the Efimovs' Puppet Theatre
The translation is of the text '0 kukol'nom teatre Efimovykh' that Florensky
wrote in 1924 as an untitled preface for the book, Zapiski Petrushechnika (Moscow,
1925), by the artist and puppeteer Nina Yakovlevna Simonovich-Eflmova
(1877-1948). Not published at the time, the preface appeared only much later in
Adrian Efimov and A. Matveeva, eds, Ivan ~ i m o v 'Ob lskusstve i khudozhnikakh'
(Moscow, 1977), pp. 170-72, from which the present title (not Florensky's) has
been taken. The preface was also republished as '0 kukol'nom teatre Efimovikh'
by Struve (1985), pp. 383-6. For a German translation see 'Ober del' Puppenthe-
ater del' Jeflmows', in Bubnoff (1991), pp. 129-36. The preface is also included in
Sochineniia, H, pp. 532-6. The original manuscript that Florensky dictated to Sofiia
Ogneva and the fair copy typescript, dated 1924, are now in the archives ofthe
Florensky Foundation.
2 Nina Simonovich-Efimova, Zapiski Petrushechnika. Also see Anna Nekrylova, ed.,
Nina Simonovich-Efirnova, 'Zapiski petrushechnika i stat'i 0 teatre kukol' (Moscow, 1980);
and the English abridged translation published in 1935, Paul McPharlin, ed., and
Elena Mitcoff, trans., Nina Efirnova, 'Adventures ofaRussian Puppet Theatre' (Birming-
ham, MI: Puppetry Imprints, 1935).
The record, in the form of a diary, is preserved in the archive ofthe Efimov
family, Moscow. Part of this record was published by Ol'ga Kovalik as 'Ya--kak
korabl', vrezaiushchiisia klinom .. .', Obshchaiagazeta, XXXVI!61 (9-15 September
1994), p. 16; 'Kak khorosho dlia kazhdogo, chto on est', Literaturnaiagazeta, 45 (9
November 1994), p. 6; and 'D nas byl neobychainyi vecher .. .', Muzykal'naia zhizn',
6 (December 1994), pp. 30-33. Simonovich-Eflmova made fourteen drawings and
three oil portraits ofFlorensky. See Trubacheva and Trubachev, 'Sergiev Posad v
zhizni P. A. Florenskogo', pp. 29-30.
4 The only Sergiev Posad performance mentioned in the list compiled by the
artists themselves carries this date. See Nekrylova, Nina Simonovich-Efimova,
'Zapiski petrushechnika i stat'i 0 teatre kukol', p. 86. However, in a letter to her son
Adrian, dated 20 December 1920 from Sergiev Posad, Simonovich-Efimova
mentions that while 'on vacation' there, they had been invited to give twenty
performances in twelve days. See Efimov, N. Ya. Simonovich-Efimova: 'Zapiski
khudozhnika', p.134. Simonovich-Efimova recorded her ideas on the technique of
the puppet theatre in her Kukly na trostiakh (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1940).
5 Matthew18:3.
6 Romans 14:17. Florensky is rephrasing the passage that reads: 'For the kingdom of
God is not meat and drink; but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy
The Stratification of Aegean Culture
This translation is from Pavel Florensky, 'Naplastovaniia egeiskoi kul'tury', in
Bogoslavskii vestnik, H/6 (1913), pp. 346-89. Republished in Florensky, Pervye shagi
filosofii.Iz lektsii po istorii filosofii. vo!. 1(Sergiev Posad: Tipografiia Sviato-Troitskoi
Sergievoi Lavry, 1917), pp. 33-75, and Sochineniia, H, pp. 91-130.
2 Pavel Florensky, 'Lektsiia i Lectio' and 'Proshchury liubomudriia' [Forefathers of
Philosophy] in Florensky, Pervye shagifilosofii, pp. 1-7 and 8-25. Both essays have
been reprinted in Florensky, Sochineniia, H, pp. 61-89. Florensky copied the intro-
ductory schema from a drawing by Arthur Evans. See note 4 below.
Bulgakov seems to have first met Florensky in 1906, the date of his earliest letter
to Florensky (now in the Florensky Foundation), just as he was elaborating his
own Sophiological conception.
Numerals with asterisks added indicate Florensky's original notes to this essay; the remainder
are mine. N. M.
4* On the question of Creto-Mycenaean and in part of other ancient cultures (in
addition to the articles cited in note 23 to 'Forefathers of Philosophy' on pp. 27-8),
see the following works in Russian: Robert Vipper, Drevnii Vostok i egeiskaia kul'tura
(Moscow: university course textbook, distributed by Spiridonov & Mikhailov,
1913); Boris Turaev, Istoriia drevnego Vostoka (St Petersburg: Tipografiia V. Bezobra-
zova & Co., 1912); Salomon Reinak [Reinach], Apollon. Istoriia plasticheskikh iskusstv
(Moscow: Problemy estetiki, 1913); Gaston Kun'i [Cougny], Antichnoe iskusstvo.
Gretsiia-Rim. Sbornik statei, trans!. by V. Smirnova (Moscow; Tikhomirov, 1898),
pp. 19-38; Ivan Tsvetaev, intro., Muzei iziashchnykh iskusstv imeni Imperatora Aleksan-
dra III vMoskve. Kratkii illiustrirovannyi putevoditel', Part I, 6th edn (Moscow; Leven-
son, 1913); Evgenii Kagarov, Kul't fetishei, rastenii i zhivotnykh v drevnei Gretsii (St
Petersburg: Senatskaia Tipografiia, 1913).
5* The cross-section was based on that of Arthur Evans (cf. The Annual ofthe British
School at Athens, x (London, ]910), p.19, fig. 7. Cf. vo!. IX, p. 26, fig. 26, which is
taken from Marie-]oseph Lagrange, La Crete ancienne (Paris, 1908), p. 123, fig. 87.
The cross-section passes through the Western courtyard of the Knossos complex
at the meridian. [The illustration here is a tentative reconstruction of Florensky's
graphic rendering. N.M.]
6* Evgenii Kagarov, 'Noveishie issledovaniia v oblasti krito-mikenskoi kul'wry', in
Germes, nos 17-20 (]903), p. 4; published separately (St Petersburg, 1909).
7* In Journal ofHellenic Studies, XXI (1901), p. 78. Cited in Sergei Trubetskoi, 'Etiudy po
istorii grecheskoi religii', in his Sobranie sochinenii, II (Moscow: Lissner & Sobko,
1908), p. 456. Trubetskoi here also refers to a citation in Journal ofHellenic Studies,
XIII (1901), pp. 172 and 174 by David Mackenzie.
8* Reproduced from Lagrange, La Crete ancienne, p. 26, fig. 10.
9* See ibid., pp. 28-29, and 28-31 for several illustrations of Cretan vases.
10* Reproduced from The Annual ofthe British School at Athens, x (1910), fig. 1; also in
Lagrange, La Crete ancienne, p. 29, fig. 14.
11 The sistrum is a musical instrument from Egypt, a symbol of the Goddess Isis.
It was shaken by priests and priestesses at ceremonial events.
12* Muzei iziashchnykh iskusstv imeni Imperatora Aleksandra III vMoskve, pp. 56-7.
13* Gustave Fougeres expressed this opinion in 'Les vases des moissonneurs et les
phallophories egyptiennes' in Comptes rendus du Congl'es International d'archeologie
classique, II Session (Cairo, Imprimerie National, 1909), pp. 232-3. See also
Kagarov, Kul't fetishei, p. 35, note 4.
14* Reinak, Apollon, p. 82.
15* Maksimilian Voloshin, 'Arkhaizm v russkoi zhivopisi', in Apollon, 1 (October
1909), p. 47
16* Reproduced from The Annual ofthe British School at Athens, IX (1909), fig. 58; also in
Lagrange, La Crete ancienne, p. n fig. 46.
]7* Reproduced from Lagrange, La Crete ancienne, plate VI, pp. 72-3.
18* Adolphe Reinach, 'Untitled [commentary on, and analysis of a series of publica-
tions about Cretej', in Revue de l'histoire des religions, LX/2 (1909), pp. 226-47.
19* Rene Dussaud, 'Questions Myceniennes', in Revue de l'histoire des religions, 1(1905), p. 29.
20* Lagrange, La Crete ancienne, p. 73.
21* Lagrange, La Crete ancienne, p. 93, fig. 74.
22* Vladislav Buzeskul,Vvedenie v istoriiu Gretsii (Kharkov: Darre, 1907), p. 510.
23* Reinak, Apollon, p. 34.
24* Reproduced from The Annual ofthe British School at Athens, VII (1907), fig. 17; the
same reproduction is in Lagrange, La Crete ancienne, p. 42, fig. 22.
25* Voloshin, 'Arkhaizm v russkoi zhivopisi,' p. 47.
26* Lagrange, La Crete ancienne, p. 41.
27* AdolfFurtwangler, Antike Gemmen. Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst im klassischen
Altertum, III (Leipzig and Berlin, 1900), pp. 13ff; Filipp Opuntsky, plato, Epinomis,
987. D (cited in Trubetskoi, 'Etiudy po istorii grecheskoi religii', in Sobranie sochi-
nenii, 11, p. 465.
28* Furtwangler, Antike Gemrnen, p. 14.
29* Moritz Homes, Natur- und Urgeschichte des Menschen, vo!. 2 (Vienna and Leipzig,
1905), p. 425, note 1. This contains references to several authors whose opinions
are mutually contradictory.
30* Ibid.
31* Ibid.
32* Vit. Klinger [Witold Klinger], Zhivotnoe vantichnorn i sovrernennorn sueverii (Kiev:
N. T. Kopchak-Novitskii, 1911); Kagarov, Kul'tfetishei.
33* Albrecht Dietrich, Mutter Erde. Eine Versuch iiber Volksreligion (Leipzig and Berlin,
1905); Sergei Smimov, 'Ispoved' zemle. Sergiev Posad, 1912 g.', in Bogoslovskii vest-
nik, XI (November 1912); ]ohann ]akob Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht. Eine Untersllchung
iiber die Gynoikratie der Alten Welt und ihrer religiiisen und rechtlichen Natur (Stuttgart,
1861). There is also a more recent edition.
34* Aeschylus, Choejori 119 f. (Elektra's speech).
35* Hesiod, Theogonia 117 ff.
36* Homes, Natur- und Urgeschichte des Menschen.
37* Euripides, Hippolyws 568-9.
38* Homes, Natur- und lJJgeschichte des Menschen.
39* Ludwig Preller, 'Eleusinia', in August Pauly, Real-Encyklopiidie der klassischen Alter-
turnswissenschaft, vo!' 3 (Stuttgart, 1844), pp. 83-109 (108).
40* Homes, Natur- und Urgeschichte des Menschen, pp. 584-7.
41* Ibid., p. 586.
42* Viacheslav Ivanov, 'Drevnii uzhas', in his Po zvezdarn (St Petersburg, 1907), p. 413.
43* Ibid., p. 414
44* Innokentii Annensky, trans., Teatr Evripida (St Petersburg, 1907), 'Ippolit', Act I,
Scene 5, pp. 286-7:
q;OLTq 8' clv' a18Ep', EvTL 8' El' 8aAavv{l,!
KAv8l0Vl KVTTPlS" TTCiVTa 8' EK TavTllS' EcjJlJ'
fib' EvTlv Jl vTTE[povva Kal 8lbovv' EpOV,
oD TTiJVTES' EvrIEv ot KaT(l x8ClV' EKyoVOl.
= verses 452-5 in Euripides.Tragoediae, vo!. 2 (Lipsiae, 1828), p. 258. [The English
translation is from David Grene and Richmond Lattimore, eds., The Complete
Greek Tragedies, vol.3. Euripides, Hippolytus (Chicago, 1955), p. 182. N.M.]
45* Cf. Ivanov, 'Drevnii uzhas', p. 410. For a more detailed discussion of fate and time
see the section on 'Vremiia i rok', in Florensky, Stolp i lltverzhdenie istiny, pp.
46* Arsenii Golenishchev-Kutuzov, Serenada (St Petersburg, 1878) was part of a cycle
of three poems called 'Smert". See Grigorii Bialyi, ed., Poety 1880-1890-kh-godov
(Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel', 1972), PP.236-7.
47* The conjugality [parnost'] and essential indivisibility of sexual love and death have
long been noted in belles lettres. Ancient tragedy is permeated by this duality,
but modem writers, too, provide profound insight into the mystery, for example,
Shakespeare, Pushkin, Guy de Maupassant, Merezhkovsky, Rodenbach,
Mel'nikov-Pechersky, Bal'mont, Briusov and particularly Turgenev, Tiutchev and
Golenishchev-Kutuzov. I mention the names that first spring to mind.
48* Georges Perrot and Charles Chipiez, Histoire de rart dans rantiquite, vo!. 6 (Paris,
1882-1914), p. 741.
49* Wilhelm Heinrich Roscher, Ausfiihrliches Lexicon der griechischen und romischen
Mythologie, vo!. 2 (Leipzig, 1884-90), co!. 407.
50 Homes, Natur- und Urgeschichte des Menschen, pp. 563-4.
51* Reproduced from Karl Schuchhardt, Schliemanns Ausgrabungen in Troja, Tiryns,
Mykenii, Archomenons, Ithaka in Lichte der heutigen Wissenschaft, 2l1d edn (Leipzig,
1891), p. 230, fig. 189; also in photographic form in Lagrange, La Crete ancienne,
p. 92, fig. 73, where the sexual characteristics are especially clear.
52* Reproduced from Perrot and Chipiez, Histoire de rart dans l'antiquite, vo!. 6, p. 741.
53* Homes, Natur- und Urgeschichte des Menschen, p. 563.
54* ]ohannes Ranke, Chelovek, trans!. from the second German edition and ed. by
Dmitrii Koropchevsky (St Petersburg, 1901), vo!. 2, p. 75; Charls Darvin [Charles
Darwin], Proizkhozhdenie cheloveka i polovoi podbor, part 2, chapter XIX (St Peters-
burg: Gubinsky, 1871), p. 397.
55* Reproduced from Lagrange, La Crete ancienne, p. 75, fig. 48.
56* Reproduced from Gabriel and Adrien de Mortillet, Musee prehistorique (Paris,
1903), no. 229: also in Lagrange, La Crete ancienne, ibid.
57* Ibid., p. 77, fig. 51.
58* Reproduced from Roscher, Awifuhrliches Lexicon, vo!. 1, co!. 647.
59* Trubetskoi, 'Etiudy po istorii grecheskoi religii,' p. 447. Trubetskoi (p. 461) bases
his views on the work of Ernst Diimmler, Max Hermann Ohnefalsch-Richter, and
Eduard Meyer. However, the sceptical Reinach 'strives not only to defend the
independent "Aegean" origins ofthis goddess, but even to prove that the type of
the "naked goddess" was alien to Babylonian art' (ibid, note on p. 461).
60* Fulcran Gregoire Vigouroux, ed., Dietionnaire de la Bible (Paris, 1907-12), vo!. 1, co!.
1161, fig. 323 shows a human oblation before the goddess, who wears a skirt with
seven flounces and a loop at the back of her head.
61 Viktor Porzhezinsky [Porzezinski], Vvedenie vyazykovedenie. Posobie k lektsiiam
(Moscow, 1907), p. 197.
62* Trubetskoi, 'Etiudy po istorii grecheskoi religii,' p. 447.
63 According to Evans, the goddess Ishtar 'to procure the \Vaters oflife for her
"wounded Thammuz" descended mother-naked to the Nether World'. See
Arthur Evans, The Palace ofMinos at Knossos, vo!. 1(London, 1921), p. 51.
64* Heinrich Ebeling, Lexicon Homericum, vo!. 1(Lipsiae, 1885), p. 106. 'Forma [i.e.,
aWPlKfJTTEA.A.OV ] nota quidem fuit inferioris aetatis hominibus, cf. Aristotle,
Historia animalium 9. 40.V, sed ipsa pocula non amplius in usu fuerant.' And as if
in refutation of the first half of his thesis the author of the note, Bernhard Gizeke,
introduces several mutually contradictory opinions on the form of the
opinions expressed by ancient grammarians.
65* The image, reproduced here in a much reduced form, is taken from Bogdan
Khanenko, Sobranie B. I. i V. LKhanenko. Drevnosti Pridneprov'ia. Kamennyi i bronzovyi
veka (Kiev, 1899), no. 1, plate VIII, fig. 46. The description is on p.13.
66* Homes, Natur- und Urgeschichte des Menschen, p. 437. A depiction of one ofthese
vessels is also reproduced here.
67* Kiev City Museum, cupboard VII (four examples); cupboards VIIl and IX, et al.
68* Kiev City Museum. 1) cupboard VII 1, vitrine no. 6 at the bottom; 2) ditto; 3)
cupboard VI, no. 12338.
69* Moscow History Museum, Bronze Age hall, vitrine no. 23 near the entrance; the
vessel is broken.
70* Sobranie Khanenko, no. 1, p. n.
71* ibid.
72* Homes, Natur- und Urgeschichte des Menschen, p. 437.
73* ibid.
74* I shall mention these objects in my subsequent lectures.
75* The dudu or djed pillar was a sacred symbol among the Egyptians that was used
during burial. Interpretations of its signi ficance vary. One explanation sees in it a
model for a nilometer, a tool for measuring the height ofthe water in the Nile. It
is far more probable, however, that dudu means 'spine of Osiris'. The image of a
double dudu, in general quite rare, can be seen for instance on the sarcophagus (on
the foot end) of the Egyptian Makhu, contemporaneous with the eighth dynasty
(16-15 centuries BC) in the Alexander III Museum in Moscow (Hall I, no. 4167).
76* The 'unlimited duality' ofthe Pythagorians was considered the feminine princi-
ple and the 'limited unit' the male principle. On this basis even numbers in
general were considered female and uneven ones male.
77* Philipp Buttmann, Lexilogus, oder Beitriige zur griechischen Wort-Erkliirung, hauptsiich-
lichfiir Homer und Hesiod, vo!. 1, 2nd edn (Berlin, 1825), no. 40: c'qJ.q)lKlrfTE AAOV,
pp. 160-62.; Jakob Terpstra, Antiquitas Hornerica (Lugduni Batovorum, 1831), 3. 2,
5, pp. 142-4: Gottlieb Christian Crusius and Emst Eduard Seiler, Vollstiindiges
Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch iiber die Gedichte des Horneros und der Horneriden, 6th
edn (Leipzig, 1863), p. 45; Johannes Friedreich, Die Realien in der lliaden und Odyssee
(Erlangen, 1851), vo!. 3, n pp. 255-6; Ebeling, Lexicon Hornericurn, p. 106; A. Manu
'.6..hTas-' in Wissowa, Paulys Real-Encydopiidie, revised edn, half-vo!. 9 (Stuttgart,
1903), cols 228-31; Pierre Paris and G. Roques, Lexique des Antiquitesgrecques (Paris,
1909), p. 27
78* Wissowa, Paulys Real-Encydopiidie, p. 229, cols 13-16; Buttmann, Lexilogus, p. 143,
lines 1-4 et seq.
79* Kagarov, Kul'tfetishei, pp. 284-5; Klingor, zhivotnoe vantichnorn i sovrernennorn suev-
erii, p. 72. According to Aelian 'white doves are sacred to Aphrodite and Demeter'
(Aelian, Natura anirnaliurn 8. 22; Dionysios, De avibus 1. 31.), etc. On the nature and
functions of oblations see Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss, Melanges d'histoire des
religions (Paris, 1909).
80* Nikolai Kharuzin, 'Verovanie', in his Etnografiia.Lektsii, chitannye vMoskovskorn
universitete, Issue 4 (St Petersburg, 1905), pp. 356 et seq.
81* Aristotle, Historia anirnaliurn 9. 40. (9. 27,4 in Johann Schneider, Aristote1is de
Anirnalibus Historiae. Libri x (Leipzig, 1811). Quoted in Buttmann, Lexilogus.
82* Crusius and Seiler, Vollstiindiges Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch, p. 45.
83* Wissowa, Paulys Real-Encydopiidie, cols 229, lines 16-22, co!. 230, lines 63-70.
84* johann Krause, Angeiologie, Die Gefiisse der a/ten Vii/ker (Halle), p. 58 (the reference is
borrowed from Crusius and Seiler, Vol1stiindiges Griechisch-Deutsches Wiirterbuch,
85* Aristarchus, Etymologicum magnum 90.42 et seq. Several other grammarians
shared Aristarchus' interpretation. Athenaeus, 11. 7836. 482 passim; Eustathius,
Odissey 15. 20. According to this reading the l l ~ t l l KunE AAOV should be seen as the
predecessor ofthe later kantharos. This explanation has its advantages: the existence
in Troy and other places of such proto-kantharoi is proven by Schliemann's exca-
vations (Pauly-Wissowa, Paulys Real-Encyclopiidie, col. 229, lines 23-65). On the
other hand, such a vessel really would be suitable for ladling liquids from a krater.
Finally, the compound part of its name - GrH!A. - is correctly interpreted. Quite
incorrect in this explanation, though, is the substitution of one notion of handle
(KlJTTE AAOV) by another. Surely these are not one and the same thing?!
86* Schliemann.1.. 584 (Ebe1ing, p. 106 with further references to Ar. 25.18; Hes. Ath.
87* ]ohann Winckelmann, Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums, voL 11, part. 1, 15 in
Werke (Stuttgart, 1845), vo!. 1, p. 450. Quoted in Friedreich, Die Realien in der Iliade
und Odyssee, pp. 255-6.
88* Emile Boisacq, Dictionnaire ethymologique de la langue grecque (Heide1berg and Paris,
1907), VO!. 1, p. 58. Ditto in dictionaries compiled by Georg Curtsius. Alois
Vanicek et al. See also Alois Walde, Lateinisches Etymologisches Wiirterbuch, 2nd edn
(Heidelberg, 1910), pp. 31-2.
89* Anton Dobiash [Dobias], Opyt semasiologii chastei rechi i ikhform na pochve grech-
eskogo yazyka (Prague, 1893), section 4, pp. 301-4. In several cases the 'idea of a
distinction between the position of a circle, i.e., the idea ofverticality in one
preposition and horiwntality in another. may fade or even disappear entirely. In
such cases TIE p[ and GflJ,![ become so equalised that they may replace each other,
except forthe meaning 'higher', where 'nEp[' reasserts its original meaning and
which 'Gfl<jJ[' cannot attain, as mentioned above (ibid., p. 303).
90* Agreat many similar examples could be cited. See the Greek dictionaries by
Gustav Benseler, ]ohann Ernesti, Vizantii, Anfim Gazis, Sophocles, ete.
91* This viewof Homer is established, for example. by Gilbert Murray, The Rise ofthe
Greek Epic (Oxford, 1907). For a review of this book see ZhMNP[Zhurnal Minister-
stva narodnogo prosveshcheniia] (February 1910), p. 404 et seq.
92 Enotheism. a term invented by Max MiiI1er (1823-1900), the historian oflanguage
and comparative mythology, indicates a pre-monotheistic attitude toward divin-
ity: whereby the believer imparts all divine qualities to a single god.
93* Dmitrii Shestakov, "Persy' Timofeia', in Uchenye zapiski Imperatorskogo Kazanskogo
Universiteta, LxxI!n (1904), pp. 1-90.
94* I. Miloslavsky, Drevneeyazycheskoe uchenie 0 dushe, 0 stranstviiakh i perese1eniiakh dush
(Kazan, ]873), p. 183, note 1.
95* Karl Tiimpe1, 'Die Musche1 der Aphrodite', in Philologus, voL 51, new ser., voL 5
(1892), pp. 382-4.
96* EskhiL Umoliaiushchiia 157-8 (i.e., Aeschylus. Supplices).
97* Ibid., pp. 384-5. ]) Vase from Mycenae, considerably reduced (AdolfFurtwangler
and Georg Loeschcke, Mykenische Vasen: Vorhellenische Thongefiisse aus dem Gebiete des
Mittelmeeres (Berlin, 1886), plate XXVI, 20); 2) Vase from Shaft Grave I, the upper
reproduced from Schliemann, the lower from Furtwangler and Loschke, Mykenis-
che Thongejasse (1879), plate Ill, 12a (reduced); 3) Stone specimen from Mycenae
(Heinrich Schliemann, Mikenae Bericht uber meine Forschungen und Entdeckungen in
Mikenae und Tiryns (Leipzig, 1878), p. 121 fig. 164; 4). For depiction of a nautilus for
purposes ofcomparison see Lorenz Oken, Allgemeine Naturgeschichte fur alle Stiinde.
Atlas, vo!. 5 (Stuttgart, 1833-41), plate XIII, 7 (reduced); 5); ditto, from Alfred Brehm,
Tierleben (Leipzig, 1876), vo!. 6, p. 770, 1(reduced); 6) Vase from the Island of
Rhodes (Furtwangler and Loschke, Mykenische Vasen, VOl.l, p. 80, flg. 38; 7) Egypt-
ian vase (American Journal ofArchaeology, VI (1890), plate 22; 8) Mug from Mycenae,
now in Marseilles, after a sketch by Furtwangler; 9) Glass from Mycenae, from
E<jJllfl. ApXaw;\, 1887, no vol. number, p. 13, flg. 2.
98* Evripid, Ippolit, 420 (Euripides, Hippolytus):' c;j OE(JTTOIVa TTov,[a K{mp[' and
elsewhere. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, vol. 1, col. 1200-2, flgs 342-5. Atar-
gatis (= Derketo), fig. 343. A sacrifke of doves to Astarte. Derketo is
half-fish, who holds a fish in her hand. The other side of the coin carries a galley
and a sea monster.
99* Ibid., col. 1898, fig. 497 et al.
100* Tbid., col. 1184, fig. 332.
On Realism
The translation is ofPavel Florensky's '0 realizme', intended orignally for
Makovets, 3 (announced in Makovets, 2, p. 32), but published only in Sochineniia, H,
pp. 527-31. Florensky dictated the original text to Sofiia Ogneva. The fair copy,
dated 28 March 1923, is in the archives of the Florensky Foundation.
2 Letter from Vladimir Favorsky to Nikolai Chernyshev, dated 4 December 1964,
quoted in Lapshin, 'Iz istorii zhizni khudozhestvennoi Moskvy 1920-kh godov',
For other commentary see 'Pavel Florensky as Art Historian'. For a selection of
Favorsky's statements in English see Molok, Vladimir Favorsky.
Explanation ofthe Cover
The translation is of'Poiasnenie k oblozhke', in Pavel Florensky, Mnimosti v
geometrii (Moscow: Pomor'e, 1922), pp. 58-65 (reprinted in Struve (1985), pp. 369-79
and in 1991 with introduction by Leonid Antipenko [Moscow]). According to the
date at the end ofthe typescript, Florensky completed the text on 11 August 1922.
An earlier English translation exists, Kirill Sokolov, intro. and Avril Pyman,
trans., 'Father Pavel Florensky, "Explanation of the Cover''', in Leonardo, xxnj2
(1989), pp. 239-44. A reprint ofthe original Russian edition has been published in
Germany with an introduction by Michael Hagemeister: P. A. Florenskij: 'Mnirnosti
vgeornetrii' (Munich: Sagner, 1985; Specimina Philologiae Slavicae, Supplement,
vo!. ]4). For an Italian translation see 'Spiegazione della copertina', in Misler (1983),
pp. 136-43.
2 Florensky's preliminary lecture notes for VKhUTEMAS contain a bibliographical
reference to John L. E. Dreyer, 'The Cosmology of Dante', in Nature, cvnj2692 (2
June 1921), pp. 428-30. On this scientific interpretation see Antipenko's valuable
commentary in the 1991 reprint of Mnirnosti vgeornetrii. Also see Lena Sziliird,
'Andrej Bely i P. Florensky (Mnimaia geometriia kak vstrecha novykh konseptsii
prostranstva s iskusstvom)', in Studia Slavica Hungarica, xxxmj1-4 (1987), pp. 228-38.
Petr Kogan, ed., Exposition Internationale des Arts Decoratifs et Industriels Modernes.
Union des Republiques Sovietiques Sodalistes. Catalogue of exhibition at the Grand
Palais (Paris, 1925) p. 174.
4 Referring to the 'specificity of structure', in his father's texts, Bely also talks about
'art steeped in mathematical thought (if, in this case, we may use Florensky's
words regarding the work of Favorsky.), See Bely, Nachalo veka, p. 249.
Florensky was especially interested in these phenomena. He devoted his 'Laws of
Illusion' to the psychology of vision, a text which he then refashioned for his
Analiz prostranstva. See "Zakon illiuzii [Otryvok iz raboty 'Analiz prostranstven-
nosti v izobrazitel'no-khudozhestvennykh proizvedeniiakh sostavelennyi po
kursu lektsii vo VKhUTEMASe v 1921-1924 gg.]', in Trudy po znakoryrn sisternarn,
vj284 (Tartu, ]971), pp. 513-21, and Andronik (2000), pp.259-71.
6 That Florensky equated transparency with the imaginary (as illusory) and that
this concept was for himboth optical and aesthetic is clear from the late commentary
that he made in a letter to his family (dated 21-25 March ]936) on Bely's novel
Petersburg: 'Well, the essence of Petersburg lies in its transmission ofthe sensation
ofthe transparency, the illusoriness ofPetersburg.' See Ivanova and Il'iunina, eds,
'Iz naslediia P. A. Florenskogo', p. 98.
7 In The Imaginaries ofGeometry Florensky differentiates between even-sided and
odd-sided surfaces, a distinction which he also explained in his course on the
Encyclopedia of Mathematics at the Institute for Popular Education at Sergiev
Posad in 1919-20. See The Imaginaries ofGeometry, p. 38.
8 Discussing the meaning ofthe 'Point' in his 'Symbolarium', Florensky proposes
an antinomy parallel to the one described here, even in its more metaphysical
essence: '[The point] is conceived as being on the border of existence and non-
existence ... two worlds unite, the one of actuality and the other ofthe imaginary.'
See Nekrasova, 'Neosushchestvlennyi zamysel ]920-kh godov', p. 111.
9 Alexius Meinong (1853-1920) was an Austrian philosopher and professor at Graz
University. Founder of'Neo-Realist philosophy', Meinong developed a theory of
objects (Gegendstandtheorie), according to which the object was to be understood
not as material object, but as the influence of the object on the emotions; in
other words, the object acquired its reality only via the act of knowledge.
Reverse Perspective
The translation is based on the latest version of Florensky's 'Obratnaia perspek-
tiva', in Sochineniia, m/I, pp. 46-101, published on the basis of the typewritten and
handwritten variants preserved in the Florensky Foundation. Delivered as a
lecture, 'Reverse Perspective' was not published at the time, even though Floren-
sky himself prepared the text, dictating it, in part, to Aleksandra Rozanova,
daughter of his friend, the writer Vasilii Rozanov. The printed proofs are
preserved in Manuscript Section, RGL, f. 218, op. 1304, d.12. The first Russian
publication was 'Obratnaia perspektiva', in Trudy po znakovym sistemam, m/198
(1967), pp. 381-416; Struve then published it in Stat'i po iskusstvu, pp. 117-87; an
abridged version, edited, annotated and introduced by Nikolai Gavriushin,
appeared in his Filosofiia russkogo religioznogo iskusstva. Sokrovishchnitsa russkoi reli-
giozno-filosofskoi mysli (Moscow: Progress-Kul'tura, 1993), pp. 247-464; also in
Naslednikov (1993), pp. 175-281; a new version, revised and annotated by
Andronik, appeared in Andronik (1996), pp. 9-72. For an Italian translation see
'La prospettiva rovesciata', in Misler (1983), pp. 73-135. For a French translation
see 'La perspective inversee', in Lhoest (1992), pp. 67-120. There are three German
translations, 'Die umgekehrte Perspektive', in Sikojev (1989), pp. 7-79, in abridged
form in Bubnoff (1991), pp. 124-128; and extracts in Mierau (1996), pp. 126-36. For
a Japanese translation see 'Gyakuenkinh', in Kuwano (1998), pp. 11-111.
2 I would like to thank Igumen Andronik (Aleksandr Trubachev) for this informa-
tion. Also see Anon., 'Moskovskii Institut Istoriko-khudozhestvennykh izyskanii
i muzeevedenia', in Khudozhestvennaia zhizn'. Biulleten' Khudozhestvennoi sektsii
NARKOMPROSA, 2 (1920), pp. 11-12.
Oskar Wulff, 'Die umgekehrte Perspektive und die Niedersicht'. See note 176 of
Misler, 'Pavel Florensky as Art Historian', in this volume. The term 'reverse'
rather than 'reversed' or 'inverted' is being used here to translate 'obratnaia',
although the latter two renderings are permissible. Akey argument for prefer-
ring 'reverse' is that of Christopher S. Wood, in his masterful translation of
Panofsky's essays on perspective, who makes a very convincing case for render-
ing 'umgekehrte' as 'reverse' (see Wood, Perspective as Symbolic Form).
4 Florensky, Analiz prostranstvennosti, and Misler (1995).
5 On the philosophical structure of Florensky's anthropodicy and on how he
wished to organise and elaborate his own collected works (never published as
such) see Igumen Andronik, 'Istoriia sozdaniia tsikla "U vodarazdelov mysly''', in
Sochineniia, m/I, pp. 5-24.
6 Anders Almgren, Die umgekehrte Perspektive und die Fluchtachsen-Perspektive (Uppsala,
7 Boris Uspensky, ed., L.E Zhegin. Yazykzhivopisnogo proizvedeniia (Moscow, 1970).
8 Aleksandr Zaitsev mantains that Uspensky, in his appreciation of reverse
perspective, juxtaposes the two perspectives incorrectly and prejudicially. Lev
D'iakonitsyn, in turn, welcomes Zhegin's book, although he, too, is critical of
Uspensky's commentary on Florensky. See Zaitsev, 'Chto takoe obratnaia
perspektiva?': and Lev D'iakonitsyn, 'Krupnoe otkrytie v drevnerusskom
iskusstve', in Iskusstvo, 3 (1972), pp. 67-70 and pp. 70-71. The same issue contains
other, less ideological reviews, e.g.lrina Glinskaia, 'Ob izuchenii yazyka
zhivopisi', pp. 60-63: and Gerol'd Vagner, 'Khudozhestvennyi yazyk
drevnerusskoi zhivopisi', pp. 63-8.
9 See, for example, Lev Mochalov, 'Obratnaia perspektiva. Mif i versiia real'nosti',
in V. Polevoi et aI., Sovetskoe iskusstvoznanie '75 (1976), pp. 255-73: and Baris
Raushenbakh, Prostranstvennye postroeniia vdrevnerusskoi zhivopisi (Moscow, 1975):
Prostranstvennye postroeniia vzhivopisi. Ocherk osnovnykh metodov (Moscow, 1980).
Two short essays in English provide a summary of Raushenbakh's complex elab-
oration: Baris Raushenbakh, 'Perceptual Perspective and Cezanne's Landscape',
in Leonardo XV!1 (1982), pp. 28-33, and 'On My Concept of Perceptual Perspective
that Accounts for Parallel and Inverted Perspective in Pictorial Art', ibid., XVI!1
(1983), pp. 28-30.
10 Abe Shenitzer, trans., Bods Rosenfdd: 'A History ofNon-Eudidean Geometry. Evolution
ofthe Concept ofaGeometric Space' (New York, 1988).
are mine. N. M.
11* This article was written in October 1919, in the form of a lecture for the Commis-
sion for the Preservation of Monuments and Antiquities of the Lavra of the Trin-
ity and St Sergius. However, for various reasons it was delivered not to the
Commission, but to a session ofthe Byzantine Section ofMIKhlM on 29 October
1920. The debate that followed the lecture was long and intense. As I recall, those
who took part were Pavel Muratov, B. Kuftin, N. Romanov, A. Sidorov, N.
Afrikanov, N. Shchekotov, M. Fabrikant and N. Lange. Once again the liveliness
of the discussions brought home to me that the question of space was one of the
fundamental ones in art and, I would go even further, in the understanding of the
world in general. But this question of space in visual art is not discussed in the
present article and is the subject ofmy lectures on the analysis ofperspective,
which I delivered to the Printing and Graphics Department at the Moscow
Higher Art Workshops, the so-called KhUDEMAST [=VKhUTEMASj in 1921-3
and which are being prepared for publication. This article merely presents a sort
of concrete historical approach to understanding an organic idea of the world.
The author in no way intends to construct a theory of reverse perspective and
wants only to point out with sufficient energy thefact of an organic idea - in one
particular sphere. To conclude this introduction I want to gratefully acknowledge
the late Aleksandra Mikhailovna Butiagina, who transcribed the first half of this
article from my dictation.
12 Rastsvetka or raskryshka, razdelka, asist or assist, ozhivka, dvizhka, otmetina, probel
(probelka). Apart from razdelki (folds or creases in vestments) Florensky defined
these terms as follows (parentheses, underlinings, bold script, quotation marks
and italics are Florensky's; words in square brackets are the translator's) copying
freely from Sergei Prokhorov, 'Ob ikonopisi i ee tekhnike', in Svetil'nik, 1 (1914), pp.
33-48 and other sources (Florensky, '[Podgotovitel'nye materialy po ikonopisi]',
in Florensky, Ikonostas (1995), pp. 213-29):
V. lkonopisets rask1yvaet [The icon painter exposes]
19) The icon-painter 'exposes', Le. paints over the background ofthe dress
and accessories with uninterrupted spots ofpaint (the raskryshka) [exposure], but
without any shadows or half-tones. He may not use lessirovka or mazok [light
brushstroke], so he replaces the lessirovka with pripleska [sprinkling], Le. covers a
given place with a very thin tone (in the case of an old icon where a lot of'fill-
ings' are being made as it is being restored resulting in a kind of multicoloured
variegation, the painter destroys it by sprinkling all the vestments or background
with a thin tone which produces the 'filling in' of the spots). After this, but still
during the restoration process, he paints over the old folds and inserts probely
[highlightings] ...
VI. Rospis' [Painting]
20) When the raskryshka has dried, the outlines of the folds that had been
made earlier with thegrafia [point] can be seen... Painting for the all over paint-
ing of the folds is done in the same color, but in a darker tone...
Vll. Probelka [Highlighting]
22) Highlightings are applied whereever there has to be light (- on the shoul-
der or the chest, from the shoulder to the end of the sleeve, on the stomach, the
thigh and lower down -) which is done with tempered gold or paint. The high-
Iightings are applied in three postily [spreads] - the first, second, and then the
third which is the otzhivka [left-over] ... the thinnest and lightest ...
25) [Asist] ... 'I know nothing' about the derivation of the word asist. The
substance of asist is a thick and compact mass prepared from the juice of a head
of onion or sometimes from black and thickened beer. Either is then diluted with
water in a spoon so as to 'dissolve' and is used to cover the places on the dress or
background where gold is going to be applied ...
Razdelka [Fold]
... 'Folds on dress' (early Novgorod icons) 'consisting of straight lines or
markings prepared with ink and eggwhite' ...
Dvizhki [Lines]
Dvizhki are the thin, short lines or otmetiny [markings] which are traced with
eggwhite in the upper sections of the icon: beneath the eyes, beneath the lips, on
the forehead, and on the joints of the hands and feet ...
13* The fifteenth -or sixteenth-century icon No. 23/328 (32 x 25.5 cm), for example,
donated by Nikita Dmitrievich Vel'iaminov in honor ofTsarevna and nun Ol'ga
Borisovna in 1625, was cleaned in 1919 and published by the Lavra Preservation
Commission (see Opis' ikon vTroitse-Sergievoi Lavre [Sergiev Posad, 1920] pp.
89-90). [The icon is now in the Historical-Artistic Museum ofSergiev Posad,
inventory no. 375. See: Tat'iana Nikolaeva, Drevnerusskaia zhivopis' Zagorskogo
Muzeia (Moscow, 1977) p. 130.]
14* The eighteenth-century icon no. 58/160 (31.5 x 25.5 cm) had been donated by Ivan
Grigor'evich Nagov in 1601 (Opis'ikon, pp. 102-3). [Present whereabouts
15* One opinion sees the depiction of warriors or horses emerging one from behind
the other and following a single line perpendicular to the direction of their move-
ment as being an embryonic form ofperspective. Ofcourse, this is a certain
projection ofa military, axionometric, or similar type ofperspective, i.e. the
projection from an infinitely distanced centre, and it has significance as such, in
and of itself. To see it as the embryo of something else, as an imperfectly compre-
hended perspective, means not taking into consideration the fact that any repre-
sentation is a correspondence and that many representations are in essence
projections, without being perspectival. Essentially, they are no more the
embryos of perspective than reverse perspective or many others are. In turn,
[linear] perspective is an embryo of reverse perspective and so on. Evidently, in
such cases researchers are simply not paying proper attention to the mathemati-
cal aspect of the matter and that is why they divide up all the countless methods
of representation into correct, perspectival ones and incorrect, non-perspectival
ones. However, non-perspectival [representation] in no way signifies incorrect-
ness. With respect to Egyptian representations specifically, particular attention is
required, for here tactile sensations predominated over visual ones. What kind of
correspondence between the points of the thing represented and the representa-
tion was being used by the Egyptians is a difficult question, one that has yet to
receive a satisfactory answer.
16* Moritz Cantor, Vorlesungen iiber Geschichte der Mathematik, vol. 1, 3rd edn (Leipzig,
1907), p. 108.
17* Vitruvius Pollio, De architeetura libri decem, VII, praefatio, 11. We read the same in
the life of Aeschylus. However, from what Aristotle indicates in his Poetica, 4, the
first to provide a reasonable explanation for scenography was Sophocles.
18 This is a free paraphrasis of the original Vitruvius text, 'Namque primum Agath-
arcus Aeschylo docente tragoediam scaena fecit et de ea commentarium reliquit.
Ex eo moniti Democritus et Anaxagoras de eadem re scripserunt, quemad-
modum oporteat ad aciem oculorum rariorumque extentionem certo loco
centro constituto linea ratione naturali respondere, uti de incerta re certae imag-
ines aedificiorum in scenarium picturis rendere speciem, et quae in directis
planisque frontibus sint figurata, alia abscendentia alia prominentia esse videan-
tur.' (Vitruvius, De architectura libri decem). See Herbert Langford Warren, ed.,
Vitruvius: The Ten Books on Architecture (NewYork, 1960), p. 198.
19 See note 74 of Misler, 'Pavel Florensky as Art Historian', in this volume.
20* Ivan Semenov, trans., G. Emikhen: 'Grecheskii i rirnskii teatr' (Moscow, 1894), pp.
21* Claudius Ptolomaeus, I(cyypaqJl!cT] vqrrlyTjCJlS'. See Cantor, Vorlesungen, p. 423.
22* Rynin, Melody izobrazheniia.
23* Numerous reproductions, both photographs and line drawings, ofthe Greco-
Roman architectural landscape and the archaeological study of this landscape
can be found in the detailed investigation by Mikhail Rostovtsev, 'Ellinistichesko-
rimskii arkhitekturnyi peizazh', in Zapiski klassicheskogo Otdeleniia Imperatorskogo
Russkogo Arkheologicheskogo Obshchestva, VI (Segiev Posad, 1908). Unfortunately,
Rostovtsev's work completely ignores the art historical and theoretical aspect of
the matter and in particular contains absolutely no discussion of spatiality in the
Hellenistic-Roman landscape. We might point out, incidentally, that the land-
scapes Rostovtsev reproduces are partially presented in linear perspective-
though not a completely rigorous one - and partially using other methods of
projection related to perspective, like axionometry - a projection from an infi-
nitely distanced point. In any event, the general nature of the representations is
fairly close to a system of perspective.
24* 'However, the question ofthe Greco-Roman architectural landscape, its origins
and history, its realness or its fantasticness, has not been broached in scholarship
to this day. From the first days of my acquaintance with Pompeii I have person-
ally long been involved with it. I saw immediately that the limits of real fantasis-
ing in Pompeiian landscape are extremely restricted and are encompassed
entirely within the framework of the illusionistic transmission in part of moti fs
from surrounding nature, in part oflandscape and architectural originals
coming from outside. In general, I find the term fantastic architecture difficult to
understand. Details of an ornamental kind can be permeated with fantasy, the
combination of motifs can be capricious and unusual, but the motifs themselves
and their general character will without fail be real, if not with the relief of a
portrait (we are not confronted with architectural projects and photographs),
then real in a typical way. Investigation from this viewpoint of utterly fantastic-
seeming architectural motifs in the so-called architectural style of wall decora-
tion has already succeeded in providing a number of unexpected and extremely
important results. The connection between this fantastic' architecture and the archi-
tecture ofthe Greco-Roman stage has been, or is being proven, and, of course, further
research will provide even more, especially now, when in Asia Minor monu-
ments ofgenuine Hellenistic architecture are being discovered one after another.
I arrived at the same results after many years of research on the architecture of
Pompeiian landscapes. Here everything seems real, to an even greater degree
than in architectural decoration, and conveys the types of real Hellenistic archi-
tecture. There is even less room here for pure fantasy, than in the architecture of
Pompeiian walls.' (Rostovtsev, 'Posleslovie', Ellinistichesko-rimskii arkhitekturnyi
peizazh, pp. IX-X.). The author connects this landscape with views of Roman
villas, Egyptian landscapes, ete.
25* A1eksandr Benua, Istoriia zhivopisi (St Petersburg: Shipovnik, 1912), vol. I, part], pp.
4Iet seq.
26* See Rostovtsev, Ellinistichesko-rimskii arkhitekturnyi peizazh.
27* Benua, Istoriia zhivopisi, p. 45.
28* Ibid., pp. 45, 46.
29* Ibid., p. 43, note 24.
30* ibid., p. 70.
31* Ibid., p. 75.
32* Ibid., p. 75.
33 The Neo-Kantian school at Marburg University, directed by Hermann Cohen
(1842-1918) and represented also by Paul Natorp and Ernst Cassirer, was espe-
cially popular among Russian philosophers and intellectuals in the early twenti-
eth century.
34* D. M. Bolduin, Dukhovnoe razvitie detskogo individuuma i chelovecheskogo roda. Trans-
lated from the 3rd US edn (Moscow: Moskovskoe knigoizdatel'stvo, 19U). [See
James Mark Baldwin, Mental Development in the child and the Race. Methods and
Processes (New York and London, 1895)].
35 Vasari's original text is 'Fu, come si e detto, Giotto ingegnoso e piacevole molto e
ne' motti argutissimo, de' quali n'e anco viva memoria in questa cittiL' See
Gaetano Milanesi, ed., Le opere di Giorgio Vasari (Florence, 1973), p. 406.
36* Petr Pertsov, trans., I. Ten [Hyppolite Taine]: 'Puteshestvie po ItaliC vo!. 2 (Moscow:
Nauka, 1913-16), H, pp. 87-8.
37 Vasari's original text is 'E perche, oltre quello che aveva Giotto da natura, fu
studiosissimo, ed ando sempre nuove cose pensando e dalla natura cavando,
merito d'essere chiamato discepolo della natura e non d'altri ... Perche oltre a
certi paesi pieni di alberi e di scogli che fu cosa nuova in quei tempi.' See
Milanesi, Le opere di Giorgio Vasari, pp. 378-80
38* Benua, Tstoriia zhivopisi, p. 100.
39* Ibid.
40* Ibid., pp. 107-8.
41* CL Aleksei Mironov, 'AI'brekht Diurer, ego zhizn' i khudozhestvennaia
deiatel'nost. Kkharakteristike epokhi v nemetskom iskusstve', in Uchenye Zapiski
Imperatorskogo Moskovskogo Universiteta. Otdel istoriko-filologicheskii, 31 (1901), p. 375.
42* Albrecht Diirer,Underweysung der Messung mit dem Zirkelund Richtscheyt in Linien,
Ebenen undgantzen Corporen durch Albrecht Durer zusammen getzogen und zu Nutz aller
Kunstliebhabenden mit zugehorigen Figuren in Truckgebracht imJahr MDXXV (Nurem-
berg, 1525). There are no fewer than five later editions.
43* Mironov, Al'brekht Diurer, p. 380, note 1.
44* Excerpts from several of these tracts have been published by Gustav Johannes
von Allesch in his Renaissance in Italy (translated into Russian by Evgenii Grig-
orovich as Allesh.'Renessans vItalii' (Moscow: Sabashnikov, 1916).
45 Paolo Uccello painted his Monument to Giovanni Awto Oohn Hawkwood) in 1433.
46 Andrea del Castagno painted his Monument to Niccolo da Tolentino in 1456.
47 Andrea del Castagno was born in 1421.
48 Andrea del Castagno painted his Supper in 1445-50 in the Church ofS Apollonia
in Florence.
49* Benua, lstoriia zhivopisi, p. 381.
50 The correct title is De prospeetiva pingendi.
51 Today it is generally accepted that the Latin version of De Pictura was written in
1435 and the one in vernacular Italian in 1436. The original Latin edition was
published in Basle in 1540.
52 Masaccio died in 1428.
51* An extensive bibliography on these issues can be found in Rynin, Metody
izobrazheniia, pp. 245-64.
54 'I know they tippled wine on the quiet/while publicly preaching water' (T. J. Reed,
trans. and intro., Heinrich Heine: 'Deutschland. A Winter's Tale' (London, 1986), p. 57.
55* Guido Schreiber, Lehrbuch der Perspective mit einem Anfimg uber den Gebrauch
geometrischer Grundrisse, 2nd edn, ed. A. Viehweger, intro. Ludwig Nieper (Leipzig,
56* Ibid., 32, p. 5l.
57* Tbid., 34, p. 56.
58* Ibid., 34, p. 57.
59* Rynin, Perspektiva, 8, pp. 72-3.
60 Raphael's Sistine Madonna (]512-13, Gemaldegalerie, Dresden) was and is one of
the most revered paintings in Russian culture, particularly in the philosophical
and religious circles that Florensky frequented.
6] Tintoretto (] 518-94) made his reputation with this work in 1548.
62 The Uffizi Gallery does not possess a Flemish Landscape by Rubens. Presumably
Florensky is referring to Rubens' Landscape. Retumingfrom the Fields (1632-4) in the
Galleria of the Palazzo Pitti in Florence.
63* Rynin, Perspektiva, . 8, pp. 70-82, 89: Schreiber, Lehrbuch der Perspective.
64* Rynin, Perspektiva, . 8, p. 75, fig. 144.
65* Friedrich Schilling, Uber die Anwendungen der darstellenden GeometTie insbesondere uber
die Photogrammetrie (Leipzig and Berlin, 1904), pp. 152-3: Rynin, Perspektiva, p. 74.
Rynin, Metody izobrazheniia, p. 111.
66* Schilling, Uber die Anwedungen, p. 153, note 1.
67 The only journey that Albrecht Diirer undertook in 1506 was from Venice (not
Florence) to Bologna.
68* Frants Kugler [Franz Theodor Kugler], Rukovodstvo kistorii zhivopisi so vremeni
Konstantina Velikogo, 3rd edn (Moscow, 1874), p. 584.
69* Mironov, AI'brekht Diurer, p. 347.
70* Aleksei Sidorov, 'Chetyre Apostola' Al'brekhta Diurera i sviazannye s nimi spomye
voprosy. Offprint of Zapiski Klassicheskogo Otdeleniia Imperatorskogo Russkogo Arkheo-
logicheskogo Obshchestva, IX (1917), p. 15.
71* From one of Diirer's manuscripts now in the British Museum, London, and
comprising the artist's working sketches for projected future printed works.
Published by A. von Zahn in 1868 and William M. COl1way in 1889 [William
Conway, Literary Remains ofAlbrecht Durer (Cambridge, ]889)J reprinted in Konrad
Lange and Franz Louis Fuhse, DIJrers schriftlicher Nachlass aufGrund der Original-
Handschriften und theilweise neu entdeckter alter Abschriften (Halle, 1893), p. 326.
72 The woodcut for the First Perspective apparatus or Man drawing aseatedfigure was
published in the first edition of the Underweisung der Messung (Nuremberg, 1925).
73 The woodcut of a Perspective apparatus called Man drawing areclining woman was
included only in the second edition of the Underweisung der Messung (Nuremberg,
74 The woodcut of a Perspective apparatus called Man drawing ajug was also
included in the second edition ofthe Underweisung der Messung.
75 The woodcut for the Second Perspective apparatus or Man drawing aLute was
published in the first edition ofthe Underweisung der Messung.
76* Rynin, Perspektiva, 8, pp. 75-8; Metody izobrazheniia, 15, pp. 113-17.
77* Ernst Makh, Dlia chego cheloveku dva glaza. PopulianlO-nauchnye ocherki, trans. Gedel'
Kotliar (Moscow: 'Obrazovanie', 1909), p. 64. [For the English see Ernst Mach,
'Why Has Man Two Eyes?', in Popular Scientific Lectures, 3rd edn, trans. Thomas
McCormack, pp. 66-88 (Chicago, 1898); this citation on pp. 76-7. N.M.]
78* An elementary explanation ofthe terms of'study on sets' used here - set, correspon-
dence, power, equivalent relation, similarity or conformity, etc. - can be found in
Pavel Florensky, '0 simvolakh beskonechnosti', in Novyi put', 9 (September 1904),
pp. 173-235.
79* On howthe correspondence of the points of the square and its sides has been
established see Georg Cantor's own proof. [Original source and quotation miss-
ing in the manuscript. N.M.]
80 Original source lost.
81* See Rynin, Metody izobrazheniia.
82 Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann (1826-66), German mathematician. In Analiz
prostranstvennosti Florensky further developed the ideas that Riemann had put
forward in his fundamental text, Ueber die Hypothesen, we/che der Geometrie zu
Grunde liegen, Habilitationsschrifi: vonlO Juni 1854, Gottingen, Abhandlungen der
Wissenschaften, 13, 1866, pp. 133-52.
83 The term Meonism derives from the Greek (1J-1l (jv, unbeing) and lies at the basis
of the philosophical theory of the poet and philosopher Nikolai Minsky
(1885-1937). According to him every human effort towards the ideal is destined to
fail, such as the knowledge of God which, paradoxically, is unattainable - for God
is dispersed within Eternity. Minsky was also one ofthe organisers ofthe Reli-
gious-Philosophic Gatherings that Florensky frequented.
84 Original source lost.
85* Ernst Makh [Mach], Poznanie i zabluzhdenie. Ocherki po psikhologii issledovaniia
(Moscow: Skirmunt, 1909), p. 346.
86* Ibid., p. 349.
87* Ernst Makh ([Mach], Analiz oshchushchenii (Moscow: Skirmunt, 1908), p. 354 [For
the English original see Ernst Mach, The Analysis ofSensations And the Relation ofthe
Physical to the Psychical, trans. C. M. Williams (New York, 1959), pp. 181-2. N.M.]
88* Ibid., pp. 157-8.
89* Ibid., p. 146.
Recent scholarship has generated a large corpus ofbio-bibliographical infor-
mation on Pavel Florensky, and while an exhaustive account of all books and
articles lies beyond the scope of this collection, new and essential sources are
indicated below. Many of them could be recommended for further reading on
the life and work of Florensky, although for the English-speaking reader
Robert Slesinski's Pavel Florensky: AMetaphysics ofLove (St Vladimir's Semi-
nary Press, Crestwood, New York, 1984) and Viktor Bychkov's The Aesthetic
Face of Being: Art in the Theology ofPavel Florensky (St Vladimir's Seminary
Press, Crestwood, New York, 1993) are of particular value. For the sake of
brevity and conciseness certain key publications have been cited throughout
the References in abbreviated form, e.g., Andronik (1982); their full biblio-
graphical details are provided in the following list. Bibliographical details for
Florensky's essays translated in this book are contained in the headnotes to
the relevant sections.
Principal Publications
The primary source for Florensky's writings is the ongoing series of numbered
volumes being published under the auspices ofthe Florensky Foundation, Moscow,
i.e., Igumen Andronik (Aleksandr Trubachev), Pavel V. Florensky and Mariia
Trubacheva, eds, Pavel Florensky. Sochineniia (Moscow: Mysl', 1994-9) in five volumes:
Vo\. 1 (1994). Cited in the References as Sochineniia, vo\. 1
Vo\. 2 (1996). Cited as Sochineniia, vol. 2
Vo\. 3 (1) (1999). Cited as Sochineniia, vol. 3 (1)
Vo\. 3 (2) (1999). Cited as Sochineniia, vo\. 3 (2)
Vo\. 4 (1998). Cited as Sochineniia, vol. 4
Among Florensky's philosophical essays and memoirs, frequent reference in Beyond
Vision has been made to the following titles:
Smysl idealizma (Sergiev Posad: Tipografiia Sviato-Troitskoi Sergievoi Lavry, 1914 [1915
on cover]). Cited as Florensky, Smysl idealizma
Stolp i utverzhdenie Istiny. Opyt pravoslavnoi feoditsei v dvenadtsati pis'makh Sviashch. Pavla
Florenskogo (M: Put', 1914). For an English translation see Richard F. Gustafson, intro.,
and Boris Jakim, trans., Pavel Florensky: 'The Pillar and Ground ofthe Truth': An Essay in
Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters (Princeton N): Princeton UP, 1997). Cited as Florensky,
The Pillar and Ground
Igumen Andronik (Trubachev), ed" et aI., Sviasch, Pavel
Florensky. 'Detiam moim'. Vospominaniia proshlykh dnei. Genealogicheskie issledovaniia. Iz
solovetskikh pisem. Zaveshchanie (Moscow: Moskovskii rabochii, 1992). Cited as Floren-
sky, Detiam moim
Pave! F!orensky on Art
'The Troitse-Sergiev Lavra and Russia'
'Troitse-Sergieva Lavra i Rossiia' in Pavel Florensky, Pavel Kapterev, Yurii Olsuf'ev et
el., Troitse-Sergieva Lavra (Sergiev Posad: Komissiia po okhrane pamiatnikov iskusstva i
stariny Troitse-Sergievoi l.avry, Tipografiia I. Ivanov 1919), pp. 3-29. In the 1930S this
publication was removed from public depositories by official decree and very few
copies have survived. Florensky's essay is reprinted in Andronik (1996), pp. 219-43.
Cited as Florensky, Troitse-Sergieva Lavra i Rossiia.
For an English translation see Robert Bird, The Trinity St Sergius Lavra and Russia
(New Haven, CT: Variable Press, 1995)
'The Iconostasis'
Archimandrite Innokentii (Prosvirin) and Pavel V. Florensky, eds, 'Sviashchennik
Pavel Florensky, "Ikonostas'" in Bogoslovskie trudy, no. 9 (Moscow, 1972), pp. 88-148
Igumen Andronik (Aleksandr Trubachev), Aleksandr Dunaev et aI., eds., Pavel A.
Florensky, 'lkonostas' (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1995). Cited as Florensky, lkonostas (1995)
For another Russian edition see Andrei Naslednikov, ed., Pavel Florensky. 'Ikonostas'.
Izbrannye trudy po iskusstvu (St Petersburg: Mifril, 1993). Cited as: Naslednikov (1993)
For the first (abridged) English version of 'The Iconostasis' see John Lindsay Opie,
ed. and intro., 'Archipriest Pavel Florensky: "On the leon'" in Eastern Churches Review
[Oxford], vo!. VIII!1 (1976), pp. 11-37
For a full English translation see Donald Sheehan and Olga Andrejev, Pavel Floren-
sky.'Iconostasis' (Crestwood, NewYork: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1996). Cited as
Sheehan, Iconostasis (1996)
For a French translation see Franc;oise Lhoest, ed. and trans., Pae Paul Florensky. 'La
perspective inversee' suivie de 'l'Iconostase' et autres eaits sur l'art (Lausanne: L'Age d'Homme,
1992). Cited as Lhoest (1992)
For an Italian translation see Elemire Zolla, ed. and trans., Pave! Florenskij. 'Le Porte
regali' (Milan: Adelphi, 1977)
For a German translation see Ulrich Werner, ed. and trans., Pave! Florenskij. 'Die
Ikonostase'. Urbild und Grenzerlebnis im revolutioniiren Russland (Stuttgart: Urachhaus, 1988)
'Analysis of Spatiality and Time in Works ofVisual Art'
Igumen Andronik (AleksandrTrubachev), Mariia Trubacheva and Oleg Genisaretsky,
eds., Pave! Florensky. Analiz prostranstvennosti i vremeni vkhudozhestvenno-izobrazite!'nykh
proizvedeniiakh (Moscow: Progress, 1993). Cited as Florensky, Analiz prostranstvennosti.
For an Italian translation see Nicoletta Misler, ed. and trans., Pave! Florenskij. 'Lo spazio e
il tempo nell'arte' (Milan: Adelphi, 1995), pp. 17-202. Cited as Misler (1995)
Nicoletta Misler, ed., and Carla Muschio, trans., Pave! Florenskij. 'La prospettiva rovesciata'
ed altri saitti (Rome: Casa dellibro, 1983). Cited as Misler (1983)
Nikita Struve, ed., Sviashch. Pave! Florensky, Sobranie sochinenii. Stat'i po iskusstvu (Paris:
YMCA, 1985), VO!. J. Cited as: Struve (1985)
Andre Sikojev, ed. and trans., Pavel Florenskij: 'Die umgekeherte Perspektive.' Texte zur Kunst
(Munich: Matthes and Seitz, 1989). Cited as Sikojev (1989)
Franc;oise Lhoest, ed. and trans., Pae Paul Florensky. 'La perspective inversee' suivie de
'l'Iconostase' et autres eaits sur l'art (Lausanne: L'Age d'Homme, 1992). Cited as
Lhoest (1992)
Nicolai Bubnoff, et aI., eds, An den Wasserscheiden des Denkens. Ein I.esebuch (Berlin:
Kontext, 1991). Cited as Bubnoff (1991)
Igumen Andronik (Alekandr Trubachev), ed., Sviashch. Pave! Florensky. Izbrannye trudy po
iskusstvu (Moscow: Tsentr izucheniia, okhrany i restavratsii naslediia sviashchen-
nika Pavla Florenskogo, 1996). Cited as Andronik (1996)
Takeshi Kuwano, ed., and Hiroshi Nishinakamura, trans., et aI., Gyakuenkinho no shigaku
(Tokyo, Suinei-Sha, 1998). Cited as Kuwano (1998)
Igumen Andronik (AlekandrTrubachev), ed., Sviashch. Pave! Florensky. Sobranie
sochinenii. Stat'i i issledovaniia po istorii ifilosofii iskusstva i arkheologii (Moscow: Mysl',
2000). Cited as Andronik (2000)
Recent Biographical and Bibliographical Sources
Ierodiakon Andronik (Aleksandr Trubachev), 'K100-letiu so dnia rozhdeniia
sviashchennika Pavla Florenskogo (1882-1943)' in Bogoslovskie trudy, no. 23
(Moscow, 1982), pp. 265-309. Cited as Andronik (1982)
Michael Silberer, 'Die Trinitiitsidee im Werk von Pavel A. Florenskij. Versuch einer
systematischen Darstellung in Begegnung mit Thomas von Aquin' in Das ostliche
Christentum, N.F. vo!. 36 (Wurzburg, 1984), pp. xvii-xliii. Cited as Silberer (1984)
Robert Slesinski, Pave! Florensky: A Metaphysics ofLove (Crestwood, NewYork: St
Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1984). Cited as Slesinski (1984)
Igumen Andronik (Aleksandr Trubachev), Vozwashchenie zabytykh imen. Pave! Plorensky,
exhibition catalogue, Soviet Cultural Foundation (Moscow: Vneshtorgizdat,
1989). Cited as Florensky exhibition (1989)
Igumen Andronik (Aleksandr Trubachev) and Oleg Genisaretsky, Raisa Aleksandrovna
Florenskaia - Pave! Aleksandrovich Florensky vo VKhuTEMASEe i 'Makovtse', exhibition
catalogue, Zelenograd Exhibition Hall (Moscow: MPI, 1989). Cited as Floren-
skaiaiFlorensky exhibition (1989)
Michael Hagemeister, 'P.A. Florenskijs "Wiederkehr". Materialen zu einer Bibliogra-
phie (1985-1989)' in Ostkirchliche Studien, vo!' 39, nos 2/3 (Wurzburg, 1990), pp.
119-45. This contains an annotated bibliography of publications appearing in
1985-9. Cited as I--Iagemeister (1990)
Victor Bychkov, The Aesthetic Face ofBeing: Art in the Theology ofPave! Florensky (Crest-
wood, New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1993)
Michael Hagemeister and Nina Kauchtschischwili, P. A. Florenskii i kul'tura ego wemeni
(Marburg: Blaue Homer Verlag, 1995). This contains an annotated bibliography of
publications appearing in 1989-95, pp. 505-26. Cited as Hagemeister and
Kauchtschischwili (1995)
Fritz and Sigliende Mierau, eds, Pawel Florensky. Leben und Denken, 2 vols (Ostfildern:
Edition Tertium, 1995-6) [vo!. I, 1995, vo!. H, 1996]. Cited as Mierau (1995), Mierau
Konstantin Usupov and Svetlana Lukomskaia, eds, P. A. Florensky: Pro et Contra. Lichnost'
i tvorchestvo Pavla Florenskogo v otsenke russkikh myslitelei i issledovate1ei. Antologiia (St
Petersburg: RKhGI, ]996)
Valentin Onoprienko, Florenskie (Moscow: Nauka, 2000)
Abramtsevo 48-9
'Aegean Culture, The Stratification of'
29,30,34, 54, 56,139-73
Alberti, Leon Battista 85, 224-5
Aleksandrova, Tatiana 25
Altichieri 224
Anaxagoras 29, 210, 222
Apocalyptic Troika 20, 21
Aquilonius 211
Art-Technical Studios, Higher State
Artistic Sciences, Academy of
24, 30, 38, n 75
Avanzo, Jacopo 224
Bachofen, Jacob 57
Bakst, Lev 20, 54
Bakushinsky, Anatolii 87-8,89-90,91
Bal'mont, Konstantin 19
Bart, Viktor 23
Bely, Andrei 13,19, 21,32,36,37,72,117
Benois, Alexandre 212, 214, 223
Berdiaev, Nikolai 58, 61, 89
Besant, Annie 36,61
Biagio da Parma 87,224
Blok, Aleksandr 36, 51, 72, 117
Bossuet, Fr. 243
Briusov, Valerii 19,36
Bromirsky, Petr 71
Brunelleschi, Filippo 87,224
Bugaev, Nikolai 19
Bulgakov, Sergei 13,36,58,59,66,89,]39
Burliuk, David 18
Butlerov, Aleksandr 61
Camp Freedom, Siberia 26
Cantor, Georg 255, 256, 257
Cantor, Moritz 208
Cardano, Girolamo 92
Cassirer, Ernst 31
Castagno, Andrea del 54, 55, 224
Celestial Signs 29,30,32,34,36,37-8,42,
Centrism 70
Cezanne, Paul 59
Chekrygin, Vasilii 24,63,65-6,68,70,72
Chernyshev, Nikolai 24, 66, 70, 72, 76
Chulkov, Georgii 58, 61
'Church Ritual as a Synthesis ofthe Arts,
The' 29,30,34,36,38,40-41,42,43,
44,46,97-111 see also Lavra of
the Trinity and St Sergius
Cohen, H. 217
'Colours, Reflections on the Symbolics
of'see 'Celestial Signs'
Constructivism 24,3],71,76,78,82,9,
'Cover, Explanation of the' 29,30,32,
83-5, 177, ]84-96
Cubism 31,38,57,58-60,92
Dante 88, 185, 220, 223
Dell'Abbaco, Paolo 224
Democritus 29, 210
Descartes, Rene 264
Diaghilev, Sergei 40
Dokuchaev, Nikolai 78
Donatello 224
Dorpfeld, Wilhelm 145
Diirer, Albrecht 71,72,73,74,75, 223,
245-6, 247-51
Efimov, Ivan 49, 53,126
Efimova, Nina Simonovich see
Efimova, Nina
'Efimovs' Puppet Theatre, On the' 29, 30,
49-51,69, 125-35
El Greco 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 233
El'chaninov, Aleksandr 18,19, 39, 56
Ern, Vladimir 18,19, 20
Eternal Azure, In 37
Euclid 85,92, 223, 224, 242, 261-2, 264,
Evans, Sir Arthur John 143,145,146,150,
Experimental Permafrost Centre,
Skovoro dyno 26
Fabrikant, Mikhail 86
Favorsky, Vladimir 1,13,23-4,28,29,36,
44,45,46, 50,72, n 75, 76, 78, 79, 81,
see also 'Explanation ofthe Cover'
Fedorov, Nikolai 66,72
Fiedler, Conrad 31,225
Florenskaia,Ol'ga 6,16,17
Florenskaia, Raisa 27, 71, 72
Florensky, Pavel
'Aegean Culture, The Stratification of'
29,30, 34, 54, 56,139-73
'Celestial Signs' 29,30, 32, 34, 36, 37-8,
42,85, 97, 115-22
'Church Ritual as a Synthesis of the
Arts, The' 29,30,34, 36, 38,40-41,42,
'Colours, Reflections on the
Symbolics of' see 'Celestial Signs'
'Cover, Explanation ofthe' 29,30,32,
'Efimovs' Puppet Theatre, On the' 29,
30,49-51,69, 125-35
Eternal Azure, In 37
'Forefathers of Philosophy' 139
Geometry, The Imaginaries in 83-5,88,
Iconostasis 23, 31, 61, 81, 85
Idealism, The Meaning of 21, 44, 54,
'Infinity, The Symbols of' 35,43
'Lectia and Lectio' 139
'Letter No. X' 36, 116
'Makovets, On' 115
'Meditation' see 'Celestial Signs'
Number as Form 83, 186
'Numbers, Induction of' 21
Philosophy, The First Steps of 54,139
Physics in the Service ofMathematics 24
Pillar and Ground ofthe Truth, The 19,20,
'Planar Curves as Loci of Disruptions
of Continuity, On the
Peculiarites of' 19
'Point' 93
'Realism, On' 29,30-31, 34, 63, 72, n
'Reason and Dialectics' 21
'Reverse Perspective' 29,30,34,42, 61,
Spatiality and Time in the Works ofVisual
Art, Analysis of 18,34,75,92,199
'Symbolarium' 24,72,73,93
Technological Encyclopaedia 24, 83
Theological Herald 21
'\Vater Freezes, How' 26
Watersheds ofThought, At the 115,199
Florovsky, Georgii 56
Fonvizin, Artur 63,71
Forefathers of Philosophy 139
Frank, Semeon 89
Furtwangler, Adolf 156
Gabo, Naum 71
Gaetano de Santis 145
Gan, Aleksei 78
Geometry, The Imaginaries in 83-5,88,184,
Gerasimov, Sergei 65
Giotto 52, 59, 220-24
Giovanni da Milano 224
Gippius, Zinaida 19,35
Goethe, J. W, von 54,108, 253
Golosov, Bishop Gavriil 39
Goncharova, Natal'ia 24,57,59,66,70,91
Gorev-Galkin, Mikhail 45
Gozzoli, Benozzo 225
Grabar', Igor' 40, 43, 91
Grishchenko, Aleksei 59-60, 91
Hagenbeck Zoo 44,102
Helmholtz, Hermann von 75, 268
Hilbert 255, 256, 258
Hildebrand, Adolf von 75,76
Hinton, Charles 59
Holle, ]oseph 145
Homer 141,167-71
Homes, Moritz 159,161,166
Iconostasis 23,31,61,81,85
Idealism, The Meaning of 21, 44, 54, 57-8,
59,61, 63
'Infinity, The Symbols of' 35,43
Isotologicallnstitute 22
Istomin, Konstantin 24, 50, 66, 72
Ivanov, Viacheslav 20,36,41, 51,116,122
]urgens, E, 257-8
Kagarov, Evgenii 145
Kandinsky, Vasilii 24,40, 61
Kant,lmmanuel 91, 215, 216, 218, 242,
Kapterev, Pavel 14, 26, 32, 44-5, 56
Khlebnikov, Velimir 63
Kuftin, Boris 86
Ktigler, F. 245
Kupka, Franz 40
Kuznetsov, Pavel 71
Ladovsky, Nikolai 78
Lagrange, M.]. 146,162,163
Lange, Nikolai 86
Larionov, Aleksandr 23,32, 66, 70, 71, 72,
Larionov, Mikhail 24
Lavinsky, Anton 70
Lavra ofthe Trinity and St Sergius 22-3,
30,31,37,42-6, 63, 83, 91 see also
'Church Ritual as a Synthesis
of the Arts, The'
Lazarev, Viktor 91
Leadbeater, Charles W. 36
'Lectia and Lectio' ]39
Leonardo da Vinci 56,224, 225, 229-30,
Lermontov, Mikhail 37,122
'Letter No. X' 36,116
Lippi, Fra' Fillippo 225
Lissitzky, El 90, 92, ]88
Lobachevsky, Nikolai 200
Losev, Aleksei 2], 73
Liiroth 257, 258
Mach,Ernst 75,78,253,266
Mackenzie, Duncan ]46
Makovets 24,42, 62-72, 83, 97, 115, 177,
199, 200 see also 'Realism, On';
Malevich, Kazimir 59,90,92
Mamontov, Savva 48-9
Marburg school 2]7
Masaccio 225
Matiushin, Mikhail 59
'Meditation' see 'Celestial Signs'
Meinong ]9]
Merezhkovsky, Dmitrii 19,35
Michelangelo 66,67, ]99,224,225,
Mit'ki group ]8
Academy of Artistic Sciences 24, 30,
Art-Technical Studios, Higher State
Isotological Institute 22
Shchukin Collection 43, 57, 58, 59
Theoological Seminary 19, 2], 97, 139
Muratov, Pavel 32,38,40,46, 58, 86, 91,
103-4, ]99
Nautilus ornament ]71-3
Nesterov, Mikhail 26,42,66, 68, 139
Netto 257
Nietzsche 20, ]53
Nizhnii-Novgorod 24
Number as Form 83, ]86
'Numbers, Induction of' 21
Ognev, Ivan 22
Olsuf'ev, Yurii 32,42-3,44,45,46,105
Opuntsky, Filipp 156
Panofsky, Erwin 31, 87, 90, 91
Pavlinov, Pavel 50,76,78
Peano, Giuseppe 255, 256, 258
Peet, Thomas E. 145
Pestel', Vera 60,70
Petrarch 223
Pevsner, Anton 71
Philosophy, The First Steps of 54,139
Physics in the Service ofMathematics 24
Picasso, Pablo 38, 57-60, 63, 69, 89
Piero della Francesca 224
Pillar and Ground ofthe Truth, The ]9,20,
36, 37, 116
'Planar Curves as Loci of Disruptions of
Continuity, On the Peculiarites of' ]9
'Point' 93
Popov, Pavel 60, 70
Popova, Liubov' 24, 60, 79-80
Preller, Ludwig 159
primitive art 47-9
see also 'Efimovs' Puppet Theatre,
On the'
Productivists 76,78-82,188
Ptolomeus 87,88, ]85,211
Raphael 57,58,59,199, 225, 230-33
Rationalists 78
Raushenbakh, Boris 200
'Realism, On' 29,30-31,34, 63,72, n
176-82 see also Makovets
'Reason and Dialectics' 21
Reinach, Salomon 145,153
Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 233
Repin, ll'ia 48
Reshetov, Amfian 63
Ridgeway, William 145
Riegl, Alois 31,76
Rodchenko, Aleksandr 24, 32, 33, 70, 78,
Rodionov, Mikhail 76
Romanov, Nikolai 86
Romanovich, Sergei 63, 69,70,72
Rozanov, Vasilii 21, 68
Rubens, Sir Peter Paul 65, 239, 243
Rublev, Andrei 37
Russian Silver Age 31-2
Rynin, Nikolai 87,88
Sabaneev, Leonid 98
Sats, Natal'ia 50
Savignac, P. 152
Saxl, Fritz 31
Schmidt, Hubert 145
Schreiber, Guido 228
Sergeevich, Aleksei 117
Sergiev Posad 14,21,22,37,42,126,19
see also 'Celestial Signs'; 'Efimovs'
Puppet Theatre, On the'; Lavra
of the Trinity and St Sergius
Shaposhnikov, Boris 43-4
Shchekotov, Nikolai 46,85
Shchukin Collection 43, 57, 58, 59
Shevchenko, Aleksandr 70,71
Sidorov, Aleksei 23, 29, 73-5, 83, 86
Simonovich-Efimova, Nina 9,13-14,39,
40, 41,47,48,
49-50, 51, 52-3,125,126 see also
'Efimovs' Puppet Theatre, On the'
Skriabin, Aleksandr 34,41-2,98, III
Solov'ev, Vladimir 20,36,37, 116, 117, 122
Solovki monastery 28
Sophia 34-42, 58, 85, 115-17, 121-2
Spatiality and Time in the Works ofVisual
Art, Analysis of 18, 34, 75, 92,199
Spengler,Oswald 91-2
Steiner, Rudolph 61
Stepanova, Varvaro 78
Stepun, Fedor 60,89
Stern, Ernst von 145
stone women 53, 57, 157-64
Suprematists 62, 92
Sventsitsky, Vladimir 20
Swanevelt, Herman van 243
'Symbolarium' 24,72,73,93
'Symbolism' 19,20-21,23-4,31,34-42,
35, 36, 115 see also Makovets
Tarabukin, Nikolai 9,91
Tartaglia, Niccolo 92
T'atlin, Vladimir 60, 70
Technological Encyclopaedia 24, 83
Ternovets, Boris 60
Theolo,gical Herald 21
Theological Seminary 19, 21, 97,139
Thome 257
Thompson, M.S. 145
Tintoretto, Jacopo 60,233
Toporkov, Aleksandr 60
Tower in St Petersburg 20
Tretikov Gallery 46
Troitsky, Sergei 19,49
Trubetskoi, Sergei 19
Tsountas, Christos 145
T'ugendkhol'd, Yakov 57,58
Uccello, Paolo 53, 224
Udal'tsova, Nadezhda 60
Uittengoven, Aleksandr 2,13
UI'ianov, Nikolai 17
Uspensky, Petr 59,61
Vasari, Giorgio 220
Vasnetsov, Viktor 68
Vernet, Horace 242
Veronese,Paolo 68,69,70,242,243
Vesnin, Aleksandr 60
Vipper, Boris 60
Vitruvius Pollio, Marcus 87, 209, 222,
Vollgraff, Carl 143
Vosinsky 145
Vrubel', Mikhail 48
\Vace, Alan 145
Wagner, Richard 20,36
Warburg, Aby 31
'Water Freezes, How' 26
Watersheds ofThought, At the 115,199
Watteau, Antoine 66
\Veyl, Hermann 32, 34
Wolfflin, Heinrich 31, 75, 76
Worringer, Wilhelm 31,61,75
Wulff, Oskar 87,88
Zefirov, Konstantin 63
Zhegin, Lev 66,68,75, 200
Zollner, Johann 61
9 781861 891303