American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Twentieth-Century Russian Literary Criticism by Victor ErlichReview by: John FizerThe Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Autumn, 1976), pp. 319-321Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European LanguagesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/306331 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 22:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:52:07 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews 319

most regrettable omissions are Evgenij Svarc and Gavriil Troepol'skij, whose work would have added to the volume.

The selections in Modern Soviet Satire are an accurate reflection of what has happened in Soviet satire over the last two decades as a result of Stalin's passing, formal appeals for the production of satire, and attempts to come to terms with both the past and the present. One notes with interest the remarkable thematic similarities with the satirical targets of the 1920's: the philistine, the availability and quality of food, housing and living conditions in general, the frustrating intricacies of Soviet life (for example, occasionally mystifying Soviet jargon, pompous slogans, and the scarcity of theater tickets), the bureaucrat, and literature (how and what one should write, censorship and over-editing, talentless writers). Only the themes of the Revolution and the Civil War and the political-satirical campaigns of the 1920's against religion, illiteracy, hooliganism, and alcoholism are missing. The selections are thus representa- tive, provide continuity with the past, and render historical-literary perspective. The volume is valuable for students of Soviet literature in general and Soviet satire in particular.

It is easy to question Henry's enthusiasm over the luster of the so-called Silver Age. He notes that satire won for itself a firm place in journalism during the years 1956-71, and he credits these years with the rehabilitation of certain Golden Age satirists and with the development of some serious scholarship dealing with satire, notably the work of L. F. Ersov. While all of this is true, one unavoidably notes the failure of satire to develop beyond its current largely journalistic confines into the pre- ferred atmosphere of belles-lettres. We may regard with something less than enthu- siasm Henry's optimistic statement: "When one considers the situation in the 1940s and early 50s, one is struck by the fact that Soviet satire is a tenacious weed, with great powers of resilience. Its present state is remarkably healthy, as it is hoped that this anthology will show" (xxxii). The selections in the anthology on the whole are pale both in satirical thrust and humor, and some are rather boring. Even the entertaining "Klub dvenadcati stul'ev" from Literaturnaja gazeta with its mock apotheosis of Evgenij Sazonov, a modern-day Koz'ma Prutkov, fails to polish the silver of this second period sufficiently. The fact that this particular section occupies fully 20 percent of the pages alloted to original texts in Modern Soviet Satire makes the literary purist even more dubious about the health of the satirical genre and mode.

But Modern Soviet Satire deserves to be purchased and studied. It is both welcome and useful, and its defects are attributable to the condition of Soviet satire rather than to Henry, who should be commended. In addition to being useful for research, this book is also highly adaptable to the classroom, particularly in surveys of literature. Despite the shortcomings of some of the selections, the atmosphere of cur- rent Soviet byt makes the book an attractive alternative to a steady diet of too frequently dated and sober nineteenth-century works.

Richard L. Chapple, Florida State University

Victor Erlich, ed. Twentieth-Century Russian Literary Criticism. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1975. ix, 317, $15.

When compared with French, Anglo-American, or even German criticism, Russian twentieth-century criticism is not the most exciting &criture. With the exception of some formalist and structuralist works, it often lacks theoretical finesse, intrinsic

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:52:07 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

320 Slavic and East European Journal

probability, and even persuasive rhetoric. One gets the feeling that this criticism, to paraphrase Kant, conceives without perceiving and perceives without conceiving liter- ary facts, and that it therefore becomes blind or empty, or at best turns into a corollary to extra-literary goals. In spite of the revolutionary shift in Western critical attention in this century, the majority of Russian critics continue to be concerned with the pre- sumed archi or the ideological telos of literary art. Even the Russian formalists were not free from this concern.

In view of these characteristics, the aspiring anthologist of this criticism has limited choices. If he also imposes upon himself a series of methodological or peda- gogical strictures, his task becomes an unenviable one indeed. In spite of his impressive credentials and erudition in the field of Russian criticism, Erlich was unable to avoid the pitfalls of his task. On the one hand his anthology had to be representative; on the other it had to be diverse, non-repetitive, non-theoretical, fresh, and of interest to both specialists and non-specialists. Perhaps this could have been accomplished had there not already existed other anthologies which coopted most of what is both high in quality and representative (Brown, Matejka). As a result, one cannot help sensing the unintentional gap between Erlich's rhetorically overwrought and highly promising introduction and the selection that follows. Had he been less concerned with non- duplication, his selection might have been more representative than it is. In its present form it is more an epideictic selection of what he himself terms the "free-lance" variety.

The collection is divided into Symbolist, Formalist, Marxist, Emigre, and recent criticism. It is hard for me to conceive of Belyj's and Annenskij's articles on Gogol' as central to Symbolist aesthetics and criticism. Perhaps the "Nastojaidee i buduscee russkoj literatury" of the "dazzling and versatile" Belyj, or the "Dve stixii v sovremen- nom simvolizme" of Ivanov, or even some articles of Rend Ghil, Gippius, or Brjusov are more representative of Symbolist criticism than the articles on Gogol'. This choice can be dismissed as "admittedly arbitrary," of course, but in giving preference to one choice or another the anthologist has to adhere to the criteria that he sets for himself and that are not mutually contradictory, rather than engage at the last moment in "trade-offs" with others.

The selection of Formalist criticism in the second part fares better than that of Symbolist criticism. Yet even here, in order to make it representative, one piece by Sklovskij and one by Ejxenbaum would have sufficed, and something by Tomasevskij, ("Pjatistopnyj jamb Pu'kina") or even an early piece by Vinogradov (his article on Gogol"s "Nose"), could have been included. The selections in the third and fourth parts-Marxist and 6migr6 criticism-are good. Trotskij, Voronskij, Aldanov, and Bicilli are certainly illustrious figures if not constantly illustrious critics. Perhaps some- thing by Xodasevi' ("Literatura v izgnanii") would have better represented emigre criticism than Adamovic's "Nabokov," which Erlich himself considers "not the most trenchant analysis of that writer."

Now, most of what I have said is more a desideratum than criticism. The anthol- ogy is not devoid of certain advantages, provided, again, that we conceive of its selection merely as a collection of Russian criticism of this century. For example, to students of Gogol"s and Tolstoj's art it offers three different views, to those of Pu'kin and Majakovskij it offers two. Sinjavskij's article on Pasternak, although hardly a "towering landmark in recent Russian criticism," is both perceptive and fresh. So are Lak'in's and Ginzburg's views on Bulgakov and Majakovskij, respectively. The schol- arly apparatus renders it technically thorough. A spot check of its translation reveals no major flaws, although I am not in favor of deletions on account of a "prolix" or "too arcane" style. Its choice of words and syntax is complementary rather than

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:52:07 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews 321

annoyingly discordant in spite of fifteen authors representing fifteen varied systems of stylistic preference.

With all the above reservations as to its organization, criteria for selection, and projected objectives, I still consider this anthology worthy of having within easy reach.

John Fizer, Rutgers University

Norman W. Ingham. E. T. A. Hoffmann's Reception in Russia. (Colloquium Slavi- cum, 6.) Wiirzburg: Jal Verlag, 1974. 303 pp., DM 45 (paper).

It is no small task to produce an influence study. Anyone who attempts to do so must constantly be aware of the interplay of a number of important factors. Besides being cognizant of the author whose influence he seeks to demonstrate, he must be familiar with the works of writers influenced and take special pains not to lose sight of the way in which the influencing author was regarded. Norman Ingham's study of Hoffmann's reception in Russia evidences a great deal of work: there are many fascinating details included and many interesting observations made. Yet the results are disappointing. The reader is continually frustrated as he attempts to follow Ingham's account of Hoffmann's reception in Russia, not because there is too much information, but because the information is presented without adequate delineation. There are, for example, no introductory or concluding chapters. The author simply begins his study with a discussion of the first Hoffmann translation in Russia and closes it with a dis- cussion of Hoffmann's influence on Lermontov's Stoss. A blind adherence to chronol- ogy alone provides the organizational basis for the work. No thesis is offered, no bibliography of background material provided. (What Ingham calls the bibliography includes only a list of the Russian translations of Hoffmann's works in the period 1822-1845 and the critical articles on Hoffmann published during the same period in Russia.)

As Ingham himself points out in the preface, there already exists a study in English on Hoffmann's influence in Russia, namely, Charles Passage's The Russian Hofjmannists (The Hague: Mouton, 1963). Ingham criticizes Passage for ignoring "the history of the publishing and criticism of Hoffmann in Russia" (11), and in his own study he devotes a great deal of attention to this problem. Not only does he chronicle Hoffmann translations and critical articles, but reviews and mentions of Hoffmann in the Russian literary press as well. Certainly Ingham is correct in empha- sizing this dimension of the problem of Hoffmann's reception in Russia. The results of his efforts, however, are not completely satisfactory. Too often, discussion of transla- tions is mixed indiscriminately with that of critical articles and reviews. Ingham devotes far too much attention to the former and far too little to the latter (for example, Herzen's article, which Ingham himself calls "the first truly original study of Hoffmann in Russian" [197], is accorded only two paragraphs). Even when attention is centered on criticism, there is a tendency to enumerate rather than to interpret. Belinskij's men- tions of Hoffmann are dutifully noted, for example, but no real attempt is made to define Belinskij's view of the German writer or to relate it to that of other members of the Stankevid circle. This despite evidence that Hoffmann's prominence in the late 1830's was due largely to the esteem in which he was held by that group. Much of Ingham's discussion of Hoffmann translations might better have been incorporated into the bibliography. In this way more attention could have been focused in the text on the important matter of the interplay between criticism and translations. For, as is evident

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:52:07 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions