Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T22:01:54.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Russian Émigré Debate of 1928 on Criticism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Roger Hagglund
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Less than a year before his recent death, the distinguished émigré poet-critic Georgii Adamovich published one of his last essays in the New York Novyi Zhurnal. One section of it was particularly striking. Here was the “dean” of Russian émigré criticism and the author of hundreds of critiques and articles over the past fifty years questioning the purpose of literary criticism and whether there was a need for it at all: “In criticism … what is amazing is that behind all the innumerable articles and pieces of research, even the most penetrating of them, one never discerns the least perplexity about why, in fact, the article was written… Do Tolstoy, Dickens, and the others really require explanation and commentary ? Wasn’t Tolstoy right …that ‘criticism is when the foolish write about the wise’ ?”

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , September 1973 , pp. 515 - 526
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. “Opravdanie chernovikov,” Novyi Zhurnal (New York), no. 103 (1971), p. 87.

2. “Nevozmozhnost' poezii,” Opyty (New York), 9 (1958): 35-51; reprinted in Adamovich, G. V., Kommentarii (Washington, D.C.: Kamkin, 1967), pp. 187–208.Google Scholar

3. Gleb Struve in Russkaia literatura v izgnanii (New York: Chekhov, 1956) writes of the discussion among the émigrés about their own literature (pp. 199 ff.), and notes that the general controversies began around 1926. Three early essays touching on problems of criticism specifically were Sviatopol'k-Mirsky, D. (Mirsky, D. S.), “O nyneshnem sostoianii russkoi literatury,” Blagonamerennyi (Brussels), no. 1 (1926), pp. 90–97 Google Scholar; Marina, Tsvetaeva, “Poet o kritike,” Blagonamerennyi, no. 2 (1926), pp. 94–125 Google Scholar (reprinted in Tsvetaeva, M. I., Nesobrannye proizvedeniia [Munich: Fink, 1971], pp. 584–615 Google Scholar); and Tsetlin, Mikhail, “O literaturnoi kritike,” Novyi Korabl’ (Paris), no. 1 (1927), pp. 31–35.Google Scholar

4. V. F. Khodasevich (1886-1939) remained with Vozrozhdenie until his death. G. V. Adamovich (1894-1972) wrote for a large number of émigré publications and turned out to be one of the Russian emigration's most prolific cultural critics. Mikhail Osorgin (pseudonym of M. A. Il'in, 1878-1943) had been Russkie Vedomosti's correspondent in Italy before the Revolution. All were well-known literary figures in the Paris émigré community.

5. “Literatumaia nedelia,” Dni, Apr. 29, 1928.

6. Alexander Bakhrakh spoke of the difficulty of reviewing Sovremennye Zapiski without calling down “all the thunder of Olympus,” and then went on to tell of a young poet who claimed to have purchased not only favorable but extensive reviews of his new book in all three Paris Russian newspapers. See “V zashchitu chitatelia,” Dni, May 27, 1928.

7. Bakhrakh's jocular suggestion (ibid.) for writers insulted by critics was to call them out in the open to a duel, but not to agitate behind the scenes.

8. “Otkliki,” Poslednie Novosti, May 3, 1928.

9. “Literatumaia nedelia,” Dni, May 13, 1928.

10. “Polozhenie literaturnoi kritiki,” Vozrozhdenie, May 24, 1928.

11. Khodasevich took issue with Gippius on this question a number of times over the years. Finally in “Eshche o pisatel'skoi svobode,” Vozrozhdenie, Aug. 2, 1934, he pointed out that Gippius had been complaining of censorship for years and at the same time publishing in four different journals I

12. The well-known émigré writer, Mark Aldanov (Landau), was one of those who reviewed Osorgin's novel, Sivtsev Vrashek (in Poslednie Novosti, Mar. I5, 1928). “The artistic achievement is very remarkable,” he said. He called the novel “one of the best books in recent times.“

13. “0 kritike i ‘druzhbe, ’ “ Dni, May 27, 1928.

14. Partly for political reasons, both Adamovich and Khodasevich were at this time quite negative toward the Russian Formalists and consequently blind to their achievements. For some early statements, see Adamovich, “Literaturnye besedy,” Zveno (Paris), Jan. 5, 1925, and Khodasevich, “O formalizme i formalistakh,” Vozrozhdenie, May 10, 1927. 15. “Eshche o kritike,” Vozrozhdenie, May 31, 1928. At the end of the article, Khodasevich noted that he had read Adamovich's essay after finishing his own.

16. Iu. I. Aikhenval'd or Eichenwald (1872-1928), head critic for the Berlin émigré newspaper Rul', was killed in an accident a few months after this article of Khodasevich's was written. P. M. Bitsilli (1879-1953) contributed regularly to Sovremennye Zapiski, then various other émigré publications after the war. W. Weidlé (V. Veidle, b. 1895) writes and lectures on a broad variety of topics and lives in Paris.

17. “Literaturnaia nedelia,” Dni, June 3, 1928.

18. Nor, he concluded, punctuating his point sharply, should “writers with good names” lower themselves to the scoffing of the “Anton Krainys.“

19. Bakhrakh, “V zashchitu chitatelia.”

20. “Literaturnaia besedy,” Zveno, Apr. 27, 1925.

21. Bakhrakh, “V zashchitu chitatelia.”

22. One of the earliest articles of substance dealing with this problem was M. Tsetlin's “Emigrantskoe,” Sovremennye Zapiski (Paris), no. 32. (1927), pp. 435-41Google Scholar. Speaking mainly about prose writers, he: was skeptical that without the “home soil” of Russia a “worthy replacement” could develop.

23. Adamovich, G. V., Odinochestvo i svoboda (New York: Chekhov, 1955, p. 15.Google Scholar

24. “Prazhskie poety,” Dni, Mar. 4, 1928. Two years later Adamovich wrote that a changeover from verse to prose was being dictated by the times: “These days verse comes easily to practically nobody… Briusov once said, ‘Write prose, gentlemen.’ Now Time itself tells poets, ‘Write prose, gentlemen.’” See “Kommentarii,” Chisla (Paris), no. 2-3 (1930), p. 176.

25. “Pushkin v zhizni,” Poslednie Novosti, Jan. 13, 1927.

26. Osorgin, who understood this, agreed. The poet Nikolai Otsup took Adamovich more literally and was puzzled. See “O literaturnoi otsenke,” Dni, June 24, 1928.

27. The so-called Adamovich-Khodasevich polemic, itself a topic for a separate discussion, took place mainly in 1935. See Struve, Russkaia literatura v izgnanii, pp. 220-22. For two important essays dealing generally with the problems of émigré literature, see Adamovich, G. V., “O literature v emigratsii,” Sovremennye Zapiski Google Scholar