Russian Critical Essays: XIXth Century by S. Konovalov; D. J. Richards; Russian CriticalEssays: XXth Century by S. Konovalov; D. J. RichardsReview by: Georgette DonchinThe Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 53, No. 131 (Apr., 1975), pp. 293-294Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4207055 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 19:46

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.

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:46:03 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS 293

new light on the subject. However, the real meat in this volume, which is, on the whole unsuccessful, is provided by the foreign scholars. They are ahead in every respect-choice of subject-matter, standard of per- formance, modern methods of work. The brilliant paper 'Czy Kova6ic parodiowal Mickiewicza?' by Aleksander Flaker of Zagreb may be cited as an example of these excellent studies. It must be acknowledged in conclusion that the book does not do honour to Polish Slavonic studies in literature, for most of the articles answer no questions, the methods of work are out-of-date, and there are too many errors of fact. Cracow WLODZIMIERz KOT

Konovalov, S. and Richards, D. J. (eds). Russian Critical Essays: XIXth Century. Oxford Russian Readers. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972. Xi+ 224 PP. ?4'oo. Paperback ?I *75.

Konovalov, S. and Richards, D. J. (eds). Russian Critical Essays: XXth Century. Oxford Russian Readers. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1971. x+!246 pp. ?3 ??. Paperback CjI o50.

IN these days of easy photographic reproduction one may quarrel more than ever with the wisdom of offering to students substitutes for the full versions of the works from which the extracts collected in these two volumes have been taken. The only justification for collections of this kind is the pious hope that sampling may lead to more extensive reading. This being said, one has to acknowledge the high standard of the compila- tion and the excellence of production usually associated with the Clarendon Press.

Both volumes are linked by subject matter: most of the essays are devoted to classical Russian writers, from Pushkin to Bunin. The principle of selection seems to differ however: the Igth-century volume, which is orthodox in its approach, aims at being representative of the development of critical writings in Russia from the I840s to I900, and includes among the twenty essays, the majority of which are familiar to the student of Russian literature, some of the best known and widely available texts, such as Belinsky's 'Vzglyad na russkuyu literaturu I847 goda', Dobro- lyubov's 'Chto takoye oblomovshchina', and Dostoyevsky's Pushkin Speech. The 20th-century volume is more idiosyncratic in that it con- centrates on some of the more stimulating and provocative essayists and thinkers of the first quarter of the century not usually found in Soviet anthologies. It provides some illustration of the variety of style and approach characteristic of the period, but does not pretend to give a balanced or comprehensive view of the whole scene. The turn of the century, the Formalists and their sympathisers, and the emigres are fairly well represented, though one regrets the absence of Tynyanov and Shklovsky, but the Acmeists and the Futurists are ignored, and Luna- charsky's and Timofeyev's contributions are the only examples of Marxist criticism (Pereverzev on Gogol' might have added another dimension to Eykhenbaum's piece). The twenty essays devoted to individual writers are followed by five more general contributions pertinently concluded

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:46:03 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

!294 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

by Vengerov's 'What is the Charm of Russian Nineteenth-Century Literature ?'

The factual notes appended at the end of both volumes are sparse but to the point, and the short entries on each author are on the whole informative and helpful. The source of the quoted extract is usually indicated, but the exact bibliographical reference is missing, thus contra- dicting the purpose of these potentially useful study aids. London GEORGETTE DONCHIN

Bely, Andrey. Chetyre simfonii. Nachdruck der Ausgaben Moskau 1917, I905 und I908 mit einer Einleitung von Dmitrij Tschizevskij. Slavische Propylaen, no. 39. Wilhelm Fink Verlag, Munich, I97I. Original pagination (xix + I005 pp.). DM 48.

Sologub, Fyodor. Tvorimaya legenda. Nachdruck der Bande xviii-xx der Gesamtausgabe der Werke Sologubs St. Petersburg 1914. Mit einer Einleitung von Johannes Holthusen. Slavische Propylaen, no. I25.

Wilhelm Fink Verlag, Munich, 1972. Original pagination (viii+ 934 pp.). DM 78.

Slavische Propylden have done more for Russian Symbolism than its most vociferous apologists. In reprinting two further volumes in the series, Fink Verlag have made accessible two extraordinarily different and yet related examples of Symbolist prose.

Andrey Bely's four 'Symphonies' are published together for the first time, and this fact alone will no doubt have an impact on students of Bely who seldom have an opportunity of finding these bibliographical rarities in their libraries. In chronological order, the second Symphony (2-aya dramaticheskaya) appeared first, in 1902; the first one, Severnaya simfoniya (i-aya, geroicheskaya), followed in I903. These are reprinted here from the I917 Pashukanis edition of Bely's collected works of which only two volumes were ever published. The third Symphony, Vozvrat, came out in 1905, and the fourth and last, Kubok meteley, in 1908. These early works of Bely, poised between poetry and prose, span both, and on the surface are an attempt to apply to literature some of the compositional techniques of music. Bely's conception of these works goes further however: he is not only searching for an analogy between music and poetry, explaining in a symphonic form life in all its movement and complexity; he is also searching for some sort of total, universal form in which a new syncretic art would express itself. There is no doubt that in this search music is the organizing principle (though cinematographic technique and the pictorial and folk arts also play a certain role), and it is surprising that Professor Chizhevsky, in his introduction to the Symphonies, mini- mises Bely's theoretical knowledge of music. Yet it is precisely this brilliant musical and theoretical background which distinguishes him from his contemporaries: his 'musical' devices are musical in the direct sense of the word, and music for him transcends the significance of a metaphor for a wider range of poetic suggestiveness.

Bely looked upon his Symphonies as a structural task, and in them

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:46:03 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions