I. S Aksahov — N. N. Strakhov: Perepiska. Slavic Research Group at the University of Ottowa and Institut mirovoi literatury im by Marina Shcherbakova (review)

Abstract

532 SEER, 87, 3, JULY 200Q seesinRome'subiquitous artworks andmessy ruins an imageofhisownage's superabundance ofprint and images'(p. 244). When Lounsbery speaksof the authors'biographies (bothwere 'broken men'neartheendoftheir lives), shedescribes thecrisis, inbothoftheir lives, thatled totheir feelings thattheycouldnotliveup totheir ownexpectations ofwhatliterature shouldbe and to their consequent ceasingtowrite. As is thecase withanygood book,thereadercomesawaywithquestions that are promptedby, but not raised in the book. For example,would Lounsbery applytheframework sheconstructs tootherwriters, bothRussian and American? Ifnot,uponwhatprinciples wouldshebase a comparison of otherRussianand American writers from thesetwocultures - Melvilleand Dostoevskii, forinstance? How, forexample,wouldshe approachMelville's£Bartleby the Scrivener'and Dostoevskii'sPoorFolk; and Melville's The Confidence-Man: HisMasquerade and Dostoevskii's ThePossessed? Of course,one couldalso think oftheconnection oí Poor Folkand 'Bartleby theScrivener' to Gogol"s The Overcoat,'a Gogol' workwhichLounsbery does discuss. And whatwouldshesayaboutlinking thewriting, within thetwocultures, in the twentieth and nowtwenty-first centuries? Althoughshe does not writeabout the present,her commentsabout Gogol''s Two Ivans' and his subsequentworks,forexample,in termsof paper,bureaucracy and the legal system beingempty, bringto mindthe contemporary era,withits£overinformation' andproliferation ofbureaucratic clutter. Her comments aboutHawthorne's concerns aboutcelebrity andbeing a publicfigure are relevant to thecontemporary omnipresence ofcelebrity culture. Ann Lounsbery, in thisfinestudy,contributes to an important fieldof inquiry,the comparativestudyof Russian and Americanliterature and culture, one thatis as yetstillnotexploredas muchas itdeserves to be. In conclusion, thisis a bookworth reading. Department ofSlavic Languages andLiteratures Ellen Changes Princeton University Shcherbakova, Marina(comp.)./.S. Aksakov - JV. N. Strakhov: Perepiska. Slavic Research Group at the University of Ottowa and Institutmirovoi literatury im.A. M. Gor'kogoRAN, Ottowaand Moscow,2007.viii+ 192pp. Illustrations. Notes.Priceunknown. This volume offersa remarkabletreasuretrove of fifty-seven items of correspondence betweentwoleadingfigures in thehistory ofthenineteenthcentury Russianintelligentsia, supported byseveralofStrakhov's articles and expertly annotated bythecompiler, Dr Shcherbakova. Itgreatly amplifies the picture offered byLindaGerstein's monograph of197 1,from whichonewould hardly havesupposedthatNikolaiStrakhov hadmorethana fleeting acquaintancewithIvan Aksakov.In fact,as thiscorrespondence demonstrates, the twomenweredeeplyrespectful and fondofeach other, keptin touchover reviews 533 morethantwo decades,betweenthe early1860sand the mid-i88os,and towards theend enjoyeda fruitful intimacy in theirexchangeofideas. Itbeganwiththatill-fated andwilfully misunderstood article 'A Dangerous Question' ('Rokovoi vopros') contributedto Dostoevskii'sjournal Time (Vremia) byStrakhov in 1863.Devotedas itwas tothecurrent problemofthe Polishrevolt, thearticle arguedthatthePoleswerejustified toa certain extent in regarding themselves as morecivilized, moreEuropean - and therefore better - thantheRussians, whomtheythought ofas 'barbarians'.Strakhov responded to thispro-Polish attitude in a fairly even-handed mannerbytestingthehypothesis fromseveraldifferent pointsofview,butfinally invoking (which wouldnaturally haveappealedtoDostoevskii's pochvennost ) the'people' (narod) withtheargument that'In Europeancivilization, interms ofcivilization borrowed and external we concedeto thePoles; butwe wouldwishto believe thatin terms ofa civilization ofthepeople,deep-downand healthy, we are superior to themor,at least,can layclaimnotto concedeanything to them or to any othernation' (p. 165). The articlewas officially condemnedas unpatriotic and Vremia was shutdown. If thatwas a catastrophe forall concerned, itnevertheless led to thebeginning ofStrakhov's correspondence withAksakov, raisingissuessuchas Slavophilism and theroleofreligion in Russianlifealongwithmanypractical matters ofday-to-day journalism. Thereweregaps,ofcourse,inthecorrespondence. Onlythree letters from the1870sshedanylighton therelationship, untilStrakhov beganto contributeto Aksakov's journalRus' in theearly1880s.It beganwithhisfamous treatment ofnihilism, touchedon hisassessment ofDostoevskii, hisfeelings about Turgenevand his admiration forTolstoi,tempered, admittedly, by an increasingly criticaltone towardsthelatter'sreligious ideas. If Aksakov admiredmore or less uncritically the contributions Strakhovmade to his journal,Strakhov, the youngerman by some fiveyearswho outlivedthe other byten,was alwaysthemorecritical ofhiscontemporaries. His obituary on Turgenev, forexample,involveda good deal offaint praise.On Tolstoi he couldbe harshaboutthegreatwriter's languagein offering hisversion of the gospels.Virtually simultaneously, in 1884,the correspondence became markedby confessional letters, Aksakov'sre-emphasizing the paramount importance to himoftheChurchand itsteaching, Strakhov's admitting less dogmatically that'Forseveral yearsI havefelt thatmyflounderings inthesea ofbookshave ended,mypathhas been found, thatall booksin essencesay one and thesamething. I havediscovered a higher aim,towhichI oughtto strive, I have discovered how to preparefordeathwithout beingfrightened ofit,butbeinggladofit- whatmorecan one askfor?'(p. 119). Towardsthe end ofAksakov'slife,in late 1885,a particularly ludicrous orderfrom theMinistry ofInternal Affairs prohibiting anyacknowledgement in printofthetwenty-five yearssincetheemancipation edictof 1861raised issuesof patriotism. Aksakov's journal was givena ministerial warningfor beingunpatriotic and, in an impassioned letterto Strakhov(hislast,as it turned out),he quitejustifiably protested hisright tobe patriotic. Strakhov, if admiring whathe calledAksakov's 'citizenship', in hisobituary on hisfriend was less than enthusiastic about the latter'sideas and even pessimistically 534 seer, 87, 3, July 2009...