Puti kul'turnogo importa. Trudy po russkoi literature XVIII veka by Joachim s> Klein (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 309 Klein, Joachim. Puti kul'turnogo importa.Trudy po russkoiliterature XVIII veka. lazyki slavianskoikul'tury,Moscow, 2005. 576 pp. Notes. Bibliographies. Index. Price unknown. THIs is a collection of Joachim Klein's work published originally between I984 and 2003 mainly in Zeitschrift fur Slavische Philologie and XVIII vek.The firstpart of a tripartitevolume is, however, a Russian translationof his I988 monograph on the pastoral poetry of Russian classicism. The second part, prefacedwith a linkingarticle'Truba,svirel',lirai gudok(poeticheskiesimvoly russkogoklassitsisma) (I984)',gathersarticleson the three main representatives of Russian classicism, Trediakovskii, Sumarokov and Lomonosov, and the third part is devoted to their successors in the last third of the eighteenth century. In the introductionthe reader is advised that the volume is intended to be read selectively since recurrentthemes might appear needlessly repetitive if the collectionwere read frombeginningto end as a coherent argument.However , the main strengthand appeal of the collection is in its pursuanceof key, determiningfactors,identifiedin the early monograph, and common to most of the writersdiscussed.The centralfeature is that indicated in this volume's title; eighteenth-century Russian literature provides ample material for the studyof culturalimportationfromFrenchand Germansources.However, this was not passiveborrowing.In the new context of post-PetrineRussia,Western Europeanvalues developed new functionsand new associationsleading eventuallyto the formationof a distinctRussianpresence on the Europeanliterary scene. Reception, ratherthan questionsof influence, is the main concern. That reception was modified by two main factors.Firstlythe shiftin social context was considerable.The salonwith its gallantryand feminine influence that provided the natural audience for French pastoralpoetry was unknown in Russia. Indeed, in the case of the panegyric idyll, it was the seminarythat proved to be its main breedingground. Secondly, Russianpractitionersof the genre treated it not as primarily entertainment, but as a suitable medium for pursuing the polemics on the nature of a Russian literarylanguage that Klein suggestsmay be taken as a Russianvariantof the Frenchquarrelof the ancients and moderns. For Sumarokov,it is argued, the pastoralprovided a vessel for demonstratingthe validityof colloquialRussian. Furthermore,with theiroutlookguided by the optimisticspiritof the post-Petrinebelief in beneficial progressand education, the Russiansdid not reproducethe often critical tone of the European pastoral that contrastedthe bliss of bucolic ignorance with the sordidnessof contemporarysociety. These factors inform the essays in the second part. The significance of the shift of context in developing Russia's own variant of neo-classicism is illustratedby 'Reforma stikha Trediakovskogov kul'turno-istoricheskom kontekste (1995)' which shows why Trediakovskii'sverse reforms rejected French models and followed, but without any acknowledgement,the example of German reform.The importanceof Russia'scourt theatre is demonstrated in 'Lomonosov i tragediia(2002)' which explainswhy Lomonosov'stragedies, with their baroque tendencies linked with pre-classical school drama and 310 SEER, 84, 2, 2006 exotic elements, although having greater appeal for the emerging reading public than Sumarokov's,failed to meet the court's taste despite his efforts. This ensured the pre-eminence of Sumarokov as the exemplary writer of tragedies. His renown as the 'northern Racine' is explained in 'Liubov' i politikav tragediiakhSumarokova(200i)' by the Russian court's eighteenthcentury view of a 'tendreRacine' opposed to the heroic Corneille. Two articleson Sumarokov'smediation of Boileau's L'Art poetique,'RusskiiBualo? EpistolaSumarokova"O stikhotvortse" v retsepsiisovremmenikov(1993)' and 'Sumarokov i Bualo: Epistola "O stikhotvorstve"i "Poeticheskoeiskusstvo" (I990)' explain how the differencein their social and historicalcontext meant that Sumarokovappearedas a shadow of his mentor, devoid of his authority. Boileau's urbanity and mild, witty satire flowed from the communicative norms cultivatedby his salonsociety. Russian court society, albeit aping European externals,differedlittle in its culturalbehaviourfrom the rude mass. So Sumarokovis hectoring in tone, imposing rules and displayingsatiricvencim. The meticulous and sympathetic analysis of both French and German originals and their Russian offspring is a constant feature of these articles and remains so in the concluding third section. Maikov is the pivotal figure, representedby two articles'K problematikei spetsifikerusskogoklassitsizma: ody VasiliiaMaikova(I987)', co-authoredwith V. M. Zhivov,and 'Buntprotiv maner: "Elisey,ili RazdrazhennyyVakkh"V. I. Maikova (2000)'. It is argued that howevermuch Maikovwished to followhis predecessors'classicalcanons, he could not escape the influence of pre-classicalnative traditions.This duality , of which writerswere unaware,was the key element in the specificnational formof Russianclassicism.Furtherfissuresin the classicaledificeareidentified in 'Bogdanovich i...