Literaturnye ob"edineniia Moskvy i Peterburga 1890-1917 godov. Slovar' by Manfred Shruba (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I44 SEER, 85, I, 2007 thisreviewer.Others - particularlythose loyal to one of the many established 'religious' interpretations of Dostoevskii will find the thesis too radical. Jones's scholarship justifiably retains a central place in English-language Dostoevskii studies. But this book ought also to affect the critical and sometimes not too critical work being done on Dostoevskii in his own country. School of Slavonic andEastEuropean Studies DEREK BROWER UniversivCollege London Shruba, Manfred. Literaturnye ob"edineniia Moskvyi Peterburga I890-I9I7 godov. Slovar'. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, Moscow, 2004. 440 pp. Illustrations.Appendix. Indexes. Price unknown. THE last quarter of the nineteenth century and the years up to the October Revolution witnessed an extraordinarydevelopment of the salon culture in Moscow and St Petersburg. At various epochs in their history, London, Edinburghand Parisalso displayedsimilarsocial scenes, but in the number of groups involved and the intensity of their activities they were surpassedby the two Russian capital cities. Particularlystrikingwas the heterogeneity of the Russian assemblies, which spanned the gamut from academic seminars, focusedround a core of inspirationalprofessors,to what amounted to drinking sodalities. In-between came all manner of organizations, some purely social, others philanthropic, literary, theatrical, artisticor political, the last catering for monarchistsat one extreme and Marxistson the other. To most of these groups the events of I9I7 brought a sudden end: the few which managed to adapt to the changed conditions survivedonly into the early I930s. On its title-page, Manfred Shruba's work is termed a 'dictionary', a descriptionwhich can be justified on the formal ground that it consistsof the names of the individualgroups listed alphabetically.But it is more than that. Depending on the information available, each entry gives the dates during which each group existed, its founder/host and his or her successors, the locations of its meetings, the days and times at which it met, its membership and the nature of its functions. Some were no more than unregulated conversaziones, but others adhered to a programme of papers and discussions. Practicallyall includedrefreshments,which were so generousand reliablethat an impecuniousyoung writercould count on a free meal each day of the week by going from one jour-fixe to another. The entries incorporateextractsfrom memoirs and diaries which describe the proceedings of the groups and those who participated in them. Almost every entry is concluded by a full bibliography. The dictionary prints the details about rather more than 350 groups in Moscow and St Petersburg. Since 2004 information about a further thirty groups has come to light. The author has published this supplement in the journal JNovoe literaturnoe obozrenie(77, Moscow, 2006, pp. 493-509). The dictionary itself (pp. i5-274) forms the bulk of the work. Then comes an extensive appendixwhich prints,first,two collectionsof reminiscences,one REVIEWS I45 by A. E. Kaufman and the other by N. V. Drizen (pp. 277-88) and, second, the manifestos of the major literary movements (pp. 288-374). An index (pp. 375-433) gives the names of the figuresmentioned in the dictionary,their dates of birth and death and a brief specificationof their interests.Finally, a systematic index (pp. 434-38) arrangesthe groups according to their literary schools, the particular spheres of their intellectual activity, their political outlook, their sociological character,and the forms which their organizations took, e.g., whether they were private circles, public societies, dining clubs or unions of professionalwriters. A special feature of this work are the illustrationswhich total more than a hundred. Some reproduce the title-pages of literary works composed by members of the groups; others portray individual members; but the most interestingof them all are the groupphotographs.As one looks along the rows of serious,bearded faces, one wonders how many of their possessorsrealized that their world was soon to be swept away. Dr Shruba has brought together a treasure-house of primary sources sufficient to create several works of narrative and analysis. Those who will write them will owe him a profound debt of gratitude. Imperial College London C. L. DRAGE Langen, Timothy. TheStony Dance:Unit andGesture inAndrey Bely's'Petersburg'. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL, 2005. xiv + I9I pages. Notes. Bibliography.Index. $75.95. How might Belyi's Petersburg be categorized?Tragicomedy, thriller,novel of ideas...
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".