While in Nevel’, Bakhtin, like Pumpyansky and the town’s neo-Kantian philosopher Matvei Kagan, taught at the ‘united School of Labour’, a brick building still extant on Ulyanov Street. Soon after his arrival in the spring of 1918, Bakhtin gave an introductory course of lectures for the local intelligentsia, organized by philosophical theme, rather than chronologically. ‘I paid most attention in my lectures to Kant and Kantian philosophy, which were to my mind of central importance. And neo-Kantian philosophy, and foremost of course Hermann Cohen, Rickert, Natorp and Cassirer.’44 Amongst his most ardent listeners was Maria Yudina. Many years later Bakhtin recalled, ‘I noticed her straight away, a young girl, quite large, and dressed completely in black. She had the aspect of a nun [. . .] I was struck by the figure she made – there was this almost absurd contrast between her young, ruddy-cheeked face (she was robustly built), and her all-black clothing. I then got to know her better, and soon, you might say, became accepted as one of the family in her home.’45 As Bakhtin observed, ‘Maria Veniaminovna was under [Pumpyansky’s] philosophical and literary influence [. . .] He was wonderfully erudite as far as literature was concerned, particularly in regard to foreign (non-Russian) literature. He knew many languages and was an extremely quick reader. He was capable of reading a large monographic work in one evening and could then sum it up very fully and accurately. In this sense he had quite exceptional ability.’46
It would appear that by mid-1918, Yudina and Pumpyansky had reversed roles – she was now the rejecting and no longer the rejected party. As Bakhtin recalled, Pumpyansky had proposed marriage to Yudina sometime in the early summer of 1918, but she refused him. Yudina’s father and sisters were dead set against such a marriage, but assumed that they were living as a betrothed couple. They felt that Pumpyansky’s unworldliness made him totally unsuited to the role of husband. Bakhtin concurred; indeed, he was ‘far less of this world’ than Yudina herself. Pumpyansky suffered Yudina’s rejection very deeply during the summer of 1918, and furthermore felt so hostile to Maria’s father that he wanted to physically assault him, to give him the proverbial slap in the face. Bakhtin recalled, ‘I attempted to quieten him down. Afterwards they restored their friendship and all ended well.’47 Other sources had it that Veniamin Yudin threw Pumpyansky down the stairs when Pumpyansky asked for his daughter’s hand in marriage. Certainly, Veniamin Yudin was intolerant of all religious people, but a Jew converted to Orthodoxy was a double affront.
The Bakhtin Circle* came into being gradually over the summer of 1918. Later it was officially established as The Nevel’ Academic Association on 30 July 1919. Despite the small size of the town, from the early 1900s Nevel’ had enjoyed a rich intellectual and musical life, even having its own orchestra. As Bakhtin noted, its inhabitants were equipped to enter into discussion with the incoming philosophers.
Fundamental to the creation of the Circle was the local philosopher Matvei Kagan, who had recently returned from Leipzig, Berlin and Marburg, where he had been studying with the leading Neo-Kantian philosopher, Hermann Cohen. A striking and eccentric addition to the group was Boris Zubakin, who like Pumpyansky was in military service, currently stationed at Nevel’. A man of letters, talented poet, historian and archaeologist, the musically gifted Zubakin was a leading member of the secret Rosicrucian Order, and became Grand Master of the Petrograd Lodge shortly before 1917. Bakhtin classed him as a ‘mason’ in his reminiscences, and there are indeed signs that the whole Bakhtin Circle was given over to Masonic practice during its stay in Nevel’.
Zubakin in turn persuaded his ‘star’ friend, and Rosicrucian brother, Valentin Voloshinov, to move from Petrograd to Nevel’ to escape the hard conditions of the capital. A talented poet, Voloshinov was a pianist manqué, forced to give up playing because tuberculosis had deformed his hands. He became particularly close to Bakhtin after they both moved to Vitebsk in 1920, where they shared an apartment. While Kagan is credited with initiating the Circle on his return from Germany, Bakhtin was regarded as its central figure, and became Chairman of the Nevel’ Academic Association. His exceptional clarity as a thinker certainly earned him the mantle of its intellectual leader, while Pumpyansky remained the guiding spirit of the group. When the latter moved to Vitebsk in 1919, he encouraged the other members to follow. For a while the activities of the Association were shared between Nevel’ and Vitebsk, but by 1920 all participants had left Nevel’, and Vitebsk became the centre of ‘the Bakhtin Circle’. The Circle’s inner sanctum consisted of twelve active participants who met almost daily during 1918–19. Yudina was amongst them, and she joined in the night-long discussions, where members were sustained by strong tea until the early hours of morning. When their words were exhausted, Yudina would turn to the piano and perform for the philosophers. At this time she had given herself over to the study of Bach and polyphony, learning both volumes of The Well-Tempered Clavier, which she presented in its entirety during her graduation exam at the Petrograd Conservatoire.
One wonders whether Bakhtin and Yudina discussed the application of musical polyphony and its rules to other disciplines. Bakhtin’s pivotal polyphonic theory was developed in his work on Dostoevsky, which he started writing in Vitebsk and eventually published in 1929. Bakhtin’s understanding of polyphony was based on Dostoevsky’s unique ability to present a gallery of personages, each independent, and self-reliant in thought, speech and actions, free to enact their roles and interact with others, ultimately constructing a unified, spiritual truth. The author’s objective descriptions, opinions or judgement could be dispensed with. In a diary entry from 1899, Lev Tolstoy, not known for being musically progressive, noted his thoughts on polyphony: ‘A voice ought to say something, but in this case, there are many voices and each one says nothing.’ Such a definition of polyphony would have seemed utterly absurd to Yudina and Bakhtin. It was a period when borrowings from musical terminology were in current usage in the visual arts; the titles of Kandinsky’s paintings referred to ‘Symphonies’ and ‘improvisations’, and later Filonov ‘painted’ Shostakovich’s First Symphony. Conversely the writer Andrei Bely created four poetic prose works entitled ‘Symphonies’, written between 1902 and 1908.
Originally the declared aim of the first Bakhtin Circle was to explore Neo-Kantianism, and ethical and moral problems reflecting the preoccupations of the Marburg School. Soon their themes extended to religion and problems of literary scholarship. The Circle took its social duties seriously, teaching those of ‘proletarian’ origin at the Nevel’ School of Labour, and travelling to nearby villages to hold workshops. Yudina for her part was actively involved in setting up the town’s first School of Music early in 1919, an achievement that she justly felt proud of.48
Polemic debate was the order of the day, and at public meetings at the Karl Marx People’s Club in Nevel’, members of the Circle took on their principal opponents, the Marxists. Participants were differentiated between ‘Comrades’ and ‘Citizens’.49 These disputes were advertised and reported in the local newspaper Molot (Hammer), whose chief editor Jan Gutman was a friend of the Circle, even if he rarely shared their points of view. On 3 December 1918 Molot reported the recent discussion where ‘Citizen’ Bakhtin spoke on the subject of ‘God and Socialism’, and like ‘Citizen’ Pumpyansky, came out in favour of religion, criticizing the immorality of socialism’s attitude towards the dead. His Bolshevik opponent, Comrade Jan Gutman, reputedly responded, ‘Since the dead will not come back to life, there is no need to care for them.’50