Contenu du sommaire

Gervaise Tassis, The works of Lev Tolstoi reflected in Mark Aldanov's novels: a permanent dialogue. The famous Russian émigré writer Mark Aleksandrovich Aldanov (his real name was Landau, 1886-1957) has been all his life an untiring reader of the works of his favourite writer Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoi. Nevertheless he has never entirely understood this great Russian writer though he was full of admiration for him, he just could not understand Tolstoi's faith, Tolstoi's quest of God. Aldanov could only see in him the writer of genius, the author of the yet unequalled masterpiece War and peace. But in fact, Aldanov reader of War and peace tells us more about his own art of historical novel, and about his own method which is much more scrupulous and historical than Tolstoi's. It clearly appears in a comparison between their two Napoleons. And so we are able to see in Aldanov's novels how enthusiastically, but at the same time, how reducingly, he always kept on reading the works of L. N. Tolstoi.

Nora Buhks, "Magic lantern " or Camera obscura, a film-story of V. Nabokov. Camera obscura is a work written in the style of "film-story". The cinema is not its theme but - in a parodical manner - its hidden social and artistic model, endowed with a structuralist and organizational function. In Camera obscura (Laughter in the dark), Nabokov reverses the traditional device which is to screen literary works. He supplies cinematographic process with literary existence and transmits to the text the visual and semantic characteristics of the picture. Magic lantern or camera obscura, such is the film-story of Vladimir Nabokov.

Moshe Gammer, Was General Kluge-von-Klugenau Shamil's Desmichels? After his accession to power, the Russians left Shamil in peace for more than a year and a half, which enabled the imam to consolidate his position in Daghestan. Already at the time, there was suspicion that the local Russian commander Franz Kluge-von-Klugenau had concluded an agreement with Shamil. Although categorically denied by Klugenau, this suspicion found its way to one Russian pre-revolutionary author. (For obvious reasons Russian as well as Soviet historiography disregarded the issue completely.) This article presents the available evidence which is, one must emphasize, circumstantial only to the existence of such an agreement and to its stipulations. Analyzing the benefits of such an agreement to either party, it discusses Klugenau's motives for such an initiative contradicting the official policy. The article then notes the resemblances between this affair, and the agreement signed by Desmichels with 'Abd al Qâdir. Like in all resemblances in history, however, the differences between the two affairs are much more significant than the resemblances.

Alessandro Mongili, Soviet scientific institutions under perestroika. This article presents the situation of Soviet scientific institutions in the light of development since the launching of perestroika. The upheaval in theoretical frames has brought about a serious dislocation in the factors constituting what was formerly regarded as the stable character of Soviet science. An image of crisis now prevails as the obvious outcome. The elements which together make up this image are the problems which have come into the foreground and play a crucial role in the attempts of reform now on the way.

M. Confino and D. Rubinstein, Kropotkin as scientist. Twenty-five unpublished letters front Peter Kropotkin to Marie Goldsmith, 27 July 1901-9 July 1915. Peter Kropotkin is remembered as the greatest anarchist theoretician of his generation, as a social thinker, and a prolific writer. But in addition to these achievements, he had also a deep interest in science (originating probably from the "scientist" ethos of the 1860's). The fields which attracted him most were, first geology, then biology and genetics. Using twenty-five unpublished letters of his to Marie Goldsmith, a fellow anarchist and a professional biologist at the Sorbonne, this study describes and analyses Kropotkin's scientific contribution, and his involvement in the great debates in the early twentieth century: nature versus nurture, inherited versus acquired characteristics, role of the environment, mutations, plasticity of animal behavior, mutual aid in and among the species, social Darwinism... A genuine polymath, Kropotkin wrote with skill and intuition on these fundamental issues, some of which are still on the agenda of contemporary science and of social theory.

Ya'acov Oved, The future society according to Kropotkin. This article reviews the development of Peter Kropotkin's views on the future society since 1873, and traces the stages of the elaboration of his anarcho-eommunist vision. Kropotkin's theory of mutual aid as a factor of survival is presented as the basis of the world view which buttresses the structure of the future society. A special attention is given to the notions of the spontaneous character of the transitional stage of the social revolution preliminary to the emergence of the new society. The article describes extensively the values and social structures which will be embedded in the post-revolutionary era. Subjects such as the system of rewards according to needs, the integration of industry and agriculture, the combina- tion of manual and intellectual work, the integral education, and women's liberation, are presented as highlights of the character and scope of this Utopian vision. The article concludes with an evaluation and criticism of Kropotkin's approach based on the assessment of contemporary scholars as well as rivals and anarchist partners.