sions in Hyneman: no reference of any sort to the Harri- son edition (H41 in Dameron-Cauthen) and the only reference to Robert Stewart‘s important textual notes in that edition is to his dissertation (CU74) ; no reference to the 1969 Mabbott edition of Poems, with its detailed notes; no reference to the several facsimile editions of Poe’s poems, with useful introductions; no reference to the excellent catalog of the Koester collection, now at the Uni- versity of Texas (compiled by Joseph J. Moldenhauer and published in the Texas Qmrt,,erZy in 1973). Jay B. H u b bell’s fine summary of scholarship in Eight Americun Azl- thms gets a notice (CB19)-but not his updated revision (1971). G. R. Thompson’s important book on Pods Fiction: Romarztic lrony in the Gothic Tales (1973) gets no mention. There are citation errors in Dameron- Cauthen, though not as many as I find in Hyneman. Since Dameron-Cauthen arrange everything by author, the index is crucial. Under “Letters of EAP’ they index 44 items- but the indexer has overlooked 11 (A285, C94, M48, M85, M172, M177, 026, R73, S229, T58, and W39) . I have found other indexing omissions, but none so numerous as “Letters.”

If one cannot afford to buy both volumes, I suggest the Dameron-Cauthen bibliography for completeness and accuracy-but Hyneman saves searching by providing six extra years of coverage. Each volume will give the scholar the essential references but I predict that, whichever vol- ume he has on his shelf, the scholar will find the need to make a final check in the other volume. And, for total accuracy, he will need to verify his references against the articles and books themselves.

Even so, scholars now have what we have long lacked- substantive bibliographies of the mass of Poe scholarship and criticism.

J. Albert Robbins, Indim Uniuwsity

Poe’s Reception in Russia

Joan Delaney Grossman. Edgar Allan Poe in Russia: A Study in Legend md Litermy Influence. Colloquium Slavicum 3. Wiirz- burg: Jal-Werlag, 1973. 245 pp. 30 DM.

Professor Grossman’s study of Poe in Russia is at best an introductory essay on a very complex subject. She deals with this complexity by focusing largely on parallels in thc works of Poe and Russian artists who were, she argues, to a degree influenced by Poe. The reader fre- quently finds himself confused by discussions of “types” of influences in the light of the rise of the Pw legend in Russia and his emerging literary reputation. Her defini- tion of literary influence “as the action of one writer’s works on the literary production of others, on the level of technical device, of plot, of theme, of character, of at- mosphere, or some combination of such elements” (p. 19) -although perhaps theoretically workable-is seldom ap- plied with precision.

The author’s apparent enthusiasm for her subject, un- fortunately, does little to clarify her critical observations or to enliven her direct, narrative approach. She specifi- cally outlines how Poe came to Russia, focusing on Russian

translations of Poe’s works, some of which owe much to French translations by Charles Baudelaire. Throughout Europe during the closing decades of the nineteenth cen- tury, Poe “was a poet who was known almost exclusively through his prose’’ (p. 20) . But with the coming of the twentieth century, notes Professor Grossman, Russian writ- ers had ample opportunities to read his poetry.

The first evidence of any noteworthy attention to Poe in Russia appeared in 1861. Aside from Dostoevsky’s preface to three translated tales and a general essay on Poe signed “E. LopuSinskij,” both published in 1861, Russian attention to Poe was scanty until 1885. From 1861-1885, Poe was generally associated with the move- ment of symbolism throughout Europe. Professor Gross- man argues, moreover, that Poe contributed to non-realistic fiction in Europe before 1880, but presents little evidence to substantiate her observation.

Not until the fourth chapter entitled “Growth of a Reputation: 1885-1910” do we find convincing evidence of Poe’s presence in Russia. In 1885, for example, a collected edition of Poe tales in Russian translation was published for the first time. As in the United States, Russian critics, largely inspired by French commentary on Poe, began to focus most of their attention on Poe’s life. In 1895, two significant Russian translations of Poe’s poetry and prose appeared. Konstantin Bal’mont, one of the translators, embraced the “image of Poe as half-mad, half-genius,’’ thereby the “Baudelairean Poe became natu- ralized at last in Bal’mont and his circle . . .” (p. 73) . After the 1890’s when the Poe cult reached its height in Russia, some Russian critics, like the poet Aleksandr Blok in 1906, began to assess the quality of Russian translations of Poe and to judge his work largely on aesthetic grounds. During the nineties, moreover, some of Poe’s bizarre stories were available to the public at little cost.

Chapter V entitled “The Imp of the Perverse” is in many ways Professor Grossman’s weakest chapter. Here she attempts to ferret out Poe’s possible influence upon three symbolists-Valerij Brjusov, Leonid Andreev, and Fedor Sologub. Pursuing possible parallels between Poe’s works and the writings of these symbolists, she ssys very little about external evidence that would support her contentions. In “The Poet’s Poet,” Chapter VI, she seems to be more circumspect. Except for “The Raven,” Poe’s poetry was not admired in Russia as extensively as his prose. A truly accurate Russian translation of Poe’s poetry did not appear until 1924. In her eighth and final chapter “Poe as Classic,” the author presents evidence that Poe’s literary position was secure in Russia after 1924. Both Blok and Brjusov acknowledged Poe’s impact, and some Russian critics noted Poe’s influence on Aleksandr Grin (pseudonym Grinevskij ) , a fictionist whose exotic stories treat psychological horror. In spite of the fact that after 1920 Poe’s works were “all but proscribed,” Poe’s presence is to a degree discernible in the writings of Poplavskij, Kataev, Olesa, and in Nabokov whose Lolita was first sketched in Russian.

This study is perhaps most useful in outlining the various ways Poe has been received in Russia. Unfortu- nately, in most instances, there is little attention to ex- ternal evidence linking Poe to Russian artists. Professor Grossman, for example, declines to elaborate on Maxim

27

Gor‘kij’s statement that Andreev, whose stories she com- pares to Poe’s, had read and admired Poe (p. 150). Nikolai Leskov, one of the great Russian storytellers who like Poe touches upon the bizarre, is not mentioned, and the symbolist poems of Sologub are neglected in the author’s discussion of possible parallels between Sologub and Poe. She should, moreover, devote detailed attention to Poe’s legendary visit to Russia and his reported meeting with PuSkin in St. Petersburg. According to PuSkin’s biographers, PuSkin was not in St. Petersburg at the time of Poe’s supposed visit.

Finally, there is brief attention to the cultural milieu in Russia; hence the reader hardly has the background to perceive how Poe “became assimilated into the culture on numerous levels” ( p. 190). Russian translations of Poe are not specifically evaluated, and one can only guess to what extent the Russians were exposed to accurate transh- tions. But Professor Grossman offers a concise but mun- dane discussion of her subject. Along with some suggestive observations on Poe’s possible effect on Russian writers, she concludes her study with a very useful and comprehen- sive bibliography.

J. Lasley Dameron and Tamara Miller, Memphis State UniverJity

Editor:

Associate Editor:

G. R. Thompson, Pwdue University

Kathleen McLean, Washington Stde University

Richard P. Benton, Trinity College Eric W. Carlson, University of Connecticut J. Lasley Dameron, Memphis State University

.James W. Gargano, Washington and Jefferson College Alexander Hammond, University of California at Los Angeles Robert C. McLean, Washington State University Joseph J. Moldenhauer, University of Texas at Austin Burton R. Pollin, Bronx Community College of the City University of New York, Emeritus Patrick F. Quinn, Wellesley College John E. Reilly, College of the Holy Cross Claude Richard, UniuerskB de Montpellier William H. Shurr, Washington State Ufiiversity

Editorial Board:

Poe Studies (formerly Poe Newsletter) is published twice yearly, with occasional supplements. Subscriptions are $3.00 yearly. Address inquiries to Washington State University Press, Pullman, Washington 99163.

Poe Stdies solicits manuscripts on any aspect of Poe the man and writer, from any critical, historical, or scholarly approach. We also welcome essays on Dark Romanticism generally: on Romantic theory, on the Gothic and Grotesque, and on con- temporaries or immediate predecessors of Poe in the dark tra- dition. In general, essays of less than 5,000 words are pre- ferred, though longer essays can be considered. Time of report is normally from two to four months. Manuscripts should con- form with the recommendations of The MLA Style Sheet. Ad- dress manuscripts to the Editor, Poe Studies, Department of English, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99163.

Poe Studies Volume 8, Number 1 (June 1975)

J. M. Armistead Poe and Lyric Conventions: The Example of “For Annie”

Dennis W. Eddings Poe’s “Dream-Land“ : Nightmare or Sublime Vision?

1

5

David Robinson “Ula1ume”-The Ghouls and the Critics 8

Charles A. Sweet; Jr.

Retapping Poe’s “Cask of Amontillado” 10

Dwight Thomas James F. Otis and “Autography”: A New Poe Correspondent 12

J. Lasley Dameron, Thomas C. Carlson, and John E. Reilly Current Poe Bibliography 15

Judy Osowski Fugitive Poe References: A Bibliography 21

Seymour Gross Native Son and “The Murders in the Rue Morgue”: An Addendum

Burton R. Pollin Nicholas Nickleby in “The Devil in the Belfry”

James B. Reece

Poe’s “Dream-Land” and the Imagery of Opium Dreams

Reviews Donald Barlow Stauffer The Whole of Poe

J. Albert Robbins Two Poe Bibliographies

J. Lasley Dameron and Tamara Miller Poe’s Reception in Russia

23

23

24

24

26

27

28