7I8 SEER, 8o, 4, 2002 A common feature of their translating methods was their fidelity, to the point of slavish adherence, to their source texts. Even abridgement and cultural adjustment were rare. The only two radical exceptions who were prepared to take liberties with their originals were Catherine II and Anna Bunina. Significantly it is these same two who were also prepared to use foreign works as stepping stones to their own original compositions. The overall diffidence in the methods of the majority was reflected in the ritual modesty displayed in their prefaces and dedications and their coy reluctance to discussthe problems of translation.A rare exception was Bunina, the only woman to attempta scholarlypreface in her translationfromBatteuxin I8o8 which was not only the firstmanual on poetics publishedby a woman but one aimed specificallyat young ladies. It is these latter who would be able, in the new century, to benefit from the openings to publishingand the public realm substantiallypioneered, as this study demonstrates,by the useful endeavours of theirtranslatingforebears. Bangor W. GARETH JONES Schonle, Andreas. Authenticity and Fiction in the Russian Literary Journey, I790-I840. Russian Research Center Studies, 92. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, and London, 2000. Vi+ 296 pp. Notes. Bibliography . Index. ?30.95. IN this in-depth study of the Russian literaryjourney from I790 to I840, Andreas Schonle arguesthat this genre be consideredas a distinctprose form evident in the Russian literarytraditionsince the Middle Ages. Ranging from the last decade of the eighteenth century (the era of Classicism and Sentimentalism),through the firstdecades of the nineteenth (fromRomanticism to the beginning of Realism), Schonle examines both well-known texts, such as Radischev's A J7ourney from Petersburg toMoscow, Karamzin's TheLetters of a Russian Traveller,Zhukovskii's RafaelevaMadonna and Pushkin's Journey to Arzrum, as well as those rarelycited by critics.These include TheNewSterne, a comedy by Shakhovskoi, Journeyto LittleRussiaby Prince P. Shalikov, The VWanderer by Vel'tman, 7ourney toSouthern Russiaby Izmailov, Fragmentfrom Letters of a Russian OfficeraboutFinland by Batiushkov, journey to Revelby BestuzhevMarlinskii ,JourneyacrossTaurisin I820 by Imurav'ev-Apostol,and 7he Fantastic JourneyofBaronBrambeusby Senkovskii. Schonle approachesthese worksfrom an aestheticaland culturalperspective , exploring them in termsof fashion, genre, ritual, histrionics,history,and irony. In chapter one, 'Fashion and Genre: The Two Instigators', Schonle examines the journeys of Radishchev and Karamzin, connecting them through his analysisof two distinctelements:'The Taste of Necessity' and the 'The Taste of Fiction'. In chaptertwo, 'Ritualand Histrionics:SentimentalViews ofAuthenticity', Schonle explores the work of Shakhovskoi,Prince Shalikov and Zhukovskii, subtitlingeach section 'Abuseof Theatricality', 'Ritual of Social Integration', and 'Ritual of SpiritualElevation' respectively.The sections on Shalikovand Zhukovskiiemphasizetheiruseof ritualasan 'experientialparadigm'(p. I09), REVIEWS 7 I9 thus elucidating a key point where the otherwise diametrically opposed aspirationsof these two writersconverge. Chapter three, 'Creating History: Presences and Absences', explores four works in the context of 'the journey' and the generation of a historical consciousnessto reveal, as Schonle contends, 'a shiftfrom a mythological era to a philological' (p. 157).Travellingon the very edges of the Russianempire, each writer was influenced by their earlier political outlook, he argues. Izmailov 'looked into the past mostly as a mirror of political structures entrenched in the present' (p. 204), Batiushkov'engaged in a meditation on the availabilityof history', Bestuzhev-MarlinskiidescribedRevel as a 'Sentimentalist utopia', and Murav'ev-Apostol 'withheld unqualified credence to extant historicalchronicles'(p. 205). It is here, however, that Schonle's analysis, which up until this point has been engaging and well-informed,begins to weaken, and it is in chapterfour, 'The Space of Irony', with his examination of worksby Vel'tman, Senkovskii and Pushkin, that it really falters. His inclusion of Vel'tman's novel,The Wanderer, is puzzling, since it cannot be considered as belonging to the genre of the Russian literaryjourney, and his comparison of Pushkin'sJourneyto Arzrum with Karamzin's 7he Letters ofa RussianTraveller does not stand up to serious scrutiny, although Schonle insists that 'an implicit dialogue' exists between the two (p. I8I). Schonle compares an array of elements in the experience of the two travellers:their destinations, motivations, ideas about travelling,relationswith the indigenouspopulation, theirrelationshipsto their names, their social and national identities, and their attitudestowardsdeath. Whilst Schonle seems to be emphasizing their differences in everything, he...