A Voltaire for Russia: A. P. Sumarokov's Journey from Poet-Critic to Russian Philosophe (review)

Abstract

SEER, 91, 4, OCTOBER 2013 872 which drew principally on the notion of ethnicity. As Kamusella illustrates, the Slovak route to self-realization was made more problematic by the historical subordination of Slovak speakers to Hungary and by Slovakia’s complex asymmetrical relationship with the Czech-speaking lands. The comparatively short conclusion (pp. 905–55) serves primarily to summarize the most important themes of parts one and two of the main body of the text. For some readers, this section alone may offer a useful digest of the material that they require. Most others will probably want to pick through the rest of the study for strands relating to their own specialisms, rather than read the book from cover to cover. The sheer scope and length of this volume may sometimes render it difficult for readers to pursue more narrowly defined areas of interest, but this fact does not in any way detract from the overall merits of Kamusella’s scholarship. His exhaustive empirical study is an invaluable reference source for linguists, historians and political scientists, and complements other more theoretical contributions to the field. It is to be hoped that the publication will appear in further paperback editions (perhaps with some minor modifications), and that it may eventually be made available in languages other than English. University of Wolverhampton Tom Dickins Ewington, Amanda. A Voltaire for Russia: A. P. Sumarokov’s Journey from PoetCritic to Russian Philosophe. Studies in Russian Literature and Theory. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL, 2010. xiv + 260 pp. Notes. Appendices. Selected bibliography. Index. $79.95. A reader’s first reaction to the title of Dr Ewington’s book on the eighteenthcentury Russian poet and dramatist A. P. Sumarokov, A Voltaire for Russia is likely to be one of incredulity. Can it really be argued that Sumarokov’s literary and dramatic writings are comparable to the collected works of Voltaire in qualityofcontent,rangeofgenresandsubject-matter,oreveninsheerquantity? Nor is its sub-title, ‘A. P. Sumarokov’s Journey from Poet-Critic to Russian Philosophe’, more plausible. Where is the evidence for such an evolution in Sumarokov’s authorial personality? However, it is a measure of Dr Ewington’s skill in presenting and interpreting her evidence that by the end of her book she will probably have won round most of her readers. The factual background is not promising. Although Sumarokov and Voltaire died within a year of one another, they did not actually meet: Sumarokov never went to France or Switzerland, and Voltaire never travelled to St Petersburg. Nor did they compensate for this lack of physical contact by a long and intimate correspondence. There was only a single exchange of letters, which took place between the end of 1768 and early 1769, and only Voltaire’s side of it exists. The letter with which Sumarokov initiated the exchange and which he entrusted REVIEWS 873 to Prince F. A. Kozlovskii to deliver to Ferney has not survived (pp. 47–51). However, Voltaire’s reply of 26 February 1769 was all that Sumarokov could have hoped for, and for the rest of his life he used it to validate his claim to preeminence among his fellow Russian poets and dramatists. The key sentences in Voltaire’s answer were: ‘Your letter and your works are a great proof that genius and taste belong to every country. […] I am proud to say, Monsieur, that I am of your opinion in everything. […] I have the honour of being, with the infinite esteem that I owe you […] Your most humble and very obedient servant Voltaire.’ The force of Voltaire’s encomium of Sumarokov was, however, impaired by his confession that he knew ‘not a word’ of Russian (pp. 157–58). A full introduction relates the facts of Sumarokov’s biography and traces the vicissitudes of his reputation both during his life-time, then posthumously up to the 1850s and, after a long interval during which he was ignored, into the Soviet period. His Voltaireanism, not remarked upon by his contemporaries, was identified by Karamzin in his Panteon rossiiskikh avtorov (1802): ‘Like Voltaire he wanted to shine in many genres, and contemporaries called him our Racine, Molière, La Fontaine, and Boileau’ (p. 24). Subsequently...