Sumarokov, Alexsandr Petrovich
Alexsandr Petrovich Sumarokov 1717-1777
Russian poet, playwright, journalist, publisher, literary critic, and translator.
Sumarokov was the first professional writer in his country and is viewed as the creator of the first Russian tragedy, the first Russian comedy, the first Russian opera, the first Russian ballet, and the first Russian literary journal. Under the patronage of Empress Catherine the Great, Sumarokov produced a huge corpus of writings in which he championed the ideas of Russian classicism. His plays offered commentaries on Russian political life, his satirical essays and fables castigated the vices of Russian society, and his poetry often praised the political rulers of the day. Today Sumarokov is not regarded as a major figure in Russian letters, but he is studied by critics because of his promotion of a uniquely Russian literary culture, his insistence on the capability of the Russian language to express literary ideas, his commitment to the ideals of classicism, and the depiction of eighteenth-century Russian ideas and values.
Sumarokov was born in 1717 to a noble family. Very little is known of Sumarokov's early life, but probably at the age of fourteen he entered the cadet corps, which prepared noblemen for military service and for participation in aristocratic court life. There he received a well-rounded education, which included instruction in history, geography, literature, law, Latin, German, French, and Italian. While at the corps he also began writing poetry and produced his first published work, an ode to Empress Anna. After he graduated in 1740, Sumarokov began a life at court under the new empress Elizabeth. He also wrote songs which became very popular in court circles. In 1744 he jointly published, with the poets Vasilii Trediakovsky and Mikhail Lomonosov, a three-verse paraphrase of Psalm 143—Sumarokov engaged in famous and bitter rivalries with the two eminent Russian writers over the course of his career. In 1746 Sumarokov married Johanna Khristiforovna Balk, a lady-in-waiting to the future Catherine the Great. In 1747, he began writing and publishing dramatic works, using the plays of Racine and Voltaire as his models. His tragedy Khorev (1747) was followed by Gamlet (1787), an adaptation of William Shakespeare's Hamlet. The publication that year of Dve epistoly (Two Epistles), a volume containing two essays, one on Russian language and the other on the art of poetry, established Sumarokov as a major literary figure in his country.
In 1756 Sumarokov was named director of the first national Russian theater, a post fraught with difficulties because of lack of funds and state bureaucracy. He was eventually forced out the job in 1761, although his contributions to the fledgling Russian theater were significant. In addition to writing a number of plays, he composed the librettos for the first Russian operas Tsefal i Prokris (1755; Cephalus and Procris) and Al'tsesta (1759; Alceste) and produced the first Russian ballet, Pribezhishche dobrodeteli (1759; Sanctuary for Virtue). In 1759 Sumarokov published the first private literary journal in Russia, Trudoliubivaia pchela (The Industrious Bee), which he dedicated to then-Princess Catherine. By this time Sumarokov had become a distinguished figure in Russian letters, and his influence was seen in a new generation of poets who were referred to as “the Sumarokov school.” In the 1750s Sumarokov was also engaged in a number of literary disputes with Trediakovsky and Lomonosov.
1762 was a turning-point in Sumarokov's life. On 28 June Catherine the Great staged a coup, ending her husband Peter III's reign. As a reward for Sumarokov's past loyalty, Catherine promoted him, annulled his debts, and announced that all his works thereafter would be printed at her cost. He was essentially freed from any duties and allowed to dedicate himself to his writing. Sumarokov, in turn, celebrated the empress in a series of laudatory odes. There was often a tension between Sumarokov's political beliefs—he was a staunch defender of monarchy based on law and a critic of despotism—and his loyalty to the empress. In March 1769 Sumarokov moved to Moscow and became involved in a move to establish a permanent theater in the capital. He also continued to write, producing his most famous work, the play Dimitrii Samozvanets (Dimitrii the Usurper) in 1771. Despite failing health and financial problems, he continued to write poetry, prose, and drama until 1775. However, in his last two years he lived in dire poverty and was ignored by the literary community and his previous associates at court. After his second wife died in 1771, Sumarokov married again, despite his mother's attempts to stop the marriage, but he died, destitute, just a few months later in October 1771. The only people in attendance at his funeral were the actors who carried his coffin.
Although his works cover a range of ideas, Sumarokov was best known as a neoclassicist, and he sought in his works to forge a new, modern Russian national literature that stressed reason, common sense, simplicity, precision, clarity, and the existence of understandable impersonal laws to guide human thinking and behavior. His literary manifesto Dve epistoly, inspired by the French poet Despréaux Boileau's 1674 tract Art poétique, set out Sumarokov's classicist ideals and also stressed the beauty of the Russian language, insisting it was capable of producing great literature.
Sumarokov is likely best known as a playwright, and is responsible for establishing the tradition of theater in Russia. In this area Sumarokov also looked to French classical models, basing his works on the plays of Voltaire and Racine, using a classical structure, and observing the three unities of space, time, and action. Although the plays were popular in Sumarokov's day, few of them found an audience after the eighteenth century. Contemporary critics have shown some interest in Sumarokov's Gamlet, not only because it is an adaptation of Shakespeare's work but because it showcases the playwright's use of the Russian language for the stage. In addition, Gamlet serves as an example of Sumarokov's exploration of the theme of despotism that recurs in his work, and his rival Trediakovsky was critical of the play. Another play that has received critical attention since the eighteenth century is Dimitrii Samozvanets, the story of a despotic ruler, which has been described as a diatribe against the abuses of papal power. The work is considered important because it offers a covert commentary on Catherine the Great's tyranny, is an example of Sumarokov's defense of lawful monarchy and denunciation of despotism, and ushered in a tradition of political criticism in Russian literature. The plays Khorev and Opekun (1765; The Guardian) are also considered noteworthy as the first Russian political tragedy and comedy, respectively.
Sumarokov's work in other genres covers a wide range of styles and ideas, but again, most echo neoclassical literary values, use simple language, and emphasize the importance of Russian language and culture. Among Sumarokov's most popular works during his lifetime were his humorously satirical fables, which were often directed at his literary enemies. Unlike his other works, the fables were written in the language of ordinary people, and today they are considered some of his most original compositions. Sumarokov also wrote many satiric essays in which he criticized political figures, landowners, bureaucracy, and social ills in general. Sumarokov's poetry too reflected his ideas about politics and society, but he also wrote a great many odes (to Catherine as well as other prominent figures), eclogues, and love elegies. Some critics have remarked on the innovativeness of his lyric poetry, which experiments with a wide range of styles and genres and the unique rhythms of the Russian language, despite the author's insistence on the use of classical principles.
During his lifetime Sumarokov went from attaining the status of one of Russia's literary giants and enjoying royal patronage to living in abject poverty. It is said that in the last years of his life he had alienated himself to such a degree that he was even denied free entrance into performances of his own plays, a privilege normally granted to Russian playwrights. Much of Sumarokov's misfortune during his life has been blamed on his personality and his inflated assessment of his own genius. However, shortly after his death a ten-volume collection of his works was published, a testament to the popularity of his work among eighteenth-century readers. His writing fell completely out of favor in the nineteenth century with the rise of Romanticism, when critics rejected as false the classical ideas he espoused. Since then his reputation has not fared particularly well, and while a number of critics have shown interest in and praised his work, there has been little effort to try to overturn previous criticism.
Most of the critical commentary on Sumarokov's work has centered around his place in the history of Russian literature, his rivalries with Trediakovsky and Lomonosov, his neoclassical ideas, his influence on Russian literature, his political beliefs, and his innovative use of the Russian language. By many accounts, Sumarokov is an interesting and important footnote in Russian literature because of his many contributions to theater, his promotion of the Russian language, and his interest in the literary culture of his day, but it is often stressed that his work is generally uninspired. The popularity of his plays in his own time has been attributed to the fact that they are full of plot and action and because they reflect so well the ideas of the eighteenth century. Sumarokov is remembered as having written the first Russian dramatic and operatic works, established the first Russian literary journal, and been the first professional Russian writer, but he is certainly not numbered among the great Russian authors. His greatness lies rather in his efforts to establish a Russian literature that was grounded in the classical European tradition but called upon its own cultural heritage to express universal ideas.
Eia imp. velichestvu vsemilostiveishei gosudaryne imp. Anne Ioannovne … pozdravitel'nyia ody v pervyi den' novago goda 1740 ot Kadetskago korpusa sochinennyia chrez Aleksandra Sumarokova (poetry) 1740
Tri ody parafrasticheskie psalma 143, sochinennye chrez trekh stikhotvortsev, iz kotorykh kazhdyi odnu slozhil osoblivo [Paraphrase of Psalm 143; translator; with Vasilii Trediakovsky and Mikhail Lomonosov] (poetry) 1744
Khorev tragediia (play) 1747, revised 1768
Dve epistoly. V pervoi predlagaetsia o ruskom iazyke, a vo vtoroi o stikhotvorstve [Two Epistles; revised as Nastavlenie khotiashchim byti pisateliami (Advice to Would-Be Authors) 1774] (essays) 1748
Gamlet tragediia [Hamlet] (play) 1748
Artistona tragediia [Aristona] (play) 1751
Sinav i Truvor tragediia [Sinav and Truvor] (play) 1751; revised, 1768
Tsefal i Prokris opera [Cephalus and Procris] (opera) 1755
“‘Moskve,’ ‘Velikomu gradu Moskve,’ i ‘Moskve reke’” [“‘To Moscow,’ ‘To the Great City of Moscow,’ ‘To the Moscow River’”; translator] (poetry) 1755
Al'tsesta opera [Alceste] (opera) 1759
Pribezhishche dobrodeteli. Balet [Sanctuary for...
(The entire section is 348 words.)
SOURCE: Lang, D. M. “Sumarokov's Hamlet: A Misjudged Russian Tragedy of the Eighteenth Century.” Modern Language Review 43, no. 1 (January 1948): 67-72.
[In this essay, Lang argues that Sumarokov's version of Hamlet has not deserved the unfavorable criticism it has received, claiming that the drama is an important work of the early Russian stage.]
Like many prominent figures of the Russian neo-Classical school, Alexander Petrovich Sumarokov (1718-77) was for a long time unjustly neglected by succeeding generations. His eccentricities, which in the heyday of Romanticism would have been greeted as visible signs of genius, were exaggerated by his many rivals, particularly Lomonosov and Trediakovsky. Even Baron Grimm helped to make Sumarokov appear ridiculous to posterity. In the Correspondance Littéraire he described with enjoyment how the Empress Catherine, after Sumarokov had in 1770 quarrelled with the Governor of Moscow, graciously rebuked the irascible dramatist who in any other kingdom (France, for example) would no doubt have been cast into jail for his presumption.1 Pushkin called him ‘the jealous, haughty, cold Sumarokov, devoid of force and ardour, of mediocre wit’,2 and thus showed little gratitude to an author whose historical tragedy Dimitri the Usurper (1771) in some ways foreshadows Pushkin's own Boris Godunov.3...
(The entire section is 3253 words.)
SOURCE: Lang, D. M. “Bolieau and Sumarokov: The Manifesto of Russian Classicism.” Modern Language Review 43, no. 4 (October 1948): 500-506.
[In the following essay, Lang examines Sumarokov's Epistle on Poetry and compares it in detail to Despréaux Boileau's tract Art Poétique by which it was inspired, emphasizing the work's influence on the development of Russian literature.]
The publication in 1748 of Sumarokov's1 “Epistle on Poetry” (“Epistola o Stikhotvorstve”) was a significant event in the history of Russian literature. Since the death of Prince Kantemir,2 Russian letters had been dominated by Trediakovsky,3 an erudite Classical scholar and expert theorist in the art of versification, and Lomonosov,4 a profound and versatile genius for whom the pursuit of literature was only one of many activities. Lomonosov's formal odes, justly famous for their lofty imagery, recall the style of Pindar, the German poet Günther and the Psalms of David almost more than the manner of his other principal model, Jean-Baptiste Rousseau.
Sumarokov's “Epistle on Poetry” may be best discussed in relation to the poetical doctrines of Trediakovsky and Lomonosov. To a great extent it represents a reaction against both the erudite approach of Trediakovsky and the stylized oratorical and Biblical poetics of Lomonosov in favour of the...
(The entire section is 3705 words.)
SOURCE: Fizer, John. “A. P. Sumarokov.” In Selected Tragedies of A. P. Sumarokov, translated by Richard and Raymond Fortune, pp. 3-39. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1970.
[In the excerpt below, Fizer explains the social conditions that gave rise to Sumarokov's interest in French culture and ideas, and offers an appraisal of the aesthetic significance of Sumarokov's work on the growth of Russian literature.]
Works of art should be judged and appreciated in themselves. However, at a certain stage of critical judgment one comes to realize that art originates in an intricate matrix of sociocultural and aesthetic trends as well as in an equally intricate matrix of the creator's psychic vitality. The art of Aleksandr Petrovich Sumarokov is not an exception to this truism. Its emergence, its character, indeed, its goals, are deeply rooted in the context of Russia's post-Petrine socio-cultural conventions, mostly transplanted from France, and in Sumarokov's peculiar mental constitution.
Sumarokov began his literary career in the 1740s, a period that marked the end of one era and the beginning of a new. As a result of the Petrine reforms, the cultural traditions were, for all practical purposes, dead. These reforms had extended to state affairs, the army, and technical science, touching the external aspects of life, mostly of the upper strata of...
(The entire section is 10564 words.)
SOURCE: Dabars, Zita Dapkus. “The Simile in the Poetry of Sumarokov, Karamzin, and Derzhavin.” Russian Literature Triquarterly 7 (1973): 389-406.
[In the following excerpt, Dabars examines the use of similes in Sumarokov's poetry, claiming that while the writer's neoclassicism is reflected in the emphasis he places on reason and common sense, his use of imagery shows that he also had some affinities with the sentimentalists and later Romantics.]
Sumarokov was of the opinion that poetic speech should be characterized by simplicity, clarity, and restrained good sense. And indeed the impression conveyed by Sumarokov's similes is that their creator is a highly rational man who embellished his poetry with imagery in which logic plays a significant role. Reason and logic were revered by the neoclassicists. Sumarokov's allegiance to the above principles led him to demand logical, semantic similarity between the tenor and the vehicle of a simile. In 1747 Sumarokov wrote “Kritika na odu,” in which he termed as unacceptable simile after simile (as well as other imagery) in Lomonosov's verses:
Zraк priytnii ray, sкazats ni mоznо. Ka-коj-nibuds zimli mоznо sкazats priytnii ray. Naprimir Italiy priytnii ray; a о zraкi cilо-vicisкоm nadlizalо by sкazats naprimir taк: I zraк priytnii zraкa bоgin ili ctо-nibuds inоi simu pоdоbnоi....
(The entire section is 1235 words.)
SOURCE: Heim, Michael Henry. “Two Approaches to Translation: Sumarokov vs. Trediakovskij.” In Mnemozina: Studia litteraria russica in honerem Vsevolod Setchkarev, edited by Joachim T. Baer and Norman W. Ingham, pp. 185-92. Munich, Germany: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1974.
[In the essay which follows, Heim compares the translation techniques of Sumarokov and Trediakovsky, showing that the two men were engaged in a serious literary rivalry and claiming that Sumarokov's translations were elegant and flowing while the other writer's were far more literal.]
Though translation was one of Trediakovskij's major literary activities and no more than a sideline for Sumarokov, both men translated several texts in common. The results are noteworthy from two standpoints: first, their differences of opinion vis-à-vis literary technique stand out in particularly bold relief because the original serves as a reliable control, and second, the polemics surrounding their differences of opinion vis-à-vis translation technique are still raging today.
The most important work that each of them tackled seriously was Boileau's seminal formulation of neoclassical literary taste, L'Art poétique. Sumarokov's version consists of the first third of the “Èpistola II” (“O stichotvorstve”). There is no distinct line dividing translation from adaptation and from original work.
(The entire section is 3158 words.)
SOURCE: Gleason, Walter. “Sumarokov's Political Ideals: A Reappraisal of His Role as a Critic of Catherine II's Policies.” Canadian Slavonic Papers 18, no. 4 (December 1976): 415-26.
[In the following essay, Gleason argues that Sumarokov's political ideals of a civil monarch restricted by moral and legislative restraints were at odds with his support for some of Catherine the Great's practices and policies.]
For a writer considered by his eighteenth-century followers to be “our Racine, Moliere, LaFontaine [or] Boileau,”1 Aleksandr Sumarokov has frequently been of less interest to historians than his successors such as Nikolai Novikov or Denis Fonvizin. The scholarly attention paid to these younger writers has served to obscure the contribution of their most prestigious contemporary and senior in providing an initial definition to the political relations between Catherine and the littérateurs of her reign. Many influential Soviet analyses have either shunted Sumarokov to the domain of the literary historian or, if his political ideals have been considered, associated them with a “liberal” clique whose goal was to restrict the powers of the autocracy.2 Non-Soviet interpretations have been primarily concerned with Sumarokov, the literary figure, on the assumption that his political convictions were uncomplicated; i.e., he was a court poet without any significant...
(The entire section is 5690 words.)
SOURCE: Rosenberg, Karen. “Trediakovsky on Sumarokov: The Critical Issues.” Russian Literature Triquarterly 21 (1988): 49-60.
[In this essay, Rosenberg analyzes Trediakovsky's criticism of Sumarokov in the 1740s and 1750s, arguing that beyond a personal rivalry there were substantive differences between the two writers on matters of language, style, convention, and form.]
In the late 1740s and early 1750s, Vasily Trediakovsky and Alexander Sumarokov engaged in a series of discussions on matters of languages and literature. According to earlier scholars such as P. O. Morozov and N. N. Bulich, the principal source of the conflict was the pugnaciousness of both parties. This point of view implies that Trediakovsky and Sumarokov did not articulate consistent positions but, rather, flung accusations largely at random and blamed each other for mistakes which each of them made in his own literary practice. The more recent work of I. Z. Serman, however, has shown that the two eighteenth-century rivals had a significant disagreement over the role of Slavonic in the Russian literary language.1 And one can identify other areas in which substantive differences existed between the two men. Trediakovsky had a rather well-integrated literary theory, as his objections to Sumarokov's works suggest.
Trediakovsky and Sumarokov might possible have coexisted in Russian letters in the...
(The entire section is 5881 words.)
SOURCE: Spitzer, Catherine. “Alexander Sumarokov's Translations of Paul Fleming's Sonnets to Moscow.” Canadian-American Slavic Studies 23, no. 3 (fall 1989): 331-38.
[In the following essay, Spitzer discusses Sumarokov's translation of three sonnets by the German lyric poet Paul Fleming, arguing that Sumarokov freely changed the content of the original verse, “beautifying” the poetry and imbuing it with a definite eighteenth-century Russian classicism.]
The purpose of this study is to discuss Alexander Sumarokov's translations of three sonnets written by Paul Fleming1 in 1636, entitled in German: Er redet die Stadt Moskau an, als er ihre vergueldeten Tuerme von fernen sahe, An die grosse Stadt Moskau, als er schiede, and An den Fluss Moskau, als er schiede. In 1755, Sumarokov translated these titles into a simpler and shortened version as: “Moskve,” “Velikomu gradu Moskve,” and “Moskve-reke.” This short analysis provides a rare glimpse into Sumarokov's activity as a literary translator and poet in his own right. A well-known Russian poet, Nikolai Gumilev, states in his article “On Translations of Poetry”: “… the translator of a poet must be a poet himself and, besides that, a careful investigator and perceptive critic, who, selecting what is most characteristic for each author, allows himself to sacrifice the rest when necessary.”2...
(The entire section is 2453 words.)
SOURCE: Serman, Ilya. “The Eighteenth Century: Neoclassicism and the Enlightenment, 1730-90.” In The Cambridge History of Russian Literature, edited by Charles A. Moser, pp. 45-91. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
[In this excerpt, Serman offers a brief assessment of Sumarokov's major works and his contribution to and place in the history of Russian letters.]
Alexander Sumarokov (1717-77), unlike Trediakovsky and Lomonosov, came from the hereditary gentry and studied from 1732 to 1740 at the Cadet School for the Nobility, an elite training ground which prepared young aristocrats to enter government service, and principally military service.
While still at the Cadet School Sumarokov began writing verses, initially imitating Trediakovsky; later he became a disciple of Lomonosov's. Along with his literary ally, he went up against Trediakovsky in a competition involving the translation of the hundred-forty-third psalm (1743). Trediakovsky did his translation in trochaic meter, while Sumarokov and Lomonosov used iambs for theirs. All three versions were published anonymously in a single booklet, and readers were invited to decide which version was best.
Sumarokov acquired notoriety within Russian society of the 1740s for his love songs, which his youthful admirers set to music and sang in private gatherings. These lyrics not only brought Sumarokov an...
(The entire section is 1764 words.)
SOURCE: Ober, Kenneth H., and Mara R. Wade. “Moßkaw/Moskva: Sumarokov's Translations of Fleming's Sonnets.” Germano-Slavica 6, no. 5 (1990): 259-84.
[In the essay below, Ober and Wade offer a close analysis of Sumarokov's translation of sonnets by Paul Fleming, contesting the view of an earlier critic that Sumarokov drastically changed the content of the original works and maintaining instead that the Russian presents a faithful rendition of the works while making them accessible in another language.]
Although Michael Henry Heim has pointed out that “translation was … no more than a sideline for [Aleksandr Petrovich] Sumarokov”1 (1717-77), and Harold B. Segel has established that Sumarokov has “virtually nothing in common with the baroque,”2 this Russian literary pioneer, whom Segel has called “the first truly modern writer in the history of Russian literature,”3 provided the Russian reading public in 1755 with its first translations of three sonnets by the German Baroque poet Paul Fleming (1609-40)—translations which are significant both for Russian literary history4 and for the history of the international reception of German Baroque literature. Sumarokov's selection of these three poems—“an die grosse Stadt Moßkaw / als er schiede,” And den Fluß Moßkaw / als er schiede,” and “Er redet die Stadt Moßkaw an / Als er ihre...
(The entire section is 10408 words.)
SOURCE: Levitt, Marcus C. “Sumarokov's Russianized ‘Hamlet’: Texts and Contexts.” Slavic and East European Journal 38, no. 2 (summer 1994): 319-41.
[In the following excerpt, Levitt attempts to reconstruct the context and meaning of Sumarokov's Hamlet in order to define its central dramatic and philosophical concerns.]
The truism about the eighteenth century's rejection of Shakespeare as a “barbarian” who was lacking in “good taste” upon closer examination reveals a much more complex and nuanced picture of cultural reception. The question to consider is not how eighteenth-century writers misunderstood or corrupted Shakespeare but how they adapted him to meet specific needs of their own. This perspective is especially pertinent as regards Alexander Sumarokov's Gamlet (pub. 1748) not only because this was the first appearance of Shakespeare in Russia, often viewed as an outrageous travesty of the bard (Hamlet and Ophelia survive to presumably live happily ever after on the throne of Denmark), but also because the play stands at the virtual beginning of modern Russian dramaturgy. However, as with many texts of eighteenth-century Russian literature, from which the modern reader is divided by a great chronological and cultural chasm, the text alone—isolated from the larger cultural (con)text of the time—can yield only partial results; many of the cultural codes and maps...
(The entire section is 8967 words.)
SOURCE: Vroon, Ronald. “Aleksandr Sumarokov's Ody toržestvennye: Toward a History of the Russian Lyric Sequence in the Eighteenth Century.” Zeitschrift für Slavische Philology 55, no. 2 (1995-96): 223-63.
[In the following essay, Vroon attempts to show that the odes in Ody toržhestvennye, which are often radically edited versions of earlier poems, were altered not only because of Sumarokov's changing ideological concerns and attitudes toward his subjects but because he had a particular artistic vision for the collection as a whole.]
In 1774 the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences published several new collections of verse by Aleksandr Sumarokov, all of them prepared and edited by the poet himself. Among them was Ody toržestvennye,1 a series of thirty panegyrics to Peter I, Elizabeth, Peter III, Catherine II, the heir-apparent, Paul, and his bride, Natalija Alekseevna. All had been previously published, either in journals or as individual brochures, over a span of approximately twenty years.2 What makes the versions in Ody toržestvennye remarkable is the degree to which they diverge from the original texts: all were abridged, and some reduced to only a quarter of their original length. Of the total 372 stanzas in the first editions of the thirty odes, 142—over 38٪—were eliminated in the new collection.
What prompted such...
(The entire section is 14444 words.)
SOURCE: Levitt, Marcus C. “The Illegal Staging of Sumarokov's Sinav I Truvor in 1770 and the Problem of Authorial Status in Eighteenth-Century Russia.” Slavic and East European Journal 43, no. 2 (summer 1999): 299-323.
[In this essay, Levitt discusses the episode in which P. S. Salykov ordered the staging of Sumarokov's Sinav I Truvor against the playwright's will.]
Authors and authorship had little formal legal status in eighteenth-century Russia. Over the course of the century the basic elements and institutions of literary life—from writer and audience, to the text, means of dissemination, and its very linguistic medium—underwent dramatic changes (Levitt Early Modern ix-xviii). If William Todd, in his ground-breaking study of literary institutions in the age of Pushkin, could refer to a “vexing multiplicity” of institutional choices facing the writer (46), for A. P. Sumarokov (1717-1777) the situation was the reverse: he struggled to define the emerging role of the writer in what often seemed a vacuum. The fact that scholars have awarded such titles as “first modern Russian poet” and “first professional Russian writer” to such disparate figures as Simeon Polotsky (Hippisley 1-2); Antiokh Kantemir (Gukovskii 51); the trio of Lomonosov, Trediakovsky and Sumarokov (Pypin 433); the cohort of Matvei Komarov, Fedor Emin and Andrei Bolotov (Grits, Trenin, Nikitin ch....
(The entire section is 11700 words.)
SOURCE: Vroon, Ronald. “Aleksandr Sumarokov's Elegii liubovnye and the Development of a Verse Narrative in the Eighteenth Century: Toward a History of the Russian Lyric Sequence.” Slavic Review 59, no. 3 (2000): 521-46.
[In the essay which follows, Vroon argues that the love poems in Elegii liubovnyia, were intended as a narrative sequence, and maintains that the Russian lyric sequence has its beginnings some decades earlier than has been assumed by most critics.]
Most studies of the lyric sequence (or “cycle,” as it is most commonly referred to in the Russian critical tradition) situate its origins in the Romantic period, and its period of greatest flowering in the Silver Age.1 More and more frequently, however, scholars have come to question this assumption, suggesting that the phenomenon has its roots in the eighteenth century, perhaps even earlier.2 This claim would appear, at first glance, to be suspect. The aesthetics of neoclassicism did not encourage—indeed, to the best of our knowledge, did not even recognize—the production of lyric sequences. Russian poets of the eighteenth century have nothing to say about them, nor are they acknowledged as such by readers or critics. The argument in favor of their existence in this early period rests almost exclusively on an analysis of immanent textual features,3 rendering it vulnerable to the charge...
(The entire section is 12256 words.)
Gukovskii, G. A. “Lomonosov, Sumarokov, and the Sumarokov School.” Soviet Studies in Literature 21, no. 1-2 (winter-spring 1984-85): 5-45.
Discusses the art and theories of the poet Mikhail Lomonosov and comparing them with those of Sumarokov.
———. “Toward the Problem of Russian Classicism: Competitions and Translations.” Soviet Studies in Literature 21, no. 1-2 (1984-85): 46-75.
Explores the debate surrounding the translation of the 143rd psalm by Trediakovsky, Lomonosov, and Sumarokov.
Jensen, Kjeld Bjørnager, and Peter Ulf Møller. “Paraphrase and Style: A Stylistic Analysis of Trediakovskijs, Lomonosov's and Sumarokov's Paraphrases of the 143rd Psalm.” Scando-Slavic 16 (1970): 57-73.
Detailed comparison of the individual styles of the three Russian authors in their paraphrases of the 143rd psalm, noting that Sumarokov's version is the most youthful and lyrical.
Kemball, Robin. “A. P. Sumarokov: A Master of Metrics.” In Colloquium Slavicum Basiliense: Gedenkschrift für Hildegard Schroeder, edited by Heinrich Riggenbach, pp. 327-56. Bern, Switzerland: Verlag Peter Lang, 1981.
Examines aspects of Sumarokov's verse technique that are controversial or not fully explored.
Additional coverage of...
(The entire section is 191 words.)