Erwin Wedel, Ed. A. S. Puschkin (1799-1837). Beitrage Zum 200. Geburtstag Des Russischen Nationaldichters, 1789-1923

Article excerpt

Erwin Wedel, ed. A. S. Puschkin (1799-1837). Beitrage zum 200. Geburtstag des russischen Nationaldichters, 1789-1923. Schriftenreihe des Osteuropainstituts Regensburg-Passau, Band 17. Regensburg, 2003.114 pp.

The echoes of the two-hundredth anniversary of Pushkin's birth are still to be heard, as collections appear of papers resulting from the many events that occurred to commemorate such an important date. The volume under review is a compilation of five essays by scholars associated in some way with the East European Institute in RegensburgPassau, Germany.

The thread that unites the essays is Pushkin--here glorified as Russia's "national poet"--a slighly panegyric note that seems out of place against the serious, scholarly tone of the artices; but the articles, with the exception of the last, are all of a comparative nature, relating Pushkin to other writers and traditions.

Rolf-Dietrich Keil of Bonn sets the ball rolling with a reconsideration of the question of Pushkin and Goethe. He contributes an interesting discussion of the nature of truth, focusing on the two poets' treatment of the legend of Napoleon in Egypt shaking hands with someone stricken with the plague. Keil suggests, convincingly to me, that Pushkin changed the date of his poem that treats the incident, "Geroi," to flatter Nicholas I, who visited Moscow during the cholera to show there was no danger.

The second, longer paper by Aleksandr Smirnov of MSU, deploys condiderable erudition to discuss the structure of the lyrical "I" in Pushkin's romantic poetry. Smirnov has studied carefully German theory of romantic subjectivity, and applies it to Pushkin. His analysis is interesting as far as it goes; however, it seems to this reviewer that the complex nature of Pushkin's poetry is far from being totally captured: such issues as the metapoetic nature of the poetry, and the near descent into a real, not simply conventional madness, need elucidation in order to obtain a complete picture of Pushkin's frequently paradoxical subjectivity.

Heinz Kneip of Regensburg draws a comparison between Mickiewicz's Dziady III and Pushkin's Boris Godunov, rightly asserting that both works are dramas of ideas that engage issues of the nature of Russian autocracy, each dramatizing in its own way the conflict between authority and opposition, and drawing parallels between the Decembrists and the Polish uprising of 1830-1. Kneip could, however, have underlined more the paradox of Pushkin's relationship to autocracy--for obvious reasons, a more conflicted one than that of Mickiewicz. …