Husserl-Heidegger. Influence de leur oeuvre en Russie by Maryse Dennes (review)

504 SEER, 79, 3, 2001 The first volume offers valuable new material on the writer's genealogy, early life and relationshipswith friends (Peter Henry's own contribution on James Bezant, forinstance),togetherwith materialsfromhis diariesand some unpublished letters. The reassessments of his achievement range from romantic figures (Maevskaia), innovative narrative structure (Nagornaya), time (Stenborg),direct interiormonologue (Tumanov on Four Days),to use of metaphor, symbols,myth and rhythmicpatternsin TheRedFlower (Silantyeva, Weber especially interesting and Girshman). Outstanding, though, is Karl D. Kramer'sarticleon Garshinand impressionism. In its firstsection the second volume explores Garshin'srelationshipswith such literary and artistic contemporaries as Tolstoi (a valuable contribution by V. Porudominskii), Chertkov and the Tolstoian Posrednik (W. Gareth Jones), Nadson (Neil S. Parsons), Chekhov (M. A. Sheikina on the writer's resemblance to Treplev), Andreev (I. Moskovkina, including, unusually, a discussionof Garshin'shumour)and, particularlyinterestingly,Repin (David Jackson). Evidence of his meeting with Tchaikovskii in October I884 represents an interesting 'find' by the editorial board. A second section demonstrates Garshin'sinternationalreputation. There are contributionson his translations in Bulgaria (M. Gurgulova), Czechoslovakia (V. Kostrica) and, of great value, on Turgenev and Maupassant (PatrickWaddington). Horst-Jurgen Gerigk contributes a short piece on the relationship with Doeblins and PeterHenry a surveyof translationsin English.This is followed by interestingopinions and analyses of English translationsof TheRedFlower (EdwinMViorgan, Martin Dewhirst, Svetlana Vasileva).Martine Artz's stimulating examination of the ups and downs of Garshin'sreputationoffersa less tragicperspectiveon the writerthan does the account of Iu. G. Oksman'sfate as his editor (Galina Samosiuk).Happily, the volume ends with an appreciation of the workof his greatestadvocate, the eminent scholarG. A. Bialyi. The thirdvolume is a mixed bag of synopsesof conferencepapers,notes on contributors, obituaries, Garshin's stories abroad and most valuable of all a new Garshin bibliographyand a review by Peter Henry of scholarly studies. Well illustratedand beautifully printed at the University of Strathclyde , these three volumes pay worthy tribute to a writerwho deservesto be betterknown and appreciatedin the English-speakingworld. London RICHARD FREEBORN Dennes, Maryse.Husserl-Heidegger. Influence deleuroeuvre enRussie.L'Harmattan, Paris and Montreal, I998. 334 pp. Bibliographical appendices. FF 170,00. MARYSEDENNES'sbook is a helpful overview of the history of the Russian receptionofphenomenology. Dennes hadto facethefactthata comprehensive study of this important subject had already been undertaken by Alexander Haardt in his monographHusserl inRussland. Phdnomenologie derSprache undKunst bei GustavSpetundAleksej Losev(I993). This seems to have determined her choice to bring in Heidegger alongside Husserl, a choice she justifies convincingly in philosophical terms. Indeed, the entire firstpart, about one REVIEWS 505 sixth of the book, dealswith the compatibilityof, and the differencesbetween, Husserland Heidegger;here Dennes drawson existingresearchon the history of Continental philosophy thatmay be found usefulby Slavists. In one crucial aspect, though, Dennes appears to be following Haardt's study:like Haardt, she singles out Gustav Shpet as the most significantfigure on the scene of Russian phenomenology, and the structureof her book bears out this design unmistakeably. Dennes collapses the history of the Russian reception of Husserl and thus the history of Russian phenomenology into three periods: the first one precedes Shpet's return to Russia after his Lehrgahre in Gottingen (I9 I 2-14); the second period, coinciding with Shpet's maturityas a thinker,encompassesthe later I9 IOSand the I 920S and seems to be ending with the re-organization of Soviet academic philsophy in the late I 92OS; the thirdperiod, the I 930s, is markedby Shpet'ssuppressionin exile. In examining the first period, Dennes pays closer attention to the first echoes of Husserl's philosophy in the work of Nikolai Losskii and Boris Jakovenko;she also examines the role of thejournal Logos and of Chelpanov's seminar for the penetration and discussion of Husserl'sphilosophy in Russia at the startof the twentieth century. Particularlyinterestingis her analysisof Khomiakov and SergeiTrubetskoiasthinkerswhose ideas set up a favourable context forthe philosophicalreception of Husserl. Dennes's interpretation of the second period is entirely dominated by Shpet; she subjectshis majorphilosophical workIavlenie i smysl,as well as the implications of phenomenology for his work in aesthetics, linguistics, philosophy of history and psychology, to a careful scrutiny. She also explores the hermeneutical directions in Shpet's work and attempts an account of how these relate to phenomenology. Unfortunately...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.