A New Reading of the Classics of Russian 
Folkloristics 

Tatyana G. Ivanova 

Russian folkloristics, characteristically, interprets from time to 
time the scholarly inheritance of the past from contemporary 
positions. This is confirmed by A. L. Toporkov's book. The 
Theory of Mvth in Russian Philological Scholarship of the Nine­
teenth Century (Teoriia mifa v russkoi filologicheskoi nauke XIX 
veka), which was recently published by Indrik (Moscow, 1997. 456 
pp., boards). 

The monograph consists of an introduction, four chap­
ters, a conclusion, an index of narftes, and a bibliography. In the 
introduction the author clearly states the subject of his research 
— "not the mythological school in Russia, but the interpretation 
of mythology in Russian scholarship" (p. 20). In connection with 
the selection of names for the study becomes especially signifi­
cant — not only "mythologists," but also scholars from other 
trends in Russian philology. The four chapters are entitled: "F. 1. 
Buslaev's Research on Myth: From a Philosophy of Language to 
Comparative Ethnography": "Myth and Slavic Mythology in the 
Creative Legacy of A. N. Afanas'ev"; "A. A. Potebnia: The Linguis­
tic Theory of Myth"; "A. N. Veselovskii on Myth: A Complex 
Program for Philological Investigations." The evolution of inter­
pretations of myth and mythology in Russian scholarship of the 
last centuiy are examined through the prism of the creative 
biographies of the most prominent representatives of Russian 
philology in the nineteenth century .against a background of 
competing and coexisting schools. However, the significance of 
the book under review is not that the works of outstanding 
philologists about myth in the nineteenth century are examined 
diachronically (this is to be expected), but that they have been 
read in parallel and in conjunction with each other. Section 
titles such as the following play a basic role in Toporkov's 
monograph: "Buslaev on the Early Works of Veselovskii," 'The 
Influence of Buslaev on Afanas'ev," "Afanas'ev and Buslaev: A 
Creative Dialogue," "Afanas'ev and the early Potebnia," "Potebia 
and Buslaev," "Potebnia on Afanas'ev," and "Veselovskii and 
Buslaev: A Creative Dialogue." This method of reading the clas­
sics of folkloritstics enables the author of the monograph to 
avoid the characteristic mistakes that lie in wait for any invest!-

47 SEEFA Journal 1998, Vol. III No. 1



gator who is studying the scholarly inheritance of this or that 
major scholar — ascribing priorities to one's hero where they do 
not exist. f f 

Without a doubt the most important methodological merit 
of theis work is that the mythological theory of the last century is 
examined in close connection with the philosophy and theoret­

ical linguistics of the time. The names of Scheiling and Hum­

boldt are not accidental on the pages of Toporkov's monograph. 
One other side of his investigation attracts attention — the conti­

guous treatment of scholarly thought and artistic creation in 
Russian culture from the nineteenth to the early twentieth 
century. Many investigators before Toporkov have already 
drawn attention to the fact that Afanas'ev's The Slavs' Poetic 
Views of Nature (Poeticheskie vozzreniia slavian na prirodu) was 
a source of inspiration and the formation of aesthetic concept­

ions for such prominent verbal masters as Aleksandr Blok, 
Velimir Xlebnikov, Sergei Esenin, and Aleksei Remizov. The 
study of sources is usually the central point in examinations of 
this question. Toporkov points out the typological uniformity in 
the views of nature as an object of mythologization with Afana­

s'ev on the one hand, and with Fedor Tiutchev (pp. 202­203) and 
Evgenii Baratynskii (pp. 206­207) on the other. The typological 
identity in Russian philosophical lyrics of the nineteenth 
century and in Afanas'ev's scholarly research are noted with 
great accuracy and subtlety by the author of the monograph. 

An attentive reader will discover in this book a multitude 
of approaches to various individual questions that play far from 
the least important role in Russian folkloristics. We will point 
out one of them — establishing the sources on which Afanas'ev 
based his work, The Slavs' Poetic Views of Nature. Toporkov 
indisputably proves that the works of Potebnia were to a large 
extent fundamental to Afanas'ev, both for material and for 
conception. The book cites numerous examples of textual echoes 
between Afanas'ev and Potebnia's works On Several Symbols in 
Slavic Folk Poetry Ю nekotoryx simvolakh v slavianskoi 
narodnoi poezii, 1860), On the Mythological Meaning of Several 
Rituals and Beliefs (O mificheskom znachenii nekotoryx 
obriadov i poverii), and On the Connection of Several Concept­

ions in Language (O sviazi nekotorykh predstavlenii v iazyke, 
1864) (pp. 226­230). The parallel reading of Buslaev and Afana­

s'ev, as proposed by Toporkov, discloses just as large a relative 
weight of hidden citations from the studies of the former in 
Afanas'ev's The Slavs' Poetic Views of Nature (pp. 186­188). 

Ц8 



Afanas'ev even has clear echoes with Max Muller's Comparative 
Mythology (p. 201). 

Toporkov's monograph without doubt does not completely 
cover the question it addresses. In light of this work, it becomes 
clear that in order to carry out a fuller interpration of the paths of 
development of the "mythological school" in Russia in the 
nineteenth century (more precisely, of the evolution of the theory 
of myth), it is necessary to include the equally important names 
of A. A. Kotliarevskii and Orest Miller in the circle of scholars 
examined by Toporkov. The scholarly legacy of these researchers 
deserves just as diligent and scrupulous an analysis asToporkov's 
treatment of Buslaev, Afanas'ev, Potebnia and Veselovskii. 
Moreover, this analysis should not be carried out on the 
folklorist's work in isolation, but connected with the work of 
other folklorists. 

In his monograph Toporkov completely bypasses the 
names of the epigones of the mythological school, such as A. S. 
Famintsyn (The Gods of the Ancient Slavs (Bozhestva drevnix 
slavianj, SPb, 1884) and M. E. Sokolov (Old Russian Sun Gods and 
Goddesses IStaro-russkie solnechnye bogi i bogini], Simbirsk, 
1887|. Undoubtedly the author has the right to make such a 
choice in his research. Nevertheless, interpretation of the 
epigones in scholarship, just as in art, can at times be useful and 
fruitful. 

Like any serious research, Toporkov's monograph has in 
principal an open character. After becoming acquainted with 
this book, a reader not only receives answers, but also is given 
questions and begins to see more clearly further perspectives for 
the study of other problems. We see this as the main merit of this 
publication. 

Translated by James O. Bailey 

SEEFA Journal 1998, Vol. III No. 1