Abstract
As with any genre, to understand the specificity of the human document model articulated during the interwar period we must analyze it with reference to its direct antecedents. The human document did not appear on the European literary scene ex nihili. In France, it already had a long history tracing back at least to the middle of the nineteenth century.2 The invention of the term “human document” (if not of the genre itself) was contested between Emile Zola and Edmond Goncourt. It was cited profusely by both of these prominent Naturalists, for example, in Goncourt’s Les Frères Zemganno and Le Faustin, and by Zola in Thérèse Raquin and in his collection of critical essays, Le Roman experimental. In 1879, five of these essays were published in Russian translation in the flagship Russian periodical Vestnik Evropy, appearing even before a French edition had been released. Zola’s ideas quickly penetrated Russia, where a similar phenomenon—the so-called “physiological sketch“3—had been thriving for decades. Discussing contemporary literature, Zola presents Claude Bernard’s Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine (1865) as a template for the novel. He maintains that, following in the tracks of contemporary science, the writer must turn away from the abstract metaphysical man to the natural human being, who is under the unshakeable sway of physical and chemical laws and is shaped by his environment.4
There is no art and art is unnecessary … Only the document exists, only the fact of spiritual life. A private letter, a diary and a psychoanalytic transcript are the best forms for its expression.1
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
B. Poplavsky, Stat’i. Dnevniki. Pis’ma (Moscow: Knizhnitsa, 2009), pp. 45, 47.
E. Zola, “ Le Roman expérimental, “ in Œuvres complètes, vol. 10 (Paris: Cercle du livre précieux, 1968), p. 1186.
E. de Goncourt and J. de Goncourt, Préfaces et manifestes littéraires (Paris: Charpentier, 1888), pp. 56–7.
See F. Lezhen, “’Ia’ Marii. Retseptsiia dnevnika Marii Bashkirtsevoi (1877–1899),” in Avtobiograficheskaia praktika v Rossii i Frantsii, eds. K. Violle and E. Grechanaia (Moscow: IMLI RAN, 2006), pp. 161–81.
P. Lejeune, Le Pacte autobiographique (Paris: Seuil, 1975), p. 26.
A. France, “Journal de Marie Bashkirtseff,” Le Temps, June 12, 1887.
L. Gurevich, “Pamiati M. Bashkirtsevoi,” Novoe vremia, June 11, 1887
L. Gurevich, “M.K. Bashkirtseva. Biograficheski-psikhologicheskii etiud,” Russkoe bogatstvo, 2 (1888).
A. Aleksandrov, Mademuazel’ Bashkirtseva. Podlinnaia zhizn’ (Moscow: Zakharov, 2003), pp. 304–7.
P. Descamps, “Marie Bashkirtseff féministe?” La Fronde, September 4, 1926
G. Fuss-Amore, “Une annonciatrice de la jeune fille moderne, “ Nation Belge, May 18, 1936.
I. Kaspe, Iskusstvo otsutstvovat’: Nezamechennoe pokolenie russkoi literatury (Moscow: NLO, 2005), p. 163.
B. Dubin, Slovo-pis’mo-literatura. Ocherki po sotsiologii sovremennoi kul’tury (Moscow: NLO, 2001), pp. 265–6.
Yu. Terapiano, “Puteshestvie v glub’ nochi,” Chisla 10 (1934), 210.
G. Adamovich, “’Puteshestvie v glub’ nochi,” Poslednie novosti, 4618, 27 April 1933, p. 3.
G. Adamovich, “Na raznye temy: Vtoroi tom ‘Tiazhelogo diviziona’ — ‘Kochev’e’ — Selin i Andre Malro,” Poslednie novosti, 4649, 14 December 1933, p. 3.
M. Kantor, “Volia k zhizni (o Katerine Mansfild),” Vstrechi, 5214 (1934).
P. Bitsilli, “Vozrozhdenie allegorii,” Sovremennye zapiski 61 (1936), 200.
T. Krasavchenko, “L.-F. Selin i russkie pisateli-mladoemigranty per-voi volny,” in Russkie pisateli v Parizhe. Vzgliad na frantsuzskuiu literaturu 1920–1940 (Moscow: Russkii put’, 2007), p. 193.
L. Livak, How It Was Done in Paris: Russian Emigre Literature and French Modernism (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2003), pp. 142–53.
B. Poplavsky, “Sredi somnenii i ochevidnostei,” Utverzhdeniia, 3 (1932), 96–8.
(H. Miller, Tropic of Cancer (New York: Grove Press, 1961), pp. 49–50).
I. Kaspe, “Orientatsiia na peresechennoi mestnosti: strannaia proza Borisa Poplavskogo,” Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 47, 1 (2001), 200.
(P. Drieu la Rochelle, Le Jeune Européen suivi de Genève ou Moscou (Paris: Gallimard, 1978), p. 51).
(S. Semenova, “Ekzistentsial’noe soznanie v proze russkogo zarubezh’ia (Gaito Gazdanov i Boris Poplavskii)“, Voprosy literatury, May-June (2000), 67–106
S. Kibal’nik, Gaito Gazdanov i ekzistentsial’naia traditsiia v russkoi literature (Saint Petersburg: Petropolis, 2011)
V. Zherdeva, Ekzistentsial’nye motivy v tvorchestve pisatelei “nezamechennogo pokoleniia” russkoi emigratsii: B. Poplavsky, G. Gazdanov. Avtoreferat diss. 10.01.01 (Moscow: MPGU, 1999))
B. Poplavsky, Neizdannoe. Dnevniki. Stat’i. Stikhi (Moscow: Khristianskoe izdatel’stvo, 1995), p. 277.
“Chelovecheskii document,” in G. Adamovich, Literaturnye zametki, vol. II (Saint Petersburg: Aleteia, 2007), p. 217.
P. Balakshin, “Emigrantskaia literatura,” Kaliforniiskii almanakh (San Francisco, 1934), pp. 135–6.
V. Varshavsky, “O ‘geroe’ molodoi emigrantskoi literatury,” Chisla 6 (1932), 164–72.
My: Zhenskaia proza russkoi emigratsii, ed. O. Demidova (Saint-Petersburg: RKhGI, 2003), pp. 525–31.
N. Iakovleva, “’Chelovecheskii dokument’ (Material k istorii poniatiia),” in Istoriia i povestvovanie, eds. G. Obatnin and P. Pessonen (Moscow: NLO, 2006), p. 390.
E. Bakunina, Liubov’ k shesterym. Telo (Moscow: Geleos, 2001), p. 245.
Yu. Terapiano, “Yu. Felzen ‘Schast’e,’ izd. ‘Parabola.’ Berlin, 1932,” Chisla 7–8 (1933), 268.
G. Adamovich, “Literaturnaia nedelia,” Illustrirovannaia Rossiia 2 (348), 9 January 1932.
G. Adamovich, “Kommentarii,” Chisla 7–8 (1933), 153–65, 154.
Yu. Terapiano, “O novom cheloveke i o novoi literature,” Mech 15–16 (1934), 3–6, 6.
G. Kuznetsova, Grasskii dnevnik (Washington, DC: Victor Kamkin, 1967), p. 16.
P. Bitsilli, “G. Kuznetsova. Prolog. Izd. Sovremennye zapiski, 1933,” Sovremennye zapiski 53 (1933).
V. Yanovsky, Liubov’ vtoraia. Izbrannaia proza (Moscow: NLO, 2014), p. 525.
L. Aragon, Le paysan de Paris (Paris: Gallimard, 2003), p. 209.
B. Poplavsky, Proza (Moscow: Soglasie, 2000), p. 292.
I. Chinnov, “Otryvok iz dnevnika,” Chisla 10 (1934), 223.
B. Zakovich, “Vechera Soiuza molodykh poetov,” Chisla 4 (1931), 258–9.
N. Otsup, “Vmesto otveta,” Chisla 4 (1931), 158–60.
R. Hagglund, “The Adamovich-Khodasevich Polemics,” Slavic and East European Journal 20 (1976), 239–52
O. Korostelev, “Polemika G.V. Adamovicha i V.F. Khodasevicha, “ Rossiiskii literaturovedcheskii zhurnal 4 (1994), 204–8.
V. Khodasevich, “Avtor, Geroi, Poet,” Krug 1 (1936), 169–70.
V. Veidlé, Umiranie iskusstva (Saint Petersburg: Aleteia, 1996), p. 12.
V. Veidlé, “Chelovek protiv pisatelia,” Krug 2 (1937), 140, 141.
(D. Leis [Veidlé], “’Bolezn’ veka,’” Zveno 220 (1927), 5–6).
K. Mochulsky, “Krizis voobrazheniia,” Zveno 2 (1927), 75–81, 80.
A. Bem, “Literatura s kokainom,” in Issledovaniia. Pisma o literature (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2001), p. 437.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2015 Maria Rubins
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rubins, M. (2015). Who Needs Art? The Human Document and Strategies of Self-Representation. In: Russian Montparnasse. Palgrave Studies in European Literature. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137508010_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137508010_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-57175-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-50801-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Media & Culture CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)