American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Vergangene Gegenwärtigkeiten by Dietrich GerhardtReview by: Kenneth H. OberThe Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Summer, 1967), pp. 224-225Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European LanguagesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/305415 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 01:04

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 188.72.126.41 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 01:04:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

224 The Slavic and East European Journal

in Hegel's phrase. At the same time he saw it increasingly in a temporal context, relentlessly pushed forward by the stream of history." (p. 248.)

In Volume IV, the Russian radical critics are treated in Chapter 11 (238-265), and the conservative critics Grigor'ev, Dostoevskij, Straxov, Potebnja, Aleksandr Veselovskij, and Lev Tolstoj in Chapter 12 (266-291). The sections on Cernysevskij, Dobroljubov, and Pisarev are very good, concluding: "But this tendency, destructive of the very nature of literary criticism and art in general, should not make us ignore the real contribution of Pisarev and his fellows to a social study of literature. Their analysis of social types was something new and important methodologically. One must, besides, recognize that Russia at that time was actually producing a social novel, that poetry was then derivative, and the drama rather a reflex of the novel. Our critics helped to define and describe the nature of the social novel, the obligation of the writer toward social truth; his insight, conscious or unconscious, into the struc- ture and typical characters of society. It seems a pity that they did so in narrow local terms shackled by their gross utilitarianism. The noise of battle deafened them." (p. 265.)

Russian conservative critics are seldom discussed at all, and Wellek has well chosen those several who most clearly had something new and different to say. The short discussions of Straxov, Potebnja, and Veselovskij are especially welcome. But the discussion of Dostoevskij is curiously incomplete (for reasons of space), and the treatment of Tolstoj is not satisfactory. What Is Art? is both better known and better understood than Wellek assumes, and the distinction between Tolstoj's idea of litera- ture for the masses and the Soviet conception of universally accessible culture is stated, not demonstrated. The bibliographies and notes are extremely valuable.

Both the encyclopedist approach of Berkov, with its implied historical determinism, and the urbane catholicity of a Western believer in genius can yield fruitful results. Anyone who isn't stimulated and enriched by these books is illiterate.

Robert W. Simmons, Jr., University of Wisconsin, Madison

Dietrich Gerhardt. Vergangene Gegenwdirtigkeiten. (Veriffentlichungen der Joachim- Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften.) G5ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. 67 pp.

Extrinsic literary criticism will find here at least a qualified defender. Professor Ger- hardt argues most convincingly against excluding all extraliterary facts from the study of a work and against divorcing a work of art completely from the experience of its creator. He wisely supports his arguments, not by further theorizing, but by adducing instances where the knowledge of the genesis of a literary work is essential for its full understanding.

2ukovskij's life and works provide several such instances. Gerhardt describes the effect on 2ukovskij of attending a theatrical presentation in Berlin in 1821, in which his patrons, Nikolaj Pavlovi' and Aleksandra Fedorovna, had roles. This presentation was based on Thomas Moore's Lalla Rookh, and it had lasting echoes in Zukovskij's works and was reflected in his notes and personal letters as well.

Gerhardt gives, as other such examples, Puskin and his "Prorok" and works of Franc? Preseren, Hermann von Hermannsthal (Franz Hermann), and Jakob Zupan. Dobroljubov's anti-extrinsic attitude to criticism is cited, along with his inconsistencies in this regard.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.41 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 01:04:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews 225

The kernel of Gerhardt's thesis is that the extrinsic method of criticism is to be followed, not for the sake of amassing facts, but because it gives an added vital dimen- sion to our appreciation and enjoyment of a literary work of art.

Vergangene Gegenwdirtigkeiten has one minor drawback-the style seems at times a bit turgid, probably because it was presented first in the form of a lecture. This does not detract from its usefulness, and it is made even more useful by very complete notes, and by appendices containing examples of poems cited in the text, for the most part in both the Russian (and Slovenian) and the German versions, and con- temporary illustrations concerning the 1821 theatrical event. Gerhardt also gives numerous valuable hints regarding unexplored fields of research. Especially for one interested in 2ukovskij, this is an interesting and valuable little book.

Kenneth H. Ober, Illinois State University

Oara opm. <CyMacmeAmHnt Iopa6aL, IIoBecTL.>> Bopnc QaaUHnIrB, peA. Washington, D.C.: Inter-Language Literary Associates, 1964. 237 pp., $3.00.

Ol'ga Fors (1873-1961), a Russian noblewoman, began to write relatively late in her life. In Soviet Russia she is mainly known for her novels on the Russian rev- olutionaries of the nineteenth century (Odetye kamnem, 1925), on Gogol' and his close friend, the artist Ivanov (Sovremenniki, 1928), on Radii'ev (a trilogy, Radicev, 1934-1939), and on the Decembrist Uprising (Pervency svobody, 1950-1953). All her writings exhibit skillful handling of intriguing plots and solid historical back- ground, a colorful manner of narration, and a highly cultured literary style.

Fors knew intimately the artistic and literary circles of her time. Endowed with keen powers of observation, she could retell her findings with intelligence and wit. As Boris Filippov states in his Introduction (7-55), For' "hears and understands .. the 'voice of time,' where it is heading for and what it is carrying with it" (p. 54).

The novel, published in 1931 and soon thereafter condemned by Communist critics, presents a sophisticated record of the early 1920's in the lives of the Petersburg literary circles. The book appeared only once, in 7200 copies, and later was not even included in Fors's collected works. This could hardly have been an oversight on the part of the author or the publisher, for in The Mad Ship Fors commits several "ideological sins": Henri Barbusse and Romain Rolland, two French writers highly esteemed in the Soviet Union, are mocked by For' for their vanity, conceit, and in- significance. She admires the Russian idealists and symbolists, ridicules Communist literary tastes and pronouncements, parodies some proletarian writers, and even expresses views in opposition to the standard Party representation of various events, for example, the Kron`tadt Uprising. The novel was criticized in The Literary Gazette and other Soviet newspapers and journals. Its second publication was suppressed.

In her autobiography of 1958 Fors describes her artistic objective in the follow- ing words: "I was trying to give a characterization of many contemporaries in con- cise, sharp form . . . the entire path and end of the former 'Russian intelligent' . . . of the byt of Russian writers of the first decade of the Revolution." However, as Filippov aptly points out, this novel is not merely an account of the lives of the Russian writers in Petrograd in 1920-1921. It is "the history of an entire epoch of Russian life and culture, which can hardly be pressed into the framework of documentary memoirs" (p. 53). Filippov describes The Mad Ship as Fors's "most significant and most inter- esting work" (p. 55).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.41 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 01:04:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions