Studies in Rebellion by E. LampertReview by: F. F. SeeleyThe Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 36, No. 86 (Dec., 1957), pp. 234-236Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4204930 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 12:41

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.

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.22 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:41:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

234 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

fashion and may soon be hallowed by custom. But in this wonderland of

linguistic flux there is one demand the devoted reader may?and indeed must?make upon the author, namely that he should provide adequate definitions of his innovations and idiosyncrasies. Mr Matlaw's definition of myth is unintelligible to me alike in itself and in its application to the

examples he adduces. 'Myth is an immediate intuition of reality, and it is

primarily ritualistic or religious in character, but it may ... be purely literary', is the formula he flings at us. Leaving aside the dubious use of

'primarily'?what does this mean? But Mr Matlaw is capable of even

greater opacity: 'Another method of creating a literary myth consists of

dramatising ideas (wrthout specific mythological statements) and repeat? ing or varying these ideas, in applying them to various personages.' Of certain scenes and symbols in the book he writes that they 'achieve almost

mythic stature. Moreover, they are analogous to the interrelation between

myth and rational statement in combining real (natural) phenomena with a metaphysical ambiguity that is solvable only in terms of the whole structure.' And in reference to the 'central myth' of regeneration he per? mits himself to write: 'Negative involvement in this mythic construct relates to Fedor Pavlovic; ... to Smerdjakov . . .; and Rakitin . . .'? when he means that these three are debarred from regeneration. This is not idiosyncrasy or innovation, but sheer linguistic ineptitude.

This is a pity, for what Mr Matlaw has to say about regeneration, parri? cide (which are not myths, but motifs widely used in myths), and immortal?

ity in relation to the Brothers Karamazov is quite interesting; his treatment of the symbols and symbolic scenes is even more so.

In his third section Mr Matlaw is concerned with the sweep of the 'social and psychological panorama' of the novel and the constructional factors by which its artistic unity is achieved. A good part of this section is devoted to the role and character of the narrator. Most of what Mr Matlaw says in this connection is worth saying; not a little is stimulating. But his treatment of the relation between the narrator and Dostoyevsky seems to me to hinge on a false premiss, namely that Dostoyevsky is to be

equated with his own persona (in the Jungian sense). Surely the narrator is

essentially Dostoyevsky's rejected 'double' (or one of them)?

Nottingham F. F. Seeley

Studies in Rebellion. By E. Lampert. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1957. xii + 295 pages.

'This book,' according to the opening paragraph, 'deals with the history of Russian revolutionary thought in the second quarter of the nineteenth

century, or, more accurately, it is a study of three particular revolutionary thinkers whose work began and matured during that period. Such a study ?whether from a predisposition on the student's part or from necessity? fulfils Aristotle's canon of purging the soul through pity and terror, and

purging the mind of complacency about the alleged purity, timelessness, or objectivity of ideas and convictions entertained by men. The life of

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.22 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:41:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS 235

ideas is a strange, submerged life of illumination and obfuscation, of in?

sight and confusion, in which human exigencies, feelings, and passions operate. Behind the tedium of ideological superstructure there are human

beings who think and feel, who see life whole or in part, and who see it with understanding or presumption, seeking truth or betraying it. Ideas?

religious, philosophical, social and aesthetic?are so intimately confused with the man who gives birth to them that to study them is to realize what it is to be human and, perhaps, to discover that the kind of philosophy a man adopts depends on the kind of man he is.'

The three revolutionary thinkers studied are Belinsky, Bakunin, and Herzen. The three sections devoted to them are preceded by an introduc?

tory section, comprising six sub-sections or chapters with the following headings: 1. Prophets or Philosophers? 2. The Background. 3. The Theo? cratic Illusion. 4. The Revolution of Secularism. 5. 'Russia and the West.' The Ambiguity of European Divisions. 6. The Intelligentsia: (a) Romantics; (b) Idealists. The Moscow 'Circles'.

Dr Lampert is, of course, widely read in the literature, social and reli?

gious thought, and literary criticism of his country. And he has lived long enough in the West and is sufficiently conversant with some of its works and attitudes to have turned against some of the more tedious and in?

adequate cliches of 1 gth-century Russian thought, as may be guessed from

headings (1), (3), and (5) above. This is to his credit, for many of his

compatriots, who might as well have done the same, keep their heads still

blithely buried in 19th-century sand; and it may earn him some gratitude from Western scholars who are tired of hearing their own efforts to intro? duce a little light and fresh air dismissed with the too complacent formula:

'They are not Russians; of course they cannot understand!' As might be inferred by anyone reading between the lines even of his

first paragraph, Dr Lampert's natural bent is rhapsodic rather than criti?

cal. Hence his book seems to speak, somewhat disconcertingly, with two

quite different voices. Its most valuable parts, to my mind, are the ex?

tended passages in which he summarises or paraphrases the thought of

his heroes; they would be yet more valuable if the reader could everywhere be sure just when summary and paraphrase pass over into commentary and interpretation. This is what I call the first voice: it is constantly, or all

too frequently, interrupted: apologetics and rhetoric keep breaking in.

And when they do, they are apt to play havoc not only with clarity and

consistency, but with logic, sense, and taste as well. Here is Dr Lampert

doing a war-dance round the stockade of German academicism: 'Pro?

fessorial fetichism is a specifically German phenomenon which, watched

over by the academic pontiffs of idealist philosophy, became, in the nine?

teenth century at any rate, the German substitute for religious, cultural

and social values.' Here is Dr Lampert sobbing over Herzen: 'Indeed, it

is astonishing with what savage indifference life snatched from him the

mask of happiness. . . .' And here is Dr Lampert sharpening his wit on

Natalie Herzen (in reference to the Herwegh affair): 'It was a case of

woman going the way of all flesh once the flesh had gone all the way.' Can the reader here fail to feel: 'radi krasnogo slovtsa . . .'? But then Dr

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.22 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:41:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

236 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

Lampert is no believer in 'that humourless Cartesian posture which en?

ables one to keep cool, disinterested, dispassionate and neutral.' He aims

at nothing less than 'purging the soul through pity and terror'?an ad?

mirable aim. If only he could learn the difference between the language of tragedy and the language of an 'angry young man'!

Nottingham F. F. Seeley

Torgovlya russkogo gosudarstva so stranami Vostoka v XVI veke. By M. V. Fekhner. Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo Muzeya, No. 31. Moscow, 1956. 122 pages. Illustrated.

The subject of Muscovite Russia's trade with countries of the Middle East and Central Asia has hitherto been rather neglected, and Mrs Fekhner is to be congratulated on her pioneering work which analyses this trade in the 16th century. As the author points out in the introduction, she had to glean her material from manuscript and printed sources dispersed in different libraries and archives.

The 16th century is not a convenient unit of time in which to study Russia's trade with the East. It was a period of very rapid Russian terri? torial expansion to the east and south-east; countries, such as Kazan', which were important trade partners at the beginning of the century had ceased to exist as independent states a few decades later. Furthermore, the nature of Russia's trade relations with eastern countries depended on whether these were states like Turkey and Persia or tribal formations like the Nogay Horde.

Mrs Fekhner begins with an analysis of trade routes linking Russia with eastern countries. She shows that the great river arteries of the Don and the Volga carried a preponderant share of Russia's eastern trade. She also gives details of the various overland routes which were less used, because they involved more frequent handling of the merchandise and were more exposed to attack by outlaw and nomad. Useful tables of dis? tances and travelling times show the magnitude of the tasks facing 16th-

century merchants: from Moscow it took 78-80 days to reach Constantin?

ople. The journey to Shemakha by the sea route from Astrakhan lasted almost two months, and the overland journey through Derbent ten days longer. The journey to Bokhara took over three months, and that from Moscow to Persia's maritime province of Gilan involved between two and three months' travelling and even longer, depending on weather con? ditions in the Caspian. These journeys took longer and were more danger? ous than an Atlantic crossing. In spite of this, the volume of trade between Russia and the Middle East and Central Asia was very considerable and, as the author points out, eastern goods were in greater use in 16th-

century Russia than goods of West European origin. In what is perhaps the most interesting chapter of her book, Mrs

Fekhner analyses the range and prices of Russia's imports from and ex?

ports to the East. She is at pains to stress that trade with the East was more beneficial to the development of Russia's economy than trade with

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.22 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:41:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions