SOURCE: Bucsela, John. “The Birth of Russian Syllabo-Tonic Versification.” The Slavic and East European Journal 9, No. 3 (Fall 1965): 281-94.

[In following essay, Bucsela describes Trediakovsky's syllabo-tonic system, comparing it to other poetic theories of the time. Although Bucsela emphasizes Trediakovsky's importance in the history of the Russian syllabo-tonic system, he also criticizes Trediakovsky's own verse output.]

In 1735 V. K. Trediakovskij wrote Novyj i kratkij sposob k složeniju rossijskix stixov (A New and Brief Method for Composing Russian Verses). With this treatise Russian versification formally embarked upon the syllabo-tonic system. Earlier attempts (by Maxim the Greek, L. Zizanij, and M. Smotrickij) to base Russian versification on the ancient Greek and Latin quantitative system had failed, since the Russian language, lacking distinctions of length in vowels, was unsuited to it. The Polish syllabic scheme also failed to achieve a permanent status because it was artificial for the Russian language, though to a lesser degree than the quantitative system.

In initiating the transformation of Russian poetry from syllabic to syllabo-tonic, Trediakovskij concerned himself with the “heroic hexameter” and “pentameter” only, since, in his view, the shorter syllabic and pre-syllabic verses “fall into poetic cadence … even without feet.”¹ Recognizing this tendency of the Russian language toward rhythmical uniformity, Trediakovskij chose to base his theory of versification on the “most inherent tonal qualities of our oral verses” (p. 388). For the various terms used in his dissertation, he was indebted to the French, but, he emphasized, “the essence” (samoe delo) of the theory came from the most “natural” and “inherent” accentual peculiarities of Russian folk poetry (p. 384), which, Trediakovskij felt, gravitates toward the trochaic.² “That verse is best and most perfect … which consists of trochees only or a large number of them; and the poorest verse is that which is made up entirely of iambs, or containing a large number of them. A verse consisting of spondees or pyrrhics, or a large number of them, is of intermediate worth …” (p. 370). It should be noted that Trediakovskij's rule is in reality rather flexible since any of the six feet in his hexameter could be spondaic, pyrrhic, iambic, or trochaic, thus producing a free distribution of accents. He was, however, quite firm regarding two specific stress distributions. The first relates to the hemistich. Trediakovskij's hexameter and pentameter were obligatorily divided into two hemistiches, set off by the caesura which was always to fall on the seventh and fifth syllables respectively. “In order for the verse to be proper, the first hemistich should always end in a long [stressed] syllable” (p. 368).³ Secondly, Trediakovskij insisted that the line should always terminate in feminine rhyme (p. 381). This was a salient feature of the syllabic system and a natural outcome of the predominant use of trochees. He did not approve of masculine rhymes, alone or in combination with other terminating rhymes such as feminine or dactylic, and felt that they could be allowed only in “less important verses,” such as epigrams and comic verses, although here too “the less frequently they occur, the better” (382-383).

His reasoning becomes more clear when we remember that he had committed his verses to a fixed number of syllables (thirteen for hexameter and eleven for pentameter) and could not alternate his rhymes without interrupting the rhythmical cadence of the verses. Here are examples of Trediakovskij's hexameter and pentameter, respectively:

Ni vоemоznо sirdцu, ak! ni imits picali;
Oci taкоzdi isi plaкats ni pristali:
Druta milоgо vissma ni mоgu eabyti,
Bie коtоrоgо tipirs nadlizit mni ziti.

(str. 397)

Krasоta visny! Rоea о priкrasna!
Vsij о gоspоza rumynоsti vlasna!
Ty vо vsik sadak ykоnt nisravninnyj,
Ty ie vsik цvitоv цvit pridragоцinnyj.

(str. 403)

The general scheme of his theory may be expressed thus: – – | – – | – – | ´ p – – | – – | ´ ˘ (hexameter) and – – | – – | ´p – – | – – | ´ ˘ (pentameter). Finally, we see that Trediakovskij excluded ternary meters from his scheme. “Our new verses,” he wrote, “are to be composed of binary meters only … ; ternary meters of the dactylic type—as found in Greek and Latin poetry—cannot be employed at all in Russian accentual poetry” (p. 371). With this treatise, he wrote, “I have established order in our system of versification” (p. 377).

Reactions to the Method soon followed. In 1739 M. V. Lomonosov wrote his “Pis'mo o pravilax rossijskogo stixotvorstva” (“Letter on the Rules of Russian Versification”), and in 1743 A. Kantemir composed “Pis'mo Xaritona Makentina k prijatelju o složenii stixov russkix” (“Letter of Xariton Makentin to a Friend on the Composition of Russian Verses”). (Xariton Makentin is an anagram of Antiox Kantemir.) Kantemir did not know of Lomonosov's “Letter” because it was not published until 1778. The delay in publication was caused by Trediakovskij, who, being in a position of authority at the Academy of Sciences, was able to have Lomonosov's treatise temporarily buried in the chancellor's archives. Nor was Kantemir familiar with Lomonosov's syllabo-tonic odes, for they did not appear in print until 1751. Both Lomonosov and Kantemir criticized Trediakovskij and tried to reduce his claim of having revolutionized Russian versification.

Having accepted Trediakovskij's major thesis that Russian versification ought to follow the accentual system, Kantemir reasoned that this could be done without introducing the metric system. “The consideration of feet … is superfluous,” he declared.⁴ Then, as if contradicting himself, he criticized Trediakovskij for excluding masculine and dactylic terminating rhymes and for neglecting the shorter verses entirely.

But Kantemir's logic in arranging stress distribution is difficult to follow. Referring to an eight-syllable verse, for example, he declared, “the third and seventh syllables should be long” (stressed). And almost in the same breath he added, “this verse will be even better if we retain the long syllable in the first, fourth, and seventh positions with all the rest short” (unstressed), but, he continued, this same verse could also be composed if the second, fifth, and eighth syllables are stressed (419-420). Such freedom of stress distribution threw Kantemir's method back to the syllabic system. Only Kantemir himself followed this method, and his poems are essentially syllabic in character.

In Lomonosov, Trediakovskij found a more formidable critic. With a self-assurance that often bordered on contempt, Lomonosov approached the Method rather bluntly. “In all our correctly written verses,” he declared, “one must use meters arranged in definite number and order.”⁵ He then gave examples ranging from trimeters to hexameters, where the number of syllables per line varies, and where the caesura as an obligatory pause is completely discarded. His sample verses also demonstrated the absurdity of Trediakovskij's insistence on feminine rhymes. Lomonosov noted, rather sarcastically:

Why should feminine rhymes … be holier … than masculine … ? In our language we find just as many words with the accent on the last or third from the last syllable as those that are stressed on the penultimate syllable. Why, then, should we neglect that wealth and wilfully subject ourselves to poverty without reason, rewarding only the feminine rhymes and abandoning the briskness and power of the masculine rhymes and the ascending qualities of the trisyllabic [dactylic] ones?

(VII, 16)

Expanding on Trediakovskij's binary meters, Lomonosov proposed the following metrical possibilities: four “pure” and two “mixed” types. He considered as “pure” (čistye) those verses made up (1) entirely of iambic feet: “Beleet budto sneg licom” (– ´ | – ´ | – ´ | – ´ |); (2) entirely of anapaestic feet: “Načertan mnogokratno v beguščix volnax” (– – ´ | – – ´ | – – ´ |); (3) entirely of trochees: “Svet moj, znaju čto pylaet | Mne moja ne služit dolja” (´ – | ´ – | ´ – | ´ – p ´ – | ´ – | ´ – | ´ – |); and (4) entirely of dactyls: “V'etsja krugami zmeja po trave, obnovivšis' v rasseline” (´ – – | ´ – – | ´ – – | ´ – – | ´ – – | ´ – – |). The “mixed” types were those made up of (1) the iambic-anapaestic: “Vo pišču sebe černej xvatat'” (– ´ | – – ´ | – ´ | – ´ |); and (2) the trochaic-dactylic combination: “Ežel' boitsja, kto ne stal by silen bezmerno” (´ – – | ´ – | ´ – | ´ – | ´ – – | ´ – |). “Having thus arranged our proper verses, I find six types of hexameters, tetrameters, trimeters and dimeters and, consequently, thirty different types altogether” (VII, 13-14). Lomonosov did not advocate the trochaic-iambic combination,⁶ nor did he even mention amphibrach. Also he did not approve of pyrrhics alone or in combination with other meters and, in fact, called verses with pyrrhic feet “incorrect” and “free” (VII, 14). By this restriction Lomonosov limited the variety of Russian poetry, for the use of pyrrhics avoids monotony and artificiality, allowing a more natural selection of word order than is possible with disyllabic words alone. Trediakovskij, more aware of this predicament, did not entirely rule out pyrrhics. And, eventually, with the change of poetic taste, pyrrhics became a natural part of Russian versification. Lomonosov could not in actual practice do without pyrrhics, for they crop up occasionally among his iambs.

Subsequently, all the meters outlined by Lomonosov, with the exception of the iambic-anapaest, have been used in Russian poetry.⁷ Ternary meters did not become popular until the nineteenth century when Žukovskij, Lermontov, and Nekrasov made them acceptable. The eighteenth-century tradition, established by Lomonosov's odes, was bi-metric, and an overwhelming majority of the eighteenth-century Russian poets followed this tradition. Occasional attempts (especially by Deržavin) to get away from the monotonous and often boring bi-metric verses were considered too modernistic for the popular taste which had been nourished so long in the old tradition.

Lomonosov's “Letter” and subsequent poetic practice offered other modifications of Trediakovskij's Method, and many of them have been accepted by later writers. He introduced syllabo-tonic versification to short Russian verses which Trediakovskij had ignored. His alternation of trochaic and dactylic meters eventually became the basic metric form of the Russian hexameter, although it was not used until the 1750's by Trediakovskij. Lomonosov did not cultivate hexametric verses in practice, but it was he who created the hexametric and pentametric forms that were eventually used by Gnedič, Puškin, and others. Nevertheless, Trediakovskij is generally regarded as the father of the Russian hexameter, since it was he who first used it extensively with skillful application of trochaic-dactylic meters.⁸ Lomonosov's concept of alternation of masculine, feminine, and dactylic rhymes, too, is deeply imbedded in modern Russian versification, although dactylic rhymes did not become fashionable until the nineteenth century—Žukovskij, Lermontov, and Nekrasov using them extensively. During Lomonosov's time they were considered “base” and “comic” because of their association with Russian folk epics, an unusually rich source for this type of rhyme.⁹ Lomonosov himself used them only sparingly.

Although Lomonosov advocated numerous metric combinations, he always preferred a purity of meters; in his view, the more iambs the better. He preferred iambs because of what he believed to be their special stylistic and emotional effect (a sentiment with which Trediakovskij disagreed and which has since been disputed): “Pure iambic verses … are, with their calm ascending tendency, magnifiers of the nobility, grandeur, and loftiness of the material. … Iambic feet cannot be put to better use than in solemn odes, as I used them in my present work. The descending variety, that is, the type composed of trochees and dactyls, are useful for depicting mighty and weak effects, swift and calm actions.” (VII, 15.)

Consequently Lomonosov dealt only with the iamb, dactyl, trochee, and anapaest and left out the amphibrach, which was introduced later by Sumarokov. For Lomonosov was concerned only with those meters that had a rising and falling effect, and the amphibrach is not of this type. Lomonosov's preference was followed throughout the eighteenth century, and amphibrach does not appear in any Russian texts until the nineteenth century.¹⁰

Lomonosov wrote most of his poems in iambic feet. Ninety-eight percent of all his poetic output is predominantly in iambs.¹¹ This is quite significant, for the iamb held great attraction for subsequent Russian versifiers, thanks in large part, apparently, to the success with which Lomonosov used it. On the other hand, the trochee, Trediakovskij's favorite meter, has been used rather sparingly. In the eighteenth century it was frowned upon mostly because of its association with folksongs, and Russian poets of that time used it “only in street songs; serious poems had to be written in iambs, in spite of the fact that Sumarokov tried to employ trochees in his odes.”¹² Even after Žukovskij reinstated trochaic verses, iambs continued to dominate Russian poetry, particularly during the era of Puškin. For example, eighty-four percent of the entire poetic output of Puškin is iambic, and of Baratynskij's 222 poems, 195 are also in that meter.¹³ Sumarokov, Xeraskov, Knjažnin, Žukovskij, and Batjuškov wrote most of their poems in iambs. Even the epic poems of Virgil and Homer were translated into iambic meters, a practice for which Radiščev and Karamzin later criticized the eighteenth-century Russian poets.

Lomonosov's favorite verse was the iambic tetrameter, “the richest Russian metric form with respect to linguistic capacity,”¹⁴ and most of his verses are in this form. The definite poetic intuition with which he employed it made it attractive for subsequent Russian writers.

Blisnul gоrysim vdrug liцim,
Umytym кrоviy micim
Gоny vragоv, Girоj оtкrylsy …
Taк bystrоj коns Igо sкaкal,
Kоgda On ti pоly tоptal,
Gdi erim vskоdysu к nam dinniцu.

(VIII, 22)

V. Nabokov, although rather critical of both Trediakovskij and Lomonosov, observes that Lomonosov's “iambic tetrameter already includes all the modulations that Deržavin, Batjuškov, Žukovskij, and Puškin brought to such perfection.”¹⁵ Of course, Lomonosov's verses are not to be compared with those written by the above poets, and the poems of Puškin in particular have greater stylistic variety and sophistication, more simplicity, naturalness, and expressiveness than do the declamatory, solemn, and often stilted odes of Lomonosov. Nevertheless, Lomonosov's iambic tetrameters were revolutionary for his time, both in rhythm and language, and captured the poetic fancy of his contemporaries and of subsequent Russian writers as well. Iambic tetrameter has become “the most frequently used and cherished rhythmical form of the Russian poets.”¹⁶ More than half of Puškin's entire poetic output—including Evgenij Onegin, “Mednyj vsadnik,” and the better part of his lyrics—is written in this form.¹⁷ Puškin's poems popularized the iambic tetrameter in his time as Lomonosov's poetry had done in the second half of the eighteenth century. After Puškin, the iambic tetrameter lessened its tempo (Lermontov's and Nekrasov's poems are no longer predominantly in this form), but it has always remained a popular rhythmical form in Russian literature. The Symbolists and present-day poets have used it. Xodasevič (1886-1939) wrote an entire poem apotheosizing iambic tetrameter and Lomonosov's “Ode on the Taking of Xotin” which formally introduced it.¹⁸

Lomonosov's “Letter” and odes made a profound impression on Trediakovskij, and soon he accepted Lomonosov's theory. In 1752 he revised his earlier treatise and wrote Sposob k složeniju rossijskix stixov protiv vydannogo v 1735 gode ispravlennyj i dopolnennyj (A Method for Composing Russian Verses, Amending and Supplementing the Edition of 1735). Except for the title this work has very little in common with his previous one, for in essence, Trediakovskij's entire thesis is a careful, deliberate, and detailed discussion of Lomonosov's modified theory. Since Lomonosov's “Letter” did not come to the general knowledge of the Russian poets for several more years, Trediakovskij's second treatise, and Lomonosov's odes, became the principal guide for them.¹⁹ Nonetheless, Trediakovskij always believed that it was his 1735 Method that had introduced the accentual system into Russian versification and that with it and the second edition he had revolutionized Russian prosody.

Actually, the true origin of the syllabo-tonic system of Russian versification is somewhat more complex, as becomes evident when we realize that now, two hundred years after the formal introduction of the system, there is still no uniform agreement among Russian and Western literary historians as to the origin. V. N. Peretc and P. N. Berkov, for example, are inclined to believe that syllabo-tonic verses were brought to Russia by foreigners. It is Peretc's thesis that the first syllabo-tonic versifiers in Russia were two bilingual German lyricists and translators, Pastor Ernst Glück (1652-1706) and Master Johann Paus (1670-1721), who, while living in Russia, wrote Russian verses in accordance with the accentual system of their native German. Despite the strange and awkward combination of Russian and Church Slavonic, the poems of Glück and Paus are not only on a par with those of Trediakovskij, but exceed the latter in the richness and variety of metric forms: thirteen trochaic, thirty-nine iambic, and sixteen mixed metrical arrangements. Probably no other poets of that time brought into Russian literature such a rich variety of metrical forms. Inasmuch as these verses were known to Trediakovskij and Lomonosov, Peretc concludes that the birth of the new Russian prosody dates back to Glück and Paus. Therefore, “from Glück and Paus (not from Trediakovskij and Lomonosov) to Puškin is one continuous stage of development of modern poetic composition. … Reading the beautiful verses of our poets we should always remember that if we were indebted to the Catholic West for our old syllabic verses, then we are indebted to the Protestant West for the new tonic system.”

Peretc suggests that Trediakovskij's Method may have been influenced by other sources of accentual poetry as well. He refers in particular to a Croatian epic, written in trochaic tetrameter, which appeared in a booklet by Gundulić (1588-1638).²⁰ Reiterating the thesis advanced by Peretc, Berkov adds:

The literary activities of these authors [Paus, Glück, and Gundulić] in the introduction of the tonic system of versification into Russian poetry could not be overlooked unconsciously, not only because … the works of Paus were accessible to the academicians, but also because Paus himself used to expound his views on Russian versification at the Academy of Sciences. … Thus, the Western system of versification (particularly German) which was also before the eyes of the academician-translators seems to have been the starting point for the transition from syllabic to syllabotonic versification.

Berkov suggests that Trediakovskij knew of the verses of Paus, Glück, and Gundulić but “preferred to keep silent about this material.” Similarly a thirty-verse poem, written in 1704 in dactylic tetrameter by Johann Gabriel Sparwenfeld (1655-1727), a scholar, linguist, and one-time ambassador from Sweden to Russia may have influenced Trediakovskij.²¹ N. Petrovskij feels that Sparwenfeld's short poem “could very well be considered the first published tonic verses in the Russian language.”²²

G. H. Drage²³ and S. M. Bondi, on the other hand, credit Trediakovskij with founding the new system. Bondi is especially eloquent in paying tribute to Trediakovskij's theoretic genius: “The tonic system of versification was founded by Trediakovskij. It was only elaborated by Lomonosov. … Trediakovskij was the most brilliant theoretician in the history of Russian poetry. In comparison with him, Sumarokov and Lomonosov were dilettantes.”²⁴ Trediakovskij, wrote Puškin, “had a broader understanding of Russian versification than did either Lomonosov or Sumarokov”; consequently, “the study of Trediakovskij is more profitable than the study of all our other earlier poets.”²⁵ In Burgi's view Trediakovskij emerges as one of the “most original theoreticians in the history of Russian metrics,” who, while availing himself of the classical metric system, “as did Gottsched and the German versifiers before him,” successfully “transferred the quantitative scheme into the accentual system,” by which he established a precedent for succeeding generations of Russian hexametrists.²⁶

With still another view Tomaševskij writes, “The original father of Russian tonic versification is unquestionably Lomonosov and not Trediakovskij.”²⁷ L. Pumpjanskij and G. Gukovskij²⁸ have come to similar conclusions. They feel that Trediakovskij's first treatise, with its feminine rhyme, fixed number of syllables, and retention of the caesura, was no more than a modification of the syllabic principle. It was Lomonosov who first broke from this principle and established new forms “whose essential features have remained unaltered to this day.”²⁹ Trediakovskij, on the other hand, “did not establish any tradition whatsoever in Russian poetry.”³⁰ Indeed, writes Taranovski, the only manner in which Trediakovskij's “hexameter” of 1735 was used by subsequent Russian poets was in its broken form, that is, by dividing each of his lines at the caesura and thus producing trochaic tetrameter.³¹

According to Timofeev, Russian versification—because of the organic and intrinsic adaptability of the Russian language to accentual versification—developed along a gradual and evolutionary course. The introduction of syllabic versification itself represented an intermediate stage in this process: “Actually, syllabic versification is not in direct conflict with the structure of the Russian language. It is based on a definite, though relatively weakly arranged, relationship between accented and unaccented syllables and represents an historically essential rhythmical form in Russian literature. …”³² The numerous instances of tonality in Russian oral and written poetry in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries seem to substantiate this view. Here is a close approximation of a trochaic tetrameter, taken from an early eighteenth-century Russian song:

Bury mоri raedymait,
а vitr vоlny pоdymait:
Svirku nibо pоtimnilо,
Krugоm mоri pоcirnilо.(33)

Among Feofan Prokopovič's shorter verses similar types can be found:

Ctо mni dilats, y ni enay,
а bievistnо pоgibay. …(34)

Iambs, trochees, and even dactyls are present in S. Polockij's verses (“Lobzaem verno krepku ti desnicu, Juže imami za svetlu dennicu”) and in Pastor Gregory's translated play Artakserksovo dejstvo of 1672 (“Mnju, jako že ona tja videti želaet; Pošli že vskore k nej, za tja sebja javljaet”). According to B. O. Unbegaun, the latter may represent “the first stage toward syllabo-tonics.”³⁵ Timofeev believes that Polockij's verses “may have influenced both Trediakovskij and the foreigners” (Paus, Glück, et al.).³⁶

More than any other Russian syllabicist, Kantemir, in his poetry, nearly bridged the gap between syllabic and syllabo-tonic verses:

Pоcitay ediss eaкоn, pоvinuyss pravam,
Vlrоcim vоlin y zivu pо svоim ustavam …
Tlinnоsts viкa mоigо nyni pоenavay,
Ni zilay, ni bоysv, smirti оziday.(37)

“From this stage,” writes Unbegaun in reference to similar lines by Kantemir, “it was but a short step to a pure trochaic line.”³⁸ N. Petrov had noted the same fact long ago: “Trediakovskij's tonic verses did not suddenly appear in Russia as if from nowhere: they were preceded by the verses of Kantemir, written upon his return from London and representing a middle road between syllabic and syllabo-tonic verses.”³⁹ Consequently, writes Timofeev, “There are no reasons to fix … the transition (from syllabics to syllabo-tonics) on this or that author—Glück or Trediakovskij or Lomonosov; on the face of it, the transition was very gradual and there is no need to identify any particular person with it.”⁴⁰ Pursuing a similar line of reasoning, A. Adamczyk believes that Trediakovskij discovered nothing new, but only elaborated what was already evident in the Russian poetry of his time.⁴¹

These contradictory appraisals demonstrate the complexity and intricacy of the problem, making it difficult to associate any particular person or factor with the actual birth of modern Russian prosody. It is quite possible, for example, that both Trediakovskij and Lomonosov were familiar with the “syllabo-tonic” verses of the foreigners. On the other hand, the inclination of the Russian language toward rhythmical uniformity had indeed revealed itself in the accentual qualities of the pre-syllabo-tonic verses, although the distribution of accents in this early Russian poetry was anything but uniform; it was for the most part accidental, inconsistent, and highly irregular, appearing only in isolated cases. But while all of these factors may have contributed toward the transition from syllabics to syllabo-tonics, none was sufficient alone to bring it about. The absence of a Russian literary language and of genuine poetic talent further delayed the transition. Kantemir was the first Russian poet who wrote with some poetic intuition and who tried to write in pure Russian. His poems do display marked improvement both in rhythm and syntax, but Kantemir was deeply rooted in the old system of versification and could not extricate himself from it.

Trediakovskij, too, was bound by the old method of versification and, like Kantemir, he advocated a system that was more descriptive and impressionistic than theoretical, resulting in a free and loose rhythmical distribution that resembled the syllabic more than the syllabo-tonic system. But Trediakovskij's contribution was considerable. Until 1735 no one in Russia had been seriously enough concerned with Russian versification to perceive the awkwardness of Russian poetry in a foreign mold. His 1735 treatise represented the first conscious, deliberate, and scholarly assault on the problem. In spite of the shortcomings of Trediakovskij's first treatise—omission of shorter verses, exclusion of ternary meters, excessive preference for the trochee and feminine rhymes, etc.—it was the most important and influential work on Russian versification to that date. Its originality lies in its formal introduction of the accentual system into Russian literature. Whether Trediakovskij had access to the verses of Paus, Glück, Gundulić, and Sparwenfeld, or whether the tonal qualities of the verses of his Russian predecessors and contemporaries had any bearing on his treatise is of little significance. The fact remains that until 1735 no one was aware of the problem of Russian versification and of the necessity of remedying it. A New and Brief Method for Composing Russian Verses represents the work of a bold pioneering spirit who has unfortunately been the object of ridicule and criticism by many critics and writers. No doubt Trediakovskij's reform represents only a half-way measure (as do most such pioneering undertakings), but it was these very shortcomings that inspired others (notably Kantemir and Lomonosov) to continue where Trediakovskij left off.

Trediakovskij's position regarding tonality in Russian folk poetry, too, was epoch-making. “In this formulation,” writes M. P. Štokmar, “we have the first metric theory of folk poetry in Russian literature.”⁴² Trediakovskij's postulation stimulated nineteenth-century interest in the study of Russian folk poetry, and it has been found that this poetry does have definite tonal attributes, including a certain tendency toward trochaic feet, though not as strong a tendency as Trediakovskij supposed.⁴³

The basic elements of Lomonosov's “Letter on the Rules of Russian Versification” were not original. By 1739 the notion of Russian syllabo-tonic versification had been established by Trediakovskij. His influence is evident in Lomonosov's trochaic rhymed translation (1738) of one of Fénelon's odes and in his adherence to the “poetic license” outlined by Trediakovskij. Lomonosov's innovations, on the other hand, were based essentially on the German theory of versification, with which he became acquainted while in Germany, and there are some who believe that Lomonosov would have discovered and initiated the Russian syllabo-tonic system even without Trediakovskij. The basic German sources that seem to have influenced Lomonosov's theory on versification are: J. G. Gottsched's Versuch einer critischen Dichtkunst vor die Deutschen (1730), Hübner's Poetisches Handbuch (1734), and his article “Praschens gründliche Anzeige von Verbesserung der deutschen Poesie” (1733). From these sources, Lomonosov imported the masculine rhymes and their alternation with feminine rhymes, the purity of meters, particularly iambic feet (for which he has often been criticized, initially by Trediakovskij), the attribution of stylistic and emotional peculiarities to certain meters, elimination of the caesura, etc. Even the eulogies which Lomonosov sang to the uniqueness and superiority of the Russian language were taken from these sources which treat the German language in similar fashion. His ode “On the Taking of Xotin” (attached to his “Letter” to demonstrate his theory) is an imitation of J. C. Günther's “Eugen ist fort. Ihr Musen, nach!” both in meter (iambic tetrameter) and in the poetic devices used.⁴⁴

Lomonosov has been harshly criticized for leaning too heavily on the German theory of versification, but Russian writers have always been stimulated by Western sources and particularly in the eighteenth century, when they keenly felt the inadequacy of their own literary heritage. In fact, borrowing from the West had become almost a matter of course, starting with the reforms of Peter the Great. Russian syllabic versification (to which Trediakovskij adhered too strongly) has been shown to be a product of Romance language influences which penetrated Russia via Poland. However, Lomonosov's “borrowing” proved quite beneficial to the further development of Russian versification, and eventually even Trediakovskij abandoned his old practice and accepted Lomonosov's modified theory. By adopting those aspects of German accentual versification that were harmoniously adaptable to Russian prosody, Lomonosov increased the wealth and power of Russian versification.

Trediakovskij, though a greater theoretician than Lomonosov, was a poor poet. His various philological investigations and poetic treatises command great respect and admiration even today, but his poetry did not inspire other poets. His verses are utterly lifeless, some so saturated with ill-digested Slavonicisms and bookish intonations, so strained by Latinized inversions, that the sense is hardly intelligible. Lomonosov, however, had the good fortune to possess both a sound theoretical mind and definite poetic talent which he was able to combine effectively. Theories alone do not reform versification. Such writers as Deržavin, Karamzin, and Puškin did not write philological or poetic treatises; their contribution lay solely in their practice. In the long run, therefore, it was not so much a question of who was the first to formulate the new theory of Russian versification, Trediakovskij or Lomonosov, but whose poetry was more effective. S. M. Solov'ev writes:

What was so badly needed from Russian scholars and the Russian Assembly was a living Russian language and some degree of poetic harmony; it could not be obtained even from the famous Russian poet and translator Trediakovskij, but was provided by a young man who was studying mining abroad. … For contemporaries, the problem resolved itself not into who was the first to explain the tonic principle of versification, but who wrote:

Vоspivaj zi, lira, pisns sladкu,
аnnu, tо ists blagоpоlucnu,
K vysimu vsik vragоv upadкu,
K niscastiy v viкi tim sкucnu.

and who wrote:

Sumit s rucsymi bоr i dоl:
«Pоbida, Rоssкay pоbida!»
Nо vrag, ctо оt mica usоl,
Bоitsy sоbstvinnagо slida.

The author of the first was Trediakovskij, of the second, Lomonosov.⁴⁵

Lomonosov's contribution must be recognized as wider in scope and deeper in dimension than that of any other Russian poet of the eighteenth century. Despite the lack of original elements, Lomonosov's “Letter” was convincing and displayed a creativeness in his application of the “borrowed” elements; it was written in a clear, precise, and logical manner and was provided with good examples, particularly the ode which he attached to it. Furthermore, Lomonosov dealt with poetry as an organic whole, reforming not only the rhythmical qualities but other important aspects as well—themes, poetic intonation, lexicon, syntax, mood, and other such phenomena. Combining theory and poetic practice, Lomonosov made syllabo-tonic versification the cornestone of Russian prosody. As Timofeev observed, “The further development of Russian eighteenth-century poetry followed that course which was outlined by Lomonosov.”⁴⁶ Although it has been modified, Lomonosov's system, in essence, remains to this day.

Notes

1. V. K. Tridiaкоvsкij, “Nоvyj i кratкij spоsоb к slоziniy rоssijsкik stikоv,” «Iebrannyi prоievidiniy» (M., L., 1963), 408. Page references to Trediakovskij's works in this article are to this edition, except as noted.

2. “O drivnim, sridnim i nоvоm stikоtvоrinii rоssijsкоm,” «Iebrannyi prоievidiniy,» 442.

3. The terms “dolgij” and “kratkij,” adopted from the ancient theory of versification and used throughout eighteenth-century Russian poetry, simply mean “stressed” and “unstressed” syllables, respectively.

4. а. Kantimir, “Pissmо Karitоna Maкintina к priytily о slоzinii stikоv russкik,” «Sоbranii stikоtvоrinij» (L., 1956), 413. Page references to Kantemir in this article are to this edition.

5. M. V. Lоmоnоsоv, “Pissmо о pravilak rоssijsкоgо stikоtvоrstva,” «Pоlnоi sоbranii sоciniij» (10 tg.; M., L., 1950-1959), VII, 17. Further references to Lomonosov in this article are to this edition.

6. Perhaps with some justification, for, as Tomaševskij writes, if we combine trochaic and iambic meters in one system, we experience a sharp interruption of the cadence which violates our sense of rhythm. B. V. Tоmasivsкij, «Stilistiкa i stikоslоzinii» (L., 1959), 352.

7. D. Čiževskij, History of Russian Literature: From the Eleventh Century to the End of the Baroque (The Hague, 1961), 406.

8. R. Burgi, A History of the Russian Hexameter (Hamden, Conn., 1954), Ch. 4.

9. V. M. Zirmunsкij, «Riфma, ii istоriy i tiоriy» (Pitrоgrad, 1923), 31.

10. Tomaševskij, Stilistika, 334.

11. а. Zapadоv, «Otiц russкоj pоzeii: O tvоrcistvi Lоmоnоsоva» (M., 1961), 113.

12. Tomaševskij, Stilistika, 378.

13. B. O. Unbegaun, Russian Versification (Oxford, 1956), 14.

14. L. I. Timофiiv, «Ocirкi tiоrii i istоrii russкоgо stika» (M., 1958), 327.

15. “Notes on Prosody,” in Eugene Onegin, tr. from the Russian, with a Commentary by Vladimir Nabokov (4 vols.; N. Y., 1964), III, 488-489.

16. K. Taranоvsкi, «Rusкi dvоdilni ritmоvi, I-II» (Biоgrad, 1953), 66-67, 47-48, 273.

17. Tomaševskij, Stilistika, 361.

18. Taranovski, 67-68.

19. L. V. Pumpynsкij, “Tridiaкоvsкij,” «Istоriy russкоj litiratury,» III (L.: AH CCCP, 1941), 228.

20. V. N. Piritц, «Istоriко-litiraturnyi isslidоvaniy i matirialy,» III (SPb., 1902), 69, 341, 425-426, 51.

21. P. N. Birкоv, “Ie istоrii russкоj pоzeii pirvоj triti 18 v.,” «XVIII viк, sbоrniк» (M., L., 1935), 69, 81. See also Burgi, especially 35-36, 68-69, 81.

22. N. Pitrоvsкij, “Analecta Metrica,” «Russкij фilоlоgicisкij vistniк,» LXXI (1914), 536-537.

23. G. Drage, “Trochaic Metres in Early Russian Syllabo-Tonic Poetry,” Slavonic and East European Review, XXXVIII, No. 91 (London, 1960), 361-362.

24. S. M. Bоndi, “Tridiaкоvsкij, Lоmоnоsоv, Sumarокоv,” in V. K. Tridiaкоvsкij, «Stikоtvоriniy» (M., L., 1935), 91, 81.

25. а. S. Pusкin, “Putisistvii ie Mоsкvy v Pitirburg,” «Sоbranii sоcininij,» VI (M., 1962), 390-391.

26. Burgi, 41, 64, 61.

27. B. V. Tоmasivsкij, “Primicaniy,” in Lomonosov, VII (1952), 783. See also Tomaševskij's «O stiki» (M., 1929), 3-7.

28. Pumpjanskij, 187; G. Guкоvsкij, «Russкay litiratura 18 v.» (M., 1939), 64, 72.

29. Tomaševskij, “Primečanija,” 784.

30. Tomaševskij, Stilistika, 377.

31. Taranovski, 47-48.

32. L. Timофiiv, “V. K. Tridiaкоvsкij,” in Trediakovskij, 42-43.

33. Cited by Timofeev, in Trediakovskij, 41.

34. Фiофan Prокоpоvic, «Sоcininiy» (M., L., 1961), 214.

35. B. O. Unbegaun, “Les débuts de la versification russe et la comédie d'Artaxerxès,” Revue des études slaves, XXXII (1955), 32-41.

36. Timofeev, Očerki, 320.

37. Cited in Timofeev, Očerki, 294.

38. B. O. Unbegaun, Russian Versification, 7.

39. N. Pitrоv, “O slоvisnyk nauкak i litiraturnyk eanytiyk v Kiivsкоj акadimii,” «Trudy Kiivsкоj Dukоvnоj акadimii,» II (1866), 329-330.

40. L. Timофiiv, «Prоblimy stikоvidiniy: Matirialy к sоцiоlоgii stika» (M., 1931), 155.

41. A. Adamczyk, “Russische Verskunst, ein geschichtlicher Überblick,” Münchner Beiträge zur Slavenkunde, IV (1953), 180-181.

42. M. P. Stокmar, «Isslidоvaniy v оblasti russкоgо narоdnоgо stikоslоziniy» (M., 1952), 19.

43. Ibid., 21-34. See also: G. I. Bоmstijn, “Tridiaкоvsкij—фilоlоg i фоlsкlоr,” «XVIII viк,» V (M., L., 1962), 249-272; F. R. Silbajoris, “The Versification Theories of Trediakovskij, Lomonosov, and Kantemir” (Dissertation, Columbia Univ., 1962), 18-20.

44. I. Я. Dansко, “O litiraturnyk istоcniкak ‘Pissma о pravilak rоssijsкоgо stikоtvоrstva.’” «XVIII viк,» II (M., L., 1940), 265-275.

45. S. M. Sоlоvsiv, «Istоriy Rоssii,» XII (M., 1872), 290-293.

46. Timofeev, Očerki, 338.