Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:07:18.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Victor Erlich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As a part-time observer of the Soviet literary scene, I am gratified to see my tentative generalizations endorsed by men as knowledgeable and authoritative in the field of Soviet literature as George Gibian and Max Hayward. I am also glad that my attempt at diagnosis has provided an occasion for an illuminating companion piece and a thoughtful reassessment of what is undoubtedly one of the most significant works of recent Soviet fiction.

I have no quarrel whatsoever with the main body of Professor Gibian's perceptive and amply documented analysis, which supplements admirably my sketchy survey of trends and issues. The only portion of his article which may call for a brief rejoinder or clarification is the extended footnote. To take issue with what Professor Gibian himself calls "minuscule objections" is a somewhat picayune undertaking. But, just to be conversational, let me offer a few counter-cavils.

Type
Discussion
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 1964 , pp. 437 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See my Social Democracy and the St. Petersburg Labor Movement, 1885-1897 (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), pp. 74-75n.

2 Franco Venturi, Roots of Revolution (London, 1960), p. xii.

3 See below, notes 32 and 68.

4 (), No. 1 (22) (1926), pp. 109-22.

5 The only attempt to trace the history of these terms known to me has been undertaken by B. P. Kozmin in his (), No. 9, 1957, pp. 116-35. Although Kozmin's knowledge of the sources could hardly be surpassed, his analysis was severely cramped by the necessity of having to be accommodated within the framework of Lenin's definitions.

6 N. V. Chaikovsky in (), No. 1/14 (1926), p. 52, and No. 3/16 (1926), p. 180.

7 See, for example, speeches of the defendants in the journal (), Vol. V (1877), Part 2, pp. 39, 49.

8 E.g., the newspaper (), No. 1 (Jan. 15, 1875), p. 1, and No. 4 (Mar. 1, 1875), p. 100.

9 Venturi, op. cit., p. 569.

10 A. II. () (Leningrad, 1925), p. 145. Written in July, 1881.

11 () (Moscow and Leningrad, 1927), p. 86.

12 (), No. 3 (Mar., 1906), p. 64; emphasis added. See also the memoirs of M. R. Popov, () No. 8 (Aug., 1906), pp. 33-34

13 (), No. 65 (1959), p. 217. Cf. P. Akselrod's essay on Russian socialism in Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, 1881, p. 269.

14 See my analysis in Social Democracy and the St. Petersburg Labor Movement, passim.

15 () (Moscow, 1930), pp. 53-54.

16 () (Paris, 1905).

17 Ibid., pp. 120-21. Cf. the journal (), No. 1 (1878), p. 3.

18 (), No. 8/9 (1878), pp. 22, 31. The “obshchinniki,” according to Akselrod, were a southern group.

19 (), No. 1/13 (Jan., 1907), p. 69.

20 ibid., p. 72.

21 One publication of Narodnaia volia explained its name as follows: “It is, of course, obvious that the members of the party do not regard themselves as expressing and bearing the people's will; however, they fight for an order in which the will of the people will be the determinant of all social norms.” () (Geneva, 1883), p. 122n.

22 (), No. 3 (Jan. 1, 1880).

23 ibid., No. 7 (Dec. 23, 1881).

24 C. (), No. 7 (1924), pp. 92-93; emphasis added. The same point was made by the terrorist A. Kviatkovsky at his trial; see (), p. 238.

25 (), p. 241. See also statements by Kviatkovsky (1879), ibid., p. 104, and (1880), (), No. 1/14 (1926), pp. 160-73, and by Lev Tikhomirov in his anonymously published pamphlet () (London, 1882), p. 29.

26 “Die sozialistische Bewegung in Russland,” Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, Vol. I, No. 1 (1879), pp. 267-305, translated in (), Vol. XIV (1925), where the pertinent passages appear on pp. 45-46, 84.

27 (), No. 1 (Jan. 15, 1880). Written by Plekhanov and reprinted in his (), 2nd ed., I, 118. Emphasis added.

28 () p. 124.

29 () (St. Petersburg, 1882-83), and () (St. Petersburg, 1886).

30 (), No. 31 (Aug. 3, 1880), p. 982.

31 (), p. 38

32 Ibid., pp. 46-47. 33 ibid., pp. 63-64.

34 C. (), XX, 586.

35 V. K. Lavrsky in () No. 9 (1880), pp. 87-89, cited by Kozmin, () p. 126.

36 (), No. 2, 1884, p. 702. Similar views were expressed in 1882 by another literary historian, S. A. Vengerov; see Kozmin, () p. 194.

37 (), No. 1, 1884, pp. 152-66, and No. 2, 1884, p. 710.

38 Ibid., No. 10, 1892, pp. 706-9.

39 Ibid., No. 8, 1884, pp. 648-84; No. 2, 1888, pp. 846-60; and No. 2, 1884, pp. 655-95.

40 in 1888, A. Skabichevsky published a book called () in which he dealt with Uspensky, Zlatovratsky, A. Levitov, F. Reshetnikov, and others. E. Soloviev gave literary narodnichestvo much space in his () (St. Petersburg, 1903), where he defined it as a “synthesis” of Westernism and Slavophilism (p. 345). For more recent usage, see B. B. Eym, Ouepnu Jiumepamypnozo Hapodnmecmea 70-x u 80-x xx. (Moscow and Leningrad, 1931).

41 Geschichte der Russischen Revolutionären Bewegung (Leipzig, 1883), pp. 121, 166.

42 Milan, 1882.

43 London, 1886, pp. 5-6.

44 La Russie politique et sociale (Paris, 1886), pp. 424-25.

45 () (Moscow, 1956), I, 66.

46 Ibid., p. 173.

47 Ibid., p. 392n.

48 (), Nos. 2, 3, 6, 10, and 11 for 1892; republished the following year in St. Petersburg in book form as ()

49 Op. cit.

50 St. Petersburg, 1893. Volume I had been reprinted in 1888. Tikhomirov wrote in December, 1892, that narodnichestvo had been one of the liveliest subjects of conversation of the preceding year. (), VI (Dec, 1892), 911.

51 “Zur Beurtheilung der kapitalistischen Entwickelung Russlands,” Sozialpolitisches Centralblatt, Vol. Ill, No. 1 (Oct. 2, 1893). Danielson's book was called () (St. Petersburg, 1893).

52 “Zur Beurtheilung … , “ op. cit.

53 () (St. Petersburg, 1894), pp. 1-2.

54 Ibid., p. 20.

55 Ibid., p. 29; emphasis added.

56 See, e.g., H. K. () (St. Petersburg, 1909), VII, 541, 885-924.

57 () …, p. 2n.; emphasis in the original.

68 E.g., () (St. Petersburg, 1902), pp. 60-83

59 (), No. 2, 1895, Part 2, p. 17n.

60 () (3rd ed.; Moscow and Leningrad, 1935), I, 165n. Cf., however, ibid., p. 193n., where Lenin speaks of the “narodniki in the broadest sense of the word” as “representatives of peasant socialism.“

61 Ibid., p. 225.

62 Ibid., II, 303-38.

63 Lenin's inconsistencies have been pointed out by I. A. Teodorovich in (), No. 3 (64) (1930), pp. 7-44, and by Kozmin, () pp. 132-34, and (), passim.

64 L. Kulczycki, Geschichte der Russischen Revolution (3 vols.; Gotha, 1910-14).

65 B. () b 70-XT) u 80-xi) it. XIX e. (Moscow, 1912), which had originally appeared in Struve's journal, () lakovlev also published several volumes of documents of the revolutionary movement.

66 (), No. 6 (June), 1913, pp. 249-52.

67 (), No. 4, 1913, pp. 146-72.

68 () (Moscow and Leningrad, 1927), XXIV, 149.

69 () (Moscow, 1920).