340 SEER, 8i, 2, 2003 practice and one of the factors that marks him as an auteur. It is especially neglectfulin view of the fact that the luxuriousworld of Marusia'sfamily, one which several critics have denounced as flagrantlyfalse in the context of the I930s, is allegedly based on that of Mikhalkov'sown family (Beumersreveals this fact in a note on page 64, but otherwise fails to comment on its significance).This would surelyprompt a more detailed investigationinto the way that Mikhakov's films indulge in private mythologizing, his public personae frequently played off against his screen personae, and the latter themselvesundergoing a seriesof astonishingmutations (fromanti-Bolshevik robber-baron in Svoisredichuzhikh, chuzhoi sredisvoikh,I974, through to the conservativeTsar'AleksandrIII in Sibirskii tsiriul'nik, 2000). The shortcomingsdiscussedabove may well have theiroriginsin the limited brief that the author has set herself as part of her contribution to the I. B. Taurisseries.The series,which is very much to be welcomed, is clearlyaimed at a generalreaderwhose knowledgeof mattersRussianmay well be minimal. This fact notwithstanding, however, other monographs in the series have demonstrated that it is possible to combine scholarship and accessibility without comprisingintellectualambition. School ofSlavonic andEastEuropean Studies P.J. CAVENDISH University College London Pumpianskii,L. V. Kiassicheskaza traditsiia. Sobranie trudovpo istorii russkoi literatuy. lazyki russkoi kul'tury, Moscow, 2000. 864 pp. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Priceunknown. THE reputation of L. V. Pumpianskii lived on long after his death. This reviewer can remember hearing glowing accounts of his lecturesin the I950S from those who had attended them in Leningrad during the I930S. It was a reputationbuilt at that time more on hearsaythan on the printed word since his articles on Russian literaturewere not reprinted and his Introductionsto theworksofTurgenev, forinstance(inthe Soviet editionof I928-34, reprinted here far more legibly than in the original), had become as inaccessible as the edition itself. In short, Pumpianskiihad almost become a non-person in the Soviet Union of Stalin'slast years although he had died a death from natural causes (6 July 1940) and had not been 'repressed'or sufferedthe fate of his most illustriouscontemporaryand friend,MikhailBakhtin. The Introductionto this collected edition of his worksgives many detailsof his life and an assessment of his literary-criticalwritings. He was born in Vil'no on 5 Februaryi 89I and acquired Frenchand a love of Frenchculture from his mother who had been educated in France.Although the death of his fatherwhen he was only seven curtailedthe family'sresources,he received an excellent education at the localgimnaziia and showed outstandingabilityin his knowledge of Latin and Greek. A spiritual crisis in adolescence led him to convert to Orthodoxy. During these years he grew close to the brothers Bakhtin, Nikolai and Mikhail. His subsequent studies at St Petersburg University were interruptedby the First World War and war service in the area of Nevel' where, after demobilization, he and like-minded scholars, REVIEWS 34I including Mikhail Bakhtin, created a 'school' devoted to public lectures and private discussions of moral issues and their relationship to literature.It was here possibly that, in discussingDostoevskii, 'polyphony'was born. The Introduction is quite categorical in asserting that Pumpianskii was influenced by Bakhtinratherthan the reverse,while equally acknowledginga degree of cross-fertilizationbetween them in generalterms.As forthe question of 'polyphony', the copious and valuable notes to Pumpianskii'sarticle on 'Dostoevskii and Classical Antiquity' (Dostoevskii i antichnost') of I922 imply that the notion of Dostoevskii having 'rivals'in his own fictionalcharacters,as Pumpianskii intimated in referring to Shakespeare's relation to Hamlet, perhaps anticipated what later became Bakhtin's approach. The article itself erudite, post-Symbolist, post-Viacheslav Ivanov dealt with Dostoevskii as an ultimate epitome of classical, late-Renaissance culture (particularlyin relation to Crime andPunishment). Rich as it is in insights, to which littlejustice can be done here, it could by implication have stimulated Bakhtin'slaterinterestin Menippean satireand 'carnivalization'. Pumpianskiibrought a Francophile,Eurocentric,Classicalawarenessto his studiesin Russianliterature,noteworthyespeciallyin the longestof the articles in this collection, and yet he never appeared to close his eyes to the social context. Surprisingthough it may have been to friends and contemporaries, he consciously altered the emphasis of his approach to literaturein 1927 and concentrated on socio-political issues rather than what may be loosely categorized...