Canadian Slavonic Papers

Ivan Kozlov: A Study and a Setting by G. R. V. BARRATT; I. I. Kozlov: The Translations fromByron by G. R. V. BARRATTReview by: J. G. GarrardCanadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Spring/Printemps,1974), pp. 130-133Published by: Canadian Association of SlavistsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40866698 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 00:55

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Canadian Association of Slavists and Canadian Slavonic Papers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 00:55:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

130 REVUE CANADIENNE DES SLAVISTES

Ivan Kozlov: A Study and a Setting, g. R. ν. barratt. Toronto: A. M. Hakkert, 1972. Pp. 252. $12.00.

/. /. Kozlov: The Translations from Byron. G. R. v. barratt. Berne and Frankfurt/M.: Herbert Lang, 1972. Pp. 119.

Two books on any writer published simultaneously by the same author are bound to arouse one's curiosity, particularly when the writer is such a minor figure as Ivan Kozlov. Anyone who has taken a look at Kozlov's works will surely agree with Mirsky, who said that he "stands out among the poets of the Golden Age for the comparative inadequacy of his tech- nique." Kozlov's translations and imitations of Byron were widely read for a number of years during his lifetime, but he is only remembered now for his version of Wolfe's "Burial of Sir John Moore at Corunna" and more especially for "Vechernii zvon," a popular song, which many a Russian probably does not know is a translation of Thomas Moore's "Those Evening Bells."

How, then, has Mr. Barratt found enough worth saying about Kozlov to fill two volumes? Perhaps he has discovered some new poems by Kozlov, or has decided to use him as the focal point for a broad examination of Russian literature during the 'twenties and 'thirties of the nineteenth cen- tury (in the first book), or for a discussion of the nature of Russian Byron- ism and the special problems inherent in translating English poetry into Russian (in the second book).

Mr. Barratt's approach is, to the contrary, one of dazzling simplicity: he has used the same material in both his works, publishing one in Canada, the other in Germany. I am no expert in reconstructing texts, but I will do the best I can. To save space, I will call the Hakkert book "K-l" and the second book "K-2." What Mr. Barratt appears to have done is collect all his notes together to make K-l and then to have taken selected passages from it to fashion a second book.

K-2 consists of three parts. The first (pp. 11-51) is divided into two chapters: "A Setting," which is a précis (skillfully done, let it be said) of the early chapters of K-l; and "Kozlov and Byron," which repeats verbatim large sections of Chapter Seven in K-l, with occasional sprinklings from elsewhere. The second part of K-2 (pp. 51-97) begins with further sections of Chapter Seven in K-l, then provides texts of seventeen Byron poems and Kozlov's translations into Russian. The third part of K-2, entitled "Con- temporary Translating Practice and Kozlov's Versions of Byron" (pp. 98- 116), repeats verbatim the identically entitled Chapter Eight of K-l. The only changes that caught my eye in K-2 were a differently divided para- graph; an additional sentence on page 110 ("Halicized [i.e., Italicized] words and phrases speak for themselves"); and a minor alteration in a sentence on page 111.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 00:55:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 131

It may be that the two publishers agreed to simultaneous publication of the same material, but in that case one wonders how they can both claim copyright for the material. Mr. Barratt has dedicated each book to a differ- ent person. In neither book is there any indication of the other's existence, although the careful reader might be puzzled by the phrase "Immediately apparent in each of the seventeen translations given here," which Mr. Barratt neglected to omit from K-l (p. 190); it is only appropriate in K-2.

Mr. Barratt could surely have saved himself and his readers a great deal of trouble by simply appending the Byron poems and Kozlov translations to K-l. Indeed, it is hard to see why Mr. Barratt, or anyone else, thought K-2 worth publishing at all. In an introductory note on page seven he attempts to disarm criticism by insisting that his study is "of deliberately limited scope" and by dismissing briskly "word-counts" and what he calls "linguistic pretensions." In the first place, he does include some word counting on page 111 (p. 197 in K-l), and secondly, why not deal fully with what is after all a quite narrow topic? Part 3 (i.e., Chapter Eight in K-l) deals for the most part in commonplaces. His comments on the diffi- culties of translating English poetry into Russian are not very helpful, except for the point about the preponderance of monosyllables in English, but this is already familiar ground to readers of Nabokov's Notes on Prosody, which Mr. Barratt does not quote in this chapter. Nor does he mention one of the leading Russian authorities on the art of translating poetry, E. G. Etkind.

Since we have here only one book, I will concentrate now on K-l (the larger volume) and say no more about K-2 except to point out that it does have the advantage of brevity and also of using Cyrillic for all quotes in Russian.

In his preface to K-l Mr. Barratt says that his study is aimed not only at the specialist, but also at those interested in comparative literature and in the practice of translation. Obviously he has set himself a difficult task and one must regrettably report that none of the three groups of potential readers mentioned is likely to find much of value in this book. The chief problem is that Mr. Barratt claims far more for his study than it really delivers. It is based for the most part on secondary sources, chiefly in Russian, but also in French (for example, Marcelle Erhrard's Joukovskij et le préromantisme russe).

It is only fair to add that Mr. Barratt acknowledges his sources, that his book is the first in English on Kozlov, and that he has included a few un- published letters, which he was permitted to read and copy at the Pushkinskii Dom in Leningrad. Furthermore, he appears to be at home in both French and Russian (his translations of Kozlov's poems are accurate). However, Mr. Barratt simply does not do a good job with his material. As I have suggested, his comments on translation practice are pedestrian. Similarly,

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 00:55:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

132 CANADIAN SLAVONIC PAPERS

one wonders what interest the book could have for the specialist, who can easily read the secondary material for himself. Furthermore, the specialist can hardly be expected to draw much from a discussion of Russian poetry in English translation. The comparativist, finally, will simply come to the conclusion that Kozlov was a pathetic, if courageous, figure; a mediocre poet, whose translations and imitations of Byron may have some minor impor- tance in the history of Russian literary taste, but not in a European context.

The book's lack of organization and its repetitiousness become irritating. For example, we are told in the preface that Kozlov suffered partial paralysis and went blind in middle age, and that his verse was "a response to that blindness." On page 25 we read: "'Misfortune,' wrote Zukovskij tersely, 'made Kozlov a poet.' " Time and again Mr. Barratt rings the changes on this obvious point, drifting uneasily between biography and literature, but saying little of value on either subject. One can only say amen to his comment: "Still, it is apparent that blindness does not in itself make a poet" (p. 79). Yet in the same breath Mr. Barratt is urging us to admire "a piquancy and a directness that stem from the poet's blindness." He even hints, rather ominously, that there are echoes of Kozlov in other Russian poets which "deserve a separate study" (p. 156).

Mr. Barratt is sometimes rather careless with his facts, but far more damaging are his apparent lack of judgement and critical perception. One remains unconvinced by his enthusiastic praise of the lengthy sections of Kozlov's verse that he quotes (in English translation). Sometimes Mr. Barratt's paraphrases of the poems seem to drift into unconscious parody of the unfortunate Kozlov's sentimental melodramas. On occasion, too, he has moments of illumination, admitting that Kozlov's verse has no formal or technical interest, that it is "not remarkable for the richness of ideas embedded in it" (p. 101); he speaks of "banality" (p. 79) and "blatant weakness" (p. 159). Yet the voice of reason is lost in a wilderness of praise and pity for Kozlov, and we are left to flounder in a sort of critical no man's land: "Like The Monk, finally, Princess Natal' ja Dolgoruhaja is highly readable in an undemanding way, but, like a two-volume sentimental novel, it is best taken in small bites" (p. 162).

Mr. Barratt has a tentative style and everything he says is hedged with negatives and alternatives. He tends to go round and round a topic and then end up with a "Who can tell?" or "Decide for yourself." He also has a way of setting up Aunt Sallies with such phrases as "It would be foolish to pretend . . ."; "it would, of course, be foolish to suggest . . ."; "There are no grounds for . . ."; "It would be wrong to claim. . . ." Who is sug- gesting and claiming these things?

Mr. Barratt is said on the dust jacket of this book to be "the author of monographs on the Decembrist M. S. Lunin and the poet E. A. Baratynskij."

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 00:55:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 133

While I do not know either of these books, it seems to me that even the most experienced writer would be well-advised to consult a colleague when con- templating a project such as Mr. Barratt's. The colleague very likely would have advised against publishing two separate books using the same material, and (if he were a true friend) would surely have suggested that Mr. Barratt undertake major revisions before the publication of his manuscript.

[J. G. Garrard, University of Virginia]

Food-Notes on Gogol. Alexander p. obolensky. Winnipeg: Trident Press, 1972. Pp. 180. $4.75 (paper).

Many a Gogol student and reader notices this writer's preoccupation, indeed, even obsession, with eating. The world of food and drink occupies an inordinately prominent place in Gogol's literary works, his journals and his correspondence. The memoirs of his friends and acquaintances likewise attest to his great gustatory interests. The characters in his novels and stories seem to be almost constantly engaged in satisfying these basic needs, and if they are not directly sampling food and drink, they are talking about it or, while asleep, dreaming of it.

Alexander P. Obolensky's study, aptly entitled Food-Notes on Gogol, is a chronological analysis of instances concerning food and drink. This evidence is supported with excerpts from the novelist's correspondence, memoirs and conversations with his many friends and admirers.

If one is to believe the statements and the tales of Gogol's friends and acquaintances, the novelist was quite a gourmet and food connoisseur him- self and he could, on occasion, consume unbelievably large quantities of food and drink - enough to satisfy the hunger and thirst of four people (p. 34). He also boasted that he himself could cook with some expertise, often regaling his guests with what he considered were creations of Gogolian culinary art.

Indeed, the author of this alimentary treatise succeeded in compiling quite a voluminous collection of cases where various comestibles and beverages play a vital part in Gogol's literary output. The reader of Obolensky's study learns, among other things, that many a Gogolian character has been named after food or drink; buildings and structures in some of Gogol's works are compared with various victuals; his metaphors are connected with food items; even animals "talk" about it (p. 79).

Of course, all this and much more is right there - in Gogol's works - and any perceptive student of Gogol can find it for himself by simply perus- ing them with some diligence. Arranging and shaping the amassed material into such an interesting and readable treatise, as does the author, is quite another thing. It takes insight and understanding into the working of

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 00:55:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions