On Romanticism in Slavic Literatures by Dmitrij ČiževskijReview by: Georgette DonchinThe Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 36, No. 87 (Jun., 1958), pp. 550-551Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4204983 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 09:41

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.

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:41:11 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

550 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

(6) stylistic considerations, (7) regional differences, and perhaps some others.

The consideration of these factors is also of great importance for the problem and is an important step forward in the discussion which has gone on until now. It is rather a pity that Dr Westfal has treated these factors a little grudgingly: he often refers to them in the analytical part, but is far too reserved in the synthetical part of his study. His attention is not so much concentrated on the role which these factors play in the lan- guage, but rather on the number of forms which can be explained with the help of these factors; which of course is of less value, especially when one bears in mind the irregular and fragmentary nature of the material. To my thinking the work would have benefited if the author had laid more em- phasis on the tendencies disclosed by the linguistic material which determine the choice between the two endings.

On the whole one may say that, in spite of certain defects in the analytical part, Dr Westfal's book is a serious and valuable contribution to our knowledge of the structure of modern Polish. The author has given us an imaginative and well-thought-out work which in a praiseworthy way has brought the problem nearer to solution. For the first time we begin to realise what many-sided and complicated factors are hidden behind apparently simple and unimportant phenomena. Dr Westfal's book ought to be welcomed by all students of Polish and the other Slavonic languages.

Uppsala J6ZEF TRYPUCKO

On Romanticism in Slavic Literatures. By Dmitrij Cizevskij. Musagetes, I. Mouton and Co., The Hague, 1957. 63 pages.

THIS is the first issue of a promising new series published by Mouton and Co. and edited by Professor Dmitrij 6izevskij of Heidelberg. The series is to consist of short contributions to the history of Slavonic literature and culture, and Professor Cizevskij starts it himself with a broad theme- romanticism in Slavonic literatures. The theme cannot be exhausted in less than I8,ooo words, however tightly packed, and thus the author does not attempt to bring out the characteristics of romanticism as an entire movement, though he complains that disproportionately less has been written about Slavonic romanticism than about European romanticism. He does not explain the reasons for this disproportion (which, incident- ally, does not apply to Polish romanticism), the most obvious being that Russian romanticism never developed to such extent as the Western movement.

Professor Cizevskij investigates some separate motifs of Slavonic roman- tic literatures, disposing of the questions of 'influence' and 'borrowing', and seeing in similarity of separate motifs a proof only of 'spiritual' or artistic affinity of writers who make use of the same motifs in their works. With all due consideration to this point of view, it would make compara- tive literature a pretty thin study if the original source or sources of such

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:41:11 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS 551

affinity were disregarded. Where influence cannot be proved, a certain climate of opinion or a specific historical background can usually explain why various writers suddenly start using the same motifs in their works as well as throw much light on the emergence of a new literary movement.

Professor Cizevskij confines himself in this essay to what he calls 'eternal motifs', i.e. such as recur in various stylistic periods, and 'temporary' motifs, i.e. motifs which occur only in certain epochs or even in one par- ticular period only. He notes the most characteristic change which romanticism brings into the attitude of the poet towards nature: this is no longer a mechanism, but a living organism which contains profundities, secrets, and a supernatural or spiritual content. And he concentrates on poems dedicated to the elements, and in particular to waterfalls. Curi- ously and characteristically, in spite of the fact that there are very few waterfalls in Russia, Russian romantic poems on waterfalls abound. They display a considerable unity of vocabulary with visual, colouristic designations, and auditive words such as 'roar', 'thunder', 'howl', most prominent. On the whole, the words belonging to the romantic vocabu- lary are not new: most of them can be found in i8th-century poetry and prose, but they are 're-interpreted' and 're-appraised' by the romanticists. Thus words with a negative, even pejorative meaning begin to be used in a positive sense; certain words acquire a completely new meaning; and others are simply characteristic of romanticism. Professor Cizevskij rightly notes that the re-interpretation of words and their emotional re- evaluation is one of the most vital means by which a literary language develops. The romantic poets also enriched their vocabulary with words borrowed from dialects and foreign languages, this being connected with the imitation of folklore and the typical exoticism of romanticism. The creation of neologisms also belongs to the history of romantic linguistics, and much profitable work can be done in this field, as well as in the study of the unusual word-combinations typical of the romanticists.

In the last chapter of his essay Professor Cizevskij mentions one of the most essential traits of the romantic Weltanschauung, namely opposition both to classical poetics and to the rationalism of the i8th century. Connected with this are the fantastic element in romantic poetry and a series of re- interpretations of words. The author concentrates here in particular on the re-interpretation of the words 'heart' and 'madness'.

In spite of the numerous examples quoted by the author, his study of the poetic polemics of Slavonic romantic poets in this work can only be fragmentary. It performs however a very useful role by pointing out several new directions to future investigators. And perhaps it is a greater service to stimulate students than to present them with an exhaustive treatment of a theme.

Professor Cizevskij's essay would have greatly benefited by better proof- reading: the numerous typographical errors, especially in the spelling of foreign words and names, should not have been allowed to creep into a publication of this kind.

London GEORGETTE DONCHIN

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:41:11 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions