Plotting History: The Russian Historical Novel in the Imperial Age

Notes

Introduction 1. The only general overview is S. M. Petrov’s book dating from the mid-1960s, Russkii istoricheskii roman XIX veka. It is, unfortunately, of little worth because of its primitive ideological filters, limited scope, and numerous factual inaccuracies. The most thoroughly studied period is the 1830s. The pioneer in this area is the critic Aleksandr Skabichevsky, whose survey “Nash istoricheskii roman v ego proshlom i nastoiashchem” was produced in the 1880s. Although Skabichevsky provides valuable factual information, his methodological approach is not particularly appealing. Extolling Pushkin and Gogol, Skabichevsky dismisses and ridicules their lesser colleagues. A. Pinchuk’s study “Russskii istoricheskii roman (do 50-kh godov XIX v.),” published on the eve of World War I, introduces an even wider range of sources. However, it resorts to a simplistic form of classification, dividing the authors in question into those who faithfully follow historical truth and those who distort it. The most thorough Soviet work on the subject is I. P. Scheblykin’s monograph “Russkii istoricheskii roman 30-kh godov XIX veka,” which has a rather nondescript methodology but provides a good overview of the contemporary critical response. A number of valuable observations can also be found in Ia. L. Levkovich’s article “Printsipy dokumental’nogo povestvovaniia v istoricheskoi proze pushkinskoi pory.” More recent contributions include Mark Al’tshuller’s monograph Epokha Val’tera Skotta v Rossii, which contains an in-depth analysis of numerous texts and also provides a definitive study of Scott’s influence on Russian belles lettres. The only drawback of this erudite and insightful book is that it tends to treat deviations from Scott as distortions of the “correct” model. Damiano Rebecchini’s article “Russkie istoricheskie romany 30-kh godov XIX veka” contains the most complete bibliographical information for the period and also has interesting thoughts on the nature of the genre. Aside from works on individual authors, which are too numerous to be listed in this note, mention should be made of the following academic editions, which are indispensable for the student of the historical novel: N. G. Ilinskaya’s commentary 289 Notes 290 notes to Lazhechnikov; A. Peskov’s commentary to Zagoskin; M. L. Gasparov’s commentary to Briusov; and Z. G. Mints’s commentary to Merezhkovsky. 2. Gallie, “Philosophy and the Historical Understanding; Danto, Analytical Philosophy of History; White, Foundations of Historical Knowledge; Nye, “History and Literature : Branches of the Same Tree.” For a discussion of the “narrativist” debate, see Dray, 164–90; Gearhart, 3–28; Braudy, 5. 3. See Danto, 362; White, Metahistory, 6 n. 5. 4. The ethical issues of narratological relativism are raised in the collection edited by Saul Friedlander entitled Probing the Limits of Representation: Nazism and the “Final Solution; see especially the essays by Amos Funkenstein, Perry Anderson , and Hayden White. For a more general discussion of the debate, see the studies by Carr and Gossman. 5. On this point see Lotman, “Problema istoricheskogo fakta.” 1. An Overview of the Romantic Era 1. Scott’s reception in Russia is well documented. See Zamotin, 339–45; Levin; and especially Dolinin (Istoriia, odetaia v roman) and Al’tshuller. 2. For a detailed analysis of Scott’s formula, see Al’tshuller, 11–29. 3. A number of scholars tend to exclude Scott from the romantic tradition, regarding him as the founder of the “realistic historical novel.” This opinion, which can be traced back to Lukács (63), was repeated by many Soviet scholars (Orlov, 445; Petrov, 120; Mann, Poetika, 331) and occasionally by their Western colleagues (D. Brown, 279–80). Such an interpretation stems either from a narrow definition of romanticism, which is tied to the presence of the Byronic protagonist, or from a broad approach to realism, where reflection of certain sociohistorical realia and descriptive verisimilitude are mistaken for realism. 4. For a review of eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century “historical” prose fiction in Russia, see Pinchuk; Belozerskaia, 58–61; Sipovskii, 1:464–75; Schamschula , 15–67. 5. The male protagonists in both works have rather similar last names (Liuboslavsky /Miloslavsky). Like Karamzin’s hero, Yury falls in love with a maiden he sees in church. At the end of Karamzin’s tale the narrator stumbles across a dilapidated tombstone that marks his heroes’ grave; there is also a tombstone scene at the conclusion of Zagoskin’s novel. These rather transparent allusions may testify to the fact that the fiercely patriotic Zagoskin wanted to claim as his literary ancestors not only the foreigner Scott...