American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Letters of Nikolai Gogol by Carl R. Proffer; Nikolai Gogol; Vera KrivosheinReview by: James M. HolquistThe Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Autumn, 1969), pp. 383-384Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European LanguagesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/306360 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 22:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:06:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews 383

Letters of Nikolai Gogol. Selected and ed. by Carl R. Proffer. Tr. by Carl R. Proffer in collaboration with Vera Krivoshein. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press [c. 1967]. x, 247, $8.00.

There are several reasons why we take interest in the letters of a great author. They may themselves constitute a work of art, as in the case of Pu'kin or Keats-and probably Kafka. They may contain genuine contributions to poetic theory, as in the case of Gide or Valery. Or, they may help to illuminate particular works of the letter writer, as in the case of Hart Crane.

But none of the above reasons will serve as an excuse for publishing Gogol"s letters. They are the epistolary equivalent of Plju'kin's garden, containing bits and pieces of the most disparate experience and rhetoric. In one paragraph Gogol' is concerned, in the most high-flown language, with the state of his soul; in the next, in explicit detail, he worries about the condition of his bowels. There is only one word-and it is a tribute to Gogol"s singularity that after all these years the word is still the most expressive-for the cumulative effect of these letters: they are Gogolian. And that is justification enough for publishing his correspondence.

But in English? In the letters, only slightly less so than in the fiction, much of Gogol"s effect derives from his language. Thus, even in this "literal" translation, a good deal that is distinctive in the original is lost. Two questions immediately arise: why such a collection in English, and for whom? It should be said immediately that Proffer has done a superior piece of work here. One is assured of his thoroughness from the outset by the convincing way in which he answers these questions. In his Introduction he suggests that a reading of the letters will serve to show that "many critical cliches need to be re-examined," particularly those which suggest a break between the early and late works. The professional Slavist may use Proffer's selection as a guide to which of the letters is most revealing of their author, then go on to read them in Russian. Proffer further suggests that the letters he has collected, "together with the biographical introduction and the notes, should give the reader a picture of Gogol the man and the artist." Gogol' the artist is not so well revealed here as the man, but this is still the closest thing to a good biography of Gogol' we have in English.

A book of this sort can be broken down into several components: the selection of letters chosen; the Introduction to them; the translation; and the scholarly apparatus (commentary, bibliography, etc.). Proffer rates very high in all these categories. He has chosen to print approximately one sixth of the total number of letters available. The microcosm this fraction represents is yet typical of the major concerns contained in the macrocosm of the more than 1300 surviving letters. Proffer's Introduction consists of a biography of Gogol'. He manages to pack into a mere twenty-one pages an enormous amount of detail, all clearly and accurately arranged. The translation is first-rate. Every word has been translated, and no attempt has been made to gloss over the repetitions and awkwardness of the originals. The bibliography confines itself, very sensibly in such a book, to works on Gogol' in English, German, French, and other Western European languages (Italian, Dutch, Spanish). It still runs to eight pages. The commentary is exemplary, concise, accurate, complete. And what is more, it is not couched in that bloodless prose which usually characterizes an editor's footnotes.

The only faults one might find with this book fall into two categories, neither serious. There are some typographical mistakes, of course: one whole line has been dropped from the second paragraph of the "Note on translation"; there are some piddling errors in the bibliographical references to non-English works, etc. Proffer

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:06:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

384 The Slavic and East European Journal

expresses his own view on several of the traditional disputes which have grown up around Gogol', and it is in the nature of things that one will not agree with every- thing he says. But this is a matter of interpretation, and it must be added that Proffer is both common-sensical and persuasive, refreshingly free of critical cliches. The only statement of his which struck me as being just wrong is the following on page 230: ". .. Belinsky-whose vicious attacks on Gogol show that he had never read any of Gogol's works very carefully." It is just as fashionable in the West to attack Belinskij as it is in the Soviet Union to venerate him. But no matter what one thinks of the critic, it simply cannot be said that he had not read Gogol' carefully.

I would like to repeat that this is a seriously-and obviously lovingly-accom- plished piece of work, which cannot help but add to the growing interest in Gogol' which non-Slavist students of modern fiction have begun to express.

James M. Holquist, Yale University

P. V. Annenkov, The Extraordinary Decade: Literary Memoirs. Ed. by Arthur P. Mendel. Tr. by Irwin R. Titunik. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press [c. 1968]. xvi, 281, $8.50.

This translation of the Russian edition of P. V. Annenkov's memoirs portrays the representatives of the Russian radical intelligentsia and their relationships in the 1840's-"the thoughts and moods, the kaleidoscopic shifts of alliances and enmities, the petty failings, and the nobility of this small but vastly influential band of seekers" (p. vii). Annenkov (1812-1887) was intimately acquainted with the various currents of Russian social thought of the time. He devoted himself to the arts and was connected with various literary and political circles in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and among Russians in Paris. He personally knew Gogol', Turgenev, Tolstoj, Belinskij, Herzen, Bakunin, Granovskij, and other writers and intellectuals. Among eminent European writers and radicals, he knew Marx, George Sand, Heine, Proudhon, to mention only a few. Annenkov wrote his Memoirs concerning the "extraordinary decade" in the late 1870's; they were published in the liberal periodical Herald of Europe (1880) and in book form: Memoirs and Critical Sketches (1881).

Annenkov's Memoirs contain an excellent description of the whole "extraordinary decade" and of individuals. He had an unmistakable ability to detect unique traits of personality, as well as subtle nuances of sentiment and idea. For students of Russian literature Annenkov's portrayal of Belinskij, who occupies the center of the stage in the Memoirs, will be particularly instructive and valuable. Belinskij advocated a Russian social criticism which would champion world betterment by means of democratic or popular achievements. He exercised a great influence on Russian progressive thought in the 1840's. To Belinskij literature was a mirror of society and social conditions. Fusing the ideological and sociological approaches to literature, he came to the conclusion that the "new" literature should fulfill a dual role: to reflect life and reality, and to pass judgment on social phenomena. He insisted that literature should not merely be "a form of amusement for idlers," but a true embodi- ment of the spirit of society and its consciousness-a faithful echo of advanced public opinion and even its "inspector and monitor" (V. G. Belinskij, Polnoe sobranie socinenij, ed. F. M. Goloven'enko [M., 1948], III, 797). Belinskij paved the way for the concentration on social phenomena in literature at the expense of form, and helped to infuse into it a note of moral edification. However, since he was steeped in

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:06:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions