Natasha's Dance: A Cultural History of Russia

The answer is no. Let's not confuse "long" with "comprehensive."

In fairness to Figes, this book has a lot of strengths, particularly his discussion of the relationship between nineteenth century Russian operas and the texts from which their libretti were drawn, his emphasis on the Old Believer schism, and his treatment of Vassily Grossman, still relatively unknown in the West. However, it has some glaring omissions for a work which wants to be comprehensive.

First, Figes basically ignores all literature, architecture, and applied art prior to the period around the founding of St. Petersburg. This means that he fails to address, among other things, the _Tale of Igor_, the literary impact of Slavonic hagiography, icons and their influence on secular painting (other than a lick and a promise to Andrei Rublev's work), and any of Ivan IV a/k/a the Terrible's perorations. This omits a necessary context for the Westernizers (such as Peter I a/k/a "The Great") and the Slavophiles.

Second, I think his treatment of _Oblomov_ would not communicate the importance of this work in the public imagination to anyone who was not familiar with this work, and Figes doesn't even mention _The Precipice_, which Goncharov regarded as his true masterpiece. He also doesn't discuss the rift between Goncharov and Turgenev as a result of the similar themes in _The Precipice_ and _Fathers and Children_. This really was an unfortunate omission. This was big news in the nineteenth century.

Third, I thought that Figes did not devote sufficient attention to the nineteenth-century anarchists, particularly those of the upper-classes, and slighted Yurij Dombrosky, though I grant you that these might be quibbles.

Fourth, given his emphasis on Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and emigre and returnee literature, I was expecting to see more discussion of Solzhenitsyn, who rates only a cursory mention. Solzhenitsyn's work neatly demonstrates and extends virtually all the points that Figes is making, which is why his failure to discuss him at greater length is so odd.

Fifth, there were occasional odd minor lapses in scholarship. For example, at one point Figes notes that the word "robot" is "not coincidentally" similar to the Russian verb _rabotat'_, or "to work". However, a few minutes with the Oxford English dictionary told me that the first reported use of the word "robot" was by a Czech playwright, Karel Capek, in the play "R.U.R." released circa 1921, and that "rabota" means forced labor in Czech. In fact, In the days when Czechoslovakia was a feudal society, "robota" referred to the two or three days of the week that peasants were obliged to leave their own fields to work without remuneration on the lands of noblemen. However, that fact does not fit with Fige's theory. It makes me fret about what Figes did in the course of assembling his book with other facts (and artists, such as ones noted above) that do not fit his theory.

Finally, his offering of Natasha's dance at the end of _War and Peace_ as the central image of the authentic pure Russian soul revealing itself beneath the veneer of European culture really bothers me. It bothers me because an equally central image of Natasha Rostova and her reaction to Art is Natasha at the opera earlier in the book, suffering _ostranenie_, or a sense of estrangement, from the opera's artifice. Moreover, the final image of Natasha in _War and Peace_ that Tolstoy creates for us is to show her stout, jealous, with a faint mustache, which has always stuck me as cruel both to poor Natasha and to the patient reader. It begs the question to say, as Figes does, that Tolstoy's view is simply that Natasha is "estranged" from Western art, therefore it is bad, and that she responds "naturally" to Russian art, therefore it is good. As Figes admits elsewhere in this book, Tolstoy was far more complex in his personal beliefs than this, and his writing improved when he could abandon his didacticism. Natasha's dance and her reaction to the opera are both examples of a Tolstoyan rigidity into which Figes periodically slips.

Conclusion: read it together with _The Icon and the Axe._


Best Book I Read In 2002   December 4, 2002
Bruce Loveitt (Ogdensburg, NY USA)
53 out of 55 found this review helpful

I usually like to give my reviews catchy little titles. I was going to call this one "Fabulous Figes". I finally decided it was more important to just come right out and say this is the best book I read this year. Of course, if we were in January or February, that statement wouldn't mean too much! (Kind of like movie reviews that come out early in the year..."Best Darn Romantic Comedy I've Seen...So Far!) Since we're in December, and considering I've read about 70 books this year, that makes the statement a little more impressive. Okay, so now I've got to "put my money where my mouth is" and tell you what makes "Natasha's Dance" so good. First, the book is beautifully written. It is lyrical, poignant, funny, thoughtful, etc. Like all good popular historians, Mr. Figes has a novelist's flair. Second, the book is wonderfully structured. The author decided to give each chapter a particular theme. So, despite the daunting task Mr. Figes has assigned himself (a cultural history of Russia!), the book doesn't ramble. It has a tight focus. On the other hand, there are enough themes covered that you don't feel anything relevant has been left out. Some of the themes that are covered: how Russian culture was influenced by both Asia and Western Europe; peasant life- the reality vs. how the urban intellectuals imagined it to be; Moscow vs. St. Petersburg (i.e.- their competition with each other, and changing fortunes as cultural centers); the search for the Russian soul- the religious beliefs of some of the famous Russian authors (Pushkin, Tolstoy, Gogol, Turgenev, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, etc.); the distortion and manipulation of culture by the Bolsheviks; and, finally, the effect that emigration from "Mother Russia" had on various cultural figures- such as Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Stravinsky, Gorky and Nabokov. Mr. Figes also makes sure not to neglect those who chose to stay- people such as the poet Anna Akhmatova, the film director Sergei Eisenstein and the composer Dmitry Shostakovich. Some of these people hated the Revolution and pined for the past. Others welcomed the Revolution and later on became disillusioned. All of them either suffered (materially and/or spiritually) or lived in fear during the nightmare years under Stalin. Third, besides each chapter having an interesting theme, within each chapter Mr. Figes gives details concerning what was going on in the lives of various artists within a particular creative field. So, you get lots of interesting biographical material concerning novelists, poets, composers, etc. The threads of their lives intersect in interesting ways: Tolstoy, who had a lifelong fear of his own death, going to visit Chekhov- Tolstoy thought Chekhov was on his deathbed and wanted to see how Chekhov would "handle" his own mortality! Tolstoy was amazed that Chekhov could still laugh and joke and put on "a brave face". (Chekhov was amused. He knew Tolstoy and suspected the reason for his visit.). Another interesting "artistic intersection" was when Prokofiev decided to leave America because he didn't want to play "second fiddle" (or maybe I should say "second piano!) to Rachmaninov. Prokofiev apparently had quite a large ego, and when he saw how popular Rachmaninov was in the United States (Rachmaninov had emigrated first) he decided to return to Europe (part of this was style- Prokofiev felt that he was too "modern"- that Americans preferred Rachmaninov's more "traditional" and "romantic" music). Regarding Prokofiev, there is the touching footnote that he had the misfortune to die on the same day that Stalin did, March 5, 1953. As Mr. Figes writes, "(Prokofiev's) funeral (was) a sad affair that was scarcely noticed by the Soviet public...There were no flowers left to buy, so a single pine branch was placed on the composer's grave." I hope I have been able to convey some idea of the richness of this book. It is a remarkable achievement by Mr. Figes. If you have any interest whatsoever in Russian cultural history, you will definitely love this book. And, as sort of a wonderful dessert after a gourmet meal, the author has provided a section called "A Guide To Further Reading". This section is almost 30 pages long. Mr. Figes lists many books in this section but also indicates his particular favorites. I've already found at least half-a-dozen titles I want to buy. We bibliophiles should have a "universal tattoo"- "So many books, so little time!"


Why Rachel Polonsky is wrong   February 23, 2003
susan (Boston)
26 out of 27 found this review helpful

I disagree with the reviewer who finds this not quite "heavyweight" enough. It is not an academic book - and thank God for that - but a superb introduction to the history and the culture of Russia.

Figes starts with a wonderful account of the building of St Petersburg in the 1700s, and goes on to discuss the meaning of Europe to Russian culture in the eighteenth century. Europe caused a split in the Russian national identity - and much of Russian culture in the nineteenth century was concerned with how to reconcile the two almost contradictory halves of the Russian character: the native Russian (or Muscovite) and the European (or Petrine).

The next chapter takes up the story of 1812, when Russia's writers and artist first began to think about the ways of developing a distinctively "Russian style" in contrast to the West. This is when the Slavophiles were born. There are lots of fascinating details here - on the Russian customs of child-rearing, on interior design and Russian fashions.

The next three chapters explore various facets of Russian culture in the nineteenth century: the Moscow tradition; the romantic fascination with the Russian peasants (which Figes explores as a search for nationhood); and the influence of the Orthodox tradition on Russian literature and art.

Then there is a speculative chapetr on the cultural influence of the Asiatic steppe/ For me, this was the most original and the most interesting chapter in the book (Rachel Polonsky, in her hatchet-job review in the TLS doesn;t even mention it). In this chapter Figes digs down deep into peasant culture and folklore, showing how the shamanic beliefs of the steppeland nomads (the "Decsendants of Genghiz Khan") left their trace on the Russians/

Finally there are two long chapterson the twentieth century when Russian culture was divided into two: the first on Soviet culture and the last on the emigration to the West. I didn't quite agree with Figes's argument - that in the end Soviet culture was peripheral and failed to change the underlying Russian cultural traditions (represented by Akhmatova). But I was moved by the tremendous emotional impact of these final chapters, which (more than anything I've ever read before) assert triumphantly the endurance of the Russian people and their culture over politics.

I am not surprised that Figes has his critics. He writes too well, too flamboyantly;he tackles bigger themes than most academics dare. But for the general reader Natasha's Dance is a rich delight. On every page there is something new and fascinating. There are sumptuous illustrations. And for those who want to read more "heavyweight" volumes there is a comprehensive guide to further reading at the end.

In sum- this is a wonderful, enriching book, for anybody with a psssing interest in Russia, its history and culture.


Why Rachel Polonsky is right   February 17, 2003
pnotley@hotmail.com (Edmonton, Alberta Canada)
19 out of 32 found this review helpful

Here are some interesting facts. Russia was so backward in 1682 that the Moscow printing press has published exactly three non-religious works in the past 120 years. And there was no Russian translation of the Bible until the 1870s. One of Isaiah Berlin's uncles was tortured as part of "the Doctor's plot." After surviving that horrible experience he saw one of his torturers on the street and dropped dead of a heart attack. When Tolstoy was excommunicated by the Orthodox Church, the bishop of Kronstadt wrote a prayer hoping for Tolstoy's death, and the prayer was widely reprinted in conservative newspapers. Count Karl Nesselrode, an aristocrat of Baltic German descent, could not neither write nor speak Russian. Notwithstanding that minor problem he was Russia's foreign minister for four decades. Russian dolls are not an ancestral Russian toy, but in fact were first developed in the 1890s. One Russian aristocrat kept his crayfish, not in water, but in cream and parmesan. Stalin and Prokofiev died on the same day, so the former's death ensured that there would be no flowers for the latter's funeral.

Welcome to Orlando Figes' "Natasha's Dance," a history of Russian culture more or less dating from Peter the Great. Clearly his talent for anecdote is the most enjoyable thing about this book. Figes account starts off with the building of Saint Petersburg, and then goes on to discuss the Decembrists, and the mystical "Oriental" nature of Moscow. Then there is a chapter on literary and romanticized views of the peasantry, a chapter on the nature of Russian Orthodoxy, and the Asiatic influence. Finally there is a chapter on the Soviet experience, and a complementary chapter on the emigre one. Many readers will find this book fascinating and informative. Yet a closer look reveals several problems. First off, this is definitely a cultural history from the top down. There is much concentration on the aristocratic elite that most of Russia's great artists came from before 1917. There are many pages on the love and exile of the Decembrist Volkonsky. There is much Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Turgenev and Chekov. There is much about the incredibly lavish and wealthy lifestyle of the Sheremetev family. Indeed there is much about the incredibly lavish and wealthy lifestyle of the aristocracy as a whole.

On the other hand, one would be forgiven the view that the aristocracy was almost entirely responsible for this culture. Figes discusses the peasantry in some detail, but when one reads his discussion of the pessimistic views of Chekov, Gorky and Bunin, one might well get the impression that the vast majority of Russians did not deserve the culture they were given. And while Figes discusses the Tatar influence on Russia, he does not discuss the influence of non-Russians who made up the majority of the Empire and nearly half of the Soviet Union. This is particularly striking in his discussion of Orthodoxy, which to Figes defines the Russian character. This leads him to make several fatuous comments ("The entire spirit of the Russian people, and much of their best art and music, has been poured into the Church..." "As Gogol once remarked, the Russians have a special interest in celebrating Easter--for theirs is a religion based on hope."--as opposed to other Christianities, which supposedly aren't). It also causes Figes to downplay those artists, such as Chagall and Mandelstam, who clearly did not define themselves by Orthodoxy.

Even more distressing is Figes' fundamentally conventional views. Saint Petersburg is Russia's European city, Dostoevsky is spiritual, Tolstoy is foolish, Chekov is sensible, Stalin is cruel. We get journalistic pseudo-observations such as Figes' comment on "The Rite of Spring": "In these explosive rhythms it is possible to hear the terrifying beat of the Great War and the Revolution of 1917." Really? What we do not have is any particular insight into these works. To learn that Chekov visited prostitutes or that Nabakov was unforgiveably snotty about Akhamatova is not a substitute for a sustained critical examination of their work. One cannot learn why Tolstoy is the exemplar of modern prose by poring over his weaknesses.

There is a middlebrow exoticism in Figes' book, as he emphasizes Russia's non-European character and the anti-rational side of Orthodoxy. Although Russian Orthodoxy is hegemonic, Figes also emphasizes that aristocrats wore their religion lightly, which does not explain how Orthodoxy managed to enforce its hold on Russia. There is a problem with Figes' emphasis on the basic paganism of Russian peasants. He is unaware that at the time that Kandinsky and Stravinsky were looking for "pagan" elements in Russian cultures, a similar search for pagan elements can be seen across Europe. More important, historians such as Peter Brown and Ronald Hutton have argued that much of this continuity was spurious. Figes' arguments for a greater pagan influence are not much better; common superstitions such as fortune telling and fear of death, as well as Gorky's conversation with a peasant who cannot understand the Incarnation is not sufficient. Moreover, as the book goes on there is a tendency of padding, with large excerpts from Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Akhamatova and Tsvetaeva. There is an interesting discussion of how Russian musicians used folk influences, as well as invented folk influences by borrowing from European musicians, but it is based mostly on the work of Richard Taruskin. And the emphasis on the difference of "Russia" from "Europe" is made easier by more or less ignoring the last few decades of mass urbanization and mass literacy. Figes' last major work "A People's Tragedy" was judged, correctly, to be superior to Simon Schama's "Citizens." By contrast, this work is clearly not on the level of Schama's "The Embarrassment of Riches."


Informative and entertaining - a "must buy"   January 10, 2003
martin lewis (Hertford)
17 out of 19 found this review helpful

This is a really fascinating book. Figes explores the development of the Russian national identity and the extraordinary role of literature and all the other arts in Russian history.

It is not meant to be a "comprehensive history" of all the Russian arts but an interpretation of the Russian tradition. Figes makes this clear in the Introduction - so it is quite unfair to criticize his book for omissions.

Natasha's Dance is a wonderfully rich and entertaining read. Figes writes quite beautifully. As in A People's Tragedy (his brilliant history of the Russian Revolution), Figes develops his analysis through mini-narratives which bring his "cultural history" to life. The book starts for example with a rivetting account of the building of St Petersburg in the early eighteenth century, which leads him to the theme of the first chapter - the elusive and ambiguous ideal of European civilization. The chapters are thematically arranged but the chapters follow in a sort of sequence - from the 18th to the 20th centuries - which gives the book a grander narrative.

All the major themes of Russian culture are discussed: the tension between the ("high") European culture of the aristocracy and the native ("low") culture of the peasantry; the contrast between Moscow and St Petersburg; the religious searching for the "Russian soul" (developed beautifully through the biographies of Gogol, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy); and the influence of Asia (fascinating stuff!). There are also chapters on Soviet culture and the emigres.

At 700 pages this is a long book . But don't let that put you off. It reads like a novel. And there are some wonderful pictures. Overall a bargain - and a "must buy".