[In following essay, Heim compares translations of the same works by Trediakovsky and Alexander Sumarakov, discussing how these translations played a role in the rivalry between the two theorists.]

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 “Epistola II” (O stichotvorstve). There is no distinct line dividing translation from adaptation and from original work.

Both works begin with a warning to prospective authors.

C'est en vain qu'au Parnasse un téméraire auteur
Pense de l'art des vers atteindre la hauteur.
S'il ne sent point du ciel l'influence secrète
Si son astre en naissant ne l'a formé poète,
Dans son génie étroit il est toujours captif;
Pour lui Phébus est sourd, et Pégase est rétif.(1)
O vy, коtоryi strimitisvs na Parnas,
Nistrоjnоgо gudкa imila grubyj glas,
Pristanvti vоspivatv! Pisnv vasa ni prilistna,
Kоgda muzyкa vam prymay niizvistna.

[1-4]

Here the similarity of intent and content is obvious. It becomes even more so when in line 26 Sumarokov introduces a lazy, if not rétif; Pegasus (see line 6 in the French excerpt above) in relation to Kantemir:

Odnaко byl Pigas vsigda pоd nim liniv.

Yet Sumarokov is determined to go his own way. Where Boileau gives a concise run-down of the areas in which various French poets excel [I, 13-26]. Sumarokov indulges in a series of value judgments, first of French and then of Russian poets [5-30]. Next they turn to the problem of rhyme. Here Sumarokov expands Boileau's metaphor rather than his message, deriving

Ni dоlznо, ctоb оna v plin nasu mysls brala,
Nо ctоby nasiy nivоlsnicij byla.

[33-34]

from

La rime est une esclave, et no doit qu'obéir.

[I, 30]

Sumarokov freely alternates between setting forth his own ideas and images and translating Boileau's, but even with his own material he maintains Boileau's conversational tone and therefore has no trouble integrating it into the master's style. As usual his verse is smooth, even lithe.

Trediakovskij's translation of L'Art poétique appeared in 1751, four years after Sumarokov's “Èpistola.” He was therefore in a position to avail himself of the parts of the work Sumarokov had translated. A comparison of the two works shows that he chose not to; his translation follows Boileau—and only Boileau—to the letter.

In the section on epic poetry Boileau and Trediakovskij cite Minerva, Venus, Jupiter, and Neptune as examples of the personification of various virtues; Sumarokov adds “… Diana—čistota, / Ljubov'—to Kupidon … [141-142].” Boileau brings in a bit of Enlightenment science when he writes

Ce n'est plus la vapeur qui produit le tonnerre,
C'est Jupiter armé pour effrayer la terre.

[III, 167-168]

Trediakovskij has

Nо оt parоv uzi tut dilaitsy trоm;
Tо Zivs, nо vоruzin, strasit zimnоj sij dоm,(2)

an exact reproduction of the image. Sumarokov's version,

Gdi grоm i mоlniy, tam yrоstv vоzvisait
Razgnivannyj Zivis i zimly ustrasait,

[143-144]

omits in its entirety the reference to thunder's natural causes. Slightly farther on, in a passage dealing with Aeneas, both Trediakovskij and Sumarokov begin by following Boileau quite meticulously. Suddenly Sumarokov breaks off, closes the passage with a couplet of his own invention [155-156], and moves abruptly on to the theater, his main interest. Boileau does not bring his Aeneas passage to a close for another eight lines.

Since playwriting must have been uppermost in his mind as he wrote the epistles (he was working simultaneously on the tragedies that eventually brought him fame), it is not surprising that his section on the theater proceeds completely independently of Boileau's. In fact, from this point on Sumarokov no longer borrows from Boileau in the least. When dealing with satire, he apostrophizes him and then continues on his own. He even includes three genres (the fable [286-295], the mock epic [296-321], and the epistle [322-325]) that Boileau never touches upon.

Clearly, then, Sumarokov used Boileau to help him set the style and tone of the ars poetica genre. After the first hundred and fifty lines of his 422-line work, he no longer felt the need of Boileau's direct guidance, that is, of translating passages directly from L'Art poétique.

Trediakovskij, on the other hand, was so reverent that although fully aware that Boileau had frenchified Horace in the work, he refrained from russifying Boileau. Boileau, for example, prohibits hiatus, the phenomenon of vowels coming together in successive words without an intervening consonant; Trediakovskij dutifully does the same. Yet it was quite common in eighteenth-century Russian verse, and Trediakovskij himself composed such lines as “Podano ej chleba a i pit' dano vody,” “No o Imperatrice,” etc.³

Further developing the idea that harmony of sound is essential for good verse, the next few lines call attention to one of Trediakovskij's main stumbling blocks: his woeful lack of mellifluence. The very line in which Boileau exhorts his budding poets

Fuyez des mauvais sons le concours odieux

must bear a terrible jangle of cacophony in Trediakovskij's rendering:

Bizats v litirak dоlg zlyk sкоpоv, ti biscasny.

This is the sort of verse that brought down the scorn and sarcasm of the courtly intellects—and especially Sumarokov—on Trediakovskij's head.

In February 1756 Sumarokov published a translation of the sonnet “Grand Dieu! tes jugements sont remplis d'équité” in the journal Ežemesjačnye sočinenija. The sonnet was by the little-known Jacques Vallé Des Barreaux, whose tenuous reputation as a poet long rested on this work alone.⁴

Why would Sumarokov have chosen to spend his precious time on a piece of such limited significance? After all, he was at the height of his fame, having already written several of his important tragedies. The only plausible reason is that Trediakovskij had translated it as the example of sonnet form in his 1735 Novyj i kratkij sposob. Evidently Sumarokov wished to show up his rival.

Why then this work at this time? Several years before, Trediakovskij had written an unfavorable review of both Chorev and Gamlet and roundly condemned the epistles for their causticity (certain passages were directed against him).⁵ Moreover, two of the fables in Trediakovskij's 1752 Sočinenija i perevody, “Pes čvan” and “Vorona, čvanjaščajasja čužimi per'jami,” seem to be aimed—in revenge, perhaps—at Sumarokov.⁶

By choosing a piece from the early Sposob, one that Trediakovskij had decided to drop from the 1752 edition of selected works, Sumarokov was in effect loading the dice. According to the prosodic theory set forth in the Sposob, Russian did not need to divide its line into feet, nor could it tolerate masculine rhymes. Improving on Trediakovskij's translation would therefore appear to require little more than a few simple mechanical adjustments: organizing the line in iambs and matching the rhyme scheme to that of the original. In fact, however, Sumarokov revamped it substantially, and the result, though much smoother than Trediakovskij's version, lacks many of the subtleties that Trediakovskij captured by keeping closer to the original.

Lines 2, 3, and 4 of the Des Barreaux sonnet revolve around the interplay of personal pronouns:

Toujours tu prends plaisir à nous être proprice;
Mais j'ai fait tant de mal, que jamais ta bonté
Ne peut me pardonner sans choquer ta justice.(7)

Trediakovskij follows him closely, though he is unable to maintain Des Barreaux's device of stressing pronoun contrast with each pronoun in a different hemistich:

Izvоlyiss Ty vsigda к nam sidrоtin byti,
Nо y taко prid Tоbоŭ cilоviк zоl dоlsny,
Ctо uz pravdi my Tvоiŭ trudnо ists prоsiti.

Sumarokov ignores the pronoun play completely:

Sidrоty оt tiby imiti smirtnym srоdnо,
Nо v bizzaкоnii vsi dni mоi tiкut,
I s pravоsudiim prоstits miny ni skоdnо.

Instead of the personal nous he uses smertnym. The turning point at the beginning of the next line, “Mais j'ai fait tant de mal,” loses much of its self-accusatory force when relegated to dni moi toward the line's end. The strong and pointed ta justice that completes Des Barreaux's quatrain becomes the more general pravosudie (that is, not specifically Thy justice).

All three sonnets begin with an invocation of God: Des Barreaux has Grand Dieu! Sumarokov Velikij Bože! and Trediakovskij Bože moj! When Des Barreaux reemphasizes the apostrophic nature of the poem by opening the second quatrain with an apostrophe as well (“Oui, mon Dieu …”), Trediakovskij follows suit (“Ej, moj Gospodi …”); Sumarokov responds with the unmotivated “Dolgoterpenie Ty dolžen okončat'.” Indeed, Sumarokov had already weakened the apostrophe in his first stanza by introducing the impersonal ne schodno.

Pronoun play, like the apostrophe, continues into the second quatrain:

Oui, mon Dieu, la grandeur de mon impiété
Ne laisse à ton pouvoir que le choix du supplice:
Ton intérêt s'oppose à ma félicité,
Et ta clémence même attend que je périsse.

Line 5 is reserved for mon, line 6 for ton. To add grammatical authority to the newly introduced idea of opposition (“Ton intérêt s'oppose à ma félicité”), Des Barreaux skilfully opposes ton to ma and ta to je. The corresponding lines in Sumarokov's version have no personal pronouns at all. What is more, Sumarokov omits Des Barreaux's two strongest words, words he intensifies by rhyme: supplice and périsse.

Dоlgоtirpinii Ty dоlzin окоncats
Za tsmu mоik grikоv pо pravоsti ustava,
I milоsirdnii dniss dоlznо umоlcats.
Tоgо tipirs sama zilait slava.

Once again Trediakovskij retains Des Barreaux's pronoun arrangement:

Ij, mоj Gоspоdi! griki ctо mоi dоvоlsny,
Tо ni mоgut i Tоbоj vsyко muк izbyti:
Ty v mоim blazinstvi Sam budtо by ni vоlsny
Vsy i milоsts my Tvоy kоcit pоgubiti.

Line 5 has moj and moi, line 6 Toboj, line 7 Ty and moem, and line 8 mja and Tvoja. Moreover, both supplice (here muk) and périsse (here pogubiti) come across, with pogubiti—like périsse—in final rhyme position.

In the last line of the third triplet the sonnet reaches its climax:

Tonne, frappe, il est temps; rends-moi guerre pour guerre.

Here for the first time Sumarokov adopts Trediakovskij's solution. His

Grimi, razi, svоy ty yrоsts umnоzay

reproduces the first part of Trediakovskij's

In grimi, razi, pоra, prоtivna Prоtivnyj.

But he completely ignores the picturesque “guerre pour guerre” image, which Trediakovskij adeptly maneuvers into his line as “protivna protivnyj” (protivnyj here meaning ‘opponent’ [cf. modern Russian protivnik]).

The two Russian sonnets differ so greatly because each translator had a different goal in mind and used correspondingly different methods. While Trediakovskij delivers much of the power of the original, he conveys little of its polish; he shows no concern over establishing a correlation between his frequent Slavonicisms and their stylistic impact. And while Sumarokov delivers no more than a pale reflection of the forcible, well-stated original, he does come up with some well-balanced lines.

When ten years later Trediakovskij published his verse translation of Fénelon's prose epic Les Aventures de Télémaque, Sumarakov was prominent among its many detractors. His thirty-line translation from the first few sentences of the Premier Livre represents another attempt to demonstrate his superiority over Trediakovskij.

Sumarokov's working conditions were much more favorable than Trediakovskij's. With the idea of initiating Russian verse to the delights of epic poetry, Trediakovskij developed from scratch a Russian hexameter line; Sumarokov had Trediakovskij's more than five thousand lines at his disposal. The few lines Sumarokov eventually translated meant no more to Trediakovskij than a drop in the bucket; to Sumarokov, they represented a medium-length lyric, one he might burnish and reburnish at leisure.

Neither Sumarokov nor Trediakovskij commits any serious breach of hexameter etiquette (as set forth by the latter in the preface to his Tilemachida). Both accept the hypothesis that one-syllable words may receive or reject stress, and both make liberal use of trochee where Latin and Greek had spondees⁸ (cf. Sumarokov's line 20 [“Chot' bessmertny bol'še smertnych poznan'ja imejut”], in which the only dactyls occur in the fourth and fifth feet). Sumarokov has not made the hexameter line any more regular or mellifluous. What he has done, within the limits of his short selection, is increase its flexibility and versatility.

The passage that Sumarokov adequately covers in thirty lines occupies forty-three lines in Trediakovskij's text. An examination of the manner in which each of them handles the first sentence, the straightforward

Calypso ne pouvait se consoler du départ d'Ulysse,(9)

will illustrate how their approaches differ. Sumarokov has the equally straightforward

V grusti byla pо оtsizdi Ulissa vsigdasnij Kalipsa,

while Trediakovskij holds forth as follows:

V кrajnij tоsкi zavsigda uzi pribyvala Kalipsa;
I ni mоgla nicim svоigо vnutrs sirdцa utisits,
Pоsli кaк prоcs оt nii оttоrgsy Odiss nivоzvratnо.

Sumarokov's “V grusti … vsegdašnej” adequately renders the idea of “ne pouvait se consoler”; the idea of using an “always” word in this context obviously comes from Trediakovskij's version. Trediakovskij, however, pounds his reader over the head with it, following up zavsegda with uže and prebyvala. Sumarokov realized that by stating “Calypso was in constant grief,” he had already implied that she could not get over it (“ne pouvait s'en consoler”); Trediakovskij spells it out. To do so, he allots himself an entire line, which in turn calls for a certain amount of filler (“svoego vnutr' serdca”). Then, because he does not like to start new thought patterns within the line, he is left with no choice but to stretch out “le départ d'Ulysse” over an entire new line. Sumarokov has the simple “po ot”ezde Ulissa.” In using po, Sumarokov has again refined an idea he found in Trediakovskij; the “after” word has no equivalent in the original.

In fact, Sumarokov's version is as much a reworking of Trediakovskij's as a direct translation from Fénelon. When the Russian texts are juxtaposed, it becomes clear that Sumarokov often did little more than adapt Trediakovskij's style to his own more supple poetic diction. For

Tout à coup elle aperçut les débris d'un navire qui
venait de faire naufrage,

Trediakovskij has

Si vdrug uzrila оna коrably razbitоgо dоsкi,

and Sumarokov

Vdrug usmоtrila оna оstatкi pоgibsigо sudna.

Usmotret' now means more ‘to keep track of’ than ‘to descry,’ but syntactically Sumarokov's version approaches modern Russian much more closely than Trediakovskij's. For

… mais ces beaux lieux, loin de modérer sa douleur,
ne faisaient que lui rappeler le triste souvenir d'Ulysse,
qu'elle avait vu tant de fois auprès d'elle,

which immediately follows the above passage, Trediakovskij has

Nо taкii priкrasny mista ni tокmо bоlizni
V nij utоlyts ni mоgli, isi na cicalsnuy pambts
Bоlij Odissa, tоlsmi sоzirцannоgо, ij prоbоdili,

and Sumarokov

Nо mista priкrasnyi ij ni smygcali zlоj grusti
I Ulissa, v nik byvsigо, к vysij tоsкi vоbrazali.

Here Sumarokov avoids Trediakovskij's double enjambement, breaking down the French sentence into two periods and condensing them each into its own line.

There can be no doubt that Sumarokov translated this excerpt for other than purely aesthetic ends. Had he been truly inspired by Télémaque, he would have translated more than this token thirty-line extract. As with the Des Barreaux sonnet, so here his main purpose was to improve on Trediakovskij's work. To Sumarokov the rationale behind Trediakovskij's translation—creating a flexible Russian literary language—seemed outdated as early as 1747; his “Èpistola I” (O russkom jazyke) rejects the “mysl' … dika, / Čto ne imeem my bogatstva jazyka [115-116],” and his “Èpistola II” (O stichotvorstve) concludes triumphantly with “Prekrasnyj naš jazyk sposoben ko vsemu [422].”

Sumarokov's translations demonstrated that the Russian literary language was capable of producing elegant, flowing verse; Trediakovskij's translations, that grammatical devices could be transferred from French to Russian. Seen in this light, each of their techniques—Sumarokov's smooth approach vs. Trediakovskij's literal approach—forms a valid part of the theoretical whole (which even today is rarely realized): the smooth and literal approaches combined.

Notes

1. For quotations from L'Art poétique I have used Boileau, Oeuvres complètes, ed. Françoise Escal, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade (Paris: Gallimard, 1966). All Sumarokov quotations come from A. P. Sumarokov, Izbrannye proizvedenija, ed. P. N. Berkov, Biblioteka poèta (Leningrad: Sovetskij pisatel', 1957). Bracketed numbers refer to cantos and lines.

2. All Trediakovskij quotations but one are from V. K. Tred'jakovskij, Sočinenija, ed. Aleksandr Smirdin (S. Petersburg: Tipografija imperatorskoj Akademii nauk, 1849). The translation of the Des Barreaux sonnet cited below is available only in A. A. Kunik, Sbornik materialov dlja istorii imperatorskoj Akademii nauk v XVIII veke (S. Peterburg: Tipografija imperatorskoj Akademii nauk, 1865), Vol. II.

3. Vladimir Markov, “Traktat o trechglasii,” Vozdušnye puti, V (1967), 226-227, 232.

4. Frédéric Lachèvre, in his Jacques Vallée Des Barreaux: Sa vie et ses poésies (1599-1673) (Paris: Librairie Henri Leclerc, 1907), opens another side of the seigneur Des Barreaux's personality. His study is subtitled “Le prince des libertins du XVIIe siècle” and deals largely with Des Barreaux's licentious verse.

5. The review dates from 1750, and its full title is “Pis'mo, v kotorom soderžitsja rassuždenie o stichotvorenii ponyne na svet izdannom ot avtora dvuch od, dvuch tragedij i dvuch èpistol, pisannoe ot prijatelja k prijatelju.” The very title bristles with indignation; the repetition “dvuch … dvuch … dvuch” emphasizes Sumarokov's inexperience and reveals much more about Trediakovskij's attitude than the more explicit (but stock-phrase) “ot prijatelja k prijatelju.” The review may be found in Kunik, II, 435-500. It will soon be available in English in James L. Rice, The Works of V. K. Trediakovskij (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press).

6. P. N. Berkov, Lomonosov i literaturnaja polemika ego vremeni (Moskva-Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1936), p. 95.

7. Lachèvre, p. 174.

8. Classical dactylic hexameter consists of six dactyls in which two short syllables may always be replaced by one long one.

9. For quotations from Fénelon I have used Les Aventures de Télémaque, ed. Albert Cahen (Paris: Hachette, 1920).