REVIEWS

V.S. Nechaeva. Rannij Dostoevskij: 1821 - 1849. Moscow: Nauka, 1979. 288 pp.

No living scholar has a better knowledge not only of Dostoevsky's biography but also of the entire literary scene of the period, than Vera Nechaeva. Her latest book is, according to her own assertion (p. 3), not a complete or integrated monograph, but rather a series of articles dealing with certain important points of biographic and/ or literary interest.

In several instances, Nechaeva returns to her own studies of earlier years (as far back as the 1920s), defending her work against recent revisions. The question of the authorship of an anonymous feuiileton which appeared in the newspaper "Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti" on 13 April 1847 is taken up one more time, as Nechaeva once more seeks to establish Dostoevsky's authorship (the alternatives being Pleshcheev, or co-authorship by Pleshcheev and Dostoevsky - the version accepted by the editors of the Academy edition). She argues her case by adducing details of content and style which link the feuiileton to Dostoevsky rather than to Pleshcheev's signed feuilletons. The reliability of her method has been recently put in question by Geir Kjetsaa's computerized syntactic and lexical analysis of some anonymous articles in "Vremja", "Epokha" and "Grazhdanin" which have been attributed to Dostoevsky. Kjetsaa's paper, presented at the Fourth International Dostoevsky Symposium in Bergamo (August, 1980), contained some striking facts which speak for themselves: if an article which has been included in the Academy edition on the basis of an analysis such as performed by Nechaeva in the present case, shows zero traits (out of 15) that follow the pattern of Dostoevsky's signed articles, the whole process of attribution becomes suspect. Nechaeva has been the principal authority to reveal and to corroborate the tradition of Dr. Dostoevsky's murder by his peasants. Understandably she attacks Fedorov's and Kirpotin's recently stated doubts in the trustworthiness of this tradition with great energy. I am afraid that the whole matter is a hopeless case of psikhologija o dvukh koncakh. Even Nechaeva's ace card, the stories told her by local peasants, can be trumped by the realization, experienced by any investigator at one time or another, that a simple man will tend to tell a social superior what the latter wants to hear. The whole argument should be abandoned as fruitless. When it comes to linking Dostoevsky's works to his personal experience, Nechaeva tends to be more cautious than most scholars. In spite of her endorsement of the family tradition of Dr. Dostoevsky's murder, she sees no connection between the latter and Fedor Pavlovich Karamazov. Her meticulous reconstruction of Dr. Dostoevsky's character shows that there

170

really is hardly any likeness between them. She also rejects the notion that the anti-hero of "Notes from Underground" should be a projection of the writer's own personality. While she finds a few particular details that seem to have found their way into the story, her whole reconstruction of Dostoevsky's life style and character as a young man reveals a person who simply is not the "underground man". The list, not all that short, of individuals to whom the young Dostoevsky was at one time attached (Nechaeva is able to add a few names to it) is eloquent testimony to the contrary. As regards the autobiographic element in the character of Efimov in "Netochka Nezvanova", Nechaeva is, I believe, too cautious. She sees in this character basically a variation of Gogol's Chartkov, with some autobiographic motifs, such as Dostoevsky's self-doubts after several consecutive failures. Here I agree with Joseph Frank who sees autobiographic elements not only in Efimov, but even in Netochka, whom he perceives as a projection of the writer's personal preoccupations, specifically his "Oedipal antagonism" and his guilt feelings after the death of his father. Nechaeva's other observations on the prototypes of various characters in "Netochka Nezvanova" are important not only in themselves, but also because they tend to invalidate earlier assumptions of strictly literary sources for these characters. Nechaeva's detailed knowledge of the period is particularly impressive in her sketch of Dostoevsky's brother Mikhail Mikhajlovich as a "belletriste of the late 1840s", which is valuable for Dostoevsky scholarship not only as a background study, but also through several links that Nechaeva is able to detect between Mikhail Dostoevsky's works and some works of his more famous brother. Altogether, Nechaeva's book implicitly raises an important question. It shows a mastery over a wealth of detail which most scholars and critics - not only in the West, but even in Russia - do not possess today and which was even more absent in much of Dostoevsky scholarship in the past. How important are Nechaeva's findings for a proper understanding of Dostoevsky's early works? My feeling is that Nechaeva's truly valuable comments are those which deal directly with the text of Dostoevsky's works, such as her observations on the role played by censorship in "shaping" the text of "Mr. Prokharchin". Her other observations, ingenious and interesting though they may be, do not seem to affect our reading of the early Dostoevsky significantly.

Victor Terras, Brown University

E. I. Semenov. Roman Dostoevskogo "Podrostok" (Problematika i zhanr) Leningrad: Nauka, 1979. 166 pp. 45 k.

Dostoevsky is such a complex writer that each new work on him promises to spring surprises. Semenov's work on the novel "A Raw Youth" is no exception. This slim book is primarily devoted to the conception of the novel, its main idea and the novel's link with Dostoevsky's last novel "The Brothers Karamazov". Semenov's approach is a sociological one. Unlike

171

many other critics he treats "A Raw Youth" as an educational novel, (vospitatel'nyj rornan). This term, as understood by Semenov, implies the XIX century novels whose functions were cognitive, and thereby educational. In the first chapter the critic analyses the evolution of the concept behind the novel. He refutes the claims of A.E. Dolinin that Dostoevsky was influenced by the critic Mikhajlovskij's article calling upon the writer to take up the theme of the "unrepenting sinner" and "wealth for the sake of wealth". This contention had been made by Mikhajlovskij himself. Semenov instead feels that Dostoevsky was influenced by the stormy debate raging in the 1870s in Russia around the proposed military reforms, and more specifically by the works of R. Fadeev, the literary spokesman for the conservatives headed by Field Marshall Barjatinskij. Fadeev stressed the right of the nobility to head the armed forces. The idea behind it was an attempt to consolidate the political and economic rights of this class. Fadeev was anxious to keep out the new generation of educated "raw youth", not belonging to the nobility, the "raznochincy". These young people, according to Fadeev, were the epitome of all that was abnormal in society and it was they who carried the seeds of an "anarchic revolt" of the "Paris type". Semenov feels that Dostoevsky's idea of a novel about "fathers and sons" was conceived from these works although the novelist's approach differed sharply from that of Fadeev. Semenov avers that Dostoevsky's hero, the illegitimate child of a nobleman, inherits the best spiritual qualities of Russia's "great men" who, according to him were members of the nobility. Unlike Fadeev, Dostoevsky sought instead to unite the best in the two generations to thwart the bourgeois onslaught. Therein lay his inner contradictions which were reflected in the novel. Dostoevsky sympathised with his young hero's tragic position in society, his search and turmoils, but in the epilogue brought about a reconciliation between Arkadij and his father, Versilov, who preached that the nobility is Russian history's greatest contribution. This idea, though interesting, requires a deeper and more thorough development. Semenov goes on to trace the historical development of the "educational novel", the changing socio-economic conditions in their relationship to the individual, the specific features in the works of Balzac and Dickens, the views of Hegel and Marx on society and the individual and, finally, to the specific features of XIX century Russia. He concentrates on the collapse of the old patriarchal values and set up a running parallel with the growth of new capitalist relationships. Both Tolstoj and Dostoevsky, fully conscious of these changes, tackled the problem of the individual torn between two epochs in their works. In the next chapter Semenov states that the main idea of the novel "A Raw Youth" is "the moral development of a personality" that has been wronged by society. Nowhere is this as strongly brought out as in the chapters relating to the hero's childhood. The novel is about Arkadij Dolgorukij's revolt against society and his attempt to find his rightful place. Unlike the heroes of Balzac and Dickens, Arkadij does not want to

172

wallow in selfpity but rather be the one who passes judgement on society that has wronged him. The hero's "idea" of becoming a Rothschild, Semenov feels, is abstract and plays a secondary role. He feels the same is also true of Dostoevsky himself and other critics' opinion that "decay is the main and evident idea of the novel". According to Semenov "A Raw Youth" is one of Dostoevsky's most lyrical novels. He also surprisingly, is of the view that with this work Dostoevsky's emphasis shifts to the intelligentsia. This statement is difficult to accept at face value because Dostoevsky's interest in the intelligentsia is found in most of his earlier works, notably "Crime and Punishment". The third chapter traces the development of the problem of "the incidental family" taken up in "A Raw Youth" to "The Brothers Karamazov". Semenov seeks to link the preoccupation with this problem with Dostoevsky's journalistic writings of this period, his "Diary of a Writer" which reflects the writer's profound interest in problems of contemporaneity and old ideas versus new ones. The writer's interests extended to legal proceedings many of which would find their way into his last novel. One other source for "The Brothers Karamazov" was Dostoevsky's incomplete novel about a person being answerable for his deeds to future generations. In his conclusion Semenov briefly sums up the development of the "educational novel" in the XX century, the responsibilities of an individual towards society and history and how Thomas Mann and Gor'kij finally force their heroes to make a choice. Gor'kij, in Semenov's eyes, shows the perspectives of the formation of a new man in a Socialist society as opposed to the Capitalist one which manipulates the conscience of man. Semenov's book offers some new and interesting insights into "A Raw Youth". Unfortunately, although he makes use of a wealth of material to illustrate his point, he does not convincingly or in depth refute accepted ideas on this novel. The work lacks cohesion especially in the second chapter where the logical links between different stages of his argument are not easily discernible and, finally, the style is turgid.

Kalpana Sahni, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

V. Dneprov. Idei, strasti, postupki. Iz khudozhestvennogo opyta Dostoevskogo. Leningrad: Sovetskij pisatel', 1978. 381 pp. 1.20 r.

In this volume the Soviet critic Dneprov takes a good hard look at Dostoevsky's craft, his investigation and incarnation of man in particular. This is a fine literary analysis which is combined with a presentation of ethical, psychological and aesthetic problems. As the chapter titles give an especially good overview of the critic's thematics and modus operandi, this reviewer will approach the criticism from this angle.

173

After some introductory words Dneprov turns to discuss “The Complexity of Man”. His chapter is based on the premise that Dostoevsky views man not from the perspective of his simplicity, but from that of his complexity. For his example the critic uses “The Raw Youth”. The hero as a “raw youth” is unable to mask that which goes on within him, and in coming of age he sees life open up before him. Given these two natural aspects, the complexity of the Dostoevskian character lies patent for the novelist to impart and for the reader or critic to grasp. Here, incidentally, Dneprov makes a clever analysis of the fire theme in Dostoevsky’s late work. In the chapter “The Conscious and the Unconscious” Dneprov points to the conscience as being the moral center of a person. Artistically Gogol had unknowingly depicted unconscious actions in man’s behavior in his fiction. He was then followed by Tolstoj and Dostoevsky who showed the influence of the unconscious state more broadly and diversely. In fact, as novelists they reached new heights in their descriptions of the unconscious world of man. Centrally, Dneprov analyzes the dynamics of the conscious and unconscious sides of “the murderers” Raskol’nikov and Ivan. As much of the unconscious may be revealed in dreams, Dostoevsky uses them as a literary device frequently and Dneprov demonstrates this well. He also convincingly claims that in “The Idiot” the knife image is used to mark moments of premonition in Myshkin’s unconsciousness. Often in these interpretations Dneprov compares and contrasts Dostoevsky with Tolstoj and this technique tends to serve as a basis for the critique as a whole. Dneprov picks texts to support his ideas carefully. Although these excerpts are at times lengthy, they are well-chosen. “The World of Emotions” is likewise a valuable chapter. Here Dneprov examines the high emotional pitch of Dostoevsky’s work. Dneprov notes that Tolstoj’s characters are emotionally integrated personalities, while Dostoevsky’s are full of ambivalent feelings, contradictory thoughts, and are even split along rational/irrational lines. In the latter it is not just love which predominates. It is passion which plays a leading and as such emotional role in the heroes’ lives. Moreover, this passion is not an exception. It is a quotidian occurrence for both Dostoevsky and his figures. To make this point Dneprov looks once again at “The Raw Youth” and also at “The Idiot”, “Crime and Punishment”, and “The Brothers Karamazov”. He also uses the manuscripts of these novels to show the author’s intentions, and as such to underscore the quality of the final results. He cites not only elements in the novels’ content, but in their form as well. Dostoevsky’s word choice is also central in conveying the excited fast pace of his novels. In judging “The Interrelationships and Psychology” of Dostoevsky’s man Dneprov provides some more perceptive comments. In his opinion artistic literature, better than science, gives us the manner and paths which human relationships take. The novelist Dostoevsky does not rely on the expressive language of glances which are so fundamental to Tolstoj. (Tolstoj’s novels are sheer poems of glances, according to Dneprov.) Rather Dostoevsky catches that instant when an expression guesses

174

someone else's mystery or secret; when a glance brushes the very core of someone else's soul. However, most critical for Dostoevsky is the language of words, both uttered and not uttered. For him they truly bare the depths of man's soul. In another vein Dneprov observes that in a novel the author, Tolstoj for instance, generally sees and hears what transpires in his novel's action. Not so with Dostoevsky; he rarely steps from the wings into the limelight of his dramas. His narrator serves that function. In this chapter Dneprov also considers the stream of consciousness method. He not only looks at Dostoevsky and Tolstoj, but also discusses James J????. As the preceding chapter, this is an engrossing one. In his discussion of "The Moral Influence. The Moral Nature of Man" Dneprov primarily examines the good and evil aspects of Dostoevsky's man and how Dostoevsky paints these conflicting traits in his novelistic portraits. The next chapter, entitled "The Ideological and the Social", I found to be less absorbing. On the other hand, the seventh chapter on drama in the novel is excellent. Dneprov's point of departure is Thomas Mann's belief that Dostoevsky's novels are "grandiose dramas". In developing this Dneprov first specifies the issue by showing how the dramatic and the narrative portions interrelate in Dostoevsky's prose. He then makes a balanced survey of the opinions of Dostoevskovedy concerning this thesis. He presents Merezhkovskij, Bakhtin, Grossman, Vjach. Ivanov, arguing with the first two. Even for those already familiar with the ramifications of this topic and its various interpretations, as a synthesis of the many evaluations this part is valuable. To illustrate his ideas Dneprov draws widely from aesthetics; he even recalls the masterpieces of Schubert and Chopin, Corot and Levitan. The concluding chapter pulls the many Dostoevskian artistic threads into a contemporary knot. As the title indicates, the chapter considers "Dostoevsky as a Writer of the 20th Century". One of Dneprov's main theories is that Dostoevsky's characters are not only Russian. They are universal types. We might not agree with how or why his heroes are good or bad. Nonetheless, we are able to relate to many facets of Dostoevsky's man today. By contrast the heroes of his great contemporaries Turgenev and Tolstoj are not so familiar and understandable to us. This book is very much worth the time of slavists, of Dostoevsky admirers especially. To appreciate the criticism fully the reader must be thoroughly versed in Dostoevsky's oeuvre and well acquainted with European culture, literature to be precise. Formally the chapters are long (fifty pages), but they are each divided into three sections. In addition Dneprov's ideas stylistically and thematically flow one right into the other and make fascinating reading.

Marina T. Naumann, Douglass College of Rutgers University

175

Robin Feuer Miller. Dostoevsky and The Idiot. Author, Narrator, and Reader. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981. Pp. 296. £ 14.00.

 Professor Feuer Miller's study is an ambitious attempt to analyze Dostoevsky's novel in terms much used in recent criticism and described by her in "Appendix B" as the "phenomenology of reading". The almost exclusive concentration on the analysis of the relationship between author/narrator and reader is at once the strength and weakness of the book. As concerns form and structure, FM neglects to provide an analysis of the complex and yet straightforward structure of the novel; as concerns contents, there is little discussion of the ideological and philosophical concepts as they relate to a coherent interpretation of the text. On the other hand, FM's book is the fullest and most detailed discussion of the "phenomenology of reading" with respect to Dostoevsky's novels and as such deserves to be studied by all those who are interested in this relatively new approach to literature. There can be no doubt that FM's study breaks new ground and offers us new insights into Dostoevsky's strategies as a writer who was always intensely aware of the need to create and hold his reader's interest and, simultaneously, get across his intellectual and moral "message". In all probability, FM's book will generate similar studies applying the same methodological approach. FM's starting point is Dostoevsky's own tripartite concept of himself as a writer. Dostoevsky differentiated between the poet who developed the "idea" of the novel, the artist who actually wrote it, and the entertainer whose task it was to devise the means for holding the reader's interest. In FM's terminology they are the implied author, and the narrator (as observer, chronicler, and omniscient narrator). The entertainer's concern found expression in the various "tones" or "modes" (FM uses these two terms interchangeably) such as the ironic, comic, and gothic mode or tone of narration. Each of these figures has a pendant on the side of the reader: the implied reader corresponds to the implied author, the narrator's reader to the narrator. Both differ from the actual or real reader. (On p. 9 we find an "assigned reader", and throughout the text just the "reader". Occasionally there is also reference to a sarcastic, cynical, humorous, and dramatic mode or tone.) The concept of a narrator figure creates obvious problems. Dostoevsky's narrator in "The Idiot" is said to display "various narrative masks" (p. 140) as he assumes the roles of observer, storyteller, amateur sociologist or psychologist, journalist or reporter, and novelist. In other words, there is no single, specific, definable narrator in the novel, but rather a multitude of "masks" or "roles" assumed by the author, as other critics might prefer to say. Yet FM needs the narrator as a distinct figure, as somebody other than the author, or else there would be no plausible reason to differentiate between an "implied" and a "narrator's" reader. Therefore it is not surprising that FM rejects also Zundelovich's concept

176

of author and author-narrator in "The Idiot". According to F M, Dostoevsky does not appear at all in the novel except as "implied author" who speaks only indirectly to the "implied reader". This uncompromising attitude leads FM to ascribe everything related in the novel including Dostoevsky's digressions (such as the well-known passage at the beginning of Part IV where Dostoevsky answered the critics of the novel, i.e. of those Parts which had already been published) to the narrator. The only texts which are said not to emanate from the narrator are the "inserted narrations" such as Myshkin's tales or Ippolit's "Confession". According to FM it is here that we are confronted most clearly and directly with the "(implied) author's voice". This procedure disregards the fundamental distinction between the "narrator's text" and the "characters' text" (following Wolf Schmid's differentiation between "Erzähltext" and "Per-sonentext"). Contrary to FM's statement it seems to me that we hear the "author's voice" most clearly in certain passages of the "Erzähltext" (narration). We can also hear the "author's voice" in some of the ironic remarks (FM's "ironic/comic mode or tone") of the novel. Irony is one of the devices used by Dostoevsky in texts where he addresses the reader directly, but does not wish to bare his thought, as it were, preferring rather to veil it and reveal it only partially to the perceptive reader by means of irony. Irony, indeed, seems to be one of the ways of Dostoevsky to insert his own voice into the narrative text. In the light of these remarks it is a doubtful undertaking to assign the use of irony to a narrator whose very existence is precarious, to say the least. FM's strict division between an (implied) author and a narrator has another consequence: The old concept of Myshkin as a Christ-like figure, the personification of the "good and beautiful" soul is uncritically upheld as the implied author's concept of the Prince. The contrary concept of a Myshkin who is at best a contradictory and imperfect attempt to embody such an ideal, but is actually much closer to what R. Lord called a "paranoic introvert" (with respect to the Myshkin of Part II) is assigned to the narrator's representation of the Prince. Those who hold the latter view of Myshkin can then be said to be unable to rise above the level of the "narrator's reader" to that of the "implied reader." However, these critical remarks should not obscure the fact that FM's book contains excellent and truly enlightening sections which could be read with profit by all Dostoevsky scholars. I would like to mention FM's discussion of the novel of manners and its influence in shaping certain passages of "The Idiot" (p. 97 - 100), and the comprehensive study of the influence of "gothic" literature on Dostoevsky (p. 108 - 122). FM has drawn on a wide spectrum of Dostoevsky criticism. Nevertheless one could have reasonably expected from the author of a study concerned with narrative techniques to deal at greater length with previous research into the novel, particularly, as it concerns formal and structural aspects and the role of the main hero - Prince Myshkin. FM's "Appendix A. The Novel and the Critics" attempts to do this, but is rather superficial and general. Out of the rich literature, FM discusses mainly - to mention only

177

authors specifically concerned with "The Idiot" - Blackmur, Skaftymov, Krieger, Wasiolek, Frank, Etov, and Gus. Studies such as the ones listed below are not even referred to: R. Peace: "Dostoyevsky. A Study of the Major Novels" (1971), J. Catteau: "La Creation litteraire chez Dostoievski" (1979), H. Keller: "Prince Myshkin: Success or Failure?" (Journal of Russian Studies, 24/1972), A. Guerard: "On the Conception of Dostoevsky's 'The Idiot'" (Mosaic, viii, 1/1974), S. Lesser: "Saint and Sinner-Dostoevsky's 'Idiot'" (Modern Fiction Studies, 21/1975), R. Pascal: "The Dual Voice. Free Indirect Speech and its Functioning in the Nineteenth-Century European Novel" (Chapter VIII: "Dostoevsky and the Flux of Experience: The Idiot"; 1977), J. Stern: "The Testing of the Prince: On the Realism of Dostoevsky's 'The Idiot' " (R. Auty et al.: "Gorski vijenac. A Garland of Essays Offered to Prof. Elizabeth Mary Hill", 1970), K. Onasch: "Der verschwiegene Christus" (1976). Onasch's earlier book on "Dostojewski als Verführer" (1961) and Arpad Kovacs' studies seem to be equally unknown to FM (s. A. Kovacs: "Genezis idei 'prekrasnogo che-loveka' i dvizhenie zamysla rornana 'Idiot', " Studia Slavica Hung., XXI/1975; "Sootnoshenie prostranstvenno-vremennoi i povestvovatel'noi struktur v romane 'Idiot' F. M. Dostoevskogo", Annales instituti philologiae slavicae universitatis Debreceniensis, Slavica XV/1977; "Poetica Romana 'Idiot', " Hungaro-Slavica 1978). The complex system of narrators and readers necessitates an equally complex style which, occasionally, makes reading difficult. The formulations are at times over-cautious: "The incipient unease of the narrator starts to grow pronounced ... (p. 201). Nevertheless, FM's book is well-written and provides fluent reading, once the reader has become used to the terminology. As has been indicated above, it is regrettable that FM has not applied her insights to the interpretation of the novel as such. Chapter 6 "The Search for a Binding Idea: The Inserted Narrative, Parts II and IV" seems destined to do this, but does not. At the end of this chapter the reader still has no inkling what FM, the implied author, or the narrator mean by "binding idea". Nor does he know if there is any such " binding idea" in the novel at ail. But, perhaps, we should not demand too much. FM has contributed to opening a new avenue in Dostoevsky research and this alone is no mean achievement. Her book is the first to study the "phenomenology of reading" with respect to a major novel by Dostoevsky and as such should receive due attention by Dostoevsky scholars.

Rudolf Neuhäuser, University of Klagenfurt

178

John Glad (ed.) Forum International, Volume 3 (Fall 1980). Germanic and Slavic Dept., U. of Maryland, College Park, MD., 20742; Paper $10,-. (guest editor for Volume 3, Victor Terras.)

Forum-3 is devoted entirely to articles on Dostoevsky, all but one of which (that by Nathan Rosen) are expanded versions of papers delivered at the Third International Dostoevsky Symposium, held at Rungstedgaard, Denmark, August 14-20, 1977, or at annual meetings of the North American Dostoevsky Society. Victor Terras notes in a brief preface that selection of the articles was based "on a focal notion found in all of them, namely, that there exists a link, apparently perceived as 'organic' by Dostoevsky himself, between important structural traits of his fiction and the structure of the world, as perceived by Dostoevsky." Each of the ten articles in the collection is considered separately below. Roger L. Cox, "Time and Timelessness in Dostoevskij's Fiction" (pp. 3 - 9). In his paper Cox reflects on visionary moments in Dostoevsky, which may be viewed metaphorically as the intersection of a horizontal line representing the passage of time in the ordinary sense with a vertical line representing interior time - or "timelessness". The dream in "Dream of a Ridiculous Man" is an example of such an intersection; so are the aura states of Prince Myshkin. But the suicides of Kirillov and Stavrogin, though true efforts to attain the moment when "time suddenly stands still" and "become(s) eternal," do not transcend time - because a natural vision may not be induced (within the context of Dostoevsky's fiction) by accident or will power alone. Although Cox's comments on Dostoevsky's characters seem apt, his metaphor of intersecting lines (which is more complex than I have indicated here) does not seem to me markedly more illuminating than would be a more or less straightforward discussion of visionary (or epiphanic) moments, or "glimpses into eternity". As far as metaphors for eternity are concerned, however, that employed by P. D. Ouspensky in "Search of the Miraculous" might be applied with some advantage to Dostoevsky. Nadine Natov, "Anticipation of the Major Action in Dostoevskij's Works as a Problem of Free Choice" (pp. 10 - 32). This paper is in part a polemic against those critics who have seen in Dostoevsky's works the characteristic elements of the roman-feuilleton or the detective story. Natov shows that Dostoevsky instead concentrates on the moral issues facing the potential criminal (and these in a Christian context), with the eventual crime often being foreshadowed or anticipated within the structure of the literary work. She concludes that the "basic content of Dostoevsky's works consists not in describing the story of a crime or in unravelling a detective mystery, but rather in delineating the path which a man takes in search of the correct free choice in his acts". Natov's argument adequately refutes any who would say that Dostoevsky's works are merely murder mysteries, but I suppose few critics would insist on that. Otherwise, the insights offered, while true, are not really new.

179

Nina Perlina and Arlene Forman, "The Role and Function of Quotation in Dostoevski)" (pp. 33 - 47). The authors examine Dostoevsky's "polyphonic system of composition" in respect to its rich use of "direct, literal, 'reaccentuated' and hidden quotation". Borrowing terms from Bakhtin, Taranovsky, and Ronen, the authors develop an interesting system for classifying quoted material in Dostoevsky's texts - including even "the anagrammatic-quotational and the logical-contentual principles" in Dostoevsky's selection of the names of his characters. More interesting still, however, are the detailed illustrations developed by the authors, who not only bring to light most ingeniously a number of hidden quotations, but show how these enter into complex associative development of particular themes from novel to novel: for instance, the theme of lameness in "The Idiot", "The Possessed" and "The Brothers Karamazov". If they were to apply their methods of analysis to a lesser author, Perlina and Forman might be accused of seeing things; but in the case of Dostoevsky, they convince one that it is always profitable to search for hidden meaning, even in the word and phrase, in the work of a writer for whom art is not only prophetic, but eternal. R. Neuhäuser, "The Structure of The Insulted and Humiliated " (pp. 46 -60). Along with his analysis of the structure of "The Insulted and Humiliated", Neuhäuser discusses Dostoevsky's interest in Hegel at the time of writing the novel, his attitude toward love at the time, and the obvious influence on him of the then widely popular genre of the roman-feuilleton. He examines the symbolism in the novel linking the broken cups with Good Friday and Easter, reminding us that the author's effort here to create something like a Christian ideal is apparently the first such attempt in his fiction. Neuhäuser feels that the axiom underlining the very structure of "The Insulted and Humiliated", is that "any dependence on 'ideals' without a firm basis in Christian virtues must lead to an egotistical attitude" - that is, to a mere pretense of altruism; while reflection and suffering alone are capable of leading to genuine altruistic love. Despite the complex plot in the novel, Neuhäuser shows that the work has "a remarkably clear and logical structure which resembles that of Dostoevskij's great novels". A final diagram accompanying his article, showing all the major characters and the most basic concepts of the novel, although apparently elegant, somehow falls short of being obvious (at least to me). I feel that it needs an accompanying legend to explain the directional arrows, and this should be added if the article is reprinted. Gleb Zhekulin, "On the Language and Style of 'Skvernyj anekdot' " (pp. 61 - 76). Zhekulin limits his analysis to the affinities between "Skvernyj anekdot" and Gogol's "Shinel"; he is evidently the first scholar to point these out - and there are very many of them. Zhekulin has arranged them in parallel Cyrillic texts, in six separate tables: (1) Mirror representation of the main protagonist; (2) Parallel representation of odno znachitel'noe lico and Ivan Il'ich; (3) Dostoevsky's play with the "humane passage" in "Shinel"; (4) Concurrences; (5) Authorial interferences with the flow of narration; and (6) "Gogolian" phrase

180

construction in "Skvernyj anekdot". Some of the apparent parallels (or mirror images) may in fact be coincidences, but the weight of evidence is strongly in favor of Zhekulin's perception of an obvious literary influence if not of direct borrowing. Nathan Rosen, "Apollon in 'Notes from the Underground' " (pp. 77 - 78). Rosen investigates three reasons why Dostoevsky might have given the servant of the Underground Man his lofty name. He refutes in passing Richard Gregg's suggestion that Apollon might represent a positive moral force in the work - the superego of the Underground Man, a Christian principle. Rosen insists that Apollon's role is to help dramatize the sadomasochism of the Underground Man and thus to help prepare the reader for the cruel rejection of Liza's love by the latter. Thus: Dostoevsky might have called the ugly servant "Apollon" simply to parody the ideal beauty represented by the Greek deity; or, in naming him, he might have been getting revenge on Apollinaria Suslova, with whom Dostoevsky had an incredibly demeaning sado-masochistic relationship; finally, as we note the apocalyptic number seven associated with Apollon, Dostoevsky might have had the biblical Apollyon in mind (see Revelation 9:11), when he named the servant. Rosen's presentation is ingenious and fun to read. It is possible that Dostoevsky somehow combined all three of these elements in naming the servant, though not necessarily consciously. Rosen suggests (as do Perlina and Forman in their article) that such ability is characteristic of all great artistic creation. Charles Moser, "Svidrigajlov and Stavrogin" (pp. 88 - 98). Moser shows here that Stavrogin is essentially a fuller development of Svidrigajlov -the consequence of Dostoevsky's continuing effort to refute the argument of the radicals that moral questions can be reduced to intellectual ones. (Moser remarks also that "The Idiot" is in part a refutation of N. I. Solov'ev's view that ethics derives from an esthetic feeling inborn in every individual.) Stavrogin (like Svidrigajlov before him) embodies the metaphysical essence of the atheist; he is not a "strong hero" as Mochulsky speaks of him, but essentially a weak man ("Mochulsky is deceived by Stavrogin's mask", Moser writes); it is in weakness that both Svidrigajlov and Stavrogin end their lives. All of this is presented within the context of Dostoevsky's conviction that morality and faith in God are one. Moser's argument seems consistent (but perhaps oversimplified); it should be kept in mind the next time one teaches "The Possessed" - which, by the way, Moser calls "perhaps Dostoevsky's greatest novel, and certainly the novel which speaks most directly to our own time". Sigurd Fasting, "The Hierarchy of 'Truths' in the Structure of 'The Brothers Karamazov': On the problem of 'Polyphony' in Dostoevskij's Novels" (pp. 99- 111). Fasting's article consists first in a determined but respectful resistance to Bakhtin's insistence on polyphony as exclusively characteristic of Dostoevsky's novels. Fasting examines as well Bakhtin's idea of the monological novel, finds Bakhtin's definition of it probably prejudicial (too much the propaganda novel, full of marionettes), and suggests that the monological novel defined more reasonably could also

181

(though not exclusively) apply to Dostoevsky's novels. Thus: "The element of 'unfinalizedness' in the dialogue between Ivan and Zosima/Alesha is therefore not a consequence of polyphony in the sense given to the term by Bakhtin, but a consequence of the very insolubility, or 'unfinalizableness', of the religious and philosophical problems raised in the novel. From this point of view Dostoevsky's relation to this artistic production does not differ fundamentally from that of a 'monological1 writer". Fasting also argues convincingly against Bakhtin's perception of 'multivoicedness' in Dostoevsky, while not refuting it altogether. In general, Fasting's brilliant analysis is quite as useful an elucidation of Bakhtin's ideas, as a refutation - and in this it is almost identical in tone to René Wellek's superb article (published later) criticizing Bakhtin: "Bakhtin's View of Dostoevsky: 'Polyphony' and Carnivalesque' " in "Dostoevsky Studies", 1 (1980). As for Fasting's treatment of "The Brothers Karamazov" itself, this seems to me to be impeccable. Zbigniew Folejewski, "Murder Mystery of Christian Tragedy: Remarks on Some Structural Aspects of "The Brothers Karamazov" (pp. 111 - 119). Folejewski's paper is, as he himself terms it, only a brief outline of Dostoevsky's ambitious scheme in "The Brothers Karamazov" of presenting simultaneously the novel types of the "typical murder mystery (where intrigue, action, suspense is the central force which determines the structure) and of the "psychological novel, or problem novel, where the structure is determined by the artist's desire to pose and solve important individual or universal issues". Folejewski points out a number of places in "The Brothers Karamazov" where tension between the two novel types and "the author's awareness of the structural dichotomy of his task" become apparent - both in the surface structure and in the deep structure of the work. Henryka Yakushev, "The Trial Scenes in 'The Brothers Karamazov’ and 'Resurrection' as a Reflection of the Author's Weltanschauung' " (pp. 119 -132). Yakushev admirably documents (without overdocumenting) a thesis that may be summarized in the concluding words of her paper: " A juxtaposition of the trial scenes in "The Brothers Karamazov" and "Resurrection" reveals two different and even opposing attitudes to society and the nature of man. Dostoevskij describes the trial as determined by logic, as an institution of reason, Tolstoj as an aggregate of accidental and alogical elements, as a social institution devoid of a rational basis. The crime itself (the object of the trial) is conceived by Dostoevsky as an irrational event, as rational and determinate by Tolstoj. For Dostoevskij, Reality is essentially accidental; for Tolstoj, Reality is rational. Therefore, for Dostoevskij the trial, based on Reason, cannot grasp Reality; for Tolstoj the trial, based on the irrational, cannot grasp Reality." The above papers constitute an excellent, balanced selection; most are genuinely interesting to read - which is not so often the case with collections of this type. Professor Terras chose the papers well. As a final comment on "Forum" - 3, I would like to refer to the lithograph

182

of Dostoevsky reproduced on the front cover. It was done by Vadim Dmitrievich Falileev in 1921. There is something about the eyes and mouth in this portrait that gives to Dostoevsky's visage a sinister cast; perhaps (also) a look of death. Hoping to learn something about Falileev's interpretation of Dostoevsky, I consulted "Fedor Mikhajlovich Dostoevskij v portretakh, illustracijakh, dokumentakh", ed. V. S. Nechaeva (M: Prosveshchenie, 1972). I discovered that Falileev's portrait (shown on p. 407) was almost certainly a rendition after Panov's photographic portrait of 1880 (see p. 366 and also Kramskoj's painting of 1882 based on this photo, p. 380) - but as a mirror image, Falileev must have worked either from a published version of the photo based on a reversed negative or from a reflection of the photo (or of Kramskoj's portrait) in a mirror. Whether Falileev's result was accidental or deliberate, he somehow captured the "other face" of the great author.

Donald M. Fiene, University of Tennessee, Knoxville