No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Soviet Studies of Dostoevsky, 1935-1956
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Notes and Comment
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1962
References
1 Goldstein, D. I., “Rewriting Dostoevsky's Letters,” American Slavic and East European Review, XX, No. 2 (April, 1961), 280.Google Scholar
2 Ibid., p. 279.
3 See, for example,
Parker, F, “The Revival of Dostoevskij on the Soviet Stage,” Slavic and East European Journal, XVI, No. 1 (Spring, 1958), 33
CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also
Aleksandrova, V, “Dostoevsky Returns,” The New Leader, Feb. 27, 1956, pp. 19–20
Google Scholar, and «75-
(New York), Feb.-Mar., 1956, pp. 34-35.
4
CCCP (Munich: Institute for the Study of the History and Culture of the USSR, 1955).
5 New York: Columbia University Press, 1957.
6 American Slavic and East European Review, Vol. IX, No. 1 (Feb., 1950).
7 American Quarterly on the Soviet Union, Vol. I, No. 2 (July, 1938).
8 Russian Review, Vol. X, No. 2 (April, 1951). Scattered references to Dostoevsky's present status in his own country may be found in various other sources. See, for instance, Struve, G., Soviet Russian Literature 1917-1950 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1950), p. 326.Google Scholar
9
CCCP, p. 76.
10
(Moscow and Leningrad: Academia, 1935).
11
, p. 76.
12
, No. 6, 1936, pp. 512-45.
13
(Omsk), No. 8, 1940, pp. 49-53.
14
(Leningrad: GIKhL, 1938).
15
(Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1940).
16
(Moscow: Gos. sotsialno-ekonomich. izd., 1939).
17
(Moscow and Leningrad: Academia, 1935).
18
(Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1935).
19 Ibid., p. 50.
20
(Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1935).
21 Ibid., p. 333.
22
, No. 6, 1936, pp. 573-82; 
, No. 6, 1936, pp. 545-73; 
, No. 8-9, 1939, pp. 110-20; 
, No. 4, 1939, pp. 51-61; 
, No. 8-9, 1940.
23
(Leningrad: AN SSSR, Institut russkoi literatury, 1936).
24
, No. 4, 1939, pp. 157-77; No. 5-6, 1939, pp. 240-72.
25 ibid., p. 174.
26
(Leningrad, 1939), IV, 171-87.
27
(Leningrad: GIKhL, 1940), pp. 461-80
28 Ibid., p. 480.
29
(Leningrad), No. 2, 1941, pp. 38-39.
30
, No. 2, 1941, p. 178.
31
, No. 2, 1941, p. 175.
32
, Feb. 9, 1941.
33
, Feb. 9, 1941.
34
, No. 16, 1942, pp. 38-43.
35
, Sept. 5, 1942.
36
, No. 46-47, 1946, pp. 26-27
37
, No. 1-2, 1946, pp. 160-70; 
(Moscow: GIKhL, 1947).
38 ibid., p. 165.
39
(Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1947).
40
, No. 10, 1947, pp. 261-65.
41 On August 14, 1946, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party issued a directive against liberalism, “bourgeois objectivity,” “formalism,” cosmopolitanism,” and the nonpolitical approach to literature and art. This resolution was the beginning of a new era in Soviet art and in literary scholarship, the so-called Zhdanovshchina—Zhdanov Reaction—named after A. A. Zhdanov, its chief progenitor. The editorial boards of two literary magazines, 
, were harshly criticized for the neglect of the basic Leninist axiom which asserts that literature in the Soviet Union cannot be nonpolitical, since it is a powerful weapon in educating the Soviet people. Literature must be guided by state politics; party spirit must pervade all works of art and literature, it must be imposed upon all Soviet culture. The end sought was clearly summed up in Hoeuu Mwp, No. 12, 1949: “For Soviet literature there is no more important, no higher purpose or undertaking than that ordained by the Bolshevik Party.” The Western influence which had penetrated into the Soviet Union during the war was to be checked and bourgeois culture attacked. Soviet literature was, in the words of Zhdanov, to serve “the cause of building socialism,” to assist the ideological remolding of the consciousness of readers in “a vigorous and revolutionary spirit,” and to treat mostly contemporary Soviet themes.
42
, Dec. 20, 1947.
43
(Moscow: Pravda, 1948).
44
, No. 3, 1948, p. 148.
45
(Moscow: GIKhL, 1946).
46
(Moscow: Detgiz, 1947).
47
Bialik, B., “Gorky and Dostoevsky,” Soviet Literature, No. 10, 1948, pp. 134-40Google Scholar, and 
1949-1950 (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1951), pp. 418-65. 
No. 4, 1948, pp. 251-71.
48
, IX, No. 4 (1950), 284.
49
., Aug. 21, 1955.
50 Pochvennichestvo was a trend in Russian literature in the 1880's which was a variation of Slavophilism. Pochvennichestvo means the state of being rooted in the soil, in contrast to bespochvennost', meaning the state of being uprooted from the soil (a term applied by the populists to the westernizers).
51 See a similar approach to Raskolnikov's crime in B. Riurikov's introduction to Ilpecmynjieuue u H(iKa3anue (Moscow: GIKhL, 1955), pp. 537-39.
52
(Moscow: GIKhL, 1955), p. 3.
53 Koromyslo, or balance, in its basic meaning is a yoke worn upon the shoulders for suspending two pails of equal weight. From this apparently arose the meaning of a scale where one object is balanced by another. “Dialectical balance” thus means a state of “dialectical equilibrium” which must be maintained by tempering positive evaluations of Dostoevsky's works with negative criticism of their ideology
54
, Feb. 6, 1956.