DOCSLIB.ORG

Darwin, Dostoevsky, and Russia's Radical Youth

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

I Darwin, Dostoevsky, and Russia’s Radical Youth David Bethea and Victoria Thorstensson The period of the 1860s was one of the most volatile in the history of Russian culture. Normally cited as chief flashpoints of the turmoil are the Reform Manifesto of 1861 liberating the serfs and the heated debate generated in the periodic press by the new legislation’s less-than-perfect implementation. On a practical level, the most pressing issue of the day was how to combine freedom for the serfs (krest’iane), including a path to eventual ownership of the land they worked, with economic sustainability for the nobility (dvorianstvo), including sources of cheap labor needed to run their estates in the future. At the same time, the ideological orientations at the center of much discussion showed a larger thrust and counterthrust, one aimed at capturing the correct notion of “progress”— with all that word entailed—of Russian history at this turning point. It is this second, more capacious discursive arc that permeates the cluster of classic literary texts defining the decade, from Turgenev’s traditional liberal viewpoint in Fathers and Children (Ottsy i deti, 1862), to Chernyshevsky’s radical reposing of the youth movement’s character and aspirations in What Is to Be Done? (Chto delat’?, 1863), to Dostoevsky’s deconstruction of Chernyshevsky’s utilitarianism and “rational egoism” (razumnyi egoizm) in Notes from Underground (Zapiski iz podpol’ia, 1864) and Crime and Punishment (Prestuplenie i nakazanie, 1866). 36 David Bethea and Victoria Thorstensson The idea of progress, or the right way forward, written into these texts thematically was also mapped onto the plot of generational transition. Corre- spondingly, each of these works produced controversial characters whose stories epitomize this struggle: Turgenev’s Bazarov, the nihilist doctor who dissects frogs to learn how people, with their origins in the animal world, think and feel; Cher- nyshevsky’s “ordinary” threesome of liberated woman Vera Pavlovna, medical student (and savior-cum-fictitious husband of Vera) Lopukhov, and classmate of Lopukhov (and eventual true love of Vera) Kirsanov, along with his “extraordi- nary” new man Rakhmetov; and Dostoevsky’s Underground Man, who prefers to stay in the “cellar” from which Lopukhov has freed Vera—that cellar (podval) now having morphed from a cage of externally imposed social conditions into something intentionally spiteful and self-created (podpol’e). In Dostoevsky the role of Vera’s viciously manipulative mother is taken over by the Underground Man himself, while the medical-scientific training said to “explain” the social behavior of a Bazarov or Lopukhov collides with the irrationality of the Under- ground Man’s perverse (“I am a sick man”) affection for his own toothache. At the center of the radical youth’s early 1860s flurry of journalistic and creative activity stand several, mutually interlocking epistemological frames, all of which reduce ultimately to the notion of the rational, the measurable, the statistically normative. As Alexander Vucinich writes in his classic Darwin in Russian Thought, “[Nihilism] represented a unique combination of materialism, espoused by Büchner and Moleschott, and positivism, a philosophical legacy of Auguste Comte and his followers. Both [materialism and positivism] viewed Darwinism as a generally successful effort to enhance the power of science in the unceasing war against mysticism, irrationalism and supernaturalism.”1 Our presentation here focuses on the Darwinian frame and on Dostoevsky’s response to that frame as he embarks on his major period. We devote partic- ular attention to Notes from Underground and The Demons (Besy, 1871–72) as texts (and contexts) reacting to the appearance first of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859) and then of his The Descent of Man (1871). Perhaps more than any others, these two works by Darwin, along with T. H. Huxley’s The Place of Man in Nature (1863), set the tone for debate in the 1860s and 1870s. With typical Russian cultural impatience, the battle lines are drawn between those wanting to hurry the process of natural selection along up the 1 Alexander Vucinich, Darwin in Russian Thought (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 26. Darwin, Dostoevsky, and Russia’s Radical Youth 37 zoological ladder and interpret “survival of the fittest”2 in new democratic terms and those insisting that human instinct hides the basis for morality and that altruism is neither rational nor empirically probative. In short, the elegant unpacking of finches’ beaks as differing foraging tools depending on an island’s locale and topography in the Galapagos becomes the broad brush of Social Darwinism. In Dostoevsky’s and his interlocutors’ (both friendly and adversarial) telling, this shift is a contested one for the idea of “progress.” For the record, by the time Dostoevsky enters the fray with Notes, a lively exchange on the meaning of Darwin’s epochal discoveries has already been taking place among leading scientists and cultural critics, including A. N. Beketov, Dzh. G. L’iuis (George Henry Lewes), N. N. Strakhov, S. A. Rachinsky, K. A. Timiryazev, and M. A. Antonovich. For example, the distinguished botanist Andrei Beketov argues in the Russian Messenger (Russkii vestnik) as early as 1860, without mentioning Darwin, that organic nature is defined more by harmonious balance than disruptive struggle and by a parts-to-whole and whole-to-parts proto-aware- ness more suggestive of Lamarck (and before him Aristotle’s entelechy). By the same token, Nikolai Strakhov, who began as a physics and math teacher and went on to defend a master’s thesis on the bone structure of the mammalian wrist, writes in Dostoevsky’s Time (Vremia) already in 1862, in his review of different translations of On the Origin of Species, about the latent dangers—or as he terms it “bad signs” (durnye priznaki)—of applying the scientific method to other disci- plines, a trend that will expand in subsequent years into full-blown Social Darwinism, while the soon-to-be-eminent plant physiologist Kliment Timiryazev becomes the Russian version of “Darwin’s Bulldog” in his 1863–64 comments in Fatherland Notes (Otechestvennye zapiski), arguing strongly in favor of organic transformation and in so doing adding his impeccable imprimatur to the sociocul- tural links between Darwinism and nihilism. It is against this heated background that the Chernyshevsky-versus-Dostoevsky polemic takes center stage. From the “Anthropological Principle” and What Is to Be Done? to Notes from Underground A cornerstone of the nihilists’ program was the idea that progress must be presented in a manner devoid of metaphysics—1840s Hegelian explanations for how an abstract spirit expressed itself in history through a process of dialectic 2 The phrase was initially Herbert Spencer’s. 38 David Bethea and Victoria Thorstensson winnowing needed to be replaced by a scientific episteme that explained concrete examples of actual organic life through the physiological and the empirically measurable. Natural science provided what appeared to be an indis- putable means of organizing the material of life in a manner that applied to all; it was meaningful in that it made sense, and it was democratic in that it only recognized its own authority, not that of church, state, or traditional metaphysics. The premises underlying Chernyshevsky’s scientific program were laid out for all to see in his “Anthropological Principle in Philosophy” (Antropologi­ cheskii printsip v filosofii), which appeared in the Contemporary (Sovremennik) in 1860.3 This rambling stroll through current ideas about the natural world had one overarching purpose: to build by analogy logical bridges from the, by now accepted, “tight” knowledge that science had produced about such phenomena as the chemical reactions involved in metallurgy to the still disputed, “looser” speculation about causality versus free will in human behavior. Chernyshevsky’s tone throughout is confident, almost breezy, as he moves from the realm of the inorganic to the organic, from social classes to nations to humanity in general. The ideas that he advances are crucial to all subsequent discussions of the role of Darwinian evolution in Russian social life:4 1 Because of his practical life experience and working-class background, the European “common man” (prostoliudin) is better able to under- stand how the real world works than someone from the privileged classes, but what he needs now is access to scientific knowledge.5 3 Nos. 4–5 of vol. 80: http://az.lib.ru/c/chernyshewskij_n_g/text_0430.shtml. “Anthropo- logical Principle” begins as an overview of P. L. Lavrov’s Ocherki voprosov prakticheskoi filosofii (1860) but soon launches into Chernyshevsky’s own arguments as to how the methods of the natural sciences can (and should) be applied when studying any aspect of the living world, including human history and social behavior. 4 To be sure, Chernyshevsky does not cite Darwin anywhere directly in his essay, as the English naturalist’s ideas were just making their way to Russia at this time, but his formula- tions are pervaded throughout by the scientific logic then being championed by Darwin and his followers, especially the idea that human nature and animal nature are one. Later in his career Chernyshevsky would disagree with aspects of popular Darwinism, including its emphasis on competition (“survival of the fittest”) at the expense of cooperation (socialism). 5 “Благодаря своей здоровой натуре,
Recommended publications
  • Tolstoy and Zola: Trains and Missed Connections

    Tolstoy and Zola: Trains and Missed Connections

    Tolstoy and Zola: Trains and Missed Connections Nina Lee Bond Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2011 © 2011 Nina Lee Bond All rights reserved ABSTRACT Tolstoy and Zola: Trains and Missed Connections Nina Lee Bond ŖTolstoy and Zolaŗ juxtaposes the two writers to examine the evolution of the novel during the late nineteenth century. The juxtaposition is justified by the literary critical debates that were taking place in Russian and French journals during the 1870s and 1880s, concerning Tolstoy and Zola. In both France and Russia, heated arguments arose over the future of realism, and opposing factions held up either Tolstoyřs brand of realism or Zolařs naturalism as more promising. This dissertation uses the differences between Tolstoy and Zola to make more prominent a commonality in their respective novels Anna Karenina (1877) and La Bête humaine (1890): the railways. But rather than interpret the railways in these two novels as a symbol of modernity or as an engine for narrative, I concentrate on one particular aspect of the railway experience, known as motion parallax, which is a depth cue that enables a person to detect depth while in motion. Stationary objects close to a travelling train appear to be moving faster than objects in the distance, such as a mountain range, and moreover they appear to be moving backward. By examining motion parallax in both novels, as well as in some of Tolstoyřs other works, The Kreutzer Sonata (1889) and The Death of Ivan Il'ich (1886), this dissertation attempts to address an intriguing question: what, if any, is the relationship between the advent of trains and the evolution of the novel during the late nineteenth century? Motion parallax triggers in a traveler the sensation of going backward even though one is travelling forward.
  • Tolstoy in Prerevolutionary Russian Criticism

    Tolstoy in Prerevolutionary Russian Criticism

    Tolstoy in Prerevolutionary Russian Criticism BORIS SOROKIN TOLSTOY in Prerevolutionary Russian Criticism PUBLISHED BY THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS FOR MIAMI UNIVERSITY Copyright ® 1979 by Miami University All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Sorokin, Boris, 1922­ Tolstoy in prerevolutionary Russian criticism. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Tolstoi, Lev Nikolaevich, graf, 1828-1910—Criticism and interpretation—History. 2. Criticism—Russia. I. Title. PG3409.5.S6 891.7'3'3 78-31289 ISBN 0-8142-0295-0 Contents Preface vii 1/ Tolstoy and His Critics: The Intellectual Climate 3 2/ The Early Radical Critics 37 3/ The Slavophile and Organic Critics 71 4/ The Aesthetic Critics 149 5/ The Narodnik Critics 169 6/ The Symbolist Critics 209 7/ The Marxist Critics 235 Conclusion 281 Notes 291 Bibliography 313 Index 325 PREFACE Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) has been described as the most momen­ tous phenomenon of Russian life during the nineteenth century.1 Indeed, in his own day, and for about a generation afterward, he was an extraordinarily influential writer. During the last part of his life, his towering personality dominated the intellectual climate of Russia and the world to an unprecedented degree. His work, moreover, continues to be studied and admired. His views on art, literature, morals, politics, and life have never ceased to influence writers and thinkers all over the world. Such interest over the years has produced an immense quantity of books and articles about Tolstoy, his ideas, and his work. In Russia alone their number exceeded ten thousand some time ago (more than 5,500 items were published in the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1957) and con­ tinues to rise.
  • Russian Writers and the Nationalization of Patriotism During the Crimean War (Maikov, Goncharov, Pisemsky)

    Russian Writers and the Nationalization of Patriotism During the Crimean War (Maikov, Goncharov, Pisemsky)

    ACTA SLAVICA ESTONICA VI. Studia Russica Helsingiensia et Tartuensia XIV. Russian National Myth in Transition. Tartu, 2014 FORMULATING THE “RUSSIAN IDEA”: RUSSIAN WRITERS AND THE NATIONALIZATION OF PATRIOTISM DURING THE CRIMEAN WAR (MAIKOV, GONCHAROV, PISEMSKY) ALEXEY VDOVIN Until recent times, studies of the “patriotic elation” that swept up many Russian writers and poets during the Crimean War (1853–1856) confined themselves to determining how sincere various authors were in their expressions of Russo- philia. Following studies by historians and, in particular, O. Maiorova, the issue was formulated in a fundamentally new way: what were the implications and consequences of the powerful wave of patriotism in Russian journalistic writing and poetry during the Crimean War in terms of constructing a new type of identity in the public realm? From such a perspective, the focus of attention for the literary historian becomes less the rhetoric of elation in odes on the tri- umphs of Russian arms or, conversely, the rhetoric of prognosticating the im- minent demise of autocracy and the rebirth of Russia, and more the ideological constructs of a new community that were formulated in such writings. I am referring to appeals to the idea of “Russian” and “Russianness”. What were the foundations of this Russianness in the views of writers? To what historical nar- ratives did they appeal? How was this Russianness defined? How did writers conceive of the relation between Russians and “others” (East, West)? I propose to examine these questions using the polemical writings of several well-known writers, which have never been considered all together as a dialogue regarding the problem of “Russian civilization” or the “Russian idea”, as it was first called by Dostoevsky in a letter to Apollon Maikov in the spring of 1856.
  • Women in Nineteenth-Century Russia: Lives and Culture

    Women in Nineteenth-Century Russia: Lives and Culture

    To access digital resources including: blog posts videos online appendices and to purchase copies of this book in: hardback paperback ebook editions Go to: https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/98 Open Book Publishers is a non-profit independent initiative. We rely on sales and donations to continue publishing high-quality academic works. Wendy Rosslyn is Emeritus Professor of Russian Literature at the University of Nottingham, UK. Her research on Russian women includes Anna Bunina (1774-1829) and the Origins of Women’s Poetry in Russia (1997), Feats of Agreeable Usefulness: Translations by Russian Women Writers 1763- 1825 (2000) and Deeds not Words: The Origins of Female Philantropy in the Russian Empire (2007). Alessandra Tosi is a Fellow at Clare Hall, Cambridge. Her publications include Waiting for Pushkin: Russian Fiction in the Reign of Alexander I (1801-1825) (2006), A. M. Belozel’skii-Belozerskii i ego filosofskoe nasledie (with T. V. Artem’eva et al.) and Women in Russian Culture and Society, 1700-1825 (2007), edited with Wendy Rosslyn. Women in Nineteenth-Century Russia: Lives and Culture Edited by Wendy Rosslyn and Alessandra Tosi Open Book Publishers CIC Ltd., 40 Devonshire Road, Cambridge, CB1 2BL, United Kingdom http://www.openbookpublishers.com © 2012 Wendy Rosslyn and Alessandra Tosi Some rights are reserved. This book is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. This license allows for copying any part of the work for personal and non-commercial
  • The Drama in Disguise: Dramatic Modes of Narration and Textual Structure in the Mid-Nineteenth-Century Russian Novel

    The Drama in Disguise: Dramatic Modes of Narration and Textual Structure in the Mid-Nineteenth-Century Russian Novel

    The Drama in Disguise: Dramatic Modes of Narration and Textual Structure in the Mid-Nineteenth-Century Russian Novel by Kathleen Cameron Wiggins A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Slavic Languages and Literatures in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Irina Paperno Professor Luba Golburt Lecturer Anna Muza Professor Peter Glazer Fall 2011 The Drama in Disguise: Dramatic Modes of Narration and Textual Structure in the Mid-Nineteenth-Century Russian Novel Copyright 2011 by Kathleen Cameron Wiggins 1 Abstract The Drama in Disguise: Dramatic Modes of Narration and Textual Structure in the Mid- Nineteenth-Century Russian Novel By Kathleen Cameron Wiggins Doctor of Philosophy in Slavic Languages and Literatures University of California, Berkeley Professor Irina Paperno, Chair My dissertation investigates the generic interplay between the textual forms of drama and the novel during the 1850s, a fertile “middle ground” for the Russian novel, positioned between the works of Pushkin, Lermontov, and Gogol and the psychological realist novel of the 1860s and 70s. My study begins with Turgenev’s Rudin (1856) and then considers Goncharov’s Oblomov (1859) and Dostoevsky’s Siberian novellas (1859), concluding with an examination of how the use of drama evolved in one of the “great novels” of the 1860s, Tolstoy’s Voina i mir ( War and Peace , 1865-69). Drawing upon both novel and drama theory, my dissertation seeks to identify the specific elements of the dramatic form employed by these nineteenth-century novelists, including dramatic dialogue and gesture, construction of enclosed stage-like spaces, patterns of movement and stasis, expository strategies, and character and plot construction.
  • The Formation of a New Female Identity in the Russian

    The Formation of a New Female Identity in the Russian

    Abstract of the Thesis The Early Women’s Emancipation Movement: Formation of a New Female Identity in the Russian and Late-Victorian Novel by Elena V. Shabliy Thesis Director: Professor Raymond C. Taras Women's emancipation altered the course of Victorian and Russian literature by challenging the literary conventions that governed the portrayal of women and women's experience at the fin de siècle. Emancipationist writing either explicitly advocated social change or embodied a feminist impulse in their treatment of particular themes and questions. The second half of the nineteenth century was marked by the emergence of the women’s movement; this focused primarily on women’s social and moral emancipation. In the 1830s and 1850s, in the German Federation of States, Denmark, England, France, Poland, Russia, and Spain women began to mobilize under the influence of emancipationist novels, discussing the role of women and shifting gender relations. This dissertation The Early Women’s Emancipation Movement: The Formation of a New Female Identity in the Russian and Late-Victorian Novel is comprised of two parts. The first part focuses on the women’s liberation movement in Russia and literary responses to the social change. The second part is dedicated to the women’s movement in Victorian England and its feminist literary discourse. Relatively little research exists on the Russian women’s movement in the nineteenth century, while there is a vast scholarship on the early women’s movement in England. To date, there is no scholarship that treats Russian and Victorian emancipationist work comparatively. The choice of female (S. V.
  • Silver Age Discourse on the Nature of Russian Symbolism Barbara Ann Brown*

    Silver Age Discourse on the Nature of Russian Symbolism Barbara Ann Brown*

    Epiphany: Vol. 6, No. 2, 2013 ISSN 1840-3719 From Populism to Symbolism: Silver Age Discourse on the Nature of Russian Symbolism Barbara Ann Brown* Abstract The goals of the Mir iskusstva were to bring about a renaissance of Russian literature and art, and to initiate a dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church. Some members of Mir iskusstva were interested only in the artistic and literary endeavors of the Symbolist movement, while other members wanted to focus on the literary, artistic and religious aspects of the proposed renaissance. Ultimately, this paper will show that the monolithic title of Mir iskusstva or even the term “Silver Age” blankets significant divisions between two major threads of discourse. Sometimes these divisions intermeshed, but they are still distinctive from one another and should be defined and discussed within the larger context of Silver Age culture. Mir iskusstva contributed to Silver Age culture throughout Russia and Western Europe long after the journal shut down publication in 1904. This paper will seek to explain the emergence of the Mir iskusstva as an important forum for the Symbolist artists and writers after the 1898 closure of the journal Severnyj vestnik forced them to establish their own, “truly Symbolist” journal. A comparison between the two distinct lines of artistic pursuit deserves exploration and discussion. Each laid the foundation for what is currently thought of as “Silver Age Culture.” This technical term encompasses a very compelling time in Russian culture and history, and its components should be defined and examined in current scholarship. Keywords: Dmitri Merezhkovskii, Zinaida Gippius, Russian Silver Age Culture, Russian Populism and Russian Symbolism.
  • Forms of the Peasant: Aesthetics and Social Thought in Russian Realism, 1847-1877

    Forms of the Peasant: Aesthetics and Social Thought in Russian Realism, 1847-1877

    Forms of the Peasant: Aesthetics and Social Thought in Russian Realism, 1847-1877 by Jennifer Jean Flaherty A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Slavic Languages and Literatures in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Professor Irina Paperno, Chair Professor Luba Golburt Professor Victoria Frede Spring 2019 Forms of the Peasant: Aesthetics and Social Thought in Russian Realism, 1847-1877 © 2019 By Jennifer Jean Flaherty Abstract Forms of the Peasant: Aesthetics and Social Thought in Russian Realism, 1847-1877 by Jennifer Jean Flaherty Doctor of Philosophy in Slavic Languages and Literatures University of California, Berkeley Professor Irina Paperno, Chair At the center of this dissertation’s inquiry is Russian realism’s construction of what I call “the form of the peasant.” Created by writers, this mythic image emerged in tandem with the movement’s signature formal innovations in narrative perspective, poetic voice, and descriptive style. It also gave shape to the very ideas of history, national identity, subjectivity, and language which defined Russian realism as a literary movement. The three chapters approach several major texts – Ivan Turgenev’s Zapiski okhotnika [Notes from a Hunter] (1847-1852), Lev Tolstoy’s “Utro pomeshchika” (1852-1856) and Anna Karenina (1874-1877), and Nikolai Nekrasov’s Komu na Rusi zhit’ khorosho [Who in Russia Can Live well] (1866-1877) – from a historical and formalist perspective, offering a history of realist forms in the social and intellectual context from which they emerge and to which they contribute. Close readings of narrative and poetic teXts are performed alongside analyses of a range of theoretical texts that are central to Russian social thought in the mid-nineteenth century, including works by Vissarion Belinsky, Nikolai Chernyshevsky, Nikolai Dobroliubov, Alexander Potebnia, and G.

  • University Microfilms

    8009273 D o n a l d s o n , C h r i s t i n e F r a n c e s RUSSIAN NIHILISM OF THE 1860’S: A SCIENCE-BASED SOCIAL MOVEMENT The Ohio Slate University Ph.D. 1979 University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 18 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4EJ, England RUSSIAN NIHILISM OF THE 1860'S: A SCIENCE-BASED SOCIAL MOVEMENT DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Christine Frances Donaldson, A.B. , M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1979 Reading Committee: Approved By Dr. Michael W. Curran, Adviser Dr. Charles Morley Dr. Allan K. Wildman Adviser Department of History PREFACE In 1862 young Russians turned for leadership to Dmitrii Pisarev, a young radical literary critic who was rapidly becoming known for his extremist attitudes—a set of views that he aptly labeled nihilism. Because so many young Pussians accepted Pisarev's views through the next half decade, his nihilism became not m erely a radical pattern of thought, but also a social movement. Behind Pisarev's ideas and his following lay an intensifying desire on the part of young Russians to institute widespread social change. This dissertation places the nihilist movement--Russia's Pisarevshchina--in its social context. It examines nihilists, their ideas, and their society. In doing so, it concentrates on interrelationships between the movement and social developments external to it. It examines the social dynamics that resulted in the nihilist movement's dramatic growth.
  • Comparative Literary Studies: Lermontov, Turgenev, Goncharov, Tolstoj, Blok - Lavater, Lessing, Schiller, Grillparzer

    Comparative Literary Studies: Lermontov, Turgenev, Goncharov, Tolstoj, Blok - Lavater, Lessing, Schiller, Grillparzer

    Vorträge und Abhandlungen zur Slavistik ∙ Band 39 (eBook - Digi20-Retro) Edmund Heier Comparative Literary Studies: Lermontov, Turgenev, Goncharov, Tolstoj, Blok - Lavater, Lessing, Schiller, Grillparzer Verlag Otto Sagner München ∙ Berlin ∙ Washington D.C. Digitalisiert im Rahmen der Kooperation mit dem DFG-Projekt „Digi20“ der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, München. OCR-Bearbeitung und Erstellung des eBooks durch den Verlag Otto Sagner: http://verlag.kubon-sagner.de © bei Verlag Otto Sagner. Eine Verwertung oder Weitergabe der Texte und Abbildungen, insbesondere durch Vervielfältigung, ist ohne vorherige schriftliche Genehmigung des Verlages unzulässig. «Verlag Otto Sagner» ist ein Imprint der Kubon & Sagner GmbH. Edmund Heier - 9783954794140 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 02:35:26AM via free access ISBN 3-87690-791-8 © by Verlag Otto Sagner, München 2000. Abteilung der Firma Kubon & Sagner, Buchexport/import GmbH, München Offsetdruck: Kurt Urlaub, Bamberg Edmund Heier - 9783954794140 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 02:35:26AM via free access 00051990 Vorträge und Abhandlungen zur Slavistik herausgegeben von Peter Thiergen (Bamberg) Band 39 2000 VERLAG OTTO SAGNER * MÜNCHEN Edmund Heier - 9783954794140 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 02:35:26AM via free access Il Edmund Heier - 9783954794140 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 02:35:26AM via free access ־ Edmund Heier Comparative Literary Studies: Lermontov, Turgenev, Goncharov, Tolstoj, Blok - Lavater, Lessing, Schiller, Grillparzer Edmund Heier - 9783954794140 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 02:35:26AM via free access PVA 2001. 3458 Bâvsrtsch• 8taat8blbiloth#É Edmund Heier - 9783954794140 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 02:35:26AM via free access 00051990 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE I.

  • Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy - Poems

    Classic Poetry Series Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy - poems - Publication Date: 2012 Publisher: Poemhunter.com - The World's Poetry Archive www.PoemHunter.com - The World's Poetry Archive 1 Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy(5 September 1817 - 10 October 1875) Count Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy, often referred to as A. K. Tolstoy, was a Russian poet, novelist and playwright, considered to be the most important nineteenth-century Russian historical dramatist. He also gained fame for his satirical works, published under his own name (History of the Russian State from Gostomysl to Timashev, The Dream of Councillor Popov) and under the collaborational pen name of Kozma Prutkov. <b>Early life</b> A. K. Tolstoy was born in Saint Petersburg to the famed family of Tolstoy. His father, Count Konstantin Petrovich Tolstoy (1780–1870), a son of the army general, was a Russian state assignation bank councilor. His mother, Anna Alekseyevna Perovskaya (1796–1857), was an illegitimate daughter of Count Aleksey Kirillovich Razumovsky (1784–1822), an heir of the legendary Ukrainian hetman Aleksey Razumovsky. A. K. Tolstoy's uncle (on his father's side) was Fyodor Tolstoy (1783–1873). His uncle on his mother's side was Aleksey Perovsky (1787–1836), an author known under the pen name of Antony Pogorelsky. Aleksey Konstantinovich was a second cousin of Leo Tolstoy; Count Pyotr Andreyevich Tolstoy was their common great-grandfather. Konstantin Tolstoy and Anna Perovskaya's marriage was short-lived; they divorced in October 1817. With her six weeks old son Anna moved first to her own Blistava estate in Chernigov Governorate, then to Krasny Rog, belonging to her brother Aleksey Perovsky, who became Aleksey Konstantinovich's tutor and a long-time companion.
  • A People Passing Rude: British Responses to Russian Culture

    A People Passing Rude: British Responses to Russian Culture

    To access digital resources including: blog posts videos online appendices and to purchase copies of this book in: hardback paperback ebook editions Go to: https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/160 Open Book Publishers is a non-profit independent initiative. We rely on sales and donations to continue publishing high-quality academic works. A PEOPLE PASSING RUDE: BRITISH RESPONSES TO RUSSIAN CULTURE Edited by Anthony Cross Open Book Publishers CIC Ltd., 40 Devonshire Road, Cambridge, CB1 2BL, United Kingdom http://www.openbookpublishers.com © 2012 Anthony Cross et al. (contributors retain copyright of their work). The articles of this book are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Some rights are reserved. This book and digital material are made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. This license allows for copying any part of the work for personal and non-commercial use, providing author attribution is clearly stated. Details of allowances and restrictions are available at: http://www.openbookpublishers.com As with all Open Book Publishers titles, digital material and resources associated with this volume are available from our website at: http://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/160 ISBN Hardback: 978-1-909254-11-4 ISBN Paperback: 978-1-909254-10-7 ISBN Digital (PDF): 978-1-909254-12-1 ISBN Digital ebook (epub version): 978-1-909254-13-8 ISBN Digital ebook (mobi version): 978-1-909254-14-5 Cover image: Russians Teaching Boney to Dance, a caricature by George Cruikshank published on 18 May 1813 and adapted from an original 1812 caricature by Ivan Terebenev.