reviews 739 oftheir father; he hasjustwitnessed Mitia'sviolent attack on Fedor,histhreat to 'come back and killhim',and Ivan's hate-filled outburst: Viperwilleat viper'.Fedor'stelling Aleshato takehismother's iconis a recognition ofthe holy,fearful and subliminal to be sure,and thusan act ofexpiation (p. 199). The narrator's remarkthatAlesha's presencehad 'affected[Fedor] even morally', thatchehad awakenedsomething thathad longbeen stifled in his soul' shouldbe takenseriously. Alesha's 'Gana experience'depictsrather morethan'something', than'a senseof divineabundance'(pp.212,10).It culminates withhis voice: 'Someone [Kto-to] visitedmysoul at thathour', wherekto-to designates an unnamedbutdefinite person. Williamsengageswithmanyinterpreters' views.Some have, inevitably, been overlooked, particularly thoseofJostein Bortnes who,through hisfine analysesof the aestheticstructures deployedin Dostoevskii'sfiction, has arrivedat many of Williams'sinsights. Williamswritessuperbly,every sentence counts, he can express justwhathe wantsto saywitheloquentprecisionand conviction. Not onlythoseinterested in Dostoevskii's Christianity willfindmuchenrichment fortheirthoughts but,givenitscentrality to his fiction, thisbook will be indispensable foranyone seriously interested in Dostoevskii. Williamshas gone verydeeplyintoDostoevskii's art and has illuminated, as fewhave,itsChristocentric heart. Department ofSlavonic Studies Diane OenningThompson University ofCambridge Galushkin, A. Iu. (ed.).Literaturnaia zhizyi ' Rossiiig20-kh godov. Sobytiia. Otzyvy sovremennikov. Bibliograftia. Tom1. Chast'1. Moskva i Petrograd igij-ig20 gg. Rossiiskaia akademiia nauk.Institut mir ovoiliteratury im.A. M. Gor'kogo RAN, Moscow, 2005. 767 pp. Illustrations. Notes. Indexes. Price unknown. Galushkin, A. Iu. (ed.).Literaturnaia zhizn ' Rossiiig20-kh godov. Sobytiia. Otzyvy sovremennikov. Bibliografiia. Tom1. Chast'2. Moskva i Petrograd iQ2i-ig22gg. Rossiiskaia akademiia nauk.Institut mir ovoiliteratury im.A. M. Gor'kogo RAN, Moscow, 2005. 704 pp. Illustrations. Notes. Indexes. Price unknown. The two books underreviewcomprisethe first volumesof an extremely ambitiousenterprise whichundertakes to chronicleday by day, year by yearthelifeoftheRussian-language literary community in Russiafromthe OctoberRevolution through to theend ofthe1920s.'Russia' hereis understoodas also encompassing thosepartsoftheold tsarist empirewhichcame underWhiteor foreign administration duringtheCivilWar and theAllied intervention, but not the Russianémigrécommunity elsewhere in Europe. The focusis noton authorsor on literary worksas such,but on thesocial matrixsurrounding theirlivesas writers and theproduction oftheirworks (publishing houses,critical reception, journals,newspapers, literary organizations ,literary evenings and disputes, competitions, censorship, relations with stateand Partyinstitutions, etc.).Volumes2 and 3 willdo thesame forthe 740 SEER, 87, 4, OCTOBER 200g periods1923-26and 1927-29respectively, whileVolumes4 and 5 willcover theliterary lifeoftheRussianregions overtheentire periodfrom 1917 to1929. Volume6 willcomprise comprehensive indexesfortheentire publication. It is also theeditors' intention tomaketheresults oftheenterprise availableon CD-Rom and on theinternet in theform ofa hypertext database. As the chiefeditor,A. I. Galushkin, writesin the long methodological introduction to be foundin Book 1 of the openingvolume(pp. 3-18),the periodfrom theBolshevik Revolution to theend ofthe1920swas formany yearsmore a fieldforideologicalopportunism thanforscientific analysis, one thatclearly revealswhathe callsthe'relativity and fluidity' ofthemethodologicalcriteria brought tobearuponit.Itwastocounteract thisperceived lack of objectivity in termsof literary and other Tacts' made available forscholarly analysisthatthepresentpublishing enterprise was conceived. Furthermore, theeditors wishedto avoidthemorepurely biographical focus ofthechronicle genrebasedon thelivesandworks ofindividual authors. On thecontrary, theywerein searchofwhatGalushkin calls 'supra-individual' criteria ofrelevance whendeciding whattoinclude, and whatnottoinclude, in theirannalsofRussianliterary life.Information concerning an individual writer's biography wouldbe includedchiefly to the extentthatit involved hisor herinteraction withotherwriters orwithwriters' organizations, newspapers ,publishing houses,government and statebodies.By thesame logic, publicationdetailsof workswhichdid not attractthe attention of fellow writers and newspaper andjournalreviewers wouldbe omitted, whileworks which did attractpublic notice would have numerousprintedreactions identified, regardless ofpossiblerepetition ofcontent, and so on. The emphasisof the presentchroniclefallsfirmly on contemporary, 'synchronous' documents, therefore journaland newspaper publications, published books,therecordsofliterary organizations, Partyand statedirectivesrelating to literary, publishing or censorship matters, as wellas relevant passagesfrom private diariesand correspondence betweenindividual writers and publishinghouses. Memoir material,by contrast,by virtueof its 'non-synchronous' naturehas generally not been included.In view of the chronicle'smethodological parameters, thisis perhapsunderstandable, as is thedecisionto excludeworksdevotedexclusively to literary history and literary theory, sinceinclusion would have opened the gatesto a veritable floodofmaterial, mostofitpursuing 'non-synchronous' goals.Lessjustifiable, perhaps,was the decisionto excludepublicationdetailsof pre-twentiethcentury classicRussianliterature, and also oftranslated literature. (Thiswill notbe theplacetorecover thepublication recordandreception ofthe'Vsemirnaialiteratura ' publishing house,forexample, whoseprogramme issignalled intheentry for13June1919.)Such cavilsapart,one mustapplaudthescope ofinterest and breadthofcoveragewhichcharacterize thepresent volumes. The chronicle as a wholeshouldbe an obligatory acquisition forall university libraries, as also forscholars researching theliterary lifeofRussiaduring thefirst twelve yearsofSovietrule. Department ofRussian R. J. Keys University ofStAndrews ...
Read full abstract