REVIEWS 533 this is a tremendously useful book, and one that expertly demonstrates how Nabokov’s texts have still so much to disclose to the curious and attentive reader. UCL SSEES Barbara Wyllie Andreeva, E. and Belobrovtseva, I. (eds). ‘Tol´ko Vy poimete sleduiushchii tekst...’. Perepiska N. E. Andreeva i L. F. Zurova. Baltiiskii arkhiv: Russkaia kul´tura v Pribaltike, 13. Tallinna Ülikooli Slaavi Keelte ja Kutluuride Instituut, Tallin, 2013. 298 pp. Illustrations. Notes. Bibliography. $42.00 (paperback). It is a fact, noted by Nikolai Andreyev in his work on Diak Viskovatii and the cultural heritage of Pskov and Novgorod, explored with great poignancy by Iurii Lotman in the context of the semiosphere, that peripheral cultural outposts frequently foreground the central culture from which they stem: Venice, St Petersburg, Byzantium. When the political geography changes, there is always a danger that this subtle apotheosis of the non-native, nonhomegrown heritage may be lost. It is, therefore, particularly important that Tallin, capital of present-day Estonia, has given us such an excellent ‘Russian’ seriesasBaltiiskiiarkhiv,editedbyAlexanderDanilevskiy,andthispublication is one more very cogent reason to be grateful for it. The correspondence between Nikolai Andreyev and Leonid Zurov, springing as it does from a shared interest in the archeology of the Pechorskii Krai, is of more than provincial interest. Andreyev’s research during the prewar expeditions on which the two cooperated was funded by the Kondakov Institute in Prague, Zurov’s by the Musée d’Homme in Paris. The detail of their archeological and ethnographical discoveries is fascinating: both men not only met with predictable difficulties from local bureaucracy and border authorities but also from monastics in residence in the ancient monasteries they were investigating and, in Zurov’s case, restoring. The monks liked things as they had been yesterday, not as they were four to six hundred years previously, and regarded the two young lay scholars as, at best, heretically inclined ignorami, at worst — godless ‘Free Masons’. The ethnically Russian peasant population, however, had, as Zurov noted, much longer memories and were sometimes of great help in determining the academically disputed exact position of Ivan the Terrible’s heavy artillery, where the Russians had baked their bread and the Novgorodians buried their dead, or what precisely occurred when Abbot Kornilii surrendered his fortress monastery to the Muscovites — events which lived on in the folk-memory with extraordinary immediacy (p. 94). SEER, 92, 3, JULY 2014 534 The fact that Zurov was also, and indeed primarily, a creative writer and Andreyev a percipient literary critic (usually under a pseudonym) adds further interest to their correspondence, which was renewed with great mutual sympathy after a period during and immediately after the Second World War when they lost touch. Zurov’s very Russian Russian syntax and rich vocabulary, full of local words and echoes from the pre-Petrine past, is not at all in the tradition of Bunin, to whom and to whose family he was known to be bound by close personal ties. Critics tended to dismiss him as an epigone ‘of the Bunin school’ and he was appreciative of the fact that Andreyev never regarded him as such but perceived his individuality as a writer, took a supportive interest in his plans for new publications and wrote and lectured, with insight and enthusiasm, about his colourful and highly original prose. Zurov, in his turn, responded eagerly to his friend’s scholarly work and took a lively, vicarious interest in his happy marriage to an English woman (‘Dzhill — umna, sil´na, glaza iasnye. Vse vidit i vse ponimaet’, p. 71) his children and reunion, after years of separation, with his mother, repatriated after the war to Soviet Estonia, whom Zurov remembered fondly from Izborsk, Pechory: ‘Kak legko, svobodno tantsevala... kakoy rost´, kakaya stat´, Gera!’ (p. 79). Both men took a lively interest in creative and critical literature in the Soviet Union and in what was going on in their own field of study in the world of scholarship. They were also actively involved in émigré literary events and publishing. Andreyev, firmly tied down by academic and family responsibilities in Cambridge and Cornwall, where the family spent their holidays, was always hungry for news which...
Read full abstract