Abstract
Even within the magnificent ‘golden age’ of Russian culture, which spans roughly the period 1820 to 1880, the decade that follows the death of Nicholas I in 1855 and the end of the Crimean War in 1856 stands out by virtue of the abundance, richness and intensity of its art and publicism. All of Turgenev’s major novels, Goncharov’s Oblomov, Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground and Crime andPunishment, Tolstoy’s Sebastopol Tales, Youth, and The Cossacks, Ostrovsky’s Thunderstorm and other plays, Nekrasov’s The Peddlars, Red-nosed Frost and much other poetry, Saltykov-Shchedrin’s Provincial Sketches, the best work of Pisemsky, almost all of Chernyshevsky’s publicism, all of Dobroliubov’s, and much of Pisarev’s, were written and published in these years. A new school of painters, the peredvizhniki, established itself in 1863. The major journals, such as Sovremennik, Otechestvennye zapiski, Russkii vestnik, and Russkoe slovo, in which most works of literature and thought were in the first instance published, flourished and achieved a circulation which, though infinitesimal by modern standards, was nevertheless unprecedented. Artists and thinkers inspired, stimulated, provoked and responded to one another in a debate about social, political, moral, and ultimately religious and philosophical questions that was more animated and far-reaching than that conducted in any earlier period, with the possible exception of the 1840s.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
NOTES
Uspensky, Levitov and Sleptsov all continued writing in the second half of the 1860s (Pomyalovsky died in 1863), but their later work is not examined here since it is my intention to discuss their relationship to the intellectual life of the immediate pre-reform and post-reform periods rather than to survey their oeuvre as a whole.
There are various editions of the works of these four writers. The editions used here are: Nikolai Uspensky, Povesti, rasskazy i ocherki (Moscow, 1957) hereafter referred to as ‘Uspensky’; A.I. Levitov, Sochineniia v odnom tome (Moscow, 1956) hereafter referred to as ‘Levitov’; N.G. Pomyalovsky, Sochineniia (Moscow-Leningrad, 1951) hereafter referred to as ‘Pomyalovsky’; V.A. Sleptsov, Izbrannye proizvedeniia (Leningrad, 1970) hereafter referred to as ‘Sleptsov’. All references to the works of these authors are to these editions unless otherwise stated.
For material on these writers, see esp. the introductory articles to the above editions of their works by E. Pokusaev, N.I. Sokolov, I.G. Iampol’sky, and M. Semanova respectively. See also I.A. Bunin, ‘K budushchei biografii N.V. Uspenskogo’, in his Sobranie sochinenii v deviati tomakh (Moscow, 1965–7) pp. 495–501; K. Chukovsky’s articles, ‘Zhizn’ i smert’ Nikolaia Uspenskogo’, ‘Vasilii Sleptsov’, ‘Tainopis’ “Trudnogo vremeni”’, and ‘Istoriia sleptsovskoi kommuny’, in his book Liudi i knigi shestidesiatykh godov (Leningrad, 1934); vol. LXXI of Literaturnoe nasledstvo (Moscow, 1963), which is devoted to Sleptsov; I.G. Iampol’sky, N.G. Pomialovskii. Lichnost’ i tvorchestvo (Moscow-Leningrad, 1968); L.M. Lotman, ‘Dinamika vzaimodeistviia romana i povesti. Uglublenie kontseptual’nosti v povestvovanii’, in Russkaia povest’ xx veka, ed. B.S. Meilakh, (Leningrad, 1973) pp. 382–423; and N.I. Prutskov, ‘Shkola belletristov-raznochintsev 60-kh godov’ in Istoriia russkoi literatury (Leningrad, 1980–3) III, pp. 48–79.
Very little has been written on these authors in English, but see especially D.S. Mirsky, A History of Russian Literature (London, 1949) pp. 284–6; Rose Glickman, ‘An Alternative View of the Peasantry: The Raznochintsy Writers of the 1860s’ (Slavic Review, xx, 4, 1973, pp. 693–704); William C. Brumfield, ‘Sleptsov Redivivus’ (California Slavic Studies, Ix , 1976, pp. 27–70); idem, ‘Bazarov and Rjazanov: The Romantic Archetype in Russian Nihilism’ (Slavic and East European Journal, xxi, 4, 1977, pp. 495–505); the chapter by Eva Kagan-Kans in The Russian Short Story: A Critical History, ed. Charles A. Moser (Boston, Mass., 1986) pp. 50–102, esp. 77–86; and the entries in Victor Terras, ed., Handbook of Russian Literature (New Haven, 1985).
See Pokusaev’s introduction to Uspensky’s works, p. 8.
N.A. Dobroliubov, Sobranie sochinenii (Moscow-Leningrad, 1961–4 (hereafter SS))II, pp. 142–6.
‘Starukha’, in Uspensky, pp. 25–46.
‘Porosënok’, ibid., pp. 47–57.
‘Khoroshee zhit’, ibid., pp. 58–72.
‘Sel’skaia apteka’, ibid., pp. 115–26.
‘Noch’ pod svetlyi den, ibid., pp. 108–14.
‘Koldun’ia, ibid., pp. 235–9.
‘Oboz’, ibid., pp. 165–72.
F.M. Dostoevsky, ‘Rasskazy N.V. Uspenskogo’ in his Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh (Leningrad, 1972-) XiX, p. 185.
Uspensky, p. 25.
Dostoevsky, op. cit. (note 11), p. 180.
N.G. Chernyshevsky, ‘Ne nachalo li peremeny?’, in his Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Moscow, 1939–50 (hereafter PSS)) vu, pp. 855–89; see esp. pp. 855–7, 860–2, 873–4, 876.
Ibid., pp. 863–6, 877–8, 882–9.
Dobroliubov, ‘stepeni uchastiia narodnosti v razvitii russkoi literatury’, SS, II, pp. 218–72; Narodnoe delo’, ibid., v, pp. 246–85; ‘Povesti i rasskazy S.T. Slavutinskogo’, ibid., v, 49–64; ‘Cherty dlia kharakteristiki russkogo prostonarod’ia, ibid., VI, pp. 221–88.
A.P. Shchapov, Russkii Raskol Staroobriadstva ... (Kazan’, 1859); I.G. Pryzhov, Nishchie na Svyatoi Rusi: Materialy dlia istorii obshchestvennogo i narodnogo byta v Rossii (Moscow, 1862).
See Literaturnoe nasledstvo, LXXI, op. cit. (note 1), p. 395.
Moskovskie nory i trushchoby, 2 vols (St Petersburg, 1866).
‘Tipy i stseny sel’skoi iarmarki’, in Levitov, pp. 7–42.
‘Stepnaia doroga noch’iu’, ibid., pp. 43–60. This work was first published under the title ‘Proezzhaia stepnaia doroga. (Noch’.) Ocherk.’
‘Stepnaia doroga dnëm’ (first published as ‘Stepnaia doroga’), ibid., pp. 61–106.
‘Rasprava’ (first published as ‘Mirskoi sud’), ibid., pp. 127–37.
Levitov, pp. 96, 8, 12, 4, 54, 129–30, 42, 137.
‘Brusilov’, in Uspensky, pp. 173–82.
Levitov, pp. 72ff.
See Pokusaev’s introduction to Uspensky’s works, p. 5; and Peterburgskii sluchai’, in Levitov, p. 411.
Levitov, p. 83.
‘Vecher’, in Uspensky, pp. 158–64.
Pryzhov, Istoriia kabakov v Rossii v sviazi s istoriei russkogo naroda (St Petersburg-Moscow, 1868).
Alfred Kuhn, in his introduction to his translation of Pomyalovsky’s Seminary Sketches (Ithaca and London, 1973) p. Xi. The introduction as a whole gives an excellent sketch of the mood of the popovichi and the background from which they came.
See esp. pp. 194–5. 190, 150 in Kuhn’s translation of the Seminary Sketches cited above. The Russian title of the work is Ocherki bursy.
D.I. Pisarev, ‘Pogibshie i pogibaiushchie’, in his Sochineniia (Moscow, 1955–6) iv, pp. 86–139.
‘Meshchanskoe schast’e’, in Pomyalovsky, pp. 61–150; see esp. pp. 81, 119–20, 123, 136–7.
‘Molotov’, in Pomyalovsky, pp. 153–307; see esp. pp. 214, 278, 306–7, 288–90, 307, 206–9. ‘Stratum’, in the first quotation of this paragraph, is my translation of the Russian soslovie, which I have rendered as ‘estate’ elsewhere - a translation which in this instance might be confused with the property denoted by pomest’e.
Ibid., pp. 188, 236–42, 276, 257.
‘Brat i sestra’, in Pomyalovsky, pp. 483–548; the quotations are from pp. 485 and 545. The fragments were ordered and published after Pomyalovsky’s death by his friend N.A. Blagoveshchensky, who also inserted between the extant fragments some explanatory passages based on his personal knowledge of Pomyalovsky’s conception of the work and on a plan found among Pomyalovsky’s papers (see ibid., pp. 483ff., 626–9). On Potesin see also Richard Peace, Dostoyevsky: An Examination of the Major Novels (Cambridge, 1971) pp. 27–8.
Pomyalovsky, p. 133.
Ibid., pp. 212–13, 201.
Ibid., pp. 537, 485–6.
See e.g. Chernyshevsky, Antropologicheskii printsip v filosofii’, PSS, vi, p. 266.
Pomyalovsky, p. 485.
Pisarev, ‘Roman kiseinoi devushki’, Sochineniia, in, pp. 189–90. When he refers to a fakir, Pisarev doubtless has in mind the Hindu mystic rather than the Muslim on his bed of nails.
‘Vladimirka i Kliaz’ma’, in Sleptsov, pp. 29–151; see esp. pp. 62, 43, 93, 131–42.
Ibid., pp. 30, 50–1, 80–1, 107–8, 91–2, 137, 33.
‘Pitomka’, in Sleptsov, pp. 330–44. See also L.N. Tolstoy, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, (Moscow-Leningrad, 1928–58) LXXXVI, p. 177.
See Literaturnoe nasledstvo, LXXI, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 280–5.
‘Pis’ma ob Ostashkove’, in Sleptsov, pp. 152–264; see esp. pp. 169, 163–4, 154.
Chukovsky, ‘Tainopis’ “Trudnoqo vremeni”’, op. cit. (note 1), p. 191.
‘Trudnoe vremia’, in Sleptsov, pp. 447–602; see esp. pp. 500–2, 531, 474, 469–71. On the enthusiastic assessment of Shchetinin by a writer of the 1880s, see Chukovsky, ‘Tainopis’ ‘Trudnogo vremeni’, op. cit. (note 1), p. 188.
Ibid., pp. 529, 523–4.
Ibid., pp. 490–1, 507ff., 602, 558, 560.
Pisarev, ‘Podrastaiushchaia gumannost’. (Sel’skie kartiny)’, Sochineniia, IV, pp. 50–85; see esp. pp. 50ff.
P.N. Tkachev, ‘Podrastaiushchie sily’, in his Izbrannye sochineniia na sotsial’no politicheskie temy (Moscow, 1932-) I, pp. 274–323; see esp. pp. 281–96 (quotations are from pp. 288–9).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1990 School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Offord, D. (1990). Literature and ideas in Russia after the Crimean War: the ‘Plebeian’ writers. In: Freeborn, R., Grayson, J. (eds) Ideology in Russian Literature. Studies in Russia and East Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-10825-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-10825-1_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-10827-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-10825-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)