Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review

Review
Author(s): Steven Cassedy
Review by: Steven Cassedy
Source: The Russian Review, Vol. 58, No. 3 (Jul., 1999), pp. 492-493
Published by: Wiley on behalf of Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2679426
Accessed: 31-10-2015 20:41 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Russian Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 37.232.76.91 on Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:41:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

492

The Russian Review

Another
"simulacrist,"
Dostoevsky,
is seenas themasterofcounter-carnivalistic
scandalscenes
in whichpeople "spill out" theirgrotesqueminds,as opposed to the grotesquebodies of the
Bakhtiniancarnival. Angst,whennot sharedin scandalousacts of communication,
turnsinto
sterile"anxietyof influence"in thecase of theimpotent
copyistVasia (in "A FaintHeart")." He
refusesto "copysomeoneelse's text[and to] let another'sseed intohis text";he wantsto "write
underhisownpower,usingonlyhis own 'fluid"'(p. 275). ClearlyVasia shouldlearnthat"misprision"is theonlywayto deal withthepast,whichotherwise
mustremaina blankpage. Lachmann's
analysisof thisearlyDostoevskystoryis wonderfully
original.Regardlessof whether
Dostoevsky
intentionally
placed such a stratum
of meaningintohis story,he (who was called a "readerof
withouta source"
genius"byAl'fredBem) wouldundoubtedly
agreethat"thereis no originality
and thatbeinga "copyist"is whata creatoris. Unlesshe is a "transformationist"
likeVladimir
Kazakov.His 1970novelMistakeof he Livingrepliesto Khlebnikov's
TheMistakeofDeath while
also offering
a rewrite
of Dostoevsky'sTheIdiot. In fact,theanagrammatic
presenceof thisnovel
is thefactorthatgivescoherenceto Kazakov's text.Here "text,intertext,
and metatext"
(p. 317)
mingleinclosejuxtaposition,
yielding
an"anarchicintertextuality"
thatdefiedtheSovietmonologism
of Kazakov's times.
Theresimplyis no space to discussLachmann'srichworkto the extentit deserves. This
unschooledreviewer
has omitted
all discussionofthechapterson Potebnia,Jakobson,
linguistically
andothers.She has noted,however,
divisionof theword(outer
thatPotebniawithhis three-tiered
and signified)opens up theroad to the"intertextuality
of text
sign,innersign,or,interpretant,
in Lachmann'soverall
the"intertextuality
reception"
(p. 29) thatcomplements
of textproduction"
andtheoryof intertextuality.
In concludingmydiscussionofherwork,I wouldliketo
philosophy
in whichLachmann'sapproachto intertextuality
is said to give "another
quoteIser's "Foreword,"
lease on lifeto thehumanistic
in recognistudyof literature"
(p. xviii). Iser offersthisstatement
tionof the factthatLachmann'sexhaustivestudyof the topic speaks for(Heidegger's)lenes
counterbalances
that,in "recomposing,
decomposing"(p. xvi). Lachmanndraws
Gegenwendige
theline forvalidintertextuality
at therecomposing
the
point(howeverextreme)notrecognizing
becomesdestruction,
or completeoblivion.Cultureis createdon
pointbeyondwhichrecomposing
theprecariousbalancebetweenthetwo-a balance thatmustneverbe tippedover,howeverfar
contribution
from"The
"stretching"
maygo. This reviewerhopes thatLachmann'simportant
KonstanzSlavistSchool" willfindthebroadecho it thoroughly
deserves,eventhoughit demands
a greatdeal of active"cooperation"
in thereadingprocess.
Irene Masing-Delic,Ohio State University
Pavel. ThePillar and GroundoftheTruth.Florensky,
An Essay in Orthodox
Theodicyin Twelve
Letters.Translated
by BorisJakim.Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press,1998. xxiii+ 595
pp. $49.50. ?35.00.
AnyonewhohaseverreadPavelFlorensky's
ThePillarand Groundofthe
Truth
(Stolpiutverzahdenie
reel in horrorat thenotionof translating
it intoany
istiny,1914) in Russianwouldundoubtedly
language.It is a workofRussianOrthodoxtheology(theauthorcalls ita "theodicy"
in thesubtitle)
and is therefore
filledwithdozens of termsthathave bedeviledtranslators
of Russianreligious
foryears. In addition,Florensky,
intellectuals
of all time,
writing
one of themostwide-ranging
easilymovesfromreligiousthought
intonumerous
fieldsof artistic
andintellectual
cites
endeavor,
sources,and engagesin extendeddiscussions,completewithspecializedterms.
A translation
of a worklikethisis also an edition,whichmeansthatthetranslator
and editor
(if theyare thesame person)needsto serveas an intermediary
betweentheoriginaltextand the
readersof the translation.Florensky'stextpresentsa dauntingset of quandaries. Studentsof
ingeneral,in additiontoFlorensky
Russianculture,
Russianreligiousthought,
andreligiousthought
of Russian,has
specialists,can all rejoicethatBorisJakim,an independent
scholarand translator

This content downloaded from 37.232.76.91 on Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:41:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews

493

undertakenthe colossal task of translatingFlorensky'swork into English. An admittedly

and
comparisonwiththeoriginaltextshowsthatJakimhas provideda thoughtful
nonexhaustive
terms,
untranslatable
WhereRussiantheologicallanguagegives us virtually
accuratetranslation.
Jakimgenerallymakesa carefulchoice and explainsthatchoice. He has chosento transliterate
wordsin non-Romanalphabets(thougha readerwho knowsGreekand Hebrewwill finda few
mistakesin Jakim'shandlingof thoselanguages).Florensky'sbook includesover a thousand
pages,andJakimhas wiselychosentopreservethem.Even
to overtwohundred
running
endnotes,
that
will be delightedto findsomething
thespecialistwho has no need of an Englishtranslation
readermightcomplain
didnotprovide-an indexto thiswork(thougha verydemanding
Florensky
thattheindexis notmorecomplete).
withoutproblems,mostof themconnectedwitheditorialdecisions.
The book is notentirely
to
a numberof Russianthinkers,
sparingly-toidentify
Jakimas editorhas optedto use footnotes
and to clarifya minorpointhereand there.While
doctrine,
of Christian
elucidatea fewmatters
are usefuland accurate(despiteJakim'sexcessiverelianceon encyclopedia
mostof thefootnotes
why,for
expertise),thereadercannothelp wondering
articlesratherthanon his own impressive
while
example,in a noteon theSlavophiles,AlekseiKhomiakovis givenan extendedtreatment,
whyJakimhas chosento devotea
Ivan Kireevskiiis givena singlesentence,or,forthatmatter,
mentions.The obviousanswer
butnotto manyothersthatFlorensky
to thesetwothinkers
footnote
readermight
forall thenamesthata reasonablyeducatednon-Russian
is thatto supplyfootnotes
Anotheroption,however,
notrecognizewouldbe to increasethelengthof thebook inordinately.
butto limitthemto essentialinformawouldhavebeen to providea greaternumberof footnotes
tion.
one of theWest'stop specialistsin Russianreligious
Jakimcalled on RichardF. Gustafson,
thought
ofFlorensky's
hasemphasizeda dimension
Gustafson
towritea briefintroduction.
thought,
must
pointsoutthatFlorensky
dimension.He rightly
namelytheaesthetic
thatis oftenoverlooked,
thathe belongsas
at leastin part,as a memberof theRussianSymbolistgeneration,
be regarded,
muchin thecompanyof suchfiguresas AndreiBelyiandViacheslavIvanovas in thecompanyof
likeVladimirSolov'ev and SergeiBulgakov. In a perfectworld,one thatimreligiousthinkers
on thelengthofJakim'sbook,I wouldhavelikedto hearmorefroma scholar
posedno constraints
like Gustafsonon thepurelyreligiousissues in Florenskyand theintellectualcontextof these
issues.

thisbook mayhaveare trulyminor.Bringinga projectlikethis

In theend,anyshortcomings
arebusydiscovAt a timewhenRussiansthemselves
achievement.
is a monumental
tocompletion
to
heritage,it is heartening
hiddentreasuresfromtheirculturaland intellectual
eringpreviously
theworkofone of
ofdiscovering
worldwillnowhavetheprivilege
knowthattheEnglish-speaking
minds.
Russia's mostastonishing
StevenCassedy,Universityof California,San Diego
FantasticProse and theEnd ofSovietLiterature,
Peterson,NadyaL. SubversiveImaginations-1970s-1990s. Boulder:WestviewPress,1997. xii + 216 pp. $49.95.
usefulbook examinesfantasticprosefictionfromthe 1970s to theend of the
This interesting,
inof "fantasy"to encompassanynarrative
Sovietperiodin 1990-91, usinga broaddefinition
stancesthatcannotbe explainedrationally.Peterson'sworkincludes"updatedsocialistrealism"
(especiallytheworkof Aitmatov),sciencefiction,villageprose,urbanand bytprose,social and
periodfocuseson
Kim,and Makanin),and in theperestroika
prose(by Evdokimov,
philosophical
literatrendand some worksof "alternative
nationalist
of theconservative,
publicisticliterature
ture." The level of "fantasy"in theworksdiscussedby Petersonvariesgreatly-onemightwell
and earlyPetrushevskaia?
are theworksof Bondarev,Trifonov,
ask: how "fantastic"

This content downloaded from 37.232.76.91 on Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:41:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions