Russian Modernism: Culture and the Avant-Garde, 1900–1930 ed. by George Gibian, H. W. Tjalsma

Abstract

366 Comparative Drama In his consideration of the mise-en-scène in eighteenth-century France, Peyronnet fails to take into account the status of the theatrical arts during the revolution and the advent of Napoleon. This shortcoming slightly restricts the scope of the study announced by the title. However, this book is recommended as a complementary study to the better known pieces of the dramatic literature of the French Enlightenment; it bridges the gap between script and performance. JOSEPH G. REISH Western Michigan University George Gibian and H. W. Tjalsma, eds. Russian Modernism: Culture and the Avant-Garde, 1900-1930. Ithaca and London: Cornell Uni­ versity Press, 1976. Pp. 240. $12.50. Fifteen years ago it seemed that everything that could be said about Russian Formalism (Modernism) was said by Victor Erlich in his monu­ mental account of Russian and Soviet experiments in literary forms, Russian Formalism. Today “seemed” gives way to “did.” What Gibian and Tjalsma hope to accomplish with these short essays by a handful of prominent and not so prominent critics is to kindle an interest in the Russian avant-garde movements, including art and architecture. During the past few years a number of excellent studies about Russian art have appeared, most notably Vladimir Markov’s Russian Futurism and Camilla Gray’s Great Experiment. In addition, a number of important poets have been translated and published, including Khlebnikov, Ivanov, Blok, Akhmatova, Tsvetaeva and, of course, Pasternak. What comes under attack and scrutiny in this volume of essays is the word “Modernism.” Wellek finds it “an old and somewhat empty term”—which certainly it is. Wladimir Weidle finds it inappropriate, since he focuses art on continuity and not on innovation, renewal and not on avant-garde cut off from history. Unfortunately, Weidle’s sarcasm toward Soviet “innovation” (novatorstvo) is tainted with the venom of self-pity: an enemy of the Reds, he is an enemy unto himself. His attitude is unnecessary. Weidle’s critical stance is a valid one: Art divorced from tradition ends up as bad seed. There is full agreement on this point from all the critics represented in this volume. “Making things strange” is what literature is all about, and the Russian Modernists tried to prove it. Wellek warns, however, that continued reverence to all their practices hardly does justice either to the Formalists or to literature. In essence what Shklovsky, et ah, tried to tell the layman is that attention had to be given to words, that, for example, Gogol’s Akaky Akakievich (“Overcoat”) is really about a schlemiel called “Stinky Dimshits.” I believe him. But even Wellek’s informative essay could hardly warrant more than a slight recommendation for this book. Happily there is a great deal more: Tjalsma’s essay on “The Petersburg Poets” demonstrates his con­ tinuing interest in and love for those brilliant poets almost put to eternal Reviews 367 silence by Soviet critics. If for no other reason this volume is important for Tjalsma’s retrospective. And there are other reasons to rejoice: Ivask’s account of the Khlysty (God’s People, although the word means “whip”) is entertaining and perceptive. Students of Russia’s Silver Age will find much here to savor—evidently sex and spirit did mix in those good old halcyon days. Ivask’s biographical notes on Kliuev (“an Oscar Wilde or Paul Verlaine in bast shoes”) and on the Khlysty prophets (some, like Radaev, had many mistresses) are tantalizing. Equally praiseworthy is E. J. Brown’s perceptive study of “Mayakov­ sky’s Futurist Period,” the best work done on the Russian poet by any critic, although one can argue with Brown about various textual inter­ pretations, especially on the verse, “I love to watch children dying,” or on the poem, “Listen!” Brown seems to contradict Renato Poggioli’s view that the lasting literature of the past century “issued from the margins rather than the center of the avant-garde.” Malmstad and Shmakov, on the other hand, agree with Poggioli. The poet Kuzmin, they suggest, selected materials from the margins of avant-garde movements and incorporated them into the body of his work. Thus to know Kuzmin is to study the margins. Whether the topic...