INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Microfilms international 300 N. ZEEB RD„ ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 8121841 O s b o r n e , D a v id L y l e RUSSIAN PHYSIOLOGICAL SKETCHES AND THE "NATURAL SCHOOL" MAN AND ENVIRONMENT IN THE 1840’S The Ohio State University PH.D. 1981 University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M I 48106 Copyright 1981 by Osborne, David Lyle All Rights Reserved RUSSIAN PHYSIOLOGICAL SKETCHES AND THE "NATURAL SCHOOL": MAN AND ENVIRONMENT IN THE 184Q's DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By David Lyle Osborne, A.B., M.A. * * "kick The Ohio State University 1981 Reading Committee: Approved By Jerzy R. Krzyzanowski, Chairman Hongor Oulanoff / Adviser Depqttment of Slavic and Frank R. Silbajoris East European Languages and Literatures For my parents, Delbert and Delores Osborne i i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many people to be thanked for their assis­ tance and support in bringing this dissertation to its com­ pletion. First of all, I wish to thank the Department of Sla­ vic and East European Languages and Literatures of The Ohio State University for its support during the years 1970-197 5, and in the later years, 1979-1981. I also wish to express my great appreciation to my adviser in this work, Professor Jerzy R. Krzyzanowski, for his willingness to pursue the project to its successful conclusion. Professor Hongor Oulanoff must be acknowledged as the inspiration for this work: his stimulating lectures on the physiological sketch and documentary prose piqued my interest in the topic. I wish to express my grati­ tude to Professor Frank Silbajoris for his critical and inci­ sive comments on the text and his careful and thorough exam­ ination of the thesis at every stage of its preparation. My thanks also go to my employer of the past three years, The Library of Congress, where I was able to use the collections to pursue my research. On a personal note, I wish to thank my parents for their quiet support and encouragement over the long and, at times, difficult period of completion. The dis­ sertation is dedicated to them. Finally, thanks to Ron and Reiko, for that night when we determined our future course. iii VITA December 20, 1948. Born - Omaha, Nebraska 1970 ................. A.B., University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 1971-1974............ Teaching Associate, Department of Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1972 ................. M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1974 ................. NDFL Fellowship, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1978-1981............ Technical Information Specialist, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. FIELD OF STUDY .... Russian Literature, Professor Jerzy R. Krzyzanowski, Adviser i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................... iii VITA ................................................ iv INTRODUCTION , ..............., .................. 1 NOTES TO INTRODUCTION............................. 20 CHAPTER ONE........................................ 22 NOTES TO CHAPTER ONE . , ....................... 46 CHAPTER TWO........................................ 49 NOTES TO CHAPTER T W O ............................. 103 CHAPTER THREE. ........................... 107 NOTES TO CHAPTER THREE ......................... 194 CHAPTER FOUR ..... ........................... 201 NOTES TO CHAPTER FOUR............................. 281 CONCLUSION.............. 286 NOTES TO CONCLUSION............................... 293 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................... 294 v INTRODUCTION Our purpose in this introductory section is to sum­ marize the major critical opinions concerning the works of the decade of the 1840's which fall under the heading of the "Natural School" (natural'naja Mkola). We shall distill the essences of these opinions and state our views concerning the relationship between these "Natural School" works and the genre known as the "physiological sketch" (fiziologi- ceskij o&erk). We shall find valid points in each scholar's work and indicate the value of his research to our study. We shall also indicate where we feel a particular analysis is not especially helpful in analyzing these works. There have been three major monographs on the works of the decade: V. V. Vinogradov's Evoljucija russkogo na- turalizma (The Evolution of Russian Naturalism) (1929), A. G. Cejtlin's Stanovlenie realizma v russkoj literature. Russkij fiziologiceskj o£erk (The Rise of Realism in Rus­ sian Literature. The Russian Physiological Sketch) (1965), and Vasilij Kulesov's Natural'naja §kola v russkoj litera­ ture XIX veka (The Natural School in 19th Century Russian Literature) (1965). Cejtlin and Kulesov completed ex­ haustive research, arriving at somewhat less than spectacu­ lar conclusions. Vinogradov's study is a thought-provoking 1 stimulating analysis of the two giants who stand at either end of the decade: Gogol' and Dostoevskij. KuleSov's emphasis is on the label itself. He is concerned whether the term "Natural School" is valid or necessary. He attacks the problem through an examination of the group's literary output in order to determine the vali­ dity of the use of "school" with regard to these writers. "When we use the term 'school' we think of an amalgam of masters around an artistic principle, or students around a teacher, some kind of intimate, special, creative closeness of writers in one direction."'*' One would draw a parallel with the "Jena" romantics or the "Lake School" of English romantic poets, coteries of artists within a larger literary movement with a platform or manifesto of creative purpose. This manifesto acts as some type of governing force. Kule^ov correctly points out that there is no manifesto or close association of writers for creative purposes, although they did interact socially. KuleSov concludes that the "Natural School" was the laboratory for all future styles of 19th century Russian 2 literature. This rather sweeping statement identifies his critical opinions. He reaches this conclusion on the basis of what he sees as the interchangeability of the terms naturalism and realism. The "Natural School" as a term 3 subsumed two concepts: realism and naturalism. The Soviet scholar views the "Natural School" as the high point in the 3 development of realism in Russian literature. This notion has obvious deficiencies when one must consider the realist prose of Dostoevskij, Turgenev, and Tolstoj later in the century. One of the problems with this judgement is the use of the term realism which, as we shall demonstrate in the following chapter, is semantically loaded. Kulesov assumes one possible definition of the label: le reel, real life, actuality. He has determined that these writers de­ picted everyday reality in their works according to the dictates of Vissarion Belinskij, the leading critic of the age. That conclusion is not totally erroneous. This is the standard Soviet approach to the problem. Realism means "critical realism": the portrayal of social evils with the intent to stimulate public awareness. It is a rejection of romantic prettifying. Such a view falls into place behind Belinskij's drive for a socially-responsive literature but is too narrow. KuleSov's interpretation fails to account for the problem of ambiguity in understanding the notion of verisimilitude: who shall determine what is "real"? Who shall determine what is verisimilitudinous? He does not address the role of the artist in the process of rendering