Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Becoming Mikhail Lermontov: The Ironies of Romantic Individualism in Nicholas I's Russia by David Powelstock

2008; Modern Humanities Research Association; Volume: 103; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1353/mlr.2008.0478

2222-4319

Robert Reid,

Folklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies

MLR, I03.4, 2008 ii8i Finally, one should mention the frequent errors in the text and the poor quality of the translation. For example, it is no longer acceptable to use the terms 'Russia' and 'Russians' when referring to themedieval period, and neither the author nor the translator explains that the correct name for the early East Slavonic state isRus. Many terms are incorrectly translated. Thus we find 'newmarrieds' fornewly-weds (p. 3 19), 'John theGolden Mouthed' forJohnChrysostom (p. I68), and 'Marya the Egyptian' for Mary of Egypt (p. 209), to name but a few.Perhaps most annoying is the author's habit of using ellipses, seemingly as a way of expressing heightened emotion. In the conclusion, thirteen such instances occur over seven pages. Sinyavsky's work is a disappointment, because a solid critical study of folkbelief would add much to the understanding of the early East Slavs, as well as modern Russian literature and culture. But despite glimpses of useful analysis, thisbook falls farshort. STANFORD UNIVERSITY MONICA WHITE BecomingMikhail Lermontov: The Ironies ofRomantic Individualism inNicholas I's Russia. By DAVID POWELSTOCK. (Studies inRussian Literature and Theory) Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. 2005. xii+582 pp. $99.95. ISBN 978-o-8I01-I93I-4. This substantial work is an attempt to address the unresolved enigma of Lermon tov's 'literary position' (to use a Soviet phrase) and the title phrase 'romantic individualism'-is aptly chosen; for,as he notes, theproblem ofLermontov's unique form of creative individualism, running against the grain of Russian culture, is an essentially unresolved one, while Romanticism itselfwas traditionally a problematic concept, especially in theSoviet period. David Powelstock's approach isdirected as much at Lermontov's personality and motivation as at his works; indeed much of the time it seeks to elucidate the former via the latter.He argues that there is a tension between Lermontov's view of him self as an individual and his longing to have theRomantic destiny of a great poet. This produces some illuminating resultswhen applied, for instance, to 'la ne Bairon', where Powelstock sees Lermontov as both differentiating himself fromByron as a unique identityand seeking toemulate his poetic fame-to be a Byron, but not beBy ron.This reading, combined with an adaptation ofGirard's notion of 'mediation', is both original and convincing. Lermontov's verses on Napoleon are similarly coloured by these conflicting impulses, as isDeath of a Poet, where Powelstock detects both 'mourning and self-assertion' (pp. i85-86), aswell as an anxiety of influence. Indeed death itself fits into thismodel in an almost Heideggerian sense, since it is both a private and-for theRomantic poet-public event. Pushkin's narrative works present Lermontov with a rather differentproblem in representing individual autonomy: while the lyricembodies the subjective I endur ing the gaze of others, innarratives the I isobjectivized. Omniscient authorship risks creating a 'narrator-executioner' (p. 394) destructive of the protagonist's individu ality. In A Hero ofOur Time this threat is avoided by 'eliminating the omniscient author-narrator entirely' (p. 394) in favour ofmultiple narrators 'whose authority is compromised by [.. .]subjective interests' (p. 4I8). Mtsyri provides another solution: 'thehero himself assumes nearly the entire burden of narrating' (p. 4i8). In dealing with The Demon Powelstock concentrates on theevolution ofTamara's character, and his interpretation ofTamara as reader neatly incorporates the poem into the book's general theme. Powelstock also elaborates amore general view of Lermontov's attitude to reader ship. Lermontov 'internalizes' his 'anticipated audience' and is thus constantly aware I I82 Reviews of his readers. This leads him to set up an ironic double reading inmany of his works, providing an outer frame for 'self-deceived mainstream readers' alongside 'an approach toauthenticity' for thosewho sought it (p. 327). Powelstock rightlyempha sizes the importance of The Journalist, the Reader and the Writer in this context and makes an interesting case for regardingMaxim Maximych as the embodiment of the 'metafictionalmoralizing reader' (p. 348) inA Hero ofOur Time, his reappearance at the end of The Fatalist reinforcing this role. Powelstock does not neglect Lermontov's use of language. Lermontov is seen as favouring Romantic ineffability:he often prefers 'sonic texture' to 'logos' (p. I44). At the same time he...