The Play of Ideas in Russian Enlightenment Theater by Elise Kimerling s> Wirtschafter (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 953 strongest motifs linking the two authors is that of the double, and extensive analysisis devoted to thistopic. The fourth chapter of Rogachevskii's monograph is a rather colourfully titled analysis of Limonov and his relationship to his critics. Though he characterizes the relationship between Limonov and his critics to be one of 'mutual distrust', Rogachevskii notes Limonov's unusual technique of not only allowing himself to be influenced by his criticsbut also to parody them and even seemingly act upon their suggestions. Rogachevskii theorizes that 'constant polemics with Maksimov and Brodskii [...] eventually helped Limonov find his own voice as a critic'(p. 5). Because of the many and varied commentaries analysing Limonov's life and art, Rogachevskii has wisely chosen to concentrate on the critical reception of Eto ia, Edichka, by far the best known of Limonov'sworks. Limonovlargelystyleshimselfthesedaysasawriterofpoliticalcommentary and manifestos.Though RogachevskiiconsidersthepossibilitythatLimonov's most recent novel, 3I6, punkt'V' (Article 3I6, Clause 'C'), represents his farewell to fiction (p. 145), Limonov's turn to politics seems to be a natural development in his creativeprocess due to the 'unusuallysolid bonds between the writer'spolitics and hispoetics' (p. 3). Though Rogachevskii's methodology is largely atheoretical (a fact he emphasizes in both the introduction and conclusion) with the possible exception of some utilization of the concepts of influence and intertext the absence of theory certainly does not detract from the quality of the analysis. Limonov, an ever-fascinating subject, is discussed interestingly here, and Rogachevskii has almost exhaustively examined international Limonov criticismand archivalsources. Given that the real-lifeLimonov continues to be a provocative, vexing and mercurial character, Rogachevskii acknowledges the possibility that his tentative conclusions may not be lasting. Regardlessof whether this is true,A Biographical and CriticalStudyof Russian WriterEduardLimonoveffectively synthesizescriticalmaterialwhile also sheddingnew light on the complicated and sometimes enigmaticfigurethatis Limonov. Williams College, MA ELIZABETH SKOMP Wirtschafter,Elise Kimerling. T7he PlayofIdeasinRussian Enlightenment Theater. Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb, IL, 2003. xv + 296 pp. Appendix. Notes. Bibliography.Index. $40.00. THIs attractively written and meticulously researched study of mainly eighteenth-century Russian drama has already elicited scholarly plaudits, some of which are reproduced on the book's dustjacket.Ms Wirtschafterhas paid the kind of attention to the drama of the period which Allardyce Nicoll allottedto hiscomparablestudyof Englishdramafrom 1750- I8oo. Appended to that studywas an extensive handlistof plays, fromwhich a mere handfulof distinguishedworks emerged. If Allardyce Nicoll had managed to read all of them, thiswould have been a feat worth honouring in itself.In this case, there is evidence that a total of 260 plays by seventy-eightknown dramatistsas well 954 SEER, 82, 4, 2004 as another forty-fivewithout attributionhave come under scrutinyfrom the author who has not only emerged alive to tell the tale, but manages to give space to a considerable number of them in this study. Moreover, when one considers that the number of pages given over to a discussion of this vast amount of work is only I77, plus a further I I5 pages of editorial apparatus, the book seems a miracle of compression. As if this were not enough, there is also a section on the emergence of Russianpublic theatre,which picksitsway through the labyrinthine complexities of early Russian theatre history with complete and clearlyarticulatedassurance,so that the threadscan be followed by even the least informedof readers. However, whilst joining in the plaudits, one or two caveats need to be entered. The point of the study seems to be an almost exclusively historical one namely to unearth dramatic evidence in support of what historians have had to say about Russian society during this period. There is very little in the way of specifically literary-critical analysis, and the succession of synopsestends to make one play seem very much likeanother,so thatthe final effectis of a general blur. One continues to read in the hope that, suddenly, a hitherto unknown, or neglected, workwill emerge which does notconform to the general pattern and which distinguishes itself dramatically in so doing. Unlike the significantplays of nineteenth-centuryRussia, there appearsto be little, if anything, during the eighteenth to confound the generallyconformist trendswhich the dramaof the age exhibits.There seems nothing, forexample, remotely comparable to a play such as Goldsmith's...