Cambridge Companion to Classic Russian novel

For Bakhtin, the novel was not a problem. It was a philosophy for living. While examining its dynamics there was no need to seek, nor to pose as an ideal, any all-encompassing totality. Since wholeness is achieved not at some timelessly abstract level but only in tiny personal acts of reaction and "consummation" (zavershenie), and since such acts routinely entail com-

munion with another consciousness whose reciprocal duty it is to reward us with temporary finalization in turn, the more different parts or relationships that an entity (a human being or a novel) could assemble and sustain, the healthier and more whole that organism would become. Over his long life, Bakhtin proposed four different rubrics to grasp this proliferating, diversifying spirit of the novel, each of which realized a different sort of wholeness or totality. With a survey of these four approaches, each nourished by previous Russian speculations about the genre but reducible to none of them, my own essay will conclude.³¹

Bakhtin's first focal point for the novel was polyphony, a term he coined in his book on Dostoevskii (first edition 1929, revised 1963). It describes a process by which the author supplies his protagonists with a guiding idea, places them within a minimally defined plot, and lets himself be guided by the dialogues that emerge. The idea for polyphony grew out of Bakhtin's early meditations on authors and their created heroes, inspired, some have suggested, by Christian scenarios of humility and renunciation. In an almost kenotic gesture, the polyphonic novelist voluntarily relinquishes some of his authorial rights - not, as is often mistakenly supposed, his rights to authorship, but only his right to express a truth directly, from an unreachable authoritative position. The prerogative of "direct truth" is distributed to the novel's heroes, whereupon plot events become weakened and unforeseen (just as events appear in ongoing life to their participants -hence "realistic"), and characters' thoughts and words about these events become more prominent. Their dialogues engage eternal questions, for which compositional resolution is always insufficient; thus readers from all times and locales are drawn in and encouraged to "author" as well. The entire polyphonic novel, then, becomes the locus for "creative eventness" (sobytiinost'), where all participants (author, characters, successive generations of readers) are larger than the external plot that happens to contain them. And for that reason, all parties to the novel are equally uninterested in coinciding with any predetermined or prejudged concept of a whole. Indeed, Bakhtin admits as much: such an approach to novels is not designed to yield a traditional "whole." But integrative value is not absent. Under polyphonic conditions, an ideal whole is dependent upon a sense of balance, fair play, full access, equal relations across a boundary. To be sure, this ideal of verbal receptivity and reciprocity led Bakhtin to overstate some phenomena he saw at work in Dostoevskii's prose and to ignore others. He is a poor reader of violence, of silent scenes and well-crafted endings. He greatly underestimates the grip of Apocalypse and revelation. And what is at stake with Satan's three temptations in the wilderness, "mystery, miracle, authority," cannot really be addressed within a polyphonic structure.

Bakhtin did not consider polyphony an attribute of all novels. But in every novel, he felt, some trace of the dialogic principle was always a factor. To measure this trace, he devised a typology of single- and double-voiced words (inspired by Dostoevskii and indebted to Tynianov's work on stylization and parody). Double-voicedness in a text could be mapped precisely; it had all the rigor of a Formalist "device". But now, consciousness had become the dominant.

Bakhtin's second approach to the novel was to consider it that prose genre maximally marked by heteroglossia (raznorechie, "vari-speeched-ness"). He thereby expanded the dialogic principle from individual words in local contexts to the larger arena of stylistics, and placed the novel (in opposition to the epic) squarely in a zone of tangible, "present-tense contact." Heteroglossia is also a fact of everyday life; according to Bakhtin, the tendency of all language is to fragment, multiply, individuate, and rebel. The novel, however, is not just chaotically multi-voiced; it is art, and its special artistic province is dialogized heteroglossia: different points of view embodied in "voice zones" and intentional hybridizations that test one another and question each other's boundaries and authority.

In this happy and open multiplicity, where is a sense of the whole? Here Bakhtin re-enters the field of literary history with his own thesis about the rise of the novel - but it is history of a highly eccentric sort, quite different from either liberal or Marxist-Lukacsian theories on the rise of the novel as a bourgeois epic (in matters of art, Bakhtin was never overly impressed by economic or dialectical determinants). According to his dialogic model, the vernacular novel arose in those areas and epochs - Rome, the Middle Ages - that had become mighty crossroads and "marketplaces." Hitherto self-sufficient cultural worlds exposed one another's language or world view as inadequate to any singular truth. What was once considered a whole suddenly began to be perceived as no more than a part. So the heteroglot novel, while in itself never constituting a finished whole, furthers the cause of wholeness by embracing its role as a supplement, as that which fills out and thus makes more true any singular vision of the world.

Bakhtin's third framework for studying the novel is the chronotope (literally, "time-space" marker). In certain ways it is his most traditional and accessible concept. The events of our lives, Bakhtin argues, register on us in terms of the time and space that contain them, which in turn condition the types of personality that can take shape within those parameters. Literary genres reflect these differences. In our mental fantasies as well as in our libraries, the primitive mechanical chronotopes of Greek romances and comic strips coexist with more sophisticated matrices. But Bakhtin came to believe, with a Hegelian positivism unusual for him, that all chronotopes

were not equal. The novel had a task, almost a teleology; its fate was to march forward toward ever more subtle individuations of personality. Early novels are based on chronotopes of random chance, reversible time, metamorphosis, and magic. Their unageing heroes perish or survive against an unchanging or miraculously malleable backdrop. In contrast, the most advanced novels (the prose of Goethe, Dostoevskii, and the great nineteenth-century tradition in general) value a maturing human being acting within an evolving, recognizably realistic world. In such novels, integrity and wholeness is the lot of individuals who feel themselves to be effective agents and genuine creators. Crucial to advanced chronotopes, then, is that set of virtues central to Bakhtin's early "architectonics": irreversible time, differentiated space, and answerable consciousness. For Bakhtin, the most important of these dimensions is the temporal. In complex chronotopes, personality always looks toward what it has not yet become. Its heroes do not ask: "Who am I?"; they ask, rather: "How much time do I have to become something else?"

Bakhtin's final approach to the novel is the route of the carnivalesque. It differs markedly from the other three, which are grounded in mortal time and in cumulative, personalized dialogic processes. Carnival, in contrast, is a Utopian moment: reversible, timeless, faceless, and defiant of death. Originally investigated by Bakhtin in his doctoral dissertation on Rabelais as part of an anonymous "folk culture of laughter," the carnival spirit is also manifest in pre-novelistic authored genres (menippean satire and Socratic dialogues), and in certain character-functions crucial to the novel's ability to resist centripetal "pull" toward a single center, usually by mocking social convention: the roles of the rogue, the fool, the clown. Previous Russian scholars had also linked folk carnival and laughter to the rise of the novel (for example, Veselovskii and later Leonid Pinskii). But Bakhtin capped the deed by combining their traditional literary history with the more daring, early Formalist idea that parody and travesty were the essential energy fueling the "typical novel" and its special self-consciousness.

Beginning with the idea of laughter as deliverance from terror and thus as release of new potentials, Bakhtin developed this - his fourth - marker for the novel around the body rather than the word. His earlier categorizations of the novel had been dependent upon talk, upon "how things sound"; carnival was above all an image. The distrust Bakhtin had always felt for disembodied systems now unfolded into a hymn of praise - at times trivial, at times inspiring - to the "double-bodied image" (dvutelyi obraz), a grotesque body that was as open to a Rabelaisian world of things as the "double-voiced word" (dvugolosoe slovo) is open to the world of dialogic

exchange. The wholeness or integrity to be sought in novels of this sort is nothing less than cosmic. The carnival body, and the texts that contain this body, do not know death (dying and giving birth are simultaneous); its parts are collective and interchangeable; it can ingest anything. In fact, its primary role is not to communicate personal ideas or attributes at all but merely to mediate.

And herein lies the difficulty of the carnivalesque as a theory of the novel. Above all, novels have at their disposal voices, consciousness, and time. They are sustained and speaking expanses of narrative text, encumbered with memory. Yet the productive and affirmative aspects of carnival are all contained in an allegorical timeless instant, in what Bakhtin calls the "ephemeral truth" that is inherent in "the victory of laughter over fear." This victory is the realization that things can be different, that death need not be terrifying, that even a Great Terror - at least from within one's own consciousness - can be laughed down.³² The fact that these moments pass, are embedded in violence, or are brought on by hallucination or drunken ecstasy does not distress Bakhtin. Carnival time and space works in Utopian novels, not in mimetic ones; it is not responsible enough, nor enough attached to real personalities, to be embodied over a sustained period in realistic novels with advanced chronotopes. Bakhtin can create his dazzling reading of Rabelais only by paring off its Renaissance humanism.

Bakhtin's vision of the carnivalesque novel has become the most contested aspect of his legacy. For all its popularity in the sheltered academies of the West, in real-life post-Soviet Russia the carnivalesque has been seen more often as a Stalinist idea, an embodiment of the Big Grinning Lie that only a wholly deluded or drunken populace could tolerate. Indifferent to real death, to individual privacy, to sane modes of productivity, the carnival vision has seemed to many of Bakhtin's compatriots as one more example of those sorry Russian extremes, Utopia and anarchy. When the dust finally settles on carnival, its most durable identity might well prove to be not its materialist, monist, or grotesque veneer but rather its association with such doctrinally central aspects of Eastern Orthodox Christian thought as the anti-Platonic elevation of matter, the miracle of Incarnation, and a commitment to salvation in and through the body.³³

What can be said, in summary, about Bakhtin's contribution to Russian theories of the novel? His corpus of thought is not a synthesis of Russian thought on the subject, and for two reasons. The first has to do with the nature of Bakhtinian "struggle." From Hegel's Aesthetics to the present, the novel has been defined in terms of the human beings who sorrow or triumph within it: the novel is either "a conflict between the poetry of the

heart and the prose of everyday life that opposes it" (the sentiment is Hegel's), or it is the subjective inner struggle of isolated personalities against a rational, hostile, objective world. Bakhtin embraces struggle, but at the level of words, not personal fates. For him, the novel is above all the home of many wonderful, unwinnable, unlosable wars with words. It does not need any special pathos of loss, and can always be read as inspiration by anyone who is still alive and able to talk back.

And second: on balance, this most energetic and inspired theorist of the novel was not particularly in quest of a theory. For theories ultimately require a grouping together of attributes, a search for similarities, a setting-up of patterns whereby like attracts like and the unlike is subordinated in an explicit hierarchy. And for all his strengths as a taxonomer, this Bakhtin is reluctant to do. Differences, endlessly proliferating, attract him far more. He values the novelistic genre as the best ground for fostering a climate of differentiated communication: thus novels grow effortlessly out of hetero-glossia, all languages have potentially equal rights, and the novelist ideally becomes the benign organizer of a symposium. But is this in fact why most novels are written? The deeper one looks into Bakhtin's concept of the novel, the more it becomes a mixing chamber of virtues, tolerance, philosophy, spiritual consolation. Like so much of what is richest in Russian philosophy, Bakhtin on the novel is exceptionalist, shapeless, inspirational - and attempts too much. His conclusions, examined closely, often do not answer to the specific realities of the text, nor of literary history. And the closer, therefore, his remarkable body of thought resembles both the practice and the criticism of Russian novels themselves, a verdict that Bakhtin would welcome with a smile.

NOTES

1. Aleksandr Veselovskii, "Istoriia ili teoriia romana?," in A. N. Veselovskii, Izbrannye stat'i, éd. M. P. Alekseev et al. (Leningrad: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1939), pp. 3-2.2, especially p. zz.

z. E. M. Meletinskii, Vvedenie v istoricheskuiu poetiku eposa i romana (Moscow: Nauka, 1986); G. N. Pospelov, entry on "Roman," in V. M. Friche and A. V. Lunacharskii (eds.), Literaturnaia entsiklopediia, 11 vols. (Moscow, 19Z9-39), vol. IX, pp. 773-95. See also Arpad Kovacs, "On the Methodology of the Theory of the Novel: Bachtin, Lukacs, Pospelov," in Studia Slavica Hungarica, 16 3/4 (19801,378-93.

3. See Georg Lukacs, The Theory of the Novel, trans. Anna Bostock (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1971); Georg Lukacs, Studies in European Realism (New York: Universal Library, 1964); and, for the best secondary study of Lukacs's literary criticism in any language, J. M. Bernstein, The Philosophy of

the Novel: Lukacs, Marxism and the Dialectics of Form (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984).

4. B. A. Griftsov, Teoriia romana (Moscow: Gosudarstvennaia akademiia khudo-zhestvennykh nauk, 1927). Further page references given in text.

5. Michel Aucouturier, "The Theory of the Novel in Russia in the 1930s: Lukacs and Bakhtin," in John Garrard (ed.), The Russian Novel from Pushkin to Pasternak (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), pp. 227-40, especially 227-28.

6. V. G. Belinskii, "Literary Reveries (An Elegy in Prose)," trans, anon., in Christine Rydel (ed.), The Ardis Anthology of Russian Romanticism (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1984), pp. 450-70, especially p. 466.

7. See "Address Delivered to the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers" (August 17, 1934), trans. Julius Katzer, in Maxim Gorkii, On Literature (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1973), pp. 228-68.

8. Donald Fänger, "The Russianness of the Russian Nineteenth-Century Novel," in Theofanis George Stavrou (ed.), Art and Culture in Nineteenth-Century Russia (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983), pp. 40-56.

9. For two classic theoretical treatments, see Katerina Clark, The Soviet Novel: History as Ritual (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1981), and Gary Saul Morson, "Socialist Realism and Literary Theory," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 38/2 (Winter 1979), 121-33.

10. Abram Tertz (Andrei Siniavskii), "The Trial Begins" and "On Socialist Realism" (1959), trans. George Dennis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), pp. 147-219. In practice, Tertz argues, Socialist Realism is much closer to the eighteenth century (the impulse to exalt and memorialize, "religious self-conceit") than to the corrosive nineteenth century, so governed by parody and irony. "Socialist realism starts from an ideal image to which it adapts the living reality," Tertz concludes: this is either classicism or "revolutionary romanticism," but it is not a form of Realism.

11. The best discussions of this aspect of Dostoevskii's aesthetics in English remain: Robert Louis Jackson, Dostoevsky's Quest for Form: A Study of his Philosophy of Art (Pittsburgh: Physsardt, 1978), especially chapter 5, "Two Kinds of Beauty"; and Joseph Frank, Dostoevsky: The Stir of Liberation, 1860-1865 (Princeton University Press, 1986), especially chapter 7, "An Aesthetics of Transcendence."

12. See Viktor Shklovskii, Theory of Prose (1925), trans. Benjamin Sher (Elmwood Park, 111.: Dalkey Archive Press, 1990), chapters 3-7.

13. Jurij Striedter, Literary Structure, Evolution, and Value: Russian Formalism and Czech Structuralism Reconsidered (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989), part 1, "The Formalist Theory of Prose and Literary Evolution," especially pp. 25-26. Further page references in text.

14. From "The Structure of Fiction," chapter 3 of Shklovskii, Theory of Prose, p. 62.

15. Viktor Shklovskii, "Literature without a Plot: Rozanov," chapter 9 in Shklovskii, Theory of Prose, 189-205; quote occurs on p. 201.

16. Eikhenbaurn's writings on prose most relevant to a theory of the novel are: "How Gogol's Overcoat is Made" (1918), trans. Robert A. Maguire, in Maguire (ed.), Gogol from the Twentieth Century (Princeton University Press,

1974); PP- 2-67-91; "On Tolstoi's Crises" (19x0) (see note 18); Molodoi Tolstoi (Petersburg: Z. I. Grzhebin, 1922), trans, as The Young Tolstoy by Gary Kern (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1972); Lermontov: A Study in Literary-Historical Evaluation (1924), trans. Ray Parrott and Harry Weber (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1981).

17. For a fine discussion, see Carol Any, Boris Eikhenbaum: Voices of a Russian Formalist (Stanford University Press, 1994), especially chapters 2 and 3.

18. Boris Eikhenbaum, "O krisizakh Tolstogo" (1920), published in Skvoz' litera-turu: sbornik statei (Leningrad: Academiia, 1924), trans, as "On Tolstoi's Crises" in Victor Erlich (ed.), Twentieth-Century Russian Literary Criticism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), pp. 97-101.

19. Tynianov, "Dostoevskii i Gogol': ? teorii parodii" (Petrograd: OPOIAZ, 1921); translation of part I as "Dostoevskii and Gogol: Towards a Theory of Parody, Part One: Stylization and Parody," in Priscilla Meyer and Stephen Rudy (trans. and eds.), Dostoevskii amp; Gogol: Texts and Criticism (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1979), pp. 101-17; translation of part ? by Victor Erlich as Jurij Tynjanov, "Dostoevskii and Gogol," in Erlich (ed.), Twentieth-Century Russian Literary Criticism, pp. 102-16.

20. See especially Jurij Tynjanov, "On Literary Evolution" (1927), in Ladislav Matejka and Krystyna Pomorska (eds.), Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Slavic Publications, 1978), pp. 66-78.

21. See, for example, their Russkaia proza (1926), translated into English as: B. Eikhenbaum and Yu. Tynianov, Russian Prose, trans, and ed. Ray Parrott (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1985).

22. Lidiia Ginzburg, "Razgovor ? literaturovedenii," in ? starom i novom: stat'i i ocherki (Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel', 1982), pp. 43-58, especially pp. 46-47.

23. Lydia Ginzburg, On Psychological Prose, trans, and ed. Judson Rosengrant (Princeton University Press, 1991). Page numbers included in the text.

24. In an otherwise excellent translation, Judson Rosengrant renders this key word as "causal conditionality," which obscures the participial, "acted-upon" quality so central to the term.

25. For an expansion of this idea, see Gary Saul Morson, Hidden in Plain View: Narrative and Creative Potentials in "War and Peace" (Stanford University Press, 1987), especially chapter 1, "Tolstoy's Absolute Language," pp. 9-36.

26. See Yuri M. Lotman, "Symbolic Spaces," in Lotman, Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture, trans. Ann Shukman (London: I. B. Tauris ôc Co., 1990), pp. 171-201, especially 185-91.

27. These essays are translated as The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981).

28. This task is accomplished in Bakhtin, "The Problem of Content, Material, and Form in Verbal Art" (1924), trans. Kenneth Brostrom and included as a Supplement in Bakhtin, Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical Essays by M. M. Bakhtin, ed. Michael Holquist and Vadim Liapunov (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990), pp. 257-325. For a summary and simplification, see Gary Saul Morson and Caryl Emerson, Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics (Stanford University Press, 1990), pp. 78-83.

29. In Bakhtin's opinion, we can never be passive analysts, because an object

acquires specificity only once we have assumed a relationship toward it. "It is this relationship that determines an object and its structure, and not the reverse; only when a relationship becomes capricious or arbitrary from our side does the world begin to disintegrate, do we risk to succumb to the power of the random, and do we begin to lose ourselves as well as the stable determinateness of the world" (my translation). See Bakhtin, "Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity," in Bakhtin, Art and Answerability, p. 5.

30. For a reasoned discussion of this difference, see Prabhakara Jha, "Lukacs, Bakhtin and the Sociology of the Novel," Diogenes, 129 (Spring 1985), 63-90, especially 73.

31. These four approaches are covered in more detail and from a different angle in Morson and Emerson, Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics, chapter 6 (for polyphony); pp. 139-42 and 309-17 (for heteroglossia); chapter 9 (for the chronotope); and chapter 10 (for the carnivalesque).

32. Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and his World, trans. Hélène Iswolsky (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), pp. 90-91: "It was the victory of laughter over fear that most impressed medieval man . . . Through this victory laughter clarified man's consciousness and gave him a new outlook on life. This truth was ephemeral; it was followed by the fears and oppressions of everyday life, but from these brief moments another unofficial truth emerged …"

33. For discussions of carnival and its implications for prose from this perspective, see Charles Lock, "Carnival and Incarnation: Bakhtin and Orthodox Theology," Journal of Literature and Theology, 5, 1 (March 1991), 68-82; and Alexandar Mihailovic's Corporeal Words: Mikhail Bakhtin's Theology of Discourse (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1997), chapters 5 and 6.

GUIDE TO FURTHER READING

For reasons of space, this list is restricted to books, mostly published in English within the last two decades. They have been selected by the editors from lists of further reading provided by the contributors. Many of them contain further extensive bibliographies of their own.

Allen, Elizabeth Cheresh and Morson, Gary Saul (eds.), Freedom and Responsibility

in Russian Literature (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1995). Antsiferov, N.R, Dusha Peterburga (St. Petersburg: Brokgauz-Efron, 1922, repr.

Paris: YMCA Press, 1978). Bakhtin, M.M., The Dialogic Imagination, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael

Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981). Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, trans. Caryl Emerson (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1981). Belaia, Galina, Zakonomernosti stilevogo razvitiia sovetskoi prozy (Moscow:

Nauka, 1977). Belknap, Robert (ed.), Russianness: Studies of a Nation's Identity (Ann Arbor:

Ardis, 1990). Berlin, Isaiah, Russian Thinkers (London: Hogarth Press, 1978). Berman, Marshall, All that is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity

(London: Verso, 1983). Bernstein, J.M., The Philosophy of the Novel: Lukacs, Marxism and the Dialectics

of Form (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984). Bethea, David, The Shape of Apocalypse in Modern Russian Fiction (Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1989). Billington, James H., The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian

Culture (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966). Bradbury, Malcolm, and McFarlane, James (eds.), Modernism 1890-1930 (Har-

mondsworth: Penguin, 1976). Brown, Deming, Soviet Russian Literature since Stalin (Cambridge University Press,

1978). The Last Years of Soviet Russian Literature: Prose Fiction, 1975-1991 (Cambridge University Press, 1993). Brown, Edward J., Russian Literature since the Revolution, rev. edn (Cambridge

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982). Brown, Edward J. (ed.), Major Soviet Writers: Essays in Criticism (New York:

Oxford University Press, 1973).

Bushmin, A.S. et al. (eds.), lstoriia russkogo romana, 2 vols. (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1962-64).

Chances, Ellen, Conformity's Children: An Approach to the Superfluous Man in Russian Literature (Columbus: Slavica, 1978).

Clark, Katerina, The Soviet Novel: History as Ritual, 2nd edn, repr. with a new afterword (University of Chicago Press, 1985). Petersburg: Crucible of Cultural Revolution (Cambridge University Press, 1995).

Clyman, T.W. and Green, D. (eds.), Women Writers in Russian Literature (West-port, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1994).

Dolgopolov, L., Na rubezhe vekov: ? russkoi literature kontsa XIX - nachala XX veka (Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel', 1977).

Eikhenbaum, B. and Tynianov, Yuriy, Russian Prose, trans, and ed. Ray Parrot (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1985).

Erlich, Victor, Modernism and Revolution: Russian Literature in Transition (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994).

Fänger, Donald, Dostoevsky and Romantic Realism: A Study of Dostoevsky in Relation to Balzac, Dickens and Gogol (University of Chicago Press, 1965).

Fennell, J.L.I., The Emergence of Moscow 13 04-1359 (London: Seeker and Warburg, 1968).

Freeborn, Richard, The Rise of the Russian Novel: Studies in the Russian Novel from "Eugene Onegin" to "War and Peace" (Cambridge University Press,

1973)-The Russian Revolutionary Novel: Turgenev to Pasternak (Cambridge University

Press, 1982). Garrard, John (ed.), The Russian Novel from Pushkin to Pasternak (New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1983). Gibian, George, Interval of Freedom: Soviet Literature During the Thaw

1954-7957 (Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press, i960). Gibian, George, and Tjalsma, H.W. (eds.), Russian Modernism: Culture and the

Avant-Garde, 1900-1930 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1976). Gifford, Henry, The Novel in Russia: From Pushkin to Pasternak (London:

Hutchinson, 1964). Gillespie, David, The Twentieth Century Russian Novel (Oxford: Berg, 1996). Ginzburg, Lydia M., On Psychological Prose, trans, and ed. Judson Rosengrant

(Princeton University Press, 1991). Golubkov, M.M., Utrachennye al'ternativy: formirovanie monisticheskoi kont-

septsii sovetskoi literatury: 20-30-e gody (Moscow: Nasledie, 1992). Grivtsov, Boris, Teoriia romana (Moscow: Gosudarstvennaia akademiia khudoz-

hestvennykh nauk, 1927). Hamm, Michael F. (ed.), The City in Russian History (Lexington: The University

Press of Kentucky, 1976). Hayward, Max, Writers in Russia (London: Harvill, 1983). Hayward, Max, and Labedz, Leopold (eds.), Literature and Revolution in Soviet

Russia 1917-62 (London: Oxford University Press, 1963). Heldt, Barbara, Terrible Perfection: Women and Russian Literature (Bloomington

and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1987). Hosking, Geoffrey A., Beyond Socialist Realism: Soviet Fiction since Ivan Deniso-

vich (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1979).

Kasack, Wolfgang, Dictionary of Russian Literature since 1917 (New York:

Columbia University Press, 1988). Kelly, Catriona, An Anthology of Russian Women's Writing, 1777-1992 (Oxford

University Press, 1994). A History of Russian Women's Writing 1810-1991 (Oxford University Press,

1994)-Kemp-Welch, A., Stalin and the Literary Intelligentsia 1918-39 (London: Mac-

millan, 1991). Layton, Susan, Russian Literature and Empire, Conquest of the Caucasus from

Pushkin to Tolstoy (Cambridge University Press, 1994). Ledkovsky, M., Rosenthal, C, and Zirin, M. (eds.), A Dictionary of Russian

Women Writers (Westpost, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1994). Leighton, Lauren, Russian Romanticism: Two Essays (The Hague: Mouton, 1975). Lotman, lu. L, (ed.), Semiotika goroda i gorodskoi kul'tury: Peterburg (Tartu:

Uchennye zapiski Tartuskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, 664, Trudy po

znakovym sistemam, 18, 1984). Maguire, Robert. "Red Virgin Soil" Soviet Literature in the 1910s (Princeton

University Press, 1968). Mathewson Jr., Rufus, The Positive Hero in Russian Literature (New York:

Columbia University Press, 1958) Meletinskii, E.M., Vvedenie v istoricheskuiu poetiku eposa i romana (Moscow:

Nauka, 1986). Mersereau Jr., John, Russian Romantic Fiction (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1983). Moser, Charles A., Antinihilism in the Russian Novel of the 1860s (The Hague:

Mouton, 1964). Moser, Charles A. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Russian Literature, rev. edn

(Cambridge University Press, revised edition, 1992). Morson, Gary Saul, Narrative and Freedom: The Shadows of Time (New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1994). Muchnic, Helen, From Gorky to Pasternak: Six Modern Russian Writers (London:

Methuen, 1963). Nabokov, Vladimir, Lectures on Russian Literature, ed. Fredson Bowers (London:

Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1982). Paperno, Irina, and Delaney, Joan, Creating Life: The Aesthetic Utopia of Russian

Modernism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994). Parthé, Kathleen F., Russian Village Prose: The Radiant Past (Princeton University

Press, 1992). Praz, Mario, The Romantic Agony, trans. Angus Davidson, 2nd edn (Oxford

University Press, 1970). Reeve, Franklin, The Russian Novel (New York: McGraw Hill, 1966) Ryan-Hayes, Karen, Contemporary Russian Satire: A Genre Study (Cambridge

University Press, 1995). Sakharov, Vsevolod, Stranitsy russkogo romantizma (Moscow: Sovetsakaia Rossiia,

1988). Seeley, Frank F., From the Heyday of the Superfluous Man to Chekhov (Nottingham: Astra Press, 1994). Shatalov, S.E., et al. (eds.), Istoriia romantizma v russkoi literature. Romantizm v

russkoi literature 10-30-x godov XIXv. (1815-40) (Moscow: Nauka, 1979).

Shepherd, David, Beyond Metafiction: Self-consciousness in Soviet Literature

(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.). Shklovskii, Viktor, Theory of Prose (1925), trans. Benjamin Sher (Elmwood Park,

111.: Dalkey Archive Press, 1990). Simmons, Ernest J., Russian Fiction and Soviet Ideology: Introduction to Fedin,

Leonov and Sbolokhov (Stanford University Press, 1990). Slonim, Marc, Modern Russian Literature from Chekhov to the Present (New York:

Oxford University Press, 1953). Soviet Russian Literature: Writers and Problems, 1917-1977, 2nd edn (New

York: Oxford University Press, 1977). Striedter, Jurij, Der Schelmenroman in Russland: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des

russischen Romans vor Gogol' (Berlin: Harrassowitz, 1961). Struve, Gleb, Russian Literature under Lenin and Stalin (New York: Routledge and

Kegan Paul, 1971). Terras, Victor, A History of Russian Literature (New Haven: Yale University Press,

1991). Terras, Victor (ed.), Handbook of Russian Literature (New Haven: Yale University

Press, 1985). Tertz, Abram (Andrei Siniavskii), On Socialist Realism (New York: Pantheon,

1961). Todd III, William Mills, The Familiar Letter as a Literary Genre in the Age of

Pushkin (Princeton University Press, 1976). Fiction and Society in the Age of Pushkin: Ideology, Institutions, and Narrative

(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986). Todd III, William Mills (ed.), Literature and Society in Imperial Russia, 1800-1914

(Stanford University Press, 1978). Vogué, Eugène Marie Melchior de, Le roman russe (Paris: Plon-Nourrit, 1886). Wachtel, Andrew Baruch, The Battle for Childhood: Creation of a Russian Myth

(Stanford University Press, 1990). An Obsession with History: Russian Writers Confront the Past (Stanford

University Press, 1994). Wellek, René , A History of Modern Criticism 1750-1950, 7 vols. (New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1970-91), vol. vii, Criticism on the Continent of Europe

1900-1950. Zelinsky, Bodo (ed.), Der russische Roman (Düsseldorf: August Bagel Verlag,

1979)-