Dostoevsky and the Idea of Russianness by Sarah s> Hudspith (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 947 helpfulness of the visual presentation is matched by the author's style. Unfortunately in a reference to the Karamazov name (note IOI, P. 145) 'punishment-daubed' has become 'guilt-daubed'and I have just two further niggles: the odd decision to call Masha 'Marsha';and the arbitraryinsertion of 'bloodies' into the speech of the underground man (p. 6i). Although the author defends both deviations (pp. I and 140) they nevertheless seem like concessions to popularizing pressure. At the same time here is a study of Dostoevskii's life and writing which, given its price and scope, can be highly recommended both to studentand generalreaderalike. Department ofRussian Studies RICHARD PEACE University ofBristol Hudspith, Sarah.Dostoevsky andtheIdeaofRussianness. BASEES/RoutledgeCurzon Series on Russian and East European Studies, 6. RoutledgeCurzon, London, and New York, 2004. ix + 228 pp. Glossary. Notes. Bibliography .Index. ?6o.oo. BOTH his admirers and enemies have frequently described Dostoevskii as a 'Slavophile'. How accurate this description might be is the subject of Sarah Hudspith's book, which analyses Dostoevskii's work to show his ideas 'as a naturalsuccessorto the philosophies' of the two most prominent Slavophiles, Khomiakov and Kireevskii (p. I98). To read Dostoevskii with a 'lens of Slavophilism', writes Hudspith, 'may bring into sharper focus some of the fundamentalissueswith which Dostoevskywas concerned' (p. i). Readers interested in the history of ideas in Russia will appreciate Hudspith'sbook. Her opening chapteroffersan introductionto Slavophilism, explaining the movement's concepts of 'unity' and sobornost', Kireevskii's doctrine of tsel'nost' dukha, and the idealizationof the obshchina. Hudspith also explains Khomiakov's division of world history into two competitive social structures,the 'Iranian'and the 'Kushite'.The firstof these meant society based on the principle of freedom; this was the source of Christianity,preservedin pre-ChristianRussiathanksto theorganicprinciples of obshchinnost' (p. I3). 'Kushite' societies worshipped 'gods who gave birth through necessity'. Pagan Rome, a Kushite state in Khomiakov's terms, had 'contaminated Christianity in the West with its rationalism and formalism' (pp. 12-13). Followingthe introductionis an analysisof Dostoevskii as a thinker,tracing the development of his views in relation to Slavophilism. Even before his prison camp years in Siberia, Hudspith shows, Dostoevskii was preoccupied by social disintegration -a concern comparableto the Slavophiles'emphasis on unity. However, he was no more a Westernizer at this stage than a Slavophile (p. 22). Hudspith agrees with other scholars, seeing Dostoevskii's Siberian experience as seminal in the formation of his beliefs. But shejustly goes beyond many in sayingthat Winter NotesonSummer Impressions is 'ofcrucial importance in Dostoevsky's oeuvre' (p. 47). In this work, Dostoevskii clearly saw London, for example, 'with the eyes of a Slavophile', seeing that rationalism had destroyed sobornost' and obshchinnost' (p. 55). WinterNotes, Hudspith writes,clearly 'displayssympathieswith Slavophileideas' (p. 57). 948 SEER, 82, 4, 2004 Diaoyof a Writer is a 'study in Russianness' (p. 64), in which Dostoevskii's discussion of obosoblenie 'dissociation' or 'fragmentation' is always opposed to the Slavophiles' tsel'nost'.Dostoevskii's famous PushkinSpeech culminates the Diagy,says Hudspith, containing its 'most salient' points that reflect Slavophile thought (p. 79). She concludes her study of the Diagyby sayingthat,forDostoevskii,to be Slavophilemeant to assertone's Russianness by loving Europe with a spirituallymotivated love, in order to express the Russian idea of universalbrotherhood. Having establishedthe coincidence between Slavophile thought and many themesin Dostoevskii'snon-fiction,Hudspithgoes on to showhow Dostoevskii embodied these ideas in hisfiction.Most of the post-Siberianwork,shewrites, is underpinned by the same ambition to explore the dissociation of educated Russians from the narod(p. 89). Hudspith calls this rootlessness 'Kushite', finding a number of characters representing it. Versilov, the Underground Man, Stavrogin, Luzhin, Gania Ivolgin, Raskol'nikov,and Ivan Karamazov, with his Euclidian mind, all embody, to differentextents, 'Kushitism'.In the novels, writes Hudspith, this consistently leads to 'bezobrazie and obosoblenie' (P. I 23). In contrast, characters such as Father Zosima, Makar Dolgorukii, Sonia Marmeladova and others, embody the 'Iranian' life of sobornost'. Hudspith'sargumentis subtlerthan this, and allowsfor considerableambiguity ,particularlyindiscussingPrinceMyshkin,orwhen sheremarksthatShatov, in TheDevils,maybe more 'Slavophile'thanthe Slavophiles(p. II5). Furthermore, Hudspith acknowledges that Dostoevskii's (and the Slavophiles ') Orthodoxy emphasizing starchestvo, hesychasm, iurodstvo and apophatic revelation was not necessarily the Orthodoxy of...