10 S. XL MAR. 27, 1909.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
259
NOTES ON BOOKS, &c.
A Literary History of Russia. By A. Bruckner, Professor of Slavonic Languages and. Literature in the University of Berlin. Edited by Ellis H. Minns, late Fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge. Translated by H. Havelock. (Fisher Unwin. )
PROF. BRUCKNER has compiled a comprehensive history of Russian literary life from earliest writers down to the exponent of Jewish conditions, Chirikov, and the novelist Petrov (Skitalets), and in many respects he has met an urgent need. In days long past the scholarly translation by Mr. J. Cox of Dr. F. Otto's German history of Russian literature formed an excellent introduction to Slavonic studies. Dr. Eugen Zabel in Germany, and the Viscount de Vogiii in France, inter olios, have written critical studies of Russian authors ; and of making books on Tolstoy there is no end. In Russian the illustrated work of P. Polevoi is a mine of wealth down to the end of last century; and it is no disparagement to Prof. Bruckner's history to rank it below the standard of that of Polevoi, which abounds in biographical sketches, facsimiles of manuscripts, heraldry, and copious extracts from ancient and modern authors. The Professor expresses his indebtedness to Ska- bichevsky's history of literature and the censor- ship, and dismisses Polevoi rather briefly.
From the editorial introduction we gather that the author is a Pole, which will explain his fre- quently unsympathetic attitude towards the Russian Church and Russian men of letters. It comes as a shock to read that the object of Cyril and Methodius, the Apostles of the Slavs, was anything but the good of those among whom they laboured, and that the " dragon's teeth " sown by the missionaries " bore fruit " under the Moscow Grand Dukes. We think it unlikely that the universal veneration for these great names will be materially shaken. It would seem as if the cramped and cumbrous Glagolithic alphabet, as well as Cyrillic, was the invention of the first Slav missionaries, whereas the former, though indebted to the latter, is generally considered to be the invention of some Dalmatian monk. It was long ascribed to St. Jerome. Our author's account of the introduction of Greek Christianity is marked by prejudice, and he has an aversion to " Slovenic " and " Slovenisms " terms which lack definition. The editor points out more than once that the author's views of the Church require modification. He quotes with evident relish Chaadaev's satirical letter, and Herzen's hideous criticism, in the chapter on the Slavophiles. The narrative ends with the year 1905, and a final editorial note states that recent events have produced " complete confusion " in literature, as in everything else in Russia.
The treatment of authors and periods varies, as might be expected ; the account of the literary activity of the Empress Catherine is the most complete we know. The parallel between Ivan IV. and Peter the Great is forced, and the allusion to Peter and Alexis is all in favour of the latter. It is said of Pushkin's historical activity that " nothing came of it beyond the collecting of materials for ' Peter the Great ' and ' Pugachov's
Revolt.' The former projected work was inter-
rupted by Pushkin's fatal duel, but the latter is
complete and full of interest. We do not think
that the Slavophile movement " seems finally
buried," though it may have receded of late
years. It is not always clear whether the author
of a novel or a hero is speaking : is Tolstoy or
Levin set right by Khomyakov (p. 382) ? There
is plenty of fun over the Censorship now much
relaxed with the amusing story of Pushkin's
crows settling on church crosses. Discussions of
" art for art's sake " and " art for life's sake "
occur at frequent intervals. We learn that
Russian writers have anticipated Western
authors, e.g., we are informed that Dostoievsky
anticipated Nietzsche, Bourget, and Maeterlinck,
described " decadents " before that term was
invented, and even parodied Nietzsche before his
arrival. There were Tolstoyan preachers before
Tolstoy (the Polish Arians) ; Saltikov anticipated
Dostoievsky ; and Pomalyovsky was before
Gorky. There are severe remarks with regard
to translators presumably German who render
garbage," and many have worked not from
Russian, but from a French medium. As to-
Russian translators, while Pushkin rendered
Mickiewicz and other authors, the names of
Gnedich and Zhukovsky are far more widely
known than his in this field. A. N. Maikov's
shortsightedness had to do with his relinquishing
the brush for the pen. We think that 1820 is
late for the birth of the Russian classics. Was
it the professors or the doctors who " conjured the
Government that it should place confidence in
society " (p. 543) ?
The translator has endeavoured to convey the sense of the original at the risk, he says, " of making his own style heavy " ; but we regret that heaviness is not the sole charge to be brought against his work. Sentences are often involved and far from lucid, parentheses abound, punctua- tion is often defective, and editorial supervision- should have been closer. It is irritating to read that " one would think that one had Polish printed in Cyrillic before one," and that Derz- havin's productions are invaded by " nymphs and naiads and that sort of thing." " Lear- mouth " is no doubt a printer's error for the name of Lermontov's ancestor ; and " B. Paris " is wrongly given as the author of ' Russia and Reform. ' Sich ' is not the name of the Zaporo- zhian Cossack settlement ; and " Shopets " should be Skopets. ' War and Peace ' appears to be ascribed to Dostoievsky (p. 392). " Mac- Kennan " must mean Mr. George Kennan, the American writer on prison life. We do not admire the renderings " laboriously - to - be - worked - out formula," Herzen's " wheelabouts d contre-cceur," " the age where the publicans drive the Apostles out of the Temple," " Herzen done for," "awfully reactionary," and the use of " just." The poet " Fet " is sometimes " Foth " and sometimes " Foeth." The name of Milukov (error in index) belongs to two prominent authors, one of whom is a leading politician. Why does " first real em- bassy " appear at the top of p. 59 ? We read of Turgenev's ' Notes of a Sportsman,' and later of ' Annals ' ; and Dostoievsky's novel is ' Devils ' in most places, but ' Demons ' in one. " The latter " of four names is incorrect. The " Old Gentleman's " question (p. 491) is neither French nor Russian, and bewilders the reader. The use of the word " Nicholaitan " in two places for
