Lexikon ruských avantgard 20. století by Tomáš Glanc , Jana Kleňhová (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS !39 Myshkin from a Buddhist perspective, without in any way claiming that Dostoevskii himself was a Buddhist; Tatiana Kasatkina argues that factual 'mistakes' inDostoevskii, far from being errors on his part, represent the use of a deliberate polyphonic device that furthers the readers' understanding of motivation and intellectual argument; finally,Vladimir Zakharov examines Dostoevskii's conception of theword 'fantastic' and his rules for its use in art. The volume has been generally meticulously produced and proof-read, although this reviewer noted at least one error: 'of the felt' for 'ofthe felt' (p. 23). At times the translations from theRussian betray the original in a somewhat jarring way. In an attempt presumably to impose some order on an eclectic and heterogeneous collection of essays, the book has been divided into four sections ('Mythos', 'Dialogue', 'Text and Reader' and 'Religion'), but it is not always clear why a particular essay has been allocated to one section rather than another, and there is some consequential overlapping. With regard to references, the volume's stated policy is to use the standard complete edition ofDostoevskii's works (Leningrad, 1972-90). It is a pity that thishas not been adhered to throughout.Why, for example, in Zakharov's essay on 'Dostoevsky's Fantastic Pages', is the reader referred to either the eighteen volume edition of 2004 or to theRussian State Library archive rather than to the relevant volume of the PSS? These, however, are minor points that do not substantially detract from the overall impact of a volume that is a fitting tribute to a scholar of interna tional reputation who, as Lesley Milne so eloquently details inher 'Afterword', has made such a vital and significant contribution not just to our understand ing ofDostoevskii in particular, but toRussian studies in general and, more widely, to the academic and cultural lifeof theUK. Exeter Roger Cogkrell Glane, Tom?s and Kle?hov?, Jana. Lexikon ruskych avantgard 20. stoleti. Libri, Prague, 2005. 375 pp. Illustrations. Notes. Bibliography. Index. K490.00. We generalize with an incredible ease. With little justification we lump together objects that taste, smell or look very unlike each other. But what to a quick eye looks like an easy step from tokens to a type turns at closer scrutiny into the Western metaphysics' saltomortale. Jorge Luis Borges' putative Chinese encyclopedia, The CelestialEmporium of Benevolent Knowledge, renders this scandal public. His learned bestiary neatly divides the entire fauna into four teen types according to the following criteria that are more than just whimsi cal: '(a) belonging to the emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f)fabulous, (g) straydogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (1)et cetera, (m) having just broken thewater pitcher, (n) that from a longway off look likeflies' (from the 1942 essay, 'El idioma anal?tico de JohnWilkins'). The moral of this amusing taxonomy is rather sobering: any systemic classification of the phenomenal world will always be arbitrary and confected. 140 SEER, 86, I, 2008 Glanc's very own Lexicon exemplifies such a robust epistemological relati vism on the material extracted from the most recent cultural history of Russia. How do the beasts of his well researched study ? themost heterogeneous ensemble of the last century's writers, film-makers, stage directors, painters and musicians ? fitunder a single umbrella (albeit in a plural number) of avant-gardes? Not very well, Glanc is quick to tell us, for there is no 'ready made listof obligatory attributes underlying this category' (p. 17). If catching the past into a historical net is nothing but a haphazard 'fishing expedition' (the author of LRA agrees on thispoint with the late Edward Hallett Carr, p. 33) any classificatory system is as good as any other and all of them leak. The postulate that 'anything goes' and 'nothing fits'can be easily verified ifwe apply the taxonomic grid from the Celestial Emporium to Glanc's star-studded list.Are all the artists collected there 'frenzied', we might ask, because of their 'set toward experiment, shock, innovation, reversal, and heresy vis-?-vis the language of art and the artisticmessage as well' (p. 15)? Alas, only some...