TOWARDS THE ROMANTIC AGE

TOWARDS THE ROMANTIC AGE

TOWARDS THE ROMANTIC AGE ESSAYS ON SENTIMBNTAL AND PREROMANTIC LITERATURE IN RUSSIA RUDOLF NEUHAUSER SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V. 1974

Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1974 Originally published by Martinus Nijho.ff, The Haque, Netherland in 1974 All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. ISBN 978-94-017-4551-2 DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-4699-1 ISBN 978-94-017-4699-1 (ebook)

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface. Introduction. VII IX I Sentimentalism: The Conceptual Background 1. A Russian Sentimentalist: I. I. Dmitriev. 2. The Philosophical Background. 3. The Sensualist Approach in Russian Aesthetics. 4. Freemasonic Concepts IT Sentimentalism: Literary Influences from the West and the Russian Response 1. Three Trends 2. Translated Literature between 1750 and 1780. 3. Changing Genre Concepts. 4. Sentimental Aestheticism: Patterns and Motifs. 1 8 13 17 27 32 52 71 ITI The Transition to Preromantic Writing 1. From Sentimental Cliches to Preromantic Concepts. 85 2. Major Influences on Preromantic Writing in Russia. 90 Jean Jacques Rousseau, William Shakespeare, Johann Gottfried Herder, Friedrich Schiller, Johann Wolfgang Goethe 3. German Aesthetic Theories in Russia. 117 4. Folklore and Mythology. 127

VI TABLE OF CONTENTS IV Preromantic Themes and Motifs 1. Basic Concepts of Preromantic Literature: Nature, Poetry, and the Genius 143 2. Major Genres of Preromantic Literature. 150 The Novel and Drama 3. Early Russian Interpretations of the Romantic: The Term "romanicheskii". 162 v Russian Preromantic Writing 1. N. M. Karamzin's Preromantic Period. 169 2. The Friendly Literary Society. 193 3. The Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Science and the Arts 205 4. Three Preromantic Authors 222 V. T. Narezhnyi, N. I. Gnedich, D. V. Davydov Conclusion 237 Index of Names. 241 Index of Terms. 247 Index of Russian Periodicals. 249

PREFACE Russian literature between 1750 and the romantic age presents a confusing picture. Various literary movements arose and existed side by side, while new trends made themselves felt. At no other time in the history of Russian literature was there a similar influx of widely disparate literary and intellectual influences from the West. The complex evolution of literature is reflected in the area of literary classification. Period terms have been used in great variety, yet without general agreement as to the extent, or even the nature of the trends described. The essays of this study are devoted to two major literary trends of the 18th and early 19th century, -sentimentalism and preromanticism. They aim to elucidate their evolution as well as at defining and describing the conceptual framework on which they rest. Since the 18th century did not draw a sharp line between translated and original literature, both have been included here. Literary, philosophical, and general cultural influences from the West were of considerable importance for Russian literature. The concepts, motifs and themes which reached Russian writers in translations moulded their own original works. The 18th century witnessed the formation of an adequate literary language which culminated in Karamzin's style. The distinction of two stages in the development of sentimentalism as suggested here and the differentiation between both of them and a third literary trend, preromanticism, is an attempt to reflect adequately the rapid change in stylistic and poetic norms. The essays of this study are not a history of literature in the sense of a descriptive study of authors and literary works. They are rather devoted to the discussion of poetic and stylistic norms, concepts and patterns, motifs and themes in a historical and comparative perspective against the background of English, French, and German literature. It is hoped that this study will provide a comprehensive framework which will make it

VIII PREFACE possible one day to write a detailed history of pre-romantic trends in Russian literature. The recent interest in an integration of close textual reading with a poetological interpretation of literary structures in an appropriate historical perspective (as in modem hermeneutics, the structuralism of R. Barthes or L. Goldman, recent Soviet typological research, etc.) reflects a concern which has also been in the mind of this author. I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to the Canada Council which supported research for this study with a research grant permitting me to work in Soviet libraries in Leningrad and Moscow. The University of Western Ontario has periodically granted money for duplicating rare material and has assisted me with often complex interlibrary loans. To make the book of maximum use for those who know little or no Russian, I have rendered all titles of books and journals into English and have also translated all Russian texts. The original Russian titles appear in the notes and the Index of Russian Periodicals. Wherever it seemed advisable for the purpose of a closer stylistic study (and where the original Russian text presumably would not easily be available), I have added the original text in the notes. The transliteration corresponds to the modified Library of Congress system. London April, 1972 Rudolf Neuhauser

INTRODUCTION The history of the classification of literary periods in eighteenth century Russia has left us with a perplexing variety of terms and definitions. There is no agreement on either period terms themselves, nor on the chronological extent of the periods. In recent years two terms have received much attention by scholars in East and West: the baroque and enlightenment. Is it meaningful to speak of a baroque literature in Russia as does the West German Slavist D. Tschi.Zewskij, the Hungarian scholar A. Angyal, the Russian A.A. Morozov, and others? 1 Most Soviet scholars deny this vehemently. D. TschiZewskij sees baroque features in Russian literature from the seventeenth century extending as far as the early nineteenth (G. Derzhavin)l Similarly extreme views exist with regard to the literary(?) term enlightenment. An elaborate division has been suggested by L. I. Kulakova:2 1) a first period of early enlightenment (second half of the seventeenth century); 2) a second period of early enlightenment (first third of the eighteenth century); 3) enlightenment proper (the time of Catherine the Great). The chronological limits coincide by and large with baroque literature in Professor TschiZewskij's understanding. Kulakova separates early enlightenment and enlightenment proper by twenty years of emerging classicism (from the 1730's to the 1750's). Tschi.Zewskij lets classicism begin only in the late 1740's. From there on he 1 D. Tscb.iZewskij, "Die slavistische Barockforschung," Die Welt der Slaven, 4 (1956), 435-441; A. Angyal, Die Slawische Barockwelt (Leipzig, 1961); A.A. Morozov, "Problema barokko v russkoi literature XVII-nachala XVIII v.," Russkaia literatura, 3(1962), 3-38. 2 L. I. Kulakova, "Prosvetitel'stvo i literatumye napravleniia XVIII veka," Problemy russkogo prosveshcheniia v literature XVIII veka (Moscow-Leningrad, 1961), 163-172.

X INTRODUCTION sees it extending into the early nineteenth century paralleling the baroque trend. In contrast to these modern definitions, Russian scholars before the Revolution have held to a much broader view of classicism. A. I. Sobolevskii and V. N. Mochul'skii saw classicist features already in the literature of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. 3 On the other hand, they doubted the genuineness of the Russian trend and preferred the term pseudoclassicism to describe adequately the elusiveness of the Russian embodiment of a French literary model. Soviet scholars have narrowed the duration, but have introduced a variety of qualifying adjectives. Classicism now appears as aristocratic classicism, democratic classicism, enlightened classicism, and neoclassicism. One Soviet scholar even reintroduced the prerevolutionary view of seventeenth century classicism under the name of scholastic classicism. 4 The earliest date for classicist literature in Russia is still the seventeenth century; the latest date-again as provided by prerevolutionary scholars-is the death of Admiral Shishkov, president of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and the reorganization of the Academy in 1842. So we can choose between something like 180 years of classicist literature in Russia, or a mere thirty years (from the middle 1740's to the middle 1770's, i.e. from Sumarokov to Derzhavin). Many historians of Russian literature have tacitly accepted the point of view developed by the critic Belinskii, namely, that one literary movement followed the other in a kind of straight progression. Classicism was replaced by sentimentalism, and sentimentalism, in turn, was followed by romanticism. Disregarding the complex and often bewildering variety of literary trends in 18th century Russia, most scholars have concentrated their attention on some form of this scheme of linear progression. Once such a view had been accepted, the main problem was to determine the dividing lines in the sequence of periods, especially with regard to classicism and sentimentalism. As in the case of classicism, there has been no agreement among scholars about the chronological limits of sentimentalism. Various dates between the 1750's and the 1770's have been men- 3 A. I. Sobolevskii, "Kogda nachalsia u nas lozhnoldassitsizm?" Bibliograf, 1(1890); V.N. Mochul'skii, "Otnoshenie iuzhno-russkoi skholastiki XVII v. k lozhnoklassitsizmu XVIII v.," Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia (1904), also published in book form (St. Petersburg, 1904). 4 See P. N. Berkov, "Problemy izucheniia russkogo klassitsizma," Russkaia literatura XVIII veka. Epokha k/assitsizma (XVIII vek. Sbornik 6, Moscow-Leningrad, 1964), 9.

INTRODUCTION XI tioned as the beginning of the sentimental period in Russian literature.11 Berkov maintains that classicism began to disintegrate in the late 1750's and early 1760's.6 At the same time sentimental tendencies became more and more obvious. Others have moved this dividing line by one or two decades. Kulakova speaks of the coexistence of classicism and sentimentalism during the last third of the eighteenth century. Professor Makogonenko categorically opposes such a view saying that the literature of the last third of the century does not fit the framework of either classicism or sentimentalism: "the epoch of Enlightenment created its own style and this style is-realism." In several articles and books, Makogonenko has tried to establish realism as a literary movement of the late eighteenth century! He is the extreme representative among several Soviet scholars who aim at introducing the period term realism into the eighteenth century. Various modifications of the term have been formulated by others such as prerealism, didactic realism, and enlightened realism. 7 Depending on whom one chooses to follow, one and the same period, e.g. the 1780's, can be classified as part of the classicist, the sentimental, or realistic movement. One may also speak of baroque, preromantic, realistic or even prerealistic, and enlightened literary trends at this time. The existing terminological confusion can be explained. Throughout the eighteenth century, Russian literature was dominated by influences from other European literatures. These influences do not easily lend themselves II In D. TscbiZevskij's (also spelled CUevskij) understanding of classicism this period extends over approximately seventy years from the 1740's (the first publication of Sumarokov's tragedies) into the second decade of the 19th century. The disregard for stylistic and linguistic criteria becomes even more pronounced in TscbiZevskij's treatment of the sentimental movement which is defined as "a form of late classicism." TschiZevskij adds that "it [i.e. sensibility used as a synonym for sentimentalism, R.N.] radically reformed the linguistic usages of eighteenth century Russian classicism", yet does not consider this admittedly radical stylistic reform significant enough to use it as a criterion for a new literary period (Cf. D. Cizevskij, Comparative History of Slavic Literatures, Vanderbilt University Press, 1971, chapter IX). 6 P. N. Berkov, Problemy russkogo prosveshcheniia v literature XVlll veka (Moscow-Leningrad, 1961), 167; cf. G. Makogonenko, Ot Fonvizina do Pushkina (Moscow, 1969). 7 The term "predrealizm" has been suggested by D. D. Blagoi, Poeziia deistvitel' nosti (Moscow, 1961}, 21 and 23; "prosvetitel'skii realizm" was defined by U. R. Fokht, Puti russkogo realizma (Moscow, 1963), 64, later redefined by him as "didakticheskii realizm" in Problemy tipologii russkogo realizma (Moscow, 1969), 19. Concerning Makogonenko see Problemy russkogo prosveshcheniia v literature XVIII veka (Moscow-Leningrad, 1961), 167, and his book mentioned above (note 6).

XII INTRODUCTION to classification. They were heterogeneous, coming from different national literatures and originating at different times. When classicism became established in Russia, the Western world had already progressed to quite different literary models and philosophies. Russian writers were simultaneously exposed to various, contradictory influences. Once a literary trend had been accepted, it lingered on. The classicist trend became firmly established as a literary movement in the 1750's and 1760's; simultaneously a process of change set in, leading to its replacement by another literary trend-sentimentalism. Yet classicism did not disappear. It continued to exist, although with ever declining appeal. Around 1800, a neoclassicist revival, influenced by the works of La Harpe, Hugh Blair, and Batteux, gave it a new impetus. Neoclassicism lingered on into the 1820's and 30's. The same principle applies to sentimentalism. Although the sentimental movement had reached its climax between 1780 and the early 1800's, it continued to exist into the 1820's and even 1830's. Baroque features appeared in Russian literature in the late seventeenth century. We may still find them in Derzhavin's poetry a hundred years later. The continued presence of literary motifs, themes and images, of on~ literary trend within the framework of a much later trend or movement must be accepted as a characteristic of Russian literature of the 18th and early 19th centuries. There were no "pure" or homogeneous literary movements in Russian literature of that time. It is questionable altogether whether such homogeneous periods are at all possible without the imposition of an aesthetic canon from above. In order to arrive at meaningful literary periods we will have to establish the literary profile of a period. The period concept should be determined by the dominating literary trend. It may happen that one literary trend determines the literary profile of an age (we can call it then a literary movement). This does not preclude the fact that other literary trends coexist with it. There may be transitional periods when two, or more trends parallel each other without any of them assuming a leading role. This seems to have been the case between approximately 1808 and 1815, i. e. during the period preceding the rise of the romantic movement in Russia. Apart from such considerations, definitions of literary periods should not contradict the sequence of changes in the area of language and style. Significant changes in linguistic and stylistic norms should be primary criteria for the establishment of period concepts. Again, one should be aware of the possibility of a coexistence of.two linguistically and stylisti-

INTRODUCTION xm cally differing systems of poetic norms within one chronological period. There was a classicist movement in Russia in the 1750's and 1760's just as there was a sentimental movement in the 1770's, 1780's and 1790's -to indicate only the approximate chronological limits. However, there was also a sentimental trend in the 1760's and a neoclassicist trend in the 1800's. Enlightenment as a general cultural, not literary phenomenon, influenced writers throughout most of the eighteenth century. Both classicist and sentimental literature show modifications under the influence of enlightened thinking, as can be seen in the works of such disparate writers as Radishchev, V.I. Maikov, Krylov, Novikov, and others. The literary scene of 18th century Russia was complex and, in many ways, contradictory. This should not prevent the historian from attempts to establish meaningful period concepts. Berkov's somewhat desperate suggestion to simply drop a period concept such as classicism is not a responsible solution. It is an understandable reaction. This study attempts to trace the emergence of sentimental and preromantic trends in Russian literature. Three literary trends will be defined and illustrated. They were selected from a number of trends that existed in Russia between 1750 and 1815, because of their significance for the emerging romantic movement in Russia. This self-imposed limitation is not meant to obscure the fact that other trends and movements coexisted with them.