◆ SpookStack

22 oe Ce enn NEW REPUBLIC ‘BOOKS IN REVIEW Perce THINGS should be said right off about Edward Crankshaw’s Russia "and the Rassians (Viking, $3) and Sir John Maynard's Russia in Flux (Mac- millan, $6.50). First, everyone who uses his head——to borrow a phrase of Philip Barry’s—for anything but a hatrack should read them. Second, the American publishers are to be con- gratulated for bringing out the books in this country after their publication in England. And third, these two England, although slipping behind in tennis, steel production and sex novels, is still far ahead of us in Slavonic studies. In this country our emphasis has too often been on passionate journal- ism and partisan pamphleteering. The English indulge in that sort of thing, too, But at the same time their more . Serious thinkers are applying them- selves to the problem of understand- ing the Russians from a long: term point of view. In our histories, in our social and literary criticism of Russia, we have telied.a good deal upon the © writings of embittered emigrés. There are, of course, notable exceptions— and twe that come to my mind are the late Samuel Harper of Chicago: and the very lively Ernest Simmons, now at Columbia. But few American scholars. have written a history or a commen: . tary on Russia to compare with those of Mackenzie. Wallace, Sir Bernard Pares, B. H. Sumner, the Webbs, or with the books of the two authors un- der discussion, Maynard and Crank- Chronologically, Maynard should be introduced first. Sir John, a British civil servant turned Fabian socialist, died.a few yeats‘ago. He learned Rus- sian in 1894, traveled in Central Asia before Eric Johnston was born, at- tended the coronation of Nicholas II in 1896, and spent more time in Russia than most American diplomats volumes ate a- sharp reminder that ~~ Here fOr thé first time under one title. RUSSIA WITHOUT RANCOR ful grafting of creative thinking and ‘creative writing in a field thickly weeded with black-and-white stereo- types. . Maynard and Crankshaw both take the long view on the Russian Revolu- tion and, in fact, on the eventual out- | by Richard Lauferbach —or reporters. He did not entirely ac- cept the Webbs’ account of life under the Soviets as a “new civilization.” Out of his lifetime of observation and re- search Sir John wrote two great studies: Russia in Flux, published in Britain about ten years ago, and The Russian Peasant and Other Studies, which appeared in 1942. Both works, somewhat abridged, are now printed the Soviet Union. Maynard points out that 25 years ago four-fifths of the Russians were peasants—and that we annot.comprehend the astounding de- - first k how th j d In full dimension. Edwar. d Crank: tst know how the peasants lived an shaw, who evidently has been’ influ- enced in his intellectual approach to Russia by: Maynatd’s writings, was a member : of the’ British ' Military ‘Mis- have studied the pte-1917 peasantry, sion in Moscow during the recent Crankshaw has a theory to explain shooting war. His short, readable book 4. peasant—and therefore, the Rus- should have wider popular appeal than ‘Geof Sit John’s, which is a lengthy and frey Gorer’s bowel-contral key to Japa- scholarly history of Russian social nese character (or: his recently: dis- thought. Crankshaw’s Russia and the covered gimmick to explain the Rus- Russians is a full-flowered work of art, sians—their swaddling of newborn in- the result of an extraordinarily success- fants). Crankshaw’s purpose is stated , eatly in his book: “. . . to produce a picture of the Russian people, their culture, and their political ideas, against the background of the un- changing conditions of their landscape and climate.” Sree oe agrees—and adds, more : pointedly, that we cannot fully appreciate the limita- sjans.. It is not as oversimple as Geof- The plainsmen. Could you make any sense of the problems of the Es: kimos, Crankshaw asks, without some idea of the properties of snow and ice? Then why expect to understand the Russian without studying the great, brooding plain on ‘which he lives? This open, windswept plain, easily in- vaded, difficult to defend, has com- pletely conditioned Russia’s history and her people. On. it the peasant is perennially face to face with hostile elements which cannot be held off by individual initiative; ‘he is thrown against forces which can only be beaten back by a banding together. This ne- velopment of the USSR unless we tions of the Soviet Union until we . Re, ert PPh . 4 t « ue x